HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-12-11City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 of 41 July 12, 2011
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF LIVONIA
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 12, 2011
A Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Livonia was held in the
Auditorium of the Livonia City Hall on Tuesday July 12, 2011.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Henzi, Chairman
Terry Moran, Vice Chairman
Sam Caramagno, Secretary
Toni Aloe
Ken Harb
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Pastor
Robert Sills
OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Fisher, Assistant City Attorney
Steve Banko, City Inspector
Helen Mininni, 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 seven (7)
member Board. Five (5) 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 10
persons present in the audience.
______________________________________________________________________
(7:05 #1/146)
APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-07-33: Scott Sherrill, 37800 Grantland, Livonia, MI 48150,
seeking to construct a covered front porch resulting in deficient front yard
setback. The existing home has a nonconforming front yard setback of 44.6 ft.,
where 50 ft. is required.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 of 41 July 12, 2011
Front Yard Setback
Required: 50.0 ft.
Proposed: 39.6 ft.
Deficient: 10.4 ft.
The property is located on the north side of Grantland (37800) between Newburg and
west end.
Henzi: Good evening.
Petitioner: How’s it going?
Henzi: Can you introduce yourself, please?
Petitioner: Scott Sherrill at 37800 Grantland.
Henzi: Why don’t you tell us why you want to construct a front covered porch?
Petitioner: It’s just with the architect come with a design and it makes the house – it
looks really good from the road. I have some pictures. I don’t know if you guys are
interested in looking at them.
Henzi: Sure, we’ll take a look.
Petitioner: These are what the architect did – charcoal sketches that he had given me.
That is the new – can I come up there?
Henzi: Yes, you can come up.
Petitioner: This is the new proposed porch here, right now there is nothing, there is
nothing there. I think in the file I did give you guys some pictures of the old - what it
looks like now, but that’s just the front and then the back. We’re putting a new roof on.
We just started a new family so we need the room.
Henzi: Okay.
Petitioner: That was the design he had come up with – not really knowing about the
whole variance issue.
Henzi: Okay.
Petitioner: That’s what we want it to look like.
Henzi: All right, any questions for the Petitioner? Hearing none, is there --
Moran: I’ll go ahead.
Henzi: Mr. Moran.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 of 41 July 12, 2011
Moran: So, I drove by the other morning I did not notice the renderings that I had in my
package. You’re just putting on the porch --
Petitioner: No, sir. No, we’re going to be putting a bungalow style upstairs on. It’s
basically turning into a cape cod. We’re going to have two dormers on the front, dormer
on the rear and then the reverse gable porch on the front to kind of match everything.
Moran: What’s there now? I know it’s nothing covered but is there a slab?
Petitioner: Yeah, slab porch, I believe it’s like four foot or three foot by five foot or
something like that.
Moran: And how large will this addition or this porch going to be?
Petitioner: I don’t have the paper on me.
Moran: Five by eight.
Petitioner: Yeah.
Moran: Are there any other violations on the property, Mr. Banko, the trailer in the rear
of the yard or the side fence or the pool, any?
Banko: I did take a look at the property the other day and I did notice the motor home
that’s in the rear yard that does appear to be hooked up and – is there anybody living in
the motor home in the rear?
Petitioner: We will be, yes, we were going to be staying in there while we renovated the
house. My mom stores it there during the winter – or summer times because they
usually go to Florida so we just plugged it in and planned on pretty much staying --
Banko: Just to let you know basically what you’re doing is in violation of ordinance.
Petitioner: Really?
Banko: Yes, but it would I guess be up to the Board whether – along with the variance
while they renovate.
Moran: Yes, I mean to generalize, if someone lives in temporary quarters for two or
three months while they renovate, that’s not out of the ordinary here in the community;
is it?
Banko: No, that would be part of the project I would believe, Mr. Fisher.
Fisher: You’re the expert.
Banko: Obviously if he’s working to renovate the house, I’m sure that we would have no
problem with them working at the house and –
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 of 41 July 12, 2011
Moran: No neighbor complaints on you storing --
Petitioner: No, not at all, no, pretty good friends with all the neighbors.
Moran: I think actually they would be entitled to store it back there as long as it’s
directly behind the house not in the side yard, right?
Banko: It is permitted to be in the rear yard of the property.
Moran: I don’t know if that’s possible for a coach or not.
Banko: I believe that’s where it’s at now. I don’t really believe it’s in the side yard.
Petitioner: I believe I was – the only understanding I was under was it had to be behind
the front of the house.
Banko: Not the front of the house, it has to be behind the rear of the house.
Petitioner: Yeah, which it is.
Moran: So, it doesn’t have to be directly in line with the house as long as it’s behind it.
Banko: No, as long as – if it was a corner lot, it would make a difference. We’re not on
a corner lot here, but as long as it is behind the rear of the house – that is the rear yard.
Moran: So, your only concern was the appearance of people living in it as opposed to
the location of it.
Banko: Correct.
Moran: Thank you.
Henzi: To the Petitioner, tell us how long you plan on living there in the temporary
quarters?
Petitioner: Two months at the most. I’m hoping to at least have the upstairs of this
finished to where we can move in and finish the downstairs.
Mrs. Sherrill: We want to be out and have it upstairs.
Petitioner: We want to be out of that thing as fast as possible.
Harb: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Harb.
Harb: Sir, would you continue storing the motor home during the wintertime once you
fix your home up?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 of 41 July 12, 2011
Petitioner: We had planned on it but possibly moving it to a different area in the yard so
it’s not so close to the house, a little more secluded, but the most I’d say six months out
of the year when it would be there – it’d be in Florida.
Harb: Right. Thank you.
Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none is there anyone in the audience who wants
to speak for or against this project? If so, come on up to the podium. I see no one
coming forward. Can you read the letters?
Caramagno: We have an approval from Louis Baumgartner [37780 Grantland] (letter
read). Grace Weible [37727 Amrhein] approval (letter read). Yvonne Vartanian [37920
Grantland] approves (letter read). Maureen Balda [37741 Grantland] writes an objection
(letter read).
Petitioner: Can I comment on that one?
Henzi: Yes, go ahead.
Petitioner: That was the wrong house.
Mrs. Sherrill: That wasn’t our house.
Petitioner: There was a man down the street that had several posts along the front of
his yard and that is what I think she was talking about. I think she must be mixed up.
Mrs. Sherrill: Yeah, because we didn’t have any posts out front, but we were all
wondering if he was trying to put like a privacy fence around the front of his yard the
way the posts were and it was probably the fifth house in on the right. And we were like
– what is he doing?
Petitioner: Nobody understood – we haven’t sunk any posts in the front yard
whatsoever. So, I just wanted to comment on that.
Banko: To the President.
Henzi: Mr. Banko.
Banko: The property in question actually there was a stop work order put on that by
another building inspector on the house down the street. You are correct.
Henzi: Thank you. By the way, ma’am, can you tell us your name so it goes in our
minutes.
Mrs. Sherrill: I’m sorry. My name is Raye Ann Sherrill.
Henzi: Okay. Same address.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 of 41 July 12, 2011
Mrs. Sherrill: Yes, I’m his wife.
Petitioner: My wife.
Henzi: Okay. Is there anything else you two would like to say in closing?
Petitioner: No, just I hope it all goes through because we’re excited. We’ve been
waiting a year or two to start this and get some more room for the family. It’s going to
be nice to have.
Henzi: Thank you.
Petitioner: Thanks.
Henzi: I’ll close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s comments with Mr.
Harb.
Harb: I’m going to approve this. This is a pre-existing front yard setback. They need
protection from the elements and it will add value to the neighborhood. I think it will be
a great addition.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: I will also be in support. I think everybody that has a front porch to really have a
front porch you want to have a cover over it to protect yourself going in and out from the
weather and there is no front porch there now. I think it is a very nice improvement to
your property so I will be in support.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: When I first went by there today without looking at the package just the
address, I looked at that and I said, wow, we’ve got quite a deal here. But then when I
approached the house and looked at the plans and then the charcoal drawings that
similar to a show house, wow, you’re really making improvements. You’re going to
change the viewpoint of this street. What you are doing is very nice there, very, very
nice and a covered porch on any home really adds some value. So, the variance for the
setback there is small in my mind and there are others on the street that have it and
they’re not going to have the beautiful place you got. So, good luck.
Henzi: Mr. Moran.
Moran: Yes, I agree with the other Board members’ comments. I will be in support of
this. I think it will be a fine addition as Mrs. Aloe pointed out a cover over a front porch I
think is a virtual necessity for a homeowner. And as Mr. Harb pointed out, we already
have a variance that’s approximately consistent with what they are applying for we’re
simply putting a cover over this variance so I think it will fit in nicely with the
neighborhood and I will be in full support.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 41 July 12, 2011
Henzi: I, too, will support the request. There’s not much that I can add. I agree with all
the other Board members. I just think that we should condition it such that it’s built as
presented according to what we saw tonight and then I would be willing to also allow the
Petitioners to stay temporarily in the trailer as long as work is ongoing and for a period
of I don’t know – whatever the Board members think. He said two months, but maybe
we could give him a little bit more just in case there is some unforeseen construction
delay or something like that. So, the floor is open for a motion.
Upon motion by Aloe, supported by Harb, it was:
RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-07-33: Scott Sherrill, 37800 Grantland,
Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to construct a covered front porch resulting in
deficient front yard setback. The existing home has a nonconforming front yard
setback of 44.6 ft., where 50 ft. is required.
Front Yard Setback
Required: 50.0 ft.
Proposed: 39.6 ft.
Deficient: 10.4 ft.
The property is located on the north side of Grantland (37800) between Newburg and
west end, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the home is already non-conforming
due to the setback requirements.
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because Petitioner is trying to improve his property by enlarging his home for his
family and he wants to be able to enjoy and use his front porch.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on the neighboring properties and in the
spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because it is consistent with other homes in that
area with similar variances.
4. The Board received three (3) letters of approval and one (1) letter 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 the property is classified “Low-density Residential”
under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is not inconsistent with that
classification.
FURTHER, that the variance be granted with the following conditions:
1. That the porch be built as presented to the Board.
2. That the variance is good for one (1) year.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 of 41 July 12, 2011
3. That the temporary living quarters in the motor home not be treated as a violation
so long as work on the home is on-going, provided the period of temporary
residence does not exceed a three month period.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Aloe, Harb, Caramagno, Moran, Henzi
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Pastor, Sills
Henzi: The variance is granted with those three conditions. I will read them one more
time. You have to build as presented. It’s good for one year which means that you’ve
got one year within which to complete construction and then your residence in the trailer
is limited to three months in time and as long as you’re working on the property. Good
luck.
Petitioner: Thank you.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 of 41 July 12, 2011
______________________________________________________________________________
(7:15 #1/551)
APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-07-34: Rita Queen, 29822 West Chicago, Livonia, MI
48150, seeking to reconstruct a breezeway to attach the existing home and
garage resulting in deficient rear yard and corner street side yard setbacks.
Nonconformity of the home is based on the existing corner side yard setback of
10.7 ft. where 15 ft. is required. Nonconformity of the garage is based on the
existing corner side yard and rear yard setback of 12.7 and 12.5 ft., where 15 ft.
and 30 ft. are required, respectively.
Rear Yard Setback Corner Side Yard Setback
Required: 30.0 ft. Required: 15.0 ft.
Proposed/Existing: 12.5 ft. Proposed/Existing: 12.5 ft.
Deficient: 17.5 ft. Deficient: 2.5 ft
The property is located on the north side of West Chicago (29822) between Henry Ruff
and Louise.
Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Banko?
Aloe: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: I have one for Mr. Banko. Can you just explain a little bit better to me what this
corner yard – I don’t even think I’ve ever heard of that on a residential home, corner
yard setback what are you going off of?
Banko: Your corner side yard, basically your corner side yard runs all the way from the
front to the rear of the property which would be adjacent, adjacent to the side of the
house whereas if you were on an interior lot, your side yard is your side yard. On a
corner side yard as an example if you wanted to store an RV, it could not be stored in
the corner side yard. It would have to be stored in the rear yard which would start at a
point where the side yard ends where the rear of the house if you understand my drift
here.
Aloe: Okay, all right. Thank you.
Henzi: I had a question, Mr. Banko. There is a mention in our packet that the existing
breezeway is not code compliant. Are there other issues with the breezeway other than
what they are seeking a variance for?
Banko: There are no other issues. The breezeway was put in many, many moons ago
and that’s the way it stands until this day. So, basically they are trying to make their
non-conformity conform by being here tonight.
Henzi: Okay.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 of 41 July 12, 2011
Moran: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Moran.
Moran: Steve, does this request, the new footprint identical to the old does it go right
over the top of the old footprint?
Banko: By looking at the plans, it appears that the old and I am sure the gentleman
from Father and Son could explain it better than myself, but it appears that they would
tear down the old one and basically rebuild the whole breezeway.
Moran: Same footprint, same size?
Banko: Yes.
Moran: Thank you.
Henzi: Any other questions for Inspection? Okay. Good evening.
Petitioner: Good evening.
Representative: Hello.
Petitioner: Rita Queen, 29822 W. Chicago, 48150.
Representative: Darrin Dever, Father and Son, 5032 Rochester Road, Troy, Michigan.
I am representing Mrs. Queen on behalf of this particular project. We are just rebuilding
what is there. I believe the home, looking at the original survey, was built in 1954 and it
has been in her family since ’64 the breezeway was already in existence at that time. It
is an aluminum structure, aluminum roof that has basically deteriorated over this time
and she is willing to pay the money to conform to current codes.
Henzi: Okay. Can you tell us a little bit about what building materials you are going to
use and what it’s going to look like when you are finished?
Dever: It’s going to be stick built I believe to the current codes. The exterior walls are 2
x 6 now.
Banko: I’m the code enforcement officer. That question I cannot answer.
Dever: Oh, okay all right. Okay, well, yeah, it’s going to be stick built, roof tie in with
joists, matching roof shingles, vinyl windows double pane. On the back side there’s
already an existing storm door we are going to be replacing that and code up to
insulation, all electrical up to code. It’s not currently heated so it will just maintain at that
like a three-season room.
Henzi: Okay. I only had one question for Mrs. Queen. What do you plan to use this
room for simply a passageway or are you going to use it as a living space, too?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 of 41 July 12, 2011
Petitioner: Well, when it’s remodeled and it’s nice in there, then I can sit there and read
the paper, watch TV whatever, but right now it’s just a passage room because it needs
repair.
Dever: We do have some letters, approvals which she brought in. Who do I give those
to?
Henzi: Anything else you want to say about the project?
Dever: She is ready to go whenever you guys are. So are we, we did our due diligence
and we’ve been doing it for 44 years ourselves so we are definitely going to bring it up
to code for her.
Henzi: Okay, any questions?
Caramagno: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: What’s the floor made of?
Dever: It’s a slab.
Petitioner: Slab.
Caramagno: Concrete slab.
Dever: It’s going to be replaced.
Caramagno: Replace it with what?
Dever: Slab.
Caramagno: Another slab, so bust what’s there?
Dever: Another slab, yeah.
Caramagno: What do you put? You said you are going to insulate to spec. Do you
insulate the floor some way?
Dever: Just the side ways, yeah.
Caramagno: Just the side ways.
Dever: Yeah.
Caramagno: So, the floor will just be cold in the winter.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 of 41 July 12, 2011
Dever: Yeah, I believe she puts down like an indoor/outdoor carpet.
Petitioner: Right now there is an indoor/outdoor carpet.
Dever: Because it’s really more or less it is for a pass through from the garage – for her
safety in the winter unloading the groceries in the dark.
Caramagno: Just a question I had, thanks.
Dever: Sure.
Henzi: Any other questions?
Aloe: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: What is the roof line? Right now it’s flat; isn’t it?
Dever: The roof line?
Aloe: Yes.
Dever: No, it’s actually on a pitch, it’s pitched. It’s an aluminum --
Aloe: Did it have a --
Dever: It is pitched. Yeah, I believe it’s about a 4-12 pitch gable.
Aloe: So you will keep it that way.
Dever: Yes, oh yes.
Aloe: Okay. Thank you.
Henzi: Anything else? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to
speak for or against this project? If so, come on up. I see no one coming forward. Can
you read the letters?
Caramagno: Janice Chattaway [29861 MacIntyre] sends an approval (letter read).
Brian Koski [29760 McIntyre] approval (letter read). Rosemary and Chester
Summerville [29761 McIntyre] write an approval (letter read). Ronda Turner [29920
West. Chicago] approval (letter read). Sharon Sabat [29780 West Chicago] approval
(letter read).
Henzi: Mrs. Queen, is there anything you’d like to say in closing?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 of 41 July 12, 2011
Petitioner: No, but who was the one, the second one that said that the City shouldn’t
get involved in that; who was that?
Henzi: Brian Koski.
Caramagno: Koski, 29760 McIntyre.
Petitioner: I don’t know who that is, but thank you. That’s it.
Henzi: Okay. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s
comments with Mr. Moran.
Moran: Okay, another easy one. I’m in full support of this. I think we have a situation
here where even if we took the breezeway, we wouldn’t have a conforming lot. To
replace it, the Petitioner is willing to keep the same condition, modernize it, make it
structurally sound, make it conform with many aspects of our code, but can’t possibly
put it on this piece of property and have it conform with the setback. That doesn’t give
me a problem. It’s been there for 40 some years we estimate and I think it’s going to be
a nice improvement and I think the homeowner should be allowed to continue to use her
property in the manner she has for all these years. So, I’m in full support of this.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: Yes, it’s there now. We’re not adding anything that doesn’t exist. It’s
there – just replacing it and you’re going to make it better, improving the neighborhood
and your property. I’m in support.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: I agree with the other Board members. It’s an improvement, it already exists so
why not make it look nice.
Henzi: Mr. Harb.
Harb: I can’t add anything more.
Henzi: Either can I. I’m in full support. The floor is open for a motion.
Caramagno: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Upon motion by Caramagno, supported by Aloe:
RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-07-34: Rita Queen, 29822 West Chicago,
Livonia, MI 48150, seeking to reconstruct a breezeway to attach the existing
home and garage resulting in deficient rear yard and corner street side yard
setbacks. Nonconformity of the home is based on the existing corner side yard
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 of 41 July 12, 2011
setback of 10.7 ft. where 15 ft. is required. Nonconformity of the garage is based
on the existing corner side yard and rear yard setback of 12.7 and 12.5 ft, where
15 ft. and 30 ft. are required, respectively.
Rear Yard Setback Corner Side Yard Setback
Required: 30.0 ft. Required: 15.0 ft.
Proposed/Existing: 12.5 ft. Proposed/Existing: 12.5 ft.
Deficient: 17.5 ft. Deficient: 2.5 ft
The property is located on the north side of West Chicago (29822) between Henry Ruff
and Louise, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the structure already exists
and there are other setbacks on this property that exist because of the
home and the garage.
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because she would not be able to use the breezeway because it is
rundown and would serve the purpose of a walk through and nothing else.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on the neighboring properties and
in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because it does exist and the
neighbors have no problem with it and it will improve the general area.
4. The Board received five (5) letters 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 the property is classified as “Low-
density Residential” under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is
not inconsistent with that classification.
FURTHER, that the variance be granted with the following conditions.
1. That it be built as presented to the Board.
2. That it be built and completed within six (6) months.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Caramagno, Aloe, Harb, Moran, Henzi
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Pastor, Sills
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 of 41 July 12, 2011
Henzi: The variance is granted. You have to build it as presented and it has to be
completed within six months. Now, Mr. Dever’s you said that you wanted to act right
away does that mean you’re looking to start within the next week?
Dever: Next few weeks.
Henzi: Oh, okay.
Dever: We have to get the final touch ups and ready to go and we’re ready to go.
Henzi: Okay, all right. Good luck to you.
Dever: Thank you.
Petitioner: Thank you.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 16 of 41 July 12, 2011
_____________________________________________________________________________
(7:26 #1/860)
APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-07-36: Janet Schatz, 31645 Alabama, Livonia, MI 48150,
seeking to reconstruct a covered rear porch resulting in deficient rear yard
setback.
Rear Yard Setback
Required: 30.0 ft.
Proposed: 26.3 ft.
Deficient: 3.7 ft.
The property is located on the south side of Alabama (31645) between Penn and
Wyoming.
Henzi: Mr. Banko, anything to add to this case?
Banko: Not at this time, sir.
Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Banko? Hearing none, good evening, can you introduce
yourself?
Petitioner: I’m Janice Schatz, 31645 Alabama.
Representative: And my name is Mark Kwolek from Planned Home Improvement,
contractor, 35923 Ford Road, Westland, Michigan
Henzi: Can you tell us a little bit about the project?
Petitioner: It is an existing porch, it was there when I bought the house and it’s just a
screened in porch. I just want to add – get rid of the screen, fix the roof a bit and add
glass, just make it a three season room easier to use and it’s been there so long its
looking a little bit ragged. I need to make it look better.
Henzi: How long have you lived there?
Petitioner: Since ’83. The previous owner built it and I don’t know when it was built, but
it was there when I bought the house.
Henzi: Okay, any questions for the Petitioner?
Aloe: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: I have one for the builder. When you say, rebuild, you’re going to take this down
to the floor and then rebuild or what do you do?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 of 41 July 12, 2011
Kwolek: What is existing there now as far as the cement foundation in the brick knee
wall that comes up about two feet tall, that’s all solid but the screens and the posts that
are holding the roof – the roof is a combination of some wood support, some aluminum
panels and the engineer that drew this up we’re going with a wood roof structure on
posts and putting vinyl windows all the way around it and a door wall so we will be
utilizing the cement and everything that’s there and the brick knee wall and just
rebuilding from that point up.
Aloe: Okay, thank you.
Henzi: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants
to speak for or against this project, if so come on up. I see no one coming forward.
Can you read the letters?
Caramagno: Dawn Jones [31700 Wyoming] an approval. William McCraith at [31725
Penn] it’s an approval (letter read). Edna Smith [31733 Penn] approval (letter read).
Ralene Thompson [9085 Melrose] approval (letter read).
Henzi: Is there anything you would like to say in closing?
Petitioner: No.
Henzi: Okay. I will close the public portion of the case and begin the Board’s
comments with Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: I look at this much the same as the last one. This is improving what’s
already there. The 3.7 feet to me is hardly noticeable. What you propose to build in
place of this I think is a dramatic improvement. I think it is going to make your whole
property look better so I am in support.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: I agree. It’s an improvement to the existing structure that’s old and needs
improvement and it’s a very small deficiency.
Henzi: Mr. Harb.
Harb: I also am in support.
Henzi: Mr. Moran.
Moran: I am in full support. As Sam said, it’s very similar to the last case.
Henzi: I, too, will support. The request – I think we have a recurrent theme tonight as
least for the three cases. I’m glad to see that people are building and renovating their
homes so I think it’s going to look great. So, the floor is open for a motion.
Moran: Mr. Chair.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 of 41 July 12, 2011
Henzi: Mr. Moran.
Upon motion by Moran, supported by Harb:
RESOLVED APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-07-36: Janet Schatz, 31645 Alabama, Livonia,
MI 48150, seeking to reconstruct a covered rear porch resulting in deficient rear
yard setback.
Rear Yard Setback
Required: 30.0 ft.
Proposed: 26.3 ft.
Deficient: 3.7 ft.
The property is located on the south side of Alabama (31645) between Penn and
Wyoming, be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met because Petitioner is seeking to
modernize a three season room that has been grandfathered under our
ordinance and already has an existing deficiency with respect to the rear
yard setback.
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because she would be faced with a choice of either removing it, making it
smaller and not functional, or having to continue to try to maintain a very
old structure.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on the neighboring properties and
in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because it is continuing a condition
that is currently in existence while modernizing it and bringing added value
to the neighborhood.
4. The Board received four (4) letters 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 the property is classified “Low-
density Residential” under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is
not inconsistent with that classification.
FURTHER, that the variance be granted with the following conditions.
1. That it be built as presented to the Board.
2. That the construction be completed three months after it commences.
3. That the variance is good for one (1) year.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 of 41 July 12, 2011
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Moran, Harb, Aloe, Caramagno, Henzi
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Pastor, Sills
Henzi: The variance is granted with those three conditions. You have to build it as
presented. You’ve got one year within which to commence construction and then once
you do, you’ve got three months within which to complete it.
Petitioner: Okay, thanks.
Henzi: Good luck.
Kwolek: Thank you.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 20 of 41 July 12, 2011
(7:33 #1/1047)
APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-07-37: Gary and Beth Newton, 38717 Stacey Court, Livonia,
MI 48154, seeking to erect a 6-ft. tall privacy fence without the approval of the
adjoining property owners along the rear property line (approval required) and
erecting such fence within the side yard, which is not allowed.
The property is located on the north side of Stacey Court (38717) between Quakertown
Lane and the cul-de-sac.
Henzi: Mr. Banko, anything to add to this case?
Banko: Not at this time, sir.
Henzi: Any questions for Mr. Banko? Hearing none, good evening.
Petitioner: Good evening.
Henzi: Can you tell us your name and address?
Petitioner: Gary Newton, 38717 Stacey Court, representing my wife, Beth, as well.
Henzi: Mr. Newton, go ahead and tell us why you want to construct a privacy fence.
Petitioner: First of all, we just completed construction on an in-ground pool in our
backyard. Accordance with the city code requires erection of a fence around that. Our
proximity to I-275 also presents a noise issue that we are constantly dealing with. I’d
like to submit for the record a copy of an environmental noise study that I commissioned
at my own cost. Thank you. That noise study shows that we are currently exposed to
DB levels approximately 65 to 68 DB while standard nation-wide average puts you in
the range of 50-55 as normal living. So, as you can see we do have a noise issue in
our backyard. Also because the pool that we are installing is an in-ground pool, we do
present an issue with the number of children that live in proximity to our house. I cited
that as part of my variance application that said we counted at least 12 children that all
live within adjoining properties to our house or that come within contact of our backyard.
Being responsible pool owners as well as responsible homeowners, we feel that this
fence provides the maximum amount of security. I also have photographs that were
taken of the pool that I would like to submit for your review. This is a photo of my son
standing next to the pool. My son is approximately four foot tall. The pool sits about 24
inches in depth from the exposed above ground. Excuse me I’m a little nervous tonight,
but that should be an indication of what we are trying to protect against anybody that
could wander into the backyard and fall into the pool. We also feel that the minimum
four foot required chain-link fence would be easy scaleable by a number of the children
most of which are now approaching eight, seven, six, five years old in that range.
Henzi: Okay. How long have you lived there?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 21 of 41 July 12, 2011
Petitioner: We have lived there three years. I grew up in that neighborhood though on
Stacey Street. My parents live approximately seven doors down from us. I’m a resident
of Livonia since 1987, Taylor Elementary, Holmes Middle and Stevenson High School.
Henzi: You probably could have done your own noise study since you grew up there.
Petitioner: Yes, sir, we’ve been exposed to it and I do happen to work in acoustics
today.
Henzi: Got it. I shouldn’t ask do you know – of course you know that one of the reasons
you’re here is because the neighbor on the property immediately behind yours objects
to this.
Petitioner: Yes, sir.
Henzi: And you’ll hear a letter read about his objection.
Petitioner: Yes.
Henzi: Is there animosity between the two of you?
Petitioner: No, sir, none that I’ve been aware of. We have lived there many of years. My
wife has had conversations in the backyard with her on many occasions. I’d like to also
submit for the Board six additional letters of support from our surrounding neighbors. If I
may in regard to that letter of dispute, I do have also a timeline that I’d like to go through
with you. First of all to give you an idea of the mindset that I’m dealing with, when we
approached, one of the issues was why do we need a pool, both of our neighbors have
pools. We have made every reasonable attempt as neighbors to work this out. We
have offered to change the color, we have offered to change the style, we have offered
to plant flowers, we have offered to provide a monetary donation for nursery so they can
go buy their own shrubs. We have offered to provide dirt from our excavation so that
they can make a lot line. We have offered everything sir that is within reason. We are
bordered by four neighbors, we have - three of them all signed off on this like this (snap
of fingers). We originally had a verbal approval from Mrs. Smith when we originally
started this process because before we engaged and before I made deposits, my wife
personally visited and talked with her. She was invited into her home. Mrs. Smith had
her in. They talked. They went over it. We had an approval verbally and I can cite the
timelines for you and I can go through all the different issues. The objections that were
cited to us are: why do you need to put up a six foot fence? These are the reasons that
I just cited for you. Why can’t you just put up a white four foot picket fence? Obviously
there was a safety issue there and we cited the six foot. Why does it have to be six
foot? Again, what I talked about. Why does it have to be beige why not white? I
offered to change it white. On June 17th, I asked Mr. Smith, if I change this fence to
white, would you sign it? And he said no. I then offered to – she wanted to be able to
see green out of her back windows. We’ve discussed with her that the green that she is
looking at is our backyard where the in-ground pool will be. There’s also no
environmental impact on behalf of this fence to any vegetation that grows in the
backyard. We’ve cited that and we’ve documented that. We need to talk to a real
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 of 41 July 12, 2011
estate agent to see how the fence would impact the property values. I have letters that I
would like to submit please from two independent real estate agents both of which said
there’s no negative property value impact by installing a professional vinyl fence. This
is a $9,500.00 fence that I am installing – actually I’m having it installed and it’s only part
of a $25,000.00 investment that I’m making in my house and in the local economy as a
whole. Other objections include: they need to see a six tall – excuse me – they would
need to see something six foot high in their backyard. We went to Home Depot
invested $75.00 in a six foot tall panel and propped it up on two horses, two saw horses
so they could see what it would look like. We’ve done everything that is within reason
and above and beyond reason. Again on June 17th, why does it have to be solid, why
could it not be a slotted fence? Again, we feel that children could scale that and based
on my noise study, there’s no advantage to putting up a slotted fence for what I’m
actually dealing with and experiencing with. He asked why we couldn’t put a lattice on
the top – it would make the fence at that point seven foot tall. He said, well, what if we
did a five foot and lattice. I asked him if he would be interested in sharing costs with
that, he told me no. I made a $2,500.00 deposit. If I were to change the fence, I would
lose that and then I would have to go and buy a new fence. I don’t feel that that’s
necessarily reasonable. Again, we have reached out. We have made multiple attempts
to talk, multiple attempts. At the last time I actually shook Mr. Smith’s hand and I said,
sir, I don’t want to, but we can go to the variance board and he told me, you can try, but
I’ll make it very difficult for you. He also commented that he didn’t like the fact that there
was a shed in our backyard. He did not like the fact that the other neighbors had pools.
I could keep going if you’d liked, but I hope you get the gist of what my issues are.
Henzi: I think you made that point.
Petitioner: Thank you. We have filed for a variance. I’ve also got another picture I’d like
to cite of why we did not select the slotted top fence. It shows my son, again four foot
could very easily reach and grab the top of it and pull himself up. And again, another
photo that I’d like to submit that shows why we didn’t select an open slotted one. With
the vegetation and the way it’s kept in their backyard, they’re an elderly couple, I
respect their opinions and I respect their right to be there, but the lot is not maintained
and the property and the fence and everything – it’s just overgrown and its
overshadowing and the only one who has had any loss of vegetation is me when my
grass is killed behind my shed because they don’t maintain the property. So, with all
due respect to my neighbor and all due respect to his issues, I humbly request that you
guys approve our variance given our investment, given our reasonableness and given I
think nine other letters of support from the neighbors that we have dealt, we’ve walked
to. In conclusion, they say that fences make good neighbors. We have learned more
about our neighbors having gone through this process, their names, and their children’s
names, learned more in the last two months living in that house than I did in three years.
So, for that I am grateful, but I don’t know what more I could do, sir.
Henzi: Okay, any questions for the Petitioners?
Harb: I have a question for Mike.
Henzi: Mr. Harb.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 23 of 41 July 12, 2011
Fisher: Yes, sir.
Harb: Mr. Chair, I’m sorry. The fence as it is other than the side yard that comes down
perhaps 20 feet from the rear of the house, is that really the only issue from the side
yard stand point? I mean he’d be allowed to have a six foot fence if that was starting at
the rear of his house; is that correct?
Fisher: Yes.
Harb: And since he has approval from the neighbors on either side, he’d be able to
have a six foot fence there and if I’m not mistaken it’s open.
Petitioner: I could submit a photograph for you, sir, the top one shows my property.
Harb: So, the only obstacle is the neighbor in the rear that did not provide permission. I
didn’t look in the packet, but we have the agreement of the other two sides; right?
Petitioner: The other three sides, yes, sir.
Fisher: I don’t know if it got in the packet actually.
Harb: I didn’t see it.
Fisher: Because it’s written up I’m sure --
Henzi: Yeah, it’s in the back.
Harb: Okay.
Petitioner: I can submit these. I have three photo copies of the permission slips from
the neighbors.
Harb: Right. So, you have three, four. You don’t have the 111 foot in the rear?
Petitioner: Actually I believe it was just less than 111 foot because there are some utility
boxes that are located on the far extreme corner of our yard we decided to angle the
fence as to not provide any obstacle or any easement issues to those. So, that did
reduce the distance across the back of the yard slightly, but I felt that it was probably
best to take those out of play, sir.
Harb: Terry, can figure that out. Terry.
Mrs. Newton: I believe there’s a bill from the fencing company in there that shows how
much the fence is. The back line is 96 feet.
Harb: Right. Thank you for that.
Moran: Mr. Chair.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 24 of 41 July 12, 2011
Petitioner: If I may, I’d like to submit this.
Henzi: Mr. Moran.
Petitioner: I’m sorry.
Moran: Again to one of our City representatives, either Mike or Steven, without
requesting a variance with respect to the rear property line regardless of cost at the
moment what could the Petitioner do within our code, what remedies do they have if you
will or options do they have?
Banko: With the survey of the property he could be permitted to put up a four foot
chain-link fence back there could be permitted or he could put up a four foot picket, you
know, something with an open weave.
Fisher: Non-sight obscuring.
Banko: Thank you, sir.
Moran. Yes.
Banko: You are the expert on that.
Moran: Four feet is the maximum height?
Banko: It’s either – is it four or five, Mike?
Petitioner: We were told four when we visited the Zoning Board, four was our max.
Also, I would like to point out that part of the children issue that we have is Mrs. Smith
has two grandchildren that borders us that are under the age of six. That’s part of the
issue.
Moran: If they wanted to do something very different but come further south on the
property, if that’s the right direction, if they were to come – I know this is unusual – but if
they were to come 10 feet further south could they erect whatever they want? In other
words, enclose the pool not along the entire perimeter of their property, but enclose the
pool in a different manner.
Fisher: You’re talking about a privacy screen?
Moran: Yes, what are they allowed to do? Yes, what options do they have there?
Fisher: Well, a privacy screen generally is anything – it would have to be 10 feet from
all the lot lines, but yes, you could theoretically put a privacy screen.
Moran: In theory and I’m not suggesting this as practical, but if they were to take – have
the approval of the two neighbors, run that to within 10 feet of the rear of the property
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 25 of 41 July 12, 2011
line and then come across the back of their property calling it a privacy screen, would
that be – or any other point further south would that be permitted?
Fisher: Well, you don’t have a privacy screen if you got it within 10 feet of a property
line.
Moran: Okay.
Mrs. Newton: Can I ask --
Petitioner: May we comment.
Henzi: Wait, hang on. Is that an answer for you?
Moran: Yeah, let him comment because I’m interested in --
Henzi: Okay.
Petitioner: The way the pool is situated we have approximately three foot from the
easement line to the --
Mrs. Newton: No, there’s 13 foot from the back property line to the pool. So, there is
the six foot easement so that is seven foot from the easement to the pool.
Moran: Well, answer this for me if you would.
Petitioner: Yes, sir.
Moran: You’re very thorough it’s obvious, but – and you thought you had a deal. You
might have even missed an opportunity to put up a five foot fence with a lattice. You’ve
lived there for three years. You’ve lived in the neighborhood. You can’t see your
property from 275 with the foliage we have at this time of year. You knew the noise,
you knew what you were doing. If you put a fence on a property line, you want it and I
don’t. I mean, you could put it on the property line two inches off effectively it is doing
something that I thought I was protected against happening to me because I have an
ordinance that says this will not be allowed. So, for you to come here this evening and
say I want it and the other folks did not come here but write a very thorough letter and
say I don’t want it, why should we do anything but look to the ordinance for guidelines?
Petitioner: That’s a very fair question, sir. Thank you for asking it. Part of what we
have done is an effort to work it out with the neighbors and to discuss it, we were very
thorough in our investigation to try find out if the home owners association, if the
neighborhood association, if there were anything else relating to that to prohibit it the
answer to that question is no. We then did our research and as it was introduced at the
beginning of the meeting to talk about the spirit of the city plan and the spirit of our
neighborhoods, we then walked our neighborhood and we took photographs and noted
other privacy fences in our neighborhood. This is not a surprise and not a shocker.
This is not the first person that’s requesting to do this.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 26 of 41 July 12, 2011
Moran: But we don’t know if the two affected parties immediately affected parties in
your neighborhood both wanted that condition or one did not.
Petitioner: Well, I can tell that a number of variances have been issued because of the
way the fences are situated and because of the way the pools are installed in the
neighborhood. So, again we looked at --
Moran: But were those variances over the objection of a neighbor?
Petitioner: That I did not ask, sir.
Moran: And this is what we have to deal with this evening. That’s what I’m trying to
isolate. I’m sympathetic to your problem and I feel very bad, but if you hadn’t made any
effort I might feel different – in fact I would. I feel bad that you are in this spot, but I also
have to be mindful of the rights of other property owners in our community.
Petitioner: We are --
Moran: I appreciate you answering my questions. Thank you.
Petitioner: Thank you, sir.
Henzi: Any other questions? I have one. What color did you settle on?
Petitioner: We chose a tan fence, it matched both houses. It doesn’t show dirt. There’s
no maintenance. It was also a neutral tone so that if she did want to look out and see
green and plant trees in front of it or anything else, it would not stand out. That’s what
we had agreed on and tan was the choice that we went with originally, sir, again, we
tried to negotiate and work it out. Unfortunately, it didn’t come to that.
Henzi: I just wanted to make sure because one of your neighbors, Eric Young,
specified a color.
Petitioner: Yes, tan is the fence that we selected, tan, beige, in that hue there, sir.
Henzi: Any other questions?
Caramagno: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: Sir, I didn’t understand the comment earlier about losing $2,500 if you
chose a lattice-top fence, tell me about that.
Petitioner: Sure, very fair. Given our previous discussions with the neighbors when we
did our first round robin of talks with them and we gained that approval, my wife then
went and put a $2,500 deposit down on the fence which the fence company we’ve
chosen Nichols Fence which is on Six Mile Road to come and do the job. They took
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 27 of 41 July 12, 2011
that money and bought the fence. If we were to change the fence, then that deposit is
non-refundable everything else that we have invested thus far would be sent back as
sort of a restocking, refund fee. I’m sure it is something that we could argue and
negotiate, but that’s what we were told.
Caramagno: So all the linear feet of fence they do they won’t accept and switch you out
with a foot of lattice --
Petitioner: I’m not saying they won’t, sir, I’m just saying that’s what we were told. I
haven’t crossed that bridge – if you’re telling me that I have to go back and try to find a
lattice top or a lattice accessory to that at my cost, then that’s what I have to do and I
will go fight that fight.
Caramagno: I just want to be clear about the statement earlier. Thanks.
Petitioner: I’m sorry, sir, did I clear it up for you?
Caramagno: Yes, it’s clear, yes.
Petitioner: Okay, thank you.
Henzi: Mr. Moran.
Moran: I was going to ask the Petitioner and maybe at some time but have they seen
the response from – actually in this case signed by Andrew Smith? I’d just be curious if
there are any inaccuracies in their opinion. I know that Sam is going to read this into
the record, but if we have this information now I’d just as soon hear the discussion now.
Petitioner: We’ve made three, four – we’ve made four separate attempts to talk to
them, the communication has all been initiated by us. Every time that we did have a
discussion it appeared that it was stall. I’m going to talk to this person or I’m going to go
see this or why can’t you do that, and those are all very fair. We did not badger them,
we did not belabor them, and we did not threaten them in any way.
Moran: But you haven’t seen their response yet; have you?
Petitioner: I have not seen their response.
Moran: I’ll just wait and let Sam read it into the read and then we can --
Petitioner: Thank you, sir.
Moran: Please listen carefully and tell us if you dispute anything that they say in here.
Petitioner: Duly noted.
Henzi: It’s so long you might want to get a pen out so you can remember what you
want to say.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 28 of 41 July 12, 2011
Petitioner: I’ve been ready to go most of the night.
Henzi: Okay. Are there any other questions? I see no one in the audience who wants
to speak. Can you read the letters?
Caramagno: An approval from Janice Generous [38685 Stacey Court] (letter read). We
have an approval from Cynthia Knitter [38749 Stacey Court] (letter read). W illiam
Whitston [16532 Quakertown] approval (letter read). Eric Young at [38658 Reo Court]
approval (letter read). An approval from Nicole Fons [16596 Quakertown] (letter read).
Daniel Bowerson at [38653 Stacey Court] sends an approval (letter read). Sheryll
Newton at [39083 Stacey Court] approval (letter read). Katie Kilgore at [38589 Stacey
Court] approval (letter read). An approval from Jennifer Perino [16628 Quakertown]
(letter read). And Andrew Smith at [38626 Reo Court] objection (letter read).
Henzi: Okay, Mr. and Mrs. Newton, what would you like to say in closing particularly in
response to Mr. Smith’s letter?
Petitioner: First of all, I have a couple of comments then I would like my wife to be able
to make a comment. I’d like to submit for your view of the photo that’s taken from our
backyard looking over the pool when Mr. Smith cited in his letter the vegetation planted
in his backyard. This is an east/west running fence there is not shadow cast by an
east/west running fence. And when we talk about the vegetation, you’ll be able to see
very clearly his entire yard is shadowed by two very large trees that are not maintained.
His property line is not maintained. And Mr. Moran, you were talking about why some
neighbors have object over other neighbors. I have to look at this and I take high
offense at his comment and I’m keeping myself under control, but I take offense at his
comment about the lack of maintenance on our property. We are investing in our
property and we are taking care of this property and if anything I have a picture of his
deck which, sir, I hope you would go take a look at – is literally falling apart that I get to
look at on a regular basis. They have no shadows, they nothing on their windows and
at night being an elderly couple they sit and they watch our house. I don’t think I should
have to live my life under surveillance because Mr. Smith wants to be able to enjoy
seeing the green in my backyard. And I appeal to this Board to be able to see that and
overcome that objection letter that he just wrote. And I will turn it over to my wife while I
take two deep breaths.
Mrs. Newton: We have been in the house for three and a half years and we have saved
for this project. In the three and a half years that we have been in the house we have
seen them outside five times. Three times since the first initial time that I’ve talked to
her she has finally come out and cut the plants along the property line which are on her
property. So, we have dealt with their overgrown plants along the property line for the
last three years. We have taken care of it. We have had the yard staked. We know all
this is on their property. Like my husband said, we have looked at their house, the deck
is falling apart, and they have no blinds.
Petitioner: She cited for us a story about how her two year old grandchild scaled a
fence and almost drowned in a pool that her son has and by the way, as for knowing
them, I know they have lived there a long time. I graduated with the son, Oliver Smith,
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 29 of 41 July 12, 2011
from Stevenson High School in 1995. So as for animosity I shook his hand, I have
maintained a neighborly relationship and this is how adults solve problems. I
understand that. I just hope that I’ve given you enough information and stated our case
clearly enough that it should be very easy to overcome this objection, sir.
Mrs. Newton: And one of his objections was the vegetation. He told us there were
thousands of dollars in vegetation. My mother is a master gardener. My mother came
over, spent the whole day looking with the six-foot panel or the shade. She said none of
those plants along the property line would be affected. The grass would not be
affected.
Petitioner: Apart from the deck repair issue, I think all those objections were something
that we have discussed previous and I hope that shows a willingness to have talked to
them and a willingness to work it out because nothing in that letter was something that I
didn’t get or didn’t know in advance except the deck repair and lack of maintenance
which again I take offense to.
Henzi: Okay, thank you.
Petitioner: I apologize if I came off strong members of the Board.
Henzi: Okay. I will close the public portion of the case and being the Board’s
comments with Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: Well, I have to tell you I hate when Petitioners come in and their neighbor doesn’t
want the fence, but I’m listening to their objections and I’m listening to your objections
and why you really want the fence and sometimes people come in here and they want
the fence because there’s a real problem of animosity between the neighbors and they
want us to make a decision to give one of them the fence and foolishly they think that’s
going to solve the problem and it’s not. That’s never going to solve the problem, but I
truly don’t feel that that’s your situation. I don’t think it has anything to do with anything
of that sort. I think you truly want your fence because you want privacy. You want the
safety that the fence would afford you because you have an in-ground pool, not even an
above-the-ground pool. I have listened to everything, every issue that your neighbor
has posed as to why this fence shouldn’t be there and I find absolutely no value or any
kind of impact of anything that they have said that would negatively affect their ability
to live in their house, enjoy their yard, and do what they want. So, for those reasons I
will be in support.
Henzi: Mr. Harb.
Harb: I believe that you do need a privacy fence and generally I think having it on the
side yard isn’t bad at all. We’ve given variances for that all the time and philosophically
this is our last board meeting here – it’s been like nine years, but over the years
generally for six foot fences it has always been if you’re on a main thoroughfare like
Plymouth Road or Newburg or whatever, or you’re on a main corner lot generally it’s
always philosophically six feet, but when you’re in a neighborhood situation we’ve
always preferred vinyl fences over wooden fences and generally we like for neighborly
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 30 of 41 July 12, 2011
purposes to have a five foot plus one foot lattice because it is less of a blockade look, a
blockade style. I can go either way but I would prefer – I think for your neighbor’s sake
and for your sake – there really isn’t that much room between your backyard, between
your house and his house, but he won’t be able to see through. You would still have the
privacy that you are looking for when its five feet plus one and I think it would look a lot
better in the neighborhood. So, I would prefer to go the five foot plus one foot lattice.
Henzi: Mr. Moran.
Moran: Well, with respect to the side yard variance request fairly straight forward for me
– two people want it. It’s not an issue. No objections in the neighborhood to that so I
can support that. I am very troubled by the one in the rear. I, like Mr. Harb, I even
struggle with the five foot plus the lattice, but I’ve been a proponent of that over the six
years that I’ve sat on this Board. Again, I have to say that when you put something on a
property line both people are affected the same. If I want openness and you want
closed, we can’t both have it the same way and it’s virtually in territory that belongs to
both of us, we want a certain look. I feel at that point that’s why we have ordinances
citizens have reasonable expectations that the laws that we have are going to be
enforced if you will or that’s what they are going to be encountering in their
neighborhood. You may not like looking at their property, but the difference here I feel
is they’re within code. So, I would like it to be prettier for you. The other thing I find a
little troubling about your presentation this evening extremely thorough. I don’t quite
buy everything but throw it all against the wall see what sticks particularly the noise
stuff. No question it’s loud, but you knew that living there when you went in there, but
there was nothing in your petition this evening about the no shades, the deck was in
disrepair or something. We didn’t hear any of that until you responded to their situation.
So, I don’t know that you’re going to be able to go back and get – you may get four
votes this evening so it won’t be a problem, but I don’t know if you can go back and get
the lattice approved by your neighbor and that would make everything nice and smooth.
You didn’t thoroughly investigate what Nichols Fence Company would do for you.
There probably would be some sort of financial penalty, but sadly you have to take
some responsibility as I know you knew this was within your control. You chose the
course that you pursued and the path that you took. So, I can’t support this as
presented tonight when we have such a strong objection from one neighbor and another
neighbor here this evening saying I want it and I just can’t support this as presented.
Henzi: Mr. Caramagno.
Caramagno: It appears to be a strong objection as written here a very passionate
appeal to this Board for what you want. Terry makes some good points. Both of you
want something different. I think you presented a good case here today, very, very
thorough in mind starting with safety. We’re talking about children drowning, (inaudible)
backyard, nobody wants to see anyone get hurt. So for the safety aspect of it I’m all
over it. I think that the effort that you say went through in changing the color, and the
option of the fence, and talking with this neighbor – you say you had a verbal
agreement. You sounded passionate about that, too, and I agree with it. I find that
believable. You offered a lot of options to these people to get what you wanted and we
don’t see that too often, normally it’s I want a fence and if you don’t like it too bad.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 31 of 41 July 12, 2011
You’ve offered a lot of options here. The options are quality options and I can see by
looking at your place that you take care of your property you take care of it well. It’s
very clean. Your garage was open, your garage was clean. So that goes a long way in
who you are. I find this objection letter to be very picky. A lot of times it’s spoken about
property values and I look at pictures that you show us if we’re truly talking about
property values and perception there’s a lot of work to be done on neighboring property
itself to improve itself alone. But it brings us back to what you want and what they want
or what Mr. Smith wants. He’s got some things to consider at the bottom of his letter,
the setback from the property line should be a minimum of feet. I don’t buy an arbitrary
four feet what does that mean? To me that means nothing that’s just some number
picked out of the sky, potentially no more than the legal safety minimum. Minimums are
minimums; you’re trying to be exceptionally safe it appears to me. The fence should
have slats instead of a plain wall. Maybe he wouldn’t like my green shirt tonight.
Maybe he thinks I should get a red shirt. I think that’s just pickiness. And again the
required pool safety, I think you’re exceeding the minimum and in this case I am going
to be in approval.
Henzi: Mr. Moran did raise some good points. I’m very sensitive to these issues. It
seems in my experience that in many times we have adjoining side-by-side neighbors
where somebody wants to put a fence along common shared driveways and the other
side doesn’t want it and like Mrs. Aloe said there’s some animosity and we’re very
sympathetic to folks who say I don’t want the fence for whatever reason. Unfortunately,
sometimes it’s because I don’t want my neighbor to have something, but sometimes it’s
because I like looking into that direction on my deck and it’s green and open. And
what’s troubling for me about the objection is that that’s not the argument and I’ll be
honest with you if their argument was we love to look at open space period the end, I’d
have a much more difficult time with this case. But as I deconstruct it, I mean he’s given
you the four foot. So, they’re not saying, I don’t want a fence, they’re saying we like to
look out. They’re not saying no fence. One of the other problems is they’re not here
and we can’t explain to them that look, they might get everything but your little portion
approved. What’s that going to look like? It’s not going to look good in my opinion.
What are you going to do put up a chain-link fence without their approval? No one is
going to like that. I think he’s conceding to a four foot slatted privacy fence. I think it’s
not going to look good given the fact that you’ve got the other three sides. So going
back to my example where we’ve got adjacent property owners, yours is different
because it’s the rear property owner who objects; however, you’ve got three others who
are all in agreement and this isn’t just one fence line and then the other fence line sides
are not an issue. Taking everything into consideration and also I believe the Petitioners
when they talked about their time line and for me that was important when they said the
initial objection was they don’t like pools. A lot of people don’t like pools. That seems
very logical to me that’s really what’s going on here. They don’t like pools. They’re
going to concede the fence because the problem really isn’t the fence it’s the pool. To
me that’s just I’m making an inference there, but I think that I don’t like sticking fences
in neighborhoods where somebody doesn’t like it, but I think that based on their
objection I can approve it. So, the floor is open for a motion.
Upon Motion by Aloe, supported by Caramagno, it was:
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 32 of 41 July 12, 2011
RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-07-37: Gary and Beth Newton, 38717 Stacey
Court, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to erect a 6-ft tall privacy fence without the
approval of the adjoining property owners along the rear property line (approval
required) and erecting such fence within the side yard, which is not allowed.
The property is located on the north side of Stacey Court (38717) between Quarkertown
Lane and the cul-de-sac be granted for the following reasons and findings of fact:
1. The uniqueness requirement is met because the Petitioner has installed
an in-ground pool and seeks safety and privacy of his property.
2. Denial of the variance would have severe consequences for the Petitioner
because he would not be able to feel secure and that his property was
safely protected from other children coming into the yard or even falling
into the pool.
3. The variance is fair in light of its effect on the neighboring properties and
in the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance because this is consistent with other
homes in the area that have pools and six foot vinyl fences.
4. The Board received three (3) letters 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 the property is classified as “Low-
density Residential” under the Master Plan, and the proposed variance is
not inconsistent with that classification.
FURTHER, that the variance be granted with the following conditions.
1. That the fence be a beige vinyl fence that on all sides be six foot.
We would request that the Petitioner please try to put a five foot with a
lattice along the rear property line to give the neighbor’s some degree of
openness.
2. That the variance be good for one (1) year.
Harb: Mr. Chair.
Henzi: Can somebody support first.
Caramagno: Support.
Henzi: Okay, go ahead.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 33 of 41 July 12, 2011
Harb: For the sake of this case, I will not support it if it’s a try to have lattice, a one foot
lattice. I will only approve this if it was a lattice, period. If it’s a try, I am going to be in
denial. I would then go for a tabling motion.
Aloe: Are you saying lattice all the way around or what are you saying?
Harb: I would prefer that, yes, just for the sake of the neighbors I think its fair and to me
it doesn’t make sense just to have lattice in the rear and a stockade on the other two
sides. And further, I would also request that it be no taller than six foot four inches at its
highest point because a lot of times what I’ve seen in the past is to account for a slope
at some spots it turns into seven and a half feet or seven feet rather than six feet. Just
for your information.
Henzi: So, you want to require it to be five foot with one foot of lattice on all sides?
Harb: Yes, I would.
Henzi: Mrs. Aloe.
Aloe: Well, that doesn’t bother me, I’m only concerned about the Petitioner and where
you really are with your fence company.
Mrs. Newton: The fence is at the fence company waiting just waiting – to go down the
sides. We planned on starting the sides while we waited to find out what we were doing
with the back.
Petitioner: The other thing, the re-order would also push back – we’ve been going
through this since June first, it’s now July. So, we’re now looking at three more weeks.
It’s going to be September before I can jump in my pool.
Harb: Well, at least the rear. If they want to have stockade on the side, that’s fine, but
at least where the Petitioner is – I just think, I know that they have plenty of stock. This
is the most common fence style, beige, lattice or non-lattice. I don’t think that that’s an
issue here. I really don’t. I think the cost is very similar as well.
Aloe: See, the only other thing we can do is table it and let you go back to your fence
company and see what you can come back with.
Petitioner: The only comment that I would have to that if I may make one, is that we
offered that originally.
Mrs. Newton: And they told us no.
Petitioner: And they told us no. So, now you’re asking me to go back and offer them the
same thing again at my cost which –
Harb: You don’t have to offer them, do it?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 34 of 41 July 12, 2011
Petitioner: But my point, Mr. Harb, is that we went to them originally with this discussion
as part of our investigation. I respect your points.
Harb: Mr. Chair, I will make a tabling motion if we can’t solve anything. If the Petitioner
doesn’t want that, you will have a full board in three weeks and you can get perhaps
four members that don’t agree with me.
Henzi: Yes.
Moran: Before we do that.
Henzi: Go ahead.
Moran: Go ahead with your thought but --
Henzi: I was just going to ask Toni what she thought, but go ahead.
Moran: I will make some clarification. I thought in your presentation you said that at
one point the neighbor did say that he would accept.
Petitioner: No, no, never would he accept it and then we offered – we said would we do
it if you’d be willing to split some of the cost? Again he said no, it’s silly that you would
ask me to help pay for this. We’ve done that. We’ve been down that road, sir.
Moran: My understanding when I heard you speak – just a moment – was that at one
point that’s what he requested and you asked him if he would split it and he said no.
Petitioner: Correct.
Moran: So, he did request that it came down to a matter of who was going to bear the
cost of this.
Petitioner: The previous discussion included a lattice-top fence, sir, when we also had
the initial verbal approval which included the full six foot fence. It then got down to my
wife and Mrs. Smith had a conversation and when she asked for a five foot with a
lattice. I then approached Mr. Smith and asked him and he said, no. And then I said,
well, what if we split the cost? What do you want? If I changed it to white, if I changed
it to a lattice? Again, he said no. His comment – what I’m really dealing with is why do
you need a pool when your neighbors have pools. I just throw that back out there to tell
you what I’m actually dealing with, with the neighbors. I’m asking this Board tonight so
that I may enjoy what little bit of this summer I have left for a motion to install a six foot
privacy fence and be done. And if I lose, I lose, but the point is ladies and gentlemen, is
that’s where I am at this point. To go back and do this and now two more weeks and
then I have to come back and get another building permit and another fence permit, I
respect your opinions, I respect my neighbor, I feel that I’ve done my due diligence.
And while we talk about the neighbors rights, my rights too sir need to enter into this
equasion as well and given everything that I’ve done I feel that I’ve proven my point and
I have nine letters of support for this. I don’t know what more there is.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 35 of 41 July 12, 2011
Henzi: Let us talk about our options here. So, I was going to ask Toni, Ken’s putting it
to you saying, I’d like to require at least five foot with one foot lattice in the back. So, I
guess my question to you is would you even go along with that because you’re right we
do need to evaluate do we have a consensus or do we need to table.
Aloe: Well, I looked at the points his neighbor brought up and I think his neighbor is
only going to be happy with a four-foot cyclone fence and that absolutely does not give
him any security for that pool or privacy and I don’t blame him for not wanting a four
foot. I don’t know that by telling him that he has to do that along the rear line – you
know, I offered that, that maybe somehow they would be able to look at the lattice and
think it’s a little bit open, but to tell him that he has to do that.
Henzi: You prefer not to. You prefer to keep it with what you had six foot.
Aloe: And I guess, you know, at the same time, they’ve taken some liberties here.
They’ve gone ahead and given money and ordered the fence without any kind of
approval. So, it’s, you know --
Henzi: Yes, well, they can also hopefully use – if we made a condition hopefully they
would be able to use it to their benefit with the fence company if they had to. Now, I’ll
come back to you, Mr. Newton, there’s some horse trading going on so in an effort to be
fair to you even though we are in close session, I’d like to know your thoughts. So, what
I am wondering is you’ve got three votes at six foot vinyl. You’ve probably got four
votes if the back lot line has the vinyl with lattice. So, your options are you can ask us,
go ahead and take the vote or let me come back and let me talk to the fence company
and we’ll be back in two weeks.
Petitioner: This is a majority rule council?
Henzi: You need four votes, yeah.
Mrs. Newton: Can I make a comment?
Henzi: Sure.
Mrs. Newton: Part of the issue with the lattice and I understand you want the look of the
lattice, but a child can grab hold of that, my child has done it, my nephews have done
and they can climb up the fence. That’s the big issue that we’re having is that I don’t
feel safe having the five foot with the foot on top. My child is four foot four. He can
reach up to the top and climb. He can’t reach on a six foot fence.
Petitioner: And none of the other pools or I mean privacy fences in our area have a
lattice top to them when there’s a pool in the backyard. We couldn’t find one. We could
find a number of wood fences that are in disrepair. We could find a number of wood
fences that are six foot tall with no features at the top other than maybe a wave, but all
the other privacy fences in the area do not have – and we’ve documented it. We’ve
gone through the neighborhood to take those photos.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 36 of 41 July 12, 2011
Henzi: Well you make good points but the bottom line is you have three votes in your
favor, you need four.
Petitioner: Okay.
Henzi: So, your options are you can say, hey, would you please table this? And the
reason that we table it is so that you can come back and then you don’t have to pay a
rescheduling fee and then we will have seven Board members. You could ask us,
please table it so that we can come back. We’ll have the opportunity to talk to the fence
company. The meeting will go much quicker. We’ll let you know where we are at and
we’ll ask again, or you can say, enough is enough we’ll put three sides up like we want
it and we will deal with the back, we’ll put it up. What would you like us to do?
Mrs. Newton: My question is can we put up the three sides table it and if we have to
pull a second permit, we can pull a second permit because at this point we are in the
middle of July we have a pool with two foot of water in it because we had to fill two foot
to back fill it. We have a child that can’t use this pool.
Petitioner: I have an open pool in my backyard with two feet of water in it and other
than a construction safety barrier around it that’s all I’ve got right now and no
trespassing signs. I am doing all my due diligence with search lights and everything
keeping an eye on this pool, sir.
Henzi: Yes, okay, well that’s fair. To Mr. Banko, so two questions. If we approve the
side yard and they put up the three sides but not the rear lot line fence, can they do
that?
Banko: I don’t see why not.
Henzi: And then what about protecting the pool? What else do they need to do?
Banko: They would still have to run the temporary because they would have to have at
least a four foot enclosure for the pool.
Petitioner: We have a four foot construction fence around it that we will string the rear
property line if you give me the approval to go ahead on the three sides right now I
would go back – I give this Board my word that I will go back and try to talk to the
neighbor again. I concluded it with shaking his hand. I will open it with shaking his
hand and see if we can come to some agreement. I don’t know what more I can do.
Henzi: Mr. Harb.
Harb: I will support the three sides six foot stockade style, but the rear the only way I will
support it is with a lattice – the property where the neighbor is complaining I think they
have some rights. I think it is a better look.
Mrs. Newton: Can I make another point? When it comes to the lattice, we considered it.
We talked to him he said no. The thing with it now is his line is overgrown if we get the
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 37 of 41 July 12, 2011
lattice then we are trimming their trees growing into our fence and that was the big issue
with us.
Petitioner: With all due respect to my neighbor again we’re at a point too where we are
now with the basis of our variance request being the noise which --
Harb: Can I just make a tabling motion? We’re not getting anywhere. They want a six
foot stockade and I’m not willing to do that so I think the best thing to do would – that’s
what you want is a six foot stockade; right?
Mrs. Newton: Yes.
Harb: Either gets denied and then you can never come back or you table it.
Mrs. Newton: Okay. Then we will table it. We will put up the three sides and --
Harb: No, you can’t put up the three sides. A table is a table and you can’t do anything.
Petitioner: So, just to make sure I understand right now my situation. I’m stuck if we
table this motion. I can’t do anything?
Harb: Yes, until you come back.
Petitioner: Beth, we’ve got to go put a lattice up. We’ve got to put a lattice up. I’m
going to have to pay it. With all due respect to the Board, I would ask that the vote be
taken.
Mrs. Newton: I guess I need clarification because we just asked if we could put three
sides up and table the motion to the back line because we have the agreement of the
other three neighbors.
Henzi: You’re right and we asked you what you wanted us to do.
Mrs. Newton: And I said can we do that and table it?
Henzi: You would need a side yard variance so the motion would have to be amended
to give you the side yard variance. You need it for the side yard. The motion would be
then for the three sides – that motion is not pending. These are your options before he
makes a tabling resolution I’m trying to be fair to you to tell you what your options are.
Petitioner: Yes, sir.
Henzi: So then she would have to amend the motion. If somebody wants to, I don’t
know if anyone would, but if somebody did then it’s three sides. Then you have to come
up with – you have to cover the – could they even use the pool then? They can’t, can
they because they have this temporary orange fence around it and that’s not a solution.
Banko: There’s not going to be any resolution to it, it would be sitting in limbo here.
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 38 of 41 July 12, 2011
Petitioner: Then what we will do is we will cancel the fence. I will put up a four foot
chain-link fence because it appears that’s the position I am being put into out of respect
for my neighbor’s rights. I totally I understand that, but I feel that’s the position that this
Board is putting me into.
Harb: No, that’s not – but if you want to do that that’s fine.
Mrs. Newton: The thing is we have a pool. When we started the project, I talked to
Mrs. Smith I told her – I went out with the plans. I said this is what we are going to do,
we are going to put in the six foot privacy fence, this is the pool. The yard was staked.
She said to me, okay, just bring over the slip so I can sign it. So, I went --
Henzi: You’re right and you also have the option of putting up any fence on any lot line
because you have signatures that doesn’t require a variance. So, even with the tabling
resolution you can always go to the ZBA office and ask them what can we put up
without a variance and go that route, too?
Petitioner: May I move the privacy fence two feet off the property line and put it on to
my property line? I’m sorry?
Henzi: Again, you’ve got three votes for the six foot but you don’t have four.
Petitioner: Okay.
Henzi: Your choice is I want a six foot stockade on three sides, five foot lattice in the
rear yard, or table it at which time you come back and there’s seven people and you
need four out of seven.
Petitioner: I guess at this point I am forced to table the vote.
Henzi: Okay.
Petitioner: Do you agree with that?
Mrs. Newton: Yeah.
Henzi: Any other discussion amongst the Board before the motion?
Harb: You don’t want a lattice in the rear at all?
Mrs. Newton: I want it all to be uniform.
Henzi: Okay.
Petitioner: That’s part of the property value issue, too, that was raised by Mr. Smith.
Mrs. Newton: If we are investing almost $10,000.00 --
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 39 of 41 July 12, 2011
Petitioner: But then the noise issue then goes away as well with the lattice.
Upon Motion by Harb, supported by Caramagno, it was:
RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2011-07-37: Gary and Beth Newton, 38717 Stacey
Court, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to erect a 6-ft tall privacy fence without the
approval of the adjoining property owners along the rear property line (approval
required) and erecting such fence within the side yard, which is not allowed.
The property is located on the north side of Stacey Court (38717) between Quarkertown
Lane and the cul-de-sac be tabled so that Petitioner can return before a full Board.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Harb, Caramagno, Aloe, Moran, Henzi
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Pastor, Sills
Henzi: This was tabled and again that’s to your benefit because if it failed, if the motion
to approve failed, you’d be denied and then you could never come back.
Mrs. Newton: Now, are we guaranteed to be on the next meeting?
Henzi: The next available meeting is July 26 –
Fisher: Actually, you’re too late for that.
Henzi: Yes, you’re too late for that.
Petitioner: So, now we’re into August?
Henzi: August 9.
Harb: We gave you your chance.
Mrs. Newton: Well, when you said we could table it, you told us July 26 was the next
meeting so we assumed that we could come back July 26.
Henzi: I misspoke, it’s August 9th.
Petitioner: Okay, fair enough, sir.
Mrs. Newton: Thank you.
Henzi: You’re not changing your mind are you about the lattice?
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 40 of 41 July 12, 2011
Mrs. Newton: At this point, I’m going to put up a chain-link fence around. I’m going to
put up the three sides and put the chain-link on the back until we get the okay.
Henzi: No, I ‘m serious, does the two weeks change your mind?
Mrs. Newton: No.
Petitioner: It’s we’ve gone this far, sir, so we might as well see it through – this is the
house we intend to live in.
Henzi: No, my point was you looked with disgusted when you found out that the
meeting was August 9th instead of the 26th. Does that change your mind about whether
you want five foot with the lattice in the rear?
Petitioner: No, sir.
Henzi: Okay.
Petitioner: The only issue is that it’s just that much longer that we’re going through the
process. That’s the disgust.
Henzi: That’s fair. That I understand.
Petitioner: I apologize if I offended the Board.
Harb: Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion --
Henzi: Okay. Let me just tell them when they need to get their materials in by – July
19th at 10:00.
Petitioner: What new materials are required, sir?
Henzi: You just call Jackie at the ZBA office and pick that day. Pick August 9th, but you
have to call her by July 19th at 10:00 a.m. The reason that there is a deadline is she
has to run it in the Observer and send the letters out.
Petitioner: Do we go through the whole process again?
Henzi: You can ask to have your same packet, but yes, the letters are sent to the
neighbors. You don’t have to bring in all the letters that you brought today because they
have been incorporated into the record. Tonight’s minutes will be transcribed for us to
read. When you come back the next time, you tell us anything that’s new, anything that
you want to change, anything you want to tell us about the fence company and then you
will have seven people to convince to get four votes.
Petitioner: If we do our due diligence in the meantime is there an opportunity to make
the July 26th meeting? If we were to go an investigate with our fence company, try to
find out --
City of Livonia, Zoning Board of Appeals Page 41 of 41 July 12, 2011
Henzi: No, I misspoke and the reason I misspoke is that the next meeting is July 26th;
however, according to Michigan Zoning Enabling Act we’ve got I think it’s 21 days,
Mike?
Fisher: Actually you have to do 15 days notice but we already published it.
Henzi: Yes, we’ve already published for the 26th.
Petitioner: If this is the only outstanding issue and all the issues are known concerning
it and the neighbors have already been involved in this, is it still in violation of the Open
Meetings Act considering that everything has already been put into play?
Fisher: No, it’s not the Open Meetings Act, it’s the Zoning Enabling Act.
Petitioner: All right. Is it still in violation?
Fisher: Yes.
Petitioner: Okay.
Henzi: Okay. We will see you on August 9th.
Petitioner: Okay. I thank the Board for it’s time.
Henzi: Thank you.
Motion by Harb, supported by Aloe, to approve the minutes of 5/24/11 and 6/7/11 ZBA
meetings. All were in favor, Moran abstained from the May 24, 2011 meeting.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at
8:35 p.m.
_________________________
SAM CARAMAGNO, Secretary
_________________________
MATTHEW HENZI, Chairman
/hdm