CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
NOVEMBER 15, 2000
MINUTES

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

ABSENT:     Joann Granata (Excused)

STAFF:        Irene F. Sheridan, Community Planner I
                    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 Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell informed that a variance was granted to Central Baptist Church on November 17, 1999 to allow fewer parking spaces than required and this variance was to be in effect for one year, at which time it was to be reviewed.

Michael Nardin, Pastor of Central Baptist Church, 38900 Moravian Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, explained that within the last month, they installed the parking lot; however, it was strongly advised to them that they let it set for a year without using it before the asphalt is poured. He added that they are currently putting in the curbs.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to how long the project is anticipated to take to completion.

Pastor Nardin stated they plan on letting the parking lot set until next summer. He replied to further inquiry that a one-year extension of the grant of variance would be more than adequate for their needs. He assured that they are not currently in need of all of the parking spaces and he estimated that they currently provide 70 spaces.

Mr. Marella replied to inquiry that by action taken by this Board a year ago, the Pastor was requested to come back to this Board and report the progress of the parking lot.

Mr. Campbell understood the variance to be in effect for only one year.

Pastor Nardin reiterated that the parking lot is in; however, it must set for a year. He assured that the size of the church and its attendance at this time does not warrant the need for additional parking spaces.

Mr. Campbell felt this Board needs to know what is being proposed and noted that they do not have copies of the site plan to view.

Pastor Nardin responded that they have an approved site development plan and the parking lot they just installed is depicted on the plan. He added that they eliminated the extra parking lots they do not need. He explained that the prints were submitted a year ago.

Mr. Campbell felt this matter should be tabled to enable this Board to look at the prints and determine what is necessary.

Mr. Nickerson reviewed the status of this appeal. He noted that the petitioner received a variance one year ago, with the condition that it be reviewed in a year to determine the status of the church’s development. The petitioner is now back before this Board and has informed that the parking lot is installed but cannot be used for a year as it settles. He is indicating to this Board at this time that he would like a one-year extension of the variance so they can complete their project.

Pastor Nardin clarified that they are still in the old building and do not yet have the attendance anticipated with the new building. He replied to inquiry that he would like an extension of this variance for one year. He replied to inquiry that they do not utilize all of their 52 existing parking spaces now, but in a year when the project is complete, they will have the 83 required parking spaces.

Mr. Catalano recalled that when this variance was granted a year ago, it was determined that this is a growing church and the variance was granted for a period of one year so it could be reviewed at that time. He further recalled that this Board was going to look at the church attendance and the status of the parking lot at the end of the year and re-determine whether an extension of the variance is necessary or appropriate.

Pastor Nardin explained that their existing building seats 100-120 people, so they went to two services to avoid overcrowding the parking lot. He projected that when they eventually get into their new building, they will see more growth and are very positive about that.

Mr. Marella inquired as to when the new building is proposed to be completed.

Discussion took place regarding whether this Board should grant an extension of the variance, to be terminated at the end of the extension.

Pastor Nardin replied that they are anticipating the new building will be completed in the spring. He added that if they are granted a one-year extension of the variance and it is terminated at that time, that would be sufficient for their needs.

Mr. Catalano felt it is difficult to place time restraints on a church because of funding and having to raise money for these projects.

Pastor Nardin assured that a one-year extension will be adequate time to complete the project.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5377 and application from Central Baptist Church, 38900 Moravian Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by Pastor Michael Nardin, same address, for variance to the Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1296.01-(k)-(2)-A; Off-Street Parking and Loading: Space Requirements; Institutional Uses; Churches and Temples, concerning Lot 10, Moravian Drive Farms Subdivision (P.C. 137, Sections 16/21), generally located fronting the east line of Moravian Drive, south of Harrington at 38900 Moravian Drive, that a one-year extension of previous variance granted by this Board on November 17, 1999 be granted to permit occupancy of a 250-seat church (Central Baptist Church) in the R-2 One-Family Residential District with 52 parking spaces being 31 spaces fewer than the 83 parking spaces required; further, this extension of the variance is granted for a period of one year and will expire at the end of the one-year period; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the parking lot, which has been installed and will meet parking requirements upon completion, has to remain unoccupied for at least six months to settle before it can be completed; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Schwartz, Nickerson, Reynolds, Campbell, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Granata. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell indicated that this Board denied this request for variance in August 2000 and the petitioner is requesting a reconsideration. He read into the record a letter dated October 2, 2000 from Nancy J. and Rick Ritz, 24343 Harrison, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, stating their objection.

Jim Budziak, 1257 Audubon, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan, explained that the house will meet both front yard and the west side yard setback requirements. He noted that the Ritz’s house borders the east property line, which meets the minimum required setback. He assured the sidewalk, which will be located in the easement between the property line and the street, will be constructed once the house is built.

Mr. Campbell clarified that this Board is not ruling on this request tonight but rather making the determination as to whether or not they will reconsider the request next month.

Mr. Budziak explained that when he originally presented his case to this Board in August, he made it sound as though the Township Board took action and would not permit a house smaller than 1400 square feet; however, it was not formal action by the Board but rather the suggestions of a few of the Board members. He noted that after being denied by this Board and talking with various members of the Township Board, they encouraged him to come back and request a reconsideration. He pointed out that this will be a very similar house to that owned by the Ritz’s. He also pointed out that the requested thirteen-foot side yard setback will not affect the entire depth of his property but rather only 30 of the 180 feet. He stressed that this is an odd-shaped lot and that is why he is having difficulty meeting the required setbacks.

Mr. Nickerson mentioned that although he was not present in August when this matter was acted upon, he could see grounds to grant a reconsideration hearing. He agreed that the petitioner was only referring to a small corner of the back of the house that would need the variance. He pointed out how the lot is triangular in shape and is located on a corner, resulting in larger setback requirements.

Mr. Reynolds stated that after looking at the sketch, he observed that the lot is definitely odd-shaped and he would support the reconsideration hearing.

Mr. Campbell maintained that this is still an unusual request from the Township Board to specify a minimum sized home larger than that required by the Township. He indicated that there are numerous ranch-style homes in the area and he could see nothing to substantiate reconsideration. He questioned whether there was a political motive in this case.

Mr. Marella assured that he had not been given any directive by the Board to grant this reconsideration.

Mr. Nickerson agreed and felt that the shape of the lot and being located on a corner would justify reconsideration.

Mr. Budziak reiterated that he did not receive a directive from the Township Board to build the homes a minimum of 1400 square feet; however, it was suggested by some of the Board members through conversations he has had with them. He assured it was not a mandate but it was suggested to him by the various Board members that he construct homes similar to those already in the area. He replied to inquiry that he agreed with those suggestions and would prefer to build a 1400-square-foot home.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5456 and application from S & B Development, P. O. Box 1184, Mount Clemens, Michigan 48046, as represented by James Budziak, 1257 Audubon, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan, regarding previous action taken by this Board on August 16, 2000, concerning Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-c; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Front and Side Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District for Lot 136, Arcadia Lodge Subdivision (Private Claim 316/645, Section 36), generally located at the northwest corner of Harrison and Union Lake Roads at 24353 Harrison, that a reconsideration hearing be granted to the petitioner, to be held at the Board of Appeals Meeting in December, to reconsider the denial of a variance to permit construction of a single-family residence on a corner lot in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with side yard setback from Union Lake Road of twelve (12) feet being thirteen (13) feet less than the minimum required setback of twenty-five (25) feet. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickerson, Schwartz, Reynolds, Catalano, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Absent – Granata. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there was one written reply received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question. He read the letter from Mr. Jerry Seay, attorney for the adjacent property owner, which indicated they are in objection to one of the variance requests.

James Hall, 20400 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, expressed confusion by the variance request for the front yard setback and indicated that on the site plan, they have provided a 30-foot setback for parking.

Ms. Sheridan clarified that the space between the road and the sidewalk is required road right-of-way and is not part of this property. She informed that the right-of-way cannot be considered part of the required setback.

Mr. Hall apologized and informed that Mr. Cataldo, the petitioner, could not be present tonight because of the death of his mother. He stated that he is here in Mr. Cataldo’s place; however, if there are specific questions that he cannot answer, he would prefer to have the matter tabled until Mr. Cataldo can be present to address these concerns.

Mr. Campbell explained that he examined the site plan and had a number of suggestions to make. He noted that there are a total of 54 parking spaces on the diagram and they are in need of forty-two spaces to fulfill ordinance requirements for parking. He suggested eliminating the 15 parking spaces in front of the building, resulting in 39 spaces and then scaling the building down to a size permitted for the 39 parking spaces provided. He felt that by then resituating the building, they may be able to eliminate the need for the south side yard setback and the front yard setback variances.

Mr. Hall agreed to request that the architect meet with Mr. Cassin to see what can be worked out with regard to redesigning the site.

