CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
JANUARY 21, 1998
MINUTES

PRESENT: Joann Granata, Chairperson
                        Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
                        Thomas Landa
                        Francis Marella
                        Carole L. Schwartz
                        Paul D. Woodring
                        Ramon C. Young

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

Ms. Granata called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. She explained that the documentation for each petition will be read by the secretary, the petitioner will be given an opportunity to add or clarify information and the public will be given an opportunity to speak in an orderly manner, after which time the public hearing will be closed and the Board members will have the opportunity to ask questions, discuss the matter and vote on the issue.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

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

Mr. Campbell indicated that there was no new documentation since the November meeting with the exception of revised prints which were distributed to the Board members in their agenda packages.

Don Gooley, 37500 Alpinia Lane, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that the site development plans have been revised and he expressed his hope that they meet with the approval of this Board.

Mr. Woodring felt the prints reflect the changes requested by this Board at their November meeting. He stressed that it is advantageous to have new owners; however, he recommended that if this Board wishes to grant the variance, they should consider making it conditional upon the site being cleaned up.

Mr. Campbell understood the petitioner’s view that he would like a setback similar to other businesses in the area; however, he pointed out that there are other developments along Gratiot Avenue where setbacks have been met and the appearance is very nice. He supported the ordinance which requires that setbacks be met at the time of site development, and he felt this is an excellent opportunity to ensure that the setback from Gratiot Avenue is met.

Mr. Young stated he would like to see improvements to the site as proposed by the petitioner, but he felt action should be taken at this time to enforce the setback requirements. He pointed out that there is sufficient property to the East to provide for parking and yet maintain required setbacks.

Mr. Marella agreed and estimated that the petitioner would only have to relocate six parking spots, which he felt could be accommodated toward the rear of the property.

Mr. Gooley explained that the property elevation behind the building drops approximately three or four feet, which would make it impossible to see the vehicles from the street. He noted that they currently have seventy feet which is already black-topped and being utilized for this purpose.

Roger Stecker, Lehner Associates, Inc., 22900 Wellington Crescent, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, confirmed that there is an approximate ten-foot drop in elevation between the front and the back of the property on northbound Gratiot.

Mr. Young suggested relocating the parking to the east and meeting the minimum required setbacks along Gratiot Avenue. He did not feel there is a drastic difference in the grade of the property.

Mr. Gooley maintained that there is a considerable drop in elevation in the back of the property.

Mr. Woodring cited several other similar businesses along Gratiot Avenue which have a zero-foot setback, including Rocky’s Auto Sales, the Chevrolet dealership and the Ford dealership. He could not see where it would be fair to require the petitioner to meet setbacks and treat him any differently than the others along Gratiot who all have enjoyed the zero-foot setback.

Ms. Granata agreed with Mr. Woodring and pointed out that this is an established dealership and they would be at a disadvantage to be set back. She felt that if this was completely new dealership, it would be a different matter. She felt that in the interest of obtaining and keeping businesses in the area, it may be advantageous to approve this variance. She commented that Mr. Gooley has a reputation of being a stable dealership.

Mr. Landa agreed with Mr. Woodring and Ms. Granata and felt that this petitioner should be given an equal opportunity to match the setbacks of the other neighboring dealerships.

Mr. Campbell acknowledged that this is not a total re-development of the site and suggested that possibly if the variances are granted, they could be made conditional that they will remain in effect as long as there are no further improvements to the site.

After being asked whether he would agree to such a condition, Mr. Gooley stated he understood the conditions and concurred with Mr. Campbell’s suggestion.

Jan Tiano, 18320 Fernlea, Macomb, Michigan 48044, owner of the property which Mr. Gooley is leasing, requested a clarification of the proposed conditions which may be imposed by this Board should the requested variances be granted.

Ms. Granata explained the possibility that a condition could be placed on an approval, which would specify that the variances would remain in effect until such time as there is any further improvement to the building or the property, at which time the petitioner would be required to comply with current ordinance requirements or come before this Board to request a variance.

Mr. Gooley assured that he intends to clean up the property. He noted that when the weather permits, he has arranged for the removal of the five dead trees on the rear portion of the property to be removed. He added that they are installing new lights which will make the area safer and cleaner.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5021 and application from Hillcrest II Auto Sales, 36246 Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Mr. Donald K. Gooley, 37500 Alpinia Lane, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, 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 Front yard Setbacks in the B-3 General Business District, concerning Lots 3, 4 and 5, Ingleside Farms Subdivision (Sections 22/23/25/26), generally located at the northeast corner of Gratiot Avenue and Price Drive at 36246 Gratiot Avenue, that variance be granted to permit an automobile dealership (Hillcrest II Auto Sales) on a corner parcel in the B-3 General Business District with: 1) Front yard setback from Gratiot Avenue of zero (0) feet being twenty-five (25) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; and 2) Zero frontage trees along Gratiot Avenue; and 3) No wall or berm along Gratiot Avenue required as a screening buffer between an off-street parking area and a thoroughfare; and 4) Front yard setback from Price Drive of zero (0) feet being twenty-five (25) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; further, this variance is granted subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant will clean up the dead trees on the property; and 2) This variance is in effect only as long as this property is occupied by Hillcrest II Auto Sales or its successor and owned by Mr. Gooley, and as long as there are no further renovations to the building or the property (after the current improvements are made) which would necessitate revised site development review by the Planning Department; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed hardship of the extreme slope of the property in the rear and the consistency with a number of other automobile lots in the immediate area; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Schwartz, Landa, Marella, Woodring, Young, Granata. Nay - None. Absent - None. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell informed that a revised Notice of Public Hearing has been issued, which includes an additional variance request for a twenty-foot maneuvering lane, which is four feet less than the minimum required 24 feet. 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.

Alger LaHood, 20233 Mack Avenue, Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan 48236, explained that this is an existing building and they are proposing an addition to it.

Mr. Ayan, owner of Yorgo’s Restaurant, was also present to answer questions.

Mr. Landa inquired as to the Clinton Township Fire Department’s opinion of a 20-foot maneuvering lane.

Mr. Miller verified that according to the review received by the Fire Department, their only comment was their standard comment about possibly needing more fire hydrants, but they offered no objection to the 20-foot maneuvering lane.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether there would be sufficient number of parking spaces if the petitioner adheres to the ordinance requirements.

Mr. Young calculated that there are 88 parking spaces provided and only 76 parking spaces are required.

Mr. Miller further calculated that if the petitioner complied to the ordinance requirements, a total of twenty-six parking spaces would be lost; however, since they currently have twelve spaces in excess, they would need to provide an additional fourteen parking spaces. He indicated that there is currently some unpaved area to the east where this parking could be provided.

Discussion took place as to whether a 20-foot maneuvering lane is sufficient or whether it poses a safety hazard.

Mr. Ayan replied to inquiry that they have never received complaints about cars being hit in their parking lot.

Mr. LaHood acknowledged that they currently have more parking than required, they are often very busy during their peak hours on the weekend and utilize all of their existing parking. He hesitated to agree to less parking.

Mr. Campbell felt there is an empty area to the rear of the property where parking could be developed. He commented that this would be an excellent time to bring the site into compliance. He found the 20-foot maneuvering lane to be very difficult and narrow, even though he was not there during peak hours. He understood that they are somewhat limited in their area to provide a 24-foot maneuvering lane, but he stated he would be willing to grant a larger setback variance along Quinn Road if the minimum required maneuvering lane width could be met and the area to the east could be used for parking.

Ms. Granata expressed concern that providing parking further to the rear of the property would cause a hardship to the patrons of the restaurant, many of whom are seniors and may be disadvantaged at the extra distance from the parking area to the front door of the restaurant.

Mr. LaHood relayed that he met with Mr. Stephen Cassin, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, who did not seem to look favorably on a larger setback variance along Quinn Road. Mr. LaHood stated that if that is the wish of this Board, however, he would be willing to accept that. He emphasized that they have tried to meet as many ordinance requirements as possible.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that the petitioner would only be losing seven parking spaces by meeting setback requirements but they may have to tear up some blacktop.

Ms. Schwartz commented that this is a successful existing business which, even though they have exceeded minimum parking requirements, utilizes all of their existing parking during peak hours. She felt many of their patrons are seniors and/or handicapped who need more convenience with regards to parking. Ms. Schwartz felt it would be a hardship for them to position the parking to the rear of the lot.

Mr. Ayan confirmed that many of their patrons are in wheelchairs and are currently able to park directly in front of the building.

Ms. Granata pointed out that both this business and the developer have been in the area for many years and have been successful. She could see no problem with the variance request.

Mr. Young had no objection to the variance request for the setback on Quinn Road; however, he did not agree with the variance for the setback on Gratiot Avenue. He felt they have the opportunity to start improving the appearance of Gratiot Avenue in this area by enforcing the minimum setback requirements. Mr. Young pointed out that since the entrance is being relocated to the Quinn Road frontage, he could see no reason for the variance along Gratiot Avenue.

Mr. Landa disagreed and felt that because the building is in existence, a 25-foot setback along Gratiot Avenue would create a bad situation.

Mr. LaHood replied to inquiry that they do not have room for a berm and were instructed to either install a berm or a wall.

Considerable discussion ensued regarding the various options available to the petitioner.

The question was raised as to whether the petitioner would be willing to accept a conditional variance which would permit the variance contingent upon the current tenants occupying the building.

Mr. LaHood replied that they have invested a considerable sum of money into the improvements of this building, and he therefore requested that any variance granted be in effect as long as this is a restaurant. He stressed that he would not want to be limited to a variance which would only be in effect with the current tenant.

Ms. Schwartz felt if the variance is granted, it should be made conditional upon this particular tenant and his existing business.

Mr. LaHood again emphasized that he would not prefer this condition; however, if that is the wishes of this Board, he would have to accept it.

Mr. Miller confirmed that if the Gratiot setback is required, there would be no parking at all along Gratiot Avenue. He felt there would be no problem in designing the parking further to the rear but stated that the petitioner would lose seven parking spaces.

Motion by Mr. Young, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5151 and application from Alger P. LaHood, LaHood Properties, L.L.P., 20233 Mack Avenue, Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan 48236, 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 Front Yard Setbacks in the B-3 General Business District and Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(1) and (10), Off-Street Parking and Loading; Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance, concerning part of Lot 9, Supervisor’s Plat #8 Subdivision (Section 34), generally located at the northeast corner of Gratiot Avenue and Quinn Road at 34000 Gratiot Avenue, that request for variance to permit an addition to an existing restaurant and expanded off-street parking (Yorgo’s Restaurant) on a corner parcel in the B-3 General Business District with continued front yard setback from Gratiot Avenue of zero (0) feet being twenty-five (25) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet, be denied by reason that there is insufficient hardship or practical difficulty and the fact that the entrance to the restaurant is going to be off of the Quinn Road side on the south side of the building and not off of Gratiot Avenue as it is today. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Young, Campbell, Woodring, Marella. Nay - Landa, Schwartz, Granata. Absent - None. Motion carried.

Mr. Young inquired as to the width of the existing maneuvering lane.

Mr. Ayan replied that the maneuvering lane is currently 20 feet wide.

Mr. Young stated that he looked at the site and did not have any difficulty with maneuvering his car in the existing maneuvering lane.

Motion by Mr. Young, with reference to File #5151 and application from Alger P. LaHood, LaHood Properties, L.L.P., 20233 Mack Avenue, Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan 48236, 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 Front Yard Setbacks in the B-3 General Business District and Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(1) and (10), Off-Street Parking and Loading; Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance, concerning part of Lot 9, Supervisor’s Plat #8 Subdivision (Section 34), generally located at the northeast corner of Gratiot Avenue and Quinn Road at 34000 Gratiot Avenue, that variance be granted to permit an addition to an existing restaurant and expanded off-street parking (Yorgo’s Restaurant) on a corner parcel in the B-3 General Business District with 1)Front yard setback from Quinn Road of six (6) feet being nineteen (19) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet and 2) Maneuvering lane for two-way traffic having width of twenty (20) feet being four (4) feet less than the required width of twenty-four (24) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty in the present placement of the building and the narrowness of the subject parcel; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Motion failed for lack of support.

Considerable discussion followed.

Ms. Granata inquired as to whether this Board has the authority to approve a variance greater than originally requested due to the fact that neighboring residents who received the notification may not have objected to a larger setback but may object to a setback as little as two feet.

Mr. Miller felt that a two-foot setback as opposed to a six-foot setback is not a large enough difference to cause any problems and should not cause a problem as far as having to republish.

Ms. Granata acknowledged that Mr. Miller calculated some quick estimations at this meeting and inquired as to what would happen if these calculations are in error and variances are granted based on these figures.

Mr. Miller replied that if his calculations are in error, then the drawings would be incorrect. He added that these are relatively simple calculations.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether a two-foot setback from Quinn Road would create a safety hazard for possible accidents.

Mr. Marella reminded that along with the two-foot setback from Quinn Road, there would also be a required 30-inch wall.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Woodring, with reference to File #5151 and application from Alger P. LaHood, LaHood Properties, L.L.P., 20233 Mack Avenue, Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan 48236, 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 Front Yard Setbacks in the B-3 General Business District and Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(1) and (10), Off-Street Parking and Loading; Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance, concerning part of Lot 9, Supervisor’s Plat #8 Subdivision (Section 34), generally located at the northeast corner of Gratiot Avenue and Quinn Road at 34000 Gratiot Avenue, that variance be granted to permit an addition to an existing restaurant and expanded off-street parking (Yorgo’s Restaurant) on a corner parcel in the B-3 General Business District with front yard setback from Quinn Road of two (2) feet being twenty-three (23) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; further, this variance is granted on the condition that the petitioner withdraws his request for a variance on the width of the maneuvering lane; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed hardship that the proposed plan is better for the public safety and welfare of patrons; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Woodring, Young, Marella, Schwartz. Nay - Landa, Granata. 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.

Dennis Krestel, Guido Asociates, Inc., 24350 Orchard Lake Road, Suite #101, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48336, explained that the property is very narrow and in combination with the easement required by Edison, it makes a very small site to develop. He further explained that they had to look at developing a narrower building to allow for truck traffic to be able to have sufficient room to enter and maneuver.

Harry Puma, 20941 North Miles, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, owner of the subject property, was present.

Greg Csernai, 20922 North Miles, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, replied to inquiry that Sam Vagnetti owns the property to the south of the subject property.

Mr. Young inquired as to why the building cannot be reduced by 200 square feet and be relocated five to ten feet further off of the property line.

Mr. Krestel replied that although they do not have a problem with reduction of square footage, they would have to narrow their building to 30 feet in width, which is an extremely difficult size to work with for an industrial-type development.

Mr. Young received reply to inquiry that the service access is a large roll-up door. He felt that if the building was reduced in length, it could be moved away from the property line.

Mr. Krestel responded that by moving the building and keeping the 40-foot width, they would be dealing with 50 to 60 feet from the property line, which he felt would not be sufficient for trucks to maneuver.

Mr. Young expressed his opinion that he has a difficult time approving a variance which would place a building on the neighbor’s property line.

Mr. Miller informed that along with the ordinance requiring a 10-foot side yard setback, the ordinance also requires a minimum distance between buildings of 20 feet. He clarified that this requirement is to allow for proper drainage and fire access. He warned that by granting a side-yard setback variance for one parcel may actually be creating a hardship for the abutting property owner who will have to construct his building with a side yard setback of greater than 10 feet.

Mr. Csernai explained that he owns the adjacent parcel and he was told by Mr. Puma that they could each construct their buildings on the property line so they would be back-to-back. He stressed that he has no problem with the petitioner building on the property line but he wants to make sure it will not affect further development in the area.

Mr. Campbell recalled that in a similar case recently heard by this Board, there was an agreement between the petitioner and the abutting property owner to both build on the lot line with a 0-foot side yard setback and develop the buildings as a mirror image of each other so that it would look like one building. Mr. Campbell noted being informed by Mr. Miller, however, that unless the two site development plans are submitted and reviewed at the same time, it would be impossible to enforce. He suggested that if the petitioner and the owner of the abutting property are willing to work together, then further consideration of this matter should be tabled.

Mr. Miller commented that all of the lots in this area are 100 feet in width and as they are each developed, they would each be able to have a driveway, creating a situation similar to that on Garfield Road. He urged the Board of Appeals to consider the health, safety and welfare of the public. He replied to inquiry that even if buildings are somewhat combined by being placed on the lot lines, they are still each entitled to a driveway.

Mr. Marella noted that they may be able to limit access with a service drive in front of the buildings.

Ms. Granata felt this matter should be carefully looked at by the Planning Department and the Township Board.

Discussion took place regarding whether it would be practical to develop these properties together.

Mr. Miller once again compared this to the prolification of driveways along Garfield and felt that it will be very important to look at this issue for this area before it is too late.

Mr. Woodring, liaison to the Planning Commission, explained that in an area like this, the Planning Commission will require property owners to grant an easement for access from one property to the next so the developments are connected. He cited the developments on Garfield, north of 18 Mile Road, where Blockbuster Video and the Sunoco station are connected through the parking lot and patrons do not have to exit onto Garfield Road to go from one business to the next.

Mr. Krestel informed that they have attempted to work with Mr. Vagnetti to have a common driveway but have not been able to consumate a deal, one of the reasons being the legalities of a jointly-owned driveway, with regards to maintenance and liability.

Ms. Granata suggested this matter be tabled. She stated she does not feel comfortable voting on this issue at this time without investigating the matter further. She suggested that a legal opinion be obtained and also requested a study session with representatives from the Planning Department and Township Board members to review this site as well as other sites in the area.

Mr. Woodring agreed with Ms. Granata’s suggestion to table further consideration of this matter.

Mr. Csernai felt that if the petitioner is going to work together with the adjacent property owner, it will most likely by Mr. Vagnetti. He explained that his parcel is for sale and he attended this meeting to find out what will be happening in the area.

Mr. Woodring felt they should table this for a month.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Marella, with reference to File #5152 and application from Harry Puma, H & M Properties of Clinton Township, 40941 North Miles, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by Dennis Krestel, Guido Associates, Inc., 24350 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 101, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48336, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-(r), Land Use Regulations; Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart and Footnotes to Chart; Minimum Side Setback Requirements in the I-1 Light Industrial District, concerning Lot 494, Ingleside Farms Subdivision #3 (Section 22), generally located fronting the west line of Groesbeck Highway, north of Rudgate at 37839 Groesbeck Highway, that further consideration of request for variance to permit construction of an industrial building (proposed H & M Properties Industrial Building) in the I-1 Light Industrial District with north side yard setback of zero (0) feet being ten (10) feet less than the minimum required ten (10) feet, be tabled to allow representatives from the Planning Department, the Board of Appeals and the Township Board to meet and discuss this matter, and further, that legal opinion be obtained from the Township Attorney; further, this is tabled for a period of one month or until the necessary information is available. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Granata, Marella, Landa, Woodring, Young, Schwartz, Campbell. Nay - None. Absent - None. Motion carried.

Mr. Miller explained that the meetings and obtaining the legal opinion is the Board of Appeal’s way of assuring that they will avoid any safety problems. They want to make sure that what they approve is legal and safe.

Mr. Puma inquired as to whether this matter will be on the next agenda of the Board of Appeals.

Ms. Granata replied that they do not know whether they will have the necessary opinions and answers to their questions in time for the next meeting; however, she assured that as soon as that information is available, the matter will be placed on an agenda.

Ms. Schwartz felt that the Ordinance Update Committee should be investigating the possibility of changing the ordinance to allow buildings to be built "back-to-back" with zero (0) foot side yard setbacks. She recalled that at one time the ordinance allowed zero-foot setbacks.

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.

Ms. Granata clarified that although the site development plan was approved, the billboards being requested at this public hearing were not approved.

Michael Laramie, Bodman, Longley & Dahling LLP, 100 Renaissance Center, 34th Floor, Detroit, Michigan 48243, disagreed with Ms. Granata and noted that the billboards were part of the site development plan which was submitted to and approved by the Township Board of Trustees. He explained that they are before this Board to request that the decision of the Township Board be enforced.

Mr. Miller inquired as to under which Township ordinance the billboards were approved. He explained that the Site Plan Review Process is part of the Township Zoning Ordinance, which has no provision for approval of signs. He pointed out that the Sign Ordinance controls the approval of signs and that is under the jurisdiction of the Building Department. He reminded that at the Planning Commission meeting, the petitioner was specifically told that the billboards were not approved.

Mr. Laramie reiterated that the reason they are before this Board is to enforce what was approved by the Township Board, including the site development plan with the billboard signs.

Mr. Miller informed the petitioner that by State law, this Board is limited in what it can do, and he emphasized that the two purposes of this Board are to clarify the ordinance and to consider variances. He warned that anything other than those two requests cannot be considered by this Board.

Mr. Laramie once again assured that this is not a variance request.

Mr. Miller commented that the petitioner is requesting action by this Board that they are not legally able to take.

Ms. Granata noted that the petitioner is indeed requesting a variance because the Township Board never approved the billboards.

Mr. Laramie argued that two billboards were indicated on the site development plan which was submitted to the Township Board. He felt that to deny the petitioner what was approved would be a violation of the State law. He replied to inquiry that he was not in attendance at the Township Board meeting when this site development plan was approved.

Ms. Granata read a portion of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held on May 22, 1997, in which Mr. Miller is quoted as stressing that any approval of the site development plan does not include the billboard signs.

Mr. Campbell explained that the Clinton Township ordinance specifies that all signs shall require a permit issued from the Clinton Township Building Department. He noted the documentation received by this Board indicates the petitioner is seeking an appeal for this denial. Mr. Campbell added that billboard signs are not permitted on a state highway but only an interstate highway. He could not see that there is anything indicative of this property to merit such a variance.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Marella, with reference to File #5153 and application from Vincenza Vitale, 44681 Heydenreich Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, as represented by Michael J. Laramie, Bodman, Longley & Dahling LLP, 100 Renaissance Center, 34th Floor, Detroit, Michigan 48243, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(b)-(3), Definitions and Restrictions: "Billboard Sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(b)-(4), Definitions and Restrictions: "Billboard Sign", concerning 7.68 acres generally located at the southwest corner of Hall Road (M-59) and Heydenreich Road at 44681 Heydenreich Road, that request for variance to permit installation of two (2) billboard signs less than 1,000 feet apart on land located on a State Highway (M-59) within the I-1 Light Industrial District being a type of sign not permitted in the District, be denied based on the fact that no particular conditions which indicate practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship have been presented in accord with the Township ordinance to justify the granting of this variance. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Marella, Woodring, Young, Landa, Granata. Nay - Schwartz. Absent - None. Motion carried.

Tom Bugay, Outdoor Systems, 21272 Worthington, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, explained that Ms. Vitale’s son approached them and was under the impression that they could continue using these signs because they were in existence. He explained that they were not involved with this at the time it went for site development approval to the Township Board.

Mr. Miller confirmed that there were billboard signs on the subject site at one time, but they were taken down.

REPORTS OF MEETINGS

Mr. Campbell requested a couple of changes to the report of November 19, 1997, as follows:

Page 2, Paragraph 5, Line 3:

Change from: "...communities, where there towers range from..."
Change to: "...communities, where their towers range from..."

Page 7, Last Paragraph:

Change from: "Mr. Campbell expressed his opinion that this Board is at such a basic level to consider this variance request because of the confusion with the property description."
Change to: "Mr. Campbell expressed his opinion that it is difficult for this Board to consider this variance request because of the confusion with the property description."

Mr. Campbell also recalled that at that meeting, Mr. Miller had stated he would obtain information and a platted sketch indicating the locations of the various communications towers in the Township. He noted that reference to this subject in the minutes indicates that Mr. Miller stated it would not be difficult for their office to plat these locations; however, the minutes do not reflect that this platted sketch was a directive by this Board.

It was determined that a motion was not made at that meeting as a directive to the Planning Department; therefore, the minutes would not need to be revised with regards to this matter.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Granata, to approve the report of the November 19, 1997 meeting with the two corrections on Pages 2 and 7. Motion carried. (Mr. Marella abstained).

Mr. Young requested that one clarification be made in the minutes of December 17, 1997 as follows:

Page 18, Last Paragraph, Line 2:

Change from: "...petitioner was denied based on the lace of hardship..."
Change to: "...petitioner was denied in 1996 based on the lack of hardship..."

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Ms. Schwartz, to approve the report of the December 17, 1997 meeting with the correction on Page 18. Motion carried. (Mr. Marella abstained).

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Campbell noted that at the November 19, 1997 meeting, a discussion was held regarding the frequency of variances being requested for cellular towers. He recalled that many of the same questions come up each time, such as whether they have attempted to co-locate, what other locations have been considered, what is anticipated for their future needs, etc. At that time, it was determined that a supplemental sheet for applicants to complete when they apply for a cellular tower variance would be helpful, providing them with information about the location of existing towers as well as including the questions mentioned above.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Young, to direct the Department of Planning and Community Development to prepare a draft of a supplemental page to be included in the Board of Appeals application package for variance requests dealing with wireless towers, and to submit this page for review by this Board. Motion carried.

Chairperson

Ms. Granata called for nominations for Chairperson.

Ms. Granata nominated Mr. Francis Marella for Chairperson.

Motion by Mr. Landa, supported by Ms. Schwartz, that nominations for the office of Chairperson of the Clinton Township Board of Appeals be closed. Motion carried.

Mr. Marella accepted the nomination for Chairperson.

Mr. Francis Marella was elected by unanimous vote to the office of Chairperson of the Board of Appeals, with term of office effective through January 1999.


Vice-Chairperson

Ms. Granata called for nominations for Vice-Chairperson.

Ms. Granata nominated Ms. Carole L. Schwartz for Vice-Chairperson.

Motion by Mr. Landa, supported by Mr. Woodring, that nominations for the Vice-Chairperson of the Clinton Township Board of Appeals be closed. Motion carried.

Ms. Schwartz accepted the nomination as Vice-Chairperson.

Ms. Schwartz was elected by unanimous vote as Vice-Chairperson of the Clinton Township Board of Appeals for a term of office effective through January 1999.

Secretary

Ms. Granata called for nominations for Secretary.

Ms. Granata nominated Mr. Robert M. Campbell for Secretary.

Motion by Mr. Landa, supported by Mr. Marella, that nominations for the Secretary of the Clinton Township Board of Appeals be closed. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell accepted the nomination as Secretary.

Mr. Campbell was elected by unanimous vote as Secretary of the Clinton Township Board of Appeals for a term of office effective through January 1999.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Young, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS