Click here to watch the Feb. 18th Meeting on Livestream

Click here to download the Meeting Agenda

Click here to download the Meeting Packet

Click here to download the Meeting Minutes

 

Meeting notes, partial transcription

00:08:45 (livestream time)
Board of Trustees Report
[Trustee Janet Chick]
"The BOT met February tenth. The Board approved revised fee schedules for the planning commission applications and the ZBA's Northfield Township fees of fifteen... one thousand six hundred fifty were decreased to seven hundred fifty dollars.  And the ZBA fee for single unit residential application was reduced to $295.  This brings us more in line with surrounding communities.   Three resolutions were also adopted for the Board of Review.  One allows an alternative date for March Board of Review.  The second allows for an alternative start date for July and December Board of Review.  And the third allows residents to appeal to the Board of Review by letter.  Also, previous to that, there was a Board of Trustees workshop on January 27th and I apologize, I wasn't here to give that report; I had a family emergency.  But as requested, some of the Board members offered some comments on growth for Northfield.  While some of the members were specific about their ideas, there was, however, no consensus from the board as a whole on where or what kind or how much.  The board however in my opinion are open to discussing and possibly implementing changes on densities after comprehensive research and conversation on the implications for the Township are had first.  That's all I have."

00:02:45 (livestream time)
Chairperson Chockley calls the Meeting to order

00:02:54
Pledge of Allegiance

00:03:17
3. ROLL CALL

00:03:36
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

00:03:45
Stanalazjo:
You know, last week I asked for an agenda item to be placed on here and I don't see it on the agenda.

Chockley:
What was it?

Stanalazjo:
It was the continued discussion about the master plan amendment

Chockley:
We're talking about that under the discussion of priorities and projects for the year.

Stanalazjo:
No I wanted it, that should be under old business.  This was taken up by the planning commission in June 4th meeting and I would like to have this as a discussion item.  I'd asked for that last week so, um, I just wondered why that wasn't on there.

Chockley:
Do you need an update?

Stanalazjo:
[no response]

Chockley:
I'm sorry it's not on but we don't have... so you asked for this two weeks ago?

Stanalazjo:
I asked for it last week [how?]

Chockley:
Last week.  

Stanalazjo:
So I just wanna have this listed...

Chockley:
I don't recall...

Stanalazjo:
down under old business

Chockley:
Ok  We can put it under old business but we have nothing to offer tonight other than discussion

Stanalazjo:
It's just a discussion; that's all I wanted to have

Chockley:
Oh; ok

Stanalazjo:
It's not an action item; it's just a discussion.

Chockley:
Ok

00:04:35
Iaquinto motions to approve agenda with Master Plan discussion added under old business

[Disagreement over positioning of discussion ensues]

00:05:27
Chockley:
All in favor of the agenda as amended, say aye

00:05:30
Chockley:
Anyone opposed?
Larry Roman:
Me

00:05:45
Call to the Public
00:06:30
Carolyn Adamin, [Address]
Being part of this group you have to look towards our future.  The decisions you make will affect us now, twenty years beyond, even a home for our grandchildren.  Right now we are a community that's stagnant without many resources here.  If we continue the way we are we won't be able to call our school district our family, have community parades, have businesses that we're proud of.  We'll be driving to other communities to use their resources just like we are now but with much less.  Back in July when it was nice and warm I was on the computer watching the joint committee meeting and many people spoke about wanting growth in this area.  Then in August 6th you guys voted to study the area [] master plan.  That was six months ago.  When are thing gonna start moving?  We have an opportunity to allow controlled growth and have this community thrive.  Please do not stall.  Make these changes with the master plan and the future land use map so we can become a great vibrant community.  Our billboard says we're open for business.  It's time to walk the walk.
00:07:52

00:08:15
Agenda Item 6. CORRESPONDENCE
Chockley talks about letters received

Agenda Item 7. REPORTS

00:08:45
Agenda Item 7A: Board of Trustees Report
[Trustee Janet Chick]
"The BOT met February tenth. The Board approved revised fee schedules for the planning commission applications and the ZBA's Northfield Township fees of fifteen... one thousand six hundred fifty were decreased to seven hundred fifty dollars.  And the ZBA fee for single unit residential application was reduced to $295.  This brings us more in line with surrounding communities.   Three resolutions were also adopted for the Board of Review.  One allows an alternative date for March Board of Review.  The second allows for an alternative start date for July and December Board of Review.  And the third allows residents to appeal to the Board of Review by letter.  Also, previous to that, there was a Board of Trustees workshop on January 27th and I apologize, I wasn't here to give that report; I had a family emergency.  But as requested, some of the Board members offered some comments on growth for Northfield.  While some of the members were specific about their ideas, there was, however, no consensus from the board as a whole on where or what kind or how much.  The board however in my opinion are open to discussing and possibly implementing changes on densities after comprehensive research and conversation on the implications for the Township are had first.  That's all I have."
00:10:12

Agenda Item 7B: ZBA Report
Agenda Item 7C: Staff Report

00:11:20
Agenda Item 7D: Planning Consultant Report
[Nowatzke][Regal Recycling][Doug will be leading a Planning and Zoning Training Session for the Michigan Association of Planning a week from Thursday at the Washtenaw County Building on Zeeb Road, a five hour session]

00:13:40
Agenda Item 8: PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. JPC#150001 – The Northfield Township Library is requesting a conditional use permit to allow an expansion of library facilities within the WLD-D, Whitmore Lake District Downtown, pursuant to Section 30.04 of the Northfield Township Zoning Ordinance. The conditional use, if approved, would allow an expansion to the existing library (public building) at this location. The subject property is located at 125 Barker Road, Parcel Number B-02-06-401-009.

00:14:45
Kate Bond - Boss Engineering, discusses the Site Plans for the library addition.
00:19:30
Doug Lewan discussed the conditional use review.  He will discuss the site plans during the next phase of tonight's discussion.
00:24:38
Mr. Rushlow, township engineer, stated that he did not enter the conditional use discussion since the expansion is to a facility already in use.
00:25:24
Library director discusses use of the added space
A discusson of parking ensues.
00:31:40
Public Hearing is closed

Trustee Chick motions to move old business behind new business so that the Library application can proceed.  Passes

00:32:30
Agenda Item 10. NEW BUSINESS

Agenda Item 10.A. JPC#150001 – Postpone, deny, or recommend to the Board of Trustees the approval of the conditional use application to allow an expansion of the Northfield Township library facilities within the WLD-D, Whitmore Lake District Downtown, pursuant to Section 30.04 of the Northfield Township Zoning Ordinance. The conditional use, if approved, would allow an expansion to the existing library (public building) at this location. The subject property is located at 125 Barker Road, Parcel Number B-02-06-401-009.

Iaquinto moves to approve the conditional use application.  Great gnashings of teeth by all as the format and wording are worked out.  It passes.


Agenda Item 10.B. JPC#150001 – Postpone, deny, or approve the site plan to allow an expansion of the Northfield Township library facilities within the WLD-D, Whitmore Lake District Downtown, pursuant to Section 30.04 of the Northfield Township Zoning Ordinance. The subject property is located at 125 Barker Road, Parcel Number B-02-06-401-009.

00:36:00
Doug Lewan discusses site plan, issues, details
00:45:00
Library Director discusses the deck to be added later
00:45:55
Township Engineering Consultant Jacob Rushlow discusses the site plan, expansion, sidewalk, dumpster relocation, sewers, wells, storm water management, rain gardens draining into retention ponds, drainage toward railroad, paving and grading, aisle width in parking lot, poor dumpster location, permits.  Overall, plan recommended with small administrative changes.  Current plans do not account for additional runoff due to enlarged parking lot.

01:10:00
Chockley makes a motion to recommend approval of the site plan with conditions.  It passes with a roll call vote.

01:12:36
A.[sic] Discussion of priorities and projects for the year

Chockley:
Ok, the next item on our agenda is the discussion of priorities and projects for the year.

Dignan:
Madame Chair

Chockley:
Pardon

Dignan:
That is not the next item; we had adjusted...

Chockley:
Oh.
 
Dignan:
the agenda...

Chockley:
You want the Old Business between here.  Let's do the Old Business then... but we are going to deal with some of this Old Business in the priorities, so we'll go ahead.  Mr Stanalazjo... What was your particular, [points] cause I added it to our review of the Master Plan.  Ok.  Go ahead.

Stanalazjo:
Well before I got on this Planning Commission and I'm gonna go back to the notes of June 4th, 2014, a unanimous vote of the planning commission was to direct the planner to start the review process for the Master Plan and the month after that, july, there was a joint meeting of the planning commission and the township board and there was discussion of what direction to do about this master plan talk or revision.  Subsequent to that in August 6th, in the notes, minutes of the planning commission, there was actually a motion to move forward with a study of a particular area for a master plan amendment and this is now eight months later and there hasn't been any discussion about this at all.  And so I wanted to have this discussed openly...

Chockley:
Sure

Stanalazjo:
about what's happening, what's been going on, and why basically it hasn't been brought up, at least since I've been on here to even have this as a point in a matter of old business

Chockley:
Ok.

Chick:
First I want to be clear on what Mr. Stanalazjo's asking.  Because I heard two different things, I think.  Are you talking about a Master Plan revision of the entire document or the Master Plan amendment?  It's two different things.

Stanalazjo:
Well, there... according to the notes here it was an amendment to the master plan.  Alright?  That's what needs to be discussed and that's what I was asking to be discussed here.

Chick:
Ok

Chockley:
Ok Ok

Stanalazjo:
I'll say this.  This was something that was brought up before I was on here.  So since I've been on here it hasn't been brought up as a discussion matter at all.

Chockley:
When we actually made the motion to do that we requested several studies from the applicant and we haven't received any studies yet and Mr. Lewan can kind of tell you where we're at with all of that...

Stanalazjo:
But I wanna say that that's actually not true cause according to the notes those are two separate motions and two separate actions...

Dignan or Iaquinto:
Yes they were

Stanalazjo:
It was not a contingency to continue to discuss this with waiting for that to happen.  So, that's my point, is that that may be what's assumed but not what the case is, from the two motions, they're not tied together

01:15:38
Iaquinto:
And since you brought that up I believe that this planning commission put them in a vicarious [sic] situation to put the cart before the horse for them with the requirements that we set forth in the studies and I'd like to discuss that as well.

Chockley:
Ok.  Mr. Dignan

Dignan:
Madame Chair, When this was, when this came up we discussed it, um, not only residents in the community but, uh, myself raised the question about do we amend the master plan for a specific applicant or developer and the answer was unequivocally no we don't

Chockley:
Ok

Dignan:
But you just said yes we do

Chockley:
No I didn't

Dignan:
Why...

Dignan talking over Chockley: [unintelligible]

Chockley:
We requested

Dignan:
Lemme

Chockley:
studies so that we

Dignan:
Let me

Chockley:
could determine whether

Dignan:
You've requested studies from a very specific applicant so you could so we could proceed as a board on a revision to the master plan or an amendment to the master plan.  Those are separate.  This is the main reason that I objected very much so to us narrowing the scope of our review to not just the southwest quadrant but you advocated yourself to narrowly move this focus directly in on the properties that are affected by the proposal from an indiv... from a builder who didn't even give us an application.  He didn't give us an application.  There was no applicant.  There was a letter of interest to the community that came in that specifically asked what does your, what would community want in this area.  That was what the applicant came in with... I've assembled these properties what would you want to have there?  He said that directly at the microphone, uh, that night, and when we decided to revise the, uh, look at amending the master plan that needs to be independent of an individual applicant.  I think it's very important to protect the integrity of the master plan that it ah goes forward separately.  And we have tied these two together for eight months now and we need to stop that, cause if we do go down that road, we will end up being faced with amending our master plan every single time someone comes forward and asks us to.

Chockley:
Which is not appropriate.
[
Dignan talked over by Iaquinto] [unintelligible]

Iaquinto:
And I, I agree with what Mr. Dignan's saying because I at that time as well requested that we look at that whole quadrant area instead of just the narrow location because to me, and I mentioned this at that time, we were being narrow minded in our thought processes, and again, looking at it specifically, for a case situation, which we cannot and should not, and again, that's why I had that argument at that time that it should be a much broader area than just the specific area that was being potentially thought of.

Chockley:
Ok.... Mr. Lewan, did you have some similar or dissimilar understanding of what we were doing back then?

01:18:49
Lewan:
Well, we should look at the master plan regardless of who the developer is, so I agree with that.  However, this did, this whole process was kicked off May 29th from a letter from Biltmore Land LLC specifically for a request to amend the master plan map, from David Stollman.  I have the letter right here, so this is not, this is a, was a specific request by a specific developer for us to, we would have never begun this process if it wasn't for this request.  So this is a request.  Now, has it broadened to something greater than that?  Yes, it has.  In this particular request, the road we were going down, we had, the planning commission had requested the three studies that were referenced, and, if there was some misunderstanding, I don't know what that misunderstanding was, and, that is why this process has not gone forward.  If there is no action of the planning commission, we were required, we were waiting for these studies.  Now if the planning commission wants to change that, you're perfectly acceptable and you know, you can do that.  That's completely up to your discretion.

Stanalazjo:
But one of the things that I wanna contest on what you're just saying is that that's not what's reflected in the minutes of the discussion or what the actions were. So, maybe that's the way that was interpreted but that's not the way that it reads.

Lewan:
That very well may be and that is why this is not going to help so if that is... we can revisit that and that's fine but the reason this has not come up is that is our request and they have not been provided.  One is underway; the sewer study's underway from what I understand, but, uh, the other two haven't, and as a point of fact, I spoke to Mr. Stollman probably the day after those meetings, and there did not seem to be any issue of him providing those studies.  I spoke to him last week, and now, there's some hesitation for those studies, and this is, I had no idea there's hesitation to provide those studies until about a week and a half ago...

Iaquinto:
So, can you share with us what the hesitation is cause that's what I have heard is that we have put them in a vicarious [sic] situation about these studies... It's because, you know, there is a huge financial cost, and it's, again we're just looking at an amendment, and then also I would ask, why were, why wasn't this the path of just a rezoning taken instead amendment to the master plan?

Lewan:
Um, two questions.  First, when I spoke to Mr. Stollman about a week and a half ago, because of the potentially wide range of densities that could occur here he was concerned about those studies.

Iaquinto:
But I think as they don't, there's not a plan, there's no plan, so it's hard for them to do a study without a plan, correct?

Lewan:
You could still... early in the process I gave Mr. Stollman a range of densities that you could easily do a simple traffic study and/or a simple cost of services study.  I gave him a range of densities based on potential master plan scenarios.

Iaquinto:
But, without a plan to really look at, for any of us, or even them, how could they go ahead, and do, I, I just can't understand how they can realistically put a realistic, ok, studies, ok, two studies together, without having a plan, because, that's, those studies can totally be futile, I mean, totally a waste

Lewan:
yeah, if we

Iaquinto:
financially a waste if, again, without a plan...

Lewan:
If we gave them, uh, if you provide a range that would have, it wouldn't have been futile.  They could have come up with some good information.

Dignan:
[unintelligible] hard of hearing out there

Lewan:
Sorry [pulls microphone closer] um, so anyway, that, if a range was provided I think the studies would have been useful.  And still may be.  In fact he's still willing to do them, according to my conversation with him last week.  Now you had another question?  Oh, why didn't they request a rezoning?

Iaquinto:
Yes, why not direct them toward a rezoning of those parcels instead of an amendment?

Lewan:
The reason... rezoning certainly could have been requested.  However it was, is so far afoul of the current master plan that I certainly would not have recommended approval, and our early discussions with Mr. Stollman and the Biltmore folks was that, um, a rezoning is something that, you know, I couldn't support as the planning consultant, and would have immediately recommended denial if it came in with SR1 zoning, which is what he would have needed.  Um, and so, the proper way to proceed with a, um, you know, looking at a change to land use, and the significant manner that was proposed, was through a master plan amendment.  That's really the proper... plan first zone second... and that's really what, that should have happened, and that, that's the process we went down.

Chockley:
Miss Chick

Chick:
I just have a short comment.  I wanted to, also, some of the board members looked into this, why we went with the master plan amendment as opposed to them asking for a rezoning, and the MTA said that is the appropriate way to handle that to avoid issues

Chockley:
Mr. Dignan

Dignan:
I want to come back to Mr... Commissioner Stanalazjo's question about or comment about the minutes.  The reason that the minutes don't reflect what was referred to here was because... this is my opinion of what we did that night, and I think the minutes do reflect this is, we do not amend the master plan for a specific applicant, you know, uh, request from a developer.  um.  We went over that and over that and to be honest with you we screwed up cause we then narrowed our focus to exactly where that developer is coming to right after hearing from that developer and then we went and said developer who we said we supposedly do not listen to, pay for all the studies that we wanna talk about for a master plan amendment that shouldn't have anything directly to do with a specific developer.  So we screwed up, in my opinion.  We've gone down a path that is not appropriate.

Chockley:
Miss Chick

Chick:  
I kind of resent the fact, to say the least, that we screwed up, cause I don't believe we did cause I don't think in our discussions, further discussions, then, we aren't just looking at the four hundred and sixty acres and my impression is that we've been looking all the way from North Territorial down to Joy Road, um, on that side of the road, yes, but it's not just those four hundred and sixty acres.

Iaquinto:
Our study has not, we have not changed the study since this board made a motion to narrow it down for that small study area cause again, I

Chockley:
It never was wide;

Iaquinto:
I voted against it

Chockley:
It never was the wide area

Dignan:
Well we talked

Chockley:
We were given two options; we chose the narrower of the two

Iaquinto:
correct

Chockley:
options

Iaquinto:
which is specifically the area that they were proposing, they're proposing to look at

Lewan:
No, it included property to the north as well.

Chockley:
Yes, it included some more properties to the north... Do we have... Mr. Roman

Larry Roman:
I'd like to make a comment as to what was said just tonight.  And beside the fact that, whether you look at a narrower section or a larger section I think the biggest important thing in that whole area is the sewer study,

Chockley:
Um hmm

Roman:
which at our February 4th meeting, was explained by Doug [Lewan] that it's still in the process.  So, either, I'm not
going to dispute about the smaller or the larger.  I thought we were going to look at both, or the larger area, but until we get a sewer study, which is not done by Biltmore - it's being done by our own people, what is there to talk about?  I mean, we cannot, you cannot make plans, you cannot even utilize what you may even want unless you know what you can do.  That would be a step one.  And that's why I made the comment earlier tonight that I was against adding this on for discussion.  I mean, it's fine, but this was covered last meeting.

01:27:39
Iaquinto:
But a developer could put in his own sewer system, correct, with our ordinances, a developer could put in his own sewer system irregardless of what our sewer capacity is or is not.  So, there really shouldn't be contingent if they decide, as long as they understand that that's the direction they have to take then that's their choice.

Chockley:
But there's traffic and density issues too, so we have no proposal from the developer, right now, for no matter how many houses he wants to put in.  Mr Roman, you go ahead and finish.

Roman:
In my... I'm not in agreement with you, Sam.  Either way, the initial thing is to look at what we have and can it work and what is it supposed to do, and then you can base opinions from there.  That's my point.

Chockley:
Mr. Stanalazjo

Stanalazjo:
My whole point of bringing this up is that five years ago when I was on the planning commission, we started the process of a master plan amendment or revision.  It was five years.  So even thought that the last one was adopted two years ago it started five years ago.  Alright.  So this is not out of the ordinary that we're talking about this.  This is a five year process.  Um, the other thing is that, I understand about Mr. Roman's concern about the sewer study but frankly, in my opinion, it's irrelevant when you're planning out a twenty year plan, when you're looking at future land use maps, which I think our future land use map is flawed.  I don't think our whole master plan is flawed but I think our future land use map is flawed.  It does not, in my opinion, does not reflect a twenty year vision of where it is growth and development is gonna take place.  So, I think your tying... the sewer study, to what the developer's request is, quite frankly, I could care less what the developer wants.  I think that overall, our job is to plan for the community, for growth and development's gonna take place, and these studies that we're sitting around waiting for is something that's irrelevant for what our job is. It's...

Chockley:
Mr. Roman

Roman:
I wholeheartedly disagree with that, with both statements.  Whether you have a sewer or not has huge impact on the land use, for one.  For two, what was your other point about?  I'm sorry. Your other point was about the study by Biltmore.  That's not being done by Biltmore.

Stanalazjo:
Well, my, my point being is that when we did the last master plan we didn't end up looking at sewer capacity and where it is where we're looking for future land use.  You can't say that we did because that study should have been done back then, not waiting til now, so if it was important, why wasn't it done the last time it was adopted?

01:30:25
Cousino:
[microphone off][unintelligible]

Chockley:
Yeah,

Chick:
We did look at, at

Stanalazjo:
but not the capacity

Chick:
the subcommittee level
[crosstalk]

01:30:37
Cousino:
Capacity is a problem.  That's a problem that's been discovered.  But when you're zoning, the higher density area that we've got in the plan right now is centered around a sewer service district area which didn't account for capacity problems that we're encountering right now.

Stanalazjo:
But you can have a higher density, you could have a higher density of housing going in, in areas right now where it's not planned, for one acre piece of property

Cousino:
[unintelligible]

Stanalazjo:  
[unintelligible] sewers are irrelevant, use septic.

Cousino:
[unintelligible]

Stanalazjo:
The plan isn't necessarily all dependent on the sewer.  You can end up having a higher density of housing going in from what we're allowing right now, in, and still end up having, uh, the capacity for, uh, that to handle based on the septic systems.

Chockley:
Ok, Mr Dignan:

Dignan:
I guess I have a question.  I was not part of the last master plan that you folks, that some of you folks went through.  Mr. Stanalazjo was.  Was there a traffic study done for the master plan that's written today?

Stanalazjo:
I was at the beginning stage, not at the end,

Dignan:
There wasn't

Chockley:
[unintelligible]

Dignan:
They don't do traffic studies for master plans.  You do traffic studies for applicants that ask to build things.  So, the studies that were asked for from Biltmore, in my opinion, are not relevant to the review or amendment to the master plan, so you shouldn't wait on any of those.  I do agree that a sewer study could be insightful when looking at the future land use of the area around where the sewer is today.  What 75% of our township is not that area.  It's not.

Chockley:
And we'll haven't opened it up for the whole, we haven't

Dignan:
We haven't yet

Chockley:
have not

Dignan:
We may not; I don't know

Chockley:
That's part of the priorities that we were gonna talk about tonight, studying our priorities for what we believe is important to look at through the next few meetings and the master plan was on it, it is on it...

Stanalazjo:
[interrupting] But it was already started.  That's my point.  That's the reason I wanted to discuss.  This process was started, according to the notes here, August 6th.  Mr. Lewan noted that on June 4th the planning commission voted unanimously to authorize his firm to begin the master plan review process.  So this is not

Chockley:
And he sent out the letter

Stanalazjo:
That's the whole point of this discussion, is that what has happened since then and why, why is it that it's, it's, it doesn't seem like anything's been discussed or talked about, and this

Chockley:
We're waiting for the sewer capacity study

Stanalazjo:
I'm just, I'm, I'm just saying that I don't think that that should be tied to that, and that's why I wanted to bring this up.

Chockley:
Ok, well, this could very well be, one of our top priorities when we vote, and we will take on this in the near future whether or not we believe anything should be done with the master plan.  Mr. Lewan has been preparing a document to move us forward in this direction, um, at least to discuss it, and that will be coming up in the next few meetings, so my recommendation is that we move on and actually set our priorities and then go ahead and then take this on, if everyone believes that's a high priority.
01:34:07

 

[untranscribed]

B.[sic] Planning Commission Annual Report


Agenda Item 9. OLD BUSINESS


Agenda Item 11. MINUTES: February 4, 2015 Regular Meeting
Agenda Item 12. POLICY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
Agenda Item 13. CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Agenda Item 14. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS
Agenda Item 15. ANNOUNCEMENT: Next Regular Meeting – March 4, 2015
Agenda Item 16. ADJOURNMENT