Government > Minutes

Overview | Board of Trustees | Planning Commission
Zoning Board of Appeals

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 9^th and December 14^th, 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 9^th, 2004 minutes and if supported to reconsider, a motion for the approval of the new November 9^th, 2004, amended minutes that are before you.

Motion by Mr. Devine

Seconded by Ms. Seneker to reconsider the previous approval of the November 9^th, 2004 minutes.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

Motion by Mr. Devine

Seconded by Ms. Khederian to approve the November 9^th, 2004 minutes as amended.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger

Seconded by Ms. Seneker to approve the December 14^th, 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 19^th, 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 22^nd, 2004, regarding the primary setback.

Mr. Kalabat replied that the October 22^nd, 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.

(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 1^st 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

Charter Township of Bloomfield
4200 Telegraph Road
P.O. Box 489
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303-0489
248.433.7700
All information © 2010 Bloomfield Township, Michigan

Click here to report website technical issues.

Need to contact the webmaster? Click here.

	Approved Millage
	Election Results - February 23, 2010
	Passport Day - March 27
	Household Hazardous Waste Day - May 1
	Yard Waste Collection Resumes Week of March 15
	Electronic Recycling, Paper Shredding and Medication Disposal Event
	2010 Clean Sweep
	Bid - Woodward Water Main Extension
	RFP - Bloomfield Township Energy Efficiency Audit & Retrofit Program
	Frog And Toad Workshop
	Township Video on Demand
	Filming Information
	Online Accident Reports
	Oakland County Mobile Office
	2008 Water Quality Report (CCR)
	Business Brochure
	Foreclosure Process Information