Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Religious Structure Setback Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies mosque’s request for two 35-foot minarets after neighbors raise parking and safety concerns
Summary
The Warren Zoning Board denied a variance to place two 35-foot-high, 5-by-5-foot minarets within the front setback at 27643 Shaner after multiple residents raised parking, traffic backups, and code-enforcement concerns; board members cited self-imposed needs and public-safety issues in voting to deny.
The Warren Zoning Board of Appeals voted on Sept. 10 to deny a variance request to erect two 35-foot, 5-by-5-foot minarets within the front setback at 27643 Shaner, the site of Masjid Islam.
Sayad Melkesh, who identified himself as president of Masjid Islam, said the minarets were intended to make the building more identifiable as a mosque and to improve aesthetics and safety for drivers approaching the entrance. Melkesh said the mosque had agreed with planning-department conditions and that many of the requested items had already been accepted by planners.
Multiple nearby residents spoke at the public hearing. Barbara Wyatt (3243 Yvonne Drive) described frequent parking that she said blocked driveways and fire hydrants and said worshippers parked in nearby condominium lots. Another resident presented observations about capacity and street blockages. Several supporters of the mosque also spoke, describing community activities, volunteer traffic control and plans to address parking; Masjid representatives said they were willing to meet with neighbors and explore off-site parking or additional controls.
Board members took testimony and also discussed planning-commission findings. Some board members said the property had multiple outstanding issues raised at the planning meeting: two existing sheds, a trash enclosure that staff said needed to be enclosed, and questions about the site’s capacity and fire-safety limits. City staff noted the planning department had asked the petitioner to address certain items and the petitioner acknowledged some items would be fixed (for example, removal of an extra shed and enclosure of the trash area).
Mr. Lindsey moved to deny the variance, calling it self-imposed and unnecessary; Mr. Watts seconded. The board voted to deny by a 6–2 margin. Members voting to deny said the request did not meet the variance criteria (uniqueness, lack of self-imposition, necessity and no detriment). Two members voted against denial and would have granted the minarets; the motion to deny therefore carried.
The board’s denial was limited to the setback variance for the two minarets; the denial did not itself change the mosque’s ability to operate, but board members and residents emphasized that outstanding code and parking issues remained enforcement matters for city staff and the police.
