Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-11 City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 16 January 4, 2011 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF LIVONIA MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 4, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Henzi, Chairman Terry Moran, Vice Chairman Sam Caramagno, Secretary Toni Aloe Robert Sills Ken Harb Craig Pastor MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Fisher, Assistant City Attorney Steve Banko, City Inspector Helen Mininni, Court Reporter The meeting was called to order at 7:02 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. Seven (7) 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 three persons present in the audience. ______________________________________________________________________ (7:04 #1/164) APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-01-02: Anthony Smith, 17123 Laurel Park, Livonia, MI, seeking to replace/retrofit two existing ground signs resulting in excess sign height, sign area and number of ground signs. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 16 January 4, 2011 Ground Sign Height Ground Sign Height I-275 Sign Location Laurel Park Road Location Allowed: 6.00 ft. Allowed: 6.00 ft Proposed: 56.5 ft. Proposed: 13.25 ft. Excess: 50.5 ft. Excess: 7.25 ft. Ground Sign Area Ground Sign Area I-275 Sign Location Laurel Park Road Location Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Proposed: 309 sq. ft Proposed: 45 sq. ft. Excess: 279 sq. ft. Excess: 15 sq. ft. Number of Ground Signs Allowed: One Proposed: Two Excess: One The property is located on the west side of Laurel Park (17123) between Six Mile Road and Laurel Court. Henzi: Mr. Banko, anything to add to this case? Banko: Not at this time. Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Banko? Hearing none will the Petitioner’s representative please come forward? Moran: Mr. Chairman? Henzi: Mr. Moran. Moran: I don’t know if this is to Mike or to inspection, but this package is very similar tonight to what’s currently there, but I didn’t see anything in our packages to when this Radisson stuff was approved. Did I miss it? Petitioner: 2007, 2007 to Radisson. Henzi: There’s nothing in there correlating to Radisson. It must have been refaced and approved without this Board’s intervention because the sign variance states back to ’88, I think. Moran: I’m not sure. I was just curious as to how we got to the point where we are. I didn’t mean to be blunt about it. I didn’t go back that far. Everything I saw was Tremor’s and parking spaces. Fisher: Well, there were some signs approved in 2003. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 16 January 4, 2011 Moran: I think that related more to Tremor’s, Mike. It didn’t have anything to do with the pole signs. That’s okay. I was just --I thought perhaps there had been a review of a case very much like this at one time. Banko: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Banko. Banko: In speaking with Mr. Abrahamson, I think one of the reasons that this is – this is basically a reface here tonight for what’s already basically there except for the change of the wall sign I believe. But one of the reasons that it was – the original petition was for that petitioner and that petitioner only and I think that’s why we are here tonight. Moran: Fair enough. Thank you, Steve. Henzi: Thanks. Any other questions? Good evening, can you introduce yourselves, please? Petitioner: My name is Tony Smith, General Manager of the currently Radisson Hotel. Terry: And Brian Terry, Allied Sign, sign contractor for the installation package. Henzi: Mr. Smith, go ahead and tell us about the refacing signs. Petitioner: Good evening. I’m here tonight to request a reface on our signs. We are switching our hotel to a Holiday Inn back what it was prior from 1982 until 2007. Essentially, we are requesting just the approval to change the signs as mentioned for the most part it is a reface and two of the signs are very similar in size to what we currently have. Additional building sign we propose moving to the south elevation from the southeast elevation of the hotel getting better visibility from Six Mile Road. Henzi: There is a mention in your packet about the fact that all Holiday Inn signs are being redone and that there’s a new logo. Is this a sign that this franchisee has to use? Petitioner: This is a style of sign the franchisee has to use. There are various dimensions but they don’t vary too much from what we are proposing here. Henzi: Okay. Any questions for the Petitioner’s representative? Moran: I do. Henzi: Mr. Moran. Moran: The monument sign, and by the way, it’s a very nice package. I like the way you put it together. I like the way you contrasted it to the Radisson. It is very clear to me that this is really just a change in the signage than - because of the name change. But the monument sign is about 13 feet high as it currently is. But it doesn’t appear to me that you intend to reuse the brick area or any portion of the existing sign; is that accurate? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 16 January 4, 2011 Petitioner: Brian, do you want it. Mr. Terry: Yeah, actually since I am the sign contractor for installation I actually did a site survey so technical questions could probably be directed to me for best answers. But, yes, you are indeed correct. Removal of the existing sign and the brick face would take place. We would continue to maintain the existing steel structural pole and the electrical circuits that are out there for the existing sign upon installation of the new sign package as proposed. Moran: The steel structural pole on the monument sign? Mr. Terry: Yes, it’s not visible because it runs up through the center of the existing sign and you have existing concrete foundation in that steel pole in good shape. Moran: Does that necessitate the sign being 13 feet high? Mr. Terry: It plays a little bit of part into it, you know, as Tony said, there’s a little of variance in the different sizes of signs that are available, you know, with the Holiday brand image. It is a patented, U.S. patent office patented trademark logo. So they developed and formulated certain size signs that hopefully in any market that they would go into would be palpable to the City spirit ordinance and intent of the ordinance. So, yeah -- Moran: Well, I guess my question for you fellows is what’s your hardship with respect to this sign and why you wouldn’t make it six feet which is our current ordinance and you need it to be 13? Mr. Terry: Well, the hardship, you know, is naturally number one that the use of the Holiday Inn brand logo the way that you see the sign rendered right there is the way that Holiday Inn, you know, has petitioned for that to be imaged for their pylon signs. So, we do have some corporate trademark infringements that if we were to vary from that we’d probably have to go through a chain of command, you know, to seek approval from them to vary from their trademark. Moran: Is there no sign that’s six feet high – I mean, here’s where I’m coming from. If you drive along - our ordinance requires six feet. You drive along that area, you look at Best Western, maybe theirs is a little higher, but it’s a nice neat trim sign. You look at Courtyard and you look at Marriott out there on Six Mile. Again, I bet you that actually does comply with the ordinance, but it’s just a nice neat trim look. You know, as I view it, you’ve got a big sign out on 275, people -- by the time people get to this sign, they know where the Holiday Inn is. It’s not necessary for identification. The large sign out on 275 absolutely. A six foot sign for instance would be absolutely useless. You need something high in the air, but I’m trying to understand why you wouldn’t go with something, frankly, that I think would be just more attractive along here to identify your property. Mr. Terry: Yeah, and that’s a great point. By the time they get at that position on Laurel Park they have identified the 275 structure which was of huge concern for us. We weren’t sure which signs might meet most opposition. Back to the Laurel Park sign here, we City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 16 January 4, 2011 investigated possibly seeing if we could proportionately reduce this sign because we’ve got essentially two variance requests on that sign; one is for over height and the other is for over square footage. So, trying to maintain a balance with Holiday Inn’s corporate brand, if we could have them proportionately reduce this sign to meet the square foot requirements, that’s also going to bring it down in height. I don’t think it would achieve the six foot that we’re talking but maybe it would be a fair exchange to help keep that same, you know, look that we’re seeing on Laurel Park existing. Moran: And again, I’m not too hung up personally on the square footage as it’s a large property. I’m only speaking for myself, it’s not excessive signage; it’s just that I like the consistent look of the monument signs. So, anyway, those are my comments. If there is something there that could be done, I would like to see that personally. Other than that, I have no other questions. Henzi: Any other questions? Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: On that same monument sign we were just talking about, is there going to be a reader board or language as I see in the Radisson, or is there no plans for any message on that board? Terry: No plans, again, you know, at the time they are at the position, its identification more than trying to attract the public in. The 275 sign will bear that necessity for the Holiday Inn. So, just as you see it with no message center, digital or static. Caramagno: What part of that sign lights up – the new sign? Terry: Yeah, the letters Holiday Inn that are green -- Caramagno: Yes. Terry: -- will light up at night and the square H logo will light up. The rest of the sign is an aluminum structure, non-corrosive, automotive quality paint finish and so just the brand itself, the H logo and Holiday Inn. Caramagno: Okay. Directional signs on the plan, same as you have now, your north entrance and your south entrance and exists. Terry: Yeah, we actually made them a little narrower and they are going to be illuminated, but just simply way finding flow of traffic directional through the property. Caramagno: They are illuminated now, aren’t they? Terry: Yes, they are. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 16 January 4, 2011 Caramagno: Okay. But the Traveling Fork sign on the front of the building; what is that? It’s a restaurant? Petitioner: Yeah, the one that’s on the inside of the property? Caramagno: It’s right on the building above the billboard. Petitioner: The Traveling Fork sign on the exterior of the building is their hotel restaurant sign. Caramagno: That’s a separate deal - all together it doesn’t change? Petitioner: It doesn’t change at all, no. Caramagno: One more question I’ve got at least right now is, well, two more questions. How long has that boat been sitting in the parking lot? Petitioner: Today was the first day I noticed it. Caramagno: Is it gone already? Moran: It’s gone tonight. Caramagno: Okay. It looked abandoned. The snow had been plowed around it. It looked like it maybe had been sitting there. So, that was one question. The other one is, you’re the Manager of this facility? Petitioner: Yes, sir. Caramagno: All of your entry doors, one, two, three, four, five, six. Those signs you’ve got taped on the door. You’ve got taped on the door or taped on the glass. Isn’t there a better way to do that? It looks terrible. Petitioner: Those are -- I agree, they do look terrible. Actually we are replacing those with professional door number signs. Caramagno: They’re getting replaced – when? Petitioner: In the next couple of weeks actually. Caramagno: So, that’s going to change. Petitioner: Yes, sir. Caramagno: Yes. it looks just – it looks terrible. When I looked at that I said, wow. We got a first class sign package here and worse than any class door signage. So, I’m glad to hear that’s changing. Thanks. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 16 January 4, 2011 Mr. Terry: That’s all part of the package, you know, it’s necessary for permitting, but that is something that Tony’s addressing the vinyl. Caramagno: Permits or not, it looks terrible. I’m glad to hear it is changing. Henzi: Any other questions? Harb: I have. Henzi: Mr. Harb. Harb: I guess this is to Mike. They want to replace the Radisson sign on the south wall to – or southeast to the Holiday Inn on the south. It’s on the first page. We’re not dealing with these signs at all today? Fisher: I’m sorry, I’m not sure I know what sign -- Harb: On the first page of the sign package. You see a Radisson on the southeast. Fisher: It’s not first page of my packet. Harb: First page of the signs. Fisher: Okay. Yes, I see that. Harb: We are not dealing with this wall sign at all today? Fisher: No, we are not dealing with that sign at all. And I guess the reason is -- Banko: I believe the Radisson sign is to be removed; is it not? Harb: Yes, I just wanted to know what the square footage of the Radisson sign versus the Holiday Inn sign. The Holiday Inn sign appears to be 76 square feet. I was curious to know what the Radisson sign was. Terry: We had surveyed that. I don’t have those dimensions right in front of me, but I will say that the actual sign square footage that we proposed – the thought process was put there not to exceed, if anything to decrease from the existing Radisson cabinet that’s up there and its of good size 16, 18 feet roughly by a four or five foot tall, so it’s a good square foot that’s up there right now. Harb: Now, that Radisson sign, that’s not where Tremors was; is it? Terry: That was the portion of the building Tremors was in. Harb: So, we may have approved the Tremors sign and you probably replaced the Radisson sign not to exceed the Tremors sign? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 16 January 4, 2011 Terry: I think it was handled as a reface. Petitioner: There was prior to that sign there was a sign for Shanahan’s Irish Pub. Harb: Right, right. Petitioner: This sign was a similar, very similar size to that if I recall. Harb: All right. I’ll do my research here. Thank you. Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak? I see nobody. Are there any letters? Caramagno: We’ve got one. We’ve got an address 17177 North Laurel Park Drive. Woohyan Cho sends an approval. Henzi: Gentlemen, you have the opportunity to make a closing statement. Is there anything else you would like to say? Petitioner: I request for the nature of business all of our requests be approved as are. Henzi: Okay. Thank you very much. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr. Sills. Sills: I think the package is well done. I’m comparing dimensions with the monument sign and the pylon signs and it seems as though they are just replacing the sign and just the name from Radisson to Holiday Inn. I don’t see any great differences in the dimensions. I think I could propose the package as presented. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: I agree. The Petitioner is just asking to resurface or reface the signs, existing signs that are there. I think this is very nice signage and I will approve it. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Caramagno: Yeah, your accesses are unique here and your property is unique. You’re right on the freeway grabbing visitors to this town and they have to be able to find your location. The sign on the freeway, the tall sign, I think that stands out that white with the green. It looks better than the dark does. It’s a more attractive sign. I don’t think it will interfere with anything in the area. Your monument sign in front, although it’s a little tall, as Terry said, I think there’s a lot of traffic that comes through – you’ve got a movie theater, you’ve got a shopping mall, you’ve got a lot of action over there and that sign needs to grab peoples’ attention. You’re coming into town with sometimes people that aren’t familiar with the area. So, I’m for your plan. Henzi: Mr. Moran. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 16 January 4, 2011 Moran: Well, I’m really glad to see the property being updated. I’ve driven by there many times and frankly wondered how Radisson was staying in business. I just didn’t see the occupancy levels that I’d sure like to see based on the cars. I think that I made my comments pretty well known earlier. I think it’s a great package you’ve presented, but I’m not satisfied why we need this monument sign 13 feet high. I think it’s inconsistent with the other properties in the area. I don’t know if we’ll be seeing them because of this, but I didn’t hear a compelling reason why we should make it that height and as Sam touched upon earlier, the reader board is gone. Most of this monument sign is just white and the sign really starts some eight, nine, 10 feet up in the air or whatever it is, I didn’t check the calculations. So, I thought I heard an offer to change that, I’d be in full support of this if it were reduced. It doesn’t have to be to six feet, but I’d have to understand why we want to make it 13 feet high. So, for those reasons I wouldn’t approve this as presented, but again, I’m only one person and I’m really pleased to see you updating the property. Henzi: Mr. Harb. Harb: I agree with Terry. I understand the Holiday Inn needs a new identity and sign package, you know, for all the Holiday Inn brand hotels. I think it’s a great package and I really don’t see the need for a 13 foot tall monument sign. It seems to me that Holiday Inn probably has a 10 foot sign or even a nine, eight, I’m not sure, but it seems to me that other national companies that come before us have many different sign packages of many different heights of signs. So, I would not approve this package. I would prefer to delay and see another idea. Henzi: Mr. Pastor. Pastor: I also agree with Terry. I think that sign is unnecessary at that height. I do realize that they would like to get this thing rolling so I would offer them the opportunity to let us know now if there is something else that they had in mind to satisfy us – I’m only one vote of out seven though. Henzi: I would approve. I’m very familiar with this property. I used to work there when I was in college in the nineties. I do see a hardship particularly with the 275 sign, but also with the monument sign on Laurel Park Drive. Folks that go to this property may have never been there and are looking where do I turn and have to navigate their way not to turn into the bank, not to turn into the mall, not to turn into the office part further down the road. So, I see a need. I see that there is dissension on the Board with respect to height of the monument sign and I could go along with a proposal for reducing that. So this is a little unorthodox, but I’ll open the case back up to the public and ask you gentlemen, do you have a figure that you’d like to suggest to us is doable? Like for instance, is not to exceed 10 feet in height at a reduced square footage something that you could do? Terry: Yeah, perhaps maybe, you know, again working with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, but considering the hardship that everybody has admitted about this property, perhaps shortening the skirt portion which is the section beneath the sign, the most narrow portion, if we could reduce that in height maybe not to exceed a 10 foot dimension. That way we’d be reducing three foot, three inches overall on the sign not to City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 16 January 4, 2011 exceed 10 feet in height. And that would allow us to continue to use the pylon head they call it as existing brand logo and just reduce the overall height of the sign to meet 10 feet. Henzi: Does anyone have any questions with respect to that proposal? I hear none. I’ll close the public portion of the case again -- Terry: Thank you. Henzi: -- and ask does any Board member have any further comment before a motion is made? Moran: I’m not going to quibble. I would approve this with the modification that is proposed. So, we just – in essence as I understand it the Petitioner has offered to remove three foot of height out of the white section on to the skirting I think he called it. I don’t know if eight feet, nine feet, 10 feet, six feet, I think it will give it a cleaner look and I’m not going to quibble over inches at this point. So, I would be happy to change my vote to support of the package as modified. Henzi: Any other comments? The floor is open for a motion then. Caramagno: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mr. Caramagno. Upon Motion by Caramagno, supported by Pastor, it was: RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-01-02: Tony Smith, west side of Laurel Park (17123) between Six Mile Road and Laurel Court, seeking to replace/retrofit two existing ground signs resulting in excess sign height, sign area and number of ground signs. Ground Sign Height Ground Sign Height I-275 Sign Location Laurel Park Road Location Allowed: 6.0 ft. Allowed: 6.00 ft. Proposed: 56.5 ft. Proposed: 13.25 ft. Excess: 50.5 ft. Excess: 7.25 ft. Ground Sign Area Ground Sign Area I-275 Sign Location Laurel Park Road Location Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Proposed: 309 sq. ft Proposed: 45 sq. ft. Excess: 279 sq. ft. Excess: 15 sq. ft. Number of Ground Signs Allowed: One Proposed: Two Excess: One City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 16 January 4, 2011 Petition as amended at the January 4, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with the agreement of Petitioner: Ground Sign Height Ground Sign Height I-275 Sign Location Laurel Park Road Location Allowed: 6.0 ft. Allowed: 6.00 ft. Proposed: 56.5 ft. Proposed: 10.00 ft. Excess: 50.5 ft. Excess: 4.00 ft. Ground Sign Area Ground Sign Area I-275 Sign Location Laurel Park Road Location Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Allowed: 30 sq. ft. Proposed: 309 sq. ft Proposed: 45 sq. ft. Excess: 279 sq. ft. Excess: 15 sq. ft. Number of Ground Signs Allowed: One Proposed: Two Excess: One The property is located on the west side of Laurel Park (17123) between Six Mile Road and Laurel Court, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact: 1. The uniqueness requirement is met because this is a hotel which needs to be recognized by I-275 traffic as well as traffic from Six Mile and Laurel Park. 2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner because the changing of the hotel’s name from a Radisson to a Holiday Inn needs to be recognized. 3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on the neighboring properties and in the spirit of the zoning ordinance because basically the sign is being refaced to reflect the new property name. 4. The Board received one (1) letter of approval and no letters of objection from neighboring property owners. 5. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the purpose or objective of the Master Plan because this property is classified “General Commercial” under 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 signs be as shown on the plans submitted to the Board with the adjustment of the height not to exceed 10 feet on the monument sign on Laurel Park Drive. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 16 January 4, 2011 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Caramagno, Pastor, Aloe, Harb, Moran, Sills, Henzi. NAYS: None Henzi: The variance is granted with that condition that Mr. Caramagno read limiting the height to 10 feet on the Laurel Park monument sign. Thank you very much. Good luck. Petitioner: Thank you. ______________________________________________________________________ Henzi: I don’t see anybody here for the first petition. Caramagno: Harry Kzirian. Henzi: It is 7:30 and he’s not here so he will have to reschedule. Aloe: Mr. Chair. Henzi: Mrs. Aloe. Aloe: Do you think that this man could be the lessee? Henzi: That’s Helen’s husband. Aloe: Oh, Helen’s husband. Okay. I wondered why he was sitting there and didn’t say anything. ______________________________________________________________________ Henzi: My packet says we’re supposed to approve minutes from November 9th, but they’re not -- I don’t know that I have them. Pastor: I didn’t get them. Henzi: I have the 30th and the 14th. Caramagno: I have the 9th. Henzi: Oh, you do? Caramagno: Right here. Not only do I have them, but I will make the motion to approve them. Harb: I’ll support. Henzi: All in favor say “aye.” City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 16 January 4, 2011 Board (In unison): Aye. Pastor: Motion to adjourn. Fisher: No. Pastor: No? City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 16 January 4, 2011 Fisher: If you want to we can revisit the Martin’s case again. Pastor: Mr. Chair, I make a motion to revisit Martin. Fisher: I’ll just tell you what I did. Per the Board’s instructions I sent Mr. Kokanakes a letter and I said, as long as you and your client are timely in appearing before the Board in this matter, I will be happy to facilitate a schedule. I urged them to choose either the January 18th or February 1st. I said, contact myself or Jackie, or Mr. Knapp. I told them when I would be available and whatnot. And I said: please be advised that if you and your client do not take affirmative steps to schedule this petition for hearing, the Board may adopt its own schedule to hear this matter and either deny the petition or dismiss it for want of prosecution. And I left it like that. Now, I have not heard back from Mr. Kokanakes since then and this letter is dated December 16th which I believe is the date it went out. So, that was what I understood to be the Board’s request last time. Henzi: Okay. I think in the last – in a meeting once before there was discussion about asking Jackie to compile our packets regarding a history on the property. Banko: She gave it to somebody and they gave it back last meeting. Henzi: Oh, that’s right. So, maybe if we could just – we’ll schedule it for our next meeting. She can give us those packets. Fisher: Okay and then maybe at that time we can – I didn’t realize you weren’t going to get the packets again tonight. I’m sorry. Harb: So, Mike, can we say January 18th is when we are going to hear the case? Fisher: Well -- Harb: Or do we still need to send out the notice? Fisher: We still need to send out the notice. So, the earliest we can hear it – I guess we should probably try to aim for a date when everybody thinks he or she is going to be here, but the earliest we can hear it is the February meeting which I think is February 1 or I suppose February 15. Henzi: It’s okay by me, the first I mean. Harb: The first is good. Henzi: Okay. Fisher: All right. I guess we need to do it this time since the next meeting will be too close to the first is to request that – is to adopt a resolution and schedule a hearing for February 1 and requesting Jackie to provide the required notice. I can tell you the City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 16 January 4, 2011 case number which we didn’t have the last time or the time whenever we were talking about before. It’s 2007-06-29. Henzi: Craig will do the honors. Pastor: O6 what? Fisher: Twenty-nine. Pastor: When’s the next one February 1st? Henzi: Yes. Fisher: February 1st. Pastor: Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion that we bring back the Martin case. Case number 2007-06-29 for a meeting on February 1st. Moran: And have Jackie give us -- Pastor: We’ll have Jackie give us proper information. Fisher: And required public notice. Pastor: And required public notice. Henzi: Is there support? Moran: Support. Henzi: Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Board (In unison): Aye. Henzi: Opposed. Motion carries. Okay. So, it will be back on the first Fisher: Okay. Henzi: Or the case will be on for the first whether he shows or not I guess. Fisher: Okay. Henzi: Okay. Fisher: Thank you. Moran: Motion to adjourn. City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 16 January 4, 2011 Henzi: All in favor say aye. Board: Aye. Henzi: We’re adjourned. ______________________________________________________________________ Motion by Caramagno, supported by Harb, to approve the ZBA minutes for the 11/9/10 meeting. All in favor. Motion by Pastor, supported by Moran, to adopt a resolution and schedule case number 2007-06-29 for February l, 2011. All in favor. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m. __________________________ SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary __________________________ MATTHEW HENZI, Chairman /hm