| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, February 5, 2002. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY:
MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time I would like to call the meeting to order of the Novi Zoning Board of Appeals. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon is not here. Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Zoning Board of Appeals is a Board empowered by the City charter to hear appeals seeking variance in the application of the Novi zoning ordinance. It takes at least four members present to approve a variance and a vote of
majority members to deny a variance. The Board consists of six members. We have one of our members absent tonight but our alternate will sit in this evening, so we have a full board this evening and all decisions will be final. The rules of conduct that we govern our meetings under are: Each person desiring to address the Board shall state his or her name and address. Individual persons shall be allowed five minutes to address the Board. An extension of time may be granted at the discretion of the Chairperson. There shall be no questioning by the audience of the person addressing the Board; however, the Board Members may question that person with the recognition of the Chairman. No persons shall be allowed to address the Board more than once unless permission is granted by the Chairman. Once spokesman for a group shall be allowed ten minutes to address the Board. Are there any additions or corrections to our agenda this evening?
MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. Number five has been tabled to the next meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other changes or additions? MS. MARCHIONI: None. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, the Chair would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as amended. MEMBER BAUER: So moved. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to approve the amended agenda. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All those opposed? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We have approval of minutes this evening from the January 8th meeting. Any additions or corrections to the minutes as presented? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we would entertain a motion to approve the minutes from the January 8th meeting.
MEMBER BAUER: So moved. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion carried. At this time I would like to open up the public remarks section. If there is anything that anybody would like to address the Board on that's not pertaining to the cases before us, the comments could be made. We wish that those be made when the cases come before. Is there any other comments that would like to be made to the Board at this time? (No response.) CASE NUMBER 01-095 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close the public remarks section and call our first case, Case 01-095 filed by Carl Wizinsky on 26850 Wixom Road.
MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to just basically announce that this was a request of City Council to bring this matter back before the Zoning Board of Appeals based on a -- based on the fact that they're -- they had indicated that they -- this case would not be heard before the Planning Commission, that it be brought back before the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Saven. Mr. Harrington? MR. HARRINGTON: Good evening, Board Members. James Harrington for Mr. and Mrs. Wizinsky, 24101 Novi Road, suite 210 -- or 201, Novi, Michigan. Mr. and Mrs. Wizinsky wanted me to take a look at what has occurred in light of the rather extraordinary directive from City Council, and I would like to share my thoughts on the problem that's been created here and give you a suggestion as to what I think the Board can consider doing in this case. When the Board met last month -- and I wasn't here but I read the minutes -- the Board, I felt appropriately, asked for additional
information so it could exercise its discretion regarding the berming issue on the property. Since that period of time, City Council, feeling itself caught in a position with respect to Northern Equities and representing the interest of the City, felt that the Consent Judgement that was entered needed to be adhered to in good faith and that this issue brought before this Board could jeopardize that Consent Judgement. I think that's fair in terms of what their perception was and what their position was. And in the rather extraordinary and unusual decision on January 30th, directed this Board to rescind the action you took last month. That's why this is here. And the direction of the City Council is, the information that you might be able to gather regarding the past practice on measuring of berms -- and I remember when I was sitting up there when Linda came in and told us that's the way they always did it, is you measured from the first floor of the residence, if there is a residence. The schematic that's in the ordinance doesn't have a residence there, but apparently
that's what the City has done. The City Council position is you don't need that information. Not only that, but this matter will not be placed back on the Planning Commission agenda. City Council had it removed from that agenda, as I understand it, and their directive is clear. You are to rescind what you did last month. I've spoken with Mr. Schultz on numerous occasions regarding this issue. I think the position of the legal counsel for the City is clear, is that you have no discretion to exercise in this matter, that this is a matter of law for you and that because the issue falls within the purview of a Consent Judgement in Oakland County Circuit Court, you cannot do anything, which would jeopardize that Consent Judgement, even by way of interpretation. I think they’re wrong, but that's a legal issue for the courts. If it is the sense of the Board this evening and the position of the Board that, in fact, you have no discretion to exercise because the directive from Council, and that whatever information you might have gathered sort of has to
go by the wayside because City Council has tied your hands, I don't agree with what City Council did, but that may be the direction you have to go and let the courts figure it out. We don't need a Constitutional crisis in the City between City Council telling the Board what to do, even when it's clear that's what they did. But based on the best legal advice you have, all you can do is follow the directive of City Council and the city attorney, then I think that that's the route you may wish to consider. If you want legal argument from myself to be followed by Mr. Schultz, we can do that, too, but that's really more appropriate for the courtroom, but I think the issue before you is pretty clear. You've got a past practice, you've got interpretation by the City, and you have legal opinion saying that doesn't matter and, by the way, it would mess up a Consent Judgement we entered into, so that's what you have before you. Mr. and Mrs. Wizinsky, when I said what else you want me to tell the Board tonight, they wanted me to make clear that they really appreciate the interest and the concern you showed
them in their situation last month and presumably tonight. They are the innocent victims of this deal that was struck between Northern Equities and the City. They weren't parties to it, they weren't part of the lawsuit, and their input, if any, has been minimal. So they appreciate your fair hearing they received in front of you, and whatever you decide to do tonight, or maybe you decide to do nothing, they will accept that, that this Board is acting in good faith. That's my comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would just like to make a comment. Mr. and Mrs. Wizinsky was here before you last month. Certainly, what they had was a presentation to which they had felt, by their landscape architect, was the correct rendering that was presented to the Board at that time and we had acted to that rendering.
