| 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, October 1, 2002. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I think we can go ahead and get through some of the early stuff of this meeting. Sarah, you want to call the roll? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: 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: Okay. We do have a quorum, and so this meeting is now in session. Ladies and gentlemen, we do publish on the front page of this yellow document rules of conduct, and I would encourage you to read that and abide by it. Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing board empowered by the Novi City Charter to
hear appeals seeking variances from the application of the Novi Zoning Ordinance. It takes a vote of at least four members to approve a variance and a vote of the majority of the members present to deny. We do have six members present, so any decisions tonight will be final. Sarah, give me an update on the agenda. I thought we had some cancellations. MS. MARCHIONI: We did. Case Number 02-087 will be tabled to the November meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: And that was, on the agenda, number what? MS. MARCHIONI: Number four. MR. CHAIRMAN: Number four, okay. MS. MARCHIONI: Number three also tabled to November 4 for the Novi Party Store, 02-083. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. MS. MARCHIONI: And I think that's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: And- MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) Oh. 305 Guana (ph) last month also got tabled to
November. MR. CHAIRMAN: Which one? MS. MARCHIONI: 305 Guana. That was before the agenda was published. MR. CHAIRMAN: So it's not on this one? MS. MARCHIONI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So number three and number four is tabled. Any other changes? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Move for approval as submitted. All those in favor, say aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Minutes, we do not have any minutes to review this evening. Public remarks. This is a time of the night that if you have something to present to the Board, do it now, but if it relates to a specific case, hold your thoughts until that case is called. Okay. Anybody want to read us the riot at this is time? (No response.)
CASE NUMBER 02-076 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We will call the first case, because it is 7:30. Case 02-076 filed by Don Henry of Tomco Fabricating. Are they here? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I'll tell you what. We will -- we won't dismiss this. We'll hold it and we'll call it a little bit later, but we call the next case, 02-080, filed by April Scott. CASE NUMBER 02-080 MR. CHAIRMAN: April, as I recall, has got a piece of property that her mother or grandmother wants to build a house on, and she had some problems with the neighbors, and maybe you can tell us how you got everything all resolved. I'll add that your testimony -- you're still under oath, okay? MS. SCOTT: Okay. Did you want me to kind of go through everything that I went through last time, since it- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing)
No. MS. SCOTT: -because it wasn't part of the meeting? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I want you -- I would like -- I would prefer you to just give us an update as to what's transpired since last time. MS. SCOTT: Okay. Basically what we were requested to do is go and stake out the property, which we have done. It was also suggested that we talk to the neighbors; however, I only had a chance to talk to a few, wasn't able to talk to very many, and provided the information that I received. At this time am I able to rebuttal any of their remarks from the objections? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I haven't gotten that far yet. I want you to keep telling us what progress you made, if any. MS. SCOTT: That's pretty much it as far as progress. I've done some studying up on some of the objections, so that's why I was- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) But basically what you presented with respect to the
house and if placement- MS. SCOTT: (Interposing) Oh, excuse me. Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did that change? MS. SCOTT: I did change the dimensions. You should have new drawings. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tell us what's different. MS. SCOTT: Can everyone make that out? Okay. The changes that were made is -- one of the neighbors had that this 113, I had that it was 114 based on an old survey. And this variance right here is no longer needed, so what I'm actually requesting is a 14.25 variance in the rear, which would be right here. This would be the shortest point. And 14 feet in the front, and that would be the only variances that we would be indicating right here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So we've got a modified footprint of where this house is desired to be placed? MS. SCOTT: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: And let me back up a second. You said you didn't have a chance to talk
to the neighbors or- MS. SCOTT: (Interposing) That's correct. I had spoken with a few previously, but I didn't get a chance to talk to very many others. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we'll get a chance to talk to them tonight. MS. SCOTT: I'm welcoming that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. At this point, there were 31 notices sent to adjoining property owners, there were 22 objections. Does anyone in the audience wish to address the Board regarding this case? If there's more than a couple, would you please line up so we can expedite matters? Thank you. Give us your name and address, sir. MR. POSTMA: Chris Postma, 905 Lamay. I'm just here -- you have a sheet of 18 signatures. It's probably the substantial part of that 22, and I'm pretty much here to represent the people, just saying at this point they're be crowding small manufactured home on a really small lot, and those of us back there that are improving our properties, we're spending money, we're spending our time and
they're going to come in and do this and we're all going to loose. I know my house is going to be devalued from it, and I know probably another 50 or 60 percent of the houses in that neighborhood are going to go down because of it. Okay? We went around, we talked, everybody talked together, and just nobody can understand why you'd wanted to jam a manufactured home with those dimensions onto that property. That's about it. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, while we had 22 written objections, there was also a transcript hear that I'll read. This letter is written in regards to the requested variances for lot 70 and 71 in Idlemere Park subdivision. That's the homeowner that's near the property in question would strongly object to the zoning variances. Lot 70 and 71 combined are tiny and irregular. Building on the site would be nothing but crowd a small manufactured house next to the existing homes, leaving almost zero side yard setback and no room for parking. The area is steadily improving. This substantial decrease in the property values would
pass through the years. Placement of a manufactured home on this lot would do nothing but cause generalized property devaluation for the area, and that is signed by 18 homeowners. Next up, sir. MR. GRAVES: My name is Mike Graves. I live at 903 Lamay. And other than reiterating what Chris Postma just said, we really don't object to something being built on that property; however, the big problem we have is the devaluation of the property or the structure itself, and if she was willing to consider a more -- a nicer type of structure, we wouldn't have such an objection to it, but we're mainly afraid that it's going to devaluate our properties. And we have nothing to gain by that property sitting empty, so it's -- we have nothing against her and we have nothing against something being built there. We just want something that's going to enhance the property and not devaluate it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Next, sir. MR. JOSEPHSON: Richard Josephson at
163 Maudlin, adjoining property. I pretty much feel the same as these people here. If she wanted to build a stick built house there it would be no problem. Moving a mobile home in there or a modular home, or whatever -- and I got the most -- she'd be crowding me the most of any of those people. I'm right next to it. Her driveway would go ten feet from my bedroom, so -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thanks. MR. RUSSELL: My name is Randy Russell. I was here the last time. I'm a realtor, I'm a property owner in the city of Novi. All of you saw what that manufactured home looked like. It was beautiful. It is far nicer than many of the homes that are in there. It will increase the value. I can attest to that. These people are not realtors. I can. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else in the audience? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. You'll get your chance for discussion. MS. SCOTT: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department?
MR. SAVEN: Just to bring to the Board's attention, basically recapping what was done over the last month was the fact that the amount of variances have been reduced. This is an unusual piece of property. The point of whether or not this is a mobile home or a manufactured home, there's case law and case study in regards to mobile homes and manufactured homes on private property. This could be attested to by our city attorney. What's before us today, I think you should be taking a look at the request for variances that are before you tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like your input. Thank you. MR. SCHULTZ: I think, just to, I guess, to emphasize what Mr. Saven said, this is a case where you need to be careful to look at the footprint of the building, the requested variances from the side and front yard setbacks. Mr. Saven is absolutely correct, that good, bad or indifferent, the law in the State of Michigan is that that manufactured house is not to be discriminated against by virtue of the fact
that it's a manufactured home rather than a stick-built home. And as you consider this, look at the drawing, look at the setbacks, evaluate it that way, not based on the quality of the housing, which will be an issue -- if you were to grant the relief would be an issue for the Building Department to worry about when they come to put the structure on the property. MR. CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, and I'm very clear on your guides here, we have before us a request for two variances on setbacks. That's what we're dealing with. The petitioner is obligated to meet all of the Building Department's requirements with respect to foundation, with respect to everything to make this look like, feel like, quack, and talk like, walk like a regular home, and that debate's not in front of us. What is in front of us is an issue of setbacks. And I'll open it up the questions from the board members. MEMBER REINKE: Well, I guess the comment I make is you have an odd sized lot, and no
matter what is put on there it's going to be a difficult situation, but I think they have to show me a little more creativity than just to say that there's one size can fit the lot. MEMBER GRAY: Frank? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Sarah. MEMBER GRAY: If I may, I'm glad to see that your request for variances on the north has been decreased, has been eliminated. I still have a problem with the variances you are requesting. I've driven by. I live three houses away. I've driven by four our five times. I've seen how you staked it out. On the original plat that we were given, Mr. and Mrs. Wesland's garage is less than five feet from the property line. That's been existing for many, many years. Rich, how far is your house off the property line to the north, two feet maybe? MR. JOSEPHSON: Very close. MEMBER GRAY: Very close to two feet off the property line? I firmly believe that you have a
right to build here, and putting in a foundation and bringing in a manufactured home I really don't think is the best way to accomplish what you're trying to. I realize that it may be more economical to do it that way. What you're also proposing, what some of the neighbors may not realize, is that you are also proposing to build a carport. That's going to require more setbacks. MS. SCOTT: No. Actually, we're not requiring the carport. MEMBER GRAY: You mentioned it last month. MS. SCOTT: I mentioned that we were looking at possibly building a garage. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MS. SCOTT: But then we -- because you indicated that a variance would also have to be requested. I struck -- basically I struck that from- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) I firmly believe that this lot is buildable, that when you look at any of the small lots in the north end of the city that were platted in the teens and 20s
that are 30, 35, 40 foot in width and very shallow in depth in some cases, as is this one, that you have to be creative and you have to look outside the envelope. If I was looking at this to purchase to build, I would build a garage and build over the garage. That's just one way of accomplishing that goal. I really don't think, that with the variances you are requesting -- I think they're excessive for this type of a use. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Other comments? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll plug in my two cents. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Please. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Reinke to expound a little more on his previous statement? I only caught part of what he said, I apologize, but if you could explain a little bit- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) What I
said is that it's an odd shaped lot. It -- as I agree with what Miss Gray said, I believe it's a buildable lot, but I think in those kind of things we have to be even more creative, and you aren't going to bring in a conventional size building, as they're proposing, and have it really fit on that lot without having a lot of problems. We've had homes that have been built on small lots. They haven't been a perfect rectangle or anything for what they've built, but they've been able to build and they've been nice substantial homes. And I think this kind of lot is going to warrant that type of situation rather than just bring a box in and set it on the lot. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, personally, I'm still troubled by the number of to-be neighbors that have an objection to this; although, I will, again, point out we're not going to deal with the issue whether this is a manufactured home or not. That's not on our plate. The issue is setbacks and whether a manufactured home or a stick house or a log cabin could be made and built on this lot with
less or least variance needs as that -- is my issue. April, at some point in time you said you wanted to comment with respect to the neighbors and- MS. SCOTT: (Interposing) Yeah, actually, I did. Is that my chance, my invitation? Okay. I appreciate that. A lot of the neighbors were concerned about the size of the lot, and based on the restrictions -- some of the neighbors weren't here in the last meeting, so I just would like to reiterate that the home on the piece of property would justify or cover 19 percent of the piece of property when the limitations are a maximum of 25 percent, so I am well within the restrictions in that means. And, also, I did take some pictures along the street of the neighboring houses for -- to show you conformity, if -- those of you aren't familiar with neighborhood, just to kind of give a few examples. I didn't label these as I was doing them, but I think I can go through most of them. This is heading, I guess it would be
westbound on Maudlin from South Lake Drive. And this is continuing on, just kind of showing how close the houses actually are for the variances. I know that some are grandfathered in. This is continuing on. This is the neighboring house to the piece of property. I can't -- this is Maudlin and Lamay. And this is on Eubank. And I think this is also on Eubank. Oh, sorry. This one -- these two are on Eubank and -- sorry. My printer kind of messed up on that one. But I think that one also is Eubank, just to kind of give a generalization of the area. I also have some information in reference to -- we're not focusing on that, so I won't do that. Just in note to a couple of -- in speaking with a few of the neighbors, they had mentioned that the owner had offered them the piece of property to purchase a while back; however, based on the price they didn't want to go with that offer, so this home -- or this piece of property is available to anyone who's willing to pay the price, provided that the variance is allowed.
And I know that it is a small lot and we can try and get a little creative with our variances provided as far as, you know, rotating the home, but our budget does not hold for other means, so -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. That was kind of the direction that I was going to lead you, whether things can be done by twisting and moving this, but I won't get into that. We have before us a request for variance, and if there are other comments, questions by board members? MEMBER SANGHVI: I just would like to make one comment, Mr. Chairman. What is before us is a very tricky situation. Neighbors don't like the kind of house that's going up, and, unfortunately, that is -- the type of house is beyond the terms of our domain. We can only decide whether this kind of variance can be granted or not, and with that being made very clear by the city attorney, I know and you know that there are lots of houses with this kind of variances in the area, and just strictly on that basis I would have a great deal of difficulty denying the variance
from the applicant. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, with that said, we'll listen to a motion, if there is, and we'll get a feel for how the board sits. MEMBER SANGHVI: All right. I will make a motion that in Case Number 02-080 the applicant's request for variance be granted because of the odd shape of the lot. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MEMBER REINKE: I can't -- Mr. Chairman, I can't support the motion because I believe that it's a buildable lot. I think that to say only one size home -- that size home can fit on that lot and be done with less intrusive variances I think is a very good possibility. I can't support the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll expand on Laverne's comments. The petitioner has suggested that this is the only house that she can build on this, and part of that is due to financial restrictions, and this Board -- this ZBA Board
cannot include financial hardship as a condition for a ZBA variance; is that correct? MEMBER REINKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We have comment and we have a motion. Sarah, you want to call the roll and see how we sit? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: No. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: What did that end up, three/three? MS. MARCHIONI: Three/three. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Further
discussion is needed. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair, I feel that the applicant has not demonstrated that this house, or any other house, cannot be built with less variances as requested, and for that reason I could not support the last motion. Again, there has to be some meeting of the minds somewhere along here. Irrespective of the type of house that's being proposed, I fully acknowledge that a manufactured home can, in fact, look like a stick built home. I just don't think that this particular size is the best for this particular lot, and will stick to that point of view. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Other comment by the Board? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: I personally don't believe that we've seen enough examples of options of different configurations of placing the house. I think that we should have asked, and I'll ask right now, the petitioner to consider looking at other options for a prefab house that gives a
footprint that is less- MS. SCOTT: (Interposing) May I make a comment to that? MR. CHAIRMAN: As soon as I'm done talking. MS. SCOTT: Excuse me. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll go back to my comment that this is new construction, this is brand-new construction. MEMBER GRAY: Yep. MR. CHAIRMAN: And because this particular applicant doesn't want to build a stick house that may enable her to place it positioned so that it has minimal incurs (ph) into the setbacks, I don't think that that's a reason for us to grant a variance. It's been in her -- it's been her position that she has a particular house that she wants to buy and slap on this lot, and to do so requires the variances. Well, I don't think that that's within our scope, and certainly isn't representative of a hardship. Ma'am? MS. SCOTT: I currently own the home
that I'm trying to get out of a park, and I've been trying to get out of a park for about four years, so -- it's a brand-new home that was put in a park with the intentions of moving it but couldn't find a piece of property close enough to my family, so I had -- was given an option to move into my grandfather's home and take care of it while he moves up north, and my mom is in an apartment and she has decided that she wants to get out of the apartment so she can basically get by on retirement, but can't do so in an apartment, and this means would be of assistance to her. So I offered to sell her my home provided we find some property in the local area. She wanted to stay in Novi, and that's what brought me here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. But you haven't bought this property? MS. SCOTT: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So you could still shop for property? MS. SCOTT: We've been shopping for four years. But, yes, we could still shop. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. MEMBER REINKE: Well, I -- to buy
this piece of property, you're creating your own hardship because of the amount of variances that would be required, and the thing is it's perpetuating a problem that's there right now. The problem that's there right now, it's an older area, the homes are built too close to the roads, and for the size lots and everything, I think we have to very seriously look at variances that are granted up there and -- not saying it can't be built, but it really has to be very creatively looked at. MR. CHAIRMAN: We may still be sitting on a tie vote, but I'll throw out another option for you, because obviously the next motion is going to be for denial, and I -- I hate to put cases off. It just bugs the crap out of me, but given you still got an issue with neighbors that you have not been able to address or even talk to, they're here tonight, they're here tonight, and I bet that they'll spend 20 minutes with you out in that atrium. Do we have yesses out there? MS. SCOTT: I've spoken with all of them, but I can speak with them again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm going to give you an option, because I'm going to do one of two things. I'm going to allow you to put this off another month and see if you can work it out, or I'm going to make a motion. MEMBER REINKE: Well, if her house, what she wants to put on there, is not going to change, I think we're going against what we can really deal with. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know. I don't know that, Laverne. I mean I -- we were very specific that we ask the -- we asked the petitioner to sit down and talk with the neighbors. Now, for whatever reason, that didn't work out. MEMBER REINKE: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's been our mode of operation for many years when we got this problem with neighbors and building new or adding on. Let the neighbors work it out, let them come before us and have them nodding their heads. Well, they're not nodding their heads. MEMBER REINKE: Well, what I'm saying is, that from my position, if the house size, footprint, is not going to change, my support is
not going to change either. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sorry to put you on the spot, but that's what I'm going to have to do. MS. SCOTT: Well, if the neighbors have to make a decision based on the laws, I mean -- I've argued every point that there is to argue, but they weren't part of the meetings, so -- I mean, I can try and talk to them. MEMBER GRAY: Well, if I may, what you need to know is even though they may not have been here for the meeting itself, this is televised. MS. SCOTT: This is? MEMBER GRAY: Yep. So I'm sure many of the neighbors are home watching right now, and I'm sure some of the neighbors who are here tonight possibly were home watching last month, so -- MS. SCOTT: Because, I mean, I've got the pictures and everything of the home, but if it's based on the size of the lot -- because from all of the -- the petition and the objections, everything comes down to it being a mobile home. MEMBER GRAY: Not true.
MEMBER BAUER: Not true at all. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's why you're in front of us. MEMBER GRAY: I would- MS. SCOTT: (Interposing) Well, other than the variance, excuse me. MEMBER GRAY: I would venture to tell you that the two neighbors whose properties are adjacent, the Weslands and Mr. -- what's your last name, Rich? MR. JOSEPHSON: Josephson. MEMBER GRAY: -- Josephson are in opposition to this simply because of the setbacks, and I think those are two of your biggest concerns right there. It has nothing to do with it being a manufactured home. MS. SCOTT: Well, this is from -- a quote from Mr. Wesland. Again, I most vehemently object to this placement of a used mobile home in my subdivision. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, I'm going to make a motion. I'll make a motion with respect to Case Number 02-080 that petitioner's request be denied due to no hardship created.
MEMBER REINKE: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion on the motion? MR. SCHULTZ: A little. You guys make great findings before you make the motion and then the motions are- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) The motions suck. MR. SCHULTZ: All of the discussions that you had and the comments you put on the record- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Friendly amendment, Mr. Brennan? MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon? MEMBER GRAY: Friendly amendment? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: That the petitioner has not shown that she cannot build without less variance. MR. SCHULTZ: Incorporate your previous comments from the record, and that's a good motion, that's a motion that- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) That's fine. That's my friendly amendment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And I accept that. MEMBER REINKE: And I support the modified friendly motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further discussion? (No response) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please call the roll. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: 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 Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, April, but maybe we -- maybe you can work it out another way and we'll see you again.
CASE NUMBER 02-088 MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to call the next case. This is 02-088. I think this is CVS Warehouse. This is a sign case. Sir, you want to give us your name and be sworn by the secretary? MR. HAWKINSON: Yeah. Hi. My name is Jamie Hawkinson. I work for CVS Pharmacy located at 43800 Genmar 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? MR. HAWKINSON: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Tell us what you want to do. MR. HAWKINSON: We are requesting permission to change verbiage on the existing sign that currently reads Arbor Commerce Park to read CVS Distribution Center. The reason for our request is to show that our business is located in the park. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were
fifty notices sent; one approval, one objection. And, sir, I can tell you you've got a pretty irritated neighbor, and I'm going to let you deal with that separately because I think you should. Are you with the sign company or with CVS? MR. HAWKINSON: No, I'm with CVS. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, good. I'm going to fold this up and give it to you and you can come get it after the -- after, okay. MR. HAWKINSON: Sorry about that. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Anybody in the audience wish to make comment on this particular case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Only that this was a previous approval under sign Case Number 1568, which was in your packet, and basically describing the approval which was granted before. There's no change in the sign, just the face of the sign; is that correct, sir? MR. HAWKINSON: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: There is evidence and
pictures in the file for the viewing audience that we're taking an existing sign and just slapping on CVS over Arbor? MR. HAWKINSON: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any board members questions, comments? MEMBER REINKE: I think really it helps, too, for truck traffic going in and out better identification so they know where they're going, with the disruption and noise generated. MR. CHAIRMAN: And it also makes sense that it's no longer Arbor Drugs and it's CVS. All right, Board Members, let's move along. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion in Case Number 02-088, Jamie Hawkinson of CVS and the CVS sign, being changed from Arbor Commerce Park to CVS Distribution Center be approved based on the fact of the changing market and the operation of the business changing its name. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that?
(No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: 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 Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, sir. You have your permit to change your sign. Would you take a look at this and give it to the boss or -- and maybe somebody can call your neighbor and find out what her problems are. It doesn't relate to the sign, but she's got some other issues. MR. HAWKINSON: No problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thanks. MR. HAWKINSON: All right. Thank
you. CASE NUMBER 02-089 MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-089, Nicholas Malles. You want to raise your hand and be sworn? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you are about to give in the matter before you is truth? MR. MALLES: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You have the floor. Tell us what you want to do. MR. MALLES: I would like to build a garage, but I'm on a small lot. It's a thirty-five foot lot on West Lake Drive, and I'm asking for a side yard variance -- actually, north and the south, and a combined, and also the lot coverage, which isn't right but we can -- my lot's actually larger than what you guys have it down as. I'd like to build a twenty-four foot deep by twenty-two foot wide garage. And to the north it would be around six feet to the property
line; to the south it would be right around five feet to the property line. We got an existing shed there that I'd like to remove. I guess that's about it. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. If there's questions, we'll get to them. All right. We had thirty notices sent; no objections and one adamant thata boy, let him go do it, from your neighbor, Jeff Haiber. So you owe him a beer. MR. MALLES: It's good to get along with your neighbors. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's amazing what a Labatts will do. Anybody in the audience wish to address the board on this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Just point out the fact this is a very narrow lot. There's not much you can do with the property. Where he's placing the shed, basically adheres to the numbers that were presented before you.
Again, he is going to remove the shed. And I just got pretty stingy about the amount of property that he has based upon the information I had as far as the plot plan was concerned. I used figures we had available to us in computing the lot coverage, although he does have more property to the high water tapering mark, which wasn't shown on the plot plan. MR. CHAIRMAN: So depending on the weather, it's under water or dry. MR. SAVEN: There you go. MR. MALLES: It's dry. MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got lots of property now. All right. Board Members? MEMBER REINKE: He's not -- I think he's tried to do and fit it in as well as he possibly could. He's not extending past any existing side walls on the home. It's setting back off West Lake Road, which is a problem we have with a lot of garages up there. I think the petitioner's done an excellent job with what he's got to work with, and I can support the
petitioner's request. MEMBER BAUER: I echo Laverne's -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's hear a motion. MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman, in Case 02-089, I move that petitioner's variance be granted due to lot size and configuration. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Are we going to figure out the lot coverage? MEMBER REINKE: It would be less than what you see, what's there, so that wouldn't be a problem. MS. MARCHIONI: I'm sorry. Who seconded that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Jerry. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?
MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray. MEMBER GRAY: Yep. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Nick, you've got your garage. See the Building Department. MR. MALLES: Should I have asked for a larger one? I'm just kidding. CASE NUMBER 02-090 MR. CHAIRMAN: Also up on the Lakes, is the Heaths here? Come on down. This is Case 02-090, and you have a request for a number of variances to build an addition. MR. HEATH: That's correct. My name is Doug Heath, 905 South Lake Drive. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth?
MR. HEATH: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. HEATH: Go ahead. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. MR. HEATH: Basically, if you looked at the drawings here, we're requesting the addition to the garage on the west side of the building. What we tried to do is put it on the land where we (inaudible). On the front side of our lot there's some very mature trees, give us a nice setting, so we really want to go forward of the site of the mature trees. Obviously, I can't go east because there's only six feet to the east. And you look to the rear, from the back side of our house, what you see in the back side is actually the living space. It's like a -- there's a stairway going upstairs, there's a furnace room, a bathroom, and a bedroom, so going back would be kind of going through the middle of your house to try to get to the back side of your living room. It's about sixteen hundred square feet. The garage is -- actually, the
attached garage currently is basically finished on the inside, so to really raise the floor and take the garage doors off there will present a problem on the side. It will work out very well for us. It will fit very well for us. I've got a three-car garage going on the side of the building. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Fifty-four notices sent; one approval and no objections. And, again, you have a buddy. Bonnie Sepula. MR. HEATH: Yes. I've also got eight of my neighbors to sign off and give dates. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bring it down. MR. HEATH: Of the adjoining properties. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's very helpful. We'll read this in. I've reviewed the variances proposed by Doug Heath and have no objections to the new building. And there are a number of people, eight. So in total there are nine approvals. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Was there anybody in the audience that wanted to talk about
-- Building Department? MR. SAVEN: The existing attached garage is going to be converted? MR. HEATH: That's correct. It's to be made into living space. We want to open up the kitchen, things like that, kind of open it up. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? MEMBER SANGHVI: I've been to the site, I've looked at the place. Very nice looking home. MR. HEATH: Thank you. MEMBER SANGHVI: And everything maintained in a very neat and very clean manner. I was quite impressed by the look of the property, and I think this will give more living space. It's a lot better to have a lot of living space then move somewhere else to find the same thing, so I can support his request. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'll just point out, as we've had a previous case tonight where there were a room full of residents that were objectionable, this gentleman's got nothing but support by his neighbors, and that helps me in my decision.
MEMBER REINKE: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MEMBER REINKE: I still got a problem going out two foot from the lot line. I really got a problem with that. We got a ninety-one foot lot by a hundred six foot lot, and you got excessive lot coverage. Going out to two foot on one side, six foot on the other side, I got a real problem with supporting that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER GRAY: My initial reaction when I saw this, and knowing the house and when it was built, you know -- you're 54 foot back from the road? My initial reaction is build it in front of the existing garage. MR. HEATH: That was our (inaudible) but, again, backing up to mature trees. MEMBER GRAY: And -- well -- and sometimes, you know, you have to do that because two foot from the property line is just -- it's just too much. It's way too narrow. And you've already picked up -- I mean, you've already picked up five feet of the vacated bylaw core easement, so that's an additional to your property from when it
was originally platted, and it's just too much. It's -- MR. CHAIRMAN: If I'm to understand this layout though, while this new garage is projected to be two feet from the property line, it would be twenty-one feet from the next-door neighbors? MR. HEATH: That's correct. MEMBER REINKE: I can't support utilizing the neighbor's space between that. No justification for that. MEMBER GRAY: And there's fences on both property lines, so if there's a fire, I mean how are the firemen going to get to the back of the house? Squeeze through a two foot space? And even our ordinance, if you put in a driveway, requires three foot of soft, so -- from the property line to the cement, so I just think this is too much. MR. CHAIRMAN: What was your problem, sir, with putting the new garage in front of the existing garage? MR. HEATH: To be honest with you, it came down to the mature trees and setting of the
house. That was it, to be basically honest with you. We kind of want to keep that higher, if we could. (Inaudible). MEMBER GRONACHAN: Take it off the new construction you're saying? MR. HEATH: Yeah. You're saying I'm two foot off the line now. If I put a ten-foot door to get in and out, so maybe I'll take it off the side. I'm not sure. MR. SAVEN: How much of an elevation change would you have from the -- it would be the east property line -- I'm sorry, west property line of your garage to your new garage? How much of a change in elevation would that be? MR. HEATH: Actually, it would be the same as the paved driveway right now. MR. SAVEN: So there would be a chance to narrow up the garage? MR. HEATH: Yes, that's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: You know, I don't want to point you in a particular direction, but you've heard a couple people make -- raise some interesting questions, and fire protection was one
that I hadn't considered. If you needed to get fire protection in the back of that house to snuff out a problem early, there's no way to get back there. MR. HEATH: That's valid. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have kids? MR. HEATH: That's valid. MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon? MR. HEATH: That's valid. Most of the properties in this lake area, if you look at most of them, just by law are the same situation. I mean, they're- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) And if we can avoid creating -- do you want to take more time to look at this? MR. HEATH: Yes, that would be fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, do you want to- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Table it for a month -- MR. CHAIRMAN: -table it. MEMBER GRAY: -- and bring it back? MEMBER REINKE: I totally agree with that, because I think we have to -- to build
something out two foot from property line is perpetuating and getting more of a problem than we have there in existence today, and to promote that, I just can't support that measure. I can maybe work with something, but I can't work with two feet. MR. HEATH: Can I ask a question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. MR. HEATH: If I come up next time with (inaudible), what would you like to see there? If I came off four feet or two more feet or four more feet, does that make a lot more sense than what you're trying to accomplish, or- MEMBER REINKE: (Interposing) I don't want to say that because then I'm making a decision for you. I'm saying is you've got enough lot that you're going to have to be creative. You're going to have to give it some thought and not looking at, okay, this is the cheapest way I can do that, which is something that every homeowner, when they're increasing their size, of course, is looking at, but it's not a reason for a variance. If there's something being done --
but from my perspective, to support it, it would have to be a minimal intrusion into that side yard variance. MR. HEATH: Fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: The good news is all your neighbors are supportive. MR. HEATH: That's a good thing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Now all you have to do is come up with something we'll support. And, really, the former is a lot more difficult than the latter, so if you want to come back, we'll see you next month. Sarah, would you put him at the beginning of the agenda so you can get in and out of here and catch the Wings' game? MR. HEATH: Appreciate that. Thanks. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. MEMBER GRAY: Thanks. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Laverne. That was well placed. CASE NUMBER 02-091 MR. CHAIRMAN: 02-091 is filed by Dan Relly. This is Mobile Auto Trim located on
Grand River. You're requesting a use variance. Sir, do you want to raise your hand to be sworn? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. RELLY: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. RELLY: Well, essentially, I'm already working there and would just like to be able to continue to do such. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody in the audience want to make comment? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: No. There were nine notices sent; no approvals, no objections. Probably no one knows you're there. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: I don't -- let me just add a couple of things here. First of all, this used to be the old Jackson Landscape Building. It was actually a house and turned into an office. The zoning district has changed since that time.
What this gentleman is performing is basically okay for a district but it requires special land use approval. This gentleman's operation is a one-person operation. He does the work in the garage. That's all. It's one vehicle in the garage, no outside storage, nothing along this line. And I think that's what needed to be stressed before the Board today, because one of the things they need to know, exactly what you're doing and how you perform the business. The circumstances are that I would strongly suggest to the Board at looking at approving this variance, but I would certainly make it on a temporary basis because there might be subject to change for that district very shortly or in the near future. MR. CHAIRMAN: In other words, continuing jurisdiction? MR. SAVEN: Absolutely. MEMBER REINKE: And probably this applicant only. MR. CHAIRMAN: But you've been doing this business in this particular facility since
'85? MR. RELLY: Oh, no, not since '85, no, sir. It was probably within a year. I've been in business since '85, but just at this location- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Okay. I misread that. Board Members, any questions for the -- all right. Let's hear a motion then. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, may I make a motion that in Case Number 02-091, applicant's request be granted for use variance subject to continued jurisdiction and for this particular owner only. MEMBER GRAY: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well done. Any discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah? MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: 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: That was painless. See the Building Department for any necessary permits. MR. RELLY: Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-092 MR. CHAIRMAN: Michael Hobbs, 128 Maudlin. This is Case Number 02-092, and Mike is looking for a couple variances for the repair and reconstruction of an existing home. Want to raise your hand and be sworn, sir? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. HOBBS: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tell us what you want
to do. MR. HOBBS: Well, actually, I just recently bought a home on Maudlin and I'm trying to update it as far as the structure's plumbing and electrical and putting windows and siding. And the front portion of the house was added on after the original, and they put an improper foundation under it, so what I want to do is basically rebuild what was there. And there was an existing deck on there when I got it that I tore off. That was actually falling down also. So to keep from falling through it I threw it in the dumpster. MR. CHAIRMAN: That'll work. Anybody in the audience care to -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. Is that all or- MR. HOBBS: (Interposing) That's my main goal, is to fix it back up and -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. There were 50 notices sent, and you have an approval from Bonnie Sepula. Must be -- she's on South Lake Drive and Maudlin.
I'm sorry. Did you have a comment? MR. SAVEN: No. MEMBER BAUER: I do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Jerry? MEMBER BAUER: Are you going to be living in the home? MR. HOBBS: Yeah, that's what my plans are, yes. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Brennan? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, ma'am. MEMBER GRAY: If I may, this is directly across the street from my house, and Mike and his crew is doing a fantastic job. The porch that he referred to, for the prior tenant, there was a severely disabled senior citizen. The HCD Committee was going to make arrangements to redo the porch for him. Unfortunately, before we could do that, he passed away. This is only replacing what has been there for -- since 1985, '86, and it certainly will be an improvement to the neighborhood and increase the value of the properties. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I tell you what,
Sarah, I take your endorsement with a whole lot of oomph. There's -- there's a motion on the table to be made, go ahead. MEMBER GRAY: In the matter of Case Number 02-092, I move that we grant the variances requested so that Mr. Hobbs may replace what has been existing for many, many years and bring the house up to code, which he is doing a remarkable job doing, and continue to improve his property. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion on the motion? MEMBER REINKE: Question. You said you removed the deck. Are you going to replace the deck, which would bring it back to 11 foot? MR. HOBBS: Yes, that was my plans. MEMBER REINKE: That's the only thing I have a problem with. MEMBER GRAY: I'd like to make a comment to that. In the past, with these front yard intrusions in the area, there's been quite a bit of problems with parking and off-street parking. If you look at the size of the property,
there is more than enough off-street parking, even with that deck. MEMBER REINKE: I understand that, and I have no problem in supporting the main structure. With the size of the lot and the spacing, I just wonder if that deck could go off at a side a little bit more rather than coming out the total front? MR. HOBBS: Yeah, I could probably relocate that to try to make everybody happy. MR. CHAIRMAN: That would impact that 19 feet variance for the front yard setback? MEMBER REINKE: Well, actually, with the deck he's required, it's down to 11. MR. HOBBS: Right. MEMBER REINKE: So he needs 19, where if that part of that deck was gone it would be less than the 19 foot. That's my point. MR. SAVEN: I'd be cautious about trying to design things for this gentleman based upon what he has there. I'm just pointing this out. It may be that he has anticipation of enclosing that deck. MR. HOBBS: The deck part, no.
MR. SAVEN: That's cool. MEMBER GRAY: How about bringing it back to six feet instead of eight feet and doing a side? MR. HOBBS: That would work for me. MEMBER GRAY: That would work for you? MEMBER REINKE: And the extra two foot I think is really crucial at that point. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. MEMBER REINKE: It's not hampering from you having something out there, but a lot of times that two foot can make a big difference. MR. HOBBS: Not a problem. MEMBER GRAY: Shall I amend my motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER GRAY: Move to approve a lesser variance of nine feet proposed to -- that variance would be twenty-one feet on the front, and the same reasons are cited. MR. CHAIRMAN: Seventeen feet. MEMBER REINKE: Seventeen feet. MEMBER GRAY: Seventeen feet? Oh, wrong way. Okay. Sorry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're clear on what we're doing here? MR. HOBBS: Yeah. You're letting me put a foundation under my existing front part of the house, and you're allowing me to build a six foot deck on the front of that. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. Which, if you so desired, could wrap around the side. MR. HOBBS: Around the side towards the garage? MEMBER REINKE: Correct. MR. HOBBS: Sounds good. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have an amended motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: If not, Sarah, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke. MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, you've got your variances, and see the Building Department. MR. HOBBS: I thank you. MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. MR. HOBBS: Have a good night. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, I had noted that there was a message from you regarding this Tomco, that they were having difficulty in getting quotes on fences and- MS. MARCHIONI: (Interposing) Yeah. I talked to them about a week ago, and they were talking to a few different fence companies and they were going to get back to him so he could bring those figures to the meeting. I don't know what happened. MR. CHAIRMAN: My gut reaction is to toss these out if they don't show up or call us, but it does appear apparent that he's trying to get
some information, and I'd be moved to move this particular case. MEMBER GRAY: Trying to get our attention? MR. SCHULTZ: I'm fine with what the Chair was about to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would propose that we move this into the October- MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing) How about November? MR. CHAIRMAN: We in October already. Let him know he's just been put off a month and hopefully he'll get all his stuff together by then. MS. MARCHIONI: Okay. I have two things. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I think we're at the other business, or other matters. MS. MARCHIONI: On the table you will see something from the office development regarding the Beechforest Office Building. At their meeting we extended the variance to coincide with the final site plan extension, and I had made the mistake -- I just
assumed that their meeting was on the 10th, so I just said went until the 10th, but their final site plan actually expires on August 27th, 2003, so I wanted to get the Board's feeling if we could change that. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I don't have a problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members? MEMBER REINKE: Not a problem. MS. MARCHIONI: And then the second one was Westmarket Square, the leasing sign that's located at Grand River and Beck. You approved it. I don't have the date of the meeting. It was Case 01-077, so it was the end of 2001, and he had said that up to date there were 211,000 square feet, leaving 25,000 square feet vacant. That was five spaces vacant, and he had leases out on two additional spaces, which would leave me with three spaces vacant. And I'm pretty sure he has all of those leased out now, and they still have the sign up. So Allen wanted me to get clarification from you, because your motion had said to grant the petitioner's request for
additional six months or lease. MEMBER BAUER: Right. MS. MARCHIONI: So would you say that time has expired? MR. CHAIRMAN: I would say that. Send them a letter, tell them to take it down. MS. MARCHIONI: Okay. And I have all the new dates for the 2003 meetings. MR. CHAIRMAN: I saw that. Thank you much. MS. MARCHIONI: That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: We did have in our package an update on the Ten and Beck, and I appreciate you sending this. I really do. I've read it at length, and glad we didn't screw up. MR. SCHULTZ: No, it's- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Circuit Court was behind us. MR. SCHULTZ: Always good to see the outcome. MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be appealed though? MR. SCHULTZ: Oh, yeah. It's already been appealed. Our Brief is due in another couple
of weeks. But it's fun to see the result when it leaves here. MR. CHAIRMAN: I was glad to see that -- we spent a -- well, this Board spent a lot of time, I sat out in the audience, but I'm glad to see that we're thinking clear and doing things within the law. MEMBER GRONACHAN: And how important motions are. MR. SCHULTZ: That case actually is- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Is there a motion to call the meeting? MEMBER SANGHVI: I want to make a motion to call the meeting, but I just want to inform the Board that I will not be able to be here next month. I will be out of town. MR. CHAIRMAN: Leads us to a question. What's City Council doing about getting appointment here? MEMBER MARCHIONI: I think the next interviews are in November or December. MEMBER REINKE: Any applicants? MS. MARCHIONI: I put an ad on the TV station, so if anyone was still interested, they
could call me before they have the official interviews. MR. CHAIRMAN: If there's anyone still watching tonight and you want to be part of a most exciting board, come on down. All right. I think that closes this meeting. Anything else? MEMBER SANGHVI: By the way, Tom, what happened to the meeting you had with the City? MR. SCHULTZ: On the sign issue? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. SCHULTZ: You know what, I should follow up on that. It's been a while since we exchanged any kind of discussion about that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, thank you for your time and all your work. (The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m.) Date approved: December 3, 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 sixty-seven (67) typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|