CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
JUNE 21, 2000
MINUTES

PRESENT:   Francis Marella, Chairperson
                    Carole L. Schwartz, Vice-Chairperson
                    Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
                    Peter M. Catalano (arrived at 6:35 p.m.)
                    Joann Granata
                    Dean J. Reynolds

ABSENT:     Michael Nickerson (Excused)

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

Mr. Marella called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. He explained the parameters under which the Board of Appeals can act and how the public hearing will be conducted.

Mr. Marella noted they are in receipt of a revised agenda. He requested the postponement of Item #6 (Appeal: Triangle Industrial Park) until next month’s meeting, at the request of the petitioner.

Mr. Campbell requested the addition of Item #9: Discussion Regarding Policy for Informing Petitioners and Building Department of Zoning Board of Appeals’ Actions.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Schwartz, to approve the revised agenda with the postponement of Item #6 (Appeal: Triangle Industrial Park) until next month and the addition of Item #9 (Discussion Regarding Policy for Informing Petitioners and Building Department of Zoning Board of Appeals Actions). 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.

Bob Peltz, Tony V’s Sunrooms, 20330 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that they are installing a sunroom on the side of the petitioner’s house. He clarified that the proposed sunroom meets all ordinance requirements; however, in the process of pulling the permit for the sunroom, it was discovered that their existing deck is in violation of the ordinance and therefore, the permit is being held pending the outcome of this variance request. He felt they have a practical difficulty due to the curvature of the road in front of the house and the positioning of the house on the property.

Caesar J. Simpson, 36728 Tessens, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, replied to inquiry that the deck was in existence when he purchased the home.

Ms. Schwartz noted that the Board of Appeals application stated request for variance to permit a "continued existence of uncovered deck" but there is no mention of a sunroom. She questioned this discrepancy.

Mr. Peltz assured they are not putting a sunroom over the deck and he stressed that the sunroom and the deck are unrelated issues. He clarified that they are in compliance with all ordinance requirements for the proposed sunroom, but the existing deck is in violation and must be rectified prior to issuance of a permit for the sunroom.

Mr. Miller acknowledged that the deck must be approved by coming into compliance or by grant of variance by this Board prior to the petitioner obtaining a permit for the sunroom.

Mr. Simpson explained that a portion of the deck will need to be taken out when the footings are poured for the sunroom.

Mr. Marella pointed out that the portion of the deck that is going to remain is the problem.

Mr. Miller clarified that the petitioner is going to have to satisfy the Building Department in all respects. He informed that if this Board grants the variance for the existing deck, the petitioner would then be able to go back to the Building Department to obtain his permit for the proposed sunroom.

Ms. Schwartz questioned the documentation, which included the fact that the previous owners received a rear yard setback variance.

Mr. Miller specified that the previous variance granted was for the house and not the deck. This information was provided to the Board in case the question was raised as to why the house did not meet the minimum setback requirements.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the petitioner’s shed has been moved out of the easement.

Mr. Simpson discussed the shed with the Building Department but was told that the issue of the shed would be taken up after this is resolved. He noted, however, that the shed is not moveable because it has a foundation. He replied to inquiry that the shed was in existence when he purchased the house.

Mr. Catalano found it difficult to believe that these non-conforming structures on the property were not pointed out when the mortgage survey was done. He felt that something must have happened at the closing where full disclosure was not given. He felt the petitioner could possibly seek relief through litigation.

Mr. Campbell noted that, in spite of all of these discrepancies, he found practical difficulty in the fact that the lot is odd-shaped. He added the fact that a rear yard setback variance on the original structure would eliminate the possibility of adding any type of deck without a variance.

Mr. Miller pointed out that the question before this Board is whether they feel there is a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to permit the petitioner to retain the existing deck. He felt that the petitioner was working in good faith by applying for a permit from the Building Department for the proposed sunroom, and was told at that time that his existing deck, which he did not construct, was in violation.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5434 and application from Caesar Simpson, 36728 Tessens, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Bob Peltz, Tony V’s Sunrooms, 20330 Hall 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 Lot 57, Harper-Metropolitan Parkway Subdivision (Section 26/Private Claim 542), generally located east of Tessens, south of Metropolitan Parkway at 36728 Tessens, that variance be granted to permit continued existence of uncovered deck for a single-family residence in the R-5 One-Family Residential District projecting into a required rear yard a distance of eighteen (18) feet being ten (10) feet in excess of the maximum permitted distance of eight (8) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty being the odd shape of the lot and the curve in the road in front of the subject site; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Schwartz, Campbell, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Abstain – Catalano. Absent – Nickerson. Motion carried.

LOT 790, RIVERGATE SUBDIVISION #9 (SECTION 4)-- APPEAL: SFR – COLUMBIA, 43646
FILE #5435: DONALD A. LYNCH

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.

Donald Lynch, 43646 Columbia Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that he is proposing a glass and screen enclosure on an existing deck. He informed that a building permit was granted to Novak Construction for the existing deck. He assured that he discussed this plan with his neighbors and they offered no objections.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether he talked to the neighbor directly to the east of his property.

Mr. Lynch replied to inquiry that prior to seeking out Tony V’s services, he discussed this plan with the neighbor abutting his rear lot line and his neighbor expressed no objection. He added that his neighbor only kidded that he would be envious of him being able to sit outside in the evenings.

Mr. Marella pointed out that the proposed addition is comprised of screen and glass panels rather than a bricked addition.

Mr. Campbell commented that this is a classic case of a "garage-forward design" in combination with an unusual-shape lot. He stated it is unfortunate that both the garage and proposed sunroom are on the side of the property that is slightly shallower in depth.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5435 and application from Donald A. Lynch, 43646 Columbia Drive, 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: Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements for the R-4 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 790, Rivergate Subdivision #9 (Section 4), generally located at the northeast corner of Columbia Drive and Welland Drive at 43646 Columbia Drive, that variance be granted to permit construction of an enclosure around an existing deck for a single-family residence in the R-4 One-Family Residential District creating a rear yard setback of twenty-seven (27) feet being eight (8) feet less than the minimum required setback of thirty-five (35) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the lot is an unusual shape and has a shallow depth; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Reynolds, Schwartz, Catalano, Granata, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Nickerson. 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 Rheeder, 41623 Belvidere, Harrison Township, Michigan 48045, explained that he has a small family-owned business in an older part of Clinton Township, bordering Mt. Clemens. He noted that his office dates back to the 1920’s when it was a gas station, but it has since evolved into a body shop. He explained that prior to his purchasing this property, someone had erected a wooden barn, which is non-conforming with the current zoning requirements. He felt it is a fire hazard in an industrial area and is proposing to remove it. He stated that he would like to then combine his building with the adjacent building to the south, making a larger facility for his business. He pointed out that both his building and the adjacent building are cinderblock construction. By combining the two buildings, he assured that many of his current operations would be able to be brought indoors. Mr. Rheeder stressed that parking has been a problem at his current site, and he has been renting the lot across the street and received verbal approval from the owner of that parcel and the City of Mount Clemens to utilize that area for parking vehicles during the day. He added that he moves all of the vehicles at night and parks them in his building. He felt the proposed plan will greatly improve the area and he pointed out that since there were no responses to the Notice of Public Hearing mailing to owners and occupants within 300 feet, he did not feel anyone would strongly object to his proposal. Mr. Rheeder concluded by stressing that it is impossible for this particular parcel of property to meet current zoning requirements; however, he is trying to make it come closer to being in compliance.

Wade Karash, 38554 Riverside Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan, owner of 123 Avery and 125 Avery in Mount Clemens, stated he owns the parking lot referred to by Mr. Rheeder. He stated he has been at this location for forty years and has leased this parking lot out to the apartments and industrial buildings in the area. He complimented Mr. Rheeder on being a good neighbor and pointed out that he has been cleaning up the property. He felt Mr. Rheeder’s proposal would be an improvement to the neighborhood.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to what is being done with the cars waiting to be repaired and the assorted car parts to repair them.

Mr. Rheeder replied that the parts are stored inside his building and during hours of operation, he has a limited amount of area to work so he parks the cars across the street and brings them over one by one to repair them. He noted that at night, he brings all of the cars back across the street and parks them inside his building. He replied to inquiry that his building will house approximately 14 cars, but with the addition of the structure to the south, he would have more space and could accommodate and additional six or eight cars. He replied to further inquiry that the pile of parts observed by one of the Board members may have been waiting for the scrap haulers to come and pick them up. He noted that the scrap haulers generally come once or twice a week to make a pick-up, so he does pile the scrap in a location they can easily access. He replied to still further inquiry that their bumpers are recycled and those are picked up as well.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that vehicles needing repair in a shop adjacent to a residential district must be stored indoors, and he questioned what the ordinance dictates regarding scrap car parts that are stored outdoors adjacent to a residential district.

Mr. Miller felt it is inappropriate to leave scrap metal anywhere other than in an approved container. He did not feel the current situation would meet ordinance requirements and would not be an approved use to pile up the scrap parts outdoors on the property.

Mr. Marella inquired as to whether Mr. Rheeder would be willing to consider contracting a professional scrap hauler to make pick-ups. He informed that a professional scrap hauler would have a schedule and the scrap metal would therefore not have to be left piled up outside of the building.

Mr. Rheeder agreed this is a possibility he could investigate.

Mr. Campbell commented that although this Board hears very few of this type of request, he cannot recall an instance where this Board granted a variance to allow an addition to a non-conforming structure. He acknowledged that although this building most likely pre-dates the Clinton Township Zoning Ordinance, allowing enlargement of this building perpetuates a non-conforming use, and he expressed opposition to the variance request.

Mr. Miller stated that the subject property is zoned I-1 Light Industrial but it does not meet the requirements for that district. He pointed out that it does not have a dumpster and there is not any on-site parking to provide for the cars, where generally there is parking to the rear of the property. He mentioned that he contacted the Community Planner from the City of Mount Clemens, who informed him that the use of the parking lot across the street is not appropriate in the manner in which the applicant is utilizing it. He stressed that the applicant is required to provide an adequate parking area on the site and it is not being provided for. He replied to inquiry that the Planning Department Review calls for 16 parking spaces to be required on site. He added that the current zoning requirements also require an off-street loading area, which this building does not provide. He felt that by expanding, they are eliminating any possibility of conformance to the current zoning.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that the outdoor storage of vehicles is prohibited and although the petitioner is meeting that requirement at night, he is in violation of that requirement during the daytime hours when he is parking the vehicles across the street. He admitted that although the actual parking lot is located within the boundaries of the City of Mount Clemens, he did not feel that this Board should "close their eyes" to such a violation.

Mr. Catalano felt that vehicles could be parked outside as long as the lot is fenced in.

Mr. Miller pointed out that the petitioner, in acquiring the adjacent building, would have almost the entire parcel being utilized with building space.

Mr. Rheeder stressed that his operation cannot possibly meet current ordinance requirements; however, he is requesting to expand so that he can come closer to meeting the requirements. He felt by removing the wooden structure from the property and combining his building with the adjacent cinderblock building, he will be more in compliance with the ordinance requirements than he is currently.

Mr. Karash stressed that although there is residentially-zoned property adjacent to the subject site, he has never had any problems or complaints. He noted that his lot could accommodate 200 cars. He replied to inquiry that he is two lots away from the subject parcel.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether grant of this variance will create a hardship or practical difficulty for a future owner of the adjacent parcel who may want to build. She inquired as to how far back he will have to build from the property line should this variance be granted.

Discussion took place regarding the zoning of the adjacent parcel. There was some discrepancy as to whether it is zoned Light Industrial or Residential.

An unidentified resident claimed that the adjacent parcel was rezoned in approximately December 1998 from residential to industrial.

Mr. Miller could see no evidence of the rezoning referred to by the resident. He replied to inquiry that the adjacent property owner would have to build at least twenty feet from the property line, which would be ten feet more than what would normally be required if the subject site met the setback requirements; however, he added that the adjacent property owner could come before this Board with a request for variance as well.

Mr. Rheeder stressed that two years ago, he met with representatives from the Building Department and he has since met as many of the standards for building codes as required. He assured that there are no hazards with what he is proposing and he emphasized that his intention is to improve this area and not leave it as is. He replied to inquiry that he received a Certificate of Occupancy.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5436 and application from Rick Rheeder, J M Collision, 41623 Belvidere, Harrison Township, Michigan 48045, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-q and 1292.01-r; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Front, Side and Rear Yard Setback Requirements in the I-1 Light Industrial District and Chapter 1294.04-(a); Nonconforming Uses: Nonconforming Structures, concerning part of Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lots 1 through 16 of Block 2 and Lots 1 through 5 of Block 3, Charbeneau’s Plat Subdivision (Section 13, Private Claim 173), generally located fronting the south line of South River Road, east of Avery at 128 South River Road, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition to an existing auto body repair shop (JM Auto Collision, Inc.) on a corner lot in the I-1 Light Industrial District with: 1) Front yard setback from Avery Street of zero (0) feet being twenty-five (25) feet less than the required twenty-five (25) feet; 2) Zero (0) frontage trees along Rathbone Street (South River Road) being three (3) fewer than the required three (3) trees; 3) Zero (0) frontage trees along Avery Street being seven (7) trees fewer than the required seven (7) trees; 4) South side yard setback of zero (0) feet being twenty (20) feet less than the required setback of twenty (20) feet from an existing building; 5) East side yard setback of zero (0) feet being fifty (50) feet less than the required setback of fifty (50) feet from a Residential District; and 6) Enlargement of a nonconforming structure which is not allowed; further, this variance is granted with the conditions that: 1) the existing wooden structure on the property be removed and 2) a dumpster be provided on the site for scrap; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the existing building is an old building and the applicant will do something to make the entire site more in compliance with the aesthetic and safety requirements of the current ordinance; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Schwartz, Granata, Reynolds, Catalano, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Absent – Nickerson. Motion carried.

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

James Makowski, 4916 Comstock, Sterling Heights, Michigan, representing the petitioner, stated they are proposing a computer network to permit data exchange between their facilities in Clinton Township and Fraser. He explained that this is a wireless system and it is the most cost effective; however, since it requires "line of sight" between the two sights, which they were not told prior to purchase, they need to request a variance to permit a radio transmission tower. He informed that the company they have contracted with is the same company providing the wireless tower for the Police Department. He commented that the tower is very light and weighs approximately 240 pounds.

Mr. Catalano inquired as to whether the total height referred to in the application includes the height of the building or just the tower on top of the building.

Mr. Makowski replied that they would like to put the tower on the roof for cost saving purposes. He pointed out that regardless of whether the tower is mounted to the roof or standing alone, the top of the tower needs to reach a height of 82+ feet from the ground. He stressed that the cost is much higher for a freestanding tower.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to why a series of "T-1 lines" is not considered to be as effective as the proposed system.

Mr. Makowski responded that the wireless system proposed is approximately ten times faster with the data transmission. He noted that many of their transmittals involve CAD drawings, and the T-1 lines would not allow for fast enough transmission.

Mr. Campbell felt that there are other alternatives available. He suggested the possibility of using a satellite. He inquired as to how many other organizations utilize this same technology.

Mr. Makowski admitted that this system is very new on the market; however, airports and universities are using it, as well as places such as The Somerset Collection in Troy for their valet parking. He replied to inquiry that this system could service up to ten plants.

Mr. Catalano inquired as to how many of their other plants will need a similar tower.

Mr. Makowski assured that this is the only location where the tower has to extend above the tree line, although the other locations will also have to have some type of antennas.

Rick Clark, 12770 Sherman, Warren, Michigan, stated that without the line of sight over the trees, this would not be a workable tower.

Mr. Makowski reiterated that the tower is very narrow and lightweight and would look similar to the tower on top of this building.

Mr. Reynolds explained that when this Board of Appeals has been requested to grant variances in the past for communication towers, they have always requested a certification, which he did not see in the appeal package.

Mr. Miller clarified that this is not considered a wireless communication tower. He noted that the petitioner did not want it open for co-location because it would have to be much stronger than their needs require. He explained that because of this, the petitioner is not required to submit a certification; however, he added that the Building Department will assure that they have met certain requirements before they receive their permit.

Mr. Catalano inquired as to the difference in cost between a roof mount and a ground mount tower.

Mr. Makowski replied that the roof mount tower costs approximately $5,000, whereas the ground mount tower would run approximately $10,000, because of the fact that a ground mount requires a ten-foot footing. He replied to inquiry that they are scheduled to appear before the City of Fraser’s Board of Appeals next month for a similar request. He replied to further inquiry that the same company owns all ten buildings he referred to earlier in the meeting. Mr. Makowski replied to still further inquiry that there is not a lot of available room on their property for a ground tower.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that the petitioner needs to demonstrate a practical difficulty or hardship and it cannot be monetary.

Mr. Clark responded that if they meet building codes, there would be no way to have communication between plants except through Ameritech, and he emphasized that Ameritech cannot handle the speed and traffic generated by their computer traffic.

Mr. Campbell felt there are many other alternative solutions available that would not necessitate a variance.

Mr. Makowski stressed that the petitioner needs some redundancy in their network, and they will be providing servers that will mirror their data, something they could not provide without the tower. This function will help them if one of their servers goes down, and as a result, they will have a seamless shift of data from their other facilities.

Mr. Reynolds inquired as to whether the data being exchanged is the same type of data. He suggested they could set up with a T-3 and 20-gig cache with the servers. He felt they should be closely examining their alternatives.

Mr. Clark replied that T-3 would be prohibitively expensive. He emphasized that they need a direct line of sight.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the towers at their other Clinton Township facilities meet ordinance requirements.

Mr. Makowski assured their other towers are in compliance. He further assured that this is the only facility in Clinton Township where they need the taller tower. He replied to inquiry that he does not consider this an economic hardship, because the speed needed to transmit data is a major factor to be considered, and T-1 lines cannot accommodate that.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5437 and application from Oakley Industries, Inc., 35224 Automation Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by James Makowski, AccuTek Services, Inc., 25367 Dequindre, Madison Heights, Michigan 48071, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01, Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Maximum Height of Buildings in the I-1 Light Industrial District and Chapter 1299.01-(e); General Exceptions: Area, Height and Use Exceptions, concerning part of Lot 6 and Lot 7, Clinton Freeway Industrial Park Subdivision (Section 26), generally located at the southeast corner of Automation Drive and Forsyth at 35224 Automation Drive, that request for variance to permit installation of a radio transmission tower on the roof of an existing industrial building (Oakley Industries) in the I-1 Light Industrial District, creating an overall height of 82.2 feet being 47.2 feet in excess of the maximum permitted height of 35 feet, be denied by reason that no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship was presented. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Campbell, Reynolds, Catalano. Nay – Schwartz, Marella. Absent – Nickerson. 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.

Edward Milke, 35084 Concord Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that he went around his neighborhood and measured the lots with houses on them. He submitted a sketch depicting these lots and their measurements, and pointed out that none of them measured a minimum of 15,000 square feet. He explained that in 1994 they voted to have water and sewer brought into the area but it did not have enough votes to pass, so they are forced to go with a septic system. He stated they are desperate because this is their dream home and this is their "last shot at this".

Cecelia Kristopaitis, 35312 Utica Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated she and her nephew own this house; however, he is out of town and cannot be at this meeting. She commented that the neighborhood is gradually changing from residential to commercial. She was opposed to the variance request because she felt 15,000 square feet is too big of a house for the neighborhood. She cited the example of recently-built house in the neighborhood that met ordinance requirements. She recalled that when sewer and water were voted on, it was political and they "tried to pull a funny to get it through" when most of the residents did not want it.

Mr. Marella clarified that the proposed house will measure approximately 1,500 square feet, not 15,000 square feet. He further clarified that the lot must measure a minimum of 15,000 square feet when sewer and water services are not available.

Mr. Milke explained that the house they want to build is 1,560 square feet, and they have been working on this for a long time. He discussed his plans with Leo Tondreau from the Building Department, who assured him he would work with him on this. Mr. Milke stated he then proceeded to purchase items for the home such as appliances and furniture, in anticipation of having it built; however, he ran into a lot of delays on pulling permits and was forced to make many trips back and forth to the Township Engineer’s office in Rochester Hills. He was told by the Macomb County Health Department that he was approved, so he was "floored" to find out from the Township that the property had to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet. He questioned why he was not told this in the beginning prior to his obtaining all of the necessary permits from the Health Department.

Mr. Marella pointed out that the Building Department has acknowledged he is meeting the requirements for the septic field and well; however, he needs a variance for the size of the lot.

Mr. Milke emphasized that he has tried to meet all of the Township requirements but they cannot meet the minimum lot size.

Considerable discussion took place between Ms. Kristopaitis and the Board.

Ms. Kristopaitis thought that the petitioner’s "15,000 square-foot house" would encroach onto her property.

Mr. Miller explained to Ms. Kristopaitis exactly what the petitioners are proposing.

Ms. Schwartz pointed out that the lot is irregular in shape.

Mr. Catalano noted that the petitioners went to the Macomb County Health Department, who dictates whether septic and well are approved for a site. He felt it is very unusual this lot would perk, and stated that while he would generally be opposed to such a variance request, he felt confident that the health department has very high standards and would not have approved this if there was a problem. He therefore offered no objection to the requested variance.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to how Mr. Milke obtained the measurements of the lots in the neighborhood.

Mr. Milke replied that his wife works at the County offices and she was able to obtain some of the measurements, and he measured the rest.

Mr. Campbell questioned Mr. Miller as to how homes in this area could have been built on smaller lots without coming to this Board for a variance. He noted that they would all have to have been built on minimum 15,000 square foot parcels.

Mr. Miller could not answer as to how other new homes would have gotten away without being brought to the Board of Appeals for a variance. He added that this requirement of the zoning ordinance has been in effect for many years.

Mr. Catalano stated that approximately five or six years ago, the ordinance required a minimum 80-foot-wide lot if no sewer or water service was available; however, he noted that it did not seem fair to base it on the width of the property because a lot could be narrower than 80 feet, yet extremely deep and still be able to accommodate a septic system and well. He informed that at that time, the Township changed the ordinance to require a minimum square footage of the total parcel when sewer and water are not available. He stressed that the important part is to receive approval from the Macomb County Health Department and the petitioners have obtained this. He also noted that a 1,560 square foot home is certainly not a huge home and is average size for the Township. For these reasons, he had no objection to the variance request.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5439 and application from Edward and Laura Milke, 35084 Concord Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-a; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Footnotes to Chart; Minimum Size Lot Per Unit in the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 133, Mabarak Park Subdivision (Section 30), generally located fronting the south line of Edsel, east of Utica Road at 15850 Edsel, that variance be granted to permit construction of a single-family residence on a lot in the R-3 One-Family Residential District, having neither public sewer nor water systems, with land area of 8,379 square feet being 6,621 square feet less than the minimum required land area of 15,000 square feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the petitioner has obtained permits from the Macomb County Health Department assuring that the property can handle both a septic system and a well; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Reynolds, Schwartz, Catalano, Granata, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Nickerson. Motion carried.

This item was deleted from tonight’s agenda.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5152 and application from Harry Puma, H & M Properties of Clinton Township, 20941 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 request to withdraw application for variance, which was heard by the Board of Appeals and tabled indefinitely on March 18, 1998, be accepted. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Schwartz, Reynolds, Campbell, Catalano, Granata, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Nickerson. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell noted that in the February 16, 2000 minutes, the top two lines on Page Two are a duplicate of the bottom two lines on Page One. He requested that the top two lines on Page Two be deleted.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to approve the report of the February 16, 2000 meeting as amended. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell requested the following change to the minutes of April 19, 2000:

Page Four, Line Two:
Change from: "…and is the tenth largest Township in the State of Michigan."
Change to: "…and is the tenth largest community in the State of Michigan."

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Marella, to approve the report of the April 19, 2000 meeting as amended. Motion carried.

Motion by Mr. Catalano, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to approve the report of the May 17, 2000 meeting as written. Motion carried. (Ms. Schwartz abstained).

Mr. Miller explained that since the last meeting when the Board discussed this item, the Certificate of Approval for Variance has been revised to include a section for conditions placed on any approvals. He also informed that he will be approving the Certificates and noted that he had a discussion with Mr. Cassin, who acknowledged that he would like to see the Certificates but readily admitted that he does not attend the meetings. Mr. Miller further explained that the Planning Department will look back through the minutes since last September and, for those variance approvals with conditions, will either reissue Certificates or will send copies of the minutes with the conditions highlighted to the petitioners and the Building Department.

Mr. Campbell expressed his concern, particularly regarding the approval given to Best Western/Concorde Inn, that the Board of Appeal’s intent on the grant of variance was not made clear because the conditions were not stated.

Mr. Marella also felt there was confusion on the variance granted to Ernie’s Kings Mill for the same reason. He felt it is important that the Certificate state the conditions.

Discussion took place regarding the variance granted to Kings Mill and the conditions that were imposed.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Ms. Granata, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS