|
|||
|
|
MARION TOWNSHIP Draft Minutes PUBLIC HEARING - MARCH 23, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann,
John
Lowe, Jean Root MEMBERS ABSENT:
None OTHERS
PRESENT:
John Ambrose, Planning Consultant Bob Hanvey, Township
Supervisor Michael Kehoe, Township
Attorney
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator ************************************************************************************************************* CALL TO ORDER
John
Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:17 p.m. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA
Dave Hamann made a motion to approve the Public Hearing agenda for March 23, 2004. Jim
Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. CALL TO THE
PUBLIC OLD
BUSINESS Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Proposed Text Amendment – TXT# 2-04 Article VI General Provisions – Section 6.30 Private Sewage/Waste
Water Treatment Plant John Ambrose at the request of the Marion Township Planning Commission at a special meeting held on February 26, 2004, submitted revised language that would regulate the development of private sewage/waste water treatment facilities in Marion Township. He also stated in a letter dated February 7 and 25, 2004 believed in order to accomplish
this task, both the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance need to specifically
address this issue. First, the Township’s Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use Map) needs to specifically delineate the boundaries of the Township’s proposed sewer and water service boundary areas. This task was discussed at length at the special Planning Commission meeting held on February 26, 2004 concerning the Township’s Comprehensive Plan which is
being prepared by the Livingston County Planning Department. Second, a recommendation of a new “overlay zone” be added to the Township’s Zoning Ordinance that regulates the
development of private sewage/waste water treatment facilities. John Ambrose in explaining the definition of a private sewage/waste water treatment facility read the following: “Private Sewage/Waste Water Facility shall include all necessary pipes, structures, tanks, media and all related equipment, parts, as well as any land area, that is designed and intended to provide sanitary waste water treatment and/or services for more than one (1) dwelling in a single-family residential development consisting of at least two (2) single-family dwellings.” This would be the definition that would be added to Section 3.02, which is the definition section of
the ordinance. The main text that regulates private sewage and waste water treatment facilities would be developed as an overlay zone. It would be added to the general provisions, which is Article VI and common use section, Section 6.30. The purpose and intent of the Private Sewage/Waste Water Treatment Facilities Overlay Zone is to provide supplemental development regulations designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of Marion Township residents from possible ground water/aquifer contamination and from the over development of the Township with regard to density factors that are not consistent with the Township’s Comprehensive Development Plan and future land use
map. Treatment Facilities Overlay Zone shall conform to all of the requirements found in Article XVI; Special Use Permits as well as Article XVIII; Site Plan Requirements. In addition, private sewage/water treatment facilities shall be limited to the handling and treatment of domestic (residential) waste, and in no case shall commercial and/or industrial sewage/waste water be treated by a private sewage/waste water treatment facility. Private sewage/waste water treatment facilities shall conform to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) permitting and construction
requirements pursuant to Part 41, Act 451, P.A. of 1994 as amended. John Ambrose stated the proposed zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Township’s Attorney, Mr. Mike
Kehoe, and his revisions have been incorporated into the proposed zoning
amendment. John Lowe asked Mike Kehoe, Township attorney, for any additional comments. Mr. Kehoe addressed a recent decision that was recently handed down by the Court of Appeals in regard to Lake Isabella located in Mt. Pleasant area. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in regard to private waste water treatment systems stated that one of their rules was that anyone who wanted to apply for a permit through the DEQ had to first obtain a resolution from the local unit of government; that the local unit of government would agree to take over responsibility in the event that the system failed. Understandably, they were reluctant to provide such a resolution due to dealing with many times this is dealing with smaller communities who do not have the facilities, staff or finances to be able to undertake
such a burden. that led to them being sued along with the DEQ. In summary, the Court of Appeals said that the DEQ can no longer enforce that rule. So they will not be able to require developers to obtain a resolution from the local units of government first. This will enable the process to go to the DEQ first and they will review the appropriate application for the
appropriate information and issue or deny a permit accordingly. Court of Appeals basically said there was really no authority for the DEQ to impose that type of requirement and also stated by imposing that type of requirement there weren’t any standards or anything upon which to base a decision so a local government could deny it. The Court of Appeals said that was unreasonable to not have any standards, which puts this back to the province of the State to handle. There will no longer be a requirement from the DEQ that they have to come to the local unit of government first. John Lowe stated that essentially the document being discussed relates to that finding. Mr. Kehoe stated it does from the standpoint that given that action by the Court of Appeals, municipalities, townships, may now be faced with developments that may propose a private waste water disposal system. Given that, and given the fact that townships, the Township Rural Zoning Act, gives you the right to establish districts, determine how you want land to be used, determine density factors, etc., it would be a good idea for the township to take a position one way or another in regard to this type of development and believes
from his understanding that’s what the township decided to do. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC 1. Mary Ann Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court, Howell, commented in support of the Planning Commission’s decision in amending or adopting this type of policy. Taking in consideration that it was not a question on the 2000 Comprehensive Plan survey, but if it had been posed to the residents in the community there would have been an overwhelming response that the residents would have supported the Planning Commission in what they had decided to place an ordinance in place that would limit and contain the noise
and disturbance to the surrounding neighbors with these types of
developments. County as their executive officer. Their organization is a county-wide organization with members consisting of builders, subcontractors, suppliers, developers and remodelers. There’s 465 members and employs about 5,000 people in and around Livingston County. Ms. Kull’s presence was to speak out against the provisions in the proposed ordinance with regard to the onsite treatment systems which talk about conforming to the current density in the Master Plan. The following was read “My interest in your proposed ordinance is related to affordable – or attainable – housing. My organization is part of a coalition of businesses in the county which make up the Housing Growth & Opportunities Council. We’ve partnered with the Howell and Brighton Chambers, the Economic Development Council, County Planning, the Realtors and other businesses to try and keep housing affordable for professional working
people in our County. My concern with your ordinance is that it will drive up the cost of development, making it more costly to build homes in Marion Township. The professional people you would be driving away from your community are our teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other entry to mid-level managers who earn in the
$35,000 - $50,000 per year range. As a member of the Housing Growth and Opportunities Council, and a representative of the businesses who are trying to bring solid, well built and affordable homes to our county, I urge you not to pass this section of the ordinance, but instead to work to find ways to make home ownership attainable for the working
professionals who serve our County. 3.
Kimberly Bowlin, 132 East Grand River, Brighton, MI 48116. Ms. Bowlin read the following: “I am legal counsel for HBALC and am speaking on behalf of HBALC and numerous builder and developer clients when I say I am opposed to the proposed zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to wastewater treatment plants. The objections I have are numerous, however, because I think most of them have or will be voiced by others in the room, I will stick to the legal
objections. In short, it is my
opinion that the ordinance you propose is preempted by state law. The general rule of law in Michigan on the issue of preemption can be found in People v Llewellyn, 401 Mich 314, 257 NW2d 902 (1977). In that case, the court held that a municipality may not enact an ordinance if the ordinance directly conflicts with the state statutory scheme or the state statutory scheme preempts the ordinance by occupying the field of regulation the municipality seeks to enter, to the exclusion of the ordinance, even where there is no direct conflict between the two schemes of regulation. Preemption may be established (1) where state law is expressly preemptive; (2) by examination of the legislative history; (3) by the pervasiveness of the state regulatory scheme; or (4) the nature of the regulated subject matter may demand exclusive state regulation to achieve the uniformity necessary to serve the state’s purpose or interest. If the nature of the regulated subject matter calls for regulation adapted to local conditions and the local regulation does not interfere with the
state regulatory scheme, supplementary local ordinances are generally
upheld. Id., pages 323-325. In the current case, that is wastewater treatment regulations, there is no express preemption, no does the legislative history conclusively lead to a conclusion pertaining to preemption. Instead, it is the pervasiveness and comprehensiveness of NREPA which demands exclusive state regulation, as does the nature of the regulated subject matter. The state statutory scheme of wastewater treatment regulation was most recently examined by the Court of Appeals in the case of the City of Brighton v Township of Hamburg in its January 2004 published decision. In that case, the Michigan Court of Appeals stated, “The subject matter of the regulation clearly calls for a statewide, uniform system of regulation.” The Court of Appeals reiterated a portion of the MDEQ’s brief stating, “The state has an interest in insuring that all the wastewater treatment plants located within the state are regulated in an even-handed fashion.” Finally the Court of Appeals points out that any person, including a city or township, that is aggrieved by the DEQ’s issuance of a permit may request and have a contested hearing. This procedure for local input by way of contested hearing and ultimate adoption or rejection by the head of the DEQ ensures uniformity and coherence of a statewide policy to protect health, safety and
welfare of the state’s citizens. Prior to the January 2004 Hamburg Township decision, in November 2003, the case of Lake Isabella Development, Inc. v Village of Lake Isabella and the DEQ was decided. In that case, the Michigan Court of Appeals also held that the DEQ has exclusive jurisdiction over issuance of permits for sewer
construction. Putting the regulation of wastewater treatment plants in terms of “zoning” and “siting” issues does not cure the major flaw in the proposed ordinance - that is, you are attempting to regulate that which is solely regulated by the state. Two different ways of superceding the state’s exclusive jurisdiction over this
area have tried and failed. I would respectfully request that you not be the
third.” 4. Pat Convery, President of Howell Chamber of Commerce, ________ town Commons. Ms. Convery appeared to reiterate the message of importance of affordable housing in this community and throughout the county. The problem in Livingston County is that many of our own children cannot afford to live here, people who work in our businesses cannot afford to live here, such as professionals as firefighters, police officers, school teachers who are forced to live outside our community. Affordable housing does not mean subsidized, cheap poorly constructed housing. We’re talking about housing that a working family can afford, a smaller size house on a smaller lot size, PUD design, something that would also create community. We’re losing our young people in this county and we’re losing our future leaders and urged the members of the Planning Commission to keep that in mind when making their
considerations. 5. Don Harvey, 100159 Hamburg, also stated he had been working with affordable homes with the Livingston County Committee for affordable housing in the last four years. They have been doing presentations throughout the community in Livingston County, all the communities, showing them where and why affordable housing is needed. They would like the township to look at themselves as part of Livingston County rather than just looking at themselves trying to build a well rounded county where there is affordable homes in each county, each township rather than in exclusive townships. The ordinance has been passed in Handy Township where they are putting in affordable homes. Other townships have been invited to do the presentation and have shown a real interest in it. This is an attempt to build a well-rounded community with homes for working people, our kids, children, parents,
grandparents. 6. Mike Heisner, 2989 Rubbins, stated he is in favor of the ordinance. He lives in Marion Township and the people in this organization do not live here. He likes the way the township is and believes the ordinance
should be adopted as proposed. 7. Denis Kurencyk, Hamburg Township, 9104 Moonlight Bay, Pinckney, developer/builder in the county and was born and raised in the county. He grew up in South Lyon and lives in Pinckney with his offices located in downtown Brighton. He has lived in the area for 29 years and seen the changes in the county whether Lyon Township or Hamburg. Mr. Kurencyk stated his presence is to show his opposition to the proposed ordinance with regards to the on-site wastewater treatment and sewer system. “The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that, ‘No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.’ However, local government often enacts local land use regulation such as the proposed
ordinance that violates the constitutional rights of private property
owners. What this ordinance will accomplish if enacted is deprive working class citizens of Livingston County the opportunity to obtain a quality affordable home in Marion Township. The word affordable has grown into a very dark and scary phrase in this county. I looked up the definition in the Webster dictionary this afternoon and the meaning is as follows: “To be able to bear the cost of”, to make available if for to provide naturally or inevitably. This is not such a scary phrase. It doesn’t commentate that the homes that are going to be affordable, people will not take care of them, the neighborhoods will be taken care of. We have to look back into the 1950’s and see what we did with our homes. I believe the same thing is today. People take pride in home ownership; it is the American dream. It is what everyone from under five years old until we’re 20 is what we dream about. It’s what we work so hard for, is to accomplish that dream. $150,000 home in the county aren’t going to take care of that, I think that’s very insulting to that group. What he finds amazing is that most people will go out of their way to find the best deal in town, whether it will be groceries, gasoline, you name it. Wal-Mart became the largest retail chain in the country on the idea of affordability to the masses. Why is it to bring affordability to the housing sector most builders and developers seem to run into stiff opposition from both local citizens and local governments? What this ordinance seeks to do is to stop any form of affordable housing be built in Marion Township. Density equals affordability. One of the biggest problems that Livingston County has is affordable policy. We cannot house our working class citizens. The median sale price for a home in Marion Township is $202,000 based on the 2000 census. That’s just a median, and that’s for new and existing. Most local government officials agree that we need to provide affordable housing for our population. What always seems to happen is talking is cheap. I have yet to see a local form of government besides Handy Township
adopt or draft a public hearing affordable ordinance. done in 2000, the additional cost, $1000 cost on an average price home, can potentially price out as many as 400,000 prospective home buyers. Building 100 single-family homes generate eleven million dollars in new local income. It puts 250 people to work in that community. It provides more than one million dollars in additional tax and fee revenue to a local government during the first year of construction. Our traffic systems can handle the new development that’s on its way. Our school districts are planning, or already have planned, for the increase in student population. These arguments are old and tired and, frankly, have already been addressed. We must understand that change is constant and for the same reason our parents moved here, and why we choose to live here, many more people want the same opportunities to move to this county and raise their families. To try and stop growth is impossible. We are not stopping growth. We are increasing the costs of those families that wish to live and work in Livingston
County.” 8. Jim Sammons, 2985 Rubbins, stated he was for the proposal as it is. He also made the comment that
affordable housing is needed. 9. Mary Ann Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court, addressed comments made by the builders, Mr. Kurencyk and Mr. Harvey, and stated that when they were building their home to comment on the fact that if the median price of affordable housing in Livingston County at this point is $202,000, she falls in that classification of a $35,000 income wage earner. She also stated that neither one of the builders could give a bid on a home that she could afford. She built and made it fit into her budget and stated if you want
to build affordable housing, it can be done. and zoning? Does the court case have any bearing on the zoning at Lake Isabella or anywhere, any zoning ordinances related or were these specific to the process of making application for the permit? -
Does the current wellhead
protection plan allow private wastewater treatment plant under that
ordinance? -
If the ordinance is not
adopted, would additional density be allowed? lot size, variances, density or anything else. It focused almost exclusively on the DEQ’s requirement that a municipality had to agree to be responsible if there was a failure. That case had no bearing on the ability of a
township to regulate its land use or how it wants to establish density or
anything along those lines. Mr. Ambrose addressed impact Master Plan or zoning, it doesn’t impact either. It’s a suburban residential district; it
wouldn’t have any impact other than that. with the Master Plan? No, the Master Plan zoning ordinance is what is used as guidelines for development. Does current wellhead protection ordinance allow wastewater treatment plants? Not within Zone A or B wellhead protection and, therefore, is prohibited as are a number of other uses. If adopted as constraints, will additional wastewater treatment plants, will additional densities be allowed? No, it’s the Township’s responsibility to Master Plan and zone its community. And under those statutes of the state, you have that authorization and nobody else does. You go through the processes that are provided, such as, public hearings before you adopt those documents. It’s the impression based on documentation that has been received that if a wastewater treatment plant is put in at a residential development, you automatically get higher density and that is false. If that was the case, then they are preempting state statutes with regard to local planning. So why have zoning and why have planning if you can preempt everything. This is not preempting local planning and local zoning. If they go out into an area that has been planned and zoned for low density high rural development, they will come in and suggest that they develop at a much higher density because they have a treatment plant and that is not the case. That’s what is
being said in the township ordinance. behalf of Chestnut Development had a couple questions regarding the rezoning. The first question based on Mr. Ambrose’s and Mr. Kehoe’s comments suggesting that the rationale for this ordinance is the Lake Isabella decision and the concern over the potential financial ramifications to the township if these private systems should fail. Mr. Myers asked for clarification if that is the only rationale or if there’s other rationale
of the ordinance? John Lowe stated that is one of the issues of the rationale. Mr. Kehoe concurred that is the primary one. John Lowe also stated that because this issue has come up at this juncture in time, it was necessary to basically address the issues in a manner so they weren’t reacting to something. In other words, something that had already gone awry. Mr. Myers stated that was his sense of the discussion for the evening and asked if that’s the case, then he would like to know and could understand the performance standards, Section D, the latest part of the ordinance how that would address that concern. His question is how does A through D
address that concern? Mr. Ambrose stated in terms of location requirements, the first element, this type of use is currently prohibited
in the wellhead ordinance and has been on the books for some time. Secondly, the Township is saying anything that is within the Township sewer and water district, which is open to this type of affordable housing that everybody is concerned with, and covers about a third of the Township, the Township is not going to allow the type of treatment plants to be built in competition with the public system, which was the intent. The remainder of the Township, which is two-thirds of the Township, would be open for this type of development where private sewer and water treatment plant based on the underlying zoning and would cover basically two-single family zoning classifications which is the rural residential district and suburban residential district and would be allowed there for a special use process based on the
underlying densities, lot areas, and any other dimensional requirements. Mr. Myers commented that the DEQ has and still does regulate things such as setbacks and location requirements for onsite wastewater treatment facilities and that has had no impact as a result of Lake Isabella decision. So if the impetus for this ordinance is the Lake Isabella decision, then he doesn’t understand how imposing setback requirements and things of that nature addresses that financial security
concern. Mr. Ambrose stated he doesn’t think the setback requirements were directly aimed at the Lake Isabella decision. He believes it’s reasonable to have certain minimal requirements where a facility can locate in relation to
where a house is sited. Mr. Myers stated his understanding of a DEQ regulation, is standards that have been proposed in this ordinance are more stringent than what is allowed by the DEQ and what’s the rationale for imposing more
stringent standards, what has been imposed by DEQ and still is imposed by
DEQ? Mr. Kehoe was not present when the Planning Commission discussed this but it was his understanding that A, B, C, and D, are typically standards that are in areas that the Township regulates or sets requirements, or regulations, for in regard to the siting of any type of use of land. As he looked at A through D, those appeared to be reasonable requirements. In addition, because of the possibility that a development such as this could be sited next to an existing neighborhood or something like that, he felt it was reasonable for the Township to have not only requirements about having it look harmonious but also the
setback distances and so forth on the circumstances seemed reasonable. Mr. Myers’ stated this is a more stringent standard than what the DEQ has been consistently implementing and questioned what the precedence or rationale for making more stringent? Is it the suggestion that those
standards are not appropriate? If
so, what is the basis for that statement? Mr. Lowe stated the Planning Commission felt that the dimensions that were put into the proposed ordinance were deemed to be reasonable to protect the existing neighborhoods and the health and safety of
the existing property owners that surround the project. Mr. Myers questioned the proposed ordinance where it prohibits any private wastewater treatment facilities in wellhead protection areas, which obviously includes his client’s property. Is it the suggestion that private septic fields on single family residents provide a level of treatment that is greater than what is provided by
private wastewater treatment facilities? Mr. Lowe stated this has been in effect since the wellhead protection was established seven or eight years ago. Mr. Ambrose stated the standards were established in conjunction with the City of Howell and the Livingston
County Health Department and MHOG was involved. Mr. Myers still questioned if his client’s property were developed for 110 home sites and it was serviced by private septic fields, each home was serviced by private septic fields within the wellhead protection area, is it the suggestion that this ordinance, that it is more safe for the environment and the wellhead protection area than having a well than having a wastewater treatment plant that could service those same residents? Mr.
Ambrose stated that was not suggesting that. Mr. Kehoe commented that this is a Public Hearing designed for the taking of input from the public in regard to
their concerns and positions and their concerns and positions are duly
noted. 12. Steve Morgan, 4432 Glen Eagle Court, Brighton, in follow-up to the density issue for clarity, Mr. Morgan spoke to a public sewer in suburban residential (SR) zoning of 20,000 square feet. He stated with this being a public sewer; it has to be a public sewer by state statute even though it may be privately built. He asked for a clarification of why there would be a differentiation between the one built by the township and one built by a private
individual and required to turn over to a municipality by state statute. John Lowe responded by relating back to the underlying zoning and the densities in the underlying zoning, which the Township has the ability to regulate. Mr. Kehoe concurred and stated that generally speaking it’s going to be a privately owned system due to an association being the owner as opposed to a public system or municipality owning and operating it. John Lowe stated it is quasi public because it is owned by an association
and not municipal. Mr. Morgan stated that is not allowed under state statute. If more than one person uses a sewer/water system then
it must be a municipally owned system, or publicly owned. 13. Kimberly Bowlin, 132 E. Grand River, stated in relation to Mr. Myers’ comments about private septic systems and the question about whether or not those are actually safer to the public health, safety and welfare, wanted to quote from Lake Isabella in which the court said, no, it’s not. It states that “The statute was intended to regulate the discharge of both private and public sewage systems. An arbitrary rejection of a local governmental authority prevents safe and sound sewage treatment practices which are authorized and encouraged by the law and would thus require the use of individual septic systems or some other disposal
system which are discharged under the law.” In relation to this, when the township talks about protecting Marion Township residents from possible groundwater and aquifer contamination, again, state statute covers that. The DEQ is the protector of the waters of the state and the court reiterates that in the decision that is being used to pass this unlawful ordinance. 14. Kyle Sober, 6126 Pheasant Ridge, Fowlerville, asked for clarification of stating quasi systems to be competitive in the Marion Township’s sewer district? Mr. Ambrose stated they didn’t want them located within the boundaries where the public sewers are being provided, which is close to a third of the township. Ms. Sober stated it appears that the township ordinance is picking and choosing where affordable housing can
be located and will make it hard for their homes to sell in the future. an area that had public sewer system and that the Township is opening themselves up to, if this becomes public as it is being said, and a sanitary sewer backs up into someone’s home more than once, the township is
legally liable for that and is called trespass nuisance and it is a law.
Ms. Bowlin disagrees with that. housing do not live in Marion Township. Another thing is the issue about the roads handling all the traffic that there’s trouble with the traffic now and if the school goes in and other subdivisions, the roads will be terrible. 16. Jim Fenton, 408 East Grand River, Fowlerville, stated he has sat on a Planning Commission in Fowlerville and knows how this has been a difficult time to try to do what people want them to do. He asked Mr. Ambrose if he heard him say that this does not follow a Master Plan. Mr. Ambrose stated he was
asked if it was inconsistent with the Master Plan and he stated that, no,
it’s not. Master Plan for the general public is a document that’s required when you have a Planning Commission body and that Master Plan is created and that’s what the Planning Commission uses as a guiding document and has to constantly refer back to it to make sure that their long-term plan is making changes and is consistent with the Master Plan. Ordinance changes are difficult for everybody and making special changes can get a Planning Commission and Township in a lot of legal trouble. One of his concerns needs affordable housing and
stated our county is lacking for affordable housing and need to address it. 17. Don Harvey stated the developers, the chambers and everyone involved in home growth has went to every township and presented to all the townships for affordable homes and is not targeting Marion Township to
allow affordable housing. 18. Mary Ann Bahr stated in her subdivision there are at least two policemen that live there and found affordable housing. Ms. Bahr stated where we define affordable housing as a dollar value and asked that if these
things are said they should stand behind them. 19. Marty Ritchie, 3173 Grass Lake Court, stated he is for the ordinance. He has lived in the Pinckney/Howell area for 20 years. He believes that affordable housing is whatever people want and doesn’t believe that $199,000
or $200,000 is affordable for people under 35. 20.
Bill Jones, 4405 Bentley Lake made a motion to move on. 21. Valde Garcia, 1152 Hudson Drive, appeared at the request of someone who asked him to speak to affordable housing. He stated affordable housing is a problem in Livingston County and is needed. It is needed throughout the state. The problem lies in what has been addressed before, how do you define affordable housing. This is a difficult task and if there is anything at the state level he can do to help, he invited
the township to come to the state level or if there is something he could do
to help, please contact him. John Lowe asked for further comments and none being
heard, closed the call to the Public at 8:23. Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated that in Section A, #1, where private water and sewer treatment plant facility should be prohibited in those areas of the township that are designated in a Township’s Comprehensive Plan. Technically because the Township is still working on the new one needs to be reworded and recommended that the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use be dropped and put on the Township’s proposed public sewer and water service boundary areas and then see attached drawing of what those proposed areas are. So it is not directly because of the timing of this and new Master Plan is being worked on, does not want to tie it to the old Master Plan that doesn’t have that in it and think it should say see attached drawing which is already in circulation. Debra Wiedman-Clawson also stated she would like to know what the DEQ standards are for the site requirements and would like a copy of it. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC None. ADJOURNMENT
Dave Hamann made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
Regular Meeting - Draft Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe,
Jean
Root MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS
PRESENT:
John Ambrose, Planning Consultant
Bob Hanvey, Township
Supervisor
Michael Kehoe, Township
Attorney
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
*************************************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
John
Lowe called the meeting to order at 8:27 p.m. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA
Under new business, Judith Lyons, 3498 Cedar Point, requested that a new item be added to discuss “home
occupation”. give the Planning Commission an opportunity to research further DEQ requirements to see how it relates to what the Planning Commission has currently and to have time to review all the comments that were set
forth in the 3/23/04 Public Hearing. Jartnick Pond that needs to be added to the agenda. It was suggested that the rezoning of #4-03, Family
Golf, be removed from the present agenda. Jean Root made a motion to add to the agenda for the regular meeting, March 23, 2004, under New Business, an item regarding home occupation and the second item, regarding the Triangle Lake Association
and Jartnick Pond issue. Jim
Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Jean Root made a motion to table to the next regular scheduled meeting of April 27, 2004 the Rezoning Request #4-03 for Family Golf; the Knolls of Grass Lake Site Plan Review; Proposed Text Amendment – TXT# 2-04, Section 6.30 Private Sewage/Waste Water Treatment Plant; Proposed Text Amendment – TXT# 3-04 Article III Definitions, Section 3.02 Private Sewage/Waste Water Treatment Plant. Dave
Hamann seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Jean Root made a motion to postpone the discussion for the Site Plan Review Application until the meeting
of April 7, 2004 at 7:30. Jim
Anderson seconded. Motion carried
5-0. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC Galina Zwerlein, 2501 Clivedon Road, Howell, commented that the Call to the Public was the first item to be addressed and would like to make comments regarding the Knolls of Grass Lake. Secondly, she would
like to address the February 24, 2004 regular meeting minutes. Ms. Zwerlein
read the following: “While looking over the website minute notes of February 24, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, it has come to my attention that the minutes were not complete-pertaining to the Knolls of Grass Lake development. They did not include the letter I’ve submitted to the Commission before the meeting in regards to the International Fire Code violation, nor did they include the letter from Howell’s Fire Marshall himself in regards to this development’s violation of the International Fire Code Section D107.1. The brief summary of the Fire Marshall’s letter noted in the minutes was misleading. The minutes stated the following, and I quote: ‘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.’ In reality, it is over the IFC limit by about 23 home sites, since Clivedon, which is considered an access road, already has 17 buildable home sites. (36 home sites proposed +17 existing home sites on Clivedon=53
total homes proposed off main road – 30 allowed by Fire Code=23) Also at the last meeting an argument was made by the township (again, no mention of that in last month’s minutes) that the International Fire Code is only a recommendation, and does not have to be followed. If that’s the case, then why go through all the hassle of instructing Boss Engineering to get the Fire Marshall’s approval, if they really don’t need it? Howell Fire Marshall’s letter to the township relieved the Fire Department of their possible, future liability. If Marion Township and/or Boss Engineering choose to ignore this fire code violation, then they may be held accountable in the event of any preventable damage, injury,
or death taking place, just as drunk drivers would be held responsible if he
or she got caught. International Fire Code was developed by a panel of experts for the benefit of public safety. According to the International Code Council, 32 states currently use the International Fire Code, including Michigan. The potential home buyers of the Knolls of Grass Lakes subdivision should be made aware if the International
Fire Code was not followed before they buy, since their future safety could
possibly be affected. Please include the Fire Marshall’s and my letters mentioned previously in their entirety with current minutes. Also,
please include my complete comments verbatim, in order to preserve the
meaning of what I have said. I have
taken the liberty of making a copy of each letter for township secretary’s
convenience.” John Lowe stated as a point of clarification for this particular issue, the major reason the Knolls of Grass Lake was being tabled for this evening was because the issues revolving around the International Fire Code have not been resolved at this point in time and the Planning Commission has not gotten a clear response back from the people who are responsible from all the various agencies. These issues have not
been ignored and they are in the process of being resolved and will be
addressed at the next meeting. Mary
Ann Bahr, 3201 Grass Lake Court, stated: the residents of Marion Township adopt and abide by the International Fire Code, Section D107.1
as a zoning
ordinance or other governing of the township.
and wetlands protection zoning and other governing ordinance. Planning Commission, the Board of Trustees and the Township Attorney study, adopt, and abide by the State of Michigan DEQ Land or Management Division Wetland Protection Administrative Code and discuss with the Livingston County Road
Commission (LCRC)
point of access roads. Thank you very much. John Lowe hearing no further comments for the Call to the Public, closed the Call to the Public. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES January
12, 2004 Special Meeting Minutes Jean Root commented that the reference to the seven acre corner piece of property at Cedar Lake Road that was to be donated to the Township was not referenced and would like that added to the record
and inserted under Bob Hanvey’s comments. Jean Root made a motion to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of January 12, 2004 as amended. Dave
Hamann seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. February 24,
2004 Public Hearing Jean Root made a motion to approve the Public Hearing Minutes from February 24, 2004 as submitted. Dave
Hamann seconded. Motion carried
5-0. February 24,
2004 Regular Meeting Jean Root
cited the following changes: - Page 3 of 12, tenth paragraph, reference to the proposed High School, where it says, “They do have some plan for improvements to widen Pinckney Road, four to five lanes from I-96 to Norton,”
should read
Mason Road instead of Norton. - Page 4 of 12, bottom of page, “John Lowe stated that John Ambrose’s letter would include the impacts that will be addressed by skipping it…What does skipping mean? Would skipping mean pass SR to bring in UR? John Lowe commented it was referring to “skipping existing SR zoning and creating UR on the southerly boundary.” Also, in that same paragraph, fourth sentence, “the” should be
removed. -
Page 6 of
12, Item 7, fifth sentence, “contrary” zoning, should read “contract
zoning -
Page 11 of
12, first paragraph, tape will be reviewed for clarification - Page 11 of 12, eighth paragraph, “Jean Root asked if the township can prohibit private facilities
entirely and
John Ambrose’s answer “No” should be added. Dave Hamann made a motion to table the Marion Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes from February 24, 2004, 7:30 p.m., until reviewed and presented at the next regular scheduled meeting.
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. OLD
BUSINESS RZN# 8-03 – Chestnut
Development John Lowe questioned if all information was in the packet. The e-mail from Webmaster reflecting RZN# 8-03 on the top corner, were received after the Public Hearing. Mike Kehoe stated that they are part of the Planning Commission record but because they weren’t submitted in
time for the Public Hearing, they shouldn’t be included. Annette McNamara stated reference was made to Eloise Bose’s letter in the February 3, 2004 minutes and also a letter from David M. Kalp, dated 2/16/04 has not been noted in the record. John Lowe stated they should be added to the packet. He also asked if the members were comfortable with the submitted information at this time. In response: Jean Root commented that in previous rezonings they have gone through the criteria as part of the discussion with Mr. Kehoe and discussed each item as it pertains to this. Mr. Ambrose commented that letters information being reviewed, they could move on to the motion. commented that the last time they were there, several questions had been asked by the Commission regarding specific information that the Commission felt was relevant to the basis of the rezoning request. In an effort to provide the information that was requested by the Planning Commission
they had done several things. 1. They redistributed the conceptual Planned Unit Development submittal package that was filed originally in November of 2003. Their understanding of the Township’s position that the rezoning request and the PUD application would not be considered simultaneously. However, many of the questions that the Board asked regarding specific information related to the proposal is reflected in the packet of information that was redistributed and relied on the information, albeit not for purposes of the PUD, because that’s not before the Commission, but that information is still relevant and believe is very supportive of the need to rezone the property that is the subject of the application. Mr. Myers believes that those packets were received by the Planning Commission and rely on that
information. 2. Mr. Myers also stated he submitted a cover letter dated, March 2, 2004, additional information that the Commission requested that related to other similar type developments – mixed use PUD’s – that information was identified. Mr. Eppik was prepared to address those in greater detail and, obviously, it was impossible to provide all of that
information in a written packet other than just identifying the
developments. 3. There was also information that was requested regarding absorption rates, market data related to home prices and have prepared additional slides for the Commission’s consideration to further shed light on that issue. Ruth Williams from Keller Williams is present to provide further information to substantiate the market data that they had addressed at the previous meeting. Mr. Eppik is prepared to elaborate on previous questions that the Commission had raised at the last meeting. Mr. Myers requested the opportunity to provide information that was requested
at the last meeting. John Lowe stated that would be permissible as long as it’s not project specific but on a zoning basis. Mr. Myers stated it was zoning basis specific and also the information referenced received from the Township Attorney was never received by him and would be happy to address any questions raised from a legal standpoint. John Lowe asked Mike Kehoe for protocol on that
issue. Mike Kehoe stated attorney/client privilege as opposed to general information. John Lowe stated it is not specific to a certain project but is a general practice. Mr. Myers’ concern is to the extent the information bears on the Commission’s decision, it has to be a public record and believes they have the right and obligation to address those issues to the extent that they bear on the Commission’s
decision and would not infringe upon an attorney/client relationship. Mike Kehoe stated the factors that the Planning Commission needs to look at are if they are of a general nature. He advised that in the past someone has been allowed to make additional presentations before the business session (Comment from audience) Brian Heeg, 5557 Mason Road, Fowlerville commented that tonight’s request is a continuation of the appeal that was made for a zoning change and believes there should be a call to the public. John Lowe stated that the Public Hearing was already conducted on the rezoning. Mr. Heeg pointed out that it sounds like a continuation of that hearing. John Lowe explained that additional information had been requested at the last meeting, which the request by Mr. Myers’ is a response to that
request. (Presentation by Jim Eppik) Mr. Eppik stated they are prepared to go forward with the proposal as it relates to the rezoning and the subsequent PUD. Due to the time, Mr. Eppik stated he would skip ahead to the end of their presentation and address specifically the township’s consultant’s review letter, which wasn’t available to them prior to the meeting and did not have an opportunity to review
and respond to it at the last meeting. Mr. Eppik stated he would like to respond to Mr. Ambrose’s recommendation for denial of recommendation for the rezoning of the PUD. Mr. Eppik stated he did have a review letter which was dated January 16, 2004 and listed about six or eight items and that he
would like to respond to. Jim Anderson at this point asked for a clarification of their presentation keeping in mind that Mr. Eppik’s presentation was to be new material based on the request of the Planning Commission and not a rebuttal. Mr. Myers stated it was new material and, again, Jim Anderson asked if their intention was for rebuttal. Due to them not being made privy to
that letter before, felt they should be able to respond to those points. Mr. Myers pointed out that a question asked of the Commission was whether they had any further elaboration on Mr. Ambrose’s traffic impact, the potential trip generation and the potential impact to the infrastructure as suggested in his report but they had not received his report until February 12th a week after the meeting. John Lowe stated that was one of the
questions and said that would be acceptable to address.
Mr. Eppik stated they were asked to provide information on traffic, schools, housing. It was pointed out that Mr. Ambrose provided trip generation numbers based on proposed density or density on the rough usable acreage and compared that to existing conditions, compared to SR zoning and then UR zoning or the proposed rezoning district. He pointed out that calculations for SR zoning based on 217 lots, which would be consistent with what the ordinance provides and more consistent with what he heard at the meeting but different than what the letter reflects. In essence 217 single-family homes under SR zoning with trip generation 9.6 trips per day would generate 2000 or 2083 trips per day. would be developed under a PUD scenario using the rezoning to UR, 267 homes with 9.6 trips per day would be 2563. Twenty-four town homes generate slightly fewer trips, 8 trips per day; 14 work units would produce fewer trips, 91 trips per day. A total trip generation under the UR zoning of 28.46 trips per day. In comparing that to the 2083, as Mr. Eppik pointed out, it’s important to know what is being looked at is an incremental difference. The difference of what that land could currently be developed as versus the proposed rezoning. The incremental difference is 763 trips per day SR to
UR rezoning. It would boil down to about 31 extra trips per hour per day. Mr. Gronow addressed the question of the impact of a new school system with their development in place was posed to the superintendent of Howell schools. The national average per household is .4 students. The 305 unit total of the development would add 122 students to the school system. This provides an additional $817,000 to the school district with revenue of $6700 per student. Mr. Gronow asked if the $6700 adequate to cover what it takes to operate a proficient school system and Mr. Breiner stated in the five years he has been superintendent he has not had to ask for additional money from the state. He does not see a problem with the increase of 122 students from their development. coming into the district. Additional point of information, a comparison in affordable housing within the county and the statement was put forth, “What is affordable housing,” and beyond that when it stops becoming affordable, at what point is people penalized for not
having affordable housing. Ruth Williams from Keller Williams addressed the average sale price in Livingston County is $231,000. She stated first time home buyers are forced into looking at communities such as Red Oaks of Chemung where you own around ½ acre lot, and the price per square foot declines every year. Chilson Hills is comparable with 60 home sites that are very small, 960 to 1200 square feet. The average sale price for those homes when it first started was about $114,000. Those houses now are about $165,000, a 31% gain in appreciation in equity. Hickory Hills is a 300 unit development and since 2002 there have been 37 home sales. The prices at the beginning were about $148,000 with a resale value of about $197,000, with a 24% increase in value and appreciation, which provides these first time home buyers the ability to move up. Mr. Eppik stated their proposal is a project similar to these that would allow home buyers to get into affordable
housing, build equity, and move up. Chestnut Development to provide was a better understanding of how many homes are available on the market and where the data came from. Mr. Gronow has familiarity in this area and spoke to a report that zeroed in on the Marion Township residential single-family stick built developments that have started in the last six years and are still active in construction. The outstanding point is if you look at the average price of the homes being sold in those developments as zoned with the current land use policies and practices in force, the average sale is $268,000. The number of lots approved in those nine developments, Sun Ridge through Hometown, is 947 units. Of those 947 units to date, only 227 of those have been sold, which makes the average sales per month less than one-half of one home per development per month. If you combine all nine projects to see what the absorption rate at that market, you’re selling just under five units per month in all nine projects in Marion Township at an average of 4.77 sales per month; you have a 150 month supply of that product. With no new developments that would lend a 12 ½ year supply. If the demand doubled, you would still have a six year supply and that’s what makes their project more desirable. Chilson Hills,
Mason Run, Macomb County are similar projects to what they are proposing. Mike Kehoe suggested that they be allowed to respond to Mr. Ambrose’s letter dated, January 16, 2004 In light of that letter that was read into the minutes on February 3, 2004 that recommended denial, issues were site specific and project specific to the intent of developing this project. Jean Root stated she had a hesitancy of doing that due to running a risk of appearing to look at both of those issues, and the Planning Commission is not doing that, looking at the PUD. She asked that Mr. Kehoe address that issue that the rezoning should be done separately. Mike Kehoe agreed with that statement that they should be done separately, and stays away from anything that is development specific to the PUD plan itself and confine their answer to respond to Mr. Ambrose’s letter with regard to
the Master Plan. impact studies, the Planning Commission had asked for the maximum and minimum, not site specific. Their presentation was strictly site specific and felt that to repeat the last 15 minutes or so being site specific would add no value. There is a range from under UR density what those numbers could potentially be not simply based upon what was presented under the PUD which the Planning Commission is not to look at. Mr. Gronow in response to Jean Root’s concern, stated it has always been their intention to set a limit to the density of the project and feels there is an unwillingness by the Planning Commission to hear that. It is not their intention to put a1000 units on the proposed site. Mr. Gronow stated the PUD does limit the density and if they were successful in the rezoning, it is not their intention to come back before the Planning Commission and say they were planning to put in
1000 apartments. not limit densities. Under the PUD you’re allowed under whatever zoning to build out the maximum based upon whatever the ordinance states. Thus, the Planning Commission is not limiting them by going under a PUD. Mr. Gronow stated they are offering to lower the density in their application and Ms. Root stated, unfortunately, they cannot look at that. John Lowe requested traffic information. And Mr. Myers’ question was if they’re looking at purely the range and scope then what they can provide is irrelevant; it does not shed any light on what their proposal is and would the Commission like what is germane to their proposal. Mr. Myers’ understanding was that’s what they did. Mr. Eppik reviewed Mr. Ambrose’s
letter as follows: 1. The project is not consistent with the 1992 Master Plan, that the Master Plan has intended areas to be developed or zoned in this zoning only based on what is being served by sewer and water. Chestnut Development’s contention is that the 1992 Master Plan is simply outdated, 14 year old document, which the Township is underway of updating. The new proposed Master Plan being developed by the county planning agency is much more consistent with the project they have stated. That is indicated by statements that have been presented last time. A few statements is that the new zoning ordinance should encourage a variety of residential dwelling types which meets the needs of a changing population, are sensitive to existing natural features, are compatible with the character of existing residencies. The new Master Plan as it is being developed states the township should encourage an array of zoning districts in an innovative zoning ordinance language that permits many different types of housing opportunities such as
elder cottage housing, housing of special needs, etc. 2. Second point cited is that the project is not in the urban service corridor. The urban service corridor as defined by the Master Plan is paved roads, sewer and water, emergency services. Mason Road is a major regional road as indicated by SEMCOG. It’s a major link road which is paved and has the ability to be improved. Sewer and water is possible to be extended throughout this corridor and fire and police services will certainly be acceptable now but with the growing population Marion Township is slated to grow by 106% over the next 30 years. As the populations grows, revenue grows and the police and fire and additional services will grow with those. It would make sense in updating the Master Plan and not looking at the 1992 Master Plan, that that urban service corridor should expand east and west along Mason Road to take advantage of the growth areas that the Master
Plan has currently identified. 3. Outside the sewer and water service area, the topic of their presentation is that this is not a stumbling block. The sewer and water can be extended in a number of different ways both by extending the district, extending public sewer, shared agreements with Howell Township as well as private wastewater treatment systems. The wellhead protection area is a critical component and it certainly is safer in many cases that any type of sewer and water would be better for the wellhead
protection area than any number of private septic systems within it. 4. Another point is that the rezoning represents spot zoning. It’s not consistent with the current Master Plan dated 1992 or the old two acre zoning. The proposed zoning was compared with the existing two acre zoning, which in Mr. Eppik’s opinion did not make sense because the existing surrounding zoning is SR as opposed to two acre and perhaps it is not consistent with existing development pattern when that was originally developed as two acre lots. This is consistent with the surrounding zoning and it doesn’t represent spot zoning simply because this project in this entire corridor is on the northern edge of the township, the northwest part of the township. Understanding the regional impacts of Mason Road and Howell Township and the population growth that’s already occurring in this area that regionally speaking this is exactly the right place to rezone property to UR and to preserve the rural nature and character of the Township as it moves south. SEMCOG has identified it as a growth area. Howell Township and Marion Township has identified
the northern edge of the Township to be the growth areas. 5. Density compatibility is not consistent with the old two acre zoning. SR zoning would not be consistent with the existing two acre development patterns. Mr. Eppik reviewed the map. Twenty thousand square foot lots under the SR zoning would be 2.17 units per acre. It’s agreed that out of about 136 acres, about 100 acres of it is developable. If 2.17 acres under SR zoning, that would yield about 217 homes from a mathematical point of view. Under UR zoning, or Chestnut Development’s proposed rezoning, they would be looking at about 15,000 square foot lots or 2.9 units per acre under 100 acres of buildable land would yield about 290 homes. Mr. Eppik stated what is important to note and where the traffic picked up on this, they’re talking about the incremental difference, talking about a difference of about 75 units allowable under the rezoning not a difference of zero versus 290. The additional 73 units would provide are those very issues not only the extra revenue for the school system but the affordable housing, the opportunity to do something
that isn’t going to sit on the market for 12 and a half years. In summary, Red Hawk Landing is consistent with the intent and the spirit of the new Master Plan. It is capable in a number of different instances, number of different ways to be serviced by water and sewer. It is located on a major corridor, one with excellent regional access and contiguous with regional growth and regional development. It is appropriate zoning to project the regional growth. The small increase in density of 73 units, SR versus the UR, given the same consideration provides the opportunity to create a lifestyle, provide opportunities that have been heard, and lastly, the incremental increase in traffic much like the incremental increase in density can easily be accommodated when it is considered to be 760 additional trips per day to trade off in the availability to increase the school system, increase the quality of life, the opportunities within the township far outweighs any consideration to keep it at the existing
zoning. John Lowe asked the members of the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments. Jim Anderson agreed with Jean Root’s comments about not talking about the site program and rezoning situation and urged the members to keep that in mind. Jim Anderson also pointed out that the increases that were cited, such as 73 homes, that’s approximately a 25-33% increase both in traffic and number of homes. John Lowe commented this would be a maximum of ¾ acre lots that would bring it to 133, which makes the difference substantially more than that. could possibly open a floodgate to anyone else with the same request to tie into public water and sewer and the Township has an obligation to the folks who are currently being assessed, to be able to provide that service for them. separate from zoning. This can be serviced with water and sewer regardless or zoning and density. It is the best way to do that given the particular location of the township when you look at the health, safety and welfare of the residents in that community. Utilities are governed by the State of Michigan. It is done that way so it is taken out of the zoning aspect to
provide the best available services to the residents. John Lowe stated the basis for deliberations for the evening would be looking at the location of the specific project in relation to the Master Plan that is existing and the future Master Plan and how it fits into this particular project and the information submitted by the representatives of the development. Issues for discussion were as follows: 1. Is the rezoning justified or changed by changing conditions in the area? Jean Root stated no. All of the property with the exception of the property to the north, which is zoned AR and in Howell Township, all the surrounding property is zoned SR and predominantly surrounded by agricultural uses or single-family homes on large lots. Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated that there’s also an SR with PUD overlay adjacent to the property. John Lowe stated the conditions that are there are existing conditions that have been there and
there’s a finding of no change in that. 2. What is the precedence and possible affects of such precedence which might result from the approval or denial of the request? Jean Root stated she can appreciate what the developers are saying about them willing to pay for the extension of the public water and sewer and most of that usage is obligated to the people who are paying for it now. It was also stated there’s a risk if this project is allowed to do it and anyone else within the SR district opens the door to allow those folks to come in and hook up. Under Urban Residential Section 8.03 under the intent, the last statement refers to that idea that the district is not intended to be established within any portion of the urban services district where existing public services are not adequate to address more intensive land uses unless the necessary services are also established concurrent with the establishment of the land use. Jean Root stated in looking at the Township’s zoning ordinance reiterated that that would run the risk of opening the door to setting a precedence and not following what the
Township has within the zoning ordinance. stated one idea that should be considered is the property is zoned SR and isolated by SR with a UR being basically asserted as a spot zoning within an SR district and by setting a precedent of doing such type development the precedent is set to allow inconsistencies and spot zoning to basically to flourish at this point in time. This would be a
negative precedent to set. 3. Is the rezoning consistent with the Township’s future land use plan and established land use patterns? John Lowe stated that this neither meets the current or the future land use established land patterns on either of the current ordinances that are in place or the future ones that are being looked at this point in time. Jean Root pointed out that under the old plan however antiquated may seem by the applicants, if the Township starts picking and choosing where it will be applied until it is rewritten does not seem to be the proper thing to do, to selectively choose where it will be used. Also, within the new Master Plan and the proposed Master Plan the same statement states that the rural services district is to be held where currently there is no public water and sewer and do not want to see these type of developments go in at such high density. John Lowe
stated one of the major issues is the increase in density in a spot zoning
situation. 4. Would the amendment create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent districts? John Lowe and other members of
the Planning Commission stated that’s exactly what it does. 5. What is the capability of providing utilities, roads and services if the rezoning is approved? Jean Root stated the idea of public water and sewer under the zoning ordinance Section 6.17, which mandates that no new land use or development that requires site plan review be permitted which shall reduce the level of service that’s identified in the Master Plan. John Ambrose also addressed that issue of the level of services in his letter. Jean Root pointed out that at this time it would provide very limited public police and fire services. Debra Wiedman-Clawson pointed out that the closest fire hydrant is out on Burkhart Road. Mr. Myers questioned that issue, level of service, being addressed in Mr. Ambrose’s letter and John Ambrose stated he did not address that as a point of clarification. John Lowe stated the level of service would be addressed with the potential number of units that would be developed under the 133 homes that are currently able to be developed under the SR zoning with the 1330 trips per day as opposed to up to 6600 trips per day under the UR, which is not compatible to low density development patterns that currently exist around the subject site. Mr. Myers questioned the 6600 figure would lower the traffic level to what level service? He pointed out the reference was C. John Lowe stated at some point in time there was a level of service from someplace and could not confirm that Mason Road was at level C at this point in time. Dave Hamann stated 6.17 A1 is the ordinance for level of service C. John Lowe pointed out that more cars lowers the level of service. Mr. Myers asked from what, to what, based upon what? Jean Root
referenced map 4-3 under the current Master Plan indicates that Mason Road
was at a level of service C in 1992. 6.
Will the
rezoning be compatible with neighboring properties? No, it is predominantly
surrounded by agriculture, single-family residences on large lots. 7. Will rezoning adversely affect the value of these properties? Members of the Planning Commission stated they are not
in a position to answer that question as far as economics and value of one
property versus another. 8. Can the property in question be put to a reasonable economic use in the current zoning district in which it is located? John Lowe stated that John Ambrose referenced that the SR with a PUD is available within the project area proposed site and projects of a similar nature have been done within the Township and it is economically feasible. 9. Are there adequate sites elsewhere in the community for the proposed use? John Lowe stated the Township has UR zoning in the area of the northeast corner of the Township and most of that is in the urban services district and is available at this point in time and a community can be developed within areas which there’s already existing
within the UR district which can be developed by anyone under the ordinances
in place and available. John Lowe stated for the record the Planning Commission received two letters from: David M. Kalt, dated 2/16/04, 143 South Truhn; Shannon Kegevein, dated February 5, 2004,
5049 Mason Road. Jean Root made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial on Rezoning #8-03, a rezoning request by Chestnut Development, to rezone 136 acres located on the south side of Mason Road from SR to UR for the following reasons: 1. The proposed rezoning request has not identified significant changed conditions with respect to the subject site which would
justify a rezoning from SR to UR in that: (a) The surrounding properties to the west, south, and east are zoned SR. The property to the north across Mason Road and Howell Township is zoned AR. No surrounding properties are zoned UR or Master Plan for any urban
density land use. (b)
The
predominant surrounding land use to the subject site is single-family
residential homes on large lots. 2. The proposed rezoning would set an undesirable precedent of extending UR zoning and thereby urban density development into areas Master Planned for conservation and open space residential as well as areas that are located within the rural services area. Per Section 8.03 of the Zoning Ordinance, the UR district is intended to exist solely in urban services area as depicted in the Master Plan as it is only within the urban services area that public services would be adequate to accommodate the needs of higher density land uses. Additionally, the UR zoning district should not be established at all even in the urban services district if the existing public services are inadequate to service the needs of the more intense land uses unless the necessary services are established concurrent with the establishment of
the land
use. 3. The proposed rezoning would have a detrimental effect on the Township’s and other governmental organizations’
ability to provide adequate public services and facilities in that: no public
water or sewer extensions are anticipated to the subject site. (b) The proposed rezoning to UR could result in an additional 2900 to 6600, approximately, new vehicle trips per day to Mason Road already experiencing congestion at peak times during the day. Section 6.17 of the Township Zoning Ordinance mandates that no new land uses or development requiring site plan review, except for single-family unplatted homes, will be permitted which shall reduce the level of service on the adjacent roadways below the level of service C as identified in the Township’s Master Plan until roadway has been improved to avoid such decrease in level of service. Map 4-3 of the current Master Plan indicates that Mason Road was at a level of service C in 1992. It is
anticipated that an additional 2900 or more new trips per day would affect
Mason Road level of service. (c) If rezoned to UR, the subject site could potentially be developed between approximately 290 single family detached and
1000 multiple family units. This intensity of development could
significantly impact public school enrollment. (d)
As the
subject property is located within a Rural Services District there are
limited police and fire services provided. 4.
The proposed
rezoning would adversely affect environmental features on the subject site
in the following way: (a) The subject property is Master Planned for conservation and open space residential. The Master Plan text regarding open space residential areas notes that soils in these areas are generally poor for supporting septic systems and, therefore,
larger lots may be needed to support residential units. (b) The subject property is located within the Highpoint planning area as identified in the Master Plan. The Highpoint planning area is characterized by prime agricultural lands as well as sensitive environmental features such as wetlands and
woodlands. Development at urban densities may negatively impact these
natural features. (c) No extension of public sewer and water is planned for the subject property or area. An adopted policy of the Master Plan, Page 4-23, states that any public sewer and water services shall be provided in the urban services district and shall not be extended beyond that district unless the township finds such extension is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. 5. The proposed rezoning is not in compliance with the Township’s Master Plan which depicts the subject site plan use as conservation and open space residential which would permit low density residential development one unit per 10 acres. The proposed rezoning to UR which could permit up to 10 units per acre in multiple family development potentially could result in a development of significantly greater density than that recommended under the existing Master Plan. 6. The proposed rezoning is not in compliance with the Township’s Master Plan or other adopted township land use policies as UR zoning is intended to occur only in the Urban Services District where existing public services, water and sewer are adequate to serve the needs of higher density land uses. The subject property is located within the Rural Services
District and has no public services, water or sewer, available to serve the
site nor planed for extension. 7. The proposed rezoning is not in compliance with the Township’s Master Plan or other adopted land use policies as the rezoning of the subject property to UR would permit an increase in traffic on Mason Road. In contravention with the adopted Public Services Strategy road and street policies of the Master Plan which notes that proposed land uses and site development projects larger than a single family home on an individual lot will be analyzed in regard to traffic impacts and roadway improvements. The proposed rezoning could add significant new vehicle trips onto Mason Road which is
already experiencing congestion. 8. The subject property can be put to reasonable economic use under its current SR zoning as is evidenced by surrounding large lot single family residences. Other development options for the site under the SR zoning include a PUD or an open space preservation development. In close proximity to the site is the recently approved Cascade PUD, which is
also zoned SR. 9. The proposed rezoning of the subject property from SR to UR would represent spot zoning as it would be incompatible
with surrounding land uses and incompatible with the Township’s adopted
Master Plan. 10. There are adequate sites elsewhere in the Township for urban density residential development including areas located within the urban services
district. 11.
The proposed rezoning effect on the
value of surrounding properties can be considered subjective. However: (a) The proposed rezoning would permit development of the urban intensity which would be out of character
with the existing large lot, single family residential development in the
area. (b) The proposed rezoning could add approximately 290 to 1000 or more new dwellings to an area characterized by low density residential development in a rural atmosphere, thereby, increasing traffic on Mason Road,
the sole access point for the property. (c) Uses permitted by special approval in the UR district include, but are not limited to, mobile home parks, and single family dwellings neither of which is in character with the existing large lot residential development prevalent in the area. Increased intensity of land uses include traffic, noise, density of development and may
negatively impact surrounding property. 12. The Public Hearing dated, February 3, 2004, received a majority of negative responses regarding rezoning in person and in writing from the public. 13. This recommendation is to include the letter dated January 16, 2004 from John Ambrose. And, finally, this rezoning request is to be forwarded to the Livingston County Planning Department for its review and recommendation, following to be forwarded to the Marion Township
Board of Trustees for their review and decision. Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. Fox
Meadows Site Plan Review Steve Morgan along with Mr. Strange from Eschelon Homes appeared to review their proposed site plan. They chose to remove the detention pond from the property on Mason Road. The storm drainage detention was moved. Mr. Goodman had also requested that the storm drainage was moved to accommodate any future development that he may choose to do on the corner property, which
would be included in the special assessment district for drainage. In summary of engineer reports, there were approvals from Tetra Tech. Landscaping would be around the detention pond on the corner. He stated the Township attorney had suggested a property in exchange before approval. There is a purchase agreement on file and the
Township attorney has looked at it and the closing is scheduled for a week from today. John Ambrose reviewed his letter of March 12, 2004 and based upon Fox Meadows plans that have been submitted he stated he recommends the final site plan be approved. The one issue he believes should be addressed would be the area that’s a 20’ x 20’ sign easement at the entrance of the proposed development. He stated they have had about six months to decide about designing their sign and that when such sign is designed, the applicant will submit a site plan for the sign for review and approval. It appears that the applicant had adequate time to design an entrance sign for this project, and said sign needs to be included on the final site plan submittal. Other than that, John Ambrose stated he would recommend approval. John Lowe questioned Item 6 of John Ambrose’s March 12, 2004 letter whether a house could be constructed on that lot with the setbacks. John Ambrose stated he believes a house could be constructed on that lot but it would be a tight building envelope on Lot 16. Mike Kehoe, Township Attorney, stated he has seen a purchase agreement for property that would supposedly allow the detention area to be used up in that northwest corner but has not seen any legal description. There are references within the purchase agreement regarding mutual and reciprocal easements that Mr. Morgan has made reference to but has not seen copies of those particular documents. The Master Deed will need at a minimum a new legal description but doesn’t know if the legal description that is being looked at includes this additional property or not. There are a couple minor items in the Master Deed that need clarifying but there’s no big problem with getting those taken care of. Ms. Bowlin has been cooperative in the past in other requests. The Master Deed still makes reference to 17 units and
that needs to be changed. Jean
Root stated that has been changed. possibility of sharing with the private road with Mr. Goodman, there is nothing in the condominium documents that deals with that either. Jean Root stated the condominium documents that were reviewed addressed giving easement to contiguous parcels. It basically states that the association or developer has the right and ability to do that. Mike Kehoe stated he would like that narrowed down since contiguous could be construed on the other side of the road, etc. It is not specifically spelled out that that particular parcel would have access to it. There’s also the issue of one access road, one entrance, one ingress and egress onto a public road. Mr. Kehoe also stated that there’s a limit of homes that can have access by a private road when there is only one ingress egress. John Lowe also stated that needs to be spelled out where that road is going to access because there could be site distance issue from the intersection and distances
from the intersection. existing driveway because that’s what is shown on the retention area in the front? Debra Wiedman-Clawson questioned how they would access the house? The township engineer addressed the driveway issue that with an end garage they would not be able to access the house on a temporary basis without somehow impacting the pond and stated he would like to see
how that would be worked out. house to the edge of the easement. John Lowe stated a concern that in the event that nothing takes place with this house with the driveway there on
a permanent basis for a permanent situation as far as access. issue mentioned by the township engineer is the outflow, the discharge rate, which was unclear how they got the numbers they had. Recalculations were redone using the T value that the township engineer got was a very insignificant impact on the detention pond. It would not change the shape, size of the pond. John Lowe asked in relation to that comment that these ponds are not substantially larger than they were proposed on the last drawing but yet they’re proposing that if that is developed at another point there’s extra capacity in there? The calculations do not show that but during the final engineer detailed construction review could clarify what the exact drainage area is. Pond number one between the calculations that are provided there is not a lot of difference. It’s hard to tell at
this point. County Road Commission and there’s
been no change. Debra Wiedman-Clawson commented about the existing barns and who would remove them and it was stated it’s in the purchase agreement. Mike Kehoe stated he would like to see these items finalized before the closing. Mr. Morgan stated they were asking the Planning Commission to recommend to the Board that they approve this. Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked if that corner parcel wanted to become commercial, and that would be accessing a private driveway is there anything in the ordinance? John Ambrose stated they couldn’t have access to a private drive but have access to a private road. It was stated that the future of that lot is in the future of the Planning Commission’s hands. If someone comes in for a commercial, they have to come to the Planning Commission for a rezoning and look at those issues. Mike Kehoe stated those concerns should be expressed. Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated this plan
is better than the last one presented. engineer if this site plan was satisfactory in order to finish up on construction. Yes, there are minor details that need to be taken care of but they are
nothing significant. if there is a problem with the utility easement, the 25 feet for constraints of getting it in and maintaining it? It was stated that 25 feet was sufficient for future maintenance. Everything would have to be contained to the north. It was asked if the homeowner
could tap into that. An agreement could be made at that point in time. John Lowe asked if they should proceed. The Township attorney stated what is left to be done is nothing of extreme significance. He said that a recommended approval subject to his review and approval, that would be permissible. Tax ID #10-05-200-043, known as
Fox Meadows with the following conditions: 1. John Ambrose’s letter, 3/12/04; Orchard Hiltz letter dated, 3/11/04; and the final review and recommendation of closing documents and the association bylaws to Mr. Kehoe and time for submission to the Board of Trustees review
on or before April 5, 2004. Motion carried 4-0. Jean Root made a motion to set a Public Hearing for Proposed Text Amendment – TXT # 1-04 Article XIII Planned Unit Development District – Change Heading – set a public hearing for the next regular meeting, April 27, 2004 at 7:15. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Jean Root made a motion to hold a Public Hearing for Text Item 1-04 Article XIII Planned Unit Development District – Changing of the Heading – to state Planned Unit Development Overlay District at 7:15 on April 27, 2004. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Dave Hamann made a motion to table the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures document of 1996 until the next meeting, April 7, 2004 at 7:00.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. NEW
BUSINESS Home Occupation Judith Lyons, 3498 Cedar Point, presented to the Planning Commission regarding home occupation. She had a question regarding limited detail may be permitted on premises. Limited was basically designed for those who do such things as arts and crafts. When merchandise is brought in from outside and is sold is considered a commercial operation. Arts and crafts
done on one’s home site is considered a home occupation with limited
sales. employment of more than two persons. That was proposed but the current document is in effect at this time. The current ordinance says you can have one employee. Mrs. Lyons asked if jellies fall in the same category with arts and crafts. The Health Department may
need to be contacted when you talk about food products for sale.
Mrs. Lyons asked about a separate building and it was explained that she would come into the Township and fill out an application. The Planning
Commission will look at the proposed home occupation request. Jean Root made a motion to put the home occupation, review of home occupation language for the next regular meeting of April 27, 2004 under old
business. Jim Anderson
seconded. Triangle Lake Association and Jartnick Pond The next issue for discussion was Triangle Lake Association and Jartnick Pond. The township engineer stated paving Triangle Lake would help with the problem. Ken Recker from Livingston County Road Commission stated the culvert in that area
will be improved, which will hopefully help the situation with the sediment
and erosion in that area. Jean Root asked if Jartnick Pond is in violation of the site plan. John Lowe stated that’s questionable. The township engineer stated he could check
that out and make recommendations. Jean Root made a motion to send to the Township Board, exclusively Dan Lowe or the person in charge, regarding the road condition to review the issues with siltation as noted in an email sent dated Tuesday, March 23, 2004 regarding Triangle Lake and Jartnick Pond Subdivision. Upon review from the Township Board’s representative they need to address the issues in the letter and be certain that Jartnick Pond site plan is in compliance and in contact with the Road Commission for improvements that may be necessary to resolve the issue. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Dave
Hamann made a motion to adjourn. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. (Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.)
|
||
