Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

RETURNED ITEMS

(1R) 4328 Vernor Court – M. Carolan

Mr. Michael Carolan, homeowner, was present seeking approval to continue the use of an existing 4 ft. high chain link fence with a gate enclosing an area at the rear of the home, used as a dog run, located 35-feet from the rear lot line and more than 16-feet from the side lot lines for Lot 143, Vernor Estates No. 3, Section 16. Section 6 of General Ordinance No. 423 states that all outdoor enclosures and fenced dog run areas, are subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-16-451-002)

Mr. Carolan addressed the Board with a request to continue to use the existing 4-foot high chain link fence with a gate enclosing an area at the rear of the home to be utilized as a dog run. Mr. Carolan indicated on December 13, 2005, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved this variance contingent upon the Board reviewing this item in one year to verify that the dog has not created a nuisance.

Mr. Philip Grashoff, resident at 4261 Sunningdale Drive, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request. Mr. Grashoff made mention to the Board of a letter received from Mr. Miroslav Vlcko, resident at 4243 Sunningdale Drive who was not present however was in opposition of the variance request.

Mr. Carolan stated that Virginia Creeper Ivy was installed at the recommendation of Bordines Nursery to obscure the dog run.

Ms. Seneker made mention of the December 13, 2005 meeting and the motion included the existing fence to be screened with ivy and at the rear lot line other plantings were to be installed; the dog run hours be between 9:30 AM to 9:00 PM; and the Planning Department will review the petition in one year based on the condition to continue if the Planning Department is satisfied that the dog has not created a nuisance with noise. Ms. Seneker questioned the additional screening installed at the rear lot line.

Mr. Carolan replied that he did not understand additional evergreen screening would be required at the rear lot line.

Mr. Aldrich stated the variance was granted based on conditions. Mr. Aldrich indicated one condition was plantings to be installed at the rear lot line.

Ms. Seneker referred the Board to a letter received in opposition of the variance request by Mr. Miroslav Vlcko, resident at 4243 Sunningdale Drive.

Mr. Taylor questioned Mr. Carolan of his intensions to resolve the outstanding screening of the lot line issue.

Mr. Carolan replied he would plant vegetation at the lot line but he was not sure of what would be required.

Ms. Rosati suggested planting evergreens around the existing 4-foot chain link fence to allow for all year round screening.

Mr. Taylor noted that in the summer the fence area is shaded and may not allow for growth.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 4328 Vernor Court to continue the use of an existing 4-foot high chain link fence and gate, used as a dog run area, that the request be tabled to February 13th, 2007, to allow the petitioner to submit a detailed landscape plan from a landscape architect indicating screening of the 4-foot fence at the fence location and at the perimeter of the rear property.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

TABLED ITEMS

(1T) 2910 Meadowood Lane – R. Zuliani

Mr. & Mrs. Robert Zuliani, homeowners, addressed the Board 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)

Mr. Zuliani addressed the Board with the request to install a 6-foot high fence, to be located in the front yard of West Hickory Grove frontage. Mr. Zuliani indicated he has not received information from the Township project coordinator.

Chairman Khederian made mention of the memo received from Mr. Wayne Domine, Township, Engineering & Environmental Director. Chairman Khederian read from memo dated January 4th, 2007 and indicated the policy on landscaping provisions for the Safety Path Program. Chairman Khederian noted that the policy of the program is to avoid mature trees wherever possible. Where trees are impacted, the fewest healthy mature trees are removed as required for path construction. The Program’s intent was to preserve the surrounding topography, and care is taken to adhere to the Program’s policies. Chairman Khederian indicated to the Board the question before them is the

petitioner asking for the screening. Chairman Khederian indicated to the petitioner to readdress the variance request.

Mr. Zuliani presented before and after photographs of the area affected by the safety path. Mr. Zuliani indicated the proposed 6-foot high fence would be located between the existing trees and foliage and would be staggered in sections along the front yard.

Mr. Taylor questioned whether the natural foliage was removed within the 10-foot easement.

Mr. Zuliani replied that the majority of the natural foliage removed was outside of the 10-foot easement.

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

Ms. Celia Lipsky, resident at 3020 Chickering Lane, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request. Ms. Lipsky suggested landscaping would be harmonious to the district.

Mr. Sied Jafry, resident at 3270 Chestnut Run Drive, was present and complimented the Township on the Safety Path Program and suggested landscaping would be harmonious to the district rather than the proposed 6-foot high fence.

Ms. Seneker made mention of (3) three letters received in opposition of the variance request from Mr. Donald Glenn, resident at 405 W. Hickory Grove Road, Mr. Allen Rodney, resident at 375 W. Hickory Grove, and Mr. Michael Burwell, resident at 2951 Chestnut Run.

Chairman Khederian questioned the petitioner if landscaping would be considered as suggested by the neighbors as apposed to the 6-foot high fence.

Mr. Zuliani replied that besides being cost prohibited, arborvitaes have been planted within the location and they would not grow.

Chairman Khederian indicated upon her review of the property, she was concerned that this would be the only fence in the area.

Ms. Zuliani replied numerous arborvitaes would have to be planted to screen the proposed fence. Ms. Zuliani indicated growth in the proposed area would be limited.

Ms. Seneker reiterated that the screening of the proposed 6-foot high fence would not be possible based on the growth in area is limited.

Ms. Zuliani suggested to the Board to install ivy or low ground cover to screen the fence.

Mr. Henry questioned how has the growth of the existing natural foliage and trees survived if there is a concern for other planting to survive. Mr. Henry made reference to the before photographs.

Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 2910 Meadowood Lane for the installation of 6-foot high fencing, located in a front yard, that the variance be approved as requested with ivy/vine covering the fence. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance would be unduly burdensome, given the lack of privacy, unique circumstances with the property, given this lot backs up to the new safety path, and it is not self-created.

Motion carried, 2 – 4.

YEAS: Aldrich, Seneker

NAYS: Henry, Taylor, Rosati, Khederian

Motion failed due to lack of support.

Chairman Khederian asked the Board for a new motion.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to the appeal at 2910 Meadowood Lane for the installation of 6-foot high fencing, located in a front yard, that the variance be denied as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate that compliance would not be unduly burdensome, with additional landscaping; injustice to the adjoining neighbors was shown by comments provided by neighbors who would rather see landscaping, and there are no unique circumstances with the property.

Motion carried, 4 – 2.

YEAS: Taylor, Henry, Rosati, Khederian

NAYS: Aldrich, Seneker

(2T) 7333 Cathedral Drive – J. Park

Mr. Ji-Young 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 with evergreen and deciduous material, which will obscure view twelve (12) months of the year, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-32-451-011)

Mr. Park addressed the Board with the request for an existing accessory structure, a 2.5’ x 6’ high satellite dish, to be located in a rear yard. Mr. Park made reference to the e-mail from the satellite technician to Board member Mr. Brian Henry.

Mr. Henry made reference to the e-mail sent from the satellite technician, Mr. Hyundeok Kwon, dated December 13th, 2006 addressing the existing location for the satellite dish. Mr. Henry made reference from the e-mail indicating Mr. Kwon made attempts to locate the satellite dish on the side of the home and on the roof and these locations were not successful. Mr. Henry questioned Mr. Kwon would screening the satellite dish impact the signal. Mr. Kwon indicated screening the satellite dish would impact the signal.

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

Mr. Taylor questioned could the satellite dish be lowered and moved back closer to the lot line. Mr. Taylor indicated by lowering the satellite dish and keeping the same line of site, screening the satellite dish from view could be accomplished.

Chairman Khederian made mention of a letter received from Mr. Al Kachel, resident at 7233 Cathedral Drive, indicating interference with placing and receiving cell phone calls.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard to the appeal at 7333 Cathedral Drive for an existing satellite dish, that the request be tabled to February 13th, 2007 to allow the petitioner to confirm that the satellite dish can be screened on all (4) sides, with evergreens, such that the top of the satellite dish is not visible from the street, even if it requires lowering and relocating the satellite dish back to the lot line.

Motion carried, 6- 0.

NEW ITEMS

(1) 7481 Franklin Court – G. Miller

Mr. Gary Miller, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a 10’ x 14’ x 10’ high shed, located in a rear yard more than 16 ft. from the northerly side and rear property lines on Lot 1, Supervisor’s Plat of Franklin Lake Estates, Section 31. 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 be screened from adjacent residences with evergreen and deciduous material which will obscure view twelve (12) months of the year, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-31-452-014)

Mr. Miller addressed the Board with a request for an existing 10’ x 14’ x 10’ high shed, to be located in a rear yard. Mr. Miller provided a proposed landscape rendering, screening the existing shed with arborvitaes.

Ms. Seneker made mention of the letters received in support of the variance request from Mr. Richard Daniels, resident at 7456 Franklin Court, Mr. & Mrs. David Farbman, residents at 7420 Franklin Court, Mr. John Thompson, resident at 7401 Franklin Court, Mr. Mark Kodlowski, resident at 7415 Franklin Court, Mr. & Mrs. William Maher, residents at 7430 Franklin Court, Ms. Carol Dubbrinsky, resident at 7448 Franklin Court, and Mr. John Saunders, resident at 7466 Franklin Court.

Ms. Seneker made mention of the letter received in opposition from Mr. David Fee, resident at 7455 Franklin Court.

Mr. David Fee, resident at 7455 Franklin Court, was present and spoke in objection of the location of the existing shed. Mr. Fee expressed his concern of the shed obstructing his southerly and easterly natural beauty views from parts of his home. Mr. Fee indicated the location of the existing shed was not approved due to the negative impact it has on his property.

Mr. John Thompson, resident at 7401 Franklin Court, was present and spoke in support of the variance request.

Mr. Taylor questioned how did you determined the existing location was the best location for the shed.

Mr. Miller replied he determined the location by tucking the shed away and screening the shed was his major objective.

The Board discussed the options of relocating the existing shed behind the house and screening the shed from neighbor’s view.

Chairman Khederian suggested to the Board to allow the petitioner and neighbor to discuss further and return back before the Board later this evening.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 7481 Franklin Road for an existing shed, that the item be tabled to 8:45 PM, to allow the petitioner and Mr. Fee, neighbor at 7455 Franklin Court, to discuss and come to an agreement regarding the placement and screening of the shed.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(2) 3310 Morningview Terrace – G. Saham

Ms. Laurie Saham, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a 30’ x 50’ annual ice rink without backboards or lighting from November to March 1st, located in a front yard 20 ft. from the northerly rear lot line and 25 ft. easterly front lot line, Overhill Road frontage, on Part of Lot 486 and all of Lot 487, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 1, Section 27. 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 with evergreen and deciduous material which will obscure view twelve (12) months of the year, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-27-376-015)

Ms. Saham addressed the Board with the request for an existing 30’ x 50’ annual ice rink, located in the front yard. Ms. Saham indicated Bloomfield Village Association approved the existing seasonal ice rink with conditions. Ms. Saham commented additional landscaping would be installed at the property line for screening purposes. Ms. Saham made reference to a drain in the driveway that ties into the existing catch basin on Overhill Road that would be utilized to drain the ice rink by February 12th, 2006.

Mr. Jeff Kroct, of Byer and Howlett, attorney, was present on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Jack Lennox, residents at 301 Overhill Road. Mr. Kroct indicated the grade of 3310 Morningview Terrace has been raised approximately 18" causing water damage in the southern corner of the basement at 301 Overhill Road. Mr. Kroct indicated the ground between Mr. Lennox and Ms. Saham is saturated with standing water. Mr. Kroct raised concerns of the setback requirements, the lot coverage of the ice rink, and obscuring the neighbors view. Mr. Kroct presented the Board with signatures opposing the ice rink from, Mr. Michael Conway, resident at 3301 Morning Terrace, Mr. James Erwin, resident at 3136 Morningview Terrace, Ms. Martha Priest, resident at 183 Hupp Cross, Ms. Patrice Weaver, resident at 3465 Bradway, Mr. Jeffery Kerr, resident at 603 Hupp Cross, Mr. Richard Jones, resident at 471 Overhill Road, Ms. Mary McGraw, resident at 3140 S. Bradway Boulevard, Ms. Christy Berry, resident at 284 Hupp Cross, Ms. Sherry Stefanes, resident at 3175 Morningview Terrace, Ms. Kathleen Acker, resident at 488 Wooddale Road, and Ms. Janice Fazio, resident at 2655 S. Bradway Boulevard.

Dr. Lennox, homeowner at 301 Overhill Road, was present and spoke in opposition to the variance request. Dr. Lennox indicated his concerns were the visibility of the existing ice rink and the water damage to his residence.

Mr. Larry Nutson, Village Manager for Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village #1, was present and made reference to the letter dated December 18th, 2006. Mr. Nutson indicated the approval is limited to this current winter season. The ice rink is to be entirely removed or, if limited by ice formation, to the extent possible by mid-February, 2007. A plan is to be developed to provide increased and satisfactory landscape screening of the ice rink from the neighbor’s view. A landscape plan is to be submitted to the Village Manager for review and approval by the Association. Approval is to be obtained from Bloomfield Township Zoning Board of Appeals.

Ms. Saham addressed the comments and indicated the photographs presented were taken on her property. Ms. Saham made reference to the view Mr. Lennox would have of the existing ice rink from her digital camera. Ms. Saham indicated trees were removed to accommodate (2) two retaining walls and an addition that was granted before the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 14th, 2005. Ms. Saham noted that the granted approval involved the removal of the existing driveway to reclaim the space for a backyard space, by eliminating one curb cut and reinstalling the driveway on the westerly side of the property. Ms. Saham indicated the water concern is not an issue. Ms. Saham referenced an existing drain in the driveway that ties into a catch basin located on Overhill Road, which would be utilized to drain the ice rink.

Ms. Seneker questioned whether she consulted with Dr. & Mrs. Lennox prior to the construction of the ice rink.

Ms. Saham replied that she did not consult with Dr. Lennox prior to the construction of the ice rink.

Chairman Khederian addressed her concerns with the standing water in the ice rink from a safety point of view. Chairman Khederian indicated she was at 301 Overhill Road, Dr. Lennox residence, and viewed the ice rink from the living room. Chairman Khederian commented that the ice rink was visible and was lacking arborvitae screening. Chairman Khederian made mention of the water damage in the basement as evidence on the brick windowsill.

Mr. Taylor questioned the intensions of the petitioner and whether the requirements from the Bloomfield Village Association would be addressed including the installation of additional landscaping for the ice rink with the neighbors being satisfied should the ice rink be requested for next season.

Mr. Saham replied a plan would be developed to provide landscape screening of the ice rink from the neighbor’s view. Mr. Saham indicated a landscape plan would be submitted to the Village Manager for review and approval prior to installation of the ice rink for the next season.

Ms. Seneker questioned whether the Township would require a time frame for the setup and tear down of the ice rink.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, replied that in previous appeals involving temporary seasonal sports facilities, a time frame was given for constructing and de-constructing by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Nutson, Village Manager, replied that the association is currently preparing a seasonal sports policy. Mr. Nutson indicated ice rinks would be addressed within the proposed policy.

Mr. Henry questioned the hours of use to be incorporated in the seasonal sports proposed policy.

Mr. Nutson replied guidelines are being prepared for seasonal sports such as, use during daylight hours, no lighting to be installed, not intended for organized groups and installing adequate screening for the structure.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 3310 Morningview Terrace for an existing ice rink, that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance for the existing ice rink, 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. This approval is granted for a single season use only, and to include the requirements of additional landscaping in a form of a landscape plan to be submitted to Bloomfield Village Association and the neighbors at 301 Overhill, for review. The drainage will be reviewed by the Building Department. The ice rink is to be removed on February 15th, 2007, with the ice rink to be drained into the existing catch basin on Overhill Road.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(3) 1917 Lone Pine Road – C. Pollack

Ms. Carin Pollack, homeowner, was present seeking approval for existing accessory structures, two brick columns, located in a front yard, Lone Pine Road frontage, on Acreage Parcel, Section 19. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except area yard, shall be screened from adjacent residences with evergreen and deciduous material which will obscure view twelve (12) months of the year, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-19-302-005)

Ms. Pollack addressed the Board with the request for two (2) existing brick columns, located in the front yard of Lone Pine Road frontage. Ms. Pollack apologized to the Board and made reference to the previous Zoning Board of Appeals approval granted on January 11th, 2005 and indicated it was her understanding the two (2) brick columns were incorporated within the request. Ms. Pollack referred to the site plan and indicated the location of the existing brick columns. Ms. Pollack indicated low voltage lighting would be incorporated into the brick columns to help protect vehicles from driving off of the driveway referring to the existing terraced retaining walls between the house and driveway with a total elevation difference of 10-feet. Ms. Pollack stated the brick columns would be screened with landscaping.

Motion by Mr. Henry, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 1917 Lone Pine Road for two (2) existing brick columns, that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance for two (2) existing brick columns, located in a front yard of Lone Pine Road frontage, 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 revisions to the Building Department within five (5) business days.

Motion carried, 4 – 0 – 2.

YEAS: Henry, Taylor, Seneker, Khederian

NAYS: None

ABSENT: Aldrich, Rosati

Chairman Khederian indicated item (1) 7481 Franklin Court, would be re-addressed at this time and asked the petitioner to approach the Board.

(1) 7481 Franklin Court – G. Miller

Mr. Gary Miller, homeowner, addressed the Board with the request that the item be tabled to the next meeting to allow the petitioner and Mr. Fee, neighbor at 7455 Franklin Court, to discuss and come to an agreement regarding the shed.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard to the appeal at 7481 Franklin Court for an existing shed, that the request be tabled to February 13th, 2007, to allow the petitioner and Mr. Fee, neighbor at 7455 Franklin Court, to discuss and come to an agreement regarding the placement and screening of the shed.

Motion carried, 5 – 0 – 1.

YEAS: Seneker, Rosati, Taylor, Henry, Khederian

NAYS: None

ABSENT: Aldrich

(4) 5208 Rector Court (This item has been removed for the agenda)

Seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, a 2.6 ft. satellite dish, located in a front yard attached to the front façade of the residential building on Lot 170, Bloomfield Square Subdivision, Section 19. 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 be screened from adjacent residences with

evergreen and deciduous material which will obscure view twelve (12) months of the year, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (Maher Kefri and Roula Alsawwan, 5208 Rector Court, 19-19-403-020)

(5) 801 W. Long Lake Road - Willoway Condominiums

Mr. Skip Sherwood, was present on behalf of Willoway Condominiums, seeking approval for the relocation of an existing accessory structure, a dumpster enclosure with 6 ft. high fencing, located in a front yard 3 ft. from the southerly lot line, and 0 ft. from the westerly lot line for Willoway Condominiums, Section 16. 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 sixteen (16) ft. to any side or rear lot line, shall be screened from adjacent residences with evergreen and deciduous material which will obscure view twelve (12) months of the year, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-16-326-022)

Mr. Sherwood addressed the Board with the request for an existing dumpster enclosure with 6-foot high fencing to remain in the front yard, south west corner of the property. Mr. Sherwood indicated the relocation of the dumpster would facilitate parking, snow removal and drainage issues. Mr. Sherwood referred to the site plan and indicated the existing dumpster is located 10-feet from the southerly property line and 0-feet from the westerly property line. Mr. Sherwood indicated the existing dumpster dimension is 11’x12 ½’ and would be concealed with a 6-foot fence.

Ms. Laura Huff, resident at 901 Pine Thistle Lane, was present and spoke in opposition of the existing dumpster.

Ms. Seneker questioned the previous location of the dumpster and why was the dumpster relocated to this area.

Mr. Sherwood replied the dumpster was previously located 100-feet to the east and 20-feet to the north. Mr. Sherwood indicated the dumpster was relocated to facilitate traffic in the parking lot area and to help with the snow removal process.

Ms. Seneker commented by relocating the dumpster enclosure from the parking lot area to the residential area, it has created a negative impact on the residential homes.

Ms. Seneker questioned Ms. Huff was she negatively impacted by the previous dumpster location.

Ms. Huff replied she was not negatively impacted by the previous dumpster location.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Taylor, in regard to the appeal at 801 W. Long Lake Road for the relocation of an existing dumpster enclosure, that the request be denied as submitted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards, nor did the applicant demonstrate that compliance would not be unduly burdensome; with moving to the former location; there is injustice to adjoining neighbors, given the complaints given by neighbors, there are no unique circumstances with the property, and it is self-created. The dumpster enclosure with the 6-foot high fence is to be removed immediately upon approval of the minutes. The dumpster is to be relocated to the original location.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(6) 2775 Brady Drive – J. Duncan

Mr. John Duncan, homeowner, was present seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, an air-conditioning unit screened with evergreen plantings, located in a front yard immediately adjacent to the residential building, Douglas Drive frontage, on Lot 30, Holiday Hills Subdivision, Section 10. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical or electrical equipment shall be permitted in any side or rear yard. (19-10-204-012)

Mr. Duncan addressed the Board with the request for an existing air-conditioning unit located in the front yard. Mr. Duncan indicated his home is equipped with hot water baseboard heat, which the air handling system is installed in the attic of the home. Mr. Duncan made reference to the site plan and indicated the existing air-conditioning unit placed on the east side is the best location given on the west side of the home there is an existing deck. Mr. Duncan stated additional screening would be installed, such as arborvitaes to screen the existing air-conditioning unit from view.

Ms. Seneker made mention of a letter received in support of the variance from Ms. Barbara Gash, resident at 2668 Douglas Drive.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to the appeal at 2775 Brady Drive for an existing air-conditioning unit, located in a front yard, that the variance be approve as requested with screening by evergreen plantings. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must submit a permit application to the Building Department within five (5) business days.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(7) 2169 Tottenham Road – R. Skandalaris

Ms. Julie Skandalaris, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the installation of an accessory structure, a stand-by generator screened from view with evergreen plantings, located in a rear yard more than 16 ft. from the side and rear lot lines, 35 ft. from the wall of the building on Lots 30 and 31, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village, Section 26. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment shall be placed immediately adjacent to the residential building. (19-26-152-008)

Ms. Skandalaris addressed the Board with the request for the installation of a stand-by generator. Ms. Skandalaris stated the generator request is due to the repeated power outages over the last few years causing financial repairs and loss. Ms. Skandalaris indicated the proposed location for the stand-by generator is based upon available access to the electrical panels and the existing gas line location. Ms. Skandalaris referred to the site plan and indicated the proposed location placing it near the existing pool equipment. Ms. Skandalaris stated Horticultural Services of Waterford would be hired to install landscaping to screen the generator from view to create a clean transition of the pool corner area.

Ms. Seneker made reference to the site plan and questioned would additional landscaping be installed along the outside of the rod iron fence for screening of the proposed stand-by generator.

Ms. Skandalaris replied additional screening would be installed along the fence line to screen the stand-by generator and the existing pool equipment.

Chairman Khederian made mention of a letter received in opposition of the variance request from Mr. & Mrs. Mark Beaton, resident’s at 2140 Yarmouth.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 2169 Tottenham Road for a stand-by generator to be located 35-feet from the wall of the 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. Petitioner is to install additional landscaping, along the fence line, which would screen the proposed stand-by generator and existing pool equipment. Petitioner is to obtain all necessary permits and the generator must comply with the Township Noise Ordinance of 70dB(A) at the property line.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(8) 300 Cranbrook Road North - A. Kirby

Mr. Arthur Kirby, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 5 ft. encroachment into the required 16 ft. side yard setback for existing pool equipment and an air-conditioning unit screened with plantings, located 11 ft. from the northerly side lot line on Lot 250 and Part of Lot 251, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village, Section 26. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment shall not be located in the required sixteen (16) ft. side yard setback and screened from view by a screenwall. (19-26-351-007)

Mr. Kirby addressed the Board with a request for the existing pool equipment and air-conditioning unit to remain on the northerly side lot line of his residence. Mr. Kirby indicated Consumer’s Energy recommended that the pool heater, which produces carbon-monoxide fumes no longer, be located in the home. Mr. Kirby made comment to the existing air-conditioning unit, and Consumer’s Energy recommended that both air-conditioning and pool heater units be located as close to the gas meter and main gas line for safety purposes. Mr. Kirby referred to the site plan and indicated the existing location is the north side of the home.

Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 300 North Cranbook Road for a 5-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner is to submit revisions to the Building Department within five (5) business days. Petitioner is to install additional evergreen screening per the plan presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(9) 2746 Turtle Bluff Drive – I. Rodriguez

Mr. Chuck Lumpkin, of Mr. Electric was present seeking approval for a 5.6 ft. encroachment into the required 16 ft. side yard setback for the construction of a brick screen wall for the purpose of screening a stand-by generator, located 10.4 ft. from the northerly side lot line for Unit 98, Turtle Lake, Section 6. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 16 ft. in the side yard setback. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment shall not be located in the required sixteen (16) ft. side yard setback. (19-06-384-026)

Mr. Lumpkin addressed the Board with the request for a 5.6-foot encroachment into the side yard setback for the purpose of a brick screen wall to screen a stand-by generator. Mr. Lumpkin referred to the site plan and indicated the existing brick wall would continue to screen to the existing generator. Mr. Lumpkin commented a landscape

contractor would complete the brick wall and screen the wall with arborvitaes. Mr. Lumpkin indicated Victor International granted approval for the location of the back-up generator and the masonry brick wall.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 2746 Turtle Bluff Drive for a 5.6-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot northerly side yard setback for the installation of a screen wall and generator, 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 obtain all necessary permits and generator must comply with the Township Noise Ordinance of 70dB(A) at the property line. The brick wall to be screened with arborvitaes as indicated by the petitioner.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(10) 2840 Squirrel Road – R. Leggett

Mr. Raymond Leggett, homeowner, was present seeking approval for a 7 ft. encroachment into the required 16 ft. side yard setback for the construction of a single story garage addition, located 9 ft. from the southerly side lot line on Lot 80, Bloomfield Hills Estates No. 2, Section 12. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 16 ft. in the side yard setback. (19-12-153-022)

Mr. Leggett addressed the Board with the request for a 7-foot encroachment into the side yard set back for the construction of a single story garage addition.

Mr. David Turner, resident at 2837 Whittier, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Mr. Taylor questioned the use of the proposed addition.

Mr. Leggett replied this would be utilized as a mother-in-law suite.

Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 2840 Squirrel Road for a 7-foot encroachment into the southerly side yard, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner is to obtain all necessary permits.

Motion carried, 5 – 1.

YEAS: Aldrich, Seneker, Taylor, Henry, Khederian

NAYS: Rosati

(11) 1545 Kirkway Road – M. Zeid

Mr. David Lubin of Lubin, Schultz & Skocelas Architects, was present seeking approval for an 8.3 ft. encroachment into the required 35 ft. rear yard setback for the

construction of a single story enclosed porch addition to the existing non-conforming building, located 26.7 ft. from the rear lot line on Lot 2, Island Oaks, 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 a minimum of 35 ft. in the rear yard setback. (19-17-101-012)

Mr. Lubin addressed the Board with the request for an 8.3-foot encroachment into the rear yard setback for the construction of a single story enclosed porch addition. Mr. Lubin made reference to the site plan and indicated the proposed screened-in one-story porch would be constructed at the first floor level adjacent to the kitchen. Mr. Lubin indicated Island, Lower Long & Forest Lake Property Owners Association has granted approval for the variance request.

Dr. Shapoor Ansari, resident at 1543 Island Lane, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Mr. Gregory Aylesworth, resident at 1530 Kirkway Road, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Mr. Lubin made reference to the site plan and indicated the existing roofline in relation to the proposed single-story enclosed-porch. Mr. Lubin indicated the proposed enclosed porch would be of screen material.

Motion by Mr. Henry, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 1545 Kirkway Road for an 8.3-foot encroachment into the 35-foot rear yard setback for the existing non-conforming 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. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.

Motion failed, 3 – 3.

YEAS: Henry, Taylor, Aldrich

NAYS: Rosati, Seneker, Khederian

Motion failed due to a tie vote.

Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 1545 Kirkway Road for an 8.3-foot encroachment into the 35-foot rear yard setback for the existing non-conforming building, that the variance be denied as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate all of the

following: compliance would not be unduly burdensome, there is no injustice to the adjoining neighbors, there are no unique circumstances with the property, and it is self-created.

Motion failed, 3 – 3.

YEAS: Rosati, Seneker, Khederian

NAYS: Aldrich, Henry, Taylor

Motion failed due to tie vote.

Chairman Khederain asked the Board to table the item to the next meeting to allow for a full compliment of the Board.

Motion by Mr. Henry, Seconded by Ms. Rosati, in regard to the appeal at 1545 Kirkway Road for an 8.3-foot encroachment into the 35-foot rear yard setback for the existing non-conforming building, that the variance request be tabled to February 13th, 2007, to allow for a full compliment of the Board.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(12) 4653 Chelsea Lane – M. Burnstein

Mr. Jeffery Stewart of Seikaly & Stewart, P.C., was present on behalf of the applicant seeking approval to replace an existing accessory structure, a stand-by generator screened with plantings, located in front yards immediately adjacent to the residential building, Chelsea Lane and Ravine Drive frontages, on Lot 44, Franklin Ravines, Section 31. 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. (19-31-403-005)

Mr. Stewart addressed the Board with past history from June 12, 2001, Zoning Board of Appeals, and indicated the generator was approved for the existing front yard location with a contingency that the generator remains inoperable until the required decibel levels have met the Township requirements. Mr. Stewart asked the Board to install a new generator to be placed in the same location of the previous generator. Mr. Stewart stated the proposed generator would be screened and would meet the Township Noise Ordinance requirements. Mr. Stewart made reference to his letter from January 9th, 2007, which indicated the homeowner would have the option of modifying the existing generator and its enclosures to meet the sound ordinance, or to replace the generator as necessary.

Ms. Burnstein, homeowner, was present and commented as to the existing generator is currently testing within 5dB(A) of the required Township Noise Ordinance of 70dB(A).

Ms. Burnstein indicated the existing generator with an added muffling device would possibly meet the Township Ordinance.

Mr. Stewart commented that Dr. Burnstein is a radiologist and receives images through the home computer known as tele-a-radiology. Mr. Stewart explained the important use of the generator would allow Dr. Burnstein to review the images and report the findings to the hospital immediately.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 4653 Chelsea Lane to replace a front yard generator, 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 obtain all necessary permits, and the generator must comply with the Township Noise Ordinance of 70dB(A) at the property line.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

(13) 6495 Telegraph Road – Bloomfield B.P.A.

Mr. Scott Barbat, property owner, was present seeking approval for additional signage for the BP Service Station and Dunkin Donuts, Acreage Parcel AC270F-1-2:

Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 allows one wall or ground sign within the B-3 (General Business) zoned district, states that the maximum size of the wall sign shall not exceed six (6) percent of the total area of the street side façade, wall signs shall be authorized to contain numbers and letters combined in their customary form, shall be entitled to contain figures (illustrations) provided that all figures shall not constitute more than five (5) percent of the total sign area, and that ground signs shall not be located nearer than twenty-five (25) feet to any existing or proposed right-of-way line. (19-28-352-003)

Mr. Barbat addressed the Board with the request for additional signage for BP Service Station and Dunkin’ Donuts. Mr. Barbat made reference to the site plan and indicated the proposed location of each sign.

Mr. Ray Bayling of Schostak Brothers, was present and spoke with concerns of fencing between Burger King and the BP Service Station.

Mr. Henry indicated Mr. Baylings concerns are with parking and fencing and not with the signage request before the Board.

Chairman Khederian addressed the audience with the individual variances requested for proposed signage for the BP Service Station and Dunkin’ Donuts.

Mr. David Lubin of Lubin, Schultz, Skocelas Architects, was present and addressed the three (3) individual requests for signage. Mr. Lubin made reference to the site plan and indicated the proposed 6.4’ x 5’ ground sign for BP and Dunkin’ Donuts would be located on private property, at the corner of Maple and Telegraph Road. Mr. Lubin indicated the 10.3’ x 3.8’ wall sign to be located on the west side of the brick building. Mr. Lubin made reference to the 3.3’ x 5.8’ wall sign to be located on the south side of the brick building.

The Board discussed the need for the additional signage for Dunkin’ Donuts and the proposed locations.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, commented the Design Review Board has reviewed and approved the revisions for this site. Ms. McCullough stated the proposed signage has been reduced from the previous request.

Chairman Khederian asked the Board to address the requests individually.

Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard to the appeal at 6495 Telegraph Road for one 6.4’ x 5’ high permanent ground sign, for BP and Dunkin’ Donuts, located on private property in a front yard 0-feet from the northerly lot line, 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 obtain all necessary permits from the Building Department.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to the appeal at 6495 Telegraph Road for one 10.3’ x 3.8’ permanent wall sign with a 2.8’ x 3.8’ logo/illustration for Dunkin’ Donuts, located on the west elevation, 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 obtain all necessary permits from the Building Department.

Motion carried, 6 – 0.

Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 6495 Telegraph Road for one 3.3’ x 5.8’ (19 sq. ft.) permanent wall sign with a 3.3’ x 4.4’ (14.5 sq. ft.) logo/illustration for Dunkin’ Donuts, located on the south elevation, that the variance be denied as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate compliance would be unduly

burdensome, given there were previous variances granted, injustice to the adjoining neighbors, there are no unique circumstances with the property, and it is self-created.

Motion carried, 5 – 1.

YEAS: Rosati, Taylor, Seneker, Aldrich, Khederian

NAYS: Henry