notice of meeting a regular meeting of the leelanau …vice chairman victor goldschmidt called the...

DRAFT AGENDA PLEASE TURN OFF AND PUT AWAY ALL CELL PHONES CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

PUBLIC COMMENT

STAFF COMMENTS Update on Proposed 2017 Budget

CONSIDERATION OF JULY 26, 2016, Minutes pgs 2‐8

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

A. PC11‐16‐07 Kasson Township – Various Text Amendments pgs 9‐18 B. Draft Sign Regulations from Sign Advisory Group (SAG) – sent by separate email C. Consideration of start time for Meetings D. Consideration of Fall Session & Speaker/Costs

REPORTS A. Parks & Recreation Committee (Julian) B. Heritage Route (Lukomski) C. Education Committee (Goldschmidt) D. Report from LCPC members of attendance at township/village meetings, or Other

Meetings/Training Sessions

COMMUNICATIONS Save The Date – Oct 24 Housing Summit pg 19

PUBLIC COMMENTS STAFF COMMENTS COMMISSIONER & CHAIRPERSON COMMENTS ADJOURN

LCPC Members

Greg Julian – Chairman

Victor Goldschmidt – Vice-Chair Will Bunek – Chair Pro-Tem

Fred Cepela Dan Hubbell

Richard Kobetz Jessica Lukomski David McCulloch

Jerry Raymor Eric Winkelman

Steve Yoder

NOTICE OF MEETING A Regular Meeting of the Leelanau County

Planning Commission (LCPC) will be held at

5:30 pm Tuesday, AUGUST 23, 2016 at the Leelanau County Government Center.

of 19

July 26, 2016 Draft LCPC Minutes

1

A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LEELANAU COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (LCPC) WAS HELD ON TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2016, AT THE LEELANAU COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER IN SUTTONS BAY, MICHIGAN. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Victor Goldschmidt called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Members Present: Victor Goldschmidt, Fred Cepela, Dan Hubbell, Richard Kobetz, Jessica Lukomski (5:50 PM),

David McCulloch, Jerry Raymor, Eric Winkelman, Steve Yoder Members Excused: Greg Julian, Will Bunek Staff Present: Trudy Galla, Kristin Holappa Public Present: Nancy Duck Berkley Duck, President of the Fishtown Preservation Society CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA Goldschmidt suggested reversing items B & C on the agenda under New Business. Winkelman suggested adding the Leelanau County General Plan Format Proposal to the agenda as item E. It was moved by Cepela, seconded by Yoder, to approve the agenda as modified. On a voice vote, the motion carried, 8 – 0. CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC COMMENT None STAFF COMMENTS None CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 26, 2016 MEETING MINUTES It was moved by McCulloch, seconded by Cepela, to approve the June 28, 2016 minutes as modified. Discussion Cepela referenced his comment on page 7 of the agenda packet on the Heritage Trail. He noted it should not say “the south end” of the trail but specifically, it should say “the south end of the unpaved portion” of the trail. On a voice vote, the motion carried, 7 – 0. Hubbell abstained, stating he was not present at the meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS

A. PC08-16-09 Leland Township –Various Text Amendments Galla provided a review of the Staff Report. Galla noted Mr. Keith Ashley was planning to be here, but is traveling and may not make it to the meeting. Galla briefly discussed the Staff Report comments including recommendations to make changes to Article 3 Section 3.03 pertaining to revocation or Cancellation of a Land Use Permit. Staff suggested deleting the first part which reads: “The Zoning Administrator shall have the power to revoke or cancel any Land Use Permit issued for a use which a site plan is not required.”

of 19


2

Galla noted the changes regarding inclusion of the Zoning Board of Appeals, in Article 7, Section 7.04 as a good addition for the township. An appeal would go to the Zoning Board of Appeals first. An appeal on a decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals would then go to Circuit Court. In reference to Article 16, Galla discussed the changes pertaining to shooting ranges including hours of operation as well as the increase in setbacks. Additional requirements include safety features, noise suppression, fencing, ammunition recovery and vegetative buffering. Galla noted staff looked at the website of the Cedar Rod and Gun Club as an example and provided information in the staff report as a reference. Leland increased the minimum lot size to 120 acres. With the setback requirements, this would allow for a range of only 300’ x 300’, or 100 yards. Galla noted it should be clear it is the owner’s responsibility to do soil testing once every five years. A plan for remediation steps should be made up front. Staff also commented about leaving the hardwood trees in place and planting additional coniferous trees. Galla discussed Article 17 Section 17.01.J4 pertaining to Scheduled Phasing and timing for beginning and completion of each phase. She noted there needs to be something that triggers the completion of one phase and the beginning of the next so it is not up to interpretation by the township or the developer as to whether they have completed the phase. Staff noted deletion of items with a strikeout and inclusion of additional wording with underlines makes review easier. Winkelman inquired about the Zoning Administrator having the power to revoke and thought there might be questions regarding due process if they don’t take the sentence out. Goldschmidt asked staff if requests like these, that do not have a land use permit required are usually approved by the Zoning Administrator. Galla referenced the staff report. Raymor asked about the shooting ranges and that it only considers outdoor facilities. He wondered if there should be generic clauses that may apply to shooting ranges that are outdoor as well as indoor. Kobetz referenced page 14, 1., a., (4) he suggested the township state “for each one hundred (100) feet of shoreline.” Or “per each one hundred (100) feet of shoreline.” He did not feel the use of the word “in” is correct. In reference to the shooting range Kobetz noted there may be problems with the kind of restrictions being suggested. He noted the dimensions left might not be useful for a rifle range. Three hundred feet is too short for a rifle range. He felt the township could be accused of trying to ban shooting ranges without actually saying so. He felt they might be better served with performance based specifications, hours of operation and noise levels. Rather than just specifying vegetation, someone will find a cheap way to do it which won’t be very effective, noted Kobetz. Galla mentioned staff has the mapping capability to search the township and determine how many parcels of 120+ acres are available which could accommodate a shooting range. Cepela noted 120 acres is the minimum required. He did not know how it could be considered exclusionary unless there are no other available properties. Galla noted it was changed from a 40 acre minimum parcel to a 120 acre minimum parcel. Cepela applauded the shoreline protections particularly with respect to the natural vegetative buffers. He feels some townships do not take the responsibility of protecting water quality seriously enough. He recently took a tour of Torch Lake, considered to be one of the most beautiful lakes in the world. They have had recent construction with huge lawns and no vegetative buffers. He believes they are risking the “golden goose”. He cannot believe they do not take protection of their lake seriously. He applauds what Leland Township has done.

of 19


3

It was moved by Winkelman, seconded by Yoder, to transfer this review to Leland Township along with the Staff Report and Commissioners’ Comments. On a voice vote, the motion carried, 8 – 0. Lukomski joined the meeting at 5:50 PM.

A. PC09-16-09 Leland Township – Text Amendment, Fishtown Historic District, Article 12 Fishtown C-4 Galla provided a review of the Staff Report. She noted the district was created in 2009 and provided a brief history of the zoning. In reference to the C-4 District the words “residential occupancy” were replaced with “a single family dwelling” due to a neighbor’s concern the entire district would be converted to residential use. Other changes included 5’minimum setbacks from the alley and property lines on the south side of the river. Off street parking must also comply with Section 21.02 for property on the south side of the river. Galla briefly discussed the issues with having different requirements depending on the location, within the same zoning district and the fact regulations within a zoning district should be applied consistently and uniformly. She noted a change to the zoning ordinance, for the rezoning request, would also require the zoning map to be updated. Galla noted the draft ordinance was not posted on the Leland Township web page. The application for rezoning was posted, but was not emailed to the Planning Department. Galla mentioned the importance of sending staff all of the documents. Berkley Duck noted the reason for the petition was driven by the acquisition of the two properties on the south side of the river. The original preservation property consisted of properties between the Cove and Manitou Transit. Last winter they acquired the shanty owned by the Leelanau Historical Society as well as the property to the west owned by Carlson interests. It was felt to be important to include those two properties in the Fishtown Historical District. It was apparent there were problems with the existing ordinance. Working with staff, they developed a comprehensive restatement of the ordinance, which was approved by the township planning commission and forwarded to the county. Duck noted on the north side there is no parking. Both the north side and the south side will be encompassed in the Fishtown Historic District. Lukomski pointed out on page 33, “envelope” should have an “e” on the end. Goldschmidt commented on the issue of allowing parking on the south side and not allowing parking on the north side. There is one district, but geographically there are different requirements. He noted this is the concern staff is expressing. Goldschmidt asked for recommendations concerning this issue from commissioners. Lukomski commented she thought the north side would be grandfathered in. Goldschmidt asked if there has ever been conditional rezoning within part of a district. He provided an example of super imposing conditional rezoning on a part of a district. It can only be proposed by the applicant. Under conditional rezoning it would have to revert back to the original zoning district if the use ceases to exist for which the district was rezoned. Winkelman believed zoning should cover the use or the zoning should be changed, or a variance could be granted for a particular use in the zoning district. Winkelman and Goldschmidt briefly discussed conditional rezoning. Kobetz wondered if it was appropriate to create a new district within the Fishtown Historical District with different setbacks than the C4 District.

of 19


4

Galla commented staff is pointing out to the township they should be applying setbacks and parking requirements uniformly across a zoning district. The main reason is to limit challenges to their zoning ordinance, especially in other locations in the township. It will be up to the township to decide what they do. It was moved by Cepela, seconded by Raymor, to transfer recommendations to Leland Township along with the Staff Report and Commissioners’ Comments. On a voice vote, the motion carried, 9 – 0.

B. PC10-16-09 Leland Township – Rezoning Request, Fishtown Historic District Galla provided a review of the Staff Report including the history of the Fishtown Historic District. She noted it is a rezoning request for two parcels in the Village Commercial District (C-1) to be rezoned into the Fishtown Historic District (C-4). Galla noted rezoning the parcels would be consistent with the surrounding zoning districts and it complies with the township master plan. She briefly discussed the Fishtown Site Study, Design and Master Plan of 2009 which was the basis for forming this zoning district. All of the uses in a district must be considered when rezoning property. She noted the rezoning makes sense to rezone it into the Fishtown Historic District. Galla noted the rezoning was discussed in the township meeting minutes, but the county did not receive the application. She noted we were able to pull the application off of the website, but asked to have this information sent to the county in the future. This rezoning request is linked to the previous zoning amendment. Galla noted a zoning map was provided to commissioners for reference. It was moved by McCulloch, seconded by Winkelman, to transfer recommendations to Leland Township along with the Staff Report and Commissioners’ Comments.

On a voice vote, the motion carried, 9 – 0. Winkelman commended the Fishtown Historical District for preservation of this part of the county. He noted it is a lot of work and requires a lot of man hours and volunteers. He wishes them continued success in their endeavors.

C. 2017 Proposed Budget Galla discussed the 2017 Proposed Budget submitted to the County Board of Commissioners. The budget goes to a subcommittee comprised of the: Administrator, Treasurer, Clerk and Accounting Department. They review all of the budgets for the departments, boards and commissions. They look at the revenues and all of the expenditures submitted in order to tweak it and make sure it balances. They have held one meeting so far, more will be scheduled. Galla noted the Planning Commission needs to take a look at the budget to see if there are any changes desired. A motion should be passed on the proposed budget, which will then be passed along to the County Board. Galla said she has made one change to the budget in 2017, in anticipation of trying to update the General Plan with some new data through a survey. She has included a $10,000 contractual amount for a survey of citizens for the update to the General Plan. Galla noted she has a feeling we will see different things than those seen with the previous plan. The original plan was based on a lot of growth with a large increase in population. We are seeing an increase in the senior population without an overall increase. Galla noted grant and 2% funds will also be sought. Galla briefly reviewed the budgeting sheet, containing information from multiple years, including audited and unaudited amounts and the adopted, amended, proposed and year to date amounts for 2016, along with the proposed 2017 budget. Changes made to 2017 would be added to the Exception column. Kobetz asked if the $10,000 was for outside work. Galla discussed the information gathered by MTech during the previous survey. It was beneficial to the county as well as the townships. Winkelman thought the County Board should

of 19


5

feel good about the benefit to the townships as well with approval of this expenditure. Galla discussed the frugal spending by the Planning Commission by doing things ‘in-house’ such as the Capital Improvement Program and the General Plan. McCulloch asked about the per diem amounts. Galla explained the maximum amount is included in the budget, in the event every commissioner attended every meeting and requested per diem and travel. Only those travel expenses and per diem that are turned in by members is actually reimbursed. If it is not turned in, there is no reimbursement. Cepela inquired about Training Workshops. Galla noted the line item is to cover the cost for commissioners to attend a workshop for training purposes. Galla noted there are a number of items that cannot be touched, including social security and copy machine items. It was moved by McCulloch, seconded by Winkelman, to recommend the proposed budget for the Leelanau County Planning Commission to the Leelanau County Board. On a voice vote, the motion carried, 10 – 0.

D. Leelanau County General Plan Winkelman thought there is a better approach to a summary of the General Plan as posted on the website. Winkelman indicated he pulled four areas out of the General Plan that fulfill the intent of the General Plan. Winkelman provided a handout listing the four areas and their corresponding pages, including:

1. Enhances the unique character of life 2. Environmental quality 3. Resource management 4. Reasonable and prudent development.

He noted some page numbers were listed under more than one of the four areas. Winkelman noted he used the 2005 plan and not the current plan (2012) to do this exercise. He noted this is a beginning format. Someone could go to the website and see the General Plan. If they were interested in a particular area, they could go to additional pages and look further. If they were really enticed then they could go to the table of contents. Winkelman thought this would get people into it and provide a summary. He noted there are different levels of interest. It is a way to format an introduction to the General Plan and summarize it so there is a way to make it quickly and easily assessable. Raymor asked Winkelman for some reasons why he did this. Winkelman said if you go to the website to look at the General Plan, there is the principal goal and the table of contents. He thought people have to wade through all of that to get to the areas that support the principal goal. By doing this you summarize the key areas and page numbers that provide support for those components of the goal and you don’t need to wade through all of the General Plan. Kobetz asked about the four areas selected. Winkelman noted they were the areas that he chose. The categories would be chosen by the Planning Commission. He noted this is only a suggestion. Winkelman noted he used the 2005 version of the General Plan because he has a hard copy of it and it is easier for him to go through a hard copy than the website. Kobetz asked if it would be desirable to compartmentalize all of the components into one of the four categories. Winkelman felt it could be but he felt it should be a decision of the Planning Commission as a whole. Winkelman stated the four are component parts of the General Plan regarding future wellbeing pertaining to land use and economic development in Leelanau County. Winkelman discussed the concept of a pyramid with the component parts at the top and the entire plan itself at the bottom. Galla noted we will begin working on the General Plan late this year or early next year.

of 19


6

Winkelman suggested it should go to the Education Committee. Goldschmidt noted there could be a General Plan Developing Group. Winkelman said he was inspired by the Traverse Area Public School Plan (TCAPS). He did not know if we could go to that degree of simplification but there could be pathways to make it easier to get there. Winkelman mentioned Steve Cousins could be a resource, since he worked on the TCAPS plan. Goldschmidt thought it could be referred to the Education Committee to work with staff to come up with a schedule for the process and decide if this format can work with this process. Cepela discussed the workshop, Streamlining the Zoning Ordinance. This was the principal goal of the course with respect to Zoning Ordinances. He suggested consulting with the instructor from MSU who taught that course to see if it could be done with the General Plan. REPORTS

A. Parks & Recreation Committee No report.

B. Heritage Route Lukomski stated the Heritage Route did not meet.

C. Education Committee Goldschmidt provided an update noting the Education Committee will be working on the Fall Planning Session. They are currently working with the Sign Advisory Group (SAG).

D. Sign Advisory Group (SAG) Goldschmidt commented the group has been moving very fast. Goldschmidt distributed Draft Sign Ordinance documents to the Planning Commission. Challenges include such things like: MDOT requires 30’ setbacks from the white line edge of the road. County Roads have right of ways as well. Should there be exceptions for signs (of any type) during election times? Commissioners briefly discussed road right of way.

E. Report from LCPC members of attendance at township/village meetings No reports. Goldschmidt asked if this was a meaningful process and would like to explore it at the next meeting. Lukomski is planning to attend the next Leland Township Planning Commission Meeting. COMMINICATIONS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Galla discussed the Housing Summit coming up in Traverse City on October 24th, presented by Networks Northwest. October 26 – 28 is the Michigan Association of Planning (MAP) conference in Kalamazoo. If a commissioner is interested, the Planning Commission could consider sending them to the conference. Galla discussed an Application for a Private Road received by the Planning Department. She requested input from the local zoning administrator on their private road requirements, and also discussed the request with the County Emergency Operations Manager neither of which felt it fit the requirements of the Address Ordinance. Galla’s review determined that this request was to be denied. She is providing this brief update to remind commissioners that there is an appeal process in the Address Ordinance and the Leelanau County Planning Commission serves as the Appeals Board and makes the final decision. The decision made by the Planning Commission is not advisory, and is only appealed to Circuit Court.

of 19


7

In the event an appeal comes to the Planning Commission, a report will be put together and the applicant will have an opportunity to present their request to the Commission at a public meeting. Goldschmidt asked if the role of the Planning Commission would be to determine if proper procedure was followed. Galla said the role of the Appeals Board is to make a determination on the request, based on the Leelanau County Address Ordinance. She will notify commissioners of if there is an application to appeal. Holappa mentioned the next Household Hazardous Waste & Electronics (HHW) Collection is on Saturday, August 27, from 8 AM – 2 PM in Peshawbestown, just north of the gas station in the parking lot near the recycling drop off site. The final collection will be held in Elmwood Township at the Cherry Bend Park on October 8th. COMMISSIONER & CHAIRPERSON COMMENTS Lukomski apologized for being late to the meeting. She inquired about amendment of Article 17 on page 25. She asked if they are including a map of the floodplain. Galla noted the old FEMA maps are from the 1970s, are very hard to interpret and some areas are not mapped at all. Lukomski thought from reading the ordinance all of the properties would be non-compliant. Galla noted the question is whether the structure on the property is within the area designated as a floodplain, not the property line. McCulloch reminded people to submit their absentee ballots. Commissioners briefly discussed the meeting time for the Planning Commission with a suggestion to change the time to 5:45 PM or 6:00 PM. It will be discussed at the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 PM.

of 19

NEW BUSINESS Item A

Reviewing Entity: Leelanau County Planning Commission Date of Review: August 23, 2016

Section 1: General Information Date Request Received: July 30, 2016Last Day of Review Period: August 29, 2016 Requested Action: Review and comment on proposed amendments to the Kasson

Township Zoning Ordinance.Applicant: Kasson Township Planning Commission

Tad Carter, Chairman

Section 2: Proposed Text The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments were submitted by email on July 30, 2016 and will modify the following: Chapter 7, Special Land Use and Special Use Permit Requirements, Section 7.5 Data Required Chapter 7, Special Land Use and Special Use Permit Requirements, Section 7.7 Basis for Determination Chapter 4, District Regulations, Section 11.6 Conceptual Development Plan Link to the Kasson Township Zoning Ordinance – for ‘current text’: http://www.leelanau.cc/kassontwpord.asp

Section 3: Other Planning Input Township Plan: The Kasson Township Master Plan (2014) does not specifically address the proposed amendments. Leelanau General Plan: The Leelanau General Plan (2012) does not specifically address the proposed amendments. Township Planning Commission: A public hearing was held on July 18, 2016 and the Kasson Township Planning Commission passed unanimous motions on the three proposed modifications to send the amendments to the County Planning Commission. (See Appendix for copy of the Minutes).

TEXT AMENDMENT REVIEW PC11-16-07 Kasson Township

Text Amendments: Chapter 7 Special Land Uses and Special Use Permit Requirements Sections 7.5 Data Required

Section 7.7 Basis for Determination Chapter 4 District Regulations

Section 11.6 Conceptual Development Plan: Application Requirements

of 19

Section 4: Analysis

1. Compatibility

Yes

No

NA

A. Is the proposed text compatible with other language in the zoning ordinance?

See Staff Comments

B. Are there any issues with the proposed text (such as poor wording, confusing text, unenforceable language, etc.)?

See Staff Comments

C. Do the land uses or other related dimensional standards (height, bulk, area, setback, etc.) in the proposed text amendment(s) conflict with the existing zoning ordinance?

See Staff Comments

2. Issues of Greater Than Local Concern

A. Does the proposed text amendment(s) include any issues of greater than local concern? Please list.

X

3. Comparison with Local Plans or Ordinances

A. Do the contents in the proposed text amendment(s) conflict with the community’s plan? Please list.

X

4. Comparison with County Plans or Ordinances

A. Do the contents in the proposed text amendment(s) conflict with the General Plan? Please list.

X

Section 5: Staff Comments Township Attorney Tom Grier recommended several changes to the Kasson Township Zoning Ordinance to clean up some language. The recommendations pertaining to 7.5 and 7.7 clarify that it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient documentation that certain standards will be met. The recommendation pertaining to 4.11.6 was to include the word “dust” to an existing list of noxious conditions. In the Excerpt from the Minutes of the Kasson Township Planning Commission Meeting of April 18th there is a small error under: 2. Chapter 4, Section 11, Section 4.11.6 Conceptual Development Plan. The minutes state: Add new paragraph 4.11.8.G: Reference should be made to paragraph 4.11.6.G instead of 4.11.8.G. In the suggested language for Chapter 4, District Regulations, Section 11.6G Conceptual Development Plan as well as Chapter 7, Special Land Use and Special Use Permit Requirements, Section 7.5.A.8 Data Required, the township proposes the wording:

It is solely the responsibility of the applicant to procure and present adequate professional expert testimony and/or other information, as may be required by the Planning Commission at their discretion describing the methods, proposed conditions, and safeguards that are to be put into place to satisfy all applicable standards.

Staff questions whether the Planning Commission may include additional discretionary requirements, if the applicant has met the requirements outlined for a Special Land Use Permit in the Zoning Ordinance. It may be more appropriate to state that during the review period of their application the township may impose additional requirements for clarification purposes, such as a traffic study to determine the additional impact of a development on the road system. Suggested wording may be as follows:

of 19

It is solely the responsibility of the applicant to procure and present adequate professional expert testimony and/or other information, as may be required by the Planning Commission during review of the application describing the methods, proposed conditions, and safeguards that are to be put into place to satisfy all applicable standards.

of 19

APPENDIX

Submittal email Minutes from the Public Hearing

of 19

1

Kristin Holappa

Subject: FW: Kasson Twp PC - Text of 3 proposed Zoning Ordinance AmendmentsAttachments: Minutes Excerpts for LCPC.pdf

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Chuck Schaeffer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 2:55 PM To: Trudy Galla <[email protected]> Cc: Tad Carter <[email protected]> Subject: Kasson Twp PC ‐ Text of 3 proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments

Trudy,

I have attached a PDF containing three Amendments to the Kasson Township ZO for consideration by the County PC.

It includes the minutes of the April 2016 KTPC meeting where the topic was introduced, and the July 18 KTPC public hearing where the amendments received final approval of the Commission.

The impetus for these changes came from a suggestion by our Township Attorney, Tom Grier, based on experiences gained in the Township’s dispute over a Special Use Permit issued to a local business.

Essentially, the Township has not budgeted for professional consulting services over matters of zoning. The intent of the first two paragraph additions is to place the financial burden for professional consults upon the petitioner/applicant.

The addition of the word “dust” in the third amendment came also as a result of physical conditions that exist in the aforementioned dispute.

NOTE: A portion of what’s enclosed, the July 18 public hearing minutes, have not yet been approved as of this writing. However they will be approved at the KTPC meeting on August 15. I will contact you to let you know that they have been approved, and you can update the LCPC of that fact at their August meeting.

Thanks for your efforts on this matter, Chuck Schaeffer Recording Secretary, Kasson Township Planning Commission

of 19

UPDATES TO KASSON TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE - FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE LEELANAU COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Excerpts from the Minutes of the Kasson Township Planning Commission Meeting of April 18, 2016 (approved)

a) Proposed Amendments to the Kasson Township Zoning Ordinance

Commissioner Carter found some notes from Township Attorney who recommended several changes to the Zoning Ordinance to clean up some language. These recommended amendments follow. The first two clarify that it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient documentation that certain standards will be met. The third amendment merely adds the word, “dust” to an existing list of noxious conditions.

1. Chapter 7, Section 7.5 Data Required

Add new paragraph 7.5.A.8:

“8. Applicants must clearly demonstrate that all standards of this ordinance, including those in Section 7.7 - Basis for Determination, have been met. It is solely the responsibility of the applicant to procure and present adequate professional expert testimony and/or other information, as may be required by the Planning Commission at their discretion, describing the methods, proposed conditions, and safeguards that are to be put into place to satisfy all applicable standards.”

Moved by Boomer Seconded by Roush to add new paragraph 7.5.A.8 (see above) and to schedule a Public Hearing at the June Commission meeting, or as soon as can be legally noticed . Ayes: All Nays: None Abstain: None Motion: Carried.

2. Chapter 4, Section 11, Section 4.11.6 Conceptual Development Plan

Add new paragraph 4.11.8.G:

“G. Applicants must clearly demonstrate that all standards of this ordinance have been met. It is solely the responsibility of the applicant to procure and present adequate professional expert testimony and/or other information, as may be required by the Planning Commission at their discretion, describing the methods, proposed conditions, and safeguards that are to be put into place to satisfy all applicable standards.”

of 19

Moved by Boomer Seconded by Roush to add new paragraph 4.11.8.G (see above) and to schedule a Public Hearing at the June Commission meeting, or as soon as can be legally noticed . Ayes: All Nays: None Abstain: None Motion: Carried.

3. Chapter 7, Section 7.7 Basis for Determination

Modify existing paragraph 7.7.E as follows:

“E. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, and equipment or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by fumes, glare, noise or odors odors or dust.”

Moved by Noonan Seconded by Boomer to modify paragraph 7.7.E (see above) and to schedule a Public Hearing at the June Commission meeting, or as soon as can be legally noticed . Ayes: All Nays: None Abstain: None Motion: Carried.

Excerpts from the Minutes of the Kasson Township Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing of July 18, 2016 (Unapproved)

6. Opening of the Public Hearing

Moved by: Anderson Seconded by: Noonan to open the Public Hearing for the consideration of changes to the Township Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.11.6, 7.5, and 7.7. Ayes: All. Motion carried.

The Public Hearing Session opened at 7:06 PM

a) Section 4.11.6 - Conceptual Development Plan: Application Requirements

1) Report from the Zoning Chair

Commissioner Carter read aloud the new paragraph to be added (see below). He indicated that the addition was recommended by Township Attorney.

2) Changes to Findings of Fact

of 19

None.

3) Public Comment

A member of the audience asked what the amendment was all about. Carter pointed out that this has to do with conceptual development plans, specifically about requirements for the contents of the application thereto. The amendment specifically lays the burden for demonstrating that a Conceptual Development Plan complies with all the standards of the Zoning Ordinance up on the applicant. In addition the Planning Commission may require the opinion of a professional expert.

Another audience member questioned why this amendment came about. Carter replied that it came from a situation with a business on M-72 that dealt with lumber and wood products. The audience member asked the status of that “situation.” Carter referred him to the Township Board because the matter is in their hands now.

Carter reminded the audience that this comment period was for topics pertaining to the amendment being discussed, and not a general-question and answer period.

4) Discussion by the Commission

None.

5) Vote

Moved by: Noonan, Seconded by: Roush to add a new paragraph - 4.11.8.G - to Section 4.11.8 as follows:

“G. Applicants must clearly demonstrate that all standards of this ordinance have been met. It is solely the responsibility of the applicant to procure and present adequate professional expert testimony and/or other information, as may be required by the Planning Commission at their discretion, describing the methods, proposed conditions, and safeguards that are to be put into place to satisfy all applicable standards.”

Ayes: AllMotion carried.

6) Amendment Resolution

Moved by: Anderson Seconded by: Noonan to send the approved change to the County Planning Commission for their review and comment. Ayes: AllMotion carried.

b) Section 7.5 Data Required (Special Land Uses and Permits)

of 19

http://www.apple.com


Carter explained this was basically the same amendment that was proposed for Section 4.11.6,, only to a different section of the Ordinance


None.

3) Public Comment

None.


None.

5) Vote

Moved by: Noonan, Seconded by: Roush to add a new paragraph - 7.5.A.8 - to Section 7.5.A as follows:

“8. Applicants must clearly demonstrate that all standards of this ordinance, including those in Section 7.7 - Basis for Determination, have been met. It is solely the responsibility of the applicant to procure and present adequate professional expert testimony and/or other information, as may be required by the Planning Commission at their discretion, describing the methods, proposed conditions, and safeguards that are to be put into place to satisfy all applicable standards.”



Moved by: Roush Seconded by: Anderson to send the approved change to the County Planning Commission for their review and comment. Ayes: AllMotion carried.

c) Section 7.7 Basis for Determination (Special Land Uses and Permits)



Carter explained that this merely added the word, “dust” to the existing list of other prohibited conditions. Again this was at the recommendation of the Township Attorney.

3) Public Comment

of 19


None.


None.

5) Vote

Moved by: Roush, Seconded by: Noonan to modify existing paragraph 7.7.E, adding the word “dust” to the list at the end of the sentence:

“E. Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, and equipment or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by fumes, glare, noise or odors odors or dust.”



Moved by: Anderson Seconded by: Noonan to send the approved change to the County Planning Commission for their review and comment. Ayes:AllMotion carried.

7. Closing of the Public Hearing

Moved by: Noonan Seconded by: Anderson to close the Public Hearing Ayes: All. Motion carried.

The Public Hearing closed at 7:19 PM

of 19


notice of meeting a regular meeting of the leelanau …vice chairman victor goldschmidt called the...

Documents