CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
JULY 19, 2000
MINUTES

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

ABSENT:     None

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 that Mr. Sorrentino had requested that consideration of his requests for variance be moved up on the agenda, if possible.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to move Items #5 (Forton Industrial Subdivision – Lot 21 and Part of Lot 22) and #6 (Forton Industrial Subdivision – Part of Lot 22) to the beginning of the agenda as Items #1 and #2, and to renumber the remaining items on the agenda accordingly. Motion carried.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Ms. Schwartz, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried.

Considerable discussion took place regarding the request from Mr. Antonio Roselli for Triangle Industrial Park, originally Item #1 on tonight’s agenda, and whether or not this matter can be considered by this Board because it is a use variance.

Mr. Catalano felt that anyone has a right to apply to the Board of Appeals for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance and has a right to be heard by the Board.

Ms. Granata agreed but did not feel this applies to use variance requests.

Mr. Miller replied to inquiry that anyone has the right to ask for a variance from any part of the Zoning Ordinance; however, legal counsel interprets that this Board does not have the authority to grant use variances.

Mr. Marella felt that if this Board does not hear the request, the petitioner is entitled to a refund of his filing fee.

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.

Benny Sorrentino, Icon Building II Company, Inc., 35520 Forton Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that they are proposing to construct two separate buildings but being forced to meet side yard setback requirements will make the buildings too small for their intended uses. He noted that they will be able to maintain an 11-foot distance between buildings, which he felt will be sufficient. Mr. Sorrentino pointed out that the lots are small.

Mr. Catalano noted that the two lots could be combined and one building could be constructed on the two lots; however, he sensed that Mr. Sorrentino would like the space between the two buildings.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether Mr. Sorrentino would be willing to consider combining the lots, erecting one building with a fire wall in between and whether the property could be brought into conformance with the current ordinance requirements if this was done.

Mr. Sorrentino replied that combining the lots and constructing one building would not suit their needs. He indicated they are not leasing these buildings but are selling them and each of the prospective buyers would not be interested in a combined building. He stressed they want the individuality of their own buildings.

Mr. Campbell questioned as to why the buildings must be the size proposed, and he inquired as to whether each of the two buildings could be made smaller.

Mr. Sorrentino replied that they do not have a choice: one prospective owner needs 13,000 square feet, while the other prospective owner requires 7,500 square feet. He replied to further inquiry that if the buildings are designed longer and narrower, they would not be able to meet the parking requirements.

Mr. Catalano inquired as to why the prospective purchasers do not look elsewhere if the size buildings they desire cannot fit on these parcels.

Mr. Sorrentino stated the prospective buyers like Clinton Township and wish to develop in this area. He replied that he developed Forton Industrial Park Subdivision approximately 15 years ago.

Discussion took place regarding the ordinance requirements years ago which allowed a zero-foot side yard setback.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the Fire Department would be able to gain access to the property and service these buildings if this variance is granted.

Mr. Miller noted that the building to the north of the subject site would appear to be approximately fifteen feet from the proposed building, which would allow sufficient room for emergency access. He added that the building to the south would be eleven feet from the proposed building, which may be tight for emergency access; however, he felt it could be done. He reminded that access to this property would have to be gained from the neighboring property.

Ms. Granata inquired as to the type of business being proposed for this site.

Mr. Sorrentino replied that it is a tooling business with approximately ten or fifteen employees. He did not feel the lesser side yard setbacks would be a detriment to safety because he noted that if there is a fire, the firefighters would be approaching it from the front or rear and would not be positioning themselves between buildings.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to how long the building on Lot 20 has been in existence.

Mr. Sorrentino estimated that the building on Lot 20 was constructed approximately ten years ago, meeting the ordinance requirements of that time.

Mr. Campbell raised the possibility of a parking variance being an alternative to the side yard setback variances. He pointed out that if the depth of the building was increased to make up for a decreased width, it would allow for the petitioner to meet the side yard setback requirements, provide a larger maneuvering lane in the back, and it would only require a variance from this Board of two parking spaces per building, or a total of four parking spaces. He inquired as to why the building must be configured as it is on the plan.

Mr. Sorrentino felt Mr. Campbell’s suggestion would not allow for sufficient room for a semi-truck to properly maneuver on the property.

Mr. Catalano felt he would rather grant a variance for the side yard setback rather than a variance on the number of parking spaces. He pointed out that when a business is successful, it may operate on double shifts and adequate parking space becomes very important.

Ms. Granata inquired as to how many vacant lots are remaining in this subdivision.

Mr. Sorrentino replied that the variances being requested tonight are for the last two available lots in the subdivision. He noted that they had to increase the height of the proposed building to provide the required clearance needed by the tooling company; however, he assured they meet ordinance requirements. Mr. Sorrentino expressed his opinion that a lack of parking spaces may hurt someone in the future, but the smaller side yard setback should not affect anyone.

Mr. Reynolds agreed with Mr. Catalano and felt he would rather see a variance granted for the side yard setbacks rather than for parking.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5446 and application from Mr. Benny Sorrentino, Icon Building II Company, Inc., 35520 Forton Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-(q) and (r), Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area – Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Requirements in the I-1 Light Industrial District, concerning Lot 21 and Part of Lot 22, Forton Industrial Subdivision (Section 2), generally located fronting the east line of Forton Court, north of 15 Mile Road, that variance be granted to permit construction of an industrial building (Forton Industrial Building #2) in the I-1 Light Industrial District with: 1) Side yard setback from the south property line of one (1) foot being nine (9) feet less than the minimum required ten (10) feet; and 2) Setback of eleven (11) feet from an existing building being nine (9) feet less than the minimum required distance of twenty (20) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that these variances are necessary because the buildings need to be an adequate size to accommodate the large machinery, as well as accommodating trucks and all other needs of a tool and die company; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Schwartz, Reynolds, Nickerson, Catalano, Granata, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Absent – None. Motion carried.

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

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5448 and application from Mr. Benny Sorrentino, Icon Building II Company, Inc., 35520 Forton Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-(q) and (r), Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area – Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Requirements in the I-1 Light Industrial District, concerning Part of Lot 22, Forton Industrial Subdivision (Section 2), generally located fronting the east line of Forton Court, north of 15 Mile Road, that variance be granted to permit construction of an industrial building (Forton Industrial Building #2) in the I-1 Light Industrial District with: 1) Side yard setback from the north property line of five (5) feet being five (5) feet less than the minimum required ten (10) feet; and 2) Setback of fifteen (15) feet from an existing building being five (5) feet less than the minimum required distance of twenty (20) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that these variances are necessary because the buildings need to be an adequate size to accommodate the large machinery, as well as accommodating trucks and all other needs of a tool and die company; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Schwartz, Reynolds, Nickerson, Catalano, Granata, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Mr. Marella stated that at the petitioner’s request, consideration of this matter was postponed from the June 21, 2000 meeting.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present.

Considerable discussion took place regarding whether this Board should motion to deny this request because it is a use variance, or whether they should delete it from the agenda and refund the filing fee for the same reason.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Catalano, with reference to File #5440 and application from Antonio Roselli, 17474 Iris Circle, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapters 1280.02-(b) through (o), I-1 Light Industrial District: Principal Uses Permitted and 1280.04-(a) through (h), I-1 Light Industrial District: Uses Requiring Special Approval, concerning 1.082 acres generally located fronting the west line of Groesbeck Highway, south of Hall Road (M-59) at 43885 Groesbeck Highway (Private Claim 139/Section 2), and concerning request to permit a retail establishment (Binson’s Medical Equipment Services) to occupy a unit within an existing industrial complex (Triangle Industrial Park) in the I-1 Light Industrial District, being a use not allowed in said District, that this request for variance be deleted from the agenda and the Planning Department be directed to refund the filing fee to the petitioner based on the fact that this Board does not have the jurisdiction to hear use variances and has never heard use variances in the past.

Considerable discussion ensued regarding this motion.

Mr. Catalano felt that litigation may result in this case and that this Board should be careful how this request is handled.

Mr. Miller informed that at one time, the Clinton Township Board of Appeals granted use variances, possibly handling up to one hundred such requests; however, Clinton Township’s legal counsel developed a new theory on this in recent years. It has been recommended by the attorney that the Board of Appeals does not have the authority to grant such variances and this Board has been following that advice in recent years.

Mr. Marella felt that Mr. Roselli’s absence from this meeting indicates his knowledge that this Board will not be able to hear his request.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to whether Mr. Roselli was advised by the Planning Department that this Board would not approve his request.

