PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
I. Call to Order - Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call Francis McNamara – present
Donald Hartwick – present
Craig Landes – present
John Maahs – present
Ronald Overton – present
Richard Turcotte – arrived at 7:07pm
Ulrika Zay – present
Charles Openlander – present
Beth Ball – present
Also present – Andrea Polverento, Planning Director
Polverento outlined the correspondence given to the Planning Commission members.
MOTION by MAAHS and seconded by HARTWICK to approve the agenda as amended, removing Item 8D under New Business.
Passed unanimously
MOTION by LANDES and seconded by MAAHS to approve the minutes of 8/6/08 as amended.
Passed unanimously
A. CDP Update
Polverento explained that Birchler Arroyo would like us to consider holding the “Community Visioning Session” meeting on Tuesday, October 14, instead of the following Wednesday. David Birchler may not be able to attend on Wednesday, as he has a previous engagement that requires him to be out of state the next day. The Commission agreed that changing the meeting would be fine. Polverento will let them know.
The Web site they have developed is up and running. There is a link on the Township Web site, or you may access it by going to: http://www.birchlerarroyo.com/Clients/watertown.htm
Also, Polverento and the Township Manager worked with Ryan Wood, County Administrator, to have the fees waived for the GIS files. Rebecca has been working with the GIS manager at the county to get all of the required files, and they now have what they need.
Polverento wanted to remind everyone of the meeting on Wednesday, September 17 with Birchler Arroyo to go over existing land uses.
B. Codification Update
Polverento explained that she has finished reviewing the draft of the codification in comparison to the old zoning ordinance. There are a number of lingering issues. She outlined the following remaining issues: Regarding the apparent confusion between “article” and “chapter” in a number of instances they have simply used article but added [chapter] immediately following. There are also a number of problems with the formatting of the tables, a few of the errors and omissions submitted last time were missed, or misnumbered, overwrote sections or there were misspellings or other errors.
Turcotte and Overton both feel this project should be discontinued and the old version of the Ordinance brought back into use. Overton feels that the main problem with going forward is that the consultant has never been willing to give the Township a digital version of the codification. If the Township had a digital version these errors could be fixed by staff.
Maahs asked who has been in communication with Municode. Polverento responded that she has not spoken to them but would like to. Clerk Husby has always been the one in communication with them. In the memo that Polverento sent to Clerk Husby and the Township Attorney, she asked them to contact her regarding the table problems. Polverento feels that with a 20 minute phone call most of these issues could be solved. Polverento has always asked for a copy in a Microsoft Word format and if that is not what they use to modify the document, she would just like a digital version of the ordinance.
McNamara asked if there was a deadline date to have all the corrections done and the Codified Ordinance in place. Polverento responded that there is not a deadline and that according to Clerk Husby, every time she has called Municode; a new staff member has been assigned the Township project.
Zay asked why the Township pursued the Codification update; she asked if it was required. Overton explained that Clerk Husby convinced the Board of Trustees that this was a good idea.
Overton feels that it’s unacceptable that there is no Ordinance in place to work with. Hartwick asked if the old Ordinance is still in effect. Overton responded that the new Ordinance is in effect. Polverento explained that there is an adopted Ordinance that is generally correct.
Overton asked how the Commission would like to proceed with this. Overton presented a couple of different approaches. The Planning Commission can make a formal motion to the Board of Trustees stating the Planning Commission’s recommendation and a solution. Also, Overton is willing to go to the Board of Trustees meeting asking for resolution.
Maahs explained that there is a level of disappointment and dissatisfaction with how things have proceeded with the project among the Board of Trustees as well. Maahs feels that since so much time and work has gone into this project that the Township would be best served by completing the process.
Overton suggested that perhaps to proceed forward with this project, the Planning Commission should make a motion to the Board of Trustees that someone else be put in charge of this project; that it be taken out of the hands of the Clerk and put in someone else’s hands to be finished up.
McNamara asked if because of the unknown version of the Ordinance that is in effect, can the Planning Commission adopt the old version again. Maahs responded that it is possible but would have to be done at the Board of Trustees level. Overton responded that would have to be treated as a Zoning Amendment and a public hearing would need to be held at the Planning Commission level with a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The Township Attorney has recommended not adopting the old version.
Zay feels this project should be abandoned and go back to the original version or demand that Municode provide the Township with a digital version of the document.
MOTION by TURCOTTE and seconded by ZAY that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Trustees that we obtain a Word version document of the codification so the Planning Commission may go forward on their own.
MOTION withdrawn
MOTION by OVERTON and seconded by LANDES that the Board of Trustees insist that Municode provide the Township a copy of the codification in a universal program.
Passed unanimously
A. SLUP 03-23 – Expiration/Extension
Polverento explained that there is a SLUP for a gravel pit on Herbison Road that will expire in December. They will need to renew this permit. The current permit is also an extension of a permit that was applied for in 1998.
At this time, there is no provision in the zoning ordinance for renewal or extensions, and when this was renewed last time, both the SLUP and SPR were conducted.
Turcotte questioned the SPR and noted that it did not expire. Overton suggested that the Planning Commission require the applicant to reapply for the SLU, but that a full site plan review would not be required. However, he would recommend that as a condition of approval the applicant provide a site drawing.
Polverento said that she would contact the applicant, and expected that it would be ready to review for the October meeting.
B. Zoning Complaint Regarding Illegal Business
Polverento explained that earlier this summer she received a complaint regarding a possible illegal business being operated on Airport Road just north of State Rd. The complaint was regarding a lawncare/landscaping/snow removal business.
Polverento outlined her staff report, which discussed the many issues and violations that had happened over the past eight years, noting that complaints have now been made on the same property with three different zoning ordinances. She said that a number of different requirements have been suggested by zoning administrators over the past several years. She explained that there were court dates set many years back, but there is no explanation of what was resolved. She assumed that compliance was reached to a degree that pleased either the ZA or the courts. She also discussed that after speaking with the attorney, he told her that if we take this to court, the history could be problematic; the judge who oversees district court zoning cases is not inclined to require compliance.
Overton said that he felt the goal was to have the property in compliance, and to see what could be done to negotiate the best outcome. He feels that this has been going on a long time, and that something needs to be done.
Polverento said that the property does not lend itself to compliance. She said that he had questioned whether it would be possible to build a barn in the front of his property to store the trucks and equipment in question, but the ordinance doesn’t allow it.
Turcotte argued that the ordinance does allow it, as long as it is not in the required front yard setback. Polverento said the ordinance does not specifically say setback, only a more general “front yard.” Turcotte said that the intent was to allow it, as long as it was not in the required setback.
Zay discussed the benefits to the owner about being compliant. She said that if he had a permit, it could be transferred if the property was ever sold, and also that it would eliminate complaints by the neighbor.
Overton reiterated that the goal was compliance, and thought that the best way to achieve compliance is to negotiate with the owner to come to the best outcome for everyone.
Polverento said she would draft a letter and email it to the Planning Commission and the Township Attorney to review.
C. Suggested Future Zoning Amendments
Polverento explained that while looking over the codified ordinance and comparing it to the previous one, she found a couple items which she thinks may warrant consideration for ordinance amendments. The Board of Trustees also sent the issue of lawn installation back to the Planning Commission for consideration.
First, she discussed Division 15. Grand River Avenue Overlay District, and in a number of instances there is a reference that lots within the VSC district are exempt from regulations. The VSC district specifically identifies the Wacousta Village area and suggests that large scale non-residential activities are not desired. She felt that it does not make sense to zone any areas along Grand River Avenue to VSC.
Overton feels that should not have been in the Ordinance because the VSC district does not extend anywhere close to Grand River.
Polverento will suggest language changes at the next meeting.
Polverento explained that Section 28-563 Storage of recreation equipment, (3) states that “Recreational equipment may be used for living or housekeeping purposes for a period not exceeding 14 days in any calendar year, provided that running water or indoor sewage facilities within such equipment is not utilized.”
She inquired as to the intent - was it that they should not use the water and sewage facilities? Or was the intent that they not dispose of the grey water in non-authorized areas? It seems as though this says “don’t use the toilet or the sink in your RV.”
Ball said that it would be possible to use the facilities inside a home, while sleeping in the RV. Overton questioned if the Health Department had any regulations regarding disposal of septage, and said it might be best to just end the sentence at “year,” and strike the “provided…”
Polverento will follow up with the health department, and bring back language at the next meeting.
Next, Polverento explained that the codification had made a change to section 28-606 Special Land Uses – Commercial PUD’s b.1.iii.A. Uses within the CPUD (Multiple Family Dwellings) states that “Multiple family dwellings shall comply with subsection (23) of this section unless stricter requirements are provided as part of the CPUD requirements.”
She noted that subsection (23) refers to the SLUP requirements for multiple family dwellings, and that the codification has changed the reference above FROM the general district requirements for R-3.
She asked if the preference was to keep the regular district changes, or to keep the change to the SLUP requirements for multiple family homes.
The Planning Commission felt that it warranted more discussion by the ordinance review committee and referred it there.
Polverento explained next that the Board of Trustees had not taken any action on the issue of lawn installation, that the Township Manager and the Board of Trustees thought there were requirements for lawn installation in the Zoning Ordinance already, however, Polverento has been looking specifically for such a requirement as she has been going over the codification and she hasn’t found anything. The Board of Trustees felt this was an item that the Planning Commission should consider restoring or amending the ordinance to reflect.
The Planning Commission discussed the issue briefly, and decided to also refer it to the ordinance review committee.
Last, Polverento explained that on Francis Road, there is a nice log home south of Stoll Road. There is another house on the lot in front of the log home that faces the log home, not Francis Road. Polverento feels that this looks odd, and thought it might be worth discussing requiring homes to have at least one main entrance facing the road. There may also be some issues with this regarding private driveways, however, Polverento feels that for aesthetic purposes, the Planning Commission may want to at least consider it.
The Planning Commission did not take any action on this issue.
A. Executive Committee Report – None
B. Ordinance Review Committee Report – None
C. Site Plan Review Committee Report – None
D. Board of Trustees Report - DRAFT Minutes 8/18/08– Maahs presented the Board of Trustees Report.
E. Zoning Board of Appeals - None
F. Non-Motorized Circulation Plan Committee Report – Polverento reminded everyone that the draft was online, and that they were seeking comments until November.
G. Environmental Affairs Committee Report - None
H. Capital Improvements Committee Report – None
I. Comprehensive Development Plan Update Committee – None
J. Staff Report -
1. Assistant’s Report – August 2008
2. Zoning Administrator’s Report – August 2008
Polverento informed the Planning Commission about the change in duties for Amy Kinney, the Planning and Zoning Assistant.
X. Comments and Questions from Audience, Staff and Commissioners- None
MOTION by OVERTON and seconded by BALL to adjourn the meeting.
Passed unanimously
Meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m.
Date approved:
______________________ _________________________
Ron Overton, Chair Beth Ball, Secretary