Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 – 7:00 PM
Bloomfield Township Hall

I. ATTENDANCE:

PRESENT: Board Members Lisa Seneker, Brian Kepes, Dan Devine, Robert Taylor, James Aldrich, Jane Reisinger, Chairman Corinne Khederian

STAFF PRESENT: Patricia McCullough, Planning and Building Director, Kaye Chartier Code and Ordinance Director, Robin Carley, Development Coordinator, Kathy Davis, Building Department Secretary, Brenda Schlutow, Code and Ordinance Officer, Patrick Jenkinson, Jr., Building Official and Township Attorney, Derek Beckerleg

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 10th, 2005.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Kepes to approve the Minutes of May 10th, 2005 as amended.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

III. APPEALS:

Tabled Items

(1T) 3017 Franklin – M. Magno

Mr. George Grose, builder, was present 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)

Mr. Grose addressed the Board with the request for the accessory structures, (3) brick limestone lighted piers to be located on private property. Mr. Grose provided the Board with a detailed landscape plan and made mention that the hold harmless agreement has been provided.

Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 3017 Franklin for the construction of accessory structures, three (3) brick and limestone lighted piers located on private property to be placed at the driveway entrances, setback 10-feet from the northerly front lot line of Hickory Grove frontage, 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, 7 – 0.

(2T) 1710 Ward – D. Brundage

Mr. David Brundage, homeowner, was present 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)

Mr. Brundage addressed the Board with a request to build a single-story garage addition to the existing residence. Mr. Brundage indicated the property is a corner lot with unique circumstances.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 1710 Ward for a 29.2-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback of Lafayette frontage 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, 7 – 0.

(3T) 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 detailed landscape plan indicating the rear yard and the side yard screening. The rear of the sports court would be screened with 8-foot arborvitaes placed 3-foot on center to help screen the neighbor’s views. The side rear corner of the sports court would also be screened with 8-foot arborvitaes placed 3-foot on center to help screen the neighbor’s views. Mr. Underwood indicated that both sides of the sports court would be screened with 3-foot arborvitaes placed 3-foot on center. The proposed sports court has been relocated 10-feet from the existing porch of the residence. Mr. Underwood indicated that the affected neighbors have been shown the revised landscape plan.

Chairman Khederian suggested to the Board a time of use for the sports court is between 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM given the fact that the surrounding neighbors would be affected given this property is not an estate size lot. Chairman Khederian also made mention of 25-30 letters that the Board has received that are in objection of this sports court.

Mr. Thomas Carbin, resident at 2401 Lost Tree, was present and indicated that he did review the proposed landscape plan, and commented what Mr. Underwood has proposed is a good job of landscaping a parking lot. Mr. Carbin also made mention of the crowd control that the sports court would require and the access cutting through the neighbors back yards.

Ms. Seneker made mention of letters that the Board received in support of the sports court.

Ms. Reisinger made mention of the children using the neighbors backyards as a cut through.

Mr. Underwood replied that he would address the parents with the request that the children use the driveway and not Mr. Carbin’s yard.

Mr. Taylor commented that the sports court with the accumulation of youngsters would make it difficult as a homeowner to enjoy the quite enjoyment of their property.

Mr. Underwood replied that his main concern was the safety of his children.

Ms. Seneker made motion to approve the accessory structure, an 84’ x 36’ sports court with an 8" curb, located in a rear yard 8-feet from the side and 16-feet from the rear property line.

Motion failed due to lack of support.

Mr. Taylor commented that the proposed sports court is excessive in size and suggested that the court be reduced in size.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 2400 Brenthaven for an accessory structure, an 84’ x 36’ sports court with an 8" curb, located in a rear yard 8-feet from the side and 16-feet from the rear property line be denied as submitted with no practical difficulty was shown.

Motion carried, 6-1-0

YEAS: Reisinger, Devine, Aldrich, Kepes, Taylor, Khederian

NAYS: Seneker

ABSTAINED: None

(4T) 1000 Forest Lane – P. Klima

Mr. Nathan Resnick, attorney, along with Mr. Petr Klima, homeowner, was present seeking approval 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 for Lot 20, Supervisor’s Plat of Berkshire Forest, Section 34. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a residential district shall not exceed 4-feet in height. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that all accessory use/structures shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-34-328-017)

Mr. Resnick addressed the Board with a landscape plan that indicates the screening for the properties to the east with arborvitaes. Mr. Resnick submitted letters to the Board of approval for the sports court from the affected adjoining neighbors Ms. Linn, resident at 3055 E. Bradford, and Ms. Saad, resident at 3111 E. Bradford.

Mr. Resnick provided additional photographs to the Board showing the existing foliage that helps block the view of the neighbors to the north. Mr. Resnick also provided the fencing specifications. Mr. Resnick indicated that the fence would be of mesh like material that would help reduce the sound.

Mr. Resnick made mention of the placement of the proposed sports court and indicated that if the sports court was relocated/rotated as suggested by the Board at the previous meeting, the two neighbors affected would be in opposition of the sports court if the court was rotated.

Chairman Khederian questioned Mr. Resnick if the proposed lighting for the sports court was removed from the variance request as recommended by the Board.

Mr. Resnick replied that the lighting for the sports court is still being requested.

Chairman Khederian questioned the time limitation usage for the proposed sports court of April to November with a time of 9:00 PM to stop the use of the court.

Mr. Resnick replied that the proposed sports court would likely be utilized year around for the specified purposes and was unclear that a time restriction was previously suggested however; a reasonable time restriction could be set.

Mr. Devine made mention of the landscape plan and indicated that the items that the Board had concerns with have been satisfied given that the neighbors to the north would be fully screened from the proposed 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 approved with the recommendation to eliminate the lighting, with the use of the sports court from April through November and that a reasonable time use be 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM. Based on the information presented, the petitioner did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome, no injustice to adjoining neighbors given that they have signed off on the landscape plan, there are unique circumstances with the property given with the trees that are outlined on the property as indicated by the petitioner and it is not self-created. Also, that the permission request be approved as submitted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with the location and size of the sports court is appropriate given the estate size lot, the challenges of the lot and the landscaping to screen the accessory structure. The use would be harmonious to the adjoining neighbors, the location and height will not hinder or discourage the adjacent use of property, the nature location, size and site layout of the accessory structure is harmonious to the district, there will be no interference with the lights, and the use from April through November from 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM that there would be no excessive noise or nuisance to the neighbors.

Brian Kepes questioned the limitation of April through November.

Mr. Devine replied that the proposed sports court was to be utilized for basketball and floor hockey as indicated by the petitioner, the foliage would become less in the fall and winter months allowing the noise to become more noticeable.

Ms. Reisinger questioned what would the height of the arborvitaes be planted at for the proposed sports court.

Mr. Resnick replied the arborvitaes would be planted at 6 to 8-foot in height.

Ms. Resinger amended motion to install 10-foot high arborvitaes to screen the proposed sports court from view. Mr. Devine supported the amendment.

Ms. Seneker questioned Mr. Devine could the April through November use be changed to consider year round use, given the property is an estate size lot.

Mr. Devine made amendment to the motion for the time use to be 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM to allow for year round use and that sensitivity is given to the neighbors if noise complaints are received anytime during the year, that the use of the sports court would be modified in accordance with the neighbors concerns. Mr. Kepes supported amendment.

Mr. Resnick replied that all neighbor concerns would be addressed.

