I'd like to call to order a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for
Wednesday, April 22nd at 7:00 PM.
Please rise for the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Item three, roll call.
Mr. Safaya is absent.
Yeah.
Mr. Perry?
Present.
Mr. Watts?
Present.
Mr. Clift?
Present.
Mr. Green?
Present.
Mr. Lindsey?
Present.
Mr. Assessor?
Present.
Mr. Jersey's present. Chairman Stovitch?
Present.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to excuse Mr. Safaya.
Support.
Okay, a motion by Mr. Jersey, support by Mr. Assessor to excuse Mr.
Safaya. All in favor?
Aye.
Anybody opposed? His absence is excused.
Takes us to item four, which is adoption of the agenda.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to remove
item seven from the agenda and leave the rest as written.
Support.
Okay. And do we want to
move the meeting minutes at this time?
Well, let's get-
Okay
... through the agenda first.
Okay. But then with the two use variances, should we see if they wanna-
Yeah, go ahead. Oh yeah, go ahead first. Yep.
So,
there are two use variances on tonight's agenda, one being item number
eight to I-Drive Auto Parts, and the second one
being,
site on 11 Mile for Ryan Debono.
Use variances require six instead of five yes
votes, and since we are down one board member, if either
of the two use variances wants to reschedule, just please
let us know.
Hold on one second. Go ahead.
It's on now.
Yes.
Hi. Hello. Karen Birdie.
I have item number eight on the agenda tonight and item number 11.
I would like to be heard by a full board if I can.
May I
adjourn these items to the next meeting?
Yes, you can.
So item-
What date would that be?
What's it, items eight and 11?
May 13th, isn't it?
May 13th will be our next meeting.
Mr. Chair,
is an adjournment in order for, or postpone in order for item number 11 since
it's not a
use variance?
The petitioner can request to-
Okay. I'm good with that. Okay. Just questioning. No problem.
Mm-hmm.
So
So May 13th would be the next meeting.
For both those items?
Yes.
Thank you, board members.
Okay, so do we have a motion to-
I have a question.
Yes.
So-
Yes, on this-
So on eight, what was it, on 11-12, was it
postponed for the same reason?
Yes.
Okay.
And Mr. Clift, did you have discussion?
No, sir.
Okay.
I was
just trying to get you attention.
Okay, so-
Okay, so I'd like to amend my motion, Mr.
Chair, as far as the agenda goes.
Okay.
I'd like to
take item seven off completely and then move items eight and
11 to the May 13th meeting and leave the rest of the agenda
as written.
Support.
So we have a motion by Mr. Jersey, support by Mr.
Clift to
modify the agenda as stated.
All in favor?
Aye.
Is anybody opposed?
Okay, the agenda is adopted as modified.
Takes us to item number five, approval of the minutes.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to
move the approval meeting minutes of
the meeting for February 11th, 2026 and March 11th, 2026 and
April 8th, 2026 to the May 13th meeting.
Support.
We have a motion by Mr. Jersey, support by Mr.
Clift to move the approval of the minutes to the May 13th
meeting. All in favor?
Aye.
Anybody opposed?
Minutes will be rescheduled for the May 13th meeting.
Takes us to item number six.
Item six, applicant Joseph Tringali, Representative Joseph Tringali, account
description 22755 Groesbeck.
Variance has requested permission to: one, allow 8,044 square feet of
open storage when the gross floor area of the primary structure on the site is
1,800 square feet. Two, waive the requirement that open storage areas shall
be screened from public streets for the open storage areas indicated as areas
B, C, and D on the site plan. Three, allow open storage to the north and east
property lines. Four, allow a
15.20-foot wide two-way maneuvering lane behind the
building along the west property line.
Good evening. If you could just start with your name and address for the record,
and then take us into your request.
Joseph Tringali, 22755 Groesbeck Avenue, Warren, Michigan,
48089.
Okay.
Joseph Tringali Sr., same address.
Okay, thank you very much. If you'll take us through your
request.
We're here asking you guys to approve our variance
request, allowing us more open storage in the areas that we've
described, and allow a wider alley for us
on the backside of our building.
Okay. Thank you for that explanation.
This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this
item?
Not seeing any, I'll close the public portion of the meeting
and
turn it over to the board for
questions and discussion.
Mr. Chair, we do have an impact statement.
Oh, yes. We do have the impact statement.
So per Ramworth, the planning department
impact statement and accompanying marked-up site plan was previously submitted to
the ZBA for the November 12th, 2025 meeting, along with physical
copies of the marked-up site plan, the February 11th, 2026 meeting,
and the April 8th, 2026 meeting. After review of the request
and further review of the petitioner's site plan, the following issues were found
to impact the budding local or general public, and the planning staff makes the
following recommendation.
A marked-up version of
the petitioner's site plan has been attached for a visual reference of the planning
staff's following recommendation.
It is recommended that the continuous concrete curbing be provided and
located five feet from the north property line, Nine Mile Road, and five feet from
the east property line, Groesbeck Highway.
This continuous concrete curbing shall replace the proposed concrete parking bumper
curbs in storage areas B and C. This
recommended change is illustrated in orange on the attached site
plan. The hard surfaced area located between the sidewalk and street curb
along Groesbeck Highway and Nine Mile, and then the northeast
corner of the site shall be removed and replaced with grass.
Along with the existing and proposed deciduous trees, additional shrubs
should be placed in the area between the sidewalk and the recommended concrete
curbing. This recommended grass area coverage is illustrated in green on the
attached site plan.
That's all I have, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jersey.
So the public portion of the meeting is closed, and
it's over to the board for questions and discussion.
I've got one question for a petitioner.
After we met last time, and you had a chance to look at
that marked-up
plan according to what planning was recommending,
did you have a chance to have any discussions with planning or
anyone about...
Do you agree with that or do you have...
Or do you not-
Oh, I'm sorry.
No, go ahead.
I attempted to meet with planning regarding the recommendations that
they added to the site plan.
My
meeting request was refused.
Per email, they said that it had nothing
to do with them, and it was solely a
recommendation which fell on the ZBA board.
So,
I
did try to reach out to them. They refused a meeting
with me and said that it was pretty much up to you guys.
So,
we are in the exact same position we were in two weeks ago.
Okay.
Thank you for that info.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Green. So
I'm a no vote on this. I'm opposed to the
8,044 square feet of open storage.
And I
think we're all ready to move forward on this item.
If it would provide more clarity, I can read the email that I
received.
I've read everything.
Is it a long email or is it-
I could sum it up pretty quickly.
Is it something we don't have?
No, it's just a reiteration of what I just said.
I think we're good.
Okay.
Right? Okay.
Mr. Chair, I think that the impact statement actually
sums up what
he's saying that we got from planning.
Okay.
See, what always confuses me on this is that
planning came up with an impact statement and they've
drawn a
plan here. But that doesn't necessarily match up with
them what the request is.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Jersey.
To the petitioner.
Good evening, Mr. Tringali.
Good evening.
So what's the nature of your business over there?
We're a mechanic shop.
You're a mechanic shop. You're not selling any cars over there?
No. We own a car lot as well. We do work on our cars
at our mechanic shop.
Is there any reason why most of the cars on your lot have no license plates?
Have no license plates? A lot of them are
being transferred from one spot.
Let me explain also. Well, we do business with Hamilton
Chevrolet. We pick them up with a dealer plate, and we bring them to
our repair facility. We do business with
Galliano/Van D**e Dodge, same thing.
Royal Brian Ford, same thing. Redskin Auto
Sales, same thing.
The majority of our business is in-house.
Do you have any letters or anything stipulating that, your customers or anything to
that effect?
Because by the naked eye, just
driving by, it looks like to me just a used car lot.
No, but we could easily provide those.
So,
I have to share the same sentiment as Mr. Green.
I
think 8,044 square feet of open storage is excessive.
I'm a little disappointed in you gentlemen with the length that
this thing has been on the agenda.
The lot in your property is
still to me out of control.
There's cars everywhere
To me, I think it's
a borderline nuisance.
That place was a transmission shop for many years, so you had cars coming and
going, and I'd never seen that many cars on that property.
So
to allow the 8,044 square feet
of open storage, I have a problem with that.
Excuse me.
I'll yield the floor. I don't have any questions. Thank you.
Good.
Excuse me, can I ask a question?
I don't have a question, thank you.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Watts.
So question to the petitioner. When you purchased this property, did you
check and see if it could be used for this?
Did he check to see if it could be used for...
Used for what, sir?
For what you're doing.
Mechanic shop? Yes.
For all the open storage.
No, I did not. I didn't know I needed to.
It was like that prior to me buying it, for 50 some years that they were there.
I would disagree with you because I drive by there a lot.
Yeah, I know.
When I look at how many times the city was out there and cited you for this,
and I look at all of these things,
I don't know. And
it doesn't look like anything's
been cleaned up. It still looks disorganized, and
it's everywhere. It looks like there's cars abutting
the factory on 9 Mile there, back in there.
There's cars on the other side. It
doesn't look good, sir.
Do you remember how Chuck's Transmission looked prior to me buying it?
Somewhat, yeah.
With all the weeds, and I planted 15 rose bushes
inside that power... I mean, flowers inside there.
I made it look good. On the back were all broken down cars with
weeds,
dead trees. I cleared all that out, cleaned it real
nice.
I've made that corner look really good.
It still looks bad. It's unlicensed
cars, and
this is just out of the norm.
What am I supposed to do if these are my
customers?
Unlicensed vehicles, you have to have the proper zoning for
the open storage like that. So a
different location, you should've got a location that would
accommodate that.
Oh.
With all due respect, your car lot on Van D**e
looks great.
But
you don't have all this kind of stuff over there.
So I don't know.
It's a mechanic shop. It's not a used car lot.
So-
Believe me, I've done my best to clean it up
from what it was.
Okay, thank you.
You're
welcome.
Mr. Chairman?
Yes, Mr. Clifton.
If I could speak real quick, and I'd-
I have a question for you, sir.
Yep.
Good evening, gentlemen.
Good evening.
Last meeting,
I remember hearing something about not an agreement with
the proposals that planning kind of put forth, but we never
got into any of that. And
I'm a little disappointed to hear that they
wouldn't entertain a meeting with you again to maybe discuss things or
see if there was any movement could be made either way.
But
could you maybe go through and explain to the board
what
issues or problems you had with
their
proposed rendering of the site plan that we have in front
of us this evening? I'm just trying to get a grasp on
why, what you guys disagree with.
