CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
OCTOBER 11, 2000
MINUTES

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

ABSENT:    Dean J. Reynolds

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

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

Mr. Marella noted that the petitioner for Item #1 (SFR – Harrison, 24353) has requested that reconsideration of this matter be tabled until November’s Board of Appeals meeting.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Campbell, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried.

This item was tabled until the meeting to be held on November 15, 2000.

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.

Russell Sharf, 23249 Oakwood, Eastpointe, Michigan 48021, explained that he has revised his plans and since last month’s Board of Appeals meeting, he now meets the minimum required 1300 square foot requirement and no longer needs a side yard setback variance. He clarified that he is only requesting a rear yard setback variance.

Chris Dembeck, 38741 Radde, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, stated that as long as Mr. Sharf falls within the guidelines of what this Board is requesting, he has no objection.

Roblynn Smith, 38815 Radde, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, was sympathetic to the petitioner’s difficulty in meeting ordinance requirements; however, she complained that her property abuts the subject parcel and she is opposed to having the homes "jammed in". She claimed that the petitioner’s mother also wishes to build and wants to put her home adjacent to the subject lot, which she felt will add to the crowded situation. Ms. Smith indicated that she moved to this area because of the openness of the property and she did not want to see this taken away.

Mr. Marella pointed out that the Township cannot deny an individual the right to use his property, and he reminded that the possible use of the adjoining property cannot be discussed tonight because it has nothing to do with the variance request.  He stressed that the issue being looked at is the request for a rear yard setback variance on the subject lot.

Ms. Smith felt that by approving this variance, the Board of Appeals "will be creating a nightmare for this area" and others will come in and request similar variances because precedence will have been established.

Mr. Campbell questioned where Ms. Smith lives in relation to the subject parcel. He questioned as to how the total square footage of the dwelling was increased since it is an existing house being moved to this lot.

Mr. Sharf replied to inquiry that he will be adding a 12-foot by 24-foot addition. He replied to further inquiry that the addition will be a four-season room with a full basement underneath.

Mr. Campbell felt this is a classic textbook case of an odd-shaped parcel. He complimented the petitioner on doing an excellent job in placing the residence on the property with a minimal number of variances being requested. He could not see any alternatives as to how the house could be placed on the property without obtaining a variance for the setback requirements.

Mr. Nickerson observed that the requested 8-foot variance is only for the southeast corner of the home. He noted that the southwest corner appears to meet the ordinance requirements. He felt that under the circumstances, the petitioner did a good job in meeting ordinance requirements.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5465 and application from Russell F. Sharf, 23249 Oakwood, Eastpointe, Michigan 48021, 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 0.285 acre of land generally located fronting the south line of Wellington Crescent, east of Radde (Section 23), that variance be granted to permit placement of an existing residential structure and construction of an addition to the residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with rear yard setback of twenty-seven feet being eight (8) feet less than the minimum required thirty-five (35) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty of the unusual shape of the property and the variance is the minimum and best alternative to be able to locate a residence 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, Schwartz, Catalano, Granata, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Reynolds. 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.

David Brigolin, 17104 Penrod, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that he is proposing to build a garage that will be of stick construction. He noted that he has "too much stuff" and would like to be able to store it under one roof. He explained that this is a standard kit and to build it smaller would result in a hardship in trying to obtain a custom kit. Mr. Brigolin added that the height variance is to provide sufficient room for him to work on his 1934 Packard. He commented that he cannot work on the restoration of this car in his existing garage.

Ms. Granata inquired as to whether he does mechanical/restorative work on cars other than his own.

Mr. Brigolin assured that although he was formerly a mechanic by trade, he has no desire to take on other cars and that the restoration of his car is a hobby.

Mr. Campbell was puzzled by the request for the height variance. He did not recall ever granting a height variance for an accessory structure, and he questioned why this structure would have additional height if it is a standard package.

Mr. Brigolin explained that he is proposing to put in a textured concrete block knee wall and build the structure on top, which will give him a more secure building with better door fits and the additional height he needs.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5469 and application from David Brigolin, 17104 Penrod, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.01-(f) & (i), Supplementary Regulations: Accessory Structures (Including Garages), concerning Lot 90, Moravian Garfield Subdivision #1 (Section 29), generally located fronting the south line of Penrod, east of Garfield at 17104 Penrod, that variance be granted to permit construction of a detached accessory structure (garage) for a single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with: 1) Height of fifteen (15) feet being one (1) foot in excess of the maximum permitted height of fourteen (14) feet; and 2) Floor area of 120 square feet being 92 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted floor area of 1,108 square feet (2% of 55,397 square feet); further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that to reduce the square footage to meet ordinance requirements would result in a custom construction rather than a standard kit, and the additional 1-foot height will allow for an extra watertight and secure storage area; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Schwartz, Granata, Nickerson, Marella. Nay – Catalano. Absent – Reynolds. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there was one written reply in the form of a petition 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 the petition contained 38 signatures, approximately 10 of those signatures with no address given, and the remainder of the signatures with addresses on Sharkey, Kentucky and Marino.

Bruno Burnosky, 34736 Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that this building has been in the planning stages for approximately five or six years, but legal problems with his brother prevented him from seeking approval. He stated he has resolved the situation and is now seeking approval. He has obtained a number of estimates from a number of contractors, one of them being the builder of the Olympic pool in Atlanta, Georgia. He advised that he has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to conduct testing for the airlines and have been approved by Northwest and currently do work with Detroit City Airport. Mr. Burnosky detailed some of the activities conducted within their business and the need for the additional space, including the need for locked cylinder rooms because of their explosive nature. He cited a recent example in another area of the country where an individual filling a cylinder lost his leg when the cylinder exploded, and he stressed the need for the additional safety measures they are proposing. Mr. Burnosky pointed out that there are utility poles along with a ten-foot easement for Detroit Edison. He noted that Edison’s solution is to remove the poles and put all of the wires underground, but this would be at his expense, which he cannot afford. He pointed out that if the utility poles and easement were not there, he would not need a variance because he could reposition his building to meet setback requirements. He offered to show the FAA Manual to anyone who is interested.

Josephine Johnson, 21716 Sharkey Street, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that she lives behind Mr. Burnosky’s shop and that she and the petitioner are good friends; however, she is opposed to the swimming pool. She felt it will depreciate her property value. She commented that there are some beautiful houses on Quinn Road and she could not see why similar houses could not be built on this property. She complained that Mr. Burnosky can get a water line to his property but when her husband attempted to get water to their property years ago, it was denied.

Mr. Burnosky clarified that the water line to service his facility has been approved by the Township, and he added that he had to pay to connect. He noted that he is currently working with Alice Shell of the Township to organize a summer program so the children in the area could utilize the pool in the summer. He explained that this pool has been a lifetime dream, and he mentioned that the pool building has been approved and all he is seeking tonight is a variance to provide room for some of the pool equipment.

Mr. Marella reminded that the approval of the pool without the variance is "not worth anything" and that the petitioner needs the variance to build the pool.

Mr. Campbell questioned the exact location of the easement and pointed out that it is not indicated on the print. He commented that when looking at the print without the easement designated, it is difficult to see the reason for the variance because it appears as though the entire building could be resituated on the property without the need for a variance.

Mr. Burnosky explained that for the last addition to his building, he was forced to move two transformers, which cost him in excess of $8,000. He assured that he would not be requesting this variance tonight if the Edison poles were not situated in a way that he would be forced to move them.

Mr. Campbell reminded that a financial hardship cannot be considered by this Board and the fact that it is costly to relocate Edison poles and wires can therefore not be considered a hardship or practical difficulty. Mr. Campbell suggested that Mr. Burnosky design a smaller pool, thereby eliminating the need for a variance.

Mr. Burnosky replied that the proposed pool is a regulation pool and must meet certain specifications. He indicated that he is working with the YMCA of Mount Clemens to build a "sanctioned" pool. He replied to further inquiry that schools want to lease the pool for their swim meets and competitions, but it must be sanctioned, meeting certain length, width and depth requirements.

Mr. Campbell felt there are many schools in this area that have sanctioned pools and he questioned the need for this pool to be sanctioned.

Mr. Burnosky replied that as a businessman, he cannot afford to build and maintain a pool unless there is a way to subsidize it through leases from local schools, etc.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether this pool will be used by the Clinton Township Fire, Police, Marine Patrol, and other service organizations for training purposes.

Mr. Burnosky replied that the Wayne County Sheriff, the Macomb Community College Fire Academy, and Harrison Township are among those who have contacted him, interested in pursuing a lease for training purposes. He added that Michigan Therapy would also like to lease the pool to provide physical therapy for their patients. He explained there is a demand for this type of pool because although many schools in the area have pools, they are generally used during the day for their own physical education programs, and with Parks and Recreation Programs in the evening, very little time is available for these other needs. Mr. Burnosky also pointed out that his business currently relies on a local school, but they have been known to cancel at the last minute.

Ms. Schwartz emphasized that she is not interested in the business aspect of this pool; however, she is concerned about the Police, Fire and other service organizations in the community being able to have a training facility. She felt that if this is denied, it may be creating a disservice to the community.

Mr. Campbell stated that while he agreed with Ms. Schwartz’s concern for an adequate training facility, he reminded that the larger sized "sanctioned" pool seems to be needed for competition purposes by schools. He felt that a smaller pool could still service the community for training and physical therapy.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to who owns the property to the west of the subject parcel.

Mr. Burnosky replied that the property to the west belongs to the bar and he tried unsuccessfully to offer to purchase a portion of that parcel, but the owner was unwilling to split part of it off. He replied to further inquiry that the mechanical units cannot be placed on the roof because they are not designed for that, and they cannot be placed underground because they need air circulation.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to whether the petitioner is requesting a waiver of the berm height.

Ms. Sheridan stated the berm height was not addressed because a berm is not required in this location.

Mr. Campbell expressed that he is bothered in granting front yard setback variances, and he felt there are other alternative solutions in this case by building a smaller pool or moving the utility poles and the reasons the petitioner is not electing these options are strictly financial. He reiterated his feeling that a pool available to the community for training purposes is an excellent idea; however, he felt it could be smaller and accomplish the same results.

Mr. Marella explained to the petitioner that the hardship presented is economic and this Board does not have the jurisdiction to grant a variance based on an economic hardship.

Rosa Shackelford, 21650 East Vermander, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, complained that this development will be right at her "front door". She questioned how the petitioner can put in a business at a location where there are no sewers.

Mr. Catalano informed that the petitioner can put the sewer underground and then he can build on the property.

Mr. Marella noted that the easement for water and sewer are already there.

Ms. Johnson commented that while the Township has been very kind to her, she felt the Township should deny this proposal.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5470 and application from Bruno’s Dive Shop, 34736 Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by Patrick Westerlund, Quinlan Associates, 31325 Harper Avenue, St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-(m), Land Use Regulations; Schedule of Regulation Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements in the B-3 General Business District, concerning Lots 16 through 19, Lots 38 through 41, Block C, Gratiot Heights Subdivision (Section 34), generally located fronting the east line of Gratiot Avenue, north of Vermander at 34736 Gratiot Avenue, that request for variance to permit construction of a retail development (Bruno’s Dive Shop Phase III) in the B-3 General Business District with front yard setback of twelve (12) feet from the Abrahm Avenue right-of-way being thirteen (13) feet less than the minimum required setback of twenty-five (25) feet, be denied by reason that the petitioner has alternatives to build and meet setback requirements and the reason the petitioner does not opt for the alternatives is financial. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Nickerson, Catalano, Granata, Marella. Nay – Schwartz. Absent – Reynolds. 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 Petz, 23770 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained that they would like to update their sign with an electronic reader board sign. Due to the nature of their business celebrating various occasions and events throughout the year, they frequently change the sign, and safety is a factor. He felt it is much safer to change a sign from indoors. He understood that the Township is considering updating the ordinance in the near future to allow reader board signs. Mr. Petz replied to inquiry that the proposed sign will be in the same location and will be the same size as the existing sign.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to whether the lettering on the proposed sign will be constantly moving and scrolling or whether the message will appear all at one time on the sign and remain for a period of time.

Mr. Petz assured that the sign would not be constantly moving.

Mr. Nickerson offered no objection as long as the lettering on the sign is changed at one time and remains for a period of time.

Mr. Petz commented that Morley’s is very community-oriented and would do nothing to hinder the safety of motorists in the area.

Ms. Schwartz found practical difficulty in the width of the boulevard and she stated being in favor of the variance for that reason. She inquired as to whether a revision to the current ordinance is proposed to include reader board signs.

Ms. Sheridan replied that while there is no Ordinance Update Committee meeting scheduled at this time, the possibility of reader board signs being included in the ordinance is expected to be investigated by this committee; however, if permitted, it would be under certain circumstances and with some limitations.

Mr. Campbell expressed disappointment that the Township would consider including this type of signage in their ordinance. He felt safety is an issue where this type of sign is concerned, and he compared it to cellular phones, where the driver’s attention is diverted. He felt the only acceptable purpose for this type of signs is if the lettering is changed all at one time and remains stationary for a period of time. He noted that both Chippewa Valley High School and Macomb Community College have this type of sign; however, since schools are immune from having to obtain approval from the Township to site plan, they did not come before this Board for their variance requests. He cited a couple of instances where this Board granted variances to permit reader board signs, but he pointed out that in one case, the sign advertised numerous events being hosted and the other case, the sign is currently in violation and they misrepresented their sign before this Board.

Mr. Catalano felt that if the Ordinance Update Committee is going to look at making some amendments to the sign ordinance, it is difficult to predict what those changes will be. He further felt that if the message is gong to be changing frequently, it could become a safety hazard. He agreed that while there may be some merit to the proposed sign, it may be premature to look at it prior to the sign ordinance being revised. He suggested the possibility of referring it at this time to the Planning Department.

Mr. Marella stated that this Board has the authority to act on this variance request at this time, whether it is an approval or a denial.

Mr. Campbell noted that a variance was granted in 1989 for the existing sign with regard to height and total square footage. He explained that, based upon the way the sign ordinance is written, that ordinance will carry on until the sign comes down. He pointed out that since that time, the sign ordinance has changed dramatically. He questioned whether the petitioner has considered reducing the size and the height of the sign to meet current ordinance requirements since he is redoing a large portion of the sign.

Mr. Petz replied that they have not considered reducing the size or the height of the sign, but they are proposing to paint it to keep it looking attractive. He assured they are very sensitive to the needs of the community and do not want to do anything to jeopardize the safety or appearance of their facility. Mr. Petz replied to further inquiry that they would be willing to agree to the condition that all the lettering must change at one time and that there would be no scrolling of letters or graphics.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5471 and application from Mr. Jim Petz, Morley Candy Makers, Inc., 23770 Hall Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, 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 15.688 acres fronting the south line of Hall Road (M-59), east of Groesbeck Highway at 23770 Hall Road (Section 1), that variance be granted to permit installation of a replacement panel on an existing pylon sign for an existing business (Morley Candy Makers) in the I-1 Light Industrial District with said replacement panel containing illuminated moving copy (reader board) being a type of sign not allowed in any District; further, this variance is granted with the stipulation that any changing of the language sign must be done in its entirety at one time and not "scrolling"; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty being the location and distance between the building and the road, the size of the road, and the amount of traffic; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickerson, Granata, Schwartz, Catalano, Marella. Nay – Campbell. Absent – Reynolds. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there was one 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, and he read that letter, signed by George and Laverna Perron, 36567 Gloucester, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035.

Michael T. Talluto II, 36553 Gloucester, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that he recently went to the Building Department to obtain a permit for a garage, only to be told that his existing deck was in violation of the ordinance because it did not meet the Township’s minimum side yard setback requirements. He informed that the previous owners of this house constructed this deck approximately seven or eight years ago. He added that he has made many improvements and beautifications to the house since he purchased it and he challenged that he has more flowers than anyone in the neighborhood. He addressed the concerns raised in the letter from Ms. Perron and indicated that he felt he has been a good neighbor. He recalled that she gave him permission to access her yard when the windstorm of a few years ago resulted in major damage to their properties, and he apologized if she felt that he was cutting her grass. He reiterated that he has been a good neighbor and has shoveled Ms. Perron’s walk in the winter for free because she is handicapped. He felt his deck is attractive, although he noted that when he received the violation, he stopped painting it and will complete the painting if the variance is approved.

Laverna Perron, 36567 Gloucester, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated she would like to be on good terms with Mr. Talluto and in that regard, she is proposing to erect a fence on the property line. She expressed concern that an approval of this variance, which would allow the petitioner’s deck to remain one foot from her property line, may result in her not being able to put up a fence on the lot line. She assured that when she referred to the petitioner’s trespassing on her property, she was not referring to the severe storm a number of years ago, and she emphasized that at that time, everyone in the area worked together to get the mess cleaned up. She complained that at that time, however, Mr. Talluto had a pile of woodchips dumped onto a portion of her property and this year has proceeded to dig up the grass and plant flowers on her property. She noted that she has requested that he remove the woodchips and the flowers from her property and to stop cutting the grass on her property, but to no avail. Ms. Perron insisted that she wants to remain on good terms with Mr. Talluto but does not want her right to erect a fence jeopardized by this variance. She replied to inquiry that she is proposing a split-rail fence approximately 4 feet 8 inches in height.

Ms. Sheridan informed that the Planning Department spoke with the Building Department, who confirmed that while no application for a fence permit from Ms. Perron was received, they would have no objection to issuing such a permit regardless of whether or not Mr. Talluto receives his variance. She added that issuance of such a permit would be contingent on meeting requirements of the fence ordinance. She assured that Ms. Perron will not have to move her fence regardless of whether or not Mr. Talluto receives his variance.

Mr. Talluto submitted a letter containing signatures of neighbors who are not opposed to his variance request. He noted that he did not have a chance to approach Ms. Perron about this petition.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether there is a hot tub on the deck and, if so, how close it is in relation to the edge of the deck.

Mr. Talluto confirmed that there is a hot tub on the deck and it measures two feet from the edge.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to what Mr. Talluto would do with the one foot between the existing deck and the property line should Ms. Perron erect a fence.

Mr. Talluto assured that he would have no problem with Ms. Perron putting up a fence and he added that he would be willing to help her pay for the fence but he cannot afford to do so.

Mr. Campbell compared this to a similar situation he has in his own neighborhood. He explained that he erected a fence on the property line, and then his neighbor proceeded to build a deck around an existing hot tub; however, the neighbor’s deck extended right to his fence. His neighbor is using his six-foot fence as a privacy screen and has even mounted plants and other decorations to the other side of the fence. He mentioned this to discourage Mr. Talluto from taking advantage of the fence, and hoped he would respect his neighbor’s right to erect the fence.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Ms. Schwartz, with reference to File #5472 and application from Michael T. Talluto II, 36553 Gloucester, 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 Side Yard Setback Requirements in the R-3 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 105, Moravian Meadows Subdivision #2 (Section 30), generally located fronting the west line of Gloucester, north of Chatham at 36553 Gloucester, that variance be granted to permit continued existence of a wood deck addition to an existing single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family Residential District with north side yard setback of one (1) foot being seven (7) feet less than the minimum required setback of eight (8) feet; further, this variance is granted with the stipulation that at such time that the deck and/or hot tub need to be replaced, all ordinance requirements must be met; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the deck was existing prior to the petitioner purchasing this property; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of the Township ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Granata, Schwartz, Campbell, Catalano, Nickerson, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Reynolds. 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.

Joseph Woodley, 26060 Brian Avenue, Roseville, Michigan 48066, explained that because of the way the shopping center is situated on Harper Avenue and the location of Dolly’s Pizza in that shopping center, it is very difficult to locate. They are proposing to put up a small sign on the back of the building so that their business can be identified. He felt there is a safety issue in that motorists are trying to locate their business and end up passing it and turning around.

Joan Goodreau, 35717 Margate Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that she resides directly behind Dolly’s Pizza and agreed that although it is a difficult place to locate and previous businesses have not remained there long, she is opposed to looking out of her window at a pizza sign. She could see where a temporary sign facing Harper Avenue may help them, but she could not see where a sign on the back of the building would be advantageous. She reiterated her opposition.

Mike Goodreau, of Louise Street, explained that he is Ms. Joan Goodreau’s son and he came to voice his objection to the variance request. He felt if Dolly’s wants to identify their location, they should mail flyers out, but he was opposed to the variance request because he felt the only hardship is financial.

Stacey Reinstad, 39338 Columbia, Harrison Township, Michigan 48045, owner of Dolly’s Pizza, explained that there is a spotlight on the back of the building for safety reasons and they would like to place the sign near that location. She noted that the proposed sign only measures 4 feet by 2 feet. Ms. Reinstad commented that prospective customers are making u-turns when they finally locate their facility, and she felt the practical difficulty is a safety issue.

Ms. Granata felt that when the petitioner leased this location, she was aware of the fact that it is a difficult facility to locate. She agreed with Ms. Goodreau and did not feel the back of the building is an appropriate location for a sign. She suggested that there are other ways of alerting people to their location, including flyers that refer to the name of the shopping center, or advertising through the Chamber of Commerce. She felt this is a self-inflicted hardship.

Ms. Reinstad clarified that when they signed the lease, they were not aware of the ordinance prohibiting them from erecting a sign. She replied to inquiry that there is an insert space for their business on the shopping center pylon sign.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to the proposed location for the sign.

Ms. Reinstad replied that their sign is proposed to be located on the north side.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether they had considered placing the wall sign on the west elevation of the building.

Ms. Reinstad replied that the Coney Island Restaurant is occupying that side so it would not be possible to place a sign on the west side. She indicated that motorists coming from the north will not be able to see their business until they are directly in front of the shopping center pylon.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the petitioner can place lettering in the window without it being considered a sign.

Ms. Sheridan replied that although there are some restrictions to window signs, there are not as many limitations as with wall signs. She replied to inquiry that the petitioner is permitted only one wall sign but nothing in the ordinance dictates whether it is placed on the north or south side of the building. She replied to further inquiry that the window sign cannot exceed 50% of the window space.

Ms. Schwartz admitted that she had trouble locating Dolly’s Pizza, but felt if the wall sign was placed on the north side of the building and lettering was placed in the window, that would help to make them more visible.

Ms. Sheridan replied that she did not see anything in the ordinance that would prohibit their one wall sign from being placed on the north side of the building, but she suggested the petitioner discuss this with the landlord.

Ms. Reinstad stated she discussed this with the landlord, and he offered no objection. She replied to inquiry that the entrance to their facility is not in the rear of the building.

Mr. Campbell cited a portion of the ordinance, which requires a permit for outdoor signs and indicates that it cannot cause any visual interference. He did not believe the intent of the ordinance was to permit business signs to be placed in such close proximity to a residential area. He did not feel a sign on the north side would be the answer because motorists’ vision would be redirected off of the road to see it.

Mr. Nickerson reminded that the request for variance is to permit an additional wall sign, and it is up to this Board to determine whether or not to permit this. He did not feel that it is up to this Board to determine which alternative is better for the petitioner.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5473 and application from Joseph P. Woodley, Universal Sign Fabricators, 24800 Warner, Warren, Michigan 48091, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(e)-(3)-C; Signs: Definitions and Restrictions; "Business Signs", concerning part of Lot 13, Supervisor’s Plat #7 Subdivision (Section 25), generally located fronting the east line of Harper Avenue, north of Klix Road at 35630 Harper Avenue, that request for variance to permit installation of two (2) business wall signs for a new occupant of a unit within an existing multi-tenant building (Dolly’s Pizza at Harper Village Shopping Center) in the B-3 General Business District being one (1) wall sign in excess of the maximum permitted one (1) wall sign, be denied by reason that the practical difficulty is self-created. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickerson, Campbell, Catalano, Granata, Schwartz, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Reynolds. 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. Mr. Campbell read the letter from David Dix, 42356 D’Harte Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, indicating he has no objection to the variance request.

Steven Witkop, 42332 D’Harte, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, explained he would like to add a sunroom. He explained that they have been improving the property and this is one of their last projects to complete their dream home.

Mr. Marella noticed that there are a couple of other homes in the area that have added sunrooms, one of them being directly behind the subject home.

Ms. Granata recalled a couple of similar requests from this area coming before this Board in the past.

Mr. Witkop replied to inquiry that he is the original owner of the home.

Ms. Schwartz noted that the petitioner’s house appears to be set further back from the front property line than the other homes in the area and inquired as to the reason for this placement on the lot.

Mr. Witkop was not aware of the reason for the larger front yard setback.

Mr. Marella pointed out that this is a garage-forward design and that tends to create a hardship when trying to meet rear yard setback requirements.

Ms. Sheridan replied to inquiry that this property is zoned RML Multiple-Family Residential and that at one time the developer, Aldo Marrocco, wanted to build apartments. She noted, however, that this is a platted single-family subdivision and that single-family homes are permitted in a multiple-family residential district.

Mr. Campbell felt the petitioner has a valid case because of the garage-forward design; however, he expressed concern over a comment in the application indicating the hardship as being "the city allowed these large homes to be placed on the small lots". He clarified that the "city" did not "allow" this but rather the builder chose this style home for this lot and the petitioner elected to purchase it. He commented that the garage-forward design gives the petitioner a lot of unusable front yard space. He added that the builder met the setback and square footage requirements and the fact that the lot is smaller is not the "city’s fault".

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, with reference to File #5474 and application from Steven Witkop, 42332 D’Harte, 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-5 One-Family Residential District, concerning Lot 567, North Branch Valley Subdivision #8 (Sections 3/4/9/10), generally located fronting the east line of D’Harte Court, south of Balinski at 42332 D’Harte Court, that variance be granted to permit construction of a sunroom addition for an existing single-family residence in the RML Multiple-Family Residential District, with rear yard setback of 24.7 feet being 10.3 feet less than the minimum required setback of 35 feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the house is a garage-forward design and has an unusually large front yard setback, making it difficult to accommodate a sunroom in the back and meet the rear yard setback requirements; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Nickerson, Schwartz, Catalano, Granata, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – Reynolds. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell requested the following change:

Page 3, Paragraph 1, Line 3:
Change from: "proposes a difficult situation for this type of business…"
Change to: "presents a difficult situation for this type of business…"

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Nickerson, to approve the minutes of the September 13, 2000 Meeting with the one correction requested by Mr. Campbell. Motion carried.

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Ms. Granata, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS