Roseville Michigan Property Taxes CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS REPORT OF by bia19538

VIEWS: 203 PAGES: 13

More Info
									              CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
                                  REPORT OF MEETING
                                   JANUARY 12, 2005



PRESENT:      Francis Marella, Chairperson
              Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
              Dara Brooks
              Peter M. Catalano
              Michael Nickerson
              Frank Poma
              Denise C. Trombley


ABSENT:       None


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



The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Marella explained the parameters under which
this Board can act and how the public hearing will be conducted. He further explained that, as
stipulated in the Township Ordinances, all variances granted by the Board of Appeals are subject
to several standard conditions as follows: 1) The petitioner must comply with all applicable
requirements of Township ordinances; 2) The project work requiring the variance must be
completed within two years of the date that the variance was granted; 3) The project work must
be completed substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board of Appeals; and
4) The variance is valid only for the useful life of any structure(s) on the property for which
variance as granted.


Mr. Marella introduced Ms. Dara Brooks, a newly-appointed member to the Clinton Township
Board of Appeals. He added that she has replaced Mr. Dean Reynolds, who was recently elected
to the position of Clinton Township Trustee.
Clinton Township Board of Appeals                                                                 2
Report of Meeting – January 12, 2005



APPROVAL OF AGENDA

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


0.709 ACRE OF LAND FRONTING THE EAST LINE OF ELIZABETH, WEST OF
GROESBECK (SECTION 2)
--    APPEAL: ACTION BAIL BONDS
      FILE #5972: WALT MYSH, ACTION BAIL BONDS

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell informed that
notice of this public hearing was mailed to owners and occupants of property located within 300
feet of the land in question, with one reply received in response to the mailing. He read the letter
from Joe Emington, Ability Bail Bond Services, Inc., 1440 Torrey Road, Suite B, Fenton,
Michigan 48430, as addressed to Ronald Marsh, Esq., Marsh Law Offices, 43550 Elizabeth
Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, that was forwarded to this Board from the Township
Supervisor’s office.

Tony Sadrowski, sign contractor, 18712 Martin, Roseville, Michigan 48066, explained that the
petitioners are seeking a variance to permit a second sign. They are located across from the
Macomb County Jail and the rear of their building is visible from Groesbeck Highway. If they
place their one allowed sign on the rear of the building, then their business would not be
identified in the front along Elizabeth.

Mr. Campbell requested clarification as to whether the entire development in the OS-1 District is
permitted one wall sign. He observed that as of today, there were no signs on the wall.

Ms. Sheridan clarified that to her knowledge, the petitioner applied for two wall signs, and they
were granted a permit for one sign and denied a permit for the second sign.

Mr. Campbell felt that if this variance is granted, all of the other occupants of the building may
also want additional signs advertising their businesses.

Mr. Sadrowski replied to inquiry that Action Bail Bonds is located in a shopping plaza and there
are approximately eight tenants in the plaza.

Mr. Campbell noted that there are more tenants across the street, and although he had no
objection to one additional sign, he could not see granting similar variances for all of these
tenants. He reminded that this is an office/service district and not a commercial district, and
signage requirements are different. Mr. Campbell mentioned that this building is situated at a
strange angle due to the curvature of the road, and he observed that the petitioner has placed a
neon sign in their window, which the ordinance allows; however, he also observed vans in the
parking lot that advertise this business. He commented that because of the way the snow had not
Clinton Township Board of Appeals                                                                 3
Report of Meeting – January 12, 2005

been moved around the vans, it appeared as though the vans were being primarily used for
signage.

Mr. Sadrowski replied that he was not aware of the vans, but he reminded that he is only the
representative.

Ms. Brooks questioned whether a “For Lease” sign in the same development counted for a sign,
or whether the owner of the property is allowed this sign without going against the ordinance.

Ms. Sheridan replied that temporary real estate signs are permitted and do not count toward the
total number of signs allowed for the property. She added that the real estate sign will have to
eventually be taken down.

Ms. Brooks requested clarification as to the location of the second sign and whether it will be
directly on the rear of the building.

Ms. Sheridan confirmed that the petitioner would like to place the second sign on the rear of the
building.

Mr. Catalano felt that the petitioner should have been present tonight because his representative
cannot answer all of the questions.

Mr. Nickerson expressed concern that if this variance is granted, many or all of the other tenants
will come before this Board for similar variances. He inquired as to whether Mr. Marsh, the
attorney who forwarded the letter that was read into the record, had an office in this complex.

Mr. Sadrowski stated he was not aware of whether Mr. Marsh’s office was located within this
same complex.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Brooks, with reference to File #5972 and application
from Walt Mysh, Action Bail Bonds, 43600 Elizabeth Road, Clinton Township, Michigan
48036, as represented by Tony Sadrowski, sign contractor, 18712 Martin, Roseville, Michigan
48066, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488-02-(e)-(5):
Definitions and Restrictions: “Business sign”, concerning 0.709 acre of land fronting the east line
of Elizabeth Road, west of Groesbeck Highway (M-97), addressed as 43550 Elizabeth Road, that
request for variance to allow installation of two (2) wall signs for an office building (Action Bail
Bonds) in the OS-1 Office/Service District being one (1) wall sign in excess of the one (1) wall
sign allowed, be denied by reason that undue hardship or practical difficulty have not been
demonstrated. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Brooks, Nickerson, Poma, Trombley, Catalano,
Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.
Clinton Township Board of Appeals                                                                       4
Report of Meeting – January 12, 2005



EAST ½ OF LOT 47, MORAVIAN-GARFIELD SUBDIVISION #1 (SECTION 29)
(FRONTING THE SOUTH LINE OF MORAVIAN DRIVE, EAST OF GARFIELD
ROAD)
--   APPEAL: SFR – MORAVIAN DRIVE, 36728
     FILE #5973: MICHAEL NIXON
     REPRESENTATIVE: MARK MCBRIDE, MCBRIDE STUDIO

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell informed that
notice of this public hearing was mailed to owners and occupants of property located within 300
feet of the land in question, with no letters received in response to the mailing.

Mark McBride, McBride Studio, 108 East Fifth Street, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067, explained that
one of the difficulties they have with this particular lot is that there is a main electrical line between
the rear of the house and the existing underground pool. He added that they have asked DTE
whether or not it would be possible to relocate the lines, but they were told that is not a possibility,
which is why they are now seeking the variance. He mentioned that the house was built in 1875
and is one of the original farmhouses in the neighborhood. Mr. McBride stated the petitioner is
trying to renovate the house to restore it as close as possible to its original Greek Revival style.
There are mature trees that the petitioners are also trying to keep, including a Korean Red Dawn
tree, which is the only one in the area. He explained that they would like to construct the garage
where it is proposed so that they can put in a nice terrace on the back of the house. He pointed out
that the garage will be architecturally designed to look like a barn, and there will be a flowering tree
grove in front of the garage, which will partially block its view from neighbors. He added that one
of the neighbors has existing landscaping on his property that would partially block his view of the
garage. Mr. McBride summarized that the DTE easement, the narrow width of the lot and the
number of mature trees they are trying to keep are all contributing to their practical difficulty for the
variance request.

        Karl Kirsch, 36670 Moravian Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated he has
        lived in his house for 34 years and during that time, there have been three owners of the
        subject property. He felt the present owners have done more in the two years that they have
        been there than the previous neighbors did in all of the combined years they owned the
        house. He complimented the Nixons and stated that everything they have done to the house
        has been an improvement. Mr. Kirsch noted that while he has not seen the actual plans for
        the garage, he was confident that it will also be an improvement. He commented that it is a
        beautiful site, and he has no objections. He added that he is the neighbor referred to by Mr.
        McBride as having the additional landscaping, so he admitted he will not be able to see the
        garage.

Mr. McBride replied to inquiry that the flowering trees will be new and will include such species as
the Bradford Pear, which grows to a height of approximately 15 feet, with a width of 12 feet at the
widest point, and it flowers in the spring. He stated that there are a couple of reasons for the
flowering tree grove; one is that it will simulate an apple orchard and it will provide a contrast to
Clinton Township Board of Appeals                                                                     5
Report of Meeting – January 12, 2005

the color of the garage, which they have determined will be “Martha Stewart Red”, resembling a
barn-red color.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the petitioner would consider situating the garage parallel to
the house.

Mr. McBride replied that they considered that option but decided against it for grading purposes
and in considering the existing and proposed landscaping. He felt it was an aesthetic decision.

Ms. Brooks inquired as to whether the existing shed will be removed and the terrace added at the
same time.

Mr. McBride explained that there is a shed and pump house for the pool. He noted that they will be
demolishing the shed when they construct the garage, and, depending upon the pool, they may have
a small pump house. He added that the terrace will be considered “Phase II”. He commented that
although the terrace is shown on the plan as a square, it will be much more elaborate in design.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Poma, with reference to File #5973 and application
from Michael Nixon, 36728 Moravian Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, for variance to
Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1298.01-(c), Supplementary Regulations;
Accessory Buildings (Including Garages), concerning the east ½ of Lot 47, Moravian-Garfield
Subdivision #1 (Section 29), generally located fronting the south line of Moravian Drive, east of
Garfield Road, addressed as 36728 Moravian Drive, that variance be granted to permit construction
of a detached accessory building (garage) for a single-family residence in the R-3 One-Family
Residential District with location in the west side yard which is not allowed; further, this grant of
variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the DTE easement extends through the rear
yard, the petitioner’s desirability of maintaining all of the mature trees and the relatively small rear
yard available; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other
requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Poma, Trombley, Brooks,
Catalano, Nickerson, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.


LOT 18, UNION LAKE SUBDIVISION (PRIVATE CLAIM 173, SECTION 25)
(LOCATED WEST OF UNION LAKE ROAD, NORTH OF SHOOK ROAD)
--   APPEAL: UNION LAKE VILLAS
     FILE #5977: DENO SKOLAS
     REPRESENTATIVE: WILLIAM E. MOSHER, APEX ENGINEERING GROUP

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell informed that
notice of this public hearing was mailed to owners and occupants of property located within 300
feet of the land in question, with numerous replies received in response to the mailing. He
summarized the content of the letters, all expressing opposition, as were received from the
following:
        Carol Parrot                 24162 Meadow Bridge
        Dorcas Parrot                24162 Meadow Bridge
Clinton Township Board of Appeals                                                                  6
Report of Meeting – January 12, 2005

        Janet Stanley                  24483 Meadow Bridge
        Sylvia Mullins                 24078 Meadow Bridge
        Alice Liva                     24027 Meadow Bridge
        Christine Stanko               24111 Meadow Bridge
        Earl & Sandra Schaeffer        24443 Meadow Bridge
        Jacqueline Szczepaniak         24514 Meadow Bridge
        Elizabeth St. Pierre           24400 Meadow Bridge
        Christine Mullane              24506 Meadow Bridge
        Paul & E. Messins              24518 Meadow Bridge

Ms. Sheridan clarified that while the petitioner reduced the number of units on the site plan from
16 to 12, her analysis still referred to 16 units. She apologized to the petitioner and the residents
for any confusion this caused.

Bill Mosher, 47745 Van Dyke Avenue, Shelby Township, Michigan 48317, confirmed that they
reduced the density of the proposed development. He stressed this property is difficult to
develop because the property is only 85 feet in width. He explained that the parcel is situated
between two established multiple-family residential developments. Mr. Mosher stated they met
with the Township Engineer to determine where the storm sewers and water lines are and to
where they can be relocated. He informed that he and the petitioner met with homeowners of the
abutting condominium complex and felt that they had resolved some of their concerns, although
he could tell by their attendance at this meeting that there were still some unresolved concerns.
Mr. Mosher stressed that they are unable to obtain any additional adjacent property, and they will
be saving more trees as a result of lowering the density.

        Jean Tamblyn, 34373 Meadow Bridge, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, questioned
        why the property identification numbers referred to on the Notice of Public Hearing for
        tonight’s meeting are different from those referred to on the previous Notice of Public
        Hearing. She also expressed concern about the accessibility of emergency vehicles to
        gain access when there is only one entrance, and she expressed further concern about
        flooding problems for the residents in Meadow Bridge Condominiums. She complained
        that they currently flood now and she could not imagine what it will be like with the
        vacant land developed.

Ms. Sheridan addressed Ms. Tamblyn’s question about the different property identification
numbers. She explained that the property identification system in the Township recently changed
and while the Township previously used Manatron numbers, they are now using Sidwell, or
county, identification.

        Donna East, 24359 Meadow Bridge, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that
        her condominium abuts the wooded area and she moved here approximately three months
        ago. She stressed that she never would have purchased this unit if she had been aware of
        the plans to develop the adjacent property. She felt this is a “quality of life” issue. She
        felt the many residents of Meadow Bridge have lived there a long time and have worked
        hard to make it a wonderful place to live. She pointed out that there is a lot of wildlife on
Clinton Township Board of Appeals                                                                 7
Report of Meeting – January 12, 2005

        the property, and even two or three condominium units would destroy that. She stated her
        concern about the increased traffic, and she questioned why the Township allows every
        last parcel of land to be developed.

Mr. Marella clarified that a person who owns property has the right to develop it and they cannot
be denied that right. He was confident that whatever is permitted to be developed on that land
will be beneficial and will not detract from anyone else.

        Ms. East acknowledged the property owner’s rights, but also felt she has rights to invest
        in property that will not depreciate when the adjacent parcel is developed.

        Jorge Chinea, 36355 Union Lake Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated he
        lived in a small house in Roseville before moving to his current address and they chose
        this location because of the forested area. He felt that more condominiums in the area
        will clog the area with traffic, which will jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the
        senior citizens in the area who enjoy walking. He did not feel there is a shortage of
        condominiums in the area because there are vacancies in the existing developments.

        Terri Chinea, 36355 Union Lake Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stressed that
        they purchased their home because of the wooded area and she claimed that it upsets her
        to think about it all being torn down.

        Daryl Conoon, 36401 Union Lake Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, would like
        clarification on how the developer plans to provide water and sewer service for the new
        development. He stated he has an outdated septic system and wanted to hook up to the
        sewer line but was told by the Township that it was unavailable. He claimed his neighbor
        was told the same information and recently invested $10,000 in a new septic system. He
        questioned where the sewer lines will be and why some people are allowed to hook up
        and others are not.

        Ron Carlisle, Manager of Meadow Bridge, 47200 Van Dyke Avenue, Shelby Township,
        Michigan, claimed the petitioner is requesting that they give up 30 feet, which would
        place the proposed road right on the property line. He indicated that the Meadow Bridge
        Condominium development was constructed 28 years ago and requirements have
        changed. He questioned where the water run-off will go.

        Mike Hobart, 24358 Meadow Bridge, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, felt the
        petitioner is trying to fit too much onto a small parcel of land. He discussed this with
        property owners to the north of the subject parcel, who claimed they were not notified of
        this hearing. He felt that if they had been notified, they would have voiced their
        objections. He felt he is seeking relief on too many issues.

Mr. Marella clarified that everyone within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject property were
notified of this hearing.
Clinton Township Board of Appeals                                                                 8
Report of Meeting – January 12, 2005

Ms. Sheridan clarified that if the property within 300 feet is developed with apartments, only the
owner of the apartment complex would have received notification.

        Sheila Buford, 36401 Union Lake Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, complained
        that the current property owner of the subject parcel has not kept up the property, and she
        felt that may be an indication of how he will maintain it after it is developed.

Mr. Campbell, after reviewing the letter from Assessing indicating owners of property within 300
feet of the subject site, confirmed that a notice of this hearing was issued to Eastwood
Apartments.

        Joan Erdman, 24120 Meadow Bridge, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, could not
        imagine as many as 12 units on the subject property. She complained that according to
        the site development plan, it appeared as though the driveway of the proposed
        development will be “in the backyards” of the Meadow Bridge residents.

        Joyce Habrowski, 24429 Meadow Bridge, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, stated that
        she can look out of her front door at the woods, but that according to the proposed plans,
        the road will be adjacent to her porch. She commented that it is such a private and quiet
        place now, and she urged the Board of Appeals to deny the variance requests. She felt
        there is other property in the Township that the petitioner could purchase and develop,
        and she questioned whether the petitioner did his homework before he purchased the
        property.

        Phyllis Viviano, 24421 Meadow Bridge, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, complained
        that her unit would face a road if this plan is approved. She purchased her unit with the
        understanding that there would never be construction allowed on the subject site. She
        claimed that she wanted a private place and that is why she purchased her current home.
        She was concerned that the value of her home will depreciate if the proposed
        development is permitted.

Mr. Mosher stressed that they will be working closely with the Township’s Engineering
Department to assure that there will be no problems with regards to flooding in the area as a
result of their development. He mentioned that there are no stub streets to the west of their
property and that is why they cannot provide additional access to the west. He discussed the
matter with the Planning, Building and Fire Departments and that is why the site is designed with
a boulevard entrance. He felt the additional traffic brought in for this development will not affect
the scope of traffic in the area. He assured that they will be trying to preserve as much of the
woods as possible, and they may curve the road in that attempt. Mr. Mosher reminded that they
will still have to go to the Planning Commission and Township Board for Site Plan review. He
insisted that this will not be a “cheap” development and the units will run between $150,000 and
$200,000 each, with the units having basements, two levels and two-car garages. He felt this
development will be an asset to the community, and he reminded that this is Mr. Skolas’ property
and he has a right to build on it. He commented that when a newer development goes in adjacent
to an older development, everyone benefits, and he felt Mr. Skolas has done an excellent job.
Clinton Township Board of Appeals                                                                 9
Report of Meeting – January 12, 2005



Mr. Campbell appreciated the concerns of the residents regarding the loss of the wooded area,
and agreed that the majority of people do not like to see trees and green areas eliminated. He
clarified that this property is zoned RML Multiple-Family Residential and the owner of the
property, by law, has a right to build on it. His plan does not meet the requirements of the
Township ordinances on three counts, but Mr. Campbell felt that regardless of the plan, the
petitioner would need a variance for the width of the property. Mr. Skolas is also requesting a 3-
foot variance for the service lane, and Mr. Campbell was in support of that variance because it
will result in less pavement and more greenbelt. He cited other developments in the Township
that have the 24-foot-wide service drive, and that is why they have incorporated a turn-around.
Mr. Campbell maintained that the petitioner will be unable to develop this property without the
variances, and he cautioned that if this Board denies the variances, the petitioner could take the
Township to court. From various case studies in the state, if the Board of Appeals denies this
request, they will be denying the petitioner an opportunity to use his property for which it is
zoned. He added that the petitioner would have to appeal to Macomb County Circuit Court for
any decision this Board makes, and the court could side with the petitioner and against the
Township, which would result in the Township losing control over the development. Mr.
Campbell observed that the petitioner has reduced the number of units from 16 to 12, and he
noted that the petitioner could build twelve 3-bedroom units and meet density requirements. He
had previously been opposed when the petitioner was trying to build over density, but he felt the
variances requested are minimal to enable the petitioner to use the property for which it was
intended. He was confident that the Planning Department and the Planning Commission will
assure that it is an aesthetically-pleasing development.

Mr. Poma agreed with Mr. Campbell because he felt there is a practical difficulty in the
configuration of the petitioner’s property and his right to develop it. He stated he would rather
see twelve condominium owners who take pride in their homes rather than an apartment complex
with transient residents coming and going. He stated his support of this variance request.

Mr. Marella estimated that up to 90% of lawsuits filed as the result of the Township denying
such a request end up in favor of the petitioner. He stated he would like to see a nice project that
will enhance the area.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Poma, with reference to File #5977 and application
from Deno Skolas, P. O. Box 182122, Shelby Township, Michigan 48318, as represented by
William E. Mosher, Apex Engineering Group, 47745 Van Dyke Avenue, Shelby Township,
Michigan 48317, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-
(f); Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area;
Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Size Lot Per Unit in the RML Multiple-Family Residential
(Low-Density District, Chapter 1292.01-(h); Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations
Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Chart and Footnotes; Minimum Side Yard Setback
Requirements in the RML District, and Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(10); Off-Street Parking and
Loading; Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance, concerning Lot 18, Union
Lake Subdivision (Private Claim 173, Section 25), generally located fronting the west line of
Union Lake Road, north of Shook Road, that variance be granted to permit construction of a
Clinton Township Board of Appeals                                                               10
Report of Meeting – January 12, 2005

condominium development (proposed Union Lake Villas) in the RML Multiple-Family
Residential (Low-Density) District with: 1) Parcel width of eight-five (85) feet being fifteen (15)
feet less than the minimum required width of 100 feet; 2) North side yard setback of ten (10) feet
being twenty-five (25) feet less than the minimum setback of thirty-five (35) feet; and 3) Service
drive width of twenty-four (24) feet being three (3) feet less than the required width of twenty-
seven (27) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty being the
shape of the property, which makes it unbuildable without variances, and the variances requested
are the minimum required to allow the petitioner to build on the property; further, this grant of
variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances.
Roll Call Vote: Aye – Campbell, Poma, Trombley, Brooks, Catalano, Nickerson, Marella. Nay -
None. Absent – None. Motion carried.


LOTS 4 AND 5, CHARLES KATHS SUBDIVISION (SECTION 12) (LOCATED SOUTH
OF WALNUT, EAST OF COLCHESTER)
--   APPEAL: SFR – WALNUT, VACANT
     FILE #5979: CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON
     REPRESENTATIVE: CARLO SANTIA, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
     PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell informed that
notice of this public hearing was mailed to owners and occupants of property located within 300
feet of the land in question, with no letters received in response to the mailing.

Ms. Sheridan stated that the Township acquired this property through the County. She indicated
that when property owners fall behind on their taxes, the County and the local community in
which the property is located try to keep those owners in their existing home, but if that is not
possible, the Township can acquire the property. In this particular case, the Township is
donating the land to Habitat for Humanity so they can build a home.

        Otis Hobson, 149 North Broadway, Mount Clemens, Michigan 48043, believed that he
        was the owner of the property in question and he is not in favor of giving it away. He
        replied to inquiry that he owns property on Fort and Charles.

Mr. Marella explained that the subject property fronts North Walnut and he felt that Mr.
Hobson’s property may be within 300 feet but is not the subject parcel. He clarified what is
being proposed and the variance that is being requested.

Mr. Catalano felt the requested variance will increase the property values in the area.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the house on Lot 7 is combined with Lots 6 and 8.

Ms. Sheridan confirmed that those lots have been combined. She indicated that Lots 2 and 3
have been combined into a 60-foot parcel, but Lot 1 has not been combined with any other lots.
Clinton Township Board of Appeals                                                                 11
Report of Meeting – January 12, 2005

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Catalano, with reference to File #5979 and
application from The Charter Township of Clinton, 40700 Romeo Plank Road, Clinton
Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code,
Chapter 1292.01; Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk,
Density and Area: Chart; Minimum Lot Size Requirements Per Unit in the R-5 One-Family
Residential District, concerning Lots 4 and 5, Charles Kaths Subdivision (Private Claim
626/Section 12), generally located fronting the south line of North Walnut, east of Colchester,
that variance be granted to permit the combining of two platted lots in the R-5 One-Family
Residential District into one parcel with: 1) Land area of 7,200 square feet being 600 square feet
less than the required 7,800 square feet of land area; and 2) Width of sixty (60) feet being five (5)
feet less than the minimum required width of sixty-five (65) feet; further, this grant of variance is
based on claimed practical difficulty being the unavailability of additional adjacent property;
further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of
Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Nickerson, Catalano, Poma, Trombley, Brooks,
Campbell, Marella. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion carried.


1.5 ACRE OF LAND FRONTING THE NORTH LINE OF CANAL ROAD, WEST OF
GARFIELD ROAD (SECTION 7)
--    REF: APPEAL: SUNNYBROOK PARK CONDOMINIUMS
      FILE #5859: LORENZO GARRISI

Mr. Campbell indicated that he is working on the Annual Report for the Board of Appeals and
this case officially needs to be closed as the variance is no longer necessary.

Motion by Mr. Marella, supported by Mr. Poma, with reference to File #5859 and application
from Lorenzo Garrisi, Sunshine Homes, 42452 Hayes Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038,
for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-(f) & (h); Land
Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area; Minimum
Land Area Per Unit and Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements in the RML Multiple-Family
Residential (Low-Density) District, concerning 1.5 acres of land fronting the north line of Canal
Road, west of Garfield Road (Section 7) at 16151 Canal Road, that this Board accept the
withdrawal of the request for variance to permit construction of a condominium development
(proposed Sunnybrook Park Condominiums) on a parcel having 65,340 square feet (1.5 acres) of
land in the RML Multiple-Family Residential District with: 1) Eleven (11) 2-bedroom dwelling
units being one (1) unit in excess of the maximum permitted ten (10) 2-bedroom dwelling units;
2) West side yard setback of 14.67 feet being 20.33 feet less than the minimum required 35 feet;
and 3) East side yard setback of 14.75 feet being 20.25 feet less than the minimum required 35
feet, by reason that the variance is no longer needed. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Marella, Poma,
Trombley, Brooks, Catalano, Campbell, Nickerson. Nay – None. Absent – None. Motion
carried.
Clinton Township Board of Appeals                                                               12
Report of Meeting – January 12, 2005



1.66 ACRES OF LAND FRONTING THE EAST LINE OF HARPER AVENUE, SOUTH
OF GLENWOOD (SECITON 25)
--    REF: APPEAL: OLIVIA COMMONS
      FILE #5873: ANGELO GRILLO

Mr. Campbell indicated that this is another case that needs closure as a variance is no longer
needed.

Ms. Sheridan clarified that the original request for variance was based upon Spalding DeDecker’s
measurements, which were later discovered to be erroneous.

Motion by Mr. Marella, supported by Mr. Poma, with reference to File #5873 and application
from Angelo Grillo, Grillo Properties, 50775 Richard W. Blvd. Chesterfield Township, Michigan
48051, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-(m); Land
Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart and
Footnotes; Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements in the OS-1 Office/Service District,
concerning 1.66 acres of land fronting the east line of Harper Avenue, south of Glenwood
(Section 25), that this Board accept the withdrawal of the request for variance to permit
continued existence of an office building (Olivia Commons Building #2) in the OS-1
Office/Service District with south side yard setback of eight (8) feet being two (2) feet less than
the minimum required setback of ten (10) feet, by reason that the requested variance was based
on erroneous information. Roll Call Vote: Aye – Marella, Poma, Trombley, Brooks, Catalano,
Campbell, Nickerson. Motion carried.


ELECTION OF OFFICERS
--  CHAIRPERSON
--  VICE-CHAIRPERSON
--  SECRETARY

Mr. Nickerson nominated Mr. Marella as Chairperson, Mr. Poma as Vice-Chairperson and Mr.
Campbell as Secretary to the Clinton Township Board of Appeals.

There were no other nominations.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Catalano, to close nominations.

Mr. Marella, Mr. Poma and Mr. Campbell all accepted the nominations.

Mr. Marella, Mr. Poma and Mr. Campbell were elected by acclamation to the positions of
Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Secretary, respectively, to the Clinton Township Board of
Appeals for a term through January 2006.
Clinton Township Board of Appeals                                                         13
Report of Meeting – January 12, 2005

REPORTS OF MEETINGS
--  APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 17, 2004 REPORT

Mr. Campbell noted that on Pages 2, 3 and 5, the paragraphs indicating that “Pertinent
correspondence was read…” continued to read that “Mr. Campbell informed the Board that there
the was…”. He requested that it be changed to read “Mr. Campbell informed the Board that
there was…”.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Poma, to approve the report of the November 17,
2004 meeting with the corrections noted on Pages 2, 3 and 5. Motion carried.


ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Poma, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. The
meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

                                  Respectfully submitted



                                  Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
                                  CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
01/17/05:ces
01/28/05:ces

								
To top