PRESENT: James Aldrich, David Buckley, Brian Henry,
Lisa Seneker, Carol Rosati, Jane Reisinger, and Chairman
Corinne Khederian
STAFF PRESENT: Patricia McCullough, Planning and Building
Director, Brenda Schultow, Code and Ordinance Officer, Robin
Carley, Development Coordinator, and Kathy Davis, Building
Department Secretary.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
a. Approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of
February 13th, 2007
Mr. Buckley commented he was not appointed prior to the
February 13th, 2007 meeting and asked to be removed from the
absent roll call.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger to approve
the minutes as amended of the February 13th, 2007 meeting.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
Welcome to the Bloomfield Township Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting of March 13th, 2007.
As a brief introduction – The Zoning Board of Appeals is a
seven member, quasi-judicial body appointed by the Bloomfield
Township Board of Trustees. It is established and regulated by
the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act and the Bloomfield Township
Zoning Ordinance for questions arising under the Zoning
Ordinance. Matters pending before the Zoning Board of Appeals
are decided on a case-by-case basis.
The Zoning Board is empowered to: 1. Grant variances to the
Zoning Ordinance, 2. Approve accessory structures, and 3.
Interpret the Zoning Ordinance.
Any appeal of a decision made by the Zoning Board of
Appeals is subject to Circuit Court Review.
Each case will be called separately, in the order shown on
tonight's agenda. There will be an opportunity for public
comment at one point during each case. All persons wishing to
address the Board will be asked to provide their name and
address at the podium. Given the number of appeals tonight,
please make your comments brief. You are encouraged to address
the Board, but if you do so, please address your comments to
me, the Chairperson, and not the applicant or other members of
the public.
Comments by the Neighborhood Association will be considered
as part of the factual information presented to the Board, but
it is not the determining factor for approval or denial.
Please confine comments to the specific request before the
Board.
For a request to be successful, an affirmative vote of at
least four members present is required. A tie will result in
the applicant being denied their request.
We hope this helps provide a better understanding of what
you can expect at tonight's meeting. Thank you. We’ll now call
the first case.
III. APPEALS:
TABLED ITEMS
(1T) 6780 Spruce Drive – J. 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 a request for an
existing satellite dish screened with evergreen plantings,
located in a front yard. Mr. Cacoz submitted a letter from
Mr. Gerald Merrill of Don-lors Electronic Service,
indicating the service technician assessed several locations
on the property and determined the northeastern corner of
the property was the only location a signal could be
received.
Mr. Henry questioned were attempts made by the service
technician to gain a signal from the roof area of the home.
Mr. Cacoz replied the service technician did attempt to
gain a signal from the roof and failed due to the trees
blocking the trajectory signal.
Ms. Wendy Powell, resident at 6756 Spruce Drive, was
present and commented she has had the same issues with
receiving the signal reception due to the trees and has had
to sign up with Comcast Cable.
Ms. Seneker made mention of (5) five letters in
opposition of the variance request from Ms. Tyla Wells,
resident at 6833 Woodbank, Mr. Terry Segal, resident at 7456
Cathedral Drive, Mr. & Mrs. Edward Bagale, residents at 6692
Spruce Drive, Ms. Laurell Bennett, resident at 6674 Spruce
Drive, and Mr. Kurt Kruger of Birmingham Farms Homeowners
Association.
Ms. Seneker made mention of (1) one letter in support of
the variance request from Mr. Robert Yazejian, resident at
6804 Spruce Drive.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in
regard to the appeal at 6780 Spruce Drive for an existing
accessory structure a satellite dish, located in a front
yard, that the request be denied as submitted. Based on the
information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate
compliance with Section 1804 Standards. The nature,
location, size and site layout of the satellite dish is not
harmonious to the district. The nature, location, size and
site layout of the accessory structure is objectionable to
nearby residents given their comments.
Motion carried, 6 – 1.
YEAS: Reisinger, Seneker, Aldrich, Buckley, Rosati,
Khederian
NAYS; Henry
NEW ITEMS
(1) 830 Helston Court - J. Burmeister
Mr. Jacob Burmeister, property owner, was present seeking
approval for an existing accessory structure to remain after
demolition of the home, a 12’ x 12’ x 13’ high gazebo,
located 30 ft. from the edge of the wetland in the southeast
corner of Lot 66, Eastover Estates No. 2, Section 12.
Article II, Section 201 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 defines
accessory structure as a use, which is clearly incidental
to, customarily found in connection with, and located on the
same zoning lot as, the principal use to which it is
related. Article XV, Section 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. (19-12-376-004)
Mr. Burmeister addressed the Board with the request for
an existing gazebo to remain on the property after
demolition of the home. Mr. Burmeister stated the previous
home was demolished with new construction of the new
residence under way. Mr. Burmeister indicated the gazebo
adds appeal to the property and provided letters of support
from the surrounding neighbors.
Mr. Henry questioned would a landscape plan be provided.
Mr. Burmeister made reference to the photographs and
indicated the existing screening around the gazebo.
Ms. Reisigner made mention of three (3) letters received
in support from Mr. & Mrs. Larry Benson, residents at 838
Helston Court, Mr. Mark King, resident at 822 Helston Court,
and Mr. & Mrs. Paul Nefouse, residents at 791 Hidden Pine
Road.
Mr. Douglas Ashley, President of Eastover Estates
Property Owners Association, was present and spoke in
support of the variance request.
Motion by Ms. Seneker, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard
to the appeal at 830 Helston Court, for an existing gazebo,
that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance
for an existing gazebo to remain after the demolition of the
home be granted. Based on the information presented, the
applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804
Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for
practical difficulty. The approval is contingent upon the
gazebo not to be moved or enlarged upon. Petitioner must
obtain all necessary permits.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
John Ketty from Creative Brick Landscaping, was present
and asked the Board for item #2 to be heard after item #3,
to allow for the homeowner to arrive.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Buckley in regard
to 4610 Cimarron Drive, that the item be addressed after the
Board hears item #3, to allow for the homeowner to arrive.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(3) 620 Spinning Wheel Drive – P. Noronha
Mr. Peter Noronha, homeowner, was present seeking
approval for an existing accessory structures, an 8’ x 6’ x
8’ high shed, located in a side yard more than 16 ft. from
the westerly side and rear property lines on Lot 323,
Bloomfield’s Fox Hills Subdivision, Section 2. Article XV,
Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that
accessory structures shall not be erected in any required
yard, except a rear yard, 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. (19-02-177-015)
Mr. Noronha addressed the Board with a request for an
existing shed, located in a side yard. Mr. Noronha provided
history and indicated the request was first brought before
the Zoning Board in June 2006. Mr. Noronha commented the
Board tabled the item to allow the subdivision association
to address clarification of their deed restrictions relating
to structures, and to respond within 90 days. Mr. Noronha
stated the Board reconsidered the case in October 2006,
which the request was denied without prejudice with the
request that the subdivision association to have a policy in
place 60 days from the approval of the minutes. Mr. Noronha
indicated the subdivision association, at their December
2006 meeting approved a policy to allow storage structures
that additions attached to the home and built with
conventional framing on a concrete foundation. Mr. Noronha
indicated the shed would be utilized to store lawn
equipment, gardening tools and bicycles. Mr. Noronha stated
the existing shed was in harmony with the neighborhood.
Mr. Henry questioned was there discussion with the
association regarding additional landscaping to be installed
to screen the existing shed.
Mr. Noronha presented photographs of his surrounding
property indicating the existing shed. Mr. Noronha commented
additional landscaping would be installed as recommended by
the Board.
Mr. Len Zanger, resident at 740 Weybridge, and Trustee
for Fox Hills Community Association, was present and spoke
in opposition of the variance request. Mr. Zanger stated the
existing shed violates Fox Hills Association deed
restrictions and bylaws as well as a Board resolution
prohibiting detached storage buildings. Mr. Zanger stated
Fox Hills Association has determined that detached storage
buildings are not harmonious and not in conformance to the
character of the subdivision and are prohibited. Mr. Zanger
commented an addition designed for storage that would be
attached to an existing home may be allowed.
Ms. Seneker made reference to Mr. Zanger’s letter dated
December 16th, 2006 and questioned his intent of the letter.
Mr. Zanger replied his intent of the letter was to
resolve the issue by removing the shed or by submitting
plans that are architecturally appropriate to the house, by
means that the proposed addition is constructed of the same
materials and follow the same lines of the house. Mr. Zanger
stated the proposed addition would need to exhibit a
harmonious design.
Mr. Leroy Portser, resident at 655 Spinning Wheel Lane,
was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.
Mr. Bruno Brazauskas, resident at 2090 E. Spinning Wheel
Lane, was present and spoke in support of the variance
request.
Mr. Noronha replied an application was made to the
association for the shed and was denied.
Ms. Seneker made mention of two (2) letters received in
opposition of the variance request from Mr. Harry Jones,
resident at 2056 Fox Glen Court and Mr. Paul Schmansky,
resident at 2036 Fox Glen Court.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in
regard to the appeal at 620 Spinning Wheel Drive for an
existing shed, that the request be denied as submitted.
Based on the information presented, the applicant did not
demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards: The
nature, location, size and site layout of the existing shed
is not harmonious to the district. Given the information
provided an addition to the garage would be aesthetically
pleasing to the house as well as to the neighborhood. The
shed is to be removed immediately upon the approval of the
minutes.
Motion carried, 4 – 3.
YEAS: Reisinger, Khederian, Buckley, Seneker
NAYS: Aldrich, Rosati, Henry
Chairman Khederian addressed the audience indicating item
(2) would be heard next.
(2) 4610 Cimarron Drive – V. Malviya
Dr. Shubba Malviya, homeowner, along with Mr. John Ketty
from Creative Brick Landscaping, was present seeking
approval for existing accessory structures, which are part
of an overall landscaping project on Lot 37, Lone Pine
Heights No. 1, Section 19:
Retaining walls, screened with plantings, with an
overall height of 6 ft., located in front, side, and rear
yards 13.5 ft. from the edge of the wetland.
Brick paver patio and steps, located 19.4 ft. from the
edge of the wetland.
Four lighted piers with an overall height of 5.9 ft.,
located in a front yard, Cimarron Drive frontage, at each
side of the two driveway entrances.
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 feet to any side or rear lot 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 1517 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 265 requires a 25-foot setback from the
boundary or edge of a wetland. (19-19-126-006)
Mr. Ketty addressed the Board with a request for existing
retaining walls and four (4) lighted piers located in a
front yard to remain as part of an overall landscaping
project currently on going. Mr. Ketty apologized to the
Board for not obtaining the proper approvals prior to
starting the work. Mr. Ketty presented photographs to the
Board and explained each one in detail. Mr. Ketty indicated
the retaining walls and the brick paver patio is constructed
on a floating base with drainage. Mr. Ketty made reference
to the four (4) lighted piers located in the front yard, at
each side of the two driveway entrances. Mr. Ketty commented
the piers are approximately 15-feet from Cimarron Drive
frontage.
Ms. Reisinger questioned would the one (1) pillar with
the mailbox remain on site.
Mr. Ketty replied the mailbox pillar would be removed.
Ms. Rosati questioned how much work was performed within
the 25-foot natural feature setback buffer area, outside of
the wetland area.
Mr. Ketty replied the boulder retaining wall was failing
within this area and required boulders to be replaced within
the existing wall. Mr. Ketty commented the wetland area was
not disturbed.
Ms. Seneker made mention of two (2) letters received for
consideration to create a 15-foot buffer zone between the
wetland and retaining walls from Mr. Ed Coe, resident at
1895 Indian Trail and Dr. Art Roffey, resident at 3225 Devon
Brook Drive.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard
to the appeal at 4610 Cimarron Drive for existing retaining
walls and piers, be approved as submitted, and the variance
for the existing retaining walls located in front, side and
rear yards 13.5-feet from the edge of the wetland, brick
pavers patio and steps located 19.4-feet from the edge of
the wetland, and four lighted piers 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 is sloped and close
to the wetlands by avoiding erosion into their driveway.
Petitioner must submit a revised site plan to the Building
Department within (5) five business days and obtain all
necessary permits.
Motion carried, 6 – 1.
YEAS: Seneker, Rosati, Aldrich, Reisinger, Buckley,
Khederian
NAYS: Henry
(4) 5561 Lakeview Drive – P. Hittler
Mr. Paul Hittler, homeowner, was present seeking approval
for a 29 ft. encroachment into the required 40 ft. front
yard setback for the construction of a two-story addition to
the existing non-conforming building, located 11 ft. from
the front lot line, Oak Grove Drive frontage. Also seeking
approval for the installation of an air-conditioning unit,
located in a front yard, Oak Grove Drive frontage,
immediately adjacent to the residential building, Lot 8,
Geisler’s Wing Lake Heights, Section 29. (19-29-127-005)
Mr. Hittler addressed the Board with the request for a
24-foot encroachment into the front yard of Lakeview Drive
and Oak Grove Lane for the construction of an addition. Mr.
Hittler commented the addition would incorporate a two-car
garage and extend the second story over the proposed garage
with a balcony and stairway. Mr. Hittler referred to the
proposed site plan and indicated the proposed addition would
require the existing air-conditioning unit to be relocated.
Mr. Hittler stated the proposed addition would include a
spare bedroom, media room/office and bathroom. Mr. Hittler
commented the proposed materials for the addition would be
of cedar shake siding with a cultured stone skirt and
limestone cap. Mr. Hittler commented the adjacent neighbors
have granted approval for the proposed addition.
Mr. Henry questioned the separate stairway access.
Mr. Hittler replied the separate stairway outside of the
residence would allow for access to the proposed second
story addition without having to track through the home.
Chairman Khederian questioned the specific use of the
media room/office for the proposed addition.
Mr. Hittler replied the specific use would be utilized as
an in home office. Mr. Hittler stated no clients would
utilize this office for business purposes.
Mr. Kal Goren, resident at 4375 Oak Grove Drive and
President of Broughton’s Park Resident Property Owners
Association, was present and spoke in support of the
variance request.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to
the appeal at 5561 Lakeview Drive, for a 24-foot
encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard
setback for the construction of an addition to the
existing non-conforming building, and the installation of an
air-conditioning unit, located in a front yard of Oak Grove
Drive frontage, 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 all
necessary permits and submit a Single Family Affidavit to
the Township.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(5) 6790 Telegraph Road – 6810 Telegraph/Associates LLC/
Sunrise Assisted Living
Ms. Laura Hester, Senior Vice President of Sunrise
Assisted Living, was present seeking approval for the
following to allow for the development of Sunrise Bloomfield
II, Lots 1 to 9, Birmingham Farms, Section 32:
A 312 ft. long, 32 ft. high building for the purpose of
developing a new elderly-care facility.
A 19.3’ x 11.5’ x 8.5’ high pergola, located in a rear
yard more than 16 ft. from the rear property line.
A 15’ x 15’ x 13.4’ high gazebo, located in front
yards, Telegraph and Sandalwood Drive, frontages.
A 15.3’ x 10.5’ x 5’ high brick trash enclosure with
wooden gates, located in front yards, Telegraph and
Sandalwood Drive, frontages.
A 6’ high garden fence with an 8 ft. high trellis,
located in a rear yard more than 16 ft. from the side and
rear property lines.
A 8.2’ x 1.3’ x 3.7’ high ground sign, located in a
front yard 15 ft. from the front lot line.
A masonry screen wall with an overall height of 6 ft.,
located along the westerly lot line in the Sandalwood
Drive frontage.
Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265
allows for a maximum building height of 25 ft., and states
that no building shall exceed 125 ft in length. 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. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No.
265 states fences in a residential district shall not exceed
4 ft. in height. Article XV, Section 1512 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 265 states that a sign within the RM,
Multiple-Family, zoned district, shall require the review
and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Article XV,
Section 1511 of Ordinance No. 265 requires walls within the
R-M, Multiple-Family, zoned district conform with required
front yard setbacks in abutting Single-Family residential
zoned districts. (19-32-277-030)
Ms. Hester addressed the Board with a (7) seven- part
variance request for the development of Sunrise Bloomfield
II. Ms. Hester requested of the Board to consider
alternative massing for the proposed building that would
allow for consolidation of the residents. Ms. Hester
indicted the consolidation would allow for shorter walking
paths to those services, directly affecting the design of
the height and length of the building. Ms. Hester made
reference to the proposed site plan and indicated the
building would be one whole unit, 3-story, 32’ high,
312-feet in length with 80 units for assisted living
residents’. Ms. Hester commented the main services focused
in the center of the building. Ms. Hester stated the third
floor has been designed to be enclosed entirely within the
roof structure in order to reduce the impact of the third
floor and reduce the overall massing of the building. Ms.
Hester stated the proposed three-story structure would allow
for an adequate buffer yard with passive gardens adjacent to
the single-family homes to the west. Ms. Hester referred to
the proposed site plan and indicated the gazebo and pergola
are requested to provide park-like amenities for the
residents’ enjoyment and to give them the ability to enjoy
the outdoors in shaded, protected areas. Ms. Hester
indicated the electrical transformer on the proposed site
plan that would be screened with landscaping. Ms. Hester
indicated the proposed brick trash enclosure with wooden
gates would be setback out of the parking area and screened
with landscaping. Ms. Hester made reference to the 6-foot
high garden fence and commented the fence would provide a
secure, enclosed garden area for those residents who would
like to enjoy the outdoors with family members or a care
manager. Ms. Hester made reference to the site plan and
indicated the proposed ground sign. Ms. Hester stated the
signage would be utilized for business identification and
business location purposes for both visitors and emergency
services. Ms. Hester referred to the site plan and indicated
the 6-foot high masonry screen wall with limestone cap,
located along the westerly lot line of Sandalwood Drive
frontage for the purpose of screening the residential
adjacent homes.
Mr. Buckley questioned would the existing buildings be
demolished for the proposed development.
Ms. Hester replied two (2) apartment buildings, one (1)
office building, and a home would be demolished to
accommodate the proposed development.
Ms. Reisinger questioned would the proposed masonry wall
along the back match the existing masonry wall along the
side of the shopping center.
Ms. Hester replied during the Design Review Board meeting
it was recommended the brick of the 6-foot high masonry
screen wall match the dark brick existing on the walls on
the side of the shopping center.
Ms. Reisinger made mention of the Planning Commission
meeting and indicated the side street would be utilized for
a pedestrian only walkway. Ms. Reisinger commented the
proposed Sunrise development has met compliance of the
Master Plan requirements.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in
regard to the appeal at 6790 Telegraph Road for a pergola, a
gazebo, a trash enclosure, a trellis, a sign, and a screen
wall, that the request be approved as submitted for the
variances and approvals as requested. Based on the
information presented, the applicant did demonstrate
compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate
all of the standards for practical difficulty.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(6) 5035 Brookdale – R. Spehar
Mr. Joe Maniaci of Mondrain Properties, LLC, was present
seeking approval for the following 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. Approved as submitted.
The installation of 6’ 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 statue, 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)
Mr. Maniaci addressed the Board with a 6-part variance
request. Mr. Maniaci made reference to the site plan and
indicated the in-ground pool and cabana would be located in
the rear yard, bordered with a 12-foot landscape area. Mr.
Maniaci referred to the proposed dog run, located on the
south side of the home. Mr. Maniaci stated the dog run would
be a 6-foot high aluminum fence concealed by an 8-foot
evergreen hedge and 25-foot tall spruce trees. Mr. Maniaci
referred to the 8.3-foot high statue, to be located in the
front yard centered in the courtyard area. Mr. Maniaci
stated the statue would be dry cast limestone garden
ornament. Mr. Maniaci referred to the 6-foot high brick
screen wall for the purpose of screening a stand-by
generator, to be located in the side yard attached to the
northeast side of the garage. Mr. Maniaci made reference to
the site plan and indicated the two brick address piers, to
be located at each side of the driveway entrance.
Mr. Michael Reilly, resident at 5000 Dryden Lane, was
present and spoke in opposition of the 4-foot high front
yard ornamental fence variance.
Ms. Marsha Robovitsky, resident at 4945 Dryden Lane, was
present and spoke in opposition of the variance requests.
Mr. Brain Ford, resident at 4950 Dryden Lane, was present
and spoke in opposition of the 4-foot high front yard
ornamental fence, and expressed his concerns with the deed
restrictions for the cabana.
Ms. Dorothy Schoenrock, resident at 4961 Dryden Lane, was
present and spoke in opposition of the 4-foot high front
yard ornamental fence variance.
Mr. Robin Stevenson, resident at 5075 Brookdale, was
present and spoke in opposition of the following variance
requests 6-high brick wall, the cabana, due to the proposed
size, and the 6-foot high ornamental fence.
Mr. Maniaci replied to the Board with a request to move
the 4-foot high fence back from the street 100-feet,
parallel with the garage, if allowed, a variance would not
be required. Mr. Maniaci withdrew the 4-foot high ornamental
fence variance request. Mr. Maniaci indicated the address
piers would be placed on private property. Mr. Maniaci made
comment to the dog run area, and indicated the dog run would
be utilized to keep the rare breed dogs safe from the
surrounding wildlife coming in the yard. Mr. Maniaci stated
he would place the proposed dog run area 16-feet from the
side yard lot line but would like to keep the 6-foot high
fence as requested.
Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard
to the appeal at 5035 Brookdale for the installation of an
accessory structure, an 8.3-foot high statue, located in a
front yard centered in the courtyard area, that the variance
be approved as submitted. Based on the information
presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with
Section 1804 Standards.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard
to the appeal at 5035 Brookdale for the construction of a
6-foot 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, that the variance be approved
as requested. Based on the information presented, the
applicant did demonstrate t the Board’s satisfaction all of
the standards for practical difficulty. Given the size of
the home, it required an extremely large generator that
could not be sufficiently screened. Petitioner must obtain
all necessary permits and comply with the Township Noise
Ordinance at 70dB(A) at the property line.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to
the appeal at 5035 Brookdale for the construction of
accessory structures, two 3’ x 3’ x 5.2’ high address piers,
located at each side of the driveway entrance of Brookdale
frontage, that the request be approved as submitted, and the
variance for the front yard location be granted. Based on
the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate
compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate
all of the standards for practical difficulty. Given the
address piers will be placed on private property and out of
the road right-of-way. Petitioner must obtain all necessary
permits.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard to
the appeal at 5035 Brookdale for the 6-foot 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 16-feet from the southerly side
property line, as indicated by the petitioner, that the
request be approved as submitted, and the variance for the
height 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 evidence of acreage behind the petitioner’s
property that there is concerns with animals gaining access
to his dogs. Approval is subject to evergreen plantings to
be installed to obscure all adjacent properties. The
petitioner must obtain necessary permits and annual dog
license.
Motion carried, 6 – 1.
YEAS: Rosati, Henry, Reisinger, Seneker, Aldrich,
Khederian
NAYS: Buckley
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Henry in regard
to the appeal at 5035 Brookdale for the construction of an
accessory structure, a 44’ x 30.5’ x 11.9’ high cabana
screened with plantings, including pool equipment, kitchen
and bath facilities located in a rear yard, that the request
be approved as submitted, and the variance for the kitchen
and bath facilities and pool equipment within the proposed
cabana be granted. Based on the information presented, the
applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804
Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for
practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain all necessary
permits and submit a Single Family Affidavit to the
Township.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
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.
APPROVED MINUTES WILL BE AVAILABLE ON LINE
AND AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AFTER THE NEXT SCHEDULED BOARD
OF APPEALS MEETING.
