STAFF PRESENT: Patricia McCullough, Planning and
Building Director, Brenda
Schultow, Code and Ordinance Officer, Robin Carley,
Development Coordinator, and Kathy Davis, Building Department
Secretary.
TOWNSHIP REPRESENTATIVE: Shannon Ozga, Attorney from
Secrest Wardle
Chairman Khederian addressed the audience and indicated
item (3T) 7333 Cathedral Drive was removed at the
petitioner’s request. Chairman Khederian indicated item (6)
5035 Brookdale has been rescheduled to March 13th,
2006 at the petitioner’s request. Chairman Khederian
indicated item (12) 4539 River Trail would be heard first
prior to item (1) on the agenda.
(1T) 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 proposed landscape
plan indicating (8) eight climbing ivy evergreens and (2)
two hemlock trees to be installed to screen the existing
4-foot high chain link fence at the rear lot line.
Ms. Reisinger made mention of a letter received from Mr.
Miroslav Vlcko, resident at 4243 Sunningdale Drive in
opposition of the variance request.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Rosati 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 approved as submitted
based on the proposed landscape plan and information
presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with
Section 1804 Standards. The approval is for (2) additional
trees to be installed by May 1st, 2007. The
petitioner is to obtain the dog license annually, and the
approval is contingent upon the Zoning Board revisiting the
item in one year to verify that the trees planted have
provided adequate screening of the existing 4-foot high
fence.
Motion carried, 5 –0.
(2T) 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 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 stating he is currently
working with the neighbor at 7455 Franklin Court and has
ordered a boundary and elevation survey for the property.
Mr. Miller asked the Board to table the item for 60 days to
allow for the survey to be completed.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard
to the appeal at 7481 Franklin Court for an existing shed,
that the request be tabled to April 10th, 2006
meeting to allow the petitioner to obtain a boundary and
elevation survey of his property.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(3T) 7333 Cathedral Dr – J. Park This item removed at the
request of the petitioner)
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 months of the year, and shall require
the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
(19-32-451-011)
Mr. David Lubin of Lubin Schulz & 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,
located 26.7 ft. from the rear lot line on Lot 2, Island
Oaks, Section 17. 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 for a single story
enclosed porch addition. Mr. Lubin presented photographs of
the existing screening to the Board. Mr. Lubin referred to
the photographs and indicated the existing landscaping would
provide adequate screening of the proposed single story
addition.
Mr. Michael Zeid, homeowner, made reference to the site
plan indicating the small pond next to his residence. Mr.
Zeid identified the pond being the reason for a screened-in
one-story porch addition was to enable him to sit outdoors
and enjoy the ambience of the surroundings.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to
the appeal 1545 Kirkway for an 8.3-foot encroachment into
the rear yard setback, that the variance be approved as
requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant
did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the
standards for practical difficulty.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(12) 4539 River Trail – T. Dehko
Mr. Bradley Scobel of Seyburn, Kahn, Ginn, Bess & Serlin,
P.C., was present seeking approval for the following
variances to allow renovations on Lot 30, Franklin Ravines,
Section 31:
The installation of an accessory use/structure, an
in-ground pool screened with evergreen plantings, located
in a front yard, Franklin Road frontage.
The installation of 4 ft. high ornamental fencing for
the purpose of enclosing the proposed in-ground pool,
located in a front yard, Franklin Road frontage.
The installation of pool equipment screened with
evergreen plantings, located in a front yard, Franklin
Road frontage.
Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265
states that accessory/use structures shall not be erected in
any required yard, except a rear yard, shall be screened
from adjacent residences with evergreen and deciduous
material which will obscure view twelve months of the year,
shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of
Appeals, and that ground mounted mechanical and electrical
equipment shall be located in any side or rear yard. Article
XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that
fences in a residential district must be located in a
required side or rear yard. (19-31-427-016)
Mr. Scobel addressed the Board with a revised three-part
variance request on behalf of the homeowners. Mr. Scobel
presented a revised site plan indicating the layout of the
proposed in-ground swimming pool and pool equipment, located
in a front yard. Mr. Scoble commented the in-ground swimming
pool has been moved an additional 18.75-feet away from the
property line. Mr. Scobel referred to the site plan and
indicated a 4-foot high ornamental black fence to enclose
the proposed in-ground swimming pool and pool equipment. Mr.
Scobel commented the homeowners have agreed to install
mature landscaping/screening pines on both sides of the
proposed in-ground swimming pool. Mr. Scobel indicated as
agreed with the homeowners and upon the subdivision
association request there will be no overhead lighting, no
outdoor speakers, and no group use of the swimming pool
between the hours of 11:00 PM and 8:00 AM. Mr. Scobel
commented additional screening would be installed and
consists of Globe Arborvitaes and Upright Junipers to
provide year-round visual screening.
Ms. Susan Seidman, resident at 4549 River Trail, was
present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.
Chairman Khederian made comment to the Board, Ms. Shannon
Ozga, Township Council, was present for questions relating
to this request.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard
to the appeal at 4539 River Trail for the installation of an
in-ground swimming pool, that the request be approved as
submitted and the variance for the installation of an
in-ground swimming pool, fencing, and pool equipment 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. Given the property has
two front yards with the proposed additional landscaping to
be installed on both side of the in-ground swimming pool
with no overhead lighting, no outdoor speakers, and no group
use of the swimming pool between 11:00 PM and 8:00 AM, the
fence to enclose the in-ground swimming pool. Petitioner
must obtain all necessary permits and the fence supports
must face inward.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(1) 1915 Raymond Place – C. Esshaki
Mr. Christopher Esshaki, homeowner, was present seeking
approval for the construction of accessory structures,
retaining walls with an overall height of 8.5 ft., located
in a side yard extending from the wall of the building 18.6
ft.from the southerly side property line on Lot 21 and Part
of Lot 22, Lone Pine Hills No. 1, 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, and shall require the review and
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-19-151-028)
Mr. Esshaki addressed the Board with the request to
construct retaining walls in the side yard. Mr. Esshaki
referred to the site plan and indicated the retaining wall
would be needed to achieve the grade change necessary for
the walkout basement along the side of the house. Mr.
Esshaki indicated by placing an 8.5-foot high wall at the
corner of the house and stepping the wall down moving
towards and parallel to the property line would allow the
existing grade to match. Mr. Esshaki commented additional
evergreens would be planted along the lot line.
Mr. Paul Curry, resident at 1911 Raymond Place, was
present and spoke in support of the variance request with
the contingency that the petitioner plant a conifer barrier
along the lot line.
Ms. Julene Flynn, resident at 1910 Raymond Place, was
present and spoke in support of the variance request.
Motion by Mr. Henry, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to
the appeal at 1915 Raymond Place for the construction of
retaining walls be approved as submitted, and the variance
for the construction of retaining walls in a side 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 is to install a minimum of twelve
(12) 8-foot high trees along the lot line, at the location
of the retaining walls. Petitioner is to submit a revised
site plan to the Building Department within five (5)
business days.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(2) 4015 Antique Lane – G. Williams
Mr. Graham Williams, homeowner, was present, seeking
approval for the construction of a 3 ft. high fence above a
retaining wall with an overall height of 5.3 ft., located in
a front yard, West Long Lake Road frontage. Also seeking
approval for a 7.7 ft. encroachment into the required 40 ft.
northerly front yard setback, Long Lake Road West frontage,
for the construction of a breezeway and single story garage
addition to the existing non-conforming building, located
32.3 ft. from the front property line, West Long Lake Road
frontage, Lot 57, Bennington Green, Section 18. 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 months of the year, and shall require
the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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. 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 40 ft. in the front
yard setback. (19-18-429-001)
Mr. Williams addressed the Board with a (2) two-part
variance request, which included the construction of a
3-foot high fence above a retaining wall with an overall
height of 5.3-feet to be located in the front yard. Mr.
Williams referred to the site plan and indicated the
proposed 7.7-foot encroachment into the northerly front yard
setback, for the construction of a breezeway and a single
story garage addition. Mr. Williams commented the garage
would be utilized for an additional vehicle to be stored.
Mr. Williams provided the Board with the Bennington Green
Association comments and the approval from Mr. & Mrs. Dennis
Luckow, resident at 4018 Antique Lane.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard
to the at 4015 Antique Lane for the construction of a
retaining wall, that the request be approved as submitted,
and the variance for the construction of a retaining wall
and 3-foot high fence located in a front yard, and a
7.7-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard
setback for the construction of a breezeway and a single
story garage addition to 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. Fence supports must face inward and
the petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(3) 6780 Spruce Drive – Y. Cacoz
Mr. Yousif Cacoz, homeowner, was present seeking approval
for an existing accessory structure, a satellite dish
screened with evergreen plantings, located in a front yard
on Lot 210, Birmingham Farms Subdivision, Section 32.
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 months of the year, and shall
require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of
Appeals. (19-32-201-013)
Mr. Cacoz addressed the Board with the request for an
existing satellite dish, located in the front yard. Mr.
Cacoz presented photographs to the Board and referred to the
existing four (4) arborvitaes screening the satellite dish.
Mr. Cacoz stated the best reception for the satellite dish
is received from this existing location.
Chairman Khederian made mention of one (1) letter in
support of the variance request from Mr. Robert Yazejian,
resident at 6804 Spruce Drive and two (2) letters in
opposition of the variance request from Mr. Edward Bagale,
resident at 6692 Spruce Drive and Ms. Laurell Bennett,
resident at 6674 Spruce Drive.
Mr. Henry questioned was the reception for the satellite
dish attempted from the roof of the residence.
Mr. Cacoz replied he was not aware the satellite dish
could be placed on the roof of the residence.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard to
the appeal at 6780 Spruce Drive for an existing satellite
dish, located in a front yard, that the request be tabled to
March 13th, 2007, to allow the petitioner to
submit a detailed letter of explanination from the satellite
dish technician indicating the viability of the existing and
other locations of the satellite dish on the site.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(4) 3405 Bradway Blvd. South – H. Donovan
Mr. Bert Donovan, homeowner, was present seeking approval
for an existing accessory use/structure, a 34’ x 40’ ice
rink screened with evergreen plantings to be used annually
November through March, located in a front yard, Hupp Cross
Road frontage, approximately 12 ft. from the rear lot line
on Lot 946 and also part of Lot 947, Judson Bradway’s
Bloomfield Village No. 4, 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 not be located closer than 16 ft. to any
side or rear property line, and shall require the review and
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-27-354-007)
Mr. Donovan addressed the Board with the request for an
existing ice rink located in the front yard screened with
evergreen plantings. Mr. Donovan presented photographs and
referred to the existing large pine tree and the rear-entry
garage apron and indicated the existing ice rink was the
best location. Mr. Donovan asked the Board for an on-going
approval for the ice rink.
Chairman Khederian made mention of the five (5) letters
received in support of the variance request from Kristen
Shapiro, resident at 450 Hupp Cross Road, Mr. Carl Eicker,
resident at 330 Hupp Cross Road, Ms. Jean Cote, resident at
340 Hupp Cross, Ms. Ann Rae Kopy, resident at 347 Hupp Cross
Road, and Mr. Edward Ruffley, resident at 487 Hupp Cross.
Ms. Reisinger made mention of the letter received from
Bloomfield Village Association and commented the approval is
limited to this current winter season and a re-approval of
the ice rink is required for subsequent annual installation.
Mr. Donovan replied additional evergreen screening would
be installed as requested from Bloomfield Village.
Ms. Reisinger addressed her concerns with granting an
annual approval. Ms. Reisinger commented the circumstances
might change with the property and or property owner and
asked the landscaping be installed as requested from
Bloomfield Village.
Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to
the appeal at 3405 Bradway Boulevard South for an existing
ice rink, that the request be approved as submitted, and the
variance for an existing ice rink to be located in a front
yard less than 16-feet from the rear property 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. Given the property has two (2) front yards in
addition the existing location of the house and garage with
several mature trees in the rear yard, it would be difficult
for the petitioner to locate the ice rink in any other
location. The approval is subject for one (1) year and the
petitioner is to return to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
re-evaluation. The approval is for November 1st
through March 31st 2007, and November 1st
through March 31st, 2008, the hours of use to be
limited to daylight hours and the planting of the additional
trees as indicated on the landscape plan as submitted to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(5) 6936 Holiday Drive – W. Black
Mr. Joseph Roman of Roman Design, was present seeking
approval for the construction of an accessory structure, a
16’ x 13’ x 9.8’ high open trellis, located in a rear yard
more than 16 ft. from the side and rear property lines. Also
seeking approval to encroach 3.6 ft. into the required 16
ft. side yard setback for the construction of a single story
addition to the existing non-conforming building, located
12.4 ft. from the southerly side lot line, Lot 6, Hill Top,
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 months of the year, shall
require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of
Appeals. 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. (19-32-151-006)
Mr. Roman addressed the Board with a site plan and
indicated two (2) surveys were done on the property, one of
which the homeowner disagreed with and had hired another
survey to be done on the property. Mr. Roman made reference
to the new survey and indicated the proposed positioning of
the building on the property was incorrect; therefore the
encroachment for a 3.6-foot variance request into the side
yard would not be required. Mr. Roman submitted a revised
site plan to the Board indicating a 16’ x 13’ x 9.8’ high
open trellis located in the rear yard. Mr. Roman commented
the proposed trellis material would consist of fiberglass,
cedar framing along with the installation of dogwood
evergreens 3’ to 6’ in height for screening.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard
to the appeal at 6936 Holiday Drive for the construction of
a trellis, that the request be approved as submitted based
on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate
compliance with Section 1804 Standards. Petitioner must
obtain all necessary permits.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(6) 5035 Brookdale Street – R. Spehar ( Rescheduled to
March 13th, 2007 at the petitioner’s request)
Seeking approval for the following variances for the new
home on Part of Lot 62 and all of Lot 63, Bloomfield Estates
Subdivision, Section 24:
The installation of a 4 ft. high ornamental fence,
located in a front yard, Dryden Road frontage.
The construction of a 6 ft. high brick screen wall for
the purpose of screening a stand-by generator, located in
a side yard attached to the northeast side of the garage.
The construction of accessory structures, two 3’ x 3’ x
5.2’ high address piers, located at each side of the
driveway entrance, Brookdale Blvd. frontage.
The construction of an accessory structure, a 44’ x ’ x
30.5’ x 11.9 high cabana screened with plantings,
including pool equipment, and kitchen and bath facilities,
located in a rear yard more than 16 ft. from side and rear
property lines.
The installation of 4.3’ high black ornamental fencing
enclosing an area at the side of the home and screened
with evergreen plantings, to be used as a dog run area,
located in the southerly side yard extending from the wall
of the building 15.6 ft. from the southerly side property
line, more than 25 ft. from the rear property line.
The installation of an accessory structure, an 8.3 ft.
high garden ornament, located in a front yard centered in
the courtyard area.
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. 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 months of
the year, 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. 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 and that dogs shall not be confined or restrained
in any
manner except within the rear yard in an area set back at
least 16 ft. from the side property line and 25 ft. from the
rear property line. (19-24-326-020)
(7) 3610 Franklin Road – A. Markovitz
Mr. Dominick Tringali of Dominick Tringali Architects,
was present seeking approval for the following variances for
the proposed new home on Lots 16 and 17, Supervisor’s Plat
of North Devon Acres, Section 17:
The construction of two 3.3’ x 3.3’ x 9’ high lighted
piers connected with electronic gates, located in a front
yard at each side of the driveway entrance 7.5 ft. from
the front property line.
The construction of two limestone walls with an overall
height of 6 ft., located in a front yard approximately 8
ft. from each side of the driveway entrance and the front
property line.
A 20 ft. encroachment into the required 40 ft. front
yard setback for the construction of two single story
garages for the new home.
The construction of a 20’ x 9’ high limestone wall with
a fountain, located in a side yard 14.4 ft. from the
northerly side lot line.
The construction of an accessory use/structure, a
swimming pool, located within the proposed elevated open
terrace area 22.5 ft. from the southerly side lot line and
29.1 ft. from the water’s edge.
A 31.3 ft. encroachment into the lakeside setback with
the required average setback of the neighboring properties
at 57.1 ft. for the construction of a new home, which
would allow a 25.8 ft. lakeside setback.
The construction of accessory structures, retaining
walls with an overall height of 10 ft., located in the
side and rear yards 9.4 ft. from the northerly side
property line and 25 ft. from the water’s edge.
For the construction of an 8,294 sq. ft. home with lot
coverage totaling 22,896 sq. ft., which would occupy 36%
of the lot.
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 property line, shall
be screened from adjacent residences with evergreen and
deciduous material which will obscure view twelve months of
the year, and shall require the review and approval of the
Zoning Board of Appeals. 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. Article XIV, Section 1400
of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40 ft. in
the front yard setback, 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
allows a maximum lot coverage of 30% within the R-3,
Single-Family, zoned district. (19-17-276-003)
Mr. Tringali addressed the Board with an (8) eight-part
variance request and presented a detailed handout for the
proposed new home. Mr. Tringali made reference to the
handout and indicated the first floor living area would
consist of 3,841 square feet. Mr. Tringali referred to the
two (2) masonry piers and two (2) masonry wing walls to be
located in a front yard of the driveway entrance. Mr.
Tringali referred to the proposed site plan and indicated a
20-foot encroachment into the front yard setback for the
construction of two (2) single story garages for the new
home. Mr. Tringali commented the proposed garages would be
in context with the two adjacent homes. Mr. Tringali
indicated on the proposed site plan to construct a 20’ x 9’
high limestone wall with a fountain to be located in the
northerly side yard. Mr. Tringali referenced the proposed
swimming pool to be placed within the proposed elevated open
terrace area located in the side yard. Mr. Tringali made
reference to the proposed retaining walls for the purpose of
holding the proposed swimming pool area and the sloping
grade. Mr. Tringali presented photographs of the lakeside
and asked for a 31.3-foot encroachment into the lakeside
setback for the construction of the proposed home. Mr.
Tringali commented based on the Township Ordinance the
raised terrace and the home is included in the lot coverage
calculation. Mr. Tringali indicated if the lot coverage were
calculated without the raised terrace and swimming pool it
then would meet the requirements of the Township Ordinance.
Mr. Tringali commented he took into consideration the
adjacent properties and the existing slope of this property
while preparing the proposed site plan and layout of the new
home.
Mr. Taylor questioned the mid-point height of 26.7-feet
for the proposed home as he referred to the proposed site
plan.
Mr. Tringali replied there is no height variance being
sought however all of the mid-point sections were calculated
and averaged giving a 26.7-foot height.
Mr. Taylor commented the 9-foot high lighted piers
connected with electronic gates tied into the 6-foot
limestone walls to be located at the front yard of the
driveway entrance would be massive in size.
Mr. Tringali replied the piers could be lowered however
the proposed electronic gates on both sides of the driveway
with the proposed wall would have railings above to keep an
open feel.
Mr. Bart Sangal, resident at 1370 Kirkway, was present
and spoke in opposition of the variance requests.
Mr. Bill Powers, resident at 3544 Franklin Road, was
present and spoke in opposition of the variance requests.
Ms. Jeanie Lanthorne, resident at 1412 Inwoods Circle,
was present and spoke in opposition of the variance
requests.
Mr. Douglas Ebert, resident at 3530 Franklin Road, was
present and spoke in opposition of the variance requests.
Mr. Tringali made comment with regard to the lakeside
setback and indicated the proposed home is setback 65-feet
from the lakeside setback. Mr. Tringali referred to the
existing homes and indicated the lakeside setback was taken
from the mid-point of these homes. Mr. Tringali commented
the proposed home and walls were designed to fit the
property. Mr. Tringali commented with regard to the proposed
pool and terrace and referred to photographs and indicated
with the walls being structurally attached to the home
allows to be farther away from the lakeside vs. the walls
being terraced which would encroach into the lakeside
setback. Mr. Tringali made comment with regard to the 9-foot
high piers connected with electronic gates would be setback
off the road 22-feet to allow for a vehicle to turn in off
of the road into the driveway approach.
Mr. Taylor made comment to the Board and indicated the
size of the raised terrace is a concern. Mr. Taylor
indicated the lot coverage issue is caused by the proposed
raised terrace by eliminating the terraces and swimming pool
and place them flush on the ground there would not be a lot
coverage issue. Mr. Taylor indicated given the proposed
terrace is raised there is a lot coverage variance request.
Mr. Taylor reiterated by revising the rear plan to conform
to the neighbor to the north would bring the home, swimming
pool, walls, and terraces closer to the lake. Mr. Taylor
questioned in general which would be better, having the home
and accessory structures closer to the lake or having a more
massive appearance. Mr. Taylor readdressed his concerns with
the two 9-foot high lighted piers with electronic gates and
limestone walls are too massive for a front yard driveway
entrance.
Ms. Reisinger commented with regard to the proposed new
home and accessory structures and indicated it was too
massive for the lot and is out of proportion with the
existing homes on the lake.
The Board discussed the variance requests and the visual
impact it would have on the neighbors from the lakeside of
this proposed home and accessory structures.
Ms. Rosati suggested could a landscape plan be
superimposed and prepared with an aerial of the property and
photographs from the lakeside.
Mr. Tringali replied a landscape plan could be
superimposed for the property with an attempt to resolve the
concerns.
Mr. Taylor suggested by developing an alternate plan with
revising the swimming pool and the terraces along with
presentation would be more appealing to the concerned and
adjacent neighbors.
Mr. Tringali replied an alternate plan could be revised
and presented to the concerned neighbors.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Rosati in regard to
the appeal at 3610 Franklin Road, that the request be tabled
to March 13th, 2007, meeting.
Motion failed, 3 – 2
YEAS: Taylor, Rosati, Henry
NAYS: Reisinger, Khederian
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard
to the appeal at 3610 Franklin Road for the construction of
two 3.3’ x 3.3’ x 9’ high lighted piers connected with
electronic gates, located in a front yard at each side of
the driveway entrance 7.5 ft. from the front property line.
The construction of two limestone walls with an overall
height of 6 ft., located in a front yard approximately 8 ft.
from each side of the driveway entrance and the front
property line. A 20 ft. encroachment into the required 40
ft. front yard setback for the construction of two single
story garages for the new home. The construction of a 20’ x
9’ high limestone wall with a fountain, located in a side
yard 14.4 ft. from the northerly side lot line. The
construction of an accessory use/structure, a swimming pool,
located within the proposed elevated open terrace area 22.5
ft. from the southerly side lot line and 29.1 ft. from the
water’s edge.
A 31.3 ft. encroachment into the lakeside setback with
the required average setback of the neighboring properties
at 57.1 ft. for the construction of a new home, which would
allow a 25.8 ft. lakeside setback. The construction of
accessory structures, retaining walls with an overall height
of 10 ft., located in the side and rear yards 9.4 ft. from
the northerly side property line and 25 ft. from the water’s
edge. For the construction of an 8,294 sq. ft. home with lot
coverage totaling 22,896 sq. ft., which would occupy 36% of
the lot, that the variance requests be denied without
prejudice to allow the applicant to resubmit a new plan that
reduces the amount of variances and eliminates the lot
coverage variance.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(8) 910 and 950 Waddington Road – M. Schechter
Ms. Deana Cronk was present on behalf of the homeowners,
seeking approval for an existing 5 ft. high stonewall, which
will tie into the existing wall creating one uniform wall,
located in a front yard, Oak Blvd. frontage, Lots 146 and
147, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village, Section 26.
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. (19-26-155-006; 007)
Ms. Cronk addressed the Board with the request for an
existing 5-foot high stonewall to remain on the property.
Ms. Cronk indicated the residence was demolished leaving the
original stonewalls on the property. Ms. Cronk referred to
the proposed site plan and asked the Board for consideration
to continue the stonewall creating one uniform wall on the
property.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard to
the appeal at 910 and 950 Waddington Road for an existing
stonewall with an overall height of 5-foot located in a
front yard, that the variance be approved as requested.
Based on the information presented, the applicant did
demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards
for practical difficulty. The parcels must be combined as
well as a residential road right-of-way permit must be
applied for within five (5) business days.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(9) 1253 Twin Maples Lane – G. Ladd
Mr. Larry Rockind, Architect, was present seeking
approval to encroach 6 ft. into the required 35 ft. rear
yard setback for the construction of a single story addition
to the existing non-conforming building, located 29 ft. from
the rear property line on Lot
1345, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 9, Section
27. 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. (19-27-201-026)
Mr. Rockind addressed the Board with the request for a
6-foot encroachment into the rear yard setback for the
construction of a single story addition. Mr. Rockind
referred to the proposed site plan and indicated the use
would be to extend the utility room and kitchen. Mr. Rockind
commented the materials would match the existing home and
presented the Board with the subdivision association
comments.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard
to the appeal at 1253 Twin Maples Lane for a 6-foot
encroachment into the required 35-foot rear yard setback for
the existing non-conforming building be approved as
requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant
did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the
standards for practical difficulty. The petitioner must
obtain all necessary building permits.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(10) 3580 Roland Drive – T. Cogan
Mr. Chris Morgan of Morgan - Heller Associates, was
present seeking approval to encroach 8 ft. into the required
16 ft. side yard setback for ground mounted mechanicals
screened with evergreen plantings, two existing
air-conditioning units and proposed pool equipment, located
8 ft. from the westerly side property line on Lot 939,
Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village No. 4, Section 27.
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. (19-27-302-013)
Mr. Morgan addressed the Board with the request for an
8-foot encroachment into the side yard setback for the
installation of (2) two existing air-conditioning units and
the proposed pool equipment. Mr. Morgan referred to the site
plan and indicated the (2) existing air-conditioning units
have been screened with 7 to 8-foot tall arborvitaes. Mr.
Morgan stated the subdivision association has provided
comments.
Motion by Mr. Henry, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard to
the appeal at 3580 Roland to encroach 8-feet into the
westerly 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 must submit a
revised site plan and a building permit application within
five (5) business days to the Building Department.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(11) 2101 Telegraph Road – Stamford United/Kmart
Mr. Patrick Stieber of Allied Signs, was present seeking
approval for additional signage, a 5’ x 6.3’ single faced
permanent ground sign in addition to the existing wall sign,
having an overall square footage of 31.5 square feet,
located 25 ft. from the front lot line on Acreage Parcel,
Section 5. Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No.
265 allows one (1) ground, temporary or wall sign within the
B-3, General Business, zoned district. (19-05-326-004)
Mr. Stieber addressed the Board with the request for
additional ground monument sign to sit on a brick base,
located 25-feet from the front lot line. Mr. Stieber
presented a detailed landscape plan for the proposed front
area where the ground monument sign would be located. Mr.
Stieber commented the Township Design Review Board granted
approval for the proposed sign and landscaping of the
island.
Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to
the appeal at 2101 Telegraph Road for an additional 31.7
square foot ground sign in addition to the existing wall
sign, that the variance be approved as requested per
landscape plan presented. Based on the information
presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s
satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty.
Given the size and shape of the property, Kmart was one of
the first buildings in the area and since then there has
been substantial construction along Telegraph Road frontage,
which has impacted the visibility of the Kmart operation.
Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.
Motion carried, 5 – 0.
(12) 4539 River Trail – T. Dehko (Item was moved to the
beginning of the agenda)
Ms. Rosati disclosed to the Board for the next item to be
heard she is a friend of the family.
(13) 4787 Crestview Court – S. Newman
Mr. George Hartman of Hartman Architects, was present
seeking an interpretation of Article IV, Section 400 of
Zoning Ordinance No. 265, principal uses permitted within
the R-3 One Family residential zoned district, as it relates
to the proposed construction on Lot 67, Franklin Woods Manor
No. 3, Section 31. Article IV, Section 400 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 265 states that in a R-3, Single-Family zoned
district, the use of land, the location and erection of new
buildings or structures, and the alteration, or enlargement
of existing building or structures shall conform to the
permitted uses provided in this Ordinance. (19-31-451-022)
Mr. Hartman addressed the Board with the request for an
interpretation to propose a unique addition to a traditional
ranch style home. Mr. Hartman referenced to the site plan
and indicated the slope and drop off of the property. Mr.
Hartman commented the existing home lacks the views of the
sloping property and wooded site. Mr. Hartman indicated the
purpose of the addition would be for personal use and
entertaining. Mr. Hartman stated this plan was presented to
the Planning Department staff where the proposed addition
was viewed as a separate dwelling apart from the main home
due to the fact that it has a kitchen, living area and
bathroom. Mr. Hartman commented the Planning Department
staff asked the applicant to apply to the Zoning Board of
Appeals to seek an interpretation for an addition that is
allowed under the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Khederian asked Patti McCullough, Planning and
Building Director, to comment to the Zoning Ordinance as it
relates to the interpretation request.
Ms. Patti McCullough addressed the Board with her
comments and findings as it relates to the interpretation
request. Ms. McCullough indicated her review of the proposal
with the appeal of the interpretation of Section 400 of the
R-3 Single Family Zone District, which permits one-family
dwelling units. Ms. McCullough commented the plans presented
are for a 2,487 square foot additional structure to the
current 3,234 square foot home that contains a full kitchen,
full bathroom facilities, elevator, separate mechanical
room, multiple living areas, architecturally dissimilar
additional structure with no common use of materials or
design, incongruent roofed-over attachment to the principal
residence, questionable ability to block-off the hallway
connection to the principal residence, and a separate
pathway and entranceway from the driveway to additional
structure. The Zoning Ordinance is specific as it relates to
the definitions of a dwelling unit as a building or portion
thereof, designed for occupancy by one family for
residential purposes and having cooking facilities. A
One-family dwelling unit is a building designed exclusively
for and occupied exclusively by one family. A Two-family
dwelling unit is a building designed exclusively for and
occupied exclusively by two families, living independently
of each other. Ms. McCullough stated the proposed plans were
denied based on the interpretation that it violated Section
400 relating to a single-family residence given the intended
use of the structure lends itself to a separate dwelling.
The additional structure is intended to allow for
independent living from the principal residence.
Mr. Hartman replied the proposed home addition would
function no differently than a home with a walkout lower
level that would have a kitchen for entertaining purposes.
Mr. Hartman commented given the slope of the property a
walkout basement would not be build able. Mr. Hartman stated
the number of kitchens and bathrooms are not regulated
within the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Janet Stewart, resident at 4782 Crestview Court, was
present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.
Mr. Martin Katz, resident at 4635 Private Lake Drive, was
present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.
Mr. Seymour Dubrinsky, resident at 7448 Franklin Court,
was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.
Mr. Richard Daniels, resident at 7456 Franklin Court,
resident was present and spoke in opposition of the variance
request and the loss of trees.
Ms. Katie Newman, homeowner, was present and indicated
her intent for the proposed addition was to have an open
space to play. Ms. Newman commented the proposed addition
would have features to accommodate for a wheelchair. Ms.
Newman stated the existing home was to remain she does want
to demolish the home. Ms. Newman commented the proposed is
not intended for business use or a second dwelling unit.
Chairman Khederian made mention of five (5) letters
received in opposition from Mr. & Mrs. Stefan Korcek,
residents at 4778 Crestview Court, Mr. & Mrs. Graham Long,
residents at 4771 Crestview Court, Mr. Raimonds Zvirbulis,
resident at 4783 Crestview Court, and Mr. & Mrs. Gary Abbo,
residents at 4770 Crestview Court.
Mr. Henry questioned would the proposed addition have
access to the existing residence.
Mr. Hartman replied the connection would be through the
existing family room connected by a glass atrium followed by
steps and an elevator to the lower level.
The Board discussed the proposed addition structure and
determined the structure to be a second dwelling unit.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard
to the appeal at 4787 Crestview Court that the
interpretation be denied as submitted. The Board discussed
and upheld the interpretation by staff, finding the proposed
addition structure to be a second dwelling unit.
Motion carried, 4 – 1.
YEAS: Taylor, Reisinger, Henry,
NAYS: Rosati
Chairman Khederian addressed the Board and commented Dan
Devine, Township Treasurer, and Board member was resigning
from the Zoning Board of Appeals and
commended his service. Chairman Khederian welcomed Mr.
David Buckley, new Board member to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
IV. GENERAL BUSINESS
V. ADJOURNMENT
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPELAS APPROVALS SHALL
BE VALID FOR A PERIOD NO LONGER THAN ONE YEAR UNLESS A
BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN OBTAINED
