Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, October 11th, 2005
Bloomfield Township Hall
I. ATTENDANCE:
PRESENT: Board Members Lisa Seneker, Larry Smith, Brian
Kepes, Jane Reisinger, Robert Taylor, James Aldrich, Township
Attorney William Hampton, Chairman Corinne Khederian
ABSENT: Dan Devine
STAFF PRESENT: Patricia McCullough, Planning and
Building Director, Kaye Chartier Code and Ordinance Director,
Robin Carley, Development Coordinator, and Kathy Davis,
Building Department Secretary
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Seneker to approve
the Minutes of September 13th, 2005 as written.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
Chairman Khederian asked the Board to consider moving item
#15 to item #1.
Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger to move item
#15 to item #1.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(15) 4415 Oak Grove – A./B. Bublys
Mr. Bublys, homeowner, was present seeking an
interpretation of Article II, Section 201 of Zoning Ordinance
No. 265 as it relates to the definition of property lines for
Part of Lot 1, Broughton’s Park Subdivision, Section 29.
Article II, Section 201 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 defines
lot lines as the lines bounding a lot as defined herein:
FRONT LOT LINE: In the case of an interior lot, is that
line separating said lot from the street.
REAR LOT LINE: that lot line opposite the front lot
line.
SIDE LOT LINE: Any lot line other than the front lot
line or rear lot line. A side lot line separating a lot
from another lot or lots is an interior side lot line.
Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265
requires a minimum of 40-feet in the front yard setback and a
minimum of 16-feet in the side yard setback. (19-29-128-008)
Mr. William Hampton, Township Attorney, addressed the Board
with the previous history of this property. Mr. Hampton
indicated that this application was previously before the
Zoning Board of Appeals in 1979. Upon review of the minutes of
the action of the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1979, at that
time the Board made certain determinations as to front yard,
rear yard and side yard setbacks and in fact granted some
variances. The rules that govern this particular lot and the
house that is located on this lot were established in 1979.
Mr. Hampton commented that the applicant that is before the
Board tonight is not seeking a variance, but rather seeking an
interpretation from the Board to revisit the actions of the
previous Board 1979.
Mr. Hampton stated that he had provided a letter to the
Zoning Board of Appeals and pointed out that in the absence of
a material change of circumstances that this Board should not
revisit the interpretation that was made in 1979. But rather,
if the applicant believes that he/she should be entitled to an
additional variance beyond those that were granted, than
he/she should seek a variance. Mr. Hampton indicated that if
the Townships previous interpretation of the front yard were
correct the property owner would need a variance in order to
build the addition. If the yard is not a front yard as the
Board previously determined but is a side yard then the
property owner would not need a variance. Mr. Hampton
indicated that he has informed the applicant’s attorney of his
opinion in that regard.
Mr. Hampton expressed his concern to the Board that if the
Board starts to change interpretations that were made many
years ago, then that means other aspects of this property are
going to become non-conforming, given that the rules were
established in 1979. Mr. Hampton addressed the material change
of circumstances, and identified them of things that have
occurred or changes that have occurred to this particular
parcel of property. Mr. Hampton indicated that this is not
necessarily changes that might have occurred to adjacent
properties or neighborhood properties but rather changes that
have occurred since 1979 to this particular property.
Mr. Hampton commented that his legal opinion is that in the
absence of the material change of circumstances that the Board
should not entertain any additional interpretations of the
Ordinance. The Ordinance has been interpreted. If the property
owner feels aggrieved by that interpretation than the property
owner should file a new application for
a variance and in order to obtain a variance that would be
at another hearing on another occasion. Mr. Hampton identified
that in order to obtain a variance from a setback requirement
the applicant would have to establish Practical Difficulty.
Mr. Hampton
explained the term of Practical Difficulty is a term of art
in the law and indicated that the applicant must prove to the
satisfaction of the Board that four elements must be
satisfied.
Mr. Hampton suggested to the Board that they listen to the
applicant tonight but unless they find there has been a
material change in circumstances as to this particular parcel
then Mr. Hampton recommends that they need not to re-visit the
interpretation.
Mr. Kal Goren of Broughton Park Property Homeowners
Association, at 4375 Oak Grove, was present and spoke in
regards to the 1979 interpretation. Mr. Goren indicated that
there has been no variation from the 1979 interpretation.
