Eastpointe ZBA denies Sheetz monument‑sign variance at 9 Mile and Beaconsfield

The Eastpointe City Zoning Board of Appeals on Wednesday denied a variance request from convenience‑store chain Sheetz to place a monument sign less than 10 feet from the front property line at a proposed store at 9 Mile Road and Beaconsfield.

The denial came on a 5‑0 vote after residents objected to the proposed sign placement and the board’s planner said the sign, as drawn, would obstruct sight lines for drivers. ZBA member Trautman moved to deny the variance; board member Williams seconded the motion.

The request sought permission for a monument sign proposed about 5.42 feet from the 9 Mile Road right‑of‑way, where the city ordinance requires a 10‑foot setback. City planning staff told the board the application failed to meet the standards for a variance under Article 17 of the East Point zoning ordinance, including that the hardship be the result of unique property circumstances and not self‑created.

Jennifer Nicholas, an Eastpointe resident who spoke at the public hearing, questioned technical claims in Sheetz’s application and said the company should design a sign that complies with the city’s standards. Nicholas said the site plan originally presented to the planning commission in August 2024 showed the monument sign about 11 feet from the right‑of‑way and asked why the placement changed.

Kyle Lombati, a Sheetz representative from Findlay, Ohio, said the property is narrower than the company’s typical sites and that the layout — including fueling islands and truck maneuvering lanes — constrains where the sign can be placed. Lombati told the board the monument sign position would “create a larger radius and a larger safety buffer” for tanker trucks and motorists and that the proposed monument sign placement follows readability guidance used by the National Sign Association, not a local or federal law.

The city planner explained the ordinance’s setback is intended to preserve driver sight lines at intersections and to allow for landscaping. The planner said the application was originally denied because the sign as proposed is closer than the 10‑foot minimum and would impair the view of eastbound traffic on 9 Mile Road for drivers approaching Beaconsfield.

Board discussion referenced the variance standards in Section 17.06(c)(1) — including that a variance must arise from unique property circumstances, not business or financial reasons — and the planner’s written report. Board members said applicants must show that strict compliance would unreasonably prevent use of the property for a permitted purpose and that the hardship is not self‑created. The planner told the board that alternative designs (for example, rotating the sign or placing it elsewhere on the lawn panel) appeared feasible and would comply with the ordinance.

Several neighbors spoke during the hearing and the meeting’s second public comment period, saying construction at the site had caused vibrations and property damage; one neighbor said a chandelier fell and another said a yard was left uncovered overnight. Patrice Creighton January, who identified herself as a neighbor, and other residents asked the city to monitor construction practices and to require contractors to address resident concerns.

After debate, the board approved the motion to deny the variance by voice/roll call (tally recorded as 5 yes, 0 no). The planner advised that an applicant who disagrees with the board’s decision may appeal to the Macomb County Circuit Court within the time frame established by statute or ordinance.

The board moved on to other items and adjourned later in the meeting.