AND DRAFT MINUTES
April 11, 2005
TO THE PUBLIC: Agenda
Items Only – 3 minute limit
OF AGENDA: April
OF MINUTES FOR:
March 14, 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
Private Road Maintenance
Livingston County Health
Department Private Sewage/Waste Water Treatment Facilities guidelines
Set date for next special meeting
, Jean Root, Jim Anderson,
, Township Attorney
Phil Westmoreland, OHM, Township
Angela Campbell, OHM, Township Engineer
, Carlyle/Wortman, Township Planner
, Zoning Administrator
, Township Supervisor
CALL TO ORDER
called the meeting to order at
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
John Lowe asked to have an item on discussion of zoning
asked to have an item
added to set date for May joint meeting.
motioned to approve the agenda as amended. Debra
Motion carried 5-0.
INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS
The members of the Planning Commission (PC)
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Jean Root motioned to approve the minutes as presented.
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
explained that Carlisle/Wortman is developed a new process for providing
text amendments to the zoning
Carlisle/Wortman will be coordinating efforts with the help of OHM
and the zoning administrator. The
that the PC has been provided are quite extension.
There are two new ordinances—one for pre-existing,
private roads, and the other for new private roads.
He explained the format used. Mr.
ordinances are very similar, with the exception of some of the road design
standards, purpose and intent, and
of the definitions.
Section 6.20 A—Pre-Existing, Non-Conforming Private Roads
Mr. Siersma said OHM provided next text for paragraph A,
Purpose and Intent.
asked what happens to
all pre-existing, non-conforming private roads that don’t
or can’t meet this ordinance. Mr.
Hamann said some residents
previously asked about situations where there are roads in
platted subs and they’re 25 feet wide. There’s
no way they
will ever be brought into conformance.
Mr. Siersma said it might be up to the township engineer to review
that are submitted, and perhaps make a judgment call.
Mr. Hamann said in other townships they have ordinances for
new roads; pre-existing, non-conforming roads that could
conform; and then they recognize those that can’t or won’t.
The roads that can’t or won’t are addressed at the zone
administrator level. Mr. Hamann
is concerned that the
ordinance is not worded clearly.
asked if the township wouldn’t know the roads that can’t be upgraded.
Mr. Hamann said they could be put in the ordinance as
examples of those that wouldn’t have to follow this.
said he thought the position was going to be that there would
be some pre-existing, non-conforming roads that wouldn’t
be able to meet these standards.
If those roads can’t meet these standards, then maybe we
shouldn’t allow additional
land uses. Mr.
Hamann said there’s a difference between allowing splits and land use
permits. This has nothing to
with splits. Jean
Root asked Mr. Hamann to give an example.
Mr. Hamann said if this ordinance were in place today,
and someone on
wanted to tear down an old cottage, they can’t get a land use permit to
rebuild until they
bring up the roads within the sub and the road going out to
Triangle Lake Road
Jean Root provided a copy of Genoa Township’s
ordinance, which has a sentence included which reads, “…this
section is also intended to allow new construction
to occur on existing lots which front along such a road on the
effective date of this section, if the roads are
reasonably capable of providing sufficient access for the uses
in the zoning district.”
Ms. Root suggested adding a statement like this.
Mr. Hamann provided copies of ordinances
from other municipalities that recognize
pre-existing, non-conforming roads. Mr.
Kehoe said he doesn’t see where
the ordinance prohibits someone from tearing down
and rebuilding. Mr. Hamann said
it would become an
John Lowe said with pre-existing, non-conforming roads that
have houses, the roadway curves are already in place.
The hope was to get the best possible solution with the roads
that are already there. Phil
Westmoreland said in order to
get driveways, the roads have to be in a safe condition.
Even if it’s pre-existing and they can’t move the road, he
recommends a driveway not be placed if it doesn’t meet
safety criteria. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson asked who would do the
site distance review?
Mr. Westmoreland said the township engineer should.
John Lowe said that on page 6-12 is the issue of
land use permits on private roads. It
states that a land use permit
can’t be issued until there’s final
approval. In subdivisions, for
example, there are basecoats of asphalt.
In order to
get final approval, the top coat has to be on.
That’s not the direction the PC wanted.
Mr. Westmoreland said with a
plat, most people would generally finish the plat
before they get anything more than four models built.
will bond for the final topcoat.
It’s up to the developer in that case.
With it being a private road, the township has
no responsibility for maintenance after the fact.
Ms. Root said there possibly needs to be three
sections. Mr. Hamann said
another angle he’s seen is when it’s called
out as a pre-existing, non-conforming road,
some townships will spell out all of those situations, or roads, in the
Siersma asked if he was suggesting inserting an inventory of the roads.
Mr. Hamann said he’s seen it
done that way. Ms.
Root has some concerns with actually listing the roads.
John Lowe asked about indicating utility easements in the
Private Road Maintenance Agreement.
would be done that way. Discussion ensued on wording for the
Private Road Maintenance Agreement. Jean
suggested adding definitions to further clarify.
Mr. Kehoe suggested additional language in the Purpose and
paragraph of Section 6.20 A.
The definitions should include language that would cover additional
residential uses or the
creation of new lots or an increase in the number of
residential units, as opposed to someone wanting a deck or pool.
number of different scenarios were discussed.
John Lowe said he would like to see the option to pave the road
current road structure. Phil
Westmoreland said as long as the ground surface is 26 feet wide with 11-foot
John Lowe asked
if the township assessing records could be used to indicate that a parcel
can’t be built on.
said it’s up to the seller to inform prospective buyers that a parcel
can’t be built on.
said the township can’t do anything to prevent a situation where someone
splits property that doesn’t qualify f
a land use permit. The township
can’t protect someone from buying the property.
Mr. Kehoe said that is standard
asked if it would behoove the township to have a “review board” for any
situation related to pre-existing,
pointed out the variance criteria and factors to be looked at.
language to the effect that the review board can waive whatever requirements
it feels necessary to produce a
development, or an improvement in the health, safety and welfare of the
residents. John Lowe suggested
board could submit a recommendation back to the Planning Commission for its
review. Jim Anderson said he’s
about the consistency of a review board.
Mr. Anderson also suggested that the minimum requirements for a
road be listed in simple language. Phil
Westmoreland said that poses a problem with interpretation.
suggested having the information included in the land split packet rather
than in the ordinance. Debra
asked if the land split application is the same as an application for
upgrading a road—would there be a
said Section D says what needs to be done.
Phil Westmoreland said it depends on
significant the change would be. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson asked if it could be done in a way that if the private road
than 26 feet wide, then they have to do this.
If it’s 26 feet wide and needs a little more gravel and a couple of
then there’s not a problem.
John Lowe said this is what is needed for reconstruction—is
there some way to specify that if a site visit determines the
only thing required is minimal ditching and gravel, then
anything beyond Item C doesn’t need to be dealt with.
Jim Anderson said
almost like a decision tree. Phil
Westmoreland said he thinks that would be possible.
assumption should be there would be up to 25 homes on the
asked Phil Westmoreland to draft a
standardized form for evaluation of a road.
Jim Anderson said he believes the township needs a 2000-foot limit on
length of the road. John
Lowe said 2000 feet is an arbitrary number.
They can apply for a variance. Mr.
Mr. Siersma to include 2000 feet as well as 25 units in
Section 6.20 A, subsection D 1 d.
Phil Westmoreland said he
would lump d, e and f into
significant versus minor adjustments.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked if a new item should be added
about making an attempt to get current homeowners to
sign a private road maintenance agreement.
Phil Westmoreland said that 24 feet should be the minimum for
Lowe commented on the stopping distance chart, which seems very daunting.
Mr. Westmoreland said the
chart reflects the minimum acceptable standards.
Mr. Lowe asked about not including this information for pre-existing,
The question was deferred to the attorney.
Mr. Kehoe said be believes the township may be
putting itself at greater exposure if there aren’t
some standards. Jim Anderson
asked if speed limit signs would be
Phil Westmoreland asked for clarification on minor or major
revisions and what triggers the need for a plan set.
have to do major revisions with a plan set, do they have to
meet everything that’s listed for new roads or will the township
let them only meet the minimum requirements.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson said she believes the minimum. Mr.
said then something needs to be in the ordinance for that
John Lowe asked about using the criteria the ZBA uses if the
site distance can’t be met due to unique circumstances.
Jean Root mentioned item e, which says dead end roads
shall terminate with one of the turnarounds. What
if they don’t
want a cul-de-sac at the end of the road?
Debra Wiedman-Clawson said it’s a safety issue.
John Lowe said he’s
concerned with the T-intersections; he would rather see a
cul-de-sac. Angela Campbell from
OHM said these options
were presented as an alternative if there isn’t enough room
to achieve a cul-de-sac.
John Lowe asked about item h on page 6-5 on 90°
turns. Mr. Lowe suggested adding
the Planning Commission in there
well as the township engineer. Phil
Westmoreland said he would prefer to change it to Planning Commission
Mr. Westmoreland said if the sight distance is taken out (drop f
& g ), then i goes with them.
are addressed under i . The
section on vertical curves will be dropped (ii under h).
There is a misprint on page 6-7:
bottom width should be 2 feet, not 2 inches.
On page 6-8, item G, add 2000 feet.
Phil Westmoreland suggested at the bottom of page 6-7 and top
of 6-8, item f about the cul-de-sac, that should be left in.
John Lowe said
he believes that’s all in there. Mr.
Westmoreland also wanted to clarify that anything over 25 homes,
even on pre-existing, should be paved.
The response was yes. Mr.
Westmoreland then asked at what point do we start
ensued on the best way to determine this.
asked about item 2 on page 6-9 and whether the language should be changed to
read “no more than
total of 25 land use permits will be issued without an approved amendment to
the site plan.” Debra
yes. John Lowe said the language
needs to be clearer. Ms.
Wiedman-Clawson said this would only pertain to
roads that would be increased in size.
suggested that she provide a breakdown of the private roads are involved and
how many houses are
each road. Jim Anderson said he
thinks that would be helpful—it may not be as big an issue as it appears
Anderson asked if something could be done with deed restrictions when splits
is those things can’t be enforced at the time land splits are done.
It was decided that
and Phil Westmoreland would incorporate changes discussed tonight and
provide copies for further discussion with the township board
indicated that May 16 had been selected for a joint meeting with the
Planning Commission, Board of
and Zoning Board of Appeals.
Jean Root motioned to table the remainder of the agenda items
under Old Business. Jim Anderson
Motion carried 5-0.
John Lowe asked
to address the zoning portion of the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Kehoe said that there’s an
area within the master plan where reference is made to
medium-density residential as a transition zone between
suburban residential and rural residential.
There isn’t anything for medium-density zoning.
Jim Anderson pointed out
that discussion with held with
with regard to the fact that there is no zoning for each colored box
in the future land use map, and she explained this is not a
Jean Root motioned to adjourn the meeting at
Jim Anderson seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.