CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2000
MINUTES

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

ABSENT:    Joann Granata (Excused)
                    Michael Nickerson (Excused)

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

Mr. Marella called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. He noted that there are only five members of this Board present tonight and in order for a motion to pass, a minimum of four votes is needed. He explained that because of this, the petitioners have a right at this point to come forward and request a postponement until the next meeting if they so desire; however, it was noted that no one came forward to make this request. He explained the parameters under which the Board of Appeals can act and how the public hearing will be conducted.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Campbell, to approve the agenda as presented. 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. He did note, however, that the Department of Planning and Community Development prepared a Corrected Notice of Public Hearing because the subject property is located within an R-5 District rather than an R-2 District, which slightly lessens the variance request.

Patricia Barr, 41250 Scarborough Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, introduced her representative, Mr. David Wagner.

David Wagner, Advanced Builders, 44809 Van Dyke, Utica, Michigan 48317, explained that they are requesting a variance to permit the construction of a sunroom addition that will encroach into the minimum required rear yard by about 4-1/2 feet. He did not feel it would be a nuisance to any of the neighbors.

Jeff Gapczynski, 41240 Scarborough Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, resident directly adjacent to the subject property, offered no objection to the variance request. He felt it will be an asset to the neighborhood.

Ms. Schwartz noted that there is a practical difficulty in that the house is located on a cul-de-sac and as a result, is positioned closer to the rear lot line.

Mr. Marella pointed out that the house next door is already set back to approximately where the building line of the sunroom is proposed.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5453 and application from David Barr, 41250 Scarborough Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, as represented by David Wagner, Advanced Builders, 44809 Van Dyke, Utica, Michigan 48317, 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 in the R-2 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 11, Scarborough Estates Subdivision (Section 8), generally located fronting the east line of Scarborough Court, north of Canal Road at 41250 Scarborough Court, that variance be granted to permit construction of a sunroom addition to an existing single-family residence in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of 30.53 feet being 4.47 feet less than the minimum required setback of 35 feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the house is situated on a cul-de-sac, which causes the house to be set further back on the property than the standard configuration; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Schwartz, Campbell, Catalano, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Granata, Nickerson. Motion carried.

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

Ron Walter, 36218 Payne, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that he has four classic cars and because he recently sold his property in northern Michigan, he would like to store these vehicles at his house. He replied to inquiry that he will be using the proposed accessory structure for the storage of his vehicles only and he assured that he would not be using it to conduct any type of business.

Tom Franks, 36197 Payne, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, complimented his neighbor on his beautiful cars, but expressed concern that he frequently works on them and there are times when there are as many as ten cars on his front lawn. He felt it is becoming an eyesore in the neighborhood and did not feel that constructing an oversized structure will help the situation. Mr. Franks also expressed concern about gas, oil and other chemicals being stored in the building. He admitted that he recently moved into this area; however, he felt the petitioner’s property looks like a "used car lot" and was opposed to the variance request.

John Merk, 36177 Payne, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, agreed with Mr. Frank’s comments. He felt that allowing a larger structure would add to the volume of cars already being worked on onsite.

Mr. Campbell noticed, in observing the site, that there is an existing garage. He inquired as to what is being stored in that structure.

Mr. Walter replied that his motor home is currently being stored in the garage. He added that he has two cars of his own, his wife’s car, and his classic cars. He emphasized that he would like to store them all inside.

Mr. Campbell acknowledged that although it would be nice to store all of the vehicles inside, there is a limit and he felt that the petitioner’s request is excessive. He inquired as to whether the driveway would be located off of Penrod.

Mr. Walter replied that the driveway would be off the back of the lot with access from Penrod.

Mr. Marella mentioned that when he visited this location, he detected a very strong odor emanating from the site, similar to a carbon tetrachloride. He inquired as to whether Mr. Walter uses lacquer in any of his car preservation.

Mr. Walter assured that he does not do any painting on the vehicles at his house.

Mr. Reynolds agreed with Mr. Marella and added that he also detected an odor.

Mr. Walter recalled that he recently did some work on the engine in which he used aerosol paint.

Mr. Catalano felt the proposed size is excessive.

Ms. Schwartz could see no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. She added that the petitioner currently has a three-car garage.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5454 and application from Ron Walter, 36218 Payne, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.01-(i), Supplementary Regulations: Accessory Structures (Including Garages), concerning Lot 266, Moravian Garfield Subdivision #5 (Section 29, Private Claim #628), generally located at the southeast corner of Payne and Penrod at 36218 Payne, that request for variance to permit construction of a detached accessory structure (garage) for a single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with floor area of 912 square feet being 124 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted floor area of 788 square feet (1/2 of 1,576 square feet), be denied by reason that there is currently adequate storage space on the property for a large number of cars and that no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship was presented. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Schwartz, Reynolds, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Granata, Nickerson. Motion carried.

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

Greg Morgan, 40920 Executive Drive, Harrison Township, Michigan 48045, clarified that they have relocated the sign on the plan to meet the required setback distance from the point of ingress/egress so they do not need a variance on that distance; however, he stressed the importance for a moving copy (reader board) sign because they are new to the area and want to relay this message to the community. He added that the reader board signs are much easier and safer to change in inclement weather than the traditional changeable copy signs.

Paula Harden, Vice-President of Central Macomb Community Credit Union, 48722 Sugarbush, Chesterfield, Michigan 48047, explained that they are a new credit union who will serve the community as a whole rather than a select group. She admitted that although there has been a credit union at this location for many years, it has just opened to the community.

Mr. Catalano commented that generally credit unions are established for a certain group of people. He inquired as to who will be entitled to use this credit union.

Ms. Harden replied that anyone residing in or working within the boundaries of Harrison and Clinton Townships and the City of Mount Clemens will be eligible to utilize their credit union.

Mr. Morgan emphasized that the proposed sign is in compliance with the Township ordinances regarding height and square footage requirements, and he added that when it was discovered the sign was located too close to the ingress/egress, they moved it to accommodate the ordinance. He replied to inquiry that they chose not to erect a traditional changeable copy sign because it is too time-consuming when changing messages. They would like to display a number of different messages during the day to service the community.

Ms. Harden stressed that as a community charter credit union, they are required to get the message of their location out to the community.

Mr. Marella explained that moving copy signs have been prohibited in the Township because they become a hazard when passing motorists try to read the sign and become distracted. He stated that this Board has been adhering to the ordinance requirements on this type of sign because of the health and safety issues for the community.

Mr. Morgan noted that there are other LED signs in this community as well as neighboring communities.

Mr. Marella did not recall any of these signs being approved by this Board.

Mr. Catalano felt that if reader board signs were the only way to convey information to the public, he would agree with the variance request; however, other forms of advertising, such as mailers, can be a very effective way of getting the message to the community.

Mr. Morgan pointed out that the sign will only be visible to northbound traffic, but he added that with this type of sign, daily banking information and other community events could be presented to many people in the area on a daily basis. He felt that traditional flyers sent around neighborhoods end up in the garbage. Mr. Morgan also noted that the sign will have the capabilities of displaying the time and temperature.

Mr. Campbell recalled that this Board has approved variances in the past for two reader board signs in the Township; however, in both cases, the basis for approval was the fact that the signs were for hosting facilities and the signs were advertising a number of different events unrelated to the facilities themselves. He emphasized that the advertising was not for the establishment itself. He added that they were approved with the stipulation that there would be no moving letters on the sign, and he pointed out that the moving copy sign located at Chippewa Valley High School was not brought before this Board. Mr. Campbell acknowledged the benefit of displaying time and temperature as well as community events, but not at the expense of creating a traffic hazard with a moving copy sign on a busy thoroughfare. He stated he could be open to the idea of displaying time and temperature but felt strongly that the variance should not be approved to display advertising.

Ms. Schwartz understood the need for sufficient signage; however, she felt the existing sign is adequate and they should be able to manually change the lettering the same as all of the other banking facilities in the area. She did not see any hardship or practical difficulty demonstrated.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5455 and application from Central Macomb Community Credit Union, 37570 Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by Phillips Sign & Design, 40920 Executive Drive, Harrison Township, Michigan 48045, for variance to the Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-(B)-5; Definitions and Restrictions; "Pylon Sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(h); Definitions and Restrictions; "Flashing/moving sign" and Chapter 1488.03, Signs: Schedule of Regulations: Chart, concerning Part of Lot 90 and Lot 91, Ingleside Farms Subdivision (Section 23), generally located fronting the east line of Gratiot Avenue, south of Ulrich at 37570 Gratiot Avenue, that request for variance to permit installation of a business pylon sign to identify an existing financial institution (Central Macomb Community Credit Union) in the B-3 General Business District with a panel containing an illuminated sign with moving copy (reader board), being a type of sign not allowed in any District, be denied based on the fact that there was no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship presented. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Reynolds, Schwartz, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Granata, Nickerson. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there was one written reply 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. He read a letter from Nancy J. and Rick J. Ritts, 24343 Harrison, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, homeowners adjacent to the subject property, indicating their concern over the variance request.

James Budziak, 1257 Audubon, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan, owner and developer of the subject property, noted that he also built Mr. and Mrs. Ritts’ home. He explained that he developed the homes along Harrison in conjunction with the Township by a Special Assessment District being established for the area. He claimed that the agreement by the Township Board was that Mr. Budziak develop homes ranging in size from 1400 to 1600 square feet. He admitted that a few of the homes were built at 1000 square feet because there were a few buyers wanting homes in the $120,000 price range. Mr. Budziak explained that there are eight vacant lots remaining in the area and, although a 1000-square-foot home would fit on the subject property without any variances, it was requested by the Township that he not develop any additional homes measuring less than 1400 square feet. He noted that there is only one corner of the house that does not meet the minimum setback, and he assured all other ordinance requirements are being met.

Mr. Campbell noted that in observing the area and examining the petition for appeal, five of the homes built by Mr. Budziak measure 1000 square feet and are very attractive. He felt that most of the subdivisions in the Township combine a good mix of homes with varying values and sizes. He did not doubt that while the Township may encourage larger homes, he did not believe anyone from the Township would instruct him to violate the ordinance requirements to accomplish this. He commented that since a 1000-square-foot home would fit on the lot without any variances, he could see no hardship or practical difficulty. Other than for monetary or economic reasons, he could not see why this house would have to be built larger than what will fit on the property.

Mr. Marella sympathized with the petitioner and stated that while he agreed with Mr. Campbell’s comments, he questioned how Mr. Budziak is supposed to handle this situation when he is only trying to comply with the Township’s mandates. He felt Mr. Budziak is caught in the middle.

Mr. Campbell replied that Mr. Budziak has demonstrated his earnestness in accommodating the Township’s request by coming before this Board to request the variance. He added that if this Board denies the request, Mr. Budziak can show this to the Township in order to build within the ordinance requirements.

Mr. Budziak recalled that another developer in the area received a similar variance within the last year.

Mr. Campbell responded that he was aware of the case being referred to by Mr. Budziak, and pointed out that this Board suggested an alternative solution to the petitioner so that the ordinance requirements could be met; however, the petitioner poured the foundations before he came back to the Board and, as a result, the alternative solution could not be done.

Mr. Budziak recalled that the Township Board made and supported a motion to the effect that the homes he is building along Harrison cannot be less than 1400 to 1600 square feet.

Mr. Campbell did not find Mr. Budziak’s explanation to be an acceptable hardship or practical difficulty.

Mr. Miller briefly explained how the Special Assessment District was established. He acknowledged that the Township likes to see larger homes being developed; however, he did not recall there being a specific resolution adopted by the Township Board of Trustees requiring the development of a specific size home on these lots. Mr. Miller replied to inquiry that this Board is supposed to consider whether practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship has been presented and they must take into consideration that this property can be developed with a smaller home, yet the lot is odd-shaped and a 1300-square-foot home is not a huge house by today’s standards. He felt whether or not to grant this variance is a decision to be made by this Board.

Mr. Budziak did not recall whether the Township Board dictated the minimum size of the homes he is building in the area by formally adopting a resolution; however, he was certain a verbal agreement was made between himself and the Board.

Mr. Miller replied to inquiry that there are not generally conditions placed on Special Assessment Districts with regards to house size.

Mr. Budziak replied to inquiry that this Special Assessment is spread over ten years. He replied to further inquiry that he would be able to sell a 1000-square-foot home five times faster than a 1400-square-foot home, but he agreed that coming before this Board will be his defense if he is questioned by the Township as to why he did not build a larger home on this property.

Mr. Catalano felt that whoever wanted the petitioner to build the larger homes did not realize it would be a Board of Appeals issue.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether a two-car detached garage would be able to be built in the future with a 1000-square-foot home on the property and meet ordinance requirements, in the event this Board denies the variance request. She expressed concern that if this is not possible, this Board may be creating a hardship or practical difficulty for the future homeowner.

Mr. Budziak felt they could construct a detached garage on the property with a 1000-square-foot home while meeting ordinance requirements. He explained that the house would meet the 25-foot setback by being brought forward, and there would be sufficient room in the rear for the garage.

Mr. Campbell commented that in this particular situation, the petitioner has represented that it has been strongly suggested from various employees and/or officials of the Township that he only build homes in excess of 1400-square-feet and he requested that these employees and/or officials take the same position for this situation as they do for the rebuilding of homes within the Township’s existing subdivisions.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Catalano, with reference to File #5456 and application from James Budziak, S & B Development Company, P. O. Box 1184, Mount Clemens, Michigan 48046, as represented by Frank Sattler, same address, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-c; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Front and Side Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 136, Arcadia Lodge Subdivision (Section 36, Private Claim #316/645), generally located at the northwest corner of Harrison and Union Lake Road at 24353 Harrison, 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 Union Lake Road of twelve (12) feet being thirteen (13) feet less than the minimum required setback of twenty-five (25) feet, be denied by reason that the lot can accommodate a smaller home that meets ordinance requirements. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Catalano, Schwartz, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Granata, Nickerson. Motion carried.

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

Tom Kinney, 3180 Abbottsford Road, Clyde, Michigan 48049, representative for the petitioner, explained that they tried to come up with a solution to construct an addition that would meet all ordinance requirements; however, because of the location of the two existing bathrooms in the center of the house and having to work around this plumbing, they had no other choice but to request a variance. Mr. Kinney noted that Ms. Genna has no dining area in her kitchen, but only a small area where one or two people can sit.

Mr. Catalano commented that if this was a request for a sunroom, he felt this Board would approve it. He offered no objection to the variance request.

Mr. Campbell noted that sunrooms are generally additions to the rear of the house, and this is an addition to the front. He also pointed out that the existing house is already situated closer to the front than the adjacent house, and he felt any addition to the front will accentuate that difference.

Mr. Kinney replied that the footing for the addition would be coming out five feet from the front of the house; however, less than 2-1/2 feet of this distance would actually be encroaching into the required front yard setback. He replied to further inquiry that they have no alternatives for the kitchen addition because of the two bathrooms located behind it. He explained that it would be a major job to relocate all of the plumbing from those two bathrooms.

Motion by Mr. Marella, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5457 and application from Lilian Genna, 22605 Dale Allen, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Thomas Kinney, Kinney Brothers Construction, 3180 Abbottsford Road, Clyde, Michigan 48049, 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-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 209, Metropolitan Beach Subdivision (Section 26), generally located fronting the north line of Dale Allen, west of North Price Drive at 22605 Dale Allen, that variance be granted to permit construction of additions to an existing single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District creating a front yard setback of 22.85 feet being 2.15 feet less than the minimum required setback of 25 feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the present structure precludes adding on in any direction other than to the front of the house, and further, that the bathrooms are located directly behind the area of the house that needs to be enlarged and they cannot be relocated; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of the Township ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Marella, Schwartz, Reynolds, Catalano. Nay – Campbell. Absent – Granata, Nickerson. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell requested one change as follows:

Page 3, Last Paragraph:

Change from: "Mr. Campbell felt he would rather grant a variance…"

Change to: "Mr. Catalano felt he would rather grant a variance…"

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Schwartz, to approve the minutes of the July 19, 2000 Meeting with the one correction requested by Mr. Campbell. Motion carried.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS