Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - April 14, 2010
THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 14, 2010
On April 14, 2010, a regular meeting of the
Chesterfield Township Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Township Hall located at 47275
Sugarbush, Chesterfield Twp., MI 48047.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Stepnak called the meeting
to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Marvin Stepnak, Chairman
James Klonowski, Vice-Chairman
Janice Uglis, Township board liaison
Absent: Nancy Orewyler, Secretary, excused
Paula Frame, Planning Commission liaison, excused
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Chairman Stepnak explained the procedures to the
4. ZBA PETITION #2010-04: Christopher M. Purrett for
Kroger Store #724 located at
35000 23 Mile Road, Chesterfield, MI 48047. Requesting
variance for a temporary use for the purpose of selling outdoor floral and patio
furniture. This is an annual event for this store, but they wish to relocate
display area away from the sidewalk and entrance way into the store to the
Southeast corner of their parking lot area. Event proposed to start May 1, 2010
thru July 5, 2010. Location is address stated above on the Southwest corner of
23 & Altman.
Christopher M. Purrett for Kroger Store #724 located
at 35000 23 Mile Road, Chesterfield, MI addressed the board.
Petitioner stated that he represented the Kroger store
on 23 Mile and Altman. He was requesting to have a tent put up in the parking
lot for the sale of outdoor floral items, patio furniture and mulch products for
customer sales. They would like to utilize an area to try to clean up the front
of the store and maintain a specific area for these types of products to better
serve the customers in Chesterfield Township. They would like to put up the tent
for the duration of May 1st thru July 5th. He stated that actually the tent
would go up a few days before May 1st which is when the actual selling event
would begin. He continued that after the Fourth of July weekend they would have
the tent removed. There is a specific company, A-1 Rental that is installing the
tents for all of the Kroger stores in the State of Michigan. It would be a 20’ x
40’ tent which roughly takes up about 10 to 12 parking spaces and that does
include the mulch that would line the tent. He added that a picture of the
layout of the tent was included in the information presented. So the board has a
visual of the proposed tent with the compost and mulch. He commented that the
mulch and compost comes in pallets that are wrapped in plastic so that the
debris is contained. The tent has flaps around it that can be removed for
selling throughout the day. The tent is flame retardant and has a certification
that will be posted in the tent for the Fire Marshall and it will be opened up
to the public in a manner so that people could enter the tent from three sides
with only one of the four sides closed for storage of the mulch. The tent would
be open from 8 AM to 8 PM during the duration of May 1st thru July 5th.
Mr. Blake asked if the flowers that are currently at
the front of the store would be displayed in the tent area?
Petitioner answered yes.
Mr. Blake asked if the sidewalk area would then be all
Petitioner answered correct.
Mr. Blake asked if the tent would definitely be
removed by July 5th?
Petitioner stated that the company indicated that the
tent would be removed the week of
Mr. Blake reiterated if the tent would be removed on
Petitioner answered that he would tell the Kroger
Corporation that the tent must be removed by July 5th.
Ms. Uglis stated that she shopped at Kroger’s. She
asked that if someone happened to park in the space that would back up to the
tent, she pointed out the place she was referring to, would that person have
enough clearance to get out of the parking space?
Petitioner answered that the tent would be in the
parameters of the current parking spaces. The tent would not expound past the
current parking spaces that are marked in that diagram.
The tent would just be in an area where other cars
would park and the normal isle ways would remain open.
Ms. Uglis stated that her concern would be if someone
could back up into the tent and injure someone. She asked if the petitioner had
stated there would be something along the sides of the tent?
Petitioner explained that the tents have flaps that
come down and they would actually roll them up all the way around. So when
looking at the tent only the poles would be visible and a person would be able
to see into the tent. The only area that would be closed would be the canopy on
Ms. Uglis asked if there would be poles on the sides?
Petitioner answered yes.
Ms. Uglis asked if there would be something along that
edge in case someone in a car would back up into the tent?
Petitioner answered yes.
Ms. Uglis stated that her biggest concern would be if
someone would be in the tent shopping and be hit by a vehicle.
Petitioner explained that was the reason the tent
would not go beyond the parking spaces and they stay within those parameters. He
stated that the product is kept in the tent so that it would be out of the
Mr. Yaschen stated that he assumed the Kroger’s
building insurance would cover all liability in case there was an accident with
Petitioner answered yes the Kroger Company would
assume the responsibility.
Mr. Klonowski asked how high up the product would be
stacked in the tent? He asked if it would be on the ground or on tables?
Petitioner explained that some of the items would be
stored on A-frames so they would be about 5 ½’ to 6’ high. Then the material on
pallets is usually about 5’ high and the mulch will be wrapped in plastic and
are left that way. He stated that after they sell some of the material, they
would just peel back the plastic like a banana to keep what is there maintained
so that is does not fall over. He added that some of the flowers are displayed
on tiered steps and go up about waist high. Therefore, there are some different
height variations depending on the item. He stated that the hanging baskets
would be stored on an A-frame at about shoulder height.
Mr. Klonowski commented that his concern would be
material blocking the view for vehicles and traffic especially on the corner
Petitioner stated that the actual tent would be about
two spaces in from the drive at the front of the store. Furthermore, there would
be lower profile flower displays in the front and the taller displays at the
back of the tent.
Mr. Klonowski asked if there would be any stop signs
coming up because there is a stop sign at the front of the store for people to
Petitioner answered that there was already a second
stop sign at the front of the building in that area?
Ms. Uglis concurred with the petitioner that a stop
sign was already in that area.
Mr. Klonowski commented that he thought that stop sign
was down a little way from the proposed location of the tent.
Petitioner stated that the tent would be pretty close
to that particular location at the east side entrance.
Mr. Klonowski asked how many spaces the tent would
Petitioner answered that it would take from 10 to 12
parking spaces total and the tent would not encompass that entire space.
Mr. KIonowski thought the submission indicated it
would take up about 20 spaces.
Petitioner reiterated that according to the
Corporation the tent would only take 10 to 12 parking spaces. He stated that the
tent would be 20’ x 40’ in diameter, but would only take from 10 to 12 parking
Mr. Blake asked if there would be electricity or water
in the tent?
Petitioner answered no, they would be using a water
boy or a hose from a spigot on the side of the building to water the plants. The
watering would be done early in the morning, because if they do it later in the
day, it would be too late. He stated that they would not be using any
electricity out there. The register that would be out in the tent runs on a
Mr. Blake stated that it should be light during the
hours of operation.
Petitioner agreed. He commented that he would also
check on the location of the stop sign because he believes there is a stop sign
at both entrances.
Mr. Klonowski agreed that there was a stop sign at
both entrances. However, he stated that the tent would be just a little further
down from the stop sign.
Petitioner asked if the board would like him to
reposition the tent because it would be placed on a cement base that could be
Mr. Klonowski stated that the petitioner should either
reposition the tent or put up another stop sign.
Petitioner stated that he could check on that.
Ms. Uglis stated that she thought the proposed tent
would be at the location of the crosswalk.
Petitioner stated that he thought the cross walk was
located right between the area designated for the tent and the handicapped spots
closest to Altman Road.
Chairman Stepnak commented that the petitioner was
requesting to utilize the tent from
May 1st thru July 5th, however it was mentioned that
they would need some time for set up and removal of the tent. He asked if the
petitioner planned to go by those exact days or would those days be when items
would be sold from the tent?
Petitioner answered that they would be removing all
the floral products and patio sets on the Fourth of July. He commented that they
do have some of the floral items now, but sales out of the tent would not start
until May 1st. The corporation that is taking care of the tents are contracted
to put up 33 tents throughout the State. He stated that he has been told that
their tent would be put up on the April 27th.
Chairman Stepnak stated so the petitioner would need
some set up and removal time?
Petitioner answered that he would need a few days.
Chairman Stepnak asked the petitioner if five days for
set up and removal would be adequate?
Petitioner answered yes.
Chairman Stepnak asked Mr. Shortt if they would have
to post a bond, since Kroger is an established business in the community?
Mr. Shortt responded that normally the petitioner does
post a bond. They would pay a $65 fee with a $300 bond.
Chairman Stepnak asked if that would be part of
licensing and be over and above the ZBA?
Mr. Shortt stated that the regulations were in the
Township ordinances. He explained that Kroger would need an inspection by the
Fire Department and by the Building Department prior to selling the products.
Petitioner verified that they would need an inspection
by the Fire and Building Departments.
Chairman Stepnak stated that the board may grant a
variance, however, petitioners still would need to comply with the regulations
of the Fire Department, Police Department, and the Building Department.
Mr. Shortt stated that it was not necessary to contact
the Police Department, just the Fire and Building Departments. He added that the
petitioner would not be able to put electrical out there because that would
involve special cords. He reiterated that the petitioner must pay a $65 fee and
post a $300 bond. He stated after July 5th when the tent is removed and
everything is cleaned up, the bond would be returned to the petitioners.
Petitioner asked when he should contact the Building
Mr. Shortt responded that the petitioner should
contact the Building Department after the installation of the tent is completed
and preferably after the product is set up, so both Departments would be able to
do a proper inspection of the area.
Chairman Stepnak stated that Mr. Shortt was at the
Township Offices from 8 AM to 5 PM, Monday thru Friday.
Mr. Shortt corrected him and explained that he worked
from 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
There were no public comments.
Motion by Chairman Stepnak to approve ZBA Petition
#2010-04 for Kroger Store #724 located at 35000 23 Mile Road, Chesterfield, MI
48047on a variance for a temporary tent in the parking lot starting May 1, 2010
thru July 5, 2010. The board would allow a five day grace period at the
beginning and end of these dates for set-up and tear down. The petitioner must
contact the Building Department and the Fire Department to make sure both
entities are satisfied with their requirements.
Supported by Mr. Blake
Nays: None Motion Granted
5. ZBA PETITION # 2010-05: Brandon MacKenzie, 47120
Land Drive, Chesterfield, MI 48047.
Request’s a variance for a wood deck in the front
yard. Property is located on Lake St. Clair and lakefront is considered their
front yard. Location is address stated above.
Brandon MacKenzie, 47120 Land Drive, Chesterfield, MI
48047 addressed the board.
Petitioner stated that he was requesting to build a
deck on the lake side of his property. He added that apparently the ordinance
would not allow the deck to be built on the lake side of his property because
that would be considered his front yard. Essentially he would like to build a
deck because he has two small children and the deck would provide a barrier and
he would also like to beautify and improve his property. He would also like to
put a deck because it would be on the corner of the lake side sea wall and they
have a cut-in boat well.
There is about a two foot step into the boat well and
with the deck it would be a lot safer to get into the boat, so they would not
have to step over the top of the boat well.
Mr. Yashen stated that he had no questions.
Ms. Uglis stated that she did not have a problem with
Mr. Klonowski had no problem with it. He asked Mr.
Shortt if the petitioner had to get a variance because of the front-yard
Mr. Shortt stated yes
Mr. Klonowski stated that the variance made no sense
and he thought the ordinance should be modified. He stated that he had talked to
Mr. Meagher and the ordinance makes no sense.
Mr. Shortt stated that the lake and the Salt River
side of the property would be considered the front yard for any house on
waterfront property. Furthermore, the ordinance states that no decks can be
built in the front yard.
Chairman Stepnak commented that the ordinance has
always stated that the lake side is considered the front yard. It has been like
that as long as he can remember.
Mr. Blake mentioned that looking at the deck, he
noticed one part of the deck is over the seawall a little bit.
Petitioner agreed and stated that they cantilevered it
a little bit. Actually they could have cantilevered it up to three feet and they
went just under that.
Mr. Blake asked if the petitioner planned to put a
good strong railing on the deck?
Petitioner answered yes, his wife would insist on
Mr. Blake asked where the stairs would be?
Petitioner looked at the drawing and stated it would
be right where Mr. Blake’s fingers were pointing. They would be parallel to the
Mr. Blake mentioned that he noticed that there was a
tear in the seawall.
Petitioner commented that the sea wall was like that
when he purchased the home.
Mr. Shortt stated that Mr. Blake mentioned that the
petitioner was cantilevered
over the seawall.
Petitioner stated it actually goes right to it. He
mentioned that it was kind of obscure because they almost soldered a splash
guard to the top of the sea wall which angles. So he tried to get it as close as
he could to the top of that.
Mr. Shortt explained that if there was a storm coming
in that will tear that deck right off when waves come in. He stated that the
petitioner may want to put in a splash guard at an angle coming down so that the
waves don’t catch that deck. Otherwise, he stated that the petitioner may find
the deck in the back yard if the water comes up again. He commented that he did
not have a problem with the variance.
Chuck Mirisciotti, 47060 Land, Chesterfield, MI
addressed the board.
Mr. Mirisciotti stated that the petitioner has done a
beautiful job at keeping up his property. He made favorable comments for the
granting of the variance.
Ms. Uglis asked if some of the wood was already on
there or is the deck just boxed in right now?
Petitioner stated that the deck was not completed and
the trim had to be added on yet.
Motion by Mr. Klonowski to approve Petition # 2010-05
for a wood deck along the seawall in the front yard at 47120 Land Drive,
Supported by Chairman Stepnak
Nays: None Motion Granted
6. OLD BUSINESS:
There was no old business.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
Chairman Stepnak reminded the board that the April 28,
2010 had been cancelled.
8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING:
Motion by Mr. Blake to approve the minutes from the
February 10, 2010 ZBA meeting.
Supported by Mr. Yaschen
Nays: None Motion Granted
9. COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR:
Mr. Shortt brought up a possible petition from a man
who wants to put up a privacy fence to cover the blight in the next door
Chairman Stepnak stated that legally the board would
not entertain or discuss the matter. He did mention however, that the board has
traditionally looked favorably on situations like that. He commented that the
gentleman should bring pictures and the board is usually sympathetic concerning
these types of issues
Motion by Mr. Blake to adjourn at 7:33 PM.
Supported by Chairman Stepnak,
Nays: None Motion Granted
Nancy Orewyler, Secretary
Grace Mastronardi, Recording