| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting Regular Meeting - Zoning Board of Appeals,
City of Novi The Proceedings had in the above-entitled matter were taken before me, Glenn G. Miller, Notary Public within and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 W. Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, April 3, 2007. PRESENT: Timothy Shroyer, Chair 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, April 3, 2007 3 At about 7:30 p.m. 4 MR. SHROYER: Good evening, 5 everyone. I see it's 7:30 by our 6 clock, so I call the Tuesday, April 7 3, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals 8 meeting to order. 9 Robin, could we have 10 the roll call, please. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 12 MR. BAUER: Present. 13 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 14 MR. CANUP: Here. 15 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair 16 Fischer? 17 MR. FISCHER: Present. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 19 MR. GATT: Here. 20 MS. WORKING: Member 21 Krieger? 22 MS. KRIEGER: Here. 23 MS. WORKING: Member 24 Sanghvi?
4 1 MR. SANGHVI: Here. 2 MS. WORKING: Chairman 3 Shroyer? 4 MR. SHROYER: Here. 5 MS. WORKING: All members 6 presents. 7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. We 8 do have a quorum this evening. We 9 have a full board and an alternate. 10 By our bylaws the alternate is free 11 to participate in all activities this 12 evening; however, she will not be a 13 voting member. 14 Next on our agenda 15 is the Pledge of Allegiance. Member 16 Sanghvi, would you please do us the 17 honor and lead us in the Pledge. 18 (The Pledge of Allegiance 19 recited by those in 20 attendance.) 21 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. At 22 this time I'd like our Vice Chairman 23 Fisher to read the rules of conduct. 24 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr.
5 1 Chair. The full set of the rules of 2 conduct can be found on the agenda. 3 I will go through an abbreviated 4 version right now. 5 Please turn all off 6 cell phones and pagers during this 7 meeting. 8 Each person desiring 9 to address the Board shall state his 10 or her name and address. 11 Individuals will be 12 given five minutes to address the 13 Board and an extension may be granted 14 by the chairperson. 15 No person shall be 16 allowed to address the Board more 17 than once unless the chairperson 18 grants permission. 19 An a spokesperson 20 for a group shall be allowed ten 21 minutes to address the Board. 22 Thank you, Mr. 23 Chair. 24 MR. SHROYER: Thank you.
6 1 The Zoning Board of Appeals is a 2 hearing board empowered by the Novi 3 City Charter to hear appeals seeking 4 variances from the application of the 5 Novi zoning ordinances. It takes a 6 vote of at least four members to 7 approve a variance request and a vote 8 of the majority present to deny a 9 request. 10 As mentioned, the 11 Board consists of six regular members 12 and one alternate member. The 13 alternate member has the right to 14 participate in all board discussions 15 and hearings but may not vote with 16 the exception of an absence or 17 abstention of a regular Board member. 18 Is there any 19 additions or corrections to the 20 agenda? 21 MS. WORKING: Through the 22 Chair, I'd like to add under "Other 23 Matters" discussion on Glenda's at 24 Vice Chair Fischer's request at the
7 1 last meeting, and a second item 2 having to do with ZBA training dates. 3 MR. SHROYER: Okay. I'll 4 entertain a motion to approve this 5 agenda as amended. 6 MR. FISCHER: Move to 7 approve as amended. 8 MR. SANGHVI: Second. 9 MR. SHROYER: It's been 10 moved and amended, or seconded. All 11 those in favor say aye. 12 THE BOARD: Aye. 13 MR. SHROYER: Opposed? 14 All right. At this 15 point we go into our public remarks 16 activity. If there's anyone here 17 that cares to speak on any matter 18 other than an agenda item, please 19 come forward. 20 Seeing no one, we'll 21 move into our first case. 22 Case No. 07-007 23 filed by Harry Chawney of Villagewood 24 Properties, LLC for Villagewood
8 1 Place. They are requesting a one 2 sign variance for the continued 3 placement of a fifteen foot, six foot 4 high real estate marketing sign for 5 Villagewood Place, located on Kartar 6 Lane west of Haggerty between Nine 7 Mile and Ten Mile and zoned RM-1. 8 Sign variance originally approved in 9 ZBA04-092 for one year and extended 10 for one year in ZBA05-107. 11 I see the applicant 12 is already here. Would you care to 13 be sworn in by our secretary, please. 14 If you could state your name and 15 address. 16 MR. CHAWNEY: Sure. My name 17 is Harry Chawney and I live at 43420 18 West Nine Mile Road in Novi. 19 MR. GATT: Do you swear to 20 tell the truth in Case No. 07-007? 21 MR. CHAWNEY: Yes. 22 MR. SHROYER: Please present 23 your case. 24 MR. CHAWNEY: Well, a couple
9 1 years ago we converted some apartment 2 complex we own into condominiums for 3 sale and the City of Novi does allow 4 for a certain type of real estate 5 sign to be used in that situation. 6 What we did was 7 apply for a variance so the sign 8 would be the equivalent of a new 9 construction project and what I'm 10 asking for is another one year 11 continuation of that sign. Thank 12 you. 13 MR. SHROYER: You finished 14 too quick. I was digging for 15 something. All right. Do we have -- 16 Mr. Secretary, do we have any 17 notices? 18 MR. GATT: Yes. We have 859 19 notices were mailed. We have one 20 approval and nine objections. 21 The approval is from 22 George Mortimer of Villagewood Lane. 23 He states, "I do not object to this 24 sign."
10 1 An objection from J. 2 Garvey on Renford Road. "This sign 3 is unsightly and ugly. It distracts 4 from the aesthetics around it. I 5 feel it lowers the property value of 6 my complex. This gentleman, even 7 though we opposed it in the past, was 8 given a variance. He has had his 9 turn and it is now our turn to have a 10 good looking main entrance to our 11 complex without distraction. This is 12 his first unsightly condition." 13 Mr. Samuel Pollack 14 of Stonehenge Boulevard objects. He 15 states, "I strongly object. Too many 16 signs already. Tired of looking at 17 signs." 18 We have an objection 19 from Carol Rhoden of Talvert Road. 20 No comments. 21 We have an objection 22 from Robin Wagner of Villagewood 23 Circle. "This sign was already 24 changed and updated two weeks ago.
11 1 The owner has sold only one unit 2 since the last variance request. 3 There are still approximately 20 of 4 24 units vacant. Will this variance 5 request create sales or will I still 6 be looking at vacant units in 7 February of 2008? The unsold units 8 are spoiling our neighborhood. They 9 are not worth the current asking 10 price." 11 An objection from 12 Margaret Wood on North Rockledge. 13 "If there is an ordinance in place, 14 and clearly there is, it should be 15 followed." 16 And an objection 17 from Stephanie Peg of Stonehenge 18 Boulevard. "Bigger is not always 19 better. The larger sign will not 20 market the property better than the 21 smaller. A 15 square foot sign will 22 overpower the landscape. Just to let 23 you know, this property is for sale." 24 We have an objection
12 1 from Ellen Helachik of Talpert 2 Street. No comments. 3 We have an objection 4 from Linda and Warren Kolov of 5 Danbury Street. "We object because 6 it has a negative impact upon the 7 appearance of the city. We don't 8 need or want billboards in our 9 community. If this sign variance is 10 again approved, it will encourage 11 other businesses to follow suit. We 12 have an appealing community and we 13 would like to keep it that way." 14 An objection from 15 Judy Groman on North Rockledge. "I 16 think the City of Novi code of 17 ordinances should not be changed for 18 Mr. Harry Chawney." That's it. 19 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 20 Mr. Chawney, please 21 have a seat. We'll call you when we 22 need you. 23 At this point, is 24 there anyone in the audience prepared
13 1 to speak? 2 Seeing none, I turn 3 it over to the City. Is there any 4 comments from the City Building 5 Department? Mr. Amolsch. 6 MR. AMOLSCH: We've just 7 given you a copy of a picture of the 8 sign which currently stands, which 9 has a little addition to it, which 10 wasn't part of the 11 originally-approved sign variance, 12 which increases the square footage of 13 the sign but it doesn't follow the 14 legal notices. 15 MR. SHROYER: You're talking 16 about the appenditure, the segment 17 off to the side? 18 MR. AMOLSCH: Yes. 19 MR. SHROYER: At this time 20 I'll open it up to members of the 21 Board. Mr. Canup, Member Canup. 22 MR. CANUP: I think in light 23 of the fact that there's a comment 24 that in one year they sold one unit.
14 1 Is that correct? 2 MR. CHAWNEY: Yes, last year 3 we sold one unit. 4 MR. CANUP: What could you 5 say? He needs all the help he can 6 get. 7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you, 8 Member Canup. Anyone else? Member 9 Fischer. 10 MR. FISCHER: A question for 11 the attorney. Can we act on this 12 tonight given the fact that this 13 square footage has technically 14 changed and should not be re-noticed? 15 MS. OZGA: Do you know how 16 much the square footage has changed? 17 MR. AMOLSCH: No. It's 18 probably maybe one, one-and-a-half 19 square feet, but it was never applied 20 for. 21 MS. OZGA: Since this is a 22 different -- since this would be a 23 different sign and not technically 24 requesting just an extension, this
15 1 would be a larger sign, and I would 2 suggest that you re-notice it so that 3 the notice is accurate and exactly 4 what they are requesting. The notice 5 says a 15 square foot, 6 foot high 6 sign. 7 MR. SHROYER: Back to Member 8 Canup. 9 MR. CANUP: If we wanted to 10 act on this this evening, we could 11 act on it within the 15 square feet 12 and it would be their problem to 13 straighten it out and reduce the size 14 of the sign. 15 MR. SHROYER: Member Bauer. 16 MR. BAUER: I will go along 17 with the last member. We got to get 18 rid of that add-on, too. 19 MR. SHROYER: Mr. Chawney, 20 first of all, do you have a picture 21 of the current, the one you're 22 requesting? 23 MR. CHAWNEY: Not right with 24 me.
16 1 MR. SHROYER: Could you 2 please put this on the overhead so 3 our audience could see what we're 4 talking about. Member Fischer. 5 MR. FISCHER: Can you give 6 us some facts or statistics on your 7 occupancy right now, how many you are 8 marketing and how many you have sold? 9 MR. CHAWNEY: We have 24 10 units in the complex; we've sold six 11 so far. 12 MR. FISCHER: Six units 13 sold, and that is one more than last 14 year; is that correct? 15 MR. CHAWNEY: Yes. 16 MR. FISCHER: If I could add 17 to Member Canup's comments that while 18 this is a little larger than I would 19 like to see, given the hard economic 20 times and in an area of the city 21 where residents aren't always looking 22 for things to be sold, a lot of the 23 times on the west end of the city 24 that's where you'll find a lot of
17 1 development, a lot of houses for 2 sale, and I think this petitioner 3 does need all the help he can get. 4 If I remember correctly from last 5 year, too, what were the prices at 6 that time, weren't they a little bit 7 higher? 8 MR. CHAWNEY: Yes, sir, 9 between 10 and $15,000 higher. We've 10 been lowering -- we've actually 11 lowered the price twice. 12 MR. FISCHER: So you have 13 been making an effort in price as 14 well, so I believe this is necessary 15 at this time. I would be willing to 16 afford a one year extension. Thank 17 you, Mr. Chair. 18 MR. SHROYER: Before we move 19 on, let me ask a question of the 20 applicant. 21 Knowing what was 22 just stated by our attorney and 23 discussed here with the Board if the 24 additional sign has to be re-noticed,
18 1 etcetera, do you have a preference as 2 to whether or not we would act on the 3 current size now or not act on it, in 4 other words, deny it and then come 5 back? 6 MR. CHAWNEY: I can actually 7 remove the extension. That's no 8 problem. 9 MR. SHROYER: So you prefer 10 to go ahead and -- 11 MR. CHAWNEY: Yeah, let's 12 just do -- we can do it tonight. 13 That would be fine. 14 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Thank 15 you. 16 Another member of 17 the Board. Member Gatt. 18 MR. GATT: I echo Vice 19 Chairman Fischer's comments. I think 20 that with things that are going on 21 right now economically everyone can 22 use all the help they can get. A 23 one-year extension, especially with 24 the reduction in the prices of the
19 1 condos and the fact it isn't doing 2 very well selling them, I think that 3 this can only help him and this is 4 definitely a need of his to help him 5 sell all the units that he has 6 available. Thank you. 7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 8 Prepared to make a motion? Member 9 Canup. 10 MR. CANUP: I would make a 11 motion in case 07-007 that we grant 12 the variance as requested based on as 13 stated. 14 MR. BAUER: Second. 15 MR. SHROYER: It's been 16 moved and seconded. Is there any 17 findings that need to attach to this? 18 Yes. 19 MS. OZGA: Are you saying as 20 stated meaning the petitioner has 21 established a practical difficulty in 22 maintaining the current sign? 23 MR. CANUP: The current sign 24 as stated size-wise was my intention
20 1 for that. The 15 square foot, take 2 off that loft sign. Is that what you 3 were looking for? 4 MS. OZGA: Yes, I was just 5 clarifying that. Thank you. 6 MR. SHROYER: Is that enough 7 for our motion then? 8 MS. OZGA: If you're 9 including in that the practical 10 difficulty as stated by the applicant 11 and as stated by the Board, then that 12 would be sufficient. 13 MR. SHROYER: Is that okay 14 with you for the second? All right. 15 It's been moved and 16 seconded. Robin, please call the 17 roll. 18 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 19 MR. CANUP: Yes. 20 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 21 MR. BAUER: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Member 23 Sanghvi? 24 MR. SANGHVI: Yes.
21 1 MS. WORKING: Chairman 2 Shroyer? 3 MR. SHROYER: Yes. 4 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 5 MR. GATT: Yes. 6 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair 7 Fischer? 8 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 9 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 10 6-0. 11 MR. CHAWNEY: Thank you. 12 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 13 For those of you 14 that don't know, this is my first 15 meeting chairing and I've already 16 made an error. We missed the 17 approval of the minutes. So I'll 18 have to back up a bit here and 19 address the approval of the minutes 20 for February 6, 2007. 21 Are there any 22 corrections or additions to the 23 minutes? 24 MR. BAUER: I move they be
22 1 accepted as written. 2 MR. FISCHER: Support. 3 MR. SHROYER: They've been 4 moved by Member Bauer, seconded by 5 Member Fisher. All in favor say aye. 6 THE BOARD: Aye. 7 MR. SHROYER: Opposed same 8 sign. 9 The motion has been 10 approved to approve the minutes for 11 February 6, 2007. All right. 12 Moving on to the 13 next case. Case number 07-006, filed 14 by John W. Carpenter, for 1328 East 15 Lake Drive. Applicant is requesting 16 nine setback variances for the 17 construction of a new home and 18 unenclosed wood deck at said address. 19 Applicant is requesting an east front 20 yard setback variance of 19 feet, a 21 west rear yard setback variance of 22 12.1 feet, a north side yard setback 23 variance of 6.2 feet, a south side 24 yard setback variance of 11 feet,
23 1 with an aggregate total of two side 2 yards of 17.25 feet and a total lot 3 coverage variance of ten percent. 4 Additionally, the 5 applicant is requesting a north side 6 yard setback variance of 2 foot 4 7 inches and a 6-foot-6 inch southwest 8 side yard setback for the 9 construction of an unenclosed wood 10 deck. 11 Is the applicant 12 here and would you come forward, 13 please. State your name and address 14 and be sworn in by our secretary. 15 MR. CARPENTER: John 16 Carpenter. The address is 1021 17 Willow Lane, Howell, Michigan, that's 18 where I live now, and the house that 19 -- we also have a residence at Novi 20 here, 1328 East Lake Drive. 21 MR. GATT: Please raise your 22 right hand. 23 MR. SHROYER: If both of you 24 are going to speak then --
24 1 MR. CARPENTER: Yes. This 2 is my wife. 3 MR. GATT: Do you both swear 4 to tell the truth in case number 5 07-076? 6 MR. CARPENTER: Yes. 7 MRS. CARPENTER: Yes. 8 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 9 Please present your case. 10 MR. CARPENTER: Well, we 11 moved into the area about four years 12 ago and in that house and we talked 13 about it a long time ago, we love it 14 here, we like Novi, and want to 15 retire here. And this house needs to 16 be torn down because we lived in it a 17 couple years and it almost killed us 18 because of the way it's built, it's 19 old. It's a cottage that was 20 remodeled once. And we'd like to 21 tear it down and put a new, nice 22 structure that fits the neighborhood 23 and something that we can live in. 24 MRS. CARPENTER: It was an
25 1 old cottage that somebody had 2 remodeled. It was so cold in the 3 winter John has to wear a hat to bed 4 because there's no insulation. And 5 we love the lake, but we just have to 6 have something better and all we're 7 asking is to build something that we 8 could be comfortable in for the rest 9 of our life. It sounds so 10 complicated when you read all these 11 variances, but we're really not 12 asking to do anything more than some 13 of the other neighbors haven't done 14 already. 15 MR. SHROYER: Anything else? 16 MRS. CARPENTER: And it's 17 going to be a really pretty house, 18 quite prettier than it is now, and 19 I'm sure you all have pictures of it 20 because we submitted this. 21 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 22 Mr. Secretary, 23 please tell us about any 24 correspondence.
26 1 MR. GATT: There were 40 2 notices mailed. Zero approvals; one 3 objection. The objection was from 4 Mr. Robert Salomon. He lives on East 5 Lake Road. He states, "Sirs: I am 6 incensed and outraged that Mr. 7 Carpenter proposes to build a house 8 south of mine in variance of setbacks 9 and lot coverage. Such variances 10 would ruin my privacy and view. What 11 is the purpose of a zoning ordinance 12 if not to protect the rights of 13 property owners and the quality of 14 life in the community. I pay high 15 property taxes based not so much on 16 the size of my 1,800 square foot home 17 but because of the lakefront location 18 and lake view. To allow construction 19 exceeding the required variances 20 would greatly diminish my view and my 21 property value. 22 " I, therefore, 23 vehemently object to the Zoning Board 24 of Appeals allowing any variance and
27 1 the enforcement of the code of 2 ordinances in this matter." 3 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. Is 4 there anyone audience that cares to 5 come forward and speak? 6 Please come forward. 7 Let him come to the mike, please, and 8 be sworn in. You were sworn in the 9 last meeting. Correct? 10 MR. SALOMON: I don't think 11 I was sworn in because the case 12 wasn't heard officially because the 13 Carpenters weren't able to make the 14 meeting. 15 MR. SHROYER: Please give 16 your name and address. 17 MR. SALOMON: My name is 18 Robert Salomon and I live at 1326 19 East Lake Road in Novi. 20 MR. GATT: Do you swear to 21 tell the truth regarding case number 22 07-006? 23 MR. SALOMON: I do. 24 MR. GATT: Thank you.
28 1 MR. SALOMON: I came to the 2 last meeting for the same reason I'm 3 coming to this meeting and that is 4 basically to express what I said in 5 the letter, that unfortunately -- the 6 Carpenters are lovely people and I 7 really don't want any kind of bad 8 feelings, but, unfortunately, it 9 would really ruin my southern view. 10 I was foolish enough to allow the 11 building of a large house north of me 12 and now I have -- before I had a 13 great view of the lake and now I have 14 a great view of a brick wall, and I 15 think the same thing would happen. 16 And I, frankly, have 17 a very good southerly view from my 18 home and, unfortunately, even though 19 the variances they are requesting, as 20 they say are not tremendous, to me 21 they are tremendous. They would 22 greatly impair my privacy and my view 23 and I just think that it's wrong. 24 When my house was
29 1 constructed a number of years ago, 2 this Board did not allow -- I was 3 told that this Board did not allow 4 one millimeter of variance in the 5 zoning ordinance and as a result the 6 house was reconstructed on exactly 7 the same footprint as it was 8 originally built. And I just think 9 that's the way things -- I deserve 10 equal protection under the law, and 11 that's basically all I have to say. 12 MR. SHROYER: Thank you very 13 much. 14 Anyone else in the 15 audience that cares to speak? Seeing 16 none, we will be turning it over to 17 the City. Is there someone that 18 wants to speak on the City's behalf? 19 MR. FOX: If it pleases the 20 Board, I'd like to mention that the 21 north setback that they are proposing 22 is actually less of a setback than 23 the existing house now has by the 24 6.25 feet. It is existing
30 1 approximately ten feet now. And the 2 south side yard setback is actually 3 going to be increased by about four 4 more inches. They are intending to 5 roughly center the house on the lot, 6 but they are increasing it on the 7 north side and decreasing the setback 8 by a small amount on the south side. 9 MR. SHROYER: Which side is 10 the lake side? 11 MR. FOX: I'm sorry. The 12 north side is adjacent to the 13 homeowner and the south side is next 14 to the empty parcel. The lake is on 15 the west side. 16 MR. SHROYER: The southern 17 view he was referring to bends 18 around. 19 MR. FOX: I'm just giving 20 information that they didn't quite 21 give you as far as what the setbacks 22 were going to be doing. 23 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Anyone 24 else from the City? We'll turn it
31 1 over to the Board. If they have 2 questions for you, you can address 3 those questions. Member Canup. 4 MR. CANUP: The major 5 question I have is, where are you 6 going to park? The front yard will 7 have 11 feet. The side yard, your 8 north side yard, would have 3.75 9 feet, the south side yard would have 10 four feet. So we got 11 feet from 11 the front of the house to the road, 12 and unless we come up with some real 13 good answers this can't happen. 14 MRS. CARPENTER: That's all 15 we have now with the existing house. 16 MR. CARPENTER: Right now 17 with the existing house there is no 18 garage and this house we can eke in a 19 one-car garage and have two parking 20 spaces out front. Because right now 21 we can park in front of the house 22 long ways and there's one other 23 parking spot to the side. So it's 24 pretty much staying the same as it is
32 1 now. 2 MR. CANUP: It's 11 feet. 3 Eleven feet is basically maybe less 4 than the length of this table and you 5 cannot get a car in there except 6 crossways. 7 MRS. CARPENTER: That's all 8 we have now then. 9 MR. CARPENTER: Here's what 10 is existing. There's the existing 11 house on the left with the two 12 parking spaces. 13 MR. CANUP: You show a car 14 parked there on the north side. I'm 15 assuming that's the north side where 16 the car is parked parallel to the 17 house. 18 MR. CARPENTER: Yes, that's 19 the north side. 20 MR. CANUP: That obviously 21 is not four feet in there. 22 MR. CARPENTER: No, not now. 23 MR. CANUP: It has 3.75 feet 24 in there.
33 1 MR. CARPENTER: There will 2 be a garage there when it's done, a 3 garage door when it's done, and the 4 edge of the garage will be four feet 5 from the lot line. 6 MR. CANUP: So that area 7 that we see with the car parked there 8 will actually be a garage area? 9 MR. CARPENTER: Right, 10 exactly. Where you see that car 11 parked now will be a garage area. 12 The front will stay pretty much the 13 same as it's there now, 11 feet. 14 MR. CANUP: Okay. Thank 15 you. 16 MR. SHROYER: Member Bauer. 17 MR. BAUER: Yes. You have 18 the garage there. You show a car 19 that's parked there and by the amount 20 of space that I've got you're going 21 to be very, very close being next to 22 that street. I can't go for that. 23 It's got to be back enough place for 24 people to park that are going to be
34 1 not near the road. This is 2 considered new construction for us, 3 not for what has been there and what 4 you want to tear down. 5 MRS. CARPENTER: The house 6 isn't going to be out any further 7 than what it is now. 8 MR. BAUER: I know, but it's 9 new construction, so you're going to 10 have to move that back because you 11 can't get two cars in there. 12 MRS. CARPENTER: We can fit 13 two cars there. 14 MR. BAUER: But they're 15 still going to be very, very close to 16 the street. 17 MRS. CARPENTER: But they 18 are now. If we cannot build a 19 house -- 20 MR. SHROYER: We don't need 21 a discussion back and forth. Keep it 22 simple, please. 23 MR. CARPENTER: We'll just 24 leave it as it is and walk.
35 1 MR. SHROYER: Anything else? 2 MR. BAUER: Yes, that's all. 3 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 4 Any other members? As we're waiting, 5 I'll speak. 6 The biggest concern 7 I have is the neighbors' view. Any 8 time we look at lake property, I'm 9 always concerned about blocking off 10 the view because that's one of the 11 main reasons people build on a lake 12 and why they live on a lake. The 13 pictures provided and the statement 14 from the City of only adding an 15 additional four inches on the 16 backside, I'm still getting the -- 17 four inches on the south side. 18 How far is the lake side being 19 extended of the house? 20 MR. CARPENTER: I can show 21 you a picture of that roughly. This 22 picture shows -- my finger is the 23 back existing house. It will come 24 back another eight feet to there and
36 1 then go up and Dr. Bob's window up 2 here, his bedroom window, yes, it 3 will be pretty much looking at a 4 brick wall, yes, but his deck still 5 goes out past ours and be in line 6 with it. 7 Frankly, gentlemen, 8 I just don't know how we put any 9 other structure on there with a 10 garage because if you're going to 11 tear down a house to build a new 12 house you're going to have a garage. 13 Right now this one doesn't. It would 14 be much nicer to have a garage to 15 keep the cars or the car off of the 16 street and there would be one 17 additional space in front. 18 MR. SHROYER: The renderings 19 you provided us does presents us with 20 a very attractive house. As I 21 mentioned, I always do have concerns 22 about blocking any type of view of 23 the lake. Eight foot is a ways to go 24 back.
37 1 MRS. CARPENTER: We took 2 every consideration in reference to 3 Bob Salomon because we made sure 4 there was at least an eight foot 5 variance between the property so that 6 we could landscape the properties. 7 We always wanted that fence removed. 8 We wanted to put a dock out that we 9 could share. We contacted him and we 10 discussed that with him. I know he 11 still disapproves of it, but, you 12 know, we're not asking for anything 13 that three or four other houses down 14 the line haven't done already and 15 they don't have any more parking than 16 we do. 17 MR. SHROYER: We do need to 18 look at each individual applicant 19 separately. 20 MRS. CARPENTER: We have 21 pictures. 22 MR. SHROYER: We can't 23 compare. 24 Any other comment?
38 1 Member Gatt. 2 MR. GATT: First of all, I 3 think the proposed house that you 4 guys are intending to build is quite 5 lovely, only in my wildest dreams I 6 think, but you never know. I think 7 that we look at this in all the 8 situations on this lakefront 9 property. They're very strange sized 10 lots and I think in this particular 11 situation this is pretty much the 12 best that you're going to get, the 13 proposal that they're offering. I 14 know that everyone isn't going to be 15 happy with every single decision 16 that's made on every case, but I 17 don't know how someone could be 18 really complaining about the proposal 19 in this particular situation. 20 I think that they're 21 going to have a lovely home. I think 22 that the decks of both houses, their 23 neighbor's house and their house, are 24 going to have a beautiful view of our
39 1 wonderful lake. And I think that 2 considering that these people are 3 going to be constructing another home 4 that is going to be paying taxes, 5 that is going to be living in the 6 city, I think that this is the best 7 scenario for this type of land, this 8 lakefront land. 9 I assume that 10 they've done a lot of different 11 mock-up scenarios, things like that, 12 I can only imagine the different 13 choices that you had, and I think 14 that this is something that's going 15 to kind of work, maybe not the best 16 for every situation in all the 17 different aspects of this, but I 18 think this is the best case scenario 19 for this with building a new home on 20 this property. 21 I'm in favor of the 22 changes or the variances that are 23 being requested, however, I can 24 listen to the other Board members for
40 1 different points of view, but I think 2 in this particular situation, just 3 like a lot of these situations on 4 this lake, this is going to be one of 5 those best case scenario things. 6 Thank you. 7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you, 8 Member Gatt. Member Fisher. 9 MR. FISCHER: Could you put 10 this rendering back up for me? I 11 have a quick question on it. It's 12 difficult when you're looking at a 13 house this big. That car right 14 there, the picture before we saw that 15 a car could fit next to the house, 16 but now you're going to have four 17 feet to your lot line. Is that 18 technically going to be your property 19 or your driveway or is this -- 20 MR. CARPENTER: The 21 rendering of that car being outside 22 the -- it's in the wrong spot. It 23 really should have been placed in 24 front of the garage then that would
41 1 be more accurate, sure. 2 MR. FISCHER: Okay. My next 3 question is, with less than four feet 4 on the north side and less than, or 5 just about four feet on the south 6 side, if there is any reason to get 7 behind the house, how are you 8 proposing to do that, with any large 9 pieces of equipment? Or if an 10 emergency happens and emergency 11 personnel need to get back there, how 12 would you propose they get back 13 there? 14 MR. CARPENTER: That lot 15 that is south of us is an access lot. 16 It will probably never be built on 17 because it has shared ownership by 18 three or four, four homes on the 19 other side of the street, and that's 20 always going to be an access lot for 21 them. And the person that claims he 22 owns it says they would never let 23 them build on it because it was too 24 narrow to the water's edge. Besides
42 1 they couldn't because the other 2 people that own it, too, have an 3 access, have a perpetual easement 4 over that lot. 5 So I guess that's 6 called an access lot on the lake, not 7 that it will ever have a boat launch 8 in it because next to that lot is 9 another lot that's an access lot for 10 the subdivision that's behind there. 11 And we've already contacted the 12 people that have that lot and we told 13 them during construction we were 14 going to want assurances that we can 15 use that lot for staging and we'll 16 bring it back to its original or 17 better condition. So we'll go that 18 route as far as construction goes and 19 if we ever had to get something back 20 behind it, that lot is always going 21 to be open. 22 MR. FISCHER: A question for 23 the city attorney or the City. Is it 24 possible for that lot to ever be
43 1 built, is it possible at all? 2 MR. CARPENTER: To be honest 3 -- I don't want to interrupt you. 4 MR. FISCHER: I'm asking for 5 clarification from the City at this 6 point. Thank you, though. 7 MS. OZGA: If I may, I don't 8 know the history of the ownership of 9 the lot, if there's any sort of deed 10 restrictions or anything like that. 11 Without knowing that, if just one or 12 two people that own the lot, it may 13 be their word that they're not going 14 to build on that, but without knowing 15 the history and -- there could 16 possibly be a deed restriction on 17 that, but I haven't been given any 18 information so I don't know if there 19 are any restrictions that would 20 prohibit any construction on that 21 particular piece. 22 MR. FISCHER: I guess that's 23 kind of what I -- if I won the 24 lottery yesterday and I walk in with
44 1 a million dollars, could I buy it 2 from them and build something on it? 3 MR. CARPENTER: I do have a 4 copy of the deed restriction that my 5 neighbor brought to me. 6 MR. FOX: If the possibility 7 does exist that somebody proposed to 8 build on this, they would definitely 9 have to come to this Board for 10 approval. It is a very small lot. 11 There's no dimensions on it so 12 there's nothing really I could say a 13 hundred percent, but it definitely 14 would require setback variances to do 15 any type of construction on it. 16 MR. FISCHER: Understood. 17 MR. SHROYER: Member Canup. 18 Oh, I'm sorry. 19 MR. FISCHER: I'll say thank 20 you from the City. 21 MR. SHROYER: Please, retain 22 the floor. 23 MR. FISCHER: How many 24 square feet are you looking at for
45 1 this property? 2 MR. CARPENTER: Roughly the 3 first and second floor is about 2,600 4 square feet. 5 MR. FISCHER: In conclusion, 6 after my questions have been 7 answered, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure 8 that this proposal is the right one 9 for this lot. I do still have some 10 safety concerns regarding the north 11 and south lot lines. I feel that the 12 -- there is a way to work around 13 this. We've seen it done before 14 where houses of this nature have been 15 built but have not needed such high 16 variances and such a large number of 17 variances as well. 18 The lot coverage 19 points to me that this is 20 overbuilding the lot. When we look 21 as this Board, we have to make sure 22 that the petitioner themselves, they 23 can reap benefits of owning this 24 property, but we also have to look at
46 1 surrounding property owners and their 2 rights. And I believe that some of 3 these setback requests are 4 self-created and I think that failure 5 to grant relief does not unreasonably 6 prevent the owner from using the lot 7 as he can. I feel that allowing all 8 these variances will interfere with 9 some of the other property owners, 10 with their rights and with their 11 light and air restrictions and won't 12 result in justice being done for the 13 property owners surrounding this 14 area. So I cannot be in support of 15 this. 16 I believe there are 17 other options that can be looked at 18 where less would meet their needs, 19 meet their rights, but also meet the 20 rights of all other property owners. 21 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 22 MR. SHROYER: Member Canup. 23 MR. CANUP: Every time I 24 walk into the Kroger store or walk
47 1 out of the Kroger store at Beck Road 2 and Grand River I shutter because of 3 the mistake that was made in the 4 design of that property in reference 5 to cars and traffic that moves 6 through there. And so, with that, 7 every time I walk out of there I 8 think if I have anything to say about 9 it this is not going to happen again. 10 I think until that 11 is addressed, at least from my 12 standpoint, I would not be willing to 13 grant a variance in this case or vote 14 positive for a variance in this case. 15 If there is no 16 further discussion, I'd make a 17 motion. 18 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, if 19 it would please the Board, perhaps if 20 the Carpenters wanted to request a 21 tabling of this case, maybe they 22 could take a step back, take a deep 23 breath and see if there isn't 24 something they could reconfigure it
48 1 and come back before you with an 2 alternate plan. 3 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 4 After hearing 5 comments from the various Board 6 members and the concerns that they 7 raised about some of the setback 8 requests, do you feel you'd like to 9 have the case tabled and come back at 10 a later date with perhaps an 11 alternate plan? 12 MR. CARPENTER: We have so 13 much invested already with the 14 architect fees and all the other 15 things just to get here. 16 MRS. CARPENTER: We'll just 17 rent it out. 18 MR. CARPENTER: I would like 19 Justin to help me, though. If we 20 tabled it for a month, I'd like you 21 to help me figure out what would look 22 good on there and how much because 23 we've already gone through this. So 24 I'd like you to see how hard it would
49 1 be to remove eight feet here or two 2 feet there and then what would you be 3 left with to build, you know, 4 anything that's liveable. 5 MR. FISCHER: To be quite 6 honest, sir, obviously we can't rent 7 our services out and while I would 8 like to I don't think that would be 9 in the best interest of the City, 10 first of all. 11 Second of all, the 12 burden of these hearings is on the 13 petitioner to prove that they can't 14 do anything less, and that burden has 15 not been met in my eyes. So if you'd 16 like to table it and maybe take 17 another crack from that angle and say 18 this is why we have to protrude in 19 the rear end and block our neighbor's 20 view, this is why it has to happen 21 because it can't be done any other 22 way, maybe you should take Miss 23 Working's recommendation and do that, 24 but until those burdens are met by
50 1 the petitioner I cannot support this 2 case. 3 MRS. CARPENTER: Yeah, 4 but -- 5 MR. FISCHER: I'm sorry, Mr. 6 Chair -- 7 MR. CARPENTER: Do you know 8 what's there? Have you seen the lot? 9 MR. SHROYER: We are not 10 here to argue. We give you the 11 reasons, the Board has expressed 12 their concerns, we gave you an option 13 to have it tabled. At this point 14 I'll entertain a motion. 15 MR. CANUP: I would make a 16 motion that in Case No. 07-006 that 17 we deny the request as stated due to 18 hardships that are caused on the 19 adjacent properties and to the fact 20 that it grossly lacks in parking 21 space in the front yard which would 22 be on a thoroughfare type of street. 23 MR. BAUER: Second. 24 MR. SHROYER: Can we expound
51 1 upon that perhaps sighting practical 2 difficulty is not met, the applicant 3 hasn't shown proof, or perhaps 4 another Board member would care to 5 make recommendations for an addendum? 6 MR. CANUP: I would 7 entertain help with that. 8 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 9 Member Fischer. 10 MR. FISCHER: Mr. Chair, if 11 the petitioner would recognize in the 12 motion that the burden of proof that 13 was looked upon by the Board was a 14 practical difficulty as opposed to a 15 hardship. That would be my first 16 recommendation. 17 I would also state 18 that the petitioner did not meet that 19 burden of proof because they did not 20 prove that the request was not 21 self-created. They did not prove 22 that -- 23 MR. CARPENTER: Give us 24 another chance to prove, Tim.
52 1 Justin, give us another -- 2 MR. SHROYER: Hold on, 3 please. 4 MR. FISCHER: They did not 5 prove that failure to grant relief 6 will prevent or limit the use of the 7 property in another manner and will 8 result in substantially more than a 9 mere inconvenience or an ability to 10 obtain a higher economic or financial 11 return, that they did not prove that 12 a substantial justice was done to 13 themselves but also the adjacent 14 property owners. 15 MR. CANUP: Enter those into 16 my motion. 17 MR. BAUER: Second. 18 MR. SHROYER: A motion has 19 been made and seconded. 20 Question for the 21 attorney. The applicants are having 22 second thoughts and would care to 23 speak further. Since a motion is on 24 the floor, do we have that option
53 1 available to us to allow them to 2 speak? 3 MS. OZGA: Normally when a 4 motion is on the floor, you're 5 restricted to comments of just the 6 Board. If you want to withdraw the 7 motion and allow the petitioner to 8 speak, you could do that, but you've 9 given the petitioner the opportunity 10 to speak, you've given the petitioner 11 the opportunity to request a table to 12 the next meeting. So it's up to the 13 Board if you would like to but you do 14 not have to. 15 MR. SHROYER: Is there any 16 members on the Board that want to 17 request the motion be removed? 18 MR. SANGHVI: Carry on and 19 continue the business of the Board. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Robin, 22 would you please call the roll. 23 MS. WORKING: Is there any 24 further discussion, Mr. Chair?
54 1 MR. SHROYER: The motion is 2 accepted. No further. 3 MR. BAUER: Second. 4 MR. SHROYER: The motion has 5 been passed. There will be no 6 further discussion. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 8 MR. CANUP: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 10 MR. BAUER: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member 12 Fischer, Vice Chair Fischer? 13 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 15 MR. GATT: Yes. 16 MS. WORKING: Chairman 17 Shroyer? 18 MR. SHROYER: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Member 20 Sanghvi? 21 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny 23 passes 6-0. 24 MR. SHROYER: I'm sorry.
55 1 Your motion has been denied. 2 MR. CARPENTER: We're sorry. 3 A for sale sign will be up next week. 4 MR. SHROYER: Moving on to 5 the next case, Case No. 07-009, filed 6 by Mark Smith of Gus O'Connor's 7 located at 42875 Grand River Avenue. 8 Whereas the applicant is requesting a 9 variance to a previously granted 10 variance in ZBA 05-091, which 11 stipulated the petitioner remove the 12 14.5 square foot Gus O'Connor gold 13 wall sign over the door located at 14 42875 Grand River Avenue. Property 15 is zoned TC-1 and located south of 16 Grand River and east of Market 17 Street. Petitioner is present. 18 Please state your name and address 19 and be sworn in by the secretary. 20 MR. SMITH: My name is Mark 21 Smith. My address is 3992 May Center 22 Road, Lake Orion, Michigan. 23 MR. GATT: Are you an 24 attorney?
56 1 MR. SMITH: No. 2 MR. GATT: Please raise your 3 right hand. Do you swear to tell the 4 truth regarding case 07-009? 5 MR. SMITH: I do. 6 MR. GATT: Thank you. 7 MR. SHROYER: Please state 8 your case. 9 MR. SMITH: Well, there's a 10 couple things. First off, I would 11 like to thank the Board for granting 12 our initial variance of our second 13 floor sign. That absolutely 14 increased our business, but it also 15 created some secondary issues that we 16 weren't aware or we didn't think out 17 at that point, and I'll get to that 18 in a moment. 19 Secondly, I would 20 like to apologize for the misstep on 21 replacing the gold letters. I had 22 read an article in the paper that the 23 sign law had been amended and me, not 24 being an attorney, I tried to
57 1 interpret it and interpreted it 2 incorrectly. I took down a hanging 3 wall sign on the side of the 4 building. I took that down and put 5 the gold letters back up thinking 6 that switching the sign for a sign I 7 would be okay. I was -- I received a 8 letter about three weeks after it 9 went up that was not the case. So at 10 that point we applied to have the 11 variance for that sign. 12 The reasons that we 13 put up that sign or we put the gold 14 letters back up, there's a few 15 different reasons. The biggest 16 reason being that we were having 17 complaints from our customers that if 18 you're driving by in the car or in 19 your car in front of our building you 20 don't see the second level sign on 21 the north exterior there. You have 22 to kind of look up before you see a 23 sign. So we don't have any signage 24 on that front of the building, so by
58 1 having those gold letters there 2 everybody can see it. If they're in 3 their car, walking into any of the 4 other stores that are in that area, 5 you now can see the Gus O'Connor 6 sign. 7 Secondly, it, in our 8 opinion and the opinion of people in 9 the complex, it increases the 10 appearance of the building. It looks 11 nice, it looks a lot better than the 12 hanging wall that we had on the other 13 side. It's nice gold letters. Even 14 a few members of the Board at our 15 last meeting weren't really excited 16 with us taking down those gold 17 letters. 18 So that is one area 19 that we want. We want to increase 20 the curb appeal. We've had several 21 customers that have told us that it 22 does look much better. It's easier 23 to see. They can find us a little 24 bit easier.
59 1 Another reason that 2 we kind of did it is our business was 3 down about 15 percent over the first 4 three months year to date. We're 5 basically looking for any way and 6 every way to draw attention to our 7 building. We love it in this area, 8 we want to stay in this area, so 9 we're doing everything we can within 10 reason to increase, you know, foot 11 traffic and revenue into our 12 building. So anything we can do to 13 increase awareness we're trying to do 14 it. 15 Also, the other -- 16 we'd spoken with our landlord. They 17 were very much in approval of us 18 adding the sign and they definitely 19 were happy that we put it back. It 20 definitely makes the building look a 21 lot better. 22 So the biggest 23 reason is we want curb appeal, we 24 were trying to increase our business,
60 1 as I said business was down, we are 2 looking to improve the foot traffic, 3 things of that nature. So those are 4 the reasons we wanted to put it back. 5 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. Is 6 there anyone in the audience that 7 cares to speak to this case? 8 Seeing none, do we 9 have any comments from the City? 10 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, 11 sir. 12 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. At 13 this point, I'll turn it over to the 14 Board. Member Canup. 15 MR. CANUP: Reading the case 16 minutes from the November 1st, '05 17 hearing, you know, it was very clear 18 that sign was to be removed. I don't 19 think there's any misunderstanding in 20 the actual case that I've read here 21 and I don't see -- they were willing 22 to remove it then, and the fact that 23 their business is down 15 percent is 24 probably a reflection of the general
61 1 economy in Southeast Michigan. They 2 have a good product. I don't know. 3 I don't have any trouble finding it 4 and I think anybody that's not 5 totally blind would find that place 6 once they got somewheres near it. 7 By looking at the 8 facade of it, the facade itself to me 9 is a sign and would attract 10 attention. I think we did well with 11 them when they were here originally 12 and asked for a variance and my 13 comments are that I wish they would 14 live with that, not wish but I would 15 not vote for anything except that 16 they would live with that variance we 17 gave them originally. 18 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 19 Anyone else? Member Fischer. 20 MR. FISCHER: I would tend 21 to agree in this case. 22 Unfortunately, I actually like the 23 sign very much, I think it is 24 aesthetically pleasing. Personally I
62 1 like this sign better than the other 2 one, even though I voted for the last 3 one as well, but in a general sense 4 to have two signs on the same exact 5 side, I have a very difficult time 6 doing that. Pretty soon this Board 7 will have every single residence of 8 that area in front of us asking to 9 have two signs as well. 10 So I'm not sure if 11 the sign on the side can go back up 12 or what, but this is more or less, 13 like Member Canup said, a general 14 economy issue and to have a permanent 15 sign up there forever, a second sign, 16 it's just unfair to the other 17 businesses in that area because I 18 couldn't support a second sign for 19 them. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 20 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 21 Comments from this side of the house. 22 Oh, yes, thank you very much. Mr. 23 Secretary, please tell us of any 24 correspondence.
63 1 MR. GATT: The were 18 2 notices mailed; zero approvals, zero 3 objections. 4 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 5 Now would you care to comment? 6 MR. GATT: Yes. Thank you. 7 I would respectfully disagree with 8 the previous speakers. I think that 9 it's been mentioned before -- first 10 of all, I think the sign is very 11 attractive. I think it's a lot 12 better than what was up there 13 originally. With the economy going 14 down and with businesses struggling 15 for patrons in general, anything 16 would help. 17 I think that this 18 petitioner has come up here and 19 discussed the situation with people 20 not being able to recognize the sign 21 and the entrance of this particular 22 establishment, I think that, like in 23 previous situations, people that 24 aren't from here are going to this
64 1 establishment. I know where this 2 place is at, I've been there before. 3 People that are around here know 4 where this place is at, however, if 5 you get someone from anywhere else 6 traveling into that area, especially 7 the main street area, there's a lot 8 of different places around there, 9 there's a lot of different 10 establishments, and, you know, if 11 anything else it's a safety issue 12 trying to look up and looking around 13 in your vehicle. 14 I can understand if 15 you're walking that not being a 16 problem, but if you're looking in 17 your vehicle for that particular 18 place, this is going to be a problem. 19 And if this is a situation where the 20 gold lettering and the things that 21 stand out to you that are kind of at 22 car eye level are going to help you 23 find this particular establishment 24 and be able to park and get your way
65 1 in, I think that's something that's 2 appropriate. It's not like we're 3 going from nothing to something. 4 We're going from something to 5 something a little bit better. 6 I know it's another 7 variance, but in this particular 8 situation I think it's beneficial. I 9 think there is a need for it because 10 of safety concerns and the fact that 11 there are people that are outside of 12 this area that are going to be coming 13 to this establishment, it's a 14 word-of-mouth type of establishment 15 that people are going to want to look 16 at if they're in the area, and I 17 think that that's going to only help 18 them attract business in this 19 economic time and it's also going to 20 be a benefit to the safety of the 21 general area. 22 There's a lot of 23 traffic through there in the evenings 24 and in the dark hours. I think it
66 1 would save some problem. Even if it 2 saves one problem, I think that's 3 better than nothing. Thank you. 4 MR. SHROYER: Other 5 comments? Member Sanghvi. 6 MR. SANGHVI: Question. Is 7 this the same sign that it used to be 8 before? 9 MR. SMITH: Yes, it is, 10 exact same sign. 11 MR. SANGHVI: So when we 12 granted the previous variance it was 13 with a stipulation that this sign 14 will come down; is that correct? 15 MR. AMOLSCH: That's 16 correct. 17 MR. SANGHVI: But it was 18 never taken down. 19 MR. AMOLSCH: It was taken 20 down and put back. 21 MR. SANGHVI: It was taken 22 down and put back up again when they 23 applied for this variance. 24 MR. AMOLSCH: They applied
67 1 for the variance after they got the 2 notice violation. 3 MR. SANGHVI: But did they 4 put the second sign up before they 5 applied for the variance or after 6 they applied for the variance? 7 MR. AMOLSCH: They put it up 8 before this variance was asked for. 9 MR. SANGHVI: I see. 10 MR. SMITH: Can I add 11 something? What we did is, when we 12 heard the sign variance for the city 13 had been changed, we thought we were 14 within the guidelines of the signage, 15 to take a sign down from the other 16 elevation on the other side of the 17 building and re-put up the gold 18 letter sign. 19 MR. SANGHVI: Are you trying 20 to tell me you misunderstood what 21 was -- 22 MR. SMITH: When I heard 23 there was a variance -- or they 24 re-amended the sign, I went, I looked
68 1 at it, and I thought if we were 2 taking a sign down for a sign down 3 that we were okay. So, yes, I 4 misinterpreted. We got the notice, 5 or we received the notice of 6 violation, we contacted them, we 7 applied for the variance and here we 8 are today. This all happened within 9 the last six weeks. 10 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. 11 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. I 12 have a question as well. If they 13 took a sign down on the, I would have 14 to assume it was the west side, and 15 put this one up on the north side, if 16 this one has to come down based on 17 the violation and everything, can 18 they put the one back up on the west 19 side? 20 MR. AMOLSCH: No. There's 21 only one sign permitted per business. 22 They have -- the hanging sign he 23 refers to was a projected sign that 24 was approved by the Board.
69 1 Projection signs are permitted in 2 addition to the wall sign in the TC-1 3 zoning. They needed a variance from 4 the Board. It is a permitted sign, a 5 projection sign, but it is too big, 6 so that came before the Board. But 7 we're talking about one sign per 8 business with the exception I just 9 stated with the TC-1 situation. 10 MR. SHROYER: Thank you for 11 clarification. Member Krieger. 12 MS. KRIEGER: Thank you for 13 apologizing for your 14 misunderstanding. For the Gus 15 O'Connor's, it is aesthetically 16 pleasing, I agree with that, but to 17 have the Grand River facade to have 18 the two signs would be, as Member 19 Fischer had stated, we'd have more 20 people coming in asking for two 21 signs, but to keep an aesthetically 22 -- since they're on a corner lot, a 23 corner of two streets or into the 24 parking lot, Grand River and Market
70 1 Street I believe, that it would keep 2 the Gus O'Connor's sign on the west 3 side. That's my thinking. Thank 4 you. 5 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 6 Anyone else? Member Bauer. 7 MR. BAUER: The one they 8 took down on the west side, he felt, 9 I imagine, that he could then go 10 ahead and put that one up. That is 11 now how it evolved. I can only go 12 along with what they had before on 13 it. 14 MR. SHROYER: Everyone has 15 spoken. I'll add my two cents worth. 16 I agree with everybody. It's one of 17 my favorite establishments. The sign 18 is extremely attractive, it's very 19 aesthetically pleasing. I do 20 understand the safety portion of it; 21 however, it was very, very clearly 22 written, and I agree with the 23 previous speakers that we need to 24 stay with the way it was approved
71 1 previously. So I am not in favor of 2 granting this variance. 3 I'll entertain a 4 motion if anyone is prepared to -- 5 Member Fischer. 6 MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. 7 Chair. 8 I move that in Case 9 No. 07-009, filed by Mark Smith of 10 Gus O'Connor's, located at 42875 11 Grand River Avenue, that we deny the 12 petitioner's request due to the lack 13 of meeting the burden of practical 14 difficulty. 15 The findings include 16 that this is not based upon -- this 17 variance is not based upon 18 exceptional or unique circumstances 19 to the area, as all of Main Street 20 looks similar to this; this will not 21 result in substantial justice to the 22 surrounding area's businesses because 23 other businesses are not allowed two 24 signs; and this will be overwhelming
72 1 to the facade; and this is not 2 consistent with the spirit and intent 3 of the ordinance as written. 4 MR. BAUER: Second. 5 MR. SHROYER: The motion has 6 been made by Member Fischer and 7 seconded by Member Bauer. Any 8 further discussion? 9 Robin, please call 10 the roll. 11 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair 12 Fischer? 13 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 14 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 15 MR. BAUER: Yes. 16 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 17 Mr. CANUP: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: Member 19 Sanghvi? 20 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 21 MS. WORKING: Chairman 22 Shroyer? 23 MR. SHROYER: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt?
73 1 MR. GATT: No. 2 MS. WORKING: Motion to deny 3 passes 5 to 1. 4 MR. SHROYER: Case No. 5 07-010, filed by Michael Soave of 6 Mandalay Properties, LLC, located on 7 Nine Mile Road between 48315 and 8 48371. Mr. Soave is requesting two 9 101.18 foot wide dimensional 10 variances to the minimum required lot 11 width for frontage on a public 12 street. The subject property is 13 located on Nine Mile Road, as 14 mentioned before. 15 In addition, the 16 applicant is also requesting two 17 86.18-foot width variances for the 18 reduction below 90 percent of the 19 required minimum lot width. Property 20 is zoned RA and located south of Nine 21 Mile Road and east of Garfield Road. 22 Is the applicant 23 present? Please come forward and 24 state your name, address and if
74 1 you're not an attorney please be 2 sworn in by our secretary. 3 MR. HAW: I am not an 4 attorney. My name is Jeffrey Haw 5 from GLA Surveyors and Engineers. 6 I'm here this evening representing 7 Michael Soave and Mandalay Properties 8 on this matter. 9 MR. GATT: Please raise your 10 right hand. Do you swear to tell the 11 truth in Case No. 07-010? 12 MR. HAW: I do. 13 MR. GATT: Thank you. 14 MR. SHROYER: Please state 15 your case. 16 MR. HAW: The picture you 17 see in front of you is simply a 18 larger version of that material 19 already provided to you, labeled 20 Exhibit B in the packets that were 21 provided. 22 We've presented our 23 case in detail in the request for 24 consideration that was included in
75 1 your packet, which is three pages 2 long. I'm not going to go through 3 all of that. I'd like to just 4 briefly cover the points that were 5 made in that request and then leave 6 it to the Board for deliberation. 7 As was previously 8 mentioned, the subject property 9 consists of two parcels, currently 10 labeled Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, 11 between Beck Road and Garfield Road 12 on Nine Mile. Parcel 1 is the long, 13 narrow piece that you see there 14 consisting of 1.5 acres. It's 15 approximately 82 feet wide in its 16 entirety. 17 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE 18 MEMBER: Mr. Chair, can we see it on 19 the video because we can't see it in 20 the audience? 21 MR. SHROYER: Sir, can you 22 possibly put a copy of this, if you 23 have that; if not, I'll give you 24 mine.
76 1 MR. HAW: We do have that, 2 as a matter of fact. 3 MR. SHROYER: Great. Put 4 that on the overhead so the audience 5 can see it as well. 6 MR. HAW: That should cover 7 the applicable portions of the 8 property. 9 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 10 Please proceed. 11 MR. HAW: The first piece, 12 the first parcel, Parcel 1, which is 13 the long, narrow piece that you see 14 here, is 82 feet wide by 15 approximately 1,250 feet long and it 16 provides the sole access to Parcel 2, 17 which is the much larger piece, 18 consisting of 3.74 acres in the rear. 19 To further 20 complicate matters, in addition to 21 that Parcel 1 providing sole access, 22 the parcel is only 82 feet wide, as I 23 said, and is already -- even if we 24 left the parcel as it was, we'd still
77 1 have to come back and get a variance 2 because it is still too narrow for 3 the 150 feet required frontage as 4 mandated by the City of Novi. 5 Therefore, what we're trying to do 6 here is make the best of a somewhat 7 awkward situation. 8 We propose to 9 basically join the two parcels, 10 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, together and 11 then to divide them into Parcel A and 12 B, two equal parcels, A and B, with 13 equal access on Nine Mile Road 14 through what was formerly Parcel 1. 15 We believe that this is probably the 16 best situation in order to provide 17 equal access to the rear of the 18 property to the two parcels that are 19 -- that Mr. Soave would like to 20 develop. It's clear that the most 21 logical route is to do that as well 22 given that no matter what happens 23 we're going to end up with a required 24 variance.
78 1 In addition to that, 2 it's also important to note that the 3 proposed variance will not negatively 4 impact the other property owners 5 affected by this, that being the 6 property owners to the east and west 7 of proposed Parcel 1. 8 As you can see on 9 our proposed drawing, and, 10 unfortunately, I don't have a smaller 11 version of that, our proposal is a 12 very small, 15-foot wide, winding 13 drive that is able to weave in and 14 out of the existing natural features 15 and avoid the existing wetlands on 16 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 to provide 17 access to the rear. Of course, that 18 is our preferred option of entry into 19 the site as compared to a large, 20 private road, which would basically 21 demolish everything on existing 22 Parcel 1 and significantly disturb 23 the existing wetlands and natural 24 features of the area.
79 1 From a purely 2 aesthetic point of view, our proposal 3 is also the best option given that, 4 again, any other option is going to 5 end up causing more significant 6 damage to the site than our proposal 7 does, which then goes to indicate, 8 again, it will not negatively impact 9 the surrounding neighbors. In fact, 10 it will provide a somewhat 11 better-looking area, if nothing else, 12 because we'll end up cleaning up the 13 site after we're done. 14 There is also not a 15 lesser variance that could remedy the 16 problem. Again, even with the 17 existing site, no matter what option 18 we take to access the site we're 19 still going to have to get a variance 20 because the existing Parcel 1 is too 21 narrow and will not allow access to 22 the rear parcel. So the proposed 23 configuration we've determined and 24 that we proposed to you we feel is
80 1 the best option. 2 The need for the 3 requested variance is very clearly 4 driven by the unique dimensions of 5 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. I've given 6 the information there already. 7 Again, Parcel 1 is the sole access to 8 Parcel 2 and so in order to provide 9 equal access to our proposed Parcels 10 A and B we feel that the 11 configuration that is shown here is 12 the best option. 13 Finally, it's clear 14 that the need for the requested 15 variance is not self-created. In 16 fact, it is a function of the 17 existing parcel configuration. 18 So, in conclusion, 19 we feel that the proposed division is 20 the best option given the unique 21 configuration of the two existing 22 parcels, the City of Novi's stated 23 intent to preserve all natural 24 features in the city of Novi, that
81 1 includes your wetland ordinance and 2 also the natural features protection 3 imperative that you have established. 4 And also that the proposed division 5 will result in a development which is 6 a significant increase to the 7 aesthetics of the existing site and 8 will not be -- or will not negatively 9 impact the nearby neighbors. 10 Given those reasons 11 then, we feel that the proposed 12 layout is probably or is in fact the 13 best option for accessing the site 14 and providing access to the rear 15 area, and that's our presentation. 16 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 17 Mr. Secretary, is 18 there any correspondence to share? 19 MR. GATT: Yes, there is. 20 There were 39 notices mailed; zero 21 approvals, two objections. The first 22 objection was from Daniel O'Connor on 23 West Nine Mile Road. He writes: "In 24 all, Mr. Soave is requesting four
82 1 variances of the City of Novi zoning 2 ordinances. Variances are generally 3 requested when there is a hardship, 4 such as compliance is impossible 5 without rendering the property 6 virtually unusable. I strongly 7 believe that there is no such 8 hardship with this property owner. 9 "Therefore, I 10 strongly object to the Zoning Board 11 Appeals Case No. 07-010 being 12 approved by the Zoning Board. I also 13 strongly object to the demolition of 14 hundreds of trees in such close 15 proximity of our community's wetlands 16 and also disturbing the wildlife and 17 aquatic habitat. 18 "This property was 19 intended for single family dwellings 20 and should not be changed for some 21 commercial developer. Nine Mile Road 22 west of Beck Road is a designated 23 Natural Beauty Road with single 24 family homes. There's no reason why
83 1 Mr. Soave cannot adhere to the same 2 rules and regulations as the rest of 3 the tax-paying citizens in this 4 beautiful community." 5 Ms. Judith Nelson of 6 Nine Mile Road writes: "I feel the 7 variance for the minimum lot width of 8 150 feet should not be allowed to 9 change. Most lots on our street are 10 five acres in size. Many properties 11 have an added real estate value 12 because the houses are spread out. 13 To allow a proposed lot width of 14 48.82 feet would detract from the 15 aesthetics of our neighborhood. This 16 would look cluttered and detract from 17 the rural atmosphere that is 18 maintained by having a large lot 19 width. It is unacceptable. Please 20 don't let this happen." That's all. 21 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. At 22 this point we'll open it up for 23 audience participation. Is there 24 anyone here that cares to speak?
84 1 First gentleman on the aisle, please. 2 Come forward and give us your name 3 and address and be sworn in by the 4 secretary. 5 MR. O'CONNOR: Good evening. 6 My name is Daniel O'Connor. I 7 represent 48315 West Nine Mile Road. 8 MR. GATT: Are you an 9 attorney? 10 MR. O'CONNOR: No, sir. 11 MR. GATT: Please raise your 12 right hand. Do you swear to tell the 13 truth in Case No. 07-010? 14 MR. O'CONNOR: Yes, sir. 15 MR. GATT: Thank you. 16 MR. O'CONNOR: First of all, 17 I'd like to thank the Board for 18 giving me an opportunity to speak to 19 this zoning situation, and I also 20 appreciate Mr. Soave's representative 21 being here to explain some of the 22 situation to us and the Board 23 members. If I could use his thing 24 here, I may want to use it, so I
85 1 appreciate him leaving it up here. 2 No, I'm not an 3 attorney, I'm just an average guy. 4 This is my first time here, as it's 5 your first time chairing, and I 6 appreciate -- and you're doing an 7 excellent job, I might add. 8 But when I bought 9 this property a couple years ago, I 10 bought this property because the rest 11 of these homeowners, they like this 12 area. This is a natural beauty area, 13 there's a lot of woods, wildlife, 14 trees, aquatic animals. There's 15 everything there, there's deer, 16 there's everything in this area. 17 Now, when Mr. Soave 18 bought this property, I don't know if 19 he's the original owner or not, but 20 to give you a little history on this 21 property, there was homes on that 22 property and the City of Novi tore 23 these homes down. They gave the 24 owner of the property opportunity to
86 1 tear these home down, he did not do 2 so, so the City did it and sent him a 3 bill. Now, I understand that there 4 was some back taxes, there was back 5 tax issues on this property also, 6 okay, and they weren't paid. So this 7 property was going to go up for 8 auction. Whether it did, I don't 9 know. Whether he paid the taxes, I 10 don't know. 11 But I'm here to 12 represent just myself because I own 13 the property next door to this 14 property and when I bought the 15 property I bought it for the fact 16 that it's a wildlife area. And if 17 you would -- I hope you give me maybe 18 a minute or two extra. I know I'm 19 limited at five minutes, but I'm just 20 going to express some of my concerns 21 because I'm not a very sharp person, 22 okay, not an attorney or nothing like 23 that. 24 But, anyway, there's
87 1 supposed to be a hundred year 2 moratorium on the city-owned property 3 which that abuts the property where 4 there's a building site is to start, 5 okay, or where this variance is 6 supposed to be. Now, there needs to 7 be some type of buffer of the 8 proposed building site due to the 9 fact it is encroaching wetlands. 10 Now, the proposed road leading to the 11 building site is going to be -- is it 12 going to be to county specifications? 13 We have no idea. He mentioned 15 14 foot. He mentioned a 15 foot road 15 here. 16 Now, my 17 interpretation, I was told by City 18 officials, this is supposed to be 19 gravel. Now, Mr. Soave is from 20 Livonia. I don't know if they allow 21 gravel roads in Livonia, but I don't 22 know if Novi does either, but anyway, 23 getting back to -- now, since this 24 isn't going to be a hard surface
88 1 road, it's going to be a gravel road, 2 some of my considerations are 3 emergency vehicles. Are we talking 4 about fire trucks? Can we take a 5 fire truck into these areas and turn 6 them around without a hazard to 7 anyone or are we going to want 2000 8 foot of hose from the fire hydrant 9 from Nine Mile to the back? I would 10 really like to know these things, 11 okay. 12 The original 13 residence on this property was tore 14 down because I think it might have 15 been condemned, I'm not sure. Now, 16 this property was bought from an old 17 man who didn't have a lot of money, 18 okay, and I think he drank a lot. 19 Now, this property was purchased for 20 about $45,000. Now, we're talking 21 five acres. It's a lot of money. I 22 mean, it's a good value, I think. If 23 you can sell me some property in Novi 24 for $45,000, four or five acres,
89 1 please let me know because I'll buy 2 it tomorrow. 3 MR. SHROYER: Can you try to 4 wrap it up, please? 5 MR. O'CONNOR: Sure. Now, 6 this brings me to another situation 7 that upsets me, okay. This is a 8 developer. This isn't a builder 9 that's going to build a home there. 10 There's no proposal as a home site. 11 Now, is it going to be condominiums? 12 Now, if this variance is approved, is 13 it going to be apartments? Is this 14 Board going to recommend it could be 15 a trailer court. 16 So I'm going to wrap 17 this up because I'm getting a little 18 upset. I'm going to give you two 19 suggestions, on my account, please, 20 for the Board to consider. 21 This gentleman can 22 buy my property and you can put 23 condos all along city property and 24 you can make ten acres of condos
90 1 there, or I recommend that Mr. Soave 2 donate this property to the City of 3 Novi and leave everything the way it 4 is. Thank you. 5 MR. SHROYER: Thank you, Mr. 6 O'Conner. There's another gentleman 7 that cared to come forward. You want 8 the lady to come first. Okay, ladies 9 first. 10 Please give us your 11 name, address. 12 MS. CRAIGLE: Nancy Craigle 13 and I live at 48689 Nine Mile Road. 14 On this drawing I suspect my house 15 comes around the curve and the back 16 of my property butts in to what was 17 considered unbuildable land because 18 there was no access to it, but it's 19 the trees that we see back here that 20 I think would be affected. 21 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Ma'am, 22 before you begin, you're not an 23 attorney? 24 MS. CRAIGLE: Oh, I'm sorry.
91 1 I'll get sworn in. 2 MR. SHROYER: There you go. 3 MR. GATT: Please state your 4 name and address. 5 MS. CRAIGLE: Nancy Craigle, 6 48689 Nine Mile Road. 7 MR. GATT: Do you swear to 8 tell the truth in Case No. 07-010? 9 MS. CRAIGLE: Yes. 10 MR. GATT: Thank you. 11 MS. CRAIGLE: We just 12 learned of this request for a 13 variance yesterday so I haven't been 14 able to study any of it. My first 15 question my neighbors and I have is 16 what is the proposed building going 17 on those two parcels, homes, condos, 18 apartments, what? 19 MR. SHROYER: At this point 20 we'll hear everyone speak from the 21 audience and then if the Board elects 22 to we can probably get the answers or 23 the questions answered. Also, before 24 you go further, are you representing
92 1 your neighbors? 2 MS. CRAIGLE: No, just me. 3 They can speak for themselves. 4 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 5 MS. CRAIGLE: We've been out 6 there 14 years and obviously someone 7 watched our house get built 20 some 8 years ago, so I don't have a problem 9 with people building on property. I 10 do request that the Board maintain 11 the aesthetics of the Natural Beauty 12 Road; they maintain the one acre 13 minimum required because the property 14 values out there are based on the 15 fact that we all have spacious lots 16 and we are fairly far apart in our 17 lot sizes; and that there would be 18 absolutely minimum tree tear down in 19 the process of construction. 20 My understanding of 21 the rules of the road, none of us out 22 there are allowed to cut down a tree, 23 it's got to fall on its own. So 24 obviously something will need to be
93 1 cut down there but we really request 2 it's minimum. And that's all I have 3 to say. 4 MR. SHROYER: Thank you, Ms. 5 Craigle. 6 Sir. 7 MR. KAMMAN: How do I start? 8 MR. SHROYER: Name and 9 address and -- 10 MR. KAMMAN: My name is Jack 11 Kamman at 48380 Nine Mile, across the 12 road from this place. 13 MR. GATT: Would you please 14 raise your right hand. Do you swear 15 to tell the truth in Case No. 07-010? 16 MR. KAMMAN: I do. 17 MR. GATT: Thank you. 18 MR. KAMMAN: I guess I only 19 got a couple things to say. It's R-2 20 and a minimum is 150 feet and I think 21 they're asking just a little bit too 22 many footage variances. And to worry 23 about what is going to happen to the 24 tax money for you people, somebody
94 1 owns it and somebody is going to be 2 paying the taxes. And if he was a 3 fool to buy something without 4 checking in and making it legal, then 5 I think he ought to eat it then if 6 that's what the case is, if that's 7 the way it works, you know. Can't be 8 very smart. And most of that is muck 9 back there. 10 You guys got one 11 house on Nine Mile Road now that they 12 can't pump the water out of the 13 basement that they're building down 14 the road on the other side of the 15 road. This place ain't any better 16 than that place is. I wouldn't even 17 walk back there, afraid that I 18 wouldn't come back out. It would 19 have to be winter to do that. 20 So I don't know how 21 anybody would think they could build 22 something decent for somebody? How 23 would you put a septic field in muck, 24 you know? I don't know. But that's
95 1 it. 2 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 3 Ma'am, would you care to come 4 forward. 5 MS. O'CONNOR: Alexis 6 O'Connor, 48315 West Nine Mile Road. 7 MR. GATT: Please raise your 8 right hand. Do you swear to tell the 9 truth in Case No. 07-010? 10 MS. O'CONNOR: I do. 11 MR. GATT: Thank you. 12 MS. O'CONNOR: My family 13 owns the property right next door, my 14 dad just spoke, and I think one thing 15 I'd like to touch on briefly, and the 16 woman before me also spoke on it, is 17 just the destruction that I think 18 would take place if this happens. 19 There's hundreds of trees back in 20 that property. There's wetlands, 21 there's so much wildlife. It's a 22 beautiful area, right near Maybury 23 Park. 24 My father and I went
96 1 for a bike ride this weekend and as 2 we did so, you know, I'm riding my 3 bike down the side of the road and I 4 see this dead deer on the side of the 5 road, just killed like all the other 6 ones, head stuck up in a tree, and 7 I'm riding my bike right next to it 8 and I think, you know, these animals 9 have nowhere to go. They're already 10 running out of space. Thank God we 11 have Maybury Park, but what is that. 12 They can't all live in Maybury Park. 13 If the trees are 14 destroyed in this parcel, which is 15 what they're basically proposing to 16 do, these animals run out of even 17 more space. We lose everything. The 18 people that live in this area bought 19 their property to have the wildlife, 20 to have the privacy, to have these 21 things. They bought acreage. They 22 didn't sign up for a communal road 23 which would run right next to my 24 family's property driveway. I mean
97 1 right next to it. That road will be 2 feet from our house's driveway where 3 you're going to have multiple cars 4 coming and going and coming and going 5 from this condo complex, this 6 apartment complex, whatever it is. 7 If Mr. Soave would 8 like to build a house on his property 9 in the back, awesome. I think that's 10 great. I think he should do that. 11 That would be beautiful. It's a 12 beautiful, beautiful piece of 13 property. But if he wants to build 14 large apartments, condo complexes, 15 whatever it is, and have multiple 16 cars coming in and out of his 17 driveway, right next to our driveway, 18 disrupts the safety of the people at 19 the house and it disrupts the 20 wildlife and I think that would be a 21 shame. 22 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 23 Was there one more gentleman back 24 there that wanted to speak? No?
98 1 Ma'am, please. 2 MS. ENDICOTT: Hi. Rosemary 3 Endicott, 48500 Nine mile, not an 4 attorney. 5 MR. GATT: Please raise your 6 right hand. Do you swear to tell the 7 truth regarding case 07-010? 8 MS. ENDICOTT: I do. 9 MR. GATT: Thank you. 10 MS. ENDICOTT: First I'd 11 like to start -- this is the first 12 time I've seen you guys in action and 13 I really appreciate the care that you 14 seem to take in these cases. It's 15 very interesting. 16 Also, I didn't 17 receive anything through the mail 18 other than when I was jogging down 19 the road the other day Mr. O'Connor 20 handed me the letter and that's when 21 I found out that rumor there was 22 something going back there, but it 23 was never an official thing that I 24 heard.
99 1 Anyway, I live -- I 2 would be across the street, I'm not 3 even on that map, but I would just 4 like to voice an opinion that it's a 5 huge variance he's asking for, and 6 because there is large lots back 7 there and that is why we all bought 8 back there and why we stay back 9 there. I'm afraid that this would 10 open the door for other large lots to 11 get their variances changed and it 12 would become a multi-resident or 13 multi-dwelling resident area. So 14 that would be my fear. 15 And this gentleman 16 here, he kept referring to improving 17 the existing aesthetics, and there is 18 no improvement on it. The place is 19 beautiful. And, if you wanted to 20 build a big home on here, this makes 21 a perfect, beautiful driveway, nice 22 long driveway. We don't have any 23 objections to a home back there, but 24 what he's going to build, apartment
100 1 complexes like somebody else brought 2 up back here, a mobile home park? We 3 don't know. We'd like to have that 4 clarified and at least approved by 5 the neighbors before something like 6 that happens. 7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 8 One more gentleman. 9 MR. GOOD: I'm Gary Good, 10 48560 Nine Mile Road. 11 MR. GATT: Please raise your 12 right hand. Do you swear to tell the 13 truth regarding case 07-010? 14 MR. GOOD: Yes. 15 MR. GATT: Thank you. 16 MR. GOOD: Well, my concern 17 is this, like my neighbors said, 18 there's a lot of properties out there 19 that have a lot of property behind 20 them that have potential to be sold. 21 Now, if this person can come in here 22 and open up the back lot to condos or 23 to apartments or whatever, this is 24 designated a Natural Beauty Road.
101 1 Now, is that natural beauty just the 2 existing lot or is it the natural 3 beauty of the surrounding area, the 4 wetland and the woodlands and all 5 that? And I can see this opening the 6 door just like the last case that we 7 had about the sign. Once you open 8 the door up for somebody to get a new 9 sign, everybody else is going to want 10 a new sign and so you end up having 11 that same kind of a problem here when 12 somebody wants to come in and develop 13 behind these people that have natural 14 beauty in their backyard. That's 15 really all I have to say on this 16 case. 17 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 18 Anyone else? Anyone else? 19 At this time we'll 20 turn it over to the City. Comments? 21 MR. FOX: Please, if it 22 pleases the Board, I would like to -- 23 a little bit of clarification. Page 24 2 of the letter from the surveyor to
102 1 the ZBA, second to last paragraph, 2 does state that the access road that 3 they're proposing for these parcels 4 is for two single family residences. 5 That is what their proposal is at 6 this time. Also on that same page 7 they are talking about minimal trees 8 removed in the process of doing any 9 access to these two lots. Thank you. 10 MR. SHROYER: If I read 11 everything correctly, the two parcels 12 for the homes to be built, one is 13 2.62 acres and the other one 2.63 14 acres; is that correct? 15 MR. FOX: That's correct. 16 MR. SHROYER: So some of 17 your issues will be addressed 18 obviously as we go forward here. 19 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chairman, 20 I wanted to point out, is it, Ms. 21 Endicott, public hearing 22 notifications are mailed to residents 23 within 300 feet of the proposed 24 variance request and it's possible in
103 1 acreage like that that you may be 2 outside that area. 3 MR. SHROYER: We had several 4 returned letters and we'll check to 5 make sure it wasn't one of them. 6 MS. WORKING: The entire 7 mailing list is on that side of the 8 file as well. 9 MR. SHROYER: Any other 10 comments? Mr. Spencer, do you have 11 comments on wetlands, woodlands or 12 any information? 13 MR. SPENCER: We'll make 14 some general comments for you, if it 15 pleases the Board here. 16 MR. SHROYER: Please. 17 MR. SPENCER: First we'll 18 mention that part of the intent of 19 the zoning ordinance is not to create 20 flag lots and if you refer to Section 21 2400 (a) 1, there's specific language 22 in there to allow the reduction of 23 lot widths up to 90 percent with -- 24 and I'll just quote here: "The
104 1 purpose of this amendment is to 2 protect against the creation within 3 the city of irregular-shaped flag 4 lots." So our position is that 5 there's other options available, 6 including building one single family 7 home for this site to be within the 8 ordinance requirements. 9 And in addressing 10 the natural features of the area, 11 this is a Natural Beauty Road. There 12 is some recommended Natural Beauty 13 Road characteristics for preserving a 14 50-foot buffer in the city code. 15 This also has substantial woodlands 16 and wetlands that are likely to be 17 city regulated woodlands or wetlands 18 and possibly even state regulated 19 wetlands. I don't have a thorough 20 investigation of that done at this 21 time. So no matter what type of 22 development does go in on this site, 23 they will have to comply with both of 24 those ordinances and make provisions
105 1 to either mitigate or protect trees 2 and to stay out of wetlands and 3 wetland buffer areas. 4 If you have any 5 other questions, I'll be glad to try 6 to answer your questions. 7 MR. SHROYER: Mr. Fox. 8 MR. FOX: I would also like 9 to add that if they -- if the Board 10 decides to grant this variance, they 11 will be required to have an 12 ingress-egress easement for what 13 they're proposing as a single access 14 for two lots since it does encroach 15 within less than three feet as it 16 meanders from side of the lot to side 17 of the lot. According to their 18 drawing, it will cross the property 19 lines, which would require them to 20 have an easement for a single access 21 for multiple properties. 22 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. At 23 this time I'll turn it over to the 24 Board. Mr. Canup.
106 1 MR. CANUP: The question is, 2 my question is, on Parcel 1, which is 3 the drive going in and out, the 15 4 foot drive, you show it as a 15 foot 5 wide cobblestone shared driveway; is 6 that correct? Is that for the full 7 length of it? 8 MR. HAW: It can be. The 9 surface material -- 10 MR. CANUP: I didn't ask if 11 it could be. That's what your 12 drawing says. 13 MR. HAW: That's correct. 14 MR. CANUP: And that's what 15 your intentions are. 16 MR. HAW: That's what I was 17 trying to say. That surface is 18 negotiable. We put that there as an 19 initial proposal to the City. 20 MR. CANUP: Next question. 21 Who owns that piece of property? 22 MR. HAW: Which piece of 23 property? 24 MR. CANUP: Not now, but if
107 1 the Board should grant this variance 2 as requested, in other words parcel 3 -- what is it? -- the drive coming 4 in, are those two lots in the back 5 going to be joint ownership of that 6 drive? 7 MR. HAW: Yes, the are. 8 MR. CANUP: No one else will 9 have access to that drive except 10 them? 11 MR. HAW: That is correct. 12 MR. CANUP: Okay. That 13 answers my question. 14 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 15 Any other comments? Member Gatt. 16 MR. GATT: Personally, I 17 think that this is by far the best 18 case scenario for this situation. 19 With the landlocked lot the way it 20 is, they're avoiding every bit as 21 much of the wetlands as they possibly 22 can with the meandering driveway, 23 keeping it in accordance with the 24 rules and regulations that are going
108 1 to follow from that. 2 These are going to 3 be two big, beautiful single family 4 homes. They're not going to be 5 condos or apartment complexes. These 6 are going to be two what appear to be 7 massive homes that are only going to 8 increase the property value of the 9 neighboring lands. This isn't going 10 to be anything that is going to have 11 traffic going in and out of it and 12 there's not going to be 400 residents 13 going in and out of it with a, you 14 know, 40 piece apartment complex. 15 This is going to be two families in 16 and out, just like any other street 17 would have or any other driveway 18 would have a family going in and out 19 of it. 20 I'd like to say that 21 we live in Montana and everyone can 22 have 20 acres of land where they can 23 see the deer roaming free and doing 24 all that. I said earlier I went to
109 1 school in Sault Ste. Marie and I 2 could see moose in my backyard every 3 once in a while, but this is Metro 4 Detroit. This is not possible. This 5 is a property owner that wants to 6 increase the value of the land and 7 the surrounding land with it. 8 This is going to do 9 nothing but help the City providing 10 two taxable homes. This is going to 11 be the best interest of the wetlands 12 and the wildlife surrounding it. 13 There's nothing that they can -- 14 there's nothing else they can do to 15 prevent any other wetlands from being 16 destroyed. If we wanted to not have 17 anybody build ever again on any kind 18 of forest in the city of Novi, that 19 would be one thing. That's not the 20 case. This is the best case 21 scenario. 22 This is not -- it's 23 kind of an open and shut case for me. 24 This is definitely the best available
110 1 option, considering the hardship with 2 a long, skinny lot and a big square 3 lot. This is the best thing that 4 they can do. I understand that it's 5 going to be Mr. Soave himself living 6 there, so he's not going to be 7 renting these homes or anything like 8 that. So it's not going to be 9 problem with that. 10 Personally, I am in 11 favor of these variances requested 12 100 percent, and that's it. I'll 13 open it up to anyone else. Thank 14 you. 15 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 16 Member Krieger. 17 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. I have a 18 question for the -- in the paperwork. 19 The 451 trees that were listed that 20 are in good shape, how many do you 21 anticipate needing to be removed? 22 MR. HAW: Using the option 23 that you see here, a very minimal 24 number. I can't give you an exact
111 1 number because the configuration of 2 the drive you see here will vary 3 depending on what our further reviews 4 through the City come up with. 5 As it stands, in 6 existing Parcel 1 we're going to be 7 removing, I believe, three. In 8 existing Parcel 2, which is the -- 9 which, as the comments have 10 indicated, is much more heavily 11 wooded, we're going to be removing 12 the minimal number that we can to put 13 basically a driveway in to each of 14 the two single family homes we're 15 proposing. 16 As Mr. Gatt has 17 mentioned, this is the minimal amount 18 of disturbance we can propose in 19 order to provide access to our 20 proposed homes. 21 MS. KRIEGER: And would you 22 be replacing the trees? 23 MR. HAW: Oh, certainly. We 24 would obey the City of Novi tree
112 1 ordinance in every respect. 2 MS. KRIEGER: Thank you. 3 MR. O'CONNOR: May I say 4 something, Mr. Chairman? 5 MR. SHROYER: No, sir, not 6 at this point. 7 MR. O'CONNOR: Will I be 8 able to? 9 MR. SHROYER: If a -- well, 10 let's hold off. I don't believe so. 11 Member Bauer. 12 MR. BAUER: The road going 13 back is going to be asphalt, it's not 14 going to be any kind of stone. They 15 thought it was going to be 16 cobblestone. I think they did the 17 best they could do and all these 18 other things that are -- that these 19 people, the owners of the property 20 around are thinking, going through 21 the planning stage and so forth, 22 every one of those things would be 23 taken into consideration. 24 The only thing in
113 1 front of us today is the variance on 2 the lot width and on both sides. 3 MR. O'CONNOR: Mr. Chairman, 4 I have a comment. 5 MR. SHROYER: We're in the 6 Board comments right now. Member 7 Fischer. 8 MR. FISCHER: Sir, if you 9 could come up to the microphone for 10 me. Can you give me the bigger 11 picture of the lot to each side of 12 the proposed driveway? How does that 13 fit in with the -- who owns it, do 14 you know? 15 MR. HAW: I guess I'm a 16 little confused as to what you're 17 asking. Our proposed drive will 18 run -- 19 MR. FISCHER: There's a land 20 parcel below it and a land parcel 21 above it. 22 MR. HAW: Here and here. I 23 believe both of those owners are 24 actually here.
114 1 MR. FISCHER: So it filters 2 around almost in a flag shape as well 3 or is it one single lot, do you know, 4 or the City can help out on that? 5 MS. WORKING: I don't think 6 we understand your question. 7 MR. FOX: Each parcel is 8 individual. 9 MS. WORKING: There are 10 aerial views in the file, Member 11 Fischer. 12 MR. FISCHER: This one lot, 13 does this wrap around down here or is 14 this one lot by itself (Indicating)? 15 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, 16 you'll find in the file aerial views 17 of the property that is before you 18 for the variance request and the two 19 adjacent properties should be fairly 20 well represented there, although we 21 are looking at the property that is 22 asking for the variances. 23 MR. FISCHER: Yes, this 24 aerial one does. Thank you very
115 1 much, Ms. Working. 2 MS. WORKING: Do we need to 3 put it up? 4 MR. FISCHER: No, no. I 5 just wanted to see how it fit in. It 6 appears that it's its own lot. I was 7 just kind of wondering if it was the 8 property owner here or if it was 9 someone else, the main fact of what 10 could possibly be done with that in 11 the future, just in my own wild 12 imagination. 13 Just to follow up 14 what Mr. Fox said earlier, this 15 letter to us that is in the file 16 states: "Finally, it should be noted 17 that the access route for the two 18 proposed parcels would serve only two 19 homes, both single family 20 residential." 21 That is the intent, 22 that is the proposal that you plan is 23 going forward to make? 24 MR. HAW: That is correct.
116 1 As Mr. Gatt mentioned, these are 2 homes intended for Mr. Soave and his 3 family alone. 4 MR. FISCHER: Okay. Thank 5 you. I wanted that purely on the 6 record. I guess these types of 7 cases, and I empathize with the 8 surrounding homeowners, I would be 9 very concerned if I lived in that 10 area and a condominium complex or 11 some other type of multi-use was 12 being planned, but in the end, as 13 Member Bauer said, we have one thing 14 to look at and that's the variance 15 that's in front of us and we can only 16 take that into consideration. The 17 Planning Commission and Council will 18 view other types of plans. So, once 19 again, all we can look at is the 20 variance that is listed. 21 I also wish we 22 could, as you stated, purchase the 23 land and own it as the City, but, 24 once again, that's a petition you
117 1 have to make to the city council. 2 Our budget is just about zero, so we 3 don't have that option. 4 Going forward also 5 -- you can sit down if you like, I 6 don't think I have any more questions 7 for the petitioner. When we look at 8 something like this, we have to be 9 very careful as a board because the 10 worst thing we could do as a board is 11 call something unbuildable. Once we 12 claim it's unbuildable, then we have 13 legal implications because the City 14 then has to buy it for a certain 15 amount of price and we get into legal 16 situations and something like -- 17 well, we all know other cases in the 18 City where that has happened. 19 So we don't want to 20 go down the path of that, and what we 21 have to look at is this variance 22 warranted. And in this case I do 23 believe that with the proposed 24 two-family homes this would present
118 1 the best option. It would mitigate 2 the woodland and wetland elimination 3 and as long as -- as far as we're 4 even told, no multi-use is being 5 planned, then I could support this as 6 well. 7 One last comment for 8 the City in kind of a broader aspect, 9 and I'm not sure who might be able to 10 answer it, currently this is zoned 11 RA. Can you give me some of the 12 general characteristics, for my 13 knowledge as well as maybe some of 14 the petitioners, as to what the 15 limitations of the buildings are? 16 MR. SHROYER: Mr. Fox or Mr. 17 Spencer. 18 MR. SPENCER: Okay. The 19 limitations are similar to other 20 residential districts. There's a 21 requirement for a maximum lot 22 coverage of 25 percent, there's a 23 limit on height of the buildings at 24 two-and-a-half stories, 35 feet, and
119 1 in the setbacks that are shown on the 2 plan there look like they represent 3 required setbacks in the district. 4 The RA district is the most 5 restrictive. It has the largest 6 setbacks. 7 MR. FISCHER: Okay. So out 8 of all the residential, this is the 9 most restrictive as opposed R-1 10 through R-4. 11 MR. SPENCER: It requires 12 the largest lots, the largest lot 13 width and is the least dense. 14 MR. FISCHER: Okay. Once 15 again, just trying to point out that 16 there are restrictions within the 17 ordinance that will limit the types 18 of buildings that can be put here. 19 Given the proposal that's in front of 20 us, I can be in support of the 21 variances requested. Thank you, Mr. 22 Chair. 23 MR. SHROYER: Member Sanghvi 24 and then Member Canup.
120 1 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. I 2 just have a question for the Planning 3 Department. I see in your note here 4 you cannot support this request at 5 this time. Would you like to 6 elaborate on that statement? 7 MR. SPENCER: I'm not the 8 author of this letter, but I will 9 elaborate to the best of my ability 10 on it. 11 This is a frame of 12 conversation that Tim Schmidt uses on 13 a common basis. You'll probably see 14 it in his letters in the future that 15 he likes to include this statement, I 16 believe, in case something changes or 17 new evidence or new information is 18 presented that, you know, we're not 19 rigid, that if things change, you 20 know, we may change our mind. So 21 it's at this point in time, being 22 presented this evidence and this 23 information, that we do not support 24 it.
121 1 MR. SANGHVI: Tell me, what 2 are these flag lots for other people 3 to understand, what is a flag lot? 4 MR. SPENCER: A flag lot is 5 usually a lot that will have a narrow 6 access to a larger portion, 7 oftentimes in the rear of other lots. 8 There's a lot of examples of them 9 throughout the state of Michigan. 10 They were developed or used in older 11 subdivisions to allow more density 12 without building the infrastructure. 13 You could build a shorter road and 14 then stack the lots back behind each 15 other to gain more houses with 16 building less roads to the houses. 17 MR. SANGHVI: So why does 18 the Planning does not recommend that 19 anymore? 20 MR. SPENCER: Our zoning 21 ordinance has frowned on it. It has 22 specific language in there against 23 it. It does -- and in this case it 24 probably would not do this because
122 1 this is the only one proposed in this 2 strip, but imagine if every other lot 3 was set up this way with a flag lot. 4 You'd have a lot and a home and then 5 a driveway, a lot and a home and a 6 driveway, a lot and a home and a 7 driveway. So it changes the 8 streetscape and appearance of the 9 neighborhood. 10 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. 11 Now another clarification I needed 12 from somebody. Is this going to be a 13 cobblestone drive here or is it going 14 to be something different? 15 MR. BAUER: Is says asphalt. 16 MR. SANGHVI: It says 17 cobblestone in this letter here. 18 That's why I'm asking for 19 clarification. There are two 20 different things in two different 21 places. 22 MR. SHROYER: Mr. Spencer, 23 could you address that? 24 MR. SPENCER: I may be
123 1 speaking partially for the Building 2 Department on this, but unless 3 there's a condition of approval for a 4 specific size and material of 5 driveway in this request, I believe 6 that the minimum requirements for any 7 residential driveway could be met and 8 be adequately served unless that was 9 included in your conditions. 10 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. 11 MR. SHROYER: Member Canup. 12 MR. CANUP: I guess my 13 question is to Mr. Spencer. If this 14 variance should be granted, how will 15 granting that variance impact the 16 buildability of the front lots that 17 actually front on Nine Mile Road? 18 There would be two lots left there, 19 right, am I correct? One to the east 20 side and one on the west side of the 21 driveway. 22 MR. SPENCER: If this 23 variance is granted, the proposal is 24 to create two lots only, not four
124 1 lots. There would not be two lots on 2 Nine Mile. They would be combining 3 the property and splitting it down 4 the middle. 5 MR. CANUP: Mr. Soave owns 6 this property from Nine Mile all the 7 way to the back; is that correct? Is 8 that my understanding? 9 MR. SHROYER: Only the 10 frontage of the strip, the Parcel 1, 11 to Nine Mile. 12 MR. CANUP: In other words, 13 he doesn't own the full width, which 14 is roughly, what is it, 500 feet, 15 between the two? 16 MR. SHROYER: I believe we 17 had neighbors indicate that they 18 owned properties on -- 19 MR. CANUP: On this side. 20 MR. SHROYER: Mr. Haw -- 21 MR. CANUP: Why are we doing 22 a flag lot then if Mr. Soave owns all 23 the way from Nine Mile all the way to 24 the back the full width of the
125 1 properties, why are we doing this if 2 he owns the whole thing? He can put 3 a driveway back there if he wants and 4 build a house back there. 5 MR. HAW: I'm sorry. You're 6 asking if he owns the entirety of 7 this property? 8 MR. CANUP: Yes. 9 MR. HAW: Yes, he does. 10 MR. CANUP: Why are we 11 creating a flag lot? 12 MR. SHROYER: He doesn't own 13 either sides of the driveway. He 14 only owns that narrow strip. 15 MR. CANUP: Well, that was 16 my question, does he own both sides 17 of the driveway, from Nine Mile back? 18 MS. WORKING: Member Canup, 19 right now it's two parcels. If these 20 variances are granted, the property 21 owner, Mandalay Properties, will go 22 for a lot split straight down the 23 middle of what you're seeing on your 24 screen this evening, so it will be
126 1 two parcels again but in a different 2 configuration. 3 The driveway is 4 proposed to meander along the whole 5 portion, if you will, of the flag 6 lot. Right now that's one parcel by 7 city assessing. If this variance is 8 granted tonight, Mr. Soave is going 9 to request a parcel split straight 10 back to the very end of that 11 property. 12 MR. SHROYER: From Nine Mile 13 Road all the way to the end of the 14 property. 15 MR. CANUP: Right, starting 16 here and going here. He owns the 17 strip down the middle and it expands 18 in the back, back here. 19 MR. SHROYER: But he's going 20 -- 21 MR. CANUP: Now, is that 22 expansion -- does he now own this 23 property also? 24 MS. WORKING: No, those are
127 1 private. 2 MR. CANUP: Well, how did 3 this happen? 4 MR. FOX: Currently the 5 narrow lot that you see that goes up 6 to the large parcel in the back is a 7 separate lot from the large parcel in 8 the back. There's a narrow, long 9 parcel from Nine Mile back to where 10 it touches the large, rectangular 11 parcel. They are two separate 12 parcels. The builder owns both 13 parcels. They're not combined at 14 this time. 15 MR. CANUP: When was all 16 this done? I mean, is this something 17 that's been done currently or was it 18 done 20 years ago? 19 MS. WORKING: We can't 20 answer your question. 21 MR. CANUP: It sounds to me 22 like we've been slicked because of 23 the fact they created -- by splitting 24 these they created two flag lots.
128 1 MR. FOX: No, their proposal 2 is to create the flag lots if they 3 can get the variance for -- 4 MR. CANUP: What if they 5 don't get the variance? 6 MR. FOX: The roadways -- 7 MR. CANUP: What if they 8 don't get the variance, then what? 9 I'm looking at it from the City's 10 standpoint. 11 MR. SPENCER: They'll have 12 one buildable lot if they don't get 13 the variance. 14 MR. FOX: Well, they would 15 still require a variance for frontage 16 on the street. 17 MR. SPENCER: For frontage 18 on the street but a lesser variance. 19 MR. CANUP: I'm just trying 20 to make absolutely sure I understand 21 all the implications of this. 22 MS. O'CONNOR: Can I point 23 something out to the Board? 24 MR. SHROYER: Not at this
129 1 time, ma'am. 2 MR. CANUP: I'm less 3 confused but I understand what we've 4 got, but I'm still concerned about -- 5 these two pieces of property, they're 6 nonconforming now; is that correct? 7 MS. WORKING: Those are 8 several parcels of land who I think 9 we've established the homeowners are 10 present this evening. 11 MR. FOX: I believe they are 12 currently not conforming with the 150 13 foot lot width. 14 MS. WORKING: I can't answer 15 your question. We'd have to call it 16 up on GIS and actually look at that 17 to answer your question 100 percent. 18 MR. CANUP: Okay. Thank 19 you. 20 MR. SHROYER: To the 21 counsel. Are we out of order if one 22 of our members cares to ask a 23 question to a previous speaker that 24 spoke during the public hearing?
130 1 MR. FISCHER: Mr. Chair, I 2 would personally not recommend it. 3 It's been our comment that the 4 petitioner has to speak but the 5 audience is allowed to participate at 6 a certain point within the hearing of 7 this case and that is the one time. 8 Our questions, and I believe our 9 scope, would be to ask the petitioner 10 questions and I, as a Board member, 11 would not feel comfortable stepping 12 outside that scope. 13 MR. SHROYER: Counsel. 14 MS. OZGA: You give the 15 public the opportunity to speak. 16 It's up to the Board if the Board 17 wishes to veer from their procedure 18 and ask a specific question, you 19 could certainly do that, but you have 20 given the public an opportunity to 21 speak. So it's basically up to the 22 Board. 23 MR. SHROYER: If the Board 24 has a specific question that they
131 1 want to address by one of the 2 previous speakers, please say so and 3 we'll look at it. 4 MR. SANGHVI: I don't have 5 any question for the previous 6 speaker. The only thing I'm trying 7 to get straight in my head, as Mr. 8 Canup will say, we are talking about 9 two lots here. One is a narrow strip 10 and the other lot is the big 11 rectangular piece in the back. They 12 are both owned by the same owner, if 13 I understand this correctly, and 14 they're trying to use the neighbor's 15 strip as a kind of conduit to go back 16 into the back rectangular lot where 17 they want to build the homes. 18 MR. CANUP: By ordinance at 19 present, if I understand it, they 20 have access to one lot in the back. 21 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 22 MR. CANUP: They have that 23 access now. That is No. 1. They are 24 asking us for a variance so they can
132 1 go for two. 2 MR. BAUER: So they can 3 split that. 4 MR. CANUP: They can split 5 that lot in the back. 6 MS. WORKING: Member Canup, 7 through the Chair, if it would please 8 the Board, Mr. Fox is going to go 9 into GIS right now and call up an 10 aerial view of the adjoining lots 11 that you're questioning as to whether 12 they're conforming or nonconforming. 13 There are areas of the city that are 14 legal nonconforming areas because 15 they were established under an 16 ordinance that was in place at the 17 time and, as you know, ordinances are 18 continually amended and updated to 19 reflect current conditions in the 20 city. You yourself, as a Board, have 21 actually recommended some of those 22 amendments to the ordinance. So I'm 23 not sure about procedure, but we 24 might buy ourselves some time for Mr.
133 1 Fox to go look up that information if 2 you feel it will be able to clarify 3 your decision or your vote in this 4 case. 5 MR. CANUP: Mr. Chairman, 6 the reason for my concern is, are we 7 creating by doing this -- first of 8 all, I really don't have much of a 9 problem with what's happening here. 10 I just want to make sure that we 11 aren't creating some problems 12 somewhere else by doing this. And if 13 it takes a moment or two, maybe we 14 can take a break and come back. 15 MR. SHROYER: I think we're 16 fine. We're going to take a recess 17 after this case, but I think we're 18 fine. I have some comments to make 19 so I'll take this time to make my 20 comments. 21 Right now we have 22 two lots, two separate lots, one that 23 fronts on Nine that's very narrow, we 24 have one large lot in the back, and
134 1 there is a possibility of having a 2 driveway that goes back to one 3 residence. That's one option. 4 The applicant is 5 looking at having one driveway go 6 back and splitting the back portion 7 to two different residences, both 8 being over two-and-a-half acres in 9 size, which all fit into the RA 10 category. So it's not like we're 11 change a zoning from RA to R-1 or R-2 12 or R-3 or something like that. 13 Once this is done, 14 if it is approved, and as was 15 mentioned earlier, the only thing 16 we're looking at is the variances 17 requested. We don't address the 18 woodlands, we don't address the 19 wetlands, we don't address the size 20 of the building, the setback of 21 building, etcetera, that is all done 22 through the Planning Commission, and 23 they are very rigorous. They bring 24 in a woodlands expert, they bring in
135 1 a wetlands expert and they have to 2 work very closely with them. They 3 have to meet all the MDEQ, Michigan 4 Department of Environmental Quality, 5 all their requirements. 6 And so a lot of the 7 issues that were brought up I think 8 have been addressed or will be 9 addressed perhaps not at this forum 10 but at the Planning Commission forum 11 if this goes forward. This isn't a 12 done deal. But if we look at 13 splitting it or looking at approving 14 this variance to allow the driveway 15 to connect that flag lot, then the 16 applicant is requesting to build two 17 houses, according to the information 18 we've received thus far. 19 What he wants to do 20 is not only split the back lot but 21 split the narrow strip as well so the 22 line would run all the way from Nine 23 Mile Road to the back of the lot. 24 You'd have two separate properties.
136 1 The driveway would meander, as they 2 mentioned, meander back and forth to 3 avoid wetlands and to try to save as 4 many trees as possible going back to 5 the property. And by the meandering 6 it's going to cross from one side to 7 the other side when the lot is split. 8 So hopefully that might clear up some 9 concerns or some questions or issues. 10 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE 11 MEMBER: Why split the front? 12 MR. SHROYER: To try to 13 avoid -- because they only want to 14 have two lots -- well, you're not 15 supposed to ask questions, but I'm 16 going to answer it anyway. If you 17 don't split the front, then you're 18 going to have three lots. You're 19 going to have the lot in the front 20 and you're going to have a split in 21 the back and have three. 22 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE 23 MEMBER: So you're going to have four 24 now.
137 1 MR. SHROYER: No, there's 2 only going to be two lots. There's 3 going to be two lots. Yes, sir. 4 MR. SANGHVI: The attorney 5 wants your attention. 6 MS. OZGA: To the Chair. I 7 just wanted to note that if you were, 8 the Board were inclined to grant the 9 variances, you could condition them 10 on what is being proposed, which is 11 one house per lot. 12 MR. SHROYER: Right, and 13 that's what I was going to bring up 14 next because there was concerns about 15 condominiums, about apartment 16 complexes, etcetera. So we can, 17 through our motion, put that 18 condition on the lot split. Right 19 now the split, if you see the line in 20 the middle of the property, all the 21 way from Nine Mile on your left, the 22 line going all the way back to the 23 back, you have one flag lot at the 24 bottom and one flag lot at the top.
138 1 So it is only two lots, it's not four 2 lots. That would be the split that 3 they're talking about. Any other 4 comments from the City? Yes. 5 MS. OZGA: I was just going 6 to note that there are specific 7 procedures and rules and regulations 8 regarding lot splits that the 9 Assessing Department I think would 10 look at. So based on what you're 11 asked to do here, is to grant 12 variances, that would have been 13 required for the lot split that was 14 requested. The petitioner would 15 still have to meet the requirements 16 of the ordinance in order to get the 17 lot splits. 18 MR. SHROYER: Absolutely. 19 Any other comments? Well, maybe at 20 this time, since Mr. Fox isn't back, 21 we ought to go ahead and take a ten 22 minute break. We're in a break right 23 now. 24 MR. FISCHER: Mr. Chair, I
139 1 have a point of order whether or not 2 we can entertain a recess in the 3 middle of a case. I don't believe 4 that's the correct procedure. 5 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Thank 6 you. Counsel. 7 MS. OZGA: You can entertain 8 a motion to table in order to allow a 9 break and then pick it up. 10 MR. SHROYER: Don't need to 11 do it anyway. Thank you. Do you 12 have something to share with us, Mr. 13 Fox? 14 MR. FOX: According to our 15 aerials, both those properties are at 16 least a minimum of 150 foot wide at 17 the west side based on what you're 18 seeing there on the left. 19 MR. SHROYER: Can you go up 20 here and point it out so the audience 21 can see it as well, please? 22 MR. FOX: Both the parcels 23 on either side of the narrow parcel 24 are a minimum of 150 wide at this
140 1 side. At the street the north parcel 2 is only 67 feet wide; the south 3 parcel is only 130 feet wide. So 4 neither conform to the minimum lot 5 width along the street on either side 6 of the narrow parcel. 7 MR. SHROYER: So if they 8 were to build a new house, they would 9 have to have a variance as well? 10 MR. FOX: Correct. They 11 would require a variance to build 12 anything new on either one of those 13 lots on either side of this parcel. 14 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE 15 MEMBER: Can I raise a question again 16 as a taxpayer? I have one thing I 17 really would like to discuss, one I 18 think you're overlooking. 19 MR. SHROYER: Ma'am -- 20 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE 21 MEMBER: You're overlooking that our 22 driveway is four feet from their 23 driveway. 24 MR. SHROYER: Ma'am, please.
141 1 You had your time to speak. You're 2 not permitted to go back and open up 3 this discussion. We're not open to 4 go back to discussion. 5 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE 6 MEMBER: You're chitchatting, you're 7 not talking. 8 MR. SHROYER: We're not open 9 to go back to discussion. Quiet. 10 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE 11 MEMBER: Mr. Gatt is whispering to 12 you. 13 MR. SHROYER: Because Mr. 14 Gatt is going to be leaving after 15 this case. 16 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE 17 MEMBER: He needs to be on record. 18 MR. SHROYER: Because he's 19 leaving after this case. It had 20 nothing to do with this case. 21 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE 22 MEMBER: Then you should have been 23 listening to me. 24 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
142 1 MEMBER: Put it on record. 2 MR. SHROYER: I will 3 entertain a motion at this time. 4 Member Gatt. 5 MR. GATT: I'd like to 6 entertain a motion to approve the 7 variances requested by the petitioner 8 in case number 07-010, filed by Mr. 9 Soave of Mandalay Properties, due to 10 the fact that he has shown a 11 significant -- there's been a 12 significant hardship in this 13 particular situation due to the lot 14 sizes that are in this particular 15 case. The fact is that there are 16 wetlands and there are woodlands in 17 this property that they have taken 18 into consideration. Every single bit 19 of the woodlands and wetlands will be 20 preserved to the best of their 21 ability. 22 I think that in this 23 particular situation this is the best 24 possible scenario. There's no other
143 1 way for this petitioner to get to 2 that back lot without having to go 3 through that front lot, that small, 4 narrow lot. The petitioner is going 5 to be building two private residence 6 homes, these aren't going to be 7 condominiums or apartments or 8 anything of the such, and because of 9 that I think that this is going to be 10 a very, very nice addition to the 11 city of Novi. 12 The petitioner has 13 shown, through his representative, 14 that this is a hardship because of 15 the lot dimensions and because of 16 that the variances requested should 17 be allowed. 18 MR. SHROYER: Is there a 19 second to the motion? 20 MR. BAUER: Second. 21 MR. SHROYER: The motion has 22 been made by Member Gatt, seconded by 23 Member Bauer. Any other discussion? 24 Member Canup.
144 1 MR. CANUP: I guess I'm 2 looking for a hardship and I don't 3 see a hardship except -- and that's 4 what we have to base our votes on or 5 cast our votes on is hardship. And I 6 guess I ask myself can this property 7 be built in any other way and the 8 answer to that is yes, it can be 9 built in another way. So there is no 10 hardship here of a practicality 11 hardship and it's an "I want" 12 hardship and an "I want" hardship 13 isn't allowed for in our ordinances. 14 So I guess I can't support the motion 15 based on the fact that I looked and I 16 don't see a hardship. This property 17 is buildable within the ordinance as 18 it sits. 19 MR. SHROYER: Any other 20 comments? Counsel, please. 21 MS. OZGA: Just a point of 22 clarity. These are dimensional 23 variances so the standard is 24 practical difficulty as opposed to
145 1 unnecessary hardship. 2 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 3 One of the other comments that I 4 would like to make is, even though I 5 pointed out earlier that one house 6 can be built on the back lot with a 7 flag, that is the most desirable; 8 however, two houses still on more 9 than two-and-a-half acres still 10 leaves plenty of area. We're not 11 touching the woodlands very much. 12 The wetlands are going to be 13 preserved as much as possible and, as 14 I mentioned, the MDEQ, etcetera, is 15 going to be looking at it very, very 16 closely if this is approved. If it 17 was a hardship, I would be opposed to 18 it as well. Since it is a 19 dimensional variance request, I feel 20 I need to support this. Please call 21 the roll. Yes. 22 MS. OZGA: Just a point of 23 clarity again. Is the motion maker 24 willing to amend the motion to add
146 1 practical difficulty? 2 MR. SHROYER: I thought he 3 said that at the beginning. 4 MR. GATT: I thought I did, 5 too, but yes, I am willing to amend 6 to include practical difficulty. 7 MR. BAUER: And I'll second 8 it. 9 MS. OZGA: And just another. 10 Was it conditioned on the 11 representation that there's one house 12 per lot? Have you made that a 13 condition? I just didn't hear it. 14 MR. GATT: I don't want to 15 put that as a condition. I don't 16 think that that's really an issue in 17 this particular situation, nor is the 18 driveway in my concern. 19 MR. CANUP: Well, except the 20 zoning ordinances, the way the 21 ordinances are written said within 22 the ordinance you can't do much more 23 than what they're doing here. 24 MR. FOX: Correct.
147 1 MS. WORKING: Chairman 2 Shroyer, through the Chair, with Mr. 3 Gatt, would you please reiterate what 4 the practical difficulty was for the 5 motion, please? 6 MR. SHROYER: Mr. Gatt. 7 MR. GATT: The practical 8 difficulty in this particular 9 situation is the lacked dimensions, 10 the two lacked dimensions that are in 11 question in this particular case. 12 This is the only way, really, to 13 build in this particular situation. 14 MR. FISCHER: If I might 15 add, that it is unique to this 16 property in the fact that one parcel 17 is landlocked and the other has a 18 short frontage on Nine Mile and it is 19 not resulting from conditions 20 generally existing in the city. The 21 petitioner has also established that 22 it is not self-created. Failure to 23 grant the variance would unreasonably 24 prevent or limit the use of the
148 1 property and will result in 2 substantially more than a mere 3 inconvenience or ability to attain 4 higher economic or financial return. 5 And lastly, the petitioner's effort 6 to mitigate, and I believe you said 7 this, but mitigate wetland and 8 woodland by this proposal as opposed 9 to some of the other proposals that 10 were presented by the Planning 11 Department. 12 MR. GATT: I'll add Member 13 Fischer's comments as a friendly 14 amendment. 15 MS. WORKING: Thank you. 16 MR. SHROYER: Member Bauer, 17 do you accept it? 18 MR. BAUER: Yep. 19 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Please 20 call the roll. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 22 MR. GATT: Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 24 MR. BAUER: Yes.
149 1 MS. WORKING: Member 2 Sanghvi? 3 MR. SANGHVI: No. 4 MS. WORKING: Chairman 5 Shroyer? 6 MR. SHROYER: No. 7 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair 8 Fischer? 9 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 11 MR. CANUP: No. 12 MS. WORKING: We have a tie. 13 MR. SHROYER: So the motion 14 fails. 15 MS. WORKING: Four is needed 16 to pass, Mr. Chairman. 17 MR. SHROYER: At this point 18 I'll entertain another motion. 19 MR. CANUP: I would make a 20 motion we deny the request as stated 21 due to a non-demonstrated hardship 22 either -- 23 MR. SHROYER: Practical 24 difficulty.
150 1 MR. SANGHVI: Difficulty. 2 That's the buzz word now. 3 MR. CANUP: And the reason 4 being the piece of property can be 5 built on as it sits. We are not 6 taking that property and saying no, 7 you cannot build on it. You can 8 build on it as it sits. If they had 9 to have a variance from us to be able 10 to build on it, period, I would agree 11 with that, but in this case no. 12 MR. SHROYER: Is there a 13 second to the motion? 14 Motion falls by 15 failure to second. 16 MR. SANGHVI: I'll second 17 it. 18 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Member 19 Sanghvi has seconded. Discussions? 20 Member Gatt. 21 MR. GATT: They can't build 22 on it the way it is right now. They 23 can't. There's two parcels of land. 24 It would be impossible for them to
151 1 build a driveway. It would still 2 require a variance for them to get a 3 driveway back in there and then get 4 those two lots combined into one lot 5 and build something back there. 6 That's the whole point of this. This 7 is a variance to make sure that they 8 can combine those lots, get it back 9 there and build something back there. 10 MR. CANUP: That was not my 11 understanding in previous 12 conversation, that it could be built 13 on as one single lot with that drive 14 being a designated driveway for that 15 lot. Is that correct, Mr. Spencer? 16 Just answer the question. Can that 17 lot be built on as it sits? 18 MR. SPENCER: I believe so. 19 I defer to our attorney for legal 20 advice on that, but, you know, we got 21 two adjoining lots owned by the same 22 owner. A letter to the assessor 23 combines them. 24 MR. FISCHER: But it will
152 1 still require a variance. 2 MR. SPENCER: I'm not 3 positive of the width of the lot. I 4 don't have that site plan in front of 5 me to know the exact width of the 6 lot. 7 MR. FOX: Based on the 8 dimensions, it's 80 something feet 9 across. They would still need a 10 variance to build on it because it 11 would still not meet the 150 foot 12 minimum requirement. They would 13 still need a variance from the 150 14 foot wide frontage on the road to 15 build on that lot. 16 MR. CANUP: Even though the 17 lot is there. 18 MR. FOX: Correct, the lot 19 is more than an acre and it's less 20 than 150 foot. 21 MR. CANUP: It's already 22 been split as a separate lot, it's 23 platted as a separate lot; is that 24 correct?
153 1 MR. FOX: Correct. The 2 narrow lot is what we're talking 3 about, the one up along the road? 4 MR. CANUP: Yes. 5 MR. FOX: Yes. It's a 6 separate lot, but it's 1.5 acres. 7 MR. CANUP: The narrow lot 8 meaning the driveway. 9 MR. FOX: Correct. That 10 particular lot, yes. 11 MR. CANUP: That is split. 12 That is already -- 13 MR. FOX: It's not split in 14 half, no. 15 MR. CANUP: No, it's not 16 split in half but it's one piece. 17 MR. FOX: One piece. 18 MR. CANUP: And it is an 19 access to the back portion. 20 MR. FOX: No. It is not 21 connected to the back portion at all. 22 There's two separate parcels, Parcel 23 A and B right now. The narrow parcel 24 is its own parcel owned by the same
154 1 person who owns the parcel behind it. 2 They're separate lots at this time. 3 MR. CANUP: He could use 4 that as a drive without a variance; 5 is that correct? 6 MR. FOX: If he combines it 7 with the parcel in the rear, he would 8 still need a variance because he 9 doesn't have enough width on the road 10 for that parcel. You have to have 11 150 foot of frontage on the road. He 12 will not have that regardless of how 13 he works that property. If he 14 combines it with the property in the 15 back, he still only has 86 feet 16 frontage on the road. 17 MR. BAUER: It's like Grand 18 River. You have to have 200 frontage 19 feet. 20 MR. FOX: I mean, it's 21 possible to build something but not 22 without variances. 23 MR. SHROYER: He could have 24 -- the front lot on Nine Mile Road
155 1 would still have to have a variance 2 but once that variance would be 3 granted a drive could be built to the 4 back lot that could contain one 5 house. Is that what you're asking? 6 MR. CANUP: Yes. 7 MR. SHROYER: That's 8 correct, right, if the variance was 9 granted -- 10 MR. SPENCER: For the lot 11 width, correct. 12 MR. SHROYER: For the lot 13 width, a driveway could be built to 14 the back property to build one house. 15 The applicant was requesting to split 16 it and build two houses. 17 MR. CANUP: Okay. I would 18 withdraw my previous motion then if 19 that's doable. I made a motion that 20 we deny the variances as requested. 21 The person who seconded would have to 22 agree to that. 23 MR. SANGHVI: I agree with 24 you, and I think I want one
156 1 clarification. The bigger confusion 2 has been instead of presenting these 3 as two separate lots, as the narrow 4 strip and the lot in the back, the 5 presentation appears to say this is 6 one single lot and that is why it has 7 created a lot of confusion. These 8 are two separate lots. It so happens 9 that they are owned by the same 10 people and that is why it looks as if 11 they have presented all things as one 12 single piece but they are really not 13 and that is why the lot in the back 14 had no front area by itself on Nine 15 Mile Road. 16 MR. BAUER: This is the only 17 way of getting back there. 18 MR. SANGHVI: And so the 19 only way you can get there is through 20 this narrow strip. It is literally 21 landlocked, the back lot is. 22 MR. SHROYER: Member Gatt. 23 MR. GATT: That's my whole 24 point. If you look at the variances
157 1 that are requested, the first part of 2 the variance is because of that 3 minimum lot width. He's got 150 feet 4 that is required, but there's not 150 5 feet there. So if there's one house 6 or 5,000 houses back there, they 7 still need a driveway that still 8 needs a variance. That was number 9 one. That was the first part of it. 10 The second part of 11 it was the minimum lot width that was 12 being dealt with. In this particular 13 situation, they're going to have two 14 acre plots. This isn't like East 15 Lake. This isn't like they're going 16 to have 400 feet. This is two 17 two-acre lots, bam, right next to 18 each other, one driveway that 19 regardless of whether or not, like I 20 said, one house, a thousand houses, 21 they still need that driveway that 22 requires a variance. 23 The whole thing 24 about them splitting the lot in half
158 1 really doesn't have anything to do 2 with us in this particular situation. 3 It does and it doesn't. They need 4 the variance to get a driveway back 5 there and then they need the minimum 6 lot width and this whole situation is 7 not -- we're looking at it in a 8 smaller view when we really need to 9 look at it in an acreage view. This 10 is a 2.3 and a 2.2 or 2.6 -- 11 MR. BAUER: 2.6, 2.6. 12 MR. GATT: 2.6 acres and 2.6 13 acres. These aren't little, tiny 14 East Lake Drive houses that they're 15 talking about doing. This isn't 16 something that's going to be -- these 17 are huge plots of land that's going 18 to have a driveway that isn't going 19 to affect anyone in this particular 20 situation. This is a little, tiny 21 strip that's going to have a driveway 22 on it with two 2.6 acre plots in the 23 back. 24 MR. CANUP: I appreciate
159 1 that, but the point is what's the 2 hardship on the back piece? I agree 3 with the hardship on the driveway 4 getting there. I agree with that 5 thoroughly. There's a hardship 6 there, there needs to be something 7 done, but what's the hardship on the 8 piece in the back? 9 MR. GATT: The variance 10 requested for these -- 11 MR. CANUP: What's the 12 hardship? 13 MR. GATT: What I'm 14 explaining is the variance requested 15 -- the first part of the variance 16 request is the hardship is that the 17 lot is too thin and that needs to 18 have a variance requested to get a 19 driveway back there. 20 The second is that 21 these are 2.6 acre plots of land that 22 they're going to build. The hardship 23 is that it's going to be a situation 24 where it's going to be beneficial,
160 1 it's going to be beneficial for the 2 entire city to have this the way it 3 is. Taxpayer money, things like -- 4 this is going to be a benefit to the 5 community. This is not going to 6 detract from any of the problems that 7 have been considered. 8 MR. SHROYER: All right. 9 Let's move forward. Is there a 10 motion? Is somebody prepared to make 11 a motion? The last one was withdraw. 12 MR. FISCHER: Point of 13 order, Mr. Chair. If one of the 14 applicants, or Board members, who 15 voted no on the last motion, they 16 could move to reconsider. I'm not in 17 that, but we could go from there if 18 someone has changed their mind. 19 MR. BAUER: Move to 20 reconsider. 21 MR. CANUP: Can we split 22 this into two pieces, one piece 23 dealing with -- 24 MR. SHROYER: Two motions?
161 1 MR. CANUP: Two motions. 2 One piece dealing with the driveway. 3 MR. BAUER: It's one case. 4 MR. CANUP: Okay. Somebody 5 make a motion then. I give up. 6 MR. SHROYER: We have a 7 motion to reconsider. All in favor 8 say aye. Can I do that with -- a 9 second. Motion to reconsider and a 10 second, Member Bauer and Member 11 Sanghvi. 12 MR. SANGHVI: Mr. Chair, 13 once we are done with that I would 14 like to point out something. 15 MR. SHROYER: Okay. 16 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair. 17 MR. SHROYER: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: To reconsider 19 the set aside motion that was voted 20 as a tie? 21 MR. SHROYER: Yes. 22 MS. WORKING: Thank you. 23 MR. SHROYER: To set aside 24 that, can I go with an aye vote or do
162 1 I need to have roll call? 2 MS. OZGA: I would have a 3 roll call vote. This is a motion to 4 reconsider the past action. 5 MR. SHROYER: Correct. 6 Please call the roll. 7 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 8 MR. BAUER: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member 10 Sanghvi? 11 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Chairman 13 Shroyer? 14 MR. SHROYER: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 16 MR. GATT: Yes. 17 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair 18 Fischer? 19 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 20 MS. WORKING: And Member 21 Canup? 22 MR. CANUP: No. 23 MS. WORKING: This will be 24 the motion to approve passes 5 to 1
163 1 -- or motion to reconsider. I'm 2 sorry. 3 MR. SHROYER: Yes, 4 reconsider. Member Sanghvi, you had 5 a comment. 6 MR. SANGHVI: Yeah. I just 7 wonder, if I may suggest, that we 8 split this into two different 9 motions, one motion to allow the 10 front lot to be used as an access 11 conduit over to the back lot, and the 12 second one then you decide whether 13 you want to allow that to be split. 14 And, really, technically there 15 shouldn't be any grounds to prevent 16 them from splitting once you accept 17 this as a conduit going back. The 18 thing that's holding it up is the 19 accessibility to the back lot. 20 MR. SHROYER: Counsel. 21 MS. OZGA: What was noticed 22 for today's meeting are the 23 dimensional variances. What you're 24 looking at are the variances. The
164 1 Board is not looking at the lot 2 splits. The Board is only looking at 3 these variances that are requested. 4 If you wish to look at something 5 different or if the applicant wishes 6 to increase his request, you have to 7 re-notice this for another meeting. 8 My suggestion would be to re-notice 9 it for another meeting. Right now 10 what you have before you are the 11 variances that are listed. 12 MR. SHROYER: Just the 13 variances. Okay. 14 MR. SANGHVI: Okay. I stand 15 corrected. 16 MR. SHROYER: Does the 17 original motion get re-voted or do we 18 need to make a new motion? 19 MS. OZGA: I'm sorry, the 20 question is? 21 MR. SHROYER: Do we re-vote 22 on the original motion or does a new 23 motion -- 24 MS. OZGA: Yes, you voted to
165 1 reconsider so now you vote on the 2 actual motion. 3 MR. FISCHER: I move to call 4 the vote. 5 MR. SHROYER: Okay. We have 6 a move to call, Robin. Please call 7 the vote. Does everybody understand 8 the motion? Maybe I need to ask that 9 first. 10 MR. GATT: The original 11 motion. 12 MR. SHROYER: The original 13 motion. Okay. Please call the vote. 14 MS. OZGA: Just a 15 clarification. This was the motion 16 that was to approve the variances as 17 requested. 18 MR. FISCHER: By Mr. Gatt 19 with amendments from me. 20 MS. WORKING: Seconded by 21 Mr. Bauer. 22 MR. SHROYER: Correct. 23 MS. WORKING: Member Gatt? 24 MR. GATT: This is a motion
166 1 to approve. 2 MS. WORKING: This is the 3 motion you made. 4 MR. FISCHER: Your motion to 5 approve. 6 MS. WORKING: That is 7 correct. 8 MR. GATT: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 10 MR. BAUER: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 12 MR. CANUP: No. 13 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair 14 Fischer? 15 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 16 MS. WORKING: Member 17 Shroyer? 18 MR. SHROYER: Yes. 19 MS. WORKING: Chairman 20 Shroyer. I apologize. 21 MR. SHROYER: That's fine. 22 Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Member 24 Sanghvi?
167 1 MR. SANGHVI: No. 2 MS. WORKING: The motion 3 passes 4 to 2. 4 MR. FISCHER: Move to recess 5 for ten minutes. 6 MR. SHROYER: We'll do. 7 We'll have a ten minute recess. 8 (A brief recess 9 was held during the meeting.) 10 MR. SHROYER: All right. 11 We're going to call the meeting back 12 to order. I will mention that Member 13 Gatt had to leave us at this point 14 and so Member Krieger will now be a 15 voting member of the Board. 16 The next case is 17 Case No. 07-011 filed by Scott 18 McCurdy of 41051 South McMahon. Mr. 19 McCurdy is requesting three side yard 20 setback variances and one front yard 21 setback variance to construct a 126 22 square foot addition and a thousand 23 square foot second story on an 24 existing home in the Willowbrook
168 1 Estates. The property is zoned R-4 2 and located south of Eleven Mile and 3 west of Haggerty Road. The existing 4 structure is already a legal 5 nonconforming use. The applicant is 6 present. You're not an attorney. 7 MR. McCURDY: No. 8 MR. SHROYER: Please give 9 your name and address and our Vice 10 Chair will swear you in. 11 MR. McCURDY: Scott McCurdy, 12 41051 South McMahon Circle. 13 MR. FISCHER: Do you swear 14 to tell the truth regarding Case No. 15 07-011? 16 MR. McCURDY: Yes. 17 MR. FISCHER: Thank you. 18 Please proceed. 19 MR. McCURDY: Well, 20 basically I'm looking to construct an 21 addition that would include extending 22 the garage about seven feet and the 23 purpose is to provide the family a 24 little bit more space and at the same
169 1 time improve the house, both 2 internally and externally. The 3 extension to the garage, I would 4 still have the minimum setback 5 requirement of ten feet on the one 6 side. 7 MR. SHROYER: Is that it? 8 MR. McCURDY: Yeah. 9 MR. SHROYER: Do we have any 10 correspondence? 11 MR. FISCHER: Yes, Mr. 12 Chair. In this case there were 42 13 notices mailed. There were two 14 approvals and zero objections. 15 An approval from 16 David and Amy Mustiner. "An approval 17 of this type of home improvement will 18 help to keep our subdivision a 19 vibrant community that will attract 20 families." 21 And Howard Turick of 22 South McMahon Circle said: "I have 23 no objection to Scott McCurdy 24 requesting a variance. I live on the
170 1 west side of his house." 2 Mr. Chair, I would 3 also think that it's appropriate to 4 mention that in the packet we did 5 receive from the petitioner several 6 of his other neighbors that agreed 7 with the site plan and that would be 8 on file in the official record. 9 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 10 Any members of the audience care to 11 speak? Seeing none, does the City 12 have any comments? 13 MR. FOX: If it pleases the 14 Board, I would like to do a little 15 clarification. The applicant has 16 submitted some revised drawings as of 17 April 2nd. I believe you guys have 18 that. The variance requests that he 19 stated is actually, under his new 20 drawing is actually going to be less 21 of a variance requested than 22 previously stated. Originally he was 23 going for a variance for five feet 24 from the 15 foot setback. Under the
171 1 proposal it would be 4.1 feet, I 2 believe, because he's going to have 3 10.9 feet setback on that one side. 4 MR. SHROYER: On the east 5 side? 6 MR. FOX: On the east side. 7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. Is 8 that all? 9 MR. FOX: That's it. 10 MR. SHROYER: At this point 11 I'll open it up to the Board. Member 12 Canup. 13 MR. CANUP: In here it 14 refers to an addition of a thousand 15 square foot second story. We have no 16 jurisdiction on that, right? 17 MR. FOX: The second story 18 will be on top of the -- will be 19 built on top of the garage addition 20 so it would also be part of a setback 21 requirement. That's why it's 22 included. Since he will be building 23 up as well as out, it will still 24 require a setback.
172 1 MR. CANUP: And the 2 homeowners association has approved 3 it? 4 MR. McCURDY: Yes. I have a 5 letter. 6 MR. FISCHER: Do we have 7 that on file? 8 MS. WORKING: It should be 9 in the packet. 10 MR. CANUP: It is. I'm 11 looking at it. I think the minimum 12 that they're asking is not 13 unreasonable. I would support a 14 motion to approve this if somebody 15 should make that motion. 16 MR. SHROYER: Other 17 comments? 18 MR. SANGHVI: I just have 19 one question. I wonder why you call 20 this a nonconforming legal structure. 21 MR. FOX: The current house 22 as it is built, without any 23 modifications to it, does not meet 24 the current setback requirements. It
173 1 is required to have a ten foot 2 minimum side yard and a 25 foot 3 minimum total side yard. He does not 4 have that on the west side of the 5 property, he has less than ten feet, 6 and he has -- and he does have 17 7 feet on the other side. So one of 8 the side yards and the total side 9 yard setback is nonconforming 10 existing, so it is a legal 11 nonconforming use. It was built 12 prior to the zoning ordinance being 13 -- 14 MR. SANGHVI: That's not his 15 fault. 16 MR. FOX: No. 17 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. I 18 have no problem with this request. I 19 think it will be doing good to 20 everybody all around, as far as I can 21 see. I've been to that property and 22 I have no doubt what they are looking 23 for is going to do good to everybody 24 around and themselves. So I have no
174 1 difficulty in supporting his request. 2 MR. SHROYER: Any other 3 comments? Member Fischer. 4 MR. FISCHER: Just a simple 5 comment. It's always interesting 6 when a lot is on a curve. It's very 7 difficult to meet the setback 8 requirements and in this case it's a 9 circle, semicircle. Once again with 10 the angle of the one lot line that 11 drives the practical difficulty shown 12 here. One other stipulation for 13 whomever would be interested in 14 making a motion, I don't see the 15 association approval in here so I 16 would recommend that a motion contain 17 the provision that it is contingent 18 upon association approval. Thank 19 you. 20 MR. McCURDY: They stamped 21 the drawings. Is there something 22 else that's needed? 23 MR. SANGHVI: I have a 24 question for the counsel. Before
175 1 approving or disapproving any kind of 2 variance, I don't think it is a 3 requirement of the law to have that 4 from the association and we are not 5 bound by their recommendations 6 either, are we? 7 MS. OZGA: If I may, you are 8 not bond by the association's 9 approval or disapproval. That can be 10 one thing you consider, but resident 11 opinion are things you would consider 12 but you're not bound by whether they 13 approve or disapprove of this. So 14 that's why I would hesitate 15 conditioning any motion on getting 16 the homeowners' approval, but if 17 you'd like to see a homeowners' 18 approval -- 19 MR. FISCHER: There's quite 20 a bit of information that's in there, 21 so it's not even part of this case, 22 so let's proceed. 23 MR. SHROYER: It doesn't 24 mean we can't include it in part of
176 1 our -- 2 MR. SANGHVI: Alright. Then 3 if no further discussion, I'd like to 4 make a motion in the Case No. 07-011, 5 filed by Scott McCurdy, for 41051 6 South McMahon Circle, that we grant 7 the request of the applicant for the 8 addition to his house because of the 9 pie-shaped lot and the lot 10 configuration. 11 MR. BAUER: Second. 12 MR. SHROYER: Motion has 13 been made by Member Sanghvi, seconded 14 by Member Bauer. Any further 15 discussion? 16 MS. WORKING: I heard 17 Fischer. 18 MR. SHROYER: Counsel 19 comment. 20 MS. OZGA: I was just asking 21 the configuration of the property 22 represents a practical difficulty. 23 MR. FISCHER: Pie-shaped 24 lot.
177 1 MS. OZGA: The pie-shaped 2 configuration. 3 MR. SANGHVI: I said 4 pie-shaped lot. 5 MR. SHROYER: Please call 6 the roll. 7 MS. WORKING: Member 8 Sanghvi? 9 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 10 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 11 MR. BAUER: Yes. 12 MS. WORKING: Chairman 13 Shroyer? 14 MR. SHROYER: Yes. 15 MS. WORKING: Member 16 Krieger? 17 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 18 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair 19 Fischer? 20 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 21 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 22 MR. CANUP: Yes. 23 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 24 6-0.
178 1 MR. SHROYER: Thank you, 2 sir. 3 MR. FISCHER: Good luck. 4 MR. McCURDY: Thank you. 5 MR. SHROYER: The next case. 6 Case No. 07-013, filed by Raymond J. 7 Behling and Schostak Brothers & 8 Company for Olga's Kitchen, located 9 in Westmarket Square Shopping Center 10 at 47996 Grand River. The applicant 11 is requesting three sign variances 12 for Olga's Kitchen and Suncoast 13 Smoothies Restaurant located in the 14 Westmarket Square Shopping Center. 15 The applicant is requesting one 54.73 16 square foot sign variance and one 17 9.94 sign for the east elevation of 18 the building and one 9.94 square foot 19 sign variance for the south elevation 20 of the building. 21 The applicant is 22 present. Please state your name and 23 address and if you're not attorney 24 please be sworn in.
179 1 MR. BEHLING: My name is 2 Raymond J. Behling. I'm the senior 3 development manager with Schostak 4 Brothers & Company and I am not an 5 attorney. 6 MR. FISCHER: Sir, do you 7 swear to tell the truth in ZBA case 8 07-011? 9 MR. BEHLING: I do. 10 MR. FISCHER: Thank you. 11 MR. SHROYER: Please state 12 your case. 13 MR. BEHLING: I'd like to 14 start out by making a clarification. 15 In your agenda for the evening it 16 indicates -- 17 MR. FISCHER: Sir, if I 18 could interrupt you for one second. 19 It's case 013, so as long as you 20 still swear to tell the truth. 21 MR. BEHLING: Whichever case 22 I'm going to swear to. I would like 23 to point out that in the agenda for 24 this evening it indicates we're
180 1 asking for signage on the east face, 2 which is comprised of two areas, and 3 one area on the side facing Grand 4 River, whereas if you'll notice in 5 the application it is for an 6 identical set of signages on two 7 different frontages. So I don't know 8 if that is a complication that you 9 need to deal with, but we are asking 10 for identical signage on both faces 11 of the corner lot. 12 MR. SHROYER: Was it 13 advertised properly? 14 MR. AMOLSCH: They have two 15 -- they're permitted one sign and 16 they're asking for another additional 17 sign and two smaller signs so that's 18 the way it was advertised. That's 19 what the applicant applied for. 20 MR. SHROYER: So we can move 21 ahead. Thank you. 22 MR. BEHLING: I would like 23 to just go over several of the 24 comments in my letter to the Board.
181 1 It indicates that in Section 28 52 B1 2 A1, multiple businesses: A business 3 having a first floor pedestrian 4 entrance shall be allowed one quarter 5 square feet of signage per lineal 6 foot of contiguous public or private 7 street frontage up to a maximum of 65 8 square feet. 9 We believe that we 10 have a special situation and although 11 this does apply and comply with that, 12 on either side we have two frontages. 13 We're located at the corner of a 14 shopping center. We face we Grand 15 River on the east side and we face 16 the vast bulk of the shopping center 17 on the other entrance. Both of them 18 have sufficient frontage and both of 19 them have customer entrances to meet 20 that requirement within the code. 21 So what we are 22 asking is that we be allowed to 23 consider that as two frontages and 24 the practical difficulty being that
182 1 we either face one street and lose 2 half of our exposure or face the 3 other street and lose the other half 4 of the exposure. 5 The only other thing 6 that we're asking for is that 7 normally there's a large block, one 8 rectangle that you put all the signs 9 in. We have two different product 10 entities here, being Olga's Kitchen, 11 which is basically a restaurant, and 12 Suncoast Smoothies, which is a 13 smoothy bar. All we're asking is 14 that, although they collectively are 15 within that square footage, that we 16 just put a couple feet in between 17 them so we're not jamming the two 18 signs together. So that's basically 19 what we're requesting here this 20 evening. 21 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 22 Any member of the audience care to 23 speak on this matter? Seeing none, 24 does the City have any statements
183 1 prepared? 2 MR. AMOLSCH: No comment, 3 sir. 4 MR. SHROYER: At this point 5 I'll open it up to the Board for 6 comment. 7 MR. FISCHER: Mr. Chair, if 8 I just might put in the record that 9 nine notices were mailed and there 10 were no approvals and no objections. 11 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 12 Now we'll open it up to the Board for 13 comments. I'm going to ignore Mr. 14 Canup at this point and ask Member 15 Fischer to speak first. 16 MR. FISCHER: I'll make it 17 brief then Brent can yell at me. I 18 don't see an issue with this one. I 19 see two frontages. Oftentimes when 20 we have a corner store I feel that 21 they do have to show practical 22 difficulty because they are facing 23 two different, completely different 24 areas. They got one on a
184 1 thoroughfare and one the other 2 parking lot. 3 As far as the two 4 signs go, as long as the combined 5 square footage is within what would 6 normally be allowed -- I know we 7 normally box it altogether but I 8 believe they're meeting the intent as 9 long as they stay within the allowed 10 size for a complete sign for one 11 building. So thank you, Mr. Chair. 12 MR. SHROYER: Member Canup. 13 MR. CANUP: My question to 14 the petitioner is Olga's Kitchen and 15 then you've got the Smoothies 16 portion, Suncoast Smoothies. Is 17 Suncoast Smoothies product they sell? 18 MR. BEHLING: It is a 19 product they sell. It is a smoothy 20 but it's not the traditional Olga's 21 restaurant fare. I don't know if you 22 know Olga's. 23 MR. CANUP: I've been in 24 Olga's, yes.
185 1 MR. BEHLING: It goes back 2 a long way so we define that as a 3 separate business, but it is owned by 4 Olga's Kitchen. 5 MR. CANUP: You go and sit 6 down at a table and a girl comes over 7 to take your order. Does she take 8 your order for the smoothies, too, or 9 is it a separate business? 10 MR. BEHLING: She takes it. 11 Jim Wade is with Olga's Kitchen. 12 MR. CANUP: I don't have a 13 problem with Olga's Kitchen. I guess 14 I have a problem with Suncoast 15 Smoothies because it's a product that 16 they sell. You know, Kroger could 17 put up that they sell angus meat out 18 front on their sign, too. So we're 19 advertising a product that is sold 20 within there rather than advertising 21 Olga's Kitchen. I don't have a 22 problem with the two signs, Olga's 23 Kitchen on the two locations, which 24 would be on the east and the south.
186 1 MR. BEHLING: It would be 2 the east and the south. 3 MR. CANUP: East and the 4 south, I don't have a problem with 5 that. I have a problem with Suncoast 6 Smoothies. 7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 8 Member Krieger, did you have a 9 comment? 10 MS. KRIEGER: Not at this 11 time. Thank you. 12 MR. SHROYER: Member 13 Sanghvi. 14 MR. SANGHVI: I have the 15 same question. Are these two 16 businesses, separate businesses, or 17 are they both run and operated and 18 owned by different entities? 19 MR. BEHLING: They're owned 20 by the same entity. 21 MR. SANGHVI: The same 22 entity but they are two different 23 businesses. The ownership is the 24 same but the businesses are separate.
187 1 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE 2 MEMBER: I would label them as 3 different concepts. 4 MR. SHROYER: Sir, would you 5 please come up and identify yourself 6 and be sworn in. Make everything 7 legal here. 8 MR. BEHLING: He's not a 9 lawyer either. 10 MR. WADE: Jim Wade, 1963 11 Valley Road, New Hudson. 12 MR. FISCHER: Sir, do you 13 swear to tell the truth in ZBA case 14 07-013? 15 MR. WADE: Yes, I do. 16 Suncoast Smoothies and Olga's Kitchen 17 are the same company but they're two 18 separate concepts. You can get 19 smoothies to go, you can get Olga's 20 Kitchen to go. It all comes out of 21 the same building, the same cash 22 registers, we run both concepts 23 within the same building. They are 24 two separate businesses within the
188 1 same building. So I don't see it 2 quite as angus meat. We're trying to 3 show that we have this other concept 4 within our building that we're trying 5 to promote. This would be our 6 eleventh Olga's Kitchen/ Suncoast 7 Smoothies. It's becoming a part of 8 Olga's Kitchen. 9 MR. SANGHVI: If I order the 10 dinner and I order a smoothy, do I 11 get two separate bills or the same 12 bill? 13 MR. WADE: It's all the same 14 bill. 15 MR. SANGHVI: Thank you. 16 MR. WADE: It would be just 17 like if we had a liquor license. 18 MR. SANGHVI: I know. I 19 didn't want to compare that with a 20 bar and diner at the same time, but 21 it's the same concept. 22 MR. SHROYER: Member 23 Fischer. 24 MR. FISCHER: Can I walk in
189 1 and just get a smoothy? 2 MR. WADE: Sure. 3 MR. FISCHER: I guess the 4 way I'm doing this is a Dunkin 5 Donuts/Baskin Robbins type of 6 situation. You know, it's the same 7 business, same building, you get 8 everything from the same cash 9 register, but truly you have two 10 unique things you're selling. That's 11 two businesses. 12 MR. BEHLING: That, too, is 13 the same ownership. 14 MR. FISCHER: Exactly. If 15 that helps the Board envision it at 16 all. 17 MR. SHROYER: The building 18 on the corner is currently under 19 construction. There is an entrance 20 off the Grand River side and an 21 entrance off the east side. Correct? 22 So you're looking to putting signs 23 above each entrance and you haven't 24 considered or thought of having
190 1 Olga's Kitchen over one entrance and 2 Suncoast Smoothies over the other? 3 MR. BEHLING: That would 4 deny half your business to one side 5 or the other. Now, even if we had 6 one sign, it would be a bigger sign, 7 it would be a bigger Olga's Kitchen, 8 but we're just asking to take that 9 and split it up so we can 10 demonstrate, you know, the Dunkin 11 Donuts and the Basking Robbins. 12 MR. SHROYER: That's what 13 I'm trying to envision as well. Any 14 other comment from the Board? 15 MR. BAUER: Yes. 16 MR. SHROYER: Yes, Mr. 17 Bauer. 18 MR. BAUER: The entrance off 19 of Grand River at the Home Depot 20 area, that is not a street. 21 MR. BEHLING: It is not a 22 street, but I believe it is 23 considered a private street if it's 24 part of the parking lot and it's
191 1 facing off of Grand River. 2 MR. BAUER: I'm not worrying 3 about the sign, but I just wanted to 4 get that correct, it's not a street, 5 facing that street. Only one street. 6 So you're going to have an Olga's 7 Kitchen and the Smoothies on one side 8 and the same thing on the other side. 9 MR. FISCHER: Microphone. 10 MR. SHROYER: Put on your 11 mike. 12 MR. BAUER: Sorry. So you 13 are well over the 65 square feet. 14 That's why you came here. 15 MR. BEHLING: Between two 16 faces, but since we have two 17 frontages this applies to each one of 18 those frontages. 19 MR. BAUER: Total building, 20 not the two. Am I correct? 21 MR. AMOLSCH: The space is 22 allowed one 65 foot square foot wall 23 sign. 24 MR. BAUER: That's what I
192 1 said, not one on each side. 2 MR. AMOLSCH: No. 3 MR. BAUER: That's what I 4 thought. 5 MR. SHROYER: Are you done, 6 Member Bauer? 7 MR. BAUER: Yes, sir. 8 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 9 That's probably where I'm coming 10 from. At this point I don't believe 11 I'm in favor of approving both sides. 12 I believe you would need to indicate 13 a main entrance and try to operate 14 from that. 15 Does anyone care to 16 make a motion? Member Sanghvi. 17 MR. SANGHVI: I'll make a 18 motion. In Case No. 07-013, filed by 19 Raymond J. Behling of Schostak 20 Brothers for Olga's Kitchen, located 21 in the Westmarket Square Shopping 22 Center at 47996 Grand River Avenue, 23 and I make a motion to grant the 24 request of the applicant for the two
193 1 signs as he has requested, Olga's 2 Kitchen as well as Suncoast 3 Smoothies, as requested because they 4 have two separate entrances and two 5 separate frontages. Thank you. 6 MS. KRIEGER: Second. 7 MR. SHROYER: Member 8 Krieger. There's a motion by Member 9 Sanghvi, Member Krieger seconded. 10 Further discussion? Member Fischer. 11 MR. FISCHER: If I could 12 just add in this case we see two 13 separate business identities and 14 that's why we're allowing this and 15 they're still meeting the intent of 16 the ordinance by doing so. 17 MR. SANGHVI: I have no 18 problem. 19 MR. FISCHER: All right. 20 Thank you, Mr. Sanghvi. 21 MR. AMOLSCH: I believe the 22 motion is for two signs -- 23 MR. SANGHVI: One on each 24 side.
194 1 MR. AMOLSCH: There's three 2 separate signs though. There's the 3 two 9.4 -- 9.94 and the one 54.74 4 foot. So these are three separate 5 signs. 6 MR. SANGHVI: Okay. Let's 7 incorporate that, as requested, both 8 signs. 9 MR. SHROYER: So the two 10 separate sign variances and the 11 overall variance? 12 MR. AMOLSCH: The signs 13 requested. 14 MR. SHROYER: There's only 15 two signs. 16 MS. WORKING: The applicant 17 applied for four sign permits, one 18 was approved and three of them are 19 requesting variances from you this 20 evening. 21 MR. SHROYER: Everybody 22 understand? We have a motion and 23 second. Any further discussion? 24 Please call the roll.
195 1 MS. WORKING: Call the roll? 2 MR. SHROYER: Please. 3 MS. WORKING: Member 4 Sanghvi? 5 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 6 MS. WORKING: Member 7 Krieger? 8 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 9 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 10 MR. BAUER: No. 11 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 12 MR. CANUP: No. 13 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair 14 Fischer? 15 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 16 MS. WORKING: Chairman 17 Shroyer? 18 MR. SHROYER: No. 19 MS. WORKING: We're tied 20 again. 21 MR. SHROYER: Member Canup. 22 MR. CANUP: I would make a 23 motion that we grant the variances as 24 requested with the exception of the
196 1 removal of the Suncoast Smoothies. 2 MR. SHROYER: Is there a 3 second to that motion? 4 MR. BAUER: Second. 5 MR. SHROYER: There's a 6 motion by Member Canup and a second 7 by Member Bauer. Any further 8 discussion? Please call the roll. 9 MS. WORKING: Will you 10 please clarify who seconded? 11 MR. SHROYER: Member Bauer. 12 MS. WORKING: That would be 13 for a two-sign variance request? 14 MR. CANUP: The signs as 15 stated with the exception of the 16 Suncoast Smoothies. 17 MS. WORKING: It would be 18 one then. 19 MR. CANUP: Yes. 20 MS. WORKING: Because the 21 Olga's Kitchen was approved. 22 Member Canup? 23 MR. CANUP: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?
197 1 MR. BAUER: Yes. 2 MS. WORKING: Chairman 3 Shroyer? 4 MR. SHROYER: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Member 6 Krieger? 7 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 8 MS. WORKING: Member 9 Sanghvi? 10 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair 12 Fischer? 13 MR. FISCHER: No. 14 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 15 5-1. 16 MR. BEHLING: Quick 17 clarification of that. If we were to 18 put them together into that one 65 19 foot, would that then be one sign on 20 each face or would -- if they all fit 21 in that same box. 22 MR. AMOLSCH: Within your 23 sign limit of 65 square feet, you can 24 put information as to what products
198 1 you sell or what services you provide 2 together with the business name, but 3 you still need a variance for the 4 second wall sign. 5 MR. BEHLING: I believe we 6 just got a variance for a second wall 7 sign. If they both fit within the 65 8 square foot rectangle, is that then 9 one? 10 MR. AMOLSCH: That would be 11 up to the Board. 12 MR. CANUP: Excuse me. The 13 motion was with the exception of 14 Suncoast being removed. 15 MR. AMOLSCH: His question 16 was can he do that. 17 MR. CANUP: He can do it on 18 the sign that's allowed; he can't do 19 it on the sign that's not allowed. 20 MR. AMOLSCH: It's per your 21 stipulation. 22 MR. BEHLING: On one wall we 23 can combine the two, on the other 24 wall we can't.
199 1 MR. SHROYER: Get with the 2 Building Department tomorrow. 3 MR. AMOLSCH: The one the 4 Board just approved, you can only 5 have the name of Olga's Kitchen. 6 MR. BEHLING: Thank you. 7 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 8 The next case is Case No. 07-014 9 filed by David Compo of Interphase 10 Land Development LLC for lot 4 of the 11 Casa Loma Condominium Development 12 located at 21633 Beck Road. Mr. 13 Compo is requesting one 25-foot rear 14 yard setback variance from the 15 required 50-foot rear yard setback 16 for the construction of a new single 17 family condominium home on lot 4 of 18 the Casa Loma Condominium 19 Development. The property is zoned 20 R-A and located south of Nine Mile 21 and west of Beck Road. Obviously the 22 applicant is here. 23 Please state your 24 name and address and if you're not an
200 1 attorney be sworn in. 2 MR. WITTE: Board members, 3 my name is Steve Witte. I'm here 4 tonight representing David Compo who 5 is also here. He's the owner and the 6 developer of the property. Neither 7 of us are attorneys. 8 MR. FISCHER: If you could 9 both raise your hands. Do you swear 10 to tell the truth in Case No. 07-014? 11 MR. WITTE: Yes. 12 MR. COMPO: Yes. 13 MR. SHROYER: State your 14 case. 15 MR. WITTE: Board members, 16 once again my name is Steve Witte 17 from Nayer Galsworthy (ph), the 18 engineers for the project. We've 19 been working on it for a couple of 20 years and this is one of the last 21 hurdles, so to speak, that we're 22 trying to achieve. 23 The Casa Loma 24 Development is a ten-lot, single
201 1 family residential development, which 2 is all very large lot sizes, in the 3 neighborhood of one acre, and there 4 are a number of natural features of 5 the site that were taken into account 6 during the design of the project by 7 minimizing the impact of wetland and 8 woodland that is present at the site. 9 In order to achieve 10 that we pulled the cul de sac further 11 to the east, so we shortened that, 12 and then, as I mentioned before, 13 there's only ten lots that are shown 14 in that or are proposed currently. 15 There's actually enough room that 16 David could have up to 17 lots. So 17 he's really trying to make these very 18 attractive lots, executive-style 19 homes, and then David actually would 20 live on lot 6 and construct his own 21 home on that lot. 22 The City -- 23 regarding lot 4, south of lot 4 there 24 is a wetland pocket, and that shows
202 1 up on the screen. It's actually this 2 lot right here and then the wetland 3 pocket extends a little bit south of 4 our property, but as you can see it's 5 not like an extremely large area. 6 And in order to minimize the impact 7 of that area, we obviously kept the 8 lots where they're shown. The City 9 has stated that since wetland cannot 10 be included on a lot, the rear yard 11 setback for lot 4 must be taken from 12 the edge of the wetland. 13 As you can see on 14 the picture there, the wetland has a 15 finger and they're stating that the 16 setback is from that edge of the 17 wetland as opposed to the original 18 overall property line. And the owner 19 is proposing to keep the building 20 setback at least 25 feet off the 21 wetland, which would in essence be 22 the equivalent of 73 feet off the 23 original lot line. 24 These lots, it's our
203 1 executive-style homes. The houses 2 that are proposed on these lots are 3 all very substantial in size and to 4 that end we developed a plan that 5 shows what is anticipated to be on 6 lot 4. And just to point a couple 7 things out to you, this is the 8 original property line, this is the 9 edge of the wetland, and what the 10 City is saying is that this wetland 11 has to be on its own separate 12 property. And since this is the rear 13 yard of lot 4, they're saying the 14 setback has to be taken 50 feet from 15 this finger, which by the time you 16 put that in the building site or 17 building width on lot 4 becomes very 18 narrow for the type of house being 19 proposed. 20 Justification for 21 the variance. I'll go through these 22 briefly. The wetlands in question 23 could have been filled in originally 24 with the original plans and approval.
204 1 There were a number of little pockets 2 that were proposed to be filled in 3 but, as I said before, in an effort 4 to minimize what was proposed we had 5 left this wetland pocket as is. And 6 the developer had made concessions on 7 his layout to appease the City and 8 preserve the environment and he would 9 definitely appreciate flexibility in 10 regards to the setback in this 11 location. 12 If the overall lot, 13 in other words the whole development, 14 was not proposed for a development, 15 the owner could have constructed a 16 house or a building, have the 25-foot 17 setback as we're showing and that 18 we're proposing since a new lot would 19 not be created and that would not 20 necessitate this 50-foot setback. 21 So the only reason 22 this issue comes up is because land 23 is being subdivided and then in 24 addition just because this wetland is
205 1 in the rear yard of the lot that's 2 why we would have the 50-foot 3 setback. If the wetland were between 4 lot 4 and 5, for instance, the house 5 could be at 25 feet off the wetland. 6 So with the overall property here 7 once again, we're 73 feet off of 8 that. We've got more than the 50 9 feet that's normally required. The 10 intent of a rear yard setback is to 11 provide separation between houses. 12 Since the wetland in question is at 13 the rear of the lot, as I've already 14 mentioned, the house will be 73 feet, 15 the closest 73 feet off the property 16 line. 17 And the building 18 setback of six feet does not affect 19 the 25-foot no disturb area next to 20 the wetland. That 25 feet area will 21 be left undisturbed with this 22 development with the construction of 23 the house. So even without a 24 variance, the disturbance could go to
206 1 within 25 feet of the wetland. So as 2 far as preserving the trees or the 3 vegetation that's out there, this 4 variance technically doesn't do 5 anything for that because even if you 6 were to deny the variance, we could 7 still grade and do whatever we want 8 up to the 25-foot setback. 9 So I apologize for a 10 being little bit long-winded, but I'm 11 definitely more than happy to answer 12 any questions or if you have any 13 concerns I'm more than happy to 14 answer them. 15 MR. COMPO: As will I as in 16 regard to the construction of the 17 homes, which I will be building all 18 of them. 19 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. Is 20 there any correspondence? 21 MR. FISCHER: Yes, Mr. 22 Chair. In this case 30 notices were 23 mailed. There was one approval with 24 three objections. Did you want to
207 1 see if anyone in the audience wanted 2 to make comment first, though? 3 MR. SHROYER: I was going to 4 do that next, if that's the proper 5 sequence. I must have wrote it down 6 wrong, so we'll open it up to the 7 audience. 8 Yes, ma'am. Please 9 come forward and state your name and 10 address and be sworn in. 11 MS. CRAWFORD: Good evening. 12 Carol Crawford, 22135 Beck Road. I'm 13 also speaking for my neighbor, Steve 14 Tracey, at 22125 Beck Road. 15 MR. FISCHER: If you'll 16 raise your right hand for me. Do you 17 swear to tell the truth in case ZBA 18 07-014? 19 MS. CRAWFORD: Yes, I do. 20 MR. FISCHER: Thank you. 21 MS. CRAWFORD: Our 22 properties are three lots, three 23 pieces of property away, and our land 24 is on the west side of Beck Road and
208 1 we border along the back yards of 2 most of the people who were here 3 tonight on Nine Mile and we're 4 concerned about any project that 5 comes into our area that wants 6 another variance. 7 The ordinance is 50 8 feet; it should stay 50 feet. When 9 these developments or these people 10 buy this land, they know what the 11 ordinance is and they constantly come 12 in for a variance. If it's such a 13 big piece of land and such a big 14 house, a 25-foot backyard is a pretty 15 pathetically small yard for one of 16 these mansion-type homes. 17 Our wetlands in that 18 area are extremely vulnerable. 19 Between Beck and Garfield, Nine and 20 Eight, we have an extremely high 21 water table. For instance, our 22 property and our neighbor's property, 23 the Tracey's, I think together we 24 have about 12 acres there.
209 1 Every time a new 2 project comes into the south of us 3 it's built up, the wetlands are 4 encroached upon and we flood, in 5 fact, we're flooding right now. And 6 it isn't flooding from across the 7 land, it's flooding from beneath the 8 land because of the high water table. 9 So we would just 10 like to say, as two neighbors, that 11 we would prefer that the City sticks 12 with their 50-foot ordinance to 13 preserve the wetlands. And, also, we 14 have many, many animals out there, 15 deer and so on, and we feel that it's 16 always an encroachment with every 17 development that comes through. It's 18 nothing personal, it's just every 19 development comes here for some sort 20 of variance when they know well what 21 that ordinance is to start with. 22 Thank you for listening. 23 MR. SHROYER: Thank you, Ms. 24 Crawford. Any other members of the
210 1 audience care to speak? Now we'll go 2 to the correspondence. 3 MR. FISCHER: We have an 4 objection from Kelly and Pancho Hall. 5 "No, we do not want to give a 25-foot 6 rear setback variance. We require he 7 does 50-foot clearance from our 8 property site or home. Please follow 9 the Novi code." It lists the article 10 and section and also copied their 11 legal counsel. 12 Another objection 13 from Vince and Maria Dedemenico. "We 14 object to this request of the 15 variance because we would like to 16 maintain the natural preservation of 17 the wetlands. We expect the City to 18 adhere to the ordinance that they 19 have set into place and if 20 development cannot follow these 21 ordinances then they should redesign 22 their plans in order to respect these 23 guidelines. Thank you." 24 There's an objection
211 1 from Richard Bayer. "I believe a 2 25-foot variance would detract from 3 the aesthetics of the existing 4 neighborhood. The builder was well 5 aware of the ordinance when he 6 purchased the property and should be 7 held to those standards." 8 An approval from 9 Ronald Bush. "I have no objection to 10 the setback variance since the 11 building envelope still remains 50 or 12 more feet from my property line. 13 However, I would like to reiterate my 14 concerns expressed as of 9-13-05. 15 Drainage from my property should 16 continue as is with no pooling or 17 flooding. I have been assured by Mr. 18 Compo and the City that my property 19 will remain unaffected and on this 20 basis I concur with the plan." 21 If it so pleases the 22 Chair, I could read his other 23 correspondence. Would you like that 24 read into the record as well, Mr.
212 1 Chair? 2 MR. SHROYER: Please. 3 MR. FISCHER: 9-13, 2005 4 from Mr. Bush. "As the owner of 5 acreage immediately south of the 6 proposed development on Beck Road, I 7 was hoping to go on record with my 8 concern. Site plans call for filling 9 a low-lying area to make it more 10 suitable for use as home a site. 11 This area currently provides the path 12 for storm water runoff from my 13 property to reach Beck Road. 14 "As long as the 15 storm runoff can continue to be 16 accommodated with no pooling or 17 temporary flooding, I have no problem 18 with the plan to fill it in. 19 "Number 2, there's 20 been some discussion about applying a 21 60-foot road easement from the Casa 22 Loma property to provide connectivity 23 with possible future development on 24 my property. I have no objection to
213 1 this proposal as it remains unpaved 2 and his position that a connecting 3 road from my property could 4 accommodate the 45-foot setback 5 restriction," and that's not really 6 germane to this procedure so I will 7 end with that. 8 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 9 Comments from the City. Mr. Spencer. 10 MR. SPENCER: Sure. You did 11 receive a letter that I wrote on this 12 matter. The Planning Department is 13 not opposed to granting this. We 14 would like to clarify a couple facts 15 for you, though. 16 This development was 17 -- it is on 14.9 acres overall, 18 excluding wetlands. It's unlikely 19 more than the ten lots would be able 20 to be developed on this site even 21 with filling wetlands. Typically 22 density is calculated excluding 23 regulated wetlands. 24 The developer did
214 1 work with us on several concepts for 2 this plan and the result that is on 3 the current plan is using the open 4 space preservation option that is 5 available in the ordinance. So lot 6 sizes were allowed to be reduced by 7 about 20 percent, minimum size, and 8 the frontage was allowed to be 9 reduced. This allowed for reduction 10 in the road length, which exceeded 11 the city standards, and reduced the 12 amount that it was required for a 13 variance on it. So there was some 14 advantages for the developer also on 15 using this option. 16 The rest of the 17 items are basically covered within my 18 letter. The subdivision ordinance 19 does exclude wetlands from plats or 20 site condominiums, therefore it did 21 have to be excluded from it. And, 22 yes, the developer did have the 23 option of applying for a permit to 24 fill this wetland. It may or may not
215 1 have required mitigation based on the 2 total amount of wetland filled on the 3 site. Several small wetland areas 4 were filled on this site or proposed 5 to be filled on this site to make 6 this development. 7 If you have any 8 questions, I'll be glad to try to 9 answer them. 10 MR. SHROYER: What was the 11 quality of existing wetlands? 12 MR. SPENCER: The wetlands, 13 the largest one that was filled was 14 of very low quality. This particular 15 wetland is of a lot higher quality 16 that's on this lot. There is a small 17 strip of medium quality wetland along 18 the Bellagio border where some 19 partial filling is going to be 20 occurring, but most of that is 21 adjacent to a detention system that 22 incorporates a wetland on the 23 Bellagio property so it is 24 considerably less natural than the
216 1 wetland on this lot, or adjacent to 2 this lot. 3 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 4 MR. WITTE: Mr. Chairman, 5 can I correct something that Mr. 6 Spencer has said that is incorrect? 7 MR. SHROYER: You can make a 8 comment. 9 MR. WITTE: Could I just 10 make a comment on something just to 11 clarify? It was mentioned that the 12 open space gave the developer some 13 concessions. That is not true. What 14 is shown and proposed on these lots, 15 the lot widths are 175 feet. He 16 could have gone, under the current 17 zoning, 140 feet wide. And the lot 18 sizes, the minimum that he's showing 19 is .8 acres. 20 This is a layout 21 that we completed showing what the 22 developer could do under the current 23 zoning showing 17 lots. Those lots 24 meet the standards of the zoning
217 1 ordinance regarding lot width, 2 frontage, dimension areas and 3 everything else. So the developer 4 has made concessions all along. 5 To reiterate, 6 there's going to be no impact to the 7 wetlands, no impact to the 25-foot 8 buffer with this request. The 9 property line, the original property 10 line, the building setback that is 11 proposed is 73 feet off that property 12 line. 13 MR. SHROYER: You've said 14 that. Thank you. 15 MR. WITTE: Just to clarify 16 any confusion there. 17 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Thank 18 you. We'll open it up to the Board 19 for comments and questions. Mr. 20 Fischer. 21 MR. FISCHER: I'd like to 22 hear Mr. Spencer's comments. 23 MR. SPENCER: This is in an 24 R-A zoning district. Unless I
218 1 totally read my information wrong, 2 R-A is a minimum 43,560 square feet, 3 one acre lots. 4 MR. SHROYER: We'd have to 5 have a zoning variance to make any 6 lot smaller to put more development 7 there. Mr. Fischer, any other 8 comments? 9 MR. FISCHER: Say I buy the 10 house and I want to build a deck back 11 there, I don't have enough money to 12 buy a house, but once again I'll go 13 back to my normal comment, if I won 14 the lottery last night and I buy the 15 house and I want to put a deck, 16 what's going to happen then? 17 MR. WITTE: A couple things 18 along those lines. David, he's a 19 little bit different than most 20 developers because he owns the land. 21 He's a realtor so he's going to be 22 selling these lots and he's going to 23 be the builder out there. The 24 25-foot buffer is a standard that the
219 1 City has that regardless of whether 2 David is here or not that's still 3 going to be in place. That 25-foot 4 buffer will not be disturbed 5 whatsoever. The same thing could be 6 said if you were to build a deck on 7 the side of your house. 8 Once again, if this 9 wetland were between property lines 10 on the side yard, this wouldn't be an 11 issue because you could build right 12 up to the 25 feet. So the only 13 criteria -- the only reason that this 14 is an issue is because it's a rear 15 yard versus a side yard. 16 The overall 17 development, as it sits right now, is 18 actually a side yard. If he didn't 19 do this development and just said I'm 20 going to build my own mansion out 21 here, he could build right up to 25. 22 The City would have nothing to say 23 about it. He wouldn't be here asking 24 for a variance. So the only reason
220 1 it's a variance is because this is 2 considered a rear yard. I don't know 3 if that answer your question or not, 4 but the 25-foot buffer -- 5 MR. FISCHER: Not really. 6 MR. COMPO: I could answer 7 again. Actually, on this lot 4, I 8 already have a -- we've been 9 two-and-a-half years, quarter of a 10 million. It's a long time trying to 11 do these last couple hurdles. This 12 gentleman who moved in from the other 13 side of the state, I found him a 14 temporary house to live in. His 15 house is already designed and it's 16 not up to the 25-feet buffer, but 17 where the point came up I would have 18 had to create a U-shaped house. It 19 just wasn't working on the particular 20 lot and it gives him enough room to 21 do a deck. 22 But a deck actually 23 is not even going to be required here 24 because the fact that topography is
221 1 such that the walkout -- this is not 2 a rear walkout lot. The walkout is 3 actually to the east and so he's 4 going to have an east walkout or a 5 side yard walkout on this. So it's 6 not going to be a situation with a 7 deck anyway no matter who is going to 8 build here because of the topography. 9 MR. FISCHER: That better 10 answers my question. Thank you very 11 much for that. I have one other 12 question. If this isn't approved, 13 will the wetland be filled in? 14 MR. WITTE: We haven't 15 really discussed that. We have 16 consulted with an attorney because 17 there's a couple other items, but we 18 haven't really finalized what would 19 happen. We did, as I think was 20 mentioned and might be in your 21 letter, too, we did go to the City 22 Council asking for a waiver to 23 include the property and the lot and 24 that was denied.
222 1 The other two routes 2 that I'm aware of is either getting 3 approval from you guys tonight and 4 then the third one would be going 5 back to the Planning Commission and 6 proposing that would be filled in. 7 And I guess the fourth is, fourth and 8 fifth, the fourth one is to totally 9 redo our layout, if it works. The 10 fifth one is lawsuit. But we haven't 11 talked beyond tonight about where to 12 go next. 13 MR. FISCHER: Right. I just 14 hear that, you know, another option 15 is to do that and in the grand scheme 16 of things it almost seems a little 17 variance that won't disturb the 18 wetland would be a lot better than 19 forcing you into filling it in or 20 other more drastic considerations, 21 which I'm sure you won't pursue, but 22 that would be my concern. 23 MR. WITTE: We met with the 24 City staff a couple weeks ago and a
223 1 wetland consultant, we had them on 2 the phone, and Mr. Spencer was there, 3 too, so he can elaborate on this, but 4 that was exactly what the wetland 5 consultant said, that he would rather 6 see this variance approved than us go 7 back to the Planning Commission. 8 MR. FISCHER: That's where 9 the Zoning Board here is between a 10 rock and a hard place. Failure to 11 grant a variance almost seems like it 12 would result in more harm to the 13 wetland. So my thoughts. I will 14 open it up to the other Board members 15 and hear theirs. Thank you, Mr. 16 Chair. 17 MR. SHROYER: Member Bauer. 18 MR. BAUER: Everybody has 19 got a letter on this we were talking 20 about from Elizabeth Kudla. 21 MR. SHROYER: Your 22 microphone, please. 23 MR. BAUER: The final 24 outcome is we see no legal impediment
224 1 to granting the variance, and that's 2 from a wetlands position. 3 MR. SHROYER: Counsel, would 4 you care to speak to that, please. 5 MS. OZGA: I don't have a 6 copy of it. 7 MR. SHROYER: This is the 8 one you're talking about, right? 9 Pass it around to counsel. 10 MS. OZGA: I'm sorry, I 11 didn't hear the question. 12 MR. SHROYER: He said it 13 said we have no other legal recourse. 14 MS. OZGA: If I can just 15 have a second to look over this. 16 My comment is 17 wetlands create somewhat of a unique 18 situation and in this property it 19 appears that because of the wetland 20 there is an irregular lot line. So 21 the wetland issue does create a 22 unique situation and can be used to 23 establish a practical difficulty to 24 grant a variance. And, as you
225 1 stated, there could be options to 2 filling in a wetland, but in this 3 case it looks like there's already 4 the 25-foot setback. It doesn't 5 appear there's anything behind it, so 6 you have an open area there, so the 7 wetland does create a unique 8 situation here. 9 MR. SHROYER: Any other 10 comment? 11 MR. BAUER: That's all, sir. 12 MR. SANGHVI: I've got a 13 question. How come you don't have 14 any sign on it or anything to say 15 what it is or nothing? I went up and 16 down the road looking for your place 17 to find the street address and 18 anything. 19 MR. SHROYER: Microphone, 20 please. 21 MR. WITTE: There actually 22 used to be a house on the property 23 but that was demolished. 24 MR. COMPO: And we recently
226 1 demolished an old school house, an 2 old barn. We're two-and-a-half 3 years. I was hoping to have lots 4 there and been moved into a model 5 there already, but unfortunately, 6 with two-and-a-half years and a 7 quarter of a million dollars we're at 8 a point of being so upside down 9 financially I'm ready to put a sign 10 up there, but I'm just waiting for 11 the approval. 12 MR. BAUER: He's just 13 pulling your leg. 14 MR. SANGHVI: As far as I'm 15 concerned, I will focus in on lot 4 16 and the issue here is that this 17 wetland could have been filled up if 18 they so desire and they haven't and 19 they are trying to keep it. And even 20 though I sometimes question the 21 opinion saying we see no legal 22 impediment to granting a variance, by 23 a known legal expert I presume, but 24 that's another story.
227 1 I have no problem, 2 really, because you are only talking 3 about lot 4. We are not talking 4 about the entire development here and 5 what that's going to do to the 6 neighborhood of Mrs. Crawford and 7 other people. That's a different 8 issue altogether which, 9 unfortunately, we can't address here 10 now. Thank you. 11 MR. SHROYER: Thank you, 12 Member Sanghvi. Mr. Canup. 13 MR. CANUP: I think we've 14 worn this thing out and it looks like 15 they could have filled that in if 16 they wanted to and this issue 17 wouldn't be here. And I think that 18 that -- and looking at the whole 19 project, it's not like we're building 20 a ghetto here, these are million 21 dollars plus homes, and Mr. Compo is 22 not going to do anything that's going 23 to be detrimental to his financial 24 future with a development like this.
228 1 So with that all 2 said, I would make a motion in Case 3 No. 07-014 that we grant the setback 4 as required for the backyard in order 5 to preserve the existing wetlands. 6 MR. SHROYER: Second? 7 MR. BAUER: On lot 4? 8 MR. SANGHVI: On lot 4. 9 Second. 10 MR. SHROYER: He's 11 questioning did you say on lot 4? 12 MR. CANUP: The variance 13 refers to lot 4, yes. That pretty 14 much covers it. 15 MR. SHROYER: So are you 16 seconding it or Mr. Bauer? 17 MR. BAUER: Second. 18 MR. SHROYER: Counsel, 19 please. 20 MS. OZGA: Just for clarity, 21 are you saying that there's a 22 practical difficulty because of the 23 unique situation with the wetlands? 24 MR. CANUP: That's exactly
229 1 what I said. 2 MS. OZGA: Just a 3 clarification. 4 MR. FISCHER: Could we make 5 sure that's part of the motion? 6 MR. SANGHVI: I accept your 7 suggestion, yes. 8 MR. BAUER: Yes. 9 MR. SHROYER: We have a 10 motion by Member Canup and a second 11 by Member Sanghvi and it's been 12 agreed upon. Is there any further 13 discussion? 14 I want to make a 15 comment before we vote and that 16 comment is, I've always been a 17 protector of wetlands and woodlands 18 in all my capacity within the City 19 and I want to do everything I can to 20 try to protect that. In this case it 21 appears through your working with the 22 City and the comments from the 23 various City experts that you've 24 taken that into consideration.
230 1 You've done as much as you can and 2 you are not filling in the wetland. 3 So it's going to maintain intact -- 4 it's going to be kept intact as it is 5 and the 25-yard buffer between the 6 wetland -- 7 MR. COMPO: Feet. 8 MR. SHROYER: Twenty-five 9 feet, we can make it 25 yards. 10 MR. BAUER: That's more land 11 than you got. 12 MR. SHROYER: Twenty-five 13 feet between the wetland itself and 14 the buffer isn't going to be 15 developed either. There won't be 16 anything built on that in addition to 17 so -- accessory structure. So in 18 that case I feel that I can support 19 the motion. 20 Please call the 21 roll. 22 MS. WORKING: Member Canup? 23 MR. CANUP: Yes. 24 MS. WORKING: Member
231 1 Sanghvi? 2 MR. SANGHVI: Yes. 3 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer? 4 MR. BAUER: Yes. 5 MS. WORKING: Vice Chair 6 Fischer? 7 MR. FISCHER: Aye. 8 MS. WORKING: Chairman 9 Shroyer? 10 MR. SHROYER: Yes. 11 MS. WORKING: Member 12 Krieger? 13 MS. KRIEGER: Yes. 14 MS. WORKING: Motion passes 15 6-0. 16 MR. WITTE: Thank you very 17 much for your time. 18 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 19 That concludes the 20 last case of the night. Under "Other 21 Matters" which the item is Glenda's. 22 Do you care to speak on that? 23 MS. WORKING: In your 24 packet, Board members, you found a
232 1 letter written by the building 2 official to Glenda's reiterating the 3 stipulations of your motion that was 4 granted last year in ZBA case 06-080, 5 and it was noted by Member Fischer 6 that it looked that there were some 7 noncompliance issues regarding the 8 repair of the fence. 9 A courtesy call was 10 also made to Glenda's and we had one 11 of our ordinance officers go out 12 today and it appears they have 13 complied. The fence is in repair 14 and, Member Fischer, I think that you 15 noted that you wanted this brought 16 before the Board for consideration. 17 MR. FISCHER: Yeah. That 18 last item, and I was just hoping for 19 a letter, and thank you very much for 20 all the work you did on it. I drove 21 by it and it looks fine. My issue is 22 that I told them last time I saw the 23 rails falling out and then we granted 24 them another variance and I said
233 1 there are tools out there that will 2 allow you to pop the rails in and 3 they won't go anywhere, I used to 4 install fences, and it appears they 5 haven't done that so we'll keep our 6 eye on it. Again, thank you very 7 much for your hard work on it, Robin, 8 as always. 9 MS. WORKING: Thank you. 10 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. 11 The second item under "Other Matters" 12 was training dates. 13 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, Mr. 14 Schultz from Secrest Wardle is 15 recommending that the Board possibly 16 consider April 24th or May 15th for 17 the ZBA training dates. That's for 18 your consideration. Through the 19 Chair you can entertain a vote or you 20 can consider it. 21 MR. SHROYER: What days of 22 the week are those? 23 MS. WORKING: Those would be 24 Tuesdays. Having said that, let me
234 1 double check my calendar. I'm 2 reasonably certain they are Tuesday. 3 April 24th is a Tuesday, May 15th is 4 a Tuesday. The 24th would be three 5 weeks after a scheduled ZBA meeting 6 and one week prior to the scheduled 7 ZBA meeting and the 15th is one week 8 after a scheduled ZBA meeting. 9 MR. SHROYER: Does the Board 10 have preference? 11 MR. SANGHVI: I would prefer 12 the 24th of April. 13 MS. KRIEGER: What time is 14 it? 15 MS. WORKING: I don't know. 16 It probably would be in the same time 17 as the ZBA meetings because of 18 people's work schedules. 19 MR. BAUER: I'll have to 20 call you. 21 MS. WORKING: 7:30 was the 22 last recommended start time. 23 MR. SHROYER: Could you 24 please send us an e-mail with those
235 1 dates and potential times and we'll 2 address it at the next meeting. 3 MS. WORKING: Okay. Well, 4 the next meeting is May 8th and the 5 one date is April 24th. I know, it's 6 late. I totally understand. I can 7 send you an e-mail and have you 8 respond no later then and I'll give 9 you a date much prior to the April 10 24th meeting. 11 MR. SHROYER: We would like, 12 if at all possible, to have all 13 members present. I know I would have 14 a problem with the 24th, it's my 15 anniversary, and I don't want to 16 bring my wife to legal training. I 17 don't think she would want to come 18 either. 19 MS. WORKING: Mr. Chair, 20 it's being recommended that maybe a 21 vote be taken this evening rather 22 than a vote via e-mail. 23 MR. FISCHER: Mr. Gatt is 24 not here. He's one of the newer
236 1 members. 2 MR. SANGHVI: He can't come 3 before 7:30 and I don't know what his 4 schedule is. 5 MR. FISCHER: If we get it 6 to you by the end of this week, I 7 mean -- 8 MS. WORKING: Ms. Ozga is 9 suggesting she could also possibly 10 come back with another date. 11 MS. OZGA: I could try to 12 get two May dates. That way you 13 could pick one rather than trying to 14 rush a decision. 15 MR. SHROYER: That would be 16 my preference. I know if we had a 17 date other than Tuesday or Thursdays, 18 Member Gatt might be able to make it 19 at an earlier time. He indicated to 20 me he works on those days. 21 MS. WORKING: So would we be 22 asking Secrest Wardle to look at a 23 day other than a Tuesday? I know in 24 the past they've been looking
237 1 exclusively at Tuesdays. 2 MR. SHROYER: What does the 3 Board feel about that? 4 MR. FISCHER: Just send us 5 any days. Everyone can write back 6 saying which days they're available 7 and the one that has the most people 8 available that's the one we pick. 9 MS. WORKING: I'll be 10 willing to channel that information 11 and bring it down and give it to our 12 attorneys so they can narrow it down 13 in their calendar. 14 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Any 15 other business for this evening? 16 MR. FISCHER: Motion to 17 adjourn. 18 MR. SHROYER: All in favor 19 say aye. 20 THE BOARD: Aye. 21 (The Meeting was concluded 22 at 11:05 p.m.) 23 24
238 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 5 I, Glenn Miller, do 6 hereby certify that I have recorded 7 stenographically the proceedings had 8 and testimony taken in the 9 above-entitled matter at the time and 10 place hereinbefore set forth, and I 11 do further certify that the foregoing 12 transcript, consisting of one hundred 13 sixty (160) typewritten pages, is a 14 true and correct transcript of my 15 said stenograph notes. 16 17 18 19 --------------------------- 20 Glenn Miller 21 Certified Shorthand Reporter 22 --------------- 23 (Date) 24
|