Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
Tuesday, September 11th, 2007 – 7:00 P.M.
Bloomfield Township Hall
Welcome to the Bloomfield Township Zoning Board of Appeals
meeting of September 11th, 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 Code of the Charter
Township of Bloomfield for questions arising under the Zoning
Provisions of the Township. 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
Code of the Charter Township of Bloomfield, 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.
Chairman Khederian addressed the audience and asked for a
moment of silence in honor of the victims from September 11th,
2001.
Chairman Khederian addressed the audience and indicated
item (6) 2243 Somerset Road, has been removed at the
petitioner’s request and will be heard October 9th, 2007.
I. ATTENDANCE
PRESENT: Board Members, James Aldrich, David Buckley, Brian
Kepes, Jane Reisinger, Lisa Seneker, Robert Taylor, and
Chairman Corinne Khederian.
PRESENT: Staff, Patricia McCullough, Planning and Building
Director, Brenda Schultow, Code and Ordinance Officer, Robin
Carley, Development Coordinator, and Kathy Davis, Building
Secretary.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of
August 14th, 2007
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Mr. Buckley to approve
the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of August 14th, 2007, as
written.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
III. APPEALS
Tabled Items
(1T) 1315 Lone Pine Road – R. Glisky
Ms. Paula Studaker, was present on behalf of the property
owner, seeking approval for the construction of a proposed 6
ft. high cedar fence over a 4 ft. high existing concrete wall,
having an overall height of 10 ft. screened with proposed
plantings, located in a rear yard 4 ft. from the westerly side
lot line and 12 ft. from the southerly rear lot line, Lot 23,
The Dells of Bloomfield, Section 20. The Code of the Charter
Township of Bloomfield, Chapter 42, Article IV, Section 42-559
states that accessory structures shall not be located closer
than 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. The Code of the Charter Township of
Bloomfield, Chapter 42, Article IV, Section 42-566 states
fences in a residential district shall not exceed 4 ft. in
height. (19-20-403-003)
Ms. Studaker addressed the Board with the request for the
construction of a proposed 6-foot high cedar fence over a
4-foot high existing concrete wall, having an overall height
of 10-feet. Ms. Studaker commented the purpose for the cedar
fence was to replace the trees that were mistakenly taken down
by DTE.
Chairman Khederian stated the applicant, Mr. Richard Glisky,
was not present for the item nor did Mr. Glisky notify the
Township or the Board of his absence. Chairman Khederian
stated the Board proceeded to hear this item last month given
there were numerous neighbors in the audience that were
present for the item. Chairman Khederian commented to the
Board that the neighbors present were in opposition of the
fence and the concrete wall and made reference to the minutes
of the August 14th, 2007 meeting.
Mr. Taylor questioned the variance for the existing 4-foot
high concrete wall.
Ms. Studaker replied she could not address the existing
4-foot high concrete wall.
Chairman Khederain opened the public hearing inquiring if
there were new comments that were not heard last month.
Chairman Khederian indicated no one was present to add new
comments, and the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Reisinger questioned if the Board determined that the
existing 4-foot high concrete wall and 6-foot high cedar fence
were in the utility easement.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director,
replied the information provided to the Department indicated
the existing 4-high concrete wall and 6-foot high cedar fence
are within the utility easement.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Buckley in regard to
the appeal at 1315 Lone Pine Road for an existing 6-foot high
fence over the 4-foot high concrete wall with an overall
height of 10-feet located within the required 16-foot side and
rear yard setbacks, 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, the existing wall and fence does not cause,
injustice to the adjoining neighbors. Given comments heard at
the August 14th, 2007 meeting, it was determined that there
were no unique circumstances with the property, and that this
issue was self-created, Based on the property owner installed
wall and fence without approvals and permits. The existing
4-foot high concrete wall and 6-foot high cedar fence is to be
removed immediately upon approval of the minutes.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
New Items
(1) 1896 Hunters Ridge Drive – D. Gupta Mr. Raj Nijhon of
BNA Construction, was present seeking approval to encroach 19
ft. into the 35 ft. rear yard setback to replace the existing
non-conforming deck, located in a rear yard 16 ft. from the
rear lot line and more than 16 ft. from the easterly side lot
line, Lot 240, Bloomfield’s Fox Hills Subdivision No. 4,
Section 2. The Code of the Charter Township of Bloomfield,
Chapter 42, Article III, Section 42-527 requires a minimum of
35 ft. in the rear yard setback. (19-02-130-011)
Mr. Nijhon addressed the Board with the request for a
19-foot encroachment into the rear yard setback for the
construction of a new deck. Mr. Nijhon made reference to the
site plan and indicated the rear yard setback and the proposed
deck location. Mr. Nijhon stated the existing deck is
twenty-eight years old and the deck is dilapidated. Mr. Nijhon
presented to the Board the comments from Fox Hills Community
Association.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regards to
the appeal at 1896 Hunters Ridge Drive for a 19-foot
encroachment into the rear yard setback for the construction
of a deck 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 carried, 7 – 0.
(2) 187 Cranbrook Road North
Mr. Joseph Roman of Roman Design Architecture, was present
seeking approval for an 8.4 ft. encroachment into the required
16 ft. northerly side yard setback for the construction of a
proposed foundational concrete slab, located in a rear yard
immediately adjacent to the wall of the building 7.6 ft. from
the northerly side lot line. Also seeking approval for a 2 ft.
encroachment into the required 16 ft. side yard setback to
allow the construction of a two-story addition, located 14 ft.
from the southerly side lot line. The existing home is
non-conforming, Lot 291, Judson Bradway’s Bloomfield Village,
Section 27. The Code of the Charter Township of Bloomfield,
Chapter 42, Article IV, Section 42-558 states that
non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded, or
extended. The Code of the Charter Township of Bloomfield,
Chapter 42, Article III, Section 42-527 requires a minimum of
16 ft. in the side yard setback. (19-27-479-016)
Mr. Roman addressed the Board with the request for an
extension of the garage and an addition for a new mudroom
suite addition above the garage with additional small
additions on the second floor for hallways. Mr. Roman stated
the proposed addition at the south rear of the existing
building includes an extension to the existing garage with a
new master suite above. Mr. Roman made reference to the
proposed site plan and indicated the proposed open porch and
proposed addition materials would match the exterior of the
existing residence. Mr. Roman submitted sub division
association comments to the Board.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regards to
the appeal at 187 N. Cranbrook Road North for an 8.4-foot
encroachment into the northerly side yard setback for a
foundational slab, and a 2-foot encroachment into the
southerly side yard setback for the construction of an
addition to 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 carried, 7 – 0.
(3) 2742 Aldgate Drive – R. Hewson
Mr. Matthew Hewson, son of the petitioner, was present seeking
approval for a 4.6 ft. encroachment into the required 40 ft.
front yard setback for the construction of a proposed covered
porch addition, located in a front yard 35.4 ft. from the
front lot line, Lot 67, Hickory Grove Hills Subdivision No. 2,
Section 10. The Code of the Charter Township of Bloomfield,
Chapter 42, Article III, Section 42-527 requires a minimum of
40 ft. in the front yard setback. (19-10-276-005)
Mr. Hewson addressed the Board with the request for a
4.6-foot encroachment into the front yard setback for the
construction of a proposed covered porch addition.
Motion by Mr. Buckley, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard to
the appeal at 2742 Aldgate Drive for a 4.6-foot encroachment
into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the
construction of a covered porch addition, 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 carried, 7 – 0.
(4) 1851 Golf Ridge Drive South – S. Cooper
Mr. Scott Cooper, homeowner, was present seeking approval for
the installation of an accessory structure, a proposed
stand-by generator, located in a secondary front yard, Indian
Trail frontage, immediately adjacent to the wall of the
building, Lot 223, Wabeek Five, Section 18. The Code of the
Charter Township of Bloomfield, Chapter 42, Article IV,
Section 42-559 states that ground mounted mechanical and
electrical equipment shall be permitted in any side or rear
yard when placed immediately adjacent to the residential
building. (19-18-376-019)
Mr. Cooper addressed the Board with the request for a
stand-by generator, to be located in a secondary front yard of
Indian Trail frontage. Mr. Cooper made reference to the site
plan and indicated the location of the existing
air-conditioning unit. Mr. Cooper indicated his property has
two (2) front yards and stated the proposed stand-by generator
would be placed adjacent to the existing air-conditioning unit
and immediately adjacent to the wall of the building.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard
to the appeal at 1851 Golf Ridge Drive South for the
installation of a generator located in a front yard, that the
variance be approved as requested. Based on the information
presented, given the property has two (2) front yards, the
applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of
the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain
all necessary permits. The generator must comply with Noise
Ordinance of 70dB(A) at property line and be screened from
view with evergreen plantings, which will obscure view twelve
(12) months of the year.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(5) 459 Kendry Drive – R. Nayak
Mr. James McLean of DCS Heating and Cooling, was present
seeking approval for a 3 ft. encroachment into the required 16
ft. side yard setback for the installation of a proposed
air-conditioning unit, located immediately adjacent to the
wall of the building 13 ft. from the easterly side lot line,
Lot 163, Colonial Hills No. 1, Section 4. The Code of the
Charter Township of Bloomfield, Chapter 42, Article IV,
Section 42-559 states that ground mounted mechanical and
electrical equipment shall not be located in the required 16
ft. side yard setback, and that equipment located in a side
yard shall be screened from view by a screen wall consisting
of materials identical to those used on the main building or,
through the use of evergreen plant material at least the
height of the equipment and located at the point of placement
of the equipment. (19-04-378-003)
Mr. McLean addressed the Board with a request for a 3-foot
encroachment into the side yard setback for the installation
of an existing air-conditioning unit. Mr. McLean made
reference to the site plan and indicated the existing location
of the air-conditioning unit and provided subdivision
association comments to the Board. Mr. McLean indicated on the
site plan the rear addition with an egress window which, would
not allow for the air-conditioning unit to be placed
along the rear of the home.
Ms. Reisinger stated the air-conditioning unit is visible
from the street. Ms. Reisinger commented the existing trees do
not screen the air-conditioning unit from view as required in
The Code of the Charter Township of Bloomfield.
Mr. Nayak, homeowner, was present and commented he would
like to leave the existing air-conditioning unit as installed.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Buckley in regard to
the appeal at 459 Kendry Drive for a 3-foot encroachment into
the required 16-foot side yard setback for the installation of
an existing air-conditioning unit, that the variance be
approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the
applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of
the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain
all necessary permits.
Motion failed, 3 – 4.
YEAS: Taylor, Buckley, Aldrich
NAYS: Kepes, Seneker, Reisinger, Khederian
Chairman Khederian addressed the Board for another motion.
Motion by Ms. Reisinger, Seconded by Ms. Seneker in regard
to the appeal at 459 Kendry Drive for a 3-foot encroachment
into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the
installation of an existing air-conditioning unit, that the
variance be approved as requested. Based on the information
presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s
satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty.
Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits and the existing
air-conditioning unit must be screened from view including the
street view with evergreen plantings according to the Township
Code of Ordinances.
Mr. Taylor commented the evergreen screening would be
burdensome to the applicant and asked for an addendum to the
motion that the evergreen plantings be placed in front of the
air-conditioning unit only at the street side.
Ms. Reisinger declined the addendum to the motion.
Motion carried, 5 – 2.
YEAS: Aldrich, Kepes, Reisinger, Seneker, Khederian
NAYS: Taylor, Buckley
(6) Item removed at the request of the petitioner to be
rescheduled for October 9th, 2007.
Seeking approval for an existing 6 ft. high wood privacy
fence, located in a rear yard extending 54 ft. from the
westerly side lot line, Lot 222, South Bloomfield Highlands
Subdivision, Section 3. The Code of the Charter Township of
Bloomfield, Chapter 42, Article IV, Section 42-566 states that
fences in a residential district shall not exceed 4 ft. in
height. (Edward Tillery, 2243 Somerset Road, 19-03-326-012)
(7) 4476 Maple Road West – K. Dalloo
Mr. & Mrs. Khalid Dalloo, homeowners, were present seeking
approval for the construction of proposed accessory
structures, two 2’ x 6’ x 6.7’ high masonry walls and
electronic gates, including piers with 2’ high light fixtures,
having an overall height of 8.7 ft., screened with proposed
trees and plantings, located in a front yard at each side of
the driveway entrance 26.7 ft. from the front lot line and
16.3 ft. from the easterly side lot line, Part of Lot 66 and
all of Lot 67, Sly Farms No. 2, Section 29. The Code of the
Charter Township of Bloomfield, Chapter 42, Article IV,
Section 42-559, 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. The Code of the Charter Township of
Bloomfield, Chapter 42, Article IV, Section 42-566, states
that fences in a residential district must be located in a
side or rear yard and shall not exceed 4 ft. in height.
(19-29-301-027)
Mrs. Dalloo addressed the Board with revised plans and
indicated the variance requests have been reduced.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, asked
the applicant, to address the revised requests to the Board to
determine if re-noticing would be required for this item.
Mrs. Dalloo made reference to the proposed site plan and
indicated the revised variance request for the two (2) 2’x 2’
x 4.7’ high masonry piers with 5-foot electronic gates, that
will include 2-foot high light fixtures, having an overall
height of 6.7’. Mrs. Dalloo commented the original overall
height request was for 8.7-feet.
Chairman Khederian questioned should the Board proceed.
Ms. McCullough replied given the request is less than
originally submitted the Board could act on the item as
presented.
Mrs. Dalloo stated to the Board the reason for the proposed
gates would be for safety reasons and for keeping trespassers
off of the property from Maple Road. Mrs. Dalloo presented the
Board with subdivision association comments. Mrs. Dalloo made
reference to the proposed site plan and indicated the two (2)
2’ x 6’ x 6.7’high masonry walls would not be part of this
request and asked the Board to remove this item.
Mr. Kepes questioned the proposed gate distance from Maple
Road.
Mrs. Dalloo replied the proposed gate would be located
26.8-feet from Maple Road.
Mr. Kepes commented safety is a concern however the
proposed gate is out of character along Maple Road.
Ms. Christina Ohar-Palo, President of Wing Lake Farms
subdivision association, was present and spoke in support of
the lesser variance request
Ms. Reisinger made mention of a letter received in support
of the variance request from Mr. Daniel Kehoe, resident at
6377 Dakota Circle.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Aldrich in regard to
the appeal at 4476 Maple Road West for the revised variance
request for the construction of two (2) 2’ x 2’ x 4.7’ high
masonry piers, that the revised request be approved as
submitted, and the variance for the masonry piers and the
revised 5-foot high electronic gates, including 2-foot high
light fixtures, having an overall height of 6.7-feet, located
in a front yard be granted. Based on the information
presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with
Section 42-55 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the
standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain all
necessary permits. The electronic gates should be a breakaway
type. Petitioner is to submit a Hold Harmless Affidavit to the
Township. Petitioner must submit a revised site plan to the
Building Department within five (5) business days.
Motion carried, 5 – 2.
YEAS: Taylor, Aldrich, Buckley, Reisinger, Khederian
NAYS: Kepes, Seneker
(8) 882 Bloomcrest Drive – B. Rohloff
Mr. Bradley Rohloff, homeowner, was present seeking approval
for the construction of an accessory structure, a proposed
10.7’ x 10.7’ x 10.4’ high pergola screened with existing
trees and proposed evergreen plantings, located in a side yard
on a proposed deck more than 16 ft. from the westerly side and
rear lot lines, Lot 144, Eastover Farms No. 2, Section 12. The
Code of the Charter Township of Bloomfield, Chapter 42,
Article IV, Section 42-559 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. (19-12-378-005)
Mr. Rohloff addressed the Board with the request for a
pergola to be placed on a future proposed deck. Mr. Rohloff
made reference to the proposed site plan and indicated the
proposed location of the pergola would be placed on the south
end of the proposed future deck. Mr. Rohloff stated the
proposed pergola material would be cedar with overhead cross
boards creating a roofed trellis effect and aid in providing
shade to the home. Mr. Rohloff indicated the proposed pergola
would incorporate benches to provide a gathering space for
guests. Mr. Rohloff asked the Board to eliminate the proposed
evergreen screening for the proposed pergola given the pergola
is an architectural feature.
Mr. Taylor questioned the purpose of the proposed pergola.
Mr. Rohloff replied the proposed pergola would provide
shading of the home, open shelter, and an entertainment area.
Motion by Mr. Buckley, Seconded by, Ms. Seneker in regard
to the appeal at 882 Bloomcrest Drive for the construction of
a pergola, that the request be approved as submitted, and the
variance for the construction of a pergola located in a side
yard be granted. Based on the information presented, the
applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 42-55
Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for
practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain all necessary
permits.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(9) 3959 Mount Vernon Drive – C. Anagnostopoulos
Dr. Constantine Anagnostopoulos, homeowner and Mr. Michael
Madrid of Bosco Building, were present seeking approval for
the construction of accessory structures, two 3 ft. high
proposed retaining walls having an overall height of 6 ft. for
the purpose of creating a raised patio, screened with proposed
plantings and existing trees, located in a rear yard 25 ft.
from the rear lot line and more than 16 ft. from the side lot
lines. Also seeking approval for the construction of four 2’ x
2’ x 3’ high proposed brick piers, screened with proposed
plantings, located in a front yard at each side of the two
driveway entrances, located 1.5 ft. from the easterly side lot
line and 4.7 ft. from the westerly side lot line, Lots 191 and
192, Oakland Hills Country Club Sub. No. 1, Section 33. The
Code of the Charter Township of Bloomfield, Chapter 42,
Article IV, Section 42-559 states that accessory structures
shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard,
shall not be located closer than 16 ft. to any side or rear
lot line, 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. The Code of the
Charter Township of Bloomfield, Chapter 42, Article III,
Section 42-527 requires a minimum of 35 ft. in the rear yard
setback. (19-33-178-002)
Dr. Anagnostopoulos addressed the Board with the request
for the construction of two (2) 3-foot high retaining walls
having an overall height of 6-feet for the purpose of creating
a raised patio. Mr. Anagnostopoulos introduced the builder to
address the Board with further details for the variance
request. Mr. Anagnostopoulos asked the Board to remove the
variance request for the construction of four (4) 2’ x 2’ x 3’
high proposed brick piers, located in a front yard.
Mr. Madrid addressed the Board and stated the proposed
retaining walls were originally submitted on the building
plans were approved. Mr. Madrid stated upon inspection of the
existing foundation and testing led to an unknown presence of
an artesian spring and an improperly abandoned well. Mr.
Madrid presented a detailed rendering of the proposed
retaining walls, given the damage caused by the existing well.
Ms. Seneker made mention of the letters received in
opposition of the variance request from Mr. Mark Arnold,
President of Oakland Hills Country Club subdivision
association, Mr. Bruce MacDonald, resident at 6834 Oakhills
Drive, Mr. Clarence Frank, resident at 6630 Oakhills Drive,
Mr. And Mrs. Dean Askounis, residents at 3975 Oakhills Drive,
and Ms. Lucinda Fudalla, resident at 6880 Oakhills Drive.
Mr. Kent Lund, resident at 3827 Oakhills Drive and Board
Member of the Oakland Hills Association #1, was present and
spoke in opposition of the variance.
Ms. Nancy Gifford, resident at 6855 Oakhills Drive, was
present and spoke in opposition of the variance request. Ms.
Gifford stated the property at 3959 Mount Vernon Drive abuts
her rear yard and indicated water run off from this property
negatively impacts her rear yard.
Ms. Linda Howting, resident at 3976 Oakhills Drive, was
present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.
Mr. Clarence Frank, resident at 6630 Oakhills Drive and
Board Member of the Oakland Hills Association #1, was present
and spoke in opposition of the variance request.
Mr. Jade Tate, resident at 3791 Oakhills Drive, and Board
Member of the Oakland Hills Association #1, was present and
spoke in opposition of the variance request.
Mr. Madrid replied to the water table issue and stated it
was determined upon further soil-boring tests an aquifer was
detected 25-feet below the basement foundation. Mr. Madrid
made reference to the site plan and indicated the new storm
sewer which was installed with the storm pipes leading across
Mount Vernon with an additional five (5) 12” pipes in the rear
yard of 3959 Mount Vernon to elevate the water run off onto
6855 Oakhills Drive. Mr. Madrid commented the original terrace
was to be structurally attached to the home, which would place
the foundation over the well. Mr. Madrid stated the
homeowner’s did not want to cover the well. Mr. Madrid stated
after speaking with George Kilpatrick, Township Plan Reviewer,
it was determined the proposed unattached accessory
structures, two (2) retaining walls could be installed by
asking for a variance request. Mr. Madrid made reference to
the proposed site plan and indicated the proposed tiered
retaining walls.
Mr. Taylor commented to the Board a concrete patio could be
installed up to the property line without a variance, and
stated the variance being sought would have less impact on the
adjacent neighbor. Mr. Taylor suggested tabling the item to
allow the petitioner and neighbor’s time to work out their
differences to the end of the meeting.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Taylor to table the
item to the end of the agenda, to allow the petitioner and
neighbor’s to come to an agreement.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(10) 662 Wattles Road – H. Dourron
Ms. Heather Dourron, homeowner, was present seeking approval
for the construction of an accessory structure, a 11.4’ x
17.4’ x 11.4’ high proposed storage shed, screened with
existing and proposed trees, located in a rear yard in one of
two locations, approximately 7 ft. from the westerly side and
rear lot lines or immediately adjacent to the westerly end of
the residential building, Lot 6, Charing Cross Estates,
Section 24. The Code of the Charter Township of Bloomfield,
Chapter 42, Article IV, Section 42-559 states that accessory
structures shall not be located closer than 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. (19-24-202-006)
Ms. Dourron addressed the Board with the request for an
11.4’ x 17.4’ x 11.4’ high proposed storage shed to be placed
in one of two locations. Ms. Dourron made reference to the
proposed site plan and indicated placement A for the proposed
shed would be at the south west corner of the property
screened with existing and proposed trees. Ms. Dourron stated
the proposed placement would encroachment into the side yard
setback. Ms. Dourron indicated placement B for the proposed
shed would be adjacent to the rear of the home on the south
end screened with trees. Ms. Dourron stated the proposed
placement would not encroach into the side yard setback. Ms.
Dourron stated Charing Cross Estates homeowners association
approved the shed as proposed within her rear yard upon
meeting Township standards.
Mr. John Reddy, homeowner at 650 Wattles Road, was present
and spoke in opposition to placement A however, supported
placement B as requested.
Mr. Tom Bentley, homeowner at 4584 Burnley Drive, was
present and spoke in opposition of placement B however,
supported placement A as requested.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich in regard to the appeal at 662
Wattles Road for placement A for the construction of a shed,
that the request be approved as submitted based on the
information presented, the applicant did demonstrate
compliance with Section 42-55 Standards.
Motion failed due to lack of support.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to
the appeal at 662 Wattles Road for placement B for the
construction of a shed, that the request be approved as
submitted based on the information presented, the applicant
did demonstrate compliance with Section 42-55 Standards.
Placement B: placement of the storage shed is to be
immediately adjacent to the westerly end of the residential
building. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
(11) 4688 Walnut Lake Road – E. Cetnar
Mr. Steve Gould of Ultimate Building Solutions, was present
seeking approval for the construction of an accessory
structure, an existing 18’ x 18’ x 11’ high gazebo screened
with existing trees and plantings, located in a rear yard 18
ft. from the westerly side lot line and approximately 100 ft.
from the rear lot line, Lot 174, Kirkwood No. 2, Section 30.
The Code of the Charter Township of Bloomfield, Chapter 42,
Article IV, Section 42-559 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. (19-30-176-037)
Mr. Gould addressed the Board with an apology for building
the gazebo prior to receiving approvals and the proper permits
for the gazebo. Mr. Gould made reference to the site plan and
indicated the location of the existing gazebo. Mr. Gould
stated the existing gazebo provides shade for the homeowners.
Mr. Gould stated the gazebo has electrical installed for a
ceiling fan.
Ms. Seneker made mention of the comments received from
Kirkwood Improvement Association for the variance request.
Motion by Mr. Aldrich, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard to
the appeal at 4688 Walnut Lake Road for the construction of an
existing gazebo, that the request be approved as submitted
based on the information presented, the applicant did
demonstrate compliance with Section 42-55 Standards.
Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.
Motion carried, 7 – 0.
Chairman Khederian addressed item #9, 3959 Mount Vernon, to
be re-heard and asked the applicant and a representative for
the neighbors to approach the Board.
(9) 3959 Mount Vernon Drive – C. Anagnostopoulos
Mr. Mike Madrid of Bosco Building addressed the Board and
stated an agreement was not reached with the subdivision
association for the variance request. Mr. Madrid stated the
subdivision association would not approve of any structure
less than 35-feet into the rear yard setback.
Mr. Kent Lund addressed the Board and asked for a
definition of an accessory structure.
Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director,
stated the definition of an accessory structure by the Zoning
Ordinance indicates any accessory structure that is 9” or
higher above grade, is deemed an accessory structure.
Mr. Lund commented an attachment to the property, of the
main structure, means little.
Ms. McCullough replied if the structure were physically
attached to the main structure, meaning the integral part of
the design during construction of the home, then it becomes
part of the home and the setbacks would have to comply
accordingly. Ms. McCullough stated if the structure were
independent, meaning free of any significant attachment, it
would be considered an accessory structure. Ms. McCullough
stated in this instance due to the raising of the patio, and
the proposed retaining walls, which retaining walls are
accessory structures, which builds on this variance request
before the Board.
Mr. Kepes questioned the placement and width of the
proposed stairway within the 10-feet of the patio.
Mr. Madrid replied the proposed steps are 4-feet and the
retaining walls proposed are 5-feet within the 10-feet of the
patio.
Mr. Kepes made reference to the site plan and suggested
relocating the stairwell within the 10-feet of the patio would
increase the variance request by 50%.
Mr. Madrid replied made reference to the site plan and
stated the area suggested is an existing window well with
lower level daylight windows. Mr. Madrid indicated there are
also two (2) doors located along the rear of the existing home
Mr. Madrid commented alternatives and several options were
discussed.
Mr. Taylor made mention of the original site plan and
commented as to the patio that was previously approved for the
new construction home.
Mr. Madrid stated the patio was previously approved
however, if the patio was installed it would cover the well.
Mr. Madrid commented to the area and stated if the stairwell
was relocated it would leave a 5’ x 9’ area that the homeowner
would considered to be an odd size area for furnishings or
entertainment. Mr. Madrid commented if steps are placed
outside of the home it would either take away from the terrace
or you would have to extend the terrace further out.
Mr. Taylor questioned the original size of the approved
patio.
Mr. Madrid replied the original approved patio was 18’ x
15’ and the proposed patio is 18’ x 20’.
Mr. Taylor suggested relocating the patio back by 5-feet
and the stairs 5-feet, would leave the patio the exact same
size as previously approved and you would have incorporated
the stairs.
Ms. McCullough suggested to the Board to table the item to
allow the petitioner to return with a new proposed plan.
Mr. Buckley commented to the Board the petitioner has not
demonstrated compliance with Section 42-55 Standards nor did
the petitioner demonstrate compliance for all the standards
for practical difficulty. Mr. Buckley indicated given the
comments of opposition received from the neighbors, the size
of the home on the lot, and the well issue.
Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Reisinger in regard
to the appeal at 3959 Mount Vernon Drive for the construction
of a raised patio within the required 35-foot rear yard
setback, that the variance be tabled to October 9th, 2007, to
allow the petitioner to return with a revised plan.
Motion carried, 5 – 2.
YEAS: Taylor, Reisinger, Aldrich, Seneker. Khederian
NAYS: Buckley, Kepes
IV. GENERAL BUSINESS
a. Next Board Meeting – October 9th, 2007
V. ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia McCullough, Director
Planning and Building Department
kd
Home |
Government |
Services |
Community |
Current Events |
Resources
Contact Us |
E-mail List |
Forms
Still can't find what you're looking for?
Use our comprehensive Search or
Site Map pages!
Charter Township of Bloomfield
4200 Telegraph Road
P.O. Box 489
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303-0489
248.433.7700
This site is best viewed in Internet Explorer
5.5 or higher and Netscape 6.0 or higher.
Having trouble accessing our site forms?
Your browser may not have the Acrobat Reader plug-in
that is required.
Click here to download a free copy of this software.
Site Design/Development
by
Proudly serving our community online since
1999.
Named #1 Township Website in Michigan by Cyber-state.org
Site Use
Policy
All information © 2008 Bloomfield
Township, Michigan
|
