The Delhi Charter Township Board met in a regular meeting on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 in the Multipurpose Room at the Community Services Center, 2074 Aurelius Road, Holt, Michigan. Supervisor Stuart Goodrich called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Members Present: Supervisor Stuart Goodrich, Clerk Evan Hope, Treasurer Harry Ammon, Trustees Steven Anderson, Paul Krepps, Roy Sweet

Absent: Trustee Marsha Bowers

Others Present:

John Elsinga, Twp. Mgr.
Robert Scheuerman, P.E., Twp. Engineer
Sandra Diorka, POTW Superintendent
Rick Royston, Fire Chief
Jason Coker, Dir. of Accounting
Al McFadyen, DDA Executive Dir.
Darrell Fecho, Interim Dir. of Community Development/Planner
Tricia Vander Ploeg, Administrative Secretary/Deputy Supervisor
Barbara Prater, Assistant Twp. Clerk/Recording Secretary

The Board observed a moment of silence in remembrance of Trustee Marsha Bowers’ husband, William Bowers, and also for Kyle Killworth, who was invited to light the Christmas Tree at the Township’s December 3^rd Tree Lighting Celebration.

A Voice Poll was recorded as follows: All Ayes

Absent: Bowers

A Voice Poll was recorded as follows: All Ayes

Absent: Bowers

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Goodrich, Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson

Absent: Bowers

Includes the following to be reimbursed from separate bank accounts:

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich

Absent: Bowers

Includes the following to be reimbursed from separate bank accounts:

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich, Hope

Absent: Bowers

Frank Badalamente, 1900 Persimmon Path, commented that he has been reviewing the assessments pertaining to the growth of Delhi Township for over a month, and he spoke about the increase in growth in Delhi Township both in real property and personal property taxes. Mr. Badalamente further commented that as a result of these increases, the state and county are receiving funds from the Township, and he expressed concern that the Township is not receiving any recognition back from these entities.

Supervisor Goodrich recognized government students in the audience from Holt High School.

Add Agenda Item No. 23. – Resolution No. 2004-012, 2004 Refunding Bonds, and that it be moved to Item No. 1.

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated January 20, 2004 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga, an E-mail dated 1/14/04 from ACI Finance (Tom Traciak, CPA), a letter dated January 16, 2004 from Twp. Atty. Patrick J. Berardo, and proposed Resolution No. 2004-012 (ATTACHMENT I).

Tom Traciak, CPA, ACI Finance, commented that when the 1995 Community Services Center Bonds were sold, they were sold at a very good interest rate. The Township is reaching the point where the bonds are callable and there would be a significant dollar savings. Currently, the estimated savings is $160,000 - $165,000, which is not going to make a large impact on the millage that the Township is levying from year-to-year; however, it would be worth pursuing the refunding of the bonds. The exact amount of savings would be determined at the pricing date, which is anticipated to be March 11, 2004. Mr. Traciak further commented that this is a good time to pursue the refinancing of the outstanding 1995 Community Services Center Bonds, because the longer the Township waits, the less savings there will be.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich, Hope, Krepps

Absent: Bowers

Clerk Evan Hope used Power Point computer software to give his 2003 Clerk’s Office annual report.

The Board reviewed memorandums dated January 9, 2004 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga and January 5, 2004 from Robert Scheuerman, P. E., Twp. Engineer (ATTACHMENT II).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich, Hope, Krepps, Sweet

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated January 15, 2004 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga and January 9, 2004 from Fire Chief Rick Royston (ATTACHMENT III).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Anderson, Goodrich, Hope, Krepps Sweet, Ammon

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated January 15, 2004 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga and a letter dated December 4, 2003 from Twp. Atty. J. Richard Robinson (ATTACHMENT IV).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Goodrich, Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated January 15, 2004 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga and a letter dated December 4, 2003 from Twp. Atty. J. Richard Robinson (ATTACHMENT V).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated January 15, 2004 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga and a letter dated December 4, 2003 from Twp. Atty. J. Richard Robinson (ATTACHMENT VI).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich, Hope,

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated January 15, 2004 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga and a letter dated December 4, 2003 from Twp. Atty. J. Richard Robinson (ATTACHMENT VII).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich, Hope, Krepps

Absent: Bowers

A Voice Poll was recorded as follows: All Ayes

Absent: Bowers

Robert Scheuerman, P. E., Twp. Engineer, commented that the first of two resolutions to establish a Streetlight District for Meadow Ridge Subdivision No. 2 was approved at the December 16, 2003 Township Board meeting. Subsequently, the Notice of Hearing was published in the Holt Community News, and notices were mailed to 11 property owners indicating that a Special Assessment District is being considered. Meadow Ridge Subdivision No. 2 has been completed for a couple of years, but the Lansing Board of Water & Light (BW&L) did not process the Streetlighting District until Meadow Ridge Subdivision No. 3 was ready to go. By that time, the subdivision was platted and approved; therefore, the assessment went to the 11 property owners.

Mr. Scheuerman also commented that the proposed Assessment Roll includes the cost for six streetlights. However, the BW&L has eight streetlights that are physically within the property of Phase II; but one of the eight streetlights serves Phase I as much as it does Phase II, and the other streetlight will serve Phase IV as much as it will Phase II. Therefore, those two streetlights are not included in the proposed Streetlighting District, because there would have been a very high assessment per lot. Each phase of Meadow Ridge Subdivision now has an individual Assessment District with its own price. When all six phases of the subdivision are completed in about two or three years, all six phases will be included into one Assessment Roll and all property owners will be paying the same amount.

Mr. Scheuerman commented that the BW&L charges for the installation of the pole in everyone’s annual cost. The Township is paying $147.00 per light per year. In other cases, the developer usually pays the installation fee up front.

Tom Howell 1935 Mockingbird Lane, Meadow Ridge Subdivision No. 2 – spoke in opposition to the additional streetlights. Mr. Howell commented that the developer informed the property owners that streetlights would not be continued throughout the rest of the neighborhood. He expressed concern about a meeting taking place to discuss whether or not it is appropriate to tax the individuals in the neighborhood after the streetlights have already been installed.

Kathy Cole, 1960 Mockingbird Lane, Meadow Ridge Subdivision No. 2 – spoke in opposition to the additional streetlights. Ms. Cole asked why only the original property owners are paying for the installation of the additional streetlights when there are houses along the entire street. Ms. Cole commented that when she moved into the area, she was the second house on the street, and she was assured that no streetlights would be going in. Ms. Cole expressed concern that nobody has asked the property owners about the placement of the streetlights, and she commented that there are two streetlights at the dead-end that goes into an empty field.

Mr. Scheuerman responded that one of the streetlights on the dead-end is not included in the proposed assessment roll. Two of the original eight streetlights were removed from the assessment roll, and the Township is going to pay for them at large until the Streetlight District is consolidated. Mr. Scheuerman commented that everyone on the street is paying for streetlights. There are 11 lots in Subdivision No. 2, and the rest of the property owners in Subdivision No. 3 have already had their assessment roll. Subdivision No. 3 has not been platted and returned to the Township, so the developer is paying for the first year, and then they automatically go to the property owner. Therefore, everyone in Subdivision No.s 1, 2, and 3 have an assessment roll. Subdivisions No. 1 and 3 are already in place, and the Township is going through the two-step process on Subdivision No. 2.

Ms. Cole asked why the developer paid for the first phase and not the second phase. Mr. Scheuerman responded that the BW&L did not write the contract and resolutions to install the streetlights until the developer did Phase No. 3, and by then Phase No. 2 was already platted and approved by the State, so there were individual lots that could be assigned an assessment.

Supervisor Goodrich asked why the developer told the property owners that there wouldn’t be any streetlights. Mr. Scheuerman responded that streetlights are required within subdivisions. Darrell Fecho, Interim Dir. of Community Development/Planner, commented that the Subdivision Control Ordinance requires streetlights. Mr. Scheuerman commented that the Township received a waiver from the developer when he started developing Phases 1 and 2.

Ms. Cole commented that she has lived in Meadow Ridge Subdivision No. 2 for four years and there were no streetlights for the first three years. Supervisor Goodrich responded that the BW&L was behind in their installation schedule. Mr. Scheuerman commented that the Township can only assess the property owners for streetlights that are installed, and he explained the assessment process. The 2004 proposed assessment is $153.69 per year and in 2005 the proposed assessment is $80.19 per year.

Trustee Krepps asked if the Subdivision Control Ordinances specifies that streetlights must be installed at certain distances apart. Mr. Scheuerman responded that the BW&L determines where the streetlights are installed. Ms. Cole suggested that in the future the Township review the BW&L’s streetlight layouts with input from the property owners who will be affected by the installation of the streetlights.

A Voice Poll was recorded as follows: All Ayes

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed memorandums dated January 14, 2004 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga and Robert Scheuerman, P. E., Twp. Engineer (ATTACHMENT VIII).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich, Hope, Krepps, Sweet

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed memorandums dated January 14, 2004 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga and Robert Scheuerman, P. E., Twp. Engineer (ATTACHMENT IX).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Anderson, Goodrich, Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed memorandums dated January 14, 2004 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga and Robert Scheuerman, P. E., Twp. Engineer (ATTACHMENT X).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Goodrich, Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated January 14, 2004 from Twp. Mgr.

Elsinga and January 13, 2004 from Robert Scheuerman, P. E., Twp. Engineer (ATTACHMENT XI).

Robert Scheuerman, P. E., Twp. Engineer, commented that the Consumers Energy Change in Standard Streetlight Contract Request No.’s are the same for Aspen Lakes – Common and Aspen Lakes Estates, Phase I (Resolution No.s 2004-008 & 2004-010), because they are the same Tax I. D. parcel. Both developments are located on the same site and being built by the same developer. The developer wants to split the streetlights between the four different phases of the project.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed memorandums dated January 13, 2004 from Twp. Mgr.

Elsinga and January 9, 2004 from Robert Scheuerman, P. E., Twp. Engineer (ATTACHMENT XII).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich, Hope

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed memorandums dated January 15, 2004 from Twp. Mgr.

Elsinga and October 29, 2003 from Robert Scheuerman, P. E., Twp. Engineer (ATTACHMENT XIII).

Robert Scheuerman, P. E., Twp. Engineer, referred to the letter dated 1/14/04, second paragraph (part of Attachment XIII) that states that there appears to be an obstruction in the bottom of the pipe that would not allow the camera to continue to the end of the pipe at one location about 396’ upstream from Manhole 067-10 towards Manhole 067-11 in Cutter Ct. The obstruction will not allow minimal flow without cleaning the pipe, and Wolverine recommends that the cleaning be done prior to acceptance of the sanitary sewer. Mr. Scheuerman commented that E. T. MacKenzie, the contractor and developer of The Dells, assured him that they have cleaned the pipe. Mr. Scheuerman further commented that he is independently verifying with Township staff that the obstruction in the pipe has been cleared.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich, Hope, Krepps

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed memorandums dated January 15, 2004 from Twp. Mgr.

Elsinga and October 29, 2003 from Robert Scheuerman, P. E., Twp. Engineer (ATTACHMENT XIV).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich, Hope, Krepps, Sweet

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed memorandums dated January 14, 2004 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga and Robert Scheuerman, P. E., Twp. Engineer, and a letter dated January 13, 2004 from Carla Lumberto, Mgr. of DCL Development, LLC (ATTACHMENT XV).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Anderson, Goodrich, Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Goodrich, Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated January 12, 2004 from Dena Fitzgerald, Secretary, Planning & Zoning, Community Development Dept. (ATTACHMENT XVI).

Trustee Sweet referred to a letter dated January 8, 2004 from Wolverine Engineers & Surveyors, Inc. (part of Attachment XVI) that listed several things that needed to be done, and he specifically asked about Item No. 3 relative to three easements; easement to Michigan Bell in Liber 1366, page 79; easement to Consumers Power in Liber 10 MR, Page 500; and an easement to the Ingham County Drain Commission in Liber 68 MR, Page 224. Trustee Sweet asked if copies of these easements have been provided to the Township. Darrell Fecho, Interim Dir. of Community Development/Planner, responded that he has no indication that any documentation has been received by the Township since the January 8^th letter from Wolverine. Mr. Fecho further commented that he believes that the plat approval should be contingent to meeting the requirements of the letters in the Board packet (part of Attachment XVI).

Ryan Clark, 6700 White Clover Lane, East Lansing, commented that he is representing MacKenzie Recycling Corporation regarding the final plat. Mr. Clark commented that representatives of MacKenzie addressed the easements with Maurice Mahieu, P.S., Wolverine Engineers & Surveyors, Inc., and KEBS, Inc, the surveyor of the plat. The Consumers Power easement is an old blanket easement that covers the entire property. Mr. Clark commented that he sent the Township a complete record of their correspondence with Consumers Energy. Mr. Clark further commented that Consumers Energy has agreed to vacate and realign the easement to where the power pole currently sits along the railroad tracks. The Ingham County Drain Commissioner’s easement is the old easement location for the Stimson Drain, which is relocated through the first phase of The Dells Subdivision; everything has been relocated and rebuilt. The vacation of that old easement is in process at the Ingham County Drain Commissioner’s Office, and they have assured us that it would be taken care of. The Michigan Bell Telephone easement is along the south side of Dell Rd. and it is actually all within the road right-of-way of Dell Rd. and Brigantine Ln. as it goes out to Dell Rd. Therefore, it was felt that it wasn’t necessary to include it on the plat.

Supervisor Goodrich expressed concern about the status of the easements Mr. Clark responded that they have been assured by the Ingham County Drain Commissioner’s Office and Consumers Energy that in due time and in due process that the plats would be released from the current record. Trustee Krepps asked Mr. Clark if he has their assurance in writing. Mr. Clark responded in the affirmative, and he commented that the Consumers Energy confirmation was forwarded to the Township. The assurance of the Drain Commissioner’s Office is not in writing, but the Drain Commissioner has signed the final plat knowing that the easement is going to be vacated through their own process.

Mr. Fecho asked Mr. Clark if all three of the easements are vacations of easements from previous conditions, and Mr. Clark responded in the affirmative, with the exception of Michigan Bell Telephone, which is the one in the road right-of-way. Mr. Fecho recommended that the Board approve the final plat subject to receiving a letter from KEBS that the conditions have been met or will be in place.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich

Absent: Bowers

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated January 12, 2004 from Dena Fitzgerald, Secretary, Planning & Zoning, Community Development Dept.

(ATTACHMENT XVII).

Richard Berry, Managing Dir., Berry Development, LLC, commented that this is the last phase of Grovenburg Woods Subdivision.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich, Hope

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Darrell Fecho, Interim Dir. of Community Development/Planner, commented that Zoning Case No. 03-752 was addressed at a previous Township Board meeting (12/16/03) and the last two Planning Commission meetings (12/8/03 & 1/12/04). The recommendation for Parcel A of the three parcels, Case No. 03-752, is from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1B, One-family Low Density Residential. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning (Parcel A) at their December 2003 meeting (12/8/03) by a 5 to 0 vote.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Sweet, Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich, Hope, Krepps

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Darrell Fecho, Interim Dir. of Community Development/Planner, commented that the Township Board (12/16/03 Twp. Bd. mtg.) sent Parcel B back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, because at the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing (12/8/03) on Parcel B, there was only five of the nine Planning Commissioners present, and the vote was 3 to 2 (in favor of denial), so there wasn’t five Planning Commission members that represented an affirmative action on the motion (Planning Commission’s bylaws require five votes in the affirmative for a motion to be considered passed). Parcel B was also sent back to the Planning Commission based upon the discussion of the Township Board (12/16/03 mtg.) regarding transitional zoning.

Mr. Fecho further commented that the Planning Commission, at their January 12, 2004, meeting discussed at length transitional zoning in terms of referring to Page 75 of the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). Following the Planning Commission’s discussion, a motion was made to recommend to the Township Board denial of Zone Case 03-752, Parcel B, A-1, Agricultural, to R-1C, One-family Medium Density Residential, and the Planning Commission made the following findings:

Mr. Fecho commented that the Planning Commission voted 6 – 3 in favor of recommending denial to the Township Board.

Clerk Hope commented that the Planning Commission (1/12/2004 P.C. mtg.) generally didn’t agree that it was transitional zoning. The Planning Commission did bring up the issue of the Cedar Street Corridor study, which could be a valid point, because the study is still underway. Clerk Hope further commented that there is an applicant who is interested in developing the property now, and Clerk Hope said that he doesn’t believe the applicant should have to wait for the completion of the study on the Cedar Street Corridor. Clerk Hope also commented that he reminded the Planning Commission that the Township Board’s motion (12/16/03 mtg.) also asked the Planning Commission to act on the PUD (Special Use Permit No. 03-227) and to bring the PUD back at the same time as the Zoning Case. However, the Planning Commission has a policy that they do not act on PUDs until they know what the zoning is going to be; therefore, the Planning Commission did not consider the Board’s request regarding the PUD. Clerk Hope commented that all Commissioners were present, and that three Commissioners voted against denying the rezoning request on Parcel B.

Trustee Krepps asked if there was any public comments at the Planning Commission mtg. (1/12/04) on this rezoning request, and Clerk Hope responded in the negative. Trustee Sweet responded that he made a comment at the Planning Commission meeting reiterating why the Township Board sent Parcel B back to the Planning Commission. Trustee Sweet commented that he is satisfied with the Planning Commission’s vote, because all of the Planning Commissioners were present and voted on it, and they did discuss transitional zoning.

Clerk Hope commented that he also reminded the Planning Commission that the Township Board would have sent Parcel B back to them even if the Township Board had not amended their motion, because of the Planning Commission’s split vote with only five members.

Supervisor Goodrich asked for clarification on the Cedar Street Corridor study and how it affects this rezoning request, because the area along Cedar Street that would be affected by the Cedar Street Corridor study is being looked at as commercial. Mr. Fecho commented that at the time that the Comprehensive Development Plan went to Public Hearing, the Planning Commission said that they would look at it further after the Cedar Street Corridor study was done. Some of the Planning Commissioners felt that this was still an open issue, and that it would be looked at again.

Trustee Ammon commented that there have been several discussions about density, and he expressed concern about a 10,000 sq. ft. lot being considered as medium density; it should be low density, in his opinion. Treasurer Ammon further commented that he does not have a problem with the proposed change in zone (R-1C).

Trustee Sweet asked about the time line for the completion of the Cedar Street Corridor study. Al McFadyen, DDA Exec. Dir., responded that the Planning Consultant is about four months away from presenting a recommendation. Mr. McFadyen commented that this is the first time he has heard anything about the S. Cedar Street Corridor study, and he commented that this land (College & Cedar) is within the study area; therefore, it is clearly going to be looked at by the Planning Consultant. The Planning Consultant was charged with finding a determination as separating land uses between low and medium density, but the need for a more defined delineation was not anticipated.

Trustee Krepps commented that if the Township Board denies the rezoning as requested by the Planning Commission, what is the prospect for the development. Mr. Fecho responded that the developer previously said that he would need the additional density in order to make the project work. Richard Cooley, Landscape Architect & Planner, representing the Petitioner, Mitchell Fannon and Robert Hubbell, commented that he believes the question to be inappropriate and that the applicant stands behind the rezoning request as submitted. Mr. Cooley further commented that Mr. Fannon and Mr. Hubbell were asked if they would consider R-1B on the whole thing, and the answer was ‘no’.

Mr. Cooley commented that the findings that they made to the Planning Commission and to the Township Board included four things: 1.) The applicant has submitted a parallel plan as requested by the Planning Commission, which shows 168 lots; 2.) The request is based on a transitional zoning districts of R-1B and R-1C, which is in compliance with the CDP text, as well as the future land use plan; 3.) The applicant is addressing and responding to the housing market demand for this size of units. Mr. Cooley commented that he believes that the Township Board’s direction on this rezoning constitutes a responsible position in terms of funding public services, which is all consistent with the CDP charges the Planning Commission in terms of creating a fiscally responsible plan. Mr. Cooley read the mission statement on Pages 6 & 7 of the CDP, and he commented that Page 9 of the CDP addresses the Cedar Street Corridor and the continuing study as one of the reasons that the 1998 CDP should be updated in 2002, and 15 months later the study is still being discussed. The plan is consistent with the economic visions and goals stated on Page 26 of the CDP. Mr. Cooley read from Page 30 of the CDP regarding housing styles and densities; 4.) The rezonings are justified based on changing conditions. Mr. Cooley spoke about some of the changing conditions.

Mr. Cooley commented that the Planning Commission’s findings in their motion (1/12/04 mtg.) claims that Parcel B is contrary to the CDP and future land use map. Mr. Cooley further commented that the proposed project is less than three units per acre, and in terms of the way that the CDP defines low density, the project is low density. Mr. Cooley referred to Item No. 3. in the findings of the Planning Commission, and he commented that the zoning districts are the transitional zoning that is referred to in the CDP. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) is an overlay on top of that zoning, and the PUD becomes the transition between the commercial and industrial along Cedar St. and everything else that is done behind it. So the fact that a PUD in the form of a condominium is being proposed, is a more effective tool than transitional zoning to reduce negative impacts, in his opinion. Mr. Cooley also commented that the companion R-1B and R-1C Districts are transitional. The PUD project is low density and, to that extent, the applicant finds no reason why the Township Board should not approve the Parcel B rezoning to R-1C.

Trustee Krepps asked if Township staff’s recommendation was the same as the Planning Commission’s recommendation that this proposal does not meet the requirements of the CDP, and Mr. Fecho responded in the affirmative. Trustee Krepps commented that he respects the opinion of Township staff and the work that the Planning Commission puts into it before it comes to the Township Board, so he will be voting with them.

Clerk Hope commented that he would be voting in the affirmative to the motion that has been made. Clerk Hope further commented that he understands Trustee Krepps’ comments, but the Township Board does have an opportunity to review it and it has the final say. Clerk Hope also commented that he believes that you have to look at the overall project, which is low density.

Clerk Hope expressed concern that the proposed PUD did not come to the Board for consideration at the same time as this zoning request.

Trustee Sweet commented that in taking into consideration the number of years of experience of some of the Planning Commissioners who voted in favor of denying the request for rezoning and the recommendation from Township staff, that he would be voting against the motion.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Ammon, Anderson, Goodrich, Hope

Nays: Krepps, Sweet

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Darrell Fecho, Interim Dir. of Community Development/Planner, commented that Township staff and the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request for rezoning. The only reason Parcel C was previously postponed was pending the re-review of Parcel B.

Treasurer Ammon commented that the Township Board also requested (on 12/16/03) that the PUD (Special Use Permit No. 03-227) come to the Board at the same time as Zoning Case 03-752. Mr. Fecho responded that the Planning Commission made a motion (1/12/04) to postpone as recommended by staff, and not to consider the zoning recommendation. Staff’s recommendation was that if the zoning scheme proposed in terms of the R-1C and R-1B transition came into play, then the PUD special land use would be appropriate in terms of the number of units that were proposed, and if the

R-1C and R-1B mix was not approved, then the PUD could not be approved because of the increased density issue. Therefore, the zoning of Parcel B influenced whether or not there would be a positive recommendation on the PUD.

Treasurer Ammon asked about the zoning density issue, because they are less than what is allowed by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Fecho responded that special land uses do not require site plan approval, and that site plan approval is based on the underlying zoning. So until the zoning was decided, the site plan that constitutes the PUD, could not be reviewed. Mr. Fecho commented that some of the longstanding members of the Planning Commission pointed out that it has been their policy in the past to have the zoning in place before they review the site plan for a project.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Anderson, Goodrich, Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon

Absent: Bowers

The Board reviewed a letter dated January 12, 2004 from Sandy Draggoo, Exec. Dir., Capital Area Transportation Authority (ATTACHMENT XVIII).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

Ayes: Goodrich, Hope, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Anderson

Absent: Bowers

Supervisor Goodrich distributed a job performance review worksheet packet to each Board member in order to complete the annual performance review for Twp. Mgr. Elsinga. The deadline for returning the evaluations to Supervisor Goodrich or Tricia Vander Ploeg, Administrative Sec’y./Deputy Supervisor, is no later than February 17, 2004. It is anticipated that this annual performance review will be considered at the March 2, 2004 Board meeting.

Supervisor Goodrich reported that Vicki Harrison, Chief Deputy, Ingham County Sheriff’s Office, submitted a summary of the 2003 calls for service for the on-premises liquor license establishments in Delhi Township, as well as the summary of the 2003 Michigan Liquor Control violations for these establishments.

Supervisor Goodrich reported that the Township is hosting the Greater Lansing Urban Planning Forum on Friday, September 10, 2004 at 7:30 a.m.

To date the Treasurer’s Office has collected about $16 million in winter 2003 property taxes.

Clerk Hope referred to the proposed Planned Development Zoning District (Zoning Case 03-746) that the Township Board returned to the Planning Commission on December 16, 2003, and he reported that the Planning Commission sent this zoning case back to committee to discuss some of the density issues that were previously brought up.

Trustee Krepps asked that his home telephone number be changed to 676-2841.

Trustee Sweet asked about the payment ($5,687) listed in the December 30, 2003 Accounts Payable Warrant List for O. William Rye & Co. LLC for job evaluations. Twp. Mgr. Elsinga responded that the payment was for the total cost of services for 2003.

Trustee Sweet also asked about the payment ($2,494.13) listed for emergency lights for a POTW vehicle (2003 Ford). Sandra Diorka, POTW Superintendent, commented that the emergency lights are for the Ford Expedition that was purchased this year. Ms. Diorka further commented that she asked Fire Chief Royston for his recommendations on the emergency lights. Three bids were received, and Mid-Michigan Snow Equipment was the lowest bid. Twp. Mgr. Elsinga asked if the Expedition could be used in the public right-of-way, and Ms. Diorka responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Goodrich asked if the emergency lights could have been installed for less in-house, and Ms. Diorka responded in the negative and she commented that the emergency lights are a specialty item.

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated December 30, 2003 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT XIX).

Twp. Mgr. Elsinga commented that the National Citizens Survey Task Force met on January 7 and January 13, 2004. The information produced from the meetings will be sent to the National Research Center to finalize the customized survey.

The Board reviewed a letter dated January 12, 2004 to Windsor Twp. Supervisor Arthur St. Clair from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT XX).

Twp. Mgr. Elsinga spoke about the letter he sent to Windsor Twp. Supervisor St. Clair about a proposed interjurisdictional agreement with Windsor Township relative to an Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP) and the possibility of extending Delhi Township’s sanitary sewer service to the area west of Waverly Rd. Twp. Mgr. Elsinga commented that Windsor Twp. Supervisor St. Clair presented the information to the Windsor Twp. Board for consideration, and it is anticipated that a response will be forthcoming.

Twp. Mgr. Elsinga commented that last week the Township received an option on a land lease at the POTW site (NW corner) for a proposed cell tower location. Twp. Mgr. Elsinga will be working with the Twp. attorney on this proposed land lease.

The Board reviewed a letter dated December 23, 2003 from Matthew Myers (ATTACHMENT XXI).

Twp. Mgr. Elsinga referred to the discussion that was held at the January 20^th 6:30 p.m. Committee of the Whole – Public Safety meeting regarding Matthew Myers’ request that the Township waive an invoice to Terry Southwick, subcontractor, for a Fire Dept. response call during an incident that occurred while installing a fence around a pool on Mr. Myers’ property. Twp. Mgr. Elsinga commented that he proposes to waive the invoice to Mr. Southwick and transfer the invoice to Matthew Myers, property owner/resident and responsible party for the incident while acting as general contractor of the pool project, and the majority of the Board concurred.

A Voice Poll was recorded as follows: All Ayes

Absent: Bowers

The Regular Board meeting reconvened at 9:39 p.m.

A Voice Poll was recorded as follows: All Ayes

Absent: Bowers

Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.