Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 – 7:00 P.M.
Bloomfield Township Hall
I. ATTENDANCE:
PRESENT: Board Members James Aldrich, Robert Taylor, Larry Smith,
Chairman Jane Reisinger
ABSENT: Dan Devine, Brian Kepes, Corrinne Khederian
STAFF PRESENT: Patricia McCullough, Planning and Building Director, Kaye
Chartier, Code and Ordinance Director, Robin Carley, Development Coordinator,
and Kathy Davis, Building Department Secretary, Brenda Schlutow, Code and
Ordinance Officer and Township Attorney, Derek Beckerleg.
Chairman Reisinger addressed the audience and mentioned that there are four
(4) Board Members present with one member arriving shortly. Chairman Reisinger
indicated that four (4) votes would be required to obtain approval for the
request. If the petitioner would like to have a full quorum, they would need
their item be withdrawn and would be heard at the next meeting of August 9th,
2005. Chairman Reisinger also made mention that item (6) 1210 Oxford and item
(16) 6186 Worlington have been withdrawn from the agenda at the petitioner’s
requests and will be heard on August 9th, 2005. Chairman Reisinger
indicated that the petitioner for item (1T) 5425 Longmeadow has asked to be
postponed to wait for the last Board member to arrive.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich to approve the Minutes of June
14th, 2005 as written.
Motion carried, 4 – 0 – 1.
YEAS: Taylor, Aldrich, Smith, Reisinger
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Seneker
III. APPEALS:
Tabled Items
(1T) 5425 Longmeadow – F. Joseph
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)
The petitioner asked the Board to be postponed until the last Board member
arrived.
(2T) 2663 Douglas – A. Rodrigues
Mr. Allan Rodrigues, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the
installation of a 6-foot high red cedar fence located in the side and rear
yards, extending from the side of the home towards the side lot lines and 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 and indicated that he had a decibel reading
performed on the air conditioning unit which was screened and the noise level
reading indicated was 63 dB(A). Mr. Rodrigues also indicated that he had a
decibel reading performed using a piece of plywood, placed 3-foot from the air
conditioner, 4-foot long and 5.5-foot high and indicated that the noise level
did decrease. Mr. Rodrigues presented twenty-eight (28) pictures to the Board
for their review of existing 6-foot fences located on private property. Mr.
Rodrigues suggested to the Board to table his proposal contingent upon the
neighbor, Mr. William Digiulio, resident at 2651 Douglas, presenting a detailed
fence plan for the screening of the air conditioning unit that would meet the
Township Noise Ordinance.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 2663
Douglas, that the variance request be tabled to August 9th, 2005, to allow the
neighbor at 2651 Douglas to make application for a fence to screen the air
conditioning unit.
Motion carried, 4 – 0.
(3T) Turtle Lake Development
Mr. Jamie Denno of Turtle Lake Development was present seeking approval for
the existing 4-foot high vinyl coated chain link fencing, located on private
property, along the front lot lines of 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 existing and proposed 4-foot high vinyl
coated chain link fence. Mr. Denno proposed to the Board a new site plan
indicating the relocation the 4-foot high fence to be placed 8-feet inward on
the Longview Court and Lakeview Court road frontages that would accommodate the
forty (40) 14-foot high blue spruce trees to be placed on the outside of the
fence and out of the road right-of-way. Mr. Denno made mention that the fire
hydrant would have approximately 10-foot of clearance for access. Mr. Denno
indicated that after discussion with the neighbors, the 4-foot high black vinyl
coated chain link fence as proposed with evergreen screening was acceptable.
Mr. John Campbell, resident at 2799 Turtle Shore Drive, was present and spoke
in support of the proposed fence.
Mr. Hilton Wright, resident at 2488 Longview Court, was present and spoke in
support of the proposed fence.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at
Units 89, 90, 91 and 92, of Turtle Lake for the existing 4-foot high vinyl
coated chain link fencing, located on private property, along the front lot
lines of Square Lake Road, Turtle Bluff Drive, Longview Court and Lakeview Court
frontages, 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, 4 – 0.
Ms. Lisa Seneker, Board member, arrived.
NEW ITEMS:
(1) 4170 Echo Road – E. Moss
Mr. Ray Rodgers, of Rock Works, was present seeking approval for the
construction of accessory structures, two ledgestone retaining walls screened
with plantings with an overall height of 8-feet, located in the side and rear
yards, 6-feet from the northerly side lot line and approximately 25-feet from
the rear property line for Acreage Parcel, Section 17. 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 require the review
and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-17-401-010)
Mr. Rodgers addressed the Board with the request of replacement of two (2)
timber walls that have failed and rotted due to age. Mr. Rodgers proposed two
(2) ledgestone retaining walls to be covered with vinca using gravel as a base
to allow for drainage.
Chairman Reisinger questioned the height of the wall.
Mr. Rodgers indicated that the overall height would be approximately 8-feet.
Motion by Mr. Smith, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 4170
Echo Road for the construction of accessory structures, two ledgestone retaining
walls screened with plantings with an overall height of 8-feet, located in the
side and rear yards, 6-feet from the northerly side lot line and approximately
25-feet from the rear property line for Acreage Parcel, Section 17 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, 5 – 0.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 4170
Echo Road for the construction of accessory structures, two ledgestone retaining
walls screened with plantings with an overall height of 8-feet, located in the
side and rear yards, 6-feet from the northerly side lot line and approximately
25-feet from the rear property line for Acreage Parcel, Section 17 that the
variance for the retaining walls be approved as requested. Based on the
information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with the
location of the accessory structure, the use of the accessory structure, the
location and height of the accessory structure 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 and the materials being
used will not produce fumes, or light, it will not interfere with adequate
supply of light and air, nor increase the danger of fire or general public
safety.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
Chairman Reisinger indicated that item (1T) would be heard next.
(1T) 5425 Longmeadow – 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 presented the Board with a revised landscape plan that indicated
five (5) trees to be placed on the property to help screen the view of the sport
court from Ms. Sylvia Adams, resident at 5385 Longmeadow. Mr. Galvin indicated
that Ms. Adams is being represented by council and has not been able to come to
an agreement. Mr. Galvin addressed the landscape plan in detail.
Mr. Taylor questioned that there would be three (3) variance requests. The
first variance is for the sports court, the second variance request is for the
fencing, and the third variance request is for lighting.
Mr. Galvin replied that there would be three (3) variance requests.
Mr. Galvin addressed the variance for the fencing first, and indicated that
the 10-foot high fence would be of a mesh like netting material and would
function as an enclosure to help keep the balls from bouncing out of the sports
court and onto other surrounding properties. Mr. Galvin addressed the lighting
second and indicated that the two (2) 18-foot high light poles are within the
height requirements of the Township Ordinance.
Ms. Seneker questioned the distance from the sports court to the property at
5385 Long meadow.
Mr. Galvin indicated the sports court is placed 203-feet from Ms. Adams,
property at 5385 Longmeadow.
Ms. Seneker questioned with the proposed additional screening for the sports
court, would Ms. Adams still have a visual impact of the sports court.
Mr. Galvin replied that the proposed trees are to be situated on the property
to help screen the view of the sports court from Ms. Adams view.
Chairman Reisinger questioned the location of the five (5) proposed trees and
the two (2) additional trees that are indicated on the landscape plan that have
not been mentioned. Chairman Reisinger indicated that the purpose of the trees
is not only to screen the sports court from view it will also help with
absorbing the noise. Chairman Reisinger questioned the age of the petitioner’s
children.
Mr. Galvin replied the ages of the Joseph children are 9, 11 and 22.
Ms. Sandy Graydon, resident at 5221 Longmeadow, was present and spoke in
support of the variance request.
Mr. Dennis Monahan, attorney was present on behalf of Ms. Adams, resident at
5385 Longmeadow, and indicated that the existing sports court is 4,500 square
feet. Mr. Monahan asked the Board to consider reducing the court to 2,400 square
feet, which would place the court an additional 15-feet from the north sides,
15-feet from the south sides, and 10-feet from the west sides of the adjoining
neighbors properties. Mr. Monahan spoke in opposition of the 18-foot high light
poles, and asked that the 10-foot high fence be reduced to 4-foot high, which is
allowed in the Township. Mr. Monahan indicated that children are entitled to
play as well as the neighbors are entitled to be able to enjoy the outdoors. Mr.
Monahan commented on the restricted time use and suggested to the Board April to
November, 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM with a limit of ten (10) people on the court. Mr.
Monahan also asked the Board for additional trees for visual screening of the
sports court.
Mr. Jack Schrot, resident at 5400 Longmeadow, was present and spoke in
objection of the variance request.
Mr. Robert Stevenson, resident at 5075 Brookdale, was present and spoke in
objection of the variance request.
Mr. David Miller, resident at 5420 Longmeadow, was present and spoke in
support of the variance request.
Mr. Galvin replied the use for the sports court would be for year round, with
the time use of 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM, with the lighting and fence as proposed.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to the appeal at 5425
Longmeadow for the existing accessory use/structure, a 50’ x 90’ sports court
screened with existing plantings, two 18-foot high light poles 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, that the variance
request be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the
accessory structure, the 50’ x 90’ sports court with two (2) 18-foot high light
poles, will have set limited hours of use 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM, with five (5)
additional trees to be installed for a visual and noise barrier.
Mr. Taylor suggested to the Board the elimination of the lighting.
Motion amended by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Smith to eliminate the two (2)
18-foot high light poles.
Motion carried, 4 – 1.
YEAS: Seneker, Smith, Taylor, Reisinger
NAYS: Aldrich
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to the appeal at 5425
Longmeadow seeking approval for the 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 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.
Mr. Taylor expressed his concerns of the 10-foot high fence and suggested to
the Board that 10-foot high fencing be installed on each end and 4-foot high
fencing along the sides of the sport court.
Motion amended by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Smith to install 10-foot high
fencing at the ends and 4-foot high fencing to be installed along the sides of
the sports court.
Motion carried, 5 –0.
Mr. Taylor identified himself as a member of the architect control committee
for item (2) and made mention of a possible conflict of interest.
The Board determined that there was not a conflict of interest.
(2) 636 Westbourne Dr. – Westbourne Partners, LLC
Mr. John Newman of Westbourne Partners, was present seeking approval for a
3.3-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the
construction of a single story covered porch addition for Lot 232, Westchester
Village No. 1, Section 34. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265
requires a minimum of 40-feet in the front yard setback. (19-34-276-024)
Mr. Newman addressed the Board with a proposed plan for a single story
covered porch addition, and asked for a 3.3-foot encroachment into the 40-foot
front yard setback. Mr. Newman indicated that subdivision association approval
has been granted.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 636
Westbourne Drive for a 3.3-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front
yard setback for the construction of a single story covered porch addition for
Lot 232, 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 was not self-created.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(3) 4334 Chimney Point – P. Yee
Mr. Paul Yee, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction of
an accessory structure, a 10’ x 18’ x 14’ high cabana (without plumbing and
heating) located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side and rear lot lines
for Lot 79, Bennington Green, Section 18. Also seeking approval for the
installation of an accessory structure, pool equipment, located in a rear yard
immediately adjacent to the wall of the proposed cabana, 25-feet from the wall
of the residential building. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No.
265 states that ground mounted mechanical or electrical equipment shall be
permitted in any side or rear yard when placed immediately adjacent to the
residential building and that accessory structures shall require the review and
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-18-478-020)
Mr. Yee addressed the Board with a plan of the proposed location of the pool
equipment and asked to relocate the pool equipment closer to the pool area,
located in the rear yard. Mr. Yee indicated that while addressing the pool
equipment, he considered a 10’ x 18’ x 14’ high cabana (without plumbing heating
and plumbing). Mr. Yee proposed to place the pool equipment at the rear of the
proposed cabana screened with evergreens.
Ms. Seneker questioned the location of the proposed cabana and the materials
that would be used.
Mr. Yee replied that the cabana would not be visible from the street and the
materials would be T 1/11 and siding to match the existing home.
Ms. Seneker suggested would the petitioner consider enclosing the pool
equipment within the walls of the proposed cabana.
Mr. Yee replied it would be a consideration.
Chairman Reisinger questioned would the fence enclose the cabana.
Mr. Yee replied that the fence would extend out to enclose the cabana to
incorporate the existing swimming pool.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to the appeal at 4334
Chimney Point for an accessory structure, a 10’ x 18’ x 14’ high cabana (without
plumbing and heating) located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side and
rear lot lines that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the
information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance with
Section 1804 standards has been met.
Mr. Taylor suggested to the Board to enclose the pool equipment within the
walls of the cabana.
Motion amended by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Seneker to enclose the pool
equipment within the walls of the proposed cabana.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 4334
Chimney Point for the installation of an accessory structure, pool equipment,
located in a rear yard to be enclosed within the walls of the proposed cabana,
25-feet from the wall of the residential building, 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 sef-created.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(4) 4019 Stoneleigh – H. Farah
Mr. Frank Manso, fence contractor, was present seeking approval for the
construction of an accessory structure, a 1.7’ x 1.7’ x 6’ high brick wall,
located on private property along the northerly front lot line, Long Lake Road
frontage for Lot 1, Overbrook West, Section 16. 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. (19-16-402-023)
Mr. Manso addressed the Board with the request to construct a 6-foot high
masonry fence to be placed along Long Lake Road frontage on private property.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Smith by in regard to the appeal at
4019 Stoneleigh for an accessory structure, a 1.7’ x 1.7’ x 6’ high brick wall,
located on private property along the northerly front lot line, Long Lake Road
frontage that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information
presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance with Section 1804
standards has been met.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at
4019 Stoneleigh for an accessory structure, a 1.7’ x 1.7’ x 6’ high brick wall,
to be located along the northerly front lot line, Long Lake Road 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, 5 – 0.
(5) 1439 Kirkway – M. Tweddle
Mr. Lou DesRosiers, of DesRosiers Architects, was present seeking approval
for an existing accessory structure, a boulder retaining wall, located in a rear
yard 16-feet from side lot lines and more than 25-feet from the water’s edge
with an overall height of 20-feet for Lot 22, Lochslea, Section 17. Article XV,
Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall
not exceed 14-feet in height and shall require the review and approval of the
Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-17-128-005)
Mr. DesRosiers presented the Board with subdivision association approval and
provided a detailed landscape plan. Mr. DesRosiers indicated that the existing
grade was followed
as originally laid out with a very steep embankment. Mr. DesRosiers made
mention that the boulders are from the Lake Superior area and were designed as
out crop pings to hold the earth in place. Mr. DesRosiers indicated that the
ground cover has not matured, but is designed to grow through the years over the
boulders to fill in the crevices between the stone out crop pings.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 1439
Kirkway for an existing accessory structure, a boulder retaining wall, located
in a rear yard 16-feet from side lot lines and more than 25-feet from the
water’s edge with an overall height of 20-feet 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.
Also based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that
compliance with Section 1804 standards has been met.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(6) (At petitioner’s request this item has been rescheduled to the August 9th
meeting)
Seeking approval to renovate an existing accessory structure, a 37.5’ 38.8’ x
14.3’ high concrete block and wood shed to accommodate a new roofline, located
in a front yard 8-feet from the northerly side lot line and more than 40-feet
from the front lot line, Warwick Drive frontage, for Lot 31, Bloomfield Manor
Subdivision, Section 25. 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, shall not exceed 14-feet in height, shall not exceed
one-half (1/2) in the ground floor area of the main building, shall not be
located closer than 16-feet to any side lot line and shall require the review
and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (Douglas Troszak, 1210 Oxford,
19-25-204-005)
(7) 2080 Telegraph – Sunrise Bloomfield Senior Living LLC
Ms. Jane Miles of Contemporary Sign and Design was present seeking approval
for the construction of a second temporary sign, a 31.5-Square Foot
non-illuminated ground sign advertising for Sunrise Assisted Living, to be
erected from July,
2005 through June, 2006, located 20-feet from the easterly front lot line,
Telegraph Road frontage for Part of Outlot A and Part of Lots 1 to 4 Incl. &
Part of Lot 45. Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that
one sign advertising the rental, sale or lease of property having 16-square feet
of total sign area shall be allowed and that one temporary sign is allowed for
the B-3, General Business, zoned district. (19-05-351-074, 19-05-376-075,
19-05-376-076, 19-05-351-075)
Ms. Miles presented to the Board subdivision association approval and asked
for a larger sign for advertisement purposes with a phone number to be added to
the sign and placed on the site of the Sunrise Development. Ms. Miles indicated
that the existing ground sign would be removed and the proposed sign would be
reinstalled at the same location.
Ms. Seneker made mention of the Design Review Board comments that have been
forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to the appeal at 2080
Telegraph Road for the construction of a temporary sign, a 31.5-Square Foot
non-illuminated ground sign advertising for Sunrise Assisted Living, to be
erected from July, 2005 through June, 2006, located 20-feet from the easterly
front lot line, Telegraph Road frontage 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, 5 – 0.
(8) 1590 Tully – D. Hoisington
Ms.Alice Hoisington, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the
installation of 5-foot high aluminum picket fencing with a double gate for the
purpose of enclosing a pool area, located in a rear yard for Lot 65, Bloomfield
Heights No. 3, Section 20. Also seeking approval for the installation of
accessory structures, generator and pool equipment screened with plantings,
located immediately adjacent to the proposed fencing, more than 3-feet from the
residential building. 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 requires ground mounted
electrical and mechanical equipment to be placed immediately adjacent to the
residential building when placed in a rear yard. (19-20-151-008)
Ms. Hoisington addressed the Board with a request for a 5-foot high aluminum
picket, bronze in color fence with a double gate to enclose a swimming pool. Ms.
Hoisington also asked for two (2) accessory structures, a generator and pool
equipment to be placed immediately adjacent to the proposed fencing and to be
screened with evergreens.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 1590
Tully for the installation of 5-foot high aluminum picket fencing with a double
gate for the purpose of enclosing a pool area, located in a rear yard and also
seeking approval for the installation of accessory structures, generator and
pool equipment screened with plantings, located immediately adjacent to the
proposed fencing, more than 3-feet from the residential building that the
variance be approved as requested, and will meet the Township Noise Ordinance.
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, 5 – 0.
(9) 388 Tilbury – S. Ferrari
Ms. Debra Hack of Kevin Hart and Associates, was present seeking approval for
the construction of an accessory structure, a 20.6’ x 8.3’ x 8.4’ high pergola,
located in a side yard 26.4-feet from the northerly side lot line and 55.6-feet
from the easterly rear lot line for Part of Lot 198 also all of Lot 199. 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. (19-26-353-006)
Ms. Hack addressed the Board with plans that presented an open-air pergola
that would have growing vines across the top of the trusses. Ms. Hack indicated
that the purpose of the pergola would be to provide a visual focus from the
kitchen window.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 388
Tilbury for the construction of an accessory structure, a 20.6’ x 8.3’ x 8.4’
high pergola, located in a side yard 26.4-feet from the northerly side lot line
and 55.6-feet from the easterly rear lot line, that the variance request 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 to the adjoining neighbors, and it is
not self-created. Also, based on the information presented, the applicant did
demonstrate that compliance with the Section 1804 standards has been met.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(10) 6805 Colby Lane – K. Rinke
Mr. Robert Clark of CBI Design Professionals was present seeking an
interpretation of Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 as it
relates to the attachment to an accessory structure for Lot 6, Supervisor’s Plat
No. 6, Section 32. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states
that where the accessory structure is structurally attached to a main structure,
it shall be subject to, and must conform to, all regulations of this Ordinance,
applicable to main structures. (19-32-176-012)
Mr. Clark asked the Board for an interpretation of Zoning Ordinance No. 265,
Article XV, Section 1503 as it relates to the attachment to an accessory
structure. Mr. Clark indicated that the proposal is for an interpretation for an
attachment from the basement of the garage to the basement of the main house.
Mr. Clark referenced the Zoning Ordinance, Section 1503 in relation to the
accessory structures states that when an accessory is structurally attached to
the main house that it is required to comply with the main house structure for
setbacks, building heights, ect. However, the definition of structurally
attached is not in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Clark indicated that after
discussion with the Building and Planning Department, for it be considered an
attachment the structure it has to have a common roofline. Mr. Clark indicated
that the basement structure of the main house is completely connected to the
basement structure of the garage, with an open-air connection from one end to
another that shares a common roofline. Mr. Clark asked the Board for
clarification.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, made comment that the
accessory structure as presented, does comply with all of the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, however, it would require Zoning Board Appeals Approval as
an accessory structure. Ms. McCullough indicated what is unique in this instance
is that the applicant decided not to seek a variance for the accessory
structure, but instead requested an interpretation of the attachment below
grade. Ms. McCullough indicated that that applicant has made application to the
building department for plan review and the plans submitted indicate a garage
attached to the principal building, with an above grade structure. Ms.
McCullough mentioned that the Administration has asked the Zoning Board of
Appeals to support the interpretation of Building and Planning Departments
acknowledging the consistent application of the language found within the Zoning
Ordinance, with the definition of structure, and by that support the
interpretation would stand.
Mr. Clark indicated that the plan as submitted in relation to the building
height does not meet the Ordinance. Mr. Clark indicated that the roofline that
is being referred to as being submitted with a building permit was noted as
being in harmony with the existing structure was the Township’s position. Mr.
Clark made mention that the property owner does not share the same position of
the Township.
Ms. McCullough clarified in her previous statement that in relation to the
building height, the accessory structure did indeed exceed the 14-foot maximum
height requirement of the Ordinance. Ms. McCullough reiterated that the setbacks
were in compliance. Ms. McCullough commented on previous plan reviews and
mentioned that there has been conversation about below grade basements and/or
basement connections to attached dwellings.
Ms. Seneker questioned the height of the accessory structure.
Mr. Clark replied that the accessory structure measures 21-feet in height to
the peek.
Mr. Taylor spoke in concern of the petitioner’s interpretation that two (2)
separate structures could be attached by an underground basement that share a
common roofline.
Chairman Reisinger suggested to the Board that if the interpretation as
submitted by the petitioner was considered as part of the structure, that the
Board could be setting precedence for future requests.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the
interpretation of Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 as it
relates to the attachment to an accessory structure, that the Board supported
the interpretation of the Planning Department based on, Article XV, Section 1503
of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that where the accessory structure is
structurally attached to a main structure, it shall be subject to, and must
conform to, all regulations of this Ordinance, applicable to main structures, as
well as the definition of structure.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(11) 2405 Telegraph – Chrysler Realty Corporation
Mr. Bill Golling of Chrysler Jeep Dodge, was present seeking approval for the
installation of a second accessory sign, a 6.2’ x 5’ high ground sign, located
on private property 10-feet from the curb line of the service drive entering
Bloomfield Town Square, more than 25-feet from the road right-of-way line for
Acreage Parcel, Section 5. Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265
allows one sign to be erected accessory to any one development regardless of the
number of buildings, separate parties, tenants or uses contained on the property
within the B-3 (General Business) zoned district. (19-05-476-093)
Mr. Golling addressed the Board for the installation of a second ground sign
to help improve the flow of traffic around the building. Mr. Golling indicated
that Design Review Board reviewed the sign.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at
2405 Telegraph for the installation of a second accessory sign, a 6.2’ x 5’ high
ground sign, located on private property 10-feet from the curb line of the
service drive entering Bloomfield Town Square, more than 25-feet from the road
right-of-way, 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, given the traffic flow issues on site, and it is not
self-created.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(12) 2800 S. Bradway Blvd. – J. Strauss
Mr. Wes Gillette of Gillette Brothers Pools, was present seeking approval for
a 8-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot rear yard setback for the
construction of an in ground pool for Lot 1299, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield
Village, Section 27. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states
that no accessory use/structure shall be located closer than 16-feet feet to any
side or rear lot line. (19-27-429-016)
Mr. Gillette presented the Board with a site plan and subdivision association
approval and the neighbor’s approval.
Mr. Larry Nutson, Manager of Bloomfield Village Association, was present and
indicated that under the Michigan Residential Code, the swimming pool waters
edge must be placed 10-feet from the residence.
Mr. David Downs, resident at 2707 Endsleigh, was present and spoke in
objection of the variance request and indicated the negative impact the pool
would have on his property.
Ms. Seneker questioned could the size of the pool be modified.
Mr. Nutson made mention that the location and size of the pool was discussed
with the owner and it was determined that the proposed location and pool size
indicated was the least detrimental to the surrounding neighbors.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 2800
S. Bradway Boulevard for an 8-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot rear
yard setback for the construction of an in ground pool 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, 5 – 0.
(13) 3810 Burning Tree – B. Martin
Mr. Bradley Martin, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the
installation of 6-foot high fencing along the Long Lake Road frontage, located
6-feet from the front lot line and extending 40-feet along both side lot lines
for Lot 6, Still Meadow, Section 16. 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.
(19-16-276-017)
Mr. Martin addressed the Board and withdrew his request for the installation
of a 6-foot high wood fence and requested a 4-foot high black wrought iron fence
to be installed at the back lot line of Long Lake Road frontage, 155-feet,
placed 6-feet off of the property line.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, indicated that a
variance would be required for the fence location, being along the Long Lake
Road frontage.
Mr. Brian Ritter, resident at 3665 Burning Tree, was present and indicated
that he was on the subdivision association plan review committee and the 4-foot
fence has been approved.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to the appeal at 3810
Burning Tree for the installation of a 4-foot high black wrought iron fence
along the
Long Lake Road frontage, located 6-feet from the front lot line 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, unique circumstances with the property, given the property
has two front yards, and it is not self-created.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(14) 220 Hadsell / 105 Hadsell – Bing Construction Company
Ms. Patina Brown of Bing Construction, was present seeking approval for the
installation of two permanent lighted residential entranceway structures for
Hadsell’s Addition. A 2.9’ x 12.6’ x 6.7’ high sign, located on private property
25-feet from the front lot line for Part of Lots 49 and 50, Hadsell frontage,
and a 2.9’ x 2.9’ x 6.3’ high pier, located on private property 15’ from the
front lot line for Part of Lots 23 and 24, Hadsell frontage, Hadsell’s Addition
to Bloomfield Highlands, Section 4. Article XV, Section 1513 of Zoning Ordinance
No. 265 states that entranceway structures, including but not limited to walls,
columns, and gates marked entranceways to single-family subdivisions may be
located in a required yard and require the review and approval of the Zoning
Board of Appeals. (19-04-252-021, 19-04-253-037)
Ms. Brown addressed the Board and asked for the two (2) lighted entranceway
structures for Hadsell’s Addition. Ms. Brown indicated that the signs would be
placed on private property.
Chairman Reisinger questioned who would be responsible for the maintenance of
the proposed signs.
Ms. Brown replied that the sign maintenance would be the responsibility of
the subdivision association.
Ms. Seneker made mention of two letters received in opposition of the
variance request from Mr. Michael McCarthy, owner of lot 48 Hadsell’s Addition,
and Ms. Yvonne Jacques, resident at 73 W. Highland Drive.
Mr. Michael Ladd, resident at 83 W. Highland, was present and spoke in
relation to the subdivision association. Mr. Ladd indicated that Hadsell’s
Addition is not a stand-alone subdivision. Mr. Ladd addressed his concerns and
indicated that the proposal for the signs as submitted, appears to separate the
subdivision. Mr. Ladd indicated that there are two (2) subdivision associations
within this area, Bloomfield Highlands and Hadsell’s Addition.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 220
Hadsell / 105 Hadsell for the installation of two permanent lighted residential
entranceway structures for Hadsell’s Addition. A 2.9’ x 12.6’ x 6.7’ high sign,
located on private property 25-feet from the front lot line for Part of Lots 49
and 50, Hadsell frontage, and a 2.9’ x 2.9’ x 6.3’ high pier, located on private
property 15’ from the front lot line for Part of Lots 23 and 24, Hadsell
frontage, that the variance request be tabled to a date uncertain, to allow the
applicant to seek the comments of Bloomfield Highlands subdivision association
for the placement of the entranceway signs and resubmit plans.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(15) 2400 Brenthaven – O. Underwood
Mr. Scott Underwood, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an accessory
use/structure, a 68’ x 36’ sports court with a 6-8" curb, located in a rear yard
16-feet from side and rear property lines and 10-feet from the wall of the
existing patio to be screened by evergreen plantings, for Lot 88, Adams Square
No. 3, Section 1. 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. (19-01-353-014)
Mr. Underwood presented the Board with a revised site plan and discussed in
detail the placement of the arborvitaes to be installed at the rear property
line for screening purposes. Mr. Underwood indicated that the sports court would
be located in the rear yard, with access to the court to be enforced. The court
would have an asphalt base with a 6" to 8" curb, and the court would be utilized
for basketball, roller hockey and tennis. Mr. Underwood proposed to the Board
that the sports court would have no lighting, with no motorized vehicle use, and
the court would be used during day light hours from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM.
Mr. Thomas Carbin, resident at 2401 Lost Tree, was present and spoke in
opposition of the variance request.
Mr. Dean Fields, resident at 2419 Lost Tree, was present and spoke in
opposition of the variance request.
Mr. Robert Gries, resident at 2308 Lost Tree, was present and spoke in
opposition of the variance request.
Mr. Paul Apap, resident at 2330 Brenthaven Drive, was present and spoke in
support of the variance request.
Ms. Janet Moore, resident at 2479 Lost Tree Way, was present and spoke in
opposition of the variance request.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 2400
Brenthaven Drive for an accessory use/structure, a 68’ x 36’ sports court with a
6-8" curb, located in a rear yard 16-feet from side and rear property lines and
10-feet from the wall of the existing patio to be screened by evergreen
plantings, that the variance be approved as requested, with a time use of 9:00
AM to 9:00 PM, year round, with no lighting. Based on the information presented,
the applicant did demonstrate that the standards stated in Section 1804 have
been met to the satisfaction of the Board.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(16) (At petitioner’s request this item has been rescheduled to the August 9th
meeting)
Seeking approval for a 16.1-foot encroachment into the required 35-foot rear
yard setback for the construction of a single story addition for Lot 40 and 41,
Wing Lake Shores, Section 29. The existing home is currently non-conforming.
Also seeking approval for a 22.3-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot
front yard setback for the construction of a single story addition in the
easterly front yard. Article XIV, Section
1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 35-feet in the rear
yard setback and 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. (Michelle Leader, 6186 Worlington, 19-29-401-017)
IV. GENERAL BUSINESS
Next Board Meeting – August 9th, 2005
ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia McCullough, Director
Planning and Building Department
APPROVED MINUTES WILL BE AVAILABLE
AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AFTER THE NEXT SCHEDULED BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING.
Home |
Government |
Services |
Community |
Current Events |
Resources
Contact Us |
E-mail List |
Forms
Still can't find what you're looking for?
Use our comprehensive Search or
Site Map pages!
Charter Township of Bloomfield
4200 Telegraph Road
P.O. Box 489
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303-0489
248.433.7700
This site is best viewed in Internet Explorer
5.5 or higher and Netscape 6.0 or higher.
Having trouble accessing our site forms?
Your browser may not have the Acrobat Reader plug-in
that is required.
Click here to download a free copy of this software.
Site Design/Development
by
Proudly serving our community online since
1999.
Named #1 Township Website in Michigan by Cyber-state.org
Site Use
Policy
All information © 2008 Bloomfield
Township, Michigan
|
