Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, March 14th, 2006
Bloomfield Township Hall

I. ATTENDANCE:

PRESENT: Board Members Dan Devine, Lisa Seneker, James Aldrich, Robert Taylor, Larry Smith, Brian Henry, and Corinne Khederian

ABSENT: Brian Kepes, Jane Reisinger

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Chairman Khederian made mention of Zoning Board Minutes of February 14th, 2006, with the following corrections. Item 9, 4896 Loch Lomond, that the motion needs clarification with specifics as to the denial of the request.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 4896 Loch Lomond for the existing accessory use/structure, a 30’ x 54’ ice rink with 2-foot high back boards, that the request be denied as submitted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards with the amendment to the motion to include this accessory structure was visible, due to the lack of screening.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

Chairman Khederian made mention of item (2T), 3883 Mystic Valley Road, page 5, 3rd paragraph from the bottom that she asked the questioned and not Jane Reisinger as indicated.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Henry to approve the Minutes of February 14th, 2006, with corrections as indicated.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

III. APPEALS:

TABLED ITEMS

(1T) 1718 Hamilton – R. Obrecht

Mr. Robert Obrecht, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction of an accessory structure, an 8’ x 10.8’ x 8’ high shed, located in a rear yard beneath the existing deck 16.2-feet from the easterly side lot line for Lots 17, 18 and 19, Square Lake Country Club, Section 6. 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. (19-06-401-015)

Mr. Obrecht addressed the Board with a request for an 8’ x 10.8’ x 8’ high shed to be located in the rear yard beneath an existing deck.

Ms. Terri Selik, resident at 1724 Hamilton, was present and questioned whether there would be screening for the existing pump house.

Mr. Obrecht replied that evergreen screening would be installed to help screen the pump from view.

Ms. Seneker questioned the pump house being uniform within the neighborhood.

Ms. Selik replied that the pump house is larger in size due to it being older. Ms. Selik made comment that she would agree that screening the pump house is sufficient.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 1718 Hamilton for the accessory structure, an 8’ x 10.8’ x 8’ high shed, that the variance be approved as submitted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

NEW ITEMS

(1) 567 Cranbrook Cross Road South – S. Voelker/S. Wisniewski

Ms. Sandy Wisniewski, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the existing 6-foot high white vinyl fence, located in a rear yard extending from the main building to the detached garage for Lot 1194, 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. (19-34-232-013)

Ms. Wisniewski presented subdivision association approval to the Board. Ms. Wisniewski indicated that the purpose of the fence is for privacy.

Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Seneker for the appeal at 567 Cranbrook Cross for the existing 6-foot high white vinyl fence, 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.

(2) 4078-4090 Maple Road West – Maple Telegraph Venture

Mr. Ray Bayling of King Venture, was present seeking approval for the installation of two sections of 4-foot high black wrought iron fencing, located in a front yard extending from the southeast corner of the building toward W. Maple Road for Acreage Parcel AC270F-3, Section 28. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 25-feet in the front yard setback. (19-28-352-004)

Mr. Bayling indicated that the fence would match the existing fence with landscaping to be installed.

Motion by Mr. Henry, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 4078-4090 Maple Road West for the installation of 4-foot high fencing within a front yard setback, 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.

(3) 752 Ardmoor Drive – D. Kiehle

Mr. Rick Leinbach, Designer, was present seeking approval for a 1-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the construction of a single story front porch addition to the existing nonconforming building, located 15-feet from the southerly side lot line. Also seeking approval for an 11.9-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the construction of a second story addition to the existing nonconforming building, located 4.1-feet from the southerly side lot line of Lot 1314, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 8, Section 27. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 16-feet in the side yard setback. (19-27-327-004)

Mr. Leinbach indicated that the existing house is currently nonconforming. Mr. Leinbach presented subdivision association approval to the Board.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 752 Ardmoor Drive for a 1-foot and an 11.9-foot encroachment into the side yard setback for two additions, 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.

(4) 1856 Long Lake Shores Drive – S. Wilson/J. Hartman

Mr. K. Alexander, of Alexander & Associates, P.C., was present seeking approval to revise the existing 6-foot high wrought iron fence to be used as a dog run area, located in a rear yard more than 50-feet from the waters edge and less than 16-feet from the side lot lines for Lot 27, Long Lake Shores, Section 7. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a residential district shall not exceed 4-feet in height. 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 Zoning Board of Appeals and that dogs shall not be confined or restrained in any manner except within the rear yard in an area setback at least 25-feet from the rear lot line and 16-feet from the side lot lines. (19-07-326-005)

Mr. Alexander stated that this request is the result of an agreement as part of the lawsuit filed by Bloomfield Township against Mr. Hartman under the Environmental Protection Act. Mr. Alexander stated that although the dogs would be allowed in the area, the primary purpose for the fence is to prevent minor children from straying into the lake. Mr. Alexander stated that there is an ongoing dispute regarding the dogs between Mr. Hartman and his neighbors.

The Board questioned whether or not the purpose of the fence was indeed to prevent unsupervised children access to the lake and how often the dogs were permitted use of the area.

Mr. Alexander commented that the fence would be used as a safety barrier due to the difficulty of supervising children and that the dogs were let out daily.

Mr. Kenneth Wilkerson, resident of 3650 Bayou, Chairman of the Architectural Control Committee for the Long Lake Shores Association, was present and spoke in objection of this request.

Mr. Mark Weingarten, resident of 1870 Long Lake Shores, was present and spoke in objection of this request.

Mr. Asadollah Shahideh, resident of 1864 Long Lake Shores, was present and spoke in objection of this request.

Mr. Richard Leebove, resident of 1848 Long Lake Shores, was present and spoke in objection of this request.

Mr. Doug Turner, resident of 1920 Bayou Drive, was present and spoke in objection of this request.

Mr. Alexander commented that arborvitaes could be planted in an effort to soften the view and reduce noise, and that a higher fence was an advantage if the nature of the dogs were in question. He also stated that the denial of the fence is against Mr. Hartman’s property rights.

Mr. Smith questioned the legal status of the lawsuit.

Mr. Alexander replied that litigation is pending on this property.

Mr. Taylor questioned if a 4-foot high fence had been considered, stating that a 4-foot high fence would be a sufficient safety barrier.

Mr. Alexander replied that the top 2-foot section of the fence is removable.

Mr. Smith questioned the type of bread of each dog.

Mr. Alexander replied, Akita and Shepherd mix.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich regarding the appeal at 1856 Long Lake Shores Drive for the accessory use, to revise an existing 6-foot high wrought iron fence to be used as a dog run area, that the request be denied as submitted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards and there was no showing that compliance with the Ordinance would be unduly burdensome. Mr. Devine asked that the court take judicial notice of the fact that children are in fact capable of being supervised. It is incumbent upon the parents to do so, or the property owner who has invited the children onto the property. Also dogs are to be controlled and managed under Township Ordinances that include containment and barking Ordinances. Given the adjoining neighbors have complained, there is an injustice to the adjoining neighbors. There are no unique circumstances with the property. This is self-created, given that the fence was installed without seeking proper approvals from the subdivision association and Zoning Board of Appeals, and without obtaining the appropriate permits from the Building Department. Mr. Devine suggested that a dog run could be utilized placed closer to the home and that the existing 6-foot high wrought iron fence is not required to protect children from the lake.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(5) 861 Hickory Heights Drive – K. Kaufman

Keith Kaufman, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the installation of 4-foot high black vinyl coated chain link fencing with two gates to be used as a dog run area and a pool barrier, located on the westerly side lot line, 3-feet from the rear lot line and 12-feet from the front lot line, Northdale Road frontage, for Lot 81, Hickory Heights, Section 13. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states 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. Section 6 of General Ordinance No. 423 states that all outdoor enclosures and fenced dog run areas, are subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals and that dogs shall not be confined or restrained in any manner except within the rear yard in an area set back at least 25-feet from the rear lot line and 16-feet from the side lot lines. (19-13-426-006)

Mr. Kaufman stated that the proposed fence would replace a 4-foot high wooden fence, which is dilapidated and introduced his fence contractor, Mr. Scott Parks, to provide detail regarding the difficulties when installing the fence within the required setbacks.

Mr. Parks indicated that the fence would meet the current building code as it relates to a pool barrier, but addressed issues relating to the required setbacks for the installation of a dog run area. Mr. Parks submitted association approval to the Board for the variance requests.

Chairman, Khederian, questioned the location of the dog run area.

Mr. Parks referred to the site plan.

Mr. Taylor, made mention that he has difficulty with the request as it relates to the placement of the proposed dog run area, commenting that future concerns may arise.

Mr. Parks indicated that he would relocate the fence to the required 16-foot side yard setback.

Ms. McCullough responded to Mr. Devine’s question of possibly approving this request as submitted for the purpose of fencing the existing in-ground pool, but deny the use as a dog run by suggesting the request to be Tabled, which would allow the petitioner to return with a revised site plan showing the setbacks for the dog run area to be closer in keeping with the ordinance.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 861 Hickory Heights Drive for the installation of a dog run, that the request be approved, contingent upon revising placement to a 16-foot side yard setback between the adjoining neighbor, 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 as the unique circumstances for this property is the existing in-ground pool. The fence supports must face the petitioner’s property.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(6) 1201 Water Cliff Drive – A. Zekelman

Scott Gittleman, of Gittleman Construction, was present seeking approval for a 5-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the replacement of three air-conditioning units, located 11-feet from the easterly side lot line. Also seeking approval for a 1.5-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the installation of an air-conditioning unit, located 14.5-feet from the westerly side lot line of Lot 6, Echo Park, Section 17. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical or electrical equipment shall not be located in the required 16-foot side yard setback. (19-17-477-019)

Mr. Gittleman, provided detail of existing and proposed landscaping.

Ms. Seneker questioned whether or not the proposed screening would address any noise issue that may arise as a letter had been received from the homeowner of Lot 5, Echo Park, which raises concerns relating to the noise level of the proposed units.

Mr. Gittleman replied that the units were efficient and was confident that the noise would not be an issue for the adjacent neighbor.

Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 1201 Water Cliff Drive for the easterly and westerly side yard setbacks, 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.

(7) 5330 Inkster – M. Sheyngauz

Mikhail Sheyngauz, homeowner, was present seeking approval for existing accessory structures, brick retaining walls with an overall height of 6.5-feet, located 18-feet from the rear lot line, Part of Lot 6 and all of Lots 7 and 8, Herndon’s Walnut Lake Estates, Section 19. 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. (19-19-351-009)

Ms. Seneker questioned whether or not landscaping would be provided in an effort to soften the view of the existing retaining walls.

Mr. Sheyngauz indicated that landscaping, such as flowerbeds and greenery, would be planted and provided subdivision association approval to the Board.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to the appeal at 5330 Inkster Road for the existing brick retaining walls, that the request be approved as submitted based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(8) 865 Long Lake Road West – Bloomfield Village Square

Mr. Darrin Frankel, shopping center owner, and Luan Pham, operating tenant, were present seeking approval for a variance of 11 parking spaces for the inclusion of a nail salon at Bloomfield Village Square at the southeast corner of West Long Lake and Telegraph, Acreage Parcel AC145F, Section 16. Article XV, Section 1504 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 establishes that 17 spaces are required for this type of use, with only 6 spaces approved for this retail tenant space. (19-16-326-002; 004; 005)

Chairman, Khederian, requested specific detail as to the number of employees and stations proposed. Mr. Frankel indicated that the salon would include the following:

Mr. Devine questioned the maximum number of clients that the nail salon could service at any given time.

Mr. Pham replied that there would be a maximum of 6 employees and 6 clients.

Mr. Aldrich questioned how the peak hours of operation differ from other tenants within the center.

Mr. Pham responded stating that he anticipated 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. to be the peak hours for the salon, with a closing time of 7:30 p.m.

Ms. Seneker made mention of a letter submitted by Fire Marshall, Mike McCully, which noted concerns regarding the already congested parking for this area and that the ability to provide emergency services would be reduced by granting this request. Ms. Seneker asked for other alternatives that may be in favor of this business without raising safety concerns.

Chairman, Khederian, requested comments from Ms. McCullough, Director of the Planning and Building Department.

Ms. McCullough suggested the possibility of reducing the number of stations, as the parking ordinance is a formula based requirement, which when calculated shows a deficiency of 11 spaces.

The Board discussed the current parking issues for the center and questioned the location of designated employee parking.

Mr. Frankel stated that employees were to park in the outer most parking areas, which are towards the retaining wall to the west, and also commented that retail of this caliber is warranted within the community and is required in order to maintain the integrity of the center.

Mr. Devine stated that he considered this type of use a viable business and that we must try to accommodate incoming business during the difficulty of our economic times.

The Board questioned whether or not the landlord was willing to take measures to ensure that employees parked in designated areas, they also asked for the status on the current leases of other tenants and if they felt it would be economically feasible to consider fewer stations.

Mr. Frankel replied that employee parking would be difficult to police, but he would inform the tenants that they must park in designated areas, he felt the nature of the business would not require full stations and that the bulk of business would be from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., which is when the surrounding tenants would be closed for business. Mr. Frankel stated that the center had just been newly remodeled and that most tenants had a number of years to go on their leases.

Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 865 Long Lake Road West for 11 parking spaces, 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. The landlord is to address designated parking for tenants.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(9) 3544 Franklin Road – W. Powers

Bill Powers, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 6.5-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the installation of two air-conditioning units screened with evergreen plantings, located 9.5-feet from the southerly side lot line for Part of Lot 1, Forest Park Estates, Section 17. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical or electrical equipment shall not be located in the required 16-foot side yard setback. (19-17-276-002)

Mr. Powers commented that the proposed location was the most logical placement for the mechanicals as the mechanical room is in the basement below and that all other elevations were not conducive.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Smith in regard to the appeal at 3544 Franklin Road for the 6.5-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.

(10) 2146 Lost Tree Way – B. Still

Carolyn Still, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 3.5-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction of a single story porch addition, located 36.5-feet from the front lot line, Lot 62, Adams Square, Section 1. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40-feet in the front yard setback. (19-01-304-013)

Mr. Devine stated that he was the prior owner of this property, but has no financial interest in the outcome of this motion or the property.

The Board noted that there were four letters of approval and one letter of objection for this request, which were received from surrounding neighbors.

Motion by Mr. Henry, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regards to the appeal at 2146 Lost Tree Way for a 3.5-foot encroachment into the front 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.

(11) 6510 Telegraph Road – Bloomfield Plaza/Schostak Brothers

Richard Rassel, representative for the Bloomfield Plaza Shopping Center, Mark London, Vice-President of Schostak Brothers, and John Shear were present seeking approval for a variance of 256 parking spaces for the inclusion of Crust Pizza in an existing tenant space within the Bloomfield Plaza Shopping Center at the southwest corner of West Maple and Telegraph, Acreage Parcel, Section 32. Article XV, Section 1504 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 establishes that 329 spaces are required for this type of restaurant use, with only 73 spaces approved for this retail tenant space. (19-32-277-041)

Mr. Rassel commented that this tenant is currently in the process of seeking a Class C Liquor License and that there was limited competition for this tenant space during the economic climate, he further stated that the variance would not negatively impact other businesses as this center has a large parking field in front and on the west elevation.

Taylor questioned the conformancy of the shopping center as it relates to parking.

Ms. McCullough replied that the center is currently nonconforming based on the uses provided, also that the formula is three to four times greater when changing from retail to a restaurant use, thereby necessitating a parking variance.

Mr. Taylor mentioned a letter provided by the Fire Department, which raises concerns relating to parking congestion and the need for additional parking. Mr. Taylor questioned Ms. McCullough whether or not her department was aware of any complaints relating to improper parking, which would aggravate the congestion problem.

Ms. McCullough replied that she did not recall problems of improper parking and that the Fire Marshall may have been addressing tenants that are on the southern half of the center, which have a higher concentration of activity as opposed to the larger tenants to the north, noting that the issue may be a higher level of use leading to parking congestion.

Henry questioned the number of tables that would be used as well as the hours of operation.

Mr. Rassell referred to the floor plan, stating that it was only preliminary and that the final drawing would reflect a capacity of 70 people with hours of operation from 11:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Thursday, possibly closing at 12:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday, and 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. Mr. Rassel stated that they anticipate peak hours of business to be approximately 6:00 p.m to 10:00 p.m.

Devine mentioned a letter of objection submitted by Steve’s Deli, who is a long standing tenant within the Bloomfield Plaza Shopping Center.

Henry questioned the number of employees anticipated to manage Crust Pizza.

Mr. Rassel stated approximately twenty-two throughout the day, including management, with a maximum of 11 eleven employees on site at one time.

Devine questioned if there had been any recent discussion as to employee parking of other tenants within the center.

Mr. Rassel stated that although no formal policy was in place, it was only during seasonal holidays that required employees to park on the outer edges of the shopping center.

Mr. Devine noted that the strong comments made within the contents of the letter submitted by Steve’s Deli, suggested that the issue of parking might need to be revisited.

Mr. Rassel replied that they were unaware of any objection from this tenant and commented that the hours of operation between the two businesses will negate any problem that may arise. Mr. Rassel stated that this topic had already been thoroughly researched by the members of Schostak Brothers, but committed to work with the tenants to come up with a workable solution.

Mr. London stated that he was unaware of any parking issues that Steve’s Deli may have, but felt their concerns may relate to a desire for additional seating rather than parking. Mr. London stated that in previous conversations with this tenant, parking issues were not raised and felt it was important to move forward at this time.

Avis Najor, homeowner at 6743 White Pine Court, resident spoke in support of the parking variance.

The Board discussed the possibilities of tabling this item.

Mr. Devine left the auditorium.

Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 6510 Telegraph Road for 256 parking spaces, 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, 6 – 0 – 1.

YEAS: Aldrich, Taylor, Henry, Khederian, Smith, Seneker
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Devine

(12) 1090 Hickory Grove Road West – L. Tosto

Lenny Tosto, homeowner, and Anthony Digilio, General Contractor, were present seeking approval for the construction of an accessory use/structure, a 35’ x 65’ sports court screened with plantings, located 11.9-feet from the rear lot and 10.7-feet from the easterly side lot line. Also seeking approval for the construction of limestone retaining walls with an overall height of 8.5-feet, located in front, side, and rear yards less than 16-feet from the side and rear lot lines. Also seeking approval for the installation of black vinyl fencing with an overall height of 10-feet for the purpose of enclosing the proposed sports court for Lot 43, Hickory Knoll’s Subdivision, Section 9. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory use/structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not 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 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. (19-09-152-005)

Mr. Taylor questioned items 4 and 5 in the letter of explanation provided, which relate to lighting and time of use, also the need for a 10-foot high fence around the entire perimeter of the sports court.

Mr. Tosto replied that the height of the fence was to prevent a possible hockey puck from hitting the glass door walls, which are located near the southerly end of the sports court. Mr. Tosto stated that he would be willing to lower the height of the fence on all other elevations.

Mr. Smith questioned provisions for drainage, noting that no landscaping was proposed.

Mr. Digilio referred to the site plan and replied that the final product will be landscaped and address drainage.

Mr. Devine questioned the location of the sports court in relation to the adjacent properties and indicated that additional screening should be added at the rear property line.

Mr. Digilio referred to the site plan and discussed the different possibilities of landscaping and relocating the sports court.

Kay Johnson, who currently resides at 6512 White Lake Road, Clarkston, Michigan, was present and stated that she and her husband own Lot 42, which is immediately adjacent to the proposed sports court. Ms. Johnson stated she was very concerned with the height of the proposal.

The Board discussed the possibilities of tabling this item as there were issues relating to the location, landscaping, and height of the fence around the proposed sports court.

Aldrich suggested an alternative to tabling this item might be to allow the petitioner time to discuss this request with Ms. Johnson and revisit this item at the end of the meeting.

Chairman, Khederian, stated that the Board would move on to item 13 to allow Mr. Digilio and Ms. Johnson time for discussion.

(13) 240 Harrow Circle – D. Eisenstein

Kate Eisenstein, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 2-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the installation of an air-conditioning unit, located 8-feet from the building and 14-feet from the westerly side lot line for Lot 25, Bloomfield Manor Subdivision, Section 25. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment may be permitted in any side yard when placed immediately adjacent to the residential building and that the equipment shall not be located in the required 16-feet side yard setback. (19-25-251-002)

Ms. Eisenstein indicated that the unit could not be placed immediately adjacent to the residential wall without removing the existing walkway and constructing a retaining wall and that all other locations were not conducive.

Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 240 Harrow Circle for a 2-foot encroachment in the side yard setback, 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, 6 – 1.

YEAS: Aldrich, Seneker, Devine, Khederian, Smith, Henry

NAYS: Taylor

(14) 6869 Franklin Road – St. Owens Church

Tom Nickel, maintenance man for St. Owens Church, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a recycling bin located in the parking lot at the rear of the St. Owens Church Property, Ac. Par. C-317C, Section 32, set back approximately 12 feet from the easterly rear property line. Also seeking approval for a proposed accessory structure, a 12 ft. by 16 ft. storage building, not to exceed 14 ft. in height, located at the rear of the existing rectory offices, approximately 80 ft. from the southerly side lot line. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory use / structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not be located closer than 16 feet to any side or rear lot line, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-32-151-005)

Mr. and Mrs. Bill Back of 6936 Holiday Drive were present and spoke in objection of the variance.

Mr. Walter Griffin of 6740 Vachon was present and spoke in objection of the variance.

Mr. Nick Minheart, Eagle Scout, whose project is the construction of the shed, stated that it would be stained and painted to blend with surrounding landscaping.

The Board discussed the possibilities of relocating the shed, landscaping, material and color.

Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 6869 Frankin Road for the existing recycling bin, be approved as amended, and the variance for the height of 16-feet be granted for the storage building, 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 storage building is to be stained a dark color and relocated on the lawn to the other side of the garage.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

(12) 1090 Hickory Grove Road West – L. Tosto (Revisited)

Mr. Digilio stated that he and Ms. Johnson were able to come to agreement that a hedge of spruce trees would be placed along Ms. Johnson’s property line, screening the property line with (10) 8-foot tall spruce trees, located at the northwesterly corner extending south, which is approximately 100 lineal feet. Mr. Digilio also agreed to install 10-foot high fencing at the north and south ends of the sports court with sides to wrap to a 6-foot high fence on the east and west ends.

Taylor discussed time of use and lighting issues.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 1090 Hickory Grove Road West for the sports court, be installed at walkout elevation be approved as submitted, and the variance for the 10-foot high fencing be granted at the north and south ends with sides to wrap to a 6-foot high fence on the east and west ends, 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 sports court use and time is as follows: April 1st – November 1st, 9 AM to 9 PM. November 1st – April 1, 9AM to 6 PM. The limestone retaining walls approved as submitted, the adjacent vacant lot is to be screened with (10) 8-foot tall spruce trees along the northwest corner, south to rear. Additional screening is also to be installed at the rear lot line.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

IV. GENERAL BUSINESS

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

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