|
|||
|
|
MARION TOWNSHIP AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES
May
16,
2005 CALL
TO ORDER: MEMBERS
PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: CALL TO THE PUBLIC: Agenda Items only - 3 minute limit APPROVAL OF AGENDA: May 16, 2005 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR: April 11, 2005 Special Meeting OLD BUSINESS:
Section
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
Private
Road Maintenance Agreement template
HIGHLIGHTED
ITEMS TO BE COMBINED INTO:
SECTION
6.20 A PRE-EXISTING NON CONFORMING
SECTION
6.20 B NEW PRIVATE ROADS Livingston County Health Department Private Sewage/Waste Water Treatment Facilities guidelines
NEW BUSINESS: 1. Next special meeting to be held in September 2005 –
there will be no special meetings in
June, July or August 2.
Review
existing zoning map, proposed zoning map & private road map 3. Discussion on performance reviews for Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission & Consultants CALL
TO PUBLIC: ADJOURNMENT:
DRAFT MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT:
JOHN LOWE, CHAIRPERSON
JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
JIM ANDERSON
DAVE HAMANN
DEBRA WIEDMAN-CLAWSON
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PHIL WESTMORELAND, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
JOHN ENOS, CARLISLE/WORTMAN CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called
to order at 7:35 p.m. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA Jean Root motioned to approve the agenda for May 16, 2005 Planning Commission Special Meeting. Dave Hamann seconded.
Motion Carried 5-0. INTRODUCTION OF
MEMBERS The Planning
Commission members introduced themselves to the audience. CALL TO THE
PUBLIC Jerry McCann 883 Hurley Drive - questioned the highlighted area under purposed and intent of Section 6.20 A. If he built an addition would he have to update the road to meet these specifications? John Lowe clarified
this is for new buildings only. John Lowe replied no. John Lowe stated this
is meant for new lots only and would be amended. Jerry McCann stated
that Gary Dunn, Planning Commission
members answered yes, on a lot of record. John Enos read from
proposed text ‘no land use permit for proposed new principal buildings.
Discussion ensued on into
the township. Jerry McCann reiterated if he wants to build on his lot he can and wants this on record for when he decides to build. Robert W. Hanvey noted in his copy of 6.20 A, as he read it if you have a lot of record it still applies. Gary Dunn noted that
houses would have to be vacated to meet these standards. John Enos noted there
is relief in the text; you can go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It is the intent of
the Planning Commission members to change that tonight. Jack Lowe closed the
first call to the public. APPROVAL OF
MINUTES Jean Root noted on page one under Old Business third line down the word ‘extension’ should be changed to ‘extensive’ the remainder of the minutes look good. Discussion ensued as to the extent of the changes made to the text at the last meeting and the impossible task of getting the changes into the minutes. Jean Root motioned to approve the minutes for April 11, 2005 as amended. Jim Anderson seconded.
Motion Carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS Section 6.20 A
Pre-Existing Non-Conforming Private Roads John Enos noted the changes were a result of Planning Commission members input at special meetings and staff meetings. Mike Kehoe has reviewed and approved the changes, yet has not put that in writing.
Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment staff has reviewed and approved also. John Lowe asked the
Planning Commission members if they wanted to go through page by page.
Page One John Enos noted earlier discussion during call to the public where the intent was not specified in the text. Changes to Section A – Purpose and Intent, second paragraph shall be amended to clarify this applies
to newly created lot. Dave Hamann noted a new lot can only be created in a platted sub if a re-plat is done or if the Board of Trustees approves a combination/reconfiguration. Dave Hamann told the history of a lot on does not pertain to or be specific and say new lots that result from a land division. The Planning Commission members’ goal is as result of a land division some form of control and maintenance to pre-existing
non-conforming private roads, how they word can include and exclude. John Enos suggested
listing what is required and what is not required. Jean Root suggested a statement in the text and state it only applies to lots created as a result of a land division. Jean Root has a note that this text should be restricted to residential uses, on non-conforming private roads. John Enos read ‘if it is not in the best interest of the general health, safety and welfare of the citizens to allow for further development of single development residences on pre-existing non-conforming private roads unless
those roads are updated’. He
thinks this will cover it. Planning Commission
members agreed this would cover it. Discussion ensued about where to place the platted subdivision, lot of record, land division text that specifies what lots this applies to. John Enos understands the Planning Commission members’ intent and will place the
text on the first page. Page Two John Enos noted to the Planning Commission members sub-section C 1 a – Permit Application, the engineering standards were removed. If it is in the zoning ordinance, the only way to change a requirement is through the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). This will allow on a cases by case basis to look at the standards, if minor changes are necessary they can be flexible. That is why the engineering standards
are referred to in this section instead of listing them. Dave Hamann asked if
Section 12 is written up yet, the new paving and road standards. Phil Westmoreland answered this is still being worked on and clarified to the Planning Commission members these are engineering and design standards adopted by the township. The standards will be a policy not a
zoning ordinance. Dave Hamann asked if they would differentiate between pre-existing non-conforming private roads and new private roads. Phil Westmoreland answered yes. If the standards need to be updated it will be a resolution by the Board of Trustees. The Planning Commission members may want to mirror the engineering criteria in Section 6.20 B New Private Roads. It would be engineering requirements for pre-existing non-conforming private
road and engineering requirements for new private roads. John Enos suggested that the Planning Commission members consider including design standards with the engineering standards, rather than having design criteria listed in the zoning ordinance. Again you can use in a case by case basis. If in the zoning ordinance the only way to make changes is to go through the
ZBA. Dave Hamann asked if
this is legally binding. John Enos answered yes
if the zoning ordinance refers to the policy document. Every site plan review the Planning Commission members will have to evaluate to what level the specifications are admissible against the site plan and on the site plan for it to be enforceable, correct? John Enos responded
the township engineer would be the one to evaluate that. Dave Hamann noted now
it is pulled back into the site plan review process. John Enos answered
engineering requirements would be part of the final site plan review
process. will allow for
flexibility with pre-existing non-conforming private roads upgrades. Jean Root asked for a definition of ’lot of record’ to be inserted in sub-section B - Definitions on page two. Page Three Jean Root asked the Zoning Administrator if the number of plans submitted for review and the time frame were changed to her satisfaction. This was discussed for the Site Plan Review Application and should be incorporated
into this section also. John Lowe thought the number and detail of information requested for pre-existing non-conforming private roads should
be less that a new private road site plan submittal. Discussion ensued on the text ‘shall meet or exceed the engineering design standards and how the condition of the pre-existing non-conforming private roads in the township vary, some may not be able to meet the
standards. Phil Westmoreland read alternate text ‘Design requirements for pre-existing non-conforming private roads shall follow the
specifications set forth in the most recent standards’ and
believes this text should be used. John Lowe called out sub-section F Connection to County Roads. He and thinks this should apply here also or the text redone. John Lowe asked Phil Westmoreland if trees and sight distance would be part of his
review when connecting to county roads. Phil Westmoreland said if there was a change in the construction of the connection, the Livingston County Road Commission (LCRC) would have to review and issue permits. If it was just a few trees that need to be
removed then no. The Planning Commission members would like the construction authorization portion reworked. Text accommodating site distance authorization should be included. The line ‘no lots or units’ does not apply and the last
line of sub-section F – Connection to County Roads should be deleted. Phil Westmoreland
noted this text is already within the zoning ordinance. Discussion ensued on
the possible scenarios where this may apply and the pitfalls. Back to sub-section G - Application Procedure and the site plan requirements. Some of the applicants may not have certified plans. The number of plan to be submitted was discussed. Seven sets of plans for initial submittal and twelve sets of plans for Planning Commission submittal.
Phil Westmoreland suggested ‘Applicant shall provide information pursuant to application and design requirements of
this ordinance’. The initial
application will not need to provide private road maintenance agreement
information Page 4 Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked if the Planning Commission members want to cross out last line stating the Zoning
Administrator will forward to the attorney. Phil Westmoreland thinks it should be left as is. This is information for the applicant to submit and if they can submit in the beginning of the process then that is the sooner Mike Kehoe can review the private
road maintenance agreement. John Lowe noted section H directs the applicant to the Board of Trustees then to the Planning Commission. This should be changed to read Planning Commission first and to the Board of Trustees for final
approval. John Lowe questions the intent of sub-section H item #2 of Application Review and Approval or Rejection. Debra Wiedman-Clawson said if an applicant was given approval and six years later decided to build a primary
structure and the road is now not up to standards. John Lowe would like
this to be more clearly written and asked John Enos to take care of it.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson would like issuance of land use permit to be added to sub-section H item # 3 (last line) as a requirement along with the requirement for the issuance of certificate of compliance. John Enos is not clear on sub-section I Variances, item # five; variance requests and requirements for curb-n-gutter, most of the pre-existing non-conforming private roads will not have curb-n- gutters. This was taken from
the existing text and should be reworded.
John Enos will do this. Relief from design requirements will be Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment making a recommendation to the Planning Commission and either the Planning Commission follows the recommendation or not. Discussion ensued on variance text being included in 6.20 A. Planning Commission agreed to delete this text and use existing Section 5.05 within the zoning ordinance. This will cover relief from design
requirements Jean Root asked to revisit item H. Item number three should be item two and item two should be item 3.
These seem out of sequence. When John Enos reworks item number two they will review text in item number two and item number three. Phil Westmoreland talked with the Planning Commission members about construction time frames and if they approved. Page 5 Jim Anderson wants the word structure removed from the heading for sub-section K and principal structure in its
place, the same in changes should be made in sub-section A Purpose and
Intent. Debra Wiedman-Clawson question sub-section L – Posting of Private Roads, the LCRC gives approval for names not the Zoning Administrator. Does this apply to pre-existing non-conforming private roads? Zoning Administrator should be removed from this item. Would also like homeowners association removed and maintenance in its place, there many not be a homeowners association. She
would like to see ‘no outlet’ signs also. Jean Root does not understand why sub-section M - Notice of Easements is included in this Section and why does it say
‘66’ wide easement.’ Phil Westmoreland said
it should read ‘permanent easement.’ Exhibit B - Road
Maintenance Agreement Template Debra Wiedman-Clawson questioned the second paragraph stating survey requirements for an existing road. The property cannot be re-surveyed for a legal description without an extra expense to the applicant. Can a description by township assessor suffice? This number, per this description, per the 2005 tax
rolls. Discussion ensued requirements for a survey of private road and the possible scenarios that could result. John Lowe noted on page eight number item # 12 you have the township back as mediators. That should be
removed. John Enos will ask
Mike Kehoe if this is legal or if we should keep. Exhibit B – Dead End Turnarounds and Cul-de-Sacs will be removed from this Section as they are called out in the
Engineering Standards. John Enos to submit
changes for the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Section 6.20 B
New Private Roads Planning Commission members will wait until engineering standards are done to review this section. The Planning Commission will review at the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Livingston County Department of Public Health (LCDPH) Private Sewage/Waste Water Treatment
Facilities Guidelines John Lowe asked Phil
Westmoreland to address the Planning Commission members. Phil Westmoreland stated his review of the guidelines. This is basically for community septic systems, up to a less than 6,000 gallons per day the LCDPH signs the permit. 6,000 gallons a day serves approximately 20 homes. From 6,000 to 10,000 the LCDPH and the state gets notified. Over that the state takes care of it. The LCDPH guideline is good for up to 10,000 gallons per day, and does not cover
what the township could easily get into. Discussion ensued on the perimeter isolation distances and the townships ability to adjust the isolation distances. Phil Westmoreland said
Mike Kehoe would be better able to say if this is possible and legal.
NEW BUSINESS No Special
Meetings to be held in June, July or August Planning Commission
members agreed. Review Proposed
Zoning Map Orchard, Hiltz &
McCliment submitted a proposed zoning map for reviewed by Planning Commission members and changes were noted by Phil Westmoreland. Annette McNamara is to
provide Phil Westmoreland with zoning on Harris property to the north of The Meadows. Phil Westmoreland will make changes for the June 28, 2005 meeting. Other Discussion John Lowe discussed a parcel in Rural Residential District just below the Suburban Residential District. Can the Comprehensive Plan call this out as a transition area? The consensus was no and it was determined a
site condominium would be the best way to develop. John Enos discussed multi-family dwelling units and ways to determine the number. He would like Planning Commission members to review for the Urban Residential District. He would like to see the number reduced
from 10 units per acre. John
Enos to provide text for a future meeting. Developers Agreements was handed out by John Enos for the Planning Commission members to review and use in
their site plan reviews. Performance
Review for Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission & Consultants The Planning Commission members agreed to hold reviews at the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Jean Root asked the Zoning Administrator to contact Mike Kehoe so he can attend. CALL TO THE
PUBLIC Debra Wiedman-Clawson would like the Zoning Administrator to investigate Fox Meadows and the removal of evergreen
trees for the placement of an electric line pole. Debra Wiedman-Clawson handed out a copy of a newspaper article stating Dr. May is moving his medical practice to Debra Wiedman-Clawson
informed the Planning Commission members of a dump site on Farm Road . The residents believe there is hazardous materials are being dumped and there are people living on the property. The owner is Joe Leach. John Lowe and Charles Musson remember equipment on site and no more was done. Debra Wiedman-Clawson is requesting Annette McNamara investigate. John Lowe asked John Enos to pursue the Woodland Ordinance so it can be placed on a future agenda. Robert W. Hanvey handed out a letter from Ken Tyler regarding changes to Section 6.20 A Pre-Existing Non-Conforming Private Roads to the Planning Commission members for their review. ADJOURNMENT Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 p.m. Jean Root seconded. Motion Carried 5-0.
|
||
