Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Warren ZBA denies variance to convert East 14 Mile building to community center amid parking, capacity and screening concerns
Summary
The Zoning Board denied a request to allow a community center at 2870 East 14 Mile, citing self-imposed hardship, inadequate parking, disputed occupancy and inadequate screening; planning staff had recommended denial.
The Warren Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on Sept. 24 to deny a set of variances requested to convert an existing building at 2870 East 14 Mile into a community center.
The petitioner, represented by Munir Alaho, sought variances to allow a community center use on a 98.2‑foot-wide lot, reduced front and side setbacks and other relief for an existing building the applicant said would be renovated and resurfaced. Residents and adjacent property owners raised repeated concerns about parking capacity, occupancy and safety. Planning staff recommended denial after finding that the property was poorly screened, that additional information on occupancy and capacity was required, and that the existing 8‑foot side setback did not meet the 20‑foot side‑yard requirement in the applicable district.
Several neighbors said the site currently provides roughly 24 parking spaces behind the building and that this would be insufficient for events. Peter Warrick, the owner of an adjacent commercial property, told the board the existing shared driveway leads to split parking and said he feared overflow onto nearby side streets. Mark Musick, another neighbor, said the building was designed for low‑intensity commercial use and called the planned activity “not a community center” but a mosque with higher peaks in attendance.
Planning staff’s written impact statement, read into the record by a board member, noted the site plan lists a maximum occupancy of 139 while the applicant said they would limit attendance to 80; the fire marshal asked what assurances would be provided to ensure capacity limits. The planning staff also wrote that expanding the screening (a mix of trees and a 6‑foot wall) would reduce parking and require reconfiguration of maneuvering lanes; for those reasons the planning staff recommended denial of the requested variances.
Board members said the applicant had purchased a building zoned for office uses and was requesting a use variance to change that established use; several members characterized the hardship as self‑imposed and said the applicant had not demonstrated the practical difficulties required under the zoning ordinance. Concerns about potential religious activity and peak attendance also figured prominently in members’ comments.
After deliberation Mr. Lindsey moved to deny the variances; Mr. Perry seconded. The board’s roll call recorded yes votes to deny from all members present, and the motion to deny carried. The applicant may pursue other remedies or submit a different application with additional documentation.
