MARION TOWNSHIP  
PLANNING COMMISSION

                              ORDINANCE WORKSHOP

OCTOBER 22, 2002

7:30 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:     John Lowe, David Hamann, Jean Root and Debra Wiedman-Clawson

MEMBERS ABSENT:        Charles Musson

  OTHER PRESENT:        John Ambrose, Township Planner

Bob Hanvey, Township Supervisor

                                                Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator

********************************************************************************************

  CALL TO ORDER

  John Lowe called the Ordinance Workshop to order at 7:35 p.m.

  APPROVAL OF AGENDA

  Jean Root motioned to approve the agenda as presented.  Dave Hamann seconded. 

 Motion carried 4-0.

  APPROVAL OF MINUTES

  Comprehensive Plan Workshop Minutes of 9/17/2002

  Jean Root motioned to approve the minutes as amended.  Dave Hamann seconded. 

 Motion carried 4-0.

  Public Hearing Minutes of 9/17/2002

  Dave Hamann motioned to approve the minutes as presented.  Jean Root seconded.  

Motion carried 4-0.

Regular Meeting Minutes of 9/24/2002

  Dave Hamann motioned to approve the minutes as amended.  Jean Root seconded.  

Motion carried 4-0.

  Jean Root motioned to approve the minutes as amended.  Dave Hamann seconded.  

Motion carried 4-0.

  OLD BUSINESS

 Sing le Family Cluster Housing

  Mr. Ambrose presented minor revisions in the language for this ordinance:  Item D—square footage for RR district was added as 32,670; previously, it was 0.75 acres.  Item 4 A—previously had two letter “A”’s.  A typographical error was corrected from “ause” to “cause”; Item A—additional language was added to include “all property boundary lines”.  Mr. Ambrose also provided a revised copy of the Schedule of Regulations. 

  Mr. Hamann had a question regarding the “ERS-2” district and whether Marion Township has one.  Mr. Ambrose stated that it is part of the ordinance, but it’s not on the zoning map.  He suggested that the Planning Commission might want to consider eliminating.  Discussion was held regarding the intent of the ERS-2 designation.  Mr. Lowe asked Mr. Ambrose to examine the ramifications of eliminating this district from the ordinance. 

  Mr. Hamann asked whether the Schedule of Regulations should reflect the single-family cluster housing.  Mr. Lowe said not at this time. 

  Ms. Root questioned whether the Livingston County Planning Department (LCPD) would disapprove due to language regarding interior roads.  Mr. Ambrose said that the township attorney has reviewed the ordinance several times, feels it’s defensible, and is comfortable with the language.  Mr. Lowe asked whether the LCPD gives suggestions or recommendations for language. 

  Mr. Lowe suggested a meeting with the LCPD to discuss their rationale.  Ms. Wiedman-Clawson questioned whether the comments from the LCPD pertained to the fact that the RR district allowed different minimum lot sizes between platted and unplatted parcels. 

  Jean Root motioned to send the Open Space Preservation Act Ordinance (Section 6.30) and Single-family Cluster Housing Option Ordinance (Section 6.29) to the Livingston County Planning Department for their review.  Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.  Motion carried 4-0.

  Private Roads and Driveways

  Mr. Lowe asked to have this issue tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting. 

  Mr. Lowe asked Bob Hanvey for any additional input.  Mr. Hanvey pointed out that the ordinance would prohibit signs such as the corn maze signs and the “Dinkel” signs. 

  Mr. Lowe pointed out that almost any language would be restrictive and the township doesn’t want to create a full-time job for the zoning department to deal with.  Mr. Hanvey said most builders are cooperating by putting up signs on weekends and taking them down.  One big problem is at D-19 and I-96.  Another problem Mr. Hanvey mentioned was the RV center on D-19.  Mr. Ambrose pointed out that the ordinance does allow signs for grand openings or special events.  

  Mr. Lowe feels that the current ordinance is adequate to deal with those who abuse it.  He questioned whether the ordinance allows the township to fine individuals for sign violations.  Mr. Ambrose said yes, any violation, not just signs.  Ms. Root read from the ordinance, which states that any person who violates this ordinance or fails to comply with any of its requirements, upon conviction, can be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than 90 days, and pay all costs and expenses for each separate offense.  Mr. Ambrose said most communities have gone to civil infractions, and a ticket can be issued.  If they fail to pay, there are two ways it can be handled.  You can turn it over to the township attorney and take them to court, or you can assess them on taxes and collect it that way.  Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said Brighton Township has just created a violations bureau to handle infractions in this manner.  Mr. Ambrose was asked to provide possible language to address this issue at the next meeting. 

NEW BUSINESS

Noise Ordinance

  Debra Wiedman-Clawson was asked by the board to revisit noise ordinance issues.  She presented information for areas that currently have noise ordinances.  Until Marion Township adopts a noise ordinance, the police won’t respond.  Mr. Lowe said that this issue has been addressed in the past.  In order to have anything effective in place, you have to have a noise meter to record and document decibel levels and time of day.  The township doesn’t have access to that.  Ms. Wiedman-Clawson talked with police officers and comments from them indicated they could issue civil infractions for violations that are blatant.  Mr. Lowe asked if the county had any ordinance.  Mr. Ambrose said that’s all handled at the local level.  Mr. Ambrose said noise and nuisance ordinances are typically part of the general ordinances, not the zoning ordinances.  One of the problems is having someone available to enforce the ordinance.  Mr. Ambrose said that some communities have designated constables.  Ms. Root asked if it’s late at night and someone calls 911, do those officers respond at that time?  Mr. Ambrose said yes, there’s always at least one officer on duty.  They have copies of the ordinances.  Ms. Root asked if neighboring townships have this type of arrangement.  Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said Oceola Township used to, but doesn’t know if they still do.  The county will take the 911 call, but it may not be a priority.  It may be several hours to respond.  Ms. Root said she does see the need, but is concerned about the expense involved.  Ms. Wiedman-Clawson mentioned that the local police also won’t respond to speeding, etc. on private roads.  Mr. Lowe said in Livingston County, they have only one or two cars on the road after 5:00 p.m.  Response time varies, but can be as long as three to four hours.  Mr. Hanvey asked whether we’d have to classify types of noise.  Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said there are time periods (e.g., 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.),  Mr. Hanvey said we need to consider the number of township residents compared to the volume of calls.  Ms. Root asked if the county could provide a count for the number of calls received from Marion Township residents in the past year. 

  Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said Brighton, Green Oak, South Lyon, and Ypsilanti currently have noise ordinances.  Mr. Lowe asked how the resolution of complaints in these townships is different than our township.  The problem is that if the township doesn’t have a noise ordinance, the sheriff’s department won’t respond.  Mr. Lowe said we should discuss this with the sheriff’s department. 

  Ms. Root suggested the Planning Commission review the information Ms. Wiedman-Lawson submitted and table until the next regular meeting. 

  Ordinance Discrepancies

  Mr. Ambrose said if there are typographical errors, those could be adjusted and submitted to the Planning Commission.  Change in text will require a public hearing. 

  The 21-day time frame for site plan submittal is not adequate.  Mr. Ambrose said some communities require application be submitted one month prior.

  Horses.  Ms. Wiedman-Clawson pointed out that the 2-acre minimum for horses applies to both SR and RR districts.  The ordinance states 2-acre minimum for a horse, yet the setback requirements make it almost impossible.  Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said it works out to require at least 3.67 acres to meet the setbacks.  Mr. Ambrose said most ordinances require setbacks from neighboring residential dwelling, not the property line.  Mr. Lowe said he believe the Livingston County Health Department has a standard that applies.  Definitions need to be provided for corral, barn, pasture, etc.  Mr. Lowe asked Mr. Ambrose to provide language for this ordinance for the Planning Commission to review.  Mr. Lowe asked if it would be feasible to change the minimum to 3 acres.  Mr. Hanvey asked whether we should make a distinction between horses and other livestock.  Mr. Ambrose said most ordinances include horses in the definition of livestock. 

  Home occupations.  The ordinance on home occupations says no advertising in various media.  Some of the home occupations have been advertising in The Marketeer and on placemats in restaurants.   Mr. Ambrose said the intent of the ordinance deals with retail sales of goods and services.  Mr. Hanvey asked how do we handle enforcement, and how should a violation be defined.  What words can be written to apply universally that would be defensible in court?  Mr. Ambrose said you should not allow people in a residential area to set up a business.  Ms. Root suggested that revised wording in the ordinance to address some of these issues might help eliminate problems.  Mr. Ambrose said perhaps the advertising isn’t as much of a problem as keeping residents from placing large signs or advertisements in residential areas.  Mr. Ambrose said some communities have different levels of home occupations:  Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3.  The zoning administrator can handle class 1 administratively, Class 2 requires Planning Commission approval, and Class 3 requires a special use permit.  It only permits use of an accessory building for a home occupation in the RR district.  Mr. Ambrose will provide samples of language that classifies home occupations at different levels. 

  Allocation of lot and configurations (Pettis case).  Ms. McNamara asked for definition on when a flag lot is not considered a flag lot anymore based on road frontage.  Mr. Ambrose said the ordinance defines the pole portion of the flag lot as being a narrow access.  His opinion is that once you exceed 66-feet wide, it is no longer a flag lot.  Ms. McNamara pointed out that the last line of the ordinance reads, “…when a flag lot has 100 feet or more of road frontage, the maximum 4:1 lot depth to width ratio standard shall apply to the entire lot.”  Mr. Lowe prefers it be left at 100 feet to allow room for greenbelts.  Ms. McNamara also has difficulty determining setbacks with the current verbiage.   The definition of front lot line is “the line separating the lot from any street right-of-way, private road or other access easement.”  A side lot line is defined as “any lot line other than the front or rear.”  If the front lot line is defined as that line separating the lot from the street, is the little “jog” on Mr. Pettis’ lot, because it’s not adjacent to the street, still considered a front lot line?  The Planning Commission feels it is considered the front line line.  Mr. Ambrose pointed out there’s a difference between the way you define a lot line and the way you define a yard, which contributes to confusion. 

  Fencing (Article 6, Section 6.24, Subsection J).    Ms. McNamara said the ordinance makes reference to subsection J.  Subsection J deals with lakefront fencing, and there is no connection between the two.  Mr. Lowe feels it seems to be fine as written.  Mr. Ambrose says its just defining two different types of fencing:  lakefront and barrier.

  Special use permits.  Mr. Ambrose said special use permits go with the land, not the owner.  Renewal may be required for a change in ownership, unless special conditions have been stipulated that require review.  The special use permits for stables and commercial kennels should require annual review by the Planning Commission. 

  Ms. Wiedman-Clawson had a question regarding the Jesse Drive ZBA case, and Mike Kehoe’s request that the Planning Commission streamline the process.  Mr. Lowe explained that the case involved six variances, so it was sent to the ZBA.  The ZBA had to send to the Planning Commission.  The criteria the Planning Commission is different, so that should be done once, so the case doesn’t have to keep going back and forth.  Essentially, the Planning Commission should review the criteria prior to a case being sent to the ZBA. 

  CALL TO PUBLIC

  Mr. Lowe said the assessor had asked about a proposed 40-50 acre parcel split that didn’t meet the 4:1 ratio and wasn’t allowed without going to the ZBA.  Annette McNamara stated that because there were smaller lots along the road, the applicant wasn’t able to get the required road frontage.  Can something be done about the strict adherence to the 4:1 ratio on larger parcels?  Mr. Ambrose said this is a state law, not a zoning ordinance issue.  Mr. Lowe said he was told that wetlands should not be included when determining the ratio.  Mr. Ambrose said there is nothing in the Land Division Act that addresses buildable versus unbuildable land for determining the ratio.  

  ADJOURNMENT

  Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn meeting at 10:30 p.m.  Jean Root seconded. 

   Motion carried 4-0.

___________________________________________________________