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

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

ABSENT:     None

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

Mr. Marella called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. He explained the parameters under which the Board of Appeals can act and how the public hearing will be conducted. He added that a hardship or practical difficulty cannot be financial.

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

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that this item was tabled from the last meeting. He added that there were no additional replies received since last month’s meeting.

Kola Pashki, 40227 Garfield, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, stated his garage currently measures 45 feet by 19 feet and he would like to extend it another ten feet so he can store his vehicles inside. He added that his garage is only 6 feet high and because of this, he is currently unable to park any vehicles inside.

Lynn Lavoie, 16645 Cederama, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, stated that her kitchen and living room windows face the subject property. She commented that although Mr. Pashki has been a good neighbor, she felt this is an excessive variance request. She noted that there are a lot of commercial vehicles on the property and she suspected that this building is going to be used to store them. She was opposed to looking at multiple commercial vehicles on this property or looking at a building large enough to house the multiple commercial vehicles.

Dennis Knoblock, 16660 Grillo, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, noted that the petitioner’s property extends along his rear lot line. He agreed with Ms. Lavoie’s comments and pointed out that under current ordinance requirements, the petitioner is allowed to construct an accessory structure that is 14 feet in height and 1000 square feet. He added that there are multiple commercial vehicles on the property, including a dump truck which he estimated to be over ¾ ton, which is the maximum permitted. Mr. Knoblock cited portions of the ordinance dealing with home occupations in a residential area and pointed out that such home occupation cannot generate the need for any additional parking. He stressed his feeling that the proposed structure is too large for a residential area.

Ms. Schwartz calculated that without the variance, the petitioner would be allowed to build a structure measuring 863.28 square feet. She inquired as to whether this would be of sufficient size for a standard two-car garage.

Mr. Miller indicated that a standard two-car garage measures approximately 650 square feet, so the 863.28-square-foot structure that would be allowed is considerably larger. He pointed out that the existing structure is 937 square feet and is considered a legal non-conforming building. He also commented that the existing structure is higher than six feet, although the doorway may not measure any higher than six feet, and that is currently limiting his ability to park the vehicles inside. He explained that because of the petitioner’s large lot, he is permitted a larger accessory structure than most residents. He added that most residents are allowed 650 square feet, unless their lots are very large.

Mr. Pashki replied to inquiry that he has lived at this address for about a year and a half, but he was not aware of the ordinance regulations when he purchased this property.

Mr. Nickerson understood the petitioner’s desire to have a larger accessory building, but he pointed out that this is residential property abutting residential property and he felt the intent for the structure is to store commercial vehicles. He could see no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship presented.

Mr. Catalano inquired as to whether the petitioner had talked to his neighbors since the last meeting in February.

Mr. Pashki replied that he has not discussed this with his neighbors since the last meeting.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5406 and application from Kola Pashki, 40227 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Section 1298.01-(i), concerning Lot 31, Garfield Heights Garden Farms Subdivision and ½ of the vacated Garden Avenue on the adjacent north side, generally located fronting the west line of Garfield Road, south of 18 Mile Road at 40227 Garfield Road (Section 18), that request for variance to construct an addition to an existing accessory building, thus creating a 1366.84 square foot structure, which is 503.56 square feet greater than the maximum allowed, be denied by reason that no hardship or practical difficulty was presented, and further reason that it is in a residential neighborhood and such a large structure would not be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickerson, Reynolds, Campbell, Granata, Schwartz, Catalano, 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.

R. Thomas Argue III, 23911 Donaldson, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated he would like to be granted a variance to permit a larger garage to house his two vehicles and his camper. He felt he has a "sub-standard" lot and, as a result, is at a disadvantage.

Michelle Owen, 34238 Alcina, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated her property abuts the subject property (she is located kitty-corner), and she did not feel the proposed three-car garage will blend in with the neighborhood. She complained that such a large structure will block the entire side of her driveway, and she noted that it appears as though they are going to put in a rear door to the garage, allowing access to the rear yard. She explained that she got into an argument with the owner of this property prior to coming to this meeting; however, she pointed out that Mr. Argue III was not the gentleman with whom she talked. Ms. Owen felt threatened by the individual she talked with, and she emphasized that she is not in favor of turning a dead-end road into a place for motorists to turn around.

Considerable discussion took place because there appeared to be some confusion as to the location of Ms. Owen’s property in relation to the petitioner’s property. After lengthy conversation, it was determined that Ms. Owen had objection to a garage going up on another property and it had nothing to do with Mr. Argue’s petition.

John Ferrara, 34241 Alcina, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated his objection to having any three-car garages in his neighborhood. He inquired as to whether residents can enter or exit from the rear of their property onto the next street if their rear lot line is abutting the end of a dead-end street.

Mr. Marella replied that Mr. Ferrara’s concern is not being addressed at this public hearing; however, he recommended that Mr. Ferrara contact the Department of Planning and Community Development for clarification.

Mr. Argue noted that there are a couple of houses on Donaldson with three-car garages.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to whether the petitioner is proposing to store a camper in this garage.

Mr. Argue replied that he would like to store his camper indoors and that is his intent with the larger garage.

Mr. Miller clarified that the Zoning ordinance allows for a camper to be stored outside provided certain required setbacks are maintained and other requirements of the ordinance are met.

Mr. Argue stressed that he would like to keep all of his vehicles stored inside in order to maintain a neat appearance. He replied to inquiry that the camper is now being stored on a cement slab measuring 24 feet and it takes up most of that space. He emphasized that he is only requesting an additional 188 square feet.

Mr. Campbell noted that there were a couple of tarps in the petitioner’s backyard and inquired as to what is currently being stored under those tarps.

Mr. Argue replied that his camper is under one of the tarps in his rear yard, while lawn equipment, and his children’s bikes and toys are being stored under the second tarp.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the petitioner would be agreeable to a condition placed on a grant of variance that would prohibit any additional accessory structures to be placed on the property.

Mr. Argue assured that he would be willing to agree to such a condition and stated that he would like everything to be stored "under one roof".

Mr. Catalano noticed that the 24’ x 24’ slab of concrete did not appear to be poured too long ago. He inquired as to why the petitioner has now changed his mind and wants a larger garage.

Mr. Argue explained that the existing slab was poured in October 1998; however, since that time he has realized how small of an area that will provide.

The question was raised as to why the garage is proposed to be set so far back on the property, almost 110 feet from the house.

Mr. Argue replied that he has two small children and he does not want them riding their bicycles near the street, so he would like to provide an area in the rear yard for them to ride. He added that with the large distance from the house, he will be able to maximize the use of his narrow rear yard. He replied to inquiry that he is not willing to relocate the garage closer to the house because by doing so, he will be cutting down on the usable space in his rear yard.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the petitioner plans to provide exits from his property to any streets other than Donaldson.

Mr. Argue assured that his only access will be from Donaldson. He replied to inquiry that the only access to his garage other than the large garage door will be the service door, which measures three feet in width.

Ms. Schwartz asked for clarification as to whether the petitioner could build a 650-square-foot garage to meet ordinance requirements and still put up a shed.

Mr. Miller clarified that the total square footage of all accessory structures together cannot exceed the maximum permitted 650 square feet. He cited the exampled that if Mr. Argue built a garage measuring 550 square feet, he would be allowed to build a shed that could measure no more than 100 square feet; however, if the garage is 650 square feet, a shed would not be permitted.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5408 and application from R. Thomas Argue III, 23911 Donaldson, 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 34, Donaldson Park Subdivision (Section 35), generally located fronting the north line of Donaldson, east of Harper Avenue at 23911 Donaldson, that variance be granted to permit construction of an accessory structure (garage) for a single-family home in the R-5 One-Family Residential District with floor area of 768 square feet, being 118 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted floor area of 650 square feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the petitioner is desiring to secure personal property, vehicles, lawn equipment and a camper in an enclosed structure, and further, that he has agreed to the condition being placed on this approval that he will not erect any other accessory structures on this property; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Nickerson, Reynolds, Granata, Marella. Nay – Schwartz, Catalano. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell requested the following changes to the report of the January 19, 2000 meeting:

Page 4, Paragraph 5, Line 2:
Change from: "…setback requirement by extending the projection to 2’7"."
Change to: "…setback requirement with a projection of 2’7"."

Page 4, Paragraph 7: Delete this paragraph as written:  "Mr. Campbell felt this is a case where the interpretation of the ordinance was incorrect."

Page 5, Paragraph 2, Line11: Add the following practical difficulty:  "…based on claimed practical difficulty that requiring a ten-foot setback from the projection would create difficulty for vehicles entering and exiting the adjacent property."

Page 7, Paragraph 5, Line 11:
Change from: "…the petitioner can acquire an additional 25-foot depth…" 
Change to: "…the petitioner or subsequent owner can acquire an additional 25-foot depth…"

Page 8, Paragraph 3, Line 11:
Change from: "…the petitioner can acquire an additional 25-foot depth…" 
Change to: "…the petitioner or subsequent owner can acquire an additional 25-foot depth…"

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Marella, to approve the report of the January 19, 2000 meeting with the changes as noted. Motion carried.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS