REGULAR MEETING January 22, 2003 6:30 P.M. _____________________________________________________________________________
PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES ______________________________________________________________________________ Members Present: Kenneth Brostrom, Robert Grosshans, Ishwar Naik, Edward Resha and Alayna Stagg
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Leslie Adiska, Assistant Planner Kristine Goddard, Zoning Administrator Mark Spencer and Marge Burkheiser, Recording Secretary
1.0 Call Meeting to Order/Determination of a Quorum
Chairperson Naik called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. A quorum was present.
2.0 Approval of Agenda
Motion by Member Resha, supported by Member Grosshans, to approve the agenda, as presented.
MOTION CARRIED
3.0 Communications and Announcements
None.
4.0 Items from the Floor
None.
5.0 Old Business
None.
6.0 New Business
6.1 ZBA 02-9 Adiska (A Pair of Photographers) (submitted for reversal/modification of the Zoning Administrator's interpretation)
Leslie Adiska, applicant, owner, stated she has been running the business as a home/office business for about 12 years. She said her business is generally high end and usually in the West Bloomfield area and that it has expanded into web design and other related services. She further said she has been trying to relocate her business. She said there is more than one employee, including her husband, who is a graphic designer and a housekeeper. She continued that there have been complaints from the neighborhood. She said they were looking at the location at Concourse and would like to lease one-sixth of the building. She stated all the wedding photography is done off site and they have recently opened an office in the West Bloomfield area. She also said they do some senior photos for schools but spend most of their time on the computer. She further stated they also do internet sales and shipping by FedEx, which is located near by the Concourse site.
Relating events leading to the request for the ZBA, she stated she contacted the Township in October [2002] to verify the location was appropriate. She stated she had a letter dated October 23, 2002, from Ms. Goddard saying it was appropriate and then received a second letter stating the use would not be permitted. She feels the use is appropriate even though they are doing a little of everything and that the location is good. She said they have reduced the size of their yellow page listing to control the volume of business and that they are only interested in the high end market.
Zoning Administrator Spencer explained the applicant is asking for the Members to decide if his interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is correct and that this is not a "use variance." He stated he felt this is a retail type business that belongs in a commercial district. He also confirmed that the Township has received complaints from their existing neighbors. Stating further that there are a number of districts this business could work in. If the ZBA decided this was a permitted conditional use then they would need to be applied for.
Member Naik inquired about the location of FedEx in the park as retail.
Zoning Administrator Spencer replied that FedEx is considered warehousing and that they are permitted incidental retail transactions.
Zoning Administrator Spencer and Assistant Planner Goddard both thought the building had not received a Certificate of Occupancy at this time.
Member Resha asked how long before construction would be completed.
Planner Goddard stated the building applicant has just met the temporary requirements for the external site improvements and she was not sure of the internal process of the building. She also said the balance of the work outside could be bonded for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, once they passed all building inspections.
-
Adiska related the status of construction of the building.
Member Grosshans inquired how the Members could interpret this business to be in a light industrial district. Staff and members discussed Section 41.02 F and E of the Zoning Ordinance.
Member Brostrom asked the applicant what they would be processing on site.
-
Adiska stated the processing would be construction of frames, photo portfolio and similar products.
Member Brostrom asked it these items would be sold on site.
Leslie Adiska state the company generally shipped to the customer. She further stated they did not have much walk in traffic except maybe in August, and that they usually go to clients' location.
Chairperson Naik asked about the type of sign on they building and then referred his statement to Zoning Administrator Spencer, although he did say he had not seen many signs in the area.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated they would be able to have a sign and that there would be one ground sign permitted for the building.
Chairperson Naik stated he was concerned about a sign on the building.
Leslie Adiska replied most likely she would have large numbers on the building and a little sign by the door.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated he interpreted that this is a retail business since they were selling directly to the end user. He also said they were not selling to retail for resale.
Member Brostrom stated he saw this as selling to retail business.
Leslie Adiska stated she saw her business as being similar to Zingerman's [Bakehouse 3711 Plaza Drive] where they have a store and a place to sell to whoever comes in.
Leslie Adiska stated she stores things, does printing and distribution and did not feel her business was different from the surrounding uses. She also noted there were not any public comments objecting. She further stated she has mentors in other areas of the country that are located in industrial areas and that she did not want to be in a "mall" area.
Member Grosshans stated he was trying to figure out where this use would fit into an I-1 District.
Leslie Adiska gave an example of online office supplies and then shipping things from the location.
Member Stagg stated she felt this was light manufacturing and has read the Zoning Administrator's letters. Office space is somewhere else.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated this would be considered a professional office.
Member Grosshans stated he felt that would be a better fit along with research and development. He asked Mr. Spencer if his interpretation is that this use does not fit the area.
Zoning Administrator Spencer replied yes, that would be my interpretation.
Chairperson Naik stated the Board has to either agree or disagree.
Zoning Administrator Spencer replied this is correct. He also said that if you disagree, you should make a statement as part of the motion. He further stated that this would be setting a precedent and there is the possibility there could be another request. He also said that if this was denied the applicant could apply for a use variance and the Members would be able to add conditions to that use. He further said he was looking for the Members guidance on this issue.
Chairperson Naik stated they would not want to set a precedent.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated this might not be a bad precedent to set.
Leslie Adiska stated the Homeowner's Association is filing a lawsuit against her but they are delaying since father had passed away.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated to Ms. Adiska, that the Township has brought this issue to your attention some time ago.
Leslie Adiska replied this has grown into more then a home/office business.
Member Brostrom inquired if there have been problems in the neighborhood.
Leslie Adiska stated she felt they were due to the5-6 deliveries a day and having 3 cars and having a housekeeper on site for 3 hours. She related an incident of a neighbor's car being towed by the Homeowner's Association when they parked on her streets cul-de-sac island. She also stated she is still receiving complaints about deliveries and that she has not had any since February [2002] .
Member Brostrom inquired if the applicant looked at other locations.
Leslie Adiska replied she has looked at places on Ellsworth and Varsity and felt they were not suitable; nor close enough to FedEx or the expressway.
Member Brostrom asked if Ms. Adiska had said she would sub-let to another photo business.
-
Adiska replied no; the owner would do that.
Member Brostrom asked if this was a substantial hardship or just convenient to you or if the applicant has real pressures from Homeowner's Association. He noted there are many lots for office use available in the area.
Leslie Adiska stated she was looking to be close to freeways; FedEx and would like the convenience of jumping on the highway to travel to various their various locations.
Member Grosshans restated the options are to support the Zoning Administrator's interpretation are correct or to not support it.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated that if you approve this category of business and someone comes in with a similar use, I will say it fits. He also said there are dozens of types of businesses that need to be assigned categories to fit in the gray area of the permitted uses.
Member Resha stated there are a large amount of different items involved and the majority of what the business does somewhat falls into a mixed products category. He also said the applicant stated she is not interested in walk in traffic and that Section 41.0 of the Zoning Ordinance touches everything one way or another.
Member Grosshans asked if in a limited industrial area, what this could be considered.
Zoning Administrator Spencer replied that printers produce items for retail sales. He also stated they do small run items such as business cards and wedding invitations and they do high run items such as catalogs.
Member Brostrom asked about blue print printing.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated this was usually a small part of a business combined with other things.
Leslie Adiska restated she has looked at Business Park area, as well as places on Ellsworth and Varsity Drive. She also stated she has looked at various strip malls and has looked at Airport Plaza.
Member Brostrom stated this would be setting a precedent. He stated this operation is primarily retail and if we set a precedent in this type of business this would "muddy the waters" for the future.
Leslie Adiska stated the retail part is going to be in West Bloomfield and that she could be doing the same type of work for Foto 1.
Member Brostrom stated this is a retail business.
Leslie Adiska stated she had a number of corporation customers located in New York and Houston [Texas] .
Member Resha asked if Ms. Adiska could you put a percentage on each part of your business.
Leslie Adiska stated the primary work was on the computer doing photo retouching and developing. She stated that approximately 30 Saturdays a year they would be on location doing photos but we spend most of our time retouching photos.
Leslie Adiska stated they have done short runs (500 copies or less) of Christmas cards, otherwise they are sent out to be printed.
Member Brostrom stated the applicant should apply for a Zoning Variance.
Leslie Adiska stated she did not understand.
Member Brostrom explained the applicant should apply for variance and that he was very worried about setting a precedent in the Township for future use.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated another option would be for the property owner to apply for a rezoning to be a Business Park, but he felt the owner did not want to pursue this option.
Leslie Adiska stated she did speak with the owner about the rezoning but they [A-1 Lawn Care] felt they would no longer be permitted use.
Member Naik wondered if this motion could state this is a unique situation. Zoning Administrator Spencer stated that was possible but then when the next request was presented, they would have to come before the Board again. Motion by Member Brostrom, supported by Member Grosshans, for ZBA 02-9 Adiska (A Pair of Photographers), that the Zoning Board of Appeals support the decision of the Zoning Administrator Mark Spencer.
Discussion follows the motion.
Member Stagg inquired if the applicant could come back with special conditions.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated the Board would have to decide what conditions would be reasonable and the Township attorney has stated that the use variance does not set a precedent.
Member Resha stated that since this was a vote concerning Mark’s decision he felt the ZBA needed to request that the Planning Commission revise the wording of this section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated that some of the preambles in the Zoning Ordinances needed to be rewritten since it was originally derived from the County Zoning Ordinance written during the 1950’s.
The Members read the Preamble for the I-1 District.
Member Stagg stated she did not see how this would interfere with other uses..
Chairperson Naik stated he felt this is a broad statement for uses permitted.
Member Resha noted that a Business Park is almost the same as an I-1 District.
Member Grosshans requested the vote be taken.
Chairperson stated the roll call vote would be taken now.
ROLL CALL
Member Resha No Member Brostrom Yes Member Naik Yes Member Grosshans Yes Member Stagg No
MOTION CARRIED (Zoning Administrators decision stands)
7.0 Zoning Administrator’s Report
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated there is a ZBA hearing pending and that the Members should consider some future dates. He offered the dates of February 19, 2003; February 26, 2003 and March 12, 2003.
Members briefly discussed and agreed with these dates.
Zoning Administrator Spencer stated the Members would be notified as soon as the applicant brought the application in. He also discussed some possible areas that would be available for Ms. Adiska's use. He also stated the market was soft at moment and owners are more willing to be creative.
8.0 Secretary’s Report
None.
9.0 Chairperson’s Report
None.
10.0 Member's Report
None.
11.0 Approval of Prior Minutes
None.
11.0 Adjournment
Member Resha adjourned the meeting at 8 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________________ s/Alayna Stagg, Secretary April 2, 2003
