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

                               May 16, 2005   




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    


  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




   Livingston County Health Department Private Sewage/Waste Water Treatment Facilities guidelines



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




                                DRAFT MINUTES



                                       JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY

                                       JIM ANDERSON

                                        DAVE HAMANN

                                        DEBRA WIEDMAN-CLAWSON

ABSENT:                          NONE


                                        ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR

                                        PHIL WESTMORELAND, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT

                                       JOHN ENOS, CARLISLE/WORTMAN



The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m.


Jean Root motioned to approve the agenda for May 16, 2005 Planning Commission Special Meeting.

Dave Hamann seconded.  Motion Carried 5-0.


The Planning Commission members introduced themselves to the audience.


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. Jerry McCann asked if he built a garage.

John Lowe replied no.

Dave Hamann noted the text does not specify and it is up to interpretation.

John Lowe stated this is meant for new lots only and would be amended.

Jerry McCann stated that Hurley Drive could never meet these specifications.

Gary Dunn, 893 Hurley Drive - there is one vacant lot on the lake can they build on it. The 

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 Hurley Drive and other pre-existing non-conforming private roads

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 


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.


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.


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 Hurley Drive and asked the Planning Commission members to either be specific as to what it

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, 


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.

Discussion ensued on engineering requirements policy and standard practice within townships this 

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 


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 Marion Township engineering 

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 


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


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 


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-


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 


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. 


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 Marion Township . The map was

reviewed by Planning Commission members and changes were noted by Phil Westmoreland.  

Annette McNamara is to provide Phil Westmoreland with zoning on Lake in the Pines and Mitch 

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 



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 Marion Township .

Debra Wiedman-Clawson informed the Planning Commission members of a dump site on County 

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

Marion Township taking Joe Leach to court in the past.  The judge made Joe Leach list all the 

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 


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.


Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 p.m.  Jean Root seconded.  

Motion Carried 5-0.