|
|||
|
|
MARION TOWNSHIP AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES MARCH 10, 2005 CALL
TO ORDER: MEMBERS
PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: CALL TO THE PUBLIC: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: March 10, 2005 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR: Feb. 10, Feb 24, March7 - Ways & Means OLD BUSINESS:
1. Radick Show Cause Hearing
2. Hall Spring Clean up Specs.
3. REU for 4. Roads
5. OHM Peavy Force Main
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Copperfield Villas
2. Burnham
& Flower Insurance
3. Hall
Use Policy
4. Pine
Brook Meadows
5. Recycle
6. Zoning and Wellhead Protection Area Maps PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT DPW REPORT ZBA REPORT ZONING REPORT TREASURER'S REPORT PARKS & RECREATION REPORT CALL
TO PUBLIC: FOR THE GOOD OF THE TOWNSHIP ADJOURNMENT:
MEMBERS
PRESENT: MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
Angela Campbell, OHM
******************************************************************************************************* CALL TO ORDERPLEDGE TO FLAG
BOARD MEMBERS
PRESENT
The board members introduced
themselves. None. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion
carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board of Trustees Regular Meeting, February 10, 2005
Motion carried 5-0. Board of Trustees
Special Meeting, February 24, 2005 Motion carried 5-0. Ways & Means
Meeting, March 7, 2005 Motion carried 5-0. Radick Show Cause
Hearing Sue Radick introduced her attorney, William Szobonya. Mr. Szobonya said he takes exception to the show cause hearing held on February 10, 2005. The alleger is to present legitimate, bonefide, factual evidence, and then the respondent responds. On February 10, the respondent spoke first. Mr. Hanvey said he didn’t think that’s correct. Mr. Szobonya said that is correct according to the minutes. Mr. Hanvey said that Ms. McNamara presented the case. Mr. Szobonya said the allegers did not present the case, and Ms. McNamara is not the alleger. The Radicks spoke without evidence even being presented against them. Secondly, there is no factual evidence whatsoever regarding the noise. There were no decibel readings taken, although Mr. Reizen suggested that there was some statement that there were more than 55 decibels. However, there was no factual evidence submitted; it was all subjective. It was from two statements made in September 2004, ironically within seven days of each other. The three other individuals who responded in the hearing made no complaints. Mr. Reizen stated in his complaint that they were at least 55 decibels that he could ascertain. There is a machine that is required in order to ascertain decibels. It’s expensive, it has to be placed at the common lot line, it has to have a reading, it has to be certified, there has to be a person who knows who to certify it. Mr. Hanvey said the board agrees with all of that. Mr. Szobonya said there were also five individuals who submitted affidavits on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Radick that there are no problems with the noise. Two of them are on common lots. Four of the five people who suggested there was noise are on common lots. Mr. Reizen is one lot removed. There are two subjective situations: five are saying there is noise and five are saying there isn’t. The issue about the number of dogs is not in dispute; there are five additional dogs. However, this is a hobby. The Radicks have no intention of buying and selling dogs. It will cost the Radicks thousands of dollars to erect buildings and come up to compliance. They have no intention of buying and selling dogs. Their only intent is to have a hobby. The additional five dogs are 9-13 years old. Mr. Szobonya is suggesting some kind of compromise. If these are legitimate complaints that the dogs are making noise, prove it, because there’s no proof that he can see that these dogs are making noise. The Radicks are willing to purchase a decibel meter. They will put it on a common lot line and will do it over the course of a month or two to see if there’s any noise. Both Mr. Goers and Mr. Lynch said it’s not the amount of dogs that a problem, it’s the noise. Also, Mr. Reizen and Mr. Goers had the same language in their complaints, almost identical. If there’s nothing subjective going on against the Radicks, there is certainly subjective information being provided to the board members as of February 10. Mr. Szobonya said if it couldn’t be proven that there’s a noise issue, then we have to deal with the five extra dogs. If this is a hobby that’s not disrupting the neighborhood, why can’t the Radicks get a variance with the ZBA or Planning Commission. Why make the Radicks spend at least $10,000 erecting a building, getting all of the necessary approvals, etc. These dogs are not the kind of dogs that are going to be inside of a building. These dogs have to be outside. They have proper housing for these dogs, proper water, and they’re complying with every other ordinance. They testified before, on February 10, that they don’t understand what the problem is. They corrected the German Shepard. They corrected the dog that was in heat. The dogs that remain are not making noise. The Radicks feel like this is personal, but objectively, all you’re seeing is five additional dogs. Mr. Hanvey said that’s a 50% increase over what the ordinance calls for. That’s a fairly substantial variation from what the standard is. Mr. Hanvey asked Mr. Szobonya was his suggestion is. Mr. Szobonya said that the Radicks go in front of the Planning Commission and/or the Zoning Board and ask for a variance for the additional five dogs. Mr. Hanvey said the Planning Commission can potentially change the ordinance, but they can’t grant a variance. Mr. Szobonya said then they would have to attempt to change the ordinance. It would be a terrible thing to destroy the dogs. Mr. Hanvey said no one on the board has suggested destroying the dogs. Mr. Szobonya said the Radicks have 13 acres and that should be enough for five extra dogs. There have never been complaints, there have been no sheriff’s calls, and no one has ever come on to their property who has said there was a problem. Sue Lingle asked what the township should do in the interim while they’re trying to get the ordinance changed.
It takes a long time for the Planning Commission to change an
ordinance. said from the ZBA’s point of view, because the ZBA members have to look at practical difficulties, this is a situation that is self-created by the applicant. Mr. Hanvey said it’s also hard to see if this is a dimensional variance or a use variance. It sounds like it might be more of a use variance. Mr. Szobonya said they would concentrate on the use. Mr. Hanvey asked if the ZBA did grant a variance, what would happen if they retired more dogs. They will keep getting older. Mr. Szobonya said they would not exceed 15 dogs. Mr. Hanvey asked why they couldn’t not exceed ten. Mr. Szobonya said he would have to defer to Mr. and Mrs. Radick because of their expertise in that area. Mr. Radick said they have a core team of dogs who are between two and three years. A handful are 9-13 years. Mrs. Radick said she made the mistake when she got into this sport by doing a lot with rescue dogs and pet dogs. Now they’ve moved into the racing circuit. The older dogs were rescue dogs, and they’re all the same age. Mrs. Radick explained her reasons for not applying for a commercial permit. Mr. Hanvey said it might be more in keeping with the spirit of the variance if she were to get variances on the commercial kennel items that don’t apply, rather than saying they can have 15 dogs and still be a hobby kennel.
hobby kennel. Mrs. Radick said she started out with four. The dogs she has now will run until their 9-11 years old because they were born and bred for racing. The dogs that are currently 9-13 years old are the pet rescue dogs that were never bred for racing. Ms. Lingle asked Mrs. Radick if she knew of anyone who could take the older dogs. Mrs. Radick said it’s an option she could try. Ms. Lingle said she has a problem with letting her have more than 10 dogs. Also, there’s the issue of the barking. Mrs. Radick said the noise has to be proved. Mr. Hanvey said there’s a catch-all category of nuisance and if the noise is an ongoing nuisance, whether it meets a particular point on the decibel scale or not. Mr. Szobonya said there are five people saying it’s a problem and five saying it’s not. You have to make sure that it’s not personal with the five people saying it is a problem. Mrs. Radick said there are coyotes and other dogs barking. Mr. Szoboyna said what they’ll have to do is spend the money to purchase a decibel meter, put it on the common lot lines with all of the neighbors, do it for a period of time, have it certified and registered, and present it to the board. If there’s no noise, there’s no noise, no matter what the neighbors say. Mr. Hanvey said they still have 15 dogs. Mr. Radick said they’ll apply for a variance and explore options after that, up to and including petitioning to have the ordinance changed. He said it’s not acceptable to them that they are told to get rid of dogs. Mr. Hanvey said which is also saying that it’s not acceptable that they have to follow the ordinance. Mrs. Radick said there are exceptions that are made. Animal Control told her to come to the board and do this. They have been guiding her hand,
because she’s not running a commercial kennel.
Dan Lowe said the biggest problem is the noise, although the number of dogs is a problem. There is some kind of noise that’s irritating people. It seems there should be some way to get them inside so people don’t hear them. Mrs. Radick asked if he meant all of the time or just at night. Mr. Lowe said mostly at night from what he’s heard. Mr. Hanvey asked if the decibel meter is directional—will it be able to determine if it’s Mrs. Radick’s dog versus a dog that’s a mile down the road. Mr. Szoboyna said they’re supposed to be quite specific. Mr. Hanvey asked Mrs. Radick if there are any dogs between her and the lot line of the complainant two houses down. Mr. Radick said he doesn’t believe there are.
request for the number of dogs would go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If there is objective data that the dogs aren’t barking, he’s not sure what it would take to satisfy this board that the sound is really not an issue. Would it be one day, two days, a month, a month in the spring, a month in the fall. It was suggested that there are time of year issues—when the moons out, they behave differently. Mrs. Radick said yes. For example, on February 23 they did a two-minute howl at 2:50 am, but that’s different than constant noise from 3:30 pm until 7:00 am, every night, all night long. That’s two minutes worth of noise. Dan Lowe said if it’s 3:00 am and it lasts 15 minutes, that would be enough to aggravate him. Mrs. Radick said it’s not 15 minutes. Mr. Lowe said one of the main criteria for the ZBA is that it’s not self-created. Mr. Hanvey said the other issue is that the Radicks are not being deprived of any rights that somebody else has. He said he suspects that if this board were to agree with the objective reading, it would want to have the readings done by someone selected by the township engineer. It doesn’t make sense that the board would let the Radicks pick out the person who does the readings. Ms. Lingle asked if they would make application for the next ZBA. Mr. Szoboyna asked when the meetings are, and said they would probably apply for the May meeting. Ms. McNamara said she would also want to ask the township attorney to make sure this isn’t viewed as a use variance.
Call to the Public
Chris ___________, 3450 Dutcher: Chris lives directly across the street from the Radicks’ pole barn. With the exception of when the dogs are fed, he doesn’t hear the dogs at all. He goes to work at 5:30 am and he’s never heard the dogs. He comes home anytime from 3:00 pm until 10:00-11:00 pm and he’s never heard the dogs at that time of night. The only dogs he’s heard were, he believes, across from Mr. Reizen.
Nothing constant from 3:00 pm until 7:00 am. Allison Bower, 5757 Lange Road: Ms. Bower said since the February 10, she and her husband visited the Radicks’ property on several occasions: February 15 at 8:30 pm; February 17 at 8:00 pm; on February 21, she called Mrs. Radick at 6:00 pm, who was in the barn and the dogs weren’t making noise; February 23 at 5:00 pm and she was again in the barn and the dogs weren’t making noise; February 25 at 5:30 pm; March 1 at 6:30 pm she drove by and sat in the driveway for five minutes and never heard the dogs; March 3 at 7:45; Saturday at 9:00 am, she drove by and never heard the dogs. Ms. Bower said for the past three or four months, people have been coyote hunting. They’ve been running the coyotes
with dogs. Todd Dickinson, and he’s probably the second closest house to the Radicks. There was one time last fall when he did hear the dogs for a few days. That’s probably been the only time he’s heard the dogs barking. In the summertime, he has his
windows open and he’s never heard them.
Frank Soerries, when the Radicks are out on the dog sleds. He’s driven over there many times and there’s no noise, he doesn’t hear them.
In the summer, his windows are wide open and he doesn’t hear them.
Phil Westmoreland suggested the readings are better in the winter because sound travels better. That would be the worst-case scenario. If the readings are below in the winter, it would be logical to say that they’re
probably going to be below the rest of the time.
Ms. Szoboyna suggested that the monitoring be done between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am, seven days a week, probably over the course of a month. Phil Westmoreland said 30 days would probably give the best data.
Sue Lingle motioned to direct the Radicks to obtain decibel readings for approximately 30 days at different boundaries of the property, to be cleared with the township engineer, and proceed to the Zoning Board of Appeals
if possible. Dan Lowe seconded.
Motion carried 5-0. Hall Spring
Clean-up Specs Tammy Beal provided information in the packets. It includes three proposed newspaper notices and bid specs. Sue Lingle asked to have the bid specs include an item concerning the insurance rider produced specifically
for the township. should be a time specified for the opening of the bids. Phil Westmoreland said he could provide sample language. Mr. Hanvey said there should be a required walk-through of the property for the tree cutting specs.
Sue Lingle motioned to have the clerk
proceed with the advertisements and bid specs.
Dave Hamann
seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Hanvey said he attended a meeting with the high school representatives, their attorney and engineer, Phil Westmoreland and
Angela Campbell from OHM to discuss probably some energy-saving devices that are available in the high school that will be presented to the engineers for their review. A likely number is .038 REU per student, which is approximately .75 REU per classroom. Tammy Beal motioned to postpone this item until more information is received from the school’s engineer.
Roads OHM provided a proposal with estimated cost. Mr. Hanvey said he and Mr. Musson attended a meeting with the Livingston County Road Commission, and the LCRC agreed to begin the studies to see if it is appropriate
to tar and chip Cedar Lake Road
between and Jewell. Phil Westmoreland said the estimate is for the best-case scenario for doing the road—three applications of chip seal, adding 21AA, taking care of the soft spots, etc. It doesn’t mean the township couldn’t do less. This estimate will provide the best long-term result. Mr. Hanvey said the LCRC also stated that the township is in store for repairs on D-19 near McGowan’s. It’s a 75-day project and during that time, the road will be closed completely for about two weeks. In 2006, they are planning to do the new high school entrance and widen township also received a letter from Steve Wasylk from the LCRC indicating the township has approximately $20,000 in GRIP money available this year, and they would like to have answers from the township by April 15. Sue Lingle motioned to
postpone this item for additional information.
Motion carried 5-0. OHM Peavy Force Mr. Hanvey said that last month, the board elected to do the boring and a proposal was received from OHM for the engineering
at $24,000. Dan Lowe motioned to accept OHM’s proposal for design and construction services for the Peavy Road Force Main for $24,000 and to authorize the township clerk and supervisor to sign the contract. Tammy Beal seconded.
Roll call vote: Dan Lowe—all yes.
Motion carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS
approval for Pinebrook Meadows. The property is on Norton Road just south of Mason. The township attorney, engineer and planner have reviewed the documents. The attorney suggested minor changes to the
documents. Deed, which he reviewed and discussed with Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence said he didn’t see anything substantive that would affect his request. Sue Lingle asked if the verbiage regarding the number of units was changed. Mr. Hanvey said yes. Dan Lowe said the print indicated the 7-9 trees across the front would be transplanted. He said they are sitting on fiber optic lines. Mr. Lawrence said they are trying to save as many trees as possible. If they can’t be transplanted, then they will buy new ones. Mr. Lowe said the wetlands area on the north side had been dammed up, and that needs to be taken out. Mr. Lawrence said he was told it was taken out; if not, it will be Mr. Lowe said most of the sewer is 10-11 feet deep. The leads should be run to within 4-5 feet of the surface so when
they make the taps, they’re not into the water table. Sue Lingle asked about the road maintenance agreement. Mr. Lawrence said it’s outlined in the master deed. Each lot owner is required to contribute an equal share. Ms. Lingle asked how it would be enforced. Mr. Lawrence said the board of the homeowner’s association is required to take action. He said he is willing to make changes to the agreement so the board is more omfortable. review the items
that they are concerned about with the township attorney. motioned to grant final site plan approval for Pinebrook Meadows site condominium, a development of 17 residential lots on 12 acres, subject to finalizing any clarification that the township attorney feels needs to be made on the final copy; also, contingent on approval of final Exhibit B by attorney; and that the sewer leads are 4-5 feet from finished grade. Tammy Beal seconded.
Motion carried 5-0. Hometown Village Sue Lingle said she is concerned that Hometown Village was originally approved with multiple variances, including the width of the roads, and there needs to be enough room to park cars between the sidewalk and the garage. Dan Lowe said he doesn’t think allowing front-entrance garages will change it
significantly. Sue Lingle motioned to allow the developer of Hometown Village of Marion (Delcor) to build the Chesapeake, Barrington or Kensington models on up to 25% of the lots in the total project, and that the buildings be situated in such a fashion on the envelope to allow 28 feet between the garage door and the back (inside) of the sidewalk; and to record as an amendment to the PUD if the township
attorney feels it’s necessary. NEW BUSINESS
(continued) Copperfield
Villas 28 parcels in Copperfield Villas for sewer and water. It has been verified with John Axe that if the three lots along the road are
separated, the remaining lots would be considered unserved and could be special assessed.
Dan Lowe motioned to proceed with requirements for forming a special assessment district for 28 lots in Copperfield Villas.
Burnham &
Flower Insurance Tammy Beal motioned to pay the Burnham & Flower insurance premium invoice. Sue Lingle seconded Roll call vote:
Motion carried 4-1. Sue Lingle has concerns with the $50 key deposit, and believes it should be less. Tammy Beal said if the group uses the hall every month, the deposit is paid once and given back when the group no longer uses the hall
each month. Motion carried 5-0. clean up.
Sue Lingle motioned to approve the electronic recycling with Recycle
Livingston for $1000. Dave Hamann
seconded. Roll call vote:
Tammy Beal, Dan Lowe, Sue Lingle—all yes.
Motion carried 5-0. Zoning and
Wellhead Protection Area Maps A proposal from OHM is included in the packets, and a memo from the zoning administrator requesting the board’s review. Ms. McNamara said she would like the zoning map updated. Typically, after the comprehensive plan is adopted, the zoning map is updated to reflect any changes. Mr. Hanvey had a question about the private road issue. Mr. Westmoreland said they would provide a list of the approved private roads and create an overlay on GIS. Discussion ensued about various issues (county updates, training township staff to update, software, etc.) Sue Lingle motioned to accept OHM’s proposal, with the modification that the zoning districts will follow parcels lines with no split zoning parcels Tammy Beal seconded. Roll call vote: Dan Lowe, PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
held on February 15.
The regular meeting was held on February
22.
|
||