Robert Weiss, 35829 Griswald, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, expressed questions about the proposed setback and the overall size of the building compared to the size of the parcel. He stated the width of this property encompasses three of the abutting residential lots and he questioned the height of the proposed building.

Mr. Marella replied that Mr. Hall is not prepared to answer architectural questions because he is not the architect. He pointed out that is why Mr. Hall is requesting that this matter be tabled. He questioned whether the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property will be notified of the continued public hearing.

Ms. Sheridan replied that if the matter is being tabled to a particular date, re-notification is not necessary; however, there will be a discussion later in this meeting to determine whether to reschedule December’s meeting and for that reason, re-notification to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property will be made.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that the height of a building in an industrial district is permitted to be a maximum of 35 feet, so the proposed 32-foot height is well within ordinance requirements.

Mr. Weiss complained that his lot is 1 ½ feet lower than the subject site so the building will appear taller from his property.

Jerry Seay, 16931 19 Mile Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, attorney for the adjacent property owner, stated they would like to work with the petitioner but wants to be kept informed as to what is being proposed.

Motion by Mr. Catalano, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5475 and application from Giovanni Vitale, 20400 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, as represented by Vincent Cataldo, Infuze Group, Architects, 15801 23 Mile Road, Macomb, Michigan 48042, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-(o), (q) and (r), Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area – Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Front Yard and Side Yard Setback Requirements in the I-1 Light Industrial District, concerning Lots 1 and 2, Cesar’s Industrial Subdivision (Section 28), generally located fronting the east line of Groesbeck Highway, north of 15 Mile Road at 35980 Groesbeck Highway, that further consideration of request for variance to permit demolition of an existing building (City Rhythm Lounge) and construction of a furniture manufacturing facility (Vi-Tech Furniture) in the I-1 Light Industrial District with: 1) Front yard setback of zero (0) feet being thirty (30) feet less than the required thirty (30) feet; and 2) Four (4) frontage trees being six (6) trees fewer than the required ten (10) frontage trees; and 3) No 30-inch high berm or wall between an off-street parking area and Groesbeck Highway (120 feet wide); and 4) South side yard setback of 18.47 feet; be tabled until the December Board of Appeals Meeting at the request of the representative due to the petitioner’s family emergency and his inability to attend tonight’s public hearing. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Catalano, Schwartz, Campbell, Nickerson, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Granata. Motion carried.

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

Robert Pelzel, of Tony V’s Sunrooms, 20330 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, representative, explained that the position of the house being on a curve creates a smaller rear yard setback than other homes in the area. He pointed out that they propose the room as narrow as possible; however, they will still need a variance. He replied to inquiry that they reduced the depth of the proposed room from 12 feet to 10 feet, but they still need a variance of about five feet.

Mr. Campbell questioned why the petitioner would want a room as narrow as ten feet.

Mr. Pelzel replied that they made the room narrower in an attempt to comply as much as possible with the existing ordinance requirements.

Mr. Campbell felt ten feet is extremely narrow for a room. He commented that he would prefer to grant a variance for an additional two feet to allow construction of a more suitably sized room.

Mr. Marella commented that such sunrooms are not unusual for this area and he recalled other similar variance requests being granted in this area.

Mr. Nickerson stated that he lives in the Rivergate Subdivision and he could see the practical difficulty with the way the roads curve. He concurred with Mr. Marella that other similar variances have been granted in this area.

Mr. Catalano questioned why the petitioner responded on the application that "sunrooms are permitted in all areas".

Mr. Pelzel referred to the portion of the petition referred to by Mr. Catalano and felt that it was a tricky question. He clarified that most homes in the single-family residential districts are permitted to add sunrooms.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5477 and application from Cheryl and Mike Smylnychy, 43600 Bayfield, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, as represented by Robert Pelzel, Tony V’s Sunrooms, 20330 Hall Road, 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; Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements for the R-4 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 30, Rivergate Meadows Subdivision #2 (Section 4), generally located fronting the north line of Bayfield, east of Welland at 43600 Bayfield, that variance be granted to permit construction of a "sun-room" addition for an existing single-family residence in the R-4 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of twenty-eight (28) feet being seven (7) feet less than the minimum required setback of thirty-five (35) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty being the curvature of the road and the garage-forward design, both setting the residence further back on the parcel; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Nickerson, Reynolds, Schwartz, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Granata. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were two 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 the letters from William and Judith Snell, 33223 Louise, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, and Robert and Michelle Taylor, 33222 Louise, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, both expressing opposition to the variance request.

Ken Smazel, 33187 Louise, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that he was originally going to connect the garage to the house with a breezeway, which would bring it into compliance; however, he has not had enough money to complete the breezeway. He informed that he recently remortgaged his house and he does not have enough equity in it to obtain sufficient funds for the breezeway addition.

Brian Gooderow, 33851 Louise, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated that he lives in the same neighborhood and although he did not come to this meeting tonight for this particular case, he urged the Board of Appeals to deny this request. He accused the petitioner of running an industrial business out of his home and complained that the house is an eyesore to the neighborhood.

Mr. Smazel assured that he is not running a business out of his residence. He replied to inquiry that he owns two trucks and his son also owns two trucks. He replied to further inquiry that he was told he could build a garage 12 feet in height and that is what he built.

Mr. Campbell felt the position of the windows in the petitioner’s garage indicate that there is a second story. He further commented that the door appears to be 10 feet in height, which could accommodate larger vehicles used for business. Mr. Campbell also reminded that financial hardships cannot be considered by this Board when determining whether or not to grant a variance.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the structure will be in compliance once the breezeway is completed.

Ms. Sheridan replied that the size of an attached garage is not limited; however, it is for a detached accessory structure. She replied to further inquiry that the square footage of the structure would not be an issue at such time as the breezeway is built to connect the two structures. She indicated, however, that the height may not necessarily comply.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the petitioner can propose a time frame in which he anticipates completing the breezeway.

Mr. Smazel replied that he cannot commit to a specific time frame because he recently remortgaged and there is not enough equity in the home to finance this addition. He replied to further inquiry that he did not receive final inspection; however, he did get a preliminary inspection. He informed that he was told at the preliminary inspection to install one more smoke detector in the hallway. He then had another inspection and was instructed to add another smoke detector.

Mr. Reynolds could see no hardship or practical difficulty. He explained the definition of hardship or practical difficulty to the petitioner.

Mr. Smazel clarified that he only needs a temporary variance until he can build the breezeway.

Mr. Nickerson reviewed that a violation was issued to the petitioner based on the fact that his garage exceeds maximum square footage requirements. He felt the matter would not be before this Board if it were not for the fact that this will be going to court.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to what will happen if this request is not approved by the Board of Appeals.

Mr. Marella replied that should this be denied by this Board, the outcome will be determined in court.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5479 and application from Ken Smazel, 33187 Louise, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298,01-(i), Supplementary Regulations: Accessory Structures (Including Garages), concerning Lot 60, Supervisor’s Plat of Heath Manor Subdivision (Section 33), generally located fronting the west line of Louise, north of 14 Mile Road at 33187 Louise, that request for variance to permit continued existence of two detached accessory structures (garage and shed) for a single-family residence in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with combined floor area of 1,075 square feet being 425 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted floor area of 650 square feet, be denied by reason that no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship was presented. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Reynolds, Schwartz, Nickerson, Marella. Nay – Catalano. Absent – Granata. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were three 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 the letters from Dale and Diane Leipzieg, 36057 Acton, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035 and Rita K. Haase, 36226 Acton, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, both expressing their support for the variance requests. He read a letter from an unidentified neighbor on Acton, indicating their opposition to the variance request.

Wolfgang Rechenbach, 36177 Acton, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, submitted some photographs of his recreational vehicle and his property. He explained that the extreme slope of the land prohibits him from storing his recreational vehicle on another part of the property. He further explained that he does not want to store his vehicle off-site because everything has to be removed first, including the batteries and the propane tanks. He was also concerned about the security of his vehicle when storing it off-site, and he feared that his insurance rates on the vehicle would be raised if it is stored off-site.

Steven Soley, 36363 Acton, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, complimented Mr. Rechenbach on his well-kept home and felt it is ironic he would have received a violation when there are construction and heavy equipment vehicles being stored up and down the street. He felt Mr. Rechenbach’s recreational vehicle is not a detriment to the neighborhood and he urged the Board to approve the variance.

Mr. Rechenbach explained that he went around to his neighbors prior to purchasing his recreational vehicle and explained to them what he proposed to do. He recalled that there were no objections from his neighbors, and he proceeded to purchase the vehicle and pour a cement slab for the purpose of storage. He commented that he can move it up slightly but he stressed that he does not have sufficient room on the side of the house and because of the slope of his property, he is unable to store it in the rear yard.

Mr. Catalano appreciated that the petitioner surveyed his neighbors prior to purchasing the R.V.; however, he stressed that there are ordinances that must be adhered to and questioned why the petitioner did not investigate these first. He explained the recent history of the ordinance governing recreational vehicles and noted that a committee, comprised of Township officials and recreational vehicle owners in the Township, came up with what they felt was a fair compromise. It was adopted by the Board, and everyone seemed to be satisfied. He informed that the vehicles cannot exceed 20 feet in length and must be stored on a concrete or asphalt slab behind the front line of the house and not within the required front yard or side yard setbacks.

Mr. Marella sympathized with the petitioner and agreed that the property slopes at such an angle that the recreational vehicle could not be accessed from the rear yard.

Mr. Rechenbach replied to inquiry that they frequently use their recreational vehicle throughout the spring, summer and fall. He replied to further inquiry that he does not store it because it would cost approximately $30 per month in storage, and he reiterated that his insurance rates would go up if it is stored off-site, plus it would involve a lot more maintenance work for him in removing propane tanks and batteries each time.

Mr. Campbell stated he is opposed to the requested variance and felt that granting variances based on the wishes of neighbors would be a bad idea and could set precedence. He felt if recreational vehicle owners are not satisfied with the ordinance, they should work together with the Township to see if the ordinance regulating RV’s can be amended. He acknowledged that enforcement in the Township is not on a regular basis and that is unfortunate; however, granting this variance could "open a floodgate" for other residents to make similar requests.

Mr. Nickerson stated having mixed emotions because he felt the petitioner should be commended for maintaining his property in an attractive manner. He also acknowledged that there is a slope on the side yard; however, he did not feel it is an insurmountable problem. He commented that campers, RV’s and boats are not permitted in driveways in Clinton Township and that is one of the factors that he feels makes this an attractive area to live. He felt that approving this variance would "open a can of worms" and he added that they would be usurping the ordinance requirements and the courts.

Ms. Schwartz disagreed and felt this lot is unique in that it is sloped and therefore there is no access to the rear yard to park the recreational vehicle as permitted.

Mr. Rechenbach stated if this RV were parked in the rear yard, he would need a special vehicle to pull it up the slope. He added that he would also have to relocate his air conditioner and electrical boxes, which would not be practical.

Mr. Catalano relayed an incident a week ago in the community where a number of vehicles parked in the street and in driveways had their windows broken out. He felt recreational vehicles would be safer in the rear yard.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5480 and application from Wolfgang Rechenbach, 36177 Acton, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.09-(a)-(2)-B, Supplementary Regulations: Open Storage of Vehicles, concerning part of Lot 29, Kelly-Nunneley Subdivision #1 (Section 28), generally located fronting the west line of Acton, south of 16 Mile Road (Metropolitan Parkway) at 36177 Acton, that variance be granted to permit continued parking of a recreational vehicle within the required front yard of a lot in the R-3 One-Family Residential District which is not allowed; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the slope leading to the rear yard cannot be altered so that access can be gained to store the recreational vehicle in the rear yard; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Motion failed for lack of support.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5480 and application from Wolfgang Rechenbach, 36177 Acton, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.09-(a)-(2)-B, Supplementary Regulations: Open Storage of Vehicles, concerning part of Lot 29, Kelly-Nunneley Subdivision #1 (Section 28), generally located fronting the west line of Acton, south of 16 Mile Road (Metropolitan Parkway) at 36177 Acton, that request for variance to permit continued parking of a recreational vehicle within the required front yard of a lot in the R-3 One-Family Residential District which is not allowed, be denied due to lack of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Nickerson, Catalano, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – Schwartz. Absent – Granata. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no letters 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.

Patrick Westerlund, Quinlan Associates, Inc., 31325 Harper, St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082, explained they tried to design this accessory building while eliminating any impact on the neighborhood. He showed the Board members the proposed site development plan and explained what they are proposing based on this plan.

Mike Aggeler, 38300 Sheffield, Clinton Township, Michigan, replied to inquiry that John’s Lumber has been doing extremely well with window replacement business and they need storage for this. He assured that this will not be an open storage area but will be enclosed with four walls and a roof.

Mr. Westerlund pointed out that they could position the proposed building closer to the existing building and meet ordinance requirements; however, they would like a little distance between the two buildings for fire safety.

Mr. Marella inquired as to whether the petitioner had considered combining the two lots to eliminate the need for building on the lot line. He pointed out that if this variance is granted without the lots being combined, the abutting property owner will have to build his structure a minimum of 20 feet from the lot line to provide the minimum 20-foot distance between the buildings.

Mr. Aggeler confirmed that they purchased additional footage and could possibly combine that with their existing property.

Mr. Campbell agreed that they should combine lots or even just the back portion of the adjacent 75 feet he purchased, and he would be able to continue to build and expand in the future without additional variances.

Mr. Aggeler replied to inquiry that he purchased this property as one parcel, so he did not feel he would have any trouble combining the lots.

Mr. Catalano suggested that Mr. Aggeler go to the Department of Assessing and they will be able to help him so that he can combine the lots.

Mr. Marella agreed that combining the lots would be the simplest solution, although he admitted that the petitioner may still find he is in need of a front yard setback variance.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to whether it would be appropriate for this Board to grant a front yard setback variance so the petitioner does not have to come back before this Board.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that on the lot adjacent to the lot they want to combine, there is an existing single-family residence which is zoned B-3 and is non-conforming. He noted that any actions affecting that parcel would require a variance to allow the non-conforming use to continue. He added that he would have no problem with that because it is a transitional neighborhood and he predicted that the house would eventually be torn down and the use of the property would be brought into conformance at that time.

Mr. Aggeler noted that, coincidentally, the non-conforming house being referred to is owned by the brother of Mr. Paul Robinson, Township Assessor.

Ms. Sheridan replied to inquiry that non-conforming uses are not encouraged and that is why certain restrictions are placed upon them. She replied to further inquiry that if the building is vacated for a period of 30 days, it must revert to the use allowed in the current zoning district.

Mr. Catalano expounded that changes can be made to the inside of a legal non-conforming structure; however, they cannot change the outside of the building.

Mr. Aggeler explained that Mr. Robinson’s father worked for him for many years and he is letting him use this house as a favor.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5481 and application from Mike Aggeler, John’s Lumber, P. O. Box 828, Mount Clemens, Michigan 48046-0828, as represented by Patrick D. Westerlund, Quinlan Associates, 31325 Harper Avenue, St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082, 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 B-3 General Business 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 B-3 General Business District, concerning Lots 35 and 36, Supervisor’s Plat of McKishine Farms Subdivision (Section 34), generally located fronting the north line of McKishine, west of Gratiot Avenue, that variance be granted to permit construction of an accessory storage building for an existing business (John’s Lumber) in the B-3 General Business District with front yard setback from McKishine Avenue of ten (10) feet being fifteen (15) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on the practical difficulty that it represents a continuation of the existing traffic pattern and allows use of the property without an additional curb cut; further, the request for variance to permit a west side yard setback of zero (0) feet being ten (10) feet less than the minimum required ten (10) feet, is no longer needed due to the fact that the petitioner has agreed to combine a portion of the adjacent property to the west with the subject property, thereby meeting minimum setback requirements; further, that the lot to the west, currently zoned B-3 General Business, be granted a variance to allow continuance of a non-conforming use based upon desirability of combining the lots to allow proper distances between the proposed building and any future buildings on the adjacent property, and to insure fire safety; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Nickerson, Reynolds, Schwartz, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Granata. 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.

Steven Soley, 36363 Acton, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, submitted a letter containing signatures of neighbors who offered no objection to the variance request. He explained that prior to installing a cement pad on the side of his house, he was issued a list of preliminary requirements, one of which stated the RV cannot measure longer than twenty feet and another requirement indicated that he needs to store it on a cement or asphalt slab. He felt he was in compliance because his RV measures 19 feet in length and he prepared a slab for the purpose of storing his trailer. He explained that he plans on installing a wooden fence to extend from the corner of his garage to the lot line. He pointed out that he has a Cape Cod-style home and although it is narrow, it is too long to provide him with a sufficient side yard to store the camper. Mr. Soley replied to inquiry that the pad was poured approximately two feet from the lot line. He noted that in order to meet the required setback, he would be forced to store the RV in his rear yard. He claimed that in order to do this, he would be forced to fill in the slope in an attempt to level it off and he would also be parked immediately adjacent to his patio, which he does not feel would be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Soley explained that he is installing the fence for privacy and safety so that from the street, no one can tell if his camper is gone and come to the conclusion that they are out of town.

Wolfgang Rechenbach, 36177 Acton, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, a neighbor, pointed out that the petitioner’s camper is under the 20-foot maximum length requirement and is not in the front yard. He felt that if he installs the wooden privacy fence, the camper will not be seen and there should be no problem. He urged the Board to grant this variance request.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the petitioner will be in compliance if he obscures the camper with a fence.

Mr. Soley informed that he called the Township to find out the guidelines and was told he had to stay 4 feet from the lot line; however, he was also told the camper could not be parked in the required front yard or side yard setback, which would mean he would have to stay 8 feet from the edge of the property. He replied to inquiry that the slab is approximately 1 foot from the lot line.

Ms. Schwartz recalled a previous request looked at by this Board where a resident on Moravian wanted to keep three utility vehicles and was going to put up a fence to hide the vehicles. She inquired as to whether the petitioner will be in compliance by putting up a fence even though his vehicle would be parked within the required side yard setback inside that fence.

Ms. Sheridan replied that the fence has nothing to do with this variance request and whether or not he installs a fence will not bring him into compliance with the side yard setback requirement.

Mr. Nickerson stated he would be more inclined to look favorably on this particular request rather than the previous request in this neighborhood heard earlier because the RV is behind the front line of the house, and also because a fence will be installed that will obscure it from view. He pointed out that there would be approximately 20 feet from the camper to the abutting property owner’s house and he felt that with the combination of large lots, a large distance between homes, and privacy fences, the Ordinance Update Committee could look at this in the future to determine whether it would be feasible to allow parking of an RV within the side yard setback in this instance.

Mr. Campbell commented that the ordinance is very specific when it states that recreational vehicles are not allowed to be parked in front yard or the required side yard setbacks. He expressed concern that this will "open the floodgates" to hundreds of residents who will want to make similar requests. He felt that to grant relief on a case-by-case basis is not appropriate. He further felt that if there is a group of RV owners who want to see this changed, they should get together and petition the Township for an amendment to the ordinance. He replied to inquiry that if the petitioner is denied and has to tear up the slab as a result, this would be considered financial and that cannot be looked at by this Board. He stated that because the slab is in place should not be reason enough for this Board to grant the variance request.

Mr. Nickerson stated that while he would be willing to look at this and felt the ordinance governing recreational vehicles could be re-examined, he agreed with the comments made by Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Reynolds agreed with Mr. Nickerson and questioned the petitioner when the fence is being proposed to be installed.

Mr. Soley responded that he would like to install the fence in early spring. He added that he is out of time before winter, and although he would have liked to have had it done already, he has not had the opportunity as they recently had a baby.

Discussion took place regarding the violation and how the matter was brought to the attention of the Ordinance Enforcement division.

Mr. Rechenbach stated some of the residents on Acton received violations based on a complaint filed by the "South End Clean-Up Committee". He does not know who this is or why they picked on this particular street.

Mr. Soley challenged that when he questioned the regulations regarding the parking of RV’s, he was given a list that left room for interpretation. He stated he was told it could be parked on his property as long as it was less than 20 feet, had a proper slab for a base, and was not parked in front of the house. He made sure he complied with all of these requirements. He stated that if this is denied, he will be forced to park it in the rear yard and pour another slab. He added that he will still be putting up a privacy fence.

Ms. Sheridan explained that when the Ordinance Enforcement division was in the Planning Department, the large number of complaints about recreational vehicles being parked in driveways is what brought this to the attention of the Ordinance Update Committee. She replied to inquiry that as long as the RV is not longer than twenty feet, it can be stored in a rear yard but cannot be located in a front yard or required side yard setback. She explained the option for those who cannot comply is to park it in an approved storage facility for recreational vehicles. She replied to further inquiry that the required side yard setback in the petitioner’s zoning district is eight feet, so he would need to provide at least eight feet from the edge of his camper to the property line.

Mr. Soley disagreed with the concept of the ordinance and felt this will encourage "parking lots of cement" in the rear yards.

Mr. Catalano clarified that the required slab for RV storage can be asphalt or gravel and does not have to be cement.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5483 and application from Steven Soley, 36363 Acton, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.09-(a)-(2)-B, Supplementary Regulations; Open Storage of Vehicles, concerning Lot 22, Kelly-Nunneley Subdivision #1 (Section 28), generally located fronting the west line of Acton, south of 16 Mile Road at 36363 Acton, that request for variance to permit continued parking of a recreational vehicle within the required side yard of a lot in the R-3 One-Family Residential District which is not allowed, be denied by reason that there is no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Schwartz, Campbell, Reynolds, Nickerson, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Granata. 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.

Richard Lewandowski, 21206 Woodward, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that they are trying to do some remodeling to their home. He stated that they abut commercial property and when they purchased this house, it was in disrepair and had been built in stages. He noted that it is in need of a new roof and rather than try to install a roof with gables and valleys to match the current roofline, they would like to add a second floor at this time.

Christine Lewandowski, 21206 Woodward, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that there are only two bedrooms in the house now and that her dad currently does not have a bedroom.

Mr. Nickerson understood the home to be back against the concrete wall when he purchased the property and he inquired as to whether he is proposing to add a second floor to improve the home from the condition it was in at the time of purchase.

Mr. Lewandowski stated he would like to add to the front because he has a larger front yard setback than required.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to how a matter such as this can be handled when the petitioner purchased a house in non-compliance.

Ms. Sheridan replied that the variance request is just one of the matters that needs to be dealt with on this house. She understood that there are a number of other violations, such as not having plans submitted, building with used construction materials, not obtaining a permit, and connecting the existing house to the existing garage, which is creating a rear yard that is even more deficient than what is existing.

Considerable discussion took place regarding the layout of the lot and the placement of the existing house on the lot.

Mr. Lewandowski replied to inquiry that there will be four bedrooms upstairs and four bedrooms downstairs.

Mr. Campbell stated it seems as though they are "designing the property as they go along" and he felt it may be appropriate to table the matter so they can come up with some plans. He stressed that he has no problem with approving a variance which would improve the property; however, he felt there should be an appropriate set of plans so the best remedy can be examined. He did not want to deny this request because the petitioner has paid his fee and it is obvious that any type of improvement will require a variance. He suggested tabling the matter to give the petitioner an opportunity to prepare plans, which they will need to present to the Building Department after any approval by this Board.

Mr. Lewandowski stated he drew up the plans submitted to the best of his ability.

Mr. Marella stressed that the petitioner needs plans that meet the standards of the Building Department codes. He suggested that the petitioner contact Clintondale High School and possibly talk to Mr. Bill Hallendy, who may be able to have his students draw up something for a class project. He told the petitioner to let Mr. Hallendy know he was referring him.

Mr. Catalano suggested that the petitioner obtain a Homeowner’s permit, which would permit him to start work on the inside of the house, although he would not be able to do anything on the outside. He replied that a Homeowner’s Permit does not require submitting a set of site plans.

Mr. Nickerson clarified that to issue a Homeowner’s Permit, the Building Department requires a set of site plans.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5484 and application from Christine Lewandowski, 21206 Woodward, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Richard Lewandowski, same address, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lots 824 and 825, Gratiot City Subdivision (Section 34), generally located fronting the south line of Woodward, west of Gratiot Avenue at 21206 Woodward, that further consideration of request for variance to permit the continued construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence connecting an existing detached garage to the principal structure in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of six (6) feet being twenty-nine (29) feet less than the minimum required thirty-five (35) feet, be tabled for up to one year to allow the petitioner to develop and submit plans acceptable to the Building Department. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Reynolds, Schwartz, Nickerson, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Granata. Motion carried.

Ms. Sheridan advised the petitioner to obtain a survey. She informed that generally the mortgage survey is provided upon purchase of the home.

Mr. Lewandowski explained that they purchased the home 2 ½ years ago through an auction and they paid cash, so they do not have a mortgage survey.

Ms. Sheridan explained that Mr. Lewandowski will have to have a land surveyor conduct a survey of the property and that is the first step.

Mr. Campbell requested the following changes be made:

Page 7, Last Paragraph, Second Line from the Bottom:
Change from: "…does not opt for the alternatives is financial."
Change to: "…is asking for the current proposal is financial."

Page 13, Paragraph 7, Line 2:
Change from: "…placed on the North side of the building…"
Change to: "…placed on the South side of the building…"

Page 13, Paragraph 10, Line 4:
Change from: "He did not feel a sign on the North side would…"
Change to: "He did not feel a sign on the South side would…"

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2000 Meeting with the three changes requested. Motion carried.

Mr. Nickerson noted that he will not be able to attend the Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for December 20, 2000 as he will be out of town. He questioned whether it would be advantageous to reschedule the meeting to December 13 due to the fact that the regularly scheduled date is so close to Christmas.

It was determined that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals will be held on Wednesday, December 13, 2000 at 6:30 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS