Ensley Township in Newaygo County MI

Planning Commission

August Minutes

Ensley Township Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

August 28, 2006

Members Present:        

Keith Bouwkamp

Phil Starr

Matthew Bonzo

Ralph Palmer

Louise Yowtz

Ronald Bell

Members Absent:

John Vander Meulen

None

Guests Present:

Robert Hall Zoning Administrator

Ryan Coffey-MSU Extension Land Use Educator

Public:

            Four

Meeting

A         Pledge of Allegiance

Meeting was called to order at 8:10 by Starr.  Pledge of Allegiance was cited.

B.                 Roll Call

All present but John Vander Meulen

C.                 Approval of Agenda

Starr presented the agenda.  Motion made (Bell) and supported (Yowtz) to approve the agenda. Motion carried.

D.                Approval of Minutes

Minutes of 7/31/06 were not received by PC members.  Minutes not reviewed.

Reports

A.        Correspondence Received

Robert Hall sent PC a sample Home Occupations ordinance for review as well as a letter from the assessor in support of Ensley Township adopting a stand alone land division ordinance

B.                 Township Representative

No report was given.

C.                 Information and Inquiry

Mr. Robert Johnson requested direction from the Planning Commission on what his next steps ought to be relative to his Township denied requests to divide parcels of land owned by him.  He stated that back in April, he came to the township with his plans for the land divisions, and undertook what he understood from verbal conversations with the Township were the necessarily steps prior to the sale of his land. However after the division and sale of his land was complete, approval was sought in writing from the Township and the Township deemed some of the parcels were not legal.  Now, three of the parcels are being knocked down under the “4 to 1” ratio requirement by the Tax Assessor, Jason Rosenzweig. Mr. Johnson is asking “what do I do next?” and stated that he feels the Township led him to this dilemma.

Guest Ryan Coffey of MSU suggested for two of the parcels in question, Parcels “O” and “P” a possible solution could be for the Township to consider these two lots “Flag Lots”.  That is, if the township does not already have a definition or references to “Flag Lots” in the existing ordinance, these lots could be considered “Flag Lots”. 

Robert Hall said that Ensely does not have any allowances or references for “flag lots”.

Ryan Coffey also suggested for the third parcel, parcel “G”, that a possible variance could be an option.  Mr. Johnson said he thought he did not have grounds for a variance.  Robert Hall said a person could always try and see what the Township decides.. 

Robert Hall also mentioned that the road could be extended for compliance.

Phil Starr suggested Mr. Johnson go to the Zoning Board of Appeals

D.                Zoning Administrator

Robert Hall stated his support the adoption of a stand alone land division ordinance to facilitate review of land division requests in the Township.

Public Hearing Eave Overhang

Motion made (Matt Bonzo) and supported (Keith Bouwkamp) to close regular PC meeting and to go to the to public hearing on Eave Overhang

Phil Starr asked for public comment.

Public Comments:

Public made suggestion to remove all requirements for an overhang and sited it is not in the building code or requirement of the state.

Public sited that older people may not have the resources for the additional costs associated with an eave overhang requirement.

Public enquired as to how the measurement would be taken.    Robert Hall said he would measure horizontally out to the fascia board. 

Public commented that there should not be ordinance requirements without a practical reason and there seems to be none for a Eave Overhang requirement

Motion made (Yowtz) and supported (Bonzo) to close public hearing on Eave Overhang and go back to PC regular meeting.

Motion made (Yowtz) and supported (Bouwkamp) that the Planning Commission make the recommendation to the Township Board to amend section 3.25 Sub A 10 to delete the words “and shall have not less than 12 inch overhang”. Motion carried

Phil Starr called for a vote: Starr, aye; Bouwkamp aye; Bonzo aye; Yowtz aye; Palmer aye; Bell aye: 

 Old Business

A.                       Home Occupations/Guest Speaker/Ryan Coffey-MSU Extension Land Use Educator

Ryan Coffey explained/commented the following;

A Home Occupation is someone running a business from their home and the business is not visible from outside of the home.  A Home Business is something small and visible from the outside of the home.

Most communities zone for Home Businesses.  Zoning for Home Occupation is something new.  The classification could be used to help raise tax revenue but by its very nature, this aspect is very difficult to enforce.  It should be understood that once permission is given to run a business, it stays with the land.  So a new owner will inherent the right or the permission granted the previous owner.

There are several options to be considered:   One option is for a Township not to list “Permitted Uses” such as “Hair Solon” and so fourth in their ordinance.   This runs the risk of having a buyer place his business where ever he buys the land.  The person would only have to meet the general zoning guidelines.  If a Township would try to stop someone’s business that was not previously listed, it could be viewed as exclusionary zoning.  In other words, “If you do not account for it, you can not control it”

A second option for a Township is to list all the “Permitted Uses” such as “Hair Salon” and so forth in their ordinance.  Such a list would give the Township the ability to control where in the community the listed business may exist.  In order to do this effectively though, a Township needs to have a future land use map. 

B.                       Land Division Ordinance/Guest Speaker/Ryan Coffey-MSU Extension Land Use Educator

Ryan Coffey explained/commented the following;

A Land Division Ordinance is not a requirement. That is there is no legal requirement.  However a stand alone ordinance has advantages for all but it would require the Township to update the zoning ordinance in more than one place whenever there was a change, unless the Township closed out all other references.

Ryan recommends that the Township goes through the existing ordnances to be sue there are no contradicting references.

Phil Starr asked if the “4 to 1” ratio is mandated by state law.   The logic or basis for the “4 to 1” ratio is that many communities want to “square off” the approved splits so that there are fewer houses on a road or more space/distance between them.   This is about giving the area a “country feel” or retaining the country feel of an area by spreading out the permitted number of houses on a given stretch of road.   The state allows incremental splits by the number of acres.  That is, one is limited by the state on the number of splits available to him or her and a Township must perform the balancing act between private land rights and land preservation.  

The “4 to 1” ratio has other utility for a community though as well.  Consider a scenario where a Township has one acre lot minimums along a stretch of unpaved road and that suddenly there are many houses built along this road.  If the occupants so desired, they could sue the Township to get the Township to pave the road and they would win.  The guiding principle at work for the courts would be the answer to the question “Who created the hardship?  In the above scenario, it would be the Township since it allowed for many homes to be built on a stretch of unpaved road.  That is, if a Township allows the growth, it is responsible for the required infrastructure.

Land Division Ordinances can also be used to target prime areas for protection.  In these areas the number of splits can be limited.  Division rights are restricted to limit large tracks of land from disappearing.  It is in effect a new zoning category with its own set of restrictions.

C.                       Master Plan/Guest Speaker/Ryan Coffey-MSU Extension Land Use Educator

Ryan Coffey explained/commented the following;

Ryan says the Township has three options; task out to others, hire a consultant or the Planning Commission can write the Master Plan.  He recommends from experience, that the Township does not let a consultant just write it on their own.  He recommends that if the Planning Commission elects not to write it on its own, that the Planning Commission at a minimum provides the vision for the Township to a consultant or the planner in the form of goals and objectives of the community.

New Business

A.                       New contact info for Louise Yowtz:

New phone cell 616-292-0733

e-mail is Louisey@network180.org

Motion made by Ron Bell and supported by Ralph Palmer to adjourn at 10:00 PM.  Motion carried.

Sec.  Palmer

Copyright 2011 - Ensley Township - All Rights Reserved