Bulletin Board

Business Directory


Clerk's Corner

Community Events

Contact Information


Development Documents


Financial information

Heritage Days


Meeting Calendar






PropertyTax/Assessing Data

Township Agreements

Rental Policy

Treasurer's Report



                                             MARION TOWNSHIP

          DRAFT MINUTES - JUNE 12, 2003

                      BOARD OF TRUSTEES

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Bob Hanvey, Sue Lingle, Dan Lowe, Myrna Schlittler, and Dave Hamann

MEMBERS ABSENT:                      None  

OTHERS PRESENT:                    Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator

                                                Tom Klebba, Consultant           

Call to order

Bob Hanvey called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m.




Board of Trustees, May 8, 2003

Myrna Schlittler motioned to approve the minutes from the May 8, 2003 Board of Trustees meeting as presented.

Sue Lingle seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Ways & Means, June 10, 2003

Sue Lingle motioned to approve the minutes from the June 10, 2003 Ways & Means meeting as presented. 

Dave Hamann seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.  


Cheryl Summers-Burgette, 3983 Mason Road

Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator, stated that the violation sent to Ms. Summers-Burgette was for a “perpetual” garage sale

being held on the property.  This is in violation of several of the township’s zoning ordinances.  Ms. Summers-Burgette stated that the

activity has stopped, and the tenant is currently moving items out of the barn.  He will be done by the end of June. Ms. McNamara 

asked for a specific date, and Ms. Summers-Burgette said June 30, 2003. 

Debra Wiedman-Clawson, 61 S. Burkhart, stated that the sale is still ongoing, even though no signs are posted.  The barn doors are

open and customers still stop. Ms. Summers-Burgette said she would ask the tenant to keep the doors closed.

 Ms. Wiedman-Clawson also asked about the recreational vehicles on the property.  Ms. Summers-Burgette said the RVs are gone.

Ms. McNamara asked Ms. Summers-Burgette to keep the township informed if she experiences any problems getting the tenant out 

and is unable to meet the June 30 deadline.    

Michael & Kathleen Hagler, 4460 Cedar Lake Road

Ms. McNamara stated that complaints have been received from neighbors regarding a business being run out of the accessory building,

keeping dogs on the property for protection, items stored around the building, and one of the neighbors was bit by one of the dogs. 

Ms. McNamara provided the board with copies of three complaints:  one from the Cedar Lake Homeowner’s Association, and two from

 neighbors. Mr. Hagler stated that he has sold the piece of property to the occupant.  Mr. Hanvey asked if Mr. Hagler had filed a property

 transfer affadavit. Mr. Hagler said no, the property is still in his name.  Mr. Hanvey stated that people have complained about the dog 

running loose, and the fact that the operation taking place is not residential in nature.  Darrell Moffatt, 202 W. Main, Pinckney, the person

buying the property, said the dog was not loose when the neighbor was bit.  He stated the neighbor came on his property and was waving

 his arms around.  Mr. Moffatt stated further that there is no business being run out of the barn.  The items on the property are his personal 

items and he uses it for storage.  He plans to eventually build a house on the property.  Ms. McNamara asked if a driveway permit has 

been obtained from the Livingston County Road Commission (LCRC).  Mr. Hagler and Mr. Moffatt both said yes.  

Laddie Whitecomb, 4463 Cedar Lake Road:  Mr. Whitcomb stated he lives directly across from Mr. Hagler’s property.  Mr. Whitcomb 

wanted to know if there’s any reason why there’s three recreation vehicles on the property, and also stated that it’s being used as a 

campground at times. Mr. Moffatt asked if there was a law against owning travel trailers that are licensed and registered with the state.

 Mr. Whitcomb said it’s not a campground.  Mr. Hanvey asked the zoning administrator if she knew of an ordinance that prohibits multiple

 travel trailers on a piece of property.  Ms. McNamara said no.  She also asked if well and septic systems have been set up, and if so, 

could documentation from the Livingston County Health Department (LCHD) be provided?  Mr. Hagler said there is a well on the property,

but no septic. Mr. Moffatt feels the problem is the property was vacant for a long time, and now that someone’s there, the neighbors don’t 

like it.  Ms. McNamara said she had visited the site and there was an excessive number of unlicensed vehicles.  Mr. Moffatt said there are 

no longer any unlicensed vehicles on the property.  Ms. McNamara said she has concerns about the lack of a septic system.  Mr. Moffatt 

and his family use a port-a-john that’s located on the property.  Mr. Moffatt said a lot of the mess on the property has already been cleaned 

up.  He also stated the dog is licensed and has all of its shots.  Mr. Moffatt says the Livingston County Animal Control told him as long as

the dog was fed and watered, is contained, and has adequate shelter, there is no violation. 

