TORCH LAKE TOWNSHIP

ANTRIM COUNTY, MICHIGAN

TORCH LAKE TOWNSHIP BOARD

SPECIAL MEETING MAY 13, 2010

COMMUNITY SERVICE BUILDING EASTPORT, MICHIGAN

 

Present:  Parker, Schultz, Martel, Tomlinson and Windiate

Absent:  None

Others:  Graham, Grobbel

Audience:  +/- 34

 

THE INTENT OF THIS MEETING IS FOR THE BOARD TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING LISTED AS ITEM 2 A AND DISCUSS AND POSSIBLY ACT ON IT AS STATED IN ITEM 2B.  OTHER ISSUES, WHICH WOULD NORMALLY COME BEFORE A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD, WILL ONLY BE ACTED UPON IF THE FULL BOARD IS PRESENT, AND THERE IS A NEED FOR URGENCY.

 

  1. Meeting convened at 7 PM followed by the pledge to the flag.  This Public Hearing is being held at the request of a township citizen.
  2. A.  The Public Hearing was opened at 7:05 PM.  Alan Martel began the Hearing with a review of his four areas of concern with the PUD/PRD Zoning Ordinance amendments proposed by the Planning Commission, provided in his memo dated May, 2010.   His concerns are potential unreasonable costs to a developer, violation of a specific recommendation insisted on by the people in the township, violation of the public trust of the people of this township and  violation of literal interpretation of state law.  Comments from the audience included, from Wally Juall, the question if he bought a property with the buffer, would he have to maintain it?  If so, that would become expensive.  Reply from Grobbel is that the current Zoning Ordinance has the same regulations, no change in the PUD or PRD.  A visual buffer is required where needed; it does not require the whole perimeter be planted.  Tom Walsh states there are inconsistencies from the PRD to PUD.  It’s not clear single vs. multiple home; the restrictions are arbitrary and capricious; should be worked out at the time of submission and not be pre-ordained.  The thing could be polished.  Lee Scott outlined the history of these amendments, starting when wedding music got loud and the ZBA interpretation to the Zoning Ad minister’s determination that weddings were commercial.  Diana Hein commented that the Commission is made up of ordinary citizens appointed to do a job.  They have hired a professional, Mr. Grobbel, who has listened to what they want.  She supports them and encourages the board to pass the amendments.  We need guidelines.  Bill Peterson stated he is a minority in the township, he is younger, and he wants to see some growth.  He feels the lake fronts are pretty much developed and we need to make the parcels affordable.  He agrees that growth is a difficult job to manage.  Nancy Ellison had historical comments regarding previous Planning Commissions.  Mike Brown states that the change in density requirements is an issue.  Also, A Ga Ming has incorporated some noise reduction measures.  Tom Peterson stated that A Ga Ming has already done what was asked of them.  We’ve changed the rules and now they’re non-conforming.  Why?  In conclusion, Grobbel states they have looked at 8 PUD/PRD ordinances in the area.  They have had 17 versions of this one since November “08.  They have learned and made some changes in an attempt to find reasonable solutions.  With no further comments, the Public Hearing is closed at 8:30 PM. 
  1.  B.  Township Board Commentary.  Tomlinson thanked Martel for putting his thought in writing.  Discussion ensues about the amendments as currently written.  It is decided some modifications are still needed.   1.  Modify and clarify buffer and screening requirements.  2.  Modify set-back requirements.  3.  Clarify densities.  The Motion by Tomlinson to send version 17 PRD PUD Ordinance back to the Planning Commission to address Sections 14.04 A as to plantings in the buffer zone and 15.04 A to allow any property currently zoned PRD, upon rezoning to PUD, to maintain the 50 foot perimeter set back, as that was what they were approved, is seconded by Schultz and passed 5-0 roll call vote.  Both Grobbel and Graham understand what needs to be done and will work on this immediately. 
  2. Township Commentary.  There was none
  3. Citizen Commentary.  Mr. Stan Kouchnerkavich addressed the Board, asked in regard to buffering, what is wrong with a view of a golf course?
  4. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 PM.

 

These minutes are subject to approval at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting.

 

Kathy S. Windiate

Township Clerk