I had asked Lauren to take a look at this rendering and see how it matched the approved site plan. And, based on that fact, I do believe Lauren should probably be able to come up here and explain a little bit about the berm that we had questions about, or concerns about last meeting, also to the fact of the certain characteristics of the trees, I assume maybe she could better explain that, and also the berm elevations, which you probably should need to know. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, just a question of point of order. We have a directive to do nothing about this. Is there any virtue in going further about this? MR. CHAIRMAN: I think if we have the information that alludes to density or -- what they're saying, interpretation, and look at the berm, I think that information should be presented, because I think this is the issue in question, and any and all information that's available right now this evening should be presented. Please proceed. MEMBER SANGHVI: My question was
(inaudible). MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRAMAN: Mr. Schultz. MR. SCHULTZ: I think I'm obligated to respond to the way the question's framed, and I think it comes framed that way based on Mr. Harrington's comments that the City's giving you a directive. The City Council is giving you directive that your hands are tied here. Essentially, what Mr. Harrington is arguing is that I think he wants to be able to preserve an argument, probably for review in the court, to the affect that you weren't able to exercise your independent judgement here sitting as the Zoning Board of Appeals as to what the Consent Judgement meant or what the -- more importantly, what the ordinance means when talking about the six foot requirement for a berm. And I guess I look at it differently than that, and I don't look at it as a directive that deprives you of jurisdiction or your ability to act as a ZBA. I think what the Council did was to tell you, based upon its understanding of what
occurred at the Planning Commission and the ZBA, that with respect to the Consent Judgement, the City Council entered into a Consent Judgement with a particular understanding of what the term six foot wall meant, and that it -- and it understood that term for purposes of the Consent Judgement to mean that six foot wall measured under the clear and unambiguous terms of the ordinance which call for six feet measured from the bottom of the berm to the top of the berm with no reference anywhere in the ordinance to somebody else's first floor elevation. And the Council, further indicating that Novi Prominade, when it entered into the Consent Judgement on its end, believed that the same interpretation of the ordinance, as unambiguous and straightforward in six feet, not twenty-six feet, was what both parties contemplated when they signed that Consent Judgement. In addition, based upon Mr. Fisher's comments, that his -- in his opinion, the ordinance wasn't ambiguous and, therefore, wasn't capable of being construed or having a past practice sort of attached onto the ordinance, we've given you an
opinion explaining a little bit further about this concept of past practice and how it might grow into an ordinance, essentially an ordinance regulation. I think the bottom line, from our perspective, is that there is a possibility, when there is an ambiguous ordinance, to have an interpretation of the ordinance that isn't a black letter and that is a reasonable interpretation supported by the record. In this case, Council gave its opinion, Mr. Fisher gave its opinion, the Planning Commission gave its opinion, and I've written a letter saying this is not the kind of case that can create a separate past practice. This is an unambiguous ordinance. It's clear the way it's to be interpreted, and Council's direction, if there is any to you, is to understand -- read the minutes and understand what it thought when entering into the Consent Judgement and to take a look, again, at the concept of whether something can be a past practice and defeat an unambiguous ordinance like this. It didn't direct you what to do. It's directing you to consider and act as a Board.
It hasn't tied your hands. It's put information before you for you to act on, and it's requested us to put information before you for you to act on. But your decision is a decision of this Board (inaudible) when all is said and done. I guess the bottom line is, I think you have to listen to Miss McGuire. I think you have to take that information and put it in the record, and then you have to -- in our opinion, the ordinance was properly interpreted by the Planning Commission, and you can put all that together and make that determination and that record. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would you please proceed. MS. McGUIRE: Certainly. I'm Lauren McGuire, landscape architect in the Planning Department. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Could you raise your right hand, please. MS. McGUIRE: Certainly. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in this matter before you is the truth?
MS. McGUIRE: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MS. McGUIRE: I'd just like to show you a little background information. This is -- these are photographs taken by the design team that was the firm that put together the landscape plans. And this is a view of the Wizinsky property looking from the north to the south, so from the area -- and you have those photographs in front of you as well. This would be the east, this would be the west side of his property, and there you can see one of the buildings on the property. The house is about in that location. And the other set of photographs on the second sheet simply provides you with a little bit of information on what the property looks like itself. Here you see the drive-thru with the house here, the garage, and here's the home from the side, looking from the north to the south. On these two boards, also prepared by the design team, this gives you a little bit of information on the elevations. This plan here provides the plan view-
MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Excuse me. Can we put that on the screen here? It's very difficult for the audience to see that. MS. McGUIRE: This is a plan view of the area. The Wizinsky property would be here. North is in that direction. And the colored area is the area in question, so that is the berm area. This shows the plantings that would be put into that area. The wall extends from this point and goes to the east. There is no wall in this section here. MR. SAVEN: Could you go over that one more time please for the benefit of- MS. McGUIRE: (Interposing) Sure. This is the berm area. This direction is north. Here's the street. Here's the east. So these are the plantings that are -- that run along the property, the Wizinsky's north property, Novi Prominade'd south property. And the actual wall itself starts here and makes a turn and heads to the east down here. Okay? This is a series of elevations prepared, again, by the design team that did the
plan. This is a section in east elevation. This is the Target Store. You can see a little bit of a green belt bend in the roadway that's in question, which is the service drive. Here's the berm coming down, his garage and his residence. And, as you can see, his residence is -- if you're standing on his first floor elevation and he's standing there, you can see the -- this would be the site line here. This particular cross section cuts across the berm just at the point right about here where the wall comes into play. You can see the wall coming behind you there, and this is further to the east on the berm. And you can see, again, the service drive, the wall and the rest of the berm. In all cases, the berm is at least six feet measured from the Novi Prominade side and greater from the Wizinsky property when measured at the property line, which is here. Property line here, and property line here, and property line here. And you can come up later and take a look at it if you'd like, but in this case, for
example, it's measured at seven feet to the top of the berm, and if you took the same line across to the property line, it's ten foot from the Wizinsky property. Here it's eight feet to the top of the wall and berm combination from the level of the service drive, and if you take it across to the property line of the Wizinsky property, to the top of the wall it's 17.2 feet, so it continues like that down to the east. And at its greatest point it's eight foot from the service drive side to the top of the wall and berm combination, and eighteen-and-a-half feet to the property life on the Wizinsky side, because the property is dropping off to the east on his property. I think that's all. If you have any questions -- MR. SAVEN: Lauren, could you briefly explain the opacity portion of this thing, or the screening portion, because I know in my conversation with you you had indicated that additional screening was requested for that. And the company did provide that; is that correct?
MS. McGUIRE: That's correct. That's correct. Linda Lemke did review this plan originally, and there was a request to the design team to add additional plantings to help buffer the Wizinsky property. The drawing that you saw from the Wizinskys is this drawing which is colored up a little bit, and you can see that this is -- this would be a summer kind of look at the same drawing that he submitted. These are the evergreen trees, and then these are the assiduous trees going back in here with the shrubs along the bottom. She did approve it. The City also looked at it. We don't feel there's any real question about whether it meets the intent of the berm and wall height requirement and -- and the buffering capacity. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Building Department, anything else? MR. SAVEN: No, I'm done. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments or discussion? Mr. Brennan. MEMBER SANGHVI: Question. MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, we certainly have a lot more information tonight than we had
last month, and I think what concerns me more than anything else is that we didn't spend a lot of time last month talking about the sanctity of a Consent Agreement, and that seemed to be the biggest issue with members of the City Council. It's part of the issue that the city attorney has brought up, and it's certainly part of the issue that the Novi Promenade parties are concerned with. Everyone seems to believe and recommend that we have no jurisdiction in dealing with what has already been negotiated. That's my comments. I'll be more than happy to make motions, as I was the motion maker last month. I feel a little obligated to do that, but listen to others and their comments. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, I have one question, Mr. Chairman was, and that was, how long will it take for all these trees to become this size, to be affective in the summer? MS. McGUIRE: That drawing is pretty accurate about what it would look like when it went in.
MEMBER SANGHVI: Right from the beginning? MS. McGUIRE: At the beginning, correct. We do have a minimum -- we do have spacing requirements in the ordinance that direct the spacing between the plantings, so given the spacing requirements and the plantings that are in there, the potential for complete buffering is there; obviously, not initially, as you can see. MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments discussion wise? MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chairman, one comment. It follows up really what I said earlier. I'm troubled by the statement that you're being somehow directed to say that you don't have jurisdiction. That's not the case here. You are the Board to which an appeal is taken on an interpretation of the ordinance. You are tonight, at some point, going to determine where that six foot height measurement starts, whether it's the first floor elevation or not. You are not deprived of jurisdiction. You have to make a decision. The indication from Council is what
it intended the Consent Judgement to mean, but at some point you also have to interpret the ordinance language of Section 2509 to say the six foot wall -- or six foot berm is not measured from the first floor elevation of that neighbor's house but it's measured the way the Planning Commission measured it in this case, from the bottom of the slope to the top of the slope. So I'm -- I need to make sure that you're aware that you're not being deprived of jurisdiction. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER BAUER: I have one thing to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer. MEMBER BAUER: If we were to decide that the six feet would start from the applicant's side, we're well over that already. So if we go on the other side, over on Promenade's side, as Lauren had said, we were already over the six feet. So, consequently, I can't see any other way to go as leaving it as it is at this point. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what we're
looking at here directional wise is we're making a final determination of our interpretation of the ordinance in that by the language of the ordinance itself states that the six foot is from the property line, not from the first floor of the house on the adjacent property, and if our interpretation of that is such, then that aligns with the Consent Judgement of where the Consent Judgement stands at this point in time. Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm prepared to make two motions, if you'd like. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go. MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to Case 01-095, I would move that the Board rescind the actions that we took on January 28th (sic). MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a second to that motion? MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded that the Board rescind the action taken at the previous meeting. Is there any further discussion on the motion? MR. SCHULTZ: Quick clarification,
Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schultz. MR. SCHULTZ: Is this with regard to the determination to send it back to the Planning Commission, that that's what's being rescinded? MEMBER BRENNAN: We were rescinding our previous actions of that evening. There were two motions made that evening. MR. SCHULTZ: I don't think you need to rescind a determination that Mr. Wizinsky and Mrs. Wizinsky had the right to come before you to make the interpretation. It's more the -- I think the issue of rescinding the determination to send it back to the Planning Commission. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion passes, that we rescind the recommendation to send it to the Planning Commission. Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. Second motion is a motion denying the request for relief as the applicant had asked for reasons that the Consent Judgement makes provision for a six foot berm and the measurement of the berm is consistent with the action of the Planning Commission. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded to -- I'm going to paraphrase your motion as you stated it -- that the interpretation holds with the Planning Commission's direction to the application of the ordinance.
Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion passes. You have the interpretation as we gave it and we go from there. Thank you. MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Board Members.
CASE NUMBER 01-103 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case Number 01-103, filed by Gina Blazo of All Star Gymnastics, at 22515 Heslip Drive. MS. BLAZO: Hi. MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me one moment. Would you give your name and address and be sworn in by our secretary, please. MS. BLAZO: Certainly. My name is Gina Blazo. I'm the owner of All Star Gymnastics located at 22515 Heslip Drive. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MS. BLAZO: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MS. BLAZO: I'm here to ask for a variance to locate a directional sign on the corner of Nine Mile and Heslip Drive where my business is located. I own a gymnastics school that has been located at this address for approximately one year and two months. I moved here from Northville because
many of our students were from Novi. This is a very family-oriented community I felt. A lot of my parents lived in this community and we were getting increasing numbers from this area. A gymnastics school requires a large space. I have 10,300 square feet, and we also need high ceilings and commercial style industrial garage doors in order to get the equipment in and out, and those types of buildings are most often found in an industrial area. So I had to find -- apply to get a variance to locate this type of public assembly type building in an industrial area. I was granted this variance by the City of Novi. But the difficulty that I'm now having is that there is two industrial complexes located on each side of the railroad tracks. Neither one of them have a sign as to the name of the complex or what is located there. Because we have so many people coming and going, a lot of them new, who have never been there before -- we host many Girl Scout functions, we host preschool and elementary field trips. The Novi/Northville High School gymnastics comes to
practice during the off season. We have a lot of community events, such as Chamber -- we have a Chamber breakfast, Novi Chamber of Commerce, that we're hosting in March. Many people have never been there. We host fundraisers for Toys for Tots every Christmas with over a hundred and fifty kids that come, that -- many of them who have never been there before, as well as cheerleaders and gymnastics teams from all over the state. And because Nine Mile has become increasingly busy, with the railroad tracks there and it only being one lane, we are finding that people cannot find us. I drive this every day, so I see slow-downs and people slamming on their brakes and trying to slow down to see the street sign because they don't know which side of the railroad tracks it's on, and I -- we can't tell them what's the name of the complex because there is none. And -- so for safety purposes and traffic flow, it's very difficult to read just a street sign. I wanted to place a directional sign to increase traffic flow, not for advertising purposes because I have one on my building and we
do put out a map to all people coming to the business, but it is difficult to find, particularly at night. And the sign that has been designed is very small and it just has the name and an arrow, but it's reflective when headlights hit it, so that at night they can see it whereas they can't see a street sign. And because most of the people coming are families with children, I am very concerned about an accident happening at this intersection. The only two objections I have had, one them said that this type of -- John Dean, I believe from Kaltech Scientific, said that -- his objection was that type -- the sign would be in his front yard -- but he's not on that side of the street -- and that families with minivans should not be coming into this industrial park. And there is a letter that was presented to you from the Toys for Tots director that states that if we were allowed a variance to be here, that families with minivans have just as much a right to be driving down Heslip as anybody else.
And that's my contention here, is that they should be able to get there and get there safely. And the business that is located on the corner where the sign would be placed, which is Fife, as far as I know, they haven't filed any objections to having the sign placed there. It would be on the easement closest to Nine Mile, and it's very small. It wouldn't obstruct any business. Thank you. I guess that's it. That was my -- that's my case. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: There were seventeen notices sent out, two approvals, two objections, two were sent back. You alluded to the objections that were already in here, so that's printed on the record. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Gina -- it is Gina, right?
MS. BLAZO: Yes. MR. SAVEN: I guess a question regarding the placement of the sign. It's in the easement; is that correct? MS. BLAZO: Yes. MR. SAVEN: Okay. I just wanted to ask you whether or not you received permission from City Council first before coming here? MS. BLAZO: They sent me here. I have talked to Al -- I can't think of his last name. MR. SAVEN: Alan Amolsch? MS. BLAZO: Yeah. And what they told me is that -- I was rejected by the Zoning Board, and at first -- that -- they told me I had to send a letter to City Council. And then I was told that no, that this was not the procedure, that I had to go through Zoning first and I could be denied by Zoning because a directional sign is not permitted, and so that I would need a variance to place a directional sign and that I did not -- should not go through City Council, that I had to come here first. MR. SAVEN: Okay. The Zoning Board
cannot act on issues where we have signs in right-of-ways. This is an issue that should be brought before City Council. Am I correct? MR. SCHULTZ: That is correct. And, actually, City Council had a number of requests recently for structures or signs in the right-of-way, and I think this -- they're in the process, I think, of re-evaluating whether those are to be permitted and under what circumstances. I think that it is an issue that City Council should consider first so it doesn't end up in front of the Council with the ZBA having already said, you know, it's fine. MR. SAVEN: The other issue, too, is that once this issue is brought before the City Council, they'll take into consideration all the safety standards in regards to the placement of the sign, where the sign is going to be placed. And, certainly, they're going to have concerns about the -- maybe a Hold Harmless Agreement of some sort regarding if anybody gets hurt. All these issues have to be addressed. I don't think any member of the Board
would even act on this until such time that this would be addressed. So if I gave you any direction, that would be the direction that I would give you, is go before City Council for that approval. MS. BLAZO: Okay. How -- maybe you can explain to me how I can -- that's what I tried to do first. I was told I had to have a Hold Harmless Agreement and send a letter to City Council. And when I did that, it was all sent back to me and I was told it was not the procedure to take, that I did have to come here first. MR. SCHULTZ: We can walk her through that process. MR. CHAIRMAN: My only question is, I would like to see a little bit more uniform in the direction that we're directing people so that don't have this bounce back. MR. SAVEN: Do you have any idea who informed you to come before- MS. BLAZO: (Interposing) I talked to several people. It's been many months. It took me a long time to get here, so -- some of the people that I talked to were at the
Building Department desk, and it went through Allen and it went through -- I don't have the man's name, but we talked about the whole process. They couldn't find a Hold Harmless Agreement for a business. And then Allen told me it wouldn't matter anyway because I needed to go through Zoning, not City Council. MR. SAVEN: Your zoning aspect -- because of the directional sign in an I-2 -- excuse me, other than an I-2 district is certainly an issue that we would address, but the fact to allow this to go into an easement, the permission for it to go into the easement should be addressed to the City Council first. There's safety issues and Hold Harmless Agreements that must be satisfactory to the City of Novi prior to us even acting on this. I think the Board would agree the Board would want to see this before this took place. MS. BLAZO: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Don, can she get in touch with you and can you give her direction as to
what she needs to follow and have a central figure point that- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) I'll handle it. Call me. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll table this case until you've got everything else lined up that you need to do and then you can come back before us and we'll go from that point there. Board Members in agreement in tabling this until all the information is put together? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll table it then. Thank you. MS. BLAZO: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-002 (case heard out of order) MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case 01 -- 02-001 filed by -- I'm not even going to try. Would you please step forward and I'll let you pronounce your name. MR. CERVI: Fabio Cervi. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is requesting a three-dimensional variance for construction of a new home on property located on
lot 29 of Cenaqua Shores subdivision. Sir, would you give your name and address for our secretary and be sworn in, please. MR. CERVI: Fabio Cervi, 47087 Seven Mile Road. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. CERVI: Yes. MS. GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please present your case. MR. CERVI: Well, we're requesting to extend the -- to keep the trailer there for another year, but since then we are changed, that we would like to -- just to extend it another 60 to 90 days. What we're doing is we're finishing up another house that is just across the street, and then soon as we finish that, which will take up at least 60 to 90 days, we want to take the trailer off the lot. MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, can we make sure we know who you are. Are you representing the
Broadmoor Park trailer? MR. CERVI: Yes, Broadmoor Park. MEMBER BRENNAN: We called a different case, but as long as you're there we're going to hear it. MR. CERVI: Lot 91. The trailer right now is placed on lot 91. This is what our case is, that we're just about finished another home there and we'll like to remove the trailer and send the trailer out of the property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else, sir? MR. CERVI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we had twenty-seven notices sent out. We received two objections. Let's just kind of review the objections. I think there's issues here that we need to address. Says -- this is from Helen and
Dominic Stanko (ph), and we've been here two -- the trailer has been here -- wait a minute. We have been here two years in April. We've lived directly across from the trailer and do not understand why Mason Homes needs another twelve months in their unsightly trailer. They have at least two spec homes in the neighborhood. Why not move the office into one of those houses. The other buildings have been long gone from the trailer -- the other builders have been long gone from their trailer. We'd like to see this sub being finished -- be finished. For two years we've been inconvenienced by big trucks and everything else that goes on when you put a new sub in; torn up lawns from the workers, dust, garbage. Enough is enough. Another twelve-month permit means another year-and-a-half to two years of inconvenience. If Madison (ph) doesn't have to build on this lot, please do not extend it from there. The second one is from Lawrence and Patricia Keyes, and they just circled objection. Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the trailer request
