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

STAFF:           Mark F. Miller, Assistant Director
                        DEPT. 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 emphasized that the petitioners must present a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. He also noted that a motion would need four votes in favor in order to pass.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Ms. Granata, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell indicated that this is a request for reconsideration of a decision made by this Board at their October meeting.

Mr. Marella inquired as to what circumstances have changed since the last meeting that would warrant reconsideration by this Board.

Dave Manore, 38575 Albert, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, indicated that at the last meeting there was discussion about the drain easement on his property and it was estimated to measure 3 feet; however, he has since obtained documentation that the easement is 12-1/2 feet. He stressed that he cannot build on an easement and although he is permitted to install a driveway on the easement, he would have to replace the driveway at his own expense if work ever had to be done on the drain, which has happened on occasion in the past. He added that the Health Department has indicated he cannot build a garage in the rear yard because of the required distance between the septic tank and the septic field.

Mr. Campbell understood that this matter is not to be acted upon tonight but rather a decision will be made by this Board whether or not to place it on the next agenda for reconsideration.

Mr. Miller confirmed that the actual reconsideration would not take place at this meeting, but this Board is to determine whether or not there is enough new information to warrant a reconsideration of this case.

Mr. Campbell felt the petitioner has presented sufficient documentation to warrant a re-hearing.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5364 and request for reconsideration of the Board of Appeal’s decision in October regarding application from David Manore, 38575 Albert Boulevard, 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 Front Yard Setback Requirements for the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 50, Albert’s Subdivision (P.C. 173, Section 24), generally located fronting the west line of Albert Boulevard, north of Sherbeck at 38575 Albert Boulevard, that Mr. Manore’s request for reconsideration of this Board’s action taken at their October meeting, as presented in his letter dated October 28, 1999, be granted and that said matter will be placed on the agenda for the December 15, 1999 Public Hearing for reconsideration. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Cannon, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Schwartz, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Mr. Manore inquired as to how he can address his neighbor’s concerns regarding "negative impact on the neighborhood". He felt that is a subjective term and what may be considered by one person to be "negative" may be considered by another to be "positive".

Mr. Miller replied that Mr. Manore must attempt to demonstrate why it is not possible to use the backyard for a garage.

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.

Al Arcicovich, 31655 San Juan, Harrison Township, Michigan 48045, petitioner, offered to answer any questions the Board may have.

Rich Rizzo, Lehner Associates, 17001 Nineteen Mile Road, Suite #3, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that the subject property is zoned B-3 and he would like to develop it as commercial. He noted that the petitioner currently has a 1500-square-foot showroom located north of Harrington on southbound Gratiot Avenue and a 3800-square-foot warehouse located in the vicinity of Groesbeck and Hall Road. He commented that the purpose of the proposed development is to consolidate everything, but because of the shallow depth of the lot and his attempt to meet minimum parking requirements, he is requesting the front yard setback variances. Mr. Rizzo noted that they were not aware of the required twenty trees within the setback from Meadowdale Drive when the landscape plans were drawn, but he assured they are willing to plant these and will not need this particular variance. He stated that regarding their request for a variance on the 30-inch-high berm, they would like to combine a berm and plantings to achieve a total of 30 inches.

Mr. Arcicovich stressed that the combination berm/plantings would be aesthetically pleasing.

Mr. Rizzo noted that because of the steep slope required for a 30-inch berm when considering their available space, they felt they could better achieve a 1-1/2 to 2 foot berm with plantings on top to achieve an overall height of 30".

Mr. Campbell noted that this is a very narrow lot situated between two streets and the circumstances of having frontage on two streets makes it an extremely difficult situation. He felt this is a good plan to enable use of the property as zoned.

Mr. Marella felt there is a "lot of building" on a small piece of property and inquired as to whether the building could be smaller.

Ms. Schwartz computed that if the petitioner were to comply with ordinance requirements, he would be left with a building measuring 17-1/2 feet in width, which is not feasible.

Ms. Granata felt it is very clear that these variances are necessary and she added that the petitioner has been in business in the area for a long time.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5372 and application from Al Arcicovich, P. O. Box 463208, Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48046, as represented by Rich Rizzo, Lehner Associates, Inc., 17001 Nineteen Mile Road, Suite #3, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, 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; Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements in the B-3 General Business District, concerning Lots 28 through 31, inclusive, The Meadows Subdivision (P.C. 138, Section 23), generally located fronting the east line of Northbound Gratiot Avenue, south of Harrington, that variance be granted to permit construction of a retail building (proposed House of Floors Commercial Center) in the B-3 General Business District with: 1) Front yard setback from Gratiot Avenue of ten (10) feet being fifteen (15) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; and 2) Front yard setback from Meadowdale Drive of seven (7) feet being eighteen (18) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; and 3) a berm to be located between parking areas and Meadowdale Drive measuring no less than eighteen (18) inches in height, being twelve (12) inches less than the minimum required thirty (30) inches; further, these variances are based on claimed practical difficulty of the shallow depth of the lot and that the property is located between two right-of-ways, requiring two front yard setbacks; 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, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Mr. Miller reminded the petitioner that sidewalks must be shown on the plan along Meadowdale Drive.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there was one written letter 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. This letter was from Harold Boatman, 15634 Sunday Silence Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, representing Steeplechase Condominium Association.

Kim Burnette, 36000 Moravian Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, questioned how this Board can make a decision if they do not have any drawings. She indicated that she has ten copies of plans drawn to scale and inquired as to whether the Board of Appeals members would like to have these distributed at this time.

Mr. Marella indicated that they have sketches in their packages but welcomed Ms. Burnette to distribute the sketches she had prepared.

Ms. Burnette distributed the sketches to the Board members. She explained that a 6-foot high privacy fence surrounds their property, but she still contacted her abutting neighbors regarding the proposed plan and presented letters from them in favor of the variance request. She found it ironic that anyone in Steeplechase Condominiums would complain about her property, because she indicated that each time someone pulls out of the Steeplechase development, their headlights shine directly into her three-year-old’s window.

Mr. Campbell read letters supporting the variance request from the following: Rick Commisso, 15885 Venice; Joe & Marilyn Malick, 15903 Venice; and William P. Gerly and Gino Gianetti, 15867 Venice.

Ms. Burnette indicated that she was an employee of a former business in this home prior to being the owner when this business, "Brides To Be", moved to a new location. She explained that she was unaware of the ordinance restricting the storage of trailers, but pointed out that she has a large lot. She indicated there was some discrepancy between information received from Mr. Steve Cassin, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development and Mr. Bob Nader, Ordinance Enforcement Officer. She recalled being told by Mr. Cassin that although she could build a garage to house her trailers, it may be easier to come before this Board with a variance request; however, Mr. Nader told her that this was not correct and she would be unable to store the trailers on this site. Ms. Burnette stressed that she has invested a lot of money in this property and the value of her property has increased dramatically. She added that she takes a lot of pride in her home and keeps it immaculate.

Mr. Miller explained that this variance request originated from a violation issued by Mr. Nader; however, the violation does not cite the specific portion of this section of the Ordinance. He interpreted the ordinance to allow two utility trailers as open storage under the recreational vehicle category. He informed that home occupations are allowed in the residential district and he reviewed the ordinance requirements as relates to home occupations. He reminded that the business in a residential district is not being considered tonight, but rather the request to store five (5) utility trailers, being three (3) vehicles in excess of the maximum permitted.

Ms. Granata felt that this is a matter of interpretation but added that this Board must address the specific request.

Shirley M. Doetsch, 15744 Winner’s Circle, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, expressed her opposition to the variance request. She complained that the workers returning these trailers slam their doors in the middle of the night, this area is kept lighted until all workers return, and upon their return, they sit in the open garage and visit in a boisterous manner until as late as 4:15 a.m. She indicated that she once called the police; however, they stopped shortly after and she cancelled the call. She felt the petitioners were aware of the residential nature of this area prior to purchasing this property, and she ventured to add that the letters in favor of the proposed variance were from residents on Venice, who would not be directly affected from these trailers.

John Trupiano, 15764 Winner’s Circle, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, questioned whether this is a residential or commercial area. He felt if the petitioners wish to run a business, they should operate it in a commercially zoned area. He complained that there are often as many as eight vehicles parked in the front driveway, and he complained about the excess traffic and noise generated by this business. He inquired as to how he can file a complaint and receive an answer as to why this commercial business can be operated in a residential area.

Elizabeth Trupiano, 15764 Winner’s Circle, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated she has observed more than two trailers on many occasions.

Mr. Marella explained that the petitioners are here tonight because they would like permission to store their five trailers.

Ms. Trupiano expressed opposition to the variance request and noted that although a business has been operated from this location for many years, they did not hear any noise when it was a bridal shop, whereas they have to put up with the noise this particular business generates.

Jerry Latimer, 15844 Horseshoe Path Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated opposition to the operation of a commercial business in a residential area. He felt this will have a detrimental effect on the property values of nearby Steeplechase Condominiums.

Ms. Doetsch accused the petitioners of not having any consideration for their neighbors.

Ms. Burnette apologized to the residents who felt they are not good neighbors, but she maintained that their business does not generate excess noise. She explained that she has three children, ages 7 months, 3 years and 8 years old, and she would not permit excess noise that would keep them up. She maintained that she can park twenty cars in her driveway every day if she wishes to have her family over and she challenged that is not against the ordinance. She stressed that she is not trying to depreciate the value of her home or her neighbor’s homes and did not feel her business is doing that.

Ms. Granata pointed out that the ordinance permits two recreational vehicles in the rear yard; however, she felt these should be considered business vehicles. She noted that although she respects Ms. Burnette and her business, she felt these trailers should not be stored on the residential property. She recalled similar requests in the past for storage of limousines, but it was not permitted. She expressed opposition to the variance request.

Ms. Burnette pointed out that there is a landscaping company a short distance away that stores their equipment on residential property.

Ms. Schwartz requested a clarification as to whether the ordinance stipulates "two vehicles" or "two recreational vehicles" are permitted.

Mr. Miller responded that the ordinance clearly states "recreational vehicles". He read the definition for recreational vehicles, but stated he was not aware of where the planner got the information regarding utility trailers.

Ms. Schwartz felt the petitioners have come to the right Board to request the variance; however, she inquired as to their options if they are denied and whether Mr. Cassin’s suggestion for them to construct a building to store these vehicles on site would be permitted.

Mr. Miller responded that according to the Planning Department, these are utility trailers and the analysis prepared by the Planning Department indicates that the petitioner is storing three vehicles in excess of the maximum permitted two such vehicles. He stated that is the variance request placed before this Board tonight.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the three vehicles in excess could be parked in a garage on site.

Mr. Miller responded that this would be allowed, unless the running of the business is to such an extreme that it is above and beyond what is considered a "home occupation".

Considerable discussion took place regarding whether these excess vehicles could be stored inside an accessory structure.

Mr. Miller reminded that a home occupation is supposed to be contained within the confines of the home; however, they are allowed two utility trailers on the premises.

Mr. Campbell felt the question of interpretation arises. He pointed out that one portion of the ordinance refers to "recreational vehicles" and makes no mention of "utility trailers". He commented, however, that a home occupation is not to generate extra traffic or parking needs, and he felt an external effect is being created as a result of this business. He further felt the issue they are looking at tonight is a home occupation creating the need for the requested variance.

Ms. Schwartz assured that she does not want to give Mr. and Mrs. Burnette false information but rather information so they are aware of their legal options according to the ordinance.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5375 and application from Kimberly Burnette, Music Box Mobile DJ, Inc., 36000 Moravian Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.09-(a)-(2)-C; Supplementary Regulations; Open Storage of Vehicles, concerning Lots 22 through 30, inclusive, Superhighway City Subdivision (Section 30), generally located fronting the south line of Moravian Drive, east of Utica Road at 36000 Moravian Drive, that request for variance to permit the open storage of five (5) utility trailers on a parcel of land in the R-3 One-Family Residential District being three (3) vehicles in excess of the maximum permitted two (2) such vehicles, be denied by reason that no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship were presented, and further, that this is a residential area. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Reynolds, Schwartz, Campbell, Nickerson, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Mr. Trupiano inquired as to who he can contact about this situation to address a complaint.

Mr. Miller replied that the Building Department handles ordinance enforcement matters. He noted that a violation has already been issued and if it is not resolved, it will go through the court system.

The meeting recessed at 7:28 p.m. and reconvened at 7:37 p.m.

14.96 ACRES OF LAND FRONTING THE EAST LINE OF HAYES ROAD, SOUTH OF HALL ROAD (M-59) (SECTION 6)
-- APPEAL: LOWE’S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE
FILE #5376: JOE HILTON, LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC.
REPRESENTATIVE: DAVID C. OAKES; CESO, INC.

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.

David Oakes, CESO, Inc., 7725 Paragon Road, Dayton, Ohio 45459, explained that they are requesting variances for both the building and lawn signs. They would like to be able to provide two additional wall signs that would indicate their garden center and their lumber area. He felt that because of the massive size of the building, these signs would be considered of a more directional nature and will aid in the safety issue for customers "criss-crossing" the parking lot in an attempt to locate certain areas of the store. Mr. Oakes noted that they are requesting larger signs along Hall Road and Hayes Road due to the fact that there are actually two parcels and although one will remain vacant at this time, they would like a combination sign that will serve both developments. He pointed out that the total square footage is less than what would be allowed for two individual signs advertising separate businesses. He indicated that the current tenant does not have frontage on Hall Road but would like to be able to advertise on Hall along with whatever tenant will eventually be locating there.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether this is one development to be built in phases or whether these are separate parcels.

Mr. Miller replied that these are separate parcels of land.

Mr. Oakes replied to inquiry that Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse will be located on approximately 4.69 acres.

Mr. Miller stated he could see a problem with this because he questioned how a variance can be granted when it is a separate parcel.

Mr. Campbell observed that in looking at the drawings for the lawn signs measuring 14 feet high by 9 feet across, the measurement should be determined by the total height multiplied by the total width and not determined by the measurement of the separate panels. He felt the calculations were made as though these were pylon signs and not lawn signs.

Mr. Miller replied that he would have to check to see if the base is included in determining total signage area for a lawn sign. He acknowledged that the base is not always included because if it does not contain graphics, it can be considered more of a support system. He noted that in this particular case, the base measures 3 feet 3 inches in height, which he added is very tall for this type of sign. He indicated that on occasion lawn signs are raised up to meet the height of a pylon sign, which he felt does not meet the intent of the ordinance.

Mr. Campbell recalled considerable discussion taking place in the past by this Board with regards to the minimum six-foot clearance of pylon signs. He stated the sign ordinance was designed to enable motorists to see over lawn signs and under pylon signs. He questioned the calculation of a 455-square-foot display area for the wall sign and how that total was determined. He felt the background color was more of an architectural design and should not be construed as part of the sign.

Mr. Miller explained that when determining the display area, the geometric shape including the extreme limits is taken into consideration. He relayed his discussions with Ms. Sheridan, who considered a portion of this as architectural treatment. He cited Hollywood Video as an example of a sign that has geometric shape as well as lettering.

Mr. Oakes stated that they were with the understanding that the Lowe’s wall sign met the ordinance requirements; however, the "garden" and "lumber" signs placed them over the maximum total square footage requirement of 200 feet. He specified that the wall sign on the front of the building is permitted a total of 200 square feet, as well as the wall sign on the side of the building. He felt the excess is a result of adding the "garden" and "lumber" signs. Mr. Oakes replied to inquiry that their corporate colors are gray and blue. He replied to further inquiry that the color of the wall behind the lettering is "Lowe’s blue" and is also used on other parts of the building.

Mr. Miller acknowledged that the lettering is not extremely large, but when looking at the background on which the letters are being presented, it is a very large area.

Mr. Campbell felt they need to clarify their interpretation. He calculated that the lettering totals 196 square feet and since there is nothing special about the blue background with neon, etc., it should not be included in the total square footage determination.

Mr. Miller admitted that it is difficult to review whether the blue background is part of the sign or an architectural treatment. He felt Ms. Irene Sheridan, Community Planner I who did the analysis, was being conservative, keeping in mind the Board’s wishes in not wanting large signs to infiltrate the community.

Ms. Granata recalled a similar case for a gas station/convenience store where a colored stripe was not counted toward the total square footage of the sign.

Mr. Campbell agreed that the two additional signs proposed for "garden" and "lumber" could be considered a form of directional signs and are important for the health, welfare and safety of the customers. He did not feel, however, that the proposed lawn signs meet the intent of the ordinance with their extreme height. He felt they would be a detriment to motorists. He also acknowledged that although they may like the idea of providing both businesses with signage on Hall Road that should be addressed when that particular site is developed.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to the petitioner’s hardship or practical difficulty for requesting the 14-foot height of the lawn signs.

Mr. Oakes replied that they would like to put two signs on one monument sign and need the additional height to physically provide for these signs. He reiterated that each sign measures approximately 85 square feet, which makes both signs individually compliant with the sign ordinance; however, since they want to put them together on one sign, they exceed ordinance requirements.

Mr. Nickerson recalled that Lowe’s previously came before this Board for a variance and inquired as to whether they assured at that time that they would not be coming back for a sign variance.

Mr. Campbell relayed that a variance was previously granted to the petitioner for the height of the building and it was his contention at the time that possibly the petitioner would be back to request a sign variance. He recalled some conversation at that time by the petitioner who indicated that they were looking into providing joint signage for the two parcels.

Mr. Oakes emphasized that he tried to make it clear at that time that the developer wants joint signage and that they anticipated coming back to the Board for that request.

Mr. Miller inquired as to why Mr. Stuart Frankel, owner of the property, did not submit a letter stating that he would be willing to give up any sign rights if the variance is granted.

Mr. Oakes felt confident that Mr. Frankel would be willing to provide such statement and that could be a condition of the variance, if granted.

Ms. Granata requested that if a motion is made, each item should be voted on separately.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5376 and application from Joe Hilton, Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Highway 268 East, East Dock, North Wilkesboro, North Carolina 28659, as represented by David C. Oakes, P.E., CESO, Inc., 7725 Paragon Road, Dayton, Ohio 45459, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-A-1; and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-A-2; and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-C-1; and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-C-2; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business Sign" and "Wall Sign", concerning 14.96 acres of land fronting the east line of Hayes Road, south of Hall Road (M-59) (Section 6), that request for variance to permit installation of two (2) business lawn signs and four (4) business wall signs for a proposed retail development (Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse) on a parcel of land fronting Hayes Road (120’ right-of-way) and Hall Road (greater than 120’ right-of-way) in the B-2 Community Business District, with: 1) Lawn signs each having display area of 171 square feet, sign being 71 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 100 square feet and one sign being 51 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 120 square feet; and 2) Lawn signs each having height of 14 feet, each being 6 feet in excess of the maximum permitted height of 8 feet, be denied by reason that no hardship or practical difficulty was demonstrated; further, that the Board of Appeals’ interpretation of the request for 3) One (1) wall sign having display area of 455 square feet being 255 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 200 square feet, is such that the signs total 196 square feet each, based on the interpretation that the blue background is not considered part of the signage, and therefore, a variance is not necessary; further, that variance be granted to approve 4) Two (2) wall signs in excess of the maximum permitted two (2) wall signs, based on the claimed practical difficulty that the signs are in the best interest of public safety as "directional" signs; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances; further, that request for variance to permit 5) One (1) wall sign extending 13 inches beyond the surface of the building wall being one (1) inch in excess of the maximum permitted 12 inches, be denied by reason that no hardship or practical difficulty was demonstrated.

Roll Call Votes:

Item 1): Aye – Campbell, Schwartz, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Item 2): Aye – Campbell, Schwartz, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Item 3): Aye – Campbell, Schwartz, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Item 4): Aye – Campbell, Schwartz, Granata, Marella. Nay – Nickerson, Reynolds. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Item 5): Aye – Campbell, Schwartz, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.


LOT 10, MORAVIAN DRIVE FARMS SUBDIVISION (P.C. 137, SECTIONS 16/21)
-- APPEAL: CENTRAL BAPTIST CHURCH
FILE #5377: CENTRAL BAPTIST CHURCH
REPRESENTATIVE: MICHAEL W. NARDIN, PASTOR

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.

Pastor Michael Nardin, 38900 Moravian, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, introduced Mr. Robert Zantner, architect, and explained that their congregation currently has approximately 100 members. He stressed that they do not anticipate needing additional parking for a long time; however, the church is asking for relief to provide a "land bank" where the necessary parking spaces can be provide in the future as necessary.

Teri Grucz, 38920 Moravian Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, inquired as to clarification of what is being proposed. She replied to inquiry that she lives north of the subject property.

Mr. Marella clarified that the church would like to obtain their Certificate of Occupancy and cannot do so until the site plan requirements are met, which include installation of 83 parking spaces. He noted that the petitioner is requesting permission to set aside the land for 31 of those spaces and put in 52 spaces at this time, and that when the church grows, they would put in the last 31 spaces.

Mr. Miller explained that this is a request for a variance on their parking; however, the church is willing to reserve an area to complete their parking requirements in the future.

Ms. Grucz noted that sewers have not been installed in the area and she questioned whether this will be done before the parking lot goes in.

Mr. Miller assured that the concerns expressed by Ms. Grucz are a matter of construction scheduling and this Board does not have the jurisdiction to handle that matter. He explained that the Planning Department is requested by the Building Department to inspect the site and if they have not met all of the requirements as indicated on the site plan, they are not given a certificate of occupancy and they are denied refund of their Site Plan Compliance Bond.

Mr. Campbell felt the Township’s parking requirement formula for churches is fairly accurate. He stated he has yet to see a church that gets full inside before the parking lot fills up. He actually felt that 1 parking space for every 2-1/2 seats would be more accurate. He sympathized with the church but questioned what will happen on heavily attended days such as Easter or Christmas. He noted that they will not be able to utilize the "land-banked" area for parking because it would not have the same grade. He feared the overflow parking will end up along Moravian Drive, creating serious problems.

Pastor Nardin indicated that he has been the pastor of this church for five years and he assured that there has never been overflow parking on Moravian. He pointed out that even on their most heavily attended days, they have been able to use a grassy area. He explained that their congregation rapidly grew to eighty or ninety members but there has not been a lot of growth since that time. He felt that the building dictates how many members they will have, and he noted that the addition will provide them with room for Sunday School, which he felt will eventually bring in additional members. He estimated that they may reach a membership of 200 to 250 within a couple of years and he assured they will increase their parking before it reaches that point.

Ms. Grucz replied to inquiry that she has never witnessed any type of parking problem and she added that parking along Moravian is prohibited so she did not anticipate that as being a problem.

Discussion took place regarding when the parking requirements will be enforced and whether any variance granted should be considered temporary with an expiration date.

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 W. Nardin, 27376 Blum, Roseville, Michigan 48066, for variance to 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 variance 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 grant of variance is valid for a period of one (1) year until November 17, 2000, at which time this Board is to review it; further, this grant of variance is based on the practical difficulty that at this point, membership in this congregation totals 100, making 52 parking spaces adequate for their needs, and further, that the space for the additional required parking spaces is being set aside in a "land bank"; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Schwartz, Nickerson, Campbell, Reynolds, Granata, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there was one written letter 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. This letter was from Patrick and Nancy Colasanti, 40644 Rehse, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, indicating they have no objection to the variance request.

Yuri Diakonov, 40515 Rehse, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, submitted copies of a letter he wrote to the Board and then proceeded to read the letter. It alleged that a couple of the members of this Board trespassed onto his property and did not identify themselves. He was very angry with this and threatened to take this to a court of law.

Considerable heated discussion took place, at which time Mr. Marella indicated that if the petitioner wishes to have his request heard, the accusations must stop.

Rose Biondo, 40515 Rehse, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, Mr. Diakonov’s wife, explained that they are requesting a three-foot variance and that none of their neighbors have objections. She indicated that they need to accommodate a wheelchair ramp for Mr. Diakonov’s mother.

Mr. Marella inquired as to whether Mr. Diakonov’s mother resides with them.

Mr. Diakonov accused this Board of interrogating him.

Mr. Marella explained that the questions raised by this Board are not intended as an interrogation but rather a tool to gain the information necessary to come to a decision on the variance request.

Mr. Diakonov replied to inquiry that his mother had a severe stroke and she lives with them six months out of the year in addition to weekends. He pointed out that if the ramp was steeper, his mother would "end up in the glass"; therefore, the ramp must be four feet long.

Ms. Schwartz stated the she is the person being accused by Mr. Diakonov of not identifying herself. She denied the allegations, but added that she is not going to look at this request with any anger. She inquired as to when the cement was poured and when the materials for the wooden framing were ordered.

Mr. Diakonov replied that the cement was poured two months ago and the materials for the frame were ordered approximately three months ago. He replied to further inquiry that a permit was pulled for the cement patio; however, he did not pull a permit for the wooden frame.

Ms. Schwartz recalled that when she visited the site, the petitioner told her that he needed an additional three feet for a sunroom. She told him at that time that if he had poured the slab longer, he could place his furniture at either end and may not need the variance. She indicated that he told her "this is the way he wants it." She added that his handicapped mother was never mentioned in their conversation and she did not see any evidence of such hardship being indicated in the petitioner’s application.

Mr. Reynolds agreed that the practical difficulty mentioned by Mr. Diakonov is not mentioned in the application.

Mr. Marella noted that the practical difficulty is presented in "Item 2" of the letter he presented to the Board a few moments ago.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to why the porch must be configured in such a way that the ordinance requirements cannot be met.

Mr. Diakonov replied that the ordinance would permit an addition with a depth of ten feet. He explained that upon exiting his living room, he needs to provide a 4-foot ramp to accommodate his mother’s wheelchair, which would leave six feet. The couch would take up an additional three feet, leaving only three feet for maneuvering room for the wheelchair, which is not sufficient. He complained that if he had $100,000, he would have his living room lowered; however, his only option at this time is to provide a wheelchair ramp access to the porch.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to why the couch must be positioned at the end of the ramp. He felt the porch could be designed so that the couch could be placed elsewhere.

Mr. Diakonov insisted that his mother would not have enough room to maneuver with a ten-foot room, no matter how the furniture is arranged. He added that he has planned out the room and this is what he wants.

