Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Used Auto Dealership topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Commission denies plan for used‑car lot at 22760 De Quindre Road, citing size and proximity to residences

6438934 · September 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission voted to deny a special‑land‑use and site‑plan application for a used‑automobile dealership at 22760 De Quindre Road because the lot is undersized, fails locational criteria, lacks required parking and screening, and would be within minimum distances of residential zoning and nearby automotive businesses.

The City of Warren Planning Commission on Sept. 22 denied a special‑land‑use and site‑plan application for a proposed used‑automobile dealership at 22760 De Quindre Road.

Planning staff recommended denial, saying the parcel is only 7,508 square feet but the zoning ordinance requires a minimum 25,000 square feet for a used‑car lot. Staff also found the site does not meet locational criteria: it is within 200 feet of residentially zoned property and about 170 feet from an existing tire and repair shop (Best Buy Tires at 22626 De Quindre Road). The Macomb County Department of Roads objected to parking within the county right‑of‑way and required removal of existing paved area; the prior approved site plan could only provide four parking spaces that meet maneuvering requirements and therefore cannot accommodate vehicle display spaces in addition to parking.

Commissioners who spoke in the discussion said the parcel was simply too small to accommodate the use and could not meet screening and landscape standards required by the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Duzay moved to deny the request; Commissioner Ansar seconded. A roll‑call vote recorded the commission’s support for denial and the motion carried.

Planning staff cited seven specific reasons for denial, including insufficient lot area, failure to meet minimum distance requirements from other automotive uses and residentially zoned lots, insufficient parking and maneuvering space, lack of required screening and green‑belt landscaping, and failure to meet the standards in sections 22.14(b)(1)(a–f) and 22.14(b)(3)(a–c) of the zoning ordinance.

The petitioner was told he may return with a revised site plan that addresses the cited zoning, parking and screening deficiencies if he chooses to pursue a different configuration or use.