| 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, July 12, 2005. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY:
Novi, Michigan At 7:30 p.m. - - - - - - 5 MEMBER FISCHER: I would like to 6 call to order the July, 2005, City of Novi Zoning 7 Board of Appeals. 8 Ms. Backus, would you please 9 call the roll. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Present. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Aye. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Present. 22 GAIL BACKUS: All present. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 24 quorum present. The meeting is now in session.
3
1 First I'd like to go over some 2 rules of conduct. All them can be found on the 3 agenda. I would like to point out that if you 4 have a cell phone or pager, please turn it off at 5 this time. 6 Individuals will have five 7 minutes to address the Board; and groups will 8 have ten minutes. And no person shall be allowed 9 to address the Board more than once, unless 10 permission is granted by the chairperson. 11 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 12 Hearing Board empowered by the Novi City Charter, 13 to hear appeals seeking variances from the 14 application of Novi Zoning Ordinance. It takes a 15 vote of at least four members to approve a 16 variance request; and a vote of the majority 17 present to deny a variance. Because we have six 18 members present, any decision made tonight will 19 be final. 20 However, if anyone would like to 21 table theirs, I might consider so we can go and 22 watch the All Star Game. I figured Don would 23 agree with that. 24 Our agenda, are there any
4
1 changes? 2 GAIL BACKUS: Yes, there's one 3 change. 4 With respect to the last case, 5 which case number 05-060 filed by Greg Morgan of 6 Phillips Sign and Lighting. He called and 7 requested to be tabled to the August 2nd meeting. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 9 And Board Members, are there any 10 other changes? 11 MR. SAVEN: I have a comment to 12 make, please, if I may. 13 If per chance the Board decides 14 to table any case tonight, I would like to remind 15 the Board that -- and whoever is up for their 16 particular case, if it does get tabled, our 17 cut-off time is this Thursday for the next 18 following meeting. 19 We have to do this legally 20 (unintelligible) public notifications. Due to 21 the holiday week, we were not able to hold it the 22 first Tuesday of the month. So therefore what 23 took place is that we need to have the ability to 24 notify anybody, if we need, of any changes
5
1 whatsoever. 2 So that's one of the things I 3 would request that the Board consider; either to 4 ask them whether or not they can make it the next 5 following month or make that part of their 6 decision of what they want to do tonight. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 8 Mr. Saven. 9 Any other comments or changes? 10 All right. As you maybe aware, 11 we were graced with an alternate. Linda Kreager 12 was appointed by City Council last night. So 13 probably after the recess, I will introduce her 14 to the Board. She has some prior commitments the 15 she had to attend to, so I'd just like to mention 16 that that will be taking place at some point. 17 Entertain a Motion to approve 18 the agenda as amended? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: All in 21 favor say Aye? 22 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: The agenda 24 has been approved.
6
1 I do not believe, Ms. Backus, we 2 had our Minutes from the last in our packet? 3 GAIL BACKUS: No Minutes. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: So we will 5 move to the public remarks section of the 6 meeting tonight. 7 All comments related to a case 8 on the agenda should be held until that case is 9 called. So if anyone wishes to address the Board 10 on a matter that is not on the agenda, please 11 come forward at this time. 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What case 13 was cancelled? I didn't hear it. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: That was 15 Case Number 05-060, filed by Greg Morgan for 16 the Maxim Building on Grand River. 17 Any other questions, comments? 18 Seeing none, the public remarks 19 time is closed. 20 21 We'll go ahead and call our 22 first case, Case Number, 05-044, for a residence 23 at 1623 West Lake Drive. 24 As the Board may remember and
7
1 recall, this was tabled at the June meeting; and 2 it is for a setback a variance to the north; a 3 setback variance to the south; and a aggregate 4 setback, as well. 5 And you are the Petitioners? 6 MS. DOAN: Yes. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 8 And your swearing in from last 9 month is still -- you're still under oath, so you 10 can proceed? 11 MS. DOAN: Okay. 12 At the last meeting, I believe 13 everyone's main concern was the 2.8 setback on 14 the north side; and also the lot coverage of over 15 25 percent. 16 After -- since the meeting, we 17 have talked to some more neighbors, and also took 18 your advisement. And we have since reduced the 19 width of the house, and also centered it so now 20 it's five feet to the north side and five and a 21 half to the south side. We also cut the length 22 of the house to keep he lot coverage within the 23 25 percent lot coverage. 24 After talking to Mr. Saven, we
8
1 also would like to ask for the approval of the 2 similar structure architecture; and basically our 3 house, as you can see in the packet, is a modern 4 design with lots of glass to enjoy the lakeview. 5 And also we have a flat -- a deck on top, so that 6 we wouldn't need one on the ground level, because 7 we want to keep as much green as possible on this 8 small lot. 9 Because the house is on the 10 lake, most of the houses are very dissimilar. 11 Every house is unique. Even the existing house 12 today I would say is very dissimilar from the 13 rest of the neighborhood. It's an old house with 14 a miss-matched green garage up front, that's two 15 feet into the neighbor's yard. We would like to 16 tear down the structure and put up the proposed 17 one, so at least we can keep the -- everything 18 within the border of the lot. 19 MR. TRAN: I just wanted to add 20 one thing. I don't know if the Board has had a 21 chance to read the color package we gave. We did 22 a simple presentation that broke it down to both 23 our immediate neighbors' concerns. And then all 24 of the potential Board concerns in there. So If
9
1 you have any questions on that, just ask. We 2 tried to summarize as best and clearly as 3 possible. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Excellent. 5 Thank you very much. 6 For the presentation for the 7 July meeting, there were 55 notices mailed; there 8 were four approvals and zero objections. 9 Madam Secretary, do you wish to 10 read the correspondence. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The first 12 approval is from Olga Jacob, at 1619 West Lake 13 Drive. I accept the new setback variance 14 requested of five feet. I do agree that the 15 proposed structure significantly architecturally 16 different to the existing neighborhood. However, 17 I will let the Zoning Board of Appeals make the 18 final decision as to the type of structure to be 19 built. 20 The next approval is by Helcom 21 Semla, at 1611 West Lake Drive. Great for the 22 community and the City. 23 Patrick Ziarnik, Z-i-a-r-n-i-k, 24 at 1601 West Lake Drive, an approval. And the
10
1 final approval from Sandra Lesniak, at 1512 2 Labenta. She just states for approval. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 4 Does anyone in the audience wish 5 to address the Board concerning this case? 6 Seeing none, we will ask the 7 Building Department? 8 MR. SAVEN: Just that the 9 Petitioner had followed through with the request 10 that the Board tried to center the Building, 11 which was very much a concern with the Board at 12 that time. Also, in the process of putting the 13 new building, they'll also be taking down and 14 existing garage in that particular area. 15 And similarly -- from a 16 similarly point of view, that is part of the 17 Ordinance. This is an unusual type of 18 construction that I have not seen in every day 19 reviews through our Department. So I flagged it 20 to make sure -- if there is any questions to be 21 asked or by any of the neighbors or whatever to 22 be brought before the Board and they could look 23 at it; and that's all I have to say. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,
11
1 Mr. Saven. 2 And Board Members? 3 Member Brennan? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, thanks. 5 You did just about what we asked. The design is 6 a bit of a surprise, because that wasn't in last 7 month's. But I don't really have any problem 8 with that (unintelligible) facing the lake. 9 (Unintelligible) see it from the road anyways. 10 And I would support your plans 11 as resubmitted tonight. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 13 Member Brennan. 14 Any other Board Members? 15 MEMBER BAUER: I think you did a 16 very good job. I can support this. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: And Member 18 Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: It looks like 20 everybody likes the whole idea. They've done 21 what we asked them to, so let's get on with it; 22 and may I make a Motion that in Case 05-044, we 23 grant the request of the applicant for the 24 variances that they have requested, because of
12
1 the lot configuration. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 4 Motion and a second. 5 Any further discussion? 6 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 7 you please call the roll. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 21 to zero. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Your 23 variances have been approved. 24 Thank you and good luck to you.
13
1 Please see the Building 2 Department. 3 4 All right. Moving right a long 5 to Case Number, 05-046 filed by Karen Resseguie 6 for a residence at 23925 East LeBost. The 7 applicant is requesting five foot front yard 8 setback; six and a half foot northeast side 9 setback; and a seven foot northwest side setback; 10 and a 13 and a half foot yard variance of both 11 side yards. 12 And once again, as Board Members 13 will recall, this was tabled from the June, 2005 14 meeting. 15 You are Ms. Resseguie? 16 MS. RESSEGUIE: Resseguie. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Resseguie? 18 MS. RESSEGUIE: Uh-huh, that's 19 correct. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 21 And once again, you were sworn 22 in last month; and that oath does still stand. 23 MS. RESSEGUIE: That's correct. 24 Is this on?
14
1 MEMBER FISCHER: If you 2 place it there, they will turn it on for us 3 to see. 4 MS. RESSEGUIE: Okay. 5 As you recall from last month, I 6 was here proposing a garage that I wanted to be 7 attached to my house. And I had three neighbors 8 that were opposing my garage, and I wanted to 9 show you again, if you recall, my house, a 10 picture of it. And you can see that I have no 11 current garage right now. These houses were 12 built in the late '50's, and they have attached 13 garages as they've been going through the 14 neighborhood. 15 I have a carport currently, and 16 my proposal was to attach the garage, such as my 17 neighbor's across the street -- directly across 18 the street actually. And my neighbor across the 19 street from me has the garage that I was 20 proposing, that it actually sets out from the 21 house so I could get the reversed gable look. 22 However, I think there was some 23 misunderstanding with my neighbors and how the 24 variances go. So therefore I have talked with
15
1 the neighbor next door to me, and they did agree 2 that they weren't understanding the math and how 3 the numbers worked. I explained to them that my 4 garage would not go any farther than the existing 5 carport, and she was okay with that. 6 And the neighbor across the 7 street from me didn't really comment on that. 8 The neighbor that -- on the other side that had 9 opposed, he is now moving, so I really don't 10 think that would make a big difference in if I'm 11 putting a garage up or not. 12 However, since that time -- 13 rather than to continue and having to keep coming 14 back month after month, I am willing to make the 15 garage flush, as in this house, exactly the same 16 as mine. I will attach the garage to the house 17 and make it flush with the current existing roof 18 line. I do have concerns with that, only 19 because -- the reason I wanted the reverse gable 20 look is, as you'll see on her garage -- it's a 21 very nice home -- however, throughout the 22 neighborhood, the garages that are continuous on 23 the same roof line, you'll notice the buckle 24 that's a concern of mine.
16
1 I know that her roof line has 2 been -- the whole roof has been taken off and 3 re-put back on. All of the homes in the 4 neighborhood have that effect; they, for some 5 reason, have a buckle. I've talked with my 6 contactor. He can't 100 percent guarantee 7 through settling of the ground -- because it's 8 not an attached structure from beginning -- that 9 it won't buckle. But I'm comfortable with moving 10 forward right now to just get the garage up, keep 11 it consistent with the roof line and move forward 12 on it. 13 I have the support of my 14 president of the organization. He's written a 15 letter. And I believe that you have that, and 16 I'm ready to hear what you say. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Excellent. 18 Thank you for your comments. 19 In this case, there were 42 20 notices mailed; four approvals, as well as the 21 approval from the association, and that was for 22 this months' case. 23 Madam Secretary, will you please 24 read the correspondence.
17
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: At this 2 point, there's no further comments 3 (unintelligible) from Thomas Rondondi, Warren 4 Jocz, president of the association; Alec Walters 5 and Paul Root. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you 7 very much. 8 Does the -- does anyone in the 9 audience wish to address the Board regarding this 10 case? 11 Seeing none, I'll ask the 12 Building Department for comment. 13 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Seeing 15 none, I'll ask for Board discussion? 16 Member Gronachan? 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Great job. I 18 can -- I am just glad that everything worked out 19 for you. I am in full support. I understand 20 about the buckle. Hopefully that'll work out to 21 your advantage, if they look at it. I'm not an 22 engineer or a contractor, so I don't know. But 23 hopefully you'll have a good engineer and -- or a 24 contractor, and he'll figure it out for you.
18
1 So I'm in support of this. I 2 think you did your homework and covered all your 3 bases. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: I'm seeing 5 a lot of head nodding. 6 Would you like to make a Motion? 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. 8 In Case Number, zero -- I move 9 in Case Number 05-046, filed by Karen Resseguie, 10 that the four variances be approved, based on 11 meeting all the criteria, satisfying the 12 neighbors, and the lot size and configuration of 13 the property. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 16 Motion and a second. 17 Any further discussion? 18 Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I would 20 like to make sure that the architecture and the 21 material match. And I would like the Motion to 22 reflected that. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I accept that 24 friendly amendment, sure.
19
1 MEMBER FISCHER: The maker 2 of the Motion as well as the seconder do 3 approve. 4 Do you understand? 5 MS. RESSEGUIE: No. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: We would 7 like to see that the facade of the new 8 garage match that of the house, is basically 9 what we are -- 10 MS. RESSEGUIE: I have a 11 picture. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: If you're 13 okay with that, then we'll go ahead and take 14 the vote. 15 MS. RESSEGUIE: I have it right 16 here. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Go ahead 18 and put it up. 19 MEMBER CANUP: It wasn't a 20 question. It was meant to be an amendment to the 21 Motion (unintelligible) match, so that it would 22 blend with the neighborhood. 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: You plan on 24 doing that?
20
1 MS. RESSEGUIE: Doing what? 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Matching the 3 addition to the house. 4 MS. RESSEGUIE: Oh, yes. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 7 Motion and a second. 8 Ms. Backus, would you please 9 call the roll. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer: 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 23 to zero. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Your
21
1 variances have been granted as amended. 2 Please see the Building 3 Department and good luck. 4 MS. RESSEGUIE: Thank you. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Next we 6 will look at Case Number 05-049 filed by 7 Sami Harb of Beck-Novi LLC for Kirkway 8 Place. 9 The Petitioner is requesting an 10 additional subway(sic) entrance sign to be 11 located at Beck Road and Kirkway Boulevard. 12 Is the Petitioner in the 13 audience? 14 MR. HARB: Yes. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Please 16 step up to the podium, sir. 17 And Board Members, you'll 18 remember that this case was before us May of 19 2005, and denied at that time. 20 Sir, please raise your right 21 hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 23 or affirm that the information that you're about 24 to give in the matter before you is the truth?
22
1 MR. HARB: I do. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Please 4 state your name and your address and 5 proceed. 6 MR. HARB: Mr. Chairman, Board 7 Members, my name is Sami Harb. I live at 31355 8 West 13 Mile Road, Farmington Hills. I'm the 9 developer of Kirkway Place. Requesting the 10 variance for the letters -- additional letters to 11 be installed on the wall. 12 I want to start off by 13 apologizing to the Board for this situation to 14 get to this point. I'm going to take the blame 15 for it. For some reason or another, I thought 16 the letters -- since the wall is there, the 17 letters don't constitute -- in my mind, that a 18 sign was like at a detached free-standing sign. 19 So I didn't think of the letters as a sign on 20 it's own. So I take the blame for it to get to 21 this point. 22 Having said that, as you can 23 see, the letters are in good taste. They're not 24 obtrusive or -- they show well. And we'd like to
23
1 have it on both sides of the wall for traffic 2 coming on both sides, from northbound and 3 southbound. So if somebody's coming at night 4 they don't have to look and miss it by any 5 chance. I think it will create some safety 6 measure. 7 In the area just within a mile, 8 there's like four or five subdivisions that have 9 the same situation. As a matter of fact, there's 10 one across the street -- Churchill Crossing; and 11 there is another new one called Asbury Park on 11 12 mile road (unintelligible) same situation on both 13 sides for two separate entrances. 14 There is Adden Park 15 (unintelligible) and Edinburgh; Grovenor Park, 16 just to name a few, just within the immediate 17 area. 18 So, if there's any questions -- 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Excellent. 20 Thank you, sir. 21 In this case, there were five 22 notices mailed. There were no responses 23 whatsoever. 24 Is there anyone in the audience
24
1 that wishes to comment on this case in front of 2 the Board? 3 Seeing none, we'll move to the 4 Building Department. 5 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: You're 7 quiet tonight. I like it. 8 Board Members, any discussion? 9 Member Gronachan? 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm glad you 11 apologized, I thought it was me that screwed up. 12 When I reread this, I really thought that we were 13 looking at the white construction sign. And I 14 don't believe you were the one that presented the 15 case, so there was a lot of confusion. And 16 you're right, there are a lot of subdivisions. 17 And so I'll accept your apology if you accept 18 mine. 19 I was off base and I started the 20 table that night. So I'll correct my error, and 21 I am in support of these letters for the reason 22 that it clears up the entrance way to the 23 subdivisions, and I have been vocal on that. 24 I'll be honest, the person who
25
1 presented your case last time was not clear, and 2 I was thinking that it was the other construction 3 sign that was up there. 4 MR. HARB: I was out of town. I 5 was on my vacation, that's why I wasn't here. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'll go on 7 vacation and you can come and hear the cases, 8 how's that? 9 So I am in support of this, and 10 I apologize to the Boards for misleading last 11 month. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 13 Anything else? 14 Member Brennan? 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I hate to 16 say I told you so, but I told you so. 17 We have consistently given a 18 variance, as the Petitioner's pointed out, when 19 we've gotten angled entranceways with two 20 split -- we've done this 15, 20 times. I was 21 going to drive around. He did my work for me. I 22 was a little shocked last month when nobody 23 agreed with me, because we've tried to be 24 consistent.
26
1 So again, I would support the 2 Petitioner's position. Not because I like the 3 guy, but because it makes sense. If you're going 4 northbound or you're going southbound, if you're 5 going (unintelligible). You need a sign on both 6 walls. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 8 Member Brennan. 9 Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: It balances. 11 MR. HARB: Yes. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: And Member 13 Sanghvi? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, let me be 15 the one to make a Motion then, in Case Number, 16 05-049, let us approve the request of the 17 applicant for the second sign for subdivision 18 identification. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Support. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 22 Motion and a second. 23 Further discussion? 24 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, please
27
1 call the roll. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 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 Fischer? 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 15 to zero. 16 MR. HARB: Thank you very much. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Your 18 variance has been granted. Thank you. 19 Please see the Building 20 Department. 21 22 Next on the agenda is Case 23 Number, 05-050, filed by Donna Sienkiewicz for a 24 residence at 298 Shamrock Hill. The applicant is
28
1 requesting a side yard setback variance of six 2 feet for the construction of an addition between 3 the main building and the detached garage. 4 Are you Miss Sienkiewicz? 5 MS. SIENKIEWICZ: Sienkiewicz, 6 yes. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 8 Would you please raise your 9 right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 11 or affirm that the information that you're about 12 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 13 MS. SIENKIEWICZ: Yes, I do. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Can you 15 state your name and address for the record 16 and proceed. 17 MS. SIENKIEWICZ: My name is 18 Donna Sienkiewicz, and my address is 298 Shamrock 19 Hill. 20 I need a six foot variances for 21 a garage that's already existing, and I want to 22 build an addition to attach the main house to the 23 garage. It's pretty basic. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay.
29
1 Anything else? 2 MS. SIENKIEWICZ: No. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Excellent. 4 In this case, there were 36 5 notices mailed. There was one approval and zero 6 objections. 7 Madam Secretary? 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's by Laura 9 Griffith at 240 Pleasant Avenue. In my opinion, 10 this will enhance the property. It will also 11 make it easier for the Petitioner to access her 12 home directly from her garage. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 14 Is there anyone in the audience 15 that wishes to comment on this case? 16 Seeing none, move to the 17 Building Department. 18 MR. SAVEN: I have talked to 19 Donna early on in presenting this particular 20 case. I did apprise her of the fact that this is 21 an existing detached garage and there's certain 22 requirements and foundations. She is aware of it 23 in regards to making sure that we have 42 inch 24 foundation. There is no change in the roof line
30
1 or elevation. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 3 Mr. Saven. 4 Anything else? 5 Seeing none, we'll move to -- 6 open it up to the Board. 7 Member Gronachan? 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have no 9 problem with this request. I feel it's minimal. 10 It's going to add to the continuity of the house, 11 and probably the overall appearance, and for it's 12 usefulness. 13 Anybody want to come up with 14 creative basis for hardship, I'm open to 15 suggestions. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 17 Member Gronachan. 18 Member Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I have no 20 problem with this request. And if I may, I'd 21 like to make a Motion that in Case Number 05-050 22 that the Petitioner's request be granted for 23 continued use of the residence and esthetic 24 reasons.
31
1 Thank you. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 4 Motion and a second. 5 Further discussion? 6 Seeing none, Miss Backus, will 7 you please call the roll. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yep. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 17 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 21 to zero. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Your 23 variance has been granted. Thank you. 24 And please see the Building
32
1 Department. Good luck. 2 3 Knock on wood, but it looks like 4 we just might be able to see a little bit of that 5 All Star Game. 6 7 8 Moving on to Case Number, 9 05-051, filed by James and Geralyn Fowler, for a 10 residence located at 24399 Willowbrook. The 11 applicant is requesting a 192 square foot 12 variance for the maximum lot coverage of all 13 accessory buildings. The property is zoned R-4, 14 located north of Ten Mile, east of Meadowbrook. 15 You are the Petitioners? 16 MR. FOWLER: Yes, we are. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Would you 18 please raise your right hand and be sworn in 19 by our secretary. 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 21 or affirm that the information that you're about 22 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 23 MR. FOWLER: Yes I do. 24 MS. FOWLER: Yes.
33
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Please state 2 your name and address for the record. 3 MR. FOWLER: I'm James Fowler. 4 MS. FOWLER: Geralyn Fowler. 5 MR. FOWLER: And we reside at 6 24399 Willowbrook in Novi, just north of Ten Mile 7 in (unintelligible) subdivision. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Go ahead 9 and proceed, sir. 10 MR. FOWLER: We're here before 11 the Board this evening to request your approval 12 for a variance of 192 square feet for 13 construction of a small garage located in the 14 back of our property. We realized about five 15 weeks ago that we met every single requirement, 16 except this particular one for R-4 zoning. 17 And in consideration of the 18 subdivision, it's our intent to construct a 19 garage with the same roof picks, the same 20 construction materials. It will have a brick 21 ledge all the way around, just like our existing 22 home, so it's architecturally attractive in 23 keeping with the charm of the community. 24 And we have optimized it. As
34
1 you know, it was a little bit larger. We made it 2 smaller, so it's minimum position in the 3 variance. The existing property has full growth 4 Arbivita(ph) and pine trees on the back, so it 5 additionally will minimize the appearance. 6 We have spoken to some of the 7 adjacent neighbors, the ones that we could catch. 8 Some are busy with vacations and travel, and we 9 received no objections whatsoever. This 10 particular subdivision does not have an 11 association. When we built our home in 1992, we 12 solicited input from the developer. It was his 13 responsibility at the time to set up an 14 association. One was never initiated at that 15 time. It doesn't exist today. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Anything 17 else, sir? 18 MR. FOWLER: I don't think so, 19 no. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Excellent. 21 In this case, there were a 22 whopping 168 notices mailed. There were zero 23 approvals and zero objections. 24 Does anyone in the audience wish
35
1 to comment on this case? 2 Seeing none, look to the 3 Building Department? 4 MR. SAVEN: No additional 5 comment. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: And Board 7 Members, open it up for discussion. 8 Member Canup? 9 MEMBER CANUP: Nice looking 10 garage. 11 MR. FOWLER: Thank you. 12 MEMBER CANUP: It's a large 13 enough lot. It appears that it's not going to be 14 obtrusive. I guess if I was you, I would ask for 15 bigger garage. 16 MR. FOWLER: You're the second 17 person who told me that. 18 MEMBER CANUP: I would be 19 willing to make a Motion in this case. Let's 20 see, 05-051, that we grant the variance as 21 requested due to the -- due to a significant 22 hardship on the owner of storage space, and that 23 architecture and materials match the existing 24 home; and all building codes be followed.
36
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 3 Motion and a second. 4 Further discussion? 5 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, please 6 call the roll. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 8 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 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: 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 petition(sic) has been approved. Please see 23 the Building Department, and good luck. 24 MR. FOWLER: Thank you.
37
1 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Case 3 Number six on the agenda is Case Number 4 05-052, filed by Christopher White of Ospery 5 Homes for a residence located at 156 Rexton. 6 The Petitioner is requesting a four foot 7 front yard setback variance for the 8 construction of a new home at 156 Rexton. 9 And you're Mr. White? 10 MR. WHITE: Yes, I am. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Would you 12 raise your right hand and be sworn in by our 13 secretary. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 15 or affirm that the information that you're about 16 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 17 MR. WHITE: Yes, I do. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Please 19 state your name and address for the record 20 and proceed. 21 MR. WHITE: I'm Christopher 22 White, 4260 Bogan Lane in Commerce Township, 23 Michigan. I'm the owner and operator of Ospery 24 homes.
38
1 And this four foot variance I'm 2 requesting it due to the fact that it's a corner 3 lot. And the lots when they were platted, they 4 didn't plat corner lots wider to consider larger 5 setbacks needed for that side yard setback -- 6 well, I call it side yard setback. Actually, 7 it's on the corner, so it's considered a second 8 front yard setback. 9 So two front yard setbacks are 10 required. Where, if it is a front yard, 11 obviously, there's more distance needed. The lot 12 as it exists right now with the codes, you would 13 only be able to construct a 40 foot wide home on 14 this lot. 40 feet, it makes it a little 15 difficult to build a nice looking house at 40 16 feet. That's pretty narrow. 17 I submitted a picture of the 18 house that I would like to construct there. I 19 think it would fit into the neighborhood real 20 nice. It's going to have brick and vinyl. And I 21 did -- I measured the existing homes on the 22 street, on Rexton, and this home would actually 23 be setback farther than all of the existing homes 24 in the neighborhood; being that most of those
39
1 were older homes. 2 There's two other new homes on 3 the street, and those are, you know, right at the 4 30 foot front yard setback. And my -- the front 5 yard on Rexton would be 30 feet, it's the side 6 yard that we'd be requesting a lesser distance of 7 26 feet, so a variance of four feet. 8 I guess that's it. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 10 sir. 11 In this case, there were 94 12 notices mailed and one approval. No comment on 13 the approval from James and Michelle Wood of 1418 14 West Lake Drive. 15 Is there anyone in the audience 16 that wishes to comment on this case? 17 Seeing none, we move to the 18 Building Department for comments. 19 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) 20 corner lot. (unintelligible) into consideration 21 that sight -- 22 MR. WHITE: Yeah, I forgot to 23 mention that. There's plenty of room to see 24 around the corner as you're driving up to that
40
1 corner. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Is that 3 all, Mr. Saven? 4 MR. SAVEN: That's it. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 6 sir. 7 And Board Members? 8 Member Brennan. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have a 10 question of the Building Department. 11 Is there any significant 12 difference in building a 40 foot wide house 13 versus a 44 foot house? 14 MR. SAVEN: It's all by design. 15 It's all by design. Certainly, you can take into 16 account the compatibility of the neighborhood, if 17 you at the neighborhood, itself, 18 (unintelligible.) 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm just 20 looking for hardship. If the house as proposed 21 is built 40 foot wide, then he doesn't need a 22 variance. 23 MR. SAVEN: Maybe it's a matter 24 of design as to the size of the bedrooms
41
1 (unintelligible) building. It's all a matter of 2 design. 3 MR. WHITE: Can I respond on 4 that? 5 MR. SAVEN: I think you should 6 let the Board Members finish. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: If there 8 are any questions, we will ask them of you, 9 sir. 10 Any other comments? 11 Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: Looks to me like 13 -- from the drawing we have that there's plenty 14 of depth on this lot. There could be some 15 configuration that could run that home into the 16 depth of the lot, rather than the side yard. And 17 I guess I have a tough time seeing that this lot 18 is not buildable any other way. 19 By rearranging the home on it, 20 basically -- I know it's over simplification, but 21 turning it 90 degrees would alleviate the problem 22 or a need for a variance. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 24 Mr. Canup.
42
1 Other Board Members? 2 Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 4 Mr. Chairman. 5 I don't have particularly any 6 problem with the design submitted and the 7 variance requested. That neighborhood -- you are 8 going to bring a new home, definitely going to 9 enhance the neighborhood and things are going to 10 look better than what they have been. 11 And being a corner lot and the 12 trees and the configuration of the lot -- this 13 four foot variance just doesn't seem too great to 14 me. 15 Thank you. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 17 Member Sanghvi. 18 Member Gronachan? 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Well, I 20 concur member Sanghvi. Normally on new 21 construction I am not in favor of variances. You 22 know, I say less is better. And I take that 23 (unintelligible) configuration and we're dealing 24 with a corner lot, a long with the lay of the
43
1 land, I feel the Petitioner is asking for a 2 minimal variance, and I will be in support. 3 Thank you. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 5 Member Gronachan. 6 And I will go ahead and place 7 my comments, as well. 8 I agree with the two previous 9 speakers, the last two. There is not many times 10 we see more hardship than corner lots because 11 they have two front yards. 12 Correct, Mr. Saven? 13 MR. SAVEN: That is correct. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: And so we 15 have seen Petitioners come before us with 16 requests much bigger than this. Sometimes 17 we disagree with them; sometimes we agree 18 with them. But this is a very minimal 19 request; one of the more minimal I have 20 seen. 21 So I am inclined to support this 22 request from this Petitioner, as well. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a 24 Motion, Mr. Chairman.
44
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 2 Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: In Case Number 4 05-052, we grant the Petitioner's request for a 5 four feet variance, because of the lot 6 configuration. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 9 Motion and a second. 10 Any further discussion? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: Just one 12 comment through the Chair. 13 The Motion's fine, but the 14 comment that Member Sanghvi made immediately 15 before the Motion when he spoke about the reasons 16 why he could support the variance. The perfect 17 kind of thing to incorporate in the Motion is the 18 reasons for the Motion, in addition to lot 19 configuration. 20 So I offer this suggestion to 21 refer back to those and incorporate them in the 22 Motion to complete packet. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no 24 problem doing that. We can incorporate that.
45
1 MEMBER FISCHER: The maker 2 agrees to incorporate previous comments made 3 by him. Seconder also agrees. 4 Any further discussion? 5 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 6 you please call the roll. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: No. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Crap. 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think 16 answer is yes or no. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: I have to vote 18 no. I have not been convinced that there's been 19 hardship, sorry. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: No. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Tied, three to
46
1 three. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: At this 3 time, (unintelligible). The Petitioner's 4 request is denied. 5 Member Brennan, do you wish to 6 make further comments? 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. I'd like 8 to open up a dialog with the homeowner. 9 My same thought was, you know, 10 if you want it like this, you've got to convince 11 me why you need that four foot variance. You've 12 got this nice deep lot. Couldn't you turn that 13 so that it faces Rexton the other way? 14 MR. WHITE: I brought that to 15 the Building Department before I purchased the 16 property, and they said it would be too hard 17 to -- because it's only (unintelligible) feet 18 wide. So that would make a front yard setback of 19 30. And if there's 30 in the back, that only 20 leaves 20 feet -- that only leaves 20 feet to 21 build a house. 22 So no -- the answer to your 23 question is no. It would only leave 20 feet to 24 build a house.
47
1 MEMBER BAUER: But you could 2 move it back. 3 MR. WHITE: I could move it back, 4 but that has nothing to do with the four foot 5 variance I'm requesting for the side. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Are you 7 all set, Mr. Brennan? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm getting 9 closer. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Any 11 further comment at this time? 12 Member Canup and then -- 13 MEMBER CANUP: I'd like to hear 14 what Don has to say. 15 MR. SAVEN: I'll be honest with 16 you, when we deal with lots on the north end, 17 there's a provision in the Ordinance that talks 18 about non-conforming lots. As a matter of fact, 19 it talks about combining lots, and really 20 downsizing the width of the lots, providing 21 there's two lots continuous under the same 22 ownership can be 65 feet in width; plus, I 23 believe, 6,000 square feet in area. 24 That's because the lots were
48
1 pre-existing lots. They tried to make them as 2 reasonable as possible to build on. But they 3 still had to meet those requirements and setback 4 requirements for the district. If you can recall 5 about 20 years ago -- those of you who were on 6 the Board -- I know Gerry and Brent, you guys 7 especially, were under what's call 8 grandfathering, where we had a ten foot on one 9 side and ten foot on the other. 10 But that grandfathering clause 11 is gone now and we're dealing with ten and 12 fifteen side yard setbacks. That's why we have 13 still have a tough situation. 14 But in this case, you imagine 15 this to be a 65 foot, (unintelligible) do in that 16 case. That's something that I would probably 17 think about. This is a corner lot. With corner 18 lots you run into is situation, which is a very 19 difficult situation. 20 This gentleman even took it one 21 step farther. (Unintelligible) to take a look at 22 the neighborhood and looked at all the setback 23 requirements (unintelligible) in your package, 24 and see how close they are to the road. I
49
1 believe he has demonstrated, in my mind, that he 2 has taken into consideration those particular 3 issue that were involved in the setback 4 requirements. The only problem is again, 5 (unintelligible) corner lot. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 7 Brennan? 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: If you like, 9 you can recall the vote. 10 I'll make a Motion to recall the 11 vote. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. 13 Schultz? 14 MR. SCHULTZ: I think that 15 last comment by Member Brennan solved the 16 issue (unintelligible) that to Motion to be 17 reconsidered. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 19 Would you like to take a vote on the Motion 20 to reconsider and then vote on the actual 21 Motion? 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 24 Is there a seconder for the
50
1 Motion? 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: All right. 4 At this time, we'll vote on the 5 Motion to reconsider this case. 6 Ms. Backus, would you call the 7 roll. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 15 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: And Member Fischer? 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 20 At this time I will open up the 21 floor to -- on this actual case, passing or 22 denial. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I 24 would like to restate my previous Motion.
51
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Is there a 2 second? 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 5 Motion and a second. 6 Is there any further discussion? 7 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, recall 8 the roll. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 19 GAIL BACKUS: And Member 20 Fischer? 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 23 to zero. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you,
52
1 sir, your variance has now been granted. 2 Please see the Building 3 Department and good luck. 4 MR. WHITE: Thank you very much. 5 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Case 7 Number seven on the agenda, which is Case 8 Number, 05-053, filed by Dennis Smith for a 9 residence at 1320 East Lake Road. The 10 applicant is requesting five variances for 11 the construction of a second floor to the 12 home that's currently existing. 13 In his request, he has three 14 side yard setback variances, a north side yard 15 setback variance, a south side yard setback 16 variance, and an aggregate setback variance is 17 requested. 18 He's also requesting a variance 19 of 14 percent to the lot coverage Ordinance. 20 And could you please raise your 21 right hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 23 or affirm that the information you're about to 24 give in the matter before you is the truth?
53
1 MR. SMITH: I do. 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Could you 3 please state your name and address for the 4 record. 5 MR. SMITH: My name is Dennis 6 Smith. I live at 1320 East Lake Drive. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Proceed. 8 MR. SMITH: What I'm requesting 9 is a number of variance so that I can build a 10 couple of bedrooms or a couple of additional 11 bedrooms which would be on top of the newly 12 renovated garage. I would also like to renovate 13 the garage, which -- for a couple of reasons. 14 It's very outdated. And I'm sure you're aware of 15 this. It used to be party store, and I'd like to 16 renovate it to make it smaller, make it more 17 (unintelligible) with the neighborhood. 18 And it would also allowed me 19 some outdoor parking on the south side. All of 20 the variances are (unintelligible) we're not 21 going any farther than what's there. Actually, 22 I'm reducing the (unintelligible) for the 23 variance. Lot coverage -- the garage would be 24 farther from the south. I'm not encroaching any
54
1 farther to the north. 2 And on the road side, which 3 would be the front yard setback, I will actually 4 be farther away from the road by a little bit. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Any 6 further comments? 7 MR. SMITH: Not at this time. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Seeing 9 none. 10 In this case, there were 32 11 notices mailed. There were five approvals and 12 zero objections. 13 Is there anyone in the audience 14 that wishes to comment on this case? 15 All right. We'll go back to 16 Madam Secretary. 17 If you could read the 18 correspondence. 19 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The first 20 approval is by Mike Ubinstein at 1316 East Lake 21 Drive. 22 Second approval is by Paul and 23 Paul Holton, at 1312 East Lake Drive. In favor; 24 have seen the plans; the house will conform
55
1 better with the neighborhood and surrounding 2 homes. This will give area more homeowner 3 appeal. The proposed building setbacks will be 4 actually -- will -- in actuality, will be better 5 after construction than presently are. 6 We'll be very disappointed if 7 you say no to this request. We will try to make 8 the meeting. 9 Judith Raye at 1310 East Lake 10 Drive is approval. 11 I'm sorry. This handwriting I 12 can't read it. The last name is L-i-n-a-t-o-p-i, 13 at 1325 East Lake Drive is an approval. 14 And John W. Carpenter and Mary 15 Carpenter at 1328 East Lake Drive is an approval. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Does the 17 Building Department wish to comment on this 18 case? 19 MR. SAVEN: Just to restate, 20 this is a second story addition, and that the 21 individual wishes to stay within the parameters 22 of the existing structure; is that correct? 23 MR. SMITH: That's correct. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: Any
56
1 further comments? 2 Move to Board discussion? 3 Member Brennan? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, again, we 5 encourage renovation of the north end. We have 6 historically approved additions when they're 7 within the existing outline of the existing 8 building. In fact, this proposal matches or is 9 less than what exists. So, I would support the 10 Petitioner. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Is that 12 all? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yep. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Further 15 comments? 16 Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 18 Mr. Chairman. 19 May I make a Motion that in 20 Case Number 05-053, we grant the request of the 21 applicant for the variances requested because of 22 the lot configuration. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a
57
1 Motion and a second. 2 Any further discussion? 3 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 4 you please call the roll. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 7 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 9 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 11 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 13 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 18 to zero. 19 MR. SMITH: Thank you very much. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 21 sir, your variance has been granted. 22 Please see the Building 23 Department, and good luck to you, as well. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: At this
58
1 time -- one more case? 2 Excellent. 3 4 We have Case Number eight, and 5 then we'll break for a recess. 6 Case Number, 05-054 filed by 7 George Baczewski, a residence at 1945 West Lake 8 Drive. This is located south of Pontiac Trail, 9 east of West Park Drive. And the applicant is 10 requesting three side yard variances for the 11 construction of a new home at the said address. 12 Would you please raise your 13 right and be sworn in by our secretary. 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 15 or affirm that the information that you're about 16 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 17 MR. BACZEWSKI: I do. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: State your 19 name. 20 MR. BACZEWSKI: I am George 21 Baczewski, and this is in regards to 1945 West 22 Lake Drive. I originally purchased this house, 23 which is in pretty bad shape. I've sent a little 24 letter, which is attached with the application
59
1 stating that on the one side of the house, the 2 property line from the garage is approximately 3 one foot to the property line; and the house is 4 approximately two feet. 5 And the way the house was 6 originally built, was not parallel with the 7 property line. So, over the years, the additions 8 were put on the house, and straighted from the 9 property line. And the one walkway that I do 10 have on one side of the house, is somewhat 11 restricted. 12 The one side of the house on the 13 right side is impassable, because there's only 14 like one or two feet to begin with. And in the 15 back, there's approximately about four feet. So 16 the house is somewhat on an angle. And in order 17 to reach the back of the house, it's somewhat 18 difficult. 19 So what I would like to do is 20 tear the house down and build a newer house, with 21 shifting the house in accordance with the 22 property line. And with the variances that I've 23 asked -- which I do feel for the other gentleman. 24 His house is only 40 feet wide. My house is only
60
1 going to be 25 feet wide. So my property line 2 being only 31 feet wide, you know, if I'm not 3 granted these setbacks, that would give me a six 4 foot house. 5 So what I would ask is the 6 setbacks be approved. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 8 sir, for your comments. 9 In this case, there were 43 10 notices sent. There were zero approvals and one 11 objection. 12 Madam Secretary? 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chair. 14 The objection was from Gerald B. 15 Ross, at 1911 West Lake Drive. I feel this is 16 too much of a variance for a side lot setback. I 17 object, unless the immediate neighbors agree with 18 this. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Does 20 anyone in the audience wish to comment on 21 this case? 22 Please come down and state your 23 name and address for the record. 24 MR. GENNETA: Yes. My name is
61
1 Greg Genneta. I live at 1947 West Lake Drive. I 2 am the neighbor to the south of the proposed 3 construction. A few issues that I do have. 4 Number one, that we -- I've had no communications 5 with the applicant in regards to what he's 6 looking to do here. I think the setbacks that 7 he's looking for are extremely aggressive. 8 Approximately ten years ago, I 9 also built on a 30 foot lot, and know what George 10 is saying; that it's very difficult to access the 11 house that's closer to one property line than the 12 other. I think for adequate -- to get around the 13 house adequately, you need a minimum of five feet 14 on each side. I also haven't heard any hardship 15 that would -- that I think would be conducive to 16 a two foot side yard setback. And also have not 17 heard any plans in place for any emergency 18 vehicle or personnel to access the house on both 19 sides either. 20 I'd ask the Board to table this 21 for this evening, and maybe myself and George 22 can sit down and talk about things further in the 23 future. I'd definitely like to hear from him and 24 I'd definitely like to put a little input into
62
1 his future plans. 2 Thank you. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 4 sir. 5 Any further comments? 6 Sir, would you state your name 7 and address; and ma'am, if you want to step right 8 behind him. 9 MR. OLIVER: William Oliver, 10 2009 West Lake Drive. Pleased to get the letter. 11 As George has stated, the house is in severe 12 disrepair. It needs to be knocked down. I think 13 he should have a conversation with Mr. Genneta. 14 It's been my experience with the Board, that they 15 take into consideration very heavily the adjacent 16 neighbors' concerns. 17 So I was happy to see that he is 18 going to do something with the house, but I think 19 Mr. Genneta and George should have an opportunity 20 to address their potential concerns, before the 21 Board makes a ruling. Perhaps, it would be 22 prudent to adjourn the Hearing at this time. 23 Also for the record, I have a 31 24 foot lot, and built a 20 foot wide house; and
63
1 that's five on each side. And I think my house 2 is fabulous. I have no problem getting around 3 the five feet on either side, and it's 4 esthetically pleasing and in accordance with the 5 rest of the houses in the neighborhood. 6 That's just my opinion. 7 Thank you. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 9 sir. 10 Ma'am, would you like to state 11 your name and address for the record. 12 MS. VANDRAK: My name is Renee 13 Vandrak, and my address is 44943 Cobblestone, and 14 I live directly behind the house. In fact, I 15 live directly behind Greg, also, the first 16 person. And their houses are pretty close 17 already. I don't see that it makes any 18 difference by how close they're all being built 19 any how for how large they are. And that is one 20 of the smaller houses on that strip. Therefore, 21 I think it would blend well; doesn't seem to me 22 to propose any problems. 23 So I am -- what do you say if 24 you agree with it? I am in approval.
64
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 2 ma'am. 3 And anyone else from the 4 audience? 5 Seeing none, we will move to the 6 Building Department for comments. 7 MR. SAVEN: Just to point out to 8 the applicant, should the Board approve your 9 request tonight, I want you to be aware as you 10 get closer to the property line, there's more 11 fire protection that's necessary for the building 12 materials that would be subjective to that close 13 proximity. There's going to be certain 14 requirements you would have to meet to comply 15 with the (unintelligible.) These are very heavy 16 issues in regards to the fire protection. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: And we'll 18 open it up for Board discussion. 19 Member Gronachan? 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Sir, how big 21 is this house going to be? 22 MR. BACZEWSKI: I've have been 23 informed that it's 25 percent of the lot. The 24 amount is going to be 13 --
65
1 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Approximately 2 1300 -- 3 MR. BACZEWSKI: 1348. And 4 (unintelligible) 1158. I was speaking with 5 contractors and I've got it to 1339. So it would 6 be just under 25 percent, which is allowable by 7 the -- 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Is this going 9 to be a one story house? 10 MR. BACZEWSKI: Two story. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Two story 12 house. 13 I echo the same concerns of the 14 first resident. I feel that this particular 15 case -- especially because it is new 16 construction -- needs to go back to the drawing 17 board and (unintelligible) work needs to be done. 18 I'm a big proponent for safety issues up there. 19 And all though I can appreciate the other 20 resident who doesn't have any concerns of houses 21 being closer to the property line, I can cannot 22 support two feet to a side yard at this point. 23 I think that in (unintelligible) 24 if you talk to the neighbors and the other people
66
1 that have built new homes up there, they all come 2 up with creative ideas. I say this month after 3 month. I wish we could have our own TV show on 4 how to build at the north end. I know that this 5 is a challenge for this width of a piece of 6 property. 7 I understand that it takes a 8 little more thinking outside the box; but time 9 and time again people have gone back, worked with 10 their neighbors, come back with us, and they seem 11 to get their issues resolved. 12 I will not be supporting this 13 this evening for that reason. I would recommend 14 that the Petitioner table the case. 15 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 17 Member Gronachan. 18 Further discussion? 19 Member Brennan? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: Is it 21 Baczewski? 22 MR. BACZEWSKI: Baczewski. 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Baczewski. 24 I'd like to get a little more
67
1 information. First of all, I think you need to 2 talk to your neighbors. That's -- 3 MR. BACZEWSKI: I previously 4 spoke with the neighbor -- 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: Hold on a 6 second. 7 What I would like to see is more 8 information with respect to the adjoining 9 properties, where the houses are with respect to 10 property lines. When you look at two feet here, 11 it maybe meaning less if that other house is 30 12 feet on the other side. But if the house is set 13 two feet from that property line, I got a 14 problem. 15 So I would encourage you to get 16 a little more information on the layout; maybe a 17 little bit more information on the type of house 18 you're planning to build, more detail. 19 Those are my comments. 20 Thanks. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 22 Member Brennan. 23 Member Canup? 24 MEMBER CANUP: Well, I guess I
68
1 would encourage the Petitioner to take a serious 2 look at maybe taking the house down altogether 3 and building a new house, (unintelligible) five 4 foot side yard on each side of the home. Two 5 feet is about as wide as this table. This table 6 is wider than two feet. 7 (Unintelligible) picture that. 8 And if the neighbor comes and puts a fence up, 9 you barely have room to walk through there. And 10 I don't think there's a case that the home is in 11 such disrepair has been presented to the Board. 12 It might be something to think about to tear the 13 house down completely and start over. 14 I guess what I'm saying is no 15 matter what, I'm not in favor of a two foot 16 variance or a variance that would allow two feet 17 on the side yard. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: I will 19 concur -- seeing no other discussion at this 20 time -- with the previous speakers. I think 21 that two feet, I can't approve that either, 22 especially -- I think it's a very important 23 point that Member Brennan brought up, that 24 we don't know what's going on around the lot
69
1 in question. 2 So, seeing the sentiment of the 3 Board tonight, it would be my suggestion to table 4 this case, discuss this with your neighbors, and 5 hopefully be able to come back before us August 6 if possible, or November. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: November? 8 MEMBER FISCHER: September. 9 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I do not 10 want to mislead the applicant to the fact that 11 you can go back and redesign something where 12 we're going to buy two feet. I'm not buying two 13 feet, period. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintell 15 igible ) (interposing.) 16 MEMBER CANUP: To have you come 17 back and say you want to do this and we're still 18 going to have two feet there, to me, as Member of 19 this Board, is not acceptable. And I think, in 20 my opinion, the own thing that it is acceptable 21 is to tear the house down. 22 And I would be in favor of 23 granting a variance that would allow a five foot 24 side yard on each side. That would give you a 20
70
1 foot home. Apparently, some of your neighbors 2 have been able to live with these 30 foot lots. 3 But to go ahead and promote a larger misuse of an 4 already problem, I think it's time that that 5 problem could be cleaned up. 6 And again, I don't want to send 7 him off and come back with two feet -- 8 MEMBER FISCHER: (unintelli 9 gible) (interposing) those comments -- 10 MEMBER CANUP: In my opinion, of 11 this Board, you'd be wasting your time. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: -- I think 13 what we were -- where I was going and I 14 think Member Brennan was, to look at the 15 surrounding areas, we can distinguish -- as 16 we get farther and farther (unintelligible) 17 from the lot line. 18 With that, I believe, and the 19 sentiment of the Board, would you like to make a 20 Motion? 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's up to 22 you if you would like to have your case tabled 23 tonight. 24 MR. BACZEWSKI: I'd like to
71
1 table. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: If you'd like 3 to table it, just so you know, you'd only have 4 two days to come back for the August meeting. 5 MR. BACZEWSKI: Probably be a 6 little difficult. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Put it for 8 first on the September meeting. 9 MEMBER CANUP: To table it, it 10 means you can come back and ask for the same 11 thing. 12 MR. BACZEWSKI: Right. 13 MEMBER CANUP: It does not mean 14 we would have to readvertise it, if we agree to 15 grant the five foot variance on each side. 16 MR. SAVEN: We have to 17 readvertise. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: They 19 readvertise every one when we table them, because 20 it's a change from the original request. 21 MEMBER CANUP: You have to 22 change -- 23 Well, he hasn't asked for 24 anything yet. You just said you're going to
72
1 table it. 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And he goes 3 back and changes his request, then it's got to be 4 readvertised. 5 MEMBER CANUP: Okay. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Would you 7 like to -- 8 MR. SAVEN: These particular 9 matters (unintelligible) and these particular 10 matters where we're dealing with close proximity 11 of buildings, if there's any change that's 12 associated where it's going to cause a trigger to 13 something else -- the house isn't the same; the 14 appearance of everything isn't the same 15 (unintelligible.) 16 So therefore, we would 17 definitely renotice everybody in the 18 neighborhood. 19 MEMBER CANUP: If it's 20 readvertised -- if there's changes it has to be 21 readvertised. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 23 Member Canup. 24 And I'll entertain a Motion. Is
73
1 there a Motion to table? 2 MEMBER GRONACHAN: So moved. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: I believe he 4 said it was okay. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: This 6 Motion will be tabled (interposing) 7 (unintelligible) -- this case will be tabled 8 till the September meeting; and will be the 9 first Petitioner on that agenda. 10 MR. BACZEWSKI: Thank you. 11 12 MEMBER FISCHER: At this 13 time, we're going to take a ten minute 14 recess. And at that time, 8:45, the Board 15 will reconvene. 16 17 (A brief recess was taken.) 18 19 MEMBER FISCHER: I will 20 (unintelligible) the Zoning Board of Appeals 21 meeting. And as stated prior to the 22 meeting, I would like to introduce one of 23 our newest -- our newest member, which takes 24 a lot of the spotlight off me.
74
1 But if you'd like to come up and 2 say hello, we can say hello. 3 Ms. Linda Kreager, and if I'm 4 correct, you were on the library board and on 5 storm water? 6 MS. KREAGER: My name is Linda 7 Kreager of 44920 Burn Drive. And 8 (unintelligible) I was just appointed ZBA. I'm 9 not on the library board. I understand there's 10 (unintelligible) water shed and woodland review 11 had only one meeting, so that explains -- 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Well, it's 13 a pleasure having you on our Board. We've 14 been asking for you for a long time. It's 15 been a little pet project of Ms. Gronachan. 16 So welcome. 17 MS. KREAGER: Thank you. 18 19 MEMBER FISCHER: And at 20 this time, we'll proceed with Case Number, 21 05-055 filed by John Calvas of CMC Partners. 22 This Petitioner is requesting a variance to 23 the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance that 24 requires that no lot or parcel of land shall
75
1 be used for any purpose permitted, unless 2 said lot or parcel shall front directly upon 3 a public street. 4 You are the Petitioner? 5 MR. CALVAS: Yes, sir. 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 7 Could you please raise your 8 right hand and be sworn in 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 before you is the truth? 12 MR. CALVAS: I do. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 14 You may proceed. 15 MR. CALVAS: Sure. 16 My name is John Calvas, 521 17 Garson Drive. A little background information. 18 I -- because I think it's important here. We are 19 talking about a 31 acre parcel that's divided 20 into two parcels. There is 400 foot of road 21 frontage onto Grand River. And you have to 22 understand that the first or the parent parcel 23 has 60 foot of frontage currently onto Grand 24 River.
76
1 And of the second parcel, 2 there -- 200 foot of that frontage, is part of 3 the big utility easement line that runs through, 4 the power transmission lines, that run through 5 it. So you have to understand that although 400 6 foot of frontage sounds like a lot, it really 7 isn't when you're talking about 31 acres; and 8 second parcel already is down to 60 feet. 9 So that's what we have to work 10 with. I can really claim a hardship, because 11 the second parcel has 60 feet; the first parcel 12 has 360 some-odd feet or something to that effect 13 or 350 feet. So they both have road frontage. 14 So -- but what I am trying to do is to improve 15 the situation. Like I said, there's challenges 16 there. At this time, I want to also say that 17 we've been working on this project for about a 18 year. We've talked with all the various 19 departments from Planning to Building to 20 Engineering to the Assessor's Office, and I'm 21 going to get back to the Assessor's Office a 22 little bit later on; because it's an important 23 part of variance that I'm requesting, I believe. 24 What I'm simply trying to do is
77
1 reconfigure these two parcels into something 2 that's more usable and, I believe, will make for 3 a better use for the entire 31 acre site. 4 The first reason -- and what I'm 5 doing, I think there's some distinct advantages 6 to the variance I'm asking for. The first reason 7 would be that it's going to reduce the cuts onto 8 Grand River to one, instead of three. Currently, 9 if we leave it like it is, there's a 60 foot cut 10 that's going to be there, because that eventually 11 nis going to have an opening. 12 There is 350 foot wide cut 13 that's going to have an opening; and there's a 14 third cut that is basically a dirt road; and that 15 is, the utility runs their trucks up and down 16 that line when they so choose to take a look at 17 their transmission lines as far as their easement 18 agreement. And they go down -- up and down that 19 road and check out their lines and service them 20 and so forth. 21 So currently, the way it stands, 22 there's going to be three cuts onto Grand River. 23 Albeit, the third one is just a dirt road, a 24 little two pack dirt -- you know, two -- two tire
78
1 track dirt. That's what the utility creates. 2 Our proposal will create one cut onto Grand 3 River, because the same cut will access the front 4 parcel; will create the right of way to the back 5 parcel, and it will be put within the utility 6 easement so that the utility will use that same 7 entrance point for their own trucks. 8 There's no sense of them driving 9 on the grass when they have a road in front of 10 them. So, the second point is, is the knew 11 configuration would make the second lot much 12 more -- at least in my mind, a much more pleasing 13 lot. The second lot would become roughly a 14 thousand feet square. I'm generalizing. 916 15 feet by 980 feet or something to that effect. 16 That basically becomes a squared off lot, which I 17 think is much more highly developable, much more 18 pleasing, and i.e., you know, a better lot to 19 work with in the future. 20 If you take a look at the 21 current configuration, I kind of joked. It 22 basically is a double flagged shaped lot. You 23 have the 60 foot of road frontage, goes back some 24 745 feet before it opens to the right; and it
79
1 goes back 1360 feet, I believe, before it opens 2 to the left. 3 So that's what we currently 4 have. If you don't grant this variance, that's 5 what we'll have to work with. So, the third 6 reason would be, again -- I'm sorry. I 7 apologize. That was -- I've already asked for 8 and created a 60 foot right-of-way in our lot 9 proposal. 10 So I believe that 60 foot 11 right-of-way -- although it's in a different 12 location -- is the same 60 foot right-of-way that 13 already exists on the parent parcel; which is the 14 back parcel. So, that is road frontage. It says 15 here, you know, clearly, 2713 says I don't have 16 -- or 2517 says I do not have road frontage. 17 Well, we do have a 60 foot right-of-way in our 18 Petition. It's marked; it's been engineered; 19 it's been drawn in. It's the same 60 foot that 20 already -- well, already exists, just in a 21 different location. 22 Again, I can't all but change 23 what I have there. It's -- you know, 31 acres 24 with only so much frontage to work with, so I
80
1 can't improve that or make it wider. But it is 2 60 foot. The configuration -- the 3 reconfiguration -- I want to make this point. 4 The thousand foot square parcel 5 chair or the thousand by thousand foot parcel 6 that would remain in the back, I believe is much 7 more developable. It does two things. One, it 8 makes for a better development; and two, in the 9 long run, it basically makes for better City 10 taxes. Because if it gets improved and built 11 with a better and larger project, it's going to 12 mean more tax revenue to the City. 13 So again, this is one more way 14 that we believe we're improving the configuration 15 that currently exists. I want to get back now to 16 the Assessor's Office. Like I said, we've been 17 here going back and forth for about a year. Our 18 original parcel had 200 -- our original split -- 19 if I could just kind of explain it -- had -- out 20 of the 400 foot of frontage, had 200 foot of 21 frontage on the front parcel and 200 foot of 22 frontage on the back parcel. 23 After we talked with the 24 engineer and -- like I said, with a two or three
81
1 hour meeting, we had five witnesses -- the City 2 Assessor, Mr. Lemon; the City Engineering, 3 Mr. Schmitt; our architect; two of our partners; 4 and not to mention the sixth one, which was our 5 engineer who drew the plans. 6 We had a 200 foot road frontage 7 plan drawing. And at the request of Mr. Lemon -- 8 and we -- I'll grant you this, we believe his 9 idea was an improvement -- we rechanged the plans 10 and resubmitted the drawings where we cut off the 11 back parcel and created the 60 foot right-of-way; 12 as opposed to the 200 foot right-of-way. 13 So we created these direct -- we 14 created the 60 foot right-of-way under 15 Mr. Lemon's guidance. And it was really -- it's 16 really hard for me when he comes back in front of 17 the City Council, says he votes to deny this or 18 he wants it denied, because it has no road 19 frontage; especially when he told this was the 20 better way. We agreed with him. 21 There's another -- there's one 22 more issue that I would like to bring up. It's 23 sort of like a Catch-22; and that is, if we 24 create a lot that's gives us the 200 foot
82
1 frontage and 200 foot frontage, we create what is 2 -- we go back to what is a flagged shaped lot. 3 Because the 200 foot frontage by 2000-plus for 4 the depth, kills your flag, you know, creates a 5 flag shaped lot of the umpteenth degree. 6 So if we do it one way and 7 create road frontage of 200 feet here, of some 8 amount, we're going to have a flag shaped lot. 9 If we don't create a flag shaped lot like the 10 plan we showed you, you're going to say we don't 11 have road frontage. 12 So what I'm asking you, is we 13 can't do it both ways. You have to either create 14 a flag shaped lot or we have to allow for the 15 right-of-way, and create, you know, create what 16 we've given you in front of you. The reason 17 we've chosen this plan is because we think it's a 18 better plan. We think actually Mr. Lemon's 19 original idea is an improvement. 20 And so what I'd like you to do 21 is consider it; take a look and -- oh, if I could 22 -- you know, because it's been, you know, it's 23 been a year. There's been a lot of issues from a 24 lot of different areas of the City that had been
83
1 raised, so I'd like to apologize. If you've read 2 my Petition. I've got like 16 points. I tried 3 to basically address everyone's concerns from all 4 these different departments. And if you weren't 5 privy to the exact department of what I said, you 6 may not understand all these, but I'd be happy to 7 answer any of your questions on any of the 8 points. 9 So I apologize if that seems a 10 little disjointed or seems like it's jumping 11 around. But my goal there was to simply answer 12 every question and every response and every 13 comment I've gotten from the different 14 departments within the City. 15 So with that, I'd be happy to 16 answer any questions, but that's the gist of our 17 request. 18 Thank you. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you 20 for your comments, sir. 21 In this case, there were 16 22 notices mailed. There were zero approvals and 23 zero denials. 24 Is there anyone in the audience
84
1 that wishes to participate by telling us your 2 opinion? 3 Seeing none, we'll move to the 4 Building Department? 5 MR. SAVEN: Just in previous 6 testimony, I don't believe I've ever met this 7 man. 8 MR. CALVAS: No, sir. 9 MR. SAVEN: (Unintelligible) my 10 deputy, I didn't have a deputy employed during 11 the time this was going on. 12 And Building Department did not 13 talk with you, sir. I am sorry. I just need to 14 make sure (unintelligible) clarify for purposes 15 of this meeting. 16 And in terms of what we dealing 17 (unintelligible) what's taking place in regard to 18 possible meeting (unintelligible.) 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. 20 Schultz? 21 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you, 22 Mr. Chair. 23 Let me start with the 24 conversation about the City Assessor. In your
85
1 packet you had a number -- a couple of letters 2 from Leonard Lemon. You actually had, I believe, 3 the letter that our office wrote to City Council 4 during your appeal from the denial 5 (unintelligible) Assessor's Office of this 6 proposed split. 7 And Mr. Calvas has represented 8 accurately to the Board what he's proposing. 9 He's taking essentially two parcels that both 10 comply with section 2517, because they have 11 frontage on Grand River, and he's reconfigured it 12 so only one now has frontage on Grand River. And 13 the parcel in the back has no frontage on any 14 public road. 15 And the issue -- the two issues 16 that Mr. Lemon raised were correct to be raised, 17 and were correctly identified by him as reasons 18 why he, as the City Assessor, couldn't grant this 19 if he wanted to. The first reason is under the 20 Ordinance and the State Statute, the application 21 has to show accessibility to that rear parcel 22 that's being proposed. That no longer has 23 frontage on Grand River. 24 What the Petitioner is proposing
86
1 is using that 200 foot wide ITC utility easement 2 as his access to the back parcel. There's 60 3 feet of that. Mr. Lemon was saying correctly, we 4 don't have anything here at the City showing that 5 you have a right to use that utility easement as 6 your road access. 7 Now, the Petitioner's said in 8 some of his written correspondence 9 (unintelligible) we do have the right. ITC's got 10 a letter. It's ready to go. The problem is the 11 City's never seen it. And then as the Assessor, 12 it's Mr. Lemon's responsibility to make sure that 13 that's correct. And he didn't have that in front 14 of him, and we to this day, don't have that in 15 front of us. So that's the accessibility issue. 16 The other issue is the Zoning 17 Ordinance issue that you have here before you 18 tonight, and Mr. Lemon correctly pointed out that 19 even if he has accessibility under the Lot 20 Ordinance State Statute, the Zoning Ordinance 21 requires that that has to be 60 foot publicly 22 owned strip of land, not ITC easement owner; not 23 Mr. Calvas' ownership of the underlying easement, 24 but the City's piece of property; and that's the
87
1 term right-of-way. 2 And I think Mr. Calvas has used 3 a number of times in his writings, we've given a 4 60 foot right-of-way. Well, he hasn't shown 5 that. He's shown a 60 feet access easement. And 6 even if he were to propose that he give it to the 7 City, that he convey it to the City, it's still 8 going to be encumbered where he's shown it, by 9 the ITC utility easement. 10 We don't even know, as the City, 11 what that allows us to do. We would not normally 12 -- the City doesn't normally when we accept 13 dedication of a public street, it's unencumbered. 14 Nobody else has any right to it. It may cross an 15 easement. If it does that, we have to go whoever 16 owns the easement and get a release from that or 17 at least, you know, find a way to deal with that 18 so that our rights are primary. 19 Here we've got a proposal that 20 not only doesn't appear to dedicate the property 21 to the City, it's encumbered by restrictions that 22 we really aren't sure of. 23 What the Board is being asked to 24 do today, is to say we'll give a variance to the
88
1 requirement that it be City owned, as long as 2 there's a, you know, a similar -- the equivalent 3 by way of easement, a private easement. And I 4 think what's missing from the application is the 5 same thing that was missing from what Mr. Lemon 6 was shown, which is what are the rights to ITC in 7 that 60 foot area; where's it going to be. 8 And I think what the proponent 9 is really trying to do, he's trying to avoid 10 having that 60 foot access on his own 11 unencumbered property, so that he's got 60 feet 12 more to develop. And he's trying to put it onto 13 the ITC easement, which they own. I mean, the 14 proponent owns the underlying fee ownership. But 15 with that easement, he wants to kind of double up 16 the use of that easement. It maybe okay. We 17 don't know -- number one -- I think the Board can 18 determine number one today what the rights are, 19 if he gave us -- gave the City a 60 foot easement 20 on that ITC area. 21 And number 2, how does that fit 22 in terms of developing this property. I mean, it 23 essentially leaves you with a configuration that 24 may or may not be what this Board wants to see.
89
1 Since he's here asking you for variance relief, I 2 think you're entitled to see what it is he's 3 proposing to do; how it's actually going to look. 4 I mean, the drawings are very -- 5 I mean, it takes a while to look at these 6 drawings and to find out what it is that's being 7 proposed; where the easement is; what that leaves 8 him in terms of buildable area; what the Zoning 9 Ordinance is going to allow to be developed on 10 that property. So, the City denied the appeal 11 from Mr. Lemon's denial, because it essentially 12 had to. There was no incorrect finding by 13 Mr. Lemon that we could see. 14 The question now before this 15 Board is -- since he's not proposing to give us, 16 the City, fee ownership of 60 feet, are we 17 willing to take the easement. If we are, where's 18 it going to be, what are our rights in that 19 easement. You need to be able to answer all 20 those questions before you make any kind of a 21 positive approval. 22 I hope that helps. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 24 Mr. Schultz.
90
1 Board Members? 2 Member Canup? 3 MEMBER CANUP: From what I know 4 about this piece of property, which is quite a 5 bit, I don't know anybody who would want to try 6 to save it. There's nine feet of rubble buried 7 under this piece of property. 8 Are you aware of that? 9 MR. CALVAS: We've taken many a 10 soil sample -- (unintelligible) 11 MEMBER CANUP: (interposing.) So 12 you know what's there. 13 MR. CALVAS: -- (unintelligible) 14 soil conditions, (unintelligible) the ground, 15 yes, sir. 16 MEMBER CANUP: In light of the 17 enlightenment that our attorney has presented to 18 us, I see this is nothing but a bag of worms. I 19 for one would not want to get the City involved 20 in something like this where you have a 21 semi-public street running through a private 22 easement. That makes no sense at all to me. 23 And if my understanding of an 24 easement is correct, the people who own that
91
1 easement can do whatever they want whenever they 2 want with it. If they had an idea to tear down 3 the power line, they could close the street down; 4 is that fairly correct? 5 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the 6 Chair. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: Please. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: One of the -- 9 I wish I could answer the question. We 10 don't really know what the ITC easement 11 permits ITC to do, and what it permits Mr. 12 Calvas. So that's one of the reasons why 13 we're reluctant to say -- to tell you the 14 easement's fine. We would normally want 15 (unintelligible). I can't really answer the 16 question. 17 MEMBER CANUP: In light of all 18 of this information that's been presented, I 19 can't see where we should encumber the City with 20 some bag of worms like this. I think the way 21 that it could be configured and it's stated, the 22 60 foot easement the Petitioner's trying to do is 23 to save this property and use the easement as an 24 (unintelligible) egress for the property.
92
1 And I think right now you have a 2 piece of property that can could be construed as 3 being a legal piece of property; is that correct? 4 MR. SCHULTZ: A legal 5 piece? 6 MEMBER CANUP: A legal usable 7 piece of property. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: As it sits, 9 both are legal. 10 MEMBER CANUP: I would say that 11 in light of that, that there is no hardship 12 there, other than the fact that they're trying to 13 save 60 feet of their own property, which is not 14 a hardship. It's a self-created problem. And I 15 think again, I would not want to encumber the 16 City with a bag of worms. That's what's about to 17 happen here, if this Board should see fit to 18 approve the (unintelligible.) 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 20 Member Canup. 21 Member Gronachan? 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chair. 23 I don't feel that the Petitioner 24 has provided enough information to this Board to
93
1 make a valid decision. I concur partially with 2 Member Canup, but based on the fact that we do 3 not have a copy of that easement, and based on 4 the fact that there are no specific -- I thought 5 it was me. I thought I was just having a bad 6 day. I looked at this map for 45 minutes, and I 7 couldn't figure out what was going on. 8 So I'm glad to hear you say it 9 took a long time, and it's not just me. So back 10 into -- based on the fact that there's lack of 11 information, I'm -- I honestly am not prepared to 12 support anything based -- due to the fact that 13 the Petitioner has not substantiated enough 14 information for this Board to act on. 15 And therefore, I cannot support 16 anything -- I'm leaving the door open -- but this 17 map is not clear enough for me. It leaves too 18 much speculation. It leaves too much liability 19 for the City. I am not an easement expert. I'm 20 grateful for officials with explanations, and I 21 am not in the position to open the City to any 22 kind of additional liability; therefore, I will 23 not be supporting this. 24 If the Petitioner feels that he
94
1 wants to come forth with the information that our 2 legal -- our legals have requested, I would 3 consider hearing this case at another time. But, 4 at this point, I'll not be supporting anything to 5 do with this case based on that previous -- 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Anything 7 else? 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, that's 9 it. I think that's enough. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 11 Member Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: The Ordinance is 13 pretty clear. The Ordinance doesn't give us the 14 option of granting a variance to an easement, a 15 privately owned easement. The Ordinance is very 16 clear. If you've got a piece of property, you've 17 got to have public access. They done have it. 18 He's asking for a variance to develop this 19 without it, and I can't support that. He cut 20 through a lot of this in my mind. It's pretty 21 straight forward. He doesn't have access to the 22 back. How is he going to get back there? 23 And I can't imagine you're not 24 going to have a public road in this privately
95
1 owned easement, so it doesn't meet the 2 requirements. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 4 Member Brennan. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a 6 clarification. What he's asking for is, in light 7 of the fact that he's not providing a public road 8 (unintelligible) underlying ownership to the 9 City, he is asked -- that's the relief that he's 10 asked for. Can I substitute a public road with a 11 private easement, 60 feet wide. So that is the 12 question before you, and the question is 13 (unintelligible) variance from the Ordinance, has 14 he met the practical difficulty standard of 15 inability to develope the property without undue 16 burden, substantial justice, self-creation 17 (unintelligible.) 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 19 Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: What I see is an 21 applicant attempting to create a problem where 22 there is no problem. The property can be 23 developed as it is with a 60 foot wide street 24 down a publicly owned street down the center of
96
1 the edge of the property, running north and 2 south. 3 And with saying that, I would 4 make a Motion in Case Number, 05-055, that we 5 deny the request for the variance for reasons as 6 previously stated by members of the Board. 7 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 9 Motion and a second. 10 Any further discussion? 11 Please, Mr. Schultz? 12 MR. SCHULTZ: Two things. 13 I think in light of the history of this 14 leading up to tonight, I think it would be 15 helpful to give the proponent a couple of 16 minutes to respond to the comments. And I 17 think I've got another addition, friendly 18 addition to the Motion. 19 MEMBER FISCHER: Board 20 Members? 21 I see nods. 22 Sir? 23 MR. CALVAS: Well, the only 24 thing I can say, there has been some
97
1 misinformation. The first thing I'd like to 2 address is the same utility easement runs right 3 over Grand River. And Grand River drives right 4 through it every day, 15,000-plus cars. It's the 5 same easement. So there is no big secret about 6 having a right-of-way going through an easement. 7 It's not a foreign concept. 8 I have also proposed making this 9 a public road to the right-of-way, and I don't 10 know who else to talk to, but I can tell you the 11 Mayor told me that they would not want it as a 12 public right-of-way. So I'm not sure where -- 13 maybe the left hand needs to talk to the right 14 hand. But Mr. Schultz is telling me that it has 15 to be a public right-of-way, at least he is 16 tonight. 17 So, I'm not really sure what -- 18 where that goes whether it's public or private. 19 But the idea is, is that it is 60 foot of 20 frontage, and it is accessing the back parcel; 21 which allows access to the lot. The last thing 22 we want to do is create a parcel in the back that 23 we can't get to. Because if we can't get to it, 24 we can't develop it. So why would I in my
98
1 wildest imagination, why would I create a lot of 2 20 acres that I can't get to. 3 So believe me, that would be the 4 farthest thing from our minds is to create 5 something that we cannot access. 6 Now granted, we are trying to 7 move it, but again, I'm not claiming hardship. 8 What I'm trying to do is to improve the parcels. 9 I'm trying to make a better parcel, i.e., a more 10 appealing look to the front of Grand River; three 11 cuts as opposed to one cut. I squared off the lot 12 in the back that we'll develop more properly, 13 which will end up being a better tax base for the 14 City; and actually better for us as developers. 15 But again, I'm not proposing 16 hardship. I'm trying to improve the lot and the 17 configuration that are there. It is a flag 18 shaped lot. Yes, it's legal, but if I were to 19 come to you today and create a lot like the 20 second lots is right now, you guys would laugh. 21 It's 60 feet by 13 -- almost 1400 feet; and then 22 it pies out to the left. And it's 60 feet again. 23 That same 60 feet goes 800 feet before it pies 24 out to the right.
99
1 Then I've got 20 acres back 2 there that -- if you call that a great lot, it's 3 not. And we're simply trying to improve it. 4 We're not trying to -- I don't know. It sounds 5 like we're trying to cheat the system here, 6 create 60 feet somewhere that doesn't exist or 7 something. 8 So those are the ends of my 9 comments, but thank you very much for listening. 10 I appreciate it. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Mr. 12 Schultz? 13 MR. SCHULTZ: Just briefly. 14 The first, with regard to Grand 15 River, the State trunk line -- assuming Grand 16 River was there before the ITC easement crossed 17 it, so, you know, that really fits in more to the 18 question of the public right-of-way being primary 19 to the easement. And the question whether or not 20 in this case, it could be, since the easement is 21 there first. 22 The second thing is I'm not sure 23 I disagree with the Petitioner that it might be 24 better to have a private easement for some kind
100
1 of development rather than a public road there. 2 One of the difficulties that this board has is 3 we're not really being told what's proposed 4 there; what it's going to look like; and you're 5 not -- you might in the future think he's come up 6 with a good idea depending on what he actually 7 proposes to build. 8 But there are alternatives to 9 doing that. You know, condominiums, you know, a 10 two parcel condominium lot parcel on the larger 11 area. You're just being presented with this 12 piece of paper that is proposing legal divisions 13 that are unusual and don't have the access that 14 you would typically expect to see. 15 And the question is, has he 16 convinced you that that's the right thing to do 17 under these circumstances. And obviously the 18 maker of Motion determined not. 19 But I guess in terms of adding 20 to the Motion, I would just suggest that the 21 Petitioner has not met the practical difficulty 22 test, because he hasn't proved the first item for 23 practical difficulty; that there's a substantial 24 burden in developing the property. And then, I
101
1 propose that that be added to the Motion. One 2 the idea that this is at this point a 3 self-created issue. 4 The Petitioner acknowledged that 5 no real hardship exist here; and difficulty. 6 MEMBER CANUP: I accept that 7 amendment. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: And is 9 there a seconder? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 12 There's a Motion and a second on 13 the Board. 14 Any further discussion? 15 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 16 you call the roll. 17 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 18 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 21 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 22 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 23 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 24 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.
102
1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 5 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 6 to zero. 7 MEMBER FISCHER: At this 8 time your variance has been denied. 9 MR. CALVAS: Thank you. 10 11 MEMBER FISCHER: We'll move 12 onto Case Number 05-056, filed by Lee Mamola 13 for 26870 Beck Road. The Petitioner is 14 requesting two variances for the 15 construction of a two story general office 16 use building. First one is the variance of 17 two parking spaces; and the second is 18 requesting the elimination of a loading zone 19 area. 20 Are either of you attorneys? 21 If you could both raise your 22 hand and be sworn in by our secretary. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 24 or affirm that the information that you're about
103
1 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 2 MR. MAMOLA: Yes. 3 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Can you state 5 your names for the record. 6 MR. CUNNINGHAM: My name is 7 Harper Cunningham. I'm the owner of the 8 property. 9 MR. MAMOLA: Lee Mamola, Mamola 10 Associates Architects, the architects for the 11 project. And with me tonight is Ted States and 12 Mr. Harper Cunningham, representing Re/Max 100, 13 and they are the property owners. 14 A little background on this 15 property and on this project. The property is 16 located south of Grand River on the east side of 17 Beck, of 800 feet south of Grand River. 18 Bordering the property immediately to the south 19 is an existing development, recently completed 20 maybe a year or two ago, now more commonly known 21 as Visions Spa or Visions Novi. A nice 22 development there. 23 Our site is 116 feet wide, by a 24 little over 1300 feet deep. And the diagram that
104
1 I have on the board, we are proposing to 2 development the front 25 percent of the property. 3 That's about 320 feet, measured from the edge of 4 Beck Road eastward. At about 320 feet back, is 5 an existing -- is the official wetland line that 6 was determined in conjunction with the City 7 wetland's consultants, our wetland consultants, 8 and verified by our surveyors in the field. 9 The back -- beyond that, is a 10 open a grassy area, and the line, the lighter 11 bright green, is a open grassy wetland area. And 12 beyond that, it's a combination of wetlands and 13 woodlands area. 14 When we were working with the 15 client to development the property, we frankly 16 had other alternatives that did not require a 17 variance with respect to parking spaces. 18 However, all of those requirements, all of those 19 preliminary designs required the parking to go 20 eastward, and intrude significantly into the 21 wetland area. 22 When we reviewed these with the 23 City's wetland's consultants, it was quite firmly 24 stated to us to stay out of these wetlands; given
105
1 the quality; given the fact that they are 2 contiguous with other sensitive land areas to the 3 north and to the south; that this was seen as 4 rather valuable wetlands. But hence, 75 percent 5 of our property more or less was taken away. 6 So we are left with the front 25 7 percent or so. We then went to the Planning 8 Commission, and at the Planning Commission level, 9 we had a number of variances that would have more 10 variances than what we've been talking about 11 tonight. However, since that time, we've been 12 able to reduce the extent of variances we would 13 have required. 14 We would have required a side 15 yard setback for the building. We would have 16 required -- instead of seeking a variance of two 17 parking spaces, a variance of seven. 18 But there was discussion on the 19 Planning Board when we -- the Planning 20 Commission, I'm sorry. I used to be on the 21 Planning Board. We don't have that anymore 22 here -- that maybe the 26 or so parking spaces 23 that we were proposing at the time, might not 24 quite be sufficient. The owner feels it's
106
1 sufficient, given the staff; given the nature of 2 their operations of the business -- it's an owner 3 occupied business. Much of their staff is not in 4 the office on a regular 8:00 to 5:00 basis, but 5 they are, in fact, out in the field and come to 6 the office on occasions throughout the day. 7 The Planning Commission felt 8 that and granted us some waivers regarding the 9 extent of the landscaping that we have within the 10 parking area with the extent of setbacks that we 11 would require for landscaping. And through that, 12 we were able to get more parking spaces. 13 The difference between what we 14 had at the Planning Commission several weeks ago 15 and now, is we are also able to pick up three 16 more packing spaces, if you will, by the 17 elimination of the requirement of our loading 18 Zone. Our plan, initially again, had 26 spaces. 19 We are now providing 31 spaces; 33 is required. 20 By eliminating the loading zone, we are able to 21 come closer to complying with the parking 22 requirements by eliminating the loading zone. 23 The loading zone requirement, 24 the Ordinance states that we have to have ten
107
1 square feet for every one linear of frontage for 2 the building. The building is 58 linear feet 3 wide. We'd have to have 580 square feet -- or 4 let's call it 600 square feet of loading zone 5 area. That is about three parking spaces. 6 If we provided the loading zone 7 area, people would park in that loading zone area 8 anyways, day in/day out, if they needed to do 9 that. The fact is, that we believe that if we 10 can strike the area accordingly and -- I'm 11 showing you a diagram of the proposed 31 space 12 layout -- if we can strike the parking area 13 accordingly, it would provide a safer environment 14 for the cars to maneuver in and out without 15 bumping into one another. 16 People would not hesitate. They 17 would know that there's a parking space that's 18 designated for a car and not going to be worried 19 about loading vehicles coming there. By the 20 nature of this business, the loading vehicles 21 that come in, day in/day out, are rather small 22 and they're rather short-term. Delivery trucks, 23 UPS or FEDEX type of truck, maybe once a day. 24 Because of the width of the
108
1 parking -- I'm sorry, the width of the lot, we 2 are proposing a number of parking spaces that are 3 parallel spaces to the south. These are parallel 4 parking spaces. And the last parallel parking 5 space, the one to the north -- remembering back 6 to your days of driver's training -- to park in a 7 parallel parking space, you have to drive in 8 front of it and then back into it, to do it the 9 right way. 10 We have a 20 foot -- little more 11 than 20. I think it's 22 feet by 12 feet wide of 12 -- area for -- to allow cars to properly park 13 into that last parallel parking space. That 14 area, in effect, will be a loading zone area day 15 in/day out. That trucks -- the UPS trucks, the 16 FEDEX type trucks when they do come, if they 17 don't pull into the front door and ignore every 18 thing else, will likely pull into the other area 19 that's going to be vacant parking. 20 So by asking for the requirement 21 to eliminate the loading zone, we really created 22 a little safer parking lot to allow cars to 23 maneuver in that area. But the fact of the 24 matter is, we're not eliminating a zoning -- a
109
1 loading zone area by the way it's going to 2 operate day in/day out. 3 The basis for our request for 4 the variance, the hardship, frankly, is the -- is 5 given he width of the lot -- 116 foot wide, the 6 width of the lot. The fact that we are only 7 allowed to develop about 25 percent of the front 8 area. The back 75 percent of the lot will be 9 designated a preservation arrangement with the 10 City. That's part of the woodlands area that 11 abuts a neighboring residential development to 12 the south. 13 And again, we're working on the 14 direction of City's Consultants to stay out of 15 the wetland area. 16 So I'll standby for questions, 17 if there are any. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 19 sir. 20 In this case, there were 17 21 notices mailed, but zero approvals and zero 22 denials -- objections. 23 Is there anyone in the audience 24 that wishes to address the Board regarding this
110
1 case? 2 Seeing none, we'll move to the 3 Building Department for comments. 4 MR. SAVEN: Just as Mr. Mamola 5 indicated earlier, there were several variances 6 that were part of what (unintelligible) looking 7 at to be brought before the Board. Mr. Mamola 8 and his client worked it down to two variance 9 requests, minimizing the number of parking spaces 10 that's needed. 11 I had a discussion with the 12 Planning people regarding this particular issue, 13 and they seem to feel comfortable with it. 14 MEMBER FISCHER: Board 15 Members? 16 Member Brennan? 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Based on the 18 direction from Planning (unintelligible) seemed 19 to be the best deal for us and for the 20 Petitioner. He's only short two spaces. 21 I just had one question, Lee. 22 Say five years from now, from a 23 practical and an engineering perspective, the 24 real estate business is sold. They're a new
111
1 business in there and they require a loading dock 2 or a loading area. I imagine that that means at 3 that point in time they would take part of the 4 parking lot and they'd probably be back with some 5 sort of a new variance for reduced parking? 6 MR. MAMOLA: Well, there's one 7 or two arrangements. Either exactly what you 8 said, and/or the owner understands this, they're 9 narrowing their marketplace to potential buyers. 10 (Unintelligible.) The potential buyer would have 11 to come back to the Planning Department, or 12 perhaps, and/or live with the situation. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would say 14 that I think the Petitioner presented a pretty 15 strong case for hardship, when he's lost 75 16 percent of his lot to maintain or keeping as a 17 woodlands/wetlands. 18 He's satisfied the Planning 19 Department, so I would approve this Petition. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 21 Member Brennan. 22 Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: I guess I commend 24 you for trying to make good use of this piece of
112
1 property. It's got to be a tough piece with so 2 much wetland involved. And I don't see what you 3 could do -- I don't see how you could do anything 4 with it to make any economic sense short of what 5 they've done. 6 And with that, I would be 7 willing to make a Motion to grant the two 8 variances as requested, due to the demonstrated 9 hardship; and that the Motion would be predicated 10 upon the granting of the easement or whatever it 11 is -- what would you say it is going to be for 12 the wetlands and the woodlands? 13 MR. MAMOLA: There is a 14 preservation easement; it's to be part of the 15 final site plan approval (unintelligible.) 16 MEMBER CANUP: There will also 17 be a clarifier to the Motion that I'm making 18 (unintelligible) be executed -- what's the proper 19 name for them, Mr. Attorney? 20 MR. SCHULTZ: Exit 21 easements. 22 MEMBER CANUP: As presented to 23 this Board. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second.
113
1 MEMBER FISCHER: There's a 2 Motion and a second. 3 Any further discussion? 4 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would 5 you call the roll. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 7 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 15 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 17 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 19 to zero. 20 MR. MAMOLA: Thank you. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Your 22 variance pass been granted. Please see the 23 Building Department, good luck. 24
114
1 The next case, Case Number, 2 05-057, filed by Sign Fabricators for Second 3 City, located at 42705 Grand River. 4 The Petitioner is requesting 5 permission to erect one wall sign, with a 6 variance of 16 square feet. 7 Will you both be speaking? 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Probably, 9 maybe, yes. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Please 11 raise your hand and be sworn in by our 12 secretary. 13 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 14 or affirm that the information you're about to 15 give in the matter before you is the truth? 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: I do. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Yes. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: As you 19 stated, we're looking for a variance that 20 increases the sign on the second floor space. 21 I'm hoping the Board has had the opportunity to 22 drive by the site and look at the mockups on the 23 building as they are. I think that if you have 24 had an opportunity to do that, I think there's a
115
1 point of reasonableness that would apply in terms 2 of it is in compliance with the, A, the rest of 3 the neighborhood and the rest of the businesses. 4 Mr. Brennan spoke about 5 consistency in previous sitting here, and I think 6 that it does exactly that. It makes our space 7 consistent with the others next to it. It also 8 does balance and, you know, makes the business 9 more consistent in balancing out the neighboring 10 businesses. 11 I think it also -- the request 12 is for 16 square feet -- is, in the grand 13 scheme -- and I'm not sure what has come before 14 the Board in previous, but I think, again, the 15 scope of the signage, when you look at it on the 16 wall, I think it's -- or on the building, it's 17 very minimal. 18 In terms of hardship, if it 19 could be so classified, I think if you drive down 20 Grand River, the sign, quite frankly, is still 21 not going to be visible from Grand River. The 22 building, the way that it sets back, you know, 23 it's still going to be very difficult to see, due 24 to the fact that in the Main Street development
116
1 area, they have the two -- I'll call them 2 parafits(ph) or whatever -- they are up front. 3 So they really -- the point of visibility is not 4 greatly increased by that. 5 It is, however, gives us some 6 opportunity to be seen from Grand River. 7 So, you know, with that, I think 8 it's pretty self explanatory request, and I'll 9 hold for comments. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 11 sir. 12 In this case, 14 notices were 13 mailed; zero approvals and zero objections. 14 Is there anyone in the audience 15 that wishes to speak on this case? 16 Seeing none, we'll move to the 17 Building Department. 18 MR. AMOLSCH: We have no 19 comment. 20 MR. SAVEN: To be honest with 21 you, you have the same issue with 22 (unintelligible) trying to get visibility. Based 23 on the location, the building area in 24 relationship to Grand River east and west
117
1 traffic, (unintelligible.) 2 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 3 Mr. Saven. 4 Board Members? 5 Member Canup? 6 MEMBER CANUP: Question. The 37 7 by 13. Is the 37 inches determined by the very 8 top of the T to the very bottom of the tail of 9 the Y? 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: It is. 11 MEMBER CANUP: I think that's 12 the way our Ordinance reads, the extremities, the 13 outer extremities. 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: That's 15 correct. 16 MEMBER CANUP: Thank you. 17 The second thing in your 18 picture, it says Second City Detroit. This is 19 Novi. 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Yes, sir. 21 It's part of our license agreement. It is still 22 classified as Second City Detroit in all our 23 marks and whatnot. So that is -- the sign on the 24 outside of the building does not say Detroit.
118
1 It's just that the name of our business proper is 2 Second City Detroit. 3 MEMBER CANUP: The sign -- the 4 picture that you submitted says Detroit on it. I 5 mean, the photo. 6 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: I do 8 apologize. That is incorrect. There will not be 9 a Detroit underneath that. I apologize. It will 10 not. The Petition was actually filed by the sign 11 company. I do apologize. The photos I have are 12 just Second City. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: That's no 14 problem. 15 MEMBER CANUP: I'd be willing to 16 make a Motion. I would make a Motion that in 17 Case of the Second City, we grant the variance as 18 requested as by the Petitioner, with the 19 understanding that it is to say The Second City 20 only. 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 23 Motion and a second. 24 Any further discussion?
119
1 Seeing none -- well, I'm sorry. 2 MR. AMOLSCH: To this Petitioner 3 only? 4 MEMBER CANUP: Pardon? 5 MR. AMOLSCH: Do you wish to 6 limit this variance to this Petitioner only? 7 MEMBER CANUP: The amendment, 8 yes; that it be limited to this Petitioner only. 9 If this Petitioner should vacate the property or 10 terminate his lease, that sign variance does not 11 continue with the building. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: The 13 seconder does agree. 14 And so we'll call roll. 15 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 17 Canup? 18 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 19 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 21 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 22 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 23 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.
120
1 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 5 Your variance has been granted. 6 Thank you and good luck. 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Thank you. 8 MEMBER GRONACHAN: When are you 9 opening? 10 We're hoping the first part of 11 August or late this month, if at all possible. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Okay. 13 Congratulations and good luck. 14 15 Case Number 05-058 filed by Paul 16 and Mary Bertin, of 29425 Whistler Drive. The 17 Bertins are requesting an interpretation of a 18 height variance of six and a half feet for the 19 existing constructed fence/trellis that is 20 located on the side yard of Lot 3 on Whistler 21 Drive. 22 Or the Petitioner would like to 23 see the Zoning Board state that fences on all 24 lots of record in all residential districts,
121
1 which enclose property and/or are within a 2 required side yard shall not exceed six feet. 3 They're asking for a variance from that of six 4 feet, six inches. 5 And you are Mr. and Mrs. Bertin? 6 MR. BERTIN: Yes. 7 MRS. BERTIN: Yes. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Would you 9 raise your hand and be sworn in by our 10 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. BERTIN: Yes. 15 MRS. BERTIN: Yes. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Can you 17 please state your name and address for the 18 record, and proceed, please. 19 MRS. BERTIN: Mary Bertin. 20 MR. BERTIN: Paul Bertin, 29425 21 Whistler, Novi. 22 We are here this evening because 23 of a trellis that we constructed between our site 24 and -- we are Lot 3 and Lot 4. As you may know
122
1 about Camden Court as a community, it's obviously 2 a different style (unintelligible) style of 3 community. The houses are very high off the 4 ground, very close together; closer than most of 5 the other communities in Novi. 6 And because of the closeness, 7 because of the height off the ground, the houses 8 are in some ways, some conditions -- particularly 9 our condition, where our -- part of our living 10 space extends beyond the back of the house; that 11 we are very close to the neighbors' deck and air 12 conditioning unit. 13 We initially thought that we 14 could maybe put pines in there. Of course, to 15 put in pines in there that would be effective, 16 they would have to be about 12 feet high to start 17 with. And there's a draining swell between the 18 two houses; that would mean that any plantings 19 planted there would interrupt that draining 20 swell; prevent us from (unintelligible.) 21 The City required draining from 22 the side of the house out to the rear yard where 23 the storm drain occurs. We came up with the idea 24 that maybe instead of pines there, we would
123
1 create a trellis which would provide us not just 2 the privacy; but would be planted with 3 Clovatis(ph) and would look very pretty once it 4 grew. 5 Of course, in order to do that, 6 we presented our plans and concepts to the 7 developer (unintelligible) architectural control 8 committee, and they approved it as a trellis. I 9 don't think any of us thought of this as being a 10 fence, because basically a fence would be 11 something that's enclosing or defining a space; 12 where this is basically just a decorative 13 trellis. 14 In the information I provided, 15 according to the definition of the architectural 16 construction dictionary, actually defines it 17 exactly that way as a trellis. It is the height 18 it is because of the fact that the height of the 19 deck and the first floor on lot four is about 24 20 inches higher than we are. And when they are on 21 their deck, they're actually looking right down 22 into our nook and our sunroom. 23 And when we sit in our living 24 room, you can actually see, in a sense, the party
124
1 going on across the way. This was a solution 2 that made us both feel comfortable; that we 3 weren't looking at them and they weren't looking 4 a little us. And so, that was the reason that we 5 did that. And we embarked on having this built 6 back in December with our neighbors, and we, 7 together, spent $2,000 building this trellis 8 work. 9 It's made out of materials that 10 are no maintenance. They're all plastic type 11 materials. The design of the trellis is 12 compatible with the houses, both ours and the 13 neighbors. And we think that it actually 14 enhances the condition that's there; and it 15 improves the conditions for both Lot 3 and Lot 4; 16 the living conditions. 17 With us tonight are the 18 neighbors, Jerry Lesco and Kelly Jacobson. They 19 may have some comments or may say something also. 20 We have a neighbor here, also. So we're asking 21 for this Member Board to allow us a variance on 22 the basis that it is -- an interpretation that it 23 is a trellis and not a fence, or we're allowed to 24 create the height based on the conditions of this
125
1 particular neighborhood. 2 Thank you. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 4 sir. 5 Is there anyone in the audience 6 that wishes to comment on this case? 7 Sir, please come down. 8 If you want to follow behind 9 this gentleman. 10 Please report your name and 11 address, please. 12 MR. GOETZKIS: Good evening, 13 everyone. My name is Rich Goetzkis. I live at 14 29389 Whistler Drive, in Novi. Before I begin, 15 those must be heat lamps that you're sitting 16 under. For those back here, it's frigid. 17 We just want to comment. We are 18 three properties south of the Petitioner's 19 property here this evening. And we are one of 20 only three properties that have an unobstructed 21 clear view of the trellis. And we want to go on 22 record to say we do not find the trellis 23 obtrusive, offensive in any way. It is 24 architecturally esthetic with the neighborhood.
126
1 The paint schemes match the homes on both sides. 2 And we believe that the 3 (unintelligible) Clovatis (unintelligible) 4 vegetation (unintelligible) it should be a rather 5 attractive trellis. I do the not consider it a 6 fence. It does not surround the property. It 7 is, in fact, designed to have vegetation and 8 provide privacy. 9 Thank you. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 11 sir. 12 MR. LESCO: My name is Jerry 13 Lesco. I live at 2943(sic) Whistler Drive, the 14 lot right next to Mr. and Mrs. Bertin. And as he 15 stated earlier, we were in agreement with it. We 16 did follow our proper association protocol for 17 the proper trellis; put it before the committee. 18 It was approved at that point (unintelligible) it 19 was constructed. 20 So I guess just as a matter of 21 record, we have no problem with it. We are in 22 agreement with it. 23 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 24 sir.
127
1 Ma'am? 2 One more, sir. 3 MS. NEHAP: Hi, my name is 4 Kristin Nehap. I live at 42673 Falkner. And I 5 agree with my neighbors. (unintelligible) very 6 nice trellis. I would like to do the same thing 7 in my yard, but I think if you call this a 8 trellis and not a fence, if I do it in my yard, I 9 guarantee you, it won't look as nice as it does 10 at this residence. 11 If you're familiar with Camden 12 Court -- I do not have photos of the rest of 13 neighborhood, if you require it -- 14 MEMBER FISCHER: We 15 received some in our packet, ma'am. 16 MS. NEHAP: Okay. 17 So of the 56 residences, only 12 18 back up to the woods. And in the case of these 19 two residences, as the (unintelligible) they all 20 live on the woods. And actually, it's not very 21 noticeable. However, the 44 other residences 22 live on alleyways. And if it's approved and 23 other neighbors choose to erect a similar type of 24 -- if you want to call it a trellis -- I think it
128
1 would be very hard to control such a positive 2 appearance of the structure. 3 So I'm here to -- tonight to 4 voice a concern of a trellis gone out of control 5 if it's approved under the use of which it's 6 being done here. (unintelligible.) I'm not an 7 expert by any means, but to me, it's a fence. I 8 don't know if a fence necessary if it goes around 9 something or if the Ordinance or permit required 10 for such a structure would say, but, again you 11 know from my simple point of view, it seems like 12 a fence. 13 And again, if others are to do 14 the same thing, I doubt that, you know, without 15 such an expertise as they have done, it could 16 be -- it could come off very unesthetic(sic) 17 (ph). And I can definitely sympathize the need 18 for privacy, as my family room looks into my 19 neighbor's kitchen. So when she's doing wishes, 20 she can watch Finding Nemo on my television. And 21 when we add our decks on, it will bring us even 22 closer together. 23 I can definitely respect the 24 clever, very clever, way of directing this
129
1 privacy issue. However, my concern is for if 2 this is approved, what's to come in the future, a 3 precedent, if you will. 4 Thank you for hearing me. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 6 ma'am. 7 In this case, 40 notices were 8 mailed, seven approvals and -- in this case, 40 9 notices were mailed, seven approvals and -- 10 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The approvals 11 were from Paul and Nora Heartfield, at 2941 12 Whistler; Stephanie Dunn at 29449 Whistler. 13 Carolyn Schneider, I see no 14 reason why they trellis should be objectionable 15 to anyone. Paul and Mary's home is one of the 16 most tastefully decorated in the complex. They 17 could not do anything to -- I can't read it -- or 18 knowingly erect anything that does not comply 19 with the City or the Ordinances. 20 The trellis is not noticeable 21 unless called to one's attention. 22 So she's in support. 23 Richard and Michelle Whitter, 24 from our point of view, the constructed item,
130
1 it's more of a trellis than a fence. We think it 2 looks great; we would like to see it stay. 3 And they are at 42733 Falkner 4 Drive. 5 Adam Smith, (unintelligible) 6 beautiful design, well (unintelligible) place and 7 well kept. 8 And they are -- oh, I already 9 gave their address, 29437 Winthorp. 10 And then the last one is, Tracey 11 Sprague at 29377, it appears this neighborhood 12 thinks it's a trellis. 13 Robert Furby 47 -- 42710 14 Whitnam, it is an approval and he has no issues. 15 MEMBER FISCHER: For the 16 record, we did receive correspondence. 17 At this point, we'll move to the 18 Building Department for suggestions. 19 MR. SAVEN: In your packet you 20 will find -- in the packet you'll find that I've 21 provided you with the definition of what a fence 22 per the Ordinance. And this just basically for 23 the record, I'd like to read it. It states an 24 enclosure or barrier such as wooden post, wire
131
1 iron, masonry, bricks, stone, etc., used as 2 boundary, user protection, privacy screening nor 3 confine, but not including hedges, shrubs, trees 4 or other natural (unintelligible.) 5 That's why this came to us to 6 request the variance. 7 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may -- 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Please. 9 MR. SCHULTZ: -- Mr. Chair. 10 Our office was asked the 11 question before, I believe before the enforcement 12 action. We gave the general opinion that 13 although it's (unintelligible) close call, at 14 what point does a couple of pickets 15 (unintelligible) a (unintelligible) fence. We 16 believe that it fell within the definition that 17 Mr. Saven just read, but that's just, you know, 18 our initial view. 19 Your function is to make that 20 that same inquiry one way or the other tonight. 21 The question about the precedent or nature of 22 this is really one of the reasons why we reached 23 that conclusion. But this has been noticed as an 24 alternative for the variance, for the height
132
1 under (unintelligible.) 2 I guess the only other thing I 3 would point out is, you know, for the issue of 4 other neighbors and other locations, you know, 5 there are (unintelligible) deed restrictions and 6 some kind of approval process that other property 7 owners are going to need to go through. 8 But you have two alternatives 9 here. We chose the one, but the fact that we did 10 that does not bind you, so. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 12 Mr. Schultz. 13 Member Gronachan? 14 MEMBER GRONACHAN: As 15 Mr. Schultz indicated, there's two issues. And I 16 want to take the first one. And I believe that 17 the intent of this Petitioner was putting up a 18 trellis. And the intent of half of your 19 neighborhood is it this is a trellis. So I -- 20 based on that and understanding of your 21 explanation, what you presented to this Board, 22 I'm in support that this is a trellis. 23 On the second issue that was 24 brought before this Board about setting a
133
1 precedent, I feel that the architectural -- 2 MR. BERTIN: Control -- 3 MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sorry? 4 MR. BERTIN: The architectural 5 control committee. 6 MEMBER GRONACHAN: -- the 7 architectural control committee -- this goes back 8 to them. I mean, they need to -- if this is a 9 problem in this subdivision, and there's 10 violations -- but they approved this, right? 11 MS. BERTIN: Right. 12 MEMBER GRONACHAN: And the two 13 of you together put this up, right, you didn't do 14 this against your neighbor. 15 MR. BERTIN: Right. 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. Don't 17 get me started. I'm sorry. I don't get this 18 part. 19 So based on the guidance that 20 you got from your subdivision; based on the fact 21 that, again, that the neighborhood is in 22 concurrence, I believe that it was viewed as a 23 trellis. I believe if there's any precedence set 24 it's the subdivisions fault. And that if there
134
1 is any violations in the subdivision, then we'll 2 be seeing them and we'll be talking to them. 3 And then each case will be heard 4 on an individual basis. I would go back and 5 clarify that I won't suggest that everybody put 6 up a trellis tomorrow, but, given in this 7 particular case, at this particular address, and 8 given this set of circumstances, that's how I 9 reached my opinion. 10 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 11 MEMBER FISCHER: (Unintell 12 igible) Mr. Schultz, if this is an 13 interpretation as a trellis, is it not -- 14 would other Petitioner have to come before 15 us? 16 MR. SCHULTZ: Our position 17 would be that that the interpret -- if, for 18 example, a Motion were made along the line 19 that Ms. Gronachan just said, this 20 property, this design, this location, these, 21 you know, factual circumstances, as the 22 basis for making this interpretation and 23 specific qualifications; then it's only for 24 this property.
135
1 Then we would take the 2 position -- code enforcement would take the 3 position if this or a similar thing went up on 4 some other property without the City approval, 5 they'd be back here before you. So if you put 6 enough of that information in the actual Motion, 7 I think you limit the possibility of precedents. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 9 Mr. Schultz. 10 Other Board Members? 11 I have question -- 12 Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, sir. 14 Call it what you may, semantics 15 or semantics (unintelligible) privacy, screening, 16 mechanism, a fence or a trellis, which is 17 unnecessary, because of the elevation 18 (unintelligible) two sides of the lot. 19 And I have no hesitation in 20 supporting this. 21 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you. 22 Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: And I'll make a 24 Motion that in Case Number, 05-058, the
136
1 Petitioner be allowed to continue, intact, 2 "trellis" privacy screening mechanism on their 3 property. 4 Thank you. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: There is a 6 Motion -- 7 MEMBER CANUP: Second. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: -- there 9 is a second. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: Friendly 11 amendment. 12 I would, per the attorney's 13 suggestion that this variance, if granted, be for 14 this Petitioner, at this location, with this 15 design (unintelligible.) 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Sobeit. 17 MEMBER FISCHER: And the 18 seconder? 19 MEMBER CANUP: Second. 20 MEMBER FISCHER: I have one 21 quick question. 22 Has the vegetation been planted 23 already? 24 MR. BERTIN: Yes, it is. It's
137
1 growing right now. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Final 3 clarification. 4 The second comment, the friendly 5 amendment, referred to this as a variance. And 6 we need to clarify -- 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Interpretation, 8 sorry. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: You both 10 agree? 11 Thank you. 12 Ms. Backus, would you please 13 call the roll. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 16 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 17 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 18 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 19 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 20 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 22 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 24 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer?
138
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 3 to zero. 4 MEMBER FISCHER: Your 5 variance has been granted. Please see the 6 Building Department and good luck. 7 Our last case of the evening, 8 Case Number, 05-059 filed by Wayne Paddock for a 9 residence at 23955 West LeBost. Mr. Paddock is 10 requesting four variances for the construction of 11 an attached garage. Three side yard setback 12 variances; a minimum west side yard setback 13 variance of four feet; and an east side yard 14 setback of two feet. I believe I got that down. 15 Yes, sir. 16 Please raise your hand and be 17 sworn in by our secretary. 18 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear 19 or affirm that the information that you're about 20 to give in the matter before you is the truth? 21 MR. PADDOCK: Yes. 22 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. 23 MR. PADDOCK: Okay. 24 MEMBER FISCHER: State your
139
1 name and address, sir. 2 MR. PADDOCK: My name is Wayne 3 Paddock. I live at 23955 West LeBost in Novi in 4 the Willowbrook subdivision. 5 What you have before you is a 6 drawing that was done before I decided to make 7 some changes. I initially had requested a 8 four-car garage. Because of the objections of my 9 neighbor, I've reduced it back to a 24 by 24. 10 Also, I have found out from my subdivision 11 president, Warren Joseph, Willowbrook 12 subdivision, that they have covenants that only 13 allow two-car garages. 14 So, what you have before you -- 15 cut that just about a little more than half -- a 16 little less than half. And what I'm requesting 17 for -- initially I had the -- because the lot is 18 pie shaped, where I had initially planned to put 19 the garage would have only leave -- left about 20 two feet of variance from my neighbor's property 21 line. 22 Because of that, I've moved it 23 back to where it's nine feet back, which would 24 give me six feet. So I'm requesting a four foot
140
1 variance. Also, because of the reduction in the 2 size of the garage, I no longer need the space 3 variance. 4 Okay. 5 Any questions, fire away? 6 MEMBER FISCHER: Is there 7 anyone in the audience that wishes to make 8 comment on this case? 9 Sir? 10 MR. RACTIE: My name is Bob 11 Ractie. I live at 2394(sic) West LeBost. I live 12 directly south of Mr. Paddock's property, not 13 west of his property as indicated in the letter. 14 The reason I'm here, I was going 15 to object to the building that he wanted to put 16 up, which was 42 feet long, which will look like 17 a pole barn from my property. The 42 foot long 18 is just shy of four foot of what his house is, 19 the length of his house. And the setback of my 20 thinking was because, had he brought it up any 21 farther, he would have been on my property. He 22 couldn't pull out of the garage that way. 23 He sits on an angle. He has pie 24 shaped lot line, and I have a wedge shape, which
141
1 is kind of unique. Mine is on an angle, also. 2 So, by him setting it back, gives him the 3 opportunity to put in another garage -- this 4 garage. And since I've talked to him, he has 5 changed his mind about the 42 feet. 6 He still has a variance on the 7 side lot of six foot, which would give him four 8 foot, which gives him six foot variance, but he 9 has a meter, also, that's going to have to be 10 moved from his -- the side of his family room; 11 and that will have to be put on the side of the 12 garage. 13 If that is put there, that's 14 only five feet difference then. Now, there's -- 15 there was another alternative; and in my 16 estimation -- but I don't know if it would be 17 okay with Mr. Paddock, is if you move the garage 18 back to where the line is between the -- his 19 porch and his family room on the print, you show 20 an existing family room there, and then you show 21 some space; and then you show an enclosed porch. 22 That's all family room in that spare space. 23 If he would move -- start the 24 garage facing the garage, from where the porch
142
1 and the family room come together -- if he'd 2 start there, I don't think he'd have any 3 variances at all by putting it back there. Now, 4 I don't know if he has any intent of making -- 5 cutting a door into his family room to get into 6 the his house, or he's going to go outside. 7 If he's going outside to get 8 back to the house from his garage he wants to put 9 in now, then there would be no problem for him 10 moving it back. He'd still have to go -- walk 11 outside to get back to his house. 12 So my objection was just of the 13 length of the house and what it would look like 14 from my yard, from my property. 15 Thank you. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 17 sir, for your comments. 18 The ZBA sent 35 notices out. 19 You have two approvals and one objection. 20 Madam Secretary? 21 MEMBER GRONACHAN: The first 22 objection is from Wendy Phifer 41156 Todd Lane. 23 I don't agree with the encroachment into the 24 setback for any of the smaller lots, especially
143
1 for garages or additions. The sizes of the 2 houses do not warrant large footprints or 3 garages. 4 Douglas and Jeanie Arnold, at 5 41075 West Ten Mile, give their approval. And 6 then the approval, as stated, by the Willowbrook 7 Community Homeowner's Association. 8 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you, 9 Madam Secretary. 10 Does the Building Department 11 wish to comment on this case? 12 MR. SAVEN: I'd just like to go 13 through the variances he's requesting to make 14 sure we're all clear on what he's requesting. 15 Based on the location of the 16 building, you still wish to have it up front -- 17 MR. PADDOCK: I would like it to 18 be an attached garage, sir. 19 MR. SAVEN: Pardon? 20 MR. PADDOCK: I would like it to 21 be an attached garage. 22 MR. SAVEN: At the front 23 location, is it the same as what you're 24 proposing?
144
1 MR. PADDOCK: The front line is 2 the same as (unintelligible) (interposing.) loin. 3 MR. SAVEN: So what you're doing 4 is, you're having a 24 by 24 garage, instead of 5 24 by 42 garage, right? 6 MR. PADDOCK: Yes. 7 MR. SAVEN: Okay. So that's 8 (unintelligible.) Okay. Your side yard 9 variances will still need to be required. 10 MR. PADDOCK: Yes. The 11 variances for the for the four feet that the 12 garage will come out into the -- 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Thank you 14 for that are correction. 15 Anything else? 16 Thank you, Mr. Saven. 17 Board members? 18 Member Brennan? 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Just to address 20 this party's suggestion about pushing it back. 21 If you push it back to that line as he suggested, 22 then it's no longer an attached garage. You have 23 no inside accessibility. 24 MR. PADDOCK: No.
145
1 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. You've 2 got a requirement for a variance request for more 3 square feet of accessory buildings. And I assume 4 part of that is a shed, or is that one gone with 5 the reduction of the garage? 6 MR. SAVEN: The shed, that's 7 included in the some total. It has to be all 8 accessory structures on the property. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, my point 10 is the drawings are 42 foot. So where am I going 11 to cut that garage in half? 12 MR. SAVEN: You've got 526 13 square foot right now. He'll probably have -- 14 you've got about a ten by twelve shed there now? 15 MR. PADDOCK: That is correct, 16 ten by twelve. 17 MR. SAVEN: So 120 square foot. 18 So you're looking at 690 square foot less than 19 850 -- 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: That's my 21 point. So that last variance request is 22 (unintelligible.) 23 My first thought, my first 24 observation is it's a difficult lot, but it
146
1 seemed like you could push it back. I certainly 2 have an understanding of Petitioner wanting to be 3 able to access his garage and not have to go 4 outside that all makes sense. 5 The four foot bumper doesn't 6 seem to be that big of a deal. I think the other 7 gentleman here has gotten a great deal of relief 8 from having this garage cut in half from 42 to 24 9 so that's my feeling, any way. 10 MEMBER FISCHER: Anything 11 else, Member Brennan? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Other 14 Board Members? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just for 16 verification. The people who are going to be 17 seeing (unintelligible) now (unintelligible) 18 reduce it from that. It's different. Do we need 19 to advertise this again? 20 MEMBER GRONACHAN: No, it's 21 less. 22 MEMBER CANUP: It's less. 23 MEMBER GRONACHAN: It's a lesser 24 variance.
147
1 MEMBER FISCHER: Member 2 Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: In case 05-059, 4 the variance requested for the four feet is still 5 correct, side yard east of two feet is still 6 correct. Total both yards six feet variance. Is 7 what he's now requesting, and it should be 8 approved as stated. 9 MEMBER FISCHER: That's a 10 Motion. 11 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support. 12 MEMBER FISCHER: Does the 13 maker or the seconder which to add more, 14 referring to the comments made by the Board 15 Members or findings? 16 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Lot 17 configuration, a pie shaped lot. 18 MEMBER FISCHER: Due to lot 19 size and configuration? 20 The maker agrees? 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 MEMBER FISCHER: Any 23 further discussion on the Motion? 24 Seeing none, Ms. Backus, would
148
1 you call the roll. 2 GAIL BACKUS: Member Bauer? 3 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 4 GAIL BACKUS: Member Gronachan? 5 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 6 GAIL BACKUS: Member Brennan? 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 8 GAIL BACKUS: Member Canup? 9 MEMBER CANUP. Yes. 10 GAIL BACKUS: Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 12 GAIL BACKUS: Member Fischer? 13 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 14 GAIL BACKUS: Motion passes six 15 to zero. 16 MEMBER FISCHER: Your 17 variance has been granted as stated. 18 Please see the Building 19 Department, good luck. 20 MR. PADDOCK: Thank you for your 21 time. 22 23 MEMBER FISCHER: There's 24 nothing under other matters.
149
1 Entertain a Motion to adjourn? 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: So moved. 3 MEMBER FISCHER: Second? 4 MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. 5 MEMBER FISCHER: All in 6 favor say aye? 7 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 8 (The meeting was adjourned at 9 10:14 p.m.) 10 - - - - - - 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
150
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 (149) 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 August 17, 2005. (Date)
|