Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Bloomfield Township Hall
I. ATTENDANCE:
PRESENT: Board Members Jane Reisinger, Lisa Seneker, Dan Devine,
Bob Taylor, James Aldrich, Vice Chairman Corrine Khederian, Chairman Brian Kepes.
STAFF PRESENT: Patricia McCullough, Planning and Building Director, Kaye
Chartier, Code and Ordinance Director, Robin Carley, Planning Secretary, Kathy
Davis, Building Secretary.
II. APPROVAL OF ZONING BOARD MINUTES:
A. Approval of the Zoning
Board of Appeals Minutes of November 9th and December 14th,
2004.
Ms. McCullough, Planning and Building Director, made mention to the Board
that at the December meeting there were additional comments that were asked to
be added by the Chair after further review of the tape and discussion with the
Chair, it was found that the language is more appropriately reflected in the
minutes before you at your places this evening. We ask the Board to reconsider
the approval of the November 9th, 2004 minutes and if supported to
reconsider, a motion for the approval of the new November 9th, 2004,
amended minutes that are before you.
Motion by Mr. Devine
Seconded by Ms. Seneker to reconsider the previous approval of the November 9th,
2004 minutes.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
Motion by Mr. Devine
Seconded by Ms. Khederian to approve the November 9th, 2004
minutes as amended.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger
Seconded by Ms. Seneker to approve the December 14th, 2004 minutes
as written.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
III. APPEALS:
RETURNED ITEMS
(1R) 7357 Greenwich – J. Bergman
Remanded by Oakland County Circuit Court, Judge Rudy Nichols,
to request for consideration as to whether a 37’ x 70’ asphalt sports court with
or without an 8-foot high fence at both ends, located in the rear yard, is a
permitted accessory structure and/or a request for a variance to allow a 37’ x
70’ asphalt sports court with or without an 8-foot high fence at both ends to be
located in the rear yard for Section 33, Berkshire Glens No. 1, Lot 90. Article
XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that all accessory
structures located on a lot containing an already existing principal building
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board of Appeals. Article XV,
Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences of all lots of record in
all Residential Districts, which enclose property and/or are within a required
side or rear yard, shall not exceed 4-feet in height. (19-33-376-001)
Mr. Derk Beckerleg, Assistant Attorney for Bloomfield
Township, addressed the appeal with history of the variance request being denied
by the Zoning Board of Appeals about 1 year ago. A lawsuit was filed in Oakland
County Circuit Court appealing the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals and
on September 16, 2004, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge, Rudy Nichols,
remanded the case back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for additional
proceedings. Specifically Judge Nichols in his order instructed the Zoning Board
of Appeals to consider three items: 1. Whether the proposed play pod is a
permitted accessory structure/use pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The
number of other homes in the area of the subject property that have tennis
courts, sports courts, and recreational facilities. 3. Whether a non-use
variance is applicable to this request and if so, a motion needs to be made with
respect to utilizing the standard contained in the National Boatland vs. City of
Farmington Hills case. After analysis of this case, the file, the Zoning
Ordinance and the Order Mr. Beckerleg concluded that a variance analysis is not
appropriate under the circumstances. Mr. Beckerleg advised that the Board will
be considering two matters: 1. Whether the play pod is a permitted accessory use
and structure, and 2. The number of other homes in the area with tennis courts,
sports courts, and recreational facilities. Mr. Beckerleg advised the Board to
proceed to re-hear the case, taking into account those two considerations and
also looking at Section 1804 of the Township Ordinance which provides standards
for consideration of permissions and uses of such structures as being proposed.
The first thing to do would be to allow the proponent and their representatives
to make whatever presentation they wish, ask any questions of them, hear any
comments from the audience and then bring it back to the Board for a final
decision based on those two factors.
Mr. Peter Arvant, attorney, was present with Mr. Joseph
Ahern, attornery, for John and Donna Bergmann, at 7357 Greenwich. Mr. Arvant
indicated that Mr. Beckerleg has generally described the reasoning why we are
here and felt it was relatively accurate with one exception. Mr. Arvant’s
interpretation of the Court’s order was not for a complete re-hearing of this
case but it is for specific answers to be given by the Zoning Board of Appeals
relative to the questions posed by Circuit Court regarding the variance
requested in August 12, 2003 for the installation of a play pod.
Mr. Beckerleg commented to Mr. Arvant that the Board has had
hearings on this item and has facts pertaining to this case. The past
presentations given for this item will remain as part of the file and will be
considered by the Board.
Mr. Arvant questioned how did the Board come to it analyze
and determine whether the play pod is a permitted accessory structure or use.
What were the Board’s factors to determine the permitted accessory structure or
use. Mr. Arvant indicated that he does not have anything to add or change from
the request except for the fact that he understood since the time the initial
request was made on August 12, 2003, that anything over a 4-foot fence, is not
acceptable. Mr. Arvant indicated that it should be reflected that it was amended
at the time of the August 12, 2003 meeting that a 4-foot fence or no fence would
be acceptable to the owners. To further clarify, Mr. Arvant indicated that he
had been in contact with the Township’s attorney and has often requested some
guidance of what would be acceptable or something more palatable from the
Township’s perspective since the August 12, 2003 meeting. Mr. Arvant reiterated
that he wants to comply with the court order and if the Board has determined
that it is an accessory use and structure than the Board fulfill the court order
to give the factors on why it would be. Mr. Arvant’s interpretation of the
Ordinance is that, the structure falls within the definition of Section 201 of
the general definition section that a play pod or recreational playscape as
proposed falls directly within the definition of what is a permitted accessory
use and structure, that being swimming pools, tennis courts or similar
recreational courts or facilities. The proposed play pod is smaller than the
regulation size of a tennis court not including the usual 10 to 15-feet around
the tennis court.
Mr. Beckerleg indicated that the Board is in a position that
a motion can be made and the issues that have been raised will be addressed. Mr.
Beckerleg indicated that the definition of an accessory structure, assuming that
this is an accessory structure, does not necessarily mean it is a permitted
accessory structure. In Section 1503 paragraph 2 it states that accessory
structures shall not be erected in any required yard except a rear yard and all
accessory structures proposed to be added to a lot containing an already
existing principal building shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Arvant reiterated that the second request from the court
was a determination of what the Boards finding was relative to the number of
other play pods or tennis courts in the area.
Mr. Beckerleg indicated that a report has been prepared by
Ms. Kaye Chartier, Code and Ordinance Director, dated January 10, 2005. This
document will be reflected in the motion and will be part of the Zoning Board of
Appeals file.
Mr. Arvant indicated an objection for the record that it was
not Judge Nichols or the Oakland County Circuit Courts Order that again we
re-open or re-address these issues with understandings that this was done. The
judge heard them all and took them into account and issued it’s order of
September 16, 2004.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director,
referenced the drainage issues. At the request of the Board, a topographical map
was provided relative to the area and it was displayed to the Board. The flow
was identified with the elevations that are draining to the southeasterly
direction, also this map shows that there are four rear yards that are within
this area. Given the recent installation of the ice rink on the Bergmann’s
property, as shown in the pictures indicating the ponding on the property, there
was evidence of drainage issues that has occurred on this site as well as the
adjacent property. Adding an additional impervious surface will add to the water
flow if it is not addressed specifically through an engineered system.
Mr. John Kelly, resident at 7360 West Greenwich, was present
and indicated that he lives across the street and his property is in direct view
of the sports court. Mr. Kelly made comment on the impact of the grade by
respectfully disagreeing that stating when this property was originally
constructed, they were the only property without a swale. The proposed
impervious surface will not exacerbate the flow. It will only direct the flow.
With regards to the ice skating rink, Mr. Kelly respectfully disagrees. The
grade in the rear has been soft for 30 years. With respect to the sports court,
there are a lot of young families and it is a new product. The argument with it
being a nuisance or that it is unsightly is bogus and unfair. Mr. Kelly
commented that screening the structure would be advantageous. Mr. Kelly
indicated that from his visible standpoint he has no objection to the sports
court with all of the issues. The construction and screening could be handled
with the assistance of a landscape architect or other means.
Mr. Arvant made mention that he was not sure if the Board
wanted him to address the drainage issue at this time or later. Mr. Arvant
wanted to reiterate that the judge’s order did not ask for the determination of
the drainage. The homeowners have indicated to him that if the Township deems it
to be our problem, that they would be open to rectifying and relieving what
could be an issue.
Mr. Devine indicated that he was the member of the Board that
made the motion the last time. He recalled that the issue that was most
important to the Board the last time, and certainly to him in instances of
accessory structures, is the impact on the abutting neighbors and that this has
always been of great importance to the Board for those people that have to live
right next door or share a common back yard area. In this instance, Mr. Devine
referred to the topographic map and indicated that the neighbor to the south,
the Urquharts, 7395 W. Greenwich, issued a letter dated January 3, 2005 to Ms.
McCullough, Township Planning and Building Director, that reiterated what they
stated in August 3, 2003 letter. The Urquharts are the neighbors directly to the
south of the petitioners property and they are adamant in their recommendation
to the Board that they deny the sports court for three important reasons. The
Urquharts believe it will negatively impact their property values, that it will
create further drainage problems that already exist with water runoff by
diverting and altering a natural flow. Also in their mind it will disrupt the
peaceful and tranquil environment of their neighborhood. As indicated by the map
and the Township’s Planning Director, Patti McCullough, there are four back
yards that join in the area of the sports court that will directly impact the
views from all of these neighbors. These are the people that have to live with
the result of whether the Board approves it or not. Also looking at the concern
for harmony as it relates to the area in which this request is being made and in
referring to the memorandum dated January 10, 2005, from Kaye Chartier, Township
Code and Ordinance Director, there are several accessory structures that were in
fact approved in this subdivision Berkshire Glens, Berkshire Glens #1, Berkshire
Village and Berkshire Village #1, #2, #3. However in those instances, only one
other accessory structure was a sports court. Those that were approved had no
significant neighborhood objections by the abutting neighbors. Given this
information and the neighbor immediately to the south being directly impacted by
it, there is a belief that it will negatively impact their property values. With
their concerns of the drainage and the disruption of peace and tranquility taken
with all of the other testimony that was heard at the prior hearing and the
letters that have been submitted, Mr. Devine indicated that he would like to
make a motion.
The Board discussed the existing condition of the property
and the following motion ensued:
Motion by Mr. Devine
Seconded by Ms. Khederian as follows:
In the matter of the ZBA case pertaining to the proponents,
John Bergmann and Donna Bergmann’s request to construct an accessory structure
and use, that being a 37 foot by 70 foot asphalt sports court in the rear yard
of their property at 7357 West Greenwich, Bloomfield Township, Michigan, I would
move that the proponents’ request for approval be denied inasmuch as the
proponents and their request for the following reasons do not meet the
requirements of Section 1804 of the Bloomfield Township Zoning Ordinance and,
therefore, the proposed sports court is not a permitted accessory structure:
1. The proposed play pod/sports court structure is not in
harmony with the development of the area in which it is located inasmuch as
there is only one sports court located in the subdivision that the subject
property is located in;
2. The proposed play pod/sports court structure on the
subject property would not be in harmony with and would also be detrimental
to the area in which it is located as it would cause drainage problems in
the area as indicated by the neighbors directly to the south, 7395 W.
Greenwich, the Urquhart’s;
3. The proposed play pod/sports court structure would
increase the intensity of the use of the subject property and would create
problems, such as noise, increased number of persons using the subject
property and could negatively impact the resale value of residences in the
area of the subject property as indicated as a again by the neighbors
directly to the south;
4. The nature, location, size and site layout of the
proposed play pod/sports court structure will not be a harmonious part of
the district and the area in which the proposed play pod/sports court is to
be located, taking into account the physical relationship of the proposed
use to other uses in the area inasmuch as the proposed play pod/sports court
use will cause physical problems to properties in the area, including
drainage problems, a fact that is evidenced by, among other things, the
proponents’ recent construction of an ice rink on the subject property that
flooded a portion of his adjoining neighbor’s yard as indicated by the
slides presented by the Township’s Planning Director, Ms. Patti McCullough;
5. The location, size, intensity and site layout of the
proposed play pod/sports court on the subject property and the use and
operation of the proposed play pod/sports court will be objectionable to
nearby dwellings as it will cause increased and objectionable noise
according to those neighbors;
Finally, pursuant to the Court’s September 16, 2004, Order of
Remand, and based on Ms. Kaye Chartier’s report dated January 10, 2005, it
appears that there are three properties in the subdivision that the subject
property is located in that have tennis courts and one other property in the
subdivision that has a sports court all of those have been approved by the
Zoning Board of Appeals and a tennis court located at 3841 Wedgewood Drive, the
Finnley residence had been denied. For these reasons, reminding the Board that
the last time after they had heard the presentation from the applicant’s and the
information from the neighbors it was a unanimous decision to deny the request.
Based upon the items mentioned in the motion and the comments predicating the
motion that I move to deny once again and ask that the applicant’s remove the
structure within 30 days of today’s date.
Motion carried, 5 – 2.
YEAS: Reisinger, Seneker, Devine, Khederian, Aldrich
NAYS: Taylor, Kepes
TABLED ITEMS
(1-T) 1469 Dell Rose – P. Kalabat
Mr. Steve Kalabat, son of property owner, was present seeking approval for
the construction of accessory structures, an 8’ x 8.8’ high trellis, located in
a rear yard extending approximately 36-feet from the elevated rear deck and a
15’ x 14’ high gazebo located in a rear yard more than 40-feet from the front,
side and rear property lines, Ward Road frontage, Section 6, Dell Rose Gardens,
Lot 17 and 18. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that
accessory structures shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board of
Appeals. (19-06-178-016)
Mr. Kalabat addressed the Board with modified changes to the
gazebo to meet the Township Ordinance of 14-feet in height.
Mr. Charles Macon, resident at 1485 Dell Rose, was present
and spoke in opposition of the variance request. Mr. Macon indicated at the
October 19, 2004 meeting, the Board suggested that the petitioner return to the
Board to allow further discussion between the neighbors and the subdivision
association. This has not happened, and Mr. Macon is asking for neighborly
consideration regarding this variance request.
Mr. Kalabat replied that the location of the gazebo and
trellis has not changed. The only thing that has changed is the height of the
gazebo from 16-feet to 14-feet as requested by the Board. Mr. Kalabat indicated
that the Wards Orchard subdivision association has approved the accessory
structures and provide the approval to the Board.
Chairman Kepes questioned whether the subdivision association
approval had been granted.
Mr. Kalabat indicated that he was not certain if Dell Rose
Gardens had submitted their approval.
Chairman Kepes questioned whether the property was apart of
two associations.
Mr. Kalabat replied that he was not certain.
Mr. Taylor made mention of the October 19th, 2004
meeting and the understanding was to give the Kalabats and the Macons an
opportunity to have a discussion about the gazebo which was intended to be
discussed at their meeting on October 22nd, 2004, regarding the
primary setback.
Mr. Kalabat replied that the October 22nd, 2004
meeting was for the primary structure setback issue, which has become an
economic issue and they did not discuss the gazebo.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, made
mention of the letter submitted by the applicant. The Ward Orchards subdivision
association is not a part of this property. Therefore, subdivision association
approval is still lacking.
The Board determined given that the petitioner and neighbor
have not discussed this variance request that this item was to be tabled.
Motion by Mr. Taylor
Seconded by Ms. Reisinger to table the request for the
construction of accessory structures, an 8’x 8.8’ high trellis, located in a
rear yard extending approximately 36-feet from the elevated rear deck and a 15’
x 14’ high gazebo located in a rear yard more than 40-feet from the front, side
and rear property lines, to allow the petitioner to seek the neighbor at 1485
Dell Rose and the subdivision association for further input and/or approval.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(2-T) 1917 Lone Pine – L. Pollack
Mr. Nicholas Maluffe, Attorney and Land Development Consultant, and Scott
Bowers of Bowers and Rainer Architects, was present seeking approval to
construct accessory structures, tiered stone retaining walls with an overall
height of 9.6 ft., located on private property in the front yards, the private
drive and Lone Pine Road frontage. Also seeking approval for 2 ft. retaining
walls, located in the road right-of-way, Lone Pine Road frontage for Acreage
Parcel, Section 19. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states
that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a
rear yard, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board of
Appeals. (19-19-302-005)
Mr. Scott Bowers addressed the Board with a detailed plan showing the tiered
stone retaining walls located on private property and retaining walls located in
the road right-of –way. There is an existing slope from Lone Pine down to the
garage. This is where the tiered stone retaining walls are proposed with
landscaping to be installed within the terraced areas.
Chairman Kepes questioned the purpose of the 2-foot retaining walls in the
road right-of-way.
Mr. Bowers replied that given the slope of the wall, it is necessary for
these walls to hold the earth from falling into the curb line of Lone Pine.
Mr. Charles Nahigian, resident at 1884 Lone Pine, was present and expressed
his concerns regarding the 9.6-foot high stone retaining walls.
Mr. Bowers commented that the wall is being measured from the garage floor
down to Lone Pine.
Ms. Ruth Theobald, resident at 1906 Lone Pine, was present and expressed her
concerns about the petitioner’s driveway and access for the garage.
Mr. Bowers replied that there are two existing curb cuts. The driveway did
originally come down the steep grade and wrap around and connect back up to the
driveway that connects to the garage. Oakland County has granted approval for
the curb cut and driveway permit. Mr. Bowers provided letters to the Board from
neighbors in support of the variance request and also an approval of the
necessary easement needed for the proposed safety path.
Ms. Patti McCullough indicated that the Township engineer has been working
with Oakland County and with the affected property owners to receive the
necessary easements to be able to install the safety path.
The Board determined that the accessory structures, tiered stone retaining
walls and the 2-foot retaining walls would not negatively impact the surrounding
neighbors.
Motion by Ms. Seneker
Seconded by Mr. Aldrich to approve the accessory structures, a tiered stone
retaining walls with an overall height of 9.6 ft., located on private property
in the front yards, the private drive and Lone Pine Road frontage, with
landscaping to be installed within the tiers. Also, seeking approval for 2 ft.
retaining walls, located in the road right-of-way, of Lone Pine Road frontage.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
Chairman Kepes made mention of item #9 1267 Club – CBC Building, would not be
heard this evening.
(3T) 3955 Kirkland – L. Yelinek
Mr. Chris Otto and Mark Yeiter of COB Builders, were present seeking approval
to construct accessory structures, tiered retaining walls with an overall height
of 13.5-feet, located on private property in front, side and rear yards. Also
seeking approval to encroach 2.7 ft. in the northerly side yard setback for the
installation of two air-
conditioning units for Lot 12, Island Lake Woods No. 1, Section 17. Article
XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures
shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, and shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Board of Appeals. A minimum of 16 ft.
is required in the side yard setback for all ground-mounted mechanicals.
(19-17-301-004)
Mr. Otto addressed the Board with an apology for their absence from the last
meeting.
Mr. Otto indicated that the tiered retaining walls were mentioned in the
building plan review performed by Larry Ancypa of Hubble Roth and Clark. Mr.
Ancypa questioned in the plan review what would be the potential of a neighbor
building a structure on top of the hill above the proposed wall. Mr. Otto
indicated that an agreement has been made and a letter in writing from Mr.
Ancypa will be provided to the Township this week. Mr. Otto also indicated that
approvals have been granted regarding the wall structure, the use of redi-rock,
the layout and the confirmation of the potential lateral movement of the hill
and also the surcharge on top of the hill for any future structures from the
neighbors.
Chairman Kepes questioned would this be a terraced wall.
Mr. Otto replied the initial plan was to use only landscape stone but with
the degree of cut back into the wall, they found there was an ordinance
regarding a single height wall and found that a tiered wall would be more
effective that will have plantings on it approximately every 4-feet within a
three tier structure. On top to the wall plantings of pine trees or arborvitaes
will be placed as a border for safety measures.
Ms. Seneker questioned has a landscape plan been provided.
Mr. Otto replied that a planting landscape plan for the wall has been
provided to the Planning Department. Also a landscape plan is being developed
for the whole site based on the homeowners needs but this has not been completed
for the whole site.
The Board determined the accessory structures, tiered retaining walls with
landscaping on each of the tiers and on top of the wall would not negatively
impact the adjacent neighbors.
Motion by Ms. Khederian
Seconded by Ms. Seneker to approve the accessory structures, as submitted,
tiered retaining walls with an overall height of 13.5-feet, located on private
property in front, side and rear yards. Also seeking approval to encroach 2.7
ft. in the northerly side yard setback for the installation of two
air-conditioning units.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
NEW ITEMS
(1) 5430 Longmeadow – G. Bokos
Mr. George Bokos, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing
accessory structure, a 15.5’ x 16.5’ x 10’ high shed, located in a front yard
31-feet from the easterly side property line and 40-feet from the southerly
front property line, Big Beaver Road frontage, to remain during the construction
of a new home on Lot 39, Bloomfield Estates Subdivision, Section 24. Article XV,
Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states
that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a
rear yard, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board of
Appeals. (19-24-353-009)
Mr. Bokos addressed the Board with the request of an existing accessory
structure, a shed, and provided a letter of subdivision approval. Mr. Bokos
would like to use the shed during construction of his home to store tools. Once
the construction is complete, he would like to make the shed look like it is
part of the home and store kids toys and lawn furniture for safekeeping.
Chairman Kepes indicated that a letter was received from the neighbors next
door, Mr. & Mrs. David Miller, residents at 5420 Longmeadow, who are in favor of
the existing shed to remain in place.
Ms. Seneker questioned the petitioner what would the structure be utilized
for after the construction of the home.
Mr. Bokos replied that he would like the accessory structure, a shed, to
remain after the construction as a permanent structure.
The Board determined that the existing shed, would not negatively impact the
adjacent neighbors.
Motion by Ms. Khederian
Seconded by Mr. Taylor to approve an existing accessory structure, a 15.5’ x
16.5’ x 10’ high shed, located in a front yard 31-feet from the westerly side
property line and 40-feet from the southerly front property line of Big Beaver
Road frontage, to remain on the property during and after construction of a new
home as a permanent structure.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(2) 2053 Telegraph – Harbor Telegraph-NFZ LLC/Newton Furniture
Mr. Ed Phillips of Phillips Sign and Lighting, was present seeking approval
for an 80 square foot temporary vinyl banner to be displayed during construction
for a period not to exceed twelve months. The proposed sign will be located on
the street side façade, Telegraph Road frontage for Part of Lot 34, Bloomfield
Acres, Section 5. Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires
temporary signage within the B-3 (General Business District) to obtain the
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-05-326-005, 19-05-156-028)
Mr. Phillips addressed the Board indicating that currently the façade of this
property, Pet Supplies and Newton Furniture, is being renovated. The intent is
to take down the existing signage, store the signs and install the banners as
presented. Once the façade renovation is completed, the original signs are to be
reinstalled. Mr. Phillips indicated that the Newton Furniture sign is 134 square
feet and the proposed temporary banners are to be 80 square feet. The reason for
the banner style and not hard sign material, is due to the fact that as
construction crews continue to work on the façade, they can move the banners
around from place to place. Mr. Phillips also indicated that in no instance
would a banner and a permanent sign be installed on the building at the same
time.
Ms. Khederian questioned what would the proposed length of time be for the
banner.
Mr. Phillips replied that it is weather dependant. He hopes the projection of
work to be no more than 1 year.
Ms. Khederian questioned would 6 months be sufficient.
Mr. Phillips replied that 6 months would be sufficient.
The Board determined that the vinyl banners to be placed temporarily during
construction would not negatively impact the adjacent properties.
Motion by Ms. Khederian
Seconded by Ms. Seneker to approve an 80 square foot temporary vinyl banner
to be displayed during construction for a period not to exceed 6 months.
Petitioner to seek ZBA approval if an extension is required.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(3) 2057 Telegraph – Harbor Telegraph-NFZ LLC/Pet Supplies Plus
Mr. Ed Phillips of Phillips Signs, was present seeking approval for an 80
square foot temporary vinyl banner to be displayed during construction for a
period not to exceed twelve months. The proposed sign will be located on the
street side façade, Telegraph
Road frontage for Part of Lot 34, Bloomfield Acres, Section 5. Article XV,
Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires temporary signage within the
B-3 (General
Business District) to obtain the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
(19-05-326-005, 19-05-156-028)
The Board determined that the vinyl banners to be placed temporarily during
construction would not negatively impact the adjacent properties.
Motion by Ms. Khederian
Seconded by Ms. Seneker to approve an 80 square foot temporary vinyl banner
to be displayed during construction for a period not to exceed 6 months.
Petitioner to seek ZBA approval if an extension is required.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(4) 1252 Cottingham Row – D. Handleman
Mr. Tom Alberts, builder, was present seeking approval for the installation
of accessory structures, three air-conditioning units screened with evergreen
plantings located immediately adjacent to the northeasterly residential wall
more than 40-feet from the front lot line, Hidden Lake Drive frontage for Unit
133, Section 20, The Hills of Lone Pine. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be erected in any
required yard, except a rear yard and that all accessory structures shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Board of Appeals. (19-20-226-142)
Mr. Alberts addressed the Board with renovations to a 12 year-old home that
will include the replacement of three air-conditioning units to be located
immediately adjacent to the northeasterly residential wall. The triangular shape
of the property and street frontages on all three sides of the property leads to
practical difficulties in placing the three units. The subdivision association
has granted approval for the three air-conditioning units.
The Board determined the accessory structures, three air-conditioning units,
to be screened with evergreen plantings located immediately adjacent to a
residential wall would not negatively impact the adjacent neighbors.
Motion by Ms. Seneker
Seconded by Ms. Reisinger to approve the installation of accessory
structures, three air-conditioning screened with evergreen plantings located
immediately adjacent to the northerly residential wall more than 40-feet from
the front lot line of Hidden Lake Drive frontage.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(5) 2405 Telegraph – Chrysler Realty Corporation
Mr. Steve Jackson, of The Garrison Company, was present seeking approval for
accessory structures, two additional 10’ x 30’ x 10’ high storage trailers to be
located on–site immediately and would remain until April of 2005, located on the
northwesterly corner of the site along the Telegraph Road frontage on the vacant
Acreage Parcel, Section 5. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265
states that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard,
except a rear yard and that all accessory structures shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Board of Appeals. (19-05-476-093)
Mr. Jackson addressed the Board with the request for two storage trailers to
be located on-site for storage of lighting and plumbing fixtures during
construction. Mr. Jackson indicated that if approval is granted, the total
number of trailers on-site would be three.
The Board determined the location of the two trailers, behind the new
Chrysler building, would not negatively impact the surrounding properties.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger
Seconded by Ms. Seneker to approve the accessory structures, two additional
10’ x 30’ x 10’ high storage trailers to be located on-site to be placed at the
rear of the building with the contingency that the trailers will be removed from
the property by April 15, 2005.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(6) 4835 W. Wickford – A. Jade & E. Barden
Mr. John Mare, Landscape Architect, was present seeking approval for an
accessory structure, a 4-foot high retaining wall, located on private property
0-feet from the front
property line, West Wickford frontage for Unit 1, Section 20, The Hills of
Lone Pine. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No.265 states that
accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear
yard and that all accessory structures shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Board of Appeals. (19-20-226-008)
Ms. Reisinger recused herself from the item #6 due to a conflict of interest
with current business transactions.
Mr. Mare addressed the Board with a request for a garden/retaining wall to be
located within the front yard setback to provide space for a garden and at the
same time help with retaining the front yard slope.
Ms. Janet Fortionni, resident in the Hills of Lone Pine, indicated that she
does not live near this address, however she feels that a 4-foot high wall is
not conducive with other properties in the area.
Mr. Mare indicated that the elevation is from the street, leaving a street
side view of 1-foot above grade. The wall will start at grade level from the
driveway/garage area and will taper down into the front yard of the property and
will not be located in the road right-of-way. The property line in relation to
the curb line is approximately 16.5-feet and is not in the road right-of-way.
Ms. Seneker questioned if additional landscaping would be installed to soften
the view of the wall.
Mr. Mare indicated that 8" high ground cover would be installed.
The Board determined that the 4-foot high retaining wall, located on private
property would not negatively impact the adjacent neighbors.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich
Seconded by Ms. Khederian to approve the accessory structure, a 4-foot high
retaining wall, located on private property 0-feet from the front property line
of West Wickford frontage.
Motion carried, 5 – 1 – 1.
YEAS: Devine, Khederian, Aldrich, Taylor, Kepes
NAYS: Seneker
ABSTAINED: Reisinger
(7) 4740 Littlegate – L. Kraft
Jacob Urbas, of Urbas Construction Management, was present seeking approval
for the reconstruction of an accessory structure, a 6-foot high brick screen
wall enclosure extending 12-feet from the northerly residential wall to screen
existing ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment, located 16-feet
from the side property line and approximately 42-feet from the adjacent unit for
Unit 119, The Hills of Lone Pine, Section 20. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 265 states that all accessory structures shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Board of Appeals. (19-20-226-129)
Mr. Urbas addressed the Board with a request of a 7-foot extension to be
added onto the north/south wall and 4-foot extension to be added onto the
east/west wall with the existing height to remain at 6-foot to screen existing
ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment.
Ms. Seneker questioned whether the wall would be visible from the street.
Mr. Urbas indicated that the wall would only be visible if you enter onto the
petitioner’s driveway.
The Board determined that the reconstruction of a 6-foot high brick screen
wall enclosure with the extensions as requested would not negatively impact the
adjacent neighbors.
Motion by Ms. Khederian
Seconded by Mr. Devine to approve the reconstruction of an accessory
structure, a 6-foot high brick screen wall enclosure extending 12-feet from the
northerly residential wall to screen the existing ground mounted mechanical and
electrical equipment, located 16-feet from the side property line and
approximately 42-feet from the adjacent unit.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(8) 4699 Coachmaker Dr. – G. Allen
Mr. Guy Allen, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction
of an accessory structure, a 10’ x 12’ x 8’ high shed, located in a side yard
35-feet from the northerly side property line and 60-feet from the easterly rear
property line for Lot 26, Williamsburg Subdivision, Section 19. Article XV,
Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall
not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, and shall be subject to
the review and approval of the Board of Appeals. (19-19-201-015)
Mr. Allen addressed the Board with a request of an accessory structure, a
garden shed, to help with storage of lawn equipment. The storage shed would be
brown in color with evergreens to be installed to help with screening the view
of the neighbors from Timson Lane. Mr. Allen presented the Board with
subdivision association approval.
Ms. Dana Ross, resident at 1736 Timson Lane, was present and spoke in favor
of the shed.
Ms. Sarah Neumaier, resident at 4693 Coachmaker, presented the Board with a
letter from Ms. Ethel Parkes, resident at 1737 Timson Lane who was opposed to
the request.
Chairman Kepes indicated that the letter submitted by Ms. Parkes is regarding
the objection to the rezoning of 4669 Coachmaker. The petitioners are not
seeking a rezoning of the said property. They are seeking to install a shed on
the property of 4669 Coachmaker.
Ms. Neumaier addressed the Board with her concerns of the screening of the
west side. Ms. Neumaier provided a hand sketched drawing indicating the proposed
location of the shed and how the placement would negatively affect her view from
her property.
Chairman Kepes questioned whether additional landscaping would help with
screening the view.
Ms. Neumaier commented that an alternate location would be best as she
referred to her sketch for other suggested locations.
Chairman Kepes mentioned that the location as proposed by the applicant was
the lowest part of the property and part of the reason why the applicant wanted
their shed there was to avoid carrying items up hill.
Ms. Khederian questioned if the petitioner and Ms. Neaumaier could sit down
and come to an agreement for the placement of the shed.
Mr. Allen replied that would be an option.
Ms. Khederian questioned if the tree line was heavily wooded.
Mr. Allen replied that there is a tree line that is heavily wooded, however,
given that winter is here and the trees have lost their leaves, you can see
through the tree line.
Ms. Khederian suggested that the petitioner and Ms. Neumaier continue their
discussion further to allow them to come to an agreement and return before the
Board later this evening.
Mr. Allen re-approached the Board and commented that an agreement has been
made between him and Ms. Neumaier. The accessory structure, a 10’ x 12’ x 8’
high shed would be allowed to be installed in the side yard 35-feet from the
northerly side property line with additional screening as requested by Ms.
Neumaier.
The Board determined that the accessory structure, a shed, to be screened as
requested would not negatively impact the adjacent neighbors.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich
Seconded by Ms. Reisinger to approve the construction of an accessory
structure, a 10’ x 12’ x 8’ high shed, located in a side yard 35-feet from the
northerly side property line and 60-feet from the easterly rear property line,
contingent upon the petitioner satisfying the neighbor at 4693 Coachmaker, with
additional evergreen screening.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(9) 1267 Club – CBC Building (Removed at the request of the petitioner)
Seeking approval for an accessory use/structure, an in-door swimming pool,
located in the basement level of a new residence for Lot 18, Supervisor’s Plat
No. 7, Section 8. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states
that an accessory use/structure shall be subject to the review and approval of
the Board of Appeals. (19-08-451-011)
(10) 4135 W. Maple – Bloomfield Plaza-Schostak Brothers & CO/Maple 3
Mr. Tim Schaffer of Galaxy Signs, was present seeking approval for a 150.8
square foot wall sign, which is 11.4% of the northerly street side facade, Maple
Road frontage for Acreage Parcel, Section 32. Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 265 states that the maximum size of a sign within the B-2,
Community Business, zoned district shall not exceed 6% of the total area of the
street side façade, and in no instance shall the wall sign exceed 150 square
feet. (19-32-277-041)
Mr. Schaffer addressed the Board with a proposal to remove the front
illuminated "Maple 3" letters along with the numbers 1, 2, 3 on the building and
install a thin mounted Maple Arts Cinema letters. The proposed signage would be
smaller than previously installed. The Design Review Board requested that the
reader board be reduced in size. The problem lies with the design of the
building. The existing reader board is inset within the building structure and
built into the façade along with the yellow and orange metal bands. If the
reader board is removed and reduced in size, it will leave an open square block
wall. The Maple Arts Cinema sign has been repositioned lower on the wall to
bring down the total square footage for the signage.
Chairman Kepes mentioned of a letter received in opposition to the proposal
from Mr. Richard McGee, resident at 6646 Cathederal.
Ms. Reisinger questioned whether the sign could be washed, or painted.
Mr. Schaffer indicated that the existing reader board was built over 30 years
ago and is not a standard zip letter sign. This board was custom built for its
time and if the letters
were to be changed it would also require the font to be changed. The sign if
painted would last for approximately 2 years. Mr. Schaffer suggested that they
could power wash the sign with an attempt to clean it.
The Board determined that the proposed wall sign, as presented for the Maple
Road frontage, would not negatively impact the surrounding properties.
Motion by Mr. Devine
Seconded by Mr. Aldrich to approve a 150.8 square foot wall sign, which is
11.4% of the northerly street side façade of Maple Road frontage, contingent
upon the petitioner complying with the Design Review Board recommendations and
the sign to be cleaned.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(11) 775 E. Valley Chase – M. Jackson
Mr. Michael Jackson, son of homeowner, was present seeking approval for an
8-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot easterly side yard setback for the
construction of a single story addition for Lot 314, Hickory Heights No. 3,
Section 13. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a
minimum of 16-feet in the side yard setback. (19-13-253-014)
Mr. Jackson addressed the Board with the request for an 8-foot encroachment
into the 16-foot easterly side yard for the construction of a barrier free
addition for his mother.
A gentleman from the audience identified himself as the Vice President for
the subdivision association and made mention that their association had not
reviewed the blueprints.
The builder was present and commented that a floor plan was provided showing
the boundaries of the encroachment of the proposed addition.
Mr. Devine questioned the Vice President of the association whether they have
a process in order to approve submission of the plans and have they confirmed
that the process has been completed.
The Vice President of the association commented that plans have not been
submitted as required from the petitioner.
The Board determined that the petitioner would need to seek the subdivision
association for their comments and allow the petitioner to return to the Zoning
Board of Appeals with their comments at the next scheduled meeting.
Motion by Mr. Devine
Seconded by Ms. Khederian to table to the next meeting, February 8, 2005, to
allow the petitioner to seek subdivision association comments for an 8-foot
encroachment into the required 16-foot easterly side yard setback for the
construction of a single story addition.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(12) 3207 Breckenridge – J. Kello
Mr. John Kello, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 3-foot
encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction
of a fireplace addition, located 37-feet from the front property line, Lincoln
Road frontage. The existing home is currently non-conforming. Also seeking
approval for the installation of two air-conditioning units and a stand-by
generator screened with plantings, located immediately
adjacent to the residential wall 33-feet from the front property line,
Lincoln Drive frontage for Lot 506, Westchester Village No. 4, Section 34.
Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that nonconformities
shall not be enlarged upon expanded or extended. Article XV, Section 1503 of
Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical or electrical
equipment shall be placed in any side or rear yard. (19-34-327-001)
Mr. Kello addressed the Board with a 3-foot encroachment into the front yard
for a fireplace addition in the front yard setback of Lincoln Road frontage.
Also seeking the installation of two air-conditioning units and a stand-by
generator to be screened with plantings, located immediately adjacent to the
existing residential wall.
Ms. Seneker questioned how would the air-conditioners and generator be
screened.
Mr. Kello replied that there will be two sets of screening with the adjacent
wall screened with arborvitaes and along Lincoln Drive, and arborvitaes would be
installed running along the length of the back yard.
The Board determined that the petitioner would screen the accessory
structures from view, and that the variance request would not negatively impact
the adjacent neighbors.
Motion by Ms. Khederian
Seconded by Mr. Aldrich to approve a 3-foot encroachment into the required
40-foot front yard setback for the construction of a fireplace addition, located
37-feet from the front property line, of Lincoln Road frontage. Also approved
the installation of two air-conditioning units and a stand-by generator to be
screened with plantings, located immediately adjacent to the residential wall
33-feet from the front property line. Contingent upon the generator complying
with the Township Noise Ordinance.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(13) 1411 Lochridge – S. Wells
Mr. Bill Wells, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing
accessory structure, a stand-by generator, located in a rear yard 13-feet from
the residential wall for Lot 1, Indianwood, Section 8. Article XV, Section 1503
of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires ground mounted electrical and mechanical
equipment to be placed immediately adjacent to the residential building.
(19-08-351-010)
Mr. Wells addressed the Board with a request for a location variance for a
stand-by generator to be located in the rear yard immediately adjacent to an
existing elevated patio. The patio is an enclosed and attached to a storage area
underneath which is also accessible from outside as well as the basement of the
home. The generator has been delivered to the residence but has not been
installed. Mr. Wells indicated that the Planning Department deemed that the
existing subject wall that is "next to" the generator is not a residential
structural wall thereby the variance request was required. The wall that is
13-feet from the nearest residential structural wall which is inside the storage
area. The generator would be located next to the existing two air-conditioning
units outside that is dug into the sloping terrain to better reduce noise as
well as the visibility of the unit itself. When weather allows, he will plant 4
to 5-foot evergreens to completely screen the unit from site so it is not
visible from the lake. Mr. Wells indicated that the two homeowners associations
as well as the next-door land neighbor have granted approval for this accessory
structure.
Mr. Devine questioned Ms. Patti McCullough, Township Planning & Building
Director, that given the procedure for generators, if the generator is approved,
must it comply with Noise Ordinance with 55dB(A) at property line. Is it
required that this sound level requirement be part of the motion.
Ms. McCullough suggested the motion indicate that it is to be in compliance
with the code.
Mr. Devine questioned given that this is lakeside property, would you utilize
the property line or the shoreline.
Ms. McCullough commented that the measurement would be taken from the unit
toward the property line and/or shoreline as opposed to the center of the lake.
Ms. Kaye Chartier added that the measurement would be determined by the new
amended Noise Ordinance at a distance of 25-foot setback if there is not a clear
and precise lot line to measure from.
The Board determined that the proposed location of a stand-by generator would
not negatively impact the adjacent neighbor or the lakeside properties.
Motion by Mr. Devine
Seconded by Mr. Aldrich to approve the location of an accessory structure, a
stand-by generator, located in a rear yard 13-feet from the residential wall
subject to the new amended Noise Ordinance as of January 10, 2005.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(14) 150 Belroi Place – S. Talmer
Mr. Leif Higley, of LOH Construction, was present seeking approval for the
6-foot high lattice that has been installed above the 4-foot high railing of the
second story deck, located in a side yard 16-feet from the northerly side
property line for Lot 85, Colonial Estates, Section 10. Article XV, Section 1510
of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a residential district shall not
exceed 4-feet in height. (19-10-152-020)
Mr. Higley addressed the Board with history of the deck. The existing deck
was demolished and a new structure was built with the proper permits. After the
deck was built, the homeowners suggested a 4-foot high lattice wall screened
with vines on top of the deck railing be constructed to be utilized as a privacy
wall.
Mr. Taylor commented that the structure is not uniform from top to bottom.
The design is more of an aesthetic issue.
Ms. Khederian questioned whether evergreens installed at the bottom to fill
in the void from ground level to the second story deck could be suggested.
Mr. Higley replied that there was no existing screening there. Mr. Higley
commented he had subdivision approval.
Ms. Khederian questioned what is under the deck.
Mr. Higley replied woodchips. There was not a door to access the yard, only
two glass block basement windows.
Mr. Taylor commented that upon observation at 2822 Colonial Trail there is a
very similar screen on top of the 1st floor deck.
Mr. Higley indicated that in the spring planter boxes would be built at the
height of the deck rail to allow for the creeping vines to grow upward.
Motion by Ms. Seneker
Seconded by Ms. Khederian to deny the lattice due to the applicant not
demonstrating a difficulty exists.
Motion carried, 6 – 1.
YEAS: Seneker, Khederian, Reisinger, Devine, Taylor, Kepes
NAYS: Aldrich
Mr. Higley indicated that the lattice is structurally built into the deck. To
remove the lattice would require the removal of the whole deck railing.
Chairman Kepes questioned how tall is it to the deck level.
Mr. Higley replied it is approximately 10-feet, and up to the lattice is
another 4-feet giving a total of 14-feet.
Chairman Kepes suggested to the petitioner to install 16 to 18-feet pines to
help shield the lattice on the one side if the Board would allow this
suggestion.
Mr. Samuel Talmer, homeowner, was present and mentioned that the structure is
not visible from the road however you could see it from the neighbors driveway.
The reason that the lattice was installed was to help with protection from the
morning sun so they could enjoy their deck. Mr. Talmer indicated that the
neighbor has granted approval for this structure and asked the Board for their
reconsideration.
Ms. Seneker suggested that the Board reconsider their vote.
Motion by Ms. Seneker to remove her previous motion.
Seconded by Ms. Khederian
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
Ms. Seneker questioned what could the petitioner do to make this structure
more aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Talmer replied that he would plant what is recommended to help create a
natural foreground from the neighbor’s driveway.
Chairman Kepes suggested that screening the base of the deck at the deck
posts with tall pines and creeping vines on the lattice would help screen the
structure from view.
The Board determined that the lattice installed as part of the deck would not
negatively impact the adjacent neighbors if properly screened.
Motion by Ms. Seneker
Seconded by Mr. Aldrich to approve the existing 4-foot high lattice that has
been installed above the 4-foot high railing of the second story deck, located
in a side yard 16-feet from the northerly side property line, contingent upon
additional evergreens 6-feet in height to be installed at the base of the deck
posts, and that the lattice would be screened with creeping vines.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
V. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Next Zoning Board Meeting – February 8th, 2005 – Election of
Officers
B. Zoning Board Training Session – January 27th, 2005
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted ,
Patricia McCullough, Director
Planning and Building Department
Home |
Government |
Services |
Community |
Current Events |
Resources
Contact Us |
E-mail List |
Forms
Still can't find what you're looking for?
Use our comprehensive Search or
Site Map pages!
Charter Township of Bloomfield
4200 Telegraph Road
P.O. Box 489
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303-0489
248.433.7700
This site is best viewed in Internet Explorer
5.5 or higher and Netscape 6.0 or higher.
Having trouble accessing our site forms?
Your browser may not have the Acrobat Reader plug-in
that is required.
Click here to download a free copy of this software.
Site Design/Development
by
Proudly serving our community online since
1999.
Named #1 Township Website in Michigan by Cyber-state.org
Site Use
Policy
All information © 2008 Bloomfield
Township, Michigan
|
