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

                    AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES

                             February 22, 2005  





CALL TO THE PUBLIC:  Agenda Items Only – 3 minute limit

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:    February 22, 2005    


                                               January 25, 2004 Public Hearing SUP# 3-04

                                                January 25, 2004 Public Hearings Text Amendments 

January 25, 2004 Regular Meeting


                      Pinebrook Meadow – Site Plan Review

                           Marion Pines – Site Plan Review

                           Creative Discovery Pre School – Withdrawing Special Use Permit # 3

                           Proposed Text Amendment Article XVIII Site Plan Review Procedure

                     Proposed Text Amendment 6.20 E 1 – Connection to County Roads

                          Proposed Text Amendment 8.01 F 6 & 7 Rural Residential Site Development Requirements

                          Proposed Text Amendment 8.02 F 6 & 7 Suburban Residential Site Development 


                    Proposed Text Amendment 6.18 F & G - Condominium Projects

                   Proposed Text Amendment 6.24 – Landscape Buffer



                 The Pines at Kingswood – Site Plan Review



                                               DRAFT MINUTES 



                                           JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY

                                           JIM ANDERSON

                                           DAVE HAMANN

                                           DEBRA WIEDMAN-CLAWSON

ABSENT:                            NONE


                                          ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR

                                          PHIL WESTMORELAND, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT

                                         ANGELA CAMPBELL, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT

                                         JOHN ENOS, CARLISLE/WORTMAN



The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m.


Jean Root motioned to approve the January 25, 2005 Public Hearing minutes for Creative Discovery 

Pre-School Special Use Permit #03-04.  Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Jean Root motioned to approve the January 25, 2005 Public Hearing minutes for Proposed Text 

Amendments.  Jim Anderson seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Dave Hamann noted the time in the heading shows 7:15 p.m. for the first public hearing, 9:00 p.m. 

for the second public hearing and 7:30 p.m. for the regular meeting.  What does the Planning

 Commission want shown for the time?  The heading should show published start time and the 

previous motion should be amended. 

Dave Hamann motioned to approve the January 25, 2004 Regular minutes.  Jean Root seconded.  

Motion carried 5-0.

Jean Root motioned back to the previous public hearing minutes from January 25, 2005 and 

amended the time in the header to reflect 7:15 p.m., as that was the published time, and the call to

order time is correct.


Pinebrook Meadows Site Plan Review

Chris Fleck of Advantage Engineering explained the changes made to the site plan since the last 

meeting.  Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) required the culvert be cleaned out and 

these requirements have been met.  The developer has paid to have the culvert cleaned out, 

documentation was submitted to MDOT and a permit was issued.  The developer has procured the 

necessary easement from the homeowner.  The easement has been reviewed and approved by 

Mike Kehoe, Township Attorney and has been recorded at the Register of Deeds office.  

Copies have been supplied to Carlisle/Wortman, Orchard, Hiltz, and McCliment, and Planning 

Commission members. Chris Fleck gave an overview of development.  He addressed Orchard, Hiltz 

and McCliment’s concern regarding detention ponds spillway and control of water in the event of 

failure of the detention system.  To avoid water running toward the homes on Norton Road , they 

have designed an overflow structure that runs between units #1 and #2 that goes to a separate 

wetland and a separate culvert that runs to the north.  In the event of failure, we are not directing 

water toward existing residences. Chris Fleck noted the sign is not shown on the plans, yet the

easement for the sign is shown.  There will be a sign for the development.  When the developer is 

ready, they will propose a sign and have it approved by the Planning Commission under a separate 

submittal.  At this time, they are asking for final site plan approval. Chris Fleck informed the Planning

Commission that Exhibit B, the Master Deed and Bylaws have been submitted to Mike Kehoe,

Township Attorney.  Mike Kehoe and the developers have been in contact and Chris Fleck believes 

everything is in compliance.  Construction plans will be submitted to Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment

after the Planning Commission gives a recommendation for final site plan approval.  Chris Fleck 

asked the Planning Commission members if they had any questions.  Jim Anderson asked about the 

detention pond overflow structure between lots #1 and #2.  Chris Fleck explained the flow of the 

water on the site and how it would reach the overflow structure and into the wetlands.  It is a third 

method of accounting for an emergency overflow. Jack Lowe commended the engineer and 

developer on the system, the potential for damage to existing houses is eliminated. It was over and 

above what they had to do. Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked if the wetlands were regulated and if

there are problems discharging into it?  Jack Lowe answered yes, yet emergency discharge they 

don‘t worry about. Jack Lowe asked John Enos if he had any comments.  John Enos noted a few 

items that have been addressed and feels it will overall be a nice project.

Jack Lowe asked Phil Westmoreland if he had any comments.  Phil Westmoreland responded that

Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment are happy with the plan.

Debra Wiedman-Clawson noted that where the cul-de-sac ends and the trees will be removed for 

utilities, there is a 40’ easement to Crystalwood.  She is concerned that lots #7 and #10 abut each

other for anybody cutting across that property using the 40’ wide easement on Crystalwood.  She 

apologized for not bringing the plat showing the 40’ wide easement.

Jack Lowe said there was a utility easement there.

Debra Wiedman-Clawson noted an area on the plan showing trees to be removed and asked if there 

would be an issue with replacement plantings of evergreens. Jack Lowe walked the property and

found there are only a few nice trees and the rest is scrub.  It will look much better when done than

it does now.  If they locate the trees on the edge of the easement so if something has to be done, 

chances are it wouldn’t have to be disturbed and that should be sufficient.

Jean Root motioned to recommend final site plan approval for Pinebrook Meadows, 

Tax ID 4710-03-200-005 on Norton Road with the following conditions, to be forwarded to the

township Board of Trustees for review and approval.  Item #1 to reference all reviewing agencies

letters and recommendations.  Item #2 Master Deed and Bylaws to be reviewed and approved by

Mike Kehoe.  Item #3 copies of reviewed Master Deed and Bylaws to be included in township board’s

 reviewing packet.  Item #4 signage may be handled at a later date.  Jim Anderson seconded.  

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

all yes.  Motion carried 5-0.

Marion Pines Site Plan Approval

Larry McCarthy gave a presentation and addressed Carlisle/Wortman review letter. The first issue was

the landscaping at the end of the cul-de-sac.  The second issue was lots that exceeded the 4:1 ratio. 

They took the irregular lots out and Preview Properties is pursuing a land division for the remaining 

property.  They have added shrubs between the trees at the end of the cul-de-sac to increase the 

buffering.   John Enos has concerns with the land division, remainder lot and access. Will the 

remainder lot have access through the development?  Will the existing home have access from the

development? Larry McCarthy said the remainder lot will have 120’ of frontage and access off

Mason Road . The road frontage requirement for the Suburban Residential district is 120‘.  

The existing home will access off the private road Marion Pines Court. John Enos asked if the existing

home would be part of the association. Larry McCarthy answered no. Debra Wiedman-Clawson has 

concerns about future extension of Marion Pines Court to access the remaining parcel.

Jack Lowe asked Larry McCarthy why they don’t want the existing residence and remaining parcel to

be part of the development. Debra Wiedman-Clawson suggested a land division for the remaining 

parcel and the existing residence become lot #15 and be a part of the association.

Discussion ensued on existing house not meeting covenants, proposed language in the maintenance

agreement and the possibility of the road ever being extended. Jean Root asked what the dotted line

shows on the plan between lots #8 and #9 crossing over to Turtle Creek and if there was an 

intention to connect to Turtle Creek. Larry McCarthy answered just for sewer and water.

Jack Lowe asked the ownership of the easement and suggested a woodchip walking path between

the two developments. Larry McCarthy thought it could be up to the homeowner’s association once 

the development is built out, show a proposed path on the plan and make the homeowners aware 

of the possibility to utilize it if they choose.  Make sure the owners of lots #8 and #9 are aware of

the easement for a walking path. Jack Lowe asked the Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment consultants if 

there were any comments. Angela Campbell responded that the final site plan has their approval yet

there will be items to be addressed in the construction plans. Jack Lowe asked if there was a

response from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on mitigation.

Larry McCarthy answered no. Jack Lowe said that approval will be subject to the MDEQ response.

Jean Root asked the Planning Commission members if they want to see revised plans considering the

changes have asked for the easement, lot #24 added and landscape buffering at the end of the 

cul-de-sac revised.  In the meantime the applicant can have the private road maintenance agreement,

Master Deed and Bylaws revised and reviewed based on lot #24.  The next submittal will include all 

this documentation. The Planning Commission and applicant reviewed the landscape buffering at the

end of the cul-de-sac.  All agreed the bushes proposed to fill in are not tall enough and salt tolerant

evergreens would work better. The elevation difference between Mason Road and the cul-de-sac

merits taller trees. Lot #24 frontage on Mason Road or on Marion Pines Court was discussed along 

with the 4:1 ratio, how will this be measured. Jean Root motioned to table final site plan approval 

for Marion Pines located on Mason Road until such time as the applicant requests placement on a 

regular meeting agenda. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion carried 5-0.

Creative Discovery Pre-School Special Use Permit #03-04

Jack Lowe read the applicant’s letter to the Planning Commission members withdrawing the 

application for a Special Use Permit.  He asked the Planning Commission members if they had any 

questions. No response from the Planning Commission members.

Section 6.20 E 1 - Proposed Text Amendment

Jean Root noted text revisions since the January 25, 2005 public hearing submitted by Mike Kehoe.

Jack Lowe asked the Planning Commission members if they have any changes to text. No response.

Jean Root motioned to send to Livingston County Department of Planning (LCDP) for review and

comment, text amendment 6.20 E, then forward to Board of Trustees for review and approval. 

Jim Anderson seconded.  Motion Carried 5-0.   

Section 8.01 F 6 & 7, 8.02 F 6 & 7, Section 6.24 and Section 6.18 F & G - Proposed Text Amendment

Jean Root stated at the January 25, 2005 public hearing the Planning Commission requested

definitions for vegetation and would like to have the definitions first.  John Enos is not sure that

is necessary to have definitions prior to approval, in the mean time we can use the best know

definition. The Planning Commission members would like to see clean copies of all proposed

text before sending to Livingston County Department of Planning. Jean Root motioned to table

Section 8.01 F 6 & 7, Section 8.02 F 6 & 7, Section 6.24 and Section 6.18 F & G until the

March 22, 2005 meeting.  Dave Hamann seconded.  Motion Carried 5-0.


The Pines at Kingswood

Bill Stubbing of Livingston Engineers gave a presentation of the proposed 6 unit 1 acre

development one lot has their existing home on it. An exception lot remains off of the cul-de-sac. 

John Enos summarized his review letter dated February 14, 2005.  Do the trees and the existing

house remain, greenbelt buffers requirements are met a question on remaining parcel #7

4:1 ratios, and it is a flag lot and will meet the requirements.  Carlisle/Wortman is

recommending preliminary approval. Angela Campbell summarized her review letter dated

February 16, 2005.  Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment is recommending preliminary site plan

approval.  They are also asking direction from the Planning Commission on lot #7, lot #1 the

25’ buffer requirement and existing home driveway in the 25’ landscape buffer. Phil

Westmoreland discussed the utility easement and tree removal.  The Livingston County Road

Commission (LCRC) requires 66’ road easement and 12’ easement on both sides of the road for

utilities.  This project is proposed the utilities be placed in the actual road right-of-way to save

as many trees as possible. On the west side of the proposed private road, due to the septic field

and driveway locations, once these are put in place there will not be that many trees remaining.

Phil Westmoreland proposed a utility easement be located on the west side of the private road. 

On the east side the developer has the ability to save a lot more trees.  This means the private

utilities will have to cross under the road for there services, yet that are not a major issue.  

Angela Campbell noted the Livingston County Drain Commission (LCDC) will accept drainage

easements for the wetland area if it is a public road.  If not it will be the responsibility of the

homeowners on the private road to maintain the wetland area, fore bay and storm sewer system.

The two cul-de-sacs are an odd situation, typically if a road is extended beyond an existing

cul-de-sac the existing cul-de-sac is removed.  Because this is an extension of a public road

(Prince Edward) into a private road the existing cul-de-sac has to remain in place for LCRC

maintenance vehicles to turn around.  Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment is recommending the

Prince Edward cul-de-sac remains in place.  If the road is public, Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment

recommends the cul-de-sac is removed and the driveway on lot #37 be reconstructed. They are

looking to the Planning Commission for direction. Jean Root asked if removal of the existing

cul-de-sac would require approval of existing homeowners. Phil Westmoreland answered no,

it is a public right-of-way. Jack Lowe asked about the recommendations from the LCDC to make

the wetlands area a public drainage district. Phil Westmoreland said the LCDC would be willing

to make the wetland area part of Kingswood #2 drainage district but there is no requirement to

do so. Jack Lowe is also concerned how this proposed development will connect in the future

with the adjoining parcels.  He would like to see the road designed for future expansion,

leaving an easement for inner connection to adjoining parcels.  The parcel to the south is of

concern as it has a connection to D-19, which could be developed in the future. Debra

Wiedman-Clawson asked how parcel #7 will be accessed. Off of D-19 or off of the proposed

private road?  Bill Strebbing responded parcel #7 has 120’ of frontage on the private road.

There is a 66’ easement off of D-19, site distance was approved in 1982.  There are structures

 too close to the easement to develop without problems. Debra Wiedman-Clawson is concerned

the property will be sold and the development will be increased at the expense of these others

because it was not part of the original site condominium, or it could be done in phases.

Jack Lowe acknowledged the developer has no intention of extending this development and

suggested the developer show how it could be developed in total and how and where to leave

easements. If it is kept as an isolated piece of property, there is the potential of development of

adjoining property and can create problems for the Planning Commission when making

recommendations.  Somehow make a connection to the south or the east, not creating a land

locked parcel. Phil Westmoreland showed how this could be done.  Bill Strebbing noted the

property to the south cannot be connected due to the topography, the drop is 15‘ to 20‘and there

is a drainage course. Debra Wiedman-Clawson questioned the 120’ frontage on lot #4.  Is this

lot on the cul-de-sac; if not there is not enough frontage. Phil Westmoreland said he and

John Enos bantered back and forth on this, is this lot on the cul-de-sac or not, they agreed ½ of

 the lot was on the cul-de-sac. The frontage could be corrected if lot #7 was done as a land

division, the lot lines can be moved. Bill Strebbing is willing to make lot #7 a 1 acre lot if the

Planning Commission was OK with the layout.  He would like an interpretation of the frontage

requirements for lot #4. Phil Westmoreland read the zoning ordinance on frontage measurements.

Access to lot #7 was discussed.  There is a wetland area to be crossed.  Bill Strebbing showed

the Planning Commission where access to lot #7 lies, there is a two track crossing now and

that would be where the driveway would be located. That would eliminate the landscape

buffering requirement between lots #3 & #4; he wants to discuss this with the Planning

Commission. Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated if the Planning Commission is going to eliminate

that they should eliminate the buffering requirement for lot #1.  The existing driveway on

lot #1 is within the landscape buffer area and this would take care of that. Bill Strebbing noted

there are existing trees buffering the proposed development from the existing development. 

He also plans on relocating trees that have to be removed.  Bill Strebbing told the Planning

Commission he plans on continuing the tree business and planting more trees. Jim Anderson

asked how the customers for the Snowshoe Tree Farm will access property; he wants to be

sure they do not come through Kingswood Subdivision to purchase trees.  Will they come

through Kingswood or off of D-19? Bill Strebbing said they access off of D-19 now and would

continue accessing from D-19. John Enos said the Planning Commission can make this a part

of their approval process; the commercial business will have to access via D-19. Jean Root

asked the applicant to show how lot #7 would be reconfigured.  Bill Strebbing showed her on

the plans. Jim Anderson asked how the proposed detention basin drains to the wetlands is

there a culvert under the two tracks. Bill Strebbing answered there is no culvert and the water

naturally seeps through to the wetland.  Most of the water in the wetland now comes off of the

farm land to the south.  There has never been any flooding over the two tracks. Jim Anderson

question where the storm sewers drain to, how about all the water from the roadway?

Phil Westmoreland noted sheet #3 shows the retention system.  There is a sediment fore bay

in front of the detention pond on lot #7, that small wetland is connected by culvert to the

bigger wetland this is a retention system. Debra Wiedman-Clawson does the lots perk?

Bill Strebbing answered all were done but lot #7, yet it is mostly sand and he does not for see

any problems. The topography was reviewed by the Planning Commission.

The existing well on lot #1 was discussed, is an easement necessary?  Phil Westmoreland noted

the well is on lot #1 yet he wants to see an area around the well for maintenance purposes.

Bill Strebbing asked if the Planning Commission would like him to jockey the property line to

accommodate or would they like to see an easement.

Jean Root asked Phil Westmoreland if the Livingston County Department of Public Health would

have an issue with the easement. Phil Westmoreland answered since it was an existing well they

may accept it. He would still recommend the easement so there is still an area around the well.

Jack Lowe wants to see the well on the lot.  Bill Strebbing said he will take care of it.

Jean Root motioned to recommend preliminary site plan approval for The Pines of Kingswood

located on Prince Edward Drive , Tax ID#4710-36-300-012.  Dave Hamann seconded.  Roll

call vote:  Jim Anderson, Jean Root, John Lowe, Dave Hamann, and

Debra Wiedman-Clawson-all yes.

Section 6.19 B Lots to Have Access & 3.02 Definitions Landscaping

Jean Root motioned to set a public hearing on March 22, 2005 @ 7:15 p.m. for Section 6.19 B

Lots to have Access and Section 3.02 Definitions-Landscaping as submitted on February 21, 2005.

Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.  Motion Carried 5-0. 

HomeTown Village of Marion - Delcor Homes

Jack Lowe asked if everyone was familiar with the development.  Delcor has had problems with

cars being able to access the garage and are proposing a street/front entrance garage.

Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated she was not on the Planning Commission at the time of approval,

 yet she feels they have come back to the township more than once asking for changes to the

approved site plan. Jack Lowe noted in the beginning the concern was too many smaller homes

to accommodate empty nesters and first time home buyers.  When they came back to increase the

number of larger homes it was more in compliance with what the people wanted.

Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated they should have figured out they needed larger lot sizes to

accommodate that request, they offer side entry, we approved side entry, they should build them

that way. Jack Lowe is concerned that cars would be blocking the sidewalks.  We would ask

Delcor to show these would not be farther forward closer to the road by doing this that what the

other garages were.  At a minimum this is what the Planning Commission should look at because

 they approved specific floor plans along with the Planned Unit Development (PUD) the request

would for Delcor to come and make a formal proposal of their plans and the ramifications of the

changes. Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked if the Planning Commission can get copies of the original

floor plans that were approved by the current board.

Jack Lowe said they will ask Delcor to bring those plans in and explain the how and why and

what the benefits are going to be and how this is not going to create more problems.

Annette McNamara told the Planning Commission she wrote a letter to Delcor approving the front

entrance garages.  Kevin Wilson, Delcor Homes brought his request to the zoning administrator,

she reviewed the PUD agreement, Master Deed and By-Laws and did not find any restrictions on

front loading garages.  She provided the Board of Trustees with a copy of the memo sent to

Delcor and photos of the proposed homes. Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked if the zoning

administrator could rescind the letter. Annette McNamara answered yes.

Jack Lowe stated because it was a PUD changes would need to be reviewed. There were specific

site plans submitted with the PUD and any variation of the proposal they would have to reapply

for review and approval. The zoning administrator will check with Mike Kehoe, township attorney

for direction and ask him to review the PUD agreement.  She will also contact Kevin Wilson to let

him know what is going on.

Planning Commission Handouts

Jean Root asked about handouts giving to the Planning Commission member tonight.

John Enos answered Based on some of the concerns he heard from the residents and Planning

Commission members, he thought looking at removing Child Care Center out of that district or at

least redefining Child Care Center . The handout is the list of Uses Permitted by Right Subject to

Special Conditions in Section 8.01 Rural Residential Districts.  John Enos is proposing removing

Crematories from item #6 and removing item #7 Child Care Centers then renumbering the list

accordingly. Jean Root asked if this was to be placed on the next regular agenda. John Enos asked

the Planning Commission members to review the list of Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit to

see what fits or does not fit.  Not that we want to exclude uses within that district, yet as the

township grows we want to make sure these uses fit. 


Jack Lowe opened the call to the public.

Charles Musson, 333 Triangle Lake Road , asked the Planning Commission what is the restriction

for noxious weed, poison oak, poison ivy and sumac. Jean Root said there is just a definition.

The Planning Commission answered you can remove them from a greenbelt area or just let them

grow.  You are allowed to remove the noxious weeds if you choose. Jack Lowe answered the

Planning Commission is working on a definition to put into the zoning ordinance.

Rudolph Ramirez, 5929 Crofoot, explained the process he has gone through with Marion Township

regarding land divisions completed years ago.  The township created the 4 parcels with the

understanding that the easement would be turned into a private road.  He applied for a private

road site plan review with the township and was granted approval.  He began building the private

road.  On June 22, 1999 he received a letter from the township stating there were 2 issues that

needed to be addressed in building the road and he complied.  Since then he has had to move

telephone poles, create new ditches and a number of other things that were not initially part of

the project.  A stop work order was put on the project because he owed the township $3,000.00

for escrow fees, $2,600.00 were costs incurred by the township and that was paid.  He is looking

for direction. Jack Lowe to Rudolph Ramirez when the weather breaks the township will arrange a

meeting on site, when the frost laws are lifted with Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment the township

engineering to take boring samples and review of the road conditions.  Then the township would

be better able to tell him how to get from point A to point B.  In the mean time the township will

update Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment on the project.  You can provide Orchard, Hiltz and

McCliment with your road profiles, they can verify the conditions and give you a list of items to be

addressed, and this should be straight forward. Robert Hanvey met with developers for Marion Oaks

to discuss the range of things we might explore.  They requested a meeting with the Board of

Trustees to bring in plans and show what they would change and Robert Hanvey is asking the

Planning Commission members if they want to attend the meeting.  This is a pre-trial opportunity

to work out an agreement.  He asked them to let him know what dates they would be available.

Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked what Mike Kehoe thought. Robert Hanvey said Mike Kehoe thought it 

was OK. Discussion ensued among the Planning Commission members they stand behind their initial

recommendation. They do not agree with the density or the commercial portion of the development,

unless they come up with a reasonable number other than what was proposed.


Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m.  Jean Root seconded. 

Motion Carried 5-0.