Zoning Board of Appeals

STERLING HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL JUNE 26, 2014 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI. SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held June 26, 2014 Chairwoman Szpont called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present at roll call: Derek D’Angelo, David Graef, Stefano Militello, Nick Najjar, Laura Szpont, Raymond Washburn Members absent at roll call: Bruce Kremhelmer (excused) Also in attendance: Donald Mende, City Planner Don DeNault, City Attorney Renee Bayer, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Washburn, supported by Najjar, to approve the agenda. Ayes: D’Angelo, Graef, Militello, Najjar, Szpont, Washburn Nays: None Absent: Kremhelmer Motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE There are two letters that have been passed out to the board. One letter in regard to Case No. PZBA14-0012 and one in regard to Case No. PZBA14-0015. PZBA14-0012 – Mohammed Murshed Ahmed Requesting Board approval for a Use Variance to allow group worship in an O-1 (Business & Professional Office) District. Property address: 38810 Ryan Road Lena Masner is representing the petitioner, Mohammed Murshed Ahmed, who is also present. Ms. Masner stated that there is a request for a Use Variance to allow The Muslim Community of Macomb to occupy one tenant space in a existing office building for a period of two years. The current religious group that is present at the property today, AMDA, has complied with all the ordinances by the city. AMDA’s occupancy has not altered the character of the area as there are two churches immediately south of the location. Prior to the religious group worship at this facility, the building was unoccupied. It is in the community’s best interest to keep a functioning building instead of an abandoned building. The congregation at this facility typically only has 20-30 worshipers that come in to pray throughout the day. We are not aware of any concerns or complaints by neighboring residents in connection with this use. The Muslim Community of Macomb needs time to find a new facility and raise the necessary funds in order to secure a new property. They feel they will not need any longer than a two year extension for the variance. Without the extension, The Muslim Community of Macomb will suffer without a facility to operate or perform religious services. Mr. Najjar stated that the lease is for August 1, 2014 – July 31, 2015, but they are asking for a two year extension. Ms. Masner stated that the landlord was willing to do a two year lease. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of June 26, 2014 Page 2 Ms. Szpont gave the petitioner the option of postponing the vote since she would need five votes to approve and they were missing a board member. Ms. Masner stated they were comfortable moving forward with the one board member missing. Mr. D’Angleo asked Mr. Mende if the board needs to worry about anything with the board approving a two year various with only a one year lease. Mr. Mende stated that if the board does approve the extension, that it be subject to the lease extension by the landlord and the City receiving a copy of the lease showing the second year. Ms. Masner stated the landlord is present and will sign the lease for two years right now. Ms. Szpont asked if the AMDA is currently moving out. Ms. Masner stated that they are awaiting the completion of their new location and will be completely moved out once it finished and that is when the new lease for The Muslim Community of Macomb will begin. Ms. Szpont asked about the hours of operation, what a daily schedule would be like and events. The petitioner, Mohammed Murshed Ahmed, stated the hours would be 7 AM to 7 PM with no events and no more than 30 people at once. Mr. Washburn asked if this is there only location or are there others and would anything be done outside the location. Mr. Ahmed stated that this is their only location and nothing will be done outside. Chairwoman Szpont opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Smith, Sterling Heights, asked if this group has anything to do with the Mosque that is being built at M59 and Ryan. Ms. Masner stated they are not connected with that construction project. There was no other audience participation. Mr. Washburn stated that the plans show occupancy for well over 30 people. Is this a hopeful prediction on your part? Ms. Masner stated that the plans do show more than 30 prayer areas but not necessarily occupied by individuals. It’s just a way of measuring the area. There will be only 20 – 30 individuals at the most at one time. Motion by Militello, supported by Najjar, In the case of PZBA14-0012, Mohammed Murshed Ahmed, 38810 Ryan Road, I move to APPROVE a Use Variance to allow group worship in an O-1 (Business and Professional Office) zoning district with the following conditions: 1) That the decision of the Board will remain valid and in force as long as the facts and information presented to the Board in Public Hearing are found to be correct, and that the conditions upon which the motion is based are forever maintained as presented to the Board. The petitioner agrees to abide by and comply with all the ordinances of the City of Sterling Heights and the regulations of every lawful agency or governing authority now or hereafter in force; 2) Notice of the approval of the variance shall be delivered to the City Clerk’s office within 60 days after the approval date of the applicable meeting minutes for recording with the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of June 26, 2014 Page 3 3) Macomb County Register of Deeds. Failure to file this notice shall serve as grounds to revoke the variance; 4) A Hold Harmless Agreement, in favor of the City of Sterling Heights, shall be delivered to the City Clerk’s office within 60 days after the approval date of the applicable meeting minutes for recording with the Macomb County Register of Deeds. Failure to follow this agreement shall serve as grounds to revoke the variance; 5) No exterior noise or speakers will be permitted outside of the building. 6) The variance is temporary and expires with the lease which is July 31, 2015. The following findings of facts are noted: 1) The variance is temporary; 2) The variance will not alter the character of the area as there are two churches abutting the property; 3) The previous tenant occupied the space for group worship with no violations or complaints; 4) The tenant space meets all requirements of Building and Fire for assembly uses. Mr. Najjar made a motion to amend #5 to read as “The variance is temporary and expires with the lease which is July 31, 2016, subject to a copy of the lease showing this lease extension to Mr. Mende, no later than June 30, 2014”. Mr. Militello amended his support. Mr. Washburn stated he would like the landlord to come up and state that he has no problem with the one year extension that we have been taking about since he is in the audience. Issam Attar, Sterling Heights, Landlord, stated he has no objection to extending the lease to two years, ending July 31, 2016, and will give a copy to Mr. Mende no later than Monday, June 30, 2014. Don DeNault, City Attorney, wanted to clarify the wording for #5. He feels it should read as #5 “ The variance is temporary and expires upon the expiration of the lease, or July 31, 2016, or upon abandonment of the petitioner, whichever occurs first.” Motion to amend #5 by Militello, supported by Najjar. Roll call vote to approve. Ayes: D’Angelo, Graef, Militello, Najjar, Szpont, Washburn Nays: None Absent: Kremhelmer Motion Carried PZBA14-0013 – Prayosha Troy Requesting Board approval for a Use Variance to allow group worship in a C-3 (General Business) District. Property address: 43601 Van Dyke Joseph Shalom, appearing on behalf of Prayosha Troy, stated they are looking to do a community center with a place of worship in an area zoned as C-3. The petitioner is finding practical difficulties due to that all community centers with a place of worship all require a special land use. Approvals are not allowed as a matter of right anywhere in the city and such zoning restrictions create an unwarranted hardship on the property. The property has been shown to not be profitable as it’s prior use as a bowling alley. This property has been vacant for several years. The use problem is not self-created Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of June 26, 2014 Page 4 because a community center with a place of worship is not authorized as a matter of right under any zoning district without a special land use or variance from the city. We are here to request that variance. Mr. Washburn asked the petitioner that this use is not permitted anywhere in the city? Mr. Shalom answered that it is permitted as long as you have a special land use or variance. Mr. Mende stated that this was a correct statement. Chairwoman Szpont wanted to remind petitioner that they are short a board member and will need five members’ approvals. Mr. Shalom stated they would like to move forward. Chairwoman Szpont asked if they had looked at other properties and why does this property meet their needs. Mr. Shalom stated it is the size, location and parking available. Chairwoman Szpont asked if there was to be any outside speakers, activities, etc. Mr. Shalom stated no. Chairwoman Szpont stated that the site plan showed on page 1 188 seats and the 2nd site plan showed 180. Mr. P.D. Dandnaik, the petitioner, stated that the plan was designed to show the maximum size and we do not have or expect that many members. Mr. D’Angelo asked the petitioner if he could go through the details of how the site would be used as far as weekly activities. Mr. Dandnaik answered that it is a community center with worship and they have many activities on the weekends. We do yoga classes, art classes, and music classes. We do a walk-a-thon for Karmanos Cancer Center and other charitable causes. We meet on Sundays as a community and we have activities for the kids as well as the adults. Mr. Najjar wanted to state that as a real estate broker, he had tried to sell this property three times and all were unsuccessful and that this property has been vacant for a long time. He feels this use will bring a lot of business to the area. Mr. Washburn asked if any of this property would be available for rental. Mr. Dandnaik stated no. Mr. Washburn stated he had seen an area with tables and inquired as to what those are for for and how large the groups be.. Mr. Dandnaik stated that the tables are for group discussions and for families to have a place to eat if need be. Mr. Dandnaik stated that there are currently 70 to 80 members and could possibly grow into about 125 members based on the facility they have in Canton, which has been operating for 10 years now. Mr. Washburn asked Mr. Mende how long this building has been vacant and if the building has been brought into code. Mr. Mende stated the building has been vacant approximately 2 years and that they still need to go through their formal site plan review process and building and fire reviews. Chairwoman Szpont opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Smith, Sterling Heights, again asked if this group has anything to do with the Mosque that was being built at M59 and Ryan. The board answered that this is a totally different religion and does not have anything to do with that Mosque. There was no other public participation. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of June 26, 2014 Page 5 Mr. D’Angelo wanted to verify that there would not be any activities going on outside even in the summer. Mr. Dandniak stated that they only have one activity that would be outside and that is their walk-a-thon they do for charity. They would have that walk somewhere like a park, not on their property. Motion by Mr. D’Angelo, support by Mr. Militello, In the case of PZBA14-0013, Prayosha Troy, LLC, 43601 Van Dyke, I move to APPROVE a Use Variance to allow group worship in a C-3 (General Business) zoning district with the following conditions: 1) That the decision of the Board will remain valid and in force as long as the facts and information presented to the Board in Public Hearing are found to be correct, and that the conditions upon which the motion is based are forever maintained as presented to the Board. The petitioner agrees to abide by and comply with all the ordinances of the City of Sterling Heights and the regulations of every lawful agency or governing authority now or hereafter in force; 2) Notice of the approval of the variance shall be delivered to the City Clerk’s office within 60 days after the approval date of the applicable meeting minutes for recording with the Macomb County Register of Deeds. Failure to file this notice shall serve as grounds to revoke the variance; 3) A Hold Harmless Agreement, in favor of the City of Sterling Heights, shall be delivered to the City Clerk’s office within 60 days after the approval date of the applicable meeting minutes for recording with the Macomb County Register of Deeds. Failure to follow this agreement shall serve as grounds to revoke the variance; 4) No exterior noise or speakers will be permitted outside of the building; 5) The petitioner will not object to any proposed liquor license establishments; The following findings of facts are noted: 1) The group worship component is a small portion of the organizations overall activities; 2) The variance will not alter the character of the area as the building is an existing, free- standing structure; 3) The previous tenant (Van Dyke Bowl) occupied the space as a bowling alley with large numbers of patrons in a long-term assembly type operation; 4) The tenant space will be required to meet all requirements of Building and Fire for assembly uses; Mr. Washburn wanted to add condition #6 to the conditions of the approval to state, “The plans need to complete the City of Sterling Heights administrative plan review for site plan compliance.” Mr. Militello amended his support to add #6 to the conditions. Ayes: D’Angelo, Graef, Militello, Najjar, Szpont, Washburn Nays: None Absent: Kremhelmer Motion Carried. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of June 26, 2014 Page 6 PZBA14-0015 – Curt Loveday Requesting Board approval for a 13’5” front yard setback variance for a garage. Property Address: 38309 Plainview The petitioner, Curt Loveday, stated that he lives on a rounded corner lot and abiding by the current 30 ft. setback rule, even on a side lot, I would push the garage pretty far back into the backyard. It would divide the backyard up into two areas and he wanted to avoid that. I have a petition big chunks and he wanted to avoid that. I have a petition signed by my surrounding neighbors that received a postcard due to living within 300 ft. of my house. Petitioner handed petition to Chairwoman Szpont. Petitioner displayed photos of the street view of his lot. Mr. Washburn asked the depth of petitioner’s lot along the property line. Mr. Loveday stated 100 ft. Mr. Washburn asked if there was some reason the garage couldn’t be slid back to meet the requirement of the setback as far as being in the rear yard where the drive is now. Mr. Loveday stated that he would still have to abide by the 30 ft setback and that would put the garage flush with his house. Mr. Washburn stated why not leave it where it is but move it back. Mr. Loveday stated that he would still need a variance. Mr. Mende stepped in to explain to Mr. Washburn that if petitioner was to move the garage to the north where it is showing the 32 ft setback line, that is considered a side lot line, he could be as close as 3 ft. as long as there are no easements there. This is considered a side lot line because his home is fronting towards Monsbrook, his address is Plainview and that is what is making this awkward, in addition to the small lot size. There is a letter from the abutting homeowner, that is in your packets, that states they are not happy with the location of where the garage would be and would probably object even further if the garage was located closer to their house because of the location of their porch. Mr. Washburn asked how far into the front yard would you be if you moved it straight north and put within 3 ft. of the lot line. Mr. Mende stated you may gain maybe 2 - 3 ft. Mr. Loveday stated that he believes there is an easement due to a telephone pole. Mr. Washburn feels there is not a lot of necessary information on this. Chairwoman Szpont asked if petitioner had discussed this with an architect or someone familiar with easements. Mr. Loveday stated he had not, just to concrete companies so far. Mr. Militello asked if petitioner was building this himself. Mr. Loveday stated he was not building it himself, that he was paying for the concrete to be poured and paying for the structure to be built. He has not yet talked to any construction companies yet to do the building. Mr. Washburn stated, as looking at the drawing, it shows 32 ft. to the edge of the sidewalk, not sure of the width of the sidewalk but assuming 2 ft. and then a distance between the sidewalk and proposed garage. If the garage were slid back to the north property line it could be closer to the house because the roadway angles away as it Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of June 26, 2014 Page 7 goes back and looks like very little impact on the adjacent homeowner. I would personally like to see that. The other option that might work is if the petitioner had ever thought of connecting the garage to the house. Mr. Loveday said no he had not, due to more stipulations to attaching the garage. Mr. Washburn suggested going over other options with Mr. Mende as far as taking it to the north. Mr. Loveday said he is opposed to moving the garage back because it would divide up his backyard. Mr. Washburn thinks the petitioner does not understand what he is trying to explain. He is saying to slide the garage straight back to the north property line. As you go back, you will gain on the front yard because the road curves and it curves away from the garage and by doing that you slid it back and you will find that your distances will change and maybe slide it a little bit closer to the house but the backyard would not be impacted at all. Mr. Loveday stated that the distance you would gain from moving it further down would be maybe 3 ft. He really wants the garage to be flush with his fence. If he moves the garage back and slid it north, he would still have to go west for the 30 ft. setback and then there would be a gap between his garage and privacy fence and that would defeat the purpose of having the privacy fence if people could see in through the gap. Mr. Washburn asked Mr. Mende what the ordinance is for privacy fences in the front yard. Mr. Mende stated they are not allowed in the front yard setback, so they would have to be set back 30 ft. from the property line. Mr. Washburn asked if this fence complies with the ordinance. Mr. Mende stated that they would have to look at the old fence permit because the way the house is situated on this lot that may have been considered a street side front yard setback and in that case it is allowed an additional 10ft. Mr. Militello stated that the board is trying to figure out the actual hardship. Mr. Washburn requested a five minute break. Chairwoman Szpont called the meeting back to order. Chairwoman Szpont wanted to remind petitioner that they are missing one board member and will need five votes to approve his request. Would he like to move forward or postpone. Petitioner stated he would like to move forward. Mr. Washburn wanted to make sure that petitioner understood that he would be voting no based on the information he currently has and to be sure he wanted to move forward or he could postpone until July 17, 2014. Mr. D’Angelo asked if the discussion was about moving the garage north. Mr. Washburn stated yes. The other thing was about the parking of cars in the driveway. That is a real concern to me. When you are coming down Monsbrook and you make that turn and there are cars sitting there, you will not see anyone coming the other way on the adjacent street. Also, if the garage is slid back, it could be closer to house based upon the property line being extended out and maybe make the garage 22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Regular Meeting of June 26, 2014 Page 8 ft. x 20 ft. I have concerns about safety for the youngsters in the area. I don’t have a problem about a garage for this site I just have a problem with where he wants to put it Chairwoman Szpont suggested to petitioner he might want to reconsider his plans based on what the Board has stated. Mr. Loveday requested a postponement to July 17, 2014. Motion by Mr. Millitello, Support by Mr. Washburn, In the case of PABA14-0015, Curt Loveday, 38309 Plainview Dr., I move to POSTPONE the request to the next meeting so that the petitioner may provide additional information to the Board. Ayes: D’Angelo, Graef, Militello, Najjar, Szpont, Washburn Nays: None Absent: Kremhelmer Motion to postpone. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MARCH 27, 2014 Motion by Mr. Militello, support by Mr. Washburn to approve the minutes as presented. Ayes: Militello, Washburn, D’Angelo, Najjar, Szpont, Nays: None Abstain: Graef Absent: Kremhelmer Motion Carried. NEW BUSINESS There was no New Business OLD BUSINESS There was no Old Business PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There was no Public Participation ADJOURNMENT Moved by Militello, support by Washburn, to adjourn at 8:01 p.m. Ayes: Militello, Washburn, D’Angelo, Graef, Najjar, Szpont, Nays: None Absent: Kremhelmer Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Szpont, Chairwoman Zoning Board of Appeals