Sure. Well, we were approved conditionally at
a city council meeting before.
We did agree upon making some adjustments, adding grass,
a couple of trees. We agreed to take down our sign,
which is the first thing that I would disagree with planning on their
recommendation.
They want us to make that whole area grass and
deciduous trees, where it's already a large
planter box, and
it's beautified. There's flowers there now.
I don't see it to be necessary for us to do
that. The second thing was at the
original
meeting,
where we were
approved conditionally, we agreed to put bumper
blocks in front of our parking spaces.
Never a curved cement structure, which would entail much more
work, time, money, things that
we were trying to avoid.
Also, I don't know if this is the forum to
bring it up, but Groesbeck Highway is owned by the state.
I don't know how to conduct that business when it comes to
adding grass to a state highway.
I also noticed that there was a water main at one of the areas of the side of where
they want us to put grass. That was a question I had for planning as well,
which I was never really able to ask.
So
those were
two of the main disagreements we had with their recommendations.
They wanted grass on the inside.
Yeah, that's what it was.
All right. Thank you. I appreciate the answers, sir. Thank you.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Chair, just for clarification-
Yes, Mr. Green.
Oh.
The issue is... I'm sorry to interrupt.
The issue is
for me, and I think-
For Gary, when we're talking about it, it's not these back and forth
things with planning and grass and stuff like that.
My issue is open storage. And
8,000 square feet of open storage is a lot of open storage, and based on the
way it looks, I don't see anything changing.
So I think that's more the issue than
how we got here.
Because obviously there was-
We were cited... I'm sorry.
Obviously there was some
disagreements as to how we got here.
But
the fact is, it's 8,000 square feet of open storage.
So it doesn't look very good.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Green.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Watts?
So I'm looking at the items that planning originally
on your conditions.
A wall to enclose your dumpster,
sidewalk, and ADA
ramps located at the intersection of Nine Mile and Grossbeck shall be provided on
the map.
The parking blocks.
Were you in agreement with all that stuff at the time?
And the grass and all that?
Yeah. Yes. The grass was one of the things that we had
a question about, though, which is what I was referring to before.
There
was a-
If they asked you for the grass at the planning, that was the place to address
it. Not here.
Yeah. You refused our meeting. I
tried to schedule a meeting with planning.
But they addressed that when they gave you the conditions originally when you-
No. The conditions were changed
without us knowing.
They weren't even changed, they were strictly recommendations based on what
planning told us.
What we agreed on was what we talked about in the
meeting with the planning department.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Green.
So we're going to do this all night. So we have two options.
One is they can withdraw their petition and come back, or we
can vote yes or no and move on from there.
Because to relitigate this or whatever word you want to use-
Yeah
... it's just not going to work.
Right? We've already talked about all this stuff, and they've said planning
won't talk to them, we won't talk to them, and they won't talk to them.
And they have two options. They can withdraw
their petition, or we can vote
yes or no on it.
That's correct, Mr. Green.
Sorry?
That's correct.
Okay.
I don't want to cut anybody off,
but does anyone have any motions that they would like to make?
I've got another question,
Mr. Chair.
Yes, Mr. Cliff.
You kind of went through some of the
businesses
that
come to you for work.
Right.
Yes.
So I heard
some
large car dealership businesses in the
area. I think for the record, it would be important for
us to find out. I'd like to know what percentage of your business
is actually
the average Joe walking in the door looking for some repair on his
car-
Would that be fine?
... compared to...
Don't interrupt me, please, sir.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
And I'd like that percentage in relation to
the big farm-out business that you guys do from
dealerships and car lots and the like. And your own.
I'm sure you work on your own vehicles that you're going to recondition and
sell at the facility.
Correct.
If you could provide me with a good approximation of those
estimates, I would greatly appreciate that.
You'd like to know that figure now?
Yes, sir.
I'd say approximately 90%.
Is?
Is in-house business. Hamilton Chevrolet,
Van D**e Dodge, Royal Bryan, and Redskin Auto Sales.
Okay. So
with that response,
my feeling has shifted a little bit on this item because I'm more inclined to
believe that for the size of your
facility, for the volume of work that you do,
the size of your facility is not really conducive to that volume of
work, or you wouldn't be standing here asking
for that excessive amount
of outside storage. And I
don't know, and I have no suggestion on how to go
forward with this. I have issues with unscreened outdoor storage
as well, when
whatever's being stored isn't exactly
pleasant or appeasing to the eye, and it's a detraction from
the general area. But I appreciate the information you provided me, sir.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
Anybody else have anything?
Any other comments or questions?
I don't.
No. I'll make a motion then.
Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Green.
I move that we deny the variance request of, do I have
to read all four of these?
Allowing 8,400 or 44 square feet of
open storage when the gross floor area of the primary structure on this site is
1,800 square feet.
Two, to waive the requirement that open storage areas shall be screened from public
streets for the open storage areas indicated as areas B,
C, D on the site plan. Three, allow open storage to
the northeast property lines. And four, allow
15.2 feet wide maneuvering lanes behind the building
along the west property line.
It's not necessary, it's a detriment, and it's not for
personal or economic benefit.
status. So
that's my motion.
Support.
Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Green, support by Mr.
Sessar to deny the request as stated in
the motion.
Mr. Green?
So let me think. So it's a yes vote to deny.
Yes to deny. Mr. Sessar.
Yes to deny for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Lindsay.
Yes to deny for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Cliff.
I have to reluctantly vote yes to deny for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Watts.
Yes to deny for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Perry.
Yes to deny for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Jersey reluctantly votes yes to deny.
I would like to see the petitioner withdraw this and try and
go about it another way. But I'll vote yes to deny. Chairman Nastarovich.
I will also vote yes to deny, but
so the request has been denied. I would recommend
your next steps if you are maybe contact like the building
department to see what possible next steps.
I know personally if
the plan was more of like what we got from the planning recommendation, I
could be more behind it, but I understand that you don't agree with all of that.
But maybe you could talk with Mr. Watrapont or whoever from the
building department and see what next steps there can be.
Unfortunately, for tonight, you have been denied.
Okay.
Thank you, guys.
Can I ask a question while
I'm here?
Is it a quick question?
It's a quick question. I understand that the amount of square footage
being as large as it is,
it seems like it's too much open storage.
I believe that square footage includes the distance between the curb and the
building. Is there any way to adjust that that would
satisfy...
That would probably be a zoning question for Steve.
Okay. All right.
You're going to have to get with them and try and come up with,
I guess, another plan of action.
Sure.
Even if there's a minor change to something like that.
So
you're not necessarily dead on the vine, but you're going to have to try to rework
what you got, and it's a shame that planning didn't hear you guys.
So-
It is, and I was in contact with them the day after the meeting and-
So we'll just end it at that. So, okay.
Have a good night.
Thank you.
Good
night.
Takes us to item
nine, I believe. Yep. Item nine. Applicant, Chantelle Burton.
Representative, Chantelle Burton. Common description, 32548 Newcastle.
Variance to request a permission to retain 22 feet of widened driveway from the
south corner of the garage to the south property line.
Good evening.
If you could start with your name and address for the record and then
take us through your request.
Chantelle Burton, 32548 Newcastle, and it's in
Warren, Michigan.
So I am requesting to retain the
extension on my driveway.
That driveway extension was put in more than five years ago.
When we initially put the driveway in, we came to the city
with the contractor to make sure that we were in accordance with
any city ordinances, and at that time, we were told that we
did not need a permit, that there was nothing further that needed to be done,
and thus we had the work done.
We had no issues or no problems. In 2023, I received
a citation.
I went to the city where when I got to the city, all of the
employees at the city were floored.
They couldn't understand why I was receiving this.
I turned in all of the paperwork for the variance at that time.
I never heard anything further. I assumed that because I got so much
backlash from the employees that this was ridiculous, that it shouldn't have
happened, that it just went away. In March of
2026, I received another citation.
I went to the city, and I talked to the city about the citation, and again,
every employee that I talked to at the city was like, "I can't believe this is
happening. This doesn't make any sense."
They told me again that I would need to do the variation, but they couldn't
understand why. In both 2023 and in
2026, I went and I talked to all of my neighbors on the block
to find out if anybody else had in fact received a
citation, and nobody else had received a citation in
2023 or in 2026. After I
turned in my variance is when other neighbors started receiving a
citation. I talked to a neighbor on Cambridge yesterday
evening, and he told me that he, in fact, had received a citation, and once he
received a citation, after some mix-up with
his house and somebody on his block, is when he came to the city
and he turned in other addresses for
people had the variations. In our
initial meeting with coming to the city with
our cement contractor,
we had this idea to extend the driveway because there were so many
houses on our block that had that same extension.
At the time, there was construction on 14 Mile.
That construction lasted about two and a half years,
and it made it very difficult to park on our street.
We had multiple cars, and we could...
My husband had a dually truck, and it could not safely be parked on the
street with all of the construction work.
It was so much traffic that was coming down the street.
It also puddles horribly bad in front of my house.
Anytime it rains, it snows,
there's a ton of snow and ice that piles up there.
So if we were forced to park on the street, our cars would actually freeze
in the amount of ice that's out thereAgain, in speaking to all of
my neighbors, their driveway extensions have all been there, and they've been
there... Mine is probably the least oldest, which is five years old.
Everybody that I've spoken to has had their driveway extensions for
years. I even talked to a neighbor last night, that is also present here
today, that did get a permit for other cement work that was being
done, and the city came out and gave them approval for everything that was done
on their permit. None of us have been told that we needed a
variation until now. This
citation is coming up. And again, since I received a citation,
many of my neighbors have also received a citation.
Okay. Thank you for that explanation. This is a public hearing.
Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this item? Please come forward.
And anybody speaking, if you can also give your name and address.
Darren Moore,
32206 Newcastle Drive.
I live down the street,
and I also have an extension. I've had it for 11 years.
I'm going to be in here sometime in the near future for
my stand to be here. We went to the city
with a contractor,
had everything approved.
Even though we didn't need a permit, they saw our plans, what we were going to do,
and we had two different
inspectors come in to check for our garage, which was
connected
because we were doing it all at the same time.
We originally put ours in so our son could play basketball, and
for when our in-laws came over, who are both handicapped.
Her spot
is much safer on the corner that she's at
because it's a turn point,
and
so many cars come through there, especially with their dually.
The dually made it really hard to make a turn onto that street because they're
right there at the corner in the turn points.
Her
driveway makes the street safer,
winter and summer,
because we have a lot of traffic come through.
We have the buses come through
because we're right by the school.
And there's no problems.
I mean, it looks good.
Even when they're parked in it, looks good.
Okay.
Thank you for those comments.
Any other audience members?
Okay.
Good evening. I'm Jonathan Smith at 322922
Newcastle.
My driveway's about six years old.
Similar situation. We were told we didn't need a permit.
A lot of the driveways in there are
expanded,
and it is a very busy street. We've had cars hit,
had cars stolen.
We want to keep the cars in close.
And yeah, I just figured I'd let you know.
I'll be here next meeting or two probably. I'm not sure.
Thank you.
Uh-oh.
Good evening. My name's Tim O'Brien.
I'm directly across from these folks.
These folks have been here several years.
And your address, please.
32535
Newcastle.
Okay. Thanks. You can continue.
They've been here several years.
It's the cleanest across the street we see.
They do everything right.
When they found out that they had a problem, everything stopped,
and it just doesn't break with it because I see on our
streets a lot different things than what I see
across the street from them.
Probably even me. I moved into the home where the driveway was
there, and it's quite wide.
So I don't want you coming out and tearing mine out yet.
I just want to tell you, down these streets, you'll find
anything you want. And as a matter of fact, we have a
list of those that are not in rule,
and with no problem whatsoever with these folks.
I think you ought to just take a look at it and
let it lie.
Thank you.
I just wanted to mention to the board that that
list of addresses where there were the widened
driveways is one of the things that was passed out to all of you today.
Any other audience members wishing to speak on this item?
Mr. Chair.
Not seeing any, I close the public portion of the meeting and
turn it over to the board for questions, and Mr. Green, you had...
So
what's happened up till now,
even though it's meaningful,
it doesn't mean anything to move us along to where we want to go from
here.
These are complaint-driven,
so that means someone made a complaint.
Someone comes out and looksThey see that as a
violation of the
ordinance,
and then the process starts from there.
The ordinances are posted, they're listed, they're online,
and
everything's available to everybody in the public.
So with that said,
this doesn't even come close
to meeting what the ordinance is.
So
my vote will be a no vote
on this particular item.
Mm-hmm.
And we've had a few of these up here before,
and the argument that, well, there's a lot
of them, there is a lot of them, but there's an ordinance in
place so that we can keep the look of our city.
And just for information's sake, part of the reason that this was generated and
came up
in the last two years is that we were getting a lot of people,
and maybe it's not your case, but a lot of people who are putting overkill
driveways in to run businesses, a lot of people putting
overkill driveways in to have multiple families living in the house.
So as a result of that, the answer for the city
is to enforce the current ordinance.
The only other option is for an ordinance to
get changed,
but if you look at it in the big picture, the ordinances aren't going
to get changed to allow front
people to
pave,
in some cases, their entire front yards. It's just not going to happen.
So it's
very inconvenient, and we've had a lot
come before us, and unfortunately, we have
to apply the ordinance that exists.
Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rutz, if you could just hold on for one moment.
I realized that we had a couple emails
that we need to get right into the record.
If we could do that before your comments.
I can't hear.
So I missed a couple emails here. I apologize, board.
So the first one is
from a Carol Wiseman.
She says, "I'm sorry I can't be here this evening.
However, I need to express my views to my fellow residents of Warren and this
board of my neighbors. I am a resident homeowner for 26
years at 32800 Cambridge Drive. There are a total
of 140 houses on Newcastle, Cambridge, and Hanley between
14 and Masonic. These three streets are referred to as Camelot
Estates on the City of Warren maps and records.
By my account, 28 have widened driveways, or 20% of the total
houses. These widened driveways, quote-unquote, are used to park
additional cars off the street. This is good.
Is it not? Occasionally in the summer,
we'll have a small RV parked there before a vacation.
Less occasionally, a trailer or a work van truck.
I do not understand the reason for these recent tickets.
Does the board want 20% of these residents to tear out these
widened driveways? Some of these driveways have been there for more than three
homeowners. If some of these are illegal,
that is, without variances or without permits, why
now many years later? I understand precedent in any variance,
but if it is 20% of these three
streets, what is the percentage in all of Warren or your own streets?
Unless the widened driveway is not in good condition, I say leave well enough
alone. Thank you, Carol Wiseman." The next one is from
a...
She says, "My name is Ella Barshoff, and I
live across the street from the Burke family.
I'm writing in regards to the driveway appeal to let you know it is not
bothersome and in no way takes away from our neighborhood.
This is a wonderful family who keeps their home immaculate and have been
around to help me when asked. I hope this finds in their
favor as their amazing neighbors.
Sincerely, Ella Barshoff at 32547 Newcastle Drive."
And additionally, in our packet, I know the board has seen this.
Along with Ella,
there is an Angel Samuel
who resides at 32831 Newcastle,
and Mai Song, who's address is
32820 Newcastle, and both of them have a blanket
statement that says the same thing, that, "I am aware of the driveway
extension, and I do not see the driveway extension of the above-mentioned
address as a nuisance, nor does it
negatively affect the appearance of the neighborhood.
The driveway is maintained and keeps extra traffic off the street and improves
traffic flow." That's all I have, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Does Mr. Watts...
Mr. Watts, you have a comment?
Yep. So
with everything that we get,
I make a point to drive by every
thing that we're going to review up here.
I did the same thing when I was on city council.
I came by your place, because you're not far from me, about four or five times.
I did witness the water problem in the street, because we had
all the rain last week.
Yes.
I did notice that.
And I will say, your property looks very good.
Thank you.
However,
I look at this... So let me give you a little back history.
So we've had a few of these already.
One particular in your neighborhood, but a couple others.
And people go to the city to get a permit to do their driveway.
The only thing you need a permit for is to replace the approach.
The approach has to be permitted. But you can replace your driveway itself
between the sidewalk and the garage without a permit.
But you can't go outside of the garage
line.And
this is what's happening. People are thinking that because they said they didn't
need a permit to do their driveway, they could cement their whole front yard.
You didn't do that in your case, but-
Right
... we've got that in a lot of cases.
And
honestly, the
city is starting to look bad because people are
parking in the front yard,
and that's not what
we're about.
I've got one around the corner from me. It's the same thing.
They put a concrete pad right in front of the porch.
It looks terrible when you go by there, and that's
being dealt with.
And in your case, somebody did the same thing, and they were
told to stop work,
and they did it anyways. And in your case here, I looked at
the city records online, and I can't recall exactly what I seen on there, but I'm
looking at what they included in our packet, and they told you in
2023, on 7/24, that you had done this
without approvals.
Correct. And I came to the city,
and I filled out this entire packet, but they told me that they
misplaced the packet. So at that time, I turned in
everything that was requested again with letters from the neighbors.
Again, we came there with the contractor, and we
explained to the people that work at the city what it was that we were
doing. And I think the bigger problem is that the people that work at
the front desk are not abreast of what the
variances are or what the city ordinances are, because we came there with
the cement contractor to explain exactly what it was that we were
doing. If you look at my house, everything that I've done, I had to pull permits
for. I'm not a rule breaker.
Okay. And I-
I came there to be able to do it and do it the right way.
I understand that, and I also know that the city employees that work in there have
been there for some time, and I'm sure they
know what the ordinances are. Everybody, they know.
If people are going in there and they're saying, "I'm going to replace my
driveway." "No, you don't need a permit for that." And then people expand
two feet more or eight feet more. In your case, I don't know, it looks...
I didn't measure it, but I'm assuming it's about 20 feet.
And
it's too much for the neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, somebody else did it in your neighborhood,
and I think that's what's caused all the attention that
they went around and wrote everybody up, and I know we got a list tonight.
So there's going to be a whole bunch of people that zoning is going to be,
if they haven't paid a visit to them already, they're going to pay a visit because
somebody provided a list.
I'm going to be a no vote on this, to be honest with you.
I don't see
where it's needed, and I see it as a
detriment to the neighborhood.
Listen, I live on a side street like you do.
I live on a half a cul-de-sac,
and I live down the street from a school that the kids all drive cars.
And they all cut through my neighborhood, and it's curved there.
And I have to deal with that with my cars parked there, too.
We've had them hit trees and stuff like that.
But I didn't expand my driveway to take care of that either.
You just have to deal with it.
Right. I can understand that. But-
I feel bad for you because I know what cement costs today.
Exactly. And there was no way that we would've spent the money to have the cement
done if we had not been told that it was okay for us to do
it. And we did not just go there to say, "Hey, we want to extend our
driveway." We went there with the contractor to explain exactly what
it was that we were doing, and we were told that there was nothing
further that needs to be done. And again, even in 2026 when I went,
there was only one person that was there that knew what the ordinance were.
Everybody else that was behind there was like, "This is bull crap.
Why is this happening?" They pulled a photo of my house up and they're like, "Your
house is nice. Which one of your neighbors did you p**s off?" And
all of my neighbors, nobody has an issue with this. Nobody.
And then I would also like to mention that I've been told that there was a proposed
storage unit that's going to come on 14 Mile, that's also going to create a
problem. Our street is a direct bus route.
If all of these cars are now forced on the street, not just my cars, because again,
it's 10, 12 houses that are on Newcastle.
If all of these cars are now forced on the street, how do the buses safely get up
and down the street?
That storage, so I read that it's on Sterling Heights side.
We have no control over that.
Right. I understand that.
And I understand where you're coming from, don't get me wrong, but I'm not
buying
that the city employees said it was okay to put that much concrete in.
Oh, absolutely. They did.
I'm sorry.
And all of my neighbors were told the same thing.
Okay.
Your city employees absolutely said, "This is bull crap."
Well,
we all sit up here. People make mistakes,
and we hear the same stuff over and over.
And the
ZBA is not here for people to say, "Oh, I made a mistake.
Please forgive me and let me get by with this." We have to keep the city under
control. We have to keep things under control. We have ordinances to follow.
Because the next person's going to come in and go, "Look, Ms.
Spurt's got this beautiful driveway.
I'm going to do the same thing."
I understand.
And they don't go to the city. They don't go to the city, and they're going to be
in the same boat as you.
I understand.
So we have to
live by the ordinances and by the city charter.
So-
I agree. I just believe that the city ordinances should be more clear across the
board so that this doesn't happen.
They are very clear.
They're not very clear because we were not given correct information.
I would not spend thousands of dollars to extend a driveway if I was
not told that it was okay.
Okay.
I spent-
Well, like I said, I feel bad for it.
I'm going to be a no vote because I'm going to uphold our ordinances.
Okay.
And
that's all I got. Thank you.
And I just actually wanted to add a comment for myself, because
we're going to hear a lot of these
I have a feeling-
Mm-hmm
... in the future, and I wish that our city would
do what Sterling Heights did a number of years ago, where they
actually said existing ones that are out there, they
grandfathered in, and then basically said, "After a certain date,
if you pour something after that, it's not allowed," because they
were...
But it's like- Unfortunately, that's a city council thing, it's not us.
But it's
because
many of these are out there for
many years.
I agree.
And it'd be nice if we could just
grandfather them in, but say anything after
this date,
you can say all your neighbors around you have it, you want to have it too.
But no,
it's because going retroactive 10 years or something,
to me is-
But we don't have that option available.
I know we don't.
So, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Jersey, then Mr. Green.
Good evening, ma'am.
Good evening.
So, I live in the adjacent subdivision across
Masonic, and I travel Newcastle quite a bit.
So I'm very familiar with that sub.
And Chairman Ostrovich kind of stole my
thunder, because if you go back a couple meetings when we had this item
come up,
I brought up the fact that when we talked about
possibly having to
grandfather in everything that's existing or else this is going to be like a dog
chasing its tail. We could have one of these, a meeting, for the next 20 years.
There's that many in town.
Mm-hmm.
And
to
question the petitioner, do you have any names or anybody that you talked
to at the city that gave you this
advice?
So in 2023, I'm not exactly sure who I talked to, but when I
went this year, I did talk to Brian. He was very helpful with me.
And I
wasn't sure which department to go to even-
Sure
... in 2023. When I went, I went to the engineering department.
But even the employees in engineering were like, "This makes no sense."
Okay.
"This is stupid."
So,
I feel for your plight. I really do.
And,
I've seen enough come before this board to know that
I feel you're telling the truth.
That street does have that kick out.
It's kind of nice to have those two kick outs on that street so it doesn't become a
drag strip.
But actually, I think there's three.
But anyway,
this is a slippery slope we're on. I
told zoning, I told anybody that would listen that once we
start denying this,
you're going to start upsetting a lot of citizens, having to rip out driveway after
driveway after driveway.
We've had people come before us where they bought
property that's existing, and they didn't know that they needed a...
They bought it as is. And-
Right, I spoke to some neighbors-
So-
... that had the same concern.
But
these
are always going to be tough for me going forward because I feel the same way as
Chairman Ostrovich is. I think the city needs to do something, or
council needs to get with zoning to figure out a way to either
grandfather it in, grandfather in maybe only a certain amount of feet.
Mm-hmm.
So you're only allowed maybe six to eight feet.
I don't know what the
right formula would be outside the building lines, so it's not
so excessive.
I don't know what the remedy is, but I think that would be a good starting point.
So,
as excessive as this is, I have a hard time
denying it, but unfortunately, I might
have to vote no, because the other problem that
we've established up here
is that we've denied so many that it would open us up for litigation the
minute that we don't. So that's the other slippery slope that we're on.
Also, the decisions that we make travel with the land forevermore.
So it operates infinitely.
So
it's a tough situation.
It's a shame
that
you've been given wrong advice. It's not the first time we've heard this
over the years on this board that they were steered the wrong way
by the city.
So I'm kind of torn what to do on this particular
one right here.
It is excessive. You did bring up the fact of the dually.
You do have a garage.
I just think that the city needs to come to some solution, or else we're going to
be having these at least multiple times a meeting
going forward. And hopefully
people see this meeting, and I implore people, whoever's out there, whoever you
talk to in the city,
I tell my kids all this, any time you call DTE, Consumers Energy, or whoever, get a
name.
Who am I talking to?
And just get a name so you have some kind of record to go off of.
Other than that,
I'll yield the floor.
Mr. Green, you had a comment?
So I'll be honest with you.
First of all, we can't pick and choose which
ordinances that we decide to enforce. They are what they are.
But that takes us back to the real problem.
If I was you guys, I'd be at the mayor's door tomorrow.
And I will.
And lined up saying, "Why is this happening?" And
it's not zoning. We've talked about this.
Our job is, there is these ordinances, and
when they come up in front of us, we have to apply them.
We don't have the option to say, "Well, you can have a big driveway because you
have a big truck, and you can have a smaller driveway because your kids play
basketball, and you can have this driveway because of that." We don't have that
option.
I understand
But we've sat up here many a time, and I've bitched just a
many a time, where people have come up and said, "Oh, Jim Fouts said it was all
right for us to do." And we're sitting up here like, "What?
That can't be true." So somewhere along the
line, someone needs to be held to the fire for this.
Absolutely.
I personally,
I'd be at the mayor's door tomorrow morning-
I think myself and all the people-
... saying, "What's going on?"
... named with these driveways will not have an issue with that.
But don't get me wrong, your driveway's pretty big.
It's a big one as compared to some.
But you can see we're not trying to make you lose $20,000.
But we don't have the option to say, "That person can violate the ordinance,
and that person can't."
I don't want to pass the buck, but we've been doing it.
I can understand that.
We're the ones who are
taking the brunt of all this because everybody comes up there and says, "Well, I
don't know what the answer to that is." Or, "Somebody said I could do it," and
stuff like that. And those people should not be saying that.
Correct.
They don't have the authority to say it.
And if they don't have enough smarts, they should educate themselves a little bit
because-
And I just have a question to that point.
If this council does not have the ability to make
that decision, why are we paying for a variance?
Why are we being told to pay this money to come in front of the council if
the council can't make that decision?
Like I said, I'd go right to the horse's mouth if I was you guys. That's me.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Watts?
Number one, we're not the council. We're the zoning board appeals.
We're the zoning board. My apologies.
And we do the variances.
Okay.
But if there's nothing else, I'm prepared to make a motion.
Okay. Does anyone have any other questions or comments?
I would make a motion to deny the request to retain
22 foot of widened driveway from the south corner of the garage to the
south property line based on the fact that it's a detriment, and it's just way
too much concrete.
Mm-hmm.
Support.
One moment. Sorry.
So it
is a detriment to the area. When you got cars parked out there, it
looks like a car lot,
in my opinion.
Your front yard is not a parking lot.
The property is not unique,
and it was self-imposed.
So, and do we have a motion by Mr. Watts? And was that support by Mr. Green?
Yes.
For the reason stated in the motion, the roll call.
Mr. Watts?
Yes, for the reason stated in the motion.
Mr. Green?
Yes to deny, for the reason stated in the motion.
Mr. Lindsey?
Yes to deny, for the reason stated, and I'd also add
that there's no
burden of impact to enjoy the property as
is.
Reluctantly vote yes to deny.
Mr. Sessor?
Yes to deny for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Clift?
I vote no. I think our ordinances are archaic, and I think that they need to be
reviewed, and I think we need to figure out how to address these kinds of
issues moving forward with these similar types of
situations.
Mr. Perry?
I vote no.
Things need to be done to correct these situations
that our
people of Warren have to deal with such items.
Mr. Jersey also votes no. I
echo the same sentiment as Mr. Clift on this
one.
As far as the
ordinance as being outdated and things need to be
changed from where it currently stands. And Chairman Nostovich?
I'm actually also voting no.
And the reason I'm voting no is because my
recommendation would always be to engage maybe your city council person
and have them take a look to see what needs to be done
to change this going forward so we
don't run into this.
So we have a four-four.
So you have a four-four.
We have a four-four.
We need five. Yeah. We need five votes.
It's still denied.
So they're denied, do they not?
I think they were.
Because they have to be yes.
So it's still denied.
So we're just going to let somebody have a whole front yard full of concrete.
No, they did.
After you denied how many other people?
I think you guys voted that-
Not smart.
Okay.
Well.
But they're all under Roman.
So is there any other motions?
Not smart.
Absolutely. I mean, there's
no chance.
Well, so we said yes we want to let people put things in front of my house,
which then we have to vote no on all of them.
Mr. Chair, can we get a call to order?
Call to order.
Call to order because there's not a question directed to...
So with a four-four vote,
I thought it vote-
So can I ask, so you guys voted yes to...
Did he say it backwards, or? Wait, yes to deny?
It was yes to deny.
Yes to deny.
So there's one, two, three, four-
Oh, it still gets denied because there's not enough. There's not a fifth vote.
There's not a fifth vote, so it's still denied.
Oh, I see. Okay.
Yep.
Okay.
So unfortunately,
since it was a four-four vote,
even to pass, you needed five votes, so
therefore the motion does not... Well, the
yes to deny failed, but there's also no motion for the
opposite to allow it.
So therefore, your request has been denied today.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
So Mr.
Perry.
Okay.
Oh, yes.
Okay, takes us to item 10.
Item 10.
Applicant Lorraine Scott and Linda Ware,
representative Anthony Zarelli.Come description
28771 Bunner. Variance requested permission to, one, retain a
46 foot by 24 foot, 1,104
square foot garage in addition to the 576 square foot attached garage, for a
total of 1,680 square feet of accessory
structure floor area. Two, waive the required hard
surface driveway leading to the detached garage.
So if you could start with your name and address for the record, and then take us
through your request.
Good evening. My name's Tony Zerelli.
I live at 30655 Glenwood Circle in Warren, Michigan.
I represent the property owners, Lorraine Scott and Linda Wyer, on
28771 Bunert Road, who are both in attendance here today.
As stated in the packet, this request is for a dimensional variance to allow the
continued existence of the detached accessory structure
at the rear of the property.
City property records identify the structure as being built in and around
1960, as seen in the Exhibit B,
and it has existed on the property for many decades.
This issue arose just recently during the city's zoning review
associated with a proposed lot split.
And in response, the owners acted in good faith by removing a couple other
accessory structures that were identified.
So I would like to clarify one thing, that this request relates only to the
detached rear structure. The attached garage is part of the principal
residence, and it's not included in this request.
The property is nearly one acre in size, and the structure
occupies only a small portion of the lot and
has not created any adverse impact on neighboring properties.
It continues to serve as a typical residence purpose, including
storage of lawn and gardening equipment,
et cetera.
So the owners respectfully request approval to allow the continued
existence of this long-standing structure.
We appreciate your board's time and consideration. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you for that explanation.
This is a public hearing. Are there any members of the audience wishing to speak on
this item, please approach.
I'm not seeing any. I'll close the public portion of the meeting
and turn it over to the board for questions.
Mr. Chairman?
Yes, Mr. Cliff?
Yeah. So,
to me, this kind of acts like a
no-brainer. It's been there since the 1960s.
Doesn't appear to be harming anyone or anybody.
I haven't been over that way in quite a while, but
I always thought that piece of property was kind of unique for all the different
little structures it had on it. And I always said, "I got to figure out what that
is or what went on there," because I'm sure that something
happened
years and years ago. There might be a good story in that.
But anyway, I just wanted to
pipe up and say that to me, that's kind of a no-brainer.
Fix it up, make it look nice. I don't have an issue with it
remaining since it hasn't hurt anybody in all this time.
And with that, sir, I'll yield the floor.
Mr. Chair.
I have...
Mr. Watts, can I ask a question?
Go ahead.
The question I have is,
you said this came up because of a lot split?
So the next door neighbors are relatives of theirs. They're cousins.
Okay.
And the property here we're discussing today, the
property line as it exists today goes all the way to pretty much
the driveway of the next door neighbor, the cousins.
They're in the middle of trying to sell the property.
Their mother recently passed away, and
their cousin asked... They have a garden right there.
We don't know who your neighbor's going to be right next.
So, "Hey, will you split me off," I think it was at 12 feet or 15 feet.
And so he wanted to do a subdivision.
So they went and submitted for that subdivision, and that's when it came in to
redefine the boundaries for the legal description.
And whoever came out said, "Hey, wait.
Well, you got all these accessory buildings, and you can't have all that." And so
that's how this all started.
Okay. That's what I just want to make sure, because I want to make sure that you're
not subdividing the property where that garage would be on a different
property.
No.
Okay. That was my question. Mr. Watts?
That's okay.
And that'll actually lead me to the next question.
So
that long garage structure on that property, is that going
with that first house?
Yes.
That's going with the house that's for sale?
Yes. Correct.
So then there's some property below that that belongs to the
second house then, correct?
Second what? I don't know.
Is that what you're saying?
When you're talking about the lot split.
So the lot split there between, say you and your neighbor, you have
whatever you call that between your neighbors.
This property here owns all the way up to her driveway.
So her cousin's asking for
12 or 15 feet. So basically, just get a little sliver of land so she can
maintain the existing garden there.
Okay.
There's no structure in that area.
So that'll be between the south side of the garage and their house then?
No, it's on-
North side
... the north side.
North side?
The north side.
Okay. Now I'm really confused.
I looked at that every day for 30 years because I worked at the college, so I don't
see a problem in to-
It's on this property right here.
Okay. So to build Cliff's
comment,
there used to be a beautiful steam tractor there.
Oh.
Yes.
It's in Richmond now.
The property's always been well taken care of, and I don't see a problem with
this at all.
Make a motion?
I yield
Any other questions or any discussion? Or if not, any motions?
Mr. Chair, if nobody has anything, I'll make a motion.
Yes, Mr. Lindsey.
I'd like to make a motion to grant permission to, one, retain a 46
feet by 24 foot,
1,104 square foot garage in addition to the
576 square foot attached garage for a total of
1,680 square feet of accessory structure floor area.
And two, to waive the required hard surface driveway leading to the
detached garage due to the fact of the size and shape of the lot,
and it's not a detriment to the area.
Support.
Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Lindsey, support by Mr.
Cliff to approve the request for the reasons stated in the motion. Mr. Lindsey?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Cliff?
Enthusiastically yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Green?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Sessor?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Perry?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Watts?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Jersey votes yes for the reasons stated in the motion. Chairman Stovitch?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion. Your request has been approved.
Thank you, everyone.
Mm-hmm.
Thank you.
Takes us to item number 12.
Item 12. Applicant, Chris Corradi at Aver Signs.
Representative, Chris Corradi, Aver Signs.
Account description, 5949 Ten Mile.
Bringing us the request of permission to, one, install a 36.9 square foot wall
sign on the gas station building in addition to the previously granted 29 square
foot and 42.1 square foot wall signs on the car wash,
62.34 square feet of signage on the gas canopy, and
765.66 square feet of decorative design.
New overall total of wall signage for the gas station and
car wash, which is a single to be
170.34 square feet and
765.66 square feet of decorative design.
The signage for Munch House/Crispy Crunchy Chicken
is for a separate business that is not included in this overall
total.
Good evening. If you could just start with your name and address, and then
go through your request.
Yes. My name is Chris Corradi. I'm with Aver Sign Company, and we're located at
1285 Wordsworth Street in Ferndale.
Okay.
And your request today?
I'm sorry?
If you could explain your request of what you're asking.
Yeah. We are trying to get permission to place a wall sign
pardon me,
on the front building façade. It's a
brand identity. The
My Spot is a chain of convenience stores, and they have rewards
programs and stuff that customers get discounts and things.
And so
our customer wants to have a sign up so that his customers are aware
that their discounts are available there.
Okay. Thank you for that explanation.
Mm-hmm.
This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this
item?
Okay. Not seeing any, we are closed to public portion and turn it over to the board
for discussion.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Jersey.
Good evening, sir.
The My Spot, it's not up yet, is it?
No.
So, but the Crispy
Crunchy Chicken is?
Yeah. But I believe that's a separate business.
Okay.
All right. I just have a problem with
signs going on buildings before
they get
to our table.
Oh, yeah. I understand completely.
So,
that's an argument for another day.
Now, this is not illuminated or...
It is illuminated.
Okay.
So where does the decorative design come in?
Or no, that's already been granted. So that's all been granted.
So we're
basically adding 37 square feet on top of the
already existing total, correct?
Yes, sir. I believe the decorative design, if I'm not mistaken, is mostly taken up
by the
signage that's on the gas pumps and the gas canopy.
That's correct, sir. Yep. You're right.
I'll yield the floor.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Lindsey?
I'm kind of looking at this, and it's like we just approved
all this signage for this gas station,
and I don't understand really why
we don't just take care of all of it at once.
I'm kind of disappointed to see that the business
owner didn't have this, and now we're back a couple of
months later trying to get more signage.
I'm a little bit torn
because obviously this seems like an
appropriate place for a sign.
But
I don't like seeing that we just approved the signage, and
then it's like, "Okay, we're going to come back a second time and add a little bit
more." If we approve this, are we going to see another request to add more signage?
So I don't know how I'm going to vote.
Those are my comments right now. I'm interested to know what the rest of the board
thinks about this.
I yield.
Mr. Chair.
Mr. Green?
So that takes me to this question. So who is the person
who... Is it the petitioner or someone in the city who
said-
Well, come back. Who will approve this and come back when you got the rest of it
and let us know? Is that the problem again, is that
somebody didn't say, "When you get this finished, bring it to us, and then we'll
approve it"?
This is the exact same thing we just got done talking about, only in a
different way.
Mm-hmm.
And I think I made my point.
Mm-hmm.
Yes, Mr. Green, because it's always frustrating
because this property has been in front of us multiple
times. One, when the car wash got built, they go out on the signs for the car wash,
then the awning.
And then they come and say, "Okay, the chicken business is separate
from..."
See, my question would be is I haven't been inside the building.
I'm wondering, is it separated into two separate businesses or is it all
connected? Because if it's connected, it's not two separate businesses.
Mm-hmm.
And I wished that we would just get a signed package
that covers all of this.
I can get along since it's
only 36 square feet, but
anything else to that property, it's like I would never
vote for.
Mr. Chair.
Mm-hmm.
To kind of echo the same sentiment, this is a new project.
This is a brand-new project. It's not like they're changing over.
Have your ducks in a row before you do
all the signage. Some other gas stations have come to us with new
builds and stuff like that and have had everything
together.
So
that's where I have a problem. This is a brand-new thing.
We have so many eyes on this, and
here we're right out of the gate piecemealing it together, and we're probably going
to get one for the crunchy chicken, too, obviously, because that's on the building
without a variance.
So
that's where my problem is. This is a beautiful project.
It's a beautiful project, and to go about it like this
as far as signage,
it's not your fault, sir. You're just the sign guy.
Right.
But the
city's got to do better.
I do believe-
The city's got to do better. I'll yield the floor. I don't have a question.
I believe that the crispy crunchy chicken sign, I think, was just approved.
I don't think it required a variance. I'm almost positive on that one.
But
as for the piecemeal nature of it, I can't really answer.
I guess-
Yeah
... like you said, I'm the permit agent-
Yep
... for the sign company. They give me the stuff, and I get the permits.
Understood. I yield the floor.
Mr. Chair.
Yes, Mr. Watts.
So I'll put you on the spot.
Okay.
How come they didn't put the My Spot up there before?
Again, I can't really tell you. If the owner was here, I suppose he could probably
answer the question, but I get a package from signs to get approval
for, and that's what I do.
Okay.
I fill out the applications, and I come here and make my argument.
I can't really tell you what their thinking is.
I don't really know why they did it this way.
Fair enough. That's an honest answer.
I think, and I'm not 100% here, I'm speculating.
There's more than just... Obviously, we have another one
a mile away that's the same sign, the next item.
But there's more being built around.
They told me there's 13, and they're putting more up.
So I don't know if it's a newly minted
convenience store chain. You see the Chillbox one's up there.
I think it's a similar concept. I don't know for sure if it's a new idea or
if it was something that they were holding off to see what would happen.
I don't know. I can't answer, honestly.
So the problem I have
is when I look at the list of variances that have been given on this piece of
property, it's like
we
don't live on variances. You either live within the ordinances or not.
I feel sorry for this gentleman. So he's got to
be the messenger tonight. But it's
one
and another, and another, and another, and before you know it,
you really got a property that is really way out of compliance, but it's
okay because we give you 372 variances.
I think it's a pretty tasteful sign.
I don't know how I'm going to vote, but
I yield.
Mr. Chair.
Yes, Mr. Lindsey.
After hearing the comments for the board,
I think we're kind of all thinking the same way that
we've granted variances on this property already.
We're looking to add more variance.
I'm not really in favor, despite I think it's tastefully
done.
It's a variance. It's outside of the ordinance.
I don't see that the
petitioner, unfortunately, has met the practical difficulty here.
So if there's no other comments, I am prepared to make a motion.
So I'll make a motion to deny permission to install a
36.9 square foot wall sign on the gas station building in
addition to the previously granted 29 square feet and
42.1 square foot wall signs on the car wash,
62.34 square feet of signage on the gas canopy,
and 655.66 square feet of
decorative sign
due to the fact that it's not necessary
in size and shape of the lot. There's no unreasonable impact
or burden,
and the property's not unique. And it's not personal or economic,
or I guess it is personal or economic for those reasons.
Support.