from Broadmoor Park Lane, do you have any comments? MR. SAVEN: How much longer do you need the unit? MR. CERVI: About sixty days, sixty, ninety days at most. MR. SAVEN: That's what I wanted to know -- bring up to the Board. MR. SAVEN: How many lots do you have left and how many units do you have to build out? MR. CERVI: Oh, I think about four more. We already apply for two more, and we got about -- we've got four under construction and we build six. MR. SAVEN: So those under construction are going to take approximately nine months to build; eight, nine months? MR. CERVI: We're thinking about -- we would like to finish up there by the end of the year. MR. SAVEN: Sixty days isn't- MR. CERVI: (Interposing) The one -- the house right now, we're almost finished. Okay. We're about to -- we've painted and we're just
doing the finish, the counter tops, plumbing, electrical, so I should be finished in 60 to 90 days and then I'll take the -- send the trailer back out of the subdivision. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else? MR. SAVEN: No, that's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments or discussion? Miss Gray. MEMBER GRAY: I'm concerned that the neighbors are upset with trailers, and we're being a little more sensitive with construction trailers, and I would -- if it's the consensus of the Board, I would probably make a motion that we grant a three-month extension, which would be ninety days, and see where we go from there. MR. CHAIRMAN: With the suggestion that the area be cleaned up and maintained for that period? MEMBER GRAY: Absolutely. The only question I have, that somebody else mentioned to me was, when did the permit expire on this, do we know that? MR. SAVEN: We could take a look at the temporary use permit.
Would you happen to know right offhand? MR. CERVI: No. No, I don't. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the thing is, from whatever time we give today it will expire that time from today, and I expect that it will be out of there before that time frame expires. MEMBER GRAY: Is ninety days going to be enough? MR. CERVI: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: And you'll clean up the mess? MR. CERVI: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: And make your neighbors happy? MR. CERVI: Yes. We're still going to move the trailer and make (inaudible.) MR. SAVEN: But you're going to clean up all the debris around there? MR. CERVI: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Was that a motion? MEMBER GRAY: That's a motion. MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and
seconded that the petitioner's request for a variance be granted for a period of 90 days and the lot is to be cleaned and maintained and the trailer will be out of there before the end of 90 days. Any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request for 90 days has been granted. We wish you the best of luck.
MR. CERVI: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-001 (Case heard out of order) MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, let's gets back where we should be, case 02-001 -- which looks like it might have been my mistake that I called the wrong number, and I apologize -- is requesting a three dimensional variance for construction of a new home on property located on lot 29. Sir, would you give your name and be sworn in by our secretary? MR. KALJEVIC: My name is Vaselj Kaljevic, 20113 Deering, Livonia, Michigan. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. KALJEVIC: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please present your case. MR. KALJEVIC: I'm looking to build a house on this property, lot 29, and I'm asking for about -- for the setbacks on the sides and the
rear -- three setbacks, three sides. This -- in order to have a, you know, colonial, not build a box, simple one, I would like to make it a little more design there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you wish to say or present? MR. KALJEVIC: That's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Basically, the lot has an unusual shape, is set on 50 foot front and 60 foot in the rear, but there's also possibly a 70 foot additional footage in the rear end of the property based upon -- what is the name of that street? MEMBER GRAY: Chapman. MR. SAVEN: There you go. That's there. So it is tight. The 50 foot is a small frontage, but it does widen out towards the rear of the property, and the property has depth, which is good.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments or discussion? Please, Cindy. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please let us know what the neighbors have to say? MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. There were 69 notices sent out and nobody said anything. MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's an answer. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, I understand your problem with a very, very narrow piece of property. Can you tell me a little bit more what you're planning on building? Typically, we get some building drawings and we have some idea of what's going to go in there. MR. KALJEVIC: I've got blueprints. It's going to look not exactly. I'd like to do some changes on it. I've got blueprint if- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) Can we take a look at it? I'd like to look at them while other people are asking you questions. MR. KALJEVIC: It's going to be about 90 percent of this. I might do some change. MEMBER BRENNAN: That's okay. I know it's not going to be a little box like you see
here. There's going to be more -- I knew there was some detail somewhere. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I'm real familiar with this area, and as Mr. Saven mentioned, the -- there's a street that goes behind the house called Chapman, and that's an alley, and I drove down that alley last night. It runs parallel to East Lake Drive between Endwell and Monticello, and I drove down that alley last night and I was impressed by the fact that every one of the other neighbors who has property facing the lake on East Lake Drive and facing Paramount south of Monticello has rear entry garages off the alley, and this is one of the few areas that I'm aware of in the city -- in this old part of the city that does have original alleyway. And the alleys were put in there for a reason. I think with new construction, and especially in this area where a 50 foot lot at the road widening to 60 at the back is a luxury that some of your neighbors would probably give their right arm for because it's a fairly good sized lot in this area of the city. Based on the fact that there is the
alley in the rear and -- I would be more amenable to setback variances in the rear for a rear entry garage. I'm wondering if you are willing to consider something like that before I make any further decision? MR. KALJEVIC: Well, at this point I don't know how would that look or I don't have any idea for something like that, but if I can come up with something I can do something with that. MEMBER GRAY: Do you understand my point, that there's a road back here- MR. KALJEVIC: (Interposing) Yes. MEMBER GRAY: -that you could do a garage that opened to the back and you could have -- instead of having your front yard -- using your front yard as a driveway and parking -- because I'm presuming this is a side entry garage in the front. MR. KALJEVIC: Yes, it is. MEMBER GRAY: Take all that cement and put it in the backyard. I mean, you'd have green in your front yard, still have to have the setbacks, but you could move your house a little forward maybe, if you could.
I just wanted to offer that option to you because this is new construction, and new construction is a little bit different than something that you would be adding on to, and I just wanted to make those suggestions to you and certainly would be willing to hear some of the comments from my Board Members -- fellow Board Members. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: I don't like to see changes in the setbacks on the north or south or rear yard on new construction. I think they have enough room with the 50 foot and the 60 in the rear, and like we say, that garage can be moved into the rear at the alley. I would not be for this at all. MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the square footage of the house that you're proposing to build? MR. KALJEVIC: I don't know exactly. Around eighteen hundred square feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sanghvi, do you have a comment?
MEMBER SANGHVI: No, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Cindy? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I concur with both Miss Gray and Mr. Bauer. When I first looked at this, I thought that the -- although the lot size was one of the problems, there was still enough width in the back that this could be rectified perhaps, and I would almost suggest that, perhaps, the petitioner would like to have this tabled and go back -- sorry -- to the drawing board and take a look at it again. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I concur with the Board Members, that with new construction we have something here to work with, and I think some, possibly, thoughts and suggestions were given this evening, that it possibly needs to be tweaked up a little bit, because we're looking at variances on three sides, and with that size lot and everything I think that something else could be worked out to fit that in a little better arrangement. MR. KALJEVIC: Well, if -- I kind of took the (inaudible) on the first floor I kind of like to have a kitchen, dining and then the living room and a laundry, so if I want to put that -- and
the garage on first floor, that's about, you know, this square footage; otherwise, all the rooms would be too small. MEMBER SANGHVI: Wouldn't you be better off talking to your architect about this addition and maybe come back next month with new drawings, new plans, if this is practical or not from your point of view rather than deciding offhand one way or the other? Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. KALJEVIC: Yeah, I understand. I like to- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Or you just want a decision right now? MR. KALJEVIC: Well, pretty much, yeah, because if I don't -- I mean, if I don't get granted, if I have to make the house small, you know- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) No. We're not talking about making the house small. We're talking about moving your garage from the front to the back and using the back alley to get into your garage, which would give you a larger front yard without doing many changes and you may
not need as many variances. And it is a win-win situation all around. If you talk to your architect -- because the way things are going now, if you want a decision today, the chances are you would be denied. It's up to you to take the decision which way you want to go. Would you rather come back next month after talking to your architect and making some modifications in your plan, if it is practical for you, and come back and talk it over with us again, or do you want us to make a decision right now? MR. KALJEVIC: You're saying to put the garage in the back? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's- MR. KALJEVIC: (Interposing) Same size of the house? MEMBER. SANGHVI: Yeah, same size of the house, yes. MEMBER GRAY: Or not. MEMBER SANGHVI: Depends. Your architect will tell you how to reorganize it without changing the size of the house. You can do
that. MR. CHAIRMAN: But I would like to still see the side yard variances either shifted to one side or the other without a variance on both sides. MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree. That is why- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I think the whole thing needs to be looked at, trying to position the home on the lot that you want to build with a very minimum request in variance needed and not a variance on three different sides, because on new construction, that size lot, I couldn't support that. MR. KALJEVIC: The rear -- eight inches in the rear, I can take that off, doesn't make no difference to the size of my house or -- MEMBER GRAY: Have you driven around the lake to see some of the houses that have when put on those- MR. KALJEVIC: (Interposing) Yes, I have. MEMBER GRAY: Some of them have been put on 30 foot lots. Some of them on South Lake
have been put on 30, 35 foot lots. MR. KALJEVIC: Yeah, but- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Okay. I'm just making some suggestions, because as Dr. Sanghvi said, if we make a decision tonight it probably is not going to be what you want, so if you want to take this -- get with Sarah and get some of our notes, what we're talking about -- she'll put it in writing for you, I'm sure -- take them back with your architect and take a new look at how -- you know, a fresh approach to this, because basically you got a street in the back and street in the front, what can you do with that. I mean, I know, you know the neighbors use the alley for -- to get to their garages, and that cleans up the whole front of the house. You may want to talk to your architect about that and the fact that with new construction we're not quite as generous with variances on the sides and on the rear, because this is a good size lot for that area of the city. This is a very good size lot. MR. KALJEVIC: I see a lot of houses
there that they don't need- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Some of those are 30 and 40 foot lots, too. MR. KALJEVIC: Yeah, but they don't have on the sides- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Some of them have been there 30 or 40 years. MEMBER GRAY: Yes, yes, yes. MR. KALEVIC: Okay. If I put -- if I want to put garage in the back and keep the same size of the house and -- that way I can forward the house a little bit, the garage is- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Keep in mind that we may not be willing to give you both variances on both sides. That's why you need to talk to your architect about this. MR. SAVEN: I think it's important, sir, that you take a look -- understand what the Board's trying to relay to you in terms of the number of variances which is being brought before them tonight. You have a potential to reduce the amount of variances. Unfortunately, we have a 15 foot side yard variance that you have to contend with.
Depending on how you work this out, it might be to your advantage to try to reduce the one that's lesser and go for a little bit more on one side if it has to be done. Okay? MR. KALJEVIC: Is there a number to -- when I- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) We can't do that. MEMBER SANGHVI: I want to make something very clear. By and large, we do not give any variances for new construction. MR. KALJEVIC: I understand that. MEMBER SANGHVI: So what we are trying to suggest to you is try and readjust that in such a way that you need the least variances rather than increasing them, okay. So I want you to go and talk to your architect, tell them what we told you, tell them also that we suggest a better idea to put the garage in the back with the entrance to garage from the back alley rather from the front side and see how it can be worked out without asking for any major variances, which would be easier for us to handle.
And that is why my suggestion is that you want to ask us to table this this month and you want to go and talk it over with your architect and see if you can come up with an idea which is acceptable to you and also which falls within the parameters of the City's ordinance. MR. CHAIRMAN: What we -- and just reiterating what Mr. Sanghvi has said, we would like to have you come back with a minimum request that you have to have, and I would say if you came back with a request on three sides again, you're not going to get it. At least you wouldn't have my support. MR. KALJEVIC: Pretty much on the sides, that was, you know -- that's what I thought was minimum that I can put on first floor. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you're really basically -- and what we're talking about for the ordinance, you're overbuilding that lot. Would you like to table that, have another look at it and come back? MR. KALJEVIC: Yeah, sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board Members, we'll table this until the petitioner gives us new
direction on what he wants to follow. MR. SAVEN: I would like to mention to petitioner that if he changes the request and it does increase any of the side yard setback, we will have to renotifiy, so please make sure you do this in an expedited manner, please. MR. KALJEVIC: Okay. MEMBER GRAY: As soon as possible. MEMBER SANGHVI: That will be for your benefit. MR. KALJEVIC: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-004 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, 02-004, filed by James Cox at 44450 Sussex Drive, is requesting a 9.1 foot dimensional side yard variance for the construction of an additional attached garage. Would you both be sworn in, please, by our secretary. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth?
MR. & MS. COX: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please present your case. MS. COX: I'm Denise Cox and this is my husband, Jim, and we reside at 44450 Sussex. We are requesting a variance to build an attached garage on our existing home. We live in Cedar Springs and our house was built in 1979. I don't know if you have a picture of it or not, but we do have -- we're requesting the variance for the garage that is to be built on the east side of our property, and right now they're -- it is woods on that side of the property. We also live on a pond, so the closest neighbor -- we have one next-door neighbor. We don't have really anybody in front of us and anybody in back of us. We did get letters from our neighbors, so we do have the support from the Cooks and the Hendersons as well. The Cooks live directly next to us on the west side, and the Woods are on the east side. Also, one of our neighbors,
Mr. Bob Zaad, was also kind enough to join us to give us his support as well. We did turn in a letter from the association, and they told us that they would support us as long as we could get this variance. Some of the reasons that we feel that we should get the variance includes that our 1979 house was one of the smallest models built, and when we moved into the neighborhood three years ago we had a family of four. We are now a family of five. And it does not provide a lot of closet space. Right now we have a two foot by three foot closet on our first floor, so if we could build this garage it would allow us to have more storage space, more closet space on the first level, as well as free up some basement storage, because we were thinking of putting our laundry on the first floor as well. Right now our current garage is very small. We don't have a lot of room for a vehicle. We don't even park our vehicles in there right now with all the lawnmowers, snowblowers, bikes, tools. We just can't fit everything in there.
And our association does not allow sheds, so -- we looked into that as well. And let's see. That's really all I have. It -- we have looked in our neighborhood, and it does appear that some people have been granted variances for three car garages. MR. COX: There are two homes that I found in our subdivision. It looks like they've gotten variances. I don't want to say this person, but -- I think that's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience wish to input into this case? MR. ZAAD: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, could you please step forward. For the record, could we have your name and address, please. MR. ZAAD: Robert Zaad, 24921 Christina Lane, Novi. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, your comments. MR. ZAAD: I've been there 23 years. My house is kiddy-corner from -- they're in full view. I'm very proud to have them as a neighbor.
And everything they've done to that house has just enhanced the neighborhood, and I have no objections to it because I thought about doing that to my house, too, and my house is a lot larger than theirs, but my kids are gone, so -- but I think it's a superb idea, and everything they've done to that house so far has just, you know, just enhanced the neighborhood. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, there were eighteen notices sent, we received two approvals, which you've alluded to also, plus additions. If you have additional approval sheets, would you please present them so we can put them in the file. MR. COX: Yeah, we have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Just a couple issues. As you can tell, there's a wooded area on the east side of the property line. I did send out our
woodlands person, and they recommended that the snow fence be installed should this variance be granted for the protection of the woodlands on that side. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: Perhaps -- I have been there and I've seen this place and -- but for the fact that we (inaudible) I think this is not going to impact anybody else in the neighborhood when given permission and I think they have a real hardship and I'm quite happy to support their application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board Members? Miss Gray. MEMBER GRAY: What are you going to do with the existing garage? Part of it's going to be converted to a laundry and walk-in closet. And what about the rest of it? MR. COX: It's going to stay a one car garage. If you see our plan, it's going to look like it's a three car garage but it's going to be an L.
MEMBER GRAY: That's what I thought. Okay. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, sir. Would you like a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought you were indicating- MR. SANGHVI: (Interposing) No, I wasn't saying anything. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry. Board members, further comments or discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If none, Mr. Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: I make a motion, sir, that in Case Number 02-004, that applicants' request be granted due to the hardship and also due to the situation, peculiar siting of the lot and the wooded area around and this variance is not going to impact any of the neighbors. MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's request as presented. Is there any further discussion on the motion?
MEMBER SANGHVI: With the inclusion of the fence, the snow fence that was recommended. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir and ma'am, your variance request has been approved. See the Building Department for necessary permits. We wish you the best of luck. MR. & MS. COX: Thank you.
CASE NUMBER 02-005 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, 02-005. MR. SAVEN: If I may, Mr. Chairman, what I'd like to do is bring to the Board -- this is, again, dealing with the SAD, which was located between Novi Road and the boulevard on Twelve Mile Road. One of the issues which was brought before us just most recently was the fact that there's a grating permit that's necessary for Twelve Mile adjacent to the Ethan Allen property. If you've been by there, you can see that there is a small berm that is approximately three foot in height and it is adjacent to that wall. That berm will be affected by the grating in that area. Because there's a berm requirement pursuant to the ordinance, that's why this has to come back to the Board. And, once again, it's dealing with the SAD for the improvements to Twelve Mile Road. Tom will answer any questions if there may be any necessary, because he's most involved in the right-of-way issues.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to say this. Anyone else in the audience who would like to input into the case? (no response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: There were six notices sent with no response. You didn't have to notify the neighbors on the north side? MR. SAVEN: Not -- very funny. We won't go there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tom, any comments? MR. SCHULTZ: No. This is no different than a couple of the others that have come before you, McDonald's and Art Van, and few others. We're essentially imposing a difficulty, and the City is seeking a variance on behalf of the property owner in this situation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board Members? Miss Gray. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chairman, if it's in order, I'd like to propose a motion. I'd like to move to approve that this be -- this variance be granted due to the City-imposed hardship due to road improvements on Twelve Mile.
MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to grant the variance as requested. Any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance has been approved. Make sure you pull necessary permits if need be. End of cases. Other matters?
MR. SAVEN: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: In your packet was a diagram basically which you had asked of me to present to you on those signs -- where those signs would be required to be exempt from requirements of the sign ordinance. Also -- and this was for Fountain Walk by the way. Also, number two, I think it's very important to let you know that the City is actively pursuing easements and right-of-ways for the improvements along Grand River. It has been brought to my attention about two-and-a-half weeks ago -- we know we're going to be going through the same type of scenario as we have off of Twelve Mile Road, and I just want to prepare the Board that until -- these are a little more difficult because these are some of the ones that were not conforming for a long period of time. Zoning has changed. A little bit of research has got to be done and we'll we back before the Board probably -- in April, Tom? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, April. MR. SAVEN: Somewhere along April,
along that line. So there will probably be quite a few cases before you at that time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody not going to be at next month's meeting? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sounds great. Under other matters for next month's meeting is election of officers. Since Mr. Sanghvi and I were confirmed after our last meeting, we should have this at our next meeting, take care of this. Board Members, other comments? Miss Gray. MEMBER GRAY: I don't know if this is the appropriate time to do this, but Don, I know you're aware of it -- I'm sure you're aware of it -- with 207 Charlotte- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) It will be back before the Zoning Board of Appeals next month. MEMBER GRAY: I understand it's going to be for setback variances? MR. SAVEN: It will be for one setback variance. They came before you with five, you beat them up, tried to get them to come back for one. There were several -- there was several
issues that was brought before the Board. I know that Jim said attach a garage. I mean, those were -- he wants an attached garage so he has some building to keep distance away from the homes. There were several issues. The neighbor next door was one that was concerned because of the ten foot -- or the setback that they had. I think they wanted five foot on that one particular side. And the parking in the front. I remember because they didn't have a garage, that they wanted to -- the placement of the cars, get them off-street parking. That was another issue. They're trying to address all these particular issues, and they will be back before you. It looks as though it's only going to be one variance, going down to a one car garage. And I think that's what we tried to explain to that individual today, is to try to minimize it as much as possible. So that's where we're at. MR. CHAIRMAN: One sounds a lot better than five. MR. SAVEN: Well, that's what it
started off with, is five, and they came back with three, and then that still wasn't satisfactory. MEMBER GRAY: Because of the neighbors on both sides of the property and the smallness of the lot. MR. SAVEN: Yeah. The only problem that I have is I wish -- and I know that they tried to buy the property immediately east from- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Mrs. Thompson? MR. SAVEN: Mrs. Thompson. Mrs. Thompson does not want to sell the property. MEMBER GRAY: Mrs. Thompson's been trying to buy that lot. MR. SAVEN: Yeah. So now Mrs. Thompson's going to have a problem. She wanted to build on that property, but the City can't get involved in this type of a dispute. They can only act on those specific issues that are relative to the zoning ordinance. Unfortunately, the gentleman has taken every effort to take care of this particular problem. The problem is he's got such a small lot, and the fact is that he has got no room.
I mean, when the plan came and I build this house, the parameters were there. The height requirement was the one in which we beat him up on, and that's why the job was stopped. I mean, we went through a lot of court action in this particular area, so his only alternative is to come back before the Board for that one variance. The only issue is that if we take a look at this and deny him any type of relief, we're going to be buying the property, I can almost guarantee that. MR. SCHULTZ: I can't say it any better. MR. SAVEN: We need to get him down to the most minimum, whatever it is. MEMBER GRAY: If I may ask, because I'm not quite sure, but -- I mean, is he coming back and asking for the one variance because he's already put in the foundation and everything and we can't basically force him to tear it out? MR. SAVEN: Well, if the foundation meets the requirements with what he intends on doing, then why would we tell him to tear it out? MEMBER GRAY: Well, for one thing, it
was poured uninspected. MR. SAVEN: That's true. MEMBER GRAY: There's a lot more in this that- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) You're absolutely right. MEMBER GRAY: I'm not trying to be, you know, too picky, but I've been -- I drive by there every day, and I saw the cement truck there Friday morning. MR. SAVEN: There were -- there was- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) And he was told not to pour, so- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) He was told not to pour. He circumvented the procedures and policies of the City. MEMBER GRAY: Absolutely. MR. SAVEN: But, definitely, that is a point. MR. CHAIRMAN: If -- well, I won't even -- MEMBER GRAY: I don't want to belabor the issue, and I appreciate the indulgence of the
Board. I'm just, like, how can this happen. MR. CHAIRMAN: I can say that if he comes back before us, all these issues are going to come up. MR. SAVEN: That's fine, and it should. It really should. MEMBER GRAY: Well -- and I have to tell you, I appreciate Terry -- Mr. Morrone's frankness in getting back with me on these, and I know he's kept Sarah apprised as to what's going on, too. And the other thing that I was asking him about is what's going on with the house at 2230 Old Novi Road, because they've three dumpsters that they've hauled out, and is it a rental, is it -- you know, what is it, what's going on. He said he's got to check into it. MR. SAVEN: I will tell you this, it came to me as Austin, 2230 Austin. MEMBER GRAY: Really? MR. SAVEN: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: 2230 Old Novi Road. MR. SAVEN: And my inspector went over there. Of course, I'm very rarely sitting in
a place for more than five minutes, so I don't see him as often as I want to, but we did correct that. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. I appreciate your help. I mean, renovations are going on in that area, but- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I'm amazed, Sarah. MR. SAVEN: I think it was a concern of whether or not this house was put on the dangerous building list. I think that it was. MR. CHAIRMAN: With all the equipment (inaudible) I'm amazed they still have a frame of the building. MEMBER GRAY: Well, I was just hoping that none of those shingles were asbestos. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comments to be extended before the Board this evening? MR. SAVEN: I'll shut up. MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is adjourned. (The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.) Date approved: March 5, 2002 __________________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary - - -
C E R T I F I C A T E I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby certify that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of 78 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|