CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
DECEMBER 13, 2000
MINUTES

PRESENT:   Francis Marella, Chairperson
                    Carole L. Schwartz, Vice-Chairperson
                    Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
                    Peter M. Catalano
                    Joann Granata
                    Dean J. Reynolds
                    Denise C. Trombley

ABSENT:     None

STAFF:        Irene F. Sheridan, Community Planner II
                    DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Marella called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. He explained the parameters under which the Board of Appeals can act and how the public hearing will be conducted.

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

Mr. Campbell informed that this is a reconsideration and indicated there were no responses received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present, so the matter was placed at the end of tonight’s agenda for further consideration.

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 noted that one of the letters was from the petitioner and the second letter was from Rob and Pamela Weiss, 35829 Griswald, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, expressing their objection to any variance to the required rear yard setback, the landscaping or less than 20 feet between buildings.

Vincent R. Cataldo, 15801 23 Mile Road, Macomb, Michigan 48044, architect, apologized that the petitioner was not prepared at the last meeting to come before the Board. He replied to inquiry that the request for a side yard setback is only an issue because the abutting property owner was permitted to build on the property line. He commented that the side yard setback variance only affects 20 to 30 percent of the building.

Mr. Marella inquired as to the tenant who will occupy the building.

Mr. Cataldo replied that the prospective tenant backed out, but they would like to construct the building at this time and lease it at a later date. He assured that they will put something in that will comply with the use permitted in that zoning district. He added that it is not uncommon to construct an industrial building and then advertise for tenants after it is completed.

Jerry Seay, 16931 Nineteen Mile Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, stated he represents Evergreen Home and Garden Center, the adjacent property owner to the north. He questioned the petitioner’s hardship or practical difficulty.

Pamela Weiss, 35829 Griswald, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, complained that they have lived through a nightmare with the bars that have been at this location. She stated that although she has no objection to a furniture manufacturer occupying this site, but she expressed concern that her property will depreciate further. She could not see a hardship or practical difficulty to warrant this Board granting the variance requests, and she felt if the building is being constructed on a speculative basis, she could not understand why the petitioner could not comply with the ordinance requirements. She complained about having to look out her window at dumpsters and cement.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to what size building would be permitted if they complied with the ordinance requirements.

Mr. Cataldo estimated that they could construct a building approximately 23,000 square feet that would comply with the ordinance requirements.

Mr. Campbell noted that the petitioner would be able to construct a building measuring approximately 26,662 square feet by moving the side walls in two feet and the rear walls in three feet. He added that with a building that size, they would only require 39 parking spaces and could therefore eliminate 15 parking spaces in the front, which would allow them to adhere to more of the ordinance requirements.

Mr. Cataldo informed that the property owner does not wish to eliminate any of the parking in the front of the building because he feels it may be needed. He stressed that the side yard setback is their biggest concern because of the fact that the adjacent building was constructed on the lot line, thereby creating a hardship for the petitioner. Mr. Cataldo replied to inquiry that he felt Mr. Vitale would be willing to plant additional trees in the front to meet the required number of trees.

Ms. Weiss inquired as to what method will be used to demolish the existing building. She expressed concern that they will be using explosives.

Mr. Cataldo assured that the existing building will be "pushed over" with heavy machinery and the debris will be hauled away.

Rob Weiss, 35829 Griswald, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, inquired as to how the petitioner determined to construct a 26,000-square-foot building.

Mr. Cataldo replied that the petitioner wants to build the maximum size possible to make it financially feasible.

Ms. Granata inquired as to why the petitioner feels he will need all of the existing parking spaces when he is not sure what business will occupy the building.

Mr. Cataldo replied that Mr. Vitale does not want to underestimate the number of spaces needed and wants to feel comfortable with the number of parking spaces being provided.

Ms. Granata commented being uncomfortable granting a variance when the use is not known.

Mr. Campbell explained that at one time, the Township ordinance allowed buildings to be constructed right up to the property line. He noted that the property to the south, which has a building on the property line, may have been developed in conformance with the ordinance years ago. He felt that without an explanation of why additional parking or a larger building is needed, he could not see why the requested variances should be granted.

Mr. Catalano felt that if this is a speculative building, it should adhere to ordinance requirements.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5475 and application from Giovanni Vitale, 20400 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, as represented by Vincent Cataldo, 15801 23 Mile Road, Macomb, Michigan 48044, 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 request for variance to permit demolition of an existing building (City Rhythm Lounge) and construction of a speculative industrial building (Vi-Tech) 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"-high berm or wall between an off-street parking area and Groesbeck Highway (120’ wide); and 4) South side yard setback of 18.47 feet, be denied by reason that no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship was presented, and financial reasons cannot be considered by this Board. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Campbell, Catalano, Reynolds, Schwartz, Trombley, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

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

Tony Talluto, of New Baltimore, Michigan, Dan Rymsey, 17077 Garfield, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, and Louis Agostini, 16151 Admiral, Fraser, Michigan 48026, were present to answer any questions the Board may have.

Mr. Rymsey emphasized that the proposed sign is very important to the new business. He pointed out that the sign was in existence when they signed the lease and they feel it is important to keep it.

Mr. Agostini explained that he is the original builder and when he constructed the building in 1979 or 1980, he also erected the existing sign. He noted that there have been no complaints about the sign in the more than 20 years of its existence.

Mr. Marella pointed out that since the sign was erected, the ordinance has changed and the sign is no longer in compliance.

Jim Franey, an owner of the adjacent business, disagreed with the petitioner and felt it is they who are experiencing the hardship because they have been forced to comply with the current ordinance requirements. He felt that the petitioner should have investigated the ordinances and what was permitted prior to leasing the property. He requested that the Township deny the requested variance.

Mr. Marcus, 36824 Clifford, Sterling Heights, Michigan, felt the petitioner is aware of the current sign ordinance regulations because he recently had to meet those requirements when he updated the Water Bed Gallery sign.

Mr. Rymsey pointed out that they are a new business in the community and it would be a hardship to have to change the sign to meet current ordinance requirements.

Mr. Reynolds inquired as to the petitioner’s hardship.

Mr. Rymsey replied that to completely replace the existing sign would cost between six and eight thousand dollars.

Mr. Reynolds reminded that when granting variances, financial hardships cannot be considered by this Board.

Mr. Rymsey clarified that they are a new business in the area and although a new sign would be a financial burden, they also find hardship in the fact that the view of their business is partially obscured. He explained that he hired a sign contractor to update the sign and he was with the understanding that the sign contractor would pull the permit. He replied to inquiry that he is now aware of the current sign ordinance requirements but he was not familiar with them prior to application for the variance.

Ms. Granata suggested that when someone purchases or leases a parcel of property, they should always investigate the ordinances and determine how those restrictions will affect them. She explained that owners of some of the businesses along Gratiot Avenue met with representatives from the Township when the new sign ordinance was created. Ms. Granata felt that the petitioner’s sign contractor should have been aware of the fact that a permit was needed and added that any licensed contractor would be aware of that fact.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to the name of the company contracted to upgrade the sign.

Mr. Rymsey replied that Active Sign Company was the contractor, but he had contacted two sign companies and both had assured him that the proposed changes to the existing sign would be no problem. He replied to further inquiry that Active Sign Company told him they were pulling the permits.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the existing sign would be considered "grandfathered" and would not have to comply with the height requirements of the current ordinance.

Ms. Sheridan replied that it is not "grandfathered" and the ordinance specifies that if the existing area on the face of a sign is changed by 33% or more, it must be brought into compliance with the requirements of the existing sign ordinance, unless there was a variance granted in the past. She added that this particular sign had not received a variance in the past.

Ms. Schwartz found practical difficulty in the fact that the petitioner contacted a reliable sign company but was not told he had to pull a permit.

Mr. Campbell clarified that a practical difficulty is not sufficient to grant a variance for a sign. He specified that a variance for a sign requires an undue hardship. Mr. Campbell informed that when the sign ordinance was originally adopted, business owners were provided a 5-year time period to come into compliance; however, after a committee comprised of business owners and representatives from the Township met, they arrived at a compromise which permitted existing signs to remain until such time as any changes were made to the business or the sign. He felt that the fact the petitioner did not investigate the ordinance prior to leasing the property does not constitute an undue hardship.

Mr. Reynolds sympathized with the petitioner but agreed with the comments made by Mr. Campbell.

Ms. Granata also sympathized with the petitioner but pointed out that when the sign was originally erected, this was a rural area and it has since become more populated. She mentioned that statistics indicate the taller signs are causing the accidents because they are not as easy to see for motorists as the signs that are at eye level. She felt it is to the petitioner’s advantage to install a lower sign that motorists will be able to see, and added that what might seem like a hardship to the petitioner at this time may actually become an advantage to him once the sign is brought into compliance.

Mr. Agostini inquired as to whether the Board of Appeals would be willing to work with him and grant him the variance this time, with the contingency that if he changes the sign in the future, then he would come into compliance with the current ordinance requirements.

Mr. Rymsey pointed out the hardship that the abutting property owner has an older, larger sign. He submitted a copy of the signed contract with Active Sign Company, which indicates that Active agreed to pull the necessary permits.

Ms. Granata felt this Board should not have to grant a variance to make up for the sign contractor misleading the petitioner. She suggested that the petitioner seek compensation from the sign contractor on the basis that the contractor did not adhere to their contract.

Ms. Schwartz felt hardship was found in the fact that the petitioner contracted with the sign company in good faith and was under the impression that they would be pulling the permits.

Mr. Marella felt the old motto, "Let the buyer beware", should be considered in this case and he agreed with Ms. Granata.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that the petitioner is on Gratiot, with a wide right-of-way, and is therefore permitted a pylon sign measuring 100 square feet. He noted that a lawn sign would be allowed in lieu of the pylon sign and they would then be permitted 120 square feet. He commented that a denial of this variance request will require the petitioner to come into compliance, but he added that the 120-square-foot lawn sign in lieu of the pylon sign may offer the petitioner another alternative to have a larger sign.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5490 and application from Tony Talluto, Carpet World Plus LLC, 35965 Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-B-1 & 2; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Pylon sign", concerning Lots 9 and 10, Maplewood Subdivision (Section 27), generally located at the southwest corner of Gratiot Avenue and Holly Drive at 35965 Gratiot Avenue, that request for variance to permit continued existence of a business pylon sign for an existing commercial building (Carpet World & Floors/Great Dane Air Conditioning) abutting a road with right-of-way width greater than 120 feet in the B-3 General Business District with: 1) Display area of 135 square feet being 35 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 100 square feet; and 2) Height of 20 feet 6 inches being 2 feet 6 inches in excess of the maximum permitted 18 feet, be denied by reason that no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship was given and the sign must be changed to comply with the current ordinance requirements. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Reynolds, Trombley, Campbell, Catalano, Marella. Nay – Schwartz. Absent – None. Motion carried.

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

Carlos Dudley, 42451 Orchard, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, explained that he would like to add on to his existing garage because he and his wife have a small home and need additional storage space.

Mr. Marella noted that the garage is almost as large as the house.

Mr. Dudley informed that he owns three cars.

Martha Donaldson, 58581 Chennall, New Haven, Michigan, expressed opposition to the variance request. She did not care if the petitioner expanded his garage, but she did not want it coming any closer to her lot line than what is permitted by the ordinance.

Mr. Dudley replied to inquiry that he proposes to store some of his furniture in the addition, and he replied to further inquiry that one of his cars is currently being stored outside with a tarp over it and he would like to store that indoors as well. He did not feel the variance requests infringe on Ms. Donaldson or his other neighbors.

Mr. Marella noted that the lot is fairly large; however, he added that the petitioner still needs permits to be able to build the addition.

Ms. Donaldson inquired as to whether any of the construction will take place on her property.

Ms. Sheridan scaled the drawing and estimated that the addition will measure approximately ten feet from the rear lot line.

Mr. Campbell questioned the petitioner as to what he would be storing in this addition.

Mr. Dudley replied that he has lawn equipment, Christmas trees, a riding lawnmower, and a snow blower. He replied to further inquiry that his family room will measure 24 feet by 16 feet.

Mr. Campbell commented that he did not see any plans in his package indicating how the garage will be revised. He felt plans and efforts to make sure the existing structure is stable are important and should be required by the Township.

Mr. Dudley explained that the builder has all of the plans.

Ms. Sheridan commented that the square footage of an accessory structure can equal one-half of the square footage of the principal dwelling. She recalculated to see if the proposed addition of the family room would change the measurements enough that Mr. Dudley would not need a variance; however, she determined that a variance would still be necessary.

Mr. Dudley replied to inquiry that his profession is in the clothing business and he has his own line of clothing. He assured that there will be no business conducted out of his home.

Mr. Campbell had a difficult time believing that what the petitioner needed to store could not be accommodated in a standard size garage.

Mr. Dudley explained that when they were designing the garage, they felt the proposed plan would be more than adequate; however, he offered to reduce the size slightly if that is the wishes of this Board.

Mr. Campbell determined that if the petitioner reduced the depth from 10 feet to 8-1/2 feet, he would meet ordinance requirements, being that it would be reduced by a total square footage of 1-1/2 feet by 20 feet, or a total of 30 square feet.

Mr. Dudley stated he would be willing to reduce the depth of the addition to 8-1/2 feet, thereby meeting ordinance requirements. He stated he was withdrawing his petition.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Catalano, with reference to File #5492 and application from Carlos Dudley, 42451 Orchard, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.01-(i), Supplementary Regulations; Accessory Structures (Including Garages), concerning Lots 172 and 173, Slush & High Subdivision #1 (Section 12/P.C. 141), generally located fronting the north line of Orchard, west of Stepnitz at 42451 Orchard, that this Board accept the petitioner’s verbal request to withdraw his petition to permit construction of an addition to an existing detached accessory structure (garage) for a single-family residence in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with floor area of 680 square feet being 30 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted floor area of 650 square feet, by reason that he is reducing the depth of the proposed accessory structure by 1-1/2 feet to comply with ordinance requirements. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Catalano, Reynolds, Trombley, Campbell, Schwartz, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

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

Joe Monteleone, 35101 Harper Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that they are proposing that the house on Site 61 will face proposed Culpeper Drive and will not face Lipke; therefore, the side yard setback must conform to the minimum front yard setback requirements along Lipke. He noted that each of the corner homes on Maple Lane and Glen Oak have side yards measuring approximately 19-1/2 feet. He felt that development of a home on the subject site facing Culpeper Drive will be a nice transition for the area. He claimed the practical difficulty being the fact that this is an older platted subdivision and there is an easement that runs along the rear yard for Edison. He pointed out that this easement would have to cut through more of the center of the lot if the plans were drawn up differently. Mr. Monteleone explained that their new model home measures approximately 50 feet in width as opposed to their other homes measuring approximately 47.2 feet.

Ms. Granata felt that this request is not unusual for a corner lot. She recalled such variances have been granted in her subdivision for corner lots. She complimented Mr. Monteleone on his development of the area. She felt the way the house is proposed to be situated on the lot will not negatively affect anyone.

Mr. Reynolds inquired as to whether the proposed house will be similar to the other homes in the area.

Mr. Monteleone assured that the proposed house will be even better than his previous homes.

Mr. Reynolds offered no objection to the variance request.

Mr. Campbell explained that the reason for the minimum 25-foot setback is so that the house is not situated closer to the road than the front building line of the adjacent homes, which face Lipke. He pointed out that the subject lot is rather large and he did not feel it would do justice to the area to grant a setback variance for this particular parcel.

Mr. Monteleone explained that this house will be their "premium home" and will also serve as their sales office. He does not feel it will work to place another home on this lot. He stated that when they came up with this design, they wanted something slightly larger but not too big. He replied to inquiry that this is a split ranch with one bedroom on one side and two bedrooms on the other side. He acknowledged that it is slightly more expensive because it is generally more costly to add on to the width of the house as opposed to the depth.

Ms. Schwartz questioned why Mr. Monteleone is not having the homes face Lipke.

Mr. Monteleone replied that by positioning the house to face Lipke, the lot would only be 79 feet deep, which would make it impossible to do. He reiterated there is an Edison easement that makes it difficult to comply and if he would widen the subject lot to 84 feet, it would position that easement more in the center of the adjacent lot, making it unbuildable. He pointed out that all of his other corner lots measure 80 feet in width. He stressed that they are trying to make this appear as "a standard subdivision in the north end of the Township" and are trying to meet all setback requirements where possible. He commented that if he is not able to place this house on this lot, he would move it to the interior of the subdivision, but would not discontinue to offer this layout. He replied to further inquiry that there are no homes on Lots 48, 49 and 50 at this time, although they have paved the street at that point.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5494 and application from Joe Monteleone, Maplewood Development, 35101 Harper, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to 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 Yard and Side Yard Setback Requirements for the R-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning part of Lots 44, 45 and 46, Quinn Park Subdivision (Sections 34/35), generally described as "Site 61" of Quinn Park Subdivision, located at the northeast corner of Culpeper Drive and Lipke Avenue at 22423 Culpeper, that variance be granted 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 Lipke Avenue of twenty-two (22) feet being three (3) feet less than the minimum required setback of twenty-five (25) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty being the odd shape of the lot and the direction the house is facing, and that this is in the south end of the Township, where family-oriented development is being encouraged, and further, the petitioner has done a fantastic job thus far with his development in the area with great acceptance from the residents; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Schwartz, Catalano, Reynolds, Trombley, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Absent – None. Motion carried.

It was noted that the petitioner was not present.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5456 and application from James Budziak, S & B Development Company, P. O. Box 1184, Mount Clemens, Michigan 48046, 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 the reconsideration hearing scheduled for this meeting be tabled for one month until the Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for January 2001, 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. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell requested the following change be made:

Page 20, Paragraph 1, Line 1:

Change from: "Mr. Catalano requested the following…."

Change to: "Mr. Campbell requested the following…."

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Catalano, to approve the minutes of the November 15, 2000 Meeting with the requested change. Motion carried.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, supported by Ms. Granata, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS