| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the City of Novi Civic Center, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, January 6, 2004. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, January 3 6, 2004 4 7:30 p.m. 5 - - - 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 7 would like to call the January 2004 Zoning 8 Board of Appeals meeting to order. 9 Denise, would you please 10 call the roll. 11 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 13 MS. ANDERSON: Member 14 Brennan. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. 16 MS. ANDERSON: Member 17 Canup. 18 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 20 MEMBER GRAY: Here. 21 MS. ANDERSON: Member 22 Gronachan. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 24 Here. 3
1 - - - 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: This 3 evening is a little unusual. As you see, 4 we have some new faces on the board. 5 You'll have to bear with the Board this 6 evening because this is a very difficult 7 moment. 8 On Detroit 17, 2003, we 9 lost a long-time member of the Zoning Board 10 of Appeals. Laverne Reinke passed away 11 after a brief fight with cancer, and served 12 on this board for 23 years. He was a 13 dedicated, committed, knowledgeable member 14 of this board and the community, and a 15 long-time resident of Novi. He will be 16 sorely missed by those of us who were 17 fortunate enough to work with him 18 throughout the years, but his dedication, 19 his knowledge, his insight, his manner, and 20 his wit will long be remembered and carried 21 by those of us who knew him. 22 I ask that the members of 23 this board, the administration, and the 24 members of the audience please rise for a 4
1 moment of silence. 2 (Moment of silence) 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank 4 you. 5 I also ask at this time that 6 this meeting be dedicated to the memory of 7 Laverne Reinke. 8 You will notice that on 9 your agenda this evening, there are several 10 rules of conduct. The first, most 11 important, is that I ask everyone to please 12 turn off all pagers and cell phones during 13 the meeting. 14 The Zoning Board of Appeals 15 is a hearing board empowered by the Novi 16 City Charter to hear appeals seeking 17 variances from the application of the Novi 18 zoning ordinances. It takes a vote of at 19 least four members to approve a variance 20 request and a vote of the majority of the 21 members present to deny a variance. 22 This evening we have a board 23 of five members, and at least four votes 24 are required. Those petitioner's who wish 5
1 to table their request until the next 2 meeting until a full board is present, may 3 do so. Any board decision made tonight 4 will be final. 5 Is there anyone in the 6 audience that wishes to table their case 7 until next month? 8 (There was no response from 9 the audience.) 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 11 Seeing none, are there any changes to the 12 agenda? 13 MS. ANDERSON: Yes. Mr. 14 Saven seeks one change which he will 15 address. 16 MR. SAVEN: Madam Chair, in 17 regards to Case 03-114, which was filed by 18 Beck Novi LLC, for Kirkway Place, this was 19 taken off the agenda for a specific 20 purpose, and that basically was that that 21 particular project was reviewed under a 22 clustered option, and it is considered 23 detached single family, and that is the 24 only, only provision or exception in 6
1 regards to similar ordinances that the 2 exception is granted for. 3 In our exuberance to 4 maintain uniformity throughout the City, 5 this was not picked up as part of the 6 provision of the ordinance. They do meet 7 the requirements and they do not need to 8 come before the Board. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Saven. 11 Anything else? 12 (There was no response 13 from the board.) 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No 15 other changes. All those in favor of the 16 agenda say aye? 17 ALL MEMBERS: Aye. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Any 19 opposed? 20 (There was no response 21 from the board.) 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: The 23 minutes, I believe we had the November 24 minutes in our packet. Were there any 7
1 changes or notes to be made on the minutes? 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Vote for 3 approval. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 5 those in favor say aye. 6 ALL MEMBERS: Aye. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Before we further start with any public 9 remarks -- I guess I'm going to be doing 10 all the talking tonight -- luckily, City 11 Council finally helped us with appointing 12 new members to the board. And we are lucky 13 this evening to have with us, Mr. Canup 14 joining us after a seven-year retirement 15 from the Zoning Board, who is a long time 16 member. 17 I'd like to welcome you and 18 wish you luck on your term. I know you're 19 excited to be back. 20 MEMBER CANUP: I am. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: And 22 you're ready to go. 23 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It's 8
1 good to have you here. Welcome. 2 MEMBER CANUP: Thank you. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Our 4 two other members, Dr. Sanghvi was 5 appointed, and Justin Fischer. Justin, 6 unfortunately, is in Washington. 7 Dr. Sanghvi, I'm not sure if he left town 8 after he heard he was appointed or what, 9 but I'm sure both of them will be here next 10 month, and it will be great to start the 11 year off with a brand new board. 12 At this time, I'm asking if 13 there are any public remarks from the 14 audience. Anyone who wishes to make 15 comments to the Zoning Board this evening 16 in regards to a case that is not before the 17 board. Okay, that's very important. If 18 there is anyone, you can please come 19 forward to the board at this time. 20 Seeing none, I will call 21 the first case -- I'm sorry. 22 MEMBER GRAY: I would like 23 to comment because there are some people 24 who arrived after you made the announcement 9
1 about not having a full board. You may 2 want to reiterate it one more time. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: For 4 anybody that arrived late, we have five 5 members this evening. It takes at least 6 four votes to pass a case. Because we do 7 not have a complete board as yet, we're 8 asking that anyone that wishes to table 9 their case until next month when we will 10 have six members on board can do so at this 11 time. 12 (There was no response 13 from the audience.) 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 15 Okay. Everybody is on board. I'm going to 16 remind the petitioners we have a very large 17 agenda this evening. Those of you who are 18 coming before us, if you come us and giving 19 us your case, please give us the 20 highlights. We have your packet, we're all 21 prepared, and I'm trying to try to move 22 this along. We have a large audience and a 23 large amount of cases. Anyone in the 24 audience that wishes to speak on behalf of 10
1 a case, please keep in mind that there is a 2 time limit. I will be watching it, plus I 3 also have a new toy (indicating), and I'll 4 exercise the right to use it. 5 CASE NUMBER 03-100 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 7 Having said that, I would like to call the 8 first case. Case Number 03-100, filed by 9 Development Properties, L.L.C. for the 10 Family Fun Center at 45799 Grand River. 11 This case was tabled at the December 2nd 12 meeting, so we are going to continue from 13 last month. And if you would, please, come 14 to the podium and identify yourselves. 15 If you are an attorney, you 16 do not need to be sworn in. However, if 17 you are not an attorney, we would ask that 18 you be sworn in by our secretary. 19 MR. MAMOLA: Lee Mamola, 20 Mamola & Associates Architects. 21 MR. WAINWRIGHT: My name is 22 Jeffrey Wainwright. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Just 24 the two of you this evening? 11
1 Would you raise your right 2 hand, please. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 4 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 5 in this case? 6 MR. MAMOLA: Yes, I do. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 8 MR. MAMOLA: I will start 9 and pick up where we left off, if I can, 10 from the meeting last month. 11 Since December's meeting, 12 the project was submitted for site plan 13 approval in December. There was a minor 14 change on the plans prior to submission. 15 What was deleted from the plans was any 16 reference, any indication of trails or 17 improvements of any type of that sort to 18 what we call the OST portion, really the 19 undeveloped portion, the rear portion of 20 our property. 21 A noise analysis was 22 completed by a certified sound engineer, 23 and it indicates we comply with the 24 ordinance. The site lighting is designed 12
1 to comply as if it did abut residential 2 property. We also 3 received a letter from the City's attorney, 4 and in response to Mr. Wainwright's legal 5 counsel, we really debated this case. And 6 with all due respect to Mr. Schultz, the 7 fine attorney that he is, I think this is a 8 case, frankly, that he could argue very 9 well on behalf of Mr. Wainwright, which is 10 precisely why we are here in front of the 11 Zoning Board of Appeals. This is somewhat 12 ambiguous. The ordinance is ambiguous with 13 respect to how to define what happens when 14 you have dual zoning on the same parcel, 15 which we have. 16 I think what it really boils 17 down to is Section 200.9 of the Zoning 18 Ordinance. I'll read just a couple of 19 words of it where it says that essentially 20 the conditions such as ours may not be 21 circumvented except by separating parcels 22 from an adjacent or abutting district, or 23 by a parcel or a strip of land which is 24 undevelopable because of its size or 13
1 inaccessibility. 2 What it refers to is the 3 back portion of the property which is zoned 4 OST, and if you recall, the industrial 5 portion is ten feet away from the 6 residential portion, the Andes Hills 7 Development. Ten feet away, it does not 8 apply. That ten feet does not result in an 9 undevelopable or odd shaped piece of 10 property. There can be anywhere from a 20 11 to 25,000-square foot building placed on 12 that site. And the site is accessible by 13 at least two means, most likely by a means 14 through the industrial portion of the site, 15 or conceivably it could be adjoined to the 16 vacant and separate parcel to the west. So 17 there is a means to access this site and 18 develop it. 19 I'd ask that the Zoning 20 Board of Appeals do their job tonight. 21 Focus on whether or not this property can 22 be developed, the rear property that is, 23 and whether or not the front I-1 District 24 really touches the line of the 14
1 residentially zoned property, which happens 2 to be ten feet away. The engineering 3 documents are closed. Please do not get 4 sidetracked by the legalese or by any other 5 of the niceties, the good, or debatable 6 points of this project. That is, 7 obviously, more properly addressed at the 8 Planning Commission. 9 So with that, Mr. Wainwright 10 will wrap up our presentation. Thank you. 11 MR. WAINWRIGHT: Thank you, 12 Lee. 13 I just wanted to take a real 14 brief second to show you where this is 15 actually located. For those on the 16 Commission, it may be somewhat near to -- 17 there's a parcel right here, next to the 18 Gatsby Restaurant. And this is the 19 location of the Expo Center. This is the 20 Andes Hills Condominium right here. We 21 have met with their president to explain 22 the details of our program. There are 23 residents located all the way up on Eleven 24 Mile Road, and these lots that they're on, 15
1 some of them are here today, are very 2 large, very beautiful. 3 We are only developing in 4 this front section. The rear four acres 5 where the woodlands and wetland area is, 6 there is no development scheduled. It's a 7 very beautiful area that we would like to 8 retain very much as it is. 9 I think there may be some 10 value at this point to share with you the 11 type of a facility that will go into this 12 location. Some of the communications we 13 have received have documented or indicated 14 that this is an amusement park. I think 15 it's really important and it's really 16 valuable to understand that this is a 17 Family Fun Center. This is a center that 18 is designed for four-year-old to 19 14-year-old kids and families to spend time 20 together with the family and have fun. 21 It's a fun place. It is designed, as I 22 said, with two picnic areas last time, that 23 is open to the public. It is a green land 24 and we very much intend it to be that way. 16
1 Thank you. 2 The noise study that we 3 conducted, we had planned to do that all 4 along. We did that. We wanted to be sure 5 for ourselves that we could look all of our 6 neighbors in the face and say absolutely 7 you won't be hearing this thing, this is 8 very well done. We believed it, but it was 9 rhetoric until we did it, and we've done it 10 successfully. 11 The architects and engineers 12 worked very well on the lighting study to 13 make sure that the lighting numbers coming 14 out of this lot can be low. That was our 15 objective and that's what we met. So we're 16 trying to cooperate in every way possible. 17 We've had people recently from the Friends 18 of Rouge visit the property to check the 19 wildlife. We've had people from the 20 conservation group of the county come out, 21 and they've also walked the property with 22 us to help us ensure that we do this 23 development properly and that no trees are 24 damaged and no wildlife is disturbed. 17
1 With that, we'll be glad to 2 open to any questions that you might have. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 4 Okay. Thank you very much. 5 There were 27 notices 6 mailed. One of whom wrote their 7 objection. 8 Is there anyone in the 9 audience at this time that wishes to make a 10 comment in regards to this case? 11 Yes, ma'am, in the back. 12 You need to come down to the podium so they 13 can hear you at home, as well as our 14 recording secretary, please. 15 MS. ZDRAVKOVSKI: Good 16 evening. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Good 18 evening. I've owned the Rosewood 19 Restaurant since 1976. We were zoned 20 commercial at that time. And in that 21 period of time they switched us to light 22 industrial. Which I understood and I've 23 been informed Mr. Wainwright wants to serve 24 hot dogs and food in there. Under light 18
1 industrial, is it impossible for him to 2 serve food in there? 3 MR. SAVEN: If it's 4 incidental to the use. 5 MS. ZDRAVKOVSKI: Pardon 6 me? 7 MR. SAVEN: If's incidental 8 to the use, yes, it's possible he could do 9 that. 10 MS. ZDRAVKOVSKI: But when 11 they switched us from commercial to light 12 industrial, they told us that there were no 13 restaurants, anyplace where food would be 14 served in light industrial. 15 MR. SAVEN: The principal 16 use for that building would be based upon 17 his use. This would be incidental to that 18 principal permitted use. 19 It's very possible that he could do that. 20 That would be up to the Planning Commission 21 to take a look and see what he's doing and 22 how much space he has and whether or not he 23 can do this. 24 MS. ZDRAVKOVSKI: But is it 19
1 really fair, since I've been there since 2 1976. I mean, we were commercial and they 3 switched us to light industrial. And now 4 you can switch and anybody can come in and 5 build restaurants and things, I mean, all 6 that they want? 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Could 8 we have your name for the record, please? 9 MS. ZDRAVKOVSKI: Sally 10 Zdravkovski. Z-d-r-a-v-k-o-v-s-k-i. 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 12 Thank you. What's before us tonight -- and 13 I think that the questions you have, are 14 more for the Planning Commission. What's 15 before us tonight is simply an 16 interpretation. Your concerns are duly 17 noted on the record, okay? 18 MS. ZDRAVKOVSKI: Yes. 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 20 However, we want to stay in focus of what 21 it is that this board needs to do tonight, 22 and that is to interpret what is before 23 us. We're not making any final decisions, 24 okay? 20
1 MS. ZDRAVKOVSKI: I'm 2 sorry, I missed the last meeting. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 4 understand. That's fine, but the reason 5 why I'm explaining to you is that you want 6 to watch this and then follow the case as 7 it goes along. Because from here, it may 8 or may not continue on through the other 9 boards and commissions. So you want to do 10 that. You want to do your homework and 11 watch it and stay on top of it. 12 We appreciate your voicing 13 your concerns, however, we have a specific 14 job to do and that's where -- we're going 15 to look at the whole picture this evening. 16 MS. ZDRAVKOVSKI: All 17 right. Thank you, very much. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19 You're welcome. 20 Is there someone else? 21 MR. ROZEK: My name is Matt 22 Rozek and I'm a resident/property owner off 23 of 24 Eleven Mile, southwest of the Fun Center. 21
1 I don't know if you can see this. My 2 property is right here in green, it's 3 actually in green, where the Fun Center 4 property is up here. So I'm very close to 5 where the Fun Center is going to be going 6 in. 7 I invested in a five-acre 8 parcel of land and completed construction 9 of my home in 2003. I had chosen to 10 purchase this five acres because of its 11 location within the City of Novi and its 12 country setting, consisting of woodlands, 13 wetlands, and natural habitat. Half of my 14 property is woodlands, for which I'm paying 15 taxes, taxes on land which I have minimum 16 use. I have invested for the quietness and 17 to be secluded, not to be in a 18 subdivision. I'm concerned with the Fun 19 Center that it's not in harmony, but 20 differs from the existing businesses 21 currently along Grand River. 22 The existing businesses, for 23 the most part, are general office spaces 24 for light industrial, which means that 22
1 activities at those sites are indoors and 2 during normal business hours, eight to 3 five. A few businesses exist, such as 4 Gatsby's and Rosewood Restaurants, which 5 operate beyond business hours, but their 6 activities are indoors. 7 My concern with the Family 8 Fun Center is with the noise, lighting and 9 public movement in the evenings and on 10 weekends. I don't want to hear the Fun 11 Center from my property; I don't want to 12 see from it from my property. I want to 13 ensure the Fun Center does not affect my 14 property values. I don't want to have 15 water drained my way from this property. I 16 want to ensure my property is protected 17 from any other elements of the Fun Center. 18 I'm concerned with the 19 proposed back picnic area, having to do 20 with public movement. Currently it's not 21 easy for people to get access into the back 22 of my lot. With the Fun Center, access 23 will be much easier and with the secluded 24 nature of the property, the potential for 23
1 vandalism increases. I want to ensure the 2 wildlife habitat is protected. This is one 3 of the reasons my family purchased and 4 built on this property. Now with Asbury 5 Park going in, the habitat area on the back 6 of my property will be the only major 7 habitat left in Section 16. Because, see, 8 this is Section 16 here, and there's only 9 two wildlife habitat areas in Section 16, 10 and this is where Asbury Park is going and 11 it's taking out most of that habitat area. 12 So all that's going to be left is over 13 here. With the Fun Center operating well 14 into the evenings and on weekends, the 15 noise, lighting, and outside activities, 16 will potentially affect this remaining 17 wildlife habitat area. 18 Now, pertaining to this 19 area, there was a study performed called 20 the Grand River Corridor Study. I know you 21 can't quite read that. But this study was 22 commissioned by the City in 1997 and 1998, 23 if you're familiar with it. It focuses 24 specifically on Grand River between Beck 24
1 Road and Taft. Its purpose was to identify 2 improvements and possible land use 3 recommendations. It examined an area that 4 is in need of more intense planning focus. 5 Specifically, what I want to 6 point out, this study had to do with the 7 woodlands and the wetlands -- sorry the 8 printing is so small. With the woodlands, 9 what they had to say was higher quality 10 woodlands are located on the south side of 11 Grand River. Preservation of existing 12 woodlands is important, as woodlands 13 provide many benefits to the City. 14 Valuable for plant and wildlife habitat, 15 ground water, recharge and watershed 16 protection, visual and audio screening, 17 and air and noise pollution filtration. 18 High quality woodland areas need to be 19 buffered from adjacent activities, and 20 larger areas of continuous woodlands need 21 to be maintained with little or no 22 fragmentation. 23 This is going to be, 24 basically, the last area of woodlands in 25
1 this section. 2 Regarding wildlife habitat, 3 the wildlife habitat areas are found only 4 on the south side of Grand River. Efforts 5 should be taken to preserve and enhance all 6 wildlife habitat areas within the study 7 area. 8 Specifically in the past 9 year, our family has had on our property 10 out of the woodlands and habitat area, 11 owls, hawks, deer, and coyote, in addition 12 to the smaller creatures such as possums 13 and raccoons and rabbits and groundhogs. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 15 Excuse me. We are on a time line, so you 16 need to wrap up now. 17 MR. ROZEK: Okay. This is 18 only going to be about a minute more. 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 20 MR. ROZEK: My understanding 21 of the zoning ordinances describe three 22 classifications within I-1 zoning parcels. 23 One that does not require special land use, 24 such as for public parks; one that 26
1 requires special land use when abutting 2 residential; and one that requires special 3 land use when not abutting residential. 4 From my understanding, 5 private parks fall into one of the two 6 special land use categories. I want to 7 protect my investment in the habitat of the 8 area. Therefore, I'm asking that the 9 Zoning Board agree with the Planning 10 Department's recommendation that the Novi 11 Fun Center project is treated as a special 12 land use on this parcel of land. With this 13 special land use designation, there's hope 14 that the Planning Department will have more 15 control to ensure the concerns of residents 16 are met. Thank you very much. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 18 there anyone else in the audience? 19 Sir? 20 MR. ABRAMCZYK: My name is 21 Steve Abramczyk, and I'm immediately east 22 of 23 Matt Rozek, so I abut the OST zoning 24 parcel. 27
1 I'd like to reiterate simply 2 that the findings that Matt had talked 3 about are also true on my property. We've 4 experienced the wildlife. We moved there 5 for the same reason. I invested heavily in 6 my home on that piece of property, and I do 7 want to protect that investment. As Matt 8 had mentioned, it is going to be the only 9 remaining wildlife habitat area in that 10 area, and I believe that that, in and of 11 itself, is important, especially since it 12 will be privately maintained at no cost to 13 the City for maintaining this habitat. 14 This development is not in 15 sync the rest of the development in that 16 area. Although I have no specific 17 objection to a Fun Center at all, clearly I 18 think it would be more appropriate on the 19 other side of Grand River, between Grand 20 River and the freeway than it is between 21 Grand River and the residential area. But 22 I think the most important point here is 23 going to come down to whether or not this 24 committee feels that ten feet of buffer 28
1 zone actually meets the intent of the 2 ordinance, and whether or not a developer 3 who wants to develop property in a way that 4 otherwise might not be allowed, can allow a 5 ten-foot buffer to protect them, and allow 6 them to develop what would clearly not be 7 allowed otherwise. 8 Clearly, I believe the 9 ordinance was intended to protect all 10 citizens in the community, and that it 11 wasn't designed to be overcome simply by 12 pulling a zoning trick, if you will, by 13 creating a ten-foot buffer between -- 14 clearly, the effects are not going to be 15 mitigated by ten feet of land. 16 So I would ask that this 17 committee would, at the very least, 18 recommend that the proposed development go 19 through special land use approval, so that 20 the concerns of the neighbors can be heard 21 and fully addressed through the Planning 22 Commission and follow the Planning 23 Commission's recommendation for the special 24 land use. Thank you. 29
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank 2 you very much. 3 Is there anyone else in the 4 audience in regards to this case? 5 Yes, ma'am. 6 MS. GARDNER: My name is 7 Jane Gardner and I currently live in Walden 8 Woods, which is a subdivision right off of 9 Eleven Mile. I also own -- and I have a 10 cold, excuse me -- I also own the property 11 directly west of Matt Rozek, and I'm here 12 to speak on the same concerns that they 13 have. 14 We have lived in the 15 Novi/Northville area for 17 years, and when 16 we chose to build a house, we built in 17 Novi, in Walden Woods. We picked Walden 18 Woods because we loved the woodland around 19 us, we loved the wildlife, we loved the 20 quietness of where we were building. Even 21 though there's a lot of kids running 22 around, and the school is there, we've 23 never been disturbed in the evenings or at 24 night, even by games that are happening. 30
1 It's all just in keeping with a great 2 subdivision, living in the suburbs. 3 As our family has grown, we 4 looked for someplace new to move, and we 5 didn't know where to go because we love 6 Novi. So when the parcel on Eleven Mile 7 came up, it's 46000 Eleven Mile came up, we 8 purchased that two years ago with the 9 intent to build a 5,000 square foot home on 10 that piece of property. We're now just 11 about ready to start that building when the 12 issue of the Fun Center and some of the 13 constraints that might have on our dream 14 home are raising. 15 The concerns I have are very 16 similar to the other people that have 17 spoken. The noise -- how go carts can't 18 be noisy on a summer night, I don't know. 19 I'm kind of looking forward to sitting out 20 on my patio, enjoying the woods and the 21 silence around me. I'm concerned about the 22 noise, how late the park will be open and 23 if those things are addressed. 24 I'm concerned about the 31
1 lights. We currently deal with a situation 2 of the lights on at the Meadows School, and 3 they're never on too late. It's a very set 4 amount of light in that big stadium, and 5 that's never bothered us, but it's very 6 minimal and does not disrupt us currently. 7 I'm concerned, with four young children, of 8 people trespassing through the back of our 9 property. We're concerned about vandalism 10 to our property and disturbing the wildlife 11 that exists back there. These are large 12 parcels of land, and most of it is 13 wetland. Most of what we are enjoying on 14 those parcels is wetland. So the amount 15 built upon is not even half of the parcel 16 that we own. 17 I'm concerned about the 18 traffic situation on Eleven Mile and Taft. 19 Again, I have four young children. It's 20 right by a school, it's right by all our 21 schools. I'm concerned about the build up 22 of traffic. I don't know if you've 23 noticed, since Grand River has been 24 finished, the traffic on Taft has increased 32
1 significantly, which is fine, except that 2 I've been at the intersection of Taft and 3 Eleven Mile, and four times someone has run 4 through that stop sign. I'm concerned 5 about that increase in traffic, of that 6 traffic coming up past our school, past our 7 subdivision. 8 As I said, the hours of 9 operation concern me, especially during the 10 summer. The traffic. I don't see how 11 noise from that kind of park cannot disturb 12 the deer population that we have. We have 13 been currently renting a house that we own 14 on Eleven Mile, getting ready to build, and 15 all our tenants have said repeatedly their 16 favorite part about living there is in the 17 morning or in the evening, seeing the deer 18 come right up and eating the apples on the 19 trees that are in the back of that 20 property. 21 We have made a substantial 22 investment in Novi, not only financial, but 23 emotional. We have four kids, I have all 24 four schools this year so I'm doing a lot 33
1 of running. I love where I live, I love 2 Novi, I love the convenience, and I love 3 the beauty of it. With our substantial 4 investment, I hope that you are open to 5 protecting the investment that we made. So 6 we would also like to recommend that this 7 parcel of land be dedicated as a special 8 land use. Thank you. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 Thank you. Anyone else? 11 Yes, sir? 12 MR. JOHNSON: Joseph Johnson 13 from Gatsby's, and I was here last month 14 saying that we would like them to do this 15 park, as being in the neighborhood would 16 help out for our business. And I don't see 17 any problems with it. That's all I have to 18 say. 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 20 Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? 21 Yes, sir? 22 MR. BABWANA: Good 23 evening. My name is Felix Babwana, 24 (phonetic). Jr. I'm a resident of the 34
1 Andes Hills Condominiums. I live right 2 here. I also want to express some of the 3 concerns that were brought up this 4 evening. 5 I'm even -- I think of 6 everyone that's spoken, I'm the closest, 7 being in that back part of Andies Hills, to 8 the area of the Fun Center. And although 9 in theory the Fun Center shouldn't be a 10 problem -- I have two young kids that soon 11 would be able to take advantage of that -- 12 I'm concerned about the hours, the noise, 13 the lighting, you know, in the evening at 14 the time when I would be out on my back 15 porch or backyard of my home, wanting to 16 relax and have things as they currently are 17 with the wildlife as everybody that's been 18 up here this evening has described. 19 One other note, there's 20 another project that was built abutting our 21 property and there was also issues about 22 the noise and the view. We didn't want to 23 see it, we didn't want to hear it, and it 24 turned out at the very end, when things 35
1 were done, it still is -- it's visible, 2 although there's no noise. I didn't want 3 that same thing that happened there to 4 happen at the other end of our property, 5 down where I live. Thank you. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 7 Anyone else? 8 (There was no further 9 response from the audience.) 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 11 Seeing none, Building Department. 12 MR. SAVEN: Yes. I just 13 want to reiterate to the board, what is 14 before you tonight is strictly the 15 interpretation regarding whether or not 16 this is a special land use. 17 There had been several 18 issues that have been brought before you 19 today, especially in regards to what they 20 may call nuisance ordinance. These Issues 21 will be addressed in the Planning 22 Commission. The special land use does 23 count on certain other things that are part 24 of the review process, but again, these are 36
1 issues which will be picked up in the 2 Planning process. 3 What is before you today is an 4 interpretation that is basically based upon 5 that ten-foot requirement. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 7 Thank you. Mr. Schultz. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: Brief 9 clarification or follow-up to Mr. Saven's 10 comments. Because I've heard now two or 11 three times that the Planning Commission 12 will address a number of these issues, 13 I want to make sure that the board is 14 clear that the Planning Commission's 15 function will be different depending on 16 whether it's a special land use or a site 17 plan. 18 If it's a use permitted, if 19 that's what the board were to determine, 20 the Planning Commission's role is really 21 significantly reduced. They're looking at 22 whether or not the plan that is shown there 23 meets ordinance requirements: turning 24 radius, building height, building setback, 37
1 things like that. The determination would 2 be that the use is okay. 3 If it's determined to be a 4 special land use, then not only does the 5 Planning Commission address the question of 6 whether it fits with the area, it has, like 7 this board has in its decision making, the 8 ability to impose conditions and to deal 9 with specific issues like noise, like 10 screening, like location of particular 11 uses on the site, putting one up front as 12 opposed to in the back. But only if it's a 13 special land use. 14 I guess I just heard several 15 times the Planning Commission will get into 16 it, I just want to make sure everybody is 17 aware it gets into it to a different degree 18 depending on your decision. 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 20 Thank you. 21 Planning Department, do you 22 have anything to offer this evening? 23 MR. SCHMITT: I just have a 24 few brief comments. First, I wanted to 38
1 apologize to the applicant. At the last 2 meeting, I made a commitment to get our 3 interpretation letter out the Friday after 4 the meeting. Due to preparation of the 5 Planning Commission packets and a nasty 6 head cold I got, it didn't go out until 7 Monday. So I hope that didn't cause too 8 much heartache. 9 The other thing I wanted to 10 mention is that although Mr. Saven very 11 correctly pointed out this is just an 12 interpretation of the decision the Planning 13 Department made, if the board does have any 14 questions about the site plan that was 15 provided, I can answer them, although I 16 have not performed the forward view on it, 17 so it may take me a couple of minutes. It 18 really isn't that relevant at this point. 19 There are things I will get into once we 20 review the plans probably in the next week. 21 Thank you. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 23 Board members? 24 Member Brennan. 39
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, we 2 heard some new things this month. Seemed 3 like there was a lot of support last month, 4 and we asked for some of the newer or some 5 of the more locally affected residents to 6 be notified as well as Andes, and we heard 7 from there. 8 I just want to reiterate: 9 There is only one thing that we're talking 10 about tonight is an interpretation of 11 whether special land use is required. We 12 asked -- about four years ago, we asked 13 City Council to give us counsel, City 14 attorney counsel at our meetings, and I 15 view this as a good example of why we 16 wanted that. It's a legal interpretation 17 of our ordinance and we have some direction 18 from our attorney. 19 I'm not going to pretend 20 that I am an attorney, but I will take the 21 recommendation from our attorney that would 22 suggest that we interpret this as needing 23 to go back to the Planning Commission and 24 to be viewed as a special land use case. 40
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 2 Anyone else? Member Gray. 3 MEMBER GRAY: I agree with 4 Mr. Brennan tonight, thank you very much. 5 I also, last month, felt that this is a 6 project that would be an asset to the 7 community, and if it is going to indeed go 8 forward, it will stand the test of a 9 special land use process. 10 You are part way there. 11 You've done a -- I want to get the term 12 right here -- a prediction noise analysis. 13 You've heard from some of your neighbors. 14 And I really feel that this, in reading the 15 ordinance, if this ordinance wasn't written 16 to describe your property, you know, and I 17 realize you bought it as is, and this 18 was -- this ten-foot strip was put in there 19 separating the zoning long before you came 20 in the picture and wanting to buy this 21 property. 22 This is a good location. It 23 is a good use for this property. I think a 24 special land use required by the City will 41
1 support your project, and if it's in order, 2 I would like to make a motion after you 3 discuss. Thank you. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 5 Anyone else? 6 (There was no further 7 response from the board.) 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 9 would like to make a comment for the 10 record. 11 The residents that came to 12 us this evening, we're grateful that you 13 came and voiced your opinion. It's 14 important that as a resident, especially 15 when you have something like this, of this 16 nature come into your own backyard, that 17 you become informed of what's going on. 18 Please understand that this board is 19 limited on what it's doing here tonight, 20 and we keep stressing that because we don't 21 want to you think that we're forgetting 22 what it is that you've offered to us this 23 evening. Take those concerns and follow 24 through on the project. 42
1 My decision concurs with Mr. 2 Brennan and Member Gray and the other board 3 members. They base their decision on the 4 fact, after reading all of the paperwork 5 supplied, and I view this piece of property 6 as one site and that that ten-foot strip 7 has no bearing on this property, and 8 therefore the ordinance stands, in my 9 opinion, and that's how I look at this 10 rule. Therefore, I concur that it should 11 be a special land use, and I wanted to get 12 that on the record. 13 Those of you who have 14 concerns as this goes through the process, 15 I urge you strongly to follow through and 16 state those concerns throughout the 17 project. And now that I've said what I had 18 to say, I will let one of my members follow 19 through with a motion. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: In Case 21 Number 03-100, I would move that the 22 petitioner's interpretation -- the finding 23 of this board is that we interpret this 24 particular parcel to be a single parcel 43
1 that does require special land use, and 2 send it back to the Planning Commission. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It's 5 been moved and seconded. Any further 6 discussions? Mr. 7 Schultz. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: Very briefly, 9 in the letter to Mr. Stopeker from our 10 office on 11 December 16, which is part of the record, 12 there are four bullet points that sort of 13 summarize the position of the Planning 14 Department and our office. I offer the 15 possibility of incorporating those into the 16 motion. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is that not 18 part of the record as part of the park? 19 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. It needs 20 to be part of the motion if that's part of 21 the determination by the- 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: 23 (Interposing) Why don't I just add an 24 amendment to my motion. I will reference 44
1 the December 16th letter to Timothy 2 Stopeker. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Move 6 to approve, amended, and seconded. Is 7 there any other discussion? 8 (There was no further 9 discussion from the board.) 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 11 Denise, would you please call the roll. 12 MS. ANDERSON: Member 13 Brennan. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 15 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 17 MS. ANDERSON: Member 18 Canup. 19 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 20 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 21 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Member 23 Gronachan. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 45
1 2 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes 3 five to nothing. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 5 Thank you very much. 6 Sir, it has been interpreted 7 as a special land use. You will need to 8 follow the procedure through the Building 9 Department. 10 MR. WAINWRIGHT: Thank 11 you. 12 CASE NUMBER 03-104 13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 14 Moving right along. Our next case will be 15 Case 03-104 filed by J. B. Donaldson 16 Company for Aladdin Heating and Cooling 17 Company, 47087 Grand River Avenue. 18 J. B. Donaldson Company is 19 requesting a variance to allow ancillary 20 sales on property that abuts a residential 21 zoning district for the Aladdin Heating and 22 Cooling. 23 MR. DONALDSON: Correct. 24 Good evening, how are you? I'm Bennett 46
1 Donaldson with J. B. Donaldson Company. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Are 3 you an attorney, sir? 4 MR. DONALDSON: No. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 6 Would you please raise your right hand and 7 be sworn in by our secretary. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 9 solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell 10 the truth regarding Case Number 02-104? 11 MR. DONALDSON: Yes, I do. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 13 MR. DONALDSON: I am 14 representing Aladdin Heating and Cooling 15 tonight who is the potential purchaser of 16 the old A & M Label Building located on 17 the -- what is that -- the south side of 18 Grand River. 19 It is proposed that the 20 existing 21 A & M Label Building be -- the use be 22 changed from a label manufacturing building 23 to a heating and cooling, basically repair 24 and sales facility, and we're currently 47
1 asking tonight or requesting a variance for 2 the existing building to allow ancillary 3 sales, in this case a display area, with it 4 currently abutting residentially zoned 5 property. 6 As you can see from our 7 drawing that is basically an engineered 8 site plan, basically how the site is laid 9 out today and what is currently on there, 10 with the exception of a couple of additions 11 that we put in there, requested by the 12 Planning Commission, as far as widening the 13 drive and showing the new driveway 14 location, since Grand River has been 15 rebuilt. But other than that, there are no 16 changes to the building. We're not 17 proposing any changes to the building. 18 We're just proposing a use 19 change here. As it relates to the display 20 area, it is a 1300 square foot display 21 area, and basically what they're displaying 22 is fireplaces, things of that nature, that 23 a client may come in, view the fireplace, 24 see it in -- you know, whether it's 48
1 surrounded in stone, or just an insert, or 2 what have you. They can see it and they 3 can go to the counter, request that Aladdin 4 Heating & Cooling install it in their home, 5 take it out of their stock, put it in their 6 truck, go install it in their home. 7 This is not a cash and carry 8 type of situation that they have in the 9 display area, but as far as the issue at 10 hand, which is this abutting residential 11 property -- all right, see the subject 12 property here. It's surrounded by B-3, 13 Light Industrial and RA. Currently, the 14 piece, the long skinny piece right behind 15 the property, is currently under 16 consideration to be rezoned to B-3, I 17 believe it is. And then this piece right 18 here has a substantial amount of wetland 19 and actually standing water on it, 20 immediately to the west of A & M Label's 21 current facility. And on the other side, 22 you've got light industrial and, obviously, 23 B-3 in front. 24 So there is a small 49
1 residential component that it does back up 2 to. Obviously, this 100-foot wide piece of 3 property would not be all that conducive to 4 a large residential-type development. Nor 5 this piece which, you know, fronts on Beck 6 Road and also is heavily wetland -- you 7 know, this is actually a lake. 8 So anyways, we think we have 9 a good case as far as the fact that it does 10 abut a residential, but it's not a real 11 residential component that we can see as 12 far as it going in there. But Jim 13 Westerman with A & M Label and 14 Ed Turowski are both here if you have 15 questions in particular about their 16 business. Thank you. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 18 Thank you. 19 Is there anyone in the 20 audience that wishes to make a comment in 21 regards to this case? 22 (There was no response from 23 the audience.) 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 50
1 Seeing none, Building Department? 2 MR. SAVEN: Only that the 3 condition is that it does abut a 4 residential district and therefore that 5 retail sales is not permitted. He would 6 have been allowed 1,280 square foot, I 7 believe. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Mr. 9 Saven, can I ask a question. 10 Was the resident on Beck 11 notified of this, do you know? 12 MS. ANDERSON: I'll have to 13 check. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Just 15 for the record, they were notified and 16 there was no response. 17 Board members? Member 18 Brennan. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: I happened 20 to watch the Planning Commission meeting 21 that night, and I'd like to reiterate a 22 couple of things that I recall from that 23 meeting. 24 Your business is primarily 51
1 selling to builders. 2 MR. DONALDSON: If I can 3 let the owner of Aladdin. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Would 5 you please come down. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, come 7 on down. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: And 9 while they're coming down, I want for the 10 record to note that there were 11 notices 11 mailed and there were no objections and no 12 approvals, and two letters were returned. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Would you 14 raise your right hand. 15 Do you solemnly swear or 16 affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 17 Number 03-104? 18 MR. TUROWSKI: Yes, sir. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: As I 21 recall, your business is primarily selling 22 to builders. 23 MR. TUROWSKI: That's not 24 totally correct, no. 52
1 My name is Ed Turowski. I'm 2 the owner of Aladdin Heating & Cooling and 3 Fireplace Design. We sell to builders, we 4 sell to homeowners, remodeling 5 contractors. It's been our experience with 6 two other locations that we currently 7 operate, to be able to avail the finished 8 product to the end user or the builder's 9 customer, the end user, in order to get a 10 good understanding of how something will 11 look in their home or office or lobby. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: More of a 13 show room. 14 MR. TUROWSKI: That's 15 exactly what it is. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is 17 somebody going to be able to come in and 18 take a look and walk out with it? 19 MR. TUROWSKI: Not 20 impossible, although technically to install 21 this equipment you have to be licensed if 22 you're putting in a gas burning fireplace 23 as opposed to a wood burning fireplace. If 24 you're putting in a wood burning fireplace, 53
1 there are certain codes that would also 2 call for inspections and things like that. 3 In most cases, and when I 4 say most cases, I'm going to tell you 90 to 5 95 percent of the cases, we are going to go 6 to the place of business or to the home and 7 install this product. There will be a 8 minor percentage, and when I say minor, on 9 an overall sales basis I would say one to 10 two percent cash and carry of my overall 11 sales. And you know, that's fireplace 12 tools, humidifiers, pads. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: That was 14 the gist I was getting from watching that 15 meeting. It's not like you're another Home 16 Depot. 17 This is a good use of an 18 existing building that has been sitting 19 there vacant for a very long time. There 20 is a very, very, large rear parking lot, 21 which also removes this from that 22 residential. There is a large woodland 23 that separates this from the residential 24 area. I don't know that we've heard 54
1 anybody from that residential area. 2 I guess my only last comment 3 is, you're going to fix the American flag 4 and put a new one up. 5 MR. TUROWSKI: Sure. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. 7 Thanks. Have a good evening. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 9 Anyone else? 10 (There was no further 11 response from the board.) 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No 13 comments? Everybody is pretty quiet. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a 15 motion unless, somebody wants to jump in 16 here. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 18 right. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: In Case 20 Number 03-104, I would move for approval as 21 the requests are minimal and it's a good 22 fitting for that particular parcel. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It's 55
1 been moved and seconded. Any further 2 discussion on the motion? 3 (There was no further 4 discussion on the motion.) 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 6 Seeing none, Denise, please call the roll. 7 8 MS. ANDERSON: Member 9 Brennan. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 11 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 MS. ANDERSON: Member 14 Canup. 15 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 16 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 17 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 18 MS. ANDERSON: Member 19 Gronachan. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 21 MS. ANDERSON: Motion 22 passes 5 to O. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 24 There you go. MR. TUROWSKI: 56
1 Thank you very much. 2 CASE NUMBER 03-105 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 4 Our next case is 03-105, filed by Ray 5 Lighting Center at 25673 Meadowbrook Road. 6 Ray Lighting Center is requesting a 7 variance to allow outdoor storage in an I-1 8 zoning district. He's requesting to 9 maintain a 14 by 46-foot storage area 10 surrounded by an eight-foot high chain link 11 fence for outside storage. 12 MR. JONES: I'm Wes Jones 13 from 14 Ray Electric. 15 MR. McGULLICK: I'm John 16 McGullick (phonetic). Neither one of us 17 are attorneys. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 19 Would you raise your right hand. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 21 solemnly swear to tell the truth regarding 22 Case Number 03-105? 23 MR. McGULLICK: I do. 24 MR. JONES: Yes. I guess I 57
1 first would like to state that we realize 2 that we're not within the ordinance. 3 However, the storage that we have back 4 there, which we've had for three, three and 5 a half years is a big part of our 6 business. It's where we store our pipe for 7 the electrical field, contractors that we 8 sell to within the City of Novi and 9 surrounding areas. 10 I guess what we're looking 11 for is we want to be within the ordinance 12 of the City. We'd like a variance in time 13 to go through the Planning Commission and 14 find out what exactly we need to build and 15 that type of thing. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 17 Okay. 18 MR. JONES: Whatever it 19 would take. Six months or three months. 20 If we could have it for a period of time 21 until we could build -- excuse me, I've got 22 a cold too -- until we could build one that 23 the City would approve. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 58
1 Okay. Anything else? 2 Is there anyone in the 3 audience that wishes to make a comment in 4 regards to this case? 5 (There was no response from 6 the audience.) 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Seeing none, Building Department? 9 MR. SAVEN: I guess I'll 10 ask the question. It is your intent to 11 have outdoor storage. For you to have this 12 pipe, you need to have access to it; is 13 that correct? 14 MR. JONES: It is. 15 MR. SAVEN: In other words, 16 it cannot be covered. 17 MR. JONES: We have similar 18 locations that have outside storage where 19 we can make a brick thing with a cover, a 20 roof on it, as long as we can get a 21 high-low in and out of it. 22 MR. SAVEN: My concern is 23 that in the packet was an objection, and 24 part of this objection was dealing with the 59
1 fencing that you have existing right now. 2 MR. JONES: Yes. 3 MR. SAVEN: That this was 4 not appropriate in their eyes. 5 MR. JONES: Correct. 6 MR. SAVEN: So one of the 7 issues, if you're going to take a look at 8 it, if you're going to do any enclosure, 9 you have to be aware that there are 10 building code regulations, and there are 11 certain issues that would have to be part 12 of this particular issue when you go 13 through whatever change you're going to do. 14 MR. JONES: Yes, yes. We 15 understand that. 16 MR. SAVEN: All right. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19 There were eight notices sent and one 20 objection from 21 Michael Hall, partner of DIBO Meadowbrook 22 L.L.C., who is two sites to the north of 23 this location. And basically Mr. Saven 24 summarized his complaint pretty well. 60
1 2 Board members. Member 3 Brennan. 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: When is 5 the last time you were in this back yard? 6 MR. JONES: I'm sorry? 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: When was 8 the last time you were in this back yard? 9 MR. JONES: I was in it? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 11 MR. JONES: Last Monday. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: I sure 13 wish it looked like that. Because you know 14 what? I went there two times over the 15 Christmas break, both times with my 16 grandson who at seven years old made a 17 comment, it sure looked crummy. You have 18 PVC pipe laying all over the place. You 19 have it stacked against the wall of the 20 building. You have broken pallets laying 21 everywhere. You have a stack of pallets 22 probably eight-foot tall. 23 When I walked through there, 24 both times the fence was opened. Anybody 61
1 that wanted to drive through and throw one 2 of those in his car, including myself, 3 could have done so. Broken garbage cans, 4 the place looked like a pit. And this is 5 the condition it's in illegally. What's it 6 going to look like when we grant your 7 variance, sir? I was very upset. You 8 know, you were found in violation. You 9 knew that all six of us were going to come 10 and look at this place, and it looked like 11 hell. That's all. Thanks. 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 13 Anyone else? 14 MEMBER CANUP: I have a 15 comment on that. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 17 18 Member Canup. 19 MEMBER CANUP: I think the 20 ordinances were written very clear about 21 outdoor storage in an I-1 district. And I 22 know when I drive around the City and see 23 areas where there is outdoor storage, it's 24 not very pleasing. And there's reasons 62
1 that it was written into the ordinance 2 years ago when that ordinance was written, 3 and I think for us, in my opinion, for us 4 to beleaguer this case and tell you we'll 5 give you six months variance, I think would 6 be just a waste of time. 7 In order to construct 8 anything in that area, that you would 9 enclose this that would meet our 10 ordinances, if it would be meet our 11 ordinances, because of setbacks, property 12 lines, et cetera -- that would have to be 13 dealt with -- I think it would be probably 14 almost impossible for you to be able to 15 build a building there to enclose that. 16 Do you own that building? 17 MR. JONES: I do. Well, I 18 own a percentage of it. 19 MEMBER CANUP: Well anyway, 20 the point is, I think with setbacks, the 21 things you would have to go through with 22 the Planning Commission to enlarge your 23 building, I just don't see that it would 24 happen. 63
1 And with that, I would be 2 willing to make a motion to deny this case, 3 if it's appropriate. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Go 5 ahead. 6 MEMBER CANUP: So moved. I 7 make a motion in Case Number ZBA 03-104 8 that we deny the request as stated. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I'm 10 sorry. It's 105, just so we get it clear 11 on the record. 03-105. 12 MEMBER CANUP: Yes, that's 13 correct. CHAIRWOMAN 14 GRONACHAN: It's been moved. Do we have a 15 second? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 18 Seconded by Member Bauer. 19 Any further discussion? Mr. 20 Schultz. MR. SCHULTZ: 21 Since the nature of the motion, the fact 22 that we have a denial, the maker of the 23 motion might want to incorporate the 24 comments of just prior to the motion, as 64
1 well as the rationale stated by Member 2 Brennan so we have kind of a complete 3 picture for somebody reviewing the decision 4 as to why there was a denial. 5 MEMBER CANUP: I would move 6 then that we make the previous comments as 7 stated in the record, as part of the 8 motion. 9 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you very 10 much. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Great. 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It's 13 been moved and amended. Any further 14 discussion? 15 (There was no further 16 discussion from the board.) 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 18 Denise, would you please call the roll. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup. 20 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 24 MS. ANDERSON: Member 65
1 Brennan. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 3 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 4 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 5 MS. ANDERSON: Member 6 Gronachan. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 8 MS. ANDERSON: Motion 9 passes 5 to 0. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Sir, 11 your variance has been denied at this 12 time. 13 I'm going to turn to the 14 Building Department. Obviously what is the 15 legality here? 16 MR. SAVEN: The legality 17 here is that the issue will be brought 18 before the Neighborhood Services to follow 19 through on the issue regarding outdoor 20 storage. 21 MR. JONES: What does that 22 exactly mean? 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It 24 means that you're going to have to remove- 66
1 MR. JONES: (Interposing) 2 Yeah, I understand that. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 4 (Continuing) -within a certain period of 5 time, and the Neighborhood Services will be 6 contacting you as to what that period of 7 time is. 8 MR. SAVEN: I think you 9 should stay on top of this with 10 Neighborhood Services. You may want to 11 call Cindy Uglow or whoever the officer is 12 in that jurisdiction, and talk to that 13 individual and discuss a time element to 14 remove the outdoor storage. 15 MR. JONES: For the record, 16 we were just trying to do what was right. 17 I mean, we were trying to build something 18 that was going to be right there. I 19 apologize for anything that's messy or 20 not to the way Novi wants to have their 21 City look. We try to clean up every day, 22 so I apologize for that. Thank you. 23 CASE NUMBER 03-106 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 67
1 Okay. Let's call one more case. 03-106 2 filed by Etkin Equities for Residence Inn 3 at 27477 Cabaret Drive. They're requesting 4 two sign variances this evening. 5 Good evening. Your name, 6 please, and be sworn about my our 7 secretary -- you're not an attorney? 8 MR. BEDNAS: No. Robert 9 Bednas with Etkin Equities. 29100 10 Northwestern Highway, Southfield. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 12 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 13 regarding Case Number 03-106? 14 MR. BEDNAS: I do. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 16 MR. BEDNAS: We are 17 requesting your indulgence to permit us to 18 install one additional ground sign at the 19 Residence Inn on Cabaret Drive so that we 20 may enjoy the same privilege that's enjoyed 21 by many other hotels in the area. 22 Specifically, the Double Tree Hotel, which 23 is nearby that has four ground signs and 24 one large pylon sign. 68
1 I really won't go into too 2 much detail. I think the one thing that we 3 neglected to mention in the application, 4 although we did cite that we believe this 5 variance will not have any negative impact 6 on the neighborhood, we neglected to 7 mention that the site is directly across 8 the street from Fountain Walk, which is a 9 rather large retail center which has 10 numerous building signs and ground signs, 11 and therefore we think it really won't 12 impact the character of the neighborhood at 13 all. 14 And that's pretty much all I 15 have to say at this point. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 17 Okay, thank you. 18 Is there anyone in the 19 audience that wishes to make a comment in 20 regards to this case this evening? 21 (There was no response from 22 the audience.) 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 24 Seeing none, 69
1 Building Department? 2 MR. SAVEN: Basically, it's 3 dealing with the additional sign for that 4 particular area. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 6 There were five notices sent. No 7 objections, no approvals. 8 Board members? Member Brennan. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's another 10 one that got my dander up. We grant 11 variances in this community when 12 petitioners come in and demonstrate that 13 they have hardship. With respect to the 14 hotel that you've referenced, and I have 15 that one circled, Double Tree is in the 16 most difficult area of what would be West 17 Oaks to migrate to find to get into, as is 18 the Sheraton Hotel on Haggerty, another one 19 that you've referenced. 20 As Laverne used to say, 21 similar situations should give us similar 22 results, but this isn't similar. You have 23 a parcel that sits very high with respect 24 to elevation. It's very noticeable from 70
1 Twelve Mile. You have a large sign in 2 front of that building which we granted two 3 months ago. And I haven't heard any data, 4 information, sworn testimony, that has 5 shown that lacking a sign on Cabaret up by 6 Twelve Mile has hurt your business. So I 7 don't support the request. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 9 Thank you, Member Brennan. 10 Anyone else? Member Gray. 11 MEMBER GRAY: I'm 12 in agreement. We went through this in 13 September and they came in with eight 14 requests. And we narrowed it down and I 15 thought we were all set. And normally, if 16 somebody wants to come back and make a 17 request due to a hardship, I expect there 18 to be at least some reasonable period of 19 time to pass to say, well, the numbers just 20 don't justify, we want, we need. 21 I'm not real happy to read 22 in the material presented to us that the 23 reason for the request is what their 24 corporate approval was. We have -- I'm not 71
1 going belabor the point. I just think this 2 isn't justified with the signage that's 3 already there. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank 5 you. 6 Anyone else? 7 (There was no further 8 response from the board.) 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 10 will put my comments on the record, just to 11 add a little levity at this point. 12 When I read this case, it's 13 a good thing that Denise put the minutes in 14 because I thought, didn't we just approve? 15 Here it is back before us with not really 16 adequate evidence as to a hardship. And I 17 know that this meeting is dedicated to him, 18 but Mr. Reinke clearly stated why we did 19 not support a ground sign at that time. 20 Unless anything's changed, I 21 can't support it either. The fact -- if 22 anyone else is watching, this, really, if 23 you really want to raise the blood pressure 24 on this board, just say, well, you did it 72
1 for another case. 2 We don't use that criteria 3 when we're looking at your case. Each case 4 is viewed as an individual instance. We 5 may draw from experience when we're looking 6 at it, or draw from something we came in to 7 resolve an issue, but we can't compare 8 businesses at this point. I don't agree 9 that just because Fountain Walk has a bunch 10 of signs that your hotel needs it. So that 11 is not a qualified statement in my 12 opinion. So therefore I would not be able 13 to support this request at all. 14 Member Bauer. 15 MEMBER BAUER: If you have 16 information stating that people that come 17 to your hotel couldn't find it, had a very 18 hard time finding it, over a period of a 19 few months, I can see where we might stop 20 and think about it. But just to have -- I 21 know it's probably your boss saying this is 22 our brand, we want it, doesn't go very far 23 with this board, I'm sorry to say. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 73
1 that a motion; are you ready? 2 MEMBER BAUER: All right, go 3 ahead. Case 03-106, that the requested 4 variance for an additional sign be denied 5 due to the fact there has been no hardship 6 brought to this board as to feedback from 7 their own customers that they cannot locate 8 the hotel. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: So 11 moved and seconded. Any further 12 discussion? 13 Mr. Schultz. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Just one brief 15 comment, and I know that this was the 16 intention. The standard for non use 17 variance is a practical difficulty 18 standard, and I don't want a reviewing body 19 to get thinking that we were giving them 20 the higher hardship standard. So instead 21 of hardship, the maker of the motion could 22 substitute no practical difficulty shown, 23 and the reason I think was clear enough. 24 MEMBER BAUER: All right. 74
1 There was no practical difficulty shown. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: And the same 3 reason essentially being, there is no 4 evidence of lack of visibility as it stands 5 now. Thank you. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 7 Thank you. Duly noted and so amended. 8 Any further discussion? 9 (There was no further 10 discussion from the board.) 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 12 Seeing none, Denise, would be please call 13 the roll. 14 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 MS. ANDERSON: Member 17 Brennan. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup. 20 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 23 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 24 MS. ANDERSON: Member 75
1 Gronachan. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 3 MS. ANDERSON: Motion 4 passes 5 to 0. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 6 right. Sir, you need to table this for a 7 while and come back and give us some other 8 information. 9 MR. BEDNAS: If I may 10 indulge you for one minute. I do apologize 11 for taking up your time. 12 When Marriott did do the 13 pre-opening inspection certification, they 14 were adamant about not only the ground 15 sign, but they also wanted to see the other 16 sign that we removed previously, the one at 17 the gatehouse. And as part of -- there 18 were a couple of other issues on their 19 pre-opening requirements that they expect 20 to see resolved within six months when they 21 come back and do another inspection. 22 So we were really compelled 23 to come before you again during that 24 period, just to pursue this effort. And 76
1 I'm sorry for taking up your time. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Bring us some 3 proof, please. 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Bring 5 Marriott back. I'd love to talk to them. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Or 7 send them our minutes. 8 MR. BEDNAS: Thank you. 9 CASE NUMBER 03-107 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Next 11 case, 03-107, filed by Brian Kosaian at 150 12 North Haven Road. Mr. Kosaian is 13 requesting a 6.04-foot side yard setback on 14 the west side of an existing structure 15 located at -- and I take it this is his 16 residence. 17 There's a familiar face. 18 MR. HARRINGTON: Good 19 evening board members and City staff. 20 James Harrington; office is 24101 Novi 21 Road. I'm an attorney. 22 Mr. and Mrs. Kosaian -- just 23 to help you move things along this evening, 24 you've still got a packed house -- they 77
1 have a simple, straightforward case of 2 practical difficulty. The lot frontage for 3 which they seek the variance is 120 feet. 4 The practical difficulty is the existing 5 home on the lot, which they didn't build, 6 it was built many, many, years ago, sits 7 six-foot too close to what would be the 8 proposed split line. 9 The variance would allow 10 them to obtain a split. If the house 11 didn't sit where it was, which is the 12 practical difficulty, they wouldn't be here 13 and would not need approval for a variance. 14 15 They have agreed to meet 16 the spirit of the ordinance, which would 17 normally require two ten-foot side yard 18 setbacks, by making your brand on a 19 variance conditioned upon an additional 20 16-foot side yard on the home which they 21 propose to construct on the second site. 22 And we believe that that meets both the 23 safety, esthetics, and other considerations 24 which are behind the spirit of the 78
1 ordinance. 2 In short, that's what 3 they're asking for this evening, is a 4 six-foot variance to allow them to split 5 and build a modest home on the property. 6 When they did check with the City this 7 evening, they had received no formal 8 objections, to their knowledge, although 9 there may be an owner of an adjacent home 10 which is significantly larger than is 11 otherwise present in the neighborhood, 12 significantly larger than what they would 13 envision constructing on the site. But 14 otherwise they're not aware of any 15 objections. 16 Mr. & Mrs. Kosaian are here 17 to answer any questions you have, and if 18 not, thank you for your consideration. 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 20 there anyone in the audience this evening 21 that wishes to make a comment on this case? 22 Yes, sir. Come on down, 23 please. 24 MR. CALABERT: Douglas 79
1 Calabert (phonetic), North Haven, a 2 property to the west of this -- I bought 3 this property. I think, basically, you and 4 I aren't asking for a variance, we're 5 almost asking for an elimination of the 6 side yard setback. 7 When I moved into this home 8 that I own there, I built it 11 or 12 years 9 ago. The minimum property frontage for an 10 additional lot, building lot, was 80 feet. 11 When it went to 60, I have no idea. When I 12 built my home there, I built it on a lot 13 that I thought would be a nice large lot to 14 build a home, knowing when I look out my 15 bedroom window, looking into someone else's 16 bedroom window. 17 I guess I have a comment as 18 far as the Kosaians are concerned. This is 19 an investment property at the present 20 time. It's not a resident property. I 21 believe this gentleman came to my home and 22 talked to me about this proposal. In that 23 conversation he was talking about the 24 setback variance, also the possibility of 80
1 building two homes on this two 60-foot lots 2 that he would like to split eventually. 3 I don't know if you received 4 a letter from the neighbor directly to the 5 east or not, but in a conversation with 6 him, he also is opposed to granting this 7 variance as I am. So in your 8 considerations, understand that both of the 9 abutting property owners are opposed to 10 this. I guess that's basically my 11 objection to this. 12 We live in a community where 13 in past history we have had homes jammed 14 together with no consideration as to the 15 setbacks and things like that. As the 16 property has, or as the neighborhood has 17 improved over the years, and we have a 18 beautiful subdivision at the end of the 19 street with nice large lots and large 20 homes, why would we want to cram two homes 21 in a non conforming area. Thank you. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 23 Anyone else? 24 (There was no further 81
1 response from the audience.) 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 3 Seeing none. There were 22 notices sent, 4 and no objections, no approvals. 5 Building Department? 6 MR. SAVEN: I would like to 7 just point out and answer this gentleman's 8 question. 9 In regards to non 10 conforming lots, there is a provision in 11 the ordinance that does talk about if you 12 have two or more lots under a single 13 ownership, there is a provision that allows 14 you to split the property to a point where 15 you must have at least a minimum of 60-foot 16 frontage and 6,000 square foot in area. 17 Each one of those parcels that are before 18 you today, each have that particular 19 requirement. 20 The only thing that we're 21 dealing with right now is the issue of the 22 side yard setback as presented tonight as 23 the variance request, to be able to allow 24 this to take place. 82
1 One of the concerns that I 2 would have with Mr. Kosaian is that he has 3 an existing concrete driveway on those 4 parcels, and I'd just like to ask the 5 question whether or not there would be any 6 problem in moving that driveway over onto 7 Parcel B, which would be Lot 35. I'm 8 concerned because you do have a well in 9 that area. Is this only going to be a 10 driveway, or do you plan on building an 11 addition in that area? 12 MR. KOSAIAN: The existing 13 concrete driveway that you see in Parcel A, 14 would service the new home, and that would 15 assure that there would be a great deal of 16 distance between the new homes, the 20 feet 17 that we've agreed upon. Although there is 18 a four-inch well that you see to the east 19 directly below the metal shed, that well is 20 no longer used. So we proposed to put the 21 new driveway right through the word "lake," 22 and that would service the existing home, 23 and the current driveway or the existing 24 concrete drive you see there on the print, 83
1 would service the new home assuring the 2 distance that I've agreed to between the 3 homes. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 5 Thank you. 6 MR. KOSAIAN: You're 7 welcome. 8 MR. CALABERT: Is it 9 possible to make one other comment? 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: You 11 need to come down to the podium so they can 12 hear you at home. 13 MR. CALABERT: I guess if 14 this is subject to the same restrictions 15 for granting of the variance, wouldn't 16 there have to be hardship here? 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 18 Well, we'll get there. Thank you. 19 Okay. Board members. 20 Member Gray. 21 MEMBER GRAY: I would like 22 to hear some discussion of practical 23 difficulty or hardship with this property 24 from the applicant. 84
1 MR. HARRINGTON: Or his 2 attorney? There is no question that at 3 some level the lot can be built on. If the 4 existing home on the site is taken down, 5 which I don't think the board could 6 require, we're then faced with maximizing 7 the use of a 120-foot lot, and putting a 8 big foot home on that site, in order to 9 justify it. And probably the hardship on a 10 homeowner to do that, ranges in the 11 hundreds of thousands of dollars. The 12 difference between that and a modest home. 13 14 And when I drove by there 15 this afternoon and eyeballed the site, and 16 I respect his neighbor's opinion, but I 17 looked at the character of the street 18 itself, and I don't think that's a 19 situation which calls for a big foot home, 20 which is what would be required, I think, 21 if we took the little one down. I just 22 don't think that makes sense. A modest 23 home on that street is consistent with the 24 development that's there. 85
1 And the test as, Mr. Schultz 2 appropriately said, I think this is in fact 3 practical difficulty at some level, if 4 you're dealing in hundreds of thousands of 5 dollars. I think finances can be a 6 hardship, but here the practical difficulty 7 is you've got a house in place which can't 8 be moved. It can be destroyed, but it 9 can't be moved. 10 MEMBER GRAY: Mr. 11 Harrington, do your clients live in the 12 existing house? 13 MR. HARRINGTON: No. They 14 live about a block and a half away. This 15 would be an investment property. 16 MEMBER GRAY: Are they 17 going live in either of the houses on these 18 two lots? 19 MR. HARRINGTON: No. 20 They're going to continue their residence 21 on West Lake Drive. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Member Brennan -- 23 I'm sorry, were you done? 24 MEMBER GRAY: The only 86
1 thing I have to say, when I first looked at 2 this, I applauded the effort. If it's 3 granted, I would like to see if there is 4 any way to put a deed restriction on 5 Parcel A that would say there would be no 6 encroachment any closer to the property 7 line, the new property line, because this 8 does take three non conforming, although 9 they're originally deeded and plated and 10 individually buildable subject to variance, 11 and make two conforming, subject to the 12 variance granted. I'm also a little 13 concerned that it is investment property as 14 well. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank 16 you. Member Brennan. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. 18 Harrington, with respect to this 19 photograph, is that a big foot house behind 20 the property? 21 MR. HARRINGTON: I can't 22 see from here. I don't have a memory. I 23 don't know. 24 MEMBER GRAY: I believe 87
1 that's condos. Windward Bay Condos. 2 MR. HARRINGTON: And I 3 guess that's subject to interpretation too. 4 There is a trend with the new subdivisions 5 there toward much larger houses, and I saw 6 those when I drove in this afternoon with 7 the new subdivision that's going in, but 8 that's not what's going on in that street 9 right now. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: As 11 Roseann/Roseanna used to say, never mind. 12 MR. SAVEN: Madam Chair, if 13 I may. In regards to -- if this property 14 was to be split based upon your decision 15 tonight, one of the things I did want to 16 point out, they would still have to meet 17 the requirements of the setbacks as they 18 exist today. In other words, there still 19 has to be over a ten-foot setback on one 20 side, with a 15 on the other, which means 21 the house would end up being 35-foot in 22 length. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Are you 24 talking about the new house? 88
1 MR. SAVEN: The new 2 construction, that's correct. In other 3 words, they still would have to meet that 4 overall aggregate total of 25 feet in an 5 R-4 zoning district. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Can we 7 make that contingent upon this variance 8 request; can we dictate that the setbacks 9 are going to be met on this new home? 10 MR. SAVEN: The zoning 11 ordinance already dictates that. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, the 13 point is though, they can come back and ask 14 for five-foot, five-foot. 15 MR. SAVEN: I would suggest 16 that would be a little difficult thing to 17 do. 18 MEMBER GRAY: With all due 19 respect, if they're saying they're going to 20 observe a 16-foot on one side, that still 21 requires ten on the other, so then you're 22 looking at a 34-foot width house. If we're 23 going to go 26 feet on setbacks, because 24 you want 16 feet on one side of the 89
1 property line to maintain 20 feet between 2 the two houses, which is why I asked about 3 proposing a deed restriction. 4 MR. SAVEN: I think I'll 5 turn this one over to the attorney. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd like 7 Mr. Harrington's thought on that. We'd 8 like to kind of protect what the new house 9 is going to bring. 10 MR. HARRINGTON: Well, I 11 don't think there's any question that Mr. 12 and Mrs. Kosaian have to comply with the 13 ordinance or come back in front of this 14 board for a construction variance or a side 15 yard setback variance and meet the same 16 test. 17 I'm not comfortable that 18 this board has the power to impose a deed 19 restriction. I don't think that's within 20 the power of the board, but I think the 21 owners here have proposed a restriction 22 which would flow with the variance that's 23 been requested. If you grant them the 24 variance they requested, they are willing 90
1 to have a condition, and variances are 2 subject to conditions all the time, which 3 would be the 16-foot side yard setback on 4 the right side of the parcel. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: So that was 6 not an offer of a deed restriction, I 7 guess, as I interpret that. 8 MR. HARRINGTON: That's 9 correct. MR. SCHULTZ: I 10 guess my viewpoint of it would be not all 11 that different from 12 Mr. Harrington's. You could not mention 13 the other setback at all, and then it would 14 simply be a function of the zoning 15 ordinance applying. And if they don't meet 16 the zoning ordinance, or if they don't want 17 to meet the zoning ordinance, they have to 18 come back to this board for relief. 19 If you do attach a 20 condition, I guess I would give that maybe 21 more effect than what I heard Mr. 22 Harrington say. I think if you were to 23 attach a condition that in order to get 24 this variance and take advantage of it, 91
1 they have agreed to the 16-foot, I think it 2 will take more than just coming back before 3 this board under the typical practical 4 difficulty scenario. 5 I think you're getting 6 greater protection for the other property 7 owners because if there's no appeal of that 8 condition, if they said okay to that 9 condition and haven't asked the Circuit 10 Court to get rid of it, I think that gives 11 you a little better position if five or ten 12 years from now he comes in for relief on 13 the other side. It's more than just you 14 didn't say anything. 15 So if there's no deed 16 restriction, I agree with Mr. Harrington, 17 we can't propose it. If the choice is 18 between just letting the zoning ordinance 19 govern and imposing a condition, I think 20 you're better off in posing a condition 21 that meets the requirement, in that that 22 was one of the reasons why you're giving, 23 if you chose to give it, why you would be 24 giving this variance. 92
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Do you 2 follow that, Sarah? 3 MEMBER GRAY: Uh-huh. 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Then you 5 make the motion. 6 MEMBER GRAY: I'm still not 7 comfortable with doing a lot split on this 8 property when the neighbors are in such 9 opposition, or one neighbor is in 10 opposition and purports to claim that 11 another neighbor is too. Any comments? 12 MR. CANUP: I would agree 13 with Ms. (inaudible). 14 MEMBER GRAY: Oh, Brent, 15 it's been Gray for years, please. That's 16 okay. 17 MEMBER CANUP: Anyway, I 18 would agree with you. You know, what's 19 wrong a larger house, for instance? 20 MEMBER GRAY: It's 21 dedicated lake access, so you know the 22 house -- and we're trying to clear out 23 rental houses in that area, have been for 24 years and years and years. I'm not saying 93
1 it's not a viable option, I'm just not 2 comfortable doing it, especially since 3 they're not going to live in one of the 4 houses. 5 MEMBER CANUP: And with 6 that, I will support a motion to that 7 effect, if you would make one. 8 MEMBER GRAY: To deny. 9 Well- 10 MR. SCHULTZ: One comment 11 before the motion, if I may, Madam Chair. 12 I just want to be clear. I 13 know there's been discussion about the fact 14 that this is not owner-occupied, and I just 15 think from a land use perspective, who 16 occupies the two houses is not an issue. I 17 want to make sure -- I understand the 18 natural curiosity, but as long as it's not 19 a basis for the decision. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 21 Let's go back to the whole picture. Look 22 at our reasons for why we're declaring this 23 or denying it or approving it. Okay. 24 Sometimes I forget. If a rental house or 94
1 it's not a rental house, has no bearing at 2 this point. We need to stick to what's in 3 front of us. Okay? Do they meet the 4 spirit of the ordinance by doing this? 5 MEMBER GRAY: Have they 6 demonstrated that they haven't used it for 7 the use for which it's intended and 8 currently being used? 9 MEMBER BAUER: No. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No, 11 that's not it. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Because they 13 can't move the house. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 15 Right. 16 MEMBER GRAY: I understand. 17 18 MR. SCHULTZ: Again, maybe a 19 reminder that the practical difficulty 20 standard has several different parts. The 21 first is that the ordinance as it's 22 written, in this case we're talking about 23 the setback, impose an unnecessary burden 24 on the property owner. 95
1 Mr. Harrington made his 2 arguments, obviously, but that's the first 3 criteria. Or is there a way that he could 4 comply with the ordinance; and he can't 5 really comply with the ordinance where the 6 house is now. 7 The second issue would be 8 would granting variance relief do 9 substantial justice to the neighbor and to 10 the property owner? That's obviously sort 11 of a subjective discussion that the board 12 is going to have. 13 The third issue is 14 self-creation. And then -- I guess, 15 really, those are really the three main 16 issues that the board is looking at. I 17 hope that helps. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19 Member Brennan. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: I kind of 21 shut up on this one for the most part. My 22 original thoughts here was the fact that if 23 he's granted this four-foot variance, he's 24 got two legally livable lots, and 60-foot 96
1 of frontage, over 6,000 square foot per 2 lot. He meets ordinance. 3 I guess when you look at 4 what the law says, and the minimal effect 5 of this variance, and we had one property 6 owner that's presented some concerns, and I 7 think that that might be able to be 8 addressed through recommendation to the 9 owners that when they start looking at this 10 new house, that they take into 11 consideration your neighbors, and do what 12 you can to minimize the impact on his. So 13 my first thought was there would be 14 sufficient practical difficulty presented, 15 that I would support the variance request. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: My 17 question is, is it self-created? 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: They 19 didn't build the house. 20 MEMBER GRAY: But they 21 bought the property with the house on it. 22 MEMBER CANUP: I would 23 suspect that when the house was built 24 originally, it was built with the idea in 97
1 mind that it was built on a 120-foot by a 2 150-foot lot. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 4 That's where I'm stuck. 5 MEMBER CANUP: That's what 6 it was designed for originally, and that's 7 what -- anticipating that anyway. And I 8 would doubt that when this house was built, 9 it was given a thought that the property be 10 split. 11 MR. SAVEN: Let me interject 12 something. Back when these lots were 13 platted, these lots were platted at 40-foot 14 widths, and we've had continuous 15 problems -- and Brent, I know that you had 16 been around at the time when we were 17 dealing with these particular issues. That 18 particular portion of the ordinance was 19 written because it had to deal with people 20 who owned property that was contiguous 21 under one ownership, that they could be 22 able to split the property so that wouldn't 23 create the hardship to them, but using the 24 guidelines as a 60-foot width and the 6,000 98
1 square foot area. 2 What basically covered us in 3 terms of the zoning ordinance, was the fact 4 that even at that time we had 5 grandfathering, which was a ten-foot on 6 each side, if you remember that. That was 7 even part of that particular provision. 8 But now we have -- grandfathering no 9 longer exists -- we have the issue of the 10 ten-foot and 15-foot, which is even more of 11 an increase in size from what we had in the 12 R-4 zoning district. 13 So that provision was in 14 there because people did own several lots, 15 all 40-foot -- sometimes they were even 16 30-foot widths, and those were the 17 conditions that people looked at and said, 18 okay, what can we do with this property; 19 how can it function, how can it work. 20 MR. SCHULTZ: In fact, if 21 you look at the drawing that's attached, 22 you'll see the original 40-foot parcels, 23 35, 36, and 37, and it's right in the 24 middle of the two, leaving the other 99
1 original one free. 2 MEMBER CANUP: You would 3 only be able to get two parcels out of that 4 width the way the home was built on there. 5 Even at 40-foot lots, the way the home was 6 built, you would only be able to get two 7 parcels out of it. 8 MEMBER GRAY: Well, two 9 parcels because the lot split requires now 10 that it be a minimum 60-foot frontage in 11 R-4. 12 MEMBER CANUP: That's 13 correct. If you look at it from a 40-foot 14 standpoint, only strictly looking at it and 15 saying they built it with the idea they 16 were going to split off and have three 17 40-foot lots, it doesn't work. It works 18 for two, or maximum of two 40-foot lots. 19 The way that the house was built, right on 20 the lot line of one of the 40-foot lots, I 21 mean, the lot line, the dotted line runs 22 right through the house. 23 MEMBER GRAY: I guess the 24 other problem I have is with a self-created 100
1 hardship. Because, technically with all 2 three parcels joined now with one house on 3 it, it is, at the very least a conforming 4 lot, a conforming parcel, by virtue of the 5 fact that it's more than 60 feet, even 6 though these are originally dated and 7 platted. By virtue of the fact that the 8 house was built where it is, they bought it 9 knowing the house was built where it is, 10 I'm still having a problem with 11 self-created hardship on this. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam 13 Chair? 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes, 15 Member Brennan. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think we 17 can cut to the chase here. I think that 18 there's some split on this board. I'll 19 make a motion just to demonstrate that. We 20 may ask the petitioner to consider coming 21 back next month when there's seven board 22 members, because I don't think that we've 23 got a majority either way -- six with an 24 alternate, I'm sorry. 101
1 MR. HARRINGTON: Mr. 2 Brennan, I would just note, before you 3 vote, that Mr. Kosaian is perfectly willing 4 to attach to an approval of the setback, a 5 deed restriction of 16 feet, which will 6 preserve and carry forward the setback as 7 described here tonight and would be binding 8 on any subsequent owner. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: With that, 10 I'll make a motion with respect to Case 11 03-107 that the petitioner's request for a 12 3.96-foot variance -- I'm sorry -- 13 6.04-foot variance, be approved, due to 14 practical difficulties, and the added 15 notation that a deed restriction be applied 16 to Parcel A. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 18 MR. SAVEN: I would 19 ask that we be more specific as to the 20 location on that deed restriction that 21 you're looking for. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: 16-foot 23 from the property line; right? 24 MR. SAVEN: Adjacent to 102
1 Parcel B. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Correct. 3 MEMBER GRAY: It would be 4 the east property line. 5 MR. SAVEN: I've got a bad 6 memory guys. 7 MEMBER GRAY: It's east by 8 the way. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 Okay. The motion has been seconded. Any 11 further discussion on the motion? 12 (There was no further 13 discussion from the board.) 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 15 Seeing none, Denise, would you please call 16 the roll. 17 MS. ANDERSON: Member 18 Brennan. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 20 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Member 23 Canup. 24 MEMBER CANUP: No. 103
1 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 2 MEMBER GRAY: No. 3 MS. ANDERSON: Member 4 Gronachan. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No. 6 MS. ANDERSON: Motion 7 failed 2 to 3. MEMBER 8 BRENNAN: Madam Chair. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 Member Brennan. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would 12 like to propose to the applicants, as 13 indicated before, we're not going to come 14 to a decision tonight. 15 Would you like to consider presenting this 16 to a full court? 17 MR. HARRINGTON: Absolutely. 18 Next month. 19 MEMBER BAUER: We can table 20 it until everybody- 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: 22 (Interposing) Maybe you could do this for 23 us, for the other board members that will 24 be here next month, put that offer in a 104
1 letter. 2 MR. HARRINGTON: Will do. 3 MEMBER GRAY: I would also 4 suggest you speak -- your clients speak 5 with the neighbor to the west and the 6 neighbor to the east, and discuss the 7 ramifications of what they're proposing. 8 MR. HARRINGTON: Thank 9 you, Sarah. 10 MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: At 12 this time, would it be the board's pleasure 13 to take a ten-minute break? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Five. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 16 The board will be adjourned. 17 (A brief recess was taken.) 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 19 would like to call the Zoning Board of 20 Appeals meeting back to order. 21 CASE NUMBER 03-108 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 23 will call Case 03-108 filed by Robert 24 Geracz at 48800 Nine Mile Road. Mr. Geracz 105
1 is requesting a temporary use permit to 2 allow an existing dwelling to remain on the 3 property until construction of a new home 4 is completed. 5 Good evening. Are you Mr. 6 Geracz? 7 MR. GERACZ: I am. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 9 Would you raise your right hand, please, 10 and be sworn in by our secretary. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 12 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 13 regarding Case 03-108? 14 MR. GERACZ: Yes. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, 16 sir. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Go 18 ahead. 19 MR. GERACZ: I come before 20 you just 21 to hopefully what I ask you to consider 22 makes a little bit of sense. 23 I think you've got a picture 24 of what happened to me. I'm a builder from 106
1 Plymouth. This is my first time in Novi 2 and about nine or ten months ago, I had a 3 house burn down by one of those companies 4 that's going around burning down houses. I 5 don't know if you've got a copy of that. I 6 didn't want to make it too public, but in 7 the meantime I cooperated quite a bit with 8 everybody involved and now I have a piece 9 of property and I want to put a couple of 10 houses on. It's got an existing house on 11 it, the property that I'm requesting, and 12 the homeowner actually lives in the house. 13 So I have an opportunity to 14 have the homeowner live in the house, while 15 I build the other house, and when I build 16 the new house, I can tear down the old 17 house and they can move in. So that's what 18 I'm hoping for, an opportunity to protect 19 my house without any undue or more fear 20 than I already have. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 22 right. Thank you. 23 There were 15 approvals -- 24 15 notices sent, zero approvals, zero 107
1 objections -- 2 I'll get it out here. 3 Building Department. 4 MR. SAVEN: I have no 5 objection to this only for the fact that he 6 was not get his CFO until such time that 7 building is down. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 9 Board members -- I'm sorry. You know what 10 -- please forgive me. 11 Is there anyone in the 12 audience that wishes to make a comment in 13 regards to this case? 14 (There was no response from 15 the audience.) 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 17 Okay. Seeing none, Board members? 18 Member Bauer. 19 MEMBER BAUER: How long is 20 that going to be where they'll be living in 21 the house? 22 MR. GERACZ: I have to have 23 the house done, according to the loan 24 agreement, within 11 months to 12 months. 108
1 So that would be the maximum amount of 2 time. But it's a pretty big house. It's 3 3500. I'm going to put the basement in 4 hopefully next week. My goal is to move 5 them in, I'd say, October or November. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 7 Member Brennan. 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Similar 9 cases should give similar results. There 10 are two new developments on Beck that we 11 did the very same thing. I only had two 12 questions, and you've answered them both: 13 the existing house will come down, and who 14 will live in the existing house. And I've 15 got no problem with your request, sir. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 17 that a motion? 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: I will make 19 a motion with respect to Case 03-108, that 20 the petitioner be granted a variance to 21 utilize the existing single family home 22 until such time a CFO is granted, and then 23 the existing home will come down. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 109
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Can 2 I ask the motioner a question? Do you want 3 to put a month on that; do you want to put 4 a time on there? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't 6 think, no. I don't think we did in the 7 past. It's going to come down when the 8 other one is built. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 Okay. Motion has been seconded -- motion 11 has been made and approved. Is there any 12 further discussion on the motion? 13 (There was no further 14 discussion from the board.) 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 16 Seeing none, Denise, would you call the 17 roll. 18 MS. ANDERSON: Member 19 Brennan. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 21 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer. 22 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 24 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup. 110
1 2 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 3 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 4 5 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 6 MS. ANDERSON: Member 7 Gronachan. CHAIRWOMAN 8 GRONACHAN: Yes. 9 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes 10 5 to 0. 11 MR. GERACZ: Can I say 12 something? I didn't want to say this 13 before but somebody called me from the City 14 and they were concerned that I missed the 15 last meeting. They were really nice. 16 It's my first time in the 17 community and I had a lot of fear coming in 18 here because you hear all these things 19 about Novi. Everybody has been really nice 20 to me, and I didn't want to say that first 21 because I didn't want it to look like I was 22 brown nosing. 23 (Board members all talking 24 at once.) 111
1 MR. GERACZ: Thank you. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Run for 3 your life. 4 MEMBER GRAY: Madam Chair, 5 could we reconsider that last case? 6 CASE NUMBER 03-109 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 8 Calling next case, Case 03-109 filed by the 9 City of Novi, located at the northeast 10 corner of West Park Drive and Twelve Mile 11 Road. 12 Nancy McClain -- is she 13 here -- 14 representing the City of Novi, is 15 requesting three variances for construction 16 of a water booster station to be located on 17 the northeast corner of West Park Drive and 18 Twelve Mile Road. 19 Good evening, Ms. McClain. 20 Would you raise your right hand, please. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 22 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 23 regarding Case 03-109? 24 MS. McCLAIN: I do. 112
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Keep 2 in mind we have your packet before us, and 3 we have reviewed it. Go ahead. 4 MS. McCLAIN: I'm not going 5 to make a presentation on this. I know you 6 have the packet and I know you have 7 reviewed it and I'm here to answer any 8 questions you have. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: My 10 kind of petitioner. There were -- is there 11 anyone in the audience that wishes to -- 12 okay. 13 MS. STICKNEY: Hello. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Good 15 evening. MS. STICKNEY: My 16 name is Andrea Stickney and I live in 17 Stockbridge, Michigan. 18 I'm representing my family, my parents and 19 my sister. We own a parcel directly east 20 of the property under discussion for the 21 water booster station. 22 While we certainly 23 understand the need for a booster station, 24 we're concerned about the approval of a 113
1 variance which would require not a 20-foot, 2 but a two-foot setback, less than the 3 length of my arm, between the structure and 4 the east property line, and how it will 5 impact the use of our property. While our 6 property is vacant now, that's not our 7 permanent intent. And two-feet seems a 8 very, very, short distance. 9 The questions and concerns 10 that we have, are the size and the height 11 of the structure, and whether there will be 12 any screening in the way of a fence or a 13 wall or landscaping in that two feet 14 between the structure and the east property 15 line. 16 We're also concerned about 17 whether there will be noise, any danger, 18 including flooding, posed by the water 19 boosting station, or any restrictions that 20 might be placed on our property as a result 21 of this station being so close. 22 We also wonder how the 23 structure can be built without physically 24 affecting our property. I respectfully 114
1 submit that the City's building ordinances 2 were thoughtfully and deliberately put in 3 place with good reasons, and variances to 4 this extent may nullify whatever good 5 reason may have been involved initially. 6 We understand that variances are necessary 7 in many circumstances, but what has created 8 the necessity for such a significant group 9 in this case, and have any alternatives 10 been considered? 11 I thank you for your time. 12 And I would also like to express my 13 condolences to the board for the loss of 14 what was, obviously, a very esteemed and 15 respected colleague and friend. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 17 Thank you very much. We appreciate it. 18 Is there anyone else? Yes. 19 MR. PRIGMORE: Good 20 evening. Should I be sworn? 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No. 22 MR. PRIGMORE: Okay, thank 23 you. My name is Pete Prigmore (phonetic), 24 I work for Michigan CAT. We are the 115
1 property owners to the north and to the 2 east of the subject property. And we, in 3 1999, entered into an agreement with Steel 4 Creek, who was the owner of the property at 5 that point in time to buy the -- basically 6 the corner of West Park and Twelve Mile 7 Road. At that point in time, Steel Creek 8 had donated a certain piece of property to 9 Novi, about an acre and a half for a lift 10 station that was supposedly being built at 11 the corner of West Park and Twelve Mile 12 Road. 13 At that point in time, we 14 were told that lift station would 15 underground and would not be visible toward 16 the properties that we were purchasing, and 17 obviously that has changed recently in 18 terms of the desire of the City. 19 We would hope that knowing 20 that that corner will be a very visible 21 corner and very high profile area of the 22 community, that we would hope instead of it 23 being above ground as it is proposed right 24 now, would be an underground type of lift 116
1 station and not be affected by the 2 visibility of a station there, if you will. 3 4 That's all. Thank you. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 6 Thank you. Anyone else in the audience who 7 wishes to make comments in this case? 8 (There was no response from 9 the audience.) 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 11 There were 12 notices sent. One objection, 12 which was by 13 Michigan CAT and the gentleman that just 14 spoke. Before I send it over to the 15 Building Department, I think I'm going to 16 refer back to Ms. McClain. 17 There were some concerns and 18 perhaps you can answer those questions for 19 those residents. Basically the size, the 20 height, the structure screening, 21 restrictions because of the existing of the 22 building, and then the last question, why 23 not underground? 24 MR. SAVEN: Excuse me. 117
1 Madam Chair, if I may. I don't believe 2 this lady has seen the set of plans which 3 is before us. 4 Have you seen the plans 5 whatsoever, ma'am? 6 MS. STICKNEY: No. 7 MR. SAVEN: I can see that 8 this is going to be very much a concern. I 9 would ask that Nancy have the ability, and 10 maybe the planner have the ability to take 11 a minute with this lady to show her what 12 the landscaping was all about. And also if 13 Pete could have an opportunity. I don't 14 know if you've seen the plans either? 15 MR. PRIGMORE: I have not, 16 no. 17 MR. SAVEN: That they have 18 an opportunity to do this, but before they 19 go out and take a look at the plans. What 20 I'd like to say is -- I'd like to address 21 Pete's concern. 22 Number one, the City 23 originally owned the property because they 24 bought the property from a couple and they 118
1 owned that whole portion. They quitclaimed 2 a portion of that property to 3 Steel Creek, but they still maintained an 4 easement, a permanent easement, for the 5 construction, whether it was on, into, or 6 on top of, whatever, for the construction 7 of a booster station -- or excuse me, a 8 water station, a booster station, what have 9 you. That was part of the easement. It 10 was signed off by the City. In other 11 words, the City quitclaimed to Steel Creek 12 this particular parcel and that easement 13 was in place. 14 One of the things that 15 became a concern about two years ago, I 16 believe it was the City of -- Macomb 17 Township, and their lift station, they 18 lost two people because it was 19 underground. There's been a lot of issues 20 here that have been raised, and what needs 21 to be done and really trying to preserve -- 22 because they got tapped pretty big time for 23 the loss of life in that area. We, too, 24 are sympathetic to making sure that the 119
1 building safety is there too in 2 construction of these things. 3 So the above-ground is what we chose here 4 in the best interest of the City. But also 5 along the same line, I did want to mention 6 to the board, that these are the documents 7 that you have. I would like to make sure 8 that these individuals did take a look at 9 and have the opportunity to review. 10 So if I can, I'd just like 11 to ask that they take a minute and go out 12 in the atrium and maybe we can just 13 postpone this for a couple of minutes. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Why 15 don't we do that. We'll table this if we 16 could, and just call the next case, and 17 that way give you folks some time to -- how 18 about ten minutes. Is that too long, not 19 enough? 20 MS. McCLAIN: I believe 21 that should be fine. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: And 23 we'll go to the next case in the meantime. 24 120
1 CASE NUMBER 03-110 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 3 Okay. Let's go to Case Number 03-110, 4 filed by Mark and Michelle Galecka at 40014 5 Sandpointe Way. They're requesting a 6 22-inch variance for the combined total of 7 both side yards for the construction of a 8 proposed addition located at 40014 9 Sandpointe Way. 10 I apologize for not 11 pronouncing your last name correctly. 12 MRS. GALECKA: That's all 13 right. CHAIRWOMAN 14 GRONACHAN: Raise your right hand to be 15 sworn in. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 17 solemnly swear and affirm to tell the truth 18 regarding Case 03-110? 19 MRS. GALECKA: I do. 20 MR. GALECKA: I do. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 23 Go ahead. 24 MRS. GALECKA: We are 121
1 requesting a variance for the side yard and 2 we're basing our request or hardship due to 3 the pie shape of our lot. In order to put 4 an addition onto the back of our house to 5 increase our living space for a family 6 room, we are encroaching on the setback 7 line. 8 We would like to make note 9 that we are planning to remove the deck 10 that is existing in that area, so there 11 would no longer be a deck on that side of 12 the house. 13 MR. GALECKA: The whole deck 14 will be removed. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 16 there anyone in the audience that wishes to 17 make comment on this case? 18 (There was no response from 19 the audience.) 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 21 Seeing none. There were 23 notices sent. 22 Two approvals. One from Robert Mears at 23 39932 Sandpointe Way. One at from Neil 24 Tubin at 39953 Sandpointe -- and the 122
1 Homeowners Association as well. 2 Building Department? 3 MR. SAVEN: Just to point 4 out what they already mentioned. This is a 5 pie shaped lot, it's a very irregular lot, 6 and to be able to do anything, it's very 7 difficult. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 9 Board members. Member Gray? 10 MEMBER GRAY: This is kind 11 of a cut and dry situation. If their lot 12 was a different size or configuration, we 13 wouldn't be here and I'm prepared to make a 14 motion. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Any 16 further discussion? 17 (There was no further 18 discussion from the board.) 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 20 Seeing none, go ahead. 21 MEMBER GRAY: In the matter 22 of Case 03-110, move to approve variance 23 requested due to lot size and 24 configuration. 123
1 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It's 3 been moved and seconded by Mr. Bauer. Any 4 further discussion on the motion? 5 (There was no further 6 discussion from the board.) 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Seeing none, Denise, would you please call 9 the roll. 10 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 11 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 12 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 MS. ANDERSON: Member 15 Brennan. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 17 MS. ANDERSON: Member 18 Canup. 19 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 20 MS. ANDERSON: Member 21 Gronachan. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 23 MS. ANDERSON: Motion 24 passes 5 to 0. 124
1 MRS. GALECKA: Thank you 2 very much. We appreciate your time. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Good 4 luck. 5 6 CASE NUMBER 03-111 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 8 I think we can go the next case here. Case 9 Number 03-111, filed by Amen Korean United 10 Methodist Church at 41671 West Ten Mile. 11 They're requesting a one-time variance to 12 erect an additional ground sign onto West 13 Ten Mile. 14 MS. PARK: Good evening. 15 I'm Helen Park, I'm not an attorney, but 16 I'm here to represent the Reverend Jun Se 17 Que (phonetic), the pastor of Amen United 18 Methodist Church, as well as the 19 congregants. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 21 Please raise your right hand and be sworn 22 in. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 24 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 125
1 regarding Case 03-111. MS. 2 PARK: I will. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 4 MS. PARK: Well, as I stated 5 we are here to request your approval to 6 erect our sign at the said property as 7 submitted to you. The Novi United 8 Methodist Church has graciously offered to 9 share the building with us. However, 10 although we are both churches, we are 11 separate organizations. 12 We have different staffs, different 13 members, as well as different target 14 communities. 15 Currently both churches are 16 sharing one sign, with Novi United 17 Methodist Church's sign on one side, and 18 our sign on the other, so those approaching 19 from the east do not even see our sign, and 20 those approaching from the west do not see 21 the Novi United Methodist Church's sign 22 either. 23 We were made aware of the 24 ordinance and have considered other means 126
1 to advertise our church, but because we are 2 new, our finances are very limited, and our 3 target community so specific, it is 4 extremely difficult for us to find ways to 5 effectively promote our church and we have 6 concluded that using a sign would be the 7 most effective and possible method. 8 We have discussed our plans 9 with the Novi United Methodist Church, and 10 they have approved the placement and design 11 of our sign. We've created it so that it 12 would immediately attract the attention of 13 Korean Americans driving by. It would not 14 obstruct views, and it would not be an 15 eyesore or distraction to drivers or 16 neighboring buildings. 17 Having our own sign is important to the 18 growth and success of our church, and we 19 hope that you'll agree and grant us the 20 permission to do so. Thank you. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 22 Thank you. Is there 23 anyone in the audience that wishes to make 24 comments in regards to this case? 127
1 Sir, would you like to come 2 on down? 3 MR. DARLING: My name is 4 Tom Darling, I'm a trustee with the Novi 5 Methodist Church and I would just like to 6 mention if you grant this variance it would 7 eliminate, what do you call it, a practical 8 difficulty -- is that the terminology I 9 heard -- for both churches. 10 We have a difficulty now as 11 she had addressed, about only having half 12 of our sign and would help us also. 13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 14 Thank you very much. 15 Is there anyone in the 16 audience? 17 (There was no further 18 response from the audience.) 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 20 There were 41 notices mailed. Five 21 approvals and two objections. The 22 objection is from Louis Gregory at 23 Kingspointe: 24 A second sign is not necessary. It would 128
1 be a neighborhood eyesore. 2 Second objection is from 3 Donna Sawnders on Aspen: As a resident 4 near the church, this is requesting 5 permission to erect a second ground sign. 6 I would like to respectfully vote no. I 7 could agree to a current sign being 8 expanded. 9 And then the rest of them 10 are from current members of the church, 11 from the Novi Methodist Church, showing 12 support for the second ground sign. 13 Building Department? 14 MR. SAVEN: I'd like to 15 ask. Tom, by any chance have you guys 16 reviewed the option of putting two signs -- 17 I mean, redoing the one sign with two 18 churches? 19 MR. DARLING: No. We have 20 not reviewed that option. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 22 Board members. 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: You've 24 already asked for audience participation? 129
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 2 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: If I might 4 make a couple of comments. It was 5 disappointing that you put up a permanent 6 sign. You weren't supposed to do that, and 7 I think it was pretty clear when you 8 applied for a sign variance, that you were 9 asked to put up a mock-up, to avoid the 10 expense of putting up a sign which might 11 not get approved. 12 That said, I do have some 13 clarifications. There are two separate 14 churches using the same building. I have a 15 problem that there's now four signs in 16 front of this building. We have the new 17 Amen Korean Methodist, we have the original 18 United Methodist, we have a Novi Co-Op 19 sign -- is that still up? 20 MR. DARLING: Yes. That's 21 still up. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: And we've 23 got some church entrance signs. It 24 bothered me that this is getting a little 130
1 cluttered out front. 2 I'll listen to what others 3 might have to say. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 5 Member Bauer. 6 MEMBER BAUER: It would be 7 probably a lot nicer if one sign would be 8 above the other, or along side of each 9 other. But one sign, not two. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 11 Member Gray. 12 MEMBER GRAY: It was also 13 noted that when we got our packet by 14 Denise, specifically, that the people who 15 did put up permanent signs knew that they 16 might have to take them down. So I'm 17 concerned with the number of signs there 18 too, and would I like to see one sign. I'd 19 like to see the two churches work together 20 to get one sign piggy-back. I'm sure that 21 the materials you already have can be used 22 for something else, or that may be the 23 basis for a sign. I'd like to see one 24 sign. 131
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Question 2 for the Building Department. 3 How did that Novi Co-Op sign 4 get up? MR. SAVEN: I'm not 5 sure, I don't have the records here, but it 6 could have been it was a separate use, and 7 it probably came before the Board. 8 MEMBER BAUER: I think it 9 did. 10 MR. SAVEN: Something in my 11 mind tells me it did. 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 13 Member Canup. MEMBER CANUP: 14 We granted a variance for that 20 years 15 ago. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yeah, quite a 17 while ago. 18 MEMBER CANUP: I guess 19 rather than belabor this point, my opinion 20 is we pass and table, and give them an 21 opportunity to revamp a single sign 22 reflecting both of the churches on one 23 sign. 24 MEMBER GRAY: What about the 132
1 Co-Op? MEMBER BAUER: No. 2 That's separate. CHAIRWOMAN 3 GRONACHAN: Would you like to come up to 4 the podium, whoever is the representation? 5 Ma'am, would you like to 6 come up? 7 Do you understand what the 8 board members are proposing here? 9 MS. PARK: Yes. That you 10 would like us to consider designing a sign 11 that consists of both church's names. 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 13 Right. And it would be up to you to table 14 your case this evening, okay, and after you 15 work with the other church, with Novi 16 Methodist, if you still need us you can 17 come back next month, and if not you will 18 have it worked out. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Question. 20 What is a permitted size sign? 21 MR. SAVEN: I think it has 22 to do with the setback. One square foot 23 for two-thirds setback. 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: If in fact 133
1 they took this existing sign and put it on 2 top- 3 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) 4 They may have to go back and re-notify. 5 They need to work this out, to figure out 6 exactly what they want and what is going to 7 be acceptable to both churches. And if 8 that is that way, then we'll have to work 9 on a variance, then we have to notify at 10 this time. MEMBER 11 BRENNAN: If I might ask and maybe, sir, 12 you know. This sign appeared to be very 13 close in size to your existing sign. Is 14 that about right? 15 MR. DARLING: It's 16 smaller. It is smaller. It's two-foot. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: So maybe 18 there is a way of using your existing sign 19 that would just say Novi Methodist and 20 somehow attaching this above or below your 21 existing sign where it is. It might be 22 bigger than what's allowed, but I think 23 there's more support- 24 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) 134
1 But I think it would be over the five-foot 2 height. 3 MR. DARLING: Yes, I think 4 we'd be over that, but I guess I'm getting 5 a feel you would rather have us come back, 6 Amen and Novi, requesting a variance in 7 size, gaining one sign than two signs; is 8 that what I'm hearing? 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 That's correct. 11 MR. DARLING: So we could 12 work that out. 13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 14 that the agreement? All those in favor of 15 tabling the case until next month say aye. 16 17 MEMBER BAUER: It's not 18 tabling. 19 MR. SAVEN: If they can't do 20 this, they're going to be coming back. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: If they 22 can work it out so that's it's within- 23 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) If 24 they find new ways of doing this, then 135
1 we'll renotify. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: So 3 we're 4 in agreement to table it. 5 MR. SAVEN: Table it. 6 MR. DARLING: Is there 7 another option that we might explore with 8 this size thing? 9 MR. SAVEN: I would ask 10 that you be reasonable in your height 11 requirement, okay, because that's really 12 important here. Most of the board members, 13 they're always watchful of that particular 14 issue. And if you have to lower your sign, 15 or whatever it is, or expand it, you guys 16 make the determination what you want to do, 17 but bottom line is, I think, the board is 18 basically looking at one sign, and the size 19 and visibility is what you're going to have 20 to work out. 21 MR. DARLING: We have a lot 22 of money from our church in that sign and 23 in the base, and now to move that would be 24 expensive. 136
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: 2 Personally, I think the location of your 3 sign is better at a higher elevation. So 4 if the Amen Church was incorporated into 5 your sign, I think it would be very, very, 6 visible from east or west, and if it had to 7 be a little bit bigger, I'd prefer that. 8 MR. SAVEN: Tom, I can't say 9 whether or not adding an additional 10 two-foot on top of your sign. If your sign 11 is at five-foot right now, I'm not sure 12 that it is, but if it's at five-foot, 13 you're talking about another two-foot. 14 MR. DARLING: Yes. 26 15 inches, I believe. 16 MR. SAVEN: Another 17 two-foot, 11 inches on top of it, so you're 18 looking at almost a three-foot variance in 19 height; see what I'm saying? 20 MR. DARLING: Yeah. I'm 21 listening to hear what the board is saying. 22 A three-foot variance in height, I mean 23 that's practical. I guess, can we get a 24 feel whether or not what the board's 137
1 feeling is tonight; can we? 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 3 Well, we can't draw it for you. That's why 4 we're suggesting that you go back to the 5 drawing table, take a look at it, and see 6 what's going to work for you. Basically, 7 with all due respect, we're not engineers. 8 We can table that, we can buy you some time 9 and have you come back with a better idea. 10 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think we 12 can give them some guidance. I think that 13 the location of your existing sign is the 14 best. If it's got to be a little taller, 15 I'd love to talk to you about it. 16 MR. DARLING: Thanks. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 18 Thank you. 19 CASE NUMBER 03-112 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 21 Okay. The other people are still out in 22 the hall discussing, so we'll go with one 23 more case. 03-112 filed by Stone City at 24 26940 Taft Road. Roger Soulliere is 138
1 requesting a variance to continue the use 2 of outdoor storage in an I-1 zoning 3 district for the business known as Stone 4 City, Incorporated, located at the address 5 that I read. 6 The applicant is requesting 7 a three-year variance similar to the 8 previous case of 00-082. 9 Is the petitioner here? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam 11 Chair. 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 13 Member Brennan. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would 15 move that we call this at the end of the 16 evening and if they're not here, we'll deal 17 with it then. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 19 right. 20 CASE NUMBER 03-113 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 22 Moving right along to the next case. 23 01 -- 03, I'm sorry, 113, filed by 24 Minasian Development Corporation 139
1 representing Pinnacle Office Centre at 2 41850 West Eleven Mile. They're requesting 3 one sign variance to allow an expired 4 construction sign to remain at the above 5 address until -- well, they're requesting 6 an extension. 7 MR. SAVEN: A 12-month 8 extension. 9 MR. MINASIAN: My timing was 10 perfect. 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes, 12 I saw that. You must have been watching 13 out. 14 Would you raise your right 15 hand and be sworn in, please. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 17 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 18 with regards to Case 03-113? 19 MR. MINASIAN: Yes. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Go 22 ahead. 23 MR. MINASIAN: We currently 24 have a development sign in front of the 140
1 Pinnacle North Office Centre on Eleven 2 Mile. The building was completed in April 3 of 2003. Currently we're 50 percent 4 leased, and it is a tight -- difficult 5 leasing market right now. It would 6 certainly be our hope that in the next 12 7 months, we would be 100 percent or close to 8 100 percent occupancy. I guess I would 9 just ask, given the location and the 10 condition of the office market, if we could 11 keep the sign up for another 12 months. It 12 would be very helpful to us. 13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 14 there anyone in the audience that wishes to 15 make comments in regards to this case? 16 (There was no response from 17 the audience.) 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19 Seeing none, Building Department? 20 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 22 There were 13 notices were mailed. Two 23 approvals, no objections. The approvals 24 are from businesses within the complex. 141
1 Board members? Member 2 Brennan. 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: 50 percent 4 of what I was looking for. This is one of 5 the nicest signs sitting in this City, for 6 a construction sign. I've got no problem 7 with your request, sir. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 9 that a motion? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: I will make 11 a motion with respect to Case 03-113. I 12 would move that the petitioner's request 13 for a one-year extension be approved. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It's 16 been moved and seconded. Is there any 17 further discussion on the motion? 18 Member Canup. 19 MEMBER CANUP: I would 20 suggest that give it a-one year maximum, 21 and to be removed -- if they rent it out 22 next week, they take the sign down. 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Reasonable? 24 MR. MINASIAN: Certainly. 142
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: So amended. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It's 3 been moved and approved and amended. Is 4 there any further discussion? 5 (There was no further 6 discussion from the board.) 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Seeing none, Denise, would you please call 9 the roll. 10 MS. ANDERSON: Member 11 Brennan. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 13 MS. ANDERSON: Member 14 Bauer. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 MS. ANDERSON: Member 17 Canup. 18 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 20 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 21 MS. ANDERSON: Member 22 Gronachan. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes 143
1 5 to 0. 2 MR. MINASIAN: Thank you 3 very much. CHAIRWOMAN 4 GRONACHAN: Thank you. 5 CASE NUMBER 03-109 (Continued) 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 I see that our previous parties have 8 returned. 9 Nancy, come on down. 10 MS. McCLAIN: Good evening 11 again. 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Good 13 evening. 14 I believe -- and I'm sorry, I don't 15 remember your name. 16 MS. STICKNEY: Andrea 17 Stickney. 18 MS. McCLAIN: I believe 19 your concerns have been addressed? 20 MS. STICKNEY: Yes. 21 MS. McCLAIN: Mr. Prigmore 22 still has some concerns and if he wishes to 23 address those, he still is concerned about 24 it being above ground station and that it 144
1 being located on this corner. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 3 Building Department, any further comment? 4 MR. SAVEN: I think I said 5 about all I can say regarding this case. 6 But do you wish to hear this gentleman one 7 more time? 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Do 9 you need to add anything else? 10 MR. PRIGMORE: I think my 11 point has been taken. 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 13 Board members. We've got all sorts of 14 hands over here. We'll start at the end. 15 Mr. Canup. 16 MEMBER CANUP: Looking at 17 drawings, this is one of the things I do 18 for a living is build these things. And 19 every time we build one down in the ground, 20 I shutter thinking about it, and would not 21 in any way support putting -- burying it in 22 the ground. 23 I think in looking at the 24 drawings, I think possibly if there was a 145
1 little more attention paid to the esthetics 2 of the building, that would help relieve 3 some of the sterile look to it. Maybe some 4 fake windows, window framing, something to 5 maybe set it apart from looking just like a 6 block structure or a brick structure. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Point taken. 9 Member Brennan. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: I was just 11 going to state the obvious and ask Ms. 12 McClain, that this is a requirement for the 13 betterment of the City and its residents, I 14 would assume. That's pretty well 15 understood. I was looking for any negative 16 attribute to the design and that was 17 addressed with the above ground/below 18 ground. I'm sorry it doesn't meet the 19 approval of an adjoining neighbor, but it 20 seems that that's the safest way to build 21 this. 22 MEMBER BAUER: I have no 23 problem with it. 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm living 146
1 on the west end; I know we need water out 2 there so. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 4 Member Gray. 5 MEMBER GRAY: Ms. McClain, 6 is there any way that that building could 7 be moved toward West Park a little bit? Is 8 there any way the building could be moved 9 west toward West Park, to get more than 10 two-foot to that property line? 11 I'm really not happy with a 12 two-foot off the property line in any area, 13 and understanding that this may require 14 some kind of fencing or screening at the 15 very least, to make it esthetically 16 compatible, I be more inclined to grant a 17 setback variance from West Park, than I 18 would two-foot off the property line 19 because I think it's a necessary 20 structure. 21 MS. McCLAIN: If I could 22 place this on the overhead, it may help. 23 I'll try to point things out. The 24 structure location is here, and you can see 147
1 this, right in this area, this is a water 2 main that was put in. This was laid in 3 preparation of this. 4 We try to keep the structure 5 of walls away from that loop to keep -- in 6 case there's a break -- structural 7 integrity to the building, in addition to 8 access down to that line if we need to get 9 to it. We try keep that back from there, 10 and that's approximately five-foot up. So 11 moving it over into this area would be -- I 12 could maybe move it a couple of feet, but I 13 wouldn't want to move it more than two, 14 because we still need to be able to get the 15 foundations in. 16 This main was placed back in 17 '99. So it's been there a while. 18 MEMBER GRAY: What can you 19 do to the size of that building and the 20 configuration of that building within that 21 area to move it away from -- keep it away 22 from the loop up there, but move it away 23 from the property line; is there anything 24 you can do with the configuration of that 148
1 building? 2 MS. McCLAIN: I'll take a 3 look at the interior. 4 MR. SAVEN: Madam Chair, we 5 have issues with regard to setbacks also. 6 If this is going to be moved, we're going 7 to have some consequence there. 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have 9 another question. Why can't it run north 10 and south? 11 MS. McCLAIN: That was one 12 of the plans that had been addressed. 13 MR. SAVEN: Could I comment 14 on that? Again, if you run north and 15 south, you're going to be outside the 16 property line and be in the easement area, 17 a dedicated easement area which is north 18 and south. You'll be infringing upon a 19 40-foot setback requirement based upon the 20 size of the building. 21 MR. SCHMITT: Much like Mr. Saven said, 22 when this was designed, a lot of this was 23 done in-house, in-house staff. We did 24 everything we could to try to avoid 149
1 everything. Obviously, the City wants to 2 meet its own ordinances. 3 Given the shape of the 4 building and the amount of property we 5 have, this configuration minimizes the 6 variance needed. You can't shift the 7 building at all to the west or you will 8 infringe on the setback there and add 9 another variance. You can't shift the 10 building to the south at all or it will 11 infringe on that setback. And also 12 shifting it to the south would put it 13 closer to a possible widening of Twelve 14 Mile Road in the future. 15 So this really -- and in 16 going through this, we went through 17 multiple designs on multiple different 18 parcels, in fact, and this was the optimal 19 design for this parcel. I'll defer to Ms. 20 McClain in that. 21 MS. McCLAIN: Looking at 22 the interior plan, we've got some of the 23 minimum clearances, they're shown for a lot 24 for the National Electrical Code. If we 150
1 were to shorten the building, those 2 clearances would be compromised. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: At 4 least it's on the record and I think that's 5 important. That's why I asked the 6 question. 7 Member Gray. 8 MEMBER GRAY: The other 9 thing I wanted to bring up, as I know the 10 City has been planning to keep the 11 boulevard going west to the expressway, so 12 I'm glad to see the right-of-way line in 13 there. The only thing that doesn't make 14 sense to me is the sidewalk that goes 15 nowhere. I realize we have to put it in, 16 you know, but it just doesn't make sense at 17 this point. 18 I don't have a problem with 19 the structure. I realize it's very 20 necessary to help water pressure and I 21 don't have a problem with it. I just 22 wanted to ask the question. Thank you. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 24 there a motion? 151
1 MEMBER GRAY: In the matter 2 of Case 3 03-109, filed by the City of Novi, move to 4 approve the variances requested because it 5 can't be built any other way because of the 6 configuration. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Unique 8 circumstances regarding narrowness/shape of 9 subject property. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 11 there a second? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. 13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It's 14 been moved and approved. Is there any 15 discussion on the motion? Member Canup. 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes and no, 17 not on the motion, but is there going to be 18 a generator for this? 19 MS. McCLAIN: There is 20 shown on the site plan, and it is screened 21 by evergreens and hues. 22 MEMBER CANUP: Is it 23 within -- are there any variances required 24 for that? It doesn't show on the site 152
1 plan. 2 MR. SCHMITT: The only 3 requirement currently for the generator 4 right now is that the applicant is going to 5 provide some sort of noise analysis to show 6 that it will not exceed our noise 7 requirements. We have several other 8 generators and none of them come even 9 close, so we fully expect it to be 10 compliant. 11 MS. McCLAIN: There is a 10 12 by 15-foot concrete patch shown for the 13 generator on the site plan. It's to the 14 north by the -- I've got a close-up in 15 here -- it's right in this area. And it 16 will have additional landscape screening 17 around it. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Does 19 that answer everybody's questions? 20 (There was no further 21 response from the Board.) 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 23 If there's no further discussion, Denise, 24 please call the roll. 153
1 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 2 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 3 MS. ANDERSON: Member 4 Brennan. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 6 MS. ANDERSON: Member 7 Bauer. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 9 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup. 10 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 11 MS. ANDERSON: Member 12 Gronachan. 13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 14 MS. ANDERSON: Motion 15 passes 5 to 0. 16 MS. McCLAIN: Thank you. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank 18 you. 19 CASE NUMBER 03-115 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 21 Case Number 03-115 filed by Fram Building 22 Group for Meadowbrook Townhomes located at 23 the southwest corner of Thirteen Mile Road 24 and Meadowbrook. 154
1 MR. LOVE: Good evening. 2 My name is Dave Love. I'm with Fram 3 Building Group, not an attorney. We're 4 requesting the approval for an additional 5 sign to be -- I'm sorry. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 7 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 8 in Case 03-115? 9 MR. LOVE: Yes, I do. 10 We are requesting approval 11 of an additional ground sign to be placed 12 on the southwest corner of Thirteen Mile 13 and Meadowbrook Road. The development does 14 not have any direct access onto either 15 Thirteen Mile or Meadowbrook, and there is 16 currently one development sign at the 17 corner of Brownstone and Meadowbrook, but 18 we have understood from our salespeople 19 that there are numerous cases of people 20 being unable to find their way into the 21 development as they go back and forth on 22 Thirteen Mile Road. 23 This would be a temporary 24 sign just as we're trying to complete 155
1 selling out of Phase 2 of the development. 2 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 4 Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that 5 wishes to make any comment in regards to 6 this case? 7 (There was no response from 8 the audience.) 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 Seeing none, there were 12 notices sent. 11 No approvals, no objections. 12 Building Department. 13 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Love, how 14 long do you think it's going to take to 15 complete that 16 Phase 2? 17 MR. LOVE: Well, as the 18 previous guy had mentioned, the sales 19 market hasn't been good, but it's 20 improving. I would think if we wanted to 21 put or if you chose to put a 12-month time 22 frame on it, that we would hope to be done 23 by that time. 24 MR. SAVEN: It's up to the 156
1 board. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 3 Board members. 4 You know, it's awful busy 5 out there when they drive around. There's 6 an awful lot going on out there. There's a 7 lot of construction. 8 MEMBER BAUER: There is. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: And 10 I'm not a big fan of signs either, but 11 really, you can get lost out there trying 12 to find this. 13 MR. LOVE: I believe the 14 real issue, the real problem becomes is 15 that there are no direct turnings off of 16 either of the major roads there. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 18 Board members? Member Bauer. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Can you bring 20 it down some? 7 feet 4 inches. You got 21 two feet in between and you got three feet 22 in the ground. 23 MR. LOVE: It's the same 24 size as the sign right next to it. It's 157
1 virtually the same size. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Who's got a 3 sign right next to it? 4 MR. LOVE: Singh does, 5 Tollgate. They're virtually side by each. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 7 Member Gray. 8 MEMBER GRAY: I have a 9 problem with the number of signs and the 10 size of the signs, but I also want this 11 thing to get built and get done and get the 12 construction out of there. So I'm not real 13 happy with the same size sign -- I presume 14 Singh's sign is going to be coming down a 15 little sooner than this one is, and I don't 16 have a problem with a year on this one. 17 Get it done. I drive by it every single 18 day and I'd like the project to get done. 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 20 Member Canup. MEMBER CANUP: 21 If you look at the sign that they've got 22 there, it's 88 inches in height, and part 23 of it could be trimmed down in height if 24 they took the Fram off the top, and if you 158
1 were looking for directions to Meadowbrook 2 Homes, and Fram could be eliminated other 3 than -- you just want to have name 4 recognition; right? Your main objective is 5 to get people to pay attention to 6 Meadowbrook Townhouses. 7 MR. LOVE: To provide 8 direction, but again, it's the same height 9 as the Singh sign next to it. 10 MEMBER CANUP: Madam Chair? 11 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 13 Member Canup. MEMBER CANUP: 14 I would make a motion at this time if 15 that's acceptable to you. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It 17 is. Can I ask the petitioner a question 18 first. 19 MEMBER CANUP: Well, 20 certainly. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 22 mean it took you all night to get to that 23 motion thing. 24 That first sign that you 159
1 have, you already have existing? 2 MR. LOVE: There is a sign 3 at the corner of Brownstone and 4 Meadowbrook. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 6 that for the first part of the 7 construction? 8 MR. LOVE: Yes. Just our 9 one permit -- that was the one permitted 10 development sign. 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: What 12 about moving that or relocating that? 13 MR. LOVE: That sign at 14 this time doesn't have any directions on 15 it. The hope was if people found that 16 corner, that they could find their way into 17 the development. And we just heard from 18 our sales office they have people calling 19 back and not being able, for whatever 20 reason, to find their way in from the 21 corner over there. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 23 Okay. I needed to ask that question. 24 MEMBER BAUER: So really, 160
1 when you get through with the first section 2 of the buildings, you won't need that 3 anymore? 4 MR. LOVE: I think that 5 there's maybe 40 out of the 175 units yet 6 to be sold. The Singh sign will be there a 7 lot longer if they're permitted to have it 8 until they build out. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: That first 10 sign has a clock ticking on it anyway, 11 doesn't it? 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 13 Right -- 14 no. 15 MEMBER GRAY: What about 16 the sign at the corner of Hemmingway and 17 Thirteen Mile? 18 MR. LOVE: I don't believe 19 that's a Meadowbrook sign. That's also a 20 Singh sign. 21 MR. SAVEN: It is now. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 23 Member Canup. Your first motion and we 24 keep interrupting, I'm sorry. 161
1 MEMBER CANUP: If it's 2 acceptable, I would make a motion that in 3 Case Number 03-115, filed by Fram Building 4 Group, that we grant the variance as 5 requested with the restriction that the 6 total height not to exceed 100 inches, and 7 24 inches above grade, with the top Fram to 8 be removed. 9 MEMBER GRAY: Second. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It's 11 been moved and seconded. Any further 12 discussion on the motion? 13 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. I would 14 amend that to limit it to one year and I 15 guess I would want to have the sign that we 16 have been presented, to be entered as 17 Exhibit A. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 20 Moved and approved, as well as amended. Is 21 there any further discussion? 22 (There was no further 23 discussion from the board.) 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 162
1 Denise, would you please call the roll. 2 MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup. 3 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 4 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 5 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 6 MS. ANDERSON: Member 7 Bauer. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 9 MS. ANDERSON: Member 10 Brennan. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 12 MS. ANDERSON: Member 13 Gronachan. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 MS. ANDERSON: Motion 16 passes 5 to 0. 17 MR. LOVE: Thank you. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: You 19 need to see the Building Department. Thank 20 you. 21 CASE NUMBER 03-116 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 23 Calling our next case, 03-116 filed by 24 Northstar Signs for Meadowbrook Corporate 163
1 Park. Are they here? 2 MR. BOOK: Yes. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Come 4 on down. 5 MR. BOOK: Good evening. 6 My name is Randy Book. I'm with Cushman 7 Wakefield. I am the agent for Burton 8 Cassman, which is the developer on this 9 site. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Would 11 you both like to raise your hand and be 12 sworn in. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 14 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 15 regarding Case 03-116? MR. 16 BOOK: I do, sir. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Go 19 ahead. 20 MR. BOOK: We're here 21 tonight because there is a sign that's up 22 in violation of an ordinance of the City of 23 Novi. My name is Randy Book once again. I 24 represent Burton Cassman. It was my 164
1 understanding that when we put the sign up 2 that there was two developments. Peter 3 Burton represents approximately, let's just 4 say, 28 acres. 5 I thought that there were two separate 6 pieces of property. When we found out it 7 was only under one serial number, we found 8 out through you after we put the sign up 9 that we were in violation of doing that. 10 Since that time, we've spent 11 $1,000, which isn't the end of the world, 12 but we put a sign up that's in violation of 13 your City, and we're here that if it's 14 possible that we can keep the sign up. And 15 I guess, if there's any hardship, it's 16 because we didn't evaluate far enough to 17 this, and I have had another sign up on 18 this property with Work Stage, and I 19 understand it was smaller and I was not 20 aware of that until tonight. It's more of 21 a commercial area, it's not a residential 22 area. And we're here just to ask to see if 23 it's possible that you would consider 24 allowing us to keep the sign up. I'm just 165
1 being honest and up front -- and tired. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 3 there anyone in the audience who wishes to 4 make a comment with regards to this case? 5 (There was no response from 6 the audience.) 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Seeing none, Building Department. 9 MR. SAVEN: Only that the 10 real estate sign requirements is at 11 16-foot, and you're asking for a 44-square 12 foot variance, and this is on vacant 13 property. 14 MR. BOOK: Yes, sir. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 16 There were ten notices mailed. No 17 approvals, no objections. Board members. 18 Member Brennan. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, 20 first of all, it's not a variance of eight 21 feet. That sign is higher than 13 feet as 22 we calculate. So I would guess that sign, 23 going to the top of the TK is probably 24 another foot plus. So we're looking at a 166
1 sign that's over 14 feet in the air. 2 There's another sign -- I could swear it 3 was identical to this sign, within about 40 4 yards. And I don't know why we need two 5 signs within 15 seconds of traveling up 6 Meadowbrook. 7 MR. BOOK: Can I speak just 8 for a minute? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think the 10 board is in session right now. 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: You 12 need to wait for the board to finish. 13 MR. BOOK: Sure. Fine. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 15 Member Bauer. 16 MEMBER BAUER: The sign is 17 too high. It's got to come down, and I'll 18 just ask you a question and you can answer 19 it. Why would you have two signs on the 20 same road within that short distance? 21 MR. BOOK: As you're aware, 22 and maybe not Novi as much as a lot of 23 other communities, there's an urgency for 24 when a developer owns a piece of property 167
1 to motivate brokers to try to develop one 2 side or another. So what Mr. Burton has 3 done with this development, he has split 4 one sign for Cushman Wakefield, and the 5 other side for Colliers, which is a 6 competitor of mine. So the reason that 7 there is two signs is because one is for 8 Cushman Wakefield to be proactive to 9 attempt to get individuals to build on that 10 side, and then the Colliers to be on the 11 other. And Colliers does already currently 12 have some existing buildings on its side. 13 MEMBER BAUER: And it's 14 called Meadowbrook Corporate Park. 15 MR. BOOK: 1 and 2, yes sir. 16 17 MEMBER BAUER: The same 18 location as far as we're concerned. 19 MR. BOOK: Yes, sir. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 21 Member Gray. 22 MEMBER GRAY: I think it's 23 too tall too. I think it needs to come 24 down. 168
1 MR. ESP: May I say 2 something? 3 I'm Rodney Esp (phonetic) with Northstar 4 Signs. We actually constructed and erected 5 the sign. This, the other sign that Mr. 6 Brennan was speaking of, I believe the 7 permit on that sign expires on 8 February 9, unless I'm mistaken. So that 9 sign will be coming down and probably what 10 will happen is that sign will be converted 11 to the 16-square foot real estate sign, in 12 which case as the development continues, 13 this development sign would, you know, 14 would then be the only one out there 15 representing the development itself. 16 We can easily enough lower 17 that sign. We can have that done within a 18 couple of days without a problem. But I do 19 believe this other one is going to come 20 down February 9 or somewhere thereabouts. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: How sure 22 are you of that? 23 MR. BURTON: I spoke with 24 Alan with the Building Department, and it 169
1 was he who informed me that that permit was 2 under a variance. In fact they had an 3 extension on that, and that was due to 4 expire on the 9th. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam 6 Chair, with those comments, that took care 7 of a couple of problems that I had. If 8 we're only going to live with the two signs 9 for another 30 days, 40 days, and get a 10 permanent real estate sign, and if the 11 petitioner can knock that down- 12 What do you think you can do 13 with respect to height on that? Take out 14 some of -- three-foot, take it down to a 15 foot, take two-foot out of that height? Is 16 that most easily accomplished? Were those 17 four-by-four posts? 18 MR. ESP: Four-by-six 19 posts. We can actually cut the tops of 20 those posts off two or three feet, whatever 21 you require and just bring the rest of it 22 down. 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Can you 24 take three feet out of it? 170
1 MR. ESP: If we did that, 2 it would pretty much be sitting on the 3 ground. 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. 5 That's right on Meadowbrook. I mean that's 6 20 feet off the road. 7 MR. ESP: If you want it 8 down three feet, we'll do it. That's fine 9 with me. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Do we want 11 some clearance under the sign? 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 13 think so. 14 MEMBER GRAY: A little bit. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Why don't 16 you take two-foot off of that height. And 17 if you're agreeable to that, I'll make a 18 motion. 19 MR. SAVEN: I had a question 20 here, just one of clarity. You've 21 indicated that the previous sign belongs to 22 your competitor? 23 MR. BOOK: That is correct, 24 sir. 171
1 MR. SAVEN: That's the sign 2 that is going to turn over to 16-square 3 foot, and you know that- 4 MR. BOOK: I did not 5 indicate that. This gentleman here did. 6 MR. ESP: Actually, it was 7 Alan at in the Building Department that 8 informed me that that sign was going to 9 expire. That was already extended and 10 under a variance to be extended until the 11 9th. 12 So naturally, when that permit expires, 13 that sign is going to have to come down. I 14 would assume the next logical step would be 15 to replace that. I would think that 16 Colliers and Mr. Burton would want to 17 replace that with a standard 16-foot real 18 estate sign or nothing at all. 19 20 MR. SAVEN: I'm just 21 bringing that up. This is a competitor's 22 sign and his control over the competitor's 23 sign, I don't believe is there; is that 24 correct? 172
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. But in 2 fact if indeed it is true that that sign 3 runs out 4 February 9, they either have to come back 5 for an extension, which I won't grant, or 6 they'll come back for a sign something 7 different. 8 MR. SAVEN: Just want that 9 -- 10 that's an observation. 11 MR. SCHULTZ: Madam Chair, 12 certainly we have no problem with the 13 board -- it looks like this is going to be 14 granted -- conditioning that approval based 15 on confirmation of that representation. If 16 it turns out not to be true, he may be back 17 here at a later date. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19 Right. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Should I 21 try it? CHAIRWOMAN 22 GRONACHAN: Go ahead. 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: In Case 24 Number 03-116, I would move the 173
1 petitioner's request for approval be 2 granted. There is going to be a 3 modification in the height of the sign, 4 take two feet out and make it two feet 5 shorter than it is currently, and this is 6 all granted under the conditions that the 7 other advertising sign ends its stay early 8 February, and conditioned on that. 9 MEMBER GRAY: Second. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 11 Motion is seconded. Is there any further 12 discussion? 13 Mr. Schultz. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a 15 confirmation because Mr. Saven is already 16 shaking his head. We're not requiring that 17 the other sign- 18 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) 19 Just confirming. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Just 21 confirming that the information told here 22 tonight was correct. Okay. We're not 23 dealing with anybody else's sign. 24 MEMBER GRAY: Do we 174
1 typically notify people with signs that 2 their permit is about to expire? 3 MR. SAVEN: Mr. Amulsh 4 (phonetic) will. He has a pretty good 5 control on that. 6 MEMBER GRAY: Okay. That 7 answers that. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 9 there any further discussion? 10 (There was no further 11 discussion from the board.) 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 13 Seeing none, Denise, please call the roll. 14 MS. ANDERSON: Member 15 Brennan. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 17 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Member 20 Bauer. 21 MEMBER BAUER: No. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Member 23 Canup. 24 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 175
1 MS. ANDERSON: Member 2 Gronachan. CHAIRWOMAN 3 GRONACHAN: Yes. 4 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes 5 4 to 1. 6 MR. BOOK: Thank you very 7 much. CHAIRWOMAN 8 GRONACHAN: Thank you. 9 CASE NUMBER 03-117 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We'll 11 call our last case this evening. 03-117, 12 Tassos Epicurean Cuisine at 25715 13 Meadowbrook Road. They're requesting five 14 variances for the installation of a 13,000 15 gallon liquid nitrogen tank in the rear of 16 the building located at that address. 17 Your name, sir? 18 MR. BOZADZIS: My name is 19 Tom Bozadzis. Anastasios Bozadzis. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 21 solemnly swear to tell the truth regarding 22 Case 03-117? 23 MR. BOZADZIS: Yes, I do. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Keep 176
1 in mind we have your information before us. 2 We have reviewed your packet. If you would 3 basically highlight the issue, we would 4 appreciate it. 5 MR. BOZADZIS: What I 6 wanted to maybe bring to your attention 7 tonight is the installation of a 13,000 8 gallon liquid nitrogen tank. And this is 9 actually due to the requirements that were 10 sent to us, to our industry, from the 11 federal government and state government. 12 And this is actually to bring the 13 temperature of cooked foods down to safe 14 temperatures of below 40 degrees in a 15 matter of four hours. 16 With the production 17 requirements that we have right now, this 18 is impossible with the equipment that we 19 now have. We have to have a refrigerant, 20 safe refrigerant, to achieve this goal. 21 And nitrogen actually is the only 22 refrigerant available in the industry to do 23 this kind of work. That is a major 24 hardship actually to us. If it will not be 177
1 allowed, for the very simple reason we will 2 not be able to meet the requirements of the 3 federal government or state government. On 4 the other hand, we won't be able to meet to 5 extend actually our business and meet the 6 demand of the customers that we now have. 7 And the third one, actually we have to 8 possibly leave the City and go somewhere 9 else because it will be very detrimental to 10 our business, and to the business in 11 general. This is the main actual request. 12 Now as far as the variances, 13 the other variances as far as esthetics and 14 as far as safety, we can actually discuss 15 with you and find some amicable solution. 16 As far as the technical 17 questions, we do have representatives from 18 the BOC Gases who actually can give you any 19 information you may need. As far as the 20 variances for our part of the business, is 21 really we need to go that way in order to 22 progress and expand our business and 23 industry. This year we hired -- last year, 24 excuse me -- we hired 25 people for our 178
1 business, and we hope to hire even more 2 this year, you know, for -- if we have the 3 opportunity to do our job. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 5 Okay. Anything else? 6 MR. BOZADZIS: That's all. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Thank you. 9 Is there anyone in the 10 audience that wishes to make any comments 11 in regards to this case? 12 Yes, sir. Come on down, please. 13 MR. NONAR: Good evening. 14 My name is Dave Nonar (phonetic). I'm with 15 Triangle Development, and we are the 16 developer's and builders for the nearby 17 Gateway Village of Novi development. This 18 property, the subject property is just to 19 the south of Gateway Village, and the tank 20 at 39 feet would definitely be visible from 21 the condominium development. 22 We recognize that the 23 subject property is industrial and that the 24 petitioner has a right to have a tank to 179
1 operate, but we think, we believe that the 2 tank at 39 feet would be very tall, and 3 that maybe something otherwise can be done 4 to accomplish the same objective. For 5 example, maybe two or three smaller tanks 6 can be used so that the tanks would not be 7 higher than the building. And definitely, 8 the tanks should be fenced, protected with 9 a fence, you know, that's masonry. I 10 understand there are some concerns about 11 ventilation. Some ventilation can be 12 provided in the fence wall. Another 13 possibility would be maybe to move the tank 14 to the north side of the building, where it 15 would be less visible from the condominium 16 development. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 18 Thank you. 19 Anyone else? 20 MR. COSTELLO: Hi. My name 21 is 22 Frank Costello. I'm a current residence at 23 Gateway Village, and just from my 24 perspective, I bought into the condos 180
1 knowing that it's an industrial area, but 2 not planning on seeing a tower out of my 3 window. Mr. Nonar kind of summed up some 4 of my ideas. Having some smaller tanks, I 5 don't know if it's possible to have three 6 tanks, four tanks, whatever it takes, in 7 smaller sizes, screened in. Currently out 8 of my window, yes, I can see the Soccer 9 Zone, I can see the industrial buildings, 10 but there are fences that protect against 11 that, so you're not blinded by or focused 12 on a tank outside the window. 13 Currently right now, the way the 14 buildings are situated, you'd be able to 15 see that tower from just about anywhere in 16 that project, not just my unit. And 17 knowing now that the buildings are situated 18 mainly on the west end of the project. As 19 that begins to build towards the east end 20 of the project, it's going to be even more 21 noticeable, probably detrimental to the 22 project itself. That's all I have. Thank 23 you. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 181
1 Thank you. Is there anyone else? 2 (There was no further 3 response from the audience.) 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 5 Seeing none, there were 11 notices mailed. 6 Zero approvals, two objections. One is 7 from Mark J. Hall, partner at DIBO 8 Meadowbrook, L.L.C.: Outside storage is 9 not allowed, to keep the surrounding area 10 visibly appealing and consistent with the 11 neighborhood businesses. A 39-foot silo 12 storage tank would most definitely decrease 13 the value of our building immediately. We 14 strive hard to follow all City of Novi 15 ordinances at great effort and expense. 16 The request of an outside storage tank this 17 tall, and not screened, is totally 18 unacceptable. 19 And I'm sorry, I do not have 20 the other objection in this packet. 21 MR. SAVEN: See the Fire 22 Department CHAIRWOMAN 23 GRONACHAN: We have the objection from the 24 Fire Department. The Novi Fire Department 182
1 has reviewed the proposed installation of 2 the above ground nitrogen tank. This 3 project does not conform to the City of 4 Novi Code of Ordinances, specifically 5 Sections 1905, Outdoor Storage, storage 6 tank exceeds the 600 gallon capacity. 7 Screening material, setback requirements, 8 health and fire considerations. If the 9 material is released in high 10 concentrations, it is a simple asphyxiant. 11 Contact at low concentrations will cause 12 frostbite. Exposed to fire may cause the 13 tank to rupture violently and rocket. Also 14 note the building site is located next to 15 Soccer Zone and Gateway Village apartments. 16 Based on the plans submitted, the Novi Fire 17 Department formally denies the installation 18 of the proposed tanks. 19 Building Department 20 21 MR. SAVEN: I just have a 22 question. Is it absolutely necessary that 23 you have a 13,000 gallon tank? 24 MR. BOZADZIS: For reasons 183
1 of economics, transporting the liquid 2 nitrogen from the supplier to our site, 3 yes, it is, as far as I know. I think the 4 need to transport a truckload of nitrogen 5 to the site instead of coming let's say two 6 or three times a week of doing that, is a 7 matter of economics and nothing else. 8 MR. SAVEN: Is this part of 9 an expansion, are you talking about, of 10 your business? 11 MR. BOZADZIS: Actually, it 12 is not an expansion -- it's two-fold. It's 13 an expansion and at the same time, it's a 14 requirement for the federal and state 15 governments to meet the requirements of 16 what needs to bring the temperature of 17 foods down to- 18 MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) 19 Well, what do you do now? 20 MR. BOZADZIS: What I do 21 now with the amount of work that I have 22 now, I do have actually a working cooler 23 which actually I put food in there to come 24 down in temperature, you know, to 40 184
1 degrees before they be packaged. With the 2 orders that I now get for the expansion of 3 the business, I cannot do that with the 4 present equipment that I have. 5 Particularly in the summertime, it's 6 impossible, because to put 50 and 40,000 7 pounds of cooked potato in a cooler 30 by 8 20, really the temperature increases so 9 fast, we're not doing justice to that. 10 We can not possibly meet the 11 requirements of the federal and the state 12 government. This is the most important 13 criteria that we need, the installation of 14 the tank. Nothing else. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 16 Board members. Member Brennan. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'm 18 sorry to have to tell the applicant this, 19 but in seven years, I've never gotten a 20 letter like this from the 21 Fire Department. This is a formal denial 22 of the Fire Department, and either you find 23 a different way of doing this, or you might 24 have to consider moving. But I can't 185
1 approve any of your variance requests. 2 MR. BOZADZIS: But how does 3 the 4 Fire Department find this- 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: You 6 need to hang on a second. Let the board 7 talk right now. 8 MR. BOZADZIS: I'm sorry. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 Member Gray. MEMBER GRAY: 11 Tom, is there any other area of the city 12 where something like this would be allowed 13 in any other industrial area? This is 14 light industrial. 15 MR. SCHULTZ: That's 16 actually better answered probably by the 17 Planning Department. 18 MR. SCHMITT: From our 19 perspective, any I-2 district it would be 20 permitted throughout the City, and in terms 21 of I-1, if we were looking to do a variance 22 in I-1, we'd probably try to put it more 23 towards an industrial park, a formal park. 24 But in I-2, it would be permitted if it's 186
1 not adjacent to residential. 2 MEMBER GRAY: Okay, and 3 then if it is permitted, then the 600 4 gallon capacity applies? 5 MR. SCHMITT: What happens 6 is that in the I-1 district, the specific 7 requirement is that it be no more than 600 8 gallons. Once you kick into I-2 district, 9 outdoor storage is allowed as long as it's 10 screened at the perimeter of the property. 11 It doesn't have to be screened directly 12 adjacent, so you could put it in the center 13 of the property and put a six to ten-foot 14 berm on the edge. I mean, it could be done 15 in I-2. 16 MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. 17 It's been mentioned that you could possibly 18 substitute two or three smaller tanks for 19 the one large one. I understand the supply 20 economics of buying in bulk, but if you 21 did something with smaller tanks, and I 22 realize it's not what we advertised, but 23 would that be a logical- 24 MR. BOZADZIS: Would that 187
1 be acceptable? 2 MEMBER GRAY: Acceptable. 3 MR. BOZADZIS: I was 4 using -- I was saving the parking spaces, 5 you know, for the expansion, but yeah, we 6 can do that, yes. 7 MEMBER GRAY: Because I 8 wanted to find out if there's any other 9 place in the City that you could do this, 10 because your business is valuable to the 11 City. But we also have residential to 12 protect, as well as the Fire Department 13 just saying unh-unh. So I wanted to bring 14 that up so that you have a couple of 15 different alternatives. But since the Fire 16 Department has denied it, my hands or tied. 17 I don't want to- 18 MR. BOZADZIS: I have 19 training in the Fire Department. I'm a 20 chemical engineer, and I was working in a 21 refinery, and I don't see actually the 22 report for the Fire Department to have any 23 stand, actually. Based on what? I don't 24 understand. There is actually- 188
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 2 (Interposing) Sir, excuse me. We need to 3 continue with the board at this point, we 4 have board members discussing this. Okay. 5 Member Canup. 6 MEMBER CANUP: Would it be 7 possible that you bought a tanker truck and 8 picked your nitrogen up -- where does it 9 come from; does it come out of Detroit? 10 MR. DEBOSKEY: I'm Adam 11 Deboskey. There's a couple of different 12 locations. It ranges anywhere from down in 13 Toledo to down in South Bend, Indiana. 14 MEMBER CANUP: My thought 15 was to get a tanker truck and work out of 16 the tanker truck rather than building a 17 silo. Is that something that's possible; 18 is that something the ordinances would 19 prohibit? 20 MR. SAVEN: I think you'd 21 have to, again, consult with the Fire 22 Department, but based upon the capacity of 23 that tanker truck, it may be increased- 24 MEMBER CANUP: (Interposing) 189
1 I'm trying to keep this guy on business 2 MR. SAVEN: I 3 understand that, Brent, but one of the 4 things that I'm looking at is the fact 5 we're talking about three tanks, if we're 6 leaning if that direction because of what 7 was mentioned earlier on. Those issues are 8 involving parking related issues, which has 9 now become more of a planning issue. 10 That's one of the things we have to stay in 11 focus on with what we're dealing with here. 12 13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 14 Member Brennan. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: As I 16 pulled out of Ray's Lighting with a red 17 face and pulled into this establishment's 18 back yard, there's not a lot of room back 19 there. And I don't care whether you got 20 one big one or four or five little ones, 21 13,000 gallons is 13,000 gallons. This 22 petitioner needs to go talk to Assistant 23 Chief Jeff Johnson, and see if they can 24 come up with something to resolve it. 190
1 I'll say it again, I will 2 not support this as presented tonight. The 3 petitioner has the option of asking for 4 delay so he can seek some advice from the 5 Fire Department. As it's presented 6 tonight, I won't approve it. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Member Bauer. MEMBER BAUER: 9 The gentleman has said that he has been 10 able to keep the food below 40 degrees, or 11 whatever it was necessary, but with the 12 expansion he's going to have a problem. He 13 can have no problem if he gets more 14 equipment, not more tanks. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 16 think that -- Member Canup, go ahead. 17 MEMBER CANUP: If I 18 understand correctly, if he in an I-2 19 district, this wouldn't be an issue. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 21 Exactly. 22 MEMBER CANUP: Is that 23 correct? Nitrogen is nitrogen, whether 24 it's in an I-2 district or an I-1 district. 191
1 2 MR. SCHMITT: It could be 3 an issue in relation to a site plan. It 4 would not be an issue as far as- 5 MEMBER CANUP: (Interposing) 6 Gallons. 7 MR. SCHMITT: Gallons. 8 MEMBER CANUP: Volume. 9 MR. SCHMITT: In terms of 10 that, no. It would be more we could work 11 out the site planning 12 Issues, setback for the building, screen it 13 properly. You know, stuff getting this 14 tall, obviously you're getting close to the 15 height restrictions. It would be easier to 16 work out in terms of site plan related 17 items. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 19 agree with several members of the board, 20 and I think that this needs to go back to 21 the drawing table. I think more homework 22 needs to be done. 23 When we're sitting at this 24 table, we have the future of this City in 192
1 our hand, basically, and one of those 2 things we look at is the health, safety and 3 welfare. When we get a letter of this 4 magnitude and this concern from the Fire 5 Department telling us they're not 6 supporting it, they are one of the experts 7 that we look at as ZBA members, that we use 8 as our guidance. So in good conscious, we 9 cannot make a -- I don't want to see you go 10 out of business anymore than Mr. Canup, Mr. 11 Brennan, or any of these members at the 12 table. We have a City to protect, and 13 until that gets resolved, we can't look 14 forward. 15 And so as Mr. Brennan 16 suggested, I think you need to maybe 17 perhaps meet with the 18 Fire Department, see what other 19 alternatives there are, and go back to the 20 drawing board and see what else can be 21 done. But the way this stands now, there 22 isn't a board member at the table, I don't 23 think, that can support this request, and 24 for things that were clearly stated 193
1 throughout the discussion. 2 MR. BOZADZIS: May I answer 3 a couple information questions. 4 The reason for the 5 installation of the nitrogen tank is to 6 operate equipment, spiral freezer, which 7 actually would do the work. That's what we 8 need the nitrogen for, nothing else. 9 Simply to utilize it for equipment, to run 10 equipment, to keep the temperature down. 11 And that is actually a large piece of 12 equipment, that's why it needs nitrogen to 13 operate. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We 15 understand why you need it. You just need 16 to look at if there's a better way to get 17 it there. So my suggestion is, would you 18 like to do some homework and perhaps table 19 this until next month, or for us to deny it 20 this evening and go back all the way to the 21 drawing table, but it's going to be your 22 call at this point. What would you like to 23 do? 24 MR. BOZADZIS: We'll do 194
1 some homework and contact the Fire 2 Department. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: So 4 it's your request to table it until next 5 month? 6 MR. BOZADZIS: Yes. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Just a 8 recommendation. I'd take BOC along with 9 you. 10 MR. DEBOSKEY: Just one 11 quick question. We definitely appreciate 12 your wisdom. I definitely appreciate that 13 you guys are going to go with the Fire 14 Department, based on a letter like this. 15 Background: We install about 16 a tank a day of these cryogenic vessels, 17 and to date, nitrogen, especially, we've 18 had no safety issues outside. The safety 19 issues are caused by nitrogen in the 20 confined spaces inside the building. 21 So we have to get these 22 people and go and talk to the Fire 23 Department. If we can get the Fire 24 Department to bless this, what other items 195
1 will you want to see addressed so that the 2 next time we come to you, we will have done 3 our homework and we can give you a nice 4 clean something that you would feel good 5 about. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Height. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Yeah, it's too high. 9 MR. DEBOSKEY: Like how high 10 is too high? 11 MEMBER BAUER: How low can 12 you get it? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Right now, 14 there's no outdoor storage allowed, period. 15 You heard another case where your neighbor 16 next door was denied completely. So, 17 that's where you start. 18 Do you have this letter, by 19 the way, from the Fire Department? 20 MR. BOZADZIS: Yes, we do. 21 MR. DEBOSKEY: So lower 22 than -- like around the height of the 23 building, within four or five feet of the 24 height of the building? 196
1 MEMBER BAUER: Below the 2 height of the building. 3 MR. DEBOSKEY: I don't mean 4 to nit-pick, but we want to tell you we've 5 done our homework. So if you give us a 6 list of to-dos we can do our homework and 7 we can come back with it. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: I was just 9 going to suggest that the conversation 10 might be better had through the Planning 11 Department or the Building Department, in 12 part because I can certainly appreciate the 13 reaction to the Fire Department's letter, 14 but they are looking at a different 15 ordinance than you are looking at. They're 16 looking at the fire code, you're looking at 17 the three variances, for height, for 18 screening, and then the outdoor storage, 19 which really sort of starts to fall into 20 the Fire Department's area. 21 So he's really got two 22 paths. He's got to go to the Fire 23 Department, he's got to come to Mr. Saven 24 and Mr. Schmitt, and rethink this, because 197
1 I think he's gotten a pretty good feel from 2 this board. 3 MR. SAVEN: I think he's 4 got three tasks, Madam Chair, to talk to 5 the people there. That's going to be 6 important to you. Thank you. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 8 Is there a motion? 9 MEMBER BAUER: Table until 10 next month. 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: So 12 we're going to table this until next 13 month. All in favor say aye. 14 ALL MEMBERS: Aye. 15 MEMBER BAUER: And please 16 go to the Building Department and Fire 17 Department and those people back there. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19 We'll see in February. 20 CASE NUMBER 03-112 (Continued) 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: You can 22 call it, but I don't believe they're here, 23 so I'll make a motion with respect to Case 24 03-112, filed by Stone City for denial, for 198
1 lack of showing up. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It's 4 been moved and approved that Case Number 5 03-112 be denied for lack of appearance? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Denise, please call the roll. 9 MS. ANDERSON: Member 10 Brennan. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 12 MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 MS. ANDERSON: Member 15 Canup. 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 17 MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Member 20 Gronachan. CHAIRWOMAN 21 GRONACHAN: Yes. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes 23 5 to 0. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Any 199
1 further matters? 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes, 3 ma'am. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 5 Member Brennan. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: The 7 November meeting we moved to deny the 8 extension of the West Market Square sign at 9 Beck Road and Grand River. It's still up. 10 MR. SAVEN: We will notify 11 Neighborhood Services. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: I called 13 them already. I called them two weeks ago. 14 15 MR. SAVEN: There might be 16 some action on it. 17 MEMBER GRAY: It's still up 18 and we moved to have it taken down. 19 MR. SAVEN: We'll Just 20 follow-up on that. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 22 Anything else? 23 MS. MARCHONI: My last words 24 on the Zoning Board of Appeals. 200
1 Meadowbrook Corporate Park did receive a 2 variance on February 4, 2003, so that will 3 be set to expire on February 4. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 5 (Unintelligible). 6 MS. MARCHONI: Yes. He will 7 send out a letter on the date of -- I 8 believe it expires. They have ten days to 9 either apply for a variance or to remove 10 the sign. 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 12 Anything else? 13 MR. SAVEN: This is this 14 young lady's last time with us. Again. 15 There's no more gift packets. 16 And I'd just like to commend 17 you on Vernon's memorial. It was really 18 nice. Thank you. This gentleman has 19 really been just super for all the years 20 that we've been on this board, and my name 21 will never change with him. My name was 22 always 23 Mr. SaVon. I always knew he was around. 24 Anyhow, thank you. 201
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 2 Well, I meant it when I said he will be 3 missed because those of us who had the 4 opportunity to work with him carry that 5 little piece of Vern with us wherever we 6 go, and that was a real honor to be able to 7 serve on this board with him. So I guess 8 that's -- there's not a lot of benefits 9 doing this, they say you give back to the 10 community, but that was one of the big 11 benefits, what we got back from Vern. 12 We'll miss him wholeheartedly. 13 If there's nothing else, I 14 will adjourn this meeting until next month 15 which is I February 2004. 16 (Following was a discussion 17 of those members who would 18 not be available for the 19 next meeting.) 20 (The Zoning Board of Appeals 21 was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.) 22 23 24 202
1 I, MAUREEN A. HARAN, do 2 hereby certify that I have recorded 3 stenographically, the proceedings had and 4 the testimony taken in the above-entitled 5 matter, at the time and place hereinbefore 6 set forth; and I do further certify that 7 the foregoing transcript, consisting of 8 one hundred sixty-nine (169) pages, is a 9 full, true and correct transcript of my 10 stenographic notes. 11 12 13 ____________________________________ 14 Maureen A. Haran, C.S.R. 3606 15 16 17 _________________ 18 (Date) 19 20 21 22 23 24 203
|