| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting REGULAR MEETING -- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, March 5, 2002. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY:
MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time I would like to call the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Present. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Here. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Zoning Board of Appeals is a board empowered by the City charter to hear appeals seeking a variance from the application of the Novi zoning ordinance. It takes at least four members present to approve a variance and a vote of a majority of the members to deny a variance. The Board consists of six members. We have all members present tonight, we have a full Board, so all decisions this evening will be final. The rules that we conduct our meeting under is: Each person desiring to address the Board shall state his name and address. Individual persons shall be allowed five minutes to address the Board. An extension of time may be granted at the discretion of the Chairman. There shall be no questioning of the audience by the persons addressing the Board; however, the Board members may question that person with recognition of the Chairman. No person shall be allowed to address the Board more than once unless permission is granted by the Chairman. One spokesperson for a group attending shall be allowed ten minutes to address the Board. Are there any changes or corrections to the agenda this evening? MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. Rotary Park has been taken off. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And then on
the other thing, election of officers, we're going to move that to the last item on the agenda. Any other corrections? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Do I have a motion to accept the agenda as corrected? MEMBER BAUER: So moved. MEMBER GRAY: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All opposed? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: The next item we have are the approval of the minutes of the February 5th meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray. MEMBER GRAY: I have five corrections that are nonsubstantive, so I will give them to our secretary afterwards. They do not change anything. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
additions or corrections? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Chair would entertain a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. MEMBER BAUER: So moved. MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion carried. At this time we have a public remarks section. If there's anything that anybody would like to address the Board on, they may do so at this time. If there is remarks pertaining to cases before us, I would presume -- I would prefer that they would apply at that time. If it's something else that's not on our agenda that somebody would like to address the Board on, they can step forward and do so at this time. Hearing none, we'll close the public remarks -- I stand corrected. Would you step
forward, please. UNIDENTIFIED: I represent Buffalo Wild Wings, and we're on your agenda for item number three. And we have originally applied for a -- I guess a variance to your sign ordinance, and since then JPRA, the architects for the Fountain Walk, and PLC West, have decided that that wasn't significant enough, so they have gone through a whole process the last couple weeks and we've come up with a new scheme with awnings to go with the signage, because they felt that that was an entrance to the mall. And I have the plans with me and the awning, I guess, story board, so -- I don't know if I have to resubmit or -- MR. CHAIRMAN: I would -- it's different than what we had been presented to us, correct? UNIDENTIFIED: The signs are the same but we've added awnings. MR. CHAIRMAN: Don, I think this is going to have to be reevaluated. MR. SAVEN: I'm sorry. I was out.
Would you please explain that one more time. UNIDENTIFIED: Okay. When we originally applied for the variance to the signage for our location, since then JPRA, who's the architect for the Fountain Walk Mall, has decided that that wasn't what they wanted, so we went back to the drawing board, or my architects did, and we've come up with a new scheme with banners and awnings to go with our signage. MR. SAVEN: Has this been approved by JPRA? UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, it has. Actually, it just was approved this week. MR. SAVEN: Unfortunately, we'd like to take a look at the whole matter, not just a portion of the matter. We'll require you to come back with a new presentation. UNIDENTIFIED: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Our attorney? MR. SCHULTZ: I agree. MR. CHAIRMAN: What we can do is table your case until you can get with the City Building Department, and then we'll put you back on our agenda at a meeting right after they've had
time to evaluate and readvertise as needed. UNIDENTIFIED: Okay. Sorry about that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board Members, any further discussion on tabling the Buffalo Wings case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll table that case until it is resolved with the City. Anyone else in the public remarks? (No response.) CASE NUMBER 01-103 MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll close the public remarks and call the first case, which is Case Number 01-103 filed by Gina Blazo of All Star Gymnastics. Would you be sworn in, please. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth?
MS. BLAZO: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Would you please present your case. MS. BLAZO: Hi. I was here last month and -- applying for a variance to have a directional sign located on the corner of Nine Mile and Heslip, just to give you a review, and I was told to go in front of -- write a letter to the city council first, before I came here, and then that was changed, so I'm back. What I'm applying for is to put a directional sign on the corner of Heslip and Nine Mile in order to aid in traffic flow because the traffic on Nine Mile is not only very heavy, but we have a lot of new people who are coming for various events that -- especially in the evening when they cannot see the street sign. There is no sign for the industrial park at all, and it doesn't even look like an industrial park, and the street sign cannot be seen in the evening. We have a lot of families with minivans and small children, and we've had several
near accidents with people trying to slow down and trying to find the street. So we have erected a temporary, very small sign with just the name of the business that is small enough so that it can be hit by headlights, and it's much easier to find in -- and we feel that it's esthetically pleasing and it's not large enough to detract in any way from the character in that particular area. As far as the -- addressing the needs and the objections, we have hundreds of children coming around Christmastime for Toys for Tots events, we have many schools that are coming from not only Novi but many surrounding areas for school field trips and Girl Scout badge workshops. We also hold gymnastic and cheerleading competitions, and anywhere from six to ten birthday parties every weekend with people coming who do not go to this gym, they're coming for an event and do not know where we're located, so we are worried about safety and traffic flow. The zoning in this park is industrial, but I have a zoning variance for a place for public assembly, so we have a lot more
traffic than the other businesses do in that industrial park. We have a higher volume of traffic, and we are providing a service to the family -- to families in the community. I don't feel that this variance will negatively impact any of the neighbors or alter the character of this particular industrial subdivision. The only objections that we have were two, and that was that the sign might be located in one business's front yard, which is not the case. It would be located across the street. And the other objection was that this type of business belongs on a major road with easy access for patrons with minivans. And if I was given a zoning variance to be in this location -- and we do have a lot of parents coming in a minivan. I think that's a personal opinion and has nothing to do with the sign, I think it's a separate issue. That is my case. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to input into this case?
(No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, there were seventeen notices sent, we received two approvals, two objections, and two were sent back. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Just a couple questions. You had indicated that this is going to be a temporary sign, correct? MS. BLAZO: Yes. MR. SAVEN: It will be that particular sign at that particular location? MS. BLAZO: Yes, if that is approved. MR. SAVEN: Board, be aware, that this is in a public right-of-way and a temporary sign. Although it may not appear to have a visual obstruction, the sign is still located in the right-of-way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: One of the conflicts we had last month was does she get our approval first or city council's.
MR. SAVEN: Because it's a temporary sign, it's a different -- this is a different -- it can be picked up and moved off the premises. It isn't as though it's a permanent sign. That was one of the concerns that I had, based upon thinking that that was a mockup at that time, and it's a little bit different. MEMBER BRENNAN: So her issue then is with us and us only? MR. SAVEN: If it's going to be in a right-of-way, it will be from here and then go to city council. MEMBER BRENNAN: Mr. Chairman, I recall seeing the mockup. I recall driving down this industrial park. And I have some sympathy for the petitioner's position. I would be -- I would be in favor of approval of this because it is a non permanent sign. I'd encourage, perhaps, a one-year time to see if there's any issues, invite Miss Blazo back next March. If there's no issues, we'll continue it and we'll limit it to this party. That's my observations. MEMBER BAUER: I'll second the
motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have more discussion before we get to that point. Board Members, other comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: I would like to ask a question. Is this a movable sign or is it a temporary sign? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Sanghvi, this is a temporary sign. MEMBER SANGHVI: Temporary means how long it will be there? Temporary means that it is not- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) This will be up to the decision of the Board and -- relative to, number one, the temporariness; and, number two, the placement of the sign. MEMBER SANGHVI: Because a movable sign can be moved and put there every day, take down, be temporary. Are we talking about that kind of sign there, or are we talking about something you stick in the ground and take it out after three months? MR. SAVEN: This is something that
is probably a little bit more than temporary, portable, like a real estate sign. It has that same connotation as a real estate sign. It has two legs. MS. BLAZO: Yes. It pounds into the ground. It's very small, about three feet in- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) I have seen the sign. MS. BLAZO: It's not portable. I mean, you can't -- you could pick it up and move it, but it's meant to stay- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) It's going to be stuck in the ground? MS. BLAZO: Yes. It is stuck in the ground. MEMBER SANGHVI: And that is why I am a little confused with the use of the word temporary and movable. They're not really interchangeable terms. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I guess it's really only temporary in that it's not permanently mounted, by my definition. Board Members? Mr. Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: I feel the same way
as Dr. Sanghvi does. I'm -- I don't want to beat up a word here, but I can't imagine anything happening between now and next March where the petitioner won't be back saying we still need the sign because we're back in this industrial community -- or park. I respect the fact that she has a variance to have her business in this industrial park, but I can just imagine that everybody in the industrial park is going to come and want to put a little sign out there on Nine Mile Road. I travel that road a lot. All over the city, anywhere that you're in the back, they're going to want to put a sign out in the right-of-way or out in the front, a little tiny sign. So this isn't something that we're going to put up every Saturday for eight hours. This is going to become -- or try to become a permanent sign, and I don't know what issue -- you may say, Frank, we have an issue because nobody complains about the sign for a year. MS. BLAZO: Can I make a comment? MEMBER FANNON: I'm having some real
troubles with that sign in that location- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) Can I address -- MEMBER FANNON: -based on -- MEMBER BRENNAN: -Mr. Fannon's question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't want to get into a debate here, but I guess you can, you know, express what your viewpoint is on that. MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, Brian missed last week's -- or last month's meeting. And Ms. Blazo has a special variance, special use I guess, from the city council. I mean, this is a industrial complex where you got industrial business going on. She has got a commercial business going on. MEMBER FANNON: I know exactly what she has going on. I agree with that, but she chose to go into the back of an industrial park and go to the city council and say do you mind if I open a gymnasium, right, and that's happened, and I think that's great. I think what the City should do is put a bigger sign up that says Heslip Drive. They
have the larger ones. You can get them reflective so you can see them at night, and try that before we agree to this kind of a sign. That's all I'm saying. There may be a way for the City itself, Bruce Jerome's department, to help out in identifying Heslip Drive better than what it is today, which isn't very well done, so -- I guess I've finished my whole mini presentation. I'm just having troubles with that sign. Before we go to the next point -- if it's just getting on Heslip Drive, which seems to be the confusion, maybe the City can help you out. That's all. That's just my own opinion, just one. MS. BLAZO: I guess that my feeling is that since the other businesses are industrial, they -- I mean, if they want to have a sign they could go through the same process that I did, but most of them have truck deliveries and are not open to the public, so they don't have the traffic that I have. And as far as choosing to be in an industrial park, it's not much of a choice. I need at least 10,000 square feet with 20 foot
ceilings and big garage doors in order to get in the gymnastic equipment and have the space and ceiling height that I need, so I don't really have much of a choice. All other gymnastic schools are also located in industrial parks, but many industrial parks have signs at the entrance that state the businesses that are in there. This one does not. MEMBER FANNON: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think Mr. Fannon has a good point in being that I think there's other avenues -- if the Heslip Drive sign is either larger or lit up better and everything, that would give the identification and help people in direction to your place, because I think -- how many times do you have new people coming in? A lot of your people are always repeat that are coming back, correct? MS. BLAZO: That is true, but we probably have as many new people as we have repeat. The students who take gymnastics every week are repeat customers, but the children coming for field trips and birthday parties and competitions and Girl Scouts and all those other
events -- we had a Halloween party that had over a hundred kids, and they were coming from schools and all over the place. MR. CHAIRMAN: Usually, when anybody is going to a place like this, either they're going to have a map from you or going to generate a map of their own direction-wise. MS. BLAZO: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: And I think Mr. Fannon has a good point that I'd like to see explored before I could really feel comfortable about putting a temporary sign there because, as he has stated, that temporary sign is going to turn into a permanent sign, and the next thing is another company down the road says, you know, I'm really having trouble getting people identified, I want to put a temporary sign out there, and then we've got a real problem. So I think there's other avenues that need to be explored before I could support a variance for a sign of that nature. Board Members -- other Board Members, comments or discussion? Miss Gray? MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree with you,
Mr. Chairman. You need a visible, well-lit sign to define Heslip Drive rather than this particular business. Heslip Drive is identifiable, then once they come in that street it is not hard to find your business. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. Some of the notes I made when I first read this last month, the first thing I said was -- my note to myself was I was hesitant due to the precedent it would set, and if the street sign meets the code, whatever our code is, what's the potential for a future corporate park sign, all of which we've addressed. I also had a problem with the word temporary. I think if we have -- if we address a combination of a larger sign for Heslip that is reflective and more readable or visible, and the potential of possibly her putting out a temporary sign that can be removed, that is temporary and portable and is removable by event, I think that would be something I would be more comfortable seeing to begin with before we go into a permanent sign that may be temporary in nature.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What you're saying on the temporary classification is all well and good, but who's going to be the police dog? I mean, that's the part right there, of knowing what's a temporary event and when it is and so forth like that. I don't want to get into a setup of that nature like that, because to control that is almost impossible. Thank you. Mr. Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: The number of years I've been on this Board, it's always gone to the city council because it's being in a right-of-way, and then it's come back to the ZBA, and I think that's the way it should -- and I think that should still continue, not trying to have this woman come back. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I understand your point, and I think it's probably going to bounce back to us because of being classified as a temporary sign. Either way, I think we need to deal with the issue that's before us, would we consider or would we not consider, and I think that -- we might as well take and give direction right at
this point in time. Other Board Members, comments or discussion? (No further discussion.) MEMBER FANNON: How do we make a request to the City DPW Department -- I think that's the department -- to look at that sign and see if there's -- I know they've done this elsewhere. You know what I'm saying? MR. SAVEN: If it is the Board's wish to make that request at this particular time, I will contact Bruce Jerome and his department to take a look at that particular sign and see what we can do to make it visible. MR. CHAIRMAN: What I would like to do, rather than acting on this case, is keep open -- I would like to table it. I'd like to direct the City Building Department to get with whatever necessary agency about increasing the size of the street sign, reflective, identification, something to help you out in the situation there, and make an evaluation of that before we -- because if we're going to act on this right now, I have a feeling it's going to be
turned down without exhausting other avenues which we feel are available. Board Members, further -- Mr. Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a motion, sir, that we table this issue at this point in time, and at the same time we request the City to put up a better visible and reflective sign at this particular street and try it for the period of six months and then re-evaluate the situation. MR. SAVEN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, point of order. You already had a motion on the floor and you have a second by Mr. Bauer. MR. SCHULTZ: I have a motion to table, takes precedence over the motion on the floor, but -- MR. SAVEN: All right. I stand corrected. MEMBER BAUER: I'll withdraw my motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved to table this case for a period of six months until we've explored other avenues of street
identification. MEMBER BAUER: One thing. Can she still have that little sign until that time? MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's say no, because the thing is if it's out there, it's not going to get the avenue of things rolling. Board Members, further discussion on tabling the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: All opposed? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion carried. CASE NUMBER 02-003 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case Number 02-003 filed by Taylor Scott Architects representing Great Indoors Fountain Walk. MR. GOBLE: Good evening. My name is Chris Goble. I'm with Taylor Scott Architects. We are the architect of record for the Great Indoors Fountain Walk Development. We're
requesting a- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Sir, excuse me a moment. Have you been sworn in previously? MR. GOBLE: Yes. I've appeared before this Board previously. MR. CHAIRMAN: Continue on. I'm sorry I interrupted you. MR. GOBLE: All right. We previously appeared before this Board in July requesting variances for seven signs for the Great Indoors facility. One sign in particular that we're requesting now be modified is the east wall sign. In July that sign was approved with a variance total square footage of a hundred and thirty-three square feet. We're requesting that sign be replaced with a 407 square foot sign. That sign matches the building on the south face, the primary entrance. We're requesting this sign be enlarged, primarily for one reason, and that's visibility off of Novi Road. There's currently two access points
into the Fountain Walk Development. Off of Novi Road through Donelson is where the vast majority of traffic currently comes through right now. Off of Twelve Mile Road they'll come in past Gaylan's, through -- I believe it's called (inaudible). The visibility of the sign out on Twelve Mile Road is very limited. It's a very small sign, very difficult to read, and we're requesting a larger sign be placed -- the small sign be removed and the larger sign be placed there. I did bring with me, if you're interested in seeing from the information requested, we took some digital photographs and modified before and after the existing proposed, if you're interested in taking a look at those. MR. CHAIRMAN: If you would, pass those around, please. While you're doing that, is there anyone else in the audience with input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, there
were nineteen notices sent out, zero approvals, zero objections, and two were sent back. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. We've had several variances for this project earlier on. You have to take a look at the visibility issue right now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah. I'm a little -- I was a little peeved that this is back before us. I thought we were pretty gracious with the signage that we gave this petitioner in July. I sat on Novi Road and could see that easterly sign. I sat in front of Service Merchandise and could see that easterly sign. And the petitioner is giving me no further evidence tonight -- evidence that would lend me to believe that you need relief, and not hearing any evidence I don't support the petitioner's request. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other Board Members, comments or input? Miss Gray? MS. GRAY: Well, I have to agree
with Mr. Brennan. Every time I have driven by this area, Novi Road, Donelson Drive, West Oaks Drive, I make a point of looking because I keep anticipating what we're going to be seeing in the future. The sign as it exists at a hundred and thirty-three square feet, which is a variance of ninety-three square feet that we granted back in July, is clearly visible over and above the Kmart Store. Whether it's backlit or not, as it was not this evening when I was driving by, I don't see what the hardship is. And my comment on this is, what has changed since July 17th when it was clearly acceptable -- that 133 square foot was acceptable? And I don't see anything that tells us that there has been a change in circumstances or a change in need or a change or, indeed, a hardship on this to say why they need the bigger sign. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: I go by this probably eight, ten times a day. I can see Great Indoors as it was, and I do not understand and cannot see
where there is any hardship. I cannot support it. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to ask the petitioner a question. Where do you feel the current sign is not visible from? MR. GOBLE: Well, from Novi Road. It is visible. You can, obviously, see the sign. My client (inaudible) of the Great Indoors has directed me that they would like, basically, a larger sign. MR. CHAIRMAN: We kind of gathered that on the original application for the size they requested at that time. I really can only echo the other Board Members' comments. I'm in there three or four, five times a week, and there's no question about where you can see that sign. It's very visible. And we're not going to allow something that's going to be like a big billboard and is going to jump out and swollow you up as you make the corner or come around. I mean, if you keep going that way, of course it will be visible from I-96 before you even get to Novi Road. I really see no hardship in
requiring the additional size. Board Members? Miss Gronachan? MS. GRONACHAN: I just want to concur with everyone. I re-read the minutes. I spent Saturday out there looking at all angles, and I agree with all my members on this Board. I don't see any need for it. I believe that part of the -- I don't believe that the signage is the problem, and maybe if there were complaints -- I believe that it could just be getting around the parking lot perhaps, but what needed to be brought in here is proof that people can't find your building or that they can't see Fountain Walk or they have no clue where the Great Indoors is, and I really don't believe that that's a problem. The parking lot was full, people were hustling and bustling. It was about six o'clock. I went back on another day. I didn't see people driving around the parking lot lost. I just can't support this request. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: No, sir.
MEMBER FANNON: Just real quickly. I think I made a comment in July, but I don't know why it's not in the middle of the facade. I just had two quick questions. As you drive down this road that I can never remember the name off of Novi Road MEMBER GRAY: Donelson. MEMBER FANNON: Is that the one that goes -- (Discussion held around the table). MEMBER GRAY: West Oaks Drive. MEMBER FANNON: Okay. Driving down, there are signs that say Great Indoors to the left and- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) Directional signs. MEMBER FANNON: Those look temporary. There's a big temporary sign now that says Novi Road, about a two-foot cardboard sign. Who's putting those up? MR. SAVEN: It's probably part of the SAD improvement for the Novi Road issue, but the ones that are for this project have not been
installed yet. They are in the process of being -- as you were well aware of, we're getting to closure on this project pretty soon. Hopefully we're- MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing) So there would be something permanent? MR. SAVEN: Yes. We had them before the Board. Their directional signage has been approved. MEMBER FANNON: Those are just temporary. I have no other questions then. MEMBER GRAY: Mr. Reinke, if I could mention one more thing? Another thing that was brought up to me was that when you're doing your advertising on the radio or on the TV it says the Great Indoors by Twelve Oaks Mall. Well, maybe you're creating your own hardship by saying you're by Twelve Oaks Mall. I mean, because people are going to look for you by Twelve Oaks Mall. They need to be told that you're across from Twelve Oaks Mall, so -- that's the only other comment I want to make. Thank you. MR. GOBLE: I'll be happy to pass
that along, too. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: No, sir. May I make a motion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER SANGHVI: That in Case Number 02-003, the petitioner's request is denied because of lack of showing of any hardship. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to deny the petitioner's request. Any further discussion on the motion? Mr. Schultz? MR. SCHULTZ: I'd just ask that the phrase hardship be revised to include practical difficulty. It is not a use variance, it's lack of- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Due to lack of practical difficulty. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Per the modified motion and second, is there any further discussion on the motion? (No discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none,
Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been denied. Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-007 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case is Case Number 02-007 filed by John Anderson of 207 Charlotte. This a continuation. Has anybody not been sworn in? You are his lawyer, correct?
MR. LEIB: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: We don't need to have you sworn in. MR. LEIB: Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Jeff Leib. I've been retained by the Andersons, and it is my pleasure to be here tonight on their behalf. Would you like me to proceed? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MR. LEIB: Thank you. The Andersons are here as the applicants for variances for lot 47 of Pratt Subdivision at 207 Charlotte Street in the city of Novi. Their lot is forty feet wide by eighty-five feet deep. It is a legal nonconforming lot, and in my opinion it cannot be practically developed without variances. There is some history here, which you're probably familiar with, but I would like to make a record. In 2000, August of 2000, the applicants wanted to buy this property. They did some due diligence, they came to the City, talked
to the Building Department, talked to water and sewer, talked to the assessor's office, determined that they could build only a twenty by twenty foot home without variances and that they would need variances for anything larger than a twenty by twenty foot home. In September of 2000 they bought the lot. They made an application for a -- some variances and came before this Board in March of 2000. At that time they were asking for a couple of variances in order to build a home thirty by twenty-two in size. This Board opposed that, for the most part. There were some neighbors who opposed it, indicating that they didn't -- they didn't want to see any encroachment near their yard. And despite the fact that their home -- and this is the neighbor to the west. Their home is practically on the lot line. But, nevertheless, it was confirmed by the building official at that meeting -- it's part of the minutes -- that they could build a twenty by twenty foot home without a variance. But, nevertheless, this Board tabled it for a
month. Came back again in April with a revised set of variance requests, five by number, and the Andersons, at that time, wanted to build a home with a two-car attached garage and the home to be twenty-six feet wide. At that time, again, a neighbor down the street objected saying that this is too small a lot, there shouldn't be anything built on it, ridiculed the Andersons for even buying such a small lot. The neighbor to the west, again, objected, too. And this time, instead of asking for a five foot variance they were only asking for a one foot variance. It still would have been nine feet from the property line, but the neighbor to the west complained that with the two feet that they had from the property line plus the nine feet, they would only be eleven feet away from their house, and they objected to that. Again, the matter was tabled by your Zoning Board of Appeals until May of 2000, at which time the Andersons came back with a new request, including a front yard variance request of ten
feet, they wanted that, and they eliminated the variance request on the west side, asked for an east side variance of five feet. And, again -- this time the neighbor to the west didn't object to it. The neighbor down the street said they still needed it because -- they still objected to it because of the nature of the beast -- I took that as a quote from the minutes -- meaning that the lot was just too small. And at that time some of the members of the ZBA expressed the opinion that the lot simply was not large enough for it to be buildable. Mr. Schultz, city attorney, indicated that -- so many words, that that was not a sufficient reason to deny it. Discussion then ensued which contradicted some earlier meetings of the ZBA relating to the fact that they would be entitled to build a twenty by twenty foot home. It was then brought up for the first time by Mr. Saven that the ordinance -- the R-4 ordinance had been amended and the grandfathering provision that had been in had been taken out; so,
therefore, they would need a five foot variance to even build a twenty by twenty foot home. They could only build a twenty by fifteen foot home without a variance. At that time this Board denied that appeal, indicating that the request was self-created hardship and a lesser variance could be generated, whatever that meant. Since that time -- and that was in May of 2000. Since that time, the Andersons went to the City. They wanted to get a permit for a twenty by twenty foot home. I guess it went to JCK for review and then it came back to the City, and they said they could not build a twenty by twenty foot home without getting a variance, they could only build a twenty by fifteen foot home. And, in fact, in July of 2001 the Andersons went and applied for a building permit for a twenty by fifteen foot home plus a detached rear yard garage, and that was approved by the City. No variance was necessary. And they paid their fee, they got the inspections, they did -- got approval from Edison to get temporary electric service. They dug their
basement -- or they cleared the lot. They put some fencepost holes in. They closed on their mortgage loan. They formed the footing, set the steel, and the basement was staked and dug. And then when they called for the City to do some inspections, JCK came and said that somehow the plans -- the house plans that were submitted to the City showing a two-and-a-half story home, somebody interpreted that as being a three-story home; so, therefore, it was -- violated the two-and-a-half-story requirement. So there was an ensuing lawsuit and things have been stopped since then. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Saven and Mr. Schultz to see how we could get this thing resolved. And at that -- I said to my clients you're being -- there's litigation now to try to stop a twenty by fifteen home. Even if we won the litigation, why would you want a twenty by fifteen home, it's so impractical today. And I said let's meet with the City and see if there's some reasonableness that we can arrive at. So I met with Mr. Saven and
Mr. Schultz last week, and we came up with a plan that -- I came up with a plan, the Andersons came up with a plan to propose tonight that calls for a twenty by twenty foot home plus an attached twelve foot garage, single story -- or single-car garage, eliminating the need for a rear yard garage. In order to accomplish this reasonable request, in my mind, for at least a reasonable sized home, we would need a three foot side yard setback on the east side, necessitating, therefore, a twelve foot variance, because you've got -- the ordinance in Novi requires ten feet on each side but a total of twenty-five. So the request is for, really, a twelve foot variance on that side instead of fifteen, and on the west side asking for a five foot variance; instead of ten feet, five feet, in order to build a twenty by twenty home with an attached two-car garage. This is a request for dimensional variances. So, hardship, as I'm sure Mr. Schultz will indicate -- and I know you know this, it was just discussed in the last case. Hardship is not the criteria. Practical difficulty is a criteria. This is a buildable, nonconforming
lot. It wasn't any illegal split; so, therefore, in order to build a house more than fifteen by twenty, there has to be the granting of a variance, and that is a practical difficulty. The lot simply is narrow, and in order to build something reasonable and habitable, variances are necessary, and that's the practical difficulty. I'd like to show you something. I had my clients go to JCK and get a -- sort of a plat of the area. And they're lot 47. I don't know if this is televised, so I may not be able to -- hopefully I can speak loud enough. I don't know if you require me to speak into the microphone. I'd just like to pass this along, start with Miss Gray. Just take a look at this. You'll see that the predominant lot size in the area is forty feet. There's many homes with three foot side yards. Some of them, like the one immediately next door, is only two feet. There are many, many homes in this immediate neighborhood that are on forty foot lots. The property -- I know from my own experience being on ZBA, you always look for alternatives. Well, this has been brought up
before. The property to the east is a vacant lot. It's owned by the woman who lives in a home to the south of that lot. That lot is not available for sale. My clients pursued it and were declined. The lot to the west has a home and a shed that are practically on the lot line. The shed is maybe a foot from the lot line, and the home looks like it's 2.8 feet from the lot line, so that home is -- the variance -- or the setback that we're requesting on the west exceeds the setback of not only the home but the shed -- I should say not only the shed but the home as well to the west. A house -- here's another example of practical difficulty. I think another portion of your ordinance requires that you have a thousand square feet on combined levels of floors. A home that's fifteen by twenty cannot, in two-and-a-half stories, have a thousand square feet. So it has to be a variance granted in order to get to a thousand square feet. I submit that a granting of a five foot variance on the west side would not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of your great city, and it would conform to the
neighborhood, will not adversely affect Novi's Master Plan or the zoning ordinance. I've already showed you this map indicating that the predominant size of the lots in the area is forty feet. I submit to you that a habitable residence cannot be built on this property without a variance, and I believe it's incumbent upon you, in your deliberation, to grant a variance in order to allow the applicants to build a home which they can live in and which will meet the other standards of the ordinance, including the compatibility section, having a home that's compatible in size. Again, this is an alternative to continuing a lawsuit that I think is -- it's not a win/win situation here. It's a lose/lose situation. Even if my clients won the lawsuit, to be able to win to build a twenty by twenty foot home I think is ridiculous. It just -- it doesn't make sense in today's day and age. Certainly, it doesn't make sense in the city of Novi. So I'm asking you to be reasonable, to consider the practical difficulty of the size of the lot and the area in the neighborhood in --
in the area where the Andersons' lot is, that this conforms to the neighborhood. Hardship is not an issue. It certainly isn't self-created. There is a practical difficulty, and without the variance, a practical home cannot be built. I would respectfully urge you to grant these variances so that they can build this twenty by twenty foot home with an attached twelve foot garage. I would be happy to answer any questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to input into this case? MR. LEIB: Oh. Can I just add one thing, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. LEIB: There are -- I had the Andersons circulate letters of -- asking their neighbors to support them, and they received five letters of support, all from the neighbors, one on Charlotte Drive and the rest on Austin, and I would like to submit those for your consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Mr. Korte (ph). MR. KORTE: Korte, Shawood Lake. First comment, I'm hearing impaired, and half of what he said I heard from the side speakers, and for some reason the side speakers are now off, so if I didn't hear what you said, that I apologize, and that's the City's fault. Now, I've been here twice. Now, let's get into the five people -- and I think it was five -- that responded. They didn't send one to Victoria White Thompson that surrounds two sides of the property. They didn't send one to my 2026 because they thought that's where I lived. I don't live there. They sent one to 2022, and they also sent it to my tenant. Now, how many of those letters did they send out? They sent them out as far as Mark Robbins. Mary McDermott didn't get one. So we're down to 2293. How many did they send out? When they sent them out -- and you'll find one from Harry Lewis in there -- and I said Harry, you're going to get one. And he says yes, I sent it back, I don't care what they do. I said it's the house on the corner. He said that's
awful. Interesting survey, isn't it? And I do realize, from speaking with Don Saven, as per some of your comments at the earlier, they were to be in touch with the residents. This is not being in touch with the residents when they send it to my tenants and not to me. Interesting, isn't it? Now, he gave you a whole scenario of what's going on, and because he started the parade, I'll finish. I was at the City today. In the year 2000 they purchased the property for $29,000. Its SEV, as we speak today, is 9,300. That means the State and the City thinks this wonderful piece of property is worth 18,600. Now, why do you think that property was only today worth eighteen six? Because it isn't buildable. Buyer beware. Now, these people know how the City operate. February of 1999 they were looking to purchase another property, and it was the Elm Court property, those seven lots that were such a hysterical mess that we have been able to shut
down and vacating of that whole mess twice, and that whole mess is over with because it's been purchased by neighbors. February of '99 he was told restrictions, lot lines, this, this, this, inadequate and other things. He understands how the City operates. Now we're here to a house. Now we'll get into stop work orders. I'm the one that put the stop work orders on that because somehow, legal or not legal, and I'm not arguing, a foundation is in, fifteen by twenty. Now, I called and asked who approved that. And one of the most pleasant inspectors said to me it meets side lot lines. I said does it meet a thousand square feet? He said to me does your subdivision have a thousand square feet. I said, first of all, not my subdivision; secondly, your law, not mine. The man was told not to pour the concrete. He poured the concrete. Now, I've dealt with the SEV, I've dealt with '99, and they know what's going on. The house is three stories. There's no way anybody with three sliding glass doorwalls
out the front can say it's not three stories. Okay. Let's talk about the basement. The foundation that has not been -- and it isn't a foundation, it's a pad, and if I'm using the wrong terminology I -- excuse me -- is two-and-a-half feet in the ground. We're going to build an eight-foot basement on a two-and-a-half foot hole. Interesting, isn't it? Now, how are we going to get that daylight basement to be a basement? We're going to fill in two-and-a-half to three feet. Over three feet on one lot line and five foot on the other lot line? Unacceptable. It's a con job all the way around. He knew he wasn't to do some of the things he did. I watched him tear the stop work order off. I watched him do it. Now, I'm not saying the property isn't buildable. Three feet and five feet is unacceptable. To construct a swale in the backyard. That house -- that property had a house on it. That property had a garage on it. Nobody ever flooded. Why would anyone change any grade? Because to change the grade one iota is going to
flood the world out. Talked with Don Saven today on flooding and elevations. We, as a City, on Austin are putting in culverts and catch basins because we, as a City, allowed people to fill and to build and to flood people out. It can't happen again. Not everything in this City is buildable. And the thought process of making the City pay for it and buy the lot, that's just great because we can do retention detention in that area and we can get rid of the rest of the flooding in the area. Now, many of you know I've been here a long time. I've fought for the flooding, I've fought for this. This is wrong for the area. Specifically, three feet and five feet is unacceptable. All of the other is fluff. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Korte. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? Step forward, please, ma'am. MS. THOMPSON: I'm Victoria
Thompson, and I'm on the lot on the east side of Anderson's lot he's building. And- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) For the record, ma'am, what is your street address? MS. THOMSPON: 1910 Austin Drive. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MS. THOMPSON: And I bought a lot that's -- one side's on Austin -- it's a corner lot -- and the other side's on Charlotte. So -- he has proposed three feet on my side and five on the west side. And why three feet on my side? Then I'm here to complain that he took the fence down, said he wanted to clean the fencerow out. I had a fence there that -- the last person owned the lot, they had a house on it that I bought. That's since been demolished before I bought it. But the man put the fence up, and my son, that was a teenager then, helped him put the fence up. And I asked John Anderson not to take the fence down. He claimed he had to take it down to clean the fencerow out. Well, the fencerow on my side, the
east side, was clean. I kept it clean. But he took the fence out and left it out, and now that he left it out it's a hazard to my grandkids and great-grandkids. Because that lot is my lawn. It's not a lot to me. To you it would be a lot, the corner lot, but I bought it for a lawn and planted two trees, a rosebush, and my grandkids and great-grandkids play out there, so they're in danger of going into that vacant lot of his. And he took it down, he said, to clean out the fencerow. So he hasn't put it back. I asked him to put it back and he hasn't put it back. And, anyway -- he took it out for his own benefit. He didn't take it out for -- to clean the fencerow out. He took it out to get heavy equipment in there. You can't maneuver heavy equipment and that fence there. The lot's too small, so he tore the fence out, me asking him not to, to -- so he can get heavy equipment in and maneuver to build. And I want the fence put back, and I will have it put back one way or another, because
it was put up by my son's father-in-law when it was put up. It wasn't put up by Drew. So I went -- after Anderson bought the place he continued what he was doing. He wouldn't mow the -- I had to call him once. He only mowed it twice all summer. It was horrible. I mean, twelve feet of the lot by the house -- by the kitchen of the house -- he mowed it twice and I had to call him once. Well, Drew did the same thing. When Drew's house burnt, he had Freedwall (ph) to try to buy my lots and Freedwall would buy his lot, and I wouldn't sell it, so then Drew had give me a hard time ever since until -- Anderson is just continuing what Drew did to me, trying to ride over me and go beyond the terms that he's to go, so that is my complaint. The three feet of my lot is -- it's too close. It's not a lot. It's a lawn. I keep it up like a lawn. Across the front of my house on Austin, I've got -- forty feet is all I've got where I live, and that's why I bought the lot, to extend my lawn to where children would have a
place to play and where that -- and now they're in danger unless he puts the fence back up. So that's my complaint. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience -- ma'am, would you step forward, please. MR. KORTE: The speakers are back on, thank you. MS. HAMILTON: Hi. I'm Celeste Hamilton and I live at 209 Charlotte Drive. I'm on the west side of the Andersons' home. And I don't mind if they build a house there, but I don't feel that I should have to pay the price because of the size of the lot. I don't feel I should have to give up an extra five feet of privacy. Like their attorney pointed out, our home, which was built thirty-five years ago, is only two feet away from that fence, bedroom window, okay. They want to be five feet closer to the fence. That means seven feet between our two houses. No privacy. Okay. Fire truck. If they're ever a fire hazard, a fire truck has to get down there
between the houses, how's a truck going to get down with seven feet in between, or any kind of utility truck. It's just too close. There's no privacy. Esthetically, it's not pleasing, and in terms of the value of our home, resale value is going to be affected by that as well. And that's my main complaint about it. I don't mind if they build, but they're the ones with the small lot. They should pay the price for having the small lot, not the neighbors. That's all I have to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience with input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close audience participation at this point. There were thirty-two notices sent out. We received some responses that the petitioner presented this evening, and that's the only ones we show as being received. Sir, you had a comment before we go further?
MR. LEIB: Yes, yes, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to comment on a couple of the comments that were made. In regard to the last speaker, again, I'm glad that she acknowledged that her property is almost on the same property line as the Andersons. It is, according to the plan that I see done by the engineer, is 2.8 feet from the house to the property line; and the shed, it's just about abutting it. I think that the -- we could have -- we could have accommodated her a little bit better had this Board been more receptive to the granting of a front yard variance. But you didn't do that and I'm not asking for it tonight. But had you granted some relief in the front where the home could have been instead of thirty feet from the street, maybe twenty or twenty-five feet from the street, that impact would have been a little bit less on her because the home would have been closer to the street. On the other hand, it's -- it is -- the home, as the plans show, is closer to the shed, and if the shed is between her home and the
property line, I don't think that the impact of this new home is that great on Miss Hamilton's home. With regard to the comments made by Mr. Korte, with all due respect, you know, in April of 2001 he talked about being a landlord, he talked about this lot being too small and allowing overbuilding, and it's -- then he started talking about this property doesn't have lake access and Shaywood (ph) Lake there's no public- MR. KORTE: (Interposing) Shawood. MR. CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute. MR. LEIB: Excuse me, Shawood. It's all irrelevant. It had nothing to do with the proposal. And tonight he's basically talking about other irrelevant things like SEVs. That's not -- those aren't issues that are cognizable by this honorable body. The issue tonight is whether or not a home can be granted a couple of variances in order to make it habitable because of the practical difficulty aside. Those are the issues, not what the SEV is, not where they used to live in
Walled Lake. That was another item that he raised a year ago. Those are irrelevant comments, and I would hope that this Board would address those issues that are relevant and are material. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I just want to address one thing. I think we're all well aware of what's before us. I don't think we need to be reminded about what we're looking at and what we need to look at. I want to clarify that point. MR. LEIB: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just trying to make a record. I appreciate that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Here we go. Mr. Chairman, before you we have a new plot plan. This plot plan was derived from several meetings. And, certainly, the last meeting was with Mr. Anderson's attorney and Mr. Anderson and his wife. What we tried to do was try to take into consideration all of the Board's concerns based upon everything that was brought before the Board in the previous cases. And what I'd like to
do is just basically recap a couple of things that I feel that was merits for this particular case being brought before you. Number one was to reduce the number of variances. That was the first thing. The second thing, there seems to be a concern relative to any type of garage in an area close to Mrs. Thompson's house, because I think she had brought that up because of a concern that she had had, and the issue was to bring the garage and somehow try to attach the garage to the house. The other issue was, certainly, try to maintain the rear yard setback of thirty-five foot for the main building. And, certainly, from a front yard setback was to maintain a thirty foot setback. The other issue was to -- was to make sure that we have off-street parking in that area. Because if you brought anything closer to the road there was a concern with the number of vehicles that would have been there. And, certainly, the other issue that I had was the three-story issue. What looks like a three-story wasn't. It was -- my opinion was
it's a three-story type of a building, so that is why he needs to spread the house out a little bit wider, to try to accommodate that thousand square yard and stay within those particular parameters. And this is what they have chose to bring before you today. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's it? MR. SAVEN: That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Okay. Board Members, comments or discussion? Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: I would like to commend Mr. and Mrs. Anderson for what you are proposing. It's a great improvement, and you did listen to the comments. You did do some looking around the area. You are trying to incorporate what we suggested to make this better for everybody concerned. So on that front, thank you for listening and thank you for doing your best for that. I have some questions, and I have -- and I don't know who's going to answer these. When you look at the front, the facade that you presented facing Charlotte, the front elevation, and -- it shows the first floor
is cantilevered over the basement. Is that cantilever line, the west side of the building, is that at twenty feet or is the basement at twenty feet, the west basement wall or the west house wall? MR. ANDERSON: There's no cantilever on there. MEMBER GRAY: This is a cantilever. This would be your west basement wall, this would be your west house wall. There's a gap there that I presumed to be a cantilever. Is this at fifteen feet or is this at- MR. ANDERSON: (Interposing) Okay. This is like a front protrudence that comes out thirty inches by four-and-a-half feet. MEMBER GRAY: So it- MR. ANDERSON: (Interposing) That probably is not drawn correctly. That line should be right in line with the basement line. MEMBER GRAY: So the west -- so on this drawing, the basement wall here, the west basement wall- MR. ANDERSON: (Interposing) Should be in line --
MEMBER GRAY: -will be underneath in a straight line- MR. ANDERSON: (Interposing) That's correct. MEMBER GRAY: -with the west wall of the house? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. MEMBER GRAY: And I presume then that that line is where you want the five foot variance to be? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. LEIB: Correct. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. That's number one. The depth of what's poured right now, the foundation or the pad that's in there, is that two-and-a-half feet, roughly? MR. ANDERSON: You mean how deep it is? MEMBER GRAY: Um-hmm. MR. ANDERSON: Well, it's probably three foot I would think. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Three foot deep -- depth on an eight foot basement- MR. ANDERSON: (Interposing) Well,
I've got a -- I had to pay a surveyor and had to present it to JCK. MEMBER GRAY: So you're- MR. ANDERSON: (Interposing) That cost me, like, twenty-five hundred dollars, and it just- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) So you're going to be contouring the land within five feet to bring it up so that -- how much backfill are you going- MR. ANDERSON: (Interposing) Probably two feet on that side, so I'll probably have to put up like an eighteen inch retaining wall, you know, six by six timbers along that side. MEMBER GRAY: And in between the six by six timbers, along that side on the Hamilton's property line, you're going to have a swale in there so that you don't flood them, correct? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I would have -- yeah, according to what the surveyor put down. MEMBER GRAY: Well, we say you can't flood your neighbor. MR. ANDERSON: Right.
MEMBER GRAY: Okay. So my concern in that is that if we're going to be backfilling that much -- it looks like we have a three-and-a-half story house, Don. MR. SAVEN: It would depend on where the elevation of the basement -- and, it's true. We need to have the basement elevation checked for the existing plot plan of what it shows for existing grades and proposed grades. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. I have a major concern with what has gone on in this case since we said, you know, no. I have -- I'm very thrilled to see that the front and rear setbacks are met. I have a major concern with five feet on the west, and I have a concern with three feet on the east. On a forty foot lot, thirty-two feet width, it's still -- it's -- for all intents and purposes, it's new construction, and it doesn't matter what's going on with the other houses around there. They've been there for years and years and years. This is new construction. That's all for now. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members,
comments or -- Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, Sarah, I hear you, but we can't have it both ways. We -- last time they were here we said listen, we want the thirty feet in front, we want the backyard, and we don't want you sneaking back here two years from now telling us you want to put a garage in the backyard. It's a forty foot lot. They've got a twenty by twenty foot house. I think that they have taken what we told them at the last meeting and done the best job they can. I don't see what else they can do. I'm still a little unclear, and I'll ask Don, is this considered a three-story house or is it a two-and-a-half-story house because half that upper level is in the rafters? MR. SAVEN: The picture that you have before you, exclusive from what we were talking about, the basement -- that is a two-and-a-half-story house. What was presented before had a slight angulation to the outside wall, which I could possibly try to relate to Waterview Apartments with the mansard roof and
coming down the exterior wall. Certainly, it was covered, the roof was covered, but it was still a liveable full-fledged floor area, so we're -- it constituted a three story, and that's what alerted me to the fact it's a little bit more than what it is. In other words, he's taken this to the -- to every degree to try to achieve the thousand square foot which was required by ordinance and try to meet your requirements, too. MEMBER BRENNAN: I think that they've met the two most critical issues that we raised, which were the front and rear setback issues, and designing and coming up with the concept that incorporates the garage so we don't see a variance down the road. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER BAUER: I think they've done the most they possibly could do. MR. CHAIRMAN: The unfortunate thing, the lots can't be combined with -- the lot's not available, so there's nothing that can be done with respect to that part.
As Board Members have alluded to, they've done away with the front yard setback request, the rear yard setback request, and I don't really know much of what else can be done. Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: One more comment, if I may? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER GRAY: If there are going to be three sliding glass doorwalls on -- facing the north to the street, four foot uncovered -- front porch, correct? MR. SAVEN: Correct. MEMBER GRAY: Mini deck, whatever, so it's -- that's fine for the first floor. MR. SAVEN: He can't extend -- what he can do is project out four foot with cantilevers or posts or whatever so long as it's not covered, can't have a roof over it. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. So let me ask you a question. So you have a deck on the first floor for your entry, and then you're going to want a deck for the second floor. Doesn't that constitute as one man's ceiling is another man's
floor? MR. SAVEN: We had -- we had -- we had brought this before the Board in the past, and I'm trying to remember the time it happened, but unless it had a roof over- MEMBER GRAY: (Interposing) At the very top. MR. SAVEN: Right, because there was exposure to the elements. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. I certainly don't want to see, at some point in the future, somebody coming back and wanting to build a large front deck on this house. MR. SAVEN: A projection is only allowed by the four foot requirement. MEMBER GRAY: That's what was allowed in my subdivision on the corner, and they came back and we gave them the deck, so -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? Mr. Schultz? MR. SCHULTZ: I have a question I think for Don in light of some of the comments that the Board Members have made about not wanting to see another structure placed in the rear of the
yard, and I guess the question I have is, whether in the absence of some statement from the Board, would there be anything permitted without having to come for a variance under the ordinance that's- MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) Shed. MR. SCHULTZ: Shed? MR. SAVEN: That's the same question I would have to present to the Board because you're taking a look at this variance as a whole for this property to allow them to do what they're doing right here. If it is such that you are allowing this structure to be placed there, is there any other conditions that you are placing on any accessory structure other than a, quote, garage? Can they have a shed meeting the requirements of the twenty-five percent lot coverage that they're presenting here? That will probably be an issue. I just want to make sure we address that right now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER BRENNAN: Can be part of the motion? MR. SCHULTZ: Sure.
MR. SAVEN: Whatever. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board Members? MEMBER FANNON: Are you saying that we can limit future accessory buildings on the lot if the variance was granted because there are other accessory buildings that would be permitted? MR. SCHULTZ: I am. It sounds to me that you're looking at this as sort of a final view of the property, and if that's the case then I think you need to say that. If you don't expect, in voting for this, if you voted in favor -- for example, if you didn't expect to see anything else two, three, four, five years from now, you probably ought to take the opportunity now to make that clear. And I'm not suggesting that you have to do that. If you don't object to a shed or you wouldn't object to what the ordinance might otherwise allow, then you don't need to address it. I just wanted to raise the issue. MR. LEIB: May I just comment? The square footage of the lot -- I just -- I don't have my calculator with me, but I think forty by
eighty-five is thirty-four hundred square feet. The home that they're proposing with the garage of twenty by thirty-two is six hundred forty square feet. By my rough calculation, that's like nineteen percent area coverage. With a home and a twelve foot garage, I don't think it would be unreasonable to -- for them to go in at some time and request some kind of a small shed in the back. We're not talking about a garage, which they have permission already. They have a building permit for a garage. We're not -- I'm not proposing that. MR. SAVEN: That's null and void now. MR. LEIB: Again, I would hope that this Board would not, as part of a motion, disallow them to forever to be able to go in and apply for a shed -- or permit to build a shed as long as they met the setback requirements. MR. CHAIRMAN: You haven't got the house yet. MR. LEIB: I beg your pardon? MR. CHAIRMAN: You haven't got the house yet. MR. LIEB: That's true.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I wouldn't worry about the shed. MR. LIEB: For sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments or discussion? Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll just continue on that thought. We're dealing with a pretty difficult piece of property, and we're trying to appease and keep some neighbors happy as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER BRENNAN: And I think that the City attorney's suggestion that we at least consider in our motion addressing additional dwellings on that property is good counsel, and -- MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think we need to defend that. It's a good point to make, but to -- if we condition the variance of a certain position, that's the way it will be and go from that point. Board Members? Cindy? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Chairman, do we have any jurisdiction over the fence in our motion? MR. SCHULTZ: No.
MEMBER GRONACHAN: And the reason, if you need clarification, back in the May of 2000 meeting I specifically asked the question about the fence. Mr. Anderson identified that it was his neighbor's fence, and I'm curious as to where -- or do we not have any say in regards to that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schultz? MR. SCHULTZ: It's not really an issue that covers the question of the size of the house and the variances that are before you. MEMBER GRONACHAN: I understand that. MR. SCHULTZ: I guess you might take the opportunity to ask Mr. Anderson what happened to the fence, but it's primarily an issue that happened between him and the neighbor. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: What are you going to do about the fence? MR. ANDERSON: I think the fence that you were talking about -- there's two fences, the side yard fence and then the rear fence. She's the one that replaced the rear fence. I think a tree fell a couple years ago,
and I told her I wouldn't take that down. The side fence, I had to take that down because the trees and the brush and everything was kind of growing together, and I told her I would replace it, you know, with another fence. MEMBER GRONACHAN: The side fence you're talking about? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: So you've already explained to her that you're- MR. ANDERSON: (Interposing) Yes. When we cleared the lot we took a couple of her trees out. You know, it was -- it was a good meeting, so I don't know when things changed. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll take a stab at a motion to see where the Board sits. I would move that the petitioner's amended request that we have before us tonight be approved as submitted with the additional note that there will be no accessory buildings on the
property. And the reason for the motion is due to practical difficulty, the small lot. MEMBER FANNON: Support. MEMBER CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that the petitioner's request as stated this evening for a variance be approved. Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. 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. MR. LEIB: Thank you very much for your kind attention. Good night. MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time the Board will recess for a ten-minute break and we'll be back right after that. (A short recess was taken.) CASE NUMBER 02-008 MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time I would like to reconvene the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Our next case, Case 02-008, filed by James (sic) Dietrich representing Waltonwood. Sir, would you please be sworn in by our secretary. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in this case before you is the truth? MR. RIZZARDI: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I have your
name and address for the record, please. MR. RIZZARDI: My name is Paul Rizzardi. I'm with Singh Development Company, address is 7125 Orchard Lake Road, suite 200, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. RIZZARDI: I'm also- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Go ahead. MR. RIZZARDI: I'm also the director of Waltonwood Services, LLC, which is a management company which oversees (inaudible) zoning including Waltonwood and Twelve Oaks. I'm here before you tonight to request an extension of our sign -- our two development signs we have at our Waltonwood/Twelve Oaks facility. The current sign extension expired in February of this year. We would like another extension for another twelve months so we can complete our lease-up of this facility. We are currently at about sixty percent occupied. Out of a hundred and forty-four units it comes up to about eighty-six units that
are occupied out of a hundred forty-four. Leasing up a senior residence such as Waltonwood is somewhat different than a typical lease-up like you see with apartments, like our Main Street Village project or Westwood project where we get the building basically in one shot. We got a hundred forty-four units. The lease-up starts a little bit later in the process rather than just getting a few units leased and getting people moved in. In addition, we're dealing with clientele which is a smaller niche in the marketplace. We lease up apartments, we get about twice the traffic coming in to make application. So this is a unique situation for the company. We wish to take those signs down, that means we're successful in our stabilization of our property and we can just proceed with normal operation. We put the onus on ourselves to get traffic into the building so we can get it leased up where it needs to be. I have with me tonight Ms. Colleen DeBarge. She's our administrator of the Waltonwood/Twelve Oaks facility. We're both here
available to answer any questions you might have, and at this point I will answer your questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll get back to that if we get to that point. Is there anyone else that would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we had eleven notices sent, we had no response. We'll pass over the Building Department at this point. I don't think they would have anything directly on this. Board Members, comments or discussion? Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. The directional sign out at Twelve Mile Road, is that going -- is the widening of Twelve Mile going to happen at that point and is it going to have any affect on that sign? MR. RIZZARDI: We're going to have to move the sign back out of the proposed right-of-way for Twelve Mile. We're already coordinated with the Building Department for a new location.
MEMBER GRAY: Okay. So if it does remain in the right-of-way, you'll have to seek council for a license or whatever. Okay. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other Board Members, discussion or -- Miss Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: I have no problem with extending this. As in the past, we have all agreed that this is kind of a sign of the times. I think it's a well-made sign, and I'm in full support for another year. MEMBER BRENNAN: I thought that was a motion. I'll second. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you like my attempt? MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MEMBER GRONACHAN: In the matter of Case Number 02-008 for Waltonwoods at Twelve Oaks, I make a motion that the approval be given for an extension for twelve months on this sign due to the current economic times, for both sign A and for sign B. MEMBER BRENNAN: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven, do you
have any input for the Building Department in that case for the Waltonwood signs? MR. SAVEN: I have no objection, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I hope to see the lease-up, too, because I'd hate to see you come back again. MR. RIZZARDI: I hope we get it done before twelve months. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, any further comments or discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes.
MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Your variance request has been granted. Please see the Building Department and go from there. Thank you. MR. RIZZARDI: Thank you very much. CASE NUMBER 02-009 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case 02-009, filed by North American Signs representing Jared Jewelers. Sir, would you be sworn in, please. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. SCHALLIOL: Yes, I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please state your name. MR. SCHALLIOL: My name is Charley Schalliol, North American Signs. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. SCHALLIOL: Thank you. First of all, good evening. Thank you for allowing me to come before you and speak.
With me this evening is also Mr. Steve Edmeister, Jared construction manager, so we do have a representative from Jared's here if you have some questions for him later on. First of all, what I'd like to respectfully do is amend our application. This application was filed per instructions from the Rugla (ph) Sign Company who is a sign company for Jared's Galleria of Jewelry. It was for a third wall sign at sixty square feet, just like the two that have been previously approved. What we'd like to do this evening, is instead of going for the third sign -- we had an opportunity to visit the site today, look at how the trees that had been taken down in October of last year affected the property. What we'd like to do is remove the rear sign, the sixty square foot sign from the rear, and place it on the south elevation. We feel that this is a benefit due to the fact that it's utilizing the existing signage. The signage on the rear of the property was not as effective as we originally thought it was. The trees that came down in October,
they reduced -- or they increased the visibility of the sign on the east; however, the people who are viewing that sign are in the West Oaks Mall. They can see the Jared sign. That's great. The people that we still have problems visibility wise are the people that are coming off the interstate heading northbound on Novi Road. These are the people that we'd like to get into the center that don't have to go up to Twelve Mile Road because they missed the previous exit at the turn lane with the light. We'd like to inform those motorists that Jared's Galleria of Jewelry is at that location. They have the opportunity to view the sign, have the opportunity to safely enter the shopping center and visit the store. I'm sorry for the confusion. We didn't -- or I did not have an opportunity to view the proposal before this evening. That's why we're here respectfully adapting our application. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak or put input into this? Mr. Korte? MR. KORTE: As they all cringe.
Have you ever been to Jared Jewelry? This is Jared Jewelry. You should go in there. And I think when we look upon businesses in this city, we should look how they relate. Do we want them to stay, do we not want them to stay? First of all, you've given CVS corner signs, and this is really what it is, a corner sign. You've given all of those people that without a problem. And the one thing I will tell you of Jared Jewelry and how they relate to the city, even though some attorneys don't really think it's important, their donation to the River Day Cleanup that I begged from Debbie was a hundred and twenty-five dollar Bulova clock. Now, I don't know what says we like you as a city, we want to stay here. And, please, give them a sign so that they can pay for whatever I beg off of them next time, because it's going to happen. A lot of people have asked for a lot more and got it, and this is really quite nothing. If you ever drove into the parking
lot, they have a lovely sign to the back end of the building. Makes no sense. Please approve. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close audience input. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Just basically -- basically, he would still have to come before you -- basically he would still have to come before you- MR. KORTE: (Interposing) Jared Jewelry can fix that. MR. SAVEN: I'm sure, James. They still have to come before you because it's more than one sign, but the fact is they're taking the sign off the back and putting it on the side. You're going to have to make that part of your motion if you so choose to approve this deal. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you're doing the right thing. I think we suggested this when we first got into the signage in the beginning.
MR. SCHALLIOL: I wish we would have listened. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's the correct thing to do. I think that sign on the west side is totally useless. Once they got in there like that, they know where you're at, and with the quality of your product and workmanship, it doesn't take but more than once that they're there, they know where you are without the sign. Board Members, comments or discussion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, the Chair would entertain a motion. MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a motion, sir, that in case number 02-009 we approve the petitioner's request to put a sign on the south side? MR. CHAIRMAN: And removing the sign- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) Removing from the west side and putting on the south side. MEMBER BAUER: Second.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance has been approved. See the Building Department. We'll move on from there. Thank you very much. MR. SCHALLIOL: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
CASE NUMBER 02-010 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case Number 02-010, filed by Terry Burns representing Mattress & Futon Shop. Sir, would you be sworn in, please. MR. BURNS: Yes, sir. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. BURNS: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have your name and address for the record, please. MR. BURNS: My name is Terry Burns. I reside at 47115 Seven Mile Road in Northville Township. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would you please present your case. MR. BURNS: Yes, sir. I'm coming before you today in reference to trying to get a second sign for the Mattress & Futon Shop on the
south elevation of the building. They have two entrances into the building. This particular unit originally had an appeal that was granted to Clothestime for two signs, and it was only good for their property only, and they basically had the same hardships. People are not noticing it. That unit has been vacant for some time because it's a good-sized unit there. And there's also the other buildings of Kohls and Joanne Fabrics and a number of other -- several other units in there have two signs. The landlord has also sent a letter, that I have here, saying that they did inquiries from people and they advised us to go get -- ask for another sign for the location because of people having difficulty finding it. That's for the lender company. The sign would be able to stay within all ordinances, other than the fact that you're only allowed to have one sign; otherwise, we don't need any -- there's no -- we're not asking for any additional square footage or anything of that nature.
I believe that would be it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close audience participation. Mr. Saven? MR. SAVEN: No comment, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: The only comment I would like to make is that somebody needs to spell that word correctly. MR. BURNS: What? MEMBER SANGHVI: Did you see that, how they're spelling mattress on that? MR. BURNS: Yes. The problem with that ad down there is to try to get into a banner what they could get -- in order to get it up on there, so the problem is in order to get a special size banner for it, they would never have it up in time for the City, so they tried to make it the best to fit into there, and so they had a choice
of doing -- either making something that wouldn't fit at all or do something that they did do, and unfortunately that's the choice they took. MEMBER SANGHVI: Does it make any difference in the dimensions in what you are requesting if you correct the spelling? MR. BURNS: No, not at all, because basically the same sign that is on the west elevation is going to be the same type of sign that's on the south elevation. So they're trying to keep it as inform, try to keep it as clean. That shopping center there, the landlord told me, is ninety-eight percent leased out, but if there's so many elevations on that building that has no signage, you would not think that sign has that -- it's not that full. Also, a lot of people -- that's kind of a dark area over there, and kind of people -- and they've even had people stopping in the middle of the road saying oh, there's something in there, and they don't bother to pull in. They stop in the middle of the road, and it's amazing what that has caused. And, you know, they -- basically,
the sign that we're asking for is going to be visible from the interior of the shopping center. It's not really for people to see from Novi Road or anything like that. It's just an identification sign for people to be able to see what type of business is in that complex. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Board Members? Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm prepared to make a motion if you like. MEMBER FANNON: I just have one comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: If you got this sign, would you take the signs out of the window that were the -- it says the same thing in the window right now? MR. BURNS: Yes. Those were there on a temporary basis hoping to get something for somebody to see those. MEMBER FANNON: So you would be willing to take the signs out of the window that's in there temporarily? MR. BURNS: Yes.
MEMBER FANNON: There's another sign from the Town Center in blue that's hanging on the -- you've got, like, five signs there right now. There's the Town Center sign that says Mattress Futon that's hanging on the wall; there's one over the front door; there's one in the window. Now -- you know what I'm saying? So I'm just trying to figure out how you clean this up. MR. BURNS: Well, they were trying to get rid of all the temp -- I don't see there's any reason why they would need to have any temporary signage on that. Basically, you're referring to the ones that are all on the south elevation, am I not correct? MEMBER GRAY: Yes. MR. BURNS: So if they have a sign on there, there's no absolute reason to have to have any of those types of signs up there. They're just -- all those would be taken down and removed. MEMBER FANNON: Okay. That's fine
with me. You want that part of the motion, that would be great. MEMBER BRENNAN: Point of clarification, Don. They can- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) They can have up to 25 percent sign coverage in the windows. MEMBER FANNON: Even if we make it a condition of the variance? MR. SAVEN: That's your choice. MEMBER FANNON: I think we did that on Grand River for the tool shop. Do you remember the tool- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Mr. Fannon, we do not have a motion on the floor. MEMBER FANNON: I would make a motion that we approve the Case Number 02-010 for the Mattress & Futon to approve their sign variance to locate the thirty square foot sign on the south side as long as all other signs in the window on the south side are removed as part of this variance. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Second.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded to grant petitioner's variance request with a limitation of signage in the windows on the south elevation. Any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your variance request has been granted. We wish you the best of luck. MR. BURNS: Thank you.
CASE NUMBER 02-011 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next case, Case Number 02-011, filed by John Nutting of 621 South Lake Drive. MR. NUTTING: Joe. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir- MR. NUTTING: (Interposing) Joe Nutting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Joe. I'm sorry. MR. NUTTING: No problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you be sworn in, please. MR. NUTTING: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. NUTTING: Yes. MR. MILLER: Do you want to swear me in as well? MR. NUTTING: This is my architect. He's going to-
MR. MILLER: (Interposing) I'll be doing the presentation tonight, so do you want to swear me in as well? MEMBER GRONACHAN: All right. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. MILLER: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: State your name, please. MR. MILLER: My name is Robert Miller. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. MILLER: As written down in the Case Number, we are going for five variances for Mr. Nutting's residence on South Lake Drive. The first variance that we're trying to receive is the rear yard setback. Required is the thirty-five feet. We're proposing twenty-four foot eleven. The reason that we would like to have this variance is that with the front of the house facing the lake, that's obviously the most important portion of this piece of property, with
the views of the lake. We have an attached garage at the front of the house, and we're trying to push the front of the house back away from the street as much as possible, which, by doing that, that front yard will be -- will not require a variance. Pushing this back, we feel that will keep the garage further back from the house to the west, which does not impair the people to the west, their views of the lake. So -- the other three variances that follow are for the side yard setback, and there are three variances; however, they're all kind of tied into the same idea of the side yard setback. Right now, the existing house to the west side -- I'm sorry, to the west lot line is three-and-a-half feet away. We're proposing to push that five feet. It's actually getting it away from the neighbor to the west, and the opposite as well is five feet. The property to the east is a park currently owned by the City. We called the City manager's office and tried to see if we could purchase this piece of property to -- yes -- to obviously make the lot more in conformance. As of
right now, the lot does not conform. This was not possible, as Miss Gray has delightfully pointed out for us. So, again, the side yard setbacks of two -- five foot required amounts are the two proposed five feet on either side, therefore, requiring the variance of five feet, a variance of ten feet and the variance of fifteen feet. The last variance we're requiring -- I'm sorry -- that we're going for is the lot coverage variance. And the required is twenty-five and we're going for 34.5 percent. And of -- there's a variety of hardships here. The main hardship, as it seems with most of the property on the lake, is the lot isn't big enough, it does not conform, and in doing that we took that into very -- consideration because we want to be able to create a home that is large enough for Mr. Nutting's family that he has right now, and the family that he is hopefully to develop over the next few years, as well as the family that are out of town. He has his in-laws and his family -- his parents, as well, live out of town, in and out of town on a great basis, and
with that he needs the space to, obviously, to accommodate them. We have gone around to the neighbors in the area and have sat down with them and asked for their input on the design of the house, the layout of the house, and everyone, so far, has given their approval on it. And with the submittal, Mr. Nutting did supply signed signatures -- I'm sorry -- signatures on the site plan with the submittal. I don't know if that has been passed around or not. And so, with that, we're here to answer any of your questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we'll close audience participation. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: I just thought I'd point out to the Board that it appears as though they're going to be removing the wood frame garage to the rear of the property; is that correct?
MR. MILLER: That is correct. MR. SAVEN: And there is an existing side yard setback that's nonconforming, which is a little more intense than what his proposed building is. I believe they're trying to center the building on the property. And, again, this is one of the narrower lots, not as much as the previous case, but it is a narrow lot pursuant to the ordinance requirements, and I don't have any objections. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, you had me on the small lot until we started looking at the maximum lot coverage, and when I look at the maximum lot coverage of twenty-five percent and you're proposing thirty-five percent, it lends me to believe your design is a little overbuilt. I'm glad to see that you're maintaining your setback off of South Lake Drive. I probably wouldn't have as much heartache about the rear lot setback as I do with the side yard variances. This is new construction. I heard a lot of we would like. I didn't hear a lot of I
have good reason to demonstrate why we need it this way. Given new construction, I think we're a long way from coming to a site plan that's agreeable. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Well, my question is, is it really -- all of it is new construction? MR. MILLER: Yes. MEMBER SANGHVI: You are using some of the old part of the- MR. MILLER: (Interposing) We're demolishing what's on the site right now. MEMBER SANGHVI: You're demolishing the whole thing? MR. MILLER: The whole thing. MEMBER SANGHVI: And why do you need -- and why do you need any variances? MR. MILLER: Right now, if we were to build a house that was to conform without variances, with putting in a two-car attached garage, the size of the house would be unliveable to a certain degree for what Mr. Nutting has required for his house. He has a large family.
I'm sorry. He's trying develop a large family. With the lake front property, obviously, the lake is the most important piece of that. To have a two-car attached garage at the front of the house, that would diminish almost entirely all the views of the lake. So if we were to put the garage anyplace else, it would require a variance. MR. NUTTING: If I may add one thing, one of the requirements that I asked my architect when we started this out was -- my parents, they're in Florida and they're moving up here in the summer. They can't go up and down stairs, so that's why I told him I needed first floor bedrooms, bath and laundry. And being on a lake I wanted to have a two-car garage to store all the stuff for the lake rather than a lot of my surrounding neighbors and houses, they store everything in their front property. And, currently, I do, too, because I got a one-car garage that the roof wants to fall off of. So what we did is we tried to center the house in the center of the property. And then, with regard to the two-car
garage, first floor bed and baths and laundry room for my parents so they don't have to go up and down the stairs because they're elderly and I'm going to take care of them, they kind of produced a house that was more of a ranch style versus one of these tunnel style that we're seeing along East Lake and the houses right down the road from me. MR. CHAIRMAN: But, you know, the reason those houses are built that way is because of the size lots. I appreciate your situation, what you're trying to accommodate, but I don't think that really has a bearing on the lot and the rationale of the variances for that. Miss Gray? MS. GRAY: This is an absolutely beautiful house, and I was really pleased when I saw it. What I'm disappointed in is that you're not -- it doesn't appear to me that you're doing, like, a two-story. Now, I can appreciate that you want to have your parents on the first floor, but when I see all the space that's wasted where you could
have, like, a master suite over the garage -- I'm not trying to design the house for you, please understand -- but this is -- you're -- you have a lot-and-a-half, so you have fifty-seven feet. I'm not thrilled with the rear yard setback. I'm glad to see the front yard setback, but I can't -- you know, I'm having a real hard time with anything less than ten foot on either side. MR. MILLER: One issue that the client did bring up is that this -- there's, obviously, a cost factor with construction as well, and one of the reasons, as well, as why we're trying to keep this on the ground floor is it is expensive to go up, to build on the second floor. There is a cost factor. So that is one of the reasons why his requirement was to keep the ground floor as the liveable space as opposed to keeping it up on the upper floors. MEMBER GRAY: I would respectfully suggest that with the lot size that he has and wanting the size house that he may want, he may have to narrow his house and go up at least half a story somewhere along the way.
With new construction, especially in the lakes area, to have anything less than ten feet on either side when the ordinance requires ten to fifteen -- I could live with ten and ten, but I sure can't live with five and five. And it doesn't make sense. And as far as the neighbor to the east, the City just purchased that house and tore it down within the last two years because they are going to be expanding the park, so -- MR. MILLER: If I may address the five foot. As well as centering the house on the lot and maintaining the five feet on either side, one of the issues that we were trying to look at -- we went around and kind of looked at some of the houses that are along the lake front there, and a vast majority of them do maintain five feet on either side, so that was the only reason why we were looking to go with what is along the area and what has been approved in the past. MEMBER GRAY: And you also realize that most of those houses have been there for a very long time? The first floor of my house was
built in 1942, and when I needed more space I went straight up, so I know what the cost factors are and -- I'm just suggesting that a -- five feet may be acceptable with existing that's been there thirty, forty, fifty years, but with new construction it's not, and -- you know, it's a lovely house and I hope you -- I do hope you build it, just on a little bit narrower scale. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other Board Members, comments or discussion? MEMBER FANNON: I agree. I would support a ten foot side back on -- side yard setback on either side. This required maximum lot has to go down to the twenty-five percent, so this home has to be smaller. I mean, in all due respect of your family and all of that, that's not what we're here for. We're trying to get a home on a lot, help you out, and all this other stuff isn't really a reason to give a variance. MR. MILLER: If I may ask on the -- I'm sorry. On the lot coverage, twenty-five
percent lot coverage, right now the house with a detached garage, right now I believe has a lot coverage of twenty-three-and-a-half percent, and that footprint alone would somewhat be more conforming but, then again, not in the right size. The point I'm trying to get to is, if you would allow the ten foot variances for the side yard setbacks, that would still deem us to be larger on the lot coverage. So I'm just trying to get you to understand the input. MR. CHAIRMAN: How do you get -- if you went from a five foot to ten foot on the side setbacks, how does that give you a larger lot coverage? MR. MILLER: If we went from five foot on one side to a ten foot, we did that on both sides, that still would be greater than twenty-five percent lot coverage. MEMBER BRENNAN: It wouldn't be thirty-five percent. MR. MILLER: No, it wouldn't be thirty-five percent. I'm sorry. Mr. Fannon had stated he would like to see it as-
MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing) I don't know what it would be. MR. MILLER: Okay. I'm sorry. I mis -- I thought you were saying- MEMBER FANNON: (Interposing) I thought there was a plan for this. What percentage would it be? MR. MILLER: I thought you were saying you wanted it back at the twenty-five percent. MEMBER FANNON: So you're at twenty-seven, which is closer to twenty-five. I'm sorry. MEMBER GRAY: That would be a lot better, though. MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer. MEMBER BAUER: I can't go for this at all with all of these variances and with a maximum lot coverage of thirty-four. For brand-new on this size of a lot of fifty-seven rather than a forty? MEMBER GRAY: Or thirty? MEMBER BAUER: Or thirty. And I
think you would have to stay within the ordinance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members? Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, let's assume both of these parties have never been before this Board before. Obviously, you've got a couple of options here. You can see where we're going here. MR. MILLER: Yeah. Request to table? MR. BRENNAN: Yeah. MR. MILLER: I would like to request it be tabled then. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, any problem with tabling this? We'll table this- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) Excuse me. As a point of discussion, I just want to continue with what somebody's mentioned on the Board, is that the house as being smaller was a consideration, but I think what we're trying to get across is, the design itself is to stay within that particular setback which we're giving you. You may go up as was indicated earlier on. There's nothing to say you can't do that. I just want you to be aware of that.
MR. MILLER: If I may, is there -- is the -- are their objections to any variances at all, or is the objection to not so many on such a high- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Well, I think the objection is you're looking at -- you got a lot-and-a-half. You have a good size lot for the area. You're walking in here and you're asking for -- well, two -- three -- four -- you're asking for five variances really, it's actually four. And when you come in with that size lot, new construction, and for the rationale and reason that you're using, it doesn't support. We're saying that, understandable in some respects, there may be a justifiable reason for a variance, but as a bare minimum on the side, we're going to say that you have to have ten feet on each side before we'd even -- you're going to run into the same place you are. There's no sense coming back with you want -- you know -- I mean, we're trying to work -- we try to work with everything and every situation. Another thing that's been voiced is a percentage of lot coverage.
So these are the things we really want you to take into account in looking at your design and what you feel is the minimum that you can get by with. And it's not -- I mean, it comes in here and -- like this is a shopping list, that, you know, I want this and I want that and I want everything else, and you don't have the rationale to support that. We try to work with you but, you know, this is just way out of line for what we feel is justified. So if you would like to table it until you've got things lined up and get back with the Building Department, we'll get you back on the agenda when you have everything together and we'll go on from there. MR. MILLER: That will be great. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right? MR. MILLER: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will table that to the Building Department.
CASE NUMBER 02-012 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next case, Case Number 02-012, filed by Robert Janik of 2300 Old Novi Road. Sir, would you be sworn in by our secretary, please. MR. JANIK: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. JANIK: Yes. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please state your name for the record. MR. JANIK: Robert Janik. I live at 2300 Old Novi Road. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you present your case. MR. JANIK: Yes. It's my intent to add on an acceptable minimum square footage compared to the new houses going up in the area.
I don't want the existing home to appear as a home that was pieced together. The home should have desireable street appeal. The house would be a ranch style. My property is on an odd-shaped lot facing the Austin Road side in which the grade of the road goes up about three feet from the curb. There's an additional twenty foot City easement before my property line. I understand that my property was not on -- if it wasn't on a corner the setback would be ten feet. Some of the homes in the area are ten feet or less from the road now. I feel the biggest issue would be the setback on the Austin side. As the drawings illustrate, only the corner of the garage actually would be the closest to the variance requested. From there on, to the rear of the garage towards Old Novi Road, it will exceed forty-one feet. The home recently, across from me on Austin, was granted a garage variance, and all I ask is the same consideration. So I'd like to take this time to thank my concerned neighbors for their time in
reviewing my plans and their support in approving our subdivision. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to input into this case. Mr. Korte? MR. KORTE: Korte, Shawood Lake. Austin. What difference does it make what the neighbors want? Let him build anywhere he wants. Let him flood the rest of his neighbors out as the last three houses on Austin have done to the tune of putting in culverts and rights-of-ways. Just let him do what he wants. It appears to be the modus operandi. Nobody cares. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Korte. Is there anyone else in the audience with input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Building Department? MR. SAVEN: Only that this is an unusual lot, just by the configuration in itself. MR. CHAIRMAN: You were before us
last year, weren't you? MR. JANIK: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: What's different? MR. JANIK: Basically now, the garage is the issue. I've had to move it back. I have done that as far as I possibly could without -- without having the house look geometrically offset. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I also recall there was a lot of discussion about whether the access to the garage should be from Old Novi Road or from Austin, and I'm assuming that now it's from Austin? MR. JANIK: If you prefer, that's -- I'm open there. I can go either way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments or discussion? Mr. Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: What's the size of the garage? MR. JANIK: The garage will be twenty-four by -- twenty-four wide by twenty-seven. MEMBER GRAY: Which way is the depth running?
MR JANIK: Pardon me? MEMBER GRAY: Which way is the width running; north to south or east to west? MR. JANIK: North and south. Only reason why twenty-seven, because nowadays, garages are three-car garages. I wanted a little bit extra room so that -- in which I'm not asking for anymore additional variance. It would still fit in that setback -- or the variance requested, but I need -- wanted a little bit more room in the garage so I could set up a work area. MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the distance of that sidewalk between the existing residence and the proposed garage? MR. JANIK: That should be about no more than five feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Understanding your lot situation, what you want to build and what you want to do, you got to be quite creative. MR. JANIK: The garage is also going to have a breezeway, so it will be connected to the roof line of the house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's not my problem. My problem-
MR. JANIK: (Interposing) Okay. I didn't know if -- MR. CHAIRMAN: -is the ten foot distance from Austin. You got enough of a lot, enough of a space, somehow you got to get that garage away from that distance. MR. JANIK: Again, I'm open for suggestions, what you -- where else could I- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I can't design it for you, but I'm saying, as my opinion -- MR. JANIK: There is absolutely no way. I've worked -- I've worked with the builder, you know, trying to get this garage to fit somewhere, even on the other side of the house or the back side of the house. There's no way because of the shape of the lot off of Austin Road. MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that, but what I'm saying is, from my opinion and everything, being that close at that point to the edge of the road, I really have a problem with that.
MR. JANIK: Okay. It's only that one corner. MR. CHAIRMAN: One corner, the whole wall. It's there. Board Members, comments or discussion? Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: Well, when the applicant was before us last year, we told him -- when he wanted ten foot off Austin we said no, and I still have a problem with ten foot off Austin, irrespective of what neighbors have done. Each case is individual. Some of the houses have been there for 50 and 60 years when they are -- weren't setback requirements. One of the things I brought up last time, or I know I thought about it, it was brought up last time, is that the front yard setback facing Old Novi Road, that's a hundred twenty foot right-of-way. The City will never use more than it's using right now. The City has it, owns it. The bike and safety path was put in. I would respectively suggest that Mr. Janik consider going closer to Old Novi Road. I don't necessarily have -- because
I know he won't use that for his access because of the elevation. I believe he's showing a walkout basement to that side. I thought he was. No. Maybe he's showing a walkout basement to- MR. JANIK: (Interposing) To the north. MEMBER GRAY: To the north? MR. JANIK: Yes. MEMBER GRAY: Okay. Anyhow, if you're looking for ideas -- I mean, where he shows the word main and main addition, that's where I would put the garage. You know, there's so many different alternatives, and I realize that he's going to be building around the existing house, but there's so many different alternatives than putting the garage where he's siting it and then having the sidewalk in between. I want this garage as far off Austin as possible. I don't want a ten foot setback on Austin. And, you know, I realize that there are easements that the City owns and there's rights-of-way, but I think that there is certainly
a way that the petitioner can work within what he's got. And I understand it's a very awkward lot, but this -- you have to work outside the envelope with these odd lots. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, comments or discussion? Mr. Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: We don't have the print of what we approved last time. I mean, everything was moved towards Novi Road. Didn't you walk out with a variance that you could be ten foot, including the garage, from Novi Road last time? (A discussion is being held around the table.) MR. SAVEN: Ten feet from -- (A discussion held between Mr. Saven and Member Fannon, inaudible.) MEMBER FANNON: I'm just trying to remember exactly what we did. So what made you stretch- MR. JANIK: (Interposing) So it is
acceptable to have a driveway off of Old Novi Road? MR. SAVEN: It would depend on how close you are to the intersection, sir. MR. JANIK: And it's also -- if I did put the garage on the other side of the house, there is -- on the easement, there's a big tree, so that means that I would have to bring the driveway out and then come around and then back up into -- so I'd have to go around a tree. MR. SAVEN: I would have to take into consideration some of the slopes that you have to deal with before we make that decision. MR. CHAIRMAN: Somehow, something has to be done with that ten feet. I don't know what the answer is. MR. JANIK: I could put a garage that's -- I don't know -- twenty-four foot long by ten foot deep. I don't -- there's a combination there. It's not (inaudible) to accommodate that. I don't know where else to put up a garage- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) Mr. Brennan? MR. JANIK: -you know, to keep it
one level. I'd like to keep it one level. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I mean -- I know there's a lot of things we like to do. MR. JANIK: I understand. But, also, you have -- I have to take into consideration costs, too. MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that, but we're trying to work with you also on what we figure that -- is reasonable on a respective of being away from Austin Drive. Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: What purpose does the sidewalk between the garage and the residence serve other than it's a nice little drive? I mean, most houses have the garage attached to the house. MR. JANIK: You are right, otherwise- MEMBER BRENNAN: (Interposing) Take up five feet there. MR. JANIK: To be able to -- back of the house to the front of the house, you know, I'd have to go all the way around the garage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Don't you have a
front door and back door? MR. JANIK: Yeah, there is a front door, but I can't get to it from the back of the house where the garage would be coming in. You notice where the breezeway is? If I attach the garage to the house, you know- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I understand your point, but the thing is, if you had ten acres you could do all the things you want to do. Board Members, where are we going? MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, I'll just ask the petitioner -- I think you can get a sense that there's some problems with the design as you've laid it out. Do you want to take another look at it? I hate to put you off, but we already -- you had approval a year ago. You didn't proceed, I don't know why. But we've got problems with the design as it's laying before us tonight. The ball's in your court actually. MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sanghvi. MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a motion?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MEMBER SANGHVI: That in Case Number 02-012, petitioner's request be denied due to lack of any practical hardship. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MEMBER SANGHVI: Beg your pardon. Again, Case Number 02-012, the petitioner's request be denied because of lack of practical hardship. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. SCHULTZ: Difficulty. MEMBER SANGHVI: Difficulty, beg your pardon. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded to deny the petitioner's request. Is there any discussion on the motion? Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: I would just like to ask the Board Members who made the motion and second whether we want to give the applicant a chance to look it over before -- I mean, he's got to refile if he wants to- MEMBER SANGHVI: (Interposing) We have gone through this over and over again. This is not the first time he's come to us.
MEMBER FANNON: Can I just ask one -- yeah. What happened to the -- I'm still looking at a year ago. What happened to that design that we spent all that time on, that -- we took care of this problem. What happened? Why couldn't you look at the way that we all -- what happened to the way- MR. JANIK: (Interposing) I will say that the way the Board recommended -- the recommendation was that we push the garage further towards Old Novi Road. That was your recommendation at that time. MEMBER BRENNAN: That's what you got your variance for. Why don't you go- MR. JANIK: (Interposing) I'm at the very end of the variance with the garage right now. There's no more room to go. I can't go any further out towards Old Novi Road with this garage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Since we don't have the records in front of us of what we did last time- MR. SAVEN: (Interposing) The
records are here, sir, if I may read the motion. MEMBER BAUER: Sure, please. MR. SAVEN: We'll have an understanding. Basically it says, that in the Case Number 01-013, to grant the petitioner's request for a ten foot front yard setback on Old Novi Road and to deny the request for the front yard setback on Austin Drive with the condition that the shed be removed at the completion of the garage. So you did deny the request for the front yard setback off of Austin Drive, okay, so he had to try to do something with what the garage -- certainly, there was an issue whether the garage was detached and where it was placed. If it was detached where it needed to be attached to the principle building because garages can only be placed in a side and rear yard. Because Austin was a considerable length, he had, really, no position to place the garage to comply with that particular provision, so the garage had to be attached, and that's why I believe he's here again. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't think
our position has changed from what we worked with from the last variance request. The problem was the garage at that time. We granted all your other requests except for the garage. You're back at the same point that we couldn't agree with last time. We have a motion on the floor. MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion on the motion? MR. SAVEN: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Saven. MR. SAVEN: I just want to ask a question here. I know that a lot of things have been tossed around in regards to what to do with this garage and reconsideration for the size of the garage, eliminating the walkway between the garage, moving it closer to Novi Road, would this be an option, because if this is something that the Board would look at, what we really have to do is renotify, because this would be a different request. And that's basically one of things I would be concerned about rather than tabling this. I think we have to renotify.
MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, just following along those lines. The motion just simply states no practical difficulty shown. I think it might help in terms of the record if the maker of the motion could clarify that it is the garage and the location of the garage that leads to the denial here, and I think that gives the petitioner a clearer indication on the record, and anybody reviewing the record, where it is he needs to go to fix the problem. MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no problem adding that onto the motion, that the location of the garage -- MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion on the amended motion, modified motion? MR. JANIK: Could I say one more thing? MR. CHAIRMAN: What's that? MR. JANIK: Can I say one other thing? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please. MR. JANIK: If a variance is approved at one house in the subdivision, then why
can't another one? MR. CHAIRMAN: Because each case is looked at on its own merit and justification. MR. JANIK: I have more room. I've got more room to work with. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're not utilizing the space very effectively at all. Okay. You're stretching things all over the place and trying to build around a small building that's there. That small building is costing you more aggravation than if you were to level it and start over from scratch. MR. JANIK: I real- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) That's my opinion only. MR. JANIK: Absolutely, but I have too much invested in it now to do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well- MR. JANIK: (Interposing) Does -- MR. CHAIRMAN: You're saying that this is the only way it can be done and we're saying you have a lot of latitude, even with the parameters that you're in. MR. JANIK: I'm open for
suggestions. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not our job to design your house. You have the facilities there, you have the land there that, with imagination and innovation, can be done. MR. JANIK: The petitions and that that were signed by the neighbors in support, that has no bearing whatever? MR. CHAIRMAN: It has support to the case, but it's not going to get you your variance on its own. Any further discussion on the motion? MR. JANIK: I think that's something that wasn't discussed. I didn't hear how many were sent out, how many were accepted. MR. CHAIRMAN: I apologize on that. There were twenty-seven notices sent out. There were fourteen approvals received. Does that answer your question? Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Secretary,
would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been denied. Thank you. CASE NUMBER 02-013 MR. CHAIRMAN: Moving on, next case filed -- Case Number 02-013 filed by Holly and Jason -- MR. WAECHTER: I'll help you. Waechter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Of 45475 Addington Lane.
Sir, would you be sworn in, please. MR. WAECHTER: Certainly. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Do you swear or affirm that the information that you're about to give in the matter before you is the truth? MR. WAECHTER: I do. MEMBER GRONACHAN: Would you please state your name. MR. WAECHTER: Certainly. May it please this Honorable Board, my name is Jason Waechter. I'm here representing myself and my lovely wife, Holly. We live at 45475 Addington Lane. We seek -- respectfully request your consideration for a dimensional variance to allow the construction of an open air pavilion-style roof over our existing brick paver patio to the rear of our house. Attached to our detailed application is -- are the plans, and I think only one set of photographs. I don't know if they're floating around. If I may approach, I can have them start this way, but -- I have them marked -- if you have any questions, so we can discuss that.
The number one thing that we wanted the architect to achieve was to make sure that the proposed roof or pavilion-style structure exactly matched the existing house. That was very important to us, using the same brick, the same material, and also the same pillar-like columns that are on the front of our house. As to approvals, the Addington Park Homeowners Association both signed off and approved our plan. I think on your packet they hand wrote on the plan approved, both of the members of the committee. They also received your notice and thought that oh, gosh, we didn't put it on the right form, so then they also wrote on your notice. Both of those gentlemen again approved it on what they thought was the right notice. We went to all of our neighbors that surround and abut us and that actually could see this, and we obtained approvals from all of them on our own little form, and that was submitted with our application. Then the City sent out notices to -- unbeknownst to me, you guys really cover a nice wide area. David Landry, city council member,
lives in a subdivision or cul-de-sac behind me and he can see what -- he can see my backyard. I believe he's approved it. Tom O'Conner used to be on the Addington Park subdivision committee. He received -- when he lived a few doors down, he also approved it and thought that it would actually add to the value of the subdivision or actually increase the value of the homes in the subdivision since you're adding on and you're making my property more valuable. As for the criteria, I think it's important to realize that our -- the back lot abuts woodlands, which are also wetlands, so in my mind -- and I don't do this every day -- I think one -- I imagine one purpose for this type of restriction is so that two houses don't appear really close to each other like the privacy concern that the other case presented. There is nobody else behind us. It's protected wetlands. Nobody can move -- can build back there, and I think that lot is -- doesn't perk. It's wet. People ice skate back there, and it's so situated that I don't think you could really put any type of house that would
equal the square footage needed for Addington Park, so I think that's important to note. As for the criteria, does enforcement prevent use of the property? I would submit to you that the main reason we want -- we would like to do this is we really can't use our patio because it's in direct sunlight from 11:00 a.m. until sundown. Certainly, we could put up a bunch of umbrellas. I think that would be more of an eyesore, and certainly the proposal is -- would be to spend a reasonable sum of money or a nice sum of money to make it look perfect and make it look nice and not just junk it up with three umbrellas or, because we're having more people over, to pull out portable-type tents. We want to get away from that type of fix. Number two, will the proposal negatively impact others? I submit to you the answer to that is no. All of the neighbors I believe signed our -- signed and approved, and the Chairperson, I'm sure, will read -- if there are any denials -- I do not know of any denials. I only know, I believe, that there are a vast number of approvals.
Number three, is there a lesser variance available to remedy the problem? The big question I think someone's going to ask is why do you -- why can't you build it shorter, why can't you build it -- I'm going to make up numbers -- why can't you build it eight -- eleven feet as opposed to eighteen feet. The reason for that, our architect says, that the pitch has to be a certain degree so that the water goes down, and -- so that when you have winter-type weather that it will roll off and it will do the right thing structurally. That's, again, not my forte, and I only know what they tell us. I'm sure the Building Department can speak to that. Number four, any unique circumstances of the property? When we bought this house from the builder, because of the wetlands, we were only -- he could only put one or two different models of that house there. We chose to have the wetlands behind us instead of have a three-car garage, we chose to have -- took a two-car garage so we could have wet woods behind us, and then they had to situate the model for that lot a certain way, thus making the sun the
issue as it is today. Number five, is the need for a variance self-created? The answer I submit to you is no. Again, the developer, when they put the house that we ended up buying there, it was a certain model because, again, of the wetlands, and they put it at a certain position. Again, I thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there any other person in the audience that would like to input into this case? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Close the audience participation. Building Department? MR. SAVEN: The extent of the cover of the roof goes to the extreme of your brick paver patio; is that correct? MR. WAECHTER: That's correct. MR. SAVEN: It does not extend beyond that point? MR. WAECHTER: My understanding,
from looking at the plans, is there are brick -- I'll call them footings or pilings -- that are on the edge on -- I'll call it the grass -- or just past the brick paver patio. On those footings are the matching columns that go to the roof, and our number one goal is to shade that area. We have the blinds drawn, you know, closed, and then -- that's our main living area, that back family area, the kitchen, and we'd like to enjoy the wetlands and our backyard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There were thirty-one notices sent and received eight approvals and one was sent back. Mr. Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Sir, nice job. You did your homework. You got the approvals of the homeowner association. You want to enjoy your backyard. I see no problem with the variance you've asked for. MR. WAECHTER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? I only have one thing to ask about that. You say that your house has -- doesn't have
any room to move. That's because the builder built to such extent that if you want to put five foot someplace else, you can't do it. MR. WAECHTER: I agree wholeheartedly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Board Members, further comments or discussion? Mr. Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah. I got a couple of questions. MR. WAECHTER: Yes. MEMBER SANGHVI: How long will it be before you would want to enclose this? MR. WAECHTER: We do not want to enclose it. We -- it's my wife and I's belief that -- we don't want to enclose it. We want a brick -- we want a brick paver patio, we want a barbeque out there, we want to have maybe a fan up above, and we just want to enjoy the breeze and some shade back there in, you know, a barbecue-type situation when we have people over. We don't want to enclose it. We have thirty-two hundred square feet, we have a half-finished basement, all of which permits have been pulled for, so that's
really not anything that we're intending to do. MEMBER SANGHVI: My only concern is that next year there are going to be a lot of mosquitoes. They're going to bite you up and then you would want to enclose it. MR. WAECHTER: That's good forethought. I really don't think that's going to be a concern. And we're actually building it in such a way that I don't know if that -- again, I'm not a builder. I don't know if that's possible. This is what we envision. This is what we'd like. I don't foresee a variance request for enclosing it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray? MR. SAVEN: If I may comment for Dr. Sanghvi. Irregardless, because this is a covered situation, speaking on the principle building characteristics, whatever you approve, he can still enclose it based upon that being a covered patio. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miss Gray? MEMBER GRAY: My same comment, but it's absolutely no different than the sunrooms or conservatories that we're approving all the time,
and we will be doing again this spring, so -- it's a nice design, and I commend you for the compatibility with the- MR. WAECHTER: (Interposing) I appreciate you giving me all the credit. I'd like to thank my wife because she did all the work and I'm just -- MS. GRAY: Nice job. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Board Members, further comments or discussion? MEMBER SANGHVI: No, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, the Chair would entertain a motion. MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a motion, sir, that in Case Number 02-013, we approve the applicant's request for variation to cover the patio because of the special circumstances of the wetlands and the woodlands behind and the location of the house because of sun-producing problems. MEMBER FANNON: Support. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded to grant the petitioner's variance request. Is there any further discussion on the
motion? (No further discussion.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Sanghvi? MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Fannon? MEMBER FANNON: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Bauer? MEMBER BAUER: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Brennan? MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Gronachan? MEMBER GRONACHAN: Yes. MS. MARCHIONI: Member Reinke? MEMBER REINKE: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, your variance request has been approved. See the Building Department for necessary permits. We wish you the best of luck. MR. WAECHTER: Thank you for all your time today. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Case 02-014.
I guess it's been tabled. Mr. Saven, do you have any other matters before we get into election of officers? MR. SAVEN: Not really. I'd like to introduce the gentleman that's going to probably before you next month. He's a little concerned because he's got a situation that's a very delicate situation and -- at his home at the present time, and I'm sure he's looking at the Board right now to try to figure out what is he going to do as far as his presentation. This is one of our new residents coming into the City. He's in the process of building a new home in which he came to a major problem, so he will before you next month. MR. STONE: I'm Chris Stone. I'm a current resident in Mystic Forest and we are moving into the Park Place subdivision. Unfortunately, my builders seem to have misplaced his tape measure when he put together the plot plan, and so we -- I need a fifteen foot sawzaw. But all in all, in my view, it's a fortunate mistake. If I were to have the option
of putting the house there, that's where I would have put it. He actually moved the house forward too far. If we move it back, well, involves tearing up a basement and a great deal of aggravation. It also involves pushing further back into the woodlands, which we really don't want to do. It's one of these things that's just a major oops. And none of us caught it. I didn't catch it. I wouldn't expect to catch it. I don't understand the details of plot plans, but it got through a number of other people. It's unfortunate, but yes, we will be back next month. MEMBER BRENNAN: Bring your builder. MR. STONE: He will be here. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll look forward to seeing you. MR. STONE: Thank you very much. MR. SAVEN: You have election of officers. I was going to allow -- I'll shut up. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have three positions on our Board for which we elect officers; one being the chairman, the vice chairman and the secretary. The Building
Department fired our treasurer, so we don't have to re-elect them. At this time I'd like to open up the floor for nominations for chairman. MEMBER BAUER: I nominate Frank. MEMBER FANNON: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and seconded to nominate Mr. Brennan. Are there any further nominations? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we would say that by acclamation, Mr. Brennan, you have been elected chairman. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. For the position of vice chairman? MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd like Mr. Fannon to sit at my left-hand side and pass me the packets. MEMBER BAUER: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Been moved and
seconded to nominate Mr. Fannon. Is there any further nominations? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, we would unanimously -- all those in voting for Mr. Fannon for voice chairman, signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fannon, congratulations. For the position of secretary? MEMBER BRENNAN: I think we ought to let Mr. Sanghvi take a shot at interfacing with the- MR. CHAIRMAN: (Interposing) I'll support that. MEMBER BAUER: Secretary. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further nominations for secretary? (No response.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor of electing Mr. Sanghvi secretary,
signify by saying aye. (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed? (Vote taken.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Congratulations to Mr. Sanghvi, Mr. Brennan and Mr. Fannon. The only thing I think we should get as a reminder to us and to our presenters is a big five-minute hourglass. MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Or we need to elect a timekeeper, one or the other. MEMBER GRAY: If you're keeping time, you can't really listen. MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER BAUER: I wish to say hurrah for Lavern for guiding us this past year. I think you did a glorious job. MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, and I think we'll be in good hands with Mr. Brennan and Mr. Fannon for next year. MEMBER BRENNAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: And with that, being
a proud new grandfather, say good night to Adam and Hailey, meeting adjourned. (The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m.) - - - Date approved: May 7, 2002 __________________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary
C E R T I F I C A T E I, Cheryl L. James, do hereby certify that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of 152 typewritten pages, is a true and correct transcript to the best of my abilities.
________________________________ Cheryl L. James, CSR-5786 ____________ Date
|