AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES
MARCH 14, 2005
CALL TO THE PUBLIC: Agenda Items Only – 3 minute limit
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: March 14, 2005
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR: February 15, 2005 Special Meeting
6.20 A - Intent
Section 6.20 - P Pre-existing Non
Conforming Private Roads
Section 6.20 B - Construction Standards
and Road Geometrics
Section 6.20 J 3 – Application
Review & Approval or Rejection
Section 6.20 C – Right-of-Way Width
PRESENT: JOHN LOWE, CHAIRPERSON
JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PHIL WESTMORELAND, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
ANGELA CAMPBELL, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
PAUL SIERSMA, CARLISLE/WORTMAN
MIKE KEHOE, MILLER, KEHOE & ASSOCIATES
meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m.
Dave Hamann noted the date for the next special meeting is April 11, 2005 and asked the
agenda be amended. Dave Hamann motioned to approve the agenda as amended.
Root seconded. Motion
Planning Commission members introduced themselves to the audience.
TO THE PUBLIC
response. Jack Lowe closed the
first call to the public.
Jean Root noted on page six the motion to tentatively set the April 11, 2005 special
meeting read April 11, 2004 and asked the minutes be amended. Dave Hamann motioned
to approve the February 15, 2004 Special Meeting minutes as amended. Jean Root
Motion Carried 5-0.
6.20 A - Intent
Jack Lowe opened the discussion stating the text is sentence added to the intent directing
the applicant to the Pre-existing Non-conforming Private Roads Section. Jack Lowe asked
Planning Commission members if they had any comment.
Jean Root noted that nothing can be done with Section 6.20 A until 6.20 P is acted upon.
was agreed to set this aside.
6.20 P - Pre-existing Non Conforming Private Roads
Lowe opened the discussion.
had before them includes the revisions requested at the last meeting. This makes reference
to the American Association of Street, Highway and Traffic Officials (AASHTO), which I
know you don’t want yet you can put something else in it’s place when the Planning
decides what they want.
their input with the exception of the AASHTO standards. The private road maintenance
has been incorporated into the text.
Jean Root asked if the Planning Commission would like to see the word private added to
phrase new road maintenance agreement to be consistent throughout the text?
Planning Commission agreed.
Jean Root noted on item number two ‘shall provide documentation’ the Planning
had wanted documentation to include registered mail.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson thought a certificate of mailing may be better, showing an
to mail it.
Discussion ensued on personal attempts to get neighbors to sign the private road
agreement and how much effort should be put into it.
Mike Kehoe will add to the text certified mailing is required. Mike Kehoe will submit the
proposed text for the April 11, 2005 special meeting. Mike Kehoe also noted references in
paragraph two and paragraph one where the work divided was used. This will run afoul
of the Land Division Act if they say a parcel cannot be divided, he will change the text to
read there will be no land use permits issued. They have a right to have their lot divided;
do not have a right to get a land use permit under the zoning ordinance.
Lowe opened the floor to Angela Campbell of Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment.
Angela Campbell summarized the ordinance as a guideline for anyone initiating a private
road or further developing on a non-conforming existing private road. Some of the
standards are taken from the county some are taken from AASHTO giving the township an
to have their own set of guidelines for private roads.
Jack Lowe though these guidelines should only be used on pre-existing non-conforming
roads, not new developments.
Phil Westmoreland stated one of the benefits of having your own is you approve a private
road under a standard, that standard changes and you have no control over it. If they
change something it can put every private road you have in a non-conforming status. This
gives you more flexibility and control over your private roads. Some of the requirements
of the county and AASHTO may not be necessary to have safe conditions on those roads.
Discussion ensued and the Planning Commission agreed to go with two separate sections.
Jean Root asked if they can limit the language to pre-existing non-conforming private
gravel roads, the design requirements and if is a new development build to county
or a set of our own.
Wiedman-Clawson questioned why paved roads wouldn’t require upgrades also.
Jack Lowe noted in item ten they require more than six acres for a drainage district, in
Rural Residential District that would create a problem because the roads all have ditches
and it would be more than six acres. The roadway length requirement should be changed
750’ to 2,000’.
Phil Westmoreland stated changes can be made to the submittal. This is to give you an idea
of what township standards can look like if you don’t want to follow county standards.
Jack Lowe asked how to handle the condition of existing sub-grades, add extra gravel?
can this be done with an even hand.
Dave Hamann stated most of the roads could never be brought up to standards. Sort out the roads
have the width, cul-de-sac and set standards for those.
Phil Westmoreland said it is subject to site conditions and they are given a
choice they can work
Phil Westmoreland said it is subject to site conditions and they are given a choice they can work
from a set of standards or they can have a geo-technical engineer look at it and Orchard, Hiltz and
McCliment would look at their review and make a determination what is the best application for
Phil Westmoreland answered yes.
Phil Westmoreland answered yes.
Wiedman-Clawson asked for clarification of the number of Sections.
The Planning Commission agreed there will be two Sections, one for new private road
and another for pre-existing non-conforming private roads.
Phil Westmoreland will revise the text submitted and send to Mike Kehoe and John Enos for review
and comment. Once the Planning Commission agrees the set of standards they would like this
will be placed in Section 6.20 P. The revised text to be submitted for the April 11, 2005 special
6.20 B - Construction Standards and Road Geometrics
Lowe asked if the previous discussion covered this agenda item.
Planning Commission agreed to move on to Section 6.20 J 3.
6.20 J 3 - Application Review & Approval or Rejection
Mike Kehoe told the Planning Commission this text applies when a private road development site
plan has been approved and at a later date someone wants to divide their property. Mike Kehoe
added text ‘no new developable lots or units may be created for which a land use permit’
withholding a land use permit not a land division. The text in italics is what was discussed at the
Planning Commission meeting.
Wiedman-Clawson said this text is assuming there was a site plan for the
Dave Hamann read ‘approved amendment to the site plan and road application’ and thought it
read ‘amendment to a previous approved private road.’
Mike Kehoe will make the change ‘approved amendment to the site plan or road application, as
Lowe asked the Planning Commission if there was anything else.
Mike Kehoe will make appropriate changes to the text and submit to Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment
and John Enos for their review and comment. Revised text to be submitted for the April 11, 2005
6.20 C - Right-of-Way Width
Lowe asked the Planning Commission if they had any comments.
Jean Root and Dave Hamann thought they were not going to make reference to Livingston County
Commission (LCRC) standards.
road development standard if we decided to do this later on.
Dave Hamann asked if 6.20 C is part of the new pre-existing non-conforming private road
the existing private road ordinance or both.
Planning Commission agreed it would be the new.
Dave Hamann stated the only agenda item for the pre-existing private roads tonight is 6.20 P. Is
Campbell going to come up with specifications for pre-existing also?
Jean Root said when Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment looks at potential Marion Township private road
we would want to have that text added in there that Mike Kehoe is
Mike Kehoe noted that paragraph will be more relevant for Phil Westmoreland and Angela
Campbell to keep in mind when developing those standards, the Planning Commission will want
included in the new private road developments.
Jack Lowe asked if the Planning Commission if they wanted to discuss using LCRC standards for
the new private road developments and asked if our new private road standards would essentially
Phil Westmoreland answered it can be anything the township wants and will make recommendations.
Discussion ensued on Howell Area Fire Authority requirements and parking on one side of the road
The width of roads and emergency vehicle access was discussed. Thirty two foot, back-to-back
with a mountable curb was looked at. Specifications for minimum widths for parking on one side
Mike Kehoe suggested taking the LCRC standards and putting them into the ordinance, yet not
reference to the LCRC specifically.
Dave Hamann clarified they would have standards that reference the county for paved private roads,
standards that Phil Westmoreland will put together for gravel private roads and standards that
Campbell will put together for pre-existing, non-conforming private roads.
Lowe said that’s right.
Campbell asked if the gravel option pertains to single-family developments
Wiedman-Clawson answered yes.
Jack Lowe would like to see a maximum number on gravel roads and over that the road has to be
TO THE PUBLIC
Discussion ensued on standards for length of road and number of homes. Is it better to limit by
length or limit by number of homes, the burden this puts on the road. Can this be tied into Section
6.20 H. of new private roads? The Planning Commission agreed on 25 units for a single point of
Dan Murdock - Berry Manor, he asked the definition of a pre-existing, non-conforming private road.
Dan Murdock explained his situation to the Planning Commission, part of his road is pre-existing
part will be new. Where does he
Westmoreland answered his question and discussed the variables.
William Beyers 401 S. Truhn Road - he explained an easement situation to the Planning Commission
asked for their help.
hall during regular business hours to look into this further.
Lowe closed the call to the public at 9:05 p.m.
Planning Commission confirmed the April 11, 2005 Special Meeting.
Jean Root asked the private road maintenance agreement submitted by Mike Kehoe to be placed
the April 11, 2005 agenda.
Jack Lowe would like the Planning Commission to review the master deed and by-laws to make
the requirements set forth are in the documents.
Kehoe gave suggestions for reviewing the documents.
Jack Lowe asked the Planning Commission to make sure they make the requirements for a
part of the minutes.
Jean Root asked if the Rural Residential - Uses Permitted with a Special Use Permit handout at
February 22, 2005 meeting can be placed on the March 22, 2005 regular
McNamara answered yes.
Lowe would like discussion on the
Mike Kehoe noted the private road maintenance agreement has a provision that dispute would be
resolved by the Board of Trustees. This is just a suggestion and depends on how the Board of
feels about it. There needs to
be some sort of dispute resolution spelled out.
Jack Lowe told the Planning Commission the Livingston County Health Department (LCHD) has
developed criteria for private sewage/waste water treatment plants. There is now a dispute
between the LCHD and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Jack Lowe has
given a copy of the LCHD criteria and would like to know what could apply to the township.
The isolation distances are different from what the township zoning ordinance calls out. He would
to discuss this at the next meeting.
Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.