Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of Tuesday, March 8, 2005
Bloomfield Township Hall
I. ATTENDANCE:
PRESENT: Board Members Lisa Seneker, James Aldrich, Dan Devine, Brian
Kepes, Robert Taylor, Jane Reisinger, Chairman Corinne Khederian
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Patricia McCullough, Planning and Building Director, Kaye
Chartier, Code and Ordinance Director, Robin Carley, Development Coordinator,
and Kathy Davis, Building Department Secretary
II. APPROVAL OF ZONING BOARD MINUTES:
A. Approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of February 8th,
2005.
Motion by Mr. Devine
Seconded by Ms. Seneker to approve the February 8th, 2005 minutes
as written.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
III. APPEALS:
NEW ITEMS
(1) 5720 Kilbrennan – S. Babcock (Item moved to April’s agenda at the request
of the petitioner)
Seeking approval for an accessory structure, an above ground hot tub, located
within a proposed deck in a side yard more than 16-feet from the easterly side
lot line and more than 35-feet from the rear lot line. Also seeking approval for
the installation of a 6-foot high privacy fence, located in front and side yards
enclosing the proposed deck for Lot 155, The Braes of Bloomfield, Section 30.
Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that all 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. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states
fences in a residential district must be located in a required side or rear yard
and shall not exceed 4-feet in height. (19-30-103-009)
(2) 5653 Shadow Lane – D. Ross
Mr. Dennis Ross, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing
stand-by generator, located immediately adjacent to the southerly residential
wall within a front yard, Quarton Road frontage for Lot 2 and Part of Lot 3 and
4, Shadow Acre Estates, Section 28. 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. (19-28-126-015)
Mr. Ross addressed the Board with the request for an existing stand-by
generator that is immediately adjacent to the southerly residential wall located
in the front yard of Quarton Road frontage. Mr. Ross provided the Board with
subdivision association approval.
Ms. Holland Izbicki, resident at 3960 Quarton Road, was present and had no
objection to the stand-by generator.
Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at
5653 Shadow Lane that the variance for the existing stand-by generator be
granted as requested. Based on the information presented, the petitioner did
demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome, no injustice to the
adjoining neighbors, given the unique circumstances with the property, the
generator would be located immediately adjacent to the southerly residential
wall within a front yard, and it is not self-created given that construction of
the property necessitated this location. Also, the generator must comply with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, the 70db Noise Ordinance. The applicant
should also provide evergreen screening, and obtain all necessary permits.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(3) 1254 Cedarholm – George Grose Construction
Mr. George Grose, Builder, was present seeking approval for a 7-foot
encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction
of a new home for Lot 16, Replat of Forest Lake Country Club Estates, Section 8.
Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of
40-feet in the front yard setback. (19-08-426-013)
Mr. Grose addressed the Board with a 7-foot encroachment into the required
40-foot front yard setback for the construction of a new home. Mr. Grose
indicated that the proposed home would not exceed the maximum 30% lot coverage
and also confirmed that there were no proposed rear yard encroachments.
Ms. Rebecca Spiro, resident at 1260 Cedarholm, was present and indicated
concerns of the proposed encroachment of the landscape and driveway and
questioned what would be the intensions of the builder to maintain or landscape
the property along the common side lot line.
Mr. Grose replied at the time the property was purchased the landscaping was
existing and has no intension of disturbing the landscaping.
Mr. William Wells, resident at 2811 McIntosh, and Chairman of Forest Lakes
Estates Property Owners Association Building Committee, was present and
indicated that they approve the 7-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot
front yard setback. However, he would like to note that there is a 12 to 15-foot
easement on the east side of the property, under which a sanitary sewer is
located. For access to the side entrance garage, it would require a driveway
that would cover it in its entire length and assumes the Township would address
the issue and request a hold harmless letter.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, made mention that there
was an opportunity to review the sanitary sewer easement with the Water & Sewer Division. And indeed there is a 15" sanitary sewer however, it is
15-feet from the proposed driveway edge which is clearly outside of the easement
that is necessary for the sanitary sewer. It has been noted for our plan review
and Water & Sewer Divisions that it will not be within the indicated area.
Mr. Devine questioned when the home is completed what would the total square
footage be.
Mr. Grose replied that the first floor would be approximately 3500 square
feet.
Ms. McCullough commented that the footprint proposed indicates 5500 square
feet with the garage, as calculated. These numbers will be confirmed.
Mr. Devine questioned would the proposed patio location be within the
building envelope.
Mr. Grose replied that the patio would be located within the building
envelope.
Mr. Kepes questioned if any of the doors along the golf course at the rear of
the property would be sliding doors.
Mr. Grose replied that no doors or patios would be installed along the golf
course side of the home.
Ms. Reisinger questioned the chimney location in relation to the patio.
Mr. Grose replied that it would be like a veranda.
Ms. McCullough commented that anything that is elevated such as a deck would
require a variance as well as a building permit prior to construction.
Mr. Grose replied that he has no intensions of installing a deck at the rear
of the property.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 1254
Cedarholm that the variance for the 7-foot encroachment into the required
40-foot front yard setback be granted as requested. Based on the information
presented, the petitioner did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly
burdensome, no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, given the unique
circumstances with the shape of the lot given that it is arched in the front
yard, and it is not self-created. Contingent upon an Easement Agreement to be
filed with the Township if necessitated by the driveway and a Hold Harmless
agreement is necessary to be filed at Oakland County.
Motion carried, 4 – 3.
YEAS: Taylor, Aldrich, Kepes, Devine
NAYS: Seneker, Reisinger, Khederian
(4) 1012 Timberlake – C. Ammann
Mr. Christopher Ammann, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an
existing stand-by generator screened with proposed evergreen plantings, located
in a rear yard, 12-feet from the residential building and 50-feet from the
easterly side lot line of Lot 72, Lone Pine Road Estates, Section 21. Article
XV, Section 1503 requires ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment to
be placed immediately adjacent to the residential building. (19-21-376-008)
Mr. Ammann addressed the Board with a request for an existing stand-by
generator that is placed 2-feet from an existing deck with additional proposed
evergreen screening to be planted to help conceal the generator from view.
Chairman Khederian commented that she reviewed the site and indicated that
the surrounding properties would not be impacted by this variance request.
Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 1012
Timberlake that the variance for an existing stand-by generator screened with
proposed evergreen plantings be granted as requested. Based on the information
presented, the petitioner did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly
burdensome, no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, given the unique
circumstances with the property, and it is not self-created. Also provisions of
the Noise Ordinance are to be complied with a 70 (db) reading and petitioner to
obtain all necessary permits.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(5) 620 Pine Valley Way – M. Camaj
Mr. Burton Brodski, proposed buyer, who resides at 10005 Talbot Huntington
Woods, was present seeking approval for the installation of an accessory
use/structure, an in-ground swimming pool located in the Long Lake Road frontage
setback 18-feet from the westerly side lot line and 19.7-feet from the northerly
front lot line. Also seeking approval for the installation of 4-foot high pool
fencing, located along the side and front property lines, in the Long Lake Road
frontage. The portion of fencing above the existing retaining wall along the
westerly lot line will have an overall height of 7.8-feet, Lot 45, Overbrook,
Section 16. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance. No. 265 states that an
accessory use/structure shall not be located in any required yard, except a rear
yard, and that all accessory use/structures shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 265 states that fences in a residential district shall not exceed
4-feet in height and must be located in a required side or rear yard.
(19-16-426-005)
Mr. Taylor recused himself from this item due to his real estate company has
this home as a listing.
Mr. Brodski addressed the Board with a request of an in-ground swimming pool
to be located within two front yards. The property backs up to Long Lake Road
and Pine Valley. With having two young children, they are also requesting a
4-foot high fence to enclose the pool for safety concerns. Mr. Brodski is the
proposed buyer of the home and has a contingent agreement with Mr. Camaj pending
the outcome of this request. Mr. Brodski indicated that he has the Sub-Division
Association approval as well as the adjacent neighbors approval.
Mr. Devine questioned the proposed fence location.
Mr. Brodski replied that the fence would be placed on the inside of the
existing retaining wall with an overall height of 7.8-feet.
Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 620
Pine Valley Way that the variance for installation of a in-ground pool and a
4-foot high pool fence be granted as requested. Based on the information
presented, the fence supports to face the petitioner’s property. Based on the
information presented, the in-ground swimming pool located in the Long Lake Road
frontage’s setback 18-feet from the westerly side lot line and 19.7-feet from
the northerly front lot line be granted as requested. The location and size are
not out of bounds for the property. The property is handsomely landscaped and
secured. The location and height of the structure will not hinder the adjacent
neighbors. The use is compatible to the neighborhood. The location, size and
site layout of the accessory structure is harmonious to the district, and no
objectionable ramifications of noise, fumes, lights, or interference with
adequate supply of light and air, nor increase the danger of fire or general
public safety. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
Motion carried, 6 – 0 – 1.
YEAS: Devine, Seneker, Aldrich, Taylor, Kepes, Reisinger, Khederian
NAYS: None
RECUSED: Taylor
(6) 3467 Greentree – K. Lorenzetti
Ms. Katherine Lorenzetti, homeowner, was present with Architect, Jonathan
Disbrow, seeking approval to renovate an existing accessory structure to include
a redesigned roofline and interior living facilities, creating a second dwelling
unit for Lots 70, 71, 48 and Part of Lot 49, Supervisor’s Plat of Eastover
Farms, Section 12. Article IV, Section 400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 allows
for one single family dwelling in the R-2, Single-Family Residential District.
(19-12-476-014; 016; 017)
Mr. Disbrow addressed the Board with the existing accessory structure to be
renovated that would include modifying the roofline to match the existing
residence. The existing accessory structure would remain on the existing
foundation, with no changes. The accessory structure currently has a kitchenette
and a bathroom facility that the homeowner would like them to remain. The reason
for these facilities to remain is for the use of this accessory structure during
construction of their current residence.
Mr. Kepes questioned would the kitchen and bathroom facilities remain after
the construction of their residence is complete.
Ms. Lorenzetti replied that the shower could be removed however, she would
like the toilet and sink to remain after the completion of their residence.
Mr. Kepes questioned how long would the facilities be needed during the
construction project of their residence.
Ms. Lorenzetti replied that the facilities would be needed for use for three
to four months.
Mr. Kepes questioned what is the intended use of the accessory structure.
Ms. Lorenzetti replied for storage.
Mr. Taylor indicated that given the letter and comments provided that the
intended use of this accessory structure would be a garage.
Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 3467
Greentree that the variance for the renovation of an existing accessory
structure be granted to include temporary usage of the existing facilities that
is tied into the building permit. Based on the information presented, the
petitioner did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome, no
injustice to the adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances of the property given
their residence is under construction, and it is not self-created. The
kitchenette and shower to be removed upon completion of the construction project
on or by September 30, 2005 which ever comes first. The toilet can remain within
the accessory structure, given that the structure is utilized as a secondary
garage and or storage unit and not for a residential dwelling.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(7) 796 Rockspring – P. Stevens
Mr. Phillip Stevens, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 7.3-foot
encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction
of a new garage and a second story addition for Lot 310, Hickory Heights No. 3,
Section 13. The existing home is currently non-conforming. Article XV, Section
1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be
enlarged upon, expanded or extended. (19-13-253-003)
Mr. Stevens addressed the Board with a request for a garage addition to allow
for a third vehicle to be parked inside and also for a second story addition to
provide a master bedroom suite with a bathroom and an exercise room. The
proposed second story addition will conform to the existing residence and would
not protrude from the existing residential structure. Mr. Stevens also indicated
that subdivision association approval was granted.
Mr. Devine made mention of a letter received from Ms. Carol Yaw, resident at
623 Hickory Heights Drive, who was opposed to the variance request.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at
796 Rockspring that the variance for the 7.3-foot encroachment into the required
40-foot front yard setback be granted as requested. Based on the information
presented, the petitioner did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly
burdensome, no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, given the unique
circumstances with the property given the property slopes to the rear, and it is
not self-created.
Motion carried, 6 – 1.
YEAS: Reisinger, Devine, Seneker, Taylor, Aldrich, Khederian
NAYS: Kepes
(8) 4600 Charing Cross – M. McCammon
Mr. Bob Bryce of BMP Architects, was present seeking approval for the
construction of an accessory structure, a 43.3’ x 31’ x 15.3’ high pool house
for the purpose of housing pool equipment and bath facilities, located in a rear
yard. Also seeking approval for retaining walls with an overall height of 7-feet
for Lot 86, Bloomfield Estates Subdivision, Section 24. Article XV, Section 1503
of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires ground mounted mechanical or electrical
equipment to be placed immediately adjacent to the residential building, that
accessory structures shall not exceed one (1) story or fourteen (14) feet in
height and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Board of
Appeals. (19-24-126-009)
Mr. Bryce addressed the Board with the request of a pool house to incorporate
enclosing the pool equipment from the weather to allow the pool to be utilized
all year long. The roof of the pool house would be a 4/12 pitch and at the
highest point the peak is 15-feet above grade. If the pitch were lowered the
asphalt shingle manufacturer would not warranty the shingles if the pitch of the
roof were below 4/12. Mr. Bryce provided the Board with the subdivision
association approval.
Mr. Devine questioned whether the use of the dining and bar area that is
outside and covered by a common roof would only be utilized seasonally. In
regards to the bath facilities and changing area that is under a common roof
would it also be used seasonally.
Mr. Bryce confirmed the seasonal use.
Mr. Taylor indicated that the height proposed is exceeding the Township
requirement and questioned the reason for the 15.3-foot request for the
structure.
Mr. Bryce replied that this property is a 4-acre site and the homeowner would
like to provide storage for lawn maintenance equipment as well as the pool
equipment.
Mr. Keith Kleckner, resident at 4660 Dover Road, was present and commented
that his concern is with property drainage. Mr. Kleckner indicated that this
property collects water run off from Wattles and Squirrel Road. Mr. Kleckner has
lived in the Township for 28 years and the Township Roads Division has been to
his home four times to remove Dover Road out of his yard due to the water run
off.
Mr. Joe Peila, was present on behalf of Ms. Arlene Shaler, resident at 4621
Kensington Road, who was opposed to the variance request.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, made comment in regards
to the drainage issue and given the structural drawings have been reviewed and
there were no indications of drainage onto the adjoining property. Ms.
McCullough indicated that the comments and issues made at this hearing would be
addressed.
Mr. Devine questioned whether the pool house would be landscaped.
The landscape architect was present and addressed the topography and
indicated that the property is higher at an 805 elevation as compared to the
proposed pool house elevation is at 796, which is lower. In regards to the
retaining wall, the interior of the wall would be lower than the exterior wall
of approximately 4-feet due to the topography of the land. He addressed the
existing landscaping and also indicated that additional evergreens would be
planted to create privacy above the 4-foot wall.
Mr. Mark McCammon, homeowner, was present and indicated that his intentions
for this structure would be to seclude it from view from all of the surrounding
properties.
Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 4600
Charing Cross that the variance for a 43.3’ x 31’ x 15.3’ high pool house with
bath facilities located in a rear yard, and retaining walls with an overall
height of 7-feet be granted with the exception of the height of the pool house
structure not to exceed 14’. The accessory structure, a large pool house placed
on a 4-acre site if screened appropriately and not seen by adjoining neighbors
would not be intrusive. The use of the pool house being seasonal is appropriate,
and the location and height will not hinder the adjacent use of the property and
that the height will comply with the 14’ height requirement. Also the nature,
location, size and site layout of the accessory structure shall not be
objectionable to nearby residents by reason of noise, fumes, lights, or
interfere with adequate supply of light and air. No increase of danger of fire
or general public safety. The retaining walls would not worsen the drainage
issue and if in fact there are drainage issues it is the petitioner’s
responsibility to correct the issue.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(9) 1880 S. Golf Ridge – C. Meade III & L. Marble
Mr. Cornelius Meade, homeowner, and John Balbes, of JB Contracting, were
present seeking approval for accessory structures, a stone retaining wall with
an over-all height of 3-feet, located along the southerly lot line in front and
side yards and within the road right-of-way, and an existing mailbox/pier with
an over-all height of 6-feet, located on private property in a front yard at the
driveway entrance for Lot 228, Wabeek Five, Section 18. Article XV, Section 1503
of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that all accessory structures shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
(19-18-376-014)
Mr. Balbes addressed the Board with a request to re-build an existing stone
retaining wall. The existing wall had wood ties holding the retention for the
neighbor’s driveway that now has completely rotted out. Mr. Balbes proposed
removing the exiting ties and replacing them to support the neighbors driveway.
Mr. Devine questioned the retaining wall located in the road right-of-way and
asked that it be placed onto private property.
Mr. Bables replied that the stone retaining wall is not in the road
right-of-way however; the mailbox is plastic with a wooded post and is located
in the road right-of-way.
Ms. Seneker questioned the thoughts of the neighbor’s at 1879 S. Golf Ridge.
Mr. Meade replied that his neighbor is satisfied with the proposed retaining
wall improvements indicating that this wall supports the driveway at 1879 S.
Golf Ridge.
Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 1880
S. Golf Ridge that the variance for the stone retaining wall with an over-all
height of 3-feet be granted as requested. Based on the information presented,
the petitioner did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; no
injustice to the adjoining neighbors, given the unique circumstances with the
property, and is not self-created. The petitioner has also complied with Section
1804 standards, given the location and size of the accessory structure, a stone
retaining wall. The use of the accessory structure is to retain earth for the
neighbor’s driveway. The location and height of the accessory structure will not
hinder the adjacent use of the property. The stone retaining wall is harmonious
to the district, and would not create a public safety issue. The petitioner is
to obtain an Oakland County Road right-of-way permit and a Hold Harmless
Agreement and provide to the Township.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(10) 1331 Cranbrook – L. & B. Brice
Mr. Jeff Meads of Templeton Building, was present seeking approval for the
installation of a 4.5-foot high fence and a gate, located on private property in
front and rear yards for Lot 5, Judson Bradway’s Blomfield Village, Section 26.
Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a
residential district shall not exceed 4-feet in height. (19-26-101-009)
Mr. Meads addressed the Board with a request for a 4.5-foot high fence and
gate, to be placed on private property at the rear corner to enclose the
existing garage.
Ms. Reisinger questioned what would the reason be for the 4.5-foot when the
Board recently approved a 4-foot high fence.
Mr. Meads replied that the home had previously been broke into and would like
to utilize the fence as a safe guard.
Mr. Larry Nutson, Manager of Judson Bradway Bloomfield Village Association,
was present and spoke in regards to the fence height. The fence originally was
proposed at 6-foot high and the Association determined that the request was
inappropriate. Mr. Nutson indicated that the pool fence code requires the
horizontal members to have a spacing of 45-inches or more, spacing between
vertical members shall not exceed 4-inches. The Village has approved a 48-inch
high fence with a 6-inch decorative cap with a maximum height of 54-inches. The
pool access gate would require complying with the 2003 Michigan Residential
Code, to accommodate a locking device and to have a self-latching device.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at
1331 N. Cranbrook Road that the variance for the installation of a 4.5-foot high
fence and a gate, to be extensively landscaped located on private property be
granted as requested. Based on the information presented, the petitioner did
demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the
adjoining neighbors, given the unique circumstances with the property, and it is
not self-created.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(11) 1705 Winthrop – A. Ajimal
Mr. A. Ajimal, homeowner, along with builder, Khan Kleemullah of Khan
Building Company, was present seeking approval for an addition to include
interior living facilities, creating a second dwelling unit for Lot 25, East
Bloomfield Highlands Subdivision, Section 3. Article II, Section 201 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 265 defines a single-family dwelling as a building designed
exclusively for and occupied exclusively by one (1) family. Article IV, Section
400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 allows for one single family dwelling in the
R-2, Single-Family Residential District. (19-03-302-009)
Ms. Seneker indicated that she has family members that live near this
property.
Mr. Kleemullah addressed the Board with a request for an addition to include
interior living facilities. Mr. Kleemullah indicated back in December 2004 a
building permit application was made with approval granted from the Township
Building Department for a building permit. The construction commenced until a
stop work order was placed on site from the Township in regards to the intended
use of this proposed addition. Mr. Kleemullah indicated the proposed structure
would be an additional 2000 square feet for the residence and 400 square feet
for the garage with a proposed breezeway to attach the addition to the existing
residence of 1200 square feet. The proposed addition would encompass five
bedrooms with two separate entrances and two garages.
Mr. Devine questioned the past history on this site regarding a lot split
discussion to allow for two separate dwelling units to be placed on one single
lot.
Mr. Awtar Ajimal, homeowner, was present and indicated that he did have a
meeting at the Township and indicated that to subdivide the property to meet the
Ordinances would be very complicated.
Mr. Devine questioned the proposed plan layout. The original home would have
a kitchen, living room and two bedrooms and then a breezeway connecting the
original structure to the proposed addition that also has a separate kitchen,
living room and three bedrooms.
Mr. Kleemullah replied that this would be the proposal however; the owner
would be willing to comply with the Township Ordinance.
Mr. Devine indicated that in order to comply with the Township Ordinance it
would be required that the petitioner eliminate the breezeway and the second
kitchen from the plans. Mr. Devine also made mention of the architectural style
and indicated that the structure would not be harmonious to the district.
Mr. Kleemullah replied that the intent would be to make the brick match the
existing dwelling façade.
Mr. Kepes questioned the variance request for a second dwelling on a
single-family lot.
Mr. Kleemullah replied that they are not requesting rezoning of the property.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, commented that the
proposed addition is a separate and distinct dwelling that is being added to the
existing dwelling. The petitioner is asking for a variance request for an
additional dwelling contrary to the Zoning Ordinance classification. The
definition of a dwelling is for one family with a kitchen facility. Ms.
McCullough also made mention the plans presented and designed indicate multiple
kitchens, garages, entrance doors and driveway entrances.
Mr. Kepes asked Ms. McCullough what is the Board to interpret to help make a
determination.
Ms. McCullough replied that the Board is being asked to consider the proposal
as a single-family dwelling with an addition, which is being proposed, and
construction has begun. The Township is contending that an addition to a
single-family home is a second dwelling being attached to the existing home.
Mr. Aldrich questioned the proposed addition and the original structure do
they satisfy the criteria under the Township Ordinance for a single-family
dwelling.
Ms. McCullough replied that the structures are stand-alone structures and
they do not rely on each other.
Ms. Reisinger indicated that due to the fact they have separate driveways,
separate entrances, and are only physically connected by a breezeway that in
fact they are two separate structures.
Mr. Taylor questioned the availability of the water and sewer.
Mr. Kleemullah replied that there is an existing well for water and has
intentions to install a second septic system and obtain approvals from the
Oakland County Health Department.
Mr. Robert Carter, resident at 86 Barrington, was present and spoke in
opposition of the addition and feels that this structure would be unsightly.
Mr. Geoffrey Beauchamp, resident at 2284 Devonshire, was present and spoke in
opposition of the addition and feels that this structure is not esthetically
pleasing.
Mr. Beauchamp indicated that there are 200 homes within this area that do not
want an apartment building/multi-family dwelling at this site.
Mr. Mark Miele, resident at 2444 Devonshire, was present and spoke in
opposition of the addition indicating the two separate driveways from the two
separate roads with two separate front entrances. Mr. Miele indicated if the
breezeway were removed you would have two separate dwellings, a duplex.
Ms. Hazel Banks, resident at 268 Marlborough, was present and spoke in
opposition of the addition and questioned why wasn’t a second story addition
proposed to be harmonious to the district.
Mr. Scott Mc Gregor , resident at 55 Hillsdale, was present and indicated
that he provided a letter of approval. However, what was presented to him and
what is presented tonight
is two different items. Mr. Mc Gregor indicated that he would like his letter
of approval be withdrawn from the file and indicated that he is in opposition of
the structure.
Mr. Robert Behnke, resident at 2332 Devonshire, was present and spoke in
opposition of the structure.
Mr. Michael Music, resident at 2171 Devonshire, was present and spoke in
opposition of the structure.
Mr. Daniel O’Brien, resident at 2316 Devonshire, was present and spoke in
opposition of the structure and also made mention of the lack of property
maintenance.
Ms. Kathy Cecilio, resident at 45 Hillsdale, was present and spoke in
opposition of the structure.
Chairman Khederian made mention of three letters submitted to the Board that
were in opposition of the structure: Mr. & Mrs. Richard Hoover, residents at
2236 Devonshire, Mr. James C. Coulter, Vice President of the South Bloomfield
Highlands Improvement Association, and Ms. Fran Perez, resident at 2268
Devonshire.
Chairman Khederian also made mention of five letters that were submitted
during the meeting that were in favor of the structure: Mr. Emmanual Najor,
resident at 54 Hillsdale, Mr. Fred Silverman, resident at 1616 Winthrop, Ms.
Brenda Caster, resident at 95 Hillsdale, Mr. Clarence Broadnax, resident at 66
Hillsdale, and Mr. Jerome Robinson, resident at 107 Marlborough.
Mr. Kleemullah addressed the Board and noted the concerns of the residents
and how he would attempt to make adjustments to the drawings so that the
existing home would adhere to the Township Ordinance so construction may
commence.
Mr. Devine questioned what is the definition of a single-family dwelling.
Ms. McCullough, read from the Township Ordinance. The definition for a
One-Family Dwelling is found in Article II Section 201 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Dwelling, One-Family: is a building designed exclusively for and occupied
exclusively by one (1) family. The Dwelling Unit defined: Is a building, or
portion thereof, designed for occupancy by one (1) family residential purposes
and having cooking facilities.
Mr. Devine commented that given the design as proposed with two separate
dwelling areas and two separate cooking areas as indicated if the breezeway was
removed there would be two (2) stand alone single-family residences.
Ms. McCullough replied that Mr. Devine’s comments are supported by the
definition of Two-Family Dwelling found in Article II Section 201 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Dwelling, Two-Family is a building designed exclusively for occupancy
by two (2) families, living independently of each other.
Mr. Devine made mention of the septic field and indicated that the Department
of Public Health had concerns of the septic field. If in fact there would be two
separate dwellings the septic field would not be able to accommodate two
families.
Ms. McCullough replied that Oakland County Health Department withdrew the
permit and ceased work on the septic field until written confirmation was
received from the Township regarding the number of bedrooms in relation to the
number of dwellings for this property.
Mr. Kepes questioned what would the next course of action be for the
petitioner.
Ms. McCullough replied that the applicant would need to submit revised
drawings and indicate how he intends to add on to the existing home with floor
plans, foundation plan, and indicate if they would be utilizing the foundation
that has been poured.
Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 1705
Winthrop that the variance for the addition to include interior living
facilities, creating a second dwelling be denied as requested. Based on the
information presented, the petitioner did not demonstrate practical difficulty,
that in fact it is two separate dwellings, compliance to the Zoning Ordinance is
not unduly burdensome, given the site is zoned single-family residential and the
existing dwelling is possible for an appropriate addition that could be
constructed on the property within the building envelope, as indicated by the
testimony of the neighbors. There would be injustice to the adjoining neighbors
and neighborhood. There are no unique circumstances with the property, and it is
self-created. The petitioner is to install an adequate fence to ensure safety of
the general public. Revised construction drawings are to be submitted and obtain
approval from the Township within 45 days from today or if plans were not
submitted or approved without variances then the structure would have to be
removed and the property restored to its original state including all grading,
removal of construction materials, and the Township review the site to assure
that there would be no increase in the drainage.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
IV. GENERAL BUSINESS
Next Board Meeting – April 12th, 2005
V. ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia McCullough, Director
Planning and Building Department
APPROVED MINUTES WILL BE AVAILABLE
AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AFTER THE NEXT SCHEDULED BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.
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
|
