Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of
Tuesday, May 10th, 2005
Bloomfield Township Hall

I. ATTENDANCE:

PRESENT: Board Members Dan Devine, Brian Kepes, Lisa Seneker, Larry Smith, Jane Reisinger, Chairman Corinne Khederian

ABSENT: Robert Taylor, James Aldrich, Brian Henry

STAFF PRESENT: Patricia McCullough, Planning and Building Director, Kaye Chartier, Code and Ordinance Director, Brenda Schlutow, Code and Ordinance Officer, Robin Carley, Development Coordinator, Kathy Davis, Building Department Secretary Carly Nettle, Planning Department, and Karrie Marsh, Ordinance Department Secretary

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of April 12th, 2005.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Seneker to approve the Minutes of April 12th, 2005 as written.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

III. APPEALS:

Tabled Items

(1) 316 Woodedge – D. McDonald

Mr. David McDonald, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a stand-by generator partially screened with plantings, located in a side yard 7.5-feet from the wall of the residential building and 11-feet from the southerly side lot line for Lot 43, Hickory Grove Hills Subdivision, Section 10. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground-mounted mechanical or electrical equipment shall be placed immediately adjacent to the residential building,

shall not be located in the required 16-foot side yard setback, shall be screened from view through the use of evergreen plant material at least the height of the equipment and located at the point of placement of the equipment. (19-10-279-001)

Mr. McDonald addressed the Board with a site plan showing the existing generator located in a side yard 7.5-feet from the wall of the residential building and 11-feet from the southerly side lot line. The generator is partially screened with plantings.

Ms. Seneker made mention that the generator would be required to meet compliance with Bloomfield Township’s Noise Ordinance No. 554.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 316 Woodedge for an existing accessory structure, a stand-by generator be approved 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 (A) reading with additional evergreen screening to be installed.

NEW ITEMS

(1) 7357 Lindenmere – P. Stockmann

Mr. Todd Bergsman of Hunter Roberts Homes, was present seeking approval for a 26-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction of a 26’ x 10’ x 9.8’ high covered entranceway for a new residential building. Also seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, a 16’ x 20’ x 14’ high kiln house with a 9.8-foot high covered walkway, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side and rear property lines and retaining walls with a stairway system located in the rear of the main house, outside of the required yards, with an overall height of 11.9-feet in height. Also seeking approval for a hobbyist studio, ceramics room, kiln house and recreation room as accessory uses for a new residence. Also seeking approval for the installation of a 4-foot high temporary chain link construction fence for the duration of the construction process, located on private property around the perimeter of the parcel, within the front yard setback, Lindenmere Drive frontage for Lot 182, Meadowlake Farms No. 1, Section 31. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40-feet in the front yard setback. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory use/structures shall require 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 must be located in a required side or rear yard. (19-31-353-005)

Mr. Bergsman addressed the Board with the five-variance requests and advised that the 26’ x 10’ x 9.8’ high covered entranceway for the new residential building was dropped at the petitioners request.

Mr. Bergsman indicated part one of his request is seeking approval to allow an architectural element of the new residence to extend into the front yard set back; part two is seeking approval of an accessory building and attached covered walkway in the rear yard of the house; part three is seeking permission for an accessory use for the house; part four is seeking approval for a retaining wall and stairway in the rear of the house; and part five is to use a protective barrier, a chain link fence, around the front and sides of the site during construction of a new residence on this site.

Mr. Larry Raymond, Architect, was present and presented the Board with a model, which illustrated the proposed project. Mr. Raymond addressed the Board indicating the kiln house would be attached to the lower level of the main house with a covered walkway. The accessory building is a 16’ x 20’ x 14’ high single story, stucco and stone structure with a low-pitched metal roof. Mr. Raymond indicated that the highest point of the building is no more than 14-feet from the surrounding grade. The covered walkway would be comprised of natural stone piers approximately 36" above grade onto timber posts consistent with construction of the home. The total height of the covered walkway is 9-feet 9inches off of the grade. The proposed covered walkway and accessory building meet the Township’s required setbacks for the site.

Chairman Khederian made mention of letters received in various positions regarding this item. Ms. Susan Anderson, President of Meadow Lake Farms Property Owners Association was in support of the variance requests with the exception of the kiln house and construction fence. Mr.& Mrs. Mark Gordon, residence at 7332 Lindenmere Drive, was in opposition of the variance requests. Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Yeasting residence at 7419 Lindenmere Drive, were also in opposition of the variance requests.

Ms. Reisinger questioned Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, if the Township performs a test on the kiln to verify gases are not being released into the air.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, replied that given the type of connection, if gas, a mechanical permit would be required with a potential electrical permit which would require inspections.

Mr. Bergsman commented that the kiln purchased is CSA (Canadian Standards Approved) approved and UL approved and certified to be utilized for residential appliance use.

Mr. Rick Wiand of Hunter Robert Homes, addressed the Board with an explanation of the kiln. The kiln purchased is larger and 40% more efficient than a standard kiln and requires more insulation. Mr. Wiand indicated that Ms. Stockmann has been a ceramic hobbyist for many years and this is strictly for a hobby use.

Ms. McCullough questioned upon reviewing the floor plan, what is the total number of kilns.

Mr. Wiand replied there would be a total of four kilns.

Mr. Smith questioned what the size of the largest kiln.

Mr. Kepes questioned what would be the chimney height.

Ms. Stockmann replied that the largest kiln would be 4’ x 5’ x 7’in size with a liner and a 14-foot high chimney that would allow the heat to evacuate.

Mr. Ken Yeasting, resident at 7419 Lindenmere Drive, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request for the kiln house and indicated that this proposed kiln use is light manufacturing.

Mr. Rick Wiand made comment that this kiln house is not light manufacturing. It is being utilized for hobby use only.

Chairman Khederian made mention that the variances would be addressed individually.

In regard to the appeal at 7357 Lindenmere for the following variances:

Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Mr. Devine for a 16’x 20’x 14’ high kiln house with a 9.8-foot high covered walkway, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side and rear property lines, that the variance be approved as requested with the stipulation that the kiln house is not intended for commercial use. 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 6 –0.

Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Mr. Smith for retaining walls with a stairway system located in the rear of the main house, outside of the required yards, with an overall height of 11.9-feet in height, that the variance be approved 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 6 – 0.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes for the accessory uses for a hobbyist studio, ceramics room, kiln house and recreation room for a new residence that the intended use if for residential and personal/hobby use only by the property owner and is not intended for light manufacturing, be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the petitioner did demonstrate that compliance with location, size and use of the proposed accessory use is not unreasonable within a residential property. The location and height of the accessory use will not hinder or discourage the adjacent use of property. The nature, location, size and site layout of the accessory use is harmonious to the district, given that the structure ties into the proposed home. The nature, location, size, and site layout of the accessory use shall not be objectionable to nearby residents by reason of: noise, fumes, lights, interfere with adequate supply of light and air, nor increase the danger of fire or general public safety.

Motion carried, 6 –0.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes for the installation of a 4-foot high temporary chain link construction fence during the construction process with the contingency that the fence be removed once the masonry has been completed on the project be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the petitioner did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, in fact it would provide safety for children, given unique circumstances with the property, and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(2) 3600 Bradway Blvd. – Detroit Country Day

Mr. Tim Casi of TMP Architects, was present seeking approval for a 14-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback, for the construction of a single story addition to the Detroit Country Day School located on the northeast corner of Lahser Road and Bradway Blvd., Lot 1068, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 4, Section 27. The existing site and building are currently non-conforming. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40-feet in the front yard setback. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that no such non-conforming use shall be enlarged or increased, nor extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Ordinance. (19-27-352-001)

Mr. Casi addressed the Board with the history of the use of a temporary classroom for the past two years. Mr. Casi proposed to the Board to remove the temporary classroom and to build a permanent classroom in its place. Mr. Casi indicated that the site is irregular and does not comply with the Township Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Casi also indicated that Detroit Country Day School has obtained the approval of Bloomfield Village Association and also of the Design Review Board and the

Planning Commission. Upon the approval from the Planning Commission, it was requested that the School complete a traffic study.

Ms. Reisinger made mention that this item was before the Planning Commission two months ago which at that time recommended approval of the 14-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback and requested the School to complete a traffic study to address the concerns raised by residents in this surrounding area.

Mr. Devine indicated that there has been discussion and information provided to the Township from the applicant of this project as is relates to the concern of traffic in the area. Mr. Devine questioned the petitioner whether there would be no additional enrollment to the School once the plan is complete.

Mr. Casi replied that there would be no additional enrollment to the School with the proposed addition.

Mr. Devine commented that the traffic flow should not increase with the construction of a single story addition for this facility. However, the proposed project has provided the residents a forum to raise their concerns of the traffic flow. The petitioner has retained Parsons Traffic Consulting Firm, and Bloomfield Township has retained Mr. Michael Labadie, Traffic Consultant, to perform a traffic study of the school, which is currently under review. Mr. Devine made mention that the Zoning Board of Appeals does not have the authority to hold up or table the requested variances due to traffic. The Zoning Board of Appeals purview is strictly relating to variances that are presented to the Board and traffic is more the purview of the Township Board of Trustees, as they will have the final say over this entire project. Mr. Devine recommended to the petitioner that the traffic study be complete to the satisfaction of the Township Board of Trustees and the residents so that those issues would have been fully addressed.

Mr. Baumgartner, resident at 3575 Roland, was present and spoke in regards to the traffic study. He noted that the school was once a walk-to school. It is now a pick-up and drop- off school. Mr. Baumgartner indicated that he has no objection to the addition but he would have objection to the increase of the traffic.

Chairman Khederian made mention of a letter received from Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Conway, resident at 3545 Roland, indicating no objection to the addition but they do have concerns relating to the current traffic problem.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 3600

Bradway Blvd. S., that the variance for the 14-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback, for the construction of a single story addition be approved 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. This motion also to include a recommendation to The Township Board to include the adjoining neighbor’s involvement in the traffic study and that the traffic study be completed prior to their final approval of the classroom addition.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(3) 1412 Inwoods – G. Lanthorne

Ms. Jeanie Lanthorne, homeowner, was present seeking approval to install a 3-foot high fence on private property along the southerly lot line extending to the front of the lot, beyond the front of the house, toward the Inwoods Circle frontage for Lot 3, Lochslea, Section 17. Article XV, Section 1510 states that fences in a residential district must be located in a required side or rear yard. (19-17-201-006)

Ms. Lanthorne addressed the Board with a request for a 3-foot high split rail, red cedar fence to be placed on private property along the southerly lot line extending to the front of the lot, beyond the front of the house to the telephone pole towards Inwoods Circle. Ms. Lanthorne indicated that the fence would be landscaped.

Mr. Michael Roth, resident at 1430 Inwoods Circle, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Chairman Khederian made mention of letters received in opposition from Mr. Kenneth Way, resident at 1452 Inwoods Circle, Mr. Leonal Browning, resident at 1442 Inwoods Circle, Mr. Ben Heller, resident at 1419 Inwoods Circle and Mr. Eugene Friedman, resident at 1390 Kirkway.

Mr. Bart Sangal, resident at 1370 Kirkway, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 1412 Inwoods Circle that the variance for the 3-foot high fence on private property along the southerly lot line extending to the front of the lot, beyond the front of the house, be denied as requested. Based on the information presented, the petitioner did not demonstrate that practical difficulty would be unduly burdensome; there is injustice to the adjoining neighbors, given the letters received from the neighbors and that front yard fences are not common for this surrounding area, there are no unique circumstances with the property, and it is self-created.

Motion carried, 6- 0.

(4) 4120 Echo – A. Schwartz

Ms. Brooke Vanacker of American Fence was present seeking approval to install a section of 4.2-foot high fencing, located on private property along the easterly front lot line, Echo Road frontage, to match the existing fence for Acreage Parcel, Section 17. Article XV, Section 1510 states that fences in a residential district must be located in a required side or rear yard and shall not exceed 4-feet in height. (19-17-401-011)

Ms. Vanacker addressed the Board with the request to install a section of 4-foot high fence and not for a 4.2-foot high fence as requested. Ms. Vanacker indicated that there was a discrepancy in the drawings. Ms. Vanacker submitted a detailed drawing of the fence to the Board. The proposed fence would replace a dilapidated wire fence that would be located at the corner of Long Lake Road and Echo Road and would then be attached to the existing 4-foot high ornamental steel fence that was previously approved on May 11, 2004.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 4120 Echo Road for the variance request for a 4-foot high fence, located on private property along the easterly front lot line, Echo Road frontage, to match the existing fence be approved 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 this is private property, and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 6 - 0.

(5) 2080 Telegraph – Sunrise Bloomfield Senior Living, LLC

Mr. Adam Gute of Frank Rewold and Associates, was present seeking approval for accessory structures, one marketing trailer by owner, one construction trailer, and four (4) storage units through the duration of the construction for the Sunrise Assisted Living Facility, located on the northerly and easterly sections of the site, along Telegraph Road frontage on vacant Part of Outlot A, Part of Lot 1 and Part of Lot 5, Telegraph-Square Lake Acres Subdivision and Square Lake Country Club, Section 5. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be located in any required yard, except a rear yard, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-05-351-014, 19-05-376-069)

Mr. Gute addressed the Board with the variance request for one marketing trailer to be used by the owner to be utilized to market the facility. The public would have access to the trailer with temporary electrical power and a permanent water and sewer connection that would be abandoned once the construction process has been completed. The original

request for four (4) storage units is not necessary. Mr. Gute indicated that no more than (2) would be utilized to store construction related equipment, lighting and plumbing fixtures.

Mr. Kepes questioned whether the petitioner could relocate the proposed storage units behind the proposed new construction building and out of site of the general community.

Mr. Gute replied that relocation would not be a problem.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 2080 Telegraph Road that the variance for the accessory structures, one marketing trailer, one construction trailer, and two (2) maximum storage units to be placed at the rear of the property, behind the building site through the duration of the construction be approved 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 property would be properly maintained and trailers would have skirting, given unique circumstances with the property, and it is not self-created. Also, the location and size of the accessory structures are commensurate to the type of work and function that they will serve, the use, location, and height of the accessory structures will not hinder or discourage the adjacent use of property, the location is harmonious to the district in that it is a commercial district and it is not out of the ordinary to have these types of accessory structures on construction sites for commercial projects, the accessory structures are not objectionable to nearby residents by reason of: noise, fumes, lights, interfere with adequate supply of light and air, nor increase the danger of fire or general public safety.

Motion carried, 6- 0.

(6) 6225 Golfview – J. Swift

Mr. Michael Havaris, contractor, was present seeking approval for a 7-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the construction of a single story addition in the northerly side yard for Lot 225, Oakland Hills Country Club Subdivision No. 1, Section 28. The existing home is currently non-conforming. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 16-feet in the side yard setback. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended. (19-28-476-006)

Mr. Havaris addressed the Board with a 7-foot encroachment into the side yard for a single story addition approximately 800 square feet to include a master bedroom, bathroom, walk-in closet and enlarging the kitchen and nook area.

Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 6225 Golfview for the 7-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the construction of a single story addition in the northerly side yard be approved 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, 6 –0.

(7) 3017 Franklin – M. Magno

Seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, three (3) brick and limestone lighted piers (two 13’ x 2’ x 6.9’ high and one 2’ x 2’ x 6.9’ high) located on private property at the driveway entrances, setback 10-feet from the northerly front lot line, Hickory Grove frontage for Part of Lot 11 and also Part of Lot 12, Supervisor’s Plat of North Devon Acres, Section 9. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that all accessory structures shall be subject to the review an approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-09-301-047)

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes to move this item to the end of the agenda to allow the petitioner an opportunity to be present.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(8) 1710 Ward – D. Brundage

Seeking approval for a 29.2-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback, Lafayette frontage, for the construction of a single-story garage addition in the easterly front yard for Lot 36, 37 and 38, Ward Orchards, Section 6. The existing home is currently non-conforming. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40-feet in the front yard setback. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended. (19-06-111-031)

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Seneker to move this item to the end of the agenda to allow the petitioner an opportunity to be present.

(9) 7160 White Pine – G. Dobrowitsky

Mr. George Dobrowitsky, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 12.4-foot encroachment into the required 35-foot rear yard setback for the construction of a second-story addition to the existing non-conforming home for Lot 326, Birmingham Farms Subdivision No. 2, Section 32. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 35-feet in the rear yard setback. Article XV, Section 1502 of

Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended. (19-32-402-021)

Mr. Dobrowitsky addressed the Board with a proposed addition that would incorporate the existing garage. Mr. Dobrowitsky indicated that subdivision approval has been granted.

Ms. Reisinger made mention of a letter received in support from Mr. & Mrs. O.D. Silverstein, residents at 7129 White Pine.

Motion by Mr. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 7160 White Pine that the variance for the 12.4-foot encroachment into the required 35-foot rear yard setback for the construction of a second-story addition be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the petitioner did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, given unique circumstances with the property, and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 6- 0.

(10) 1099 Lone Pine – Bloomfield Township Library

Mr. Paul Andriese, consultant for the Library, was present seeking approval for the following variances for the Bloomfield Township Library, 1099 Lone Pine, Acreage Parcel, Section 21:

Mr. Andriese addressed the Board with three (3) variance requests for the Township Library to include a 13-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback, accessory structures, construction trailers, a temporary chain link fence during the construction period for one year with two (2) gates, to be located on private property and a 4-foot high ornamental fence for the purpose of enclosing two (2) reading terraces.

Mr. Kepes questioned the specifics of the construction trailers.

Mr. Gene Ferraro of Frank Rewold and Sons was present and replied that the specifics of the construction trailers have not yet been determined as far as the number of trailers needed. The construction trailers would be placed along Telegraph Road.

Mr. Kepes questioned would the construction trailers be visible from Telegraph Road.

Mr. Ferraro replied that additional temporary screening would be installed to help obscure the site of the construction trailers.

Mr. Kepes questioned whether there would be loose product storage on site.

Mr. Ferraro replied masonry products such as bricks would be stored outside.

Ms. Seneker questioned the total number of construction trailers that would be needed.

Mr. Ferraro replied that given the project time frame of approximately thirty months with seventeen different phases and to limit the number of construction trailers at this time would be difficult. Mr. Ferraro indicated that the worse case scenario would be three construction trailers, three storage trailers, and one administrative trailer placed on site.

Mr. Kepes questioned the number of available parking spaces.

Mr. Ferraro replied that there would be approximately 100 parking spaces. The spaces would not be involved with the underground utility work that is being installed during the construction process.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, suggested that the site consultants explain the practical application of the phasing of the construction by describing some of the Library areas that will have phased improvements, and scaling down the specific needs of the Library may help the members understand the reduced capacity the Library will be offering the public during this construction process.

Mr. Jim Mulby of Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc., architect, was present and addressed the Board with the project overview in detail. Mr. Mulby indicated that the meeting

rooms would be off line and the community room would be the new youth library. The demand for parking would be minimized to a central location to allow for reduced parking on site.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, addressed the Board from an operational standpoint. Several meetings have transpired between the Building, Fire and Planning Departments. Keeping in mind the Library would remain open and function and at the same time the departments have reviewed this aggressive and significant construction project to assure public safety measures are in place around and at the same time it is open to the public. The phases that are proposed and the various staging have undergone a variety of levels of discussion with the concern of safety with the construction site as well as with the public operation. Ms. McCullough indicated that the Township is satisfied with the plan as presented with the reduction in operation. They are able to accommodate the needs of the library, but more importantly have a safe construction site. In regards to the storage facilities in areas that are defined and they would plan to have a minimal impact on the public, given the limited amount of usage. There will be a clear access from Timberlake and the public conflict would be minimized.

Chariman Khederian questioned the time frame of phase II.

Mr. Ferraro replied that phase II including the storage area containers, would start on October 18th, 2005 and continue through to December 2005.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 1099 Lone Pine for the following variances be approved as requested for a 13-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction of a single-story addition in the easterly front yard, Timber Lake Drive frontage, accessory structures: construction trailers located on site during construction from October 18th through December 2005, a sculpture located at the main entranceway, a 6-foot high gated masonry enclosure screened with plantings and ground mounted electrical and mechanical units, located 40-feet from the front lot line, Telegraph

Road frontage. For the installation of fencing: A temporary chain link construction fence with two gates as required, located on private property, for the purpose of securing two (2) storage areas and placed along the perimeter of the property, within front yard setbacks, Telegraph, Lone Pine Road and Timberlake Drive frontage. Also seeking approval for the installation of a 4-foot high ornamental fence for the purpose of enclosing two (2) reading terraces located within front yard setbacks, Timber Lake Drive frontage. 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 that the library would remain operating during all construction phases, and it is not self-created. The location, size and use of the accessory structures are not objectionable to nearby residents, the height, nature and site layout of the

accessory structure are harmonious to the district, nor increase the danger to the public but will provide more safety under the construction.

Motion carried, 6- 0.

(11) 1644 Ledbury – M. DesMarais

Ms. Michelle DesMarais, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction of an accessory structure, an 8’ x 10’ x 9.25’ high shed, located in a rear yard 3.5’ from the southerly side lot line and 26’ from the rear lot line for Lot 31, Chapel Hill Estates No. 1, Section 1. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 that an accessory structure shall not be located closer than 16-feet to any side or rear lot line and shall require the review and approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-01-226-038)

Ms. DesMarais addressed the Board with a request for an accessory structure, a shed to store garden tools and supplies. Ms. DesMarais indicated that her adjoining neighbors have granted approval of the shed as well as the subdivision association.

Ms. Seneker complimented the petitioner on the yard maintenance and made mention of possible relocation of the proposed shed.

Ms. DesMarais replied that the neighbor to the north would not agree to that location. Ms. DesMarais would not agree to that location because the septic system is located within that area and she would be looking at the side of the shed from her kitchen.

Chairman Khederian made mention of a letter received in support from Mr. Paul Polizzi, Subdivision Zoning Director of Chapel Hill Estates. However, indicated that with the approval, the letter also indicates the plan provided to the association indicates the shed would be placed 3.5-feet from the southerly side property line and is in violation of the subdivision guidelines.

Ms. Mary Ellen House, resident at 1381 Ashover Drive, was present and spoke in opposition of the accessory structure.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to the appeal at 1644 Ledbury that the variance for the construction of an accessory structure, an 8’ x 10’ x 9.25’ high shed, located in a rear yard 3.5’ from the southerly side yard lot line and 26’ from the rear lot line be denied without prejudice as requested. Based on the information presented, the petitioner did not demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; given there are other locations for the shed to be placed, injustice to the neighbors have been justified, no unique circumstances with the property was justified, and it is self-created.

Motion carried, 6-0.

(12) 650 South Hills – M. Shkreli

Mr. Mark Shkreli, homeowner, and Mr. James C. Scott, landscape architect, was present seeking approval for an accessory use/structure, a 50’ x 90’ sports/tennis court to be encompassed by a proposed 2-foot wall extending to also include the existing pool, located 16-feet from the rear lot line and 17-feet from the easterly side lot line of Section 16, Brookside Hills Subdivision, Part of Lots 17 and 18. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that all accessory use/structures shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board of Appeals. (19-16-204-007)

Mr. Devine questioned whether the petitioner has met the outstanding requirements and deadlines from the previous meetings.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, replied that the condition of the acceptance of the Zoning Board of Appeals application was that the petitioner meet all of the requirements and deadlines.

Mr. Kepes commented that the landscaping is not complete and expressed his concerns on variances granted with contingencies and upon deadlines that have not been met. Is the variance granted by the Board then be terminated? In this instance, the fountain is not complete; therefore the variance can be terminated.

Ms. McCullough replied that the Code and Ordinance Department contacts the petitioner and informs them that they are in violation and that they have failed to comply with the conditions of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Ms. Reisinger questioned the swale that was requested to be installed.

Mr. James C. Scott, landscape architect was present and indicated his involvement in the project. He has attempted to resolve the issues of site drainage, water run-off, percentage of land use, provided plans to comply to the Zoning Board of Appeals requirements. Mr. Scott indicated that the development of a landscape site plan was to be sure that no water would run to the north. The following items are proposed: A 2-foot retaining wall encompasses the entire northerly edge of the pool deck to the proposed sports court. Mr. Scott referenced on the plans a 6" edge drain with a cleanout to the road. To stop any further drainage to the north, plans have been submitted to the Township Water & Sewer Division regarding the pool filter, spa, and downspouts off the roof be tied into cleanouts with water flow south to the road and dumping into a ditch with a 24" culvert underneath the road this ties to a 30-foot x 12" culvert that runs under the Frankel driveway and runs due south 20-feet into the stream. Mr. Scott indicated that his firm has not addressed the swale.

Mr. Richard Longley, resident at 655 Ridge Road, was present and spoke in opposition of the accessory use/structure and indicated that the swale has not been addressed.

Chairman Khederian made mention of the letters received for this item. The Brookside Hills Protective Association, sent a letter in support with the following stipulations:

The committee’s approval for the sports/tennis court does NOT include a provision for the future installation of high intensity lighting, permanent backstops and/or basketball goals. The committee’s approval is with the understanding that the resultant increased square footage this request will generate, will NOT cause the "Maximum Percentage of Lot Coverage (areas of all structures) " to exceed 30% as defined in Township of Bloomfield Ordinance No. 265.

A letter of opposition was received from Ms. Sydrena Epstein, resident at 3691 Forest Hill Road indicating a +five year on-going construction process for this site and requesting to have the landscaping complete.

A letter of opposition was received from Mr. Longley, resident at 655 Ridge Road, Ms. Epstein, resident at 3691 Forest Hill Road, Ms. Shirley Edwards, resident at 621 Ridge Road, and Ms. Ruth Edwards, resident at 610 Ridge Road.

A letter of opposition was received from Mr. Stanley Frankel, resident at 663 South Hills, indicating that the front lawn looks like a construction site and asked the Board to consider prior to approving any more variance requests for this site that all current requirements be met immediately.

Mr. Devine complimented and credited Mr. Scott for taking on this project. Mr. Devine also made mention of the staff time that has been involved for this site in keeping track of the items. Mr. Devine made mention of a meeting on August 10th, 2004, that the Zoning Board of Appeals granted approval for a fountain to be located in a front yard, contingent upon having the landscaping and lawn installed by the end of October 2004. The neighbors are frustrated with this construction site for +5 years.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 650 South Hills Road for an accessory use/structure, a 50’ x 90’ sports/tennis court to be encompassed by a proposed 2-foot wall extending to also include the existing pool, located 16-feet from the rear lot line and 17-feet from the easterly side lot line that the variance be denied as requested without prejudice. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance with the location, size and use of the accessory structure, will hinder and discourage the adjacent use of the property, given the neighborhood in general is a quiet neighborhood and it would add to the activity on the site that is not harmonious to the district. The nature, location, size and site layout of the accessory structure will potentially add to the drainage issues within the neighborhood. Also as part of this motion was to revoke the Zoning Board of Appeals approval previously granted on August 10th, 2004 in

regards to the fountain located within a front yard on private property that was contingent upon having the landscaping and lawn installed by the end of October 2004. The deadline has lapsed and the landscaping and lawn is incomplete, the fountain is to be removed immediately.

Motion carried, 6 –0.

(13) 3775 Shallowbrook – H. Sullivan

Mr. Harold Sullivan, homeowner, was present seeking approval for accessory structures, courtyard walls and an electronic gate with an overall height of 9-feet, located more than 16-feet from the side lot lines and 131-feet from the front lot line, Shallowbrook Drive frontage, for Lot 55, Brookside Hills Subdivision No. 1, Section 16. 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. (19-16-201-007)

Mr. Sullivan addressed the Board with a request for accessory structures, courtyard walls and an electronic gate with an overall height of 9-feet, to be located more than 16-feet from the side lot lines and 131-feet from the front lot line, of Shallowbrook Drive frontage. The purpose of the courtyard walls and electronic gate is to provide home security. Mr. Sullivan indicated that the material for the courtyard walls would match the existing house.

Ms. Seneker made mention of a letter in objection on file from Mr. James Massey and Christine Sloat residents at 805 N. Pemberton Road.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to the appeal at 3775 Shallowbrook for accessory structures, courtyard walls and an electronic gate with an overall height of 9-feet, located more than 16-feet from the side lot lines and 131-feet from the front lot line, Shallowbrook Drive frontage, that the variance be approved 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 of the property, to allow for security for the home as well as the garage, and it is not self-created. The location and size of the accessory structure is harmonious to the district, and it would increase the safety to the petitioner but also to the public with the Hold Harmless Agreement to be provided to the Township to allow for emergency vehicle access.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(14) 2400 Brenthaven – O. Underwood

Mr. Scott Underwood, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an accessory use/structure, an 84’ x 36’ sports court with an 8" curb, located in a rear yard 8-feet from

the side and rear property lines for Lot 88, Adams Square No. 3, Section 1. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that an accessory use/structure shall not be located closer than 16-feet to any side or rear property line and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-01-353-014)

Mr. Underwood addressed the Board with a variance request for an accessory use/structure, a sports court to be located in a rear yard to be screened at the north and south ends, directly behind the residence. The sports court surface would be constructed of asphalt with a 6" to 8" curb and to be utilized for roller hockey, tennis and other warm weather activities. Mr. Underwood indicated several factors were considered for the proposal of this sports court. The first factor being the safety of his children. Mr. Underwood indicated that motorists that are not residents of the neighborhood try to avoid the traffic at Square Lake Road and Squirrel Road and use Brenthaven Drive instead. Mr. Underwood also indicated with this additional traffic, the speed traveled is beyond the speed limit posted for this residential area. The Bloomfield Township Police Department has been out to monitor traffic when called and Oakland County Road Commission has denied additional signage for thru traffic. Mr. Underwood indicated to the Board the intent of the sports court would be to provide his children as well as their friends a safe place for them to play.

Mr. Underwood explained the sports court in detail. It would be utilized for the same type of activities and games that the children current play on the driveway or on the front lawn. The curb would be 8" above the existing grade. The rest of the court would remain at grade level. The request does not include lighting or electrical installation, nor use of the sport court after daylight hours. Mr. Underwood addressed the Board that he informed the Adams Square Homeowners Association in February of his proposal and they advised him to contact his adjacent neighbors of the proposal to find out their opposition. Out of the five of the neighbors notified, three were in support of the sports court. The letters were submitted with the application for your review along with ten other letters of support from additional residents. Mr. Underwood indicated that when he advised the Adams Square Homeowners Association and Architectural Committee of the neighbor’s responses. The Homeowners Association Executive Board made no official position. One representative of an incomplete Architectural Committee advises me that approval would be granted if two elements we satisfied: 1. compliance with Township Ordinances, and 2. agreement by all adjoining neighbors. Mr. Underwood commented that his intent is to comply with all applicable Township Ordinances. Mr. Underwood commented that the idea that all of the adjoining neighbors would have to agree before a homeowner could make an addition or modification to his or her property perplexes him. With his proposal Mr. Underwood reports that the majority of the adjoining neighbors have indicated no objection to the proposal. Some of the neighbors cannot see the rear of his property and some neighbors have indicated that the sports court will affect their property value. Mr. Underwood closed his statement by indicating that his wife and he feel the sports court would be a great opportunity in providing a safe and fun place for their children and others in the neighborhood to play.

Mr. Devine questioned the height of the proposed curb.

Mr. Underwood replied the curb height would be 6" – 8" high.

Mr. Devine questioned whether there would be backstops or walls attached, any lighting, use during the evening hours, or use only for the summer months.

Mr. Underwood replied that there would be no backstops or walls attached, no lighting, and no use of the sports court during evening hours. However, there would be a possibility of an ice rink during the winter months.

Mr. Devine indicated that the ice rink use would be significant to the use do to the winter months given the foliage is sparse and the view from the neighbors homes in the winter would increase.

Mr. Underwood suggested that if the Board would consider the proposal he would remove the request for use as an ice rink.

Mr. Smith questioned the screening proposed for the sports court.

Mr. Underwood replied additional dirt with mulch to help hide the curbing and inside that would entail small arborvitaes or greenery to shield the north and south ends, and rear of the property.

Ms. Reisinger questioned whether the sports court could be smaller in size.

Mr. Underwood replied that the size proposed is intended to accommodate an actual size playing tennis court.

Chairman Khederian questioned would there be fencing installed.

Mr. Underwood replied that there would be no fencing installed for the sports court.

Mr. Kepes questioned the use, the size and the proposed location of the accessory structure and expressed his concerns with the location of the sports court being the farthest away from the residence. He suggested that the owner choose a place for the structure that the neighbors would not have the least visibility to it. Mr. Kepes suggested to the petitioner to relocate the sports court 8-feet off of the rear of the petitioner’s residence/patio with screening and leave the rear of the lot completely grass.

Mr. Underwood replied that he would consider relocating the sports court as suggested.

The Board discussed the site plan.

Chairman Khederian made mention of letters received in support of this item.

Ms. Sheppard, resident at 1018 Brenthaven Drive, Mr. Paul Apap, resident at 2330 Brenthaven Drive, Mr. Robert Boniface, resident at 2358 Brenthaven Drive, Mr. William Mellerowicz, resident at 2374 Brenthaven Drive, Mr.& Mrs. Craig Rebold, residents at 2422 Brenthaven Drive, Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Cassar, residents at 2115 Lost Tree Way, Mr. & Mrs. Brad Still, residents at 2146 Lost Tree Way, Mr. & Mrs. John Parillo, residents at 2381 Lost Tree Way, Mr. George Herbert, resident at 2252 Park Ridge, and Mr. Charles Brandt, resident at 2385 Williamstown.

Chairman Khederian made mention of letters received in opposition of this item.

Mr. Thomas Carbin, resident at 2401 Lost Tree Way, and Mr. James Demko, resident at 1015 Brenthaven Drive, and Ms. Barbara Bradley, resident at 2491 Brenthaven Drive.

Mr. Matthew Sheppard, resident at 1018 Brenthaven Drive, was present and spoke in support of the sports court.

Mr. Brad Still, resident at 2146 Lost Tree Way, was present and spoke in support of the sports court.

Mr. George Herbert, resident at 2252 Park Ridge, was present and spoke in support of the sports court.

Mr. Stephen McLaughlin, of the Architectural Control Committee, and resident at 2433 Park Ridge, was present and mentioned that the deed restrictions do not allow for accessory structures. Mr. McLaughlin indicated that the Committee couldn’t sign off on plans that violate the deed restrictions.

Mr. Thomas Carbin, resident at 2401 Lost Tree Way, adjacent to the petitioners property, was present and spoke in opposition of the sports court.

Mr. Devine questioned Mr. Carbin if the proposed sports court was relocated closer to the petitioner’s residence, screened, and his lot line screened on the petitioner’s side, and used only during daylight hours, would this be a suggestion he could work with.

Mr. Carbin replied given the location and the layout, the porch is elevated higher than the lower level. The proposed screening would need to be 8-feet in height to screen the sports court from his vantage point.

Mr. James Fields, resident at 2419 Lost Tree Way, was present and spoke in opposition of the sports court.

Mr. Robert Hammer, resident at 2353 Brenthaven Drive, was present and spoke in opposition of the sports court.

Mr. Paul Apap, resident at 2330 Brenthaven Drive, was present and spoke in support of the sports court.

Mr. Dick Kelley, resident at 2333 Lost Tree Way, was present and spoke in opposition of the sports court.

Mr. Wes Zidwick, resident at 2482 Brenthaven Drive, was present and spoke in opposition of the sports court.

Mr. Clinton Williams, resident at 2308 Brenthaven Drive, was present and spoke in support of the sports court.

Mr. Devine indicated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is not a precedence setting Board. He noted that each variance request is reviewed individually. In this case the Architectural Control Committee deed restrictions indicate that no accessory structures are allowed.

Mr. Devine suggested a motion could be made to consider approval of the accessory use/structure, an 84’ x 36’ sports court with an 8" curb, to be relocated at least 16-feet from the petitioners rear lot line, the sports court can be utilized April 1st through November 1st and to be down by 9:00 PM. The sports court would need to be screened around the perimeter as well as the rear lot line.

Ms. Seneker stated that she could support a motion to approve with conditions of screening.

Mr. Kepes suggested to the Board that the sports court be relocated much closer to the petitioner’s residence, leaving as much greenbelt as possible for the affected neighbor’s to the rear. Mr. Kepes made mention that given there is a motion and support by the Board, could a landscape plan be requested indicating the sports court screening at the rear side of the court be completely surrounded by 8-foot in height arborvitaes touching so the sports court can not be viewed. In addition, the petitioner to submit with the landscape plan specifying the amount of landscaping along the rear property line also suggested 8-foot high arborvitaes to be planted.

Mr. Underwood replied that it is his understanding that he would be required to screen the rear lot line. However, to screen the sports court and the rear lot line would be double screening. Mr. Underwood indicated he would install 8-foot tall arborvitaes at the rear of the lot line to provide screening for the rear neighbors affected by the sports court.

Motion by Devine, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 2400 Brenthaven Drive that the variance for the accessory use/structure, an 84’ x 36’ sports court with an 8" curb, located in a rear yard 8-feet from the side and rear property line to table the request to June 14th, 2005 meeting, staff to re-notice for this item, to allow the petitioner to submit a revised plan indicating the relocation of the sports court in excess of 16-feet from the rear lot line and provide a landscape plan indicating the screening of the rear lot line and the proposed sports court and obtain the neighbors opinions.

Motion carried, 6 –0.

(15) 3690 W. Maple – Three M Enterprises Inc./Shell Gas Station

Mr. Terry Deshaw of TEK Express, was present seeking approval for a 21.4-foot encroachment into the required 25-foot setback for the installation of a ground sign, located at the northeast corner of Lahser and Maple for Acreage Parcel, Section 27. Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that no ground sign shall be located nearer than 25-feet to any existing or proposed right-of-way line. (19-27-353-001)

Mr. Deshaw addressed the Board with a request for a 21.4-foot encroachment into the setback for the installation of a ground sign to be placed at the northeast corner of Lahser and Maple Road. Mr. Deshaw indicated that there is an existing pylon on site that is to be removed and replaced with the proposed ground sign. The proposed ground sign would be placed on private property out of the road right-of-way. Mr. Deshaw also indicated that subdivision association approval has been granted.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Smith regarding the appeal at 3690 W. Maple that the variance for the 21.4-foot encroachment into the required 25-foot setback for the installation of a ground sign, located at the northeast corner of Lahser and Maple Road be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the petitioner did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome, given the sign would be located in the middle of the site, no injustice to adjoining neighbors, given the unique circumstances with the property, and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 6- 0.

(16) 1000 Forest Lane – P. Kilma

Mr. Nathan Resnick, attornery, along with Mr. Peter Kilma, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the following accessory use/structures for Lot 20, Supervisor’s Plat of Berkshire Forest, Section 34:

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 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 fences in a residential district shall not exceed 4-feet in height. (19-34-328-017)

Mr. Resnick addressed the Board with two (2) accessory structures, two air-conditioning units to be located in the front yard, immediately adjacent to the existing wall of the residential building. The hardship for the air conditioning units would be the line sets that are needed to run the air conditioners would be too long and the rear location there was unavailable due to an existing deck. Mr. Resnick indicated that the air-conditioning units would be screened with evergreens.

Mr. Resnick addressed the Board with a 40’ x 60’ sports court with 10’ high fencing on the north and south perimeters, 4’ high fencing on the east and west perimeters and two (2) 15’ high lights, located in a rear yard 16-feet from the northerly side lot line more than 35-feet from the rear lot line. The sports court facility would be utilized as a basketball and floor hockey court. Mr. Resnick indicated that the sports court would not be visible by the neighbors, given the size of the property he also made mention that the rear yard setback of 16-feet has complied with the Township Ordinance. Mr. Resnick described the fence for the sports court at the north and south ends; would be brown in color to match the surrounding environment. The purpose of the fence would be to catch the balls and to keep them within the boundaries of the sports court. Mr. Resnick commented that the proposed sports court is to provide a safe recreational private place for the children to play.

Mr. Kepes questioned the intensity of the proposed lighting.

Mr. Resnick replied that he would have to provide the lighting specifications to the Board.

Mr. Kepes suggested turning the sports court.

Mr. Resnick replied that if the sports court were to be turned the site line from the pool to the house to the proposed sports court would be less aesthetically pleasing.

Mr. Kepes indicated that if the sports court were to be turned it would give an additional 20-feet as a buffer to the neighbors to the north.

Mr. Resnick replied that with this proposal is a 4-foot high fence to be placed on the east and west perimeters of the sports court. If the sports court were to be turned, the proposed fence would now be placed on the north and south perimeters of the sports court and would not serve the intent of keeping sports balls within the court.

Mr. Devine questioned would the petitioner consider removing the request for the (2) 15’ high lights, located in the rear yard, from the variance request.

Mr. Resnick replied the request for the lighting would only be for night use.

Chairman Khederian made mention of letters received.

Mr. & Mrs. Gary Schleif, residents at 3043 E. Bradford, was in support of the placement of the two air-conditioning units and the sports court.

Ms. Marlene Linn, resident at 3055 E. Bradford, was in support of the placement of the two air-conditioning units.

Mr. & Mrs. Crawford, residents at 1040 Forest Lane, was in support of the placement of the two air-conditioning units.

Mr. & Mrs. Michael Raick, residents at 1159 Forest Lake, was in support of the placement of the two air-conditioning units.

Mr. Jim Benton, resident at 1080 Forest Lane, was in objection to the sports court.

Mr. Jeff Salz, Vice President of Westchester Homeowners Association, resident at 3114 E. Bradford, was present and spoke in opposition of the proposed lighting, and the 10’ high fencing proposed.

Dr. Lawrence Lublin, resident at 1079 Forest Lane, was present and spoke in support of the placement of the two air-conditioning units. In regards to the sports courts, Dr. Lublin, was in opposition of the lights for the sports court.

Ms. Marlene Linn, resident at 3055 E. Bradford, was present and suggested additional trees should be added at the north side to help screen the sports court from view. Ms. Linn also questioned the placement of the proposed lights and the specifications.

Ms. Maxine Saad, resident at 3111 E. Bradford, was present and spoke in support of the sports court however, opposed the proposed lighting for the sports court. Ms. Saad

suggested additional trees should be added to the north side to help screen the sports court from view.

Mr. Gene Jacoby, resident at 1295 Forest Lane, was present and spoke in support of the placement of the two air-conditioning units. In regards to the sports court, Mr. Jacoby, was in opposition of the lights for the sports court and the 10’ high fencing request.

Mr. Tracy Crawford, resident at 1040 Forest Lane, was present and spoke in support of the placement of the two air-conditioning units and the sports court.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 1000 Forest Lane for an accessory use/structure, a 40’ x 60’ sports court with 10’ high fencing on the north and south perimeters, 4’ high fencing on the east and west perimeters and two (2) 15’ high lights, located in a rear yard 16-feet from the northerly side lot line and more than 35-feet from the rear lot line that the variance be tabled as a recommendation to allow the petitioner to reconfigure the sports court, turning it so that the 10’ high fencing would be on the east and west side of the sport court, with the recommendation to the petitioner that the fencing options be more aesthetically pleasing. The 4’ high fence to be placed at the north and south

side of the sports court. Also recommended to the petitioner to provide a landscape plan, indicating the distance from the edge of the sports court to the side property

line as well as a detailed landscaping plan for the property line to be reviewed by the neighbors with the elimination of the lighting for the sports court.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 1000 Forest Lane for the accessory structures, two (2) air-conditioning units located immediately adjacent to the wall of the residential building, more than 40-feet from the front lot line, Forest Lane frontage, that the variance be approved 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, 6 –0.

(17) 799 Denison Court – A. Mojares/S.Mazur

Mr. Doug Falazon, architect, was present seeking approval for the use of an incidental medical facility for consulting and therapy purposes in the Square Lake Athletic Club for Lots 12 to 15, Bloomfield Industrial Park Sub, Section 5. Article XI, Section 1100 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that the use of land and the alteration and/or enlargement of existing buildings or structures shall conform to the specified uses within the RP (Research Park) District. (19-05-476-062)

Mr. Falazon addressed the Board for an incidental medical facility for consulting and therapy to be located within Square Lake Athletic Club. Mr. Falazon indicated that this facility would take approximately 4.2% of the space to serve the consulting and therapy purposes.

Mr. Devine made mention that the Township Board is considering through the Planning Commission a process of possibly expanding the use for research parks which would allow for multiuse facilities.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 799 Denison Court for the use of an incidental medical facility for consulting and therapy purposes in the Square Lake Athletic Club, that the land use variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the petitioner did demonstrate that hardship does exist, the petitioner did set forth facts, which do show that: The petitioner’s property cannot be used for purposes permitted in zoning district because it does not allow for a medical facility in a research park; the petitioner’s plight is due to unique circumstances particular to the property and that the general neighborhood conditions, that the petitioner’s suggested use would not alter the essential charter of the area, and that the petitioner’s problem is not self-created.

Motion carried, 6- 0.

(7) 3017 Franklin – M. Mango

Seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, three (3) brick and limestone lighted piers (two 13’ x 2’ x 6.9’ high and one 2’ x 2’ x 6.9’ high) located on private property at the driveway entrances, setback 10-feet from the northerly front lot line, Hickory Grove frontage for Part of Lot 11 and also Part of Lot 12, Supervisor’s Plat of North Devon Acres, Section 9. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that all accessory structures shall be subject to the review an approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-09-301-047)

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 3017 Franklin Road that the variance for the construction of three (3) accessory

structures, brick limestone lighted piers located on private property to be tabled to a date uncertain, without prejudice, no one was present for this item.

Motion carried, 6- 0.

(8) 1710 Ward – D. Brundage

Seeking approval for a 29.2-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback, Lafayette frontage, for the construction of a single-story garage addition in the

easterly front yard for Lot 36, 37 and 38, Ward Orchards, Section 6. The existing home is currently non-conforming. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40-feet in the front yard setback. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended. (19-06-111-031)

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 1710 Ward Road that the variance for a 29.2-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback be tabled to a date uncertain, without prejudice, no one was present for this item.

Motion carried, 6-0.

IV. GENERAL BUSINESS

Next Board Meeting – June 14th, 2005

V. ADJOURNMENT

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia McCullough, Director
Planning and Building Department

kd

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

Click here to report website technical issues.

Need to contact the webmaster?  Click here.

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