HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-28
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 50 May 28, 2013
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF LIVONIA
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 2013
A Special Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Livonia was held in the
Gallery of the Livonia City Hall on Tuesday, May 28, 2013.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matthew Henzi, Chairman
Craig Pastor, Vice President
Sam Caramagno, Secretary
Edward E. Duggan, Jr.
Elizabeth McCue
Kathleen McIntyre
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Sills
OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Fisher, Assistant City Attorney
Dennis DeMeyer, City Inspector
Bonnie Murphy, Court Reporter
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Henzi then explained the Rules
of Procedure to those interested parties. Each petitioner must give their name and
address and declare hardship for appeal. Appeals of the Zoning Board's decisions are
made to the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Chairman advised the audience that
appeals can be filed within 21 days of the date tonight’s minutes are approved. The
decision of the Zoning Board shall become final within five (5) calendar days following
the hearing and the applicant shall be mailed a copy of the decision. There are four
decisions the Board can make: to deny, to grant, to grant as modified by the Board, or
to table for further information. Each petitioner may ask to be heard by a full seven (7)
member Board. Six (6) members were present this evening. The Chairman asked if
anyone wished to be heard by a full Board and no one wished to do so. The Secretary
then read the Agenda and Legal Notice to each appeal, and each petitioner indicated
their presence. Appeals came up for hearing after due legal notice was given to all
interested parties within 300 feet, petitioners and City Departments. There were 4
persons present in the audience.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 50 May 28, 2013
__________________________________________________________________
APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-05-18: Signs by Tomorrow Brighton, on behalf of Bill Brown
Ford, on the north side of Plymouth, 30400, between Sears Avenue and Tech Center
Drive, seeking to construct two identical ground signs resulting in excess number of
ground signs.
Henzi: Mr. DeMeyer, anything to add to this case?
DeMeyer: The Department has nothing to add at this time, Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, would you tell us
your name and address?
Petitioner: Yes. My name is Steve *Kolmen with Signs by Tomorrow, 2150 Pless Drive
in Brighton, Michigan.
Henzi: Go ahead and tell us about the signs that are proposed.
Petitioner: Well, currently in the location we have two unique businesses. One is a
body shop and the other is a used car dealership. Our existing signage restricts
logically to advertising only one of the businesses, having a collision shop and a used
car shop on the same sign sends a bad message. So what the company is looking to
identify the two businesses separately so we’re requesting an additional signage, an
additional sign on the property to demarcate the used car lot separate from the collision
center. That’s in essence what we’re trying to do is separate them. Actually and
improve the look of the existing signage that we already have.
Henzi: What’s the proposed sign, its size, relative to what exists?
Petitioner: It’s actually shorter, it’s exactly to building specs 72 inches tall which is
slightly shorter than the existing which had been granted a variance at some point
several years back. There is a drawing or a photo rendering in there with the new sign
superimposed over the existing sign. As you can see it’s a much nicer looking sign. So
we’re not looking to make it larger or make it more imposing, we’re just simply looking to
improve the look of the property and separate the two businesses.
Henzi: Is there an intent to direct people into one of two curb cuts?
Petitioner: Yes, yes.
Henzi: If you’re looking for collision and you’re going to turn at that curb cut you’re
going to be closer?
Petitioner: You’re going to be pulling straight into the collision center and if you pull into
the second drive or first drive, depending on which direction you’re coming from, it
would take you straight into the used car lot.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 50 May 28, 2013
Henzi: Any questions for the Petitioner?
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: What is the sign’s existing square footage and what are you proposing for
square footage?
Petitioner: I’m sorry?
Pastor: The current sign?
Petitioner: The current sign is 96 inches by 96 inches.
Pastor: What is the square footage of that? The sign itself, I’m referring not to the
pedestal because I don’t care about the pedestal, I’m talking about the signs
themselves.
Petitioner: The new signs that we’re proposing are 72 inches tall by 70 inches wide, the
face. I’m sorry, am I getting it right?
Pastor: No. The square footage of the sign itself, not the height of the lettering.
Petitioner: Thirty-five square feet.
Pastor: Each one of these is thirty-five?
Petitioner: I believe that to be correct.
Pastor: What is the existing, do you know?
Petitioner: The overall structure I believe was 96 by 96 inches.
Pastor: I’m looking for the sign.
Petitioner: The entire structure itself was 62.67 square feet.
Pastor: So you’re increasing the amount of signage.
Petitioner: We’re reducing the amount of signage in that location but doubling the unit,
correct.
Pastor: And increasing the amount of signage because you’re going to 70 square feet
instead of 62?
Petitioner: That is correct.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 50 May 28, 2013
Pastor: All right.
Henzi: Any other questions?
McIntyre: Mr. Chairman.
Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre.
McIntyre: It looks like on the existing sign you have a street address or am I misreading
it? It looks like you have an address on there.
Henzi: On the original sign.
Petitioner: Yes.
McIntyre: It’s there now?
Petitioner: Yes.
McIntyre: So would there still be an address on either of the signs or no?
Petitioner: We haven’t really concluded whether or not we’re going to add the address
to the actual sign structures, actually that hadn’t been discussed. I believe the reason
that they put it on the original one was just because they had the structure there.
McIntyre: Okay. When you’re going on GPS and putting an address in, you’re keeping
the address, but I’m assuming in most cases people know what they’re looking for, it’s
not like they’re looking for a residence, right? When I put residence in my GPS, it’s kind
of nice to look and see that you’re in the right place, I’m assuming that people are not
they’re looking by the business name and not by the street?
Petitioner: Sure. That’s one of the situations that I have, is that their signage, the way
it’s currently set up, people drive right by there and they’re not aware and they end up
down at the other lot towards Wayne Road and they end up losing business.
Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience that wants
to speak for or against the project? If so, come on up to the table.
Hershey: Good evening. Joe Hershey, Body Shop Manager, Bill Brown Ford, address
30400 Plymouth Road, Livonia. Our practical difficulty is really truthfully the most
important being the confusion of collision and pre-owned in the same sentencing. The
current sign that we have on one side of it, on the east side it talks about pre-owned and
on the west side of the sign it talks about the collision center. So we’ve got lifelong
Livonians that pass us by because they really don’t know where they’re going when
they see the sign that we have. So that’s the practical difficulty, those two issues is the
fact that one, we don’t want to have a collision center and pre-owned in the same
paragraph, it sends a really negative message. And then secondly, we need to have a
situation where people can actually tell what the sign means when they’re pulling up on
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 50 May 28, 2013
the property. Because on the one side they’re seeing used or pre-owned and on the
other side they’re seeing a collision center. So, really, truly it is a practical difficulty for
our business. We have two separate businesses there and we need to advertise them
as two separate businesses, especially given the nature of those two businesses and
the precarious situation that we put ourselves in if we advertise both businesses on the
same sign. Then people think we’re selling previously damaged vehicles is really what
the message is and I can tell you for a fact that that is a strong negative message. And
we do have two separate beautiful driveways that take you up into the old former
Terrace Theater Building and we’d love nothing more than to be able to advertise those
two separate businesses that are in that one building.
Henzi: Thank you. Anybody else? Are there any letters?
Caramagno: No.
Henzi: Anything you want to say in closing?
Petitioner: I’ve spoken with the guys down in the Building Department and they’re ready
to approve the permit for the one, everything was in order and to spec so basically it’s
just looking for permission to put the second sign up.
Henzi: Thank you. I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s
comments with Mrs. McIntyre.
McIntyre: I don’t have any problem with the two signs, I think there’s a strong reason
why he needs two signs, to separate your two distinct businesses. Also to increase the
utility or ease of finding the businesses for people coming in. I’m all for anything that
helps drivers be lost about where I’m going and know okay, that’s where I go and be
able to pay attention to traffic other than trying to figure out. Because you mentioned on
one side if you’re going, I guess if you’re heading east drivers would see the collision
and vice versa, I think it will eliminate confusion, the signs are attractive, and I’m
delighted you took a big empty parcel on Plymouth Road and developed it into a viable
business, so I would be in support.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: I too think you made your case for the need for the two signs, you have
two different activities there and you need to direct people to come there. As important
as that to me is that this is an improvement and you’re proposing a far more attractive
sign and so I would be in support also.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: Well, I’m not a big supporter of multiple signs on the same property but I think I
can support this, however I did forget to ask if they had talked to the Plymouth Road
Authority and get permission from them but I suppose I can support this.
Henzi: Do you want to ask?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 50 May 28, 2013
Pastor: Did you talk to the Plymouth Road Authority about this?
Petitioner: I have not personally.
Representative: Ruth Ann Brown is a board member of the Plymouth Road
Development Committee or Development Authority and we’re certainly going to get her
vote but I don’t have any other answer other than that for you folks. It really will clean
that area of land up nicely.
McCue: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mrs. McCue.
McCue: We did not discuss this at the PRDA.
Henzi: Okay. Mr. Pastor, anything else?
Pastor: No.
Henzi: Mr. Duggan.
Duggan: I will be in support. I think the signs are a definite upgrade, they look great,
you need them to help direct traffic in and out and you have no objections from any of
the neighboring businesses on Plymouth Road so I will be in support.
Henzi: Mrs. McCue.
McCue: Mr. Chair, I’m going to actually recuse myself from the note.
Henzi: Okay. I, too, will support the request. I think when folks go to any dealership
they’re going for one of several different reasons. And if you’re looking for a new car,
you never go into the same driveway as when you’re getting your car fixed. I think it’s
as simple as that. I think this will clean up the flow of the parking lot and make
Plymouth Road look even nicer so I really have no problem with the request. The floor is
open for a motion.
McIntyre: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre.
Upon Motion by McIntyre supported by Caramagno it was:
RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-05-18: Signs by Tomorrow Brighton, 2150
Pless Drive, Brighton, MI 48114 on behalf of Bill Brown Ford, 30400 Plymouth, seeking
to construct two identical ground signs resulting in excess number of ground signs.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 50 May 28, 2013
Ground Signs
Allowed: One
Proposed: Two
Excess: One
The property is located on the north side of Plymouth (30400) between Sears Avenue
and Tech Center Drive, Lot No. 103-99-0030-000, C-2 Zoning District
be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met because there are two and distinct
businesses located at the property which need to be identified spearately.
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because it would be confusing to consumers.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit
of the Zoning Ordinance because it is an overall improvement and would not
harm other businesses in the area.
4. The Board received no (0) letters of approval and no (0) objection letters from
neighboring property owners.
5. The property is classified as “General Commercial” in the Master Plan and the
proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification.
FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions:
1. That the sign be constructed as portrayed in the plans presented to the Board.
2. That the existing sign be removed.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: McIntyre, Caramagno, Pastor, Duggan, Henzi
NAYS:
ABSENT: Sills
RECUSED: McCue
Henzi: The variance is approved with two conditions, that it built as presented to the
Board and the existing sign be removed.
Petitioner; Thank you.
Henzi: You’re welcome. Good luck.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 50 May 28, 2013
APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-05-19: Ashley Laurel Park II, LLC, 17187 North Laurel Park,
Livonia, Michigan, seeking to erect two wall signs upon a four-story multi-tenant office
building resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall area.
Henzi: Mr. DeMeyer, anything to add to this case?
DeMeyer: Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing none, good evening.
Petitioner: Good evening. I’m Michael J. Baylow, 2575 South Haggerty Drive, Suite
500 in Canton.
Henzi: Mr. Baylow, go ahead and tell us about the proposed sign.
Petitioner: What’s being proposed here is what’s commonly referred to as building
signage or wall signage on an office building known as Laurel Park II, which is part of a
three building park located just to the west of the Laurel Park Mall. Our building
happens to front I-275 and so what we’re asking for two distinct building signs along the
top façade of the building; one to identify a tenant who is currently in the building, Sprint.
The other to identify an as yet unnamed tenant that will be coming to the building. This
would be in excess to both the number and the square footage to what’s currently
allowed under Zoning Code. And I believe you have in front of you a depiction of what
the signs would look like and their size.
Henzi: How far along in the process is the building owner with the future tenant?
Petitioner: Reasonably far. And I represent ownership and we’ve been in talks for
some time with another large tenant who I can’t name for reasons which might be
obvious. But I would expect that it’s not unreasonable to expect that we might have a
lease signed within the next month or two but I can’t say for sure because they’re
somewhat methodical about their building selection. But one thing’s for sure, they really
do think pretty highly of this location, this building.
Henzi: Any questions?
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: So the total square footage of both signs is the – I’m sorry, is the 100 square
feet, is that what you’re proposing?
Petitioner: Correct.
Pastor: As I looked at the numbers I thought that Sprint was 100 and you wanted
unlimited on the other. Okay, thank you.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 50 May 28, 2013
Henzi: Did I hear that right, 100 is for both signs?
Petitioner: Would someone be kind enough to refer to the – I believe that that is correct.
There should be a square footage measurement on the drawing I provided. Obviously
when you know that one is Sprint you can measure that one and the other one would be
a not to exceed number. The way it’s drawn there is just future tenant, I believe.
Henzi: So you’re looking for the Sprint sign at 26 square feet and then a second sign
which we haven’t seen not to exceed 74 square feet?
Petitioner: Correct.
Henzi: Any other questions?
Caramagno: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: It looks as though the Planning Commission is reserving approval on the
second sign in more detail. I want to know what that is. Why are they reserving,
holding back on that second sign for the freestanding sign, are they reserving that to
see the layout, the height, the sign, the exact location, why is that?
Petitioner: What you’re referring to there, I had initially put in for the two wall signs and
a monument sign.
Caramagno: Yes.
Petitioner: So the sign that you’re referring to is the monument sign that the Planning
Commission wanted to know more about where would we put it, how high would we
want it and so on and so forth because there was some level of reservation that that
sign would be visible from the freeway. So we decided to table that, that’s not part of
tonight’s discussion as far as I know, we’re just talking about the two wall signs on the
building.
Caramagno: By approving this tonight would we be thinking that this sign, this square
footage is for any sign going forward or for a current tenant?
Petitioner: What we’re asking for tonight really was clearly just the two building signs,
one for Sprint and one for the next full floor tenant because we have two vacant floors,
well, one’s not vacant anymore. And as far as the marketing of the building, that
corridor, as you know, tenants generally favor a freeway presence. So in order to get
that 33,000 square foot full floor tenant, that’s something that you need to do in this
market. So it would only go on the building, if that’s your question. I mean clearly this is
just to approve the sign on the building, not to exceed that total square footage number.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 50 May 28, 2013
Caramagno: What I’m getting at is a lot of time we approve signs, we get a picture of
the sign and what it’s going to look like. You’ve got the Sprint logo here so we see what
that’s going to look like on the building. And then we’ve got to be determined.
Petitioner: Right.
Caramagno: I don’t know, it strikes me as a little bit – could it be a “For Lease” sign put
up there?
Petitioner: Oh, no, not at all. In fact, we were asked specifically by Council, we had a
leasing sign up there we took down and we realized that you had, that Livonia doesn’t
allow a “For Lease” sign to go in the place of what you’re approving tonight. So
however you want to do it, we’re okay with you expressly prohibiting that. And I’m
telling you that’s not what we’re going to do.
Caramagno: So this would be, this second sign would be strictly for a tenant that’s in
that building?
Petitioner: Correct.
Caramagno: And if the tenant moves out, the sign comes down?
Petitioner: And then it goes to the next tenant.
Caramagno: It doesn’t advertise something else, you don’t sell advertising space on the
side of the building?
Petitioner: No. It’s not, obviously as you can see it’s not a transient banner sign, you
know, space available or something like that. This is solely to accommodate the most
likely full floor tenant with their corporate presence along 275. Similar to what you see
with the Pet Supplies Plus sign next door.
Caramagno: I see.
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: Let’s go back to the monument sign. Are you going to come back before this
Board and ask for a monument sign in a month, three months, six months? Is that what
the intent is?
Petitioner: You know I can’t answer that question definitively, I can’t say yes or no
because we thought it was a good idea when we first put this together and we got a
pretty clear message that generally speaking you guys don’t think very highly of those
things along 275. So, if we thought we could put it together tastefully and it was
something that would be not offensive, we might ask for that at some point in the future
but sitting here today it’s tabled indefinitely because we might be just fine with the two
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 50 May 28, 2013
building signs. You know our hope was originally to do the monument sign and then
have more tenants have a presence along 275, same concept, just a different format
obviously. But like I said, so no, the intent is not to come appear before you in two
weeks or a month or three months, but you know I’d like to think if we ever thought that
that was a good idea and we thought that Livonia did as well, that we could ask for that
at some point in the future. But it’s not part of this at all.
Pastor: So you don’t have a monument sign anywhere else on this property?
Petitioner: No, there’s no monument sign. When you drive in, you know, you come in
along that spiked road there which I think is Laurel Park Court and there might be a
directional sign or – there’s nothing that goes with the building in other words, you know
with any tenant names on it or anything of substance.
Pastor: Thank you.
Henzi: Any other questions? I have one for Mr. Fisher. Have we ever approved a sign
on a to be determined basis before?
Fisher: I thought we did one on this very set of buildings.
Henzi: The Pet Supplies Plus?
Fisher: One of those, I thought one of those buildings was unknown at the time. You
certainly don’t have to approve it sight unseen, I can understand the discomfort with
that, but I think it has been done at least once before.
Henzi: And if we were to do that, what kind of conditions would we have to assert?
Fisher: Well, the condition that they’re proposing to assert is to not exceed 74 square
feet in area. I don’t know what else.
Henzi: It’s got to be for a tenant?
Fisher: Yes, that would be a logical condition, sure. Maybe you could say a tenant that
occupies one or more complete floors of the building or something like that.
Duggan: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Duggan.
Duggan: If I remember correctly I thought that the Pet Supplies Plus, the one that was
right there, I thought that sign was in our packet. Did we approve two signs? There’s
only one sign on the building but did we approve a second sign that was to be
determined, I know he said he thinks, but does anyone remember? Because I can’t
remember what, if there’s another sign there or if they had another tenant but I just
remember the Pet Supplies Plus, I don’t remember.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 50 May 28, 2013
Henzi: And I remember approving a Quicken Loans sign in this building, maybe more
than one, and I remember Pet Supplies Plus.
Petitioner: If I may add, I think it may have been Rock Financial at one time was
approved, if my memory serves me correctly, same company.
Henzi: But I also remember there was some --- if I remember correctly buildings one
and three are owned by a different owner.
Petitioner: Yes. We are building two, buildings one and two are owned by a different
owner today. They used to all three be owned by the same person years ago. Today
it’s different ownership. And largely, it’s one of the driving factors is we have no
presence along Laurel Park Drive which is the way into the property. Because we’re not
a park anymore we have no rights to any signage along Laurel Park Drive. So really the
only frontage this building gets is along 275. You know it’s one of the questions I was
asked early on is why can’t you just put up something along Laurel Park Drive and I said
we tried that, we can’t because it’s private property there, we have no rights. So if it
were a park under common ownership, we might be able to be more creative in how we
can direct people to the building and give people exposure that they’re in the building,
you know a company like Sprint. Therefore we see this as a pretty decent route to doing
that.
Henzi: To my point, I remember, with the other owner being here, that these developers
are in competition? I don’t want to see future tenant being the name of the building
which causes competitor to want the name of the building. To me I get the need for
them wanting a sign up there, so there was a basis for my question. Any other
questions? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak for or
against the project? If so, come on up. Seeing no one coming forward, are there
letters?
Caramagno: Yes, one. An approval from Dean Yost, 17177 Laurel Park, (letter read).
Petitioner: I didn’t write that.
Caramagno: Is that your competitor? What is your address, sir?
Petitioner: 17187, that, the next door building is 17177. I don’t know who that is but I
know who the owner is but that’s not a name I’m familiar with, the gentleman who wrote
that letter.
Henzi: It looks like a tenant in the competitor’s building.
Caramagno: Suite 405, yes.
Henzi: Mr. Baylow, anything you want to say in closing?
Petitioner: Simply for what it’s worth, I mean this building is owned by Ashley Laurel
Park II, LLC and it’s a subsidiary or affiliated company with Ashley Capital. We have a
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 50 May 28, 2013
large presence in Livonia owning the Plymouth Road Tech Hill Center and the Livonia
Corporate Center, you know the large contiguous, you all know where that is. And
we’ve been here for a long time and we fully respect and hope to be here a long time
and honor the heritage of Livonia and everything that you all stand for so for what it’s
worth, to allay some of the fears, what I’m pledging to you tonight is that those signs are
for exactly what I said they’re for and we would not do anything to bring discredit upon
the building or the City by putting up something nonsensical or in bad taste. So, that’s
how I would close.
Henzi: Thank you.
Petitioner: You’re welcome.
Henzi: I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with
Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: With that statement you’ve put my questioning at ease about what the
sign is truly for. I understand that a tenant that’s going to take up the kind of space of a
floor of that building wants some recognition of their space and wants to be seen for
people visiting and the square footage here is not substantial what you’re asking for, I
think it’s reasonable what you’re asking for so I’ll be in support.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: I can also be in support. Once again I don’t approve or care for multiple signs
on a building but in this case it’s a large building, highway presence, no other access to
signage, so my only concern is you’ve got two floors taken up and number three comes
and says I need a sign, too, that would be my only concern.
Henzi: Mr. Duggan.
Duggan: I’ll be in support. I think you absolutely do need to satisfy your tenants
especially since the neighboring one has signage there, too. And I like the Sprint sign, I
think that looks good, and I think if you had a sign in poor taste there it would only hurt
the value of your building so I will be in support.
Henzi: Mrs. McCue.
McCue: I would agree with the others and I will be in support.
Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre.
McIntyre: Frankly, I would prefer to see the name of tenants on the building. I feel like
when you drive by a building and it doesn’t have any signage, it’s a nondescript. It
could be anywhere, anything, it gives a feeling to me that it’s kind of a patchwork of
things. Big signs indicate to me that we have businesses that like to be a presence in
Livonia. I understand why we have the one sign limitation but I think sometimes it works
against the greater goal of what we’re trying to achieve so I would be in full support.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 50 May 28, 2013
Henzi: I agree with Mrs. McIntyre and that’s why I approved the Rock Financial signs
for the same reason. I also think that it would be unfair to any building owner in Livonia
to disallow this when their competition in Farmington Hills, Novi, Northville, half the size
that they’re asking for. I would like to see conditions that it’s for the tenants only, that it
be limited to the size proposed and that the to be determined sign is for a tenant that
occupies a certain square footage or is an anchor tenant, however we want to define it
and while that tenant exists in the building only. So the floor is open for a motion.
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Upon Motion by Pastor, supported by Caramagno, it was:
RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-05-19: Ashley Laurel Park II, LLC, 17187
North Laurel Park, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to erect two wall signs upon a four story
multi-tenant office building resulting in excess number of wall signs and wall area.
Walls Signs Wall Sign Area
Allowed: One Allowed: 86 sq. ft.
Proposed: Two Proposed: 100 sq. ft.
Excess: One Excess: 14 sq. ft.
The property is located on the west side of North Laurel Park, (17187) between Seven
Mile and University Park, Lot No. 028-99-0006-011, PO Zoning District
be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met because it is a large building that sits and
fronts on the expressway.
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because there are no other available options for a monument sign to be placed
on Laurel Park Drive.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit
of the Zoning Ordinance because it is an office park that can support this type of
signage.
4. The Board received one (1) letter of approval and no (0) objection letters from
neighboring property owners.
5. The property is classified as “Office” in the Master Plan and the proposed
variance is not inconsistent with that classification.
FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions:
1. The signs be erected as proposed to the Board.
2. The signs are not to exceed the 26 sq. ft. and 74 ft. presented to the Board.
3. The signage be used for only an anchor tenant or tenant occupying at least one
floor of building.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 50 May 28, 2013
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Pastor, Caramagno, Duggan, McCue, McIntyre, Henzi
NAYS:
ABSENT: Sills
Henzi: The variance is granted with those three conditions. You’ve got to erect a sign
that’s not to exceed with respect to square footage. The to be determined sign is going
to be for an anchor tenant or one taking up the floor and the sign is only good for that
tenant.
Petitioner: Understood.
Henzi: Good luck to you, thanks.
Petitioner: Thank you. Thank you, ladies and gentleman, and I look forward to bringing
some more jobs and economic activity to the City. This will help us do that.
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 50 May 28, 2013
APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-05-20: Richard and Stephanie Bergsieker, 37351 Bennett,
seeking to erect a 6-foot tall privacy fence, resulting in excess fence height, a privacy
fence within the side yard and the fence not aligning with any fence on adjoining
property.
Henzi: Mr. Demeyer, anything to add?
DeMeyer: The Department has nothing to add at this time, Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hearing one, good evening.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) Stephanie Bergsieker, 37351 Bennett, Livonia 48152.
Petitioner: (Richard) Richard Bergsieker, same address.
Representative: Sam Baki, I’m the realtor involved with this case, 38801 Plymouth
Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
Henzi: Go ahead and tell us about why you want to erect a privacy fence.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) Well, I’ll start by saying it was very important to us to be in the
City of Livonia, the reputation, the schools. We love this location especially because it’s
important for me to be around food even though it may not look like it. I love being
across from the mall even though we’re worried about that. But however having said
that it is on a very on the corner of very two large roads, Newburgh and Six Mile, so
there’s very little, actually no privacy. And recently I understand, too, that the City did
some work along there which knocked out the trees which means even less privacy so
currently we don’t have children even though we are starting our family so a concern for
us is having a yard. We both grew up with a yard, where we played in the backyard and
you know had a fence around. Also we have dogs that are kind of like our children now
so we’d like to be able to provide a yard that they can run around free, not have to be
locked up to a leash, we let them out. A privacy fence for us looks better, I think it’s
more esthetically pleasing. And then again also being around all those businesses, it
provides us a little more privacy.
Henzi: Have you entered into a contract to purchase this home subject to getting
approval for this fence?
Petitioner: (Stephanie) No. We actually closed last week so we’re at your complete
mercy. This is our dream home, if only we can have a fence.
Henzi: Your application talks about the two large dogs and your fear that they’re going
to get out; can you describe them in greater detail?
Petitioner: (Stephanie) They’re each 90 pounds, they’re mixed breeds. We’ve gone to
great lengths to make sure that they are extremely well-behaved, we socialize them
around other animals and people. However, with large animals people are often taken
aback by them and afraid and we don’t by any means want our neighbors or even
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 50 May 28, 2013
businesses around to be afraid of our animals because they are extremely well-
behaved, if anything, they would lick someone to death.
Henzi: And you went to your neighbor and had them sign the fence consent form, right?
Petitioner: (Stephanie) Correct.
Henzi: Can you tell us about the fence that you’re proposing? I know we have a photo.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) I didn’t want to put the horse before the cart so we haven’t
talked to anyone yet, we wanted to make sure we got your approval but what we’re
thinking is something similar to what you see here and we’re hoping to do, my husband
is a veteran, we both work for the Department of Veterans Affairs, so we’re hoping to
give some business to a veteran-owned business and/or preferably in the Livonia area.
Henzi: Can you narrow it down to color and style? You’ve got a white, typical white
vinyl, 6-foot?
Petitioner: (Stephanie) Right. With the color of the brick, I was probably thinking more
along the lines of beige to kind of match more the exterior of the home, I meant to say
the color of the brick and siding. So probably something more of a beige. The only
variance as far as this picture other than the color is I’ve been kind of playing around a
little bit, they have different lattice type designs at the very top of the fence, just
something a little more fancy and pretty.
Henzi: One last question I have, on the drawing that we’ve got, I just want to make
sure, you propose to start the fence at the rear of the garage, right?
Petitioner: (Stephanie) At the worst we’d like to do the rear, we’d like to do a little more
further up but I had heard that in the past they usually had to start at the back of the
house but the way this house is, it kind of jags back three different ways, so it would be
really weird to do that. We would settle for the back of the garage but preferably we’d
like to start about 5-feet from the front of the garage.
Representative: (Sam Baki) The house sits far back you know that we’re thinking from
the property line 50 feet, so it’s almost 5, 6 feet back from the garage, the two car
garage. As you see, most of this, her patio and everything else is on the side of the
property, it’s not in the back, so this will act as a better privacy. And to put it in the back
of the garage right next to that fencing, it limits what you can use in that area and it in a
way when you move it back about 50 feet off the corner, from the right of way, that’s
almost 75 feet from the corner of Bennett and Newburgh Road, so it’s not, cannot be
interfering with any visions or seeing any cars driving by, so you can still see the cars
coming, too, because it’s a one-way northbound off of Newburgh. And like she
mentioned, this whole section had a lot of trees. I don’t know if anybody remembers it
in the past, but in I believe it was late last year, I don’t know if they had a water problem,
or a water main possibly or something in that area, but all the trees had to be removed
and the City dug it all out. They promised they were going to put some trees back but
we all know what came down is mature trees, what’s going up is smaller, you know,
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 50 May 28, 2013
trees. It doesn’t matter what they put up there, it’s going to take forever to grow. They
took the trees and the privacy this house had in the past. That’s why the previous
owner never asked for it because he had a lot of trees, bushes, everything was all over
and that section is gone.
Henzi: That brings up a good point because that was very important to me, the trees. I
do remember you couldn’t even see into that house, you couldn’t really tell there was a
house there.
Representative: Exactly.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) It’s completely open now.
Henzi: So if the City takes them out what’s the status of having the trees replaced
because depending on how far you want to come up, that might change if the City told
you exactly what they’re going to replace.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) To be honest, it would be nice for privacy, but having a large
yard, when we were looking for houses it was really hard to find a nice sized yard that
wasn’t all cut up. So even still with the tree it would be nice to have that fence a little bit
further up because it would provide more bay and area to have a yard, to have kids
running around playing back there.
Representative: The new tree the City is going to put in, it’s going to take up to twenty
years to mature and they’re not going to put it as it used to be. They might put two,
three trees on that whole stretch, so they’re not going to be sitting next to each other
like the previous trees in that area was. So it doesn’t matter how many trees they put in,
with the time it takes it to grow, we’re talking twenty years. So and in between privacy
and having enough room to put some things there, that’s the principle behind bringing
this as far as possible. You know even if it’s the center of the garage but not too close
to the back because that’s where the patio, if you notice, the patio sits right next to the
back of the garage. So technically, their backyard, their patio where they can barbecue,
whatever they want to do. And I know they don’t want the fence too close in that area.
Henzi: Any other questions?
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: So, are you asking for a privacy fence all the way around the property or just off
of Newburgh Road?
Petitioner: (Stephanie) Preferably all the way around the property.
Representative: Both sides.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 50 May 28, 2013
Representative: And on the side.
Pastor: So how far on the other side of the property, the drawing that we have has two
lines on the garage side but really doesn’t say anything on the other side or it doesn’t
even tell us that you’re putting a fence around the other side.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) Preferably we’d like it to be to you know not be uneven and
weird looking.
Pastor: What is this 8-foot structure?
Representative: Actually, that’s not an 8-foot. That’s an 8-foot addition, it’s a master
bath that the previous owner had it of this property years ago. It’s actually part of the
house.
Pastor: So, okay. So, if you were able to put the fence off at the front corner of that,
which would make it somewhat similar to the other side –
Representative: Similar to the other side. Almost half-way to the garage.
Pastor: Almost halfway to the garage, you’d be happy with that?
Representative: Yes.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) Yes.
Pastor: Okay. Now, let’s talk about your lattice. If we approve a 6-foot tall fence, you
can’t put lattice on top of that.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) Yes, absolutely, it’s all part of the fence.
Pastor: And I would probably think the Board would much prefer that then if you put
lattice on top of that. So you’re actually putting a 5-foot high fence with another 1-foot
lattice?
Petitioner: (Stephanie) Right.
Pastor: Okay, thank you.
Henzi: Anything else, any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wants to speak for or agains the project? If so, come on up to the table. Seeing no
one, can you read the letters?
Caramagno: We have one from Bar Louis, 37716 Six Mile Road, sends an approval.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) That’s because they know we’re going to be there.
Henzi: Anything you’d like to say in closing?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 50 May 28, 2013
Petitioner: (Stephanie) I think we touched on everything. Again, just to reiterate, you
know, this house is everything we’ve been looking for, we hope to raise our family there,
animals and kids and raise them. Like I said it was important for the schools and we
love this location, we just would like a little bit of privacy for our friends and kids and
animals.
Henzi: Okay. I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments
with Mr. Pastor.
Fisher: Mr. Chair, if I may, there was another letter that I have in my packet.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) I think it was the neighbor on the left side because there’s no
fence whatsoever in that area.
Fisher: A letter from Mr. Fugas.
Murphy: It’s on another case.
Fisher: Oh, okay, I apologize.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: Thank you. First of all I’d like to say thank you for your service. I’ll be in
support of this. I think we’ve come to a compromise about off the corner of that one
side and the garage. I’d like to see the lattice, I think it looks a lot nicer and so I’ll be in
full support.
Henzi: Mr. Duggan.
Duggan: I, too, will be in support. You’re right on the corner there so I totally believe
you guys need your privacy. If you want the lattice for the last foot, I’m all in support of
that, so I will be in support.
Henzi: Mrs. McCue.
McCue: I agree. The location, where you are, privacy, knocking the trees down, the
whole nine yards, that was out of your control. And I would agree, as long as you have
the lattice on the top, the last foot, I would be in support.
Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre.
McIntyre: Full support. Welcome to Livonia. Thank you for your service. Thank you for
choosing to make your home in this great community. I also thank you for taking the
time to prepare your packet and come get approval before you started the process.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) Thank you.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 50 May 28, 2013
Caramagno: Everything’s been said, I support it as well.
Henzi: I do, too, there’s nothing I can add. The floor is open for a motion.
Upon Motion by Duggan, supported by Pastor, it was:
RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-05-20: Richard and Stephanie Bergsieker,
37351 Bennett, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking to erect a six foot tall privacy fence resulting
in excess fence height, a privacy fence within the side yard and the fence not aligning
with any fence on adjoining property.
Fence Height
Allowed: 5 ft.
Proposed: 6 ft.
Excess: 1 ft.
The property is located on the south side of Bennett, (37351) between Vargo and
Newburgh, Lot No. 031-01-0105-000, R-4B Zoning District.
be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the property is located right off of
Newburgh Road.
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because of the location of the property and safety concerns.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit
of the Zoning Ordinance because it has the support of the neighbor directly next
door.
4. The Board received one (1) letter of approval and no (0) objection letters from
neighboring property owners.
5. The property is classified as “Low Density Residential” in the Master Plan and the
proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification.
FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions:
1. That the fence be built as presented to the Board with five feet of vinyl and one
foot of lattice at the top.
2. That the fence be constructed within six months.
3. That the fence start and end at a point no further north than the north end of the
8 foot wide addition to the home.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Duggan, Pastor, McCue, McIntyre, Caramagno, Henzi
NAYS:
ABSENT: Sills
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 of 50 May 28, 2013
Fisher: Can we just clarify where exactly this fence is supposed to begin?
Pastor: If you look at the drawing of the house, they have a little 8-foot room on the –
Fisher: Right.
Pastor: It would be off the front corner of that all the way around to equally on the other
side of the garage. So if you took a ruler and went straight across it it would be from the
same location going forward.
Fisher: So if I understand correctly, the back of this house is the south?
Pastor: Yes.
Fisher: So you’re talking about the north end of the 8-foot room is where you put the
front end?
Pastor: Right. So it still has some side yard and front yard, it’s not all the way up into
the front yard.
Fisher: Okay.
Representative; Approximately about 72 to 73 feet to that corner from the backyard.
Fisher: Okay.
Henzi: Are we on the same page, Mr. & Mrs. Berksieger?
Petitioners: Yes.
Caramagno: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: We’re talking about both the east and west side and not the back, the
back has a cement wall back there?
Henzi: Right.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) So we can leave the retaining wall, we don’t have to worry
about that.
Henzi: Right.
Petitioner: I mean because sometimes I wasn’t sure if you wanted us to just put the
fence up in front of the retaining wall.
Henzi: No.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 23 of 50 May 28, 2013
Henzi: So just for the minutes, Mr. Duggan, it’s the east and west side mirror image at
the spot.
Duggan: Yes.
Henzi: Anything else? Please call the roll.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Duggan, Pastor, McCue, McIntyre, Caramagno, Henzi
NAYS:
ABSENT: Sills
Henzi: the variance is granted with four conditions. I’ll read them in reverse. It’s good
for six months. That doesn’t mean that it expires in six months, it means you’ve got to
complete within six months. It’s got to be a vinyl fence with lattice at the top and you’ve
got to erect it as presented with the fence lines mirror image on the east and west side
beginning at the corner of that add-on the west side matched on the east.
Petitioner: (Stephanie) Okay. Thanks so much for your time.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 24 of 50 May 28, 2013
APPEAL CASE 2013-05-21: Crosswinds Court Sub, 16580 Merriman, seeking
approval of a sunroom addition, erected with permits, in conjunction with a proposed lot
division, resulting in the addition being deficient in the side yard setback.
Side Yard Setback
Required: 12.5 ft.
Proposed: 10 ft.
Existing: 10 ft.
Deficient: 2.5 ft.
Henzi: Mr. DeMeyer, anything to add to this case?
DeMeyer: Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department?
Caramagno: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: I’m confused. What came first, the addition or the home behind it?
DeMeyer: I believe the addition came first and it was previously granted a variance for
a lot split. There was a resolution that was granted and then the addition was
constructed in I think 1991, and ’93 with permits before the lot split, so everything was
legal at the time. But then they did the lot split and then they built the house behind it
on Munger.
Caramagno: The house behind it has been there a number of years, isn’t that right?
Petitioner: 1999, 2000.
DeMeyer: 1999, 2000.
Caramagno: The house is not new, it’s not just been put there.
DeMeyer: Correct.
Caramagno: So this deficiency wasn’t an issue when the sunroom was put on?
DeMeyer: That’s correct.
Caramagno: What brought this to the attention of Inspection, how did this come up as
an issue?
DeMeyer: That I couldn’t tell you.
Fisher: They’re going to split it again.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 25 of 50 May 28, 2013
Caramagno: Split what again?
Fisher: The property that fronts Merriman and Munger is about to be split.
Caramagno: So the lot that this house sits on has a lot of front yard?
Fisher: Yes, and it’s going to have less. Or what’s actually going to happen is the front
yard is going to shift around to just Munger and the corner lot will belong to another
house.
Caramagno: So this home is going to have a Munger address, is what’s being
proposed?
Fisher: Yes.
Caramagno: So this house is going to sit funny on this lot, is that right?
Fisher: Yes, it already sits a little funny obviously so but yes, it’s going to be funny and
that’s why the problematic side yard now.
Caramagno: And the new home will face Munger or will face Merriman?
Petitioner: Munger.
Caramagno: All right. That clears it up a little bit better, thank you.
Henzi: Mr. Fisher, from the information I understand this deficiency has existed for
several years so they probably would have gone on and nobody would have said
anything but because there’s another lot split now we’re being asked to clean something
up?
Fisher: I guess you’d put it that way. See, when, what I was told, what Alex told me,
was that when this split was proposed part of the deal was tearing out the sunroom and
then there was some sort of change in views about that which is why this case is here
now.
Henzi: Assume there wasn’t another lot split that will allow for a new home on Munger,
we still have this problem, right?
Fisher: Well, this, if you mean with this property and this –
Henzi: We’d still allow the addition in the side yard, correct?
Fisher: This current configuration would continue to exist forever or for however long
the house stays there and it’s right now of course it’s not because the orientation is
towards Merriman as the front property, as the narrow frontage is the front. There’s
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 26 of 50 May 28, 2013
actually a rear yard deficiency and as the split goes forward, it will become a side yard
deficiency.
Henzi: So technically if enforced, forget about the new lot split, if it was enforced, it
would have a rear yard deficiency?
Fisher: Yes.
Henzi: Requiring a variance but nothing ever happened as it was probably minimal?
Fisher: Yes, I don’t know why they gave them that variance to build that sunroom.
McIntyre: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre.
McIntyre: Just for clarification, are we – is the current 16580 Merriman, is that going to
become a Munger address as well?
Petitioner: Yes.
McIntyre: I thought the lot was splitting like that, but the lot is actually splitting like this?
Petitioner: Yes.
McIntyre: Okay, got it.
Henzi: Mike, what’s the status of the lot split, is that a done deal?
Fisher: I thought it was being held pending this discussion, though it will be a done deal
if it’s not already.
Henzi: My point is so let’s say that we as Board members think this is going to look
terrible, then that shouldn’t enter into our focus because we’re only talking about a 2.5
foot sideyard deficiency?
Fisher: Well, I’m not the person to tell you what shouldn’t enter into your
considerations. I mean I would go ahead and do whatever you think best under the
circumstances.
Henzi: Okay. All right. Mr. Baki, go ahead.
Petitioner: Sam Baki, 38801 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. This property is
an acre parcel. When we approached this property last year to approach to buy it, we
were not aware of the --- I mean we knew about the setback issue. That if you look at it
at this time, technically that sits as a rear yard, not as a side yard, so technically it’s on
by 40 feet, not 2.5 like we’re requesting. So we approach it as a lot split. Then through
review of all the paperwork and everything else like the Code Department mentioned,
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 27 of 50 May 28, 2013
this sunroom was added in 1991. The lot split for the house behind it which is east of it,
the split happened in 1999 and part of the Council resolution at the time to go to ZBA, to
come to ZBA at that time, before any of these properties had ever sold, for that setback
issue. Now, two owners later, both houses, both properties now have transferred
ownership twice, but because of the new lot split now we caught it that was missed in
the past. So now in a way this existing house that sits facing Merriman Road, will have
a Munger address but we are in a position to revise even the elevation and put an
addition on this house on the front and have it face Munger with a new three-car garage
and tear the back garage off. The garage is in the back which is at this time if you
notice, that property and the one south of it, adjacent owners are combining under one
driveway. Those driveways, this driveway, we are proposing to remove it off of our
property, this way the neighboring property can have his own unless he wants to keep
which I talked to the neighboring property which he is present here right now, if they
want to keep it then I was willing to share expenses to asphalt it and make it look better.
We can do that only for the older house. The new house will have its own entrance off
of Munger with a driveway access, will not use this combined driveway that exists at this
time under an easement agreement. Like you suggested it’s 2.5 feet off in dimension
and that’s only after we get the split and now we face Munger. RUF Zoning minimum
setback is 10 feet. The only reason we’re falling under that is because the frontage is
125 feet, it’s 10 percent of the frontage. So if the frontage was less then it would have
been fine. That’s another issue that would help it in a way.
Henzi: Meaning if you had a narrower lot?
Petitioner: Narrower lot because RUF minimum you need 75 feet. If it were a narrower
lot, yes, we would need minimum of 10 feet. That’s an RUF Zoning requirement, too,
because being half an acre lot.
Henzi: Thank you. That was very clear. Any questions for Mr. Baki?
McIntyre: Mr. Chairman.
Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre.
McIntyre: I’m sorry, so what we’re approving right now is a sideyard variance, will really
be a backyard variance, is that correct, once the lot split happens?
Henzi: Without the lot split it would be a deficient rear yard, now it’s a side yard because
there’s going to be a new house. Say it one more time.
Pastor: Right now it’s a backyard setback because it faces Merriman.
McIntyre: Got it, I’ve got it, okay. I was trying to think about what that house looked
like.
Fisher: The problem is the existing setback issue stems from as Sam said when they
approved the original split, that split was actually approved by Council on the
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 28 of 50 May 28, 2013
contingency or the condition that they get a variance before they sell off the two pieces
of property. But they sold it off anyway without ever getting the variance.
McIntyre; So the new property will be located at the corner of Merriman and Munger,
right, and then the two existing houses will be adjacent, okay, got it, thank you.
Henzi: Do you have any drawings for this house and how you’re going to orient it
towards Munger?
Petitioner: I have it, I have one sketch that we’re working on, it’s not a final sketch
because I had to modify the master suite. Let me see, I can show you. You can look.
As it sits right now, this is the old house, the entrance is right here facing, this is the
Munger side.
Henzi: Okay.
Petitioner: As you know the house sits so far back on the one side of the lot, we have
even after doing the addition of 34 feet for the two-car garage, and the master suite that
I’m adding, we still have 25 feet side yard on the other side.
Caramagno: The addition goes towards the north?
Petitioner: No, towards the west, toward Merriman Road.
Caramagno: Yes, yes.
Petitioner: North is Munger.
Caramagno: Where will the front door be?
Petitioner: As you notice between the old and new and that’s where the addition is, see
it?
Caramagno: Okay.
Petitioner; The two-car garage will be facing Munger with a driveway right into that. It
will set exactly 50 feet from Munger Road, which is the minimum requirement for
setback for RUF.
Caramagno: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: Can we go ahead and approve a side yard setback without the official split
not being done?
Fisher: The split is going to be done, there’s no way to stop the split from happening.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 29 of 50 May 28, 2013
Caramagno: So you’re saying we should do what we’re going to do pending the
eventual split, not waiting for the split to happen?
Fisher: They will --- correct.
Petitioner: The split is not affected by this. The split is already meeting all the
requirements. The only deficiency on this house is the side yard.
Caramagno: Well, I hear that, Sam, I hear that. But we’re saying that prior to the split
that the backyard was a 40 foot setback and all that, but doesn’t mean anything either.
We’re only looking at this on a go forward basis?
Petitioner: Yes.
Caramagno: Then whatever happened with that 40 foot setback, years and years gone
by, doesn’t mean anything either.
Petitioner: Okay, all right.
Caramagno: When will this be done, when is the split supposed to be done; a week, two
weeks, a month?
Fisher: I don’t know. I think – I don’t know what the status of the split is today. I think
what was happening was Alex said hold up until this goes to ZBA, I think that’s the
status. And the reason why it’s a legitimate question to ask is because it’s unfinished
business, again, they were supposed to have gotten this variance a long time ago.
Caramagno: Right.
Pastor: When you say they, that was some other property owner many moons ago?
Fisher: Well, I mean it’s a while back and yes, it was probably another property owner.
But that doesn’t – the fact you sold the property when you weren’t supposed to sell it,
does not clean up the problem. The problem is still there.
Pastor: Well, I just want to make clear that it wasn’t whoever owns the property now, it
wasn’t them that created this issue?
Fisher: It wasn’t them that created this issue.
McIntyre; What type of a variance are we actually voting on now?
Caramagno: It’s for a side yard variance. I have another question, Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Sure.
Caramagno: Because I didn’t understand this real well, Sam, what is that glass house
lead to, what does that abut up to?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 30 of 50 May 28, 2013
Petitioner: The glass, it’s a sunroom, abuts to the kitchen.
Caramagno: Abuts up to the kitchen.
Petitioner: Yes.
Caramagno: Is it a heated sunroom, is it considered in the square footage of the home?
Petitioner: Yes. It’s heated and it was permitted and it has a foundation, proper
foundation. I mean technically let’s say I want to come in and make it an exact setback
and take 2.5 feet away, I’d have to put new footings, new everything that already exists
as per City ordinance.
Caramagno: And it was built as a year round sunroom?
Petitioner: Yes, 1991 when the permit was pulled.
Caramagno: Okay, thanks.
Henzi: So Mike in your packet we have a copy of the permit?
Fisher: You’ve got, actually it’s a 1993 permit.
Henzi: So the owners were Raymond and Bonnie Bahari?
Fisher: That’s what it says.
Henzi: They go out and pull a permit to erect the sunroom addition, they also want a lot
split and a condition was if you’re going to split these lots you’ve got to get a variance
for that sunroom addition and they didn’t do that, they sold both lots.
Fisher: Well, I think they probably actually had a bigger variance than that to get
because this was actually as Sam indicated, potentially a rear yard variance, but yes,
they were supposed to get it. It was not supposed to be possible to have these two
properties sold separately without a variance in place.
McIntyre: But they were sold without the variance?
Fisher: Correct.
Henzi: Okay, any other questions. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to
speak for or against the project? If so, come on up to the table.
Rogers: Hello.
Henzi: Good evening.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 31 of 50 May 28, 2013
Rogers: I’m Larry Rogers, 31200 Munger. I was there when Bonnie and Ray split the
property and correct, the sunroom was there existing, and the lot was split up.
Originally they wanted to do a three parcel split. They wanted to split off the front two
and split off and sell two lots. They retired and were moving down south so they were
splitting the lots, making money and leaving. They were denied a three lot split at the
time because it didn’t meet the RUF requirements for half acre lots. So they made the
back lot conform to the half acre and then I wasn’t knowledgeable enough to look at
setbacks and everything because the sunroom does look funny right up against the lot
line as he specified. They went ahead and put that --- split the lot and then they moved
out and sold both lots. So that’s some of the past history, like you say it is what it is, but
that’s some of the history when we were there. Moving forward on the current proposal
as a neighbor and in that community we purchased in that area for the environment and
the half acre lots and that type of lifestyle. The previous owner was denied and
currently when you look at the lot it’s also deficient to equal two half acre lots. And by
the section 5.04, Minimum Lot Size, shall have an area not less than one half acre. So
I’m very concerned that they said this lot split is going through and it basically doesn’t
meet the conforming Zoning laws, so I’m very confused about that. I guess a couple
other observations is I’m glad to see the gentleman bring a proposal to approve the site
plan of the existing house. Initially you know the rumors started going around that they
were just going to put a driveway off of Munger and circle it around and it would be a
very undesirable house for anybody to come back and purchase. So at least that’s
some good news from them. So I like that proposal but I’m concerned about a lot size
split, is it conforming. It wasn’t conforming with its previous owner and I don’t see how it
could be now. I don’t want to set a precedence, if we’re going to let him deviate just
because it’s close. I heard that comment today when I was in the Zoning office, saying
it’s close enough. I don’t understand that. The talk about the driveway, you know, you
brought that up and talking to the neighbors as long as things are in writing to say these
things are deficient, I’d hate to see an adjoining neighbor get hung out to dry because
something was overlooked on the previous lot split that should have had a 40 foot offset
and didn’t. There’s also a drainage field in there, I’m worried about where they’re going
to move that drainage field over. The previous owner that sold the property filled that
low spot drainage area in without a permit. And talking to the Zoning people earlier
today, that drainage field does have to be moved, it still is a low spot exactly in the
center of the lot. So just from previous history of what happened where they came in
and said they’re going to be a ranch up that would be compatible with all the ranches,
the nearest two story house is 600 feet away, in the meeting it was discussed, yeah,
we’re going to put a ranch up, we’re going to do this. And then after it got approved
they sold the lot to another builder, he came in and put up a huge two story big house.
So it just scares me with what’s said, like you say as long as the sign on 275 doesn’t
exceed 74 square feet, you know the minute you start changing things, you start setting
a precedent for what could happen. I know talking to all the neighbors, I talked to all of
them around there and I know all of them and the surrounding area who have either
written a submission or are here personally and are opposed to it for reason or another
so that’s all I’ve got to say.
McIntyre: Mr. Chairman.
Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 32 of 50 May 28, 2013
McIntyre: Mr. Chairman, this is a question for you. We’re not discussing the split
tonight, right? The split is not part of our purview of discussion for tonight’s
decision,correct? I am really confused. I thought what was before us was a setback,
Because I’m not and maybe I’m missing something, I’m not seeing anything in here
about us making any decisions on a split tonight.
Fisher: Well, I can add and maybe this –
McIntyre: Maybe I should have addressed it to you, Mike, I’m sorry.
Fisher: It’s okay. Mr. Baki represented to me that this lot split was each half was going
to be at least a half an acre so that these could be conforming, so there isn’t any --- the
only deficiency that is in any way created or influenced by the split is this issue that we
have before us tonight what will be a side yard deficiency. Now I didn’t know this history
that supposedly that the prior owners were denied a split on the grounds that one of
these pieces came to less than half an acre, I’m not sure how that was even possible
because as I understand it, this is per Sam, this property is an acre or more in size to
begin with so you can get two half acre lots out of it.
Rogers: And per the documentation on the size of the lot, it’s deficient from a full acre.
McIntyre: Michael, where is the lot split in the process of approval? Do you know?
Fisher: Well, as I said ---
McIntyre: I’m sorry, I’m not trying to make you repeat yourself, but I just don’t
understand the separate steps of approvals.
Fisher: What happens when a lot split is proposed is the opinions of the various
departments affected are solicited. This would include the Inspection Department, the
Planning Department, it’s the Assessor’s Department that sends out these requests in
the first place. Again, it’s been represented to me and it’s my understanding that there
are going to be two parcels of at least a half acre in size so that eventually a split will
take place because if they meet those requirements, area, width and depth to width
ratio, those are the only things that can actually stop a split going forward. You can
potentially stop people from selling off the property if there is some other deficiency like
there is here.
McIntyre; And who has jurisdiction over this drain issue that was mentioned, that there
was you know something done with the drainage without proper permitting which now
has bearing on these lots?
Rogers: Yeah, I don’t know if it meets requirements but the person I talked to in the
Zoning office today pointed out to me that there’s a drainage area down the center, he
just said the builder will have to move that drain field over or …
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 33 of 50 May 28, 2013
Petitioner: Well, there’s two options. One, could be relocated, the drainage itself.
Since you’ve been there for a while, remember when Wayne County and the City of
Livonia did a combined restructuring of that whole corner and they put some storm
lines? They redone the drainage completely. This lot only now drains itself. The road
itself has two catch basins right in that spot that was built by Wayne County years and
years ago to accommodate for this drainage issue but because to relocate it it’s got to
go through a large process to relocate it through the City Council’s office and everything
else, we are in the process of building a Cape Cod to sit close on the other side of the
drain without interfering with the drain period. We’re not building on – the City Building
Department already issued that issue, that the building will be sitting on the west side of
that drainage, plotting that 20 foot easement so we’re not building on it. Because that’s
the only way we can accommodate it, to move forward without going through the
process. So we’re not touching this.
Rogers: And I’m not a builder but I know where they had it drawn on this sketch was
down the center of the property and I know it drains into the neighbor’s lot so it’s just
something I brought up through with the zoning.
McIntyre: Mr. Chairman, what would we need to do to table this?
Henzi: You just make a motion if you want to table it.
McIntyre; I’m not comfortable and maybe it’s my limitation, trying to remember what
these looked like and I just to me it’s just a lot of information. I understand what we’re
being asked to approve but my sense is there are a lot of other issues tied in here that I
don’t feel I could comfortably make an informed and appropriate decision so I would like
to make a motion to table this until the lot split is done and until we’ve got some more
drawings and understanding on how this is going to look.
Henzi: Are you making a motion right now or do you want to listen to residents and see
what other people want to do.
McIntyre; I’d like to make a motion because my sense is there’s no more information
that I can add as in pictures or in understanding where we are in the process.
Henzi: Would you mind if we let the audience speak in case they can’t come back next
time?
McIntyre; Not at all, not at all.
Henzi: Okay. Go ahead, sir.
Johnson: My name is Tim Johnson and I actually share the driveway with the property
here.
Henzi: What’s your address?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 34 of 50 May 28, 2013
Johnson: 16544 Munger. The concern is am I sharing the driveway now with two other
properties instead of one, where is the lot line going to be? Because right now the
driveway is currently shared between me and the house that’s already there. So now
am I sharing it with the new house also, is it falling on the property line?
Petitioner: No, no, that’s why we submitted the different layouts to show the department
that both houses will have a Munger address.
Henzi: That’s a good question.
Johnson: Well, they might have a Munger address but is the property line still going to
fall on the existing driveway?
Petitioner: No. Actually the property line as you see at this time, if you look at the
actual lot line in the back, is the driveway, the combined driveway is almost half and
half, it has to be moved. Half of the property, especially on the corner, has to be moved
from that property period. If you’re willing to work, like I explained to you if you want to
work together on fixing it away from that other property, we can share for only the old
two houses, the two old houses. But if you don’t like this, it’s fine, too, we can use the
Munger address.
Henzi: Mr. Johnson, I think you raised a good question.
Johnson: Yeah, I think I’m the most in question here.
Henzi: Well, it sounds like this is going to get tabled but what I would like to see per the
record, when I heard the Petitioner’s representative say that he was going to keep that
drive, that it would be solely yours, that’s something that if I ever approved and I’m just
one board member, I would make sure that that driveway stays. Because if I were you,
I would be concerned what happens in five years.
Johnson: That’s it, yeah.
Henzi: So that’s certainly something that all board members considered. But I’m glad
that you said something because we’ll have to figure that out. If the property line is
down the middle ---
Johnson: Yeah, I think it’s 75/25 or something, I’m not sure, so it’s a concern.
Petitioner: But at the Board’s permission, if the Board would like to have it completely
removed off of those two lots and just use Munger address, we can do that. We can go
at this time that way if you’d like and then he has to relocate his driveway away from the
property. Because some of the driveway right now sits in the backyard, on the side yard
technically. So we can do that and then he’ll have his own driveway.
Johnson: I guess I don’t want to relocate it.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 35 of 50 May 28, 2013
Petitioner: It has to be, though, because it sits on this property, part of it. You can’t
keep the driveway where it’s at and then technically he’s encroaching on the property
next door.
Henzi: So what are you going to do, make the guy move his driveway that’s been there
for fifty years?
Petitioner: That’s not what I’m saying because that was the Building Department’s
requirement for the new house has to be off of it, that was Alex Bishop’s requirement,
not mine. Now mine, the older house, I have no problem, you know, sharing. But the
one house has to be moved. That’s Alex Bishop’s requirement, not mine.
McCue: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mrs. McCue.
McCue: We’re still voting on a side yard setback?
Henzi: Yes.
McCue: There’s just too many, too many factors here.
Pastor: Mr. Chair, may I say something?
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: I think we’re getting way too involved in issues that we have no control over.
Wilkins: Before you guys go and table this, we’ve got other concerns about this project.
Henzi: I said that I’d let you speak. Anything else, Mr. Pastor?
Pastor: I think we’re getting our heads wrapped around too many concerns that we
don’t have control over. We’re not concerned about the lot split, we don’t approve that.
We’re only approving the side yard setback or rear yard, however you want to present it.
McCue: After the split?
Pastor: Well, why don’t we make a resolution after the split it’s approved. Assuming
that they meet all the same requirements.
McCue: And everything else has been taken care of.
Wilkins: Isn’t the driveway grandfathered in somehow between the two properties and
then with the split now?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 36 of 50 May 28, 2013
Henzi: You know what, I agree with that, but we can make whatever condition we want.
I cannot imagine allowing a variance for 2.5 feet and giving one property owner the right
to tear out somebody else’s driveway in order to build a new house at the corner.
McIntyre: Yes, I’m not disagreeing at all with that.
Henzi: That’s why I was interested in hearing about the driveway. So, anything else
Mr. Johnson?
Johnson: No, that was pretty much stuff that was my main concern, thank you.
Henzi: Sure. All right. Come on up.
Wilkins: Good evening.
Henzi: Good evening.
Wilkins: Brian Wilkins, 16732 Harmon Road. I have a couple of questions. First of all
who owns this property that’s being proposed? This proposal, it seems to me according
to the application, was made by Crosswinds Court Sub.
Fisher: That’s who we understand to be the owner.
Wilkins: Okay. Is anyone aware of a land contract that was given to SRRAB,
Incorporated for the lot division, that was filed with Wayne County; is anybody aware of
that? And you already have the legal description of that lot, it is substandard to a half
acre on his land contract. Is nobody aware of this? Because under the rules it says
they need to identify the owner and he needed to provide the Board with an agent or
whoever is representing this owner for this lot which Mr. Fisher has said it’s already a
done deal. And I have proof that it is a done deal.
Henzi: Could you pass that around?
Wilkins: Sure. You can have copies of it, you can have that one. Now, so we’re not
sure who the owner is, we’re making a decision --- and according to the application it’s
very clear you keep making the reference to the side yard lot, it says and on the
application, “Seeking approval of a sunroom addition, erected with permits, in
conjunction with a proposed lot division, resulting in the addition being deficient on side
yard setback.” So we are considering the lot split, that’s on the application, so you can’t
keep saying that we’re not considering it because it’s in here, it says it right on here, “in
conjunction with the lot split.” If you do the math, based on that land contract’s legal
description, it’s a little over 58 square feet short of a half an acre on that lot split. So the
lot split right off the bat doesn’t meet the RUF requirements of one half acre. And the
other lot, like you say, we’re not talking about the other lot. We’re talking about the
deficient side yard setback which is really the back of the house. And if you’re going to
go ahead and allow him to do this, I mean it would have to be mandatory with
conditions, that he would, he’s got a proposed, I’m going to, we may be, I’m thinking
about kicking around the idea of adding some addition to the front of this house or the
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 37 of 50 May 28, 2013
side of this house facing Munger, that would have to be mandatory because if you don’t
it’s a substandard lot and a house sitting backwards on a lot it would drive the price of
all the other real estate in the area, the immediate area, us, it would drive it down.
We’re already having a tough enough time with our assessments and our appraisals in
that area to begin with. This would just make it worse because it would sit, somebody
else made the comment earlier, it would be a funny looking house on a funny looking
lot. That doesn’t go into what the other people have talked about, the drainage issue
and the driveway issue. So if you’re going to approve this or make arrangements to
approve this, it would have to be on conditional approval that he would absolutely be
mandated to make improvements to that house so it faces Munger or it looks like it
faces Munger or some kind of conforming, I mean there’s a compatibility study that
needs to be done of what that would look like to the rest of the homes in the
neighborhood. So I have big concerns with that and I still don’t know who the owner is
and then I still don’t see on this application where he’s convinced you that this law
should not apply to him, that it would create some hardship or some problem for him.
He owns the lot with a house on it, you know it’s an acre lot, it’s a beautiful lot, it’s got a
nice house facing Merriman. If he doesn’t get this deal or this split or whatever, this is
basically what we’re trying to do is make this split for him so he can build a house on the
corner and I understand the need to create revenue and we want to build more homes
in this, but I don’t think this is the spot to do it. It’s not going to help any of the
neighbors and according to this it shows he has to show why it would affect the
neighbors, well, I’m showing it will affect the neighbors and it will drive the price of our
homes down because we’re going to have some substandard lot and home right across
the street from me.
Henzi: How did you calculate the square footage?
Wilkins: Based on a legal description. If you do the math based on the legal description
of the property, even if you took the total square footage based on the legal description
which is 250 feet --- 250.2 feet by 173.77 feet, that’s not an acre, it’s short of an acre,
okay? And everyone keeps saying it’s an acre and we’ve been told, oh, it’s close
enough, it’s not close enough. Either it is a half acre lot or it isn’t a half acre lot. It’s
clearly not a half acre.
Henzi: Mr. Wilkins, if you can read me some bounds or if you got it from some other
document, that’s all.
Wilkins: Okay, just a legal description.
Henzi: Anything else?
Wilkins: No, I’m good.
Henzi: There was somebody else that wanted to speak, I think, yes, come on up.
O’Neil: Good evening, I’m Kevin O’Neil, 31223 Munger Street.
Henzi: Go ahead.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 38 of 50 May 28, 2013
O’Neil: And I just have one point to add to the confusion and that is I’ve measured the
distance of the sunroom to my fence and I had a fence erected between the property
and I measure eight, approximately 8.5 feet, not existing 10 feet. But I would say that if
the new owner commits to improving the property I can waive my concern there about
this because I do have some, quite a bit of distance between my house and the fence
on that side. So I’m looking for a commitment that the property will be improved over
what it is right now because it’s fallen into quite a bit of disrepair. And it’s good to hear
the garage will come down. And I also was unclear as to when do we get to review the
site plan? Like I haven’t seen anything about the plans other than what was sent to me
in the Notice to appear here tonight if you had any concerns. My wife went to the City
and she could not, they would not let her get a copy of the drawings, the proposed
drawings. So my question is when do I get to see what the site is going to look like?
Henzi: Mr. Fisher.
Fisher: I haven’t seen any proposed drawings either so.
O’Neil: Okay. I guess from hearing prior tonight those are still being bandied about.
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: How do you know your fence is on your property line? Did you do a survey?
O’Neil: They – the fence company found the pins and from the legal description of the
property measuring off from the pins on the neighbor’s property.
Pastor: Are you a surveyor or did you have a survey done?
O’Neil: No, a survey was not done.
Pastor; Okay. So you just went off of lines? When you went from the pin, how did you
know you were in a straight line?
O’Neil: Well, I hired a professional fence company, I paid them $10,000 to put a fence
in so I relied on their professionalism.
Pastor: So if they’re wrong you’re wrong?
O’Neil: That’s correct.
Pastor: Okay. And I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just asking. Thank you. And then
my last issue of course is whether this is going to be a rental property versus this is
going to prove to be a ---- and I don’t know if you have any say about that but obviously
that would be my biggest concern, would be this would be a rental property, continuous
vagabonds coming through.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 39 of 50 May 28, 2013
Henzi: Mr. Fisher.
Fisher: Well, I don’t know, I mean Mr. Baki has represented that he’s going to live in the
house. I don’t know what control anybody has, though, over whether it gets rented or
not.
O’Neil: Okay, thank you.
Henzi: Thank you. Anybody else?
Johnson: Just one last thing. When I bought the property in there as far as acreage
and I really like looking over to my neighbor with a one acre lot, I don’t know, I’d hate to
see a half acre there, two half acres. Everyone around there has got acreage. And had
that been done prior to me buying the house, I don’t know if I would have bought it.
Henzi: Okay, thank you.
Johnson: Thank you.
Henzi: Are there letters?
Caramagno: Charles at 31069 Munger, (letter read), objection. Roy and Jean Johnson
at 31054 Munger, (letter read), an objection.
Henzi: Mr. Baki?
Petitioner: Yes.
Henzi: Would you like to say anything in closing?
Petitioner: In closing, a few of the concerns that came up;one, that the driveway off of
Merriman Road with adjacent property owner, the Building Department they required,
they asked that this driveway be completely not be shared with the new homeowners
with the lot split. That was asked by Alex Bishop. I approached the neighboring
property owner and I explained to him we can share with the back house, the older
house, which is the existing house at this time and relocate what we have to relocate.
Now at this time it’s presently a dirt road, it’s not asphalt or anything else and I offer to
share expenses with them to relocate it and do whatever and if it’s not going to be
shared we’ll still help to relocate because it has to be off the new lot where the new
home is going to go in there. For more than just legal requirements and everything
else, for safety reasons, for insurance reasons, everything else. Because now you have
two entrances, one from the front, one from the back, you know, as a driveway for the
new home.
Henzi: All right. So the Building Department is telling you that there can’t be any
portion of the driveway on the ---
Petitioner: On the new lot.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 40 of 50 May 28, 2013
Henzi: On the new lot?
Petitioner: Yes.
Henzi: Lots?
Petitoner: Yes, or lots. So we’re willing to, one, assist to move it because that was one
of the concerns at the beginning, that’s why we came back with a double entrance
driveway showing on their plans for the lot splits, nor for this but for the lot splits. We
show that both homes would have Munger entrances, Munger addresses. The
drainage easement, per City Engineering Department and Building Department, cannot
be encroached on, cannot be built on. It’s going to be built next door. You can be right
within the easement line but you can’t be on it per the Building Department and that’s
what we’re willing to do exactly. We’re not building ranches there because of that
easement in the middle we’re going to be putting a Cape Cod, a story and a half going
on that corner. Now, the other concern about the ownership of that old house, SAARB,
it’s my company. I am the owner of that house pending everything’s final here. That’s
why I’m here on behalf of Leo Soave or Crosswinds Estates and SAARB, which is my
company. Now, the sunroom, a question at this time, there are two options. One, stay
as it is or I’ll remove it, either/or. That’s what I told the Building Department before. It’s
a $10,000 cost. The reason we came back, the owner and I came before this
Commission because we found out there was a mistake or somebody dropped the ball
in 1999/2000 when the brand new house got built behind it, that that case never came
then. Now, two owners later on both properties, not one, both properties, the new house
next door and the old house, we’re dealing with at this time. The last thing, the addition,
if the Commission would like and keep the sunroom, six months I’ll start working on the
addition facing Munger, give us six months for that or remove the room, I can do that,
too. I can say that I can honor that, on the Commission’s approval. The rental, we can’t
discuss that by law. It’s a housing issue, government, either/or it doesn’t matter. But
we will start construction within six months with this approval and really without, I’m not
saying that this is going to control it but we are going to start construction.
Henzi: Well, that’s a key point. I guess, is it your point that if we denied you or are you
saying I can just tear down the sunroom and go forward and put the new house in
anyway?
Petitioner: I’ll tell you straight out, I went back there today and they did some studies, if
I get denied for the sunroom, I can tear it down, part of it, not all of it, within the setback
requirement and enlarge my kitchen, that’s all. I’m not taking the whole sunroom down,
I already have foundation, I already have everything. I did it this afternoon just in case
something comes up, whatever. But yes, we’re willing to do that within 30 days to 45
days I’ll start doing whatever we have to do.
Henzi: Okay.
Petitioner: Because I started doing some work on it then I stopped because of this
issue. Because I didn’t want to remodel the kitchen and that sunroom because I ripped
the floor out of it, I was going to redo the floor if I’m not going to be able to keep it.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 41 of 50 May 28, 2013
That’s why I prefer to get a vote tonight, yes or no, than getting tabled, just because of
that. Because I won’t proceed with any work if I don’t know what I’m going to do with
that area. Because that’s the kitchen and the sunroom area right next to it.
Duggan: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Duggan.
Duggan: So if he said he’s willing to take off the 2.5 feet of that sunroom, would that get
him in compliance with the side yard setback?
Petitioner: That’s what I’m saying, either accept or deny it, either/or, like I said it’s up to
you guys.
McIntyre; Mr. Chairman.
Henzi: Yes. Mrs. McIntyre.
McIntyre: ,One question and I’m sorry, but I’m so confused, we’re being asked to
approval of the sunroom addition, erected with permit, in conjunction with the proposed
lot division. And the proposed lot division is not within our purview to approve or not
approve tonight, correct?
Petitioner; That’s right.
McIntyre: I’m confused.
Fisher: And well you should be because now some ambiguity has been introduced into
it that I didn’t understand before. If these --- if as one of the witnesses/neighbor says
these proposed lots are deficient in size, then it isn’t automatic that they’ll be granted,
they have to be granted by the City Council. And apparently we don’t have information
obviously in front of us tonight.
Henzi: Well, there’s a permit that describes a lot size of 173 feet by 375, I mean you
can’t tell whether that’s before or after the split, I guess.
Johnson: That was before.
Henzi: Makes sense.
Petitioner: The overall square footage of this property as it sits is 43,477.254. So the
half is 21,738.62 --- .63, that’s what the lots will be split at.
Johnson: Which is deficient.
Henzi: Well, you need what, 22,000, don’t you?
Johnson: 21,780.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 42 of 50 May 28, 2013
Petitioner: 21,750.
Johnson: 80.
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: So if we approve and/or deny this evening, you still has to go before Council
and/or whatever authority it is to get this lot split with or without us. So if we approve us
it doesn’t mean he gets his lot split. We’re not approving the lot but what I’m trying to
separate is the split from the side yard deficiency. If we approve the side yard
deficiency, he still has to go in front of all the other authorities in the City to get a split.
Fisher: Well, again that assumes that the area is deficient.
Pastor: If it’s not deficient it’s a moot point.
Fisher: If it’s not deficient, then he can have the split, right.
McIntyre: Then we also have the issue that came up tonight about the side yard
setback and what’s in our document is what’s accurate or what the neighbor has
mentioned. Are we bound as a Board to assume that what is in front of us to be
accurate and legal?
Henzi: We had a problem with that, there’s nothing definitive about the size of the lot is
my first question and is the lot split a done deal and that’s why I said again what the
Petitioner plans to do anyway. From my way of thinking if you approve it, you can
impose conditions that might be for the betterment of the neighborhood because you
are conditioning things that the developer might not do on his own. But if you don’t like
the idea of this lot split or you don’t like what’s proposed, or if you just don’t like the side
yard setback, then you could deny that. The negative to that is then the Petitioner takes
down half a sunroom, maybe you don’t have any control over building material, things
like that or you know you could table it and say, hey look, I’m not going to let you put up
this new house when all you’re telling us is you’re putting a garage over on the Munger
side but we don’t know what it’s going to look like and we don’t know what a Cape Cod
is going to look like.
Pastor: Well, once again he can just take out the sunroom and ----
Henzi: Yes, that’s true, too.
McIntyre: It was very difficult with the paucity of information and there were no
drawings. W hen I went over there with this in front of me to decipher what I thought I
was looking to approve, I really felt that this is very, very difficult to say exactly what I
was approving even after having made a site visit.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 43 of 50 May 28, 2013
Henzi: I agree. Why don’t we do this, I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin
the Board’s comments with Mr. Duggan.
Duggan: I would say that if you take out the 2.5 feet of the sunroom to get you back in
compliance with the side yard setback, that would be my recommendation because
most of what we discussed here we don’t have any jurisdiction over. And assuming that
the lot split does go through as it looks like it will, I think that the best thing to do would
be to take off a couple feet and add to the kitchen, that would be my opinion.
Henzi: Mrs. McCue.
McCue: I just think there’s just too many questions. I mean we’re looking here at a
simple question, a side yard setback, versus 45 minutes of discussion that we’ve just
had on different issues with this property. I just hesitate to make any real formal action
on this right now because I think there are too many other issues that need to be
resolved before a final decision here can be made. Now back to what you said, you’d
rather have an approval or a denial, which is a whole ‘nother issue that we may be able
to discuss, but to me right now with the number of questions that we have and the very
valid concerns that the neighbors have, I would have a real hard time supporting it right
now.
Henzi: Mrs. McINtyre.
McIntyre: And I’m generally very, very supportive of variances for development and
neighborhood improvement, but I’m not comfortable being all the issues and all of the
neighbor’s concerns, and there’s just no visual here to try to show how this house is
going to be oriented, I would not be comfortable approving a variance tonight on this
property because of all the ambiguity with all the other issues.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: The 2.5 feet is a small request, it really is, and if this lot were already split
and it already had the side yard setback, I’d say 2.5 feet is not a big deal to me. It’s not
split, we’re ruling on something that is not a split lot yet. I understand it may be and
probably will be and that’s good because I think it will look nice when it’s done, but as of
right now, it’s not a side yard setback to me. It’s still a variance until the lot is split. I
think it’s just a small request. And I think Sam you’ve got your option. If you don’t like
what we’re saying, pull it off, do what you want. But right now I’m not comfortable
approving it either.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: I would be comfortable voting this, I understand, I think I understand the
situation. It’s a small setback, we do them every day. The concerns of the neighbors, I
hear them, I understand them but I don’t know that they’re actually for us. We’re not
approving the split, that’s another entity in the City. So I would approve this but it
doesn’t look like it’s got any support.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 44 of 50 May 28, 2013
Henzi: This is also difficult for me because I certainly could not approve it, I think
there’s too many questions and I’m not comfortable forever altering this street without
knowing what the Cape Cod is going to look like, without protecting an existing
homeowners driveway, without knowing exactly what the existing house is going to look
like. Having said that I would rather approve it and insert conditions that would protect
the neighborhood, but this Petitioner says he wants a yes or no. So if that’s the only
option that he wants, I suggested or I thought tabling would be a good alternative in
case he changed his mind because once we deny it then it’s denied. But if he’s clear
that it’s either yes or no then I vote no. So it’s up to the Board for a motion.
Upon Motion by McIntyre, supported by Pastor, it was:
RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-05-21: Crosswinds Court Sub, 16580
Merriman, Livonia, MI 48152, seeking approval of a sunroom addition, erected with
permits, in conjunction with a proposed lot division resulting in the addition being
deficient in side yard setback.
Side Yard Setback
Required: 12.5 ft.
Proposed/Existing: 10 ft.
Deficient: 2.5 ft.
The property is located on the east side of Merriman, (16580) between Munger and
Puritan, Lot No. 054-01-0021-001, RUF Zoning District , be tabled so the Petitioner
can present more detailed plans and information to the Board to answer the
questions and concerns of the Board and neighbors.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: McIntyre, Pastor, Duggan, McCue, Caramango, Henzi
NAYS:
ABSENT: Sills
Henzi: It’s tabled, the next meeting isn’t until July 9th.
Petitioner: Thank you.
Henzi: Good luck.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 45 of 50 May 28, 2013
APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-05-17: Razvan and Emilia Ghiorghiu, 11401 Hubbell,
Livonia, MI, seeking approval to modify a previous variance (2012-10-52) in which the
Petitioner seeks to construct a different single family dwelling that that approved. All
previous deficiencies and excesses previously granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Henzi: Mr. DeMeyer, do you have anything to add to that?
DeMeyer: Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Is this a continuation or is this a new?
Murphy: It’s a brand new filing, Matt.
Henzi: Any questions for the Inspection Department? Hear none, good evening. Could
you tell us your name and address?
Petitioner: My name is Razvan Ghiorghiu, I live at 11401 Hubbell Street, Livonia,
Michigan.
Henzi: Tell us why you want to change the propose house.
Petitioner: We proposed a two-story home with a full basement, with the intention to
keep the upstairs unfinished for a few years until the kids grew up. And I talked to Mr.
John in the Building Department and due to the new building codes, we kind of have to
do insulation, electric, plumbing, drywall and mud at one time upstairs until it’s finished
but that’s 99.9 percent finished. That involves a little bit more money than I expected to
keep it unfinished a little bit longer. And on top of that with the new law, we’d have to
have insulation in the basement walls and again if we do insulation in the basement
walls we have to fire rate it with drywall, tape and mud it again. So it’s almost a finished
drywall and a finished upstairs which is going to be over 4,000 square feet home. So
we decided to go with a ranch home, 1700 square feet, which when we finish the
basement it will be a 3,400 square feet home which is plenty for our family. Since the
new building codes, I search on line and I talk to different companies and we found
ITEA forms, I’m not sure if everybody is familiar with ITEA forms which is a --- I brought
a sample here with me. Instead of using for the basement walls plywood or steel plates
and then put rebar and pour inside of that and remove the steel plates where the wood
forms out, this is a form that it’s a concrete form and at the same time it will stay as our
insulation which will insulate both the outside and the inside of the house. This is a
corner section here, 2 feet by 4 feet, a corner, and 16 inches tall and this is a straight
form which comes in a 4 feet by 16 inches. So those plastic webs are 6 inches apart
and I scratched one on them on the back, you just lay down your drywall and screw
every 6 inches like a stud.
Henzi: You pour the concrete in the middle?
Petitioner: Yes. Pour the rebars with the rebars in place a lot better than the regular
basements I used to build, I built over fifty homes and I know exactly what is good and
bad and this is a lot better. And they cost about the same because I’m going to cut the
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 46 of 50 May 28, 2013
labor cost of the people coming in, set the forms in, take the forms out and by doing this
I’m going to save the wood, the lumber, the trees, because I’m going to go on the first
floor also with this kind of material. So I’m going to have a concrete first floor and
basement.
Henzi: So in terms of the house, there’s no other deficiencies, we’re just approving this
model, is that correct?
Petitioner: Yes, yes. I still have to go to the Building Department and getting all
improved to build with these forms. And also, this is the deck, instead of a wood deck,
this will be a concrete deck supporting on the end and these sections right here will be
rebars placed there, will form a concrete beam between the exterior walls of the house.
It’s fire rated for four hours, weather resistant for 200 miles an hour.
Henzi: Any questions for the Petitioner?
Pastor: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: I went by your house this evening, you have an RV in your driveway and four or
three other vehicles. Is someone living in that RV?
Petitioner: No, no, sir. Well, this meeting supposed to not happen and we scheduled,
my family scheduled for the holiday a week off to go RVing. And I brought the RV from
storage on Friday but we have to come here so we postponed it you know going into the
vacation for a week, we lost three days, so we just loading RV, we’re leaving tonight as
soon as this meeting is over.
Pastor: You’ve got three or four cars in your driveway, whose cars are those?
Petitioner: The two that you saw behind the RV is for sale, so anytime it will be sold, I’m
not keeping them.
Pastor: And the pick-up parked with all the tires in it?
Petitioner: The pick-up truck is mine I use for construction and the other car ---
Pastor: I thought you were in the trucking business.
Petitioner: Yes, I am, but for construction of my home I need the pick-up truck, I can’t
sell that.
Pastor: Thank you.
Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, there’s no one in the audience, are there
letters?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 47 of 50 May 28, 2013
Caramagno: No.
Henzi: Mr. Ghiorgiu, is there anything you’d like to say in closing?
Petitioner: No, sir.
Henzi: Okay. So I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s
comments with Mrs. McCue.
McCue: It’s obvious you’ve gone into a lot of thought, a lot of processes with this. I
guess I want to hear a little bit more about what my counterparts think, but in what I’ve
heard, I think I will be able to support that.
Henzi: Mrs. McIntyre.
McIntyre: Do you intend to split the lot?
Petitioner: You guys had a full night.
McIntyre: I don’t have any objections to your changing your plan. I think the reasons,
that change in building code that raises the cost makes sense, I understand that. I’d be
interested to hear from my colleagues who are more knowledgeable about building
materials than I, this is a reasonable approach to an alternative plan and I certainly don’t
have any objections to your plan for a new type of residence.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: Again, this is one of your meetings where the garage in the backyard was
downsized or something. I thought the first house presentation was reasonable and a
good looking thing. This is more what you need and doesn’t change much for me so I’ll
be in support.
Henzi: Mr. Pastor.
Pastor: I think this also will fit the neighborhood a little bit better than the other house.
What I did forget to ask you, are you putting brick down?
Petitioner: I talked to Inspector John and I told him we haven’t decided yet on the brick
and the sides and rear will be siding, vinyl siding.
Pastor: Don’t we have a rule about brick on new houses?
Fisher: The rule on brick depends on those are typically site condominium documents
where those are imposed. There isn’t any code requirement or any zoning requirement
that everybody in the City have brick on their houses. But Council typically in approving
site condominiums which is a lot of the recent development in the City is site condo
developments.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 48 of 50 May 28, 2013
Pastor: But site condos are single family homes, are they not?
Fisher: Yes. But that’s where the brick content requirement comes from.
Pastor: Okay, thank you. As I said I think this will be a better fit in your neighborhood
but I do see in the plans that you are calling for brick and I’d like to see the brick.
Petitioner: The picture shows brick but I wrote down stucco. That’s how the plans are
well designed standards but it says stucco in the front.
Pastor: Everything I see says brick.
Petitioner: Okay. The big prints that Mr. ---
Pastor: I’ll be in support.
Henzi: Mr. Duggan.
Duggan: I, too, will be in support. Thanks for going whole different plans to
accommodate us, I’m sure it hasn’t been easy for you. So thank you and good luck.
Henzi: I, too, will approve it. I think that this house will improve the neighborhood that
the first proposed house would. The floor is open for a motion.
Upon Motion by McIntyre supported by Pastor, it was:
RESOLVED: APPEAL CASE NO. 2013-05-17: Razvan and Emilia Ghiorghiu, 11401
Hubbell, Livonia, MI 48150, seeking approval to modify a previous variance (2012-10-
52) in which the Petitioner seeks to construct a different single family dwelling than that
approved. All previous deficiencies and excesses previously granted by the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
The property is located on the west side of Hubbell (11401) between Plymouth and
Dalhay, Lot No. 138-99-0040-000, RUF Zoning District, be granted for the following
reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met because it is a unique property in a unique
neighborhood.
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because of the changes in the Building Code, the Petitioner would face
insurmountable costs associated with the building of the home.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on neighboring properties and in the spirit
of the Zoning Ordinance because the new home plans fit in with the
neighborhood and are an esthetic improvement to the lot and neighborhood.
4. The Board received no (0) letters of approval and no (0) objection letters from
neighboring property owners.
5. The property is classified as “Low Density Residential” in the Master Plan and the
proposed variance is not inconsistent with that classification.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 49 of 50 May 28, 2013
FURTHER, This variance is granted with the following conditions:
1. That the new house be built according to plans presented to the Board.
2. That construction be completed within nine months.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: McIntyre, Pastor, Caramagno, Duggan, McCue, Henzi.
NAYS:
ABSENT: Sills
Henzi: The variance is granted and you’ve got to construct the home according to the
plans and complete it within nine months. Good luck.
Petitioner: Thank you.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 50 of 50 May 28, 2013
______________________________________________________________________
Motion by Duggan, supported by Pastor to approve the minutes of April 9, 2013.
Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at
9:15 p.m.
_________________________
SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary
_________________________
MATTHEW HENZI, Chairman
/bjm