|
Planning Commission Meeting
April
24, 2004
AGENDA
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Rezoning application, environmental impact
assessment, and site plan to rezone 177.66 acres (Faulkwood Shores Golf
Course) located on both sides of Hughes Rd., ¼ mile south of Golf Club
Rd., Section 3 & Section 4, from PRF (public/recreational facilities) to
MDR (medium density residential), petitioned by Landtec Realty, Inc. (PC
04-02)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding rezoning application.
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
MINUTES
The special meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Don Pobuda at 7:00 p.m.
The following commission members were present constituting a quorum for
transaction of business: Don Pobuda, Barbara Figurski, James Mortensen,
Curt Brown, John Cahill, Bill Litogot and Teri Olson. Also present was
Kelly Kolakowski, Township Planner; Paul LeBlanc from Strader, LeBlanc &
Associates, Inc. Debra McAvoy from Tetra Tech, MPS and Dennis Perkins,
legal council for Genoa Township. There were approximately 400 people in
the audience.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence was
observed.
Moved by Litogot, seconded by Figurski, to approve the Agenda as
written.
The motion carried unanimously.
The call to the public was made to discuss items not on the agenda.
There was no response and the call to the public was closed at 7:02 p.m.
Chairman Pobuda noted that this meeting will be closed at 11:00 p.m.
Chairman Pobuda advised that this public hearing is part of the process
that the Township follows when a petitioner requests to change or modify
zoning in the Township. The petitioner is requesting to change zoning
from PRF to MDR. The Township has the legal responsibility to follow
procedure, codes, laws, requirements, etc. regarding this request and
this evening the Planning Commission will hear the petitioner, the
Township’s consultants, as well as the public.
Chairman Pobuda introduced the members of the Planning Commission. John
Cahill, an Assistant State District Attorney, Curt Brown a banker, James
Mortensen, a retired Ford Financial Executive, Barbara Figurski, a
retired Executive in Business and Industry, Teri Olson, a Legislative
Representative for the State of Michigan, and William Litogot, a teacher
and Assistant Principal for the Taylor School District. All Planning
Commissioners are residents of Genoa Township.
He also introduced Kelly Kolakowski, Township Planner, Patty Thomas, the
Recording Secretary, Dennis Perkins, the Township’s legal council, Debra
McAvoy of TTMPS, who is the Township Engineer, and Paul LeBlanc of
Strader, LeBlanc & Associates, Inc., who is the Township Planner.
The procedure this evening will first be a presentation from the
Petitioner, comments from the consultants, and then the call to the
public.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Rezoning application, environmental impact
assessment, and site plan to rezone 177.66 acres (Faulkwood Shores Golf
Course) located on both sides of Hughes Rd., ¼ mile south of Golf Club
Rd., Section 3 & Section 4, from PRF (public/recreational facilities) to
MDR (medium density residential), petitioned by Landtec Realty, Inc. (PC
04-02)
· · Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding rezoning application.
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
Mr. Tom Kalis of 40900 Woodward Avenue, Suite 315, Bloomfield Hills,
Michigan, the attorney for the petitioner, was present. They are
requesting to rezone the Faulkwood Shores Golf Course from PRF
(public/recreational facilities) to MDR (medium density residential). He
displayed an aerial map for the public and Planning Commission to see.
He stated that numerous other golf courses in the area have fallen to
economic times and many have been petitioned to be rezoned to
residential uses. There is a market demand for what they are proposing.
They would be building condominiums that would sell for $150,000 to
$200,000. He explained the zoning and uses that exist in the surrounding
area. Covington Greens was rezoned by the Township to MDR, Red Oaks,
which is a manufactured home community, Woodland Springs, The Knolls,
and Lakewood Knoll, which are all MDR zoning, as well as Hampton Ridge,
Westbury, and Summerfield Point, which are condominium and apartment
complexes. This request is consistent with the surrounding zoning and
uses.
Mr. Kalis stated they originally proposed to develop the area around the
golf course and continue to use the golf course, but this was denied by
the Township. The golf course cannot be sustained without this
development. He noted they have sanitary sewer on three sides of this
parcel, however the Township will not allow them to connect to the
sanitary sewer. They can provide their own sanitary sewer system on
their property as long as they meet the DEQ requirements. They do not
need the Township’s consent or a resolution from the Township stating
they will take over the operations of this system if it is not
maintained by the petitioner. They will also be able to supply their own
water.
Their conceptual site plan shows a total of 1016 condominium units, 350
on the west side of Hughes Road and 659 on the east side. Their water
tower and sanitary sewer plant will be on their property. He stated
there has been a precedent set in the area for the zoning as well as
allowing developments to be built without taping into the sanitary sewer
system.
The permitted uses under the current zoning are schools, churches, and
hospitals, which are not reasonable for this area because there is no
demand. The property owner has never been approached by any of these
types of businesses. They feel property values will be enhanced and tax
revenues will be increased significantly than what the golf course is
generating.
They will be marketing to elderly people, retirees, and young married
couples, so they do not feel there will be a large impact on the
schools. He noted that the petitioner’s traffic engineer is present this
evening to answer any questions regarding traffic impact.
They are asking for equal treatment from the Township.
Ms. Huntley reviewed her letter of February 11, 2004. She noted the
following concerns:
A. DRAINAGE AND GRADING
1. All drainage, grading and soil erosion control measures shall be in
compliance with the regulations established by the Livingston County
Drain Commissioner’s office.
2. All regulated wetlands should be labeled on the plans during
preliminary site plan review. An undisturbed natural buffer of 25-feet
should be maintained from any regulated wetland.
3. A MDEQ permit will be required for all wetland crossings. Approval
from the Livingston County Drain Commissioner’s Office will be required
for all crossings and construction activity affecting the County Drain.
B. UTILITIES
1. Sanitary Sewer
a. The Faulkwood Shores site is not located within the Genoa Oceola
Sanitary Sewer District.
b. The Conceptual Plan shows development and a detention basin in the
area currently being utilized for the Outdoor Resort’s septic field and
basin. The petitioner should provide documentation for the abandonment
of this system and include the existing users with the development of
the proposed facility.
c. The petitioner should provide adequate soil borings and associated
hydrogeological evaluation in the vicinity of the proposed WWTP to
determine if the soils are adequate to serve the maximum requested
density, which equates to approximately 1400 proposed residential units
plus the existing flow from Outdoor Resorts. It can also be determined
from the soil borings if the 8 acres will be sufficient area for the
WWTP and disposal basins.
d. The process to obtain a NPDES discharge permit through the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality is arduous and our experience on
other similar projects indicates that the MDEQ is reluctant to issue a
discharge permit for parcels adjacent to municipal systems. Prior to the
Township acting on the rezoning application, the petitioner should apply
and receive preliminary approval from the MDEQ for their proposed
facilities.
e. Since the proposal indicates a groundwater discharge, the concern of
sodium and chloride pollutants should be investigated. A process should
be developed to limit, treat and/or monitor the sodium and chloride
concentrations in the effluent.
2. Water
a. The Faulkwood Shores site is not located within the MHOG Water
District.
b. A water tower is also proposed for the project on the northern
portion of the west parcel. Due to the height restrictions associated
with the proposed land use, the petitioner should evaluate the need of a
variance for the height of the water tower.
c. The petitioner should provide adequate aquifer test data to assure
the maximum 1400 residential units can be served.
d. The concern from sodium and chloride pollutants from individual water
softeners should be investigated and consideration of a central
softening facility should be reviewed.
C. TRAFFIC
A traffic impact analysis was submitted for the proposed site and was
prepared by Traffic Engineering Consultants, Inc. The traffic analysis
presented existing traffic volumes on Hughes Road, Latson Road and Golf
Club Road, a trip generation analysis of the proposed development and a
capacity analysis of the three roadway segments. The traffic study has
several issues that need to be further addressed and are listed below:
1. The traffic study states that the traffic counts have been adjusted
by a five percent annual growth rate to provide 2003 base year volumes.
The study should include a statement identifying how this growth rate
was developed.
2. The site plan includes 25 single-family units and 991 residential
condominiums/townhouse units, however the trip generation was completed
for all residential condominiums/townhouse. While this will not have a
dramatic effect on the overall trip generation, the proper land use
codes should be used when generating site traffic.
3. When analyzing the peak hour trip generation, there are two options
to choose; the peak hour of the development or the peak hour of the
adjacent roadway. Common practice is to use the peak hour of the
adjacent roadway, unless the type of development has unique peak hour
characteristics. The table presented in the report for the trip
generation potential of the proposed development currently shows the
traffic generated during the peak hour of the development, rather than
the peak hour of the adjacent roadway. This table should be updated to
illustrate the traffic generated during the peak hour of the adjacent
roadway.
4. The trip generation section of the report should also provide a trip
generation comparison between the existing zoning, the proposed zoning
and the proposed development. This will allow the Township to make a
better assessment of the potential traffic impacts associated with the
rezoning of the property.
5. The trip distribution model presented in the report was developed
based on existing traffic conditions and knowledge of the area. We were
able to determine that the distributions were developed from the traffic
counts contained in the appendix. However, we feel the distribution
numbers are reversed. Where the report states that 52% of traffic will
be to/from the east on Golf Club Road, we found that 52% is actually a
percentage of traffic heading eastbound on Golf Club Road, east of
Latson Road. Therefore, this percentage should be updated to accurately
reflect the distribution on Golf Club Road. This detail holds true for
Hughes Road and Latson Road and the report should be updated so the
distributions properly reflect existing traffic patterns.
6. The traffic study conducted a capacity analysis of the three major
roadways impacted by the proposed development. However, the printouts
for the HCS level of service analysis are not currently provided as part
of the report. The output of the analysis should be provided. Typically,
capacity analyses are also performed for the intersections.
7. Typically, when analyzing traffic impacts, a future no-build traffic
scenario, or background traffic scenario, is developed to compare to the
future traffic scenario, which includes the site traffic. The background
traffic scenario is developed by applying an annual growth percentage to
existing traffic volumes for the number of years until an anticipated
total build of the development. The site traffic is then added to
develop a future traffic scenario. The analysis included in this report
was for existing traffic conditions, future traffic conditions and
traffic conditions in the year 2023. The background traffic scenario
should be provided as a basis of comparison. In addition, the growth
rate used for the background scenario should be provided.
8. TTMPS was unable to develop traffic volumes for Hughes Road, Latson
Road, and Golf Club Road that agree with the volumes presented in the
Capacity Analysis at Project Build-out table. The methodology and/or
graphics explaining how these volumes were developed should be provided.
Mr. LeBlanc reviewed their concerns as outlined in Jeff Purdy’s letter
of March 3, 2004. With the zoning that is being requested, this property
could be developed as dense as eight units per acre. Although the
petitioner is requesting to develop it at a lesser density, the Township
needs to look at what could possibly be built there if it were to be
rezoned. A total of 1,342 units could be built on this site. He also
made the following points:
1. The proposed density is inconsistent with how the property around the
site is used.
2. It is outside of the water and sewer districts.
3. MDR zoning is inconsistent with the “goals” of the Master Plan.
4. The Township would not be able to put conditions on the rezoning
approval.
5. The Township has not seen data backing up the petitioner’s claim that
there is no market for the golf course.
6. This zoning is out of character for this area. LDR or RR zoning would
be more appropriate, which would still allow residential development,
but it would be less dense.
Mr. LeBlanc also noted that zoning is based on the Township’s Master
Plan. Genoa Township has consistently followed their Plan. This is a
case where there is a clear conflict in the request, the first step in
the process should be to go back and revisit the Master Plan and
determine if the current Plan is still valid or if a revised Master Plan
is appropriate.
Chairman Pobuda questioned if the Township would have to look at all
public recreation zoning in the Township. Mr. LeBlanc answered
affirmatively. He feels other areas with this zoning should be reviewed.
Commissioner Mortensen questioned if a traffic study at the nearest
intersection is normally requested by a petitioner. Ms. Huntley stated
yes, the petitioner should always analyze intersections for traffic.
Chairman Pobuda advised the public of the guidelines for the public
hearing. Comments from the public will be recorded; however, the
petitioner will not respond to those comments. He asked that the public
limit their comments to three minutes and address all comments to the
Planning Commission and not the petitioner.
He noted that the Township has received a large number of letters and
e-mails from the public and they have been distributed to the
Commissioners and reviewed. Ms. Kolakowski has compiled a spreadsheet
summarizing the comments received from the public expressing opposition
to the rezoning, a copy of which is available to each member of the
public.
The call to the public was made at 7:36 p.m.
Mr. Jim Pratt lives .3 miles north of Golf Club Road in Oceola Township.
This zoning is not consistent with the area. There is an airport at
Hughes Road and the golf course is used as an emergency landing strip.
The water tower is in the vicinity of the airport. When the other MDR
zonings were created, there was a transition buffer zoning, which was
the golf course. He cited the ordinance states that there should be
1,500 square feet of children’s play area for each unit and that is not
shown on the plans. He noted there was an advertisement in the local
paper for Faulkwood Shores Golf Course and it said it has been in
business for “35 years”.
Mr. David McKenzie of 152 Gulley does not live in Genoa Township. He
lives in Oceola Township. He owns the private airport called McKenzie’s
landing. He reviewed the letter that he sent dated March 11, 2004. The
Michigan Department of Transportation and The Bureau of Aeronautics is
supposed to be advised when a water tower is being proposed to be
erected near an airport and they have heard nothing of this proposal. He
also stated that when a property is being sold within three miles of an
airport, the seller is required to advise the purchasers that it is
there. He would like to know if these two items have been considered
with regard to the rezoning.
Mr. Roger Dreslin of 4850 Golf Club has lived here since 1974. Everyone
in this room this evening feels it is a ridiculous proposal. Golf Club
and Hughes Road cannot handle the traffic. He noted that he fought when
the current developments were proposed to be built.
Mr. John Green of 751 Pathway stated there is no one in this building
that is in favor of amending the Master Plan or having property rezoned
to MDR. He respectfully requests that the petitioner withdraw their
proposal.
Mr. Steve Wildman of 658 Pathway represents the Lake Chemung Riparian
Association. They feel strong about this development. They are concerned
for the wells in the area. There are currently four subdivisions being
developed on Hughes Road. The sewer plant they are proposing will create
a bad odor. They have put sewer around the lake to keep the area clean
and now they want to put in a large septic field. They are concerned
about the impact on the road and schools. They are opposed to the
rezoning.
Mr. Don Doolittle, who represents the 323 members of the Lake Chemung
Outdoor Resorts, Inc., which is located next to Faulkwood Shores Golf
Course, stated he submitted a letter dated March 8, 2004. He noted that
they currently lease a portion of the golf course for their sewer
retention pond, which they leased on a 99-year lease. This currently
handles 323 residences on a part-time basis. Sometimes it emits a foul
odor and the increase of 1,016 condominiums would cause this to be
worse. They are also concerned about water availability. They are
pumping from the deepest wells in July to support only 323 part-time
users. The amount of 60,960,000 gallons of water annually would be
needed to supply these proposed condominiums. They question how this
will affect the water levels of their wells and the water levels of Lake
Chemung. They also have traffic concerns.
Mr. Dolittle then reviewed the LCORI’s attorney’s letter where he
reiterated the concern of the impact of the sanitary sewer retention
pond and how the portion that they currently lease should not be
considered for part of the rezoning. It is not consistent with the
Master Plan or surrounding uses, and he feels the infrastructure should
be in place before the development is complete. It will have a negative
impact on surrounding property values.
Mr. Ron Rogers of 4750 Edinburgh lives directly adjoining the golf
course. He is the Vice President of the Association and President of the
GUARD. This proposal is in no way compatible with their subdivision,
which is 17 homes on 65 acres. The petitioner’s proposal says “there
will be no detrimental impact on traffic, views, or property values”. He
disagrees and feels their views and the traffic will be impacted. Having
a wastewater treatment plant and a water tower in their backyard will
decrease their property values. He feels this will forever change the
character of the Township and will affect the residents of the Township.
Ms. Sheila Lockard of 5739 Iroquois is a member of the Board of the Red
Oaks Association. This development will bring more cars, traffic, and
electricity demands. Howell and Brighton area already overpopulated. She
votes no.
Mr. Jerry Patrusi of 652 Olde Ivy moved to the Township five years ago
for the rural setting. He likes the wildlife and the low traffic. He
feels the property values will be decreased. He votes no.
Mr. Jeff Dhaenens of 5494 Sharp Drive stated he has family and friends
that live at Faulkwood Shores. He feels they live in a great community
with woods, wide open spaces, etc. He does not want to see the rezoning.
He does not agree with the economic infeasibility of operating a golf
course. He does not agree with this request.
Mr. Jack Pike of 6860 Pathway feels Genoa Township should encourage
Livingston County to purchase this property and make a public park. He
does not believe that the golf course is not financially secure.
Mr. Ed Altounian of 4736 Edinburgh stated everyone is aware that growth
is inevitable; however, he would like to have Genoa Township stay rural.
The high density of most cities is why most of these residents move to
Genoa Township. He urges the Planning Commission to deny the request for
rezoning.
Ms. Beth Bunette of 5821 Comanche stated her family has come to
Burroughs Farms for 27 years. She would like the Township to purchase
some of this property and preserve it as open space. The traffic going
to Grand River is already awful.
Mr. Greg Miller, whose mother lives at 671 Old Ivy, has lived in
Brighton for over 30 years. He lives on Hughes Road. He reiterated that
the Petitioner is going to market the development to retirees and
younger couples without children; however, the couples do have babies
and they grow up and go to school. He wonders what maximum density is
when 1,300 is minimum.
Mr. Jeff Payne of 5500 Water Willow stated his subdivision has 36 lots
on 50 acres. He is concerned about the increased traffic on Hughes Road
and how it would affect the safety of the children waiting for the
school bus. He does not feel it meets the plan of Genoa Township. He is
very opposed.
Mr. Andy Burt of 612 Olde Ivy stated there are three sides to this; the
seller, the developer, and the people. The seller and developer will
make a lot of money and the people are the ones that are going to be
losing money.
Mr. Phil Winteringham of 144 S. Hughes Road moved from Farmington
because of over development. He is getting close to retirement and would
like something quiet. He agrees that the traffic on Hughes Road is
already bad. He requests the Township reject this proposal.
Mr. Tom Pallazollo of 320 S. Hughes Road does not want money to be an
issue. He wants the Planning Commission to think about the people.
Mr. Matt Akin of 1185 Sunrise Park stated his family lived on Hughes
Road when it was their driveway in the 1800’s. He stated that the people
in this room are the ones that voted the Commissioners in and they can
vote them out.
Mr. Ed Creesy of 646 Olde Ivy does not agree that the golf course is not
profitable. It is very busy. He stated that Hawk Meadows offered to
purchase this golf course so it cannot be doing too badly. He paid
$10,000 more for his lot that abuts the 7th hole. When these
condominiums are built, his property value will go down and that will
affect the taxes he pays to the Township. The addition of 1,000
residences will increase the traffic on Lake Chemung also. He would like
the Planning Commission to vote no on this request.
Ms. Sandy Lowacki of 1621 Hughes Road lives on the curve and stated the
road cannot accommodate more traffic. She has three children and it is
dangerous.
Ms. Pat Freeman of 1040 Menomonee agrees that the road cannot handle
more traffic. She noted that the petitioner stated the precedent has
been set for the MDR zoning in the area and she questioned if the
rezoning of a recreational area has been done to allow that MDR zoning.
Mr. Bob Fox of 1043 Woodwillow stated he did purchase his home in one of
the new developments, but it is not as dense as what is being proposed.
The golf course is economical. He has a very hard time getting a tee
time there. He stated that water fowl will be attracted to the water
sewer treatment plant.
Mr. Rick Novak of 510 Hughes questioned what road improvements are being
proposed. He stated that elderly people would not want to live in the
area because the golf course will be gone and young couples will have
children who grow up and will go to school. He is opposed to this.
Mr. Tom McCarthy of 968 White Willow questioned why the Township is even
entertaining this issue. With the housing of this magnitude, the current
housing will “go in the toilet”.
Mr. Brian Heinig has lived in the Township since 1949 and has seen a lot
of change. He has lived at 1240 White Willow for a year. His back door
is 30 feet from the ROW of Hughes Road. If road improvements are made,
the safety of these residents will be affected. It will be impossible to
widen the road. Currently the traffic is so busy school busses cannot
pull to the side of the road and more cars will make this worse. It is a
safety issue.
Ms. Janette Scalessi was originally from Sterling Heights and feels that
this type of development will cause this area to look like that. This is
not the type of developing for around the lake.
Mr. Ted Panaretos of 4152 Brookstone. He lives in Lakewood Knoll and
trying to turn out of his subdivision is difficult already. He is
surrounded by condos and does not need any more.
Mr. Darryl Brown of 438 Lillyview Ct. is president of their association.
They are opposed to the development. Hampton Ridge to the south of them
has not helped their resale value. They have many homes that have been
for sale for approximately a year and sit vacant. This property could be
rezoned to low density residential, 5 to 10 acre lots. The condos in
this area are not even done being built. He is asking the Township to
slow down the development.
Ms. Lynn McHale of 1321 Chemung Forest stated she was very proud to be
delayed getting out of her subdivision to go to the last meeting because
it showed how many people were on their way to the meeting. She was
insulted when the petitioner stated he will improve Hughes Road. She
chose her subdivision because they were unable to build on 60 percent of
the land. She would like it to remain the same.
Mr. Eric Martin of 520 Hughes Road has submitted a letter to the
Township; however, he noted there are issues noted by the engineer that
are already present and this is just the beginning. He feels the project
will hurt the community.
Mr. Michael Susher of 1071 Sunrise Park asked how a development of this
density could help the Township.
Mr. Mike Hayne of 587 S Kellogg Road moved from Macomb to get away from
heavy traffic and development. This developer has developed in Macomb
Township and he does not want to see that here.
Mr. Ray Malarsky of 1866 Nikki purchased his home about 10 years ago for
the weekends. He liked it so much he moved here permanently. Since he
has been here there has been nothing but building. The Township does not
need or want this. All of these people moved here to get away from
density. He feels it should be left the way it is.
Ms. Angie Thorp of 5512 Chippewa does not feel that only seniors and
young people will be purchasing these condos. She agrees with everyone’s
comments regarding the traffic, schools, safety, electricity problems,
and the sewer and water plant. She does not feel the wastewater
treatment plant will work, especially since the Township does not have
any control over it. They already have problems with theirs in Brighton
Lake Village. The schools are already crowded. Three Fires Middle School
is new and already up to capacity, there is going to be two high
schools, and the bus stops on Hughes Road are dangerous.
Mr. Jerry Hotchkin of 5855 Pond Hill Ct. is a new resident and loves the
county. The Township is generally free of overcrowding and development.
The Township has done a good job of monitoring growth. They moved from
Canton due to the planning and unrestricted growth. He does not want all
new development to stop; however, development can be done in a
controlled manner and that is not what this proposal is. He encourages
the Planning Commission to consider the other options that were
mentioned this evening. He is concerned with traffic, schools, water and
sewer issues, and asked that the Planning Commission deny this request
to preserve Genoa Township.
Mr. Dan Stokes lives on Coon Lake. He questioned how this will affect
their quality of life and their respect for the land and the outdoors.
Ms. Mary Trudea of Lakewood Knoll feels the water treatment facility
needs to be researched further. If they feel it is such a good idea, put
it in the middle of the development and not on the edge of the site.
Ms. Sue Pickle of 182 S. Hughes Road agrees with the other residents.
There are legal and engineering issues stated were not good and the
noise and lighting pollution should be considered.
Mr. George Schneeman of 140 S. Hughes Road moved to the area 10 ½ years
ago from Redford after he retired. He has over two acres and is
concerned for his well. He likes to ride his bike on Hughes Road;
however, the increased traffic will make it unsafe for him.
Mr. David Best of 628 Pathway questioned why the Township told the
developer they could not tie into the sewer. It is available on all
three sides. This would avoid polluting Lake Chemung.
Mr. Ray Fracassi of 6140 Blue Heron wants to address the residents and
let them know that they need to continue their opposition. No studies
done on the effects to the water, wells, traffic, etc. This type of
density is a travesty to the area.
Ms. Beverly Miller of 584 Lakeside is uncomfortable with the water being
pumped out of the lake when this development is complete. This is
affecting the rights of riparians. This will greatly affect the lake.
Mr. Ed Altounian of 4736 Edinburgh stated the wildlife is being chased
away with all of the development. The Township could consider purchasing
the land for a park or for a municipal golf course. There are none in
Livingston County. The Fire Department does not condone this because thy
cannot get a fire truck into that development. He questioned how can the
developer ensure that only seniors and young people without children
will move there. The Township cannot control what the developer will do
once the property is rezoned.
The call to the public was closed at 8:53 p.m. Chairman Pobuda called
for a break until 9:10 p.m.
Chairman Pobuda asked Mr. LeBlanc what is the next procedure in this
process. Mr. LeBlanc stated the process is established by State law. The
Township does not have discretion. The Planning Commission is required
to hold a public hearing on rezoning. The Commission is an appointed
body, except for Mr. Mortensen, who is a Township Trustee and is
elected, so they are only an advisory body. They will have to vote to
recommend denial or approval. The issue is then sent to the County and
their comments are also forwarded to the Township Board, which is an
elected body. They then vote on the issue. The Board is not required to
hold another public hearing, but they can if they choose. The Township
is approximately two months away from final action on the rezoning. The
Township Board could then send it to the Planning Commission if there
are any changes to the proposal or if they feel more information is
needed or if they feel their decision is contrary to the Planning
Commission’s recommendation.
Chairman Pobuda stated some of the issues raised this evening, such as
traffic, soil conditions, water levels, wells, drain fields, air space
for the airport, leasing rights, road conditions, electrical power
problems, Lake Chemung water levels etc. are new to the Planning
Commission.
The consultants had no further comments and Chairman Pobuda opened the
discussion to the commissioners.
Commissioner Cahill stated that the criteria for a rezoning is that the
owner is unable to receive reasonable return on the investment. Is there
substantiation for this claim. Mr. Kalis stated the property was put up
for sale because the owners do not feel it is economically feasible and
their tax returns prove this. No other golf course in the area has
proposed to purchase it because of this.
Commissioner Brown asked why the petitioner has not taken the route of
reviewing and amending the Master Plan. Mr. Kalis stated they just want
to rezone this property. He noted that the Master Plan acknowledges that
development pressures may lead to recreation sites being changed and
used for other uses. The Township is the only one that needs to amend
the Master Plan. The developer only needs to attempt to rezone the
property.
Commissioner Mortensen addressed the public and stated the Township
received over 400 letters from residents and there must be that many
people present this evening. The comments and letters are very helpful
to the Township. He advised that no decision is going to happen very
fast. They will discuss this at future Planning Commission meetings and
the public will be noticed of when they will occur.
Commissioner Figurski is not in favor of this proposal.
Commissioner Olson has some concerns regarding some points raised this
evening, including the concerns with the existing wells.
Commissioner Litogot stated he lives in this neighborhood and has been
on the Planning Commission for 24 years. He remembers when Oak Pointe
went through these same issues. He is not for this project. He is not
willing to change the Master Plan to rezone this property. The density
is too high, getting to the property would be difficult, and Hughes Road
cannot take more traffic.
Commissioner Cahill asked the petitioner if he noted the concerns of the
Howell Area Fire Department. Mr. Kalis stated he has reviewed the
consultants’ letter and the Fire Department’s letter dated February 2,
2004 where he notes the conceptual site plan is acceptable. Commissioner
Cahill stated there was an amended letter dated February 25, 2004 where
it states the site plan is “unsatisfactory as presented”. Mr. Kalis
noted that letter was sent after the initial letter of approval.
Commissioner Litogot questioned if the petitioner has responded to the
consultants concerns. Mr. Kalis stated that on February 18, 2004 they
submitted a four-page letter responding to the Planner’s letter.
