| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting SPECIAL 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, November 6, 2007. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY:
1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, November 6, 2007 3 7:30 p.m. 4 - - - - - - 5 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, I will 7 call the meeting to order. This is the 8 special meeting of the Zoning Board of 9 Appeals City of Novi for Tuesday, November 10 6th, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the 11 Civic Center. 12 Robin, please call the roll for 13 attendance. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 15 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 17 MS. SANGHVI: Here. 18 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Here. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 21 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Present. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: Here. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?
4 1 MS. KRIEGER: Here. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 3 MEMBER WROBEL: Present. 4 MS. WORKING: We have a quorum and all 5 of present, Mr. Chairman. 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. That 7 means this meeting is official and it is now 8 in session. 9 At this time, Member Krieger, would 10 you please lead us in the Pledge of 11 Allegiance. 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: I pledge 13 allegiance to the flag of the United States 14 of America and to the republic for which it 15 stands, one nation under God indivisible 16 with liberty and justice for all. 17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Would 18 the Vice-Chair please read our rules of 19 conduct for the meeting. 20 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. 21 Chair. Full set of the rules of conduct and 22 rules of procedure can be found in the front 23 of agenda. Please be sure to turn off all 24 cell phones and pagers during the meeting.
5 1 The Applicant will be asked to come forward 2 and state their name, address and be sworn 3 in by our Secretary. 4 The Applicant will be allowed for a 5 five minute presentation to the Board. An 6 extension is granted upon request by the 7 Chairperson. 8 Anyone in the audience who wishes to 9 address the Board regarding the current case 10 will be asked by the Chairperson to raise 11 their hands and be recognized. Once 12 recognized the audience members addressing 13 the Board will be sworn in and given three 14 minutes to speak if speaking on behalf of an 15 individual or ten minutes to speak if 16 representing a group. 17 Members of the audience will be 18 allowed to address the Board once unless 19 directly questioned by the Board or the 20 Chairperson. The secretary will read the 21 number of public hearing notices mailed 22 pertaining to the case and objection and 23 approval responses will be read into the 24 record.
6 1 The Chairperson will ask for input
2 from the City staff including the Community 3 Development Department, Ordinance 4 Enforcement, the Planning Department and the 5 City Attorney. The Chair will turn the 6 board at that time over to the Board -- turn 7 the case over to the Board for discussion, 8 clarification and entertainment of motion if 9 and when appropriate. 10 Impromptu statements from the audience 11 will not be tolerated and be considered out 12 of order. A roll call vote will be taken to 13 approve or deny a motion and the next case 14 will then be called. 15 CHAIRPERSON SHROYER: Thank you. The 16 Zoning Board of Appeals is a Hearing Board 17 empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear 18 appeals seeking variances from the 19 application of Novi Zoning Ordinances. 20 It takes a vote of at least four 21 members to approve a variance request and a 22 vote of the majority present to deny a 23 request. The Board consist of seven regular 24 members and one alternate member. The
7 1 alternate member has the right to 2 participate in all Board discussions and 3 hearings, but may not vote except in the 4 absence or abstention of a regular Board 5 member. 6 We do have our alternate member 7 sitting in as a regular Board member this 8 evening so she has full rights of voting. 9 At this time we have a revised agenda in 10 front of us. I understand that there is no 11 Minutes so we can scratch that from the 12 agenda, correct? 13 MS. WORKING: That is correct. 14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Is there any other 15 additions or corrections to the agenda? 16 MS. WORKING: I would like you to note 17 that Case Number 8 on your agenda, 07-084 18 has requested to be tabled to the December 19 4th agenda. And case number 10 on your 20 agenda, 07-086, has also requested to be 21 tabled to the December agenda and those 22 requests have been honored. 23 And I would like to add under other 24 matters at the end of our agenda this
8 1 evening ZBA Case: 07-058, 23820 Linwood. 2 Those are the only changes, Mr. Chair. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That would be 4 added. We want to ask the attorney, is the 5 tabling the correct verbiage to use on this 6 since it hasn't come in front of the Board 7 for postponement? Or is it just moved to a 8 meeting so no vote is necessary? 9 MS. KUDLA: Tabling is not necessary. 10 The correct term I would say is postponed. 11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Postponed. I would 12 like to incorporate changing the verbiage 13 from tabled to postponed in both those 14 cases. Is there a motion to approve the 15 agenda? 16 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Motion to 17 approve as amended. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion to 20 approve by Vice-Chair Fischer and seconded 21 by Member Bauer. 22 All in favor of the motion please say 23 aye? 24 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
9 1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Opposed same sign? 2 We have an agenda. 3 At this time we have 4 our public remarks. Is there anyone that 5 cares to speak to the ZBA on any matter 6 other than one that is going to come forward 7 as a public hearing later on in the agenda? 8 Seeing none, we will move on to our first 9 case. 10 11 Our first case is Case Number: 12 07-076 filed by Mark Zoltowski of MLS Signs 13 Company, Incorporated, for Oberweis Ice 14 Cream & Dairy to be located at 43168 Grand 15 River Avenue in the Novi Town Center. 16 The Applicant is requesting one wall 17 sign variance to be located at said address. 18 The Applicant is requesting a 45 square foot 19 illuminated rear elevation wall sign on the 20 south elevation of the building. The 21 property is zoned TC and located north of 22 Grand River and east of Novi Road. 23 Per the City Ordinances Section 24 28-5(3)f, the number of on-premises
10 1 advertising signs permitted states: Where 2 two or more separately owned and operated 3 businesses occupy a building on a single 4 parcel of land, each having a separate 5 exterior entrance, each business is entitled 6 to a single identification wall sign. 7 The Applicant is present, please come 8 forth. Are you an attorney, sir? 9 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: No. I am Mark from 10 MLS Signs. 11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We will need you to 12 be sworn in by our Secretary, please. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand. 14 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth 15 regarding Case: 07-076? 16 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: Yes, I do. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Your name and 19 address you said it was Mark? 20 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: Mark Zoltowski and I 21 represent MLS Signs and I live in Berkley, 22 Michigan. 23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Please 24 present your case.
11 1 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: The case is Oberweis 2 Dairy is requesting a rear sign at the 3 Oberweis Diary location there at the Novi 4 Town Center. The way the stores are lined 5 out on Grand River, the front entrances face 6 the actual center of the Novi Town Center 7 and the rear faces Grand River which, of 8 course, allows no signage. We are 9 requesting a rear sign just for the fact 10 that there is a lot of traffic on Grand 11 River and in some ways the identification of 12 Oberweis Diary really could be marked more 13 so by the rear sign than on the front 14 entrance side. We believe for the business 15 and the customers, the rear sign is really 16 really needed at that location. 17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Sir, as you are 18 talking do you happen to have an overhead or 19 a picture that you can put on the overhead 20 so our audience can see? 21 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: That I don't 22 unfortunately. 23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We will give you 24 one of ours.
12 1 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair? 2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. With this 3 being televised we would like our home 4 audience to be able to see the sign and also 5 the audience here. 6 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: In fact, the rear sign 7 is almost going to duplicate what is in 8 front of the business. 9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And this one is the 10 front? 11 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: I think it's the 12 front. They're almost identical. 13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Is that all you 14 wanted to say this evening? 15 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: Yes. 16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: This is a public 17 hearing, is there anyone in the audience who 18 cares to speak on behalf of this matter? 19 Okay, I will close the public hearing and 20 ask the Secretary if there are any notices 21 or correspondence? 22 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Mr. Chair, in 23 this case there were 30 notices mailed with 24 zero approvals and zero objections.
13 1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Any 2 comments from the City or Counsel? 3 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 4 MS. KUDLA: No comment. 5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All right, we will 6 turn it over to the Board for discussion. 7 Member Wrobel? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: I yield to Mr. Canup. 9 (Unintelligible.) 10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Would you yield to 11 Mr. Canup as well, Mr. Wrobel? 12 MEMBER WROBEL: Sure. 13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay. Mr. Canup? 14 MEMBER CANUP: My question is to Mr. 15 Amolsch. The red and white striped awning 16 in the front which kind of seems to blend 17 with the sign that's being requested, would 18 that awning be termed as a sign? 19 MR. AMOLSCH: No, sir. That would 20 have been reviewed separately by the Plan 21 Review Center. I don't know if that they 22 reviewed that or not. But it would not be 23 regarded as a sign. 24 MEMBER CANUP: I don't have a problem
14 1 with the sign being there as long as it does 2 not exceed the legal size as per our 3 Ordinance. The second sign, legal size 4 being located on the Grand River side; is 5 that correct, sir? I don't have a problem 6 with that and would support a motion. 7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. 8 Canup. 9 Mr. Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 11 I just wanted to point out that they also 12 submitted a proper copy (unintelligible), 13 not the one that we have got on the 14 overhead. They need an identification sign, 15 and I agree with Mr. Canup it is too large 16 for that area and there is no reason why it 17 cannot be trimmed down to the requirement as 18 stated in the Ordinance. Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Wrobel, did 20 you have a comment as well? 21 MEMBER WROBEL: Since we approved for 22 a previous tenant, Pei Wei or Pei, whatever 23 it's called, I have no problem with the 24 second sign as long as it's not bigger than
15 1 that existing sign that we had already 2 approved. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That was my comment 4 as well. I want to be consistent with the 5 size and not necessarily in the length, 6 because obviously the name of your store is 7 longer. 8 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: It's more verbiage to 9 identify the store. 10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: But I wouldn't want 11 the primary words to be any higher in 12 height. That would be my only comment on 13 this as well. 14 Any other comments from the Board? 15 Open to a motion? Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: I would make a motion 17 that in case number: 07-076 that we grant 18 the variance as requested with the 19 restrictions that the sign not exceed the 20 size as allowed by Ordinance. 21 Mr. Amolsch, did have you a question? 22 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. The sign for the 23 front is 45 square feet as what's allowed by 24 Ordinance.
16 1 MEMBER CANUP: Is that within 2 Ordinance? 3 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. 4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You're talking 5 about the secondary sign? 6 MEMBER CANUP: The secondary sign would 7 be allowed as long as it's within Ordinance. 8 MR. AMOLSCH: The secondary sign is up 9 to the Board at its discretion whether or 10 not to approve that sign or not. The one on 11 the front is 45 square feet. 12 MEMBER CANUP: The one on the front is 13 the legal size sign? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: It meets the code. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion by 17 Member Canup. A second by Member Sanghvi. 18 Further discussion? 19 The question I had was the size of the 20 Pei Wei sign. I'm looking, I believe it was 21 18 inches. 22 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, I provided 23 for you in your packet material the motion 24 that came from the Pei Wei case for your
17 1 reference on this case. 2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That must be where 3 I got that size. The note that I have is to 4 not to have a height maximum of exceeding 28 5 inches. And they were requesting 38 inches. 6 So that would be my comment on further 7 discussion. Is there any other discussion? 8 Okay. There is a motion on the floor. 9 Member Fischer? 10 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Do we have any 11 findings on the motion, Mr. Chair? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: The reason is 13 identification. 14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Due to Grand River 15 and -- 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: On Grand River, yes. 17 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Thanks. 18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Is that acceptable 19 by the motion maker? 20 MEMBER CANUP: That's acceptable that 21 the reason for the variance is the fact that 22 they actually have two frontages, one on the 23 Grand River side and one on the shopping 24 center side.
