DRAFT MINUTES - JUNE 12, 2003
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Bob Hanvey, Sue Lingle, Dan Lowe, Myrna Schlittler, and Dave Hamann
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
Tom Klebba, Consultant
Call to order
Bob Hanvey called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
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
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
SHOW CAUSE HEARINGS
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
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
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
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.
vehicles or motor homes may be occupied for a period not to exceed 30
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
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
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,
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
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:
of accessory building—claims he stays in the motor homes.
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
of junk—Mr. Moffatt says he’s trying to get rid of the junk on the
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
neighbors around them by the activity that takes place on that piece of
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. 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
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
issue like the barn. Mr. Hanvey
said the township would investigate.
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
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
LCRC submitted a list of their recommendations for repairs. Mr. Hanvey asked Tom Klebba to summarize the township’s findings.
presented several options for the board to consider.
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.
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.
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.
motioned to table this issue. Sue
Lingle seconded. Motion
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.
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.
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
Debra Wiedman-Clawson confirmed the fact that if an ordinance
is not in place, the Sheriff’s Department won’t take complaints
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.
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.
Hamann said a comprehensive plan meeting was held.
The goals are complete and the process is nearing completion.
PARKS & RECREATION REPORT
Provided in packets.
No meeting was
held in June.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Provided in packets.
Provided in packets.
FOR THE GOOD OF THE TOWNSHIP
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
CALL TO PUBLIC
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.