So we have a motion to deny by Mr. Lindsey, support by Mr.
Jersey to deny the request for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Lindsey?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Jersey votes yes to deny for the reasons stated in the motion. Mr. Sessor?
Yes, to deny for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Clift?
Yes, to deny for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Green?
Yes, to deny.
Mr. Watts?
Yes, deny.
Mr. Perry?
Yes, to deny for the reasons stated in the motion.
Chairman, Mr. Orange.
Yes, to deny for the reasons stated in the motion.
Unfortunately, your request was denied by the zoning board.
You can always contact the building department to see what next steps there can
be for your
petitioner.
But that takes us to item number 13.
Item 13.
Applicant, Chris Corradi. Representative Chris Corradi.
Account description 1430011 Mile.
Variance requested permission to install a 36.9
square foot wall sign, in addition to the previously grand
150.75 square feet of wall signage on the north canopy,
39.75 square feet on the south canopy,
98.22 square feet of wall signage on the pumps,
18.66 square feet of wall signage on the
canopy poles. New overall total of wall signage for the gas
station to be 307.38 square feet
and 338.25 square feet of decorative design.
The signage for Crispy Crunchy Chicken is for a separate
business and is not included in this overall total.
So if you want to start with your name and address for the record, and then-
Sure
... yes.
Once again, my name is Chris Corradi.
I'm with Favor Sign Company, 1285 Wordsworth in Ferndale.
Okay.
And what would you like to tell us about your request?
It's essentially the same rationale as the last request.
Same ownership, same sign, same reasoning.
Okay.
Thank you. This is a public hearing.
Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this item?
Not seeing or turn it over to the board for questions and discussion.
Mr. Chair.
Yes, Mr. Watts.
I mean,
honestly, your sign is in good taste just like the other one.
But once again,
this building hasn't been there that long, and it should've been done with the
other sign package, and before you know it, they're
plastering
signs everywhere.
I know that's good for your business.
Well.
But,
when you look at the front of the building, there's signs in the windows, there's
this, that. I mean, if people don't know what the place is,
I don't know. I just
can't see so many signs all over the face of a building.
I'm going to probably vote no as well because I just...
I'm looking here, there's a big one on the one wall.
There's all the other branding for the station.
So,
I don't... And then there's the Crispy Chicken stuff
on there. You can only have so many signs on a building. So I yield.
Mr. Chair.
Yes, Mr. Lindsey?
So I feel the same way.
I look at this and
despite it being a gas station, right?
I would believe that the business owner has an understanding
of who he's going to lease out this space to,
despite whatever company it is, right?
If we're going to put a fast food restaurant in there, if we're going to put
another business,
it seems reasonable to me that these people would know
what their plan is for their business.
And it almost seems like a strategy, let's piecemeal it, because if we give
everything out at once, our variance might get denied.
And it kind of seems like this piecemeal thing.
So once again, I won't be in favor of this one.
If there's no comments, I'll make a motion.
I just have one comment-
Sure
... before you make a motion, Mr. Lindsey, if we could.
Go ahead, Mr. Jersey.
So just for the record,
I just find it disappointing that
brand new business owner wouldn't be here
championing his sign. Just sending the sign guy.
That, to me, sounds an alarm too that of his,
I don't know, passion for caring or just follow through.
Anything, I don't know. But to me, that's wrong.
You're a business owner, you want to put a sign up. I know life is busy.
If it means that much to you, you should be here and not send the sign guy
to champion your cause. No offense, sir.
Oh, none taken.
But,
to me that's
a poor way to operate
and poor
business. But I'll yield the floor to Mr. Lindsey.
Before Mr. Lindsey makes his motion, but same as Jersey, I think it's because
so many of these business owners or petitioners are so used to the fact
of, oh, it just goes, it gets approved, then moves on.
Right.
They're too busy to come down because they send a sign
guy, but you don't get the business owner here and stuff like
that. And I think that people that are property owners or business
owners should be here,
so therefore, they can answer the question.
So again, it's not the sign guy's place to answer because
imagine if we went in and said, "Oh,
we approve a sign, but half the size."
I'm sure
the individual from the sign company probably can't commit to that because he's not
the property or business owner. He's like...
Oh, I'd say yes. I'll take it.
But you know what I mean. It's like-
Yeah, sure
... the fact is that if...
I've always been a firm believer, people who have the business
or own the property should be present.
They can have somebody else speak.But then they should be sitting in the audience,
so therefore if a question comes-
We've had gas owners in the past-
Yeah
... gas station owners in the past come and answer any questions they want on their
projects, and brand-new projects at that too. So, yeah.
You make a great point, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lindsay, you said you had a... Wanted to make a motion?
Yeah. And I'll state for the record before I give my motion,
that because this is a non-use variance, a practical difficulty standard must be
met.
So no variation from the provisions or requirements of this article shall be
authorized by the board unless the board finds that the applicant has demonstrated
all of the following to establish there is a practical difficulty in
complying with the article. So my motion will be
to deny permission to install a 36.9
square foot wall sign in addition to the previously granted
150.75 square foot of wall signage on the north
canopy, 39.75 square feet on the south canopy,
98.22 square feet of wall signage on the pumps,
18.66 square feet of wall signage on the
canopy poles.
I guess I don't need to read the rest of that.
Due to the fact that there's no unreasonable
impact
to maintain compliance with the area,
this is self-imposed. The property's not unique.
It is a detriment. It's
economic, and it's not necessary
for those reasons.
Support.
So we have a motion to deny by Mr. Lindsay with support from Mr.
Assessor. For the reasons stated in the motion. Roll call.
Mr. Lindsay?
Yes, to deny for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Assessor?
Yes, to deny for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Green?
Yes, to deny.
Mr. Clift?
Yes, to deny.
Mr. Watts?
Yes, to deny.
Mr. Perry?
Yes, to deny.
Ms. Jersey also votes yes to deny. Chairman Ostovich?
I also vote yes to deny. So unfortunately, both your requests were denied today.
I'm sorry, I could barely hear you.
I said both your request was denied today by the-
Yes
... zoning board.
So you can actually approach it under the building permit and see what possible
next steps there are, but-
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Yep. Thank you.
Nobody here.
Takes us to item number 14.
Item 14, applicant, Ryan DeBono, representative Ryan
DeBono. Account description, 7111 and
7133 11 Mile.
Applicant's requested permission to, one, allow
759,000 square feet of open storage of vehicles on parcels
A and B, which exceeds 50% of the gross floor
area of the primary structure, 51,040 square feet, and
to allow storage located closer than 75 feet to the front
property line. Two, to allow
33,250 square feet of said open storage of
vehicles in a P zoning district, that's a use.
Three, to allow new
six-foot high chain link fence with barbed wire around the
new guard houses, same as previously approved around the rest of
the properties. Four, to permit the improvements on
parcel A and B that would extend within the front setback
along George Morelli Drive, including new six-foot high chain
link fence with barbed wire and concrete barriers in
area A and B, concrete barriers in area D, new
turnstile and chain link fence along with associated
improvements in area E.
Good evening.
If you could start with your name and address, and then take us through your
request here.
Yeah. My name is Ryan DeBono. I work with Hubbell, Roth, and Clark.
We're representing GM on this project for security improvements.
Uh, my address is 555 Hewlett Drive, Bloomfield Hills.
And essentially, this is just kind of a laundry list of items to bring
the property up to speed of what it currently operates at today.
There's been GMs investing in additional enhanced security around the
property due to numerous break-in attempts and even some
successful break-ins, uh, vehicle thefts where they
crash through the fence. So the project involves,
um, installing barrier walls, jersey barrier walls around the
perimeter, barbed wire fencing, and new guard booth
areas that will be manned 24/7.
The
existing two large parking lot areas essentially just store
newer vehicles.
Some of them could be test vehicles, but it's not...
Uh, they're all just passenger vehicle storage that they move in and out of
there frequently, and they're pretty highly
desirable.
Um, and as part of the project, with the enhanced security
for vehicles getting in and out of the property,
that puts a
hindrance on the employees entering the building on 7111 11 Mile
Road, which is the reason we are installing a turnstile,
which would be just a safety for the employees to enter the site
without having to interface with the
security booths. And that also maintains the secure
perimeter.
There is the zone P, as you can see on the exhibits.
It's kind of
just a chunk of the property on there.
It's
being used for vehicle storage currently, which it wouldn't change.
It's just that awkward
strip of zoning on the property. It doesn't match up with the rest of it
Is there anything else you wanted to add on it or?
No, and the request is to store vehicles within 75 feet of the setback line.
That's the limits of the parking lot, so
that's currently... There's no change in what the
site's being used for at all. It's just going to be bringing it up to
code.
Okay. Thank you for that explanation. This is a public hearing.
Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this item?
Not seeing any, I'll close the public portion and turn it over to the board.
I actually just wanted to start and make a comment.
It's like
I have no problems with your items one and two based on what
this property looks like. The one thing I am not
a fan of is the fact that you're asking for barbed wire
around the guard houses and on some of the fencing on items
three and four. So personally, I am not a barbed
wire advocate.
So anyway, that's the only comment I wanted to actually make.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Jersey.
To the petitioner, thank you for waiting tonight.
Always somebody got to be at the end, so.
Sorry.
I got to echo the same sentiment as
Chairman Starovich. Since I've been on the board, we haven't granted anything as
far as barbed wire goes. I know there's two variances on the
property existing from
1962 and 1974, which preexists
any member on this board. So,
that may have been a different timetable, but since I've been on the board,
we've held a solid ground with no barbed wire.
Is there any other possible solution
other than the barbed wire?
If that-
The only other solution may be potentially taller fences.
There's barbed wire existing currently around the perimeter of the site, so this is
only for
when we do our entrance improvements, just for the new fencing
to tie in the entrance improvements.
That's
what we're requesting the barbed wire for, to line up with the existing perimeter
fencing.
Which is those variances granted
on those existing dates I mentioned?
Correct.
Mm-hmm.
Okay, I'll yield the floor.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Watts.
I
have a problem with the barbed wire because I think it's pretty clear throughout
the city that they don't allow barbed wire.
Mm-hmm.
And we don't have our zoning guy here.
Now I got a question for him because
I'd like to know why they got barbed wire there if they're not supposed to have it.
So that's another problem.
Because 1962, there were variances.
Oh, they did get a variance? I didn't see that.
I just-
Yeah.
1962.
Oh, in '62?
And '74.
Holy cow.
Mm-hmm.
Okay, well that answered that question. Sorry about that.
Yeah, it's all right.
I understand the problem you're having with the
security issue over there.
Yep.
I still got a problem with the barbed wire, but you guys, I've been by there
before. I didn't go by there for this one because I knew the property, but it's
pretty clean. Is the turnstiles up already?
No.
Okay.
None of this work has been
done yet. We're kind of waiting to clean up these-
Okay. Yeah, there was something. I went by and I seen turnstiles, and I couldn't
remember if it was there or not. So, I
would vote yes to approve this without the barbed wire, but...
Mr. Chair.
If I could just add one...
Can I add, Mr. Lindsay? And then I will give a comment afterwards.
Okay. Yeah, I think I'm in agreement with the rest of the board.
Very thankful that GM's here.
They do a good job taking care of their stuff.
No on the barbed wire for me.
We are talking about General Motors.
They can have security vehicles there overnight if this is a big problem,
I'm sure.
Doesn't seem to be a reason to add barbed wire.
So, I'm yes for the three, no on the barbed wire.
Mm-hmm.
And I just, what I wanted to add in, because I know I've been on this board for a
while, there have been times where existing properties had barbed wire.
And when we approved their new request, we actually had all the
barbed wire removed off the property, too.
And even though I'm not saying about that right here, but
I have no problems approving and voting in favor of one and two.
I just do not
want new additional barbed wire being added to a property
on three and four.
So that's my comments.
Mr. Chair.
Yes, Mr. Watts.
Let's put the petitioner on the spot a little bit more.
So, if we were to approve the variance
minus the barbed wire, where does that put you?
I think it's better than rejecting on all of them.
I
know GM's going to be upset to hear that they can't have barbed wire just because
they're investing a lot of money on this, and they want every measure of security
possible for this lot. Both lots are
manned 24/7 by security.
But
it's a big investment for this project, and I think they'd be disappointed
to hear that they'd have to remove the barbed wire that they currently have
permitted on the property.
So looking it up, it's a clear violation, and we don't
allow it anywhere else. So I don't know how that other got by.
So,
like I say, I would
feel like approving it without the barbed wire would be the right thing to do,
and I guess they could always appeal that if they thought they had to, but
I yield.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Jersey.
Just for clarity reasons, I don't think anybody on this board is talking
about
removing what's currently existing.
I think it's just the thing-
Okay
... currently what's going forward with this.
Okay.
Correct. I would agree with that.
Understood.
So, the variance, we're going to keep the variance for the rest of the property.
It's just this particular-
Understood
... piece.
Yeah, understood.
So we're not going to... No, because
that'd be quite an investment to take it all down, too.
Oh, yeah.
So yeah, I just wanted to make sure it was clear.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Clift?
So
we say barbed wire. Is it actual barbed wire?
They want to use razor wire?
No, it's just the three-
There's a few different-
It's just the standard three.
Regular standard three barbed wire.
Yeah, three barbed prongs. Yes. People, either they do...
They've been breaking in two ways.
They crash through the gates to get in there, and then they get the vehicles,
and then they drive them right out.
Or they can jump over the-
Or go over the fence
... they jump over the fences, and then crash them out.
So usually they have a sacrificial car.
They'll crash it through to get inside, and then they would take the vehicles from
there. So we are addressing that measure by, there's
fence screening, and then we're putting these concrete jersey barriers behind the
fence and linking them so it's one giant
barrier around the property, but-
That's a good thing
... the hopping the fence would still be
a potential there.
That clarifies it for me. Thank you.
There's security on site 24/7, right?
Correct.
Okay.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Jersey.
I think it's a good idea with the jersey barriers, too.
Not because it's my namesake or anything.
I've seen it happen. I worked down in
Detroit, and there's a lot of new car lots down there, too, and they've-
Yeah
... implemented them, and I've actually seen them try to even drive over a jersey
barrier and get the-
Yeah
... vehicle stuck on the barrier.
Yeah.
But it has,
in my opinion, reduced the theft. So that's definitely
a very good... I think you'll see-
Mm-hmm
... change-
Yeah
... with that. Just with that alone.
Yeah.
You can't
control anybody hopping a fence or anything, but once they're inside the perimeter,
you have it all barriered up.
Yeah. Correct.
They're
stuck.
Yeah. Yes, sir.
So that's a good
workaround.
So I just wanted to
express that. I'll yield the floor.
Any other questions or any motions?
Sonny?
I got a question.
Yes, Mr. Clift?
Refresh me just a little bit, sir. So
you're under the impression that if
we
put forth a motion
leaving out the barbed wire,
did you say you might have to go a little higher with your fencing?
Well, I wouldn't. I'm not saying that for certain.
I'm just saying that could be an option if GMS, if they
have concerns with removal of the barbed wire fence.
I'm just wondering if that's something that they want to look at and
needs to be entertained.
Well, I would think that they'd want to move forward with the-
How high can you go, eight?
Um.
I can't remember.
Commercial fencing, how high?
Commercial fencing would be higher.
Mr. Chair?
Anybody remember? I don't remember.
No, but I think-
Mr. Green?
I think they're going to find out when they go back that there's comparable
products to barbed wire now.
I think that's what you'll find out.
So I think it's eight feet.
I'm not sure, but is the new fencing going to be erected in that P zone?
No.
Okay.
No.
I just figured I'd ask before they came.
No, they're off the entrances to the lots.
Okay. All right.
Yeah.
I got it.
Yeah, just to modify it so we can have the new...
We have new gate arms in there that are crash rated.
So
the fence is just going to be to link everything together.
I just want to cover the bases. If you got to go higher,
I'd like to see
how high you could go without having to come and get a variance for fence height.
Yeah.
And I just don't remember it off the top of my head.
Something says-
We're looking
... eight sticks in my head for some reason, but I don't
know for sure, and the people we could ask aren't here tonight.
Right.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, really, the barbed wire fencing is just,
like I said, it's just local to the entrance improvements, so it's whatever we need
to do to
tie those into the perimeter.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not opposed.
I've spread my strands of concertina wire in my day,
my friend. I'm not opposed to-
Six foot is the max.
Is it six foot?
Yeah.
Okay, so I'm getting the impression that you could
probably get a passage here minus that barbed wire, but you guys
could only go six foot without having to come back for a variance
on height.
Yep.
I'll yield the floor with that.
Mr. Chair?
Yes, Mr. Jersey.
If nobody else has any... Oh, go ahead. Somebody...
Yeah.
If nobody else has anything to say, I'll make a motion.
I'd like to make a motion to grant the petitioner's request
to allow 759,000 square feet of open storage of vehicles on parcels A and
B, which exceeds 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure,
51,040 square feet, and to allow storage
located closer than 75 feet to the front property line.
Two, to allow 33,250 square feet of said
open storage of vehicles in a P zoning district.Three,
to allow new six-foot high chain link fence
without barbed wire
around the new guard houses, same as previously
around the new guard houses.
Four, to permit the improvements on parcels A and B that would
extend within the front setback along George Morelli Drive,
including a new six-foot high chain link fence without
barbed wire and concrete barriers in area A and
B, concrete barriers in area D, new turnstile and chain
link fence, along with associated improvements in area
E, due to the fact of the size and shape of the lot, and it's not a
detriment to the area.
I'll support that.
So you have a motion by Mr. Jersey,
and support by Mr. Clift to approve the request, just minus
no barbed wire.
A roll call.
Mr. Jersey votes yes for reasons stated in the motion. Mr. Clift?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Perry?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Watts?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Green?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Lindsay?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Mr. Sessor?
Yes, for the reasons stated in the motion.
And Chairman Stavish?
A yes for reasons stated in the motion.
So your request has all been approved except for the barbed wire.
Understood. Thank you very much.
Okay. Thank you for coming and waiting till the end of the meeting.
That's all right.
Takes us to item 15, which is new business.
I just wanted to mention two things for new business.
One is just a reminder that next month we're meeting
in the cafeteria.
And so I want to make sure
we're all on that same page. And second, you all should have gotten
an ordinance that was written up by Ms.
Pierce over here, regarding the change that we had
wanted. And we want to actually be able to have everybody
review that. And then for our next meeting, we can actually
ask any questions and then hopefully vote on it to have it added onto our
rules.
I also want to add, Mr. Chair-
Yes
... just save your site plans for the items that were
postponed till the next meeting for the fireworks tent and
item on Grossman.
Mr. Chair?
Yes.
I have just a couple quick comments.
Yes, Mr. Green.
So what happened today is
really frustrating.
And
we don't work here,
and here's the frustrating part.
If
the people that do can't see what's going on and sit down at a meeting and say,
"Hey, we need to solve this problem because it's a problem."
Mm-hmm.
I mean, what's going on? I mean,
isn't nobody even seeing what's going on or listening to what's
happening? Because we're the ones who are looking like the bad
guy when our job is just to
do the ordinances as they're written.
Mm-hmm.
And this has been going on and on and on.
It's very frustrating for all of us.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
And with that said, so we received the letter
that says by May 11th, please, again, like we
work here, on May 11th please give us your ideas about the overlay
district, this, that, and this. And
very quickly, I thought that the meeting we had was about for us
to give our opinions on the overlay district
after it was presented. But
if you guys recall, we weren't exactly sure what the meeting was
about.
And-
What letter are you talking about?
Middle overlay.
Oh, about the ordinance?
Yeah.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
So,
and I'm going to be quick because I know everybody's always in a hurry, but
one of the few things that we can do zoning-wise is
we can decide what the city looks like.
Mm-hmm.
And that's the only thing that's left.
And I was talking to the city attorney about this, and there was a bunch
of legislative stuff that she's looked over for us and stuff.
And this legislative stuff is being backed by our state
rep
on at least four of them. And
it's going to get way in front of us
before we get a handle on it, and it's going to be in the same boat we're in now,
is that nobody's going to say anything about it.
So the affordable housing. Affordable housing, that's a
buzzword. So all these affordable housing projects, if you start to
read about them, they're affordable for who they're trying to sell them to.
It doesn't mean low-income housing.
Now, it might be in this particular project, and that was my concern.
My recall was when we ask about this overlay, that
the overlay, I thought it was for one spot.
And apparently, it can be
implemented
after approval in any spot that we want to.
And I maybe need clarification on that, but I thought the overlay was for
just the one area on Van D**e.
That was my understanding.
So maybe you can clarify that for us when you get a chance.
But when I asked, they said it can be
legislatively put anywhere in the city.
And that's a pretty big concern.
Mm-hmm.
And then if you look at... And I just very quickly jotted stuff down.
If you look at this stuff, it's like...
Let me see.
The word is density, and that's where the problem is.
And start reading about it, and start researching yourself.
Because someone in the city has to become a person who's going to be the expert on
it.
Infrastructure, sewer overload, backups, all this stuff
from this infrastructure that was built 50 years ago.
And I'm not an environmentalist, but the environment, all these different things,
schools, hospitals.
Remember COVID? You wanted to be as far away as you can.
Now we want to be as close as we can.The
tax base starts to erode. Fire and police and all these different
things that I'm just hoping, and I've lost a little bit of
confidence in it, that
not from anybody sitting at this table, but that somebody's
thinking about this a little bit in advance.
Because once we do these,
30 years or 40 years from now,
it's
going to be different. So-
Mm-hmm
... that's my thing for today. And I'll stop.
Someone
get a shock collar for me and hit me.
Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Yes, Mr. Watts.
So I'm going to agree with Mr. Green.
What we went through earlier tonight was very embarrassing.
The city has already changed the ordinance
from garage door side to garage door side for the
concrete to outer edge of the garage on each side.
Now,
I think that's pretty good, and I
think
if the council wanted that any different, they would've probably changed it a long
time ago. And now it's getting out of hand because we're getting
people moving into the city, and they're just looking around, and nobody ever
inspected these things. Shame on the city for that.
But I don't think it's not our problem.
And like Mr. Green said,
we have a job
to do here. We have to follow the ordinances.
And
everybody wants the city to look good.
And if we're going to allow
this kind of stuff over and over and over again,
the city's not going to look good. And I hope to be here for a
long time.
I got a lot of business to take care of yet, so I hope I'm here a long time.
But the younger people shouldn't have to look at this mess either.
And when I drive down, like I mentioned earlier, on Common,
around the corner from me, they put a pad in right in front of the front porch, and
every day there's at least one or two cars parked there. Looks horrible.
Down on Hayes, people, they got ruts in the lawns.
They're just parking all over the place. I turned it all in.
And then I go over here the other day.
I've been by this house probably five times, and there's always four or five
cars parked in there.
And this street is no
narrower than any other street. I don't see what the big deal is.
But the dangerous thing I think that we're saying here is
we turn down a guy a block down and a block over, and then we're going
to say, "Okay, it's okay for you to have it." That's a problem.
I think that sets up a liability situation for the city,
and that's very dangerous.
So we need to get ahold of this
and get it taken care of
because this is not good allowing this.
I don't want that next door to me.
Came to us and said, "Hey, guys."
Listen, I-
Came to us and said, "Hey guys, we solved your problem.
We're going to grant, do whatever, and it's going to start this date." Okay, bingo.
Move on.
If that's going to go, I'm going to pave mine all the way over to the neighbor's
house, and I'm going to cancel my storage for my fifth wheel and put my 35-footer
in there.
Seriously. You guys have voted against this,
of stopping them from doing this. That's what you're saying.
Before you know it, we've got semis parking in yards, semi-trucks parking
in yards. That's not allowed. That's what's going to happen when you allow these
people to put these pads in. And then it's going to be one complaint after another
for one this, for that, for that. It's our job as a zoning board to get
this under control. And if the city is doing their job
and we're doing our job, we're not going to get a lot of variances, and we're not
going to grant a lot of variances.
Because we've had some items since I've been on this board that when I look at
the history of the variances, some of them had 10
variances in the last five, six years.
One at a time.
And that's not how we
rezone property. That's not correct.
It doesn't fit if it needs that many variances.
So that's my opinion. I know everybody wants to go home, so I'll shut up.
I got a little rebuttal.
Yes, Mr. Cliff.
When you guys are talking about these driveway things, if they're done tastefully,
they're into the side yard. They're not in the front lawn.
They're into the side yard. They match what's going
on
or has been going on
in other municipalities with
likewise construction, okay? I'm not
talking about a salt box house with a one-car garage in the
backyard and a one-car path going to your garage, right?
Now you got attached garages. The fronts are super wide on homes.
If it's off into the side yard to give folks a little bit of extra
leeway, extra ease, and other municipalities have
looked at it and said, "Yeah, that doesn't look too bad." If there wasn't a
need for it, and I know it's abused, but if there wasn't a
legitimate need for it, people wouldn't be doing it.
I've got some stuff in my backyard because I entertain.
We did it within the realms of the ordinances, but I would've loved to have been
able to put
a double wide driveway up as far as I could on my
property if it allowed it.
But to me, it's no different than the sign thing.
Everybody wants to approve all this extra overage in signage,
but we want to talk about extra overage in concrete and driveways.
To me, there's no difference. It's a gross excess.
Tonight, I made a point,
and I'm glad that the board
finally maybe seen a little bit of what I've been aiming towards for the last
year or so, that it's drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, more,
more, more, more, more.
And yeah, I was
just taken aback looking at the one on 10 Mile right there in my neighborhood, and
I'm like, "We just
did this." And I voted no on it then because anything over
40 square feet on a wall signIt's gross
excess,
period. So if we want to draw lines, let's draw them fairly, and
let's draw them across the board and treat everything the same
way. Because I don't
understand.
A lot of them in the front yard, in front of the
porch. No, that's absolutely hideous. It's horrid looking.
Off to the side in the side yard, maybe some definitions need to be
rewritten. The big fault or the mistake is you don't need a permit
to do flatwork
up above your apron line. I've been told that at the desk.
Nobody offered me any extra information about how wide I could go,
or what else I could do, or handed me a packet that said, "Yeah, you
don't need a permit for it, but zoning doesn't allow you to exceed
these kind of dimensions."
And I think that's what causes the issue a lot of times,
because somebody will go to a desk and say, "Do I need a permit for this?" And the
workers will say, "No, you don't."
But the thing is, they're not saying, "Oh, but you can't go
wider than a certain amount."
Exactly.
Because that question wasn't asked that way.
I just feel not permitting flatwork-
Well, and point well taken, but I'll tell you,
I drive around to every address on these things for the
most part, every meeting.
And this particular street,
zoning should have somebody down there every day until
they get that street cleaned up.
Like four doors down from this place, they got an extended driveway.
The guy's got two commercial trailers in a driveway, a broken-down truck,
another truck pulled up behind that, and then on the street, he's got
probably a 14, 16-foot tandem axle trailer on the back of a
truck parked halfway up on a curb. That's not allowed either.
Mm-hmm.
And that's a danger to people driving down the street.
I've seen so many violations, it's like, holy cow.
And
I don't know if they know what they did, but they gave us...
I counted down there was exactly 28 addresses on that.
I think to me personally-
You know
... the amount of years I've been on the board, what I see is the problem is,
I'm going to say it again, until we get staffing levels to a
point where we can gain some kind of grip in this
town, instead of having a handful of people trying to run
around the third-largest city in the state.
The third-largest city in the state, we have
a dozen people trying to
rein all this in.
Until the city makes a concerted effort to change the budget,
to double the amount of
staff,
I feel like sometimes our job is fruitless.
Because who's following up? Who's following up on the denials?
Who's following up on the approvals? It's nothing. It's what, "Oh, done.
Next item."
And everything's complaint-driven based off of
citizens' complaints.
That's ridiculous. We have people in paid positions that should be going
finding stuff on the regular.
And what are they doing during the day?
They're just dealing with customer, regular
complaints from the citizens. So until there's a concerted effort from City
Hall to improve and expand on the
budget,
as far as in regards to zoning property maintenance,
guys, we're going to be in this situation forevermore.
I got news for you. We could sit here and debate what's right, what's wrong.
Until they do something
on their end, we're
going to be the bad guys.
Maybe we'll have to have a meeting every week then.
Yeah.
I mean...
So that's my experience
just sitting up here, and that's frustrating.
Because it's like, "Okay, I denied this or I did that.
Are they going to actually go follow through?
Are they going to..."
I've asked this question recently.
If I can go out
in the day or in the evening, whatever, and drive around
and find in an hour and a half, and I can find 25, 30 things in
a half a square mile, it's like, what the hell are they doing all day?
You don't have to go far. Yeah.
Right. You're right.
Correct.
And so I'm told, "Well, you have to understand, they have to stop, they have to
write it up. Then they have to go back, and they have to do the computer work,"
and all this. And I just sat through all the budget hearings.
And they claim that we have enough people.
They just need to work harder. Now, I don't know. I don't do the job.
I know me and Bill have had that talk.
I know there's more than just driving around and like, "Eh, write that
address down." I know that. I get that.
But there's not enough being done.
I complained about this when I was on council.
We got 36 square miles, we should have 72 inspectors.
Should have two for every square mile.
It's the only way we're ever going to catch up.
They can be part-time, whatever, but nobody wants to hear it.
And I don't know this, the council, but you've got to get past the money guy.
So, and City Attorney's office, last night I listened to that. They're short, too.
So, everybody's short.
Just in the municipality I work for now, I can do
all that from my car. I write tickets.
That's the other thing.
I conduct educational synopses on the side of the road with
people. I could do it all in the field, out in the car.
All of it. And the
place I work at's not the only one. There's many around the area.
It's all done mobile.
Right.
It increases your productivity four and fivefold-
Mm-hmm
... when you can do it right out in the car.
We are only the third-largest city, so let's not get out of the boat.
Well, I know. Let's not get carried away.
Motion to-
I'm just saying, you're right.
It's all about enforcement.
Mm-hmm.
But if you don't have the people-
True
... when you're working with archaic terms, with archaic processes, things take a
lot longer.
Yeah.
And it's a shame that some of these items are the kind of things
that should be brought up in those
joint planning and kind of meetings, so we could actually have those kind of
discussions as opposed to just
an overnight district, but it's-
Well, even then. I mean-
We only go so far.
I know.
Even then. I don't know
what the process is to maybe getting our message across to the administration with
some of the...
I think the way is when they hear complaints from the residents.
But I'm not in the habit of taking stuff away from people if they bought the
place and it's already there.
Yeah.
They did it five, six years ago, and because there was one complaint in the
neighborhood, now they're going to ding everybody.
But again,
and I didn't have time to look it up, but I'm curious when that
ordinance was put into place, when that zoning ordinance was put into place.
When was it changed to
the width of your garage walls or whatever? I'm just curious how old it is.
I'll find out.
I know somebody I can call.
Anyway, with that, I'm going to shut up. Motion to adjourn.
Support.
Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Cliffs, support by Mr. Watts to adjourn.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? Meeting adjourned at 9:04.