|
View Agenda for this meeting REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and Testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, September 14, 2010. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3 7:00 p.m. 4 - - - 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Good evening. 6 It's seven p.m. I would like to call to 7 order the September 14th regular meeting 8 of the City of Novi Zoning Board of 9 Appeals. 10 Would everyone please rise for 11 the pledge of Allegiance. Member Gedeon, 12 please lead us. 13 BOARD MEMBERS: I pledge 14 allegiance to the flag of the United 15 States of America, and to the republic 16 for which it stands, one nation, under 17 God, indivisible, with liberty and 18 justice for all. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Ms. Martin, 20 would you please call the roll. 21 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 23 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 24 MEMBER CASSIS: Here.
4 1 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present. 3 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 4 MEMBER IBE: Present. 5 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Present. 7 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 8 MEMBER SKELCY: Here. 9 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 10 MEMBER GEDEON: Here. 11 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam 12 will be absent tonight. 13 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. We do 14 have a quorum, and the meeting is now in 15 session. 16 As a reminder, please turn off 17 all cellphone and pager ringers at this 18 time. 19 Also, I'd like to go over some 20 of the meeting rules. A copy of the 21 entire public meeting rules of conduct is 22 available next to the chamber entrance 23 door. 24 The Zoning Board of Appeals is
5 1 a hearing board empowered by the City of 2 Novi to hear appeals seeking variances 3 from existing Novi city ordinances. It 4 takes a vote of at least four members to 5 approve a variance request, and a 6 majority of members present to deny a 7 request. 8 Tonight we have a full board, 9 so all decisions will be final. 10 Individual applicants may take 11 up to five minutes, and groups may take 12 up to ten minutes to address the board. 13 The next item on the agenda is 14 the approval of the agenda. Are there 15 any additions, deletions, changes, to the 16 proposed agenda? 17 MS. MARTIN: There is a change 18 about other matters, the training session 19 for ZBA members. 20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: I will 21 entertain a motion to approve the 22 agenda. 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'm sorry. If 24 I could add a Part A and Part B for
6 1 afterwards. 2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Any 3 other changes? I will entertain a motion 4 to approve the agenda. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: So move. 6 MEMBER IBE: Second. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All in favor 8 signify by saying aye. 9 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All opposed, 11 no. We have an approved agenda. 12 Next is the approval of the 13 meeting minutes from the July 13th ZBA 14 meeting. Are there any changes to the 15 minutes? Okay. I will entertain a 16 motion to approve them then. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: So move. 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All in favor, 20 please signify by saying aye. 21 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All opposed, 23 no. Okay. The July 13th meeting 24 minutes have been approved.
7 1 Next are the approval of the 2 meeting minutes from the August 10th ZBA 3 meeting. Any changes to these minutes? 4 Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to 5 approve these minutes. 6 MEMBER GEDEON: So move. 7 MEMBER IBE: Second. 8 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All in favor, 9 aye. All opposed, no. All in favor, 10 aye. 11 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All opposed? 13 Okay. These minutes have been also 14 approved. 15 Next on the agenda is the 16 public remarks section of the meeting. 17 If there is anyone in the audience who 18 wishes to make any comments not 19 pertaining to any matter on the agenda 20 tonight, please come forward. Okay. 21 Seeing none, the public remarks section 22 of the meeting is closed. 23 That brings us to the cases on 24 the agenda this evening. The first case
8 1 on the agenda is Case No. 10-034, 39500 2 Grand River Avenue, Mercedes-Benz. 3 The petitioner is requesting a 4 variance to install an 80-square-foot 5 wall sign on the south elevation of the 6 Mercedes-Benz dealership located at 39500 7 Grand River Avenue. The property is 8 zoned B-3 and is located north of Grand 9 River and west of Haggerty Road. 10 Is the petitioner here? Can 11 you please come forward to the podium. 12 Please state your name and address for 13 the record. And if you are not an 14 attorney, please raise your right hand 15 and be sworn in by our secretary. 16 State your name and address 17 please. 18 MR. ADAM: I am Matthew Adam 19 with Gil (ph) & Associates. I work for 20 the owner, Lee Ghesquiere. 21 MR. GHESQUIERE: Lee 22 Ghesquiere, President of Mercedes-Benz of 23 Novi. 24 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Swear
9 1 both of them, I guess. 2 MEMBER IBE: Yes. In Case No. 3 10-034, 39500 Grand River Avenue, do you 4 swear or affirm to tell the truth? 5 MR. ADAM: Yes, I do. 6 MR. GHESQUIERE: Yes. 7 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Please 9 proceed with your presentation. 10 MR. ADAM: Yes. In a current 11 set of renovations on the project, which 12 includes interior renovations, which are 13 about complete, and exterior renovations, 14 which we are hoping to get started before 15 the cold weather, we need a replacement 16 sign for the existing sign and band that 17 currently runs along the south side of 18 the building. 19 The new sign, or replacement 20 sign, is, in actuality, once calculated, 21 with the band of the existing, is less 22 than half of what the signage is now on 23 the building. But we feel it's still 24 above the ordinance guidelines. But we
10 1 feel that this new signage is integral to 2 the design aesthetics of the building and 3 to the operation of the business itself. 4 I had a rendering originally 5 submitted with the package; I brought an 6 extra copy if you wish -- 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: If you could 8 put it on the overhead for us. 9 MR. ADAM: Right now the 10 renovations are going to incorporate a 11 sun shade that will run along the bottom 12 of the existing edge of the pit with some 13 new decorative columns. All part of the 14 program referred to as Autohaus, which is 15 a Mercedes-mandated program. 16 The facade will be given a 17 fresh architectural metal panel instead 18 of the (inaudible) that's currently 19 there. The sun shade now is where the 20 existing signage and band is located at 21 the moment. 22 The replacement sign is going 23 to replace the text with the same text in 24 height and length that is there now, but
11 1 simply as a square marquis in the center 2 of the south elevation. 3 MR. GHESQUIERE: I would like 4 to remove the text. 5 MR. ADAM: Yeah. The text on 6 the wing wall will be removed, so an 7 additional wall sign that's coming down 8 in this renovation. 9 MR. GHESQUIERE: Currently, 10 there is two Mercedes-Benz of Novi 11 marquis: One where it's shown in the 12 picture, and the other one right on the 13 front door. The new corporate mandate 14 from Mercedes-Benz USA is to only have 15 one central sign. So that, in effect, we 16 go from two signs up on the facia to one 17 single sign as mandated by Mercedes-Benz 18 USA. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anything 20 else? 21 MR. ADAM: I think that wraps 22 up our presentation. 23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 24 Is there anyone in the audience who
12 1 wishes to address the board regarding 2 this case? 3 Seeing none, will the secretary 4 read any correspondence regarding this 5 case into the record. 6 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, in this 7 particular case, 21 notices were mailed, 8 zero responses, two mail returned. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 10 you. Does the building department or 11 city attorney wish to make any comments 12 at this time? 13 MR. BOULARD: Nothing to add. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Nothing. 15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 16 you. At this time, I will refer this 17 matter to the board for discussion. 18 Mr. Sanghvi. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 20 Mr. Chair. I was at the site earlier in 21 the day today, and everything looked very 22 nice to me. The (inaudible) very good, 23 reducing the number by combining the two 24 signs into one. And, to me, it looks
13 1 like a win-win situation for everybody, 2 and I have no difficulty supporting the 3 request. 4 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 5 Anyone else? Member 6 Cassis. 7 MEMBER CASSIS: Thank you, 8 Mr. Chairman. I'm just a little confused 9 here. I did go by that place, and it 10 seems like they are going to have two 11 signs, Mr. Boulard, now? One on the 12 south side and one on the east side of 13 the building? 14 MR. BOULARD: Are you speaking 15 of the symbol? 16 MEMBER CASSIS: No. 17 MR. BOULARD: There is two 18 signs existing; there will now be one. 19 MR. GHESQUIERE: Yes. The 20 mock-up is on the center elevation where 21 you can -- it's hard to see in the text 22 that pops up above. 23 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 24 MR. GHESQUIERE: That is the
14 1 only signage. 2 MEMBER CASSIS: There won't be 3 any on the east side? 4 MR. GHESQUIERE: No. 5 MEMBER CASSIS: Because I saw 6 one. 7 MR. GHESQUIERE: That's the 8 existing sign, so that will come down. 9 MEMBER CASSIS: Okay. Thank 10 you. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else? 12 Mr. Boulard. 13 MR. BOULARD: Like I said, I 14 just want to clarify on the east side the 15 symbol will remain. 16 MR. GHESQUIERE: The star will 17 remain. 18 MR. BOULARD: Yes, the star, 19 but the text -- 20 MR. GHESQUIERE: The text, it 21 goes from two sets of text to the one set 22 of text. 23 MEMBER CASSIS: All right. 24 Thank you.
15 1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else? 2 I will just make a quick comment. I will 3 support this. I'm also very surprised. 4 I think this is the first time being in 5 ZBA I have seen someone come in for a 6 reduction in the signage rather than an 7 increase; it's a refreshing change. 8 That being said, I am looking 9 for a motion. Member Ibe. 10 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, 11 Mr. Chair. In Case No. 10-034, 39500 12 Grand River Avenue, I move that we 13 approve the petition as requested on the 14 grounds that the request is based upon 15 circumstances of features that are 16 exceptional and unique to this property, 17 and do not result from conditions that 18 exist generally in the city or that is 19 self-created. 20 And, also, the fact that the 21 parent company, Mercedes-Benz of USA has 22 mandated this Mercedes-Benz of Novi to 23 comply with the terms of the agreement. 24 That, alone, is sufficient basis to grant
16 1 this request. 2 In addition, the failure to 3 grant relief will unreasonably prevent or 4 limit the use of the property and will 5 result in substantially more than mere 6 inconvenience or inability to attain a 7 higher economic or financial return. 8 And the grant of relief will 9 not result in a use of the structure that 10 is incompatible with or unreasonably 11 interfere with adjacent or surrounding 12 properties. And the spirit of the zoning 13 ordinance will be best served if this is 14 granted. 15 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. We 17 have a motion made by Member Ibe and a 18 second by Member Krieger. And is there 19 any further discussion? 20 If not, Ms. Martin, please take 21 the roll. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis?
17 1 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 5 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 6 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 8 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 9 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 10 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 11 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 12 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 13 seven to zero. 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. The 15 second case on the agenda, Case No. 16 10-035, 27775 Novi Road, Paul's TV. 17 The petitioner is requesting a 18 variance to install an additional 19 47-square-foot wall sign on the east 20 elevation of the Art Van Furniture store 21 located at 27775 Novi Road. The property 22 is zoned RC and is located north of I-96 23 and west of Novi Road. 24 Is the petitioner here? Please
18 1 come forward. Please state your name and 2 addresses for the record. And if you are 3 not an attorney, please raise your right 4 hand to be sworn in by our secretary. 5 MS. RICH: Lisa Rich. My 6 address is 812 East Maxwell, Hazel Park, 7 Michigan. And I represent Alex -- 8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: My name 9 is Alex (inaudible) with Paul's TV, 2660 10 Barranca Parkway, Irvine, California. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Are either of 12 you attorneys? 13 MS. RICH: No. 14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. 15 MEMBER IBE: In Case 10-035, 16 27775 Novi Road, Paul's TV, do you swear 17 or affirm to tell the truth? 18 MS. RICH: Yes. 19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. 20 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Please 22 proceed with your presentation. 23 MS. RICH: We are petitioning 24 for a wall sign for Paul's TV, as they
19 1 have no identification on the Art Van 2 building to show that they are a lessee 3 in the Art Van store. 4 So, I do understand that Art 5 Van is already above their variances, but 6 as far as Paul's TV, no one would know 7 that they were in there without viewing 8 it or being able to see it as driving by. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Do you have a 10 copy of this? 11 MS. RICH: I do. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Put it on the 13 overhead, please. 14 MS. RICH: It's probably hard 15 to see it on the building, but it is on 16 the east elevation, so it will be 17 opposite Art Van's wall sign, so it 18 wouldn't crowd the wall or anything. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anything else 20 you wish to add? 21 MS. RICH: I do have some 22 photos of the wall sign that we installed 23 at Westland. And, if you can see, we had 24 done something new with the raceway and
20 1 actually taken a digital photo of the 2 raceway of the brick on the wall so that 3 it totally matches the wall and washes 4 out. 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anything else 6 you wish to add? 7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have 8 no other way of representing ourselves 9 without having the sign on the wall. 10 There is no pylon sign on that building, 11 and there is nowhere in our lease that 12 allowed us to have our own entrance in 13 any way, shape or form. So we are hoping 14 that you will allow us to put a sign up. 15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 16 you. Is there anyone in the audience who 17 wishes to address the board regarding 18 this case? Sir, please come down and 19 state your name and address. You will 20 have to be sworn in if you are not an 21 attorney, too, please. 22 MR. MINOR: Jim Minor (ph) with 23 ABC Warehouse. We are the nextdoor 24 neighbors to these folks. Address
21 1 (inaudible) Industrial, Pontiac, 2 Michigan. 3 MEMBER IBE: Raise your right 4 hand, sir. In Case 10-035, 27775 5 Novi Road, Paul's TV, do you swear or 6 affirm to tell the truth? 7 MR. MINOR: Yes, sir. 8 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 10 MR. MINOR: I submitted a 11 letter, and I don't know if that's part 12 of your package. I will be glad to read 13 it, or if it gets read into the -- 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: You can read 15 it if you desire. 16 MR. MINOR: Board members. We 17 are the owners of the adjacent building 18 to the west at 43606 West Oaks Drive, 19 which is our ABC Warehouse retail store. 20 We had a long relationship with 21 the Art Van Furniture chain and, in fact, 22 purchased our building from them, which 23 is previously a Scott Shuptrine Furniture 24 Store.
22 1 We purchased this in 2004, and 2 opened it in the fall of that year and 3 complied with all ordinances as relates 4 to signage and other issues. 5 We think Paul's TV should 6 comply with all ordinances and fit the 7 signage within their present 8 identification, as they have done at 9 several other locations. Notably, M59 at 10 Lakeside, Chesterfield Township, Port 11 Huron, among many others. 12 All the retailers in the West 13 Oaks complex would like to have more 14 signage, including ABC Warehouse. The 15 Art Van building, given its location on 16 Novi Road, has the greatest exposure, by 17 far, of any retailer along Novi Road. 18 If this appeal is approved, you 19 are signaling to the rest of the 20 retailers in the West Oaks complex that a 21 precedence has been set for other 22 retailers to proceed to try to get 23 additional signage. 24 Novi has a long hallowed
23 1 reputation for defending the sign 2 ordinance, and if you approve something 3 like this, you are just going in another 4 direction. 5 And I'd like to take issue with 6 what they said about no other 7 alternative. They do have other 8 alternatives, and they have done it at 9 other locations, but I just -- thank you, 10 sir. 11 I don't know if you can see 12 that. This is their -- this is their 13 Royal Oak store, Woodward just north of 14 Thirteen. They have put the Paul's TV 15 sign -- it might not show up very well at 16 the top of the glass. It is inside the 17 glass; it is not hung on the outside of 18 the building. So, I beg to differ that 19 they do have alternatives. 20 I appreciate your 21 understanding. Our position here, we 22 just think there ought to be some justice 23 here. 24 Also, my question is whether
24 1 there is any hardship and not just 2 economic benefit. Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 4 Is there anyone else in the audience who 5 wishes to comment on this matter? 6 Seeing none, will the secretary 7 read any correspondence regarding this 8 case into the record. 9 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 30 10 notices were mailed, one objection, six 11 mail returned. I believe the only 12 objection we have has been read by 13 Mr. Gordon of ABC Warehouse. 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 15 Does the building department or city 16 attorney wish to make any comments at 17 this time? 18 MR. BOULARD: The only question 19 I had was I wondered if the petitioner 20 can verify the sign is going to be 21 illuminated, is that correct? 22 MS. RICH: Yes, it will be. 23 Can I say something else? We were going 24 to go the route with the window like we
25 1 did in Royal Oak, but I do understand the 2 ordinance is there is no lit signs inside 3 the window, also. So, if you could 4 approve that, we would go that route, 5 also. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 7 Anything else? 8 MR. BOULARD: No. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: At this time, 10 I will refer this matter to the board for 11 discussion. 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: I have a 13 question. If you could explain how 14 Paul's TV is related to Art Van. And 15 (inaudible) is apparently the owner of 16 the property? 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We are 18 leasing our space. 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: So it's Art 20 Van, and you are separate businesses? 21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member 23 Cassis. 24 MEMBER CASSIS: Thank you,
26 1 Mr. Chairman. I do happen to agree with 2 the ABC Warehouse people. If this outfit, 3 Art Van, were to sell washing machines, 4 would we allow the washing machine outfit 5 to put a sign outside? If they get 6 cameras into that Art Van location, are we 7 going to add another sign for cameras? I 8 don't think this is possible. We are 9 putting a precedence here that we'll not 10 be able to control. I will be voting 11 against this. Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 13 Member Sanghvi. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 15 Mr. Chair. First, the question for the 16 building department. If there was a 17 separate entrance for this business, 18 which is a separate entity altogether 19 from Art Van, would they have any 20 difficulty in having a sign there? 21 MR. BOULARD: I believe if 22 there was a separate and distinct 23 entrance, that they would -- 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: They would be
27 1 entitled to a sign? 2 MR. BOULARD: That's correct. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Now, the fact 4 that they don't have a separate entrance, 5 and that is the only reason why they are 6 here, and what they need is a business 7 identification. This is not part of the 8 Art Van operation at all. And, so, I 9 think it is quite reasonable to grant 10 their request and have a business 11 identification sign on the wall there. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Member 14 Ibe. 15 MEMBER IBE: I know you said 16 this party or Paul's TV is a separate 17 entity from Art Van, but I notice that in 18 your TV commercials, Paul's TV and Art 19 Van advertise as one. Tell me how they 20 are different. What is so distinct about 21 these two groups? And yet they advertise 22 as one entity on television all the time. 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Part of 24 our advertisement campaign is to package
28 1 furniture and televisions together. That 2 is why. It's just a savings and cost of 3 advertising. 4 MEMBER IBE: I would assume 5 that Paul's TV is located in all Art Van 6 stores; is that part of your agreement? 7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Most of 8 them, right now, our agreement is 9 to (inaudible) -- 10 MEMBER IBE: You do have Paul's 11 TV separate from Art Van? Do you have 12 other locations for Paul's TV? 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, we 14 have nine locations in the State of 15 California, and three in Massachusetts 16 and one in New Hampshire. None of them 17 are related to Art Van. 18 MEMBER IBE: But in Michigan 19 you don't have any separate store front, 20 is that correct? 21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not at 22 this point, no, sir. 23 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, 24 Mr. Chair.
29 1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Member 2 Gedeon. 3 MEMBER GEDEON: Just following 4 up on that. The stores in your other 5 states, are they also associated with 6 furniture stores, or are they standalone? 7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Most of 8 them are associated with furniture 9 stores, yes, sir. 10 MEMBER GEDEON: Inside the 11 store, what kind of separation is there 12 between Art Van and Paul's TV? 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Inside 14 the store, we have a space within their 15 store, so we have our own wall. We have 16 an entrance to Paul's TV inside -- a 17 signage inside. 18 MEMBER GEDEON: Is the staff 19 all separated, too? 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. We 21 are an entirely separate business. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else? 23 Okay. Seeing that, I will entertain a 24 motion.
30 1 MEMBER SKELCY: I will move 2 that we grant the variance requested for 3 the sign, based on the fact that the 4 request is based on circumstances of 5 features that are exceptional and unique 6 to the property and do not result in 7 conditions that exist generally in the 8 city or that are self-created. 9 The failure to grant relief 10 will unreasonably prevent the use of the 11 property and will result in substantially 12 more than mere inconvenience or inability 13 to attain a higher economic or financial 14 return. 15 And, finally, that the grant of 16 relief will not result in a use of the 17 structure that is incompatible with or 18 unreasonably interferes with adjacent or 19 surrounding properties, and will result 20 in substantial justice being done to both 21 the applicant and adjacent or surrounding 22 properties. And is not inconsistent with 23 the spirit of the ordinance. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Support.
31 1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. We 2 have a motion made by Member Skelcy and a 3 second by Member Sanghvi. Is there any 4 further discussion? Member Cassis. 5 MEMBER CASSIS: This is the 6 first time I ever comment about a motion, 7 but I think if we grant this, and all 8 these other communities did not allow 9 this kind of a sign, and he has another 10 alternative to do it. And this is Novi; 11 I don't understand this. Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Member 13 Cassis. Tom. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess, through 15 the Chair. In kind of the spirit of that 16 comment, I know the planning staff puts 17 together sort of a test for granting a 18 variance. I'm wondering if the maker of 19 the motion could add sort of the factual 20 predicate to that that -- I mean, is it 21 based on the fact that if they had a 22 separate entrance they could have their 23 own sign? Or is it the need for 24 identification and the overall amount of
32 1 signage is appropriate? If we could add 2 just a little bit of factual information 3 so the -- 4 MEMBER SKELCY: I didn't think 5 we had to have a factual basis 6 specifically for that -- for motions. 7 MR. SCHULTZ: We do for each 8 one of these. If we sort of -- 9 MEMBER SKELCY: Based on the 10 standards for the sign variance. The 11 circumstances of the features that are 12 exceptional include the fact that Paul's 13 TV would be entitled to have an entrance 14 if they had a separate portion of the 15 building, separate entrance. That is 16 unique to the property. 17 The failure to grant relief 18 will unreasonably prevent or limit the 19 use of property, as they will not be able 20 to use the store and television sales 21 together. And it does not interfere with 22 adjacent or surrounding properties. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. I have
33 1 one question for the petitioner. Your 2 hours of operation mirror those of Art 3 Van? 4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, 5 sir. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 7 you. Any other discussion? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just want to 9 make things correct, and I accept the 10 amendment. Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. All 12 right. 13 Ms. Martin, will you please 14 call the roll. 15 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 18 MEMBER CASSIS: No. 19 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: No. 21 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 22 MEMBER IBE: No. 23 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 24 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: No.
34 1 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 2 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 3 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 4 MEMBER GEDEON: No. 5 MS. MARTIN: Motion failed, 6 four to three (sic). 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Sorry. Your 8 request has been denied. 9 The next case on the agenda is 10 Case No. 10-036. 11 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair. It 12 was a motion to approve that failed, but 13 what you need now is a motion to deny 14 with a similar sort of explanation for 15 the denial. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay, sorry. 17 Member Ibe. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: Little late on 19 the draw; sorry about that. 20 MEMBER IBE: In Case No. 21 10-035, 27775 Novi Road, Paul's TV, I 22 move that the motion -- the applicant's 23 petition be denied for the facts that -- 24 the reason that the petitioner presented
35 1 are things that are self-created. They, 2 obviously, could have a separate entrance 3 to the establishment, which, obviously, 4 would have required -- would be required 5 to have a sign on. However, in this 6 case, we don't have that. 7 And, additionally, the 8 establishment has alternatives that can 9 be reasonably (inaudible) for which 10 they -- meaning to get more advertisement 11 out there for themselves. 12 Granting the request will also 13 interfere with adjacent properties, as 14 has been demonstrated by the competitor, 15 that being ABC Warehouse, or the 16 objection that was presented. 17 And, based on all of this, I 18 believe the spirit of the zoning 19 ordinance is better served with a denial 20 of this petition. 21 MEMBER CASSIS: Second. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 23 motion by Member Ibe and second by Member 24 Cassis. Any further discussion?
36 1 Ms. Martin, please call the 2 roll. 3 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. 5 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 6 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 7 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 9 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 10 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 11 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 13 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 14 MEMBER SKELCY: No. 15 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 16 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 17 MS. MARTIN: Okay. Motion to 18 deny is five to two; it passes. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All right. 20 That takes care of that issue. Now we 21 can move on to Case No. 3. 22 Case No. 10-036, 49251 Grand 23 River Avenue, Quick Lube. 24 The petitioner is requesting a
37 1 variance to install a seven-foot 2 four-inch high pole mounted changeable 3 copy sign in addition to the existing 4 signs at the auto dealership located at 5 49251 Grand River. The property is zoned 6 B-3 and is located south of Grand River 7 and east of Wixom Road. 8 Is the petitioner here? 9 MR. MULLER: Yes. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Please come 11 forward to the podium, and state your 12 name and address for the record. And if 13 you are not an attorney, please raise 14 your right hand and be sworn in by our 15 secretary. 16 MR. MULLER: Timothy Muller. 17 My company is Curb Appeal Concepts, 18 Incorporated, 4040 Montgomery Drive, 19 Shelby Township, Michigan. 20 MR. CASTANOS: Rick Castanos, 21 service director, Varsity Lincoln 22 Mercury, 49521 Grand River Avenue, Novi, 23 Michigan. 24 MEMBER IBE: In Case 10-036,
38 1 49251 Grand River Avenue, do you swear or 2 affirm to tell the truth? 3 MR. MULLER: Yes. 4 MR. CASTANOS: Yes. 5 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Please 7 proceed with your presentation. 8 MR. MULLER: I don't know if 9 this turns the other way or not. 10 Good evening. What I'd like to 11 present tonight to the board, currently 12 Varsity Lincoln Mercury is going through 13 some changes. They are a very high-end 14 dealership, not only here locally, but 15 throughout the whole entire area. 16 What they are trying to do is 17 on the back side of their dealership 18 facing Sam's Club, they currently have an 19 existing sign, a lit, two-sided sign. 20 What we are proposing to do is to put one 21 sign is going to be on the lower left 22 there, is a full-color changeable message 23 board with a light box on top that will 24 light up to signify Quick Lane, which is
39 1 a new service that the dealership is 2 doing. On the right-hand side will be 3 non-lit; that's the back side of the 4 sign. 5 The purpose for the change in 6 the signage is, obviously, as everybody 7 knows with the conditions in the economy, 8 but the real intent is to drive more 9 customers to the dealership. I 10 personally sat out front there the other 11 day, and within five minutes there was 12 over 35 cars that came in. I don't think 13 people realized what the dealership has 14 to offer. 15 As far as the current signage, 16 like I mentioned, it's almost the 17 identical same size; it's actually a 18 little bit smaller than what is there. 19 We are not asking for any more signage. 20 Actually, a little bit smaller. 21 And then the last thing that's 22 noted there is regarding the electronic 23 message center portion. My understanding 24 is with a changeable copy, you are
40 1 allowed a 15-second time change in the 2 City of Novi, which the dealership has no 3 problem using that to that 15-second 4 ability. 5 That's pretty much what they 6 are asking for. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Is 8 there anybody in the audience which 9 wishes to address the ZBA regarding this 10 issue? Seeing none, Mr. Secretary, any 11 correspondence? 12 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 27 13 notices were mailed, zero responses, four 14 mail returned. 15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Does 16 the building department or city attorney 17 wish to make any comments? Mr. Boulard. 18 MR. BOULARD: I have a question 19 for the petitioner, if I could. 20 Could you clarify the 21 application? It says the dealership is 22 wanting to advertise a new oil change, 23 tire and auto center at the dealership 24 and a new LED sign to allow for more
41 1 advertising. Is the sign new or 2 existing? 3 MR. MULLER: No, there is an 4 existing sign there now. 5 MR. BOULARD: So the sign will 6 replace the existing sign? 7 MR. MULLER: Correct. 8 MR. BOULARD: And it will be 9 exactly the same size? 10 MR. MULLER: It's actually a 11 little bit smaller. That's the current 12 sign that's there now. It's seven foot 13 four by three foot four inches. The 14 current, new sign, I believe, is two 15 inches less, left to right. And 16 vertically at the -- it's exactly the 17 same, left to right. 18 MR. BOULARD: So would I be 19 correct in understanding at this point 20 that the only variance required would be 21 changeable copy? 22 MR. MULLER: That's correct. 23 MR. BOULARD: Because the 24 existing sign is covered under the
42 1 previous variance? 2 MR. MULLER: That's correct. 3 MR. BOULARD: Are there any 4 other signs that are intended to be 5 removed? 6 MR. CASTANOS: Not at this 7 time. 8 MR. BOULARD: Not at this time? 9 MR. CASTANOS: No. 10 MR. BOULARD: The last issue I 11 just wanted to raise for the board. I 12 apologize, on your agenda it says, "Quick 13 Lube" as opposed to "Quick Lane." I 14 don't want to cause undue competition. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Mr. Schultz, 17 do you have anything to add? 18 MR. SCHULTZ: No. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 20 At this time I will refer this to the 21 board for discussion. Ms. Skelcy. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: What do you 23 plan on putting on the changeable copy? 24 MR. CASTANOS: We do special
43 1 events. We do special events on 2 Saturdays, drive-in traffic for Saturday. 3 We do lady's day on Wednesdays. We do -- 4 we do various different outfits. Breast 5 cancer was a big one we had at the 6 dealership (inaudible) supporting that. 7 So we would like to be able to put that 8 stuff out there as customers are coming 9 through to see what they have to offer. 10 MEMBER SKELCY: Will you be 11 advertising any other businesses 12 whatsoever? 13 MR. CASTANOS: No, no, strictly 14 with what we got there. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: Isn't it true 16 this sign doesn't really face Grand 17 River? 18 MR. CASTANOS: No. It's 19 actually a parking lot sign; you can't 20 see it from Grand River or Wixom Road. 21 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank 22 you. 23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member 24 Gedeon.
44 1 MEMBER GEDEON: You said the 2 sign itself was a little bit smaller than 3 the existing sign. Is the pole support, 4 the height of the sign the same, or is it 5 higher or the same? 6 MR. CASTANOS: The pole support 7 is the exact same height, seven foot 8 four. It's shortened I think an inch or 9 two on each side. 10 MR. MULLER: Height-wise it is 11 going to be the same height at seven feet 12 four inches. 13 MEMBER GEDEON: Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: 15 Member Krieger. 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Your intent 17 will be -- there is a drive to go off of 18 Grand River into that area, people that 19 go to Sam's or Target to that 20 drive-through (inaudible)? 21 And the second question was is 22 it just for Lincolns, or do you offer 23 other services to other vehicles? 24 MR. CASTANOS: Quick Lane Tire
45 1 and Auto does all makes all models. So, 2 basically -- it's basically catering to 3 oil changes, will be the marquis 4 servicing all makes, all models, with oil 5 change services for all makes all models 6 on the leaderboard. 7 As far as the entrance coming 8 in, the only entrance to that sign, 9 actually, you got to go through Grand 10 River to get into the Sam's Club parking 11 lot, and then it's behind that. So it's 12 not really directly off Grand River. 13 There is another drive that comes across 14 as you come off Grand River, then you 15 turn into the Sam's Club parking lot, and 16 that's where you see the Varsity service 17 sign with the arrows. That's the purpose 18 of that being there originally in the 19 beginning. 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. Thank 21 you. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else? 23 Member Cassis. 24 MEMBER CASSIS: Thank you,
46 1 Mr. Chairman. I think I will be going 2 along with this because, number one, it 3 relates to a service of cars that this 4 outfit has in (inaudible). And, also, it 5 does not front on a main street; rather, 6 it is on a parking lot there. And there 7 is a diminishing of the square footage, 8 too. So I will be voting for this. 9 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 11 Anyone else? Okay. Seeing that all 12 board members have had an opportunity to 13 speak, I will entertain a motion. 14 Member Ibe. 15 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, in Case 16 10-036, 49251 Grand River, Quick Lane, I 17 move that we grant the variance as 18 requested by the petitioner, for the fact 19 that the request is based on upon 20 circumstances of features that are 21 exceptional and unique to the property. 22 Now, the petitioner has not 23 presented us with something that is 24 different. Petitioner actually is
47 1 replacing an existing sign, and the size 2 of the sign is really not much different 3 from what we had before, other than the 4 fact that it will be the -- is that 5 called, the electronics -- 6 MEMBER CASSIS: The lettering. 7 MEMBER IBE: The lettering. 8 And, also, the fact that the economic time 9 that we live in calls for situations where 10 businesses have to find ways to generate 11 new business and new customers. This, 12 obviously, it works in the best interest 13 of the petitioner. And the problem is not 14 self-created. 15 The failure to grant will 16 unreasonably prevent or limit the use of 17 this property, and will result in 18 substantially more than mere 19 inconvenience or inability to attain a 20 higher economic financial return for this 21 business. 22 Finally, the grant of relief 23 will not result in the use of a structure 24 that is incompatible with adjacent
48 1 businesses, and the spirit of the zoning 2 ordinance will be observed. 3 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 6 motion made by Member Ibe and second by 7 Member Krieger. 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: If I could 9 add, I'm sorry. In the area where they 10 are speaking where the sign is at, the 11 speed would not be at a rate where it 12 would cause more safety issues. Is that 13 agreeable? 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Mr. Schultz? 15 MR. SCHULTZ: Similar to that 16 concern, just because one of the things 17 the city council did when it crafted that 18 pretty narrow changeable copy sign, the 19 ordinance was, you know, to pay attention 20 to the traffic on main roads. And if the 21 maker of the motion might accept another 22 finding that this is internal -- pretty 23 well internal to the site, and the 24 traffic impacts are reduced. As another
49 1 way to distinguish it from the next case 2 that's going to have to approve its own 3 basis. 4 And a clarification, this is 5 just the changeable copy sign, no other 6 variance. Changeable copy, no other 7 variance, if that's okay. 8 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, I would 9 adopt the statements as relayed by the 10 city counselor as well as my colleague as 11 part of the motion. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: I agree, too. 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Any 15 further discussion? 16 Ms. Martin, please call the 17 roll. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: No. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 21 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe?
50 1 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: No. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 5 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 6 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 7 MEMBER GEDEON: No. 8 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 9 four to three. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: You have been 11 approved. Thank you. 12 The fourth case on the agenda 13 is 10-037, 26132 Ingersol Drive, Novi 14 Town Center. 15 The petitioner is requesting 16 variances to install a revised sign 17 package, including four oversize business 18 center signs with four tenant names and 19 an oversize clock tower sign on several 20 locations at the Novi Town Center site. 21 The property is zoned TC and is located 22 south of I-96 and east of Novi Road. 23 MR. QUINN: Good evening, 24 ladies and gentlemen. My name is Matthew
51 1 Quinn, Attorney, appearing on behalf of 2 Town Center Investors. 3 It's a pleasure, once again, to 4 be back here for the Novi Town Center. 5 As you are aware, over the last two years 6 or so, there has been a lot of activity 7 at the Novi Town Center. A lot of 8 reconstruction, demolition. And I can 9 just tell you this that there is more on 10 the way, and that is why the sign package 11 needs to be upgraded. 12 Currently, at the Novi Town 13 Center, there are four monument signs. 14 And those four monument signs have two at 15 Town Center Drive at the intersection 16 with Grand River Avenue. And the other 17 two monument signs are at Novi Road at 18 the Crescent Boulevard entranceway. 19 Now, the Novi Town Center 20 zoning district allows the Town Center to 21 have one pylon sign. But, years ago, 22 this body, a predecessor of yours, 23 granted the Town Center the right to have 24 those three additional signs. And so
52 1 those monument signs that you see out 2 there today have been granted under your 3 jurisdiction. 4 Now, originally, why were those 5 signs granted, and why are we back today 6 seeking a little bit addition? I do want 7 to point out to you a reminder that we 8 are not seeking to add any new-sized 9 structures whatsoever, but to exist 10 within the structures that exist today. 11 Now, in perspective of the Novi 12 Town Center, just let me help you out 13 here. The expressway is on the north; 14 Novi Road is here on the west side. And, 15 of course, Grand River Avenue on the 16 south side. 17 Now, what is unique about the 18 Novi Town Center as far as the interior 19 tenants? And let's just take it -- I'm 20 sure most of you have been there. TJ 21 Maxx. TJ Maxx sits right in this 22 interior corner. And it is considered by 23 the Town Center Investors and Simon 24 Company, their manager, as an anchor
53 1 store. 2 The Novi Town Center is 3 different than all the other Town 4 Centers, because it is totally surrounded 5 by out-lots. And those out-lots prohibit 6 vision from Novi Road or Grand River 7 Avenue into the center of the Novi Town 8 Center. And that gives us the 9 uniqueness. 10 We are trying to redevelop this 11 center. Currently, there are 30 tenants 12 that are there. After final demolition 13 and reconstruction, there will be 14 68 tenant spaces available, an additional 15 38. Some of those 38 we would like to be 16 larger anchor stores. 17 Anchor stores in their leases 18 require signage, if signage is allowed, 19 at the major roadways. And, in fact, 20 right now, some of the leases for the 21 existing tenants, such as TJ Maxx, such 22 as Bally's, such as Border's, and I can 23 tell you because they are going to be 24 filing it tomorrow, with Wal-Mart, they
54 1 require within their leases to have the 2 exterior signage if it's allowed. 3 Currently, on these signs we 4 are allowed to have Novi Town Center as 5 the name. Let me show you this. Novi 6 Town Center. We are allowed to have two 7 tenant names on the signs that exist out 8 there today. They have chose not to put 9 any tenant names out so far because of 10 the conflict with the number of anchor 11 tenants that require signage. 12 So, what are we asking for? We 13 are only asking for the addition of two 14 additional tenant names to be placed on 15 these signs. Very simple; just two new 16 names. Now that's, of course, two names 17 on each of the four signs. But that's a 18 requirement. 19 If you look at -- you know, why 20 would you want a tenant name? Well, 21 certainly, people that come from 22 Novi Road -- and let me show you a 23 perspective view. And I know it's a 24 little hard to see. This is Novi Road
55 1 going north. 2 This is the existing sign. 3 Remember, all we are doing to the 4 existing sign is adding the architectural 5 cap, and that's going to raise it 1.2 6 inches, to a height of eight feet. By 7 having this perspective, you will be able 8 to see four tenants that are within the 9 Novi Town Center, as you are going north. 10 Those anchor tenants are going to get the 11 signage that they need, and the same with 12 the south side. 13 Oh, I want to point out, this 14 is the sign that exists on the north 15 side. Behind this greenery is the sign 16 that exists on the south side of Crescent 17 Drive. You cannot see both those signs 18 at the same time. That's why you need 19 one sign going north, one sign going 20 south. The perspective going south -- 21 and this color just doesn't show up all 22 that well. This is the perspective going 23 southbound. This is the monument sign on 24 the south side of Crescent Boulevard.
56 1 The sign that we just looked at is, 2 again, hidden behind the greenery that 3 sits right there. 4 So, in effect, what are we 5 asking for? We are asking for a variance 6 to allow two additional tenant signs. 7 That requires us to add a -- request a 8 variance for the square footage that's 9 allowed. On each monument sign we are 10 allowed 30 square feet because of the 11 setback from the road. We are asking for 12 a variance of 32.83 square feet, and that 13 encompasses a block consisting of all the 14 names that exist on each of the signs. 15 We are also asking for that 16 variance of one foot two inches, totaling 17 eight feet, so we can put that cornice on 18 top of the sign. That cornice exactly 19 matches the architectural feature that 20 has been added to the top of the new Town 21 Center roof reconstructions. So it's 22 carrying that through. 23 Now, we are using the same 24 brick; we are using everything the same.
57 1 This is not a new sign. We are not 2 replacing it; we are just adding the 3 cornice to the top. 4 Now, moving on to the other 5 sign variance, it deals with the City of 6 Novi. This is -- let me just show you 7 back out here. This is the clock tower 8 that exists on what we call Building I. 9 That doesn't mean anything to you, but 10 it's the building that's under 11 reconstruction. 12 This is the clock that exists. 13 And, currently, on each side of the tower 14 the name of Novi is there. Now, that 15 Novi was put there by the owners of the 16 Town Center Mall as notice to the world 17 that this is Novi. That actually was 18 there before there was any Novi and any 19 water tower at the intersection or not. 20 Now, what's happened in the 21 meantime, the Novi -- I call it Novi 22 water tower; you don't own it; we don't 23 own it. The owners of the old convention 24 center for their own personal reasons
58 1 have removed the name of Novi from the 2 water tower, so it's just blank. The 3 City of Novi in the minds of the Novi 4 Town Center needs to have identification 5 at this intersection. And we are going 6 to maintain the name of Novi in each of 7 those locations. 8 What we are asking is that we 9 increase the size of those Novi signs a 10 little, so that instead of 15 square foot 11 apiece, they will be 39 square feet each. 12 So we are asking for a variance of 24.5 13 square feet for the Novi signs. Those 14 Novi signs will be back-lit and visible 15 day and night. 16 Just for your edification, 17 what's not in front of you but it's 18 already been approved as part of the site 19 plan, on the clock tower you see that 20 this shows a green light here. Well, 21 that is an interior lighting, and that 22 color is going to change with seasons. 23 It's not going to change all the time. 24 This is St. Patrick's Day,
59 1 obviously, because it's green. But it 2 could be blue in the summer, it could be 3 red for Christmas, holiday time. Another 4 color for different things. 5 Also, all along the outside of 6 the clock tower, again, not subject to 7 you, just for your information, LED 8 lights are going to be placed around it 9 to more brighten it up, show a more 10 festive atmosphere for this focal point. 11 This is actually copied from a 12 very well-to-do and respected shopping 13 center down in Texas. And we are trying 14 to -- they are trying to bring that here 15 to spruce things up. 16 Now, again, what's important is 17 on the monument signs, tenants only and 18 logos. We are not going to put, you 19 know, fruit sale this week or anything 20 like that. Just tenant names, all right. 21 Now, there is no question that 22 the relief -- if we are denied this 23 relief, that it will unreasonably prevent 24 or limit the use of the Novi Town Center
60 1 and its ability to attract new anchor 2 tenants and for its economic 3 revitalization. The relief will not 4 result in any structure that's 5 incompatible with or unreasonably 6 interferes with adjacent or surrounding 7 properties. 8 It will result in substantial 9 justice being done to the owners of the 10 Novi Town Center in their attempt to 11 re-configure and re-invent the Town 12 Center area. These variance requests are 13 not inconsistent with the spirit or 14 intent of the sign ordinance. The 15 variance requests are based upon the 16 circumstances of features that are 17 exceptional and unique to the Novi Town 18 Center, and do not result in conditions 19 that generally exist. 20 Now, I would just take you back 21 to the map showing how some of these 22 businesses are so interior, it's 23 impossible to see them from the outside. 24 That's why this identification is needed.
61 1 If we have any questions, I 2 have with me tonight Matt Niles from Wah 3 Yee Architects that talks about the 4 square footages of the signs. And, of 5 course, Jim Clear, the mayor of the mall, 6 is here to answer any questions regarding 7 tenants. 8 So, we are looking forward to 9 this re-invigoration of the center. We 10 are looking forward to 68 new tenants 11 coming in and getting this kicked off. 12 And we are all looking at this happening 13 in 2012 when the re-construction is 14 completed. 15 This is, as I said, the first 16 step, and we are asking you to help us to 17 be able to lease out the 68 18 spaces. Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 20 you. 21 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Chairman, 22 point of order only. 23 Mr. Schultz, I do sit on the 24 planning commission; however, I was not
62 1 present at the time that they dealt with 2 this. Do I still stay here? 3 MR. SCHULTZ: You can stay. 4 MEMBER CASSIS: Thank you. 5 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you, 7 Member Cassis. 8 MR. QUINN: Nice to have you. 9 MEMBER CASSIS: I know you love 10 that. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Is there 12 anybody in the audience who wishes to 13 address the board regarding this case? 14 Seeing none, will the secretary read any 15 correspondence regarding this case into 16 the record. 17 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, there 18 were 14 notices mailed, zero responses, 19 four mail returned. 20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Does 21 the building department or city attorney 22 wish to make any comments? 23 MR. BOULARD: If I could bring 24 to your attention the letter from
63 1 Mr. Quinn that's in your packet. It was 2 provided to hopefully provide some 3 clarification. 4 I did have one question for 5 Mr. Quinn, if I could. 6 MR. QUINN: Sure. 7 MR. BOULARD: The four anchor 8 tenants, are those going to be the same 9 four anchor tenants on all of the signs? 10 MR. QUINN: Not necessarily. 11 Because of the different entranceways, 12 some anchors might be closer to Novi Road 13 and other anchors might be closer to 14 Grand River. We are just asking for 15 four. Actually, two, two additional 16 tenant names to be allowed on the signs. 17 MR. BOULARD: Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Mr. Schultz? 19 MR. SCHULTZ: Nothing. 20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. With 21 that, I will turn it over for the board. 22 Member Skelcy. 23 MEMBER SKELCY: On this sign 24 picture that you provided to us, which
64 1 two names are being added, Wal-Mart and 2 TJ Maxx? 3 MR. QUINN: No. All we are -- 4 we are allowed to have -- there is no 5 names there at all right now. 6 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 7 MR. QUINN: We have the right 8 to put two. We are asking for the 9 permission to add two additional tenant 10 names. 11 MEMBER SKELCY: Are the 12 companies that are going in there like 13 Wal-Mart, for instance, are they 14 requiring their names before they will 15 sign leases? 16 MR. QUINN: They -- I have just 17 examples. The TJ Maxx lease has that 18 language in there; it was negotiated when 19 they came in. Border's, same thing. 20 And, also, Bally's. We just pulled out 21 the main three. There could be others if 22 Jim Clear looked harder. 23 Within their purchase 24 agreements, with -- see, Wal-Mart is a
65 1 little different, because they are buying 2 nine plus acres, all right. And they are 3 going to construct their own nine acres. 4 As part of their purchase agreement, it's 5 my understanding, because that's 6 something I don't get involved with, the 7 negotiating, that this same sign, right, 8 exists. If there are names allowed on 9 exterior signage, they must be one of 10 those signage tenants, sign tenants, I 11 guess you would say. 12 MEMBER SKELCY: So even though 13 they are buying their own property and 14 will own their own building, they are 15 asking to have their name placed on the 16 Novi Town Center monument sign? 17 MR. QUINN: Let's assume they 18 are. I can't guarantee that one way or 19 the other. 20 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 21 MR. QUINN: If they are not 22 there, it would be one of the new other 23 anchors that is going to be attracted to 24 the center.
66 1 MEMBER SKELCY: So this was 2 just done for illustrative purposes? 3 MR. QUINN: This is just an 4 illustration. 5 MEMBER SKELCY: All right. 6 MR. QUINN: Because the Town 7 Center eight is going to come down; it's 8 going to be removed. 9 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank 10 you. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: 12 Member Krieger. 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: I guess the 14 first thing is wow. For the adding the 15 cornice on the top of the sign, would we, 16 by granting a variance, if the monument 17 sign stays where it's at, would that take 18 care of the -- I don't remember the word 19 I want, for the length to the street? 20 MR. QUINN: Yes. It's not 21 being moved. We are retaining the same 22 brick that's there today. If you have 23 been by there, they have been cleaning it 24 up, replacing some loose brick. All
67 1 that's happening is they are putting this 2 cornice on top. 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: That shouldn't 4 affect any numbers or requirements for 5 variance? 6 MR. QUINN: Only for the 7 height. It adds 1.2 inches to a total of 8 eight feet. 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member 11 Cassis. 12 MEMBER CASSIS: Good evening. 13 MR. QUINN: Good evening, sir. 14 MEMBER CASSIS: How many 15 monument signs are you asking for right 16 now? 17 MR. QUINN: No new ones. 18 MEMBER CASSIS: Monument. 19 MR. QUINN: No new ones. We 20 have four existing, and we are going to 21 keep the same four existing. 22 MEMBER CASSIS: Same four 23 existing? 24 MR. QUINN: No new signage, no
68 1 additional structures. 2 MEMBER CASSIS: You are just 3 asking for placement of the names? 4 MR. QUINN: Exactly. 5 MEMBER CASSIS: On those signs? 6 MR. QUINN: That's right. 7 MEMBER CASSIS: As we are 8 developing this -- and I'm all for 9 developing this shopping center. By the 10 way, compliments on that new structure 11 facing Olive Garden; it looks very good. 12 Looking towards the future, 13 Mr. Quinn, how many other monument signs 14 do you think will be coming in the 15 future? 16 MR. QUINN: I don't see any new 17 ones. 18 MEMBER CASSIS: Is this all 19 this center would be asking for? 20 MR. QUINN: These two -- these 21 four exist at the two main entry roads 22 now. There is no new entry roads that 23 really can be built. 24 MEMBER CASSIS: Now, if like my
69 1 colleague was asking about Wal-Mart, what 2 if they come forward and say, "We want to 3 have our own monument sign"? 4 MR. QUINN: They will be on 5 their own in asking for that. 6 MEMBER CASSIS: Okay. Thank 7 you, Mr. Chair. 8 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member 9 Gedeon. 10 MEMBER GEDEON: Just to clarify 11 that, though, even though you say they 12 will be on their own, by way of the 13 ordinance, they are entitled to the 14 monument sign. 15 MR. QUINN: They may be 16 entitled; I don't know that for sure. 17 They are coming in with a wall sign on 18 the wall. I have not looked into that if 19 they are entitled to another one or not. 20 I mean, it's really not part of what we 21 are here tonight about. 22 MEMBER GEDEON: Right. But, I 23 mean, I guess we are concerned about 24 that, the total number of signs.
70 1 MR. QUINN: I think -- 2 MEMBER GEDEON: If you are 3 talking about the property owner selling 4 off a portion of the land. 5 MR. QUINN: It's the same 6 general piece that Mervyn's was in 7 before, and they did nicely with a wall 8 sign. 9 MEMBER GEDEON: Right. 10 MR. QUINN: They would have 11 been out here on this, all right. 12 Mervyn's would have been, if we would 13 have been there at that time. 14 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. I guess 15 a point of clarification for the building 16 department and city attorney then, if 17 it's a separate property owner within 18 that development, wouldn't they have the 19 right to have another sign, a monument 20 sign? 21 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the 22 chair. Just as a general proposition, 23 without looking through the ordinance, 24 they are probably going to get a wall
71 1 sign, just under the ordinance. 2 These monument signs are 3 separate; they are actually approved on 4 the site plan. This is the, remember, TC 5 District, which has a little bit of a 6 different approval process that goes to 7 the city council with a recommendation 8 from the planning commission. And 9 because it's such a unique area, the site 10 plan in this case, way back when, is what 11 granted the monument signs in the first 12 place that are there that Mr. Quinn's 13 clients and client wants to add to. 14 So, is Wal-Mart going to get 15 its own sign? Without looking it up, 16 they are probably going to get a wall 17 sign. 18 But these monument signs are -- 19 the variances are height, little bit of 20 the area, and then the two extra tenants. 21 So, if it helps to say Wal-Mart is going 22 to get a sign, I don't know how big; I 23 don't know where. 24 CHAIRMAN WROBEL:
72 1 Member Sanghvi. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just a 3 clarification. The monument signs are 4 the same; you want a little extra height 5 on it, number one? 6 MR. QUINN: Correct. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Number two, 8 you are already permitted to have two 9 names, which you never had before so far 10 on the signs? 11 MR. QUINN: Correct. 12 MEMBER SANGVHI: But you are 13 not willing to commit what names are 14 going to go on this at this point in 15 time? 16 MR. QUINN: No. Because 17 tenants come and tenants go, as we all 18 know. All we are saying is tenants' 19 names only. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: You have 21 written a fourth name there is Town 22 Center. 23 MR. QUINN: Just as an example. 24 All of those names are just
73 1 illustrations. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: They don't 3 really mean much? 4 MR. QUINN: No. They mean 5 nothing. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Like you had 7 Wal-Mart and TJ Maxx and Border's. 8 MR. QUINN: It could be 9 Dr. Sanghvi & Associates. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'm not in 11 practice anymore. Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else 13 have questions? I just have a couple 14 quick questions. 15 The tenant names on the sign, 16 are those going to be back-lit or 17 front-lit or lit at all? 18 MR. QUINN: Back-lit, right? 19 MR. NILES: Internally lit. 20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: So they will 21 be lit up at night? 22 MR. QUINN: Correct, yes. 23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Also, the 24 example of the signs for the anchor
74 1 stores that are within the Town Center, 2 would there be any of the out-lot 3 businesses placing their names on these 4 signs, or just the ones within the -- 5 MR. QUINN: No, only those 6 within the Town Center property itself. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. All 8 right. Since everybody has had the 9 opportunity to talk. Member Sanghvi. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: I want to say 11 one thing. I like what -- I think it's 12 done in good taste, looks very nice. And 13 including the tower and the name of Novi 14 on the clock. To be quite honest, I will 15 be very happy to support this variance. 16 MEMBER CASSIS: Keep the Irish 17 color. 18 MR. QUINN: As long as we can. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. At 20 this point, I'm looking for a motion. 21 Member Krieger. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: In 23 Case No. 10-037, 26132 Ingersol Drive, 24 for Town Center, Town District, I move to
75 1 approve the variance as requested to -- 2 for the four existing business signs to 3 continue with the addition of the cornice 4 at the requested amount. And that the 5 four additional names can be placed as 6 needed on the sign as requested. 7 And that the request is based 8 upon circumstances of features that are 9 exceptional and unique to the Town Center 10 property, and does not result from 11 conditions that exist generally, and is 12 not self-created. And failure to grant 13 relief will unreasonably prevent the use 14 of this property in its -- as Dr. -- 15 Mr. Quinn said, new economic 16 revitalization, if I remember that. And 17 will result in substantially more than 18 mere inconvenience or inability to attain 19 a higher economic or financial return. 20 And grant of the relief will 21 not result in use of a structure that is 22 incompatible with or unreasonably 23 interferes with adjacent or surrounding 24 properties. It will result in
76 1 substantial justice being done to the 2 applicant and adjacent surrounding 3 properties, as well as Novi, and is not 4 inconsistent with the spirit of the 5 ordinance. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 8 motion made by Member Krieger and a 9 second by Member Sanghvi. 10 MR. BOULARD: If I may. Could 11 I suggest possibly amending the motion to 12 also include the oversize clock tower 13 sign, and also clarify that there are two 14 additional tenant signs for a total of 15 four. 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: The part that 17 I left out to include that as Mr. Boulard 18 had said regarding the clock. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 20 Member Sanghvi, is that acceptable? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Any other 23 discussion? 24 MR. SCHULTZ: Just, Mr. Chair,
77 1 a suggestion that you take Mr. Quinn up 2 on the condition that these be tenant 3 signs only, not out-lots, and that they 4 be tenants of the center. 5 MR. QUINN: Tenants of the Novi 6 Center Investors. 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yeah, I 8 accept. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: 10 Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, sir. 12 MEMBER SKELCY: If you do that, 13 will that exclude Wal-Mart? 14 MR. SCHULTZ: No. They are a 15 tenant of the center. 16 MEMBER SKELCY: Even though 17 they are buying it? 18 MR. SCHULTZ: They will own a 19 piece of it, but they are within the 20 center property. 21 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Schultz, is 23 it necessary to mention that the tenants' 24 names may change?
78 1 MR. SCHULTZ: No, sir, not 2 necessary to mention, unless you -- I 3 mean, you can. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: So they don't 5 come back again? 6 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay. As long as 7 it's clear, and I think it is, that it's 8 four total companies. 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yeah, it's in 10 there. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All set then? 13 Any other discussion? 14 Ms. Martin, please call the 15 roll. 16 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 19 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 23 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?
79 1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 5 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 6 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 7 seven to zero. 8 MR. QUINN: Thank you very 9 much. Have a good evening. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: The next case 11 is Case No. 10-038, 25100 12 Novi Road, Collex. 13 The petitioner is requesting 14 the following variance on behalf of the 15 property owner to address a 16 non-conformity that would result from the 17 additional highway easement for the new 18 railroad bridge on Novi Road, and 19 requests for re-location of an existing 20 sign as a pole sign and a temporary sign 21 for 18 to 24 months. The property is 22 zoned I-2 and is located east of 23 Novi Road and south of Grand River. 24 Is the petitioner here? Please
80 1 state your name and address. And if you 2 are not an attorney, please be sworn in 3 by our secretary. 4 MR. ROLLINGER: Mr. Chairman, 5 my name is Robert Rollinger. I'm an 6 attorney, and here on behalf of the Road 7 Commission for Oakland County. 8 We are requesting this evening 9 that this matter be tabled. I had an 10 opportunity prior to the meeting to 11 discuss it with Mr. Boulard and 12 Mr. Schultz, as a result of a recent 13 court hearing. 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. What 15 do we have to do? 16 MR. SCHULTZ: Just agree with 17 Mr. Rollinger. We didn't get a formal 18 correspondence, so I wanted to make sure 19 he got a chance to say that on the 20 record. But it is appropriate to table 21 at this time. 22 Okay. Mr. Boulard has actually 23 reminded me of a good point. If the 24 board were to table to an unspecified
81 1 date, you are going to need -- the city 2 is going to need to re-advertise. If you 3 table to a specific date, you don't need 4 to pay for the re-publication and 5 advertisement. 6 I guess I leave it to 7 Mr. Rollinger, who was at the court 8 hearing, the choice of what you want to 9 do. 10 MR. ROLLINGER: Well, as I 11 understand it, Mr. Schultz, Judge 12 Kumar has requested a status conference 13 November the 16th. So the next available 14 date after that would probably be your 15 December ZBA meeting. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: If you did that, 17 I think you could maybe save the county 18 some advertisement costs. If you choose 19 to. You may want to re-advertise, but I 20 don't know if you got a lot of feedback 21 last time. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: So we have to 23 have a motion to table? 24 MR. SCHULTZ: Motion to table,
82 1 and probably makes sense to table to 2 December. 3 Mr. Boulard makes another good 4 point. If, as a result of the 5 facilitation, Mr. Rollinger is going to 6 go through a request for changes, then 7 obviously there would be 8 re-advertisement. If it stays the same, 9 you should be good to go. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. So we 11 don't have to vote on a table? 12 MR. SCHULTZ: Motion to table 13 to December, and then a vote. 14 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, in 15 Case No. 10-038, 25100 Novi Road, Collex, 16 I move that we table this request as 17 requested by the petitioner to the ZBA 18 December calendar. I'm sorry, December, 19 2010, calendar. 20 MEMBER GEDEON: Second. 21 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. We 22 have a motion by Member Ibe and a second 23 by Member Gedeon. Any further 24 discussion? Call the roll.
83 1 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 4 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 5 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 7 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 8 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 9 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 11 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 12 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 13 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 14 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 15 MS. MARTIN: Motion to table 16 passes, seven to zero. 17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: The next case 18 is Case No. 10-039, 24460 Novi Road, 19 Michigan Tractor and Machine. 20 The petitioner is requesting 21 the following variances on behalf of the 22 property owner to address non-conformity 23 that will result from the additional 24 highway easement for the new railroad
84 1 bridge on Novi Road, and request the 2 re-location of existing signage. The 3 property is zoned I-2 and located east of 4 Novi Road and south of Grand River. 5 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you, 6 Mr. Chairman. Good evening, members of 7 the Zoning Board of Appeals. 8 My name is Robert Rollinger. 9 I'm an attorney representing the Road 10 Commission for Oakland County regarding a 11 site specific variance request we made 12 for what we call the Michigan CAT 13 property, located at 24460 Novi Road, 14 24800 Novi Road and 25000 Novi Road. The 15 subject property is located on the east 16 side of Novi Road, north of Grand River 17 and south of Ten Mile Road. The subject 18 property is in an I-2 zoning district. 19 The Road Commission, with the 20 support and assistance of the City of 21 Novi, is undertaking the widening of 22 Novi Road from Ten Mile Road to Grand 23 River. This construction project does 24 include a bridge overpass over the
85 1 existing CSX Railroad. 2 The bridge and road widening 3 construction will impact properties along 4 Novi Road, both on the east side and west 5 side of Novi Road, including the Michigan 6 Caterpillar (inaudible). At this 7 location, additional right-of-way for 8 Novi Road in the form of public highway 9 easements for public highway purposes are 10 being required for sufficient width to 11 widen Novi Road. It will also result in 12 a road grade difference than that which 13 exists at the current time. 14 Due to the Novi Road 15 improvement project, the existing legal 16 (inaudible) circumstances for the 17 Michigan CAT property will become 18 additionally non-compliant with several 19 City of Novi zoning ordinance 20 requirements. 21 On November -- I'm sorry, 22 January -- June, I apologize, June 6, 23 2006, the ZBA did grant a series of 24 zoning variances to keep the property in
86 1 conformity with the Novi zoning ordinance 2 requirements. 3 In ZBA Case No. 06-042, the 4 following site specific zoning variances 5 were previously granted. A front yard 6 building setback variance of 15 feet for 7 24460 Novi Road; a front yard building 8 setback variance of 15 feet for 9 24800 Novi Road; a parking setback 10 variance of 52 feet for parking area A at 11 2500 (sic) Novi Road; parking setback 12 variance of 97 feet for parking area B at 13 24800 Novi Road; a parking setback 14 variance of 77 feet for parking area D at 15 24460 Novi Road; a variance to eliminate 16 the required parking lot screen wall or a 17 landscaped berm for parking areas A, C 18 and D; a variance to allow the outdoor 19 storage and display area for heavy 20 machinery to remain in the front yard of 21 24800 Novi Road, and a variance to 22 eliminate the screen wall or landscape 23 berm for the outdoor storage and display 24 area located at 24800 Novi Road.
87 1 In ZBA case 06-051, the ZBA 2 approved a sign variance request to 3 re-locate the existing sign outside of 4 the Novi Road right-of way and allow the 5 support structures for the sign to be 6 replaced with the same dimensions that 7 currently existed, should the support 8 structures not be able to be moved for 9 the two existing signs. 10 At the current time, the Road 11 Commission is seeking a series of zoning 12 variances to the dimensional aspects of 13 the previously granted non-use 14 dimensional variances from the ZBA. The 15 purpose of these zoning variances is 16 taking into account a partial taking for 17 a newly widened and improved Novi Road, 18 in the proximity of the CSX bridge 19 overpass, which will be in close 20 proximity. 21 The request for the variance 22 for the front yard setback for 24800 23 Novi Road is a request to increase the 24 previously granted variance to 24 feet
88 1 from the previously granted 15-foot 2 variance. 3 For 24800 Novi Road, the 4 variance request is for the parking lot 5 setback in the front yard, which will 6 increase the variance by an additional 7 one foot. 8 For 24600 Novi Road, there is a 9 front yard parking lot setback request to 10 increase the previously granted variance 11 of 77 feet, an additional two feet, to 12 79 feet. 13 With respect to the existing 14 signs at 24800 Novi Road and 2500 15 Novi Road, the request is being made to 16 allow these existing signs to be 17 re-located approximately three feet to 18 five feet east of the new Novi Road 19 right-of-way line, in an area of the 20 greenbelt area, between the new Novi Road 21 right-of-way, and the front parking space 22 area for 24800 Novi Road; to move the 23 sign located at 2500 Novi Road, which 24 identifies the entrance, which would
89 1 likewise be re-located approximately 2 three feet to five feet east of the new 3 Novi Road right-of-way line; and an 4 identification sign that states on it 5 Michigan Cat Power Systems, which is a 6 two-tiered sign containing the logo of 7 the owner, approximately three feet to 8 five feet east of the Novi Road 9 right-of-way line. 10 This request includes the 11 variance to allow the support structures 12 on the signs to be re-located so that 13 they can be detached and reattached to 14 support the sign. 15 Each of these variance requests 16 is being made to facilitate the 17 right-of-way acquisition along Novi Road. 18 The ZBA at its regular June 6, 2006, 19 meeting, previously granted sign 20 variances, based on each of the signs, 21 copies of which are attached to our ZBA 22 application and are part of the 23 submission to the ZBA to re-locate the 24 signage outside the Novi Road
90 1 right-of-way, and to allow the support 2 structures on these signs to be detached 3 and reattached with the same dimensions 4 that currently exist. 5 The Road Commission is 6 undertaking the road improvement project 7 along Novi Road in which the highway 8 overpass bridge will be constructed over 9 the existing CSX Railroad right-of-way. 10 Under the Uniform Condemnation 11 Procedures Act, the condemning agency is 12 authorized to seek zoning variances from 13 the local zoning board of appeals if a 14 parcel of property is needed by the 15 condemning agency, and there is a partial 16 taking that results from that 17 acquisition, such as in the case of the 18 Michigan CAT property. 19 The inability of the owner to 20 conform to the City of Novi zoning 21 ordinance requirements is directly 22 related to the Novi Road improvement 23 project that occurs at this location. 24 Granting the requested variances will
91 1 allow the spirit of the City of Novi 2 zoning ordinance to be observed, public 3 safety secured, and substantial justice 4 done for the owner. 5 With respect to grade and 6 elevation changes, a partial taking will 7 alter the road grade in front of the 8 property by approximately one foot. In 9 the new right-of-way acquisition area, 10 there is a sidewalk that is being 11 installed between the roadway and the 12 building in question. Because the new 13 right-of-way to Novi Road will be 14 relocated to the east, the setback for 15 the building at 24800 Novi Road, the 16 parking lot setback for the property at 17 24800 Novi Road, and the parking lot 18 setback for 24460 Novi Road all will be 19 impacted. 20 Previous building setback and 21 parking lot setback variances granted by 22 the ZBA at the request of the Road 23 Commission in 2006 need to be widened and 24 altered. Granting these requested
92 1 variances will substantially reduce the 2 impact of the partial taking of the 3 property owner in question. 4 If you have any questions, I 5 would be happy to try to answer them for 6 you. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 8 Is there anyone in the audience who 9 wishes to address the board regarding 10 this case? Seeing none, will the 11 secretary read any correspondence into 12 the record. 13 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 34 14 notices were mailed, zero responses, 15 eight mail returned. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 17 Does the building department or city 18 attorney have anything to add at this 19 time? 20 MR. SCHULTZ: I do. Mr. Chair, 21 a question I think for Mr. Rollinger. 22 I think when we were going over 23 these summaries in anticipation of the 24 meeting, it was my understanding that
93 1 those signs are actually already there. 2 That as a result of the 2006 case, they 3 have been moved back and re-installed in 4 accordance with the variance referred to 5 in your presentation, is that correct? 6 Because we really only advertised the 7 building setback and the parking 8 setbacks. We didn't advertise -- 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Signs. 10 MR. SCHULTZ: The signs. We 11 didn't call them out, I should say, here 12 in the summer; we didn't call them out. 13 Are the signs staying or are they being 14 moved? 15 MR. ROLLINGER: I believe the 16 signs need to be moved just a short 17 distance, based on the width of the 18 right-of-way and the setback 19 requirements. 20 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess the 21 reason I ask that question is I think the 22 variance on the second page, or maybe 23 it's the first page, of your summary at 24 the top.
94 1 Charles, correct me if I'm 2 wrong, this is the actual same language 3 that was used in 2006 to grant the 4 variances. Are they going to go back 5 another three to five feet? 6 MR. ROLLINGER: I believe -- I 7 believe so. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: I think that's 9 probably something we need to explore 10 with the county for the next meeting, 11 because I don't think we called out the 12 signs. When I went over this, I think I 13 was under the impression that the signs 14 were where they are. They got a 15 variance, and they moved them, and I 16 think, as Charles said, the variance is 17 from the right-of-way. If the 18 right-of-way changes, I think the 19 variance -- 20 MR. ROLLINGER: So, question, 21 if the right-of-way line changes because 22 of the widening, as long as it comports 23 with where the new right-of-way line 24 is --
95 1 MR. SCHULTZ: I think we might 2 be able to read the previous variance in 3 that way. Is there an urgency, 4 Mr. Rollinger, in doing the sign portion 5 of this tonight? Because we can 6 certainly do the rest of it. 7 MR. ROLLINGER: My 8 understanding is that the signs -- and, 9 again, I will have to check to be sure. 10 My understanding is that the signs where 11 they are located may be in the way of 12 where the contractor is intending to 13 continue the excavation. 14 As you may have seen, the 15 excavation has already started. And, so, 16 I believe that we did contact the owners 17 along Novi Road, and including Michigan 18 CAT, to let them know we were going to do 19 whatever we needed to do to get those 20 signs back far enough so that the 21 excavation wouldn't interfere with 22 customers trying to find Michigan CAT, so 23 their sign wouldn't be taken down. 24 So, if the reading of the
96 1 previous zoning variance and the language 2 being based upon the new right-of-way 3 line is acceptable, and we can just deal 4 with where the new right-of-way line is, 5 that's fine with me. I just want to make 6 sure that the owner still knows where 7 their property is and people coming there 8 will find it without any difficulty. 9 MR. SCHULTZ: Go ahead with 10 your questions. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member 12 Cassis. 13 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Schultz, I 14 think those signs, all of them, as I have 15 seen them for years and years, even with 16 the widening and the partial taking, as 17 you say of a few feet, I think they would 18 still be in conformity with even the new 19 street widening. They would still be in 20 conformity of our zoning ordinance. So, 21 really, I don't know if we really need to 22 take those up. What's your opinion? 23 I mean, maybe whoever is 24 excavating doesn't want to have the
97 1 liability of hitting a sign or maybe of 2 an underground foundation. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Cables. 4 MEMBER CASSIS: Of cables and 5 so on. Maybe that might be the case. 6 But whether we need to even deal with 7 whether a variance is being realized 8 here, abided by, even though there is a 9 widening. I think that's the question, 10 isn't it, Mr. Rollinger? 11 MR. ROLLINGER: Yes. We just 12 want to be assured that would not be an 13 issue. 14 MEMBER CASSIS: Did you hear 15 me? 16 MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah, I did. And 17 I guess the response to that, I'd like a 18 few minutes just to look through the 19 previous variance language and see if we 20 can come to that conclusion. 21 MEMBER CASSIS: Yeah, sure. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 23 (Inaudible). 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: The question
98 1 is I don't know that we need to deal with 2 the sign here at all. With what is here 3 or presented to us, there is nothing 4 about signs really. This is about the 5 width on the setbacks in a different 6 area. 7 MEMBER CASSIS: They do address 8 the signs there. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: In the main 10 petition itself; I don't see it. Can we 11 deal with what we have here and deal with 12 the sign at a later date? 13 MR. SCHULTZ: On the assumption 14 that there is a -- 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: I thought they 16 already moved the sign in 2006. 17 MR. SCHULTZ: I just have a 18 suggestion, Member Sanghvi, through the 19 Chair. I think if we could go get the 20 variance request from the last 2006 and 21 compare it. We have the motion, but it's 22 just as requested, if you could table 23 this one. We don't want -- we don't want 24 to cause a problem to the county. So a
99 1 motion to table this one and go on to the 2 next one so we can see what -- 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Is 4 that acceptable? 5 MR. ROLLINGER: That's fine. 6 Mr. Chair, if I may say this, Chairman 7 Wrobel, I do have a copy of the 2006 8 Board of Appeals Case 06-042, which may 9 have the language that the board adopted, 10 which I would be happy if I could 11 approach Mr. Schultz and share this with 12 him. 13 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes, please. 14 Okay. So, we'll wait for Mr. Schultz to 15 comment and move on to the next case. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Maybe we 17 should maybe make a motion to table. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: If you could 19 table this one and move on to the next 20 one. 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: So do the same 22 thing we did to the last one? 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: I move to 24 table this case until the --
100 1 MEMBER SANGHVI: December. 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: No, until the 3 end of the meeting, to the next case? 4 MR. SCHULTZ: To the next 5 case. 6 MEMBER GEDEON: Second. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 8 motion and a second. All in favor to 9 table, say aye. 10 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All opposed? 12 We'll table that issue. 13 The next case then is Case No. 14 10-040, 25345 Novi Road, Stricker Paint. 15 The petitioner is requesting the 16 following variances on behalf of the 17 property owner to address the reduced 18 visibility for existing non-conforming 19 signage that would result from the 20 additional highway easement for the new 21 railroad bridge on Novi Road. The 22 property is zoned I-1 and located west of 23 Novi Road and south of Grand River. 24 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you,
101 1 Chairman Wrobel. 2 Again, Robert Rollinger, 3 appearing on behalf of the Road 4 Commission for Oakland County, regarding 5 the Stricker Paint parcel located at 6 25345 Novi Road, located on the west side 7 of Novi Road, south of Grand River and 8 north of Ten Mile Road. 9 The Road Commission in this 10 instance is seeking a height variance for 11 signage for the Stricker Paint Products 12 property. At the present time, there is 13 one sign identifying Stricker Paint 14 Products' location. 15 I have -- is there a light 16 dimmer on here, Chairman Wrobel? 17 The smaller photograph depicts 18 the current signage, and then the mock-up 19 drawing shows the proposed sign at this 20 location. The existing signage of 21 Stricker Paint Products is acknowledged 22 to be non-conforming. It's my 23 understanding that under the ordinance 24 for I-1 zoning district, the property
102 1 would be allowed either a sign 30 2 feet square and six feet in height, or 3 two wall signs, due to a corner parcel 4 with frontage on two separate streets, 5 Novi Road and GenMar. 6 There is an identification of 7 the business being Stricker Paint 8 Products, which is listed on the exterior 9 wall above the door, for identification 10 purposes. Again, this parcel is probably 11 the most directly impacted parcel from 12 the bridge overpass of CSX Railway, 13 because this parcel is directly south of 14 where the railroad right-of-way is for 15 where the bridge overpass is going to be. 16 As a result of the partial 17 taking from this property as part of the 18 Novi Road Mid Section project to build 19 the overpass bridge, the Novi Road 20 frontage for Stricker Paint Products will 21 be well above the grade of the remainder 22 property. And there will not be 23 practical access to and from the subject 24 property from Novi Road at this location.
103 1 Once the project is built, the 2 primary access will be off of GenMar, 3 south of Novi Road, which will then lead 4 into and out of the parking area for 5 Stricker Paint Products. 6 After the taking, there will be 7 a 31 to 32-foot high retaining wall 8 between the building improvements for 9 Stricker Paint Products on Novi Road. 10 The existing pole sign on the 11 property, which is depicted in the 12 photograph, will have to be removed, 13 because it will be within the new 14 right-of-way of Novi Road. Therefore, we 15 need to create a new location for the 16 pole sign so it can be placed beyond the 17 bounds of the new Novi Road right-of-way, 18 as well as the height and location, which 19 will be clearly visible for motor vehicle 20 operators on and along Novi Road as they 21 approach the bridge overpass for the CSX 22 Railroad, which is located immediately 23 north of where Stricker paint prods is. 24 This variance request is part
104 1 of a series of previously granted 2 variance requests for this property. 3 And, again, under the condemnation act, 4 the Road Commission is authorized to seek 5 site specific variances with the owner 6 where there is a partial taking to 7 mitigate the effects of the partial 8 taking. This is one of the specific 9 requests that we are making for this 10 property. 11 The proposed sign is intended 12 to be above the height limits, so that 13 motor vehicle operators traveling both 14 northbound and southbound on Novi Road 15 will be able to clearly see from a 16 visible height, the identification and 17 location for Stricker Paint Products, by 18 allowing a two-sided sign that would be 19 back-lit and containing the name of the 20 business entity, Stricker Paint Products, 21 as well as an option to include the 22 language, "Home of Stricker Paint 23 Products as part of the signage. It will 24 provide an identification of the business
105 1 location as well as the ingress and 2 egress to reach the building from GenMar 3 Road. 4 We are seeking approval to 5 allow the variance to be on a line of 6 approximately three feet to six feet west 7 of the new right-of-way line of 8 Novi Road, so the owner of Stricker paint 9 prods can determine the best possible 10 location to maximize visibility to 11 passing motorists who are traveling 12 northbound and southbound on Novi Road. 13 The anticipated height would exceed the 14 limitations contained in the maximum 15 height under the Novi ordinance for the 16 zoning district. 17 In addition, we are seeking a 18 variance to allow a location sign to be 19 erected to identify the manner of ingress 20 and egress to and from Stricker Paint 21 Products along GenMar Road, due to the 22 fact that GenMar Road is to be re-located 23 as part of the project. And it will 24 become the primary access for ingress and
106 1 egress once the project is completed at 2 this location. 3 It's believed by the Road 4 Commission this will assist Stricker 5 paint prods in providing the required 6 information to its customers so that the 7 manner of ingress and egress can be 8 pointed out coming in off of Novi Road 9 along GenMar into the parking lot area to 10 allow the subject locational sign. 11 Once the bridge overpass is 12 constructed, any previous use of existing 13 signage on any of the buildings will 14 become non-existent for actual or 15 potential customers, due to the height 16 difference and the manner of construction 17 of the bridge overpass and its proximity 18 to where the buildings are. Passing 19 motorists will simply not be able to use 20 any of the existing signage to either 21 locate ingress and egress to the building 22 from Novi Road onto GenMar, nor will the 23 existing sign identify the business as 24 being Stricker Paint Products because
107 1 it's not going to be visible. 2 The variance request is not 3 self-created by the owner. The practical 4 difficulty that exists for the basis of 5 seeking the variance is a direct result 6 of the project being built by the Road 7 Commission, in conjunction with the City 8 of Novi in this location. 9 We believe these are unique 10 circumstances which are beyond the 11 control of the property owner. Neither 12 the property owner nor the Road 13 Commission should be penalized for 14 seeking the requested variances. 15 I would be happy to the discuss 16 the proposal with you should you have any 17 questions this evening. And, again, this 18 drawing is intended to provide a 19 depiction of our best estimate of the 20 kind of sign. Again, the size, I 21 understand, may be off a bit. I don't 22 make signs, so we kind of guessed at what 23 we would need if you were driving a car 24 up over the bridge trying to find
108 1 Stricker Paint Products. If it was not 2 high enough, you might pass it too 3 quickly. If the lettering is not big 4 enough, you may not be able to know that 5 that's what you are trying to find. So 6 we are trying to imagine what it will be 7 like once the overpass bridge is actually 8 built. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 10 you. Is there anyone in the audience who 11 wishes to address the board regarding 12 this case? Seeing none, will the 13 secretary read any correspondence into 14 the record. 15 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, ten 16 notices were mailed, zero responses, two 17 mail returned. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 19 Mr. Boulard, do you care to make any 20 comments at this time? 21 MR. BOULARD: In your folder, 22 you will see there is a drawing of the 23 proposed sign that the petitioner has 24 provided. In addition, there is a
109 1 revised copy of the staff report. At the 2 time that we did that, we were expecting 3 some renderings which would show contacts 4 and so on. And Mr. Rollinger has been 5 hard at work trying to get those. 6 The drawing that we have is 7 there and, certainly, you know, I think 8 pole signs are as a last resort, if at 9 all. And I would suggest that at this 10 point that the board consider tabling 11 this to allow Mr. Rollinger to get us 12 some drawings that maybe show more of the 13 relationships, and also look at 14 alternatives for the signage for this 15 building. 16 I just -- I had hoped that we 17 would have more. Obviously, a mock sign 18 is a little difficult to do, and I 19 understand that. But I would -- I would 20 suggest that perhaps more information is 21 needed to act on it. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Would you 23 agree to tabling this to a future time, 24 more detail?
110 1 MR. ROLLINGER: Again, the only 2 practical problem that we have with this 3 location is, again, I believe -- I don't 4 believe, I know, because I'm the one who 5 wrote the letter. I sent the letter 6 already to the owners of Stricker Paint 7 Products to advise them that the 8 excavation, as you have already seen, is 9 going to start this month. And that 10 there was a reasonable likelihood that 11 their existing sign is going to be taken 12 down prior to the next ZBA meeting. So 13 there will not be any signage whatsoever 14 which will identify this location 15 probably within the next week or ten 16 days, because the contractor is on a time 17 constraint, both from not only the county 18 but from the city to get this project 19 done, I believe, by the end of November. 20 So, they are trying to maintain the time 21 schedule. 22 So, I can tell the board and 23 tell Mr. Boulard, I have personally 24 notified the owner that the sign is going
111 1 to have to come down. 2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member 3 Cassis. 4 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. Thank 5 you, Mr. Chairman. 6 First of all, let me say, have 7 we settled -- is it Stricker or Stricker 8 Paint? 9 MR. ROLLINGER: I have been 10 told both. 11 MEMBER CASSIS: I wasn't sure. 12 MR. ROLLINGER: I have been 13 told Stricker. I don't know. 14 MEMBER CASSIS: This outfit has 15 been here ever since I have come, 33 16 years ago, an established business. I 17 salute their longevity; let's start with 18 that. 19 Second, I'm trying to help 20 Mr. Rollinger, or is it Rollinger? 21 MR. ROLLINGER: Rollinger. 22 MEMBER CASSIS: Okay. Because 23 you said it two different ways. 24 If we say, presently, Stricker
112 1 Paint has a sign already; it has a 2 certain dimension, right? 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's there. 4 MEMBER CASSIS: No, the present 5 one is there and has a dimension. If we 6 can ask how high the pole for that sign 7 is going to be and how far it will be 8 from the first sign, can you supply that 9 right now? I mean, if we go along and 10 approve the same dimensions of the sign 11 right now as he has, but then describe 12 how high that pole is going to be and how 13 far it will be from the bridge or setback 14 or whatever, can that be possible? Or am 15 I asking for too much? Just to expedite 16 this case. 17 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the 18 Chair. Very reasonable question. 19 Unfortunately, I don't think it works as 20 a solution. We've got a very narrow 21 advertisement here for the particular 22 size sign and particular configuration 23 and all that. So we are sort of stuck 24 with that or something less than that as
113 1 a variance. And once you remove that 2 existing sign, it's going to lose that 3 non-conformity. So you can't just say 4 here tonight let's pick it up and move it 5 over. That might be a motion at the next 6 meeting or a possible resolution, but for 7 tonight, that wouldn't work. 8 But I guess I just want the 9 board to know that the city would have 10 some ability to work with the property 11 owner through Mr. Boulard for some sort 12 of temporary signage. 13 MEMBER CASSIS: Temporary, 14 yeah. 15 MR. SCHULTZ: Because I'm not 16 sure this would be built in two days or 17 ten days anyways. So, there would be 18 some opportunity to get a little bit of 19 identification there, while the rest of 20 the -- 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Can they use 22 their current sign? 23 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess we'll 24 have to take a look at the ordinance and
114 1 do what we can. I mean, this is going to 2 be -- I mean, this is going to be a very 3 permanent sign. So, I understand 4 Mr. Rollinger's point that this could 5 have an impact, but it could also have a 6 long-term impact on the city. So that's 7 why we would prefer, if there is going to 8 be tabling -- or if you are not sure, I'm 9 not saying you have to table, that we go 10 the temporary route for that period of 11 time. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member 13 Skelcy. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: Based on the 15 fact that this is going to be a 50 foot 16 square double-sided pole sign, I'm in 17 favor of tabling this request to allow 18 Stricker time to explore alternative 19 signage schemes, as well as more 20 descriptive documentation. And this is 21 based on the staff recommendation, which 22 I'm in favor of following their 23 recommendation. 24 I have no problem with the
115 1 temporary sign, but I think for purposes 2 of how big this sign is going to be, I 3 mean, this is even bigger than the 4 hamburger sign that we saw on Novi Road 5 that was circular. I would be in favor 6 of that. 7 So I could not approve it 8 tonight. I would not be voting yes if it 9 were to be brought before us tonight. 10 MR. ROLLINGER: I should 11 indicate, again, as maybe I didn't 12 explain well enough earlier. The size 13 you see on the mock-up drawing is a best 14 guesstimate, because we are not in the 15 sign business, and we do not have ready 16 access to discuss this with the property 17 owner. 18 Mr. Stricker's attorney has not 19 been cooperative with us on that, because 20 he is asking that the Road Commission -- 21 I shouldn't say ask. He's taking the 22 legal position that we should take the 23 entire parcel. And he doesn't care what 24 zoning variances I come before you to ask
116 1 you for. Even if you grant all of them, 2 he really doesn't care; he wants the 3 parcel taken in its entirety. 4 So, I'm not here with his help 5 or cooperation. I'm here because the law 6 allows the Road Commission to come before 7 you and ask you for site specific zoning 8 variances, including this one. 9 Part of what we are trying to 10 do is to mitigate the effect of the 11 bridge overpass and the proximity of the 12 bridge overpass to his building. So, we 13 guessed at the size, we guessed at the 14 height, based on where the bridge 15 overpass highest height is going to be in 16 proximity to his building. 17 MEMBER SKELCY: So he basically 18 doesn't want to operate that business 19 anymore? He would like Oakland County to 20 buy the entire property? 21 MR. ROLLINGER: That's correct. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: He probably 24 doesn't want any sign there, so the
117 1 variance is for the Road Commission. 2 We'll work with the Road Commission to 3 document some sort of temporary sign 4 approval to deal with. I mean, if the 5 sign gets taken down, he may not put it 6 back up. The Road Commission can't go on 7 his property and re-install the sign for 8 him, so another reason I think that we 9 should probably -- 10 MEMBER SKELCY: Probably table? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: Probably table. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Looking for a 13 motion. 14 MEMBER GEDEON: I have just a 15 couple more questions. I notice that 16 there has already been some road 17 construction signs, some orange signs. 18 Are there going to be any business 19 listings saying what businesses are 20 accessible on Novi Road? 21 MR. ROLLINGER: Yes. We are 22 going to be posting a temporary 23 construction sign. One of the requests I 24 had for you this evening for the Collex
118 1 Collision parcel was a temporary sign for 2 the 18 to 24-month period, so that folks 3 who were trying to find the driveway 4 access point into Collex off of Novi Road 5 would know where they are supposed to 6 enter. So we are going to be posting -- 7 MEMBER GEDEON: Right. I guess 8 at the intersection of Ten Mile and Novi, 9 is there going to be a sign that says 10 what businesses are still accessible on 11 Novi Road there? Where is the road 12 closed sign for Novi Road going to be 13 posted? 14 MR. ROLLINGER: Let me defer to 15 my able-bodied project engineer, Kim 16 O'Lear, from Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, 17 who can speak to that better than I can. 18 MS. O'LEAR: The project will 19 remain open and all businesses will 20 remain open at all times. The road is 21 going to close -- at this point, we don't 22 think it will close in this calendar 23 year. I have not seen the construction 24 sequencing schedule, but our best
119 1 estimates were that it wasn't going to 2 fully close. There will be some lane 3 closures, but all businesses will be 4 maintained, and all will have access all 5 times during the entire project, which 6 won't finish until next year. 7 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. But when 8 Novi Road does close, at what point north 9 or south on Novi Road between Ten Mile 10 and -- 11 MS. O'LEAR: It will close at 12 the railroad. 13 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. 14 MS. O'LEAR: South of Grand 15 River. And will also then close at the 16 railroad -- there is a short window in 17 the railroad, and it can't -- they are 18 building the new GenMar south of the 19 existing GenMar, and that has to take 20 place prior to them closing the railroad 21 so that we can maintain businesses and we 22 can get the trucks that are on GenMar in 23 and out. 24 So, eventually, when Novi Road
120 1 officially closes, it's my understanding 2 that it's just at the railroad itself. 3 And all businesses, you will be able to 4 get up to GenMar and Trans-X on the south 5 end, and all the way down to the Main 6 Street and cemetery and buildings that 7 are on Trans-X. 8 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. A second 9 unrelated question. The purpose of the 10 Road Commission coming here today is to 11 retain the value of the property. And 12 you stated earlier that the current sign 13 is non-conforming. So is there really 14 any loss to the property owner for losing 15 a non-conforming sign? 16 MR. ROLLINGER: I might ask Mr. 17 Boulard to speak to that. 18 MR. BOULARD: The existing 19 non-conforming, there is -- there would 20 be a loss in -- possible loss, in my 21 mind, in that the existing non-conforming 22 sign could stay and be maintained only 23 for an indefinite period of time. Once 24 you take that down to move it, it no
121 1 longer can be re-installed. 2 So the fact that the Road 3 Commission is taking that highway 4 easement and forcing the sign to be 5 moved, then it would force -- or could be 6 seen as forcing the property owner to be 7 losing that non-conformity that they had. 8 I'm not sure if that helps at all. 9 MEMBER GEDEON: Sure, sure. 10 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Chairman? 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 12 MEMBER CASSIS: Tomorrow 13 morning at 8:00 in the morning, there 14 will be an informational meeting. 15 MR. ROLLINGER: Right. 16 MEMBER CASSIS: At O'Connor's, 17 that would explain everything that is 18 going to take place. So O'Connor, the 19 restaurant. 20 MR. BOULARD: If I may. 21 MEMBER CASSIS: Eight o'clock 22 in the morning. 23 MR. BOULARD: Thank you for 24 jumping in. There is a meeting for all
122 1 the business owners and anyone that's 2 interested at Gus O'Connor's at 8:00 3 tomorrow morning. The Road Commission is 4 going to be there to answer questions and 5 explain the process. Assuming everybody 6 is watching on TV. 7 MEMBER CASSIS: That's why I 8 mentioned it. Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Do we want to 10 go back to tabling this? And, if so, I 11 will entertain a motion. 12 MEMBER SKELCY: I move that we 13 table this matter until the December, 14 2010, meeting, and give a specific date 15 so it doesn't have to be re-noticed. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: I think this one 17 to the next meeting. 18 MEMBER SKELCY: To the next 19 meeting? 20 MR. SCHULTZ: To the next 21 meeting. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: I move we table 23 this to the next meeting so that the Road 24 Commission can attempt to get some better
123 1 drawings, renderings, architectural 2 drawings, that give a more descriptive 3 documentation of how the sign -- the 4 50-foot square foot sign would look. 5 MR. ROLLINGER: If I might 6 speak to that. Again, having stopped at 7 Stricker Paint before we came to try to 8 measure the size of the existing sign, 9 which we believe is about 32 square feet, 10 four feet high, eight feet across, we are 11 perfectly comfortable with having the 12 ZBA, in fact, move to grant the request 13 but reduce the size to 32 square feet. 14 We were, again, using a 15 guesstimate at 50 square feet, based on 16 coming up over the bridge overpass and 17 needing to be high enough and visible 18 enough as you are going over the bridge 19 overpass northbound and southbound to 20 come up with a size that would not 21 interfere with a driver's line of sight, 22 and also the speed of traffic on 23 Novi Road. That's how -- that's how I 24 came up with 50 square feet. It's not a
124 1 magic number. I'm perfectly willing to 2 have a smaller size. I'm just trying to 3 guess what a driver would need to see as 4 you are coming over a bridge. 5 MEMBER SKELCY: I guess my 6 concern is more that we are going to have 7 a pole sign, which we don't really like 8 pole signs in Novi. So that's my biggest 9 concern, you know, what is this pole sign 10 going to look like? 11 MEMBER CASSIS: Mr. Chairman. 12 I think -- I think there is more to this 13 story than meets the aye. I gathered 14 from you that Mr. Stricker is going for a 15 full taking, and you want to give him 16 partial taking. 17 MR. ROLLINGER: That's correct. 18 MEMBER CASSIS: And, in that 19 case, Mr. Schultz, I don't think we need 20 to touch this, because Mr. Stricker is 21 not the person who is coming to petition 22 before us. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: Well, through the 24 Chair. We are not counsel for the
125 1 county, Mr. Rollinger is, obviously, but 2 I think the county's concern is that the 3 loss of the sign contributes to the loss 4 of the -- the need for the full taking 5 instead of the partial. 6 I certainly understand the 7 county coming in saying, "We'll replace 8 the sign. We'll give them another sign." 9 To take that argument away that there has 10 been a full taking, taking the entire 11 parcel. 12 So, I guess, respectfully, I 13 think at some point need to deal with a 14 permanent sign, because the county has 15 the right to request that. But I think 16 some additional information is being 17 requested by the staff, which makes 18 sense. And we can give the county some 19 relief temporarily between now and the 20 next meeting to cover their argument with 21 Mr. Stricker as well as we can. 22 MEMBER CASSIS: Who is going to 23 pay for the sign? 24 MR. SCHULTZ: Well, I --
126 1 MEMBER CASSIS: I mean, we are 2 entering very technical and difficult 3 kind of area here. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the 5 Chair. That's a good and very serious 6 question. That sign may never go up. 7 The relevance is that it could go up, 8 that the county secured the relief to 9 allow them to put it up. The county -- 10 this is an appropriate thing for the 11 county to be doing. 12 MEMBER CASSIS: I see. 13 MR. SCHULTZ: Staff has some 14 questions about the permanent signage, 15 and its brief tabling and some temporary 16 relief hopefully puts the county in the 17 best position we can put them in. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: This is 19 (inaudible) need to do something in the 20 meantime. 21 MEMBER GEDEON: I guess I would 22 question, you know, whether or not we 23 should just deny the request. Because it 24 seems unlikely that we are going to
127 1 approve a pole sign in the future. And 2 if that's -- I don't know that; I don't 3 know how people would vote. But I would 4 not be opposed to entertaining a motion 5 to deny rather than simply table. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We do have a 7 motion pending to table. 8 MEMBER KRIEGER: Until October. 9 Second. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 11 motion by Member Skelcy to table and 12 second by Member Krieger. Is there any 13 more -- 14 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, should 15 the motion also say that temporary relief 16 should be granted? 17 MR. SCHULTZ: No. I think that 18 can be handled administratively, to the 19 extent we can. 20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. We 21 have a pending motion. Any other 22 discussion on the motion? Ms. Martin. 23 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
128 1 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 2 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 3 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 5 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 6 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 7 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 8 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 9 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 10 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 11 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 12 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 13 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 14 seven to zero, to table to the October 12 15 meeting. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: Motion to bring 17 the last one off the table. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We need a 19 motion to bring back 10-039 back in front 20 of us. 21 MEMBER SKELCY: I motion that 22 we bring Case No. 10-039, for 24460 and 23 24800 and 25000 Novi Road, Michigan 24 Tractor and Machine.
129 1 MEMBER GEDEON: Second. 2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 3 motion and a second to re-introduce this 4 topic. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: All in favor? 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All in favor? 7 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. 8 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Opposed? We 9 will now discuss Case 10-039 again. 10 MR. SCHULTZ: Finally some good 11 news for Mr. Rollinger and the county. 12 You know, Mark Spencer had gone 13 through what he believed the proposal to 14 be, including the signage; that memo is 15 in your packet. He concluded that based 16 on the variance, we didn't need to deal 17 with the signage. 18 I understand Mr. Rollinger was 19 being careful, but with the way it's 20 advertised, I think we can tell him 21 tonight that he would be able to do what 22 he's asking you to approve tonight with 23 the variance that they already have, and 24 that we don't need to re-adopt that
130 1 variance request. 2 It's a little bit different and 3 may actually be a little bit better, but 4 I think it covers, as Mark concluded, 5 what he would like to do, what he's asked 6 to do. I think we can just not act on 7 those sign variance requests that are in 8 his memo and act on the three things that 9 are in Mr. Boulard's summary for the 10 setbacks. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Any 12 questions for Mr. Schultz? I will open 13 it up for further discussion then to the 14 board. Or a motion. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: I motion that 16 we approve the variances requested by the 17 county. Notably, we are having new 18 construction placed on Novi Road that 19 will impinge on the properties. The 20 bridge will impinge on being able to 21 observe this business. And also the -- 22 we are going to have improvements in that 23 area that could impinge on being able to 24 observe the business, see the business,
131 1 know how to get to the business. 2 And I make the motion based on 3 the fact that the setback, frontage, 4 height, bulk and density requirements 5 unreasonably prevents the use of the 6 property for a permitted purpose, based 7 on the bridge that's going to be 8 constructed. 9 The variance will provide 10 substantial justice to the petitioner and 11 surrounding property owners in the zoning 12 district. 13 There are unique circumstances 14 created by the building of the bridge. 15 The problem is not self-created; it's 16 created by the widening of the road and 17 the installation of the bridge. 18 There is adequate light and air 19 provided to adjacent properties. There 20 is no increase of fire danger or public 21 safety. Property values will not be 22 diminished within the surrounding area, 23 and the spirit of the zoning ordinance is 24 observed.
132 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 3 motion made by Member Skelcy and seconded 4 by Member Krieger. Any further 5 discussion? Member Cassis. 6 MEMBER CASSIS: 7 Mr. Rollinger. 8 MR. ROLLINGER: Yes. 9 MEMBER CASSIS: In the matter 10 of that Michigan Tractor, were the owners 11 notified of this petition? 12 MR. ROLLINGER: Oh, certainly. 13 MEMBER CASSIS: And they did 14 say it's okay to go for this stuff? 15 MR. ROLLINGER: They didn't say 16 anything; we didn't hear back from them. 17 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the 18 Chair. This is the county's request for 19 a variance to grant relief to the 20 property so that it can argue issues of 21 compensation. So, the property owner is 22 not obligated to appear, consent, sign or 23 anything. So this is the county's 24 variance and their authority.
133 1 MEMBER CASSIS: What if the 2 wishes of the owner -- just informational 3 to me. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. 5 MEMBER CASSIS: What if the 6 wishes of the owner were two feet 7 different from what they are asking for 8 or five feet? I mean, shouldn't these 9 people be even informed, requested or 10 asked their opinion? 11 MR. SCHULTZ: Again, through 12 the Chair. They clearly are informed. 13 The county gives them notice, and I 14 believe we give them notice when we mail. 15 This is in litigation; so there is 16 ongoing -- 17 MEMBER CASSIS: That's why I'm 18 asking these questions. 19 MR. SCHULTZ: There is ongoing 20 communications. I believe they are fully 21 aware of this, or as aware as they need 22 to be legally. 23 And just to be clear, they 24 can -- the property owner can always come
134 1 in and ask for variance requests. 2 MEMBER CASSIS: And if the 3 litigation goes one way or the other, 4 then this might be moot. I mean, this 5 might be -- 6 MR. SCHULTZ: Absolutely. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: It could be. 8 MEMBER CASSIS: This might be 9 even irrelevant. 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: What a waste 11 of time. 12 MR. SCHULTZ: Possibly. 13 MEMBER CASSIS: Okay. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's how the 15 process works. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Do we have 17 any other discussion? 18 Ms. Martin, take the roll, 19 please. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 21 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 23 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?
135 1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 3 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 6 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 7 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 8 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 9 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 10 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 11 seven to zero. 12 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you very 13 much. If I may approach Mr. Schultz and 14 just get back my 2006 ZBA materials, that 15 would be great. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: The next case 17 on the agenda is Case No. 10-041 for 18 1254 East Lake Drive. 19 The petitioner is requesting 20 six variances for the construction of a 21 new home located at 1254 East Lake Drive. 22 The applicant is requesting a 10-foot 23 front yard setback variance, a 22.06-foot 24 rear yard setback variance, a north side
136 1 yard setback variance of 10 feet, a south 2 side yard variance setback of 5.29 feet, 3 with a total aggregate variance of both 4 side yards of 15.29 feet, and a lot 5 coverage of 15.1 percent. 6 The property is zoned R-4 and 7 located on lot two in the Supervisor's 8 Plat No. 1 Subdivision located east of 9 East Lake Drive and north of New Court. 10 The existing house is to be or will be 11 demolished. The board granted this 12 request in April of 2006. 13 Is the petitioner here? 14 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes. 15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Please state 16 your name and address. And if you are 17 not an attorney, please be sworn in. 18 MR. CUMMINGS: My name is 19 Robert Cummings. The address is 1254 20 East Lake Drive in Novi. I am not an 21 attorney. 22 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No. 23 10-041, 1254 East Lake Drive, do you 24 swear or affirm to tell the truth?
137 1 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, sir. 2 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Please 4 proceed. 5 MR. CUMMINGS: Good evening. I 6 would like to thank the board for their 7 time and consideration tonight. 8 My name is Robert Cummings. I 9 have lived in the City of Novi and Walled 10 Lake for the last 18 years. 11 My purpose tonight is to build 12 a home that will be consistent with the 13 City of Novi, also consistent with the 14 neighborhood at 1254 East Lake Drive and 15 will fit in with that neighborhood. 16 My plan in front of you, which 17 is the same today, was approved in 2006. 18 The reason for not moving forward that 19 day was because of economic reasons. The 20 minutes of that meeting were e-mailed on 21 Monday to the board. 22 In 2006, I'm going to show you 23 a picture of the existing home. This was 24 a picture of the existing home. I did
138 1 have it torn down that year in 2006. The 2 reason for that, it was a 60-year-old 3 home that had unsettling floors, old 4 plumbing, poor electric. It was 5 aesthetically unpleasing with the house 6 and garage. 7 The garage at that time was 8 five feet from the property line on the 9 east side, and it was two feet from the 10 property line on the south side. 11 In 2006, my neighbor to the 12 north presented and he also commented on 13 the house that it had not been painted in 14 several years, and it was not even 15 regularly maintained as far as the 16 property. 17 My proposed floorplan is 2,459 18 feet. And after speaking with the 19 assessing division here in the city, they 20 have informed me that the average median 21 home in Novi is 2,400 feet. That's why I 22 said in my beginning here I was trying to 23 fit a house within the neighborhood. 24 I believe that you need to have
139 1 very good relationships with your 2 neighbors. And I recently moved from 3 Walled Lake, on the north side of Walled 4 Lake, the City of Walled Lake. And I had 5 a great relationship with all my 6 neighbors, and I still continue that. 7 I have truly considered the 8 view that my neighbors will have with my 9 current house, especially the two 10 closest. My one neighbor that is on the 11 south side at the address of 1256 is 12 approximately a giant distance of 23 13 feet in front of the home that I'm 14 proposing. The garage that was 15 previously there was two feet off the 16 property line. And I'm now going to -- 17 when I get into my request, I will prove 18 why the new garage is better located. 19 Their current garage is five 20 inches from the property line. So by me 21 moving my garage, I will demonstrate how 22 it is a better position for that 23 particular neighbor. 24 My south side on the previous
140 1 home was three feet from my property 2 line. And the south side of -- that was 3 my south side. The north side of their 4 home was two feet from the property line. 5 So I'm going to prove again that the 6 dimensions I'm going to have are very 7 very good for those neighbors. 8 In 2006, my neighbor to the 9 north favored the project. I have been 10 told that there is a new owner of that 11 house, and I have not had the privilege 12 of meeting that particular individual 13 and/or family. 14 I have been working on this 15 particular house with Matt Furber of 16 Furber Construction, who is a builder 17 that's been a reputable builder in the 18 City of Novi, and he's assisted me on 19 this. And, also, I have hired an 20 architect firm by the name of TK Hallet, 21 who is in Brighton, who has also assisted 22 with putting together what I think is the 23 right plan. 24 You are going to see two
141 1 surveys in front of you that have been 2 submitted. One of them is what was shown 3 in 2006. Its size is approximately 4 eight-and-a-half by eleven, and the 5 second is a full-scale survey that's 6 approximately two feet by two feet. They 7 are 99 percent the same. There was a 8 quarter-inch change that the city 9 recommended in 2006 that I performed, and 10 I will point that out as that is a side 11 setback, that was the difference between 12 4.71 inches and 5.05 inches. That's -- 13 again, I will point that out to you. 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Do you happen 15 to have a copy you can put on your 16 overhead? 17 MR. CUMMINGS: Of which one, 18 sir? 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Any 20 documentation you are showing us. 21 MR. CUMMINGS: I sure will. 22 This was put in a plan, two by two. I 23 will do as was recommended. I hope it 24 fits. I think we have that.
142 1 I have a request for two side 2 yard setbacks. The width of my lot is 40 3 feet. I have a size difficulty meeting 4 the 15 and 10 minimums with the 25 5 aggregate. The proposed house of 30 feet 6 in width has been placed as symmetric as 7 possible. I have positioned the house 8 with a minimum of five feet on the north 9 and 5.05 on the south. 10 The current house that was tore 11 down was 27.9 feet in width; I'm 12 asking for 30 feet. It's a difference of 13 two feet. That is the request that 14 covers the side yard setback on the north 15 and the south, and the total aggregate of 16 two side yards. 17 The rear yard has an odd shape 18 on the north side of the lot. What I 19 would like to do is I would like to show 20 an aerial of the lake view. The arrow 21 points to my property. And as you can 22 see, the aerial of the lake view has what 23 I will call a half moon shape on the 22 24 lots that go from the north to the south
143 1 that are directly on the lake. And the 2 35-foot requirement is met on the south 3 side, which is 48 -- which is 43 feet. 4 As we move to the middle, you 5 can kind of see how the topography of the 6 lake is less as you go from the south to 7 the north. As we move in the middle, we 8 have 28 feet, and as we go to the north, 9 we have 12 feet. If we take an aggregate 10 of those three, we have 28 feet. So we 11 meet the requirement on the south, but as 12 we go north, the picture shows why we are 13 asking for this rear yard setback. 14 The difference that I'd like to 15 point out of the old house to where the 16 new house will physically be is only four 17 feet in size of that rear yard setback. 18 The odd shape of the rear yard 19 also burdens the front yard. The front 20 yard request is 20 feet to give ample 21 potential room for an average sized car, 22 which is generally about 20 feet. The 23 attached garage maintains curb appeal, so 24 I can put items in the garage such as
144 1 garbage, lawn mowers, edgers and things, 2 so that I can maintain a nice street and 3 have good curb appeal. This eliminates 4 the detached garage that was only five 5 feet off the road, and it was very 6 aesthetically unpleasing. Again, a big 7 difference between five feet and 20 feet, 8 15 feet, that I will be off the road. 9 Persons who are walking, walking their 10 dogs, bicycling, have a much better area 11 in this situation. 12 And as I pointed out 13 previously, my neighbor to the south, now 14 we have more distance. The old garage 15 was only two feet; this is going to be 16 five feet from the property line. And 17 with their garage only five inches from 18 the property line, it does give some room 19 there. 20 The last requested variance is 21 the total lot coverage. And if, again, 22 our attention can go back to the aerial 23 view, I would like to point out that the 24 lot is not as deep as the other lots that
145 1 are in this 22-lot area. And to be 2 consistent with the other homes, the 3 variance is requested. 4 A home that is done correctly 5 will enhance and beautify the 6 neighborhood, for all the homes on East 7 Lake Drive and for the City of Novi. I 8 pointed out hopefully how this particular 9 home will maintain curb appeal. It will 10 be equal to houses that are in the City 11 of Novi, and how we placed it as best as 12 we feel possible, working with an 13 architect and builder that have worked 14 with a lot of homes in the city, to make 15 it fit and again work for the 16 neighborhood and the city. 17 I want to thank everyone here 18 tonight for your consideration. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 20 Is there anyone in the audience who 21 wishes to address the board regarding 22 this case? 23 Please step to the podium. 24 State your name and address. And if you
146 1 are not an attorney, please be sworn in. 2 MR. HARRIS: My name is Arthur 3 James Harris, II. I am still an active 4 member of the State Bar of Michigan. 5 I would like to put this 6 request in a broader historic 7 perspective. My family bought that house 8 in 1946. We are 1256 East Lake Drive, 9 and we are the south neighbor to 10 Mr. Cummings. 11 If you look back over the plat 12 going back to the late thirties when most 13 of those homes were built, there was a 14 very conscientious objective of trying to 15 maintain the fact that given the 16 curvature of the shore line, that the 17 allocation of ownership space was 18 predicated on enhancing the view for 19 every person who lives on that side of 20 the lake to the maximum extent. A tacit 21 covenant to be sure. And that covenant 22 has been honored for over 70 23 years. 24 What Mr. Cummings wants to do,
147 1 he is perfectly entitled because he 2 bought the property. And I understand 3 some of what he mentioned about 1254 4 before he demolished the building. But I 5 am deeply concerned about the fact that 6 his plan does fundamental violence to 7 that covenant that has governed the 8 neighborhood and the lake line of the 9 east side of Walled Lake between 1250 and 10 1258. 11 As I say, I have no objection 12 to having him build a house. Now, 13 curiously, we were having extensive 14 interior work done on our house in 2006. 15 I was not privy to the notice of the 16 variances that were filed at that time; 17 that's neither here nor there, but it's 18 true. 19 The other aspect of it is, that 20 in the spirit of talking about being a 21 good community member and neighbor, the 22 fact of the matter is, within three weeks 23 ago, he and I had a conversation when he 24 was there having excavation work done, to
148 1 determine whether the soil was strong 2 enough to sustain a new structure. And I 3 asked him, "Well, does that mean you are 4 planning to move in here or re-build?" 5 And, "No, not really. I have been 6 looking at other places around the lake, 7 and they aren't too interesting." 8 I would submit to you -- and 9 this isn't Civics 101. If a good 10 neighbor would have had the courtesy at 11 least to come and knock on my door, or 12 even give me a phone call and say, "These 13 are the plans that I have contemplated, 14 and if you would like further 15 explanations, I would be happy to talk 16 through them with you. And this hearing 17 is coming up, and maybe we can find a 18 little more room to work together." That 19 never happened. 20 So, I respectfully ask the 21 board to, at a minimum, table this 22 request until such time as there is an 23 opportunity to either have that 24 consultation, with or without counsel,
149 1 and see if there is a way that we can do 2 better. 3 What I am suggesting to you in 4 conclusion is the fact that just because 5 you buy a property that was owned by 6 somebody else that was in less desirable 7 repair or maintenance, does not by 8 definition give that new owner the right 9 to carte blanch decide how much land is 10 going to be taken out of the visual line 11 of neighbors both to the north and south. 12 I would submit to you that's the 13 fundamental equivalent of seeking a 14 visual easement at the expense of his 15 neighbors. Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Is there 17 anyone else? Please come forward. 18 MR. GABLE: Brian Gable. I'm 19 the owner of the property just to the 20 north, 1250 East Lake Drive. I am not an 21 attorney. 22 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No. 23 10-041, 1254 East Lake Drive, do you 24 swear or affirm to tell the truth?
150 1 MR. GABLE: I do. 2 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 3 MR. GABLE: My wife and I just 4 bought the property at 1250 East Lake 5 Drive two months ago. When we bought our 6 house, the majority of the value of the 7 house that we saw came from the view of 8 the lake. This proposed -- no house 9 existed at that time when we bought the 10 property. 11 As this house is proposed, it 12 would take away part or some of the view 13 to the south. The way the lake is 14 formed, that house would actually stick 15 quite a bit out towards the south end 16 from where our house sits and where our 17 view is. 18 I understand the need to 19 maximize; the property is very narrow. I 20 understand the need to maximize that and 21 go for those variances. My concern is 22 mostly with the rear setback or the 23 setback to the lake. That house would 24 sit quite a bit farther, and our views
151 1 from our windows all along the west side 2 of the lake looking south would be 3 partially taken up by this new house. 4 And, just for reference, my 5 house is 1,600 square feet and has a much 6 shallower lot than this one is to the 7 street. Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 9 Anyone else wish to address the board? 10 MS. HARRIS: I would like to 11 make a comment. I live at 1256. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Please state 13 your name. 14 MS. HARRIS: I'm Joy Harris; 15 I'm not an attorney. 16 MEMBER IBE: In Case No. 17 10-041, 1254 East Lake Drive, do you 18 swear or affirm to tell the truth? 19 MS. HARRIS: Absolutely. 20 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 21 MS. HARRIS: I just want to 22 comment, he wants to take this house less 23 than or a little more than 12 feet from 24 the water front. And then it appears
152 1 that he's going to put a deck on, which 2 is going to require another variance. 3 That says there is a basement, but there 4 are no plans. I haven't seen any plans 5 for a basement; I looked -- I went to the 6 office to check it out. But there is 7 going to be a basement there. How is 8 that going to open out to the lake? 9 He one time said that he was 10 going to concrete the whole back yard, so 11 I went in and made sure he knows where 12 the dividing line is. 13 I am not going to see anything 14 on my view. The view of the lake and 15 these homes is on the right side and the 16 whole house's windows to view the lake. 17 I'm only going to see Mr. Cummings' 18 house. If he's got windows, I'm going to 19 see his bedroom, because he's only going 20 to be four feet from me. 21 I would like to request we have 22 a clearance of the total five feet and no 23 overhang. He's got a two-foot overhang, 24 and he wants to take two feet of that
153 1 five feet. There isn't going to be much 2 room there. 3 So, from my personal thoughts, 4 I would like to have a clearance of five 5 feet. I would like to have this house 6 moved back. He's got huge space in the 7 rear. It's like he's going to sit on the 8 very front of the water, and everybody 9 else to the left of him is 30 feet from 10 the water, 25 to 30 feet. So he's going 11 to be out of sequence with everyone else 12 no matter what he says. Just come to my 13 house, and I will show you. Thank you 14 very much. 15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 16 Is there anyone else? Seeing none, will 17 the secretary read any correspondence 18 into the record. 19 MEMBER IBE: Yes. Mr. Chair, 20 36 notices were mailed, one objection, 21 zero approvals, seven mail returned. 22 The objection is from Robert 23 Andrews of 1262 East Lake Drive, dated 24 8/30/2010. And it reads, "Rear yard
154 1 setback is too close to lake. Should be 2 no closer than 25 feet as are majority 3 of homes on the lake. Move home closer 4 to the road." 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 6 Does the building department or city 7 attorney wish to make any comments at 8 this time? 9 MR. BOULARD: I just wanted to 10 reiterate that the -- there is -- in your 11 file there is a copy of the plan the 12 petitioner referred to with the 13 dimensions, correct dimensions on it. 14 Also, there is in your file a copy of 15 those minutes that he referred to that 16 were e-mailed earlier in the week. 17 And I -- just because the 18 application was similar to the one 19 previously, I wanted to verify that the 20 existing building and footage are gone? 21 MR. CUMMINGS: Say that again, 22 please. 23 MR. BOULARD: The existing 24 buildings and footings have been removed?
155 1 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, sir. 2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Mr. Schultz, 3 do you have anything? 4 MR. SCHULTZ: I do not. 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 6 At this time I will refer this matter to 7 the board for discussion. Ms. Skelcy. 8 MEMBER SKELCY: You know, I 9 happen to live on the lake, and I do my 10 jog around that part, as many times as I 11 can a week. And I have concern, quite 12 frankly, with the rear setback being 22 13 feet. That's quite a large setback that 14 you are requesting. 15 And it's a great piece of 16 property. Every time I run by it, I wish 17 I could buy it because it's so beautiful; 18 you have a great view of the lake over 19 there. But I really have a concern with 20 that. And I wanted to let you know, if 21 you are going to be impinging on your 22 neighbors' views of the lake, that's 23 going to be a problem. 24 And contrary to what you said
156 1 earlier, it doesn't seem like you have, 2 you know, worked well with the neighbors. 3 Because they are here today wondering why 4 you haven't talked to them and kind of 5 worked out the issues with them. So I 6 just want to let you know at this point I 7 could not vote in favor of this variance 8 due to this rear setback. 9 MR. CUMMINGS: Can those -- can 10 those particular questions be 11 re-addressed that they mentioned? 12 MEMBER SKELCY: I'm sorry? 13 MR. CUMMINGS: Can the comments 14 that the three individuals made be 15 addressed? 16 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure, they can. 17 You can either -- he can do it in 18 response to the question, or you can give 19 him time at the end. 20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We'll give 21 you time at the end. 22 MR. CUMMINGS: Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member 24 Cassis.
157 1 MEMBER CASSIS: Question. You 2 said you are going to have a 2,400 square 3 feet house? 4 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, sir. 5 MEMBER CASSIS: And you said 6 the average of the home in Novi is 2,400 7 square feet? 8 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes. 9 MEMBER CASSIS: Believe me, 10 many of those subdivisions in Novi have 11 smaller homes. This, Mr. Chairman, this 12 lot on the lake, just like all of the 13 others around the lake there, cannot be 14 measured, in my opinion, by what the 15 average of a subdivision home in Novi is. 16 I think a home or a house to be 17 built on a lake frontage, as these 18 neighbors have said, has two dimensions. 19 Number one, the setbacks and the size of 20 the house. But, very important, as the 21 former lawyer has mentioned, the view of 22 the lake. That is an amenity that is 23 worth money. It's worth exposure to the 24 lake, which an average subdivision person
158 1 doesn't even have relevance to this kind. 2 My suggestion to the gentleman 3 here, petitioner, is don't misunderstand 4 us. We want you to build a beautiful 5 home. In fact, many of the other former 6 petitioners that came before us and 7 expanded or built new homes around that 8 lake have done so very tastefully, but 9 appropriately, and with negotiations and 10 good, above-the-board dealings with their 11 neighbors. 12 So, with -- I think, in my 13 opinion, I'm talking about myself, is 14 that we are willing to entertain a larger 15 house to sit there. But I think it's 16 oversized in this case, and the setback 17 to the lake should be respected, because 18 the neighbors will be suffering their 19 economic advantage. And, in fact, 20 whatever advantage they have, the view of 21 the lake will be compromised. 22 So, I will not be going along 23 with this kind of drawing or petition 24 because of the size of the house.
159 1 Surely, he can have a smaller house or 2 smaller garage. Or situate the house in 3 such a way as to set back more away from 4 the lake so that to respect the 5 neighbors' view. 6 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 7 MR. CUMMINGS: Chairperson, can 8 I address Mr. Cassis? 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We will let 10 you respond at the end. Anyone else have 11 comments? 12 MEMBER GEDEON: Yeah. 13 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member 14 Gedeon. 15 MEMBER GEDEON: I guess I would 16 prefer more question and answer, if 17 that's okay. Can I direct questions? 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yeah. 19 MEMBER GEDEON: Just since it's 20 been addressed by some of the other board 21 members. Can you just state why you are 22 choosing to do the rear setback and front 23 setback the way they are as opposed to 24 simply moving the whole house and garage
160 1 forward, closer to the road? 2 MR. CUMMINGS: To answer your 3 question, the old house, the difference 4 of the old property line to the new 5 property line is approximately four feet. 6 And that's seemingly, at this particular 7 time, the comment that is being addressed 8 by us. I don't think that four feet from 9 the old house to the new house is a great 10 burden on the view. 11 To answer further your 12 question, the neighbors to the south at 13 1256 is 23 feet in front of my house. 14 That is a long way. The beauty of this 15 lake is facing west. And with their 23 16 feet in front of me, there is not even 17 discussion on how I can be burdening 18 their view of the west. 19 I do understand the comment 20 that was made on the north. But if we 21 take a look at where my house is on the 22 farthest back side to where their north 23 windows are, the north part of their 24 house that faces is still a good 15
161 1 feet in front of mine. 2 I would like to address the 3 current board member, Mr. Cassis, that 4 the difference of houses is not that 5 much. And that particular view, I just 6 want an honest opinion. I don't think we 7 are depleting them. 8 Again, I understand the 9 neighbor at 1250's comments; I respect 10 those comments. And, again, we are only 11 talking four feet on the south side. 12 Someone commented here the beauty of this 13 neighborhood is the north side. So we 14 know the west sunsets are the best view, 15 and the north side as has been commented 16 is the view, also. 17 My neighbor on the north side, 18 I am not competing against a west or 19 north. And I do understand that they 20 were not here in 2006. I understand 21 that. I'm only taking four feet from 22 what they could have had if I had the 23 previous house. 24 And to take all the items I
162 1 mentioned to beautify the old house to 2 the new house and the neighborhood, that 3 is where I have communicated with the 4 architect and the builder that I have. 5 So we are talking a difference of four 6 feet on that side. And I wanted to 7 re-explain the neighbor to the south view 8 and the neighbor to the north view. That 9 would be answering your question at this 10 time. 11 And I will save my other 12 comments as Chairperson said for later. 13 Please continue your comments. 14 MEMBER GEDEON: Sure. I 15 understand that a 40-foot lot, there is 16 only so much you can do on a 40-foot lot. 17 I guess one other question that I have, 18 one of the comments had to do with a land 19 covenant regarding the rear setback 20 allegedly. Can you speak to that? Are 21 you aware of any covenants on the 22 property that would restrict your ability 23 to build this? 24 MR. CUMMINGS: I think going
163 1 back 70 years, none of us are going to be 2 able to define that. I guess if there is 3 such a covenant, I would like to see it. 4 It does sound more like a legal matter 5 that maybe we can ask our legal 6 individual. 7 MEMBER GEDEON: I think it 8 would be something you would have to have 9 your own attorney. 10 MR. CUMMINGS: To answer your 11 question, no, I don't think there is any 12 covenant that exists on this lake. I 13 have lived on this lake -- I lived on 14 this lake starting in 1997. And there 15 may be no one that knows this lake better 16 than I do. I lived on the west side, the 17 north side, now I'm on the east side. So 18 the answer to your question, a covenant, 19 I will say defiantly no. 20 MEMBER GEDEON: I would also 21 add I don't think it's within this 22 board's jurisdiction to enforce 23 covenants; I was just wondering if you 24 were aware of it.
164 1 MR. CUMMINGS: I appreciate the 2 question. 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else? 4 Member Krieger. 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Would you be 6 willing to reconsider your request for 7 your rear yard setback? 8 MR. CUMMINGS: What would you 9 suggest? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'm not the 11 one petitioning. 12 MR. CUMMINGS: I understand. 13 Do you feel the four feet difference in 14 the house is that much of a burden for 15 the other -- 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'm asking if 17 you would reconsider. 18 MR. CUMMINGS: If I had to, the 19 four feet would be a topic of discussion, 20 to answer your question. 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. Thank 22 you. 23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Any other 24 questions? I have one quick question.
165 1 What is the proposed height above grade 2 of the new house? I can't read it; it's 3 kind of small. 4 MR. CUMMINGS: I do not have 5 the exact answer to that. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Just give me 7 a ballpark. 8 MR. CUMMINGS: We have an 9 eight-foot form in the basement, and I 10 guess I might have some help here from 11 Mr. Boulard. We have an eight-foot form 12 in the basement, and we have a main level 13 and a second level. 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Roughly from 15 the roof line from the second level up, 16 how high is that roughly? 17 MR. CUMMINGS: I think that we 18 have nine-foot ceilings. So I would say 19 we have a nine-foot ceiling on each 20 level. 21 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. And 22 the previous house that was taken down, 23 was that a one-story home? 24 MR. CUMMINGS: That was -- put
166 1 the picture back in. That was a -- it 2 did have an upper level. 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Bottom line, 4 this house you propose putting here would 5 be much taller than the previous house 6 that was there, correct? 7 MR. CUMMINGS: I would say it's 8 going to be taller. If there was a main 9 floor in the old house and an upper 10 level, that there is definitely going to 11 be a little higher level, upper level, 12 than the old house. 13 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. All 14 right. Those are the only questions I 15 have. If you want to address any issues 16 brought up before, we'll listen to them 17 at this time. 18 MR. CUMMINGS: Our first 19 individual, I respect his comments. We 20 did apply for this particular variance in 21 2006, and he did not show any interest. 22 I respect that, also. 23 I would have thought the other 24 two sides of discussion, that he would
167 1 have felt it was important recently 2 because we were -- I was going after the 3 same variances. I thought he was on 4 board. We had not had a discussion. In 5 the four years I have been there, I have 6 spoken with him a number of times, and 7 he's not communicated he had any issues 8 with that. I do respect his comments. 9 On our third person, there is 10 an overhang that's on the south side that 11 is a fireplace, and that overhang is two 12 feet; that is a fireplace. Mr. Boulard 13 and I have spoken about that. That can 14 be eliminated completely or re-drawn out. 15 That the third individual who had the 16 request of the five foot, that would be 17 maintained. 18 And, again, I think on both the 19 first and third individual, I would move 20 the garage north so there would be more 21 distance between our houses. I moved 22 also the house further north so there 23 would be more distance. And it appears 24 as if we have a four-foot question on the
168 1 rear. 2 I would request that the board 3 would look at four feet is not going to 4 impact much of the view of what was 5 previously there. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Member 7 Cassis. 8 MEMBER CASSIS: Yeah. I just 9 wanted to mention, Mr. Cummings, that did 10 you at all approach your neighbors and 11 say, "Look, here's what I'm doing. I 12 hope we can work together"? Did you do 13 that? 14 MR. CUMMINGS: I have tried to 15 communicate with my neighbors to the 16 north. I don't know if they have just 17 moved in or not there. I knocked on 18 their door several times, and I left a 19 couple notes on their door. Again, as I 20 stated earlier -- 21 MEMBER CASSIS: As I'm 22 gathering here is that they are willing 23 to work with you. I mean, they mentioned 24 that. And all you needed to do was just
169 1 say, "Look, I want to do this if can we 2 work together." 3 I think you have a point here 4 that if you build a beautiful home, the 5 value of their homes will appreciate, so 6 they are not going to stop you, if I may 7 suggest, from really building a nice 8 quality home. If you just approach them 9 and it makes -- make some amends or talk 10 to them and see what they -- you know. 11 MR.CUMMINGS: That's a very 12 good idea; I respect that. I have spoken 13 with both my neighbors to the south many 14 times; they never pointed out, again, 15 they had a problem with the past plans. 16 MEMBER CASSIS: Just a 17 suggestion. 18 MR. CUMMINGS: I completely 19 agree. That's why I stated before that I 20 think neighbors need to be close. You 21 are going to live and breathe next to 22 someone for five, 10, 20 years, and I did 23 not know they would even have an 24 objection.
170 1 Again, the ball goes both ways. 2 I did not know they would have an 3 objection. There was a time last year I 4 even offered to take them out on my 5 pontoon boat. It did not materialize; it 6 wasn't for any negativity, I think it was 7 the timing. 8 The new neighbors, I have 9 approached them and have not 10 communicated. I have made at least six 11 attempts to go to their home. I look 12 forward to meeting them in the future. I 13 think they are hard workers, because I 14 went there at 9:00 in the morning and 15 6:00 at night, and they aren't there. I 16 did leave a couple messages on their 17 door. I hope you got those. They are 18 business cards, twice, on your door, and 19 I put it right in their doorknob, so I 20 would assume they have gotten it. So 21 there have been efforts, Mr. Cassis, to 22 do exactly that. 23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 24 Anybody else on the board have any
171 1 questions? Member Sanghvi. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just a 3 comment. Mr. Cummings, from what I hear 4 from the board here, it looks like the 5 way things stand presently are not likely 6 to be acceptable, and maybe you want to 7 think about it and go back to the drawing 8 board and think about your rear yard 9 setback. And maybe consult with your 10 neighbors and everybody and find a 11 solution to the problem. And maybe you 12 want to come back again with a different 13 plan than what you have presented at this 14 time. 15 This is just my personal 16 feeling. And I don't know how the board 17 is going to vote, but I have a feeling 18 that the way it stands, I don't think 19 it's likely to fly. Thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 21 Member Skelcy. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: I just want to 23 reiterate what Member Cassis said. Your 24 neighbors aren't objecting to a beautiful
172 1 home; they just want some compromise, 2 which I think is always a good thing with 3 neighbors. So that you can get what you 4 want, and they can get what they want, as 5 well. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 7 you. Anything else? You have the option 8 at this time if you want us to proceed 9 with a vote on this matter as is, we can 10 table it, discuss it. It's your choice. 11 MR. CUMMINGS: All right. I 12 think I will take the board member's 13 suggestion to my left, to my closest 14 left, to table this. And I appreciate 15 the time and consideration of the board 16 this evening. 17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member Ibe. 18 MEMBER IBE: Sure. In Case No. 19 10-041, 1254 East Lake Drive, I move, 20 based on the petitioner's request, that 21 we table this to December? November? 22 MR. CUMMINGS: Do we have an 23 October alternative? 24 MS. MARTIN: No, we would have
173 1 to re-publish. Well, we could. 2 MR. BOULARD: I guess in order 3 to -- if there were any changes to the 4 variances other than a lesser amount, we 5 would have to re-publish them by Friday 6 in the paper in order to meet the 7 timelines for the October meeting. So I 8 guess the question is do you think that 9 allows you enough time? Otherwise -- 10 MR. CUMMINGS: I would agree 11 with what I think the consensus is. It 12 does seem that November -- it seems like 13 it will -- if there is a change in 14 architect plans, they will not be ready 15 by Friday. 16 MR. BOULARD: If I may, I will 17 be happy to help try to, you know, find a 18 way we can work with what's been 19 published. But, without knowing for 20 sure, I wouldn't want to jeopardize the 21 re-hearing. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 23 you. 24 MEMBER IBE: The motion is that
174 1 this be tabled to November, 2010? 2 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, sir. 3 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 4 MEMBER SKELCY: Second. 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. We 6 have a motion and second. Any other 7 questions? Can we have a roll, please. 8 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 10 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 11 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 12 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 14 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 15 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 16 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 19 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 21 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Motion to table to 23 November 9, 2010, ZBA meeting, passes 24 seven to zero.
175 1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you, 2 sir. We have been in session two hours 3 and 45 minutes. I will leave it to the 4 board's discretion to take a five-minute 5 break. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes, please. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We'll adjourn 8 for five minutes and start back up at 9 9:50. 10 (Recess taken.) 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: I'd like to 12 call the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting 13 to order. 14 We'll resume these proceedings 15 this evening with the next case, Case 16 10-042, 26650 Taft Road, Hayes Trucking. 17 The petitioner is requesting a 18 use variance to allow outdoor storage for 19 a concrete crushing operation. The 20 property is zoned I-1 and is north of 21 Grand River and east of Taft Road. 22 If the petitioner is here, 23 please come forward to the podium. State 24 your name.
176 1 MR. MEIHN: Good afternoon, or 2 good evening, I guess, is the proper way 3 to say it today. My name is Greg Meihn. 4 I'm an attorney here in Novi. I'm going 5 to be doing a presentation for Lewis 6 Hayes, who is standing here to my right. 7 I doubt that he, other than questions you 8 may have, is going to speak, but I think 9 it would be appropriate at this time to 10 at least swear him in, so to speak, so 11 that we don't have to worry about that 12 problem at the appropriate time. 13 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No. 14 10-042, 26650 Taft Road, do you swear or 15 affirm to tell the truth? 16 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. 17 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 18 MR. MEIHN: In the 26 years I 19 have been practicing law, I'm constantly 20 amazed, and I really appreciate -- you 21 may think I'm weird to be able to sit 22 here for three hours and watch the 23 process that goes on. While you may not 24 feel it at this point in time, it's a
177 1 beautiful process. Whether you like what 2 people bring or don't, it's still -- it's 3 a good process. I am impressed and glad 4 to be here. 5 We are seeking a use variance. 6 I will tell you on the outset that we are 7 also willing to consider, although I know 8 the difficulties involved, you mentioned 9 a temporary permit to allow the 10 completion of a project. And I will 11 explain to you what I'm talking about. 12 This is a piece of property 13 that was originally zoned I-2 in the 14 seventies. Mr. Hayes operated a trucking 15 terminal that had over 32 trucks, 15 16 employees, administrative staff, and 17 continued to run that. Sometime between 18 the 1970s and now, the use changed to an 19 I-1, but he was grandfathered in as an 20 I-2 and continues to operate that 21 particular business. 22 It's a family-owned business 23 that dates back to the thirties with the 24 father and mother had owned it. In fact,
178 1 I was surprised and pleased to know that 2 the mother had played an instrumental 3 part in the continued operation of this 4 business all the way through and until 5 the eighties, something that -- something 6 that I, again, was impressed with, given 7 what type of world we lived in in the 8 thirties. 9 In 2008, the world changed, as 10 we all know it in a different way. I'm 11 not talking about a 911-type of change, 12 but some of the businesses that have been 13 long-term residents in Novi changed for 14 them. The real estate market was the 15 first to hit. The next that followed was 16 the commercial market. And now we are 17 running into yet a third problem, and 18 that is somehow in some way, I'm not 19 making any political statement, the 20 (inaudible) projects are not coming out 21 as they expected, through the present 22 administration. 23 As a result of that, in 2008, 24 Mr. Hayes, who had a 1.4 million dollar
179 1 mortgage on the piece of property, was 2 forced to make a decision. And he made 3 that decision by essentially selling 30 4 of his trucks, getting rid of all but two 5 of his employees to, you know, make it 6 through the tough times that still exist 7 today in terms of the building and 8 residential construction industry. 9 He is hanging on. He saw an 10 opportunity in 2009 to take his property 11 and turn it into a recycling of concrete. 12 He was fortunate enough to appear and get 13 a special temporary permit for that and 14 has operated that business for the year. 15 Unfortunate for him, the I-96 16 Novi Road, which was the project for 17 which he was operating or using his 18 property to store crushed concrete and to 19 work that process was delayed, and that 20 project still is ongoing. And they 21 weren't able to complete the project 22 within the time frame that everybody had 23 expected. And, in fact, everybody had 24 expected to such a degree that there are
180 1 penalty clauses and other detrimental 2 issues that apply to my client and other 3 people that are involved in this project. 4 Specifically, back charges, back charges 5 are starting to occur. 6 Because, in my discussions with 7 Mr. Boulard, to try to attempt to find a 8 way to this problem, we stopped taking 9 concrete on this property effective 10 September 1st. And as a result of that, 11 the concrete that was supposed to take 12 and crush and move on, pursuant to the 13 I-96 project, which was supposed to be 14 done two months ago, now have to go to a 15 location in a site that's outside of this 16 area. And those charges now are coming 17 back to lay on the shoulders of 18 Mr. Hayes. 19 So we have a problem with 20 Mr. Hayes in the sense that the business 21 as he knew it since 1975 doesn't exist. 22 He's down to two trucks. He has a 23 mortgage payment on that business. He 24 got -- he got savvy and paid off his
181 1 bills, except for the mortgage. He 2 reduced his staff down to two. 3 He's now brought in another 4 business and is looking to sell his 5 property. I want to talk with you 6 briefly about that. And this crushing 7 business has allowed him to be able to 8 meet his mortgage requirements and his in 9 excess of $35,000 worth of tax money that 10 he pays for this property on a yearly 11 basis. 12 This is his family business. 13 This is his business. And, you know, I'm 14 not being dramatic, when I say there is 15 not another place for him to go. And we 16 all know there is not another use for 17 this property. 18 We almost got lucky in 2009. I 19 want to be very straight with you. If 20 you recall, when Detroit was having its 21 problems of trying to figure out where 22 the auto show was going to go, Rock 23 Financial did enter into a contract with 24 Mr. Hayes to buy his property up.
182 1 Unfortunately, that didn't go. 2 We have had the property for 3 sale now for a better part of three 4 years; we are actively moving that. The 5 biggest problem that we have when we talk 6 about an alternative use, what can he do 7 differently than this non-conforming use, 8 if I may use it that way, is basically 9 nothing. The only closest offer that 10 he's gotten on this piece of property 11 come from an automotive repair shop, and 12 that offer was in excess of 400,000 less 13 than what is even owed on the mortgage, 14 let alone phase one, phase two, and other 15 reports. Which, when you add all that 16 up, it's probably now over 600,000 of 17 what he owes on it. 18 So, presently, he has done 19 everything that we would have expected 20 him to do in 2008 occurred. His business 21 dried up, which was a trucking business. 22 He sold his trucks to stay alive. He met 23 his payment requirements. He has an 24 ongoing business that's helping him to
183 1 pay the bills while he continues to try 2 to sell and looks to sell the property. 3 He knows that the long-term solution to 4 this problem is to get out from 5 underneath that problem. 6 But, frankly, we are looking 7 for the help from ZBA to assist him in 8 that transition. We leased -- we put the 9 property up for sale. We are doing 10 everything we can to do so. 11 Our major concern right now, as 12 I've indicated to you, we have a scenario 13 where the present project for which the 14 temporary permit that was issued by you 15 has -- the permit has expired, and the 16 project is still ongoing. And it now 17 presents a significant substantial 18 problem for him in terms of the back 19 charges. That's the first issue. 20 The second issue is that given 21 the area that's around where he's at, a 22 permanent variance is not out of the 23 realm. His use does not have any effect, 24 has not had any effect on the surrounding
184 1 landowners. It does not have any effect 2 on the surrounding uses. He is a 3 participant in this project. 4 In fact, you may remember, I 5 don't have the date right here, but in 6 the eighties, late to middle eighties, it 7 was the middle eighties, where they were 8 one vote short of moving all of these and 9 having industrial guys over and moving 10 them to the proper place. And if that 11 would have happened, unfortunately, it 12 did not, we wouldn't be here because that 13 use would have allowed him to do what 14 he's doing now. 15 There is no other use for this 16 property at this point. If there were, I 17 would love for somebody to point at it. 18 We have looked everywhere we can from 19 selling the property to leasing the 20 property. And the property's use is what 21 it's being -- its best use is where it's 22 presently now. 23 There is no residential 24 development going on that -- he gets back
185 1 his trucks. There is no commercial 2 development that's going on. There is 3 some road work that's going on, which 4 he's now a participant of, the I-96. And 5 he has an opportunity to be a participant 6 of the ongoing project that's occurring 7 with the railroad bridge. And, in fact, 8 has been approached for the same concept 9 of using his place to store crushed stone 10 and/or concrete and turn it in. 11 So, I am standing here before 12 you with a scenario that you are looking 13 at an individual that has been a 14 long-time resident of the City of Novi. 15 And I understand that that means a lot 16 but it doesn't mean a lot; it's just a 17 fact. Who has contributed to the taxes 18 here, whose use of the property, while 19 non-conforming pursuant to the master 20 plan, is not having an effect on the 21 surrounding landowners. It's not 22 upsetting the process; it's not anything 23 of that nature. 24 Now, I do understand there is a
186 1 competitor that is here today that their 2 concern is that, of course, it's far 3 better for them to get rid of Mr. Hayes 4 and not grant this because it's going to 5 improve their business. But I will 6 submit to you that they can't even take 7 the work that Mr. Hayes is presently 8 doing, and that's why they went to 9 Mr. Hayes, and that's why this originally 10 occurred in the first place. 11 So, I would respectfully 12 request -- you have a lot of hard 13 decisions that you made, that the ZBA 14 consider a permanent use. And if that's 15 a little bit too much to bite, that the 16 ZBA consider extending or issuing a 17 temporary permit to allow him to finish 18 this project and figure out what other 19 alternatives that present to him in a 20 timely fashion. 21 Other than that, I thank you 22 for your time. 23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 24 Is there anyone in the audience who
187 1 wishes to address the board regarding 2 this case? Please come forward. State 3 your name and address. If you are not an 4 attorney, please be sworn in. 5 MR. CAPELLO: Good evening. 6 Kim Capello, 26444 Taft Road. I am an 7 attorney, and this evening I represent 8 Novi Crushed Concrete, the competitor, so 9 to speak, to Mr. Hayes' operation. 10 Perhaps you can straighten out 11 a few of the facts. I'm a bit confused, 12 because at one point in the presentation 13 I heard that Mr. Hayes was operating this 14 as his business, and at another point I 15 heard Mr. Hayes is leasing the property 16 to somebody else that was operating the 17 crushed concrete business. 18 It's unfortunate that -- the 19 Hayeses have been in Novi for a long 20 period of time and operated a trucking 21 company. It's unfortunate they got 22 caught up in the economy like a lot of 23 other businesses. That's not the issue 24 before you tonight.
188 1 They are here asking for a use 2 variance from the light industrial 3 district to allow them to operate on a 4 permanent basis, an I-2 heavy industrial 5 use. 6 The reasons that they have put 7 on the record today are not substantial 8 evidence to give you the grounds or 9 basis, as you know, to grant the request 10 that they are asking for. The property 11 can reasonably be used for an I-2 use. 12 You all know what the I-2 uses are and 13 what the special land use is under -- I'm 14 sorry, the I-1 district permits and what 15 the special land use under the I-1 16 district permits. I'm not going to go 17 over them, but there is a multitude of 18 uses, starting as less offensive as 19 office and going on. 20 This property is at the corner 21 of Grand River and Taft Road. There is a 22 signal there. They have frontage on both 23 Grand River and Taft Road. They have all 24 utilities available to it. It's a large
189 1 parcel; you can construct more than one 2 building on it. You can construct a 3 building without any variance whatsoever 4 because of the size of the parcel. 5 Except for the concrete that is 6 now on the property, the property is a 7 flat, easily buildable piece of land. 8 The argument that perhaps because of the 9 economy there is no use for the property 10 is not the right standard for you to 11 apply. If that were the case, any 12 property that's vacant in the city, any 13 property that's for sale in the city, 14 would have a right to come to you and 15 say, "I should get a use variance 16 re-zoning for this property, because in 17 today's economy, there is nothing I can 18 do with it." That's not the right 19 standard. This property in any other 20 economy would have been a great piece of 21 property to develop. 22 We have Providence Hospital 23 just expanded down at Beck Road. We see 24 what's going on at the Town Center. We
190 1 now see what's going on at the Rock 2 Financial. The temple is right down the 3 street on Taft Road. There is still a 4 lot of development in that area, and this 5 property is part of that development in 6 that area. 7 So, I guess what I say to you 8 is there are not substantial facts on the 9 record for you to have any finding 10 whatsoever for a permanent or temporary 11 use. 12 Whoever is operating that site, 13 knew that the permit that was granted was 14 up September 1st. They continued to 15 accept concrete. They accepted concrete 16 not just from 96, as they propose. They 17 accepted from Telegraph, they accepted it 18 from Orchard Lake, anywhere they could 19 get it. This plant was not put in place 20 just to service 96. 21 My client used to operate their 22 business on Meadowbrook Road between 23 Grand River and Eleven Mile Road. They 24 are a crushed concrete plant there. That
191 1 property was re-zoned from I-2 to I-1. 2 When they wanted to expand their 3 business, they were not allowed to 4 expand. So they did the right thing. 5 They found some I-2 property, and is now 6 located on Twelve Mile Road east of Beck 7 in I-2 property. 8 It took them two years to make 9 the move from Meadowbrook Road to Beck 10 Road, because what they did is they did 11 it right. What they did, they went in 12 and got site plan approval, which I think 13 I might have been on the planning 14 commission, as you reminded me today. It 15 took her two years to get through the 16 process. I don't think any of you 17 (inaudible) remember how slow that 18 process was. It took them two years, but 19 they did it right. They had to go 20 through site plan approval, they fenced 21 their yard, they put up landscaping. 22 They did everything that they were 23 required to do and bore that additional 24 expense to do that. And now to let a
192 1 temporary company come in and not comply 2 with any of the requirements is unjust 3 and unfair. 4 If you were to grant them the 5 permanent relief they are asking for, 6 what you would be doing is allowing them 7 to have an I-2 use without complying with 8 any ordinance requirements whatsoever 9 with regard to landscaping, setbacks, 10 use, anything at all. A competitor, we 11 would not be a competitor; it would be 12 unfair. 13 My client did a lot of business 14 with Dan's Excavation, who is doing the 15 96 job, who is doing the Telegraph Road 16 job before the temporary use permit was 17 granted, permitted this company; they can 18 operate cheaper. So, of course, they are 19 going to sell the product cheaper. 20 I see in their application that 21 they have made the argument that they 22 should be grandfathered in because they 23 had an I-2 use when it was re-zoned to 24 I-1. I don't need to tell your counsel,
193 1 and I certainly don't need to tell you, 2 merely because you have an I-2 use is not 3 automatically grandfathered in for all 4 I-2 uses. What we need to do is look at 5 the use they had; they had a trucking 6 company. 7 I provided you with photos of 8 what's out there today. I also provided 9 you with aerials that I got from Oakland 10 County. When you looked -- I'm sure the 11 administration has provided you with the 12 aerials, also, but when you look at the 13 aerials, all that were there were trucks; 14 it was a trucking company. And the 15 trucking company, the way it operated its 16 business, it would go off-site, pick up 17 materials off-site. It would deliver 18 them off-site. That's how the trucking 19 company worked. 20 Now, on occasion, they may have 21 had some materials that were temporarily 22 left on-site. Nothing that you see 23 there. So that's the trucking company. 24 If anything would be grandfathered in, it
194 1 would be the trucking company. They have 2 gone well beyond operating as a trucking 3 company. They have constantly and 4 permanently accepted materials on site. 5 They have stored broken concrete; they 6 have stored crushed concrete. 7 Also, even beyond that, when 8 you think about what they are doing, it's 9 a manufacturing company, and it's an 10 outdoor manufacturing company. What they 11 are doing is taking broken concrete, 12 crushing it and manufacturing it into 13 various degrees or levels of gravel that 14 are used for bases of roads and other 15 things. 16 They are not a company -- I'm 17 sorry, they are not a trucking company 18 now. What they are doing now is 19 definitely not grandfathered in from 20 their trucking company. 21 One last point. It's our 22 belief, and they admitted that Hayes sold 23 almost all of his equipment. And, 24 unfortunately, I had a lot of clients
195 1 that did business with Hayes. There is 2 not one of my clients that has said 3 anything bad about the Hayes Trucking 4 Company. 5 He was forced to sell. He 6 abandoned any I-2 use he had back in 2008 7 when he sold his company. The intent 8 when he sold his trucks was to no longer 9 operate as a trucking company. I don't 10 think he can come in front of you and 11 say, after 2008, after he sold almost 12 every one of his trucks, that he still 13 intended to operate as a trucking 14 company. He abandoned that I-2 use. And 15 if there was any grandfathering for 16 trucking alone, that had been terminated 17 at that point. 18 I'm asking you to deny it 19 permanently. At least make him go 20 through the right process. If they want 21 to use an I-2 use, make them go through 22 the re-zoning process. Let the master 23 plan committee, planning commission, city 24 council, make that decision. It
196 1 shouldn't be made at the Zoning Board of 2 Appeals. 3 In regard to allowing them to 4 continue, they knew their permit was up 5 September 1st. It's not my fault, it's 6 not your fault, it's their fault they 7 have a yard full of materials that they 8 can't deliver. Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Is 10 there anyone else who wishes to address? 11 MS. COPELAND: My name is Rose 12 Copeland, 46900 West Twelve Mile. I 13 represent Copeland Paving and Novi 14 Crushed Concrete, and I'm not an 15 attorney. 16 MEMBER IBE: Raise your right 17 hand, please. Ma'am, in Case No. 10-042 18 26650 Taft Road, do you swear or affirm 19 to tell the truth? 20 MS. COPELAND: I do. 21 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 22 MS. COPELAND: Being up here is 23 not easy for me. My husband who could 24 not be here tonight, he's actually on a
197 1 job, and I will try to handle this if I 2 can. 3 Both Novi Crushed Concrete and 4 Copeland Paving, like Hayes, we have been 5 here 40 plus years in the City of Novi. 6 We are a three-generation business. My 7 boys are involved. My husband and I, we 8 have been married 33 years. My 9 father-in-law, it's a family-owned and 10 operated business; it's been that way 11 forever. My husband and I have lived in 12 the city for 25 years. 13 We, through these businesses, 14 ourselves, we supported this city in many 15 ways. I coached Little League baseball; 16 we donate many many donations. I don't 17 need to get into them all. We supported 18 the city greatly, all the years we have 19 been here. Lived here and done business 20 in the city. 21 I remember well before we were 22 married, 275 wasn't even built yet. We 23 used to ride horses back in there, so we 24 got a long history here, also, and I
198 1 respect that he has, also. 2 Mr. Capello covered some topics 3 I was going to; I won't reiterate on 4 those. I can tell you that for Dan's 5 Excavating, we supplied material for the 6 I-96 project all last year. We had no 7 problems supplying all the material and 8 meeting all their needs. There was never 9 a complaint or problem. 10 Basically, again, this isn't my 11 area. My son and my husband handled most 12 of this, but bidding and pricing is 13 generally how it's done with Dan's 14 Excavating. 15 We have complied with materials 16 they need. We have had them all 17 processed and produced. It's 21-AA, 4-G 18 large and sand; we got it all. So we can 19 comply. That's an untrue statement that 20 says that we cannot comply with what 21 their needs are. We did it all last 22 year, and we could have continued this 23 year. 24 We have not sold any 21-AA to
199 1 them this year. However, Dan's 2 Excavating has been in there for material 3 they don't have, which is large material. 4 They are still doing some business with 5 us, but they don't need much of it. It's 6 just the minimal use that they need. And 7 they have come in and hauled from us for 8 that use. 9 So, I'm going leave it at that. 10 I'm going to respectfully ask you not to 11 approve this variance in order for fair 12 competition. I think they should have to 13 meet the same property requirements as we 14 have had to meet over the years. Again, 15 we got the heavy industrial property, you 16 know, and that's basically all I'm going 17 to say, and I thank you for your time. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 19 Anyone else who wishes to address the 20 board? Seeing none, will the secretary 21 read any correspondence into the record? 22 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 27 23 notices mailed, zero responses, six mail 24 returned.
200 1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 2 Does the building department or city 3 attorney wish to add anything at this 4 time? 5 MR. BOULARD: Just a couple 6 comments. One, I wanted to clarify that 7 the temporary use approval was -- 8 actually, there was two approvals, one 9 for one year on developed parcels, and 10 there is (inaudible) 12 months that those 11 are allowed with a maximum of one 12 renewal. So this is the second year of 13 that. Just for the sake of 14 clarification. 15 Also, as you know, on the staff 16 report, if a variance were granted for 17 this use, the site plan requirements 18 would still not be waived. Site plan 19 approval for the city planning commission 20 and possibly city council, depending on 21 the requirements and so on, would need to 22 be done. They would be completed, and 23 the site would need to be developed in 24 compliance with the ordinances before the
201 1 use could legally begin. 2 So, I hope that clears that up. 3 I will be happy to answer any 4 questions. 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. At 6 this time I will refer this matter to the 7 board for discussion. Ms. Skelcy. 8 MEMBER SKELCY: I have a 9 question for the attorney for Mr. Hayes. 10 MR. MEIHN: Yes. 11 MEMBER SKELCY: So, it's my 12 understanding that the temporary renewal 13 expired on September 1st. 14 MR. MEIHN: That's correct. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: That was like I 16 think a Friday, or something, or 17 Thursday. And yet you continued to 18 operate even after the temporary permit 19 expired. Does your client not have a 20 regard for the law? 21 MR. MEIHN: Oh, absolutely. In 22 fact, the operation -- continuation of 23 operation was after I had -- again, 24 Mr. Boulard did not approve anything.
202 1 But after I had had discussions with him 2 with regard to what the requirements were 3 going to be to get that material off the 4 property to be in compliance. 5 So, yes, he had regard for the 6 law. That's why the material was 7 crushed. That's why the notice that went 8 out of violation is going to be complied 9 with for that property. 10 MEMBER SKELCY: But you have 11 continued to operate even through today? 12 MR. MEIHN: That is correct. 13 MEMBER SKELCY: But the 14 temporary permit says you really 15 shouldn't be. 16 MR. MEIHN: It's one of those 17 rock in a hard places. If you don't get 18 the material off the land, then you've 19 got another set of problems. 20 MEMBER SKELCY: Shouldn't you 21 have been planning to get it off the land 22 by September 1st? 23 MR. MEIHN: I would assume. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: Since you knew
203 1 of date? 2 MR. MEIHN: Absolutely. Should 3 they have done that, absolutely. 4 MEMBER SKELCY: But they 5 didn't? 6 MR. MEIHN: Right. That was a 7 failing on Mr. Hayes' part of recognizing 8 when this thing came to an end. 9 MEMBER SKELCY: My other 10 question is: Is it true that you are 11 getting cement from areas other than the 12 I-96 project? 13 MR. MEIHN: Did we get cement 14 earlier during this 12-month period of 15 time, yes. 16 MEMBER SKELCY: When was the 17 last time you got cement from an area 18 other than the I-96 project? 19 MR. MEIHN: I couldn't tell you 20 with good faith. 21 MEMBER SKELCY: Can your 22 client? 23 MR. MEIHN: He couldn't either, 24 because he's not running the operation.
204 1 MEMBER SKELCY: So it is being 2 leased? 3 MR. MEIHN: Yes. If you 4 will -- how it's being operated, he has a 5 trucking company, Mr. Hayes. He has now 6 two trucks instead of 32, but he has a 7 trucking company. He is working in 8 concert with Mid Michigan, who is doing 9 the crushing, to deal with the hauling, 10 crushing and that process. So, 11 absolutely, and that's why I mentioned in 12 my presentation it's a business he's 13 running, and it's a lease that he's 14 doing. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: You are aware 16 that the use -- to change the use has 17 really high standards? Are you aware of 18 that? 19 MR. MEIHN: I'm very aware of 20 that. 21 MEMBER SKELCY: And, you know, 22 I drove by there; you guy are still 23 operating. I drove by there on Saturday; 24 I wanted to see what was going on. You
205 1 are still operating even though the 2 temporary permit had expired. I found 3 that very disconcerting. I think it's an 4 eyesore from the road, that all that 5 gravel or broken cement is sitting there. 6 I mean, it's very clearly visible; it's 7 really an eyesore. 8 And, you know, personally, I 9 have to favor what the staff is 10 recommending, that we move towards a 11 progress on the master plan for land use. 12 And I really don't think you met your 13 burden for the variance, for the use, for 14 the change of the use of the property. 15 It's a very high standard. 16 I think it was pointed out by 17 one of the people who spoke, Mr. Capello, 18 that there really aren't unique 19 circumstances or physical conditions. 20 It's not narrow, it's not shallow, the 21 shape isn't weird or unusual. Water, 22 topography and other similar physical 23 conditions, there is really nothing like 24 that there at that particular property.
206 1 MR. MEIHN: I would agree with 2 you that the ones that you mentioned 3 don't exist. But we are just not stuck 4 with those in terms of conditions for 5 consideration of the variance. There is 6 also the condition of a hardship, which I 7 think we have met. 8 MEMBER SKELCY: What is that 9 hardship? 10 MR. MEIHN: The hardship is 11 that the business that existed there as 12 was known in 1975 doesn't exist in the 13 form that it existed in 1975. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: And I can 15 totally understand that with the economy. 16 But, for the use variance, it has to be 17 unique circumstances of the property 18 involved. 19 MR. MEIHN: It does. 20 MEMBER SKELCY: And I don't see 21 that here being shown by you or your 22 client. 23 MR. MEIHN: Well, I would 24 respectfully disagree that it has to be
207 1 limited to the unique circumstances of 2 the property in the sense that a hard -- 3 every hardship is unique to that 4 particular piece of property. And this 5 particular piece of property has no other 6 use, despite fellow counsel indicated 7 there is all these uses, office buildings 8 and residential. I would really love for 9 that to be an option for here. If it 10 were an option, it would have occurred 11 three years ago. It would have occurred 12 two years ago. It would have occurred 13 one year. Rock Financial isn't doing any 14 anything in terms of that. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: Why isn't that 16 something that you can pursue? 17 MR. MEIHN: We have been 18 pursuing it for three years. 19 MEMBER SKELCY: And, again, 20 that has nothing to do with regard to the 21 fact that you can't sell the land. It 22 has to do with unique circumstances of 23 the physical conditions at the 24 property.
208 1 MR. MEIHN: Absolutely. 2 MEMBER SKELCY: Again, you 3 haven't presented me with any information 4 that would show anything in that vein. 5 MR. MEIHN: I understand that 6 the list that you have provided do not 7 exist in this case in terms of the unique 8 circumstances. Our argument is similar 9 to the argument that was granted when the 10 temporary permit was issued. If you look 11 back at the basis for which that permit 12 was issued, somebody, a majority, found 13 that this type of use on this piece of 14 property was an acceptable use for this 15 period of time. I didn't make that 16 decision. 17 And I share your views. I 18 would think that any concrete crushing 19 location place is an eyesore no matter 20 where you are at. I would agree with 21 you. It's not something that I want to 22 see. It's that old adage, not in my back 23 yard. I'm not arguing with you in that 24 regard. What I'm arguing with you is
209 1 that a year ago you said he can do this. 2 Forget for the moment, because 3 you are right, also, on being 4 appropriately, if you are not pissed, at 5 least angry, why did you continue to 6 operate when you knew what was going on? 7 He made a mistake. That's not something 8 that he pays attention to as well as he 9 should. That's primarily why I got 10 involved in this matter within the last 11 week, because I don't think it's his 12 forte to do this. Those aren't excuses, 13 and those are not defenses, and those are 14 not reasons for you to grant anything, 15 but they are just the facts I'm trying to 16 portray so there is at least an 17 understanding. 18 But the reasons for granting 19 the temporary permit a year ago still 20 exist here today. And all I'm asking for 21 is, as Mr. Boulard says, granting of a 22 variance. Permanent variance today does 23 not get us anywhere other than back to 24 having to go through the whole process of
210 1 complying, as fellow counsel had 2 indicated, with all those requirements. 3 That's all I'm asking, is for him an 4 opportunity to be able to take what now 5 appears to be a business that he can 6 shift to and make it work. The 7 alternatives aren't there. 8 MEMBER SKELCY: You are asking 9 for a permanent change, not a temporary 10 permit. Your request in front of the 11 board is for a permanent change; it's not 12 for temporary. 13 MR. MEIHN: I understand and, 14 unfortunately, I did not do that. And 15 that's why I said in my beginning 16 presentation to you, that I would 17 consider -- I would highly consider a 18 temporary use, at a minimum, to allow us 19 to finish the I-96 project so the back 20 charges aren't something that's piled on 21 top of him. That will give us time to do 22 the complete attempt to re-zone the 23 property. 24 Or, grant the variance, grant
211 1 anything. We still can't operate. We 2 still have to go through the whole 3 process of the re-zoning issues. Either 4 way, I'm confronted with what I was 5 handed, and I'm trying to find a 6 mechanism that works in terms of 7 compliance with what you need and with 8 what the present situation presents to 9 me. 10 The competitions are going to 11 have to face the situation somewhere down 12 the line. I don't know how to address 13 that any other way. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: I have no other 15 questions. Thank you. 16 MR. MEIHN: Thank you. 17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: 18 Member Krieger. 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: I appreciate 20 the fiscal responsibility of Mr. Hayes by 21 reducing trucks. But there is a question 22 here of that if he's leasing it, who 23 actually owns the property? So, my 24 question would be to the -- and then,
212 1 also, backtrack a second. Is that for 2 I-1 and I-2 then, if it is an eyesore and 3 not in my back yard, but if you have an 4 I-1, you are going to landscape it so 5 that it is something that is livable. 6 And who is to say if you go past a 7 temporary use variance, that you leave 8 that whole pile of concrete and abandon 9 the whole site altogether? 10 My question would be to 11 Mr. Schultz. If you go from 32 trucks to 12 two trucks, is that -- in 2008, then is 13 that changing the business? Would that 14 change the special permit? 15 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the 16 Chair. I think they are kind of -- I 17 think that's a fact that's not 18 necessarily something that he's relating 19 to his request for this use variance. 20 So, I think Mr. Capello mentioned that he 21 had a previously grand -- non-conforming 22 use of the trucking company. I think the 23 question of going from 32 to two might 24 relate to whether he could re-establish
213 1 that. 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Same business? 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah. It might 4 relate to that, but that's not the 5 question that the board is being asked. 6 The board is being asked to, which Mr. 7 Boulard has allowed to happen for the 8 last two years under his special land use 9 approval authority, which is now expired. 10 So he's put aside the 32 trucks and the 11 issue of the trucking business. He wants 12 a permanent use variance to operate the 13 concrete crushing business, not the 14 trucking business. 15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member 16 Cassis. 17 MEMBER CASSIS: Thank you, 18 Mr. Chairman. This is a kind of Solomon 19 kind of situation. I have known the fact 20 that Mr. Hayes has been around the area 21 for quite a long time. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Longer than 23 you. 24 MEMBER CASSIS: And he had been
214 1 a good citizen, which is right and so on. 2 Hard times came in, and hard times come 3 in to everybody. All of us are going 4 through the same hard time. 5 But I've also known the 6 exemplary citizenship of the Copelands. 7 And they were located on Meadowbrook Road 8 in the past. And when the city asked 9 them to move, they did, and at great 10 expense. I believe I was either on the 11 council or on the planning commission at 12 that time, and they came before us. And 13 we went through a very rigorous process. 14 And, in fact, if memory serves 15 me, they came before us on several 16 different issues, and maybe two or three 17 different times to get them through. So, 18 two families here. Good, upstanding and 19 paying their taxes and so on, and it's a 20 difficult process. 21 Now, we are being asked to 22 really push back the master plan 23 backwards. We have just finished a 24 master plan.
215 1 MR. MEIHN: I understand the 2 work involved in that. 3 MEMBER CASSIS: The eggs have 4 just hatched, and we did. 5 MR. MEIHN: Yes. 6 MEMBER CASSIS: The city wants 7 to move forward in its desire to have the 8 kind of community that we want. And my 9 contention here is, economic problems, 10 yes. But we seek to resolve economic 11 problems in a way that we can manage 12 them. 13 I see trucks driving all over 14 the place and being hired. I mean, 15 Mr. Hayes' specialty is trucking. And 16 trucking is very much in need right now. 17 It's the same ones that are bringing the 18 concrete to this place right now. 19 Trucks. 20 So, I really can't see how he 21 is in such a bind. And I know you are 22 saying he's behind on catching up with 23 his obligations, economically, and so on. 24 That alternative of just crushing
216 1 concrete and so on is the only solution 2 that Mr. Hayes can come up with? 3 So, on these grounds, and as my 4 colleague has already mentioned there 5 about the violations of continuing the 6 process and so on, we are talking about 7 master plan. We are talking about the 8 same kind of conditions that his 9 competitors are going through. We are 10 talking about if we extend in a very 11 simple way, through the ZBA, allowing him 12 to keep on with the process, and we 13 insist on others to go through the 14 lengthy process of planning commission 15 approval for re-zoning, I think we have 16 just abandoned our responsibility. And, 17 really, use the Solomon philosophy in a 18 very judicious way. 19 So, I would not go along with 20 extending this. I don't know, maybe the 21 mercy of this board might allow him to 22 just finish whatever is there, even 23 though he went beyond the time allotted 24 to him.
217 1 MR. MEIHN: Yeah. 2 MEMBER CASSIS: Maybe that 3 could be a solution that will be resting 4 with the minds and hearts of this body. 5 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 7 MR. MEIHN: Thank you for your 8 comments. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anybody else? 10 Member Ibe. 11 MEMBER IBE: Sir, how long 12 would it take to complete whatever is 13 there right now to at least get rid of 14 the materials that you have there? 15 MR. MEIHN: Sixty to 65 days. 16 And what I mean by rid, I want to be 17 forthright and honest. Much shorter to 18 crush the concrete into material. But 19 when you -- because, again, we can talk 20 about grandfathered in. And I have to 21 disagree with fellow counsel, who has 22 been there throughout the process. 23 Material of a great nature and smaller 24 nature on there, to remove that
218 1 additional material, which I don't think 2 we have to, but let's just play it by the 3 rules and say we do. Now, the crushed 4 material, which may be no different than 5 sand, that's where that additional time 6 frame would be. 7 I expect and I hope, and I 8 have, since I've gotten involved, spoken 9 with Mr. Hayes and explained to him the 10 processes of life, as we see it. And 11 I've spoken with Mid Michigan, and we 12 fully intend to either be in compliance 13 with the notice of violation, or to be a 14 day or two outside of that in terms of 15 the crushing process, so that it's all 16 material. 17 And then we have that argument 18 as to whether that material that's there 19 is grandfathered in from the I-2 previous 20 years. And I will argue and be prepared 21 to show it is, but we intend to get that 22 off, also. 23 If we are not going to get a 24 continued use of this property, we
219 1 have -- we have very little alternative. 2 I wish we didn't, and maybe Novi Crushing 3 would like this property, but I'm sure 4 they would not. We have to do something 5 with it, and we have to get the property 6 in some other shape if we are going to 7 have any other chance of meeting the tax 8 collector. 9 So, that's why I mention today, 10 65. I intend -- we intend to be done 11 much earlier than that, but I want to be 12 very blunt and honest there are these two 13 parts. And the one part I think, 14 Mr. Boulard, I won't speak for him, but 15 what I think is most concerned about, the 16 second part, he's concerned about, also, 17 but I think I can effectively argue on 18 that one. But we want that out, also. 19 MEMBER IBE: I'm sorry, for the 20 city, obviously, I understand that his 21 time has expired September 1st. And like 22 Member Cassis said, it's almost like a 23 Solomon like way of deciding this matter 24 here. We have materials currently on
220 1 this property that obviously can't just 2 stay there. 3 Is it possible within your 4 authority and discretion to allow 5 additional time for them to complete 6 whatever process it needs that's required 7 to remove the materials there? Is there 8 something that we can legally do or 9 through your office? 10 MR. SCHULTZ: If I can jump in. 11 You know, obviously, you could kind of 12 see that becoming a question. A number 13 of people mentioned it, and the 14 proponent's counsel asked for that kind 15 of temporary relief. The problem is he 16 alluded to he kind of came in to a 17 request that's set. And it's set right 18 now for a use variance. There is no such 19 thing as a temporary use variance. And 20 the relief that they requested kind of 21 limits you. 22 You don't, as a board, don't 23 have the authority to say, "Well, we are 24 not going to give you the use variance,
221 1 but we are going give you some other 2 relief." 3 Mr. Boulard gave, after public 4 hearings, the two years of temporary 5 special land use. The proponent could 6 have come here and said, "I want an 7 extension." And at that point, the 8 ordinance kicks in and says, "That's the 9 extent of Mr. Boulard's authority." 10 There could have been a request for far 11 less relief of an extension granted by 12 the board of another year or six months 13 or 60 days. That seems like an option. 14 The problem is, it can't be done tonight. 15 It has to be done, properly advertised; 16 there is a different section of 17 ordinance. It's the kind of thing that 18 maybe -- we keep filling up this October 19 agenda. 20 MR. MEIHN: Thanks, Thomas. 21 MR. SCHULTZ: That if that's 22 where the board is headed, and I don't 23 know if it is. But as an answer to the 24 question, Mr. Boulard couldn't do it, but
222 1 the board could say to the applicant, "We 2 are interested in your idea of getting 3 the concrete off your property, but we 4 are not going to give you a use variance 5 very likely. And we don't want this to 6 be a long-term thing, so come back to us 7 next month, and we might give you a 8 certain amount of time before you are out 9 of compliance." As an option. 10 MEMBER CASSIS: You can still 11 have the floor, but maybe a different 12 way. Let me ask you if legally, now, has 13 he been cited legally for a violation? 14 Is there a violation? 15 MR. BOULARD: The ordinance -- 16 the ordinance states that the -- 17 MEMBER CASSIS: Has he been 18 ticketed? 19 MR. BOULARD: He has not been 20 ticketed. 21 MEMBER CASSIS: He has not. 22 MR. BOULARD: The ordinance 23 states you have a number of three days 24 following the expiration of the permit
223 1 for removal of the equipment operation, 2 the site going back to previous. So, 3 September 1st was I believe was on a 4 Friday. We waited until the next 5 Tuesday, because it was a holiday 6 weekend, before we did an inspection of 7 the site. At that point, the site was 8 not in compliance. 9 The next day we sent out a 10 notice of violation with 14 days from the 11 date of the notice. So by the time it 12 gets through the mail, it's 14 days from 13 the date of the notice to bring the 14 property in compliance. That's where we 15 stand at this point. 16 MEMBER CASSIS: Okay. I'm glad 17 you said that, because -- and to 18 Mr. Schultz, is there a way right now 19 under this 14 days or whatever, that is 20 given to him as a notice, to work through 21 that administrative, for lack of a better 22 word, to use, that not even have to come 23 before us, but the city would supervise 24 his removal of crushing and removing of
224 1 that stuff for a certain period of time 2 administratively? Or whatever, under 3 jurisdiction of that ticket or that 4 violation? Just a question. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: It's probably not 6 something that we want to -- 7 MEMBER CASSIS: To advertise. 8 It's happened before. 9 MR. SCHULTZ: Maybe a better 10 answer would be it wouldn't be anything 11 that this board would order to occur. It 12 would be more of a prosecutorial kind of 13 thing with the district court. 14 MR. MEIHN: Right. 15 MR. SCHULTZ: And every case is 16 different. So, if a ticket gets written 17 and, frankly, I imagine a ticket will be 18 written if there is continued work. You 19 know, every case will be different. And 20 we'll see what happens, but I don't want 21 this to come out the wrong way. It's not 22 up to this board what happens there. So 23 it seems to me the safe thing to do, if 24 that's the sentiment, is to suggest that
225 1 he might want to be on that next October 2 agenda for some sort of extension of Mr. 3 Boulard's authority. And, you know, 4 between now and then, there may be some 5 more information. 6 I mean, the 60 days may be a 7 complete guess. Our staff might think 8 it's more than 180, and you decide you 9 don't want to do it. 10 MEMBER CASSIS: The reason I'm 11 asking that is I don't think the board 12 wants Mr. Hayes -- I don't know, I may be 13 wrong, to keep accepting more material. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: He should not be 15 accepting anything right now. 16 MEMBER IBE: Period. 17 MEMBER CASSIS: So what I would 18 be saying, under a supervisory kind of 19 administrative kind of thing, they would 20 be able to monitor that, and see to it 21 that he would finish the job there. 22 MR. SCHULTZ: Again, that's 23 kind of a more or less a district court 24 work-out kind of thing. It may or may
226 1 not happen. 2 In the meantime, whether this 3 board suggests it or not, the proponent 4 can always come to the board in October 5 and say, "Apparently, the use variance is 6 problematic, so I'm going to go in this 7 other direction." He has that ability to 8 recommend it or not. 9 MR. MEIHN: Just to add to what 10 he's saying. I have had a number of 11 these, and, you know, it either gets 12 worked out -- and I know you do not have 13 this authority to do what is called a 14 lesser included offense, so to speak, 15 where you ask for the permanent use, and 16 then you go down to something different 17 because of how it's been positioned here. 18 But the city attorney is 19 exactly correct, that the two ways I 20 guess would be to come back here in 21 October, or it gets worked out through 22 the prosecutorial action in front of the 23 judge, who then has the power to trump 24 most everybody, unless he's going to be
227 1 appealed by Tom. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Well, I don't 3 want to argue. I think it's a lot more 4 our discretion than the courts, for the 5 most part, the city's discretion. 6 MR. MEIHN: I would agree with 7 you. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: For a court to 9 order something to occur that's not legal 10 is pretty rare. But, for the city to 11 allow it to happen is a possibility. But 12 I have no idea whether or not that's 13 something that would make sense until you 14 know a lot more about it. 15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Any other 16 questions? Member Sanghvi. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: My perspective 18 is quite different. Putting off is a 19 slippery slope. And if you decide this 20 is not the right thing to do, the time is 21 now to cut the cord, rather than putting 22 it off and giving other options. So you 23 got to decide once and for all where we 24 all stand and take a stand and go for it.
228 1 MR. SCHULTZ: Final comment on 2 that. I agree. I was suggesting you 3 either vote on the use variance. However 4 you turn out, you turn out. Or the 5 applicant decides maybe to withdraw that 6 request and try something else less 7 permanent. In which case, that would be 8 up to him. 9 MR. MEIHN: Given the sentiment 10 of the board, that would be my request. 11 MEMBER IBE: To withdraw? 12 MR. MEIHN: Yes, sir. 13 MEMBER CASSIS: I agree with my 14 colleague, Dr. Sanghvi. That's why I was 15 trying to twist it in a way. 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just want to 17 be very plain without beating around the 18 bush. Let's be honest with ourselves and 19 also them and decide once for all where 20 we all stand. 21 MEMBER IBE: It appears the 22 gentleman has said they wish to withdraw. 23 Is that correct, sir? 24 MR. MEIHN: That is correct.
229 1 So I can take the option -- just one 2 question I have. Is it this Friday to 3 get on the October board? 4 MS. MARTIN: I need the 5 information as soon as possible, because 6 we have work to do before Friday. 7 MR. MEIHN: Friday is not your 8 day; tomorrow is your day? 9 MS. MARTIN: Yes. 10 MR. MEIHN: Thank you. 11 MR. BOULARD: Tomorrow by noon. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: What do we 13 have to do now? 14 MR. SCHULTZ: A motion to 15 confirm the withdrawal by the applicant. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. I make a 18 motion that we accept the request for the 19 removal of the application. 20 MEMBER CASSIS: Second. 21 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 22 motion and a second. Any further 23 discussion? No. 24 Roll please, Ms. Martin.
230 1 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 3 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 4 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 5 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 7 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 8 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 9 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 11 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 12 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 13 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 14 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 15 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 16 seven to zero, to withdraw. 17 MR. MEIHN: Thank you, 18 everybody. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: This brings 20 us to the tenth case of the evening. 21 Case No. 10-043, 1181 West Lake Drive, 22 and 10-044 for 1185 West Lake Drive. 23 The petitioner is requesting 24 use and dimensional variances to allow
231 1 construction of a shared garage across 2 the property line dividing two separate 3 parcels of land in the front and side 4 setbacks as well as side rear setback 5 variances for proposed porch additions to 6 1185 West Lake Drive. 7 If the petitioner is here, 8 please step forward and state your name 9 and address. And if you are not an 10 attorney, please be sworn in. 11 MR. DISMONDY: Dave Dismondy, 12 1181 West Lake. I'm not an attorney. 13 MEMBER IBE: In Case No. 10-043 14 and 10-044 for 1181 and 1185 West Lake 15 Drive, do you swear and affirm to tell 16 the truth? 17 MR. DISMONDY: I do. 18 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 19 MR. DISMONDY: In the event my 20 family attorney needs to answer any 21 questions for you, I think he should 22 probably stand up now. 23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Let's get 24 them sworn in, too.
232 1 MR. DISMONDY: Actually, he's 2 an attorney, so he doesn't need to be. 3 She's here for support; she's my mother, 4 she's the adjacent parcel. I don't 5 expect her to have to say much, but if 6 you want to stand up, you are welcome to 7 do so. 8 I will try to keep this brief. 9 This is the fourth time I have been here. 10 I was young and naive when I bought this 11 home about seven years ago now. And so 12 we have done a lot with the property. 13 We are -- initially, I thought 14 it was going to be a heck of a lot easier 15 than it's been, but working with 16 Ms. Martin and Mr. Boulard and their 17 staff, we are doing things the right way. 18 So, to begin, it's really 19 important if we could dim the lights so 20 you can take a look at this aerial shot, 21 without falling asleep; I know it's 22 getting late. It kind of shows you why 23 we have such a unique piece of property. 24 It's on a peninsula on Walled Lake in
233 1 Novi. And there has always been this 2 question when I go for a request for 3 variance is what's the front, what's the 4 back? Yes, the easement that cuts it in 5 half makes it really difficult, and every 6 time we need to do something or request 7 something, it looks like we are asking 8 for a ton, because there is a list of 9 variances we are requesting. But, if you 10 understand the property, you realize that 11 hopefully it's not such a big deal. 12 Couple things here. First, 13 we'll start with the garage. You will 14 notice these two homes adjacent to each 15 other. I should point to it. This one 16 and this one. This is 1181. You are 17 seeing a cottage there in that photo 18 because it's old. 19 Two years ago I was here, and 20 we turned the existing cottage into a 21 really nice home. The reason I'm showing 22 you this -- the reason I'm showing you 23 this is just the quality of construction 24 that we are looking to do. We are really
234 1 looking to make it a nicer place to live. 2 And we really worked with our 3 neighbors on all this. And, you know, 4 living so close together in such a little 5 piece of property, there is challenges, 6 because everybody, you know, some people 7 like it the old way; some people like it 8 the new way. But we are working -- I 9 know there was issues with the East Lake 10 job tonight. 11 I want you to know that I 12 walked out with each neighbor and have 13 measured things off and really have tried 14 to narrow it down to make everybody say, 15 you know, you are making it a better 16 place to live; we appreciate that. So 17 just to get that across to you guys. 18 Let's start with the garage. 19 You will notice there is an existing 20 garage on the property. It's kind of 21 cockeyed, it's of poor quality, and when 22 we got the variance, I believe it was a 23 year or two ago to build a home, we also 24 had a separate variance approved to build
235 1 a two-car garage. Which we thought was a 2 great idea. The more the neighbors and I 3 started talking was, you know, if we 4 start putting another building here in 5 this spot right here, there is going to 6 be zero -- it's going to be -- driving 7 through here, you will have building, 8 building, building, building. It was 9 just too much. 10 So, we were working with the 11 neighbors, and the idea is to knock down 12 the existing garage because it's in poor 13 quality and put a three-car garage 14 instead of two separate two-car garages. 15 And, in doing so, you are going to open 16 up this space for a green area. It's 17 going to give us more greenery back here, 18 going to be less in terms of lot 19 coverage. 20 If we did the two separate 21 garages as already approved, you are 22 going to have this dead space here, you 23 will have dead space here, dead space 24 here. We are trying to alleviate that.
236 1 We don't have much property to work with, 2 especially because -- I should have 3 explained this better. 4 This easement is the driveway 5 for this home. This home and this home. 6 This home I rebuilt, and I live in this 7 one. This one my mother uses as a 8 cottage. So, our family owns these two 9 properties. My idea initially, because, 10 when I proposed this with the building 11 department, was can I put this garage 12 across the property line? It's not a 13 very common thing to do. We can do that 14 if we combine the parcels. So with 15 Charles, Mr. Boulard's staff, I worked 16 out options. Let's have our architect 17 put together some drawings that would 18 make it look like one home. That would 19 alleviate -- the concern is this: If you 20 have a home that you attach, and you have 21 a kitchen in one and kitchen in the other 22 and, you know, it gives you that duplex 23 issue that the city wasn't very keen on. 24 So this was our solution.
237 1 What we did was propose this 2 and had our attorney extraordinaire draft 3 an easement between the two properties. 4 And the easement is a shared garage. I'm 5 hoping -- it was in the package for sure. 6 I'm hoping you had a chance to go through 7 it, and the city attorney may have issues 8 or questions with it. 9 Clearly, these two properties, 10 it's small. The idea is, you know, I 11 don't want to think about it, but 12 long-term, if my mom was to not want 13 this, I'm going to knock it down and use 14 that as a yard, too. It's a small -- 15 looks kind of big on here, but it's 16 small. So it needs to be -- it will 17 never be out of the family. And even if 18 it is, the easement is a living document. 19 It clearly states what would happen in 20 that event. 21 So, I'm not sure if you guys 22 have had a chance to read through that; 23 that's neither here nor there. Did I 24 address everything with the garage? Do
238 1 you think I addressed everything with the 2 garage? (Inaudible) 3 In addition to this, 4 economically, it doesn't make sense to do 5 a lot of things I've done. I've started 6 something, and I'm going to finish it. 7 I'm never going to get the money out of 8 it there unless I live there for 40 9 years, but hopefully I will. 10 We are taking -- along this 11 easement there are telephone poles with 12 electrical lines above. We are actually 13 clearing them in this middle easement 14 here. See, this easement, I can't do 15 anything with it because of the utilities 16 underneath, so I'm stuck with this 17 between us. This is creating this unique 18 circumstance, where I have to be creative 19 with this land, this land and this, to 20 make it nice, okay. So by doing one 21 garage instead of two, having the 22 easement so both properties are legally 23 bound, and it makes sense; it creates 24 more open space.
239 1 I worked with the neighbors to 2 make sure the views aren't going to be 3 obstructed. And if you look, this is 4 very important here. This neighbor, this 5 view is this way. I should have told 6 you, there is water around this whole 7 thing; it's a peninsula. His view is 8 this way. His view is this way. And 9 from here to here -- excuse me, I'm 10 sorry. These two lots, mine and my 11 mother's and our proposed garage, there 12 is water on both sides. And then this is 13 my end neighbor; he's got the whole end. 14 So this is very unique. By putting a 15 garage here, I'm not going to be 16 interfering with anybody's water view, 17 okay. 18 I think I have addressed the 19 unique circumstances. While it's a 20 beautification effort, another plus is if 21 I were to put two garages there, in the 22 event that there is an emergency, it 23 would be extremely difficult for an 24 emergency vehicle to come in and turn
240 1 around. If there was an emergency, you 2 would have to go to the end or something. 3 That's always been an issue with this 4 piece of land. It just gives it more 5 flexibility if we are able to keep this 6 open right here. 7 We have worked with the 8 neighbors and the architect to figure out 9 maybe a better spot to put this, but the 10 idea is I can't put it along this 11 property line because there is a well 12 here that serves as this house. 13 And by using the existing 14 garage as the starting point, essentially 15 I'm taking the existing garage and 16 extending it another stall. It's such 17 poor quality now, I want it to match the 18 quality of the home we just built, and I 19 also want to in the next case I talk 20 about is just dolling up this little 21 cottage to match. So these three will 22 all flow together. 23 And it's going -- since I moved 24 there seven years ago, they have done a
241 1 lot of updates to the end peninsula. My 2 neighbor just next door, right here, has 3 rebuilt that home completely and added a 4 level. It's really getting contagious; 5 it's working down this way. 6 My neighbor right now just 7 re-did his entire garage, and he's got 8 plans -- he's working with our existing 9 architect to do something with his home. 10 So it's contagious. Any questions? 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 12 you. How do we handle this? There is 13 one for -- they are both together, right, 14 the porch and the garage? 15 MR. DISMONDY: Those are two 16 separate cases, the porch. 17 MR. BOULARD: When the 18 applications came in, there is two -- 19 there is two parcels. One application 20 was for the porches on the house. 21 MR. DISMONDY: Cottage. 22 MR. BOULARD: Cottage, yes. 23 The other application, which was named, 24 which had the address for the other
242 1 property was for the garage. Looking at 2 it, we determined since the garage was 3 really common to both properties, that 4 both properties needed the same variance. 5 So that's why we combined them into -- 6 there is two separate parcels that would 7 have variances on them. But, 8 essentially, it's one set of issues, with 9 the exception of the porch, which is 10 specific to the cottage property. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Should we 12 handle the garage issue now and then do 13 the porch issue, or let them -- 14 MR. SCHULTZ: They should be 15 two different motions. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 17 MR. SCHULTZ: Again, you know, 18 the issue with the garage is that as 19 creative as it is, it is a use variance. 20 It's essentially taking those two parcels 21 and essentially treating them as a 22 multiple-family development. So the 23 issue of -- you have to establish that 24 use can exist on the property. In order
243 1 to get a use variance, he's got two 2 single-family homes. That's the issue 3 for the garage. 4 MEMBER SKELCY: What's your 5 point about the two-family home in terms 6 of the use variance? 7 MR. SCHULTZ: The reason why it 8 was set up as a use variance is because 9 you've got the garage straddling the 10 property line. They are used by both 11 families as a single use. It's not 12 really a single-family use; it's a joint 13 use. So, I think you need to separate 14 the porch variances, which are sort of 15 classic kind of, you know, thing that you 16 deal with as a non-use area variance from 17 this garage issue. Which starts -- the 18 very first thing, you don't get to the 19 setback issue on the garage until you 20 decide whether he's met the test for a 21 use variance, which, again, is pretty 22 tough. 23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: How do we 24 proceed?
244 1 MR. SCHULTZ: I'm sorry, the 2 garage first. 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 4 MR. SCHULTZ: Separately the 5 porches. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. On the 7 issue of the garage, is there anyone in 8 the audience who wishes to address the 9 board regarding this case? Seeing none, 10 any correspondence? 11 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 84 12 notices were mailed, three objections, 13 two approvals, nine mail returned. 14 Now, the first objection is 15 from Thomas Harvey, 1195 West Lake Drive, 16 Novi, Michigan, 48377. And it's dated on 17 9/13/2010. And it reads, "One, not 18 acceptable to combine. Property requests 19 with minimum information; two, small part 20 of the request could be acceptable and 21 presented separately; three, bad decision 22 to build a garage across two separate 23 lots line; four, two-story, three plus 24 car garage with porch is a cottage; five,
245 1 best use of property could be developed 2 with separate garage for each and some 3 lawn." 4 And the next objection is from 5 Ranald Brown of 44750 Bayview Drive, No. 6 40, Novi, Michigan. And it reads, "The 7 requested variance sought will not mesh 8 well with existing use nor maintain 9 current presentation of pre-existing 10 structures. In addition, such proposed 11 changes will alter use of said parcel and 12 provide environmental stratification." 13 And the third objection is from 14 David Boyer of 1191 West Lake Drive, 15 Novi, Michigan, dated 9/8/2010. And it 16 reads, "Would prefer to see each property 17 variance appeal separately. Do not want 18 to lose any view of the lake. As for the 19 property at 1185, approve property, of 20 1181, object." 21 Now, there is an approval from 22 Thomas Campbell of 45000 Bayview Drive, 23 dated August 31, 2010. And also an 24 approval from Lori and Hugh Howlett. And
246 1 it reads -- I'm sorry, of 1175 West Lake 2 Drive, dated 9/9/2010. And it reads, "We 3 agree with the variances. We would 4 request that the garage complement the 5 other garage in our area, e.g., not 6 too" -- it's difficult to make out 7 what -- "not too tall plus not too 8 over-powering. Please keep the height to 9 17 feet or lower." 10 That's it, Mr. Chair. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 12 you. 13 Mr. Boulard, do you care to add 14 anything additional? 15 MR. BOULARD: I would clarify. 16 I have had a couple -- couple calls from 17 folks that received the notification 18 about the height of the garage, because 19 the drawings, when they came and looked 20 at them, showed roughly 19 foot something 21 to the ridge. So folks were concerned 22 about that. 23 I indicated to them that the 24 appeals did not talk about the height.
247 1 I'm not sure the height is -- in the 2 zoning ordinance is measured from the mid 3 point of the roof. I'm not sure where 4 the ordinance -- existing garage design 5 stands on that. There might be some 6 adjustments required. But once we -- 7 without knowing, and since it wasn't part 8 of the request, that's not something we 9 considered at this time. 10 MR. DISMONDY: It was 11 communicated with the neighbors that we 12 were -- when we were walking through 13 this, that this is simply a zoning 14 variance request now. And I would be 15 happy to work with them on making sure 16 that their height -- when you are on a 17 little piece of property on a lake, 18 everyone is going to be like, "Ideally, 19 it would be this." Ideally, we live a 20 stone's throw from all our neighbors. 21 I'm not going to build something that's 22 going to make an enemy out of them. So, 23 I said, let's get this through 24 zoning-wise, and I would be happy to have
248 1 the plans modified to make sure everybody 2 is happy about that. And that was really 3 accepted really well. 4 So, I'm really surprised that I 5 did have some negatives on there, 6 because, you know, one of them is from 7 across the lake. Bayview is in Walled 8 Lake or further north in a condo complex. 9 Tom Harvey is three -- three homes away. 10 It's interesting, but not completely 11 surprised. You know, thinking about 12 where I live and how kind of crammed 13 in -- 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We are going 15 to have to cut you off. Technically, you 16 are not supposed to be talking now. 17 Mr. Schultz, do you have 18 anything you wish -- 19 MR. SCHULTZ: No. 20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: You confused 21 us enough. 22 MR. SCHULTZ: I'm sorry. 23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. At 24 this time, I'm going to refer the matter
249 1 to the board for discussion. Ms. 2 Skelcy. 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 4 Okay. I just went blank. What's the 5 problem -- I mean, I keep thinking you 6 guys -- if you get this variance, then 7 how are you going to sell the property in 8 the future? And I understand you want to 9 keep it in the family, and that's great. 10 I'm just wondering, gosh, maybe you 11 should -- your mother should deed the 12 land to you and get it -- can they 13 re-parcel it at all so that they are 14 together? Mr. Schultz or Boulard? I'm 15 just curious. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: I just saw this 17 as part of the packet. I don't know what 18 other options he has. Build the garage 19 on one site and do a license -- 20 MR. BOULARD: We did -- we were 21 trying to get real creative to make this 22 work. One of the options was to combine 23 this parcel and have a single house and 24 single garage. There might by variances
250 1 required, but that was one option. That 2 option didn't really work out. 3 There was -- somebody had the 4 idea that you should try to split off 5 that parcel across the street and just 6 build the garage on. But as Mr. Schultz 7 pointed out wisely, that now you got an 8 accessory use on a piece of property with 9 no primary use, so that didn't work. So 10 we tried to get really creative. 11 Based on my knowledge of the 12 tightness of those lots, I don't 13 believe -- I believe those lots could be 14 combined with a single house on them. I 15 don't think it would be possible to split 16 anything else off in the future if that 17 happened. 18 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 19 MR. BOULARD: We tried to get 20 really creative. The difficulty or the 21 thing I'm concerned about is, you know, 22 we got a garage which would be across a 23 property line. Obviously, there is 24 building code ordinances and so on that
251 1 would also be required. But you got a 2 structure which is across property lines, 3 with potentially different ownership, 4 despite everyone's best intentions. And 5 you got access to -- you got an upper 6 level (inaudible). I'm not sure how you 7 deal with that as well as the use 8 variance. 9 MEMBER SKELCY: And this is 10 going to be a two-story garage? 11 MR. DISMONDY: Well, you know, 12 the homes on the lakes don't really 13 afford you to have a basement, so all it 14 is like a storage type of loft type of 15 thing. So you walk upstairs and throw 16 your junk; it's an upstairs garage or 17 upstairs basement. 18 MEMBER SKELCY: Let me ask you 19 this, because I drove back in there I 20 think it was last night, and it was a 21 tight squeeze. And is it possible -- I'm 22 just asking, is it possible to like re-do 23 the garage that's there? Is that a 24 two-car garage that's there right now and
252 1 just build the one-car like really close 2 to it so that people can still -- I mean, 3 I had to drive on your property to back 4 out. 5 MR. DISMONDY: Right. That's 6 what I mean, it's poorly done. That 7 garage that's existing right there, it's 8 not parallel with the home. The entrance 9 to that garage is not facing the home. 10 MEMBER SKELCY: Oh, I didn't 11 realize that. Yeah. 12 MR. DISMONDY: It makes no 13 sense. It floods; it's rotting. So, I 14 don't want anything to do with that 15 garage, unfortunately. 16 MEMBER SKELCY: But that garage 17 is on your property. 18 MR. DISMONDY: It's on the 19 cottage. 20 MEMBER SKELCY: It's on your 21 mother's property? 22 MR. DISMONDY: We are a pretty 23 close family. 24 MS. DISMONDY: We are real
253 1 close. 2 MEMBER SKELCY: It just -- it 3 seems like a difficult situation. 4 MR. DISMONDY: So it's -- 5 combining lots, I have to knock the 6 cottage down, which defeats -- I can't 7 have two single-family homes on one lot. 8 Otherwise, we would have combined the 9 two, no problem. But then if I do that, 10 my mom doesn't have a place to enjoy. 11 MEMBER SKELCY: I see. Thank 12 you. 13 MR. MANDELL: Could I inject a 14 point that may ease some of your 15 concerns, if I may? 16 MEMBER SKELCY: Please. 17 MR. MANDELL: Seymour Mandell. 18 I'm an attorney, I'm an architect, and 19 I'm somewhat distant related to this 20 family. And I have designed over 50 21 buildings, somewhat major buildings here 22 in the City of Novi in my younger day. 23 Most of the buildings that were 24 built in the Vincenti Industrial Park
254 1 were my designs. I designed The Feeland 2 (ph) House building over on Nine 3 Mile Road. You are probably familiar 4 with the fact that we have Arkin 5 Distributors. If you went down Mystic 6 (ph) Road, there is about four or five 7 buildings I designed. 8 Incidentally, I actually 9 created several mutual benefit easements 10 for a lot of these buildings, in the 11 industrial parks, particularly, for 12 reducing the number of driveway cuts and 13 other things. When Miliken Lehman (ph) 14 was your consultant, they found those 15 easements to be actually very desirable, 16 even though the city was entertaining a 17 motion, or rather an ordinance, to put 18 fencing between industrial buildings. 19 But, nonetheless, easements are 20 a good way of people sharing common areas 21 that would otherwise become very 22 difficult to develop. In fact, there is 23 an easement going right through the back 24 of all these homes, or you call them
255 1 possibly the front of their homes, 2 depending on which way you want to 3 consider it. 4 There is also no disagreement 5 over the fact that if Dave wants to build 6 a two-car garage or even a three-car 7 garage behind his own home, and put 8 whatever roof lines he might have that 9 are compatible with this house on them, 10 we wouldn't even have to be here. The 11 object here is to create some open spaces 12 which both the neighbors can enjoy and 13 the people along the lake can enjoy. 14 And when you look over at this 15 piece of property, you will see a 16 compatible structure with the house 17 that's there. And, eventually, with 18 Dave's options to buy his mother's 19 property, he may buy and join the 20 properties together and tear down the 21 other house altogether. 22 I mean, these are all 23 possibilities that are more likely to 24 happen in the future than anything else
256 1 is likely to happen. 2 Incidentally, I drafted over 3 250 mutual benefit easements in various 4 parts of the Oakland, Wayne and Washtenaw 5 County areas. And this is over a 50-year 6 period, and I have never been told or 7 ever had any knowledge of any litigation 8 developing from the use of these type of 9 easements. 10 In fact, because there is 11 easements already there, nobody is 12 fighting with one another. They are all 13 user-friendly, and everybody understands 14 what this situation is. So, I don't see 15 why putting a setback requirement that's 16 only for the benefit of individual 17 property owners and for the benefit of 18 the fire department, you know, coming in 19 and out of places. By combining the two 20 garages into one garage, building a 21 beautiful building and having access, you 22 know, around it where people can enjoy 23 the lawn, and we are actually reducing 24 the amount of construction that exists on
257 1 that property right now. So everybody is 2 really in a win-win position. There is 3 nobody losing out by what we are 4 proposing to do. Thank you. 5 If you have any questions about 6 anything that I've worked on, like the 7 letter you received and the easement 8 agreements, I will be happy to answer any 9 questions you might have. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 11 Anyone else? Mr. Cassis. 12 MEMBER CASSIS: You got one of 13 the best lawyers that I have witnessed. 14 MR. MANDELL: Pardon? 15 MR. DISMONDY: He's a good 16 man. 17 MEMBER CASSIS: He's a master 18 philosopher. 19 MR. DISMONDY: Tonight's been 20 expensive for me. I expected two hours; 21 now I'm getting four. 22 MEMBER CASSIS: I was going to 23 comment on that. But Mr. Mandell is a 24 very good lawyer.
258 1 MR. MANDELL: Just to throw in 2 a side comment. I'm also on the 3 Southfield Planning Commission, and I 4 have been there 14 years. So I know what 5 problems are like when you sit at your 6 end of the table. 7 MEMBER CASSIS: You know, I 8 have not enjoyed your presence and 9 philosophy for what, six years, four 10 years now? When were you here the last 11 time? Three or four years ago? The hour 12 is late, so let's not go on. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Let's get on 14 with the meeting. 15 MEMBER CASSIS: Just my concern 16 is, and this is your problem, not mine, 17 or our problem here is, like my colleague 18 said, about future disposition of 19 property, or how is that if a buyer comes 20 along and they find this thing sitting 21 and he wants two instead of one. That is 22 the question that I would be 23 entertaining. And not that we are going 24 to reject or anything on that basis.
259 1 MR. DISMONDY: Can I respond? 2 I can respond to that? 3 MEMBER CASSIS: Yeah, if you 4 want. 5 MR. DISMONDY: It's the 6 seller's burden. So, if in the very 7 unlikely event that we want to sell off 8 that piece, it's going to be extremely 9 difficult. Because, guess what, they are 10 going to have to share a garage with me. 11 MEMBER CASSIS: You know, I 12 have lived long enough, and Mr. Mandell 13 lived long enough to believe that 14 circumstances change. As you may have 15 witnessed from those people who came 16 here. 17 MR. DISMONDY: Absolutely. 18 MEMBER CASSIS: Today, you got 19 lovely kids; I saw their pictures, and 20 that's great. I'm happy for you. And a 21 very nice mother, and you get along. 22 Now. 23 MR. DISMONDY: We are lucky. 24 MEMBER CASSIS: I'm not in the
260 1 family business here. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's 3 right. 4 MEMBER CASSIS: Those are my 5 concerns, Mr. Chairman. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else? 7 Member Sanghvi. 8 MEMBER SANGVHI: Thank you. I 9 think it's a novelty way you are taking 10 care of the problem. I like the way you 11 are solving the problem and leaving some 12 open space around and people can see the 13 west, northwest side, keeping open. I 14 was there yesterday, took me a while to 15 find the place. And saw it, and I think 16 it's a very novelty way of solving the 17 problem, and you got no problem, I have 18 no problem. Thank you. 19 MR. DISMONDY: It took a long 20 time to get to this point, so, thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else? 22 Member Gedeon. 23 MEMBER GEDEON: I'm at the 24 point where I would like to approve this,
261 1 but I'm just having trouble with how we 2 would actually form the motion, on what 3 factual basis we would use. If the 4 guidelines are that under the current -- 5 there is no possible current use that 6 exists. I mean, I don't see how we can 7 possibly say that, because there is -- 8 they have right now is a possible use. 9 So, I don't know what options we have 10 there. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Mr. Schultz? 12 MR. SCHULTZ: These are always 13 tough questions, because it is your 14 decision and not ours. I note that the 15 staff report essentially says that that 16 they don't support it because the use 17 variance is a very high standard. 18 I know Mr. Boulard went over 19 one of the other standards you have to 20 deal with is whether or not there are 21 other alternatives. And I don't know 22 exactly what was explored and whether 23 there -- you know, if there really is a 24 relationship kind of issue here. You
262 1 build a garage on one piece and give a 2 license to the other piece, which maybe 3 doesn't pass with the ownership. 4 You know, the reason why 5 single-family homes are and lots are 6 self-contained, so you don't have this 7 issue. You don't have the building code 8 issue. You know, when these property 9 owners move on, the city has to worry 10 about -- the rules exist to avoid the 11 dispute with the assessor. You know, who 12 gets assessed what amount on the garage? 13 You know, if you have two neighbors who 14 really don't get along, you know, that's 15 a city resource question. 16 I mean, it's easy to say we got 17 an easement, we got it all worked out, 18 but when you have a dispute, you got to 19 get the courts involved. All of this is 20 a resource-driven thing. There is a 21 reason why the rules say keep yourself 22 six feet away from each other. This 23 isn't an access even. This is 24 qualitatively like putting a house on the
263 1 home and saying both families can use it. 2 It's the garage, but it's an accessory 3 structure to the home. 4 So, this is pretty unusual and, 5 obviously, the staff doesn't make the 6 decision, but the reason to point out 7 it's a use variance, because that's a 8 pretty tough standard. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 10 Member Sanghvi. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Can you define 12 this as a kind of condominium? 13 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the 14 Chair. No, maybe that would be an 15 option, but that's not what this is. 16 This is still separately a single-family 17 owned parcel, not a condominumized piece 18 of property. It's a structure that's 19 essentially going to be jointly owned 20 with some sort of imaginary line down the 21 garage floor. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Would you have 23 to totally re-zone the area? 24 MR. SCHULTZ: It would be an
264 1 entirely different approval process if 2 they wanted do something, which was one 3 of the things that was thrown out there. 4 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else? 5 MEMBER SKELCY: I just want to 6 say, you know, it's a great idea. I 7 mean, I always like to, you know, grant 8 variances for homeowners, because, you 9 know, we want -- I think most of us 10 probably all agree, we want you to be 11 able to use your property, you know, the 12 way that you can enjoy it, so that you 13 can enjoy it. But as the city attorney 14 pointed out, a use variance, as you heard 15 from, you know, the other matter that was 16 before yours, use variance is a really 17 high, high standard. 18 And I don't -- I think that 19 there are other ways you could possibly 20 do this. I don't really see how we can 21 help you in that way. Maybe other 22 members of the board have a better idea. 23 While I would love to do it, I just don't 24 see where you met the, you know, that the
265 1 need for the requested variance is due to 2 unique circumstances or physical 3 conditions of the property, such as 4 narrowness, shallowness, shape, water, 5 topography or other physical conditions, 6 because you could put a separate garage 7 up. 8 MR. DISMONDY: Trust me, when 9 you say there is another way, you know, 10 this has been addressed for two years 11 with multiple people in the city. And we 12 finally found somebody who has had 13 experience over the last 50 years 14 of having use easements within your city. 15 And I'm not being disrespectful 16 by any means here. Have you guys heard 17 of any issues with those easements? 18 Because they live a long time. I mean, 19 you would be hearing about these issues, 20 and that would be maybe prompting you to 21 say absolutely, we cannot do this again. 22 You have a history and 23 precedence set, and to come here and say, 24 you know, there has got to be another
266 1 way, we have done that. 2 You know, before we got the 3 original garage approved through this 4 board, you know, we were probably playing 5 with that for two years prior to that. 6 This is going on forever. I might be 7 dead before we even get something built 8 here. It's just so frustrating, and I'm 9 trying not to show that to you guys. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 11 MR. DISMONDY: But trust that 12 we have tried to do everything and found 13 the right procedures. And if this gets 14 to the point where you guys go, "Give it 15 another shot," I don't think there is -- 16 you know, there isn't another shot. 17 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank 18 you. 19 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair. With 20 all due respect, sir, and with all due 21 respect to Mr. Mandell, who I'm sure is a 22 fine attorney. I'm also an attorney. 23 The one thing I can tell you is that I 24 don't take anyone's word for it. To say
267 1 there has been no litigation, doesn't 2 mean there won't be one in the future. 3 The fact that you are a happy family 4 today, can mean bad family tomorrow. 5 When people say, "Take my word 6 for it," that's when I become most 7 suspicious about it. Unfortunately, I 8 don't think -- the law is the law. This 9 is a use variance, so we have to form our 10 opinion based on what the law asks us to 11 do. Not based on what you think maybe 12 has happened in the past. So, 13 unfortunately, I know he's a very good 14 scrivener, can draft good documents; 15 however, that is not good enough for me. 16 Not as an attorney. 17 I always have a suspicion when 18 somebody tells me, "Take my word for it." 19 I can probably point out one or two 20 places where it's happened; I can do 21 legal research for you. 22 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 23 MR. DISMONDY: Am I allowed to 24 reply to that?
268 1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: No. 2 MR. DISMONDY: No. 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Do we have 4 anyone else on the board who wishes to 5 make any comments? Member Krieger. 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'd like to 7 approve it as well, but then the use -- I 8 have to be able to say the unique 9 circumstances. And I want to say that 10 there are, but I can't, because I just -- 11 so what would your option be? 12 MR. DISMONDY: I think to move 13 to Pine Lake. I'm kidding. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Give me the 15 words, and I will say them. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: I think we 17 have debated this; I think we need to 18 call a motion. Is anyone willing to make 19 one? 20 MEMBER CASSIS: Someone make 21 the motion. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Well -- 23 MR. DISMONDY: Can I -- I don't 24 mean to interrupt, but, you know, if you
269 1 read the case here. 2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We are done 3 with the public. 4 MEMBER SKELCY: We are going to 5 move on with the motion. 6 MEMBER IBE: Go ahead. 7 MEMBER SKELCY: Did you want to 8 do the motion, Member Ibe? Go ahead. 9 MEMBER IBE: That's fine. I 10 will refer to you. 11 MEMBER SKELCY: All right. 12 Unfortunately, I'm going to make a motion 13 to deny the variance requested, the use 14 variance only, that's been requested for 15 the garage, because I do not believe that 16 the applicant has met the burden required 17 for a use variance. 18 Am I doing this properly? 19 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 20 MEMBER SKELCY: And that would 21 require him to meet the standard of the 22 fact that the property couldn't be used 23 for any of the uses permitted by right or 24 by special land use permit in the zoning
270 1 district in which it's located. I don't 2 feel that the applicant has met the 3 burden of showing that there are unique 4 circumstances or physical conditions of 5 the property involved, such as 6 narrowness, shallowness, shape, water, 7 topography or other similar physical 8 conditions. 9 I think the proposed use will 10 alter the essential character of the 11 neighborhood, and that the need for the 12 requested variance is -- hasn't shown 13 that it's not the result of the actions 14 of the property owner or previous 15 property owners. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 17 motion. 18 MEMBER IBE: I second it. 19 MR. SCHULTZ: Could it include 20 the fact there are uses on both of those 21 single-family properties right now? 22 MEMBER SKELCY: I would 23 incorporate what Mr. Schultz has said 24 verbally in the motion.
271 1 MEMBER IBE: I will also 2 second. 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. We 4 have a motion by Member Skelcy, seconded 5 by Member Ibe. Any other discussion on 6 the board? 7 Ms. Martin, please take the 8 roll. 9 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 11 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 12 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 13 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 15 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 16 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 17 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 19 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 20 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 21 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 22 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 23 MS. MARTIN: Motion to deny 24 passes, seven to zero.
272 1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: That would 2 lead us to the second issue, the porch 3 issue. 4 MR. DISMONDY: Okay. On 1185, 5 which is the cottage next door. There is 6 an existing back patio area, same type of 7 scenario here. With this driveway 8 easement cutting the properties in half, 9 it's really made it restrictive as to 10 making a house that's useful. When I say 11 that, I mean, I can't put an attached 12 garage on there because of that driveway 13 easement. I can't expand the footprint of 14 the home because of that driveway 15 easement. As such, and again, through the 16 neighbors' response that are positive, I 17 am requesting on the -- excuse me, east 18 side of the cottage facing the main 19 lake -- I guess I should put this back up. 20 There is two separate things. 21 On this side there is a patio; it's tough 22 to see from this view. I think you can 23 probably see it from your overhead. 24 There is an existing patio. The idea was
273 1 to put in a three-season porch there to 2 enjoy, you know, as much of the seasons 3 as we can. It won't go beyond the 4 existing patio, which is why the 5 neighbors were all about it. It doesn't 6 impede on anybody's view. It doesn't 7 impede on anybody's sunlight. It helps 8 doll up the house, and I'm going to make 9 it match the house next door, make it a 10 nice area. 11 So that's one. And on the 12 south facing the side of that house there 13 is an existing entrance door. Believe it 14 or not, the entrance on the house is on 15 the south, because just how weird this 16 property is. I'm going to put in a 17 covered entryway there. All I'm doing is 18 adding a little roof over the entrance so 19 when you are unlocking the door, you are 20 not getting rained or snowed on. 21 And, again, that's not impeding 22 on anybody's views or encroaching on the 23 properties. I believe since the lot is 24 so tight, that's what the variance was,
274 1 overall side lot, because I'm cutting in 2 a few feet. 3 Let's see. That's the gist of 4 that variance request. 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 6 you. Is there anyone in the audience who 7 wishes to address the board regarding 8 this case? Seeing none, will the 9 secretary read any correspondence into 10 the record? 11 MEMBER IBE: Yes. Mr. Chair, 12 that were 84 notices mailed, and three 13 objections, two approvals, nine mail 14 returned. And the objections are exactly 15 the same one that was read for the 16 previous case as well as the approval. 17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. We'll 18 enter that into the record. Does the 19 building department or city attorney wish 20 to add anything? 21 MR. BOULARD: Nothing. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Seeing that, 23 I turn this matter over to the board for 24 discussion.
275 1 MEMBER SKELCY: You are trying 2 to add two porches on this sheet? It 3 looks like it says proposed open porch 4 and then proposed porch. 5 MR. DISMONDY: Yeah. So the 6 lake side where you see it shaded there, 7 that's a three-season porch. 8 MEMBER SKELCY: That's what you 9 are adding? 10 MR. DISMONDY: And then the 11 entrance way, they are calling it a 12 porch; it's really a little roof and 13 couple posts when you walk in. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: All right. 15 Thank you. 16 MR. DISMONDY: On the side. 17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Mr. Cassis. 18 MEMBER CASSIS: The one facing 19 the lake, on one piece of paper here you 20 say proposed porch; on the former drawing 21 here you say it's a three-season room. 22 MR. DISMONDY: Yes. 23 MEMBER CASSIS: Is it a room or 24 porch?
276 1 MR. DISMONDY: I think they are 2 the same. Are you calling a porch -- 3 MEMBER CASSIS: I don't think a 4 room is a porch. I mean, I don't know. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's not a 6 porch. 7 MR. DISMONDY: Okay. 8 MEMBER CASSIS: Are you asking 9 for two porches or a room and a porch? 10 MR. DISMONDY: I guess from 11 your definition I'm assuming it's a room 12 and a porch. 13 MEMBER CASSIS: Why didn't you 14 say that? 15 MR. DISMONDY: I believe the 16 drawings say it's a porch. It's a porch. 17 MEMBER CASSIS: Look, you have 18 one of the best lawyers in the world, and 19 you should let him, in my opinion, do 20 this presentation. You are paying him 21 anyhow, but that's your option. 22 But, look, on one point you say 23 it's a porch. I know what a porch is. 24 On another drawing, you say it's a room.
277 1 Now a room is put carpet in, you put a 2 roof, put windows, all of this. Now, 3 which is it? 4 MR. DISMONDY: It's a room. 5 MEMBER CASSIS: It's a room? 6 MR. DISMONDY: Correct. 7 MEMBER CASSIS: Well, I will 8 wait for my colleagues to comment about 9 the room and the porch, and I will 10 reserve my right to speak again. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 12 Ms. Krieger. 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: It's going to 14 be like an outdoor facility with walls 15 and screens and a roof? 16 MR. DISMONDY: Right. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member 19 Sanghvi. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, I just 21 have a question. Did we advertise this 22 as a room and a porch or just two 23 porches? 24 MR. BOULARD: The zoning
278 1 ordinance, once you put a roof over it, 2 the zoning ordinance doesn't specify a 3 difference. So, the porch on the south 4 side required a variance because there is 5 a roof over it. And you can -- there are 6 some exceptions in the ordinance and 7 setbacks that allow you for a stoop or 8 something like that that doesn't have a 9 roof over it. But in the eyes of the 10 zoning ordinance, both of them are 11 essentially the same. Whether it's a 12 sunroom or a three-season porch or open 13 porch or whatnot, it doesn't matter; we 14 are covered. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: I have a 16 question. So these sheets, I'm trying to 17 figure out the garage versus the 18 accessory building on the first page of 19 the sheet. Are we talking about section 20 2503 for this, for the porches? 21 MR. BOULARD: For the porches, 22 the three sections that say section 2400, 23 those are the setback sections 24 (inaudible).
279 1 MEMBER SKELCY: So why is the 2 variance for 2,429 feet? He's only 3 supposed to be so many feet away from the 4 lake, is that it? 5 MR. BOULARD: The front is 6 the -- the front is the portion of the 7 house that fits -- faces the road. 8 MEMBER SKELCY: Right. 9 MR. BOULARD: So, technically, 10 the back is the lake side. 11 MEMBER SKELCY: So his porch 12 room is going to be -- supposed to be 35 13 feet away from the lake? 14 MR. BOULARD: From the property 15 line. 16 MEMBER SKELCY: That would be 17 the lake? 18 MR. BOULARD: The property line 19 is in from the lake; there is a sea wall. 20 MEMBER SKELCY: All right. 21 MR. BOULARD: When you take a 22 property run and drive through the middle 23 of it and have the house facing it, as 24 the petitioner mentioned, it's fairly
280 1 unique. 2 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 3 MR. BOULARD: Those three 4 sections in my mind (inaudible). 5 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anybody else? 7 Anybody care to make a motion? 8 MEMBER SKELCY: I move that we 9 approve the requested variances pertaining 10 to Section 2400 of the ordinance, which 11 would give them a 29-and-a-half foot 12 variance for the rear setback, seven-foot 13 and two-foot variance for the side 14 setbacks, and 14-foot variance for the 15 aggregate of the side setbacks. Based on 16 the fact that the property's dimensions 17 are unusual, and the setback frontage, 18 height, bulk, and density requirements 19 unreasonably prevent the use of the 20 property for a permitted purpose. That 21 the variance will provide substantial 22 justice to the petitioner and surrounding 23 property owners in the zoning district. 24 There are unique circumstances
281 1 to the shape of the property. The 2 problem isn't self-created. Adequate 3 light and air is provided to adjacent 4 properties. There is no increase in fire 5 danger or public safety. Property values 6 will not be diminished in the surrounding 7 area; they may be even enhanced. And the 8 spirit of the zoning ordinance is 9 observed. 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 12 motion made by Member Skelcy and second 13 by Member Krieger. Any further 14 discussion? Ms. Martin, please call the 15 roll. 16 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 19 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 23 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?
282 1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 5 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 6 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 7 seven to zero. 8 MR. DISMONDY: Thanks guys. 9 Good night. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All right. 11 Moving on to Case No. 10-045, 43771 Grand 12 River Avenue. Petitioner is requesting a 13 use variance to allow outdoor storage for 14 several adjacent parcels at 43771 through 15 43831 Grand River Avenue. Property is 16 zoned TC-1 and located south of Grand 17 River Avenue, west of Novi Road. 18 If the petitioner is here, 19 please state your name and address. And 20 if you are not an attorney, please raise 21 your right hand and be sworn in. 22 MR. PASCARIS: Good evening. 23 George Pascaris, 43771 Grand River, Novi. 24 I'm not an attorney.
283 1 MR. KELLY: Jack Kelly, 422 2 East Main, Northville, Michigan. Not an 3 attorney. 4 MEMBER IBE: In Case No. 10-045 5 for 43771-43831 Grand River, do you swear 6 or affirm to tell the truth? 7 MR. PASCARIS: I do. 8 MR. KELLY: I do. 9 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 10 MR. PASCARIS: Thank you. What 11 we are trying to do on this property is 12 really just beautify and clean it up. 13 And we are trying to find a use for it 14 that's better suited than what is there 15 now. I understand what we are trying to 16 do calls for a variance, and that's why 17 we are here. 18 Jack Kelly owns Imagine 19 Landscape and would like to occupy the 20 property. And what they do is 21 landscaping. They design, install 22 landscaping, you know, to homes, 23 businesses, things of that nature. He's 24 been in business I think six or seven
284 1 years and been growing ever since, and 2 would really like to be part of Novi. 3 He likes the Grand River 4 corridor there and feels he would be a 5 good fit to Novi. I, as well, feel that 6 the use for that spot would be a good use 7 for it. Just because of the fact how the 8 property is situated with the Country 9 Building Supply on one side and Novi Feed 10 on the other side. 11 The drawbacks to the property, 12 I think if you guys have driven by there 13 and have probably seen it, is the bridge 14 that they built over there really hides 15 the property, and it makes it somewhat 16 difficult to get in there, as well as the 17 railroad being back there. 18 I know it's zoned Town Center, 19 which is a good thing. I remember coming 20 to these meetings when the whole Town 21 Center thing was being developed and the 22 ring road and all that was supposed to 23 get developed. And because of economical 24 circumstances, I believe that's probably
285 1 why it didn't happen. So, again, I just 2 feel that I think it's a good use for it, 3 and I hope you guys all agree. And we 4 would like to hear what you think. 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 6 you. Is there anyone in the audience who 7 wishes to address the board regarding 8 this case? Seeing none, Mr. Secretary, 9 please read any correspondence into the 10 record. 11 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, 12 Mr. Chair. Twenty-five notices mailed, 13 zero responses, two mail returned. 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 15 Does the building department or city 16 attorney wish to make any comments? 17 MR. SCHULTZ: No. 18 MR. BOULARD: No. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: No, okay. At 20 this time, I will refer this matter to 21 the board. Ms. Skelcy, thank you. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: What do you 23 plan on storing there? 24 MR. PASCARIS: Well, landscape
286 1 material. I believe they have mulch, 2 they have plant materials, shrubbery, 3 flowers. And, of course, in our 4 discussions, he said he would definitely 5 beautify the property with -- he's going 6 to make it look just like he would a 7 beautiful home. 8 MR. KELLY: You are not going 9 to see stuff coming from the street. 10 It's not going to be a massive pile like 11 you had the conversation with the guy 12 with the cement; it was a total eyesore. 13 We are going to make it beautiful. It's 14 going to be a place of business. People 15 are going to come there. I'm going to 16 constantly take people there. It's going 17 to be a place I want people to see; I 18 will have displays, nice plantings, 19 flowers, things like that. So it's 20 actually going to make the property look 21 a little bit nicer. If you have been 22 there, the property doesn't look nice at 23 all. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: Well, there is
287 1 homes there. 2 MR. PASCARIS: Right. I think 3 if you have the drawing there that we 4 submitted, the architectural drawing, 5 which everything I submitted was inside 6 of the drawing that we had sent. It was 7 like 11 by 17, I believe. There is three 8 homes on the property now. 9 MEMBER SKELCY: Are those homes 10 going to be torn down? 11 MR. PASCARIS: Yes. 12 MEMBER SKELCY: All three? 13 MR. PASCARIS: No. The two. 14 The one home will stay as an existing 15 office, and the other two homes -- the 16 one home that is in good shape. The 17 other two are in very poor shape. 18 MEMBER SKELCY: Yeah. 19 MR. PASCARIS: So the one is in 20 good shape, smaller one; it's 650 square 21 feet. One will turn into the office. 22 And the rest of the property will be -- I 23 understand how the board feels about 24 outside storage and how the city feels,
288 1 and you don't want to see anything as an 2 eyesore. I feel it is an eyesore now, 3 and if you have any suggestions on how we 4 can get over this and properly screen it 5 and get us going and put another person 6 in business into the city. I know you 7 guys are forward thinking and 8 pro-business, so I really, you know, 9 appreciate some help. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Mr. Cassis. 11 MEMBER CASSIS: Is she 12 finished? 13 MEMBER SKELCY: I'm sorry. I'm 14 so tired. 15 MR. PASCARIS: As we are, and I 16 apologize. 17 MEMBER CASSIS: I will make 18 this brief, Mr. Chairman. 19 This is such a radical change 20 from one of our finest zoning districts 21 in the city to a very radically change 22 B-3. Not B-3, but I-2. With storage 23 outside, and who knows in the future what 24 will be -- now he says some mulch and
289 1 stuff. But if we re-zone it that way to 2 him, he can put anything he wants. And 3 not just that, but future users might do 4 even whatever they want. 5 I would be voting against this. 6 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you, 8 Member Cassis. Member Sanghvi. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: I agree with 10 Mr. Cassis wholeheartedly. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 12 you. And anybody else? Member Ibe. 13 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, I would 14 say, while I feel for the petitioners, 15 the issue before us is no different from 16 what we experienced this evening 17 regarding the concrete case. 18 You know, I have a problem when 19 we begin to bend the rules the way, just 20 because we feel like it. Feeling doesn't 21 have anything to do with it. It's what 22 is in the best interest of the City of 23 Novi and within the confines and scope of 24 the law.
290 1 Unfortunately, for this 2 petitioner, the law is what it is. So I 3 will not be in favor of this as well. 4 If there is any other way to 5 accommodate them, I would be more than 6 happy to. But based on what we have, 7 what we have already seen this evening, I 8 think it's good to be consistent and stay 9 firm within the law. Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 11 Anybody else care to make a comment? I 12 will entertain a motion. 13 MEMBER SKELCY: I will make a 14 motion to deny the request for the use 15 variance made by the petitioner because 16 they have not -- well, first of all, 17 because approval of the request would 18 represent a move backward from the 19 progress towards the designations in the 20 master plan for land use. 21 Secondly, they have not met the 22 burden of -- that's required. They 23 haven't shown an unnecessary hardship 24 rather than a mere practical difficulty.
291 1 They have not shown that the property 2 cannot be reasonably used for any of the 3 uses permitted by right or by special 4 land use permit in the zoning district. 5 They have not shown that the need for the 6 requested variance IS due to unique 7 circumstances or physical conditions of 8 the property involved. They have not 9 shown the proposed use will not alter the 10 essential -- they haven't shown that the 11 proposed use will not alter the essential 12 character of the neighborhood. And that 13 the need for the requested variance is 14 not the result of the actions of the 15 property owner or previous property 16 owners. 17 MEMBER CASSIS: Second. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. We 19 have a motion made by Member Skelcy, 20 seconded by Member Cassis. Any further 21 discussion? Ms. Martin, please call the 22 roll. 23 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes.
292 1 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 2 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 3 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 5 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 6 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 7 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 8 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 9 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 10 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 11 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 12 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 13 MS. MARTIN: Motion to deny 14 passes, seven to zero. 15 MR. PASCARIS: Can I ask a 16 question, please? I don't want to take 17 up any more time. Everybody has been 18 here long enough. Everybody is tired, I 19 understand. 20 I don't want to -- my intention 21 was not to go back on the (inaudible). 22 Although, if you guys did go to the site 23 and you understand the hardships of the 24 site. You said we didn't meet the
293 1 hardship on the site. I really don't 2 understand how you guys couldn't see 3 that. 4 And by cleaning up the 5 property, and I understand you don't want 6 a bunch of things in the future and 7 things can change, but isn't there a way 8 to get to work together to get to the 9 point where we want to get? Excuse me. 10 By limiting the amount of time you are 11 allowed to do something like that? Like 12 the other people had 12-month or A 13 two-year thing, how come that's not 14 offered? 15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: That's 16 something you would have to discuss with 17 the city planning department. 18 MR. PASCARIS: I'm just 19 wondering why it's not presented so we 20 can move forward. 21 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, I 22 think he can have the conversation with 23 the city staff and administration instead 24 of the board. It's a perfectly normal
294 1 and appropriate conversation to have with 2 the right staff. 3 MR. PASCARIS: Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: And, finally, 5 the twelfth and final case on the agenda. 6 Drum roll, please. 7 Case No. 10-046, 44650 Eleven 8 Mile Road. Petitioner is requesting 9 variances to add a new two-car garage to 10 existing residence with an existing 11 two-car attached garage requiring a 12 variance to exceed the 13 850-square-foot limit on accessory uses. 14 Property is zoned R-4 and is located 15 north of Eleven Mile Road and east of 16 Taft Road. 17 Will you state your name and 18 address for the record. If you are not 19 an attorney, please be sworn in. 20 MR. YARNELL: My name is Tom 21 Yarnell. Address is 44650 West Eleven 22 Mile Road. I am not an attorney. 23 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No. 24 10-046, 44650 West Eleven Mile Road, do
295 1 you swear or affirm to tell the truth? 2 MR. YARNELL: I do. 3 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 4 MR. YARNELL: The purpose of 5 the garage is so I can store my boat and 6 my truck, that the boat originally now 7 sits in the yard and truck sits out in 8 the driveway. I just want the garage to 9 store my boat and the truck in the 10 garage. That's the only purpose I have 11 for it. Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Is there 13 anyone in the audience who wishes to 14 comment on this case? Seeing none -- 15 MR. YARNELL: Can I add one 16 more thing? I'm sorry. 17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 18 MR. YARNELL: I was here back 19 in May, and I talked with Chris over what 20 I was going to do and everything. He 21 told me originally because I had over an 22 acre of property I was allowed 2,500 23 square feet of out buildings. That's why 24 I have the plans I do have now.
296 1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All right. 2 Mr. Secretary. 3 MEMBER IBE: Yes. Thank you, 4 Mr. Chair. There were 22 notices mailed, 5 two approvals, zero objections, one mail 6 returned. 7 The first approval is from Dan 8 Valentine of 44719 Eleven Mile, dated 9 August 30, 2010. And it reads, 10 "Absolutely approve Mr. Yarnell's 11 request. Will not distract from his 12 house and/or neighborhood." 13 And the second approval is from 14 Robert Hilliard of 44636 West Eleven Mile 15 Road, also dated August 30th, 2010. And 16 it reads, "We do not have a problem with 17 Tom's building and attached garage to 18 existing garage. Our garage is on the 19 same side." 20 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 21 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 22 Does the building department or city 23 attorney wish to add anything at this 24 time?
297 1 MR. SCHULTZ: No. 2 MR. BOULARD: I will keep my 3 comments brief. I just want to say that 4 if this is approved, I will be jealous of 5 Mr. Yarnell. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. At 7 this time, I will refer the matter to the 8 board. Member Sanghvi. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: One question 10 for you, sir. What are you going to do 11 with (inaudible)? 12 MR. YARNELL: Pardon? 13 MEMBER SANGVHI: You have some 14 beautiful trees on the east side of your 15 lot. 16 MR. YARNELL: Yes. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Are you going 18 to disturb them? 19 MR. YARNELL: No. The trees, I 20 already cut down the trees that I have to 21 cut down for the garage. I have already 22 done that. The trees that are out there 23 now are going to stay. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Thank
298 1 you. 2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else? 3 I will entertain a motion. 4 MEMBER KRIEGER: In Case No. 5 10-046, 44650 West Eleven Mile Road, I 6 move to approve the petitioner's request 7 to add a new two-car attached garage to 8 an existing residence, to give the 9 variance requested of 310 square feet. 10 That the setback frontage, height, 11 density requirements don't unreasonably 12 prevent the use of the property for its 13 permitted use. It will provide 14 substantial justice to the petitioner and 15 surrounding property owners. It is 16 unique to this property, and adequate 17 light and air is provided to adjacent 18 properties. No increase of fire danger 19 or public safety will occur. Property 20 values will be improved within 21 surrounding area, and the spirit of the 22 zoning ordinance is observed. 23 MEMBER IBE: I will second 24 that.
299 1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 2 motion made by Member Krieger and 3 seconded by Member Ibe. Any further 4 discussion? Ms. Martin -- 5 MEMBER GEDEON: I would just 6 add to the motion that the reason, more 7 facts, that the large size of the lot 8 permits this use. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Is that 10 agreeable? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 12 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 13 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: It is so 14 added to the motion. Ms. Martin, please 15 call the roll. 16 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis? 19 MEMBER CASSIS: Yes. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 23 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?
300 1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 3 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 5 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 6 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 7 seven to zero. 8 MR. YARNELL: Thank you very 9 much. One other thing, I had applied for 10 this permit back in the end of July. I'd 11 like to see if I could waive the five-day 12 waiting period. 13 MR. SCHULTZ: Five-day waiting 14 period. 15 MR. YARNELL: They told me when 16 I was -- when I applied for the permit, 17 when I actually -- when I applied to come 18 here, they told me to ask you to waive 19 the five-day waiting period. 20 MS. MARTIN: I approved that 21 previous, and I don't know where it came 22 from. 23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: You can get 24 with Ms. Martin.
301 1 MR. YARNELL: Thank you very 2 much. 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: That brings 4 us to other matters section, and it has 5 to do with the Zoning Board of Appeals 6 training session. Wednesday, September 7 22, 6:30 at Secrest Wardle. Tom will 8 entertain us, I assume. 9 If you are not going to attend, 10 I would say let Ms. Martin know so she 11 can have a count as to who will be there 12 and not be there. 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Wednesday, 14 September 22? 15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: What time? 17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Six-thirty at 18 Secrest Wardle. 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: All right. 20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anything else 21 you want to add? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: I had seen a 23 sign in the city that's -- I guess it's 24 not a city sign; it's called no
302 1 soliciting. It was a red sign, and 2 somebody told me it was going to be taken 3 down, but it's still there. So I was 4 wondering if the no soliciting sign that 5 was posted in one of subs, that if that's 6 -- somebody said it was going to be taken 7 down, but it's still there. And I was 8 wondering if -- I kind of like the sign. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: That's my 10 subdivision. 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: I was 12 wondering how to get one, because it's so 13 much nicer to not have people come and 14 knocking on the door; you don't know who 15 is knocking on your door. 16 MR. BOULARD: Sounds like a 17 conversation -- 18 MR. SCHULTZ: We can -- so we 19 can find out a little bit about the sign 20 and maybe report back at that training 21 session or something. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. And for 23 the training session, if we could review 24 the use variances and what goes with
303 1 businesses and lands. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. 4 Thanks. 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Just a note. 6 The no soliciting sign was put up by the 7 homeowner's association; it's not a city 8 sign. And they gave us the blessing to 9 put it up. 10 MEMBER SANGVHI: May I make a 11 motion to thank Mr. Schultz for being 12 here today. 13 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Thanks or 15 objection. 16 MEMBER SANGVHI: I haven't seen 17 you. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: That takes us 19 to the end of our business for the 20 evening, and I will entertain a motion to 21 adjourn. 22 MEMBER SANGVHI: So move. 23 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All in favor? 24 BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
304 1 (The hearing was adjourned at 2 12:00 a.m.) 3 - - - 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
305 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 5 I, Sherri L. Ruff, do hereby certify 6 that I have recorded stenographically the 7 proceedings had and testimony taken in 8 the above-entitled matter at the time and 9 place hereinbefore set forth, and I do 10 further certify that the foregoing 11 transcript, consisting of (213) 12 typewritten pages, is a true and correct 13 transcript of my said stenographic notes. 14 15 16 ______________ ____________________________ 17 Date Sherri L. Ruff, CSR-3568 18 Certified Shorthand Reporter 19 20 21 22 23 24
|