18 1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Please 2 call the roll. 3 MS. WORKING: Can I have clarification 4 on whether or not we stipulated a square 5 footage restriction on that second sign? 6 MEMBER CANUP: The motion that was 7 made there was no restriction other than the 8 fact that it did not exceed the legal amount 9 as allowed by the Ordinance. The intention 10 was that you are allowed one sign of 45 11 square feet. 12 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct. 13 MEMBER CANUP: The second sign 14 according to the motion that was made would 15 not exceed 45 square feet. 16 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: So we are adhering to 17 that, right? 18 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Which is what 19 was submitted. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, which was 21 submitted. No problem. 22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please call the 23 roll. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?
19 1 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 5 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 6 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: No. 8 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 11 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 13 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Aye. 14 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 6-1. 15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Your 16 motion has been granted, sir. Thank you. 17 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: So we are allowed the 18 45 foot square sign? 19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Not to exceed 45 20 square feet. 21 MR. ZOLTOWSKI: Thank you. 22 23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Our second case is 24 Case Number: 07-077 filed by Greg Karr of
20 1 24099 Wintergreen Circle in the Park 2 Subdivision. The Applicant is requesting 3 one rear yard setback variance for the 4 construction of a proposed deck and a screen 5 deck enclosure to be located at said 6 address. 7 The Applicant is requesting a four 8 foot rear yard setback variance for the 9 required 35 foot setback. The property is 10 zoned R-1 and located east of Beck Road and 11 south of Ten Mile. 12 Per our Ordinance Article 24 Section 13 2400 Scheduled Regulations requires a 14 minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet. 15 The Applicant is present, he came 16 forth. 17 MR. KARR: Yes. 18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You are not an 19 attorney; is that correct? 20 MR. KARR: Yes. 21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please be sworn in 22 by our Secretary. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand. 24 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
21 1 regarding case: 07-077? 2 MR. KARR: Yes. 3 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please present your 5 case. 6 MR. KARR: I need this variance 7 (unintelligible) my porch. Obviously to 8 keep the original order of the house, face 9 the west, keep the sun out, it's too hot to 10 be out on the deck with the bugs and stuff. 11 I can't wait another 20 years for my trees 12 to grow. 13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Miracle Grow. 14 MR. KARR: I tried that. 15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Could you put your 16 map on the overhead? 17 MR. KARR: I didn't bring a copy. 18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: This is more 19 detailed. Thank you, sir. 20 This is a public hearing, is there 21 anyone else in the audience who cares to 22 address the Board in this matter? Seeing 23 none, we'll close the public hearing and 24 turn it over to the Secretary -- I'm sorry,
22 1 the Vice-Chair. 2 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: In this case, 3 Mr. Chair, there were 30 notices mailed with 4 one approval and zero objections. An 5 approval from Christine Strigger (ph), 24135 6 Wintergreen Circle with no comments. 7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Any 8 comments from the City or Counsel? 9 MS. KUDLA: No. 10 MR. FOX: I have no comment. 11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. I'll 12 turn it over to the Board for discussion. 13 Member Fischer? 14 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Is that 15 current deck being expanded at all or are 16 you building on top of a foundation? 17 MR. KARR: Actually I'm coming in 18 three feet, four feet. I am coming in 19 actually instead of out. 20 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: So it would be 21 on top of the existing deck, but not to the 22 extent of -- 23 MR. KARR: I'm actually taking four 24 feet of my deck in. I am actually coming in
23 1 not outward. 2 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Okay. I don't
3 see any objection with this, Mr. Chair, 4 given the facts that are represented in our 5 packet as well as the comments by the 6 Petitioner. I think it does substantial 7 justice to him as well as his neighbors and 8 is actually less encroaching than previous. 9 So I would be willing to support a motion. 10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Wrobel? 11 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 12 The rear of your lot does that back up to 13 another home? 14 MR. KARR: Yes, it does. 15 MEMBER WROBEL: I can support it also. 16 Thank you. 17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Canup? 18 MEMBER CANUP: I would be willing to 19 make a motion with some stipulations. I 20 would make a motion in case number: 07-077 21 that we grant the variance as requested for 22 reasons as stated by the Petitioner with the 23 limitations that the material and the 24 architecture match that of the existing
24 1 structure. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: There is a motion 4 by Member Canup. A second by Member Bauer. 5 Further discussion from the Board? 6 Could I ask the Motioner to clarify a little 7 bit about the match? Are you talking about 8 the slope or the growth being the same as 9 the slope of the house? 10 MEMBER CANUP: I'm talking about the 11 basic architecture of the new sun room, 12 porch, etcetera, that it have some of the 13 same materials that the house was made out 14 of. If it has a siding on it that is a 15 beige color then this needs to be a beige 16 color siding. It needs to match the house 17 and look like it's on there not a sore 18 spot. 19 MR. KARR: It is. I wouldn't have it 20 any other way. 21 MEMBER CANUP: Make it look nice. 22 MR. KARR: Yes. 23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Did this have to go 24 in front of the subdivision for review?
25 1 MR. KARR: The president signed off on 2 it. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's not required 4 but I like to ask because they're the ones 5 that quite often want to make sure that it's 6 not purple if your house is white or 7 something like that. 8 MS. WORKING: It's not required. 9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It's not required. 10 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Can we get a 11 copy for the record, though? 12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Did you bring a 13 copy with you by any chance? 14 MR. KARR: From the subdivision? 15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. 16 MR. KARR: It's signed on the plan. 17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It's initialed on 18 the plans? On the bottom right. 19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All right, any 20 other comments? Please call the roll. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 22 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 24 MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
26 1 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 2 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 8 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Aye. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 12 MR. KARR: Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Your variance has 14 been granted. Thank you. 15 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 16 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Actually call 17 Thursday. She is very busy tomorrow. 18 MR. KARR: Thursday? 19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So you can't start 20 until at least Friday. 21 MS. WORKING: Actually it will be five 22 days from the hearing date before you can 23 take any action. 24
27 1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Our next case is 2 Case: 07-078. I have to make sure I read 3 it separately from the one that was just 4 read because it's very similar in nature. 5 MS. WORKING: It is definitely. 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: This is filed by 7 Marybeth Mascari of 24081 Wintergreen 8 Circle. The Applicant is requesting one 9 rear yard setback variance for the 10 construction of an enclosed sun room on an 11 existing deck located at said address. 12 They are requesting a 4.57 foot rear 13 yard setback variance from the required 35 14 foot setback. The property is zoned R-1 and 15 located east of Beck and south of Ten. The 16 same Article and Ordinance applies. 17 And the Applicant has presented 18 herself, so please be sworn in by our 19 Secretary. 20 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand 21 please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the 22 truth regarding case: 07-087? 23 MS. MASCARI: Yes, I do. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you.
28 1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Present your case. 2 And if you have a picture. 3 MS. MASCARI: I don't. May I borrow 4 it, please? I'm sorry. 5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We're going to have 6 to train our Applicants. 7 MS. MASCARI: I thought if you guys 8 all were set I didn't really need it. 9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's fine, no 10 problem. 11 MS. MASCARI: This is not the same one 12 as this. Is this the one you need up there 13 or do you need the same one? 14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I'm sorry 15 (unintelligible). 16 MS. MASCARI: I thought I shrunk it. 17 I didn't shrink it? 18 MEMBER BAUER: That's why I gave you 19 this one, because you can't put it on there. 20 MS. MASCARI: Yeah. 21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We can see it's 22 very similar to the previous case. 23 MS. MASCARI: It's very similar. I am 24 also requesting the variance so that we can
29 1 enjoy our home a little bit more. We love 2 where we live. We love or neighborhood. We 3 are not able to enjoy our deck right now 4 because we have the western sun. It is 5 tremendously hot out there. I have three 6 kids and two of them are allergic to 7 mosquito bites and every time we are out 8 there from here to the wetlands the kids are 9 just getting attacked and I have swollen up 10 kids all the time. So, we wanted to add 11 this. 12 All I'm doing is enclosing my existing 13 deck. I am not building a new -- I am not 14 adding onto it at all to my existing deck. 15 And we want to enclose it so that we can get 16 the fresh air and enjoy the outdoors a 17 little bit better and not get sunburned and 18 eaten up. 19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. This is 20 a public hearing. Is there anyone in the 21 audience who cares to address the ZBA in 22 this case? Seeing none, we'll close the 23 public hearing. 24 Are there any correspondence?
30 1 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Yes, Mr. 2 Chair. In this case there were 30 notices 3 with one approval and zero objections. 4 Said approval comes from Christine 5 Stricker (ph) of 24135 Wintergreen Circle 6 with no comments. 7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. 8 Comments from the City or Counsel? 9 MS. KUDLA: No. 10 MR. FOX: If it please, the Chair. 11 Just a little clarification. It's an 12 existing deck that she already has here that 13 does meet the City's Ordinance requirements 14 as it stands. By enclosing the deck it 15 makes it an encroachment issue in this case. 16 But the existing deck is not encroaching for 17 the same reasons. It wasn't already an 18 issue before this. It's only because of the 19 enclosure that it's becoming an issue. 20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Member 21 Fischer? 22 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Given the fact 23 once again that it is an existing deck, it 24 is no more intrusive than -- I feel it is no
31 1 more intrusive than the current structure. 2 To Mr. Canup's point, are you planning 3 on using somewhat of the same materials and 4 the same architecture? 5 MS. MASCARI: Absolutely. 6 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Then I would 7 be willing to make a motion that in Case 8 number: 07-078 filed by Marybeth Mascari 9 that we approve the Petitioner's request as 10 submitted as Petitioner has established 11 practical difficulty -- 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 13 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: -- and the 14 fact that she is doing substantial justice 15 to herself as well as other homeowners and 16 it's no more intrusive than the current 17 structure. 18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion on 19 the floor and an early second. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: (Unintelligible.) 21 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Might I add 22 once again Mr. Canup's concerns that the 23 structure and material be of similar nature 24 to the existing home. And would the
32 1 Seconder agree? 2 MS. KRIEGER: Yep. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a Motion by 4 Member Fischer and a second by Member 5 Krieger. 6 Any further discussion? Member Bauer? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Didn't you buy this 8 house for the mosquitos back there? 9 MS. MASCARI: I'm sorry? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Didn't you buy the 11 house for the mosquitos? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: The mosquitos came 13 with the house, right? 14 MS. MASCARI: They absolutely did. And 15 you know, it seems like they're getting 16 worse every year. I don't know why. Like I 17 said we love our sub and we love our home 18 and I think it's going to be a great 19 addition and it's going to be beautiful. 20 It's really going to be beautiful. It's not 21 going to be purple. 22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Well, with the 23 enclosure, hopefully you won't be feeding 24 the mosquitos anymore so maybe they won't
33 1 get any bigger. 2 MS. MASCARI: Right. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please call the 4 roll. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 6 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Aye. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 10 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 14 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 16 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 20 MS. MASCARI: Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. 22 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Good. We can 23 plan our April meeting at these two 24 addresses.
34 1 MS. MASCARI: Come by and see us when 2 it's done. Thank you. 3 4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Our next case 5 is Case number: 07-079 filed by Matt 6 Witkorowski of the City of Novi Parks and 7 Recreation Department for 5100 West Eight 8 Mile Road in the Sports Park. 9 The Applicant is requesting two 10 variances for the construction of an 11 accessory building to be located at the 12 Sports Park. They are requesting one 13 variance for the construction of a fourth 14 accessory building and one variance for the 15 strict application of the accessory use 16 requirement in a residential district which 17 states: The aggregate of all accessory 18 buildings on the property shall not exceed 19 1500 square feet in an R-A District. The 20 property is zoned R-A and is located east of 21 Napier and north of Eight Mile Road. 22 The Applicant has come forward. Did I 23 totally butcher your name or was I close? 24 MR. NEIMAN (ph): My name is Ed
35 1 Neiman. This is Matt. 2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Oh. Yeah, I think 3 I ruined your name. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: You are on a roll 5 aren't you? 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Exactly. Are you an 7 attorney, sir? 8 MR. NEIMAN: No, I am not. 9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please be sworn in 10 by our Secretary. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 12 to tell the truth regarding Case: 07-079? 13 MR. NEIMAN: Yes, sir. 14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please present your 15 case. 16 MR. NEIMAN: Okay. Thank you. As you 17 clearly stated this is approximately an 80 18 acre park. We are working with the Parks 19 and Rec Department in an effort to on the 20 Eight Mile site to place a facility just 21 large enough to meet the needs. The 22 variance as it clearly points is just 23 slightly over the square footage and because 24 it's a residential space, in fact, at the
36 1 Planning Commission it was cited that it was 2 more relevant to a residential requirement. 3 We believe it to be consistent with 4 the large expansive space that's out there. 5 The modest amount of square footage that it 6 does add to this location is still in 7 keeping with the character and materials of 8 the other facilities. 9 I can't tell you more. That's what it 10 is, ladies and gentlemen. 11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. As you 12 are putting it on the overhead, this is 13 public hearing. Is there anyone in the 14 audience who cares to address this regarding 15 this case? Seeing none, we'll close the 16 public hearing and ask the Vice-Chair if 17 there is any notices? 18 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: In this case
19 there were 20 notices mailed with zero 20 approvals and one objection. Constance 21 Zebon (ph) of 20991 Napier Road states that: 22 I live across the street from the back 23 entrance of the park and there is already 24 constant traffic for my family to enter our
37 1 driveway and I feel this will only increase 2 the traffic congestion to get into our 3 driveway and get home safely. 4 Furthermore, the size of the building 5 is excessive and will not be in balance with 6 the remainder of the buildings on site. 7 Reject the proposal and the fourth accessory 8 building on the property. 9 Please read these comments on my 10 behalf. 11 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. 13 MR. NEIMAN: If it please, as a 14 response. Matt from the Rec Department 15 is -- 16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We'll ask. Please 17 be patient. 18 Comments from the City or Counsel. 19 MS. KUDLA: From Counsel, I just 20 wanted to make sure that everyone received 21 Tom Schultz's letter and has had an 22 opportunity to review that and consider the 23 law that was set forward that your 24 discretion that this case would be withdrawn
38 1 from consideration and that the City is not 2 subject to the same regulations. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I believe we all 4 received it. Thank you. 5 Any comments from the City? 6 MR. FOX: None from us. 7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And we will turn it 8 over to the ZBA and I am sure somebody will 9 ask Mr. Neiman the question that he was 10 going to address. 11 Member Wrobel? 12 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 13 I familiar with this case from being on the 14 Planning Commission. I have no objections 15 to it. We as a Planning Commission obviously 16 approved it and sent it forward based on the 17 ZBA recommendations. Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Canup? 19 MEMBER CANUP: If I understood our 20 legal Counsel correctly, they really don't 21 have to be here? 22 MS. KUDLA: Correct. 23 MEMBER CANUP: What are you doing 24 here?
39 1 MR. NEIMAN: The wheels turn slow. We 2 are just doing what we were told. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I think it's good 4 policy for the City to follow the laws and 5 the guidance of these Ordinances, et cetera, 6 as well as the general public whether it's 7 required or not. So, I appreciate you being 8 here. 9 MEMBER CANUP: And I agree with you 10 that the City writes the Ordinances, they 11 should live by the Ordinances. Personally I 12 think that's a lousy law, nothing against 13 you. I don't think that it's good that you 14 write rules for other people and don't live 15 by it themselves. 16 MS. KUDLA: We just had to let you 17 know. 18 MEMBER CANUP: If there is no further 19 discussion on this I would be glad to make a 20 motion. However, I will withdraw that and 21 Mr. Sanghvi, I am sure has something has to 22 say. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just wanted to 24 point it out that this is a courtesy shown
40 1 by the City by coming to the Zoning Board of 2 Appeals asking for this request. They 3 didn't have to. And I want to thank them 4 for doing what they are doing. Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. 6 Sanghvi. I do want to ask a question if I 7 may. The use of the building is for what is 8 going to house? 9 MR. NEIMAN: I will attempt to answer 10 that and if I fail to answer that correctly 11 Matt will correct me from a fully 12 operational standpoint. Because of the 13 remoteness on-site, it was deemed important 14 to him in an operational benefit to keep 15 equipment, mowers and things right there at 16 that site so that they were not shuttling, 17 they were not transporting and spending all 18 that manpower time in preparation and set-up 19 effort. It's essentially that. It's not an 20 operational space. It's a support space in 21 which there may be some minor repairs done 22 there while they are there, but it's 23 essentially a storage space and it was 24 placed in a location so that we could
41 1 minimize cost to the City in terms of 2 expanding power to it. There are no toilet 3 facilities in it. It's strictly a drinking 4 fountain operation. (Unintelligible). 5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That was my 6 understanding as well. Is he correct in his 7 statements? And if you come forward we need 8 to swear you in as well. 9 MR. WITKOROWSKI: Matt Witkorowski, 10 City of Novi Parks and Recreations. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 12 to tell the truth regarding Case Number: 13 07-079? 14 MR. WITKOROWSKI: I do. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 16 MR. WITKOROWSKI: The building, its 17 main purpose is to eliminate the down time 18 that we spend traveling equipment back and 19 forth to Community Sports Park. We spend 20 anywhere from three to four hours a day 21 trailing our equipment back and forth to the 22 park, loading and unloading back at our 23 operations yard on (unintelligible). We 24 figured by having a site actually at the
42 1 park, staff could report directly at the 2 park and I guess jump on their duties, if 3 you may. 4 First thing in the morning and our 5 productivity would be greatly increased if 6 adding this facility. 7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So, in fact, the 8 traffic may decrease as opposed to being 9 increased which was the concern of the 10 person who wrote the letter of objection? 11 You are not going to be trucking in the 12 mowers every single day or whatever its 13 needed? 14 MR. WITKOROWSKI: We don't expect that 15 it would increase at all. 16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. 17 Member Fischer? 18 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: I remember 19 from when I used to have a job like that the 20 travel time was my favorite part of the job. 21 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 22 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Exactly. 23 Given kind of the case law that has been 24 referenced in our letter I would be willing
43 1 to make a motion that in Case Number: 2 07-079 filed by Matt Witkorowski of the City 3 of Novi Parks and Rec, we approve the 4 Petitioner's request given that the proposed 5 improvement in this case has been determined 6 by the City to be in the public's best 7 interest despite the fact of the 8 non-compliance with zoning regulations. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: While we have a 12 motion on the floor by Member Fischer. And 13 seconded by Member Sanghvi? 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Either of us. It 15 doesn't matter. 16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Open it up for 17 discussion. Member Krieger? 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Just a question or a 19 comment. I remember in the past something 20 in the newspaper about four wheelers that 21 were out there that were stolen or 22 vandalized or something. Is that in 23 response to that? 24 MR. WITKOROWSKI: In the past there
44 1 has been equipment that was taken from the 2 park. We had used freight crates which are 3 essentially semi trailers without wheels and 4 they were simply locked up with just a 5 master lock and the lock was just real 6 easily cut and there were some tractors 7 stolen from the park. That was before I 8 came here. I believe it was six or seven 9 years ago when that happened. 10 Security is of the utmost concern with 11 the construction of this facility and Mr. 12 Neiman has been made aware of that from the 13 beginning and we intend to have lighting 14 steel rollup doors and all kinds of security 15 measures in place to make sure that we can 16 eliminate this from happening again. 17 MR. NEIMAN: At least to deter. 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: For those reasons I 19 will support the motion. 20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. 21 Any further discussion? Please 22 call the roll. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 24 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Aye.
45
1 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 8 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 10 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 12 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you again, 15 gentleman, for coming forward. 16 17 Our next case is Case number: 18 07-080 filed by John Dionne and Patrick 19 Clark of Fairmont Sign Company for ACO 20 Hardware located at 41800 West Ten Mile 21 Road. 22 The Applicant is requesting one wall 23 sign variance for a 192 square foot 24 illuminated wall sign for the ACO Hardware
46 1 Store at said address. The property is 2 located north of Ten and West of Meadowbrook 3 and is zoned B-3. 4 Under our Ordinances Section 5 28-5(2)b.1.(a)(i)a. Area height and 6 placement regulations multiple business 7 states: A business having a first floor 8 pedestrian entrance shall be allowed one and 9 one-fourth square foot of signage per lineal 10 foot of contiguous public or private street 11 frontage up to a maximum of 65 square feet. 12 The Applicant has come forward. Are 13 you an attorney, sir? 14 MR. CLARK: Nope. 15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You had on a tie 16 and a suit, I thought you were. Please be 17 sworn in by our Secretary. 18 MEMBER BAUER: On Case: 07-080, do 19 you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the 20 truth? 21 MR. CLARK: I do. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: State your name and 24 address for the record.
47 1 MR. CLARK: My name is Pat Clark and I 2 work for Fairmont Sign Company in Detroit. 3 And with me here tonight is Dave Gronbach 4 (ph) with ACO. 5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Will he be speaking 6 as well? Perhaps? Come forward and be 7 sworn in as well. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 9 to tell the truth regarding Case: 07-080? 10 MR. GRONBACH: I do. 11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please state your 12 case. 13 MR. CLARK: Well, essentially it's a 14 very very similar situation to the night I 15 was here in 1984 before this same Board, not 16 the same people, but the same Board. 17 MEMBER BAUER: I was here then. 18 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 19 MR. CLARK: But in 1984 we requested 20 permission to put a reasonable sized sign on 21 the wall of this retail building. The 22 situation hasn't really changed. What's 23 changed is that ACO wishes to do a little 24 remodeling and upgrading and change the sign
48 1 from one to another. But we're asking for 2 nothing larger, the same size that was 3 approved then. 4 The reason why we want something 5 larger than is otherwise allowed by Code is 6 due to the setback of the building from the 7 road and the difficulty of viewing something 8 that would be constrained to the whole 9 square footage. I can speak to the 10 technical details to the sign, but Mr. 11 Gronbach wants to make a couple of comments 12 to (unintelligible) business. 13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. 14 MR. GRONBACH: Well, as Pat indicated 15 we would like to upgrade our image here at 16 the shopping center. We have been 17 remodeling the store interior. If you 18 recall about six months ago we did get 19 approval from the Commission here to build 20 an outdoor display seasonal area, but before 21 it's built we have to get through the 22 approval process with the Building 23 Department. And we hope to have that 24 finished soon.
49 1 And as part of this we would like to 2 put new signage on the storefront. We did 3 just update the pylon sign with matching 4 signage. That we were able to just do 5 through normal permit process. It didn't 6 require a ZBA. I think as Pat has indicated 7 we would just like to replace it with the 8 same size sign that we have 9 (unintelligible). We do feel that the size 10 that we have there is appropriate. This is 11 a standard size sign that we use. We have 12 one that has already been built. We just 13 like to proceed to use it. We think it will 14 improve the looks of the storefront, upgrade 15 it, update it, make it look more modern. 16 This sign has been here for 23 years. As I 17 said we are just trying to upgrade the whole 18 image and the whole store itself. 19 If you have any questions I would be 20 happy to answer them. 21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. This a 22 public hearing. Is there anyone in the
23 audience who cares to address the Board on 24 this matter? Then we will close the public
50 1 hearing. 2 Is there any correspondence? 3 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Yes, Mr. 4 Chair. In this case there were seven notices 5 mailed and somehow we ended up getting 16 6 approvals on those seven notices. 7 MS. WORKING: (Unintelligible). 8 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: So, if I may 9 indulge the Board. The vice-president of 10 the real estate, David Gronbach from ACO 11 Hardware sent in an approval. Fantastic 12 Sams. There is a form letter. I am going 13 to read the letter and then I'll read 14 through who did that. 15 As part of the ACO Hardware plan to 16 remodel their store they would like install 17 a new sign and we support the efforts to 18 update their store and install new signage 19 on their storefront. 20 The Fantastic Sams at 41698 West Ten 21 Mile. Dominos Pizza, the same complex. 22 Cartridge World, Nome (ph) Nail, Happy 23 Sushi, Meadowbrook Vet Clinic, Dollar 24 Season, Subway, Rite Aid Store 4534, Pete
51 1 Gullis (ph) of Honey Tree, Patti's Hallmark, 2 Meadowbrook Cleaner, Pet Supplies Plus, 3 Maria's Italian Bakery and Nevin 4 Pchauouchara, DMD, PC, 5 P-C-H-A-O-U-C-H-A-R-A, is the last name. 6 Service Centers Corporation and Willie 7 Downer, the assistant manager there also 8 submitted the same letter. Thank you, Mr. 9 Chair. 10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Any 11 comments from the City or Counsel? 12 MS. KUDLA: No. 13 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. 15 I'll turn it over to the Board for 16 comment. Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: I go by this at least a 18 couple times a day. I think the overall 19 square footage has gone down, has it not? 20 MR. AMOLSCH: That's correct. The 21 original sign was about 32 feet by seven 22 feet due to the peak of the ACO, so some 224 23 square feet. 24 MEMBER BAUER: This is nicer. And I
52 1 will go ahead and okay it. 2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Fischer? 3 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: As much as I 4 get chastised by the Board for doing this, 5 I'll just remind them back in 1984 I was 6 about one years old. So I wasn't on the 7 Board at the time. 8 MEMBER BAUER: You keep talking. 9 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: True, true. I 10 totally echo the comments of Member Bauer. 11 I think it's a great addition. I think it's 12 a nicer looking sign. It's a much needed 13 improvement and I wish you the best of luck 14 given your setback from both Ten Mile and 15 Meadowbrook Road I feel it's needed. 16 And, therefore, I'll make a motion if 17 there is no further discussion that in Case 18 number: 07-080 filed by John Dionne and 19 Patrick Clark of Fairmont Sign that we 20 approve the Petitioner's request given the 21 setback from stated roads for business 22 identification. And the fact that the sign 23 that currently exist has not posed a problem 24 in the last 20 sum odd years, 23, 24 years.
53 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, we have a 3 motion on the floor by Member Fischer. 4 Seconded by Member Bauer. Any further 5 discussion? 6 I would like to make a comment or two. 7 My wife constantly jokes because whenever 8 I'm in ACO people ask me where things are 9 because I'm there so much. But now that you 10 have remodeled the inside, where are the 11 deck screws? What aisle are they in? I 12 cannot find them. Just joking. 13 I obviously will support this. It's a 14 very nice looking sign. I am thrilled that 15 they are fixing up the entire center. I see 16 that the outside has been painted. I am 17 looking forward hopefully down the road that 18 they do something with the rear. Especially 19 the portion behind that backs up to the road 20 that people can see. It has nothing to do 21 with your case this evening. I just had to 22 say that. 23 So, any other comments? Member 24 Sanghvi?
54 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: I would be very sorry 2 to see the hammer and the paint brush go 3 away. It was quite a nostalgic sign for all 4 of us living around here for a long time. I 5 always wonder like (unintelligible) come 6 back with the peanut, but that's another 7 story. Anyway, I have no problem and wish 8 you all the best. Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Robin, please call 10 the roll. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 12 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Aye. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Aye. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 16 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
55 1 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 2 MR. CLARK: Thank you very much. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. 4 5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Next 6 case, Case number: 07-082 filed by John 7 Carroll of Araneae, Incorporated for Inkstop 8 located at 43350 Grand River Avenue. The 9 Applicant is requesting one wall sign 10 variance for the proposed Inkstop store. 11 Inkstop store, say that fast three times. 12 Inkstop store to be located at said address 13 in the Novi Town Center out lot Building 2. 14 The Applicant is requesting a 17.51 square 15 foot illuminated rear elevation wall sign to 16 the south elevation of the building. It's 17 zoned TC and located north of Grand River 18 and east of Novi Road. 19 Our City Ordinances Section 28-5(3)f 20 states the number of on premises advertising 21 signs permitted states: Where two or more 22 separately owned and operated businesses 23 occupy a building on a single parcel of 24 land, each having separate exterior
56 1 entrance, each business is entitled to a 2 single identification wall sign. 3 The Applicant has come forward. Are 4 you Mr. Carroll? 5 MR. CARROLL: Yes, I am. 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And you not an 7 attorney, correct? 8 MR. CARROLL: I'm not. I'm not wearing 9 a tie. 10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please be sworn in 11 by our Secretary. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand. 13 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth 14 regarding Case: 07-082? 15 MR. CARROLL: I do. 16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please state your 17 name and give us an address for the record 18 and present your case. 19 MR. CARROLL: John Carroll of Araneae 20 Sign, Wixom, Michigan. 21 The same story you have heard for the 22 last four tenants in my building. They want 23 exposure on Grand River. This tenant is 24 asking for less square footage than they are
57 1 allowed on the front side (unintelligible). 2 That's it. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's one of the 4 shortest presentations I have heard. 5 MR. CARROLL: You have heard the story 6 three times. 7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: This is a public 8 hearing. Is there anyone in the audience 9 who cares to address the Board on this 10 matter? Seeing none, we'll close the public 11 hearing and ask if there is any 12 correspondence? 13 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Yes, Mr. 14 Chair, in this case there were 85 notices 15 mailed with one approval and zero 16 objections. 17 The approval comes from Carol and 18 Donald Tuck, 4313 Grand River, Novi, 19 Michigan: Have no objection to the wall 20 sign variance. Welcome to the neighborhood. 21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. 22 Comments from the City or staff or Counsel? 23 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, sir. 24 MS. KUDLA: No.
58 1 MR. FOX: No. 2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I'll turn it over 3 to the Board for comment. Member Canup? 4 MEMBER CANUP: I think the size of the 5 sign is within reasonableness and we have 6 been through this twice this evening 7 already. 8 And I don't see why we shouldn't be 9 able to make a motion that in this 10 particular case: 07-082 that we grant the 11 variance as requested due to a lack of 12 signage on the south elevation and given the 13 visibility from the Grand River is poor. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. We have 16 a motion by Member Canup and a second by 17 Member Bauer. 18 Further discussion? Seeing none, 19 please call the roll. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 21 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 23 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?
59 1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 5 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 7 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Aye. 8 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 11 MR. CARROLL: Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. 13 14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Moving on. Case 15 number: 07-083 filed by Singh Homes 16 Building Company, LLC, for 41336 Clermont 17 Avenue in Willowbrook Farm Subdivision 18 Number 3. 19 The Applicant is requesting a 20 Temporary Special Exception Permit renewal 21 for placement of a temporary construction 22 trailer to be located at 41336 Clermont lot 23 #103 in the Willowbrook Farms Subdivision 24 from November 6, 2007 through November 6,
60 1 2009. The property is zoned R-4 and located 2 east of Meadowbrook and north of Ten Mile. 3 Our Ordinance Section 3004(3), 4 Temporary Special Exception Permits states: 5 The Building Official or his designee, shall 6 have the power to grant permits authorizing 7 temporary special land uses for temporary 8 building not to exceed two years in 9 undeveloped sections of the City. 10 Member Wrobel? 11 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 12 I currently serve as president of the 13 Willowbrook Homeowners Association so I need 14 to recuse myself from this matter. 15 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Motion to 16 approve recusal of Member Wrobel. 17 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion 19 and a second. Any further discussion from 20 the Board? 21 Can we do this with an aye vote or do 22 we have to do roll call? 23 MS. KUDLA: You can do it with an aye 24 vote.
61 1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All in favor of the 2 recusal please indicate by stating aye? 3 Opposed same sign? 4 You are recused. 5 MEMBER WROBEL: Thank you very much. 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: But have you to 7 come back after this case. 8 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: The Applicant has 10 come forward. If you are not an attorney 11 please be sworn in by our Secretary. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 13 to tell the truth regarding Case: 07-083? 14 MR. MILLS: I do. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: State your name and 17 address and present your case. 18 MR. MILLS: Anthony Mills. I live in 19 Novi, Michigan. 20 We are trying to keep the trailer in 21 the location it is. It's set up ready for 22 actually myself to work out of. We use that 23 for meetings, storage and hopefully we will 24 be able to store some more things there so
62 1 we can build some more houses here in Novi. 2 And that is it. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Do you have a copy 4 of the map showing the location? 5 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, we have some 6 pictures that he can put on the overhead. 7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That would be good. 8 There is a public hearing. Is there anyone 9 in the audience who cares to address the 10 Board on this matter? Please come forward. 11 I will ask you to be sworn in as well 12 and state your name and address for the 13 record. 14 MR. SHAHEEN (ph): My name is Edmond 15 Shaheen. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm 17 to tell the truth regarding case: 07-083? 18 MR. SHAHEEN: Yes, I do. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 20 MR. SHAHEEN: My name is Edmond 21 Shaheen. I live in the Willowbrook Farm 22 Subdivision. There is quite a few letters 23 that actually have to be read. Or do I talk 24 now?
63 1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: If you care to 2 speak you can go ahead and then we will 3 enter everything into the record afterwards. 4 MR. SHAHEEN: Okay. 5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: After everyone 6 speaks I'll close the public hearing. 7 MR. SHAHEEN: Okay. The big thing I 8 am looking at here is I have been in 9 Willowbrook Farm since the beginning. I was 10 in Phase 1 and I think all of us know when 11 you are in Novi going through a new 12 construction when you are in the first phase 13 you get to have the trailer and it 14 eventually moves on to each one. And there 15 really is no construction going on in Phase 16 3. It's only about five lots left. Ninety 17 percent completely. Whereas Phase 4 has 18 nearly 15 lots out of the 30 or 25 that are 19 there. I don't see any reason why -- the 20 other thing is we don't want construction 21 traffic going. 22 I have a picture here of the location. 23 If we can show it here. I got a better one 24 here.
64 1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You are getting 2 some help here. 3 MR. SHAHEEN: The trailer is sitting 4 right up here. This is the entrance to 5 Phase 3. Phase 4 is way over here. I can't 6 understand why you would want to put your 7 construction trailer here. We don't want 8 any traffic coming through the subdivision. 9 We have small children in there and it's not 10 safe. And they may say, gee, we'll take 11 Meadowbrook to Ten Mile Road to get to the 12 construction of Phrase 4. The reality is 13 construction traffic goes through our 14 subdivision and we don't want that there at 15 all. 16 We think it would be more convenient 17 for Singh to put the trailer where all the 18 construction is going on. It's more 19 convenient. It's where the buildings are. 20 They are building in Phase 4. In Phase 3 I 21 don't think they have built in the past 22 year. We received no closing development in 23 Phase 4. So, again, it doesn't make any 24 sense to have the trailer located in Phase
65 1 3. 2 In fact, their trailer has already 3 expired. They should have moved this thing 4 a while ago. We just brought it to the 5 attention of the City of Novi and that's 6 when it started this process right here. 7 I would also move that I don't want to 8 see them have a two year extension. I think 9 a one more renewal is much more fair to see 10 how the construction is going along. The 11 big thing is I don't want to see 12 construction traffic in our subdivision. 13 It's pretty much filled. We only have about 14 five lots left and I don't see a reason for 15 Singh to have that trailer. 16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Anyone 17 else care to speak? Please come forward and 18 be sworn in by our Secretary. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand 20 please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the 21 truth regarding Case: 07-083? 22 MR. ANTHONY: I do. 23 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please state your
66 1 name and address and present your case. 2 MR. ANTHONY: Tony Anthony. My 3 address is 41235 Clermont Avenue. I live 4 just a few blocks down from the trailer. I 5 am going to put this back up here so that we 6 can took a look at this as well. 7 As Edmond pointed out the construction 8 trailer is located in Phase 3. During the 9 last year no further construction has been 10 conducted in Phase 3. In fact, there has 11 really been no marketing effort for Singh to 12 finish completing the vacant lots. 13 An example is if you go onto their 14 home page and you look up Willowbrook Farms 15 you will see that the only homes that they 16 show for selection are homes approved for 17 Phase 4, and not allowed in Phase 3. 18 Part of my objection here is that it's 19 caused a cash flow crunch for the 20 association. Our budget is based on that 21 completely built out. Singh only is 22 required to build 75 percent of the lots and 23 then the association takes over the costs of 24 maintenance of the common ground. It's put
67 1 a strain on us and yet there is no effort or 2 consistent effort by them selling anything 3 in Phase 3. 4 Now, during their occupancy in Phase 3 5 let's take a look at this trailer a little 6 bit. You can see roughly right here there is 7 a power line that comes in with some 8 temporary wood bracing that holds that up. 9 That temporary wood bracing is two years. 10 And I am not sure what the definition of 11 temporary is. 12 So, now, if we take a closer look at 13 this temporary bracing, this is a black and 14 white photo here, you can see that if you 15 stand underneath this. I am a short person 16 and I can touch that. That also comes down 17 at this post here down to a transformer that 18 you can see roughly here the electrical 19 meter here, transformer here. Any children 20 in that area can touch the connection. 21 Currently it isn't connected, but it is 22 there and accessible by children. 23 Also if we go back to the trailer you 24 will see that the cable comes down to the
68 1 ground, and it enters the trailer through 2 the back of the ground. This is negligent. 3 This puts a risk to the number of children 4 that are there. Also, right now when you 5 look at this, it looks clean. However, 6 during the last year or two years that I 7 have been there the construction material 8 has been spread out across that vacant lot 9 and it has only recently been tucked in 10 behind the trailer so that you cannot see 11 it. 12 Now, I agree that the trailer, if we 13 look back at this, should be moved to Phase 14 4, not only because that's the majority of 15 the construction, but that the vacant lots 16 that are available are in this area of the 17 trailer. The trailer, the power line and 18 its presentation makes those lots appear 19 undesirable. To finish Phase 3 you have to 20 pull that trailer out. 21 Now, again, I also asked for only one 22 year maximum permit for Singh moving it over 23 to Phase 4, but there have to be other 24 requirements. You can't even move into
69 1 Phase 4 and run a power line in the same 2 manner that they have. That is still a 3 risk. We have many children in that 4 neighborhood as well as the neighborhood 5 next to ours as well. 6 Also, the advantage in 7 moving that for the citizens there is now it 8 will make those other lots marketable which 9 once sold will help out the association in 10 affording their common grounds as well. 11 Any questions? 12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. We will 13 call you forward if we have further 14 questions. Thank you. 15 Anyone else in the audience who care 16 to come forward? Seeing none, we'll close 17 the public hearing. 18 We will ask, before go into 19 correspondence we'll ask the Applicant if he 20 cares to respond to either one of those or 21 would you care to wait until after the 22 letters are read? 23 MR. MILLS: I just want to say that 24 the main purpose for us there obviously is
70 1 to build homes. A comment of not -- we want 2 to build homes there. We want to sell the 3 homes. We want to sell the homes in Phase 3 4 as in 4. 5 As far as the presentation of the lot, 6 we have tried to take care of that, bring 7 that back to standards of where it's not an 8 eye sore. And I have been personally 9 brought over to Willowbrook and I have tried 10 to do so. I am sure there could be more 11 improvements, but this is something that we 12 have tried to maintain. Bring this back. 13 Make it look livable. These kinds of 14 things. 15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Turning 16 to the Vice-Chair for correspondence. 17 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Yes, Mr. 18 Chair. In this case there were 16 notices 19 mailed with zero approvals and 24 20 objections. I don't know what Robin did 21 this time, but we keep getting more than the 22 notices mailed. So, if the Board will bear 23 with me. 24 From the Willowbrook Farm Homeowners
71 1 Association. This letter is written in 2 regards to Singh Home Building Company's 3 request for a temporary special exception 4 permit for the continued placement of a 5 temporary construction trailer through 6 November 5th, 2009. The Homeowners 7 Association strongly objects to this request 8 for the following reasons. 9 Number one, the current trailer, 10 trailer center is poorly maintained and 11 detracts from the appearance of the Phase 3 12 entrance. 13 Number two, there are only five 14 unbuilt lots out of a total of 51 in Phase 15 3. Based upon these figures Phase 3 is 90 16 percent built and homeowner occupied. Singh 17 Homes in its October 5th, 2007 letter to the 18 City of Novi, claims there are six lots. 19 This is incorrect. The sixth lot is not 20 undeveloped. It was a former model home. 21 In addition, there has been no 22 construction activity in the Phase 3 for 23 over one year, hence, no need for a 24 continued construction trailer. As a side
72 1 note, Singh has moved its sales office 2 completely out of Willowbrook Farm and 3 relocated it to the Churchill Crossing 4 Subdivision. 5 Number three, all current construction 6 activity is only taking place in Phase 4. 7 Phase 4 consist of 25 lots and currently of 8 these 25 only 10 have been completely built 9 and our owner occupied. The remaining 15 10 lots are either undeveloped or in the 11 process of being built. These 15 lots 12 represent the 60 percent total in Phase 4 13 lots. It is the opinion of this Association 14 that the construction trailer should be 15 located in Phrase 4 where current 16 construction is taking place. 17 Singh Homes in its October 5, 2007 18 letter to the City claims there are only 11 19 lots remaining in Phase 4. Their number 20 includes all lots that have been sold. It 21 does not take into consideration the four 22 lots that are in the various stages of being 23 built. 24 Number four, since all construction is
73 1 only taking place in Phase 4, the 2 construction trailer remaining in its 3 current location in Phase 3 would create 4 additional unnecessary construction traffic 5 through the owner occupied section of the 6 subdivision. 7 This additional traffic creates an 8 undue safety hazard for the current 9 residents, many of whom have small young 10 children who play outside. Additionally the 11 existing trailer location is over one half 12 mile away from Phase 4. 13 Number five, Singh Homes in its 14 October 5, 2007, letter to the City also 15 states: "Trailers are usually best situated 16 near entrance locations as to draw attention 17 to the project. And if one was placed in 18 this location in Phase 4, it would be right 19 in the middle of existing homes." We 20 question this logic, even if this is true, 21 Singh Homes could place this trailer in 22 Phase 4 on Lot 162. Lot 162 was the first 23 lot on the east side of Amanda Lane just 24 north of Ten Mile Road entrance to Phase 4.
74 1 It should also be noted that Singh 2 Homes currently has a large sign at both the 3 Phase 3 and Phase 4 entrances. In an effort 4 to create a win-win situation for both 5 Willowbrook Farm homeowners and Singh Homes, 6 we the association have no objection to 7 Singh Homes placing and maintaining 8 construction trailer on an undeveloped lot 9 in Phase 4 for a period of no more than one 10 year. We once again strongly object to the 11 construction trailer remaining in its 12 current location and we urge the Zoning 13 Board to consider our concerns and not 14 approve said variance request. 15 An objection from Christopher and Anew 16 Huang, H-U-A-N-G, of 41154 Clermont Avenue: 17 Please do not renew the permit to allow 18 Singh Homes continued placement of their 19 trailer. It has been sitting there without 20 much construction and there are more empty 21 lots in Phase 4. 22 Debbie Waterstratt (ph) of 24578 Acre 23 Court has a strong objection. Once again 24 citing: No current construction activity.
75 1 The trailer site is not being maintained. 2 Never activity at the trailer. As a current 3 resident I must look at it every day. 4 From G-A-S-S-A-N and Rita Batwo, 5 B-A-T-W-O, of 41082 Clermont. Please note 6 my objection for the continued placement of 7 the trailer. 8 Edmond Shaheen of 24487 Bethany Way 9 also objects citing: The number of lots 10 left in Phase 3 as well as the hazard of 11 traffic on the young children in the 12 subdivision. Also, if anything is 13 entertained it should be a one year 14 exception. 15 Rick Bloomfield of 41111 Scarborough 16 Lane objecting citing the fact that: There 17 has not been much activity as far as 18 construction and it also detracts from the 19 overall appearance of the subdivision and 20 aesthetics. 21 I cannot read the names, but it's 22 40965 Scarborough Lane citing an objection 23 based on the stoppage of construction and 24 the low number of lots to be built left.
76 1 Jane and Peters Alders of 24567 2 Bethany Way also objects: The trailer 3 detracts from the appearance and aesthetics 4 and there is only five undeveloped lots. 5 Matt Birch of 24447 Bethany has an 6 objection. Five years is long enough. 7 Please remove the trailer from the entrance 8 vehicle. 9 Mark Micale, M-I-C-A-L-E, at, it has a 10 work address of 3601 West Thirteen Mile 11 states that: There is a complete objection 12 to the continued use of the trailer. There 13 are only a few lots left in the phase. 14 Debbie and David Piesc, P-I-E-S-C, of 15 41261 Scarborough Lane strongly objects 16 based on the aesthetics of the entrance and 17 ask the lot that it be moved to phase 4. 18 Georgio Domini, it looks like, 19 D-O-M-I-N-I, of 41300 Clermont request that 20 the trailer be moved to Phase 4. 21 Rajesh and Sereta Verma, V-E-R-M-A, of 22 24607 Bethany Way object. 23 David Chang of 24627 Bethany Way 24 object. Stating that: They're not using
77 1 it, the trailer and that there is a sign on 2 the Singh's sales billboard and directs the 3 traffic at Churchill Crossing at Ten Mile 4 and Novi Road. 5 Vic Ronsing (ph) of 24951 Bloomfield 6 objects. 7 There is a conditional approval from 8 Terrance Nowack of 41169 Scarborough Lane 9 states: That the trailer is not visually 10 appealing and removing the unit may not 11 improve the appearance of the site. 12 Moving the unit shall be at the 13 expense of Singh. If Singh were to pay all 14 entrance maintenance cost for two years this 15 person would not object to keeping it in 16 place. 17 Jeff Hawking (ph) of 24710 Bethany Way 18 has an objection citing aesthetic reasons. 19 Jeffrey Lamb of 24510 Bethany Way 20 states an objection saying that it should be 21 moved to Phase 4 and states traffic concerns 22 of potential buyers as well construction. 23 Chung Fu and Zay Zang of 24557 Ackert 24 object.
78 1 Randy Block of 41252 Clermont objects. 2 It's illegible. 3 Erin Connor of 41166 Clermont objects. 4 And Reverend Timothy P. Helbow (ph) of 5 41240 Clermont states: That we moved to 6 Novi due to the upscale neighborhoods and 7 excellent schools and feels that this is an 8 eye sore and it detracts from the appearance 9 and aesthetics of the phase. 10 And also states the concern about the 11 five lots that are currently undeveloped and 12 they hope that Singh would understand this 13 and also take the time to look at the 14 undeveloped lots in Phase 3. 15 Tony Anthony of 41235 Clermont 16 strongly objects for the five or six same 17 reasons as the Homeowners Association 18 relayed in a letter. 19 Virgil Lewis of 31313 Northwestern 20 Highway states an objection to the request. 21 And that appears to be the summary of 22 the letters and they are all on file for 23 anyone's further review. Thank you, Mr. 24 Chair.
79 1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. They 2 will be entered into the record. 3 Is there any comments from the City or 4 Counsel? No? I will turn it over to the 5 Board. 6 Member Canup? 7 MEMBER CANUP: I think it's quite 8 obvious that there is a problem here. And I 9 see more than just a problem with moving it. 10 We really can't move that or grant them a 11 variance on a different lot than what has 12 been asked for. So, I think -- do we have a 13 general feeling from the Board that we are 14 not going to allow this? 15 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, if I may. 16 The Petitioner might consider a 17 re-application to the Community Development 18 Department for a Temporary Special Exception 19 Permit for the trailer to be located in 20 Phase 4. 21 Those permits are now reviewed 22 administratively and they are covered by the 23 Temporary Special Exception Section of the 24 Zoning Ordinance for up to two years and can
80 1 be renewed by the same Ordinance. 2 The Petitioner in this case wanted the 3 trailer to be located in the current 4 location and extend the already expired 5 Temporary Special Exception Permit. 6 MEMBER CANUP: I am not going leave 7 the trailer, I am not going to vote to leave 8 that there. So, you know, if we want to 9 vote on it and turn it down? That would be 10 my note and it's up to the consensus of the 11 Board. I think with everything that has 12 been said, letters that have been read and 13 the condition of the trailer, the problem 14 with the electrical line hanging down like 15 it is, apparently it's a code violation, I 16 would suspect. 17 And, also, it would just make sense 18 for it to not be there. And there's plenty 19 of room in their Phase 4 to put that and 20 make it an eye sore for kind of in the back 21 in the corner where everybody that drives 22 off Willowbrook Road doesn't have to look at 23 it. That would be my comments. 24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: To the City. If it
81 1 was to be denied, the Applicant will have to 2 come back and file a new application for a 3 temporary permit to be located in different 4 location? 5 MS. WORKING: That's correct. 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: But under this new 7 guideline you're indicating that there would 8 be no new application filed? That could be 9 resolved with Singh maybe? No, it cannot 10 be? 11 MS. WORKING: Is your mike on, Mr. 12 Chair? 13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: No, it wasn't. 14 Thank you. 15 MS. WORKING: The Petitioner chose to 16 go before the Zoning Board for a renewal of 17 an existing permit that had exhausted the 18 time frame allowed by the Zoning Ordinance 19 as it's written. The Petitioner could chose 20 to file a new application for a new 21 Temporary Special Exception Permit for the 22 trailer to be located in Phase 4, I am just 23 going to use that as a recommendation and 24 suggestion based on what you have heard
82 1 tonight. And that would be looked at by the 2 Building Division and either approved or 3 denied based on what the Petitioners submit 4 for their application from the Temporary 5 Special Exception Permit. 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It would not have 7 to come back in front of the Board?
8 MS. WORKING: That is correct. 9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Further comments? 10 Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. So, what 12 is the time frame for the new possible 13 permit for them to move this trailer out 14 from here to Phase 4? 15 MS. WORKING: I can read to you from 16 the Ordinance if you would like specifically 17 what it stipulates. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: I am just trying to 19 figure out is it three months or six months 20 or how long? 21 MS. WORKING: It depends on the phase 22 of the development of the community. The 23 Temporary Special Exception Permit for 24 construction trailers can be approved for up
83 1 to two years and it would be, like I said, 2 probably require site visits by someone in 3 the Building Division and then input from 4 the Petitioner as to the location and what 5 their plans are for use there. I think I 6 heard them say this evening for storage and 7 to hold meetings. 8 There are criterion that the Building 9 Division will look at for maintenance of the 10 trailer and for it to be reviewed 11 periodically. We have Ordinance officers to 12 monitor that. In part the residents helps 13 the Ordinance officer brings it to our 14 attention and the Applicant came forward to 15 review this current permit which is why you 16 here this evening. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Has the City any 18 problem as far as the safety aspect of those 19 cables and everything? Have we done 20 anything about it? 21 MS. WORKING: Our Ordinance officer 22 said she would defer to the Board and their 23 decision on this case after she referred it 24 to me. As you will note your packet that
84 1 the Petitioner is in violation of renewing 2 this permit in a timely manner. 3 She indicated to me that she would 4 defer to what your decision is on this 5 petition as it exist for renewal for the 6 current permit. 7 Now, safety issues would be 8 re-reviewed in a new application should it 9 be before the Board for another renewal 10 somehow or if it were just for a straight 11 Temporary Special Exception Permit. Safety 12 would be a number one priority, you know, 13 egress -- 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: As far as I'm 15 concerned if they don't fix the safety 16 within two weeks they get the whole thing 17 out of there because safety is the primary 18 concern. If there are electrical cables 19 that are most likely to electrocute somebody 20 it's a no no in my book. It's not 21 acceptable under any circumstances. That's 22 number one. So, we should have a time limit 23 and give them a good two weeks to fix it or 24 ship it or ship out.
85 1 Number two, if they are applying for 2 this new site, they want to put in Phase 4, 3 go ahead and do it and then they can have a 4 permit to keep the -- once they have fixed 5 the safety hazards, they can stay in there 6 provided they have applied for and obtained 7 (unintelligible). 8 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi, I would 9 have to defer to Mr. Amolsch. I am not one 10 hundred percent certain, but it might be 11 required since this current trailer is in 12 violation, that it would need to be removed 13 prior to a new permit being approved for a 14 Temporary Special Exception Permit 15 application for Phase 4. 16 Is that correct, Mr. Amolsch? 17 MR. AMOLSCH: I told you it was 18 (unintelligible). 19 MS. WORKING: Okay. I would have to 20 verify with the Ordinance officer who wrote 21 the violation whether or not that is true or 22 not. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It appears to me
86 1 this evening we would be looking at either 2 denying the request or approving the request 3 and then if the Applicant chooses to come 4 forth, then you can pursue that Ordinance, 5 then that would be their choice. 6 Member Fischer? 7 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: If the 8 Applicant pursues Phase 4 per administrative 9 review through the City and is rejected, 10 that Phase 4 one would then come before the 11 Board, correct? 12 MS. WORKING: I believe they would 13 have the option to appeal to the Board. 14 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Should the 15 City then deny them Phase 4, I'm trying to 16 keep the scope on what we are looking at. 17 MS. WORKING: I believe, and I could 18 be overstating this, but the appeal would be 19 the decision that was made, so it would be 20 an interpretation appeal, I believe. I 21 would defer to counsel on that. 22 MS. KUDLA: On Phase 4, if they were 23 denied direct administrative review? 24 MS. WORKING: Yes.
87 1 MS. KUDLA: It would be an 2 interpretation appeal which you have seen 3 here before. 4 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: I am sticking 5 in on the scope of what we are looking at 6 tonight. And in my eyes we have a trailer 7 in Phase 3. There are five undeveloped 8 lots. There are 51 that are there. It's 9 time for the trailer to come out. It's been 10 there long enough. The Building official 11 has granted permission long enough and it 12 now comes to the Zoning Board. And it's our 13 decision. And when things are to this level 14 of occupancy, it is kind of standard that 15 there really no logic for it to be here 16 anymore. 17 I am sure that they can choose to 18 pursue Phase 4 and I will leave that 19 decision to the City and should it come back 20 here then we can review Phase 4. But at 21 this time I am looking at Phase 3 and the 22 burden of the proof is on the Petitioner to 23 show that they needed to be in Phase 3 and I 24 have not seen that evidence tonight. And
88 1 for that reason I would support a motion to 2 deny. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Krieger? 4 And then we will go to Member Canup. 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree. Our focus 6 would be in this thing, but to take it out 7 of proportion for a moment. It shows on an 8 election night, here is why homeowners do 9 not like developers because developers start 10 something and then walk away and leave 11 people to handle the diaster and here we 12 are. 13 And then to narrow it down again, I 14 agree, it would be not -- considering there 15 is an electrical safety hazard and they're 16 past due, that this temporary trailer in 17 this area is complete so the trailer needs 18 to go. And that they can resubmit to the 19 City regarding relocating it to area 4, 20 Phase 4. And that also only a one year 21 extension (unintelligible). 22 And that whoever needs to review how 23 the cables are, the fire marshall or 24 whoever, that is monitored closely as well.
89 1 So I also would deny a motion for this 2 case. Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Canup? 4 MEMBER CANUP: It sounds like 5 everybody is in agreement that something has 6 to change here and I think the only way to 7 do that is to go ahead and make a motion. 8 I would make a motion in the case 9 filed by Singh Homes in Willowbrook Farms 10 that we deny the request as stated due to 11 the fact of the homeowners in the area 12 voicing their opinions. And that the fact 13 that the site is lacking three homes of 14 being totally built out. And also, there 15 has been poor maintenance and it's an eye 16 sore in the community. 17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I believe it was 18 five homes. 19 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 20 MEMBER CANUP: Whatever the number 21 happens to be. 22 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: 23 (Unintelligible). 24 MEMBER CANUP: A large percentage of
90 1 build up. 2 MEMBER BAUER: Second. But I have to 3 add to that. That is for safety reasons 4 (unintelligible) haphazardly. 5 MEMBER CANUP: I accept that. 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I believe we have a 7 comment from the attorney. 8 MS. KUDLA: Just as far as the 9 standards go. Maybe you could clarify 10 whether or not they have established a 11 practical difficulty and whether or not 12 there is a reasonable alternative given that 13 there is Phase 4 to consider. Those would 14 be two filings that maybe should be a little 15 bit more clarified on the record. 16 MEMBER CANUP: We said that. 17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That they have not 18 established (unintelligible). 19 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: You might 20 enter my comments given that the Petitioner 21 has not met their burden of proof, that 22 being a practical difficulty. The fact that 23 as you stated they're close enough to build 24 out and they have not pursued any
91 1 alternatives which have been suggested and 2 have not been explained to the Board why 3 those alternatives will not work. 4 MEMBER CANUP: As the maker of the 5 motion I will accept the change. 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: What was the second 7 thing, Ms. Kudla? 8 MS. KUDLA: I was just going to read 9 through the standards and I guess ask them 10 these questions. Under the Practical 11 Difficulty Section. I guess something would 12 be whether the property owner, whether he 13 can or cannot use his property for what it's 14 meant to be used for without the variance. 15 A finding would be is he still able to sell 16 homes without this variance. 17 MEMBER CANUP: I am making a motion 18 that (unintelligible) if we're not careful. 19 I think the motion that is stated in my 20 opinion covers pretty much everything 21 because we're including in that the comments 22 from the Board as part of the motion. 23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I believe we are 24 fine.
92 1 MEMBER CANUP: I appreciate your 2 comments. We got to stop somewhere and 3 carry on with the motion. 4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion on 5 the floor on seconded. And no further 6 discussion, please call the roll. 7 MS. WORKING: I have clarification on 8 who seconded the motion, please? 9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Bauer. 10 MS. WORKING: Thank you. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 12 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 14 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel -- Member 16 Wrobel excused himself. 17 Member Sanghvi? 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 22 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Aye. 23 MS. WORKING: And Member Krieger? 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes.
93 1 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny passes 2 6-0. 3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Sir, your request 4 has been denied. You have heard the Board's 5 comments about alternative solutions. You 6 may want to pursue one of those. 7 MR. MILLS: Okay. Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Also, I would like 9 to request the City expeditiously look at 10 the safety factors of this activity and the 11 location and move forward with that now that 12 we have made the decision on the case. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. SHAHEEN: Just one question? 15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. 16 MR. SHAHEEN: I understand that you 17 just denied that. I guess my question 18 because I didn't understand from listening 19 to all this. When does the trailer get 20 moved? They already expired their permit, 21 so. 22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: What is the 23 standard? 24 MS. WORKING: Following this evening's
94 1 hearing, I'll contact the Ordinance officer 2 who issued the violation. I will have to 3 contact the Applicant to make sure they are 4 clear on what the decision was this evening. 5 They will have the option to come to the 6 City for application possibly to place the 7 trailer in Phase 4. I don't know if that is 8 what they are going to do or not. I would 9 have to get back to you with how timely of a 10 matter the trailer would be able to be 11 moved. I don't think in the Ordinance it 12 stipulates specifically to that. I would 13 need time to give you a 100 percent answer 14 on that. 15 MR. SHAHEEN: I appreciate that. 16 (Unintelligible).
17 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Mr. Chair, if 18 I might add. That's really not the 19 jurisdiction of the Zoning Board. You will 20 want to contact the City during business 21 hours and Robin will followup with you at 22 that time. 23 MR. SHAHEEN: Thank you very much. 24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you.
95 1 MEMBER BAUER: I think there is a time 2 line on there. I think it's something like 3 20 days they have to do that. 4 MS. WORKING: I'll follow through with 5 Ordinance on that. 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Typically after we 7 met for an hour and a half we take a short 8 break. We are going to do that very short. 9 We have anxious people. A very short ten 10 minute maximum and it will also give our 11 member a chance to return. 12 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, we have one 13 remaining case on the agenda. 14 MEMBER CANUP: I thought we had two? 15 MS. WORKING: No, we have one. 16 MEMBER CANUP: We could be done in ten 17 minutes. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah. 19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, our member 20 has returned, so I will yield to the wishes 21 of the Board and move forward. And the 22 wishes of the audience as well. 23 24 Okay, the next case number: 07-085
96 1 filed by Butch Friedman of J. Philip Custom 2 Homes for 2117 West Lake Drive. 3 The Applicant is requesting a variance 4 for a previously granted variance from ZBA 5 06-047 for additional construction to an 6 approved accessory structure in the front 7 yard. The Applicant is requesting one 8 variance to construct a portico with 9 limestone columns on top of an existing 10 accessory structure in the front yard. The 11 property is zoned R-4 and is located south 12 of Pontiac Trail and east of West Park Dive. 13 The Section Zoning Ordinance 2503.1 B 14 states: Accessory buildings shall not be 15 erected in any required front yard or in any 16 required exterior side yard. 17 The Applicant has come forward. 18 Please be sworn in by our Secretary. State 19 your name and address. 20 MEMBER BAUER: State your name and 21 address. 22 MR. FRIEDMAN: Butch Friedman of J. 23 Philip Custom Homes of Commerce Township. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Raise your right hand.
97 1 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth 2 regarding Case: 07-085? 3 MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, I do. 4 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir. 5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please state your 6 case. 7 MR. FRIEDMAN: I will try to make it 8 short and sweet. Basically what we are 9 trying to do is, there was already an 10 accessory building that has been approved 11 for the front yard. What we are trying to 12 do is improve this accessory structure by 13 adding a limestone pergola, or portico as 14 it's written on the paper. And we feel that 15 this is going to add more to the beauty of 16 the home and basically complete our 17 landscape package. 18 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay. 19 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Are those the 20 comments you have for today? 21 MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah, basically that's 22 it. We had a variance already granted for 23 the accessory structure which is basically 24 housing a generator which is into a sunken
98 1 pit. That's the generator pit right there 2 as you see. What we are trying to do on top 3 of that generator pit is to basically 4 beautify the whole area. We have pavers 5 basically surrounding the entire house. 6 The person that we are building the 7 house for is a handicap person and probably 8 will be confined to a wheelchair and that's 9 why we put in the paver. It's not so much 10 room for landscaping. We feel that one to 11 help somewhat hide the generator which is 12 not really going, but we want to put up a 13 nice structure which is a limestone pergola. 14 We have limestone columns with nice crown 15 molding. It's nothing that is a fairly 16 expensive feature and it's not made of wood 17 so it will last and it does enhance the 18 beauty of the area. 19 What I am showing you here is 20 basically what the feature would look like. 21 The eight columns and this is what it would 22 look like. And on top of that we would be 23 putting blinds so that it would look more of 24 a landscape and landscape feature. There is
99 1 a picture that I did make a copy and I think 2 you have it also in your files. I know 3 these are fairly hard to see. But as you 4 can see a pergola and that's made of 5 limestone is a very nice detailed feature, 6 landscape feature that helps finish it off. 7 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: At this time 8 we would ask if there is anyone in the 9 audience that wishes to make comment on this 10 case? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close 11 the public hearing section of the meeting. 12 And I will notify the Board that in 13 this case there were 28 notices mailed with 14 zero approvals and three objections. 15 An objection from Debra Blashfield 16 (ph) of 2105 Westlake Drive. My home is 17 four homes north of the subject property and 18 I am unable to meet tonight due to the 19 election. I would like my comments read. 20 It states that: She wishes to stress a 21 strenuous objection to the requested 22 variance of a portico over the generator in 23 the yard of this residence. There is no 24 hardship which requires a portico over the
100 1 generator and the generator will be 2 completely functional without said portico. 3 If it was, in fact, necessary it should have 4 been requested June 6th, when the other 5 variance was granted. 6 The reasons stated by the Petitioner 7 are that now it "looks from a decorative 8 standpoint incomplete." "And that portico 9 would help complete this and enhance and 10 beautify the front yard." Those reasons do
11 not justify a variance based on hardship or 12 enhancing the function of the generator. In 13 fact, I disagree that it would enhance and 14 beautify anything, quite the opposite. The 15 concept of installing 7 foot tall pillars on 16 top of the stone wall which already 17 encircles the generator is beyond 18 ridiculous and will look like something from 19 the Roman Baths of Europe. 20 In the Minutes of the ZBA meeting the 21 Petitioner's representatives stated that the 22 stone wall that encircles the generator is 23 there to "make it look nice," and that the 24 generator would not be visible above the
101 1 wall. The noise containment in the wall was 2 stressed and it was pointed out by the 3 representative that generator was already in 4 a sound proof, weather proof housing of its 5 own. They cited that they were doing a 6 double acoustical treatment of the 7 generator. 8 The neighbors I have spoken with too 9 within five homes of the subject property 10 have agreed with these objections. Many 11 variances have already been granted for this 12 property and there is no justification for 13 this request. 14 Katie Kennedy of 2023 West Lake Drive 15 states an objection with no comments. 16 Matt Gudaitis, G-U-D-A-I-T-I-S, of 17 2115 West Lake also states an objection with 18 no comments. 19 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. 21 Any comments from the City or Counsel? 22 MS. KUDLA: No. 23 MR. FOX: No comment. 24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We'll turn it over
102 1 to the Board for discussion. 2 Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: I have a question for 4 the City. Why would pergola come to the 5 Zoning Board? Is it because of the height? 6 MR. FOX: Any time you build some sort 7 of a structure it would be considered an 8 accessory building because it's a structure, 9 it's not a slab. A slab is not considered a 10 structure. But any time you go up and build 11 something like that they are going to put a 12 wood frame over top of it. It's something 13 like you would put on a front porch or 14 something of that nature. So we consider it 15 a structure. And because the Zoning 16 Ordinance only allows an accessory structure 17 in the rear yard is why it's before the 18 Board at this point. They are asking for a 19 variance to actually put the accessory
20 structure in the front yard. 21 MS. WORKING: The accessory structure 22 was approved by this Board to be in the 23 front yard at a previous ZBA hearing in '06. 24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Bauer?
103 1 MEMBER BAUER: I really can't see 2 where we could even think of giving this 3 variance. There is no hardship. No 4 practical. They didn't say it in here. I 5 think it is strictly an accessory. And as 6 far as functioning, I don't think it has a 7 function except it being on top of the 8 generator. So I would not entertain a vote 9 to okay this. 10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member 11 Bauer. 12 Member Sanghvi? 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just a question. How 14 many times has this particular site been to 15 ZBA for one thing or another in the past? 16 MEMBER BAUER: Two or three. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: At least I remember 18 going and visiting that place three times. 19 MR. FOX: The site itself has been 20 four times. This particular house has been 21 here three times for a variance request. 22 For the house was one for setbacks. Also 23 for the retaining wall that surrounds the 24 house out near the property line and then
104 1 for the accessory building in the front for 2 the generator. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. I agree 4 with Mr. Bauer's statement, I don't think 5 there is really a need for this and no 6 hardship has been demonstrated. This is 7 just for I guess aesthetic purposes or what, 8 I don't know. But I can't see myself 9 supporting this. Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Wrobel? 11 MEMBER WROBEL: I agree with my 12 colleagues. There is no hardship here by 13 not allowing this, so I cannot support it at 14 this time. 15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Fischer? 16 VICE-CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Might I just 17 ask the attorney. Just to kind of review 18 what we have been looking at and the 19 elements that we should be putting forth, 20 this is a practical difficulty case, 21 correct? 22 MS. KUDLA: Correct. 23 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: I agree with 24 all my colleagues. I believe that we are
105 1 all looking at actually the elements of 2 practical difficulty. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, yes, it's a 4 matter of semantics. 5 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Correct, 6 correct. Semantics those get tricky, 7 though. I would tend to agree in general 8 while it may be aesthetically pleasing, 9 there is no practical difficulty. Not 10 allowing this won't unreasonably prevent the 11 owner from using the property for the 12 permitted use. 13 I don't feel that this variance would 14 do substantial justice to this Petitioner or 15 the neighbors and the neighbors have agreed 16 with that point. And nothing is unique to 17 this property that drives the elements of 18 practical difficulty. 19 So, once again, going back to the 20 burden of proof being on the Applicant, that 21 practical difficulty burden has not been met 22 by the Applicant, therefore, I would not be 23 willing to support this as well. 24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member
106 1 Fischer. 2 Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree that it's 4 aesthetically pleasing. But according to 5 the practical difficulty, there is no 6 practical difficulty. What does the 7 homeowner's alternatives be? 8 MS. KUDLA: They don't necessarily 9 have an alternative at this point. I mean, 10 this isn't necessary, so they don't 11 necessarily have to have an alternative. 12 They haven't proven that it's a necessary 13 practical difficulty necessary for them to 14 use the property. So it doesn't necessarily 15 have to be an alternate. 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: I think it's rather 17 sad because it does look nice, but it has no 18 use for the property. 19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I'll make a quick 20 comment. I agree it looks nice. The 21 architecture whether it be a Doric column or 22 a Corinthian column or whatever, I think 23 it's very attractive. 24 I wrote down questions initially. Is
107 1 it a gazebo? Is it pergola? Is it a 2 building? Is it landscaping? Or is it a 3 building that's not enclosed? If it's not 4 enclosed is it a building? Is it an 5 accessory structure or accessory building? 6 There is a lot of gray area there in my 7 mind, but as was stated by many of my 8 colleagues and the City, when we are looking 9 at practical difficulty, the burden of proof 10 lies on the Applicant. And I cannot support 11 it the way it is. Even though I like the 12 looks. 13 Member Fischer? 14 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Given the 15 comments by the Board I would move that in 16 Case Number: 07-085 filed by Butch Friedman 17 of J. Philips Custom Homes that the Board 18 deny the request as stated due to the fact 19 that Petitioner has not established all of 20 the elements of practical difficulty 21 including the fact that by not allowing 22 this variance that it will not unreasonably 23 prevent the owner from using the property 24 for the permitted purpose nor would it be
108 1 unnecessarily burdensome as the generator is 2 functional without the portico. 3 The variance would not do substantial 4 justice to the surrounding property owners 5 as there are concerns regarding the 6 aesthetics and that the plight of the 7 property owner is not unique to this 8 particular property. 9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I will second it. 10 We have a motion by Member Fischer and 11 a second by Member Shroyer, oddly enough. 12 Any further discussion from the Board? 13 Please call the roll. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 15 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Aye. 16 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 19 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 23 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
109 1 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny passes 5 7-0. 6 MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes, sir. Thank 8 you. 9 That is the end of our public hearing. 10 11 Moving on to other matters. Do 12 we have an update on the Rules and 13 Procedures Subcommittee? 14 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Just a quick 15 update. Once again, the schedules between 16 the busy and important Board members on that 17 subcommittee it's been a little difficult. 18 We have identified the Monday before 19 Thanksgiving as a possibility. So we will 20 plan on that at 7:00 in the City Hall. 21 The request is that we would request 22 that the City attorney talk to Mr. Schultz 23 about attending on that Monday before 24 Thanksgiving at 7:00 in the City Hall as we
110 1 want to see some of his recommendations
2 given Open Meeting Act and MZEA. I will be 3 in correspondence with him to show him the 4 possibility that the subcommittee has 5 already come up with regarding some of the 6 current rules and procedures that we would 7 suggest so we'll all collaborate and once 8 again hopefully we'll be able to make those 9 recommendations at that time and turn them 10 into recommendations for the entire Board in 11 December. So we are still shooting for that 12 December time frame. 13 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. 15 16 Second item on the agenda is ZBA 17 07-051 an extension to the variance request. 18 MS. WORKING: Members of the Board, 19 you will find in your Board files for the 20 evening an e-mail from Christine Lakeland 21 with Stone City & Brick Pavers.com, a 22 request to extend the variance that this 23 Board granted in ZBA Case: 07-051. The 24 90-day requirement to file for a Building
111 1 Permit is expiring and she is indicating 2 here that they are working to draw a 3 blueprint and meet engineer specifications 4 and they are requesting an extension to that 5 variance. 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Fischer? 7 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: I would move 8 that the Board extend the -- accept the 9 Petitioner's request and extend the 10 requirement for 90 days until, let's say, 11 March 1st, 2008. 12 MEMBER BAUER: I'll second. 13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Can we go with the 14 date as opposed to the length of time? 15 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: About 90 days, 16 plus or minus. 17 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Which do you 18 prefer? 19 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: March 1st, 20 2008. Will that give them enough time? 21 MS. WORKING: I'm sorry? 22 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Would that
23 give them enough time, March 1st, 2008? 24 MS. WORKING: It's up to the Board.
112 1 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: It's more than 2 90 days. 3 MEMBER CANUP: Can we have a yea-nay 4 vote? 5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion 6 and a second. Member Bauer seconded. I 7 believe we can go with a yea-nay, correct? 8 MS. KUDLA: I suggest taking a roll 9 call. 10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay. We have a 11 motion by Member Fischer and a second by 12 Member Bauer. 13 Robin, please call the roll. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 15 MEMBER FISCHER: Aye. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 17 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 20 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?
113 1 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 3 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 5 6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Third item on the 7 agenda regarding our Linwood case. You care 8 to speak on that? 9 MS. WORKING: Yes, thank you, Mr. 10 Chair. ZBA case 07-058 for 23820 Linwood 11 was before the Board just last month in 12 October. I would like to remind the Board 13 that the recommendation was to send the 14 Petitioner for an administrative review by 15 the City, its engineers as well as any 16 appropriate reviews deemed necessary by the 17 City and the any City attorney. 18 The Petitioner should return to the 19 Board for the December 4th, 2007 ZBA meeting 20 to verify the status of the administrative 21 review resolution or the Board will make a 22 determination at that time. 23 I can inform the Board this evening 24 that Mr. Douglas has been working with the
114 1 City and its engineers. There has been an 2 area staked out of the shrubbery. If you 3 will recall it was a corner clearance issue 4 violation. Mr. Douglas feels that weather 5 permitting and the work travel schedule, he 6 will have been in complete compliance up to 7 the December 4th hearing. 8 The request before you is coming from 9 the City as to whether or not the Petitioner 10 would need to then actually appear before 11 you or would you be able to hear the case 12 under other matters if we provide sufficient 13 documentation that he has complied with your 14 motion from that evening? 15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: As far as I am 17 concerned if they have met with the 18 compliance there is no need for them to 19 appear. 20 MS. WORKING: You would be okay with 21 hearing it under other matters? 22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I believe that is 23 the consensus. 24 MS. WORKING: The City Attorney
115 1 informs me that we can do an aye vote on 2 that. 3 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: I would move 4 to allow the Petitioner to come back under 5 other matters and does not need to be 6 reappearing in front of the Board. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: There is no need 9 for the Petitioner to come back. 10 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Correct. We 11 can hear the case under other matters. 12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We can hear the 13 case under other matters as presented by the 14 City. There was motion by Member Fischer 15 and seconded by Member Sanghvi. 16 Please call the roll. 17 MS. WORKING: May I bring up one more 18 point as a question to the City Attorney? 19 If the Petitioner has not complied, then you 20 do want to see him back here on December 21 4th; is that correct? Can we incorporate 22 that into the motion? 23 MS. KUDLA: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Thank you.
116 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 2 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: I would agree 3 with that request. 4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It is agreed by 5 both parties. Any further discussion? 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. 7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please call the 8 roll. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer? 10 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Aye. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer? 14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel? 18 MEMBER WROBEL: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 20 MEMBER CANUP: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 7-0. 24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Is
117 1 there any further information or comments to 2 be made by the Board prior to adjournment? 3 Member Bauer? 4 MEMBER BAUER: Have a nice 5 Thanksgiving. 6 (Interposing)(Unintelligible). 7 VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Motion to 8 adjourn. 9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: So moved. 10 (The meeting was adjourned at 11 9:29 p.m.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
118 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby certify 5 that I have recorded stenographically the 6 proceedings had and testimony taken in the 7 above-entitled matter at the time and place 8 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further 9 certify that the foregoing transcript, 10 consisting of (100) typewritten pages, is a 11 true and correct transcript of my said 12 stenographic notes. 13 14 15 16 17 18 _____________________________ 19 Mona L. Talton,
20 Certified Shorthand Reporter 21 22 November 22, 2007 23 24
|