Meeting MinutesLodi Township Planning Commission

June 23, 2015Lodi Township Hall

3755 Pleasant Lake RoadAnn Arbor, MI 48103

1) Call to Order Meeting was called to order by Chairman Veenstra at 7:31 p.m. – The Pledge of Allegiance was then recited.

2) Roll Call of the Commission Present: Steeb, Canham-Keeley, Veenstra, Swenson, ThelenAbsent: D’Agostino, Diuble Others Present: Don Pennington, Planning Consultant, Bill DeGroot, Planning Consultant, Lodi Residents, Maynard Robbins, Kathy Barton, Deb Solowczuk, Steve Solowczuk and Michael Vara

3) Approve Minutes Commissioner Steeb asked that a correction be made to the May 26, 2015 minutes. On page two, item two, add the word “development” to the end of the sentence. Steeb also requested a correction be made to the June 16, 2015 minutes. Agenda Item three, third paragraph, first sentence, change “and he” to “who”. Commissioner Steeb then moved to accept the two sets of minutes as corrected. Seconded by Thelen. Passed 5-0, 2 absent.

4) Approve Agenda It was moved by Steeb, seconded by Canham-Keeley to approve the Agenda as printed. Passed 5-0, 2 absent.

5) New Business a) Pangle Special Use Permit Request 2015-005, 6300 Lodimeadow Dr., Parcel M-13-26-135-001

Chairman Veenstra began the discussion by advising there was a mix-up in the application process which explained the rescheduling of the Pangle Public Hearing until the July 28, 2015.

Resident, Steve Solowczuk, was upset because more details were not given in the correspondence to the surrounding neighbors regarding their options in responding to the proposed Special Use Permit. Chairman Veenstra said this shouldn’t happen again.

Mr. Solowczuk asked what is a Special Use Permit? Chairman Veenstra said all of this information is on the Township website, located in the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Veenstra then asked Consultant Pennington to give more details regarding a Special Use Permit. Pennington advised that in a Permitted Use a resident is allowed by State Statute to run a Family Day Care Home, which consists of up to six (6) children, as long as the home meets the State Statute Standards. The applicant is requesting to run a Group Day Care Home, which consists of up to twelve (12) children. This requires a Special Use Permit. This means that, in addition to meeting the State Statute Standards the applicant must also meet the Township Zoning Ordinance regulations. They must submit an application, submit a limited site plan showing outside structures, any fencing, etc., which would pertain to the care of the children, and a Public Hearing must be held. The Township will also look at parking, hours of operation and impact to the neighborhood.

Resident, Deb Solowczuk, had a concern about whether the applicant had enough help to properly care for six additional children. She read from the State Statute, which stated for small children there must be a one to four ratio. Would the applicant be hiring more staff?

Don Pennington explained that those requirements are all handled by the State under its licensing and guideline controls. The Township is concerned with the land use impact as dictated by the Zoning Ordinance. The Township can look at structures, fencing, buffering, setbacks, etc. However, the Township will require documentation the applicant is meeting all State Statute Standards.

Mr. Solowczuk wanted to know if the fence was required to meet the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Pennington said it was. Chairman Veenstra advised he had spoken with the applicant and requested more details on the proposed fencing. The plans currently submitted are incomplete.

It was explained to those present that the applicant is currently operating a Family Day Care Home and is licensed by the State. The State handles the licensing on the home, hours of operation and caregivers. The Township does not have enforcement powers in these areas.

Resident, Kathy Barton, requested to know if the applicant was the property owner. Chairman Veenstra said she was not listed as the owner, but the owner had signed the application. Ms. Barton was not happy with the situation explaining that there was only about six feet between the applicant’s trees and her property. She was concerned about the safety of the children running around without supervision. She stated she had three dogs and a dog fence, but you never know what can happen under those conditions.

Mr. Solowczuk said the home owner had recently put in an above the ground pool and dog kennel. He wanted to know who checked to see if these structures were in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Veenstra said the Township doesn’t have the resources to check on all the property in the Township, but if a concern is brought to its attention, it will be checked on. He said the Township would be requesting a Site Plan showing all structures on the property to see whether they are in compliance.

Mr. Solowczuk also expressed his concerned regarding the condition of the property owner’s yard. He stated there has been very little grass and weed maintenance. Chairman Veenstra said the Township does have a Noxious Weed Ordinance and this problem may fall within its regulations. Mr. Solowczuk also advised the property owner often burned his grass clippings and the smoke was affecting the neighborhood. Chairman Veenstra said if there was a concern the neighbors should report this to the Fire Department. The property owner is required to have a Burn Permit to burn yard waste.

Resident, Michael Vara, said his property backs up to the property in question and has caught children from that property swimming in his pond. He is extremely concerned about his liability and the safety of the children. Chairman Veenstra agreed the neighbors needed to be assured the children will be in a fenced area while outside.

Commissioner Thelen asked the neighbors present to point out where they lived in proximity to the applicant’s property in question. They did so.

Chairman Veenstra read the Group Day Care Standards (50.14) from the Township Zoning Ordinance. It states the application shall be approved if it meets all the following standards:1. Licensing – Must be registered and meet State of Michigan Statutes.2. Use Standards – Separation Standards – Can’t be within 1,500 feet from other facilities.3. Fencing – Must be enclosed and controlled – 4’ high.4. Signage – No visible signage – property must have characteristics of a residence.5. Hours of Operation – No more than 16 hours of operation within a 24 hour period – the Planning

Commission can limit, but cannot prohibit, operations between 10 pm and 6 am. 6. Parking – must supply one off-street parking space for each employee.

7. Exceptions – If Home was operating before 1989, it is not required to comply with these regulations.

These regulations are all consistent with State Law.

After several more comments by the residents expressing their concerns and disfavor of the Special Use Permit request, Chairman Veenstra stated that the Township hands are tied by the State licensing laws. The State says there is a compelling interest to have day care available and the Township must abide by that. Mr. Pennington noted that tonight’s meeting was not the official Public Hearing and the residents should make sure they attend and give their comments and concerns at next month’s Public Hearing. Chairman Veenstra added that the Planning Commission deliberation and decision will happen after the Public Hearing. The Commission may decide the applicant hasn’t supplied sufficient information for approval and the application decision could be postponed.

6) Old Business a) Master Plan

Chairman Veenstra handed out copies of the 2015 Master Plan Five-Year Review Work Plan. He was concerned the Commission is a few months behind the proposed schedule and said this was a good opportunity to discuss several issues pertaining to the draft Master Plan. He stated the text in the Plan has been pretty much hashed out and is ready to go. However, he did have some questions regarding the Future Land Use designations as shown on Map #18. He expressed some concerns with the development proposals. He felt there may be too much land proposed for development and not enough set aside for agricultural use, of if we should have other policies for protecting farmland.

Consultant Pennington said he looked at the history of the Township and also relied upon figures from the SEMCOG Population Projections report which shows population growth in the area is down and Lodi Township has stayed about the same. The ratio used to estimate land use is to supply three times the land you assume will actually be used for development. In his opinion, the designated development areas on Map #18 are reasonable and reflect what is happening in the surrounding townships of Scio and Pittsfield. This must be taken into consideration. His belief is that this makes for a stronger case for saying no in other areas requested for development.

Chairman Veenstra wanted to know what would happen if someone came in and wanted to develop an agricultural area where the projection says Rural Residential? Mr. Pennington said as long as they meet the Zoning Ordinance, land splits and a single family house are permitted by right.

Chairman Veenstra then brought up the issue of the new Riding Oaks development where the plan was for less density than was projected on the Master Plan. Mr. Pennington said there have been ordinances that have dealt with these situations and cited Freedom Township adopting a sliding scale in certain instances.

Don Pennington said all these instances go to the question of what you want the character of Lodi to be. These are all policy decisions. If you restrict land use to open spaces and agricultural use, you may be restricting a farmer’s option for his land in future years. If you consider higher density, the Township may require more services such as sheriff, fire, sewer and water. The Township may not want this. The image, scale and character of the Township must be considered.

Commissioner Thelen expressed his concern about the size designated on Map #18 for future Municipal Sewer Area #2. He felt it should be much smaller. This area is currently AG.

There were several more comments from the Commissioners to Mr. Pennington regarding corrections needing to be made on Map #18.

At this point Chairman Veenstra said he would like to look at the Master Plan at next month’s meeting and hopefully then send it on to the Township Board. If they approve, the Plan would then be distributed to the

surrounding municipalities for review and comment. They would have 90 days to look it over. At that point a Public Hearing would be scheduled. We will still have an opportunity to change the Plan considering the comments received.

b) Zoning Ordinance Chairman Veenstra advised that we are still waiting for the Township attorney to complete his review of the Draft Zoning Ordinance. Nothing further can be done until we receive his comments.

7) Reports a) Commissioners

1. The MTA is holding a seminar entitled “Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning”. Anyone interested in attending should let Chairman Veenstra or Supervisor Godek know by July 6th.

2. Chairman Veenstra had a discussion with Dave Turner of Turner’s Landscaping regarding the removal of a hoop house which doesn’t meet Township setback regulations. He is in violation and was ticketed.

3. Chairman Veenstra received a notice from Pittsfield Township advising they are beginning their Master Plan review.

4. Chairman Veenstra met with a resident who owns 40 acres of land on Zeeb Road near Pleasant Lake Road. He would like to put in a private road. He also questioned the number of splits possible. Chairman Veenstra noted splits are based on gross land area.

5. Salem Lutheran Church would like to pave the school parking lot. Chairman Veenstra advised if they weren’t expanding the area, they did not need the Township approval. He advised them they should contact the Water Resource Commissioner who would determine if they needed a detention pond. If they were expanding the lot or putting in a detention pond, they would need approval from the Township.

6. Chairman Veenstra advised he would be speaking the next day with a property owner on Pleasant Lake Road who wants to put in a private road.

Commissioner Thelen brought up a questioned he had at a previous meeting regarding Toll Brothers and Riding Oaks development. He had been concerned that future home buyers in that development be notified in writing somehow that there was adjacent active farming and an active gravel pit. Chairman Veenstra stated he had spoken with the Township attorney and the attorney for Toll Brothers and both had agreed it was not appropriate to put that information in the Master Deed. This information is given to the original home buyer, but not subsequent buyers. Commissioner Canham-Keeley did note she had discovered this information is listed as an item on the Disclosure Statement that real estate agents require to be filled out by home sellers.

Commissioner Thelen said he was concerned for the farmer who might have to fight a lawsuit if a homeowner wanted to complain about living next to an active farm.

b) Planning ConsultantNone

c) Engineering Consultant None

8) Other Business None

9) Policy Discussion None

10) Public Comment

Township Resident, Maynard Robbins just wanted to say he loved the character of Lodi Township and didn’t want to see it changed. He had moved from California and loved the rural atmosphere of Lodi.

11) Adjournment There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioner Steeb and seconded by Commissioner Thelen to adjourn the meeting. Passed 5-0, 2 absent. The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.

The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. This will also be a Public Hearing for the Pangle request for a Special Use Permit.

Respectfully Submitted,

Margaret Canham-KeeleySecretary