Mr. Lawrence Bramcheck, attorney, was present on behalf of
Mr. & Mrs. Curtis Pope, residents at 4395 Oak Grove, and Mr. &
Mrs. Selwyn Isakow, residents at 4405 Oak Grove. Mr. Bramcheck
indicated that both property owners are opposing the
interpretation of the Ordinance that is being sought from
1979. Mr. Bramcheck indicated to warrant the Board’s
consideration would require a material change in
circumstances. Mr. Bramcheck indicated that there has been no
material change in circumstances, and there has been no
reconfiguration of the subject lot. There has been no change
in the nature and character of this lot. There has been no
material change in relationship of this lot to the surrounding
lots, and there has been no change in the nature in the
character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Hampton suggested to the Board to leave the record open
for an additional thirty minutes, until 7:45 PM to allow the
petitioner to arrive.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to
the interpretation for 4415 Oak Grove, that the discussion be
held open until 7:45 PM to allow the homeowner to be present.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
III. APPEALS:
Tabled Items
(1T) 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)
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, spoke
in regards to a phone call received from the applicant, asking
to be withdrawn from the meeting. Ms. McCullough, commented
that Code and Ordinance Department has been involved with this
property and the petitioner has failed to meet compliance.
Ms. Kaye Chartier, Code and Ordinance Director, spoke in
regards to the safety hazard regarding the temporary
construction fence. Ms. Chartier identified the property
having an existing pool with a temporary construction fence to
enclose the pool. Ms. Chartier indicated that a Notice of
Violation was sent on July 28th, 2005 to the
petitioner to obtain approval and a permit for fence and dog
containment. On July 29th, 2005 a Stop Work Order
was placed due to work being done without the proper approvals
or permits. The fence being installed was 6-foot in height,
which would require Zoning Board of Appeals Approval prior to
installation.
The Board discussed the swimming pool fence requirements,
which are required by Michigan Residential Building Code.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard
to the appeal at 4224 Orchard Way, for the setback variance,
be approved without the petitioner being present, as the Board
has determined that the 4-foot high fence be installed at the
northwest corner to the north lot line with no gate, to match
the white wood fence to be installed and completed thirty days
from today’s date, and the petitioner to obtain building
permit. Based upon this information, it does demonstrate to
the Board that the satisfaction of all the standards of
practical difficulty has been met.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(2T) 770 Brookwood Walke – D. Tatum
Mr. Kevin Hart, architect, was present 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
the construction of accessory use/structures, an indoor pool
located in the proposed single-story rear yard addition, and a
retaining wall 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)
Mr. Hart addressed the Board with the request of 27’ x 22’
glass enclosure of a 10’ x 16’ pool that has a water mill
feature for health reasons. Mr. Hart identified the topography
of the land indicating a retaining wall that would maintain
the natural grade but would also allow for the glass enclosure
to be completely solid around the perimeter of the pool.
Mr. Hart submitted to the Board forty-one signatures of
support for the variance request along with the subdivision
association approval.
Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to
the appeal at 770 Brookwood Walke for the use of an indoor
pool, that the request be approved as
submitted, and the variance for the 5-foot encroachment
into the setback 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.
NEW ITEMS
(1) 1390 Kirkway – E. Friedman
Mr. Erving Tobocman, architect, was present seeking
approval for accessory structures, retaining walls with an
overall height of 14.1-feet high, located in a front yard more
than 40-feet from the front property line and more than
16-feet from side property lines for Lot 8, Kirkway, Section
17. 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.
(19-17-201-008)
Mr. Tobocman addressed the Board with a request for a
retaining wall that is attached to the home. Mr. Tobocman
indicated that the retaining wall would be 14.1-high, located
in the front yard more than 40-feet from the front property
line and more than 16-feet from the side property lines. Mr.
Tobocman pointed out to the Board on the site plan that the
north and west lot lines are completely screened by mature
trees. Mr. Tobocman submitted a letter with six signatures of
support to the Board. Mr. Tobocman made mention of the rooftop
equipment that has been painted black to help with screen it
from view.
Chairman Khederian made mention that the applicant for 4415
Oak Grove, item #15, had arrived prior to 7:45 PM and that the
Board would hear that item next.
Mr. Kepes questioned Mr. Tobocman with regards to the
retaining wall location, how many trees were lost, and how
many were planted.
Mr. Tobocman replied the trees that were lost were for the
installation of the 13-foot wide driveway.
Mr. Jeff Stewart, attorney, was present on behalf of the
Dr. Sangals, residents at 1370 Kirkway, and spoke in regards
to the lost trees that was represented by the petitioner that
no trees would be lost without being replaced. Mr. Stewart
provided an aerial photograph of 1370 Kirkway and1390 Kirkway
and made mention that there were many trees
removed from the petitioner’s property. Mr. Stewart also
made mention of the rooftop mechanical equipment that is not
screened.
Mr. Ben Heller, resident at 1419 Inwoods Circle, was
present and asked the Board to read the letter of support that
was submitted from the six neighbors. Mr. Heller spoke in
support of the variance request.
Ms. Reisinger read the letter to the audience.
Mr. Eugene Friedman, homeowner at 1390 Kirkway, was present
and spoke in regards to the additional trees that would be
installed in the spring of 2006.
Chairman Khederian made mention of letters that were
received in opposition from Mr. & Mrs. H. Alizadeh, residents
at 1416 Inwoods Circle and Mr. & Mrs. G. Lanthorne, residents
at 1412 Inwoods Circle.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard
to the appeal at 1390 Kirkway for the retaining wall, request
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.
Contingent upon a mature landscaping plan being submitted to
the Planning Department to identify the screening of the
retaining wall, property line, driveway, and rooftop units.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
Chairman Khederian asked the petitioner for 4415 Oak Grove
to address the Board.
(15) 4415 Oak Grove – A. Bublys
Mr. Gary Quesada of Thomas M. Keranen & Associates, was
present on behalf of Mr. Bublys. Mr. Quesada provided the
Board with images of surrounding homes that have been upgraded
or re-built since 1979. Mr. Quesada indicated that Mr. Bublys
home is in need of updating and renovating. Mr. Quesada asked
the Board for an interpretation as it relates to the
definition of the property lines.
Mr. Lawrence Bramcheck, attorney, was present and spoke in
opposition of the request noted in Mr. Quesada’s presentation
to the Board.
Mr. Dan Keyhoe, resident of the adjoining subdivision, Wing
Lake Farms, was present and spoke in support of the
recommendation from Mr. Hampton and Mr. Bramcheck.
The Township Attorney, William P. Hampton, advised the
Board that an interpretation as to the definition of lot lines
was made by the Board in 1979, which was not appealed from. He
noted that the Ordinance does not provide for reconsideration
and that in his opinion the petitioner should seek a variance
as opposed to revisiting the interpretation of lot lines. In
the absence of a material change of circumstances, the Board
should not provide a new interpretation. Furthermore, if the
Board were to provide a different definition from the 1979
decision, it would render the subject property to be
non-conforming in many respects.
Mr. Keyhoe suggested to the Board that if the
interpretation was revisited it could set precedence for the
Township.
Mr. Kepes questioned if there had been any material changes
to the property since 1979.
Mr. Bublys replied that there had been no material changes
to the subject property.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to
the appeal at 4415 Oak Grove to deny the current appeal for
interpretation, given there has been no material changes to
the land.
Motion carried, 6 – 1.
YEAS: Taylor, Kepes, Seneker, Smith, Reisinger, Khederian
NAYS: Aldrich
(2) 175 Hillboro – C. Loeher
Ms. Erin Loeher, homeowner, was present seeking approval
for a 1-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard
setback for the construction of a single story porch addition
for Lot 335, Westchester Village No. 2, Section 34. Article
XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a
minimum of 40-feet in the front yard setback. (19-34-129-002)
Ms. Loeher addressed the Board with the request for a
1-foot encroachment for a single story porch addition.
Mr. Taylor made mention that he was the listing agent of
this property.
Ms. Loeher indicated that subdivision association approval
was granted.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to
the appeal at 175 Hillboro Drive for the 1-foot setback
encroachment 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.
(3) 1565 Squirrel Road – J. Greenwalt
Mr. James Greenwalt, homeowner, was present seeking
approval for an existing accessory structure, a 7’ x 7’ x 7.8’
high storage shed, located in a rear yard 16-feet from the
rear lot line and 44.3-feet from the northerly side lot line
for Lot 62, Chapel Hill Estates No. 1, Section 1. Article XV,
Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states
that all accessory structures shall require the review and
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-01-126-011)
Mr. Greenwalt addressed the Board for an approval for an
existing shed that is located in the rear yard of the
property.
Ms. Reisinger questioned the purpose of the shed.
Mr. Greewalt replied that the shed would be utilized to
store lawn equipment.
Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to
the appeal at 1565 Squirrel Road for the existing 7’ x 7’ x
7.8’ high storage shed, be approved as submitted based on the
information presented, the applicant did demonstrate
compliance with Section 1804 Standards.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(4) 6855 Colby Lane – P. Verbeek
Mr. Richard Haas, of Stewart Haas & Associates, Landscape
Architect, was present seeking approval for the placement and
screening of accessory structures, three existing
air-conditioning units located in the northwesterly side yard
and the installation of a standby generator located in a rear
yard, all of which are located more than 3-feet from the
residential building, more than 16-feet from the westerly side
lot line, and partially screened through the use of evergreen
plantings and boulder retaining walls for Lot 4,
Supervisor’s Plat No. 6, Section 32. Article XV, Section
1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted
electrical and mechanical equipment may be permitted in any
side or rear yard when placed immediately adjacent to the
residential building and shall be screened from view by a
screen wall consisting of materials identical to those used on
the main building, or through the use of evergreen plant
material at least the height of the equipment ("screen wall")
and located at the point of placement of the equipment.
(19-32-176-019)
Mr. Haas addressed the Board for the placement of three
existing air-conditioning units and a standby generator
located in a side yard partially screened with evergreens and
a boulder retaining walls. Mr. Haas indicated that subdivision
association approval has been granted. Mr. Haas presented to
the Board a site plan indicating the location of the accessory
structures and spoke of the proposed landscaping for the
boulder wall with ivy as well as evergreen plantings and
shrubs to help obscure the air-conditioning units from the
west and from the north.
Mr. Ross Merchant, resident at 6870 Colby Lane, was present
and spoke in support of the variance request.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to
the appeal at 6855 Colby Lane for the location variance of
three existing air-conditioning units and a
standby generator located in the northwesterly side yard 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.
(5) 6805 Colby Lane – K. Rinke
Mr. Kevin Rinke, homeowner, was present seeking approval
for the construction of an accessory structure, a 34 ’ x 39’ x
22.2’ high two story detached garage, located in the
northeasterly side and rear yards of the proposed home more
than 16-feet from side and rear property lines for Lot 6,
Supervisor’s Plat No. 6, Section 32. 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 one (1) story or 14-feet in height and shall
require the review and approval from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. (19-32-176-012)
Mr. Rinke addressed the Board with pictures of the proposed
construction of a two story detached garage that would be
located in the northeasterly side and rear yards of the
existing home. Mr. Rinke provided the subdivision association
comments to the Board.
Mr. Robert Clark, Architect, was present and addressed the
Board with the construction details. Mr. Clark indicated that
the existing overhead connection would be removed to allow for
a two story detached garage. Mr. Clark indicated that the
proposed detached garage would be nestled into a tree-lined
area.
Mr. Omer DeClercq, resident at 6848 Spruce, was present and
spoke in concern of the 16-foot rear yard lot line.
Mr. Rinke replied that there is approximately 190-feet from
the proposed detached structure to the rear lot line.
Ms. Kelly Luttinen, resident at 6826 Spruce, was present
and spoke in regards to the trees. Ms. Luttinen indicated she
would like to see all of the trees remain.
Mr. Ross Merchant, resident at 6870 Colby Lane, was present
and spoke in support of the variance request.
Mr. Bob Yazejian, resident at 6804 Spruce, was present and
spoke in regards to saving the trees.
Ms. Reisinger made mention of the previous Zoning Board of
Appeals motion on July 12th, 2005 in regards to the
interpretation of Article XV, Section 1503 of the Zoning
Ordinance No. 265. as it relates to the attachment to an
accessory structure.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard
to the appeal at 6805 Colby Lane for the two story high
detached garage, be approved as submitted, and the variance
for the height of 22.2’ be granted, based on the information
presented, that applicant did demonstrate compliance with
Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the
standards for practical difficulty.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(6) 4725 Tully – H. Parr
Mr. Harry Parr, homeowner, was present seeking approval for
existing accessory structures, retaining walls with an overall
height of 7-feet, located in front, side and rear yards more
than 40-feet from the front lot line, more than 16-feet from
the northerly side lot line and 14.8-feet from the rear lot
line for Lot 45, Bloomfield Heights No. 1, Section 20. 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.
(19-20-176-002)
Mr. Parr addressed the Board with the request for the
existing 7-foot retaining walls located in the side and rear
yards. Mr. Parr presented the Board with a landscape plan that
has been approved by the subdivision association.
Mr. Bryan Schefman, resident at 4765 Tully Road, was
present and spoke in support of the variance request.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to
the appeal at 4725 Tully Road for the retaining walls be
approved as submitted, and the variance for the height of
+7-feet 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.
(7) 4855 Tully Road – F. Najor
Mr. Frederick Najor, homeowner, was present seeking
approval for the construction of accessory structures, two
2.5’ x 2.5’ x 4’ high lighted masonry piers to be installed on
private property at each of the two driveway entrances, one
1.2-feet from the front lot line at the northerly entrance and
one 14-feet from the front lot line at the southerly entrance.
Also seeking approval for an existing air-conditioning unit
screened with plantings, located in a front yard 48-feet from
the front lot line, Lone Pine Road frontage, for Lot 42,
Bloomfield Heights No. 1, Section 20. 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 require the review and
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals and that ground
mounted electrical and mechanical equipment may be permitted
in any side or rear yard. (19-20-176-006)
Mr. Najor addressed the Board with two-lighted masonry
piers placed at each of the driveway entrances that would be
installed on private property and an existing front yard air
conditioning unit that would be screened with plantings.
Mr. Bryan Schefman, resident at 4765 Tully, was present and
spoke in support of the variance requests.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regards to
the appeal at 4855 Tully Road for the two lighted masonry
piers, be approved as submitted, and the variance for the
location of the masonry piers in the front yard and the
installation of the existing air-conditioning unit 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. The petitioner is to submit a Hold
Harmless Affidavit to the Township.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(8) 5564 Village Lane – J. MacInnes
Mr. John MacInnes, homeowner, was present seeking approval
to encroach 5.5-feet into the required 35-foot rear yard
setback for the construction of a single-story sun-room
addition for Lot 4, Harry Carlson’s Evelyn Place Subdivision,
Section 30. Article XIV,
Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum
of 35-feet in the rear yard setback. (19-30-226-020)
Mr. MacInnes addressed the Board with the request to
encroach 5.5-feet into the rear yard setback for a 25 x 15’
sunroom addition. Mr. MacInnes indicated the materials of the
proposed addition would match the existing home. Mr. MacInnes
also mentioned that evergreen screening would be planted.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to
the appeal at 5564 Village Lane for the 5.5-foot encroachment
into the rear 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.
(9) 3580 Roland Drive – T. Cogan
Ms. Teisha Tann Cogan, homeowner, was present seeking
approval to encroach 2-feet into the required 16-foot easterly
side yard setback and 1.2-feet into the required 16-foot
westerly side yard setback for the construction of a two-story
addition to the home. Also seeking approval to modify the
roofline of the existing non-conforming building, set back
32.3-feet from the front property line for Lot 939, Judson
Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 4, Section 27. Article XIV,
Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of
16-feet in the side yard setbacks and 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. (19-27-302-013)
Ms. Tan Cogan addressed the Board with the request to
encroach 2-feet into the easterly side yard setback and
1.2-feet into the westerly side yard setback for the
construction of a two-story addition to the existing home.
Mr. Joe Mosey, Architect, was present and spoke in detail
of the structure. Mr. Mosey indicated that the home is
currently non-conforming. Mr. Mosey indicated that subdivision
association approval was granted.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to
the appeal at 3580 Roland Drive for the dimensional variance
to encroach into the side yard setback and to modify the
existing non-conforming home, 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.
(10) 2728 Turtle Ridge Dr. – Belle Maison Development
Mr. Jeff Dotson of John Richards Homes, was present seeking
approval for the construction of accessory structures, masonry
retaining walls and a decorative pediment wall with an overall
height of 4-feet to allow for a motor courtyard, located in a
front yard and within the road right of way. Also seeking
approval for two screen walls, one located in the easterly
side yard more than 16-feet from the side lot line with an
overall height of 7-feet and one located in the westerly side
yard more than 16-feet from the side lot line with an overall
height of 5-feet for Unit 11, Turtle Lake, Section 7. 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. (19-07-201-006)
Mr. Dotson addressed the Board with the request for masonry
retaining walls and a 4-foot high decorative pediment wall to
allow for a motor court yard, located in the front yard and
within the road right-of-way. Mr. Dotson presented the Board
with subdivision association approval.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director asked
the petitioner to clarify the location of the piers if they
would be on private property or would they be in the road
right-of-way.
Mr. Dotson replied that the piers would be placed in the
road right-of-way and the pediment wall would be placed on the
lot line.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard
to the appeal at 2728 Turtle Lake Drive for the retaining
walls and 4-foot pediment wall, 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 Affidavit to the Township and a
landscape plan to be submitted to the Planning Department for
approval.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(11) 2487 Parcells Circle – J. Milberg
Mr. Jonathan Milberg, homeowner, was present seeking
approval to encroach 3.3-feet into the required 16-foot side
yard setback for the construction of a single-story garage
addition for Part of Lot 45 and all of Lot 46, Colonial Hills
Subdivision, Section 4. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 16-feet in the side
yard setback. (19-04-477-018)
Mr. Milberg addressed the Board with a 3.3-foot
encroachment into the side yard setback for the construction
of a single-story garage addition. Mr. Milberg indicated that
the
proposed garage if approved would allow for removal of two
existing shed located in the side yard of the property. Mr.
Milberg presented the Board with subdivision association
approval and several letters from the neighbors.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to
the appeal at 2487 Parcells Circle for the variance for a
3.3-foot encroachment into the side yard setback, 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.
(12) 537 Pineway Circle – D. Chandler
Mr. Jeff Chilkowski, contractor, was present seeking
approval for the installation of an accessory structure, a
stand-by generator, located immediately adjacent to the
residential
building in the easterly side yard for Unit 5, Whispering
Pines, Section 16. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical or
electrical equipment shall be permitted in any rear yard
within a One-Family Cluster and Multiple-Family residential
District. (19-16-426-038)
Mr. Chilkowski addressed the Board with the request for the
installation of a stand-by generator that would be located in
the easterly side yard immediately adjacent to the residential
building, screened by existing evergreens. Mr. Chilkowski
indicated that given the generator weighs 1400 pounds, they
are not be able to get the generator to the rear yard, leaving
the proposed side yard the best location for the generator.
Mr. Chilkowski presented the Board with subdivision
association approval along with the adjacent neighbors
approval.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to
the appeal at 537 Pineway Circle for the variance for a side
yard generator, 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.
(13) Outlot A – Forman’s Wing Lake Property Association
Mr. Rob Lavoie, resident at 5510 Forman, and member of the
beach committee, was present seeking approval for the
construction of accessory structures, two 30’ x 5’ x 6’ high
boat storage racks, located in the southeasterly corner of
Outlot A, Forman’s Wing Lake Property Association, Section 29.
Article II, Section 201 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 defines
accessory use/structure as a use, which is clearly incidental
to, customarily found in connection with, and located on the
same zoning lot as, the principal use to
which it is related. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 265 states that 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. (19-29-151-008)
Mr. Lavoie addressed the Board as a member representing the
Forman’s Wing Lake Property Association. Mr. Lavoie indicated
that the beach property on the sand portion currently is a
catch all for boats. Mr. Lavoie presented a plan indicating
two 30’ x 5’ x 6’ high boat storage racks, to be located in
the southeasterly corner. Mr. Lavoie commented that the
proposed racks would help tidy the beach area and with the
racks storing the boats, it would allow for more beach use.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard
to the appeal at Forman’s Wing Lake Property Association,
Outlot A, for the two 30 ‘ x 5’ x 6’ high boat storage racks,
be approved as submitted, and the variance for the boat
storage racks on a parcel with no principal use 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.
(14) 2171 Kemp Road – J. Brown/J. Towar
Ms. Jeanne Towar, homeowner, was present seeking approval
for the installation of a 4-foot high black wrought iron fence
with two gates enclosing an area at the rear of the home, to
be used as a dog run, located more than 25-feet from the rear
lot line, more than 16-feet from the northerly side lot line,
and 16-feet from the southerly side lot line for Lot 245,
Hammond Lake Estates No. 8, Section 6. Section 6 of General
Ordinance No. 423 states that all outdoor enclosures and
fenced dog run areas, are subject to the review and approval
by the Board of Appeals. (19-06-156-024)
Ms. Towar addressed the Board with the request for the
installation of a 4-foot high black wrought iron fence with
two gates that would enclose an area at the rear of the home.
Ms. Towar identified an area of the proposed fence to be
utilized as a dog run.
Mr. Christian McTurk, resident at 2021 E. Hammond Lake
Drive, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance
request.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard
to the appeal at 2171 Kemp Road for the installation of a dog
run, be approved as submitted based on the information
presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with
Section 1804 Standards.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
IV. GENERAL BUSINESS
- Next Board Meeting – November 8th, 2005
V. ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia McCullough, Director
Planning and Building Department
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
|
