CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
MAY 20, 1998
MINUTES

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

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

Mr. Marella called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Marella explained that 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. He explained that the petitioner must state his or her hardship, which cannot be for monetary reasons and cannot be self-created.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mr. Marella requested to move Items #5 (SFR - Romeo Plank, 43651) and #6 (SFR - Kyle, 42241) be placed before Items #1 (Aielli Industrial Park) and #2 (P & L Investment Industrial Buildings) on the agenda because they are petitions for single-family homes. He also requested that Item #4 be deleted.

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



0.46 ACRE FRONTING THE WEST LINE OF ROMEO PLANK ROAD, NORTH OF 19 MILE ROAD (SECTION 5)
-- APPEAL: SFR - ROMEO PLANK ROAD, 43651
FILE #5199: STEVE SMITH & SANDRA HARTING

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.

Steven Smith, 43651 Romeo Plank Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that the deck he wishes to build will take up about one-half of his backyard. He noted that he has discussed the proposed deck with his neighbors and they have offered no objections. He further explained that there are no homes behind his home and he would like to purchase additional land behind his house. He commented that the eight-foot wide deck permitted under current ordinance requirements does not seem large enough for the house.

Mr. Howell replied to inquiry that the rear yard of the subject house measures 40 feet in depth and the petitioner is allowed to encroach only eight feet with an unenclosed porch or deck.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to the distance from the property line if the petitioner is granted a variance to build a deck measuring 20 feet in depth.

Mr. Smith replied that the house is set back 40 feet from the lot line; therefore, a 20-foot deck would result in a 20-foot setback from the property line.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the petitioner will need two variances.

Mr. Howell replied that an 8-foot deck would be permitted; therefore, the petitioner needs a variance of 12 feet.

Mr. Campbell questioned whether the parcel directly behind the subject lot is landlocked.

Mr. Smith confirmed that there is a landlocked parcel behind his house. He once again assured that he has discussed this with his neighbors and they have no objection.

Mr. Campbell could see a definite practical difficulty and noted that the front yard setback is larger than required by the ordinance.

Mr. Howell replied to inquiry that the minimum required front yard setback is thirty feet.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to whether there will be a door from the house to access the deck.

Mr. Smith replied to inquiry that the deck is angled to try to match the lines of the bay window. He further replied that there will be a door leading out to the deck.

Mr. Woodring inquired as to whether the neighbor wrote a letter indicating he had no objection.

Mr. Smith replied that he did not obtain a letter from his neighbors but noted that they would be willing to write letters, if necessary.

Mr. Young inquired as to the current use of the property to the rear of the subject parcel.

Mr. Smith replied to inquiry that the parcel to the rear of his property is owned by his neighbors to the south and is vacant at this time.

Mr. Howell explained that the ordinance requirement, which does not permit unenclosed and uncovered porches or decks to project into a required front or rear yard by more than eight feet, was intended to prevent large front porches.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5199 and application from Steve Smith and Sandra Harting, 43651 Romeo Plank Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1299.01-(h), General Exceptions; Area, Height and Use Exceptions, concerning 0.46 acre generally located fronting the west line of Romeo Plank Road, north of 19 Mile Road (Section 5) at 43651 Romeo Plank Road, that variance be granted to permit construction of an unenclosed and uncovered porch (deck) for an existing single-family residence in the R-1 One-Family Residential District projecting into a required rear yard a distance of twenty (20) feet being twelve (12) feet in excess of the permitted distance of eight (8) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on practical difficulty of the placement of the house on the property and the large front yard setback; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Granata, Nickerson, Schwartz, Woodring, Young, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - None. Motion carried.

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

Jim Saad, 42114 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that he is proposing a 2,000-square-foot home but cannot meet the rear yard setback requirement. He noted that the submitted plan is a preliminary "footprint" of the house based on approval by this Board. Mr. Saad noted that the rear yard of the subject site abuts the side yard of the adjacent property, which fronts Greenfield. He commented that they opted to meet the setback requirements on the side abutting Lot 49.

Maria Garcia Carr, 42115 Kyle, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, complained that she did not receive the Notice of Public Hearing for this meeting. She added that out of approximately 50 homeowners in her subdivision, 45 of them did not receive notification of tonight’s hearing.

Mr. Howell explained that a Notice of Public Hearing is issued to owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property in question, and the list of their names and addresses is obtained from the Assessing Department, based on the latest tax rolls.

Ms. Carr mentioned that it seemed sporadic as to who did and did not receive notification.

Mr. Howell assured that this notification is made to owners and occupants who live within 300 feet of the property.

Ms. Carr indicated that she talked to many of her neighbors who are in opposition of the variance request. She submitted a letter of objection signed by many of the residents.

Mr. Campbell read the letter of objection into the record. He noted that it was signed by individuals representing 25 different addresses, including 11 on Kyle, 11 on Brianna and 3 on other streets.

Ms. Carr recalled that when she had her house built by Mr. Saad, she was told that was the last house in the first phase and that the property in question at this hearing was going to be used to develop a nice entrance to their subdivision. She cited another subdivision in the area developed by Mr. Saad which has a nice entrance. Ms. Carr complained that Mr. Saad has never put up a subdivision entrance sign as promised. She is opposed to the variance request because she feels the lot is much too small for the development of a home. She admitted that although she does not represent everyone in her subdivision, she is speaking for a large number of individuals, some of whom were unable to attend tonight’s meeting and others who were hesitant to sign a petition because they still have unresolved issues with Mr. Saad.

Mr. Saad argued that the subject property is buildable and has as much square footage available as Lot 45. He noted that although it is odd-shaped, it is part of an approved plat by the Township and the State and he has every intention to develop it with a single-family home. He sympathized with the residents in their concern of what type of home will be built at this location, but he added that his concern is just as great and that is why he is proposing a home comparable to others built in the subdivision. He recalled discussion of fencing off a small portion of the subject lot for a subdivision sign; however, he emphasized that he cannot give the neighbors this lot and he stressed that he intends to develop it. He stated that he is trying to please the neighbors by building the type of house which would be in their best interest.

Mr. Woodring recalled that during the platting stage, the Planning Commission wanted a boulevard entrance; however, the Road Commission of Macomb County denied that request. Mr. Woodring reminded that this is a lot in an approved platted subdivision and he felt it would be in the best interest of the neighboring property owners to have a sizable home on the lot, which would be comparable to other homes in the subdivision.

Nick Onafer, 42143 Kyle, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, assured that he has no objection to the petitioner developing a house on the subject lot, but he felt it should be proportionate to the size of the lot. He felt that building a 2,000-square-foot home on this lot will make it look as though they "needed a shoe horn to get the house on the lot". He felt it will look out of place and will deteriorate the value of the other homes in the subdivision.

Thomas Dabbs, 42157 Kyle, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, agreed with the comments made by Mr. Onafer. He recalled being told by the petitioner that there would be a sign for Andrew’s Knoll put on the corner, which has not yet been done. He complained about the berm across the street from the subject site and could not believe that the Township would approve such a "disaster". He replied to inquiry that he is aware this does not have anything to do with tonight’s petition; however, he felt this Board should be aware that many residents feel the same way.

Ms. Granata inquired as to the average-sized home in the subject subdivision.

Mr. Saad responded that the homes generally average 2,200 to 2,300 square feet. He replied to further inquiry that the minimum size home in this subdivision measures 1,900 square feet. He replied to still further inquiry that he is proposing either a 2,000 square foot split level or a colonial for this parcel.

Ms. Granata noted that the average split level home in this subdivision is much larger than 2,000 square feet.

Mr. Saad assured that he will not build anything he cannot sell.

Ms. Granata felt the petitioner is attempting to build too large of a home for the subject lot. She commented that in some instances it is advantageous to build a small home in an area with larger homes because it will sell very well. She felt it would be best to leave the lot vacant and pointed out that sometimes that is necessary in order to make an area attractive.

Mr. Howell replied to inquiry that the minimum house size permitted on this lot would be 1,200 square feet.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the petitioner would be required to come back before this Board should he decide to downsize the house.

Mr. Saad replied that he could build a smaller house; however, he did not feel this would be in the best interest of the neighborhood because it could lower the market value of the other homes in the subdivision.

Ms. Schwartz noted that without a grant of variance by this Board, the petitioner would be able to build a 1,200-square-foot home, but she felt many of the homeowners would be unhappy as a result. She suggested that the variance request be approved but on the condition that the petitioner install the entrance sign to the subdivision on this property as well.

Mr. Young commented that there are two places where the footprint of the house does not meet the required 35-foot setback. He felt a colonial-style home may be better suited for this parcel. He believed that when this land was platted, there had to be some consideration given at that time as to the style of home which would fit on this lot.

Mr. Howell clarified that Mr. Saad has the right to build a house on this lot because it is part of the recorded plat.

Mr. Nickerson expressed his support of the variance request and felt that by this Board approving the variance request, the residents in that subdivision would benefit.

Mr. Howell replied that the purpose for requesting the variance is to match the character of the subdivision.

Ms. Granata inquired as to subdivision restrictions and how those are determined.

Mr. Howell replied that subdivision restrictions are established at the time the plat is being planned. He noted that if there are no subdivision restrictions which dictate minimum size, then the homes must meet the minimum requirements set forth by the Township ordinance, which amounts to 1,200 square feet.

Mr. Campbell could understand that the residents do not want a small house and that many of the residents feel the lot is too small to build a suitable house. He pointed out, however, that it is considered a buildable lot and no one can stop the builder from developing the lot. Mr. Campbell observed that the Mr. Saad is trying to keep with the character of the subdivision, and he felt that the petitioner has done a good job in minimizing the variances required. He expressed hesitation, however, to grant a variance for anything other than what is specifically presented on the plan which has been submitted.

Mr. Saad explained that the proposed footprint which was submitted represents a split-level house. He clarified that the plan submitted is not specific because he did not want to spend $3,000 to have plans designed, only to be denied by this Board. He noted that there are two triangular sections on the current plan which project into the required setback, and he assured that those two triangular sections will not be altered. He added that the other portion of the footprint extending toward Lot 49 was stretched to the maximum permitted.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the two large trees currently existing on the property will be taken down.

Mr. Saad replied that his partner is looking into the possibility of transplanting them, but they are not sure that will be possible. He was rather certain that at least one of the trees will have to be removed.

Ms. Carr inquired as to the location of the proposed subdivision sign should this variance be granted.

Mr. Saad replied that the subdivision sign would be located on the subject lot.

Discussion took place regarding the location of the subdivision sign on the subject property and how that sign would be maintained.

Ms. Carr replied to inquiry that they do not have a homeowner’s association in their subdivision nor do they want to start one, so that would not be a possibility for maintenance of the subdivision sign.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to the maximum square footage allowed for a subdivision sign.

Mr. Howell replied that there is a size restriction of 75 square feet, with a height restriction of 5 feet.

Mr. Saad commented that he would not install a subdivision sign which would be that large. He estimated that the sign would measure approximately 5 feet by 3-1/2 feet, which would amount to approximately 20 square feet.

Ms. Carr commented that she is going to look closely at her deed to make sure there is not a minimum square footage for the homes indicated on the plat. She inquired as to whether a minimum square footage dictated on her deed would also apply to this phase of the subdivision.

Mr. Howell replied that each phase of the subdivision which is recorded separately can have different subdivision restrictions but those would have had to have been specified at the time the plat was approved and recorded.

Ms. Carr felt the petitioner is able to build three houses in an area which the residents felt should have been two lots.

Mr. Woodring pointed out that Andrew’s Knoll Subdivision is developed in an R-4 zoning. He stated that although this lot may seem smaller, it still would have had to meet the requirements for this zoning district in order to be approved in the platting process. He suggested that possibly some of the other lots in the subdivision exceed the minimum requirements set forth for an R-4 district and commented that builders do not generally provide extra square footage on lots if it is not required.

Ms. Carr estimated that all of the lots in the subdivision are platted equally, with the exception of the subject lot. She felt the petitioner had to know there would be two small lots at the time he platted the subdivision.

Mr. Howell stressed that, in the platting process, as long as all of the lots meet the minimum requirement, the Township Board, by law, has to approve the plat. He replied to inquiry that all of the lots in this subdivision meet or exceed the minimum square footage requirements dictated for an R-4 zoning district. He replied to further inquiry that an R-5 district requires a minimum 65-foot width and 7,800 square feet, whereas an R-3 district requires a minimum 80-foot width and 9,600 square feet.

Ms. Carr stressed that she did not feel the lot is suitable to build a house, but that if the builder is allowed to construct a house on this lot, it should be a smaller house to match the smaller lot, which would be more aesthetically pleasing.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Woodring, with reference to File #5200 and application from Mr. Jim Saad, Create Phase Building, 42114 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01, Land Use Regulations; Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart; Minimum Rear Yard Setback in the R-4 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 50, Andrew’s Knoll Subdivision #2, generally located at the southwest corner of Kyle Drive and Greenfield Road at 42241 Kyle Drive, that variance be granted to permit construction of a single-family residence and attached garage in the R-4 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of 26.99 feet being 8.01 feet less than the required setback of 35 feet; further, this variance is granted with the conditions that: 1) a subdivision sign measuring five feet by three feet be constructed on the subject lot; and 2) that the house measure a minimum of 2,000 square feet; further, this grant of variance is based on the practical difficulty of the size of the lot and the expressed preference of the neighboring property owners for a substantial-sized home to fit in with the character of the neighborhood; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances.

Discussion took place regarding the motion on the floor.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to what will stop the property owner from removing the subdivision sign from his property once he is the owner.

Mr. Howell replied that one option to assure the subdivision sign remains is to require Mr. Saad to provide a covenant to the deed.

Mr. Campbell expressed his favor of the variance; however, he did not feel it is fair to saddle a future homeowner with the maintenance and upkeep of a sign.

Roll Call Vote (for the above motion): Aye - Schwartz, Woodring. Nay - Young, Campbell, Granata, Nickerson, Marella. Absent - None. Motion failed.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5200 and application from Mr. Jim Saad, Creative Phase Building, 42114 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01, Land Use Regulations; Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart; Minimum Rear Yard Setback in the R-4 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 50, Andrew’s Knoll Subdivision #2, generally located at the southwest corner of Kyle Drive and Greenfield Road at 42241 Kyle Drive, that variance be granted to permit construction of a single-family residence and attached garage in the R-4 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of 26.99 feet being 8.01 feet less than the required setback of 35 feet; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon the following conditions being met: 1) the house must be a minimum of 2,000 square feet; and 2) the area of the house and the garage which will encroach into the required setback is not to exceed what is depicted on the sketch submitted to this Board; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty of the shape of the lot; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Nickerson, Woodring, Young, Schwartz, Marella. Nay - 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.

Mr. Howell explained that it was discovered since the notices were issued that the petitioner also needs a front yard setback variance to permit a 52-foot setback, being 8 feet less than the minimum required 60 feet. He replied to inquiry that a 10-foot side yard setback is required for this location.

Ms. Granata felt that further consideration of this matter should be tabled and a revised Notice of Public Hearing should be issued to owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the land in question.

Mr. Howell did not feel re-notification would be necessary because the Notice of Public Hearing contains a clause which authorizes the Board of Appeals to modify or change the variance as requested within its discretion and as permitted by law.

Mr. Campbell agreed with Ms. Granata. He recalled that in the past when a variance request was revised to a lesser variance, they would go ahead and consider the request; however, if the variance request was revised to incorporate a larger variance or something other than what was being requested, this Board would generally table the item until re-notification could take place.

Mr. Howell assured that he discussed this matter with Mr. Miller, who was in agreement with the opinion that re-notification is not necessary.

Gino DelPup, 123 South Main, Suite 200, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067, commented that he was not informed of the need for a front yard variance until tonight.

Mr. Howell explained that the ordinance requirement was misprinted in the ordinance book.

Mr. DelPup stressed that this is a very narrow site. He noted that they have 150 feet in the rear and plan to make it gravel in order for his client to store his construction equipment.

Mr. Howell informed that this Board does not determine paving issues.

Mr. DelPup explained that the building design will accommodate his client’s needs. He agreed to look at revising the plans if necessary. He assured that if he had been aware of the front yard setback requirement, he would not have come before this Board. He requested that it be tabled to the Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for next month.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Young, with reference to File #5186 and application from Sergio and Rosaria L. Iacobacci, 36118 Payne, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Michael G. DelPup, 123 South Main Street, Suite #200, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067, 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; Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements in the I-2 General Industrial District and Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(1), Off-Street Parking and Loading: Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance, concerning Lot 69, Groesbeck Nunneley Subdivision (Sections 21/28), generally located fronting the west line of Groesbeck Highway, south of Metropolitan Parkway at 36639 Groesbeck Highway, that further consideration of the request for variance to permit construction of an industrial building (Aielli Industrial Building) in the I-2 General Industrial District with: 1) North side yard setback of zero (0) feet being ten (10) feet less than the required ten (10) feet and location from and existing building of ten (10) feet being ten (10) feet less than the required twenty (20) feet; and 2) Parking spaces having length of eighteen (18) feet being two (2) feet less than the required twenty (20) feet, be tabled until the June 17, 1998 meeting to allow the petitioner an opportunity to revise the plan; further, if the petitioner is able to revise the plan and variances are not necessary, then the filing fee be refunded to the petitioner minus the costs incurred for mailing. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Granata, Young, Campbell, Nickerson, Schwartz, Woodring, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - None. Motion carried.

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

Tony Serra, 1200 East Maple Road, Troy, Michigan 48083, representative, explained that although the subject property is currently bordering residentially-zoned property on the north, the abutting property is indicated on the Master Plan as industrial. He noted that the only house in the vicinity is located on the northwest corner of the abutting property. He added that the lot to the north is heavily wooded and obscuring the construction. Mr. Serra informed that there is retail development further to the south of the subject property. He clarified that the reason for the variance request is that the abutting property is anticipated to eventually be developed as industrial, in which case the required setback would be less than the current fifty (50) feet. He stressed that it would be a hardship to have to meet the required fifty-foot distance at this time when it will most likely not be required in the future. Mr. Serra replied to inquiry that the property to the west is owned by the county to house the Macomb County Jail.

Judy Schottman, representing Thomas Budzynski, of 1855 Dorn Road, Leonard, Michigan 48367, recalled that when this property was rezoned to Light Industrial, there were certain agreements made by the petitioner, one of which was no construction of any kind within ten (10) feet of the property line and there were to be no buildings within thirty (30) feet of the property line. She informed that this matter is currently in litigation and is awaiting the decision of Judge Schwartz.

Ms. Schwartz expressed concern as to whether she should abstain from discussing this variance request due to the fact that her husband is presiding over the pending litigation.

Mr. Howell assured that as long as Ms. Schwartz does not have a financial interest in the litigation, she does not have to abstain.

Ms. Schwartz assured that she does not have a financial interest in this case.

Discussion took place regarding whether any of the subject property is designated as wetland.

Mr. Howell noted that the Township does not have a Wetlands Ordinance but relies on the Department of Environmental Quality for their determination.

Ms. Schottman was with the understanding that there is a wetlands study being done on this property; however, she has not yet received any documentation. She noted that they are under orders by the court to exchange all information, so she felt the study may not yet be completed.

Mr. Woodring suggested tabling this item because of the unsettled issues.

Mr. Serra indicated that his client is purchasing this parcel of property with the understanding that he can build on it. He admitted that although many of the questions arising may be legitimate, he did not believe the Township would have granted approval to build on the land.

Considerable discussion took place regarding a hydro-geological study being conducted in this area.

Mr. Howell clarified that the petitioner does not have an approved site development plan and will need to go to the Planning Commission and Township Board.

Ms. Schottman expressed concern that this Board would be approving a variance based on a speculative plan.

Mr. Woodring commented that a court order may dictate revisions to the plan.

Ms. Granata inquired as to whether the petitioner would like this matter to be tabled.

Phil Leone, 52590 Wickersham, Shelby Township, Michigan 48315, petitioner, stressed that he is not concerned about the wetlands issue and was confident with the documentation he viewed from his attorney indicating that there are no wetlands on this property. He noted that the property north of his parcel will eventually be industrial and the gentleman who owns it does not have any objection to the proposed development. Mr. Leone felt that the development on the subject property will be to an advantage for the property owner to the north should he decide to rezone to Light Industrial. He urged this Board to grant the variances requested based on the fact that the abutting property is master-planned for industrial use, in which case his setbacks would be in compliance. He explained that if he meets the current ordinance requirements for setbacks, he would only be able to construct a very small building, which he did not feel would be sufficient for industrial use. He emphasized that he is attempting to maintain the required front yard setbacks for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Leone anticipated that he may not need all of the variance requested but he would like approval for it in the event he is contracted by a tenant who needs a larger building.

Considerable objections were voiced by residents on Hartman, indicating that they do not want this variance to be approved because it is directly behind their homes.

Ms. Schwartz requested clarification as to the location of the homes on Hartman in relation to the subject property.

Mr. Howell informed that Hartman is located on the southeast side of Groesbeck and the subject property is located on the northwest side of Groesbeck.

Henry Babcock, 43900 Elizabeth Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, recalled that two streets were going to be put in for Pomeroy Park but they were denied because of designated wetlands. He replied to inquiry that he lives south of the Consumer’s Power easement.

Mr. Leone maintained that the proposed development will be an advantage to the abutting property because it will eventually be rezoned to industrial.

Mr. Babcock inquired as to the petitioner’s plan for the existing ditches.

Mr. Leone replied that he does not have anything to do with the ditches because he owns a small square parcel and does not intend to have any run-off onto the adjacent property. He felt the existing ditches are there for water run-off. He replied to further inquiry that he will be providing curb and gutter all around the property.

Mr. Serra pointed out the location of the Consumer’s Power easement on an overlay of the area.

Mr. Woodring felt it would help to be able to question the abutting property owner to the north what his plans are as far as development of his land.

Mr. Leone assured that he would be able to obtain a letter from the property owner to the north. He explained that his neighbor is elderly and it would be difficult for him to attend a meeting.

Ms. Schwartz felt that if the abutting property owner objected to the variance request, he would either be in attendance at this meeting or they would have a letter in the file.

Mr. Howell clarified that the policy of the Township dictates that private roads are to be maintained with the same landscape and setback requirements as public roads.

Mr. Campbell indicated that in consideration of the fact that this area is master-planned industrial, he paid particular attention to the location of the abutting residential home, and he estimated that there is a distance of at least 200 feet from the home to the subject property. He felt that to require a 50-foot setback in this particular case is excessive in a transitory situation.

Mr. Serra replied to inquiry that all of the clearing on their property has been completed and they are not planning on removing any additional trees. He noted that many of the remaining trees are not on their property.

Mr. Campbell noted that the existing trees block the view of any building and help mitigate any construction from the view of the abutting residence.

Mr. Serra replied to inquiry that they are not responsible for any of the clearing which has been done up to this point and added that was done by the previous property owner.

Mr. Babcock was with the understanding that the wooded area was owned by Macomb County.

Mr. Leone replied to inquiry that he will not be removing any trees but will be adding trees and landscaping.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to the hardship for this variance request.

Mr. Leone felt that it is inevitable that this area will eventually be light industrial and he will have been shortchanged if he is required to maintain such a large side yard setback. He indicated that he has requested a variance for twenty-eight feet but acknowledged that he will be building to suit and he may not need that entire variance. He stressed that it is important for him to be able to let a prospective tenant know exactly what he can build for him and that is why he is requesting the variance at this time.

Mr. Howell replied to inquiry that the abutting property is not automatically rezoned from residential to light industrial and that would be up to the property owner to apply for a rezoning. He replied to further inquiry that the abutting residentially-zoned property could be developed as residential in the future; however, they would be developing it adjacent to an already-established industrial area.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Young, with reference to File #5192 and application from Philip Leone, P & L Investment, 52590 Wickersham, Shelby Township, Michigan 48315, as represented by Tony Serra AIA, Serra & Associates, 1200 East Maple Road, Troy, Michigan 48083, 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: Footnotes to Chart; Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements in the I-1 Light Industrial District, concerning 4.404 (part of 17.5) acres located east of Elizabeth Road, south of the North Avenue-Groesbeck Highway Intersection (Section 2), that variance be granted to permit construction of four industrial buildings (P & L Industrial Buildings A, B, C and D) in the I-1 Light Industrial District having a rear yard setback of twenty-eight (28) feet, being twenty-two (22) feet less than the minimum required setback of fifty (50) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the abutting property to the north is master-planned light industrial and although it is currently zoned residential, it is a temporary situation; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Young, Woodring, Schwartz, Nickerson, Granata, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - None. Motion carried.

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

Mr. Howell clarified that this variance request is for the entire subdivision.

Richard Burgett, Odessa Builders, 21570 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that he is actually providing 20-foot parking spaces; however, he has situated a curb where the bumper blocks would be located. He submitted pictures of what is developed at this time. He noted that he has designed the sidewalks in such a way as to provide for the overhang of parked cars.

Ms. Granata complimented Mr. Burgett on his development and offered no objections.

Mr. Young felt that using the beautification of landscaping is justification for granting this particular variance. He pointed out that there is sufficient room to park a 20-foot vehicle.

Mr. Burgett explained that he is trying to avoid landscaping islands, which create an obstruction for snow removal and are susceptible to damage. He felt the islands are an asset for public facilities but did not see where they are necessary for an industrial facility and he would prefer to have the additional space available for employee parking.

Mr. Campbell expressed opposition to 18-foot parking spaces because he felt they are not safe, especially when maneuvering the latest sport utility vehicles. He commented that he owns a Buick LeSabre and when he parks in a designated area along a curb, he damages the spoiler. He complained that a 6-inch curb will damage the plastic deflectors now being put under the cars by automobile manufacturers. He stated he would have a hard time voting in favor of the requested variance.

Mr. Marella agreed with comments made by Mr. Campbell and added that he also has a difficult time maneuvering his larger car in parking spaces such as those being proposed.

Mr. Woodring felt the zoning ordinance was written for a reason and he could see no hardship. He also stressed that trees are now being required in parking areas and that many people find this favorable.

Mr. Burgett clarified that he is not opposed to planting trees, and he assured that he will be planting the number of trees required, but he will not be placing them in island formation throughout the parking lot.

Additional discussion took place regarding 18-foot parking spaces versus 20-foot parking spaces.

Mr. Burgett noted that areas of his development differ in grade and that the difference in grade between the three buildings is approximately 7-1/2 feet.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether this parking design makes it look better due to the grade separation change.

Mr. Howell replied that he is not in a position to dictate someone’s hardship, but with the option proposed by Mr. Burgett, there would be a solid barrier provided between the two parking lots.

Mr. Burgett clarified that with the proposed plan, he would have a 1-1/2 foot retaining wall stepping from one curb to the next level.

Mr. Woodring complimented Mr. Burgett on his nice developments throughout the Township; however, he emphasized that he is not in favor of this variance request.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Woodring, with reference to File #5195 and application from Carlo Catenacci, H.R.S.C., Inc., 21570 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, as represented by Richard Burgett, Odessa Builders, Inc., 21570 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(1), Off-Street Parking and Loading; Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance, concerning Lots 1 through 17, Eastpointe Industrial Subdivision, generally located fronting the east line of Gratiot Avenue, south of Hall Road (M-59), that request for variance to permit current and future development of an industrial subdivision (Eastpointe Industrial Subdivision) in the I-1 Light Industrial District, with off-street parking spaces having length of eighteen (18) feet being two (2) feet less than the required twenty (20) feet, be denied for lack of practical difficulty. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Woodring, Marella. Nay - Young, Granata, Nickerson, Schwartz. Absent - None. Motion failed.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5195 and application from Carlo Catenacci, H.R.S.C., Inc., 21570 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, as represented by Richard Burgett, Odessa Builders, Inc., 21570 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(1), Off-Street Parking and Loading; Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance, concerning Lots 1 through 17, Eastpointe Industrial Subdivision, generally located fronting the east line of Gratiot Avenue, south of Hall Road (M-59), that variance be granted to permit current and future development of an industrial subdivision (Eastpointe Industrial Subdivision) in the I-1 Light Industrial District, with off-street parking spaces having length of eighteen (18) feet being two (2) feet less than the required twenty (20) feet; further, this variance is granted with the condition that the petitioner install a 6-foot planter and landscaping, which provides 21-foot parking lengths; further, this grant of variance is based on the practical difficulty that there are different elevations of the property and the proposal offers a smoother transition and a safer parking situation. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Schwartz, Granata, Nickerson, Young. Nay - Campbell, Woodring, Marella. Absent - None. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell requested one change to the report of April 15, 1998. He noted that the first line of the last paragraph on Page 4 should read: "... the copy of the document indicating Township approval in 1988..." rather than "...the copy of the document indicating Spalding’s approval in 1988".

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Campbell, to approve the report of the April 15, 1998 Board of Appeals meeting with the above-mentioned change on Page 4. Motion carried (Mr. Marella abstained).

This item was deleted from the agenda.

John Sternicki, 22741 Stair Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, inquired as to why this item was deleted from tonight’s agenda.

Mr. Howell replied that the petitioner was unavailable for this meeting and requested that it be postponed.

Mr. Sternicki complained that this particular petitioner has done this before and he does not feel it is fair.

Mr. Campbell explained that the sign ordinance was recently revised and specifies that if 1/3 or more of the sign is going to be revised, it must be brought into compliance with the current ordinance requirements. He urged Mr. Sternicki to remain in close contact with the Planning Department in the event this matter is brought up again.

It was determined that at such time as this matter is brought back before this Board, notification will be sent prior to the meeting to owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Howell informed that there are two pending lawsuits recently filed against the Board of Appeals, one by Mr. Turkal and one by Mr. Iafrate. He will keep the Board posted on these.

Mr. Marella noted that they received in their packages a copy of the sketch indicating the locations of the communications towers in the Township.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Campbell, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted,

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS