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


                    January 27, 2004 - DRAFT MINUTES 


MEMBERS PRESENT:   John Lowe, Dave Hamann, Jean Root, Jim Anderson, 

                                           Debra Wiedman-Clawson

MEMBERS ABSENT:            None  

OTHERS PRESENT:                 John Ambrose, Township Planner

                                                Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator



John Lowe called the Marion Township Planning Commission Public Hearing to order at 7:20 p.m.


Dave Hamann motioned to approve the agenda as presented.  Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. 

Motion carried 5-0.


The members of the Planning Commission introduced themselves, as did John Ambrose and Annette 

McNamara. Mr. Lowe explained the format for the public hearing.  Mr. Lowe also explained the process for 

advertising the public hearings.  The notice was published twice in the newspaper, on January 6 and January 

20.  A mailing to residents within 300 feet of the subject parcels was mailed on January 15.  The applicant will

make a presentation first, followed by questions from the Planning Commission members. The Call to the 

Public will be opened, and any written comments received from residents will be read into the record.  At the 

close of the Call to the Public, the township planner will review and make a recommendation, followed by

consideration of action by the Planning Commission.  The public was asked to keep comments to three 

minutes, and to please state name and address for the record. Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated that, for the

appearance of fairness, she would be abstaining from RZN #5-03—Coddington. 


RZN #5-03—Coddington

Jim Barnwell, Desine, Inc., was present to discuss the request for rezoning.  The property owners, Mr and Mrs

Coddington, and the applicant, Mitch Harris Building Company, are requesting a rezoning for an 11 ¾ acre 

parcel located on Peavy Road, to the west of The Meadows development.  The request is to rezone from 

Suburban Residential (SR), which permits 20,000 square foot lots, to Urban Residential (UR), which permits 

15,000 square foot lots.  The property is bordered on the north, south and east by UR zoning.  Sewer and 

water is available through The Meadows development, water is also located to the north on Peavy Road, and 

sewer is also available on Peavy Road and Tracilee Drive.  To the west is Marion Heights and Tracilee Drive,

which is zoned SR and was developed prior to sewers.  The master plan calls for the D-19/I-96 area of the

township to be zoned for higher density.  The utilities are focused on this area.  Access is through The Meadows

to D-19, which is paved, and Peavy Road.  Mr. Barnwell feels this is an “infill” type of rezoning in that it’s 

already surrounded by UR on three sides.  The applicant would like to maintain the SR zoning on the owner’s


Call to the Public

Peggy Neeley, 3220 Osprey:  Ms. Neeley wanted to confirm that the current zoning (SR) allowed 20,000 

square foot lots.  Mr. Lowe said yes.  Ms. Neeley asked how many homes would fit into the area as it is

currently zoned, and how many homes would fit with the proposed UR zoning.  John Ambrose said 

approximately two units per acre with 20,000 square foot, and approximately 2.9 units per acre with 15,000 

square foot lots.  Ms. Neeley asked for the total number of homes for the whole parcel.  Mr. Lowe said 

approximately 22 with SR zoning and 26 or 27 with UR zoning; however, the likelihood of this being developed 

with 15,000 square foot lots is probably slim.  It would likely be a higher density.  Mr. Barnwell said the density 

for Woodberry is approximately 4 units per acres, The Meadows is approximately 4 units per acre, and 

Hometown Village is approximately 3 ½ to 3.6 units per acre.  Ms. Neeley asked if Peavy Road would be the 

main access.  Mr. Lowe said no.  Ms. Neeley asked if it would be D-19, and Mr. Lowe said yes, or an internal 

road. Ms. Neeley asked if there were plans to widen D-19.  Mr. Lowe said that’s one of the issues to be 

discussed tonight. Mr. Barnwell clarified that this request is for the rezoning.  Future projects would be required 

to meet the township’s zoning ordinance, and a request for a multi-family development, a Special Use Permit 

(SUP) would be required.  An SUP would also require a public hearing and resident notification.

(Close Call to the Public)

John Ambrose referred to his letter dated December 30, 2003 regarding this rezoning request.  Mr. Ambrose said that 

based on the existing zoning patterns, more significantly that it lies between two UR zoned parcels, and based on existing 

land use (PUD to the south, attached condos to the north, single family to the west, multi-family to the east of D-19, he

would recommend approval based on the following criteria:

1.      The proposed rezoning is consistent with the existing zoning pattern that lays both north and south of the site. 

      It’s also logical in the future for the township to initiate rezoning of the remaining single family home.

2.      The proposed rezoning is also in keeping with the township’s master plan, and the planned land use policies that 

      have been adopted by the township for this subject site.

3.      The proposed rezoning and potential resultant land use is also consistent with the existing developments both north

      and south of this site. 

4.      If the subject site is rezoned to the UR category, the applicant will need to submit for both site plan approval and 

     Special Use Permit approval, the latter requiring a public hearing for a project that is consistent with The Meadows


Jean Root asked if comments had been received from the attorney.  Ms. McNamara said the attorney has requested that 

the township follow a different procedure than in the past.  He would like the application to be submitted, the public hearing

held, and be provided with the minutes from the public hearing, letters from residents, and the township planner’s review 

letter.  His response will be prepared for the next Planning Commission meeting.  Ms. Root also wanted to clarify that

Hometown Village is zoned UR with a PUD overlay.  Mr. Ambrose said yes. 

An email from David Fabry, 4927 Vines, dated December 28, 2003, was read into the record (copy attached).

Jean Root motioned to table rezoning request RZN #5-03, Parcel #4710-11-200-013, to the next regular Planning 

Commission meeting on February 24, 2004.  Included at that meeting should be comments received from the township 

attorney. Jim Anderson seconded.  Roll call vote:  Jim Anderson, Jean Root, John Lowe, Dave Hamann—all yes. 

Debra Wiedman-Clawson abstained.  Motion carried 4-0 (1 abstention). 

RZN #6-03—Marion Oaks Golf Course

Tom Kalas, Kalas Kadian, PLC, 40900 Woodward Ave., Bloomfield Hills, MI, was present on behalf of the 

petitioner.  Also present was the developer’s representative, the architect, and the engineer.  The subject 

property is the Marion Oaks Golf Course.  The request is to rezone from SR to UR.  Mr. Kalas feels this 

request  is no different than previous rezoning requests such as The Meadows, Woodberry Park, and 

Hometown Village.  Mr. Kalas is requesting a rezoning to UR, and the intention, should the rezoning be

granted, is to request a PUD overlay district.  The PUD overlay district would allow them to cluster housing 

into single family and up to fourplex-type housing units.  Mr. Kalas believes this would permit them to 

preserve as much of the natural features as possible and cluster the housing so that it’s not spread out over

the entire site.  The proposed development would include approximately 630 total units, with an overall

density of 2.88 units per acre.  The overall density is less than the three other rezonings granted by the 

township to properties that are a few hundred feet from the subject site.  The development would include 

approximately 272 single-family type units that are going to be duplexes and fourplexes.  They would also

have single-family lots, which would be in three different sizes:  55-foot lots, 70-foot lots, and 80-foot lots.  

The clubhouse would be left in place, and they would provide a community pool, softball field, soccer field, 

trails throughout, and walking paths, as well as landscape berming and significant landscaping.  Mr. Kalas 

also had a conceptual plan of the development.  The conceptual plan also includes a small commercial area. 

The property on the south side of Wright Road has been purchased by the Howell School District, and the 

intention is to build a high school.  Mr. Kalas feels this development is consistent with what the township has 

already granted in the subject area, and meets the criteria of the UR zoning district preamble, which indicates

that such properties are intended to be in areas serviced by public utilities.  This property is located within the

sanitary sewer district.  Based on previous rezonings, Pinckney Road is an area that’s being developed for 

UR with PUD overlay districts.  Pricing on the 55 foot single-family lots with home construction would be in

the $180,000-$210,000 range. The 70 to 80 foot lots would be priced in the low to mid $200,000 range. The 

fourplexes would consist of units ranging from 1450 square feet to 1850 square feet and priced in the 

$170,000 to $200,000 range. Carlos Santia, Mr. Kalas’ traffic consultant, presented an outline of the projected

 traffic for the site. It’s anticipated that the development with 630 residential units would generate 

approximately 4900 vehicles per day.  The retail component would generate approximately 4400 vehicles per

day, of which approximately 38% is pass-by traffic.  Basically, that would be an additional 7300 to 7500 cars 

per day based on the conceptual plan.  Pinckney Road, 24 hour two-way count and the count available, taken 

between Francis and I-96, there were 14,629 vehicles in June 2002.  A two-lane highway of this nature with 

adequate shoulders has a maximum capacity of between 25,000 and 30,000 cars.  This is a level of service 

between C and D, more likely D, which is acceptable.  There’s no information on how much traffic the new 

high school would generate.  Mr. Santia said the Livingston County Road Commission (LCRC) has a long-

range plan for improvements to Pinckney Road from Coon Lake Road to I-96. 

Call to the Public

Wallace Popravsky, 3311 Peregrine Way:  Marion Township is not an urban community. Both presentations

 have alluded to an urban residential area.  Suburban residential is bad enough; urban residential opens it up 

to the next guy to put up condos here and apartments there.  People have moved here because it is semi-

rural, and what’s being proposed is going to make the density horrible.  D-19 is bad enough now.  If you put in 

another 4500 cars, what’s going to happen?  I don’t buy it.

Bob Sorg:  Mr. Sorg owns property just northwest of Marion Oaks.  Mr. Sorg asked what size the lots would 

be.  Also, Mr. Sorg owns 40 acres of agricultural land just north of the subject site and he doesn’t feel that this

proposal fits in.  The people who live in the area and have farms want to keep it that way. 

Dennis Gonzalo, 2620 W. Coon Lake Road:  Mr. Gonzalo moved from California.  Is there is plan or study 

that shows the maximum capacity for D-19 during peak hours?  Mr. Gonzalo feels that additional subdivisions 

are secondary issues until the road is improved. 

John Lowe asked John Ambrose to explain how the peak relates to the total number that was used for daily

traffic, and what the impacts could potentially be.  Mr. Ambrose explained that peak hour traffic is usually 

during the rush hour times in the morning and evening and an average would be over the entire period.  It’s 

obviously the peak hour traffic that’s of most concern.

Mr. Santia added that basically when they perform a traffic impact study, we really look at the peak hours.  

At this point, he doesn’t have that.  He will be able to tell us what the peak p.m. traffic is going to be for the 

proposed development, but he doesn’t have that information for Pinckney Road at this time.  Mr. Lowe

explained that traffic will be addressed as one of the major considerations. 


Pat Macaluso, 4875 Pinckney Road:  Mr. Macaluso is very opposed to this proposal.  Based on the

conceptual drawings, how many families would be housed in this development? 

Tom Kalas said a total of 630 housing units, 272 will be condominium type duplexes or fourplexes, and 350 

will be single-family homes.  Mr. Kalas said they’ve done the research that shows there is a demand for this 

type of housing.  Not all of the cars would come on line at once; it would be a gradual increase over 7 to 10 

years.  Typically, the township gets a gradual increase of taxes, and this additional revenue can be used to 

offset the costs for providing public services and things of that nature.

Mr. Macaluso asked if the developer is planning on developing any of the infrastructure to help support 

widening the roads, etc.  Mr. Kalas said the development would have certain access drives.  The LCRC has

 jurisdiction over Pinckney Road.  When they apply for a PUD, the Planning Commission and residents have 

an opportunity to look at the plans so certain criteria can be addressed in the PUD, things such as traffic, 

road improvements, development layout, etc.  Mr. Macaluso says the master plan shows this area as SR—

let’s stick with it.

Dave Tiihoen, 3146 New Holland Drive:  Mr. Tiihoen asked the representative from Boss Engineering how 

many years he’s lived in Livingston County.  Mr. Tiihoen said he’s been here 35 years, and in that time, he has

to wait to get across train tracks because traffic on D-19 is so heavy.  Thirty-five years ago, we didn’t even

have a McDonalds here.  We have grown, but our roads can’t support the traffic we have now, let alone adding

additional people and cars. 

Louise Dodd, 1722 Foxridge:   Mrs. Dodd opposes this proposal.  It’s too high of a density for D-19.  She also

 wanted to state that she knows of additional people who were unable to attend the meeting due to the weather. 

Jeff Barber, 848 Wright Road:  Mr. Barber feels much the same as everyone else.  To clarify the process, the 

comments are heard tonight and then this goes to who?

Mr. Lowe explained the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Township Board.  Mr. Barber 

stated further that the high school will add a lot of traffic and we don’t need the extra density.

Wally Popravsky, 3311 Peregrine Way:  Mr. Popravsky said that a year or so ago, the township had a 

survey.  He doesn’t know what the results were.  Ms. McNamara said the Comprehensive Plan Open House

was held on January 15.  A notice was sent to residents in tax bills.  A summary of comments received and 

the work the Planning Commission has done was presented at the open house.  Mr. Lowe said that basically

the survey showed the residents want controlled growth and to keep the township as rural as possible.

Dennis Gonzalo:  Is the township somewhat constrained by legalities or does the residents’ voice make any 

difference?  Mr. Lowe said this request has to go through the process—everyone has a say:  the residents, 

the applicants, attorneys, and planners provide input, studies may be requested for any information the 

Planning Commission needs to review the project. 

Mr. Lowe read into the record an email from Kathy Smith, 328 Francis Road, dated January 26, 2004 

(copy attached).

Mr. Kalas concluded by saying his client does appreciate the public’s concerns with growth. He feels this

development follows the trends along D-19.It’s not economically feasible to continue operating the golf course. 

(Close Call to the Public)

Mr. Lowe asked Mr. Ambrose if residents can still submit letters prior to decision.  Mr. Ambrose said letters can

 be received prior to a recommendation.  Mr. Ambrose wanted to again explain the process, which starts with a

public hearing.  Typically, the Planning Commission, on large rezonings, will table until the next meeting so if 

additional information comes in, the PC has the opportunity to review. Once the PC makes its recommendation,

it then goes to the LCPC for its review and recommendation.  It’s then sent to the township board for final 

action. The PC with regard to rezoning is only a recommending body.  It’s usually a 90-day process for a 

rezoning application.

Mr. Ambrose reviewed his letter dated January 16, 2004.  His recommendation is to deny the petition to 

rezone the subject site for the following reasons:

  1. The proposed rezoning request is NOT in keeping with the Township’s Master Plan and the planned 

land use polices that have been adopted by the Township for the subject site. The proposed zoning

classification (UR, Urban Residential) is intended for those areas of the  Township that are capable of being

served by the availability of public services (sewer and water).  Furthermore, it is the intent of the UR 

District to be established only within the  Urban Services District where existing public services

 (water and sewer) are adequate to meet the needs of higher density and/or intense land uses.

  1. The Urban Services District is located in the northeast corner of the Township in the vicinity of the I-96 

and Pinckney Road (D-19) interchange, and this district does not extend into Section 12, the location of the 

subject parcel, as it is primarily located in Section 1 and a portion of Section 2 of Marion Township. 

Developments in the Urban Services District call for paved roads, public sewer and water, and fire and police

services at an urban service level.  The subject site is located in the southern one-half of Section 12 of the 

Township and is planned for low density residential development that is not dependant on having public sewer

and water services.  In addition, services in this area of the Township are not at an urban service level which

 would be required to cope with the proposed potential development (see item “4” below).

  1. The proposed rezoning represents a “spot rezoning”, a concept that is not recognized for its sound 

planning and/or zoning practices.   A “spot rezoning” is defined by a publication entitled “The New Illustrated 

Book of Development Definitions”, 1997 Third Printing by Rutgers State University, and is defined as follows: 

a “spot rezoning” of a parcel of land is designed to benefit the owner (applicant) for a use that is 

incompatible with surrounding land uses and further does not comply with the Master Plan 

(Township’s Master Plan).  The proposed rezoning would be incompatible with surrounding land uses that 

includes single-family detached homes that require, under the current SR District zoning requirements, a 

minimum lot area of 0.75 acres of land.  Many of the homes in the vicinity of the subject parcel are built on 

parcels of land that far exceed this minimum, which are not compatible with the densities that are potentially 

allowed on the subject site if it were to be rezoned to the UR, Urban Residential District nor are these 

densities compatible with the Township’s current Master plan for this area.

  1. Based on a 231-acre site and assuming seventy-five percent of this site as being buildable, it would 

appear that approximately 174 acres of land could be developed.  The potential resultant development allowed

 under the proposed UR, Urban Residential District (total units) could range between 505 (single-family 

detached units) and 1,740 (multiple-family attached units) dwelling units or 2.9 units per acre to 10 units per 

acre. This potential resultant density is not compatible with the existing density patterns adjacent to the subject

site, which require a minimum two (2) acre lot area for existing single-family dwellings or with what the 

Township’s Master Plan has planned for this area.  Under the current zoning for the SR, Suburban Residential

District, an allowable density of 0.75 units per acre (without public sewer) would allow approximately 232 units 

on the 174 acres of land.

  1. Based on the proposed UR, Urban Residential District zoning classification, the potential number of 

vehicular trips per day generated from the subject site would range between 5,050 and 11,484 trips, which is 

based on data derived from a publication from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“Trip Generation, 

6th Edition, 1997).  The maximum potential trips per day for the subject site, based on the current SR zoning

classification, which has a potential for 232 single-family homes, would be approximately 2,320 trips per day

as opposed to the 5,050 to 11,484 trips per day. The latter figures are obviously not compatible to the low 

density development patterns that currently exist around the subject site nor will they be compatible to the 

proposed high school site located south of the subject site, of which both would add significant amounts of 

traffic to D-19, an already busy two-lane county road. In addition, the PUD overlay district can be applied to the

SR district.  If sewers become available in this area, the lots sizes could be 20,000 square feet. 

Mr. Lowe asked if the traffic study was being worked on.  Mr. Kalas said yes, the numbers should be available

in 2-3 weeks.  Mr. Lowe indicated that the Planning Commission needs time prior to the next meeting to 

review the report.  Ms. McNamara said that packages are sent out a week prior to the meeting, and review 

letters, etc. are to be submitted by that time.  Mr. Lowe emphasized that this isn’t a requirement, but will be 

useful in helping the Planning Commission make its decision. 

Jean Root motioned to table RZN #6-03, Parcel #4710-12-300-002 and #4710-12-300-003, until the next 

regularly scheduled meeting for February 24, 2004, at which time information to include, but not limited to, any 

comments from the township attorney, a proper traffic impact study to be submitted by applicant for review in 

a timely manner by the proper township agencies.  Dave Hamann seconded.  Roll call vote:  Jim Anderson, 

Jean Root, John Lowe, Dave Hamann, Debra Wiedman-Clawson—all yes.  Motion carried 5-0.

Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments

Section 8.03 D:  Delete item #12—Mobile Home Parks

John Ambrose stated that while reviewing the ordinance, it was discovered that an item was still left in the 

ordinance under Section 8.03 D, which is the Mobile Homes Parks as a Special Use in the UR district. When 

the ordinance was amended some time ago, a Mobile Home Park District was included, and item #12 should 

have been deleted. 

Call to the Public


(Close Call to the Public)

Jean Root motioned to send to Livingston County Planning Department for its review and recommendation 

Section 8.03 D as submitted by John Ambrose, letter dated November 11, 2003.  Dave Hamann seconded. 

Roll call vote:  Jim Anderson, Jean Root, John Lowe, Dave Hamann, Debra Wiedman-Clawson—all yes.

 Motion carried 5-0.

Section 18.03 I:  Additional Language

John Ambrose explained that this amendment is for the section of the ordinance that deals with required data 

for site plans.  The ordinance currently reads, “A vicinity sketch showing the location of the site in relation to 

the surrounding land uses and roadways within 2000 feet of the proposed use.”  Additional information needs 

to be included to read “Also, an aerial photograph showing overlaying property lines and the proposed site 

layout at the same scale used for the site plan including all land within 1,320 feet of the subject site.” 

Call to the Public

Jim Barnwell, property owner in Marion Township, said that the planner said 1000 feet for the aerial, so you’re 

going to end up with a half-mile.  On a small site plan, for example a commercial site that’s only 2 acres and 

you’ve got a 20-scale drawing, that’s going to be a very large picture.  He would like to see it worded differently.

 Mr. Lowe said on the larger projects, that type of range is necessary; however, he agrees that on some of the

smaller sites, 200-300 feet would be acceptable.  Ms. Wiedman-Clawson asked if it could be worded based 

on the acreage of the site.  Mr. Ambrose said he could provide language to that effect.  Discussion was held 

about the dimensional requirements.  The wording was changed to 10 times scale of the subject site, and it 

was decided that the wording would read as follows:  “Also, an aerial photograph showing overlaying property

lines and the proposed site layout at a scale ten times that used for the site plan.”

(Close Call to the Public)

Jean Root motioned to send to Livingston County Planning Department Section 18.03 I to read:  “A vicinity 

sketch showing the location of the site in relation to the surrounding land uses and roadways within two 

thousand (2,000) feet of the proposed use.  Also, an aerial photograph showing overlaying property

lines and the proposed site layout at a scale ten times that used for the site plan.  Jim Anderson 

seconded.  Roll call vote:  Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean Root, Jim Anderson—

all yes.  Motion carried 5-0.

Section 3.02 #4:  Delete and Add New Language

Mr. Ambrose said that new language is being added to the definition of a lot line which covers front, rear, and 

side yard lot lines.  Item #4 is a new item that would read:  “In a case where the above lot line definitions are 

not sufficient to clearly allow for the determination of a lot line(s), the Zoning Administrator, prior to issuance of 

a land use permit, shall designate the front, read and/or side lot line(s), as applicable, after taking into

consideration the orientation of the building(s) on the lot, the address of the lot, the orientation of buildings on

other lots along the road frontage, and natural features affecting site design.  Thereafter, development shall 

occur consistent with such lot line(s) designations.”

  Call to the Public


(Close Call to the Public)

Jean Root motioned to send to Livingston County Planning Department Section 3.02—Definitions, changing

item 4 as submitted by John Ambrose, letter dated November 11, 2003.  Jim Anderson seconded.  

Roll call vote:  Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean Root, Jim Anderson—all yes.  

Motion carried 5-0.






Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the public hearings at 8:55 pm.  Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.

Motion carried 5-0.


                                REGULAR MEETING

                      DRAFT MINUTES


MEMBERS PRESENT:    John Lowe, Jean Root,  Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson,

                                              Dave Hamann



OTHERS PRESENT:        John Ambrose, Planning Consultant

                                             Bob Hanvey, Township Supervisor

                                             Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator



John Lowe called the meeting to order at 8:55 p.m.


Jean Root made a motion to approve the agenda as presented.  Dave Hamann seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.


December 15, 2003 Public Hearing.

Jean Root made a motion to approve the December 15, 2003 Public Hearing minutes.  Dave Hamann seconded.

December 15, 2003 Public Hearing.   The following revisions were suggested:

Under Call To The Public.  Second paragraph.  MDQ should read:  Michigan Department of                                                                   Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

Second page, second paragraph needs additional spacing. Change the spelling “platt” to plat.

Change date in Dave Hamanns motion approve the December minutes from February 24th to January 27th  2004

check the corrected minutes.

Dave Hamann made a motion to approve the December 15, 2004 Regular Meeting minutes as amended.

 Jim Anderson seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.


An audience member asked that a poll be taken as to what they (audience members) are here for and shift the agenda

accordingly. John Lowe asked for a show of hands for agenda items.  The majority of the audience attended the

meeting for The Knolls of Grass Lake site plan review.

Jean Root motioned to amend the agenda for the Regular Meeting by moving The Knolls of Grass Lake to the first

item agenda item under Old Business.  Jim Anderson seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.


The Knolls of Grass Lake – Final Site Plan Review

Brent LaVanway of Boss Engineering is here tonight to present a request for final Site Plan approval.  Approval letters

from the Livingston County Road Commission (LCRC), Livingston County Drain Commission (LCDC) and the

Livingston County Health Department (LCHD) have been submitted to the township.  Included in the final site plan, as

suggested by John Ambrose, Township Planner, are a 10’ buffer along Rubbins Drive, between the lot line and the

road right of way. This will become part of the open space. The roads will be public, curb and gutter. A sidewalk is

proposed along one side of the road, with an asphalt walking trail throughout the open space.  A note on the plans

prohibits access from Rubbins Drive.  They are in the process of developing the condominium document, Master Deed

and Exhibit B drawings that incorporate the LCHD review.  Mr. LaVanway indicated he does understand these will

need to be reviewed by the Township Attorney prior to Township Board approval.

John Ambrose gave a synopsis of his January 14, 2004 review letter (see attached) recommending approval subject to

the submittal and review of the condominium documents, Master Deed and Bylaws.

Phil Westmoreland, Township Engineer, has reviewed the plan and has concerns with the significant wetland

encroachment on lots 6, 7, and 9.  The potential homeowner should know this will restrict them from placing a deck or

accessory structure on the property.

Brent LaVanway responded that they realize the limitations of the wetland.  The wetlands were flagged and mapped as

shown in the Exhibit B drawings.  They felt there is sufficient area to construct a house with a limited upland back yard.

 They can have additional language in the Master Deed making the buyer aware of the limitations of the wetlands

John Lowe questioned the language addressing the potential of a 30’ front yard setback.  Most lots show a 40’ to 45’

front yard setback.  Do you think you would have to come as close as 30’ to utilize the lots?

Brent LaVanway responded that most of the lots backing up to the wetlands will need to have the septic placed in the

front yard.   John Lowe asked if any lots would have a 30’ front yard setback. Brent LaVanway responded that the

units with the septic in the rear yard have the potential of being closer to the 30’ setback.

John Lowe asked if the front yard setback could be increased to 35’ to 40’?  John is concerned about the lots that

have a sidewalk in front.  There is the potential for the sidewalk to be cut off by a car parked in the driveway.

Brent LaVanway does not see a problem increasing all front yard setbacks to 35’.

John Lowe asked if it was their intent to meet all the requirements set forth by the LCRC, LCDC and LCHD.

Brent LaVanway replied yes. Jean Root asked if the developer was going to be able to get driveways on all these lots?

 The engineer mentioned lots 4 and 7.

Phil Westmoreland stated it is possible on the lots.  When locating the house on the lot, the driveway must be

considered. John Ambrose stated when the land use permit is issued, the Zoning Administrator will make sure the

driveway will function. When a plot plan is submitted showing placement of the house, at that time you can make sure

they are aware what the criteria will be.

Jack Lowe questioned the effectiveness of the berm along Rubbins Road.  At certain points along Rubbins Road, the

berm would be 10’ to 12’ below the grade of the road.  The proposed landscaping indicates the tops of the trees to be

planted on the berm would still be below the road.  Can the berms be redone with fill from the site?  Larger berms?

Brent LaVanway said the berm is now at 4’ to 5’ and they can increase it to 6’ to 8’. 

Jack Lowe asked if it could be higher, can they get it above road level?

Brent LaVanway said at that area, it is approaching 10’.  He’s not sure they can go any higher than 6’ to 8’.  Mr.

 LaVanway indicated the line of vision that would be blocked and once you round the corner the line of vision is to the

wetland, yet he does not think the view of the development can be completely blocked.

Jack Lowe said what we are after is a visual screen, which at this point is not accomplished.  Mr. Lowe suggested

maybe a combination of the berm and the trees.  The tree height, rather than 6’ to 8’ be 10’ to 12’.  Mr. Lowe

suggested reworking the trees with a combination of larger berms, trees and a larger quantity of them to create a more

visual separation. Brent LaVanway agreed.

Jack Lowe also said there is nothing along the property line of the existing Derbyshire subdivision, and the impact of

three and four houses backing up to a single house in the Derbyshire subdivision.  Can additional trees be planted in the

25’ strip between the two developments? (on both sides of Clivedon?)  Brent LaVanway agreed.

John Lowe stated there is an existing fence row with vegetation along there, if we save that and also the vegetation

along Rubbins Road.  So we do not lose any of that and then just start from there.

Debra Wiedman-Clawson has concerns about lot 29 and placement of the septic to be added to 4 and 7. 

With lot 29 the way they have it positioned (septic field), there could be an access issue. 

Jack Lowe stated the reserve area of the drain field and could be moved to give more room for driveway access. 

Then it encroaches on setback.

Brent LaVanway said we have close to 20’ on one side of the septic for the driveway there and are at the minimum on

the other side—a 10’ setback.

Jack Lowe questioned an additional 10’ plus the setback on the south side?

Jean Root, as a point of interest, thinks there are too many homes no matter how much berming and existing fence

row, that is just too many.  There are three houses just along that one property line.  And quite frankly, the whole

berming issue along Rubbins Road that was a sticking point right from the start and the fact that they are here today

with another site plan that still does not provide the 10’ and we are still talking about buffering.  We have a couple

letters here regarding that issue.  She is frustrated that we have had a number of meetings and we are still looking a

site plan that they want conditions put on that we are going to have to keep following up on.  And this is the final site

plan. These are the two points I wanted to make.

Jim Anderson:  I would like to point out what the engineer said also about the parallel plan.  Lots 10, 11, 19, 20

and 21 on the parallel plan seem to be awful close to the wetland boundary.  Again, we had concerns about that

parallel plan right from the beginning and the engineer brought that back up again about those lots, which would

 impact the total number of houses in this development.  He is questioning those lots in terms of being close to the

wetland.  So maybe if the engineer can make a comment about those lots and the parallel plan, it may help clear it up

or muddy the waters even more, I am not sure.

Phil Westmoreland:  When I reviewed the parallel, it wasn’t in the drawing.  It was sent to me along with it. 

When I reviewed it, there were a number of issues with it that were still unresolved, this does not mean they could

have been, they were just not on the plan I was looking at, that would have impacted the number of lots. One lot in

the southeast corner right off the stub road that literally is on the setback lines on the wetland boundary. There are a

number of them that are very close to that.  If that was the plan being developed, it would be difficult to get those in

there and maintain enough room for the workers to get in there and build it without disruption of the wetlands.

My understanding from talking with John Lowe is the parallel plan is already reviewed.  I just included some

comments because I was not there at the time.

Jim Anderson:  When we reviewed the parallel plan, we had some concerns about a number of lots in that parallel

plan and we had discussion with the developer about those lots as I recall.

John Lowe:  The problem we have is this was reviewed and try to get them to go back and change it.  This is one

of the reasons we have another engineer.  We cannot readdress those issues at this date after passing the preliminary

review. Admittedly, there were things that should have been looked at more closely.  At this point in time, we have

to deal with the plan we have before us and try to work with this as much as we can in this point in time.

Debra Wiedman-Clawson:  However, if the current plan that they are submitting still has questions as to the

 viability of it.


John Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon: You talked about a road commission study.  I am assuming this is public

knowledge anyone can see this document.  Was it a study just of that subdivision or did they also study the impact

on Clivedon?

John Lowe:  No the study is on D-19. You are referring to what was mentioned earlier?

John Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  The one that is in this packet right now.

John Lowe:  They are looking at the internal roads of the development, not Clivedon.

John Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  Can we ask that the Planning Commission force this group to give a study of

Clivedon and the impact that’s going to do on Clivedon?

John Lowe:  The county road commission requires an attachment on a dead end road so that it comes to the end of

a property line.  So it is designed, their purposes for future hook up and future extension.

John Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  I understand that.  I’m just trying to talk a little bit about having an extra entrance

and exit to this subdivision.  They are talking about putting 36 homes in there.  Two cars per home, 72 cars. 

Clivedon doesn’t have sidewalks, kids are playing in the street, there are safety issues.  There are some mothers

here tonight that are a little bit worried about their children playing out there.  The traffic, you know it always is a

concern, trucks coming in and out wrecking the road.  We have no guarantees of them repaving that road.  Once a

cement truck comes in before let’s say the weight limits are lifted, they want to get one in there or something, I mean

we need an impact study of what it is doing to Clivedon.  And also how does this fit in with Clivedon.  Every house

on Clivedon is 1 ½ to 2 acres and now this connecting right to Clivedon and Derbyshire.  Maybe I am speaking too

late I don’t know, I know this is the final plan.  But there’s been no study about what’s going to happen to Clivedon

 and I would like to request that.

John Lowe: Just to let you know, this has been going on for a year.

John Ambrose:  The road is controlled by the LCRC, Clivedon is a public road, LCRC requires public roads to be

stubbed to the property line with the intent to serve the next vacant parcel which would include the Knolls.  A traffic

analysis is within the LCRC jurisdiction and they would be the ones to contact for that.  The issue of construction

traffic wearing the road out.  Typically the road commission asks the developer to post a bond for any damages or

undo wear.

John Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  Can we still request that the road commission does a study on Clivedon before

this is approved?

John Lowe:  That is a public road and is strictly up to them—it is not our jurisdiction.  You would have to contact

the road commission.

John Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon: I would have to contact the road commission?

John Lowe:  They have said that this meets their requirements at this time.

John Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  The entrance and 36 homes?

Annette McNamara:  Our zoning ordinances ask that developments meet the LCRC standards

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  First off, you did not answer my question about what is the setback from a


John Ambrose:  There is no set back to the wetland per se.

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  When I built my house, I was told there was a 50’ setback from the

wetland.  And I have papers and documents from Marion Township that says so.

John Ambrose:   There is nothing in the zoning ordinance that requires that today.

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  I request that the zoning commission and the planning commission make

and go to this and set a setback for the wetland.  I am sorry I will try to stay calm I have several other comments to

 make.  Going back to the Open Space Preservation Act I noticed on the plan that they took and made an area

 there for a retention pond.  We have Grass Lake it has no water in it.  They are going to take an area and then we

are going to rip it apart and (inaudible).  The open space development act says that land was supposed to be left in

an undeveloped state which means a natural state preserving natural resources, natural features (inaudible) the people

 of Clivedon.  I believe that the township, the Planning Commission the board of commissioners whatever you guys

want to be called to (inaudible) against the state and open space development on behalf of the residents.  Most of the

 people that stood up in this room tonight were against exactly this type of development.  If we don’t take a stand

and you don’t take a stand to support us it just gets blatantly disgusting.  I’d also like to know the procedure for filing

a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act Form), can I just hand it to you?

Annette McNamara:  You will need to come during regular business hours to file.

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  I have a FOIA request with me, can I just give it to you?

Annette McNamara:  During regular business hours we would prefer that please.

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  I would also like these to be submitted to the minutes.  Some thing along

the lines.  I’d like these to be submitted to the minutes somebody can put this on the agenda so people can see when

they go out on the website what really an open space development is.  An open space development the way it’s

supported is supposed to stay the way it is in perpetuity.  An open space development actually uses the least amount

of  land. 83% and this is being generous with a .75 acre parcel or less.  If you develop that property with 2 to 5 acres

 and a 2,000 square foot house on it you are going to preserve 99% of the land.  There’s a bunch of issues here that

I think all of the township not in regards to this specific development all development in Marion Township have

specific issues with.  Density, this in not in keeping with anything that surrounds Grass Lake protect for everybody on

Rubbins Road.  What are we doing to preserve everybody on the other side there is no berming besides in front of

the retention pond that waters going to run into that retention pond and moves to Grass Lake we have some serious

issues with that, on the other side of the pond we need to address that and get that final plan before it goes to

approval get that plan redone so that the rest of us are protected as well not just the people over on the Rubbins

Road side of the thing.  In general just in keeping with what’s going on around us.  Every house and I’m not talking

about the houses on Rubbins Road, I’m talking about the houses that directly abut Grass Lake property parcels are

all larger than 1/2 acre or more.  And I think there is a little fuzzy math going on here.  Not to use a phrase that has

been quoted before.  But if you take 76 acres that I saw on the site plan before you can subtract 35 acres that are

now wetlands there is 41 acres left.  That 41 acres divided by 2 because we have to save 50% is 20.5 acres you

want to put 36 houses on there that’s .57 acres per house which is a half acre which sounds really good, but I do not

believe that takes into account roads or easements or anything else.  So I think we have some issues with how many

houses we’re trying to put on here.  I guess my last comment is that you take a suggestion from the majority of the

people that were here and were previously here who may not be speaking specifically to this development but that

this development should be built on the existing zoning RR (Rural Residential) with one to two acre houses on it.

For the good of the people.

John Lowe requested John Ambrose to give an overview of the Open Space Preservation Act Ordinance.

John Ambrose:  Adopted in 2001, mandatory for all townships in the State of Michigan as an option for developers

to develop land in rural areas with the idea of preserving land and keeping 50% of it as open space forever. 

Our ordinance follows the state act, a parallel plan based on the underlying zoning to determine the density.  We have

gone through that situation.  This development was reviewed a number of times, some lots were eliminated. They have

complied with the requirements of the Open Space Preservation Act.  There may be issues people are concerned

with, yet with regards to the act, they have basically complied with that.

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  I would like to follow up if I might because this deserves a rebuttal.  If he is

following the Open Space Preservation Act then the Open Space Preservation Act says that it must remain in an

undeveloped state how can he rip it out and put a retention pond there?  That’s not following the Open Space

Preservation Act.  It’s an interpretation of that if you want it to be so, but it is not following it.

John Lowe asked Brent LaVanway if the area where the retention pond is over the 50% somewhat on the actual

percent of open space.

Brent LaVanway stated over 60% is open space.

John Lowe:  I assume you still have 50% open space and the retention pond is in the 10% overage?

Brent LaVanway:  Yes that is included in the open space which is at 60%.

John Lowe:  Does that answer your question?

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  It just astounds me. I guess it works the way you want it to work and that

is all I can say.

John Lowe:  It is not the way I want it to work, it is the state law and that is what we have to follow.

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  What I asked was, and not to be disrespectful what I asked was that the

township board because of all the residents’ comments start to take a stand against open space developments. 

What do we as the public need to do—get an injunction filed against the township in order to make you not do this

because you’re not listening to us.

John Lowe:  If you want to fight the State of Michigan have at it.  I can’t imagine the residents in general want to pay

for the township to go to court in litigation to the Sate of Michigan.  If that is the case and you want to get a

referendum and pursue that, feel free.

3146 New Holland Drive:  I have some issues with drainage.  I talked with some of the surveyors and quote

unquote some of the comments were we are surveying your land to make sure we don’t flood you out.  Let me

remind you in 1999 when I bought my lot there was 4’ of water in Grass Lake.  Now if that water comes back and

we’re considering a drainage issue on a dry lake right now my home is going to flood because I have the lowest lot

 over there.  And I’ll tell you what, if my home floods because of this development, I am going to sue every person

involved, everybody, everybody I can get my hands on, I’ll have my name on that development when I am done.

I have surveyors telling me my home may flood on a dry lake.  What happens when that water comes back and we

know it is going to come back, we have been told that by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) dig a hole

out there - there is water in that ground.  You’re telling us there is nothing we can do, we are just going to have to

accept it, our homes are on the other side of that which of course yeah there is no screening on the border on our

side. We just have to deal with that. That elevation is way higher than our homes.  So we will have to look at those

houses forever.  I am planting 12’ pine trees at my expense.  I have 30 on my lot so my neighbors can have a private

lot from my lot and I can have a private lot from them.  And that is costing me astronomical amounts of money and

I’m doing it for everybody and they’re talking about putting in 4’ to 6’ trees.  There is no consideration for the people

who moved out here and what we think it is what money is going to bring to this township and bring to the people

who own that property and the people developing that property cause if there is a drainage question and we have to

dig a drainage pond when we have a dry lake we are going to have a problem.

John Lowe:  They (LCDC) have done a study on this and they have it up to date and the determination in the letter

from Brian Jonckheere, Drain Commissioner, is that the total impact upon the Grass Lake, the result of development,

to quote them will be approximately one tenth of a foot.  Which is about an inch and a quarter.  This is the maximum

that it will increase the water shed off that.  “The engineer’s comparison of post development and pre development

conditions indicates the increase in the lake as a result of the development will be approximately one tenth of a foot.

This increase is effectively statistically insignificant and does not necessitate the purchase of flooding easements from

other riparian adjoining the wetland.  However, a clause will be included in Section 433 Agreement which provides

the developer indemnified my office and hold it harmless against any flooding claims by adjoining riparian.”  The most

 it would increase the entire Grass Lake area would be an inch and a quarter over the entire surface.  The water

fluctuates substantially in the lake as this gentleman mentioned from nothing to 4’ of water.  The fluctuation difference

would be approximately one inch.  Which they felt everyone’s house is sufficiently elevated to where that one inch is

not going to be a problem.

Steve Zender, 2709 Clivedon:  A couple of questions.  I have heard talk that they are thinking about narrowing the

cul-de-sac to the width of a road?  What happens to my driveway?

Brent LaVanway:  LCRC requires that the cul-de-sac be removed—as part of that, your driveway will be extended

 to the road and the site will be restored.

Steve Zender, 2709 Clivedon:  My well is really in those trees.  Is the septic system for that house in the back or in

the front?

Brent LaVanway:  For lot 27, the septic field is in the front yard.

John Lowe:   Did you measure the distance?

Brent LaVanway:  That is part of the LCHD review.

Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  I have a kind of like a foresightful whatever slightly different kind of question—

what kind of signage do you plan on putting in this new development.  Because my property is right on the corner of

Clivedon and Triangle Lake and frankly I am not looking forward to having a sign there.  Cause obviously those lots

are going to have to be sold and the builder is (inaudible).

Brent LaVanway:  The entrance sign will be on each side of the entrance west of the property line, not within

Derbyshire Farms.

Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:   Who’s houses will the signs be in front of is my question?  And does a

property owner have a (inaudible).

Clarification of the placement of signage within The Knolls of Grass Lake development was made.

Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  And number two, will there be a signage for slow children playing.  I already

had a bad experience a couple months ago that left a bad taste in my mouth.  There is some guy from some perk

place or whatever in a work truck.  One guy hopped on one truck and left it running, went to a different truck, went

 to the cul-de-sac, they were looking for someone to meet them there to run perk tests, they left the diesel trucks

right in front of my driveway, I was expecting a load of mulch at that point besides the air being polluted and me

being outside and expecting the truck load, it was very inconvenient for me.  Is there anything that Boss Engineering

can do to convey a courtesy to the people who are buying the lots and the builders?

Brent LaVanway:  The road commission dictates what kind of signage goes into a development just as they did

with the signage that went into Derbyshire.  The slow children signs should be discussed with the traffic engineer at

the LCRC.  He is not sure what criteria are used to put the signs up.

Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  What about speed limit signs?

Brent LaVanway:  I believe it is 25 mph.  If you have concerns with signs I would urge you to contact the road

commission.  Because these are public roads it is strictly their call on these issues.

Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  Well it is like my husband said previously about the safety of the kids.  I am a

lioness when it comes to my kids.  If something happens to either of them there will be heads rolling and lawsuits

 going on like that gentleman said over there.  Because safety comes above all else.  I see potential hazards with the

trucks coming in and out because there is no other outlet.

Did not identify And there’s no sidewalks on Clivedon like he is putting sidewalks here.  There are kids riding

bikes up and down the street.  People will fly down Clivedon because they look at it as a quick way to Triangle

Lake and I-96.  We need signs there or speed bumps.  See, nobody took into consideration the road planning and

what is going to happen to Clivedon.

Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  I heard we moved here in August, we moved here from Wisconsin where things

 are much different, people can be heard and I just don’t see it happening here.  I looked at the notices for the

meetings I have not attended and there were a lot of concerns, lake concerns and several other things that were

mentioned here previously addressed and I still to this day the people here who attended these meeting they did not

hear of any viable responses or resolutions to let them know their voices have been heard.  Is there anything possibly

 that can be done to let the people know what is going on in a closed door meeting sometimes because…

Jack Lowe responded there are no closed door meetings whatsoever.

Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:   From the previous meeting I am not hearing anything being addressed at this

meeting.  From the notes on there.

Jack Lowe:   We have to have a specific reference; I don’t know what you’re referring to.

Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  Well the thing (inaudible)

John Lowe:  Again we address this as a public road and by law we are not allowed to do anything with that

because it is a public county road.  We do not have jurisdiction over that we cannot address that.

Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  But what is the definition of a public road is it a cul-de-sac or is it something

that goes through.  Because at first when we moved in we thought it was a drive and it was explained to us that it

was a road, because a road means it goes through.  So eventually there is going to be a road going through. 

We had no clue necessarily that there was going to be another subdivision.  But why was the fact it doesn’t go

through to another road…

Jack Lowe:  That comes back to due diligence when you buy the property.  The county requires the connection,

it is county wide and it is for these specific purposes to connect these subdivisions.

Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  But it is not going to be a through road.  I thought there was an old road there.

Jack Lowe:  No and it is not intended to.  The reason this one is not connected is because it has wetlands and there

is no viable connection at any point.  They make the connections any place there potentially could be extensions for

the purpose of tying the roads together for the purpose of the public health and safety for access to the subdivisions.

Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:  So in theory then the roads are recently changed to drives or something else?

John Lowe:  Whether it is a road or a drive doesn’t matter.  It is whether it is a public road or a private road and

you have to research into when you buy the property what the potentials are.

Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon:   We have never encountered this in Wisconsin whatsoever a cul-de-sac a duck

is a duck no disguises.

Michael Kendall, 2937 Rubbins:  I’ve been out here 20 years and I believe Triangle Lake Association owns the

edge of that road from the top of the hill all the way down to the end.  10’ or 20’ at some sections.  Right at the top

 I don’t know we own some edge of it right and I don’t know how far up and down we do own property, the


John Lowe:  The drawing shows it stopping at the property line this part the 10’ stops and that is what we

discussed tonight the extending that 10’ throughout the property (Brent LaVanway pointed out area on the drawing).

Michael Kendall, 2937 Rubbins:  The question is why aren’t you making a road into Rubbins and it is because

we own it.

John Lowe:  There were never any intentions of ever tying that together.

Michael Kendall, 2937 Rubbins:   You just made a statement that you were not going to go on that road because

you would have to go through wetlands.

John Lowe:  No that was over to Bentley Lake Road.

Mark Benedetti, 2895 Rubbins Road:  I live on Rubbins and am also part owner of the property adjoining

property to the south there.  I have a lot of the same concerns as the others here.  One question:  where does the

10’ buffer start, does that start 33’ from the center of the road?

John Lowe:  There is a 60’ easement for Rubbins Road.

Mark Benedetti, 2895 Rubbins:  So it is 30’ from the center of the road that is where the 10’ starts?

John Lowe:  Yes, that is where the additional 10’ is going to start.

Mark Benedetti, 2895 Rubbins:  Does Boss Engineering own this property/development?

Brent LaVanway:  Power Group Investment owns the property.

Mark Benedetti, 2895 Rubbins:  Is Boss associated with that group?

Brent LaVanway:  Yes.

Mark Benedetti, 2895 Rubbins:  Did they do all the civil engineering on this property?

Brent LaVanway:  Yes.

Mark Benedetti, 2895 Rubbins:  I think there should be a check or something in place for the people who own it

vs. the people who put the posts and set the stakes in place.  Unless there is someone in the county that checks.

 It is kind of a conflict of interest when the owning parties and the civil engineer are the same people in partners. 

I am not saying have it surveyed by someone else, just have it checked.  So that stakes that are where they are, are

where they are supposed to be.  Every other thing that takes place in that development is checked by the county

except the civil engineering.  On paper it is assumed it is where it is supposed to be.

John Lowe: This is a public road and the LCRC has oversight on it, they send their engineers out and they check

elevations, installation and the ongoing project as it develops in respect to the roads.  In respect to the lot layouts,

you are dealing with a licensed corporation who are putting their license at risk with any admitted mistakes with any

of the engineers and any other individual. 

Mark Benedetti, 2895 Rubbins:  I am just saying it would be nice to have it checked by a third party.

John Lowe:  The lot corners are registered and recorded at the Register of Deeds and the road is going to be

overlooked by the LCRC, the construction of that from the beginning to the end.

Mike Heisner, 2989 Rubbins:  I would like to explain, I am a board member on the association and the property

along Rubbins Road, the association does own a greenbelt and it extends on down, follows all the way along that

curve up to a dead point.  So whatever that 10’ setback would be, it would be from our association property I

assume.  Not the road commission setback.

John Lowe:  Correct.

Mike Heisner, 2989 Rubbins:  I do appreciate the 10’ thing it was brought up before it would be nice if they did

put in a setback.  I am kind of disappointed that it is only 10’ because 10’ isn’t very much, especially if you are

trying to put a berm in there.

Brent LaVanway:  The berm will start within the 10’ setback and go toward the development.

John Lowe:  We do not want the existing vegetation disturbed.

Mike Heisner, 2989 Rubbins:  Is there something put down, the pine trees.  Is there something about the density

or what is going to be put in?

John Lowe:  That is what we’re going to get into tonight.  We talked about the heights and we are going to get into

 the specifics of the densities.

Mike Heisner, 2989 Rubbins:  I know I have seen other ones where they put in trees and they scattered. 

Which is nice but it really doesn’t screen really.

Mike Kollath, 3144 Combine Court:  I have a couple questions on the open land.  Part of the open says the lands

left intact as they are.  Am I correct?  Like if there is a pond or a swampy area it is to be left intact?

John Ambrose:  A regulated wetland, definitely.

Mike Kollath, 3144 Combine Court:  What is a regulated wetland?

John Ambrose:  Anything over 5 acres.

Mike Kollath, 3144 Combine Court:  So if there is an existing, they can just fill it in and put a house on it.

John Ambrose:  If it is not considered a regulated wetland, yes.

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  But Grass Lake is bigger than 5 acres.

John Lowe:  They are not doing anything in that portion.  That has been delineated.

Mike Kollath, 3144 Combine Court:  Also with the numbers of the wetland you are saying that, they are saying

50% after you take the total amount of land which is 75-76 acres and 36 of it has been designated as wetlands

which leaves you roughly 40 acres.  50% of that 40 acres as somebody answered before is 20 acres left.  Correct. 

You’re telling me all these houses are going on 20 acres plus the roads?  You’re putting 35 houses on 20 acres plus

the roads?  Numbers don’t add up.

Brent LaVanway:  The total open space is just under 50 acres.  That means 27 acres remaining for development

which …

Mike Kollath, 3144 Combine Court:  How is it 50 acres when that plan says 75 acres total and it says 36 acres


Brent LaVanway:  There is additional upland area that is also open space.

Mike Kollath, 3144 Combine Court:  Part of that 76?  And you stated earlier that you were going to leave 60%

of that open.

Brent LaVanway:  Yes.  There is 49 acres of open space on the site that is wetlands, uplands and meadows, there

is that total.  That leaves just under 30 acres of remaining property.

John Lowe:  John Ambrose, can you explain how this was submitted under the original ordinance and subsequently

we have revised the ordinance.  To take into account that it was buildable area at the point in time it was 50% of the

total area, not the buildable area.  It was at that time that this project was submitted.  It was immediately after the

state required we have the ordinance.  We changed the wording to include buildable area not wetlands.  We

addressed the issue. This project had been submitted, therefore had to go under the original ordinance, not the

amended ordinance.

Mike Kollath, 3144 Combine Court:  Did you approve those original plans or were they just preliminary?

John Lowe:  It goes by the date of submission, when they start the process.

Dave Hamann:  The first version of the cluster housing did not even spell out the fact that the preliminary had to be

a realistic representation of the current zoning.  We added that and also it had to be 50% of buildable land, so you

have to subtract out everything that is wetlands, where as this one got in there before we found that hole and closed it.

Mike Kollath, 3144 Combine Court:   And the other part of my question is those ponds there, are those ponds

on the other side of the hill.  Are you going to fill that in and put houses on that pond?

Annette McNamara:  Yes.  It is not a regulated wetland.  It is too small.

John Lowe:   Let’s hear from the people who haven’t spoken.

Lisa Kollath, 3144 Combine Court:  I remember the last big meeting we had.  We all voiced our concern about

36 houses, I mean we do not want that. Couldn’t you as a board say OK we know we can’t stop the development

but you gotta cut back that number of homes. Couldn’t you have done that? What they come in is what you have to

go by.

John Lowe:  It is the open space development.  They have the acreage; they have the ability to develop that acreage.

Lisa Kollath, 3144 Combine Court:  I understand that but I would like to hear it sail.  If we don’t stand and say

ok fine develop it but can’t have that number of homes.  I wish somebody would just, you know, let’s just back them

off and I think Boss as a company is moving into an area that is nothing but rural should respect that and back off.

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  You didn’t answer my question so I felt I deserve to be addressed. When the

 gentleman here stood up and said that he appreciated the fact that you were not disturbing the ground to put the berm

in up on Rubbins Road, you all concurred to that.  I have a problem with them disturbing the ground to put the retention

pond in that is against the open space development, it says it is not supposed to be disturbed.  So if we can not disturb

 it to put the berm up to put the trees up for them.

John Lowe:  They are disturbing the berm to put the trees up they are filling, they are filling within the open space. 

They are filling and planting trees on the open space.  On the other portion of it they are over on the percentage, they

are 60%, and they are putting the retention pond in the 10% they are over.  They are within their legal rights to do that.

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  It isn’t that they are over any percentage it says that it has to remain in an

undeveloped state.

John Lowe:  50%, not 60%.  Do you see the difference?

Dave Hamann:  He has 60% and ten is going to be the retention pond.

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  That is the retention pond, that 10%?

John Lowe:  It is considerably less than that.

Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court:  It still does not make sense.  It is still whether or not it is in the 50% or 60%

or whatever else is it belongs to the open space preservation act.  Which should be left in an undeveloped state.

John Lowe:   The 50% is they are not touching the 50%.  They are giving an extra 10% more than the law requires. 

So within that 10% it will be an additional wetland and cleansing area which will recharge the Grass Lake area.

Unidentified:  Since you put a berm up along those two other roads are we going to get some type of berm on this

side of Grass Lake so we don’t have to look at those subs and everything.

John Lowe:  The problem with that is the topography.  It is not possible; the development sits on a hill.

Unidentified:  But he is also going to put a sidewalk walking around there.  There are going to be a lot of people

walking through there and everything else messing up our privacy.

John Lowe:  Were are going to ask for additional landscaping around the perimeter that will eventually it will fill itself in

with the natural trees there.  It was farmed before, there are no trees there now, the intent is to add plantings in that area

which will be a plus for them.  Berming is not feasible, placing trees is feasible.

Unidentified:  I have two short issues.  That is a public road, how will it be maintained and serviced?  How is the

power going to feed that facility?

John Lowe:  The LCRC maintains the roads.  I assume there is a transformer in the existing sub to connect to. 

All underground.

John Lowe:  Presented a letter from Robert DiMarzo, 7124 Hartwell, Dearborn, MI (please see attached.)

John Lowe responded by correcting some of the information.  They are allowed to have one acre lots.  The subdivision

does not have quarter acre lots. Rubbins is never approached as far as being an out lot to Rubbins.  We have

discussed the greenbelt issues and the 10’ strip.  No water will drain toward Triangle Lake property.  Fencing will be

put in place to keep traffic from entering from Rubbins Road.


Jean Root:  We want to discuss specific language for the berm on Rubbins, what do we want to see?  We discussed

the 10’ being shown on the plan which will belong to the association.  That’s an additional 10’ as I understand it. 

With the berm being put beginning somewhere within the additional 10’ and moving into the 25’ greenbelt

John Lowe questioned if there was a way to do this without being specific.  Making it subject to the landscaping of the


Jean Root would like to see a new site plan.  There are too many issues, the landscaping, Rubbins Road.  These have

 been discussed over and over and we are still looking at a site plan that is incomplete.  I am not prepared to approve

something with all these conditions.

John Lowe asked Brent LaVanway if he could prepare another site plan that would take into account the issue

discussed tonight?  Number of trees and the size of trees?  Additional trees in the open space areas?

Brent LaVanway:  There are a couple of existing stands in that area.  They show best on the landscape plan.

Jim Anderson asked if in the resubmittal, can they provide a counting of the trees and the types?

John Lowe would like to see new plantings intermixed with the existing vegetation.  Plantings along the walking path and

 within the 25’ greenbelt, fill in the blank areas.  Pine trees.  Review existing vegetation along Rubbins and again fill in the

 blank areas with deciduous and conifer. Brent LaVanway agreed.

Jim Anderson would like to have the height of the existing vegetation along noted on the plan, and types of trees.

Brent LaVanway agreed.

Jack Lowe asked if the consensus is to table to next regular meeting to have these issues addressed.   

Jean Root:  Also some of the items addressed by the engineer.  Pages 3 and 4 items #1 thru 5.  Again I would like to

say I think there are too many houses along the adjoining neighbors on Clivedon.  There are three on one and four on

the other.  It would be nice to not have those folks having to look at all those back yards.

Jim Anderson: I am concerned about the number of homes encroaching on that wetland to the north, even if you

moved them closer to the road.  I have a concern about the three lots the engineer pointed out.

Debra Wiedman-Clawson:  We already have another issue where the homeowners are destroying the wetlands.

There is language in the Master Deed to prevent it, yet they are still going in and destroying them.

Jack Lowe:  This is a regulated wetland monitored by the MDEQ.  Everyone has to practice due diligence.

Jim Anderson questioned whether the MDEQ would give a violation notice to a homeowner?  A homeowner will want

to put a deck on the back of their home and it is very close to the wetland.

Brent LaVanway stated lot 7 is the closest, yet they can be 10’ from the house to the septic field.  There is room to be

gained by showing that house moved up.

Jim Anderson has seen plans that show a septic field and the fields are not even close to where they are located on the

plan.  The county is not policing this.

John Lowe stated the plans show what is feasible and if they modify it the county agencies will still have to approve it.

Jean Root made a motion to table final Site Plan Review for the Knolls of Grass Lake.  Jim Anderson seconded. 

Motion carried 5-0.

RZN# 7-03 Darakjian Property

Ian Schonscheck, Schonscheck, is here to request a rezoning of the Darakjian property from Light Industrial (LI) to

Urban Residential (UR).  A public hearing was held on December 15, 2003.  The residents had concerns about future

residents complaining about the salvage yards to the north and east of the property.  The Planning Commission

consulted the Township Attorney and requested a letter.  Tonight Ian Schonscheck is asking for a recommendation

from the Planning Commission.

John Ambrose gave a summary of his review letter dated December 4, 2003 (see attached.)  In that letter,

Mr. Ambrose recommended to approve the rezoning request.

John Lowe read a letter from Mike Kehoe, Township Attorney, dated January 26, 2004, regarding concerns raised by

Regal Recycling and Miechiels related to potential concerns from future residents who would be living on the subject

 property.  The possibility of noise and nuisance objections.  The township cannot require any conditions on the

applicant in exchange for the granting of the rezoning request.

Ian Schonschek realizes it is in his best interest to screen the proposed development with the existing topography and


Brockway:  Would like to know what roads will be used for the ingress and egress to the development?  He is

concerned residential traffic will block his business traffic.

Jean Root wants to know the size of the project and the number of homes?  Will the roads be public or private? 

Ian Schonschek stated private.

Jean Root:   Also with the previous rezoning request for this property, that was Mobile Home Park (MHP) to UR,

 John Ambrose wrote a review letter stating this property was better suited for LI.  Why the change in position with this


John Ambrose explained the site was not accessible.  With the second request was additional information on the

topography of the site.  The site is too steep for LI zoning.

Jean Root questioned the viability of a residential development overlooking a salvage yard.

John Ambrose replied two thirds of the site abuts residential development.

Dave Hamann motioned to recommend approval for RZN# 7-03, Darakjian property northern parcel, to be forwarded

to the Livingston County Department of Planning for its review and recommendation, then following that forward to the

Marion Township Board of Trustees for review and recommendation.  Include the agreement that the applicant is going

to take care of looking into the buffering adjacent properties from their development for the purpose of screening

existing adjacent businesses.  Jim Anderson seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Sundance Meadows Phase III – Tentative Preliminary Approval

Debra Weidman-Clawson abstains from the Wolf Ridge Final Site Plan amendment and the Sundance Meadows

Phase II Tentative Preliminary approval for the purpose of fairness.

Jim Barnwell presented.  They have addressed the issues from the engineer’s review.  They have approval of the

preliminary plat.  The issue with Jesse Drive has been resolved with the LCRC.

John Ambrose gave a summary of his review letter dated December 30, 2003.  One of the issues is all of the roads

will be developed with 66’ R.O.W.  At lots 90 and 123, there is a proposed gravel drive to 1840 Triangle Lake

Road. Would like to see it developed with a 66’ R.O.W. with the intent of a future road.  Develop as a stub road to

at least the rear lot line of lot 90. 

Jim Barnwell responded owner has two 33’ easements to his property: one to the south and one to the north.

What they did was combined it to one 66’ easement here (pointed to map) and one 66’ easement that comes out at

Jartnick Pond on the south side.  It is an ownership, not an easement.

Jean Root asked if he would be using it for his driveway?

Jim Barnwell said yes and it will be paved a considerable distance.

Agreed to pave 75’ plus or minus.

John Ambrose also brought up that the retention pond is labeled as a park.

Jim Barnwell responded in a plat you cannot call it a retention pond, you have to call it a park or something else. 

Dave Hamann:  Wants clarification on the labels of phase 3 and phase 4.  Are the reviews just covering phase 3?

 In the heading they indicate phase 3 only.

Jim Barnwell:  The reviews cover both phase 3 and phase 4.

Jean Root asked if the lots all need 120’ of frontage? 

Jim Barnwell:  Yes.  The measurements are from the setback.

Jean Root questioned whether sidewalks and lighting were required in the previous phases?

Jim Barnwell:  In this phase, they did propose a sidewalk on one side.  Yet the other phases have none.

Jean Root asked about lighting on Coon Lake Road and signage.  At the entrance, will there be street lights or just

light on signage?

John Lowe:  Just on the signage.

Jim Barnwell:  They will address that on the final.

Jean Root made a motion to recommend tentative preliminary approval for the Sundance Meadows Phase III & IV

subject to verification of adequate lot frontage.  Dave Hamann seconded.  Motion carried 4-0.  Debra

Wiedman-Clawson abstains.

Wolfe Ridge Private Drive – Amendment to Final Site Plan

Jim Barnwell discussed the engineering issues with the wooden bridge.  John Lowe questions the language in the

private road maintenance agreement.  Jim Barnwell felt what is in place now is adequate.  The three tiers of things

that need to be done are in the agreement.

John Lowe does not think it addresses the wooden bridge adequately.  Both the township engineer and attorney think

 the agreement should be modified. 

John Ambrose has concerns about the long term viability of the bridge, who will maintain and inspect.  Unless it is

specifically mentioned it will be overlooked.   Jean Root motioned to postpone the approval for Wolfe Ridge Private

Road subject to the township attorney review of the private road maintenance agreement and the engineer review of

the bridge construction.  Furthermore, changes made to the approved site plan were done without approval of the

Marion Township Planning Commission and Marion Township Board of Trustees. At this time, the Marion Township

Planning Commission recognizes the changes.  Jim Anderson seconded.  Motion carried 4-0.

Debra Wiedman-Clawson abstains.

Site Plan Review Checklist

Dave Hamann motioned to table the site plan review checklist until the next regularly scheduled meeting.  Debra

Wiedman-Clawson seconded.

Dave Hamann motioned to set a public hearing for February 24, 2004 for the proposed text amendment Article XIII

 Planned Unit Development District change heading at 7:15 p.m.  Jim Anderson seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.


No response.


Dave Hamann made a motion to adjourn at 10:45 p.m.  Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.