Reference Desk


Planning Commission Minutes - February 15, 2011



FEBRUARY 15, 2011

A Regular meeting of the Charter Township of Chesterfield Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Township Hall Located at 47275 Sugarbush, Chesterfield, MI 48047.


Chairman Priest called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.


Present: Jim Priest Excused: Ray Saelens

Paula Frame

Joe Stabile

George Deeby

Paul Miller

Carl Leonard

Rick LaBelle

Brian DeMuynck

Others: Patrick Meagher, Township Planner


Motion by Mr. Priest, supported by Mr. Deeby to approve the revised agenda as presented.

All Ayes Motion Carried

4. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: (Committee will report items under Reviews)



A. VICTORY MOTORS NEW PYLON SIGN - SGN#2010-40: Phillips Sign & Lighting, Inc. 40920 Executive Dr., Harrison Twp., MI 48045. Remanded Back to Planning Commission Board for failure to erect sign as approved. Sign was approved on 10-12-2010 with a height of 12’, sign was built at 15’.

Motion by Ms. Frame, supported by Mr. Deeby to table SGN #2010-40 at the request of the applicant for up to 6 meetings, with the deadline being April 28, 2011.

All Ayes Motion Carried

B. CJ BROWNS BOATYARD GRILLE- PROPOSED NEW GROUND MARKER (BUOY) SIGN-SGN #2011-03: Valerie Thompson, 50453 Altman Road Chesterfield, MI 48047. Proposed "Buoys" near existing pylon sign located at 48780 Jefferson.

Ms. Frame stated that these buoys are in the right-of-way so we have no jurisdiction over that.

Motion by Ms. Frame, supported by Mr. Miller to deny SGN #2011-03.

Mr. Stabile commented that we are denying this because they are in the right-of-way, but he asked if they were not in the right-of-way wouldn’t that be considered extra signage.

Mr. Meagher responded that is a fair assessment.

Mr. Stabile asked would they then be allowed.

Mr. Meagher replied if they met the directional signage requirements meaning that they were not more than 36 inches off the ground and 2 square foot in area, however, they do not meet that requirement.

Vote On The Motion:

All Ayes Motion Carried

C. TCF BANK – PROPOSED RELOCATION OF PYLON SIGN – SGN#2011-04: Craig Gilbert for TCF Bank located in an Out Lot at 32900 23 Mile Road in the Bayside Mall. Proposed relocation of existing TCF Bank pylon sign to be relocated to the site of the existing "Citizens Bank" pylon sign across the street.

Ms. Frame stated that this is being changed to a resurface. They will be changing the panel out from the one across the street.

Mr. Meagher stated that they will have to make all new panels that will actually fit the existing Citizens State frame that is out there.

Mr. Priest clarified that they are resurfacing the existing Citizens State frame.

Motion by Ms. Frame, supported by Mr. Miller to approve SGN #2011-04.

Mr. Deeby asked that the new sign include the address.

Ms. Frame responded that it does.

Vote On The Motion:

All Ayes Motion Carried

D. METRO PCS – PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN – SGN #2011-05: Sign Fabricators, Inc. 43984 Groesbeck, Clinton Twp., MI 48036. Proposed new wall sign located at 49149 Gratiot.

The applicant was not present.

Ms. Frame stated that we need some clarification on this sign.

Motion by Ms. Frame, supported by Mr. Stabile to table SGN #2011-05 for up to 6 meetings, with the deadline being April 28, 2011.

All Ayes Motion Carried

F. CJ BROWNS BOATYARD GRILLE NEW LED SIGN ADD – SGN #2011-06: Valerie Thompson, 50453 Altman Road, Chesterfield, MI 48047. Proposed LED add to an existing pylon sign located at 48780 Jefferson.

Motion by Ms. Frame to approve SGN #2011-06 subject to the applicant resubmitting official drawings to the Building Department, removing the letter marquis type sign and adding the LED sign on the right hand side of the existing pole.

Mr. Meagher interjected that it would be within the existing framework.

Motion supported by Mr. Miller.

All Ayes Motion Carried

G EXPERT EYES PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN – SGN #2011-07: Dr. Barbara Horn, 8703 26 Mile, Washington, MI 48094. Proposed new wall sign located at 27903 23 Mile Road in the Chesterfield Village Square Center.

Motion by Ms. Frame, supported by Mr. Leonard to approve SGN #2011-07 subject to the signage being changed to what has now been resubmitted. The applicant has submitted a new drawing eliminating the swish logo that is in the original application. The sign still meets all of the ordinances with this new lettering.

All Ayes Motion Carried

H. VERIZON WIRELESS PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN – SGN#2011-08: I-Signs & Designs L.L.C., 11177 E. 8 Mile Road, Warren, MI 48089. Proposed new wall sign located at 46982 Gratiot, in the Gratiot 21 Shopping Center.

Ms. Frame stated that item SGN #2011-08 and SGN #2011-09 both need to be tabled as the applicant needs to make a few minor corrections.

Motion by Ms. Frame, supported by Mr. DeMuynck to table SGN #2011-08 and SGN #2011-09 for up to 6 meetings, with the deadline being April 28, 2011.

All Ayes Motion Carried

I. VERIZON WIRELESS PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN – SGN #2011-09: I-Signs & Designs, L.L.C., 11177 E. 8 Mile Road, Warren, MI 48089. Proposed new wall sign located at 46982 Gratiot, in the Gratiot 21 Shopping Center.

See Agenda Item H Above.


Motion by Mr. Priest, supported by Mr. Miller to table the minutes from the January 11, 2011 meeting until the next meeting.

All Ayes Motion Carried



Re-Elect new liaison to Zoning Board of Appeals.

Motion by Mr. Priest, supported by Ms. Frame to approve Mr. Leonard to be the new liaison to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

All Ayes Motion Carried

Mr. Meagher commented that the Township Board would have to approve the liaison position. He asked Mr. DeMuynck to bring that to them as a recommendation.



A. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST #53: L&A Architects, 2430 Rochester Ct., Troy, MI 48083. Proposed administrative change to McDonald’s located at 28320 23 Mile Road. Tabled on 11-23-2010.

Mr. Meagher stated that at the November meeting there was debate as to whether or not the driveway should be combined. He did have contact with MDOT and the applicants during this time period. MDOT has indicated that they will not require that the drives be combined unless there is a change of usage or ownership on the site. It is still his strong recommendation that those be combined in light of the work that is being done. The engineer has recommended the same. The engineer has also recommended that this be done as a full site plan. Mr. Meagher indicated that he does not understand what we would achieve by bringing this in with a full site plan. The rest of the issues appear that they can be addressed during engineering. He asked for a motion to either accept or deny the Administrative Request.

Mr. Priest commented that we made it pretty clear at the last meeting that these driveways, incoming and outgoing, be one driveway. He would hope that the applicant would address this as he doesn’t think anyone on the commission has changed their mind.

Michael Kazarian stated that they did meet with Mr. Meagher and Mr. Wilson after the last meeting. They have looked at the layout and the site and looked at what effect this would have on their business, and after having discussions with the owner, they have taken it upon themselves to keep their submittal as it was. It was clear that the commission wanted them to look at a single curb cut, and they in fact did that. They had some discussions with MDOT as well. MDOT has responded with a letter that they will not require them to do a single curb cut because they are not changing the business. That is the direction that they continue to follow.

Kathy Setter stated that she and her husband have been the owners of this restaurant for probably 20 years. When they looked at this whole entire project, they are not opposed to single cuts per say when you look at that in the dynamics of the business. When they sat down and looked at it though, they have a very large portion of their business where they have large semi-trucks and busses coming in, which they need. They are approximately 200 feet from the on ramp to westbound I-94. When you look at the flow of traffic on 23 Mile Road with the expressway being right there, she actually sat out there in her car and watched 40 foot trailers pulling in and busses pulling in and out, and the way that would funnel on a single cut actually made her very very concerned about the safety of their internal customers and external customers. You have trailers coming in and busses going out and they are crossing in front, and the dynamics are so close to I-94 that it really scared her. In the nature of the economics they really want to do this project because to take a building as old as this one and give it a cosmetic look, right now this project is over $700,000.00. To take that on in these economic times they really need it to be advantageous to the business. She does not want to have to worry about it from a safety standpoint, and she also does not want it to be detrimental because the ease of convenience in a restaurant business is really huge. If they do change that and busses can’t get in and out, they don’t come. To spend that kind of dollar amount and have to worry about that and what she believes is the added safety is huge. They are not willing to take on that kind of safety issue and the dynamics of the business. They obviously want to grow the business and that is why they want to put the second drive-thru lane in, along with for the community to have a better looking building and all the dynamics for that make good sense.

Mr. Priest explained that we adopted a study that was presented by the county in conjunction with MDOT regarding curb cuts and the access management of such. We adopted that study with the understanding that we would encourage everyone that comes before us to go to one curb cut for various reasons. We recommended that to the Township Board, who then approved that. We are very strongly urging that to happen because that is the way the process has been approved. He would say to them that they have a real problem at their location. He does not think that they would create any worse problem by having one curb cut.

Ms. Frame commented that the single access does make it safer.

Mr. Priest commented that now they are planning on stacking two cars side by side and they are both going to take off at the same time for the same curb cut.

Ms. Setter responded that the lanes are at the back of the store and they go into one lane. They get to one before they even get their food.

Mr. Priest asked how are they going to get out.

Ms. Setter responded that is where the concern comes in.

Mr. Priest commented that he does not know how it is going to make it any easier. He expressed to Ms. Setter that we want them to do this project, but out hands are tied to a certain point.

Ms. Frame stated that she also spoke with MDOT. MDOT told her that they would like to see that as a single access, but they couldn’t recommend it; they couldn’t put it on paper because it wasn’t changing ownership or changing usage. As MDOT has done all of their studies and access management program they would like to see that as a single access. She doesn’t know who they spoke with, but she spoke with Mr. Zimmerman. Verbally they told her it would be safer to have a single access. The cuts will be made so that semi-trucks and busses would be able to get in and out easily.

Mr. Deeby commented that he concurs with the commission as far as the safety issue. He has been driving up and down 23 Mile Road everyday since before the Setter’s owned the McDonalds. There is a driveway between McDonalds and I-94 that actually adds to the danger of having two cuts. Now there are three cuts before the on ramp to westbound I-94. It is very difficult for left hand turns. It is dangerous. He has seen examples near intersections in Warren of McDonalds with a single curb cut wide enough to handle the incoming and outgoing traffic with no impact. It worked very smoothly. It was located on Van Dyke at either 9 or 10 Mile Road.

Ms. Setter responded that she can only speak for the 20 years that they have been there, for the business that they have done and the community for those 20 years. Her mind is going the opposite way because right now with the singles you converge people further distance away trying to make a left hand turn from that street. With the single cut, that conversion now is right on top of each other. That is the concern that she has. Right now they have a distance that they are not going to have. She believes, and watching the traffic, that converges it closer rather than keeping it further apart. Her concern is the conversion of people trying to turn left where it is spread out now, it will be brought together closer. They don’t want to gamble that. They know what they have been doing for the 20 years that they have been there. The unknown is something that they just don’t want to gamble.

Mr. Deeby commented that he thought that a single curb cut brought together would actually allow a better stack for people turning left off of 23 Mile or turning right.

Mr. Kazarian commented that they are talking about their specific business and how it is going to impact this particular business. The access management plan probably wasn’t put together specifically for Mc Donalds or Taco Bells, etc. The idea is to reduce the amount of curb cuts. The amount of traffic that comes in and out of McDonalds is a lot different than the amount of traffic that comes in and out of a doctor’s office etc. Making the statement of just reducing them and not looking at the specific businesses doesn’t help.

Ms. Frame responded that they did. Traffic engineers did this study. They did consider each and every business on an individual basis. They came to the conclusion that fast food restaurants especially were better, safer, with a single access. The amount of traffic was the whole point of the study.

Mr. Kazarian commented that the issue that they are having is that you are putting twice as many cars through the opening.

Ms. Frame replied that we are taking our advice from the traffic engineers because that is what they do.

Mr. Kazarian replied that the traffic engineers are the professionals when it comes to engineering and traffic maybe, but they are the experts when it comes to McDonalds and how they run their business.

Mr. DeMuynck asked how wide a single cut would be.

Mr. Meagher responded that he thinks that when Taco Bell did theirs they came up with a 35 foot cross section for the entrance.

Mr. DeMuynck asked what their cuts equal now totally.

Mr. G. Lautzenhelser replied about 48 feet plus or minus.

Mr. Stabile commented that he does not think there are any limitations as to how wide they can be.

Mr. Meagher replied that they would have to have a design approved by MDOT. Taco Bell wanted the left turn out, right turn out and one turn in design; so he thinks it came out 35 or 36 feet. He does not know off hand.

Mr. Lautzenhelser stated that because they are not proposing a structural alteration to this building, the commission has the authority to approve just this building exterior renovation this evening.

Mr. Meagher commented that he does not think there were any objections to the façade change since they applied.

Mr. Lautzenhelser commented that most of this is a building exterior renovation. In an effort to improve the drive-thru traffic they did put on a small addition to the cash booth. That gets the maximum amount between the two windows so it allows the cars to move through at a faster pace. It makes it more efficient; the same reason for the side by side.

Mr. Meagher commented that if that is the route they want to take, the commission certainly could take action to approve this without the drives.

Ms. Setter commented that this is a lot of money to gamble on the economics that we are in. When you look at the old building and what you could be looking at, it is a beautiful building that they would like to do. They are hoping that they can improve the looks and still help out the sales in the restaurants. They are just trying to get through and do what they need to do.

Motion by Mr. Priest, supported by Ms. Frame to deny Administrative Request #53 as presented based on the fact that we have approved a study from the county requesting that we go to single curb cuts for remodeling new businesses and we think that this definitely falls in that category; it has been approved by this commission and approved by the Board of Trustees.

All Ayes Motion Carried

B. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUESTS (#56 THRU #59) Carrie Sawicki with "HERO" – Homeless Empowerment Relationship Organization, 7025 Metroplex Dr., Romulus, MI 48174. Requesting to place 4, 5’x5’ Clothing & Footwear Recycler Containers at the following locations, B&B Liquor at 21723 23 Mile Road, Mamma’s Pizzeria at 48909 Jefferson, Chesterfield Commons Shopping Center at 35000 23 Mile Road and Zora Mobil Oil at 47191 Jefferson. Tabled for additional information 1-11-11.

Mr. DeMuynck stated that he spoke with Code Enforcement. A couple of these boxes at some other businesses were issued violations. Some of the Board Members were thinking that this should come under site plans because it is an addition. If it does go under site plans then the business owner would have to come in, not the company that wants to place them. He stated that his personal opinion is that these bins are blight. There are so many other organizations out there. These boxes are being placed at businesses that have propane tanks, ice machines, paper boxes and now you have something else. His personal opinion is not to approve these.

Mr. Meagher commented that he tends to agree with Mr. DeMuynck. We make people put their trash enclosures within a screened area. We make any type of outdoor storage involve some type of screening from the road. He thinks we should continue that process.

Mr. Priest commented that we already have several boxes spread out throughout the community now. Now we are being asked for more. He agrees that it is beginning to get carried away.

Mr. Meagher asked if the Building Department has addressed any of the other locations.

Mr. DeMuynck responded that he was told by Code Enforcement that they had issued violations to whatever company had them up at Target, and those were removed. Code Enforcement is waiting for our direction on this, and then they will jump on the bandwagon.

Mr. Stabile clarified that there are other companies besides this one before us.

Mr. DeMuynck asked if this has come up to the Planning Commission prior to this request.

Ms. Frame, Mr. Deeby and Mr. Meagher responded no.

Mr. Meagher indicated that this applicant is the only one who has actually come in and requested to do this properly. They were directed to the Planning Commission. They have actually gone through the correct route with this application.

Mr. DeMuynck commented that the problem is that they were put in place prior to approval by this board.

Mr. Meagher indicated that they are here as a result of Code Enforcement.

Carrie Sawicki stated that the other bins throughout the township are not theirs. The reason that they went through the whole process is because she saw a few bins out there. They tried to go the right way. The others are all different charities. She came here to see what they could do; maybe a permitting process so that the township is aware of where they are. There are other cities that do that. The convenience of the boxes is really big to the community. With spring cleaning coming, etc., you would be surprised as to what people do and put into the bins. It really is a benefit to the community to have that convenience. They pride themselves on the maintenance of the boxes so that it is not blight. It is her job to go the businesses and talk with them; if they agree to have a bin she gives them her business card and instructs them to call her if they ever see anything sitting out there. It means more to her to make it look good than almost to the business because if someone else sees it then it looks bad. She is trying to change this. They are a recycling company, but they do give to charity. For every pound that they collect the charity gets a certain percentage. They have given over $100,000.00 through the HERO Charity over the last couple of years. It has spread, and they are trying to do it the right way for the right reasons.

Mr. Stabile stated that when he originally read through all of the information his conclusion was that almost all of the money ended up going to the recycling place in Texas. He asked if he is right or wrong.

Ms. Sawicki responded that almost all of the money goes to a recycling place in Texas; that is who actually does the selling of the recyclables. That is who she works for. They have a base here in Detroit and they work with HERO. Actually HERO sells the clothes to them, and they resell them.

Mr. Stabile asked what money comes back to this community.

Ms. Sawicki replied that the money goes back to the charity HERO.

Mr. Stabile asked where that is in our community. He has never heard of them.

Ms. Sawicki replied no, but it is available. By putting that box out there with that number, it is a Homeless Empowerment Relationship Organization. They are a recycling company and they could even do this for our community if we were interested. They could do boxes just for our community and raise money for different reasons that we would want. They are expanding. This is what they do. They give clothes a second use. They are resold. They are not so different from anyone else. They would not be close to the scale of the Salvation Army; they are a whole different entity.

Mr. Meagher clarified that the way Ms. Sawicki is explaining it they collect the clothing, HERO sells it to the Texas entity, and then they in response get money to help the homeless.

Ms. Sawicki replied yes. Things are given away. People see their HERO truck and call them. They go pick up old sofas, etc. and put them in their warehouse. HERO works with the Michigan Prisoner Release Initiative, so it is helping people get a second chance. People are coming out of a place called the (Dilana Center?), which is out of Ann Arbor; that is a shelter. They give workshops to help empower them and give them information. They also help them with clothing and household items. That does happen. That is what she is seeing. That is the truth of it. ATRS is a recycling for profit company; HERO is the charity.

Mr. Stabile asked what percentage is the $100,000.00 that they have donated.

Ms. Sawicki responded that it is around 40%.

Mr. Deeby asked where the charity is headquartered.

Ms. Sawicki responded Canton, Michigan.

Mr. Deeby asked what other communities in the southeastern section of Michigan they are established in.

Ms. Sawicki responded that they are probably in 40 different communities.

Mr. Deeby asked for names of communities in Macomb County.

Ms. Sawicki replied that personally she is from downriver. She went on to mention Roseville; they are also up I-94. She was contacted by the school, by their PTO, because they wanted a recycling bin on their property for their Go Green.

Mr. Deeby asked what school.

Ms. Sawicki replied Dean Naldrett.

Mr. Deeby asked how Ms. Sawicki would feel with the option of a temporary situation possibly for 2 to 3 months for spring cleaning as an example, and then out.

Ms. Sawicki responded that she would be willing to work with us any way possible.

Mr. Meagher suggested that if we wanted to take that angle, that a 6 month or one year approval be given for this, during which time we could work on a policy to send to the Township Board for adoption as to how to handle these in the future. Along with that he would recommend that we have a bond issued with it for the removal of the bins after the 6 or 12 months if the applicants do not want to comply with the new policy.

Mr. Stabile commented that personally he would not be in favor of a temporary thing. We go through a lot to make sure the community stays looking good; these boxes just don’t fit, they just look junky no matter how well they are kept up.

Ms. Sawicki responded that she would not argue that for one moment. They would be willing to work with us if we wanted a certain color in our community.

Mr. Stabile commented that we just don’t want them period.

Mr. Priest commented that it seems that we have enough charities that come around door to door to pick up. It seems to him that is sufficient. There are other avenues along with that. He is not trying to bad mouth what they are trying to do, but he does think that we are getting carried away because already we have boxes spread out throughout the township, not theirs, but others that did not receive approval. He knows there is a need for this, but bottom line is that someone is making money on this.

Ms. Sawicki commented that they are founded on making money and giving to a charity. The people that call you 3 times a week for pickup, they hire a company to do that. If you questioned how much Purple Heart gets, has anyone questioned where those clothes go after they are picked up from your home? She can tell us that they get bags in their boxes with the Purple Heart and Easter Seals because those people didn’t come and pick them up and they left their bags outside for 2 days sitting in the rain, and then they end up in their boxes.

Mr. Priest commented that he knows that Purple Heart has a retail store just like Salvation Army, etc. He knows they resell the stuff.

Mr. Stabile commented that we are not here trying to judge whether being charitable or not is what is in effect. He has been involved with groups that do a lot of charitable stuff; but he is also involved with this group, and this group really is not in control of charitable things. We are in control of how to make our community look; that is what our job is as Planning Commissioners.

Ms. Sawicki asked if we would have any objections to her trying to work with our Beautification Committee and possibly having something for recycling.

Mr. Stabile suggested that they open a facility in a storefront along 23 Mile Road and have people bring them items.

Ms. Sawicki responded those are things that they are actually looking at.

Motion by Mr. DeMuynck, supported by Mr. Stabile to deny Administrative Request #56 thru #59.

All Ayes Motion Carried

C. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST #60: Marygrove Awning Co., 12700 Merriman Road, Livonia, MI 48150. Administrative request to allow fabric canopy awning in 2 locations for the employee break areas located at Exco, USA, 56617 North Bay Dr.

Ms. Frame stated that she spoke with the applicant and the awnings are the same color as the building. They have no writing on them and they are not lit.

Motion by Ms. Frame, supported by Mr. Miller to approve Administrative Request #60 subject to the color being the same as the brick, no lighting and no signage.

All Ayes Motion Carried

D. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST #61: Stahl’s Automotive Foundation, 56156 North Bay Drive Chesterfield, MI 48051. Proposed administrative changes to the existing building.

Mr. Meagher stated that they are requesting to put up a fence with barbed wire on it. He assumes that they will be storing some of the cars that they are working on back there. It meets the requirements of the ordinance. The question as to whether the barbed wire will have a negative impact on the area or from the road is really what the Planning Commission’s directive is on this. On his drive by he did not think that you would get much of a vision of it whatsoever.

Mr. Deeby stated that he would like to consider AEW’s comments as they are recommending straight out denial.

Mr. Meagher briefly reviewed AEW’s comments.

Keith Socha stated that he has 9 buildings in St. Clair Shores. The dumpsters are emptied there every other day. This building will be a little different; they will be calling the company to have the dumpster emptied. They will have a 5 yarder or maybe 10 yarder. It could be filled in 2 weeks or it could sit for 2 months without being filled. That dumpster enclosure, where it is, would be perfectly fine. He would like to take that comment off. The barbed wire really isn’t that important to them; they just thought they would ask because they are going to be keeping some antique trailers back there, and some car haulers, and they would not want people to mess with them.

Mr. Priest clarified that their main concern is to get them fenced in.

Mr. Socha responded yes. In 1947 there was a car sold with a trailer. They have had the car, now they have the trailer. The trailer will be sitting back there for a couple of weeks until it goes to a restorer and they want to keep it safe.

Mr. Stabile asked isn’t it pretty extreme to go from no fence to a barbed wire fence.

Mr. Socha responded that his boss asked him to request the barbed wire so that no one climbs in and messes with anything.

Ms. Frame asked if we have any other facilities in Chesterfield that have barbed wire.

Mr. Meagher responded that we actually have several. The most recent one does military work on Russell Schmidt.

Mr. Priest asked if this in fact does block the fire lane.

Mr. Meagher suggested that this be tabled in order to allow them to sit down with AEW and work out some of the issues.

Mr. Socha asked if we could pull the dumpster comment this evening and not make it an issue anymore. There is an enclosure already that they can use. It will be in the fenced in area, but it is in the back of the property.

Mr. DeMuynck asked if this is a container type of dumpster or a roll off.

Mr. Socha replied that it will be any type of dumpster that we want. They will have a secretary there full time so there will always be someone there during working hours. The building will be occupied. It is open to the public only one day a week. The secretary would be the one who calls to get the dumpster emptied.

Ms. Frame agreed that we should take no action this evening.

Mr. Deeby informed the applicant to meet with AEW and come back to the first meeting in March at which time they will have the issues resolved.

Mr. Socha commented that he was told to come before the commission for a new entrance also.

Mr. Deeby stated that he had not seen anything in the reviews with regard to an entrance. He asked Mr. Meagher if he is aware of anything to do with a new entrance.

Mr. Meagher responded not that he is familiar with.

Mr. Leonard left the room at 8:10 p.m.

Mr. Meagher stated that he will sit down with the applicant and AEW at the next engineering meeting to work things out so they can get back on the next agenda.

Motion by Ms. Frame, supported by Mr. LaBelle to table Administrative Request #61 to the next meeting.

All Ayes Motion Carried

E. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST #62: Rosie O’Grady’s, 30400 23 Mile Rd., Chesterfield, MI 48047. Request is to allow a refrigerated truck for additional supplies & Port-A-Johns needed for a short time in March, 2011.

Mr. Meagher commented that Brian Kramer is his landlord; however, he does not feel that there is a conflict of interest as he does not benefit from Mr. Kramer doing this on St. Patrick’s Day. They are requesting to park the refrigerated truck trailer next to the east side of the building, and then put the 3 port-a-johns adjacent to that, basically right up against the curb. The applicant has indicated that they would bring in the refrigerated truck and the port-a-johns on March 16th or 17th, and that they will be removed by the 19th. He recommended that they ask for a total of 4 days in case there is some type of delay in picking up the trailer for some reason.

Mr. Leonard reentered the room at 8:12 p.m.

Mr. Meagher stated that in the past we had some issues with the neighbors being upset over the noise that has been generated from that truck during the night. Since that time they have moved the truck up against the east wall of the building and we did not receive any complaints according to the Building Department last year. Rather than have them come back every year or get ticketed every year he recommended that they come in and get approval from this body so that they can do this each March 17th without a separate application coming in.

Mr. Deeby clarified that last year was a success with this configuration with regard to complaints and noise.

Mr. Meagher responded yes.

Mr. LaBelle asked if there are any safety concerns with regard to the port-a-johns next to the truck.

Mr. Meagher stated that he does not believe so. The trailer is parked. It is all outside of the regular drive aisles. It is going to be right in the spaces that are immediately east of the building. The port-a-johns will be used for only that one day, and will be shipped out to the cleaned. He does not think there will be any environmental issue or anything.

Mr. LaBelle expressed concern about people being attacked. He asked if there are security guards keeping watch on things.

Jennette Breault stated that the security guard is posted right at that door, which leads out to the port-a-potties out there. They actually put up orange fencing around it as well so that no one can come in without getting past security and getting through the gate there.

Mr. Deeby asked if the port-a-potties are used by customers or people from the truck. He also inquired if the truck and port-a-potties are on Rosie O’Grady property.

Ms. Breault responded that customers use the port-a-potties and they are all on their property.

Motion by Mr. Priest, supported by Mr. DeMuynck to approve Administrative Request #62.

All Ayes Motion Carried


Ms. Frame asked for volunteers for the next pre-planning meeting.

Mr. Miller and Mr. LaBelle agreed to attend.

Mr. Meagher briefly explained the provisions for the ordinance amendment for 4 car garages.

There was discussion among the commission members with regard to items that need clarification or revision.

Mr. Priest suggested that the commission be ready to vote on this ordinance amendment at the next meeting.

Mr. Deeby asked about the windmills.

Mr. Meagher stated that the last direction he got was to wait awhile until we see how cases come out of other communities as to how they impact neighbors. He has been collecting information.



Motion by Mr. Priest, supported by Mr. DeMuynck to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 p.m.

All Ayes Motion Carried

Paula Frame, Secretary

Christine A. Hunyady, Recording Secretary

Go To Top