CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
January 19, 2000
MINUTES

PRESENT:       Francis Marella, Chairperson
                        Carole L. Schwartz, Vice-Chairperson
                        Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
                        Peter M. Catalano
                        Joann Granata
                        Michael Nickerson
                        Dean J. Reynolds

STAFF:           Mark F. Miller, Assistant Director
                        DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Marella called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. He explained the parameters under which the Board of Appeals can act and emphasized that the petitioners must present a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Ms. Schwartz, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no written replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Yuri Diakonov, 40515 Rehse, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that he is in need of a few additional feet in order to accommodate his handicapped mother’s wheelchair ramp to access the proposed sunroom addition. He submitted a photograph of his mother sitting in her wheelchair on the patio to demonstrate the size of the wheelchair in relation to the size of the patio. He felt he is only requesting the absolute minimum necessary to accommodate this ramp.

Mr. Campbell recalled that when this was discussed last month, Mr. Miller investigated the regulations with regard to handicap access in public buildings, although he acknowledged that this variance request is for a single-family home. He felt there is a practical difficulty in order to provide room for a wheelchair and he discussed the appropriate slope for the ramp. He recalled that the regulations for public buildings dictate a ratio of 1:8 for an incline of less than 8 inches; however, the recommendation jumps to a ratio of 1:12 for an incline greater than 8 inches. Mr. Campbell calculated that based on an incline of 11 inches, the ramp should measure 132 inches in length, or twelve feet. He inquired as to how Mr. Diakonov calculated the need for a six-foot ramp and further questioned whether this will be sufficient.

Mr. Diakonov explained that he is requesting a variance of 3.12 feet because although he could possibly construct a 4-foot ramp, he would be concerned not only about his mother going down the ramp too fast and ending up in the wall but also attempting to go up a steep ramp and flipping backwards.

Mr. Campbell suggested that possibly this Board should consider a larger variance in order to allow the petitioner to build a safe ramp for his mother.

Mr. Diakonov appreciated Mr. Campbell’s suggestion; however, he stressed that he does not want to "push the envelope". He expressed concern that since he talked to his neighbors and indicated what he is proposing, he does not want them to see a larger structure and then complain.

Mr. Campbell stated that he works with an individual who has a handicapped son and, after asking his opinion, he recommended a ratio of no greater than 1:10 for a wheelchair ramp in order to be workable for the handicapped individual. He calculated that this would result in a 9-foot ramp.

Mr. Diakonov stressed that his main concern is for his mother to be able to get up the ramp safely by herself as he works and she is often left alone.

Ms. Granata suggested that if this Board desires to grant a variance, it can be worded in such a way that a variance can be granted for up to 16 feet; however, if the petitioner does not need the entire variance, he does not have to use it, but it would be there for him if he found it necessary.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5378 and application from Yuri Diakonov, 40515 Rehse, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart; Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements for the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 83, Sunfield Estates Subdivision (Section 18), generally located fronting the west line of Rehse, south of 18 Mile Road at 40515 Rehse, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition for an existing single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of no less than 17 feet, being up to 18 feet less than the minimum required setback of 35 feet; further, this variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the additional depth for the sunroom is necessary in order to provide an access ramp to accommodate the petitioner’s handicapped mother in her wheelchair; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Schwartz, Catalano, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Mr. Diakonov explained that he was concerned about a particular term used on the Board of Appeals application. He mentioned that when he asked a clerk in the Planning Department for the meaning of this term, her answer was qualified with the words "I think". He suggested that some of the ambiguities on the application be clarified to make it easier for the applicants. He stated that as a citizen, he is "coming into this process completely blind and working off of an application that is difficult to understand". He added that he had completely overlooked an obscure item on the affidavit that authorizes or denies access to his property and was not told at the Planning Department that this had to be completed. After a few of the Board of Appeals members came onto his property, he contacted several other community offices to inquire as to whether their Board members visit any of the sites and how that is done. An employee of St. Clair County told him that they generally call the applicant on the telephone to advise him when they will be out. He suggested that the Board of Appeals members contact the homeowners prior to their visit to avoid any surprises. He thanked this Board for the grant of variance and apologized for 90% of the misunderstanding at the first meeting; however, he felt that 10% of the blame should be placed on the application and strongly urged the application be rewritten in a way that makes it easier for the petitioner to understand.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to what term on the application was confusing to Mr. Diakonov.

Mr. Diakonov felt that the term "hardship" was not adequately defined in the application and that when he saw that term, he felt they were talking about financial reasons.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no written replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Suzanne Medinis, 3697 Warwick Drive, Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309, explained that they are trying to split the parcels on the original lot lines that were established. She informed that she is representing her dad, Harry Hastilow, who purchased Parcel A first, then later purchased Parcels B and C. He constructed the building on Parcel A, then developed an engineering facility on Parcel C. She noted that at that time, he had the personal property tax combined. She noted that when her dad retired, someone took over the business located on Parcel A, signing a 5-year lease with an option to buy. They reverted to the original lot lines, causing the building on Parcel C to infringe on the setback requirements. Ms. Medinis explained that the building on Parcel A has a driveway that runs along the side of Parcel C. They are concerned that if they add seven feet, it will infringe on their ability to accommodate semi trucks for loading and unloading dies. She assured that they have no problem adding the extra seven feet in the rear to come into compliance, so they are revising their petition to request a variance for the side yard setback only. She stressed that they do not have a lot of options, especially in light of the fact that the building on Parcel C is situated at a strange angle on the property.

Mr. Miller explained that the petitioner could provide employee parking across the back of the parcel, which would afford them 27 parking spaces; however, when they have 60 to 70 employees at peak capacity, they would find it difficult to provide adequate angle parking.

Discussion took place regarding the site.

Mr. Miller stated that the drawing indicates the side yard setback on the proposed lot is 2.7 feet. He added that they are allowed a projection of 20 inches into this required side yard setback. He replied to inquiry that this distance is determined by a formula of two inches allowed for each one foot of the side yard setback requirement.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that the petitioner can meet the minimum required ten-foot side yard setback requirement by extending the projection to 2’7". Since they are allowed 20 inches, they would have a projection measuring 11 inches more than what is allowed.

Mr. Miller stated it would still be considered a side yard setback.

Mr. Campbell felt this is a case where the interpretation of the ordinance was incorrect.

Mr. Miller inquired as to whether the applicants have given thought to providing an easement of access.

Ms. Medinis replied that if they had to add the full seven feet, they would have to provide an easement.

Mr. Campbell felt that the variance request should be denied; however, he felt that this Board could recognize the excess projection.

Mr. Miller clarified that the projection can measure up to 20 inches and, since they are proposing 31 inches, they would need a variance for the 11 inches in excess of the maximum permitted. He stated that as long as the building is ten feet from the property line, they would be in compliance with the side yard setback.

Ms. Medinis stressed that the individual who signed the purchase agreement for Parcel A is concerned about this and the possibility of losing the access to his property.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5386 and application from Harry Hastilow, 1545 Parks Road, Oakland, Michigan 48363, as represented by Suzanne Medinis, 3697 Warwick Drive, Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Section 1292.01, concerning 3.99 acres of land generally located fronting the south line of 15 Mile Road, east of Kelly Road at 18900 and 19000 15 Mile Road (Section 33), that request for variance to split property, which would create a parcel with a 2.85-foot rear yard setback and a 2.94 side yard setback, which is 7.15 feet and 7.06 feet, respectively, less than the minimum required 10 feet, be denied by reason that the information provided was unclear; further, that variance be granted to permit a projection of 31 inches from the building, which is 11 inches in excess of the maximum permitted 20 inches; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed hardship that [editor’s note: there was no hardship given!!!]; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Schwartz, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Abstain – Catalano. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell suggested that if there are any changes to the request, the petitioner should request a reconsideration rather than filing a separate petition.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no written replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Donna Moir, 38912 Sahr Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that they purchased this lot with the intention and belief that they could build their home on it. She noted that it is an odd-shaped lot and is the only lot on their street that has not been developed in the subdivision’s nine-year existence. She replied to inquiry that there is a fire hydrant in front that will make it difficult to maneuver the cars and she stressed that they will need access to the garage. She added that the other home built behind them was positioned in an aesthetic manner and they wish to do the same. She could understand now why no one had previously built on this property.

Mr. Miller confirmed that the subject parcel has two frontages and the ordinance requires that the required front yard setbacks be met on both sides.

Ms. Moir pointed out that the homeowners directly behind their parcel had to obtain a ten-foot variance.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the petitioner considered positioning the house five feet further back on the property.

Ms. Moir replied that repositioning the house was a consideration; however, the adjoining neighbor does not have a large back yard and this would not create a good situation. She added that they would like to put in a patio but do not want it facing Greenfield because of its close proximity. Ms. Moir explained that they paid more money for this lot because they wanted a large lot; however, they were not aware of the restrictions placed on it with regard to setback requirements.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the petitioner considered positioning the house to face Christine.

Ms. Moir explained that because of the way the existing houses are facing, they do not have any choice in that regard. She assured that they have investigated every possibility, including an attempt to make this a two-story design; however, nothing else worked. She felt strongly that this home will add value to the surrounding property and added that it will be an attractive house.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5392 and application from Donna Moir, 38912 Sahr, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements for the R-2 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 11, Greenfield Villa Subdivision (Section 8), that variance be granted to permit construction of a single-family residence in the R-2 One-Family Residential District with front yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet being five (5) feet less than the minimum required setback of thirty (30) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the lot is odd-shaped and granting this variance will be in keeping with the rest of the existing neighborhood, and further, that this variance will not cause any safety hazard; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickerson, Granata, Reynolds, Schwartz, Catalano, Campbell, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no written replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Joe Monteleone, 35101 Harper, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that when he originally purchased this property, he tried to make the lots conform with the ordinance requirements for an R-5 District. He indicated that it was not until two of the homes were sold for these lots that it was brought to his attention by the engineers that these houses do not fit on the lots because of the large cul-de-sac that is required. He added that these lots are pie-shaped, but the property to the rear is reserved as a 50-foot right-of-way for Morse Avenue, which he anticipates to be vacated in the near future. He felt the vacated Morse Avenue property would then be combined with the subject lots.

Mr. Campbell agreed that the shallow, odd-shaped lots create a practical difficulty. He felt that at such time as Morse Avenue is vacated and the property combined with the subject lots, the variance should cease to exist.

Mr. Monteleone stated that he was going to go through the process of vacating Morse Avenue; however, it is quite involved and he did not feel it would be necessary at this time. He added that they tried to maximize the frontages as much as possible.

Mr. Monteleone received many compliments on his developments in the Township from the various Board members.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5393 and application from Joe Monteleone, Maplewood Development Corporation, 35101 Harper Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning "Site 9" on Pine Hill Drive, generally located east of Lipke, north of Quinn Road, that variance be granted to permit construction of a single-family residence in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of 29 feet being 6 feet less than the minimum required setback of 35 feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the lot is shallow and odd-shaped; further, this variance is granted with the contingency that when Morse Avenue is vacated, the petitioner can acquire an additional 25-foot depth to combine to the current lot and the variance will be null and void; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Schwartz, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no written replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Joe Monteleone, 35101 Harper Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, indicated that this request is almost identical to the previous agenda item.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5394 and application from Joe Monteleone, Maplewood Development Corporation, 35101 Harper Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning "Site 13" on Pine Hill Drive, generally located at the southeast corner of Laurel and Lipke, that variance be granted to permit construction of a single-family residence in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of 29.35 feet being 5.65 feet less than the minimum required setback of 35 feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the lot is shallow and odd-shaped; further, this variance is granted with the contingency that when Morse Avenue is vacated, the petitioner can acquire an additional 25-foot depth to combine to the current lot and the variance will be null and void; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Schwartz, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no written replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

James Donahue, 3690 Westrick, China, Michigan 48054, pointed out that this is an old existing building and if current setback requirements had to be met, the setbacks would take up the entire property. He submitted photographs of the subject property.

Mr. Miller explained that the petitioner is proposing a 0-foot front yard setback. He stated that the Township is not requiring that the building be torn down and rebuilt to meet current ordinance requirements; however, it would be considered a legal non-conforming building and could continue to be used as long as it is not destroyed by more than 50%. He replied that although there appears to be more frontage, that portion of the property is Michigan Department of Transportation’s (MDOT) right-of-way regulation and cannot be construed as the required setback. He indicated that the petitioner would like to keep the existing building and provide parking in front in lieu of the landscaped setback. Mr. Miller stated that since the petitioner has submitted a new site plan, the new ordinance requirements are in effect and that is why he is here tonight. He replied that the petitioner wishes to utilize this site for repair and sale of used cars.

Considerable discussion took place regarding the site and the surrounding property.

Additional discussion took place regarding which lots are involved in this request.

Mr. Miller pointed out that the site plan was submitted as one development; however, now the petitioner is discussing two separate developments. He suggested that the petitioner submit plans showing exactly what he is proposing. He added that the site plan submitted is somewhat confusing. He inquired as to what parcel or parcels this variance will affect.

Mr. Donahue replied that this variance request is for Lots 298, 299 and 300 of Ascot Park Subdivision.

Erik Heiderer, Architect, clarified that these are three separate lots but it is one development and the building is situated on all three lots. He explained that they cannot take the front entrance only without utilizing the remainder of the site.

Ms. Granata inquired as to whether the petitioner will be improving the lot or just adding more cars.

Mr. Donahue informed that he has already invested $50,000 into improvements on this property. He indicated that the bathrooms are new, the parking lot is new and the building was just bricked. He pointed out that it was previously an eyesore but it has been brought up to code.

Mr. Miller clarified that not all requirements of the Planning and Zoning Code have been met.

Mr. Donahue responded that he is attempting to do that and he is here tonight to request a variance. He did not feel he needed to obtain any special approval for the garage.

Mr. Miller noted that approval of a site plan is needed for a garage.

Mr. Catalano questioned why there is no allowance for sidewalks.

Mr. Miller replied that the sidewalks are supposed to go in the right-of-way and they are indicated on the print.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that a standing condition of the variances granted by this Board is that all other requirements of Township ordinance requirements must be met. He felt the current signage is in violation of ordinance requirements.

Mr. Miller noted that if the variance is granted, the parking lot will have cars parked up to Gratiot and they can be parked anywhere because it is considered display area. He confirmed that the development is on Lots 298, 299 and 300.

Mr. Nickerson recalled that the proposed Coney Island Restaurant, to be located immediately north of the subject property, was going to put in a berm, trees and landscaping. He felt that if one business is going to meet ordinance requirements in that area, all of the businesses should be forced to conform. He was opposed to having cars parked right up to Gratiot Avenue.

Mr. Donahue commented that the Coney Island will no longer be locating in that area. He informed that the owner did not have enough money to pay off the building before tearing it down. He replied to inquiry that the grassy portion of his property is owned by MDOT.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the petitioner could plant shrubs and some other type of landscaping in the MDOT right-of-way.

Mr. Miller replied that the petitioner would have to obtain permission from MDOT if it is possible. He did not feel MDOT would approve such a greenbelt because they would not want the liability if someone ran off the road into a tree or shrubs.

Ms. Schwartz sympathized with the petitioner and pointed out that he needs to be able to provide parking in the front because his business depends on displaying cars, unlike the Coney Island that was going to be developed north of the subject site.

Mr. Donahue informed that the property owner to the north is tearing down his building, and added that if he was demolishing his building, he would be willing to provide a greenbelt; however, he is trying to work with an old existing building that was built prior to these ordinance requirements being in effect.

Mr. Catalano felt that if this variance is granted, a condition should be placed on it that it is only in effect as long as this is a used car lot.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that there is an existing building the petitioner wishes to use and if this variance is denied, there is no space for a driveway, display area and sufficient parking, and it would not be suitable for a used car lot. Granting this variance would allow the 20 feet for parking cars. He noted that new automobile showrooms are being held to the required setback; however, because this is an existing building, he was in favor of granting the variance.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5395 and application from James R. Donahue, 3690 Westrick, China, Michigan 48054, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.02-(a)-(29)-C, Supplementary Regulations: Uses Requiring Special Approval; Procedure, concerning Lots 298 through 300, Ascot Park Subdivision (Private Claim 141 & 626/Section 12), generally located at the northeast corner of Gratiot Avenue and Buckingham, that variance be granted to permit the open-air display and sale of automobiles (Donahue Used Car Sales) in the B-3 General Business District with front yard setback from Gratiot Avenue of zero (0) feet being 25 feet less than the minimum required 25 feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that there is a large old existing commercial building with a minimal setback from Gratiot Avenue right-of-way; further, this variance is granted with the condition that it is in effect only as long as this property is being used for a used car dealership; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Schwartz, Catalano, Granata, Marella. Nay – Nickerson, Reynolds. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no written replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Matthew Casey, of O’Reilly, Rancilio, Nitz, Andrews, Turnbull & Scott, P.C., 12900 Hall Road, Suite 350, Sterling Heights, Michigan 48313, explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to permit a 60-foot flag pole at their entrance to better identify their community. He stated that in submitting the application, he thought the maximum height permitted was 35 feet. He added that his client is willing to agree to a 55-foot pole, which would reduce the variance request by five feet. Mr. Casey indicated that there is a very narrow entrance to this community, with a party store to the south and a Clark gas station to the north. Because of this, it is very difficult for motorists to locate their entrance. He recalled that they petitioned for a large sign to be erected but were denied by this Board, so they are hoping that this request for the flagpole will accomplish what everyone needs. He assured they will not be raising a garish flag and will only be flying the American flag. Photographs of similar flagpoles in the community were submitted to the Board, along with four addresses of these locations. He added that some of the poles were actually in excess of 60 feet, especially along Hall Road; however, Mr. Steve Cassin, Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development, could not answer as to whether these owners received permission for these poles.

Mr. Casey replied to inquiry that they would like a flagpole taller than 25 feet because it is very difficult to locate this community when driving along Gratiot Avenue.

Mr. Campbell acknowledged that the Board of Appeals denied an earlier request for a large sign at this site and recalled that many of the same arguments were used at that time. He rejected the argument that the entrance is difficult to locate, and pointed out that both the party store and the gas station are distinct from other businesses in the neighborhood and can be used as landmarks to locate the mobile home community. He pointed out that they currently have a flagpole; however, their argument for the sign was because they wanted to advertise mobile homes for sale. He felt that using the flag in an excess size to call attention to something is very unpatriotic and unnecessary.

Mr. Catalano agreed with Mr. Campbell and felt that using the American flag to identify destinations is "a terrible thing to do". He emphasized that this flag represents loss of lives throughout the years and he objected to it being used in this fashion. He felt strongly that something should be done about the uses of American flags in this Township.

Mr. Casey responded that the variance request is not an attempt to have an enormous flag similar to those on Hall Road. He stressed that they are only requesting a taller flagpole and not an oversized flag. He disagreed that the sole purpose of the flag is to draw attention, but rather it is their alternative to a sign in order to identify their community.

Mr. Reynolds inquired as to what would prevent the petitioner from taking down the American flag and flying another type of flag or adding another flag underneath.

Mr. Miller reminded that this Board has the right to place conditions on a grant of variance, and insisting that they fly only the American flag would be a reasonable condition to place on any approval.

Mr. Casey stated that by Ordinance, they would be permitted to fly a state flag and a business flag as well; however, they are willing to fly only the American flag. He added that they are also willing to lower the flagpole to a height of 55 feet, possibly even 50 feet, but they are looking for some type of relief acceptable to both the Board members and the petitioners.

Mr. Reynolds believed the petitioner to be sincere; however, he expressed his objection to this variance request.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Catalano, with reference to File #5397 and application from Mount Clemens/Metropolitan MHC, 23680 Sandpiper Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by Matthew K. Casey, Esq., of O’Reilly, Rancilio, Nitz, Andrews, Turnbull & Scott, P.C., 12900 Hall Road, Suite 350, Sterling Heights, Michigan 48313, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1266.04-(g); MH Mobile Home Park District: Mobile Home Site Requirements and Chapter 1299.01-(e); General Exceptions: Area, Height and Use Exceptions; Height Limits, concerning 38.068 acres of land located east of Gratiot Avenue, north of Joy Boulevard, being more particularly located north of Sandpiper Drive and Keystone Way (Mount Clemens Estates Manufactured Home Community) (Section 1), that request for variance to permit installation of a flagpole for an existing mobile home park (Mount Clemens Manufactured Home Community) in the MH Mobile Home Park District with height of 62.5 feet being 37.5 feet in excess of the maximum permitted height of 25 feet, be denied by reason that insufficient practical difficulty or hardship was presented. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Catalano, Schwartz, Reynolds, Nickerson, Campbell, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no written replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Mark Vipperman, 1000 Harrington Boulevard, Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043, distributed a revised drawing of the proposed sign, indicating that the height requirement of the Township ordinance is now being met. He noted that the general public has tried to access the employee parking lot; therefore, they are proposing to install a monument sign consistent with the existing signs on the north side of Harrington. The intent of the sign is to direct people further down on Harrington to the public parking area of Mt. Clemens General Hospital. He stressed they are trying to avoid the words "Staff Parking" because for liability reasons, it calls attention to the fact that the majority of these cars are parked there for hours at a time and it has the ability to raise the theft rate.

Although Ms. Schwartz sympathized with their predicament of calling attention to a "staff parking" area, she felt that there are hospital shuttle vans constantly going back and forth from this lot, creating some security. She maintained that the lot should still be identified as "staff parking".

Mr. Nickerson stated he recently visited Mt. Clemens General Hospital with his mother-in-law and he could see how people not familiar with the area and approaching the corner of Harrington and Groesbeck could become confused. He also understood the Mt. Clemens Hospital’s security division having a legitimate concern with regard to indicating a "staff parking" area and their need to direct people, so he offered no objection to the variance request.

Ms. Granata felt that when traveling to the hospital with someone ill, it is very important to have plenty of directional signs. She felt that people are upset and the more direction they have at that time, the better. She complimented Mt. Clemens General Hospital and expressed her confidence in their health care. She felt Ms. Schwartz’s suggestion to direct the staff to the subject lot is good; however, she had no objection to the variance request.

Mr. Campbell was of the opinion that the proposed sign is clearly more than a directional sign, based on its size and content. He cited some examples of "directional" signs in the Township. He felt the universal hospital signs used on the highways and roads would be sufficient to direct traffic to the hospital. He suggested that these are free signs provided by the government, they are permissible in the Township, and he felt they would do a better job for the intended purpose.

Mr. Catalano noted that the hospital is located with the river to the north, a parking lot to the south, a bank and railroad tracks to the west, and homes to the east. He pointed out that when approaching from Groesbeck to go to the outpatient desk, many people pull into the first entrance and they have a long distance to go. He felt that not being directed properly at a hospital can result in lost minutes that can be fatal. He commended the petitioner for proposing a sign that meets the ordinance requirements with regards to size and height.

Mr. Marella stated that if this request was being made by a commercial enterprise, he would be in opposition; however, if this sign directs someone to the right place at the right time and ends up saving a life, he felt it is worth it. He stressed that a hospital is where people are helped, and they are not "being sold a bill of goods". Their purpose is to insure that the ill receive proper care, and he felt time is of the essence. He offered no objection to the variance request.

Mr. Campbell suggested that if this Board wishes to approve the variance request, they consider placing a condition on the variance that it is in effect only as long as the hospital is using that property as a parking lot.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the petitioner would object to having "staff parking" on the sign with an arrow being added to direct others to the hospital.

Mr. Vipperman wanted to keep the sign as simple as possible and not make it confusing with excess wording. He did not want to indicate a "staff parking" area for security reasons.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5398 and application from Mark Vipperman, Mount Clemens General Hospital, 1000 Harrington Boulevard, Mount Clemens, Michigan 48043, as represented by William Lutz, Sign Graphix, 39255 Country Club Drive, Suite B-35, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-A-2; Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Lawn sign" and Chapter 1488.03, Signs: Schedule of Regulations: Chart, concerning 4.634 acres of land generally located at the southeast corner of Groesbeck Highway and Harrington Boulevard (Sections 15/16), that variance be granted to permit installation of a business lawn sign to identify an existing parking lot associated with a hospital (Mount Clemens General Hospital Off-Site Parking Lot) located in the P Parking District being a type of sign not allowed in the District; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that this is a hospital and directional signs help to insure that the ill can locate the right entrance, thereby receiving prompt care; further, this variance is granted with the condition that this variance is in effect only as long as Mount Clemens General Hospital owns the subject parcel; further, that this Board accepts the petitioner’s withdrawal of the request for the sign to be a height of ten (10) feet being two (2) feet in excess of the maximum permitted height of eight (8) feet, by reason that the sign meets the height requirement of the ordinance; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Reynolds, Schwartz, Nickerson, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Abstain – Catalano. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Ms. Schwartz requested the following change to the report of the November 17, 1999 meeting:

Pages 16, Last Paragraph, 2^nd line & Page 17, First Paragraph, 1^st line:  Change from: "…when they originally bought the fire house with the intention of fixing it up, they would have been living in one home. She questioned why they cannot demolish the fire house and build…".  Change to: "…when they originally bought the burned house with the intention of fixing it up, they would have been living in one home. She questioned why they cannot demolish the burned house and build…".

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to approve the report of the November 17, 1999 meeting as amended. Motion carried. (Mr. Catalano abstained).

Mr. Campbell requested the following changes to the report of the December 15, 1999 meeting:

Page 5, Paragraph 3, Lines 2-5:  Change from: "with regard to front yard setback requirements in existing neighborhoods where there are excessive front yard setbacks to determine whether special consideration should be given for lots that are less than 100 feet in width. Motion carried. Change to: "…with regard to regulating excessive differences in front yard setbacks in existing neighborhoods, with special attention to homes that are less than 100 feet apart. Motion carried."

Page 7, Paragraph 2, Line 8:

Change from: "…structure with regard to the portion of the ordinance…" Change to: "…structure with regard to the intent of the portion of the ordinance…".

Ms. Schwartz requested the following change to the report of the December 15, 1999 meeting:

Page 7, Paragraph 1, Line 1:  Change from: "Ms. Schwartz inquired as to how the petitioner will stand if this Board…"Change to: "Ms. Schwartz inquired as to what the petitioner will do if this Board…"

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, to approve the report of the December 15, 1999 meeting as amended. Motion carried. (Mr. Catalano abstained).

Mr. Nickerson nominated Mr. Frank Marella, Ms. Carole Schwartz and Mr. Robert Campbell to serve as Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Secretary, respectively, to the Board of Appeals.

Mr. Marella, Ms. Schwartz and Mr. Campbell each accepted nominations for the offices of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Secretary, respectively.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Ms. Granata, to close nominations for the offices of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Secretary to the Clinton Township Board of Appeals.

Mr. Marella, Ms. Schwartz and Mr. Campbell were elected by acclamation to the positions of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Secretary, respectively, to the Clinton Township Board of Appeals with term of office through December 31, 2000.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS