Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

TABLED ITEMS

(1T) 735 Robinhood Circle – W. Walker

Mr. Winthrop Walker, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a river-viewing platform including a staircase and handicap accessible wheelchair ramps with an overall height of 11.5 ft., located in a rear yard at the water’s edge 5.7 ft. from the westerly side lot line of Lot 10, Riverside Meadows, Section 24. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures 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. Article XV, Section 1517 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a 25 ft. setback from the boundary or edge of a wetland. (19-24-226-047)

Mr. Walker addressed the Board with the request for the item to be tabled to November 14th, 2006 meeting, to allow the petitioner to submit revisions to the Building Department to review the revisions submitted for a building permit.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 735 Robinhood Circle for an existing river viewing platform including a staircase and handicap accessible wheelchair ramps be tabled without prejudice until November 14th, 2006 to allow the petitioner to submit revisions for a building permit to the Building Department for a required building permit.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(2T) 620 Spinning Wheel Drive South – P. Noronha

Mr. Peter Noronha, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a 8’ x 6’ x 8’ high storage shed, located in the westerly side yard more than 16 ft. from the side and rear property lines on Lot 323, Bloomfield’s Fox Hills Subdivision, Section 2. 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. (19-02-177-015)

Mr. Noronha addressed the Board with the request for an existing storage shed located in the westerly side yard. Mr. Noronha commented the Board heard the item previously on June 13th, 2006 which was tabled for 90 days to allow him to seek the association comments and to allow the association to address their deed restrictions relating to structures, "tool sheds". Mr. Noronha referred to the site plan indicating a detailed location of the existing shed. Mr. Noronha indicated the existing shed is located in the westerly side yard corner, behind the existing garage. Mr. Noronha referred to the site plan and indicated along the rear of the home there is a deck and windows with the exception of one corner behind the garage.

Mr. Noronha made comment to the letters received in support from Mr. Eugene Chapp, resident at 625 South Spinning Wheel, Mr. Chris Mergel resident at 615 South Spinning Wheel, and Mr. & Mrs. Stuart McAlpin, residents at 2115 Bootmaker Lane.

Mr. Leonard Zanger, resident at 740 Weybridge Drive and Architectural Control Trustee for Fox Hills Community Association, was present and spoke in objection of the variance request. Mr. Zanger indicated the deed restrictions for the Fox Hills subdivision does not permit sheds. Mr. Zanger commented the Association would not want to set precedence by the approving this shed.

Mr. Kepes made reference to the e-mail correspondence received from Mr. Zanger and questioned has the Architectural Control Committee developed a policy for storage structures within the subdivision.

Mr. Zanger replied a policy is being developed to provide guidelines that would allow for certain types of storage structures. Mr. Zanger commented the Association guidelines would not allow for a stand-alone storage building. Mr. Zanger suggested that a structure attached to the home would be considered.

Mr. Kepes questioned is the visibility of the shed an issue or is it the structure itself.

Mr. Zanger replied it is the structure and the visibility of the structure from the street. Mr. Zanger commented no attempt has been made to screen the structure from view or to relocate the structure in the rear yard.

Mr. Kepes made reference to the Fox Hills Subdivision Deed Restrictions and indicated item #2, does allow for a garden tool house. 2. No building or other structures shall be erected, altered or moved onto or permitted on any lot in "Bloomfield’s Fox Hills Subdivision No. 4 other than one (1) single family dwelling house with an attached garage; except that a garden tool house. Mr. Kepes questioned would a garden tool house be reviewed the same as a storage shed.

Mr. Zanger replied no application has been made for a garden tool house. Mr. Zanger commented a garden tool house is like a cabinet mounted on a side of the home and/or garage. Mr. Zanger commented the petitioner’s application is identified as a shed and not as a garden tool house.

Mr. Kepes questioned would the Association have an issue if the shed were made out of a material that was consistent with the policy that the Association is to develop, and it was landscaped so it would not be visibly seen.

Mr. Zanger replied the Architectural Control Trustee has the authority to review these types of structures. Mr. Zanger indicated that special arrangements were made to have this item reviewed by the entire Board. Mr. Zanger commented the Board unanimously denied the request.

Mr. Taylor questioned were the deed restrictions amended to allow the Trustee sole authority.

Mr. Zanger replied the deed restrictions gave authority for enforcing the deed restrictions to parties that came after the original developer. Mr. Zanger discussed the by laws and deed restrictions of the Association.

Mr. Taylor questioned if the shed was bolted to the side of the home, would it be considered attached.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, replied the attachment would need to be significant such as a common roofline, common wall or the foundation.

Mr. Kepes questioned would landscaping be installed and if so, how would it be done.

Mr. Noronha replied arborvitaes could be installed to screen the shed from view.

Chairman Khederian made mention the Board received approximately thirteen letters of support for the variance request.

Mr. Devine asked for discussion and indicated the bottom line is the deed restrictions talks about a structure being allowable but it would be in the opinion of the first party that the structure would be in harmony and in conformance with the character of the subdivision. Mr. Devine commented whether it has been seeded to the Architectural Trustee or the full Board of Directors of the subdivision seems to be a mute point do to the fact they voted in conformance and it would indicate the structure is not harmonious to the subdivision. Mr. Devine indicated the applicant admitted he went ahead and installed the shed without approval of the neighborhood association and the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Kepes commented the subdivision association should set policy for storage sheds.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 620 Spinning Wheel Drive South for the existing storage shed located in the westerly side yard, that the request be denied as submitted without prejudice. Under the current circumstances, given the deed restrictions and the ruling of the subdivision association, the shed is not in harmony or in conformance with the character of the subdivision. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards: The nature, location, size and layout of the accessory structure is not harmonious to the district. The applicant did not demonstrate the Tests of Practical Difficulty. Compliance would not be unduly burdensome to the applicant. There is no unique circumstances with the property that would require this particular shed, and it is self-created, given the applicant installed the shed without the proper approvals. In addition, the Subdivision Association to set guidelines and to have a policy in place 60 days from approval of the minutes.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

Mr. Taylor recused himself from the following item indicating his relationship with the architectural control review committee that reviewed the petitioner’s plans.

Chairman Khederian indicated to the petitioner that he must obtain all four (4) Board members votes for approval of the variance request.

(3T) 328 Wadsworth – K. Kauth

Mr. Kevin Kauth, homeowner, was present seeking approval for existing wood and chain link fencing being used as a dog run area with an overall height of 6 ft. 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 ft. 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 ft. from the rear lot line and 16 ft. from the side lot lines. (19-34-128-016)

Mr. Kauth addressed the Board with the request for an existing wood privacy fence and a chain link fence with an over all height of 6-feet to enclose the entire rear yard of the property. Mr. Kauth indicated evergreen screening has been installed to help screen the chain link fence from view.

Ms. Reisinger questioned if the subdivision association granted approval.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building Department, replied the subdivision association submitted a letter of denial for this variance request.

Chairman Khederian made mention of a letter in objection from Mr. Lee, resident at 345 Dalebrook Lane.

Mr. Kauth commented Mr. Lee was in support of the fence when it was originally installed.

Ms. Reisiner questioned did the petitioner seek the subdivision association for a decorative fence.

Mr. Kauth replied he spoke to the subdivision association and it was discussed that chain link fences were not allowed but 4-foot decorative fences were allowed within the subdivision.

Mr. Kepes questioned what kind of dogs does the petitioner have.

Mr. Kauth replied his dogs are a Siberian Husky and a German Shepard.

Mr. Devine questioned if the petitioner was present at the homeowner’s association meeting when the denial was submitted for the existing wood and chain link fencing.

Mr. Kauth replied he was present at the homeowner’s association meeting.

Chairman Khederian questioned Mr. Kauth and asked from the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of August 15th, 2006, the item was tabled to allow the petitioner to seek approval from the subdivision association and the neighbor at 345 Dale brook. Chairman Khederian questioned the petitioner did he approach the neighbor at 345 Dale brook.

Mr. Kauth replied he has made attempts to contact Mr. Lee, neighbor at 345 Dale brook.

Ms. Reisinger commented what has been presented to the Board is not the result of what was requested from the August 15th meeting.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 328 Wadsworth Lane for the existing 6-foot high fencing placed on the side and rear property lines for the use of an existing dog run area, that the request be denied as submitted without prejudice. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards: the location and height of the accessory structure will hinder and discourage the adjacent use of property; the nature, location, size and layout of the accessory structure is not harmonious to the district. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate that compliance would not be unduly burdensome to the applicant. There are no unique circumstances with the property, and it is self-created. Petitioner to return 60 days from the approval of the minutes to seek the subdivision association with an alternative design for a 4-foot high decorative fence.

Motion carried, 4 – 0 - 1.

YEAS: Devine, Kepes, Reisinger, Khederian

NAYS: None

ABSTAINED: Taylor

NEW ITEMS

(1) 6730 Meadowlake Road – E. Abbot

Mr. Eric Abbot, homeowner, was present 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. (19-31-153-013)

Mr. Abbot addressed the Board with a request for an existing hot tub, located in a front yard adjacent to the residence. Mr. Abbot submitted subdivision association approval to the Board. Mr. Abbot referred to the site plan and indicated his lot has two front yards and no rear yard.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 6730 Meadowlake Road for the hot tub, 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 to submit a detailed landscape plan indicating (6) Rhododendrons, 3-foot in height to be installed to obscure the hot tub from view. Building and electrical permit applications are required to be submitted to the Building Department within five (5) business days.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(2) 580 Lahser – J. O’Sullivan

Seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a hot tub, located in a rear yard more than 16 ft. from the westerly side lot line immediately adjacent to the residential building on Lot 931, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village, Section 27. 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. (19-27-302-006)

Chairman Khederian called the petitioner to address the item. Ms. O’Sullivan did not appear. Chairman Khederian called Mr. Larry Nutson, Bloomfield Village Manager, to address the variance request.

Mr. Nutson addressed the Board with the request for an existing hot tub, located in a rear yard. Mr. Nutson indicated to the Board the Homeowner’s Association has not granted approval for the existing hot tub. Mr. Nutson commented he has made attempts to contact the homeowner by phone and mail and have had no response from the homeowner. Mr. Nutson indicated landscaping of the hot tub would be required before the winter. Mr. Nutson referred to the site plan and indicated the new landscaping wall installed without approval but it does meet the setback requirements. Mr. Nutson asked the Board to table the item or identify landscaping within a motion.

Mr. Taylor questioned the height of the landscaping wall.

Mr. Nutson replied he has not reviewed or approved plans for the landscaping wall however, reviewing the structure from the neighbor’s property the landscaping wall appears to be approximately 36" in height. Mr. Nutson reiterated the landscaping wall and hot tub are located within the side yard setback requirements.

Mr. Devine questioned would Bloomfield Village Association be objectionable to approval of the hot tub contingent upon the Association granting approval of the landscaping and screening.

Mr. Nutson replied he would accept the consideration as long as there was a time frame attached for the landscaping to be installed by the winter.

Mr. Taylor suggested to the Board to identify a provision and to clearly state the reason for failure to comply with a completion date.

Chairman Khederain suggested to the Board to table the item to allow the petitioner to seek the approval of the subdivision association.

Mr. Taylor replied tabling the item would leave the hot tub unscreened until spring.

Mr. Edwin Pereira, resident at 683 Half Moon, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Ms. Ann Pereira, resident at 683 Half Moon, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 580 Lahser Road, for the existing hot tub, that the request be denied as submitted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards: the nature, location, size and layout of the hot tub is not harmonious to the district. The hot tub is to be removed 30 days from October 10th, 2006.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(3) 2731 Turtle Lake Drive – D. Wilson

Mr. Jeff Dotson, was present on behalf of the homeowner, seeking approval for the construction of the following accessory structures and dimensional variances for Unit 68, 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 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 not be located in the required 16 ft. side yard setback. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 16 ft. in the side yard setback. (19-07-251-012)

Mr. Dotson addressed the Board with the several requests including two stone piers, two pergolas, a statue and two boulder retaining walls. Mr. Dotson presented photographs and a detailed site plan to the Board and indicated the two (2) stone piers with lights would be located on private property out of the road right-of-way and would allow access for fire safety vehicles. Mr. Dotson indicated on the site plan the two (2) stone piers would be located at the entrance of the motor court. Mr. Dotson referred to the site plan and indicated two (2) pergolas that would be attached to the residence. Mr. Dotson referred to the site plan and indicated the two (2) boulder retaining walls that would be required for landscaping purposes to help maintain the grade of the property.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 2731 Turtle Lake Drive for the two stone piers, two pergolas, a statue, and two boulder retaining walls, be approved as submitted, and the variance for the two stone piers located in a front yard, a 4.8-foot encroachment into the side yard setback for an existing stone screening wall for the purpose of screening three air-conditioning units, a pergola located in a side yard, a statue located in a side yard, and two 4.5-foot high boulder retaining walls located in a front yard be granted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for practical difficulty.

Petitioner to submit a mechanical application for air-conditioning units and a revised site plan are required to be submitted to the Building Department within five (5) business days.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(4) 4033 Abby Court – D. Mardigian

Ms. Kristi DeLeo of Kevin Hart and Associates, was present seeking approval for the installation of an accessory structure, a ground-mounted standby generator screened with plantings, located in a front yard immediately adjacent to the wall enclosing the pool area for Lot 180, Wabeek Five, Section 18. 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 when placed immediately adjacent to the residential wall. (19-18-178-002)

Ms. DeLeo addressed the Board with the request for a ground-mounted standby generator to be placed in proximity with their pool heater and filter equipment. Ms. DeLeo referred to the site plan and indicated the generator would be fully screened. Ms. DeLeo submitted subdivision association approval to the Board.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 4033 Abby Court for the installation of a ground-mounted standby generator, located in a front yard and not immediately adjacent to the wall of the residential building, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. Generator must comply with Township Noise Ordinance and the petitioner is to submit an outstanding Single Family Affidavit that was required on June 13th, 2006 from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(5) 2075 Telegraph Road – 2055 Associates, LLC/Olga’s Kitchen & Suncoast Smoothies

Mr. Raymond Behling of Schostak Brothers & Company, was present seeking approval for the installation of replacement signage, three permanent wall signs, an 80.6 sq. ft. (21.5’ x 3.8’) sign for Olga’s Kitchen Inc., located on the Telegraph Road frontage (15.4% of the total street side façade), an 11.6 sq. ft. (8.2’ x 1.4’) sign for Olga’s Kitchen Inc., located on the façade adjacent to the parking field (.69% of the total façade), and a 10.7 sq. ft. (4.6’ x 2.3’) sign for Suncoast Smoothies Inc., also located on the façade facing the parking field (.64% of the total façade). The three new wall signs would replace the existing two wall signs, Acreage Parcel, Section 5. Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 allows for one sign, and states that the maximum size of the sign shall not exceed 6% of the total area of the street side façade. (19-05-326-006)

Mr. Behling addressed the Board with the request for the installation of three permanent wall signs. Mr. Behling referred to the site plan and made reference to an existing tree that was without foliage at a prior Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Behling indicated the tree now is in full bloom and is blocking the sign of potential patrons from finding the business. Mr. Behling presented a traditional logo sign to be placed on the Telegraph Road frontage, for Olga’s Kitchen and a small logo sign to be placed over the entrance door indicating Olga’s Kitchen and a separate sign for Suncoast Smoothies to be placed on the façade facing the parking field.

Mr. Devine made comment to the Design Review Board minutes and indicated the concern has been to maintain the trees all along Telegraph Road.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 2075 Telegraph Road for the installation of three permanent wall signs, 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. Petitioner must acquire all necessary permits.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

Mr. Taylor recused himself from the following item indicating the petitioner is a client in his office.

Chairman Khederian informed the petitioner that he must obtain all four (4) Board Members votes for approval of the variance request.

(6) 1210 Oxford – D. Troszak

Mr. Doug Troszak, homeowner, was present seeking approval to construct an accessory structure, a 37’ x 31.3’ x 17’ high (approximately 1,158.1 sq. ft.) storage building screened with plantings, located in a front yard, Warwick Drive frontage, 11 ft. from the northerly side lot line, with the existing home measuring approximately 1,677 sq. ft. Also seeking approval for the construction of (2) boulder retaining walls screened with plantings with an overall height of 4 ft. for the purpose of landscaping the proposed storage building, located in a front yard less than 16 ft. from the northerly side lot line, Lot 31, Bloomfield Manor Subdivision, Section 25. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that all accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not exceed one (1) story or 14 ft. in height, shall not exceed one-half (1/2) in the ground floor area of the main building, shall not be located closer than 16 ft. to any side lot line and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-25-204-005)

Mr. Troszak addressed the Board with the request to construct a storage building screened with plantings, located in a front yard. Mr. Troszak indicated the calculations of the storage building were noted incorrectly. Mr. Troszak indicated the dimensions of the storage building would be 26’ x 34’ x 17’ high. Mr. Troszak commented the roof of the structure is in disrepair.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building, commented the original dimension provided by the architect was incorrect. Ms. McCullough indicated the original notification was an error. Ms. McCullough indicated when measurements are calculated they are to include the overhangs. Ms. McCullough suggested the overhangs might not have been calculated in petitioner’s configurations.

Mr. Troszak agreed with Ms. McCullough’s comments.

Mr. Andrew Trestrail, resident at 1250 Oxford Road, was present and spoke in support of the variance request.

Ms. Reisinger questioned how soon could the roof be installed.

Mr. Troszak replied with a large roof and the weather soon to change it is hard to say.

Ms. McCullough suggested to the Board they might consider a completion schedule to be part of the motion.

Mr. Kepes questioned the purpose of the structure.

Mr. Troszak replied the purpose of the storage building is to store his lawn equipment, and garden tools.

Mr. Kepes addressed one of the concerns in the Township is that there are not more than one family living on a property. Mr. Kepes commented if the Board were to approve this variance the Board would request the applicant/property owner sign a Single Family Affidavit stating that only one family lives on the property and it would not be used in terms of housing. Mr. Kepes questioned if the applicant had a concern signing the Single Family Affidavit.

Mr. Troszak replied he has legal opinions and recommendations that he does not sign the Single Family Affidavit. Mr. Troszak commented the current zoning of his property is sufficient.

Mr. Kepes commented if your not using the structure, as housing there should not be an issue with signing the Single Family Affidavit as required by the Township for accessory structures. Mr. Kepes stated he could not support the variance request if the Single Family Affidavit was not going to be signed.

Mr. Troszak indicated the only utility to be installed would be electrical.

Mr. Kepes questioned would the petitioner agree that electrical would be the only utility installed within the structure.

Mr. Troszak replied that he had no need for additional utilities other than electrical within the structure.

Chairman Khederian asked Ms. McCullough to address the policy for a Single Family Affidavit requirement within Bloomfield Township.

Ms. McCullough replied a Single Family Affidavit requirement is a long-standing policy of the Bloomfield Township to require any accessory structures of a significant size to have the applicant if it has to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals, to submit an affidavit that is prepared and has been approved in form by the Township Attorney and it is then recorded at Oakland County Clerks Office. Ms. McCullough indicated so that any use whether by the applicant by example or other subsequent owners of the property would be responsible for acknowledgement that there would be no dwelling within this structure.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 1210 Oxford Road to revise a previously approved accessory structure, by building a 37’ x 31.3’ x 17’ high storage building and (2) boulder walls, that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance for a 17’ high storage building which exceeds one-half of the ground floor area of the main building, located in a front yard 11-feet from the northerly side lot line, and (2) boulder retaining walls located in a front yard less than 16-feet to the side lot line 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 recorded document indicating that no additional utilities other than electrical would be installed in the storage building. Building and electrical permit applications are required to be submitted to the Building Department within five (5) business days. Completion date by: December 31st, 2006.

Motion carried, 4 – 0 – 1.

YEAS: Devine, Reisinger, Kepes, Khederian
NAYS: None
ABSTAINED: Taylor

(7) 1974 Klingensmith – S. Glass/Bloomfield on Square Lake Condominium

Mr. Dan Teodecki of Black Forest Building Company, was present seeking approval for a subdivision entranceway sign, a 5.5’ x 4.5’ high ground sign, located on private property 15’ from the road right-of-way line for Unit 1, Square Lake Condominium, Section 6. Article XV, Section 1513 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires the review and approval of all residential entranceway structures. (19-06-277-001)

Mr. Teodecki addressed the Board with a request for a subdivision entranceway ground sign. Mr. Teodecki indicated the intent of the proposed sign is to help in the beautification of the entrance into the complex, but more importantly to identify the complex to visitors, emergency vehicles, and homeowners.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 1974 Klingensmith for a subdivision entranceway sign, that the request be approved as submitted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(8) 5434 Longmeadow Drive – A. Ross

Mr. & Mrs. Alan Ross, homeowners, were present seeking approval for the construction of an accessory structure, a 30’ x 52’ x 16.5’ high detached garage screened with plantings for the purpose of storing automobiles, located in a front yard, Big Beaver/Quarton Road frontage, on Lot 40 and Part of Lot 41, Bloomfield Estates Subdivision, Section 24. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not exceed 14 ft. in height, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-24-353-010)

Mr. Ross addressed the Board with the request to construct a four (4) car detached garage screened with plantings to be utilized to store classic automobiles.

Mr. Devine questioned the petitioner would a Single Family Affidavit be submitted to the Township.

Mr. Ross replied a Single Family Affidavit would be submitted to the Township.

Ms. Reisinger commented the subdivision association approval has been provided for this variance request.

Chairman Khederian questioned the size of the proposed detached garage.

Mr. Ross replied the detached garage would be 30’ x 52’ x 16.5’ high. Mr. Ross indicated the inside peak of the garage with a finished ceiling would be 11.5’ high to accommodate an automobile storage stacking/lift. Mr. Ross indicated he thought he had met the Township Ordinance height requirement of 14-feet. Mr. Ross commented he researched the word "height" within the Ordinance and the definition of height called out for it to be half way between the ceiling and the peak of the structure.

Mr. Kepes questioned is the height of an accessory structure deemed to be the top and not the average.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building, replied the height of an accessory structure is deemed to be the top, which is reflected in Mr. Hampton’s letter.

Ms. McCullough commented there has been ongoing conversation relating to the height of an accessory structure with Mr. Ross and there are definitions found historically thought by measuring the accessory structure to the utmost building height/peak. Ms. McCullough suggested clarification would be needed for future variance requests.

Chairman Khederian made mention of letters received in opposition from Mr. Robert Ogg, resident at 5517 Pine Brooke Court and Dr. Patel.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 5434 Longmeadow Drive for the construction of a detached garage, that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance to locate a detached garage in a front yard with an overall height of 16.5-feet be granted, based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner is to obtain building, electrical and plumbing permit applications and complete project in a timely manner. Petitioner is to submit a Single Family Affidavit to the Township.

Mr. Kepes questioned the exterior materials of the existing home.

Mr. Ross replied the materials of the existing home and pool house is aluminum siding.

Mr. Kepes referred to the site plan and commented to the brick on the existing home and indicated the materials should be the same on the proposed detached garage.

Mr. Ross replied 6-foot arborvitaes would be installed on the south side of the proposed detached garage to help screen the garage from Longmeadow Drive. Mr. Ross referred to the site plan and indicated an existing 6-foot high fence along Big Beaver Road would help screen the proposed detached garage from view.

Chairman Khederian asked for the Boards decision.

Motion carried, 3 – 2.

YEAS: Devine, Taylor, Reisinger

NAYS: Kepes, Khederian

Motion failed due to lack of support.

Ms. McCullough suggested to the Board to identify their concerns for the variance request.

Chairman Khederian replied with her concern being the continuity of the height of the proposed accessory structure.

Mr. Kepes replied with his concern being the materials of the exterior of the proposed accessory structure should be brick, which currently exists on the home.

Mr. Ross suggested to the Board, would brick half way up the proposed detached garage be sufficient with the elimination of installing the 6-foot high arborvitaes.

Mr. Kepes replied he would like to see the 6-foot high arborvitaes and the brick installed for the proposed accessory structure.

Mr. Ross suggested Williams’s panel brick to be installed for the proposed detached garage.

Mr. Kepes replied Williams’s panel brick would be acceptable for the exterior materials for the proposed detached garage.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 5434 Longmeadow Drive for the construction of a detached garage, that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance to locate a detached garage in a front yard with an overall height of 16.5-feet be granted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner is to obtain building, electrical and plumbing permit applications and complete project in a timely manner. Petitioner is to submit a Single Family Affidavit to the Township. Petitioner is to install 6-foot high arborvitaes along the south side of the accessory structure to screen from Longmeadow Drive. The exterior material of the garage to be entirely bricked by William’s panel brick material that would match in color of the home or half of the accessory structure from ground up be real brick material to match in color of the home.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(9) 1801 Telegraph Road – Lowe’s Companies #713

Mr. Larry Leist of Hilton Displays, was present seeking approval for the construction of additional signage, an 8’ x 4’ high permanent ground sign in addition to the existing wall sign, located 30’ from the road right-of-way line on Acreage Parcel, Section 6. Article XV, Sections 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 allows one (1) ground, temporary or wall sign within the B-3, General Business, zoned district. (19-06-226-014)

Mr. Leist addressed the Board with the request for an additional ground sign. Mr. Leist indicated the proposed ground sign would measure 4’ high by 8’ wide and would coexist with the wall sign. Mr. Leist referred to the site plan and indicated the proposed sign would be located within an existing landscaped area near Telegraph Road. Mr. Leist explained to the Board that the sign was needed due to the fact that the building is virtually unnoticed to motorists along Telegraph Road.

Ms. Reisinger made mention of the Planning Commission work on the new Master Plan update and one of the items being discussed is to encourage businesses along North Telegraph Road.

Mr. Kepes questioned would landscaping be installed for the proposed ground sign.

Mr. Leist referred to the detailed landscape plan and indicated the proposed ground sign would have new shrubs and mulch installed around the area of the proposed ground sign.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 1801 Telegraph Road for additional signage, be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction for practical difficulty. Building and electrical permits are required to be submitted to the Building Department.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(10) 1460 W. Long Lake – S. Read

Mr. Yogi Anand of Anand Enterprises, along with Kenneth Trever, builder, was present seeking approval to encroach 35.4 ft. into the lakeside setback with the required average setback of the neighboring properties at 87.4 ft. for the construction of an addition for the existing non-conforming home, to include two staircases, a pool equipment room, and a shower room, located 52 ft. from the water’s edge. Also seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, two 5’ x 3’ x 7’ high arbors, one located at the east end of the in-ground pool and one located at the west end, Acreage Parcel AC150D, Section 17. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon expanded or extended. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires 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 ft. of each side of the lot in question. 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. (19-17-301-008)

Mr. Anand addressed the Board by referring to the site plan by requesting to encroach 35.4 feet into the lakeside setbacks of the neighboring properties at 87.4 feet for the construction of an addition. Mr. Anand indicated the existing home is currently non-conforming, which requires a variance request. Mr. Anand indicated the proposed addition would include two (2) staircases, a pool equipment room, and a shower room, to be located 52-feet from the water’s edge. Mr. Anand referred to the site plan and indicated two (2) 5’x 3’x 7’ high arbors, one to be placed at the east end of the in-ground pool and one located at the west end.

Ms. Reisinger made reference to the site plan and questioned the location of the in-ground swimming pool.

Mr. Anand replied the house would be located 25-feet above the water line with the in-ground swimming pool tucked into the continuous slope to the water line from the back of the house. Mr. Anand indicated the in-ground swimming pool would be shielded under the grade level from the front of the house.

Mr. Taylor questioned how visible would the concrete deck and swimming pool be from the lakeside.

Mr. Anand replied the concrete deck exists with the proposed pool equipment room and shower room to be located underneath the existing deck that would not be fully exposed to the lakeside. Mr. Anand referred to the site plan and indicated the two (2) staircases, which would lead from the main deck of the home down to the swimming pool concrete deck.

Mr. Taylor questioned would landscaping be installed at the north side of the swimming pool to help shield the impact of the exposed lower level of the home from the lake.

Mr. Anand replied if landscaping were installed, it would obstruct the view of the lake for the homeowners. Mr. Anand indicated the east and west side of the property is shielded from the neighbor’s view. Mr. Anand commented subdivision association approval has been granted along with the neighbors from the east and west side of the property.

Chairman Khederian questioned what materials would be used to construct the staircases.

Mr. Anand replied the staircases would be constructed of brick material to match the existing home.

Mr. Gregory Caplier, resident at 1440 W. Long Lake, was present and spoke in support of the variance request.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 1460 W. Long Lake for the construction of two (2) arbors, be approved as submitted, and the variance for the 35.4-foot encroachment into the lakeside setback for the existing non-conforming building 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 must acquire all necessary permits.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(11) 3375 Eastpointe Lane – G. Naman

Dr. Greg Naman, property owner, along with Jamal Kalabat of JSK Design Group, was present seeking approval for a dimensional lakeside setback variance of 75 ft. for the construction of a new home located 25 ft. from the water’s edge, with the maximum lakeside setback not to exceed 100 ft. The average setback of the neighboring properties is 121.5 ft. Also seeking approval for the installation and construction of an accessory use/structure, an in-door swimming pool, located in the lower level of the proposed new home and two entranceway piers with an overall height of 6 ft., located in a front yard at each side of the driveway for Lot 9, Supervisor’s Plat No. 7, Section 8. 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 ft. of each side of the lot in question, and that in no instance shall a setback in excess of hundred (100) feet be required. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory use/structures shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-08-476-002)

Mr. Kalabat addressed the Board with the request for a dimensional lakeside setback variance of 75-feet for the construction of a new home located 25-feet from the water’s edge. Mr. Kalabat indicated the proposed home is to be located within the same area as the existing residence that is to be demolished. Mr. Kalabat referred to the construction drawings and indicated the proposed location of an in-door swimming pool to be placed in the lower level of the proposed new home. Mr. Kalabat referred to the site plan with the request to keep the existing walls with two (2) entranceway piers with an overall height of 6-feet, located in the front yard at each side of the driveway.

Mr. Devine requested to see an existing site plan versus the proposed site plan.

Mr. Saad Kalabat, builder was present and commented to the proposed construction site. Mr. Kalabat indicated the proposed home would be further to the north than the existing home, but it would be closer to the lake on the east.

Mr. Kepes made mention of a letter received in opposition of the variance request from Mr. Michael Vlasic, resident at 1211 Club Drive.

Ms. Reisinger expressed her concerns regarding maintaining the two (2) existing entranceway pillars during the construction process.

Chairman Khederian expressed her concerns regarding the proposed home to be located 25-feet from the water’s edge.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Devine in regard to the appeal at 3375 Eastpointe Lane for the installation of an in-door swimming pool and two entranceway piers, be approved as submitted and the variance for a dimensional lakeside setback of 25-feet and two entranceway piers to be located in a front yard be granted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate

compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for practical difficulty.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(12) 1040 Forest Lane – T. Crawford

Mr. Tracy Crawford, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction of the following accessory use/structures and fencing to allow renovations for Lot 21, Supervisor’s Plat of Berkshire Forest, Section 34:

Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires the review and approval of all accessory use/structures. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that fences in a residential district must be located in a required side or rear yard and shall not exceed 4 ft. in height. (19-34-328-018)

Mr. Crawford addressed the Board with a detailed presentation. Mr. Crawford identified on the site plan after removing all the dead ash trees and stumps from the site and considerable rehabilitation of the site, which included grading the lot, installing an irrigation system and re-establishing the lawn. Mr. Crawford indicated tree replacement has begun by planting (44) forty-four evergreens ranging from 8 to 14-feet in height. Mr. Crawford commented (25) twenty-five additional evergreen trees are planned to be installed along with some additional perimeter screening consisting of large evergreen shrubs and long-season deciduous trees. Mr. Crawford indicated the site design and concept of the proposed plan would provide an urban garden with a vineyard. Mr. Crawford indicated the site would be conceived as having four zones and explained each zone in detail. The front zone encompasses the residence, gardens, patios, crushed granite circle drive and carport. The central-front zone encompasses the circle garden with the barn, barnyard, screened space, foot entrance, tractor entrance, circle garden with bent glass and putting holes incorporating fruit trees. The central rear-zone encompasses the tennis court and gazebo with a green painted asphalt tennis court with no lighting. The last is the rear-zone that would encompass the vineyard. The five-row vineyard would be approximately 50’x 50’ plus a flower garden with a path and a turn-around.

Ms. Reisinger made mention of the approval letter received from Berkshire Forest Association for the variance request. Ms. Reisinger questioned the intended use of the proposed barn.

Mr. Crawford replied the proposed barn would be used to store lawn equipment, a car and motorcycles.

Mr. Taylor questioned the four (4) 7-foot high screening walls located in the front and rear yards and asked the petitioner to identify them on the site plan.

Mr. Crawford made reference to the site plan and indicated each screen wall. Mr. Crawford referred to the rear screened walls with one off of the master suite and one off of the kitchen area. Mr. Crawford made reference to the front yard screened walls and indicated two (2) separate walls with a break in the middle that incorporates a walkway, which would help with screening and light issues.

Ms. Reisinger made mention of the letter received from Mr. Stephen Bergmann, resident at 3225 E. Bradford Drive, in support of the tennis court however, was in opposition of the gazebo, storage barn, and the four (4) 7-foot high screen walls for this variance request.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 1040 Forest Lane for the construction of a tennis court, a gazebo/pagoda, and a storage barn, that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance for the four (4) sections of screen wall with an overall height of 7-feet be granted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for practical difficulty.

With the use of the tennis court from April through November and hours of use to be 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM, there would be no excessive noise or nuisance to the neighbors. Petitioner is to submit a Single Family Affidavit to the Township. Petitioner is to acquire all necessary building permits and complete in a timely manner.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(13) 2845 Berkshire Drive – R. Tata

Mr. Robert Tata, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the existing 6 ft. high privacy fence screened with plantings, which has been installed for the purpose of creating a courtyard enclosure, located in a side yard extending from the wall of the building towards the easterly side lot line on Lot 207, Westchester Village No. 1, Section 34. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a residential district shall not exceed 4 ft. in height. (19-34-276-001)

Mr. Tata addressed the Board with a request for an existing 6-foot high privacy fence, located in the side yard. Mr. Tata indicated the fence was installed to create a courtyard enclosure.

Mr. Devine questioned whether subdivision association approval was granted.

Mr. Tata replied he has not approached the subdivision association for their comments.

Mr. Taylor asked the Board for discussion and indicated that he sits on the Board of Directors for this association. Mr. Taylor commented since this item has not gone before the association, he feels a conflict of interest arising and asked the Board to recuse him from the item.

Chairman Khederian informed the petitioner that he must obtain all four (4) Board Members votes for approval of the variance request.

Mr. Tata made reference to the site plan and indicated the existing fence, which he had added onto by connecting two ends. Mr. Tata commented he was not aware that subdivision approval would be required.

Chairman Khederian referred to the pictures and made mention of the existing posts that were 4-foot high and questioned the purpose of the 6-foot high fence.

Mr. Tata replied the 6-foot high fence was installed for privacy.

Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Mr. Devine for the appeal at 2845 Berkshire Drive for the existing 6-foot high fence, that the variance be tabled for 60 days to allow the petitioner to seek the input from the subdivision association.

Motion carried, 4 – 0 - 1.

YEAS: Kepes, Devine, Reisinger, Khederian

NAYS: None

ABSTAINED: Taylor

Mr. Kepes excused himself from the Board to explain the process required to Mr. Tata

(14) 6833 Woodbank Drive – T. Wells

Mr. John Stakerfinney of Kellett Construction, was present seeking approval for a 2 ft. encroachment into the required 16 ft. side yard setback for the installation of an air-conditioning unit screened with evergreen plantings, located 14 ft. from the northerly side lot line on Lot 131, Birmingham Farms, Section 32. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground-mounted mechanical and electrical equipment shall not be located in the required 16 ft. side yard setback. (19-32-252-004)

Mr. Stakerfinney addressed the Board with the request for a 2-foot encroachment into the side yard for the installation of an air-conditioning unit. Mr. Stakerfinney indicated the air-conditioning unit would be screened with evergreens.

Motion by Mr. Devine, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 6833 Woodbank Drive for a 2-foot encroachment into the 16-foot northerly side yard setback for the installation of an air-conditioning unit, 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 – 1.

YEAS: Devine, Reisinger, Taylor, Khederian
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Kepes

(15) 4547 Grindley Court – M. Klein

Mr. Michael Klein, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction of an existing accessory structure, a 35.8’ x 11.8’ x 19.7’ high pergola, which includes a 6’ x 8’ screen wall to be used for the purpose of screening pool equipment and a 9’ x 6’ screen wall to be used as a storage area, located in a rear yard adjacent to the rear wall of the building more than 16 ft. from the side and rear property lines on Lot 84, Bloomfield Heights No. 5, Section 20. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not exceed 14 ft. in height and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-20-126-008)

Mr. Klein addressed the Board with the request for the construction of an existing 35.8’ x 11.8’ x 9.’ high pergola which would include a 6’ x 8’ screen wall to be utilized for screening the pool equipment and a 9’ x 6’ screen wall to be utilized as a storage area, located in the rear yard. Mr. Klein submitted subdivision association approval to the Board.

Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 4547 Grindley Court for the construction of a pergola with screen walls, that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance for the height of a 9-foot high pergola with screen walls 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. Building permit application must be submitted to the Building Department within five (5) business days.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(16) 4885 Loch Lomond Drive – J. Miller

Mr. Jeffery Miller, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the installation of 6 ft. high privacy fencing, located along the rear lot line of Lot 158, the Braes of Bloomfield No. 3, Section 30. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a residential district shall not exceed 4 ft. in height. (19-30-151-004)

Mr. Miller addressed the Board with the request for the installation of a 6-foot high privacy fence to be located along the rear lot line. Mr. Miller indicated the purpose of the proposed fence would be to insure the safety of their children. Mr. Miller made reference to the site plan and indicated the sticks in the yard along the lot line.

Ms. Reisinger questioned would the petitioner consider a 4-foot black decorative fence with landscaping instead of the proposed 6-foot high privacy fence.

Mr. Miller replied a 4-foot fence was considered. Mr. Miller indicated upon reviewing the property a 6-foot fence would provide privacy and screen the neighbor’s dead trees from view.

Mr. Thomas Bastian, resident at 4891 Loch Lomond, was present and spoke in support of the variance request.

Chairman Khederian made mention of two letters received in opposition from Ms. Dondeena Patterson, resident at 5795 Inkster Road, and Ms. Evelyn Wright, resident at 4871 Loch Lomond.

Ms. Dondeena Patterson, resident at 5795 Inkster Road, was present and indicated the sticks in the rear yard were installed to protect the little bushes she had installed. Ms. Patterson indicated she removed the sticks and installed poles with string to keep the lawn maintenance crew from running the bushes over. Ms. Patterson commented the neighbor’s did not like the poles, so she removed the poles and a couple of days later the bushes were mowed over by the lawn crew. Ms. Patterson suggested leaving the rear yard open and installing trees instead of the 6-foot privacy fence.

Mr. Miller commented he was not aware that Ms. Patterson had a change of heart regarding the 6-foot fence.

Mr. Taylor questioned would natural screening such as 6-foot arborvitaes be considered instead of the proposed 6-foot privacy fence.

Mr. Miller replied landscaping was a thought, however it would be expensive.

Mr. Taylor indicated the 6-foot high fence would require screening to be installed on Ms. Patterson’s side of the property.

Chairman Khederian made mention of the letter received from Mr. Carlo Barzotto, owner of 5795 Inkster Road, indicating the enclosed dimensions of the pond in the rear yard and the distance of the pond from the proposed fence line.

Mr. Kepes suggested to the applicant to work the screening out with the neighbor at 5795 Inkster Road.

Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to the appeal at 4885 Loch Lomond Drive for 6-foot high fencing, be denied without prejudice as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance with the provisions of practical difficulty compliance would not be unduly burdensome. There is injustice to the adjoining neighbors. There are no unique circumstances with the property, and it is self-created. The petitioner and neighbor at 5795 Inkster Road agreed to work out the possibility of arborvitae screening along the rear property line.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building, addressed the Board with screening requirements. Ms. McCullough indicated to the Board the importance of being more specific while making their motion to include the landscaping requirements. Ms. McCullough indicted in most cases a landscape plan is requested and submitted with the application or at the day of the meeting. Ms. McCullough commented that when the Board indicates during their motion the requirement for screening with five (5) evergreen trees to be installed, it may not be sufficient, depending on the species, and planting locations, it may not be adequate. Ms. McCullough asked the Board to indicate the type, species, height, single-row, double-row, and/or stager the screening when making their motion.

The Board discussed and agreed to be specific in their making of motions to include the landscaping and screening requirements.