CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
SEPTEMBER 13, 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:        Stephen N. Cassin, 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.

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.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present, and Mr. Marella requested that further consideration of this matter be placed following Item #5 of tonight’s 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.

Terrance Ulch, 359 Livernois, Ferndale, Michigan 48111, explained that last year Sunoco began revising their graphics and signs. He pointed out that the existing building currently has building paint with a graphical stripe and they are requesting to be allowed to reface that paint to project their new image. He replied to inquiry that the reason for the height variance request is due to the fact that one portion of the sign would be retrofitted on top; however, since this request was made, he discovered that they will be able to retrofit with a different panel and it will not exceed the height of the roof. Mr. Ulch confirmed that they will no longer need the variance for the height of the wall sign, and he officially requested it be withdrawn.

Mr. Campbell compared this site to a completed Sunoco Station on M-59 (Hall Road) in Utica.

Mr. Ulch maintained that the Hall Road location is different in that the stripe on the building is approximately 2 feet lower so there will be room between the top of the paint and the roofline. He noted that the stripe on the subject building is higher and will go to the roofline.

Mr. Campbell requested clarification as to the exact location of the proposed signs.

Mr. Ulch replied that two of the proposed wall signs will be located on the canopy and the others will be new graphics on the skin of the building paint. He replied to inquiry that this is Sunoco’s "family of signs". He admitted that the graphic on the north elevation of the building is not as crucial; however, the wall signs being proposed for the south and west elevations are very important for their business. He commented that there was some question as to the total square footage of the signs because some interpretations of the ordinance count the entire striped graphic as part of the total signage, but he pointed out that the total square footage of all of the signage, not including the stripe, does not exceed the total square footage permitted.

Mr. Campbell understood the ordinance that the painted part of the building with the stripe is not considered signage. He noted that although the variance request is to permit five wall signs, the total square footage of those five wall signs does not exceed the Township’s total square footage requirement. He inquired as to whether the petitioner would be willing to eliminate the sign on the north elevation.

Mr. Ulch replied that he would be willing to eliminate the sign on the north elevation if it meant that the variance would not be approved otherwise. He stressed that they would like all five signs if possible.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5462 and application from Aver Sign Company, 359 Livernois, Ferndale, Michigan 48111, as represented by Vance and Terry Ulch, same address, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-C-3, Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business Sign" "Wall Sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(2); Signs: Definitions and Restrictions: "Business Sign" "Wall Sign", concerning 1.148 acres of land generally located at the northeast corner of Garfield Road and 18 Mile Road at 41050 Garfield Road, that variance be granted to permit installation of three (3) business wall signs on an existing gas station (Sunoco) convenience store on a corner parcel of land fronting Garfield Road (120’ right-of-way) and 18 Mile Road (120’ right-of-way) in the B-2 Community Business District and having two (2) existing wall signs (on canopy) being three (3) wall signs in excess of the maximum permitted two (2) wall signs; further, this variance is granted with the stipulation that the total square footage of all five wall signs together does not exceed the maximum permitted of 110 square feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that this is a gas station with multiple canopies and buildings and that presents a difficult situation for this type of business; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Schwartz, Catalano, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that the Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question. He read one letter into the record dated September 13, 2000 from Kevin Shellenbarger, Sales Manager of Vesco Oil Corporation.

Ismael Basha, 36700 Groesbeck, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained there is an existing building (the former Midas Muffler) and it is located three feet from the property line. He would like to demolish the building and re-build on the property line. He noted that there will still be 16 feet of greenbelt south of Arby’s and the parking spaces and he felt emergency vehicles will have plenty of maneuvering room to access all sides of the building. Mr. Basha explained that petroleum trucks are getting larger to accommodate carrying more fuel for delivery while eliminating many trips back and forth to refuel. He noted that even the smallest trucks still carry six thousand gallons, and many of the trucks are even larger. He explained that he was in receipt of a letter from Valvoline, suggesting they provide a 28-foot minimum driveway width to accommodate the trucks and the room needed to maneuver those vehicles. Because of this, he is requesting the setback variance so he can provide the wider driveway.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to whether the petitioner would be able to eliminate a couple of parking spaces in lieu of requesting a 0-foot side yard setback. He felt by eliminating a couple of parking spaces, he might still be able to provide the 28-foot driveway width.

