CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF NORTHVILLE Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 2018

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF NORTHVILLE Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 2018 DATE: September 19, 2018 APPROVED: October 17, 2018 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: Northville Township Hall 44405 Six Mile Road CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Excused: Brian Doren, Eric Lark, Joseph LoPiccolo, Gary Sixt, Paul Slatin, Paul Smith Symantha Heath Staff: Jennifer Frey, Township Planner Township Planner Frey confirmed that all property owners within 300 feet of tonight s petition had been notified. Approval of Minutes: Zoning Board of Appeals Regular (Draft) July 18, 2018 MOTION by LoPiccolo, support by Smith, to approve the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of July 18, 2018. Voice Vote: Ayes: All Other Minutes: Board of Trustees Regular Meeting June 21, 2018 Board of Trustees Study Session June 26, 2018 Board of Trustees Regular Meeting - July 19, 2018 Planning Commission June 26, 2018 Planning Commission July 24, 2018 MOTION by Doren, support by Lark, to receive and file the minutes from the Board of Trustees Regular Meetings of June 21 and July 19, 2018; the Board of Trustees Study Session of June 26, 2018; and the Planning Commission meetings of June 26 and July 24, 2018. Voice Vote: Ayes: All Charter Township of Northville Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 2018 1

Chair Slatin made standard introductory remarks explaining the role of the ZBA and the formal procedures of the meeting. Chair Slatin noted that there were six board members in attendance and that four votes would be required to pass any motions. He also noted that all variance requests approved would be valid for one year. Petitions: 1. PZON18-0009 Oasis Golf Practice Center, LLC, Property Owner Location: 39500 Five Mile Road (Parcel ID#77-052-99-0008-708) Request: A variance request to Chapter 170, Zoning Ordinance, Article 25.2.T.(2), Special Use Standards, to allow the height of the golf course net to be increased to 120 tall, where 80 is required and currently exists. Michael Garrison, 21042 Boulder Circle, Northville, was present to represent the request as a managing member of Oasis Golf Practice Center. Mr. Garrison stated that they were requesting approval for their net to be raised to 120 feet. He noted that approval had been given two years ago and a year ago they had gained approval for 110 feet. They were still in litigation and needed the approval to show that the netting could be raised. Responding to questions from Member Doren, Mr. Garrison stated that it was easier for them to have the higher height of 120 feet approved. He explained that they were negotiating with the Wayne County Circuit Court against Cedarbrook Senior Living, their neighbors, and that the litigation was solely the result of the netting because balls kept clearing the net. A compromise with Cedarbrook had not yet been made, but the approval of the 120-foot netting would help resolve the litigation. Cedarbrook had been trying to shut them down and the judge had kept them open on a limited basis. It was possible that litigation would be ongoing for another six months. The approval for the change in height from the Board had run out, again, and they needed a new approval because the judge could stipulate who would have to pay for the netting. In the meantime, they had attempted alternatives to raising the height of the netting. They had purchased a golf ball that had a little less carry that had worked pretty well but some big hitters still carried the ball over the current 80-foot net. It was almost impossible with technology to stop the ball from going that distance and a south wind at the range also kept the ball in the air for a long time. The judge had let them run on a limited basis with the new balls this past summer. Member Lark mentioned that the Board received a letter from Cedarbrook indicating support of the variance request. Mr. Garrison noted that they were all in favor of putting up the taller netting, but that there were only a few people in the country who could build the net and the cost factor had increased quite a bit. The Oasis Golf Practice Center was trying to offset the cost with Cedarbrook who had offered a little but they were still in litigation. Replying to a further question, he noted that the net was about 260 yards away from where people hit the balls. Charter Township of Northville Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 2018 2

Chair Slatin opened the public hearing at 7:09 P.M. Seeing that no one came forward to speak, he closed the public hearing at 7:09 P.M. Chair Slatin noted for the record that the letter mentioned had been from Michael Damone, president of Cedarbrook, dated September 4 th, and had supported the variance request that the net be allowed to be 120 feet in height. MOTION by Smith, support by LoPiccolo, that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve Petition PZON18-0009, for Oasis Golf Practice Center at 39500 Five Mile Road (Parcel ID#77-052-99-0008-708): A variance request to Chapter 170, Zoning Ordinance, Article 25.2.T.(2), Special Use Standards, to allow the height of the golf course net to be increased to 120 tall, where 80 is required and currently exists. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Doren, Lark, LoPiccolo, Sixt, Slatin, Smith 2. PZON18-0010 Jim Rizakallah, Property Owner Technical Group, Inc., Petitioner Location: 50595 Six Mile Road (Parcel ID#77-070-99-0002-000) Request: Variance requests to Chapter 170, Zoning Ordinance, as follows: 1) To allow a 50 building setback to the east property line, where 200 is required when abutting a residential use. 2) To allow a 20 parking lot/drive aisle setback to the east property line, where 100 is required when abutting a residential use. Jim Rizkallah, 50620 Hawthorne Court, property owner and Ellen Keenan, 4540 Burnley Drive, Bloomfield Hills, representative for Technical Group Inc. were present to represent the request. Ms. Keenan provided some history and information related to the variance request. The building was built in the 1980s and the lot was only 150 feet wide. The current ordinance called for a 200-foot building setback due to the adjacent residential development, which was built in 2005. The current proposed addition was a part of the original design and plans, but the building had never been completed due to budgetary concerns. When Mr. Rizkallah took ownership, he wanted to finish what was originally planned for the site. The proposed addition would be flush with the existing building and the original footings were already in place. The building and the site were not currently conforming and their mission was to make the site as conforming as possible. Technical Group, Inc. was trying to accommodate Mr. Rizkallah to ensure that he had the full value of the property. It was zoned as industrial and they were conforming to that use. They were also trying to increase the amount of landscaping and planned to create an increased buffer zone between the property and the residential zone. Township Planner Frey added that the plan was previously approved without variances because the adjacent residential zone had not been present. Now the ordinance required a larger setback from the adjacent residential use. Charter Township of Northville Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 2018 3

Mr. Rizkallah stated that the Planning Commission also approved the plan in 1997. Township Planner Frey noted that the addition of the residential development due to a consent judgment instead of traditional zoning had changed the requirements. She believed that it had previously been zoned as industrial. Responding to questions from the Board, Mr. Rizkallah stated that he used the current building for used cars for his online auto service to lease companies. They took damaged vehicles and sold them at auction. Primarily, everything was completed online, but they did occasionally do small repairs before sending the vehicle to auction. The expansion would be for three rental units for other businesses, such as plumbers or a heating and cooling company. Each unit would be about 2000 square feet. With the possibility of multiple businesses, Member Smith wondered about guidelines for outside storage in terms of equipment, vehicles or supplies. Township Planner Frey confirmed that no matter the number of businesses, they would all still have to conform to the industrial zoning requirements, i.e. all business would have to be conducted inside the building and parking would have to meet the requirement for the various uses. If a special land use was sought by a business, such as a landscape company that would have outdoor storage, they would have to go to the Planning Commission and have a public hearing. Member Doren made reference to Township Planner Frey s letter of August 27 th, which suggested that if the Board were to approve the petition, a possible condition would be that the petitioner would provide 50% more landscaping between the east property line and the drive aisle. Mr. Rizkallah indicated that he had no objection to the additional landscaping. Mr. Doren indicated that a correspondence from a neighbor stated that the dumpster in the rear of the property was visible from their property. He asked if the petitioner had a solution for that concern. Ms. Keenan noted that the plan showed that the dumpster was enclosed by concrete block and that there were proposed arborvitaes to hide the concrete. However, if that was not sufficient, they could relocate the dumpster so that it was not adjacent to the residential zone. Mr. Rizkallah added that the dumpster could be relocated to the opposite side. Township Planner Frey had spoken to the resident, who was more concerned about the noise when trash was placed in the dumpster and when the trash was picked up. Relocating the dumpster would be preferable and there was room to move it to the west side. Ms. Keenan affirmed that possibility. Township Planner Frey noted that the Board could make that a condition of the variance because it was directly related to the request of a reduced setback. Charter Township of Northville Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 2018 4

Member Smith wondered what was directly adjacent to the west of the property. Mr. Rizkallah stated that Arbor Hills owned 135 acres there. Township Planner Frey confirmed that the western property was zoned industrial so there wouldn t be the setback requirement that the east property line had. Member Lark asked how far the homes to the east were from the property line. Township Planner Frey stated that she believed they were about 35 feet. In response to a question from Member Doren, Mr. Rizkallah confirmed that no portion of the proposed addition would exceed the width of the current building. Chair Slatin wondered if any thought had been given to moving the driveway to the west side of the property and making that the front entrance for the building. Ms. Keenan said that would not work because the current entrance of the present building was on the east side and there was also already an existing concrete dock in the back for the expansion. Responding to a further question from Member Doren, she noted that there was no proposal to extend the dock. The current dock extended the full length of the proposed addition and was from the original design. There simply was no building currently in front of the dock. Township Planner Frey confirmed that the dock was already there. She also stated that, although not relevant to the Board, it was of interest that there were a number of other nonconforming items on the site and that the petitioners had committed to bring those items up to compliance with current zoning. For example, there were two driveways off of Six Mile and the gravel parking area in the back, neither of which complied to the current zoning requirements. Chair Slatin opened the public hearing at 7:26 P.M. Michael Lewis, 50650 Hawthorne Court, said that he thought he could speak for the entire culde-sac when saying they appreciated Mr. Rizkallah purchasing the land and cleaning it up. His one concern was if the half-acre common area for the cul-de-sac would be encroached upon. Township Planner Frey confirmed that all improvements would be on the current property and would not be extending east of the property line. Mr. Lewis indicated his support of the variance request and stated that he understood that some of his neighbors who were more affected by the plan also supported the variance request. Chair Slatin closed the public hearing at 7:29 P.M. Charter Township of Northville Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 2018 5

MOTION by Doren, support by Smith, that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve Petition PZON18-0010, from petitioner Technical Group, Inc. with Jim Rizkallah, property owner. The variance requests are to Chapter 170, Zoning Ordinance: 1) To allow a 50 building setback to the east property line, where 200 is required when abutting a residential use. 2) To allow a 20 parking lot/drive aisle setback to the east property line, where 100 is required when abutting a residential use. This approval is subject to the following conditions: The petitioner provides 50% more landscaping between the east property line and the drive aisle than has currently been presented. The dumpster that is currently located on the east side of the building be relocated to the west side with appropriate enclosure and landscaping. Member Doren also indicated that all plans and buildings submitted by the petitioner would need to meet the 2015 Michigan Residential Code as indicated in Township Planner Frey s correspondence. Chair Slatin said that all the standards the Board normally reviewed, such as practical difficulty, made this a straightforward case. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Doren, Lark, LoPiccolo, Sixt, Slatin, Smith 3. PZON18-0011 Fred and Paula Bentley, Property Owner Location: 18695 Fox Hollow Court (Parcel ID#77-034-04-0023-000) Request: A variance request to Article 3.2(C), General Use Provisions, to allow an accessory structure (a cabana) to be located on a vacant lot, where the ordinance only permits accessory structures to be located on a lot that has a principle use (a house). Dan Quinn, landscape architect and planner, and Fred and Paula Bentley, 18939 Bella Vista Court, property owners, were present to represent the request. Mr. Quinn explained that they were requesting approval for a cabana that was 14 by 20 feet. The Bentley s owned the adjacent lot, which was in Bella Vista. The cabana was designed within the Michigan building code and was also designed to be consistent with the architecture of the home. Member Lark asked for clarification on the size of the cabana since the letter from Township Planner Frey indicated 17 by 22 feet. Mr. Quinn stated that the larger size would be the actual roofline, but that the usable space, post to post, would be 14 by 20 feet. Township Planner Frey confirmed that the plan showed that the edge of the actual roof structure Charter Township of Northville Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 2018 6

was 17 by 22 feet. Member Doren inquired as to the approval of the homeowner s association. Township Planner Frey noted that they had received a letter from the Fox Hollow Homeowner s Association and that a letter would not be needed from Bella Vista. Mr. Quinn said that the cabana was located behind the Bentley s home and was not visible from the street and would not be visible from Fox Hollow Court due to the trees they would be adding for screening purposes. Member Doren mentioned the previously approved pool on the property. Township Planner Frey noted that the previous restrictions for the pool did include language for other accessory structures, but a variance would be needed for the cabana. Responding to questions from Member Doren, Mr. Quinn confirmed that there was no intent to enclose the cabana at any point but that there would be electricity. Mr. Bentley stated that they would have no issue to a condition that the cabana was not to be enclosed. Responding to an inquiry from Member Lark, Mrs. Bentley stated that the outbuilding on the Bella Vista lot was a shed. Chair Slatin opened the public hearing at 7:40 P.M. Donna Lane (phonetic) approached to speak on behalf of her mother, May Dubuc, who lived at 18677 Fox Hollow Court. Ms. Dubuc was the previous owner of the property and sold the home to the Bentleys with both verbal and written agreements on how the property was to be used. The agreements prohibited removing trees that screened the Dubuc home, building construction, and required maintaining the center garden. The pool and the cabana were approved, but the location of the cabana was to be in the north corner of the lot. Member Lark asked if any of the agreements were included in the deed. Ms. Lane stated that there was a signed addendum to the purchase agreement. She stated that every tree between her mother s property and the Bentley s home had been removed. She was also deeply concerned that her mother s property would now be overlooking a 17 by 22 foot roof. On behalf of her mother, she was sharing their disappointment that their written and verbal agreements were not honored. In response to a question from Member Lark, Ms. Lane clarified that her mother s lot was to the west of the Bentley s Fox Hollow property. Chair Slatin closed the public hearing at 7:46 P.M. Charter Township of Northville Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 2018 7

Mr. Quinn stated that they had been extremely considerate of the garden in both the design and construction process. The project had been designed around keeping the centerpiece of the garden. The cabana would be very well screened from Fox Hollow and they would be adding more plant material than had previously been there. Member Doren asked about the difference in elevation between the properties that would cause the neighbor to be looking at the roof of the cabana. Mr. Quinn stated that the cabana did sit below the grade and that they were planning to incorporate some large 12 to 14-foot evergreens to screen the cabana from the neighbor s driveway. He approached the Board to show updated landscaping plans that included tree locations. Mrs. Bentley stated that she had been in constant contact with Ms. Dubuc and Ms. Lane. During the construction of the cabana, it was a nightmare for everyone but she would do whatever was needed to hide the cabana from Ms. Dubuc s sight, and make it right. Member Lark asked to see the purchase agreement. Ms. Lane approached the Board to show her documentation. Ms. Lane wondered how they would be able to hide the roof since there had to be about an 8-foot drop from her mother s level into the area in question. Ms. Bentley gave further explanation of the location of the cabana as compared to her neighbor s house and driveway. She assured Ms. Lane of her intent to put in trees. Ms. Lane and Ms. Bentley had further conversation about placement and possible sight lines. Ms. Lane stated that she would be okay with the cabana if, as Ms. Bentley stated, the roof of the cabana would not be visible to her mother. Chair Slatin encouraged the neighbors to continue to work closely together. The property did now belong to the Bentleys and they could all be good neighbors. He asked Member Lark to inform the Board as to the purchase agreement. Member Lark stated that two paragraphs were somewhat relevant to the discussion. One paragraph stated that existing landscape and gardens were to be sufficiently maintained by the purchaser including fall 2017 trimming of trees. The second paragraph mentioned the removal of four spruce trees on the north corner and the possible construction of an open-air cabana adjacent to the proposed pool. He concluded that it appeared that the cabana was not where both parties thought it would be located. Member LoPiccolo noted that there had been an agreement on the possibility of building a cabana. Ms. Lane stated that it was agreed in the north corner. Charter Township of Northville Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 2018 8

Member Lark clarified that the document stated on the north corner adjacent to the proposed pool. Township Planner Frey stated that the lot goes considerably further south, so the current location of the cabana was still on the north end of the property. Ms. Lane stated that if the petitioners covered the cabana roof so that it was not visible to her mother, she was fine with the cabana. Mr. Bentley indicated that they were happy to provide that coverage. Chair Slatin confirmed that the petitioners had received Township Planner Frey s letter of August 24 th. In that letter, Township Planner Frey had suggested a discussion around accessory structures. A lot could have three accessory structures. In this situation, there were two lots that could technically have six accessory structures. The Board might wish to put a condition on this request to only allow a total of three accessory structures on both properties. Township Planner Frey explained that the Board had collectively looked at these two properties as one lot even though they could not be physically merged. When the Board approved the pool without a house on the lot, she believed the intent was that the lot functioned as a back yard. Chair Slatin stated that sometimes two lots in the same subdivision could be combined into one parcel ID. However, in this situation the two lots could not be combined. Conversation occurred between the Board and the petitioners on the possibility of limiting the two properties to a total of three accessory structures. Member Doren noted that if the cabana were approved the petitioners would already have three accessory structures. He asked if it would be acceptable to include the limitation of a total of three accessory structures. Mr. Bentley indicated that the condition would be acceptable. Member Lark had some hesitation on including that condition, especially with the amount of land the petitioners had. Township Planner Frey noted that the Board could look to see if the combined property was over two acres and could look at that requirement instead, which might allow more structures. Member Doren stated that they would never have approved the pool if they had not considered the properties as a single property despite not being able to physically combine the two lots. They were treating the Fox Hollow lot as a back yard. The restriction made sense when considering it as one lot. MOTION by Smith, support by Doren, that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve Petition PZON18-0011, from Fred and Paula Bentley, property owners at 18695 Fox Hollow Court, a Charter Township of Northville Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 2018 9

variance request to Article 3.2(C), General Use Provisions, to allow an accessory structure (a cabana) to be located on a vacant lot, where the ordinance only permits accessory structures to be located on a lot that has a principle use (a house) subject to: A maximum of three accessory structures shall be permitted for both lots collectively (18695 Fox Hollow Court and 18939 Bella Vista Court). The cabana will remain open and not be enclosed at any point in the future. The petitioner will screen the cabana on the west side. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Doren, Lark, LoPiccolo, Sixt, Slatin, Smith Other Business Chair Slatin welcomed Gary Sixt to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Department Reports Member Lark and Township Planner Frey gave a brief summary of the August 28 Planning Commission meeting. Township Planner Frey informed the Board that there would be a meeting in October, as two applications had been submitted. Public Comments and Questions None Adjournment: 8:20 P.M. MOTION by LoPiccolo, support by Smith, to adjourn the September 19, 2018 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Voice Vote: Ayes: All Charter Township of Northville Zoning Board of Appeals September 19, 2018 10