A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Zoning board denies request for 8,044 sq ft of open storage at Grossbeck site

April 23, 2026 | Warren City, Macomb County, Michigan


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Zoning board denies request for 8,044 sq ft of open storage at Grossbeck site
Joseph Trangalli asked the Warren Zoning Board of Appeals on April 22 to permit 8,044 square feet of open storage at his property on Groesbeck and 9 Mile and to waive screening and setback rules. Planning staff had submitted an impact statement recommending continuous concrete curbing, removal of hard surface between the sidewalk and curb, and added shrubs and trees along the north and east property lines.

The board’s discussion centered on whether the proposed open-storage area was excessive and whether the petitioner had engaged planning staff. Trangalli told the board he had tried to meet with planning to discuss the staff recommendations but said his requests were refused by email and that planning described the items as recommendations for the ZBA to decide. Planning staff presented a marked-up site plan and explained the curbing and landscaping recommendations meant to reduce visual and public-safety impacts.

Several board members said the quantity of open storage would be a detriment to the neighborhood. “I’m opposed to the 8,044 square feet of open storage,” said a board member who identified himself during the hearing. Another member described the lot as “out of control” and said it appeared to be a borderline nuisance. Board members also noted prior citations for the property and disagreement about what conditions were communicated to the petitioner when he purchased the property.

A motion to deny the variances was made, seconded and approved by roll call, with the chair advising the petitioner to consult the building department and planning recommendations if he chooses to revise his plan. The board’s denial means the petitioner may redesign and resubmit or pursue other administrative remedies.

The board did not adopt planning’s recommended changes as conditions because it concluded the variance request as presented was not appropriate. The board closed the item after the vote and moved on to the next agenda item.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee