Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, August 9th, 2005 – 7:00 P.M.
Bloomfield Township Hall

I. ATTENDANCE:

PRESENT: Board Members Dan Devine, Robert Taylor, Jane Reisinger, Brian Henry

ABSENT: James Aldrich, Brian Kepes, Corrinne Khederian, Lisa Seneker, Larry Smith

STAFF PRESENT: Patricia McCullough, Planning and Building Director, Robin Carley, Development Coordinator, Kathy Davis, Building Department Secretary and Brenda Schlutow, Code and Ordinance Officer.

Chairman Reisinger addressed the audience and mentioned that there are four (4) Board Members present. 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 If the petitioner would like to have a full quorum, they would need their item to be withdrawn and would be heard at the next meeting of September 13th, 2005.

Mr. Bradly Gilmore approached the Board and asked that item (9) 2845 Lasher, be withdrawn and heard at the next meeting of September 13th, 2005.

Mr. Douglas Troszak approached the Board and asked that item (2) 1210 Oxford, be withdrawn and heard at the next meeting of September 13th, 2005.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Devine to approve the Minutes of July 12th, 2005 as written.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

III. APPEALS:

TABLED ITEMS

(1T) 1272 Watercliff, A. Atikian

Ms. Arlene Atikian, property owner, was present seeking approval to encroach 22.2-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 and indicated that she had owned the lot since 1986. The hardship for this appeal is if the home is moved forward toward the street it would not be uniform with the existing homes nor would the sub division allow for a smaller home to be built on the lot.

Mr. Ben Lannzner of Cut Cost Building was present and indicated that the approximate square footage of the proposed home would be 4,200 square feet. Mr. Lannzner also indicated that the sub division has allowed for a variance of 43.6-feet.

Mr. Phil Vestivich, resident at 1249 Watercliff, was present and spoke in regards to the site. Mr. Vestivich indicated that he is also on the architectural control committee and the Deed Restriction has a 50-foot setback, the association has allowed the petitioner to propose a 43.6-foot setback variance.

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

Mr. Danvers, resident at 1266 Water cliff, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Ms. Vimal Puri, resident at 1266 Water cliff, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Mr. Devine questioned the petitioner of the letter prepared by King & McGregor Environmental Inc, which indicated that they recommend Michigan Department of Environmental Quality be requested to confirm the wetland boundaries and jurisdiction ional opinion. Mr. Devine asked the petitioner if she was aware of the recommendation and has Michigan Department of Environmental Quality been sought for their input as requested by their letter.

Ms. Atikian replied that she was unaware of the letter from King & McGregor Environmental Inc.

Mr. Devine questioned whether the construction project would require fill to be brought on to the property and noted that would require a soil-fill permit to be issued.

Ms. Atikian replied that additional fill would not be added to the property.

Mr. Devine questioned the petitioner if they would abide by the Township resolution that would recommend certain type of fertilizer to be used within the wetland area.

Ms. Atikian replied that she is aware of the fertilizer requirements and would abide by the Township resolution.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, made comment to the report received from Environmental Consulting Technology, formerly Dr. Tilton, the Township’s Environmental Consultant and asked the Board to make note of the findings.

Mr. Devine questioned Ms. McCullough in regards to the letter and asked if there were concerns regarding encroachment into the wetland boundaries.

Ms. McCullough replied that the consultant did verify that this wetland area is a contributing part of the waterway as defined in the water boundary GIS map.

Mr. Devine made mention of the two studies that have been performed and one with a recommendation for MDEQ to render an opinion.

Ms. McCullough replied that this property is considered a local wetland.

Mr. Devine commented that the building envelope would not encroach the wetland itself. The variance being sought is to encroach into the buffer zone, between the building envelope and the wetland area. The petitioner would not be building on the wetland itself and as indicated by the consultants that the building project would not impact the wetland.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 1272 Water Cliff, that the variance request be approved. 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. With the contingencies that no additional fill would be brought on to the property and that the petitioner will follow the Township resolution as it relates to fertilizer within the wetland boundary.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

Mr. Allan Rodrigues, applicant requested to be postponed until the Board considers item no, (1), 2651 Douglas Drive.

(2T)

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. (Allan Rodrigues, 2663 Douglas, 19-10-201-014)

Mr. Rodrigues asked the Board to table this item to the next meeting to allow the petitioner of 2651 Douglas Drive to have the fence installed.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Henry to table to the next meeting to allow the petitioner of 2651 Douglas Drive to have the fence installed and if the fence is installed prior to the next meeting, the item would not be heard.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

NEW ITEMS

(1) 2651 Douglas Drive – W. Digiulio

Mr. William Digiulio, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the installation of a 5.5’ high fence, located in a rear yard extending 3-feet from the south corner, turning 90 degrees to the east 4-feet, for the purpose of sound abatement and screening of an existing air-conditioning unit for Lot 6, 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. (19-10-201-013)

Mr. William Digiulio presented the Board with pictures of a 5.5’ high red cedar fence, located in a rear yard extending 3-feet from the south corner, turning 90 degrees to the east 4-feet, for the purpose of sound abatement and screening of an existing air-conditioning unit.

Mr. Henry questioned the petitioner if the neighbor has been satisfied.

Mr. Digiulio replied that Mr. Rodrigues is satisfied.

Mr. Rodrigues, resident at 2663 Douglas, was present and indicated that a sound test was performed and has met the Township requirements.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 2651 Douglas Drive for the installation of a 5.5’ high fence, located in a rear yard extending 3-feet from the south corner, turning 90 degrees to the east 4-feet, for the purpose of sound abatement and screening of an existing air-conditioning unit 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.

Mr. Taylor commended the petitioner, Mr. Digiulio and neighbor, Mr. Rodrigues for their efforts to resolve the issue.

(2) At the petitioner’s request, this item has been rescheduled to the September 13th meeting.

Seeking approval to renovate an existing accessory structure, a 37.5’ x 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)

(3) 6186 Worlington – M. Leader

Ms. Michelle Leader, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 16.1-foot encroachment into the required 35-foot rear yard setback for the construction of a two-story addition. Also seeking approval for an 18.6 -foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction of a single story addition in the easterly front yard for Lot 40 and 41, Wing Lake Shores, Section 29. The existing home is currently non-conforming. 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. (19-29-401-017)

Ms. Leader introduced Doug Leahy, architect, and Cliff Williams, builder of the proposed project.

Mr. Leahy of Gidea Design Architects addressed the Board with proposed plans that would require front and rear yard encroachments and enlarging the existing non-conforming building. Mr. Leahy indicated that the lot is oddly shaped with that being the practical difficulty. Mr. Leahy described the front yard addition in detail with air conditioning units placed within a sunken area that would be placed approximately 48-feet from the road. Mr. Leahy indicated that the subdivision association is remaining neutral on their decision.

Mr. Gerald Tuchow, resident at 6115 Wing Lake Road, was present and spoke in objection of the proposed location of the air-conditioning units and noise.

Ms. Marylyn Tuchow, resident at 6115 Wing Lake Road, was present and made mention of the proposed location of the air-conditioning units that would require screening to help eliminate the noise.

Mr. Michael Brochert, resident at 6135 Wing Lake Road, was present and spoke in objection to the variance requests.

Mr. Michael Carmichael, resident at 6080 Worlington, was present and spoke on behalf of the United Homeowners Association and indicated that he has had discussions with the Township Supervisor, Dave Payne, Township Treasurer, Dan Devine, Planning & Building Director, Patti McCullough, on what constitutes a correct reading of Article 15 Section 1502.4.b. Mr. Carmichael read the intent from Section 1502 "It is the intent of this Ordinance to permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. Such uses are declared by this ordinance to be incompatible with permitted uses in the districts involved. It is further the intent of this Ordinance that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district." Mr. Carmichael questioned the Board what constitutes a rebuild, starting from ground zero when it has existing nonconformities. Mr. Carmichael made mention of an e-mail he received from Patti McCullough, that reads as follows "that the calculation of the replacement cost which is 4.b would only be an issue when a home is destroyed typically by fire and the homeowner was to rebuild what was formerly existing nonconforming condition without seeking a variance. Mr. Carmichael questioned the Board and asked if that is an adequate reading of the Ordinance based on the intent and therefore should the entire structure be re-reviewed in terms of it’s existing nonconformities.

Chairman Reisinger indicated that the Board does not have an interpretation request for this item.

Ms. McCullough commented that Mr. Carmichael would need to file and make application to the Board for the interpretation as indicated. Ms. McCullough indicated that the Section referenced by Mr. Carmichael 1502.4 (b) is not applicable. The applicant has acknowledged that the existing nonconforming additions being proposed are encroaching in the setbacks and the variances are being sought. Ms. McCullough iterated that the Zoning Ordinance does allow for any provision within the Ordinance to be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. McCullough commented that the calculation in relation to the cost of construction is relevant when there is destruction to the home and no variances are being sought.

Mr. Cliff Williams, builder, was present and addressed the nonconforming areas and the second story addition.

Mr. Devine commented that given the property is unique with a curve encompassing a side yard and front yard, that there would be an injustice to the adjoining neighbors.

Mr. Taylor commented that the neighborhood currently is nonconforming and there is little continuity of development.

Mr. Devine suggested to the petitioner to table the item and submit revised plans indicating a scaled down addition.

Chairman Reisinger and Mr. Taylor spoke in support of the variance request.

Mr. Leahy asked the Board to act on the variance for the front yard and table the variance for the rear yard.

Motion by Mr. Devine Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to the appeal at 6186 Worlington for a 16.1-foot encroachment into the required 35-foot rear yard setback for the construction of a two-story addition to be tabled to allow the petitioner to seek the neighbors input and/or to re-design the construction drawings.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 6186 Worlington for an 18.6 -foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction of a single story addition in the easterly front yard for Lot 40 and 41, Wing Lake Shores 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. Additionally, enlarging the existing nonconformity to be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with the standards of practical difficulty. The air-conditioning units are to be screened per the Township Ordinance.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

(4) 43816 Woodward – St. George Hellenic Orthodox Church

Ms. Carol Hall, owner of Acadia Montessori, was present seeking approval for an existing 40-square foot wooden non-illuminated ground sign, located 23-feet from the road right-of-way, Woodward Avenue frontage, for Part of Lot 11, also all of Lots 12 and 13, East Bloomfield Highlands Subdivision, Section 4. Article XV, Section 1512 of

Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that one ground or temporary sign is allowed within the R-2, Single Family, zoned district and that signs shall be constructed of noncombustible material, setback from the lot line at least one-third of the distance from the lot line to the nearest building, but need not be set back more than 100-feet from the property line. (19-04-427-012)

Ms. Hall addressed the Board and indicated that she leases space in the St. George Cultural Center and asked the Board for approval of an existing sign that is placed 23-feet from the road right-of-way. Ms. Hall indicated if the sign was placed 100-feet from the property line as required by the Ordinance, you would not be able to see the sign.

Motion by Mr. Henry, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 43816 Woodward for an existing 40-square foot wooden non-illuminated ground sign, located 23-feet from the road right-of-way, Woodward Avenue frontage, for Part of Lot 11, also all of Lots 12 and 13, East Bloomfield Highlands Subdivision, 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.

(5) Item tabled at petitioners request

Seeking approval for a 3.5-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for existing accessory structures, two air-conditioning units screened with evergreen plantings, located in a side yard 12.5-feet from the easterly side property line for Lot 27, Bloomfield Manor Subdivision, Section 25. 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-feet side yard setback. (James & Amy Gooch, 275 Abbey, 19-25-251-026)

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to the appeal at 275 Abbey, that the variance request be tabled per the letter received from the builder.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

(6) 3250 Morningview Terrace – D. Thewes

Mr. Robert Howey of Tefend Woods, was present seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, nine 1.7’ x 1.7’ brick piers with an overall height of 5.8’ high, located in the front and side yards and one at each of the driveway entrances. Also seeking approval for a 4-foot encroachment into the required westerly side yard setback for the installation of three existing air-conditioning units for Part of Lot 489 and all of

Lot 490, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village, 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, 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. 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-feet side yard setback. (19-27-377-013)

Mr. Howey addressed the Board with the request for the nine (9) brick piers with an overall height of 5.8’ high, located in the front and side yards and one (1) at each of the driveway entrances with lights. Mr. Howey indicated the three (3) existing air-conditioning units are placed in the westerly side yard that are screened with five (5) 8-foot tall hemlocks with additional lower plantings placed in front of the hemlocks of 3 to 4-foot tall to give a transitional affect. Mr. Howey indicated that subdivision approval has been granted.

Mr. Henry questioned the distance of the piers in relation to the road right-of –way.

Mr. Howey replied that the piers are on private property and would not be in the road right-of-way.

Mr. Devine made comment to the Board and indicated that the piers are not harmonious to the neighborhood.

Mr. Larry Nutson, Manager of Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village, was present and indicated that there are many examples of lighted piers thought the Bloomfield Village community and are allowed. Mr. Nutson indicated that the proposed piers would match the materials of the home.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 3250 Morningview Terrace for a 4-foot encroachment into the required westerly side yard setback for the installation of three existing air-conditioning units for Part of Lot 489 and all of Lot 490, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village, 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.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to the appeal at 3250 Morningview Terrace for the construction of accessory structures, 1.7’ x 1.7’ brick piers with an overall height of 5.8’ high, located in the front yard of the residence 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, 4 – 0.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to the appeal at 3250 Morningview Terrace for the accessory structures, 1.7’ x 1.7’ brick piers with an overall height of 5.8’ high, located in the front yard within the sidewalk with one at each of the driveway entrances be denied without prejudice as requested. Mr. Taylor commented that the piers are not in keeping with the neighborhood.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

(7) 5373 Van Ness Court – B. Sabin

Mr. Brad Sabin, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the installation of 4-foot high fencing and gate, located along the westerly front lot line within a front yard setback, Van Ness Drive frontage, extending east along a portion of the southerly rear lot line for Lot 18, Knob Hill Subdivision, Section 19. 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. (19-19-476-005)

Mr. Sabin addressed the Board with the request for a 4-foot high fence with a gate to be placed along the front yard setback of the westerly front lot line with additional evergreen screening. Mr. Sabin indicated that the proposed fence would tie into the existing fence on the property. Mr. Sabin commented that the fence would act as a safety barrier for his children.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 5373 Van Ness Court for the installation of 4-foot high fencing and gate, located along the westerly front lot line within a front yard setback, Van Ness Drive frontage, extending east along a portion of the southerly 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. The petitioner is to provide a Hold Harmless Agreement and the fence supports must face the homeowner’s property.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

(8) 1091 Park Place Court – E. Barnett

Mr. Robert Zincone, of Father and Son Builders, was present seeking approval to encroach 14-feet into the required 35-foot rear yard setback for the construction of a raised masonry patio with an overall height of 9-feet, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side property lines for Unit 22, Oakland County Condominium Plan No. 1030 Bloomfield Chase, Section 9. The existing home is currently non-conforming. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 35-feet in the rear yard setback and a maximum of 30% lot coverage. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon expanded or extended. (19-09-353-010)

Mr. Zincone addressed the Board with a request to encroach 14-feet into the 35-foot setback for the construction of a raised masonry patio with an overall height of 9-feet, located in a rear yard. Mr. Zincone indicated that the variance request had previously been approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 9, 2003, however, has expired.

Mr. Devine questioned a time frame for the proposed work.

Mr. Zincone replied that the work could start immediately.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to the appeal at 1091 Park Place Court to encroach 14-feet into the required 35-foot rear yard setback for the construction of a raised masonry patio with an overall height of 9-feet, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side property lines for Unit 22, 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.

(9) Item tabled to September 13, 2005, meeting at the petitioners request

Seeking approval to store a recreational vehicle on a permanent basis, located on private property in a rear yard immediately adjacent to an existing shed and 6-feet from the southerly side lot line for Lot 15, Colonial Estates, Section 10. Article XV, Section 1508 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that the open storage of any man-made material and parking other than licensed private passenger cars, which includes conveyances or vehicles equipped for living or camping purposes, shall be specifically prohibited on all residential lots or parcels of land except as otherwise permitted by the Board of Appeals. (Bradly Gilmour, 2845 Lahser, 19-10-151-010)

(10) 6650 Telegraph Road – Bloomfield Plaza/Schostak Brothers Company

Mr. Bill Short of Huron Sign Company, was present seeking approval for the installation of a second permanent wall sign, a 50.2-square foot non-illuminated wall sign, located on the westerly façade facing the rear parking lot (rear entrance) for Acreage Parcel, Section 32. Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 allows for one (1) ground, temporary or wall sign in the B-2, Community Business District. (19-32-277-041)

Mr. Short addressed the Board for a second wall sign that is non-illuminated, to be placed on the westerly façade at the rear parking lot entrance.

Mr. Devine commented that the Design Review Board found the size of the sign to comply with the Township Ordinance.

Mr. Dennis Dlugokinski, resident at 6510 Woodbank, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 6650 Telegraph Road for the installation of a second permanent wall sign, a 50.2-square foot non-illuminated wall sign, located on the westerly façade facing the rear parking lot 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 this property has a front and rear entrance, and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

(11) 3315 Bradway Boulevard – T. Dunigan

Mr. Carry Sutton, of Kevin Hart Architects, was present seeking approval for a 7.2-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback, Bradway Blvd. frontage, for the construction of a single story porch addition for Lot 555, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 1, Section 27. 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. (19-27-376-004)

Mr. Sutton addressed the Board with a request for a front yard encroachment for a single story porch addition. Mr. Sutton indicated that the existing porch is in disrepair with the home currently encroaching 1-foot into the front yard setback. Mr. Carry submitted subdivision association approval to the Broad.

Mr. Larry Nutson, Manager of Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village, was present and spoke in relation to the existing nonconforming home with the proposed front porch to be enlarged to be in keeping with the home.

Motion by Mr. Henry, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 3315 Bradway Boulevard for a 7.2-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback, Bradway Blvd. frontage, for the construction of a single story porch addition 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.

(12) 6601 Colby Lane – A. Wein

Mr. Aaron Wein, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction of an accessory structure, a 14’ x 14’ x 18’ high gazebo, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side and rear property lines for Lot 14, Supervisor’s Plat No. 6, Section 32. 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. (19-32-176-004)

Mr. Wein addressed the Board with a proposed plan to construct a gazebo on an existing deck adjacent to the home. Mr. Wein presented the Board with the neighbor’s approval along with subdivision association approval.

Mr. Keith Jolly, resident at 6572 Spruce, was present and questioned the distance of the gazebo from the house.

Mr. Wein replied that the gazebo would be placed approximately 30-feet from the house, on the deck that currently extends 26-feet from the house.

Mr. Devine questioned would additional landscape screening be installed.

Mr. Wein replied that no additional landscape screening would be installed.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 6601 Colby Lane for the construction of an accessory structure, a 14’ x 14’ x 18’ high gazebo, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side and rear property lines for Lot 14 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. Also 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.

(13) 260 South Williamsbury Road – A. Spiro

Ms. Barbara Spiro, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing 5.5-foot privacy fence, located along the southerly side lot line extending towards the residential wall for Lot 1176, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 5, Section 34. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a residential district shall not exceed 4-feet in height. (19-34-227-007)

Ms. Spiro addressed the Board with a request for an existing fence. Ms. Spiro indicated that the 40-year old red wood 6-foot fence was replaced due to disrepair, with the fence being utilized to screen a potting shed.

Chairman Reisinger identified two letters received in opposition of the variance request. Mr. and Mrs. Frank Whitson, resident’s at 276 S. Williamsbury and Ms. Marilyn Whiteford, resident at 284 S. Williamsbury.

Mr. Devine questioned the petitioner if there was discussion with the Mr. and Mrs. Frank Whitson, neighbor’s at 276 S. Williamsbury, prior to the fence being installed.

Ms. Spiro replied that she did discuss the fence with the neighbors and at that time they had no objections to the fence.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 260 S. Williamsbury for an existing 5.5-foot privacy fence, located along the southerly side lot line extending towards the residential wall, 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. The approval is contingent upon the petitioner screening the fence on the side of 276 S. Williamsbury, with the owners approval with ivy or vine covering the fence.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

(14) 4774 Stoneleigh – J. Smith

Mr. Randall Marcial of Gethsemane Landscape Architectural Builders, was present seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, an 11-foot high pergola partially surrounding an in-ground pool, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side and rear property lines, and for the construction of an 8’ x 5.5’ x 14’ high stone

fireplace located within the proposed pergola. Also seeking approval for the installation of an accessory structure, pool equipment, located 15-feet from the westerly rear lot line and 12-feet from the northerly side lot line for Lot 66, Judson Bradway’s Chelmsleigh Addition to Country Club Estates, Section 21. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not exceed 14-feet in height, requires ground mounted mechanical equipment to be placed immediately adjacent to the residential building when placed in the rear yard and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-21-227-009)

Mr. Marcial addressed the Board with the request for an accessory structure, a 11-foot high pergola partially surrounding an in-ground pool, located in a rear yard. Mr. Marcial provided the Board with a Statement of Design Intent that included landscaping. Mr. Marcial indicated that Anderson Custom Pools has requested to withdraw the request for the placement of the accessory structure, the pool equipment, and the contractor indicated that the pool equipment would be placed immediately adjacent to the residential building.

Mr. Marcial indicated that subdivision association approval was submitted with the construction drawings for the pool.

Motion by Mr. Henry, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 4774 Stoneleigh for the construction of accessory structure, an 11-foot high pergola partially surrounding an in-ground pool, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side and rear property lines and for the construction of an 8’ x 5.5’ x 14’ high stone fireplace located within the proposed pergola 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 identified the height of the proposed stone fireplace to be 14-foot high and questioned would this require a variance.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, replied that the maximum height for an accessory structure in the Zoning Ordinance is 14-feet. Ms. McCullough commented that the request for the stone fireplace could be removed from the appeal.

Motion amended by Mr. Henry, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 4774 Stoneleigh for the for the construction of an 8’ x 5.5’ x 14’ high stone fireplace located within the proposed pergola, that the height variance request be withdrawn from the appeal.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

(15) J. Thomas & M. Black – 5815 Wing Lake Road

Mr. Richard Chadwick of DesRosiers Architects, was present seeking approval for a 2-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback, Carey Lane frontage, and a 10-foot encroachment into the required 35-foot rear yard setback for the construction of a single-story garage addition for Acreage Parcel, Section 29. 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, and a minimum of 35-feet in the rear yard setback. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended. (19-29-202-023)

Mr. Chadwick presented the Board with additional illustrations of the proposed single-story garage addition. Mr. Chadwick indicated that the home is situated on a corner lot, leaving the lot with two (2) front yards, one (1) rear yard setback and one (1) side yard.

The driveway is directly off of Wing Lake Road and is obstructed from view the proposed driveway would be off of Carey Lane. Mr. Chadwick indicated that the homeowner does not want to build up with a second story, which would hinder the neighbor’s view of the lake. The new proposed garage would allow the existing lower level garage space to be utilized for lake view living space.

Mr. Jacobson, homeowner, was present and indicated that he has received three (3) approval signature’s from the surrounding neighbor’s.

Mr. Taylor questioned the architect would the air-conditioner’s be relocated.

Mr. Chadwick replied that the air-conditioner’s would be relocated to the rear yard adjacent to the existing deck.

Mr. Tad Krear, resident at 4274 Carey Lane, was present and expressed his concerns that the garage lights are not floodlights that would shine on to his property and that additional landscaping would be installed per the plan presented.

Mr. Jacobson replied that the garage lighting would not shine onto 4274 Carey Lane, and additional landscaping would be installed.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to the appeal for 5815 Wing Lake Road for a 2-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback, Carey Lane frontage, and a 10-foot encroachment into the required 35-foot rear yard setback for the construction of a single-story garage addition 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 self-created. The approval is contingent upon approval received from the neighbor at 4274 Carey Lane for the landscaping and the lighting for the structure.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

(16) 1522 Kirkway – G. Knodel & K. Gross

Mr. Gerhardt Knodel, homeowner, was present seeking approval to encroach 55-feet into the lakeside setback with the required average setback of the neighboring properties at 80-feet, for an enclosure of an existing deck for Lot 2, West Lochslea, Section 8. The existing home is currently non-conforming with a 25-foot lakeside setback. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that new construction or remodeling of a principal building shall be set back from the waterfront the average of the setback of the principal buildings on the nearest improved waterfront lots within five hundred feet of each side of the lot in question. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended. (19-08-352-009)

Mr. Knodel addressed the Board with a request to enclose an existing deck. Mr. Knodel indicated that the area would be utilized as living space.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 1522 Kirkway to encroach 55-feet into the lakeside setback with the required average setback of the neighboring properties at 80-feet, for an enclosure of an existing deck that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information provided 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.

(17) S. Hahn-Griffiths – 5856 Sutters Lane

Mr. Carry Sutton, of Kevin Hart Architects, was present seeking approval to encroach 3.8-feet into the required 40-foot front yard setback and 1.3-feet into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the construction of a single-story porch addition for Lot 179, Kirkwood No. 2, Section 30. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40-feet in the front yard setback and 16-feet in the side yard setback. (19-30-176-022)

Mr. Sutton addressed the Board with a request for a 3.8-foot encroachment into the front yard setback for a proposed single-story porch addition. Mr. Sutton submitted to the Board subdivision association approval.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to the appeal at 5856 Sutters Lane to encroach 3.8-feet into the required 40-foot front yard setback and

1.3-feet into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the construction of a single-story porch addition 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 self-created.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

(18) 2695 Bloomfield Crossing – P. Gutterson

Mr. Paul Gutterson, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction of an accessory structure, a 12’ x 12’ x 13.5’ high gazebo attached to an existing deck, located in a rear yard 16-feet from the side lot line and more than 35-feet from the rear lot line for Lot 13, Bloomfield Crossing Subdivision, Section 11. 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. (19-11-129-005)

Mr. Gutterson introduced Rob Gainer of Hickory Dickory Decks, builder, to the Board. Mr. Gainer submitted to the Board subdivision association approval. Mr. Gainer indicated that the proposed gazebo would be attached to an existing deck.

Motion by Mr. Henry, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 2695 Bloomfield Crossing for the construction of an accessory structure, a 12’ x 12’ x 13.5’ high gazebo attached to an existing deck, located in a rear yard 16-feet from the side lot line and more than 35-feet from the rear lot line that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards.

Motion carried, 4 – 0.

(19) 5570 Brookdale – A. Kaufmann

Mr. George Wilson, of G. Wilson Construction, was present seeking approval for the installation of accessory structures, pool equipment screened with an existing 4.8-foot high brick wall and plantings, located in a rear yard 25-feet from the residential wall of the building for Lot 8, Supervisor’s Plat No. 5, Section 25. 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 the rear yard. (19-25-126-018)

Mr. Wilson addressed the Board to consider a request for pool equipment to be screened with an existing brick wall with additional vegetation to be added. Mr. Wilson indicated that the location would have no negative impact on adjacent neighboring properties. Mr. Wilson commented that Mr. Norman Trost, resident at 5550Brookdale, submitted a letter of approval for the variance request.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 5570 Brookdale for the installation of accessory structures, pool equipment screened with an existing 4.8-foot high brick wall and plantings, located in a rear yard 25-feet from the residential wall of the 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 self-created.

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia McCullough, Director

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