CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
MARCH 18, 1998
MINUTES

PRESENT: Carole L. Schwartz, Vice-Chairperson
                        Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
                        Michael Nickerson
                        Paul D. Woodring
                        Ramon C. Young

ABSENT:    Francis Marella, Chairperson (Excused)
                        Joann Granata (Excused)

STAFF:        Michael P. Howell, Community Planner II
                        DEPT. OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Schwartz called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. She noted that two members of the Board are absent and that determination of the variance requests will be based on a majority vote of the membership, which amounts to a minimum of four votes. She stated that, for this reason, anyone who desires to have their petition tabled until the next meeting is welcome to come forward at this time; however, no one responded to this offer.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion by Mr. Woodring, supported by Mr. Campbell, 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.

August Caringi, architect, 38350 James Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, recalled that at the last meeting, there was some concern by the Board members about the proposed development adjacent to Mr. Roselli’s property. He explained that they have obtained a copy of the proposed site development plan and the nearest buildings are shown to be at least twenty to thirty feet from the property line. He assured that the owners of that property have indicated to the petitioner that they have no objection to the variance request and would prefer that option rather than the petitioner moving their building closer to Groesbeck, which could interfere with visibility of the abutting business. Mr. Caringi replied to inquiry that he does not have anything in writing at this time from the abutting property owners indicating their support of the variance request. He felt confident, however, that he could obtain such a letter.

Mr. Howell replied to inquiry that there has been no letter received by the Planning Department from the abutting property owner. He replied to further inquiry that a motion to approve the variance could be made contingent upon a letter from the abutting property owner being submitted; however, he suggested that it would be better to require the letter prior to any action being taken in order to assure what the letter would say.

Mr. Young agreed that a letter indicating no objection to the variance request should be required from the abutting property owner prior to action being taken; however, he also felt that a copy of the proposed site plan for the adjacent property would be helpful to the Planning Department and this Board in making their determination.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5165 and application from Antonio Roselli, 27474 Iris Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by August L. Caringi, 38350 James Drive, 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: Chart; Minimum Front Yard Setback in the I-1 Light Industrial District and Chapter 1292.01-(r), Land Use Regulations; Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart and Footnotes to Chart; Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements; I-1 Light Industrial District and Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(13)-B, Off-Street Parking and Loading; Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance, concerning 1.081 acres fronting the west line of Groesbeck Highway, south of Hall Road (M-59) (P.C. 139, Section 2), that further consideration of request for variance to permit construction of an additional building (Building #2, Triangle Industrial Park) in the I-1 Light Industrial District with: 1) Front yard setback from Groesbeck Highway of zero (0) feet being twenty-five (25) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; and 2) Six (6) frontage trees being twelve (12) trees fewer than the required eighteen (18) trees; and 3) Rear yard setback of zero (0) feet being ten (10) feet less than the minimum required ten (10) feet; and 4) Zero (0) parking lot trees being five (5) trees fewer than the minimum required five (5) trees, be tabled until the next regular meeting of the Board of Appeals to enable the petitioner an opportunity to obtain a letter from the abutting property owner to the southwest of the site, indicating his feelings on the variance request and to provide a copy of the proposed plan for the abutting property southwest of the subject site. Motion carried.

Mr. Howell explained that one of the agenda items on the next Township Board meeting, scheduled for Monday, March 23, 1998, is a discussion to place a 60-day moratorium on building in this particular area for the purpose of conducting a study as to whether a new zoning district should be established. He further explained that there are nearly forty industrial lots within a 3/4 mile distance and the Township is trying to avoid a situation where there will be as many curb cuts in such a close proximity. He did not wish to speculate what their decision will be regarding this moratorium.

Mr. Puma inquired as to how this will affect him.

Mr. Howell replied that if a moratorium is placed on building in this area and a study is conducted, it may or may not eliminate the need for Mr. Puma to come before this Board, or the variance request may need to be revised.

Mr. Puma inquired as to his options at this time.

Ms. Schwartz indicated that the petitioner can withdraw his application and wait until a possible ordinance amendment is adopted.

Mr. Puma inquired as to whether it would be an option for this Board to table his request.

Mr. Woodring commented that he would be reluctant at this time to approve a variance without knowing the outcome of whether a there will be any ordinance amendments in the near future as a result of the anticipated study. He indicated that he would like to see the matter tabled.

Mr. Puma was agreeable to tabling further consideration of this request.

Mr. Young noted that any changes to the ordinance may be to the petitioner’s advantage. He did not feel the petitioner has anything to lose, but may have a lot to gain.

Mr. Puma agreed that this is a difficult area to develop and possibly after a study and amendments to the ordinance, it may be easier.

Mr. Campbell recalled that the previous motion made at the last meeting to table this item specifically requested the opinion of the Township attorney and the Planning Department with regards to this area. He noted that these opinions have not been received by this Board. He felt the matter should be tabled until there is Township action clarifying the development status on this portion of Groesbeck.

Daniel Spatafore, 201 West Big Beaver Road, Suite #720, Troy, Michigan 48094, representing Rudgate Mobile Home Community, explained that he has not viewed any plans for the proposed industrial development, but to the extent that any building or driveway approaches come off to the south onto Rudgate Way, he stressed that it is a private road. He emphasized that they would be in objection to any type of construction that would hide their entrance signs.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Young, with reference to File #5165 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 Yard 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 until the Township has an opportunity to take appropriate action on development in this area, and to be provided with official opinion from the Planning Department and Township attorney as requested at the January meeting; further, that the petitioner be given an opportunity, taking any revisions to the ordinance in consideration, to modify his plans as necessary. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Young, Nickerson, Woodring, Schwartz. Nay - None. Absent - Marella, Granata. Motion carried.

Anthony Sanfemio, 35500 Groesbeck, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that they have a narrow parcel of land and are requesting a side yard setback variance.

Mr. Howell clarified that if the petitioner is granted a side yard variance, they will also need a variance to permit them to be closer than the required 20 feet from the adjacent building.

Mark Steiner, president of Flint Manufacturing, 15991 Toulouse, Fraser, Michigan 48026, commented that they have invested a lot of money into their building to make it attractive, including "wrap-around" windows, and he felt locating the proposed building closer to the property line will detract from their view. He also expressed concern with the BOCA codes and how it relates to fire safety should their two buildings be close together. He suggested that the petitioner move his building closer to the opposite side of the property.

Mr. Sanfemio acknowledged that they would have no problem locating their building closer to the west property line; however, they would still need a variance.

Keith Ward, 18775 14 Mile Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, property owner west of the subject site, stated that he lives adjacent to the proposed development and has lived there for seventeen years. He offered no objection to the variance request as it stands, but did not want to see the building moved closer to his lot line. He questioned as to what is going to happen.

Mr. Howell clarified that the petitioner’s request is to permit construction of the building on the east property line with a zero foot side yard setback. He replied to inquiry that Mr. Ward’s property, although being used for residential, is actually zoned industrial.

Ms. Schwartz replied to inquiry that the request for variance is from the east property line and they will not be entertaining a motion at this meeting to switch to a variance from the west property line.

Mr. Young inquired as to why the building must be 40 feet in width.

Mr. Sanfemio replied that a 40-foot-wide building would be the minimum size they would need. He replied to inquiry that a 30-foot-wide building would not be sufficient.

Mr. Young inquired as to whether they could still construct a 3,200 square foot building but rearrange the layout to make the building slightly narrower. He suggested that they consider a 37-foot-wide building and they would be able to maintain the required 20-foot distance between buildings.

Mr. Sanfemio assured that all BOCA codes are being met and have been worked into the design of the building; however, he added that if both adjacent property owners prefer, he would be willing to re-work the plan and accept a variance to permit a 37-foot-wide building.

Mr. Young pointed out that when a building is constructed on the lot line, it is difficult to properly maintain that building without trespassing onto the abutting property for necessary maintenance.

Mr. Howell clarified that Mr. Young’s suggestion of a 37-foot-wide building would still result in the need for a side yard setback variance, although it would eliminate the necessity for a distance variance between the two buildings.

Ms. Schwartz felt this Board would need to see any revised plans incorporating the suggested changes prior to approval of any variances.

Mr. Young agreed with Ms. Schwartz that he would like to see the plans prior to approving any variances.

Mr. Campbell felt the variances are appropriate for the narrow lot and he admitted that although it is narrow, he disagreed that the property would be unbuildable without a variance. He stressed that it is always better to try to meet ordinance requirements when possible.

Ms. Schwartz pointed out that in the application, the petitioner indicated that the property could be used without the variance.

Mr. Sanfemio confirmed that he had replied that the property is buildable without a variance; however, he stressed the needs of his tenant require a building of a specific size. He stated that he would still like to build a 37-foot-wide building.

It was confirmed that if this matter is tabled and the request is revised, property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property would be re-notified.

Mr. Steiner inquired as to what hardship is being presented, because he was with the understanding that this Board had to have a hardship in order to act on a variance.

Mr. Campbell explained that a typical hardship presented to this Board is an unusual shape or narrow width or depth of property. He noted that in many cases a narrow width such as this could be considered a hardship.

Mr. Steiner expressed concern regarding the view from the corner office of his building being blocked if the variance is approved.

John Dahl, 12761 Sioux, Redford, Michigan, complained that the other property owners in the area developed according to ordinance regulations and he could see no reason why the petitioner should be any different.

Mr. Woodring did not feel that a 40-foot-wide building is excessive. He inquired as to whether the parking could be relocated to the rear of the building, thereby eliminating the need for a variance.

Mr. Sanfemio stressed that they are requesting a side yard variance at this hearing; however, he agreed that if the parking was relocated to the rear of the building, they may not need a variance. He agreed to withdraw his application and inquired as to whether they would be eligible to receive a refund of the filing fee.

Mr. Howell replied that costs have been incurred for this hearing and it would be unlikely that a refund could be given.

Mr. Campbell explained that partial refunds of filing fees minus costs incurred have been given in the past, but they have generally occurred in circumstances where the Township may have created a misunderstanding.

Mr. Young recalled refunds being given when revisions to the ordinance are adopted after an application is accepted, and those revisions result in variances no longer being necessary.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5173 and application from Mr. Anthony Sanfemio, Centaur Building Corporation, 35500 Groesbeck Highway, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, 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 Yard Setback Requirements in the I-1 Light Industrial District, concerning 0.491 acre of land generally located fronting the north line of 14 Mile Road, east of Kelly Road at 18801 14 Mile Road, that the request from the petitioner to withdraw his application for variance to permit construction of an industrial building (A.A.A. Moving) in the I-1 Light Industrial District with east side yard setback of zero (0) feet being ten (10) feet less than the required ten (10) feet, and, further, located a distance of fifteen (15) feet from an existing building being five (5) feet less than the required distance of twenty (20) feet, be accepted. 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.

Mr. Howell explained that the petitioner is requesting a variance to the number of trees required because if the other portion of the variance is granted, there will be no room to plant the trees because there will be no berm. He further explained that without the 25-foot front yard setback, a 30-inch high wall would be required in between the parking lot and the property line.

John Latella, 1515 West Windemere, Royal Oak, Michigan 48073, noted that the wall requirement was not explained to him previously, but they are trying to remain consistent with the setbacks of the adjacent businesses. He further indicated that the existing building on the property to the north was built on the property line due to the approval of a previous Board of Appeals, and this has created a hardship for him in having to maintain a 20-foot distance between buildings. Mr. Latella noted that they are trying to line up the frontage of the building with LaHood Plaza to the south.

Mr. Young inquired as to whether parking is proposed for the front in lieu of a greenbelt.

Mr. Howell confirmed that the parking is proposed for the front. He added that the approval of the adjacent buildings were granted prior to the ordinance requirements being changed.

Mr. Latella recalled that the property to the south was developed within the last three years. He indicated that with the variance as requested, they will be centered between the two existing adjacent buildings. He noted that the neighbor to the south has a 24-foot grassy area and the building is occupied with a child care center. Mr. Latella specified that it is their intention to have the driveway and dumpster located at the north edge of the property away from his fence.

Mr. Woodring explained that they cannot become involved with the ordinances that were in effect when the neighboring properties were developed. He noted that the current ordinance requires a wall, but if the petitioner wishes a waiver of that wall, he can request that during the site plan process. He added that only the Township Board can grant a wall waiver. He stressed that the request at this meeting does not involve the wall.

Mr. Howell confirmed that the petitioner has met the required distances between buildings but he needs a side yard and front yard setback variances.

Mr. Latella admitted that he could build a smaller, narrower building, but argued that it does not make economical sense because of the cost of the land and the revenue they would be recovering from the leases they obtain.

Ms. Schwartz reminded that monetary hardships cannot be considered by this Board.

Mr. Howell replied to inquiry that the proposed parking is not in the right-of-way.

Mr. Latella clarified that the right-of-way has not yet been dedicated to the Road Commission.

Mr. Young could understand his position regarding the side yard setback and felt hardship has been presented.

Mr. Campbell felt the petitioner presented a good case. He commented that in consideration of the developments to the north and south of the subject property, the proposed plan makes a lot of sense. He added that the parking would be consistent with what is already established in the area.

Mr. Latella replied to inquiry that he has not received any comments from Mr. LaHood, the adjacent property owner.

Ms. Schwartz could understand the hardship on the north side of the property but not in the front.

Mr. Howell replied to inquiry that the required 25-foot front yard setback has been in existence for a long time, so he felt the neighboring property owners may have received variances. Mr. Howell reminded that the required wall is not under the jurisdiction of this Board and that will be addressed at the Planning Commission and Township Board levels.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Woodring, with reference to File #5175 and application from Nikola and Naimeh Harb, 25019 Anchorage, Harrison Township, Michigan 48045, as represented by John Latella, 1515 West Windemere, Royal Oak, Michigan 48073, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-m, Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart and Footnotes: Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements in the B-1 Neighborhood Business District and Chapter 1292.01, Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart; Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements in the B-1 Neighborhood Business District, concerning Lots 276 and 277, Jefferson Heights Subdivision, generally located fronting the east line of Harper Avenue, south of Manila, that variance be granted to permit construction of a retail building (proposed Harb Plaza) in the B-1 Neighborhood Business District with: 1) Front yard setback of zero (0) feet being twenty-five (25) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; and 2) Zero (0) frontage trees being three (3) trees fewer than the minimum required three (3) trees; and 3) South side yard setback of zero (0) feet being ten (10) feet less than the minimum required ten (10) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on the practical difficulty that the placement of the building on the property to the north makes compliance with the ordinance difficult; further, this variance is granted to maintain consistency and conformity with the other developments in the neighborhood; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Woodring, Young, Nickerson, Schwartz. Nay - None. Absent - Marella, Granata. Motion carried.

Motion by Mr. Young, supported by Mr. Nickerson, to approve the report of the February 18, 1998 Meeting as submitted. Motion carried (Mr. Woodring abstained).

MEETING SCHEDULE

Discussion took place regarding the next regular meeting of the Board of Appeals.

Mr. Campbell noted that the meeting is scheduled for April 15, which is the week after Easter. He suggested the possibility of rescheduling the meeting to April 22 to assure a quorum.

Further discussion took place regarding whether promises have been made to petitioners with regard to the meeting date of April 15. All of the members present tonight indicated that they would be able to attend a meeting on April 15.

It was decided to keep the meeting scheduled for April 15, 1998.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Campbell, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS