REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF NOVI
TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2001 -- 7:30 P.M.

BOARD MEMBERS
Laverne Reinke, chairman
Jerald Bauer
Frank Brennan
Brian Fannon
Sarah Gray
Cynthia Gronachan
Siddharth Sanghvi

ALSO PRESENT:
Don Saven, building department
Thomas Schultz, city attorney
Sarah Marchioni, planning and development

REPORTED BY:
Cheryl L. James, Certified Shorthand Reporter

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time I would

like to call the Zoning Board of Appeal meeting to

order.

Madam Secretary, would you call the

roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Present.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Present.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Here.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Present.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Present.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Here.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Present.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a full board

before us tonight, so all cases heard will be

final.

Zoning Board of Appeals is a hearing

board empowered by the City charter to hear appeals

seeking variances in the application of the Novi

zoning ordinance.

It takes a vote of at least four

members to approve a variance request and a vote of

majority of the members present to deny a

variance.

The board consists of six members.

Unless there's six members of this full board, any

and all decision made will be final.

Are there any additions, changes or

corrections to the agenda?

Sarah, you talked about a couple

cases.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Yeah. Number two

and three will be switched.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: This is probably a

good time to do this. I'm -- as a resident, I'm

personally involved in two cases on tonight's

agenda, the Ten and Beck and also the Comerica, and

I will not be participating and I'll leave the room

at the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Brennan. In

the first case, since I was absent at last month's

meeting, I'm going to turn that case over to

Mr. Fannon to continue on finishing that case so I

have the same board members reviewing the cases

they had at the last meeting.

Any other changes or corrections to

the agenda?

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

add, if at all possible, I'd like to combine case

number four and five together as they both --

depending on one another, so if we could do that it

would be appreciated, make things go a little bit

easier.

Also I'd like to point out, with us

tonight I'd like to welcome Cheryl James. She's a

court reporter who's going to be with us through

this evening. We're going to give this a shot, see

how things go, and if it goes well we're going to

consider.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Saven.

Any further corrections? If not, I'd

accept a motion to approve the agenda as changed or

corrected.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: So moved.

MEMBER GRAY: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor

signify by saying aye?

(Vote was held.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minutes from the

July 5th meeting, any additions or corrections to

those minutes?

MR. SAVEN: Would be the June 5th

meeting, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What's that?

MR. SAVEN: Would be the June 5th

meeting?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, I have

one change. On page four of the minutes, this is

minor, but at the third paragraph where it says

that I spoke to Mr. Storm, I think it was

Mr. Brennan who has said that. He was the

chairperson at that time. I'm sure I would never

had said anything like this. It's Mr. Brennan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other changes or

corrections?

Hearing none, the chair will

entertain a motion in the case -- or in the -- to

approve the minutes as corrected.

MEMBER BAUER: Move to accept the

minutes as corrected.

MEMBER FANNON: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and

seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. All

those in favor signify by saying aye.

(Vote was held.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed?

(Vote was held.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. At this time it

is a public remarks section. If there's anyone who

would like to address the board, we would assume

and prefer that you would address each case as they

come up, but if there is somebody in the audience

that has something they wish to address the board

on that is not on one of our cases tonight, they

can step forward at this time.

Seeing none, we'll close the public

remarks section and I will turn the meeting over to

Mr. Fannon for continuation of case 01-034.

CASE NUMBER 01-034

MEMBER FANNON: Okay. The way we

left this case off is that we had asked the city

attorney to take the minutes and to present to the

board members who participated in the case at the

last meeting a proposed findings and determination,

and I'm assuming that the people who were here last

month, which is all of us, have had a chance to

review this.

I'm assuming, again, and maybe we can

get some legal advice, that the purpose is to read

this and if we agree with it or don't agree with

it, to make changes to it and vote on it.

MR. SCHULTZ: Exactly.

MEMBER FANNON: That's the purpose of

bringing this back up to tonight.

So with that I would open it up to

the board members to find out if there is anything

that you disagree with as it relates to this

proposed findings and determination, any changes,

discussions before we take any action on it.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: On page nine, I think

it would not be inappropriate if the Chair would

like to have the proponent be given an opportunity

to comment. I'm sure that she's been given a copy

of the finding.

MEMBER FANNON: Okay. Maybe we

should do that first. The petitioner, I see, is

here.

Would you like to make any comments

regarding -- we're assuming you have a copy?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I do.

MEMBER FANNON: And would you like to

speak to us to see -- to tell us what you think of

what this-

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Interposing)

I just have some brief comments. First, I'm going

to renew the objection I made on the evening of

June 5th when you referred this matter to the city

attorney to prepare findings, because I still

believe that it was the board's job to make their

own findings that evening after hearing our case

and to make a decision that evening based on their

finding.

I also want to add that to the extent

that you did ask the city attorney to prepare these

findings for you, that it probably -- if that is

appropriate at all, it would have been more

appropriate to also ask us to also provide you with

some proposed findings and truly review both and

make your decision that way.

I object to much that are in the

findings because I find them more to be conclusions

of law rather than findings of fact and not to be

really reflective of the record. I believe there

are some inaccuracies in the sense that they're not

really findings of fact.

And I was just wondering if the board

-- if everyone did review the findings before

tonight's meeting?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Other than

that, I guess I have nothing else to say.

I also -- well, I do want to know, I

guess, if it's -- if I can talk to Mr. Schultz,

whether you consider tonight to be a final

decision, which would -- if we're going to appeal

this decision, are you going to take the position

that it should be from tonight's meeting, or are

you going to then approve -- I mean, you're going

to approve these minutes in the future, and I just

wonder what position you would take.

MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Schultz, I -- go

ahead.

MR. SCHULTZ: Okay. I guess,

preliminarily, again, these are -- these aren't

findings at all until this board makes them. If

the board chooses to adopt these findings or

amendments to these findings, that will be the

board's action, and the time for appeal will be a

typical -- appeal from that decision.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Which would be

from the day-

MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) Be when

the minutes are approved from tonight's decision,

yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Thank

you.

MEMBER FANNON: Board members? I

agree with Mr. Schultz. I don't think that we're

approving his findings. I think we're approving

our own findings based on whether we agree with

what was typed up or not, the changes. So, I mean,

this is our action tonight. We didn't take any

action the last meeting on the variance itself.

So -- if there are no changes or

additions or suggestions to change this finding and

determination by the board, the Chair would

entertain a motion to adopt these findings and

determination as proposed -- or as written in front

of you.

MEMBER BAUER: I so move that the

things that are in front of us be approved.

MEMBER SANGHVI: Second.

MEMBER FANNON: There's a motion and

a second.

I just want to ask Mr. Schultz one

other question. By approving these findings that

we have read, is the variance, therefore, denied?

Does it actually say that in these --

I'm trying to make sure that the -- that the action

the board is taking is not only adopting the

findings and the determination but the request for

the variance is hereby denied?

MR. SCHULTZ: Would be a motion to

deny based upon the findings that have been

presented to the board.

MEMBER FANNON: I think I just made

that. You're supporting that, that's what I

thought was happening.

Okay. If there is no further

discussion on the -- we'll take a roll call.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MEMBER FANNON: Variance is denied

and we -- we'll probably be looking at this in the

minutes of the next meeting, I would assume, to

approve those-

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Interposing)

Thank you.

MEMBER FANNON: Okay. I'm no longer

the Chairperson.

CASE NUMBER 01-054

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time we'd like

to -- we're going to jump ahead to case number

three, case number 01-054 filed by Gary Gottschalk

representing Comerica 2-29 well.

Sir?

BILL HORN: Good evening,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you be sworn in

by our secretary, please.

BILL HORN: I will do that.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Could you raise

your right hand?

Do you swear that the matter before

you, that the testimony that you're about to give

in this case, is true?

BILL HORN: Yes, I do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you present

your case.

BILL HORN: Mr. Chairman, my name is

Bill Horn. I'm appearing on behalf of Somoco this

evening. With me are Gary Gottschalk,

vice-president of Somoco, as well as Tim Baker, the

operations manager of Somoco.

I'm going to present a summary of our

application to be able to try and answer any

questions you have. These gentlemen are more adept

at answering the technical questions related to the

operations than I am, and I may refer to them in

that regard.

Somoco is seeking a variance from

this board to allow for the drilling of an oil/gas

well on residentially zoned property.

We provide an extensive narrative

discussing this proposal, the operating parameters,

the safety features, what we have been doing at

this site before, charted the characteristics of

the site. We provided data showing the lack of

impacts that would result from this type of

activity.

I'm not going through those in

detail. We will be relying on them but I will

summarize them and make a few points in the part

of our case this evening.

Let me start off by telling you one

thing we are not asking for. We are not asking for

an authorization or a permit to actually drill this

well. That authority lies with the Department of

Environmental Quality and through Chapter 23 of the

State's ordinances of the city council. That

statute -- the statute, the State level and the

city's ordinance, details specific setback

requirements, safety requirements, operational

requirements, all of which will be dealt with

through the issuance of permits by those bodies.

We're here before you to tonight is

really a pure land use question; should we be

granted a variance to drill this well in a

residential district.

Let me run through your ordinance

structures a bit because of the interrelationship

between two different sections of your code.

You have the zoning ordinance which

is applicable, and you have Chapter 23 of the

City's Code of Ordinances which deals with oil and

gas wells.

Under the zoning ordinance, Section

2508 allows for certain types of uses specified in

that section to be permitted in any district or not

-- they aren't limited to any specific district.

One of those uses in Section 7 is oil

and gas drilling facilities, and it makes sense not

to define those in a zoning ordinance to any

particular history because oil and gas is found

where it is, it pays no attention to zoning

districts, municipal districts, state lines,

et cetera.

2508 sub 7 provides that oil and gas

drilling facilities shall be permitted subject to

the requirements of Chapter 23 of the Novi Code of

Ordinances.

Chapter 23 provides for city council

approval of the drilling permit for oil and gas

facilities.

So why are we here in front of the

Zoning Board of Appeals? According to the city

attorney, language found earlier in the section

2508, the uses specified in that section are not

allowed in any residential district. So,

accordingly, we've been told we need a variance

from the Zoning Board of Appeals to locate this

well in a residential district.

The property I'm speaking about is

located south of Ten Mile Road and east of Wixom

Road.

Why should a variance be granted? I

want to make four points. The first two are fairly

obvious, and I'm not going to go into detail with

them. The last two I will discuss in more detail.

First of all, oil and gas is a unique

resource type of land. It can only be used if it

is reached by some sort of drilling. Oil and gas

is located where it is without any involvement of

the City of Novi, without any involvement of

Somoco. It is where it is. It does not limit

itself to any particular zoning district or any

other municipal body.

In this particular case, the

reservoir which we have identified, and have

actually drilled one well into, is located entirely

beneath residentially zoned property. And the only

way to reach this reservoir with the well is to

locate the service facility on or within a

residentially zoned district. That way this is a

very unique circumstance.

Your zoning covers the area where the

reservoir is as well as adjacent areas from which

we could drill from a surface site. And it's all

zoned residential.

We need to drill a second well into

this reservoir for two reasons. One, it will allow

us to recover hydrocarbons which, if we don't drill

the well at this time, we will not be able to

recover from this reservoir.

Secondly, a reason for granting the

variance along with the second well is it will

shorten the time that we will need to produce the

hydrocarbons from this reservoir into one well.

Now, I'll talk a little more in

detail on that in a minute.

The other point I want to cover in a

minute is why there's no impact to public health,

safety, welfare for the public by this particular

proposal.

We're going to be drilling from a

common drill site. There's already one well

there. There has been since 1992. This is a large

parcel, mostly wetlands, a lot of buffer between

the adjoining parcels. The history of development

out there will confirm that there has been no

impact from that well on any of the adjoining

properties or on any interest that the City has to

protect, nor will the second well impact those.

Final point, and I'll just mention

now and get into is, in fact, surrounding area of

this well is now owned by the City of Novi, so this

area will not be developed as residential property.

In fact, I believe the -- or I understand the

City of Novi has an option to purchase the well

site itself, particular area where the well is

located, and the second well would be located once

production is done, which is another reason why we

should be allowed to drill the second well so we

can complete operation soon.

Let me briefly go through the history

of Somoco's development in the city, at least with

regard to the Comerica 1-29 well.

If the history demonstrates that you

can locate an oil and gas well in a residential

district safely without incident and without impact

to any adjoining properties or the public interest

in any way.

Also, the history demonstrates that

questions you may have about granting the variance,

or the concerns, have already been answered by the

City in approving the first well.

And then looking at what the City was

deciding before the first well was drilled, the

history indicates it was correct in finding there

would be no impact.

That history can be implied to the

second well proposal and the conclusion be drawn

that there will be no impact from the second well

located on this property.

In the early '90s, Somoco came before

this Zoning Board of Appeals and the city council

seeking approval to drill the well. There were

many hearings, many hearings. The City hired its

own experts to advise it about this proposal. This

was the first time in the city a well was going to

be drilled in a residential district.

After those hearings, with the advice

of your consultants, the Zoning Board of Appeals

issued a variance allowing the drilling of the well

on this residentially zoned property, this area of

property we're talking about. City council also

issued its permit allowing for the drilling.

Implicit in these approvals is the finding by the

Zoning Board of Appeals, and the council should act

-- there would be no impact to any interest that

this board or the city council is designated to

protect.

And, in fact, history bore this out.

Comerica well was drilled, completed and put into

operation in 1992. There have been no problems

with that well since. We have asked the City for

records of any complaints made regarding operation

of that well. The only complaint that was made was

a complaint in 1992 relating to noise during the

drilling process. The fire department investigated

and no action was taken. After that, there's no

record of any complaints made regarding operations

at this site.

1997, City of Novi's manager,

Mr. Streetwall (ph), was quoted in the

Detroit Free Press discussing this well site, first

well. He stated that when the application process

was ongoing there was a lot of concern regarding

this and a lot of discussion about the well, but

once the well was drilled everybody forgot about it

and didn't notice it.

It's been operating without problems

since 1992. So the issues and concerns that this

board should be concerned with really can be

evaluated in light of the history from the first

well. No impact has been created, no issues have

been raised, no complaints have been submitted to

the City.

Additionally, the materials we

submitted to you is a study by an appraiser. We

asked this appraiser to take a look at the

potential impact on market values of residential

properties adjoining an oil and gas well. Not just

any oil and gas well, the existing one on this

property.

She looked at it, she studied changes

in the market, sales of property, concluded that

there was no impact on the residential property

values, whether existing home sales or new

development and sale of new homes, caused by the

Comerica 1-29 well, the existing well.

I'd also note terms of impact on

property values a letter I reviewed -- form of

letters that Echo Valley Homeowners Association

submitted, which I believe they were intending to

raise this point of some criticism about the

proposal, that they identified six housing

developments which, apparently, are going to be

built near to this site.

I don't view that as a criticism. I

view that as indication that this board was right

before, and the city council was right, that having

a well located in a residential district does not

impact residential values, does not impede

residential property development. These developers

would not be developing these properties nearby if

there was an impact flowing from the existing

well.

So what history confirms is that the

City made the right decision in allowing the first

well to be drilled in a residential history, there

has been no off-site impact from that well, and

that history can be applied to this proposal for a

second well. You can find that there will be no

impact from the drilling of a second well.

Why do we need a second well? Let me

get into a little bit of the technical part of

this.

We need a variance for the second

well because we still can't reach this reservoir to

produce the hydrocarbons that are there from a

non-residentially zoned parcel. There has not been

change in zoning designations of parcels which

would allow us to reach it from nonresidential

property. So we still need to drill from a

residential site.

The site we're on is a perfect site,

approximately seventy-five acres covered by our

lease, not going to be developed, mostly wetland,

heavy trees, well buffered visually, aesthetically,

sound-wise from adjoining properties. The City now

controls all of the surrounding acreage, except the

basic five acre parcel where the well hit is, and

they will obtain that -- or this is a good exercise

option to purchase it once we are done out there.

We need a second well, in fact, to

produce several -- approximately 385 to 485,000

barrels of hydrocarbons which are in this reservoir

which the first well cannot produce.

Let me talk about that. You may

think that the reservoir where this oil and gas

exists is like a cavern, a hollow pool in the

ground. It is not. This is a sample of Niagran

rock, a reservoir rock. This is the type of rock

into which the existing well bore penetrates, in

which the oil is being produced from the existing

well. It's rock. It's solid fossilized corral

rock.

As you can probably infer, you drill

a well into this, depending on the shape and

configuration of that reservoir, where your bottom

hole location ends up may not necessarily allow you

to extract the hydrocarbons from that entire

reservoir.

It's not a pool where you just drill

to the bottom of the lowest depth and let

everything fall down to it and suck it dry. You

have to locate the bottom hole so, given the

permeabilities and the configurations of this

reservoir, you can extract as much as possible.

In Tab D of the materials that we

submitted with their application, you'll see a

diagram of the reservoir and the relative drainage.

The existing well is located in that reservoir, and

the drainage to the second well for penetrating

this reservoir would allow.

Now, you can see that the second well

will allow us to produce hydrocarbons that we will

not be able to recover if we don't put in the

second well.

We did try to use the first well,

Board, to recover additional hydrocarbons. Last

year we reentered that well bore, using some newer

technology, drilled horizontal bore holes at the

bottom of that well, fanning out into the

reservoir. We could not, though, drill them far

enough in order to extract all of the hydrocarbons

that are in that reservoir, again, given the

location of the existing well bores, the bottom,

and the configuration of that reservoir. So we

need to have a second well put in to get the

hydrocarbons.

We calculated the materials.

Actually, the calculations were made by petroleum

engineer. 485,000 barrels of hydrocarbons can be

recovered by the second well.

If we were not able to drill the

second well, the first well would continue to

produce for a number of years, and its production

would decline, but it would start to pull some of

the hydrocarbons from the area of the reservoir --

into which we seek to put the second well. It

would pull some of those hydrocarbons towards it,

approximately a hundred thousand barrels, leaving

385,000 barrels in the ground that would not be

recovered.

That's a waste of a needed resource,

a resource which allowed everybody here to come to

this hearing tonight, which keeps the lights on.

So we're asking for a variance to

allow us to recover this needed resource.

There's another aspect about the

second well and the need for it that I want to

bring up, and that is that point I just raised

about the first well being able to produce some of

the hydrocarbons from the other part of the

reservoir.

It can do that, but the rate would be

low enough that it will extend the life of

operations at that site substantially. If we are

allowed to put in a second well to the spot where

this hydrocarbons are more centrally located, we'll

be able to shorten operations by approximately 20

years.

We've submitted, again, an analysis

by petroleum engineer setting forth his

calculations. So besides allowing us to recover

the additional resources, which is of benefit to

us, yes, but it is also of benefit to the publics.

Without the hydrocarbons we would be sitting in the

dark here if we were here at all.

It will allow this property to be

freed up sooner, put back into use as originally

residentially zoned, or particularly put into use

the -- entire parcel put into use, whatever the

purpose the City has in mind.

I think in conclusion, points I want

to make are this: We are asking to be granted a

variance in relation to a use in a residential

district which is otherwise not allowed. We have

demonstrated this type of a use in a residential

district does not have any extra maladies, any

adverse impacts. Demonstrated this by production

history from 1992.

We will be using the newest

technology, the newest safety measures. New

regulations are actually in place since the

drilling of the first well. We believe that

granting the variance will allow the recovery of

this needed resource and have the additional

benefit of putting this property back into whatever

use the City has in mind once we're done.

Once we're done with our production,

then our lease is done, we have no more right to

stay on the property.

I'd be happy to answer any questions

you have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. At this

point in time I'd like to ask if there is anyone in

the audience who would like to have input into this

case?

Sir, back there, would you please

step forward.

Would you give your name and address

to our secretary?

FRANK BRENNAN: Good evening,

Chairman and board members. My name is

Frank Brennan. I am the president of Echo Valley.

I have been so in that capacity since about 1984.

I would -- couple quick points.

You do have a letter from me -- I

believe it's in your packet of June 14th -- that

outlines our general feelings. I've asked

residents who were in concurrence with this to send

that in. I hope you got some. I think you do.

For these gentlemen to sit here from

Grand Rapids and to assume that we've had no issues

is not correct. As I told the Planning Commission

last year, we've had smell problems since day one.

Our order -- our sequence of events when we have an

odor problem is to call the fire department. Now,

if you could imagine, you've got a poof of stinky

gas in the air. How long does that stick around?

Certainly not long enough for Chief Lenahan to come

out in his truck 20 minutes later and stand in your

driveway and see if he smells it. So we've been

living with the smell.

Secondly, I think it's ludicrous for

these guys to suggest that all this local

development has gone on with all of the realtors

telling potential buyers oh, by the way, right

there at Ten and Beck, a little bit west, is an oil

well, just wanted you to know that. Of course

they're not going to tell them.

They gave you a list of reasons why

this make sense, and let me give you a couple

reasons why it doesn't.

First of all, this board, ZBA,

granted a special land use in 1991. If you grant a

second variance, you've now doubled the scope of

this land use. You double the risk to the city,

fire, police, residents.

It extends the timetable. We

expected these guys to be out of here in ten years.

You know what? They're almost there. You give

another variance, you know where we sit. It'll be

here twenty more years.

It provides no revenue to the City,

no taxes. And the site's still residentially

zoned.

Now, the ZBA and the city council did

not stamp this thing with a vote of approval.

Believe me. I've got the videos. This was done,

as Mr. Pope said, back in 1992 with a litigation

shotgun to his head. The city council did not want

to grant this permit.

Now I'll give you the reasons why to

say no. Since 1991, west of Beck Road there's

three new subdivisions, couple hundred homes. West

of Beck Road on the south side there's two new

subdivisions. There's a child day care center

right across the street from this place. And the

City has found it okay to build a fire station, not

to mention that the Ogden Lake development is right

across the street, million dollar homes.

I would suggest this is an

appropriate time to say no. There are changes in

the scope, there's changes in the area since 1991.

The use variance requires an

affirmative finding by the board under five

conditions. The first is the property cannot be

reasonably developed for its permitted use. This

can be developed. This property can be developed

R1. We've developed a lot tougher sites than this

in this town than this site.

Number two, the requested variance is

based on unique circumstances related to the

subject property. Yeah, it's got oil underneath

it. There's oil all over this city, and there's

oil all over this state, but they're running low.

Number three, the variance will not

alter the essential character of the area. Well, I

think it does significantly now, in 2001

especially. We got another thousand residents

living out there.

Number four, the variance is not

based on -- hardship. It sure was. They pounded

pavement all over, found the well, knew that it was

on R1, and fought the system and got that first

well, so it was.

Finally, the variance will ensure

that the spirit of the zoning ordinances will

observe public safety, secured substantial justice

done.

I say it would be a substantial

injustice for you to grant another variance.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there

anyone else in the audience who would like to input

into this case?

Can we have your name and address,

please.

SHIRLEY O'CONNELL: My name is

Shirley O'Connell. I reside 24047 Hartwood, which

is the westerly road of Echo Valley subdivision.

Good evening, Chairman and board

members. I was here in 1991 and opposed the oil

well then. And if I recall, there was a team of

lawyers and it was kind of intimidating with a

court reporter provided by them to listen to all of

our testimony.

But they had, at that time, said it

would be approximately seven years that the oil

well would be producing. And it does have smells.

I guess we just don't all call every time the smell

is there.

But now they're talking twenty

years. I don't know where they got the feasibility

of seven years ten years ago. The improved time

testing should have told them, but I won't know.

Anyway, that's what we were told, it was

approximately seven years they would be drilling

and they're still there.

They had requested a special use

permit, and I still believe the danger -- potential

danger is still there.

I -- if I -- can I question them as

to where they'd be pumping to the pipeline that

comes down the Detroit Edison?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. We have

the same pipeline. The well is actually produced

on industrial property.

SHIRLEY O'CONNELL: And piped over-

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Interposing)

And that's near the -- ironworks. And all this is

present along the eighty acre property parcel

wetland area. There's just two pump jacks there,

pipes coming out of the ground, two pump jacks --

well, one pump jack right now.

What we're proposing is another well

head or pipe out of the ground with an additional

pump jack within an area of approximately a hundred

and fifty by a hundred and fifty feet. We would

absolutely going in there-

SHIRLEY O'CONNELL: (Interposing) So

we would have the potential danger-

MR. SAVEN: (Interposing)

Mr. Chairman, can he identify himself, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

GARY GOTTSCHALK: Gary Gottschalk.

I'm vice president of Somoco.

MR. SAVEN: Thank you, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to call the

direction to the board. If there's a question, we

can raise that.

SHIRLEY O'CONNELL: I guess my

question is, is there still a potential -- a

hazardous potential on this whole pipeline that

comes along and below all of the residential

property?

Is it not -- can you ask him, is

still -- it still remains a hazardous condition

that we'll have to endure for 20 more years.

In the event that anything -- there's

a possibility of an explosion?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're gonna -- I

guess the question is, you're going to be using the

existing pipeline, correct?

SHIRLEY O'CONNELL: We've lived with

this for ten years now.

GARY GOTTSCHALK: Yes, we'd use the

existing pipeline that's currently in place.

SHIRLEY O'CONNELL: So we have a

potential again for another 20 years of this hazard

hanging over our head?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what they're

indicating I guess.

SHIRLEY O'CONNELL: Okay. And then I

had one more thing. I thought in '91 we had come

to an agreement with Somoco that they would test --

we all have -- we have well water in Echo Valley.

We all live on wells. And I thought they had an

agreement that they would provide protection for us

by testing and paying for testing of well water.

To my knowledge, not one well has

been tested, but I could be wrong, but I -- I'm --

I'd ask them if they have ever tested any wells for

contamination during the process and after of the

drilling.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone

else in the audience?

Sir?

HARMON ZEFFER: My name is

Harmon Zeffer, and I'm living on 24018 Angel Drive

in Echo Valley. I'm speaking for myself and

Andron, my wife.

We moved over a year from Germany,

like, two-and-a-half years ago, and we have

selected Novi as place to live because just a

really -- a great developed town.

If, seriously, we would have known

that there is, like, a heavy industrial operation

right close to the house that we bought, like, more

than two years ago, I think we would choose to

consider our decision. This is the only remark.

The other remark is, I'm an engineer,

so I'm hearing the argument that this is, like, a

valued resource. Those are, like, 380,000

barrels? Just make a quick math. This supplies

Michigan for two weeks gasoline. So much to being

a valuable resource, so two weeks.

On the other hand, the vacuum that it

produces could drop down our subdivision by up to

four feet. And as I come from Germany, I've seen

homes disappear from the ground because back in the

-- up to the '60s of last century, there was some

coal mine and house disappeared, or there was some

inch cracks, like two, three-inch cracks in the

homes. And I seriously don't want to see this in

Novi.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there

anyone else in the audience who would like to input

into this case?

TIM MEDANSKI: Good evening,

Mr. Chairman, board members. My name is

Tim Medanski, address 23910 Woodham Drive.

We at that address no longer want to

receive the royalty checks that we have received in

the last seven years. We do not want a well -- a

new well underneath our home, and we would ask that

you respect our mineral rights that belong

underneath our homes.

And explanations that were given

earlier on behalf of the pros and cons of what

could take place in the extraction of these

hydrocarbons, it's strictly up for debate at this

point in time, but I just ask you to keep, if you

would, unanimously or however you choose, to deny

this variance on behalf of the residents who have

spoken here tonight of Echo Valley.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone

else that would like to input into this case?

Hearing none, we'll close the

audience input at this time.

The building department?

MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further

comments or discussions or questions?

One moment, if I might interrupt.

There were -- Sarah, I'm kind of confused a little

bit on this. It says there were two notices sent

and nineteen objections.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Yeah. Only two

properties were within three hundred feet, but

Mr. Brennan, the president of the homeowners, sent

out the letters, and so -- everyone from that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For clarification,

there were two official notices sent out, but we

did receive -- if you'd like to present, we can

accept that at this time, that a objection to this

or --

TONY PERCY: My time is Tony Percy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please come

up to the podium.

TONY PERCY: Members of the board, my

name is Tony Percy, and I reside at 48175 Sealwood.

We've lived there for over 28 years, so we have the

same problem with the well when it was first put

in.

I think the lady over here, Sarah,

said that she's only received two letters stating

that they don't want variance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me correct that

point. There were two letters sent to adjacent

property owners. There were nineteen objections

received.

TONY PERCY: Ah. Okay. Is our names

all along-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Yes. I

would assume that it is. I didn't go through all

of them, but there -- I would say that it -- yes,

it is in there.

TONY PERCY: Fine. Thank you,

because we still object to them having a variance

allowed on that. We object to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

TONY PERCY: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members,

comments, questions or discussions?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I

have several questions, and I don't know which one

of you gentlemen would like to answer them for me.

First off, I want to go and touch --

because there's residents here that made statements

in regards to the increase or decrease of property

on the residents in subdivisions that have an oil

well, okay.

In our packet this evening, and we

received these a couple of weeks before tonight so

we had a lot of time to research this, there is a

subdivision in New Hudson that has a well in it,

that they're drilling, and they use this

subdivision as a point of reference, although I

don't agree necessarily with the years that they're

using for the prices because the years of -- that

they gave us are -- I think the earliest is '97, in

saying that the houses sold for "X" amount of

dollars and that there was no loss of profit.

One of the houses in particular, I

have a adopted family member living in that

subdivision. At the time that this person

purchased this home she was properly notified that

there was a well in this subdivision. She needed

to sign the paperwork to find that, one, she was

being notified; two, she had to sign away her

mineral rights.

And so my question for you,

gentlemen, the first question is, are all members

in this subdivision that's here tonight, as well as

the members that are not here from this

subdivision, are they given due process that they

are being exposed or that these mineral rights are

no longer theirs and that this oil well is in

place?

There's a gentleman that moved here

from Germany. Is it possible that he misunderstood

when he bought his home? I would like to

understand that process with -- for these people

that are purchasing homes.

BILL HORN: If I understand your

question, it's whether -- if this gentleman's

purchasing his property, his mineral rights are

included within our unit, I guess.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay.

BILL HORN: Does he have notice?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yeah.

BILL HORN: Our oil and gas lease is

covering all the areas for which we are producing,

are recorded with the Register of Deeds.

Any title insurance policy or

abstract is prepared in context of the purchase of

the property would show the lease.

What I don't know is if this

gentleman's property might have had the minerals

severed, sold separately from the rest of his

property. In other words, Michigan, you own land,

you own everything down the center of the earth,

you -- when you sell it, unless you make an

exception, everything goes along with it. You make

the exception for the minerals -- I sell the land

to you preserving the minerals, I still own the

minerals.

That would show up in his title

policy, too, as an exception to his title. So yes,

he should have received some sort of notice.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: How many of those

homes in that subdivision are -- are needed to be

notified?

How many of these homes in

Echo Valley are affected by that, do you know?

BILL HORN: I'd probably have to turn

this -- that over to Gary Gottschalk in terms of

how many are included.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. I do have

other questions before you turn it over to him, and

I think you're the one that needs to answer these,

okay, if you would, please.

In regards to one of the residents

marketing -- making a statement in regards to

additional exposures, any oil well, there is some

sort of hazard, is there not? I mean, just basic

things, an oil well.

BILL HORN: There's potential risk,

yes, for any industrial activity in any -- frankly,

any activity.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay. So how, if

-- please, you know, you have to bear with me. I'm

an insurance agent by day and a part-time ZBA

member by month. Okay. So how is it that you can

have a second oil well and no added additional

exposure or danger or hazard?

You made a statement, excuse me, but

that there was no increased hazard or no impact on

public health, safety, and welfare, and I also read

it in your report. Who makes this decision and

who -- where -- if I missed something in here, that

you studied this and said absolutely not, or are we

basing it strictly just on the history of the first

well?

BILL HORN: History of operation of

the first well. There's been no problem, there's

been no impact. Potential for the second well

would have any impact or problem is even less.

Newer technology exists, more stringent regulations

are in place. Potential for risk is there with a

second well, but that potential is even less than

the first well. In reality, impact or risk has not

kept.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: So the second

well, the impact or risk decreases by how much?

Is there a percentage here that we're

talking about or --

BILL HORN: I think the risk of the

first well is diminimous. It's a incremental

amount less than diminimous for the second well

because of better technology.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: All right. My

last question is about the water test that the

resident had mentioned, about the water testing.

Has this been taking place, or is this just one

resident that wasn't made aware of it, or when was

the last water test?

BILL HORN: Mr. Phil Baker can

address that in terms of testing residential areas

at the well site. There are wells in place that

are tested regularly, and we monitor for any flow

away from the well head to all the property, and

that's done regularly.

Tim probably knows the details of

that. As far as testing in the subdivision, I'll

refer to him.

TIM BAKER: Tim Baker, Somoco

operations manager. We initially tested the wells.

We sent out letters requesting that we be allowed

to come in and test.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me.

TIM BAKER: Some of the residents-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Can we

have our secretary swear you in so we have that

ready?

TIM BAKER: Okay.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: That's me. Do you

swear that the testimony that you're about to give

in the matter before you is true?

TIM BAKER: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry for the

interruption. You may proceed.

TIM BAKER: No problem. Early on, we

sent out a letter requesting that we be allowed to

test the wells, and there were -- there was limited

response to that letter. We sent someone out.

They were present in the subdivision. We did have

some testing, we did have some results, we did

submit those to the fire department.

We have wells that -- around the well

site. We test those quarterly, then send those

into the DEQ. We've had no problems.

In addition to that, some three years

ago Mr. Brennan alleged that we had polluted his

water well and made a lot of accusatory remarks.

We, at our sole expense and cost, went out and

hired a firm to test the well. We had the testing

handled by fire department. They handled the

transference of the sample to an independent

testing lab, which we paid for. The results came

back that there was no impact whatsoever by any of

our operation. There were, however, some potential

problems with Mr. Brennan's water well, but nothing

that was related to anything to do with our

operation.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman,

that's all I have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Other board members,

questions or comments?

Miss Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Reinke, I have some

questions that I would like to ask, and I will ask

them and -- when Mr. Brennan appeared at the last

planning commission meeting he referred to fire

department monitoring the wells or the site as

required by ordinance.

Can you tell me if this has been

done, any of these gentlemen, and where those

results are and what the results are?

PHIL BAKER: The fire department

regularly inspects our sites and the function of

their operation as a function of our renewal of

business application within the city.

MEMBER GRAY: Okay.

PHIL BAKER: They do it irregularly,

as they see fit. I mean, they do it at least every

year, but they also will make spot inspections.

I can't tell you the days of those inspections. I

don't have that at my disposal.

As a company, we quarterly check our

lines every year. We check our flow lines and all

our systems to make sure that we haven't had any

degradation of any of the operating equipment.

We have a 24-hour monitoring system

on the location, at the facility. We have

security, which I will certainly go into you in a

private -- in detail if you would so desire in a

private session but not in a public session. There

is -- suffice to say, there is security out there

on a 24-hour basis.

The well is monitored on a 24-hour

basis by means of our computer technology. We can

turn the well on, shut it off from a rural

location, anywhere that we might be.

We provide twenty-four-hour numbers,

of course, to the fire department so that they can

call us. We respond to any calls, any -- even

odors that someone may have within, you know, two

miles of the site, three miles.

If the fire department feels that

there is a possibility that it might be related to

our site, we do respond to that; however, we have

not had any problems.

MEMBER GRAY: Does this monitoring

system that you have on site, is this a 24-hour

uninterruptable power source?

PHIL BAKER: Yes.

MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Your product

that you pump out of the well, I've heard and read

that it's vital and it's valuable. Is this local

use?

Is this intended for local use or is

it exported? I mean-

PHIL BAKER: (Interposing) The gas

itself, the product is a mixture of gas and oil.

It travels up the Detroit Edison corridor to our

facility, which is located actually just -- well,

near your new middle school, if you're familiar

with that location.

MEMBER GRAY: Eleven Mile and Wixom.

PHIL BAKER: Eleven Mile and Wixom.

The gas is then separated from the oil. The gas

goes to Michcon and it is distributed locally

within the community. The oil is taken to the

Marathon refinery by truck, and a good share of

that also comes back to the local community once

it's refined. Marathon handles most of this area

of Michigan.

MEMBER GRAY: You have -- or Mr. Horn

has said that by allowing the drilling of this

second well it's going to shorten the presence --

your presence in our community by twenty years.

When you were initially granted the

variance ten years ago it was estimated in various

figures you were going to be here seven years and

out, you were going to be here ten years and out.

If this is going to shorten your

presence by twenty years, how long do you actually

intend to be here?

PHIL BAKER: Our current estimate, if

we do not drill a second well, is as long as 60

years.

MEMBER GRAY: Sixty?

PHIL BAKER: When we became before

the City before, we indicated a minimum of seven

years based on our experience statewide with

Niagran Pinnacle Reefs. We also indicated it could

be fifteen to twenty years.

When you explore for oil and gas

reserves, until you drill that first well to find

the exact location and actually have a number for

what the peracid is, the holes within the rock are,

and the permeability, that is, the ability of the

rock to flow oil, until you have those parameters,

you cannot accurately determine the volume of the

reservoir.

This initial well provided us with

those parameters. We also learned that we had to

do some more work to get the well to flow into the

well bore better. That work was completed, as

Mr. Horn mentioned, approximately a year ago.

The well now produces a couple

hundred barrels a day. That's the maximum state

allowable. So the well is very economical.

However, let me give you one analogy.

If you were to go home and take a sponge and put it

on your dining room table and fill it with water,

that sponge would retain that water. Now, if you

took your finger and put it on one end toward the

end of that sponge, you're going to remove the

water in that section but you're not going to

remove the water on the other side.

This is a similar situation in that

you're putting a straw in one end, you're pulling

out the oil and gas reserves in that portion, but

you're never, unless you put another straw on the

other end, going to get as much of that material

out of the rock.

MEMBER GRAY: The next question --

and that's a very appropriate analogy, that you

bring up water. In -- if my knowledge of the area

serves me correctly, I believe most of the west

side of the city is on wells and septic tanks. I

don't believe that there are city utilities

extended out that far yet. And as I recall, the

aquifer runs southwest from Pontiac towards, I'm

going to say South Lyon, just as a directional.

I understand that when you take

things out of the ground -- and injection wells are

a good example, where you force something in to

force something out. So then my question is, is

this an injection well?

PHIL BAKER: No, it's not.

MEMBER GRAY: Since it's not an

injection well and you're pulling something out of

the ground, what then fills those spaces that are

left by what you were taking out?

PHIL BAKER: To refer to, again, to

the sponge analogy, in this particular situation,

this is solid rock with pores in it. It's not the

same thing as a coal mine or a salt mine where you

remove a hundred percent of the rock. You're only

removing the fluid within the rock, so the rock

continues to be self-supporting.

So from an engineering point of view,

it's nothing anywhere remotely similar to, say, a

coal mine or a salt mine where you're actually

potentially having subsides. You're not going to

have subsides by the rule of oil and gas

reserves.

MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Comment was made

in the information -- or information was provided

to us that said that the reef into which you're

drilling has an acreage of, I believe, a hundred

acres?

And do you know which way this reef

runs?

Does it run in any direction, or is

it just a -- kind of a large piece that's static or

-- I mean, I know it doesn't move. But is there --

does it run in a specific direction?

PHIL BAKER: It generally -- I

believe you have an outline of the anomaly in your

packets.

MEMBER GRAY: Okay.

PHIL BAKER: But it has a general

north/south, maybe north slightly northeast long

axis.

MEMBER GRAY: Okay.

PHIL BAKER: That's generally typical

of most of the reefs that lie within this delta

reefing.

MEMBER GRAY: Another -- if you'll

indulge me, Mr. Chair, I have another couple

questions, and -- is there any way to access this

reef from another site that may not be in Novi and

be in residential zoning?

PHIL BAKER: Unless the zoning has

recently changed, I don't believe there is. We

looked at that before.

You know, our goal is to, in all our

exploration activities, is to locate our wells that

least impact the areas.

MEMBER GRAY: Okay. And presuming

when you did your investigations, and I remember

when there were -- when there was extensive seismic

testing on the Lakeshore Park, and I presume that

was around the same time when you folks first came

to town, did your seismic testing and all your

research reveal to you then that perhaps you should

have gone a little bit deeper, or was it basically

totally speculative at that time as well?

PHIL BAKER: It's not a matter of

going deeper. It's a matter of the aerial extent

of the reef. And this is a hard -- somewhat of a

hard concept to understand, but we obtain an

outline of the anomaly once we do our seismic

testing, and then we drill the well. We never know

until we drill that well whether that anomaly is

fitting that picture totally.

It's like if you threw an upside down

bowl in front of me and I guess about where it was,

I wouldn't know for sure until I actually measured

that distance.

MEMBER GRAY: My last question,

presuming that the property owners in Echo Valley,

and any others adjacent to this site, purchased

their homes in good faith knowing that they

possibly held oil, gas and mineral rights when they

purchased their property, the -- by virtue of the

fact that you are not in their subdivision and this

is a directional well, drilling that goes under

their subdivision -- I understand that you're

paying these residents royalties. Have they signed

off to you their oil, gas and mineral rights, or do

those of them who have them with their purchase of

their home, their property, do they retain those

oil, gas and mineral rights for whatever may be

discovered in the future?

PHIL BAKER: There's several

questions there. Let me try to address those one

at a time, and I might get some help from

Mr. Gottschalk and Mr. Horn.

There's a general misconception out

there that the bottom of the well is underneath

Echo Valley. It is not. We have supplied that

information onto the council, we have supplied it

to the DEQ.

We have leased some of the parcels

that we felt were under lien in Echo Valley, and so

those parcels have been commuted -- have been

included in the determination of the -- that which

should receive revenue.

And from a legal aspect, I think we

probably answered that question earlier, in that

when someone does title search on their house they

should, at that time, be obtaining the information

from the title company as to the status of the oil

rights.

MEMBER GRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members,

comments or questions?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer.

MEMBER BAUER: I wasn't an original

board when you people came in 1991, and it was

stated at that time give me the well and we'll be

gone in nine or ten, whatever years. And you only

needed the one well. I'd like to hold you to

that.

Second, I don't think, due to the

ordinance, that we should -- that you deserve a

second well. That's my personal opinion. I don't

speak for anyone else on the board. And until you

can change my mind on that, I would be giving you a

negative vote on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members,

comments, discussion, questions?

MEMBER FANNON: I was on the board at

that time, too, and then gone and never thought I'd

be back here again so soon to see this, but I

thought it was twenty years.

Let me ask you a couple questions.

What is the square footage area if you try to

square that off of the two wells if they were both

there, just approximately?

Out of the seventy-five acres, is it

an acre, a half an acre, just a ballpark?

PHIL BAKER: The square footage on

public use?

MEMBER FANNON: You took that and,

you know, that's where you design -- where you have

outlined where the two wells would be?

PHIL BAKER: Surface use?

MEMBER FANNON: Yeah. Like if you

square it off direct.

PHIL BAKER: Well, that map I believe

you have referred to the total acreage of the

entire parcel.

MEMBER FANNON: Okay. Just square

off the area like you did here in Kensington. Two

wells-

PHIL BAKER: (Interposing) Surface

area that we actually used-

MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing)

Surface area.

PHIL BAKER: -is approximately an

acre. Right now it's probably 75 feet by a hundred

feet.

MEMBER FANNON: And what would it be

if you had a second well on it?

PHIL BAKER: The same.

MEMBER FANNON: The same?

PHIL BAKER: Yeah. We've drilled

wells -- again, we try to locate wells in clusters,

and the purpose of that is to minimize our surface

usage. We've drilled wells all over using that

technique. And we would drill that well next to

the other well and then directionally diverge.

That would allow us to use all that same equipment,

the surface, the equipment, the pipeline system,

the security system to minimize our land usage and

actually end up depleting that anomaly quicker and

be out of there quicker. That's our -- what we're

proposing.

MEMBER FANNON: So I voted no in 1991

because I wanted the property to remain vacant, and

that was not an option so I voted no. I guess it

wasn't an option, but it wasn't offered because I

was concerned about what would happen if somebody

built homes on the property, and history -- that's

proven, that some of our fears probably were

unfounded.

You do have ground-mounted monitoring

wells that you say are checked quarterly and-

PHIL BAKER: (Interposing) Yes.

MEMBER FANNON: -distributed to the

DEQ, and there's never been anything in those

wells?

PHIL BAKER: No.

MEMBER FANNON: I can just tell the

board members I'm having some real trouble. I

voted no for one reason, that the property remain

vacant, or I would have voted yes if they would

have said they would have promised to do it, but

they couldn't. They didn't own the property. They

still don't own the property.

The City of Novi, I understand, is

they closed on this property. Does the City

actually own this property?

I've heard that they bought -- does

the City -- do you know if the City owns the

property, the City of Novi?

BILL HORN: My understanding is that

the City of Novi purchased approximately -- let's

say it was a seventy-five acre parcel --

approximately seventy acres of it and closed on it,

I think, a year-and-a-half, two years ago maybe.

They have an option. There's five acres that were

carved out where our road, the well site is, and

they have an option to purchase that once

production activities are done.

MEMBER FANNON: So, in affect, the

City of Novi owns all the property around the well

except the road that goes into it, approximately?

I'm just -- to it and-

BILL HORN: (Interposing) That's --

we weren't part of that transaction but we were

consulted, and that's my understanding.

MEMBER FANNON: So the City itself

can make a determination whether anything will be

built on the property now that they own it, and I

think this goes to the city council for the permit

like it did ten years ago?

BILL HORN: Not from you but in a

different process, yes, we have to go through a

separate proceeding and end up with the city

council, which then decides whether it will issue

the actual permit to drill the well.

MEMBER FANNON: So even if we gave

you a variance, let's say, that you could put a

second well on a residential property that the City

now owns, and they could change the zoning as they

felt, like at a public hearing, you don't have the

right to drill that well without going in front of

that city council and getting a permit somehow?

BILL HORN: That's correct.

MEMBER FANNON: I mean, we've had

nine years of history, and it's too bad that any

complaints weren't put in writing. I don't think

the City has any record of any complaints that I

know of.

MR. SAVEN: As indicated with

Mr. Brennan.

BILL HORN: One -- I did a FOIA

request. We were interested. We did it within the

last month. One note came back of a fire

department investigation in 1992 regarding a noise

complaint. They did the investigation, no problem.

That was the only written complaint

or notice of investigation that came back.

MEMBER FANNON: One of our other

concerns ten years ago was what would happen if

something went wrong, an appropriate fire

department need, and how would they get to it. My

understanding also was there was going to be a fire

station on the property.

BILL HORN: According to Mr. Brennan,

yes.

MEMBER FANNON: I mean, I don't know

that to be -- I don't have all these. That's what

I've been reading, that the City's going to build a

fire department on the property.

So I'm just saying that maybe they

won't, but I mean there's some talk about it at

this time.

MR. SAVEN: Fire station four will be

adjacent to this.

MR. REINKE: Okay. Board members,

further comments and discussions?

Mr. Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: My question was, how

can you make an assessment about the time period

this time?

PHIL BAKER: Our assessment of the

time period is based on standard engineering

principles, and that includes bomitable (ph)

pressure, that includes the production rate and the

type of oil, and generally standardized engineering

oil and gas parameters.

This particular reservoir is a low

gas/oil ratio reservoir. If it were a higher gas

to oil ratio reservoir, it would probably been

easier to produce the well.

And to define that a bit further, if

you have more gas dissolved in the oil, it moves

better through the rock than if you have less.

This particular reservoir has a lot of oil in it

but it's a little lower gravity oil.

And -- so, again, we want to get that

additional oil that's there and get it in a quicker

time and be done.

So our evaluation is based on the

past history, increasing history of the existing

well.

MEMBER SANGHVI: (Inaudible) What is

the time period?

PHIL BAKER: Well, we think it -- if

we have another well, we think we could probably --

I think we supplied -- having submitted our

engineering -- let me look at that real quick.

I'm quoting Christopher Wood of

Troyman Engineering, saying if the 1-29 well-

MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) What

are you saying?

PHIL BAKER: Did you have this -- do

you have this?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay, all right.

PHIL BAKER: It's in that, twenty

more years, total life of sixty years. Now, let me

explain that, too. That's based on projections of

oil and gas pricing. And, you know, there may be

some variation in that, but as you can see, a well

five years ago at $14 oil would not be economic --

as economic as a well at today's prices of $25 oil.

MEMBER SANGHVI: So, really, the

length of the procedure can really depend on the

market of oil?

PHIL BAKER: That's true.

MEMBER SANGHVI: Can be ten years or

it can be hundred years?

PHIL BAKER: The potential is there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further

comments or discussions.

Question I have is, we keep bringing

up the odor problem. Is there anything that can be

done to address that?

PHIL BAKER: We have not been made

aware of any odor problems at the well site. We

have, however, continued to update our facilities

to the best available technology.

Recently we put in remote monitoring

of the tanks so that the tanks are never physically

opened. The old method involved actually opening

what we call a hatch at the top and running a gauge

in the well. During that period of time there was

a potential of minor gas amounts to escape. That

has been -- that system was changed to allow for

remote monitoring of the tank volumes.

All of our vessels are sealed

vessels, sealed assemblies. We have pollution

control equipment on the well site itself. There

-- that's -- the well site itself is a sealed

system.

If a rubber gasket or a rubber --

what we call a stuffing box around a rod should

wear out, there's a second backup system and

there's a device that sits between that to indicate

that the first set has worn out.

So our system is a no-vent system,

and we will continue to stay on top of technology

and review and advise our wells in the event

something better comes along.

I believe our -- we are very much

current with the current -- with the technology

that's being employed offshore for -- in refineries

or anywhere in the state that you might -- you

know, your local gas stations, for example, I

believe our technology surpasses their technology

for odor control.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board

members, further comments or discussion?

I guess in reviewing all the

information we have here, unless there's something

else that we need to bring up and discuss, I'm

prepared to hear a motion in this case.

Is there anything that we need to

discuss further to bring to the point that we feel

that we're comfortable to make a motion in one

direction or another, or what -- where do we stand?

MEMBER SANGHVI: I thought,

Mr. Chairman, it would be a good idea to give that

(inaudible) approach to state their case after all

the discussion that is before the board before we

make a decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't think

-- they stated they wanted the variance to build a

second well.

MEMBER SANGHVI: You don't have

any-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I don't

think there is any way they can deviate from what

their request is on that. They can't drill half a

well, they can't drill a quarter of a well.

MEMBER SANGHVI: No, no. I'm not

talking about that, but I'm talking about

reassuring the concerns of the residents and the

people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think they've

addressed everything they can. The residents have

brought up their concern about depleting material

from the ground and, you know, the possible

settling, take advantage -- that really -- it's

like a sponge. They're taking it out of the rock.

The rock is not going away, that you have

unsupported structure.

I don't know how better they can

answer anything.

I'm going to defer to the lady out

here who's indicating she wants to say something,

and I'm sure not going to stop anybody from saying

something.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can I come up

here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please step

forward.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: State my name

again?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please.

SHIRLEY O'CONNELL: Shirley

O'Connell, 24047 Hartwood. I'm on the west side of

Echo Valley, and my property -- my backyard abuts

the Detroit Edison electrical property easement.

My question, I'll address it to you,

is, now that I've heard this well could last up to

another 60 years, I have a question regarding the

pipeline that carries the oil and the gas through

the easement, the Detroit Edison easement through

to Eleven Mile by the school.

What is that composed of and how long

will that last?

Will it last 60 years?

Who do I ask?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll get your answer

for that. Directed to me the way you did.

Can you give us an answer on -- I'm

assuming that this is maintained and how is it

maintained, I guess is the best way to answer that

question.

PHIL BAKER: We -- first of all, we

comply with all of the Michigan Public Service

Commission requirements for monitoring the

pipeline, that is, we have sacrificial land owns on

the pipeline, we have methodic protection on the

pipeline, we check the pipeline for corrosion

yearly, we walk the pipeline quarterly to check

with a leak detector to make sure there aren't any

leaks. And in addition to that, we actually

doubled the wall thickness on this pipeline when we

designed it, which was over and above that required

by the Michigan Gas Safety Code.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

SHIRLEY O'CONNELL: What is the life

expectancy on the pipeline that's now there?

PHIL BAKER: Well, I can't answer --

I think the original design was for a hundred

years, but I would have to check our engineering

design on that. I did not do the design or consult

it. That's our normal design criteria for our

pipelines.

SHIRLEY O'CONNELL: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Board

members, comments or discussion?

I think we need to address the issue.

If there's any question they need to be raised, but

we need to moved forward.

MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: A clarification for

purposes of discussion. The information provided

by the petitioner has told us why they want to be

only twelve feet away from the existing well head

in lieu of the six hundred sixty feet required by

ordinance. Apparently they're not able to do that

on their own property or in a manner that would not

intrude into the wetland, although I have not heard

that addressed tonight. So that may be one issue

we need to have addressed.

If we are going to increase -- double

the exposure, I think that we may be -- even if we

-- even if we don't approve of it being in

residential property, I think that we might need to

hear why it can't be with -- meet the requirement

of six hundred sixty feet in distance and

separation. I've not heard that addressed.

BILL HORN: The reason we didn't

address it is that that is actually in the

Chapter 23 ordinance dealing with the drilling

permit. We're not asking for a variance or a

waiver from you. We included information which is

really relevant to the council, as well as your

decision. That's not in the zoning ordinance.

That's the oil and gas ordinance.

MEMBER GRAY: So it's not in our

jurisdiction?

BILL HORN: That's correct. And why

we're doing it, it allows us to avoid going into

wetlands, keep our well heads closer together, use

the same area rather than put it 660 feet apart.

We have to build more pipeline, go into the

wetlands on the property.

But that is an issue for the approval

of the permit for the council.

MEMBER GRAY: So the only issue

before us is do we allow them to drill another well

head on residential property when they already have

one, and that's the only issue before us; is that

correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct, because the

variance they have is for one well head.

MEMBER GRAY: They already have a

variance?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: Just a -- maybe a point

of clarification of the issue. What's really

before the board tonight is essentially a use

variance question, is the well to be permitted in a

residential district. That's really the bottom of

the question, as the gentleman pointed out they

didn't address the six hundred sixty feet or the

twelve feet.

We have from the first item, the five

criteria for use variance before you, and maybe

that will help you sort that out. And you have to

remember as you make a determination, point that

Mr. Freed made in the minutes -- that I'm sure you

all got a copy of -- back in 1991, that sort of a

backdrop of the use variance issue is also the

question of are there -- is there any evidence of

serious consequences that will result in the event

the natural resources explode.

That's kind of an overarching or

overlying issue that should be on the board's --

part of the board's focus when it's making the use

variance determination.

So it's a single question, use

variance to drill within a residential district.

Council will handle the other issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I'm

going to (inaudible) and make a motion that case

number 01-054 be -- recommend the acceptance of

variance as requested by them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask a reason for

your motion?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Because they already

have variance, they have had a good check over the

period of time, and, of course, no (inaudible) as

well depends really on the marketplace, and nobody

can really say how long it will last. They've

longer than the previous assessment, and could be

wrong again in the next assessment, depending upon

how much oil we get from other countries.

So this is something we cannot

control and it doesn't seem to have impacted the

neighborhood, at least on the surface, in any other

way, and the previous board's decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there a

second to the motion?

MEMBER FANNON: I would support the

motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and

seconded to grant the petitioner the variance

request. Is there any discussion or comments on

the motion?

I guess the point -- go ahead.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: I'm sorry. I do

have something to say, because we have so many

residents here concerned. I'm struggling with

this. As you can see, the entire board is. When

we're looking at these variances, it's not that

easy to say well, you know, we just don't want this

in our backyard, we just don't want it. This has

been here, and my struggle that I have is that this

company has done an excellent job providing

evidence, answered all our questions as to the

length of time. I wasn't hearing anyone -- I don't

know what happened back then. I tend to support

this based on the fact of all of the I's have been

dotted and all the T's have been crossed.

However, I am concerned about the

odor. And I know we addressed this, but I would

like something -- if I can add something to the

motion -- to protect the residents in regards to

the smells or -- and to the water test, that it

becomes more documented, that we -- that the

residents are more aware. I realize they have no

complaints, but some sort of process that the

residents are aware that, in fact, that there is

nothing further that can contaminate, if there is

some sort of contamination that takes place, that

they're made aware of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree with your

comments there, and I don't know if it really needs

to be part of the motion, because I think that they

have and will be required to address the complaint

has been made, and I think it's up to the

residents, and if they have an odor problem out

there they should be complaining about it and an

investigation should be made.

The petitioner has stated that they

have a sealed system, there should not be an odor

problem out there. If there is, that means

something's wrong and needs to be fixed.

I guess if a lot of us had our

druthers, we wish the first well wouldn't have been

there. But the first well's there and we're stuck

with it.

With that, my feeling is it's not

going to change, and if we get a second well and

get them out quicker I think it's probably better

to do that.

And I've struggled very hard with

this, just like all the board members have, and

it's -- if by turning the variance down we'd make

everything go away, I'd definitely turn it down,

but the situation is not going to go away. It's

there, and we have to deal with it, and if we can

get them out sooner, I'm all for it.

Board members, further comments or

discussions?

MEMBER BAUER: I only have one thing

more to say, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: And that, of course,

is in Section 2508, paragraph seven. Says that --

states that a -- every case the uses herein set

forth shall be expressly prohibited from any

residential district unless specifically permitted

in this section.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further

comments or discussion?

MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, I just

want to go on the record saying I'm going to vote

yes instead of no ten years ago because of the

track record. They've done an excellent job.

I had my own hesitations. This is a

real difficult case. There's no other way to get

to this oil.

The ten-year-ago meeting was

terrible. There was threats of litigation. There

was all kinds -- attorneys. It was a mess.

This company showed us that they can

do it. I just don't know what else we can ask for

from them.

The City controls the property. The

city council is going to get this case, and I think

they can even protect it even more than we could

ten years ago when you didn't control the property,

and I'm amazed weren't built on that property in

the last ten years, although it was fifty acres of

wetlands.

So maybe we're better off with a

second well with the City owning the property and

protecting the whole area than we were for the last

ten years.

I mean, that's how I feel about it

and that's why I'm going to vote yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: One last comment. I

echo everybody's comments. This has been probably

-- this is probably the most difficult case I've

been aware of in years, going back to even the

first well, and I know the council will listen to

it, take into consideration our comments.

This doesn't mean that this is a slam

dunk. This means you still get to go to the

council when it appears before the council and to

voice your opinions again.

I think because of the development

that is occurring on the west side of the city now,

everybody's going to be even more watchful of

what's going on and your -- your concerns are

certainly appreciated.

Again, it has been a very difficult

decision. I think you're aware of that from all of

our points of view and questions that we've asked,

and your diligence as being the watchdogs in the

area is going to be even more necessary now than it

has been in the last ten years.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further

comments or discussion?

MEMBER SANGHVI: No further

questions, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: No.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Sir, your variance request has been

approved. See the building department or whoever

you need to go to work with this.

And, really, I hope that you address

all the residents' concerns that they have about

it.

Thank you.

(A short recess was taken.)

CASE NUMBER 01-011

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's reconvene the

meeting. And the next case before us is case

number two filed by Lou Agoston, and he's

requesting a four-foot front yard setback variance

for construction of a fence and wall located at

20911 Turnberry, lot twelve.

Is petitioner present? Please step

forward. Would you be sworn in by our secretary,

please.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Raise your right

hand, please. Do you swear that the testimony that

you're about to give in this matter is true?

LOU AGOSTON: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you please

present your case.

LOU AGOSTON: Lou Agoston,

20911 Turnberry Boulevard, looking for a variance

for a decorative masonry wall that we're putting

across the front of our lot. It's a masonry wall

with rhinestone cap, three-foot high. I think we

go out of the restriction about ten-foot section at

the top, if we're not within the code that we need

to be, but the entire wall is going across the

front of the yard. It's a decorative wall. And

that's basically about it.

I have an artist's rendition of what

the front of the house will look like, if that will

help.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you would, please.

Is there anybody in the audience that would like to

participate or input into this case?

Hearing none, building department?

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I do

believe in the packet you have approval from the

association -- from the association. Also, that

the property is a little irregular. It should be

-- front yard setback as you proceed, I believe in

a southerly direction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were --

fifteen notices were sent out. We received two

responses. Both of those were approval.

Board members, comments or

discussion?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: This appears to be a

very, very modest request from the petitioner.

He's got no objections. His association is behind

him. It's a tasteful addition to the property. I

think he's within the sphere of the ordinance and

I'd like to make a motion, if you like.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you, please.

MEMBER BRENNAN: With respect to case

01-011, that we would move to support the

petitioner's request for variance to the lot

configuration and he is within the sphere of the

ordinance.

MEMBER FANNON: Second the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and

seconded to grant petitioner's request.

Is there any further discussion or

comments on the motion?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Present -- yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray? Oh,

I'm sorry, you can't vote.

Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance

request has been approved. See the building

department and we wish you the best of luck.

LOU AGOSTON: Okay. Thank you.

CASE NUMBERS 01-052 AND 01-053

MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case is a

combination of cases, case number four and five,

filed by Home Depot. Is petitioner present?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to be

presenting both cases, Mr. Dalton (ph)?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, I am,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you give us

a quick overview of both and then we'll go on from

there.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We're here

seeking two variances. We're really -- an

extension of variances which was granted for the

Home Depot outside sales area.

What I'm showing to the board right

now is a rendering which shows where the extension

area will be physically. And you can see this area

I'm outlining now shows you where the current

outdoor sales area is.

The locational criteria that

supported the variance at the initial granting

continued to exist.

I did want you to see the landscaping

treatment that will exist, assuming the variances

are granted.

We have received site plan approval,

of course, subject to this board's action.

The location, you will recall, and I

think, is near the I-96 expressway, the future ramp

with the land which was taken, which goes to the

parking variance.

The -- reasonably put, the property

variance is being requested in order to remain

consistent with what we did the first time. We

have a sufficient amount of parking spaces to

support the store. The outdoor storage area, while

it comes in the literal language of the ordinance,

does not in and of itself generate the need for

additional parking.

We have supplied to the board traffic

studies to support that premis. Upon the buildup

of the center, with the parking which is currently

there, which is sufficient to the -- to support the

store, there never having been more than

three-quarters of the available spaces for the

store used, even at its highest sales day,

indicate that the prior variances which were

granted continued to be supported by the unique

shape which is mandated, if you'll recall, by the

land which will be taken by the new interchange and

by the land which has been devoted to the woodlands

and wetlands, open space areas.

In a word, what we are asking this

board to do is to allow the expansion of the

outdoor sales area only, which will permit the

storage of some materials which initially we had

thought we could store indoors. That has not

proved to be the case, and this will allow a layout

which, from our discussions with the staff, with

the planning commission, will make for a more

desireable layout for the community.

I think that each of you has been to

the facility. It is a well-maintained store. It

is a clean store. This shopping center is a true

credit to the city, and on those bases, we would

ask that the variance to allow the 11,000 square

foot increase in the outdoor storage area, together

with parking waiver for the spaces which that

additional storage would require, be granted.

And I have a number of people from

Home Depot here to answer any questions the board

may have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there

anyone in the audience who would like input or

information on this case?

Hearing none, building department?

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, it was a

concern earlier on referencing -- I'm sure the

store is a very clean store, there's no doubt, but

the issue regarding outdoor storage -- the issue

regarding outdoor storage was one that we had

considerable concern about.

Over the past couple days we did

monitor this, and the issue regarding outdoor

storage has been cleaned up, and you'll find a

comment from the ordinance enforcement officers

regarding that particular situation.

And based upon those particular

concerns, that issue is the one issue I want to

make sure was addressed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members,

comments or discussions?

Mr. Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, a couple

things. This is consistent with use that we

granted elsewhere. It does abut the freeway, so

there's not a lot of visibility from surrounding

store owners.

You know, when we've granted this

usage in the past, we keep continued jurisdiction

to ensure that things are fine.

I don't have, really, any objections

to either variance request, the expansion nor the

waiver of the additional parking spaces for the

addition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members,

comments or discussion?

MEMBER BAUER: I'm glad business is

going good.

MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're talking about

seasonal. What kind of parameters, ending and

starting, are we talking about?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Generally

starting in April, and it tapers off toward the end

of November, and then there are sales of Christmas

trees. There are some materials which would be

stored, but they wouldn't be sales, in the

remaining months.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're talking about a

year-round season then?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not for sales

but for storing. The sales would -- beginning in

April, Mr. Chairman -- excuse me, beginning in

April, Mr. Chairman, and running toward the end of

November for the real sales activity, and then the

Christmas tree sales -- and then the Christmas tree

sales. And then the Christmas tree sales in

December.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have -- it says

seasonal, and I look at it as more of a summer

orientation is what my definition was.

Being where the location is, it's not

really something that's gonna be where you're

jetting out into a traffic area or something really

of that nature, so I really don't have any

problem. I really don't see a problem with that.

Board members, further comments or

discussion?

MEMBER SANGHVI: No, sir.

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I

would like to have at least some representative

from Home Depot step up to the mic and discuss the

issue of the outdoor storage issue, the monitoring,

what's going to take place.

You've given the City some

committment regarding this particular issue.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Certainly.

I'd like to introduce to you, for the next time

you're at the store, Dawn Watson. Dawn is the

store manager.

And, Dawn, could you comment on

Mr. Saven's question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before doing that, I'm

going to ask you be sworn in by our secretary.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear that the

testimony that you're about to give is the truth?

DAWN WATSON: Yes, I do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just give us an

overview why you need it, what you're going to do

with it and how you're going to maintain it.

DAWN WATSON: We -- I really do need

it seasonally from about April to really the

beginning of November. I'm very limited on space.

I have the smallest garden department in all of

Michigan.

I -- we have doubled our sales since

last year, almost doubled our sales. This time

last year we were doing $400,000 in sales. My

busiest week this year I did $790,000 in sales, and

I'm still doing 730 to $750,000 in sales right now.

I need it for additional live plant

storage, also block, any type of outdoor

landscaping, so that we have enough on hand, really

to serve our customers in our community.

We are limited also on skus right

now. I do not carry all the skus that all of the

stores carry, and it tends to be an inconvenience

to some of our customers because they're used to

seeing it at some of our other stores and they

can't get it at the Novi Home Depot.

So, seasonally, I really need the

extra lung space and the capacity so I have enough

product to sell to our customers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other

questions?

I just want to bring up real quick,

since we've got you on the spot-

DAWN WATSON: (Interposing) Sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -is we assume that

that will be maintained in a neat orderly fashion-

DAWN WATSON: (Interposing)

Absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -which you have

thought in the past and everything.

DAWN WATSON: Absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just would like your

reassurance of that.

DAWN WATSON: Absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members,

comments or questions? Thank you.

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

make sure that -- we have a couple issues here.

One -- the outdoor storage was one issue. The

other issue was the storage above 12 foot in

height, which was the affidavit which was required

on behalf of the planning commission.

We need to have those specific items.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So you would

like Miss Watson to -- come back up here, Dawn. I

think I understand what you want.

Dawn, they want an assurance that you

will maintain the storage of materials below the

twelve-foot height. Do you understand?

DAWN WATSON: Absolutely. Yeah,

that's not a problem at all.

I actually am a new store manager to

that store. I've only been there three months. I

was not aware when I got there that they could not

keep against the wall above twelve feet.

The day we got the call, everything

came down below the fence, and it hasn't been an

issue since.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is there

anything else, Dawn?

MR. SAVEN: I just need an affidavit

these exact rules required by the planning

department.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You will have

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Building

department have anything else?

MR. SAVEN: I'm done.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Any notices

sent, notices?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. There

were five notices sent to adjacent property owners,

and we received no approval or objections. In

fact, I've received no response.

Board members, further comments or

discussion?

Hearing none, the chair would

entertain a motion in both cases.

MEMBER SANGHVI: I provide the

motion?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Might as well.

MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman, I move

that -- Mr. Chairman, I make a motion in case

number 01-054 and also -- I beg your pardon, 01-052

and 01-053 that their request be granted because

they seem to be working within the spec of the

ordinance, and this is not going to harm any

surrounding neighbors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a support for

the motion?

MEMBER BAUER: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and

seconded to grant the variance requests in case

number 052.

MEMBER BRENNAN: May I add something?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go right ahead.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Just to note, the

building department would have continued

jurisdiction?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, no problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further comments by

the board?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, will

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Your variance request has been

approved. See the building department and we're

all set.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 01-036

MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, case number

01-036 filed by Larry -- is Larry here?

LARRY ANCYPA: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Larry, I'm not going

to try to pronounce your last name because I don't

want to-

LARRY ANCYPA: (Interposing) Ancypa.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What's that?

LARRY ANCYPA: Ancypa.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good. Is

representing Novi/Walled Lake Wastewater Treatment

Plant.

And could you be sworn in by our

secretary, please.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear that

the testimony that you're about to give in this

matter is the truth?

LARRY ANCYPA: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Would you

present your case, please.

LARRY ANCYPA: Yes. I'm a senior

associate with Hubbell, Roth and Clark. We're the

consulting engineers to the Oakland County Drain

Commissioner.

What the Oakland County Drain

Commissioner desires to do is to change the

disinfection process at the wastewater treatment

plant from the current chlorine system to an

ultraviolet system, which is the current system of

choice by many of the wastewater treatment plants.

We'll provide greater degree of

safety and other enhancements to the process at the

plant, and reduce costs.

And the building that's necessary,

which is classified as an accessory building,

because of the process we need to have a crane

inside for maintenance purposes on the ultraviolet

equipment.

And we tried to keep the character of

this building similar to the other buildings that

are on site by using a pitched roof.

And, consequently, our building is a

foot-and-a-half higher than what the zoning

ordinance allows, and we're asking for a variance

on that.

The building itself, we located it on

site so that we can maintain a gravity flow and not

have to go through the expenditure of pumps and

higher operational costs that would follow.

And because of that we have ended up

fairly close to the east property line, but the

plant is surrounded by wetlands, which is highly

unlikely that these wetlands will ever be

developed.

We are asking that -- on the

landscape issues that we maintain -- or are granted

a variance so that we can maintain the character of

the site as it presently is. It is a fully

developed site and it is covered with grasses, with

some trees, but there aren't the kind of shrubs and

obscuring berms that you currently require.

But we don't have any neighbors that

are in the immediate vicinity that I think would

find this objectionable.

In fact, I'm not certain who you

might have sent notices to.

And that's essentially it. We have

been -- received site plan approval from the

planning commission subject to your approval of

this variance request.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Is

there anyone from the audience that would like to

input into this case?

Hearing none, building department?

MR. SAVEN: As indicated, this is an

isolated site. It does have an "X" amount of

wetlands around the area.

This is -- the height requirement is

really addressing the similar nature where the

accessory structure is. This is, like, a 14-foot

height requirement, which is mean average of the

roof line.

And as far as the sidewalks around

the building, there is a portion, as you can see in

the clouded area, the sidewalks are adjacent --

right adjacent to the building which -- green space

requirements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members,

comments or discussions?

Miss Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Were there any notices

sent?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was one notice

sent, I don't know to who, but they didn't respond.

MEMBER GRAY: Well, since I live in

the area, I'm going to speak on behalf of some of

the areas, since I don't have a vote on this issue.

This treatment plant has been

probably one of the best neighbors to the area that

anybody could ask for. It is ideally located south

of the outflow of Walled Lake at the northwest end

of the huge, huge wetland that runs from

South Lake, which is roughly Thirteen Mile, and

runs down to Twelve Mile.

Any outflow or accidental spill that

may happen at the site, and I'm not aware of any,

would go through the wetland process, and that's

what a wetland is supposed to do.

So this is the ideal site. It's a --

there's absolutely nothing that will be going

around it because the City owns everything about

it. It's part of the what is referred to as the

North Novi Park and the City mitigation area --

wetland mitigation area that is south of

South Lake Drive and east of West Park Boulevard.

And I understand that the reason we

have berming requirements and landscaping is to

screen industrial or other types of occupancies

from the neighbors. Well, I don't really think the

deer and the (inaudible) and the -- really care. I

don't think that -- the closest neighbors that

would be east of this property, northeast of this

property, would be the Arrowhead Estates

subdivision, or the people on Buffington at this

point really care.

Again, it's been a good neighbor and

I would urge this board to approve all the

variances requested.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board

members, further comments or discussion?

Hearing none, the chair would

entertain a motion.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I

would like to make a motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: In case number

01-036, a motion that we accept the variance of 1.5

feet, and I also move that the elimination -- that

we eliminate the obscuring earth berm planting

requirements on their property line, that we

eliminate the obscuring earth berm and planting and

walls on the north property line, and also the

elimination of the four-foot green space and

planting on the northeast side of the building.

And the reason for this motion is because this is

in an excluded area and there are no neighbors or

areas for objection.

MEMBER BAUER: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and

seconded to grant the petition of the request as

presented. Any further discussion or comments on

the motion?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, will

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I tell you, you're

doing a good job when you got such -- along like

that one.

LARRY ANCYPA: Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 01-046

MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, case number

01-046 filed by Paul Gobeille representing

Signature Associates. Is the petitioner here?

Please come forward.

I guess your associates have

requested a sign variance for vacant property

located next to the I-96 freeway.

Sir, would you give your name and

address and be sworn in by our secretary?

PAUL GOBEILLE: Paul Gobeille,

9038 Hunter Bay, Brighton.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise

your right hand, please. Do you swear that the

testimony you are about to give in the matter

before you is the truth?

PAUL GOBEILLE: Yes.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Present your case,

please.

PAUL GOBEILLE: The property is a

thirty-two plus acre piece of property that's

L-shaped, south side of Novi Road -- excuse me,

south side of Twelve Mile west of Novi Road. And

due to the height of the expressway where the

railroad tracks cross under, it's impossible to see

a sign from the freeway.

And you probably saw our mockup sign.

That's even hard to see, but -- the request would

be for a forty-eight square foot increase in size

over the ordinance and a five foot height increase

over the ordinance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anyone

in the audience that would like to have input into

this?

Hearing none, building department?

MR. SAVEN: Paul, would you say

you're approximately 200 foot back from the

expressway?

PAUL GOBEILLE: Yeah. Probably a

little more than that. That's probably what the

Detroit Edison attorney was saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We had ten notices

sent and none were returned.

How long of a time frame are you

looking for this for -- (inaudible) property?

PAUL GOBEILLE: Yes. I would say it

would be in the neighborhood of a year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any board members,

comments or discussions?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman, that

was the only note that I had on this file. I would

want to produce some time line to it, and hopefully

they'll sell in a year. If he doesn't and he needs

to come back and see us in a year's time, we'll

listen to his issues then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Other board members,

comments or discussions?

Miss Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: I would ask why there's

not a sign at the north end of the property up at

Twelve Mile as opposed to the expressway?

PAUL GOBEILLE: There is as well.

MEMBER GRAY: There is as well?

PAUL GOBEILLE: It's been up and down

through the road work that's being done there.

MEMBER BRENNAN: You expect to keep

that sign as well?

PAUL GOBEILLE: Yes.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Can you have two

signs?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You got to frontages?

PAUL GOBEILLE: Yes.

MEMBER BRENNAN: And the other one,

did we give you a variance on that, or is that

one --

PAUL GOBEILLE: No, that's not a

variance. It's an ordinance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the 16

square-footer.

PAUL GOBEILLE: Correct.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I think he's

made some case for the size of the sign given its

location and setback from I-96. And, obviously,

I-96 is a good place to market 40 some acres of

property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that a motion?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. With respect to

01-046, I would move that the petitioner's request

be granted for a period of one year for the purpose

of selling the property.

MEMBER BAUER: Support.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Moved and

seconded to grant petitioner's request.

Any further discussion or comments on

the motion?

Madam Secretary, will you call the

roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance

request has been approved. See the building

department for the necessary permits and we wish

you the best of luck.

PAUL GOBEILLE: Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 01-047

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, case

number 01-047, filed by Andy Kowal. Is he here?

Okay. Mr. Kowal is requesting a 5.92

foot side yard setback variance and a 3.5 foot rear

yard setback variance, construction of a 240

square-foot attached accessory structure to be

located at 1185 South Lake Drive.

Sir, would you be sworn in by the

secretary, please.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear that

the testimony that you're about to give in the

matter before you is true?

ANDY KOWAL: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please

present your case.

ANDY KOWAL: I wish to -- I live

across the street from the lake, like everybody

else does on South Lake Drive, except for a few

people. And I brought my boat recently from --

that was up north down here. And I'd like to store

it, a boat, during the winter rather than leaving

it out on the property exposed, and the only place

I can put a garage that I could reach with a

trailer, without cutting down two huge, beautiful

trees, is on the -- my east side yard. And I have,

like, ten foot six inches between a tree and a --

and the side -- and the property line. And I'm

trying to build a -- I need a ten-foot outside

dimension for the trailer to get an

eight-and-a-half foot trailer in the garage -- I

mean -- yeah, eight-and-a-half foot trailer and

boat in the garage.

And the garage will be exactly to

match my house, so it should be attractive. All

the materials will be the same, as long as I can

get them, and I think I can.

That is the reason that I'm in front

of the ZBA.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there

anything further that you have?

ANDY KOWAL: The backyard property

line, I'm also asking for a variance there, and

that's because it runs at a sharp angle to the side

yard property, so I'm -- although I'm six foot away

at one corner of the proposed garage, I'm only two

foot-

MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing)

Two-and-a-half feet.

ANDY KOWAL: I'm only two feet away

on the other end.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there anyone

in the audience with input into this case?

Would you step forward, please,

ma'am.

Could we have your name and address

for the record, please.

DOROTHY DUCHENO: My name is

Dorothy Ducheno. I reside at 1191 South Lake

Drive, which is the property next to Mr. Kowal. I

am here at this point representing the property at

125 Henning, which is the property that is directly

to the south of his property line.

Anything else I can do?

I sent in some letters. I'm making a

personal appearance here today because in going

over some things with the wonderful City website

that we have on the Internet, I came across your

rules of procedure, and I'd like to address several

points on that.

Under the rules of procedure for

dimensional variances, it states that a petitioner

is expected to demonstrate some or all of the

following criteria: Number one, that strict

enforcement of the ordinance unreasonably prevents

the owner from using the property for permitted

use, or conforming to the ordinance would be

unnecessarily burdensome.

On that point, my feeling is that

this request for a variance is a want, not a need.

The applicant wants not to cut a tree, the

applicant wants not to enter into the rest of his

backyard. He wants extra storage.

This building is for accessory

storage on a double lot property. It's not primary

storage. As such, the intent and requirements of

the ordinances regarding setback should be upheld

and found unreasonable.

The second rule of procedure states

that the proposed variance will not negatively

impact on other property owners affected by the

variance.

That's my bone. Granting these

variances, in particular the rear yard setback,

will negatively affect our property which runs on

the south border of this property. It will change

and it will direct the flow of runoff water from

his backyard property, which is elevated, and

funnel it directly onto our southeast corner just

north on our garage side. There is no other place

for this water to flow.

We maintained the six foot rear and

side yard setback when we built our garage several

years ago. We did that on a thirty-eight foot wide

lot.

Our concern is runoff. It will

impact us.

There are two storm drain culverts

due east of this property which I was able to

locate with the help of the City. They are

directly east where the properties intersect.

They are physically on the Southpointe Condo

property. They were installed there to control the

runoff problems.

Right now, even when we have a heavy

rain, the entire floor on my garage is flooded and

wet. It's runoff that comes. We're not going to

be able to stop the rain but I can direct some of

the flow of water.

By locating this building that far

south, there is no place else for this water to

flow except toward us and onto us.

The third stipulation on your

procedures says that there is not a lesser variance

which could remedy the problem.

Our objection is not to being allowed

to build on the property, but we feel that were

other options as to where.

Also under your rules for procedure

which I found, number two states where a

residential homeowner seeks a dimensional variance,

the applicant shall have sought approval from the

homeonwers association, which we don't have, as

well as informed adjacent neighbors and any other

person directly affected by the proposed variance.

First we heard of this is when I

received a letter, singular, even though we have

five properties, telling us that there was going to

be a hearing for the ZBA.

We feel other options could include a

variance that would reduce the minimum setback

distance from the house to the garage; in other

words, push the building north and then we can

retain the six foot rear yard and allow some water

to flow. We need the six foot for drainage, fire

access. We have a garage building, too.

Any property that's too close to a

line, I believe, does have to have some extra

building codes as far as fires and neighboring

properties.

There's also for access to the high

power electrical lines. I was not able to confirm

with Detroit Edison, it seems there are no records,

as far as official easements, but there is a high

power tension wire that runs east/west between the

two properties. And at the point where the two

properties touch, it also runs due north along the

property line and then it cuts south into the

subdivision itself. It's the main feeder line for

that area.

Point four, that the need for the

variance is due to unique circumstances arriving

from the property. We have no problem, you know,

lake front home, yes, there is a circumstance.

Extra storage is always nice.

The lot is not a standard shape.

That was how it was platted. It does consist of

two combined smaller lots.

We do not object to his want of a

building, just his desire where he puts it, it

affects us.

Number five is that the need for the

variance is not self-created. We feel that the

need for this variance is a want. I don't want to

cut my tree, I don't want to make my backyard

smaller, I do want extra storage; so, therefore, I

need a variance.

This is not the first. This is the

fourth variance request for this backyard within

the four years -- last four years.

The second variance, as far as the

east property line, in general, I don't think it's

ever a good idea to build upon a property line.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Does

anyone else in the audience -- sir, please step

forward.

Can we have your name and address for

the record, please.

MIKE DUCHENO: Yes. For the record,

my name is Mike Ducheno. I live at 1191, and

basically I'm the house that's on the corner of

Hannan and South Lake, the property that's directly

to the west of Mr. Kowal.

I'd like to say that I have nothing

against Mr. Kowal in general. He's been a pretty

good neighbor to me, and I don't have any real

complaints, so I'm not taking anything personal as

far as his request.

As was stated, he's been here many

times before this board in the last few years. I

have not. You, perhaps, sometimes had the comments

to the specific requests, sometimes approving,

sometimes disapproving. But in this case I feel a

little bit more strong as to this request, and

that's why I'm here.

Basically, I hope that in your

package you have my letter of July 11th with the

disapproval. If not, I can provide it to you. To

save you the efforts, I will go through it.

Sometimes sounds like you guys read the letters and

sometimes you don't, but I'll go through this a

little bit more detailed.

My folks live in Troy. They have a

very similar building in their backyard. It's a

one-car garage, and they, for their uses, actually

put it in the middle of their backyard. Okay?

The one hardship that Mr. Kowal has

brought to you is that he has some beautiful trees

that he does not want to cut. To those, it's a

matter of opinion. One of them he lists as a

walnut. I don't know trees, so I can't say if it's

a walnut or not.

He shows on his plot that he's going

to build a building six inches from that tree. I

assume the City is going to require rat (ph) wall.

If you put a rat wall six inches from the tree you

can pretty well envision what's going to become of

that tree.

He has requested variances to the

rear yard and side yard, two variances. He says he

has no other place to put this.

You can take that accessory building,

you can line it up with the edge of his house

north/south, put it right in the middle of his

property. He can back it up, not cut any trees,

and he'll be farther away from his wall. So

basically size -- his lot's ample in size.

Talked about the power lines, the

cable, the utility lines that are -- basically will

be within thirty inches of the property line now,

with his request, if this is approved. Talked

about drainage.

And, finally, he's already encroached

on the rear yard setback once. It was granted

through the ZBA. He wanted to expand his house.

He's got a nice sunroom, you know, and I'm sure he

enjoys that, but he's already been granted one

variance to encroach on the rear yard setback, and

now he's coming back to you again saying okay, I've

done this, you guys give me approval, I'd like to

see a little bit more.

My issue is I do not support the

granting of any side yard or rear yard variances.

Now, if there's other variances that

he needs, you know, I'd consider that.

When we get a proposal, the sketch

had very little information, so it's difficult to,

you know, really, you know, evaluate.

But, again, like I said, I have

nothing against, you know, Mr. Kowal. He's been a

good neighbor, but I do not support his request.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there

anyone else in the audience? Whoever steps there

first. Go ahead.

VERN DRISCO: My name is Vern Drisco.

I reside at 1127 South Lake Drive, the property

adjacent, and I have some pictures that I took

yesterday and this morning.

The first picture -- if it's

working. The first picture is the area involved,

the southeast corner to be built on. The fence is

the south borderline, and to the red -- to the

right, you can just barely make it out, there's a

red or orange line which shows the east borderline

facing north.

The second picture, can't see too

well, but on the post -- just to the right of the

post on the top rail there you can see the line

going straight north. That shows the east border

of the property involved.

MEMBER GRAY: Can you point to that

line?

VERN DRISCO: Right-

MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Would

you point to that line, you have a pen?

VERN DRISCO: Basically, the line is

running right along there.

MEMBER GRAY: Okay. So that's the

property line.

VERN DRISCO: Now, that would be the

south boundary line. The boundary line here would

be -- I have to show that with the second picture.

The boundary line is right there, and he's

extending onto our property there already.

Picture three shows the room that he

has to his left.

Picture four shows a better detail of

the amount of room, other than for his two trees.

And that shows the amount of room he has in the

front between the south boundary line and his front

yard.

Now, I believe he has more than

sufficient room to build his building without

causing a reduction in the size variance.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, ma'am?

MARGARET LORRIE: Hi. My name is --

can you hear me? Hi. My name is Margaret Lorrie

and I also reside at 1127 South Lake Drive unit

218, slightly different from Vernie's.

The reason I'm here tonight is we

also took a picture before we realized Vernie had,

and I can show it to you, and it's pointed with

arrows and such, what was going on.

I also just wanted to mention that

there's an arithmetical error on your sheet there.

It says that the amount left before the property

line is .8 feet.

MR. SAVEN: .0.

MARGARET LORRIE: It's .08 feet,

which is, you know, like, nine-tenths of an inch or

something like that.

And he doesn't -- he doesn't really

respect property lines as it is.

If he were to build his shed or his

storage area that close, how would he ever maintain

it?

And we'd like to maybe put up a fence

someday. How would we do that on our property

line?

So let me show you this picture, and

thank you very much.

The property line -- our red line is

even more indistinct probably than Vernie's was. I

can see it on this picture, but I don't see it on

the screen very well. But that's where it is

there. And all of the stuff to the left of that

arrow saying property line is our property, and

there's all sorts of a myriad of objects on it, as

you can see, that don't belong there.

Okay? So I thank you very much for

your time and consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there

anyone else in the audience who would like to input

or participate in this case?

Hearing none, building department?

MR. SAVEN: If the board so chooses

to consider the variances, there's a couple issues

that I would like to bring to light.

Number one would be certainly, as

with the lady had just indicated, there is an issue

regarding controlling the roof runoff, which

Mr. Kowal would have to deal with if the board

chooses to do this, and that probably would be by

gutters and redirecting the flow of water in a

different direction.

The second issue would be for fire

protection on those property -- or that wall which

is located within three foot of the property line,

so he would have to be aware that he needs to do a

little more fire protection in that area.

Third thing is, just based upon what

was presented here tonight, have some concerns

about where the property line is, in fact, where --

what he, in fact, would need to do, and I believe a

staking is in order. You may want to consider that

as part of your motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There were

ninety-three notices sent, received one approval,

nineteen objections, and ten were sent back.

Board members, comments or

discussions?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll fire off a

first round. You've got a lot of problems here,

Mr. Kowal.

First of all, I'm not convinced that

this is the only location. As I look at your

layout, it appears that you could position this

accessory building to the west or to the left of

the nine inch pine and the eight inch walnut tucked

behind the house and not need any variances.

Secondly, I'm always moved by

adjoining property owners, and we're certainly on

record of their position. So that plays into my

feelings as well.

Third, and this bothers me, because

in 1998 we granted the use of a outdoor tent for

use of -- for storing a boat. You admitted at the

time you had construction material on site, and I'm

looking at photographs today and you can see rows

and rows of concrete block.

I'd wonder whether the building

department needs to be looking at this site for

whether there is any violations of outdoor storage

of construction materials.

MR. SAVEN: I think first and

foremost, again, we define the property line, where

the property line is. The other issues for the

outdoor storage and materials, yes, that will be

referred to the ordinance division.

ANDY KOWAL: Can I address the

questions here?

First of all, of the two trees that

I'm attempting to avoid cutting down are in line

with the house, with the side -- with the east side

of the house, and they're about two or three feet

east of the line of the house extended. So there

is no way possible to get a garage on there and be

able to pull in a trailer with a boat on it into

that garage. It's just impossible. And I think

one look at the site you would see that.

I gave you a site plan in which the

house is located on it, the trees are located on

there. Everything was -- was laid out by a

surveyor.

And I'm a registered civil engineer,

and I -- I know where the property line is.

There's been a lot of discussion about where the

property line is.

I have selected that -- I put that

string -- there's the -- actually a -- on the

South Lake Condominiums' deed, there is a question

of where the property line actually exists, and

because they have a measured dimension on it, which

does not check, and they have a -- as -- as -- as

-- as -- as it's written in the original plat, they

have a dimension. They are at variance one point

-- one degree and thirty minutes, which is about a

hundred feet run would change your property line

and would move it over a foot over.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

ANDY KOWAL: And my -- and what I

picked out was the most harmful location of it.

All those blocks, if -- and I could

bring out their surveyor to verify this. I believe

all those blocks, in his interpretation of the

property line, would be on my property. Okay?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we're not going

to debate the property line here at this point in

time because it's not before us and it's not our

function. Our function is to review the request as

you've presented it to us, which you have

presented, and the board-

ANDY KOWAL: (Interposing) I'm just

saying I can use their surveyor in ascertaining, I

think-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Well,

that would be -- have to be worked out with the

building department if you got a variance, when you

pull the permit, would have to be documented at

that point. That is nothing that's before this

board.

What is before this board is your

request, and I would say right now that you have

enough property that that could be positioned a

bare minimum with no rear yard setback, and I

really question going down to the zero line on the

right -- or on the east side.

You've got to be able to work

something out different than that, because I could

never support your request the way you have it.

Now, if you -- that's one person's

comments.

Board members, comments or

discussion?

I'm not going to get into a debate

back and forth.

ANDY KOWAL: Can I address the rest

of the comments?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hold on. The board is

discussing this. We will have questions. You've

made your presentation. It's our turn to review

this, and please respect our point to do that.

ANDY KOWAL: I do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members, further

comments or discussion?

MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, I can't

support any variance to the rear yard setback

because there's plenty of room on the yard itself.

The side yard setback -- personally, I

love trees. If anybody saw my house you'd see what

I'm talking about.

You just may have to take these trees

down in order to make this work, and I would

suggest to you that that is an option, even though

you don't want to do it. Trees do come down and

they can be replaced by other trees, and that just

may be the end of it. I can't support this whole

thing and have all the neighbors upset.

And there's no reason to jam this

garage down in the corner. I don't know how you're

going to put a door on it if it's only ten foot

wide and your boat's eight-and-a-half foot wide,

so -- I don't even want to get into that. But how

do you do that? How do you have an

eight-and-a-half foot door on a ten foot garage.

You'd have, like, two sticks holding up the whole

garage. So it's probably not even wide enough, but

that's your decision.

I just can't support the thing at all

down in that corner. With all these things that

were shown to us today, it seems to be the worst

place on the property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sarah, do you have a

comment?

MEMBER GRAY: There's a structure

there already. Is that the structure that was

given approval a couple years ago, canvas-type

structure?

MEMBER BRENNAN: We gave him a

six-month variance.

MEMBER GRAY: Why is it still there?

Okay. That's rhetorical, please. I am familiar

with those kinds of structures. I know a lot of

people in the area do use them, a lot of commercial

industries use them.

The basis for those is cement block

and commercial usage for storage of outside

property, et cetera.

I know that there is a serious

drainage problem in that area going all the way

down to the end of Henning. I know there's

standing water at many times because that's part of

the wetlands back there at the end of this property

at Southpointe.

Southpointe's ten acres, and I know

when that was built, I know there was extensive

surveys, and I know there's been at least three

surveys on Southpointe since Southpointe was

built.

I also question the need when

Mr. Kowal has a two-car garage attached to the

house in the front. Other people store their boats

on their lake frontage. I know a lot of people

don't like to store their boats outside, but

there's also storage facilities for them. The area

is abounding with them.

I would respectfully suggest that

Mr. Kowal does have other options, and any hardship

in this case would be self-imposed. And sticking

something back in the corner that is going to have

a negative impact on his neighbors, let alone,

potentially, his own property is not something that

this board should be supporting.

I also think that he -- we need to

know if there is a power easement, utility easement

for the power lines back in there. You know, you

can't build a structure under power lines. If

there's power lines back there, that needs to be

researched.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Other board members,

comments or discussions?

MEMBER BAUER: I just can't support

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I -- as what you have

presented here, I don't think the board can work

with it.

ANDY KOWAL: Can I address some of

the thing's that were brought up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can, yes.

ANDY KOWAL: Okay. First of all,

about drainage. There is no drainage problem, and

there won't be no drainage problem.

And the City and myself, I -- when I

asked for a -- when I put in the -- when I got a

permit for -- to put a sunroom on the back of the

house, I buried a drainage line and created a

french drain all the way from halfway between our

-- my house and Mr. Ducheno's house, and -- and it

goes -- and there is room behind the garage because

it's buried there through all the way to the south

property -- to the east property line where the

City directed me to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

ANDY KOWAL: And so that is all

installed. And they're-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Whether

the drains is installed, the position of the

building is too close to the property line. The

drainage issue is a separate issue in its own and

I'm not even considering that.

ANDY KOWAL: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm saying that you

have enough property that that building could be

positioned there with no variance needed at all.

ANDY KOWAL: I do have enough

property if I cut down the trees. There's no

question about that. I have -- I have no argument

with that. Okay? And that's the only reason I'm

here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

ANDY KOWAL: And-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) You

could reposition the building and necessarily --

you could reposition the building and not

necessarily cut down both trees.

ANDY KOWAL: Those trees were put

there partly as a screen to screen out the

South Lake property when they were building that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

ANDY KOWAL: And as far as

variances -- prior variances-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Would

you like the opportunity to come back next month

with a revised proposal, or do you want us to

address what you have before us tonight?

ANDY KOWAL: Right now, off the top

of my head, I'd say I don't have any reason to come

back. I either-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) You

want us to deal with this issue before us tonight?

ANDY KOWAL: You can decide to grant

the variance or not grant the variance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

Board members, further comments or

discussions?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm

ready to make a motion. With respect to case

01-047, I move that the petitioner's request be

denied due to insufficient hardship.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Support.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and

seconded that the petitioner's variance request be

denied due to insufficient hardship.

Any further comments on the

discussion?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance

request has been denied.

ANDY KOWAL: Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 01-048

MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, case 01-048

filed by Gregory Hudas representing

Regency Centre. Is the petitioner present?

BRAD EGAN: I'm not Greg Hudas.

Greg Hudas is the broker from Signature Associates.

I'm Brad Egan with Millright Development RLC.

We're the developer on the property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. If you would be

sworn in, sir.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear that

the testimony you're about to give in this matter

before you is the truth?

BRAD EGAN: I do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Tell us why you

need to keep your marketing sign.

BRAD EGAN: Well, a short twelve

months ago we were back -- we were in front of you

to request to be able to put our marketing sign

along Haggerty Road.

For those that are -- may not be

familiar with this site, it's on Haggerty between

Grand River and I-96, just south of I-96 overpass.

Couple of things interesting about

the site, is we only have seventy feet of frontage

along Haggerty Road but it is a thirty acre site

where we plan to put a 350,000 square feet of new

prime office space, roughly, in about twelve

buildings.

Currently two buildings are up. We

have one that is occupied by a new tenant.

But a couple of the reasons we are

back in front of you is, one, the market has slowed

considerably since about eight months ago. The

high tech market is virtually nonexistent.

And you may all be familiar with the

number of vacant buildings that are around the city

of Novi, as well as Wixom.

We've run into some challenges with

our site that have caused us to have some delays in

the marketing of the property. And the closing of

Haggerty Road at the I-96 overpass has basically

made it a dead-end street, which limits the amount

of traffic that goes by the building -- or by the

site.

I'm asking for an additional twelve

months on the marketing sign. It is a good-looking

marketing sign, although it needs to be cleaned, it

will be done by the end of the week if you grant

the variance. Hopefully you will.

I can answer any questions that you

have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the

audience with input or testimony in this case?

Hearing none, building department?

MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There were 12 notices

sent and none came back.

Board members, comments or

discussions?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Question for the

applicant. Somewhere in there I was trying figure

out what percentage of this is built and/or leased

of this 30 acre site.

BRAD EGAN: The two buildings that

are up, one is 21,000, and that one's occupied by

Coastoff (ph) America, a high tech automotive

component supplier. The other building is 23,000

square feet. It is a light industrial building and

is currently vacant.

We've recently finished the shell of

the building and we have a potential deal on the

site but it's not signed or sealed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What was the total

square footage that's going to be available?

BRAD EGAN: Probably around 350,000.

It's a thirty acre site. We've got two of the --

it's a condo'd site. We've got two of the sites

completed right now, so we're looking at an

additional-

MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) Short

answer, you're a long way from Kokomo?

BRAD EGAN: Absolutely.

MEMBER BRENNAN: You've got 40,000 on

the street, and 350,000. That's what I was trying

to get to. Thanks.

BRAD EGAN: And much of that has been

because of some issues that we've run into on the

site itself.

MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, I would

make a motion in case 01-048, that we grant the

variance for twelve months due to the fact that the

-- Haggerty Road has been closed for three months,

and there was some natured problems with the site

construction.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Support.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Moved and seconded to

grant the petitioner's request for a extension on a

sign.

Any comments or questions from the

board members?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: (Inaudible.)

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance

request has been granted. See the building

department for the necessary permits and we wish

you the best of luck.

BRAD EGAN: Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 01-049

MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, case number

01-049, filed by Eugene -- I'll get the first name.

EUGENE PUCCIO: Puccio.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Representing

homeowners of 24425 Glenda. He is requesting a 552

foot variance to allow for construction of a

detached accessory building located at

24425 Glenda.

Sir, would you be sworn in, please.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear that

the testimony that you're about to give in this

matter is the truth?

EUGENE PUCCIO: I do.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you give your

name and address?

EUGENE PUCCIO: Eugene Puccio,

Portland Building Company, 25645 Ford Road,

Dearborn Heights.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would you

please present your case.

EUGENE PUCCIO: Well, I think I'll

turn it over to the homeowner who's here with me.

CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'm going to ask

you be sworn in also then, please.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear that

the testimony you're about to give in this matter

before you is the truth?

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: Yes, I do.

Dennis KASMOWSKI. I reside at 24425 Glenda, and

I'd like a size variance for a detached garage in

the back. It's going to be primarily used for the

storage of lawn equipment, garden equipment. I

have two lawn tractors presently, and also it's

going to be used for maintenance of my own personal

vehicles. I do not take my vehicles in for

service, I service them all, and I presently have

three vehicles.

That's what I'm looking for.

The garage will be sided to match the

house, and the roof will be matching the house as

well.

Off the one property line it's going

to be fifteen foot, and it's going to be seventy

foot off the rear property line, and it's going to

be set back a hundred seventeen foot from the

house.

CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Anyone

in the audience, input or testimony in this case?

Building department?

MR. SAVEN: You had indicated that

you're using it for your lawn tractors. Is this a

business that you have?

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: No, just my own

personal use, no business at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were

twenty-eight notices sent and we received two

objections.

One is, property was purchased four

months ago as an R4 zone. The building will not

conform with the adjoining properties. It will be

a detriment to property value. John and

Pearl Adams.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Adams.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Adams. And the second

one is from Harry and Vivian Dimitri, and they go

on with objection to building a new garage based on

number of factors, not the least of which is the

fact that my property is the closest involved, and

my property will be most affected by the property

owner. In fact, they're (inaudible). In fact,

I've been told that it's to be a garage, but if so,

why is it placed so far away from the owner's house

and put in elevation that abuts the property

against my property. If not, I note the distance

of a hundred seventeen feet from the back line. We

have not been contacted at all, but have not been

able to get a firm answer regarding the size of the

proposed building. I'm concerned that if this

building or garage is to be used for a workshop,

then my family and I are going to be suffering from

noise pollution coming from the building. I'm much

concerned about how the construction of the

proposed structure will affect the property value

of my house and the property in the event that I

desire to sell.

Basically they're concerned of what

type of structure you're gonna have. I don't know

if you had talked with this resident.

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: That was the only

residence that I did not have an opportunity to

talk to.

CHAIRMAN: Board members, comments or

discussion? I got a couple things but I'll pass to

the others.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman, should

this variance be granted, this homeowner ends up

with a five-car garage. I think this an excessive

variance request. I think it -- as one of the

homeowners has indicated in the -- in their letter,

it makes it a very odd parcel compared to the other

parcels along Glenda, and I'm not convinced with

the testimony that there's hardship.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Board members,

comments or discussion?

MEMBER SANGHVI: You don't have any

kind of way getting into this -- what you call a

garage?

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: I don't have any?

MEMBER SANGHVI: There is no part or

a door or anything that leads to your structure in

the back.

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: I'm going to have

an asphalt driveway.

MEMBER SANGHVI: This only goes to

the garage. (Inaudible) the structure going to be?

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: There will be one

that goes to the new structure.

MEMBER SANGHVI: Where will it go?

Where will you bring it?

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: It's going to come

off of the existing driveway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MEMBER SANGHVI: If you look at the

existing driveway and your garage, how are you

going to extend it over there?

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: It's going to go-

MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Go

around it?

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: It's gonna go

around the garage.

MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, let me

just -- we have a print here that doesn't show the

driveway that you're proposing to go around.

MEMBER SANGHVI: It's not there at

all. There's no driveway shown in your plan here

and how you are going to get there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the other thing

I have a problem with here is you got an existing

two-car garage, and now we're building a

twenty-four by forty building.

MEMBER GRAY: Double the size.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Double the size.

MEMBER GRAY: Doubling the size of

the existing two-car.

CHAIRMAN: Oh, yeah, easily.

MEMBER GRAY: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I got a problem with

that, and if he's allowed -- and correct me if I'm

wrong, Mr. Saven -- to build a 850 square-foot

building --

MR. SAVEN: Up to 850 square-foot.

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: That's including

what's already there. Presently I can build -- I

would have 408 square foot remaining. I could

build a 20 by 20 without a variance presently. And

if I cannot have the full variance, I would be

willing to have any square footage that would be

allowed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MEMBER FANNON: Mr. Chairman, I'm

sorry. I think what should happen here, and I'm

not -- first of all, we don't have a print that

shows us this driveway, which is kind of concerning

to me; and, second, the two neighbors are a little

upset. So I think you may want to go back to the

drawing board. It's not up to us to sit here and

tell you what size garage to build-

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: (Interposing)

Right.

MEMBER FANNON: -and then go and give

you something smaller. You can build one, like you

said, that's twenty by twenty and not even come

here, so -- I don't think it's our job to say why

shouldn't it be twenty by twenty-three.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I totally agree.

And I think that really what you need to do is you

need to address the issue with your neighbors and

you need to come in with a realistic request-

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: (Interposing)

Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -of what you're

looking for, because I have one member who would

never approve this.

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Even if he had the

neighbors' approval.

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: Okay.

MEMBER FANNON: And showing this

driveway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct.

MEMBER FANNON: Should be on there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like us to

table this for our next meeting?

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: No, that wouldn't

-- won't be necessary.

EUGENE PUCCIO: You want to withdraw.

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: I want to

withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

DENNIS KASMOWSKI: Thank you for your

time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank

you.

CASE NUMBER 01-056

MR. CHAIRMAN: Moving along, next

case filed by Roy Wilson at 44512 Copeland. He's

requesting a 12 foot rear yard variance to allow an

addition to an existing structure. The home

experienced severe fire damage and is in the

process of being reconstructed.

Sir, would you be sworn in by our

secretary?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear that

the testimony that you're about to give in this

matter is the truth?

ROY WILSON: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Would you

present your case, please.

ROY WILSON: Well, as it was stated

in the case, we had severe fire damage five days

before Christmas, little more than severe, but the

sunroom that was attached to the house when we

purchased it six years ago apparently may have to

come down.

And -- originally, it was a gazebo

and the previous owner attached it to the house.

So my understanding is that that was

approved as a gazebo when the variance was granted.

So what we want to do is -- I mean, we use that

sunroom all the time, we did. We haven't used it

lately. We would like to incorporate that into the

home.

If you -- the house, it's pretty well

protected. On the other side of that we have a

pool. It does offer some privacy to the yard with

the pool. It also -- also offers some protection

as far as getting into the pool area.

And there's a fence, of course, to

the north of the property line.

We're looking for a twelve foot

variance.

I've talked to all the neighbors,

especially the neighbor on this side that -- that

sunroom actually faces his garage. And there are

no windows on that side of the property on his

house. And I've talked to all the neighbors about

it. To my knowledge, there's been nobody that has

objected.

I do have the approval of the

homeowners association.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you bring that

forward, please, so we have that for our records.

Thank you.

Do you need a copy of that back or

can we keep that for our file here?

ROY WILSON: No, you can keep it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there

anything else?

ROY WILSON: No, that's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Anyone in

the audience wish to input or testimony in this

case?

Hearing none, building department?

MR. SAVEN: Only for the fact that

the existing structure was there and we did not

show this as far as any berming process was

concerned. This is why we picked it up.

ROY WILSON: Actually, I talked to

the insurance company and they have it. I don't

know how that happened, but they've got some

approval for the gazebo that, I think, was put in

in 1992 or '93.

MR. SAVEN: Well, that's a little

more than what (inaudible).

Well, to make a long story short, I

would encourage anything to get this job off and

(inaudible) completed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There were

thirty-five notices sent and three response, all

approvals.

Board members, comments or

discussions?

MEMBER FANNON: I just have one

question. Is this 12 foot variance going any

further than what that structure was already?

ROY WILSON: No. It's not-

MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing) It's

probably on here, but I just want to make

sure.

ROY WILSON: Yeah. No, you're --

it's the same.

MEMBER FANNON: You're not going any

further than what was there for the last ten years?

ROY WILSON: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that a motion,

Mr. Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: I'll make a motion in

case number 01-056 that the variance be granted in

this case due to the fact that the home had severe

fire damage and the variance is not taking the home

or its additions out any further than it has been

since 1992 or 3.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and

seconded to grant petitioner's variance request --

variance as requested.

Any further comments or discussion by

the board?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance

request has been approved. See the building

department. We wish you the best of luck.

ROY WILSON: Thank you.

CASE NUMBER 01-059

MR. CHAIRMAN: Case number 01-059,

Taylor Scott Architects representing the

Great Indoors. Sir, would you be sworn in, please.

CHRIS GOBLE: Yes.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise

your right hand? Thank you.

Do you swear that the testimony that

you're about to give in this matter before you is

the truth?

CHRIS GOBLE: Yes, I do.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you.

CHRIS GOBLE: Good evening. My name

is Chris Goble. I'm with Taylor Scott Architects.

I'm one of the architects, for the record, for the

Great Indoors facility for the Fountain Walk

development.

What we're asking for in this

variance, zoning allows basically one sign, forty

square feet, primary traffic for retail

facilities.

There are, as -- in the information

we have submitted there, six signs in total that

we're looking at. Each one of them is a map which

shows -- it's eleven by seventeen map that shows

the location specifically of each specific sign.

I'd like to walk through the intended need for each

one of these signs.

Sign number one faces I-96 freeway.

It's the primary identification sign, the main

entrance to the facility.

I do have one question. Mockups are

in place, and I would just ask if the members have

viewed those mockups on the sides of the building?

BOARD MEMBERS: Yes.

CHRIS GOBLE: One thing to point out,

the way the mockups and the banners were done,

there is a tan background to the sign. The signs

that will be built are individual letters and it is

on block. That's the only way we could get the

mockup to work. The letters themselves, or the

signs themself, are individual raised letters

applied to the building.

So, again, the first sign is the

primary building identification sign facing I-96.

The second sign is on the back of the

truck dock side which faces Twelve Mile Road.

Again, the Great Indoors is acting as

anchor tenant for the Fountain Walk development

mall, and what we're trying to do with these signs

is access to the facility, create the identifiers

as to what the facility is as the anchor.

The third sign is the mall entrance

sign from the pedestrian walkway of Fountain Walk.

That would be the graphic over the entrance for

that element.

The fourth sign, again, is a primary

off the -- primary off of West Oak Drive coming

down that road.

The fifth sign is specific use. That

talks about the customer pickup area. In this

particular facility, when you buy merchandise, you

would -- third small little entry vestibule on the

Donelson Drive side of the building that identifies

customer pickup, this is where you come in and get

your merchandise.

And the sixth sign, the final sign,

is in the main entrance. It is the Starbucks

sign. There's a Starbucks facility located inside

this building, and the actual variance on that

particular sign, it's inside the glass, and zoning

does not allow it to be illuminated in the

Starbucks, particularly on these facilities,

illuminate those signs. So that last sign

specifically has to do with the illumination of

that sign.

A couple issues I would like to point

out. The Great Indoors is an anchor tenant for

this mall, and as such it's not as well-known or as

widely known yet as a Sears or Wal-Mart or anyone

else.

There's an image that they're trying

to create and market their kind of development, but

the Great Indoors itself is not recognizable.

The demographic is roughly 45, 60

miles outside, concentric ring, around the city of

Novi, so it's not a corner grocery store. We're

trying to bring people in from all parts in a

radius.

So the identification signs locating

this particular facility from I-96 and

Twelve Mile Road that tell the customer basically

where the store is, one of the reasons we were

looking for identification signs on -- facing I-96

and the main entrance, and Twelve Mile Road and

Donelson.

I believe basically that's it.

That's the information that I have. You should

have -- there are mockups on the building, and

there's two sheets. One of them shows the

allowable signage and the other one shows the

proposed signs that we are requesting.

One last thing to state specifically

about the signs themselves, there are about six of

these facilities open in the country. There are

another seven or eight under construction. The

sign package is a standard sign package that the

Great Indoors buys. There are a variation of

signs, but the reason we picked these specific

signs has to do with the master contract and the

typical run that they give for signs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not going to

get it for us, for that reason.

CHRIS GOBLE: That's just purely an

economical issue as far as they're -- there's about

six different sizes in signs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anything else?

Is there anyone in the audience that

would like to participate in this case?

Building department?

MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. Only

for the -- I do have a comment. The -- there is

one sign that faces the interior, and as you

recall, there was a determination by the city

attorney's office regarding the signs facing the

interior. But in this particular case, this is

where the sign location is. It can't be visible

from the surrounding area. But that was one of the

concerns that we had concerning the sign package.

That's why it's (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board members,

comments or discussion?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Oh, yeah.

Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll just run down

one through six.

Number one, surprisingly, I don't

have an issue with. I think that, for the size of

the building, that's very similar to Sears,

JC Penneys.

Sir, number two and number three

signs are both, I would say, for within the mall

identification and not from a long distance.

Is there any reason why both two and

three could not be the size of number three, that

is, a hundred thirty-three square feet?

CHRIS GOBLE: No.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. Number four,

also a wall sign. Actually, I'm not -- I goofed

that up.

CHRIS GOBLE: You're referring to

number two and four?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, two and four.

Two and four, I would suggest, might be able to be

the same size of the 208. That's just something to

throw out. These are only my observations.

Merchandise pickup sign. There

again, I don't have a problem with that. It's a

huge store. It's required. We have it at Art Van

and a lot -- so I don't have an issue with number

four.

Six, I don't recall us giving an

illumination variance to Starbucks in the other

Starbucks store in Novi.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're talking about

five.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. I'm already

going to six. So I didn't have a problem with

number one, I don't have a problem with number

five. I'd like to see some reduction in two,

three, four, and I don't know why we need to

consider number six when we didn't have it in the

other store.

And I know that Starbucks was not in

front of us for an illuminated sign inside.

That's a real quick first pass.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Can I go next?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: We're going to be

all over the place here. I think one's too big,

and I think that four -- and I just have to get

this straight.

One is facing 96?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct.

CHRIS GOBLE: Correct.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Four is facing

Donelson?

CHRIS GOBLE: Correct.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Correct?

CHRIS GOBLE: Correct.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: I think either one

or four but not both, and the reason why I say that

is because I like the sign over the door on

Donelson Drive over the doorway, and I like the

size of it.

I did my consumer city act on Sunday

with a baseball cap on, got in the car and went

looking for your building. I don't agree that

you're not well known. My friends are patiently

waiting for your building to open.

CHRIS GOBLE: Sears will be happy to

hear that.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. And, also,

your ads are doing a great deal I think.

Seriously though, when you're running

-- when you're driving down Twelve Mile and you

look over there, the size of sign number three --

help me here if I'm wrong.

CHRIS GOBLE: Sign number two.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Size number two is

-- I think if it was smaller you wouldn't quite see

it from Twelve Mile.

I think when you're coming down

Twelve Mile and you're looking at that sign, it

just caught my eye as soon as I was coming down.

I don't like the bigger size. And I

realize that you're trying to catch it from 96, but

I think it's overkill on one and four.

It really, I think, takes --

personally, I think it takes away from the

building.

So either -- and I would go with one

instead of four. Okay?

Three I don't have a problem with. I

don't have a problem with five. And six, I think

you would need an illumination for Starbucks in

order to find it because it's a great big building

and it's a little sign.

CHRIS GOBLE: It's roughly two-foot

diameter.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yeah. I don't

have a problem with that.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Other board

members, comments?

We want to review these more in

general, or do we want to start with one and go

through and everybody kind of have a consensus and

then -- okay.

Let's go back to sign one. Sign one,

if I'm understanding your definition, is your --

deemed to be your primary sign, correct?

CHRIS GOBLE: That's correct.

That's the primary entrance to the building, that's

the primary identification sign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Board

members, comments or discussion about sign one?

MEMBER BAUER: I have no problem with

sign one.

MEMBER FANNON: No problem.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Again, I just did a

little visual in driving around the Twelve Oaks.

It seemed that that sign was very similar in size

to Sears and JC Penney. I mean, that's why I drew

my opinion.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: If one is going to

stay and four is going to go, then I am in

agreement with one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let's make a

motion.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Okay.

MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion

with respect to the petitioner's sign one, that we

move for support as submitted.

MEMBER BAUER: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and

seconded to grant the petitioner's request for sign

one for a variance of 367 square feet.

Any further comments or discussion on

the motion?

If none, Madam Secretary, would you

call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. One's out of

the way. Let's go for two.

Now, two, that's the one facing

Twelve Mile.

MEMBER BRENNAN: I failed to read,

Member Gronachan -- thinking back, I may have

gotten these numbers mixed up, so-

MEMBER GRONACHAN: (Interposing)

That was easy to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I don't have

any trouble with two.

MEMBER BAUER: I don't either.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: In -- I don't even

know what I'm doing here. Okay. Sign two, case

number 01-059, that the motion be approved for a

hundred sixty-eight square foot variance because

the size and location meets the size of the

building.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and

seconded to approve the variance request for sign

two.

Any further discussion or comments?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Moving right

along. Sign three, which is on the west side of

the building facing the interior.

CHRIS GOBLE: The mall side you

need.

MEMBER FANNON: Yeah. You need

something there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, but it's-

MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing) But

I'm just wondering, how many square feet is the

wall, do you know that?

CHRIS GOBLE: Not off the top of my

head. You're looking at -- between the pilasters

is roughly 35 feet in length.

MEMBER BRENNAN: See, once you're on

that side of the building you already know what the

Great Indoors is. You've got -- you've entered

from Twelve Mile.

Okay. Let's assume that you come

down 96 and you see the real big sign. Now you get

inside and you see the Twelve Mile sign. I mean,

you're gonna get back in that corner. I don't know

that you need another hundred and thirty foot sign

over the main entrance.

We might want to ask you to look at

that or scale it back somehow.

CHRIS GOBLE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the height of

the letters on that sign?

CHRIS GOBLE: This sign specifically

is thirty feet ten inches by four foot three

inches, and that's measured from the bottom of the

G to the top of the D.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. The four foot's

a big letter.

CHRIS GOBLE: Okay. I'm certainly

willing to (inaudible). This is what I have to go

by as reference to the typical sign, sizes that I

brought from the -- lay these things out.

MEMBER BRENNAN: What was that middle

one?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Which sign is

that?

CHRIS GOBLE: These are the

Great Indoors.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Right. I

understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Which size is this one

here?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: This one?

CHRIS GOBLE: That one is-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) A

hundred and thirty-three square feet.

CHRIS GOBLE: That one.

MEMBER BRENNAN: The second one from

the top?

MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the one -- two

-- three -- fourth one down?

CHRIS GOBLE: That's two foot six

tall, a hundred and twenty-one square feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You know, you went

from the second one down and you only dropped to a

hundred and twenty-one square feet?

MEMBER BRENNAN: You went from the

second line item sign --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. That's what I

was-

CHRIS GOBLE: (Interposing) Bear

with me just a second.

MEMBER BAUER: It's on this sheet.

It's in your stuff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh.

MEMBER BAUER: On this page.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It only goes down a

hundred and thirty feet.

CHRIS GOBLE: I'm sorry. Let me

take that back. That is the -- that's the second

-- that's the next to the bottom sign, what you're

looking at there. That's this one.

The other option that we have, you

know, a hundred and thirty-three square feet, but

there's one smaller that is 72.91 square feet.

That is --

MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the height of

the letters?

CHRIS GOBLE: Okay. Again, as we --

if we measure from the bottom of the G to the top

of the D-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing)

Correct.

CHRIS GOBLE: -the dimension on the

one we were proposing was four foot three. On the

next one, the next smallest one, it's three foot

one from the bottom of the G to the top of the D.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And what's the

square footage on that?

CHRIS GOBLE: 72.91, and it goes

from thirty feet ten inches long to twenty-three

feet two inches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think (inaudible).

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. I think we've

got a bit of an overkill on that sign. If you can

get it down to that one you just mentioned.

CHRIS GOBLE: Seventy-nine?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Seventy.

CHRIS GOBLE: 72.91.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Seventy-three.

CHRIS GOBLE: If I may,

Richard Chamberlain is a representative from Sears.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MEMBER BRENNAN: What's Sears?

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: Sears is the

parent company for Great Indoors.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: Good evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good evening.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: Do I need to be

sworn in?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear that

the testimony you're about to give in the matter

before you is the truth?

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, ma'am.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: I would like to

comment on this one particular sign. If you would

place yourself in a mall situation -- that's what

this is, on the west side of our building. If you

were in a mall and you look towards the building,

if you would, inside the Sears store, I guess you

say, the sign is at least this large, in most

situations.

I think that the actually good drive

in off of Twelve Mile, if I remember the site plan

right, they come in by Galions and actually not see

our store, park on the west side of the property

and enter the mall area, if you will, and actually

come to our store without seeing any of our

exterior signs.

MR. SAVEN: First, you almost have to

be on Donelson Drive to be able to do that.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: From the west?

MR. SAVEN: Off Twelve Mile.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: Off Twelve Mile

by Galion.

MR. SAVEN: Twelve Mile.

MEMBER GRAY: I probably could, but

there's all those tinted ground signs around

everywhere, too, so --

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. Yeah. Let's

keep that in mind, too. Thank you, Sarah.

We granted to the -- to the

Fountain Walk a number of directional signs on all

four sides of this complex.

MEMBER GRAY: There are so many

ground signs on here, not any more, I don't think,

than Twelve Oaks, but, you know, let's put that in

perspective.

MEMBER BRENNAN: It's too bad we

didn't have these plotted on this thing.

MEMBER GRAY: They're on here.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Are they?

MEMBER GRAY: Yep. There's one

immediately to the right of the customer pickup

sign, if you look on the --

MEMBER BRENNAN: And another one on

the corner to the -- on 96 side.

That about kills that number four

sign, doesn't it?

MEMBER GRAY: Just about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think it's-

MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) I

don't want to run this meeting, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. That's all

right.

We can skip over that one if you want

to, because I don't think it's going to fly at a

hundred and thirty-three.

CHRIS GOBLE: Will it fly at 72.9?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got a lot

better chance than a hundred and thirty-three.

CHRIS GOBLE: Then we would like to

modify that sign to be 72.91 square feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll round it off to

73.

CHRIS GOBLE: Seventy-three.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One-tenth.

MEMBER GRAY: Can I suggest that we

remember that for future tenants coming back to see

us?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don't worry, we will.

Member Brennan never forgets that.

Chairman would entertain a motion for

sign number three.

MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd move that sign

three be approved at 73 square feet, which is a 43

foot variance.

MEMBER SANGHVI: Support.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Thirty-three, I'm

sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and

seconded that the sign number three will be a

maximum 73 square feet. Any further discussion on

the motion?

Madam Secretary, will you call the

roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Okay. We got three out of the way.

Now number four. Four is my problem.

MEMBER BAUER: Mine, too.

MEMBER BRENNAN: And I think we just

killed that one with the notation on both the

ground signs, one at West Oaks Drive and the other

was at the 96 entranceway.

If you're going to have a directional

signage I don't know why you need a wall sign.

MEMBER FANNON: Sign number -- but

doesn't sign number five, sitting right next to

sign number four going over the door, am I -- does

it say the Great Indoors?

CHRIS GOBLE: Yes, sir, it

does.

MEMBER FANNON: It doesn't say

customer pickup.

CHRIS GOBLE: No, it says merchandise

pickup.

MEMBER BAUER: The one that -- sign

number four-

CHRIS GOBLE: (Interposing) Says the

Great Indoors.

MEMBER FANNON: You mean the sign

that I saw was the only door on that building when

I said merchandise pickup. No, it does not say

that.

CHRIS GOBLE: It said the

Great Indoors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MEMBER GRAY: And it will say --

MEMBER FANNON: What's it supposed to

say?

CHRIS GOBLE: The one over the door

is supposed to say merchandise pickup, which is

probably how we have it submitted.

MEMBER FANNON: Because I thought the

Great Indoors would be -- was fine. Get rid of

that huge thing would have been fine with me.

It's the only door on the back, so if

you tell people to go around that side, and there's

no other door they can find. So that's how I felt

about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sign four.

MEMBER FANNON: My point is if sign

five is going to say the Great Indoors like it is

up there, why would you go to sign four (inaudible)

when you have a sign that says on the building, but

I guess they just said they don't want it to say

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Their position is

merchandise pickup.

Okay. Board members, what are you

going to do with this four?

MEMBER SANGHVI: It's a huge sign.

What can you live with? It's too big.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Way, way too big.

UNIDENTIFIED: I saw that coming in

from the front.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, let's assume

that it's a directional sign for people coming out

of West Oaks. It shouldn't -- if it has to be

there at all, which I'm not convinced, it shouldn't

be any bigger than the one on the opposite side, 73

square feet, if it gets to be there at all.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: If I may,

again, it's a mall situation on that west side.

The 72 square feet is-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Wait a

minute. On that opposite corner -- just go around

there-

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: (Interposing)

Yes, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -ninety degrees.

You've got 407 square feet.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: That's visible

to highway 96.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. This is

only going to be visible with people that are

coming down out of West Oaks.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And you sure don't

need a 407 square feet sign to tell them that

you're there. That wall is bigger than any sign

you could ever put on that building right there.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: It's a large

building, yes.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: And I'm not sure

that you can see it from that wall coming from

West Oaks. We had a problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can see it where

they have it up on top there.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yeah. Well -- oh,

coming down from --

MEMBER SANGHVI: So --

CHRIS GOBLE: As the sign is too

big-

MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) It's

huge, it's enormous.

MEMBER GRAY: Why can't you live with

the same size sign that you have facing

Twelve Mile, which is 68 square feet?

CHRIS GOBLE: I would be thrilled if

we could have that sign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute. Wait a

minute. Wait a minute. Don't sell the farm.

MEMBER GRAY: I'm not. I'm just

cutting it down in increments.

MEMBER FANNON: Could you center the

sign?

CHRIS GOBLE: On?

MEMBER BRENNAN: The west side.

We're talking about sign number four.

CHRIS GOBLE: Center it on the

entire length of the building?

MEMBER FANNON: Right now it's off to

the left, right?

CHRIS GOBLE: Right. There's two

pilasters attached that are anchoring the ends of

building, and this is on the southern lead post,

pilaster cap is in the middle.

MEMBER FANNON: This would make more

sense in the center of the building.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: It, of course,

could be moved.

MEMBER FANNON: I'm not saying you

should.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: There is a

issue -- I mean, the drywall is up on the inside.

We'd be tearing that down to get back towards the

electricity.

MEMBER FANNON: No. I'm not saying

move it.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Can I throw some

rationale out here? We agreed that sign number

three -- let's go back a second -- was a sign that,

once people are in the complex, it directs them to

that building.

CHRIS GOBLE: Yes.

MEMBER BRENNAN: I will contend that

four does the same thing with people coming out of

West Oaks, and we have four the same size as number

three.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hold on.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: We've --

MEMBER BRENNAN: Given that we've got

two other ground signs that are pointing to your

store, so you got three signs that are going to say

Great Inside on the easterly wall or easterly side.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: And if I may, I

think those signs, the directional signs, the

Great Indoors, part of that would be three foot

long. I mean, I wasn't a part of this-

MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing)

Similar to the sign that's -- similar to the signs

you have at Twelve Oaks. In fact, I think they're

nearly identical.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: That would be

good for directional once you're there, correct?

MEMBER GRAY: Yes.

MEMBER BRENNAN: What I'm saying is,

you've got -- you've got two of those directional

signs on the east side of your complex, and we're

suggesting a wall sign the same size as sign number

three.

MEMBER GRAY: Plus there's a pole

sign up at Twelve Mile, too, all on the east side.

CHRIS GOBLE: I'm not -- I've not

seen the exact (inaudible), so I can't talk about-

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: (Interposing)

There's one up in the corner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How soon -- how soon

are all these signs going to go up?

CHRIS GOBLE: We're looking at

roughly a September soft opening, so we're reaching

a relatively critical point for ordering and

getting the signs fabricated and delivered for

installation, so from my perspective, quite

honestly, I need to get all these issues resolved

tonight, so-

MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) We're

close.

CHRIS GOBLE: All right. Okay.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Is sign number four

-- can you live with that same size sign that

you've got on the west side, seventy-three square

feet?

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: If I -- one

more, if I may, again, I'm sorry. We've agreed

that that's -- that side of the building is very

large. I'm afraid that the 73 square foot sign

would just be lost on the building.

CHRIS GOBLE: Would it be possible

to match the sign that's on -- that we just-

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: (Interposing)

The north side.

CHRIS GOBLE: Yeah. That's on the

north side and try to-

MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) Which

is 208.

CHRIS GOBLE: 208.

MEMBER GRAY: That's half the size

of --

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that, really,

for the size of the building, the seventy-three

square feet on the east side is too small. I think

that this be sufficed and look better and

everything altogether with that hundred and

thirty-three square foot sign, and that's -- you

know, that's doubling that there, and I think it

would be viable, it would look good, it wouldn't

stand out like a big sledge hammer trying to knock

somebody over the head coming along there, and --

but it would be better than the seventy -- I think

the seventy-three is too small.

CHRIS GOBLE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But I could support

the hundred and thirty-three there.

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: That would be

acceptable to us as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That acceptable?

CHRIS GOBLE: We would offer that as

acceptable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And sign number

four, I would move that the variance request be for

a total square footage of a hundred thirty-three

square feet.

MEMBER BAUER: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For easterly

identification from -- for -- any further

discussion?

Madam Secretary, would you call the

roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sign number

five, merchandise pickup, I don't really have a

problem with that.

MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a motion

with sign number five to grant the variance as

requested.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and

seconded to grant sign number five. Any further

discussion?

Madam Secretary, call the roll,

please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer.

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. That's

approved. Sign number six.

MEMBER BRENNAN: It's a little

toughy, and I don't know how you could address it,

because we got another Starbucks, and there wasn't

that requirement in that store.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to suggest

that we table the Starbucks to review what's in the

other one before we go into this when we have two

different things.

MEMBER GRAY: Is the Starbucks store

at West Oaks moving into this one?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Is the same store

moving out or is it going to moved there?

CHRIS GOBLE: I believe there's

going to be two separate Starbucks.

MEMBER SANGHVI: And it might be a

good uniform to do both of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is Starbucks in

West Oaks now, correct?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

CHRIS GOBLE: I believe so. I

honestly can't get into the franchising issues. I

don't know anything about how that's going.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we'll -- I

think we're going to table sign six until we've had

a chance to review what's in existence at

West Oaks, because I don't want to start something

that we got two different things playing one

against another.

CHRIS GOBLE: The only issue that I

could bring up specifically about this Starbucks

that may be slightly different as to the

operational hours with the Great Indoors facility

versus the operational hours of the Starbucks

facility, and I actually should have had that

information coming in, but I believe that the

Starbucks opens earlier than the Great Indoors,

therefore wanting to identify hey, we're open.

Great Outdoors might not be but we are.

That is --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's review that at

our next meeting, and that time we'll have had a

chance to look at the other Starbucks facility,

because I really don't want to have two different

things, you know, jumping out at one another.

CHRIS GOBLE: Understand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In all fairness to

everybody.

CHRIS GOBLE: Yep, that's fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So we will table sign

number six until our next meeting?

All those in favor signify by saying

aye.

(Vote was held.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed?

(Vote was held.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: See you next month.

CHRIS GOBLE: Thanks.

CASE NUMBER 01-060

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is case number

01-060 filed by the City of Novi.

Mr. Nowicki, how are you this

evening?

TONY NOWICKI: I'm doing fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let's wheel it

with what we've got to do and get things moving.

TONY NOWICKI: As you know, the

City of Novi, in conjunction with the road

commission of Oakland County and the Michigan

Department of Transportation are pursuing certain

improvements of Twelve Mile Road, generally from

east of Meadowbrook Road to west -- or, excuse me,

east of Novi Road to west of Meadowbrook Road.

The improvements provide for the

construction of a four lane boulevard at roadway

section. This new boulevard requires an increase

of road right of way of approximately 60 feet to 90

feet on either side of the center line of the road.

That increase in the road right of way results in a

number of nonconforming uses for some of the

existing properties and businesses that are

currently located right along Twelve Mile Road,

specifically Hagopian, Verizon Wireless,

Ethan Allen Home Interiors, McDonald's, and

Redfern Investments, DMC, Detroit Medical Center.

Some of these specific variance

requests include requests for front yard setback

variances, a -- landscaping buffer variances, and

parking requisites.

If you would like, we can go over

each and every individual one, or we can just-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Why

don't you just give us a quick brief short --

TONY NOWICKI: Overview?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Like 50 second review

of each one.

TONY NOWICKI: Okay. We can start

with Hagopian. Right now we require a five foot

variance for the front yard setback; additionally,

a front yard parking setback of two feet; and a

landscape buffer variance of two feet.

Verizon Wireless, front yard setback

requires a variance of five feet.

Ethan Allen Home Interiors, front

yard setback of ten feet.

McDonald's, a front yard parking

setback of nineteen feet and a parking space

variance of one space. In addition, that would

require a landscape buffer area setback of twenty

feet.

Redfern Investments, front yard

parking setback of twenty feet, and required

landscape buffer area variance of twenty feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the

audience wish to participate in this case or input?

Hearing none, building department?

MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir.

Everything had been reviewed and monitored and

we're ready to go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Building department --

building department. Board members, further

comments and discussions?

MEMBER BRENNAN: If we don't grant

these variances you can't widen Twelve Mile?

TONY NOWICKI: That's correct.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion on this

case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do.

MEMBER BRENNAN: Case 01-060, I would

move that petitioner, City of Novi's, request for

these variances be granted for the purpose of

expanding Twelve Mile Road.

MEMBER BAUER: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and

seconded to grant the variance requests as

presented for -- reason being to have to widen

Twelve Mile Road.

Any further discussion on this?

Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would

you call the roll, please.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Brennan?

MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Bauer?

MEMBER BAUER: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Fannon?

MEMBER FANNON: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan?

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Reinke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi?

MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance requests

have been approved. See the building department if

you need any permits. Thank you.

Okay. Going on, other matters.

Interesting, on the 9th of July, Varsity Body Shop

had a request for a sign variance, and the

City of Wixom was cordial enough to send us a

notice. I went to the ZBA meeting, and what they

were looking for was a sign on the back of the

building facing Twelve Mile. The Twelve Mile

entrance is going to be closed, and they have -- in

the process of reworking their ordinance which

we'll cover. But it was just interesting to go

there.

And by the way, they had three cases,

Mr. Saven.

But in each one of their meetings

they read off the rules of conduct, which start --

their recording secretary does that. And basically

it's the same thing, I think, that we're looking

at.

I'll pass this down to Sarah, that --

she can look at, if you wouldn't mind reading for

the group.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Each -- number one.

Each person desiring to address the board shall

state his or her name and address.

Number two, individual person shall

be allowed five minutes to address the board. An

extension of time may be granted at the discretion

of the chairperson.

Number three, there shall be no

questioning by the audience of persons addressing

the board; however, the board members may question

that person with recognition of the chairperson.

Number four, no person shall be

allowed to address the board more than once unless

permission is granted by the chairperson.

Number five, once those person

(inaudible) attending shall be allowed ten minutes

to address the board.

I like it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just thought it was

kind of interesting because I knew Sarah was --

having -- putting this together.

But they, in part of their opening,

you know, going through it right after their agenda

is approved, that is read right there at that point

in time.

MR. SAVEN: Sounds like a good

idea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Sarah.

SARAH MARCHIONI: That's where I was

kind of going with number one, on amended bylaws,

to improve time limit of speeches, especially since

our last meeting was kind of long, that one case.

I didn't know if you wanted

Mr. Schultz here to add something for our bylaws.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think I'd like

to maybe look at building something at our next

meeting, but I'd like to have a copy of all that

extended to everybody, and maybe have some thought

about -- it might be good to read this out before,

you know, just take a couple moments, and then the

audience has that information right in front of

them there at that point in time, what's expected

of them.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Meaning to?

MR. SCHULTZ: You don't have to amend

the bylaws in order to do that. You have a table

where you leave the agendas. You can leave -- some

communities have a little handout sheet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it could be

added right to this.

MR. SCHULTZ: It could be added right

to the agenda.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And then, you know,

just whether we want to read it out or whether, you

know, that is handled that way.

And then if we find that we really --

if this works for us, fine. If it doesn't, then we

can still change and do whatever direction we

wanted to.

But I thought it was kind of good to

have it out in front of everybody right at that

point in time at each meeting and then it's not

while you're referring back to the bylaws and so

forth like this, that everybody's here, has that

information, it's fresh in their mind right there

at that point, so that was the reason I wanted

to --

SARAH MARCHIONI: So you want me to

type this up on the agenda from now on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Try it for a couple

times. See what happens.

MR. SAVEN: Why don't we just run it

by the board. Maybe the board's got some other

issues.

MEMBER GRAY: The planning

commission has basically the same thing.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Yeah. That's what

I was kind of --

MEMBER GRAY: I think it's

appropriate to put it there.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's try it. If

there's no objection from the board, let's try that

for a couple times and just see how it works and go

from there.

MEMBER BRENNAN: That's assuming that

it's the attorneys that will read this and not run

more than ten minutes.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: Seeing that we had

some people looking at our website and pulling up

the procedures, so adding it onto the website might

not be a bad idea either for people that are doing

their research ahead of time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I need to locate

Mr. Nowicki's case here or he isn't going to get a

permit.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Those are the old

ones. The one that doesn't have a sticker.

MR. SAVEN: This is -- the west of

Novi Road.

SARAH MARCHIONI: One other thing,

the August meeting, it's on the 14th. I had

scheduled it for the 14th because on the 7th day

we're going to have primary election. They're not

having elections anymore, but someone has already

booked the council chambers for that night, so --

MR. SAVEN: We're back on the 14th?

SARAH MARCHIONI: We'll be back on

the 14th. We only have four or five cases.

MEMBER GRONACHAN: There'll be others

tacked on.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Well, tomorrow's

the cutoff date. Unless someone's watching --

MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman, I also have

a comment. One of the things that I'm very

concerned about is when we start having somebody at

the podium and we got another person talking in the

audience without having identified-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Yeah.

MR. SAVEN: -and without having any

kind of recognition whatsoever. I think it's-

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I

appreciate that statement.

MR. SAVEN: Stay on top of this thing

so that we make sure that he's identified.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct.

MR. SAVEN: Or he's going to have to

hold his comments until that individual's done.

The way things have been going

attorney wise, I think we want to make sure that we

cover all the bases.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pass that down to

Sarah and ask her where I'm supposed to sign that.

Okay. Any other matters to come

before the board?

Miss Gray?

MEMBER GRAY: Couple comments. The

packet, thanks for getting the packet out so early.

It was a big help being able to dig through this

earlier.

The location of some of the cases

might be helpful. I couldn't find Regency Centre.

I looked and I couldn't find it, so --

MR. SAVEN: They get a bigger sign

next time.

MEMBER GRAY: I'm not suggesting we

go back to the maps that you used to have, but it

might -- give me a little bit better direction.

And the Signature Associates. The

road was cut off, so I couldn't tell if it was

Twelve Mile Road. I mean, I had to surmise it was

Twelve Mile Road and that -- and there was no

indicator showing north. And as a staff, you can

help us by giving that a little bit -- and maybe

identify some of the big buildings at the south.

SARAH MARCHIONI: Hopefully we can go

back to the maps very soon.

MEMBER GRAY: Maps would be good, but

it doesn't necessarily have to be. Just give us a

little bit more to think about.

I'm really going to hope that this

works with the minutes being recorded this way.

When I got a call after last month's meeting and do

you remember what you said; no, I didn't remember

what I said.

And, Tom, thank you for compiling the

findings in that case. I thought you did a real

good job on it. I was very glad to see it

synopsized that way. I think it -- you know,

hopefully she won't challenge you too much.

MR. SCHULTZ: Hopefully I won't have

to find out.

MEMBER GRAY: Well, you know, I think

you followed, basically, all our discussion.

MR. SCHULTZ: Sure.

MEMBER GRAY: I think the couple

cases it may have been expanded on but, you know,

I'm presuming that, you know, you did hear some of

us talking to that extent here at the table.

I don't think there was anything --

this board has been very fortunate in the past, as

I've said before, with Mr. Anchoziak (ph) and

Mr. Harrington leading it. And having an attorney

on the board is a luxury and, you know -- so I, for

one, appreciate your assistance in this matter, and

I don't, for a minute, think we're not going to

have more cases where we're going to be needing

your services in that discussion.

Thank you.

MEMBER BAUER: You're not going to

lose your job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a motion to

adjourn?

We have a motion to adjourn. All

those in favor signify by saying aye?

(Vote held.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good night.

(Zoning Board of Appeals was

adjourned at 11:16 p.m.)

- - -

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 210 typewritten pages, is a

true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.

________________________________

Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786

____________

Date