Motion carried, 6-1-0

YEAS: Kepes, Seneker, Aldrich, Taylor, Reisinger, Khederian

NAYS: Devine

ABSTAINED: None

NEW ITEMS

(1) 5425 Long Meadow – F. Joseph

Mr. Joe Galvin, attorney, was present on behalf of the homeowners, seeking approval for an existing accessory use/structure, a 50’ x 90’ sports court screened with existing plantings, two 18-foot high light poles and 10-foot high fencing, located in a rear yard 22-feet from the westerly side lot line, 18.7-feet from the easterly side lot line and 45.9-feet from the rear lot line for Lot 31, Bloomfield Estates Subdivision, Section 24. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that an accessory use/structure shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board of Appeals. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a residential district shall not exceed 4-feet in height. (19-24-376-003)

Mr. Galvin addressed the Board with a detailed landscape plan and provided the Board with a petition that was circulated thought the neighborhood with fourteen families that granted their consent of the existing sports court. The sports court is located to the rear of the property and is placed approximately 204-feet to the nearest home. Mr. Galvin indicated that additional 50-foot tall pine trees have been planted to help screen the court from view with an additional two 25-foot pine trees yet to be installed.

Ms. Sylvia Adams, resident at 5385 Long Meadow, was present and spoke in objection of the sports court.

Mr. Devine questioned Ms. Adams how would the use of the sports court and the lighting affect your daily enjoyment of her property.

Ms. Adams replied that the sports court would have a negative affect on her life style, given that her home is situated so that it faces the back yard. Ms. Adams indicated the noise alone would affect her life style.

Mr. Devine questioned Ms. Adams if the proposed landscaping would be sufficient for screening your property from view of the sports court.

Ms. Adams replied that the additional landscaping would help from screening the sports court from view, however the noise would still remain.

Mr. Thomas Crisler, was present on behalf of his mother, Ms. Nancy Crisler, resident at 5325 Long Meadow, and spoke in objection of the sports court.

Mr. David Miller, resident at 5420 Long Meadow, was present and spoke in support of the sports court.

Ms. Graydon, resident at 5221 Long Meadow, was present and spoke in support of the sports court.

Ms. Louise Stoick, resident at 5230 Lone Meadow, was present and spoke in support of the sport court.

Mr. Devine questioned if the sports court could be relocated.

Mr. Galvin replied relocation of the sports court would place the accessory structure closer the neighbors. The existing location of the sports court as is has the least impact to the neighbors.

Mr. Devine indicated that through the permission request that no injustice to the adjoining neighbors has not been proven, given that Ms. Adams would be negatively effected by the noise and lighting although additional screening was proposed.

Mr. Galvin replied that changes are on going through the neighborhood. Given the placement of the sports court, 204-feet to the nearest home, with lighting, would be more suitable than playing in the street.

Mr. Devine questioned would there be limited use of the sports court from 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM and elimination of the lighting.

Mr. Garvin replied that to eliminate the lighting would destroy the sports court utility.

Chairman Khederian made mention that this property was an estate size lot and has very beautiful landscaping. Chairman Khederian spoke in regards to the one concern for the neighbor most affected at 5385 Long Meadow, and asked the petitioner if they would consider planting more than two evergreens as proposed.

Mr. Garvin replied yes, they would plant a total of five evergreens at 20-feet in height to help screen the sports court from view.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 5425 Long Meadow for the existing accessory use/structure, a 50’ x 90’ sports court screened with existing plantings, two 18-foot high light poles and 10-foot high fencing, located in a rear yard 22-feet from the westerly side lot line, 18.7-feet from the easterly side lot line and 45.9-feet from the rear lot line, that the variance request be denied as submitted without prejudice. Based on the information presented the practical difficulty test has not been satisfied, compliance to the ordinance would not be unduly burdensome, they would be an injustice to the adjoining neighbor as presented, there are no unique circumstances with the property that require a sports court and it is self-created, given the structure was installed without the proper approvals from the Board. The denied variance request would not prevent the petitioner from using the property for permitted purpose, which is to continue to reside on the property.

Ms. Seneker questioned Mr. Devine if the denial was based on the lighting for the sports court.

Mr. Devine replied that the lighting was an issue, the time frame for the use of the sports court and indicated that practical difficulty was not proven given the fact that the adjoining neighbors would be impacted.

Chairman Khederian suggested to the applicant that the Board consider tabling this item to allow the petitioner to return to reconsider the request for lighting for the sports court and the amount of use for the sports court, and provide a revised landscape plan indicating the placement of the additional five evergreens 20-feet in height.

Mr. Garvin accepted the suggestion from the Chairman to table this item.

Mr. Devine withdrew his original motion and made motion to table to the next Zoning Board meeting of July 12, 2005, to re-notice the adjoining neighbors. Seconded by Mr. Kepes.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(2) 3530 Franklin Road – D. Ebert

Mr. and Mrs. Doug Ebert, homeowners, were present seeking approval to retain the following on-site features after demolition of the existing home and the construction of new accessory structures in preparation for a new residential building for Part of Lot 1, Forest Park Estates, Section 17:

Article II, Section 201 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 defines accessory use/structure as a use, which is clearly incidental to, customarily found in connection with, and located on the same zoning lot as, the principal use to which it is related. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that an accessory use/structure shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not be located closer than sixteen feet to any side or rear lot line and shall require the review and approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Article XV, Section 1517 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a 25-foot setback from the boundary or edge of a natural feature. 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 and shall not exceed 4-feet in height. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires new construction to be set back from the waterfront the average of the setback of the principal buildings on the nearest improved waterfront lots within 500-feet of each side of the lot in question. (19-17-276-001)

Mr. Ebert addressed the Board with (15) fifteen variance requests for this property. Mr. Ebert indicated that his intentions are to demolish the existing residence, an attached garage, a swimming pool in the front yard, a detached garage, and storage shed. Mr. Ebert requested approval to retain the following on-site features after demolition of the existing home. A pump house, 8.5’ x 16.6’ x 8’ high with attached cheek walls, retaining walls, walkways, and steps and a fence that runs along the east side of Franklin Road frontage. Mr. Ebert indicated that the intent to retain the existing retaining walls particularly at the water’s edge was to help preserve the existing native cover and slope on the back part of the property. Mr. Ebert addressed the following requests to construct some retaining walls that would be screened with plantings, a stone patio at the rear of the home, to construct steps and retaining walls to allow for a walkout on the south side of the residence, that would not visible from the lake, to continue the fencing across the east side of the property to replace the remote garage that is being demolished. Also seeking approval to encroach 22.2-feet into the lakeside setback. Mr. Ebert indicated that the proposed home would be setback 83.10-feet from the waters edge. The encroachment would not impact the line of sight to the adjoining neighbors from the north or south. Mr. Ebert submitted the neighbor’s approval along with the subdivision association’s approval.

Chairmain Khederian suggested to the Board to break down the variances as indicated:

Item (15), Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 3530 Franklin Road for the variance to encroach 22.2-feet into the lakeside setback with the required average setback of the neighboring properties at 80.4-feet for the construction of a new home, which would allow a 58.2-foot lakeside setback be approve as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances with the property and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

Items (1-7), (9), (11-14), Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 3530 Franklin Road for the following variances as indicated, To retain the existing 8.5’ x 16.6’ x 8’ high pump house with attached cheek walls, located in a rear yard 9-feet from the water’s edge and 4.5-feet from the northerly side property line. To retain the existing retaining wall, which is attached to the existing pump house’ southerly cheek wall with an overall height of 2.5-feet, located in a rear yard 10-feet from the water’s edge. To retain the existing 1.7-foot high stone retaining wall, located in a rear yard 6.6-feet from the water’s edge. To retain the existing 1.6-foot high stone retaining wall, located in a rear yard 12.9-feet from the water’s edge. To retain the existing stone walkway, located in the center of the rear yard extending to the northwest corner, which leads from the proposed patio to the existing pump house. To retain the existing stone retaining wall with an overall height of 4-feet, located in a rear yard adjacent to the existing stone walkway extending towards the northerly side lot line. To retain the existing stone steps, located at the southwest corner of the property extending towards the lakeside. For the construction of two stone retaining walls screened with plantings to allow for the construction of a stone patio with an overall height of 9.4-feet, located in a rear yard immediately adjacent to the proposed residential building 58.25-feet from the water’s edge. For the construction of a like section of 4.5-foot high stone/iron wall for the purpose of completing the space vacated by the removal of the detached garage, located on private property 10.8-feet from the easterly front property line, Franklin Road frontage. To retain the existing stone/iron wall with an overall height of 7.1-feet, located on private property 10.8-feet from the easterly front property line, Franklin Road frontage. To retain the existing stonewall with an overall height of 2.5-feet, located in the required northerly side yard. To retain the existing 4-foot high chain link fence and the existing 6.4-foot high wood lattice fence, located in front, side and rear yards along the northerly property line, be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances with the property and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

Item (10), Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 3530 Franklin Road for the variance for the construction of steps and retaining walls with an overall height of 9.7-feet, located immediately adjacent to the residential building and in the southerly side yard setback be approved as requested. Based on the information presented the applicant did demonstrate compliance with the location, size and use are appropriate, the location will not hinder or discourage the adjacent use of property, it is harmonious to the district, and will not be objectionable to surrounding residence.

Motion carried, 7 –0.

(3) 3544 Franklin Road – W. Powers

Mr. and Mrs. William Powers, homeowners, along with architect, Thomas Hollomand, and builder, Eric Volger, were present seeking approval for the following items in preparation for a new residential building for Part of Lot 1, Forest Park Estates, Section 17:

Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that an accessory use/structure shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not exceed 14-feet in height, 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. Article XV, Section 1517 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a 25-foot setback from the boundary or edge of a natural feature. Article II, Section 201 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 defines accessory use/structure as a use, which is clearly incidental to, customarily found in connection with, and located on the same zoning lot as, the principal use to which it is related. 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. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires new construction to be set back from the waterfront the average of the setback of the principal buildings on the nearest improved waterfront lots within 500-feet of each side of the lot in question, and a minimum of 16-feet in the side yard setbacks (3544 Franklin Road, 19-17-276-002).

Mr. Powers addressed the Board and presented a plan with a new home that would consist of a walkout basement, and a covered walkway to be located on a 75-foot lot, and would be placed 40-feet from the water’s edge. Mr. Powers indicated that they would like to retain the existing 4-foot high chain link fence on the property of Franklin Road frontage. Mr. Powers asked for the following variance requests: construction of two (2) retaining walls with an overall height of 10-feet, located in a rear yard, to install a 4-foot high chain link fence along the easterly front lot line, to construct two (2) 2’ x 2’ x 5’ high piers and an electronic gate connecting the proposed 4-foot high fence, to encroach 23.4-feet in the lakeside setback for the construction of the new home, for 2-foot encroachments into both required 16-foot side yard setbacks for the construction of the new home, and to construct a 52.4’ x 24.3’ x 28’ high detached garage with an attached 30’ x 8’ x12’ high covered walkway between the proposed home and garage. The existing garage is a two car and the proposed garage would be a four car.

Mr. Hollomand, architect spoke and addressed the style of the proposed home that would be a cottage style home with a cedar shake roof to create a natural look with the surrounding homes on the lake. The pitch for the roof of the house would be 12 /12 with the garage roof to match. This would require a variance request for the height of the garage.

Mr. Kepes questioned the height of the surrounding structures/garages in the neighboring area.

Mr. Powers replied that he has provided pictures of some structures in the area and has received the approval from the neighbors to the north of this property.

Mr. Norman Bodine, resident at 3610 Franklin Road, was present and spoke of his concerns for drainage from the proposed hardscape onto his property.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, made mention that a letter was submitted to the Building Department Plan Reviewer, Darrin Koester, and indicated that upon the variance approval, as part of the plan review process, drainage issues would be addressed pursuant to the Townships Ordinances and Codes.

Ms. Maureen Brice, resident at 3630 Franklin Road, was present and spoke of the drainage concerns.

Ms. Seneker made mention of a letter received from Ms. Brice in regards to the drainage concerns.

Mr. Powers addressed the drainage issues along the driveway he has proposed green space on both sides of the property.

Chairman Khederian suggested to the Board to break down the variances as indicated:

Items (2-6), Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 3544 Franklin Road for the following variance requests: To retain the existing 4-foot high chain link fence, located on private property in front, side and rear yards along the northerly lot lines, Franklin road frontage. For the installation of 4-foot high chain link fencing, located along the easterly front lot line, Franklin Road frontage, setback 30.7-feet. For the construction of two 2’ x 2’ x 5’ high piers and an electronic gate connecting the proposed 4-high fence, located on private property 30.7-feet from the front lot line, Franklin Road frontage. To encroach 23.4-feet into the lakeside setback with the required average setback of the neighboring properties at 63.4-feet for the construction of a new home, which would allow a 40-foot lakeside setback. For 2-foot encroachments into both required 16-foot side yard setbacks for the construction of a new home be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant 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. Fence supports are to face the applicants property.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

Items (1) & (7), Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 3544 Franklin Road for the following variance requests: For the construction of two retaining walls screened with plantings with an overall height of 10-feet, located in a rear yard less than 25-feet from the water’s edge. For the construction of a 52.4’ x 24.3’ x 28’ high detached garage (includes a 4-foot high cupola) with an attached 30’ x 8’ x 12’ high covered walkway between the proposed garage to the proposed new home, located in a front yard 21.2-feet from the easterly front lot line and 4.8-feet from the northerly side lot line be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with the location, size and use of the structure. The location and height do not hinder or discourage the adjacent use of property, the nature, location, size and site layout are harmonious to the district, and there shall be no objectionable to nearby residents by reason of noise, fumes, lights. Contingent upon engineering studies be performed and approved by Hubble Roth and Clark for the drainage issues consistent with the Township Ordinance, also a hold harmless agreement and a single family affidavit be filed with the Township.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(4) 3310 Morningview Terrace – G. Saham

Mr. Kevin Hart, architect, was present seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, two retaining walls, one with an overall height of 5-feet, located in the westerly side and rear yards 3-feet from the lot line and one with an overall height of 6.2-feet, located in the northerly rear yard connected to the easterly corner of the proposed addition, Part of Lot 486, also all of Lot 487, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 1, Section 27. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-27-376-015)

Mr. Hart addressed the Board with a proposal for replacing the retaining walls on the westerly side of the property. Mr. Hart indicated, as part of the proposal the existing driveway would be removed to reclaim the space for backyard space, this would eliminate one curb cut and reinstalling the driveway on the westerly side of the home. The two retaining walls would run along the west side of the property that will be utilized to hold existing soil behind the wall and would also allow for the driveway to wrap around for support. Mr. Hart indicated that the total overall height of the retaining walls would be 5-feet and that subdivision association approval was granted.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 3310 Morning view Terrace for the construction of accessory structures, two retaining walls, one with an overall height of 5-feet, located in the westerly side and rear yards 3-feet from the lot line and one with an overall height of 6.2-feet, located in the northerly rear yard connected to the easterly corner of the proposed addition, Part of Lot 486, also all of Lot 487, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 1, be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with the Section 1804 standards, the location, size and use, the location and height of the retaining walls will not hinder or discourage the adjacent use of property, the nature, location, and size of the retaining walls shall be harmonious to the district, the nature, location, size and site layout of the retaining walls will not be objectionable to nearby residents by reason of: noise, fumes, lights.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(5) 2456 Sanders Place – G. Washington

Mr. Gary Washington, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 14-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot westerly side yard setback for the construction of a second story addition for Lot 29, Colonial Hills, Section 4. 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. (19-04-477-033)

Mr. Washington addressed the Board with a request for a second story addition to be placed over the existing garage, that currently encroaches and is non-conforming.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 2456 Sanders Place that the variance for a 14-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot westerly side yard setback for the construction of a second story addition for Lot 29, Colonial Hills, Section 4 be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant 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.

(6) 4643 Brightmore – L. Nelson

Mr. Gene Nelson, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 4.5-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the installation of a stand-by generator screened from view with evergreen plantings and an existing brick wing wall, located 11.5-feet from the westerly side lot line for Lot 98, Vernor Estates No. 2, Section 16. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical or electrical equipment shall not be located in the required 16-foot side yard setback. (19-16-454-001)

Mr. Nelson addressed the Board with a request for the installation of a stand-by generator to be placed in the side yard to be screened from view with an existing brick wing wall with additional evergreen plantings. Mr. Nelson submitted subdivision association approval along with the adjacent neighbor’s approval letters.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regards to the appeal at 4643 Brightmore for the variance of a 4.5-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the installation of a stand-by generator screened from view with evergreen plantings and an existing brick wing wall, located 11.5-feet from the westerly side lot line for Lot 98, Vernor Estates No. 2, Section 16 be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances with the property, and it is not self-created. The generator must comply with the Township Noise Ordinance.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(7) 2075 Telegraph – Olga’s Kitchen & Suncoast Smoothies

Mr. Raymond Behling, Development Manager of Shostack Brothers, was present seeking approval for a variance of 19 parking spaces, per the parking requirements as stated in

Article XV, Section 1504 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265, for the inclusion of an Olga’s Kitchen and Suncoast Smoothies to be located in the Gateway Building north of Square Lake Road, east of Telegraph, Acreage Parcel, Section 5. Also seeking approval for the installation of two 50-Square Foot permanent wall signs, one sign to be located on the southwest street side façade, Telegraph Road frontage (9.5% of the total street side façade), and one sign to be located on the northwest façade adjacent to the parking field (3% of the total façade adjacent to the parking field), which includes a 7.1-Square Foot figure for each sign (14% of the total sign area). Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 allows for one sign, states that the maximum size of the sign shall not exceed 6% of the total area of the street side façade and that wall signs shall be authorized to contain figures (illustrations) provided that all figures shall not constitute more than 5% of the total sign area. (19-05-326-005)

Mr. Behling addressed the Board with a request for (19) nineteen parking spaces to be allowed for the shopping center north of Kmart for Olga’s Kitchen and Suncoast Smoothies. Mr. Behling indicated that his would be the only food restaurant within the development and given the parking area felt that adequate parking were provided. Mr. Behling made mention that the Design Review Board suggested that an analysis of other Olga’s Kitchen within the area be performed. Mr. Behling referenced (3) three of the largest performers within the area: Lathrup Village, Troy Sports Center and Van Dyke Road. The analysis was based upon transactions, which were the number of transactions based upon the hour of the day, and the worst-case scenario was Lathrup Village with (27) twenty-seven carryout transactions between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM and (66) sixty-six eat-in transactions between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM.

Ms. Reisinger made mention of the parking spaces for "COMP USA" is 105 and "Pier One Imports" is 60 giving the total parking spaces for these two retailers 165 spaces at any given time.

Mr. Kepes expressed his concerns for the parking during a Saturday afternoon and questioned would the field parking that is located to the left of the center be utilized.

Mr. Behling replied that Olga’s Kitchen employees would utilize the field parking to free up the (19) nineteen parking spaces for the customers.

Mr. Kepes questioned the parking lot calculations.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, commented that each and every business is determined to have a parking requirement, and the Township does not subdivide uses within a given business, it is looked at as retail. Ms. McCullough made mention that when the Gateway building was approved by the Township Board it was approved for general retail use it was not contemplated that a restaurant would be a part of this site.

Mr. Kepes questioned would the variance use follow ownership, or would the variance request stay with the property.

Ms. McCullough replied that the variance request could be tied to the site and the site plan or as an individual use request.

Chairman Khederian questioned if the employees considered a part of the calculation analysis.

Ms. McCullough replied that employees are not to be calculated for this intended use.

Chairman Khederian suggested to the Board to break down the variances as indicated:

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 2075 Telegraph Road for a variance of 19 parking spaces, per the parking requirements as stated in Article XV, Section 1504 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265, for the inclusion of an Olga’s Kitchen and Suncoast Smoothies to be located in the Gateway Building north of Square Lake Road, east of Telegraph, Acreage Parcel, Section 5, be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the petitioner did demonstrate compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances with the property and it is not self-created. This approval is being tied into Olga’s Kitchen and that in the event they would be seeking a liquor license in the near future, that this approval does not apply.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

Mr. Behling addressed part 2 of the variance request regarding the signage. The building entrance does not face Telegraph Road leaving the primary elevation facing the parking lot. Mr. Bayling proposed to utilize the front façade of 100.8-square feet and divide the size of the allowed sign in half with one-half facing the parking lot, which is the principal entrance, and one-half on the Telegraph Road façade so that northwest bound traffic could identify the restaurant location. Mr. Bayling indicated that a traffic study has been performed with the comments provided in the Boards packets.

Mr. Kepes questioned if a monument sign would be considered.

Mr. Bayling replied that a monument sign is not allowed as part of the lease agreement.

Mr. Kepes questioned what is the maximum size of signage allowed in the Township.

Ms. McCullough replied the signage is based upon 6% of the front façade of the building.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Seneker regarding the appeal at 2075 Telegraph Road for the variance for the installation of two 50-Square Foot permanent wall signs, one sign to be located on the southwest street side façade, Telegraph Road frontage (9.5% of the total street side façade), and one sign to be located on the northwest façade adjacent to the parking field (3% of the total façade adjacent to the parking field) be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to adjoining neighbors, given the unique circumstances with the property given that the property faces a parking lot, and it is not self-created, given that they did not design the building, they would be tenants to bring in business, and in regards to the public safety ramifications of the people driving northwest on Telegraph Road and not being able to adequately see their destination in time could case a dangerous situation.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

Mr. Behling addressed part 3 of the variance request regarding the percentage logo. Mr. Behling indicated that the Ordinance states that a maximum of 5% of the sign area for any logo graphics. Mr. Behling proposed a "roll-up sandwich" logo as part of the Olga’s Kitchen signage.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 2075 Telegraph Road for the variance of a 7.1-Square Foot figure for each sign (14% of the total sign area) be approved as requested. Based on the information presented the applicant did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; given the "roll-up sandwich" logo is part of Olga’s trademark, no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, given the unique circumstances with the property, and it is self-created.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(8) 6040 Burnham Court – W. Picket Jr.

Ms. Wiley Picket, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, an 8’ x 11.8’ x 8.5’ high shed, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side and rear property lines for Lot 15, Glencoe Estates, Section 28. 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. (19-28-153-016)

Ms. Picket addressed the Board with the request for an existing wood shed, which is placed 131-feet from the neighbors from the left and 54-feet from the neighbors from the right on a one acre lot if needed she would install additional evergreen screening. Ms. Picket indicated that she purchased the shed from Costco in April of 2004’ and wrote a letter to the president of the association in May of 2004’. She indicated that her letter was referred to Mr. Dardareian who was the chairman of the building committee. Ms. Picket indicated that she spoke to Mr. Dardareian a couple of times and was informed not to worry about it that there are sheds thought the subdivision. Ms. Picket waited a couple of months and no letter was sent, she proceeded to build the shed before the winter months. A notice of violation was sent to Ms. Picket from Bloomfield Township Code and Ordinance Department indicating the paint ball court and the property maintenance needed to be addressed. Ms. Picket indicated that she spoke with Ms. Kaye Chartier, Code and Ordinance Director, and was informed to remove the (9) nine tires, clean up the backyard and remove an older shed. Ms. Picket commented that she wrote another letter to Mr. Dardareian and hand delivered it to his residence on May 8th, 2005 prior to the June14th, 2005 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.

Ms. Martha Forgach, resident at 5901 Blandford Road, was present and spoke in objection of the shed.

Ms. Hollingsworth, resident at 6020 Burnham Court, was present and spoke in objection of the shed.

Mr. Joseph Gerber, resident at 6135 Thorncrest, was present and spoke in objection of the shed and the property maintenance.

Chairman Khederian questioned the applicant of her business practice.

Ms. Picket replied that she is a psychologist and that she receives patients at her office at 18181 Oakwood Boulevard Suite 311, and in Southfield once a month, and is a supervisor in Westland. Ms. Picket indicated that she would not practice out of her home for the safety of her children.

Mr. Kepes questioned the purpose of the shed.

Ms. Picket replied that she wanted a quite place to go to.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 6040 Burnham Court that the variance for an existing accessory structure, an 8’ x 11.8’ x 8.5’ high shed, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side and rear property lines for Lot 15, Glencoe Estates be denied as requested. Based on the information presented the applicant did not demonstrate practical difficulty. The shed is to be removed within (30) thirty days, given the deed restrictions do not allow for sheds, the purpose of the shed is not in keeping with the intended use, the tires are also to be removed within (30) days, the location, size and use of the shed is not keeping harmony within the district, the placement is objectionable to the surrounding neighbors.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(9) 2457 Parcells – P. Morrison

Ms. Pam Morrison, resident, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory use/structure, an attached garage with an attached aviary for the purpose of harboring chickens, roosters and pigeons, located in the northeasterly front and side yards, Square Lake Road frontage, for Part of Lots 43 and 44, Colonial Hills, Section 4. Article II, Section 201 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that a farm shall include a continuous, unplatted parcel of not less than forty acres. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory use/structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not be located closer than sixteen-feet to any side lot line and shall require the review and approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-04-477-020)

Ms. Morrison addressed the Board with a request for an existing attached garage with an attached aviary to house chickens, roosters and pigeons. Ms. Morrison indicated that her daughter belongs to 4-H and this has been her hobby for the past 14 years. The aviary consists of: (6) six show pigeons and (3) three show roosters. Ms. Morrison presented the Board with the subdivision approval and the neighbors approval.

Ms. Seneker suggested painting the fly pin frame of the structure to match the garage, with additional screening to be planted.

Ms. Morrison replied that the fly pin would be painted taupe in color and greenery with climbing vines would be installed.

Mr. Devine questioned the total number of birds.

Ms. Morrison replied a total of (9) nine birds.

Mr. Devine questioned if the applicant considered the birds as pets as opposed to farm animals. Mr. Devine made mention of the Ordinance of a farm having 40 acres.

Ms. Morrison replied that these birds are pets.

Mr. Kepes questioned would there be an issue if any noise complaints were received.

Ms. Morrison replied that the birds would be removed if complaints were received.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 2457 Parcells for the existing accessory use/structure, an attached garage with an attached aviary for the purpose of harboring chickens, roosters and pigeons, located in the northeasterly front and side yards, Square Lake Road frontage, for Part of

Lots 43 and 44, Colonial Hills, Section 4, be approved as requested. Base on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with the location and size of the accessory use/structure, given the fly pin would be painted to match

the existing home, the location and height of a the accessory structure will not hinder or discourage the adjacent use of property, given additional screening would be installed, the nature, location, size and site layout of the accessory structure shall be harmonious to the district and the nature, location, size and site layout of the accessory structure 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. Approval is based upon applicant harboring (10) ten birds maximum and if noise complaints are received the roosters are to be removed.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(10) 344 N. Glenhurst – S. Mark

Ms. Sheri Mark, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 10-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction of a single story porch addition in the front yard for Lot 736, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 3, Section 26. 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. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40-feet in the front yard setback. (19-26-378-004)

Ms. Mark addressed the Board with a request for a 10-foot encroachment into the front yard setback for the construction of a single story porch addition. Ms. Mark indicated that the elements have caused her to replace her front door a couple of times and would to have a porch addition to help give her protection during the winter months. Ms. Marks submitted subdivision approval to the Board.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 344 N. Glenhurst for an approval for a 10-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction of a single story porch addition in the front yard for Lot 736, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 3, Section 26, be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances with the property and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(11) 2663 Douglas – A. Rodrigues

Mr. Allan Rodrigues, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the installation of 6-foot high red cedar fencing located in side and rear yards, extending from the side of the home towards the side lot lines, along the northerly side lot line and a section placed in

the southeasterly corner of Lot 7, Holiday Hills Subdivision, Section 10. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a residential district shall not exceed 4-feet in height. (19-10-201-014)

Mr. Rodrigues addressed the Board with a request for the installation of a 6-foot high red cedar fence to be placed in the side and rear yards with extensions of the fence to block the view of the neighbor’s storage. The proposed sections of fencing would be to give balance and cemetery thought the yard. Mr. Rodrigues indicated that the rear yard fence is not visible from the street and is screened with existing pine trees. Mr. Rodrigues made mention that the neighbors have a noisy air conditioning unit that is 16-feet from the property line and this is why a 6-foot high fence is being requested.

Ms. Maryann Guidone, resident at 271 Millington Road, and President of the Colby Hills Civic Association, was present and spoke in objection of a 6-foot high fence. Ms. Guidone indicated that the association deed restrictions do not allow for fences to be installed within the neighborhood however, with the existing fence, if the Rodrigues would like to change the 4-foot chain link fence to a 4-foot cedar fence the association would grant approval.

Mr. William Digiulio, resident at 2651 Douglas, was present and indicated that he has had a contractor perform a noise test on the air conditioning unit along with Kaye Chartier, Code and Ordinance Director, from Bloomfield Township. The decibel test indicated that the unit meets the Township’s Noise Ordinance. Mr. Digiulio made mention that three arborvitaes have been installed to help screen the air conditioning unit from view and would add one more if needed. Mr. Digiulio spoke in objection of the 6-foot high fence and questioned the drawings that were submitted in relation to the fence locations.

Mr. William Bramble, resident at 2793 Brady, was present and indicated that he was the past president of the Colby Hills Civic Association and made mention that back in October 2003’, an attorney reviewed the bylaws and the deed restriction and determined that they can not legally prohibit a fence or anything of that nature in Colby Hills subdivision.

Mr. Devine questioned Mr. Rodrigues if he would accept a 4-foot high cedar fence instead of a 6-foot high cedar fence.

Mr. Rodrigues replied that a 4-foot high cedar fence would not alleviate the noise issue.

Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 2663 Douglas for the installation of 6-foot high red cedar fencing located in side and rear yards, extending from the side of the home towards the side lot lines, along the northerly side lot line and a section placed in the southeasterly corner of Lot 7, Holiday Hills Subdivision, Section 10, be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances with the property, given the air conditioner is placed 16-feet from the property line, and it is not self-created.

Mr. Taylor made mention of greenery to be installed along the property line and to allow the neighbor’s to come to an agreement.

Mr. Aldrich and Mr. Devine made motion to withdraw the first motion and suggested to the Board to table the item to the next meeting.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 2663 Douglas, that the variance request be tabled to the next meeting to allow the applicant to work with the neighbor’s and to submit a different plan for screening.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(12) 2852 Aldgate – P. McCourt

Mr. Patrick McCourt, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the installation of 3.5-foot high white picket fencing for the purpose of animal containment, located in a rear yard 16-feet from the southerly side lot line, 20-feet from the northerly side lot line and 46-feet from the rear lot line for Lot 19, Hickory Grove Hills Subdivision, Section 10. General Ordinance No. 423 states that all outdoor enclosures and fenced dog run areas, are subject to the review and approval by the Board of Appeals. (19-10-276-015)

Mr. McCourt addressed the Board with a request for a 3.5-foot high picket fencing for the containment of (2) two small dogs. Mr. McCourt indicated that this variance request is contingent on the sale of the home and if the variance request is not granted, the buyers do not want the home.

Ms. Laura Polk, resident at 311 Woodedge Drive, was present and spoke in opposition of the fence.

Mr. John Balint, resident at 2778 Aldgate, was present and spoke in opposition of the fence.

Mr. Kepes questioned Mr. Balint if the fence were to be landscaped would it still be an issue.

Mr. Balint replied yes it would.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 2852 Aldgate that the variance for the installation of 3.5-foot high white picket fencing for the purpose of animal containment, located in a rear yard 16-feet from the southerly side lot line, 20-feet from the northerly side lot line and 46-feet from the rear lot line for Lot 19, Hickory Grove Hills Subdivision, Section 10, be denied as requested. Based on the information presented the applicant did not demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; there would be injustice to adjoining neighbors, there were no unique circumstances with the property and it is self-created.

Motion carried, 6 – 1 – 0.

YEAS: Seneker, Reisinger, Devine, Kepes, Aldrich, Khderian

NAYS: Taylor

ABSTAINED: None

(13) Lot’s 89, 90, 91, & 92 of Turtle Lake Subdivision

Mr. Jamie Denno of Turtle Lake Development, was present seeking approval for the existing and proposed 4-foot high vinyl coated chain link fencing, located on private property, along the front lot lines, Square Lake Road, Turtle Bluff Drive, Longview Court and Lakeview Court frontages, Units 89, 90, 91 and 92, Turtle Lake, Section 6. 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. (19-06-385-024; -025; -026; -027)

Mr. Denno addressed the Board for the request of an existing 4-foot high vinyl coated chain link fence. Mr. Nettle indicated that the fence was installed without the proper permits and approvals. Mr. Nettle contacted Mr. Darrin Koester, Building Department Plan Reviewer for Bloomfield Township and was informed a permit was required. The 4-foot fence would be permanent for security reasons and has proposed to install (40) forty evergreen trees for screening to be placed on the interior along the fence line.

Mr. Kepes made comment that the fence is unsightly for Turtle Lake.

Mr. Devine questioned would the applicant consider relocating the evergreen screening to the outside of the fence.

Mr. Nettle replied that the fence is placed on the property line and if the evergreen screening were to be placed on the outside perimeter of the fence the screening would be placed in the road right-of-way.

Mr. Hilton Wright, resident at 2488 Longview, was present and spoke in objection of the fence and made mention of the fire hydrant that has been covered.

Mr. Byron Johnson, resident at 1878 Lakeview, was present and spoke in objection of the fence and made mention of the fire hydrant that has been covered.

Ms. Jeanie Wright, resident at 2488 Longview, was present and spoke in objection of the fence and suggested that the fence be relocated to the other side of the hill and expressed her concerns regarding the fire hydrant.

Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at Lot’s 89, 90, 91, & 92 of Turtle Lake for the existing and proposed 4-foot high vinyl coated chain link fencing, located on private property, along the front lot lines, Square Lake Road, Turtle Bluff Drive, Longview Court and Lakeview Court frontages, of Section 6, that the variance be tabled to allow the applicant to address the fire hydrant on the plans, research other types of fences, research other screening along the fence.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(14) 2741 Turtle Lake – J. Sue Yun

Mr. Alan Blazier of John Richards Homes, was present seeking approval to encroach 5.7-feet into the required 16-foot southerly side yard setback with an existing brick screen wall for the purpose of screening four air-conditioning units, located in a side yard 10.33-feet from the southerly side lot line for Unit 64, Turtle Lake, Section 7. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted electrical and mechanical equipment shall not be located in the required sixteen feet side yard setback. Said equipment in side yards shall be screened from view by a screen wall consisting of materials identical to those used on the main building or, through the use of evergreen plant material at least the height of the equipment ("screen wall") and located at the point of placement of the equipment. Screen walls, other than vegetative screen walls, shall not be located in the required 16-foot side yard setback as measured from the side lot line. (19-07-129-011)

Mr. Blazier addressed the Board with the request for a 5.7-foot encroachment into the southerly side yard setback with an existing brick screen wall for (4) four air-conditioning units. Mr. Blazier indicated that upon the request for a full certificate of occupancy, this issue was brought to his attention.

Mr. Jamie Denno of Victor International, was present and indicated that Victor International was in support.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 2741 Turtle Lake to encroach 5.7-feet into the required 16-foot southerly side yard setback with an existing brick screen wall for the purpose of screening four air-conditioning units, located in a side yard 10.33-feet from the southerly side lot line

for Unit 64, Turtle Lake, Section 7, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance

would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances with the property, and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(15) 1496 Sodon Lake – J. Fischgrund

Mr. Jeff Fischgrund, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction and installation of accessory use/structures, a 56.1’ x 24.2’ x 20’ high pool cabana with additional living facilities, also used to house pool equipment and provide additional storage, located in a rear yard 16-feet from the easterly side property line and more than 25-feet from the natural feature setback for Lot 30, Bloomfield Heights No. 1, Section 20. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory use/structures shall not exceed 14-feet in height, requires ground mounted electrical and mechanical equipment to be placed immediately adjacent to the residential building and requires the review and approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Article IV, Section 400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 allows for one single family dwelling in the R-3, Single-Family Residential District. (19-20-126-019)

Mr. Fischgrund addressed the Board with the request to seek approval to construct an accessory structure to be located in the rear of the home. Mr. Fischgrund indicated that this structure would not be a living structure. Mr. Fischgrund indicated that he has made several attempts with the drawings in relation to the accessory structures for the subdivision association and the last attempt was to have the roof be attached to the house that would have the same brick, roof, and pitch with the outcome being a large addition.

Mr. Fischgrund indicated that this lot is an estate size lot and that the adjacent neighbor’s would not be negatively impacted by this proposed structure.

Chairman Khederian made mention of a letter received from Dr. Ruskin that was in opposition of the structure, as well as other letters that were in opposition.

Dr. Robert Ruskin, resident at 1490 Sodon Lake, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Ms. Beth Ruskin, resident at 1490 Sodon Lake, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Ms. Lucy Merritt, resident at 1449 Cedar Bend, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 1496 Sodon Lake for approval for the construction and installation of accessory

use/structures, a 56.1’ x 24.2’ x 20’ high pool cabana with additional living facilities, also used to house pool equipment and provide additional storage, located in a rear yard 16-feet from the easterly side property line and more than 25-feet from the natural feature setback for Lot 30, Bloomfield Heights No. 1, Section 20, that the variance be denied as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance with the location and size of the accessory structure is out of scale, the location and height of the accessory structure hinders and obscures the adjacent use of property, and the serenity of the surrounding properties.

Motion carried, 5 – 2 – 0.

YEAS: Seneker, Devine, Kepes, Reisinger, Taylor,

NAYS: Aldrich, Khederian

ABSTAINED: None

(16) 2365 Cloverlawn – R. Rutan

Ms. Vedette Rutan, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an accessory structure, a 10’ x 14’ x 11’ high shed, located in a rear yard 4-feet from the easterly side and rear property lines for Part of Lot 27 and All of Lot 28, Also Part of Lot 29, Square Lake Country Club, Section 6. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be located closer than sixteen feet to any side or rear lot line and shall require the review and approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-06-479-043)

Ms. Rutan addressed the Board with the request for a 10’ x 14’ x 11’ high shed, to be located in the rear yard. Ms. Rutan indicated that the shed would be utilized for storage due to the loss of space in her garage. Ms. Rutan submitted subdivision association approval to the Board.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 2365 Cloverlawn for an accessory structure, a 10’ x 14’ x 11’ high shed, located in a rear yard 4-feet from the easterly side and rear property lines for Part of Lot 27 and All of Lot 28, Also Part of Lot 29, Square Lake Country Club, Section 6, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances with the property and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 2365 Cloverlawn for an accessory structure, a 10’ x 14’ x 11’ high shed, located in a rear yard 4-feet from the easterly side and rear property lines for Part of Lot 27 and All of Lot 28, Also Part of Lot 29, Square Lake Country Club, Section 6, that the permission request be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance with the location, size and use of the accessory structure, the location and height of the accessory structure will not hinder or discourage the adjacent use of property, and is harmonious to the district given the homeowners associations approval.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(17) 185 Dourdan – G. Issa

Mr. David Donaland, was present on behalf of the homeowners seeking approval to renovate an existing accessory structure, a garage, to an accessory use/structure, a 41.5’ x 42.6’ x 18’ high cabana screened with plantings for the purpose of housing additional living facilities, storage and pool equipment, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from the rear lot line and side lot lines. Also seeking approval for the construction of a 50’ x 110’ sports court with 10’ high cyclone fencing and a gate, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from the side and rear lot lines for Lot 5, Dourdan Place, Section 10. Article IV, Section 400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 allows for one single family dwelling in the R-1, Single Family Residential District. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory use/structures shall not exceed 14-feet in height, requires ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment to be placed immediately adjacent to the residential building and shall require 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. (19-10-251-023)

Mr. Donaland addressed the Board with a request to renovate an existing garage to an accessory use/structure to be a 41.5’ x 42.6’ x 18’ high cabana to be screened with plantings. The cabana would be utilized for additional living facilities and storage of the pool equipment. Mr. Donaland addressed the 50’ x 110’ sports court with a 10-foot high cyclone fence and gate that would be placed in the rear yard and would be utilized as a tennis court.

Mr. Devine questioned if there would be lighting for the sports court, the time the court would be used, and indicated strictly for tennis.

Mr. Donaland replied that there would be no lighting for the sports court, the court would be used during day light hours and the court would be utilized as a tennis court.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 185 Dourdan to renovate an existing accessory structure, a garage, to an accessory use/structure, a 41.5’ x 42.6’ x 18’ high cabana screened with plantings for the purpose of housing additional living facilities, storage and pool equipment, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from the rear lot line and side lot lines, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances with the property and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

Mr. Devine questioned the fencing requirements for the tennis court.

Mr. Donaland replied that the fence would be 10-foot in height, vinyl coated, green in color tight meshed fence.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 185 Dourdan for the construction of a 50’ x 110’ sports court with 10’ high cyclone fencing and a gate, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from the side and rear lot lines for Lot 5, Dourdan Place, Section 10, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance with location, size, and use of the structure are not objectionable to nearby residents, given subdivision association approval has been granted and the court is to be used during daylight hours, with no lighting to be used on the structure, with the sports court is to be utilized for tennis only.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(18) 3467 Greentree – K. Lorenzetti

Mr. Jonathan Disbrow, architect, was present seeking approval to demolish an existing accessory structure and build a new 42’ x 20’ x 14’ high accessory structure on the existing foundation, which includes additional living facilities creating a second dwelling unit, located in a front yard, Greentree and Long Lake Road frontages, more than 40-feet from the front lot lines 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. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-12-476-014; 016; 017)

Mr. Disbrow addressed the Board for the request to demolish and re-build a 42’ x 20’ x 14’ high accessory structure to be placed on the existing foundation that would create a second dwelling unit. Mr. Disbrow indicated that prior to construction the structure was assessed with mold damage. Mr. Disbrow asked for an extension from the previous Zoning Board Meeting on March 8, 2005, that was approved to allow for a temporary kitchenette and temporary shower facilities that would be utilized during construction. The repairs have not started and asked the Board for consideration of an extension.

Mr. Devine questioned what would be the time frame needed for the extension.

Mr. Disbrow replied that a (3) three-month extension would be sufficient.

Ms. Reisinger made mention of a letter received in support of the accessory structure from Mr. and Mrs. David Rocco, residents at 3364 Greentree.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 3467 Greentree seeking approval to demolish an existing accessory structure and build a new 42’ x 20’ x 14’ high accessory structure on the existing foundation, which includes additional living facilities creating a second dwelling unit, located in a front yard, Greentree and Long Lake Road frontages, more than 40-feet from the front lot lines for Lots 70, 71, 48 and Part of Lot 49, Supervisor’s Plat of Eastover Farms, Section 12, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances with the property and it is not self-created. Compliance with the location, size and use of the structure are harmonious to the district, and is not objectionable to nearby residents. The accessory use to be allowed/extended to January 1, 2006.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(19) 3890 Oakland – M. Wikol

Mr. Steve Viscanti, of Nucore Construction Services, was present seeking approval for the installation of two air-conditioning units screened with a stonewall with brick accents, located in a front yard 50-feet from the front lot line, Oakland Drive frontage for Lots 101, 102 and 103, Oakland Hills Country Club, Section 33. 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. (19-33-176-007)

Mr. Viscanti addressed the Board with the request for (2) two air-conditioning units to be placed in a front yard to be screened with a stonewall. The stonewall would be approximately 14-feet long and would range 4.5-feet to 2-feet in height with the material to match the existing home which is cut stone brick. Mr. Viscanti indicated that the units would be isolated from the neighbors, and proposed (6) 16-foot tall evergreens to further conceal the units from view.

Ms. Seneker made mention of a letter received from Mr. Seth Yeager, resident at 3895 Oakland Drive, who was in support of the variance request.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 3890 Oakland for the installation of two air-conditioning units screened with a stonewall with brick accents, located in a front yard 50-feet from the front lot line, Oakland

Drive frontage for Lots 101, 102 and 103, Oakland Hills Country Club, Section 33, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome, no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances with the property and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(20) 1051 W. Glengarry Circle – M. Bailey

Mr. Michael Bailey, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an accessory use/structure, a 26.5’ x 19’ sports court, incorporating both the basement and first floor of the new addition in the westerly rear yard of the home on Lot 617, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 2, Section 27. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that an accessory use/structure shall not exceed 14-feet in height and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-27-201-036)

Mr. Bailey addressed the Board with the request for a sports court to be incorporated in both the basement and the first floor of the new addition for the residence. Mr. Bailey indicated that both of the adjacent neighbors have granted approved and submitted the letters to the Board.

Mr. Taylor questioned the accessory use.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, replied that this is an interior accessory use, and is not a typical use, which requires Zoning Board Appeals Approval.

Mr. Larry Nutson, Village Manager for Judson Bradways Bloomfield Village, was present and spoke in support of the addition and the accessory use.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 1051 West Glengarry for the accessory use/structure, a 26.5’ x 19’ sports court, incorporating both the basement and first floor of the new addition in the westerly rear yard of the home on Lot 617, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 2, Section 27, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with the location, size and use of the accessory structure, the location and height will not hinder or discourage the adjacent use of property, the nature, location, size and site layout of the accessory structure shall be harmonious to the district, the nature, location, size and site layout 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, 7 – 0.

(21) 1500 Kirkway – T. Ravikant

Mr. Lou DesRosiers, architect, was present seeking approval for a 7.5-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction of a two story porch addition in the front yard of Lot 1, West Lochslea, Section 8. The existing home is currently non-conforming. ArticleXV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40-feet in the front yard setback. (19-08-352-010)

Mr. DesRosiers addressed the Board with the request for a 7.5-foot encroachment into the front yard setback for a two-story porch addition. Mr. DesRosiers submitted letters of approval to the Board from the subdivision association and the adjacent neighbor to the north.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 1500 Kirkway for a 7.5-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction of a two story porch addition in the front yard of Lot 1, West Lochslea, Section 8, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome; no injustice to adjoining neighbors, unique circumstances with the property and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(22) 26832 Fourteen Mile Road – A. Kodlowski

Mr. Ernest Essad, attorney, was present seeking an interpretation of Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 indicating that the stabilization structure is not a retaining wall within the meaning of the ordinance. Also seeking approval for the construction of a retaining wall system with an overall height of 45’, located in side and rear yards within the required 16-foot easterly side yard setback for Lot 19, Supervisor’s Plat of Franklin Lake Estates, Section 31. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-31-376-013)

Mr. Essad addressed the Board requesting an interpretation of Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 indicating that the stabilization structure is not a retaining wall within the meaning of the ordinance. Mr. Essad indicated that the property is unique and it is a platted lot within a subdivision that backs up to a ravine. The proposed home would require a soil stabilization system to be installed in the backside of the property. Mr. Essad indicated that the soil stabilization system would not be visible from the ravine side nor from the residents on the adjacent sides of the property. Vegetation would grow through the wiring that the stabilization system provides.

Mr. Kepes questioned the letter from Hubble Roth and Clark, dated May 10th, 2005 in regards to the "long-term stability is an issue" and asked if consideration has been given to the long-term effect on the property.

Mr. Essad replied that long-term stability would be required for this site to help prevent additional erosion.

Mr. Kepes questioned the measurement of the lot.

Mr. Essad replied that the lot size would be 118 x 178.

Mr. Kepes questioned how would one measure the lot.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, replied that you would use the lot lines for the determination point.

Mr. Kepes questioned if any negative feedback was received regarding the impact on the adjacent neighbors or to the ravine.

Ms. McCullough replied that the impact on the retaining wall would not impact anything beyond the property. Ms. McCullough made mention that Hubble Roth and Clark has indicated that this is an adequate product and has reviewed the site and the adjacent properties and find it is an adequate proposal.

The applicant withdrew the request for the interpretation of Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 26832 Fourteen Mile Road for an approval for the construction of a retaining wall system with an overall height of 45’, located in side and rear yards within the required 16-foot easterly side yard setback for Lot 19, Supervisor’s Plat of Franklin Lake Estates, Section 31, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, given the explanation of the system and its intensions and use, that it is in fact a retaining wall that the applicant did demonstrate compliance with location, size and use of the structure, the location and height of the accessory structure will not hinder or discourage the adjacent use of property, but may in fact assist the adjacent property, the nature, location, size and site layout of the accessory structure shall be harmonious to the district, given that the intent is to have the structure blend into the surroundings, and in fact may decrease the danger

to the general public safety, and there will be no objectionable noise, fumes, lights, with granting this request the applicant proceeds at their own risk in the implementation of the project.

Motion carried, 6 – 1 – 0

YEAS: Devine, Aldrich, Seneker, Taylor, Reisinger, Khederian

NAYS: Kepes

ABSTAINED: None

(23) 1272 Water Cliff – A. Atikian

Ms. Arlene Atikian, property owner, was present seeking approval to encroach 10-feet into the natural feature setback for the construction of a new home on Lot 40, Echo Park No. 2, Section 17. Article XV, Section 1517 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 25-feet from the boundary or edge of a natural feature. (19-17-453-007)

Ms. Atikian addressed the Board with a request for 10-foot encroachment into the natural feature setback on a vacant lot to construct a new residence. Ms. Atikian indicated that the wetlands are at the rear of the property and have given thought to placing the home closer to the road or reducing the size of the home and both ideas would be inconsistent with the existing homes in the area.

Mr. Kepes questioned the square footage of the proposed home.

Ms. Atikian replied the square footage would be 4100 square feet.

Mr. Kepes questioned if the setback were to be maintained, what would the square footage of the proposed home be.

Ms. Atikian replied that it would be quite a bit smaller indicating that the subdivision would not allow the home to be built on this lot.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, commented that the Building Department is asking for verification that would reference the natural feature boundary.

Ms. McCullough, indicated that the drawings proposed are not certain of the natural feature boundary.

Mr. Gary Prui, resident at 1266 Watercliff, was present and spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request.

Ms. Janice Katz, resident at 4375 Echo Road, was present and spoke in opposition of the proposed variance request.

Motion by Mr. Keeps, Seconded by Devine in regard to the appeal at 1272 Water Cliff for the approval to encroach 10-feet into the natural feature setback for the construction of a new home on Lot 40, Echo Park No. 2, Section 17, that the variance be tabled to the next meeting of July 12th, 2005 to allow the applicant to have a wetlands study performed, to determine the wetlands boundaries to be submitted.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

IV. GENERAL BUSINESS

V. ADJOURNMENT

APPROVED MINUTES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AFTER THE NEXT SCHEDULED BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia McCullough, Director
Planning and Building Department

kd

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