CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
AUGUST 19, 1998
MINUTES

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

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

Mr. Marella called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Mr. Marella explained that the petitioner will be given an opportunity to add or clarify information and the public will be given an opportunity to speak in an orderly manner. He explained that the petitioner must state his or her hardship, which cannot be for monetary reasons and cannot be self-created.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mr. Marella noted that the petitioner of the first item to be considered at this hearing has revised his plans to comply with the current ordinance requirements; therefore, he no longer needs the variance requested and this item needs to be deleted from the agenda. He added that this Board is in receipt of a letter from Paul Piatt, attorney for the petitioner of the sixth item on tonight’s agenda, requesting that further consideration of this matter be tabled until the next hearing scheduled for Wednesday, September 16, 1998.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Woodring, to delete Items #1 (Aielli Industrial Park) due to the site plan being redesigned so as to meet the ordinance requirements, and #6 (Lakewood Veterinary Hospital), due to the request from the attorney that the matter be tabled for one month. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Granata, Woodring, Campbell, Schwartz, Nickerson, Young, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - None. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell understood that the petitioner for Item #5 would like consideration of that matter tabled.

Mr. William Quinlan, Quinlan Associates, Inc., 31325 Harper, St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082, requested that Item #5 (C & E Associates LLC) be tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting. He explained that he is the representative and that they recently discovered that they may need additional variances. He indicated that they would prefer to address the Board with all of them at one time.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Woodring, to delete Item #5 (C & E Associates LLC) from tonight’s agenda at the request of the petitioner and table it until the next regular meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Aye - Granata, Woodring, Campbell, Schwartz, Nickerson, Young, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - None. Motion carried.

This item was deleted from the agenda.

Mr. Campbell indicated that this matter was tabled from last month. He read a letter dated August 14, 1998 from the Greenfield Pointe Homeowner’s Association, signed by Frank Orlando, President, and Joan Atkinson, petitioner.

Frank Atkinson, 41766 Westbury Lane, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that he and his wife would like to construct a sunroom addition to their home. He emphasized that they have spent a lot of time with the builder, developer and the condominium association to make sure it would be appropriate. He claimed they have a letter from the builder indicating that the plan is acceptable and he added that the footings were put in at the time the condominiums was constructed. Mr. Atkinson replied to inquiry that they did not pull a permit for the addition but assumed that since the builder was installing the footings, the matter would be taken care of by the builder.

Mr. Marella recalled that the abutting property owner to the rear of the subject parcel voiced an objection at the last meeting and that is why this matter was tabled.

Mr. Atkinson explained that they spent $5,000 "in good faith" for the preparation of this room and they had no idea that there would be a problem with the permit. He was confident that the builder would be aware of pulling the necessary permits and advising them if their plans were not in compliance.

Frank Orlando, President, Greenfield Pointe Association, offered no objection. He felt confident that this not going to be a problem and that this situation will most likely not arise again in their complex.

Mr. Marella recalled a comment made at the last meeting indicating that there are three or four more sunrooms anticipated in the immediate area.

Mr. Orlando replied that he is not aware of any other residents currently proposing sunroom additions.

Mr. Marella acknowledged the possibility that if there are additional sunrooms, they may not need setback variances, but that would have to be determined by the Building Department. He noted that the subject parcel is curved and irregular in shape, which makes it difficult to meet the setback requirements.

Roy Wohlscheid, 41742 Westbury Lane, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, recalled mentioning at the last meeting that he has plenty of room to accommodate a sunroom addition but is not building one at this time because it is cost-prohibitive. He further recalled that his comment was why the subject of other sunrooms in the area was raised. He replied to inquiry that he has no objection to the variance request.

Donna Wood, 41791 Alden, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, homeowner directly behind the subject property, expressed objection to the variance request. She noted that at the last meeting, the comment was made that the houses are offset and therefore the addition should not interfere with the neighbors view. She admitted that although their houses are offset, the window in front of their kitchen table, which is the busiest place in their house, looks directly out onto the area proposed for a sunroom. She felt that an open porch or patio is much less obtrusive than an enclosed sunroom. She suggested that if this Board is in favor of the variance request, possibly there could be a compromise, where the petitioner or condominium association could plant a greenbelt along the property line to afford privacy to both homeowners.

When asked as to whether the petitioner would be willing to consider Ms. Wood’s suggestion, he replied that he would be willing to consider it.

Ms. Wood inquired as to what type of plantings would be required.

Mr. Marella explained that the specific type of plantings would be specified by this Board if they opt for this compromise.

Ms. Granata disagreed with requiring the petitioner to put in a greenbelt along his property line. She inquired as to whether the petitioner should be required to plant shrubs around a patio to afford his neighbors additional privacy. She felt that if the neighbor does not want to look at the petitioner’s house, she is welcome to plant a greenbelt along her property. Ms. Granata felt there is hardship found with the shape of the property and she noted that the petitioner was honest enough to come back. She replied that she has visited the property and looked at the site.

Ms. Wood disagreed with Ms. Granata’s comments and still voiced opposition to the proposed project.

Mr. Wohlscheid recalled that the developer stated willingness to help with some plantings along the property line to avoid the problem.

Mr. Woodring classified this petitioner as being a "victim of circumstance". He noted that they talked with the builder and proceeded in the way they were advised. He felt the variance should be granted.

Ms. Wood replied to inquiry that they reside behind the Atkinson property but their homes are slightly offset. She emphasized, however, that the place where they spend the most time at in their house looks directly into the area where the sunroom will be located.

Mr. Campbell recalled that at the last meeting, the question was raised with regards to possible decrease of property values should this variance be granted. He disagreed with those comments and felt this room will increase the value of the property. He felt that to allow the continuation of the existing patio rather than a sunroom would be unattractive. Mr. Campbell noted that in looking at the area, he noticed a number of homes with large decks that clearly project more than eight feet into the rear yard setback. He could not recall this Board granting any variances which would permit any of these decks to protrude further than the permitted eight feet into the rear yard. He added that although he did not examine each case, he felt it appears as though these decks may have been built without permits or without the Building Department referring these matters to this Board. He emphasized the importance of pulling a building permit prior to such construction.

Ms. Schwartz recalled that the builder stated very clearly in his letter to the petitioner that although he was establishing the footings for the sunroom, it would have to comply with the Township ordinance requirements. She also emphasized that in the Township, the ordinances take precedence over any homeowner’s rules, and although a homeowner’s association may not have objection to the addition of a sunroom, the Township ordinance requirements must be adhered to.

Mr. Marella noted that the builder was only contracted to put in footings and a cement base. He added that the sunroom was to be done by another contractor.

Ms. Wood complained about the builder and felt he is "almost impossible to deal with".

Mr. Marella clarified that if Mr. Ceasar Badalamenti, the builder, was in violation of Township ordinances, then the Township would have recourse to deal with him; however, if there was a verbal commitment made between the builder and the homeowners, that is a private matter which must be resolved between those two parties.

Mr. Atkinson reassured his neighbor that the sunroom will actually afford more privacy because they will be installing blinds.

Ms. Wood stated that blinds are not the problem, and that she does not wish to look out of her kitchen at a sunroom.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Woodring, with reference to File #5209 and application from Frank & Joan Atkinson, 41766 Westbury Lane, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.04-(c), Land Use Regulations: Single-Family Land Condominium Option, concerning Unit 9 of Greenfield Pointe, a condominium, generally located fronting the east line of Westbury Lane, north of Canal Road at 41766 Westbury Lane, that variance be granted to permit construction of a sunroom addition to a single-family land condominium (Unit 9, Greenfield Pointe) in the R-2 One-Family Residential District with location 31.83 feet from the perimeter property line being 8.17 feet closer than the required location of 40 feet from the property line; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty of the odd shape of the lot and that a standard-shaped lot would provide adequate area; further, that any landscaping desired between the subject property and the abutting property is a private matter and should be worked out between the homeowners; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Granata, Woodring, Campbell, Young, Nickerson, Schwartz, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - None. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell indicated that this matter was tabled from the June 17 meeting. He indicated that they are in receipt of a letter dated August 13, 1998 from Lena Pettinato, 35436 Still Meadow Lane, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, expressing opposition to the variance request.

Lauren Cato, of Richard Connor Riley & Associates, 30150 North Telegraph Road, Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025, representing the petitioner, explained that the tower was originally constructed at a height of 120 feet, based on a computer model; however, since that time their frequency has changed to 1900 megahertz, which was untested. She noted that once the system was built and turned on, they were able to conduct their testing, and unfortunately, it was discovered that some of the towers are too low and are not providing the coverage anticipated. As a result, cellular calls are unable to connect. She indicated that this is a huge liability for AT&T, especially when these calls are of an emergency nature. She stressed that they want to provide adequate coverage. Ms. Cato informed that this is not the only site they have had to increase the height. She demonstrated color-coded drawings which indicated the current coverage area as compared with the anticipated coverage area when the tower is increased to a height of 150 feet. She anticipated that cellular callers in the area of I-94 and Metropolitan Parkway will greatly benefit from this additional coverage. Ms. Cato did not feel the difference between 120 feet and 150 feet would affect the visual appearance and did not feel it will make the site "an eyesore". Ms. Cato replied to inquiry that the tower will handle co-location as long as the co-locators are at least ten feet apart (i.e., others can locate on this tower at heights of 140 feet, 130 feet, 120 feet, etc.). She assured that the tower is safe because it is made to collapse within itself and it is a very large site. She replied to further inquiry that if they do not receive the variance, they will have to create a "fill-in site", which would mean that they will have to construct another tower. Ms. Cato confirmed that they have FAA approval for the proposed height. She noted that many other communities, including Rochester, Wixom and Auburn Hills, recently approved towers ranging in height from 165 to 180 feet.

Mr. Campbell complained that none of the material supplied to the Board indicated the coverage area, although he felt a partial attempt was made to present this information as requested at the last meeting. He commented that he examined a letter from a senior engineer at AT&T which indicated some formulas and calculations, but he did not feel the numbers correlate with the images shown by Ms. Cato. He expressed disappointment that an engineer was not present to answer questions and clarify the discrepancy. He noted that according to Ms. Cato’s presentation, one of the areas lacking coverage falls within the City of Mount Clemens. He also noted that there is a tower was recently erected at Groesbeck and Cass in Mount Clemens, but he did not see this area reflected on the drawings. Mr. Campbell felt this is relevant information for this Board to consider when determining height of towers.

Ms. Cato admitted that coverage from the location at Cass and Groesbeck may not have been reflected when her presentation was prepared.

Mr. Campbell felt that according to tonight’s presentation, there is an assumption on the part of the petitioner that the other towers in the area will be increased in height because both the north and south ends of the Township are depicted as having increased coverage.

Ms. Cato replied to inquiry that they address the sites to be directional and they have tunneling along major thoroughfares. She noted that these sites will be able to "hand off" to the higher tower because it will have a greater handling ability.

Mr. Campbell disagreed that the towers at the south end of the Township will be able to "hand off" to a location so far away.

Ms. Cato admitted that although the surrounding sites will not have further propagation, the subject site will be taller and will reach out further to meet the existing sites.

Ms. Cato explained the signal and as a result of its physical nature, there are ups and downs as it propagates. She noted that if a car is traveling at a high rate of speed, this phenomenon is minimal; however, if a cellular user is stuck in traffic, the effect is great on the propagation and calls are either dropped or cannot be made. She emphasized that they need to minimize the line of site so they can provide better access to the signals.

Ms. Granata felt this Board needs more clarification on the documents presented. She suggested that an engineer from AT&T be present to answer their questions.

Mr. Young questioned what is proposed for the remainder of the towers in this area. He felt it is necessary for this Board to be aware of the future plans of AT&T when considering this variance request.

Ms. Cato replied that there are no changes slated for the other existing towers and they felt confident that the proposed height increase of this tower will eliminate the problem they are currently experiencing.

Mr. Woodring commented that during the site plan review process, some concern has been expressed by the Planning Commission as to what will happen to these towers in ten to twenty years if they are no longer being used. He noted that the petitioners for the last two towers have been required to post a bond which will be held for the purpose of removing the tower in the event it is vacated. Mr. Woodring felt that cellular phones are now becoming a necessity and acknowledged that cellular towers are needed to make these phones effective. He was confident that these companies are not proposing higher towers "for fun" and felt that these heights have been determined by competent engineers. He also expressed favor of a higher tower in lieu of adding an additional "fill-in" tower.

Mr. Nickerson could not understand why the petitioner would propose to add another 30 feet to the tower to gain only an additional 17% coverage area. He calculated that the petitioner will only be gaining a couple tenths of a mile in additional coverage. He questioned whether this additional height will be beneficial and effective, and further questioned whether the petitioner will be back in the near future requesting yet a higher tower. He stressed that this Board should be given information they can understand and not a lot of algebraic formulas.

Ms. Cato replied that her purpose for being at this meeting is to explain the algebraic formulas as they apply to the coverage areas and to put it in simpler terms. She felt she was doing that by showing the color-coded renderings. She emphasized that the additional coverage is needed in the I-94/Metropolitan Parkway area.

Mr. Woodring stated that he would have no problem supporting this proposal as long as it is necessary, but he expressed concern at AT&T’s pattern of coming back periodically before this Board for increased height on their towers.

Ms. Cato defended their position of having to occasionally come back before this Board for additional height variances by stressing that this occurs when a system is being designed. She noted that as it is being designed, changes take place every day which can change a scenario. She cited the example of locating a site and erecting a tower, with the anticipation that another tower will be a certain distance away; however, in searching for a site for the second tower, it may be discovered that the land located the ideal distance away is all zoned residential, and they cannot put their tower in a residential subdivision. As a result, the height of the first tower will no longer be effective and it will have to be raised.

Mr. Campbell felt there were discrepancies between the color-coded diagrams presented tonight and the algebraic formulas calculated by the AT&T senior engineer.

Discussion took place regarding whether raising the height of the subject tower would create seamless coverage throughout the Township.

Ms. Cato emphasized that she did not want to convey that raising this tower will provide seamless coverage throughout the Township and acknowledged that although this is the ultimate goal of AT&T, it will not be accomplished by raising the height of this one tower.

Mr. Marella felt the questions raised by this Board at their June 1998 meeting have not yet been answered.

Mr. Campbell suggested that this matter be tabled until next month to enable the petitioner to tie the algebraic statistics with the diagrams presented tonight, and also to depict the current coverage throughout Clinton Township and Mount Clemens as well as the changes in coverage that will be experienced as a result of this proposal. He further requested that the petitioner present any other proposed changes to other AT&T towers in the Township as anticipated in the future.

Mr. Marella felt the petitioner should conduct more research as to other carriers in the Township and their tower locations.

Mr. Woodring acknowledged that this Board is not comprised of math experts and questioned as to whether they will be able to understand the technical information they are requesting.

Mr. Marella replied that the petitioner will have to explain this information to the Board in layman terms, and he felt confident that at that time, this Board will be able to make the proper decision.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5212 and application from AT&T Wireless Services, 26877 Northwestern Highway, Southfield, Michigan 48034, as represented by Lauren J. Cato, of Richard Connor Riley & Associates, LLC, 30150 Telegraph Road, Suite #420, Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.02, concerning 15.86 acres located at the southeast corner of Shook Road and Klix Road (being multi-lots or parts of lots in Rosecroft Shores Subdivision) (Sections 25/26), that further consideration of request for variance to permit replacing an existing 120-foot tall cellular tower with a new tower having a height of 153 feet, which is 28 feet in excess of the maximum allowed 125 feet, be tabled until the next regular meeting of this Board scheduled for September 16, 1998 for the purpose of giving the petitioner an opportunity to provide a complete presentation tying the algebraic statistics with the diagrams presented tonight, and also to depict the current coverage throughout Clinton Township and Mount Clemens, the changes in coverage that will be experienced as a result of this proposal, and any other proposed changes to other AT&T towers in the Township as anticipated in the future to provide full coverage. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Nickerson, Granata, Young. Nay - Woodring, Schwartz, Marella. Absent - None. Motion carried.

Mr. Woodring added that the Township’s main desire is to hold down the number of towers in the Township and that is why they strongly urge providers to co-locate.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether there are any other contingencies which may affect the signals. She requested that information be provided to this Board to indicate such variables.

Ms. Cato replied to inquiry that satellite dishes do not interfere with the signals; however, she stated that there are capacity issues which may result in the need for additional towers in the future. She stressed that these are factors which they cannot control and cannot fully anticipate.

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.

Paul Badke, 49896 Miller Court, New Baltimore, Michigan 48047, explained that the proposed site is odd-shaped because it is curved. He added that it is also located on a corner, which makes it difficult to meet the setback requirements.

John Malak, 35970 Moravian, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, adjacent property owner on the east side of the parcel, claimed that the petitioner has already moved ten feet into the easement on the rear of the property. He explained that his house is situated five feet from the property line but he complained that there would only be ten feet between the houses if the petitioner is granted the variance. He voiced his opinion that he would like to see the proposed home built as far from his property line as possible in order to maintain more distance between the two homes. He inquired as to whether it would be possible for the petitioner to position the house closer to Venice.

Mr. Marella commented that there is only one point where the two houses would be ten feet apart and that distance expands from that point.

Discussion took place regarding what Mr. Malak was referring to as an easement.

Mr. Marella confirmed that the petitioner will not be building on an easement and the alley has been vacated so the south line of the property is of no consequence in this request.

Mr. Malak replied to inquiry that he still has a septic field in the front of his house. He was with the understanding that the petitioner will need sewer and water hook-up.

Mr. Marella explained that if the petitioner does not pass the perk test, he will not be able to build. He clarified that this matter is not the responsibility of this Board and that the petitioner will have to meet all other ordinance requirements.

Discussion took place regarding sewers and whether he will be able to tap into that sewer.

Mr. Badke replied that he is going to have to obtain an easement to install a sewer along Venice but did not know whether that would help Mr. Malak.

Mr. Howell replied to inquiry that it will be the decision of the Water and Sewer Department and the Township engineers as to where the tap for the water and sewer connections will be located.

Mr. Marella suggested that Mr. Malak go to the Water and Sewer Department with his concerns.

John Digiovanni, 15991 Easygoer, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, inquired as to whether the proposed home will be brick. He complained about the houses going in the area and felt they are bringing down the values of the other homes in the area because of their cheap construction and small size.

Mr. Badke replied that the side of the home facing Moravian Drive will have a brick face. He assured that he is not the builder of the other homes referred to by Mr. Digiovanni.

Considerable discussion took place regarding the proposed brick face on one side and whether it could be bricked on all sides.

Mr. Marella clarified that the issue of a brick face does not have anything to do with the issue being addressed at this hearing. He suggested that the concerned residents in the area take up the issue with the Building Department.

Mr. Digiovanni felt that at least two sides of the proposed house should be brick.

Mr. Badke replied to inquiry that the proposed home measures 1300 square feet in size.

Mr. Digiovanni replied to inquiry that his home totals approximately 1700 square feet.

Mr. Badke replied to further inquiry that if this variance is denied, he will have to build a smaller house.

Mr. Marella emphasized that this Board cannot stop the petitioner from building a house on this property if it meets the requirements of the Township ordinance. He felt the petitioner is attempting to build a home that will be close to the size of the other homes in the area. He pointed out that the petitioner combined four lots to make a buildable site for one home and he is "giving it his best shot to make it a good house". He reiterated that this Board cannot specify that the house must be brick on all four sides.

Shirley Doetsch, 15744 Winners Circle Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, resident directly behind the subject property, complimented the builder in proposing one home rather than four and she emphasized that she is not opposed to his building a house; however, she expressed opposition at the house not being brick on all sides. She felt bricking the house would be in accord with the other homes in the area.

Rick Taylor, 15694 Sunday Silence Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated that in addition to the issue of brick, he is concerned with the petitioner utilizing all four lots for this house. He cited instances where variances are requested and granted, but when the property is actually developed, the developer does not utilize all of the property and eventually splits off a portion to become another building site.

Mr. Marella clarified that the petitioner is proposing to build on Lots 36, 37, 38 and 39 of Superhighway City Subdivision.

Mike Matera, 23923 Wheaton, Shelby Township, Michigan, Mr. Badke’s partner, explained that they tried to build homes to the maximum value even though the lot is on a dirt street. He stated they may be able to brick the gable of the garage but he felt that to brick the entire house would be cost prohibitive in considering this area.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to whether it would be possible to reposition the house three feet closer to Venice, thereby retaining a larger distance between the subject house and the neighbor to the East.

Mr. Howell replied that such repositioning would be possible; however, the petitioner would need a 3-foot variance for the required setback from Venice.

Mr. Badke replied to inquiry that he would be willing to go along with this suggestion, as long as it works.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the petitioner has considered a two-story design rather than a ranch. He felt that it may fit on the property better.

Mr. Badke replied to inquiry that there are not many colonial-style homes in the area and they wish to remain in keeping with the area.

Betty Trupiano, 15764 Winners Circle Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated she lives in a colonial-style home in nearby Steeplechase Condominiums. She stated she will be looking directly at this house. She agreed with the concern voiced by Mr. Taylor that she does not want to see "left-over land". She did not feel a colonial-style home would be out of context with the area.

Mr. Campbell acknowledged that on the east side of Moravian there are two-story homes but agreed that there are only ranch homes in the immediate area of the subject parcel. He felt, however, that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to build a colonial-style home and he was confident that the ordinance requirements would be met as a result.

Mr. Young noted that the garage is on the east side and he did not feel repositioning the house with a 3-foot variance on the setback from Venice would detract from the neighborhood or create any road hazard.

William Fisher, 15881 Colgate, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, noted that there are other colonial-style homes currently being built in the immediate area. He requested clarification as to whether there are three houses or one house being proposed for the subject property.

Mr. Matina clarified that although he mentioned they have three houses in the area, they are only proposing one house for the subject property.

Mr. Woodring commented that the vacated alley is actually part of this property. He did not have an objection to granting a three-foot variance to the setback from Venice.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the petitioner would be willing to build a colonial-style home.

Mr. Badke replied to inquiry that he would prefer to get the variance and build a ranch.

Ms. Granata inquired as to whether the petitioner would be willing to brick the sides of the home. She felt this may be a "happy medium".

Mr. Matina stated that to brick the entire home would add too much money to the building cost. He noted that their 1300-square-foot proposed house is on the same street where other developers are building 900-square-foot homes which are selling for $30,000 to $40,000 less. He agreed to brick the front of the house and the gable of the garage. He stated it may be possible to quarter-brick the sides of the house.

Mr. Digiovanni stated that he is retired now but was a bricklayer by trade, and he objected to the petitioner’s comments about a brick home being cost-prohibitive.

Mr. Marella felt that the petitioner is attempting to compromise by agreeing to brick additional portions of the house.

Motion by Mr. Young, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5225 and application from Paul Badke, Village Building, 13923 Wheaton, Shelby Township, Michigan 48316, 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 Side and Rear Yard Setback Requirements in the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lots 36, 37, 38 and 39, Superhighway City Subdivision (Section 30), generally located at the southeast corner of Moravian Drive and Venice, that variance be granted to permit construction of a single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with: 1) West side yard setback (from Venice) of twenty-two (22) feet being three feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; and 2) Rear yard setback of twenty-seven (27) feet being eight (8) feet less than the minimum required thirty-five (35) feet; further, a variance was granted for the west side in lieu of the east side, as requested by the petitioner, in order to accommodate the request of the easterly property owner; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that even though the petitioner is combining four lots to make one buildable lot, the parcel is situated on a corner and it is difficult to comply with the two large setbacks required; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Young, Nickerson, Woodring, Schwartz, Granata, Marella. Nay - Campbell. Absent - None. Motion carried.

The meeting recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:21 p.m.

This item was deleted from the agenda.

This item was deleted from the agenda.

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.

Firas Sabbagh, 1687 Leroy, Ferndale, Michigan 48220, explained that he currently owns three lots and is proposing to split those to make a total of six lots with a width of 50 feet each, which is 15 feet less than what is required by the Township. He assured he will meet all setback requirements when developing these lots, but he stressed that he needs to divide them because lots measuring 100 feet by 120 feet are extremely large lots for houses measuring approximately 1,500 square feet. He noted that all of the homes will have basements. Mr. Sabbagh indicated that the property adjacent to one of his lots was split and a home has been built on one of the lots, which now measures 50 feet in width. He replied to inquiry that this split may have taken place many years ago.

Mr. Marella reminded the petitioner that the ordinances have changed and at the time his neighbor’s property split was approved, 50-foot lots may have been permitted in the Township.

Mr. Sabbagh felt that developing six lots will increase the value of the property. He also felt that the Township would like to see six lots as opposed to three because it will generate more tax revenue.

Mr. Marella clarified that the issue being considered at this hearing is whether or not to approve the dividing of three lots into six as proposed. He informed that the only issue this Board can address is the variance request.

Mr. Sabbagh is proposing that for each of the six homes he wishes to develop, he will provide a five-foot setback on one side and a ten-foot setback on the other side.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship has not yet been presented.

Mr. Woodring explained that a hardship needs to be demonstrated as to why this variance should be granted, why it is good for the community, and how the property would be unbuildable without the variance.

Mr. Marella agreed with Mr. Woodring and noted that the subject lots are already platted. He requested that the petitioner indicate why this needs to be changed.

Mr. Sabbagh recalled that when he went to the Planning Department for approval, he was told to come before this Board. He felt it will be a benefit to the Township by having homes built on these vacant lots.

Ms. Granata commented that if the petitioner’s three lots were all positioned together, she would be in favor of considering a property split to allow four 75-foot-wide lots; however, she noted that the lots are not together so this cannot be considered as an option. She could not see where the proposed split is beneficial to the Township. She felt this is a way for the petitioner to make more money for himself.

Mr. Sabbagh agreed that he will benefit because he is an investor in this project; however, he felt the community will benefit as well and assured that the homes he is proposing will be no smaller than the other homes in the area.

Ms. Granata emphasized that a hardship has still not been presented. She indicated that money cannot be considered a hardship by this Board. She explained that a hardship would be that the property is not buildable as it is, but she noted that 100-foot lots are buildable.

Mr. Campbell suggested that since two of the three lots are adjacent to each other, the petitioner could opt to split those two lots into three and, in doing so, would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Sabbagh maintained that there are other 50-foot lots in the area.

Ms. Granata reminded him that the lot splits creating the 50-foot lots may have been allowed prior to the ordinance being changed, which now requires a minimum lot width of 65 feet.

Mr. Sabbagh argued that the ordinance being changed should not make any difference because the 50-foot lots are still there.

Alfred Carrington, 33811 Morse, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, recalled that the ordinance was changed some years ago at the urging of the residents in the area to insure that certain size homes would be developed in the area. He believes that the ordinance has provided for this. He urged this Board to deny the variance request for the 50-foot lots. He stated to his knowledge that one of the lots in the area measures 60 feet in width, but he added that all of the other lots in the subdivision are larger. He expressed concern about decreasing property value in the neighborhood if the variance is granted. Mr. Carrington insinuated that the petitioner would not like 50-foot lots in his own neighborhood.

Mr. Campbell noted that Mr. Carrington was holding a small tape recorder and advised him that according to this Board’s by-laws, there are to be no recordings of the meeting unless prior permission has been obtained by the Chairperson, and if this is the case, there are specific rules which govern how the recording is to take place and what needs to be done with the recording after the meeting.

Mr. Carrington apologized and stated that he was not aware of these restrictions. He immediately turned off the tape recorder.

Kathleen Schroeder, 33790 Floyd Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated that although there are vacant lots in their subdivision, many of these lots are owned by the residents of the subdivision for the sole purpose of insuring additional space for privacy. She felt the houses are developed very nicely in the area and urged the Board to deny the variance request.

Shirley Goudelock, 33830 Morse, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, recalled coming before this Board a few years ago to emphasize that they do not want small lots in their neighborhood. She explained that for years they were used to open space because of the many vacant lots in the neighborhood. She stressed that they wish to keep continuity in the area and although they are not opposed to the petitioner developing the lots, they are strongly opposed to 50-foot lots. She stated she would not be opposed to Mr. Campbell’s suggestion of splitting the two adjacent lots into three; however, she emphasized that she would be opposed to any lots smaller than 65 feet in width.

John Hadley is currently in the process of purchasing Lot 49, which is located on Gates Street. He stated he is moving out of the City of Detroit to this area for the purpose of having extra space and he is opposed to the variance request.

Cynthia Herring, 33839 Morse, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated she has a 60-foot lot next to her and she is not happy with that situation. She requested that this Board deny the variance request.

Leon Parker, 19536 Dixie, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, questioned as to whether the items reviewed by this Board are screened.

Mr. Marella explained that this is the Board of Appeals and anyone who is denied by the Township Assessing, Planning or Building Departments has a right to request an appeal through this Board.

Mr. Parker inquired as to whether he could make a request identical to the petitioner’s if he has lots he would like to split.

Mr. Marella reiterated that anyone who is denied by the Township has the right to appear before this Board.

Mr. Parker argued that it did not seem fair that the petitioner was not advised prior to this meeting that lots of this size are not allowed.

Ms. Herring inquired as to the minimum distance required between homes.

Mr. Marella replied that the minimum distance required varies according to the zoning district, but he suggested that she contact the Department of Planning and Community Development if she has specific questions in that regard.

Lynnette Holmes, 33914 Floyd Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated that she was aware of the fact that if a petitioner does not have a hardship, this Board will not be able to change the rules. She added that she and her neighbors are trying to stick to the rules and they would like to keep it that way.

Ms. Granata explained to Mr. Parker that when a petitioner applies to this Board for a variance, they are required to fill out a questionnaire as part of the application. She noted that one of the questions directly asks them to state their hardship and several of the questions help them to establish whether or not there is indeed a hardship which can be considered by this Board.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5230 and application from Firas Sabbagh, 1687 Leroy, Ferndale, Michigan 48220, 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 Size Lot Per Unit in the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lots 11, 42 and 43, Thomas Brothers Fair Gardens Subdivision (Section 35), generally located north of Stanton, east of Lipke, that request for variance to permit division of three platted lots into six parcels in the R-5 One-Family Residential District each with: 1)Land area of 6,000 square feet, each having 1,800 square feet less than the minimum required area of 7,800 square feet; and 2) Lot width of 50 feet, each having 15 feet less than the minimum required width of 65 feet, be denied by reason that no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship was presented. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Granata, Campbell, Nickerson, Schwartz, Woodring, Young, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - None. Motion carried.

Mr. Carrington requested a copy of the Board of Appeals by-laws referred to by Mr. Campbell which prohibits taping of the minutes without prior approval of the Chairman.

Mr. Campbell noted that these can be obtained from the Planning Department at the Township offices.

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.

Richard Ives, Trinity Land Development Company, 21570 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that most of this site is in the 100-year flood plain. He stated that by the strategic placement of their two buildings, they have maximized the distance between themselves and the neighbors which would be most directly impacted by their development. He stressed that they are making every attempt possible to not touch the trees. He replied to inquiry that approximately 40% of the property is buildable at this point.

Dan Ludwig, Studio B Architects, displayed renderings of the proposed development. He explained that they are proposing a sloped roof, which takes the 50-foot height requested and softens it. He added that the roof is proposed to be green, which he felt will act as a camouflage with the trees. He noted that the building will be brick and limestone on all sides. He commented that the back of the property is beautiful and they wish to keep it that way and that is their incentive for leaving the trees alone. He stated that when they began planning the parking, the flood plain could not be moved and the parking was going to be located within six feet from the edge of the property; however, the development of a three-story building, as allowed in this zoning district, freed up additional land area to better situate the parking area. Mr. Ludwig explained that they went to a homeowner’s association meeting of residents abutting their property, and discovered that they did not want to see as much concrete. He stated that as a result of this meeting, they designed their parking in a "campus fashion", where the two buildings are closer together and share a common parking area. He emphasized that any cars or traffic will now be directed to the interior of the site rather than along the property line abutting the residential district. He explained that there will only be two mechanical units mounted on the roof, but he assured that they will be well screened.

John Catenacci, Libra Properties, Inc., 21570 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, emphasized that they are proud of this area and looked all over to find this site. He recalled being told by the Planning Department that the current height requirements are being examined at this time by the Township and may very likely be raised in the near future.

Gail Koch, 44865 Rivergate Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, property owner behind the subject property, inquired as to what trees are proposed to be removed.

Mr. Ludwig responded that they will only remove enough trees to provide access. He replied to further inquiry that the pond will range in size from four to ten acres, depending upon how full it is. He explained that they intend to plant a row of evergreens all along the flood plain in front of the other trees because they are concerned about being able to see the trees from the office and want to see greenery all year long.

Ms. Koch complained that the stagnant water is creating a breeding ground for mosquitoes.

Mr. Catenacci assured that is a temporary problem and will be cleaned up this year.

Richard Koch, 44865 Rivergate Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, complained about the quality of work and some of the conditions. He felt the petitioner is requesting this variance for "vanity and personal satisfaction" and he did not feel sufficient hardship or practical difficulty was presented. Mr. Koch suspected that they are increasing the height of the building to afford more workspace. He expressed concern that this will result in more chemicals being stored at this location, which could pose as a threat to the health and safety of nearby residents. He did not feel "the way they have been going about this project" is indicative of a good business.

Ms. Granata recalled being on this Board when there was objection to the Colonial Commercial Bank building, which is now owned by Mt. Clemens General Hospital, and yet that has since become a landmark and a credit to the community. She added that the petitioner is attempting to work around an established flood plain and she felt that the proposed development will be an asset to the community.

Mr. Woodring stated that the maximum height requirement in many of the Township’s zoning districts will be raised in the near future.

Mr. Catenacci assured that the proposed building will be an office and there will be no storage of "dangerous" chemicals.

Mr. Ives complained that Mr. Koch has been at several other Township meetings and always raises the issue of dangerous chemicals, fires, etc., which may result from their development. He assured that they are not creating a hazard and further assured that they are not "putting anything in that building" that will be a threat to the neighbors, the water supply, etc.

Mr. Woodring felt that to do this development justice, the height variance should be approved. He noted that they should have the additional height in order to have any presence on Hall Road. He added that the petitioner is attempting to accommodate the land for parking and flood plain while maintaining an attractive site.

Mr. Campbell stated there is a very clear practical difficulty in this situation, being the presence of the 100-year flood plain. He commented that in order to meet the ordinance requirements for parking and landscaping around this flood plain, the only alternative is for the petitioner to "build up". He noted that the 100-year flood plain line is already six to eight feet below Hall Road, so the building would only appear to be seven to nine feet higher when looking at it from the Hall Road perspective.

Mr. Ludwig replied to inquiry that the roof comes with a 20-year warranty and assured that the color of the roof will not fade or change color.

Mr. Ives addressed Ms. Koch’s concern about excessive mosquitoes in the area. He noted the water flow is still plugged to allow the water to exit in a couple of locations. He assured they will be planting this year, which will oxygenate the water. They will also be putting in fountains at a later date, but he added that the electrical work will need to be completed first.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5234 and application from Carlo J. Catenacci, Libra Properties, Inc., 21570 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, as represented by Richard Ives, Trinity Land Development Company, 21570 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Section 1292.01, concerning 19.14 acres generally located fronting the south line of Hall Road (M-59), east of Romeo Plank Road (Section 4), that variance be granted to permit construction of an office building in the TR Technical Research with a height of fifty (50) feet being fifteen (15) feet in excess of the thirty-five (35) feet allowed; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed hardship that a large portion of this property is located within the 100-year flood plain; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Granata, Campbell, Nickerson, Schwartz, Woodring, Young, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - None. Motion carried.

Discussion took place regarding corrections to the report of June 17, 1998.

The Board was informed that although the minutes of June 17, 1998 were submitted for approval at this meeting, the original (on legal-size paper) is not available tonight for a signature; therefore, it was recommended that they be placed on the next agenda due to the requirement that a signed copy of the approved minutes must be made available to the general public within seven days of the meeting.

Mr. Campbell and Mr. Young requested the following revisions:

Page 3, Paragraph 8, Lines 11 & 12:

Change from: "…based on practical difficulty that the existing building is older and residential districts are allowed the height and this will match the neighborhood; further…"

Change to: "…based on practical difficulty that this is an older building and that the height allowances in the area have been recently increased and this requested variance will conform to the surrounding neighborhood; further…"

Page 7, Paragraph 8, Lines 10 & 11:

Change from: "…further, this grant of variance is based on practical difficulty that to deny the variance would create a hardship; further…"

Change to: "…further, this grant of variance is based on practical difficulty that the petitioner proposed a signage alternative which reduces the actual signage area; further…"

Page 7, Paragraph 9, Lines 2 & 3:

Change from: "…however, he would support the reason that for the company to change its logo would create a hardship."

Change to: "…however, he would support the reason that the petitioner has presented an alternative of reduced square footage."

Page 8, Paragraph 3, Line 3:

Change from: "He stated the sunroom has been approved by the…"

Change to: "Mr. Atkinson stated the sunroom has been approved by the…"

Page 9, Paragraph 1, Line 1:

Change from: "Mr. Miler stated…"

Change to: "Mr. Miller stated…"

Page 9, Paragraph 1, Line 4:

Change from: "He added that the Building Department could have directed the petitioner."

Change to: "He added that the Building Department could have advised the petitioner on any further requirements."

Page 9, Paragraph 8, Line 8:

Change from: "Mr. Wohscheid stated there are not any other decks, only patios."

Change to: "Mr. Wohlscheid stated there are not any other sunrooms, only decks."

Page 13, Paragraph 12, Line 8:

Change from: "…location the AE Zone 100 year flood plain;…"

Change to: "…location in the AE Zone 100 year flood plain;…"

Page 16, Paragraph 2, Line 2:

Change from: "…proposing to build an accessory structure…"

Change to: "…proposing to add to his existing accessory structure…"

Page 16, Paragraph 10, Line 4:

Change from: "…owner of the property needs an additional building…"

Change to: "…owner of the property needs additional space…"

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Young, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted,

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS