The City of Fenton Board of Adjustment on Dec. 17 continued a petition from Woodcock Investments seeking a variance to place off‑street parking within required landscape buffers at 1920 Bowles Avenue, allowing the applicant additional time to revise site plans to address stormwater and circulation concerns.

Engineer Chris Wolf of Wunderlich Survey & Engineering, speaking for the petitioner, said the parcel was complicated by existing streets that fall inside the property lines, elevation differences with retaining walls, and a required detention basin imposed by MSD. "MSD is requiring that we put in detention for the entire development," Wolf said, and added that the district will not give redevelopment credit for the existing impervious area represented by streets, forcing an oversized basin that pushes development into buffer setbacks.

Wolf described the proposal as a two‑tenant facility (Jimmy John's on the north and a coffee shop on the south) with double drive‑through lanes and on‑site employee parking intended to reduce peak conflicts. He said the site‑plan sketch submitted shows 42 parking spaces, which matches the city's parking calculation for the proposed uses. He also provided basin dimensions discussed during the hearing: a 3‑foot underdrain, 4 feet of water storage above that and 2 feet of freeboard, which Wolf summarized as "6 feet from the top of the curb to the underdrain material, and then the underdrain material itself is another 3 feet below that."

Board members and an online participant questioned whether an underground basin, retaining walls or permeable pavement could reduce surface detention needs. Wolf said an underground basin was considered but was impractical given the depth of the downstream storm sewer connections and current site slopes; retaining walls were possible but would increase cost and complexity. On permeable paving, he said it could yield only modest detention reductions and raised maintenance concerns in the local climate.

A neighboring commenter described the submitted plan as over‑paved and lacking landscaping, saying it "just looks like a mess" and warning the diagonal spaces near the drive‑through could become unusable if queues back up into them.

Several board members expressed concern about granting a permanent variance that would run with the property, noting that surrounding parcels developed historically under different standards do not automatically justify a permanent reduction in buffer zones. Chairperson Siebert said he would not support granting the variance as presented. Staff reminded the board that variances are typically specific to a proposed development rather than blanket waivers.

At the petitioner’s request, the board agreed to continue the variance hearing to Jan. 21, 2025, to allow the applicant to submit a revised site plan. Staff requested revised materials by Jan. 13 so a new staff report could be prepared for distribution to the board.

The petition references section 415.19(e)(2) of the city's zoning code as the standard from which relief is sought; staff and the board noted prior nearby variance actions had been granted with specific reduced distances rather than blanket waivers.

Next steps: the applicant is to submit revised materials by Jan. 13, 2025; the Board of Adjustment will rehear the variance request at its Jan. 21, 2025 meeting.