The Delhi Charter Township Board of Trustees met in a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 in the Multipurpose Room at the Community Services Center, 2074 Aurelius Road, Holt, Michigan. Supervisor Goodrich called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

Members Present: Supervisor Stuart Goodrich, Treasurer Harry Ammon, Clerk Evan Hope, Trustees John Hayhoe, Jerry Ketchum, Paul Krepps, Roy Sweet

Others Present:
John Elsinga, Twp. Mgr.
Al McFadyen, DDA Executive Director
Lt. Jeff Cook, Delhi Div., Ing. County Sheriff’s Office
Mark Jenks, Dir. of Parks & Recreation
Rick Royston, Fire Chief
Sandra Diorka, Superintendent of Public Services
Steve Hudson, Assessor
Tracy Carney-Miller, Dir. of Community Development
J. Richard Robinson, Twp. Attorney
Tricia Vander Ploeg, Admin. Assistant/Dep. Supervisor
Amy Finch, Assistant Twp. Clerk/Deputy Clerk


SET/ADJUST AGENDA

HOPE MOVED THAT WE (THE BOARD) MOVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 AFTER AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

A Voice Poll was recorded as follows:
All Ayes
MOTION CARRIED


REAPPOINTMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – GARY SMITH

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated July 12, 2006 from Supervisor Goodrich (ATTACHMENT I).

KREPPS MOVED TO REAPPOINT GARY SMITH TO THE DELHI TOWNSHIP DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD AND THE DELHI TOWNSHIP BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A FOUR-YEAR TERM, EFFECTIVE JULY 21, 2006 – JULY 21, 2010.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich
MOTION CARRIED


REAPPOINTMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – THEODORE DARBOR

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated July 12, 2006 from Supervisor Goodrich (ATTACHMENT II).

HAYHOE MOVED TO REAPPOINT THEODORE DARBOR TO THE DELHI TOWNSHIP DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD AND THE DELHI TOWNSHIP BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A FOUR-YEAR TERM, EFFECTIVE JULY 21, 2006 – JULY 21, 2010.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Hope, Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe
MOTION CARRIED


REAPPOINTMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – KIMBERLYN COSGROVE

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated July 12, 2006 from Supervisor Goodrich (ATTACHMENT III).

SWEET MOVED TO REAPPOINT KIMBERLYN COSGROVE TO THE DELHI TOWNSHIP DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD AND THE DELHI TOWNSHIP BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A FOUR-YEAR TERM, EFFECTIVE JULY 21, 2006 – JULY 21, 2010.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope
MOTION CARRIED


APPOINTMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – DIANNE WARFIELD

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated July 13, 2006 from Supervisor Goodrich (ATTACHMENT IV).

AMMON MOVED TO APPOINT DIANNE WARFIELD TO THE DELHI TOWNSHIP DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD AND THE DELHI TOWNSHIP BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, EFFECTIVE JULY 21, 2006; EXPIRING JULY 21, 2010.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum
MOTION CARRIED


FY 2005 ANNUAL REPORT – ASSESSING DEPARTMENT

Steve Hudson, Assessor, gave the Assessing Department 2005 Annual Report (ATTACHMENT V).


UNFINISHED BUSINESS

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-016 – INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER SPENDING RESOLUTION – HEATHER HAVEN DRAIN

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated June 12, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT VI).

SWEET MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-016 WHICH AUTHORIZES THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER TO SPECIAL ASSESS THE TOWNSHIP AND PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG HEATHER HAVEN DRAIN FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS OF SAID DRAIN.

Supervisor Goodrich stated that this item was discussed at the June 20, 2006 Board meeting. At that meeting, the Board decided to postpone the adoption of the resolution until more information was obtained.

Patrick Lindemann, Ingham County Drain Commissioner, stated that Heather Haven Drain is a drain that serves Heather Haven subdivision. Within the subdivision are a series of stormwater ponds owned by the Drainage District. One pond will be treated this year. Mr. Lindemann stated that with the other maintenance items performed on this drain this year, his office is now in the position where they can not effectively treat this pond this year unless a resolution is approved to exceed the allowable $2,500 per mile per drain per year. Mr. Lindemann stated that this is a two mile long drain. The cost to treat the pond is not expected to exceed $5,000 over the allowable limit.

Supervisor Goodrich stated that in the past it was believed that the property owners that backed up to these ponds owned the ponds. Mr. Lindemann stated that the developer actually owned the ponds. When the developer could not keep the ponds treated they were abandoned and the Drain Commissioner obtained the ponds.

Supervisor Goodrich stated that there are two ponds. Only one of the ponds will be treated this year. The neighbors had already contracted to have the second pond cleaned.

Mr. Lindemann stated that everyone in the drainage district would be assessed. There will not be a discount to the property owners who were previously treating the pond.

Trustee Ketchum questioned if the property owners had been notified of this meeting. Cecelia Kramer, Deputy Drain Commissioner, stated that they have been in contact with some of the neighbors.

Mr. Lindemann stated that a community wide mailing has not been done. Ms. Kramer stated that part of this permit application process includes a letter to each of the neighbors to let them know when the treatment will take place, etc.

Supervisor Goodrich asked if there would be a hearing in the Drain Commissioner’s office regarding this assessment.

Mr. Lindemann stated that the residents have the right to contact either his office or the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to ask questions or voice concerns. The Drain Code, in passing the resolution, does not call for a public hearing.

Trustee Ketchum stated that if the Board approves the resolution this evening, the property owners would not have an opportunity to voice their concerns to the Board.

Mr. Lindemann stated that currently there is not a firm number on the cost to treat this pond. When the properties are assessed there will be a day of review. Mr. Lindemann stated that there is a maintenance process within the Drain Code that provides the Commissioner the opportunity to spend money on drains without a hearing. Mr. Lindemann further stated that the maintenance process is performed regularly without notification to the residents.

Mr. Lindemann stated that through the process of passing the resolution, the Township places the item on the agenda, it is discussed at the meeting, the meetings are posted and to that extent the residents are aware of the issue. Mr. Lindemann stated that some of the residents have been in contact with his office and are in favor of the pond being treated. Mr. Lindemann stated that this is a reaction to the property owners’ action.

Frank Badalamente, 1900 Persimmon Path, Holt, asked if the original pond was the responsibility of the developer.

Mr. Lindemann explained that the pond is part of the platted subdivision stormwater system and the responsibility of the Drain Commissioner’s office for purposes of managing stormwater. Some Subdivision Associations own the underlying pond property and will treat the ponds. In this case, they did not own the underlying property therefore they could not apply to the DEQ for the treatment of this pond.

Mr. Lindemann stated that work has been done on this drain this year so that the original $2,500 per mile per drain has been exceeded thus additional money is needed to treat the drain.

Mr. Badalamente asked who would pay these costs?

Mr. Lindemann stated that the property owners within the system, the Road Commission and the Township at large will be assessed. The assessment is calculated on the percent of the property owned in addition to a run off calculation.

Supervisor Goodrich stated that it is his understanding that the Township will be assessed approximately 15%. Mr. Lindemann stated that the Township would be assessed an at large benefit to be determined by the Drain Commissioner. The typical average mean over the years for benefit derived to the greater public health, safety and welfare has been approximately 15%.

Supervisor Goodrich asked how many ponds the Drain Commissioner owns in the Township. Mr. Lindemann stated that he believes there are two additional ponds located in Delhi Township that are owned by the Drain Commissioner.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum, Krepps
MOTION CARRIED


NEW BUSINESS

NOTIFICATION TO DELHI CHARTER TOWNSHIP “ORDER OF DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 423(3) OF THE MICHIGAN DRAIN CODE, 1956 PA40, AS AMENDED: MCL 280.1 ET SEQ”

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated July 13, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT VII).

HAYHOE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-019 WITH REGARDS TO THE CLAIM OF APPEAL REGARDING COOK AND THORBURN AND HANCOCK DRAIN.

(The following discussion was transcribed verbatim per request of J. Richard Robinson, Twp. Attorney).

Goodrich: Ok, Mr. Robinson, I’ll turn it right over and let you lead off here.

J. Richard Robinson, Twp. Attorney: As you know the Township has received a notification from the Drain Commissioner’s office of an Order of Determination issued by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality under Section 423 of the Drain Code. As I explained during the Committee of the Whole, that order is treated as if it is, was a Order of Determination from a Board of Determination and the statutes provide that we would have an opportunity to appeal that order under Section 72.

We have provided the Board with a draft of a Claim of Appeal, which outlines the issues. Briefly stated, we don’t believe that the DEQ order is in total compliance with the statute that governance’s it. Respectively, we don’t agree with Mr. Lindemann’s interpretation of that order as to the apportionment of the costs and so those are the primary issues that we will be raising in that appeal.

Oddly enough, the appeal must be filed in the probate court as opposed to the circuit court for this particular type of an appeal and essentially if you want to contest this order you have no choice but to file the appeal. Time is very limited. We have twenty days from the date we received it. That will expire on Friday. We are prepared to file the appeal now. Mr. Lindemann will receive a copy of that when it is filed and we will proceed accordingly.

Goodrich: Any questions from the Board. Anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this.

Lindemann: As you know, we did a petition project in the Cook and Thorburn Drain some years ago in an attempt to meet a Order of Determination by a Board of Determination which declared that there was some need to relieve flooding on Cedar Street. In an effort to design that project we worked with our engineer consultant, worked also with your staff and we came up with the design submitted for DEQ permits, and I’m going to make a kinda of story out of this if it’s ok.

The process of design required us to obtain several DEQ permits ok, both in working in the flood plain, altering some wetland issues and doing some inland lake and stream alterations. The original route and course of the drain and some of the fixes that I felt were necessary were denied by DEQ and we had to then subsequently come up with alternative design which forced us to build box culverts underneath Cedar Street and reroute the Hancock and the Cook and Thorburn Drain directly into the first, the most southern pond of the Cedar Lake chain of ponds. The outcome of that led to some pollution loading in a really heavy May rain storm of the year it was finished which resulted in a reaction in the lake which turned a lot of the sediment black and clouded the lake up.

Subsequent to that, the DEQ got involved and was issuing me citations and told me to alter the drain. I can’t just alter the drain. First of all, the DEQ told me to build it that way. I built it that way, now they’re telling me to un-build it that way, or un-build what they told me to build. The project cost was 1.2 million dollars and now they want me to spend another 1.2 million dollars to undo what I did, which was in compliance with their permits.

Through a series of communications with DEQ, we had, I think somewhere in the vicinity of about 12 to 15 actual meetings with them and probably in the vicinity of 60 to 100 phone calls with the various personnel. The enforcement division of DEQ is quite adamant that they were going to order me to spend 1.2 million dollars without any due process and I refused to do it and I refused to budge. So they looked at the, my attorney for the drainage district wrote a letter to DEQ and said, look if you want him to change, if you want him to change what you already told him to do, then you are going to have to do it in accordance with the process because Mr. Lindemann has no pocket of cash that he can just do that with even if he wanted to do it. So they came up with this Order of Determination which then starts a process up again and in terms of the assessment part of that there has not been a determination of assessment or whose burden it is to pay. We have to go through that process after we figure out what we’re going to do. To the Order of Determination, so part of your statements were incorrect, in that we have not determined that. It’s my desire not to go back to the citizens after they first paid their first one. This is not a desire of mine. That’s not what I ordered and I have not ordered an assessment on this at all. So having said that, the Township and I have worked together with CMU, Central Michigan University, which has a very fine water and limnology department and have done a series of water quality tests and testing throughout the water shed. We haven’t got the final determination from them or the final report. We expect it soon, John, when, I don’t know a couple of weeks they keep telling me or whatever you keep telling me, so I hope to have it soon. And rather than wait for that test and to take a holistic approach to solving the pollution loading problem that takes place in this water shed, the DEQ has seen fit to give me that order. I am duty bound then to let you know then you have the right to appeal, which is fine with me; you go right ahead and do that. I will, after you have passed this resolution, contact the DEQ and let them know that there is going to be an appeal and they can prepare their documents and we can move forward to that appeal process through probate court. Quite frankly, the Cook and Thorburn Watershed is a very large watershed. Issues like the Kitsmiller property and the sediment loading that it contributed in it’s process of remodeling, the dead auto car place, whatever it is called, Schrams, I guess it, contributes oil and a variety of other things through the system. If you are really going to stop the pollution, then you really need to go after those contributors of the pollution and we need to, Berry Farms is another contributor of pollution that’s in the same watershed and they have violated four state laws and one local ordinances, not local ordinances but local standards in carrying out their exercise to mold that land into a subdivision and they‘re in this watershed. At some point, we have to just stop putting pollution in the system and start taking care of it and that’s what’s probably going to wind up coming out of this process of your appeal. We’re going to have those discussions. Your experts are going to say something, their experts are going to say something and I’m setting in the back and saying, look, as soon as you guys get done telling me what you want to do, I’ll do it.

But until you get to the point where you all agree, I’m not doing anything and I’m going to spend whatever little money I have and I’ll come up with a few ideas and plans but I’m not going to execute some engineering costs. I’m not going to try to execute a fix to this until everybody gets around a table and says we want that body of water to be whole and protected and we are going up into the watershed and taking care of people like the Dick Berry violations and the Kitsmiller violations and all the other violations that have taken place that harm the system. The direct violation of these laws is what’s causing those problems. And I believe that we can fix this problem, it’s going to take some money. I have no clue how I’m going to wind up assessing that in the end and you have a right to appeal too when I finally do that. But in the end we are going to make this system whole and protect those bodies of water. And we are going to protect the integrity of that drain. But I’m not going to just willy nilly, roll over and do exactly what the DEQ wants me to do because I don’t think that’s going to solve the problem. If I move the pollution from going into that lake at that point and move it down and put it into another lake down stream, all I’m doing is moving the pollution from one place to another, I haven’t solved the pollution problem. And I’m not going to spend millions of dollars to do that, I think it’s a waste of money and accomplishes nothing.

So I’m looking forward to this process and I’m looking forward to hearing your comments at the hearing when we get it set up, so you pass the resolution tonight, we’ll take it to the probate court and I think Judge Economy will do whatever the law demands that he do which I think is to appoint a three person panel. And that Appeal Board, and I just went through one of those today on an assessment in Meridian Township, it was about eight, six hours or something like that today, in the same kind of a Board that you are going to wind up being in. It’s an open process so I think everybody will have their say. Does that kind of explain where we were and where we are? Ok. I just wanted to add one thing. Your staff, John and I have talked and I think that we can fix this thing without spending the initial million some odd dollars. But it is going to require us to take a firm stand on these polluters, I mean people like the Berry Farm people, people like Kitsmiller that consistently put crap in the system, winds up souring the system for everybody else. It costs a fortune if they don’t obey the law and do it right. We need to fix that. At some point, we are going to have to admit that and just make it happen right.

Elsinga: Would you mind sharing with the Board your role as Drain Commissioner, the office of the Drain Commission relative to soil erosion permits, as you are basically an agent of the State of Michigan on that topic.

Lindemann: Part 91 of Public Act 451 lays out a law that was demanded, it’s a mandate by the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972. It’s spells out that each state in the United States has to form a system by which soil erosion, the largest contributor to the non-point source pollution elements in our waters of our country. It’s about 65 to 85% depending on where you are in the country. Whether you are in Las Vegas versus California or Michigan. Soil erosion due to construction activity is the largest contributor to the pollution of the waters of the nation. The largest. So they set up this system. In the state of Michigan, they have allocated the burden to the counties. The County on the behalf of the State of Michigan has to designate a soil erosion enforcement division or officer, called a County Enforcing Agent. They picked the Drain Commissioner in this county. In most counties it is the Drain Commissioner. In some counties, it’s the, I think in two counties or three counties, it might be the Road Commission. And another county it’s the Conversation Department. But, nonetheless, there is a county enforcing agent.

My job is to enforce that state law. And it is on behalf of the State of Michigan that you have to pull those permits. It is against the law to get a building permit until you get a soil erosion permit. You can not move a shovel full of dirt until you put all the BMP’s in place. In the case of Berry Farms, they did not do any of that. They violated so many ways, they violated the system. And they, that was the problem with Kitsmiller, the same thing. They just didn’t want to follow the rules. So the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act spells out that my office has to issue these permits to anyone that moves the volume of dirt spelled out within Public Act 451 Part 91. And it’s very clear in the rule and within the Act itself what has to be done. When they are in violation, I have a responsibility and a duty to shut their site down. In order to get out of violation, they have to fix the problem, pay the fine and move forward, resubmit their plans to get a new permit. And we do that, people don’t like it but that’s just the way it is and it’s the law. It’s a good law. You can see, use Cedar Lake as an example of what happens when you don’t follow it. So does that help explain that process? It doesn’t have anything to do with the Drain Code, doesn’t have anything to do with the Plat Act, doesn’t have anything to do any other law. It’s a law that stands on it’s own and I am obligated by order of the County to enforce it and I will enforce it.

Goodrich: Paul

Krepps: Just a response to that. The particular companies that you are siting as examples there, is there anything that is preventing them from facing consequences for what you, what you say are being instances of pollution on a reoccurring basis.

Lindemann: If they continue to, ya, with Kitsmiller we spent months working their problems out, months working their problems out. They paid, they paid more fines, I waived one of the fines, but I can’t do that forever. Eventually, they have to pay the piper and do it right. The problem is that nobody likes this law and I’m the enforcer of it so therefore I become the bad guy. But the reality is that it has to be done and we’re going to write the citations if we have to and we are going to get them the permits if they submit things right. The engineering companies that submit the permits on behalf of the developers that pull these permits typically don’t have all the required data on their plans so we have to reject them. The law provides us thirty days to approve or reject the plan. So they submit it. I have a stack of them about this high that my staff is trying to go through. And they are complicated plans, some of them. You can’t just whip them out. And if you, it’s last in, you know, first in, first served. So who ever is on the top of the pile when you come in you go to the bottom of the pile. So we process them in that fair manner. I don’t know why someone else should have to wait because you took your time getting your permit application in. We encourage developers to bring their development plans to us early so that we can help them put the permit together. Show them the things they need. Some of them do, very few of them do, but some do. Most of them just submit them and they leave off, the law says that I have to have a north arrow on the drawing. They leave the north arrow off. I mean, it is just incredible to me how you can pay an engineer and not have a north arrow or a scale drawing submitted for your permit. And that’s what the law says you have to have, so we reject them and now they’ve got to go back to the bottom of the pile. And it just irritates them all and I’ve apologized for any of that, but that’s just the way it is. I’m not going to put someone else at the bottom of the pile because they can’t put a north arrow on their plans. I don’t feel sorry for them.

Krepps: Now, the violations that you gave us examples from, Berry Farms, do they, do they face consequences?

Paul Pratt, Ingham County Deputy Drain Commissioner: I’ve got the Berry Farms packet.

Lindemann: Because this was brought up last time, I wanted to bring these copies, there are copies for everybody. There should be three documents. They violated Section 303 of the Federal uh State Public Act 451, Section 301 and they violated Section 91 and also 31.

Krepps: And what are the consequences?

Lindemann: The consequences from my office is that they have to pay twice the initial fee for their permit which is $1,410 and re-inspection fee of $250 and they go back to the bottom of the pile.

Krepps: So in telling us, cause I’m getting back to your point where you said that at some point the source of the pollution have to be addressed.

Lindemann: Uh huh.

Krepps: Right, so and then you described your role as the Enforcement Officer in those situations. Is there any obligation of the Township Board or the Township Government in this action? Or you are just telling us that you are going to be enforcing this and you’re letting us know that’s going to happen?

Lindemann: I’m letting you know that this is going to happen. You do not have anything to do with enforce Part 91. However, your role in Part 91 is to certainly educate the people who come in with site plans, let them know that they are going to have to get all those permits. And typically, people will spend a year negotiating with the bank to arrange money to build a subdivision. They come in the day before the bulldozers arrive and want to get this permit. It’s just impossible; we can’t put it out. So they get irritated, then they put sloppy stuff in front of us and we have to reject it. Now they’re back to the bottom of the pile and they still have the bulldozers waiting. They get impatience and they go out and move the dirt anyway. Then I have to shut them down. Now they not only have to resubmit and get the thirty-day stuff but they have to go through a process of being un-penalized which means we have to lift the Cease and Desist Order which is another 10 or 15 days. And it’s just a process that has, and there is no other way to streamline the process, I don’t know how to do it.

But your department shouldn’t issue grading permits, building permits, or any other permit which allows them to change the character of the land and create loose soil until this permit is had and obtained, posted on site and they have installed what we call the BMP’s or Best Management Practices whether it’s silt fencing or check dams or whatever other BMP’s have to be installed to protect the integrity of the waters of the state, have to be installed before they can dig dirt. In the case of Berry Farms, they not only went out of the permitted disturbed area, but they did it without putting up the BMP’s and they violated a variety of other things. And quite frankly, I had Mr. Berry in my office, I sat him at the table, I listened to his story, I even waived the fees so he could get back into the system once. And then he went right out and violated it again; I have no sympathy for it at this point. He’s going to have to get all of his DEQ permits, satisfy the flood plain, satisfy the wetland and the Inland Lake and Stream Act before I will look issuing a Part 91. Quite frankly, I don’t trust that they’re going to stay within the boundaries that they are permitted and I don’t trust that they’re going to get their permits and stay out of the waters of the State and protected areas on that site. And so as soon as they bring me their satisfaction from the DEQ I will satisfy them with a soil permit but until that happens they’re still in limbo.

Goodrich: I would like to eliminate any further discussion from Berry Farms at this point, it’s not on the agenda. We’ve heard what we need to do as far as what they need to do. As far as Berry Farm’s situation that will be brought up at a later date I’m sure to us. It is not an agenda item this evening.

Krepps: Ok

Lindemann: But it does have something to do with Cook and Thorburn and I appreciate that.

Goodrich: Yes it does. And I think your explanation was excellent. And I think also too that it should be pointed out too that what happened with Kitsmillers was taken care of, was straighten out. Some problems happened at the beginning. A lot of that was the engineering as you indicated it was.

Lindemann: It’s almost always the engineering
Goodrich: Why it was the engineering, it’s been around for years, but he did not, he didn’t engineer well at all.

Lindemann: You get what you pay for.

Goodrich: Unfortunately, Mr. Kitsmiller sells trailers but he doesn’t do much as far as engineering. He sort of put it into his hands and it didn’t, it didn’t go well.

Ketchum: One general question. Doesn’t our site plan review specify that there is permits required from the drainage

Goodrich: Sure does. And that is also if you think back when some of this was happening, now as far as the situation with Mr. Berry I’m not sure about that but as far as Mr. Kitsmiller, that was taking place when we were in a turmoil here and we really did not have people in place to do all of those things and look at those things in the proper manner. I think, I think that we can safely say that that sort of thing will probably not happen again out of Delhi Township. We have a department, we have a person looking at that and Tracy and that department is much better put together today than it was four years ago, five years ago. And I think you would agree with that.

Lindemann: I would agree with that, yes.

Goodrich: Thank you.

Elsinga: You have a representative at our site plan meetings, like tomorrow someone will be there to educate what the needs are.

Lindemann: We try to attend as many meetings as possible to, I’m not in the way of their development, I just want them to get the proper permits to get them done right, that’s all. And we’re here to serve you. I’m a County agency that acts on your behalf for stormwater and soil erosion and you know we’re here to serve you so however we can work together better that’s what we want.

Goodrich: Any other questions from

Krepps: Uh huh.

Goodrich: Paul

Krepps: Who’s responsible for reporting and enforcing pollution that doesn’t involve moving dirt. Like you mentioned that auto parts company that might be discharging pollutants into the system, who’s responsible for that?

Lindemann: There is, it depends on whether or not the, if it’s in a county drain or in an inland lake or stream it’ll either be myself or the Department of Environmental Quality. In some cases, depending on the location of the pollution and the type of pollution, the County Health Department will also get involved. If it’s raw sewage, if it’s a variety of other health hazards kinds of things that fall under their hazardous condition ordinance, the county ordinance for public health, then they will work in tandem with me to resolve the issue. The Drain Code allows me to go after pollution as long as the, if it is in a county drain, the discharge is happening in a county drain in such a manner that it will either impair or add to the cost of the maintenance of the drain or result in some health danger in some fashion, then I have a right to put, the Drain Code gives me the authority to put the proverbial cork in the end their pipe and then go after cleaning it up and making them pay for it. So the polluter, I have the authority to assess that value directly on the polluter itself.

Krepps: And my last question has to do with, you mentioned the fact that from a Township’s perspective, we or our Planning Department, we need to make sure that before we’re issuing permits to move dirt or whatever that the permits have been approved by your office. Is that correct?
Lindemann: Not your permits, but that they get a soil permit from us first before you issue the permit. If someone comes in to get a grading permit, that’s a massive earth movement, they should come into our office first and get a soil erosion permit explaining what they want to do and then come to you and say that I now have my soil permit. I’m ready to install my BMP’s and I need a grading permit from you. The first permit they should always get is the soil erosion and sedimentation control permit.

Krepps: Ok. So my question to you is, from your observations, is that the way it works now?

Lindemann: It’s the way it works now. Ten years ago it wasn’t. Today it is. All the Townships now are in compliance. And we have had meetings with all the Township personnel building people and they all understand the law now and they all are doing their best to make sure that that happens. Occasionally, you get a weekend bulldozer guy that has a hydro-hoe or whatever on his own and he’s on Saturday and Sunday moving a lot of dirt. We don’t see him you know. The Township doesn’t know about. But yes, generally speaking that if they have to come in and get a permit from the Township, the Township’s now tell them to come and make sure they are clear with the State law first. And it’s worked pretty well I have to say. You have a good department too and you should be proud of your people, they work really well.

Goodrich: Very good. Anybody else in the audience who would like to speak to this? Roll Call Vote.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet
MOTION CARRIED


REFUND FOR REZONING APPLICATION FEE – CRAFT CARE HOME

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated July 14, 2006 from Treasurer Ammon (ATTACHMENT VIII).

AMMON MOVED TO REFUND THE APPLICATION FEE FOR REZONING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000 TO CRAFT CARE HOME AT 1800 CEDAR STREET DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE TOWNSHIP MODIFIED THE ZONING ORDINANCE CREATING A LEGAL NON-CONFORMITY WITHOUT REZONING THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME TO A DISTRICT IN WHICH THE USE WOULD BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon
MOTION CARRIED


APPLICATION FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY – HOLT HOMETOWN FESTIVAL

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated July 12, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT IX).

HAYHOE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT FROM HOLT HOMETOWN, INC. TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 26, 2006 AT THE HOLT HOMETOWN FESTIVAL.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich
MOTION CARRIED


AGREEMENT FOR LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT BETWEEN THE VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN HUNTLEY/BERKLEY SQUARE SUBDIVISION

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated July 14, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT X).

SWEET MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT FOR LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF INGHAM COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS AND DELHI CHARTER TOWNSHIP FOR VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN BERKLEY/HUNTLEY SQUARE SUBDIVISION AT THE COST OF $305,346.00 (TOWNSHIP’S SHARE BEING $161,738.74).

Ketchum asked if the Township could require the Road Commission to pave the road so that it was level with the manhole covers.

Supervisor Goodrich stated that the Township would be spending $25,896.24 more than anticipated for this project due to the price of oil.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Hope, Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe
MOTION CARRIED


ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – WOODED VALLEY, SECOND CONSIDERATION (PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 597)

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated June 14, 2006 from Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development (ATTACHMENT XI).

HOPE MOVED UPON SECOND CONSIDERATION TO SUPPORT THAT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5.23.2 OF THE DELHI CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE THE DELHI TOWNSHIP BOARD HEREBY FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, KNOWN AS WOODED VALLEY, RESULTS IN A RECOGNIZABLE AND SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT BOTH TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THE ULTIMATE USERS OF THE SITE, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:

1. THE LONG-TERM PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND NATURAL FEATURES BY MINIMIZING THE LOSS OF TREES ON THE SITE WHICH WOULD TYPICALLY RESULT FROM DEVELOPMENT, THE PRESERVATION OF WETLAND AREAS AND HABITAT, AND

2. THE CREATION OF APPROXIMATELY 6.93 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, REPRESENTING APPROXIMATELY 25.76% OF THE ACREAGE WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN VIA THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL IN THE AREA OF THE TOWNSHIP THAT IS ANTICIPATED TO REMAIN PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PREVENTING THE CONVERSION OF NON-URBANIZED LAND IN OUTLYING AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY.

AND THAT THE REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM THE DELHI CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN A HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENT AND THAT THE SITE PLAN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING ANY PERMITTED MODIFICATIONS.
FURTHER, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WOODED VALLEY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF 26.9 ACRES IN THE 4300 BLOCK OF WILLOUGHBY ROAD (TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-11-376-011 AND 33-25-05-11-354-011) PURSUANT TO THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 5.23.2 AND SECTION 5.23.3 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR JUNE 12, 2006 MEETING. THIS ACTION WILL HAVE THE SAME AFFECT AS A REZONING, CHANGING THE PROPERTY’S ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM R-1D, ONE AND TWO FAMILY HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PD 06-01, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. ALL OF THE DIMENSIONAL DEVIATIONS FROM THE UNDERLYING ZONING ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND HAVE BEEN CLEARLY INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN, AND

2. THAT THE TOWNSHIP ZONING MAP BE AMENDED TO REPRESENT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS “PD06-01” AND THAT THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SPECIFICALLY APPROVED AND PRESENTED ON THE FINAL PLANS PRESENTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTED WITH A JUNE 6, 2006 REVISION DATE, AND

3. THAT THE PROJECT RECEIVE PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND

4. THAT THE PROJECT RECEIVE THE SOIL EROSION CONTROL PERMIT FROM THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, THEREBY REMOVING THE “CEASE AND DESIST” ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED BY THAT OFFICE FOR THIS PROPERTY, AND

5. THAT THE TOWNSHIP AND THE DEVELOPER SHALL EXECUTE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.23.8(6) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE IMPROVEMENTS. (ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 597).

Comments were made regarding the large number of trees that were removed from this property.

Mitch Fannon, representative of Wooded Valley, LLC, stated that the trees that were removed were inside building envelopes and in the road right of way. Supervisor Goodrich asked if some trees would be replaced after the development was completed. Mr. Fannon answered in the affirmative.

Twp. Mgr. Elsinga stated that possibly in the future, a forester would be hired on behalf of the Township and paid for by the developer, to be on site during tree removal. Mr. Fannon stated that the developer did hire a forester to initiate the tree cutting process. The forester determined that there were only two trees taken down that should not have been.

Treasurer Ammon stated that he agrees with Twp. Mgr. Elsinga in hiring a forester on behalf of the Township.

Mr. Fannon spoke of the difficulties in developing this property.

John Drolett, 2386 Anchor Court, commented that the developer was not obligated to develop the property.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope
MOTION CARRIED


TENTATIVE PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM – WOODED VALLEY

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated June 14, 2006 from Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development (ATTACHMENT XII).

HAYHOE MOVED TO APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.14 OF THE DELHI CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE PROJECT REFERRED TO AS “WOODED VALLEY” CONSISTING OF 26.9 ACRES LOCATED IN THE 4300 BLOCK OF WILLOUGHBY ROAD (33-25-05-11-376-011 AND 33-25-05-11-354-011). THE PROJECT WILL CONTAIN 117 SITE CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND APPROXIMATELY 6.93 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE AND WILL BE AN INSEPARABLE COMPONENT OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT KNOWN BY THE SAME NAME. UPON REVIEW THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED THAT THE CONDOMINIUM PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT KNOW BY THE SAME NAME (PD06-01).

Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development, stated that the tentative preliminary condominium could not be approved until the planned development was approved.

Trustee Sweet questioned if a sidewalk agreement or restrictive fund would be seen in the future for this property. Twp. Mgr. Elsinga stated that there would be a utility agreement with a sidewalk agreement included.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum
MOTION CARRIED


PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – CASE NO. 06-812 - 3521 WILLOUGHBY ROAD – TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-13-426-001 (8.4 ACRES), AND VACANT LAND ON COLLEGE ROAD, TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-13-200-007 (60.28 ACRES), JANICE RAZET, FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL, TO R1-C, ONE-FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, INTRODUCTION AND FIRST CONSIDERATION

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated July 11, 2006 from Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development (ATTACHMENT XIII).

HOPE MOVED UPON INTRODUCTION AND FIRST CONSIDERATION, TO APPROVE THE REZONING OF CASE NO. 06-812, 3521 WILLOUGHBY ROAD, TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-13-426-001 (8.4 ACRES) AND VACANT LAND ON COLLEGE ROAD, TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-13-200-007 (60.28 ACRES), JANICE RAZET, FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL, TO R1-C, ONE-FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR JULY 10, 2006 MEETING, BASED ON IT BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

Trustee Krepps stated that the original staff recommendation was to rezone the northern part of this property from A-1 to R1-B and the southern portions to R1-C. This recommendation was based on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which shows the division of low density and medium density residential roughly coinciding with the half-quarter line traversing through the north half of Section 13. Trustee Krepps asked where the half-quarter line traversed through the north half of Section 13.

Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development, showed Trustee Krepps the area in question. The FLUM proposed for the northern part, low density residential and everything south as medium density.

Trustee Krepps stated that the Planning Commission’s recommendation would be contrary to the FLUM. Ms. Miller stated that when the FLUM was redone, as a part of the amendments to the Master Plan, the Township decided that since there was the ability to do so, it would make sense to overlay the FLUM directly over the parcel map with the understanding that it was meant to show people where locationally those lines were in relative location to the others. Ms. Miller stated that in the past the parcel map was never part of the FLUM.

Ms. Miller stated that in retrospect, maybe that was not the best idea because the tendency is to think about those designations of the FLUM of broad categories of low, medium or high density as being specifically along those property lines. A FLUM is not intended to be parcel specific.

Ms. Miller reiterated the Planning Commission’s action at their July 10, 2006 meeting.

Trustee Krepps stated that the surrounding areas are A-1, so he does not understand the R1-C zoning in this area. Ms. Miller stated that the intensive usage of the church property as well as the north and the east sides of this property has fairly busy roads.

Trustee Krepps questioned if the R1-C zoning was consistent with the FLUM. Ms. Miller stated that it was consistent with the Master Plan in its entirety. Ms. Miller further stated that there are many communities that zone properties differently than represented on the FLUM. Ms. Miller continued, stating that she does not have a lot of problem with this property being zoned differently than is represented on the FLUM provided that the goals and objectives of the Master Plan text are being met, which is to promote residential development in this area at a reasonable density and in a consistent fashion that is existing.

Trustee Krepps stated that last year, Ms. Miller asked the Board to change the zone of specific parcels in order to conform them to the FLUM. Ms. Miller responded that during the creation of that Master Plan, there were a number of properties that had been previously rezoned or were already zoned in a manner that were different than what was designated on the Master Plan. So when the FLUM was amended, those properties were re-designated to be consistent with what the current zoning was.

Treasurer Ammon stated that A-1 is a holding zoning for whatever kind of development may occur.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope
Nay: Sweet, Ketchum, Krepps
MOTION CARRIED


PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – CASE NO. 06-813 – 4147 AND 4329 KELLER ROAD – TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-14-401-002 AND 33-25-05-14-401-001 (25.71 ACRES) FROM IW, INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE, AND R1-D, ONE AND TWO-FAMILY HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TO IM, INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING, INTRODUCTION AND FIRST CONSIDERATION

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated July 11, 2006 from Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development (ATTACHMENT XIV).

HAYHOE MOVED UPON INTRODUCTION AND FIRST CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE REZONING OF CASE NO. 06-813, 4147 AND 4329 KELLER ROAD, TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-14-401-002 AND 33-25-05-14-401-001 (25.71 ACRES) FROM IW, INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE, AND R1-D, ONE AND TWO-FAMILY HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TO IM, INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR JULY 10, 2006 MEETING, BASED ON IT BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER PLAN INCLUDING THE INTENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development, stated that the larger piece of this property contains an existing building that is approximately 220,000 square feet and is close to 100% occupied for industrial purposes. The smaller piece of this property, which is approximately 3.5 acres, is located to the west of the larger piece.
Dart Development is requesting the rezoning. They would like to rezone this property to facilitate the continued and broader use of the property along with marketability and the potential to possibly add on at some point. The IM zoning district enables the site to be redeveloped more effectively than currently exists. In regards to compatibility with the Master Plan, this rezoning request is compliant with the Master Plan.

IM zoning on the smaller piece of property does not meet the minimum lot frontage unless it is combined with the larger piece. Under the ordinance requirements, there is a mandatory 50’ buffer strip that has to be maintained between the existing R-1D houses on Park Lane and any future development under the IM district on this site. By zoning both the large and small piece of property it affords the greater level of protection for the residents on Park Lane.

Trustee Krepps stated that in the future the property owner could build a building on the smaller piece of property. Ms. Miller responded that it is possible, but did not feel that it was likely that an industrial building would be built in the area.

Trustee Krepps asked if Dart Development had specific plans for this property and why they were requesting the rezoning. Ms. Miller responded that Dart Development felt that with the IM zoning the property would be more marketable to a wider variety of potential tenants.

Supervisor Goodrich asked Ms. Miller if the property owners were notified of the July 10, 2006 Public Hearing held by the Planning Commission. Ms. Miller responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Goodrich stated that he was at that Public Hearing and it is his understanding that there were no property owners present whose property backed up to this property.

Mike Hamilton 4541 Sycamore, Holt, questioned if the building on this property was at capacity for the sprinkler system.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet
MOTION CARRIED


CONSENT AGENDA

A. Approval of Minutes – Committee of the Whole Meeting of June 20, 2006

B. Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting of June 20, 2006

C. Approval of Claims – June 20, 2006 (ATTACHMENT XV)

D. Approval of Claims – July 5, 2006 (ATTACHMENT XVI)

E. Approval of Payroll – June 29, 2006 (ATTACHMENT XVII)

F. Approval of Payroll – July 13, 2006 (ATTACHMENT XVIII)

G. Utility Agreement for Sanitary Sewer between Delhi Township and Wooded Valley, LLC – Wooded Valley Estates Condominiums (ATTACHMENT XIX)

KREPPS MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AS PRESENT.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon

MOTION CARRIED


REPORTS

SUPERVISOR

INGHAM COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION AUGUST 3RD MEETING

Supervisor Goodrich reminded the Board of the August 3, 2006 Ingham County Road Commission meeting.


TOWNSHIP MANAGER

FY 2007 BUDGET WORKSHOPS

It was suggested that in lieu of the four evening meetings to discuss the 2007 budget (September 6, 13, 20 & 27), to hold one all day meeting.


TREASURER

INVESTMENT REPORT / PETTY CASH

Treasurer Ammon stated that at the next Board meeting (August 1, 2006) he will give the Investment Report and have a petty cash request.


SUMMER TAXES

Treasurer Ammon stated that his office has currently collected $500,000 in summer taxes.


CLERK

INGHAM COUNTY CHAPTER OF THE MTA

Clerk Hope reminded the Board of the July 26, 2006 Ingham County Chapter of the Michigan Townships Association picnic.


TRUSTEES

TRUSTEE SWEET

SKATE PARK

Trustee Sweet stated that some of the residents in his neighborhood would like to see the activity at the Skate Park ending earlier in the evening.


ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m.


FYI

1. Letter dated June 22, 2006 from the Ingham County Road Commission regarding the 2006 Chip/Seal program.
2. Map showing boundaries for the Consumers Energy tree trimming.