CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
February 16, 2000
MINUTES

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

ABSENT:        Francis Marella, Chairperson (Excused)
                        Dean J. Reynolds (Excused)

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

Ms. Schwartz called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. She explained the parameters under which the Board of Appeals can act and how the public hearing will be conducted. She added that a hardship or practical difficulty could not be financial.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, 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.

James Willneff, 20415 Electra, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that they purchased a gazebo and Jacuzzi as a Christmas gift and were not aware of the fact that they would have a problem pulling a permit. He indicated that they would tear the shed down but after discovering that even without the shed they would exceed maximum square footage requirements, they opted to apply for the variance allowing for both the new gazebo and the existing shed.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to the height of the proposed gazebo.

Mr. Willneff replied that he did not know the height dimension; however, he showed a picture of the proposed gazebo to the Board members. He replied to further inquiry that it will be closed to allow protection from the weather and will be made of 2x4 construction.

Mr. Campbell stated that he did not venture into the petitioner’s rear yard; however, he complimented the petitioner on the attractiveness of his property.

Mr. Willneff thanked Mr. Campbell for his comments and apologized for the two boats currently on his property.

Mr. Campbell explained that the intent of this ordinance is to prohibit a parcel from being overbuilt. He commented that in this particular case, their detached garage is a definite disadvantage because, unlike an attached garage, it counts as a detached accessory structure and also counts toward the total floor area of accessory structures. He inquired as to whether the Willneffs considered attaching this structure to their house.

Mr. Willneff replied that attaching the structure to their house would be an option but would cost considerably more money. He explained that their current garage is used for toys and storage. They have three vehicles, but with the one-car driveway, they do not utilize their garage for vehicle storage because of the constant maneuvering that would be necessary. He noted that he uses the garage as a workshop for his boat and his snowmobiles. Mr. Willneff indicated that he is a contractor and used to keep some of his building materials stored in the garage; however, he does not do this anymore and is now working for General Motors. He added that he discussed this variance request with his neighbors on both sides and they offered no objection to his request. He replied to further inquiry that his lot is 50 feet wide.

Mr. Catalano observed that the petitioner currently has two boats, a large shed and a large tarp in the rear yard. He inquired as to what is being stored under the tarp. He also inquired as to how long the petitioner has owned this house.

Mr. Willneff replied that they store lawn furniture under the tarp. He replied to further inquiry that they have been married for 12 years and his wife owned this house for approximately 10 years prior to that time.

Mr. Catalano inquired as to whether the neighbors have experienced drainage problems as a result of the petitioner’s rear yard having so much concrete.

Mr. Willneff assured that there are no drainage problems.

Linda Willneff, 20415 Electra, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, noted that their property is at a lower elevation than the abutting properties, and they have a drain to eliminate any problems.

Mr. Catalano inquired as to whether the petitioner would be willing to tear down the shed if they were to get the variance for the gazebo.

Mr. Willneff responded that tearing down the shed is an option but they would prefer not to remove it. He stressed that even with the shed taken down, the proposed gazebo exceeds the maximum square footage of accessory structures allowed, so he decided to apply for the variance to allow both.

Mr. Nickerson indicated that he would be more in favor of granting a smaller variance to permit the gazebo if the petitioner would remove the shed.

Ms. Granata agreed with Mr. Nickerson’s comments.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether this would mean granting a variance for 18 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted.

Mr. Campbell felt that this Board should deny the request for variance to allow one structure in excess of the maximum permitted two detached accessory structures; however, he suggested the possibility of granting him a variance to permit a combined total floor area of 668 square feet, being 18 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted. He pointed out that if the variance is worded in this manner, the Willneffs can either leave the shed in place and not build the gazebo, or they can remove the shed and continue with the plans for the gazebo.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5404 and application from James and Linda Willneff, 20415 Electra, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.01-(i), Supplementary Regulations: Accessory Structures (Including Garages), concerning Lot 174, Imperial Subdivision (Section 33), generally located fronting the north line of Electra, east of Beaconsfield at 20415 Electra, that request for variance to permit construction of one detached accessory structure (gazebo) for a single-family residence with two existing accessory structures, in the R-5 One-Family Residential District, being one structure in excess of the maximum permitted two detached accessory structures, be denied by reason that no hardship or practical difficulty was demonstrated; however, that request for variance to permit construction of one detached accessory structure (gazebo) for a single-family residence with combined total floor area of 668 square feet being 18 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted combined floor area of 650 square feet, be granted on the condition that the existing shed be removed; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the existing garage is detached and counts toward the total square footage of the maximum permitted combined floor area of detached accessory structures; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Nickerson, Schwartz, Granata, Catalano. Nay – None. Absent – Marella, Reynolds. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there was one written reply 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. He read that letter dated February 6, 2000 from Mr. & Mrs. Herron, 16645 Cederama, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038.

Kola Pashki, 40227 Garfield, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, stated he would like to extend his garage. He noted that it currently measures 45 feet by 21 feet and he would like to add 10 feet to accommodate his trucks. He felt it will help the appearance of his property and will be beneficial to his neighbors.

Anthony Giannone, 16714 Grillo, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, inquired as to what assurances they have that this will not become a "commercial" development if the variance is granted. He complained that there has been a lot of truck activity on the site and reminded that this is a residential neighborhood and abutting property values may be affected. He inquired as to whether the proposed garage will house the existing trucks that are currently parked outside, or whether the petitioner will now acquire additional vehicles.

Mr. Pashki assured that the proposed garage is to store his current vehicles. He stated it would only be used for his trucks and his sub-contractor’s vehicle.

Mr. Miller noted that this piece of property is zoned single-family residential and it is not to be used as contractor’s yard. He cautioned that if this variance is granted, it is not for the purpose of allowing any commercial business. He replied to inquiry that if any of the neighbors are concerned, their recourse is to contact the Department of Ordinance Enforcement and file a complaint, and if the petitioner does not meet current ordinance requirements, he would be issued a violation.

Tony Messina, 16628 Grillo, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, complimented the petitioner on the excellent job he has done cleaning up the subject property; however, he expressed concern about the variance request. He pointed out the previous owner tried to make it a commercial development and he is concerned that with the petitioner’s roofing company, it may turn into a warehouse.

Mr. Pashki assured that he would do nothing to hurt his neighbors.

Mr. Messina did not doubt that Mr. Pashki is "a man of his word"; however, he would like to make sure the neighbors are protected.

Robert Remsing, 16623 Cederama, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, complimented the petitioner on the wonderful job he did on cleaning up the property. He compared its current appearance with a park. He inquired as to the building materials proposed. He inquired as to whether this will be a pole barn or whether it will be a brick building.

Mr. Pashki replied that the proposed building will measure 30 feet by 45 feet, it will be tall enough to accommodate his trucks, and it will be constructed of siding.

Mr. Miller explained that there is a height restriction of 14 feet for accessory structures, which is calculated as the average height of the structure between the tip of the roof and the eaves. He assured that it would only be permitted to be two-stories and would have to meet all BOCA codes. He estimated that the least expensive building material that would be allowed would be T-111.

Mr. Remsing felt a drawing of the proposed structure, along with pictures of the proposed materials to be used in the construction, should have been presented. He expressed concern that there are homes in the neighborhood worth close to $200,000 and those homeowners will not want to look out their windows at an eyesore.

Mr. Miller indicated that this Board, if they so desire, could ask the petitioner if he is going to consider siding for this addition, and they can make this a condition of any approval.

Mr. Remsing admitted that the previous owner did not leave the garage in very good shape.

Mr. Pashki explained that the current garage is made of wood and is very old. He claimed that he ripped down a dilapidated portion of the garage and it now measures only 21 feet by 45 feet.

Lynn Lavoie, 16645 Cederama, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, stated that her kitchen and family room windows face the subject property. She felt that a building as large as what is being proposed is "like building another house". She felt that a variance of 500+ feet is excessive.

Dennis Knoblock, 16660 Cederama, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, complimented the petitioner on how he has cleaned up the subject property. He inquired as to what type of building material is being proposed, and he expressed concern about the size of the building. He acknowledged that this is an odd lot in that it is situated in the middle of their neighborhood, yet it faces Garfield. He stressed his concern that the petitioner will be storing commercial vehicles in the proposed building.

Mr. Miller clarified that the petitioner is allowed one commercial vehicle of up to ¾ ton on his property.

Mr. Knoblock recalled reading something about residential districts and home occupations on the Clinton Township website. He noted that the ordinance specifies that one of the stipulations of a home occupation is that it cannot cause any more traffic or parking than what is permitted in a residential district.

Mr. Miller cautioned that interpreting the ordinance can be tricky because another section of the ordinance, under Open Storage, does allow storage of recreational vehicles when certain requirements are met. He noted that they are also allowed to bring one commercial vehicle home.

Mr. Knoblock inquired as to whether the petitioner’s business is being run out of his home or whether he has an office.

Mr. Pashki replied that the business is run from his home; however, he assured that they do not do any construction work at this site.

Scott Porter, 16729 Cederama, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, felt the petitioner has been an excellent neighbor and stated that if it is determined that the petitioner can keep his two commercial vehicles, it would be better for him to be able to store them inside. He noted that he is the neighbor immediately south of the subject property.

Ms. Granata inquired as to whether the petitioner currently has two commercial trucks on his property.

Mr. Pashki responded that he currently has two commercial vehicles on his property.

Aga Pashki, 40227 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, the petitioner’s wife, clarified that although they have two commercial trucks, her husband uses both of them. She indicated that for smaller jobs, he uses the small truck, but must take the larger trucks for the bigger jobs. She explained that they need the larger garage to house these vehicles and, in retrospect, wished they had left the dilapidated portion. She could not understand why they would not be allowed to rebuild to the original size. Ms. Pashki replied to inquiry that the size of the proposed garage is necessary and he cannot make it any smaller.

Mr. Nickerson appreciated the neighbors’ compliments to the petitioner; however, he pointed out that the existing garage already exceeds the ordinance requirements by over 80 feet. He expressed difficulty in supporting such a large variance request because he has not heard any hardship or practical difficulty presented. He did not feel that the desire to provide parking for two commercial vehicles is considered a practical difficulty.

Mr. Campbell noted that the petitioner has indicated the garage will be used to store multiple commercial vehicles. He stated that if this is the purpose, then they are dealing with the wrong aspect. He recalled that similar variances have been granted in the past; however, they have been on large parcels of property where the homeowner wanted to store tractors and other maintenance equipment necessary for the upkeep of a large parcel of land. He could not see a basis for granting the requested variance, and felt that to do so would authorize something that is in breech of the Township ordinances.

Mr. Catalano addressed the residents and cautioned them to consider what could happen if the petitioner cannot operate his business at that location and moves. He pointed out that the petitioner has cleaned up the property and the next owner may not take care of it as well, resulting in trash and debris in the neighborhood.

Mr. Pashki explained that he is in the process of selling one of his trucks. He added that he would then be parking only one truck in the garage.

Mr. Campbell observed a stake truck on the front lawn for sale, and he also noted that there was a dump truck on the site.

Ms. Granata recalled similar requests coming before them in the past, and it has been recommended to those petitioners that possibly they could seek off-site parking in an approved facility designed for this type of use. She felt that if everyone wanted to park multiple commercial vehicles on their property, the Township would be a mess. She expressed opposition to the variance request.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5406 and application from Kola Pashki, 40227 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Section 1298.01-(i), concerning Lot 31, Garfield Heights Garden Farms Subdivision and ½ of the vacated Garden Avenue on the adjacent north side, generally located fronting the west line of Garfield Road, south of 18 Mile Road at 40227 Garfield Road, that request for variance to construct an addition to an existing accessory building, thus creating a 1366.84 square foot structure, which is 503.56 square feet greater than the maximum allowed, be denied by reason that no hardship or practical difficulty was presented and it is in a residential area. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Nickerson, Campbell. Nay – Catalano, Schwartz. Absent – Marella, Reynolds. Motion failed (Note: Four votes of the seven-member Board are needed to pass).

Considerable discussion ensued.

Mr. Catalano inquired as to whether the petitioner is willing to sell one of his commercial vehicles. He pointed out that the other vehicle could be parked in the existing garage.

Mr. Pashki informed that his current garage is only 6-1/2 feet high, and does not even accommodate a mini-van. He pointed out that even though his garage measures 45 feet by 21 feet, he can only park a small car inside.

Mr. Catalano inquired as to how the Board would feel about the variance request if the petitioner were willing to sell one of his commercial vehicles.

Mr. Campbell commented that if the petitioner is going to sell one of his trucks, he did not know why such a large accessory structure would then be needed. He felt that once they sort out the question of parking only one commercial vehicle on the property, then they can solve whether or not a larger accessory structure is needed.

Mr. Catalano inquired as to whether the petitioner would be able to match the building materials to the existing garage for his addition.

Mr. Pashki stated that he is going to make the structure higher so that he can use it for his truck and mini-van. He assured that the appearance of the addition would match the existing structure.

Ms. Schwartz recalled a recent petition brought before this Board for a similar variance on Moravian Drive, in which this Board denied the request. She recalled that according to the ordinance, they were permitted to park two of the vehicles on the property.

Mr. Miller acknowledged that although two recreational vehicles are permitted, only one commercial vehicle, up to ¾-ton, is allowed. He noted that the variance request for the accessory structure on Moravian was denied because this Board did not consider the vehicles being stored "recreational vehicles" but rather trailers with self-contained equipment to take on their jobs as DJs.

Mr. Campbell stated it was a matter of not properly categorizing the "DJ vehicles" on their application.

Mr. Miller confirmed that only one commercial vehicle is allowed on the property.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether this variance request should be to allow two commercial vehicles being one in excess of the maximum permitted and also to allow a larger accessory structure than what is permitted.

Mr. Miller commented that there is a lack of clarity in the ordinance. He pointed out that under "Open Storage", it is specified that no more than one commercial vehicle is allowed to be parked on residential property. He added that the intent of the ordinance is to allow someone who drives a small commercial truck to drive it back and forth to work and park it at his or her home at night. He stressed that the intent of the ordinance is not to allow storage of commercial vehicles on the property.

Mr. Campbell agreed that there is an ambiguity in this part of the ordinance. He pointed out that the ordinance refers to "storage" but does not specify "open" or "closed".

Ms. Schwartz agreed with Mr. Catalano and would like to see the larger commercial vehicle parked inside an accessory structure because it is a residential district and the petitioner has taken such good care of his property.

Ms. Granata felt that extra height is needed on the accessory structure to enable parking of his truck; however, she was opposed to the additional square footage.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that the petitioner is authorized to construct the additional height, for a total of 14 feet, without any variance from this Board. He pointed out that the petitioner is also allowed under the ordinance to build an 863-square-foot structure, which is approximately 30 feet by 20 feet 10 inches. He felt that is an adequate size and could see no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship presented.

Motion by Mr. Catalano, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5406 and application from Kola Pashki, 40227 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Section 1298.01-(i), concerning Lot 31, Garfield Heights Garden Farms Subdivision and ½ of the vacated Garden Avenue on the adjacent north side, generally located fronting the west line of Garfield Road, south of 18 Mile Road at 40227 Garfield Road, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition to an existing accessory building, thus creating a 1366.84 square foot structure, which is 503.56 square feet greater than the maximum allowed; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Catalano, Schwartz. Nay – Campbell, Granata, Nickerson. Absent – Marella, Reynolds. Motion failed.

Motion by Mr. Catalano, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5406 and application from Kola Pashki, 40227 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Section 1298.01-(i), concerning Lot 31, Garfield Heights Garden Farms Subdivision and ½ of the vacated Garden Avenue on the adjacent north side, generally located fronting the west line of Garfield Road, south of 18 Mile Road at 40227 Garfield Road, that further consideration of request for variance to construct an addition to an existing accessory building, thus creating a 1366.84 square foot structure, which is 503.56 square feet greater than the maximum allowed, be continued at the Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for March 15, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. so that a full Board can be present to vote. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Catalano, Schwartz, Campbell, Granata, Nickerson. Nay – None. Absent – Marella, Reynolds. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that the Board of Appeals Meeting in October of this year conflicts with the MSPO Conference and, as a result, they may not have a full quorum. He suggested rescheduling the date of the meeting from October 18, 2000 to October 11, 2000. He further suggested rescheduling the date of September’s meeting from September 20, 2000 to September 13, 2000 to keep the meetings more evenly spaced. He commented that if September’s meeting were not changed, there would be five weeks between the September and October meetings, and three weeks between the October and November meetings.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Catalano, to revise the Board of Appeals Meeting Schedule by changing September’s meeting from September 20, 2000 to September 13, 2000, and to change October’s meeting from October 18, 2000 to October 11, 2000. Motion carried.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Ms. Granata, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS