Petitioner seeks dumpster variances at Woodrow Court; Royal Oak board continues the case after residents press safety, odor and rodent concerns

Seth Hopkins, attorney for the petitioner, asked the Royal Oak zoning board to grant variances that would allow an enclosed dumpster area at the north end of Woodrow Court, 2935 Woodward Avenue, saying historical photographs show refuse receptacles at that location and arguing his clients have the right to use the space for trash. "That is patently false," Hopkins said of prior staff statements disputing the historical location, adding the petitioner is not seeking a use variance but a structural/enclosure variance so the site can meet current codes.

Hopkins told the board his clients plan to replace six worn 6-yard dumpsters with two 10-yard refuse units and a 10-yard recycling unit serviced by a new contractor (Runco) and said the enclosure would include a proper concrete pad and landscaping. "We want to put better dumpsters, newer dumpsters in an enclosure," he said, arguing the changes would reduce overflow and neighborhood impacts.

Residents who live closest to the property said the current situation has produced health and safety problems. A long-time tenant said a large truck once backed into his parked car during winter trash pickup, and another resident said windblown trash and overflowing receptacles have driven rats into adjacent yards. "The trash blows because western winds come across their property and go to ours," resident Terry Schroeder said. Multiple neighbors also said dumpsters placed adjacent to the property’s pool presented a hazard for children and caused persistent odor and pest problems.

Board members and staff pressed the petitioner on technical points: whether the most recent site plan matches the packet, whether two weekly pickups actually occur (petitioner said a contract was signed but the second day sometimes lapsed), whether three 10-yard units will physically fit inside the proposed enclosure and whether alternative placements (including splitting receptacles left and right or modifying a carport) might eliminate some variance requests. Staff told the board the north-end plan as presented violates several provisions of Section 7070-90 of the zoning ordinance and that, even if variances were granted, the petitioner would still need a revised site plan reviewed by the Planning Commission.

Petitioner's counsel said the property predates modern zoning and maintained that the four legal variance factors (unreasonable restriction on permitted use, substantial justice, uniqueness and hardship not self-created) favor relief. Hopkins also said the owners had obtained signatures in support and would submit additional drawings and evidence.

After extended public comment, including many nearby residents who both supported and opposed the request, the petitioner asked for a one-month adjournment to explore submitting an alternative that might place some dumpsters on the south side and thereby reduce the number of variances required. A board member moved to postpone the case so the petitioner can present revised plans; the board approved the continuance by voice vote. The chair announced the matter will return to the board at the next monthly meeting.

The board did not make a final decision on the variances, and the petition remains under review. Petitioners must either present revised plans addressing board concerns or proceed with the currently requested variances at the next hearing.