Commissioner Cahill again asked if this was all of the documentation
that he was going to resent to demonstrate the inability to obtain a
reasonable return on the investment. Mr. Kalis stated he does not feel
he has any burden to prove the financial feasibility to the Planning
Commission. He would produce proof at the appropriate time in court. The
recurring use is not economically feasible. He does not feel it is fair
to have him or the residents continue to return to these meetings. If
the Planning Commission is inclined to vote this evening, then they
should.
Mr. Dennis Perkins, the Township’s legal counsel, who is substituting
for Richard Heikkenin, who is out due to illness, reiterated the
procedure required under the rezoning code. The Planning Commission must
first listen to the consultants’ comments and could vote this evening;
however, the Planning Commission needs to adhere to Section 22.04, which
says that the Planning Commission needs to take into account all of the
“findings and recommendations”. If they are not ready to do this, then
they would need to make a motion to table to a certain date when a
recommendation will be made to the Township Board, which will allow the
Planning Commission and the petitioner to know when a resolution will be
made. If they believe they can do that under the ordinance, they can
vote this evening; however, he does not believe this is the case. He
would suggest 60 days. Chairman Pobuda feels that the Planning
Commission, the Planner and the Engineer need to consider the comments
heard this evening. He recognizes that Commissioners Figurski and
Litogot are ready to express their opinions this evening; however, he
feels more review needs to be made.
Commissioner Mortensen noted the recommendation from the Planner to
revisit the Township’s Master Plan. He moved to postpone Agenda Item #1
until the June 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cahill
seconded the motion for discussion.
The petitioner stated he objects to the 90-day postponement. He would
like it to be postponed until the next regular Planning Commission
meeting. Ninety days is too long. Under the Ordinance Section 22.032,
after the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall identify and
report its findings to the board.
Commissioner Mortensen asked Mr. LeBlanc how long would be reasonable to
allow the Planning Commission to revisit the Master Plan. Mr. LeBlanc
stated it would take approximately 30 to 60 days. To actually amend it
could take up to six months. Commissioner Mortensen does not feel the
Township needs to amend the Master Plan, but other similar zonings in
the Township need to be revised.
Commissioner Cahill stated he seconded Commissioner Mortensen’s motion
for discussion purposes, but he does not feel the Master Plan needs to
be reviewed. He feels reviewing the information received this evening
and making a recommendation at the next meeting would be appropriate.
Commissioner Mortensen withdrew his original motion and moved to
postpone Agenda Item #1 until the May 24, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting. There was no support and the motion died.
Commissioner Brown agrees with Commissioner Cahill. He does not feel the
Master Plan needs to be reviewed. The Planning Commission should review
what the petitioner has presented. The petitioner does not give the
impression that he wants the Township to review the Master Plan.
Mr. Kalis stated that the Planner noted that the Master Plan amendment
could take six months. They do not want to wait for the Township to
reevaluate their Master Plan. They have come before the Planning
Commission based on the current Master Plan. He reiterated that he does
not object to tabling this issue until the next Planning Commission
meeting.
Chairman Pobuda stated that the agenda for the next meeting is already
set so it would not be possible to be acted upon then. He added that he
would like to take some time to review the issues that have been
addressed this evening.
Ms. Kolakowski stated the next available meeting would be April 26,
2004. Commissioner Cahill questioned if another special meeting would
have to be held because of the large crowed. He feels a special meeting
date should be chosen and it should be held at this location again. Ms.
Kolakowski stated there are currently no items scheduled for the April
26, 2004 meeting; however, if items were tabled at the April 12th
meeting, they would have to attend the April 24th meeting at this
location.
Moved by Cahill, seconded by Olson, to postpone Agenda Item #1 until the
April 26, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, which will be held at Three
Fires Middle School. The motion passed (Cahill – yes; Brown – yes;
Mortensen – no; Figurski – no; Pobuda – yes; Olson – yes; Litogot – no).
Commissioner Cahill asked if the petitioner is going to respond to the
citizens’ concerns. Mr. Kalis stated they would order a copy of the
transcripts, review the comments, and respond.
Chairman Pobuda thanked all of the residents for coming this evening.
The meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
Submitted by: Patty Thomas, Recording Secretary
Approved by: Barbara Figurski, Secretary
|
