Warren Planning Commission denies outdoor tire-storage site plan over variances and absent owner

The Warren City Planning Commission voted to deny a site plan that would have allowed outdoor storage of used tires and rims at 13406 East 9 Mile Road, after commissioners concluded the petitioner could not commit the property owner to required improvements and the application required several variances.

Planning staff recommended conditional approval if the petitioner made extensive changes: five revised site plans, clear setback and use notations, regular removal schedules for tires, compacted/graded gravel surfacing, landscape and irrigation, shielded lighting, and multiple variances for setbacks and open-storage area. Staff also flagged the petitioner’s stated project cost ($120,000) as likely underestimated and suggested a more realistic figure near $75,000, which would produce a $2,250 bond figure.

Petitioner Milad Yousef told commissioners he runs the tire business and that used tires are typically removed by a third party every 10 days to two weeks. He also said he is a renter who pays monthly rent and has limited contact with the property owner. “I pay my rent and that’s it with him,” Yousef said, explaining the owner had been notified but did not attend the meeting.

Commissioners pressed how the required improvements would be paid for and whether the owner would authorize or fund them. Commissioners noted that approving the plan would assume the petitioner and owner would complete a long list of staff recommendations and variances. Planning staff said many items had to be fixed because the site had been operated outside standard requirements for a long time and that the owner had not engaged with staff previously.

After a brief attempt to proceed, the initial motion to approve was withdrawn. A commissioner then moved to deny the petition on the basis that the application required numerous variances that had not been met and because the property owner failed to appear. The motion to deny passed on roll call (commissioners recorded as voting to deny). Commissioners told the petitioner he could seek another location or work with the owner to return with evidence that the required variances and improvements would be addressed.

The denial means the petitioner’s proposal will not proceed to the building division or to any zoning approvals until the owner demonstrates willingness to pursue the necessary variances and site improvements. The petitioner received instructions to notify the owner and to consider alternative compliance paths or relocation.