CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
JULY 18, 2001
MINUTES

PRESENT:     Francis Marella, Chairperson
                       Dean J. Reynolds, Vice-Chairperson
                       Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
                       Peter M. Catalano
                       Frank Poma
                       Denise C. Trombley

ABSENT:      Carole L. Schwartz (Excused)

STAFF:          Irene F. Sheridan, Community Planner II
                      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. Catalano requested to add Item #13 – Discussion Regarding Board of Appeals Agendas and Meeting Schedules.

Motion by Mr. Catalano, supported by Mr. Campbell, to approve the agenda with the addition of Item #13. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell requested permission to be excused when Item #8, the petition from K-Mart, is being discussed and voted on. He explained that he is employed by K-Mart Corporation and he felt it would be a conflict of interest to be involved with that particular case.

The Board members had no objection to Mr. Campbell being excused from hearing and voting on Item #8.

Mr. Campbell explained that this is a reconsideration of an item that was previously denied by this Board. He read a letter into the record from Phyllis D. Jay, 21300 South Nunneley, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, expressing her opposition to the variance request.

Gerry Kupiec, 36812 Woodingham, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that they were denied their variance request in May 2001. He noted that he has since obtained a letter from a builder confirming that in order to provide a 12-foot-high door on the accessory structure, it will be necessary for him to receive the requested variance. He emphasized that the issue he is bringing before this Board has to do with the height variance and not the fact that he has a recreational vehicle. He proceeded to submit photographs of other structures in the area that exceed the height requirements as specified in the Township ordinance.

Mr. Campbell read the cover letter from Fuller Construction (Clinton Township address), confirming that the proposed height of sixteen feet for the accessory structure is necessary to accommodate a twelve-foot door and the hardware and tracking it requires.

Wilfred Skibba, 36570 Woodingham, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated he has lived at this address for many years. He pointed out that there are many structures in the neighborhood that exceed fourteen feet in height, and being an employee of Earl Keim Realty and therefore familiar with real estate values, he felt confident that an accessory structure being two feet taller than permitted will not effect the value of the surrounding homes. He added that the neighbors he discussed this with were not in opposition to the variance request.

George Carter, 36756 Lindsay Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, disagreed with Mr. Skibba and objected to the ordinance "being changed". He felt that if this variance is granted, it will "change the whole neighborhood". He commented that if others see that this is permitted, they may also request similar variances and that could create a problem in the neighborhood.

Mr. Marella assured that the Township ordinances are not being changed; however, he explained that the petitioner has requested a variance and, under certain circumstances, this Board has the authority to grant or deny such variance requests. He emphasized that each petition is considered on its own merit and that everyone’s circumstances are different, so not everyone who applies would receive the same variance.

Donna Mleczko, 36575 Woodingham, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, had no objection to the variance request and did not feel that the excess two-foot-height would "change the neighborhood".

Steven Laird, 36784 Lindsay Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, noted that he lives very close to the petitioner and he is not opposed to the variance request. He commented that the siding on the structure will look new and will have a nice appearance.

Jordan Kushner, 36770 Lindsay Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, expressed opposition to the variance request. He suggested that the petitioner park his trailer at an approved storage facility where he can pay for storage. He felt strongly that the residential area should not be used for a storage facility.

Mr. Kupiec clarified that according to the Township ordinances, he is permitted to park his recreational vehicle in his rear yard without a variance. He explained that he only wants to be able to take it through his garage in order to provide access to his rear yard. He added that he already has a cement slab in the rear yard for this purpose.

Marieanne Kupiec, 36812 Woodingham, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that she does not wish to store her recreational vehicle off-site when she has sufficient room in her own backyard.

Mr. Campbell noted that there is a mixture of attached and detached garages in the immediate area; however, he reminded that an attached garage is permitted to be higher than a detached garage, and that is why some of the structures in the photographs submitted appeared to be taller.

Mr. Kupiec replied to inquiry that he does not want to attach the garage to his house; however, he added that he will attach it if that is the only way he can meet the desired height.

Mrs. Kupiec replied to inquiry that the photographs Mr. Kupiec submitted to the Board can remain as part of the file. She replied to further inquiry that they do not intend to store their trailer in the accessory structure because the proposed garage measures 22 feet by 22 feet and their trailer will be 26 to 27 feet in length.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the existing swimming pool will have to be moved.

Mr. Kupiec assured that the swimming pool will not be moved. He replied to inquiry that they have opted not to build a large enough structure to house the trailer because that would involve relocating the swimming pool and moving electrical lines. He reiterated that parking their recreational vehicle in the rear yard is not in question because that is permitted by Township ordinances.

Mr. Campbell explained that the concern of the neighbors is they do not want to see their neighborhood turned into a "storage area", and he suggested it might be more aesthetically pleasing to store the vehicle inside the accessory structure.

Mrs. Kupiec noted that one of the residents voicing the objections has a boat in his yard; however, he is able to access his rear yard for storage of the boat. She emphasized that they are only requesting the height variance so they can access their rear yard with their trailer, and she stressed that there is nothing in the ordinance prohibiting them from parking their trailer in their rear yard.

Ms. Trombley felt the variance should be granted because the petitioners have room in the rear yard to store their recreational vehicle and she noted that it has been the effort of the Township and the intent of the ordinance to get RV’s out of the front yards and required side yards into the rear yards for storage.

Mr. Campbell recalled that this Board has granted very few height variances for accessory structures. He explained that granting height variances for accessory structures in a subdivision that has relatively small lots bothers him, and he reminded that the structure will be in existence long after these residents have moved out. He expressed concern about how the taller garage will be used in the future. He noted, however, that if the petitioner so desires, they could build an attached garage measuring 25 to 35 feet in height and they would be within the ordinance requirements. He felt that in examining this aspect, he would support the variance request because he felt it is the better option to have an additional two feet rather than the additional height of an attached garage.

