Bulletin Board

Business Directory


Clerk's Corner

Community Events

Contact Information

County Area Websites  


Development Documents


Financial information

General Ordinances

Heritage Days

Meeting Calendar






PropertyTax/Assessing Data

Rental Policy


Township Agreements

Treasurer's Report





NOVEMBER 14, 2002

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:              Charles Musson

OTHER PRESENT:                 Mike Kehoe, Township Attorney

                                             Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator




 Bob Hanvey called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.



  Bob Hanvey asked the members of the Board to introduce themselves. 


 Bob Hanvey explained that the Call to the Public was for agenda items other than either of the show cause hearings. 

  The Call to the Public for either of the show cause hearings will be held during each hearing.


 Myrna Schlittler motioned to approve the agenda as amended, deleting the item concerning Darakjian Mortgage 

under New Business.  Sue Lingle seconded.  Motion carried 4-0.


  Mr. Hanvey explained the purpose and process for the Show Cause Hearings. The Zoning Administrator will have the 

opportunity to explain the issues in the case from her viewpoint, the resident will have the opportunity to respond, and 

then the Call to the Public will be held.  Anyone wishing to speak during the Call to the Public will have the opportunity. 

  Mr. Hanvey asked that anyone speaking state their name and address for the record, and to please limit their comments

 to three minutes per person.   

  Chris and Carla Bonk, 5927 Madley’s Lane

  Ms. McNamara explained that Mr. Bonk first came to the attention of Marion Township through complaints from his 

neighbors and site visits to Madley’s Lane.  We sent Mr. and Mrs. Bonk a notice of violation listing the articles and 

sections in violation.  Mr. and Mrs. Bonk worked with the Zoning Administrator and brought certain violations into 

compliance, yet there are still two outstanding issues.  Ms. McNamara asked Mr. and Mrs. Bonk to come before the 

Board to discuss Home Occupations and Uses Permitted by Right in the Rural Residential (RR) District.  Ms. McNamara

 read the ordinances that she feels the Bonks’ are in violation of, by storing explosives and flammables, the change in the

 exterior appearance, and the noise. John Harris, asked if he could respond on Mr. and Mrs. Bonk’s behalf. He stated he

 hoped the Board had the opportunity to read his letter to the township on behalf of the Bonks, and he also presented 

some pictures and a letter from a neighbor.  Mr. Harris feels that the zoning administrator hasn’t presented facts to 

support her case, only conclusions.  It’s Mr. Harris’ belief that there have been no facts presented to the Bonks, 

which would allow them to sit down, go over each item of concern, and address each one.  One concern of the Bonks 

is the way the investigation has been handled.  Representatives of the township had come on their property and took 

pictures of the interior of the pole barn without their consent.  Neighbors from their old subdivision had informed them that 

representatives from the township had contacted them to confirm or deny the representations that the Bonks had been

 “run out” of their previous neighborhood.  There are neighbors and friends present on behalf of the Bonks, and if that’s 

relevant, they could be asked.  It should have nothing to do with the current situation.  Mr. Harris feels this is not so much

 an investigation as a “witch hunt.”  It is the Bonks’ position that there is no home occupation.  The primary use of this

 property is residential.  They have a legal, approved pole barn that is incidental to the primary use of the property, and 

inside the pole barn they store street sweepers for a business they own. They have no employees, no cars, no clients,  

no customers, no vendor deliveries, no signs, nothing to indicate anything’s going on except storage of two pieces of 

equipment.  Again, it is the Bonks’ position that there is no home occupation; however, the home occupation ordinance 

is rather liberal, and what they’re doing does not constitute a violation.  The Bonks’ take the sweepers out in the morning 

and bring them back at night.  It’s their livelihood and they don’t want to stop.  The next step is litigation, and that 

shouldn’t be necessary.  The Bonks’ are willing to sit down and try to resolve the situation.  However, just because 

neighbors are complaining doesn’t mean there’s a violation of the ordinance. 

Bob Hanvey stated that the township has been talking with Mr. Bonk for several months and has no complaints about

 the cooperation from the Bonks.  We’ve talked to them on several occasions, visited the site several times, Mr. Bonk 

took township representatives on a tour of the facility including the pole barn.  When Mr. Hanvey was at the site, Mr. Bonk,

 in response to comments that he was thrown out of the old neighborhood, suggested that wasn’t true and the township

could go check, and as far as Mr. Hanvey can tell, it seems to be the case that the old neighbors had no complaints. We did

 verify what he told us, and he told us to do that.  At no time were we ever invited not to come back to his residence. He’s been

 very cooperative all along.  What we have is a true disagreement as to what the words in the zoning ordinance mean, and we’re

 here trying to resolve that.  There have never been any confrontations between Mr. Bonk and a township representative. There 

have been several emotional discussions, but never any confrontation.  What the township has done is attempt to verify complaints.

  It is the township’s obligation to verify whether the complaints have merit.  In general, we have verified that some of them were

 happening, but not on a consistent basis.  The most frequent complaint was about the noise.  In an attempt to verify that, 

Mr. Hanvey has driven by the residence 10 or 15 times, and never heard any noise.  Other staff has heard noise at various times.

  It’s the township’s obligation to verify. Mr. Bonk feels that that his comments were misinterpreted.  He stated that there were 

people in his old neighborhood that will support that he was a good neighbor.  He didn’t say the township could go into a 

“background check” on him.  Taxpayers in this room think it’s wrong to spend tax dollars to investigate how someone was in their

 last neighborhood. It is Mr. Hanvey’s opinion that Mr. Bonk, in defending himself against these allegations, encouraged the 

township to verify.  Mr. Hanvey stated that what’s left to determine is whether the activities conducted by Mr. Bonk at his residence

 are appropriate and supported by the ordinance in the RR district.  Mr. Hanvey asked interested parties to make comments,

 either for or against the case. 

  Call to the Public

  Donna Davison, Dutcher Road:  Ms. Davison presented photographs of the site and a list of times of disturbances.  She stated

 that Mr. Bonk put his pole barn up months in advance of the house.  She’s watched sweepers, equipment, welding, etc.  

She has watched him operate his business for months before he dug a hole for his home.  Ms. Davison stated this is not about 

what a nice guy Mr. Bonk is.  He’s running a commercial business out of his home.  He has a DBA that says Bonk Brothers 

Services.  His truck showing the company name is always on his premises and as far as she’s concerned, that constitutes a sign.

 She stated Mr. Bonk moved into his house without meeting township requirements, he put in driveways on Dutcher Road despite

 what the Road Commission said, and he doesn’t follow the laws like the rest of us.  She stated there is plenty of noise coming

 from his property; she can hear it from her house.  Mr. Hanvey asked if she knew how far her house was from the Bonks’.  

Ms. Davison said not far enough. Mr. Hanvey asked Mr. Bonk is the styrofoam insulation had been completed in the barn, and 

Mr. Bonk said not yet. Mr. Bonk said they are doing a lot of work around the house.  One of Ms. Davison’s complaints was

four times in one day about noise, and that’s a little excessive.  If she was neighborly, she would come to him, yet she’s never 

done that.  After her first complaint, Mr. Bonk went to her house and gave Mr. Davison his home number and mobile number and 

apologized for inconveniencing them.  He told them if there were ever a problem, please call and the noise would stop. Secondly,

 the day she called four times about noise, Mr. Bonk was building a boulder wall in the backyard.  He feels it’s disturbing that she

 would waste the township’s time by calling when she could walk over and see what’s going on. 

  David Bonk,  Brophy Road, Oceola Township:  Mr. Bonk introduced himself as Mr. Bonk’s father, and stated he owned the 

property in question.  He stated that this is his son’s dream, and his son thoroughly checked out all the codes and requirements 

before buying.  He pulled all the required permits.  The signs on the side of the truck are required by law.  He worked hard with the

 township to solve these problems.  He finally had to consult an attorney. 

  John Harris, attorney:  Mr. Harris stated that one of the uses permitted by right in this district is agricultural operation,

 landscape nursery operations, retail sales.  You have chosen, as a township, to allow noise in this area.  If you have a farm, 

landscape activities, retail sales of nursery stock, you’re inviting customers and clients on to people’s property, you’re inviting

traffic, you’re inviting all the things involved in a commercial operation.To say there’s noise…there probably is.You’re inviting noise 

by the nature of the activities that you allow in this zoning district. 

  Ray LaCarter,  Madley’s Lane:   Mr. LaCarter stated that he’s Chris and Carla Bonk’s neighbor.  He said that what everyone’s 

overlooking is that it’s zoned rural residential.  That’s livestock, agricultural, and homes. This is a street sweeping business that 

deals with commercial and industrial sites.  He power washes vehicles.  He stated that Mr. Bonk promises to keep the vehicles

 inside and doesn’t follow through.  He drains 100s of gallons of water to fill the sweepers to take to job sites.  He’s power washing 

chemicals that come from these job sites back into our soil, which goes into our drinking water.  He’s concerned about the 

chemicals and their impact in the future on drinking water.  According to Mr. LaCarter, Mr. Bonk stated that his family didn’t get

 kicked out of his last neighborhood, his business did, and that he moved to his current location because there are no rules. 

Shawn Merrill,  Carter Court:  Mr. Merrill stated that he was Mr. Bonk’s closest neighbor in his old neighborhood.He never had 

any problem with noise or anything at any time.  Am I not allowed to drive my company truck home now?

Kim Yaden, Dutcher Road:  She stated she is one of the Bonks’ new neighbors. She drives by the Bonk residence several times 

a day, and it looks far better than surrounding parcels.  There are lots of businesses in the township, and people drive trucks home 

and park them.  What is considered noise?  Is it a power washer, is it a generator?  Mr. Hanvey said the ordinance says if noise becomes 

a nuisance, and unfortunately, it doesn’t clearly define what a nuisance is.  The ordinance does provide for farming operations in an 

attempt to preserve the rural character of the township.  It’s the township’s responsibility to look at what’s going on, try to apply that to 

what the zoning ordinance says, and attempting to apply some judgment to the area where the words are vague.  Ms. Yaden commented 

that would have to be applied to everyone in the township who’s doing the same thing.     

  Nancy Manson,  W. Coon Lake Road:  Ms. Manson thought that the township never intended to put people out of work and they were 

always allowed to have trucks at home and whatever equipment there was.  There are rules for people who run a home business. This man 

obviously is not street sweeping Dutcher Road, so the majority of the day he’s not there.  If someone wants to complain about the time he

 spends getting ready to work or when he comes home and cleans up his equipment, she feels that’s pretty small and they need to be in

 the middle of 200 acres or back in Novi where they belong.  This is a unique community…it’s not like the city.

Joe Case, Bentley Lake Road:  Mr. Case wanted to mention Mr. Hanvey’s comments about the township’s job being to figure out what 

the language of the ordinance really means.  Most of would agree that most of us create noise.  In trying to decide if noise is supposed to

 keep someone from operating a power washer, he doesn’t believe so.  Is it supposed to keep someone from operating a chainsaw, 

welder, hammer, that sort of thing…he doesn’t believe so.  Is the ordinance intended to suppress the incidental family life type noise that’s 

created?  This is a show cause hearing, and he’s heard allegations without any objective evidence to show levels of noise, levels of 

chemicals, that sort of thing. 

 Mr. Hanvey stated that when the township first began dealing with Mr. Bonk, there were clear violations.  In the time that the township has 

been talking with him, most of those have been resolved.  He has solved most of problems we had with the exception of trying to determine whether he has a home occupation and whether or not there’s industrial processing.  That’s why we’re here tonight.

Karen Gerkin,  Sistek Drive, Iosco Township:  Ms. Gerkin stated she is also a neighbor of the Bonks’. She’s lived right across the road

 for 14 years.  The first thing she noticed about the barn was that it’s green and blends in with the surroundings.  She’s never heard any 

noise coming from the barn and if Mrs. Davison didn’t want any noise, why did she move right across the street from a dairy farmer who 

pulls his trucks in several times a week.

Cory Vann,  Carter Court:  Mr. Vann stated that he is a small business owner in the area.  His question is about the explosives…

what are they?  Mr. Vann stores diesel, gasoline, kerosene in his garage…is he going to be told he can’t keep these in his garage? 

  Mr. Hanvey explained that it’s taken in the context of a business.  Mr. Hanvey asked the zoning administrator what specific explosives.  

Ms. McNamara said the welding tanks.  Mr. Hanvey said there’s a distinction between a residence and a business. 

Mr. Vann feels Mr. Bonk is being targeted because he has a big barn.  Mr. Hanvey said the township is responding to written complaints, 

and the township cannot ignore them.

John Harris, attorney:  Mr. Harris wanted everyone to understand what the ordinance says about explosives.  Subsection i says the 

home occupation shall not entail the use or storage of explosive, flammable, or otherwise hazardous waste.  It’s Mr. Harris’ interpretation

 that the ordinance means storage of explosive waste, flammable waste, or hazardous waste.  It doesn’t define it any more than that…

it’s very uncertain.

  John Cude,  Carter Court:  Mr. Kuhn thinks this has to do with just being neighborly.  Mr. Bonk would do anything for a neighbor. 

  Mr. Bonk has told him several times that the neighbors are harassing him, he tries to talk to them and they won’t speak to him.

  Mr. Hanvey explained that the township has never found anything offensive about Mr. Bonk, other than the fact that neighbors have 

complained about noise and the operation and the appearance that he’s running a business.  That’s what we’re here for today, not to say 

he’s an evil person.

  Greg Masonville,  Dutcher:  He feels that Mr. Bonk doesn’t make any more noise than others, he doesn’t have hazardous materials,

 he has the same things in his garage that everyone else has.  Why are we here?

  Mr. Hanvey stated we’re here in response to complaints received against Mr. Bonk. 

  Linda Manson-Dempsey,  W. Coon Lake Road:  Ms. Manson-Dempsey asked about the acetylene.  As a homeowner, he’s allowed 

to have acetylene.  Has the township determined if he’s using acetylene in the course of his business?  Mr. Hanvey asked Mr. Bonk to

 respond.  Mr. Bonk said yes, he welds in his pole barn.  Mr. Hanvey asked if it was repair of his equipment.  Mr. Bonk said yes, he has 

repaired his equipment in his pole barn with his welder.   Ms. Manson-Dempsey asked if he does other things also?  Mr. Bonk said yes.

  Ms. Manson-Dempsey asked if he sells what he welds?  Mr. Bonk said no.  Ms. Manson-Dempsey stated you can have a home

occupation and you can have customers coming and going, and was this the case at the Bonk residence?  Mr. Bonk said no. 

  How many full-time employees do you have coming and going?  Mr. Bonk said just he and his brother.  Ms. Manson-Dempsey said the 

fact that he’s filling his trucks is not pertinent to us, that’s his well.  She also had a question about the chemicals being dumped on the 

ground.  Mr. Hanvey said that Mr. Bonk had agreed to provide the township with the MSDS sheets and that hasn’t been done yet.   

Lynn Cude,  Carter Court:  Ms. Kuhn stated she was Chris and Carla’s second closest neighbor in the old neighborhood.  She’s a

 stay-at-home mom, she’s home all day, she lived next door to them for five years, and never was there any more noise going on there

 than any other house in the neighborhood.  She finds it very hard to believe that in the short time he’s lived there, there are that many

 complaints coming from one person when he had twenty houses around him previously and not one complaint. 

Nathan Drummond,  Carter Court:  Mr. Drummond said he was formerly employed as an environmental engineer and the soap used 

to clean streets is made to flow into the sewers and is biodegradable, not environmentally hazardous, no company would sell street

 sweeping soap that could be harmful to groundwater, soil, grasses, or even weeds.  Another point is that he feels Ms. McNamara

 hasn’t presented any objective evidence that Mr. Bonk has violated any ordinance.  Just reading the ordinance doesn’t show that anything 

has been violated. Mr. Hanvey said several issues have been resolved. Mr. Bonk has provided Livingston County Road Commission 

clearance on the second driveway.  Most issues have been resolved.  Our purpose today is to determine whether he’s running a business

 in a residential area.  It is clear that there is no home occupation titled street sweeping.  Does he street sweep at his home?  

Storage of equipment of your property is not a home occupation.

Ms. McNamara wanted to clarify that Board members were given packets of information regarding the case.  Mr. Bonk has the

 majority of the information.  His lawyer has the information.  She didn’t provide the information to everyone in the audience.  

Mr. Harris asked what information she was talking about.  Ms. McNamara said the contents of his file, which constituted the packet. 

  Mr. Harris said there’s nothing in the file that says, “here is what you are doing, you are storing explosives…”.  Mr. Hanvey said 

everything has been resolved but whether or not he’s operating a business.  Ms. McNamara said the township has had many

 discussions with Mr. Bonk about whether he’s running a business out of the pole barn or not, whether the pole barn is mostly being

used to run the business or if the majority of it is being used for the residence.  Mr. Hanvey said one of the issues the township is 

faced with is determining whether or not it’s a home business.  If it is decided that it’s a home business, then Mr. Bonk is clearly in 

violation because the pole barn exceeds 25% of the first floor of the home which is in the ordinance.  If we determine that he’s not

 running a business, we’re all done.  Ms. McNamara said the township could achieve that with him. 

  John Harris, attorney:  Mr. Harris’ suggestion is that they sit down with a representative from the township and find out what’s causing 

the township to be upset.  Mr. Hanvey says the township isn’t upset, no one at the table is mad at Mr. Bonk.  Mr. Harris said the last place

 we all want to be is in court.  If the township can list specifically what they want, Mr. Harris is prepared to tell Mr. Bonk to go along with it

 if it’s reasonable.  Mr. Harris doesn’t feel the negotiation needs to be done tonight.

Bruce Mayotte,  Madley’s Lane:  The noise is one thing, but he’s not home often so he is really complaining about the noise. His

concern is about running a business.He keeps hearing that Mr. Bonk stores his stuff there, but as far as he is concerned, so does a

 taxicab company, so does a wrecker company.Yes, a lot of people in the township run businesses, but most are on bigger parcels,

 not on a cul-de-sac or subdivision.

Paul Damon,  Jewell:  He doesn’t believe how many acres you’re on for a business. Mr. Damon said he doesn’t pay taxes for the 

township to go out and take pictures of someone’s pole barn.  Mr. Damon wanted to know who took the pictures.  Mr. Hanvey stated 

that in order to document an allegation, taking pictures is the normal procedure.   Were they home when you were taking pictures? 

  You went in their barn.

Ms. McNamara said those were not true allegations.  She stated she did not enter his barn.  Mr. Hanvey asked Mr. Bonk’s attorney 

whether taking pictures in an attempt to verify allegations would be unusual.  Mr. Harris said not all, but you ask the permission of the

 homeowner.  Mr. Harris said the problem is that personal property is now on display for anyone filing a Freedom of Information Act 

request.  Mr. Bonk said the township took his safety away.

  Bob Bloomquist, Foxfire Drive:  There are a lot of big pole barns in the area.  The wording is extremely ambiguous.  Mr. Bonk’s property

 is on the corner of Dutcher Road and he’s not traveling on Madley’s Lane.  There’s no clearly defined list.  It’s also in Mr. Bonk’s best

 interest not to make noise.

Carla Bonk, Madley’s Lane:  Mrs. Bonk said she can’t hear noise from inside the house, and she’s the nearest one to the pole barn. 

  The few times she has heard him, she’s asked him to keep quiet.  She moved to this location to live in a calm, country setting, and to not 

be an inconvenience to anyone.  All they have had in the six months they’ve lived there is a hassle.  She wants this done at the end of this

 night.  She doesn’t want to hear any more about it. 

Nancy Manson,  W. Coon Lake Road:  She believes this whole thing is nonsense.  There are many other people in the township living

 the same way as the Bonks. There’s an aggressive complainer or two here and if this man is within the ordinance and if he had proper 

permits to put up his barn, if his driveway is in compliance, this township needs to tell the complainers that they’re done.  It’s a shame

 that Mr. Bonk has to hire an attorney over something like this.  His costs should be paid.

  Cory Vann, Carter Court:  How many other people drive commercial vehicles on Madley’s Lane?  Has the township checked that out? 

  Mr. Hanvey said for today’s session, Mr. Bonk is the only one we’re talking about.  Mr. Vann says that he’s being singled out.Mr. Hanvey

 said the issue is that he’s had complaints filed against him. 

Carol Hollenbeck, Carter Court:  Other than just driving the street sweeper back and forth, what makes everybody think he’s running 

a business?  My husband works on his car and uses a welder.  He power washes.  Mr. Hanvey said the no one has suggested that this is 

a clear case.  What is he doing that constitutes running a business?  Mr. Hanvey said the township hears allegations. In order to verify, 

some investigation needs to be done.  One of the things associated with making noise is running a business in your barn where you have

 people come in.  Mr. Hanvey asked if Mr. Bonk had a truck that said Bonk Brothers Welding.  Mrs. Bonk said they bought a truck from a

 welding company that had its name on it until they could change it.  Mr. Hanvey asked Mr. Bonk if it was true that at no time he is earning

 revenue for the business from this site?  Mr. Bonk said that’s correct.

  Linda Manson-Dempsey, W. Coon Lake Road:  Ms. Manson-Dempsey asked Mr. Hanvey if traditionally the township could go on 

property and take photographs?  Mr. Hanvey asked the township attorney to respond.  Mr. Kehoe said it depends on the circumstances. 

There is some language in the zoning ordinance that empowers the zoning administrator to enter on to property for purposes of 

investigating an alleged violation.  If the property owner were to tell the zoning administrator they were not allowed on the property, it would 

his advice that the zoning administrator should leave the premises.  If the zoning administrator entered the property with the only purpose 

being to check on the status of an investigation or complaint, he doesn’t believe there’s necessarily anything wrong with that.  

Ms. Manson-Dempsey asked whether you go in and automatically take pictures.  She runs a small business in this township for which 

she has a special use permit, yet the township’s zoning consultant “just told me I better keep my shades closed or he’ll be taking pictures

 of the interior of my building.”

  Tom Klebba,  Triangle Lake Road:  Mr. Klebba stated, “I was sitting behind Ms. Manson-Dempsey and tried to ignore her comments 

the whole meeting.  She kept turning around and saying “you’re in trouble for this, you’re in trouble for this.”  Finally, I said if I drive up your

 driveway and I’m taking pictures of your day care facility and I get a picture of the interior, there’s nothing wrong with that.  I told her to 

pull her shades if she doesn’t want us to ever get that in a picture.“ 

  Lynn Cude,  Carter Court:  It’s quite obvious that Chris and Carla have not violated anything brought up tonight, and for the past six

months of their lives, they have paid the consequences because of the complainer.  There needs to be a consequence for the complainer. 

  Mr. Hanvey said if you look at the last paragraph in the home occupation ordinance, it talks about “industrial in nature.”  The township has 

been confronted by residents who are mad about neighbors who have forklifts.  If you look at the phrase “industrial in nature”, that’s a

 hard phrase to ignore.  Is a street sweeper industrial?  If not, what is it? Mr. Harris said he didn’t say it wasn’t an industrial piece of 

equipment, he said they didn’t have a home occupation.  Of course it’s an industrial piece of equipment…they’re storing it in a garage.  

Mr. Harris read the last line of the ordinance:  “there shall be no equipment or machinery used in connection with a home occupation 

which is industrial in nature.”  It doesn’t say no industrial equipment can be stored on your site. 

  Shawn Merrill,Carter Court:  Mr. Merrill believes this is a pretty simple case.  His neighborhood is only about five or six years old. 

  He doesn’t think the residents on D-19 were happy when those houses went in.  The growth is inevitable and we all need to deal with it

 whether we like it or not.  If people are going to build around you, you have to live with it or go somewhere where you don’t have to. 

  Bob Bloomquist, Foxfire Drive:  The facts are that they live there, they store equipment there, he’s not street sweeping a dirt road, 

he’s not street sweeping anything around his house.He earns his money street sweeping.You live on a road, you’re going to get road noise. 

  Tom Maj,  Embassy Drive:  Mr. Bonk parks his equipment in his barn.  His hobby is working on his equipment.

Deborah Wiedman-Clawson,  S. Burkhart:   Ms. Wiedman-Clawson had three questions. It was stated that Mr. Bonk was listed as

 a DBA?  Mr. Bonk stated he was currently operating under an LLC.  Where is the address for that?  Mr. Bonk said a Howell post office 

box.  How much space does your equipment occupy of that pole barn?  Mr. Bonk didn’t know.  Ms. McNamara said she felt a low

 estimate would be 50%.  Ms. Wiedman-Clawson pointed out that subsection H stated that an accessory building for a home occupation

 cannot occupy more than 25%.

( end of Call to the Public)

  Mr. Hanvey asked for Board member comments regarding this issue.  Sue Lingle stated she felt the township had taken the proper 

steps in investigating this issue.  The township has to follow the zoning ordinances and procedures in doing its duty.  Myrna Schlittler 

said she felt some of the complaints are quite picky.  The township now gets calls from people complaining because their neighbor has

a rooster, and can’t we do something about the rooster. Ms. Schlittler doesn’t believe Mr. Bonk is running a business; he’s storing his 

equipment.  Dan Lowe said he felt the complaints have been answered.  The noise is his concern.  Is this noise going on in the middle 

of the night?  Mr. Hanvey said that Mrs. Davison said there was noise at inconvenient times.  Mr. Hanvey asked her to call his cell phone

 so it could record the noise.  She did on several occasions, but Mr. Hanvey did not hear any noise.  Several people have done this same 

thing with barking dogs, and he did hear that noise.  Mrs. Davison stated that it’s difficult to hear on her cell phone.  Mr. Lowe said noise

 during the day is one thing, noise at night is another.  Mr. Bonk said he intends to complete the insulation on his barn.  Mr. Hanvey feels

 that will decrease the noise.  Ms. Lingle wondered how much maintenance and how much repair?  Mrs. Bonk said most repairs are done

on the job site; repairs in the pole barn are minimal.  Mr. Hanvey pointed out the inconsistencies in statements from Mr. and Mrs. Bonk.  

They both said there’s no noise, but when there is, Mrs. Bonk tells him to be quiet.  This lends to the credibility of the statements. 

  Mr. Kehoe stated the Board needs to make a finding as to whether or not there is a violation. Mr. Harris suggested that the finding

 should be that there is no home occupation, all that’s being done is storage of vehicles inside the pole barn.  Make it fact-specific

 to this situation so you’re not jeopardizing anything else that may come before the Board .Mr. Hanvey stated that the township is not 

attempting to please the public by caving in to the majority, but by listening to the people on both sides, by having numerous site visits

 and investigations, our finding is that he’s not running a business, he’s in compliance. This isn’t something the township blew off; a 

thorough investigation was done into what he’s doing. The township isn’t trivializing this case. Clear violations were corrected. The 

township has not ignored the situation. Mr. Kehoe cautioned that if circumstances change in the future, the township is entitled to 

investigate and proceed again. 

Dan Lowe motioned to find that Mr. Bonk is in compliance with the zoning ordinance and is not conducting a home 

occupation, but is storing vehicles used for his street sweeping business inside and will continue to store the vehicles inside. 

  Myrna Schlittler seconded.  Roll call vote:  Dan Lowe, Sue Lingle, Bob Hanvey, Myrna Schlittler—all yes.  Motion carried 4-0.

Dennis and Sallie Jaworski,  Cedar Lake Road

  Ms. McNamara stated that Mr. Jaworski built a home on Cedar Lake Road and in the process of building the home, brought in fill. 

He raised the elevation by approximately 13 feet. As a result, the neighbor’s property has flooded during rains. Zoning ordinances

 6.16 c 1 and 6.17 c 1 are the ordinances Mr. Jaworski has been asked here to discuss. A notice of violation was sent and no response 

was received, so a notice for the show cause hearing was set. Mr. Jaworski responded by stating he thinks this is a joke. He doesn’t 

know when the zoning administrator checked the property, but it obviously wasn’t done during or right after a storm. The complainant’s 

property is a good ten feet higher than his property. He said their property is on the other side of the road. The water flows from west to 

east into a culvert. Mr. Jaworski presented pictures showing his property line and the water flowing on his property. He feels that he’s 

getting water from their property, as well as from the road. The Drain Commission dug a culvert without his permission and the water is 

flowing onto his property.  Mr. Jaworski said the first complaint was sent to his house.  The date of reinspection was supposed to be 

October 9, 2002 and he wants to know when that inspection was done.  Ms. McNamara said she never knocked on his door. 

  Mr. Jaworski said that from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. he was outside in the front waiting for someone to come by. 

  Approximately 1:15 p.m., a truck drove by, rolled down the window and looked, and drove away. 

Tom Jaworski, 6140 S. Pinecone Court:  Stated he was the builder and designer for the residence. The first thing that should be 

noted is that the location of the violation on the notice is 4678 Cedar Lake Road, which is property Mr. Jaworski doesn’t even own. 

  The property was designed by a civil engineer, and certified by the State of Michigan, Livingston County and Marion Township. The

 project was inspected and approved for compliance with grades and all building codes. The individual that filed the complaint also

 happens to work for Marion Township and probably has leverage if she’s concerned and wants something pushed through.  

The Drain Commission addressed this complaint five times to alleviate complaints. According to the Drain Commission, they were

 told to stay out of it because it was a township issue. Mr. Lowe asked the builder to come up and look at the drawings. Mr. Lowe feels 

it would be a simple thing to fix.  If there were an additional 15 feet of the swale completed, this issue would be resolved. The builder

 indicated Mr. Jaworski extended it when he received the complaint. Mr. Hanvey said it appeared that there was a hump or a high spot 

in the ditch, and if that were fixed, the problem would be resolved. Mr. Jaworski said the first letter indicated a re-inspection date of 

October 9, 2002. Mr. Jaworski said he waited all day for the re-inspection.Several weeks later, he received a phone call from a neighbor 

who received a letter for a show cause hearing addressed to her house.  She brought it over, and both letters were sent to the wrong 

address. Why can the letter stating the violation be sent to the correct address, but the show cause notice is sent to the wrong address?

  Mr. Hanvey apologized for the error, but said that doesn’t change the situation. The builder stated that the building didn’t change or alter 

the drainage of the property. The road commission put in a drainage ditch, and that changed the drainage. The builder wants the township

 to understand that while they are willing to extend the drain and clean the end section out, that won’t eliminate the flooding after a heavy 

rain. Mr. Hanvey asked if the builder agreed that would help keep the water off the neighbor’s property. The builder feels the way the drain 

is now will help; however, the run off from the neighbor’s property will drain on Mr. Jaworski’s property. Mr. Hanvey stated the difference is 

the neighbor didn’t bring in fill and change elevations.  Ms. McNamara said that you’re not allowed to create this type of situation, and the 

problem is that Mr. Jaworski didn’t complete the swale as presented on the site plan. 

  Call to the Public

  Chris Hodge, Cedar Lake Road:  Mr. Hodge said that Mr. Jaworski lives directly in front of his property.  When Mr. Jaworski built his 

house, the culvert had always been there.  His land was the lowest in the area, so it always did have water. When they brought it level with 

the road, that’s what changed it and now the water’s going sideways.  The culvert was always there; the reason the road commission came 

out was because during construction, it was smashed and covered on their side. 

Dan Lowe asked if the south end, the driveway and gutters, was all piped. The builder said yes. The builder suggested that if you plug the 

culvert during a heavy rain, you’d see that there would be no water at the edge of the lake. The simple solution to check if the property is 

actually impeding on to someone else’s is by plugging it. 

  Cindy Hodge, Cedar Lake Road:  Mrs. Hodge stated she was deeply offended that Mr. Jaworski would accuse the township of using 

the fact that she’s an employee of township in granting a special favor.  There is no truth to that.  Mrs. Hodge said that on two occasions, 

Mr. Jaworski had promised to take care of the situation, but didn’t.  The Hodges brought soil in to try to maintain it. 

  Dan Lowe volunteered to go out with the laser and check to see if this solution will work. 