Eric Wallis, 4590 Cedar Lake Road:  Mr. Wallis has lived at this address since November 2002, and Mr. Moffatt moved in afterward.  

Mr. Wallis said the dog approached his wife and she’s afraid of it.  The dog may be contained now, but who’s to say it won’t get loose 

again.  He also has concerns about the dog being unattended.

Mr. Moffatt said the dog has been off the property twice, and now he keeps it chained up. He feels he’s following Animal Control’s requirements.

Ms. McNamara asked Mr. Moffatt if there was any way he could take the dog to his home in Pinckney and keep it there.  He said no. 

John Mischi, 4512 Cedar Lake Road:  Mr. Mischi said on two occasions he’s called the Sheriff’s department.  On one occasion, the dog 

charged Mr. Mischi’s horse. When Mr. Mischi rides his lawn tractor, the dog charges him viciously. Mr. Mischi said the dog was not on 

the runner when he approached Mr. Moffett.  Mr. Mischi said he believes the ordinance prohibits keeping vicious animals. This is a 24-hour 

per day situation with the threatening dog. 

Jill Rickelman, 4412 Cedar Lake Road:  Ms. Rickleman lives next door and has two small children.  She won’t allow her children to play on 

that side of the property because of the dog.  It would only take one time for the dog to kill one of her children. 

John Mischi:  As of this evening, there are vehicles on the property.  Mr. Mischi asked whom the property is being sold to, Darrell or his

company. Mr. Mischi said that Mr. Hagler owns the property. Mr. Mischi called Mr. Hagler about the situation and Mr. Hagler said that he

 was leasing the property to a company that uses the property to store material. 

Ms. McNamara also stated that the township has restrictions on the habitation of accessory structures and recreational vehicles.

 The ordinance states “no garage, barn, or other accessory building, whether fixed or portable, shall be occupied as a dwelling.

 Recreational vehicles or motor homes may be occupied for a period not to exceed 30 days.” 

Victor Muzzin, 4518 Cedar Lake Road:  Mr. Muzzin feels that Mr. Moffatt is living in the travel trailer, and that he’s definitely running a 

business out of the barn. He is fearful that the dog will break the chain.He would like Mr. Moffatt to take the dog to his home and keep it 

there.  Dan Lowe said it sounds like it’s a vicious animal and it needs to go. Mr. Hanvey told Mr. Moffatt that the dog cannot stay at the 

property unattended. Mr. Moffatt said he’d take it home every night. Mr. Hanvey asked why the dog is there during the week if Mr. Moffatt

 and his family are only there on weekends. The finding is that the dog cannot be left at the property unattended. Mr. Moffatt agreed to 

only have the dog there when he is there. Mr. Lowe suggested that the township contact Animal Control and check on their 

restrictions.  Sue Lingle asked Ms. McNamara to contact them. 

Jayne Kelly, 4400 Cedar Lake Road:  Ms. Kelly wanted to know the terms of the sale from Mr. Hagler to Mr. Moffat are. She’s concerned 

that this situation could go on forever. Mr. Hanvey said it’s not really pertinent to this situation.  If the property is being sold, a property

 transfer affidavit needs to be filed with the township. Ms. Kelly said the comments are being directed to Mr. Moffatt, who’s not the owner,

and the comments should be directed to Mr. Hagler. 

Mr. Mischi:  Read from a copy of a draft proposed dog ordinance for the township, “…any person harboring or keeping a fierce or vicious 

dog or a dog that annoys people passing to and from public places, by barking, chasing or biting them, or following them in a threatening 

manner, shall keep such dog confined upon his or her own premises.  Mr. Mischi is not satisfied with the township allowing the dog on 

the property only when Mr. Moffatt is there.  Mr. Mischi doesn’t feel that Animal Control is qualified to determine whether the dog is

 vicious.  He said Animal Control was present when Mr. Mischi was bitten and the officer didn’t even get Mr. Moffatt’s name right.  Also,

 the dog wasn’t licensed and vaccinated until after Mr. Mischi was bit.  Mr. Hanvey asked for the name of the Animal Control officer.  

Mr. Mischi said it was R. Young, badge #2. The next issue Ms. McNamara asked about was whether a land use permit was acquired

 when the barn was built. Mr. Hagler said he bought the parcel with the barn. The barn was built approximately 1987.

The parcel is 3.5 acres…two separate lots with two tax identification numbers. 

Mr. Muzzin:  Wanted to make sure Mr. Moffatt understands that the 30-foot easement where yard debris is being dumped belongs to

 Mr. Muzzin, and is not part of Mr. Hagler’s property.

Ms. McNamara reviewed the violations:


2.Keeping of animals

3.Habitation of accessory building—claims he stays in the motor homes.

4.Accessory uses and structures—the fact that there’s an accessory structure on the property without a principle structure.

5.Roadway network and access controls—owner says he has a driveway permit from the LCRC and he can provide the township

 with a copy.

6.Maintenance of junk—Mr. Moffatt says he’s trying to get rid of the junk on the property.

7.Uses permitted by right within a residential district and the intent of a residential district—claims that he is using it as a residential piece

 of property.

8.Commercial districts—contractor storage yard.  If this is going on, it needs to be done within a commercial district, not a residential 

district.  The township has an ordinance that makes reference to quality of life and no person has the right to change the quality of life for 

the neighbors around them by the activity that takes place on that piece of property. 

Mr. Hanvey asked who is on the property during the week.  Mr. Moffatt said he’s in and out, his brother’s in and out. Mr. Hanvey asked

 what his brother is doing out there. Mr. Moffatt said he mows the lawn, etc. Mr. Moffatt said he’s not using it for his business. Mr. Hanvey

asked if Mr. Moffatt would authorize the township to check on the status of vehicles on his property on a regular basis.  Mr. Moffatt said 

that would be fine.  Ms. McNamara said licensed vehicles are okay. Mr. Muzzin said he called Mr. Hagler to avoid this situation. His phone

 calls were ignored.  Mr. Mischi said the township has heard from six neighbors from surrounding properties. He has a list of remedies they 

are seeking:

  1. Ceasing all commercial activity at the site to be verified.
  2. Removal of the watchdogs on a 24-hour basis from the site.
  3. Removal of all junk from the property.
  4. No further use of the property as a contractor’s storage yard.
  5. Removal of all vehicles from the property that are not in operating condition and/or licensed and titled to the owner of the property.
  6. Cessation of all commercial traffic at the property.
  7. Removal of the unsightly fence erected around the perimeter of the property.

Mr. Hanvey pointed out that item number 7 cannot be enforced—the township has no ordinance against “ugly.”

Jayne Kelly:  Was unclear about the vehicles on the property.  Mr. Hanvey explained that you could have vehicles come and go that you 

don’t own—you can’t store them. 

Ms. Lingle asked to have the zoning administrator document her visits to the site.

Ron Lawhead, 4641 Cedar Lake Road:  Wanted to know for future reference if the sale will include lake access.  Mr. Hagler said yes. 

Debra Wiedman-Clawson, 61 S. Burkhart Road:  Stated that in the past, the board has requested that a bond be posted for a 

non-conforming issue like the barn.  Mr. Hanvey said the township would investigate.

  Mr. Mischi:  Asked when the residents would hear back from the board.  Mr. Hanvey said they would report back to him by next

 Wednesday. Mr. Hanvey asked the residents to let the township know of any further problems with the dog. 


Sunridge Master Deed—Sewer & Water Issues

The master deed was approved by the township board at a meeting several months ago.  The board authorized the supervisor to sign

 the master deed.  After review, there were some issues regarding sewer and water that were not in agreement with a motion that was 

made in 1999 by a board member.  Mr. Hanvey talked with the attorney for the property and met with the township engineer and 

township attorney, and worked out a document that seems to be agreeable.  Mr. Hanvey would like the board to authorize him to 

sign the revised master deed.  The basic issue is that all the water and sewer units that were special assessed will remain with the

parcels where they were special assessed.  The remaining water and sewer units that are short will be purchased at the time land use

permits are issued.  There will be no guarantee that water and sewer will be available at the time they need it.  This covers all three 

phases of Sunridge. Sue Lingle motioned to authorize the township supervisor to sign a revised master deed for Sunridge pertaining to 

water and sewer issues when finalized.  Dan Lowe seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.


DPW Bills

Sue Lingle motioned to approve the Pollard & Albertson bill and Tetra Tech bill in the amount of $3,865.35 and forward to DPW for 

payment.  Dave Hamann seconded.  Roll call vote:  Dan Lowe, Myrna Schlittler, Bob Hanvey, Sue Lingle, Dave Hamann—all yes.

Motion carried 5-0.


The budget approved today includes a salary for an assessor of $50,000 and an assistant for $25,000. 

Mr. Hanvey has located a candidate that he feels is acceptable.  He will conduct negotiations on Monday.

Fire Station Lease

The township attorney has reviewed this lease.It’s a standard lease, which is the same for all the fire buildings, based on the number of 

square feet of the building.In prior years, the lease was the same for all of the fire stations. Marion Township’s fire station lease will be $14,829. 

Dan Lowe motioned to authorize the supervisor to sign the lease for the fire station.  Sue Lingle seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.


LCRC submitted a list of their recommendations for repairs. Mr. Hanvey asked Tom Klebba to summarize the township’s findings.

 Mr. Klebba presented several options for the board to consider. Sue Lingle motioned to proceed with the LCRC’s recommendations, 

dated June 9, 2003, on Cedar Lake, Peavy and Bentley Lake Roads, and approximately 500 feet of the bad sections of Hinchey.

Dan Lowe seconded.  Roll call vote:  Dave Hamann, Dan Lowe, Sue Lingle, Myrna Schlittler, Bob Hanvey—all yes.  Motion carried 5-0.

Building Contractor Selection

Mr. Klebba presented information on the bids.  Richland Construction is the lowest bidder with $489,992.  Irish Construction is 

second with $564,000, and Barruzini is third.  Richland’s references have been checked with no negative comments. Dan Lowe 

motioned to accept Richland Construction (Richland Company of Michigan) as the contractor for the building addition and renovation,

subject to contractor receiving bond for the project, with 14% on adds and 5% on deletions.  Sue Lingle seconded.

Roll call vote:  Dave Hamann, Sue Lingle, Bob Hanvey, Myrna Schlittler, Dan Lowe—all yes.  Motion carried 5-0.

Knolls of Grass Lake  

Dave Hamann gave a synopsis of the last Planning Commission meeting.  This development is being presented using the new Open 

Space Preservation option.  The developer provided the site plan, as well as the parallel plan. The parallel plan depicts what the density

 will be based on.  The Planning Commission gave a preliminary approval of the plan subject to the Board’s review and comments.

Call to Public

Mary Anne Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  New resident to Marion Township who is building a house on Grass Lake Court. 

This type of development goes against everything she responded to on the township master plan survey. 

Mr. Hanvey explained that the State of Michigan has required every unit of government in the state to accept what’s

 known as a cluster housing option, which is what the Knolls of Grass Lake is.  The township created an ordinance in 

conformance with that requirement.  There is no obligation for the developer to use or not use it.  They still have the

option of a platted sub, site condo, etc.  This developer has chosen to present it in this fashion.

Ms. Bahr asked who the developer is.  Mr. Hanvey said it’s called Power Group, which is Boss Engineering in Howell.   

Ms. Bahr asked the difference between the site plan and the parallel plan.  Mr. Hanvey explained the open space, or cluster,

 ordinance is set up so that the developer can present what would be a standard plan based on the zoning for a particular

 property.  In this area, it’s zoned Rural Residential, and for a site condo or platted sub, the minimum size is one acre. 

There’s about 80 acres in the Knolls, but it also required that it be buildable space.  There are some wetlands there and 

other areas.  The parallel plan uses a standard-type format to determine the number of lots that can be developed under 

the cluster option.  Under the cluster option, the number of lots produces the same density, but it allows them to build 

them in half the space of the available property, with the other half of the space being perpetually declared as open space, 

never to be developed.  The viewpoint is that there are people who believe that utilizing the land by keeping part of it open 

and part of it in a smaller lot size is a better approach.  Rather than having 80 one-acre lots that have a 2,000 square foot 

house and 40,000 feet of lawn, they have 30 houses in 38 acres of actual buildable space and 35 acres of open space. 

The actual lot size is substantially less than one acre.  Ms. Bahr doesn’t feel this type of development belongs in this area of the

 township; it should be closer to houses that are similar.  She feels it’s very important to keep this area rural. Mr. Hanvey said that

one of the things the township learned from the survey is that everyone likes the rural nature.  What the township is not clear on is

 what rural nature means.  Different people have different opinions of what rural means.  Ms. Bahr said that new developments in 

this area should be in line with what’s already there. Mr. Hamann said this is just a preliminary plan and the Planning Commission

still has two big open issues with this project.  One is an access road off of Bentley Lake Road that the Planning Commission was

 looking at as a possible pass-through.  There is a 66-foot easement that was part of an original proposed development off of 

Bentley Lake Road before it turned into three cul-de-sacs.  The Planning Commission feels there are too many homes off of 

Derbyshire and running into this new 38-home subdivision.  The second issue is when the developer came to the Planning 

Commission with the parallel plan for the preliminary, there was no documentation as to what is wetlands and what is not.

The ordinance says show the buildable is under the current zoning and that’s the number of units you get under the Open Space

Preservation. The township attorney said that wasn’t something the Planning Commission could hold against the developer at that time. 

Ms. Bahr has questions about why the developer doesn’t want the DEQ involved.  Mr. Hamann said they would have to present a 

final wetlands plan for the final site plan proposal. Mr. Hanvey pointed out that this is the first development under this new ordinance.

 The township has done a lot of research.  The ordinance in place now already has proposed modifications based on this experience.

 A public hearing is scheduled for June 24 for the proposed changes to this ordinance.  

Shirley Nehls, 2661 Rubbins:  Wanted to know if the DEQ will consider the trees on the property. In order to build, most of the 

trees will have to be removed.   There is also a low area and the water will have to go somewhere. Mr. Hanvey said the Drain 

Commission and the Health Department will be involved.

Dave Tiihonen, 3146 New Holland:  Had a question about the developer attaching to Clivedon Road.  There will generate over 

100 cars traveling that road each day.  Also, Boss Engineering has agreed to let Mr. Poloski split his property illegally which is not 

supposed to be split for ten years.  Mr. Hanvey said the split application has not been approved by the township at this time. 

Ted Barruzini, 3069 Combine Court:  By using the parallel plan design, the can press everything into a smaller area.  Mr. Hanvey 

explained that the parallel plan determines the number lots that are allowed.  Under the Open Space Preservation, that same number

of lots are developed using half of the space.  The other half of the space will be undeveloped.  Mr. Hamann said nothing is 

concrete until we have perk tests and wetland delineations. If they can’t fit 38 units on the buildable land, then they won’t be able to

build 38 units. Until the township knows the facts, we won’t know how many units they can build. 

Richard Buko, 3182 New Holland:  Wanted to clarify whether the Open Space option meant 50% of the usable or buildable? 

Mr. Hamann said the buildable.  Boss Engineering is pushing for this cluster option because they know the land is unbuildable. 

Mr. Hanvey introduced Jack Lowe, chairman of the Planning Commission.  Mr. Lowe said they relied on the experts to come up 

with an ordinance that was foolproof.  The original intent was that each and every lot would perk with individual septic systems on 

the parallel plan.  A meeting was held with the developer, the township attorney, the township planner, and one of the board

 members. At that point, the township attorney said the language was not specific enough. The proposed amendment to the 

ordinance will hopefully address this issue. Mr. Lowe said to say he’s sorry about this situation with the language not being clear 

would be an understatement. 

Lisa Kolath, 3144 Combine Court:  Wanted to know who does the perking?  Mr. Hanvey said Boss Engineering digs the hole

 and the Health Department is responsible.  Also, once all of the homes started going in, the lake level has dropped off. 

What will happen if 38 more homes are built? Mr. Hamann said there is a 35-year lake level reduction that occurs. He lives on

Pleasant Lake and it has dried up twice and is getting ready to dry up for the third time this century. Also, the Great Lakes are 

down right now and that’s why the aquifer legislation has gone into effect to be able to control ground water draws. We are at the

bottom of the 35-year period where we start turning back up. 

  Tim Johnson, 3187 Grass Lake Court:  Who owns the land that is unbuildable?  Mr. Hanvey said the homeowners would jointly 

own.  Also, there’s been talk about a trail around the lake.  Our property goes down to the lake. 

Pat Raquepaw, 2553 Clivedon Road:  You mentioned the ordinance and the number of houses on a single-access road.  It’s 

already at 13 and you want to put 38 more in.  Mr. Hanvey said the LCRC has a policy that the count is from an intersection.

 The site plan does show an intersection.  The township is working on it.  It’s still a single-access road no matter how you slice it. 

Mike Heisner, 2989 Rubbins:  He’d rather see larger lots.  He thought the road would go through.  On Rubbins Drive, it was brought 

up that there are a certain number of lots there. Boss Engineering said they’d put up a berm there. There have been a lot of problems 

trying to regulate somebody putting something up on their own property.  It should be part of the open space. 

Mr. Lowe wanted to clarify the road issues.  The township uses the LCRC’s standards to address how public and private roads are

 built.  Also concerned that the through road could be used by others as a short cut through the subdivision at 55 miles per hour. 

Mary Anne Bahr:  Her understanding is that the DEQ will allow you to put things in the wetlands, not take things out.  If they want to

 remove trees, she has an issue with that.  Also, on March 4, there was discussion about a court case through the DEQ that allowed 

centralized sewer systems.  Will this be dragged out long enough to allow Boss to get as many houses as they want?  Mr. Lowe said 

the proposed amendment for this ordinance specifically addresses that issue, and read a portion of the proposed language.

Ms. Bahr urges the Board to ensure that the DEQ is involved.  She wanted to know if there’s anything the homeowners can do to 

prevent this development from happening, and could the township help educate the homeowners.

Tom Klebba, 1615 Triangle Lake Road:  He agrees with Ms. Bahr on the survey results.  Overwhelmingly, residents want large lots.

 The intent of the ordinance was to have a parallel plan that didn’t include wetlands and septics 25 feet from the wetlands. The 

township has accepted the preliminary plan without a parallel plan.  The attorney approved the ordinance and said it was good, and 

now he’s backed off.  Bring the attorney in and tell him the township needs to enforce this ordinance. Bring Boss Engineering back 

and have them show the township the real parallel plan.  Show us how you can fit 38 lots in there. The easement is on the south side 

of Combine Court and through to Bentley Lake.  The object is for emergency access. If the township board said they want connecting

 roads, it would put an end to this cluster option. Dan Lowe wanted to state that he’s real unhappy with the proposal.

 He feels the road should go through, there are too many houses, and we need the wetlands delineation before Boss goes any further.

Ms. Bahr:  She doesn’t feel a through street is acceptable. 

Mike Kollath, 3144 Combine Court:  There’s a brand new house on Bentley Lake.  The road will be 10 feet from the house. 

Ted Barruzini, 3069 Combine Court:  The easement cuts right through my property.  Where is the watershed for the road going? 

Jack Lowe suggested tabling this issue and have the attorney review the minutes, the board’s concerns, and his position on the original 


Dan Lowe motioned to send the Knolls of Grass Lake back to the Planning Commission with a list of concerns with the preliminary 

plan that will be prepared by the township consultant and reviewed by the township board members.  Myrna Schlittler seconded.

Motion carried 5-0. 

Estimate from Lowe Excavating

 Mr. Klebba met with Jack Lowe and Mr. Lowe will meet with the contractor and then provide the township with an estimate.

 Dave Hamann motioned to table this issue.  Sue Lingle seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Dog Ordinance  

Tom Christian from Triangle Lake was present to ask the Board to help create and implement a dog ordinance for Marion Township.  

He presented a proposed dog ordinance and a number of sample ordinances from other municipalities. Mr. Hamann also provided an

example from the MTA website of an anti-noise and public nuisance ordinance that includes the issue of barking dogs. Mr. Christian has

 called both the police and animal control.  There is nothing either agency will do because Marion Township doesn’t have a dog ordinance. 

Mr. Hanvey asked Mr. Christian to describe what he sees as the detailed procedure from the time the first person is annoyed by a dog until 

the person pays the $500 fine.  Mr. Christian said first of all, there would be more than one person complaining. When you call the police,

there is now an ordinance in place, and they could issue a citation. At that point, it’s up to the court to enforce. Mr. Hanvey asked how the

court would enforce it. Mr. Christian said he would sign a complaint, others would sign a complaint. This is something that’s already in

place within the state.  Mr. Hanvey said this would probably go to small claims court in front of the magistrate. Would Mr. Christian be

 willing to appear in court?  Mr. Christian said yes.  Mr. Hanvey explained that the township doesn’t have a civil infractions bureau and this

 would be a criminal matter.  Mrs. Christian said the dogs are unwashed, filthy, there’s feces everywhere.  Animal Control won’t do anything

because there’s no ordinance.  The dogs are waking the neighbors up several times every night.  A dog ordinance would provide a remedy 

for dogs that are a nuisance. Mr. Hanvey has concerns with an ordinance that would allow a dog running loose to be shot, because

this ordinance would apply to the entire township.  Mr. Christian feels that would be only in extreme situations. Mr. Mischi from 

Cedar Lake Road said the police wouldn’t even come out. Animal Control only suggests that a vicious dog be put on a stronger chain.

 There is no enforcement. Mr. Hanvey said he called Genoa Township and asked how they enforce the dog ordinance. They said they

 rarely have to enforce it because Animal Control enforces it. Dan Lowe said when a resident doesn’t feel comfortable on his or her own 

property, there’s something seriously wrong. Ms. McNamara read the definition of a vicious animal, “…any animal that attacks, bites or 

injures human beings or domesticated animals without adequate provocation or which, because of temperament, conditioning or training,

 has a known propensity to attack, bit or injure human beings or domesticated animals.” 

Mr. Christian feels there has to be a penalty, and a financial penalty is usually a very good deterrent.  Also, a big problem is the police have

to witness the situation and that never happens. Jack Lowe said one of the issues that came up with the hobby kennel ordinance was 

created was there is a decibel limit that has to be reached in order to qualify as a nuisance.  In order to do that, someone has to go out with 

a decibel meter and record it.  It’s very expensive to have that done. The only way he feels this would work would be if the fine were 

substantial enough to cover those costs.  Mr. Christian said that’s the reason you require complaints from more than one person. 

Mr. Klebba suggested that the zoning administrator work with the residents on the immediate problem and investigate implementing an

ordinance with the township attorney. Dan Lowe motioned to authorize the supervisor to check with the Sheriff’s Department, State Police,

and Livingston County Animal Control to determine why they aren’t enforcing the state law and what does the township have to do to 

make them enforce it.  Myrna Schlittler seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Debra Wiedman-Clawson confirmed the fact that if an ordinance is not in place, the Sheriff’s Department won’t take complaints seriously. 

Administration Fee

Sue Lingle moved by resolution to impose the administration fee on assessed taxes for 2003.  Myrna Schlittler seconded. 

Roll call vote:  Dan Lowe, Myrna Schlittler, Bob Hanvey, Sue Lingle, Dave Hamann—all yes.  Motion carried 5-0. 

Land Splits

Tom Brock was present to find out if his parcel in a platted sub can be split.  Mr. Hanvey said yes.  Jim Barnwell felt that this would

be an illegal split.  Mr. Klebba said he thought there would be a notation on the file that the lots are unbuildable. Mr. Brock will 

complete the necessary paperwork and pay the appropriate fee for the split.  Mr. Hamann said this is not a land split, its just

 reassignment of tax code numbers. Another resident voiced concerns about the Poloski land split.  Mr. Hanvey said that Mr. Poloski

has not received the split yet.  The resident wanted to know what the purpose of having rules is if they’re not enforced.

Myrna Schlittler motioned to table this issue for further research.  Dan Lowe seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.


Dave Hamann said a comprehensive plan meeting was held.  The goals are complete and the process is nearing completion. 


Provided in packets. 


Provided in packets.


No meeting was held in June.


Provided in packets.


 Provided in packets.


Ms. Lingle passed out a schedule of the loan from First National Bank.  The rate was in dispute and it has been revised. 

Mr. Hanvey said progress is being made on the Georgetown booster station.  There’s a problem with the Detroit Edison line that will be 

worked out.


Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked about the maintenance on the cemeteries.  She has been clearing out some debris and with the board’s 

permission, will continue to do so.  The board members agreed.


Myrna Schlittler motioned to accept the treasurer’s report with expenses of $85,289.07.  Dave Hamann seconded. Roll call vote:   

Motion carried 5-0.


Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m.  Sue Lingle seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.