Motion by Ms. Trombley, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to request for reconsideration of action taken by this Board on April 18, 2001, concerning File #5517 and application from Gerry Kupiec, 36812 Woodingham, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.01-(f), Supplementary Regulations: Accessory Structures (Including Garages), concerning Lot 40, Ronny Boy Subdivision (Section 27), generally located fronting the north line of Woodingham, east of Little Mack Avenue at 36812 Woodingham, that variance be granted to permit construction of a detached accessory structure (garage) for a single-family residence in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with height of sixteen (16) feet being two (2) feet in excess of the maximum permitted height of fourteen (14) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that there is not sufficient room to access the rear yard for the storage of their trailer, and further, that if the garage were attached, it would be permitted to be much taller; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Trombley, Campbell, Poma, Reynolds, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Schwartz. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell informed that this is a reconsideration of an item that was previously denied by this Board. He read two letters, both from Enid Carter, 14151 Kentucky, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, one of which was addressed to the Board of Appeals and the other addressed to the Planning Department, both expressing her objection to the variance request.

Mr. Marella reminded that the only lot under consideration at this hearing is Lot 65. He informed that the petitioner has resubmitted plans and the remaining lots will meet all of the requirements of Township ordinances.

Dale Reece, 23465 Lakewood, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that they are seeking relief for a couple of feet on Lot 65. He is still considering whether to make this a handicap-accessible home, but regardless, he will need the variance. He pointed out that there is a park proposed to be located across the street, and these homes will have attractive front porches that will face the park area. He stated they are only seeking a setback variance from Kentucky Avenue of 4+ feet. He noted that currently, the view of Quinn Road is obstructed by shrubbery but they hope to remove the shrubs. He stressed that without the variance, they will be restricted to building a very small narrow home that, in his opinion, will look like "an ugly duckling".

Jeff Pfent, 2860 Ravenswood, Marysville, Michigan 48040, explained that he has been contracted by Mr. Reece to build the proposed homes. He reiterated Mr. Reece’s comments and replied to inquiry that the homes will each measure 1147 square feet and will be identical.

Mr. Reece explained that he owns a landscaping and irrigation business and he intends to put in shrubs and an irrigation system to enhance these homes. He replied to inquiry that the homes are listed at $116,900 each; however, he has had difficulty keeping the signs in place because someone is taking them down.

Iona Means, 34183 Vinita, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, felt they have a beautiful community that has been growing, and she felt it is unfair that this builder can come into their neighborhood with manufactured homes. She objected to the variance request.

Mr. Marella reminded that all of the proposed homes meet the minimum size requirement and four of the five homes meet all of the ordinance requirements.

Ms. Means admitted that they may meet the ordinance requirements, but she complained that they are modular homes.

Mr. Marella clarified that this Board does not have jurisdiction over the ordinance that permits modular homes.

James Means, 34348 Marino, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, questioned as to what variance was originally petitioned by the applicants.

Mr. Marella replied that the petitioner originally requested a variance to permit smaller homes on the lots; however, that request was denied. He explained that the petitioner redesigned the sites to meet all of the ordinance requirements with the exception of the side yard setback on Lot 65, and that is the only variance he is now requesting.

Ms. Sheridan replied to inquiry that if the variance is granted, the proposed home on Lot 65 would be set back almost 21 feet from Kentucky.

Mr. Means complained that the modular homes that have been put into their neighborhood are already starting to deteriorate. He felt there are good builders in the area who can build "stick homes" and he felt the subject lots could be developed the same way. He inquired as to the side yard setback requirements.

Ms. Sheridan replied to inquiry that in the R-5 One-Family Residential District, the requirement is a combined side yard setback total of 12 feet, with the least side yard being a minimum of 3 feet.

Mr. Pfent informed that he has recently built two manufactured homes in the Township within the last six months and they are very attractive. He complimented Don in the Building Department as being a very thorough and helpful inspector. He assured they will build according to the plans.

Mr. Campbell acknowledged that this is a difficult situation. He felt this owner has a right to build on his property, and he added that this Board will need to grant a variance of one type or another to make this lot buildable. He pointed out that this is a corner lot, which means he has to maintain a 25-foot setback from Kentucky. The minimum width of a home in this district, according to ordinance requirements, is 24-feet, and he must maintain a minimum 3-foot side yard setback from Lot 64. That totals 52 feet, and yet the lot is only 50-foot in width. Mr. Campbell recalled that this Board, in the past, has granted side yard setback variances on corner lots. He felt that would be a better option than granting a variance to permit a smaller home. He felt strongly that if this Board does not grant the petitioner a variance of one type or another, the petitioner could have it overturned in court.

Mr. Catalano suggested that if the petitioner built a home with a basement, he could build a smaller home that would fit on the lot without a variance.

Mr. Pfent admitted that they could build a smaller home, but he emphasized that a variance would still be necessary.

Considerable discussion took place regarding whether or not a variance would be necessary if the petitioner constructed a smaller house on Lot 65.

Ms. Sheridan replied to inquiry that the petitioner would be unable to build without a variance because even if a smaller house were built, it would have to be a minimum of 24 feet in width.

Mr. Campbell felt this Board has three options: 1) to grant a variance on the side yard setback as requested; 2) to grant a variance on the width of the house to permit construction of a narrower structure; or 3) to grant a side yard setback variance from Lot 64.

Mr. Marella felt that the first option Mr. Campbell suggested is the best solution. He noted that he would not like to see the size of the house reduced.

Mr. Reynolds inquired as to whether the petitioner would be willing to construct four homes rather than five homes as proposed.

Mr. Reece replied to inquiry that he would not be willing to combine a couple of the lots into one lot. He pointed out that he purchased these five lots as buildable lots and there is nothing wrong with the homes he is proposing to build. He inquired as to why he should be forced to build a larger home.

Mr. Catalano pointed out that if the petitioner wished to purchase a parcel of property and build a home on it, the property would have to measure a minimum of 65 feet by 120 feet.

Mr. Poma inquired as to whether the petitioner would be willing to build these homes with basements.

Mr. Reece could not see a reason to provide basements on these homes.

Mr. Poma commented that the south end of the Township has been an eyesore for many years and they are trying to encourage its rebuilding so it can become a "gem". He felt this Board would be doing a disservice to the residents by allowing this type of home to be built. He encouraged the petitioner to work with the Township and, in return, he felt the Township would be willing to work with him. He strongly felt that basements would increase the value of the proposed homes.

Mr. Pfent stressed that the looks from the outside would be the same whether there is a crawl space or a basement. He argued that the petitioner is already working with the Township by increasing the size of the homes and eliminating the need for the variances on the other lots as originally requested.

Mr. Catalano inquired as to where necessities are stored in a home with no basement. He felt a basement is imperative for such items as a hot water heater, furnace, seasonal items, etc.

Mr. Pfent replied that the homes will have a first floor laundry and the hot water heater and furnace will be located on the first floor as well. He indicated that the prospective homeowners will have to find another option for storage space and, although he admitted that basements are nice, they are not necessary.

Mr. Reece stressed that senior citizens do not want basements and that will be one of the attractive features of his houses. He also noted that some of the homeowners of newer homes in the area that have basements have been experiencing problems with them because this area was originally a landfill/swamp area. He does not want to have any of those problems so he has eliminated the basements.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5532 and application from Dale Reece, Lakewood Development, 23465 Lakewood, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Jeff Pfent, Diamond Valley Homes, 2860 Ravenswood, Marysville, Michigan 48040, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart; Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District and Chapter 1292.01-c; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 65, Southern Park Subdivision (Section 34), generally located at the northwest corner of Quinn Road and Kentucky Avenue, that variance be granted to permit construction of a single-family residence on a corner lot in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with side yard setback from Kentucky Avenue of 20.64 feet being 4.36 feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that it is physically impossible to build a home on a 50-foot-wide corner lot without some type of variance and this variance would be the best solution; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Motion failed for lack of support.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, supported by Mr. Catalano, with reference to File #5532 and application from Dale Reece, Lakewood Development, 23465 Lakewood, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Jeff Pfent, Diamond Valley Homes, 2860 Ravenswood, Marysville, Michigan 48040, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart; Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District and Chapter 1292.01-c; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 65, Southern Park Subdivision (Section 34), generally located at the northwest corner of Quinn Road and Kentucky Avenue, that request for variance to permit construction of a single-family residence on a corner lot in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with side yard setback from Kentucky Avenue of 20.64 feet being 4.36 feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet, be denied due to lack of hardship or practical difficulty.

Discussion ensued.

Mr. Reynolds explained that in his opinion, the petitioner has the option of splitting the property into four lots and building homes that meet all of the ordinance requirements.

Mr. Campbell argued that the Township cannot force the petitioner to split the lots. He noted that the petitioner has five lots and should be able to build on each of those lots. He felt that the circuit court would overturn a denial by this Board.

Mr. Catalano questioned Ms. Sheridan as to whether the petitioner could split this property into four lots.

Ms. Sheridan explained that Lot 65, as platted, is not buildable under current ordinance requirements because it is not possible to provide a 25-foot setback from Kentucky, a 24-foot width to the home, and still maintain a 3-foot side yard setback from Lot 64. She replied to further inquiry that she was unaware of any reason why the petitioner could not combine the lots if that was his desire to do so.

Mr. Reynolds withdrew his motion for discussion purposes.

Mr. Catalano withdrew his support of the motion on the floor.

Mr. Reynolds strongly felt that the petitioner should provide basements.

Mr. Reece explained his reasoning for not providing basements. He pointed out that one of his homes may be designed for the handicapped and he is also trying to make these homes attractive to senior citizens, and they do not want basements. He stressed that he is trying to make the homes attractive on the inside and outside, and he discussed the basement issue with other builders in the area, who have all informed him that basements in that area are "a pain". He pointed out that the ground is in a low-lying, wet area and sump pumps are running all of the time. He replied to inquiry that he would prefer not to put in any basements, not even in one of the houses.

Mr. Pfent reminded that the five houses they will be building will be uniform and they do not want one or two with basements.

Motion by Mr. Marella, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5532 and application from Dale Reece, Lakewood Development, 23465 Lakewood, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Jeff Pfent, Diamond Valley Homes, 2860 Ravenswood, Marysville, Michigan 48040, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart; Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District and Chapter 1292.01-c; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 65, Southern Park Subdivision (Section 34), generally located at the northwest corner of Quinn Road and Kentucky Avenue, that variance be granted to permit construction of a single-family residence on a corner lot in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with side yard setback from Kentucky Avenue of 20.64 feet being 4.36 feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the size of the lot makes it unbuildable without a variance; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Marella, Campbell. Nay – Reynolds, Trombley, Poma, Catalano. Absent – Schwartz. Motion failed for lack of votes.

Discussion ensued. The possibility of obtaining legal opinion on this matter was raised.

Motion by Mr. Marella, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5532 and application from Dale Reece, Lakewood Development, 23465 Lakewood, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Jeff Pfent, Diamond Valley Homes, 2860 Ravenswood, Marysville, Michigan 48040, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart; Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District and Chapter 1292.01-c; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 65, Southern Park Subdivision (Section 34), generally located at the northwest corner of Quinn Road and Kentucky Avenue, that further consideration of request for variance to permit construction of a single-family residence on a corner lot in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with side yard setback from Kentucky Avenue of 20.64 feet being 4.36 feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet, be tabled and direct that the matter be forwarded to the Township attorney for interpretation and clarification of this Board’s options. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Marella, Reynolds, Campbell, Trombley, Poma, Catalano. Nay – None. Absent – Schwartz. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell informed that this variance request was tabled from the June 20, 2001 meeting and there was no new documentation to be read into the record.

Eric Biretta, 33830 Harper Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, noted that at the last meeting, there was a question as to the availability of parking according to the petitioner’s lease with Mr. Heisner. Mr. Biretta submitted a copy of the lease, indicating that the petitioner has permission to use a specified portion of the landlord’s property for parking. He stressed that they will have more than sufficient parking; however, his client is reluctant to pave the back portion because it is not her property. He assured that they will be paving the front portion, but requested that this Board consider allowing them to gravel the rear portion for parking purposes for overflow parking.

Mr. Reynolds inquired as to the hardship or practical difficulty why the rear portion of the parking lot cannot be paved.

Mr. Biretta replied that the Road Commission took a portion of their property for the Wm Rosso Highway right-of-way.

Mr. Marella disagreed and noted that easement for the highway was taken years ago and has nothing to do with the request for the parking variance.

Sherry Reardon, daughter of the applicant, 24660 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, confirmed Mr. Biretta’s statement that the lease between her mother and Mr. Heisner states that they may utilize the rear portion of the property for parking. She pointed out that they do not own the property and therefore feel they should not have to incur the expense to pave it.

Mr. Campbell reviewed the variance requests individually. He had no objection to the front yard setback variance because he did not feel it would be practical to request the petitioner to move the building. He recalled that at the last meeting, Mr. Biretta agreed that the petitioner will install trees in the parking lot, so that variance request is no longer necessary. He felt this Board needs to address a request for variance to allow use of the property to the south for parking, even though it is specified as part of the lease agreement.

Ms. Sheridan confirmed that Mr. Campbell’s statement is correct.

Mr. Campbell noted that the layout indicates they are going to create a 17-foot-wide driveway.

Mr. Biretta clarified that they are proposing one ingress and one egress.

Mr. Campbell felt the minimum width of the service drive should be met.

Mr. Biretta offered to increase the ingress and egress by one foot each direction, but it would be difficult to add the entire seven feet. He urged the Board to consider the approval of these variance requests because the petitioner is very close to opening her business and wishes to do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Campbell stated that he would like to see further consideration of this matter tabled once again until the Board can be presented with an updated site plan, containing the correct information.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Poma, with reference to File #5544 and application from Ms. Donna Reardon, Allure Corporation, 24660 Wm. Rosso Highway, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by Eric Edward Biretta, 33830 Harper Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, and Sherry Reardon, 24660 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, 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 and Chapter 1296.01-(k)-(3)-J, Off-Street Parking and Loading: Space Requirements; Business and Commercial; Bar/Lounge or Bar/Restaurant and Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(10), Off-Street Parking and Loading: Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance; and Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(13), Off-Street Parking and Loading: Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance, concerning 1.909 (part of 2.5) acres of land fronting the south line of Hall Road (M-59/Wm. Rosso Highway), east of Gratiot Avenue (Section 1), that further consideration of variance to permit final occupancy of an existing bar (Common Groundz Bar fka Heisner’s Bar) in the B-3 General Business District with: 1) Front yard setback from Wm. Rosso Highway (M-59) of 12’ 7" being 12’ 5" less than the minimum required setback of twenty-five (25) feet; 2) Fifty-two (52) off-street parking spaces being 84 spaces less than the required 136 parking spaces; and 3) Two-way service drive width of seventeen (17) feet being seven (7) feet less than the required width of twenty-four (24) feet, be tabled until the next Board of Appeals Meeting for the purpose of giving the petitioner an opportunity to update the documentation and re-submit plans to the Planning Department for their review. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Poma, Reynolds, Trombley, Catalano. Nay – Marella. Absent – Schwartz. Motion carried.

Mr. Biretta expressed frustration at the fact that this is his second time before this Board regarding this matter, and he pointed out that the petitioners were here previous to that. He noted that they have submitted different plans in the hopes that they could reach some type of agreement. He requested some direction from this Board as to specific requests so he can meet those requirements on the prints. He stressed that he does not want to "keep submitting plans and wasting everyone’s time".

Mr. Campbell clarified the intent of tabling the matter once again. He pointed out that every single aspect of the variance request has been modified. He questioned whether there is enough available space to meet the requirement for number of parking lot trees, or whether parking spaces will have to be sacrificed to make room for these. He added that he would like to see an agreement with the Road Commission of Macomb County with regard to the driveway ingress/egress and whether they have permission to blacktop the eighteen feet or the full twenty-four feet. He also noted that the issue of the parking in the back is not clear.

Mr. Biretta thanked Mr. Campbell for the direction and assured they would submit new plans to the Planning Department for the next Board of Appeals meeting.

Mr. Campbell informed that this item had been tabled from the June 20, 2001 meeting. He added that no new documentation has been added to the record.

Samuel Backos, 16655 Nineteen Mile Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, submitted copies of the revised site plan as requested at the last meeting. He noted that at the last meeting, he agreed to reduce the size of the sign and the height of the sign to meet ordinance requirements and they are only in need of a variance to permit a reader board sign.

Mr. Campbell inquired as clarification of the revised request for variance.

Mr. Backos replied that he would like permission to install an LED display board.

Ms. Trombley inquired as to whether the sign ordinance is proposed to be revised in the near future, allowing the electronic reader board signs.

Ms. Sheridan replied to inquiry that the Township Board may be addressing revisions to the sign ordinance in the near future. She noted that one of those changes would be to allow a "changeable copy sign" that will not have moving, scrolling or flashing letters or designs, but can display a message that is able to be changed electronically.

Mr. Campbell recalled that a lot of the discussion at the last meeting involved the height and the size of the sign. He stated that since the petitioner has been willing to meet those requirements and the only request is for the LED display portion of the sign, he felt this Board may be pre-empting the Board of Trustees if they act on this tonight. He expressed concern that this Board may grant a variance that is not the intent of the Township Board.

Mr. Marella recalled that when the petitioner came before this Board a year ago for a variance to the sign fronting Nineteen Mile Road, he was granted the variance but was specifically informed that the sign could not display scrolling or flashing letters. Mr. Marella complained that the sign Mr. Backos installed does have scrolling letters and he felt this issue needs to be addressed. He was opposed to granting a variance until the sign on Nineteen Mile Road is brought into compliance with what was previously granted by this Board.

Mr. Campbell recalled that the Nineteen Mile Road sign had to have a variance for the minimum clearance distance between the bottom of the sign and the grade. He recalled that the petitioner insisted that he needed the electrical box at the bottom of the sign to handle the lighting of the sign. He further recalled the petitioner indicating that he would not install an electronic reader board sign.

Mr. Reynolds remembered that the petitioner had agreed to a reader board sign that would be changed manually.

Mr. Backos requested to see a copy of those minutes. He agreed with the minutes that at the time the Nineteen Mile Road sign was brought before this Board, he abandoned the idea of an electronic reader board sign because he felt it would be too cost-prohibitive. He later discovered that it was not cost-prohibitive and he applied to the Building Department for a permit, which he was issued. He complained that in some situations, the electronic reader board signs are permitted, and in other situations, they are not allowed. Mr. Backos pointed out that he has compromised and has agreed to meet the size and height requirements of the ordinance, but he would like consideration of the variance to permit the LED display area on the sign.

Mr. Poma pointed out that such businesses as Partridge Creek Golf Course, Petiprin Industries, Jimmy Dee’s Lounge and The Concorde Inn all have electronic reader board signs and he felt that to deny this petitioner the same right would be unfair.

Mr. Marella disagreed and did not feel they are being unfair. He pointed out that this Board has followed the code under which they operate and stressed that each request is considered on its own merit and situations are different.

Mr. Campbell agreed with Mr. Marella and reiterated that each case is considered on its own. He clarified that the LED display signs at the Concorde Inn and at Partridge Creek are the only two such signs approved by this Board, and they were granted variances based on certain circumstances.

Mr. Backos compared his hardship with the hardships for the other LED signs in the Township, and he felt they were similar. He noted that the proposed sign is quite a distance from the building and to change the copy manually in inclement weather is almost impossible. He explained that, like Partridge Creek and Concorde Inn, they host events that need to be posted.

Mr. Catalano felt this matter should be tabled until after the July 30, 2001 Township Board meeting to see whether or not they are going to revise the sign ordinance.

Mr. Backos assured that the drawings submitted tonight are the exact drawing of the existing sign along Nineteen Mile Road.

Ms. Sheridan replied to inquiry that the proposed sign does not afford a six-foot clearance from the bottom of the sign to the grade. She added that she has not previously seen the revised plan Mr. Backos submitted tonight.

Mr. Campbell explained that when prints and information are not submitted to the Planning Department in advance, the planner does not have an opportunity to evaluate the information and advise this Board. He felt that places an unfair burden on the planner in attendance at this meeting to have to quickly review the prints and it is unfair to this Board to have to make a decision.

Mr. Backos stated that at the last meeting, he was asked to resubmit plans, but he was not told they needed to be submitted two weeks prior to the meeting. He recalled being requested to bring his prints to this meeting.

A look at the minutes from last meeting indicated that Mr. Backos was requested to make changes to the plan; however, there was no deadline mentioned, only that he would "come back before this Board at their July meeting with exact drawings of what he is proposing to do".

Ms. Trombley inquired as to whether Ms. Sheridan is satisfied with the plans as submitted tonight.

Ms. Sheridan replied that although she did not have an opportunity to review them prior to tonight, she stated that it appears as though the minimum clear space and the reader board are the only two issues that do not meet ordinance requirements. She emphasized that the petitioner must be willing to apply to the Building Department for permits with the exact prints that may be approved at this meeting.

Mr. Reynolds recalled that he requested the sign not have flashing or scrolling letters or designs.

Mr. Backos replied that he is not ready to arbitrarily make a decision on this when his neighbors in the community are permitted to follow different rules.

Mr. Sheridan replied to inquiry that both the square footage and the height requirements of the ordinance are met; however, the sign is 1-½ feet short of the minimum required clear space, which is the distance from the bottom of the sign to the grade. She pointed out that the sign on Nineteen Mile is situated further back from the road right-of-way and the driveway; therefore, the sign not meeting the minimum clear space at that location does not become a safety hazard. She cautioned that the petitioner will need to be very careful when placing the sign to assure that motorists’ views are not blocked as they exit the subject property or the abutting property. She reminded that the sign must also be located a minimum of fifteen feet from the driveway.

Mr. Backos assured they would consider this issue. He stated they plan to place the sign in the exact location as the current sign.

Mr. Campbell explained that when the Sign Ordinance was revised in 1994, the intent was to allow motorists to see over the sign or to see under the sign. He noted that the design of this particular sign has a very wide base, and he agreed with Ms. Sheridan’s concern that it may block the view of motorists exiting from neighboring Bank One onto Garfield. He emphasized that they granted the previous variance for the sign on Nineteen Mile Road because it was not going to create a visibility hazard. He felt it would be advantageous for this Board to see a print of exactly where this sign will be located, in relation to the driveway and the driveway of the abutting business, and then he would need to envision whether there would be any difficulty with a sign that does not meet the required clear space.

Mr. Backos offered to narrow the base and use one post or two poles as support in lieu of the wide base.

Mr. Campbell commented that with all of the SUV’s and vans on the road, where motorists are sitting higher, possibly the ordinance should be looked at to increase the minimum required 6-foot clear space. He was hesitant to grant a variance for anything lower than the minimum six feet.

Mr. Backos agreed to modify the base of the sign to meet ordinance requirements. He inquired as to whether this Board would be willing to grant the variance tonight to allow the LED display on the sign.

Ms. Trombley inquired as to whether the petitioner would be willing to eliminate the scrolling on the Nineteen Mile Road sign if this Board would grant a variance to permit a non-scrolling, non-flashing LED display sign on Garfield.

Mr. Backos replied to inquiry that he has a valid permit for the sign on Nineteen Mile Road and does not feel he should have to change it in any way.

Mr. Marella emphasized that safety issues are being considered and that is why this Board is making these requests.

Patrick Janetta, 47365 Liberty Drive, Shelby Township, Michigan, a friend of the applicant, argued that Mr. Backos is proposing a "state-of-the-art" sign and he found it hard to believe that this Board is not approving it. He stated he has done some work with the school district in Shelby Township and they have LED display signs.

Mr. Marella clarified that school districts do not fall under the jurisdiction of the sign ordinance so that should not be used as an example.

Mr. Backos inquired as to whether this Board would grant a variance for the sign, as submitted on the drawings tonight, with the stipulation that he cannot build it until the reader board sign is approved through the proposed sign ordinance amendments.

Mr. Campbell stated that by approving the prints submitted tonight, this Board would be granting the variance for the clear space under the sign. He recalled that Mr. Backos agreed to meet that minimum requirement.

Mr. Backos assured he will change the prints to reflect that the sign meets the requirements of the sign ordinance with the exception of the electronic reader board. He requested to be permitted to install the same electronic reader board as he currently has on Nineteen Mile Road.

Mr. Marella argued that the current electronic reader board sign on Nineteen Mile Road is in violation of the ordinance and he felt this Board is not going to grant approval for a scrolling sign on Garfield Road.

Ms. Sheridan replied to inquiry that the print submitted tonight indicates 4 feet 6 inches from the bottom of the sign to the grade and for this to meet ordinance requirements, it must provide a minimum of 6 feet. She cautioned that the entire sign cannot be raise to compensate for this 1-½ feet because the sign is already at the maximum height permitted.

Mr. Backos requested that in lieu of a denial tonight, that this matter be tabled until the Board makes it decision on the proposed sign ordinance amendments.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Catalano, with reference to File #5544 and application from Ernest Backos, 4645 Brockham Way, Sterling Heights, Michigan 48310, as represented by Sam Backos, 16655 Nineteen Mile Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-B-1 & B-2; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Pylon sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(f); Definitions and Restrictions; "Flashing/moving sign" and Chapter 1488.03, Signs; Schedule of Regulations; Chart, concerning 3.06 acres of land fronting the north line of Nineteen Mile Road, west of Garfield Road at 16655 Nineteen Mile Road (Section 6), that further consideration of request for variance to permit replacement installation of a business pylon sign for an existing restaurant/banquet hall (Ernie’s Kings Mill) in the B-2 Community Business District with: 1) Display area of 170.4 square feet being 90.4 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 80 square feet; 2) Height of twenty-two (22) feet being seven (7) feet in excess of the maximum permitted fifteen (15) feet; and 3) A panel containing a "flashing/moving sign" being a sign not permitted in any district, be tabled for a period of ninety (90) days and be brought back to this Board after the Township Board makes a decision regarding the proposed amendment to the sign ordinance with regard to changeable copy signs. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Catalano, Poma, Reynolds, Trombley, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Schwartz. Motion carried.

The meeting recessed at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:14 p.m.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no 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.

Frank Hearsch, Attorney, 85 Macomb Place, Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043, explained that the petitioner had purchased this property approximately four years ago and soon after discovered that the so-called "landscaped area" was actually filled with tire ruts. She rapidly discovered why when she could not back out onto Cass Avenue because of the excessive traffic. He noted that there was not sufficient maneuvering room in the driveway to turn the car around, so Ms. Kerr had the area blacktopped to provide proper maneuvering room; however, a short time later she received a violation from the Township. Mr. Hearsch noted that this is about the only single-family residence remaining along this section of Cass Avenue, and he added that it is zoned commercial. He explained that Ms. Kerr’s grandson currently resides there, and they would like permission from this Board to allow the blacktop to remain.

Mr. Catalano commented that the home is very narrow.

Mr. Hearsch noted that the house takes up most of the lot. He replied to inquiry that Ms. Kerr works for Greco Title Company and they used that address when filling out the Board of Appeals application, but he assured that the subject property is being used as a single-family residence and is not part of Greco Title Company.

Mr. Reynolds offered no objection to the variance request.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Catalano, with reference to File #5545 and application from Margaret Kerr, Greco Title Company, 118 Cass Avenue, Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043, as represented by Francis Hearsch, Attorney, 85 Macomb Place, Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043, 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: Cart and Footnotes; Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements in the B-3 General Business District, concerning all of Lots 16 and 17, and part of Lot 18, Streval Heights Subdivision (Sections 10/15), generally located fronting the south line of Cass Avenue, east of Moravian Drive at 21166 Cass Avenue, that variance be granted to permit continued existence of a single-family residence in the B-3 General Business District with landscaped front yard setback from Cass Avenue of zero (0) feet being twenty-five (25) feet less than the minimum required setback of twenty-five (25) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that there is an excessive amount of traffic on Cass Avenue, it is nearly impossible and not safe to back onto Cass, and it would be impossible to maneuver a vehicle on the property without the blacktopped area; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Catalano, Reynolds, Trombley, Poma, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Schwartz. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no 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.

Vicki Gaskill, Tony V’s Sunrooms & Spas, 18774 McCormick, Detroit, Michigan, explained that they proposed to remove the wood and screen posts and remodel the room. She replied that the existing room was built in 1964.

Olga Hume, 16226 Andover, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated this is her house and her husband originally installed the screening. She would like to have a screened-in room with a sliding door where she can sit in the summer months.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether this addition would have required a variance in 1964.

Ms. Sheridan replied that although a variance may have been granted in 1964, she found no record of it. She indicated that if there was documentation that a variance had been granted in 1964, she would not need a variance at this time.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5550 and application from Tony V’s Sunrooms & Spas, 20330 Hall 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; Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements for the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 70, Moravian Meadows Subdivision (Section 30), generally located fronting the south line of Andover Drive, east of Gloucester at 16226 Andover, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of 33.5 feet being 1.5 feet less than the minimum required setback of 35 feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that house, as situated on the property, provides for an excessive front yard setback of over thirty feet, but creates minimal room available in the rear yard; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Reynolds, Trombley, Catalano, Poma, 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.

Bob Pelzo, Tony V’s Sunrooms & Spas, 20330 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that the petitioners would like to add a sunroom. He noted that they are on a corner lot, which makes it difficult to meet the required rear yard setback.

Mr. Campbell commented that this is a very shallow lot.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5551 and application from Denise & Dave Schoenherr, 23535 Thornton, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Tony V’s Sunrooms & Spas, 20330 Hall 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: Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements for the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 101, Harper-Metropolitan Parkway Subdivision (Section 26), generally located at the northwest corner of Thornton and Barr at 23535 Thornton, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of 32.3 feet being 2.7 feet less than the minimum required 35 feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that this is a corner lot that only measures 80 feet by 100 feet, which is very shallow; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Reynolds, Catalano, Poma, Trombley, 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. Mr. Campbell then left the room as he was previously excused for this item.

Tim Schaeffer, Allied Signs, 33650 Giftos, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that they are requesting these signs in keeping with K-Mart Corporation’s national advertising campaign to advertise their pharmacy. He added that they are also requesting banners on six of the light poles in the parking lot.

Ms. Sheridan explained that the current ordinance does not permit banners. She noted that the only mention in the ordinance of placing signs on poles stated that they cannot be located on utility poles or hanging in the right-of-way. Because of the fact that the ordinance does not clearly address signs on parking lot light poles, she reviewed it as though the ordinance also meant to prohibit the location of signs on these poles.

Mr. Schaeffer indicated that the signs are located behind the property line and are not in the right-of-way.

Ms. Sheridan noted that if she did not treat these as utility pole signs, she would have had to address them as pylon signs and they would have greatly exceeded the maximum number of permitted pylon signs for this site. She informed that this site was granted a variance in the past to permit four wall signs, and she added that they are now proposing to change the copy only and not add to the number of wall signs.

Mr. Schaeffer informed that they would like to put a 49-inch by 10-foot box sign below the existing "K" that is already existing. He replied to inquiry that they would be leaving the "K" in place.

Discussion took place regarding the documentation that was presented to the Board and the discrepancy between that and the petitioner’s proposal at this meeting.

Mr. Schaeffer apologized and explained that the wrong prints were submitted in error and he has revised prints.

Ms. Sheridan replied to inquiry that she has never seen the drawing just submitted by Mr. Schaeffer.

Discussion took place regarding whether this matter can be acted upon tonight based on the fact that the planner has not had an opportunity to review and analyze the drawings.

Motion by Mr. Catalano, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5552 and application from Groesbeck-Fifteen LLC, 30200 Telegraph Road, Suite #403, Binghampton Farms, Michigan 48025, as represented by Allied Signs, Inc., 33650 Giftos, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-B-1; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Pylon sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-B-2; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Pylon sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(2); Signs; Definitions and Restrictions and Chapter 1488.04-(c); Signs: Permit Required; External Illuminations; Location; Removal by Township, concerning 11.428 acres of land fronting the east line of Groesbeck Highway, south of 15 Mile Road (Section 33), that further consideration of request for variance to permit replacement installation of one (1) business pylon and installation of six (6) business "banner" signs in addition to four (4) existing wall signs for a retail store in the B-3 General Business District (Big K-Mart) having 880 linear feet of frontage on Groesbeck Highway (120 feet right of way) with: 1) Pylon sign display area of 97.28 square feet being 17.28 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 80 square feet; and 2) Height of forty-five (45) feet being thirty (30) feet in excess of the maximum permitted fifteen (15) feet; and 3) Eight (8) business signs in excess of the maximum three (3) business signs permitted by ordinance; and 4) Location of six (6) signs on utility poles being on a location not permitted, be tabled until the next meeting scheduled for August 8, 2001 to allow the petitioner an opportunity to submit correct drawings, which must be submitted to the Planning Department by the end of this week. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Catalano, Reynolds, Poma, Trombley, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Schwartz, Campbell. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell returned to the meeting at this time.

