MEMBERS PRESENT: Anderson, Cowles, Donaldson, Goodall, Holben, Keen, O’Hara, and Smith

MEMBERS ABSENT: Leaf

CONSULTANTS PRESENT:

Darrell Fecho, Interim Director of Community Development;
Peter Stoughton, Assistant Planner;
Dick Robinson, Township Attorney;
Lisa Wells, Office Team Recording Secretary

Chairperson Smith called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was given

AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: 8D – Final Site Plan from Erie Construction

MOTION: Keen SUPPORTED: Goodall

To approved the minutes of August 25, 2003, as written.

PUBLIC COMMENT: None.

Staff report was presented by Assistant Planner Stoughton. Mr. Stoughton explained that the prior tenant was also a second hand store and it operated without a special use permit. There is a current request for similar use. The owner, Vito Cicinelli, is the applicant. The representative and future tenant is James Tyler. Mr. Tyler is requesting a special use permit. Mr. Stoughton states that the use is consistent with zoning.

James Tyler, 4723 Richard St., Holt, Michigan addresses the Board. He explained that the business is retail, with some previously owned furniture as well as new. There will not be any furniture stripping or use of chemicals, and all inventory will be stored and sold inside.

Chairman Smith opened the floor for public comment.

Marcia Bowers 4626 Krental, Holt, Michigan. She expressed her concerns with regard to the building’s appearance, lack of sidewalks and pedestrian safety, and water run-off. Mr. Stoughton said, based on conversation with Vito Cicinelli, that the parking lot will be paved next spring after the drain improvements are complete. Ms. Bowers requested that paving the parking lot become a condition of receiving a special use permit (SUP).

The Board asked questions of Mr. Stoughton. He answered and addressed them all. Mr. Darrell Fecho explained that the Board cannot make certain restrictions with a SUP.

MOTION: O’Hara SUPPORTED: Donaldson

Mr. Stoughton said there was no need for further comment, but a new plan was attached for their review. The case was previously on the agenda of August 25, 2003.

Richard Reyner, of Dalby Corporation approached the Board to explain the changes. He noted that there are sidewalks on both sides of the community in the new plan and a variety of attached and unattached units have been placed throughout the new project.

O’Hara feels he can not support the plan because he would like to see further changes. He is concerned about putting duplexes in R1-D. He also commented on how the parallel plan used a lot of wetland and flood plain areas without written approval, and that Dalby is speculating that they can get permission from the Drain Commission to do so.

Cowles addresses the viability of the parallel plan. He noted that he did not see any improvement to the pedestrian circulation plan from the previous submission, and the garage door frontage. Mr. Cowles said he can not support without further improvements.

Anderson stated that this is the best use of this space. Keen agrees that it will be an asset to the community.

MOTION: Anderson SUPPORTED: Goodall

Roll Call Vote:

Ayes: Holben, Goodall, Keen, Anderson, Donaldson, Smith

Nays: O’Hara, Cowles

Staff report was presented by Assistant Planner Stoughton. Mr. Stoughton asked that the Aspen Circle representatives document changes and take questions. They have proposed changing the units that are on the cul-de-sac to two (2) eight (8) unit buildings and one (1) ten (10) unit building.

At this point, a motion was made to excuse Donaldson from this portion of the proceedings due to conflict of interest.

MOTION: Holben SUPPORTED: Keen

Cowles asked if action is expected on the tonight (meaning September 8, 2003). Mr. Stoughton responds by saying a motion is needed which states that the Board agrees that these changes are consistent with the previous approved PUD. Mr. Stoughton goes on to say that the other option for the Board is to decide that the changes are NOT within the boundaries of what was approved, thereby requiring DTN Enterprises to have the PUD modified.

Richard Cooley and Roger Dean, DTN Enterprises – Aspen Circle, approach the Board to take questions.

Cowles asks for clarification of what is being changed. Cooley indicates the changes to the part of the site plan referred to as Aspen Circle. Cowles stated he did not understand that the approved PUD included more attached condos than two (2)-unit attached condos. Mr. Cooley says that it included 2, 4, and 8-unit buildings.

O’Hara questioned if there was documentation to indicate there would be eight (8)-unit condo buildings. Mr. Cooley stated that the approved PUD includes various building configurations.

Chairman Smith asks if there is any public comment. There is NONE.

Mr. Stoughton clarifies that the motion falls in line with the approved PUD and he wants the Board to confirm to proceed to Site Plan Review.

MOTION: Anderson SUPPORTED: Keen

Mr. Stoughton gives background. They were ready for SUP, but did not have their shared drive agreement signed so they did not get on the advanced agenda. All approvals were submitted September 8, 2003, so staff asked that it be added to tonight’s agenda (September 8, 2003).

At this point, a motion had to be entered to excuse Donaldson from this portion of the proceedings due to conflict of interest.

MOTION: Holben SUPPORTED: Goodall

Larry Kilbey, 9450 Allister Road, Laingsburg, Michigan, Representative for Erie Construction. Mr. Kilbey states that a color needs to be chosen for siding. There is proposed additional light pole added to the SE corner of the parking lot, in an island with three (3) light fixtures. Mr. Stoughton stated that it does meet the ordinance. Cowles expressed concern about the placement of the light fixture. Mr. Kilbey stated that it is open for water drainage to get to the catch basin. There is also a proposed two thousand (2,000) square foot addition.

MOTION: Holben SUPPORTED: Anderson

Darell Fecho addressed the board and gave background regarding amendment text. Mr. Fecho introduced Dick Robinson, Township attorney. Mr. Robinson explains that this is a new relatively statute without court decisions to provide guidance. He recommends that the Township adopt an ordinance which meets the intent, while allowing the necessary control to avoid controversy. The statute is extremely broad and the definition of "religious institution" is vague. The only way a community can justify not allowing a religious institution in a residential area is to have a compelling governmental interest, as well as demonstrate that the minimal amount of regulation has been applied to achieve the goal. Mr. Robinson emphasizes that it may not be the traditional "church" as viewed by the Board. As long as no laws are broken and no one is forced to participate, it can not be questioned.

Mr. Robinson answers questions from the Board. He states that the Board does have the right to ask for supporting documentation from an organization wishing to be approved as a religious institution.

MOTION: Anderson SUPPORTED: Donaldson

Mr. Stoughton asked that all members of the Board be present at the Joint Board Meeting on October 27, 2003. He told members that if they are not able to attend, please let staff know in advance.

Mr. Stoughton mentioned two public hearings scheduled for September 22, 2003, one of which is Case #03-226 Intier Interiors, Special Use Permit, for September 22, 2003.

Discussion: Extension of Mobile Office Use to One (1) year.

MOTION: Keen SUPPORTED: Cowles