MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann,
Lowe, Jean Root
Ambrose, Planning Consultant
Bob Hanvey, Township
Michael Kehoe, Township
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
CALL TO ORDER
Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
Dave Hamann made a motion to approve the Public Hearing agenda for February 24, 2004. Jim Anderson
Motion carried 5-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CALL TO THE
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Article XIII –
Delete and replace heading for Planned Unit Development District
John Ambrose explained how the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section was rewritten and adopted several
years ago that attempted to be an overlay zoning district. It should read, “Planned Unit Development Overlay
The addition of the word “overlay” clarifies that it is not a stand
TO THE PUBLIC
Jean Root made a motion to send Article XIII, the rewording from the Planned Unit Development District
to Planned Unit Development Overlay District to the February 24, 2004 Planning Commission Regular
Anderson seconded. Motion
Dave Hamann made a motion to close the Public Hearing for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment: Article XIII – Delete and replace heading for Planned Unit Development District
at 7:25 p.m. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
- February 24, 2004
- February 24, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe,
Ambrose, Planning Consultant
Bob Hanvey, Township
Michael Kehoe, Township
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
CALL TO ORDER
Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
following amendments to the agenda were suggested:
February 3, 2004 Public Hearing minutes should read in the title, Special
- Coddington Property should follow RZN# 4-03 – Family Golf on the agenda
Dave Hamann made a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.
TO THE PUBLIC
Mary Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court, read a letter regarding dealing with the “Giant”, Giant of a developer
Giant of public perception.
community saying, mine, mine, mine? And the State says I can do it so I’m going to push it to the limit
even if that means jeopardizing the older giant corporate standing and its perception in the community.
Or perhaps to the gentle giant pound setter, (1), who lovingly stands tall on the land, looks around only to
see virtually all surrounding homes on one plus acre sites and freely decides that this is more in keeping
with what is ethically the right thing to do that will ultimately grow your corporate good citizen standing and
the perception in your community. We respectfully ask that you take your surrounding neighbors’ concerns
and opinions and cause questions very seriously before christening in some of these barge high density
12, 2004 Special Meeting Minutes
Root cited the following changes:
1. Page 3 of 6 – Call to the Public – paragraph where Steve Cavaney commented “one element is a
wellhead protection zone that overlays all the zoning and wellhead protection zone,” “and wellhead protection
should be deleted.
was no response to the comment from Norma Flaherty. Tape will be checked.
Page 5 of 6, third
paragraph, “Emily” should be inserted to read “Emily Court”
4. Page 5 of 6, seventh paragraph, idea situation should read “ideal situation
Page 5 of 6, eighth
paragraph, will be clarified with Jim Barnwell
6. At the end of the discussion regarding Premier Farms, there was mention of a triangle piece of property
that was omitted that could be donated to the township as a park or fire station or for public use. (This is the
Lake Road property)
7. Under New Business, Rules and Procedures of 1996 should have been included in February meeting.
should be added to the March meeting
Dave Hamann made a motion to table the January 12, 2004 Special Meeting minutes for checking and
and bring back to the next meeting. Jim
Motion carried 5-0.
2004 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
Jean Root commented she did not review verbatim John Ambrose’s letter but it was verified that the letter is
into the record verbatim. Jean
Root cited no changes.
Dave Hamann made a motion to approve as the January 27, 2004 Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Jean Root seconded. Motion
2004 Special Meeting/Public Hearing Minutes
stated the title of the minutes should read “Special Meeting/Public
Dave Hamann made a motion to approve the February 3, 2004 Special Meeting/Public Hearing minutes as
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
RZN# 6-03 – Marion Oaks Golf Course
John Lowe gave a quick overview stating the Public Hearing was at the last meeting on January 27, 2004 for the
public input of this project and has been entered into the record and has been reviewed by the Planning Commission
with all submitted documents by both the planner and township attorney and various other township representatives.
This evening is for the applicant to enter any new information and then will be discussed amongst the board members
and make a decision.
Tom Kallas, appeared on behalf of the petitioner, with a supplement to the last meeting regarding the traffic report.
Carlos Santia, traffic consultant for the Marion Oaks, LLC, developer, was also present to answer any questions
regarding his proposal.
John Lowe requested a quick overview from Mr. Santia regarding his proposal. Mr. Santia stated 630 residential
dwelling units are being proposed, as well as approximately 50,000 square foot retail center. Access to the development
will be off of D-19 (Pinckney Road) and also Wright Road
(located east of D-19).
Existing traffic presently generated on D-19 currently is 14,034 vehicles per day on an average; A.M. peak hours is
983 vehicles; p.m. peak hours is 1154 vehicles.
Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is a basic guide for estimating trips generated for new developments,
this development is anticipated to generate approximately 7,619 trips daily. Peak hours in p.m. would be around
692 vehicles. These figures are based on a projection of
7-10 years for the development of the property.
Based on the distribution on Wright Road about 2000 of those vehicles that will come out onto Wright Road, majority
of vehicles will exit out onto D-19.
The remainder of the vehicles will exit out onto D-19 directly.
The capacity analysis on the existing roadways, Wright Road, capacity is road level of service capacity is A, which are
free-flow conditions with minimal amount of traffic. D-19 is minimal level C, which is stable flow with some congestion
during peak hours. At project buildout it would be approximately 2011 or 2013. Levels of service at buildout on
Wright Road would be level of service A and then
change to D, which is more high density flow but still stable.
Capacity 20 years from now with the development in place, Wright Road would still be at level service A. D-19 would be
level service F, which on a two-lane road is forced flow, stop and go, which indicates improvements, will be required on
some improvements will be required regardless if the
development was there or not.
for the future to be built on Wright Road. That high school would generate approximately additional 1600 to 2000 vehicles
per day, possibly more depending on size of high school. The Livingston County Road Commission (LCRC) was
contacted for plans for additional improvements on the road network in the area. They do have some plans for
improvements to widen Pinckney Road four to five lanes from I-96 to Norton. They also have plans for south of Francis
Road to I-96 to add a left-hand turn lane and also they have plans on D-19 from Coon Lake Road to I-96 they have a
plan in their long range plan for some intersection
John Lowe asked if anyone had any questions for the applicants and stated they would go through items one through
eight regarding the rezoning and the effects they would
have on the township.
Jim Anderson questioned the traffic counts in the data in the appendix. Some of the data goes back to 1995. Where do
these counts come from? Do they come from the county? The counts come from the Road Commission. He also
inquired regarding when the most recent traffic counts were? It was stated 2001, which were used for projections to
today’s count for every year.
proposing to develop the land and not as if it were developed under any of the terms under Urban Residential (UR)
designation? The projected numbers are based on SEMCOG database and expected growth for the region. They
anticipate anywhere between three to four percent, maybe five percent, for traffic growth rate with or without this
development. To clarify, the numbers that were used for increased traffic for this particular project were numbers
based upon what they intended to build it out and not at its maximum if they were to go ten units per acre?
That is correct; 630 units and about 60,000 square feet as
Jean Root pointed out that Section 6.17 in the Township Ordinance book, deals with roadway networking, Item I,
says no new land uses except for unplatted single-family homes for developing required site plan review under the
ordinance shall be permitted which will reduce the level of service
on an adjacent roadway below the level of service C.
As stated though, it’s currently at C but their development could bring it to D or F as it’s proposed if they were to get
In addressing that comment, Mr. Santia stated that even without their development, ten years from now the township’s
level of service will be C on D-19. John Lowe stated for clarification, it goes from a D to an F at the build out even
without their project and Mr. Santia agreed. John Lowe asked if their numbers would move it up one? In answer, the
level of service would not be changed. The existing number was approximately 1200 cars on D-19 as it was and their
project would develop 692 per hour with a 50% increase from their project to the build out date? The project build out
would have about 1650 cars and with their development they would have 2130, which is roughly 500 cars an hour.
John Lowe stated he thought their figure was around six
hundred and something.
John Lowe stated that John Ambrose’s letter would include the impacts that will be addressed by skipping it, basically
making a the spot zoning out of this particular project by bypassing some SR that is existing within the D-19 corridor at
this point along with numerous other issues the he addressed, with that in mind is there any discussion based on the
criteria that the Planning Commission is supposed to be
looking at, Items 1-8:
1. Is the rezoning justified or are there changing conditions in the area? Is there any discussion on that?
Jean Root stated that she is in agreement with Mr. Ambrose’s letter; that there are a number of issues in
addition to the spot zoning and this particular piece of property does not have public water and sewer and there
is no plan thus far to extend it to that area. This is part of the issues within the township Master Plan that in
order to provide those sort of services and it has to be part of the build out and at this time it is projected to
include that area along D-19. Mr. Kallas stated that the development property is located within the sewage and
water district and is capable of being serviced with those services and is a matter of extending the facilities that
is just north of their site, which they intend to do. John Lowe pointed out that the Township Master Plan speaks
of being currently served. Mr. Kallas stated it is their intention to bring services to that area. John Lowe also
stated that this is based on the 1992 Master Plan that shows that to be one parcel per ten acres. With the
designated increase in this, it is still a drastic change in what is allowed for in the current Master Plan. And,
again, this would create an isolated district because it is not directly adjacent in reference to the Home Town
project that was developed basically as a buffer to the Suburban Residential (SR) and would leap frog that
Urban Residential (UR) district further beyond what the plan calls for to keep extending it out farther than what
2. What is the capability providing public utilities, roads and services if the rezoning is approved? When the
sewer district was set up, it went to the overall plan is set up for that area to be SR which is half acre lots as far
as the sewer RE’s and so forth on the overall build out. Within the entire sewer district it lets the sewer RE’s
essentially match the build out within the total project and is basically good planning as far as not getting the
Township into a problem where there is no ability to serve future projects that are within the existing sewer
district if the density is increased. The roads are a major issue with that type of impact going from SR to UR
and the number of vehicles that would be increased on D-19 and the traffic congestion that would be created
3. Will the rezoning be compatible with the neighboring properties and so forth? This addresses that this is on the
of the SR district and is surrounded by large parcels at this point in time
and essentially a leap frog situation.
4. Is it economically feasible to develop property under the current zoning? Mr. Ambrose’s letter addressed the
issue of doing a PUD under the SR district and that has been done within the township consistently on several large
and it seems to be economically feasible.
5. Are there adequate sites elsewhere in the community for the proposed land use? There is UR build outs that are
on the D-19 corridor that are adjacent to the expressway which are adequate at this point in time according to the
John Lowe asked if there were any other issues and there were none. John Lowe asked Mike Kehoe, Township
Attorney, if each of these items should be addressed in the motion and, yes, they should be and with specificity for
Jean Root asked if John Ambrose’s letter should be part of the motion also? Mike Kehoe stated if John Ambrose’s
letter and/or his recommendation was going to be used as part of a motion, then a specific reference should be made
to his letter, date and paragraph as well.
In further discussion, Dave Hamann stated he agreed with the issues in Item 4 when both districts for the sewer were
set up they were based on the ’92 Comprehensive Plans for the capacity that the township has in that Howell sewer is
limited to that capacity and the Township does not have an alternative beyond that, which poses a critical issue every
time he looks at a rezoning number that is going to change
Jim Anderson also stated that he agrees with Dave Hamann on the township’s water and sewer capability of the
existing township system. Presently there are a number of high density developments going in to the north which were
part of the Township’s Master Plan and this development is not. The capacity of the water and sewer system is one
of his main concerns.
Jim Anderson also stated that he agrees with the points with regards to the neighboring properties, if you look around
that site to the east, west and south, those are larger plots of land with houses which lends itself to the uncertainty of
a development of this size would fit in the township at
this point in time.
Jean Root commented in regards to Item No. 5, that remaining properties that surrounds this area is mainly designated
as SR or agricultural in use. Density of this nature is too
great in comparing to what is around it.
John Lowe inquired in regards to Item 6, will rezoning adversely affect the value of these neighboring properties?
Jean Root commented that ultimately this Item is relatively subjective. The quality of life could potentially change living
near a development as this but does not believe the value
of property would go down.
Item 7, is it economically feasible to develop property under the current zoning? Jean Root agrees that they can continue
to develop it under the MSR density using a PUD overlay and understand if the Township were to approve this
development to UR, there are a number of other – the project cannot be looked at as a whole as it is being presented.
That would be considered contrary zoning which is illegal in the state of Michigan. The township can only look at it as
the density would be increased and then the other things under Item 8 that would be included under that use. The
developer can present that to the Planning Commission but the Planning Commission is not able to change. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson stated that can be changed according to what the economy is at that time. Jean Root pointed out
that if the development was sold to another developer, and another developer had a different ideal of how they would
like to see the project look, those things would be allowed in there. Another procedure and applying for another special
use would be needed at that point.
Jean Root commented that there was an overwhelming response from the community at the Public Hearing on
January 27, 2004, that they did not want to see this project go forward with the greater density. Everyone was
opposed to the increased density that was being asked for.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson also commented that there were concerns regarding the new high school that is proposed to
be built on Wright Road.
John Lowe also commented that the Master Plan specifies that the streets and infrastructure are supposed to be able to
handle the capacity before the project is allowed to take place to prevent gridlock. Jean Root asked if this was referring
to Section 6.17 under roadway network, Item A, number
1 and 2? Yes, it is.
Jean Root also commented as a point of clarification for the members in the audience, that the Planning Commission is
just a recommending board. This still has other steps before it goes to County Planning and then it comes back with
their recommendations to the Township Board of Trustees.
Jean Root made a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Rezoning # 6-03, a rezoning request by
Marion Oaks Development, L.L.C, from SR to UR for the
1. Is the rezoning justified by changed or changing conditions in the area? The proposed rezoning request has
identified significant changed conditions with respect to this site that
would justify SR to UR in that:
a) The surrounding properties to the west, north and east are zoned SR and the property to the south across
Road is zoned RR. No surrounding properties are zoned UR, or Master Plan or
urban density land use.
2. Is the rezoning consistent with the Township’s future land use plan and established land use pattern? The
proposed rezoning would set an undesirable precedent of extending the UR zoning into areas Master Planned for
residential or low density suburban residential as well as areas that are
located within the rural services area.
3. Would the amendment create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent districts? The proposed rezoning of the
subject properties from SR to UR would represent spot zoning and is incompatible with surrounding land uses and
incompatible with the Township’s adopted Master Plan.
4. What is the capability of providing public utilities, roads and services if the rezoning is approved? The proposed
rezoning would have a detrimental affect on the Township’s ability to provide adequate public services and facilities
in that the subject site is located within the rural services district with no public water or sewer and no public water
sewer extensions are anticipated. The Section 6.17 of the Marion Township
Ordinance, Item A, 1 and 2.
5. Will the rezoning be compatible with neighboring properties? The proposed rezoning would adversely affect the
features on the subject site in this way: the property is Master Planned for open space residential. Surrounding
continue to be SR and rural in nature and agriculturally zoned.
6. Will the rezoning adversely affect the value of the property? The property values that surround it is subjective
home market and, therefore, were unable to determine if it would affect the
properties in a negative way.
7. Is it economically feasible to develop the property under the current zoning? The subject property can put to
reasonable economic use under its current SR zoning. Other options for SR zoning include site condominiums,
development, as well as the Planned Unit Development Overlay District.
8. Are there adequate sites elsewhere in the community for the proposed use? It is the opinion of the Planning
Commission that developments of this density are to be established within the water and sewer district already
established within the Master Plan adopted in 1992. Under the Comprehensive Plan the property sits within the
rural services district which is not planned for water and sewer. However, this property also sits within this
or District II, which is within the water and sewer but is not currently
(Discussion: Debra Wiedman-Clawson suggested rewording to within the current service district. Jean Root
respectfully disagreed that they are not in the rural service district. Dave Hamann stated this is talking about
the ’92 Comprehensive Plan versus the District I and II for Howell sewage treatment plant services and pointed
out there is a semantic difference and that Jean Root is talking from a Comprehensive Plan, which is correct,
but it should also be mentioned that even though it is in the sewer district it is currently not served and UR is
reserved for along I-96. Dave Hamann suggested stating what she said about the Comprehensive Plan and then
add to it the fact that there are two districts that are within the sewer district that currently this property is not
9. There was an overwhelming response of negative comments from the surrounding residents and current
residents of Marion Township that they wished for the SR to UR be denied believing it would have a negative
the Township as a whole.
The letter dated February 16, 2004
from John Ambrose be included.
Dave Hamann seconded the motion.
Jean Root amended the motion to add prior to the recommendation that it be sent to the Livingston County Department
of Planning and the Marion Township Board of Trustees. The Planning Consultant review letter dated
January 16, 2004 be added to the minutes.
Dave Hamann seconded the amended.
Motion carried 5-0.
RZN# 4-03 Cresendo Homes - Family Golf
Kirt Anderson, Atwell-Hicks updated the Planning Commission. Clarification on the road right-of-way and/or
easements onto Peavy Road in respect to the tract of land between the subject site and Peavy Road. A letter
dated 1-20-04 from Brad E. G. Oliver, PS, Survey Project
Manager for Atwell-Hicks addresses these concerns.
Second issue capacity issues at the corner of Mason and Peavy Roads. A Traffic Impact Analysis was provided
to the Planning Commission. Turning counts were requested yet not provided. The data is being collected and a
report will be sent to the Planning Commission as soon as it is available. Tonight Kirt Anderson is here to answer
John Lowe felt the critical information was the
Kirt Anderson agreed the intersection will need to be
improved yet he feels this is a site plan issue not a rezoning issue.
John Ambrose brought up proposed roadway between D-19 and
Peavy Road and asked this be part of the calculations.
Jean Root asked to see the minimum to the maximum numbers.
Jean Root motioned to table rezoning request RZN# 4-03. A rezoning request by Crescendo Homes to be tabled to the
next regular scheduled meeting March 23, 2004.
Dave Hamann seconded. Motion
RZN# 5-03 Coddington Property
Debra Wiedman-Clawson would like to abstain. Jim Barnwell of Design, Inc. gave a presentation describing property,
location and surrounding zoning.
John Lowe stated they can use the factors for areas of
Number one. Is the rezoning justified by change or changing conditions in the area? I would state that since this
property was zoned, that we have rezoned the property in that area, this is an infill of the existing Urban Residential
(UR) on three sides. This sits within the mixed urban area as stated in the 1992
Number two. Is the rezoning consistent with the Townships Master Plan and the established land use patterns in the
area? Yes, property on three sides is UR. It sits within the partial services district of the Master Plan and is already
served by sewer and water.
Number three. Would
it create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent districts?
It is surrounded by UR on three sides.
Number four. Does capability exist to provide public utilities, roads and services if the rezoning is approved?
Site is currently served with both sewer and water and roads can to tie into through existing developments and
exit near the I-96/D-19 interchange.
Jim Anderson asked that is one way to go if you go through the Meadows Development as an access point yet what
happens if they go to Peavy Road?
Discussion ensued as to potential density of this 11 acre
site and the impact it may have on Peavy Road.
Number five. Will the rezoning be compatible with neighboring properties? Again, the site is surrounded on three
sides by UR.
Number six. Will
the rezoning adversely affect the value of these surrounding proprieties?
John Lowe maintained as they are similar there would be
little impact if any.
Number seven. Is it economically feasible to develop property under current zoning? Yes, but it coincided with the
Master Plan for this to be uniform in the UR area.
Number eight. Are there adequate sites elsewhere in the community for the proposed use? This is the proposed use
in the 1992 Master Plan.
Jean Root commented there were no negative comments from
the public at the Public Hearing.
Jean Root motioned to recommend approval for the rezoning request RZN# 5-03 known as the Coddington property
from Suburban Residential to Urban Residential.
Item one. Is the rezoning justified by change or changing conditions in the area? It is the opinion of the Planning
Commission given that most of the surrounding property sits within the mixed urban district for the Master Plan of 1992.
It justifies this change.
Item two. Is the rezoning consistent with the Townships Future Land Use Plan and established land use patterns in the
area? It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the rezoning request is consistent with the Townships Future
Lands Use Plan as it sits within the partial services district is currently served with water and sewer and is mostly
surrounded currently by UR district.
Item three. Would the amendment create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent districts? It is the opinion of the
Planning Commission that by changing this zoning from SR to UR it would be consistent with current UR zoning it is
Item four. What is the capability to provide public utilities, roads and services if the rezoning is approved? The
property is currently served with water and sewer service it sits on a paved road as well as given its proximity to
other developed projects.
Their road systems could be used or accessed.
Item five. Will the rezoning be compatible with neighboring properties? Again, it is currently zoned SR to the North
but mostly surrounded by UR.
Item six. Will the rezoning adversely affect the value of these proprieties? It is the position of the Planning
Commission that it would not adversely affect the surrounding proprieties give that it is mostly currently surrounded by
Item seven. Is it economically feasible to develop property under current zoning? Yes it is however it is Master
Planned as mixed urban and therefore it seems feasible to allow it to go to UR as it is currently surrounded mostly by
Item eight. Are there adequate sites elsewhere in the community for the proposed use? The site sits directly where it
is Master Planned from 1992 to go under the mixed
Item nine. Should
reference John Ambrose review letter dated December 30, 2003.
Item ten. It should be noted that the public hearing from January 27, 2004 fielded only one comment from the public,
mostly for clarification.
This is to be forwarded to Livingston County Department of Planning for review and recommendation. Following to be
forwarded to the Marion Township Board of Trustees for
their review and recommendation.
Jim Anderson seconded.
Mike Kehoe noted the motion made to forward to the Township Board for their “recommendation” should be change
to “its decision”.
Jean Root amended the motion. The last statement should be made as the Marion Township Board of Trustees for
their review and decision.
The Knolls of Grass Lake
Mike Boss, Boss Engineering addressed outstanding issues. Livingston County Drain Commission (LCDC) gave
approval for the additional grading they requested. There were questions whether lots 4 and 7 could accommodate a
Boss provided drawings of these lots with the placement of a home and
Additional landscaping along the some rear lot lines requested by the Planning Commission was discussed.
The Planning Commission did not ask for berms along the lot lines. They asked for additional plantings that would
screen year round. Mike Boss has deferred to the expert for advice, their landscape architect has reviewed the plans
and finds that the plans as submitted are appropriate and
additional berming and landscaping is unwarranted.
Mike Kehoe read section 6.24 Landscape Buffer. “The Planning Commission may require a landscaped, greenbelt
buffer between any use where it is anticipated that the impact of a proposed development will be negative on an
existing abutting development and/or use.”
The Planning Commission has been given authority within reason.
Mike Boss asked the Planning Commission to clarify where the have the authority along the buffers and what they
want and he will tell them where they do not have it and what they will not do and you do not have authority and that
is not a
The Planning Commission would like to see the height of the berms and trees increased. An agreement was made
between the Planning Commission and Boss Engineering to have their landscape architect meet with a Township
on site to discuss additional landscaping.
Letter dated 2/24/04 from Les Rodwell, Fire Marshal, Howell Area Fire Department (HAFD) was read by John Lowe.
Mr. Rodwell’s letter states the plans are unsatisfactory as presented. Mr. Rodwell states this is clearly a violation of the
adopted International Fire Code Section D107.1, where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 a separate and approved
fire access road will be provided. Mike Boss claims HAFD is a recommending body, the LCRC has given approval, the
plans are alright.
Mike Kehoe is not familiar with the International Fire Code. He will do further research and provide the Township will a
letter regarding enforcement.
Jean Root motioned to table the Knolls of Grass Lake site plan review until the next regular meeting of March 23, 2004
Planning Commission. Dave
Hamann seconded. Motion
TXT# 1-04 Article XIII Planned Unit
Jean Root motioned to send proposed text change for Article XIII Planned Unit Development District Heading to now
read: Planned Unit Development Overlay District to the Livingston County Department of Planning for their review and
recommendation. To forward to the Marion Township Board of Trustees for their review and decision.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
Site Plan Review Application
John Lowe asked the Planning Commission for discussion. No discussion tonight. Dave Hamann motioned to table
the Site Plan Review Application.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion
TXT# 2-04 Section 6.30 & TXT# 3-04 Section
3.02 Private Sewage/Waste Water Treatment Facilities
John Lowe stated John Ambrose, Township Planner and Mike Kehoe, Township Attorney have put together language
for the proposed text amendment and definition.
hearing. Any changes
can be discussed at the public hearing.
John Ambrose explained it is broken down two ways. If one is put in the sewer service district you can enjoy the
same lot areas, densities as if you were served with sewer. If you are located outside the sewer district in Rural
Residential (RR), you still have to maintain the one acre
lot size. There is no change in
to set a public hearing for March 23, 2004 @ 7:15.
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
TO THE PUBLIC
Jean Root would like Planning Commission Rules and Procedures of 1996 to be placed on the March 23, 2004 agenda.
will review the current version and submit suggested revisions.
Dave Hamann made a motion to adjourn@ 10:40 p.m.. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.