Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

Ms. Michelle Leader, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a split face concrete block retaining wall ranging from 1 ft. to 5 ft. in height, located in the side and rear yards approximately 1-foot from the north and west property lines. Also seeking approval for the installation of an air-conditioning

unit screened with plantings, located in a front yard, Worlington Road frontage, immediately adjacent to the residential building on Lots 40 and 41, Wing Lake Shores, Section 29. 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 ft. to any side or rear lot line, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals and that ground mounted mechanical or electrical equipment shall be permitted in any side or rear yard. (19-29-401-017)

Ms. Leader stated that a surveyor had staked the property since January’s meeting, indicating the retaining wall to be further within the property rather than the 1-foot from the property line as requested.

Ms. McCullough, Planning and Building Director, noted letters received from two adjacent neighbors, one from Mr. Michael Brochert, resident at 6186 Worlington, who were in opposition and Mr. Marcos Makohon, resident at 6487 Sunningdale Drive, expressed his concerns regarding the landscape plan.

Mr. Taylor questioned the height of the retaining wall with the finished grade.

Ms. Leader stated that the grade would lessen the overall height approximately 1-foot.

Chairman Reisinger questioned if the final grade would change the overall height of the wall.

Ms. Leader stated that the final project would reflect a change in the overall height of the wall, both front and backsides. Ms. Leader also stated that the screening has been agreed upon with the adjacent neighbor’s, the Tuchow’s.

Chairman Reisinger questioned whether comments had been received from the association.

Ms. Leader stated although several attempts had been made, nothing had been received.

Chairman Reisinger questioned the number of days it took to construct the wall.

Ms. Leader stated that the wall was constructed within one week and that since the construction of the home the wall is not visible from the street.

Mr. Michael McGovern, homeowner at 6245 Worlington, was present to represent the association with a letter of which contents identifies the current variance. Mr. McGovern stated that the retaining wall and placement of the a/c had been discussed with several neighbors who find it acceptable subject to landscape issues, which are adequate trees and tree height. The letter was submitted for record.

Mr. Gerald Tuchow, homeowner at 6115 Wing Lake, was present to state that a letter had been submitted, which indicates the agreement regarding the placement of the a/c and landscaping the retaining wall.

Mr. Michael Carmichael, homeowner at 6080 Worlington, was present to state is opposition of this request.

Chairman Reisinger stated that the air conditioning unit would require evergreen screening.

Mr. Kepes stated that the landscape plan submitted lacks detail, such as, the height, caliber and species.

Ms. Leader stated that she had no objection to comply with the wishes of her neighbors as it relates to this request.

Chairman Reisinger questioned Ms. McCullough whether the department reviewed the landscape plans prior to the meeting to determine whether or not they were sufficient.

Ms. McCullough stated that the intent of the conversation from the previous meeting was for a landscape plan indicating how the wall would be screened from public view and that the response was to plant evergreens and ivy. Ms. McCullough also stated that the height, caliber and species of the plantings could be specified in tonight’s meeting.

Mr. Devine stated that Mr. Makohon’s letter indicates that the landscape plan submitted lacks technical merit, such as, height, caliber and species, and that the association is not satisfied with the detail provided. Mr. Devine also stated that this Board should not debate such issues, rather, the association should provide this information.

Chairman Reisinger questioned when the landscape plan was submitted to the association.

Ms. Leader replied over a month ago.

Mr. Devine stated this project began without the proper approval and that he felt more comfortable knowing that a landscape plan was submitted with the association’s approval. Mr. Devine moved to table this item until the next meeting to allow the petitioner to provide a detailed landscape plan, which has been reviewed by the association and indicates height, caliber and species of plantings.

Mr. Taylor stated that the continued delay of the matter only aggravates the public and precludes the homeowner from finishing the project. Mr. Taylor also stated that he would like to see the association and the homeowner come to a resolution tonight rather than delaying this item for an additional thirty days.

Mr. McGovern replied that, although he appreciated the Board’s concern to expedite this request, he was not a landscape architect and was uncomfortable identifying species and calibers of plantings. Mr. McGovern also stated that Mr. Makohon is a landscape architect, but unable to attend the meeting due to scheduling difficulties.

Mr. Taylor stated that he would like a detailed landscape plan completed one week prior to the next meeting, which should not impede the homeowner’s ability to install the landscaping in the correct fashion.

Chairman Reisinger requested that the association expedite this request as the Board has reviewed this item three times. Chairman Reisinger also stated that, although the minutes of January 10^th, 2006, do not reflect a detailed landscape plan to be submitted, the letter of objection from the association was submitted at 4:00 PM prior to this meeting.

Ms. Leader questioned if the Board was requesting a detailed landscape plan for the items before them or the entire site. Ms. Leader requested to address the retaining wall only.

Mr. Taylor stated that the request for the retaining wall required a detailed plan, which also addresses the overall height of the wall upon completion, also that the plan should indicate sufficient screening relative to the view of the air-conditioning unit.

Mr. Devine stated that a detailed landscape plan is required for the entire site that is not subject to change.

Mr. Michael Dul of Michael J. Dul and Associates, was present seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, stone retaining walls screened with plantings with an overall height of 20-feet, located in the front, side and rear yards of Unit 121, The Hills of Lone Pine, 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 exceed 14-feet in height, shall not be permitted closer than 16-feet

to any side or rear lot line and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-20-226-130)

Mr. Dul addressed the Board with a revised plan indicating the proposed terrace with the overall dimensions being reduced. Mr. Dul indicated that the neighbor’s concerns were addressed on Friday, February 17^th, 2006. Mr. Dull presented the Board with the approval from the subdivision association.

Chairman Reisinger stated that a hold harmless affidavit would be required.

Mr. Andy Race of Thomas Sebold and Associates, along with Landscape Architect, Patrick Funke, were present seeking approval for a 9-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the installation of a 3.5-foot high stone screen wall for the purpose of enclosing two air-conditioning units, located 7-feet from the southerly side lot line of Unit 31, Turtle Lake, Section 7 and 8. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical or electrical equipment and screen walls, other than vegetative screen walls, shall not be located in the required 16-foot side yard setback. (19-07-229-004; 19-08-102-008)

Mr. Race addressed the Board with the request for the installation of two air-conditioning units and a screen wall to be installed in a side yard. Mr. Race stated the difficulties in placing the air-conditioning units are related to the parcel having two front yards. Mr. Race also indicated that the material of the wall would match the home and the wall would be screened with arborvitaes.

Mr. Funke corrected Mr. Race and indicated that the wall would be screened with 30" upright yews, which would grow 4-5-feet tall.

Ms. Seneker made mention of the letter received in support of the variance request from Victor International.

Chairman Reisinger questioned Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, whether this location was technically a side yard.

Ms. McCullough replied that due to the orientation of the parcel, and given the parcel has two streets, it would be considered a side yard and screening would accommodate the concerns of placement and visibility.

Mr. Partick Funke of Michael J. Dul Landscape Architect, was present seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, stone retaining walls screened with plantings with an overall height of 10-feet, located in the front, side and rear yards less than 16-feet from the north and south lot lines of Unit 63, 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, 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. (19-07-129-010)

Mr. Dul addressed the Board with the request for stone retaining walls, to be screened with plantings. Mr. Dul indicated that the retaining walls were required to accommodate a side entry garage. Mr. Dul commented that the lakeside retaining wall would be screened with evergreen plantings, large canopy trees and flower plants. Mr. Dul indicated that the proposed side entry would allow for a maximum turning radius into the garage.

Mr. Andy Race of Thomas Sebold and Associates, was present and indicated that the grade was taken into consideration at the beginning of the project, as it relates to the adjacent homes, by lowering this home 1-foot it would not negatively impact the adjacent neighbors.

Chairman Reisinger made mention of the approval letter received from the subdivision association.

Ms. Leslie Engresoll of Kevin Hart and Associates, was present seeking approval to encroach 46.6’ into the lakeside setback with the required average setback of the neighboring properties at 92.6’ for the construction of a two-story addition, which would allow a 46-foot lakeside setback for the existing nonconforming home on Lot 88, Chestnut Run, Section 9. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires new construction to be set back from the waterfront the average of the setback of the principal buildings on the nearest improved waterfront lots within 500 feet of each side of the lot in question. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended. (19-09-202-021)

Ms. Engresoll addressed the Board with a request for a 46.6’ encroachment into the lakeside setback for the construction of a two-story addition.

Mr. Taylor questioned if the proposed footprint extended beyond the existing footprint of the deck.

Ms. Engresoll referred to the site plan and indicated that the footprint of the proposed deck would not be larger than the existing deck.

Mr. Bob Stern of Bob Stern Building Company, was present seeking approval for a 14.5-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction

of a two-story addition to include a garage and bedroom, located 25.5-feet from the front lot line, Chelsea Lane frontage, of Lot 44, Franklin Ravines, Section 31. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40-feet in the front yard setback. (19-31-403-005)

Mr. Stern addressed the Board for a 14.5-foot encroachment into the front yard setback for the construction of a two-story addition that would include a four-car side entry garage with a bedroom above. Mr. Stern indicated that the existing tree would be removed to accommodate the new addition. Mr. Stern stated that new landscaping would be incorporated within the proposed addition.

Mr. Art Ciagne, resident at 4662 Chelsea, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Mr. Fred Blechman, resident at 4633 Chelsea, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Chairman Reisinger noted her concerns regarding the necessity of removing the tree and the location of the proposed addition as it relates to the existing driveway.

Mr. Stern replied and assured the Board that although the driveway would be repositioned the final project would be beautifully landscaped.

Chairman Reisinger raised concerns of the proposed addition with the new location of the driveway, as it would relate to drainage issues as well as the proposed landscaping.

Ms. Seneker requested a landscaping plan with additional detail to be provided.

Mr. Kepes questioned the type of material for the proposed addition.

Mr. Stern replied that the addition would be built with materials identical to the existing house.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

Mr. Al Whitman, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a stand-by generator screened with plantings, located in a front yard immediately adjacent to the residential building, 40-feet from the front lot line, Winthrop Road frontage, on Lot 41, East Bloomfield Highlands Subdivision, Section 3. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical or electrical equipment shall be permitted in any side or rear yard. (19-03-153-009)

Mr. Whitman addressed the Board with the request for an existing stand-by generator that would be screened with plantings located in a front yard.

Chairman Reisinger questioned when the generator was installed.

Mr. Whitman replied that the generator was installed on December 16^th, 2005.

Ms. Seneker questioned the height of the stand-by generator.

Mr. Whitman replied that the generator is approximately 3-feet tall and it would be screened with evergreens.

Mr. George Wilson of G. Wilson Builders, was present seeking approval for the construction of an accessory structure, an 9.9’ x 9.9’ x 12.9’ high cabana screened with plantings, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from the side and rear lot lines in the southwest corner of Lot 8, Supervisor’s Plat No. 5, Section 25. 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. (19-25-126-018)

Mr. Wilson addressed the Board with the request for a cabana, screened with plantings to be placed in the rear yard.

Chairman Reisinger questioned would the proposed cabana relate to the current aesthetics of the existing home.

Mr. Wilson replied that the aesthetics of the proposed cabana would match the existing home as it relates to the color and material.

Mr. William Lucas, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the installation of an accessory structure, an 8’ x 8’ x 3.3’ high hot tub screened with plantings, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from the side and rear lot lines of Lot 10, Balmoral Orchards No. 1, 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. (19-30-203-003)

Mr. Lucas addressed the Board with the request for the installation of a hot tub located in the rear yard to be screened with plantings. Mr. Lucas submitted subdivision association approval to the Board.

Mr. Aldrich questioned if an electrical permit had been obtained for the hot tub.

Mr. Lucas replied that an electrical permit would be obtained once the variance was sought.

Ms. Seneker commented that the hot tub must be densely screened and questioned if there were concerns from the adjacent neighbors.

Mr. Lucas replied that the screening would consist of five 9-foot arborvitaes planted on the north side by doing so no concerns have been raised from the neighbors.

Seeking approval for a 7.5-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the installation of an air-conditioning unit, located 8.5-feet from the northerly side lot line of Lot 626, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 2, Section 27. 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. (Sean & Christina Metrose, 876 Glengarry Circle West, 19-27-251-006)

Mr. Larry Sherman of Sherman and Sherman, P.C., present seeking approval for an accessory use/structure, a 45’ x 8’ x 14’ high mobile medical unit to operate every other Tuesday and every other Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., located in a rear yard 16-feet from the northerly side lot line and more than 16-feet from the easterly rear lot line of Lots 5 and 6, East Bloomfield Highlands Subdivision, Section 4. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory use/structures require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-04-429-011)

Mr. Sherman addressed the Board with the request for a mobile medical unit. Mr. Sherman stated that the mobile unit provides tests, such as, cat scanning and cardiac imaging. Mr. Sherman indicated that the unit and power source had been moved to the location as requested by the Design Review Board. Mr. Sherman addressed the benefits of having this type of service available to the community, indicating that shorter waiting periods and cost savings were the greatest benefits to the patient.

Mr. Kepes questioned what the practical need was for this type of unit and stated that the equipment should be able to be moved inside the building.

Mr. Sherman replied that a certificate of need would be required to move equipment inside the building and that the State of Michigan mandates the distribution.

Mr. Kepes commented that efforts should be made to obtain the adequate real estate within a building rather than seeking a variance. Mr. Kepes made mention that this issue is a State medical licensing issue rather than a Township and/or variance issue.

Mr. Michael Keslock of National Diagnostic Services, was present and stated that they have an approval for the use of the mobile unit from the State at the proposed location.

The Board continued to discuss issues related to the issuance of a certificate of need.

Chairman Reisinger questioned if there were other issues raised at the Design Review Board regarding this request.

Mr. Devine replied that the Design Review Board had concerns with the placement of the mobile unit to the rear of the property, and commented that the Township would continue to provide all the beneficial services, but would not receive taxes if the mobile unit was not within Bloomfield Township on December 31^st, 2006.

Mr. Devine recommended to table the request to allow the petitioner due process to obtain another location.

Chairman Reisinger noted that there were letters submitted from patients that use the facility that spoke in support of the variance request.

Ms. Seneker commented that the letters submitted were not all from Bloomfield Township residents.

Mr. Sherman stated that the process related to the issuance of a certificate of need is controlled by the State of Michigan and is complicated.

Mr. Kepes questioned the length of time requested for the unit.

Mr. Sherman replied what would the Township allow and if a timeframe where enforced, he would return to the Board for an additional variance or an extension.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, stated that this is a permission request, which does not require practical difficulty to be shown.

The Board addressed the issues on how the ownership of this parcel may be affiliated with National Diagnostics.

Chairman Reisinger questioned whether other doctors would practice out of this unit other than Dr. Chun.

Mr. Sherman replied that other doctors would be practicing out of this unit.

Mr. Devine stated although he would like to be sympathetic to the senior citizens within the Township, the mobile unit would only be operating four days in a month and that the argument of time was not persuasive as he experienced a lapse of a week when using this type of facility. Mr. Devine questioned if National Diagnostics provided these types of services in a standing company.

Mr. Sherman replied that these types of services were provided in standing facilities and that mobile settings were State defined as to volume use.

Mr. Taylor questioned if the type of use was based on the patient volume that a company may have rather than the population of the immediate surrounding area.

Mr. Sherman replied that this type of facility is based on the amount of scans within a 25-mile radius and that the type of equipment and frequency of use is controlled by the State of Michigan.

Mr. Devine questioned where would the patients go without this mobile facility.

Mr. Sherman replied that the patients would be treated at a nearby hospital.

Mr. Devine questioned would parking be in violation with this type of facility.

Ms. McCullough replied that parking would not be in violation as the nature of this unit is a temporary use.

Ms. Bernadette Flaisch, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, retaining walls with an overall height of 5-feet to allow for the construction of a raised patio, located in a rear yard more than 16-feet from the side and rear lot lines of Lot 117, Vernor Estates No. 2, Section 16. 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. (19-16-452-019)

Ms. Flaisch addressed the Board with the request for 5-feet tall retaining walls and a raised patio, both located in a rear yard. Ms. Flaisch indicated that the existing patio is wood and is a safety issue. Ms. Flaisch submitted subdivision association approval to the Board.

Mr. Taylor stated that he and Ms. Flaisch were realtors, but felt this would have no monetary interest.

Chairman Reisinger questioned when would the existing construction fence be removed.

Ms. Flaisch replied that the construction fence would be removed by the end of May 2006.

Mr. William Tuttle of Four Seasons Condominiums, was present seeking approval for the replacement of an accessory structure, a 3.2’ x 3.2’ x 6.5’ high stone pier, located in a front yard, Hickory Grove frontage. Also seeking approval to replace 300-feet of 4-foot high black chain link fencing, located in a front yard, Hickory Grove frontage on Acreage Parcel, Section 10. 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. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a residential district shall be placed within a required side or rear yard. (19-10-178-001)

Mr. Tuttle addressed the Board with the request for the replacement of a 3.2’ x 3.2’ x 6.5’ high stone pier and to replace 300-feet of a 4-foot high black chain link fence both located in the front yard. Mr. Tuttle stated that 20-feet of the condominiums property was purchased by Bloomfield Township to install safety paths. Mr. Tuttle indicated that the existing pier and fencing would be reinstalled within the new boundary.

Mr. Floyd White, homeowner at 177 Hickory Grove, was present and indicated that a recent school bus accident demolished the pier that would be replaced.

Mr. James Read, homeowner at 175 Hickory Grove, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Mr. Devine requested Mr. Read to provide his contact information at the conclusion of the meeting and informed Mr. Read that the Township Road Department would contact him with a full explanation of the project. Mr. Devine also indicated that efforts are

being made to complete the master plan of the Township, which included the safety paths throughout Bloomfield Township.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

Ms. Mary Sue Starzynski, homeowner at 3282 W. Breckenridge, was present seeking approval for the replacement of 4-foot high split rail fencing, located on private property and in the road right-of-way, Lincoln Drive, East Breckenridge Lane and Bradford Drive East frontage, for Lots 462, 488 and 506, Westchester Village No. 4, Section 34. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that fences in a residential district must be located in a required side or rear yard. (19-34-327-001; 011, 19-34-326-001)

Ms. Starzynski addressed the Board indicating that the subdivision association had recently completed raising funds for this fencing project.