MARION
TOWNSHIP
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA
and DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR
MEETING
January
24, 2006
7:30
p.m.
CALL TO ORDER:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA FOR:
January 24, 2006 Regular Meeting
INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS:
CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
Agenda Items only – 3 minute limit
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM:
December 27, 2005 Regular Meeting
OLD BUSINESS:
1)
Subdivision
Control Ordinance (General Ordinance)
2)
Proposed Text Amendment
Standards for
Specific
Land
Uses - Section 17.16 Group Day Care Homes
3)
Proposed Text Amendment
Standards for
Specific
Land
Uses - Section 17.27
Shooting
Ranges
(Rifle, Skeet, Trap, Pistol and Archery)
4)
City
of
Howell Master Plan Amendment
– John Enos to confirm date for joint meeting
5)
Planning
Commission budget discussion
NEW BUSINESS:
1)
Small
Way Private Road Site Plan Review – Tax ID# 4710-05-100-002 – Section 5
– South of Mason Road and East of Amos Road
CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
ADJOURNMENT:
DRAFT MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Lowe,
Dave
Hamann, Jean Root, Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson
MEMBERS
ABSENT:
None
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Phil Westmoreland, OHM
David Schroeder, OHM
John Enos, Carlisle/Wortman
***********************************************************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
John Lowe called the meeting to order at
7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Jean Root asked to have an item on Article XX—Amendments
added to the agenda and renumber the agenda items.
Dave
Hamann motioned to approve the agenda as amended. Jim Anderson seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS
The members of the Planning Commission introduced
themselves.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December
27, 2005
Regular Meeting
Jean Root asked for a change to the bottom of page 3, Section
6.19—Standards for Specific Land Use should say Section 6.18 F 1 &
G—Condominium Projects.
Dave
Hamann motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Jean Root seconded. Motion
carried 5-0.
SMALL WAY
PRIVATE ROAD
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Cora Sauter from Engineering Technologies was present with
the applicant. Ms. Sauter
briefly summarized the site plan. Jean
Root said there was no review from Carlisle/Wortman and asked John Lowe if
the PC should even be looking at this request today.
Mr. Lowe said they are parcel splits, not a subdivision.
Deborah Wiedman-Clawson said the planner reviewed Bentley Ridge and
two or three others. The
previous planner reviewed
Tonch Drive
and a few other private roads. Ms.
Wiedman-Clawson said all of a sudden, the PC didn’t get a review from the
planner. Mr. Enos said he
wasn’t asked to do a review, although he has done private road reviews in
the past. Mr. Lowe asked the PC
members if they wanted to give the applicant some direction.
Ms. Root asked if the applicant has looked at the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Sauter said yes. Ms.
Root said there are some issues with the flag lot, and this plan doesn’t
even come close to meeting the ordinance.
Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said there are some road issues, too.
She said that Lot 4 doesn’t meet the ordinance for a flag lot, Lot
2 needs to be a seventy (70) foot setback, it’s questionable whether the
frontage on Lot 3 is actually one hundred twenty (120) feet, the width of
the gravel road doesn’t meet the
Livingston
County
standards and the zoning ordinance. Ms.
Sauter asked how this procedure would be handled, because this is the second
submittal that’s been made without receiving any feedback.
The PC members said this is the first time they’ve seen it.
Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said because there was an issue with the
Livingston County Road Commission and the sight distance that it had been
pulled. Ms. Sauter said she did
receive an engineering review, which was very helpful.
Ms. Root said that reviewing Section 6.20, which deals specifically
with private roads, would be helpful.
Mr. Lowe confirmed that Ms. Sauter had received a copy of the
letter from the township attorney. She
said yes, and her client’s attorney is making revisions.
Mr. Lowe asked what the proposal for the existing building being
within the setback. He asked if
the lot could be reconfigured so there’s no encroachment.
Ms. Sauter said at this point, he would probably apply for a variance
for the building. Mr. Morrison
said the flag lot would play a role in that, too.
Mr. Lowe asked the applicant if he’s comfortable with the
information he’s received so far. Mr.
Morrison asked the PC to address the road width in the future.
Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said the township has been working with a
standard maintenance agreement, and we’ve required all of the other
developers to use that standard, and this one’s not even close.
Ms. Sauter said they did call the attorney, who said there’s not a
standard maintenance agreement. Ms.
Wiedman-Clawson said there’s one that’s been given out to use as a
template. Mr. Lowe said it’s
not finalized at this point, but they can just ask for the template.
Mr. Enos said if the applicant wants to sketch
something up in terms of a lot configuration, he can do a quick review to
make sure it’s in conformance with the ordinance requirements on lot size,
lot widths, flag lots, etc.
Mr. Lowe asked the engineers from OHM if they had
gone through the drainage calculations, and does the retention pond work for
what is proposed. Mr.
Westmoreland said yes.
Mr. Morrison asked if there were any objections to
clearing the roadway areas. Ms.
Wiedman-Clawson said that was brought up earlier:
where’s the landscape buffer, where are the clearing limits, etc.
Is that going to be required for land divisions too?
Mr. Lowe said the PC has asked for it on other land splits.
Mr. Morrison said all he’s asking for is the road right-of-way and
retention area. Ms.
Wiedman-Clawson said the PC didn’t receive an aerial, but the applicant
could provide an aerial overlay and show the limits of clearing for the road
and the retention. Mr. Lowe said
the road layout could change. Ms.
Sauter said the position wouldn’t change; it might become longer.
Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said if this development were required to have
25-foot buffers and landscaping, you’d only get one lot.
Mr. Enos said his recommendation is that the PC not follow
those requirements for land divisions. Ms.
Root suggested requiring clearing limits for the road only.
Mr. Enos said the requirements should be done on a case-by-case
basis. Mr. Hamann said the PC
needs to decide what it wants, and it needs to be written into the
ordinance. Ms. Root said that
could be discussed under the Priorities for 2006 agenda item.
Mr. Hamann said the 66-foot easement would be the clearing limit.
Mr. Lowe asked Mr. Westmoreland if that would be acceptable.
Mr. Westmoreland said yes. Mr.
Hamann asked if they need a land use permit to clear?
Mr. Lowe said they need to apply for one, or is that something they
don’t need. Ms.
Wiedman-Clawson said he shouldn’t have to get a land use permit to take
trees down on his own property. Mr.
Enos said that trees may be removed within the 66-foot right-of-way.
If they do any grading, they have to get a land use permit.
SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE (GENERAL ORDINANCE)
John Enos said there were some changes in the state law that
may expedite subdivisions, and the ordinance needs to be updated.
Mr. Enos said the MTA has put together a model ordinance.
His suggestion is to take the best parts of the MTA ordinance, the
best parts of our ordinance, and incorporate them into one.
Mr. Enos is asking for the PC’s approval to combine the documents,
send a copy to the township attorney, and have it available for discussion
at the next meeting.
Dave
Hamann asked Mr. Enos if he would identify how this ties into the zoning
ordinance. Mr. Enos said he
would have a list of where in the ordinance it directs the reader to look at
the subdivision control ordinance, as well as a flow chart.
Jean Root said the Board should be made aware that the two are being
combined and why. Mr. Enos said
he would provide a memo detailing the information.
Ms. Root said she would like the letter from Mike Kehoe and the
January 16 letter from John Enos to be included in what’s given to the
Board.
Jean Root motioned to table the Subdivision Control
Ordinance to the
February 28, 2006
meeting. John Enos will draft a
memo advising the Township Board of the PC’s intentions and include the
letter from Mike Kehoe dated January 17 and memo from Carlisle/Wortman dated
January 16. Deborah
Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion
carried 5-0.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
Section 17.16—Group Day Care Homes
John Enos said that minor changes have been made to
the language. The attorney made
some suggestions. The language
that was originally discussed regulated the number of children based on the
zoning district the day care home was in.
The township attorney said that couldn’t be done.
He was also uncomfortable with requiring frontage on a paved road,
and the minimum lot size. A
special use permit would still be required.
Mr. Enos asked if this has been to the county yet.
Ms. Root said no. Mr.
Enos said this could be approved with the changes and sent to the county.
Jean Root motioned to send Section 17.16—Group Day
Care Homes, as submitted January 16, 2006, to Livingston County Planning for
review and recommendation to be sent to the Township Board.
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
carried 5-0.
Section 17.27—
Shooting
Ranges
(Rifle, Skeet, Trap, Pistol and Archery)
Mr. Enos said
County
Planning
had an opportunity to review this text amendment.
Some of the minor changes can be made.
Discussion ensued on fencing requirements.
Mr. Enos said he could provide a copy of the approved language with
suggested changes from
County
Planning
. Mr. Hamann said if the PC is
satisfied with the ordinance, it should be sent to the Township Board for
its review and approval. Mr.
Hamann asked if minutes go with the recommendation to
County
Planning
. Ms. Root said she doesn’t
believe minutes are included. Mr.
Hamann said the county liaison, Patrick Sloan, is supposed to understand
what’s being sent to them and should be contacting the township for
clarification. Mr. Lowe
said he would contact Mr. Sloan and ask him to contact our planner for
background material. Jean Root
motioned to send Section 17.27—Shooting Ranges (Rifle, Skeet, Trap, Pistol
and Archery), as submitted, to
County
Planning
. After further review of their
suggested revisions, the PC feels comfortable with the language as submitted
due to comments from the current gun club, as well as through the review
process.
Dave
Hamann seconded. Motion
carried 5-0.
CITY OF
HOWELL
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
Mr. Enos said that Paul Streng has been out of the
country for a few months, so the city hasn’t been willing to act on this
item because he wants to be part of it.
Mr. Enos will have his colleague ask again at the next meeting.
Dave
Hamann motioned to table this item until new information is received.
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
carried 5-0.
BUDGET DISCUSSION
Jean Root asked for this item to be put on the agenda.
Bob Hanvey provided the PC members with a copy of a resolution from
1959 that there was supposed to be a separation in the budget between the
Township Board and the Planning Commission.
Does he know if
Marion
Township
ever made a resolution changing that? Ms.
Wiedman-Clawson said not in the past ten years, but she doesn’t know about
before that. Ms. Root said
billings from township consultants would have to be broken down by line
item. Her other question was if
the PC is going to start taking suggestions on language, because there have
been issues with the last few amendments that have been sent to the Board.
The Township Board is doing exactly what
County
Planning
is doing—they’re nitpicking and not getting a full picture of the PC’s
discussion and things they’ve looked at.
The attorney is flip-flopping on issues.
Who will take that amount as part of their budget?
Mr. Enos said he could modify the way his invoices are done.
Mr. Hamann said the clerk’s office would have to be more detailed.
Mr. Enos said the township needs a set escrow policy.
Ms. Wiedman-Clawson asked about having the township engineer certify
as-builts after the developer’s engineer has already certified it.
She feels someone needs to decide whose certification the township is
going to take. Ms. Root asked
Mr. Enos what the standard procedure is.
Mr. Enos said he feels the township engineer should do the
certification. Mr. Hamann said
the township needs to protect its investment.
Charlie Musson said the township should take the certification from
the developer’s engineer. Mr.
Westmoreland said the township doesn’t do the layout of the facilities
such as storm sewers, sanitary, water main, that are underground, they
don’t have that surveying information, so the developer is responsible to
provide a plan to show where they put the fits.
All the developer has to do is send it to OHM and they check it to
make sure it meets the criteria. Mr.
Lowe said the township engineer needs to check what is actually in the
field. Mr. Enos said some
communities have their engineers out there full time.
Mr. Lowe said OHM has been directed to make intermittent
inspections—spot checks. Mr.
Westmoreland said OHM has been having discussion with the drain
commissioner’s office about private wastewater treatment facilities and
they’ve found, in almost every instance, severe negligence on the part of
the developer’s engineer. The
developer’s engineer is not looking out for the township’s best
interest. Mr. Westmoreland said
there are established township criteria for inspection.
He said they are doing full-time inspections on sanitary sewer.
He strongly recommends that continue because that’s the
township’s system.
Dave
Hamann motioned to table this item until the
February 28, 2006
meeting. Jean Root seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
PRIVATE SEWAGE/WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Mr. Enos said these systems are becoming a
reasonable option, although the township needs to protect itself.
Mr. Enos said he’s working closely with
Washtenaw
County
on developing a model ordinance that will allow for two things to happen.
There would be a general law ordinance, which specifies special
assessment procedures, maintenance agreement procedures, and those types of
things. They would also regulate
these systems as a special use. Mr.
Enos said the engineers would be instrumental in creating the language.
Mr. Westmoreland said the county has a great set of standards, and
they have a lot of experience now in taking these over.
Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said it was just passed at the House level that
it can be excluded. Mr. Lowe
said he would check on recent legislation.
He also said the township does have the ability to put anything more
restrictive than the MDEQ restrictions in the ordinance.
It’s important that the isolated plants out in the community are
referred to separately so that the zoning districts don’t change, and
it’s not used as a basis to increase density.
Mr. Enos said it should be clarified by using the term
“municipal” rather than “public.”
Dave
Hamann motioned to table this item. Jean
Root seconded. Motion carried
5-0.
2006 PRIORITIES
Ms. Root informed the PC members that she went to
the township board meeting, and they did approve some of the text
amendments. She said the board
is questioning the same things that
County
Planning
is, although the township attorney isn’t doing us any favors when he
advises one way and six months later, his response is different.
Mr. Hamann said he feels that Mr. Hanvey is trying to get better
connectivity within the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Root said she feels there needs to be better communication
between the PC and the Township Board prior to the whole process.
Mr. Enos said the PC should provide an analysis of why things are
changed, e.g., a brief synopsis for the Township Board and
County
Planning
. Discussion ensued on the
procedures for text amendments. Mr.
Enos said the PC should look at ZBA cases over the past few years, and those
are typically issues that should be addressed.
He said they should also look at the goals and objectives in the
Master Plan.
Charlie Musson said the township needs to look at and be
prepared to put in municipal sewers. Mr.
Enos suggested having a joint meeting the Township Board in the next few
months. Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said
she feels that anything on the list is fine, but anything from today on
needs to follow the amendment procedure.
Dave
Hamann motioned to table this item until the next meeting pending input from
the Planning Commission board members, the Township Board, and the planning
consultant. Jim Anderson
seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
ARTICLE XX—AMENDMENTS
Some of the discussion on this item was done under Priorities
for 2006. Discussion was
also held regarding Section 20.03 C 2. Mr.
Enos said he would add language for the board’s review.
Jean Root motioned to table Article XX—Amendments until a
formal written request is submitted to the planner and placed on the
February 28, 2006
agenda.
Dave
Hamann seconded. Motion
carried 5-0.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Deborah Wiedman-Clawson asked for clarification on private
roads. Because there is no new
ordinance yet, it falls under the old ordinance.
If someone wants to split property on a private road, they get a land
use permit from the zoning administrator.
Nothing has to be done to the road, correct?
Mr. Lowe said yes. Ms.
Wiedman-Clawson cited
Berry Manor Drive
as an example: a ten-acre parcel
and a three-acre parcel on a 66-foot wide easement.
She said the property owner intends to split the ten-acre parcel into
smaller pieces. If the road
ordinance is in place, does he have to bring that 66-foot wide
Berry Manor Drive
up to current standards? Mr.
Lowe said he was told that when he split the first parcel.
Her second question, which no one can answer for her, is how the
shared driveway by three or four parcels that comes off of
Norton Road
ever got put in. She said the
easement has been paved and is now serving three houses.
Mr. Lowe said that it’s a flag lot.
Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said there’s not enough frontage if it’s not
a road. She said the zoning
administrator couldn’t explain how they got it through.
She’s been unable to get an answer from the zoning administrator
and the supervisor.
ADJOURNMENT
Dave
Hamann motioned to adjourn the meeting at
10:10 p.m.
Jean Root seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
|
