PLANNING COMMISSION - PUBLIC HEARING
27, 2004 - DRAFT MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Lowe, Dave Hamann, Jean Root, Jim Anderson,
Ambrose, Township Planner
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
CALL TO ORDER
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
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.
appearance of fairness, she would be abstaining from RZN
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
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
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
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
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
Village is zoned UR with a PUD overlay.
Mr. Ambrose said yes.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Pat Macaluso, 4875 Pinckney Road: Mr. Macaluso is very opposed to this proposal. Based on the
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
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
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
Jeff Barber, 848 Wright Road: Mr. Barber feels much the same as everyone else. To clarify the process, the
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
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
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
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:
land use polices that
have been adopted by the Township for the subject site.
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.
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).
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
with the Township’s current Master plan for this area.
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
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.
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
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,
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.
Section 18.03 I:
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.”
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
and the proposed site layout at a scale ten times that used for the site
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—
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
(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.
TO THE PUBLIC
Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the public hearings at 8:55 pm. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Lowe, Jean Root, Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson,
John Ambrose, Planning Consultant
Bob Hanvey, Township Supervisor
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
CALL TO ORDER
John Lowe called the meeting to order at 8:55 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Jean Root made a motion to approve the agenda as
presented. Dave Hamann
seconded. Motion carried
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
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.
Anderson seconded. Motion
CALL TO THE PUBLIC (AGENDA ITEMS ONLY)
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
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
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
Brent LaVanway responded that most of the lots backing up to the wetlands will need to have the septic placed in 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
Brent LaVanway replied yes.
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
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?
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
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?)
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
Lowe: No the study
is on D-19. You are referring to what was mentioned earlier?
Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon: The one that is in this packet right now.
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
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
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
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.
Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon: I would have to contact the
Lowe: They have
said that this meets their requirements at this time.
Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon: The entrance and 36 homes?
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
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
And I have papers and documents from Marion Township that says so.
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?
McNamara: You will need
to come during regular business hours to file.
Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court: I have a FOIA request with me, can I just give it to you?
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.
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.
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
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.
LaVanway stated over 60% is open
Lowe: I assume you
still have 50% open space and the retention pond is in the 10% overage?
LaVanway: Yes that is
included in the open space which is at 60%.
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.
Lowe: It is not the
way I want it to work, it is the state law and that is what we have to
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
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
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
lot 27, the septic field is in the front yard.
you measure the distance?
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
Brent LaVanway: The entrance sign will be on each side of the entrance west of the property line, not within
Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon: Who’s houses will the signs be in front of is my question? And does a
property owner have a
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.
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
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…
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
the notes on there.
have to have a specific reference; I don’t know what you’re referring
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Lowe: There is a
60’ easement for Rubbins Road.
Benedetti, 2895 Rubbins: So it is 30’ from the center of the road that is where
the 10’ starts?
that is where the additional 10’ is going to start.
Benedetti, 2895 Rubbins: Does
Boss Engineering own this property/development?
Group Investment owns the property.
Benedetti, 2895 Rubbins: Is
Boss associated with that group?
Benedetti, 2895 Rubbins: Did they do all the civil engineering on this property?
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.
Benedetti, 2895 Rubbins: I am just saying it would be nice to have it checked by a
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
the road commission setback.
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.
berm will start within the 10’ setback and go toward the development.
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
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
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?
regulated wetland, definitely.
Kollath, 3144 Combine Court: What is a regulated wetland?
over 5 acres.
Kollath, 3144 Combine Court: So if there is an existing, they can just fill it in and
put a house on it.
it is not considered a regulated wetland, yes.
Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court: But Grass Lake is bigger than 5 acres.
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
Mike Kollath, 3144 Combine Court: How is it 50 acres when that plan says 75 acres total and it says 36 acres
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%
Brent LaVanway: Yes. There is 49 acres of open space on the site that is wetlands, uplands and meadows, there
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
Kollath, 3144 Combine Court: Did you approve those original plans or were they just
Lowe: It goes by the date of submission, when they start the
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?
McNamara: Yes. It is not
a regulated wetland. It is too
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
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
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
not 60%. Do you see the
Hamann: He has 60%
and ten is going to be the retention pond.
Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court: That
is the retention pond, that 10%?
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%
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
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.
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
John Lowe asked Brent LaVanway if he could prepare another site plan that would take into account the issue
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
Jim Anderson has seen plans that show a septic field and the fields are not even close to where they are located on the
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.
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
adjacent businesses. Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
Meadows Phase III – Tentative Preliminary Approval
Debra Weidman-Clawson abstains from the Wolf Ridge Final Site Plan amendment and the Sundance Meadows
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
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
Pond on the south side. It is
an ownership, not an easement.
asked if he would be using it for his driveway?
said yes and it will be paved a considerable distance.
pave 75’ plus or minus.
also brought up that the retention pond is labeled as a park.
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.
Barnwell: The reviews cover both phase
3 and phase 4.
asked if the lots all need 120’ of frontage?
Barnwell: Yes. The measurements are from the setback.
questioned whether sidewalks and lighting were required in the previous
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
Lowe: Just on the signage.
Barnwell: They will address that on the
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
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
agreement should be modified.
John Ambrose has concerns about the long term viability of the bridge, who will maintain and inspect. Unless it is
mentioned it will be overlooked.
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.
Plan Review Checklist
Dave Hamann motioned to table the site plan review checklist until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Debra
Dave Hamann motioned to set a public hearing for February 24, 2004 for the proposed text amendment Article XIII
Unit Development District change heading at 7:15 p.m.
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
Dave Hamann made a motion to adjourn at 10:45 p.m. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion carried 5-0.