Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the regularly scheduled BZA for the city. Good morning in progress.

Let's get over. Welcome to the regularly monthly meeting of the BZA. The BZA are volunteers and receive no compensation. We are appointed by the city commission for staggered three-year terms. Under state statutes, the BCA hears three types of appeals. Dimensional or non-use variances, including sign variances, use variances, and appeals of interpretation of rulings of the building official and or other boards regarding any provision of the ordinance. Tonight, we have three dimen excuse me, four dimensional appeals. Under state statute, uh the appellent must show a practical difficulty complying with the dimensional requirements of the ordinance. It requires four affirmative votes. We have six tonight, six board members. So that's four out of six. And uh as I mentioned, all the cases tonight are dimensional. Our procedures are as follows. All comments are to be addressed to myself, the chair. Please rate to be recognized. The city staff first will make a presentation regarding the appeal and take questions from the board members. Then the appellet is invited to present their case. Only one person may speak on behalf of any particular appeal. Um, I can grant, excuse me, I can grant exceptions in the case of technical uh items that we may request like engineering or architecture. Uh, members of the public are then invited to come forward, identify themselves, and provide their comments to the board. Sometimes that's done by Zoom. The hearing is then closed and motions from the board are then entertained and acted upon. In all cases, this is not a popularity contest. Granting or denying a variance is based substantially on the appellent meeting their burden of proof. Can we please call the role of the board members?

Eric Morino here. Mike, Jason here. Kevin Hart here. Carl Con here. Richard Lily here. John Miller, Ron Ready here, Victoria Pelicia, Susan Shaket. So, as I mentioned, we have six board members, and it does require four affirmative votes to uh receive your variance. I'll call the role of the uh applicants. Do we have someone here for 400 Westchester? Yes. Thank you. Do we have someone here for 1788 Bowers? Yes.

Thank you. Do we have someone here for 488 Willlets? Yes. Thank you. And do we have someone here for 1573 Chesterfield? I don't see anybody here for Chesterfield. That's the last case, so hopefully they'll show up in the next 45 minutes. If not, we will have to vote on postponing. Um, do we have additional correspondents, gentlemen? I saw three of them. No, you have everything in front of you, right? And every everyone's received those. Have the uh appellants received copies also?

Yes. Yes, they have. Thank you. Gentlemen, before you have the minutes from the last reg regularly scheduled meeting. Do we have any corrections or a motion? Motion to approve. Motion to approve. I see a second from Mr. Kona. All in favor? I. All opposed. The minutes are approved without correction. Our first appeal tonight is appeal 2610 for 400 Westchester Way. Looks like Andrew is presenting.

Thank you. Andrew Ericson here to present appeal number 26-10. The owner of the property known as 400 Westchester Way requests the following variance for an already constructed rear yard pergo and TV wall. Variance A. Chapter 126 article 2 section 2.6.1 6.1 of the zoning ordinance requires that the maximum lot coverage is 30% of the lot in the residential zones. The required maximum amount of lot coverage is 30% or 2,354.40 square ft. The existing is 34.10% or 2367 square ft. The proposed is 37.33% or 29.30 square feet. Therefore, a variance of 7.33% or 775.60 square ft is being requested. The applicant is looking to construct a rear yard pergola with a TV wall. So, Andrew, so the current home is existing non-conforming, so it's already overlock coverage,

correct? Is that because the ordinance changed or did they receive a variance or how did that happen? There were no variance. It was just it's an older home. Older home. And so the request for this pergola then requires us to also approve the nonconformity of the home, the additional overage. Correct. because any change to the property even if this is a pergola so we can't we can't approve the pergola without approving the home bas basically putting it into compliance correct very good other questions Mr. Ray Andrew I I don't understand the first sentence here it says request the following variance for an already constructed rear yard pergola TV wall is that it was built without a permit okay that's what I wanted to know thank you

Mr. canvases. Sir, I always need a refresher when it comes to these pergolas. Is it the roof cuz this one says it's open that that creates that structure or is it the fact that if the cover is structure? It's the structure on the ground.

Okay. And is this a pergola? Like when I think of a pergola, I think of like, you know, four posts and it's, you know, it covers the, you know, the kitchenet or whatever. This at least from the drawing seemed more of like a I don't know like a fireplace patio with a TV wall. Uh I'm just trying to understand from the four posts and the the perimeter of it has the structure has slats right. Okay. So the sides are outlined. I believe the top of it is open. So okay. So let's back up here. four posts,

basically a patio, a wall with a fireplace, it looks like in a TV. If they take away those four posts, is this require a variance? I would say that the the TV wall would be a structure and it still would require a variance. Okay. It would just be a lesser variance. It would be a lesser. Okay. So, following up with that question, if there's other questions, if they had the TV on a stand that could be pulled in in the winter, they wouldn't need a variance for that. No. Very good. Other questions? Seeing none, who's speaking on behalf of this appeal?

Thank you. My name is Trey Bryce. I'm a attorney with the firm of Taffenius and Hollister. I'm here representing um Adam and Marissa Walp who are here. Uh we also have the designer Moser here that's here. Um and I appreciate your beginning questions because that's kind of wraps into the the thought and the the approach that we've got here. As it was mentioned, the the asexisting house, which was that way when the mo when when um the the Wolves purchased it, um has a 34.1% um sorry, did you say your the address that you're your practice? Oh, I'm sorry. So, we're the the the Wolves House of 400 Westchester. No, about you from your an attorney. You're

Sorry. So, our office address is 2777 Franklin Road, Southfield, Michigan. Thank you. Sorry.

Um that's fine. didn't think anyone was concerned where my office was. Um and so it's already pre-existing at the at 34.1%. So um we're really um the though it is a encompassing variance the the request itself is is is is a smaller um request of you know 3% and the reality which gets to the questions that you were asking the perlay is open air and it's a.3% increase just from those posts of of this of the coverage. Um the patio is is separate. It's not it's not covered in the in this li this part of the ordinance and it is otherwise acceptable um under the the city's ordinance. Um I said we're just proposing to erect this decorative trellis pergola the TV wall. Um it and as I mentioned it's 24 additional square feet but the ordinance treats it though open air as if it's a roof and a hard structure. And that's where the extra 257 square ft um that is required. But 257 square feet as I mentioned 233 of that is actually air. Um to uh grant the variance you have the the the standards of review um and I'll kind of go through and the first is that the strict application of the ordinance act unreasonably prevents the wolves from uh using their their property um as they would uh like to as it's an open air lattice. um it doesn't increase the imperous surface of of to the ground. It doesn't alter the drainage or the the runoff because it isn't an impervious addition. Um and it doesn't impact the neighbors as it's with any sort of runoff um increased uh drainage problems or things like that there. That leads

right into there isn't any uh negative impact to the health, safety, and welfare of the public, the neighbors, the wolves. Um it promotes out the the use of the um outdoor space, promotes use and enjoyment of the backyards consistent with how we all hope to use um our backyards and had the big uptick with as as because with remember postcoid um everybody had to do something. We all started using our outdoor spaces more. Um it meets all of the other zoning requirements. Um, and it because it's an open air as opposed to a covered structure, there isn't any danger of a precedent, a negative precedent that people will run in here and start building all kinds of extra structures on their properties. It can be distinguished. Um, the strict enforcement of the ordinance creates an undue hardship. Um, and again, all of these points are it's a repetitive because it it repeats throughout is that we're talking about 24 square feet of new coverage. That's it. 3% of additional coverage on the lot and through that it doesn't violate the intent and the spirit of the the surface the um lot coverage because it is an impervious this is a minim minimal impervious addition. It limits so it doesn't impact the runoff as we mentioned. There's no real visual impact. It's not a massing problem of a new real structure which is what the ordinance is is um set to create and many ordinance many communities surrounding communities um perhaps you've you've started to look into them. Mine in mine in particular changed the ordinance to properly reflect what these trellis pergolas are and the impact that they have and don't have to the properties. Um it's not a self-created situation in the fact that we're already the house was purchased at the overage at the 34.1. Um and looking at it the way the ordinance is interpreted um understandingly how it was directed, but it's an overreaching sort of application because it's

treating it as if we've got these hard roof surfaces and this the reality is that's not there. Um the variance will create substantial justice um for the situation and for other um the interpretation for others is that a reasoned application um shows that it meets the intent of the ordinance. It'll allow the wolves to use their property consistent with way lots of other um properties around here um use it. I we've done a study and there are 100 plus properties west side of Woodward with similar lot sizes that have a house and have these outdoor pergola trellis structures um that create the same situation that we're here with the Wolves today. Either they came in and were granted variances um or they were built without approval and there and there hasn't been city enforcement um to them. Um so the fair and consistent way in treatment um as opposed to a selective enforcement would be to look at this um in the realistic manner that this should be um granted um variance that um through all of that it shows this that um there's a practical difficulty um that's not created by the wolves as the the um proposal features only a minor.3% addition additional coverage. Um, it follows the intent of the ordinance. It allows the use of outdoor space. It meets the other ordinance um, zoning standards and fairness based on the use throughout the neighborhood. Um, and the city really dictates that uh, we should probably that the variance should be approved. So, we would respectfully request um a variance to the lot coverage to allow the 24 um extra square feet, the.3% um go through all the numbers because you got to have them. Um which then that actually is a an additional 257 square

ft or 3.2% for the new um proposal that is coming. Um adding to the house because it's a conjunctive um would add 576.6 6 square ft or 7.33% um additional coverage.

Thank you. Thank you. So, just question again, Andrew. So, I know we've had trelluses come in front of us before. Um and again, this is a home that's existing non-conforming, so it's already over lot coverage. Some of the homes you may have referenced with trelluses may not have been over the lot coverage. So, of course, they're allowed to have it because the city sees it as structure. But I remember us asking the city in the past, so if you take off the vertical slats on a trellis and you only had four posts, I thought my understanding was the four posts would be okay. Is it because they're connected on the four sides? You think that that differentiates this scenario and the wall? But we've always looked at the whole thing as structure and that's

So even if there's four posts and you have flags on those four posts, are we considering that structure? I mean, four posts. Yeah. Then you get into it being a fence. Fences are only allowed to go six foot and then this is at 10 foot. So, it's kind of that.

So, I appreciate your approach and you hear how we've already tried to break it down because we have had many trelluses come into the city um that have asked for variances. Either they've been built and then they're coming in after the fact or they're asking ahead of time. And it's it's about lot coverage, right? whether it has a roof or it doesn't have a roof, you're simply choosing something that doesn't fit on the lot based on the ordinance. It doesn't really matter how open air it is. Um the city sees it and we're not creating the ordinance, right? We're here to say what's unique about this situation

as well as you have an existing non-conforming home and now you're adding to that nonconformity. So, um that's a challenge for me. Um, and then you know with one wall up, let's call it one wall of a structure, how do you how do you defend the idea that you don't see it as structure, but with a TV wall, it's really a one-sided, you know, it's got a a vertical component to it. It does have the vertical component to it. You're correct. Um, but I would take the opposite position that I do believe the fact that there isn't a roof and it isn't covered. That's really what we're getting into for true lot coverage.

But there's something vertical. So, is it a fence? Is it a wall? If it's a wall, what is it a wall to? Something's holding up that wall. Like again, we don't create the ordinance. We're trying to find what's unique about this situation. I haven't heard you say anything that's unique about the property, unique about the topography, unique about, you know, your client's situation. Not that their personal situation impacts our decision, but I'm trying to see like we have people that come in that have been denied trelluses. We have people that come in that want to exceed their lot coverage that have been denied. So, what's unique here that we would be because you say, let's be consistent, right? The consistency for us is everyone else has been denied for exceeding lot coverage or for having what the city perceives as structure. So how do we get around that perception? What's unique here?

Well, I guess there's two parts of and I would go back to is I do think that the way that the ordinance is being applied is is ineffective and in unfair to homeowners across the city. And because the intent of lot coverage is very clear um that it's massing uh drainage runoff ability for that's water to stay on the property. Um and this doesn't affect that. So I do think that is unique. Whether it's look whether it's been looked at is one thing or the other. Um, the other is is that it is that there are I I don't believe I mean with these these properties that we're talking about look the hundreds that that we've gone out and found are very similar lot size, house size. So the only way to have those the the trellis pergolas in their backyard are either they were granted a variance or the city isn't enforcing the fact that they were done without permits um

or their the trellles patio structure meets their lot coverage. That's the other option. No, it's possible I'm saying is looking at it that does not appear to be the fact, but absolutely it could be true. Right, Mr. Counselor? Yeah, I guess this is a question either for you or the city, but I see on the drawings that there are at least three points where existing walk or pavers it looks like are being reduced. Does that factor in I guess I'll just go to this to the city first. Not for the structure calculation. No, that would just be the impervious.

Okay. So, they're mitigating the impervious surface by removing some of the bricks and paver and putting grass in its place, but doesn't get into the I'm just looking back at the Yeah, I don't think they're asking for a variance for right because we're talking about No, and I but Well, I was just looking at that because it was called out on the drawings and usually there's there's a reason when it's called out called out in the drawings. So, um Okay. All right. I just wanted to clarify that. Other questions.

Is the north side of the trellis structure the uh I guess you would call it the beam that supports the open joist above between that north face and the the south face of the garage. Is that all grass there between those two structures? What what's there? It's I It says existing garden posts and um looks like there appears to be a fence between the That's all been removed. I'm sorry. That's been removed.

Oh, okay. Uh but but is is that is that grass surface there? Is it sod? Is it is it additional pavers? U if you look on the u on the uh site plan between right here. Yeah, right in that area. Thank you, Mr. Ericson. Yeah, I'm just curious. Some paving there. Um, and an outdoor hot tub. Okay. Any other questions for the opponent?

The um I guess just the intent of removing 80 square feet of pavers. Was that to to help sell the u the idea of of the of the lot coverage and the drainage issue? Um, I mean it would it would roll into some of the drainage issue, but the the lot coverage and structure coverage are two different parts of the of the Yes, I I realize that, but but there's that was to just meeting those requirements. Two goals in my opinion, the ordinance, those are two goals by the city that are that we're really trying to control um, you know, with with structural coverage and uh, pvious coverage. We're trying to do the same thing, trying to make sure the lots Yeah. And the reduction was to meet those requirements. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions for the opponent? It's ready. Councelor, excuse me. I'm not quite clear about this. It's in the lower left hand corner of the drawing. It says existing trellis. What is What exactly is that structure? Is that what that means? Right there, the lower left hand, right where the hand is at? That's the structure. Yeah, remember it's already been built. So, it's existing. That wasn't It said existing. So, I was just trying to figure that out. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you councelor for your time

in the audience or on Zoom. Anybody who would like to comment on this particular appeal that is not affiliated with this appeal. Jeeoff, you see anything? I see. We have our hand. One just put their hand. Oh, there you go. Can we um unmute that person? I think the name was Jason. Yeah, it's half left on my screen. Yeah, let me get speaker. He's unmuted. We got two hands.

Hello, sir. Um, I think it's Jason. Could you please tell us your name, where you're zooming from, and then tell us your thoughts about this appeal. Can you hear us? I don't see the art gallery. I see two hands up. Why don't we go to There's a Timothy Murphy that looks like they want to talk. Let's switch over then.

Come back. Jason Tamarov, can you hear us? Timothy Murphy Murphy's off of All right, let's Mr. Murphy, can you hear us? I can. Do you have me? Yes. If you could just tell us your address, where you're zooming from and your thoughts about this appeal. Yes. Uh 540 Berwin. Thank you.

So, I'm three streets west of um the subject property. Um I do support the Wolves. Um, when I think of uh, you know, additional backyard structures, I think of impaired sightelines or um, flooding concerns to the neighbors property. And I'm just not hearing that here. It seems that uh, fairness dictates uh, granting the variance. Very good. We appreciate your feedback. Thank you. One last chance to go back to Jason. Oh, no. Okay. Can you hear me now?

We can hear you now. Jason, if you could just tell us your full name and where you're zooming from.

So, uh, Jason Tamuff, I live at 510 Westchester Way and I'm zooming from home. So, I live a couple doors down from the Wolves. Um, I can tell you that the afternoon sun is just unbearable um in the backyards because because of the power lines, the sun, the trees have to be cut very low and just the afternoon sun just crushes you. And so the only really option to have a livable backyard is to have a lot of umbrellas. And so personally, I think the umbrellas are very ugly. Um, and you know, I have no issues with having a trellis system that can be opened and closed. Um, it seems like they've kind of mitigated the runoff and the water issues. And then it seems like, you know, um, someone had already said that the fact that they're allowed to have a TV there if it was on a stand and it was removed, you know, in the winter or whatever. Whether or not this the TV is on a wall, uh, frankly, probably is more aesthetically pleasing for both everyone around instead of looking at some ugly, you know, um, um, post. Um, so I guess bottom line is I fully support the the um the Wolves.

Very good. We appreciate your feedback. Two more. Megan Part. Hi. Yes. Can you hear me? We can hear you, Megan. Please tell us your name. Well, we have your name, but tell us uh tell tell us your name and your address and then let us know your thoughts about this appeal.

Yep. Uh my name is Megan Parker. I'm zooming from 300 Westchester Way, which is um just a couple houses down from the Wolves. And I'm also here in support of the structure. Um the points Jason makes are exactly right. The the our backyards are almost unusable um in the summer especially because of the sun. Uh so I think the structure would be a great enhancement to the neighborhood. And and again to to also echo e echo Jason's second point, the other discussions about having a TV on a stand would that really would be an eyesore. An open air pergola is not going to create any drainage issues and it's going to be more aesthetically pleasing and an enhancement to the neighborhood. So I fully support it.

Very good. We appreciate your feedback. All right, we have uh Cody Williams looks next. Cody unmuted. Can we unmute Cody Williams? Yeah, it looks like he was and now he remuted.

There he goes. Mr. Williams, would you like to speak? Let us know your name, your address, and what your thoughts are on this appeal.

Cody Williams. I live at 386 Westchester, uh directly adjacent to the Wolves on the north side. Um, I just wanted to say that their uh rear yard project is uh absolutely beautiful. Uh, it does nothing but add to the value of not only their home but uh to the neighborhood. Um, this project doesn't in any way negatively impact our property. Uh, nor are we concerned about any drainage, storm drainage or runoff u onto our property. Um, this is the type of backyard that you would expect to see if you were going to purchase a home in Birmingham. And uh, I feel my wife and I feel that denying this request for variance and it sounds like it's just 3% uh, would be a real injustice and uh, only be a negative for the city of Birmingham.

Thank you. Thank you for your feedback. Anyone else? We have somebody under the name iPhone. Hi. Uh hello. Can you hear me? Yeah, you're unmuted. If you could tell us your name, your address, and what your thoughts are on this appeal. Hello. This is Joe Durham. Uh 421 Arlington Street. Um I uh I'm familiar with the structure, familiar with the backyard. I think it's a wonderful structure. Uh it fits in with the neighborhood very nicely, adds value to properties in the area. Uh, very tastefully done, well executed. So, I'm fully in support. Very good, sir. Thanks for your uh your comments.

We have a Katie Hempton. Katie, you're unmuted. Would you like to tell us your name, your address, and your thoughts on this appeal? Yes. Hi. Uh, can you hear me? We can hear you fine. Okay. This is Katie Abdon. I live at uh 415 Westchester. So, just across the street from the Wolves. Um, and I also support their project. I think it's going to enhance the neighborhood and u looks really pretty. So full pulling in support of um the trial structure. Very good. Thanks for your feedback. I don't see any other hands.

Seeing nobody else in the audience or on Zoom, we will close public comments. Um, you know, just my general comment, and I appreciate all the neighbors being in support, and I don't know that I personally think that it's an unattractive structure. The criteria for us to make a determination is not whether we think it adds value to the property or whether or not it it does or doesn't impact water flow or impervious. It's simply what is the ordinance. And the burden to the appellant is is to provide a reason why they can't meet the ordinance. and we have to look at all the different structures that come into the city and and again we don't create the ordinance of what is or isn't structure. We are only here to look at individual appeals but we don't have the ability to make that determination that something is or isn't a structure. We have the ordinance that that defines it only. What's unique about this property that would justify exceeding the allow allowable structure on the property with an existing non-conforming home and then this particular structure and the questions we asked the city were proposing scenarios where maybe there'd be some version of this that wouldn't require a variance. But um and I appreciate everybody in support of of their neighbor because that's what Birmingham is. Gentlemen, um do we have any comments or motions on this particular appeal?

Mr. Connell, sir. Well, I uh unfortunately agree with what you're saying. Can we start with some motions and then have conversation?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm going to make a motion for appeal 2610 to deny the u variance. Uh I was looking for a hardship to find something to hang my hat on for this um this motion and I really didn't see it. We've yet to approve a trellis uh on anything that's come in for a variance cuz I've yet to see a reason or hardship uh for this uh circumstance. And it's unfortunate this one was already built. But because there are no special conditions on this property that require this, I'm going to ask to deny this. Uh there is no hardship that I've been shown or explained. The granting of this variance is really contrary to the the ordinance way it's spelled out and it is going to result in substantial injustice because many people have tried to get variances and if we approve this one it would be an in excuse me injustice to the others that have been approved. So I make a motion to deny this variance.

We have a motion to deny. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Very good. Mr. Ready. Any comments, please?

Um, I am not going to support the motion. Uh, these these pergolas are really they're an odd issue. They're we're putting a square peg in a round hole here. Um, I know we've denied a lot of them. We've denied asbuilt ones. We've denied proposed ones. Um, we still have to look at them on a case- by case basis. We've seen proposals with opening and closing roofs and giant kitchens and um you know full-on you know utilities of every kind here. Um to me this is a whole lot less imposing. Um we don't have a roof, we don't have a giant kitchen. Um, we have a little bit of a wall where it it if you even want to call that, it's really, you know, it's a TV structure with a fireplace, which you know, if you take these posts down, I mean, you still can create a sense, you can still create the same thing without a variance. But at the same time, I think that's all the more reason why this is so unimposing. And I think the really we're talking about such a a minor amount here that in this specific case I can get behind uh this request. So I cannot approve the motion as proposed.

Any other comments?

Um I I I kind of wish the appellant had kind of gone through the process ahead of time. It makes it difficult to when something's already built to turn things down. Um but I would agree with Mr. Canvas here. I think there there are if you go along Westchester Way, there are several high I don't know if they're high power, but they're higher powered overhead lines that run along the West property line that go north from Lincoln all the way to Maple. And the trees have been over the years, you know, with the weather and and icing that we've had trouble with, they've been decimated. I mean, there's hardly any shade uh in the western sun. So I I I I see that as sort of a uh a a hardship I think and I think uh there's very little effect on neighboring properties. So I think substantial just to the neighboring properties would be uh would be fine the way it's proposed. Uh so I I um I will not uh support the motion as well.

So I will support the motion. I think there's a a lot going on here. We have turned down many trelluses, some with slats. This one doesn't have that, which in my mind is is a benefit. I My problem is we have a wall, and the wall to me is is a partial structure. And we have a home that's existing non-conforming. And one of the goals of our our community is to not contribute to nonconformities. because we didn't create the ordinance and the ordinance calls the structure to add more structure to a non-conforming lot would contradict the intent of the ordinance as well as not do substantial justice to all the people that have come in front of us with only trelluses and four posts that have been denied. And now they're going to look at this particular case and say, "Well, I want to appeal this or I want to take the city of Birmingham to circuit court because now they're approving them. they didn't approve mine and if we're inconsistent with our judgment then we are unreasonable to the community as a whole. Now, that doesn't mean the city commission can't look at this particular ordinance and change it. And I think they're reviewing that now, the overall community ordinances, and this may be something they should look at. But to arbitrarily approve this without any practical difficulty, without any hardship, without any reasoning, um, and a structure that was built without permitting in the first place, I think would absolutely contradict the ordinance as well as not provide substantial justice to the neighbors. So, for that reason, I'll support the motion. We have a motion to deny. Can we please call the role?

Carl Kuna, yes. Ready? Yes. Jason Camper, no. Kevin Hart, no. Richard Ly, no. Erica, yes. So, that's three to three. So, that means the motion fails, correct? The motion fails because it didn't get four affirmative votes. We didn't get four, right? But so now we need a new motion, but that's going to fail as well because we are we're deadline. It's true. Um well, who knows? Let's make the motion and see what happens. Maybe someone's going to change their Sure. I I'll make the motion. Uh

in regard to appeal 2610 for the property at 400 West Westchester Way, I would move to uh approve the variance and tie it to the plans. Um I believe here the request is is is minimum. Uh we we've heard some practical difficulties relative um to the sun to the minimum impact. Uh we do believe there's some special conditions applicable to the property. Um little enforcement of chapter will result in an unnecessary hardship in the fact that they can't fully use their backyard uh for its really design purpose enjoyment. Um the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the zoning ordinance um we've heard from a number of of uh neighbors here and while this isn't a popular popularity contest uh they're all in favor of of of this and so I think you know the public certainly has spoken out that they're in favor of it. So I do not think the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Uh and also for that reason would uh result in substantial justice of the property owners and the general public. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second?

Second. We have a second. So we have a motion to approve and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, can we call the role for approval? Jason Camper. Yes. Richard Loy. Yes. Eric Mor. No. Ron Ready? No. Kevin Hart. Yes. Carl Kona. No. So, I think we're I don't know that we've ever been on the board. I don't think we've ever had four. We don't have four. So, the the appeal is not approved. Right. But I don't know that it doesn't mean that it can't come back with I think you have to have a substantial change to come back. I think even if it's a tie fail,

still you need four. Yes. Which is why I said at the beginning we have six members, so we only can get six votes and we need four of the six. Yeah, I understand. I don't I don't have my Roberts rules in front of me. Um I mean they have if their attorney can find a reason why they can come in for another appeal. My perception is a substantial change like if the if the wall was removed, if something but um the appeal fails because they did not get four affirmative votes on the dimension. No, I agree with that. I'm just I don't know what the effect is as to whether or not they have to show a substantial change whether or not they Yeah, they can work it out with Jeff and the hearing. So, let's um Well, yeah, why don't we let the city and the applicant work that piece out?

Do that. Sorry. Um our next case is case 2611 for 1788 Bowers. Our pleasure. Good luck. Andrew Ericson here to present appeal number 2611. The owner of the property known as 788 Bowers request the following variances to construct a second story addition to an existing non-conforming home. So you'll be called up and if you're speaking on behalf of this, it'll be a minute. Sure. Thanks.

Variance A, chapter 126, article 2, section 2.08.2 Two of the zoning ordinance requires no sideyard setback shall be less than 5 feet. The existing is 4.80 feet and the proposed is 4.80 ft. Therefore, a variance of 0.20 ft is being requested. Variance B, chapter 126, article 4, section se section 4.74 C of the zoning ordinance requires that each residential lot shall have shall provide a minimum distance between principal residential buildings on adjacent lots of 14 ft or 25% of the total lot width whichever is larger. The required is 14. The proposed is 10.90 ft. Therefore, variance of 3.10 10 ft is being requested. The applicant is looking to construct a second story addition to an existing non-conforming home.

So, Mr. Ericen, so the second floor that's being built is not exacerbating the current non-conformity. Is that correct? That's correct. All the requests are existing non-conforming dimensions and there's no change in those dimensions. Correct. Very good. Mr. Camper, you had a question. No, I was just going to ask if they're going straight up. Straight up. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Any other questions for the city? Seeing none, your turn. You can probably use this one. It's better for Is that one better? Give us your name, your address, and then tell us why you believe this variance is justified.

Uh, my name is Dirk Moore. My address is 2486 Little A West Bloomfield, and I'm speaking on behalf of Christine and Wen Frius. So, we'd like to construct second story and um we're not exacerbating the uh non-compliance in any way. Um we feel the I guess the practical hardship in my mind is that if we were to build a conforming structure that the second story would be 3 ft offset um from the outside walls, which structurally doesn't make a lot of sense. We like all the loads to stack up on the perimeter walls. We don't feel we're introducing any sort of an eyes sore. Uh there's a lot of other structures on the street that have done second story additions. So no grossly dissimilar architecture. Um we're not introducing any new runoff or anything like that. Same roof size and dimensions. So that's kind of where we stand. I don't know if I missed anything.

