| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Tuesday, May 3, 2005. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, May 3, 2005 3 At 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - 5 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 6 It's 7:30, and I would like to call to 7 order the May, 2005 Zoning Board of 8 Appeals meeting. 9 Ms. Backus, would you please 10 call the roll? 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Present. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Here. 21 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 23 GAIL BACKUS: All present. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. We
3
1 do have a quorum, so the meeting is now in 2 session. 3 I would like to remind everyone 4 of some of the rules of conduct. Please turn off 5 all cell phones and pagers; as well as I will be 6 asking the secretary to hold individuals to five 7 minutes in front of the board; and groups, ten 8 minutes. Other rules can be found on the agenda. 9 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 10 Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City Charter, 11 to hear appeals seeking variances from the 12 application of the Novi Zoning Ordinance. It 13 takes a vote of at least four members to approve 14 a variance; and a vote of the majority present to 15 deny a variance. 16 A full Board is it present 17 tonight, and so all decisions will be final. 18 Any changes to the agenda? 19 GAIL BACKUS: No. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: No, we're going to 22 get to it. I'm sorry. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 24 Mr. Saven?
4
1 MR. SAVEN: Yes, in Case Number, 2 05-033, filed by Edmund and Christine Szelap for 3 23468 Duchess Court, I met with the applicant, 4 and he is requesting an (unintelligible) one of 5 the variances he is requesting, the variance for 6 the square footage of the accessory structure on 7 the property, it appears as though when I did the 8 computation, I did not take into account, a 9 triangular calculation, and I did not do it 10 correctly. 11 Therefore, the variance 12 requested, instead of 126 foot would be 49 square 13 feet. It is of a lesser variance, and this is 14 not -- this should not pose a problem. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 16 Any other changes? 17 Seeing none, I'll move for 18 approval of the agenda as amended. 19 All in favor say aye. 20 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Any opposed? 22 The aye's have it. The agenda 23 is set. 24 We did have Minutes from March,
5
1 as well as April 2005. 2 Are there in any changes to 3 either of these? 4 MEMBER BAUER: April's, yes. 5 Minor changes, and I have them 6 listed. (Unintelligible) give them to her. Or if 7 you want them, I can read them off for you. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Is it all right 9 to just submit them, changes to the Minutes, or 10 should they be read out? 11 MR. GILLIAM: If the 12 changes are just minor changes, Member 13 Bauer can just submit those in writing 14 to Ms. Backus, that would be fine. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Will do. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: That's fine 17 with me. 18 Any other changes to either 19 packet of Minutes? 20 All right then. I'll move for 21 approval of the Minutes as amended. 22 All in favor say aye? 23 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Any opposed?
6
1 None. The aye's have it. 2 All right. We'll move to public 3 remarks part of the agenda. If anyone wishes to 4 address the Board on any matter not on our agenda 5 tonight, please come forward. All comments that 6 are related to a case on the agenda should wait 7 until that case is called. 8 Seeing none, we'll close the 9 public remarks portion. 10 11 And we'll call our first case. 12 This is Case Number 05-011 filed by Paul Knuth of 13 Ivanhoe Huntley Companies. 14 Are you Mr. Knuth? 15 MR. KELESIC: I -- good evening. 16 My name is Ken Kelesic. I'm with Dykema Gossett. 17 Mr. Knuth is unable to be with us tonight. We're 18 representing him. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: And you 20 are an attorney? 21 MR. KELESIC: That is correct. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Go ahead with -- 23 MR. KELESIC: We've been before 24 you twice before, both at the March and at the
7
1 April meeting. We don't have any additional 2 comments at this time. 3 If you have any questions, we'd 4 be happy to answer those at this time. 5 We have nothing to add. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you 7 very much . 8 No new notices were made because 9 the changes did not -- the variance did not 10 change. 11 Does anyone in the audience wish 12 to address the Board tonight concerning this 13 case? 14 Seeing none, Building 15 Department? 16 MR. SAVEN: This case is 17 (unintelligible) hardship which I believe they 18 presented to you already, is that correct? 19 MR. KELESIC: That is correct, 20 at the March meeting. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 22 Mr. Saven. 23 Board members? 24 Member Brennan?
8
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Last month we 2 had asked our City attorney for some assistance; 3 and given that I'm prepared to make a Motion, 4 unless there's others that have comment. 5 I'll follow then on in Case 6 Number, 05-011, I would move that the Ivanhoe 7 Huntley Companies for Wellington Ridge 8 Condominiums, I would move to deny the 9 application for the use variance, as the 10 applicant has failed to establish an unnecessary 11 hardship. 12 In order to establish an 13 unnecessary hardship, the applicant must 14 establish each of the following: There's five 15 conditions: 16 The property cannot reasonably 17 be used for the permitted purpose; number two, 18 the requested variance is base upon unique 19 circumstances related to the property; the 20 variance will not alter the essential character 21 of the area; four, the variance is not based on 22 self-created hardship; five, 5 the variance will 23 ensure the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is 24 observed, public safety secured, and substantial
9
1 justice done. 2 I believe that this Board has 3 found that the applicant has not established any 4 of these five elements. The findings are based 5 on the entire record, including materials 6 submitted by the, Petitioner, City Planning 7 Department, City Consultants, as well comments of 8 the City Planning Department staff. 9 With respect to each item of the 10 five noted -- I'll begin with number 1 -- the 11 applicant has failed to establish that the 12 property cannot be used for any other purpose 13 listed in OS-1 and RA. 14 Generally, the applicant has 15 stated that the property has been listed with a 16 real estate broker since 1999; and there have 17 been no other -- or has been no other interest in 18 the property. However, the applicant has not 19 presented any evidence as to the listing price of 20 the property, and as to whether or not that 21 listing price is reasonable. 22 As to the OS-1 portion of the 23 property, the property could be developed with 24 approximately 18,000 square feet of office under
10
1 the existing Zoning. The office market in Novi 2 is strong, as evidenced by an additional 200,000 3 square foot of office that has been approved for 4 development in the City. Vacancy rates in Novi 5 are reported at approximately ten percent, which 6 is significantly less than in the surrounding 7 areas. 8 The applicant did not present 9 any evidence that office development is not 10 economically feasible, and does not constitute a 11 reasonable use of the property. The applicant 12 also failed to address the reasonableness of 13 other permitted uses within the District, 14 including banks, and churches, and special land 15 uses permitted within the district, including 16 nursery schools and child care centers. 17 As to the RA portion of the 18 property, the Planning Department has stated that 19 the property could be developed with five single 20 family lots of approximately 1 acre each, under 21 the existing zoning. That portion of the 22 property could also be used for expansion of the 23 existing cemetery to the west under the existing 24 zoning. The applicant did not present any
11
1 evidence that. 2 The applicant did not present 3 any evidence that either of these uses is not 4 economically feasible and does not constitute a 5 reasonable use of the property. The applicant 6 also failed to address the reasonableness of 7 other permitted uses within the District, 8 including private elementary schools and special 9 land uses permitted within the district, 10 including such as nursery schools and child care 11 centers. 12 Item two, the applicant has 13 failed to establish that the request is due to 14 unique circumstances peculiar to the subject 15 property, as opposed to the Petitioner, itself. 16 The applicant has not presented 17 any evidence that there are any unique 18 circumstances related to the property. The only 19 characteristic that might be considered unique is 20 the split zoning of the property, which is 21 self-created hardship. 22 Addressing item three: The 23 applicant has failed to establish that the 24 proposed variance would not alter the essential
12
1 character of the area. 2 The variance requested by the 3 applicant would permit multiple family 4 development, which is out of character with 5 existing uses in the area. 6 With respect to item four: 7 Petitioner failed to establish that the problem 8 sought to be addressed is not self-created. 9 The applicant has stated that 10 the property cannot be developed as zoned, due to 11 a split zoning. However, the front of the 12 property was rezoned for residential to OS-1 in 13 approximately 1979 at the request of the then 14 property owner. Therefore, if, in fact, the 15 applicant is suffering -- if he's suffered any 16 hardship, that hardship is self-created. 17 With respect to the last item: 18 Granting the variance would not observe the 19 spirit of the Ordinance, secure the public safety 20 or do substantial justice to the surrounding 21 property owners. 22 Granting the use variance is not 23 necessary in order to do substantial justice for 24 the applicant, since the property can be
13
1 developed with 18,000 square feet of office and 2 five single family homes under the existing 3 district regulations. The property has existing 4 uses that are feasible and reasonable. 5 Approval of the use variance 6 would permit multiple family development, which 7 is out of character with the surrounding area, 8 and would not do substantial justice to the 9 surrounding property owners. 10 The applicant is requesting the 11 same relief as would be granted by way of a 12 rezoning. The residential use proposed for the 13 front of the property and the intensity of the 14 residential use proposed for the rear of the 15 property are both inconsistent with the City's 16 Mater Plan for land use for the property. 17 So, I guess, in essence, we have 18 not found that the Petitioner has met any of the 19 conditions for the variance requested under the 20 aforementioned verifications of the zone. 21 MEMBER BAUER: I second that. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 23 Motion and a second. 24 Is there any further discussion
14
1 on the Motion? 2 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 3 you please call the roll. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 9 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 17 to zero. 18 MR. KELESIC: Thank you. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Sorry. 20 Your variance has been denied. 21 22 All right. We'll move on to the 23 next case, Case Number 05-024 filed by Abdu 24 Murray from Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn
15
1 for CVS Corporation. 2 This meeting was -- this case 3 was tabled from last month. And so, your 4 swearing in is still intact. 5 MR. MURRAY: Thank you. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Please 7 state your name for the record. 8 MR. MURRAY: My name is Abdu 9 Murray, from Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Go ahead. 11 MR. MURRAY: Thank you. 12 I'd like to just make sure it's 13 clear for the record that we are not seeking all 14 of the variances for all of the signs noted in 15 the agenda. 16 At the Board's suggestion, we 17 limited the number of signs. We limited some 18 signs we were asking for at the last meeting. We 19 sent an amended package to the Board on April 20 13th, and the signs (unintelligible) one to that 21 package, are all of the signs -- the only signs 22 we're seeking variances for. 23 So I wanted to make sure that 24 was clear. There's a monument sign we're looking
16
1 to put up there. Area variances for the two 2 primary wall signs we're allowed for under the 3 Code; and then a variance to allow for some 4 ancillary signage on the north and west 5 elevations that say "Drive-Thru Pharmacy", at the 6 corners of the north and west elevations. 7 I'll deal with each sign in 8 turn. Let me go to the primary wall signs first. 9 The primary wall signs say CVS Pharmacy. They're 10 going to be on the north and west elevations. 11 The Code allows us to have -- because we're on a 12 corner lot -- up two primary wall signs on the 13 property -- on the building. 14 We're looking for a variance 15 from up to 24.5 square feet for each sign. Was 16 24.5 square foot variance, I believe. And the 17 reason is this: Visibility's an important part 18 of this location, due in no small part to the 19 unique circumstances of it being across the 20 street from the neighboring town that has a 21 Rite-Aid, which has very large, very prominent 22 signs that are meant to, of course, attract 23 business to that Rite-Aid into Wixom; and away 24 from Novi.
17
1 Having thus been able to have 2 visibility of the sign will help with this 3 practical difficulty of competing in an unfair 4 advantage with the Rite-Aid across the street. 5 There's no negative impact I believe on property 6 here or the surrounding area because of the fact 7 that we are on the border. And we're surrounded 8 by or next to a competing business that has the 9 exact same or even bigger -- actually bigger 10 signage than we're looking for here. 11 What that means is that because 12 our signs' on the border, much of Novi won't even 13 be facing or looking at these signs. Rather, 14 this is meant to attract business from people who 15 are travelling on Pontiac Trail and Beck. And it 16 won't negatively impact the visuals for the City, 17 because we're not -- we're on the border of City; 18 so it can't possibly negatively impact the 19 visuals. 20 So, for the primary wall sign, 21 it's a visibility issue. We'd like to be able to 22 have a little more visibility to attract business 23 and commerce in Novi, as opposed no Wixom, and it 24 won't have a negative visual impact.
18
1 Those are the area variance for 2 the primary wall signs. 3 With regard to the monument sign 4 we're seeking, the Ordinance says that we are 5 either allowed a wall sign or a monument sign, 6 but not both. We think that it's important to 7 have a monument sign here, because of a 8 visibility problem, as well. As you know, in 9 that area, there's surrounding developments that 10 are going up -- commercial developments that are 11 going up around in that shopping mall there, the 12 Shoppes at the Trail. 13 Especially on Pontiac Trail, 14 there's going to be -- my understanding of the 15 site plan, is that there's going to be 16 developments that are going to protrude farther 17 and farther north than the CVS si actually 18 located; such that, if you're traveling along 19 Pontiac Trail on the west, you won't be able to 20 see the CVS until you're on top of it. 21 If you have a monument sign at 22 the corner, you'll be able to see that the CVS is 23 actually going to be there before you get to it. 24 In other words, you'll know it's there. You can
19
1 prepare to stop, make a left turn into the 2 parking lot before you get there. Otherwise, you 3 might not know that it's there, until you get on 4 top of it. 5 Why that's important -- it's 6 especially important because of fact that there 7 is a Rite-Aid, again across the way in Wixom, 8 that has a prominent monument sign. So if we're 9 travelling along either one of the two roads, 10 Beck or Pontiac Trail, and you see this monument 11 sign, in Wixom we're likely to go to the 12 Rite-Aid, instead of the CVS. And that will draw 13 dollars, of course, away from Novi and into the 14 City of Wixom. 15 So then we have a practical 16 difficulty in that there's a bit of a visibility 17 problem, an obstruction, possibly, from these 18 neighboring developments. But also, there's a 19 benefit to the City in that he will attract 20 business to Novi and it keep from going outside 21 of the city. That's with regard to the monument 22 sign variance request. 23 Now, part three of our request 24 here is the ancillary signage, the drive-thru
20
1 pharmacy signs that will -- the wall signs that 2 will go on the corners of the Rite-Aid facility 3 -- I'm sorry, the CVS facility. 4 Well, the practical difficulty 5 in not having those signs is this: We offer the 6 drive-thru pharmacy, which is a very nice, very 7 convenient feature that comes at a premium to the 8 pharmacist. Not all of the pharmacies offer 9 these. You'll see plenty of pharmacies that 10 don't. I when we do, it's important that people 11 know about it. They can't know about it, unless 12 there's sign that says something about it on the 13 property. 14 So we needed to be able to tell 15 motorists travelling along Beck and Pontiac Trail 16 that we offer this service. That will, attract 17 -- again, attract dollars to the City of Novi. 18 Now, why that's especially important, is because, 19 once again across the way, we have a Rite-Aid 20 with a plethora of wall signs, as you well know, 21 the least of which, are illuminated signs 22 (unintelligible) that say drive-thru pharmacy at 23 the Rite-Aid -- at the C -- yeah, at the 24 Rite-Aid -- I keep getting mixed up -- at the
21
1 Rite-Aid across in Wixom. 2 Now, if you're looking for a 3 drive-thru pharmacy, and you see the signs on the 4 Rite-Aid, where are you going to go? You're 5 going to go to the one where you know there's a 6 drive-thru pharmacy, instead of trying to guess 7 and see if the CVS has one. So, eliminating this 8 guess-work from motorist on Pontiac Trail and 9 Beck, we propose to have these drive-thru 10 pharmacy signs that tell them for sure -- yes, 11 come on it. We've got a drive-thru pharmacy. 12 Spend your money in Novi; don't spend it in 13 Wixom, we've got it here. 14 It's important to us because we 15 need that visibility for that premium service, 16 and I think it's important for the City, as well. 17 Granting these variances, I 18 think really is a win-win situation. It allows 19 for some visibility; allows us to bring some 20 dollars into Novi, and allows for us to identify 21 to motorists that we offer a drive-thru pharmacy, 22 which is a special convenience for customers. 23 If you have any questions, of 24 course, I'd be happy to answer them.
22
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you 2 very much. 3 No new notices were mailed, as 4 this case was tabled from the previous Board -- 5 Board meeting. 6 Does anyone in the audience wish 7 to address the Board regarding this case? 8 Seeing none, we move to the 9 Building Department. 10 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes, sir, a couple 11 comments. 12 I beg to differ with the 13 Petitioner regarding his statements that these 14 other signs do not need a variance. They do, in 15 fact, do. The interior signage and the driveway 16 entrance signs need a minimum setback area on 17 Pontiac Trail and Beck Road; are only allowed one 18 per entrance. They're requesting three on one 19 and two on the other one. 20 The interior directional type 21 signs are not covered on Ordinance. The nearest 22 we have anything that would even come close to 23 that would be allowed is what we call locator 24 signs, which are only two square feet in area and
23
1 not commercial in nature. 2 I have a great deal of 3 difficulty with the sign company who is 4 presenting this. I think a lot of this could 5 have cleared up by a couple of phone 6 conversations. (Unintelligible) usually were not 7 available. So that was one of the problems we 8 had in dealing with this variance. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 10 Anymore comments? 11 MR. SAVEN: No. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Board 13 Members? 14 Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: On the sign on 16 top there in front of the building, CVS Pharmacy, 17 the large sign, is the car footage of that 18 computed properly? Looks like you computed just 19 the word or the verbiage on there and not the 20 complete sign. 21 If my memory is correct, signs 22 are computed by the perimeter of the sign itself; 23 where there, they've got that red circle in the 24 CVS Pharmacy. My interpretation of the Ordinance
24
1 would be that that would be the total square 2 footage of the sign; not the alphabet that is on 3 the sign. 4 MR. AMOLSCH: Again, the plans 5 were drop (unintelligible) just the individual 6 letters on the wall. It didn't have a background 7 to it. 8 MEMBER CANUP: And now they have 9 the background. 10 MR. AMOLSCH: Right. 11 MR. MURRAY: Well, if I could -- 12 I'm sorry to interrupt -- 13 MR. CANUP: You've either got it 14 or you don't. It's on the drawing. 15 MR. MURRAY: Well, this -- if 16 you're referring to the top sign, the very top 17 signs, that says CVS Pharmacy, for the 18 (unintelligible) letter sign, that's sign A, sir? 19 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 20 MR. MURRAY: That's just a letter 21 sign. It's just the letters. There's the -- 22 MEMBER CANUP: Well, that's not 23 the way -- my understanding of the Ordinance, 24 that's not the way that it's computed; is that
25
1 correct? 2 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct. 3 That's the way it was originally (unintelligible) 4 individual letters on the wall without the 5 border. 6 MEMBER CANUP: The real 7 computation of the size of the sign would be that 8 red box; is that correct? 9 MR. AMOLSCH: It depends on if 10 it's -- if the background is different from the 11 sign -- the sign area that's inside of the red. 12 If it's different colors than the background, 13 then it would become a sign area. 14 This -- these were not the 15 original -- this -- this first were 16 (unintelligible) individual letters. There was 17 no border on them. 18 MEMBER CANUP: Okay . 19 And now we've got a sign that 20 has the red in it. 21 MR. AMOLSCH: I do not know what 22 the dimensions are (unintelligible.) 23 MR. MURRAY: Oh -- 24 MEMBER CANUP: Am I correct in
26
1 stating that the computation should have been 2 made on the red? 3 MR. AMOLSCH: If it's a 4 different background than what's on the wall, 5 yes. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Any 7 further comments? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Brennan? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Certainly, 11 welcome CVS to Novi, which brings up my first 12 comments. 13 There is no relevance with 14 comparing any business in Wixom, because you're 15 not dealing with Wixom and Wixom signs and Wixom 16 business. You're dealing with Novi and Novi sign 17 Ordinances. 18 That's said, your best 19 comparison is the most recent drugstore that went 20 in at 10 mile and Novi Road, Wallgreen. Now that 21 is sitting on a corner lot, 10 and Novi, very 22 similar situation. They have two signs; and 23 given their setback actually falls within their 24 zoning and were able to signs on both sides of
27
1 that building without a variance. 2 Additionally, they've got 3 drive-thru pharmacy. I stopped in there a couple 4 weeks ago to see how that business was doing. It 5 was doing quite well with no signage out front at 6 all. 7 I think drugstores, for the most 8 part, are supported by local residents, who very 9 quickly understand what's in there and what's not 10 in there. But I guess my biggest issue is I'm 11 hearing a lot of speculation; speculation and 12 guesswork was another word I heard, because this 13 business isn't even open yet. 14 So I don't know how you can give 15 this compelling data that you're suffering when 16 you're not even open. I don't know how you can 17 tell us that you've got visibility problems -- 18 potential visibility problems with businesses 19 that don't exist, with a business of your own 20 that's not even open yet. 21 So, with the direction, by law 22 of this Board granting variances based on good 23 information and a compelling case, I think you're 24 early, and I don't think you have a case.
28
1 That's my comments. 2 Thank you. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 4 Gronachan? 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 6 I concur with Member Brennan. 7 Going down Pontiac Trail, there's another CVS 8 that has no variances. The sign is relatively 9 within the letter, and you don't have any problem 10 seeing it. 11 This case is, in my opinion, ill 12 prepared. And the reason why I say that is 13 because, as Member Brennan commented, you cannot 14 use competition for grounds to determine a 15 hardship when you're going for sign variances. 16 Granted, you're on a corner lot but, you're still 17 not ready to ask for what you're asking for this 18 evening in my opinion. 19 I did forget about the Novi road 20 and 10 mile Wallgreen's, and Member Brennan is 21 correct with that location. I feel that the Beck 22 and Pontiac Trail location is -- if there's going 23 to be anything -- you'll need to go back and do 24 your homework, because I'm not going back up
29
1 there on Sunday again, is that there is a 2 visibility problem but it's not from the front of 3 the store. 4 And maybe after all the 5 construction gets done, it may be -- and that's 6 with a big M -- with your drive-thru and that's 7 only because you're coming through, and -- but 8 again, it's identical to the Wallgreen's, so -- 9 and it's a little tough to tell with the 10 construction going on. You couldn't drive into 11 the site to get an idea. So it was very 12 difficult to take the length. 13 The sign in the front is way too 14 big, in my opinion. I can't support that sign at 15 all. And -- you took my advice last week without 16 even Hearing the case, and going back to the 17 drawing board. But in all honestly, I think you 18 need to go back there again and do some more 19 homework, because I don't think you're ready to 20 ask for what you're asking for, because you have 21 not substantiated your case this evening. 22 Thank you. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 24 Canup?
30
1 MEMBER CANUP: (Unintelligible) 2 Wallgreen's, which is Novi Road and 10 mile, 3 correct? 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Uh-huh. 5 MEMBER CANUP: Made it without 6 any variances. Why can't these people? They 7 have a very similar corner lot. And obviously, 8 our sign Ordnance would work. It worked for them. 9 And with that, if there's no 10 further discussion I would make a Motion. 11 Okay. I would make a Motion 12 that in Case Number, 05-024, that we deny the 13 request as stated, due to the fact of a lack of 14 display of a sufficient hardship; and due to the 15 fact that we do have another facility located in 16 a similar situation on a corner of two busy 17 intersections, that managed to -- in the same 18 business, and managed to make it through with no 19 request for variances. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 22 Motion on the floor and there was a 23 second. 24 Is there any further discussion
31
1 on this Motion? 2 Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Just to add to the 4 Motion. 5 If you remember and still do 6 Wallgreen's has been in the process of having 7 just one road -- 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: On top of 9 everything else. 10 MEMBER BAUER: -- on both sides. 11 So not just as to -- 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Any further 13 comments on the Motion? 14 Ms. Backus, would you please 15 call the roll. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?
32
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 5 to zero. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Your variance 7 has been denied at this time. 8 MR. MURRAY: Good evening. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank 10 you. 11 12 Our next case, is Case Number 13 05-028 filed by Tracey Shipley for 25890 Strath 14 Haven. 15 Is Ms. Shipley in the audience? 16 Please state your name for the 17 record. 18 MS. SHIPLEY: Tracey Shipley. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 20 And will you please raise your 21 hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 22 MS. SHIPLEY: Sure. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Oh, that's 24 me.
33
1 MEMBER FISCHER: That is 2 you, ma'am. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 4 or affirm that -- to tell the truth in the matter 5 before you? 6 MS. SHIPLEY: Yes. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Go ahead. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may 9 proceed. 10 MS. SHIPLEY: I am proposing to 11 build a home that is 48 feet deep on one -- I'm 12 sorry. 38 feet deep on one side and 44 feet deep 13 on the other at 25890 Strath Haven. Therefore, 14 I'm requesting four variances: Ten feet in the 15 front from the garage; four feet from the house; 16 nine in the back; four on the side; and an 17 aggregate total of side yard of two feet. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Anything 19 else? 20 MS. SHIPLEY: I mean, I have a 21 lot, but I don't (unintelligible) will help. I'm 22 not really sure how this process goes. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Just give 24 us any information you feel is a is
34
1 pertinent relating to the difficulty 2 given this lot or whatever you find the 3 Board might need to consider when 4 making a decision on the variances. 5 Well, I decided on this lot -- I 6 purchased this lot using the prior owners 7 approval from the homeowner's association. Her 8 home was actually 45 feet deep. And I went to 9 the City of Novi, and I was told about the 25 10 percent on the plan; I couldn't take up more than 11 25 percent. I really didn't have a floor plan in 12 mind; went and looked, found one that fit those 13 numbers and I proceed (unintelligible.) 14 So I mean -- and therefore, the 15 subdivision, I'm sure that you're aware is very 16 hard to make the number that you guys have, as 17 far as the zoning goes. I believe that it's 18 zoned RA. Therefore, pretty much anybody who 19 builds there, has to request a variance of some 20 sort. 21 In order for me to build a home 22 the size -- it's roughly 2400 square feet -- and 23 make the value from the lot -- what I paid for 24 the lot -- these are the variances that I need.
35
1 These are the variances that were granted to the 2 prior owner, as well. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Excellent. 4 There were 31 notices sent out 5 for this particular case, as you remember. We 6 did -- this was before us before. I think the 7 variances have changed, that's why 31 new notices 8 were sent; one approval and one objection. 9 As well as in our packet, we did 10 receive six support letters from surrounding 11 neighbors. 12 MS. SHIPLEY: One of those 13 neighbors is here this evening, (unintelligible) 14 directly next door, as well. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 16 And this time we'll ask any 17 persons in the audience who wish to address the 18 Board regarding this case, to please come down. 19 Please. 20 And if there's anyone else in 21 the audience, just go ahead and file down behind 22 this gentleman. 23 Please state your name for the 24 record.
36
1 MR. NELSON: My name is Greg 2 Nelson and I represent the architectural 3 committee for the association. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 5 Go ahead. Please proceed. 6 MR. NELSON: Okay. 7 We've been working with 8 Miss Shipley here for I don't know, a couple of 9 months, and it's been, you know, a little 10 frustrating to both parties, frankly, and I guess 11 a little bit of background. 12 We're in a subdivision that's 13 roughly 30 years old or thereabouts; about 80 14 homes in the neighborhood; and, you know, roughly 15 ten lots remaining. So one of the challenges the 16 committee has is to preserve the consistency, if 17 you will, of the homes that are there in terms 18 of, you know, size, location, and anticipate so 19 on; yet being reasonable to people coming in who 20 want to build and not constrain them too much. 21 So it's been -- it's an ongoing 22 challenge that we wrestle with. I think, you 23 know, I'll put it right on the table that Tracey 24 and the committee have politely agreed to
37
1 disagree. You know, this -- her build is -- the 2 committee feels is a little bit too big for this 3 particular situation. 4 One thing I wanted to share with 5 you -- if I can get this projector turned on 6 here. 7 Do I have to do anything? 8 MEMBER FISCHER: It'll come 9 on. 10 MR. NELSON: Okay. 11 I don't know how much you'll be 12 able to see, but I just wanted to share a little 13 bit of the information that we've talked about 14 and shared with Tracey, as well. I guess you 15 can't really see the colors, but, what this shows 16 is the -- the homes in the area, the adjoining 17 homes, if you will. 18 This is the parcel that Tracey 19 wants to build on. And these are -- then the 20 other five homes are existing homes. If you look 21 a the numbers here, 42 feet -- and down here at 22 the bottom here, these are all the setbacks front 23 setbacks for the exciting homes. So what -- you 24 know, we tried to, you know, be as objective
38
1 about it. If you look at -- I don't know if I 2 can get it all the way up there -- but one of the 3 things we've done is looked at, you know, what 4 are the current homes and where they sit. 5 If you see on the left there, 6 front setbacks sit at -- and you know, the homes, 7 they're not perfectly symmetrical, of course. 8 It's kind drawn there. It's not to scale. But 9 current homes sit at about 42 feet or they do sit 10 42 feet. So there is an average of 42 feet. 11 And one of the things, again, 12 what we wrestle with, is where do we draw the 13 line. What is -- you know, given that the 14 neighboring homes -- and yes, there are 15 exceptions as you drive through the subdivision. 16 There are always exceptions. There are mistakes, 17 perhaps that may have been made in the past. 18 There could be hardships, because of the road, 19 and so on. But these homes that are most 20 impacted sit 42 feet. 21 The bylaws also require a 40 22 foot front setback. So the committee had drawn 23 the line -- a pretty firm line -- at 40 feet in 24 the front. So that's the front setback. And
39
1 then on the rear, without going back to the 2 drawing, you'll see on the right side, current 3 setbacks of the same -- same homes are at 47, 50, 4 49, and 45. So, you know, one might think, okay 5 make the -- you know, the average is 48 feet, 6 let's draw the line there. But, of course, that 7 doesn't seem reasonable. 8 So the limit has been draw in 9 the rear setback as a 40 foot minimum, as well. 10 Which if you look at the type of home that would 11 allow -- it would allow a home with a footprint 12 of 70 feet wide by 40 feet deep, which is 2800 13 square feet. It could be two-stories, remove the 14 garage, that's a reasonable sized home, that's 15 the opinion of the committee. 16 So, you can see there, on lot 17 96, is a recent build. I think Tracey mentioned. 18 He's in the audience, as well. That home sits at 19 40 feet in the front and 41 feet in the back. So 20 in Tracey's credit, she's trying to cut some size 21 off the home. There was a small discrepancy last 22 month of two feet. She's agreed to take that 23 off, I think of the garage. But it just seems, 24 in our opinion, to be had a continued struggle to
40
1 make this house dimensionally, you know, 2 appropriate with the surrounding homes. 3 But -- and one other thing I 4 wanted to mention is, you know, we've talked -- 5 we've talked several times. The last time we 6 talked again, that -- we were looking for your 7 help in helping us assess what's reasonable. The 8 association feels that 40 feet in the back and 40 9 feet in the front -- based on bylaws and also 10 consistency, is reasonable. It seems that homes 11 can be built on that sized lot, as you can see 12 the left lot, left home there. And you know, 13 that's the limit the committee has drawn. 14 I'm happy to answer any 15 questions and I'm sure Tracey, as well. That's 16 one that we share, trying to be objective about 17 it. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you 19 very much. 20 Is there anyone else in the 21 audience that wishes to comment on this case? 22 Seeing none, we'll move to the 23 Building Department. 24 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out,
41
1 this is a RA zoning. It's probably one of the 2 more difficult subdivisions that we have to deal 3 with in regard to setback requirements for the 4 properties that are planning on being built. 5 As you can tell, in an RA zoning 6 district, it requires that you have at least an 7 acre of property with 150 foot of frontage. 8 There's no doubt in my mind that based upon side 9 yard setback, there will be side yard setback 10 concerns, and also rear and front yard concerns. 11 I do want to point out that this 12 property was before you before, with a variance 13 that was granted for a 35 foot rear yard 14 variance; and which was approved by this Board. 15 I just want to keep and make sure that you were 16 aware of this. And that the variances are 17 different from the side -- for the side yard 18 being -- and this was, I believe, looked at by 19 the architectural control committee also. 20 And just with that in mind, I 21 believe that's part of your documentation that 22 you have before you, also. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 24 Mr. Saven.
42
1 Just a procedural question for 2 Mr. Gilliam. 3 This does need to go for -- I do 4 need to entertain a Motion to reconsider. 5 Should I do that now? Should I 6 have done it before -- but before we get into the 7 Board discussion, would this be a good time to 8 entertain a Motion? 9 MR. GILLIAM: Before 10 there's any Board discussion on the 11 matter, that's correct. The 12 application was denied at last months 13 meeting due to the applicant's 14 nonappearance. As I understand, there 15 might have been some mitigating 16 circumstances there, so the issue would 17 be back in front of you. 18 But before you can take any 19 action on the application, there will need to be 20 a Motion for reconsideration of the denial from 21 last month. The Motion would need to be made by 22 someone who voted in favor of the denial at the 23 time. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Then at
43
1 this time, there's a Motion. 2 Is there a second? 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 5 Motion and a second. 6 Anything discussion? 7 Please call the roll, 8 Ms. Backus. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 21 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 22 to zero. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 24 We'll now move to Board discussion,
44
1 working on this case. 2 Member Brennan? 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Did you follow 4 what just happened? 5 We just voted that we were going 6 to reconsider this case. 7 MS. SHIPLEY: Yes, from last 8 month, correct. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Now, I'm the 10 meanie that voted you down last time. 11 MS. SHIPLEY: Well, the reason I 12 -- 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: It doesn't 14 matter. 15 MS. SHIPLEY: I was going to say, 16 I actually changed -- 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: We're going to 18 hear it tonight. 19 MS. SHIPLEY: I changed my 20 variance five feet. I moved the house five 21 forward, because of the lady behind me thought 22 the house was too close; and I wanted to be 23 respectful of that; as well as the architectural 24 control committee didn't -- they thought my rear
45
1 setback was too big. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 3 MS. SHIPLEY: It was too -- I'm 4 sorry. Not big enough. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is the drawing 6 that we have in our packet the most current 7 drawing, as far as -- 8 MS. SHIPLEY: Yes. Does that 9 represent the plot plan? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 11 MS. SHIPLEY: Yes. Then that's 12 correct. 13 As you can see, it's the garage 14 that's really the issue, that's the 35 feet. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: You hit it right 16 on -- 17 MS. SHIPLEY: So the 41 -- the 18 rest of the house is 41. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yep. If you'd 20 let me say that -- 21 MS. SHIPLEY: Okay. 22 I'm comfortable now. I can 23 talk. 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, I was
46
1 going to point out for those that were listening 2 or watching it's -- it's actually the variance -- 3 the front yard variance is to the front of the 4 garage. It's actually -- the dimensions of the 5 front of the house is right around where the 6 association would like to have it. It's around 7 40 foot. 8 I'm not going to speak for the 9 subdivision, but I guess looking at it as a tough 10 lot, I'd rather give up a little in the front, 11 rather than being pushed to the back end -- the 12 rear. And maybe you can cut that in half. But 13 you work with what you got. 14 I got a question here -- I think 15 Pioneer Meadows is probably closer to 40 to 50 16 years, that sub, and it's it started around '57, 17 '58, (unintelligible) older. What's the square 18 footage of the house you're planning on building? 19 MS. SHIPLEY: I believe it's 20 2450. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. 22 MS. SHIPLEY: Roughly. It was 23 2550, but I had it cut down a hundred square 24 feet, because the homeowner's association
47
1 preferred them to be 2500 or less. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: I wanted to get 3 a sense for the size and that helps, because I 4 know the sub. We've had probably four -- three 5 or four new homes with variances go into that 6 sub. And frankly, it's too bad that you couldn't 7 work out every little detail with the homeowner's 8 association. 9 I know there's a lot of work 10 towards it. I'm compelled to support your 11 request. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 13 Member Brennan. 14 Any further comments? 15 Member Gronachan? 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Chairman 17 Fischer, you indicated that there was an 18 objection. Is that from the architectural 19 control committee? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: I will 21 find the objection. 22 It is from Gregory Nelson. 23 Is that you? 24 MS. SHIPLEY: Yes.
48
1 MR. NELSON: Yes. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So it is 3 the -- the architectural control committee is not 4 even supporting this plan at this time; is that 5 correct? 6 MR. NELSON: The committee does 7 not. And frankly, for the record -- 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You need to 9 come up the Mike, I'm sorry. 10 MR. NELSON: That's correct. 11 So my -- the information I 12 shared was on behalf of the committee. I guess 13 sometimes I'm not sure if I can also respond to 14 the mailing as well. That -- if you look at the 15 home next to it, which happens to be the home I 16 live in, by the way -- which, you know, right, 17 wrong, or in different, those are my comments. A 18 lot of them mirror what we just went through. 19 If you look at, for example -- 20 and I'll be very brief -- the home that I live in 21 is 42 foot setback on the southside, but this 22 side closer to this lot is actually lip 44 feet. 23 So part of my concern is, yes it's farther back 24 than 40, but the difference, you know, at the end
49
1 closest to this new build, would be actually nine 2 -- actually would be nine feet. Because that's 3 44. This would be a 35. So that home would 4 stick out nine feet farther than the home right 5 next door to it. 6 So that's part of the concern -- 7 part of my concerns about that, which are really 8 objections. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 10 MS. SHIPLEY: But I guess on the 11 flipside -- 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Ma'am, 13 hang on. 14 MS. SHIPLEY: Sorry. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: That's all 16 right. 17 Board discussion. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So in 19 essence, there are two objections. One from the 20 architectural control committee and from 21 resident; if that is correct, because Mr. Nelson 22 wrote the letter, as well as the control 23 committee. 24 I just want that on record.
50
1 MS. SHIPLEY: It's the same 2 person? 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Ma'am -- 4 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm not 5 sure if that's correct. 6 Did we receive, Ms. Backus, an 7 actual submittal from the architectural 8 committee? 9 GAIL BACKUS: Not this month. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And last 11 month, did we receive one? 12 GAIL BACKUS: Yes. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Was it a 14 denial at that point? 15 GAIL BACKUS: Yes. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you 18 Ms. Gronachan. 19 Anything else? 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, that's all 21 at this point in time. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 23 Canup? 24 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah. You know,
51
1 a good case has been made with the fact that a 40 2 foot setback. And if you look at the homes that 3 are in there, they've managed to live with the 40 4 foot setback in the front and on both side. Most 5 of the homes in there I think, as demonstrated, 6 have a 40 foot setback in front. 7 And I think it's important to 8 the other people who live in that committee -- me 9 being one of them -- that, you know, we've 10 maintained that 40 foot setback in the front 11 yard. So at least the subdivision has some 12 continuity. If you're going to give it up in the 13 backyard, that's one thing. Everybody that 14 drives by and everyone that lives there is not 15 inconvenienced by that, by moving it back. 16 Or possibly aligning the garage 17 in this case with the front of house. Whether 18 it's the garage that you park your car in or a 19 bedroom where you sleep in, it still sticks out 20 beyond the 40 feet. That is provided by our -- 21 certain covenants in our subdivision which have 22 been upheld primarily over the past 40 years. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 24 Member Canup.
52
1 Any further comments? 2 MEMBER FISCHER: I would 3 like to go ahead and make several 4 comments. 5 I would tend to agree with 6 Member Brennan, because I understand where Member 7 Canup is coming from, that it doesn't matter what 8 is above and beyond that 40 feet; however, you 9 also need to look at the portion of house that is 10 going to be asking for an additional variance. 11 It's maybe one third of the house. Maybe up to a 12 half the house; it's not the whole frontage of 13 the house. 14 And I'd also like to comment -- 15 given the previous case, this property. The 16 person who Ms. Shipley has purchased it from, 17 when they came before us they were asking for 18 many more side yard variances, and we were 19 inclined to approve that. And so, if she can 20 build the house, given the lot condition that 21 Mr. Saven has told us about, with an additional 22 five feet in the front; then I'd be inclined to 23 support that minor addition to the front; given 24 the things she's she given up on the sides.
53
1 So, given that, ask for 2 comments? 3 Mr. Canup? 4 MEMBER CANUP: You know, still, 5 you're violating the covenants of that 6 subdivision. Those were established. The houses 7 in there were built to that. Most of them have 8 the 40 foot setback in the front. And I who 9 encourage this Board to respect those and respect 10 the other 50 homes that are in there; and ask 11 these people -- this person, the builder -- 12 whoever, go back and redo you drawing. You knew 13 there was a 40 foot there. 14 I think the -- if my memory is 15 correct in looking at the previous one, it 16 allowed 40 feet; is that correct. 17 MEMBER BAUER: 40. 18 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. 19 Enough said. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Is there a 21 Motion on the table, then? 22 MS. SHIPLEY: May I speak or -- 23 MEMBER FISCHER: No, ma'am, 24 I'm sorry, that's out of order. This
54
1 is Board discussion. 2 Member Gronachan? 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have 4 something to add to concur with Member Canup. 5 The Zoning Board is to look at 6 variances after a hardship and a degree of 7 practical difficulty, and all the yada-yada-yada 8 are substantiated or not substantiated; and this 9 is new construction in a well-established 10 subdivision. 11 And my favorite saying is, it's 12 time to go back to the drawing board. There's 13 houses upon houses in this subdivision that were 14 built with the 40 yard setback. If you'd got 15 your subdivision approval, then I would look at 16 this differently. But I think that because this 17 is new construction, because of the age of the 18 subdivision, because of the convenant laws are -- 19 that subdivision has, I'm not able to support 20 this. 21 I'm sorry. 22 And I think Member Canup was 23 making a Motion. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Member
55
1 Canup? 2 MEMBER CANUP: Now the house 3 that was just built next door to this was built 4 without any variances; is that correct? 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. 6 MEMBER CANUP: No? You sit back 7 40 feet, though. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, I'm not 9 sure. I haven't got the variances here. 10 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. All right. 11 I who make a Motion that in Case 12 Number 05-028, we grant the variances as 13 requested; with the exception of the front yard 14 setback to be 40 feet. They asked for a 35 foot 15 front yard and a ten foot variance, and that 16 would be cut to a 40 foot, with a five foot 17 variance. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 20 Motion and a second. 21 Is there any further discussion? 22 MR. SAVEN: What was presented to 23 the Board tonight was this plot -- particular 24 plot plan. And with all due respect to the
56
1 architectural control committee, that's their -- 2 if we grant the variance, it may not be in line 3 with what the architectural control committee 4 may be looking at for that particular type of 5 house. 6 It's not that we enforce 7 architectural control committee rules. It's a 8 courtesy which we extend to the architectural 9 control committee. But I do want point out just 10 a couple of things. 11 This board has always been -- 12 always taken into account those issues that are 13 dealing with the architectural control committee 14 as a courtesy is rendered to this Board. The 15 concerns that we -- some of the concerns that we 16 have relative to the setback requirements is that 17 every lot in that subdivision will be before you. 18 So we know that it will be going before the 19 committee; that -- to the extent as to what those 20 setbacks are. It's going to be a difficult 21 massaging type of scenario as these people come 22 before the Board. 23 One of the things the Board put 24 into play, is the fact that we established these
57
1 10 rules. When we have a difficulty with a 2 subdivision where they are not in agreement, we 3 go and ask what is it -- ask the adjacent 4 neighbors to put forth there input regarding 5 these matters, so that the Board can make a 6 better decision in regards to this particular 7 case. 8 Let them know we've got a 9 problem. We have to try to address the 10 Ordinance. We do still have to make the 11 association happy and what they're looking at, 12 too. So it's a very difficult case. And of the 13 things I'm hearing right now, can this lady move 14 the house back now. She tried to do this with 15 the adjacent neighbor to the rear. The adjacent 16 neighbor to the rear said, no, move it forward. 17 So that's what she's trying to 18 do. But I guess the difficulty is where are 19 we -- what kind of direction can we give her? 20 Are you going set forth a square foot rectangular 21 area that she has to live within? Bearing in 22 mind, this is what was presented to the Board 23 tonight. 24 MEMBER CANUP: My reasoning for
58
1 this is can that garage be move back five feet. 2 This is not (unintelligible.) 3 MS. SHIPLEY: It can't be done. 4 MEMBER CANUP: Can't be done. 5 That was the Motion. And that's the Motion I 6 made and you're at liberty to speak when there's 7 a Motion on the floor. 8 I call for a vote on the 9 Motion. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 11 Motion and a second. 12 Any further discussion? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Read it back. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Can you 15 read the Motion, or Member Canup -- 16 Can you repeat the -- 17 MEMBER CANUP: Sure. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 19 Mr. Canup. 20 MEMBER CANUP: I made a Motion to 21 the effect that it be approved as stated in 22 Ms. Shipley's case, with the exception of 23 requested front yard setback to be made 40 feet 24 with a five foot variance.
59
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 2 questions? 3 Ms. Backus, please call the 4 roll. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 6 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 16 MEMBER FISCHER: No. 17 That Motion fails. 18 Any further discussion from the 19 Board. 20 Member Brennan? 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, I see 22 what -- I see what we're -- you're trying to 23 accomplish, and I guess given that we're back 24 into discussion, I'd like to ask the Petitioner
60
1 what's the issue in moving that garage back? 2 MS. SHIPLEY: If you look at the 3 floor plan, that's the kitchen. The -- where you 4 could push it back. If I could do it, I would. 5 If I would have known these things when I first 6 picked out a floor plan, I would have done it. I 7 mean, I'm not trying to cause problems. But I 8 can't -- I've already paid a lot of money for 9 that plan, and I can't -- I've already tweaked it 10 as much as I can. 11 I went back to the architect. I 12 said, what can we do. I've got to get rid of 13 four feet. It's 44 feet deep. They want it to 14 be 40/40. What can we do? And he couldn't come 15 up with anything, other than me going back to 16 start from scratch or chopping the garage in 17 half. That would be hardship. I've got to have a 18 garage. I can't have a half of a garage. And I 19 do have a -- there was a meeting in November of 20 2003 where another gentleman on this street was 21 granted a 35 foot setback. 22 And I've also been told 23 (unintelligible.) I had these things, you know, 24 these pieces of information before I went ahead
61
1 and did all this work. And if I could change it, 2 I would. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Any further 4 comments, Member Brennan? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: No, no further 6 thoughts. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 8 Canup? 9 MEMBER CANUP: What he do here 10 on this Board in this case will reflect on the 11 entire subdivision for a long time to come. It's 12 not going to go away in 30 days or 60 days or a 13 year or five years or ten years. It's going to 14 be there. And the rest of the homes found away 15 to build with a 40 foot setback. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 17 MEMBER CANUP: And you know, I 18 live here and I guess I'm being very forceful 19 about this. To me it's very important that we 20 try to maintain some sort of continuity in our 21 subdivision. And would like to see that happen 22 here in this case. And I don't see a hardship, 23 other than the fact that the lady's already 24 prepared her drawings. The original variance
62
1 that was granted, had a 40 foot front yard. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: And I can 3 appreciate that. I sure that everyone 4 in their particular subdivision has 5 certain standards that they'd like to 6 live by and don't like to deviate. 7 Mr. Saven, I do have a question. 8 MR. SAVEN: Sure. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: On these 10 maps, do you know the width of the 11 neighboring lots by chance? I really 12 couldn't tell -- 13 MR. SAVEN: I will tell you that 14 the lots are not money 150 foot wide, in 15 accordance with the RA zoning district. I will 16 say that. It probably pertains to pretty well -- 17 much all of the lots within that particular 18 subdivision. One of things I tried to think 19 about, too, is -- I understand she tried to move 20 the house forward because of neighbor, but also 21 thought based upon the size of the lot, which 22 we're dealing with the lot, what basic zoning 23 regulations would this follow, would this be in 24 the R3 category; R2, you know, R1, this type of
63
1 thing. What was the setback, the rear yard 2 setback in that area. 3 Might have been a logical way to 4 try to look at this to see how that would fit in 5 with the rest of the subdivision. But pretty 6 well much, a 35 foot rear yard is what we have in 7 the R4 and R3 zoning districts. So that 8 particular issue was there. The fact is, that 9 she went to the neighbors to ask them again. The 10 neighbors said no, move it away. That's where 11 the problem lies. 12 So it's what is compatible with 13 the rest of the subdivision. I couldn't tell, 14 other than what was presented by this gentleman 15 earlier on. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Ms. 17 Shipley, do you know, by chance, the 18 size difference, if there is any, 19 between the neighbors' lots and yours? 20 MS. SHIPLEY: I believe we're 21 all 100 by 120. 22 MR. SAVEN: That sounds right. 23 MS. SHIPLEY: At least, right in 24 my area, the one on either side of me.
64
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 2 comments? 3 Given the Board's tone, 4 Ms. Shipley, it doesn't look like these 5 (unintelligible) have been granted will not pass 6 the Motion. 7 If you'd like, you could try 8 that or we can table it. And I understand that 9 you have your plot plan picked out, but go back 10 to the drawing board one more time and table it 11 again. 12 It's up to the Board, basically, 13 but I'd like some input from you, if you would to 14 give us a direction. Try a vote or table it 15 until next month. 16 MS. SHIPLEY: I would say we 17 should table it. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 19 Is there a Motion to table this 20 case? 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: So moved. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So moved. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a
65
1 Motion and a second. 2 Any discussion? 3 Member Brennan? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think it's 5 worthwhile for the Petitioner to know that 6 perhaps there's some sentiment on the Board to 7 give you relief, as you've heard in the Motion 8 made. You might go back to the designer, the 9 architect, and say, you know what, I think we 10 could probably get 40 in the front. I think 11 we'll live with the 41 in the back. They seemed 12 to be okay with the side yards. 13 What you can you do with that? 14 MS. SHIPLEY: Right. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 16 Member Brennan. 17 There's a Motion and a second. 18 Any other comments? 19 Ms. Backus, would you please 20 call the roll. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup?
66
1 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 8 Your case has been tabled. 9 MS. SHIPLEY: Thank you. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Chairman 12 Fisher, just for the record, can we table this 13 case until next month for the first case, so the 14 Petitioner will be ready. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. As 16 of right now, we'll move this to the 17 first case. 18 Thank you. 19 Case Number four on the agenda, 20 Case Number 05-029, filed by J. Bennett Donaldson 21 of J.B. Donaldson Company for a two-story office 22 building known as Miracle Software, located south 23 of Grand River, West of Taft Road. 24 Are you Mr. Donaldson?
67
1 MR. DONALDSON: Yes. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. Why 3 don't you get set up. 4 Are you attorney, sir? 5 MR. DONALDSON: No, I'm not. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. If you 7 can please state your name for the record; and 8 raise your right hand to be sworn in by our 9 secretary. 10 MR. DONALDSON: My name is 11 Bennett Donaldson with J.B. Donaldson Company. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 13 or affirm that you're about -- sorry. I'm a 14 little rusty. 15 Do you swear or affirm that the 16 information that you're about to give in regards 17 to this case is the truth? 18 MR. DONALDSON: Yes. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 20 You may proceed. 21 MR. DONALDSON: Okay. Let me 22 just give you a brief summary of Miracle 23 Software. 24 Miracle Software is currently a
68
1 software engineering company located in 2 Southfield, Michigan and they are choosing to 3 relocate their offices here in the States to this 4 Novi location. 5 Basically, they are a software 6 engineer company. They have an international 7 clientele; and they would be locating roughly 100 8 to 120 software engineers in this building. And 9 they have sort of, you know -- they're a very 10 interesting company, very innovative company. 11 And I don't know if you've had a 12 chance to look, they have volleyball court and a 13 basketball court, which is something sort of 14 unique to office building that you see developed 15 today. Usually, they don't have recreational 16 types of things associated with them. It's 17 important for them to have a team oriented and 18 communal feeling with their employees. So 19 anyways, that's just a comment. 20 Regarding the variance, I'd like 21 to swing around here and go over the site plan, 22 if I may. 23 Okay. Couple things to note 24 here on the site plan. This was the original
69
1 site plan that was proposed to the Planning 2 Department regarding how this building would be 3 laid out. We have a substantial stance of 4 existing trees in the rear and a seven foot high 5 berm currently. There's standing water that 6 currently si in existence right here, and some 7 other -- you can sort of see the line here. It's 8 a little tough. But that is sort of the woodland 9 line. 10 We have since -- with the help 11 of the Planning Department -- changed this layout 12 to further -- to move the building further 13 towards the front, to lessen the impact of the 14 overall development as it abuts the residential 15 area. 16 This is -- this is the new 17 layout, which shows us basically substantially 18 out of the entire woodland area, out of the 19 entire wetland area that is located right here. 20 And we are currently located about 330 feet from 21 the residents' property line. 22 The variance tonight that we're 23 asking for is roughly a seven foot height 24 variance. And one item of note is that this
70
1 building sits roughly five feet below Grand 2 River; therefore, the height and the eye level 3 that you would see from the residences from the 4 rear, is not only obstructed by the existing berm 5 and the trees -- the mature trees that are 6 already here, but the building is also sunken 7 down on this site, as well. 8 We've looked at several 9 different options, as far as trying to make this 10 a single story building. We just -- with the 11 wetland that's existing here and the woodlands 12 that are here, and the parking that's associated 13 with an office building, we just couldn't get a 14 single story building in. 15 You'll notice there's a 16 substantial amount of acreage. This is a 5.4 17 acre site. We'll place the building on, you 18 know, three of it. So we're leaving a lot of the 19 site undeveloped for the natural resources that 20 currently exist on the sight. 21 And then secondly, we've -- we 22 haven't -- the building is a standard two story 23 building. The building's 32 feet high, plus or 24 minus, and roughly -- that's 16 plus or minus
71
1 footage between floors. And with web joisting 2 and mechanicals, and ceiling heights, it's 3 basically -- if you're standard building height. 4 So, we feel that the we're 5 asking for a reasonable variance here. 6 And I'd be happy to answer any 7 questions. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 9 sir. 10 There were 26 notices; zero 11 approvals and two objections. 12 One from Cynthia Ornisque, an 13 officer of the Andes Hills Condo Association on 14 behalf of the 11 units in that association. 15 Objecting to the building being above 25 feet. 16 We must keep -- we should not accept variances. 17 There'd be no uniformity according to the 18 established Code. 19 And also one from Felix Val 20 Buena of 45525 Andes, also stating that the Andes 21 Hill Condo Association disapproves; and also 22 asking concerning the berm on the south side, as 23 to block the height of the building. 24 That is it.
72
1 Building Department? 2 Oh, I'm sorry. 3 Is it there anyone in the 4 audience that wishes to comment on this case? 5 Seeing none, Building 6 Department. 7 MR. SAVEN: I provided the Board 8 with documents from the Planning Commission, and 9 rather late, but basically I'd like to just take 10 a minute to read, it if it's okay with the Board. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Please do. 12 MR. SAVEN: It's in reference to 13 the building height for this project. 14 It is the opinion of the 15 Planning Department that it maybe difficult to 16 construct a two-story building within the 25 foot 17 height limitation; given that many buildings 18 constructed today have a floor to floor height of 19 approximately 14 feet. 20 And that's their -- 21 (unintelligible) it indicated, yes, there's 22 practical construction, there's mechanical 23 systems; and differences in the height between 24 floors, this does extend beyond what I believe to
73
1 be the 25 feet. We may have this depending on 2 the type of construction that's needed, 3 structural supports for the building and 4 what-have-you. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 6 Mr. Saven. 7 Board Members? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Is the air 9 conditioning, heating and so forth on top of 10 this? 11 MR. SAVEN: Normally it is, yes. 12 MEMBER BAUER: So we're just 13 talking building; not the accessories for the 14 building? 15 MR. SAVEN: Not at this 16 particular time. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Okay. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 19 Brennan? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, Mr. Saven 21 you have raised an interesting point. We have in 22 our Ordinance a limitation of 25 feet. Does that 23 mean that a two story building can't be built, 24 because we're already saying that two story -- a
74
1 practical two story building is in excess of 25 2 feet? 3 MR. SAVEN: It may be based on 4 upon the type of construction that they utilized 5 for that particular building. We have -- when we 6 deal with Building Codes, we normally deal with 7 non-combustible construction, which deals with 8 masonry, masonry steel, web joist, the thickness 9 of the web joist, the size of the building, the 10 bearing points are located from column to column 11 for thicknesses. 12 Sometimes -- most people like 13 the clear floor span, in other words, they don't 14 want to have any individual post within the 15 building for lesser thickness of web members, so 16 sometimes the thickness of the web members can 17 exceed that particular requirements. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 19 Mr. Saven. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: So the answer 21 to my question was? 22 MR. SAVEN: It depends on the 23 type of construction used. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: It
75
1 depends. Always be with that answer 2 (unintelligible) (interposing.) 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: I point that 4 out because on the applicants application, he 5 makes a comment that a two story office building 6 needs to be higher than 25 feet. And our own 7 Planning Department seems to be saying the same 8 thing. I think you said the same thing. 9 But what concerns me more than 10 anything, though, is that we've got residential 11 homeowner's association that I'm going to ask the 12 Petitioner -- 13 Have you been in touch with at 14 all? 15 MR. DONALDSON: Yes, on several 16 occasions. We've talked to Felix, and it's oddly 17 enough, we -- in speaking with Felix -- and I 18 mean, we've -- on four separate occasions and the 19 most recent was last week. We talked about the 20 storm water discharge. And he has not expressed 21 any concern over the project. That's why I'm 22 curious to understand that; especially since 23 there is a significant amount improvements that 24 we'd be making to the homeowner's association, as
76
1 it relates to drainage. As far as filling in the 2 pond, cleaning out their drainages off of Taft 3 Road. 4 And I'm just -- I'm surprised. 5 That wasn't -- we had never talk about that. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: There were two 7 denials, one from Felix and then one from the 8 homeowner's association who wrote in as 9 representing the 11 homeowner's. 10 MR. DONALDSON: Felix has 11 represented himself as representing the 12 homeowner's association; that's who we understood 13 is -- was the president of the homeowner's 14 association. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: And you thought 16 you had an understanding and now you're hearing 17 something different tonight. 18 MR. DONALDSON: I would be -- 19 I'm surprised to hear that Felix is not the head 20 of the homeowner's association. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Are you equally 22 surprised that neither the homeowners nor Felix 23 are supportive of your variance request? 24 MR. DONALDSON: And I'm further
77
1 surprised that they're not here. 2 MEMBER BAUER: What's the date 3 of those letters? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: The 5 letters are dated 5-2 for Felix and 6 4-28 for Ms. Ornisque. 7 And so -- don't let me 8 miss-portray these letters either. Miss Ornisque 9 is an officer. Stated officer, not necessarily 10 the president. And Felix doesn't necessarily say 11 anything about being from the condo association. 12 Just says all 11 property owners 13 (unintelligible); just to clarify the letters. 14 Further discussion from the 15 Board Members? 16 I have a question for the 17 Building Department. 18 Given what you just stated about 19 floor to floor height, is there a way to make -- 20 I guess this is kind of going to what Member 21 Brennan (unintelligible.) But if the floor to 22 floor height is approximately 14 feet, wouldn't 23 that give me a 28 foot high building? 24 MR. SAVEN: Again, it depends
78
1 upon the type of construction that's being 2 utilized. Without seeing the actual construction 3 plan, it's very difficult to make a 4 determination. But I will take your comments -- 5 and certainly Mr. Brennan's comments -- under 6 advisement. 7 I will approach the Planning 8 Department and see whether or not there can be 9 some type adjustment to that particular height 10 requirement, because this maybe something that 11 we'll be looking at down the road for additional 12 variance requests. And if it's something that's 13 a continuous problem, we'd better look at 14 addressing this, if it's practical. 15 MR. DONALDSON: One thing to note 16 on these buildings, you have a two to three foot 17 parafit(sic) wall that extends beyond the top 18 steel line. It is meant to sort of screen this, 19 you know, whatever type of roof system you have 20 up there, so. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Floor to 22 ceiling, what are your floors? 23 MR. DONALDSON: We have nine 24 foot clear, is what the ceiling height is when
79
1 you're walking through there. So from the bottom 2 of the joist, you've got usually three to four 3 feet of space that you can run your mechanical 4 sprinkler lines and what not; then you've got 5 your webbing of the joist, itself, to get the 6 other side of the second floor damp. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 8 Board Members? 9 Member Gronachan? 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. I'll 11 give it a shot, since everybody's so talkative 12 tonight. 13 I think that the Petitioner 14 has -- within reason -- substantiated the 15 uniqueness of this property, given the wetlands 16 and the woodlands involved in this piece of 17 property. I think they've done a pretty good job 18 in doing their homework. 19 They have, in fact, addressed or 20 attempted to addressed the neighbors, however, if 21 the neighbors were that concerned, I think that 22 they'd be here. There seems to be some confusion 23 on the letters and the Petitioner working with 24 them. However, again if that wasn't true,
80
1 somebody would be here from the association. So 2 I tend to -- I'm leading to think something got 3 resolved in your meetings. Maybe, that's putting 4 the cart before the horse. 5 However, given the comments 6 by -- given by -- I'm sorry -- given the comments 7 made by Member Brennan and pointing out the 8 difficulty in building this building to a 25 foot 9 height; also given the information by our 10 Building Department and this letter from the -- 11 in the information by the Planning Department -- 12 I am in agreement to support this request, based 13 on the uniqueness of the property; the difficulty 14 of the building already being sucken down -- so 15 it's even not going to be as high as what it 16 would normally be if the ground was all level. 17 And -- yeah, it's very unique in 18 nature. And I think the Petitioner has 19 demonstrated every probabilty of protecting the 20 surrounding areas in which they are building. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Was that a 23 Motion? 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Oh, I guess it
81
1 was. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 3 There is a Motion on the floor 4 to approve and a second. 5 Any further discussion? 6 All right. 7 Ms. Backus, please call the 8 roll. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 20 MEMBER FISCHER. No. 21 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes four 22 to two. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Sir, your 24 variance has been granted.
82
1 Please see the Building 2 Department. 3 MR. DONALDSON: Thank you. 4 5 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 6 I would like to call Case Number, 7 05-030 filed by Gerry Gibbens of City 8 Sign company for Games Workshop, 9 located at 27793 Novi Road. 10 Are you Mr. Gibbens? 11 MR. GIBBENS: Yes. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: All right, 13 sir. 14 Would you please state your name 15 for the record, and then also raise your right 16 hand to be sworn in by our secretary. 17 MR. GIBBENS: My name is Gerry 18 Gibbens for City Sign in Pontiac, Michigan. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 20 or affirm that the information that you're about 21 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 22 MR. GIBBENS: Yes, I do. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 24 You may proceed.
83
1 MR. GIBBENS: The building that 2 we're talking about is basically an out building 3 in the parking lot of an existing mall area. It 4 sits quite a ways back from Novi Road. There's 5 also another business in there, Jennifer 6 Convertibles. So far they've had a variance for 7 their signs right there. So we're basically 8 requesting something equal to what they're doing. 9 They have two signs; we one 10 right now that faces Novi Road. We'd like 11 another one the south facade, face the driveway 12 there. Once again, the building is quite a bit 13 back from Novi Road, so seeing it from Novi is 14 pretty hard. In case, you have to be in the 15 parking lot to see it. 16 And once again, we're just 17 asking for what Jennifer Convertibles already 18 has. When we called to see about the sign, we 19 were told that they had gotten a variance for it. 20 There's some mix-up as to what (unintelligible) 21 -- which variance. But basically, these are the 22 only two business in the building. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thanks. 24 MR. GIBBENS: S we're asking for
84
1 a 38.74 square feet for the main sign; and then 2 that squared feet for the south facing sign, 3 also. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 5 Thank you. 6 There were eight notices mailed 7 out; zero approvals and zero objections. 8 Is it there anyone in the 9 audience that wishes to comment on this case? 10 Seeing none, move to the 11 Building Department for comments? 12 MR. AMOLSCH: Yeah. I'm a 13 little confused. I was unaware that this was a 14 two sign case. The only application that we ever 15 received was for one sign, which was put up 16 without a permit and -- which needs a square 17 footage dimensional variance only. There was no 18 advertising for a second sign. 19 MR. GIBBENS: That's partly a 20 mix-up on my part. (Unintelligible) I apologize. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 22 comments? 23 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Member
85
1 Brennan? 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: So I can assume 3 that we are dealing with what was posted and 4 advertised that we're dealing with, the existing 5 sign that's up, which is larger than permitted. 6 You've been in the sign business 7 a bit? 8 MR. GIBBENS: Yes. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: You build signs 10 for lots of communities? 11 MR. GIBBENS: This sign has built 12 by somebody from out of state. They shipped it 13 to us and basically contracted us to just put it 14 up for them. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: You put up signs 16 without building permits? 17 MR. GIBBENS: Yes -- oh, without 18 building permits? I'm sorry. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's the 20 wrong answer. 21 MR. GIBBENS: I can't hear out 22 of this ear very well. 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I just 24 wanted to make note that, you know, if you're
86
1 going to do more business in town, make sure you 2 get a permit before you put the signs up. 3 I guess I have no big issue with 4 the matching something that's already up. 5 I'll ask Alan, is his contention 6 that Jennifer's Convertibles had got a variance 7 for the size of their sign? 8 MR. AMOLSCH: No. They only have 9 a variance for the number. Their sized sign 10 meets the Ordinance. He was talking about having 11 two signs. That's what Jennifer's got. They got 12 a variance for a second sign. Their sign meets 13 the sign Ordinance, with regards to square 14 footage. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Now I'm even 16 more confused. The permitted by Ordinance is 24 17 square feet. 18 MR. AMOLSCH: Correct. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: And if that 20 sign was put up, it would be less than Jennifer 21 Convertibles, yet Jennifer Convertibles sign is 22 within Ordinance? 23 MR. AMOLSCH: The size of each 24 sign at Jennifer's Convertibles meets the sign
87
1 Code, as far as 24 square feet goes. They have a 2 variance for two -- for a second sign; not a 3 dimensional variance. He's asking for a 4 dimensional variance on the one sign that's put 5 up. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. 7 So if I understand now, the 8 existing sign that you've already put up is not 9 the same size as Jennifer. It's actually 38 -- 10 almost 39 square feet; is that correct? 11 MR. GIBBENS: Yes, 38.74. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: So, if you 13 wanted to match Jennifer Convertibles, as you 14 suggested you wanted to match, you could make it 15 24 square feet, and you don't need a variance. 16 MR. AMOLSCH: He would still 17 need a variance. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: For one sign? 19 MR. AMOLSCH: For a second sign. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Pardon? 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, for one 22 sign. 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: We're not 24 talking about a second sign. We're only talking
88
1 about the one wall sign that's up and it's too 2 big; and it was put up without a permit. 3 If he wants it the same size as 4 Jennifer Convertibles -- which is what he stated 5 -- it should be 24 square foot, and he doesn't 6 need a variance. He needs a permit, but he 7 doesn't need a variance. 8 Am I reading that right? 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Yes. 10 That's not what I asked for, 11 though. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's what this 13 says. 14 We asking for 38.74 square feet, 15 for the existing sign that's up there right now. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: All right. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: I guess 18 my -- going along with what you're 19 saying is if we can look at this 20 photograph that you were just holding 21 up, if Jennifer Convertibles is 24 in 22 this picture, and this our 38 foot 23 point 74 foot mock-up, then maybe high 24 eyes are crazy, but they look the same
89
1 size to me. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Not on site, 3 they don't. Not when you drive out there, they 4 don't. You can definitely tell that that sign's 5 bigger at the site. This picture is deceiving. 6 But when you're at the site, it does not. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 8 MR. AMOLSCH. Mr. Chairman? 9 The problem with this sign is 10 the way read the (unintelligible) once again. 11 This P that goes down below here, automatically 12 includes all of the square footage underneath 13 that. That's why the sign looks about the same 14 size as the other one. (Unintelligible) the 15 sign. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 17 That makes more since to me, as well. 18 I ask for more Board Members 19 questions. 20 Member Gronachan? 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Have you -- 22 and I say this kind of respectfully but tongue in 23 cheek, have you driven down Novi Road and looked 24 at that sign?
90
1 MR. GIBBENS: Yes. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Going about 3 35 miles per hour. And you can honestly tell me 4 that you can read that? That it doesn't look 5 like one big yellow blob to you? 6 MR. GIBBENS: Well, once again, 7 their logo is what it is. And the sign was built 8 out of state, so I have no control on how -- I 9 wouldn't have designed it this way, because 10 (unintelligible.) I can't see it. But once 11 again, they just contract me to put it up. 12 I do quite a bit of work all 13 across lower Michigan, putting other people's 14 signs up. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: With all due 16 respect, I cannot support this sign. It is not 17 visible from Novi Road; and it is bigger than 18 Jennifer Convertibles' which proves that this 19 signage could be done without a variance. 20 So I will not be supporting this 21 request. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Further 23 comments? 24 MEMBER CANUP: Why don't somebody
91
1 make a Motion. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Member Sanghvi, 3 did you want to make a comment? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just wanted to 5 make comment. 6 I don't believe in letting -- 7 legitimizing anything that has been put up 8 illegally. You don't take a permit and put it 9 up; then it requires a variance, which is a 10 no-no, as far as I'm concerned. (Unintelligible) 11 go through the proper channels in the right way, 12 and I can't believe that the sign maker who 13 erected the sign didn't know that they needed a 14 permit to put this sign up. 15 And every time they do this kind 16 of thing, they're just walking all over us, our 17 Building Department and our Ordinances and 18 everything else. And I am getting tired of 19 legitimizing these illegal things. So I feel 20 that, no illegal sign should be granted a 21 variance, if they are not bother to take a permit 22 in the first place. 23 Thank you. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you.
92
1 And I'm just also going to say 2 on the record that I don't feel the burden of 3 proof in this case was met. I think that 4 something showing the picture or a computer image 5 picture showing what the sign would look like 6 compared to Jennifer Convertibles would prove to 7 us, maybe, that a lesser variance isn't 8 necessary. 9 But I don't feel that that 10 burden of proof has been met. 11 So at this time, I'd like to ask 12 if there's a Motion on the table? Would anyone 13 like to make a Motion. 14 Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a 16 Motion that in Case Number 05-0300 or 030, we 17 deny the request as stated, for grounds of 18 insufficient hardships, and due to the fact that 19 the sign erected illegally without a permit or 20 any submission to the City Building Department. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 23 Motion and a second. 24 Any further discussion?
93
1 Seeing -- 2 Member Bauer seconded it, I 3 believe. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Please 6 call the roll. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 20 to zero. 21 MR. GIBBENS: Thank you. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Sorry, your 23 variance was denied, sir. 24
94
1 MEMBER FISCHER: At this 2 time, I'm going to take a quick seven 3 minute recess. We'll reconvene at 8 -- 4 9:03. 5 6 (A brief recess was taken.) 7 8 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 9 We'll reconvene and call Case Number, 10 05-031, filed by Rob Boggs of Wooden 11 Graphics for Kirkway Place Subdivision. 12 You are? 13 MR. BOGGS: I'm Rob Boggs for 14 Wooden Graphics. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Would you please 16 raise your hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 18 or affirm to tell the truth in regards to this 19 case? 20 MR. BOGGS: Yes, I do. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 22 MR. BOGGS: We're trying to get a 23 variance for a second sign at the entrance to the 24 subdivision. The setback requirements with the
95
1 signs the way they are -- with two signs -- the 2 visibilty is higher with one sign; it's less. 3 And we're just trying to create a more visible 4 entrance, avoiding any traffic hazards with 5 people missing the entrance and slowing down, 6 going in. 7 The signs are both in the square 8 footage of the Ordinance. They're not that 9 large, and they do, I feel, enhance the entrance. 10 And we are trying to get a variance for that 11 second sign. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 13 Thank you, sir. 14 Five notices were mailed out; 15 zero approvals, zero objections. 16 Is there anyone in the audience 17 that wishes to address the Board on this case? 18 Seeing none, Building 19 Department? 20 MR. AMOLSCH: We have no 21 comments. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Board 23 Members? 24 Member Sanghvi?
96
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Can I ask a 2 question? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Please. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: You already got 5 two signs now, one on each side of your entrance. 6 MR. BOGGS: Correct. The one is 7 a mockup; that's, one has a permit and the other 8 one is the one we're seeking a permit for. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: You think the 10 one you've got here now is going to be -- improve 11 anything very much? 12 MR. BOGGS: After the last guy, 13 no. I wouldn't assume that. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 16 Now, let's get this straight. 17 We've -- you've called it a mock-up. On the 18 application it shows that this is in violation. 19 So is it -- 20 MR. BOGGS: It is a permanent 21 sign, yes. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 23 I have a question for either 24 the Building Department or City Attorney.
97
1 I've seen in other instances 2 where violations or -- such as the case before, 3 other Zoning Boards of Appeals will double the 4 fee as a condition to the variance. 5 Is that under our jurisdiction 6 or why is it under theirs? Because, you know, as 7 you can get the sentiment from the Board -- 8 especially in the previous case -- it's not 9 something that should be allowed; it's not 10 something that's we are taking very lightly when 11 these businesses are just putting up these sign 12 without pulling permits. So -- 13 MR. GILLIAM: As to the 14 amount of fees or additional fees or 15 costs or anything like that, that 16 something that would need to be 17 established by Council, by way of 18 either Ordnance or a Resolution 19 pursuant to authorization contained in 20 the Ordinance. 21 So with all respect to the 22 Zoning Board, that is not something you have 23 authority to do. 24 MR. SAVEN: I will also comment
98
1 in regards to a certain Senate bill which was 2 just recently passed -- local jurisdictions have 3 to be very careful about the issuance -- local 4 jurisdictions have to be very careful about the 5 -- what they call double permitting. 6 We used to in our Department, 7 many years ago, have the issue double permitting 8 work done without a permit, something along that 9 line. It probably maybe construed as an 10 additional inspection or something along that 11 line, but not double permit fee anymore. It's 12 not allowed. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 14 gentlemen. 15 Board Members? 16 Member Gronachan? 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Boggs -- 18 so the sign that's up there at the wall -- 19 MR. BOGGS: The sign that's up, 20 yes. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's the 22 size that you want, but you didn't state really 23 why do you want to go with that big of a sign; 24 number one, and what -- I mean you have a pretty
99
1 attractive subdivision. And it's pretty 2 accessible, even -- you have a good view coming 3 down Beck Road -- granted, Beck Road goes a 4 little fast. We've already established that I 5 speed when I drive down Grand River. But I don't 6 speed down Beck, because it's usually 7 bumper-to-bumper police. So, I do the sights of 8 Beck Road. 9 And -- but in all seriousness, 10 when you're driving down Beck and you're looking 11 at that subdivision -- you have such a beautiful 12 brick wall, that, in my opinion, that size of a 13 sign takes away from it. So are you having 14 people telling you that they can't find your 15 subdivision? Is it this a marketing -- what is 16 it that you need -- why do you think that you 17 need such a big sign? 18 Or is this just -- we put this 19 up and it's money and we don't want that take it 20 down? 21 MR. BOGGS: Well, I'm the sign 22 company. I manufactured the sign. The client 23 came to me with the design and said that's what 24 he wants to put up, a marketing people design,
100
1 this logo, which is not what I did. Or -- and 2 the -- as far as the size goes, it's a smaller 3 sign. It's ten feet, roughly -- ten feet smaller 4 than they allowed square footage of a sign this 5 size. 6 And when I came to the sight 7 from the -- oh, gees -- from the south, I had 8 trouble actually -- I wasn't oriented to the 9 area. I didn't know quite where it was, when I 10 went to service the large development sign, 11 because we had to change that out. And I had 12 actually trouble actually seeing the entrance, 13 which I knew roughly where the area was. 14 But I saw the wall and I 15 thought, well this looks like it, but I was 16 looking for my big development sign and it's in 17 the island; and I didn't see that right away. I 18 actually saw sign -- the name of the subdivision 19 on the north side first. And whole idea behind 20 flanking the entrances with signs like that, is: 21 One, when all the development signs are gone, 22 those are what people look for the entrance. 23 And, you know, two, it's 24 tastefully done. It's not loud and obnoxious,
101
1 but it does identify the entrance and help the 2 viewing distance, as far as people approaching 3 the site. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 5 Thank you. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 7 Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: Again, this is 9 meant to be a permanent sign, correct? 10 MR. BOGGS: Yes. 11 MEMBER CANUP: Again, what's the 12 hardship? And once it goes up, it's going to be 13 there for a long time. 14 MR. BOGGS: Are you asking me? 15 MEMBER CANUP: No. I'm making 16 comment to the Board. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Further 18 comments? 19 Member Brennan? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: We've had two 21 different layouts, configurations of that 22 subdivision entrance way. When there's been an 23 island going into the sub, we've typically 24 approved and worked with the developer to have a
102
1 single sign with language on both sides. 2 The alternate route into the 3 sub, the (unintelligible), you've got east and 4 west, north and south traffic. We've typically 5 been approving signs that are on an angle that 6 will allow for good viewing from either 7 direction. 8 I don't know if it's worth the 9 discussion about trying to get these signs 10 smaller or match up to what's there, I'm just -- 11 I want to make for anyone who is new that there's 12 some history and we try to be consistent with our 13 judgments; and that's how we've dealt with 14 entrance way signs in the past. 15 That's my comment. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Further 17 Board Member comments? 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: With that I'll 19 make a Motion, if that's okay? 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Please do. 21 The table's yours. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Let's see how 23 the Board feels. 24 I make a Motion that the
103
1 Petitioners request for the second sign be 2 approved as submitted for the purpose of 3 identifying the subdivision from both north at 4 south. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 6 Motion on the table. 7 Is there a second? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Now we know 9 where the Board sits. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Is there 11 an alternate Motion? 12 Member Canup? 13 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a 14 Motion that we deny the request as stated in Case 15 Number, 05-031 for lack of sufficient hardship. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 18 Motion and a second. 19 Any further discussion? 20 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 21 you please call the roll. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan?
104
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 9 MEMBER FISCHER: No. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes four 11 to two. 12 MR. BOGGS: Thank you. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Your 14 variance has been granted, please see 15 the Building Department. 16 BOARD MEMBERS: No, it was 17 denied. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Oh, I'm 19 sorry. They approved the Motion to 20 deny. 21 Your variance has been denied. 22 I thought my vote just kind of 23 covered everything, sorry. 24
105
1 Next we will call Case Number, 2 05-032, filed by Robert Barnett of Library Sports 3 Pub, located at 42100 Grand River Avenue. 4 Are you Mr. Barnett? 5 MR. BARNETT: Yes, I am. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Would you 7 please raise your hand and be sworn in 8 by our secretary. 9 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 10 or affirm that the information that you're about 11 to give in the matter you is the truth? 12 MR. BARNETT: I do. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may 14 proceed. 15 MR. BARNETT: My name is Robert 16 Barnett. I am the owner/operator of the Library 17 Sports Pub on Grand River; and happy to say that 18 this is our tenth year in business here in the 19 City of Novi. 20 We've a achieved our success for 21 a variety of reasons; and certainly one of the 22 reasons in the summertime, is that we've been 23 able to offer outdoor seating to our customers. 24 We've been approved by the Board in the past.
106
1 We're looking for the same approval of three 2 years. I don't believe there's been any 3 violations or issues with any part of City 4 Government; and we would certainly appreciate the 5 ability to offer outdoor seating to our customers 6 for the next three years. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 8 sir. 9 There were 17 notices mailed; 10 one approval, zero objections. Approval coming 11 from Larry White of Marty Feldman Chevrolet; 12 saying that this will assist with the downtown 13 atmosphere that's trying to be created downtown 14 there. 15 So, does anyone in the audience 16 wish to comment on this case? 17 Seeing none, Building 18 Department? 19 MR. SAVEN: I'd indicate to the 20 Board that should the Board decide to approve 21 this case, just mention that you have continuing 22 jurisdiction. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 24 Brennan?
107
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Any issues as 2 far as you know? 3 MR. AMOLSCH: None that I'm 4 aware of. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: This has been a 6 good member of our community. He's had a good 7 track record; wish him well; and I would -- I'd 8 make a Motion that the Petitioner's request be 9 granted for an additional three years. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a Motion 12 and a second. 13 Member Brennan? 14 MEMBER CANUP: Member Canup. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 16 Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Would I ask for a 18 friendly amendment to the Motion that the three 19 years of granting the variance, be subject to the 20 ownership of -- by the present owner. If it 21 changes hands for some reason -- which could be 22 unforeseeable, you get a different crew in there, 23 you get a different owner with different 24 philosophies -- maybe he's the operator that this
108
1 gentleman is, and we have problems and we're 2 stuck with it for three years. 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's fine 4 with me. We've got a nod there, so I -- along 5 with the continued jurisdiction. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Amendment 7 for change of ownership, as well as 8 continuing jurisdiction. 9 You approve? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Second? 12 All right. 13 One question out of me. 14 Has there been any liquor 15 violations? 16 MR. BARNETT: No, not in -- 17 gosh, seven, eight years. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you 19 very much. 20 That's all -- 21 There is a Motion and a second. 22 Motion approved as amended. 23 Ms. Backus, would you please 24 call the roll.
109
1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 14 to zero. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm just going 16 to add something. I think you run a great 17 establishment. Anybody who hasn't been to your 18 restaurant needs to go. And your outdoor is 19 immaculate and that's the one reason that I found 20 (unintelligible) and I got to it all the time. 21 MR. BARNETT: Thank you very 22 much. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: And thank you 24 for being such a great business, as well.
110
1 2 Call Case Number 05-033, filed 3 by Edmund and Christine Szelap -- I probably 4 messed that one up -- for a residence at 23468 5 Duchess Court. 6 Are the Petitioners -- 7 MR. SZELAP: I'm Ed Szelap. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 9 Would you please raise your hand 10 and be sworn in by our secretary. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 12 or affirm that the information that you're about 13 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 14 MR. SZELAP: Yes, I do. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 16 MR. SZELAP: Recently, Christine 17 and I got married back in July, trying to blend 18 two families. We have three adult children 16, 19 18 and 20. One away at college coming home here 20 in couple of weeks. The other one goes to OCC 21 and has a car; as well as 16 year-old that has a 22 car that goes to Novi High. 23 We both a vehicle, also; and 24 living on a court like we do (unintelligible) has
111
1 lots of parking problems. So, I'm asking for a 2 couple of things. 3 With a blended family, my wife 4 would like to stay in Novi. She's been here 5 20-some years. (Unintelligible) small community. 6 And I'm a builder by trade, so I looked at what I 7 could do with the house and talked with the 8 neighbors, and (unintelligible) couple of 9 different plans to address the situations -- what 10 they liked or didn't like. (Unintelligible) how 11 we could expand the home. 12 Our home is the smallest house 13 on the court within the block that we live on. 14 It's only -- it has 1760 square feet. The 15 largest home on the block is 3200 square foot. 16 My neighbor to the right of me has home of 22; my 17 neighbor to the left of me has a home of 24. The 18 neighbor across the street has house of 2600 19 square foot. 20 Several of our neighbors have 21 three car garages. One neighbor has a two car 22 and a one car garage that are not on the same -- 23 they're not together. So we are looking at all 24 these different things to help accommodate the
112
1 parking there and help accommodate our lifestyle 2 a little bit. (unintelligible) agreed upon. 3 Along with that, of course, 4 involves new landscaping to keep with the with 5 the (unintelligible) contact several tree movers 6 and tree companies. And we're moving some of the 7 larger trees back on the lot and buying some 8 other large trees. I'm talking 25 and 35 feet 9 tall, so that we don't change the look of the 10 neighborhood. 11 (Unintelligible) the kind of 12 house (unintelligible) to improve the house which 13 is the worst on the block because the siding has 14 faded over the years and it was designer siding 15 at that time, and a few other things that have 16 gone ary on the home. So we're looking to expand 17 the home to accommodate five adults at this point 18 in time. I consider them adults at their age. 19 And the other issue that we have 20 is that we're probably going to have her mother 21 living with us, too. Her father passed away two 22 years ago. Her mother 83 and is getting along 23 where she can't get by by herself. And we'd like 24 to able to her into the house with us.
113
1 So these are the concerns as to 2 why we want to expand the home. We would 3 actually be (unintelligible) 200 -- 2285 4 (unintelligible) so, I think that's about it that 5 we're looking for. We have talked with our 6 architectural committee and they approved it. 7 The neighbors have all approved it. I did have 8 one little glitch I'm going to mention to you. 9 The neighbor to the right of me -- who's -- I 10 made several (unintelligible) to the building to 11 accommodate their concerns. Sunday they came by 12 and say his wife didn't like it and they were 13 probably going to object at this point in time. 14 (Unintelligible.) So I don't 15 know have if they've really contacted you or not 16 but I figured you should know about it. But the 17 architectural committee had approved it and the 18 one neighbor had some objections. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 20 Thank you, sir. 21 There were 74 notices mailed; 22 five approvals -- five approvals and six 23 objections. 24 Again there's a 11 of them. If
114
1 it's the Board's desire, I will read them. 2 Just the objections, all right. 3 An objection from John and Nancy 4 Dujowa, we are the neighbors who live directly 5 next door; are opposed to the proposed variance. 6 As much as we understand the desire to expand the 7 residence, feel that the two garages will be too 8 large of a structure on a with a small frontage; 9 will not be proportioned with the other houses on 10 the cul-de-sac. 11 David Sung Chi of 23161 12 (unintelligible) Forest (unintelligible) 13 regulations to follow, follow them. Once an 14 individual requests a variance, it's almost based 15 on some selfish reason to increase the property 16 value, does not benefit the community. 17 Harold Rudolph, 43800 Algonquin 18 objects. There's no comments. Dave Cutler of 19 23401 Duchess Court objects. Don't have any 20 objection to the extension to the kitchen. And 21 then, however, objects to the extension of the 22 garage and the addition of the second garage. 23 The additions will make the home look unsightly 24 relative to neighboring homes. Also, I have
115
1 concerns about approvals that will open the flood 2 gates for all of our neighbors in the area. 3 Dave Cutler reviewed the 4 proposed variances and wants to add comments that 5 he won't be here tonight. However, he still 6 objects that the garage addition will look like 7 an afterthought. 8 And lastly, Roma Cloucher 9 Rudolph, objects, 43800 Algonquin. No comments. 10 Is in anyone in the audience 11 that wishes to comment on this case? 12 Seeing none, Building 13 Department? 14 MR. SAVEN: This is in a 15 cul-de-sac area and note that the property is of 16 an unusual configuration. And I just wanted to 17 point out from the very beginning when we first 18 started the meeting, I indicated that the 19 variance that was being sought for the sum total 20 of the accessory structures that it changed from 21 126 feet to 49 square feet. 22 So there is a lesser variance 23 associated with that. So we'll deal with 49 24 square feet, for the sum total of all accessory
116
1 structures on the property. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 3 Mr. Saven. 4 Any other comments? 5 All set. 6 Okay. Board Members? 7 Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP, you know I'm a 9 firm believer that you've never got enough garage 10 space no matter how big it is. But also, you 11 have a very unique problem; and with being in a 12 (unintelligible) subdivision where the homes are 13 on the road. And in the sense that we've heard I 14 don't know how many negative letters, five, six 15 there. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Correct, 17 6. I think it's 5, because it's a 18 double letter. 19 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah. 20 And as much as I would like to 21 say yes, I would like to support this, I just 22 can't, being that the letters that we received 23 from people next door. And when these people 24 bought their homes, they bought them looking at
117
1 the neighbors house and made a decision on buying 2 that home, based on what they saw around it. 3 And if they have -- if the 4 neighbors came in and said yes, we don't have a 5 problem with this, I might look at it in a 6 different way. But, being as that -- what we've 7 heard of the letters that were written, I would 8 have a difficult time supporting; at least the 9 garage aspect of this of this particular case. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 11 Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: How many houses 13 are on this court? 14 MR. SZELAP: There's one, two, 15 three, four, five. It's actually five houses on 16 this court; and I have another five neighbors 17 that can see me. Of the people that have written 18 in, only one person -- one -- two people are -- 19 one person is within sight of me; the other 20 people are farther down the row. 21 And as far as size of the 22 house -- 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Hold on. We'll 24 ask the questions. I want to get a fix on the
118
1 objections. I counted two people that are on 2 Duchess, just to go on and that's a problem. It 3 is a lot of building on a pie shaped lot. And I 4 mean, you're squeezed in with this plan on both 5 sides; total both sides, front yard -- boy, 6 that's a lot of building on that property. I'm 7 surprised that you're not starting to push the 8 percentage. 9 Was that calculated? 10 MR. SAVEN: Yeah, but it's not a 11 problem at all. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: (unintelligible) 13 (interposing) 25 percent? 14 MEMBER FISCHER: He's got 15 45 foot for the rear yard. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: So it'll be 17 all. 18 MR. SAVEN: And remember, the 19 pie's going out like this. So he's got more 20 property in the rear than he does out in front. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: I share the 22 same comments as Mr. Canup. Boy, it's a lot of 23 building, but more so, if we had less objections 24 and maybe, it was somebody from a couple streets
119
1 over that sent in something with no comment, I'd 2 feel a little bit different. But I'm not very 3 comfort with this. 4 Thank you. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 6 Gronachan? 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 8 My first -- when I first looked 9 at this, my first question was why not go farther 10 back, as opposed to change the shape of the house 11 to such an odd shape. 12 What's behind that house? 13 MR. SZELAP: Well, we're on the 14 walkout, and our yard is the drainage for most of 15 the subdivision. When you go back there, it's 16 wet all the time. So it drains back into the 17 commons there. And so, I don't really think 18 that's a feasible thing to do, and it's all clay. 19 So even with it being all clay 20 like right now, it hasn't rained in a week, you 21 walk back there and you have mud all over your 22 feet. The whole purpose for making the design 23 the way I did is -- I had a different design and 24 it just made the building look too big.
120
1 And so talking with the 2 neighbors, including the gentleman next door, the 3 Dujowas, that sent in the thing, I shortened the 4 garage by five feet, turned the door, so they 5 wouldn't have to see it; and none of the other 6 neighbors will. The only neighbor that will see 7 a door at all would be gentleman on the other 8 side; and that's why we angled the secondary 9 structure, so that they wouldn't see a garage, 10 you know two garage doors. 11 So I've been working with them 12 for weeks and weeks and weeks on this thing. And 13 like I said, the only objection that I've gotten 14 from anybody -- and that's -- we've been going 15 back and forth on the drawing on the computer -- 16 and back and forth (unintelligible) Mr. Dujowa 17 came to me Sunday evening and he had changed his 18 mind. 19 So that's -- I just don't know 20 of any other way to fit it back in there. I've 21 looked at it and the way the house was designed 22 and built originally -- and I've designed a lot 23 of homes, and I just can't find a way to make it 24 work any other way.
121
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So it drops 2 off in the back; is that correct? There's a 3 drop-off. So going to the back is not possible, 4 is what you telling me. 5 MR. SZELAP: Yeah. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 7 My second question, and I can 8 appreciate the fact that you worked with your 9 neighbors. It's unfortunate that these letter 10 came in. I've been there. I understand your 11 pain. Is it a thought on -- could it be a 12 thought to go back and sit down and give this one 13 more try? I think that the garage is the biggest 14 problem on the angle; it is with me. 15 And I can understand -- I 16 understand the lots -- the lot shape. Okay. And 17 I can understand the wanting to expand, but that 18 garage at an angle, I think that's where it's got 19 everybody. It's something different. 20 Everybody's been there for a while, and maybe 21 just going back -- I'm not an architect -- but 22 it's just a food for thought -- give them the 23 fact that you can't build behind -- and that's 24 important to tell the Board that. It's important
122
1 to tell the Board what you can't do as well as 2 what it is that you'd like to do, okay? 3 MR. SZELAP: Well, when I 4 originally wanted to do was come another ten feet 5 forward and make a three car garage with a turned 6 court. And that's what neighbor, Mr. Dujowa, 7 next door to me had an objection to. And that's 8 why I came up with the garage to the side, and 9 that's what they had agree to. And that's what 10 they thought would be the best looking; so that 11 they wouldn't have that big garage door sticking 12 out in the front. 13 But, a long with that, there are 14 other setback concerns with -- because we're 15 already closer to the property than what the area 16 originally called for. All the houses on there, 17 except Mr. Dujowa's are. Most of my neighbors 18 are even ten feet closer than I am on the pond. 19 And so for esthetics, the way it looks, 20 (unintelligible) it just looked horrible. I 21 would prefer to do it that way. It would be 22 cheaper for me, money wise; and I would gain the 23 space that I want a lot easier. 24 But you know, trying to take
123
1 into consideration what everybody wants or the 2 majority of the people, trying to work it them to 3 do that, and that's why I worked extensively with 4 the them and the architectural committee; and the 5 architectural committee bought off on it, based 6 on (unintelligible.) But nobody objected from 7 the architectural committee. Nobody -- including 8 Mr. Dujowa, who's right next door, who had a 9 change of heart on Sunday night and and came to 10 see me in anguish. He said he'd live with 11 whatever the decision is. 12 I haven't her any negatives from 13 anybody else, until this. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's all I 15 have. 16 Thank you. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 18 Member Gronachan. 19 Do you have any -- 20 MEMBER CANUP: You know, again I 21 appreciate your situation. Maybe you'd just 22 better move. You know, find a bigger lot find 23 the type of home that will accommodate -- and you 24 know, looking at -- I've been in your position
124
1 where the kids are -- you got kids 16, 18 and 20; 2 and then in a matter of more than likely five 3 years, you're not going to have any kids at home. 4 MR. SZELAP: Right. 5 We are not looking at moving 6 from Novi, no matter what at this point in time. 7 MEMBER CANUP: Yeah. It just 8 looks like the lot just isn't capable of 9 accommodating what you want to do with it. And 10 make it presentable. I, for one, I just can't 11 support this, as much as I'd like to. So one 12 thing, the kids are going to be gone, the garage 13 is still going to be there. It's going to be 14 permanent. And that's something we've really got 15 to look at. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Any other 17 comments? 18 Is there a Motion on the table? 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, I would 20 like to make a comment, an additional comment. 21 I would like to see this tabled 22 and go back and try to work it out with your 23 neighbors. I really would. I'd hate to see you 24 try to move. I understand the frustration.
125
1 Believe me when I tell you, I understand the 2 frustration, okay. 3 The fact that you have your 4 homeowners association approval is a good thing. 5 But maybe, if you can just work it out with the 6 neighbors and come back; tabling it for one 7 more -- you know, for one more meeting, it's 8 going to give the effort to go back. And maybe 9 they just had a bad day. I don't know. Sunday 10 wasn't -- maybe his race car driver lost. I 11 don't know. 12 MR. SZELAP: Well, those 13 neighbors that objected, is it possible for me to 14 find out who they are so I can go and talk to 15 them directly? 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Gail can 17 assist you with that. My suggestion would be to 18 table it and take a look at it and go back with 19 the neighbors and see if you can't get some 20 support. Maybe the misfigure on there on the 21 size of the garage, that didn't help you. So 22 maybe we can just table it and go back and talk 23 with them again. It's worth a shot. 24 MR. SZELAP: They were notified
126
1 of the misfigure. Everybody got a second letter. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, it's up 3 to you. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 5 Canup? 6 MEMBER CANUP: Well, we can't 7 table something that -- just to get it -- because 8 we think maybe it should go through. I would 9 like to give this guy this -- the applicant the 10 variances requested. I just can't do that. And 11 it's not going to change next month. 12 And to send them back to try to 13 do something, what are they going to do? You've 14 got five foot variance a one foot variance and a 15 two foot variance. They're going to have to 16 shrink that to get that within Ordinance in order 17 to be able to build it. 18 So what are we sending him back 19 to? 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I -- Member 21 Canup, I think that these are minimal variances. 22 And the fact that he got his association's 23 approval -- and I think if he worked it out with 24 the neighbors -- this is an odd shaped lot. I
127
1 hate to tell everybody to leave Novi, just 2 because you can't do anything with your lot. 3 I think that maybe another look 4 at this might help working this out. This is not 5 a rectangular shape piece of property. And maybe 6 if they sit down and talk with the neighbors -- 7 and had I not gone through this on a personal 8 basis and seen what happens from your neighbors, 9 I wouldn't feel so strongly about this. 10 But having just been exposed to 11 that, I feel that maybe -- being that he had the 12 support of neighbors and then they changed at the 13 end, something happened. So maybe there's 14 misinformation; maybe there's something. 15 MEMBER CANUP: I'd like to make 16 a Motion that in Case Number, 05-033, that we 17 deny the request for variances as stated due to 18 the lack of sufficient hardship. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Is it 20 there a second for the Motion? 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Second the 22 Motion. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 24 Motion and a second.
128
1 Is there any further discussion? 2 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 3 you please call the roll. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 5 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: No. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 15 MEMBER FISCHER: No. 16 The Motion to deny does not 17 pass. 18 Is there another Motion that 19 you'd like to try? 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: My suggestion 21 is to suggest to the Petitioner to table it until 22 next month to see if he can work further with his 23 neighbors. I mean, that's what this Board 24 promotes. And I think that there's something
129
1 here that we don't know about. If the 2 Petitioner's willing to do that, that beats 3 taking a denial. 4 MR. SZELAP: I'd be willing to do 5 that. 6 MEMBER BAUER: I'll second it. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 8 Motion and a second. 9 Any further discussion? 10 Seeing none, please call the 11 roll. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: The Motion is 18 to table? 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Table the 20 case. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: No. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi?
130
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes four 5 to two. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: The Motion to 7 table has been approved, and we'll make sure to 8 get you second on the agenda for June. 9 MR. SZELAP: Thank you. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Also, if 11 you'd like to speak with the Building 12 Department to get a copy of these 13 letters, they should be able -- to be 14 available. 15 MR. SZELAP: Thank you very much. 16 Have a good day. 17 18 MEMBER FISCHER: I would 19 like to call Case Number, 05-035, filed 20 by Mary Kotsogiannis of Greek Isles 21 Eatery, located 39777 Grand River. 22 And you are Miss -- 23 MS. KOTSOGIANNIS: I am Mary 24 Kotsogiannis.
131
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 2 I apologize for messing up your 3 name. 4 MS. KOTSOGIANNIS: That's fine. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Would you 6 please raise your hand and be sworn in 7 by our secretary. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 9 or affirm that the information that you're about 10 to give in the matter of this case is the truth? 11 MS. KOTSOGIANNIS: Yes, I do. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Please proceed. 14 MS. KOTSOGIANNIS: What we're 15 Petitioning the Board for is the ability to 16 provide outdoor seating for our customers. We're 17 requesting four tables with four chairs each, 18 basically; outdoor capacity of 16. 19 We've been in business going 20 into our third year. We did provide outdoor 21 seating last year with a temporary permit. And 22 we're requesting to be allowed to do that for 23 next three years. Our customers have already 24 started asking when do the tables go out, so.
132
1 So we're eager to make them happy. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 3 There were 17 notices mailed; 4 one approval from the property management company 5 in the area, Pleasant Run Plaza; and there were 6 zero objections. 7 Is there anyone in the audience 8 that wishes to comment on this case? 9 Seeing none, Building 10 Department? 11 MR. SAVEN: Just basically, this 12 is a similar request that the previous eating 13 establishment had in that particular area. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 15 Mr. Saven. 16 Member Brennan? 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: No citations, 18 no problems? 19 MR. AMOLSCH: Not that I know 20 of. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: I make a Motion 22 for approval of the variance as requested to this 23 Petitioner only, with continued jurisdiction for 24 the period of three years.
133
1 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 3 Motion and a second. 4 Is there any further discussion? 5 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 6 you please call the roll. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 20 to zero. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Your 22 variance has been granted. Please see 23 the Building Department. 24 MS. KOTSOGIANNIS: Thank you very
134
1 much. 2 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Moving along, 4 Case Number 05-037, by James E. Korte for 2034 5 Austin Drive, located south of South Lake and 6 west of Old Novi. 7 You are Mr. Korte? 8 MR. KORTE: Yes, I am. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 10 Would you please raise your hand 11 and be sworn by our secretary. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 13 or affirm that the information that you're about 14 to give in the matter of this case before you is 15 the truth? 16 MR. KORTE: Yes, I do? 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Please 19 proceed. 20 MR. KORTE: You have very little 21 to look at because very little is going on. 22 If you look at what I've 23 provided, you can see the original foundation. 24 There's a front porch foundation that was put on
135
1 sometime in the late '50's to my knowledge. 2 There is a side foundation, sometime in the 3 mid-'70's; that's a lean-to shed. Both of those 4 sides stick out four foot from the original 20 by 5 40. 6 Specifically where it says eight 7 foot on the right side of your paper, that is a 8 foundation and a well pit; existing, that was put 9 in in the '50's when the basement was done. It 10 technically goes out two and a half feet farther 11 than the closet addition. 12 So, I'm going one foot out 13 farther than the existing, which still gives me 14 eight feet between the new house to be or the 15 closet addition, and the side lot line. I do own 16 to the north, that's 2030. 17 I could have -- I guess if I 18 chose -- have it narrower and wider and go out 19 another two and a half feet, but it still would 20 have been peculiar closet space. So I decided to 21 fill in the blanks as best as possible, and go 22 out a foot. Now, where it say five feet on there, 23 you may wonder why I'm not filling in there. 24 That's the gas meter, where the gas attaches to
136
1 the house. It's the electric meters and all the 2 phone situation. 3 So that's why that little dent 4 is still in there. I wasn't about to get into 5 the major utilities. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Any 7 further comments? 8 MR. KORTE: It's impossible -- 9 nearly impossible -- to build on a 40 by any of 10 today's standards. When I handled so much for 11 Lara and Wolbeck's Sector Study, and SES 12 Southeast in Tromwood, no one ever questioned ten 13 and ten. And, of course, now all Ordnances have 14 to fit everybody. 25 is just impractical in 15 these narrow 40's. And I know you've had some 16 30's to deal with. 17 And I don't think I'm asking for 18 much. It's one foot farther than existing; and 19 as I say, the eight foot is there. And 20 self-imposed, I would have surveyed the place as 21 it is, but seeing how that was done in 1916, I 22 didn't have much control. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 24 sir. You can have a seat.
137
1 34 notices were mailed in this 2 case; three approvals and four objections. 3 You want me to read the 4 objections again? 5 Eugene Maliki and Victor Muscat, 6 who is the owner of 2213 Austin. The homeowners 7 on Austin would like to keep the property 8 eye-pleasing. The variances would make it look 9 worse. 10 Laura Quinn of 2219 Austin 11 understands Mr. Korte intends to turn this 12 property into a duplex; strongly objects on 13 Austin. This is zoned for single family 14 residential. No true purpose for the need for 15 stairs. Most of us choose to live on Austin; 16 take pride in our homes and properties. And 17 everyone should try to maintain standards with 18 the Ordinance. 19 And Mark Robbins of 2295 Austin, 20 received information submitted by homeowner and 21 does not see a hardship identified. States that 22 this is for a closet, but construction is 23 two-story with windows. Also has concerns 24 regarding the use of the building.
138
1 And Mark Robbins, again, who 2 also owns 2293 Austin, I assume -- yes. Says 3 that same comments apply to this. I assume it's 4 another address. 5 Does anyone in the audience wish 6 to make comments regarding this case? 7 Please, on down. 8 And if there's any other 9 persons, please come to the corner. 10 Please state your name for the 11 record, sir. 12 MR. SUTTON: James Sutton. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 14 Please proceed. 15 MR. SUTTON: I think this is the 16 drawing that you all have. Don't know if you can 17 see -- if it doesn't show up there, do you have a 18 drawing of what Mr. Korte -- 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Just try 20 to move it up a little bit, sir. 21 MR. SUTTON: That's fine. You 22 have a drawing (unintelligible.) 23 If you look, there's, I guess 24 the mark -- if you're facing the front of house,
139
1 to the right side where it shows eight feet. One 2 of the concerns I had is that's eight feet not 3 just to the property line, but to the actual 4 physical side of that house, because that house 5 being built way back when, is literally built on 6 the property line. 7 So, you know, if it was eight 8 feet from the property line, that's one issue, 9 but this is eight feet from the house, which 10 creates a fire hazard. And you know, all these 11 houses in Detroit -- sorry to say but you hear, 12 that if one catches on fire, it jumps to the 13 next. So, you know, that's an obvious fire 14 hazard. 15 And then, you know, I'd like to 16 know -- he said the use of the area is closet, 17 because I've also heard that he wants to use it 18 for a stairway -- because he told the City 19 Prosecutor at some meeting that he was going to 20 turn this into a multiple; and I've heard that 21 from other people, too. 22 But I heard specifically from an 23 Ordinance officer that right out in public he 24 said this; and so that's a concern. And -- as
140
1 far as the use of the area. 2 And then the validity of the 3 information he has on here, it's like, you know, 4 he's is not a surveyor, none of us are surveyors, 5 so I doubt any of it. And the fact that he's 6 saying that it's on an existing footing built in 7 the '60's, it's -- I mean, I own property in 8 Novi. I know for a fact that if there is 9 non-conforming use and a certain percentage of it 10 is gone, you can't rebuild non-conforming. 11 And I guess that's another 12 issue. And it just seems like it's a lot to go 13 through for a closet, I guess. But, you know, 14 there's other, I guess, unresolved building 15 issues of the whole structure to begin with. So 16 I guess I just find it just ridiculous to try and 17 go for something like this. 18 Thank you. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 20 sir. 21 Next audience member. 22 Your name and address, ma'am, 23 for the record. 24 MS. QUINN: Laura Quinn at 2219
141
1 Austin Drive. 2 And I wanted to come to this 3 meeting to find out exactly what Mr. Korte 4 intended on doing with this, because we have 5 heard that it's going to be a duplex; that it's 6 going to be stairway for this duplex. I wanted 7 to find out what, because the plans don't show 8 what. 9 Now he saying it's a closet. And 10 I personally feel that no true hardship has been 11 proven for why this supposed closet has to be 12 here. Why a closet can't be in this house; if 13 it's a closet. I have a real problem with that. 14 My husband and I love all and 15 any improvements to our neighborhood, and we all 16 hold ourselves to very high standards; most of 17 us. We have properties in our neighborhood that 18 are a total disgrace and to the whole City of 19 Novi. And I think that should be address. And 20 if people would focus on that, that would be a 21 big improvement. 22 I don't think hardship has been 23 proven here; but I have not the final say. 24 Thank you.
142
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 2 Any further comments? 3 Yes, sir? 4 Your name and address for the 5 record. 6 MR. MARCH: Good evening. My 7 name is Tim March, and my address is 1846 8 Clairmont Circle in Northville, Michigan. 9 Back in November, I purchased 10 two properties on Austin Street, 2001 and 2007 11 Austin street. To say the least, when I 12 purchased those properties, they weren't in very 13 good shape. I have done my best to bring them 14 up; improve them. My concern here, as well is 15 with the homes that this gentleman has. This 16 addition has already been added. It's already 17 there without a permit. He's already started it. 18 In addition to that, the home 19 next to it and the home next to it that he owns 20 haven't been completed. I purchased my homes in 21 November, and they are completed. Again I have 22 concerns about it being stairway. It certainly 23 -- being in the construction business -- it 24 doesn't look like a closet to me. And I hope
143
1 that this Board takes into consideration the 2 property that he does have on that street and how 3 he maintains it; which he doesn't maintain it. 4 And I'm shocked that Novi would 5 let that go on as long as it has. The homes are 6 in very, very, very bad shape, if you've been 7 there. And this addition that he's already put 8 together, without a permit, is just adding to the 9 nuisance and the eyesore of that street. 10 Thank you. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 12 MR. WEINER: James J. Weiner. My 13 office address 30600 Telegraph, Suite 3350 14 Bingham Farms, Michigan. I am attorney, but also 15 his potential next door -- Mr. Korte's potential 16 next door neighbor. 17 On the six foot side, I own the 18 vacant piece of lot; the lot right there. And 19 I've owned it since 2001; and Mr. Korte and I 20 were originally friendly, but he has stated to me 21 many times that he wants me to build on that lot 22 in strict conformance with the Building Code 23 without a variance. 24 He's now asking to expand -- in
144
1 fact, he's not asking to expand. He already has 2 expanded a non-conforming use in blatant 3 disregard of this City's Building Codes. He's 4 done multiple things in blatant disregard of this 5 City's Code. He's failed to maintain his 6 property. He's failed to cut weeds. He's 7 claimed it's some sort of deer habitat in the 8 middle of a residential area. 9 He has, to my knowledge -- in 10 fact he admitted to me -- he showed it to me at 11 one time -- he's connected City water to this 12 house with the proper permit, without the proper 13 things. He showed me personally. 14 It is a non-conforming use, I am 15 on the six foot side of this. I'm his only 16 direct neighbor. These other ones are down the 17 street or across the street. I'm going to be his 18 direct neighbor eventually. 19 I don't like to come out 20 against anyone -- neighbors, but in the past, 21 he's is done his best, and actually told me that 22 I had to live within the Zoning Ordinances, I 23 hope he has to do, too. He's -- of the 24 properties in this neighborhood, five of them --
145
1 the five worst are his. The garage across the 2 street is falling apart; peeling paint, 3 everything. The landscaping materials and 4 garbage all over the place. 5 There was an unlicensed vehicle 6 in the lot for -- in his lot for months last 7 year. He -- on the -- he owns four lots there; 8 in this. Four of them, I understand that only 9 one of them is properly hooked up to the City 10 water. I assume -- it's two lots down, so I 11 assume it's connected through all of them. 12 But, he's -- I think only one of 13 them has and occupancy permit. The other ones 14 have basically been pulled because of his 15 violations; his previous violations and blatant 16 disregard for the City's Building Code. I'm 17 hoping you don't allow a farther expansion of a 18 non-conforming use. I'd like to see them 19 condemned, they're so bad. He's -- because it's 20 been in the same condition. 21 In fact, there used to be a roof 22 underneath the roof that you could see through a 23 window from my property. It's gone. So he's made 24 major alterations on the inside of the property,
146
1 I believe -- but I'm not sure -- without a 2 building permit. And it's just because of that, 3 I just have a serious problem with him coming -- 4 after his blatant disregard for the City's 5 Ordinances and this City's Building Codes, coming 6 and asking you for leave to expand a 7 non-conforming use. 8 Thank you. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 10 sir. 11 Are there -- is there anyone 12 else in the audience that wishes to make comments 13 on this case? 14 Seeing none, I'll move to the 15 Building Department? 16 MR. SAVEN: There's a packet in 17 your packet of information. There's issues where 18 there's been notices of violation issued for this 19 property. A ticket has been issued for the 20 property and it's in the Court system now. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: All set? 22 Okay. Board Members? 23 Member Brennan? 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: First, I want
147
1 to address some legal issues. 2 Where we're at right now, Mr. 3 Korte's been ticketed. It's in court and things 4 are on hold until this Hearing tonight; is that 5 the gist of things? 6 MR. GILLIAM: That's my 7 understanding from talking with Mr. Vanerian from 8 our office. (Unintelligible) Alan if he has any 9 knowledge. 10 MR. AMOLSCH: Not really. It's 11 not my case, so I wouldn't have any information. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: That appears to 13 be what is it based on. 14 MR. KORTE: We again meet on the 15 16th -- 16 MEMBER FISCHER: You're out of 17 order. Mr. Brennan has the floor. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: I also want to 19 be clear on Petitioner's request to -- for an 20 application for a variance. They're very 21 specific in what their variance desire is. And 22 the consequences of us issuing a variance in 23 another -- something else other than what was 24 portrayed is done, assuming that this was even
148
1 fabricated at this point. 2 And I'm -- if you didn't read 3 between the lines -- the Petitioner clearly says 4 that he's asking for a variance for closet space. 5 And if something else is going in there and we 6 granted a variance for closet space, and he's 7 built something else, what are the consequences 8 there. 9 MR. GILLIAM: If the Zoning 10 Board sees fit to grant a variance, and 11 the variance is specific. And when say 12 the variance it's specific, the Motion 13 approving the variance request is 14 specific that the additional space is 15 toe used for closet space only; then 16 any use other than closet space would 17 be a violation of variance. It would 18 essentially be no variance at all. So 19 that would be prohibited. If the 20 Motion specifically limited the 21 expansion for use as closet space. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Those are my two 23 questions of legal. 24 Another question directed to the
149
1 Building Department with respect to the 2 observation that this eight foot -- this eight 3 feet dimension between the illegally erected 4 addition to the adjoining property to the 5 north -- the home that's being (unintelligible) 6 eight foot section -- are we looking at a fire 7 hazard issue with -- 8 MR. SAVEN: From an eight foot 9 distance, no. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. Wanted 11 that clarified. 12 Two legal questions, Building 13 Department. 14 May I address the Petitioner? 15 MEMBER FISCHER: You may. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Korte, do 17 you live at this residence? 18 MR. KORTE: Yes. I have for 19 five years. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. Do you 21 plan to continue to live there? 22 I guess that's not really a fair 23 question, but you live there now. 24 MR. KORTE: Five years, and
150
1 that's where I had my mother for two and a half 2 years, because of the no-staircase situation. 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: You have already 4 erected this addition? 5 MR. KORTE: Structurally, yes. 6 If you drove by, it's the white hunk. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: What's -- give 8 me some feedback on the reference to this being a 9 two-story addition with windows? 10 MR. KORTE: First of all, a 11 closet of that size, a window is not out of line. 12 If you look at the new houses today, walk in 13 closets can have windows. Now, the upper closet 14 will be next to the bathroom. The lower closet 15 will be a break-through to a quote unquote, 16 walk-in closet that's maybe two and a half by 17 three, as it exists. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Are there 19 two-stories in the home? 20 MR. KORTE: There's always been 21 two-stories in that home. 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: I just want to 23 make sure I'm looking at the right house. 24 Thank you.
151
1 MR. KORTE: The one next to the 2 empty one. The one you really can't see so much 3 because of the seven foot grape vines in the 4 front. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Explain -- 6 clarify please, why someone, who, like yourself 7 whose been around for a long, long time, would 8 build this without getting a permit? 9 MR. KORTE: The whole thing that 10 started when Austin doesn't need permits anymore. 11 They are 22 things going on without permits. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm asking you, 13 sir, why you built this without a permit. 14 MR. KORTE: Because with 22 15 people that don't need permits, I didn't 16 realize -- and you'll understand the farce of 17 this -- and I have pushed the issue -- why do I 18 have to be the only one of 22 to get a permit. 19 Now -- 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: No, no, you 21 answered my question. 22 That's all I have. 23 MR. KORTE: Well, I did answer, 24 and it's farce of an answer. And sir, that's all
152
1 I can give you. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Sir, 3 you're out of order. If the Members 4 have a question, they will ask you. 5 You need to respond to questions. 6 Any further discussion? 7 Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: A number of 9 people in the audience made a reference that the 10 eight foot is actually eight foot to the side of 11 the house. Did I understand that correct? 12 Well, it says here eight foot is 13 to the side of the proposed addition; with the 14 five foot addition so that would be 13 feet from 15 the lot line. And someone in the audience 16 spoke -- made reference that it was actually 17 eight feel to the side of the house; which would 18 mean that you who actually have -- if it went to 19 the side of the house and not the closet or 20 whatever it is, in that case you'd only have 21 roughly three feet. 22 What is it that's actually there 23 Alan, Mr. Amolsch? 24 MR. AMOLSCH: I have no idea.
153
1 I'm not involved with this one at all. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: My 3 understanding -- I think they were 4 saying that the house, the neighboring 5 house is on the lot line, so there's a 6 house right on that lot line. 7 MEMBER CANUP: This gentleman 8 here, I think, is the one who made reference to 9 that. 10 Sir, could you clarify that for 11 me? 12 MR. SUTTON: What I was saying 13 is that if you look on the drawing, he just shows 14 the side of his addition that he put up. He 15 shows it eight feet from the property line. But 16 what I'm saying is that that property line is, 17 you know, of the neighboring house. The 18 neighboring house, the actual wall, the exterior 19 wall of that neighboring house is on that 20 property line. 21 So there is no setback on the 22 other side at all. That other house has zero 23 setback. And typically, there's supposed to be a 24 -- you know, I guess a common amount for each
154
1 house to be from the property line; to have a 2 certain distance from house to house. 3 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. That 4 answered my question. 5 Thank you very much. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Any 7 further comments, Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: None. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 10 From other Board Members? 11 Member Gronachan? 12 I knew you didn't want to b 13 silent. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I don't know 15 where no start first; with the residents, with 16 the Petitioner or what it's like to be on the ZBA 17 at 10:00 at night with a case in front you like 18 this. So I'll just jump in. 19 This is not the first case in 20 the City of Novi that someone's built something 21 without a permit; and it probably won't be the 22 last. 23 I will tell up that five years 24 ago, my very first case on this Board was
155
1 somebody up in the northend built a front end 2 addition on their house and didn't get a permit. 3 It's not the end of world. However, I'm not 4 condoning not pulling a permit. 5 I got a ton of phone calls over 6 the weekend from residents in the northend, that 7 you thought there was going to be riot out there 8 because of this. Now I say that because you're 9 all neighbors. I say that because this is a 10 difficult situation, and I know that this is 11 heated situation, as well. 12 However, we're the Zoning Board. 13 We're not the Circuit Court. We're not God. 14 We're not somebody that can just sit up and make 15 a decision. We have to base each and every case 16 on an individual basis. That speech that I just 17 made is for all the residents that called me at 18 home and wanted to know what my decisions was 19 before I could come to this table. 20 I feel very strongly about being 21 on this Board. And I feel very strongly about 22 treating residents very equally. However, I have 23 a problem when someone's been a member of this 24 City for as long as you have --
156
1 MR. KORTE: 35. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: -- and did 3 not pull a permit, regardless -- I don't want any 4 comments at this point. Let me finish. I don't 5 care what's going on at the other 45 residences 6 on Austin or whatever other streets there are up 7 there. I've been up there many times on many 8 various occasions, and it is very difficult. 9 It's one of our biggest difficult northends -- if 10 Member Reinke was here, he would be sighing very 11 heavily right about now. 12 And he has -- him and Member 13 Gray trained me very well for that northend. But 14 we have to listen to this case objectively. So 15 objectively taking it a way from what I heard 16 this weekend from the residents; what I -- 17 nothing the Petitioner the way I know the 18 Petitioner, here are my concerns. 19 I drove out to the sight, and if 20 someone went and built an addition on the side of 21 their house and didn't pull a permit, I could 22 forgive that, because it happens. But this 23 particular addition is extremely close to the 24 other house next door. And that other house is
157
1 right on the property line. 2 There's not a lot of room there. 3 There are -- and I realize -- I respect what 4 Building Department has to say about safety 5 concerns, but I question that eight feet. I'm 6 not good at measuring -- although, if it was a 7 fence line I probably could do it -- but I'm not 8 real good at eight feet. And I question that it 9 is, in fact, eight feet. 10 When I stand on this picture 11 that they -- that the Ordinance officer took 12 right here, I stood there Sunday morning. And if 13 that house started on fire with that addition -- 14 this garage is for other house. So my concerns 15 are safety. My concerns are that we have a long 16 time resident that didn't pull a permit. I have 17 concerns of the fact that -- if the Petitioner 18 says it's a closet, it's a closet. I hope to God 19 it doesn't -- it wouldn't become something else. 20 But at this point, if it 21 wouldn't be eight feet from the property line, I 22 could look at this. But because of the fact that 23 this house is this close to the other house 24 sitting right on the property line; giving no
158
1 leeway, I cannot condone this request for a 2 variance. 3 And I feel better now that I got 4 to speak. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Well, I'm 6 not here to make you feel better, so -- 7 Board Members? 8 Member Brennan? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Maybe another 10 question for legal. 11 If this is denied, sir, then the 12 case is heard at Circuit Court, and what -- I 13 guess you can't project what happens there, but 14 the case continues at Circuit Court, I guess is 15 -- 16 MR. GILLIAM: As I 17 understand the matter is in the 18 District Court right now. It's not in 19 Circuit Court. It's an Ordinance 20 violation that was issued to Mr. Korte, 21 as opposed to any kind of a civil 22 action initiated by the City. 23 So, whatever happens tonight in 24 the case si going to go back to the District
159
1 Court. 2 And if the Zoning Board were to 3 grant the variance, then that would essentially 4 eliminate any existing violation, I would assume, 5 that hour office would (unintelligible) end the 6 prosecution as far as the citation was concerned. 7 If the Zoning Board denies the 8 variance tonight -- subject to any appeal rights 9 that Mr. Korte has as to the denial tonight, he 10 has the District Court level. And Mr. Korte 11 would have the right to have a contested Hearing 12 in reference to the violation. 13 MR. KORTE: Mr. Chair, am I 14 allowed to speak again. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: No, sir. 16 If you are addressed, then you may 17 answer the question. But at this 18 point, that would be out of order, 19 but -- for the fact that we are in a 20 Board discussion. I apologize. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm done. 22 Thank you. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 24 Member Brennan.
160
1 Board Members? 2 Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: As it stands 4 right now, my decision would be no on this 5 application; and let him go to Circuit Court 6 and -- District Court and let them handle it. If 7 they say no, then he is going to have to take it 8 down. I think that's where we have to start. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 10 Member Bauer. 11 Further Board discussion? 12 Of if not -- 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: I do have one 14 other question. I have a legal -- can we talk 15 to Don a little bit about expansion of a 16 non-conforming; and the rebuilding. There was 17 some testimony given that where this had been 18 built was on an existing -- some existing 19 foundation. Now, maybe he hasn't even been out 20 there to make that determination. 21 MR. SAVEN: I think one of the 22 big keys maybe whether or not this does have a 23 foundation. Being that no permit was pulled, we 24 have no idea whether or not there is an existing
161
1 foundation there that's capable for handling the 2 structure in itself. So that's one of the 3 questions. 4 Normally, the issue is that if 5 the building does have a foundation and it's torn 6 done, and they have certain amount of time to 7 rebuild within that, for that time factor on the 8 existing foundation. That's the non-conforming 9 issue that we talk about a lot. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: What's that 11 available time? 12 MR. SAVEN: It's basically six 13 months. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: So if this 15 was -- and we don't know because we haven't been 16 able to determine that -- 17 MR. SAVEN: That's correct. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: But if we were 19 to determine that that foundation has been there 20 for many years, then the building on that 21 foundation is indeed an illegal expansion of a 22 non-conforming -- 23 MR. SAVEN: It would be 24 considered expansion because it was nothing there
162
1 for a period of time. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. I guess 3 I'm looking for the -- to the meat of the denial, 4 if that's indeed where we are going with this. 5 Thank you. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 7 Mr. Brennan. 8 Board Members? 9 MEMBER BAUER: Board Members, so 10 we're looking for 180 days. 11 MR. SAVEN: May I? 12 Pursuant to the Ordinance 13 regarding non-conforming structures and such. It 14 says should any structure be destroyed by any 15 means -- okay -- to an extent of more than 60 16 percent of the replacement cost, exclusive of 17 foundations, it shall be reconstructed on the 18 conformity with the provisions in the 19 (unintelligible) reconstruction of the existing 20 foundation and footings, shall be permitted, 21 provided reconstruction is commenced within six 22 months from the date of such damage. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: In 24 conformity?
163
1 MR. SAVEN: Pardon? 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Conformity is 3 the keyword in there, right? Within six months 4 in conformity? 5 MR. SAVEN: However, 6 (unintelligible) have the ability to reconstruct, 7 provided, for example, if there was a tornado or 8 some kind of wind damage or things of this 9 nature; something did happen, the building, you 10 could put it back, as long as there was existing 11 foundation available. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, just to 13 make a point. It was -- it's one foot over, so 14 that's even -- or three feet over, three feet. 15 It's over the foundation, as the Petitioner so 16 stated, a couple of feet. 17 MR. KORTE: It's a foot and a 18 half short of the foundation. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 20 MR. KORTE: Or two and a half 21 feet short of the existing. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 23 Thank you. 24 So that's not even conforming,
164
1 is it? 2 MR. SAVEN: Correct. 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 4 I'll make a Motion. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Did you have a 6 comment, Mr. Brennan. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: I guess I want 8 to be clear in my own mind that -- of why I would 9 make a Motion, if I were making the Motion, and 10 that is, that I can't approve something that I 11 don't know was built within Ordinance, even with 12 a variance -- because a building permit wasn't 13 pulled so that this guy could check it out. 14 I don't know if that foundation 15 has been there porch 60 years or three months. 16 The law says that he can put an addition within 17 180 days; isn't that what you said? 18 MR. SAVEN: Basically, yes. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Of whatever 20 used to be on that foundation. I suspect that 21 that foundation that he's built on has been 22 vacant for much longer than 180 days; that's my 23 suspicion, but I can't verify that because the 24 Building Department hasn't checked it out,
165
1 because a building permit wasn't pulled. 2 So I guess I would say from my 3 perspective that we would need to deny this for 4 sake of Mr. Korte, so he can go to Building 5 Department and pull a permit and verify what, 6 indeed, the situation is. Once we know what that 7 situation is, then he could come back again 8 requesting a variance, once we know what the 9 basis are. We don't even know what the basis 10 are. The building permit wasn't pulled and we 11 can't ask any questions. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 13 Member Brennan. 14 Is there Motion? 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'll do it. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 17 Gronachan? 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: In Case Number 19 05-037, filed by James Korte at 2034 Austin 20 Drive, I move that we deny the variance based on 21 health, safety and welfare issues; number one. 22 Number two, that the building permit was not 23 pulled, thus not indicating how correct 24 information on the foundation that was -- that
166
1 this addition was built on. Number 3, that 2 the -- that the -- that's it. Number one and 3 two. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 5 Member Gronachan. 6 Is there a second for the 7 Motion? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 10 Motion and a second. 11 Is there any further discussion? 12 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 13 you please call the roll. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?
167
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 3 to zero. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Your 5 variance has been denied. 6 MR. KORTE: The only thing I 7 find interesting is that I (unintelligible) rebut 8 their lies. 9 Thank you for your time. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Sir, I'm 11 sorry, you are out of order. 12 MR. KORTE: Thank you for your 13 time. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 15 16 And we'll move on to the next 17 case, which is Case Number, 05-038, filed by 18 J. D. Hedemark for Mozart Homes for Taft Knolls 19 Subdivision. 20 Are you Mister -- 21 MR. HEDEMARK: Hedemark, yeah. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 23 Please raise your hand and be 24 sworn in by our secretary.
168
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 2 or affirm that the information that you're about 3 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 4 MR. HEDEMARK: Yes. 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: You may 6 proceed. 7 MR. HEDEMARK: We would like to 8 erect an additional entrance way sign to the Taft 9 Knolls Subdivision. It's located on the south 10 side of Jacob Drive. That way, the entrance for 11 that balance (unintelligible) north and south 12 bound traffic on Capital. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 14 There were 41 notices mailed 15 out; one approval, two rejections and two pieces 16 of mail were approved -- two pieces of mail were 17 returned. The approval came from Art Johnson of 18 Johnson Printing, at 45525 Grand River. I 19 believe this building would be a beautiful 20 addition to the Grand River corridor. 21 I think this might be from the 22 previous case; one of the previous cases. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: I think 24 that does fall under the building that
169
1 we looked at earlier, the case of the 2 building, so I would assume there's no 3 approvals and no objections. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Oh, Johnson 5 Printing for the other -- for the two-story 6 building. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: For the -- 8 yeah, for the two-story building. The 9 seven foot variance request. 10 So, is it appropriate for me to 11 assume that there was no approvals and no 12 objections. 13 MR. GILLIAM: Yes, I agree. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 15 Is there anyone audience that 16 wishes to comment on this case? 17 Seeing none, Building 18 Department? 19 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment. 20 MR. SAVEN: I'll just point out 21 that the wall that it's going on is the wall 22 that's basically set back in an arch fashion, 23 which one side would be blind if you're coming 24 one way or whatever, east and west, north and
170
1 south directions. You almost need some type of 2 -- something out there. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 4 Mr. Saven, for your humor. 5 Board Members? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd be happy to 7 try a Motion here. 8 Given the direction from our 9 Building Department, I'd make a Motion in respect 10 to Case 05-038, the Petitioner's request for 11 second sign be approved for the purpose of 12 subdivision identification. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 15 Motion and a second. 16 I guess I have a question for 17 the Motion maker. In this case -- I'm going to 18 withdraw my question, in light of making one. 19 So, there's a Motion and a 20 second. 21 Is there discussion by other 22 Board Members? 23 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, will 24 you please call the roll.
171
1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 6 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 12 MEMBER FISCHER. Aye. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 14 to zero. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Although 16 we may have scared you with earlier 17 discussions, your variance as been 18 approved. 19 Please see the Building 20 Department. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And stop by 22 Johnson Printing and thank them anyway. 23 24 MEMBER FISCHER: That
172
1 concludes the cases for tonight. 2 Moving on to other matters. 3 Do you just want to update us on 4 that case, please? 5 Well, I just wanted to put this 6 on on other matters. Jason Levy called me after 7 the meeting asking to be tabled, because they 8 need to prepare the materials and have enough 9 time. 10 But he also asked how many times 11 can the applicant request to be tabled. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: I think 13 I'll refer that to our attorney, I 14 believe. 15 MR. GILLIAM: I think the 16 applicant can ask to be tabled as many 17 times they want. You know, if it just 18 becomes a practical consideration at 19 some point, I think the Board will have 20 to make a decision just to -- when it's 21 time to reach closer on an issue, with 22 the understanding that the application 23 is not tabled and denied, that the 24 application can be refiled. They
173
1 wouldn't necessarily have to 2 (unintelligible) the application. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. I 4 don't think that's something we want to 5 tackle at all tonight or we can just go 6 with, he can table it according to the 7 attorney's instructions. 8 I will make a comment that we 9 did promise some people they'll go first and 10 second. I think we should put that before them, 11 since he was here last month. 12 So, if there's -- 13 MR. SAVEN: Just an additional 14 comment in regards to one of the cases tonight 15 for that height requirement for that one 16 particular case. I'll contact the Planning 17 Department and see if I can get some feedback 18 from them on what can be done. 19 Most of you are aware, as far as 20 -- even from a residential standpoint, the height 21 requirement for a house is still 35 feet. 22 (Unintelligible). So that's just from a 23 residential application. When you're dealing 24 with a two-story building, commercial building,
174
1 and layouts (unintelligible.) There's are some 2 mechanical needs that are there, and like I said 3 (unintelligible). So maybe there's time to take 4 a look at -- just like everybody says -- 5 continuous concern (unintelligible) addressing 6 this. 7 We did that with the property on 8 12 Mile -- excuse me, on Grand River, when 9 (unintelligible) remember that particular issue; 10 came before us on several occasions 11 (unintelligible); and I'll see what I can do for 12 you. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you 14 very much, Mr. Saven. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And the fact 16 that you didn't have your mic on during the whole 17 thing, so nobody at home heard what you said. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. Saven 19 will provide (unintelligible) on the 20 height of building that abuts 21 residential. 22 Entertain a Motion to adjourn? 23 BOARD MEMBERS: So moved. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: All in
175
1 favor? 2 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: The Zoning 4 Board does stand adjourned until June 5 2005. 6 (The meeting was adjourned at 7 10:30 p.m.) 8 - - - - - - 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
176
1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 4 do hereby certify that I have recorded 5 stenographically the proceedings had and testimony 6 taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and 7 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify 8 that the foregoing transcript, consisting of (174) 9 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript 10 of my said stenograph notes. 11 12 13 ___________________________ Machelle Billingslea-Moore, 14 Certified Shorthand Reporter 15 16 May 18, 2005. (Date) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
177
|