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.

John Gianetti, Mr. Enclosure, 2400 East Fourteen Mile Road, Warren, Michigan 48092, explained that the petitioner has a shallow lot and her rear yard backs up to Gowanie Golf Course. He noted that the mosquitoes are very bad in the area and she would like to enclose her porch. He submitted a letter from an abutting property owner.

Mr. Campbell read the letter from Wilfred J. Babbitt, 39224 Charbeneau, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, offering no objection to the variance request.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to why the addition is proposed to be 14 feet wide rather than 12 feet wide.

Mr. Gianetti replied that the homeowners are requesting the additional width because they have a small home and would like to have the extra space in this room.

Mr. Marella noted that the house is a garage-forward design. He offered no objections because of the nature of the property and the fact that the adjoining property owner has a similar room.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Catalano, with reference to File #5553 and application from Danuta Ciepiela, 39234 Charbeneau, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by Robert George, Mr. Enclosure, 2400 East Fourteen 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 41, Charbeneau Gardens Subdivision (P.C. 173/Section 13), generally located fronting the east line of Charbeneau, north of Crocker Boulevard at 39234 Charbeneau, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of 28.4 feet being 6.6 feet less than the minimum required setback of 35 feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the home is situated on the property with a garage-forward design, which minimizes the available space in the rear yard; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Catalano, Trombley, Poma, 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.

Charmaine Hoyner, 2400 East Fourteen Mile Road, Warren, Michigan 48092, explained that the petitioner would like to enclose her front porch. She informed that there is a child in the residence who was recently treated for a viral infection from a mosquito bite.

Dorothy Dale, 36426 Weideman, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated that she has legal custody of her grandson, who is seven years old. She explained that they would like to replace their awning but would like to enclose it, partially for the health of her grandson. She confirmed that he is recovering from a viral infection he contracted from a mosquito bite and since he is asthmatic as well, he was very ill. She replied to inquiry that the original awning was installed 42 years ago.

Ms. Sheridan replied to inquiry that the awning, even without an enclosure, should have had a variance.

Motion by Mr. Marella, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5554 and application from Dorothy Dale, 36426 Weideman, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Robert George, Mr. Enclosure, 2400 East Fourteen 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 Front Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 560, Winshall Villa Subdivision #1 (Section 27), generally located fronting the east line of Weideman, north of Elmway at 36426 Weideman, that variance be granted to permit enclosure of a porch for an existing single-family residence in the R-5 One-Family Residential District creating a front yard setback of 22.2 feet being 2.8 feet less than the minimum required setback of 25 feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the child residing in the home has medical conditions that would warrant the enclosure of the front porch; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Marella, Reynolds, Poma, Trombley, Campbell, Catalano. 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.

Mr. Reynolds inquired as to whether the addition will provide living space.

Wayne Jokinen, 18940 Monica, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, explained that although they have an attached garage, they have no access to it from their house. He commented that he has a growing family and they would like to add on another bedroom. He noted that he went around his neighborhood and discovered that the average setback is 16 feet. He replied to inquiry that the addition would provide them with an entrance, first floor laundry, great room, extension of the kitchen, and a bedroom. He replied to further inquiry that their neighbor owns the adjacent vacant parcel and has indicated she is unwilling to sell until such time as she sells her own house. He added that they will have the first option to buy that vacant parcel if and when she sells.

Mr. Campbell recalled that they have granted a rear yard setback variance for another home in the area. He stressed that this Board grants variances based on the individual situation and the characteristics of the property. He added that there are many factors that influence their decisions.

Mr. Marella felt that in view of the fact that there are other homes in the area that have extensions which fall short of the ordinance setback requirements, and the fact that the home directly behind the subject parcel is set back only 16 feet from the lot line, he did not have any objection to the variance request.

Mr. Campbell clarified that a hardship or practical difficulty must be presented. He felt the practical difficulty is the fact that the house is set further back on the property and the lot is only 100 feet in depth.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5559 and application from Wayne Jokinen, 18940 Monica, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements for the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 14, Moravian Hills Subdivision (P.C. 628/Section 21), generally located fronting the south line of Monica, east of Moravian Drive at 18940 Monica, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of sixteen (16) feet being nineteen (19) 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 subject house has an excessive front yard setback, yet the lot is shallow with a depth of only 100 feet; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Reynolds, Trombley, Poma, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Schwartz. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell requested the following change:

Page 13, Paragraph 3, Line 3:
Change from: "…he could not recall any other two-car attached garages."
Change to: "…he could not recall any other two-car attached garages for this specific house model."

Ms. Trombley requested the following change:

Page 18, Paragraph 7, Lines 3 & 4:
Change from: "…should be no taller than 15 feet or they will not be able to be seen."
Change to: "…should be no taller than 15 feet to be effectively seen."

Motion by Mr. Catalano, supported by Mr. Campbell, to approve the report of the June 20, 2001 Meeting with the two changes as noted. Motion carried.

Discussion took place regarding whether the Township is considering the possibility of scheduling two Board of Appeals meetings per month.

Ms. Sheridan replied that according to a study done by the Planning Department, the average length of meetings over the last three years does not necessarily warrant a second meeting per month.

Further discussion took place regarding the ways residents can be accommodated at these meetings. It was decided that all tabled items should be placed at the end of the agenda, because the petitioners of these items have already had an opportunity to appear before the Board. The Board also decided that reconsideration hearings should be placed last on the agendas as well.

Some discussion took place regarding the rearranging of the order on the agendas if it is noticed that a petitioner is handicapped or has other medical conditions that would make it difficult for him/her to sit through the meeting.

Motion by Mr. Catalano, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS