WATERTOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

MINUTES

Wednesday November 7, 2007

I. Call to Order - Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Roll Call Doug Fleming – present

Donald Hartwick – present

Craig Landes – present

John Maahs - present

Ronald Overton – present

Richard Turcotte – present

Ulrika Zay – absent with notice

Charles Openlander – present

Beth Ball - present

Also present – Andrea Polverento, Planning Director

II. Communications Received –

Polverento outlined the correspondence given to the Planning Commission members. Overton outlined the meeting that he and Polverento attended regarding the Clinton County Master Plan updating process. Polverento is planning to meet with Dan Leonard, Clinton County’s Assistant Planner to review some border issues.

III. Agenda Approval

Add a new "A" codification issues under Unfinished Business

MOTION by MAAHS and seconded by FLEMING to approve the agenda as amended.

Passed unanimously

IV. Public Comment – Non-Agenda Items - None

V. Approval of Minutes

MOTION by BALL and seconded by MAAHS to approve the minutes of 9/5/07 as presented.

Passed unanimously

Public Hearings - None
Unfinished Business

A. Codification Issues, Polverento explained that she has encountered several problems with the codified ordinances. She found several omissions from the original Zoning Ordinance to the Codified Ordinance. Examples of the omission are in the B2 and LI districts, landscaping, lawn care and snowplowing special land uses were omitted and so were mini storage units. Under B2 where the Commission recently made the amendment to move hotels and motels to a special land use, in the codified it is neither a permitted use nor a special land use. The junk definition has changed slightly to be less inclusive. The keeping of animals section is incorrect.

Polverento spoke to the Township attorney and has given everything she has noted that has been changed or omitted to Clerk Husby to pass on to Municode. At this point as far as Polverento knows she has not gotten very far with the changes. The attorney said that more than likely what would have to happen because the Ordinance is already been approved and is in use, is that we will have to go through find all the problems and then pass a new Ordinance with those problems, something to the effect that says these were inadvertent omissions and were not meant to create more nonconformity or less and make all the changes that way.

Polverento intends to go through the Ordinance word for word and line by line. Overton had suggested to Polverento that if Commission members wanted to get involved in this process, she would be happy to set aside sometime and have a special meeting and create an ad hoc committee or the Ordinance Review Committee meet. Polverento does not have a problem doing the line by line comparison.

Hartwick asked if the Board of Trustees could make a motion to unadopt the current codified ordinance and readopt the old Zoning Ordinance until the issues with the Codified can be cleared up. Polverento responded that she asked the Township Attorney about rescinding the codification and he explained that it would be easier to just pass a new ordinance.

Turcotte explained that he spent days going over the draft codification word for word and does not wish to do that again, he feels that this in now the Board of Trustees’ problem.

Overton is extremely upset that the Township paid Municode to codify the ordinances and the company did not live up to the expectations of the Township. Overton also went through the draft word for word and found all the errors and identified them and then they didn’t get included. The document that Overton, Turcotte and Polverento reviewed and made changes to was not the document that was published. Overton wants to fix the issues and move forward. Overton does not want to dump this whole task on Polverento, he will come in for an ad hoc meeting and anyone else who wants to help on a voluntary basis is welcome to.

Fleming does not understand why they do not call the Municode Company and have them come in and make them compare the two ordinances word for word. Fleming feels that Municode has already been paid to do a job that they did not do correctly and feels it should be their place to fix the mistakes. Wietzel pointed out that at this point they are not sure who made the error if it was the company or internally.

Overton feels that the Board of Trustees should approach the contractor with the issues and see if there is something that can be done by the contractor. Even if the contractor sat down and made a list of all the omission and changes, the Planning Commission still needs to follow up to make sure it is done properly.

The Committee agreed to form an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Overton, Maahs and Polverento. Maahs also feels at the same time someone needs to approach the company regarding the issues.

Discussion took place about the public hearing process regarding adopting the Ordinance changes.

B. Case #07-16 TXT Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Section 28-570, Keeping of Animals

Polverento explained that there were three (3) things to discuss under the keeping of animals.

At the recent Ordinance Review Committee meeting, several points were discussed regarding kennels. First, was the fact that the ordinance differs in its definition of kennel and in the Keeping of Animals section where it also discusses kennels. Secondly, the number of animals kept is different in two (2) places in the ordinance, one stating that four (4) or more animals constituted a kennel and one stating that five (5) or more animals constituted a kennel. The state law defines a kennel as three (3) or more animals. The ORC felt we could be more restrictive than the State law but not less therefore, three (3) was probably the best number to go with. Third, the Ordinance does not define a difference between a private kennel and a commercial kennel. Private kennels are permitted in most zoning districts and commercial kennels are special land uses in some zoning districts. It was the determination of the ORC that the Planning Commission comes up with a definition for both if we are going to define them differently in different parts of the ordinance. The text provided for the Commissioners was based on the Clinton County Ordinance, slightly modified. Polverento read the definitions of commercial and private kennels. She also pointed out that dog kennels are not eligible for nuisance protection under the Right to Farm Act.

Maahs asked if the limit to being a private kennel be no more then three (3) animals above 6 months of age, what are they classified as if they have four (4). He feels that if this question arises, there should be an answer of how it would be classified.

Private Kennel definition reads as follows:

Any building and/or land used, designed or arranged for the boarding, breeding or care of dogs, cats or other domestic animals belonging to the owner thereof and kept for purposes of sale, show, or hunting, provided that no more than three such animals, six months of age or older are kept on the premises either permanently or temporarily. The keeping of such animals shall be strictly incidental to the principal use of the premises.

Turcotte and Hartwick feel that hunting or showing should be removed from the definition of private kennel. Overton thinks putting "or personal use" in place of show and hunting. Polverento explained that the county ordinance states for purposes of sale, show, hunting or pets. The ORC was leary on the pets section of it because that would encompass everyone in the township with pets.

Fleming asked Overton if he sees a risk to the Township if the words show and hunting are eliminated. Fleming is comfortable leaving the words in the definition if there is no risk to the Township by doing so.

Landes asked what the recourse is for the resident whose neighbor has 12 hunting dogs outside and they are bothered by the noise. Polverento explained that is unenforceable area, the best solution at this point is a civil lawsuit. Landes knows this is a problem in the Township and feels that some type of stipulation should be put into the ordinance that allows the issue to be more enforceable.

Commissioners agreed that show and hunting will be struck from the definition.

Discussion took place about the difference between private and commercial kennel.

The Planning Commission agreed that the definitions should be presented as follows:

Kennel, Private: Any building and/or land used, designed or arranged for the boarding, breeding or care of dogs, cats or other domestic animals belonging to the owner thereof and kept for purposes of sale provided that no more than three such animals, six months of age or older are kept on the premises either permanently or temporarily. The keeping of such animals shall be strictly incidental to the principal use of the premises.

Kennel, Commercial: And building and/or land used, designed or arranged for the commercial sale, boarding, breeding, care or treatment of three or more dogs, cats or other domestic animals for profit.

MOTION by FLEMING and seconded by TURCOTTE that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing at the next scheduled meeting regarding the proposed amendments to the Keeping of Animals, Section 28-570 (B) and Definitions, Section 28-7of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to kennels and are described in Case # 07-16 TXT.

Passed unanimously

Large Animals, Lot Size Requirements

The Ordinance Review Committee considered the potential for abuse of this section, if a resident misread or misunderstood that there had to be a full two acres for the first large animal.

Polverento feels there is definitely the potential for someone with 1.5 acres to assume they have enough land for one horse, or other large animal. It was the suggestion of the ORC to modify the ordinance as such:

No large animals shall be permitted on lots less than two full acres in size. ~~On lots of less than~~ On lots of two to ten acres the raising and keeping of large animals, including but not limited to horses, cows, pigs, or bison shall be limited to one such animal for the first two acres, and one additional animal for each full acre over two. On lots ~~equal to or~~ exceeding ten acres, no such limitations shall apply.
Bold - New text
~~Strikethrough~~ - deleted text

Polverento does have a concern regarding the Right to Farm Act (RTFA) on this particular section. One of the sessions she attended at the MAP conference was related to the RTFA, and the facilitators were from MSUE and the MDA, and they mentioned that many local ordinances had the very same regulation we do. He felt that if an RTFA suit was brought, that we may not be able to enforce such a requirement. While it hasn’t been challenged yet in court, he expected it may be at some point. He suggested an attorney review the text before it was brought to a public hearing to ensure it was not in conflict with the RTFA.

One area of concern for Polverento is that of those people who raise 4-H animals. Polverento doubts many people would complain about that, or that if there was an issue, that the 4-H people would invoke RTFA, she feels that a 4-H animal raised for profit, and for meat, would be considered agriculture, or at the very least, that they would have a good case should it go to court.

Overton explained a real easy way around that is if land is being farmed presently and keeping animals and then the land is split, the right to farm goes with the splits. The split could be less than 2 acres and they continue the keeping of animals under the Right to Farm Act. Overton feels that the Ordinance was written as there needs to be 2 acres or more to keep large animals and the only thing the Planning Commission is trying to change is to make it so there are no misunderstandings. As it currently reads there is room for misunderstanding.

Turcotte feels they should go forward with the changes. He does not feel that less then 2 acres is reasonable to keep large animals on.

Discussion took place regarding the keeping of animals.

MOTION by MAAHS and seconded by LANDES that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing at the next scheduled meeting regarding the proposed amendments to the Keeping of Animals section of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to lot size requirements and are described in Case # 07-16 TXT.

The amendment the public hearing is based on shall read as follows:

No large animals shall be permitted on lots less than two full acres in size. On lots of two to ten acres the raising and keeping of large animals, including but not limited to horses, cows, pigs, or bison shall be limited to one such animal for the first two acres, and one additional animal for each full acre over two. On lots exceeding ten acres, no such limitations shall apply.
Motion Passed 7 to 1

***Transcribers Notes – Tape malfunctioned at this point in the meeting. The following minutes are transcribed from the Secretaries notes***

Keeping of Dangerous and Exotic Animals

Polverento outlined her staff report, indicating that while the state does regulate the keeping, hunting and trapping of wild animals, it may also be in the township’s interest to weigh in on the issue. Language was submitted that is similar to DeWitt and Delta Township’s take on the issue.

Section 28-570 Proposed Item E:

(1) Wild animals shall be defined for the purposes of this section as including, but not limited to lions, tigers, bears, lynx, bobcats, poisonous fish, insects, arachnids and any other life form not capable as being completely domesticated.

(2) The hunting, trapping, keeping, selling, boarding, possession and maintenance of wild animals as described in this section shall be prohibited in all zoning districts with the following exceptions:

(a) The keeping of the wild animal(s) is carried out by a veterinarian licensed by the State of Michigan for the treatment of injuries.

(b) The keeping of the wild animal(s) is within a public or private zoo, wildlife park or preserve, or state hunting preserve.

(c) The keeping of the wild animal(s) is part of a special event, such as a circus or carnival as appropriately licensed by the State of Michigan.

Polverento added that the only issue that may come into play would be the Mini Beast Zooseum on Grand River, but said she thought it only housed insects, and would be grandfathered in. She also discussed that even if any animals were classified as wild or exotic, if they were being raised as a commodity, then the Right to Farm Act would apply.

Hartwick said that just because the state regulates these animals, doesn’t necessarily mean that should an issue arise, they would do anything about it. He felt that making it a zoning violation would give it more weight with a prosecuting attorney.

Landes asked about the animal classifications that were presented at the Ordinance Review Committee.

Polverento referenced the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, and Landes asked about the County classifications.

Polverento explained that in the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance, they break down classes of animals, like pets, livestock, and wild animals. Landes suggested that the Ordinance Review Committee look into the possibility of adopting something like that in the township.

Fleming questioned if, like in the DeWitt Township ordinance, the township should also consider commercial game breeding operations with the keeping of animals amendments.

MOTION by FLEMING and seconded by TURCOTTE to send the categorizing of animals and commercial game to the Ordinance Review Committee for further review.

Passed Unanimously

There was discussion that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing at the next scheduled meeting regarding the proposed amendments to the Keeping of Animals, proposed section 28-570 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to wild animals, and are described in Case # 07-16 TXT.

The amendment the public hearing is based on is as indicated above.

C. Case #07-16 TXT, Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Section 28-566, Temporary Buildings and Structures (PODS)

Polverento outlined her staff report, discussing the points that the Ordinance Review Committee found important. She indicated that the general consensus from ORC was that 30 days was an adequate amount of time, with the possibility for a 30 day extension approved by the Z.A. She said the ORC discussed that no more than 3 storage containers at a time should be stored. The size of the containers was also discussed, with 8’x8’x16’ being the number settled on. The issue of where in the yard they could be placed was also discussed, and it was determined that the side and rear requirements for accessory buildings was appropriate, and that within the front yard setback or the driveway would also be ok.

The proposed language was as follows:

Temporary storage containers that are typical of the type available from commercial sources, sometimes referred to as "PODS," which do not exceed

eight feet in width by 16 feet in height are permitted in all zoning districts for a

time period not to exceed 30 days per year. A 30 day extension may be granted

by the Zoning Administrator if deemed necessary. A maximum of three storage

containers are permitted at anyone time, and must be located at least five feet

from any side or rear property line, and must be within the required front yard

setback for the zoning district. The temporary storage container may also be

stored in the driveway, provided that emergency access to all structures and

proper clear vision areas are maintained.

Openlander noted that the word height should be changed to length. It was also suggested that eight feet in height be added as well.

There was discussion among the planning commissioners regarding the differences between temporary containers and accessory buildings.

There was discussion as to when the 30 days would begin. Polverento noted that she felt that it would begin if and when a zoning complaint was made. The complaint/violation letter would give them 30 days to remove the container.

There was further discussion that the term "PODS" should be removed from the text so as not to limit future developments.

MOTION by FLEMING and seconded by TURCOTTE that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing at the next scheduled meeting regarding the proposed amendments to the Temporary Buildings and Structures, Section 28-566 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to temporary storage containers and is described in Case # 07-16 TXT.

Passed Unanimously

The amendment the public hearing is based on is as indicated below:

Temporary storage containers that are typical of the type available from commercial sources, which do not exceed eight feet in width by 16 feet in length by eight feet in height are permitted in all zoning districts for a time period not to exceed 30 days per year. A 30 day extension may be granted by the Zoning Administrator if deemed necessary. A maximum of three storage containers are permitted at any one time, and must be located at least five feet from any side or rear property line, or may be within the required front yard setback for the zoning district. The temporary storage container may also be stored in the driveway, provided that emergency access to all structures and proper clear vision areas are maintained.

D. Discuss decision-making authority in Article V – Special Land Uses

Polverento outlined her staff report, indicating that this item was reviewed at the ORC meeting in the spring, and that Turcotte had asked that it be looked into to determine if the proper body was referred to. She explained the Special Land Uses are much like zoning ordinance amendments, because the Planning Commission reviews them and makes a recommendation to the board for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The only area, in which she

Thought there could be some issue, was that the Planning Commission

approved extensions to the SLUP’s, not the Township Board.

Overton felt that the Planning Commission was fine to be the body that issued the extension. The project hadn’t changed, just encountered some timing setbacks. He felt the board didn’t need to be bothered with something like that.

No action was taken on this issue.

E. Capital Improvements Yearly Review

Polverento said that at the last meeting there was some question as to the

sewer oversizing project listed in Capital Improvements. She said she compared it to the sewer master plan, which was much more descriptive in

terms of future pricing, and that because this type of project is more likely

to be developer- or assessment- funded, not funded by the general fund,

that the current priority rating was reasonable. She added that she intended to

pass on the update to the non-motorized elements (#13) priority rating to the

Township Board at their next meeting.

No action was taken on this issue.

VIII. New Business - None

IX. Committee and Staff Reports

A. Executive Committee Report - None

B. Ordinance Review Committee Report – Draft Minutes, 10/3/07

C. Site Plan Review Committee Report - None

D. Board of Trustees Report - DRAFT Minutes 9/17/07 & 10/15/07 – Maahs presented the Board of Trustees Report.