Mr. Miller assured that Mr. Roselli was not given a copy of the confidential information provided to this Board from the attorney, but he was under the impression that he could come before this Board even though he was told that this Board does not grant use variances. Mr. Miller added that Mr. Roselli insisted the application be accepted and forwarded to the Board of Appeals for their consideration, even though he was advised by the Planning Department that there was "slim to no chance for approval". Mr. Miller felt that, based on this information provided to Mr. Roselli prior to his application, there should be no refund of filing fee.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that occasionally in the litigation process, the judge will refer the individual back to the Board of Appeals so that all of his options are exhausted. He felt that this Board should deny the request at this time rather than deleting it from the agenda to avoid the possibility of a judge sending Mr. Roselli back to this Board for a denial.

Mr. Marella noted that there is a motion on the floor and roll call needs to be taken.

Roll Call Vote (for previous motion): Aye – Granata, Catalano, Marella. Nay – Nickerson, Reynolds, Schwartz, Campbell. Absent – None. Motion failed for lack of votes.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5440 and application from Antonio Roselli, 17474 Iris Circle, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapters 1280.02-(b) through (o), I-1 Light Industrial District: Principal Uses Permitted and 1280.04-(a) through (h), I-1 Light Industrial District: Uses Requiring Special Approval, concerning 1.082 acres generally located fronting the west line of Groesbeck Highway, south of Hall Road (M-59) at 43885 Groesbeck Highway (Private Claim 139/Section 2), that request to permit a retail establishment (Binson’s Medical Equipment Services) to occupy a unit within an existing industrial complex (Triangle Industrial Park) in the I-1 Light Industrial District, being a use not allowed in said District, be denied based upon Township Attorney’s legal opinion that the Zoning Board of Appeals does not have the authority to grant use variances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Campbell, Catalano, Nickerson, Reynolds, Schwartz, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

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

Ms. Shawn Smith, 33525 New York, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, submitted a letter to the Board of Appeals.

Mr. Campbell read a letter from Deanna Train, 23239 Elmira, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, indicating she has no objections to the variance request.

Mr. Campbell commented that the unusually shaped parcel and the positioning of the house on the property would make it difficult to adhere to ordinance requirements. He questioned why a camper was parked in front of the house when the Township does not permit parking in the front yard.

Ms. Smith assured that the camper is not parked there all of the time. She stated they are in the process of trying to purchase the adjacent parcel of land to avoid the need to park their camper in their driveway.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5442 and application from James A. Smith, 33525 New York, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, 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 Parts of Lots 302 and 303, Deziel Jefferson Gardens Subdivision (Section 35), generally located at the northwest corner of New York and Elmira at 33525 New York, that variance be granted to permit construction of a family room addition for an existing single-family residence in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of 13 feet being 22 feet less than the minimum required setback of 35 feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed hardship of the size and shape of the property; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Reynolds, Schwartz, Campbell, Catalano, Nickerson, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

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

Dan Santavicca, 43251 Pointe Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, introduced John Skolas, the owner’s son, and explained that this is a "Ma and Pa" type business that has been existence for 45 years, 29 of those years here in Clinton Township. He noted they are experiencing a problem because with all of the competition in the area, they are in need of additional storage on site to have their products readily available. He assured that the addition will not have any doors or windows and will look exactly like the existing building. He did not feel it will be a detriment to the adjacent properties.

Mr. Catalano complimented the petitioner on the fine reputation they have established for Sargent Appliance.

John Skolas, 35950 Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, replied to inquiry that his parents own rather than lease the existing building.

Mr. Santavicca informed that the developer of the neighboring condominium complex has verbally given them his support of the variance request, although he has nothing in writing indicating this.

Ms. Granata also complimented the petitioner on his fine reputation. She felt the Fire Department would have indicated their objection if they felt the addition was going to be a detriment to safety in the area. She expressed her opinion that it is good when a family business can pass on through the generations and stay in the same area. She acknowledged that Sargent Appliance was in the area long before any of their competitors, and that they offer a personal contact that cannot be found in the larger stores.

Mr. John Skolas assured that they have installed a fire hydrant in the back approximately fifteen to twenty feet from the easement.

Mr. Campbell recalled that in 1994, the Board of Appeals granted a setback variance along the east property line to allow their warehouse to be built. He complimented the petitioner on the fact that the property has been cleaned up since that time. Mr. Campbell stated that the variance was granted at that time because the property to the east was a large open field and school; however, he has a difficult time considering a variance for a setback from the south property line, knowing that residential units are being constructed with windows that will face this addition.

Ms. Granata pointed out that although the adjacent property is being developed with condominiums, they are not yet occupied and, therefore, the prospective condominium owners will be aware of the situation at the time of purchase.

Mr. Campbell felt the minimum twenty-five foot setback from a residential district was established to protect the residents. He inquired as to alternatives available to the petitioner, including the possibility of adding a second floor.

Mr. Santavicca replied that the footings are already in and they would like to use those footings for their addition. He clarified that they did not pour the footings in an attempt to "beat the system" but rather they felt it could serve as an unloading area; however, it has not worked out as they had hoped and they now want to construct the addition to better serve their needs.

Mr. Campbell stated that when he went to the site, he went into the rear yard to see how close the building is to the lot line.

Mr. Catalano felt that if this building were being leased, he would be opposed to the variance request; however, he felt that forcing this family-operated business to move would be sending a negative message that the Township does not want such small businesses in the area.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5444 and application from George Skolas, Sargent Appliance, 35950 Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Dan Santavicca, 43251 Pointe 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 – Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Requirements in the B-3 General Business District, concerning Part of Lot 2, Supervisor’s Plat Subdivision #9 (Section 27), generally located fronting the east line of Gratiot Avenue, south of Price Drive, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition to an existing storage building for a retail appliance store (Sargent Appliance) in the B-3 General Business District with side yard setback of three (3) feet from a residentially-zoned district to the south being twenty-two (22) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the petitioner needs storage space to remain competitive in the business without moving from their established location, and further, that the petitioner’s business reputation precedes him and he has had a reputable business in the Township for over 29 years; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Schwartz, Reynolds, Catalano, Nickerson, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Absent – None. Motion carried.

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

Robert Clark, Conservations Unlimited, 22517 Telegraph Road, Southfield, Michigan 48034, demonstrated to the Board some "line of sight" photographs he took facing the corner of Monica and Moravian. He explained that Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, residents on Patricia, abut the rear of the subject property, and they were in attendance earlier at this meeting because they were curious as to what was being proposed and had some concerns about it. Mr. Clark informed that they met with them out in the hall a short time ago and after that discussion and a review of the proposed plans, the Wilson’s questions were answered and they offered no objections to the variance request. He noted that they have since left the meeting, and he replied to inquiry that the Wilson’s main concern was that their grade would be affected. Mr. Clark noted that there is an extremely large front yard setback from Moravian, measuring 42 ½ feet, but it has placed them further back on the lot, thereby creating a practical difficulty to meet rear yard setback requirements. He noted that to reconfigure the sunroom to be longer and narrower would result in having to move an electric meter, and he could not provide a five-foot doorwall to access the structure.

Ms. Granata inquired as to whether the petitioner has any medical conditions that would make it imperative that he has this sunroom.

Pat Ahl, 37644 Moravian, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, explained that her husband suffered a stroke last September shortly after she retired. Their retirement plans were to travel; however, since the stroke her husband has suffered kidney problems and other complications preventing him from the ability to travel. She would like the sunroom so they can feel like they are in Florida when it is impossible for them to travel there.

Ms. Granata noted that many medications require patients to stay out of the sun, and she felt this room would offer protection from the sun for Mr. Ahl.

Mrs. Ahl commented that her husband does not have much strength in his legs and cannot go for walks, so he is somewhat confined to the house. She felt the sunroom would be a way for him to enjoy the outdoors without the bugs and mosquitoes.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5445 and application from Jerry and Pat Ahl, 37644 Moravian, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by Robert Clark, Conservations Unlimited, 22517 Telegraph Road, Southfield, Michigan 48034, 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 3, Moravian Hills Subdivision (Section 21), generally located at the northeast corner of Moravian and Monica at 37644 Moravian, that variance be granted to permit construction of a sunroom addition for an existing single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of twenty-nine (29) feet being six (6) feet less than the minimum required thirty-five (35) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that Mr. Ahl’s health condition would benefit from a sunroom, and further, that the house has an excessive front yard setback, which does not allow for sufficient rear yard setback with the addition; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Campbell, Nickerson, Reynolds, Schwartz, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to approve the report of the June 21, 2000 meeting as submitted. Motion carried.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS