CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
OCTOBER 21, 1998
MINUTES

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

ABSENT:    Paul D. Woodring

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

Mr. Marella called the meeting to order at 6:30 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 Marella noted that the petitioners for Items #1 and #3 have requested that their items be withdrawn.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Campbell, to approve the agenda with the deletion of Items #1 (Fast Track Oil & Lube) and #3 (SFR - Robinway, Vacant). Motion carried.

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.

Diane Blanton, 20140 Finley Street, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated that prior to purchasing their property, they were told by their real estate agent that the lot was already split. She replied to inquiry that they were not aware of the fact that it was not split until they had purchased the property. She noted that there are approximately four or five additional 100-foot parcels in her area which are being split.

Michelle Whateley, 20114 Finley, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, abutting property owner, expressed opposition to the variance request. She stated that she is representing several of the neighbors who are also opposed to the variance. She inquired as to the easement and where the electrical lines will be located. She submitted a petition signed by 7 residents who are opposed to the variance request.

Mr. Miller showed a diagram of the location of the proposed lot split. He assured that the electrical lines will not be affected. He explained that the exact lot lines will have to be determined by a certified land surveyor.

Mr. Campbell read the submitted petition of opposition into the record. He noted that it was signed by the following: J. Lilly, 20245 Finley; Carrie Guzman, 20113 Finley; James Backus, 20156 Finley; Sarah Colling, 20175 Finley; Sarah Leija, no address given; and Opal Kavanaugh, 20133 Finley.

Ms. Blanton replied to inquiry that they have moved from the existing house and no longer live at this location.

Mr. Miller replied to inquiry that a recent ordinance change requires eight-foot side yard setbacks. He noted that lots of record which were platted years ago would be grandfathered into the previous requirements of a combined side yard setback total of 12 feet, with the smallest side being no less than 3 feet. He clarified that if this property is split, it would no longer be considered a "lot of record" and the current ordinance requirements would have to be met.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to when the existing house was built.

Ms. Blanton replied that the house was built in 1946, but has since been completely refurbished.

Mr. Campbell noted that there are sixteen 100-foot-wide lots on this block, and there are only four which have been split. He could not see that sufficient hardship has been presented.

Mr. Young inquired as to whether the house would be in violation of the current ordinance if this is approved.

Mr. Miller explained that if the variance is granted to approve two 50-foot lots, they would not be lots of record and would be required to provide 8-foot side yard setbacks, which would most likely necessitate a variance.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5245 and application from Diane Blanton, 48717 Presidential Drive, Macomb, Michigan 48044, 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 and Chapter 1292.01, Land Use Regulations; Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart; Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements in the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 70, Supervisor’s Plat of Gratiot Little Farms Subdivision (Sections 33/34), generally located fronting the south line of Finley, east of Wurfel at 20140 Finley, that request for variance to permit division of a platted lot (Lot 70, Supervisor’s Plat of Gratiot Little Farms Subdivision) into two parcels in the R-5 One-Family Residential District each with: (1) Land area of 7,131.5 square feet, each having 668.75 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; and (3) West side yard setback for the existing house of 4.22 feet being 3.78 feet less than the minimum required 8 feet; be denied by reason that practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship was not demonstrated. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Granata, Schwartz, Campbell, Nickerson, Young, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - Woodring. Motion carried.

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. He read a letter into the record from the Road Commission of Macomb County regarding the abandonment of an alley behind the subject site.

Alger LaHood, 20333 Mack Avenue, Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan 48236, explained that the lot fronting Elmira was originally zoned residential and was recently rezoned to P Parking. He further explained that he petitioned to have the property rezoned to OS-1 Office/Service but the Township Board voted in favor of a Parking zoning to act as a buffer between the office district and the residential district. He noted that they had to reduce the front yard setback from the required 25 feet to 4 feet to accommodate this parking area and stressed that they do not have the ability to fully utilize this property because of the designated zoning for parking. Mr. LaHood commented that he constructed a similar development (Elmira Professional Plaza) on the next block north of the subject site but replied to inquiry that setback requirements were met because he had full utilization of the lot.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to what the abandonment of the alley has to do with this variance request.

Mr. LaHood replied that the sanitary sewer line extends in a line in front of the alley, and that, when contending with this easement and the parking zone, they are locked in and have a practical difficulty. He replied to further inquiry that he has attempted to design this site differently but has been unable to do so.

Mr. Campbell commented that it will be unusual to have parking on one side of the building.

Mr. LaHood noted that they exceed the parking requirements.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that on the application, Mr. LaHood claimed that the variance would make this development compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Campbell noted that other then the abutting party store, the majority of the developments in the area meet the current setback requirements.

Mr. LaHood emphasized that he has tried to comply with current ordinance requirements and has succeeded in his other developments. He stressed, however, that in this particular case, he felt a variance is necessary.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to the size of the building and whether it could be made slightly smaller to accommodate the setback requirements.

Mr. LaHood pointed out that they already exceed parking requirements and he felt that by downsizing the building, they will have an excessive amount of parking spaces. He did not feel the building would be used properly.

Mr. Campbell suggested that the petitioner look at the possibility of repositioning the building to meet the required setback on Harper Avenue and elongate the building, while eliminating the extra six parking spaces along Harper. He felt the site can be reconfigured into a different "footprint".

Mr. LaHood understood Mr. Campbell’s suggestion, but he emphasized that to develop a leasable building, they cannot "bury" the parking lot. He emphasized that for safety reasons, it is better to have the parking lot visible from Harper Avenue. He felt that people feel safer when they know that they can be seen getting into their cars.

Mr. Campbell understood Mr. LaHood’s position but pointed out that there are numerous office buildings in the Township that provide parking which is not visible from a main road. He cited the office complex at the northeast corner of Metropolitan Parkway and Utica Road and another office complex on Garfield Road, both of which provide parking to the rear of the building in a somewhat hidden area.

Mr. Young felt that the building could be turned 90 degrees. He noted that he would be more in favor of granting a variance for the one or two parking spaces which may have to be sacrificed rather than to grant a front yard setback variance. He suggested the possibility of the petitioner posting a sign indicating additional parking across the street.

Mr. LaHood commented that he was not aware off-site parking would be permitted.

Mr. Campbell agreed with Mr. Young in that he would rather grant a parking variance for one or two spaces rather than grant a setback variance.

Mr. Miller replied to inquiry that he is not sure of the width of the easement.

Mr. LaHood stated that he would be willing to relocate the building back to the easement.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether there will be problems with lighting the parking lot adjacent to a residential district.

Mr. LaHood replied that there are certain regulations on the lighting, but they have met those requirements in their other developments, and the neighbors have had no complaints.

Mr. Young emphasized his feeling that the 25-foot setback off of Harper should be provided.

Mr. LaHood assured that he would be glad to move the building back to the easement and lose the 7 or 8 parking spaces. He added that since he currently exceeds the parking requirements, he may only need a variance for one or two spaces.

Mr. Miller expressed concern regarding the size of the easement.

Mr. LaHood felt certain that the easement is twelve feet, being six feet on each side.

Ms. Granata commented that relocating the building will enable the petitioner to meet or come close to meeting the front yard setback requirements.

Motion by Mr. Young, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5250 and application from Alger P. LaHood, LaHood Properties, L.L.P., 20233 Mack Avenue, Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan 48236, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-m, Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements in the OS-1 Office/Service District, concerning part of Lot 18 and all of Lots 119 through 127, Deziel Jefferson Gardens Subdivision (Private Claim Nos. 565/566 and Section 35), generally located at the southeast corner of Elmira and Harper Avenue, that further consideration for variance to permit construction of an office building (proposed Elmira Office Building) in the OS-1 Office/Service District with front yard setback from Harper Avenue of four (4) feet being twenty-one (21) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet, be tabled until a special meeting to be held on Wednesday, November 4, 1998 at 6:30 p.m.; further, this matter is tabled to enable the petitioner to redesign this site, incorporating the changes requested by this Board. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Young, Schwartz, Nickerson, Campbell, Granata, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - Woodring. 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.

Rudolph Hauss, 16880 Hauss, Eastpointe, Michigan 48021, representing the petitioners, explained that they are long-time residents of Clinton Township. He noted that they had an unsightly garage dating back to the 1930’s and they took it down with the intention of building a custom garage. He added that the difficulty they are having is that the site has a historic structure which was built around the turn of the century. It is in excellent shape and even has the initials of the carpenter carved into the wood. He stressed that the applicants do not wish to tear down this structure, although they are not opposed to having it taken off site and restored, and they are working with the Historic Commission on this possibility. He added that they would like to see it relocated to the Clinton Township Historic Village but at this time there is not enough funding.

Mr. Young stated that when he met Mrs. Lauer, she informed him that they may have someone who will be able to move the structure to another location at no cost to the petitioners.

Mr. Hauss stated that there have been several historic preservation groups offering to move the structure but the plans always seem to change when it comes to the funding. He stressed that they have taken good care of it and still hope to see it moved.

Mr. Young did not feel the subject site is the proper place for this barn.

Mr. Hauss informed that the petitioners originally owned the adjacent land now developed with condominiums, and they are with the understanding that the residents have become fond of the barn.

Mr. Miller commented that from a planning standpoint, the existing barn is not out of character with the neighborhood nor would it have a negative impact on the abutting properties; however, he cautioned this Board that they may not want to grant a variance to a building which may be structurally unsafe and would create a health and safety hazard.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to the size of the old garage.

Mr. Hauss replied that the garage which was torn down was a three-car garage but it was a "rambling" design. He stated that, to his knowledge, the structure of the barn is safe and that the petitioners always maintained the barn very well. He suggested that the Township look at the structure, and if they determine it is unsafe, they will agree to have it taken down. He stressed that it appears to be in good shape and they would like to see it saved. He replied to further inquiry that the proposed garage will blend in well with the abutting condominiums.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the barn can currently be used as a garage.

Mr. Hauss replied that the barn cannot be used as a garage because it was originally designed for horses and carriages, and the doors would be much too difficult to maneuver for an older couple. He replied to further inquiry that the proposed garage is only going to measure 800 square feet and will be used to house their vehicles and provide some storage space. Mr. Hauss replied to still further inquiry that they cannot count on using the barn for storage because they are hoping to have it moved.

Mr. Campbell felt the barn is not the total issue. He pointed out that the petitioner would need a variance to build a garage the proposed size, regardless of the barn. He questioned as to the definition of a "historic structure" and whether the subject barn falls within this category.

Mr. Miller explained that there are two categories. One designation is given by the State of Michigan and is honorary. In this instance, the petitioner would not be restricted as to what he can do with the building. The other designation is federal when receiving federal funding for the structure, and in this case, they can only do what is allowed by the government. He replied to inquiry that the age of the building is not the only determining factor when considering whether or not a structure has historical significance. He added that architectural significance is also considered, although he did not feel this barn would fall into this category. He admitted that the barn may have some historical significance, which is also important.

Maxwell Heiderer, 15380 Pebble Pointe, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that he abuts the subject property and is quite fond of the barn. He added that other residents he has talked to are also very positive about the historical structure. He noted that there was a small shed attached to the barn and, after a summer storm, suffered damage and was then removed. Mr. Heiderer stressed his opinion that the barn adds charm to the area.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to the size of structure that could be put up and yet comply with the ordinance.

Mr. Miller replied that the maximum floor area allowed for detached accessory structures on this property is 742.26 square feet, which is larger than a standard two-car garage.

Mr. Hauss questioned how that figure was determined.

Mr. Campbell replied that the formula for determining permitted square footage of accessory structures is 2% of the total land area or 50% of the total square footage of the floor area of the house, which ever is greater. In this particular instance, the total square footage permitted for the accessory structures was determined by 2% of the total land area.

Discussion took place regarding the dimensions.

Mr. Campbell recalled that sometimes with large parcels of property, other petitioners have stated that they need storage space for equipment to maintain their property, such as tractors, etc. He noted that this does not appear to be the situation.

Mr. Young felt that since the petitioners are up in years, they may have accumulated many items they wish to preserve and need room for storage.

Mr. Campbell still felt the size permitted within the ordinance should be sufficient. He suggested that a variance be granted but for a total square footage less than what has been requested. He further suggested that if a variance is granted to make it contingent on being in effect only as long as the historic structure remains on the premises.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5255 and application from Vincent & Susan Lauer, 37760 Hayes Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, as represented by Rudolph Hauss, 16880 Hauss, Eastpointe, Michigan 48021, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.01-(I); Supplementary Regulations; Accessory Structures (Including Garages), for 0.852 acre of land generally located fronting the east line of Hayes Road, north of Utica Road at 37760 Hayes Road (Section 19), that variance be granted to permit construction of a detached garage for an existing 1,050 square-foot residence (37760 Hayes) with an existing barn on a parcel containing 37,113.12 square feet of land in the R-3 One-Family Residential District, with the detached structures having combined total floor area of 2,032.55 square feet being 1,290.29 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted combined floor area of 742.26 square feet; further, this grant of variance is in effect as long as this historic structure remains on the premises; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the petitioners are attempting to preserve a historic structure currently on the site; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Schwartz, Granata, Nickerson, Marella. Nay - Young. Absent - Woodring. 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.

April Bell, 16731 Grillo, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that her husband was involved in an automobile accident, and suffered a back injury. They are proposing to install a hot tub and have chosen this location because it will be slightly less expensive and further, the traffic noise from Garfield will be blocked.

Mr. Marella suggested that the sunroom be situated next to the family room rather than at the end. He felt it would fit without a variance.

Ms. Bell explained that positioning the sunroom next to the family room would defeat their purpose in trying to situate it away from the traffic and noise of Garfield.

Ms. Granata had no objection to the variance request. She pointed out that Ms. Bell’s husband has a problem with his back and would benefit from this room, and she also felt the noise factor could cause stress and irritation, which may act as a source of aggravation for his back.

Mr. Campbell observed that if this sunroom were to be placed adjacent to the family room where a variance would not be necessary, two bedroom windows would be overlooking this room, and he did not feel this would be a good design.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5257 and application from Tom & April Bell, 16731 Grillo, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01, Land Use Regulations, Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart; Minimum Rear Yard Setback in the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 158, Terra Bella Subdivision (Section 18), generally located fronting the north line of Grillo, west of Garfield Road at 16731 Grillo, that variance be granted to permit construction of a "sunroom" addition to an existing single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of thirty (30) feet being five (5) feet less than the required setback of thirty-five (35) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the location of the bedrooms, the noise of the traffic on Garfield, and the petitioner’s illness make it more conducive to place the sunroom in the proposed location; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Granata, Campbell, Young, Schwartz, Nickerson, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - Woodring. 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.

Eric Heiderer, 44045 Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, explained that the proposed site was formerly a Chinese restaurant, and he explained that they are going to "clean it up" and open a respectable Coney Island restaurant. He presented a letter of intent to the Board from the adjacent property owner stating that he will supply additional parking spaces behind the subject site. Mr. Heiderer added that if this variance is approved, they will enter into a legal contract with regards to the parking arrangement. He explained that in order to access this parking area, they will remove the fence and repave the parking area. He once again assured that this is only a letter of intent at this time so that he could present it to the Board; however, he will follow through with a legal agreement if the variance is granted.

Mr. Campbell read the letter of intent from James Donahue and Gjon Gojac into the record. He noted that the agreement specifies the utilization of thirteen parking spaces.

Mr. Heiderer clarified that the letter of intent indicated thirteen parking spaces because they were under the impression that they only needed a total of twenty-five spaces. He stated that since the time the letter of intent was written, they discovered that they need a total of thirty-five spaces, but he assured that Mr. Donahue and Mr. Gojac will provide however many spaces they need. He added that this was a verbal agreement and he can have the letter of intent revised.

Discussion took place regarding the shared parking agreement.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the designated parking area for lease would be able to provide for thirty-five parking spaces.

Mr. Heiderer assured that there is ample space in this area to provide for all of the parking that is necessary.

Mr. Miller clarified that off-site parking can be provided as long as it is within 300 feet of the site, and it must be designated as such. He noted that this area needs to be cleaned up and he felt it needs to be coordinated with the designated parking area from the prospective of site plan review.

Mr. Young inquired as to why a variance is required if there is a lease agreement. He was under the impression that a variance would not be necessary as long as the petitioner can prove that he has sufficient parking available.

Mr. Miller replied that a problem arises if the lease agreement is terminated. He added that they also need to establish an easement which would give them the perpetual use of the adjacent property for parking.

Maxwell Heiderer, 44045 Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, explained that they had the letter of intent drafted to alleviate any problems or questions by this Board.

Mr. Marella felt that additional documentation is necessary and the letter of intent alone is not sufficient.

Mr. Nickerson expressed opposition to the variance request because they would be approving a variance to permit only ten parking spaces for a fast-food restaurant. He felt the petitioner should present the legal lease agreement demonstrating that they have provided the forty-five parking spaces. He suggested that the petitioner obtain the lease and then come back before this Board for approval. He added that they may not even need that variance. Mr. Nickerson emphasized that he cannot vote in favor of this variance request.

Ms. Granata recalled that similar variances have been granted in the past, but this Board has placed contingencies on them that the variances are only granted for the length of the lease agreement, and if the lease is then renewed, the petitioners must come back to this Board for another variance. She expressed confidence that as long as Mr. Lucas owns the property, he will be improving it, and she added that the area definitely needs improvement.

Ms. Schwartz questioned whether this variance request is something that should be considered by this Board.

Mr. Miller replied that whether this parking area is identified for another use or whether this is a required parking area for another site has to be taken into consideration. He stated that if this is not a required parking area for the adjacent business, then the owners can grant an easement to the restaurant and lease the parking area for their use. If the abutting business needs these parking spaces, then it would be joint use of a parking lot. He felt it may be necessary to obtain legal advise from the Township attorney as to how to handle this situation.

Mr. Young suggested the possibility of the petitioner purchasing the adjacent property and combining it with the subject site in order to provide on-site parking.

John Lucas, 370 North Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, owner of the restaurant, clarified that he wishes to lease the adjacent property until he establishes the restaurant, but he indicated that he would eventually like to purchase it.

Frederick Raymond, 2715 Pearl Drive, Troy, Michigan 48084, stated he is familiar with this type of lease agreement and commented that the lease would go with the land but the license would only be valid for a certain period of time.

Mr. Campbell felt it would be to the Township’s advantage to have the petitioner develop on this site; however, he agreed that questions need to be answered before action can be taken by this Board. He did not feel legal opinion is necessary at this time, but he suggested that the petitioner should work with the adjacent property owner to obtain a license or lease, or possibly to enter into a lease agreement with an option to buy.

Mr. Marella suggested that further consideration of this matter be tabled until the petitioner can submit a site plan to the Planning Department for their review, and to enable the petitioner to meet with the adjacent property owner to obtain a license or lease agreement for the parking. He further suggested that after this information is received from the Planning Department, it be forwarded to the Township attorney for his opinion.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5258 and application from John Lucas, 370 North Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by Erik Heiderer, Polyarch, Inc., 44045 Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1296.01-(k)-(3)-H, Off-Street Parking and Loading; Space Requirements: Business and Commercial Uses; Dining Room Restaurants, concerning Lot 301, Ascot Park Subdivision (Section 12), generally located at the southeast corner of Gratiot Avenue and Joy Boulevard at 370 North Gratiot Avenue, that further consideration for variance request to permit new occupancy of an existing building (John Lucas Coney Cafe fka King’s Restaurant) in the B-3 General Business District with ten (10) off-street parking spaces being thirty-five (35) spaces fewer than the required forty-five (45) parking spaces, be tabled for a period not to exceed sixty days to enable the petitioner an opportunity to enter into a lease agreement with the abutting property owner for the required parking, and to submit a site development plan to the Planning Department for their review. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Schwartz, Granata, Campbell, Nickerson, Young, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - Woodring. 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.

Frederick Raymond, Nextel Communications, explained that they are requesting a variance for a setback from a residential area. He noted that they currently have two other sites in Clinton Township; one is located next to the Chippewa Valley Shopping Center and the other site was approved at the last Board meeting. He was given permission by the Township Board to petition the Board of Appeals for this setback variance even though there is currently a moratorium on new towers. He assured that they will not be requesting a height variance for this site. Mr. Raymond explained that Nextel operates Enhanced Specialized Mobile (ESM) radios, which is oriented toward business users. He informed that work groups can communicate with each other over the two-way radio frequency and it is less expensive than making the phone calls. He noted that the higher the frequency, the shorter the propagation.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether there may be another carrier who would want to co-locate on this tower at a lower level.

Mr. Raymond replied that it is very possible another carrier may want to co-locate on this tower. He commented that Nextel is currently co-locating on another tower at a height of 115 feet. He replied to inquiry that he looked at the site of the Mount Clemens General building located at the southeast corner of Metropolitan Parkway and Gratiot Avenue, but got nowhere with their legal representatives.

Mr. Campbell explained that the reason for the 150-foot distance requirement from a residential district is to protect the neighbors from any possibility of a falling tower. He stated he would be willing to support an approval of the requested variance as long as the height is not raised above 120 feet. He pointed out that even if the tower at that height would fall, it would not reach the residential district.

Mr. Raymond assured that the towers are designed to collapse within themselves in the event it comes down. He further assured that they cannot locate elsewhere on the subject parcel because it would compromise Mr. Gooley’s ability to display his automobiles. Mr. Raymond also pointed out that the grade of the property is lower in the back where the tower will be located, so he felt it will not be as noticeable.

Ms. Schwartz expressed surprise that Mr. Gooley is not present at this hearing. She inquired as to how many parking spaces for cars would be lost if the tower was to be relocated to meet ordinance requirements.

Mr. Raymond replied that to position the tower elsewhere on this property would not be agreeable to Mr. Gooley. He explained that he is told by the engineers where to look for a site, and in this particular case, was told that they need coverage at Gratiot and Metropolitan Parkway. He noted that he was originally looking for industrially zoned property, but discovered that these towers can also be located in a commercial zone. He looked north of Metropolitan Parkway and had approximately five options, none of which were approved by their engineers because they were all too close to one of their other sites. He added that 15 Mile Road was determined to be too far south. He also noted that some of the commercial property is much shallower than others and that would not work. Mr. Raymond stated they chose this site because the property is wider and less developed than most of the other properties in the area, and the location was approved by their engineers.

Discussion took place regarding why the Mount Clemens General building did not work out.

Mr. Raymond replied that the fact that the Mount Clemens General site did not work was not for monetary reasons, but had more to do with gaining access to a secured building, among other issues. He stated that another site they looked at belonged to Shell Oil Company, but they were not interested in entering into an agreement because they are hoping to develop the site.

Ms. Schwartz stated understanding the need for these communications towers but expressed concern for its close proximity to a residential district.

Mr. Raymond showed the Board members pictures of the proposed site and the surrounding area. He replied to inquiry that he did not meet Mr. Gooley regarding this proposal until recently. He replied to further inquiry that if this variance is denied, he will be back to "square one".

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5259 and application from Donald Gooley, Kar-Don Investments Company, 20903 Harper Avenue, Harper Woods, Michigan 48225, as represented by Frederick P. Raymond, Nextel Communications, 300 Galleria Officenter, Suite 301, Southfield, Michigan 48034, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.02-(a)-(11A)-G, Supplementary Regulations; Uses Requiring Special Approval: Procedure, concerning Lot 5, Ingleside Farms Subdivision (Sections 22/23/26/27), generally located at the northeast corner of Gratiot Avenue and Price Drive at 36246 Gratiot Avenue, that variance be granted to permit installation of a cellular telephone tower (Nextel Telecommunications at Hillcrest II Auto Sales) in the B-3 General Business District with setback from a residential area of 139.3 feet being 10.7 feet less than the required setback of 150 feet; further, this variance is granted with the contingency that the height of the tower is not to exceed 125 feet, as permitted by the ordinance; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the petitioner has made several other attempts to locate in the area but was unsuccessful, and that the progress of cellular phone systems and the increased demand for the cellular phones necessitates that towers be located in particular areas; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Nickerson, Young, Marella. Nay - Granata, Schwartz. Absent - Woodring. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell requested that the following change be made:

Page 1, Paragraph 1, Line 1:

Change from: "Mr. Campbell appointed Ms. Granata as Acting Chairperson in Mr. Marella’s absence."

Change to: "Mr. Campbell appointed Ms. Granata as Acting Chairperson in Mr. Marella’s and Ms. Schwartz’s absence."

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, to approve the report of the August 26, 1998 Regular Meeting with the above-mentioned change on Page 1. Motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Ms. Schwartz, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.

 Respectfully submitted,

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS