Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

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

PRESENT: Board Members James Aldrich, Robert Taylor, Jane Reisinger, Brian Henry, Lisa Seneker, Carol Rosati and Chairman Corinne Khederian

ABSENT: Dan Devine, Brian Kepes

STAFF PRESENT: Patricia McCullough, Planning and Building Director, Brenda Schlutow, Code and Ordinance Director, Robin Carley, Development Coordinator, and Tamara Coolman, Building Department Plan Reviewer

Chairman Khederian addressed the audience and welcomed new Zoning Board of Appeals member, Ms. Carol Rosati.

Approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of November 14th, 2006.

Mr. Robert Tata, homeowner, along with his son-in-law, Mr. Robert Linch, were present seeking approval for the existing 6 ft. high privacy fence screened with plantings, 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. Linch addressed the Board with the request for an existing 6-foot high privacy fence screened with plantings. Mr. Linch provided Association comments to the Board and indicated Mr. Tata had sought the factors determining validity for the existing 6-foot privacy fence.

Mr. Taylor questioned was the original fence 6-feet in height.

Mr. Linch replied the fence was 4-foot and 6-foot in portions. Mr. Linch referred to the site plan and indicated the location of the fence.

Mr. Tata made reference to the photos and indicated the debris had been cleaned up from the construction of the fence.

Mr. Linch stated the adjacent neighbor to the north had approved this request and was consulted prior to construction of the fence.

Chairman Khederian made mention of the comments received from the subdivision association stating that Great Westchester Association were in opposition of this request.

Mr. Linch replied the position of the Architectural Control Committee was neutral, and stated it was the President of the Association, who denied this request.

Mr. Taylor commented that the fence appears to be more than a repair and that a simple repair would have not required the Boards review.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building Department, replied a variance is not required for maintenance repair, however once the fence was removed and reconstructed, it required compliance and the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Tata provided material samples of the fence to the Board.

Mr. Taylor questioned the applicant what is the practical difficulty as it relates to this request.

Mr. Linch replied Mr. Tata became aware of the intricacies of the project when he began to repair the fence that predated the Ordinance, and indicated it would be a hardship to have it removed.

Mr. Tata made reference to the site plan and indicated the 6-foot high fence at the north side of the property. Mr. Tata indicated the fence replaced a hedge.

Mr. Taylor commented that the fence in question adjoins a 4-foot high fence and questioned the need for a 6-foot high fence.

Mr. Linch replied the fence did not have to be 6-foot high.

Mr. Tata replied that both sides of his property previously had a 6-foot high fence.

Mr. Robert Brands of Robert R. Brands Environments, was present seeking approval for the following items to remain after demolition of the existing home on Lot 1, The Braes of Bloomfield, Section 30:

Article II, Section 201 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 defines accessory use/structure as a use, which is clearly incidental to, customarily found in connection with, and located on the same zoning lot as, the principal use to which it is related. Article XV, Section 1517 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a 25 ft. setback from the boundary or edge of a wetland. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that all accessory structures require the review and approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-30-326-001)

Mr. Brands addressed the Board with the request for detached garage and a stone wall to remain after demolition of the existing home. Mr. Brands submitted a landscape plan to the Board and indicated the removal of the existing driveway from Walnut Lake Road. Mr. Brands made reference to the additional photos submitted and discussed with the Board. Mr. Brands indicated the existing garage material would match the new residential home.

Ms. Reisinger questioned would the trees remain along Walnut Lake Road.

Mr. Brands replied the existing trees would remain between the road and the wetlands. Mr. Brands made reference to the proposed landscape plan and indicated the existing evergreen trees would also remain behind the existing sidewalk.

Mr. Henry questioned would the new home proposed an attached garage.

Mr. Brands replied the proposed new home would have an attached garage and that this structure would be utilized for additional storage and gardening equipment. Mr. Brands indicated the proposed attached garage would face the adjacent neighbors garage.

Mr. Ernest J. Essad of Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC, was present seeking approval for existing accessory structures, two retaining walls screened with plantings, one with an overall height of 20 ft. located in a side yard 5 ft. from the westerly side lot line, and one with an overall height of 6 ft. located in a side yard 3.3 ft. from the easterly side lot line on Lot 19, Supervisor’s Plat of Franklin Lake Estates, 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, shall not exceed 14 ft. in height, 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. (19-31-376-013)

Mr. Essad addressed the Board with the requirements from the Board on November 14^th, 2006. Mr. Essad referred to the enhanced photographs indicating additional landscaping and a landscaping plan for the retaining walls. Mr. Essad indicated the landscaping plan was submitted on November 11^th, 2006, which indicates the plantings reflected in the enhanced photographs. Mr. Essad stated the initial retaining walls were previously approved and constructed has been in litigation. Mr. Essad commented through inspection it was determined that the retaining walls would require a variance. Mr. Essad stated the Township engineers were involved doing site visits and site inspections. Mr. Essad stated throughout the course of inspections the Township engineers recommended and requested that the side retaining walls be installed. Mr.

Essad stated that the petitioner was made aware of the required variance once the walls were installed.

Mr. Taylor questioned why this request was before the Board, if the Township required the retaining walls.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building Department, made comment as to the concern for the structural integrity of the retaining walls, and that the Township requested engineering reports from Hubble Roth and Clark, who visited the site and found severe erosion occurring. Ms. McCullough indicated the recommendation for some method of containment was a determining factor of the part of Hubble Roth and Clark and the litigating attorney. Ms. McCullough stated that regardless of the recommendation, this process could not be superceded.

Mr. Taylor questioned the applicant if he agreed the retaining walls were needed.

Mr. Essad replied the Township made the recommendation, there was no dispute on the recommendation, and the walls were installed as requested.

Mr. Taylor questioned the "For Sale" sign located at this address.

Mr. Essad replied although the homeowner planned on living at the residence, they would consider a feasible offer.

Ms. Reisinger commented at the last meeting, landscaping was a concern for the retaining walls and questioned would the enhanced landscaping be evergreen.

Mr. Essad replied the site would be landscaped according to the plan presented.

Ms. McCullough referred to the landscape plan and indicated a cranberry bush would be planted to the left with Baltic ivy screening the retaining walls.

Ms. Seneker indicated the applicant had accomplished what was recommended of them and commented that any follow-up could be addressed with the Township engineers, Hubble Roth and Clark.

Ms. McCullough confirmed that there would be continued reports from Hubble Roth and Clark.

Ms. Seneker questioned if Hubble Roth and Clark was satisfied with the retaining walls.

Ms. McCullough replied relative to the retaining walls, Hubble Roth and Clark was satisfied.

Ms. Seneker questioned if the Township was satisfied.

Ms. McCullough replied relative to the function as intended for the retaining walls that the Township was satisfied.

Chairman Khederian made mention of two (2) letters received in opposition from Mr. David Nordstrom, resident at 4782 Pickering, and Mr. Fienman, resident at 7420 Inner Circle.

Mr. & Mrs. Robert Zuliani, homeowners, were present seeking approval for the installation of 6 ft. high fencing, located in a front yard, West Hickory Grove frontage, on Lot 125, Chestnut Run No. 4, Section 9. 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. (19-09-204-012)

Ms. Zuliani addressed the Board with a request to install a 6-foot high fence, to be located in the front yard of West Hickory Grove frontage. Ms. Zuliani indicated their lot backed up to West Hickory Grove. Ms. Zuliani stated the newly installed safety path destroyed the privacy to the rear of their home due to the removal of the mature trees. Ms. Zuliani requested a shadow box style, 6-foot high fence, which would be aesthetically pleasing with plantings to help soften the view and blend with the surrounding environment. Ms. Zuliani indicated Chestnut Run North, homeowners association, granted their approval for the installation of a fence. Ms. Zuliani provided photographs to the Board of their property before and after the installation of the safety path. Ms. Zuliani stated that a 4-foot high fence would not replace the privacy to her property.

Ms. Reisinger made mention of letters received two (2) of which were in opposition of this variance request from Mr. Donald Glenn, resident at 405 West Hickory Grove Road, Mr. Allen Rodney, resident at 375 West Hickory Grove Road.

Ms. Reisinger questioned would landscaping be installed on both sides of the proposed fence.

Mr. Zuliani replied landscaping would be installed on both sides of the proposed 6-foot high fence.

Ms. Seneker questioned could evergreens be utilized rather than the proposed 6-foot high fence.

Mr. Zuliani replied it would take numerous amount of evergreens, which would be cost prohibited. Mr. Zuliani referred to the photographs and indicated plantings would be stunted due to the lack of sunlight in this particular area.

Mr. Surinder Batra, resident at 500 Stoneridge Lane, was present and spoke in support of the variance request. Mr. Batra indicated he would rather see landscaping than the proposed 6-foot high fence.

Mr. Taylor commented he was having difficulty with this request for a variety of reasons, one of which is that compliance with practical difficulty had been met and that the variance was not self-created. Mr. Taylor stated the circumstances are unique to the property, creating privacy for the homeowner does not create an injustice to the adjoining neighbors, and landscaping is an expensive option. Mr. Taylor stated the safety path was installed by Bloomfield Township.

Mr. Henry commented was a budget allowed for restoration.

Mr. Zuliani indicated his road frontage is 220-feet.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building Department, stated the project did not allow to the restore vegetation, it however included restoration to the most extent possible, and mentioned the homeowner’s endorsed the program.

Ms. Seneker questioned the location of the proposed 6-foot high fence.

Mr. Zuliani replied the proposed 6-foot high fence would be placed along the tree line, staggered, and 10-feet from the road right-of-way.

Mr. Henry questioned Ms. McCullough about the funding for the safety path.

Ms. McCullough replied the Department of Public Works and Engineering & Environmental Department would need to address the funding of the safety path project.

Ms. Reisinger suggested to the Board to table to item, to allow research on funding of the restoration of the safety path project.

Mr. Henry Wong, homeowner, was present seeking approval for existing fencing with an overall height of 6 ft., located in side and rear yards, on the side lot lines and extending toward the wall of the building on Lot 49, Peabody Orchards No. 1, Section 28. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a residential district shall not exceed 4 ft. in height. (19-28-227-010)

Mr. Wong addressed the Board with a request for an existing 6-foot high fence to remain on the property. Mr. Wong indicated the 6-foot fence panels were installed to replace the dilapidated panels that were required by code to enclose an in-ground swimming pool located in the rear yard. Mr. Wong apologized indicating to the Board his intent was to repair the fence and did not know a permit was required.

Ms. Seneker made mention of the letter received from Mr. Terry Ledwidge, Chairman of Peabody Orchards No.1 association in support of the variance request.

Chairman Khederian made mention of two (2) letters in support of the variance request from Mr.& Mrs. Perry Yun, residents at 3763 Quarton Road and Ms. Lucia Damino, resident at 3751 Quarton Road. Chairman Khederian also made mention of one (1) letter in opposition of the variance request from Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Carson, residents at 5631 Tall Oaks Road.

Mr. Taylor questioned the height of the side yard fence panels.

Mr. Wong replied the side yard fence panels are 4-foot in height and the front yard panels are 6-foot in height with an access gate.

Mr. Craig Moncher, homeowner was present seeking approval for the installation of an accessory structure, a 7.1’ x 7.1’ x 3’ high hot tub inset into a deck, located in a rear yard more than 16 ft. from the side and rear property lines on Lots 1 and 2, Morningside Heights, Section 27. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall be screened from adjacent residences and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-27-126-041)

Mr. Moncher addressed the Board with a request for the installation of a self-contained hot tub, to be inset into an existing deck, located in the rear yard. Mr. Moncher referred to the site plan and indicated the property is well screened with plantings obstructing the adjacent neighbors view of this hot tub.

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

Mr. Donald Gardiner, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the replacement of an existing accessory structure, an air-conditioning unit screened with plantings, located in a front yard immediately adjacent to the northwesterly wall of the building on Lot 27, Gilbert Lake Estates, Section 28. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment shall be permitted in any side or rear yard. (19-28-178-004)

Mr. Gardiner addressed the Board with a request for a replacement of an existing air-conditioning unit, to be located in the front yard, screened with plantings. Mr. Gardiner made reference to the site plan and indicated the rear location would not be practical for the air-conditioner, due to the existing swimming pool and brick pavers.

Ms. Seneker questioned would additional landscaping be installed.

Mr. Gardiner replied he had to clear the area for the installation of the air-conditioning unit. Mr. Gardiner commented he would restore the area when the installation was complete.

Chairman Khederian made mention of a letter of support signed by three (3) neighbors. Ms. Judy Partridge, resident at 3916 Cottontail Lane, Ms. Linda Saperstein, resident at 3929 Cottontail Lane, and Ms. Annette Holder, resident at 3905 Cottontail Lane.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

Mr. Ji-Yong Park, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a 2.5’ x 6’ high satellite dish, located in a rear yard more than 16 ft. from the southerly side and rear property lines on Lot 304, Birmingham Farms Subdivision, Section 32. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall be screened from adjacent residences, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-32-451-011)

Mr. Park addressed the Board with a request for an existing satellite dish located in the rear yard. Mr. Park indicated evergreens would be installed in the spring of 2007 to help screen the satellite dish from view.

Ms. Seneker made mention of a letter received from Mr. Al Kachel, resident at 7233 Cathedral expressing concerns relating to the reception and the appropriate screening of the satellite dish.

Mr. Ryan Hessano was present on behalf of Mr. Suad Husaynu, resident at 7357 Cathedral Drive, and spoke with concerns of screening the satellite dish from view.

Mr. Park stated he is a pastor and the satellite dish provides a required service for the Christian channel.

Ms. Reisinger questioned could the existing satellite dish be placed on the wall of the residence.

Mr. Park replied he could not speak fluent English and the reception was not possible when mounted on the wall of the residence due to large overgrown trees.

Ms. Reisinger questioned if additional evergreens were installed, would the reception of the satellite dish be disrupted.

Mr. Henry commented plantings could not block the southwest side, which may prohibit the reception of the satellite dish.

Mr. Hessano questioned could the satellite dish be placed along the patio.

Mr. Park replied a satellite technician has sought alternate locations and only two (2) locations were providing service. Mr. Park indicated the rear yard location and the other option was towards the front of the home. Mr. Park stated he was unaware of the required variance for the satellite dish prior the installation.

Ms. Reisinger questioned could another company provide this type of service.

Mr. Park replied the service is provided from Seoul Korea.

Mr. Douglas Necci, Landscape Architect, along with the Mr. & Mrs. Gupta, homeowner’s, were present seeking approval for existing accessory structures, including piers, landscape walls and retaining walls screened with plantings with an overall height of 11.2 ft. less than 16 ft. to the side lot lines, located in the front, side and rear yards, Part of Lot 2, Woodcrest Farms, Section 20. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be located 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. (19-20-301-018)

Mr. Necci addressed the Board with the request for an approval of decorative landscape walls and piers located in the front, side and rear yards of the property. Mr. Necci indicated the walls have been constructed with the exception of the entrance pillars, which are to be located on either side of the driveway near Lone Pine Road. Mr. Necci made reference to the submitted landscape plan and indicated the elevation of the walls and photographs of the walls. Mr. Necci indicated the material is split faced, buff in color, concrete units. Mr. Necci commented the pillars would be capped with cast stone slabs.

Ms. Seneker made mention of the approval letter received from Woodcrest Farms Improvement Association for this variance request.

Ms. Reisinger commented a Hold Harmless Affidavit would be required for the two (2) piers at the entrance of the driveway.

Mr. Brian Mazurkiewicz of Orchid Development, was present seeking approval for existing accessory structures, three air-conditioning units screened with a 3 ft. high masonry/dry-stacked stone wall enclosure and evergreen plantings, located in a front yard, West Square Lake Road frontage, immediately adjacent to the residential building, for Unit 92, Turtle Lake, Section 6. 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 building. Article XV, Section 1510 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. (19-06-385-027)

Mr. Mazurkiewicz addressed the Board with the request for three (3) existing air-conditioning units screened with a 3-foot high masonry stone wall enclosure and evergreen plantings, located in a front yard of West Square Lake Road frontage. Mr. Mazurkiewicz referred to the site plan and indicated the parcel has three (3) frontages.

Ms. Reisinger made mention of the approval received from the Turtle Lake Architectural Control Committee for the variance request.

Motion carried, 7 – 0.

Ms. Patricia Morandini, homeowner, was present seeking approval to replace an existing accessory structure with a 18’ x 20’ x 12’ high detached garage, located in a rear yard 4 ft. from the easterly side lot line and 3 ft. from the southerly rear lot line for Lot 51, Bloomfield High-Point Subdivision, Section 4. 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. (19-04-277-011)

Ms. Morandini addressed the Board with a request for an 18’x 20’x12’ high detached garage, to be located in the rear yard. Ms. Morandini indicated the existing shed does not provide sufficient storage, and this proposed location is the best due to the driveway is shared with the adjacent neighbors. Ms. Morandini indicated the garage would have electrical utilities only.

Ms. Seneker questioned how do the adjacent neighbors feel about the proposed garage.

Ms. Morandini replied the adjacent neighbors have approved the proposed garage.

Mr. Regan Duffy, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the installation of an accessory structure, a 7.7’ x 9’ x 3.3’ high hot tub, located in a side yard 7 ft. from the easterly side lot line and more than 16 ft. from the rear lot line on Lot 41, Devon Hills, Section 16. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structure shall not be located in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not be located closer than 16 ft. to any side lot line, shall be screened from adjacent residences, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-16-127-031)

Mr. Duffy addressed the Board with the request for the installation of a hot tub with a locking cover to be placed in the side yard. Mr. Duffy referred to the site plan and indicated the proposed hot tub would be placed 7-feet from the easterly side lot line which would be screened by 8-foot high arborvitaes. Mr. Duffy indicated the location for the proposed hot tub was determined due to the existing electrical panel. Mr. Duffy provided an approval letter from the adjacent neighbor in regards to the variance request.

Ms. Seneker made mention of a letter received in opposition from Ms. Carol Mellebrand, resident at 840 North Pemberton Road.

Ms. Reisinger questioned would the proposed hot tub blend with the surroundings, and would the hot tub be installed halfway into the ground.

Mr. Duffy replied the proposed hot tub would blend in with the surroundings and it would be installed halfway into the ground.

Mr. Henry questioned the location of the existing electrical panel.

Mr. Duffy replied the existing electrical panel is located underneath the wooden deck. Mr. Duffy indicated two (2) contractors declined the job due to the location of the electrical panel.

Ms. Seneker questioned would additional screening be installed.

Mr. Duffy replied additional landscaping would not be necessary. Mr. Duffy made reference to the photographs provided and indicated the existing arborvitaes would sufficiently screen the proposed hot tub from the adjacent neighbors view.

Mr. Christopher Longe, Architect, was present seeking approval for the construction of the following accessory structures for Lot 5, Supervisor’s Plat No. 3, 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, shall be screened from adjacent residences and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and that ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment shall be placed immediately adjacent to the residential building. (19-17-276-033)

Mr. Longe addressed the Board with a five-part variance request. Mr. Longe made reference to the site plan and indicated the proposed location for a 25.5’ x 9.3’ x 9.1’ high bathing pavilion to be located in the northwesterly side and rear yards. Mr. Longe indicated on the site plan the proposed 33.3’ x 12’ x 11.3’ high storage pavilion to be located in the northwesterly rear yard. Mr. Longe made reference to the site plan and indicated the pool equipment, located adjacent to the proposed storage pavilion. Mr. Longe made reference for a 21’ x 13.5’ x 9.9’ high pergola, located in the northwesterly rear yard. Mr. Longe commented the last variance request is a 16’ x 5’ x 11.3’ high trellis with a gate, located in the northwesterly rear yard. Mr. Longe indicated the proposed structures would sit approximately 130-feet off of the water’s edge. Mr. Longe referred to the site plan and indicated the proposed storage area and cabana would be nestled into the natural slope, which thought the property has large mature trees and landscaping.

Mr. Henry questioned if the project had been started.

Mr. Longe replied although the swimming pool is useable, the items before the Board have not been started.

Ms. Reisinger questioned the continuous wall surrounding the swimming pool area, and asked if it would remain upon completion.

Mr. Longe replied the continuous wall surround around the swimming pool area would remain, with efforts of low impact to the site as requested by the homeowner.

Mr. Lou DesRosiers of DesRosiers Architect, was present seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, brick walls, fencing, and electronic entry gates with an overall height of 7.8 ft., located on private property in a front yard on Lot 13, Supervisor’s Plat No. 6, Section 8. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states fences in a residential district must be located in a side or rear yard. (19-08-451-019)

Mr. DesRosiers addressed the Board with the request to install brick walls, fencing, and electronic entry gates with an over all height of 7.8-feet, to be located on private property in the front yard. Mr. DesRosiers commented this request would provide privacy and security for the homeowners.

Mr. Taylor questioned would the variance reflect the light fixture.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building Department, replied the overall height of the light fixture is typically used for noticing purposes.

Ms. Reisinger questioned if pedestrians would be able to gain access.

Mr. DesRosiers replied pedestrians on foot would be able to gain access, but vehicles would not.

Mr. Henry stated the gates must be constructed as a break away type design for emergency vehicles to gain access.

Mr. DesRosiers replied the gate design was taken into consideration.

Mr. Lou DesRosiers of DesRosiers Architects, was present seeking approval for the following variances, to allow renovations for the existing non-conforming building on Acreage Parcel AC195B, Section 21:

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 a minimum of 16 ft. in the side yard setback and a minimum of 35 ft. in the rear yard setback. Article XVI, Section 1600 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that architectural features may extend or project into a required side yard not more than two (2) inches for each one (1) foot of width of such side yard; and may extend or project into a required front or rear yard not more than three (3) feet. (19-21-228-008)

Mr. DesRosiers addressed the Board with a four-part variance request. Mr. DesRosiers indicated this home is a unique situation, as the proposed extensive renovations would change the architecture of the existing home. Mr. DesRosiers referred to the site plan and stated the proposal would allow the existing home and the addition to line up correctly and would allow for the needed storage space as requested.

Mr. G. Vanpoperin, Architect, was present seeking approval for existing accessory structures, two retaining walls with an overall height of 3.2 ft., located in front and rear yards less than 16 ft. to the rear lot line, Lots 36 and 37, Square Lake Country Club, Section 6. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be located in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not be located closer than 16 ft. to any side or rear lot line, shall be screened from adjacent residences, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-06-376-052)

Mr. Vanpoperin addressed the Board with the request for two (2) existing retaining walls located in the front and rear yards with an over all height of 3.2-feet. Mr. Vanpoperin stated due to issues with the septic field, the retaining walls were required to be raised due to the septic design mandated by Oakland County.

Mr. Simo Milosevic, resident at 2455 E. Hammond Lake Road, was present and commented on the evergreen screening that had died during construction. Mr. Milosevic indicated that the terrain slopes towards his home, which lends itself to visibility. Mr. Milosevic requested from the Board to require location, number and species of additional plantings, and require replacement if they do not survive.

Mr. Vanpoperin commented evergreen screening was planted prior to construction and indicated all the dead trees would be replaced.

Chairman Khederian questioned if subdivision association comments had been provided.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building Department, replied subdivision association comments have not been received regarding this item.

Mr. Taylor questioned what types of trees were planted to screen the wall.

Mr. Vanpoperin replied Douglas Firs were planted to screen the wall.

The Board discussed the severity of the size of the wall and determined sizeable trees would be required to screen the view of the wall from the adjacent neighbor.

Ms. McCullough provided landscaping suggestions to the Board.

Ms. Ann Yousef, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the following variances for a new home on Lot 17, Carillon Hills Subdivision, 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, shall not exceed 14 ft. in

height, shall not be located closer than 16 ft. to any side or rear lot line, shall be screened from adjacent residences, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals and that ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment shall be permitted in any side or rear yard when placed immediately adjacent to the residential building, said equipment in side yards shall be screened from view. Article XV, Section 1517 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a 25 ft. setback from the boundary or edge of a wetland. 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. (19-17-401-028)

Ms. Yousef addressed the Board with a six-part variance request. Ms. Yousef referred to the site plan and indicated the property was purchased with wetlands and retaining walls were required due to the severity in the change of grade. Ms. Yousef stated the existing 4-foot high fence located in the front yard was installed for safety reasons. Ms. Yousef indicated on the site plan an existing air-conditioning unit installed in the front yard has been screened by evergreens.

Mr. Taylor questioned would a variance be required if the elevated patio was constructed without piers within the 25-foot natural feature setback.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building Department, replied a variance would be required if any disturbance was within the natural buffer area.

Mr. Taylor questioned would a variance be required if a cantilevered patio was constructed within the natural feature setback.

Ms. McCullough replied the measurement would be taken from the intrusion, and the Board previously approved a 20-foot encroachment, which now extends 25-feet into the natural feature setback.

Mr. Stephan Mazur, owner, was present seeking approval for additional signage, a 5.7’ x 1.8’ (10.3 square feet) permanent wall sign in addition to the existing ground sign, having four figures (illustrations) totaling 2.8 square feet (27.2% of the total sign area), located on the north elevation (.04% of the total street side facade), Denison Court frontage, Acreage Parcel, Section 5. Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 allows one (1) ground, temporary, wall, or non-accessory sign within the RP, Research Park, zoned district and states that wall signs shall be authorized to contain figures (illustrations) provided that all figures shall not constitute more than five (5) percent of the total sign area. (19-05-476-062)

Mr. Mazur addressed the Board and thanked the Planning and Building Department for their assistance throughout the project. Mr. Mazur made reference to the site plan and indicated additional advertisement would be needed to allow for emergency services to locate the correct entrance.

Ms. Reisinger questioned would the existing sign remain.

Mr. Mazur replied the existing was temporary and would be removed once the permanent sign was installed.

Mr. Mike Kavanas of DTE Service, was present seeking approval for an addition to the existing non-conforming accessory structure, a 161’ x 50’ x 17.7’ high (8,050 square feet) addition to north of the existing truck shelter (8,761.2 square feet), located in a front yard, Pontiac Drive frontage, Acreage Parcel AC45A. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon expanded or extended. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not exceed one (1) story or fourteen (14) feet in height, shall not exceed one-half (1/2) in the ground floor area of the main building, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-06-104-002)

Mr. Kavanas addressed the Board with a request for an addition to an existing truck shelter. Mr. Kavanas referred to the site plan and indicated the property lies within two municipalities. Mr. Kavanas indicated the proposed building would be designed to match the existing non-conforming building as it relates to the height of the building and stated a Landscape Architect was hired to assist in screening Pontiac Drive from view.

Mr. Michael Zubrzycki, resident at 2063 Avondale in Sylvan Lake, was present and raised concerns relating to ongoing and excessive noise, the late hours of operation, and excessive weekend activity. Mr. Zubrzycki asked the Board for remediation of noise and proper business hours. Mr. Zubrycki commented the generator operates until 3:00 AM along with welding operations under the existing canopy.

Ms. Seneker questioned Mr. Zubrzycki position as it relates to Sylvan Lake.

Mr. Zubrzycki replied he currently holds the position of City Manager of Sylvan Lake.

Mr. Mike Barron, resident at 2058 Avondale in Sylvan Lake, was present and spoke with regards to the excessive noise and hours of operation. Mr. Barron suggested a noise abatement wall to be installed to help alleviate the noise and the visual impact.

Mr. David MacGillis, resident at 1292 Atkinson Avenue, and Planning Commissioner for Sylvan Lake was present and commented that he had many conversations with DTE over the past twenty-two (22) years as it relates to leaving the garage door open and site debris.

Ms. Sharron Maurina, Sylvan Lake Planning Commission member, was present and stated this item was tabled by Sylvan Lake Planning Commission for research purposes in an effort to address noise issues. Ms. Maurina indicated the area has become more of a residential setting, and the time for a study would be needed to research a noise abatement wall, information is expected by January 2007.

Chairman Khederian questioned if the City of Sylvan Lake had a Noise Ordinance.

Ms. Maurina replied the City of Sylvan Lake does not have a Noise Ordinance.

Mr. John Shepp, resident at 1429 Oak Wood, Sylvan Lake, was present and indicated the noise issues need to be addressed.

Mr. Mike Velchesko, DTE representative, was present and stated the generator issues are being addressed and steps are being taken to investigate possible noise abatement. Mr. Velchesko indicated he has spoke to the site manager, and assured the residents that the late night business hours would not happen again.

Mr. Henry questioned what was the need for the expansion.

Mr. Velchesko replied the need for the expansion would be for a slight increase in the number of vehicles and commented there would be no increase in personnel.

Ms. Reisinger questioned if this item could be a joint effort between the municipalities, and coordinating a plan with DTE.

Mr. Taylor commented the decibel standard is Federally mandated and applies to all activity, and if an activity is violating the Noise Ordinance, the activity must stop.

Mr. Boris Usztan of Usztan LLC along with the Mr. Trilok Desai, homeowner, were present seeking approval for the use of an accessory structure through April 2007, an 8’ x 20’ x 10’ high office/construction trailer, located in the northwest corner of the front yard, 5 ft. from the front lot line and 20 ft. from the westerly side lot line on Lots 20, 21, and Part of Lot 27, Devon Hills Estates, Section 16. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be located in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not be located closer than 16 ft. to any side or rear lot line, shall be screened from adjacent residences, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-16-301-005; 036)

Mr. Usztan addressed the Board with a request for a construction trailer. Mr. Usztan referred to the site plan and indicated the proposed would be in the northwest corner of the front yard behind the existing tree line.

Ms. Seneker questioned would the proposed construction be screened by the existing row of trees.

Mr. Usztan replied the construction trailer would be placed in an area without disrupting the existing trees, with help of the existing tree line screening the trailer from view.

Chairman Khederain made mention to the Board to have an open discussion as it relates to subdivision comments versus subdivision association approval.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Director of Planning and Building Department, requested that the Board reference any deliberation or input from an association as comments rather than approval, as this is a civil contract between residents. Ms. McCullough stated that comments received from an association is only one of many pieces the Board is asked to consider when reviewing a request.

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia McCullough, Director

kd

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