|
|||
|
|
draft minutes MARION TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION - SPECIAL MEETING ORDINANCE WORKSHOP
June 16, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT:
JOHN LOWE, CHAIRPERSON
JEAN ROOT
JIM ANDERSON
DAVE HAMANN
DEBRA WIEDMAN-CLAWSON
PHIL WESTMORELAND, TOWNSHIP
ENGINEER
MICHAEL KEHOE, TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR The meeting was called
to order at 7:00 APPROVAL OF
AGENDA Jean Root requested the agenda be amended as follows. Items under Old Business to be addressed in the
following order;
Debra Weidman-Clawson clarified Township Planner, Noise Ordinance and Section 6.24 are additions to
tonight’s agenda. Noted.
June 16, 2004
Ordinance Workshop. Jim Anderson
seconded. Motion carried 5-0. CALL TO THE
PUBLIC Jean Root requested the residents, who have attended tonight’s meeting for a particular agenda item, make their
statements during the discussion on the agenda item. APPROVAL OF
MINUTES Jim Anderson motioned to approve the May 17, 2004 Comprehensive Plan minutes. Dave Hamann seconded.
Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS Section 6.24
Landscape Buffer John Lowe would like to know if the Planning Commission recall and agree with the intent for the adoption of Section 6.24 Landscape Buffer. He explained for the members who were not on the Planning Commission at the time. A proposed development requested the access road along the property line. The property line was lined with mature Oak trees, which would be destroyed as a result of the access drive. This is how the ordinance for Landscape Buffer was conceived to protect adjacent property and natural features. At the last Planning Commission meeting John Ambrose, Township Planner said that was not the intent of the ordinance. John Lowe and Jean Root disagree. It seems to be an ongoing problem (Knolls of Grass Lake, Ironwood, Family Golf) that surfaces after the fact, and then it is the Planning Commission responsibility to explain to the residents why this takes place. The Board of Trustees has authorized Dave Hamann to do research for a new planner. The current planner is not under contract. John Lowe asked the Planning Commission for a consensus and questions. Jim Anderson expressed concern with the planners’ agitation during meetings when residents comment and ask questions and that is not the image the township wants to project. Dave Hamann asked the Planning Commission if another meeting with the planner to discuss these items is an option. Debra Weidman-Clawson has concerns that the language being presented to the Planning Commission can be easily found on the internet. Jean Root scoured the minutes from the Knolls of Grass Lake to find the statement made by the planner that the number of lots would be negotiable and the next meeting that was held it was brought up that the number of lots is not negotiable. Discussion ensued regarding the collaboration between the attorney and the planner when developing language for the ordinance. The Planning Commission does not see this happening. Also, the formatting of the current ordinance must be corrected to aid in adding sections without throwing off the format of the entire document. Jean Root stated that the Planning Commission may find that the planners’ performance is within today’s standards. A committed was formed to research this issue. The committee will consist of Dave Hamann and Debra Weidman-Clawson. Annette McNamara and Sandi Longstreet will
also help with this project. to list and evaluate potential new planner for the township. The committee will consist of Dave Hamann, Debra Weidman-Clawson and Annette McNamara. Debra Weidman-Clawson seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. Section 6.20
Private Roads Nancy Johnson, 2677 High Meadows Road has come to the Planning Commission for the second time to ask if there
is anything High Meadows Road. The road is in disrepair and Mr. Johnson is not willing to continue the maintenance for
potential new residents. last meeting. Documentation was found stating the township accepted the road yet, the Livingston County Road Commission did not accept the road. There were handwritten notes on the letter stating the Livingston County Road Commission standards were too strict. Mike Kehoe is looking in his files to see if there is any documentation showing how many lots the township approved to gain
access thru High Meadows Road. homeowners to participate in the maintenance of the roads. The township cannot deny a Land Division because it is on an unapproved road. The township can deny a land use permit if the private road is not approved or if the addition of another home exceeds the number of homes approved for that road. The other option would be to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. The list of private roads in the township that the office has been using is a starting point. Our township engineer can review the roads and tell us whether they currently meet Livingston County Road Commission standards or not. The township cannot force homeowners to bring the road up to standards. If a land use permit is submitted for one of the original parcels, the land use permit can be approved. If the original parcel is split and a land use permit is submitted, that land use permit is denied until the road is brought up to standards. For the roads the Planning Commission is reviewing now, who will be responsible for reviewing the roads at a later date, how often should the roads be reviewed? How will the township hold the homeowners financially
responsible? township leave these pre-existing non-conforming non-standard private roads as they are; or does the township become the enabler of bringing the roads up to specification and charging it back to the resident? Noise Ordinance Greg Walsh, ordinance. Mr. Walsh has called the local police authority and was told that if the township does not have a noise ordinance, the police cannot enforce. Mr. Walsh has a neighbor who plays loud music with profanity. Discussion ensued as to the effectiveness of a noise ordinance. The cost for the township to have the decibel level documented is a considerable amount. Having a qualified professional available
when the offense is occurring. arrived. when offense is taking place. When it comes to profanity; first amendment rights have to be respected.
Putnam
Mike Kehoe will review
the ordinance workshop.
Section 6.20
Private Roads – continued John Lowe updated Mike Kehoe on the previous discussion and asked if a land use permit can be withheld. Mike Kehoe stated yes, legally you can with hold a land use permit under section 6.19. You cannot prevent a
parcel split, yet you can prevent the building of a principal structure. Jean Root asked if on the land division application the township makes the owner aware the parcel is on a
non-approved private road. current ordinance are
stated. restrict decks, pools,
accessory structure for the homes on non-conforming private roads. Mike Kehoe stated no.
Can only deny a primary structure on a parcel split from the parent
parcel. specifications and is approved, even if the parcel owner waited 5 years to build they can as the road meet the requirements at the time. There is no annual or bi annual review. The ordinance can be amended to include language on annual reviews. There is language in the ordinance now that if the road falls into disrepair and so forth the township can make the repairs and do an assessment.
This goes on a case by case basis. on High Meadows Road. High Meadows Road was approved, and then yes it would apply. Yet we cannot take the ordinance that is in effect now
and enforcing it to parcels that were created fifteen years ago. Mike Kehoe explained with a Private Road Maintenance Agreement states the ingress/egress for the parcels within the legal description. If a parcel is not part of that legal description then the do not have access thru the private road. An example would be; the Board of Trustees approves 18 lots to have access via a private road. This shall not be expanded beyond 18 lots without township approval. You also must make sure that is in the language that is recorded. Amend the ordinance to have PRMA reviewed after being recorded and prior to issuing a land use permit. The Planning Commission would like a list of the non-conforming private roads within the township should be a
part of the proposed Comprehensive Plan to make the residents aware.
Discussion ensued on the review of existing non conforming private roads. Some private roads would not need review. If they were constructed to specification and the township has the paperwork to back it up. A list of the private roads and attached documentation will be given to Phil Westmoreland and a review process will be developed. The first step would be to identify the private roads within the township and narrow the list to the ones that would need a review. The Planning Commission feels this should be done within the next few months. There could be a PRMA recorded at the Livingston County Register of Deeds office and not a copy at the township. Make the number of lots to have access a part of the motion. For instance say the number of lots has to be in the declaration of restrictions recorded with the county and submitted to the township. Should the roads be evaluated based on the standards in place at the time the township approved the road. Can homeowners on a private road deny an upgrade to allow a land use permit if one resident is paying for the upgrade? Mike Kehoe said that is possible. The court will look at an unreasonable burden. Mike Kehoe asked is it wise for the township to allow additional homes to be build on a private e road that may have standards that are less than the current are and also at the same time letting those additional housed to be built on a private road where there are no means to maintain and share cost. It that the townships problem and is the township creating bigger problems by lettering these things happen. Or the parcel that is created when the road was created is the only parcel to be built on. If you want to make money by splitting your property you have to do under a
standard that is safer. improved.
This is for the health safety and welfare of the residents. asked Mike Kehoe to provide language for the General Provisions article/section. Mike Kehoe clarified sections;
6.20 J 3 and 6.19 B. Section 6.24
Landscape Buffer John Lowe would like to Planning Commission to discuss the viability of an ingress/egress next to a property line. Does the language address the intent? Mike Kehoe responded this has not been applied to recent developments due to extenuating circumstances. If there is only room for a 66 foot road, and the ordinance only provides for a 66’ ingress/egress and is the Planning Commission justified asking for an extra 50 feet in width. The language states between uses, if you look at the definition of use. It is a stretch to say the road itself meets the use definition. Mike Kehoe does not
feel the language is strong enough to defend that. Jean Root noted section 8.01 D that refers to a development boundary, then when you look at 6.26 the sticking
point is the word development. This
was just a private road parcel split. Mike Kehoe can tie in language to connect with 6.24, if considering placement of easement to an adjacent parcel the right of way width may have to be wider to accommodate the landscape buffering required in section 6.24. Mike Kehoe will provide language that meets the intent of the Planning Commission and is acceptable and defensible. Mike Kehoe will have this by July 15, 2004 Special Meeting. NEW BUSINESS A Special Meeting was scheduled for Thursday, July 15, 2004 @ 7:30 p.m. Mike Kehoe will attend this meeting. CALL TO THE
PUBLIC No response. ADJOURNMENT Dave Hamann motioned
to adjourn at 10:45 p.m. Jim
Anderson seconded. Motion Carried 5-0.
|
||
