Royal Oak board postpones decision on Woodrow Court dumpster relocation after hour of public comment

The Royal Oak Zoning Board of Appeals voted to postpone action on a variance request over dumpster placement at Woodrow Court, delaying a final decision to the next monthly hearing so the petitioner can refine alternative plans.

Staff told the board the owners had moved refuse containers to the north end of the property at 29350 Woodward Avenue without administrative approval and that the new location conflicts with the city’s zoning rules on consolidated locations, distance from buildings and visibility (staff cited section 7070-90 of the city zoning ordinance). The planning commission previously denied the petitioner’s revised site plan, staff said.

Seth Hopkins, the petitioner’s attorney, told the board his clients were not asking for a use variance and argued the north‑end location has long historical use, saying, “That is patently false” (referring to staff’s characterization that dumpsters hadn’t been used on the north end for decades) and pointing to photographs and a 1974 image showing refuse at the north end. Hopkins said the owners propose two 10‑yard refuse dumpsters and one 10‑yard recycling dumpster inside a new concrete‑pad enclosure, and that the enclosure and new containers would be built to code.

Residents and neighbors gave conflicting testimony during the roughly hourlong public‑comment period. Several residents said the current arrangement has created sanitation and safety problems. One neighbor described a truck striking a car and asked for an expedited remedy; another resident told the board the overflow and wind-blown trash had produced a rat problem that required traps. Victor Weddell, a nearby resident, urged the board to “expedite this decision” because of ongoing public‑health risk.

Supporters of the owners said the property had been improved and that the proposed enclosure would be an aesthetic and safety upgrade from the existing six 6‑yard dumpsters. A leasing agent for the complex said the owners were prioritizing tenant safety and had installed key‑fob access and cameras.

Board members questioned whether a compliant location exists on‑site that would avoid variances, whether trucks could safely maneuver if dumpsters were returned to the center of the lot, and how frequently pickups were occurring. Hopkins said the owners had tried to arrange twice‑weekly service with private contractors but that contractual follow‑through had been inconsistent.

After public comment the petitioner asked for an adjournment to explore a mixed plan that would place some containers on the north end and some on the south end to reduce variances. A board member moved to postpone the case until next month to give the petitioner time to develop alternative plans and feasibility analyses; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The board set the next hearing date for interested parties to return with revised materials.

The board’s action was procedural: no variance was approved or denied. If the petitioner returns with new plans, the board will review them; if variances are ultimately granted, the petitioner will still need to obtain site‑plan approval and building permits, and the planning commission may be involved for site‑plan review. The staff memo cited the ordinance provisions governing refuse‑container locations and pad requirements as the basis for the variances requested.

The hearing record includes staff references to section 7070‑90 of the zoning ordinance and a discussion of practical alternatives the board asked the petitioner to examine. The case will return at the next monthly meeting, when the board will be provided any revised site plans and additional feasibility information.