Mr. Basha responded that he has provided the exact number of parking spaces required by the ordinance and eliminating parking spaces would create the need for a parking variance.

Mr. Nickerson stated he would rather give the petitioner a variance for three fewer parking spaces than to grant a variance for a 0-foot side yard setback. He felt placing a building on a property line would result in a hardship to the abutting property owner, and he added that this type of business creates a volatile situation with the cars and the gasoline on the site. He stressed that for the safety and welfare of the public, he felt a variance for the number of parking spaces would be a favorable solution.

Mr. Basha replied to inquiry that he would be willing to accept Mr. Nickerson’s suggestion.

Mr. Campbell questioned the minimum required 28 parking spaces and felt that is a rather high estimate for the type of business being proposed.

Mr. Cassin confirmed that the ordinance requires a minimum of 28 parking spaces but admitted that he also agreed it seemed like a lot of parking for this type of business. He added, however, that if a variance were going to be given for parking, he would prefer to see all five parallel parking spaces eliminated and therefore, a grant of variance to provide five spaces less than the 28 parking spaces required. He felt there would still be more than sufficient parking for the site.

Mr. Basha assured that he could function with five parking spaces less.

Mr. Catalano complimented Mr. Basha on his business and his being an asset to the community.

Mr. Basha thanked Mr. Catalano and also thanked the community for its support over the last sixteen years.

Discussion took place regarding whether the variance as originally requested should be officially denied prior to granting the variance for the parking spaces.

Mr. Cassin advised that either the Board could deny the original request or the petitioner could withdraw his original request.

Mr. Basha stated that he would like to withdraw his request for a sideyard variance.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5463 and application from Ismael Basha, Basha Car Wash, 36638 Groesbeck Highway, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01, Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements in the B-3 General Business District, concerning Lot 42 and part of Lot 43, Groesbeck Nunneley Subdivision (Section 28), generally located fronting the east line of Groesbeck Highway, north of Kerry at 36700 Groesbeck Highway, that variance be granted to permit construction of an automobile service facility (Basha Quick-Lube Center) in the B-3 General Business District with twenty-three (23) parking spaces, being five (5) parking spaces less than the required twenty-eight (28); further, this variance is granted with the contingency that it is in effect as long as it remains a vehicle service facility; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the lot is small and to maintain the required side yard setback and yet provide sufficient maneuverability room for the extremely large delivery trucks while assuring the safety and welfare of the community; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Schwartz, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. 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.

Daniel VanHeusden, 37675 Santa Anna, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, explained that he would like to build an addition to his garage and would like to follow the lot line as close as possible. He replied to inquiry that the dimension proposed is approximately 600 square feet.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to why the petitioner wants to build the addition with the garage wall at an angle.

Mr. VanHeusden replied that with the wall of the garage angled, he could obtain the most square footage and follow the angle of his property. He replied to inquiry that one of his vehicles is slightly larger because it is a service vehicle and that is one of the reasons he is requesting the variance.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that there is an existing attached garage and he questioned why this is not sufficient space.

Mr. VanHeusden explained that the existing garage measures 20 feet by 20 feet; however, he has three cars, along with a riding lawnmower and other "toys". He replied to inquiry that the "toys" he referred to include lawnmowers, trimmers, hedge trimmers, bikes and a workbench. He assured that he would not be conducting any business in his garage. He explained that his service vehicle is 18 feet long and one of his vehicles (a Tahoe) is 20 feet long, which does not even fit in his existing garage.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to why there would not be sufficient space if the petitioner adhered to the ordinance requirements.

Mr. VanHeusden replied that he prefers an attached garage and that his rear yard is "scenic" and he does not want to disturb that by building a detached garage in the back. He confirmed that he has talked to all of the surrounding property owners and they have offered no objections.

Mr. Catalano felt that if he was a neighbor, he would rather see the garage addition rather than cars parked outside.

Mr. Marella felt the pie shape of the lot created a practical difficulty.

Mr. Campbell indicated that their print shows an aluminum shed in the rear yard. He recalled that in other cases that have come before this Board, petitioners have agreed to demolish such structures when a grant of variance for an addition fulfills their storage needs. He inquired as to whether Mr. VanHeusden would be willing to remove the shed should this variance be granted.

Mr. VanHeusden admitted that the shed in his rear yard is not in excellent shape but it is all he has at this time for storage purposes. He assured the shed will be removed if the variance is granted.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5464 and application from Daniel VanHeusden, 37675 Santa Anna, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01, Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements for the R-2 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 3, Rosteck Subdivision (Section 20/P.C. 628), generally located fronting the west line of Santa Anna, north of Millar Road at 37675 Santa Anna, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in the R-2 One-Family Residential District with side yard setback of six (6) feet being four (4) feet less than the minimum required ten (10) feet; further, this variance is granted with the condition that the existing aluminum shed in the rear yard be demolished; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the lot has an irregular shape; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Schwartz, Nickerson, Reynolds, Granata, Catalano, Campbell, 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.

Russell Sharf, 23249 Oakwood, Eastpointe, Michigan 48021, explained that the lot is irregular in shape and he was just recently made aware of the fact that there is a minimum square footage requirement. He added that he has invested a lot of money into developing on this lot and that is creating a practical difficulty.

Steve Messina, 37720 Radde, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, stated he and his neighbors all reside in brick homes approximately 1300 square feet and he expressed concern that approval of the requested variance may lower the value of their homes.

Mr. Marella pointed out that the petitioner is proposing to have a house relocated from another site to the subject property.

Mr. Messina complained that they were not provided with any elevation drawings and they would like to see what is being proposed. He emphasized that he is opposed to modular homes in this area.

Mr. Sharf informed that the house he is proposing to move is not a modular home. It is currently located at Heydenreich and Hall Roads, sitting on blocks. He noted that it is a brick home and it was razed in May of this year.

Dominic De Maria, 38700 Radde, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, explained that he is building a home adjacent to Mr. Messina’s property and he stressed that he was required to follow all of the ordinance requirements as were the other homes in the area. He added that he was required to position his house two feet further than he wanted in order to meet side yard setbacks. He did not feel it is fair to the neighborhood if the requested variance is granted.

Mr. Marella inquired as to whether Mr. De Maria’s lot is rectangular in shape.

Mr. De Maria replied to inquiry that his lot is rectangular in shape; however, he felt that the petitioner was aware of the odd shape of his property when he purchased the lot and that should not be considered a hardship

Bonita Travascas, 38815 Radde, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, did not feel it is fair that she and others were required to meet ordinance requirements and the petitioner does not have to meet them. She replied to inquiry that her house is located three lots south of the subject property.

Mr. Marella again pointed out that the subject lot is irregular in shape, and he explained that many times irregular shaped lots can be considered by this Board as a practical difficulty.

Nancy Dembeck, 38741 Radde, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, complained because they had not viewed a print of what is being proposed. She commented that when she purchased her home, one of the selling points was the spaciousness of the lots in the neighborhood; however, she felt what is being proposed will result in a house that is too close to the street and too close to her house.

Roblynn Smith, 38815 Radde, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, felt the petitioner was aware of the size and shape of the lot when he purchased his property. She was in opposition to the variance request and stressed that she moved from a crowded neighborhood in Warren to her current home so she could get away from that "tightly-built" community to have more space. She felt the petitioner should not be trying to change the character of the neighborhood and she was adamantly opposed.

Mr. Marella explained that anyone has a right to come before this Board and request a variance, but it is this Board’s responsibility to make the determination whether to approve or deny.

Mr. De Maria inquired as to the other portion of the lot that faces Radde.

Mr. Marella replied that this Board has no knowledge and control over another lot.

Ms. Granata clarified the petitioner’s comment about investing a lot of money into developing this lot and informed that monetary reasons cannot be used for this Board to grant a variance. She agreed that the lot is irregular in shape, but she felt it is a buildable lot, especially if developed with a colonial-style home. She was opposed to permitting a house with less square footage than required.

Mr. Campbell agreed with Ms. Granata and pointed out that the size of the lot is greater than 10,000 square feet, which he felt is sufficient to build in an R-3 District. He mentioned that it is an odd-shaped lot and if he had been presented with a layout for a 1300-square-foot home on the property, he might have been inclined to look at a variance to the required setback. He emphasized, however, that he was opposed to granting the variances as requested.

Mr. Sharf stressed that he knew nothing about the minimum square footage requirement of the Township until two or three weeks ago. He claimed that if he had been aware of this earlier, he could have done things differently. He pointed out that he had to have 250-feet of city sewer installed at his expense, and the permits for the water system are going to take about 90 days. He noted that his engineer did not feel there are many other ways to move the house and garage on this property because of the odd shape of the parcel.

Ms. Schwartz agreed with the comments made by Mr. Campbell. She felt that the petitioner should at least meet the minimum square footage requirements before requesting any type of setback variance.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that the minimum square footage requirement being appealed is not a new requirement for the R-3 District. Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the petitioner could move the house and put an addition on to it.

Mr. Sharf stated he planned on constructing an addition; however, he needs three separate permits to run the sewer line. He added that he would like to attach the garage but that will depend on whether he receives the grant of variance.

Mr. Catalano suggested including additional square footage in the footings and once he moves the house, he can build the addition.

Mr. Sharf stated that he plans on constructing a Temo sunroom as an addition; however, the Township does not consider it four-season and therefore it cannot be included in the total square footage of the dwelling. He pointed out that he is required to dedicate 33 feet for right-of-way and an additional 15 feet in the rear for the easement.

Mr. Catalano felt that because of the odd shape of the lot, the petitioner could get some relief on the setback variances; however, he felt the general consensus of the Board and the neighbors is that the house should measure at least 1300 square feet.

Mr. Marella recalled instances where setback variances have been granted to property owners with odd-shaped lots.

Mr. Sharf replied to inquiry that his engineer is trying to change the layout to include the proposed house and an addition; however, he felt he may need a variance to the rear yard setback.

Mr. Nickerson suggested tabling further consideration of this matter for one month to give the petitioner an opportunity to amend his plans and try to work something out that would eliminate the need for the square footage variance.

Mr. Campbell noted that the proposed house being moved to this location is square in shape, whereas the parcel is rectangular in shape. He felt this may be "like fitting a square peg in a round hole". He felt that possibly this house is not suited for this particular parcel, and he added that a rectangular shape or colonial style may be better suited for the lot. He felt that trying to accommodate a square house on the parcel may compound the difficulty in meeting the setback requirements.

Mr. Sharf replied to inquiry that he estimated he will be able to turn in revised plans within one week.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Catalano, with reference to File #5465 and application from Russell F. Sharf, 23249 Oakwood, Eastpointe, Michigan 48021, 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 Side and Rear Yard Setback Requirements and Minimum Floor Area Per Unit Requirements for the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning 0.285 acres fronting the south line of Wellington Crescent, east of Radde (Section 23), that further consideration of request for variance to permit placement of an existing residential structure in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with: 1) West side yard setback of five (5) feet being three (3) feet less than the minimum required eight (8) feet; 2) Rear yard setback of thirty feet, six inches (30' 6") being four feet, six inches (4'6") less than the minimum required thirty-five (35) feet; and 3) Floor area of 1,024 square feet being 276 square feet less than the minimum required 1,300 square feet, be tabled until the next Board of Appeals Meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, October 11, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. based on the petitioner’s assurance that he will submit revised plans to the Department of Planning and Community Development within one week. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickerson, Catalano, Granata, Campbell, Reynolds, Schwartz, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Ms. Linda Wilson, 37090 Farley, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, representative, apologized for the petitioner being out of town on a previously-scheduled trip. She explained that the petitioner proposes to connect the existing detached garage to his principle structure by adding a breezeway. She did not feel this would have a negative affect on any of the neighbors, and she added that she is the neighbor directly abutting the subject property and obviously has no objection to the variance request. She pointed out that this would not change the distance of the existing setback.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to how the petitioner will attach the breezeway to the garage because he noticed that the garage has been demolished.

Ms. Wilson explained that the petitioner tore the garage down; however, he wishes to improve it and build on the same footprint as the current structure.

Mr. Campbell noted that this is an 80-foot-wide lot, which is wider than the standard lot in Clinton Township. He felt that for this reason, the petitioner has many options open to him, especially in light of the fact that there is no existing garage. He informed that when something in the Township is torn down or modified, it must meet current ordinance requirements. Mr. Campbell pointed out that in this case, the garage met the setback requirements years ago; however, the garage no longer exists and the petitioner must now meet current ordinance requirements. He suggested the petitioner change the footprint of the garage to conform to current requirements.

Mr. Cassin explained that the petitioner has been meeting with the Building Department. Mr. Cassin noted that the existing garage was beginning to deteriorate, but it was difficult to explain that if he built a new garage he could no longer build it the same size; therefore, he was advised to go before the Board of Appeals. He noted that the petitioner was not in favor of building a garage in the rear yard because he felt that could cause problems for his neighbors.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to whether this Board can grant a variance for something that does not exist. He questioned whether this request for variance should be worded in such a way as to "request a variance to permit construction of a garage and breezeway to a principal structure".

Mr. Campbell inquired as to the practical difficulty.

Mr. Cassin replied to inquiry that the practical difficulty is found in the fact that the petitioner wants to maintain the same footprint as the existing garage when connecting it to the principal structure by a breezeway.

Ms. Granata felt that since the footprint of the garage is the same, it could be viewed that he is making an improvement to the existing garage.

Ms. Wilson confirmed that the petitioner will be adding some footings to the original footings of the garage. She felt the proposed addition will improve the neighborhood and noted that there were no objections received from the neighboring property owners.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to why accessory structures are allowed to be only three feet from the property line, while principal dwellings are required to remain eight feet from the property line.

Mr. Cassin replied that this has been an ordinance requirement for a long time. He added that the minimum 3-foot setback was adopted years ago when garages were typically located in the rear yards and away from the homes. He stated he was not sure of what other reasons constituted the adoption of that requirement in the ordinance years ago.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5461 and application from Martin G. Ovstedal, 37070 Farley, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by Linda C. Wilson, 37090 Farley, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements for the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 1042, Ingleside Farms Subdivision #8 (Section 22), generally located fronting the east line of Farley, north of 16 Mile Road at 37070 Farley, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence connecting an existing detached garage to the principal structure in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with side yard setback of 3.5 feet being 4.5 feet less than the minimum required eight (8) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty of the unusual size and shape of the lot and the fact that there was a garage existing and this is an improvement to the garage utilizing the same footprint as the existing garage; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickerson, Reynolds, Schwartz, Catalano, Granata, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Mr. Catalano requested that the last paragraph on Page Three be deleted. He recalled he was responding to comments from residents who were complaining about cars that were parked in the street in front of the petitioner’s home.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Campbell, to approve the minutes of the August 16, 2000 Meeting with the one correction requested by Mr. Catalano. Motion carried.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Ms. Granata, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS