| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting CITY OF NOVI The NOVI ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS taken before me, Darlene K. May, CSR-6479, a Notary Public, within and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, March 2, 2004. PRESENT: Members: ALSO PRESENT: Donald Saven, Building Official; Denise Anderson, Recording Secretary; Thomas R. Schultz, City Attorney, ABSENT: Member Brent Canup Novi, Michigan CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: At this time I would like to call the March 2004 Zoning Board of Appeals to order. Denise, will you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. MS. ANDERSON: Member Canup is absent and excused. Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Present. MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. MS. ANDERSON: And Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Here. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: The zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing board empowered by the
Novi City charter to hear appeals seeking variances from the application of the Novi Zoning Ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four members to approve the variance request and a vote of the majority of the members present to deny variance. We do have a full board this evening and since five members are present tonight it will take at least four votes required. Those petitioners need to know that a full board's decision is final this evening. Are there any changes in the agenda this evening? MS. ANDERSON: Yes. The first case number 02-107 is moved to the 6th meeting because of scheduling conflicts with tonight's meeting. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I would like to add under other matters item three for a very, very brief discussion of Meadowbrook townhomes. That's it. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anything else? MR. SAVEN: Madame Chair, if I may, I'd like to add item number four is an item for the next board meeting to remind board members that it is
time for election at that time so you may want to think about your -- the respective candidates. Also, we have received an objection for case number 04-011 which came in at approximately 5:00 today. I know that it's not in your packet but it is in the chairperson's packet in regards to an objection. It's been policy in the past that we needed to have these things available before three o'clock on the day of the meeting. So I just want you to be aware of that. It's to your discretion what you wish to do with that. Also, there was also in the file a brochure pamphlet that was laid on the table for a case which we're dealing with, a ZBA Case number 04 dash 013 involving 1947 West Lake Drive. This was a packet that was requested to be submitted to you as the gentleman had indicated he wanted to be sure that he covered everything. He was a little unsure of his presentation. So he wanted to be sure this was done. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you, Mr. Saven. Anybody else? All those in favor say, "Aye." MEMBER BAUER: Aye.
MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. MEMBER GRAY: Aye. MEMBER SANGHVI: Aye. MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All opposed? None. At this time I would like to ask if there are any remarks in the audience, you may. Anyone in the audience? All comments related to a case that are not on the agenda this evening, if there is anyone in the audience that wishes to make a comment in regards to an item that is not in front of the board this evening can do so now. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make a comment to the board? Seeing none, before we call our first case I would like to at this time welcome back a member to our board, Dr. Sanghvi. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: He took a little sabbatical and we're very pleased to have him back. Welcome. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. I'm delighted to be back.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And since Mr. Canup is not here Mr. Sanghvi will be an active alternate. MEMBER FISCHER: I'm the alternate. He's the preliminary. So I'll be the active. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You'll be the active and he'll be the alternate. You can be the permanent. Justin is going to be the alternate. In regards to the minutes we had the January 2004 minutes. Are there any changes to the minutes? MEMBER BAUER: Move for approval. MEMBER FISCHER: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All those in favor say "Aye". MEMBER BAUER: Aye. MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. MEMBER GRAY: Aye. MEMBER SANGHVI: Aye. MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All opposed? None. Minutes of January 2004 are approved.
Case No. 03-111 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: So let's call our first case, 03-111, filed by Amen Korean United Methodist Church at 41671 W. Ten Mile. This case was tabled from our January 6th, 2004. They're requesting to get a full board present in order to be heard. I believe everyone had been sworn in before. Is that correct or do we have some new members in front of us this evening? MR. SMITH: I have not been sworn in. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you please raise your right hand. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth regarding Case No. 03-111? MR. SMITH: Yes, I do. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead. MR. SMITH: Good evening. My name is Terry Smith. I represent the Novi United Methodist Church. We have with us tonight Mr. Lee who is also an interpreter for our reverend. You see the case before you here. The United Methodist Church is now sponsoring a start-up of a new Korean United Methodist Church. We are asking for the variance as you can see here, our existing sign, what we would do is raise our
existing sign one and a half feet and then another portion would be put underneath it. It would be a new piece. As you can see there that adds twelve extra square feet and also a height variance of one foot two inches. The sign then would accommodate the new church, our new Korean church, in terms of any input from that church. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Anything else? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to make a comment in regards to this case? Seeing none, there were 41 second notices sent on February 17th. One conditional approval, no objections. The conditional approval is from Dorothy, and please forgive me if I mispronounce the last name, McGuigan, M-c-g-u-i-g-a-n, on Quince. "If the church is going to be permanent on Ten Mile surely the sign should go up. But if the church is going to relocate to another site in the future the sign should not be so big that it would distract the flow of traffic on Ten Mile Road." Building department? MR. SAVEN: It was the desire of the board at the last meeting to remove that particular
sign because at that time they were looking at two signs and the size of the sign. We had asked that they take it under consideration to see what they could do to the original sign. Even though it may be a little bit taller, whatever. I know that our department had worked with Mr. Darling who was before us at the last meeting and we found this as being probably the most reasonable size of the sign as far as the location is concerned based upon the existing sign that was there so we don't have too many signs in this area. MR. SMITH: Madame Chairman, I just want to mention that the sign is made so that if the Korean Church can relocate to another setting that then they can take that piece. It can be taken out and the original sign can be lowered back to its original position. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you for clarifying that. Board members? Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: The petitioner did exactly what we asked him to do and, in fact, thought a little bit ahead and addressed the question if the Korean United church leaves in the future they can
make that change. I think they're due a motion for approval. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? MEMBER BRENNAN: And I'll make that motion. With respect to case 03 dash 111 I would move for approval of the petitioner's request for the purpose of site identification. MEMBER BAUER: Support. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and approved. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Denise will you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Did Member Bauer second it? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes.
MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to zero. MR. SMITH: Thank you, very much. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. Your variance has been granted.
Case No. 04-004 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We'll move to Case Number 04-004 filed by Michael A. Verlinden of American Log and Furniture Design at 45283 Grand River Avenue. Mr. Verlinden is requesting permission that the sign that is currently there be supported in the ground by poles only and also is requesting a mock up variance. And you are? MR. VERLINDEN: I'm Michael Verlinden. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Will you please raise your right hand and be sworn in our secretary. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-004? MR. VERLINDEN: Yes, I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. MR. VERLINDEN: Thank you for allowing me the time here to address you with this matter. As I'm sure you all read the information I submitted. Our sign that we have currently placed in front of our building is a ground sign, pole sign, and it was placed there during the road construction, the
widening and the bridge reconstruction of Grand River Avenue. Our request here is that we be allowed to retain that sign. We've learned since we installed the sign that it has been a real help to traffic situations for people coming to our business and finding it, locating our business. In the past, as I note in here, there was what I would consider a safety concern in that because the way that our building faces the street, it doesn't face the street directly. It's situated on an angle to the street. Therefore, any traffic which approaches from the east to the west cannot see the front of our building where we have a sign on the front of the building. And, therefore, now that we have the lawn sign it can be seen which allows traffic to readily identify our location prior to being right on top of the building. In the past, as I noted in my comments, there were many situations where delivery vehicles or customers who are not familiar with our location or the Novi area would have to stop or pull over to the side of the road and back up to actually locate us if they were approaching from the east to the west. So our request is primarily for the purpose because we are uniquely situated in the way that the building is
located facing the street, that does not directly face the street that we be allowed to maintain this sign. For that purpose and also for the purpose of what we believe is a safer situation for traffic. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: There were 14 notices sent and two approvals. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make comment in regards to this case? Seeing none, building department? MR. SAVEN: Normally in regards to the sign out in front it is supposed to be a monument sign and this sign has two poles on it. I think it's probably in line with this business that is dealing with the appearance of that particular structure. So he is basically asking for that additional sign plus the increase of one foot. MR. VERLINDEN: Yes, this is true. The sign is representative of the type of furniture that we build, which is log furniture as our name plainly states, American Log and Furniture Design. So we erected the sign of log material and did it, I think, in a manner that is ascetically pleasing to the community as representative of our business and our
workmanship. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members? Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I have no problem with the sign. I think it's very appealing. It is rustic and does represent a feel what your business is. While there is a business center sign on the property there is no indication on the business sign who the tenants are in that little part. MR. VERLINDEN: That is correct. MEMBER GRAY: I don't have a problem with the size of this sign. Although petitioner has given us a lengthy list of additional signs in the area that are two signs or more I found that standing in front of the business that within probably a 1,000 to 1,500 feet there are so many signs that are on two pole monuments that it is almost -- well, it's not quite a laughing matter. This is a good use for this and I think a monument sign would actually detract from the type of advertisement and with the building, the position of the building with the traffic I think it's also necessary for business identification. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. MEMBER BRENNAN: Is that a motion?
MEMBER GRAY: It certainly could be. And it is. MEMBER BRENNAN: Go ahead. MEMBER GRAY: In the matter of Case 04-004 move to approve the variance requested. As it provides identification for the occupancy and it is compatible with the product sold and it does not interfere with traffic and it provides identification for both directions on Grand River. MEMBER BAUER: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and approved. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Denise, will you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes.
MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to zero. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sir, your variance has been granted. Please see the building department for anything further. MR. VERLINDEN: Pardon me? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You can see the building department for anything further.
Case No. 03-118 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Moving right along. Case 03-118 filed by Diane Soderstrom of Providence Hospital for Westbrook Golf Course at 26817 Beck Road. The request this evening is for a temporary use permit for an existing building that has expired. MEMBER BAUER: That's not Diane. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No. It doesn't look like Diane. MR. CARLIN: You're right. I am John Carlin appearing here in lieu of Diane who unfortunately had a death in the family and is not able to be here. Gary Joan is with me tonight. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Can I interrupt. I'm sorry. Would you both raise your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. Thank you. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case No. 03-118? MR. CARLIN: I do. MR. JOAN: I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead.
MR. CARLIN: We're here to ask for a variance to continue the temporary use of the clubhouse building that is at the Westbrook Golf Course. As you know the hospital property is here. This is the existing hospital. The golf course is all around the hospital. This is the building that we're talking about right here which is, for the lack of a better word, let's call it the clubhouse. It's been there forever. We've had several variances in the past that expired and we're looking for an extension under the ordinance for two years. We consider this a community asset. It is a very affordable public golf course. We've kept the rates down. It's owned by the hospital and it is -- you know, it's a frequent place for the seniors and kids and the leagues from the community throughout the city. In fact, we've already got a significant number of leagues and groups already booked for the 2004 season. We do have plans as you well know for the extension of the hospital. Unfortunately we're involved in some litigation with some of the other hospitals in the community who are questioning the what is called a certificate of need to expand the hospital. There is an effort to try to resolve that.
There is a lot of parties involved so it isn't going to be easy. Is it going to be resolved, hopefully, yes. When will it be resolved, I don't know. It could be two months, three months, four months. It could be forty months we don't know. As soon as we hopefully get the certificate of need, we being the hospital, we plan to begin the expansion of the hospital. I'm sure you've probably seen this before but I'll put it up here again. Now, if you remember, we had that little road there. That's the road right there. You drive into the golf course. This is the existing hospital. The building we're talking about is right here. So you can see that all of that is going to be gone. This building is the new hospital, hopefully we intend to build. So all of this property which is the golf course will be done. There's a proposed loop road. There's ancillary developments here. It's quite a significant development for the city. We think that the extension and continued use of the golf course is certainly a lot better than allowing it to just sit there and laying foul and weeds growing and not used. It's a service
to the community. We are presently in the process of transferring the liquor license from Pikeshire (ph) which was the operator of this place for many, many years to Advant which is a fiduciary. If you have any questions we're ready to answer those. How long you propose to give us we would like to have two years. We would not be opposed if you wanted us to come back after a year and give you an update on our progress. I mean, we would even be willing to commit that if the certificate of need is issued to the hospital. That golf course is probably going to be gone within a year. Because we'll immediately start construction. That's the plan. So if you have any questions we're ready to answer those. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make comments in regards to this case? Seeing none, there were seven notices sent. No approvals, no objections. Building department? MR. SAVEN: As you are aware this was a use that was continuous over the years. The hospital, the beginning of Providence Medical Center
did start. There was intentions of continuing, but, again, the gentleman indicated a certificate of need was one of the issues that needed to be addressed. This was under previous temporary use permits in the past. We did have a couple of concerns over there. We had addressed those concerns and did take care of those concerns. The gentleman also indicated the fact that he is looking for approximately two years or sooner but he is willing to come back after a year for maybe a progress update which would probably give you an idea of what is taking place with that progress. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members? Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Madame Chairperson. I think this total affair has given a different word to the meaning temporary. It's been going on since 1992 and now in 2004. Notwithstanding, I have no problem with granting the extension for a period of one year. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I might add that
Mr. Bauer was given a three year term 25 years ago. MEMBER SANGHVI: That is temporary. MEMBER BRENNAN: This is a temporary use and we know that in time if things go right it will come down. I have no problem with it at all. CHAIRPERSON: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Hey, your rates are pretty cheap too. Very good. Nice little course. I think you should go ahead and continue on. I make a motion -- go ahead. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: I agree. Especially considering the prices and how it does fit into my budget when I do play there. So, yes, I agree that one year would be sufficient. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Were you about to make a motion, Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: With regard to Case 03-118 that the variance be granted for a period of one year due the availability of the hospital not getting their certificate at this point. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been
moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Denise, please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to zero. MR. SAVEN: Madame Chair, before they leave please get yourselves in line one year from now and make sure you come back before us at that time. Do not forget. MR. CARLIN: I will make sure.
Case No. 04-007 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Moving right along. We'll call the next case, 04-007, filed by Mark S. McPherson of Merritt McPherson Cieslak, PC for Crosspointe Meadows Church formally Redford Baptist Church. Good evening. MR. McPHERSON: Good evening. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Are you Mr. McPherson? Are you an attorney? MR. MCPHERSON: I'm an architect. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-007? MR. McPHERSON: Yes, I do. MALE SPEAKER: Yes. MR. McPHERSON: Thank you, as you can see in the write-up I'm here this evening to request an extension to the preliminary site plan approval which was granted to Crosspointe Meadows Church which in March of 2000 the original approval was granted and known as Redford Baptist Church. We are here to present our case for unforseen economic events based
on Section 2516.7.F, section three. And the background behind this is the Redford Baptist Church has been worshiping in Redford Township for approximately the last 25 years in Grand River Road and Seven Mile. In 1999, 2000 they purchased the property that was granted the approval on Meadowbrook Road and they have been actively engaging in trying to move from the facility since that time. The unforseen economic events that have occurred during that time have included the fact that two other church groups have attempted to purchase their property. They have been unable to get the financial backing to do so. There is currently a third church that is actively involved in trying to purchase the church. There is an option on the church. We've actually had an extension granted to that option and both parties are working toward a closing date within the purchase agreement timeline of April 21st. So they're actively working towards the agreement to try to sell the church which will provide the seed money to allow the church to proceed further and begin a capital campaign as the enthusiasm and momentum was built on the congregation and develop the funds that would allow them to build the property on Meadowbrook Road.
The church has already made a commitment to Novi. They own the property free and clear on Meadowbrook Road. They have actually been working in or near November since October of 2002. They first worshiped in October of 2002 in Commerce Township and have since Easter of 2003 have been worshiping here at the Novi Civic Center. They have also vacated their offices in their existing facility on Grand River and have moved to offices in Novi on Grand River just west of Haggerty Road. So their entire operation has moved to Novi. They also had Vacation Bible School at Meadowbrook School in July 2003 and have rented the Novi Civic Center for special events and certain occasions for the church. The church itself in Redford is ready for almost immediate occupancy by the buyers. There is very little move out time for the rest of the things that are left behind that the church is not using at this point. Again, with the sale of the church, they feel that the capital campaign would gain momentum and they would be able to make the funds to develop the property on Meadowbrook Road. All efforts will be made to raise necessary funds for the phase one work and feel that there is a very good chance
that this will occur in 2005 and that's the request that we are asking for an extension for and also it's going to that the clinic has expended over is $100,000 to gain the original preliminary secondary approval and while not all of this would have to be respent some of that would have to reincurred to renew that approval for the preliminary site plan. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience at this time that wishes to make a comment in regards to this case? Seeing none. There were 46 notices sent. No approvals, no objections. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Just a couple of questions. Once again, the target date or the drop dead date for the papers to be signed, all the legal work, what was that date? MALE SPEAKER: April 21st. MR. SAVEN: April 21st? MR. McPHERSON: April 21st, that's correct. MR. SAVEN: So you're under
preliminary site plan approval right now? MR. McPHERSON: That's correct. That was granted on March 1st, 2000 and we had three one year extensions since that time. MR. SAVEN: And we're going to be looking for an extension of one year? MR. McPHERSON: Correct. MR. SAVEN: That's good. That's all. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anything else? MR. SAVEN: That's it. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members? Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: How often do you grant an extension? MR. SAVEN: This is very unusual but unfortunately sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. Sometimes it deals with utilities that become available and how soon they become available. It can be legal matters based upon what this gentleman is experiencing right now. I do think there are extenuating circumstances regarding this case. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member
Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, the criteria for a variance is demonstrative of hardship. And I think there's no question that there's been an economic hardship for the last two years in particular and he's got piled upon that other things going on. There seems to be some light at the end of the title -- tunnel and I'm prepared willing to grant the variance. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. McPherson, one of the reasons you cited in here on your request was "technical review of the site plan have raised unforseen development problems." Can you expand on that a bit? MR. McPHERSON: On the application? MEMBER GRAY: Um-hmm. MR. McPHERSON: Actually, it's more addressing the development. It's a five phase development we propose for the facility. At this point we're looking to developing simply the first phase of the development. We realize the ordinance has changed since we were granted approval in 2000,
storm water and landscaping. We did receive a letter from Timothy Schmitt of the planning department and he did say that if this would be granted this evening that we would have to meet it to the extent possible. MEMBER GRAY: I also have no problems with this request. I know that it's for us to be both granting an extension simply because the planning department can't. Interestingly enough my father ran the addition to Redford Baptist Church when it was expanded and he offered to let me climb the ladder to put the steeple up. A long time ago and I would like to see this congregation consider your commitment to the city. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion. I think we have support with respect to case 04 dash 007 I would move that we grant a one year extension of the preliminary site plan due to the burden that the petitioner told us about tonight. MEMBER BAUER: Second. CHAIRPERSON: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Denise, would you please
call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to zero. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I could ask the audience for complete silence. It's very difficult to concentrate and hear a petitioner up here so the side bar is rather distracting. So I'm going to ask the audience to please pay attention and if you have anything to discuss to take it outside.
Case No. 04-008 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Let's call our next case. Case 04-008 filed by Mark McPherson of Redford Baptist Church and this is a request for permission to allow the sign to remain for a period of one year. MR. McPHERSON: It's a very simple request. The sign is out there now that says the future home of Crosspointe Meadows Church as well as a smaller script that has the service times below it. We're requesting that that be renewed and we're allowed to keep that on the property so that everyone is aware that the church is going to be built here soon and aware of the location and where they're worshiping now as well. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in the audience in regards to this particular case? Seeing none. There were 46 notices sent. Again, no approvals, no objections. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Only that I want the board to be aware that there was verbiage that was added to this sign against previous approval.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members? Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: One of the reasons I'm assuming that this plan extension is being requested is so the job runs concurrent with the preliminary site plan approval and I really don't have a problem with the additional area on the sign as it says. The only thing I'm disappointed in is that the petitioner's knew that there were variances requested for this size sign and should have come to us before putting up the additional information. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Anyone else? Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll point out as well for the record that they've moved out of the church of Redford and this is giving them identification where their temporary services are. I think that it's only natural And I don't have any issue with that. MEMBER BAUER: I don't have no problem. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Any further discussion? Is there a motion?
MEMBER BRENNAN: 04 dash 008 I would move that the petitioner's request be approved for the purpose of identifying a site and identifying where temporary services are to be held. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and double seconded. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Denise, you can please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Should we be adding a time limit to the sign motion? MEMBER BRENNAN: A what? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: A time limit? MEMBER BRENNAN: One year, I'm sorry. A time limit of one year. I'm sorry, yes, please. MS. ANDERSON: Okay. Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer?
MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to zero.
Case No. 04-010 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Our next case is 04-010 filed by Ann Nona Novi of Gateway Village of Novi at the corner of Grand River Avenue Portico Lane. The applicant is requesting permission to allow the sign to remain for a temp period of one year. MR. SHOCKER: Hi. I am Mike Shocker (ph) on behalf of Gateway Village of Novi. And also Ann Nona with Gateway Village of Novi is here. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding case 04-010? MR. SHOCKER: I do. MS. NONA: Yes. MR. SHOCKER: Basically, as I think the board knows, we have an existing sign in front of our condo development on Grand River and the corner of Portico. The original approval was for one year as it is a temporary. It's a temporary construction sign and we are requesting an extension of one year as we work through our sales and construction phase of Gateway Village of Novi.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you. There were 19 notices sent. Four approvals including the applicant approved as well. I thought I'd note that. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make comment in regards to this case? Seeing none. Building department? MR. SAVEN: What's the percent of construction completed on your product now? MR. SHOCKER: Well, we have four buildings in the air. As you know, you know, if we go through. It's 18 total buildings for a total of 184 condos. Right now we're at -- say about 50 condos that are in the air. Fifty condos are in the air right now. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members? Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: I just had one question in lieu of the fact that only half the work is done maybe we can extend it for maybe one year. MR. SAVEN: Just one year. MEMBER SANGHVI: Standard procedure, one year?
MR. SAVEN: That's it. We only petitioned for one year. We would have to republicize. MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no problem with this sign. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I was going to say the same thing and ask the same question. I think if the board is all nodding I'll make a motion to keep things going. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to 04-010 I would move that the petitioner's request for an extension of one year be approved. MEMBER SANGHVI: Support. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion on the motion? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Seeing none Will you please, Denise, call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer?
MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to zero. MR. SHOCKER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You're all set. Thank you very much.
Case No. 04-011 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Our next case is 04-011 filed by A. Nels Carlson for 1361 South Lake Street. Mr. Carlson is requesting two variances for the construction of a new home located at 1361 South Lake. Good evening. MR. CARLSON: Good evening, board members. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Before you start I'm just going to note. I'm going to jump in here for a second. MR. CARLSON: Sure. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I want to indicate that this is the case that Mr. Saven spoke of in which the objection -- I'm sorry. You didn't talk about this one, did you? You talked about other one. All right. We're going so fast. There was an objection filed with the city after three o'clock. MR. CARLSON: I'm aware of that. I spoke with Denise. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And Denise made you aware of that and I just want the board to know I accepted it after three o'clock. MR. CARLSON: That's fine. I know
Chris and he's a nice fellow and has a right to his opinion and that's okay. I'm Nels Carlson. I swear to tell the truth. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 04-011? MR. CARLSON: I do, yes. I didn't know you can approve your own. Is that true? I would like to file my own personal approval since it's my piece of land. As it's an interesting site. The request here is for two variances. One for the east side of the section for a patio, four and a half feet approximately and the second is for a rear yard for our three car garage. Like a lot of people I would like to have a three car garage. The purpose of the request for the variance is we would like to build a new home and at the same time like to reserve as much as we can. The character of the area is a natural area. The reason we're requesting, why are we doing it? This is a unique lot. Most of the lots over there on South Lake Drive in and around the lake are different shapes and have unique characters. There is both wetlands and woodlands on my property and we are doing the best we can to preserve as much of that as
possible. There is a little prior history here. There have been at least two or perhaps three different proposals going back 1996 all of which were requesting a home to be built precisely where -- but not precisely but approximately where we are asking to have it built behind the wetlands. I don't know if any of those ever came before the board or not. I do have a copy of Mr. Hand's plot land from '98 and also a copy of the DEQ approval where he was going to fill -- do some pretty extensive fill of the wetlands and got permission to do that. I also got copy of the Piletes (ph) plot land, which we purchased the property from the Piletes. There house wasn't going to invade the wetlands or come anywhere near it or even get inside the wetlands buffer. What we have done is try to move the house to the east and back or to the south so that we stay out of that and I think we've accomplished that. In fact, my desire to stay out of the wetlands was so great That I put in a third request just so my driveway would keep out of it, But it turns out I don't need that. I just misread the map
itself. We have -- we also filed a request for a similar variance for the same piece of property about two years ago. My wife is a decorative artist and see her over there, Delores. I got an architect to build it, I think Gugenheim, and it is certainly beautiful to look at. You folks would agreed to approve it but nobody would build it so it's not there. The current request is ours and it is to try -- I mean, it's different from the prior plot plans and what we have done is to try to keep it out of the wetlands and keep it out of the buffer. Put it in the -- we've got a unique piece of property. We're trying to put it in the spot that is in my mind the best spot and most viable spot to build a home over there. I have talked to my neighbors. All of them, all of them that have certainly submitted anything. I have approval from Pete and Grace Light who are immediately to the left and I suspect would be the most effective since the side yard request is with respect to them. I did not talk to the neighbors on Lily Trail but I've talked with Jacqueline at some point who sent the approval from Lily Trail. She's sort of directly behind the property, the second house
in on Lily Trail as you go east. Before this afternoon there was only one objection that I was aware of and that was my neighbor to uniquely to the west Gabriel. I talked to Gabriel. Frankly, I had a little trouble communicating with him. He's a very nice fellow and I thought we had a very strange conversation. We were talking at one point about the house not being on sale and duty to my ears and things of that nature and forget it I'm not trying to sell it I want to build it and live in it. In any event, he filed an objection and I guess I would like to address my belief on the objection. I just think that he's mistaken in what he says. It seems to be that he doesn't like a house on the back of his property. That's really not what I'm asking for. Every side in the house has been proposed that's where it's been. I think that's the most likely place for it to be. What we're saying is that by pushing it from away that means we need to decide whether to move the rear yard variance. Frankly, moving the house the way we've done it is further away from there rather than closer. He had, basically, three concerns. First is
a loss of privacy. Maybe we just feel differently about this. I guess we do. My thing is putting it where we're proposing to put it will make it more private rather than less. It's going to be in the woods where at least no one can see the house. But there is going to be a loss. There is going to be a home there rather than vacant land. There's no doubt about that. So I guess there is some loss of privacy. He's concerned about a loss of morning sun. I really don't understand this. There is a bunch of trees twice as high as anything I'm going to build there. Whatever they do to his patio or sunroom is not going to make a difference. The last concern he expressed is it would somehow lower the value of his house. I just don't agree with that. I'm not a real estate expert. I don't know. I don't presume to know what real estate values are. I think potentially it's going to increase the value of this home rather than decrease it. Rather than having a vacant piece of property next to him he's going to have somebody that is building a home there. At the very least I don't think it would have deterious effect at all. I would respectfully respect that the board grant the
variance. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make comment in regards to this case? Seeing none. There were 17 notices sent. Two approvals and the two objections that I spoke of earlier. Petitioner did address Mr. Hito's objection. Gabriel Hito at 1381 and I will not reread it because he eloquently capped off what he had to say. Mr. House lives at 1341 South Lake Drive. He objects to the variance being approved on the basis of the placement of the home on the rear of the parcel. Unlike all other homes bordering this woodlands including his would place the home in direct view from the rear of his home, interrupt the woodlands and decrease his property value. Currently -- MR. CARLSON: Deer. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: "Deer and other wildlife visit my back yard on a regular basis. A site me and my family enjoy. Placement of the home on the rear of the lot will reduce or eliminate deer movement and will be a visible detractor from the woods. All of the homes on South Lake bordering these woods were made to fit on the front of the lots. I
believe an alternate placement of this house is possible that will not disturb the woodlands." MR. CARLSON: I have a couple of points if I may? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You need to wait at this point. And we have an approval from Jack Shaney (ph) at 29925 Lily Trail and we have an approval from Kirk J. Light at 1351 South Lake Drive. Building department? MR. SAVEN: If there was any parcel of land that was very difficult this one certainly was. As indicated earlier on Mr. Carlson had been before us before. When we were attempting to deal with what is called a similar ordinance in the placement of this home in the same location at that time. Mr. Carlson's property backs up to a wetlands area. It is not backing up to the rear yards of anybody. This is a wetlands area and I believe it probably becomes state regulated area or anything or something in that particular area. We also have concerns as far as the building department is concerned because this is a new configuration of the building to ensure we weren't going to have problems
in that particular area but that was cleared out from the state regulated area wetlands requirement. Based on the fact it is a wooded wetlands he would still have to follow the same procedures as he would to obtain the permit. As far as building the building in the front parcel I think we would have more of a problem in that particular area strictly for the fact of that location of the wetlands extenuating. As you can see it probably divides the property right about in the middle area. Now, I know I had a GIS photograph that was done with regards to that parcel of land and you can basically see that particular area in terms of how much wetland was involved. But regardless of that, I know that people have been before you before in regards to the sides of the garage and things of that nature. Especially around the lake side and that everyone around the lake side needs additional space for putting in boats and stuff and getting them out of the open storage, this type of thing, and I think this is what Mr. Carlson is trying to do. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Board members. Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I think this is
probably the best use of this property that I've seen proposed and I've been aware of the previous configurations and I've been aware of all the new construction in the area for many, many, many years. I think that the petitioner has tried to work with the property and that the variances requested are very appropriate to stay out of the wetlands and the woodlands in that area but they are significant. Have you done any boorings on this property? MR. CARLSON: That will be next. As soon as the decision made by the board that is favorable. MEMBER GRAY: The reason I ask is if you look at the old Army core of engineer surveys of the land there is all sort of dumps around there and you will probably want to be very conscious of that. I don't know that there will be a detriment to the wildlife in the area. I live just about a quarter mile to the east and in a very, very more densely built area from the 30s and 40s. I still get deer in my yard all the time and they don't care where they go. MR. CARLSON: I can't keep them out.
MEMBER GRAY: They're just there and they're going to continue to be there. We hope. So I have no problem to this. I don't think it's going to be a detriment to the area at all. I think it's going to be an improvement and I would much rather see something like this than somebody trying to fit something on the front of the property that is just not going to work and I congratulate you for your efforts. Thank you. MR. CARLSON: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Any other? Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll point out the obvious that while we had a couple of people that weren't interested in this petitioner's request I didn't hear anything in their content that made any sense to me. To deny this guy to build a house on this piece of property that he owns for fear they're not going to see deer in the back yard doesn't hold any water and I didn't see or hear any information presented tonight by his next door neighbor that made any sense at all. So I discredit both for the denials. And like Sarah, finally, this is probably the best use.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? I will concur with both members and the reason why I will pipe up and say something this evening in regards to that because residents need to understand how important it is that each of us have a right to do what we want to do with our property. And I think that you made a brilliant display on trying to say what it is that you could say and you had a very unique and very difficult piece of property to work with and I don't think that's -- and I think you made every effort to contact your neighbors to be a good neighbor in an attempt to build a nice home and I commend you on that and I will be supporting you as well. MEMBER GRAY: I think Mav is making a motion. MEMBER SANGHVI: If you are making a motion go ahead. MEMBER GRAY: In the matter of Case 04-011 move to approve the variance requested due to the unique topographical features of the property and the petitioner's request to preserve those features. And, further, that there is no construction to the immediate south that would be impacted by this
variance. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. It's been moved and approved and we have no problem with the patio four feet four inches as well? MEMBER GRAY: No. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Denise would you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to zero.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Your variance haves been granted. Please see the building department. MR. CARLSON: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Good luck. MR. CARLSON: Thanks very much. It's been a long goal. MEMBER GRAY: Do you have like a board? MR. CARLSON: Well, yeah, I come back from the year of my birth, 1946, and chose the area that I'm building on and designated it as good luck. Okay. So that gives you some indication. Yes, I guess I'm going to have some board as well. My neighbor to the east he put in a post to my line and Gabriel did not. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Good luck. MR. CARLSON: Thank you.
Case No. 04-12 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I'll call the next case, 04-012, filed by Gregory Gluck for Fox Run Village at 41000 West 13 Mile. Mr. Gluck is requesting permission to allow the sign to remain for an appropriate amount of time as determined by the board. Good evening. MR. GLUCK: Good evening. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Are you Mr. Gluck? MR. GLUCK: I'm Mr. Gluck. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Please raise your right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case No. 04-012? MR. GLUCK: Yes, I do. MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. MR. GLUCK: As Madame Chairman said we are requesting permission for our construction identification sign to remain for an appropriate amount of time as determined by you the board. Our current sign is of high quality design and construction as well and landscaped and maintained.
It is not a vehicular or pedestrian hazard. It is internally lit for no glare. And as far as our construction and progress is going, phase one, we have two new buildings that will be going up this year and we'll finish next year. We have phase two final site approval in progress right now with construction appropriately to commence this year and we will go to the year 2008. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anything else? MR. GLUCK: That's it. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: There are 17 notices sent. No approvals. No objections. One letter was returned. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make a comment in regards to this case? Seeing none. Building department? MR. GLUCK: Only that I believe Mr. Gluck is very much aware as far as responding to notices that had been sent. This is a very major project and we do have notices that are sent out but there's a lot of times that there is a miscommunication going on between quite a few parties that is part of this. But the bottom line is they're
aware of the situation and will be more in tune to responding to these notices in the future. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members? Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Are you with Erickson? MR. GLUCK: Yes, I am. I am the involvement director. MEMBER BRENNAN: Can you explain why we were sending you letters since July and didn't get any response? MR. GLUCK: As Don Saven had said letters were sent and get lost. They to the wrong place. They go to Baltimore. They don't come to Novi. Many reasons. MEMBER BRENNAN: Two went to Novi, one went to Bingham Farms and one went to Baltimore. Don seems to not have that big of a problem. MR. SAVEN: No. I do have a problem. When someone sends a notice of violation and if they don't respond one time there is certainly issues behind it, but because of the size of the development
and there's a lot of people that are involved in every phase of this development and sometimes it gets to be a little bit difficult of who's on first and what's on second. When I received this notice from Al I just about flipped out because this doesn't happen. Fortunately, I don't mean flipped out but, you know, from the standpoint it got me very upset because this city's based upon that particular compliance and dealing with the ordinances and I did approach them in regards to this issue and they're certainly aware that they're going to pay a little more attention to the idea that we have to have a go-to person that is representative of their company. And that's that gentleman right there. MEMBER GRAY: And we have figured out who is going to whom? MR. GLUCK: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: Mailing addresses all figured out now? MR. SAVEN: Personal. MEMBER GRAY: Very good. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: That having been said, I would be prepared to make a motion to approve this
variance for a period of one year and for the purposes of continuing advertisement of the project and I know it's a huge project. MEMBER BAUER: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and approved. Is there any further discussion in regard to this matter? Seeing none, Denise, would you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: No. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes five to one. MR. GLUCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We hope to hear from you on a more regular basis. Good luck. MR. GLUCK: Next year. MEMBER GRAY: If not sooner.
Case No. 04-013 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Go ahead and call our next case, 04-013, as filed by Greg Gnatek at 1947 West Lake Drive. The petitioner is requesting three side yard setback variances for construction of a new home. Good evening. MR. GNATEK: Good evening. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: And you are -- MR. GNATEK: Greg Gnatek. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Would you like to raise your right hand, please, and be sworn in by our secretary. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth in the case 04-013? MR. GNATEK: I do. Earlier this week I provided you with some packages. I hope everyone received them in time. In these situations I'm not terribly well spoken so I try to do most of my communication this way. I do apologize that those were issues rather late in the process. However, what we're looking to do is the variances that we are asking for do not span the
entire length of my house. The north side -- the variances are staggered. On the north side the variance that we're looking for is approximately 25 feet in length and on the south side the variance is the length of the garage. Our goal tonight is to center our home on our property which is currently two feet off the north property line thus reducing the fire hazard ability to leave space for emergency vehicles to access the space. I currently have a garage that is four feet off the street making it a hazard to oncoming traffic and pedestrians. I've been in the design phase of this home for about a year trying to create a home that would make it a safer and strike a balance between a nonconforming lot and the current building codes. Is there any questions? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: When we address the board we'll have any questions. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to make comments with regards to this case? MR. OLIVER: Good evening. William Oliver, 2009 West Lake Drive. We're approximately five houses down from Mr. Gnatek. I've had a chance
to look at his elevations and the plan that he's proposed? From my perspective it's a minimally invasive request that he's making. Very nominal. The house that he's proposing is going to add great value to the surrounding community. It does conform to the houses that are directly adjacent and across the street, the new development over there somewhat. And his use looks very ascetically pleasing to the eye and it's a much needed improvement done in our community that a lot of the houses down there are in severe decay and I think -- and hopefully the board in its wisdom will not put up any road blocks to Mr. Gnatek's proposal. I think he's done a really nice job with what he is proposing to put in the community. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? There are 34 notices sent. Three approvals. One letter returned. Building department? I'm sorry. MS. GLASHFIELD: Thank you. My name is Debra Glashfield. I own the property at 2105 West Lake Drive. Just a little bit down the street from where he's proposing to build. I just wanted to come
in this evening and say That I totally support what they're asking for. I think it would be a great addition to the neighborhood. It's in an area -- specifically the lot they're looking at is a property that is definitely in need of some improvement. What they're proposing -- although I haven't seen actual plans, I have seen a sketch of what they're proposing. It's very attractive and very much in line with what belongs in that area as an improvement. It will add a great deal of value to neighborhood and I would like to see everyone support it. Thank you. MR. COSIEN: Good evening. My name is Cosien. I live at 1523 West Lake Drive. I too stood in front of this board in 1998 to build my lake front home. This is a very difficult area to build in. The land was planted eight years ago but its use is regulated with current ordinances. The cost of this land has skyrocketed to replacing cottages with new cottages can be somewhat of a financial burden. I met with Greg on Saturday and he shared his plans with me. I feel Greg has done a suburb job in designing the home. It's obvious a lot of time went into the planning process. Greg told me that he is changed the
position of the home to accommodate the neighbor to the south, which I thought was proactive on his part. I feel the width of the house is important to make the home look architecturally correct. I hope that all of you had a chance to drive down West Lake Drive tonight or in the recent past days to see the property. If so, it doesn't take long to know that the area is in dire need of these type of improvements. Greg and Julie should be commended for removing this very expensive eyesore and replacing it with a beautiful new home. If you approve, this will be a huge step forward in improving that area. I also feel it is important for you to know that Greg and Julie just recently sold a home just eight homes down in which they took an old lake front cottage and turned it into a year round home and lived in it for eight and a half years prior to outgrowing it. It is obvious Greg and Julie are dedicated to improving that area. To summarize Greg has the neighbors' approval. The variances are modest. The width of the home is necessary to allow for the design and he's removing a huge eyesore from the city of Novi. I don't see any rhyme or reason why he should not be
granted these variances. This is a win, win, win, situation and I hope that you all agree. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We have another one. MR. HAGAR: Good evening. My name is Jeff Hagar, 2109 West Lake Drive. I'll try and be very brief. The petitioner had an opportunity to show me the architecture plans and the placement of the property. And I have a high level of confidence that his intentions are honorable. I believe that the variance requested is relatively insignificant in the big picture. It is certainly well within the means of the property. I believe that from an architecture standpoint the strategy that is being used in order to take a home that is currently just a few feet off the road and is proportioned on the property line, leveling that, repositioning with an architecturally correct home that is position to be well-consumed on the property that will be in line with the rest of the neighbors is nothing but a benefit and we certainly ask for your support. Thank you. MR. ROSS: Jerry Ross, 1911 West Lake Drive. I live probably six or seven houses north
of the proposed home. Been in the area for almost 30 years, I guess, and I see no reason why this board should deny this request. All it seems to me that all of those lots there have been eschewed in one way or the other and this can only improve the neighborhood and the lot and certainly is going to be a great improvement to our area. So I hope you see fit to grant this. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? MR. PATTERSON: John Patterson, 1957 West Lake. Greg's a great neighbor. Please approve this. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Anyone else? Seeing none, building department? MR. SAVEN: Do I dare say anything else? I think everything has been said by just about every neighbor there. My biggest pro on this whole thing is the fact that he's getting rid of an eyesore. I know that he tried to split the property up. You have to bear in mind prior to our ordinance interpretation in terms of grandfathering, if I was to go back to grandfathering all he would be here for is for a one foot variance. Because the ordinance reads the way it is now and grandfathering is out of it. He
has three variances before the board tonight. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Board members? Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I want to say that I agree with absolutely everything everybody has said here tonight? Except, and I'm the one that is going to throw the monkey wrench into this. Everybody else that has been here in the past has been here on 30 and 40 foot lots. And you are so lucky because you have a 60. So you've got a double lot. And I absolutely agree that this is going to be an improvement and I want to know could this be built with less variance requested and I realize what you're asking and the broad scope is fairly minimal; however, you're tearing down so for all intents and push this is new construction. And my request -- my question is, can you build with less of a variance? MR. GNATEK: Well, the variances that I'm requesting if you looked at the plans -- and I think I provided those to you as well -- I'm looking to put up a side entry garage. And the reason I am requesting a variance is that I have to have a proper radius to get into the garage without having any
issues of backing into it or anything of that nature. Originally what I wanted to do is I was looking for a six foot side yard setback on the south side. After sitting down with the neighbor on the south side he indicated to me he wasn't real comfortable with that. That would've, of course, been ideal for me. After several discussions we agreed that, you know, this nine feet from that south side property line would be the ideal way to go. I don't know that there is much more that I can do without losing quite a bit of radius or doing something else with the driveways. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Saven? Has left the building. My question, I guess -- well, I'll ask Don when he gets back. Is on the 30 foot between the entry of the garage to the north property line, three foot has to be soft. So that gives you 27 feet. So I'm -- we'll ask him what the radius is that's required for backing up, et cetera. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I only had one
question. What is the width of the house? I couldn't determine that. MR. GNATEK: The width at the furthest point if you take the outside of the garage to the outside of the north side of the property, you're 40 feet. MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, that takes care of my question. I think that it's. We're getting the better deal by getting rid of what is there by putting this there. I think that your requests are minimal and I support you. MR. GNATEK: Thank you. MEMBER BAUER: I agree. MR. GNATEK: Thank you. MEMBER BRENNAN: Should we give it a go? MEMBER FISCHER: Do you still have a question. MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MEMBER FISCHER: I'm going to have to concur with those guys. The requests are minimal and one thing that is most impressive to me if you have done your homework. All your neighbors are willing to support you and that is an eyesore and I
wish the best of luck and I will support this. MR. GNATEK: Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: I have a question. From the front of his garage to the north property line will be 30 feet and he has to have three foot soft on north property line and that is 27 feet. Is that adequate for your required radius for turning and such? MR. SAVEN: He needs -- first of all, he needs 25 foot of setback between the perpendicular from the garage to the property line. MEMBER BAUER: And that answered my question. MR. SAVEN: Twenty-two foot of hard surface parking and three foot -- MEMBER BAUER: So we've got it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Do we have a motion? Mr. Sanghvi. MEMBER SANGHVI: I just have one question for you. Where are you going for drinks after this? The whole crew, the bunch of them.
MR. GNATEK: We'll wait for you. MEMBER SANGHVI: I appreciate that. So I like what you're doing and very happy that everybody is agreeable and I have no hesitation in supporting your application. And I would like to make a motion, Madame Chairperson, that the case number 04-013 request be granted because of the vehicular lot configuration. MEMBER BAUER: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and second. Is there any further discussion? Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I just want to let you know, I am supporting this. I was just asking could you do it for less. MR. GNATEK: Thank you. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I think it was a reasonable question. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Denise, would you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray?
MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to zero. MR. GNATEK: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Your variance has been granted. Good luck to you. We're going to entertain a three minute break. The board's going to take a five minute break. (A short recess was taken.)
Case No. 04-014 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Calling the ZBA meeting back to order with calling case 04-014 filed by Dean Masciulli of Multi Building Company for 20772 Maybury Park Drive in Maybury Park Estates. And you're here for both cases. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn in. MEMBER BAUER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth regarding Case 04-014? MR. MASCIULLI: I do. I come in front of the board requesting a variance on two garages. One of over a 1,000 square feet and one being 164 square feet and the other being 276 square feet. Currently Maybury Park estates has a zoning of R-1 and RA with an RUD agreement. We have lots that are over an acre and lots that are under an acre. And under the current zoning, the lots that are over an acre we're able to construct up to, I believe, 2,500 square feet and under an acre we're restricted to 1,000 square feet. This creates somewhat of a hardship with perspective buyers coming in wanting four car garages because there is a huge demand for four car garages with houses these size and seeing that some of the lots are able to accommodate them and
others aren't on these sites, you know, we don't -- with the variance if the variance is granted there would be no violation of woodland or wetland ordinances. Setback ordinances or coverage lot ordinances. It's nice to have lots these sizes that you can accommodate depthwise a four car garage. I've been building four car garages with 1,000 square feet, today is not adequate for most home buyers because it is not enough room to pull in three or four vehicles and have enough room to get around and store equipment, lawn equipment, snow equipment, bikes, et cetera. So that's it. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this matter? Seeing none. There were 40 notices sent. No approvals. No objections. Building department? MR. SAVEN: Just basically, the property was zoned R-A. They entered into an RUD agreement which basically had indicated that any lots that were less than an acre would fall under the R-A. Acre square footage would fall under the R-1 category. In doing so this is where this gentleman
has the problem. If he had an R-A district he probably wouldn't be before us right now. One of the things I do want to bring to your attention, I know that the Planning Commission and also City Council and I think it was one of my earlier concerns is to take a look at garages. Attached garages being in certain R-A districts that have a certain square foot requirement. I do believe, if I'm not mistaken this is 1,200 square foot that you're looking at. So I just want to present you. Not that it is now or whatever this is what is being talked about as of right now. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Board members? Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Similar cases should give us similar results and we've granted this variance to large estates. Bellagio as an example. I think in another few months planning and council will have addressed this through ordinance. There seems to be a lot of support at the council meeting That I watched when they discussed this. So I would tend to support the request, actually, unless there is some audience participation on the second case I will support for both.
CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I also realize that in the past we have given variances. The Bellagio, as I recall, some of those were upwards of 5,000 square feet as well. When I went to this site on Saturday and got a copy of their brochure which shows the eight different housing layouts, the plans and options, what I found striking is that from the smallest house has a square foot area of 3621 and goes up to the largest is a 5450 and yet on every single one of these plans that they're showing they have three car garages shown on every single one of these plans including the largest size, which is as near as I can figure square foot of these garages from a low of 642 square feet for a three foot garage up to 925. I guess I would have to question if everything is being shown with three car garages, why on the smaller houses are we seeing four car garages in excess of 1,000 feet and I can absolutely understand that if it's a larger house to be proportionate. I'm just a little curious why this size. MR. MASCIULLI: The brochures are reflecting a standard, three car standard in the
community. Four car we would like to have it as an option. To build a four car garage of a 1,000 square feet with ingress and egress requirements of getting in and out of the house, a lot of times we're required to have stairs. Elevation wise to offset that adds square footage that pushes the garages upward of 1,200, 1,300 square feet sometimes. MEMBER GRAY: And I understand that, but nowhere in here does it say anything for the possibility of a four car garage. Just making a statement. MEMBER BAUER: I object. My first house was 1,200 square feet. MR. SAVEN: I'm not saying anything. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I would like to put my comments on the record, if I can. I have to echo the sentiments of Member Gray. And the reason why is because in the past we have granted variances on very large homes and as a board member took heat from residents that didn't even live anywhere near there. So this is become an interest to me because I have also had a discussion with the mayor with the square footage and garages and Member Brennan took it in front of the council when he was up for his
reappointment that this was a concern of this board. However, on this particular case this square footage, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I show the square footage of the property is 3685 square feet; is that correct? MR. MASCIULLI: Which one. No, it's 4,200 square feet. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's 4,200? MR. MASCIULLI: The house? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. MASCIULLI: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It shows a footprint of 35. MR. MASCIULLI: There's a second story. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: I still can't because when I was thinking of changing -- let me go on with my thought on this. In Bellagio -- since I don't usually draw conclusions from other cases. But because this is going to be much up for discussion, the houses in that area and I'm very well aware of that area since I don't live too far from there. This is a standard size home, 3,000, 4,000 square feet is pretty much similar throughout the area and they have
all gotten along with 1,000 square feet garages. So I'm having a hard time especially if they're also looking at that display and getting our requests from our secretary that your variances want a blanket variance for the garages. And we cannot do that based on each case is viewed by the board on its own individuality if you build. If anything, I would -- in looking at the lot size of this house and given that you're in a 4,200 square feet I still don't see the need for a variance on this new construction in this house given on my view on the garages in the past. Especially since what we're looking at here is setting a precedent to a subdivision that -- and correct me, there is 10 homes? MR. MASCIULLI: Correct. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Ten homes in a subdivision and looking at possibly of setting a precedent to creating 106 variances to 106 homes. So I guess I would need a little more discussion from my fellow board members in case they feel That I'm missing something at this point. Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. Did I hear you correctly when you said the four car garage
is an option? MR. MASCIULLI: Yes, sir. MEMBER SANGHVI: How much more does it cost? MR. MASCIULLI: $7,500, I believe. MEMBER SANGHVI: As opposed to the three car? MR. MASCIULLI: Correct. MEMBER SANGHVI: And do you think that everybody is going to buy these lots on these homes are going to go for four car garages? MR. MASCIULLI: I don't know if everyone will but there is a lot of request for it out there, this size home. You know, ten, fifteen years home there was a lot of request for three car garages versus a two car garage. You know, you have two car and three car as an option. Some people took it and most people didn't. As time went on three car became a standard in pretty much every size home. That is what is happening today even though, you know, a lot of times in a subdivision you're restricted by the rearyard setback. You don't have the room to put a four car garage on it but the demand is there. People today have dual incomes, two vehicles, work vehicles,
you know, the subdivision ordinances and deed restriction are not allowed to park in the garage or in the street. They have kids and they're going to have and they have cars and they're going to want to be able to house them in the garage and be able to get in the garage and be able to move around the garage and also store, you know, equipment from around the house. MEMBER SANGHVI: So what you are suggesting is apart in keeping four cars you need space to keep the lawn mower and the snow blower and everything else and should all be in the same house and shut? MR. MASCIULLI: Correct. MEMBER SANGHVI: As you have heard if there is a new construction you require a new variance and it is very hard to justify the variance. And, unfortunately, our job here on the board is not to create new installation and we like the ordinances. Unfortunately, we have gone for the three months, then what, to design the ordinances. And until such time as that happens we are always going to be in a dilemma how to deal with this problem. Considering the comments, and I'm not
just talking about your comments, I'm talking about the comments of the city taxpayers, including the values of the homes as well as the increased value of the four car garage and all of the things, this is going to enhance the city tax base and I have always felt if I had a chance to increase the tax base of the city, the future of all of us would have to pay less taxes and because of that and many other reasons I will be inclined to support your application. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Thank you, Member Sanghvi. Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I think 4,200 square feet is a pretty big house and I think an option of a four car garage on that house will look fine. It's what the petitioner's customer wants which leads me to ask the question are the parties here. Is that you? MR. MASCIULLI: No, they're not here. MEMBER BRENNAN: Next case. That's a big house and we granted that type of request for a big houses in Bellagio. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Fisher
and Attorney Schultz. MEMBER FISCHER: Along the lines of what the chairperson is saying, 106 lots, correct? MR. MASCIULLI: Correct. MEMBER FISCHER: How many are in this situation? How many variances are we looking at that we could have in front of us? Or what are we getting ourselves into? MR. MASCIULLI: I couldn't give you an exact number but it would be a good majority of them. There are probably 15 percent that are over an acre that we would have to come in front of the board for and that doesn't mean that every buyer is going to buy them either. MEMBER FISCHER: Right. I understand. Next question I'll wait for the next case. MR. SAVEN: I'm chomping at the bit here. I would put a black hat on just for a minute here. Two things that we have to bear in mind. This property was zoned R-A, first and foremost. This is an RUD agreement that predominantly spelled out the specifications of what needs to be done. So that's the Bible. When we talk about homes, please, in terms
of home sizes that should not be the factor we're looking at. We should be looking at the property itself. The reason why I'm saying this is that you can't -- and I'm going to give you the for instance. We can have a 1,000 square foot home on an R-A piece of property and they can build a 1,000 square foot attached garage or detached garage. So that's one of the things I just want to bring to your attention here. Regardless of the size of the home it has to deal with the property itself and what those dimensional issues are or whatever need to be looked at. Thank you. MR. SCHULTZ: I guess to follow-up, this is a 185 parcel of property. Some of the units have been reduced to less than an acre in order to save trees and roads. And in terms of the practical difficulty I think the boards to consider the fact that some of these parcels are smaller than they might otherwise have been by virtue of the RUD agreement and the saving of trees and open space. And I think when you were making your decision I think you need to take into consideration that some of the parcels in the same development are going to be slightly larger and, therefore, able to get this option and some slightly
smaller -- the majority will be under the one acre but relatively situated. The question I think that has come up a couple of times, are these lots going to be similarly situated to some of the lots that without a variance can come with a four car garage. Are you in reaching your decision looking at -- are you doing substantial justice to all of the people within the development and you're lucky here in the sense that they're all being built at the same time and can determine the effect on the neighborhood and neighbors and even know what is going on as it's going on as they're buying and developing. So I put that out there as a comment to follow-up Mr. Saven's comment. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: I will ask my question now. Between these two cases 014 and 015 they're both four car garage requests, right? MR. MASCIULLI: Correct. MEMBER FISCHER: What is the difference between 164 square variance and 276 square foot square variance. MEMBER BAUER: Size. MR. MASCIULLI: I couldn't tell you
what the exact difference is. The size of the garage on the house. One might have more offsets or leave a little bit more for egress/ingress from the garage into the house. We're never sure. I've been in a situation of the building business where I had a three car garage and I had enough room between the car and garage and had to put a three foot staircase in there for people to get up into the house, you know, by code. So now we leave, you know, four or five feet from the door to the garage. It depends on how the egress comes into the house it gets a little wider. MEMBER FISCHER: Well, I'm inclined to support Case 01-014 based on the comments made by Mr. Saven earlier. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is that a motion, Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: I think I'm going to let someone else handle that. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Gray, did you have anything additional? MEMBER GRAY: I have one more question, if I may. The house footprint on both of these is 3598, does that footprint include the attached garage for both of these?
MR. MASCIULLI: I believe so. MEMBER GRAY: That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Madame Chairperson. If I may, I would like to make a motion in Case 04-014, the petitioner's request be granted due to special circumstances. MEMBER FISCHER: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and approved. Is there any further discussion on the motion? MEMBER BAUER: I think we're going to have to have the kind of circumstances. MR. SCHULTZ: I think if the maker of the motion want to the incorporate the comments by Mr. Saven with regard to the RUD. MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no problem adding that comment. MR. SCHULTZ: And the lot size essentially being the issue here with the underlying zoning being R-A. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Denise, would
you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray. MEMBER GRAY: I'm going to reluctantly support it. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: No. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes five to one.
Case 04-015 CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Okay. Now, we have to do our last case. MEMBER SANGHVI: You're not done. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We have to finish your second case. MEMBER SANGHVI: Don't take off. MEMBER BAUER: You're still sworn. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Case 04-015, filed by Maybury Park Estates at 21067. Mr. Masciulli is requesting a 276 square foot variance for a garage. The previous discussion and your description, do you wish to make that part of the record at this point? MR. MASCIULLI: Yes, I do. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Would you like to add anything in regards to this address? MR. MASCIULLI: Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: There were 40 notices sent. No approvals. No objections. There is no one in the audience left to make a comment. Building department, your comments from the previous? MR. SAVEN: Same game. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Same, on this
case. Board members? Member. Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: If there is no extra discussion to be talked about from the previous I would like to make a motion that the variance be granted with the same reason and special circumstances and difference in the R-A and also the RUD agreement with use of special circumstances. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MEMBER FISCHER: Second. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been moved and approved. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Denise, would you please call the roll. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Fischer? MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Member Gronachan? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes.
MS. ANDERSON: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Motion passes six to zero. MR. MASCIULLI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: You're welcome. Please see the building department. We have a few other matters under discussion for the board to address. Case number ZBA 03-116 Meadowbrook Corporate Park time limitation and I think this was put on -- MR. SAVEN: This was the request that we did not have a time limitation on this sign case and we wanted to bring this back before the board and have the ample opportunity to look at that particular request to either come up with a time limitation or rehear this. Is that correct, Tom, rehear that portion of the case that would address the time limit? MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. MR. SAVEN: To that particular case. MEMBER BRENNAN: Madame Chair? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MEMBER BRENNAN: I was the maker of
that motion and I will be glad to modify that and add one year duration. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Is there a second. Do we have to have that seconded? MEMBER GRAY: Second. MEMBER FISCHER: Just a question, that was a January 6th meeting. My question would be can I vote on something that I did not? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. MEMBER FISCHER: I can vote. I just wanted to clarify that. MR. SCHULTZ: Go ahead. MR. SAVEN: Just some questions. We're going to call this a modification to the original motion? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Yes. MR. SAVEN: Or an amendment? Tom, which one? MR. SCHULTZ: Either one. MEMBER BRENNAN: I made a mistake and had no time limit. MR. SAVEN: It was no mistake, sir. There was no mistake. We were dealing with what was
presented before us at that time. If anybody would be saying anything about a mistake it was mine for not bringing this forwards. MEMBER BRENNAN: Given the nature of that we leave that sign for a year. MEMBER BAUER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Are you satisfied? MR. SCHULTZ: Just one comment, my understanding from the discussion that was the assumption from the board and we're just clarifying this for the purposes of this night. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: It's been move and approved. All those in favor say "Aye". MEMBER BAUER: Aye. MEMBER BRENNAN: Aye. MEMBER GRAY: Aye. MEMBER SANGHVI: Aye. MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: All opposed? None. MR. SAVEN: The second case, as you will recall this is associated with this first other matter. This was the one that was -- this was the
additional sign where the other sign which was on the property. Do you recall that? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MR. SAVEN: These people now want to come back before us. They went to actually extend their permit, their temporary use permit. The condition of the other permanent was we knew that this sign was being up. So I guess we can request -- they can request just like the normal. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Right. MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MR. SAVEN: Just want you to be aware of that. MEMBER GRAY: We'll just ask them the normal questions. MR. SAVEN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Sarah put a thing on -- or a third other matter which was for Meadowpark Townhomes. But before you go there I'm going to step out because we have two people patiently waiting and they missed the public audience participation at the beginning of the meeting and I take it you wish to address the board in regards to that matter?
MS. BURTON: Yes, just a brief statements. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: If you would, please come to the podium. MS. BURTON: High, Madame Chair, members, Mr. Saven and the rest of the city officials, my name is Sharon Burton. I live at 417265 in the Meadowbrook Townhomes and it was interesting that it was brought up. I was here today to ask some questions from ordinances but I think I would rather say a brief statement and look for guidance down the road where to go. There's been construction all around our area, not just Meadowbrook Townhomes. As I look through our area we have circumstances that are far different than other construction sites. There is three cargo containers on a 18 foot trailer that's been there for the builder's office. We have bricks piled all around. We look just like a junk yard back off the 13 Mile side of this development and I was coming here to find out what type of ordinances we have or what we can do to take and get this area cleaned up. I know the builder looks at this as a construction site, but this is my home. This is an area that we have 101 units that people live in and
we're cleaning up. We're picking up the dirt. There's rodents that I have seen around by pile ups of bricks and stuff and we've been patient trying to get this addressed. I don't know what ordinances or what we can do as homeowners to address the issues without coming down here where we look like we're a bunch of troublemakers. We just need help. These are our homes. We spent a lot of money. We spent a lot of time and the city has helped us in many ways and I'm coming here to look for some more help. Like I said, it might be a construction site to the development but this is our homes. Right now there is containers. There is garbage. Like I said, I believe I saw some rats out there the other day. This is part of the upset for coming here. Help us or tell us what ordinances we can come to you and if there is a violation and if there is a not a violation what can we do to get some ordinances to help us get this area cleaned up. Again, I thank all of you and we're trying to go about this in the proper manner. Mr. Saven, I appreciate your comments the other night on the city council because they have been a big help to us, too. Whatever we can do to
work together and to take and bring these matters to where we can get them cleared up so that we at least have a clean neighborhood and represent the city of Novi the way it wants to be represented. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: Okay. MS. BURTON: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Could I add something, what the resident said you don't ever need to feel that way. If you come into City because you have a trouble please don't feel like you're a troublemaker. And whenever you come before the city council or the zoning board or any body of this city you don't need to feel like you're a troublemaker when you have a valid concern for your home. Okay? MS. BURTON: Thank you. MR. SAVEN: We do have ordinances within the city that govern certain requirements that need to be met. I would ask that you contact Cindy Yugo in neighborhood services. Cindy is going to be your representative as she heads up what is called the ordinance division of the city and she deals with issues such as debris and general site clean up and things of that nature. We have what is called a
temporary use permit for trailers which we can take a look at and see where we're at with that particular trailer for that phase for that phasing requirement. First and foremost, ultimately they're going to have to be moving out of phase two in that area because they're going to want occupancy some of those particular units. I would assume that's coming up real quick or in the near future so there is going to have to be some moving of those temporary construction bins that are there. So they're going to be looking at that. They might find a better location for those. The brick and the other issues, the storage of the bricks you may want to talk to Cindy about. Whether we can get them located to an area, confined area or better area or stock piled in a neat and orderly manner. Yes, it is a construction site and, yes, they do have a right to do certain things, but along the same lines it has to be reasonable. And I think that Cindy should be helpful or even Cindy and myself have to go out there and take a look and see what needs to be done. MEMBER GRAY: Well, one of the reasons I brought this up is because I spent a lot of time in that area driving by on my way to and from
work each day and then a few occasions in the immediate area I was looking around there. I drove in through and around because I wanted to just check and see what was going on in that area and, Don, I know you've been doing an awful lot of work in the last little bit working on this site on behalf of the residents and some other cases that are going on. And I think that what you're doing is a very good thing. My concerns have been with the condition of the streets. They're all covered with mud and I realize that we can't do a whole lot about the weather and stuff but, you know, we've been successful in strongly encouraging builders in others areas. MR. SAVEN: Careful. You just got me in trouble last time. MEMBER GRAY: In just asking them to please keep things up. MR. SAVEN: Let's just cut right to the chase, I'm not going to be here. Matter of fact, I'm in a conference in Lansing and just came in for the ZBA meeting here, but I will be gone to the 15th of this month. I will say shortly after that time or maybe during that week I will be out at your site. I'll probably see if I can get in touch with Cindy so
we can be outside to take a look at what your concerns are. There is no doubt in my mind, I'm going to tell you this as sure as I'm sitting here, we're getting to the worst times of the year. We're going to have rain. We're going to have trucks. We're going to have a lot of mud kicked up and it's going to be a hassle until such time when things are going to calm down weatherwise. At the spring of the year and fall of the year this is the worst time for construction and this city is prone to construction. And I'm going to tell you that right now, we will have it, but we will get through it. Even if we have to be very pesty we will do that. If we have to do the ordinance bit we will do that too. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Are there any other matters? MR. SAVEN: Yeah. Election of officers next month. Don't forget about it. MALE SPEAKER: I'll tell you what, I want to get who had all those people up here. MEMBER FISCHER: Are we ready? CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: We're ready. MEMBER FISCHER: I'll make the motion
to adjourn. CHAIRPERSON GRONACHAN: Second. MEMBER FISCHER: Everybody have a good month. (The meeting was concluded at 9:30 p.m.) - - -
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Darlene K. May, do hereby certify that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of one hundred four (104) typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said stenographic notes.
_____________________________ Darlene K. May, RPR, CSR-6479 ___________________ (Date)
|