  Tom Klebba,  Triangle Lake Road:  Mr. Klebba lives on a lakefront lot similar to the Hodges.  He stated that if someone were to bring 

in fill to build on the lot next to him, he would have a similar situation, and that diverting the flow of water is what is illegal in this case. 

 ( end of Call to the Public)

  Dan Lowe motioned to table this case for 30 days until Mr. Jaworski has had an opportunity to make the necessary corrections. 

  Sue Lingle seconded.  Motion carried 4-0.


  Board of Trustees, October 10, 2002:  Sue Lingle indicated a change on page 4, right after Call to Public, it should say “loud car noise” 

instead of  “load car noise.”  Sue Lingle motioned to approve the minutes as amended.  Myrna Schlittler seconded.  Motion carried 4-0.

Special Board Meeting, October 29, 2002:  Myrna Schlittler motioned to approve the minutes as presented.  Sue Lingle seconded.  

Motion carried 4-0.

Ways & Means, November 12, 2002:  Sue Lingle motioned to approve the minutes as presented.  Dan Lowe seconded. 

Motion carried 4-0.




DPW Bills

 Myrna Schlittler motioned to approve payment of DPW bills totaling $4226.90.  Sue Lingle seconded.  Roll call vote:  Dan Lowe,

 Sue Lingle, Bob Hanvey, Myrna Schlittler—all yes.  Motion carried 4-0.

 Musson Resignation

 Mr. Hanvey stated that the township had received word that Mr. Musson is not feeling well and cannot continue as a trustee. 

  After consideration and soul-searching, Mr. Hanvey recommends the township accept the resignation.  Myrna Schlittler motioned to 

accept the resignation of Charles Musson, trustee, effective November 14, 2002.  Sue Lingle seconded.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 Mr. Hanvey also suggested the township send a thank-you letter to Mr. Musson for his years of service.

Mr. Hanvey stated that Mr. Musson recommended Dave Hamann as his replacement on the Board.  Mr. Hamann was present and said 

he would be willing to accept. Sue Lingle motioned to appoint Dave Hamann as a Board of Trustees member, effective November 15, 2002. 

  Myrna Schlittler seconded.  Motion carried 4-0.

Fleis & Vandenbrink Proposal

A proposal for a phase 1 environmental analysis for the proposed Marion Township Park was presented from Fleis & Vandenbrink 

for $2000.  Myrna Schlittler motioned to accept the proposal from Fleis & Vandenbrink.  Sue Lingle seconded.  Roll call vote: 

  Dan Lowe, Sue Lingle, Bob Hanvey, Myrna Schlittler—all yes.  Motion carried 4-0.

 DPW Report

 Provided in packet.

 Planning Commission Report


Parks & Recreation Report

 Sue Lingle summarized the Parks & Recreation report.  Two meetings were held this week, one was a steering committee meeting. 

  Focus will be on medium-size community parks, as most subdivisions have small parks.  Parks & Recreation is seeking support for

 Senate Bill #1404 which allows boundaries of both school and government.  It appears the budget may be short, and employees are

 attempting to come up with new ways to raise funds.  Howell Parks & Recreation is 50 years old this year.  An open house will be held

on December 11.  They will also have a float in the Fantasy of Lights parade and they are seeking volunteers.  The interim director, 

Dan Hutchinson, seems to be doing a very good job. 

 Zoning Administrator Report

 Provided in packets.

 ZBA Report

 The Zoning Board of Appeals had two cases, Kay Miller and Lance Pettis. 


 Mr. Lowe said he was impressed with the way Mr. Hanvey handled the crowd at tonight’s meeting. 

  Mr. Hanvey said that Ms. Lingle noticed a DNR property in Section 36.  It’s a small parcel that’s part of Brighton State Recreation Area.

  There doesn’t appear to be anyway to get to this property. 


  Barney Cole, Francis Road, asked for clarification on the hazardous waste environmental study.  Mr. Hanvey explained the same company

 was doing an analysis at D-19 and Francis Road.  Mr. Cole mentioned the blacktop on D-19 is sinking already. 

Deborah Wiedman-Clawson asked if the township would be advertising for another Planning Commission member. Mr. Hanvey said that 

hasn’t been decided yet.


  Ms. Lingle presented two reports, the regular treasurer’s report showing where the accounts stand as of October 31, and the investment 

report showing where the investment’s stand as of October 31.  $181,843.41 was paid out of the general fund this past month, which 

includes $20,000 for the building fund investment, $25,000 for the Parks and Recreation capital fund, and $100,000 in the general fund

 investments.  Myrna Schlittler motioned to approve the Treasurer’s Report as presented.  Dan Lowe seconded.  Motion carried 4-0.


  Myrna Schlittler motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Sue Lingle seconded. Motion carried 4-0.