CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
APRIL 19, 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.

Mr. Marella noted that the petitioner for Item #5 (SFR – McKishnie, 20116) has submitted a letter to withdraw his petition.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Granata, to approve the agenda with the deletion of Item #5. 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.

Jim Collins, 35515 Utica Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated that he would like to enlarge his garage so that he can park his motor home and boat inside.

Ms. Schwartz commented that after reviewing the documentation submitted by the petitioner, she could see no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. She inquired as to the practical difficulty.

Mr. Collins replied to inquiry that he finds practical difficulty in the fact that the garage as it exists does not accommodate his motor home or boat.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to the petitioner’s line of work.

Mr. Collins replied that he owns a construction company located in Roseville. He assured that the four utility trailers currently parked on his property are temporary and will soon be moved; they are there because he is putting on an addition at his shop in Roseville and the trailers will be stored inside at his Roseville facility as soon as the construction is done. Mr. Collins replied to further inquiry that the door to his garage must be at least ten feet to be able to accommodate his motor home and boat. He added that he also owns a Corvette and Cadillac as well as lawn equipment that he would like to store in his garage. He replied to still further inquiry that the utility trailers from his business have been stored at his house for approximately four weeks because that is when construction began at his shop.

Mr. Campbell clarified that the ordinance permits up to two recreational vehicles to be stored on a parcel and one truck being less than ¾-ton, so he felt the utility trailers currently parked on the property are questionable. He felt the proposed garage is very large and recalled only one other garage larger than this being constructed at a single-family residence; however, he pointed out that the larger garage has since been demolished. He estimated this proposed structure to be larger than three quarters of the homes in the Township.

Mr. Collins felt the proposed accessory structure is no larger than the condominiums being built adjacent to his property and he did not feel it would be noticeable to residents abutting the rear of his property because his lot is large. He noted that with the way the area is being developed, it is very likely that at some point in the future when he sells his house, the garage and house will be demolished to develop more condominiums. He did not feel it should be a problem for this Board to grant him the variance request.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5411 and application from Jim Collins, 35515 Utica Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.01-(f) and (i), Supplementary Regulations: Accessory Structures (Including Garages), concerning 2.31 acres of land fronting the west line of Utica Road, north of 15 Mile Road at 35515 Utica Road (Section 30), that request for variance to permit construction of an addition to an existing detached accessory structure (garage) for a single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with: 1) Height of 17’3" being 3’3" in excess of the maximum permitted height of 14 feet; and 2) Floor area of 2,784 square feet being 771.5 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted floor area of 2,012.5 square feet, be denied by reason that no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship was demonstrated. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Schwartz, Campbell, Catalano, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, 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.

Mark Stolaruk, 1928 Star-Batt Drive, Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309, apologized that his father was unable to attend this meeting. He emphasized that they are trying to bring a first-class facility to the Township and, as a result, they have many events their facility will be hosting. He felt they are in need of an electronic reader board sign to effectively promote these events. He cited the example of being chosen for the east side location of a show for bridesmaids put on by a large company. He noted that one of the questions they had to respond to when vying for the opportunity to host this event was the type of signage they had available. Mr. Stolaruk pointed out that such a reader board sign eliminates the need for a lot of additional signs and is very neat in appearance.

Tim Schafer, Allied Signs, 36650 Giftos, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, felt the proposed reader board sign is an attractive addition to the upscale facility.

Ms. Granata pointed out that reader board signs have not been allowed in the past; however, she felt this is a new type of development in the area that is greatly needed. She offered no objection to the variance request for this particular development.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to the legal name of the proposed development.

Mr. Stolaruk replied to inquiry that the Best Western franchise requires the name of the municipality to be included in the name of the development when it is located on a highway. He pointed out that the proposed site is located on Gratiot Avenue, which is a state highway. He replied to further inquiry that the Best Western franchise dictated the name to be "Best Western Concord Inn of Mt. Clemens" because Mt. Clemens is easily identified on a map. Mr. Stolaruk stressed that they have requested a variance from Best Western to drop the "Mt. Clemens" from the name because the hotel is not located within the boundaries of Mt. Clemens. He added that they received the variance from Best Western and the "Mt. Clemens" will be removed from the sign.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that Clinton Township’s population is four times that of Mt. Clemens and is the tenth largest community in the State of Michigan. He had a problem with the petitioner requesting a variance from the Clinton Township Board of Appeals to allow a sign that indicates they are in "Mt. Clemens".

Mr. Stolaruk stated that the reader board sign is a very popular type of sign, especially for a hotel/banquet facility/conference center. He felt it is a very classy way of handling their signage needs without adding a lot of additional signs. He stressed that they want to make their facility in Clinton Township "a Hallmark piece".

Mr. Campbell reviewed the application for variance and noted that there very few details given about the reader board sign. He inquired as to how often the message would change.

Mr. Schafer had some literature available on the type of reader board sign proposed. He assured it is not gaudy or overpowering, but will be computer-operated and will be able to do a multitude of functions. He compared it to the reader board signs currently in existence at Partridge Creek Golf Course or the hockey rink on Utica Road in Fraser.

Mr. Campbell expressed concern regarding reader board signs that can be very distracting, with moving letters and flashing lights. He stated he would be more in favor of a reader board sign that would post an entire message at one time, then disappear completely before the next message comes on, rather than the type with the flashing lights and dancing letters. He cited the reader board sign at the high school as a safety menace to vehicular traffic because of the way the messages are displayed.

Mr. Stolaruk assured that they would have no problem with agreeing to Mr. Campbell’s suggestions as a condition to a grant of variance. He informed that their purpose is to advertise their events and they do not need to attract anyone with flashing letters or lights.

Mr. Catalano congratulated the petitioner for bringing a first-class hotel into Clinton Township. He added that he was impressed and classified it as a "destination point". He was pleased that the petitioner has not applied for variances to exceed the maximum square footage requirements on any of their signs. He felt that for a development like this, this Board needs to set a precedence because the petitioner has set a precedence with their classy development.

Mr. Reynolds inquired as to whether the colors on the sign will be a singular color or multiple colors.

Mr. Stolaruk replied that the sign will have multiple-color capacity, because otherwise everything would have to be white. He stressed, however, that their main concern is to get the message across and are not interested in a lot of different colors at one time. He replied to inquiry that there are approximately five separate buildings that will open in phases. They hope to open the first rooms in June, with the swimming pool opening sixty days after that, and the banquet facility, complete with a mural of a street scene in Paris, opening in the Fall. They anticipate a grand opening in January 2001.

Ms. Granata expressed concern that the sign may be used to advertise room prices. She felt it should be limited to advertise events at the banquet/conference facility.

Mr. Stolaruk stated the reader board sign could advertise sign-up periods for the health club or other such messages. He replied to inquiry that a restaurant in the front of the facility will be part of a future phase.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5412 and application from Star-Batt, Inc., 1928 Star-Batt Drive, Suite E, Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309-3722, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(f); Definitions and Restrictions; "Flashing/moving sign" and Chapter 1488.03, Signs: Schedule of Regulations: Chart, concerning 7.50 acres of land fronting the west line of Gratiot Avenue, south of Hall Road (M-59) (Section 1), that variance be granted to permit installation of a business pylon sign to identify a hotel/conference center (Concord Inn) in the B-3 General Business District with a panel containing an illuminated sign with moving copy (reader board) being a type of sign not allowed in any District; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the nature of the multi-use facility with numerous conventions and events being held would benefit from a changeable sign to represent the number of events going on at one time; further, this variance is granted with the condition that the entire reader board sign will change contents all at one time, with no moving letters or trailer-type lettering used; 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, Catalano, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there was one written reply received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question. The letter is addressed to this Board from Robert and Maureen Demers, 23500 Demley, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, indicating their objection to the variance request.

James Bryant, 47521 Nita, Shelby Township, Michigan 48317, explained that the petitioners have lived in this house a number of years and have two sons in the local school system. He added that they have "outgrown" their house and currently have a wood deck that they wish to replace with an addition to their home. He stressed that this addition would not be taking up any additional yard space because it would be replacing the deck, and he commented that he was unaware this would be an issue with the neighbors. He replied to inquiry that this is a colonial-style home so they do not have the option to add a second floor. He replied to further inquiry that the addition would be a year-round room, and is a solution for the applicants because they are very active in the community and do not wish to move. Mr. Bryant noted that there is a family room directly behind the garage, occupying the same width as the garage, with the garage having a 24-foot depth.

Mr. Campbell felt the practical difficulty can be found in the shape of the lot, with the width being sufficient but the depth being rather shallow. After looking at the address of the neighbors in opposition, he determined that they may be located a short distance away and not directly abutting the subject property, but he did acknowledge their concern about the drainage issue in the area.

Mr. Marella pointed out that the petitioner currently has a carpeted deck, so he did not feel the addition replacing that deck would have an effect on the drainage issue.

Ms. Granata felt that the way the letter from the Demers was written, they may have misunderstood that the addition would be built and the deck would also remain.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Catalano, with reference to File #5414 and application from Dominic J. Carreri, 23346 Demley, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by James L. Bryant, JLB Construction, 47521 Nita, Shelby Township, Michigan 48317, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01, Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements for the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 188, Harper Beach Subdivision #2 (Section 26), generally located fronting the south line of Demley, west of Harper Avenue at 23346 Demley, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet being ten (10) feet less than the minimum required setback of thirty-five (35) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty being the unusual shape of the property, with the depth being only 102 feet; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Catalano, Granata, Nickerson, Reynolds, 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.

Constance L. Dooley, 20473 Calumet, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that they would like to add a three-season sunroom to their home. She informed that her elderly parents, who both have a number of health problems, are coming to live with them. She stated that because of this, they want to create an area where they can feel they are going outside and yet be in a secure area. She assured that they did not know they would exceed ordinance requirements when they began making their plans.

Nancy Grebe, 20458 Villa Grande, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, stated she is the president of the abutting condominium association, and she urged the Board to deny the variance request. She felt the condominiums are fairly close to the lot line and by the Dooleys bringing their home three feet closer, it will detract from their view. She understood that there are no young children presently at the house; however, she expressed concern that in the future there may be children living there and that will result in more noise. Ms. Grebe replied to inquiry that she was aware of the fact that the sunroom will replace the existing deck and will not be in addition to it. She added that she represents 63 condominium owners in her complex.

Mr. Nickerson commented that he is very familiar with this area because he lives in this subdivision, and he knows the builder was anxious to construct as many homes as possible, so there is not a lot of extra room on each lot. He noted that Calumet is a curved street and therefore takes away from the required setback of the garage. He felt that if the street were straight, the petitioners might have had the room to build without a variance, so he felt this Board should consider approval of this variance.

Mr. Catalano felt that an addition to a home such as this would increase rather than decrease the value of the abutting condominiums. He offered no objection to the variance request.

Mr. Campbell agreed with Mr. Nickerson’s observation regarding the curved street and verified that if the street were not curved at that point, the petitioner’s would not need a variance. He also pointed out that the house is a "garage-forward" design, which also makes it more difficult to meet setback requirements.

Mr. Marella felt that having elderly parents move in and trying to accommodate their needs and handicaps is a practical difficulty.

Mr. Campbell noted that the depth of the proposed sunroom is a standard depth and they are not requesting an excessive addition.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5415 and application from Constance L. and Timothy F. Dooley, 20473 Calumet, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations; Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements for the R-4 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 354, Rivergate Subdivision (Section 4), generally located fronting the east line of Calumet, north of Lamar at 20473 Calumet, that variance be granted to permit construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in the R-4 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of thirty-two (32) feet being three (3) feet less than the minimum required setback of thirty-five (35) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty being the narrow shape of the lot and the petitioners having their elderly parents live with them and trying to accommodate their handicaps and health problems; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Schwartz, Reynolds, Nickerson, Catalano, Campbell, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

This item was deleted from the agenda due to the petitioner’s withdrawal.

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.

Paul Dieters, Metro Detroit Signs, 23544 Hoover Road, Warren, Michigan 48089, acknowledged comments by the Board that the proposal seems to include a lot of signage; however, he discussed this with representatives from Walgreens and they emphasized that they would like the ability to identify themselves as a pharmacy. He pointed out that they are proposing something similar to their other location at Gratiot and Wellington Crescent. He stated the interior neon display sign is available to them and they would like to have this. Mr. Dieters also discussed the proposed reader board sign and acknowledged that many businesses are opting for this type of sign, not necessarily for the flashing lettering, but it is a much neater sign and eliminates the broken and missing plastic letters from the older signs. He added that the wording is changed inside the store so it eliminates the need for someone to get up on a ladder to change the sign. Mr. Dieters assured that the messages would not have to be changed every few minutes and they would not be using the sign to distract motorists. He noted that some of the Walgreen locations have used their reader board signs to advertise community events, such as reminding people to vote or announcing some large upcoming community event. He suggested that this Board set stipulations on the frequency of the message changes.

Mr. Marella informed that the intersection of 15 Mile and Groesbeck Highway is one of the most dangerous intersections in the area and he felt that further distractions must be kept away from that corner. He complimented the petitioner on the Walgreens location at Gratiot Avenue and Wellington Crescent and added that although this Board wants to be fair to the petitioner, they must look out after the safety of the residents and motorists in the area.

Ms. Granata referred to the previous case petitioned tonight for the reader board sign at the Best Western Concord Inn and Conference Center. She pointed out that while that is a unique facility with a need for that type of signage, she did not feel a pharmacy would have to have that type of sign. She indicated that there are many pharmacies in the Township, and to have a reader board sign at this location would be "overkill". She commented that residents know what pharmacies are and she did not feel this type of sign is necessary for that type of business.

Mr. Catalano felt this location has ideal exposure to motorists because the traffic light at the intersection forces many motorists to stop. He pointed out that there are four or five reputable drug store chains within the Township, and he felt that if a variance is granted to permit a reader board sign at this location, this Board would have to approve such requests for all of the other drug stores. He did not think such a sign would be necessary at a pharmacy because prospective customers are aware of what is sold in drug stores.

Mr. Campbell noted that there are a number of freestanding drug stores in the Township, all of them relatively new, and none of them have required any sign variances. He pointed out the CVS store on Garfield and noted that their pylon sign is barely six feet in height. He expressed disappointment that a representative from Walgreens is not present at this meeting, because he would like to ask why a new Walgreens facility at Ryan and Metropolitan Parkway, with a larger road right-of-way, has neither a pylon sign nor a reader board sign and why they feel it is necessary for their facility here in Clinton Township.

Mr. Miller noted that Walgreens is currently constructing a facility on the northwest corner of Canal and Garfield Roads, and they have submitted an identical sign package and were denied by the Building Department.

Ms. Schwartz stated she could see a practical difficulty, not for the reader board sign but for additional wall signs to indicate they provide a drive-through pharmacy service and that they are open 24 hours. She commented that, in the event of an emergency late at night, these services need to be easily identified to motorists.

Mr. Miller pointed out that the wall sign can total 200 square feet, and if they would consolidate some of the lettering, they would be able to stay within the square footage requirement.

Mr. Catalano pointed out that Walgreens can put their advertising for their drive-through pharmacy or their hours of operation inside their window without getting a variance.

Mr. Campbell understood the point Ms. Schwartz brought up; however, he noted that none of the other drug store chains with drive-through pharmacy service have requested additional signage. He felt that lights on in the building and parking lot indicate a store is open.

Ms. Schwartz felt that many stores leave their lights on for security reasons but that does not necessarily indicate they are open for business.

Mr. Reynolds inquired as to whether this particular Walgreens location will be open 24 hours. He noted that according to the application, it is crossed off.

Mr. Dieters could not answer as to whether this facility will be open for 24 hours. He explained that the hours of operation vary from store to store.

Mr. Campbell recalled that at one time, Perry Drugs advertised "24-hours" on the outside of their building; however, although the store was open for 24 hours, the pharmacy was only in operation a portion of that time. He questioned whether this will be a 24-hour pharmacy because of the fact that there is a shortage of pharmacists and it is difficult to keep a pharmacy in operation around the clock.

The application was read again into the record and it was clarified that a "24-hour" sign is not being requested for this location.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, with reference to File #5419 and application from Michael T. Bailey, Bailey, Schmidt & Associates, Inc., 255 East Brown, Suite 105, Birmingham, Michigan 48009, as represented by Patti Krula, Metro Detroit Signs, 23544 Hoover Road, Warren, Michigan 48089, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(1)-B-1, B-2; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" "Pylon sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-2; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(3)-(h); Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Flashing/moving sign" and Chapter 1488.03; Signs: Schedule of Regulations; Chart, concerning 2.112 acres located at the southwest corner of 15 Mile Road and Groesbeck Highway at 34977 Groesbeck Highway, that request for variance to permit installation of one (1) business pylon sign and seven (7) business wall signs for a proposed freestanding retail store (Walgreens Pharmacy) in the B-3 General Business District, on a corner parcel with frontage on two major thoroughfares (15 Mile Road and Groesbeck Highway) each having right-of-way width of 120’, with: 1) Pylon sign display area of 125.39 square feet being 45.39 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 80 square feet; and 2) Pylon sign height of eighteen (18) feet being three (3) feet in excess of the maximum permitted fifteen (15) feet; and 3) Five (5) wall signs in excess of the maximum permitted two (2) wall signs; and 4) A flashing/moving sign panel ("LED reader board") on the pylon sign being a type of sign not permitted in any district, be denied by reason that no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship was presented. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickerson, Reynolds, Campbell, Catalano, Granata, Schwartz, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.

Mr. Marella responded to a question from someone in the audience that the public comment section of this public hearing is closed; however, he allowed the individual to make an inquiry.

Mr. Salvatore Parisi, [no address given], representing Mary Parisi, owner of Save-A-Lot, which is adjacent to the subject site, inquired as to what was being proposed and wanted to make sure that their sign will not be blocked from view.

It was pointed out to Mr. Parisi that the request for variance was denied and the petitioner will have to adhere to ordinance requirements.

Mr. Dieters requested permission to make one additional comment and that was to urge this Board to look closely at the reader board issue for future developments in the Township. He pointed out that even if the reader board only changes messages once every twenty-four hours, it is a much neater and more practical way of displaying information.

Mr. Campbell suggested that Mr. Dieters address a letter to one of the Township Board officials. He felt that someone in the sign business such as Mr. Dieters is in a position to make this recommendation.

Mr. Catalano admitted that Mr. Dieters’ comments may have merit and suggested he write a letter to the Ordinance Update Committee and take it to the Department of Planning and Community Development.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, to approve the report of the March 15, 2000 meeting as written. Motion carried.

Mr. Catalano stated this is his first experience with this report and felt it is a good tool; however, he felt the average length of meeting being "1 hour 12 minutes" is not indicative of the amount of time that is spent by the Board of Appeals members on this meeting. He pointed out that the members review their packages and visit each of the sites prior to the meeting, and when several items are on an agenda, this is quite a lengthy and time-consuming project.

Mr. Campbell requested a couple of changes to the 1999 Annual Report:

Page 1 (under Attendance Record):
Change from: "Absent"
Change to: "Excused"

Page 1 (Attendance Record – Carole L. Schwartz)
Change from: Present – 12; Absent – 1
Change to: Present – 13; Excused – 0

Page 1 (Attendance Record – Paul D. Woodring)
Change from: Present - 11; Absent – 2
Change to: Present – 9; Excused – 2

Page 4 (Wall Signs – Number of)
Change from: #Approved – 0; # Denied – 3
Change to: #Approved – 1; # Denied – 2

Page 4 (Wall Signs – Extension Above Roof)
Change from: #Approved – 1; # Denied – 0
Change to: #Approved – 0; # Denied – 1

Mr. Campbell explained his reasons for the requested changes. He felt that in each case where there was an absence, it was excused. He also noted that Mr. Woodring resigned from this Board in the fall and was no longer a member to be considered present or absent after that time. Mr. Campbell noted the change in the data on the Wall Signs was a result of an appeal by Lowe’s, which he felt was not reflected accurately in the computations.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to approve the Clinton Township Board of Appeals Annual Report for 1999, with the changes noted above. Motion carried.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Reynolds, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS