CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
MAY 17, 2000
MINUTES

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

ABSENT:    Carole L. Schwartz, Vice-Chairman (Excused)

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

Mr. Marella called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. He explained the parameters under which the Board of Appeals can act and how the public hearing will be conducted. He added that a hardship or practical difficulty cannot be financial.

Mr. Marella requested the addition of Item #6: Discussion Regarding Approval Certificates For Variances Granted by the Board of Appeals.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Campbell, to approve the agenda with the addition of Item #6. 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.

Mike Sorrentino, 35520 Forton Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that they did not install the required berm; however, they do not have any off-street parking area in front of their building and would like to install landscaping in lieu of the berm. He submitted photographs of the site as it exists and also as he envisions it with the landscaping. He replied to inquiry that the berms in the east/west direction are buffers for their parking lot.

Mr. Campbell explained that one of the conditions placed upon this Board is that they are not permitted to grant variances based on self-created hardships. He felt this is a self-created hardship because they have chosen not to put in the berm. He further felt this matter falls under the auspices of site plan review and should be looked at by the Planning Commission rather than this Board. He noted that the purpose of a berm is to provide "site line relief"; however, although he was confident that the landscaping would be attractive, it would not serve the same purpose as the berm. He suggested that this request be denied or referred to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.

Mr. Miller commented that the berm or a wall is required. He pointed out that the original plan showed it but when the site was developed, the berm was not installed. The petitioner was notified that the site was not built according to the approved plan. He emphasized that the Planning Commission made recommendation to approve the site plan with the berm in place, and the petitioner is seeking relief from this requirement.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to whether the area where the cars are exiting the car wash is considered a parking area.

Mr. Miller replied that the area referred to by Mr. Nickerson is technically not a parking lot but rather a 24-foot-wide parking drive.

Mr. Campbell felt it is noticeable that the berm is not present because the abutting developments have provided berms. He could see no basis for granting this variance request.

Mr. Sorrentino clarified that he is seeking a variance to allow landscaping in lieu of a berm, not to "seek relief" from installing the berm, but to make the site more attractive. He emphasized that the landscaping will cost at least $500 to $1,000 more than a berm.

Mr. Catalano complimented Mr. Sorrentino on the development but admitted that his fellow Board members have raised some valid concerns. He felt that a landscape plan should be submitted to the Planning Department with the various types of present and proposed foliage identified.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether there is a provision in the ordinance for a petitioner to seek an amendment to an approved plan.

Mr. Miller replied that there is a "Revised Site Development" process, where the petitioner submits revised plans and after review by the Department and various reviewing agencies, it is submitted to the Planning Commission for their decision. He added that Revised Site Development Plans do not have to be submitted to the Township Board for final approval. He stressed that if a site does not meet the ordinance requirements, the Planning Department does not forward that item to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Catalano concurred with Mr. Miller that the site development plan must meet the ordinance requirements prior to going to the Planning Commission. He felt that foliage around the trees and other landscaping would serve the same purpose as the berm but would be more attractive.

Mr. Sorrentino felt the landscaping would look much nicer. He interpreted the ordinance as requiring a berm to buffer the off-street parking area and since they have no off-street parking area in the front of the building, he did not feel the berm would be required.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5420 and application from Michael Sorrentino, Sorrentino Builders, 35520 Forton Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, 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-3 General Business District, concerning 0.189 acre fronting the north line of 15 Mile Road, west of Utica Road (Section 30), that request for variance to permit an existing car wash development (Dirty Harry’s) in the B-3 General Business District with no 30"-high berm or wall as a screening buffer between an off-street parking area and 15 Mile Road and as required by a site development plan previously reviewed and approved, be denied by reason that the practical difficulty presented is self-created. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Nickerson, Reynolds. Nay – Granata, Catalano, Marella. Motion failed.

Discussion ensued.

Mr. Nickerson recalled a recent request brought before this Board by representatives from the south branch of the Clinton Macomb Library, and they were granted a variance to eliminate the 30-inch berm. He acknowledged this Board has granted this type of variance in the past, and in light of that fact, he expressed his willingness to reconsider.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5420 and application from Michael Sorrentino, Sorrentino Builders, 35520 Forton Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, 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-3 General Business District, concerning 0.189 acre fronting the north line of 15 Mile Road, west of Utica Road (Section 30), that variance be granted to permit an existing car wash development (Dirty Harry’s) in the B-3 General Business District with no 30"-high berm or wall as a screening buffer between an off-street parking area and 15 Mile Road and as required by a site development plan previously reviewed and approved; further, this variance is granted with the stipulations that: 1) a revised Site Development/Landscape Plan be submitted to the Planning Department for their review and approval, and 2) that landscaping be planted according to that plan in lieu of the required wall or berm; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that there is no off-street parking in front of the building; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Catalano, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Absent – Schwartz. Motion carried.

Discussion took place regarding the existing landscaping and trees. It was noted that Austrian Pines, Sunset Maples and Honey Locusts are the species of trees proposed.

Mr. Marella reminded that the petitioner has been granted this variance subject to his submitting a revised plan to the Planning Department.

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.

Steve Okopien, Creative Wood Products, 12272 Fenton Road, Fenton, Michigan 48430, explained that they are proposing to build a 14-foot by 16-foot deck for their customers; however, when they applied for the permit, they were told they were in violation by eight feet. He pointed out that there is an easement along the rear of the property and the lot is very shallow, making it difficult to adhere to ordinance requirements. He added that without the variance, they would only be permitted to extend six feet from the bay window, which would not be sufficient for a deck.

Mr. Campbell observe that this house has an excessive front yard setback, with the narrowest point over 30 feet from the garage to the street and the deepest point having a 50-foot setback. He questioned whether the builder or homeowner who had this built had any intention of adding on to it. He felt that the proposed addition would be overbuilding the property.

Mr. Okopien clarified that when his clients purchased the home, it was already started and the basement was poured. He assured they had nothing to do with the placement of the home on the property.

Mr. Nickerson estimated that the shortest distance in the front from the home to the street measured only the required 25 feet. He felt that with the size of the easement in the rear and the curvature of the road in the front, he had no objection to the variance request. He commented that the residents in his subdivision are often faced with this dilemma because of all of the curves in the roads.

Mr. Campbell felt that the petitioners, when buying this house, had to know the curvature of the road and the garage-forward design would limit their ability to add anything to the rear yard.

Mr. Marella reminded that whoever made the decision about the positioning of the house on this property is not the individual who owns this house at this time.

Mr. Okopien informed that the petitioners contacted him to build the addition approximately four months after the home was completed.

Mr. Marella noted that in addition to the curvature of the street in the front, the back lot line is at an angle as well, making the east end of the property shallower than the west end.

Mr. Okopien explained that the builders kept the houses in a line but as they got down to the subject house, they were "running out of room".

Mr. Catalano could see the practical difficulty, but he commented that the decision to grant this variance would have been easier if the petitioner had submitted a letter signed by his abutting neighbors indicating they have no objection to the variance request.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5421 and application from Mr. & Mrs. Siemienkiewicz, 19513 Tanglewood Circle, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1299.01-(h); General Exceptions: Area, Height and Use Exceptions; Porches and Decks, concerning Lot 10, Normandy Forest Subdivision (Section 9), generally located fronting the north line of Tanglewood Circle, west of Clinton River Road at 19513 Tanglewood Circle, that variance be granted to permit construction of a deck for an existing single-family residence in the R-4 One-Family Residential District projecting into the required rear yard a distance of sixteen (16) feet being eight (8) feet in excess of the maximum permitted eight (8) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on the fact that the lot is odd-shaped with a large front yard setback and an easement in the rear yard, and further, that there are no objections from the abutting property owners; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickerson, Granata, Catalano, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – Campell. Absent – Schwartz. 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.

Paul Dieters, Metro Detroit Signs, 23544 Hoover Road, Warren, Michigan 48089, explained that they made a similar request for another Walgreen Pharmacy site at last month’s Board of Appeals meeting. He noted that they changed the request slightly but the main concern of Walgreen’s this evening is to be able to put the Walgreen’s signage on the south elevation of the building. He pointed out that they have been able to do that at their other locations in Clinton Township but they do not understand why it would not be permitted at this location.

Mr. Miller recalled the original sign application came to him for review and he stated that if he denied the two wall signs, he was mistaken. He assured that the petitioner would be allowed one wall sign on both the south elevation and the east elevation. He felt that they would not need the variance for the number of wall signs if they spaced their information in such a way that it was grouped together and could be considered one wall sign.

Mr. Dieters has explained this to Walgreen’s and is encouraging them to modify their sign request. He again emphasized that the want to be assured that they can have a wall sign facing Canal Road.

Mr. Miller assured that two wall signs and one pylon sign are permitted, and he informed that the error on the sign application, denying the wall sign on the south elevation, will be administratively approved.

Mr. Marella felt a motion should be made by this Board approving the wall signs on the south and east elevations so there is no confusion.

Mr. Campbell felt if the Walgreen sign package being proposed was similar to the signage at their new facility located at John R and Big Beaver, they would have no problem receiving approval. He noted that at that location, neither wall sign is larger than 25 feet.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5425 and application from Mark D. Redmond, MRED (Canal/Garfield), Inc., W228N745 Westmound Drive, Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186, as represented by Patti Krula and Paul Dieters, Metro Detroit Signs, 23544 Hoover Road, Warren, Michigan 48089, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-B-1 and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-B-3; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Pylon sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(2); Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(3)-(h); Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Flashing/moving sign", concerning 0.8775 acre of land generally located at the northeast corner of Canal Road and Garfield Road at 16741 Canal Road (Section 7), that request for variance to permit installation of one (1) business pylon sign and ten (10) business wall signs for a proposed freestanding retail store (Walgreens Pharmacy) in the B-2 Community Business District, on a corner parcel with frontage on one major and one secondary thoroughfare, with: 1) Pylon sign display area of 93.59 square feet being 13.59 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 80 square feet; 2) Clearance of 5.38 feet being 0.62 foot less than required; 3) Eight (8) wall signs in excess of the maximum permitted two (2) wall signs; and 4) A flashing/moving sign panel ("LED readerboard") on the pylon sign being a type of sign not permitted in any district, be denied by reason that no practical difficulty was demonstrated, and the petitioner will adhere to the ordinance requirements. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Campbell, Catalano, Nickerson, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Schwartz. 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.

Rick Haddad, Mr. Enclosure, 2400 East 14 Mile Road, Warren, Michigan 48092, explained that they are requesting this variance for a couple of reasons. He pointed out that the lot is long and narrow and because of the shape of the lot and the positioning of the other homes in the area, he did not feel the variance would affect anyone. He indicated that there is a garage blocking the view on one side plus a privacy fence all around. Mr. Haddad presented photographs to the Board members showing the subject property. He felt strongly that they are not violating the intent of the ordinance with the variance request because they are not impeding anyone’s view.

Mr. Miller replied to inquiry that the minimum 25-foot rear yard setback was changed to a minimum of 35 feet; however, he could not recall the exact date this ordinance amendment was adopted.

Mr. Marella estimated that these homes were built in 1954 and 1955.

Mr. Catalano added that the homes in this area, when originally built, had long narrow backyards but no garages.

Mr. Haddad emphasized that there is nowhere else to locate this sunroom addition. He replied to inquiry that he will be cutting out a window and installing a door wall so the petitioners can gain access to the sunroom directly from their home. He assured it will be tastefully done. He pointed out that homeowners with lots that conform are allowed to add on a sunroom, but he felt that because his client’s lot does not conform does not mean he should be deprived of this same benefit.

Mr. Catalano acknowledged that he went to look at the site and although he did not venture onto the property, he did notice a motor home and also inquired as to whether the petitioners have a swimming pool.

Mr. Marella noted that there was a 30-foot mobile home parked on the property as well as a trailer.

Mr. Catalano inquired as to who owns the truck that is parked in the driveway, and he further inquired as to what the petitioners store in their garage.

Mr. Haddad replied that these matters are not his concern and his job is to present this petition for variance to this Board. He assured that all of these vehicles would be in the rear yard if they had sufficient room.

Mr. Marella clarified that the petitioner is permitted to have the motor home as long as it is on a solid surface.

Mr. Miller added that the motor home must also be parked behind the front building line of the house.

Discussion took place regarding the recreational vehicles parked on the premises.

Mr. Haddad replied to inquiry that two people live in the subject house. He felt that if the Township or the neighbors have problems with vehicles being parked or stored on the property, he felt the matter could be resolved but he stressed that is not the purpose of this public hearing.

Mr. Campbell commented that this is one of the oddest shaped parcels in the Township. He agreed with Mr. Haddad’s comments that the porch would be hidden from view of the abutting property owners. He mentioned that this Board tends to grant variances for sun porches; however, he pointed out that the proposed porch is projecting 22 ½ feet into the required 35-foot setback and he felt the Township should be looking at placing a limit on how much can be built on one piece of property, especially when it involves large amounts of cement. He expressed concern that since concrete does not absorb water, it may be difficult to provide for run-off.

Mr. Haddad pointed out that there is a 35- or 40-foot greenbelt adjacent to the proposed sunroom and this is where the run-off would go. He felt this is a "textbook case" for why the Board of Appeals is here. He stressed that there are no issues in terms of lot coverage and they are not trying to "crowd the lot". Another advantage is the fact that it is an all-glass structure and is not all brick.

Mr. Campbell stated that he is partial to sunrooms and has one on his house; however, he felt this is excessive.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5426 and application from Rick Hadad, Mr. Enclosure, 2400 East 14 Mile Road, Warren, Michigan 48092, 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 Lot 184, Winshall Villa Subdivision (Section 27), generally located fronting the west line of Weideman Drive, north of 15 Mile Road at 35349 Weideman Drive, that variance be granted to permit construction of a sunroom addition for an existing single-family residence in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of 12.6 feet being 22.4 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 odd-shaped and narrow; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – Campbell, Catalano. Absent – Schwartz. 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.

Rick Hadad, Mr. Enclosure, 2400 East 14 Mile Road, Warren, Michigan 48092, representing Mr. and Mrs. Schroeder, explained the petitioners are applying for this variance to permit a sunroom for their home. They have a garage-forward design and so cannot position their house closer to the street, resulting in the reason for the variance request. He noted the proposed enclosure will measure 12 feet by 24 feet, and he stressed that anything less than 12 feet deep is considered non-functional.

Ed Kirschner, 39516 Vinnie Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, stated that although he cannot see Mr. Schroeder’s lot from his house; however, he expressed concern about the entire subdivision. He commented that he paid approximately $14,000 more for his house on this lot than if he had this same house on a smaller lot. He decided to pay the premium price for this lot because he liked the extra space this subdivision offered. He feels that if this variance request is approved, it may open the door for other similar requests to be approved. He inquired as to why the Township has set a minimum 35-foot rear yard setback if anyone can come in and waive that requirement for sunrooms.

Mr. Marella explained that the ordinances are in place to make sure there is some semblance of order; however, there is always opportunity to petition relief because the ordinances may not always fit everyone who has special and unique problems, such as health concerns or odd-shaped property. He sympathized with Mr. Kirschner and assured that this Board proceeds very cautiously with all appeals brought before them.

Ms. Granata inquired as to whether this is an all-glass enclosure.

Mr. Hadad replied that the proposed addition is a glassed-in enclosure. He acknowledged that meeting rear yard setback requirements when adding sunrooms is becoming difficult, but he informed that some communities have looked into this dilemma. He stated that the City of Sterling Heights has made a requirement that an addition is permitted to be 25-feet from the rear lot line as opposed to the required 35 feet as long as the enclosure is at least 75% glass. He added that other communities have also taken this into consideration. He mentioned that the property to the south is being built five or six feet deeper than the subject home, so he did not feel the addition will affect them at all.

Ms. Granata felt that if this was going to be an all brick enclosure, she would be opposed to the variance request; however, because it is glass, she offered no objection.

Mr. Catalano felt the builder of these homes built the largest square-foot homes possible and made use of every part of these lots to build fine homes. He felt this is a standard-size lot and that all of these homes have a garage-forward design. He expressed concern that if this request is approved, many others from this subdivision will come in and request similar variances, and this Board will be setting a precedence if this one is approved.

Mr. Haddad emphasized that this is not a matter of overbuilding the property. He stressed that the petitioners could have a patio but the ordinance is prohibiting them from covering that patio or enclosing it because they do not meet the rear yard setback requirements.

Al Schroeder, 39442 Patrina Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, stated that he and his wife would enjoy a glass enclosure; however, he is hoping to get approval for this as he has been diagnosed with primary progressive multiple sclerosis and the enclosure is being designed so that he can easily gain access to it. He replied to inquiry that although the sunroom would not be therapeutic, it would enable him to easily access the outdoors and sit outside with no bugs. He informed that he has lived in Sterling Heights for thirty years; however, he has a quad-level home and has been told by his physician that he needs to move to a single-level home. He stated he chose to build in this particular area because the builder has been very accommodating in making interior changes to meet his needs, such as 3-foot doorways to accommodate a wheelchair. He noted that he will eventually be confined to a wheelchair.

Mr. Campbell recalled a previous variance for a sunroom where the length of the ramp became an issue. He cautioned that ramps cannot be steep and therefore they take up an excessive amount of room. He inquired as to whether the sunroom will be at approximately the same elevation as the house.

Mr. Schroeder replied that the elevation of the sunroom will be very close to the elevation of the house.

Mr. Haddad mentioned that he builds a lot of these sunrooms for handicapped individuals and there is a way to install a ramp along the house and it can be done.

Mr. Campbell noted that this is a 1900-square-foot home, which he felt is standard for today’s homes. He felt the lot is standard and yet the petitioner does not have sufficient room to add a sunroom. He strongly urged that the Ordinance Update Committee look at this matter and that other communities such as Sterling Heights be consulted to see how they have dealt with these situations. He felt a glass enclosure has a nice appearance but he is opposed to brick enclosed rooms.

Mr. Catalano felt strongly that the current ordinance should not be changed with regard to rear yard setback requirements. He felt that backyards are necessary, especially for children. He commented that because this particular request would accommodate the petitioner’s health problems, he would be more in favor of approving the variance request. He felt that health reasons being the practical difficulty would eliminate everyone coming before this Board and receiving the same variance. He felt this should be made part of a motion to approve the variance.

Mr. Campbell stated his feeling that the garage-forward design of the house should be a sufficient practical difficulty. He stressed that he will not make a motion to grant this variance based on health reasons.

Ms. Granata offered to support a motion if health reasons were included as part of the practical difficulty.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5428 and application from Al Schroeder, 39442 Patrina Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, as represented by Rick L. Hadad, Mr. Enclosure, 2400 East 14 Mile Road, Warren, Michigan 48092, 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-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 38, Sorelle Estates Subdivision #2 (Section 18), generally located fronting the east line of Patrina Drive, north of 17 Mile Road at 39442 Patrina Drive, that variance be granted to permit a sunroom for a single-family residence (under construction) in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of 28.31 feet being 6.69 feet less than the minimum required setback of 35 feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the house has a garage-forward design, setting it further back on the property, and further, the sunroom is needed for the petitioner’s health reasons; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Reynolds, Campbell, Nickerson, Marella. Nay – Catalano. Absent – Schwartz. Motion carried.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, that the Planning Department be requested to refer the matter of sunrooms meeting rear yard setback requirements to the Ordinance Update Committee for their evaluation and study, considering garage-forward home layouts and several of the recent requests before this Board, including tonight’s case where the petitioner would only have six feet of available space without a variance; further that the Ordinance Update Committee be requested to look into possible solutions to this problem, including consultation with other communities such as the City of Sterling Heights that have discovered ways of resolving the problem. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Nickerson, Reynolds, Granata, Marella. Nay – Catalano. Absent – Schwartz. Motion carried.

Discussion took place regarding this request.

Mr. Catalano emphasized that as a grandfather of ten, he feels rear yards are very important and does not want to see their size reduced to a depth less than 35 feet.

Mr. Campbell noted that in certain instances when this Board grants a conditional variance, the letters of approval do not adequately reflect those conditions. He felt that there should be a special section on the approval form that indicates "Special Conditions". He also requested that "Certificates of Approval" granted by this Board in the last several months should be looked at and revised in the instances where conditions were placed upon the grant of variance. He specifically requested that the "Certificate of Approval" for Star-Batt be reissued with the conditions included.

Mr. Campbell also requested a copy of the Revised Annual Report 2000 to be forwarded to all Board of Appeals members.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS