Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 – 7:00 P.M.
Bloomfield Township Hall
I. ATTENDANCE:
PRESENT: Board Members Lisa Seneker, Brian Kepes, Larry
Smith, Jane Reisinger, Robert Taylor, James Aldrich, Chairman
Corrinne Khederian
ABSENT: Dan Devine
STAFF PRESENT: Patricia McCullough, Planning and
Building Director, Kaye Chartier Code and Ordinance Director,
Robin Carley, Development Coordinator, Kathy Davis, Building
Department Secretary and Brenda Schlutow, Code and Ordinance
Officer.
Chairman Khederian addressed the audience and made mention
of the following items:
2683 Douglas Drive, item has been withdrawn at the
petitioner’s request.
Item 15, 4224 Orchard Way, has been tabled to the October
11th, 2005 meeting at the applicant’s request.
Item 16, 770 Brookwood Walke, has been tabled to the
October 11th, 2005 meeting at the applicant’s
request.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Taylor to approve
the Minutes of August 9th, 2005 as written.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
III. APPEALS:
Tabled Items
Mr. Taylor recused himself from the following item, due to
the relationship with the petitioner.
(1T) 1210 Oxford – D. Troszak
Mr. Douglas Troszak, homeowner, was present 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. (19-25-204-005)
Mr. Troszak addressed the Board and requested to renovate
an existing wood shed to accommodate a new roofline with a
metal roof. Mr. Troszak indicated that the purpose of the shed
would be to store lawn equipment. Mr. Troszak presented the
Board with subdivision association approval.
Mr. Kepes suggested to the petitioner to add on to the
existing garage to provide additional storage so that
accessory structures can be decreased. Mr. Kepes made mention
of the Ordinance Violations in regards to the property
maintenance from May 2004. Mr. Kepes questioned if the
structure had electricity or plumbing.
Mr. Troszak replied that there is electricity and plumbing
in the structure is very old.
Ms. Reisinger commented that the petitioner not only wants
to put a new roof on but also would like to install a new
window, change the door, new awnings and paint the structure.
Mr. Troszak replied that in order to accommodate the
structural change with the elimination of the indent within
the structure. Place a window where the door is located and
paint the structure to have the structure function and look
presentable. Mr. Troszak indicated that the dead tree would be
removed.
Mr. Kepes questioned what would the construction time frame
be for this project.
Mr. Troszak replied 90 – 120 days to complete the project.
Chairman Khederian commended Kaye Chartier, Code and
Ordinance Director, for her work and follow up on outstanding
violations regarding Township properties. Chairman Khederian
then asked Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director,
to address the variance if the existing roofline is to remain
as is.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director,
addressed the roofline variance and commented that the
petitioner is required to repair and maintain his property,
which does include the existing non-conforming accessory
structure. However, if the petitioner intends to change the
roofline, modify, and expand improved upon the existing non-
conforming accessory structure would require review and
approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The height of the
proposed accessory structure exceeds the 14-foot height
requirement, which would require a variance. Ms. McCullough
commented that given the existing state of the accessory
structure it needs to be demolished or improvements made
whether it is repair and replace or a construction project
that is proposed before the Board with the new roofline. Ms.
McCullough suggested to the Board that the petitioner submit a
construction schedule complete with a completion
schedule/deadline to assure the project will commence as well
as come to fruition in a timely manner.
Ms. Seneker questioned the materials to be used on the
exterior of the accessory structure.
Mr. Troszak replied the material would be a textured T-11,
wood like material that would cover the structure but has not
made final choices of the colors.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard
to the appeal at 1210 Oxford, for the height variance, be
approved as requested. Based on all information presented, the
applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of
the standards for practical difficulty. The roofline of the
accessory structure be completed by October 31st,
2005. In regard to the dimensional variance request for the
accessory structure be granted, based on the information
presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with
Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the
standards for practical difficulty. Contingent upon the
following items to be addressed by the petitioner: Removal of
dead tree by October 31st, 2005, construction
schedule to be submitted at permit application, single-family
affidavit to be submitted at permit issuance, landscape plan
to be submitted and approved by April 30th, 2006.
Motion carried, 5-1-1
YEAS: Reisinger, Seneker, Aldrich, Smith, Khederian
NAYS: Kepes
ABSTAINED: Taylor
(2T) 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 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. 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 addressed the Board with the concerns from the
previous meeting and indicated that the air conditioning units
would be placed on the southeast corner of the house in the
walk out area. The other concern was the view of the addition
from adjacent properties and Ms. Leader indicated that
planting additional trees at the northwest corner would
alleviate the neighbors concerns.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Taylor 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, that the variance be
approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the
applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of
the standards for practical difficulty.
Motion carried, 7 - 0.
(3T) 275 Abbey – J. Gooch
Mr. Todd Bergsman of Hunter Roberts Homes, was present
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. (19-25-251-026)
Mr. Bergsman addressed the Board with a 3.5-foot
encroachment into the side yard setback for two existing
air-conditioning units that would be screened with evergreens.
Mr. Bergsman indicated that the property is unique given it is
very a narrow lot.
Mr. Rick Wiand of Hunter Robert Homes, was present and made
mention of the previous approval that was granted for a
2.7-foot encroachment into the easterly side yard setback for
the construction of a new home with a chimney.
Ms. Seneker made mention of a letter received in opposition
from Mr. Jon Sarkesian, homeowner at 295 Abbey.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to
the appeal at 275 Abbey for the setback variance for two
accessory structures, air-conditioning units, to be approved
as requested with additional evergreen screening. Based on the
information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the
Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical
difficulty.
Motion carried, 7 –0.
(4T) 2845 Lahser – B. Gilmour
Mr. Brad Gilmour, homeowner, was present 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.
(19-10-151-010)
Mr. Gilmour addressed the Board with the request to store a
recreational vehicle on private property in a rear yard. Mr.
Gilmour presented pictures to the Board indicating the
location of the RV in relation from the street and the
neighboring properties. Mr. Gilmour provided a petition to the
Board that had been signed by surrounding neighbors that were
in approval of the RV in the current location.
Ms. Seneker made mention of six letters received that are
in opposition of the variance request.
Mr. Stephen Till, President of the Colonial Estates
subdivision association, was present and spoke in opposition
of the variance request.
Motion by Mr. Taylor seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to
the appeal at 2845 Lahser for the permission request to store
a recreational vehicle on a permanent basis, located on
private property in a rear yard, to be denied as requested,
based on the information presented the applicant did not
demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did
not demonstrate all of the standards for practical difficulty.
The RV is to be removed off of the property by October 13th,
2005.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
NEW ITEMS
(1) 4600 Charing Cross – M. McCammon
Mr. Bob Bryce of Bryce, McCalpin, Palazzolla Architects,
was present seeking approval for the construction of accessory
structures, retaining walls with an overall height of 7-feet,
screened with plantings for the purpose of creating a motor
court and driveway, located in the front and southerly side
yards 40-feet from the front property line, more than 16-feet
from the northerly side lot line, and 8-feet from the
southerly side lot line for Lot 86, Bloomfield Estates
Subdivision, Section 24. 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. (19-24-126-009)
Mr. Bryce addressed the Board with a request for
construction for two retaining walls with an overall height of
7-feet, to be screened with plantings. The two retaining walls
would be attractive and harmonious within the neighborhood.
Mr. Bryce indicated that there is no hardship for the
retaining walls it is an aesthetic issue. Mr. Bryce indicated
the purpose of the retaining walls were for creating a motor
court and driveway.
Mr. Keith Kleckner, resident at 4660 Dover, was present and
made mention of the water run off from this property.
Mr. Mark McCammon, homeowner, replied that sod would be
installed on the property to help with the water run off.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to
the appeal at 4600 Charing Cross for the retaining walls, to
be approved as submitted, and the variance for the height be
granted, based on the information presented, the applicant did
demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did
demonstrate all of the standards for practical difficulty.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(2) 2755 Ayshire – P. Koppinger
Ms. Penny Koppinger, homeowner, was present seeking
approval for existing accessory structures, engineered stone
retaining walls, located along the easterly edge of the
driveway with an overall height of 5-feet, and at the front
lot line in the road right-of-way with an overall height of
3-feet for Lot 13, Forest Lake Orchard, Section 8. 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. (19-08-252-002)
Ms. Koppinger presented the Board with pictures of the
existing engineered stone retaining walls. Ms. Koppinger
indicated that the previous retaining wall was dilapidated.
Mr. Bill Wells, homeowners association was present and
spoke in support of the variance request.
Ms. Seneker made mention of a letter received in support of
the variance from Mr. Donald Walker, resident, at 2770
Mackintosh Lane.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard
to the appeal at 2755 Ayrshire Drive for the existing stone
retaining walls, to be approved as submitted, and the variance
for the front yard location be granted, based on the
information
presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with
Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the
standards for practical difficulty. The petitioner is to
submit a Hold Harmless Agreement and an Oakland County Road
Right-of-Way permit.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(3) 4861 Cimarron Drive – F. Mafrice
Mr. Howard Katzman, builder, was present seeking approval
for existing accessory structures, boulder retaining walls,
two located in a front yard 16.7-feet from the front lot line
with an overall height of 10.9-feet, one located in a side
yard 43.8-feet from the southerly side lot line with an
overall height of 6.6-feet, and one located in the rear yard
7.9-feet from the rear lot line with an overall height of
7-feet for Lot 63, Lone Pine Heights No. 2, Section 19.
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 or rear lot line, and shall require the
review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
(19-19-127-023)
Mr. Katzman addressed the Board with the request for the
existing boulder retaining walls. Mr. Katzman indicated that
the site has two tiered retaining walls with one being
6.5-foot high and lower wall being 4.5-foot high. Mr. Katzman
indicated that there is a 28-foot drop from the porch to the
lowest point of the wall. Mr. Katzman commented that the
purpose of the retaining walls were to hold the earth to help
maintain two existing trees on the property.
Mr. Lee Scott, resident at 1815 E. Tahquamenon, was present
and expressed his concerns of the erosion from the
petitioner’s property.
Mr. Katzman replied that the erosion is occurring due to
the lack of the landscaping not being installed. Mr. Katzman
commented that there is a sale pending on this home and once
the sale is finalized, the owners would chose the landscaping
which would alleviate the erosion run off onto 1815 E.
Tahquamenon.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard
to the appeal at 4861 Cimarron Drive, for the existing boulder
retaining walls request be approved as submitted, and the
variance for the front yard location be granted, based on the
information presented, the applicant did demonstrate
compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate
all of the standards for practical difficulty.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(4) 4776 Walnut Lake Road – K. Boyd
Mr. Ken Boyd, homeowner, was present seeking approval for
an existing accessory structure, a hot tub, located in a rear
yard immediately adjacent to a deck more than 16-feet from
side and rear lot lines. Also seeking approval for the
installation of a 7-foot high privacy fence, located
immediately adjacent to the north and east sides of the
proposed hot tub for Lot 124, Kirkwood No. 2, Section 30.
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. Article XV, Section
1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a
residential district shall not exceed 4-feet in height.
(19-30-126-046)
Mr. Boyd addressed the Board with the request for an
existing hot tub, located in the rear yard to be placed
immediately adjacent to a deck screened with a 7-foot high
privacy fence.
Chairman Khederian made mention of the letter received from
the Kirkwood Subdivision Association as to their granting
approval for the hot tub and deck however, there was no
comment made for the privacy fence.
Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to the
appeal at 4776 Walnut Lake Road for the hot tub request be
approved as submitted, and the variance for the 7-foot high
privacy fence be granted, based on the information presented,
the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804
Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for
practical difficulty.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(5) 870 Bloomcrest Drive – K. Studzinski
Mr. Keith Studzinski, homeowner, was present seeking
approval for the installation of accessory structures, 8.3’ x
2.3’ x 6’ high masonry entry walls and piers, located on
private property 5-feet from the front lot line, on each side
of the driveway entrance for Lot 143, Eastover Farms No. 2,
Section 12. 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.
(19-12-378-001)
Mr. Studzinski addressed the Board with a petition of
eighteen signatures out of the twenty-one surrounding
neighbors that were in support of the variance request.
Mr. Kepes questioned the letters that were signed by the
surrounding neighbors, did the plans indicate the masonry
walls and piers to be 4-foot high with a light on top.
Mr. Studzinski replied that the plans were submitted to the
surrounding neighbors as 4-foot high masonry entry walls and
piers with a light on top.
Mr. Kepes suggested to the petitioner if it would be
possible to seek the eighteen neighbors approval for the
6-foot high masonry entry walls and piers as presented to the
Board.
Mr. Studzinski replied that he would seek the eighteen
neighbors approval for the 6-foot high masonry entry walls and
piers as suggested.
Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to
the appeal at 870 Bloomcrest Drive for the installation of
8.3’ x 2.3’ x 6’ high masonry entry walls and piers, be
approved as submitted, and the variance for the walls and
piers to be located in the front yard be granted, based on the
information presented, the applicant did demonstrate
compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate
all of the standards for practical difficulty. Contingent upon
the petitioner seeking the neighbors approval at 3400, 3370,
3340, 3300 W. Bloomcrest Drive and the two neighbors on each
side excluding 881 E. Bloomcrest Drive for the 8.3’ x 2.3’ x
6’ high masonry entry walls and piers with the lights, along
with a Hold Harmless Affidavit to be submitted.
Motion failed due to lack of support.
YEAS: Kepes, Seneker, Smith
NAYS: Aldrich, Taylor, Reisinger, Khederian
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to
the appeal at 870 Bloomcrest Drive for the installation of
8.3’ x 2.3’ x 6’ high masonry entry walls and piers, be
approved as submitted, and the variance for the walls and
piers to be located in the front yard be granted, based on the
information presented, the applicant did demonstrate
compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate
all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner is
to submit a Hold Harmless Affidavit.
Motion carried, 6 – 1.
YEAS: Aldrich, Taylor, Reisinger, Seneker, Smith, Khederian
NAYS: Kepes
(6) 6040 Burnham Court – W. Picket
Mr. Wiley Picket, homeowner, was present seeking approval
for the relocation of an existing accessory structure, a 8’ x
11.8’ x 8.5’ shed, located in a rear yard 69-feet from the
rear property line and 16-feet from side property lines for
Lot 15, Glencoe Estates, Section 28. 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. (19-28-153-016)
Mr. Picket addressed the Board and asked for
reconsideration of their decision from the June 14th,
2005 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Picket asked the
Board for the relocation of an existing 8’ x 11.8’ x 8.5’
shed, to be located in a rear yard 69-feet from the rear
property line and 16-feet from the side property lines. Mr.
Picket presented pictures to the Board showing the shed from
different angles and views from the property.
Ms. Seneker questioned why was this item being heard again
when the shed was to be removed from the property at the June
14th, 2005 meeting.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director,
commented that the applicant made application to be able to
relocate the existing shed.
Mr. Kepes made comment to the previous motion made
indicated the dimensions of the shed, located in a rear yard
more than 16-feet from the side yard and rear yard be denied
as requested. Mr. Kepes indicated that this motion was not
denied without prejudice.
Mr. Allen Forgach, Chairman of Glencoe Estates Homeowners
Association, was present and spoke in objection of the
variance request.
Ms. Martha Forgach, resident at 5901 Blandford Road, was
present and spoke in objection of the variance request.
Ms. Paul Hollingsworth, resident at 6020 Burnham Court, was
present and spoke in objection of the variance request.
Chairman Khederian made mention of two letters received in
support of the variance request from Mr.Robert Cooper,
resident at 5991 Blandford, and Mr. Randolph Andeer, resident
at 6059 Burnham Court.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to
the appeal at 6040 Burnham Court for the relocation of an
existing 8’ x 11.8’ x 8.5’ shed located in a rear yard be
denied as submitted based on the use and the information
presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance with
Section 1804 Standards.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(7) 635 South Hills – R. Mealey
Mr. Patrick Funky of Michael J. Dwell Associates, was
present seeking approval for the installation of accessory
structures, 2’ x 14’ x 6’ high masonry entry walls and piers,
located on private property 11.6-feet from the front
property line on each side of the driveway entrance for Part
of Lot 15, Brookside Hills Association, 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. (19-16-252-039)
Mr. Funky addressed the Board with the request for the
installation of masonry entry walls and piers with material
made of a split face Michigan fieldstone that would match the
existing residence. Mr. Funky indicated that the piers would
be caped with Indiana limestone that would also match the
residence. The proposed walls would be placed ser metrically
on each side of a 14-foot wide driveway. The entrance piers
would incorporate wall mounted light fixtures that have been
designed to create a sense of entry into the property.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard
to the appeal at 635 South Hills for the installation of the
accessory structures, 2’ x 14’ x 6’ high masonry entry walls
and piers with lights, to be located on private property be
approved as submitted, and the variance for the walls and
piers located in the front yard be granted, based on the
information presented, the applicant did demonstrate
compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate
all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner is
to submit a Hold Harmless Affidavit.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(8) 1718 Hamilton Drive – R. Obrecht
Mr. Robert Obrecht, homeowner, was present seeking approval
to reconstruct an accessory structure on an existing slab, an
8’ x 12’ x 9.4’ high pump house/shed, located in a side yard
1.7-feet from the westerly side lot line for Lot 17, 18 and 19
Square Lake Country Club, Section 6. 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 or rear
lot line and shall require the review and approval of the
Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-06-401-015)
Mr. Obrecht addressed the Board with the request to
reconstruct a pump house/shed on an existing slab, located in
a side yard. Mr. Obrecht indicated that a tree fell on the
shed and damaged the shed to disrepair. Mr. Obrecht made
mention that the shed would house a pump for the lake, an
electrical box, and the sports equipment for the lake.
Mr. Bruce Selik, homeowner at 1724 Hamilton Drive, was
present and spoke in objection of the shed. Mr. Selik is also
the President of the Square Lake Association, and indicated
that the subdivision association did not grant approval for
the shed.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard
to the appeal at 1718 Hamilton Drive to reconstruct an
accessory structure on an existing slab, an 8’ x 12’ x 9.4’
high pump house/shed be tabled to allow the petitioner to seek
the homeowners association approval and/or present a new
location for the structure and obtain subdivision approval.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(9) 2739 Turtle Lake – J. Samani
Mr. Andy Race of Thomas Sebold & Associates, was present
seeking approval for existing accessory structures,
boulder-landscaping walls with an overall height of 7.7-feet,
located in the front, side and rear yards 8.3-feet from the
front property line, less than 16-feet from the side lot
lines, and more than 25-feet from the wetland boundary line.
Also seeking approval for the following encroachments into the
16-foot northerly side yard setback:
a 6-foot encroachment for a 3.3-foot high existing
dry-stacked landscape wall
a 4.7-foot encroachment for an existing screen wall for
the units below
a 2.7-foot encroachment for four existing
air-conditioning units
Unit 65, Turtle Lake, Section 6,7 and 8. Article XV,
Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 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 or rear
lot line, shall require the review and approval of the Zoning
Board of Appeals, and that ground-mounted electrical and
mechanical equipment shall not be located in the required
16-foot side yard setback. (19-07-129-012)
Mr. Race addressed the Board with three variance requests
that are in need of approval in order for the home to receive
a final building inspection approval and certificate of
occupancy. Mr. Race presented pictures of the existing
dry-stacked landscape wall that indicated the landscaping wall
for the four air conditioning units.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to
the appeal at 2739 Turtle Lake Drive for the existing
boulder-landscaping walls, dry-stacked landscaped wall, a
screen wall and four air conditioning units request be
approved as submitted, and the variance for the
boulder-landscaping walls to be placed in a front yard and to
encroach within the required 16-foot side yard setback with
boulder-landscaping walls, a dry-stacked landscape wall, a
screen wall and four air conditioning units be granted, based
on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate
compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate
all of the standards for practical difficulty. The petitioner
is to submit a Hold Harmless Agreement to the Township.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(10) 193 Dourdan – D. Acierno
Ms. Denise Rosenfeld, homeowner, was present seeking
approval for an existing accessory use/structure, a 30’ x 40’
sports court with 10’ high fencing on the north perimeter as
well as a portion on the east perimeter, 6’ high fencing on
the east, south and west perimeters and a 20’ high light,
located in a rear yard less than 16-feet from the
northwesterly side and rear lot lines for Lot 4, Dourdan
Place, Section 10. 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 lot
line 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. (19-10-251-022)
Ms. Rosenfeld addressed the Board with an apology
indicating she was unaware that a permit was required for the
sports court. Ms. Rosenfeld presented the Board with
subdivision association approval. Ms. Rosenfeld indicated that
the Township Ordinance Department had issued a violation
notice in regards to the sports court and she is now asking
for approval to maintain the sports court with a 20-foot high
light. Ms. Rosenfeld indicated that the sports court would be
landscaped.
Mr. Taylor questioned the use of the 20-foot light.
Ms. Rosenfeld replied that the light would be used once a
week.
Chairman Khederian questioned if the petitioner would be
opposed to removal of the light.
Ms. Rosenfeld replied that a lot of money had been spent
for the light and would ask the Board to consider setting a
time use for the light.
Ms. Seneker made mention of a letter received from Mr.
Martin Wright, resident at 230 Woodedge, that was in
opposition of the fencing and light.
Ms. Mary Snyder, resident at 280 Woodedge, was present and
spoke in concern of the light and possible noise.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard
to the appeal at 193 Dourdan for the existing accessory
structure, a 30’ x 40’ sports court with 10’ high
fencing on the north and east perimeter, and 6’ high
fencing on the east, south, and west perimeters be approved as
submitted without the 20’ high light, and the variance for the
location of the sport court and fence height be granted, based
on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate
compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate
all of the standards for practical difficulty.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(11) 2812 Telegraph Road – Bill Thomas
Mr. Andy Katilaus, brother-in-law of property owner, was
present seeking approval for the installation of the following
accessory structures for Lot 7, Hickory Knoll’s Subdivision,
Section 9:
A 16.3’ x 25’ x 16.3’ high brick canopy, located in a
front yard 40-feet from the front lot line, and more than
16-feet from the side lot lines.
Six 2’ x 2’ x 3.7’ high lighted masonry bollards, placed
in a front yard along each side of the driveway.
Two lighted curved screen walls with an overall height of
3.7’ high, located on private property at each side of the
driveway entrance 3-feet from the front property line.
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 be located closer than 16-feet to any side lot line,
and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board
of Appeals. (19-09-153-006)
Mr. Katilaus addressed the Board and asked for the above
variances.
Mr. George Galayda, homeowner at 2866 Acorn, was present
and spoke in opposition of the variance requests.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to
the appeal at 2812 Telegraph Road for the variance for the
accessory structures be tabled to allow the petitioner to be
present to demonstrate all of the standards for practical
difficulty.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(12) 722 Crestview -Ginko Investment Company
Mr. Michael Grasser, owner, was present seeking approval
for the following variances per Article XIV, Section 1400 of
Zoning Ordinance No. 265 to allow for the proposed office
building and private bocce ball club at the vacant site on the
north side of Crestview Avenue, Lots 633, 634, 635 and 636,
Ward Orchards, Section 6.
7- foot building and landscaping encroachment into the
required 10-foot northerly side yard setback for the below
grade stairwell.
10.7-foot encroachment into the required 20-foot rear
yard setback.
324 square foot loading space in the front yard with
1,400 square feet required in the rear yard.
3-foot front parking setback with 25-feet required.
Seeking an exception per Article XV, Section 1504 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 265 Parking Requirements to grant approval for
the dual junction of off-street parking spaces where operating
hours do not overlap. (19-06-206-006; 007)
Mr. Grasser addressed the Board with several requests for
variances to construct an office building multi-use/bocce club
for private use that would be located in the lower level of
the proposed "Crestview Office Center". The 7-foot
encroachment would accommodate for a side yard setback for the
below grade stairwell with landscaping. The 10.7-foot
encroachment into the 20-foot rear yard setback would be
utilized to create a beautiful landscape outdoor garden space
for the occupants of the building to enjoy. The loading area
would be located in the front yard as proposed with 324-feet
of loading space in the front yard with 1,400 square feet
required in the rear yard. The parking as proposed would
require a 3-foot encroachment in the front yard setback. Mr.
Grasser indicated that the variances as requested all involve
exceptional and unique circumstances due to the proposed use
of the building and the irregular shaped lot.
Ms. Reisinger made mention in relation to the Planning
Commission meeting that granted the approval of the use as
proposed and indicated the parking for the office would be
used
during the day and the Bocce club would only meet in the
evenings, given the club is a private membership, parking
would be limited.
Chairman Khederian made mention of letters received in
support from Mr. Michael McGlothin, owner of Bloomfield
Business Centre, located at 1675 Telegraph Road and Mr. Jeff
Petrucci, owner of Bloomfield Construction, located at 1717 S.
Telegraph Road.
Chairman Khederian also made mention of a letter received
in opposition from Mr. Douglas Hardy, owner of Brandy’s,
located at 1727 S. Telegraph Road.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard
to the appeal at 722 Crestview, that the variance request be
approved for the encroachments into the side and rear yards,
loading space square footage and placement in a front yard,
and a parking setback be granted. Based on the information
presented, the applicant did demonstrate that compliance with
Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the
standards for practical difficulty. Also in regards to the
shared parking for the office building and the private club,
that the permission request be approved as requested. Based on
the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate that
compliance with Section 1804 Standards.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(13) 2190 Lancaster – F. Moeller
Mr. Fred Moeller, homeowner, was present seeking approval
for an 11.6-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side
yard setback for the construction of a single story garage
addition for Lot 115, Bloomfield Highlands Subdivision,
Section 3. 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. (19-03-303-027)
Mr. Moeller addressed the Board and asked for an 11.6-foot
encroachment for the construction of a single story garage
addition. Mr. Moeller indicated if the variance was granted he
would remove the existing sheds off of the property.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to
the appeal at 2190 Lancaster for the 11.6 encroachment into
the required 16-foot side yard setback variance be approved as
requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant
did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the
standards for practical difficulty.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(14) 4415 Oak Grove – A. Bublys
Mr. Bublys, homeowner, was present seeking approval to
modify an existing non-conforming building, changing the
existing roof line by removing a garage dormer, located
31.7-feet from the front lot line, and removing an existing
window, located 12.8-feet from the westerly side lot line.
Also seeking approval for a 25.5-foot encroachment into the
required 35-foot rear yard setback, and a 3.3-foot
encroachment into the required 16-foot westerly side yard
setback to rebuild the existing deck for Part of Lot 1,
Broughton’s Park Subdivision, Section 29. 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
16-feet in the side yard setback and a minimum of 35-feet in
the rear yard setback. (19-29-128-008)
Mr. Bublys addressed the Board and asked to modify an
existing non-conforming building to accommodate for a repair
and replacement of an existing deck, remove and replace a
masonry chimney, and replace several fixed windows on the
lakeside of the home. Mr. Bublys indicated the overhang would
be extended, and changing the existing roofline by removing a
garage dormer. Mr. Bublys presented pictures to the Board that
identified the above pre-existing conditions. Mr. Bublys
indicated the existing deck is dilapidated and is in an unsafe
condition.
Mr. Kal Goren, President of Broughton Park Property Owners
Association, at 4375 Oak Grove Drive, was present and
expressed his concerns of the proposed variances.
Mr. Bublys replied that the architectural drawings have
been submitted to the Association with no reply.
Mr. Curtis Pope, resident at 4395 Oak Grove Drive, was
present and spoke in opposition of the variance requests.
Ms. Carol Pope, resident at 4395 Oak Grove Drive, was
present and spoke in opposition of the variance requests.
Mr. Selwyn Isakow, resident at 4405 Oak Grove Drive, was
present and spoke in opposition of the variance requests.
Mr. Gary Quesada of Thomas M. Keranen & Associates. P.C.,
was present on behalf of Mr. Bublys and indicated that the
variance request would remain within the building envelope.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Department
Director, indicated to the Board members the site layout in
relation to the variance requests.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard
to the appeal at 4415 Oak Grove Drive for the encroachments
into the side and rear yards, and changing an existing
non-conforming building that the variance be approved as
requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant
did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the
standards for practical difficulty.
Mr. Kepes asked the Chairman for discussion. Mr. Kepes
suggested to the Board to table the item to allow the
petitioner to seek the approval from the subdivision
association.
The Board discussed the suggestion from Mr. Kepes and moved
forwarded with the motion.
Motion carried, 6 – 1.
YEAS: Reisinger, Taylor, Aldrich, Seneker, Smith, Khederian
NAYS: Kepes
Item tabled at the applicant’s request to the October 11th,
2005 meeting.
(15) 4224 Orchard Way – J. Esshaki
Seeking approval for the installation of 6-foot high
fencing with a gate for the purpose of enclosing a pool area,
located on private property along the side, rear and front
property lines, Surrey Road frontage for Lot 44, Foxcroft No.
1, Section 29. 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 and that a
common street line with front yards on the same block shall be
treated as front yards and shall not have a fence constructed
within the minimum setback of 40-feet. (19-29-402-034)
Item tabled at the applicant’s request to the October 11th,
2005 meeting.
(16) 770 Brookwood Walke – D. Tatum
Seeking approval to encroach 5-feet into the required
35-foot rear yard setback for the construction of a
single-story addition for the purpose of housing an indoor
pool. Also seeking approval for accessory use/structures, an
indoor pool located in the proposed single-story rear yard
addition, and a retaining with an overall height of 6.8-feet
located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from side and rear
lot lines for Lot 45, North Bloomfield Hills Subdivision,
Section 11. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No.
265 requires a minimum of 35-feet in the rear yard setback.
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. (19-11-253-003)
IV. GENERAL BUSINESS
Next Board Meeting – October 11th, 2005
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
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
|