Mrs. Biondo insisted that the room must look aesthetically pleasing as well as being functional.

Mr. Campbell reiterated his question why a ten-foot depth is not sufficient.

Mr. Diakonov maintained that he is going to arrange the furniture in this room to accommodate his mother.

Mr. Marella explained to Mr. Diakonov that if this Board can see alternatives that meet both the petitioner’s needs and the ordinance requirements that is what they try to do. If alternatives cannot be worked out within the parameters of the ordinance, then the Board must make a decision.

Ms. Granata stated she understood the difficulty Mr. Diakonov was expressing; however, she indicated that generally when they receive their agenda packages, drawings are included which depict exactly what is being proposed.

Mr. Diakonov insisted that he submitted drawings. He complained that the definition of hardship or practical difficulty, as seen by this Board, was never explained to him. He always thought of a hardship as being monetary.

Ms. Granata emphasized that they cannot approve variances based on monetary hardship; however, she pointed out that until the petitioner came before this Board tonight, she was not aware of his practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship for this request and she added that this is unusual because it is generally stated on the application.

Mr. Diakonov complained that the application is not worded clearly and the request for the statement of practical difficulty/unnecessary hardship should be clarified.

Mr. Reynolds inquired as to whether the petitioner has blueprints showing the ramp.

Mr. Diakonov responded that he has one but pointed out that nothing in the Board of Appeals application stated he would need to submit anything else.

Ms. Granata noted that they are voting on the setback variance and not on the ramp.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that the petitioner can build a longer room but the ordinance only permits a 10-foot depth in this instance. He felt the additional three feet is being requested because they want to arrange their furniture so there is a couch at the end of the ramp. He suggested making the room longer and locating the furniture away from the ramp, thereby eliminating the need for the three-foot variance.

Mr. Diakonov argued that furniture will be necessary in the room and challenged the Board to find a room with no furniture.

Mr. Campbell assured that he was not suggesting the possibility of a room with no furniture, but rather a rearrangement of the furniture.

Mr. Diakonov explained that the ramp is four feet long and the wheelchair itself is at least two feet, leaving only four feet for his mother to make a 90-degree turn. He did not feel she would be able to maneuver in such a small area and commented that wheelchairs cannot make 90-degree turns.

Mr. Marella questioned whether the petitioner’s practical difficulty is that his mother is handicapped and she needs a ramp to facilitate her getting in and out of this room.

Mr. Diakonov argued that this is not his hardship and he is only requesting this for his mother. He threatened to bring her in before this Board if necessary to prove she is handicapped.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5378 and application from Yuri Diakonov, 40515 Rehse, 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 Requirements for the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 83, Sunfield Estates Subdivision (Section 18), generally located fronting the west line of Rehse, south of 18 Mile Road at 40515 Rehse, that request for variance to permit construction of an addition for an existing single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of 31.88 feet being 3.12 feet less than the minimum required setback of 35 feet, be denied by reason that no hardship or practical difficulty have been presented. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Schwartz, Nickerson, Campbell, Reynolds, Granata, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

LOT 182, PIPER’S BROADACRES SUBDIVISION (SECTIONS 33/34)
-- APPEAL: SFR – BROADACRES, VACANT (FKA 19758)
FILE #5379: ANTHONY A. KARAM

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.

Anthony Karam, 13085 31 Mile Road, Washington, Michigan 48094, explained that he and his cousin bought this house with the intention of repairing it and living in it together; however, they were told since it was more than 50% destroyed, they would not be allowed to repair it and it would have to be demolished. He stated they would now like to build two separate houses, one for him and one for his cousin. He pointed out that many of the lots in this subdivision have been developed as 50-foot lots and in order for them to do the same, they are requesting a variance of 15 feet from the required 65-foot width. He noted that he discussed this plan with his neighbors and they have no objections.

Ms. Schwartz questioned why two separate homes are now being proposed. She pointed out that when they originally bought the fire house with the intention of fixing it up, they would have been living in one home. She questioned why they cannot demolish the fire house and build one home on the 100-foot lot.

Greg Karam, 32030 Wellston, Warren, Michigan, stated that he is getting married, and for that reason, they would now like to build two houses. He added that initially, they were going to renovate the house and his cousin would take the upstairs or the basement. He replied to inquiry that he currently resides with his family but his mother cannot physically help him when he gets one of his "weak spells". He felt the ideal situation would be to live next door to his cousin, who could come over and help him when he has one of these spells.

Mr. Nickerson questioned what guarantee could be made that he or his cousin would be living in these houses forever. He noted that in this case, a variance would be permanent and could not revert back after they moved out.

Mr. Greg Karam explained that he is handicapped and is a candidate for an amputee because he has damage to his left foot as a result of an electrical shock. He admitted that although he cannot promise how long he would live here, he assured his intentions are good. He further assured that he would not be going to all of the trouble seeking this variance if he intended to turn around and sell it in the near future. He insisted he will build if granted the variance because he has too much integrity and came too great a distance from Torch Lake for this meeting.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that this property has a 100-foot frontage and he could not understand why they would want to cut that up. He questioned why a home with a "mother-in-law" apartment added could not be constructed on this lot.

Mr. Anthony Karam replied that they discussed this possibility with the Township but were told that the property is not zoned for multiple-family use.

Mr. Miller clarified that although it is a good idea, the zoning ordinance prohibits a second structure for this purpose on the property.

Mr. Campbell felt that one house could be built on the 100-foot parcel in such a way that it would afford all parties the privacy they need, and yet they would have ready access to each other in case of an emergency. He felt such a dwelling would be close in size and shape to the adjacent house.

Mr. Greg Karam admitted that although he is experiencing a lot of physical challenges, he still wants a separate identity as a family while living close to his cousin. He noted that the neighbors have 50-foot lots and he assured that they would build in a manner that meets, if not exceeds, the criteria.

Mr. Campbell could not recall this Board ever granting a variance to split a 100-foot lot when the entire lot has been vacant. He cited instances in the past where a variance has been granted for a lot split when the structure is built close to one end of the lot, leaving the other half vacant and unusable without a split.

Discussion took place regarding the by-laws of the subdivision.

Mr. Anthony Karam replied to inquiry that he is single.

Ms. Granata suggested one dwelling with a couple of separate entrances. She stated this has been done before and by adding a couple of extra rooms and turning one into another kitchen, both cousins would be able to live under one roof and maintain their privacy.

Mr. Karam reiterated he was informed by the Township that is not allowed.

Mr. Campbell suggested the possibility that Mr. Karam received that answer from the Township as a result of the way he phrased the question. He felt that if the question was posed in such a way to make it sound like a multiple-family zoning that is possibly why he was told that would not be an option. He felt it was a misunderstanding and in that regard, he felt it would be only fair to accept the petitioner’s withdrawal based on this reason and issue a refund of the filing fee minus any mailing costs incurred.

Mr. Marella emphasized that this Board is trying to increase the value of the community and noted that this is a vacant lot capable of being developed as one single-family home. He recalled that similar requests have been denied in the past.

Mr. Greg Karam stated he was told directly by the Township that if some of the neighbors were not happy with two men living in this house and it was constructed as a multiple-family dwelling, they would be in direct violation of the ordinance.

Mr. Miller clarified that the description of "single-family" in the ordinance is very liberal. He noted that group homes are considered single-family homes. He explained that communities that have tried to be very stringent on defining family as married couples, have been "blasted".

Mr. Anthony Karam requested to withdraw the application.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5379 and application from Anthony A. Karam, P. O. Box 745, Washington, Michigan 48094-0745, 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 Lot Size Requirements in the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 182, Piper’s Broadacres Subdivision (Sections 33/34), generally located fronting the south line of Broadacres, east of Beaconsfield Road at 19758 Broadacres, and concerning the request for variance to permit the division of a platted lot in the R-5 One-Family Residential District into two equal parcels each with: 1. Land area of 5,800 square feet each being 2,000 square feet less than the required 7,800 square feet; and 2. Width of 50 feet each being 15 feet less than the required 65 feet, that the petitioner’s request for withdrawal of this application be accepted based on apparent miscommunications between the petitioner and the Township, and further, that a refund to the petitioner be made minus any costs incurred for mailing the notices of public hearing. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Nickerson, Reynolds, Schwartz, Granata, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

REPORTS OF MEETINGS
-- APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 REPORT

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to approve the report of the September 15, 1999 meeting as submitted. Motion carried.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION

Mr. Nickerson clarified that regarding Mr. Diakonov’s request for variance, he went out to look at the property but assured that he never set foot on Mr. Diakonov’s property. He noted that as soon as he could see that Mr. Diakonov seemed upset, he left immediately.

Mr. Marella felt it is important that the Board members have some type of identification with them indicating their appointment to the Board of Appeals.

Discussion took place regarding this identification could be in the way of picture identification provided by the Police Department or whether they should have business cards made up.

Mr. Miller assured he would check into the matter.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS