Draft Minutes - July 15, 2004
SPECIAL MEETING ORDINANCE
JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
ROBERT W. HANVEY, SUPERVISOR
MIKE KEHOE, TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
The meeting was called
to order at 7:37
Jean Root requested the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures of 1996 be added to Old
Business. Jean Root motioned to approve the agenda as amended. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
Motion carried 4-0.
CALL TO THE
Jean Root requested the following corrections. Page 2, change committed to committee. Page 5,
change it to is. Page 5, add the word so. Jean Root motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Anderson seconded. Motion
Hamann asked that the record show John Lowe, Chairperson is absent.
Commission Rules and Procedures of 1996
Jean Root noted one correction remaining. This will be given to Annette McNamara, Zoning
Administrator for correction. Jean Root would like a clean copy for the Planning Commission
for review and adoption at the July 27, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
Jean Root motioned to add the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures of 1996 for the Planning
final review and approval. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion
Non Conforming Lots
The Planning Commission is looking for a better understanding of the language Mike Kehoe is
Section 19.02, which is to require those combinations for the purpose of meeting the lot width and
area requirements. A property owner who owns any lots or parts of lots that had to be combined in
order to meet the minimum lot width requirements of the ordinance cannot transfer or convey any of
those lots or portions of lots that were combined in order to meet minimum lot width or area
requirements of the ordinance. That was the intent of the existing language, yet the exiting language
not put the burden on the property owner.
provided to the Planning Commission must be ignored. This was for the purpose of comparison for
Kehoe only. Mike Kehoe
apologized for not removing it.
Dave Hamann has concerns that the township is trying to enforce zoning on a sale of a lot in a pre-
existing non conforming subdivision. We can enforce zoning when someone uses the lot. This issue
descriptions and could change hands. The owners of the lots were not allowed to keep one of the
lake front lots (they lived on a lot across the street) and sell the other lake front lot. Dave reasoned
we are looking at pre existing nonconforming situations, like with private roads. We are trying to
enforce zoning on situations related to the ownership and sale of property, when the zoning should
into play when people try to use their property.
Questions regarding the approval of land divisions on lots that are not buildable, is this unfair to the
potential buyer. Potential buyers need to practice due diligence as to the potential use of the property.
Dave Hamann explained Mr. Cesarz has two lots across the road from the lake front lots,
neighbors have asked Dave, if one buys one and one buys another and they tie it to their house
on the lake front can they use that and put a garage on it. This language would block that. The
two lots today are contiguous and so you cannot sell them separately. Dave read ‘if it no longer
meets minimum lot width or area requirements of this ordinance shall hereafter use, transfer or
any manner convey any such lots’.
with the lot width and area requirements. It would be OK if you had two lots side by side, and if
someone wanted to buy one and someone on the other side wanted to buy the other one they
and would not apply.
Kehoe tried to make it clearer that if you owned two of the lots you cannot
Hamann added, to allow someone to build on one and then someone else builds
on the other.
they don’t do anything to diminish the lot area or width.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson commented that they are really not splitting it as opposed to acquiring it.
is not a land split in that case.
Mr. Hanvey What about a situation where there are two adjacent lots with two separate owners if
of the owners bought the other lot could they ever then divide again.
Dave Hamann owns two lots next to the lot he built his home on. Does this lock him in if he
to sell those lots?
Hamann answered a lot and a half, that make the minimum width yet not the
Kehoe stated he could possibly have a problem.
Mr. Hanvey asked if there is no problem taking two contiguous parcels that are two platted lots with
a single parcel number and making them into two parcel numbers, is that correct? A resident in the
Existing Residential District (ERS) has four lots; two are with the house, with one tax code.
One of the lots is on another tax code. The front lot on the lake has its own tax code. The resident
wants to get a separate parcel for the back lot that doesn’t have the house on it, but is attached to
where the house is. So the resident would have four parcel codes that she could give to her
stated that the lot would not be buildable.
Mike Kehoe stated, she is allowed to get separate tax codes, because each parcel has a separate
legal description. Just because she can get separate tax code numbers does not mean she also has
right to individually deed those four separate parcels.
Root asked if they would all be nonconforming.
Dave Hamann nonconforming implies zoning; it does not imply if you have a legal description on a
lot it can be given a separate tax code number.
Root asked if the changes would affect the ERS district and no other area of
Hamann answered yes,
Jean Root motioned to hold a public hearing on section 19.02 non conforming lots on August 24,
@ 7:15 p.m. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
seconded. Motion carried 4-0.
Dave Hamann review previous discussion. Requiring owners who want to split their property and
the buyer of the split parcel on private roads would take on addressing the Ordinance item that we
have requiring a maintenance agreement.
Root would like to see a list of private roads within the township.
Discussion ensued on denying land use permits for primary structures on parcels split from the
parent parcel. The township does not have the right to deny the use of accessory structures, pools
decks on non conforming private roads.
Dave Hamann would like to see Section 6.20 that is addressing private roads from the time of this
ordinance forward, to be intact with a few adjustments. And take anything related to pre existing
non conforming private roads and all of the issues with them and set up a section in Article XIX
that is non conforming private roads. In a fair way that does not restrict someone who wants to
split their land, but also address what happens when someone does not want the land split. And
when the land split takes place can that be the beginning of a road maintenance agreement for the
If it was an approved road that had an agreement, it covers in our ordinance that it could be turned
over and the township could assess appropriately. There are roads without a maintenance
agreement. Dave Hamann stated if you want to have an Ordinance addressing private roads and
non conforming private roads. Then you should be the one to facilitate helping people to fit the
engineer evaluating existing roads to set a baseline. There are roads in the township, such as
Lange, Truhn and Sanatorium where portions of the road were abandoned at one point in time.
These roads need to be addressed also. The township has no method of certification other than
County Road Commission requirements.
roads on the list also. Is there
a statute of limitations?
Hamann stated that is why Article XIX
Planning Commission review at the July 27, 2004 meeting. Jim Anderson seconded.
Root excused herself from the meeting.
were items not placed on the agenda that should have been.
Mike Kehoe provided review and comments for Section 8.02 and Section 6.07 yet they were not
on the agenda.
she does not see the difference in what is already in place. Mike Kehoe stated the change is in the
statement limiting the number of parcels per private road. He thought the township wanted some
of control as to the number of lots on a private road.
township can only approve the private road. The township does not approve the number of parcels
as long as it does not exceed 25 parcels as allowed by the Ordinance. Unless we rewrite the
ordinance to state the developer also has to show the maximum number of lots that will ever be
allowed on that private road. Then the potential buyer can go to the Register of Deeds, and see
survey along with the legal that specifically states that this parcel cannot
be divided or split.
Mike Kehoe stated if in five to ten years from now they are going to create additional parcels and
seek additional land use permits on that road, don’t you think the township should to make sure
that the road is still intact. Mike used the word parcels not land use permit. It sounds as if the
Commission is not sure as to whether this is a good idea or not.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson believes that if there is a road maintenance agreement and the road falls
into disrepair is it not the townships responsibility to bring it up to standards and assess the
Mike Kehoe review letter on Section 8.01 D 1 ‘single family subdivisions and condominium
developments’ came up when Annette asked Mike Kehoe to review Section 6.24 he found a conflict
Section 8.01 D 1 that he believed was not the original intent.
We talked about Section 6.24 Landscape Buffer being applicable to all residential developments.
In reviewing the language of 8.01 D 1 A, it stated, the significance was caught that a greenbelt
buffer ‘single family subdivisions and condominium developments’ set up as those are a special use.
Because they are under the heading ‘Uses Permitted By Right Subject to Special Conditions.’
Mike Kehoe does not think it was the intention to have ‘single family subdivisions and condominium
developments’ as a special use or that they need to be handled as a special use, yet if you read the
that is how it sounds.
had to refer back to General Conditions for site condominiums not necessarily that they were a
use. Mike Kehoe answered yes.
Mike Kehoe stated, with single family subdivisions and condominium developments and the density
may want a greenbelt buffer, yet with parcel splits you may not need a
Debra Wiedman-Clawson brought up the greenbelt buffering requirement for the parcel splits on
a 25 foot buffer and the Planning Commission must be consistent.
Wiedman-Clawson stated it should not have been required of
do not have to continue to be wrong.
Anderson stated that is what precipitates this discussion about the buffer.
Kehoe felt it was a stretch to say the buffer applies to a
Planning Commission language to use in the future, yet for this situation where there is only
66 foot easement how can you force a 25 foot buffer.
Jim Anderson would like stated in the record Section 6.20 does make reference to landscape
Meeting. Jim Anderson
seconded. Motion carried 3-0.
Annette McNamara clarified this agenda item was not about language provided by Orchard, Hiltz &
McCliment, Inc., it should have been listed as Section 6.19 Access Controls. Mike Kehoe provided a
letter on this section.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson motioned to table Section 6.19 Access Controls until the next Special
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
Mike Kehoe told the Planning Commission recent conversation and the problems enforcing a noise
Mike Kehoe will review the language from the Putnam Township Zoning
Debra Wiedman-Clawson motioned to table Noise Ordinance until the next Special Meeting. Jim
seconded. Motion carried 3-0.
Section 17.24 A
Private Recreational Facilities
Annette McNamara found that the Suburban Residential district was not included in Section 17.24
is a use permitted by special use permit.
Suburban Residential should be added in this section.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson motioned to set a public hearing to add verbiage to Section 17.24 A,
Private Recreational Facilities to add the word Suburban Residential to be held on August 24, 2004
7:20 p.m. Jim Anderson seconded.
Motion carried 3-0.
Dave Hamann noted two other review letters from Mike Kehoe that were not on this agenda.
Dave Hamann requested Annette please place on the next agenda. These are Section 8.02
Suburban Residential - Intent, Section 6.07 Accessory Structures and Article XIII Planned Unit
CALL TO THE
Debra Wiedman-Clawson motioned to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Jim Anderson seconded.
Motion Carried 3-0.