MEMBERS PRESENT:                 Chairman, Dave Kulp; Commissioners: Vaughn Koshkarian, Richard Lemke, George Magro, William Mazzara, Ric Mueller,  Gordon Muir, Keith Vandenbussche

 

ABSENT:                                          Lisa Marckini-Polk; Larry Waligora, Fire Chief

 

ALSO PRESENT:                           Nick Lomako, Township Planner; Timothy Brandt, Building Official; Sandi Marvar, Recording Secretary; 105 Members of the Public

 

Chairman Kulp called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was present.

 

CALL TO THE PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS

Chairman Kulp asked for Public Comment on non-agenda items.

 

There was no response from the public.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

R-06-5009, REZONING REQUEST FROM R-1-S TO C-2, SCHROTT & MECHIGIAN, 16-12-200-057 – 066

Chairman Kulp opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.

 

Mr. James Hudnut, attorney representing the development group, explained the request is to rezone the property from R-1-S residential to C-2 commercial for construction of a local shopping center.  The parcels front the entire width of Commerce Road at the southwest corner of Duck Lake Road. The parcels total nearly 17 acres and are unsuitable for residential development due to overhead power lines. He supplied an United States Environmental Protection Agency study in which electromagnetic fields were a causal link to cancers resulting from electromagnetic transmission lines. He supplied the study to the Commission. 

 

Mr. Hudnut, explained they are proposing a neighborhood type retail development with the facade character of the historic downtown Milford buildings. Just under 160,000 sq. ft of space for a retail regional department store similar to Kohl’s or J C Penney. The proposed parking would conform the Township requirements screening would be supplied to improve the area along Commerce Road.

 

Mr. Hudnut also pointed out that in a recent survey which was done for downtown Milford, 68% of those who responded shopped out of Milford Township and Village areas. He explained this means that residents go elsewhere to do their shopping and supplied a store locator map for Oakland County which showed a void in the Milford Township area. He believed approving this rezoning would allow and provide needed shopping facilities.

 

Chairman Kulp questioned why the study provided is not official but a draft EPA study which clearly states it is not to be quoted. He asked if there was any reason why the property can not be developed as residential. Mr. Hudnut  said it could not be developed with electrical transmission lines running right down the middle of the property. Chairman Kulp asked if that was the soul reason for not developing the property in a residential manner. Mr. Hudnut said not necessary over the past 12 years Mr. Mechigian could not get a developer to build on the property. The property does not fit a residential use.

 

Chairman asked for comments from the public. He requested that they step up to the microphone one at a time, keep comments to a minimum, and avoid repeating others comments.

 

Mr. Larry Malo, 5025 S. Duck Lake Rd., stated he moved here because the area is paradise to him as residential area. There have not been any homes since 1994. He read the petition signed by at least 400 area residents protesting the rezoning request for many reasons including the following: devaluation of homes and property, traffic, noise, light pollution, adjoining Montessori school, proximity to elementary and middle schools strongly urge rejection of this proposal. Only property owners within 300 ft were notified of rezoning request by the Township. The petition he supplied to the Commission was signed in support by 99% of those to whom it was given. There is enough vacant retail in the area. He explained that he is very upset over possible change to the zoning district. He supports what the Township is doing and urged the Commission to keep the residents in mind.

 

Mr. Mark Pisco, 2846 Canterbury Court, explained he has been not only a resident but also a builder in the Milford and Commerce area for over 15 years. He bought and built on a parcel which is part of the Sherwood Oaks development, Canterbury Court is the second part to the development. The major problem with the property they are requesting rezoning of is that only one of the lots perks. Many years ago on behalf of Mr. Mechigian, property owner, he was told though the state that on site system would be approved so the site condominium development with the addition of an onsite septic system servicing the whole development. So the land could be used and developed residentially. He had contacted Detroit Edison approximately 6 years ago and was told for about 100,000 to 120,000 dollars the power lines could be moved. He believed that with a little prodding from the owner of the property the poles could be moved for a lesser price. The hardship is unfounded since the poles can be moved, which is supported by the fact that one pole was moved in the Sherwood Oaks phase 2 section of the development for a home to be constructed on that site.   Canterbury Court, phase 2 of the Sherwood Oaks Subdivision want to separate from the development since they have not received any support from Mr. Mechigian, the developer, in their attempts to obtain insurance for the development. They cannot obtain subdivision insurance since half the subdivision is undeveloped.  Mr. Mechigian has proven that he does not care about residence or community. The property has not been used, just neglected. This rezoning request is just a ploy to sell the property to someone else and put residence in harms way.

 

Ms. Renee Beeker, 2874 Canterbury Court, expressed her opposition and concern as a citizen and tax payer who is legally tied to the property requesting the rezoning though their site condominium documents. She questioned as well why she and her neighbors had not been noticed until only a few days ago.

 

Chairman Kulp stated notification of the rezoning request was published in the June 15th and 22nd editions of the Milford Times and notice sent to residence within 300 ft. following legal requirements, her point is well taken. He explained that the Planning Commission is a recommending body. The finial decision will come from the Township Board.

 

Ms. Chrysia Stoneback, 2860 Canterbury, the parcels asking for rezoning are legally part of her subdivision. The Master Deed and Bylaws legal description includes units 11 thru 16 which are the parcels on Canterbury Trail. The documents written anticipated separate residence. She read many excerpts from the Sherwood Oaks Master Deed and Bylaws. The document states each lot is for a residential purpose, this Mr. Mechigian has already violated, by having a tree farm operate for three years before the Township could get the business removed. Because the development is a site condominium development, common elements are shared, and due to the undeveloped area they have been unable to get an insurance policy. When Mr. Mechigian was approached he informed them that he is adequately insured. Mr. Mechigian also didn’t even have the common courtesy to inform the other half of the subdivision of the rezoning; they had to read it in the newspaper.

The property is intended for residential use for a residential community, she read more examples from the Master Deed and Bylaws. Ms. Stoneback questioned how the Township could allow for a legal change of the zoning of half the lots of a site condominium development without getting the lots on Canterbury Ct. approval. Mr. Mechigian has known since 1996 that the parcels did not all perk and why should the surrounding residential pay for Mr. Mechigian's bad business mistake. This is the wrong location for a rezoning of this kind it would open up a can of worms all along Duck Lake and Commerce Road. This is not what she wants and not why she chose to move to Milford. She moved to Milford to have to travel for shopping. Her 8 year old daughter, Stephanie, wrote her own letter of objection, which Ms. Stoneback read, explaining the land as a deer’s paradise and should be a park. It is a habitat to plants and animals. She does not want a strip mall on her corner. It should be a park or soccer field. It is not a good corner. There is too much traffic which drives too fast. Mr. Mechigian, please don’t be greedy.

 

Ms. Linda Vaitas, 3025 E. Commerce, explained she lives on the last parcel in Milford Township and is directly across from the property in question. She has lived in Milford all her life. No thank you to a strip mall. Traffic is too fast, she has been rear ended twice, and the property is across from school. A commercial development would add to the traffic problem. She does not want a view of a parking lot and bright lights shining into her home. This type of development would threaten their safety and increase the possibility of sexual predators. Her parcel is 7 acres, most of which does not perk. She follows rules of the community and can’t divide her property.  She is against a strip mall. When they can’t fill retail which exists in the area sitting vacant then more should not be allowed. The area is rural and the traffic and noise from parked vehicles would not improve. Who would benefit aside from Mr. Bob Saks Mechigian? It would certainly not be the area residents.

 

Mr. George Niepoth, 2875 E. Commerce, across from subject property. He has lived 52 years as a resident of Milford Township observed orderly development of the Township and the development of the Township’s Master Plan. Residents owe a dept of gratitude to those who worked on the plan and the Township for their foresight. Rezoning this property to Commercial would be at odds with the orderly development established in the Township. Abandonment by the owner shows little consideration for the community and this rezoning request enforces that. Please don’t approve this request. He also submitted a letter expressing his opposition to the Commission.

 

Mr. John Robinson, 2680 E. Commerce, explained that traffic accidents at this intersection are already an issue, more is not needed. He has power lines along and behind his home and has no ill effects. No proven link to electromagnetic fields and cancer has been substantiated. Two schools are located on the east side of Duck Lake Road. This rezoning is not a good idea. There are areas for this type of development planned in the Township and areas for residential development, and that is what makes this a great place to live.

 

Mr. Robert Hunt, 2821 E. Commerce, just moved in to his home and commercial development is not attractive to him. He did not move to this area for that type of development. He asked what he should do if this rezoning is approved. It would be a real blow to him.

 

Mr. Martin Sager, 2701 Hidden Place, he agrees with what has been previously stated. There are seven families on his street which agree.

 

Ms. Cynthia Sobczak, 2845 Rae Lynn, her home is next to the Oakland County garage and since 1982 numerous residences have been built off Duck Lake Road and the speed limit is still 50 miles per hour. She has witnessed many near misses and accidents. It would be wise to remove the pass with care sign or reduce the speed to a residential speed limit. Nothing has been done by the Township or Oakland County Road Commission. This needs to be addressed. Traffic would be affected if rezoning is approved. Why should it be allowed when so many empty strip malls exist in Milford, Commerce and Wixom. Rezoning should not be approved.

 

Mr. Zack Ruff, 4948 Driftwood, Commerce TWP, his son attends Oak Valley and he had to drive him to school because it is not safe to walk. More traffic would only add to the safety threat for children going to school and then those who would want to cross the road to shop at the strip mall. The traffic is already unacceptable and should not be increased.

 

Mr. Dan Corn, 4315 Ravinewood, Commerce TWP,   represented his subdivision association which is concerned for the quality of life for residents who live in the area. He questioned if building this would improve the quality of life especially across from a school. He moved this area to raise his family and didn’t want a strip mall where it doesn’t belong and would not be an improvement to the area.

 

Mr. Glenn Short, 5140 Driftwood, Commerce TWP, explained he is the community affairs director for Lake Sherwood, the development exist of over 600 residents. A 160,000 sq. ft. commercial space would be very upsetting. A narrow bridge exists on Commerce Road and the traffic is already congested. He agreed with what everyone has said the project is too big for this area.

 

Mr. Bill StCharles, 2937 Debbiwood, his issue is quality of life. He has been impressed and agreed with the comments that have been stated. Retail areas and increased crime statistics correlate. Vacancy of existing retail sites along with the increased crime which comes from vacant retail locations are reasons to deny this request. This type of development would tax other resources in the community please consider these undesired side effects.

 

Ms. Denise Black, 2576 Shady Ln., agrees with others comments not just an issue of quality of life but also safety. Our most precious gift is our children, who need to be protected. She stated that statistics are something she has done research on and surveys have a poor response rate. Factors to consider are what the minimum numbers of responses are for survey, what was the sample size; research information may not be based on statistical facts. If the survey done for downtown Milford is to be used as an argument to support this rezoning then the Commission must make sure findings are actually based on facts.

 

Mr. Dick Jankowski, 1104 Burns, there has been a lot of good reasons against this rezoning request. Some are ethical, moral, definable in nature, and some factual. The applicant’s attorney provided a draft version of an old study for the power line issue which is opposite the stance of the majority of developers. The hardships stated could be overcome and no factual evidence was provided for reason of hardship. He urged the Commission to oppose this development.

 

Mrs. Mary Niepoth, 2875 E. Commerce, asked the Commission not to change the zoning of this area. She has watched the land go from a horse farm where it was well used and attractively cared for. Some improvements like the road and electricity were an improvement to the land and she believed the property could still be used for residence. She hoped that the property owner would look at the property and have some integrity to use it for a good cause like developing it residential. She asked that the Commission please not change the zoning.

 

Mr. Ange Jeffrelot, 2868 Canterbury Ct., as a resident of one of the phase of the development he agreed with the comments previously made and explained that before moving to this property in 1999 he took a long time doing research and looking for the right location to live. The expectation was for the neighboring property to all be residential.

 

Mr. Dan Beeker, 2874 Canterbury Ct., the history of stewardship of the owner is not good. He was the first house in the development at first the property on the corner seemed to be well taken care off and appeared it could be developed but has since been let go no stewardship. If this is an example of how the property is cared for then he was concerned over how commercial property would look in ten years.

 

Mr. Ken Marciniak, 1471 Duff Ln., questioned if the claim is that the power lines make property unsafe for residential development then wouldn’t the employees working in the stores be exposed to the same danger of health issues along with customers.

 

Ms. Sandra Webb, 5091 Surfwood, Commerce TWP, said she shops and banks in Milford and works for Huron Valley Schools, the area is one community. In this residential area a shopping center would not be beneficial.  A shopping center so close to a school would not have beneficial effects.

 

Mrs. Kathryn Malo, 5025 Duck Lake, the subject property directly adjoins the Milford Montessori school along with being across the road from two more schools, it is not the area to place a retail development. The road is not safe to cross and area children can not even walk to school, this would only increase traffic.

 

Mrs. Regina Boffi, Milford Montessori 2700 E. Commerce Rd., expressed her concerns over security issues. Her school has young children which attend from 7 am to 6 pm. When she added on to her school it took years to complete the project so that the residential appearance of the area was maintained. She followed the requirements of the Township ordinance on her property. She enjoys shopping in downtown Milford and does not want to see retail on this property. It also would not make sense that this development would just duplicate what already exists in the village. The property is home to deer and other wildlife and she would cooperate with making it park land.

 

Chairman Kulp closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m.

 

AMENDMENT TO SECTION 19-113 AND 16-169, ACCELERATION, DECELERATION AND PASSING LANES

Chairman Kulp opened the public hearing at 8:34 p.m.

 

Chairman Kulp stated notification of the amendment was published in the June 15th and 22nd editions of the Milford Times. Chairman Kulp asked Consultant Lomako to provide a brief overview.

 

Consultant Lomako began by reading the proposed text amendment drafted with the input of the Township Legal Council to provide updated language driven by the concerns for traffic safety and flow which includes requiring acceleration and deceleration lanes for new development.

 

Chairman Kulp asked for public comment.

 

There was no comment form the public present.

 

Chairman Kulp closed the public hearing at 8:36 p.m.

 

LAND DIVISION APPEAL, DAVID & DEBORAH STOCKBRIDGE, 16-02-200-075

Chairman Kulp opened the public hearing at 8:37 p.m.

 

Mrs. Debbie Stockbridge, property owner, explained the request to divide the 3.04 acre parcel into two 1.50 parcels. She explained that the acreage was purchased in 2 parts in 1987. When the ordinance was changed in 2003 to exclude the road right-of-way from the acreage calculation it made the two parcels which would result from the land division 0.18 and 0.19 acres short of the 1.50 acre minimum. It was their intention from the time the property was purchased to divide it and have two parcels. At that time she was told at the Township office that the land could be divided. The hardship that they face is that the road area has been removed from the acreage calculation.  Pine Grove Lane is a private road which they pay for road maintenance on and pay taxes on the land occupied by the road. She passed out a plat page of section 2 of the Township showing other 1.50 and 1.60 acre parcels which include the road in there acreage calculation. When the parcels were purchased they were purchased as two parcels they just didn’t have two parcel numbers and at that time she was told by the Township that separate parcel numbers were not necessary since she lived on the property.

 

Commissioner Mazzara asked if all the parcels noted on the plat page supplied to the Commission were developed at this time. Mrs. Stockbridge said she believed they were.

 

Chairman Kulp asked for public comment.

 

Mr. Bill Groves 1505 Donelaine, understanding is that now if you live on a private road, easement is taken off acreage calculation even though property owners maintain and pay taxes on the road area. Chairman Kulp explained that was the original intent of the ordinance and it was amended to clarify that and no longer leave the intent of the ordinance up to interpretation. Commissioner Mazzara explained that in calculation for density road and easement area are subtracted from calculation.

 

Mr. David P. Smith, Surveyor for Rita Knight, Mrs. Knight owns parcel contiguous to this west explained that his client is against this variance being that she will be applying for a land division and her property would yield two parcels with excess land which could be combine onto the Stockbridge’s parcels for them to have conforming parcels.

 

Mr. Steve Oaks, 2541 Driftwood, it would not seem fair that if ordinance changes the ordinance for what a developable parcel would not also be changed.

 

Mr. Dennis Butcher, 1745 Burns, explained he is the corner property on Burns and Pine grove and is opposed to the variance to change of lot size of 1.50 acres. If this is approved then Mrs. Knight would appeal for more divisions of her property and this would create more parcels. Pine Grove Lane is a very quiet private lane and he would like it to stay that way. The ordinance should not be changed to allow for this variance. 

 

There was no additional comment form the public present.

 

Chairman Kulp closed the public hearing at 8:45 pm.

 

NEW BUSINESS

R-06-5009, REZONING REQUEST FROM R-1-S TO C-2, SCHROTT & MECHIGIAN, 16-12-200-057 – 066

Chairman Kulp noted that the Commission is also in receipt of a letter of opposition from the Commerce Township Planner and Township Supervisor (on file in the Township Office). 

 

Chairman Kulp also read the letter of opposition supplied by Gerald and Karol Breen, 562 Burns Road (on file in the Township office).

 

Chairman Kulp expressed his concern that the Draft study was not finalized and that he is aware of other studies which refute the findings on this draft. He asked Mr. Hudnut if this was the body of evidence they were submitting to support their claim of danger from the power lines. Mr. Hudnut replied that it was and that the danger is primarily to children and their growing systems. Chairman Kulp said the study clearly stated Draft “Do not site” so the commission can not take any of its information into consideration. The Commission would need expert information and factual data which would include risk being dependent on age, to consider this reason.

 

Chairman Kulp asked why if the property owners feel the land can not be developed residentially safely then would the retail employees not be subject to the same health risks. Mr. Hudnut explained that employees would not be in businesses for as long as residents would be in their homes and employees would be inside a building and not outdoors.

 

Chairman Kulp asked why the potential health risks were not a consideration at the time the site condominium development was approved and the parcels created. It is up to a developer to research a site. Mr. Hudnut explained that the potential health risks were not originally considered by the developer but that should not be held against him now.

 

Chairman Kulp asked if they had any other studies which were not drafts. Mr. Hudnut explained he did not. Chairman Kulp reiterated that the study provided can not be used as a basis for the Commission’s decision and that other studies he is aware of refute the findings presented. A better list of studies and an expert to speak on this issue would be needed for the Commission to be able to consider this claim.

 

Chairman Kulp said he believed that there are other residences in the Township with similar proximity to high tension lines. If the poles can be moved then the issue would be solvable. Mr. Hudnut said they had no evidence to show the pole location was not a solvable situation.

 

Chairman Kulp asked for questions from the Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Mazzara asked the voltage of the power lines. Mr. Hudnut had no idea what voltage was carried on the lines. Commissioner Mazzara explained that electromagnetic fields are measured in gauss, then he asked the gauss rating of this field. He did not know what unit of measurement would be used for power and had no idea what the rate was of this field.

 

Commissioner Mazzara asked what the role of the agency who conducted this study was. Mr. Hudnut said it was the EPA’s office of research and development. Commissioner Mazzara said they are then quoting a draft study which said it is not to be quoted.

 

Commissioner Mazzara questioned the effects of satellite waves and cell tower emissions. Mr. Hudnut said that was not relevant to the request.

 

Commissioner Mazzara asked what advantage it would be to the Township to approve the rezoning request. Mr. Hudnut said it would increase the Township tax base and provide a convenience benefit to area residents. Commissioner Mazzara asked what negative effect it would have on surrounding neighbors and the Township as a whole. Mr. Hudnut quite obviously the surrounding neighbors have already spoken. He did not believe that this development would not have a negative effect on the neighboring; many developments of this type exist in the metro Detroit area.

 

Commissioner Mazzara said the proposed rezoning would not be a benefit to the Township or the surrounding residence and would have a negative effect on the community plan created in the Master Land Use plan for the Township. This Master Plan supports tax revenue growth and land use in a planned organized fashion. This request in no way falls into the intent of the Master Plan which supports balanced land use and views development for an overall township perspective to meet the needs of its residents while not having a negative effect on the existing atmosphere of the Township and protecting what already exists. Commissioner Mazzara read many excepts from the Township Master Land Use plan which showed this proposed rezoning was not in compliance with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. The Master Plan clearly opposes shoe string development along major roads. Milford is a unique community because the Village and Township work together jointly to improve the area for residents as a whole. The Village is clearly the Commercial center of the community. Commissioner Mazzara also pointed out that Commercial Shopping Centers districts do exist in the Township and are planned in a fashion which will be stipulated by the Township Ordinance requirements on roads which could handle the resulting traffic flow. He did not believe that Duck Lake and Commerce Road could support such traffic. There are 96 acres of land zoned C-2 in the Township. The Township used reliable planners and data to project the need for commercial development through the year 2020 and the zoned C-2 area adequately will service the community’s needs.

 

Commissioner Mazzara said no traffic study was done or evidence of traffic flow in this area. No evidence was presented that the proposed rezoning would result in less traffic impact that the current R-1-S zoning district.

 

Commissioner Mazzara believed this request does not come close to complying with the Township’s Master Land Use Plan and went on to explain that approval of the rezoning request would have a detrimental impact of the atmosphere of the Township, be harmful to the Village retail stores, oppose the Township Master Land Use Plan. All of these things together have created an atmosphere which is attractive to developers. Approval of this rezoning would negatively impact that which the Township has worked hard to protect. Lighting is not allowed in residential areas, so adverse effects would result from light pollution in the area. Mr. Mazzara then read many excerpts from the Township Master Land Use Plan and Township Zoning Ordinance which supported denial of the rezoning request.

 

Consultant Lomako said through a history of court cases in the state of Michigan a direction for how to review rezoning request. Existing land use patterns should be considered. They show ample evidence of this being a residentially established zoning pattern though the consistent residential zoning of property. As Commissioner Mazzara pointed out the Township Master Land Use Plan is another basis for judgment as is the compatibility of land uses. Nuisance impact from noise, lighting, potential for crime, traffic patterns and pedestrian traffic should all be considered. Public service facilities and road capacities provide more areas of consideration. The applicant has demonstrated a potential need through showing the absence of retail within a six mile radius. Commissioner Mazzara also did an excellent job of explaining how we are a Milford Community including the Village of Milford which can meet the claimed shopping void. Consultant Lomako did not believe a void exists. The question raised by neighboring property owners is if this actually constitutes a void. It would seem that the property can be used as it is zoned. Information supplied by the applicant is suspect as a resident stated the power lines could be moved. Currently C-2 zoned property is vacant and available for development. The C-2 district has a minimum of 25 acres of property. This 17 acres site does not meet that test. The question of ownership of this property was also brought up this evening, does the applicant have free ownership or are subdivision residence co-owners according to the subdivision Master Deed and Bylaws. Overall there are many unmet and unanswered questions on the part of the applicant. A large quantity of testimony was supplied by residents stating many reasons for opposition of the request. The rezoning request strongly does not fit with the Master Land Use Plan.

 

Commissioner Lemke stated the applicant has not provided any other hardship other than the overhead power lines. The applicant has not tried to rezone to anything other than the request this evening for commercial. The property was originally developed as a residential site condominium development.

 

Mr. Hudnut explained that the site condominium development was vacated in 2005. Chairman Kulp asked if any of the other condominium residents were notified of the condominium vacation. Mr. Hudnut said there were no occupied units in that section of the development. Chairman Kulp said that the residences who are tied to the site condominium documents by the master deed and bylaws were not notified. Mr. Hudnut answered that this is correct. Commissioner Mazzara asked if the applicant had an approved site plan to delete the site condominium development. Mr. Hudnut explained that the state statute allows for this change to occur by filing documents at the register of deeds office.

 

Commissioner Mazzara moved, Commissioner Muir seconded, to recommend denial of R-06-5009, Rezoning request from R-1-S to C-2, Schrott & Mechigian 16-12-200-057 thru -066 based on the following finding of fact:

1.      Applicant has not demonstrated or supplied any definitive documents to support or substantiate the hardship claim and any demonstrated way the property can not be developed according to the underling zoning district of R-1-S.

2.      The request is not remotely compliant with the long standing Township Master Land Use Plan as read into record.

3.      The applicant did not produce any documents or proof addressing the possible negative effects on traffic or current vehicular road systems.

4.      Community opposition due to claims that rezoning would have a negative effect on the surrounding residential property owners and traffic in the Community. The Township as a whole would experience adverse effects.

5.      Opposition of neighboring Commerce Township for the reasons expressed in their letter (on file in Township office).

6.      The advantages suggested are in direct opposition to the Township’s Master Land Use Plan.

7.      The proposed rezoning request does not comply with zoning of the Township or fit with the current land use.

8.      Vacant C-2 Commercial shopping center land is available and could support development.

9.      According to Ordinance Section 19-592 clear ownership has not been demonstrated.

10. C-2 zoning district has a minimum size of 25 acres. This request does not meet minimum size.

 

Discussion of motion:

Chairman Kulp added that the motion should also include the finding that the advantages listed by the applicant would be directly detrimental to the Village of Milford shopping district. The applicant has not accurately demonstrated community need for this land.

 

Amended Motion:

Commissioner Mazzara moved, Commissioner Muir seconded, to recommend denial of R-06-5009, Rezoning request from R-1-S to C-2, Schrott & Mechigian 16-12-200-057 thru -066 based on the following finding of fact:

1.      Applicant has not demonstrated or supplied any definitive documents to support or substantiate the hardship claim and any demonstrated way the property can not be developed according to the underling zoning district of R-1-S.

2.      The request is not remotely compliant with the long standing Township Master Land Use Plan.

3.      The applicant did not produce any documents or proof addressing the possible negative effects on traffic or current vehicular road systems.

4.      Community opposition due to claims that rezoning would have a negative effect on the surrounding residential property owners and traffic in the Community. The Township as a whole would experience adverse effects.

5.      Opposition of neighboring Commerce Township for the reasons expressed in their letter.

6.      The advantages suggested are in direct opposition to the Township’s Master Land Use Plan.

7.      The proposed rezoning request does not comply with zoning of the Township or fit with the current land use.

8.      Vacant C-2 Commercial shopping center land is available and could support development.

9.      According to Ordinance Section 19-592 clear ownership has not been demonstrated.

10. C-2 zoning district has a minimum size of 25 acres. This request does not meet minimum size.

11. The finding of advantages listed by the applicant for additional commercial land would be directly detrimental to the Village of Milford shopping district.

12. The applicant has not accurately demonstrated the Communities need for this land to be used in the manner requested.

Vote unanimously carried.

 

Commissioner Mazzara explained that the Planning Commission is a recommending body and a decision will be made by the Township Board which meets the third Wednesday of each month.

 

LAND DIVISION APPEAL, DAVID & DEBORAH STOCKBRIDGE, 16-02-200-075

Consultant Lomako summarized information provided for review contains a survey dated October 1979 which shows two lots and two legal descriptions. He recommended that the packet information be reviewed by the Township legal council to determine if lots of record exists based on survey. The only thing missing for the two parcels were individual Sidwell or parcel numbers. If it is determined that there exists legally established nonconforming lots of record then those lots could be built upon.  If the Township legal counsel determines there are legally established lots based on the 1979 survey with legal descriptions and subsequent property deeds then no action would be required by the Planning Commission or Township Board. If the Township attorney concludes that separate lots do not exists then the planning commission will act based on those findings.

 

Commissioner Lemke moved, Commissioner Muir seconded, to postpone Land Division Appeal, David and Deborah Stockbridge, 16-02-200-075 for the request to be reviewed by the Township legal council to determine if  legally nonconforming lots already exist of parcels A and B based on the Raymond Kostecke land survey dated September 1979 to determine if Planning Commission can proceed on this matter.

Discussion of the motion:

Commissioner Mazzara explained that if the Township legal council determines that two legally existing nonconforming parcels do exist, then the applicant would not have to return to the Planning Commission and then go onto the Township Board, which would be the case if Township legal counsel finds that two parcels do not legally exist.

Commissioner Mazzara asked if the Stockbridge’s ever applied for a land combination. Mrs. Stockbridge replied that they had not. Commissioner Mazzara inquired on the number of tax bills the Stockbridge’s receive for there property. Mrs. Stockbridge said they receive and have only ever received, one bill for all of the property.

Vote unanimously carried.

 

Chairman Kulp explained that this will be an item of unfinished business until advised otherwise by the Township Legal council. He recommended that interested residence contact the Township Office for updates.

 

PRESENTATION BY MILFORD HIGH SCHOOL OF REQUEST FOR INTERESTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT VOLUNTEERS

Ms. Heather Lutz, teacher from Milford High school, representing Huron Valley Schools, explained that the school system is trying to compile a data base of interested professionals within the community who would be willing to have direct contact with local students regarding their area of expertise.

 

Ms. Lutz asked that interested individuals complete the form supplied and return them at their convenience. She explained that whatever can be done would be greatly appreciated by the students. This database will be an excellent way for students to be introduced to possible career paths and what opportunities exist for community involvement in local government. She thanked the Commissioners for their time.

 

Commissioner Vandenbussche shared that he had visited a class at the high school to explain what his professional job is as part of career day and found the students to be very interested in what careers exist in the business world.

 

UNDERGROUND UTILITY REQUIREMENT

Consultant Lomako sited a recent Michigan Supreme court case which found that can require underground utilities but can not require the utility company to pay for underground lines.

 

Consultant Lomako explained the site plan requirement can require underground utilities be part of a development on private property.

 

Commissioner Mazzara reported that the township board was happy to receive information but on this topic but had not interest in pursuing an ordinance amendment at this time.

 

The Commissioners discussed if the local municipality would have to pay the additional cost for underground utilities for new lines or to bury existing lines. Consultant Lomako believed that the local municipality would have to pay either way. He will follow up to obtain information to clarify court decision and contact state representatives. He will also consult township legal counsel for their interpretation.

 

Commissioners felt there could be value in having an ordinance with recommended underground utilities but did not require them. They questioned possible enforcement if the financial burden falls to the local municipality.

 

Commissioner Mazzara moved, Commissioner Muir seconded, to postpone Underground Utility Requirements for further information. Vote unanimously carried.   

 

TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 19-84, COLOR RENDERING REQUIREMENTS

Consultant Lomako presented proposal for the addition of a color rendering requirement for site plan process following the suggestion provided at last months meeting. This addition to clarify the intent of the ordinance regarding building appearance.

 

The Commissioners suggested that language be added to include sample boards of materials along with the color rendering. Consultant Lomako agreed to this addition.

 

Commissioner Muir moved, Commissioner Koshkarian seconded, to set a public hearing for the July Planning Commission Meeting for text amendment to Section 19-84, Color Rendering Requirements of the amended language discussed. Vote unanimously carried.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

S-05-5003, HEYN PROPERTIES/JOHN STEWART ASSOC., REDI-MIX, 16-35-451-032

Mr. John Stewart, Architect, supplied exterior material samples to the Commission and a color rendering of the proposed redi-mix facility. The revised plans also contained a list of materials. The elevation of the proposed storage building was also provided.

 

The Commissioners, Consultant Lomako and Mr. Stewart reviewed the following outstanding items from the April meeting:

·   Location of “Knox” box noted on the plan

·   Electrical building on Demo sheet D-1 shows the building will be removed from the site.

·   Site Maintenance agreement has been supplied.

·   Applicant provides a copy of the architectural specifications and specific list of material supplied.

 

Commissioner Mazzara moved, Commissioner Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of S-05-5003, Heyn Properties/John Stewart Associates, Redi-Mix, 16-35-451-031 with the provision that the applicant provide to the Township Board a copy of specification list which should describe the exterior materials to be used on the building as indicated on the color rendering. Vote unanimously carried.

 

LAND DIVISION APPEAL, PAISLEY, 16-17-300-020

Mr. David P. Smith, Surveyor Engineer, representative for applicant provided an overview of the possible land division alternatives which were explored following the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The request is to divide the 10 acre parcel into two 5 acre parcels; complies with all Township ordinances with the exception of exceeding the 4:1 width to depth ratio requirement. He also explained that there is believed to be a deed restriction on Duana Drive which requires parcels to be a minimum of 5 acres in size. He was not able to find this restriction in writing but wanted the Commissioners to be aware of the situation.

 

Mr. Smith suggested the proposal which would create two five acre rectangular parcels with a 175 ft. wide preservation strip running parallel to the rear or northern side, of the property. This preservation area would be defined as an area which could not be built on.

 

The Commissioners and Mr. Smith discussed if the preservation area restrictions could be contained in the legal description or if there should be a deed restriction. They agreed that the legal description could adequately serve to prohibit building on the easement area. Mr. Smith agreed to bring the proposed preservation restriction and complete legal description language to the Township Board for approval. The Commissioners agreed that the preservation area would serve to satisfy the ordinance requirement for width to depth ratio requirement.

 

Commissioner Mazzara moved, Commissioner Koshkarian seconded, to recommend approval of layout 4 dated 6-13-06, Land Division Appeal, Paisley property, 16-17-300-020 with the following provisions:

1.      Legal description for the two resulting parcels of layout #4; including description and restrictions of the preservation area.

2.      The preservation area is to be left as a natural feature and indicated as such in the legal description.

Vote unanimously carried.

   

S-05-5026, WISTI/ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, 16-36-451-015

Mr. Ken McQuad, Associated Construction, reviewed the proposal to construct a new building on the property which has several existing masonry buildings. The new building would match and have the same masonry finish as the building on the site.

 

Consultant Lomako reviewed the following items still outstanding from the Wade Trim review letter dated May 17, 2006 (on file in the Township Office) and the applicant responded to the items:

·   Drawing No.2 (Storm Sewer Profiles) has not been sealed by the engineer. The applicant agreed to provide sealed drawings to the Township Board.

·   The types of outdoor storage are not specified on the plan. Mr. Wisti explained that heavy equipment, bulldozers, trucks, and landscape supplies such as bark, wood chips, and sand are stored in the area. Drawing #1 shows the storage bin area. Landscape material storage would not go outside the bins. The only additional pile would be for topsoil. All storage would be compliant with ordinance requirements.

·   The location of safety access route is not clearly marked as being dedicated to this purpose. Mr. Wisti said the access road and T turn a round area will be left open and marked to define the path. The access road and the gravel storage area would be constructed on the same material a cross section would be provided.

·   There are two wall mounted lights shown on sheet A-2 but the description arrow only points to one. Mr. McQuad stated the arrow will be amended to note both fixtures comply with ordinance standards.

·   A discrepancy exists between the number and location of light fixtures on the Lighting plan sheet L-1 and site plan sheet, building elevation. Wall mounted lighting is only allowed in loading areas. Mr. McQuad explained that the additional fixtures were removed from one sheet but overlooked on the other plan sheet. He agreed to remove all light fixtures which would not be in compliance with the requirements of the lighting ordinance.

 

Commissioner Mueller questioned if the setback distances shown for the outdoor storage area were correct. The ordinance, Section 19-477, states outdoors storage can not be within the required 20ft. side yard setback.  The line shown on the east side of the property is closer than the required 20 foot setback distance. The applicant and the Commissioners discussed the ordinance language. The applicant’s interpretation of the ordinance was not the same as the Commission. Chairman Kulp explained that the applicant had two choices. The first option would be to ask for a postponement of site plan approval and try to challenge the ordinance requirement by appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The second option would be to accept the suggested interpretation and opinion of the Commission and proceed with the process. The applicant agreed to move the outdoor storage to comply with the 20ft side yard setback requirement.

 

Commissioner Mazzara moved, Commissioner Koshkarian seconded, to recommend approval of S-05-5026, Wisti/Associated Construction Services, 16-36-451-015 with the following provisions:

1.      The applicant will provide sealed drawing #2 for a complete site plan package which is signed and sealed by a design professional.

2.      All light fixtures which are not in loading areas will be removed from the plans so that lighting plan and building elevation sheet are in agreement.

3.      Minimum 20 ft interior lot line setback is required. No storage will occur within this area.

4.      The safety access road will be marked to prevent storage infringement of the path. 

Vote unanimously carried.

 

AMENDMENT TO SECTION 19-113 AND 19-169, ACCELERATION, DECELERATION AND PASSING LANES

Commissioner Muir moved, Commissioner Mueller seconded, to forward to the Township Board for approval Amendment to Section 19-113 and 19-169, Acceleration, Deceleration and Passing Lanes.  Vote unanimously carried.

 

MASTER LAND USE PLAN

Consultant Lomako explained that since the June 12th Kick Off event the team has been working on background studies and preparing the draft goals and objects. The tentative date at this point for the next community event is the last week of September. The goals and objectives will be presented followed by a work session.

The goals and objectives information collected previously from the Planning Commission has been complied and will be used in the master planning process. 

 

 APPROVAL OF MINUTES, MAY 25, 2006 (REGULAR MEETING)

Commissioner Muir moved, Commissioner Mueller seconded, to approve the May 25, 2006, minutes as amended. Vote unanimously carried.

 

PLANNING CONSULTANT'S REMARKS

Consultant Lomako said the Commissioner’s packet contained the audit letter drafted after completing an audit of Willoway Day Camp with Building Official Brandt. Commissioner Mazzara explained that Willoway request a 30 day extension for completion of the remaining outstanding items, which the board granted with the condition of Building Official Brandt’s approval. Building Official Brandt said the major remaining outstanding item is the front beam and landscaping which need to be completed.

 

Consultant Lomako said following the recommendations of the Township Board he will be redrafting the existing outdoor lighting ordinance and will provide it to the Planning Commission for there review.

Commissioner Mazzara reviewed the following key items which need to be addressed:

·        Maximum light levels

·        Light levels and maximum level

·        Specific fixture and operation of lighting

·        Visible source of light defined

·        Pole height

·        Shield wall mounted fixtures

·        Consideration of adjacent residential areas

·        Where lighting can be installed

·        These would include the current requirement of lighting to be turned off within the C-2 zoning district.

 

Consultant Lomako added that the Supervisor also asked for more diagrams and illustration for instruction.

 

Consultant Lomako also provided PUD ordinance language including comments for Atlas Township document for the Commissioners to review for the July meeting. He reviewed some of the major points contained in the document.

 

Consultant Lomako informed the Commissioners that the New Consolidated Zoning Act would be effective July 1, 2006. For the Township compliance will result in minor procedural changes.

 

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REMARKS

The Commissioners asked if Public Hearing notices could be posted on the Cable access channel and asked for the Township Board’s direction on the distance for Public Hearing notification radius.

 

Commissioner Lemke updated the Commission on the Bryan Family Trust Use Variance they are scheduled for the July 12th ZBA meeting.

 

Commissioner Lemke also said the ZBA was asked for an interpretation of lot averaging for site condominium developments Schedule of Regulations Footnote “t”. They found that footnote “t” only excludes the paved area for roads from the acreage calculation and not the total right-of-way. He suggested that the Commission receive direction on if the Commission should explore cleaning up and clarifying the ordinance language.

 

CALL TO THE PUBLIC

Chairman Kulp asked for public comment.

 

There was no response from the public. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 11:26 p.m.

 

 

Gordon Muir

Secretary