Any questions for the appellent? See none. Thank you. Thanks. In the audience or online, anybody have any comments about this particular appeal that would like to present them to our board? I do not see anybody. Seeing none and no hands in the audience, we will close public comment. Board members. Mr. Chair.

Sir, I'd like to make a motion with regards to 1788 Powers appeal 26-11. I would move to approve both variance request A and variance request B and tie them to the plants. This is a pre-existing non-conforming home dating back to the mid50s. We've seen many of these in the past. The homeowner has a right to add an addition. They're no longer further. They're not further exacerbating the already uh existing nonconformity for a home that was built long before our current zoning variances. I do think that there's enough special conditions applicable to this property that the variance should be granted. Uh little enforcement of the chapter uh of this particular uh chapter would result in unnecessary hardship for the homeship owners and it is not contrary in my opinion it's not contrary to the spirit and purpose of the zoning ordinance and I think granting the variance would result in substantial justice to the both the property owner and the neighbors. So for those reasons Mr. Chair I move to approve.

Very good. We have a motion to approve. Second it. We have a second from Mr. Canvaser. Any discussion? Seeing none, can we please call the role to approve? Ron Ready? Yes. Jason Canvaser, yes. Kevin Hart, yes. Carl Kono, yes. Richard Lily, yes. And yes. Congratulations. You have your variance.

Yeah. Good luck. Our next case is 2614 for 488 Willlets. This is a case that came in front of us previously. Hi, Mike Morad here to appeal number 26-14. The owners of the property known as 488 Willlets request the following variances to construct a new home with an attached garage. Variance A, chapter 126, article 2, section 2.08.4 Four of the zoning ordinance requires a maximum midpoint roof height for a pitched roof in an R2 zoning district is 28 ft 0 in for this property. The proposed midpoint is 37.48 ft. Therefore, a variance of 9.48 ft is being requested. Variance B, chapter 126, article 2, section 2.08.4 four of the zoning ordinance requires a maximum roof height for a flat roof in an R2 zoning district is 24.00 ft for this property. The proposed roof height is 32.46 ft. Therefore, a variance of 8.46 ft is being requested. Are C, chapter 126, article 2, section 2.08.4 four of the zoning ordinance requires a maximum eve height for building in an R2 zoning district is 24.0 ft for this property. The proposed eve height is 32.46 ft. Therefore, a variance of 8.46 ft is being requested. Uh the applicant is looking to construct a new home with an attached garage on a lot that slopes to the rear. A variance was granted for this in 2025. The minutes are attached. Okay. So, best way to look at this lot is going to be from the side view when we get to here.

Okay, one second. Let me scale this down a little bit here. Okay, so here you see the lot is sloping from the front down to the back. I'm going to blow this up here so you can see the dimensions. We have a 27.99 ft to the midpoint here in the front which is right below the 28 ft. And for the flat roof we have the or the eve height excuse me and the flat roof we have the 22.98 ft right here. Going to the rear, we have the 37 46 48 to the midpoint of the gable roof from the rear and we have the 32.46 to the flat roof in the eve coming off the back. That's what's generating the variance.

So Mike, our typical question on this lot or this type of appeal is if this lot were flat, would this house require any height variance? No. And this grade that's the existing dropping grade is a natural drop. It's not being forced or excavated or anything like that. That's correct. And am I correct to say that the previous approvals they had the heights were actually higher and the variance request was greater? That is correct. There is uh roughly a foot difference in the the first variance and about a half a foot on the other two in favor of less variance. Correct. So why is it in front of us? Again,

when they turned the plans in for approval, there was some changes to the original approved plan that were up in this upper area here. Then you tied the original variance to the plans and we felt the plans were different enough that they would warrant you guys having another look at them. Very good. Mr. Came, you had a question? You you have you asked it and it was answered, so I'm good. Thank You wanted me to be official. I'm just going to add one thing that it did go past the one year for the variance request and they would have needed otherwise. So that's why they're also in front of you tonight. Very good. Any other questions for Mr. Mor? Seeing none, who's speaking on behalf of this appeal?

Uh, good evening. Jeff Clatt with Kger Architects 400 East Lincoln in Royal Oak. I'm also here with the developer and property owner Armando Yvar of AG Design Build. And can we do a presentation? I probably don't have to run through it because I think Mr. Chair, you kind of nailed all the various points. Very unique lot. We drop off, right? If the house was on a flat lot or had a little bit of topography to it, this would be this would comply fully. We we were here about a year ago, give or take, and we were granted approval for the three variance conditions. And now we're lessening them slightly. When we submitted before, they're always conceptual drawings before you come in front of the zoning board. So, we're able to reduce our height a little bit. We also had conversations with our broker. Those uh habitable attics are very popular spaces and I think we we enlarged it slightly. That's what we did. It was about 584 square feet I believe before. I'm sorry 489 ft. We adjusted it to 856. It still complies but just a little bit larger. So the configuration change and that's what I believe triggered the permit denial which then triggered our our one year ran out. Then we had to come back. So we reduced our variance request. They're nearly identical, just a little bit less, and we still have the same practical difficulty condition that exists. So, we do have a presentation, but I I think the conditions are already pretty clear. I just want to point out that

Okay. Oh, sorry. That it's not it's not a a fact that we sat idle. You know, we submitted for permits back in October of 2025. It's just the process. Engineering review comments came back. So, we worked through that. It's not a bait and switch. The spirit of the house is still the same. We still meet the spirit of the ordinance. It's just we have a very tricky condition with the topography in the rear yard. So, you're saying Birmingham's very thorough and that process has taken a little time. Uh yeah. Yes, for sure. I mean, well, we have we have a great building department, so we appreciate the people. They're not they're not voting on your I just wanted that on the record. Believe me, I appreciate all they do. It's for Jeff's birthday. They they're they're amazing. They help us through all of our projects. We appreciate it.

Any questions from anybody? Would you like to see the presentation or do you have any questions? I think we're good. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, we appreciate it. Any questions? We're more than happy to address them. Thank you for your time. In the audience or online, anyone have a particular comment about this appeal? We got one hand raised. Can you unmute them? Looks like we have Rick Lenell. Hi, Rick. This uh you're you're unmuted. Could you please tell us your name, your address, and your thoughts about this appeal? Sure. I'm trying to undo my video block, but it's saying you cannot start your video because it is disabled by the host. Now, if you don't want to see my face, I can accept that, but is that intentional?

It is intentional. I'm not sure why, but but we're good. It may affect our video quality if we have too many screens on.

Oh, no problem. Uh Richard Lenell, uh 2804 Orchard Lake Road, Sweet 203, Keo Harbor, Michigan 48320. I am here on behalf of Richard and Celeste Stewart. Their address is 520 Willlets. Uh and and I'm here on their behalf in opposition to the requested variances. I have had the chance of course to hear what's been said about previous variances, but I don't think that eliminates the points that I want to make on behalf of my clients. Uh first of all, an approval of these variances will alter the characteristics of the area. uh the this home will be significantly taller than what is already there. Um the grading issue that's mentioned, I can't deny that I I don't recognize that there's a change in grade, but it is a characteristic held by all of the homes in that area. My client's two doors away, but it's also three doors away, four doors away, etc. So, it's not a unique situation to that particular block. Uh in addition uh my understanding is if it's a variance are approved grades can be altered. In other words, it's not part of the variance approval. The approval is you can be this many feet above the uh existing or not the existing grade but the finished grade which is not always the same as the existing grade. I looked at the variances that were requested and of course I can't deny that they are slightly less than before. But I would want to draw attention to the board uh that the fact that variance I believe they refer to as variance A is 34% more than what's permitted the 28T variance B is 35% more than the 24 ft permitted and variance C is 35% more than the 24 ft permitted. And so these are not insignificant variances that are being sought. And for those reasons, again,

and I the one I'd reiterate is it's going to change the character of the area. And my clients, Richard and Celeste, enjoy the area the way it is. They have a house. The houses are very nice. They may not be massive, but it does not change the fact that they're nice. And most importantly, there's an established character of the neighborhood, and that should remain and granting these variances will in fact change the character of the neighborhood. Thank you.

Appreciate your feedback. I just want to confirm that if we provide variances based on specific heights that we are providing then a substantial change in the grade would change those heights and then this house would not be approved. So um the manipulation of the grade or taking more dirt out or enhancing this walk out would be a contradiction to any approval that would be tied specifically to the heights that are being requested and um and also the plans in front of us.

Right. And the plans in front of us. Um but again, you can take that up with the city. Um concerns about grades and water flow. We're simply here to discuss the practical difficulty to build on a lot with a declining topography that is not that a topography that can't be changed by the uh by the person building the house because they can't change the grades in the city of Birmingham. And so this lot would either be unbuildable because it's a walk out or you'd be forced to build the ranch which isn't something the ordinance requires. So um if the if the variance is approved it is specifically due to the uniqueness of this lot and yes many lots around it on the willlets do have the same challenge. Um so any other comments from the audience and or online excuse me on Zoom? Seeing none we'll close public comment. Board members, do we have a motion?

Please, Mr. Hart.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um, with regard to case number 2614 at 488 Willis, I uh I propose um I want to make a motion to approve A, B, and C. I think that the U appellant has has demonstrated that this is a very challenging lot and um in further investigation we have seen that there are other uh neighboring properties that are also in a nonconforming if you were to do some studies on some of the neighboring properties not necessarily on Willlets but on the uh east end of the uh property east end of the park uh you'll find that there are several homes that are u also challenged ed by by a significant slope. Um special conditions to the property are demonstrated that topography is very challenging, probably one of the steepest uh grade changes in the city. Um I think trying to force them to uh uh to to uh for us to do a literal interpretation of the ordinance would be of severe hardship. And I think that the uh the appellent has done a very good job of mitigating as much of the impact of I think it's a very desirable u structure and um I think that it is not contrary to the spirit. I think that it is in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance and uh I would tie this motion to uh to the uh the documents that were provided.

We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. Mr. Lee second. Uh, any comments about the appeal, Mr. Camper? Sir.

Yeah, I'll approve it. I just want to add to the record the fact that if this was a flat lot, no variance would be requested. Um, if we were at the front of the property, no variance would be requested. It's the slope and the fact that we're looking at the height from the rear, which is caused by that substantial slope, uh, which is unique to this lot. Um and so I will support um this variance because I supported it before for the same reasons that there is an unnecessary hardship due to the unique circumstances here. I will support the motion also as I know that this height requirement is a height requirement in most or all of the city of Birmingham. So because this lot is on a walk out and because it's on Willlets, it doesn't Willis it doesn't necessarily not deserve this either builder and or homeowner deserve to be able to build what anybody else can build in the city and they shouldn't have their a unique height requirement simply because they have a walk out or a a lot with declining topography. That would be unreasonable for the owner of the property. Um and I think and and I think many people on the street are commenting about the style or the character of the street. Um that isn't something that comes in front of the zoning board. Uh we are simply here to talk about height requirements and the challenge of unique lots. So um that can be addressed with the city commission but not something that comes in front of us. We have a motion to approve. Can we call the role?

Kevin Hart. Yes. Rachel Lily. Yes. Erica. Yes, ready. Yes, Jason Campiser. Yes, Carl Kona. Yes. Congratulations. You have your variance again. Thank you very much for your time. Good luck. Appreciate it. Thank you. Should be nice. So, are you here for I'm the final request.

Oh, perfect. We have uh our last appeal tonight is case 2615 for 1573 Chesterfield and the city will present here to to appeal number 26-15. The owner of the property notice 1573 Chesterfield requests the following variance to construct a new home with an attached garage on a corner lot. periods A, chapter 126, article 4, section 4.61A1 of the zoning ordinance requires a corner lot which on its side street in a budding interior residential lot shall have a minimum setback from the side street equal to the minimum front setback for the zoning district in which such building is located. The requirement shall not reduce the buildable width of the lot to any less than 25 ft. Required setback is 83.06 ft. The proposed is 24.83 feet. Therefore, a variance of 58.23 feet is being requested. The applicant is looking to construct a new home with an attached garage on a corner lot which abuts a lot in Bloomfield Township. This is the this lot is the remaining lot of three that were separated in 2020 2020. Okay. A second here taking so long, but okay. Sorry about that.

You need hyperlinks on this thing.

Yeah, it it was moving before faster. Okay, here we go. Scale this down a little bit, too, so we can see it. Okay. So, if we look here, here's the lot. The front is over here on the right. Okay. Basically, what we have here, the house is this sidey yard here is at the closest distance it can be from the house next door due to the distance between structures that's allowed, 30.45. So, that's the closest it can be. The two houses that are are giving the front setback are is this house over here which has a 96.11 setback and this house across the street which has a 70ft setback which is driving this 83.06 ft setback. So that's why here's the line right here of their buildable area with the ordinance. Their line they're requesting is this one right here. So the difference of the two is the 58.23 here.

I'm sorry. Can you show us with your the hand again? Where's the buildable area with buildable area is Okay. See here? See the hand like a door wedge? Yeah. See it's like right here. This is the buildable area according to the ordinance right here. Okay. This area right in here. Okay. Their request. How how wide is that? How wide at the back it's 1981 and the front it's 28.01. 01. Okay. And um double their

their request is from is right here from right here to right here which is the 58.23 variance. So Mike, this corner lot I a lot of times you used to say it's a sideyard with a front yard setback or you had some phrasing for that but this is a very typical for all of Birmingham and most municipalities that a corner lot has I call it two front setbacks even though one is a side. Um, it looks like the debate might be how big is that? And we use the averages along, you know, the road and you've got two averages, one in this Bloomfield Hills lot that might be extreme or might not be and then you have the one adjacent to it and you're taking those averages and that's pushing it back. Um, there is an ordinance that says we can't force a house to be less than 25 ft, but we have 28 ft for the envelope for looks like the majority of it's more than 25. So, they have the ability to build 25. Um, what am I missing? Anything?

Um, no, that's that's the nuts and bolts of that. Um, and like what's a I mean, is a regular front setback for a lot this size in Birmingham usually? Like, is it always based on an average? Is there ever a minimum like 30 ft's the minimum or 40 feet's the minimum? 25 is the number if there is no house within 200 feet. So the average comes in is 200 ft in either direction from the lot. And if there happens to not be any homes within 200 ft of it, then it's a 25t. But if it sits on a vacuum. Very good. Other questions? Mr. Ready

Mike. If this was an interior lot, what would the side uh setback requirements be? Say you just hypothetically this was in a normal interior lot without it being a this sort of unusual door wedge shape forced by another house that's apparently not even in Birmingham. So what would the normal sideyard setbacks be? It's this line right here. You see this line right here?

Yeah. This one you they can't get closer to this line here. This the south line is because of the distance between structures. They're required to be uh the 30 uh the 30.45 four five feet away. So the balance of their total their lot width at the front setback line is 121.79. 25% of that is what they're required is 30.45. So the balance of that would be 1988 right here. So they would comply with that if it was a hypothetically if this was interior lot they could build from this line right here. Okay.

To this line right here with the caveat of the lot coverage amount 30%. They could that's they could put the house in that envelope. So that would so everything else complies and this is being driven by the fact that it's sort of unusual lot in the sense that all the other houses are set way back. Correct. What? Well, what what's driving the the distance requirement from for this here for this to be the the front setback line or the side setback line is the fact that this lot over here and the lot across the street have large setbacks. Thank you. But just for clarity, this is not a side yard. So,

I understand that. and and the comment about the other lot being in Bloomfield Hills doesn't those two questions together don't go together because the one next door regardless of what city is and impacting how big that front step back is but it is still a front because it's still on the main road. So you know if it were a sideyard he wouldn't be here but it is a corner lot. We can debate whether or not the house next door is a outlier. And if it is an outlier and we accept that, what would the setback be if that wasn't taken into consideration? But there is no scenario where there isn't a corner lot, right? Because we're on a main road.

No, I understand that. But I I do I do think having a a residence that is that's in the equation that's not part of the city, I do think that's relevant. Unless I'm the city does not believe it's relevant. I think it's a relevant discussion we have to have. So, let's go let's go to that question to Mike real quickly. If that lot didn't exist, because it isn't in Birmingham, not that that's actually relevant or not legally what we're being told, what would that sideyard setback be if that outlier from right here? Okay. If that lot was taken out of the equation, they would be subject to the 70ft lot across the street. So, their 70 foot minimum would be from here to here. So they still

that would be a 45.17 foot, right? They're building a ranch and so they're three times larger than the current width of the building. They're going from 25 to almost 75. If we had this scenario, it might be 45 to 80. So it might be double, but even if you take out the Bloomfield Hills outlier, if it's an outlier, um you still would need a drastic variance. Okay. Double the almost double the envelope.

Yeah. Yeah. Uh uh Mr. Morhead, also the uh the township property, that's a that's a court, that's a front-facing Corton Road on the property to the west, which is in Bloomville Township. Now, if that was the city of Birmingham, that would adversely affect the entire property because of the front set back onto Corton, right? If we'd have to do 200 feet to the uh to the west of the property. So even you know using if if we are applying a rule of how difficult this property is that property to the west would have a significant impact on the side setback because it's a front setback for the adjacent property. Is that is that correct?

You're asking if if we if we were if you were building a home on the adjacent lot. No. No. I'm saying if we were if if that adjacent lot to the west of us was Birmingham that that wouldn't that would not change anything. It would not change anything. Okay. Because we are using that front setback of that home in the equation. Okay. It is entered into it on the previous slide to this. Okay. This one does this this one here does not include that that house. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. So um the problem I was having with this was the 70 foot variance between the joint the neighboring lot and this lot and that there was a difference from where it was measured. Is that because of the utilities in the front of this lot off Big Beaver? You mean the difference between the 70 across the street and this lot lot next door? Right. The rightway does change dimensions there because when I look at it, you know, from an aerial, I don't see any variance from the rightway.

It looks it looks the same regardless of that. When I look at the adjoining lot that we're comparing it to, the 70 foot, when I look at these setbacks, yeah, when I look at these setbacks, I'm thinking in consistency and aesthetics for, you know, the street. And if you do an aerial view, this house, the next door house, is consistent with all the houses down Big Beaver. They're all at that same point going forward. And the appellant here is asking for uh property that goes beyond that so it would stick out closer to the road. Is that absolutely I mean it would it would it would definitely what they're asking for is moving closer to the road. Well significant I mean like it's already been mentioned that you know we

the numbers are there yes to get 25 ft minimum for code to build the house you know wider than 25 ft. We only need four or five feet of a variance to uh to allow that size of a structure. They don't even need a variance. The 25 ft is a is a right. I believe what he's saying on the previous I'll go back to this slide here that this the the buildable area is not a rectangle or it's an odd shaped and it's only 19.81 ft in the in the rear. So it's a 25 foot house. I don't know where that line would be to get a 25 foot house in there. Right. Right. So a few feet would get that minimum. It's 165 ft long.

Yes. So my my I guess my question is were there other proposals besides the extreme of 70 ft with such a narrow lot and now going the other extreme and making it enormous amount of variance beyond what the other houses are. It's projecting closer to the appella can speak to their their plans of how they attack this.

Okay. I mean, the challenge is that if you're building a ranch and you're limited to 25 ft, you're not going to gain any square footage to try to get more structure. And so 25 by 160 or whatever it is is the biggest you're going to get. If you build a colonial or a Cape Cod with some structure on the second floor, you could potentially double your square footage and not have to build a a sliver of a home. So, I think those two things and I'm sure the appellent will talk about what his buyers, you know, the homeowner or whoever they're building this for. Any other questions for please? Mr. Came.

So, if we didn't grant the variance or if we granted a if they requested a lesser v variance, everything between the house and quarton is considered sideyard. Correct. Yes. Everything on that north side is a sideyard with a component of a front yard setback only. Right. And like in terms of usable like pool or pergola or anything else like they nothing could be built in in that area. Correct. Correct. That would be what's called a required sideyard.

Okay. So now you're talking about just open green space and you're creating basically a larger rightaway. And I guess how how large is the rightway? cuz I know there's there's a sidewalk, there's a there's a little mountain area, and then it kind of dips down. The width the width varies here. I could get to that. We can probably see it on this one right here. Okay, there we go. Okay. Yeah, does change. It's 120 ft wide as a total rightway. So, there'd be 60 ft off the center line of the road. But cordon also property line. Yeah. coordinate angles a little bit there.

But here's what it does. It does this side does change and they're not showing it here what it is, but the rightway is different on this side of the street. There is a jog in the rightway at this point. Correct. Because the sidewalk kind of goes a little way because the the road is a little bit angled there. That's correct. Okay. You good? Yeah, I'm good. Thanks, Mr. Hurt. Sorry. Sorry. Uh Mr. Mr. Morris, the the I know you said this before, but across the street north of Corton on the other side of Cordon, that is Bloomfield Township or Bloomfield Hills. That would be Bloomfield Hills. Okay. City. So, our the the border of Birmingham stops right at this lot. Yeah. That the this corner of the lot back here is a property city corner. Got it.

Thank you. Very good. Any other questions for the city? Seeing none, sir, your turn. Good evening, members of the boarding board of zoning appeals. My name is Brad Dere. I'm the lead architect at Sapphire Luxury Homes and Landscaping. That's your address. Oh, you maybe were about to give

Oh, sorry. Um, our address is 775 um Industrial Court, Bloomfield Township. Uh, 48320 48302. Sorry. Um, I want to thank you first for your time and for considering our request this evening. As Mr. Morad outlined, "We are requesting a dimensional variance related to the corner lot side street setback along Courtton Road for the property at 1573 Chesterfield Avenue. We are proposing a new single family residence designed to be consistent with and complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood. I've prepared a brief presentation to clearly illustrate our request and the practical difficult difficulties associated with this lot. Uh do we have that? If you can go to the next slide for me.

One second here. Sure. Okay. Oops. Sorry. This is a Let me go here. Let me try this. There we go. Okay.

All right. Um, per the zoning ordinance, a corner lot with an abuing interior residential lot along its side street, which in this case is Courton Road, must maintain a setback equal to the minimum front yard side street setback of the zoning district. To your point, two front yards. The front setback is defined as the average distance of the homes within 200 f feet of the side street. As was outlined, this includes 1935 Corton, which is located in Bloomfield Township, and that one has a 96 and change setback from Courtren, and then also 1564 Chesterfield, which has a 70 foot street setback. Um, per the diagrams that were shown, if you can go to the next slide for me. So basically because the Bloomfield Hills lot or Bloomfield Township, I'm sorry, that is our interior abudding lot. So that's what's triggering the corner lot. All of the other lots in this situation don't apply. So it's only this Bloomfield Township lot that is triggering the corner lot setback. So to kind of

It's not triggering that it's a corner lot. You're just saying it's triggering the distance the distance requirement because it has to be an interior abudding lot. So the opposite Chesterfield one across the street that's factoring into this. It is not a budding nor is it interior. So that is the only one that's making us follow the 200 ft average setback for the two streets. Does that make sense?

Is that accurate? Well, what he's saying is that that lot if if that lot was facing the other way, that would be it would not be that definition of an interior budding lot. That's the lot that is driving it because it is the interior lot, but it would still be a corner lot requiring a distance equal to 200 feet. No, it if if a if a if you have a backto back lot and then it's a it's a 10-ft setback. Correct. if you have backtoback. Right. Right.

It's only because it's an abuing and an interior lot. So the other Chesterfield lot that's being counted in the setback calculation is not an interior abuing lot. So that's what's triggering into I believe it was your point and it was outlined in our diagram. If that wasn't part of this equation, we actually only have to be 10 ft for a principal building and 15 ft for a garage or accessory structure from Courton Road, which is even further out. And I have a diagram that shows this, which is even further past the averaged number that was a resultant of what we showed. That is only strictly a result of us coming further to the south to be as far away from court road as possible.

Right. The existing condition is the condition forcing it. And if that existing condition didn't exist in a perfect world, no even required, right? Okay. Okay. Um, next slide, please.

So, this has kind of been touched on. These are the two lots that are were being compared to something I'll touch a little bit more on. You can see there are very different in proportion and scale to our lot. So there's a very difference from that and it was mentioned in the presentation. Our lot is the remaining of these three Chesterfield lots there that used to be one lot that actually faced Corton as well. It's been subdivided. So it's kind of uh uniquely different from that. Next slide if you would. This was also talked about. So following the the ordinance to a T. If we take the 96 feet and the 70 feet from these two lots that are being factored into, we're left with a very small door stop or pies-shaped piece piece here, it is 28 ft at the front, which does meet the exceed the minimum requirement of 25 ft, but it does taper back to 19 ft. Um, so building a rectal linear space in there would be limited. Also, furthermore, um, if we do follow that, we are restricted to 13.7% lot coverage as a maximum, and that's irregardless of if we're going up two or three stories. Understand we can get more square footage, but we're still entitled to dramatically less um lot coverage than our neighboring uh our neighboring parcels, as well as what the spirit and the intent of the ordinance is meant to allow us for. Next slide, please. Similarly, if we do kind of take the Bloomfield lot out of the equation, we're still left with a very difficult um and unreasonable, in my opinion, uh buildable lot. This is still dramatically below the 30% maximum that's allowed per the zoning ordinance at only 21.2%. Next slide, please. And then, this was kind of touched on the presentation, but this is something I want to kind of draw more attention to. the right of way on the north side or not sorry the north

side the east side is only 33 feet at our property it is 60 feet so just applying that 70 ft or 83 ft for our lot compared to 1564 Chesterfield which has the 70 foot it's a dramatically different there's already an implicit difference in how that 70 ft or 83 feet depending on how we look at it is applied They're able to be much closer to Courton Road than we would because of this jog in the right ofway, which we believe is left over from old platting. Um, uh, something that happened with the platting years before any of us were involved. Next slide, please. So, you can see here, um, furthermore, kind of our point with the 70 ft is if we do follow the 70 ft, that's just part of 1964. Chesterfield across the street, they have 310 feet of frontage. We have 123 feet. So, if you take that 70 feet and divide it by the overall width of the lot, we're at um that's 56 1.5% of our frontage compared to only 22 1.5% for 1564. So, again, it's out of compliance. It's disproportionately restrictive to us than our neighboring parcel. that is who is you know in part why we're asking for this variance. They're also a very narrow lot, right? So, they're forced to build greater along that frontage because they don't have the width to do it

right. Um, but these conditions, the right of way, the um splitting of the lots, the scale of the lots adjacent to us, the being on the border of Birmingham and Bloomfield Township, none of none of which we created. Those are not self-created hardships. Next slide, please. Um so here's the first time to kind of see what we are proposing. Um we're producing we're proposing a reduced side street setback of 24.83 ft. This allows the property to achieve a 30 30% lot coverage which is uh provided by the ordinance and I believe it was your point as well. This also allows us to have a functional rear yard that we can enjoy the same enjoyment as other um other property owners. This would allow ample space for a pool, patio, things that we have already shown. If we do stay within the building envelope that's determined by this, we have all this green space going towards Corton that we can't put anything in. It's basically unusable space for our enjoyment of the property. And I don't think that's what the spirit of the ordinance. Next slide, please. Finally, just to kind of go through um a little bit of what's happening here. So, we are being compared to two lots to the east and to the west, which are large scale, very different in dimensions when I feel like a more reasonable approach would be to compare us to the two properties directly to the south along Chesterfield, which we will front. Those are also recently built homes. They are part of this subdivided lot and they are um while we are proposing a slightly larger or slightly wider home, we are actually proposing to use less

percentage of our width than the two to the direct south. So we feel that there is a much better comparison between these three lots highlighted in blue and green than there are to the Chesterfield lot across the street and the Bloomfield Township lot. Again, you know, while we are increasing, if you can go to the next slide for me, while we are increasing the request and we are going, you know, we're asking for a substantial sideyard setback as kind of discussed in the presentation and what I highlighted on earlier. The green line is or the green box is what we're presenting to be within. If we're just following the, you know, the setback balance between the minimum to the south and then the balance to the north, that's that yellow bar that we're not proposing to be a part of. And then if there was no abudding interior lot, which in my opinion there isn't with it only being part of Bloomfield Township, then those red lines above there would be the actual setback. So, we're not trying to push up against what is in our mind the perceived actual restrictions of this lot, but we're trying to build something that's thoughtful and characteristic with the neighboring and adjoining homes. Next slide, please. Trying to provide a very thoughtful and sophisticated home that enhances the neighborhood. And you can just flip through the next couple slides while we're talking. We are proposing a ranch which um we feel is a really nice kind of gateway into the city. This Chesterfield entrance is somewhere that a lot of people come through and um we feel like you know as it as I said it it's very consistent with the houses to the south and we have the direct support of 1564 Chesterfield across the street. uh you would have received more comprehensive letters from them as well

as the direct neighbor to um our south. So, not only do we feel like we're proposing something consistent with the neighborhood and within the spirit of the ordinance, we believe there are unique circumstances to this lot, um, a lot outside of the city's jurisdiction, a change in the right of way, um, inconsistent lot comparisons for what we're being compared to, and feel that we have, um, gone and created something that would fit with the neighborhood and with the two direct neighbors to the south um and to the east um being in support of it. We don't feel like we're causing any harm to anyone and I strongly um I want to thank you for taking the time and hearing my request. I'm sorry if that was long. There's a lot of lot of information to get through. Um happy to answer any questions you have and I hope uh that you approve our request.

Thank you for your presentation. Can you scroll back to the one maybe like four back where there's just the blue version of their home on the property? One more right there. So my perception of what's occurring here and please correct. And by the way, is this a lot that you're building as a speck home or do you have a homeowner that owns the lot or what's the story? This is a model home for us. Model home. Very nice. Um so it looks like in my opinion, you can feel free to correct me that you're trying to preserve enough space for a pool. um which is beautiful in your presentation or at least in your documentation. And the house across the street that is very shallow and wide doesn't have room for a pool. Mhm.

And this lot, I'm sure when you bought it, you know, you knew the limitations of the building envelope. Maybe not what the averages would calculate out to, but that you didn't have an envelope would be wide enough to achieve this. But if you were to take this home and make it less rectangular and make it more square and or not even square but make it so that you're using up more rear yard where a pool wouldn't be feasible.

You could somehow have some kind of compromise between what you're asking because I think you've identified some challenges with not necessarily the house next door. I mean it is a it is a budding to a home. the jurisdiction is not really what's important to us, but how the ordinance is designed is to take take into consideration other structures and the continuity and the and the master plan of what that goal is. So that house is there. It's it can't be ignored regardless of its change of zip code or change of address. I feel is that this lot could be built with and again a ranch whole other topic where you you do have a footprint that is double the size of its equivalent colonial that the need for your variance would be reduced as well as the positioning on the lot because you're choosing to go wide for the grandeur of that beautiful home you've designed so that you have room for a pool. So I I don't see a hardship and that you aren't trying to design or mitigate to the limitations of the lot. I feel as if you're putting in the perfect scenario on a beautiful lot and say this is what would look beautiful. Can we just do it even though it is almost three times the width of the envelope? Is that fair how I'm perceiving it or not?

I mean I think I think there's a couple things that are are worth commenting on. The first is the Chesterfield property and their point of being long and narrow. they readressed during their process to be away from court and created that condition. So if a pool was part of their plans, they negated that in a sense by reorienting themselves to Chesterfield. If they stayed oriented towards Corton, again, very different house, but they would have had all the room in the world. They would have had the width you currently have,

right? Um, so there's that. And you know, when we started this project, I mean, the way I look at the ordinance, and there there's a difference of opinion here, um, and we do have, you know, a certain situation where this happened again, um, on the border of Bloomfield Township, but to me, I look at the Bloomfield Township lot, and, you know, I've practiced architecture across many different jurisdictions. I can't think of a scenario where houses outside of that jurisdiction were factored into what's happening on a subject pro property within that jurisdiction. That seems like a unique circumstance to Birmingham on its own and like I said in the presentation, if we take that Birming if we take that Bloomfield lot out of the equation, there is no interior abing lot and our setbacks are 10 and 15 ft which we're well within. So, while I do see that we are asking for something wide that is in, you know, maybe contrast to what the ordinance and the interpretation of the ordinance is stating, I still think that there's an interpretation where the Bloomfield lot is not considered. We have no abuing interior lot and we are actually far from our setbacks in this circumstance. And I do have a a email um that this actually happened back in 2020 and Bruce Johnson who I'm not sure who he

he was the previous uh Jeff building he was he was the building official in his day. This was um it says, "Kevin, I agree the properties outside of the city of Birmingham should not be considered when applying Birmingham zoning ordinance. I confirmed this with our city attorney this morning. I think this interpretation will help your situation." That's a recent email. That's from a Oh, from 20 2023, I'm sorry. Yeah. So, is retired, but you know, but that was three years ago,

right? and the interpretation was Bloomfield Township is not part of the equation. And if that's the case, I don't need a variance. I'm not here today. So, I think we have a lot of unique circumstances. We've got the road rightway. We've got Bloomfield Township may or may not be included and things like that. And I Let's see if the other board members have questions if you wouldn't mind.

Please, Mr. Con. So my problem with what you're asking for uh is the significant amount of variance that you're looking for compared to the neighboring lot. You're using the 70 foot marker and when I look at this and you're talking about the spirit and the intent and so forth when I'm looking at these houses and if you could go back one slide please go back one one. Yeah this one.

Yeah. So you can see the the red house is in line with the the property next to it. And if you look at a Google view of this, you can see all the houses along there are all right to the point where that red house and the one to the right of that are all same at the very same setback. And you're talking to the east to the to the when you're looking at the picture to the right. Yeah. To the east. Yep.

Yes. So I'm looking at consistency, aesthetics, and you know what would look appropriate for that. And what you're asking to do is to get a very large variance and move beyond those houses closer to Big Beaver. So my my question is, you know, you you've got a envelope now that is long and narrow with over 3,000 square feet. You could double that and have 6,000 buildable square feet, which is still, you know, very buildable. It's hardly a hardship. There's people would love to have 6,000 square feet to build on. Why do we need so much of a variance compared to bringing it back away from what you're asking?

Well, I think you know there's the the point in everything to the east which is all within Birmingham that is also on the 33 ft right ofway where here we jog to a 60 ft right ofway. I actually believe and someone can correct me and this is just speculative but I believe these lots were actually part of Bloomfield Township at some point in time and they were annexed into the city and that's why there is the jog of the right of way there. So again, another unique circumstance there. And then again, it's, you know, we we feel we're entitled to 30% lot coverage as our neighbors and because of the sideyard setback, you know, able to have a pool and patios and pergolas, things that are, you know, otherwise permitted in the city um within it. If we build back to the back set back and maintain our 30% lock coverage like you're suggesting, there's nothing left at the rear um to have a pool or anything like that. I'm not I'm not asking for the extreme of one or the other, but there's no middle ground that I've seen that would bring you in line with the rest of the aesthetics of the road. So again, I'm asking, was there a view of keeping in line with the other homes so that you're not asking to get right out to the the edge of the road and you still have even if you lined up, I'm only asking 10 15 feet back from where you are. So you're not pushing all the way out to Big Beaver. Was that considered or

um I'm not sure if that was considered. Thank you. Can I just clarify one thing regarding the letter from Bruce back in 20?

Yes. The one lot was in Bloomfield. It was removed, but when you go across, it's still a a budding sideyard, street facing sideyard. You go across on the other side, they had two backto back rear yards. So those two lots on the other side were the 10 and 15 ft where that was being able to come closer where this one it is a budding sideyard and you're going across the 200 ft. That's where the front yard setbacks came into play. So yes, if this one removed the Bloomfield, the 70 foot would still fall into play going across where the other ones were back to back rear yards to clarify that question. Very good. Other questions? Yes, sir. start. Sir,

in um looking at the this property, the um if we're the literal enforcement of the original ordinance, this the width of this property, we're talking about about harm to the neighborhood. If if we were to build a house like that here, there's something there's some beautiful homes on Eaton Street here in Birmingham where we have very narrow lots and very long and they look they work really well because they're in context. If we're to put that type of house on this lot, I think it harms the neighboring properties. I think it uh and I'm I want to pose this as a question. I shouldn't be saying I shouldn't be saying what I think. I should be asking you if you think that that the literal enforcement would would cause uh would would be detrimental to substantial justice to other neighboring properties. That would be my question.

Yes. And that's exactly the point I'm trying to illustrate with the diagram that's showing our comparison to the neighborhood the neighbors at the south. While we are asking for an 83 ft wide home compared to their 65 and 66 ft compared to our lot, we're actually proportionately smaller in terms of our our width of frontage compared to our width, our buildable width of what we're proposing. And if you read the letters of support from our direct neighbors, that's exactly what they're commenting on. They say, you know, something to the effect of, you know, if you were to build something in the spirit of or to the letter of the law of what the ordinance is requiring, that would do substantial harm to our properties. We would have effectively a, you know, single wide or double wide style home, you know, significantly less in square footage and lot coverage. It would not be stately. It would not serve as an entrance to the city. You again, we have Bloomfield to the north as well. This is a place that a lot of people enter the city. It's sort of a gateway. We have a beautiful wide home on the other side of 1960 or on the other side of Chesterfield that's making that great statement. And I think what we're proposing while we are asking for a significant variance, we do have all of these unique circumstances. We are proposing a lot of landscaping along that. So I don't think that the the impact of sticking out closer to Quartin, which has been discussed, a road that's in an angle, a road that jogs in its right of way, has different municipalities, is creating something that is causing harm to the neighborhood. Furthermore, if we were to just go up, which we could do, we're significantly lower than that, the impact of being closer to Horton Road would be uh magnified. While we are kind of a low-lying ranch, it's going to have minimal impact on that aesthetic coming

down and provide a very beautiful home that the neighbors are be excited about.

My challenge is is that I recognize there is a there is a challenge to this lot due to factors that you've brought up. I don't believe that a variance that is three times the size of the allowable frontage or, you know, width of the home is the answer. And I and I don't think and I don't hear any mitigation of we thought about this, we tried this. I mean, you've got a large footprint ranch and space for a large pool and a pergola. So, you're filling up the lot, which you're welcome to do, but there's no question that you could build a ranch or you could build a substantial home that took up more backyard and less of the existing front sideyard and maybe compromise the pool. That may be part of the marketing of what you're trying to accomplish. But but the consideration of the lot you bought and the challenges that it has and the fact that the city takes the average for the reason that it is an average and as Mr. Kona pointed out if you said we tried to line it up with the homes that are in Birmingham. We felt like it would be reasonable to say from an aerial standpoint as you're driving down the street you would all be at a similar

setback point not from court necessarily but how the houses line up. That was our basis. Right now, your basis is I'm not abiding to another property. It should be irrelevant because it's not in Birmingham. And I'm just going to ignore the ordinances and the setbacks and set a perfect scenario without any consideration of the ordinance. And we're not here to ignore ordinances. We're here to give a variance if the lot is unique. And I think you've demonstrated that it's unique. But are you asking for the minimum or you asking for the maximum? That's how I see it.

I don't believe we're asking for the minimum or the maximum. the maximum. Well, it depends, but we're not trying to be as close to Corton as we believe we could be if this wasn't that lot didn't exist. That house didn't exist. If that house didn't exist, right?

We're 15 ft from that. We're try we're still trying to maintain a reasonable setback from Courtin while also being consistent with the neighbors to the south, which I think is I think this is the the to me the flaw in the ordinance is we're being compared to enormous lots, one with a super long house on it that is inconsistent with the three across the street from it or no matter what we build is going to be inconsistent with what is on this. Yeah, this is not a platted site where everyone takes a proportional chunk and tries to create perfect halfacre lots. Like it is unique. There's no question.

But it is the one whether we're counting that one or the Bloomfield or both. It is what is imposing the setback. Absolutely. But it is an average and that's the the goal is not to say your neighbors setback is your setback. The ordinance provides for an average so that you are not impacted by the outlier. You're impacted by the average. And then our board exists for the purpose of saying there is a major outlier y in terms of the average. So how can we adjust for that and that's what we're here for. Let me see if there's any other questions. One question please. Um

could you just review summarize briefly how the rideway jog affects this as well. I there's a lot of a lot of factors here. So just review that for me please because that's truly out of your control as well.

Sure. Um, I guess the easiest way to look at it is if I'm just going to use 70 feet because it's easier number. The 70 ft that 1564 is set back from Horton is starting up at that dashed line. As you can see, that dash line is extending further to the north than this dashed line. That jog in the right of way. If we take the 70 feet, we are further back from Courtland than the neighboring house. So the right of way is exasperating the 70 ft. That 70 ft is becoming to our lot is becoming What do we have?

You may want to come back here because they can't hear you on record, but I hear what you're trying to Let me try to give Let me try to say it. 90 ft 97 ft effectively. So Ron, because it's a cleaver, right, and the the thickness of the cleaver, correct, is wider than the other lot, they're saying that if if they didn't jog, they would have an extra 30 ft. So that the measurement of 70 would have less impact. But if with that in consideration, that potentially 25 or 30 foot difference, you still are outside that envelope. It's an argument, but it isn't an argument for your current footprint. It's an argument for a larger building envelope. It it's it's what's creating the buildable envelope.

It's one of the factors, right? Right. Cuz you're measuring off a different right away. It's we're measuring from inconsistent points. Right. So the 70 ft is not equal on our lot. So furthermore, it just it's exemplifying what I'm trying to say is that we're we're taking 70 or we're taking 83 feet average from these other lots and then we're taking it from a totally different point and we're applying to that and it's reducing our buildable width to an unreasonable 28 ft wide 13% total.

Correct. I understand that. But what the chairman was pointing out too was that there could be perhaps a middle ground here where you're not quite in as much. Clearly, you have unique circumstances, but maybe you're not asking for as much as you have here, but that's that's up to the however we vote. So, any other questions for the appellant? Thank you. It was a great presentation, by the way. Thank you. Trying to make sense of a lot of uh a lot of information in the audience or there's nobody on Zoom. On Zoom. Seeing no hands, we're going to close public comment. Mr. Connor, sir.

Yes. Regarding appeal 2615 1573 Chesterfield, I make a motion to deny the appeal. I believe that the appeal is excessive in its request for the amount of the uh variance and it's to me unreasonable. There are unique pro property or conditions on the property that I would agree variance would be applicable but not to the amount that this uh property holder is asking for. And as I mentioned, this uh house would now protrude out further than any of the other houses along Big Beaver given this variance. Uh so that would be to me against the um intent and spirit of the ordinance and I don't think that would result in substantial justice where a middle ground would provide significant amount of buildable lot coverage uh buildable coverage on the lot and um wouldn't require the excessive amount of the variance that's being required. So for that reason uh for those reasons I would deny this appeal.

We have a motion to deny. Do we have a second? I will second the uh deny. Do we have any discussion?

Yeah, I I can't support this motion. I I think look, I don't love the size of these houses. I think just but that's not really what's in front of us right now. I think the matter the fact of the matter is we have a regular we have a lot that's somewhat irregular shaped. We have a property that we're apparently comparing it to Bloomfield which isn't even following the same ordinances as Birmingham. We have another lot that's completely orientated differently. We have rightaways that are, you know, different sizes. I just think there's so many unique characteristics. This is like the convergence of like how many different things can impact this one lot. And you know, at the end of the day, you know, I I I again, sure, can you build something smaller? Yes. Um but I I don't think um that's really my choice or our choice to make in terms of how big or small he makes something. The variance request is what it is. and I I think we've we've heard enough evidence to support the factors um that were required to meet. So I can't approve this motion.

Any other discussion?

So I agree that this lot has parameters that justify some toal variance. I think the basis for that has to take into consideration all the factors and I believe that what the appellant is asking for is closer to courton that it should be based on the our ordinance of the average uh based on the homes that are adjacent to it based on the fact that it is a front corner lot meaning there's two fronts so we have a larger um a larger setback than a normal sideyard I believe that being that it's intended, you know, its intended purpose is to maintain the rear yard for the for the ranch house to to preserve for a pool and other intent that is compromising the the design to be potentially a ranch that sits further from the road. I don't believe there's any attempt or showing of a mitigation of I could go to my extreme. I could ask for an envelope that's double the width and not triple the width. And I have not received any presentation that shows I could do a ranch that's 4,500 square ft in a different orientation. I could do a version that doesn't require a pool. I can do a version that lines up with the neighboring homes trying to take out the outlier of the Bloomfield Hill setback. I don't see any of that. I simply see my lot's unique. I want to build a gigantic ranch and um and that isn't enough for me to provide such a grand variance which is almost three times the you know in total three times the current building envelope so it is just too extreme and I haven't seen any other proposals possibilities again the footprint would be cut in half in a colonial and because there isn't an end user yet there is no reason it has to be a ranch there's no reason that the

footprint couldn't be half if they stack square footage. So, it just I don't disagree. The lot justifies a variance for a reasonable home. I don't believe we've present been presented with that reasonable scenario. Uh we have a motion to deny. Can we please call the role yes? Yes. Run ready. Yes. Run ready. Okay. Jason Campiser. No. Kevin Hart. No. Where to vote? No. So that's a three to three. The motion fails. So we now need a new motion.

You want to come? Start.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Um, with regard to case number 2615 at 1573 Chesterfield, um, I I would like to make a motion to approve uh the request for variance. I think the appellant has done an exceptional job of uh demonstrating the practical difficulties on this site. Uh, I know we're not u uh supposed to be talking about self-created situations, but this is definitely something you could never create uh in this world. Uh, this this property is very unique and it will I don't think there's another property in Birmingham like it. Um the 30% lot coverage for the ranch is uh is uh seems to be uh all the all the ordinance requirements with this exception of the setback are are met. Uh the requirements are all have all been met. Um, as I mentioned, the the 30% lot coverage is uh we're under that and uh I think that that helps to uh establish the fabric of of of the house in fitting with the neighborhood. Um I mentioned earlier if it was apply applied literally that the uh the uh um the ordinance would would have made a uh a tremendously negative uh impact on the property um crowding the uh the area to the to the south and uh not in uh in keeping with the balance of the site. I think there's harm to the neighboring properties if this isn't properly developed. uh mentioned the unique circumstances within the city of Birmingham. Um we are um uh again have a we have a very unique uh property and its proximity to Bloomfield Hills and to uh Bloomfield Township. Um if if this variance is approved, I think we are getting substantial justice to the

owners and to the neighboring properties and I would tie it to the uh to the documents that were provided. A motion to approve. Second. We have a second. Mr. Canvaser, I don't think there's any point in discussion. Let's call the vote, please. Kevin Hart, yes. Jason Caner, yes. Carla, no. Richard Ly, yes. Aaron Marhoff, no. Ready? No. Sorry you don't have your variance. Thank you very much. Yep. Good luck.

Do we have any other business that we need to talk about? Seeing none, anybody in the audience or on Zoom that has a topic that is not related to our current appeals that would like to discuss them? Seeing no hands, we have a motion to adjourn. See, Mr. Kona, second, second for Mr. Camar. All in favor?