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 -  OCTOBER 9, 2003   

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:                      None                                                



Bob Hanvey called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.



The members of the Board introduced themselves.

Bob Hanvey asked to have two items added to the agenda:  installation of lines for Maurier and Klann, and NPDES 

Phase 2 update. Dave Hamann motioned to approve the agenda as amended.  Sue Lingle seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.


Rebecca Mistretta, 2883 Rubbins:  Ms. Mistretta was present to ask the Board about four issues concerning 

Triangle Lake.  She feels that residents call about issues they have and they get the runaround and/or inaction. The first

issue is the runoff from Jartnick Pond.  The water runs down Triangle Lake Road and into the lake.  Attempts have been

made to fix the problem, but it isn’t fixed and something needs to be done.  The second issue is the Bandy house, which

burned down approximately three years ago.  She feels the structure is rodent-infested and it decreases property values.  

The third issue is the South Oaks PUD.  Triangle Lake fought very hard to get the PUD in place and now it’s not being

enforced and she would like to know why.  The fourth issue is a house on Rubbins with four non-licensed vehicles on the

 lawn and it’s a disgrace. She would like a response to each of the four issues and what kind of action the board will 

take to resolve them.

Jartnick Pond

Bob Hanvey said the Jartnick Pond drainage issue became more of a problem when Sundance Ridge was paved to 

Triangle Lake Road.  The township has been looking at the situation for a while.  The road commission and drain 

commission have been involved in trying to determine exactly what the problem is.  Recently, the drain commission 

cleaned the catch basins, which improved the water flow.  It changed the routing so it was going in a more appropriate

 direction.  The site plans show that the road wasn’t built exactly the way it was defined.  The township talked with the 

road commission about creating a ditch; in the area from Sundance Ridge going north, it appears the ditch in the design

 was never installed.  The road commission has a new foreman for this area, Tim Johnson.  He was contacted and will

 try to put in a ditch from the top of Rubbins to Sundance Ridge on the east side, which should keep the water from the 

road in a more contained area.  The road commission also suggested they would clean out the ditch on the south side of 

the road and change the tube with a more appropriate grade to slow down the water and possibly put in a catch basin

on either side of the tube so the water going into the lake will be cleaner.  The design of the road also called for a 2% 

back grade from the spot where the asphalt hits the gravel to form a valley, and it appears to not have been installed that 

way.  Dan Lowe suggested it might be appropriate to install two more catch basins toward the east.  The retention 

pond structure seems to be functioning.  During the last rain, the catch basin on the east side of Triangle Lake, south 

of Sundance Ridge, and it seemed as though the water was coming back from the road into the retention pond rather 

than going from the pond to the road.  By cleaning out the ditch from Sundance to the south, the water should keep

 going in the right direction.  By putting the two catch basins in on either side of the tube and changing the grade should

 resolve the problem.  Mr. Hanvey explained that all of the items that he’s discussed are not items that the township 

can do.  It’s the road commission and the drain commission.  They are aware of the situation; however, they only have

one machine in the county to do this type of work, and hopefully, they will be able to schedule repairs for this year.

Tony Mistretta, 2883 Rubbins:  Mr. Mistretta asked at what point is the developer no longer responsible? Mr. Hanvey 

said he didn’t know.Would it make more sense to make sure it’s okay before the township “signs off.” Mr. Hanvey

 said the township has made arrangements with a new engineering firm to become involved in the construction

 inspection of roads in developments.  The assumption in the past was that the road commission or the engineer

 for the developer would be constructed as designed.  The township engineer in the past has been reviewing the

design of the road, but not construction inspection. Sue Lingle said that one of the “hammers” the township has is to

refuse to issue land use permits if the township engineer doesn’t approve the construction of the roads.  Mr. Hanvey said 

there were also issues with the house on the corner not having silt fence installed, which was a drain commission issue.

Mike Heisner, 2989 Rubbins:  Mr. Heisner said the developer should be responsible.  In the past, the low area 

always contained water.  The developer dug a trench to the road, drained the pond, and made the retention pond.  

Mr. Hanvey said there was also a natural berm that was removed during road construction.  

Mary Ellen Finch, 1687 Triangle Lake Road:  Ms. Finch asked if the residents have any recourse for what’s 

been done to the lake.  Mr. Hanvey said he didn’t know.  Dan Lowe said you could ask the drain commission. 

Mr. Hanvey said he would check with Tom Kolhoff.

Bandy House

Mr. Hanvey said the house burned down approximately three years ago.  He said Mrs. Bandy is anticipating having a 

physical problem that will limit her mobility and will require a wheelchair.  In light of that, she wants to increase the 

footprint of the house approximately 600 square feet to allow room for a wheelchair.  As a result, she needs to change 

the onsite well and septic from what exists to a system for a larger house.  During this time, the Bandys applied for the 

drainfield permit from the Livingston County Health Department (LCHD), which was denied.  They spent some time

 investigating the options.  They began working with Boss Engineering to have an Advantix system installed. There were

 two LCHD appeals. At the first meeting, December 2002, a great deal of time was spent discussing this issue. The 

LCHD had difficulty determining locations of adjacent wells and septic systems.  During that time, they decided an 

Advantix system would require partial installation in the road right-of-way.  They went to the road commission to get 

permission, which was granted.  They went back to the appeals board in August, and they were granted a variance with 

restrictions such as no laundry facilities.  The county building department determined the house didn’t constitute a

 hazardous structure.  The township has no provision for dealing with a burned house.  The Bandys felt if they weren’t

 able to get a variance from the appeals board, if they rebuilt the house the same size, they wouldn’t need to update the

 well and septic.  Because of that, they were reluctant to do anything with the existing structure.  At this point, they’ve 

received the variance to install the Advantix system and have requested the township give them land use permit forms 

and Zoning Board of Appeals forms, and we haven’t heard from them in about a month. 

Rebecca Mistretta:  Ms. Mistretta said they could drag this out for another five years, and the township’s going to let

them do it on their timetable?  That doesn’t seem right.

Carol Heisner, 2605 Rubbins Drive:  Ms. Heisner said it sounds like a lot of double talk.

Tony Mistretta:  They won’t let them wash clothes?  What happens if they move?  Mr. Hanvey said there is a health

 department report that must be filed every year that records the volume of water going through the system. 

 The system has an alert and monitoring system that checks the quantities.  If the quantity is exceeded, the 

manufacturer will be called and they are required to report it to the health department.  Dave Hamann asked if 

the variance from the health department has an expiration date.  Mr. Hanvey said he didn’t know.  Dan Lowe

 said typically one year.

Rebecca Mistretta:  Ms. Mistretta asked if the township has any plans to create an ordinance for burned houses.

 Mr. Hanvey said the township doesn’t have a lot of them.  Ms. Mistretta said we have one and the township has

 no way of taking care of it.  Mr. Hanvey said the township has talked with the Bandys, and they’re not ignoring 

the problems just to make neighbors angry.  They have done a lot of work and spent a lot of money to get to

this point, so they’re not likely to abandon the project.   

Dave Hamann said the Planning Commission is always open to hearing new requests for ordinances.

Tony Mistretta:  Mr. Mistretta asked how a variance request would affect the neighbors—would they have any say? 

Mr. Hanvey said it would be a standard zoning board of appeals request where all residents within 300 feet of 

the property would be notified of the hearing, it would be posted and published in the paper.  They would present

 the case to the ZBA and anyone who attends the meeting can comment, either for or against the variance.

Mary Ellen Finch:  Ms. Finch said she understood that because the lots were small, they were grandfathered, but 

they would never be able to build if they changed the footprint.  Mr. Hanvey said they couldn’t get a land use

 permit without requesting a variance because they don’t meet the minimum lot size for the ERS district. 

Tom Klebba, 1615 Triangle Lake Road:  Mr. Klebba said assuming that the Bandys are going to ask for a

variance to build a larger house, they would have to get a variance no matter what they request, because their house 

has been depreciated to $0, and the ordinance said if it’s damaged more than 60%.  It’s a catch-22 now, because if 

the people oppose an addition on the house or rebuilding the house, then they may be denied.  If they’re denied, the

township won’t remove the house.  If we oppose the variance, the house could stay there eternally.  Dan Lowe said

 yes, because there’s no township ordinance, it would stay until it’s declared a hazard as defined by the county

building department.  Would any of the board members live next door to that burned house?  Does that seem reasonable

to ask any constituent to do?  Sue Lingle suggested that they go to the Planning Commission and ask for an 

ordinance.  She will check to see if it’s a zoning or general ordinance. 

South Oaks PUD

Rebecca Mistretta:  Ms. Mistretta said there is a house with lake view, possibly lake access if they went through 

the wetlands, who in the last month have cut down a lot of trees.  The purpose of the PUD was to prevent this. 

Mr. Hanvey asked if Ms. Mistretta had read that particular section of the PUD agreement.  Ms. Mistretta said

 yes. Mr. Hanvey said the PUD agreement and the corresponding section in the deed restrictions has the 

phrase “during construction” in it.  That may not have been the intent, but that’s the language in the 

agreement.  The sentence regarding wetlands doesn’t have that phrase.  Mr. Hanvey said the township would 

watch to make sure nothing’s done within 20 feet of the wetlands.  There are only about 60 feet of wetlands 

on that parcel.  Mr. Hanvey talked with the property owner and they have one more tree they’d like to cut 

down, in the front.  They want to replace it with another type of tree.  Mr. Hanvey said that would be okay. 

Mr. Hanvey talked with Mr. Acho, who represented the Triangle Lake association during negotiations with

the township, and he thought there might be a way to defend the intent rather than the actual language. 

One of the meeting attendees asked if the wording could be changed.  Mr. Hanvey said the PUD agreement is

between the township and the homeowner’s association.  If the PUD were to be opened for renegotiations, it would 

involve give and take. 

Rebecca Mistretta:  Ms. Mistretta restated the township’s position that it would enforce the agreement as it applied

to wetlands. She also asked if it’s necessary to sign a complaint to have it looked at.  Mr. Hanvey asked how she 

could tell where the line is.  In his two visits to the site, he wasn’t able to tell.  Ms. Mistretta said because the township 

doesn’t know exactly where it is, they are going to let them do whatever they want, and then it’s too late.  Ms. Mistretta

asked again if it’s policy that a written complaint needs to be filed for action to be taken.  Mr. Hanvey said the township

 doesn’t have a written policy.  The township evaluates the severity of the complaint and attempts to take appropriate

 action.  If it’s a danger to health, safety and welfare, action is taken as soon as possible within the township ordinances.

Something like site beautification isn’t given as high of a priority.  

Mike Kendall, 2937 Rubbins:  Mr. Kendall asked if a survey could be done and have permanent stakes put in.

 Mr. Hanvey asked who would pay for the survey.  Debra-Wiedman Clawson said it could cost $2500 or more.  

Another issue would be getting permission to access the property.  He doesn’t feel the homeowner would grant

 permission.  Dan Lowe said they typically use ribbons instead of stakes for the delineation.  

Tom Klebba:  Mr. Klebba said several years ago, he talked with Wayne Perry from Desine Engineering, who said it 

was staked and irons were put in.  He feels it should have been the responsibility of the homeowner’s association to

 keep the wetland delineation intact. 

Mike Heisner:  Mr. Heisner would like to ask the township to send notices to the property owners reminding them of 

the PUD agreement.  Mr. Hanvey said yes, he could send a letter to the riparian lots asking if they had any 

objection to placing a visible stake at the property line and the wetlands. 

Howard Scheuner, 2850 Fisher:  Mr. Scheuner asked to have the Call to the Public closed and handle the agenda

items first.   Mr. Hanvey summarized that he will send a letter to South Oaks property owners reminding them that there

is a deed restriction and PUD agreement item prohibiting them from mowing within 20 feet of the wetlands and request 

that they attempt to mark the wetlands. 

Unlicensed Vehicles

Mr. Hanvey said Mrs. Munjoy has been contacted many times; however, she’s unavailable at this time. 

Kathy Christian, 2525 Rubbins:  Ms. Christian said Mrs. Munjoy’s boyfriend is living there, and some of the vehicles are his. 

Tom Christian, 2525 Rubbins:  Mr. Christian said the vehicles have been there for months.  Dan Lowe asked if they 

have plates.  Mr. Christian said no.  Mr. Lowe offered to contact the Sheriff’s Department.   

Kathy Christian:  Ms. Christian said there is also an issue with this resident dumping yard waste around the lake.

Dan Lowe said he thought the litter ordinance imposed a $500 fine.  Dave Hamann said it was created in 1978 

and amended in 1992.  Mr. Hanvey cautioned that the rules would have to be enforced for everyone. 

Call to the public closed at 8:29 pm. 


Board of Trustees, September 11, 2003

Sue Lingle motioned to table approval of the minutes until after the item on Majestic Oaks Stable was discussed. 

Dave Hamann seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Board of Trustees Ways & Means Meeting, October 6, 2003

Sue Lingle motioned to approve the minutes from the October 6, 2003 Ways & Means meeting.  Dave Hamann seconded.

Motion carried 5-0.


REU Moving

Bob Hanvey provided an update on this agenda item, and gave Mr. Scheuner a copy of the letter sent to the township’s 

bond counsel.  Each request to move REUs is unique; therefore, a procedure has been drafted that is specific to 

Mr. Scheuner’s situation. The Board has not been able to agree on handling the interest refund. The township will

continue to work on this item and provide additional details at next month’s meeting, if not sooner.

Darakjian Rezoning

Bob Hanvey explained the most recent official action of the township’s Planning Commission was to deny the rezoning 

on the northern parcel, and approve the rezoning on the southern parcel.  Those recommendations were sent to the 

Livingston County Planning Department (LCPD).  The LCPD didn’t want to act on the recommendations because their 

records of the current zoning don’t agree with the township’s records.  The township is unable to locate when the

property was rezoned to MHP, so even though the township zoning map shows the parcel as MHP, county planning 

shows it as light industrial.  Mr. Hanvey had a copy of the county’s map, and a copy of the township’s original publication,

 which shows entirely light industrial.  The county’s map shows all light industrial zoning with the exception of the 

five-acre parcel to the north. Mr. Hanvey said the township hasn’t determined how to change the township’s zoning 

map to match the county’s map; however, if the township agrees with the county’s interpretation of the zoning, the 

applicant would have the desired zoning. Richard Hartigan from Schonsheck reminded the board that the county is 

only an advisory board.  Mr. Hartigan also mentioned that the DEQ is still working to determine the wetland 

delineation. Sue Lingle said she would like the township to try to determine what the parcel should be zoned prior to 

sending back to the township Planning Commission.  Bob Hanvey said attempts to do that have been made over the

past month. Ms. Lingle suggested talking to John Ambrose, the township planner.  Mr. Hanvey said that Mr. Ambrose

 is convinced the parcel should be zoned MHP.  However, the township can’t find any documentation to support that. 

Myrna Schlittler motioned to table the item on rezoning the southern parcel.  Dave Hamann seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Dave Hamann motioned to return the item on rezoning the northern parcel to the township Planning Commission for 

re-evaluation based on new information, which is rather than rezoning from MHP to UR, the parcel would be rezoned from 

LI to UR.  Myrna Schlittler seconded.  Roll call vote:  Dan Lowe—no; Myrna Schlittler, Bob Hanvey, Sue Lingle, Dave Hamann

—all yes.  Motion carried 4-1. 


Dinkel Drive  

Bob Hanvey provided packets to the Board members on this agenda item.  Denise Poma came to the township in 

April and presented a drawing of proposed splits, prior to purchasing the property.  It was reviewed from the 

standpoint of splits and it was decided that it looked okay.  When the application for land division was submitted, the 

township needed to determine whether Dinkel Drive is an approved private road.  The township has not been able to

locate any documentation on Dinkel Drive.  The township further looked for a procedure to declare a road an approved 

private road, and nothing was found.  New projects come to the Planning Commission with specifications for the roads 

and that’s an ongoing process.  The township doesn’t have a procedure for evaluating an existing private road that 

someone is requesting be designated as an approved private road.  OHM took a brief look at the road and one of the 

things they pointed out was there is no cul-de-sac at the end of Dinkel Drive, which is a current requirement for an 

approved private road.  There was also a concern about two drop-offs.  Phil Westmoreland provided a proposal for 

the cost of evaluating the road to determine whether or not it is an approved private road and to write a description of

what would be required to bring it up to current county standards.  The cost is $500.  Ms. Poma said she has not had 

the opportunity to investigate the availability of an easement for a cul-de-sac.  Mr. Hanvey said an option that was 

discussed was to create a cul-de-sac on Ms. Poma’s property entirely, which would essentially be a new road. 

At this point, Ms. Poma wanted to provide background information to the Board.  She said when she brought the proposal to

 the township in April, prior to purchasing the property; she specifically asked what the requirements for splits were for

 Dinkel Drive. Ms. Poma was given three criteria she needed to meet—whether or not the road was approved was not an 

issue.  Mr. Hanvey said the approved private road is not required for the land division; it is required for the land use permits.

Ms. Poma said the splits were denied.  Mr. Hanvey said the procedure the township follows is to prevent splits that wouldn’t 

be granted land use permits.  However, the township probably would be required to grant the split.  Ms. Poma asked who 

approves the splits.  Mr. Hanvey said the assessor is the final arbiter of splits. Mr. Hanvey said one of the options would be 

to go to the ZBA to get a variance to do a road.  Another alternative would be to get the report from OHM and make the 

necessary improvements to the road. Another issue would be getting permission to do borings. Mr. Hanvey would like the

board to decide whether the township should pay the $500 to OHM and/or should Ms. Poma go directly to the ZBA.

Kim Howard, 444 Dinkel Drive:  Ms. Howard asked who would be responsible for making the road an approved private 

road. Mr. Hanvey said whoever wanted to pay for it.  Myrna Schlittler asked if Ms. Howard remembers when the road went

 in. Ms. Howard said she didn’t remember, but she has a contract that does state that the owner has to give permission 

for a certain amount of access to use the road.  Mr. Hanvey said he has a copy of the road maintenance agreement.

Gary Beal, 270 Dinkel Drive:  Mr. Beal said there is a paper that says Ms. Poma has to get permission from Mr. Dinkel 

to access the road. Mr. Dinkel will give permission for one split.  Mr. Hanvey said there’s also a document from Mr. Green 

that says she doesn’t need permission.  Mr. Beal said Mr. Dinkel didn’t sign that document.  Ms. Poma said that 

Mr. Dinkel has an attorney who she has been in contact with. Mr. Hanvey said that’s not a township issue, it’s between 

the private parties. Jim Barnwell from Desine Engineering said there is a restriction on record at the Livingston County 

Register of Deeds. Mr. Hanvey read the seven items to be evaluated from the OHM letter dated October 6, 2003. 

Ms. Howard said that several years ago, they investigated what it would take to bring the road up to county standards and 

it was too expensive. Dan Lowe said he doesn’t see any way to get a variance without the cul-de-sac.  The road must have

 a turn around. Sue Lingle asked if the county would have an idea of what was required 30 years ago for a private road.

Ms. Howard said there recently was a problem pulling out on Dinkel Drive.  The residents talked to the road commission

 who said they did approve it 30 years ago, but it would never be approved today.  Ms. Poma asked Ms. Howard to clarify 

her statement.  Ms. Howard said they were given permission to put in the road 30 years ago.

Ms. Poma asked the Board if the township would be willing to incur the cost of evaluating the road. Mr. Hanvey said 

the township has no vested interest in knowing the quality of road.The price from OHM is the same whether the 

township pays or Ms. Poma pays. Mr. Hanvey provided Ms. Poma with a copy of the letter from OHM so she can 

contact them. 

Lot Splits

Bob Hanvey provided information on the Brock property on Triangle Lake.  The Brocks own two lots on Triangle Lake with 

a single tax code.  They also own two parcels, one across the street on Triangle Lake Road, which is part of Jartnick Pond

, and another parcel further down Triangle Lake Road.  The Brocks want to associate one house with one lot.  

Mr. Heikkinen talked with the township attorney and they came up with an agreement that would be a deed restriction that

 would put the lots together and would prevent either of the lakefront lots from being sold without the corresponding house.

Mr. Hanvey provided a copy of the Planning Commission minutes with the motion for approval of Jartnick Pond, which had 

a restriction that there be no access to Triangle Lake from Jartnick Pond.  The attorney is reviewing the language. 

Dave Hamann said riparian right goes to owner of lot, and the township doesn’t have authority to stop sale of lot in platted 

sub.  Tom Klebba said they didn’t want the whole sub to have access.  Mr. Klebba asked why the township would want to 

tie two lots together with the houses instead of just stipulating they would never be buildable. Mr. Hanvey said because 

someone could buy the lot and put five boats out there.  Mr. Klebba said that’s what those lots are for.  Mr. Hamann said 

he sent two similar questions to the Department of Treasury, and hasn’t received a response.  Mr. Hanvey suggested the

Brocks be given four separate tax code numbers, and he will check with the township attorney for guidance.

Dave Hamann motioned to table this item.  Myrna Schlittler seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Manhole Repairs on Norton Road  

Myrna Schlittler motioned to accept the bid from Allied to repair the four manhole covers on Norton Road at a cost of 

$12,350. Sue Lingle seconded.  Roll call vote:  Dan Lowe, Bob Hanvey, Myrna Schlittler, Sue Lingle, Dave Hamann—all yes.

Motion carried 5-0.

O’Neal Clean Up

Bob Hanvey recommended that the township follow the recommendation from the consultant.  The township attorney 

has reviewed and commented. Dan Lowe motioned to extend the O’Neal clean-up agreement to give the owner time to 

clean up the property. In return, the township will draft another agreement stating the land may not be sold, split, or in any 

way developed, until the terms of the first agreement are satisfied. Any environmental issues must be taken care of immediately 

at the property owner’s expenses.  Myrna Schlittler seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.  

Majestic Oaks Stable

The township attorney has suggested that the wording in the September 11, 2003 board minutes be modified to change 

the word “contract” to “draft of the Special Use Permit.”  Sue Lingle motioned to approve the minutes as amended. 

Dave Hamann seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Site Plan Application Checklist

This item was presented for the Board’s review prior to the October 28, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. 

Blossom Farms Estate Final Site Plan

There is a change in the roads, from proposed public to private.  The bus stop is being removed, and a play area is being 

added.  Dan Lowe pointed out that another layer of asphalt is needed in the road right-of-way. Dan Lowe motioned to 

approve the final site plan with the condition that the road be given final coat of asphalt at the approach prior to issuance 

of any more land use permits in Phase 1 or Phase 2.  Sue Lingle seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

3% Late Fee

Dave Hamann moved by resolution to impose a late fee of 3% on winter 2003 taxes.  Myrna Schlittler seconded.

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

Snyder Estimate

The estimate from Snyder for the Klann/Maurier hook-up is $2,450.  Dan Lowe motioned to approve replacement of water 

service for Klann and Maurier by Snyder.  Sue Lingle seconded.  Roll call vote:  Dave Hamann, Sue Lingle, Dan Lowe, 

Myrna Schlittler, Bob Hanvey—all yes.  Motion carried 5-0. 

Dan Lowe motioned to have Karl Bohn, Jr. remove the pumps at a cost of up to $300 each.  Myrna Schlittler seconded. 

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

NPDES Phase 2

Bob Hanvey indicated that he would be attending a trip to Lansing to look at how they process the sewer there. 

The meeting will be held on the bus. 


Dave Hamann reported that the Planning Commission met on September 23.  The following items were addressed: 

 Pardiac Shell—tabled; Francis Road rezoning—tabled and another public hearing scheduled for October 28; Timber Bluff 

site plan amendment (sign and lighting)—approved; home occupation ordinance—tabled; zoning amendments 3.02, 6.20 

and 6.29—sent to LCPD for review; Site Plan Review Checklist—sent to Board for review. 


Sue Lingle reported that the meeting hadn’t been held yet this month.  She will have a report for the next board meeting.


Provided in packets.


Dan Lowe reported that two cases were on October’s agenda.  The Eagles requested a sign, which was tabled until a 

sketch is provided.  Shannon Lynch requested a variance for an indoor riding arena, which was granted.


Provided in packets.   


Provided in packets.  


Bob Hanvey said he received information that the “Premier Farms” property is going to be sold and plans will proceed with

a development.


Barney Cole, 918 Francis Road:  Mr. Cole asked about the trees around the pump station on Francis Road. Dan Lowe

 said he would be taking the logs out.  Mr. Cole also asked about a real estate sign at the end of Schroeder Park Drive. 

Mr. Hanvey said it appears the developer would like to put in two small strip malls.  Mr. Cole said another traffic light might

be needed.


Sue Lingle presented two reports, one for August and one for September. 

Dave Hamann motioned to approve the treasurer’s report with expenses of $98,568.74.  Myrna Schlittler seconded. 

Motion carried 5-0.


Myrna Schlittler motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m.  Dave Hamann seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.