| 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 the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the City of Novi Civic Center, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, September 9, 2003. BOARD MEMBERS Cynthia Gronachan, Chairwoman ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: Maureen A. Haran, CSR 3606 Novi, Michigan 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 6 We're going to go ahead and call the 2003 7 Zoning Board of Appeals September meeting 8 to order. 9 Sarah, please call the 10 roll -- I'm sorry. Lisa, please call the 11 roll. 12 MS. McDONALD: That's all 13 right. 14 Member Bauer. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Present. 16 MS. McDONALD: Member 17 Brennan. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Present. 19 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt. 20 MEMBER GATT: Here. 21 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray. 22 MEMBER GRAY: Present. 23 MS. McDONALD: Chairwoman 24 Gronachan. 3
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 2 Here. 3 MS. McDONALD: Member 4 Reinke. 5 MEMBER REINKE: Here. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: This 7 evening on the Agenda there is a list of 8 Rules of Conduct. I'm going to ask the 9 audience that's present before this Board 10 this evening to review them, particularly 11 two rules: One, I'm going to ask that all 12 pagers and cell phones be turned off during 13 the meeting, and also that anyone who 14 wishes to address the Board, if you're 15 doing so as an individual resident, to 16 please adhere to our three-minute rule this 17 evening. And if you're a spokesperson for 18 a group from a subdivision, it will be a 19 ten-minute rule. We will keep a eye on the 20 clock on this. 21 The Zoning Board of Appeals 22 is a hearing board empowered by the Novi 23 City Charter to hear appeals seeking 24 variances from the application of the Novi 4
1 Zoning Ordinances. It takes a vote of at 2 least four members to approve a variance 3 request and a vote of the majority of the 4 members present to deny a variance. 5 We have six members tonight. 6 We have a full board. Any decisions made 7 this evening will be final. 8 Are there any changes to the 9 Agenda? 10 MS. McDONALD: No. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: No 12 changes? Move for approval of the Agenda 13 submitted. 14 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 16 in favor say aye. 17 ALL MEMBERS: Aye 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19 Minutes? We did not get any minutes for 20 review, so we will table that until next 21 month. 22 Public remarks. If there is 23 anyone in the audience at this point that 24 wishes to address the Board on an issue 5
1 other than what is coming before the Board 2 tonight, you may do so now. 3 Is there anyone in the 4 audiences that wishes to address the Board 5 for anything that is not on the Agenda? 6 Sir? Would you please come 7 to the podium, state your name for the 8 record. 9 MR. WIZINSKI: Good 10 evening. My name is Karl Wizinski and my 11 family and I live at 26850 Wixom Road. I 12 am here tonight, not representing any of 13 the homeowners or residents of Bristol 14 Corners, but here as a person who has 15 experience living next to a commercial and 16 industrial area. 17 Tonight you'll make a 18 decision that will have a profound effect 19 on the lives of some Novi residents living 20 adjacent to Beck North Corporate Park, 21 Phase II. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 23 Excuse me. 24 Mr. Wizinski, this public portion of the 6
1 Agenda is for issues that are not on our 2 Agenda this evening. 3 MR. WIZINSKI: So this 4 would be more appropriate at the- 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 6 (Interposing) This would be Audience 7 Participation at the time we that call that 8 case. 9 MR. WIZINSKI: Thank you. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 11 Thank you. 12 MR. SAVEN: If there is 13 nobody else in the audience, I would like 14 to take a minute if I may. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes, 16 Mr. Saven. Go ahead. 17 MR. SAVEN: At this time, 18 I'd like to introduce a couple of staff 19 members and one consultant who is here at 20 your disposal this afternoon. 21 Tim Schmitt is our staff 22 planner -- and if you don't mind, raise 23 your hand. And 24 Brian Coburn is the engineer; Lance 7
1 Shipman, Landscape Architect; and Larry 2 DeBrincat, the Woodlands Consultant for the 3 City. These 4 people are here if you have any questions 5 regarding any cases tonight. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 7 Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you. 8 Anything else? Okay. 9 Seeing none, we'll move into calling our 10 first case. 11 12 CASE NUMBER 03-067 13 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: This 15 is a return from last month, Case Number 16 03-067 filed by Teddy Lee of 26075 Lanny's 17 Road. 18 Mr. Lee, would you please 19 come down to the podium. 20 MR. LEE: Thank you. Teddy 21 Lee, 2065 Lanny's Road. 22 Zoning Board Members, I 23 don't know if I'm out of place, but I'd 24 like to respectfully request you to 8
1 reconsider the original appeal for 24 by 24 2 detached garage. I'm appealing to the 3 Zoning Board to take a property site visit 4 to this property. This property is over 5 20,000 square feet, and it's twice the R-4 6 zoning property size. It's also adjacent 7 to a commercial property, Hansen Debs 8 office building. It's across the street 9 from Engines of Novi, an industrial 10 property. 11 Lanny's Road is becoming a 12 major thoroughfare between Grand River and 13 Eleven Mile once that Grand River 14 construction is complete. It's the only 15 connecting street that has no turning 16 limitations. Clark Street is the only 17 other street founded between Taft and Novi 18 Road. This property on Lanny's Road it 19 undergoing change, heavy traffic. It's a 20 mixture of commercial, industrial and 21 residential from what it used to be. It 22 used to be an unpaved road and it used to 23 be predominantly residential property. 24 I have personally talked to 9
1 all the businesses and residential owners 2 on that street, and no one voiced any 3 objection. All were supportive of the 4 request for this 24 by 24 garage. If the 5 Zoning Board made a site visit, this appeal 6 for two variances is not unreasonable or 7 out of line, and it's not offending to 8 anybody. 9 If the Zoning Board will not 10 grant me the two variances, only one 11 variance, a letter has been written and 12 respectfully submitted for the one variance 13 to the Zoning Board for a 16 by 16 14 structure. I do want to point out that 15 when one looks at the property site from a 16 distance in front of the house, this 17 detached garage is recessed in the 18 backyard, and we're about 100-foot looking 19 at the street, you really can't tell the 20 difference between the 24 by 24 garage or 21 16 by 16. I certainly can't. The 22 difference is very -- hardly noticeable. 23 The garage is 100 feet from 24 the street, and behind the garage is over 10
1 100 foot -- 200 foot to the next property, 2 all wooded area. To my left side is the 3 neighbor. I'm over 100 feet from that 4 neighbor with a fence that's six-foot 5 high. The neighbor really cannot see the 6 garage. To my right side is the office 7 building, commercial property. It's a 8 parking lot, and on the parking lot there 9 is a four-foot brick wall and a six-foot 10 high wood fence. So that's not visible to 11 them either. 12 So this garage really 13 can't -- is not very visible. I'm asking, 14 appealing to the 15 Zoning Board to use your authority at this 16 time for a fair and wise decision. If more 17 time is needed for a site visit, I'm 18 willing to postpone this decision because 19 the impact of your decision will greatly 20 affect my family. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 22 right. Thank you. Anything else? 23 Is there anyone in the 24 audience that wishes to make comments in 11
1 reference to this case? 2 Seeing none, Building 3 Department -- I'm sorry. 4 MR. RUSSELL: I'll make 5 comment. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Come 7 on down, sir. 8 MR. RUSSELL: I didn't come 9 here for this, but you know what -- I'm 10 Randy Russell I live at 44220 Grand River. 11 I'm a resident also. 12 Zoned in a light industrial 13 area, this man wants to put up a garage 14 where he lives. You know, I think that he 15 deserves that right, even though whatever 16 zoning it is, he's next to all sorts of 17 industrial park and industrial, what, this 18 and that. And I think he deserves that 19 right. That's all I want to say. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 21 Thank you. Anyone else? 22 Seeing none. Building 23 Department? 24 MR. SAVEN: At the last 12
1 meeting there were two issues that were 2 brought before you. One was definitely the 3 square footage, and the other one was the 4 issue of more than one accessory structure 5 in an R-4 zoning district for lots less 6 than 20 some thousand square foot. 7 What Mr. Lee had indicated 8 was correct. The fact that, yes, his 9 property is large, it is zoned R-4. He 10 does have just about twice as much property 11 there as anybody in the R-4 District, and 12 yes, he is adjacent to industrial issues. 13 But it was the Board's wish from the last 14 meeting, that based upon the submittal that 15 he had, that he do something to reduce the 16 variances, and that's why he was here 17 before you with this particular request. 18 Mr. Lee came before me, or 19 he telephoned me not too long ago after 20 this was publicized and asked to go back to 21 his original request, based upon what he 22 was looking at because he wishes to 23 maintain the playhouse in the back; is that 24 correct? 13
1 MR. LEE: Yes. 2 MR. SAVEN: Unfortunately, 3 this was noticed as only one variance. And 4 this was noticed as one variance for the 5 shear fact that the Board's wish was to try 6 to reduce the amount of variances that were 7 performed. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank 9 you. Board Members? 10 Frank? 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, Mr. 12 Lee, I thought we had a deal. I thought 13 you were going to walk out of here with 14 your variance for your garage -- not a 15 variance for the garage, but a variance for 16 two accessory structures. We can't 17 consider the 24 by 24, because it wasn't 18 publicized. So you have two options: you 19 can either have us rule on -- or make a 20 decision based on what was published, or 21 you can wait another month and come back 22 with your 24 by 24 which we've already told 23 you, you're not going to get. 24 MEMBER GRAY: Madam Chair? 14
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 2 Member Gray. 3 MEMBER GRAY: I would like 4 to make some comments on the record for 5 those who may not know what exactly we're 6 dealing with. And this is not the fact 7 that Mr. Lee wants to build a garage. 8 There is the fact that Mr. Lee wants to 9 build an additional garage and retain a 10 playhouse. So it's not just wanting to 11 build a garage, it's wanting to build an 12 additional garage, which would give him 13 then two detached structures, because the 14 garage that he has now is attached to his 15 house. 16 When he was before us last 17 month, we basically told him we could give 18 him one or the other. He elected at that 19 time to come back to us when he made a 20 decision whether he wanted to keep the 21 playhouse and build the additional 22 structure, the additional garage, in 23 addition to the attached garage that is 24 already at his house. Since we haven't 15
1 noticed it, for his original request of 2 last month which is keeping the 24 by 24 3 garage as opposed to what is advertised now 4 for the 16 by 16, I would move that we 5 either postpone or table this until next 6 month until we can, again, renotice this. 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: It's his 8 option. 9 MEMBER GRAY: It's his 10 option? Okay. 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 12 Anyone else? 13 MEMBER BAUER: Mr. Lee, you 14 know what we're talking about? 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Can 16 you stand up to the podium so we can hear 17 you, please? 18 MR. LEE: You're asking me 19 to either -- if I'm going to ask you to 20 reconsider 25 by 24, I have to resubmit 21 that until next month. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 23 Uh-huh. 24 MR. LEE: I'm willing to do 16
1 that. Would you be willing to, during the 2 month, just drive by there and take a look 3 at the site? It's on the way to the Town 4 Center. I'm willing to delay this because 5 I guess it has enough impact on me if -- 6 and if you're definite about that decision, 7 I'll live with it, you know. 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Are you 9 aware that it's our job to visit sites 10 prior to this meeting? We have special 11 identification for going on private 12 property and looking at sites that's issued 13 by the police department. 14 MEMBER GATT: Mr. Lee, 15 everybody on the Board has already visited 16 your home at least once, if not twice. 17 MR. LEE: I guess what -- if 18 the decision is you will not grant me the 19 two variances and only one variance is 20 permitted, I guess that's what the request 21 for was. I'll go by the 16 by 16 size. 22 Reduced. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: So I 24 get this straight. You would stand by what 17
1 you requested this evening and what's been 2 publicly notified to your neighbors, and 3 that would be the one detached accessory 4 building. And you're asking for a variance 5 for a second detached building? 6 MR. LEE: Yes. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: And 8 the garage you're going to build is within 9 the square footage so there's no variance 10 there needed. 11 MR. LEE: Yes. If the 12 decision is final it's only one variance 13 allowed. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 15 just -- I would like to make some comments 16 on the record. And I understand, and I 17 spoke with you last month, and it's not 18 something that when we come to this Board 19 and we review these cases, we can't make 20 our decisions or base our decisions on 21 emotion. We have guidelines and rules. 22 And one of the rules that we 23 look at very seriously, and I explained 24 this, and other audience members have heard 18
1 me say this before, that less is better. 2 Okay? And unfortunately, we don't have, at 3 least this member sitting here looking at 4 this to make a decision, doesn't have 5 enough to qualify going with further 6 variances. So I don't have enough to 7 substantiate your case for me to make a 8 different decision, other than what you've 9 brought us before. 10 And that's why what I tried 11 to explain to you last month, to go back 12 and look at this. Last month we were not 13 on the same page and that's why the Board 14 tried to guide you to go for less is 15 better. Fewer variances is better. 16 So I don't want you to get 17 sidetracked thinking that, let me go back 18 to where I started - we got away from that 19 for a reason. 20 MR. LEE: Okay. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 22 Okay? 23 MR. LEE: All right. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19
1 Having said that, I believe we all know 2 what's in front of us. Is there a motion to 3 be made on this case or is there any 4 further discussion? 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a 6 motion. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 8 right. 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: With 10 respect to Case Number 03-067, I would move 11 that the petitioner's request as submitted 12 tonight be approved because of lot size and 13 available space to build a secondary 14 structure. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 16 MEMBER REINKE: Is this for 17 the garage only, or for the garage and 18 playhouse? 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: As 20 submitted. Two detached accessory 21 structures. 22 MEMBER REINKE: I can't 23 support the motion because I don't see a 24 hardship to have the second structure on 20
1 the land. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Call a 3 vote. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 5 Motion was made and seconded. 6 Sarah, could you please call 7 the roll. 8 MS. MARCHIONI: Lisa. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I'm 10 sorry, Lisa. Old habits die hard. 11 MS. McDONALD: Member 12 Brennan. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 14 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer. 15 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 16 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt. 17 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 18 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray? 19 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 20 MS. McDONALD: Member 21 Gronachan. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 23 MS. McDONALD: Member 24 Reinke. 21
1 MEMBER REINKE: No. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Mr. 3 Lee, your variance request has been 4 approved. Please see the Building 5 Department. 6 MR. LEE: Thank you, Board 7 Members. 8 9 CASE NUMBER 03-072 10 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We'll 12 get ready and call the next case, 03-072, 13 filed by Etkin Equities for Residence Inn 14 at 27477 Cabaret Drive, formerly known as 15 Fountains West. 16 Mr. Bednas is requesting 17 eight sign variances to be placed on this 18 building. 19 Mr. Bednas, are you an 20 attorney? 21 MR. BEDNAS: No. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 23 Would you please raise your right hand and 24 be sworn in by our secretary. 22
1 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 2 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 3 regarding Case 03-072? 4 MR. BEDNAS: I do. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, 6 sir. 7 MR. BEDNAS: My name is 8 Robert Bednas. I'm with Etkin Equities at 9 29100 Northwestern Highway in Southfield, 10 Michigan. 11 The variance request you 12 have before you seems rather onerous with 13 eight requests here. All I'd like to say 14 is the application was, I think, fairly 15 definitive and complete. But the reason 16 that we had asked for the variances that we 17 did, is because the proposed signage for 18 the Residence Inn Hotel essentially 19 consists of the standard brand identity 20 signage that Marriott expects to see on 21 their properties when they're open for 22 business. 23 The signage is intended to 24 be of sufficient size and in a prominent 23
1 enough location so that the guests can 2 readily see the signs from a distance, and 3 particularly for the first arriving guests 4 that normally arrive in hours of darkness. 5 I'd like to, I guess, 6 reiterate a point that we noted that there 7 were a few other hotel properties and some 8 other buildings in Novi that have more than 9 one sign on the property. And for that 10 reason, we feel that since they have the 11 right, that we should share in the same 12 privilege. 13 Having said all of that, and 14 having gone through the motions of setting 15 up the mockup signs, and in the interest of 16 expediting the process tonight, I think 17 what you identify -- and, I presume, I can 18 work off of the yellow sheet -- what you 19 identify as Sign B, Exhibit C, the east 20 elevation of the gatehouse, we've 21 acknowledged that that sign is virtually 22 invisible from Cabaret. It's not 23 particularly visible when you're on the 24 property, and I guess we'd like to remove 24
1 it from discussion because we recognize 2 what the ordinance says about basically one 3 sign per property, and hopefully this will 4 make the process a little bit easier. 5 Similarly, Sign A, which is 6 a ground sign- 7 MEMBER BRENNAN: 8 (Interposing) Excuse me, sir. Was the 9 first one that you removed B or C? 10 MR. BEDNAS: It says it's 11 Sign B, but it's identified as Exhibit C in 12 the attachments. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Second 14 request, Frank. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: All right. 16 I gottcha. Thank you. 17 MR. BEDNAS: This sign that 18 goes on the gatehouse building. 19 Similarly, with Sign A, 20 which is the ground sign, it's depicted 21 there, and the application is depicted here 22 in the photograph, but I'm not sure if you 23 received these or have your own actual 24 mockup signs. 25
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We 2 have them. 3 MR. BEDNAS: Depending on 4 how the rest of the discussion goes, we 5 acknowledge that that size could be reduced 6 in sign area to comply with the actual 7 specifics of the zoning ordinance, which 8 says 30 square feet of signage versus the 9 51 that's shown. I'm not so sure about the 10 height. We probably need somewhat of a 11 height variance on that, too, to satisfy 12 that. We would be willing to make those 13 adjustments right now before we begin the 14 rest of your considerations. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 16 Anything else? 17 MR. BEDNAS: That's it. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19 Thank you. 20 Is there anyone in the 21 audience that wishes to address the Board 22 in regards to this issue? 23 Seeing none, there were six 24 notices sent. No approvals, no objections. 26
1 And our Building Department will pause for 2 a moment and I will turn it over to the 3 Board Members for discussion 4 Member Brennan. 5 MEMBER BRENNAN: I see no 6 reason why we shouldn't handle this like we 7 have handled other sign cases when there's 8 multiple signs. Start with the first one, 9 give some comments, work through, and see 10 where the Board sits. 11 Looking at Item Number 1, 12 Sign A or Exhibit B, the ground sign, we 13 have the square footage removed. We have 14 to discuss height and setback. 15 I don't have -- personally, 16 I don't have an issue with the setback, the 17 layout of the grounds. I'd like to see -- 18 you know, you're trying to -- this is on an 19 identification site. People are coming 20 from the airport, they're either on 96, 21 probably most time on 96, and I would give 22 a lot of credit to the sign that's facing 23 the highway. I don't know why you need 24 that thing eight feet in the air. If 27
1 there's some concession on your part there, 2 I'd like to see it. I don't have any 3 problem with the setback. 4 Sign B is removed. Sign 5 C -- which one is this? 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 7 Facing east. Exhibit E. 8 MEMBER GRAY: It's on the 9 building facing east. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: On the 11 building facing- 12 MR. BEDNAS: Facing 13 Cabaret. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Faces 15 Cabaret. This one faces the freeway, 16 correct? D faces the freeway. 17 MEMBER GRAY: Sign D faces 18 south towards the expressway, Sign E faces 19 east towards Fountain Walk and towards Novi 20 Road 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Somebody 22 pick up if you're familiar with where we're 23 at here. Give me some help. 24 MR. BEDNAS: Sign C is the 28
1 one you're talking about right now. The 2 one that's facing Cabaret. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 4 Exhibit E. 5 MEMBER REINKE: This here, 6 right over on top of the ground pole sign, 7 facing right. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: And 9 this is the one facing the freeway. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: This is 11 another ground sign. 12 MEMBER GRAY: No. These are 13 the ones that are on the building, under 14 the eave. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. Just 16 going from geography, the one facing 96, I 17 didn't have a problem with. I don't see, 18 really, why you need the one facing Twelve 19 Mile, because I don't think you can see it 20 that well. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 22 Anybody else, comments? 23 MEMBER REINKE: Madam 24 Chairman. 29
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 2 Member Reinke. 3 MEMBER REINKE: The ground 4 pole sign, I really don't have a problem 5 with the height; I don't have a problem 6 with the setback, because there is no 7 roadway or anything in conjunction to that 8 that would block line of sight. It's 9 almost a single property area back there 10 that there will be very few developments or 11 buildings on. 12 The sign facing east, I 13 really don't see a value of that. The one 14 facing the expressway on the south side, 15 there's value to the expressway for that 16 sign. I could support that one. And 17 that's my comments. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19 Member Reinke, just for clarification, 20 you're saying that Exhibit D on our -- 21 that's the freeway sign, correct? 22 MEMBER REINKE: Right. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: You 24 don't have a problem with. And Exhibit E, 30
1 is the one that you don't see the need for. 2 MEMBER REINKE: Correct. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 4 Thank you for that clarification. 5 Member Bauer. 6 MEMBER BAUER: Sign A, 7 Exhibit B, height, eight feet. You're 8 taking that eight feet from the top of the 9 berm, which is extended -- it's much 10 higher. I'd like to see it down. 11 MR. BEDNAS: Well, the berm 12 was dictated by the Planning Commission to 13 hide the parking -- to hide the vehicles. 14 So it's basically at the grade -- but what 15 you're saying is -- I mean, is it okay- 16 MEMBER BAUER: From the berm 17 up; right? 18 MR. BEDNAS: Right now, the 19 way it's presented it's eight feet. 20 MEMBER BAUER: From the berm 21 up? 22 MR. BEDNAS: Would five feet 23 up be acceptable? 24 MEMBER BAUER: Five feet 31
1 would be, yes, sir. 2 MEMBER GRAY: That berm 3 gives you the extra height that you need, 4 and it's going to be visible because it's 5 going to be a lit sign, is it not? 6 MR. BEDNAS: Yes, it is. 7 MEMBER GRAY: And I would 8 concur with the variance comments made on 9 the setback and also on the square foot 10 size. As far as the east elevation, I 11 would also agree that that may not be 12 necessary. And to the south facing the 13 expressway, absolutely. And I don't have a 14 problem with that sign or the variance 15 requested. 16 The only thing I do have to 17 say is the sign facing the east, I know 18 that that sign is visible from Novi Road 19 and I would suggest that, you know, 20 depending on the mood of the Board, if you 21 require that sign, I would suggest you ask 22 for a smaller sign. Thank you. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 24 Okay. 32
1 MEMBER GATT: I would just 2 like to add, I think the sign facing east 3 is necessary. If you're coming from Novi 4 Road area, and you're late at night coming 5 in from the airport, you're going to need 6 some kind of guidance to get to this 7 facility. And I would agree with my 8 colleagues, they may be a little bit 9 smaller though. 10 MR. BEDNAS: Can I interject 11 a comment on that at this point? 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Why 13 don't you just wait for the Board to get 14 done and then you'll know where the whole 15 Board is, Okay? 16 Anything else, Member Gatt? 17 MEMBER GATT: No. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I, 19 too, would like to put my comments on the 20 record. First off, I'm pleased that you 21 came to the podium and knocked two of the 22 signs off of the Agenda. That makes our 23 evening much nicer. 24 I also have to comment that 33
1 your packet that you presented to this 2 Board was very, very, nice and it was very 3 easy to read except for the exhibits, Sign 4 1, Gate 3, 4 East. It's a little tough 5 when you're doing this and you don't do it 6 on a regular basis. But nonetheless, it 7 was a very nice packet to review. 8 MR. BEDNAS: Thank you. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I am 10 in agreement with the other Board Members 11 on the setbacks. I'm in agreement with the 12 other Board Members on Sign D as well. 13 This it where I throw a 14 monkey wrench into the works. If you're 15 driving out there -- and I went by there a 16 couple of times -- Sign C for the size that 17 it is, I, too, at first thought this was 18 going to be too big. What happens is these 19 businesses take off, things start growing, 20 and it all gets covered in. This is a new 21 construction area, and I'm concerned that 22 later on down the road, if we make it 23 smaller, it might get eaten up by the 24 ambience of the neighborhood. That's the 34
1 best way I can put it. Okay? 2 So, if you can picture 3 that. I mean we've had signs come before 4 us in the past, not that I'm using any as 5 an example, but trees grow in, then you 6 can't see the sign. So this is -- that's 7 the only identification on this side of 8 that building, and I just a hate to see 9 it. It's not overly big for the size of 10 the complex, and it is the only 11 identification on that end of the building. 12 I think that the petitioner has been pretty 13 cooperative knocking off the gatehouse sign 14 and being cooperative on the ground sign 15 that I would just like to see a building 16 this size have the proper signage for it. 17 MEMBER GATT: I agree. And 18 again, keeping our quest to do what's 19 right, again we're thinking of the public 20 coming in late at night, tired. Maybe 21 going around the expressway a couple of 22 times and can see the sign from there, but 23 not knowing where they get off on Novi 24 Road, that sign would help them out 35
1 tremendously. I can support that. 2 MEMBER REINKE: Madam 3 Chairman, I have a question for the 4 petitioner. 5 I'm assuming the building 6 signs are going to be lit also; correct? 7 MR. BEDNAS: Yes, they are. 8 MEMBER REINKE: Okay. My 9 comment then is if we're going to have a 10 large sign on the east elevation of the 11 building, why do we need the ground sign? 12 MEMBER GATT: I would only 13 just say that sometimes, in my former 14 profession, I was always told to look up. 15 Not everybody looks up. Maybe from Novi 16 Road you may be able to see that sign, but 17 if you're coming down Cabaret Drive, that 18 ground sign is the sign that might catch 19 your attention first. 20 MEMBER REINKE: I understand 21 where you are coming from, but you can't 22 miss that sign. Even up as a temporary 23 sign right now, you cannot miss that sign 24 coming down Cabaret Drive, and I really 36
1 have a problem with two signs on that side 2 of the building. 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Meaning the 4 ground sign and the- 5 MEMBER REINKE: 6 (Interposing) Right. That's why my 7 approach was if we're going to have a 8 ground sign, we eliminate the wall sign. 9 If we're going to have a wall sign, I think 10 the ground sign needs to be eliminated. 11 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam 12 Chair, I have one other observation in 13 comparing relatively, not having the 14 information right in my pocket, but 15 comparing the size of the wall signs to 16 other hotels. They seem to be fairly close, 17 at least by the eye. 18 If there's further 19 discussion, great. If not, I'll give a 20 shot at this. I think we're pretty close. 21 Let's go from this as the 22 identifier. Starting with Sign A, Exhibit 23 B, this is the -- I'm sorry, you wanted to 24 talk? 37
1 MR. BEDNAS: May I add one 2 editorial comment, if I will. 3 I appreciated the 4 conversation about the sign on the east 5 face of the building because -- and we've 6 had quite a bit of discussion about this, 7 recognizing what we may or may not get 8 tonight. For traffic coming from the west 9 exiting on Novi Road, the only way to get 10 to the property, because of the way the 11 streets are signed, is to go north on 12 Novi Road to Twelve Mile, west on Twelve 13 Mile and down Cabaret. For that reason, 14 the wall sign on the building which is -- I 15 guess I'm confused. That would be, I'm 16 sorry, that would be Sign C, Exhibit- 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Sign 18 C, Exhibit E. 19 MR. BEDNAS: Right. That 20 one is quite important, just to kind of 21 give you some guideline. 22 If the Board prefers to 23 reduce the size of that sign, I think we 24 all acknowledge that the logo type for 38
1 Residence Inn and Marriott is readily 2 identifiable and you can see the shapes, so 3 there might be some opportunity to make a 4 concession there. 5 If we had our druthers, we'd 6 rather have the two building signs and the 7 ground sign. If we have to lose one of 8 those, our preference would be to have the 9 two bidding signs, but we feel the ground 10 sign helps to kind of define the driveways 11 to the property. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: You want 13 to make a recommendation on the east 14 elevation square footage? 15 MR. BEDNAS: I'm not sure 16 how that layout works. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Roughly. A 18 hundred square foot? 19 MR. BEDNAS: We could 20 probably make it a hundred, yes 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. I'm 22 ready to start. 23 Sign A, Exhibit B is the 24 ground sign. The petitioner has been very 39
1 helpful here in removing the area 2 requested, he's going to make it 30 square 3 feet. He's going to make it five feet off 4 the ground. We're going to grant the 5 variance of the setback, okay? 6 MEMBER BAUER: He's allowed 7 one sign, period. So he has his choice. 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'm just 9 trying to summarize what we got here. 10 Where we end up. 11 Sign B, Exhibit C, is the 12 east elevation gatehouse. You've removed 13 that. 14 MR. BEDNAS: Right. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: That 16 didn't seem to make too much sense. 17 Sign C, Exhibit E is the 18 wall sign on the east side. Petitioner's 19 request is for a 100 square foot sign. 20 Setback variance request is 21 approved. Sign D, which is the south 22 elevation facing 96, petitioner's request 23 for setback and square footage, approved. 24 MEMBER GATT: Is that a 40
1 motion? 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: That was a 3 motion. 4 MEMBER GATT: For the 5 reason? 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: For 7 building identification and the need for 8 identification from a number of different 9 angles. 10 MEMBER GATT: Support. 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We 12 have a motion and a second. Is there any 13 further discussion on the motion? 14 MEMBER REINKE: Madam 15 Chairman. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 17 Member Reinke. 18 MEMBER REINKE: The two 19 building signs, I think are large enough 20 and adequate. Petitioners that he could, if 21 he had to, live without the ground pole 22 sign. And that's where I feel I'm at right 23 now, and if justifiable down the road, I'd 24 be willing to work with putting in an 41
1 additional ground pole sign if it was 2 justified to be needed. But at this time, 3 I can't support the motion for the three 4 signs. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 6 Member Bauer -- he took the words right out 7 of your mouth. 8 Anyone else? 9 MEMBER BRENNAN: We have a 10 motion and a second. 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We 12 have a motion and a second. Why don't 13 we -- okay. We have a motion and a second. 14 Sarah, please call the roll -- I'm sorry, 15 Lisa. 16 MS. McDONALD: That's all 17 right. 18 Member Brennan. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 20 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt. 21 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 22 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer. 23 MEMBER BAUER: No. 24 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray. 42
1 MEMBER GRAY: No. 2 MS. McDONALD: Member 3 Gronachan. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No. 5 MS. McDONALD: Member 6 Reinke. 7 MEMBER REINKE: No. 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: Okay. I 9 guess you shouldn't have let it slip that 10 you'd take that ground sign out. 11 MEMBER REINKE: Madam 12 Chairman? 13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes, 14 Member Reinke. 15 MEMBER REINKE: I'd like to 16 make a motion that Sign A, the ground pole 17 sign, be eliminated; that Sign B be 18 eliminated as per the petitioner's 19 comments. Sign C for the east elevation be 20 approved for 100 square feet, and that Sign 21 D, Exhibit D, the south elevation, be 22 approved for 130 square feet as presented, 23 due to building and business 24 identification. 43
1 MEMBER GATT: Seconded. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We 3 have a motion and a second. Is there any 4 further discussion? 5 Okay. Lisa, would you 6 please call the roll. 7 MS. McDONALD: Member 8 Reinke. 9 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 10 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt. 11 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 12 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer. 13 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 14 MS. McDONALD: Member 15 Brennan. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 17 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray? 18 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 19 MS. McDONALD: Member 20 Gronachan. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 22 Your request, altered as it 23 is, has been approved. Thank you very 24 much. Please see the Building Department. 44
1 MR. BEDNAS: Thank you. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 3 Thank you. 4 5 CASE NUMBER 03-073 6 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Okay. Let's call our next case. Case 9 Number 03-073 filed by Northern Equities 10 Group for Beck North Corporate Park, Phase 11 II. 12 Matthew Sosin of Northern 13 Equities Group is requesting to appeal the 14 denial of the preliminary site plan and 15 site condominium approval including waiver 16 of the required berm adjacent to the 17 surrounding residential properties for the 18 Beck North Corporate Park, Phase II, Site 19 Plan #00-13J. The property is located east 20 of Beck Road and north of West Road. 21 Good evening. 22 MR. STEWART: Good evening. 23 My name is David Stewart; I'm with Northern 24 Equities Group. 45
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Mr. 2 Stewart, are you an attorney? 3 MR. STEWART: No. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 5 Okay. I'm going to ask that you raise your 6 right hand and be sworn in by our 7 secretary. And also, if you would lift the 8 mike up a little bit so that everybody can 9 hear you. 10 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 11 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 12 regarding Case 03-073? 13 MR. STEWART: I will. 14 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, 15 sir. 16 MR. STEWART: I guess to 17 start out -- I'm going to try and be as 18 brief as I can. We have in front of us 19 this evening one, I think, highly unusual 20 item for a Zoning Board of Appeals to 21 handle, which is the denial of a site 22 plan/site condominium for an industrial 23 park. The other is something I'm sure that 24 you've seen many times before, which is a 46
1 request for a variance to an existing 2 regulation. 3 Just informationally, 4 because I don't know how many of you were 5 up at two-thirty this morning, but we were 6 in front of the City Council last night for 7 approval of three aspects of this same 8 plan: the wetlands permit, the woodlands 9 permit and the storm water management 10 plan. Those were approved by the City 11 Council last night. 12 So this evening -- and I 13 guess one of the staff would have to 14 explain it -- we're asking for the approval 15 of the site condominium/site plan and a 16 variance to the berm requirement next to 17 single family residential. To deal with 18 the two issues, I'd like to deal with the 19 site plan first. 20 First thing I think that's 21 appropriate, is that this plan has been 22 reviewed by staff and by consultants, and 23 we have recommendations for approval from 24 all of those individuals. This plan as 47
1 depicted here, is a 63-acre site 2 condominium and -- well, it's divided into 3 30 lots. Our experience has been, such as 4 in the Beck West development, some of which 5 you may have seen portions of, which had 34 6 lots in it originally, but there tends to 7 be a great deal of lot combinations because 8 of the different sizes of the buildings. 9 These lots are configured to allow the 10 maximum amount of flexibility for the 11 combination of those. 12 Some of the buildings that 13 you may be aware of would be the Owens 14 Corning building, which is a combination of 15 three lots. The Alcan Aluminum building, 16 is a combination of three lots. The 17 building next to Owens Corning, is two lots 18 combined amongst others that have came 19 before this. 20 The other things that you 21 should realize in looking at this is that 22 ultimately, as each and every one of these 23 lots develop, this is all going to go back 24 to the Planning Commission. They're going 48
1 to have an opportunity to look at them, 2 review them and evaluate them on their 3 merits. As pertains to the berm, when we 4 originally presented this, we offered to 5 either do a berm or an alternative. I 6 think there was some thoughts both ways 7 when it pertained to this. 8 The reason that we think the 9 berm works best -- and by the way, I'm 10 still willing to adhere to the ordinance as 11 written -- is that across the north end of 12 this property, this is a fairly heavy 13 woodland. In order to put a berm in there, 14 I've got to cut all the trees down. It 15 seems to be counter-productive and counter 16 to the best interests of the adjoining 17 people and the natural features of this 18 particular property. 19 You'll be hearing from some 20 people tonight from Bristol Corners, which 21 is on the east side of this development 22 over here. There, what we offered to do 23 was to increase the minimum size of the 24 setback to 25 feet, eliminate the berm, and 49
1 to add a double row of higher than -- 2 taller evergreens than what are called for 3 in the ordinance. In other words, going to 4 an eight-foot evergreen instead of six-foot 5 evergreen. And under the provision that we 6 be allowed to count those against our 7 replacement trees on a one-to-one basis, 8 because we're going to have a bunch of 9 replacement trees in conjunction with 10 putting these improvements in. 11 In addition to that, any 12 areas east of those evergreens that aren't 13 currently forested, I would be willing to 14 put some more of those trees in to increase 15 the density of the buffer between the 16 industrial park and the single family 17 residential. As you can see -- the dark 18 line is the proposed evergreen border. As 19 you can see, there are some gaps along the 20 way between that border and the subdivision 21 to the east. 22 And that really covers the 23 two issues. We think that the substitution 24 of the evergreens and leaving the trees as 50
1 they currently are is the better solution. 2 But whatever you choose would be fine with 3 us. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank 5 you very much. 6 MR. STEWART: Thank you. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Before I make my next statement, I've seen 9 several people walk into the audience this 10 evening since I made the original 11 statement. And that is, this evening, on 12 the front of the Agenda are a set of Rules 13 of Conduct. I'm asking that anyone that 14 wishes to partake in audience participation 15 to please adhere to those rules, and 16 stating that three minutes will be allowed 17 for each resident. If you are a member of 18 a homeowners association or a 19 representative of a group, ten minutes will 20 be allowed and the Board will have the 21 discretion to extend it if necessary. 22 At the time that you come to 23 state your case, please do not address the 24 Board. Simply state your matters. If you 51
1 have questions, the Board will duly note 2 them and we will address with answers, when 3 we open it up for discussion. 4 Having said that, is there 5 anyone in the audience that wishes to make 6 a statement in regards to this case? 7 MEMBER BAUER: Are there 8 notices? 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: There 10 were 53 notices. One approval, two 11 objections, and nine returned. And I 12 understand that there were notices that had 13 no opinion, but just wrote back with no yea 14 or nay. 15 I'm not going to read all 16 these letters, but they are in the file for 17 record. 18 Mr. Wizinski? 19 MR. WIZINSKI: Good 20 evening. My name is Karl Wizinski. My 21 family and I live at 26850 Wixom Road. I'm 22 here tonight not on behalf of the 23 homeowners in Bristol Corners, but just to 24 share our experience living next to both 52
1 commercial and industrial on Wixom Road. 2 Tonight you will make a 3 decision that will have a profound effect 4 on the life of some Novi residents living 5 adjacent to Beck North Corporate Park, 6 Phase II. Our family lives 24 hours a day, 7 seven days a week, with inadequate 8 screening of Target's truck traffic and 9 loading dock next to our home on Wixom 10 Road, resulting from decisions made by the 11 Planning Commission based on incorrect 12 information from a developer and a city 13 consultant, and an appeal process to this 14 Board illegally interrupted by a City 15 Council directive to the ZBA, 16 the City of Novi's failure to enforce 17 compliance with approved site plans on a 18 timely basis, and the lack of any 19 ordinances in the City to regulate truck 20 noise and odors, truck delivery hours and 21 overnight parking of trucks occupied by 22 their drivers. 23 Although we have repeatedly 24 asked the City to develop ordinances to 53
1 protect citizens from the nuisance of 2 trucks adjacent to residential areas, no 3 initiative has begun to develop such 4 protection. In our case, the fear of 5 litigation created intense pressure to 6 quickly resolve complex issues. 7 Tonight, you are facing the 8 same situation. Our only purpose this 9 evening is to share our real life 10 experience with inadequate screening, and 11 to recommend that appropriate screening be 12 provided to the residents of Bristol 13 Corners. The City's noise ordinance 14 provides no protection for residents from 15 truck noise. The only protection from 16 truck noise is meaningful screening. 17 Meaningful screening must include a berm or 18 wall of appropriate height. Trees alone do 19 not attenuate noise at all. 20 We believe that the Beck 21 North proposal to waive a berm and add two 22 rows of eight-foot evergreens, in addition 23 to the existing woodland buffer, will not 24 be adequate to screen semi truck noise. 54
1 Semi trucks are over 13-feet tall, and are 2 pulled by noisy and smelly diesel engines. 3 Our home is screened by a six-foot berm and 4 wall, with some eight-foot evergreens. As 5 you can see in these pictures, these are 6 eight-foot evergreens. That's a six-foot 7 wall, and the semi trucks are behind it. 8 The proposed industrial park 9 will probably have tall masonry structures 10 similar to the Wixom Road Target Store. 11 Noise bounces off these hard surface 12 structures. Trees alone will not provide 13 protection from noise morning, noon, and 14 night. 15 Based on our real life 16 experience, a ten to 15-foot brick wall on 17 the industrial park side of the existing 18 woodland buffer, would be the appropriate 19 screening between this project and its 20 residential neighbors. The ordinance 21 allows a wall instead of a berm. One 22 option would be to preserve the 60-foot, 23 minimum 60-foot, woodland corridor between 24 the new wall and the adjacent residences. 55
1 The 66-foot span is suggested because it is 2 equal to the minimum base required to 3 construct a ten-foot berm. This would give 4 residents the sound attenuation benefits of 5 a wall, but leave the visual benefits of 6 the existing woodland and supplemental 7 evergreens. 8 For this Board to waive a 9 wall or berm entirely is a mistake. 10 Please, do not burden these Novi citizens 11 with the same problems we endure every 12 day. Thank you. 13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 14 Thank you. 15 Anyone else? Yes, ma'am? 16 MS. ROBERTS: I'm Linda 17 Roberts. I live at 30377 Balfour Drive, 18 and I'm part of Bristol Corners 19 subdivision. And I have a few things to go 20 through here, but first I wanted to mention 21 that this issue is so important to so many 22 people. We have a petition that 23 represents 285 residents of Novi that are 24 very interested in having this appeal 56
1 denied. And I'll pass that around to you in 2 just a minute. 3 I also have a letter from 4 Arnie Serlin and this is to you: 5 I am writing this as the 6 president of the Bristol Corners Homeowners 7 Association. As you are aware, there are a 8 number of issues that were raised by the 9 Planning Commission in the denial of the 10 applicant's request for the preliminary 11 site plan approval and the condominium 12 approval. It certainly raises enough 13 doubts to send us back to the Planning 14 Commission and not to overturn their 15 decision. Issues of screening lights found 16 in ordinance interpretation must be taken 17 into consideration. 18 As you may know, Bristol 19 Corners existed well before Beck North. 20 There are reasonable expectations that 21 residents of Bristol Corners should be able 22 to rely upon. If you listen to the 23 Planning Commission and the residents, 24 those protections have not been met. There 57
1 is still too much work to be done, not just 2 to the a letter of the ordinance, but to 3 its intent as well. With regard to the 4 berm waiver, I believe it should be 5 carefully evaluated. Eliminating a required 6 berm that provides screening with its 7 required planting from view, lights, and 8 sound, is a mistake that only those most 9 affected will suffer the consequences of. 10 I understand that an option would be to 11 remove trees which may or may not be 12 desirable, but bear in mind that if the 13 foliage is off the trees, Beck Road can be 14 seen from Bristol Corners. 15 If, in your wisdom, you see 16 fit to waive the requirements, and in its 17 place have evergreens installed, eight-foot 18 evergreens are not the answer. 18 to 19 20-foot high dense evergreens such as 20 Spruce planted in staggered rows at ten to 21 12-foot spacing would provide a 22 substantially better screen. 23 In closing, please listen 24 to the residents, as they are the most 58
1 affected. As a developer myself, I know 2 there are sacrifices you make to each 3 development goal. The Planning Commission 4 felt that Beck North was too dense. The 5 loss of a lot or two might be the 6 appropriate solution. 7 Also, keep two things in 8 mind as you deliberate. If the tables were 9 turned and the Beck North developers were 10 standing in the shoes of Bristol Corners 11 residents, they would do everything they 12 could to protect their rights, their 13 property and their investment. What would 14 you do if you were living in Bristol 15 Corners? Wouldn't you expect your 16 investment to have reasonable protection by 17 the City whose obligation it is to do no 18 less. 19 Sincerely, Bristol Corners 20 Homeowners Association, Arnold Serlin, 21 President. 22 And, if you don't mind, may 23 I read my letter? 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Are 59
1 you representing the entire homeowners 2 association then or are there still more 3 members from Bristol Corners? 4 MS. ROBERTS: There are 5 more members. 6 MEMBER BAUER: It's over 7 three minutes now. 8 MS. ROBERTS: Then I will 9 hand you all my things. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 11 there someone else? Mr. Mutch, would you 12 like to come down? 13 If there's anybody else in 14 the audience that's interested in speaking 15 in regards to this subject, if you would 16 like to move down so we can have everyone- 17 MR. MUTCH: Good evening, 18 Madam Chair and Members of the Zoning Board 19 of Appeals. Andrew Mutch, 24740 Taft 20 Road. 21 My first statement is 22 actually a question, and it's a question of 23 jurisdiction specifically regarding the 24 waiver for the berming requirement. And in 60
1 the notice that was sent out it indicated 2 that area of jurisdiction dealt with an 3 administrative review. I have a question 4 whether that's actually an accurate 5 assessment of what the developer is 6 requesting, or if that's actually a 7 variance request. 8 Clearly, they're requesting 9 a variance from the zoning ordinance, and I 10 would like that issue addressed at the 11 appropriate time. And I would state that 12 if it is determined that there is a blanket 13 variance request, I would point out that 14 within the zoning ordinance is the Planning 15 Commission, which has the discretionary 16 approval based on specific ordinance 17 standards to grant that waiver. And I 18 don't believe it would be appropriate at 19 this time for the Zoning Board to take 20 action on that variance request. 21 Truly, I think of all the 22 issues here tonight, as Mr. Wizinski so 23 clearly demonstrated, the berm waiver is 24 the one that could cause the most immediate 61
1 and irreparable harm to the residents, the 2 adjacent homeowners. And I would just like 3 the Zoning Board to take note that on 4 December 7, 1999, the Zoning Board of 5 Appeals heard a very similar blanket 6 variance request from this same developer 7 for the Beck North Corporate Park, Phase I, 8 which the Zoning Board of Appeals 9 unanimously rejected. And that dealt with 10 a very similar situation, which would have 11 resulted in the waiver of the berm 12 requirement for those properties adjacent 13 to the residential properties. 14 And I just want to read a 15 couple of comments from those minutes. 16 Chairman Brennan noted that in response to 17 Mr. Serlin, whose letter was read earlier 18 and who spoke that evening: I think that 19 Mr. Serlin's presentation is very strong. 20 His case was very strong. I would not be 21 interested in any variance request that 22 impacts a residential community that 23 already exits. I see no reason and have 24 heard no hardship that says they can't meet 62
1 the ordinance. 2 And likewise, Member 3 Harrington noted: I don't know that a 4 blanket variance finds its way anywhere in 5 the Novi code, and if it does, I don't 6 recall ever seeing it. I certainly don't 7 think that we have the power to grant a 8 blanket variance where changes in the 9 statutory terms, the essential character of 10 the real estate that is involved. Nothing 11 could be clearer than the door, if we grant 12 this variance, would be wide open to a 13 whole host of character changes which would 14 otherwise -- which would not otherwise 15 define this residential area. It would 16 appear to me that whatever this hardship, 17 it's self-created to the extent that 18 someone should have known better what the 19 appropriate zoning was, or at least raised 20 the question. I think that the burden 21 falls upon the petitioner who is in the 22 position of seeking a variance and seeking 23 to develop. I think- 24 MEMBER BAUER: (Interposing) 63
1 Your three minutes are up. 2 MR. MUTCH: Okay. I just 3 want you all to take note that that was a 4 unanimous decision by the Zoning Board. 5 I'm sorry, was that my time? 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 7 MR. MUTCH: Can I just 8 summarize really quick, I've just got a 9 couple of more comments. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Three 11 seconds. MR. MUTCH: Did you all 12 get a copy of the letter from Mr. Howard 13 from Olsen, dated today, September 9th. 14 Okay. I just want to make sure that you 15 all did review his letter. 16 He did address the issue of 17 the Planning Commission's decision and the 18 requirements for overturning that, as well 19 as the issue that was raised at City 20 Council regarding lawsuits and takings, and 21 the Michigan case law regarding that. And 22 I think that addresses a lot of the 23 concerns. 24 Again, I would like you to 64
1 keep in mind Mr. Wizinski's comments and 2 the comments of all the residents as you 3 make your decision this evening. Thank you. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank 5 you. Anyone else? 6 MS. HALLARON: You need to 7 clarify. You were saying if I'm 8 representing the subdivision, do I get ten 9 minutes then? 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 11 MS. HALLARON: Okay. I will 12 be representing the subdivision. My name 13 is Kelly Hallaron and I'm speaking also for 14 myself and my husband Scott. We live at 15 30361 Balfour Drive- 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 17 (Interposing) Excuse me. I would just like 18 to clarify for the record that you're 19 representing Bristol Corners then; is that 20 correct? 21 MS. HALLARON: Yes. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 23 That's the subdivision. 24 MS. HALLARON: That's the 65
1 subdivision. So you don't need my address? 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No, 3 go ahead. I just wanted to make sure what 4 subdivision so we don't- 5 MS. HALLARON: (Interposing) 6 I'm sorry, yes. I'm representing Bristol 7 Corners. 8 I'm here tonight to express 9 our concern for the appeal that's before 10 you for Beck North Corporate Park. We live 11 on that eastern border, right there, as an 12 individual but again I'm representing the 13 whole subdivision, all of our concerns and 14 in particular, I am a special 15 representative because my husband and I 16 became involved in this issue about a year 17 and a half ago, because the impact from 18 this corporate park happened behind our 19 house at that time. And that happened back 20 in April of 2002, and woodlands were 21 removed without permission, which directly 22 impacted our home and our street of the 23 subdivision. 24 And the removal of the 66
1 woodlands along with the wetlands were 2 assessed by our attorney as violations of 3 the Novi Woodland and Wetland Ordinances. 4 The loss of the woodlands has been reported 5 to be 3.2 acres, which -- I'm not sure you 6 can tell, but from this area to this area 7 all the way across. And if you want to see 8 that later, I can pass that around. 9 The impact has left our 10 homes and street fully exposed to the 11 future development of this large site, 63 12 acres, and without any protection from 13 construction noise, dirt, and dust, 14 garbage, potential security issues and 15 other related effects during the future 16 development of this park. Being such a 17 large site, it may take numerous years to 18 complete or even begin to construct sites 19 that are adjacent to our home. All of 20 these sites along here are adjacent to the 21 subdivision. 22 And we have already noticed 23 this with Phase I. Since we purchased 24 approximately four years ago, there are 67
1 only four or five buildings in Phase I, 2 it's taken that long. So that's what we 3 are concerned about as a subdivision, is 4 the length of time it probably will take, 5 and that we are exposed right now. Can I 6 have the -- thank you -- the exposure that 7 we have right now. Can you see that up 8 there? Okay, good. Thank you. 9 This is from Bristol Corners 10 side, and specifically from our back yard. 11 This is where the impact is currently. 12 The impact will continue to move as this 13 area is proposed to come down for future 14 site development. This is where the road 15 is proposed. This is from the other side, 16 from Beck North property. Those are our 17 homes. And just another preview. Thank 18 you. I'm done with that. 19 So we are concerned because 20 as you can see we're pretty exposed right 21 now, and if we don't have a berm put up 22 now, we are going to be exposed to this for 23 who know how many years. And again, it's 24 taken four years to get four or five 68
1 buildings up in Phase I. I realize the 2 economy is an issue, but it's a large site, 3 proposing, what, 30 units. 4 So we find that given this 5 fact and that the berm is required per 6 ordinance because Beck North is abutting 7 residential, we find this to be totally 8 unreasonable for the developer to request a 9 berm waiver. A berm in this situation is 10 absolutely necessary before construction of 11 any type begins, including any roads or 12 utilities. 13 Also we're wondering, are 14 berm decisions even under the jurisdiction 15 of the ZBA? That is a question, I believe, 16 our attorney is raising in his letter. And 17 we're also wondering, how can a berm waiver 18 be decided if a developer claims they can't 19 determine tree removal at this point -- and 20 I'm not refuting that, but how can we 21 decide that right now if they don't know 22 how many trees are going to come down. And 23 looking at the site plan, it appears that 24 most of those trees will come down. And if 69
1 they can't decide that, how do we know 2 about the opacity, noise and light issues 3 too, because those studies have not been 4 conducted. 5 These issues need to be 6 addressed first before we can decide what 7 kind of screening is required. And again, 8 because right now we're exposed, we know 9 that we need something before any type of 10 construction begins. 11 The suggestion that planting 12 eight-foot pine trees near the residential 13 border would suffice for the opacity, noise 14 and light issues is unfounded. First, the 15 lights to the site will be at least 15 to 16 18 feet high; second, the buildings will be 17 20 to 25 feet high; and third, the trees 18 are not even designated for the areas with 19 the most impact currently, which is this 20 street of Balfour Drive. Here are where 21 the pine trees are designated, right here, 22 and that's the end of the street. So the 23 pictures I showed you are looking out 24 through this set of woodlands here, and 70
1 there are no pine trees designated right 2 there. So in fact -- as I mentioned 3 they're all to the north of that. So we 4 would need this area -- from the pictures I 5 showed you, they are covering, basically, 6 that street of Balfour Drive -- we need 7 that area addressed at this time. 8 Our second concern is with 9 the proposed road placement of Nadlan Court 10 and the extension of Cartier Drive. This 11 is Nadlan Court, this is Cartier Drive. 12 Our concern is that both of these roads are 13 directed towards the east direction, or 14 towards the west -- directed toward our 15 subdivision. Taking the traffic towards 16 our subdivision with noise and lighting 17 issues, and that these roads also are 18 designed to create future clear cuttings of 19 the woodlands that are remaining, due to 20 access to those lots. 21 So here more woods would 22 come down due to these roads accessing the 23 woodlands. Woodlands here, woodlands here, 24 and especially over here for our 71
1 subdivision. A pretty significant impact 2 if the road is designated here, and the 3 woodlands are allowed to come down. Then 4 this impact, as you saw from the picture, 5 we were seeing this section, it will 6 continue on through the other side of the 7 street which also will affect this other 8 area here too. 9 We are especially concerned 10 about Nadlan Court, specifically because 11 that road will be running behind Balfour 12 Drive, behind our house, and that's where 13 that cul-de-sac will end. That is where 14 the parking lots will probably be, because 15 that's the bow of the cul-de-sac. So we're 16 also looking at facing a lot of parking and 17 light issues and without a berm, we're 18 going to be seeing lights all the time. 19 Alternatives for the road 20 placement exists. We'd like for that to be 21 considered tonight. These roads are not 22 cast in stone. Also, the storm systems 23 have not been placed yet and can be altered 24 from the plan. That is one of the 72
1 things -- the developer would like to keep 2 it this way, yet the storm system, as we 3 understand it, to be running through these 4 roads. It's not far into these roads yet 5 and it could be altered, and that's just 6 something we would like to have considered 7 too. 8 Also, Nadlan Court storm 9 system does not have to be directed in the 10 middle of the large regulated woodland 11 area, which is now creating unnecessary 12 destruction of the woodlands and the 13 habitat, and also the road could be moved 14 further north, and that would help out to 15 protect the woodlands, but also it would 16 help direct that traffic into an area where 17 there is much more density of woodlands 18 here, and without houses directly behind 19 there. 20 Overall, this road is not 21 planned in consideration of the site's 22 adjacency to the residential community, the 23 City's own natural resources and the City's 24 ordinances. If you do approve the site 73
1 plans tonight, the site plan and 2 condominium plan, we would ask that you 3 request conditions on this. One being that 4 you would remove these lots here to protect 5 this woodland area and the Wetland A, since 6 they are interconnected. If the storm 7 water system be directed out of the 8 woodland areas, that Nadlan Court could be 9 moved out and away from the woodlands, and 10 for you to deny the berm waiver. We really 11 need to have some type of screening. What 12 is required by the light industrial 13 ordinance is a berm, when light industrial 14 abuts residential, and it specifies exactly 15 how much. 16 MEMBER BAUER: Your ten 17 minutes are up. 18 MS. HALLARON: Okay, thank 19 you. 20 Well, thank you for your 21 time. 22 MR. BAUER: Do you want to 23 sum up? 24 MS. HALLARON: Just that the 74
1 berm is needed, especially in this area 2 where the woods were cut. That is what 3 we're really looking at right now. We 4 understand that everyone is talking about 5 looking at it in the future, for future 6 development, but right now we are fully 7 exposed and we really do need to have that 8 berm tonight. Thank you. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 Thank you. 11 Is there anyone else in the 12 audience that wishes to address the Board 13 at this time? 14 Seeing none, I'd like to -- Building 15 Department, do you have any comments at 16 this time? 17 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19 Planning Department? 20 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, 21 Madam Chair. 22 We are -- obviously, my 23 colleagues and I have a fairly deep wealth 24 of knowledge on the history and reviews 75
1 that occurred on this project, both Phase I 2 and Phase II, and what has occurred both 3 last night and previously at the Planning 4 Commission. I feel no need to provide you 5 with an extraordinary amount of 6 information. We prefer, in fact, to answer 7 your questions as they arise. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 9 Thank you. 10 I have a question for Mr. 11 Schultz. 12 Since there were questions 13 raised by the audience in regards to 14 jurisdiction, I'm going to turn that over 15 to you and ask you to explain, not only to 16 the audience here but to the audience at 17 home how this falls into it. And I would 18 like if you could help us with the 19 definition of discretionary and non 20 discretionary, and how this Board fits into 21 that as well. If you would, please. 22 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay, I'd be 23 glad to. Thank you, Madam Chair. 24 Board Members, I think what 76
1 I might do is start with the letter that 2 was at your place tonight, the letter from 3 the attorney for the Hallarons, Scott 4 Howard. He makes three points in the 5 letter, which have all been sort of touched 6 on during the presentation. The first one 7 relates to the Board's jurisdiction. 8 We heard a couple of 9 different comments so far. The one in Mr. 10 Howard's letter has to do with whether or 11 not this Board can hear an appeal from the 12 denial of the site plan because, as Mr. 13 Howard puts it, he views it as a special 14 land use that was denied by the Planning 15 Commission. 16 The state statute for the 17 Zoning Boards of Appeal says those are not 18 appealed to the ZBA unless the ordinance 19 specifically says so, and Novi's ordinance 20 doesn't give the authority to the ZBA. 21 Our position in response to 22 that is that this Board does have 23 jurisdiction. This is a site plan and not 24 a special land use. It's a condominium 77
1 plan. It's no different in our view, and 2 from a legal standpoint, and we believe 3 under the Condominium Act, than a 4 subdivision or a land division. This is a 5 decision of the Planning Commission that is 6 absolutely within the jurisdiction of the 7 Board tonight. And as a practical matter, 8 just so we're clear, while it is industrial 9 zoned property, and industrial uses will 10 need special land use if they're adjacent 11 to the residential parcels, there are uses, 12 office uses, that would be permitted 13 without special land use. So there's 14 another reason for a different position on 15 our part than Mr. Howard. 16 There is one issue 17 regarding, as the Chair said, discretionary 18 decision making that relates somewhat to 19 jurisdiction, and that's the waiver of the 20 berm issue. The Landscaping Ordinance 21 allows the Planning Commission to waive the 22 berm that's required along the edge, the 23 residential edge, if it makes some 24 determinations, and if there is an 78
1 appropriate conservation easement granted, 2 and the requirements of the ordinance are 3 met. 4 In our view, that is a 5 discretionary determination on the part of 6 the Planning Commission in the initial 7 instance in the ordinance. It is different 8 in our view from the other decision that 9 the Planning Commission was charged to 10 make, which was does the site plan itself, 11 aside from the berm issue, meet ordinance 12 requirements. That, in our view, is 13 administerial or a non discretionary 14 decision, and the charge to the Planning 15 Commission was look at the plan, look at 16 the ordinance requirements, does it meet 17 the requirements. 18 What you have before you is 19 an appeal essentially of both 20 determinations by the Planning Commission. 21 The state statute says that you sit as a 22 Board, and I'm just going to quote the 23 language from the statute: 24 That as a Board, you shall have all 79
1 the powers of the officer or body 2 from whom the appeal is taken. 3 That puts you in the shoes, 4 essentially, of the Planning Commission for 5 purposes of this appeal. 6 Mr. Howard's second point in 7 his letter is that you should not act on 8 the same issues that the Planning 9 Commission acted on. I think he says don't 10 go back to the beginning and start all 11 over. You should review the Planning 12 Commission's decision on a competent, 13 material, substantial evidence basis, like 14 a court would review a decision from this 15 Board. 16 We disagree because we read 17 the statute to mean that as an appeal, 18 particularly on the non discretionary 19 issues, you are given the authority, the 20 same powers, under the statute that the 21 Planning Commission was exercising. So 22 that addresses Mr. Howard's second point. 23 With regard to the last 24 point in Mr. Howard's letter, it has to do 80
1 with the discussion that's gone on about 2 litigation. I guess I'd like to encourage 3 the Board not to focus on the litigation 4 aspect of this. It seems to me that you're 5 just as likely to see litigation from 6 either side of this decision, and I think 7 what you need to do, and I'm sure you will, 8 is look at the ordinance and apply the 9 ordinance to the plan that's before you. 10 With regard to the berm 11 waiver, just to get back to that issue, I 12 think what's been outlined to the Board is 13 two choices, either grant the berm waiver 14 or don't grant the berm waiver. And our 15 office views it a little bit differently. 16 I think you have a third choice, which is 17 essentially not to require the berm to be 18 placed in connection with this site plan, 19 but to be dealt with as each of the 20 individual lots come in for approval. 21 And I know that this is a 22 difficult issue. I think the residents 23 would prefer the trees to be there, but 24 they also want the potential for a berm to 81
1 be there. And our view of the ordinance, 2 our office's view of the ordinance in any 3 event, is that those decisions with regard 4 to berm requirements or whether to 5 substitute a wall or whether to waive the 6 berm and the wall, are and ought to be made 7 at the time each of these individual lots 8 come into play. I think that should be 9 within the Board's consideration at this 10 point as well. 11 I think I've hit all the 12 points that have been addressed. If you 13 have any further questions- 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 15 Anyone else have any questions for Mr. 16 Schultz? 17 Seeing that there are none, 18 I'm going to open it up to the Board for 19 discussion. 20 MEMBER GATT: Madam Chair, I 21 want to begin and address the people who 22 spoke to us tonight. They referenced this 23 letter from the attorney. I just want the 24 audience to know that this letter was 82
1 placed on our tables prior to our arrival 2 tonight. We had no time to go over the 3 letter. We had no time to digest what was 4 said. Instead we -- obviously every member 5 of this Board spent hours and hours going 6 over the material that was provided to us. 7 So it would be very difficult for any 8 member of this Board to address anything 9 that's said in the letter tonight. 10 Last and not least, I want 11 the audience to know that this is an 12 emotional issue, and the Board is going to 13 come to a conclusion not based on emotions, 14 but based on the law, based on what's 15 right. And whatever way we come down, I 16 can only speak for myself right now, it 17 will be after a very, very, concerted 18 effort to digest the bulk of information 19 and reach a right conclusion. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank 21 you. 22 Member Brennan. 23 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yeah, I 24 have some written notes, some of which I 83
1 prepared last night and some of which I've 2 jotted down tonight. First, I'll address 3 some of the comments from some of the 4 speakers. 5 We're not considering a 6 blanket variance on this particular case. 7 We're looking at specific areas of the 8 site. So it's different than what was 9 referenced by -- are you still here, 10 Mr. Mutch? Okay. 11 Mr. Wizinski, I think we're 12 looking at something significantly 13 different with respect to your evidence or 14 your findings. We have a petitioner that 15 is now looking at a setback from a property 16 line of 125 feet. I think that's 17 significantly different than your case. 18 Number three, Bobby already hit on it. We 19 got this at four o'clock. I didn't have 20 time other than to skim over it and I'm 21 glad that we asked our attorney to give us 22 some advice with respect to what we got 23 here. 24 The City employs specialized 84
1 planners and consultants to review these 2 projects. That's all these people to. 3 They're specialized in landscaping, they're 4 specialized in a lot of other fields, and 5 all seven departments determined that this 6 project, as presented to Planning, met the 7 requirements. And I'll note that with 8 respect to woodlands and the wetlands 9 approvals, they had very, very, significant 10 qualifiers. It wasn't just approved, 11 approved. Woodlands and wetlands had 12 significant qualifiers. 13 Based on reading that six 14 pounds of documentation we got, it seems to 15 me that the petitioner has made an attempt 16 to talk to the residents aside. That's not 17 always the case, in fact in a lot of ZBA 18 cases, we put off even discussing the case 19 until a developer does talk to the 20 residents. And it seems like, in reading 21 the minutes and reading that there has been 22 modifications to the original plan, to push 23 the project to the south, to consider 24 leaving trees instead of cutting them down 85
1 and putting up a ten-foot berm, and for the 2 record, it was the letter of their's from 3 July 25. That's my comment. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 5 Thank you, Member Brennan. 6 Anyone else? Member Reinke, 7 go ahead. 8 MEMBER REINKE: I want to 9 echo Mr. Brennan's comments. I think that 10 the developer has tried to be a good 11 neighbor to the residential areas there. 12 They haven't gotten what they want, I 13 understand that. I think from what's 14 before us, if they went in there and put a 15 berm in right now, they're going to tear 16 everything out. We're going to start over 17 from scratch. I don't think that benefits 18 anybody. 19 If they have a requirement 20 not to put the berm in at this time, but 21 have to address back to the Planning 22 Commission on a lot per lot basis as the 23 development proposals come in, I think 24 we're all going to benefit much better than 86
1 to go either other way at this point in 2 time. Because not knowing what's there, if 3 we go in and put a berm in now and then 4 building-wise, envelope-wise changes the 5 configuration of things, I think we lose. 6 So in my estimation, I would 7 like to see the berm not go in at this 8 point in time, but as development goes 9 through the Planning Commission on a lot 10 per lot basis, that the woodlands, the tree 11 removal, the screening, whichever works out 12 best, be it additional screening or be it 13 put in a berm, would be much more 14 beneficial all the way around. Thank you. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 16 Thank you, Member Reinke. 17 Member Gray? 18 MEMBER GRAY: I, too, have 19 to echo the comments and sentiments of the 20 Board Members who have spoken previously. 21 Every time there's development in the City, 22 the same issues are raised by the people 23 who are adjacent to them. Contrary to what 24 may be believed, I really do believe that 87
1 the City and our consultants who are the 2 professionals in this area are not lacking 3 in some sympathy for what's going on. 4 Anytime there's going to be any kind of 5 industrial or commercial development 6 adjacent to residential, there are other 7 criteria that are brought into play. And I 8 think that everybody needs to realize that 9 not for one minute would a granting of the 10 appeal mean that this City is not going to 11 be watching very closely as this 12 industrial, light industrial, development 13 goes in. 14 I've been -- since I live in 15 the area, I've been aware of this property 16 for a long time. I've driven the property 17 many, many, times. I've walked it before 18 even Bristol Corners was a gleam in 19 somebody's eye. I'm very, very, concerned 20 about protection of the subdivision from 21 the point of view that I absolutely believe 22 that berming is necessary, but I absolutely 23 see no point in going in and clear cutting 24 trees at this point to put in a berm. That 88
1 serves absolutely no purpose. And in fact, 2 it's my opinion that the reason the 3 landscape consultants at various times 4 throughout the project, have recommended 5 that either the Planning Commission or the 6 ZBA grant waivers from berm requirements is 7 in fact to protect the natural features 8 that are on the property and to keep them. 9 I also agree with Mr. 10 Reinke's comments. I don't feel that a 11 blanket variance is in order. And I wanted 12 to just make that comment. I also feel 13 since I was up 'til two-thirty this morning 14 watching the council meeting, and since I 15 was watching the Planning Commission 16 meeting when it was also in front of them, 17 this is not an easy decision for any one of 18 us to make. We're having to balance out 19 the needs and the wants and the protection 20 of one group against another. And 21 unfortunately, it seems to be not a win-win 22 situation. And I remember watching ZBA 23 many years ago when people would come in 24 and they'd say, but I paid a premium for my 89
1 lot to get the view of that woodlands. 2 Well, unless you own it, and you want to 3 keep the view, you've got to buy it. 4 We cannot, to use a term 5 that was used last night, we cannot be 6 arbitrary and capricious in our enforcement 7 of ordinances. The developers have just as 8 much right to develop their property as 9 Mr. Serlin has a right to develop the 10 subdivision. And so we have to balance out 11 those issues. And I do believe that our 12 consultants did review them to find that, 13 whether we like it or not, the site plan 14 does meet ordinance. 15 Thank you very much. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 17 Thank you. 18 I'll go ahead and add a few 19 more comments onto the record. I concur 20 with all the members at this table. It's 21 very difficult to sit at this table and 22 read 3,000 pages over a two-week period and 23 not get emotionally involved, and think oh, 24 my gosh, what if I lived there, what would 90
1 I do. But you have to step back as a 2 resident when you're reviewing these cases 3 and look at the entire picture. 4 And so when I look at the residents out in 5 the audience, and I watched all of you last 6 night and listened to every audience 7 participation as well, I want you to know, 8 that as a Board member we have a job to do, 9 and at that job, we have to go to our 10 professionals. So we look at our planning 11 reports, we look at the woodland review, we 12 look at our landscape architect, traffic, 13 the building department, we look at those 14 peoples' reports and take them 15 wholeheartedly, because they are the 16 trained professionals. They, based on 17 their knowledge and expertise, give us 18 advice, or -- I hate to use the word 19 advice -- give us their opinion and we draw 20 from there. So I have to also concur with 21 the other previous speakers and echo Member 22 Gatt's sentiments, that don't think for one 23 minute that there's not any emotion on this 24 side of the table. There's more here than 91
1 you know. 2 Having said that, would 3 anyone like to make a motion? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think 5 we're looking at maybe two motions, because 6 we're dealing with two separate 7 situations. We're dealing with the site 8 plan, we're dealing with berming. And I'm 9 a little clearer on the former rather than 10 the later. So I'll give this a stab and 11 we'll see how the Board- 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 13 right. 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: With 15 respect to Case 03-073, I make a motion to 16 grant an appeal to the Planning 17 Commission's denial of the site plan, based 18 on three facts, based on -- well actually 19 four. Based on all of the evidence that we 20 have before us, based on the plans 21 submitted, based on the review of the staff 22 and consultants' recommendations, and going 23 back and looking and reviewing the 24 ordinance. 92
1 And for the reason, the 2 plans, as previously stated, meet the 3 ordinance requirements. 4 MEMBER REINKE: Support. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 6 Okay. We have a motion and we have 7 support. Do we have any further discussion 8 on the motion? 9 Seeing none, Lisa would you 10 please call the roll. 11 MR. SCHMITT: If I may have 12 just a moment. The Planning staff -- there 13 has been variety of issues raised with 14 this. We want to make sure we're crystal 15 clear on everything with relation to this. 16 As one of the concessions 17 that Northern Equity has offered in this 18 most recent submittal, they offered a 19 minimum of 125-foot building setback from 20 the residential property lines on the 21 Bristol Corners property. This is not 22 typical under the ordinance, it's based on 23 the height of the building. So we would 24 like the motion to simply include that the 93
1 125-foot setback will be enforced along the 2 Bristol Corners property line. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a brief 4 comment. It's my -- and Mr. Schmitt, 5 you'll correct me if I'm wrong. It's my 6 understanding that that setback is shown on 7 the plans that are approved in the motions; 8 is that correct? 9 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, that's 10 correct. 11 MR. SCHULTZ: And any 12 other, for lack of a better term, 13 concessions that are on the plan that went 14 to the Commission to clarify the Board's 15 intent, are as shown on the plan and will 16 be required. Is that a fair comment on the 17 motion? 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19 Yes. 20 MEMBER GRAY: And may I also 21 ask -- I'm sorry, go ahead. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Such as the 23 extra row of trees that petitioner was 24 asking for. 94
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: The 2 set of trees that they asked for. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Those are 4 shown on the plan, and I think that could 5 be part of this motion, but as I 6 understand, it looks like you're going to 7 do a second motion on the berm, and we'll 8 address it again in that context. 9 MEMBER GRAY: Would it also 10 be appropriate, Mr. Schultz, at this time 11 to include in our motion, subject to all 12 consultants' reviews and requirements? 13 MR. SCHULTZ: Absolutely. 14 There will be final site plan approval that 15 will all continue on a normal path. 16 MEMBER GRAY: Is that okay 17 with you, Mr. Brennan? 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: I don't 19 have any issue with any of that. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 21 Okay? So we have a motion, a second, an 22 amendment, approval. Lisa, 23 would you please call the roll. 24 MS. McDONALD: Member 95
1 Brennan. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 3 MS. McDONALD: Member 4 Reinke. 5 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 6 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer. 7 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 8 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt. 9 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 10 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray. 11 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 12 MS. McDONALD: Member 13 Gronachan. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 15 Okay. So we got the first 16 request approved. Now let's addressed the 17 berm. 18 MEMBER GRAY: Madam Chair, 19 in the matter of Case Number 03-073, I 20 would move to approve -- or move to grant 21 the appeal from the denial of the waiver of 22 the berm requirement for this site plan 23 only. This would not preclude the Planning 24 Commission reviewing berming requirements 96
1 on individual site plans as they are 2 submitted for development. This would also 3 recognize the 125-foot setback on the east 4 property line, and would also recognize the 5 petitioner's agreement to plant additional 6 trees for screening at that time. 7 One of the reasons I'm 8 making this motion is as stated previously, 9 that to go in and put a berm around the 10 entire property right now, would be 11 counter-productive and would remove, in my 12 opinion, the screening that already exists 13 with the woodlands on site. 14 MEMBER REINKE: Support. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We 16 have a motion and a second. Is there any 17 discussion to the motion? 18 MR. SCHULTZ: If I might go 19 first, just a quick clarification. I think 20 the motion is clear, just so we get the 21 underlying concept behind it. 22 The idea is several of these 23 are likely to come in as special land use, 24 and the intent of the motion, as I 97
1 understand it, would be to indicate that a 2 waiver -- if you're standing in the shoes 3 of the Planning Commission right now for 4 this purpose -- wouldn't preclude treatment 5 of this by the Planning Commission when the 6 individual plans come in. 7 And just that it would also 8 be subject to all of the other requirements 9 that go along with the waiver, like the 10 conservation easement, pending further 11 development, and all the other requirements 12 of the ordinance related to the waiver. 13 MEMBER GRAY: This should 14 not be construed as a blanket waiver. 15 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank 17 you. 18 Mr. Schmitt. 19 MR. SCHMITT: Once again I 20 have a couple of clarifications I'd just 21 like to get. 22 As I understand it, the 23 intent is to plant the double row of 24 evergreens at this time both along the 98
1 property line and at the end of the 2 cul-de-sacs, or is it the Board's 3 suggestion that these not be planted until 4 such time as proper irrigation is at the 5 site? 6 MEMBER GRAY: I would think 7 that this developer, wanting to be a good 8 neighbor, would want to do that now. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Well, 10 if there's no irrigation out there. 11 MEMBER GRAY: No irrigation? 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: Therefore, 13 no water. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Mr. 15 Shipman? 16 MR. SHIPMAN: If I may, 17 thank you. 18 One of the issues that has 19 been discussed concerning the placement of 20 those evergreens would be the viability of 21 the evergreens. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 23 Correct. 24 MR. SHIPMAN: It's something 99
1 to consider. As mentioned, there is 2 currently no irrigation out to that area of 3 the site, and no intention of having water 4 available up front to be able to provide 5 irrigation to those. 6 There are measures that can 7 be taken to apply adequate water during the 8 growing period, however the developer would 9 only be required to maintain for a certain 10 number of years -- under the ordinance, 11 it's two years. So past the two-year 12 period, there really is no -- it's going to 13 be harder to maintain that material. So I 14 think that information should be used at 15 your discretion in making your decision. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank 17 you. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: Discussion. 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: I want to 21 make sure I understand this. For the 22 purpose of, as an example, Mrs. Hallaron 23 pointed out, that there were some areas 24 that there was heavy vegetation, mature 100
1 trees, and that there were some areas that 2 were clear cut. As the way we have defined 3 this motion as each lot is developed, it 4 will, hopefully through planning each lot 5 and its unique characteristics, be taken 6 into consideration, and maybe that helps 7 solve some of the residents' issues. Where 8 in certain houses where they back up to the 9 huge stand of trees, there's a chance they 10 stay, and if it's been clear cut, it makes 11 more sense to put up a big old berm. 12 That's how I understand your motion. 13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 14 Member Reinke? 15 MEMBER REINKE: I think to 16 go in there and put trees in with not 17 knowing what's there, is not going to 18 really accomplish what we're trying to do 19 with the screening, because we don't know 20 what we are screening. 21 If the natural state is left 22 intact now, they have some screening 23 there. To put the roadway in, you're not 24 going to have traffic and lights being 101
1 generated that need to be screened out. And 2 as the development goes and builds, that 3 the screening and buffers need to build 4 along with it, then they'll be built in an 5 adequate fashion. It would be controlled 6 by the planning process as the buildings go 7 in to be as effective as possible, rather 8 than trying to go in and do something now 9 which would not be maintained or watered at 10 an adequate level, and could end up dying 11 and be in a worse situation of going in and 12 disturbing things than leaving what's there 13 alone until development time. 14 MEMBER BAUER: I agree with 15 you. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 17 Absolutely. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: I concur. 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 20 Okay. So we need to address this issue 21 then. 22 MEMBER REINKE: No. We just 23 need to leave the motion the way it is. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: The 102
1 way it is, but to address the trees, when 2 they're going to be planted. 3 MR. SCHMITT: That is the 4 question we're asking, whether the Board 5 would like them planted now or whether they 6 would like them planted at the time of each 7 lot- 8 MEMBER BRENNAN: At the time 9 of development. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Time 11 of development. 12 MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Thank 13 you very much concerning that issue. 14 We actually have a couple of 15 other issues we need to clarify as well. 16 You mentioned the 17 conservation easement in your original 18 motion, I believe. Northern Equities had 19 suggested in their response letter of July 20 25, that they would agree to deliver the 21 City a conservation easement over the 50 22 feet west of the habitat corridor, which 23 would essentially be 50 additional feet of 24 setback, which is part of the ordinance 103
1 requirements. We would just like to 2 clarify that this is the Board's intent 3 that the areas of woodlands in this 4 additional 50 feet would be put under a 5 conservation easement as a result of this 6 approval as well. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 8 That's correct. 9 MR. SCHMITT: And lastly, I 10 would defer to our woodlands consultant, 11 Mr. DeBrincat on this issue. They have 12 requested that the evergreens that are 13 being planted in the locations at the end 14 of the cul-de-sac and along the property 15 line, be counted as one-to-one 16 replacements. With regard to the tree 17 replacements, typically evergreens are only 18 counted as one-half to one and I believe 19 that 20 Mr. DeBrincat is far more of an expert on 21 this, but we would like some direction on 22 that as well. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: One 24 for one. 104
1 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you very 2 much. I appreciate all the clarifications. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We 4 have a motion, we have a second. We have 5 the appropriate amendments and notes to the 6 file. Is there any further discussion? 7 Seeing none, Lisa, would you 8 please call the roll. 9 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray. 10 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 11 MS. McDONALD: Member 12 Reinke. 13 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 14 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer. 15 16 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 17 MS. McDONALD: Member 18 Brennan. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 20 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt. 21 22 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 23 MS. McDONALD: Member 24 Gronachan. 105
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 2 Sir, your -- I have to say 3 this right. Your appeal for the denial has 4 been granted. 5 MR. STEWART: Thank you 6 very much for your time and for your 7 consideration. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 9 Thank you. I know we have -- 10 Board Members, we only have three more 11 cases. Would the Board like to entertain a 12 break, a short ten-minute break at this 13 time? 14 MEMBER BRENNAN: Sure. 15 (A brief recess was 16 taken.) 17 18 CASE NUMBER 03-050 19 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 21 will now call the Zoning Board of Appeals 22 meeting back to order. I would like to 23 step aside from the current Agenda for 24 three minutes. 106
1 Board Members, we have a 2 resident who came before us about -- where 3 are they? They're right there, so help me, 4 please -- approximately 90 days ago, and we 5 granted them a variance. It's Mr. 6 Karakian. He lives on Shawood Drive, and 7 the bottom line is that his permit is about 8 ready to run out. So I would like, if it's 9 okay with the Board for him to just come in 10 front us tonight. Based on Mr. Schultz' 11 advice and Mr. Saven's guidance, it would 12 take about three minutes, and we can help 13 this resident out, if it's okay with the 14 Board. 15 MEMBER GATT: Sure. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 17 Would you like to come forward, please? 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Mr. 19 Saven, I realize I'm breaking tradition 20 here, but this was in regards to Case 21 Number 03-050, and I will spell the last 22 name for the record. K-a-r-a-k-i-a-n, the 23 first name is John, at 2450 Shawood Drive 24 in Novi, Michigan. 107
1 Mr. Saven, if you could 2 help us, please. 3 MR. SAVEN: Okay. I've got 4 a bad memory -- just kidding. 5 As you are well aware, this 6 couple was before us sometime ago, about 7 three months ago, and they had endeavored 8 to add on a second story to their house, 9 which is off of Shawood. It was a very 10 difficult scenario that they had to deal 11 with, in terms of the original ranch unit 12 to a second story, and a configuration of 13 the building was -- based upon even being a 14 stone building, if you can recall this 15 building it was very unique. 16 They had a little problem 17 and difficulty with trying to get a 18 contractor to do the work, as it was 19 explained to me, and they're closing in on 20 their 90-day requirement that we've had by 21 past policy and by ordinance, and they had 22 requested, basically, that they would like 23 to get an extension because they had a 24 great degree of difficulty in trying to get 108
1 a correct bid on their place. It's 2 fluctuated tremendously as far as cost 3 goes. 4 And I had asked that it 5 probably be to their best interest to come 6 back before the Board so they don't lose 7 their variance, and just continue this for 8 another 90 days, and probably not to exceed 9 that before we come back and publish it. 10 As long as they're coming in with the 11 building permit, we normally don't have 12 this particular problem. And I think we 13 can do this and try to achieve it by that 14 time. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam 16 Chair, I'll make a motion. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay, 18 Member Brennan. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: I would 20 make a motion that we grant this couple a 21 90-day extension. 22 MEMBER REINKE: Support. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: A 24 motion has been made and seconded. Any 109
1 further discussion on the motion? 2 Seeing none, Lisa would you 3 please call the roll. 4 MS. McDONALD: Member 5 Brennan. 6 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 7 MS. McDONALD: Member 8 Reinke. 9 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 10 MS. McDONALD: Member 11 Bauer. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 13 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt. 14 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 15 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray. 16 17 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 18 MS. McDONALD: Member 19 Gronachan. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 21 Your extension has been 22 granted. I'm going to pass this back down 23 to Sarah, and you can see the Building 24 Department. Good luck. 110
1 MR. KARAKIAN: Thank you 2 members of the Zoning Board. I appreciate 3 it. Thank you very much. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 5 You're welcome. 6 7 CASE NUMBER 03-074 8 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Well, 10 the gold star goes to the next petitioner. 11 03-074, 12 David Doiron? 13 MR. DOIRON: That's close 14 enough. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 16 Of 1750 Paramount. We appreciate your 17 patience in letting that happen. 18 MR. DOIRON: Where is my 19 gold star? 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: See 21 Lisa. She's passing them out later. 22 You're requesting four 23 variances for the construction of a 24 proposed garage addition located at 1750 111
1 Paramount. 2 And you are the homeowner; 3 correct? 4 MR. DOIRON: Yes. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Would 6 you raise your right hand and be sworn in 7 by the secretary. 8 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 9 solemnly swear or affirm to the tell truth 10 regarding Case 03-074? 11 MR. DOIRON: Yes. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you. 13 MEMBER BRENNAN: Madam 14 Chair? 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 16 MEMBER BRENNAN: I need to 17 interrupt right now. While I just met Mr. 18 Doiron at break, his daughter and my 19 daughter are best of friends, and I 20 wouldn't want somebody to think that I had 21 any influence, and if you would rather have 22 me sit off, I'll sit off. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 24 don't. MEMBER BAUER: I 112
1 don't. 2 MEMBER GATT: I'm sure Mr. 3 Brennan can reach a decision putting aside 4 his daughter's friendship with the 5 petitioner. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Board 7 Members? 8 MEMBER REINKE: Go ahead. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 We're ready to go. 11 MR. DOIRON: First of all, 12 let me tell you that I feel like I know you 13 all already because I watch you every month 14 on T.V. Best reality show there is. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Did 16 you know that we needed an alternate? 17 That's how it first starts. 18 MR. DOIRON: My name is 19 David Doiron, of course, and I've been a 20 resident here in Novi for 32 years. About 21 five years ago I purchased this house as a 22 fixer-upper and during this period I've 23 used the basement as my shop, my basic 24 place to work and do all the improvements. 113
1 It's now time to finish the basement. I 2 need a garage, somewhere to move my tools, 3 materials, a place to secure and park my 4 car. That's my difficulty right now. 5 As you can see in your 6 packet, there is a copy of the plat for 7 Paramount Street. My lot is the smallest 8 one. Most all others are double lots or 9 they were plated across the street at a 10 different time, much larger than mine. 11 Mine is the smallest. It's also non 12 conforming, the north end. 13 I also had in your packet 14 some drawings where I could put a detached 15 garage without any variances. You can see 16 that's just impossible with that small of a 17 backyard. There would be no way to turn a 18 vehicle in there or make a jog around the 19 house to get into a garage. And that's all 20 due to the lot size and topography. If you 21 notice the boulder wall that's back there, 22 the base of that boulder wall is actually 23 about 12 inches higher than the base of the 24 house, which would mean the drainage and 114
1 everything would run towards the house. I 2 have a basement there and it might create 3 leaks. And the need for yard space, 4 putting one in the backyard would be 5 difficult and take up all the yard. 6 Where I got it proposed is 7 probably the only location, that's probably 8 the best location, and architecturally, 9 once it's done, it will look the most 10 pleasing. I do need a garage. I would 11 hate to come to this with a denial. I know 12 I would have to move because I really need 13 one, but I don't want to. I know you guys, 14 I've watched you for years, and I know 15 you've always had the best interests of the 16 homeowners of the City in mind, and I 17 respect any decision you make, and my fate 18 is in your hands. 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 20 Okay. Thank you. 21 There were 56 notices sent. 22 Three approvals. Fernanda Lavago, Stacy 23 Peterson, and Joseph and Nancy, and I'm 24 sorry, Miseron (phonetic), they're all 115
1 residents of Paramount. 2 Is there anyone in the 3 audience that wishes to speak in regards to 4 this case? 5 Seeing none, Board 6 Members -- I'm sorry, Building Department. 7 MR. SAVEN: Most of you have 8 the site plan in front of you regarding the 9 40-foot lot width. The existing home sits 10 very, very, close to the property line on, 11 basically, the southeast side. The 12 extension he's asking for is for a 12 by 21 13 square foot garage, which is 252 square 14 feet. 15 He also did present the fact 16 that he tried other configurations in the 17 back. He tried to place the garage, which 18 made it very difficult for that space. 19 Bearing in mind, this is one of these 20 things, even though this was existing -- we 21 did have the grandfathering, but 22 grandfathering is no longer part of the 23 ordinance. That's why he's got so many 24 variances that are needed. 116
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 2 Okay. Thank you. Board Members? 3 Member Gatt will go first. 4 We'll break the record here. 5 MEMBER GATT: Thank you. I 6 just have a question for you, sir. You say 7 you've lived in Novi for 32 years and you 8 bought this house as a fixer-upper. This 9 is where you live? 10 MR. DOIRON: Yes. 11 MEMBER GATT: And where you 12 intend on living? 13 MR. DOIRON: Where I plan on 14 staying, hopefully, until I require. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 16 Member Brennan. 17 MEMBER BRENNAN: Well, he 18 must watch our proceedings because he did a 19 nice job in preparing the package. We 20 would have typically wanted to explore 21 whether there's other possibilities in the 22 backyard, and you've done a nice job. For 23 the most part, you've presented hardship. 24 I think it's realistic for a person to have 117
1 a garage. And most of your -- well, I'd 2 say all of your variance requests are very 3 minimal. I'd support your request. 4 MEMBER BAUER: You did a 5 very good job. 6 MR. DOIRON: Thank you. 7 MEMBER BAUER: I can support 8 it. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 Member Reinke. 11 MEMBER REINKE: 12 Unfortunately, I guess we don't all totally 13 agree. I can't support the petitioner's 14 motion. It's too far built out on the lot 15 line. I know that may be the ideal 16 condition that the petitioner would like to 17 have, but I can't support that. In my 18 estimation, the garage has got to go in the 19 backyard, but you've got to have some 20 variance along there access-wise, and it's 21 just over built. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 23 Member Gray. 24 MEMBER GRAY: I'll throw the 118
1 second monkey wrench in the works and say 2 that I agree with Mr. Reinke. Any time I 3 see six-foot privacy fences, and I see 4 somebody wanting to build almost within two 5 feet of the fence, I have a major problem, 6 because I'm anticipating and I've seen in 7 that area also, having lived there for 8 quite sometime, when a house goes that 9 close, there's a real problem with the 10 neighbor. And when I think of our fire 11 protection officers trying to get into the 12 backyard to fight a fire and fully 13 loaded -- we had only 2.4 feet to get back 14 there -- I've got a major problem. 15 One of the criteria, of 16 course, is based on hardship. And you have 17 given us three other options, two of which, 18 I don't find feasible, but the third one, 19 which I'll call Option C, and this is the 20 kind of burgundy ink that you put on 21 showing the garage in the backyard with a 22 12 by 18 configuration, I would find more 23 amenable to the circumstances. It would 24 not take up your entire backyard. 119
1 I would be willing to, in 2 fact, negotiate on a little bit larger 3 garage, a little bit wider, understanding 4 that contouring can be done to force 5 drainage to the property line and contain 6 it with a small swale. 7 You said the base of the 8 boulder wall is 12 inches above your house 9 and the water runs downhill now. So it's 10 not going to change direction, it's still 11 going to run downhill. 12 I can't support the attached 13 garage, but I can certainly understand your 14 wanting to have a garage. I have a double 15 lot, so I have 80 feet and I don't have a 16 garage. But I would say I'd be willing to 17 consider variances if you were so inclined 18 to build a garage in your backyard. I 19 would be inclined to grant variances to 20 allow that, more than I would attached to 21 the house where you're proposing it. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: That 24 leaves me. I should have gone first. I 120
1 should have jumped out in front of 2 everybody tonight and then I could have 3 just sat here and listened. 4 I, unfortunately, am half 5 that way and half this way, and I'll tell 6 you why. 7 I agree that you did a great 8 job on your packet, and that says a lot 9 when you're looking at these packages, and 10 staying up to three in the morning watching 11 meetings and reading. I'm not trying to 12 make light of it, okay? I appreciate the 13 detail you put into this packet. It helps 14 us look at, if there are options we can 15 maybe come up with something else. 16 My concerns, and this is 17 kind of going over to the members at this 18 table, are: if you put the garage in the 19 backyard as Exhibit C -- I will concur with 20 Member Gray's calling it Exhibit C. My 21 concern is what the petitioner suggests 22 about difficulty entering the garage and 23 having the radius of turning the car 24 around. 121
1 MEMBER REINKE: (Inaudible) 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No. 3 I'm looking at the last one that Member 4 Gray just talked about, okay, being that 5 there would be no variances- 6 MEMBER GRAY: Well, there 7 might be variances. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 9 Well, okay, there could be some variances 10 on this one. But if there isn't a degree 11 of difficulty getting in -- that's a long 12 way to drive back to your garage. 13 So once I see that there is a chance of 14 building it with a lesser variance then -- 15 and I, too, cannot support building that 16 close to the property line. 17 MR. DOIRON: May I just 18 rebut that? 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 20 Certainly. 21 MR. DOIRON: The turning 22 into the garage from where it's situated on 23 that drawing getting next to the house, or 24 backing out of the garage, that was the 122
1 difficulty there. Trying to get around the 2 edge of the house to get straight into the 3 garage and backing out again. Parking it 4 would be fine, but putting it too close to 5 the boulder wall. My lot is actually a 6 little bit higher than the neighbor's lot. 7 There wouldn't be much room to put a swale. 8 If I put a swale, it would be into his 9 yard. I didn't look at all those things, 10 and that's why I put these on there so you 11 could see all of them. 12 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'd ask 13 the Building Department your thoughts on 14 the proposed plan, it being attached. Your 15 opinion on the fire and safety issues. 16 MR. SAVEN: Well, you got a 17 fire and safety issue being that close to 18 the property line, which as far as -- there 19 is certainly an issue with fire safety as 20 it relates to that exterior wall being as 21 close to the property line as it is. That 22 can be achieved in the construction aspect 23 of the issue. I just might want to ask the 24 question. If looking at what you're 123
1 proposing for a detached garage, as you can 2 see, there's been some comments here that 3 were made. If that garage was cocked in 4 such a manner that you could get closer to 5 the house, maybe by three feet, okay- 6 MR. DOIRON: You mean the 7 variance? 8 MR. SAVEN: Instead of 9 10-foot, come back where you get a 10 three-foot variance -- you follow me on 11 this? If the Board wants to say anything, 12 please jump in, whatever. And then cock 13 that garage such that you can be able to 14 come into the garage, and then be able to 15 back out, with lesser of a variance then 16 you may need to get maybe a two or 17 three-foot variance, depending on how 18 you're going to look at this angulation, 19 okay. In other words -- hold on one 20 second. 21 MR. DOIRON: Okay. 22 MR. SAVEN: It's a 23 combination of basically your second 24 submittal and your last submittal for that 124
1 size, just angle it out and get closer to 2 the house by about three-foot, and ask for 3 a lesser variance. I think this could be 4 something you could possibly achieve. 5 The Board's really looking 6 at how close you are to the property line. 7 The ability to get firefighters around that 8 wall area, especially with your fence being 9 there. That is a concern for them, and I'm 10 picking that up. I would rather have you 11 have an opening there. Yeah, something 12 like that. 13 MR. DOIRON: Correct, yeah. 14 I thought of that too. 15 MR. SAVEN: And I think you 16 were talking about having a swale 17 available- 18 MR. DOIRON: (Interposing) 19 Well, there is no swale available. That's 20 the lot that is most affected, which is 21 just a tad bit lower than mine, and as you 22 see where the boulder wall actually 23 horseshoes around the backyard? 24 MR. SAVEN: Uh-huh. 125
1 MR. DOIRON: This sheathing 2 off of the garage roof I would be very 3 concerned about. Any swales, where would I 4 take them to, to the neighbor's yard? 5 MEMBER GRAY: How soft is 6 the -- how much soft do you have between 7 the drive on the south? 8 MR. DOIRON: Right now, that 9 existing eight-foot drive, you're talking 10 about? 11 MEMBER GRAY: Yeah. 12 MR. DOIRON: There's 13 three-foot soft. 14 MEMBER GRAY: So it's not 15 inconceivable though, you can do something 16 to put some kind of drainage, PVC or 17 something, to run the water towards the 18 road? 19 MR. DOIRON: I'm sure, yeah, 20 there is a place to do it. 21 MEMBER GRAY: Well, I would 22 encourage you to explore that avenue. I 23 want to give you your garage. Believe me, 24 I want to give you your garage. 126
1 MR. DOIRON: I know you guys 2 do. I've watched. 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: If we were 4 looking at something like along these 5 lines, it's got to be renoticed; right? 6 MR. SAVEN: Yes. I would 7 ask that this gentleman take a look at that 8 and see if that's what he really wants to 9 consider. 10 MR. DOIRON: Can I speak on 11 that? 12 MR. SAVEN: Yes. 13 MR. DOIRON: It is not what 14 I would like. I think it would devaluate 15 the property, not increase it, because 16 putting the garage there actually takes 17 away all of the backyard. So the need for 18 yard space would be absolutely gone. If 19 you looked in the back yard, if you stood 20 in the backyard, you'd see that a 12 by 18, 21 a 12 by 20, any kind of garage, you're 22 setting it right in the middle of that very 23 small yard. Respectfully, I would rather 24 you just you deny this one, because there 127
1 is the best place to go. 2 MEMBER BRENNAN: Let's 3 continue some discussion. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We 5 usually get petitioners to this point and 6 then we suggest that perhaps you might want 7 to entertain tabling it because in going 8 back and looking at it again -- I know how 9 you feel right now, but if you watch us 10 you'll see that people come back a month 11 later and say, you know, I'm glad I thought 12 about it. Because what you may or may not 13 see tonight you may see in a different 14 light of day. It's that property line 15 that's the problem. 16 MR. DOIRON: I know that. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: You 18 understand that? 19 MR. DOIRON: Sure. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 21 mean, it's totally up to you. It's your 22 call, but we're willing to work with you. 23 MR. DOIRON: I know you guys 24 are. 128
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 2 That's what we would -- I don't want to use 3 the word suggest, but you may want to 4 consider that, table it, and maybe have 5 somebody else take a look at this. I'm 6 surprised that every time people do that 7 and they come back the next month, that 8 they usually come back with something 9 better for them and allows us to work with 10 them. 11 MR. DOIRON: And I do have 12 to say that I don't think I would be 13 comfortable living in the house with the 14 garage taking up the whole backyard. And 15 as much as I need one, I still would like a 16 little yard to be able to sit out there in 17 the evening and what not. 18 MEMBER BAUER: And cut a 19 little grass. 20 MR. DOIRON: Yeah, and cut 21 a little grass. Just a little. 22 I understand everything that 23 you said. If it's denied then so be it. If 24 it's not, it's approved, then I can go with 129
1 that too. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 3 Okay. All right, Board Members. 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: I think 5 we've got a different problem. I think 6 we've got a split Board and we only have 7 six people here tonight. 8 MEMBER REINKE: Let's give 9 it a try and see where we're at. Madam 10 Chairman, I'd like to make a motion in Case 11 03-074, that the variance request be denied 12 due to lot width and shape. 13 MEMBER GRAY: Support. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: The 15 motion has been made and seconded, and the 16 attorney is raising his hand. 17 Mr. Schultz. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a 19 clarification based on the comments that 20 were made by the maker of the motion 21 earlier. As I understand it, there is an 22 alternate use available with the structure 23 in the rear. 24 MEMBER REINKE: That's 130
1 correct. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 4 Thank you. Any further discussion on the 5 motion? 6 (No further 7 discussion.) 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Lisa, 9 would you please call the roll. 10 MS. McDONALD: Member 11 Reinke. 12 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 13 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray. 14 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 15 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer? 16 MEMBER BAUER: No. 17 MS. McDONALD: Member 18 Brennan. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. 20 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt. 21 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 22 MS. McDONALD: Member 23 Gronachan. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 131
1 4 to 2, so your request for 2 a variance has been denied. 3 MR. DOIRON: Thank you. I 4 respect that, but I'll still keep 5 watching. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 7 Okay. Thank you. 8 9 CASE NUMBER 03-075 10 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Case 12 Number 03-075. Radiant Sign Company, LLC 13 for American Home Fitness, located at 44225 14 Twelve Mile Road in Fountain Walk. 15 Are you Mr. Weinstock? 16 MR. WEINSTOCK: Yes, ma'am. 17 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 18 right. Mr. Weinstock, would you please 19 raise your right hand and be sworn in by 20 our secretary. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 22 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 23 regarding case 03-075? 24 MR. WEINSTOCK: Yes, I do. 132
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Go 2 ahead, please. 3 MR. WEINSTOCK: We're 4 requesting a variance for an additional 16 5 square feet for the main exterior channel 6 letter sign that faces Twelve Mile Road. 7 It's a pretty big distance from the 8 building to Twelve Mile Road. A 24-square 9 foot sign wouldn't hardly be seen. As you 10 could see the mockup, you can read the 11 lettering from Twelve Mile Road now for 12 American Home Fitness. It's not a huge -- 13 we're not asking for a lot, I don't think, 14 compared to what I've seen, you know, at 15 that plaza. 16 And as far as the second 17 sign goes, it's nine square feet. It's 18 strictly a corporate identity, their logo. 19 The reason we're asking for that one is the 20 main sign is offset to the left of the 21 door, and normally a sign would be placed 22 over the door and that sign is going to 23 help out people like leaving Galyan's 24 walking on the Fountain Walk sidewalk, 133
1 instead of looking all the way up at a main 2 sign, they can see a smaller version of a 3 corporate logo and see what's being sold in 4 that store. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 6 right. Thank you. Is there anyone in the 7 audience that wishes to make a comment in 8 regards to this case? 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 Seeing none, there were 20 notices sent, 11 zero approvals and no objections. 12 Building Department? 13 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 15 Board Members? 16 MEMBER GRAY: I have a 17 question. 18 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 19 Member Gray. 20 MEMBER GRAY: The logo 21 sign, is it going to be above the door 22 where the mockup is, or is it going to be 23 next to the door sticking out of the 24 building at a 90 degree angle? 134
1 MR. WEINSTOCK: No, it's 2 going to be above the door where the mockup 3 is. 4 MEMBER GRAY: Oh. That's 5 too bad. Okay. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 7 Member Gatt. 8 MEMBER GATT: The second 9 sign, you just answered the same question I 10 was going to ask. It just seems to me that 11 that just kind of negates what you said 12 earlier. People are still going to have to 13 look up to see the second sign. I don't 14 see the need for the second sign. 15 MEMBER BRENNAN: Same here. 16 MEMBER GATT: The first 17 sign I can live with, with the variance you 18 request, but the second sign, I don't see 19 the need for that. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 21 right. 22 Member Reinke. 23 MEMBER GRAY: You know, you 24 got signs side by side. I don't see why 135
1 the American Home Fitness can't go over the 2 door. Gives them a door sign, gives them a 3 recognition sign. Yes. 4 MR. WEINSTOCK: Well- 5 MEMBER REINKE: Wait a 6 minute. The Chairman has discretion. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Go 8 ahead. 9 MR. WEINSTOCK: The reason 10 we're not placing the sign over the door is 11 it recesses back about eight feet, and it's 12 tucked into like a little pocket. It's not 13 flush with the elevation of the front of 14 the plaza. It's kind of kicked black a 15 little bit, about eight feet, and it's 16 recessed back. Therefore, it would just 17 push it back even tighter and you really 18 wouldn't see it unless you were straight 19 on. If you were at an angle, you would be 20 blocked by the elevation that is protruding 21 out. And that's where the landlord, he 22 suggested that we put it on the outer 23 elevation to bring it out closer to the 24 street. 136
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I'm 2 confused. So if you can't see it anyways 3 from the inside, why the second sign? 4 MR. WEINSTOCK: The second 5 sign, you would see the logo if you were 6 walking from Galyan's towards the store, 7 which is right next to Galyan's. You're 8 going to get to the door before you're 9 going to see that sign. If you're standing 10 in front of the door, the logo is right 11 there. You can see through the window what 12 they're selling. We thought it would just 13 be an added- 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I'll 15 be honest. I don't know who all saw the 16 signs, but when I was out there, I didn't 17 see the second mockup. 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: I saw it. 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 20 had to really look. 21 MR. WEINSTOCK: Well, it's 22 only nine square feet. We're not asking 23 for a lot. It's strictly really for 24 somebody standing on the sidewalk in front 137
1 of the store to see it. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 3 I know it was early, but I was there. I 4 didn't find it, that's why I was just 5 saying. But the other sign, I can 6 understand it. And I drove around and did 7 it from all the other angles, but I had a 8 problem with finding the second one. 9 I'm sorry. Member Brennan. 10 MEMBER BRENNAN: I was 11 struck that these two signs were on top of 12 each other. 13 Question for Don. 14 MR. WEINSTOCK: Many 15 businesses put a decal on the glass entry 16 window, is that considered a sign? 17 MR. SAVEN: Yes, it is. 18 They can put signage in the window up to 25 19 percent. 20 MEMBER GRAY: Is the 21 American Home Fitness sign going to be lit? 22 MR. WEINSTOCK: Yes, it is. 23 MEMBER GRAY: That solves 24 the problem with seeing it. 138
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No, 2 I'm talking about the big one. 3 MR. WEINSTOCK: Yeah, the 4 big one is going to be lit. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: No 6 matter where you put it, whether it's on 7 the facade that's farther out towards 8 Twelve Mile, or one that's recessed. No 9 matter where you place it, people are going 10 to see it. And some of the comments made 11 about decals in the doors, well that's 12 going to solve the problem with your logo. 13 So I would suggest to you, make a choice 14 between one or the other and let's see how 15 we're inclined. 16 MR. WEINSTOCK: We would 17 definitely rather have the main sign. The 18 40-square foot sign. If it's a choice 19 between the two, absolutely. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Okay. 21 Go ahead, Sarah. 22 MEMBER GRAY: Madam Chair, 23 in the matter of Case Number 03-075, I 24 would move that Sign A, the 40-square foot 139
1 sign, stating American Home Fitness be 2 approved; that the variance for the 3 16-square feet be approved; and that Sign 4 B, the logo, be denied. 5 And I would say that he can 6 have discretion where he puts his sign, 7 whether it's out towards the front or the 8 recessed area for business recognition. 9 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We 11 have a motion and a second. Any further 12 discussion on the motion? 13 Seeing none, Lisa, would you 14 please call the roll. 15 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray. 16 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 17 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 19 MS. McDONALD: Member 20 Brennan. 21 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 22 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt. 23 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 24 MS. McDONALD: Member 140
1 Gronachan. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 3 MS. McDONALD: Member 4 Reinke. 5 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 7 right. At least one of the signs has been 8 approved. Okay? 9 MR. WEINSTOCK: Thank you. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 11 Thank you. Good luck. 12 MR. WEINSTOCK: Thank you. 13 14 CASE NUMBER 03-076 15 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 17 right. Our next case is 03-076, filed by 18 James Davies, 41771 Aspen. 19 Mr. Davies is requesting two 20 side yard setback variances for the 21 construction of an addition to the existing 22 attached garage at 41771 Aspen. 23 Good evening. 24 MR. POWERS. Good evening, 141
1 Board Members. I'm not Mr. Davies. My 2 name is Aaron Powers. I own Parkside 3 Property Services, and I'm asked to help 4 represent Mr. Davies before this matter. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 6 You're not an attorney; correct? 7 MR. POWERS: That is 8 correct. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 10 Okay. Will you be sworn in by our 11 secretary, please. 12 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 13 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 14 regarding Case 03-076? 15 MR. POWERS: I certainly do. 16 Mr. Davies is present. He 17 is the owner of the property. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Is he going 19 to speak? 20 MR. POWERS: Possibly, if 21 need be. 22 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: You 23 need to be sworn in as well. If you would 24 come up to the mike. 142
1 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 2 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 3 regarding Case 03-076? 4 MR. DAVIES: I do. 5 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, 6 sir. 7 MR. POWERS: As an 8 explanation, I'm somewhat familiar with the 9 property as my family members have owned 10 the property immediately to the north for 11 over 30 years, and as a city employee for 12 over ten years, I've had the responsibility 13 and pleasure of assisting the Zoning Board 14 of Appeals in the various communities I've 15 worked for. 16 Mr. Davies is before the 17 Board this evening requesting a side yard 18 variance as well as an overall total side 19 yard variance to construct a garage on his 20 residence at 41771 Aspen. Mr. Davies is a 21 motor sports enthusiast and is requesting 22 to be able to enlarge the secured storage 23 area that he has at his residence. 24 First off, I'd like to 143
1 apologize to the board of review for not 2 pointing out one very important fact. If I 3 may refer to the overhead. As is indicated 4 on the plan that you see, the area outlined 5 that was submitted with the application 6 does show the requested proposed garage 7 addition. One very important fact, I 8 believe that was left off the application, 9 is the importance in the placement of 10 what's indicated here, is the existing 11 tree. That is a 42-inch silver maple tree 12 that's directly behind the applicant's 13 property. Hopefully from the site visits 14 when you were out there, the board of 15 review -- I'm sorry, not the board of 16 review, the Board of Appeals had the 17 opportunity to inspect the rear yard and to 18 see the placement of the tree and how it 19 would severely affect the property. 20 Obviously, the first thought 21 for Mr. Davies to be able to expand the 22 size of the garage that he has out there, 23 is to immediately be able to build the 24 garage directly behind the one that is 144
1 existing. That would require, from what I 2 can gather, no variances, and the only 3 difficulty, of course, with that would be 4 that it would require the removal of the 5 silver maple tree. 6 As early as September 3 of 7 2002, Mr. Davies had inquired from forestry 8 and arborist professionals to try to 9 determine what his abilities to be to be 10 able to expand the garage directly to the 11 rear of the property -- and it's not 12 recommended, obviously, to build under the 13 canopy of the tree. And the setback from 14 the actual trunk size of the tree would 15 severely limit the ability to be able to 16 increase the garage area to the rear of the 17 property. 18 You will notice that the 19 property to the north does have an existing 20 variance at seven feet from the lot line, 21 and upon request of the subdivision 22 association there in Orchard Hills, they're 23 more than happy to allow Mr. Davies to 24 build within five feet of the lot line. 145
1 That would allow him an addition to the 2 north side of the existing garage of 6.8 3 feet, and to be able to make that room 4 somewhat usable for Mr. Davies, as he's 5 also requesting to be able to extend the 6 garage in the rear. It's just kind of a 7 proposed option of what the building permit 8 would look like. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 10 right. All set? 11 MR. POWERS: Unless there 12 are any questions from the Board, that 13 pretty much sums it up. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 15 there anyone in the audience that wishes to 16 speak on behalf of this case? 17 (There was no response 18 from the audience.) 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: There 20 were 41 notices sent. No approvals, no 21 objections. However, I will note as the 22 petitioner so stated, there is the letter 23 from the homeowners association dated May 24 31 of 2003, approving from homeowners 146
1 association. 2 Building Department? 3 MR. SAVEN: I think it was 4 stated very well. I don't see any other 5 issues here. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 7 Okay. Thank you. 8 Board Members? 9 MEMBER REINKE: I commend 10 the petitioner for the job he has done in 11 obtaining what he needs without disturbing 12 the tree, other parts and everything like 13 this. He's done a lot of work and a lot of 14 thought has gone into it. And I think the 15 variance request is minimal. I can support 16 the petitioner's request. 17 MEMBER GRAY: Ditto. 18 MEMBER BAUER: I have no 19 problem with it. 20 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 21 Member Gatt? 22 MEMBER GATT: Did you say 23 you lived just to the north? 24 MR. POWERS: I personally 147
1 don't. My mother and father-in-law do. 2 MEMBER GATT: And they have 3 no problems with this? 4 MR. POWERS: No. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Is 6 that a motion, Member Reinke? 7 MEMBER REINKE: Madam 8 Chair, in Case 03-076, I move that the 9 petitioner's variance request be granted 10 due to lot size and shape. 11 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 13 right. Motion was made and seconded. Is 14 there any further discussion on the motion? 15 Seeing none, Lisa, would you 16 please call the roll. 17 MS. McDONALD: Member 18 Reinke. 19 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 20 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 MS. McDONALD: Member 23 Brennan. 24 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 148
1 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt. 2 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 3 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray. 4 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 5 MS. McDONALD: Member 6 Gronachan. 7 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 8 Yes. 9 Your variance request has 10 been granted. Please see the Building 11 Department. 12 MR. POWERS: Thank you very 13 much. Have a good evening. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Thank 15 you. You too. 16 17 CASE NUMBER 03-077 18 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We 20 have our last case of the evening, 03-077. 21 Frederick Raymond for AT&T Wireless. 22 MR. RAYMOND: That's 23 correct. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: At 149
1 44170 2 Grand River. Mr. Raymond is requesting a 3 four-foot rear yard setback variance to 4 place an accessory structure within the 5 six-foot required rear yard setback for 6 accessory structures. 7 MR. RAYMOND: Thank you. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: You 9 are Mr. Raymond? 10 MR. RAYMOND: I am. 11 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: And 12 you are not an attorney? 13 MR. RAYMOND: I am not an 14 attorney. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 16 Would you please raise your right hand and 17 be sworn in by our secretary. 18 MEMBER BAUER: Do you 19 solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth 20 regarding Case 03-077? 21 MR. RAYMOND: Yes, I do. 22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, 23 sir. Go ahead. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 150
1 Okay. Go ahead. 2 MR. RAYMOND: I represent 3 AT&T Wireless Services and I am a Site 4 Acquisition Manager. And we have what's 5 called a search ring for our sites that is 6 dictated by the Radio Engineering 7 Department, where we need to be to get 8 adequate coverage for a given area. 9 In this search ring, as we 10 call it, there were a number of options. 11 Our preference is to co-locate wherever 12 possible. And we made attempts to 13 co-locate on the two water tanks. One at 14 the Twelve Oaks Mall and the other one at 15 the Expo Center, and we were unable to make 16 that happen. And on this site on Grand 17 River is an existing tower that was 18 originally built by Verizon, I believe, and 19 it's owned by American Tower Company. 20 And so we made application 21 to American Tower and it was granted, and 22 we presented our drawings to Mr. Schmitt, 23 to the Planning Department. And after we 24 all went through it, we discovered that 151
1 there was this problem with the rear yard 2 setback. We weren't aware of the fact that 3 there was a problem. Apparently when this 4 site was built, I think around 1996 if I'm 5 not mistaken, apparently a variance was 6 given, because the north part of the 7 compound, the fenced-in compound is on the 8 lot line, the north lot line of the 9 property. 10 Our proposal is to put up -- 11 first of all, this will be cabinets as 12 opposed to a sheltered building. And we 13 took the platform that the cabinets are 14 mounted on, it's about a foot above the 15 ground, and we placed it as close to the 16 existing shelter as possible, in an attempt 17 to obscure the equipment from being 18 observed either from Grand River or from 19 the back or either side. There is a 20 sufficient amount of plant life there, 21 trees and shrubs that do obscure the 22 facility. 23 It is our hope that you 24 would agree with our plan, and we ask your 152
1 approval for our petition. 2 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 3 right. Thank you. 4 Is there anyone in the 5 audience that wishes to make a comment in 6 regards to this case? I guess we only have 7 one person left. Would you like to make a 8 comment? 9 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, I would. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 11 right. Come on down, sir. 12 MR. RUSSELL: My name is 13 Randall W. Russell. I live at 44220 Grand 14 River, right next to this tower. I have no 15 idea how this tower ever got here. I was 16 never notified. One day it's not there, 17 the next day it is there. This is the 18 first time I've ever had a notice sent to 19 me regarding this thing. 20 I don't know anything about 21 the radio waves, I don't know anything 22 about the brain waves, I don't know 23 anything about this cabinet, whether it's 24 going -- I'm telling you, this is affecting 153
1 my dementia. I don't know why this is 2 happening. You know, maybe it's 3 coincidental with my old age, but -- you 4 know, is there some law, is there some 5 regulation as far as putting a tower like 6 this next to a residence? 7 MR. RUSSELL: I've lived 8 here for over 15 years. You know, I've 9 been before this Board before. And I want 10 to know what the heck is going on. You 11 know, I really seriously am concerned about 12 what this tower is doing to my mental 13 health. And I'm serious. Okay. So you 14 know, I'm here more for a fact finding 15 situation, and why this tower was even ever 16 allowed, and you know, as far as two feet 17 away from the variance or whatever -- you 18 know, what is the purpose of it? Is it 19 going to increase the amplitude? You know, 20 I really would just like some answers. 21 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 22 Okay. Specifically, are you- 23 MR. RUSSELL: I'm going to 24 object to anything being done with this 154
1 tower until I know what the heck is going 2 on, because I was never notified about this 3 tower being put up, and I want to know why 4 it was allowed right next to a residence. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Are 6 there some questions that we could get 7 answers to you in regards to? 8 MR. RUSSELL: You tell me. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 10 mean, is it a health concern; is it 11 something you would like to know about? 12 MR. RUSSELL: It is a health 13 concern. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Mr. 15 Schultz. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: I appreciate 17 the -- levity is always appreciated, but I 18 need to inject one very serious note in 19 here. There is, in terms of regulating the 20 placement of cellular towers, there is a 21 federal statute that governs what kind of 22 regulations a municipality can enact with 23 regard to placement of the towers. One of 24 the clear provisions of that federal 155
1 statute is that at no time is the 2 municipality permitted to consider health 3 issues which have been found in the act by 4 the federal -- United States Congress, not 5 to be an appropriate consideration for a 6 municipality. 7 I know it's very difficult 8 for residents, property owners, to accept, 9 and I absolutely can believe that, but we 10 are directed by this federal statute that 11 we are not to regulate on the basis of 12 health concerns, and that it's a land use 13 issue. In that respect, the tower is 14 there. The cabinet for the shelter for 15 what's already on the tower is there. The 16 co-location is permitted. 17 The only issue is the 18 cabinet that will relate to the permitted 19 co-location, where that gets placed on the 20 property. So I don't know if 21 Mr. Schmitt's able to comment more on the 22 approval history, but I think the Board has 23 to accept the fact that -- I hate to put it 24 that way -- have to acknowledge the fact 156
1 that the tower is there, we're just talking 2 about where the placement of the cabinet is 3 going to be. 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: So 5 noted. The only thing is, we do have a 6 resident here who had questions and that's 7 what I was just trying to address, what 8 kind of questions he had, and since we do 9 have a board here tonight, if we could get 10 answers to his questions. 11 And, basically, Mr. Schultz' 12 beginning of an explanation, I'm sure will 13 help somewhat. 14 MR. RUSSELL: So let me just 15 clarify here, that there is no regulation 16 as to the health hazards as to placements 17 of a tower? 18 MR. SCHULTZ: I cannot 19 speak to the approval process. It's not in 20 our packet, but that is correct. We do not 21 regulate in our ordinance based on concerns 22 about microwaves and radio frequencies, and 23 it is clear and a preemption in the federal 24 statute. 157
1 MR. RUSSELL: Just wanted it 2 noted. 3 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 4 Okay. Thank you. 5 MR. RUSSELL: Thank you. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 7 right. There were 13 notices sent. No 8 approvals, no objections. 9 Does the Building Department 10 have any comments? 11 MR. SAVEN: No comment. 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 13 Planning Department? 14 MR. SCHMITT: Just briefly. 15 I was thinking of the late hour and the 16 lateness of the hour some of us were here 17 last night. 18 I have in front of me the 19 Zoning Board of Appeals file. The variance 20 for the actual pole was granted January 3, 21 '96. It indicated in the minutes the tower 22 did have to go to Planning Commission and 23 City Council for special land use approval, 24 which was done in late '95, both of which 158
1 were granted. 2 Mr. Russell was noticed for 3 the variance at the time, at least in terms 4 of the records I have in front of me. So I 5 have no evidence of anything that was done 6 incorrectly in the original approval. 7 Obviously, in terms of the 8 specific proposal in front of me this 9 evening, I personally worked with Mr. 10 Raymond, and working on the site we thought 11 we had a done deal with the Expo Center 12 tower, which was going to work out very 13 nicely. Given the possible move of the Expo 14 Center fell through, and we obviously 15 looked at this site located in an 16 industrial district to the rear of the 17 property adjacent to railroad tracks, 18 certainly we felt that this was an 19 appropriate measure to suggest, and as Mr. 20 Raymond did mention, it wasn't until the 21 last minute we realized it was going to 22 require a variance, so that's why we are in 23 front of you this evening. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 159
1 right. Thank you. Board members. Member 2 Gatt? 3 MEMBER GATT: Madam Chair, 4 first of all, I have no problem with 5 granting this variance. The tower is 6 already there, it's just our consideration 7 of a variance of two feet. 8 One comment though. As a 9 young cop I used to have to walk around 10 that building all the time back in the 11 '70s, and I'm shocked at the debris and the 12 ugliness that I find back there. And I 13 asked Mr. Saven to have the Building 14 Department or the ordinance officers to at 15 least take a look and see if some law is 16 being broken or something. There's 17 abandoned cars and all kinds of junk back 18 there. It's just an eyesore. 19 MR. SAVEN: Duly noted. 20 MEMBER BAUER: I have no 21 problem with it. It's been there, so four 22 feet isn't going to make any difference. 23 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 24 right. It's four feet instead of two feet, 160
1 let's clarify. 2 Member Brennan. 3 MEMBER BRENNAN: Just for 4 those that may be watching, this is tucked 5 behind Harold's Frame Shop up against the 6 railroad tracks. So I don't think we have 7 any real big concerns. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: All 9 right. Any further discussion? Is there a 10 motion somewhere? 11 MEMBER REINKE: Hold on a 12 second. 13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I'm 14 sorry. 15 MS. McDONALD: The Agenda 16 states site of Harold's Frame Shop at 44170 17 Grand River. 18 MR. SCHMITT: The property 19 owner of record is actually a holding 20 company out of Bloomfield Hills. Grand 21 River Property, LLC. 22 MEMBER REINKE: I wonder if 23 somebody sent them a notice about their 24 property. 161
1 MR. SAVEN: As indicated, I 2 will contact the ordinance division and I 3 will forward this information to that 4 department. 5 MEMBER REINKE: Thank you. 6 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 7 Thanks. 8 MR. RAYMOND: I'd like to 9 say I don't believe that what you're 10 talking about is within the compound or the 11 area that is occupied by this equipment. 12 MEMBER GATT: It's not. 13 MR. RAYMOND: It's external 14 to it. Okay, thank you. 15 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: It's 16 just an observation the Board Members made. 17 Okay. Motion? 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: I'll make a 19 motion. 03-077, I would move that the 20 petitioner's request be granted. This is 21 an industrial site up against a railroad 22 track. It doesn't provide any negative 23 issues to this Board, I don't believe. 24 MEMBER BAUER: Second. 162
1 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 2 Motion has been moved and seconded. Is 3 there any discussion on the motion? 4 MEMBER BRENNAN: That wasn't 5 as smooth as I would have liked to have 6 said it. 7 MEMBER GRAY: It's just the 8 hour, I think. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Was 10 there something you wanted to add to that 11 -- oh, okay. 12 MR. SCHULTZ: No. I didn't 13 raise my hand. 14 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: We 15 need a little red light on your sign. 16 Lisa, would you please call 17 the roll. MS. McDONALD: Member 18 Brennan. 19 MEMBER BRENNAN: Yes. 20 MS. McDONALD: Member Bauer. 21 MEMBER BAUER: Yes. 22 MS. McDONALD: Member Gatt. 23 24 MEMBER GATT: Yes. 163
1 MS. McDONALD: Member Gray. 2 MEMBER GRAY: Yes. 3 MS. McDONALD: Member 4 Gronachan. 5 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Yes. 6 MS. McDONALD: Member 7 Reinke. 8 MEMBER REINKE: Yes. 9 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Your 10 motion has been granted -- your variance 11 has been granted, I'm sorry. Please see 12 the Building Department. 13 MR. RAYMOND: I shall. 14 Thank you very much. Long day for 15 everybody. Thank you. 16 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 17 Thank you. Okay. We have some other 18 matters. I know it's very late, especially 19 when the night before was to two-thirty. 20 We have this training 21 session. Just so the Board Members know, 22 we did attempt to get training approved for 23 the Board Members that wanted to go to 24 Grand Traverse for the annual conference, 164
1 and it has been denied, unfortunately. So 2 that's not going to be available to us. 3 And then we also have a Master Plan 4 presentation. Sarah? 5 MS. MARCHIONI: Actually, 6 the first thing was the training session. 7 I asked everyone to check their calendars 8 to see if we could be full blown out with 9 Tom. Was everyone available on that date? 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: On 11 the 22nd? MS. MARCHIONI: Yes. 12 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: I 13 am. 14 MEMBER REINKE: Would you 15 send out a confirmation? 16 MR. SCHULTZ: Again, that 17 would be at our office and we would do it 18 around, I think, five-thirty or six-thirty. 19 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Not 20 five-thirty. I can't get there by 21 five-thirty. I thought it was going to be 22 like six-thirty. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay, that's 24 fine. 165
1 MS. MARCHIONI: Okay, Item 2 2, really quickly. The Plan Review Center 3 would like to make a quick Master Plan 4 presentation. It would take approximately 5 30 minutes. If you have questions, it 6 would obviously take longer. They want to 7 know if you would meet at seven o'clock 8 before the meeting or during the meeting. 9 I believe right now we have about six 10 cases. 11 MR. SCHMITT: I want to give 12 a little extra information here. It's part 13 of our public outreach for the ongoing 14 Master Plan. We decided internally that we 15 thought it's a good idea to go to each of 16 the appointed and elected bodies, and give 17 them their own presentation, frankly, and 18 find out what the specific issues are 19 directly related to, in your case, the 20 Zoning Board of Appeals. In one case, 21 obviously, we will be going to the 22 Beautification Committee, Parks and Rec, 23 and whatnot. But you guys are going to be 24 first. So we would appreciate the 166
1 opportunity to come forward and let you 2 know how things are going and find out what 3 your views on the City are and the future 4 of Novi. 5 MS. MARCHIONI: Would you 6 prefer to do that before the meeting or 7 during? 8 MEMBER REINKE: I think 9 would it be better to do it before the 10 meeting. We wouldn't have the people here 11 expecting to go on, so I would suggest we 12 start at seven o'clock. 13 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 14 Seven, okay. 15 MS. MARCHIONI: Do you think 16 you would have a lot of questions, should 17 we do it at six-forty-five? 18 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. The 19 ZBA meeting starts at seven-thirty. 20 MS. MARCHIONI: Okay. Well, 21 I just want to make sure we have enough 22 time. 23 MR. SCHMITT: In all 24 honesty, if you have questions, further, 167
1 the web site that we're starting to work 2 on, I believe it's 3 novimasterplan.org, is going to have the 4 ability -- the same questions. Obviously, 5 we're always available during the Master 6 Plan update. We're really trying to reach 7 out and get good input from the Board, 8 because these are some of the more active 9 members of the Novi community. 10 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 11 Okay. Any other matters for discussion? 12 MEMBER GRAY: I just have 13 another quick matter. Whoever, Sarah or 14 Lisa, whoever is notifying people about 15 signs, the petitioner who was seeking to be 16 on the clock tower at the Town Center, it's 17 still up. 18 MS. MARCHIONI: Was that 19 one of the signs that was approved? 20 MEMBER BRENNAN: No. 21 Denied. 22 MS. MARCHIONI: Okay. 23 MEMBER GRAY: Thank you. 24 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: 168
1 Anything else? 2 (No further 3 discussion.) 4 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: With 5 that, I would like a motion to adjourn the 6 meeting. 7 MEMBER BAUER: So moved. 8 CHAIRWOMAN GRONACHAN: Any 9 opposed? 10 Meeting adjourned. 11 (The above proceedings 12 ended at 10:20 p.m.) 13 _ _ _ 14 15 Date approved: November 6, 2003 __________________________ Sarah Marchioni Recording Secretary 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 169
1 2 I, MAUREEN A. HARAN, do 3 hereby certify that I have recorded 4 stenographically, the proceedings had and 5 the testimony taken in the above-entitled 6 matter, at the time and place hereinbefore 7 set forth; and I do further certify that 8 the foregoing transcript, consisting of one 9 hundred thirty-nine pages (139), is a full, 10 true and correct transcript of my 11 stenographic notes. 12 13 14 15 16 17 ____________________________________ 18 Maureen A. Haran, C.S.R. 3606 19 20 21 _________________ 22 (Date) 23 24 170
|