Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Bloomfield Township Hall

I. ATTENDANCE:

PRESENT: Board Members Lisa Seneker, Robert Taylor, Jane Reisinger, Brian Kepes, Brian Henry, Chairman Corinne Khederian

ABSENT: Dan Devine, James Aldrich, Larry Smith

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

Chairman Khederian addressed the audience and indicated that item (1T) 328 Wadsworth Lane and item (2) 6730 Meadowlake Road were withdrawn at the petitioner’s request and placed on the October 10th, 2006 agenda.

Chairman Khederian addressed the audience and indicated that the Township’s e-mail system was down throughout the day and hard copies would be required to be submitted when the item was heard.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 15th, 2006.

Motion was made by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Taylor to approve the Minutes of August 15th, 2005 as written.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

III. APPEALS:

TABLED ITEMS

(1T) Item tabled, rescheduled to October’s meeting at the petitioner’s request.

Seeking approval for existing wood and chain link fencing being used as a dog run area with an overall height of 6-feet to enclose the entire rear yard of Lot 348, Westchester

Village No. 3, Section 34. 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 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. (Kevin & Valerie Kauth, 328 Wadsworth Lane, 19-34-128-016)

(2T) 1234 Water Cliff Drive – J. Giannetti

Ms. Catherine Giannetti, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a hot tub, located in a front yard more than 16-feet from the rear lot line, Water Cliff and Copper Cliff Court frontages, on Lot 52, Echo Park No. 2, 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. (19-17-476-032)

Ms. Giannetti addressed the Board with the request for an existing hot tub, located in the front yard. Ms. Giannetti provided a landscape plan to the Board indicating arborvitaes and (3) spruce trees would be installed around the existing hot tub to help screen it from the neighbor’s view.

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

Ms. Seneker questioned if there were conditions with the subdivision association approval.

Ms. Giannetti replied that the subdivision association requested that she install (3) additional spruce trees within the berm area. Ms. Giannetti indicated that arborvitaes would be installed around the existing hot tub and the (3) spruce trees along the berm of Copper Cliff Court.

Mr. Creigton Forester, resident at 1184 Copperwood, was present and spoke in support of the variance request.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 1234 Watercliff Drive for an existing hot tub, that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance for the front yard location be granted, based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner is required to submit building and electrical permit applications to the Building Department within (5) business days.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(3T) 4539 River Trail – T. Dehko

Mr. Paul Gilgallon, architect and representative of American Pools, was present seeking approval for the construction of an accessory use/structure, an in-ground swimming pool, located in a front yard, Franklin Road frontage. Also seeking approval for the installation of 4-foot high fencing to enclose the proposed swimming pool, located on private property in front and side yards, Franklin Road frontage. Also seeking approval for a 1.5-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the installation of pool equipment screened with plantings, located 14.5-feet from the northerly side lot line for Lot 30, Franklin Ravines, Section 31. 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 be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals, that ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment may be permitted in any side or rear yard when placed immediately adjacent to the residential building, and that the equipment shall not be located in the required 16-foot side yard setback. 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. (19-31-427-016)

Mr. Gilgallon addressed the Board with the request for the construction of an in-ground swimming pool and fence to be located in the front yard with a 1.5-foot encroachment into the side yard for the placement of the pool equipment. Mr. Gilgallon submitted a revised plan indicating the in-ground swimming pool has been flipped indicating the new location, which is the center of the yard and the fence off of the lot lines. Mr. Gilgallon indicated the proposed pool equipment would require a 1.5-foot encroachment into the front yard setback. Mr. Gilgallon made reference to the e-mail submitted to the homeowner from the subdivision association and indicated their restrictions were no swimming between the hours of 11:00 PM and 8:00 AM.

Mr. Taylor made note that there are five items indicated in the subdivision association letter and mentioned approval was not granted based on their deed restrictions.

Ms. Susan Seidman, resident at 4549 River Trail, was present and spoke in objection of the variance requests.

Mr. Gilgallon commented there are three swimming pools existing within the subdivision. Mr. Gilgallon indicated the covenants of the restrictions of the subdivision set a 35-foot rear yard setback.

Ms. Seidman commented that this proposed in-ground swimming pool is located in the front yard and not in the rear yard as the other swimming pools in the subdivision as indicated by Mr. Gilgallon.

Mr. Taylor made mention to the Board that in-ground swimming pools are allowed in the Township, however it is how Bloomfield Township defines a front yard, places this proposed swimming pool in the front yard of Franklin Road frontage.

Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 4539 River Trail for the construction of a swimming pool, that the request be denied as submitted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards: Given the location of the swimming pool is in the front yard and the subdivision association did not grant approval, the location of the swimming pool will hinder and discourage the adjacent use of property, as indicated by the resident at 4549 River Trail. The nature, location, size and site layout of the swimming pool is not harmonious to the district. The nature, location, size and site layout of the swimming pool is objectionable to nearby residents by reason of noise and lights.

Motion carried, 4 – 1.

YEAS: Kepes, Seneker, Reisinger, Khederian

NAYS: Taylor

NEW ITEMS

(1) 4653 Chelsea Lane – M. Burnstein

Ms. Tracey Burnstein, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 4.7-foot encroachment into the required 35-foot rear yard setback for the construction of a single-story deck, located in a rear yard 30.3-feet from the rear lot line, 55-feet from the easterly side lot line, and 60-feet from the westerly front lot line, Ravine Drive frontage, for Lot 44, Franklin Ravines, Section 31. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 35-feet in the rear yard setback. (19-31-403-005)

Ms. Burnstein addressed the Board with the request for a 4.7-foot encroachment into the rear yard for the construction of a single-story deck. Ms. Burnstein indicated a dozen evergreen trees would be installed to screen the deck from view of the surrounding neighbors.

Ms. Seneker made mention of her drive by the property and noted that there was existing vegetation around the property.

Ms. Reisinger questioned the additional landscaping and if the homeowners association approval was submitted.

Ms. Burnstein replied landscaping has been added throughout the property with berms and evergreen trees. Ms. Burnstein made comment to the homeowner’s association approval and assumed it would be submitted. Ms. Burnstein indicated to her knowledge the only thing that was in question by the Association was if there would be additional evergreen screening installed.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Kepes in regard to the appeal at 4653 Chelsea Lane for a 4.7-foot encroachment into the rear yard setback variance, 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.

Approval is contingent upon receiving the homeowner’s association approval.

Mr. Taylor indicated by inserting the contingency into the motion it creates a problematic situation as far as enforcement is concerned. Mr. Taylor indicated that there is no time line for the association approval to be received. Mr. Taylor questioned what if the association approval was not received due to the association meeting is not for a couple of months. Mr. Taylor suggested to the Board that the contingency be more specific or remove the contingency from the motion.

Chairman Khederian made mention that there was a motion on the floor with support that needed to be voted on.

Mr. Kepes suggested to the Board to include in the motion to indicate the homeowner’s association approval be submitted within 60 days.

Ms. Seneker suggested to the Board 30 days would be enough time if the petitioner has been working with the homeowner’s association.

Ms. Burnstein commented that she was looking for an approval so construction could start on the demolition of the existing deck and rebuilding of the new deck before the weather changes.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building, commented to Ms. Burnstein of the necessary steps to receive the permit. Ms. McCullough indicated that the homeowner’s association would need to sign off on the deck plan prior to release of the building permit to the contractor.

Ms. Burnstein commented that Ms. Alice DeLuc was her neighbor and obtaining the approval would not be an issue.

Chairman Khederian asked the Board to withdraw the motion and support and to re-phrase the motion.

Mr. Taylor commented that a time line is important within the motion if there are contingencies from the Board.

Chairman Khederian commented to the Board that if the homeowner’s association did have a comment that they would have been present with comments.

Ms. Seneker restated the motion to include the contingency and amendment that the petitioner to submit homeowner’s association approval within 60 days.

Motion carried, 3 – 2.

YEAS: Seneker, Kepes, Taylor

NAYS: Reisinger, Khederian

Motion failed due to lack of support.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 4653 Chelsea Lane for a 4.7-foot encroachment into the rear yard setback variance, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty.

Mr. Kepes made mention to the Board that it is not necessarily a good practice when there is an active homeowner’s association and for whatever reason they have not commented to not include them in the process. It does not reflect well on the process nor does it encourage participation from the homeowner’s association.

Motion carried, 4 – 1.

YEAS: Reisinger, Taylor, Seneker, Khederian

NAYS: Kepes

(2) Item tabled, rescheduled to the October’s meeting at the petitioner’s request.

Seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a hot tub, located in a front yard immediately adjacent to the residential building, Mark Court frontage, for Lot 81 and Part of Lot 79, Meadowlake Farms, Section 31. 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. (Eric & Rosemarie Abbot, 6730 Meadowlake Road,19-31-153-013)

(3) 1353 Forbes Drive – W. Smuda/P. Sjostrom

Ms. Tracie Brey of Four Seasons Garden Center, was present seeking approval for two sections of existing 3.1-foot high split rail fencing screened with plantings, located in a front yard at the northeast corner of Lot 74, The Dells of Bloomfield, Section 20. 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. (19-20-402-002)

Ms. Brey addressed the Board with the request for the existing 3.1-foot high split rail fencing screened with plantings, located in the front yard.

Ms. Reisinger made comment that the subdivision association has denied the variance request.

Ms. Michelle Margosian, resident at 5374 Echo Road, and President of The Dells of Bloomfield, was present and spoke in objection of the variance request.

Ms. Reisinger questioned would the berm and landscaping be allowed to remain without the existing split rail fence.

Ms. Margosian replied the berm and landscaping could remain however the existing split rail fence is against the association by laws.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 1353 Forbes Drive for the existing fencing located in a front yard, that the request be denied as submitted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate all of the following: compliance would not be unduly burdensome, the fence does not conform to the deed restrictions of the subdivision, there are no unique circumstances with the property, and it is self-created. The existing 3.1-foot high split rail fence is to be removed immediately upon the approval of the minutes.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(4) 4254 Echo Road – P. Ober

Mr. Philip Ober, homeowner, was present seek approval for an existing accessory structure, an air-conditioning unit screened with evergreen plantings, located in a front yard immediately adjacent to the residential building on Lot 3, The Junipers, Section 17. 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. (19-17-401-007)

Mr. Ober addressed the Board with the request for an existing air-conditioning unit located in the front yard immediately adjacent to the wall of the residence, screened with evergreen plantings. Mr. Ober indicated the subdivision association granted approval along with Dr. Khan, neighbor at 4284 Echo Road.

Ms. Seneker commented during her drive-by, the air-conditioner would not visible due to the dense woods in the front yard.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 4254 Echo Road to locate an air-conditioning unit in a front yard, 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.

The petitioner is to submit a revised site plan to the Building Department within five (5) business days.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(5) 1109 Long Lake Road West – S. Desai

Mr. Al Paas of DesRosiers Architects, was present on behalf of the tenant, seeking approval for a variance of 6 parking spaces to allow for the development of a new Medical Building southwest of Long Lake Road and Telegraph. Also seeking approval for .5-foot encroachments into the required 10-foot side yard setbacks. Also seeking approval for a 10-foot encroachment into the required 25-foot street side setback for the construction of a ground sign, located 15-feet from the road right-of-way line for Lot 20, Devon Hills Estates, Section 16. Article XV, Section 1504 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 establishes that 32 spaces are required for this type of use, with only 26 spaces for this tenant space. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that a minimum of 10-feet shall be provided in the side yards within the B-3, General Business, zoned district. Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that no ground sign shall be located nearer than 25-feet to any existing or proposed right-of-way line within the B-3, General Business, zoned district. (19-16-301-005)

Mr. Paas addressed the Board with a three-part variance request. Mr. Paas referred to the proposed site plan and indicated the new proposed medical building southwest of Long Lake Road and Telegraph Road. Mr. Paas addressed the .5-foot encroachment into the required 10-foot side yard setback for two parking spaces. Mr. Paas indicated the width of the parcel is 100-foot wide with nine (9) parking spaces at 9-foot wide would equal 81-feet, the total width required. Mr. Paas referred to the site plan and indicated the .5-foot encroachment for the two parking spaces would be located at the rear property line. Mr. Paas addressed a 10-foot encroachment into the 25-foot street side setback for the construction of a ground sign. Mr. Paas indicated the property is zoned B-3 giving the requirement for a building and ground mounted sign to have a 25-foot setback from the road right-of-way. Mr. Paas referred to the site plan and indicated the B-3 zoning covers the proposed building and that there would be no visibility for the proposed sign. Mr. Paas indicated the adjoining property is zoned O-1, which allows for a sign to be located 15-feet from the property line. Mr. Paas asked the Board for the same setback to be applied for this request. Mr. Paas addressed the six (6) additional parking spaces that would allow for the new development. Mr. Paas referred to the site plan and indicated the parcel is unique due to the 100-foot width, which allows for single loaded parking for the depth of the property. Mr. Paas indicated the existing uses and separate owners on both sides of this proposed development limit the site size.

Ms. Seneker questioned if approval was received from the Township Fire Marshal and Oakland County Road Commission.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of the Planning and Building Department, replied the plan is still under review by the Township Fire Department and Oakland County Road Commission regarding the turning radius for this proposed site.

Mr. Kepes addressed his concerns regarding the parking for the proposed site and future improvements.

Ms. McCullough, replied the parking requirements for this zoned site is one (1) parking space per exam room and in addition for every fifteen square feet of waiting area Ms. McCullough commented the parking would be reviewed and tied into the present floor plan. Ms. McCullough indicated that any plan review for future improvements would note the floor plan and be required to meet the parking requirements indicating it would follow the tenant.

Mr. Kepes questioned the colors of the proposed ground sign.

Mr. Paas replied the colors of the proposed ground sign would be the Beaumont colors.

Ms. Seneker made comment to the lines on the proposed ground sign.

Mr. Paas replied the proposed ground sign could be refigured without the lines and only the letters of the tenant to be visible.

Ms. Reisinger made mention of the approval granted from the Planning Commission that was forwarded onto the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Reisinger questioned would Beaumont have to approve the proposed sign prior to the installation of the sign.

Dr. Kalabat, proposed tenant, was present and mentioned Beaumont does have sign standards and requirements that would need to be approved prior to the installation.

Mr. Jeff Petrucci of Bloomfield Construction, was present and spoke in support of the variance request.

Mr. Kepes made mention of the comments from Mr. Neal Barnett at the Design Review Board meeting. Mr. Kepes indicated that Mr. Barnett noted that the sign should be of a brick base to match the proposed building.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 1109 Long Lake Road West, for the following variances: 6 parking spaces to allow for the development of a medical building, with the floor plan as presented, not to exceed 32 parking spaces, a .5-foot encroachment into the side yard setback for two parking spaces, and a 10-foot encroachment into the street side setback for the construction of a ground sign to be built on a brick base to match the proposed building, and that the sign be modified to conform to Beaumont requirements, that the variances 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. Paperwork to be received from the Township Fire Marshal and Oakland County Road Commission in regards to the turning radius for the proposed building site.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(6) 1717 Telegraph Road – Bloomfield Construction

Mr. Jeff Petrucci, owner of Bloomfield Construction, was present seeking approval for a 5.7-foot encroachment into the required 25-foot southerly street side setback and an 8.3-foot encroachment into the required 25-foot easterly street side setback, for the construction of an 8’ x 4’ high ground sign replacing the existing wall sign, located 19.3-feet from the southerly road right-of-way line and 16.7-feet from the easterly road right-of-way line, Telegraph and Crestview Avenue frontages on Lots 224, 225, 226, 227 and 228, Supervisor’s Plat No. 2, Section 6. Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that no ground sign shall be located nearer than 25-feet to any existing or proposed right-of-way line within the B-3, General Business, zoned district. (19-06-206-018)

Mr. Petrucci addressed the Board with the request for a 5.7-foot encroachment into the 25-foot southerly street side setback and an 8.3-foot encroachment into the easterly street side setback for the construction of an 8’ x 4’ high ground sign. Mr. Petrucci indicated the current signage is channel letter neon affixed to the front of the building. Mr. Petrucci commented the existing sign is hard to see unless you are looking directly in front of the building. Mr. Petrucci referred to the site plan and indicated the material of the proposed ground sign would be limestone with pillars. Mr. Petrucci indicated he has future plans to change the exterior of the building with the ground sign being phase I.

Ms. Reisinger suggested to the petitioner a new location for the proposed sign.

Mr. Petrucci replied he did like the proposed location, however this was not approved at the Design Review Board meeting.

Mr. Jeff Dotson, resident at 2761 Parkway Court, was present and spoke in support of the variance request.

Ms. Reisinger made comments in relation to the Master Plan as to the development of Telegraph Road north of Square Lake Road. Ms. Reisinger indicated the more prominent the sign the safer it would be for the community.

Ms. Seneker questioned with the existing sign being removed how would the façade be repaired.

Mr. Petrucci replied the façade area where the existing sign was would be repaired with vinyl siding matching the existing building.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 1717 Telegraph Road for the 5.7-foot encroachment into the southerly street side setback and a 8.3-foot encroachment into the easterly street side setback for the construction of a ground sign, 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 given the property was along Telegraph Road frontage.

Chairman Khederian asked Ms. McCullough, Director of Planning and Building Department, when a proposal from a Board member is suggested to the petitioner that it could be changed and maybe to the liking of the applicant is this up to the Board’s discretion to hear and act upon the proposal.

Ms. McCullough replied only if the request is a lesser request before the Board. Ms. McCullough indicated the proposal from the Board member set the angle of the sign further into the 25-foot setback. Ms. McCullough commented the Board could not act upon a modification that was greater than that was noticed. Ms. McCullough commented the Planning Department would have to re-notice for the modification proposal.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(7) 2973 Heron Place – S. Mancuso

Mr. Jeff Dotson of John Richards Homes, was present on behalf of the homeowners, seeking approval for a 2.5-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for existing pool equipment screened with plantings, located 13.5-feet from the northerly side lot line on Lot 2, Heron Ridge Subdivision, Section 8. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical or electrical equipment shall not be located in the required 16-feet side yard setback. (19-08-151-037)

Mr. Dotson addressed the Board with a 2.5-foot encroachment into the side yard setback for the existing pool equipment. Mr. Dotson referred to the site plan and indicated a row of 6-foot high arborvitaes would be installed 12-feet from the property line to screen the pool equipment from the adjacent home.

Mr. Alan Blazier, resident at 1720 Inverness, and superintendent of John Richards Homes, was present and spoke in support of the variance request.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 2973 Heron Place for the 2.5 foot encroachment into the 16-foot side yard setback for the existing pool equipment, 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. The petitioner is to submit a revised site plan to the Building Department within five (5) business days.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(8) 2921 Turtle Pond Court – T. Kill

Mr. Jeff Dotson of John Richards Homes, was present on behalf of the homeowners, seeking approval for a 7.4-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the construction of a stone screen wall with an overall height of 7-feet for the purpose of screening two existing air-conditioning units, located 8.6-feet from the easterly side lot line. Also seeking approval for the construction of two 2’ x 2’ x 5.2’ high stone piers, which includes 2.7’ tall light fixtures, located at each side of the motor court entrance for Unit 42, Turtle Lake, Section 8. 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. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a residential district shall not exceed 4-feet in height. (19-08-102-019)

Mr. Dotson addressed the Board to construct and install a stone screen wall with an overall height of 7-feet for the purpose to screen two existing air-conditioning units. Mr. Dotson indicated the material of the proposed wall would be of field stone veneer to match the home. Mr. Dotson referred to the site plan and indicated the two 2’x 2’ x 5.2’ high stone piers which would include 2.7’ tall light fixtures to be located on each side of the motor court entrance.

Mr. Alan Blazier, resident at 1720 Inverness, and superintendent of John Richards Homes, was present and spoke in regards to the piers. Mr. Blazier indicated there are eighteen (18) home sites within the Turtle Lake/Pond subdivision that have the same landscape design and piers incorporated into the landscape plan. Mr. Blazier commented Victor International has approved the eighteen (18) home sites to have the piers within the Turtle Lake/Pond subdivision.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 2921 Turtle Pond Court for a 7.4-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the construction of a stone screen wall with an overall height of 7-feet for the purpose of screening two (2) existing air-conditioning units, that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance for two (2) 2’x 2’ x 5.2’ high piers which includes 2.7’ tall light fixtures, located on each side of the motor court entrance 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 revised site plan with electrical and mechanical permit applications to the Building Department within five (5) business days.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

Chairman Khederian addressed the audience and indicated the Board was waiting for another Board member to arrive to allow for item #9 to be heard due to the fact that two (2) Board members would be recusing themselves from the item. Chairman Khederian confirmed by asking the Board members who would recuse themselves from this item.

Ms. Reisinger, Board member indicated she would recuse herself due to the fact that the petitioner is a client in her office.

Mr. Kepes, Board member indicated he would recuse himself due to the fact he is a member of the LLC, of the adjacent commercial property.

Chairman Khederian suggested delaying hearing Item #(9) 3200 South Boulevard – Burlington Bloomfield Plaza, until Mr. Henry, Board member, arrives to have a quorum.

(10) 1871 Indian Trail – A. Roffey/G. Danto

Mr. Donald Young of Young & Young Architects, was present seeking approval for a dimensional lakeside setback of 38.2-feet for the construction a new home with the maximum lakeside setback not to exceed 100 ft. The average setback of the neighboring properties is 152.8-feet. Also seeking approval for the installation of an accessory structure, a hot tub, located in the northwesterly side and rear yards on a second story patio on Lot 34, Lone Pine Heights No. 1, Section 19. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that in those instances where waterfront properties have been developed with waterfront setbacks of greater than 50-feet, new construction shall be setback from the waterfront the average of the setback of the principal buildings on the nearest improved waterfront lots within five hundred feet of each side of the lot in question and in no instance shall a setback in excess of 100-feet be required. 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, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-19-126-003)

Mr. Young presented the Board with a site plan indicating the proposed construction of a new home. Mr. Young identified the proposed location of the new home would require a 38.2-foot dimensional variance into lakeside setback. Mr. Young commented the interpretation of the sight line might influence the required rear yard setback therefore, reducing the build able area by 40% +/- making the lot unbuild able. Mr. Young indicated the proposed residence would not interfere with sight lines and is further from the water’s edge than most homes on the pond. Mr. Young indicated the proposed home would have decks and terraces. Mr. Young referred to the site plan and indicated the proposed second story deck off of the master bedroom would incorporate a hot tub. Mr. Young commented the hot tub would not be visible however the material used would match the proposed residence.

Ms. Reisinger made mention of four (4) letters received in support of the variance requests from: Mr. & Mrs. Edward Coe, residents at 1895 Indian Trail, Mr. Mark Peret, resident at 4500 Cimarron Drive, Mr. Gerald Amster, resident at 1883 Indian Trail, and Mr. Daniel Armitage, for Lone Pine Heights, Architectural Plan Review Committee.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 1871 Indian Trail for the installation of a hot tub, that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance for a dimensional lakeside setback of 38.2-feet for the construction of a new home be granted, based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner is to submit a Single Family Affidavit to the Township.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(11) 3675 West Maple – Plum Market

Mr. Jason Bode of F.H. Martin, was present seeking approval for accessory structures, two temporary construction office trailers to be located on site for approximately six months, located in a rear yard on the southeasterly corner of the site, Acreage Parcel, Section 34. 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. (19-34-101-001)

Mr. Bode addressed the Board for two (2) temporary construction office trailers to be located on site for duration of six months, until March 2007. Mr. Bode indicated the temporary construction trailers would be placed on asphalt within the staging area. Mr. Bode referred to the site plan and indicated a wall with black mesh to help screen the temporary trailers from view would enclose the two (2) temporary construction trailers.

Mr. Lawrence Gladchun, resident at 6580 Red Maple Lane, was present and spoke in support of the variance request.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 3675 West Maple for the two (2) temporary construction office trailers to be located on- site for 6 months, that the variance be approved as submitted based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(12) 3675 West Maple – Plum Market

Mr. Mark Ehgotz of Victor Saroki & Associates, was present seeking approval for the construction of an accessory structure, an 8-foot high masonry trash enclosure screened with evergreen plantings, located in a rear yard 16-feet from the southerly lot line for Acreage Parcel, Section 34. 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. (19-34-101-001)

Mr. Ehgotz addressed the Board for permission to construct an 8-foot tall masonry trash container screen wall enclosure at the existing Bloomfield Commons retail center. Mr. Ehgotz referred to the site plan and indicated the proposed enclosure would be placed on the south side of the existing building. Mr. Ehgotz indicated the two (2) existing un-screened containers would be removed and replaced with the proposed enclosed container/compactor.

Ms. Reisinger questioned would the pick-up and removal of the trash/debris be more or less than the current schedule.

Mr. Ehgotz replied the pick-up and removal of the trash/debris would be less given the proposed container/compactor is larger, 20 cubic yards. Mr. Ehgotz provided a revised site plan to the Board and indicated the enclosed container/compactor had been relocated to the east, 24-feet. Mr. Ehgotz proposed seven (7) arborvitaes, 7-8-feet in height to help screen the container from the adjacent neighbors view.

Mr. Lawrence Gladchun, resident at 6580 Red Maple Lane, was present and spoke in support of the variance request.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 3675 West Maple for the construction of an 8-foot high masonry trash enclosure, that the request be approved as submitted based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards. Approval based on revised site plan submitted to the Board.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

Chairman Khederian announced to the audience Mr. Brian Henry, Board Member, has arrived. Chairman Khederian indicated Item (9) 3200 South Boulevard, would be heard next on the agenda.

Ms. Reisinger recused herself from Item (9) due to the petitioner is a client in her office. Mr. Kepes recused himself from Item (9) indicating he is a member of the LLC, of the adjacent commercial property.

(9) 3200 South Boulevard – Burlington Bloomfield Plaza

Mr. Mark Drane of Rogvoy Architects, was present seeking approval for a 13-foot encroachment into the required 25-foot front yard setback for the installation of a section of 4-foot high decorative metal fencing screened with evergreen plantings, located in a front yard 12-feet from the front lot line extending west, Squirrel Road frontage, for Acreage Parcel, Section 1. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265

requires a minimum of 25-feet in the front yard setback within the B-1, Local Business zoned district. (19-01-101-002)

Mr. Drane addressed the Board with a request for a 13-foot encroachment into the 25-foot front yard setback for the installation of a section of 4-foot high decorative black metal fencing screened with evergreen plantings. Mr. Drane referred to the site plan and indicated the proposed 4-foot high fence would be located in the front yard 12-feet from the front lot line-extending west, Squirrel Road frontage. Mr. Drane indicated the proposed decorative fence would attach to an existing poured concrete screen wall. Mr. Drane referred to the site plan and indicated the fence would be screened by 10-foot to 12-foot high evergreens to help screen from the neighbor’s view.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building, made comment as to the Township Board and the Planning Commission reviews. Ms. McCullough indicated this was a condition of approval by the Township Board as part of the site plan approval for the Zoning Board of Appeals consider the request from Mr. Gary Khurana, resident at 1085 Oak Tree Lane, to extend the wall towards Squirrel Road to eliminate the trash issues. Ms. McCullough made reference to the e-mail in the Board members packets for their review.

Mr. Harold Degroff, resident at 1735 Squirrel Valley Drive, was present and spoke in support of the variance request.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regards to the appeal at 3200 South Boulevard for a 13-foot encroachment into the required 25-foot 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, 4 – 0.

(13) 5425 Longmeadow – F. Joseph

Mr. Frank Joseph, homeowner, was present seeking approval for revisions to a previous approval, an existing 50’ x 90’ sports court screened with existing plantings and 10-foot high fencing around the perimeter, located in a rear yard 22-feet from the westerly side lot line, 18.7-feet from the easterly side lot line and 45.9-feet from the rear lot line for Lot 31, Bloomfield Estates Subdivision, Section 24. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that an accessory use/structure shall be subject to the review and approval of the 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. (19-24-376-003)

Mr. Joseph addressed the Board with an apology for being back before the Board. Mr. Joseph indicated the structure from the previous Zoning Board of Appeals approval on July 12th, 2005, that nothing had been added to the structure or nothing had been brought in addition to the structure. Mr. Joseph indicated that the originally approved 4-foot high along the sides and 10-foot high at the ends was too short, leaving the children to run into the fence. He commented that there were injuries on the court from some kids that were playing basketball and volleyball. And at the 4-foot height, the kids would get caught up in the fence by chasing the volleyball or basketball and end up hitting their head and neck on the fence. It was not safe.

Mr. Joseph indicated he did not alter the structure. He used the netting and put some pulleys on it so it could be raised and lowered. Mr. Joseph commented that nobody ever came over and knocked on his door to ask to go in his back yard. Mr. Joseph indicated the reason for installing the pulleys was to keep the children off of the neighbor’s property and chasing pucks and tennis balls to keep the containment in the court out of respect of the neighbor’s.

Mr. Joseph explained that it is not a permanent structure. It is rather difficult because there are six (6) pulleys that act like a curtain. Mr. Joseph commented the intended structure was to have the enclosure at 10-feet, all open and to be utilized for safety purposes of his children.

Mr. Joseph indicated before he did anything he came into the Building Department and indicated he would be applying for a permit because he knew his neighbor would be inquiring. Mr. Joseph indicated he applied for the raising of the fence. Mr. Joseph commented all he wanted to do was affix the netting so he could zip strap it so it would be permanent when the children are slamming into it would act like a bungee net.

Mr. Joseph commented as to the extensive landscaping that he had installed. Mr. Joseph indicated that this structure is secluded and he took everyone in consideration as far as the neighborhood, the children, and for not having an encroachment, with the additional landscaping installed.

Mr. Joseph commented that he was not being antagonistic to the Board or disrespectful to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Joseph indicated he thought that by having the netting that it could be raised or lowered, just like you would do at school. Mr. Joseph commented to the Board he would like to raise the sides of the fence and permanently affix it so the kids could not damage it, or get hurt. Mr. Joseph re-iterated to the Board that there was nothing added to the structure and there was nothing brought in addition to the structure except for some pulleys bought from Home Depot and a boating store.

Mr. Joseph commented Brenda Schlutow, Township Code and Ordinance Director, was at the property and identified how the netting was raised and lowered. Mr. Joseph indicated he had adhered to the Township’s request in regards to the screening and additional evergreen requirements, and that he never installed any lighting on the court.

Ms. Seneker commented during her drive by the property the visibility of the sports court had not changed from July 12th, 2005.

Mr. Joseph replied that he all he wants to do is provide a safe environment for children, his neighbor’s, kid’s neighbor’s, neighborhoods neighbor’ s that come over to use it whether they are home or not. Mr. Joseph commented the sports court contractor made him sign a release of liability because it was never intended to have the fence at 4-feet for anything other than aesthetics. Mr. Joseph asked the Board if the side netting could be permanently attached at the 10-foot height.

Ms. Sylvia Adams, resident at 5385 Longmeadow, was present and spoke in objection of the variance request. Ms. Adams indicated her residence is adjacent to the petitioner’s property. Ms. Adams commented the 10-foot netting has been up since May 2006. Ms. Adams commented the posts are permanent and stand 10-feet in height.

Mr. Kepes questioned Ms. Adams as to what was her primary objection to the variance request.

Ms. Adams replied her primary concern was the black poles and netting being 10-feet in height that is visible from her residence.

Mr. Joseph replied the landscape screening is very thick and netting cannot be seen from the side. Mr. Joseph indicated the only thing that Ms. Adams could see is the back of the basketball frame that was approved at the 10-foot height at each ends.

Mr. Joseph commented he did not take or put anything in and all the piping is temporary because he did not know if his children would use the court later on, so he did not put anything in permanent. Mr. Joseph commented that you could walk out there tonight and lift the poles off and set them on the ground.

Mr. Joseph commented that after awhile the court could be utilized as a patio or something else if he obtained a permit for it. Mr. Joseph indicated the netting from Ms. Adams home that she can see from the back of her home is what was approved. Mr. Joseph commented the netting supports the framing. Mr. Joseph restated that this keeps his children and sports balls and pucks off of Ms. Adams property.

Ms. Seneker questioned where were the five (5) trees installed that were requested from the previous Zoning Board meeting.

Mr. Joseph referred to the site plan and identified ten (10) pine trees 10-15-feet in height that were installed to help with the screening of the court.

Ms. Seneker made comment in relation to Ms. Adams residence, that the poles were still visible with the netting.

Mr. Taylor commented to the safety factor, which could be accomplished two ways by raising the enclosure or eliminating it.

Mr. Joseph replied agreed with Mr. Taylor and commented he could also move. Mr. Joseph commented to the Board that life is too short to be here occupying the Board’s time for something this menial.

Ms. Reisinger commented and addressed her concerns that she could understand the safety issue, she could understand the neighbor’s issue, but the Board approved a 4-foot high fence that was put specifically in the Zoning Board minutes a 4-foot high fencing. Ms. Reisinger commented that this is not the first incident, and addressed her concerns with things just happening with this property. Ms. Reisinger indicated the Board is a volunteer Board that puts in time and effort to view these properties and for Mr. Joseph to just put the 10-foot fence up without coming before the Board first is a concern. Mr. Reisinger reiterated the Board understands the safety issues of the children and the neighbor’s concerns however, when you do something after the Board has specifically made a motion and indicated in the approved minutes that the fence was to be 4-foot high you cannot go and change it to 10-feet high.

Mr. Joseph commented the fence could be lowered up and down at will.

Chairman Khederian commented the frame is permanent.

Mr. Joseph replied that the frame is not permanent and the poles can be removed and laid on the ground. Mr. Joseph indicated that there is no cement or bolts installed for this frame because he knew he would be dragged before the Board again.

Chairman Khederian commented that she was out last summer and walked the petitioner’s property. Chairman Khederian indicated she stated in the minutes from the June meeting, the petitioner had a beautiful piece of property, the sports court was in a secluded area, and there was a great deal of privacy. Chairman Khederian indicated she had gone to Ms. Adams property and viewed the petitioner’s property and saw that there was really no issue, indicating it was private. Chairman Khederian commented the problem before her now is that the sports court existed and the Board granted approval after the fact, Mr. Joseph was aware of the rules in June and at that point going backwards in the process. Chairman Khederian indicated to Mr. Joseph you are again before the Board with a similar issue and you had erected something different to what the Board granted approval for. Chairman Khederian indicated the Board approved 4-foot high fencing, if the petitioner felt that there was a safety issue, it would have been welcomed to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals to request for the variance for the fencing given the safety issues. Chairman Khederian commented now the Board is

being addressed after the fact again. Chairman Khederian commented to Mr. Joseph that he has been very disrespectful to the Board and sarcastic. Chairman Khederian commented that she had gone to bat for him last year.

Mr. Joseph replied he did not mean to be disrespectful and appreciated Chairman Khederian’s support from June’s meeting. Mr. Joseph commented he did not feel that he was doing anything that would violate his Ordinance’s. Mr. Joseph indicated that he had the contractor install the fencing at 10-feet instead of the 4-feet as approved. Mr. Joseph stated he did what he did anticipating knowing that he would have to be back before the Board. Mr. Joseph indicated that he researched for other alternatives that were available financially or mechanically, to make it easy on the kids to have the netting go up and down. Mr. Joseph commented he would be responsible to take the netting down on a daily basis.

Mr. Taylor made comment to the issue of requesting a higher fence and indicated the concern of injury to the children. Mr. Taylor indicated there are two solutions; one is to grant the variance for the 10-feet the other is to rescind the variance for the 4-feet.

Mr. Kepes indicated the reason why he asked Ms. Adams what her primary concern was, was so the Board could address it. Mr. Kepes indicated Ms. Adams primary concern was that she could see the structure. Mr. Kepes questioned Mr. Joseph if he would totally obscure the structure and if so, with how many trees and how high.

Mr. Joseph replied, absolutely. Mr. Joseph indicated three (3) trees 10-foot in height to screen the structure from Ms. Adams view from the fence.

Mr. Kepes questioned Ms. Adams if the additional screening would address her primary concern.

Ms. Adams replied the additional trees for screening the court would not address her concern, she would still see the 10-foot poles.

Mr. Henry suggested to the Board to rescind the previous approval for the 4-foot high fence.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building, replied action could only be taken immediately at the next Zoning Board meeting, to rescind the approval. Ms. McCullough commented the Board could only act upon what is requested before them presently.

Ms. Adams commented the height of the poles and fence is the issue, not the additional screening.

Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 5425 Longmeadow for revision to a previously approved sports court and 10-foot high

fencing around the perimeter of the sports court, that the variance be denied as submitted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards. The location and height of the 10’ high fence will hinder and discourage the adjacent use of property, the nature, location, size and site layout of the 10’ high fence is not harmonious to the district, the nature, location, size and site layout of the 10’ high’ fence is objectionable to nearby residents by reason of: noise. The 10’ high fence is self-created, and there are no unique circumstances with the property. The 10’ high fence is to be removed within 30 days from today.

Motion carried, 5 – 1

YEAS: Kepes, Reisinger, Henry, Taylor, Khederian

NAYS: Seneker

(14) Kirkwood No. 1 and 2

Ms. Suzanne Bernstein, President of the Kirkwood Improvement Association, was present seeking approval for six entryway signs screened with plantings, two 2’ x 2’ x 3’ high brick columns attached by a 2.5’ high brick wall, located on private property at each side of the three entrances into Kirkwood No. 1 and 2, Section 30. Article XV, Section 1513 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires the review and approval of all residential entranceway structures. (19-30-126-012, 19-30-202-001, 19-30-126-048, 19-30-176-032, 19-30-176-038, 19-30-251-006).

Ms. Bernstein addressed the Board with the request for six (6) entryway signs to be screened with plantings. Ms. Bernstein indicated the proposed locations for the signs at W. Quarton, Kingsmill, Raven, Sutters, and (2) at Walnut Lake. Ms. Bernstein referred to the site plan and indicated the entryway signs would incorporate two 2’ x 2’ x 3’ high brick columns attached by a 2.5’ high brick wall, located on private property at each side of the three entrances into the subdivision of Kirkwood No. 1 and 2.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at Kirkwood No. 1 and 2 for six (6) entryway signs that the request be approved as submitted based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards. The petitioner is to submit a Hold Harmless Affidavit to the Building Department within five (5) business days.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(15) 5070 Deepwood Street – G. Teste

Mr. Gilles Teste, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction of an accessory use/structure, an in-door swimming pool, located on the main level of a new addition for Lot 79, Lone Pine Road Estates, Section 21. 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. (19-21-327-005)

Mr. Teste addressed the Board with the request for an in-door swimming pool to be located on the main level of a new addition of the residence. Mr. Teste indicated the in-door swimming pool would be utilized as recreational use for the family. Mr. Teste commented the subdivision association has granted approval.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 5070 Deepwood Street for the construction of an in-door swimming pool that the request be approved as submitted based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

IV. GENERAL BUSINESS

Next Board Meeting – October 10th, 2006

ADJOURNMENT

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