|
View Agenda for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING 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, October 12, 2010. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3 - - - 4 It's seven p.m., and I'd like 5 to call to order the October 12th regular 6 meeting of the City of Novi Zoning Board 7 of Appeals. 8 Would everyone please rise for 9 the Pledge of Allegiance. Member Ibe, 10 would you please lead us. 11 THE BOARD: I pledge allegiance 12 to the flag of the United States of 13 America, and to the Republic for which it 14 stands, one nation under God, 15 indivisible, with liberty and justice for 16 all. 17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 18 Ms. Martin, please call the roll. 19 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 21 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present. 23 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 24 MEMBER IBE: Present.
1 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Present. 3 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam? 4 MEMBER GHANNAM: Here. 5 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 6 MEMBER SKELCY: Here. 7 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 8 MEMBER GEDEON: Here. 9 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis will 10 be absent tonight. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. We do 12 have a quorum, and the meeting is now in 13 session. 14 As a reminder, please make sure 15 all cellphones and pager ringers are 16 turned off at this time. 17 At this time, I would like to 18 go over some of the meeting rules. A 19 copy of the entire public hearing rules 20 of conduct is available next to the 21 chamber entrance door. 22 The Zoning Board of Appeals is 23 a hearing board empowered by the City of 24 Novi to hear appeals from individuals
1 seeking variances from existing Novi 2 planning ordinances. 3 It takes a vote of at least 4 four members to approve a variance 5 request and a majority of members present 6 to deny a request. Today we have a full 7 board, so all decisions made will be 8 final. 9 Individual applicants may take 10 up to five minutes, and groups may take 11 up to ten minutes to address the board. 12 The next item on the agenda is 13 the approval of the agenda. Are there 14 any additions or deletions to the 15 proposed agenda? 16 MS. MARTIN: Just that we are 17 not going to approve the September 14th 18 minutes tonight. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Any 20 other changes? 21 MS. MARTIN: No. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Seeing none, 23 I will entertain a motion to approve the 24 agenda.
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: So move. 2 MEMBER IBE: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 4 motion and a second. All those in favor, 5 please signify by saying aye. 6 THE BOARD: Aye. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Opposed, no. 8 We have an approved agenda. 9 Okay. We are skipping over the 10 meeting minutes from September 14th; they 11 are not ready yet. 12 So next on the agenda is the 13 public remarks section of the meeting. 14 Is there anybody in the audience who 15 wishes to make any comments not 16 pertaining to any matter on the agenda 17 tonight, please come forward. Seeing 18 none, the public remarks section of the 19 meeting is closed. 20 This brings us to the cases on 21 the agenda this evening. The first case 22 is Case No. 10-040, 25345 Novi Road, 23 Stricker Paint. 24 The petitioner is requesting
1 variances to allow installation of a 2 maximum 50 square foot, 40-foot tall pole 3 sign located on the Stricker Paint 4 property, and an off-premises monument 5 sign of 50 square feet maximum. These 6 signs are in addition to the existing 7 signs, with the exception of those to be 8 removed from the right-of-way. 9 The proposed signs address the 10 existing non-conforming signage reduced 11 visibility, resulting from the additional 12 highway easement required for the new 13 railroad bridge on Novi Road. The 14 property is zoned I-1 and is located west 15 of Novi Road and south of Grand River. 16 Is the petitioner here? Please 17 step forward. State your name and 18 address for the record. And we know you 19 are an attorney, so you don't have to be 20 sworn in. 21 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you very 22 much, Mr. Chair. 23 Good evening, members of the 24 Zoning Board of Appeals. My name is
1 Robert Rollinger. I'm an attorney, and 2 I'm here on behalf of the petitioner, 3 Road Commission for Oakland County. 4 You may recall we were here 5 last month with a proposal for you 6 regarding a signage issue based upon the 7 widening of Novi Road at the Stricker 8 Paint Products facility. And we, at that 9 point, contemplated a pole sign that 10 would be high enough that would be 11 visible from motorists traveling 12 northbound and southbound on Novi Road. 13 The board had requested that we 14 come forward with possible alternatives 15 to the pole sign at that height. And we 16 have been working with City of Novi 17 representatives, and I want to thank them 18 for their help. And we have come 19 forward, and you should have in your 20 packets the proposed alternative signs in 21 terms of the design and height and width 22 of those two signs. 23 We also have provided some 24 background information that would explain
1 sight distance issues in terms of the 2 height and coloration of the lettering 3 with the background so that the signage 4 would be visible to passing motorists 5 both northbound and southbound on 6 Novi Road. 7 And we have also, finally, have 8 before you super-imposed on the design 9 plans for the Novi Road project, the 10 approximate locations for each of the two 11 signs that we are contemplating for 12 Stricker Paint. And those were, I 13 believe, handed out earlier this evening. 14 Also with me this evening is 15 Kim O'Rear from Orchard, Hiltz & 16 McCliment, who will be able to explain in 17 more detail the sight distance issues 18 that is faced by passing motorists 19 traveling 40 to 45 miles per hour, in 20 terms of the size of the lettering that 21 needs to be visible so that it will be 22 capable of being seen and would not 23 create any kind of a public safety issue 24 for the passing motorists. As well as be
1 able to identify the entrance to Stricker 2 Paint off of GenMar once it's relocated 3 south of where it currently is. 4 We have -- well, I already have 5 the drawing on the overhead. I think 6 what I will do is have Ms. O'Rear step to 7 the podium, and perhaps she can explain a 8 bit better than I can from an engineering 9 point of view the proposed location for 10 the two signs. 11 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: You have to 12 be sworn in, so state your name and 13 address. 14 MS. O'REAR: Hi. Kim O'Rear, 15 370 Barker Road, Whitmore Lake, Michigan. 16 MEMBER IBE: Do you swear or 17 affirm to tell the truth? 18 MS. O'REAR: Yes. 19 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 20 MS. O'REAR: Thank you for 21 having us here tonight. I know this has 22 been a source of big contention of what 23 to do with the pole sign. And we 24 understand that pole signs are not
1 desirable. And so we really worked hard 2 with both the City of Novi and with the 3 Road Commission to try to come up with 4 alternates. 5 And what we were able to come 6 up with -- and it's on your sheet. I'm 7 sorry they are small; we are testing 8 everyone's vision tonight, just to see if 9 you are awake. 10 On the northwest corner of 11 GenMar, the new -- what will be the new 12 GenMar is at the corner of what is the 13 City of Novi property, and just north of 14 that is the Road Commission for Oakland 15 County's property. We are proposing to 16 put a sign there that is approximately 17 the same size as their existing Stricker 18 Paint sign, which is about four -- about 19 six by eight; six feet tall, eight feet 20 wide. That will be a monument sign. 21 We are envisioning that it will 22 have much the same information. It will 23 say, "Stricker Paint, tomorrow's finishes 24 for today."
1 And on the one located on the 2 newly located GenMar, it will show an 3 arrow pointing motorists to be able to 4 go -- to turn down GenMar to be able to 5 get to the new location. You will not be 6 able to see their building from Novi Road 7 any longer on the bridge. 8 What we did for sight -- to be 9 able to size that sign was, currently, we 10 took their letter height they have on 11 there now, and using some of the tables, 12 which I think were also provided to 13 you -- the letters are about 14 inches 14 high. According to those tables, they 15 can be seen from about 350 feet away. 16 Placing a car on the bridge and 17 just past where the bridge railing, that 18 tall thing on the edge sits, you would be 19 able to see that sign about 500 feet. 20 So we haven't changed the 21 ability for someone to see the sign 22 that's currently out there. Because, 23 right now, people can read that sign at 24 about 350 feet. We are going to allow
1 them the ability to see that sign for 2 about 500 feet. They still won't be able 3 to read it until they are about 350 feet 4 away. If we put that sign there, they 5 would have plenty of time to be able to 6 react and stop, pull into GenMar and turn 7 around. 8 And then located on GenMar, on 9 the Stricker Paint sight itself, we would 10 like to put a second sign of the same 11 size and have the same information on it, 12 just telling them that now you've reached 13 Stricker Paint, and you can go ahead and 14 park and enter into their building. 15 And here are the two signs that 16 we had shown. I don't know if you can 17 see it. This is the one with the arrow 18 on the bottom. So the top piece that 19 says, "Stricker Paints, Benjamin Moore 20 Paints, tomorrow's finishes today," that 21 piece of it would be about four feet 22 high. It leaves us about 18 inches to 23 put an arrow, and that leaves us another 24 six inches for clearance on the bottom,
1 for a total overall height of about six 2 feet and eight feet in width. The total 3 square footage for that sign is 48 square 4 feet. 5 The sign for -- on their 6 building could be reduced to not take 7 into account that arrow, so it could be 8 eight by four-and-a-half, which would be 9 slightly smaller than that. They 10 wouldn't need the arrow to tell them 11 where to turn. 12 MR. ROLLINGER: And the sign, 13 again, that will be at the intersection 14 of GenMar, and the newly realigned Novi 15 Road will be a double-sided sign. If you 16 are going northbound on Novi Road, you 17 will be able to see one side. If you are 18 heading southbound, again, you will be 19 able to see it. It will still have that 20 arrow, so you will be able to see where 21 GenMar Road is now. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay, good. 23 Thank you. Is there anyone in the 24 audience who wishes to address the board
1 regarding this case? 2 Seeing none, will the secretary 3 read any correspondence regarding this 4 case into the record. 5 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 16 6 notices were mailed, zero responses, two 7 mail returned. 8 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All right. 9 Thank you. Does the building department 10 or city attorney wish to add anything at 11 this time? 12 MS. KUDLA: No. 13 MR. BOULAND: I'd like to just 14 make sure that a couple things are clear. 15 One, when this request 16 originally came forward, we advertised 17 for just the larger pole sign. Based on 18 the conversations and the actions of the 19 board last month, this is actually 20 re-advertised. That's why there was 21 another set of notices that came out, to 22 add in addition to a sign that was up to 23 the pole sign that was requested and, 24 also, the off-premises sign. That's why
1 notices were sent out again, and that's 2 why we have another set of 3 correspondence. 4 Just a couple things I wanted 5 to clarify. Just for the sake of 6 understanding, only the areas of the sign 7 that are used for letters or symbols, or 8 so on, would count in the square footage. 9 So, the six-inch decorative square would 10 not. 11 The other -- the other thing 12 is, as I understand, the existing sign in 13 front of Stricker Paint would be removed. 14 We would have the -- what you are 15 proposing as a new sign on what is now 16 Road Commission property, may be sold 17 off, but the Road Commission would intend 18 to provide an easement for that 19 off-premises sign that would get folks in 20 off of Novi Road onto relocated GenMar or 21 re-routed GenMar. And once they get back 22 to the other part of GenMar, they would 23 have the sign in the front -- in front of 24 the building to guide people in where
1 their new driveway would come off the old 2 stub of the road. 3 As I understand, the signage 4 that they got painted on the building 5 would remain. That's grandfathered; 6 there would be no reducing that. I'm not 7 sure what -- who would see it, but it 8 would still be allowed there. 9 And, also, these signs, as I 10 understand, would not be -- would be 11 located so that they would not be in the 12 corner setback that's required for 13 vehicles to see for safety purposes. 14 That's all true? 15 MR. ROLLINGER: Correct. 16 MR. BOULAND: We are on the 17 same page. I would be happy to answer 18 any questions. Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 20 you. At this time, I will refer this 21 matter over to the board for discussion. 22 Member Sanghvi. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 24 Mr. Chair. First, I had a question. I
1 don't know who is going to answer it, 2 maybe Mr. Boulard. The (inaudible) on 3 this sign of the property owner, also, he 4 is aware of it? 5 MR. ROLLINGER: Oh, yes. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: You have the 7 consent of the property owner? 8 MR. ROLLINGER: The property 9 owner through their legal counsel has 10 been made aware of this. He has copies 11 of the drawings just like you have them. 12 So he certainly knows about all of it. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Okay. Thank 14 you. I think this is a greater 15 improvement on what we had last month. 16 And this looks very nice, very 17 acceptable, and I have no difficulty in 18 supporting it. Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: 20 Member Gedeon. 21 MEMBER GEDEON: Just to 22 clarify, the Road Commission is not 23 actually going to be installing new 24 signs; you are just getting authorization
1 for the property owner to do it if they 2 choose to? 3 MR. ROLLINGER: That is 4 correct. 5 MEMBER GEDEON: I wasn't sure 6 if that was clear. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else? 8 Member Skelcy. 9 MEMBER SKELCY: So, you are 10 going to get rid of the one sign that's 11 currently there, and this one on the 12 GenMar area will be the sole sign 13 available? 14 MR. ROLLINGER: There is two 15 signs. There is the double-sided side 16 where GenMar right-of-way meets Novi Road 17 right-of-way. That will be an on-premise 18 sign, as well, telling the customers that 19 they are on Stricker Paint Products. 20 MEMBER SKELCY: Are they 21 seeking a variance for that second sign 22 on the property, or just the monument 23 sign at GenMar? 24 MR. BOULAND: Well, it's a
1 little complicated, because there is 2 existing non-conforming signage. And so 3 what the variance request is going to 4 include is permission to put the -- 5 permission to put not only the sign, 6 which would be technically a 7 non-conforming replacement sign, on the 8 property, which would be technically 9 non-conforming, because it's a second 10 sign. But, also, the off-premise sign, 11 which is not allowed in the ordinance 12 without a variance. 13 So what this does is 14 memorialize two signs to account for 15 what's been removed. 16 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Any other 18 questions? Member Krieger. 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Who would be 20 paying for the sign? This is the sign 21 that the Road Commission is offering to 22 Stricker Paint, and then they can opt to 23 do it or not to do it? 24 MR. ROLLINGER: Correct. They
1 can either install these signs, based on 2 the variances, or they can choose not to 3 have any sign. But we certainly want to 4 make it -- make it capable of them having 5 this signage so that there will be no 6 visibility issue, and customers will be 7 able to still locate where the actual 8 facility is. 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Any other 11 questions? I have one question for the 12 city attorney. If we adopt this and pass 13 this, Stricker still has the option if 14 they want to come back on their own at a 15 later date to go for something else? 16 They can do that, right? 17 MS. KUDLA: That's correct, 18 yeah. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: So they are 20 not held to this totally? 21 MS. KUDLA: No. If they have 22 some other proposal, that's a different 23 variance. If they can't fit within this 24 variance, they can always come back.
1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 2 Seeing everyone has had a chance to 3 speak, I will look for a motion. 4 Ms. Skelcy. 5 MEMBER SKELCY: I move that we 6 grant the variance in Case No. 10-040 for 7 Stricker Paint. And that would include a 8 non-conforming replacement sign, as well 9 as an off-premise monument sign, which is 10 six feet by eight feet wide, on the south 11 side of the building, because the 12 petitioner has shown practical 13 difficulty, requiring the additional 14 monument sign and property sign. 15 Without the variance, the 16 petitioner would be unreasonably 17 prevented or limited with respect to the 18 use of the property because of the 19 changes to Novi Road. 20 The property is unique because 21 of its location in relation to the 22 addition of the bridge. The petitioner 23 did not create the condition, because it 24 is the county making the road changes.
1 The relief granted will not unreasonably 2 interfere with adjacent or surrounding 3 properties because it is -- because it is 4 the sole business on that side of the 5 road. 6 The relief is consistent with 7 the spirit and intent of the ordinance, 8 because it provides Stricker Paint with 9 proper signage to alert potential 10 customers of its location. 11 MEMBER IBE: I will second. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 13 motion made by Member Skelcy and second 14 by Member Ibe. 15 Is there any further 16 discussion? Mr. Boulard. 17 MR. BOULAND: Could I possibly 18 suggest that we include language that the 19 off-premises sign is 44 square feet and 20 six feet in height, and the on-premise 21 sign would be 32 square feet and 4.6 feet 22 in height? 23 MEMBER SKELCY: I would like to 24 amend the motion to include that language
1 proposed by Mr. Boulard. 2 MEMBER IBE: I second, as 3 well. 4 MEMBER GHANNAM: One other 5 amendment. That would include an 6 agreement that the existing 7 non-conforming sign would be taken down; 8 isn't that part of the petition? So I 9 would like to include that. 10 MEMBER SKELCY: I motion for 11 that addition to the motion, as well. 12 MEMBER IBE: I will second that 13 as well. 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay, good. 15 We are all set. 16 Ms. Martin, please call the 17 roll. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 23 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel?
1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam? 3 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 5 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 6 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 7 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 8 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 9 seven to zero. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: 11 Congratulations. 12 MR. ROLLINGER: Thank you very 13 much. 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All right. 15 The second case on the agenda is Case No. 16 10-047, 901 South Lake Drive. 17 The petitioner is requesting 18 variances to construct an open deck 19 extending 12 feet into the required front 20 yard, and an additional five feet into 21 the required side yard from the existing 22 residence at 901 South Lake Drive. 23 The petitioner is also 24 requesting variances to allow
1 construction of a storage shed located 2 within eight feet of the existing 3 residence, within four feet of the rear 4 property line, and extending into the 5 exterior side yard, increasing the total 6 lot coverage to 27 percent. The property 7 is zoned R-4 and is located east of West 8 Park Drive on the corner of South Lake 9 Drive and Maudlin. 10 I see the petitioner is here. 11 Please state your name. If you are not 12 an attorney, please be sworn in. 13 MR. HECHT: My name is Kyle 14 Hecht. 15 MEMBER IBE: Could you raise 16 your right hand, sir. In 17 Case No. 10-047, 901 South Lake Drive, do 18 you swear or affirm to tell the truth? 19 MR. HECHT: Yes. 20 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Please 22 proceed. 23 MR. HECHT: My name is Kyle 24 Hecht, and I'm the property owner of 901
1 South Lake Drive. I wanted to thank the 2 city for helping me out down here. First 3 time homebuyer, kind of navigating 4 through the system. There has been quite 5 a few people that have assisted me. 6 Quite a few documents that I have put 7 together in front of you. 8 What we are trying to do is I 9 would like to build a deck in front of my 10 house. And, in addition, put a storage 11 shed facility, since there is lack of a 12 garage or any other storage facility at 13 the location. 14 The deck itself was actually 15 replicated from an approval dating back 16 to 2006 from the previous owner. And the 17 variances that were approved, I have the 18 deck dimensions that were approved; I 19 believe it's included in the packet. 20 Here is a small diagram of the mortgage 21 survey. 22 On the front there you can see 23 that I'm requesting a deck that extends 24 into the front yard roughly about 12 feet
1 in the front yard, to be about 23 feet 2 wide. And it comes back along the house, 3 wraps around, about five feet in width as 4 well. 5 And, then, in addition, I'd 6 like to put a storage facility back 7 behind the house that is in size roughly 8 about 10 by 14. This allows me to store 9 household items such as lawnmowers, and 10 so forth, that right now there is no 11 storage facility. So it's often left in 12 the driveway, which is very unsightful 13 for neighbors. And that's what I'm here 14 for this evening. 15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 16 you. Is there anyone in the audience who 17 wishes to address the board regarding 18 this case? 19 Seeing none, will the secretary 20 read any correspondence. 21 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 51 22 notices were mailed, one approval, zero 23 objections, four mail returned. 24 And the sole approval we have
1 is from Douglas Heath, 905 South 2 Lake Drive, dated October 4, 2010. It 3 says "Approval." 4 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 5 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, 6 Mr. Chair. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Does the 8 building department or city attorney wish 9 to make any comments? 10 MS. KUDLA: No. 11 MR. BOULAND: I will try to be 12 brief. You may notice some 13 discrepancies, minor discrepancies, 14 between the dimensions from the '06 15 variance and the current request. Those 16 are basically due to better information 17 that was on the survey, so it's more 18 accurate. 19 As the petitioner indicated, 20 the original variance for the open deck, 21 there is no roof over this. On the north 22 and east sides of the building is 23 literally just that, an open deck. And 24 one of the things that's also -- that
1 doesn't contribute to the lot coverage; 2 that's why the request was for a higher 3 amount of lot coverage. The variance, 4 when we figured it out (inaudible), which 5 is two percent over. 6 With regard to the shed in the 7 back, we worked with the petitioner to 8 try to balance out the limited space he 9 had, along with keeping a minimum of 10 space -- distance between the adjacent 11 properties and the building. Normally, 12 the ordinance requires 10 feet between a 13 building and the accessory building. 14 So, the other thing that I want 15 to bring up, we purposely made the 16 footprint of the accessory building as 17 large as possible so that it would cover 18 all possible variances that the board 19 might be inclined to grant, if it was so 20 inclined. 21 My suggestion is that, at the 22 very least, there be enough room 23 between -- on the Maudlin side of the 24 shed, to pull a vehicle up onto the
1 property without projecting out 2 (inaudible). Also, I was not -- did not 3 secure any comment from the fire marshal 4 on this at this time. Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 6 you. I will turn this matter over to the 7 board for discussion now. 8 Member Sanghvi. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. I 10 have a question for you. If you build a 11 shed where you are proposing to do it, 12 where are you going park your car? 13 MR. HECHT: That's a good 14 question. There is about roughly 80 feet 15 I'm looking to cover, roughly about 10 to 16 12 feet coming out into the driveway, so 17 there is going to be enough room for us 18 to park cars in front. 19 MEMBER SANGVHI: Depends on the 20 size of the car. You don't have a lot of 21 room. 22 MR. HECHT: I did take that 23 into consideration. I measured it out; 24 it would work.
1 MEMBER SANGVHI: You are going 2 to end up being on the street. And in 3 winter, that's not going to be very 4 simple. So, I don't know whether you can 5 reduce the size of the shed and make 6 enough room for your car to be in your 7 own lot, or how you are going deal with 8 it. Maybe you want to think about it. 9 Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 11 Member Skelcy. 12 MEMBER SKELCY: I had the same 13 concerns about the parking issue. I have 14 two questions about the shed. On the 15 drawing it says that the neighbor 16 requested the shed. Why would the 17 neighbor have requested the shed? 18 MR. HECHT: There is two 19 different indications. The first part 20 was the neighbor in parentheses. 21 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 22 MR. HECHT: And that's the 23 neighbor's house. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. That
1 looks like neighbor requested the shed. 2 And then the other question I 3 have, similar to Mr. Sanghvi, is that it 4 says 140 square feet. Did you want a 5 shed that large? 6 MR. HECHT: What we decided on 7 was to ask for the board to approve the 8 largest shed. It's probably going to be 9 smaller, but I'm asking for a 10 by 14, 10 and probably end up with something along 11 the lines of 10 by 10, something a little 12 smaller. We measured it out, and roughly 13 about 15 feet, 10 to 15 feet to park the 14 car. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: If you did a 10 16 by 10, there would be 15 feet? 17 MR. HECHT: Yeah. 18 MEMBER SKELCY: Would you be 19 happy if we did it as a 10 by 10? 20 MR. HECHT: I would approve -- 21 or I would appreciate a 10 by 12, is what 22 I would really appreciate. 23 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank 24 you.
1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: 2 Member Krieger. 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: So you didn't 4 want to put a car in your -- in the shed? 5 MR. HECHT: When we looked at 6 the variances and the code, due to 7 setbacks with attaching a garage to the 8 house, this was the only feasible -- 9 feasible thing we could do for storage. 10 A garage attached had different variances 11 due to setbacks and lot coverage. So we 12 decided to do the smaller shed behind the 13 house. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. 15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Charles. 16 MR. BOULAND: If it would help, 17 the lot is about 41 feet wide. If the 18 shed was 10 feet from the west property 19 line and was 14 feet in length, there 20 would still be 17 -- basically, 17 feet 21 to the property line. If, for example, 22 the shed were 10 by 10, the 41 feet minus 23 10 feet for the setback plus 10 feet for 24 the shed, would leave about 21 feet. So,
1 10 by 10 would be plenty of room to bring 2 a car onto the property; 12 feet would be 3 a little tighter, maybe about 19 feet. 4 But, we did encourage -- I did 5 encourage the petitioner to request the 6 largest, so that if the proportions of 7 the shed changed, that we wouldn't have 8 to go back and re-advertise. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: I have a 10 procedural question. We have basically 11 two different topics. We have the shed 12 and we have a deck. Do we have to 13 address them separately in voting? 14 MS. KUDLA: It would probably 15 be easiest if you did. They are two 16 separate issues, unrelated issues. Do 17 two motions. Do the lot coverage motion, 18 that one together with the -- 19 MR. BOULAND: The shed? 20 MS. KUDLA: The shed. 21 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. So 22 keep that in mind when I look for a 23 motion. Thank you. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: I move that we
1 grant the variance for the open deck. In 2 Case No. 10-047, filed by Kyle 3 Hecht, for 901 South Lake Drive, because 4 the petitioner has established a 5 practical difficulty relating to the 6 property, including some or all of the 7 following criteria: 8 He has established that the 9 property is unique because of its size 10 and location and the way that it -- the 11 size and location. And the physical 12 condition of the property -- okay, that's 13 it. And the condition is not a personal 14 or economic hardship. 15 The need for the variance is 16 not self-created, because of the property 17 size. It would unreasonably prevent the 18 petitioner from using the property for a 19 permitted purpose, as a single-family 20 home, because of the fact that they can't 21 store enough items within the house 22 itself, and the house itself is very very 23 small. 24 The petitioner has established
1 that the variance -- the minimum variance 2 necessary. And the requested variance 3 would not cause adverse impact on the 4 surrounding property, property values or 5 the enjoyment of the property in the 6 neighborhood or the zoning district. 7 And, also, given the fact that 8 it's been previously approved by the 9 board in the year 2006. 10 MR. HECHT: Can I add one more 11 thing? I did -- I'm sorry. 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 13 motion on the floor; we are looking for a 14 second. 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 17 motion made by Member Skelcy and 18 seconded by Member Sanghvi. Any further 19 discussion? 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: That was for 21 the deck? 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: That was for 23 the deck. Ms. Martin, please call -- 24 this is for the deck.
1 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: 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 Ghannam? 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: 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, for the deck. 17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Now we move 18 on to the shed issue. And if there is 19 any other discussion on the shed issue. 20 If not, I will look for a motion on that. 21 MEMBER SKELCY: I move that we 22 grant the variance in Case No. 10-047, 23 set by Kyle Hecht, for 901 South Lake 24 Drive. And this would be for the
1 variance for the shed with a square 2 footage of 10 by 14. Also -- 3 MS. KUDLA: The lot coverage. 4 MEMBER SKELCY: I was just 5 going to say, and for the lot coverage, 6 as well, which would increase that to 7 25 percent. I'm sorry? Oh, 27 percent. 8 Is it possible to use the same 9 reasons that I did for the -- 10 MS. KUDLA: Yes. 11 MEMBER SKELCY: And I would 12 incorporate the same reasons I gave for 13 the deck. 14 MEMBER GHANNAM: I will 15 second. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. We 17 have a motion made by Member Skelcy and 18 seconded by Member Ghannam. Any further 19 discussion? 20 Ms. Martin, please call the 21 roll. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam? 5 MEMBER GHANNAM: 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 MEMBER IBE: You didn't call 13 Member Ibe. 14 MS. MARTIN: I'm sorry. 15 MEMBER IBE: That's okay. I 16 say yes. 17 MS. MARTIN: I counted you. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: All right. 19 The next case on the agenda is Case No. 20 10-049, 21900 Meadowbrook Road, Grace 21 Immanuel Church. 22 The petitioner is requesting a 23 variance to permit the construction of a 24 1,152 square foot addition at the
1 existing Grace Immanuel Bible Church, 2 located at 21900 Meadowbrook Road, 3 without installing any additional parking 4 spaces as required by the zoning 5 ordinance. The property is zoned R-3 and 6 is located on the east side of 7 Meadowbrook Road between Eight and Nine 8 Mile Road. 9 The petitioner is here. Please 10 state your name and address for the 11 record. And if you are not an attorney, 12 please be sworn in by our secretary. 13 MR. SEXTON: I'm Pastor Charles 14 Sexton, Grace Immanuel Bible Church. You 15 want my business address? 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: You can just 17 use the church address. 18 MR. SEXTON: Okay, 21900 19 Meadowbrook Road. Since I'm not an 20 attorney, I guess I have to be sworn in. 21 MEMBER IBE: Can you please, 22 sir, raise your right hand. In Case No. 23 10-049, Grace Immanuel Bible Church, do 24 you swear or affirm to tell the truth?
1 MR. SEXTON: Yes, I do. 2 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Please 4 proceed with your presentation. 5 MR. SEXTON: I 6 appreciate (inaudible) thank you for all 7 the board, ladies and gentlemen, for 8 being here. 9 We are presenting our appeal 10 based on the fact that with a church, 11 Novi has the dilemma of the fact that 12 when they look at occupancies for 13 buildings, they use a -- like just an 14 assembly building of some sort. Where a 15 church is somewhat different; we don't 16 use all the buildings simultaneously. 17 The occupancy is not -- the 18 building department said our occupancy 19 should be 121. The actual sanctuary 20 where all the people come from, at the 21 maximum we feel should be -- would be 22 about 96 to 100, and, so, because 23 everybody that comes out of the 24 sanctuary.
1 I talked to several of the 2 pastors in the community that belong to 3 the Novi Minister Association; he said 4 that's exactly right. Your worship team 5 comes out of the congregation. Your 6 Sunday school teachers come out of the 7 congregation, your students. Everything 8 comes out of the congregation. Whatever 9 the sanctuary holds is really the 10 occupancy of the building. And, so, we 11 don't have a bingo game going at the same 12 time we have worship, or whatever, like 13 that. 14 So, that's what our appeal is, 15 in fact, that we currently have 30 16 spaces, which would be enough for 17 90 people, according to the regulations. 18 We can concede that we could add another 19 four spaces to take it up to 102, which 20 we think would be pretty crowded. They 21 also have mentioned that we could have 22 seats on the platform and so forth. 23 Well, if -- if I can get this 24 to show up here, I will do it this way.
1 That's our current worship team area. 2 This is 35 feet wide. We basically take 3 up pretty much all the 35 feet. And, 4 also, we are adding a ramp for -- a 5 wheelchair ramp. And you have to have 6 about at least three feet for them to 7 come off the wheelchair ramp. So, 8 basically, we are filling up the whole 9 platform area with the worship team. So 10 there would not be really be any seating 11 area on there. 12 And, so, we are also saying, 13 because in order to do the extra 10 14 spaces, we would have to eliminate 14 15 trees on our basically park-like setting. 16 And the four spaces would eliminate 17 seven. But I'd rather, if at all 18 possible, be able to save the other 19 trees. And they are mature Australian 20 Pines. We just would rather not have to 21 do that. Because it's -- to us, it seems 22 very superfluous, because we couldn't get 23 that many people in there anyway. 24 So, that's basically our
1 thrust. And, you know, we welcome any 2 questions you might have, if I could kind 3 of field that. 4 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 5 you. Is there anyone in the audience who 6 wishes to address the board regarding 7 this case? 8 Seeing none, will the secretary 9 read any correspondence into the record. 10 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 48 11 notices were mailed, zero responses, one 12 mail returned. 13 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 14 Does the building department or city 15 attorney wish to add anything at this 16 time? 17 MS. KUDLA: No. 18 MR. BOULAND: As a bit of 19 history, the existing building in the 20 past, the building department worked with 21 the folks to come up with a 22 non-simultaneous occupancy number. There 23 is nothing that actually prevents, excuse 24 me, the worship space and the classroom
1 space and so on from being used at the 2 same time. In this particular case, 3 that's not how it's used by this 4 occupant, but that's what happened in the 5 past. 6 When these folks came in to add 7 a significant amount of space to the 8 building, we worked to try to reduce 9 the -- try to address the actual 10 occupancy as closely as possible. 11 Obviously, the egress and so on are going 12 to be based on worst case scenario. 13 That's where the 102 number came from. 14 One of the planners provided 15 the staff report that's -- I believe they 16 were here late last night. I will do my 17 best to answer questions. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 19 you. At this time, I will refer this 20 matter to the board for discussion. 21 Ms. Skelcy. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: To add the ten 23 spaces, that would give you additional 24 cost that you would have to incur?
1 MR. SEXTON: Yes, that would. 2 MEMBER SKELCY: How much 3 additional cost? 4 MR. SEXTON: My estimate is 5 another at least $5,000 for the -- well, 6 for all 10 spaces, it would probably be 7 closer to eight. 8 MEMBER SKELCY: Eight thousand 9 dollars? 10 MR. SEXTON: Eight thousand. 11 MEMBER SKELCY: And, you know, 12 I did visit the property today, and I saw 13 that there is quite a lot of open space 14 on the property. So, it seems to me that 15 you don't have to cut down trees, that 16 you could possibly add spaces in a 17 different area. 18 MR. SEXTON: If we started -- 19 MEMBER SKELCY: Would you agree 20 that you could do that? 21 MR. SEXTON: Well, 22 economically, no. We could park behind 23 the house that's ours, also, but that 24 would add a greater financial burden to
1 us than it would to cut down -- to put 2 the parking adjacent to it. Because we 3 would have to either make a driveway from 4 the parking lot to behind the house and 5 do it that way, or we would have to pave 6 the driveway on the north side of the 7 property and have the black top all the 8 way back to there. So either way would 9 be a significant financial burden for us. 10 MEMBER SKELCY: What would the 11 cost be if you had to pave the area by 12 the house? Did you look into that? 13 MR. SEXTON: No, we hadn't 14 considered that. But that would be -- 15 let me defer a second to my architect. 16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We 17 didn't really look at that at all. 18 MR. SEXTON: We didn't really 19 look at that. Because, again, we tried 20 to keep it as economically feasible as 21 possible. And that part was brought up, 22 and we tossed that around just at the 23 very beginning and considered that would 24 really -- you know, paving -- coming back
1 that way, that would be paving about 200 2 feet of driveway, and then plus the area 3 where the space is. And you have the 4 access portion for the spaces and so 5 forth. So it would add significantly to 6 the cost. 7 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: 9 Member Ghannam. 10 MEMBER GHANNAM: Pastor, how 11 many years has your congregation been 12 there? 13 MR. SEXTON: We have been -- we 14 have been in Novi for three years, as a 15 congregation. 16 MEMBER GHANNAM: At this 17 location? 18 MR. SEXTON: At this location, 19 three years. 20 MEMBER GHANNAM: Has your 21 congregation grown? 22 MR. SEXTON: Yes. That's -- we 23 have recently grown by two or three 24 families, and that makes it pretty
1 crowded in there now. 2 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand 3 that's probably one of the reasons why 4 you need more space. 5 MR. SEXTON: Yes, exactly. 6 MEMBER GHANNAM: Part of the 7 problem in my opinion when you grant 8 variances like this, it's not just for 9 you, it's for those who may follow after 10 your congregation may leave. I don't 11 know how long you will be there. If we 12 grant the variance, it's good for -- the 13 variance runs with the land, which means 14 it's there forever. The question becomes 15 -- today, your congregation doesn't need 16 the parking spaces now, but what about 17 future occupants and so forth? 18 My problem is that, you know, 19 you asked for ten spaces variance. 20 Clearly, there is space there to do that. 21 I understand the cost, and that's always 22 a factor, but that's not something we 23 should consider. The question is, what 24 is your difficulty for not putting these
1 spaces in when it's required by 2 ordinance? 3 MR. SEXTON: Well, the six 4 extra ones we are really objecting to is 5 one, they are not necessary, because we 6 are -- we plan to stay there. We were in 7 Detroit for 61 years, and we moved out 8 to Novi. It's a beautiful sight; we have 9 no plans on going anywhere. We are not a 10 transient church, shall we say, or 11 fly-by-night church; we have been around 12 for a while. 13 And, so, my father was the 14 original pastor in Detroit. I followed 15 in his footsteps and, so, we have for the 16 foreseeable future, or far into the 17 future, I can't see any scenario where we 18 would leave. 19 MEMBER GHANNAM: I appreciate 20 that, and I understand that, and I don't 21 certainly doubt you. My problem is maybe 22 your congregation will grow. Or even in 23 the event you do move and there is other 24 occupants, they are there without these
1 required parking spots. To me, that 2 becomes the problem. 3 I don't want to sit there and 4 say, arbitrarily, I would agree to six 5 and not the other four, or something to 6 that effect, or vice versa. So that's 7 the problem I'm having with your 8 particular proposal. 9 MR. SEXTON: Let me say it this 10 way: If someone -- we had to go through 11 a change of use permits and variances and 12 so forth when we first came there. If it 13 went to some other sort of use, they 14 would have to appear before you in the 15 planning commission and so forth, for 16 change of uses and so forth and stuff 17 like that. And if, at that time, I think 18 if you had any objection, you would be 19 able to raise that then. 20 And, so, but as far as our 21 uses, the four extra spaces would be more 22 than adequate for what we need. 23 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't know 24 about then. You are expanding now and
1 need the variance now, so this is all I'm 2 considering now. 3 MR. SEXTON: Okay. I 4 appreciate that. 5 MEMBER GHANNAM: I don't have 6 any other questions. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 8 Member Sanghvi. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 10 Thank you very much for being here and 11 talking to us about your church. 12 MR. SEXTON: My privilege. 13 MEMBER SANGVHI: I have known 14 that property for many years. I was 15 there, I went there and looked around. 16 You have beautiful nice green ground and 17 lovely trees, and I would hate for you to 18 cut those trees down and put cement or 19 asphalt there for the benefit of ten 20 spaces, because you might use once or 21 twice a year. And I don't see why, if 22 you are willing to do it, put those extra 23 cars, if necessary, on the grass for a 24 temporary situation.
1 And as far as the future 2 occupant of the property is concerned, I 3 have a question for the counselor. 4 Ms. Kudla, can we put a provision if we 5 pass this to only apply to the current 6 occupant of the property? 7 MS. KUDLA: Well, that could be 8 a little problematic if another church is 9 just going to move in and it's going to 10 be the same use. You could restrict it 11 to this current church, but that would be 12 a hard thing to track for the city in the 13 future. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: That would be 15 a problem of another board. 16 MS. KUDLA: That would be for 17 administration. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: And maybe the 19 ordinance will change and wouldn't be so 20 strict on the parking spaces. I would 21 rather have Novi greener than the color 22 of asphalt. That's why I'm asking you if 23 we can have that. 24 MS. KUDLA: You can have it; it
1 relates to the property and it relates to 2 the request, but it's not a preferred 3 recommendation because of the, I guess, 4 difficulty in tracking it for the future. 5 But, technically, you could limit it to 6 this applicant, this church business. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Under other 8 circumstances in different situations, we 9 have given variances restricted to the 10 current occupants of the business. 11 MS. KUDLA: Correct, yes. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: I was just 13 wondering if we could. 14 MS. KUDLA: You could. 15 MEMBER SANGVHI: Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member Ibe. 17 MEMBER IBE: Good evening, 18 Pastor. 19 MR. SEXTON: Good evening. 20 MEMBER IBE: As much as I would 21 like to approve this, I have concern of 22 the previous speaker prior to Mr. Sanghvi 23 in terms of what may happen in the 24 future.
1 As you understand, Pastor, that 2 congregations, you pray that your 3 congregation grows; I'm sure that's what 4 everybody wants. You certainly don't 5 want to stay the same 10 years from now. 6 That would not amount to progress; would 7 you agree with me? 8 MR. SEXTON: Yes. And we, as 9 the Lord blesses us and we do grow, we do 10 plan on, you know -- we have the room to 11 build on the existing in front of the 12 house and so forth; we have the room 13 there. And that would necessitate us 14 putting a lot of blacktop on green grass. 15 But that would -- that's down the road, 16 and we don't know when that will be. But 17 that's, yeah, that's our hope at some 18 time. 19 MEMBER IBE: So your hope is 20 for growth. So do you understand why the 21 ordinance is set up in a way to 22 accommodate what may happen in the 23 future? Because, right now, you are not 24 concerned about the future. But the
1 ordinance is structured to look beyond 2 just today. 3 And the ordinance requires that 4 if you are going to have this number of 5 improvements, which means you are 6 probably going to have more people -- you 7 may or may not. But, see, we are not in 8 the business of saying, "Well, if it 9 happens, then we'll deal with it." 10 Because, it is a way to ensure, if you do 11 grow, which I hope and pray you do grow, 12 that you would not have the problem of 13 having to deal with this issue. 14 It is important that you 15 establish that you cannot create these 10 16 additional spaces; you have not 17 demonstrated that so far. It is your 18 burden, not anyone on this board, to show 19 your burden. You, so far, Pastor, have 20 not shown me any reasons to believe you 21 don't have any practical difficulty that 22 prevents you from doing that. 23 This issue is probably 24 self-created; you are basically asking to
1 expand. And if you are going to expand, 2 the ordinance says, well, you have to 3 have additional parking. So, based on 4 that, unless you can convince me 5 otherwise, I may not be in favor -- as 6 much as I would love to go for it, I may 7 not, sir, be in favor of it. 8 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 10 MR. SEXTON: May I comment on 11 that? 12 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: 13 Ms. Krieger. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Your comment? 15 MR. SEXTON: Currently, we have 16 about 60 people. And if we make the 17 auditorium or the sanctuary hold up to 18 100, so that is -- that's the growth that 19 we think we can accommodate. And that's 20 why we are saying we could concede doing 21 the four spaces. But the other six, that 22 would meet the 121 people occupancy, and 23 that to us is not reasonable, because you 24 couldn't put 121 people in that
1 sanctuary, is what really my argument is, 2 in that size. 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: Are you the 4 pastor that came before with the first 5 request? 6 MR. SEXTON: Yes, I am. 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Your size 8 of -- you said you liked this site, if I 9 remember right, because you weren't 10 intending on -- it's hard for a pastor to 11 keep up with -- the bigger the church 12 goes with all the number of people, if 13 you have a thousand members, how is one 14 pastor going to keep up with all the 15 people. 16 MR. SEXTON: Right. 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: So the intent 18 of size, because I'm, as well, I can't 19 stand the idea of let's put up more 20 pavement in Novi when you got an 21 opportunity for green. So I'm trying to 22 find, as well, what's the practical 23 difficulty. 24 You are growing the church,
1 which growth is good. But then the 2 ordinance, as well, if the next person 3 that comes in wants it, then I would 4 agree with our previous member that I 5 would restrict it to this current owner, 6 yourselves, and find another means. So 7 your intent of size was my question. 8 MR. SEXTON: Like I said, this 9 will do a hundred. Our wildest dreams or 10 our basically thrust is if we expand 11 (inaudible) that the size of the 12 auditorium would be such that would hold 13 about 200, 225 people. After that 14 amount, it's my philosophy, or in the 15 ministry, is we would start a satellite 16 church someplace else, because our people 17 come from all over. One of our worship 18 leaders comes from Fenton, and we have 19 other worship teams that come from 20 Woodhaven. So we are just kind of all 21 over the area people. 22 And so we would have 23 opportunity -- we would start another 24 satellite church, and to meet the needs.
1 Because my basic philosophy is that you 2 can't pastor more than 150, 200 people 3 effectively. And so that's where my 4 heart is. 5 And I'm very much a pastor that 6 wants to be able to know the children's 7 names and, you know, the parents, the 8 children, know what's going on in their 9 lives. And the fact so that I can 10 effectively minister to them. 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: So, 100 12 people, which this site could attain 121. 13 After about 100, you would go to a second 14 site? 15 MR. SEXTON: If we get to 100 16 people in that one, then that's when 17 we'll start considering expanding on the 18 existing site. And which would require 19 more -- we would have to -- at that 20 point, we would probably have to raise 21 the house and do a parking lot and so 22 forth. 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'm sorry. 24 It's not -- what's relevant is for this
1 case, so -- 2 MR. SEXTON: But -- 3 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'm sorry, 4 going past that, that the 100 people that 5 the parking could be accommodating with 6 what you have, even if you have this 7 addition, that the number of people that 8 could come in, that there wouldn't be, 9 you know, I would hate to put somebody on 10 the grass, but I wouldn't want to -- 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: On the road. 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: I wouldn't 13 want to put anybody on the road. That's 14 all I have for now. 15 MR. SEXTON: We could park some 16 people on the grass near the berm, you 17 know, for a temporary type of thing. Two 18 of the spaces show going into the berm 19 anyway. 20 MEMBER KRIEGER: All right. 21 MR. SEXTON: We could do a 22 temporary thing that way. 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: We have to 24 work with what's in front of us.
1 MR. SEXTON: I understand. 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Thank you. 3 MS. KUDLA: Two issues. 4 Parking on non-paved parking would be 5 another ordinance violation, parking on 6 the lawn. 7 Another thing I just wanted to 8 bring up, the practicality of making this 9 a condition that would be restricted 10 personally to this applicant, what would 11 end up happening is if the applicant 12 changed -- the building is already there. 13 So the choice for the new owner would be 14 to tear down the new building or pay to 15 put in parking. And that would be very 16 hard to enforce from the city's 17 perspective to get a new owner to put in 18 parking, or take the option to tear down 19 the building to bring it back into 20 compliance with the ordinance. 21 So I just wanted to -- I'm not 22 trying to influence your decision, but 23 just to mention the practical difficulty 24 of limiting this request to this
1 applicant. 2 With a sign, it's different. 3 It's easy to take down an additional sign 4 for a new applicant. With putting in 5 parking, it's going to be harder for us 6 to compel someone to put parking in. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just one 8 question. Can you stipulate that this 9 variance will be only for two years, 10 depending on the growth of the church? 11 And they can come back and talk to us? 12 MS. KUDLA: That could be done. 13 That could be a temporary variance. But, 14 again, then you are dealing with, if you 15 don't extend it, they are either going to 16 have to tear down their building or put 17 in parking at that point. And it would 18 be a hard thing to get them and a court 19 to agree to tear down a building at that 20 point. 21 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else? 22 Member Gedeon. 23 MEMBER GEDEON: Just a quick 24 question for the city. You said parking
1 on grass would be an ordinance violation. 2 If they had a known event where they were 3 going to have, you know, a large group of 4 people coming in, a large number of cars, 5 could they get a temporary one-time 6 permit for such an event? 7 MS. KUDLA: I'm not sure how 8 the ordinance reads on that. I would 9 have to investigate what kind of 10 temporary permit use that would be. I'm 11 not sure if Charles has more information. 12 MR. BOULAND: I've never -- I 13 never had that question exactly. I know 14 that there have been events where folks 15 out of necessity have had, you know, they 16 are re-paving their parking lot and 17 things like that. But the difference 18 here is basically we got an ordinance 19 requirement for X number of parking 20 spaces for a use of this size. And we 21 are basically building in -- essentially, 22 kind of building in a need to use that. 23 We can't really consider that as parking. 24 It's going to look terrible, people get
1 stuck, and the ordinance says the parking 2 lots are supposed to be paved, so it 3 becomes a slippery slope. 4 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: 5 Member Sanghvi. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. I would 7 like to make a comment. So it's our 8 primary responsibility to uphold the 9 ordinance. I would like to help you in 10 any way we could to accommodate. Because 11 I like to consider a house of worship a 12 little differently than an ordinary 13 business. And we have tried to find 14 different ways to see if we can find a 15 way, but, unfortunately, the legal 16 situation ties our hands. Thank you. 17 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 18 Any other comments? If not, I will look 19 for a motion. Member Skelcy. 20 MEMBER SKELCY: I move we deny 21 the variance sought in Case No. 10-049, 22 Grace Immanuel Bible Church, for 21900 23 Meadowbrook Road, because the petitioner 24 has not established a practical
1 difficulty. 2 The petitioner has shown no 3 unique circumstance or physical condition 4 of the property, because the petitioner 5 can easily comply with the ordinance by 6 adding the required parking spots. There 7 is adequate land available to do that. 8 The difficulty described by the 9 petitioner is a personal or economical 10 difficulty only. And the petitioner 11 stated they would have increased costs 12 for adding the parking spaces. 13 The need for the variance is 14 self-created, because the petitioner has 15 not shown it cannot comply with the 16 variance based on the property size and 17 configuration. 18 Conformance to the ordinance 19 would not be unnecessarily burdensome 20 because there is adequate room to add the 21 parking. The proposed variance would 22 have an adverse impact on surrounding 23 property, because it could create parking 24 issues in the neighboring streets.
1 MEMBER GHANNAM: Second. 2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 3 motion made by Member Skelcy and 4 seconded by Member Ghannam. Any further 5 discussion? 6 Ms. Martin, please call the 7 roll. 8 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 10 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 11 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 12 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 13 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 14 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 15 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 16 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam? 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 19 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 21 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 23 seven to zero, to deny. 24 MR. SEXTON: Thank you very
1 much. 2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Next on the 3 agenda is Case No. 10-050, 1517 4 Paramount. 5 The petitioner is requesting 6 variances of 3.5 feet from the minimum 7 required aggregate side yard dimension to 8 allow construction of an addition to an 9 existing non-conforming residence. The 10 property is zoned R-4 and is located 11 north of Thirteen Mile Road and east of 12 East Lake Drive. 13 The petitioner is here. Please 14 state your name and address for the 15 record. 16 MR. BLUM: Arlin Blum, 1517 17 Paramount, Novi. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: If you are 19 not an attorney, please be sworn in. 20 MEMBER IBE: Raise your right 21 hand, sir. In Case No. 10-050, 1517 22 Paramount, do you swear or affirm to tell 23 the truth? 24 MR. BLUM: Yeah.
1 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Please 2 proceed with your presentation. 3 MR. BLUM: Here's my appeal. I 4 guess I need a variance for like three 5 feet. My house burned in May, and this 6 has been kind of a stumbling block to 7 getting it put back together. 8 On one hand, the rear of the 9 house has to come off the house because 10 of it was burned so bad, and it presented 11 an opportunity at that time to add 13 12 feet to the back of the house. To make 13 the down -- the upstairs area 13 feet 14 longer, because it was a little small in 15 the living room to begin with. 16 So, you know, basically, so 17 what I understand now, is that, you know, 18 the house was built in the seventies, and 19 there is only so much feet on each side 20 of the house. My assumption is, if I'm 21 not going out the side of the house, then 22 going out the back should be fine. And I 23 guess you are not allowed to add to an 24 existing house that's in non-compliance.
1 And, you know, one of reasons, 2 like I said, is because I think it would 3 be a great opportunity -- I have been in 4 the house 12 years, and I think it would 5 be a good opportunity to make that living 6 room and kitchen area a little bigger. 7 And B, another reason is 8 because the house is kind of odd. It's a 9 tri-level, and I don't really know 10 anything about who built it or anything 11 like that, but it's got an irregular 12 shape in the back of the house, where 13 it's -- I think you see a blueprint there 14 or picture of how it is now. And all I'm 15 really trying to do is add a little 16 symmetry to the back of the house. 17 Kind of from an aesthetic 18 point, when you look in the back yard, it 19 just, you know, goes in/out, in/out, 20 (indicating). In other words, this 13 21 square feet would square off the back. 22 And another odd thing about the 23 house is, you know, it's a tri-level, 24 but, again, I don't really know anything
1 about who built it, but it only has two 2 bedrooms. And it's -- it does have a 3 little addition, or I heard it was a 4 garage at one time. Someone turned it 5 into living space; it's like a 6 mother-in-law apartment, and it's totally 7 separate from the house. You need to go 8 through the door to get to it. And 9 that's where the third bedroom is. So, 10 we don't even go back there. You have to 11 go all the way through the whole house to 12 get to it. But the addition would also 13 give us an opportunity to have a possible 14 third bedroom in the house. 15 And I don't think I'm really 16 asking for anything like, you know, it's 17 the back yard of a house. It's not -- no 18 one sees it, and I know my neighbors are 19 fine with it. And I think the building 20 department pretty much said that my 21 blueprints look good. And I can't wait 22 to get started. 23 I think that's my presentation. 24 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank
1 you. Is there anyone in the audience who 2 wishes to address the board regarding 3 this case? 4 Seeing none, Secretary, please 5 read any correspondence into the record. 6 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 52 7 notice were mailed, zero responses, three 8 mail returned. 9 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 10 Building department or city attorney, do 11 you have any comments to make? 12 MS. KUDLA: No. 13 MR. BOULAND: The advertised 14 distance for the variances was up from 15 three foot one inch that was on the 16 original request. Because, as you will 17 notice, the side of the house that's 18 towards the bottom of the drawing, 19 actually tapers in comparison to the 20 property line, too. So we wanted to 21 cover the bases. 22 Basically, the addition is just 23 filling in this area here. This area of 24 the house where the addition would be
1 does not meet the aggregate setback of 25 2 feet, as the request for variance for 3 three-and-a-half feet for the setback. 4 Obviously, the rest of the house doesn't 5 meet it either, but we are indeed 6 increasing the non-conformity; hence, the 7 request for variance. 8 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 9 At this time, I will refer this matter to 10 the board for discussion. 11 Member Sanghvi. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. I 13 was there at that property just a couple 14 of days ago to see what it's all about. 15 The one thing that strikes me, it's a 16 pie-shaped lot. There are so many of 17 them in that part of old Walled Lake 18 area. 19 MR. BLUM: Excuse me, it was a 20 what? I didn't hear what you said. It 21 was a what? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: I said that a 23 lot of lots which are very small in that 24 part of Walled Lake.
1 MR. BLUM: Okay. 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: And, really, I 3 mean, to make a long story short, I have 4 no problem with this variance. Thank 5 you. 6 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 7 Member Ghannam. 8 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you. 9 Also, sir, I have no problem with it. 10 These are the types of things we look at. 11 You have an unusual lot, smaller lot; 12 it's now non-conforming because of new 13 ordinances. If you look at some of the 14 things we have to use, some of the 15 requirements we have to look at, you seem 16 to meet those requirements, so I have no 17 problem either. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 19 Anybody else? Okay, I will entertain a 20 motion. Member Ghannam. 21 MEMBER GHANNAM: Thank you. 22 I'm going move to approve the request for 23 variances as requested in Case No. 24 10-050, 1517 Paramount.
1 It appears there are unique 2 circumstances of the property. And the 3 need for the variance is not due to the 4 applicant's personal or economic 5 difficulty. The need is not 6 self-created. 7 Strict compliance with 8 regulations governing the area will 9 unreasonably prevent the property owner 10 from using the property for a permitted 11 purpose or will render the conformity 12 with those regulations unnecessarily 13 burdensome. 14 The requested variance is the 15 minimum variance necessary to do 16 substantial justice to the applicant as 17 well as the other property owners in the 18 district. And the requested variance 19 will not cause any adverse impact on 20 surrounding property values or the use 21 and enjoyment of the property in the 22 neighborhood or zoning district. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second. 24 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. We
1 have a motion made by Member Ghannam and 2 seconded by Member Sanghvi. Is there any 3 further discussion? 4 Ms. Martin, please call the 5 roll. 6 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 8 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 10 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 11 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 12 MS. MARTIN: Chairman Wrobel? 13 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Yes. 14 MS. MARTIN: Member Ghannam? 15 MEMBER GHANNAM: Yes. 16 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 17 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 19 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 20 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 21 seven to zero. 22 MR. BLUM: Thank you very much. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: I hope 24 everything goes well.
1 MR. BLUM: I hope it goes well, 2 too. 3 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Final 4 case on the agenda is Case No. 10-051, 5 26650 Taft Road, Hayes Trucking. 6 The petitioner is requesting a 7 use variance to allow an extension of an 8 expired temporary use permit beyond the 9 time frames allowed in the zoning 10 ordinance for outdoor storage for a 11 concrete crushing operation. Property is 12 zoned I-1 and is located north of Grand 13 River and east of Taft road. 14 The petitioner is here; please 15 come forward. State your name and 16 address for the record. And if you are 17 not an attorney, please be sworn in. 18 MR. MEIHN: Good afternoon. 19 I'm Greg Meihn. I am the attorney for 20 Mr. Hayes. I apologize for the state of 21 my dress; it does not mean any disrespect 22 to you. I have been in the hospital 23 since two this morning, a family birth, 24 so my wife's there. So, I know it's
1 being photographed, so she sees this, I'm 2 in trouble. Nonetheless, I did not -- 3 not knowing where we were on the 4 schedule, if I had time to get back and 5 get changed. 6 If you recall, we were here in 7 September asking for a use variance; we 8 withdrew that request. You may all be 9 aware that we had two prior temporary use 10 permits issued in the case. The 11 situation that brought us before you last 12 time was the fact that the timing of 13 completing a project had not been able to 14 have been met, primarily because of two 15 things. 16 One you pointed out that you 17 weren't happy about, and that is the 18 proprietor using the storage and 19 recycling of concrete for a project other 20 than the one project that we were working 21 on. 22 And the second was the project 23 that primarily started this whole use 24 permit process had been delayed and was
1 going to carry out a little bit longer. 2 One of the other questions that 3 we talked about last time was how much 4 longer would we need to be able to 5 complete the project. I don't know if 6 Mr. Boulard had an opportunity to go by 7 the property recently, but I think you 8 will find that over 90 percent or more of 9 the recycled concrete has been recycled 10 into piles. 11 We are firm in that by no later 12 than December 15th, but much earlier than 13 that, we believe all of those piles 14 including -- will be removed. The 15 property will be at that point in 16 conformity with the present zoning 17 requirements. 18 The basis for the request is 19 the same basis that was presented for the 20 two other issuances of the permit. And 21 that is, is that, you know, they were set 22 forth -- I won't repeat that; I know we 23 did this in September. 24 I would indicate to the board
1 here that by allowing the continuation to 2 the December 15th time frame, it will 3 avoid those penalties that we talked 4 about the last time we were here, in 5 terms of not being able to complete the 6 project and having to store the material 7 at a different unit. Which, financially, 8 as you know, Mr. Hayes has been involved 9 in this community since the seventies and 10 has been operating this property in a 11 different form than it presently is now. 12 But, the economics, as we discussed at 13 length, again, I won't repeat, have 14 necessitated where we are at. And, like 15 always, we are still looking for 16 alternative uses of the property after 17 December 15th. 18 Thank you. I have no more to 19 add at this point. 20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 21 you. Is there anyone in the audience who 22 wishes to address the board regarding 23 this case? 24 Please come forward. State
1 your name and address. And, sir, you are 2 an attorney, so you don't need to be 3 sworn in. 4 MR. CAPELLO: Good evening, Kim 5 Capello. 26444 Taft Road. A few quick 6 points. 7 This isn't the long-term 8 resident, citizen, business owner, 9 Mr. Hayes. This is Mid Michigan 10 Concrete. This is a company that had not 11 done business in Novi prior to this time. 12 Came into Novi, set up a temporary 13 operation, and now has violated our 14 ordinances. 15 If you recall, they are asking 16 just until December 15th, but they had a 17 12-month permit. They already have got a 18 12-month extension for that permit. 19 They are taking concrete from 20 not only I-96 but taking it from, I 21 believe, Telegraph, Orchard Road. They 22 are in the business; they know how long 23 it takes to move that concrete. 24 What have they done since they
1 were here last time? They made no effort 2 to get that concrete out at the end of 3 their 12-month extension. They waited 4 until the city contacted them and 5 threatened to issue a ticket before they 6 came back in front of you. 7 What they have done in the 8 meantime is not moved the concrete off of 9 the property. They manufactured it; they 10 continued the non-conforming use. And 11 they manufactured the concrete into sand 12 and gravel and just re-piled it. Now 13 they want until the 15th. 14 Here's what I suggest you do: 15 Deny the request. Let the city attorney 16 issue a ticket. Let them get in front of 17 a district court judge. Let them handle 18 it at that level. There will be more 19 pressure put on them to get out on time. 20 Don't give them another pass to continue 21 what they are doing wrong with no hammer 22 over their head, other than the threat of 23 starting legal action. 24 Start it now. You know, as
1 well as I do, you get into the pre-trial 2 process, the court gives them time to get 3 cleaned up. Let the court handle it. 4 Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anyone else 6 wish to address the board? State your 7 name and address, and if you are not an 8 attorney, please be sworn in. 9 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No. 10 10-051, filed by Lewis Hayes, 26650 Taft 11 Road, do you swear or affirm to tell the 12 truth? 13 MR. LEDBETTER: Yes, I do. 14 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 15 MR. LEDBETTER: Robert James 16 Ledbetter, 26510 Taft Road. 17 Just a quick statement. I'm 18 one of the neighbors closest to Lew 19 Hayes. I'm actually the third house 20 across the street on Taft Road. Never 21 had an issue really with the noise, 22 debris in the road, or even the visual 23 sight of the house or the building. 24 My other two neighbors, you
1 know, we are there out in the back yard 2 Sunday, Saturday, after work, 6:00, and 3 can't really say we hear a lot of 4 commotion or anything like that. So we 5 really don't -- I, myself, don't have a 6 complaint of him being there. 7 One thing I bring up, there is 8 the Hindu Temple down the street; really 9 don't have a problem with that being 10 there. We got a letter from the 11 construction people that said they would 12 have the pipes in our front yard done two 13 weeks after Labor Day, and it still 14 hasn't been done. We got stakes in the 15 front yard. 16 And, also, there is a piece of 17 cement that's been in front of my house 18 for three weeks, and it's not from Hayes; 19 it's from Hindu Temple. 20 So, I'm saying, that Grand 21 River is pretty clean in his area. You 22 know, there is some trucks from the 23 Hindu Temple that lose their load. And 24 my girlfriend said to pick it up, but I
1 kind of want them to. You know, that's 2 kind of their job. 3 So, you know, there is projects 4 in the area, and they run over a week or 5 two. I don't think he's asking for a ton 6 of time. So, I appreciate your time. 7 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 8 Any issues you have regarding the other 9 issues, you can contact the city. I'm 10 sure someone will help you. 11 MR. LEDBETTER: It's not -- we 12 welcome the temple and everything. It's 13 not an issue if there is -- I'm just 14 trying to do a point that debris from 15 Hayes, I really haven't seen it on Grand 16 River. And that road is pretty much made 17 for big trucks. Taft is more of a 18 residential road. And there is, you 19 know, not a ton of debris, but just a 20 little. Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anybody else? 22 MS. COPELAND: Rose Copeland. 23 (Inaudible) I'm not an attorney. 24 MEMBER IBE: Could you raise
1 your right hand. In Case No. 10-051, 2 filed by Lewis Hayes, 26650 Taft Road, do 3 you swear or affirm to tell the truth? 4 MS. COPELAND: I do. 5 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 6 MS. COPELAND: I just want to 7 bring up one additional issue that 8 Mr. Capello didn't bring up. 9 They mentioned penalties. I 10 guess what I'd like to know, penalties -- 11 and I do respect Mr. Hayes and how long 12 he's been in the community, and we have, 13 also; I understand that. 14 The penalties, if there is any, 15 I'm not sure what the penalties would be 16 on a project like that. There is a 17 delay, I assume it would be the project 18 delaying it; it wouldn't be a fault of 19 the supplier. I guess one of my 20 questions would be who is the penalty 21 addressed? Is it addressed to Mr. Hayes 22 or is it addressed to Mid Michigan 23 Crushing, who actually would be the 24 contractor with Dan's Excavating for 96?
1 So, okay, thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 3 Anybody else? 4 MR. COPELAND: Howard Copeland, 5 Copeland Paving. 6 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case 7 10-051, filed by Lewis Hayes, 26650 Taft 8 Road, do you swear or affirm to tell the 9 truth? 10 MR. COPELAND: I do. 11 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, sir. 12 MR. COPELAND: I have been from 13 Copeland Paving, Novi Crushed Concrete. 14 My family and I have been part of Novi 15 for 45 years. We have done everything, 16 you know. 17 We respect Hayes Sand and 18 Gravel. They have been in business like 19 ourselves in Novi forever. They were a 20 top-notch company that bought material 21 from us for years, and they were a 22 top-notch company. 23 But I don't really feel that I 24 wouldn't be up here if it was Hayes Sand
1 and Gravel. This is Mid Michigan -- Mid 2 Michigan's project. I don't think they 3 made any attempt to follow the rules or 4 be out on time. 5 I know for a fact that we got a 6 call in mid August to take material that 7 they could no longer accept. And they 8 have been accepting it right up until, 9 you know, a week, week and a half from 10 their September deadline. That yard was 11 packed; there is no way they could. 12 Again, that's why they need until 13 December 15th. They knew that you can't 14 take material up to a week, week and a 15 half from your deadline and expect it -- 16 and they didn't expect to. 17 This isn't the first time that 18 they have done this. You know, they have 19 been around. They didn't just come to 20 Novi on a whim. They found Dan's 21 Excavating, or whoever, in the past and 22 have set up. They know how the game is 23 played, and I think they played it, and 24 played it very well, evidently.
1 Again, you know, this -- I know 2 it was mentioned last -- I wasn't here, 3 about competition. I got no problem with 4 competition. I have been in competition 5 all my life. But this wasn't competition 6 for us. 7 And, you know, I have heard, 8 you know, we are worried about Mr. Hayes. 9 Well, I will tell you what, we are going 10 to sink Mr. Copeland if this goes on a 11 lot longer. This hurt us deeply. I sold 12 a lot of material to Dan's Excavating 13 last year. In this economic time, it 14 helped immensely. 15 This year, if I was crushing 16 solely and didn't have an asphalt paving 17 company, I would be out of business. 18 Dan's Excavating didn't buy material from 19 somebody else and not from us because we 20 couldn't supply it. We supplied them 21 with every time they needed. At the end 22 of the season last year, they were ahead 23 of schedule. The bridge maybe put them 24 behind schedule, but not the stone for
1 the roads. And, again, that can be 2 checked on. They were ahead of schedule. 3 We were in contract with Dan's 4 Excavating to sell them material for last 5 year and this year. And I forget the 6 tonnage that was -- that the job called 7 for at the start, but I know at the end 8 of the season last year, they had more 9 than three-quarters of the material in. 10 And it was -- it was pretty well known to 11 us that there was very little needed. 12 Just the approach to Novi Road 13 that they just -- well, it was still 14 closed. That was the stone that they 15 needed for that. I know they needed 16 stone for the expressway and material we 17 didn't supply at the time. 18 But, anyway, again, this is not 19 competition. And this isn't, as far as 20 I'm concerned, about Lew Hayes. I think 21 Mid Michigan has pushed the pencil as far 22 as it can be pushed, and they are still 23 going. 24 I can't see -- again, I
1 wouldn't want to put anybody in a 2 hardship of having to move that kind of 3 material, and it will be costly. But 4 they have known what's been going on for 5 a long time. And they -- again, I will 6 end it there. I don't want to drag this 7 on, but it's not right, as far as I'm 8 concerned, and I know it's hurt me. 9 Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 11 Anybody else? 12 Seeing none, Mr. Secretary, 13 will you read any correspondence into the 14 record. 15 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 27 16 notices were mailed, zero responses, zero 17 mail returned. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 19 City attorney or building department, any 20 comments? 21 MS. KUDLA: The building 22 department will start, and if there is 23 anything, I will add to it. 24 MR. BOULAND: Make sure I do it
1 right. 2 Just a couple things. In the 3 write-up you will notice it mentions 4 references of use variance. Unlike the 5 use variances requested at the previous 6 meeting, this is not -- that's there just 7 to reference the fact there is a 8 temporary use permit, as the petitioner 9 indicated and a number of the speakers. 10 It was there for 12 months with a 11 12-month renewal. 12 So the variance that's being 13 requested is a variance from the 14 timeline, the limits of the 12 months 15 with the 12-month renewal that are in the 16 ordinance. This would not be a permanent 17 variance, unlike the variance that was 18 requested at the last meeting. 19 I did want to ask, the 20 completion date was listed as December 21 15. But, obviously, that was the date 22 that was indicated on September 15th when 23 the application was made, and now it's a 24 month later because of the advertising
1 requirements. 2 My question is, is the request 3 still for all that time? I notice a lot 4 of the material has been crushed. There 5 is -- as far as I can tell, there has 6 been material -- new material has not 7 been brought onto the site. Obviously, 8 there is a lot of crushed material there. 9 I wondered if the December 15th date is 10 still the date that you would be 11 requesting to get everything? 12 MR. MEIHN: Mr. Boulard, it is. 13 And as you recall, prior to the permit 14 expiring, when you and I had spoken, and 15 prior to the September permit expiring 16 when Mr. Hayes had filed for the use 17 permit last time we were here, again, if 18 you remember, prior to those expirations, 19 I committed to you that we were going to 20 get that date. And I believe we'll be 21 well before December 15th. 22 But, I wanted to avoid an 23 issue, and that issue being that this 24 property, from a grandfather perspective,
1 what it used to be used as, had some sand 2 material on it throughout its entire 3 existence. We intend to have that 4 removed so we don't have any of those 5 issues at all of a prior grandfather use, 6 and how much was on the property and how 7 much was grandfathered in. I thought 8 that that was simply unfair to you, 9 unfair to the process. 10 So, the 15th is the day that I 11 selected that I could be assured that not 12 only with the concrete material being 13 removed, but any material in a hill type 14 of form would be removed. Even though I 15 don't believe we would be required to do 16 that, given the prior use. But I thought 17 it's better to it get it done and clean 18 and move forward in that perspective, so, 19 yes. 20 MR. BOULAND: Then just a point 21 of clarification. A ticket was issued 22 for this; I don't believe we have a court 23 date. 24 MR. MEIHN: We do have a court
1 date. 2 MR. BOULAND: You do have a 3 court date now? 4 MR. MEIHN: Yes. 5 MR. BOULAND: That's fairly 6 recent. So a court date has been issued 7 for the violation? 8 MR. MEIHN: Yeah. There is a 9 number of things you heard in the 10 presentation after mine that weren't 11 true. Yes, a ticket had been issued. We 12 did contact you prior to the expiration 13 of the permits. It's not as though we 14 sat there and didn't do anything. 15 I don't deny that there 16 are some things that they did do that 17 they shouldn't have done during the 18 process, but we went over that process. 19 And Mr. Hayes has learned, and 20 is attempting to try to find a venture or 21 joint business to get involved with. 22 Obviously, given the master plan that you 23 all had informed us of last week that you 24 don't want to deviate, is basically going
1 to take Mr. Hayes down to a different 2 program. 3 MR. BOULAND: I just want to 4 clarify that my comment was with regard 5 to -- with regard to the issue of the 6 ticket. 7 MR. MEIHN: Yeah. 8 MR. BOULAND: That was the 9 point of clarification. 10 MR. MEIHN: I believe the 11 hearing is next week, the initial 12 hearing. 13 MS. KUDLA: I just want to 14 point out that, just so you notice in 15 your motion guidelines, there is 16 different standards. Because we are 17 doing this as an exception to the special 18 approval, since it's not going to be a 19 permanent variance request. So there are 20 a little bit of different standards, so I 21 want you to take note. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 23 you. At this time, I will turn it over 24 to the board. Member Sanghvi.
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. I 2 have a question for you. In the 3 ordinance, considering the two different 4 issues about developed and non-developed 5 lots (inaudible) what category does this 6 kind of property fall? 7 MS. KUDLA: I'm sorry, what 8 kind of -- 9 MR. BOULAND: Can I give this a 10 try? If I may, the ordinance specifies 11 that temporary use permits can be issued 12 for non-developed lots for up to two 13 years. 14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 15 MR. BOULAND: Whereas, I think 16 the idea is if you got a developed lot 17 with ongoing concern, people on and off 18 the lot, the idea is to shorten that time 19 frame so it's re-visited at least once 20 within that two-year period. 21 MEMBER SANGVHI: I understood 22 that. My question was which category 23 does this particular property fall into? 24 MR. BOULAND: This was -- the
1 original temporary use was listed for 12 2 months, because it's a developed lot; 3 there is a business on the lot. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: This is 5 considered a developed lot? 6 MR. BOULAND: Right. So we had 7 the 12 months, we had an extension, and 8 that extension is up. 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: Second 10 question I had, is it within our scope to 11 kind of forbid further assignments for 12 them to take? 13 MS. KUDLA: To limit it to this 14 project? Is that what you are asking? 15 You can make it conditional under this 16 section of the ordinance, that's correct. 17 You can put conditions on any approval. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: We can put 19 that condition if we approve this 20 temporary use? 21 MS. KUDLA: Yes, you can make 22 it conditional. 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member
1 Gedeon. 2 MEMBER GEDEON: One question 3 for the city and perhaps counsel. If the 4 variance is granted, would that 5 essentially vacate the ticket that's been 6 issued? 7 MS. KUDLA: What's the ticket 8 that was issued? I would have to have 9 more clarity on what the issue was. 10 MR. BOULAND: The citation 11 was -- I don't have it in front of me. I 12 believe it was for unauthorized zoning or 13 use of property that's inconsistent with 14 the zoning. 15 MR. MEIHN: That is correct, 16 Mr. Boulard. 17 MS. KUDLA: If we expanded the 18 permit, it might nullify the ticket. 19 MR. BOULAND: Yeah, I'm not an 20 attorney. 21 MS. KUDLA: I would have to see 22 how it's written. I would have to see 23 the ticket, but it sounds if we basically 24 expanded the time frame of the permit,
1 brought them back within the scope of the 2 ordinance, that that violation, zoning 3 violation, would no longer be a zoning 4 violation. I would have to see what 5 section this was written under as a 6 ticket. 7 MR. BOULAND: You would see it 8 as an administrative remedy up until the 9 15th of December, if it were approved in 10 that fashion? 11 MS. KUDLA: Yeah. It would be 12 sort of an extension of an authorized 13 use, so it would no longer be 14 unauthorized in the zoning ordinance. 15 MEMBER GEDEON: I guess my 16 question is are we going to have to 17 balance the city's legal fees versus the 18 harm to other property owners in the 19 city? And if it's going to eliminate the 20 ticket and reduce legal fees, it might be 21 worthwhile. 22 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 23 you. Member Skelcy. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: Mr. Meihn, is
1 what Mr. Copeland said true, that after 2 the temporary permit expired, that Mid 3 Michigan continued to bring in loads? 4 MR. MEIHN: Absolutely not. In 5 fact, if you remember when we were here 6 in September, that was one of your major 7 issues. And, no, we stopped bringing 8 material in a week to two weeks prior to 9 the expiration of the permit, primarily 10 based upon my communications with 11 Mr. Boulard as to the process that the 12 client would need to make to get an 13 extension of the special use permit. And 14 I followed the directive that I was given 15 by Mr. Boulard in terms of cutting off 16 that process and being prepared to come 17 before you. 18 If you may recall, that was one 19 of your major concerns, that there were 20 material coming onto the property that 21 was separate and distinct from this 22 project, and that happened. 23 MEMBER SKELCY: That did 24 happen?
1 MR. MEIHN: Yes, it did. 2 MEMBER SKELCY: I'm asking if 3 anything came in after the expiration of 4 the temporary permit? 5 MR. MEIHN: Absolutely -- 6 absolutely not. In fact, two weeks prior 7 to the expiration of the temporary 8 permit, all deliveries stopped. 9 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. My 10 second question is how come there is no 11 one here from Michigan Crushing and 12 Recycling to tell us how long it will 13 take them to complete the project? 14 MR. MEIHN: Well, because you 15 have Lew Hayes here, contrary to the 16 people who have spoken who have no idea 17 what the relationship is between 18 Mr. Hayes and Mid Michigan, and who have 19 talked about a contract for which they 20 are not a party to, nor have the terms. 21 They have it wrong. 22 Yes, Mid Michigan is, in fact, 23 the one doing the work. Yes, Mr. Hayes 24 and Mid Michigan have gotten together,
1 because this was Mr. Hayes' view of how 2 he could go about from both a temporary 3 and hopefully a permanent way to try to 4 save what he considers to be the only way 5 he will be able to pay the mortgage on 6 his property going forward. 7 We have since understood since 8 the last time we were here, and I spent 9 some time looking at the master plan, 10 that a permanent change of that master 11 plan to allow the continued use that 12 Mr. Hayes was hoping to be able to do, 13 does not seem to be part of the future. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: No, my question 15 is, why isn't anyone here from Mid 16 Michigan Crushing to tell us how long it 17 will actually take them to get the 18 materials completely off the property? 19 MR. MEIHN: Because you have 20 Mr. Hayes who is in charge of that job 21 along with Mr. Smith. And to have 22 Mr. Hayes and Mr. Smith stand up and say 23 the same thing, I thought it would be 24 redundant.
1 It's Mr. Hayes' business; it's 2 Mr. Hayes' property. It's Mr. Hayes who 3 has gone into this venture with Mid 4 Michigan that is going to end. He's the 5 one that is carrying the ball here, 6 because he's the one that's making sure 7 these things get done. 8 MEMBER SKELCY: And could it be 9 done sooner than December 15th? 10 MR. MEIHN: It could. I can't 11 guarantee, which I'm trying to do, that 12 we are not going to be back arguing over 13 the second portion of it. Yes, I believe 14 it will be done before the 15th, but I 15 was asked last time we were here to make 16 sure that I came back with a firm date. 17 And as I considered the ethics that we 18 all have in this process, it's one thing 19 to have the concrete crushed, pulverized 20 and moved; it's another thing then to 21 argue over whether or not - and 22 Mr. Boulard and I had a small 23 conversation about this - whether or not 24 the prior use of the property, which
1 would be grandfathered in, allowed a 2 certain amount of materials. 3 And I just felt -- and if I'm 4 wrong, then I will take that. I just 5 felt that it wasn't worth to even get 6 into that battle. I wanted to work 7 through the process of being able to say 8 to you, that that won't be the issue 9 either on this property. And that's why 10 I wanted the time frame that I needed to 11 ensure that it would get removed. 12 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank 13 you. 14 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: 15 Member Ghannam. 16 MEMBER GHANNAM: I just have a 17 few questions, sir. 18 MR. MEIHN: Yes, sir. 19 MEMBER GHANNAM: On her point 20 about why is Mr. Hayes here and not 21 Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith is the applicant 22 for this particular request, is he not? 23 MR. MEIHN: No, he's not; 24 Mr. Hayes is.
1 MEMBER GHANNAM: Why does it 2 say the applicant's name is Vaughn Smith 3 of Mid Michigan Crushing & Recycling? 4 MR. MEIHN: Well, I did not get 5 a chance to look at the application. The 6 thing, it does say Vaughn Smith; you are 7 correct. I stand corrected. 8 MEMBER GHANNAM: It just simply 9 lists LHTRLC, as the property owner, and 10 Mr. Smith being the sole member. 11 MR. MEIHN: Right. 12 MEMBER GHANNAM: So, I 13 understand the property owner. But going 14 back to her question, why isn't Mr. Smith 15 here to explain this when this -- 16 MR. MEIHN: It's the straight 17 old argument: Mr. Hayes' rear end is on 18 fire. Mr. Hayes' property is at risk, 19 and Mr. Hayes has agreed to be in a 20 business with Mr. Smith and Mid Michigan. 21 And Mr. Hayes is in charge of running 22 that portion of the business on his 23 property. And he's the one that has got 24 the problem that has to be resolved. And
1 he's the one that if that material was 2 not moved and Mid Michigan takes off, you 3 are coming after the property owner. 4 And, so, I wanted the guy that 5 was signing the checks, that had the 6 ultimate liability, and the guy that was 7 directing the process. That's the 8 reason. 9 MEMBER GHANNAM: Okay. Do you 10 represent Mid Michigan Crushing? 11 MR. MEIHN: I do not, sir. 12 MEMBER GHANNAM: One of the -- 13 or a couple of the gentlemen who came up 14 here indicated that the crushing from the 15 I-96 project is not the only type of 16 crushing that's going on; there may be 17 others. Do you know if that's accurate 18 or not? 19 MR. MEIHN: I don't quite 20 understand your question. Let me restate 21 it. The material that's on the property 22 now, as indicated before, contained 23 property from two, possibly even three 24 other projects, during the time frame
1 that this two-year period of time was 2 going on, with the first 12 months and 3 the second 12 months. Absolutely. 4 MEMBER GHANNAM: It's not just 5 I-96? 6 MR. MEIHN: That's correct. 7 MEMBER GHANNAM: The reason I 8 ask that, and why those comments may be 9 relevant, because the basis upon which 10 you are asking for this extension is 11 because the current project on I-96 and 12 Novi Road has been delayed. 13 MR. MEIHN: And all the 14 material that's on there is going to the 15 I-96 project. 16 MEMBER GHANNAM: I understand 17 that; I'm not debating that. That's why 18 I wonder what other projects are being 19 handled. 20 MR. MEIHN: I'm sorry. I 21 misunderstood. There are no other 22 projects that are being handled; it's 23 just concrete from other projects were 24 being brought onto the property to be
1 crushed and put into its fine material 2 and then to be used for the 96. I'm 3 sorry, I misunderstood your question, 4 sir. 5 That was one of the complaints 6 of Donna -- I hate to call you by your 7 first name. I can only see with one eye 8 because my contact is out. 9 MEMBER SKELCY: Skelcy. 10 MR. MEIHN: Ms. Skelcy 11 indicated before, one of the main 12 concerns she had last time and today is 13 the fact that concrete from other 14 projects were being brought onto this 15 site and being pulverized for that. So, 16 I apologize for the confusion. 17 MEMBER GHANNAM: That's all 18 right. I don't have any other questions. 19 Thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Member Ibe. 21 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, I 22 think, Counsel, I must say, the last time 23 you were here you were in the hot seat 24 and you had just taken over this case, I
1 assume. 2 MR. MEIHN: That's correct. 3 MEMBER IBE: I felt a little 4 empathy for you because you had to deal 5 with a lay person who filed an 6 application that you took over. And I 7 admire the fact that you and your client 8 have gone back to do your homework. 9 And I know the last time you 10 were here, we had suggested that we are 11 not going to give you a pass to the end 12 of this year until December. 13 MR. MEIHN: That's correct. 14 MEMBER IBE: And on the issue 15 that had been raised by some of the 16 members, and which I think you answered 17 very well regarding Mid Michigan and 18 Mr. Hayes, Mr. Hayes is the sole owner of 19 the property. 20 Now, the contract between 21 Mr. Hayes and Mid Michigan is not before 22 this board, and it's irrelevant, really. 23 Because the parties who own the property 24 is the one who we are going to hold
1 liable, would be Mr. Hayes. 2 Mid Michigan can do whatever 3 they want with the contract regarding 4 Mr. Hayes. If Mr. Hayes is in violation 5 of that contract, that's their personal 6 problem; doesn't have to do with the City 7 of Novi. I think it would be redundant 8 to have Mid Michigan come up here and say 9 the same thing Mr. Hayes is going to say. 10 Frankly, I think it begs the 11 question, when are you going to complete 12 this project? I think December 15th 13 seems reasonable to me, if you would ask 14 me, because it's just 63 or 64 days away. 15 And you have given good reasons why it 16 should go to December 15th. Meaning, 17 that you can't complete the crushing 18 prior to that time, but there are other 19 issues that may come before this board 20 again that you want to avoid. Is that 21 correct? 22 MR. MEIHN: That's correct. 23 MEMBER IBE: Really, I think 24 that we have used quite a great amount of
1 time in arguing whether or not we should 2 go to district court or not go to 3 district court. But, frankly, who is 4 going to pay for that? I think we can 5 eliminate that issue if we just simply 6 grant this exception for the time 7 requested. 8 And, obviously, it's the burden 9 of the applicant to comply. And if he 10 fails to comply in that period of time, 11 there are legal actions that can be taken 12 by the city attorney's office along in 13 conjunction with Mr. Boulard. 14 I would vote and would ask the 15 members to vote for this application so 16 that this issue can at least come to a 17 close. Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Anybody else? 19 Okay. I'm looking for a motion then. 20 Member Ibe. 21 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, I will 22 ask that we grant the request as made by 23 the applicant to extend. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: Applicant is
1 Smith; we are talking about Hayes. If 2 you look at the application, the 3 application had been made by Smith. 4 MS. KUDLA: Smith made the 5 application, so he would still be the 6 party. I mean, that's the applicant. 7 The property owner is here in support of 8 the application. 9 MEMBER IBE: Okay. May I 10 continue? I will move that we grant the 11 request as made by the applicant and as 12 brought forward by the property owner; 13 that being Mr. Hayes. And that we should 14 grant them an exception up to December 15 15th, 2010, to complete the project and 16 the cleaning of the property. 17 And the basis for granting this 18 extension is that the applicant obviously 19 has had two years to do some work, but 20 there appears to have been additional 21 work that had to be completed in order to 22 bring the property into compliance. 23 The granting of the extension 24 until December 15th, 2010, will not
1 impair an adequate supply of light or air 2 to the properties. It will not 3 unreasonably increase congestion in 4 public streets. It will not impair 5 established property values within the 6 surrounding area. And as well spoken by 7 one of the parties who was here before us 8 who is not an applicant, he obviously 9 claimed that the applicant has not made a 10 mess of the area, but a party who is not 11 before this board right now, is the party 12 to whom they had a complaint about. 13 And granting this will also be 14 in the welfare of the City of Novi, in 15 the sense that it will save us costs in 16 litigating this matter. Thank you. 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Support. 18 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 19 motion made by Member Ibe and supported 20 by Member Sanghvi. Any further 21 discussion? 22 Ms. Martin, please call the 23 roll. 24 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi?
1 MEMBER SANGHVI: 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 Ghannam? 9 MEMBER GHANNAM: No. 10 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 11 MEMBER SKELCY: No. 12 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 13 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 14 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 15 five to two. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. 17 Hopefully this is all resolved by the 18 15th of December. 19 That brings us to the other 20 matter section of the agenda. 21 Does the city staff or city 22 attorney have any matters to discuss? 23 Mr. Boulard. 24 MR. BOULAND: I have one quick
1 reminder. Previously, as the end of the 2 year rolls around, board members and 3 commissions are given invitations for an 4 appreciation dinner, and so on, and 5 appreciation. I wanted to let you know 6 in the interest of cost savings, being 7 green, and all matters of other 8 appropriate things, the city will be 9 doing those invitations electronically 10 this year. 11 So, please, be on the look-out 12 for them, and just wanted to give you a 13 head's up in case, if you are like me, 14 that your mail is always occupied by 15 somebody else. Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: City 17 attorney, do you have any comments? 18 MS. KUDLA: No. 19 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Okay. Thank 20 you. Any board members have any other 21 issues to discuss this evening? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a 23 motion to adjourn? 24 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: You may make
1 a motion, and I will take a second for 2 that motion. 3 MEMBER GHANNAM: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: We have a 5 motion and second. All in favor of 6 adjourning, say aye. 7 THE BOARD: Aye. 8 CHAIRMAN WROBEL: Thank you. 9 The meeting is adjourned at 8:46. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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 (84) 12 typewritten pages, is a true and correct 13 transcript of my said stenographic notes. 14 15 16 __________ ________________________ Date Sherri L. Ruff, CSR-3568 17 Certified Shorthand Reporter 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
|