|
|
|
|
For Immediate ReleaseOWL Takes Stance on New Zoning OrdinanceSee the Position that OWL took at the Public Hearing.
Organization of Woodland Lake November 19, 2003 Township of Brighton Dear Sir or Madam: Regarding: Response to Proposed Zoning Ordinance The Organization of Woodland Lake representing at least 308 households in Brighton Township would like to express its opinion on part of the proposed zoning ordinance. First, we would like to express our dismay at the limited amount of time available for review of the proposed ordinance. Drafts were not available on the internet until sometime the first week in November allowing us about two weeks to review it and comment before the public hearing. In addition, several of our members without internet access were told that there were no copies available other than the one at the Township Hall available for review onsite. Even though we were told at the October 21, 2003 Township Board meeting that copies would be made available reasonably. Also, several notices regarding this meeting including Mr. Breen’s email of Monday, November 3, 2003 specified the wrong Day / Date combination of Monday, November 20, 2003. As of November 19, 2003 the web page: http://www.brightontwp.com/Zone%20Ord%20Update/Draft%2010-31-03/Draft%20ZO%20Site%20Map.html has yet to be updated. Based on the above we would like to request that you postpone the public hearing until notice can be properly served. However, we are prepared to comment on Articles 3, 12, Part of 13 and 24. Please see the attached document. As general guidance in the formulation and modification of the zoning ordinance we urge the Township to use the Master Plan as a Guide. In particular the survey of the Township residents that was commissioned prior to the development of the Master Plan as that is the best indicator of the desires of the residents. From the survey commissioned for the Township Master Plan:
o 33% of residents believe that the one facility to improve is bikeways, bridle paths and nature trails. In general, we can paraphrase the above by saying that the residents want slower, planned growth that emphasizes single family homes on large lots maintaining a rural atmosphere while preserving the environment; as such they are generally not in favor of density bonuses. Can the Township say that their proposed zoning ordinance meets these requirements? In the course of this letter and its attachment OWL has asked several questions, we respectfully request that the Township respond in writing to those questions. We would like to thank you for the consideration of these issues.
Sincerely, Anita Grapentien President
Charter Township of BrightonDraft of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Organization of Woodland Lake Position
Article 3 – Residential Districts
Sec. 3-02 Uses Permitted
(a) Land and/or buildings in the districts indicated at the top of Table 3-02 may be used for the purposes denoted by a "P" in the column below by right. Land and/or buildings in the districts indicated at the Top of Table 3-02 may be used for purposes denoted by "S" after special land use approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedures and requirements of Article 18 and Article 19. A notation of "- - " indicates that the use is not permitted within the district. The "Requirements" Column indicates additional requirements or conditions applicable to the use.
OWL Concerns: New Parks & Public Recreation Facilities that border lakes should have requirements that restrict boat launching, mooring and storage.
Sec. 3-03 District Regulations
(a) Residential Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements. All lots, buildings, and structures shall comply With the area height and bulk requirements in Table 3-03.
OWL Concerns: No residential building should exceed two stories or 35 feet.· In many areas RM-1 is integrated closely with R-4 and R-5. Case in point, RM-1 zoning on Woodland Shore Drive and Pine Hotel. If this development is allowed to proceed as a three story development it will surround three one-story homes and one two-story home on three sides overwhelming them. · We are concerned about the ability of the area fire department to effectively fight fires in three story buildings and the cost associated with equipping them to do so. · In the survey taken for the master plan the residents of the township have voiced their concerns on this issue in the following responses: 1. 68% of Residents believe the Township is growing too fast.
2. 83% of Residents believe the Township should maintain a low density Rural atmosphere.
3. 66% of Residents believe that the Township should encourage more single family homes on larger lots with limited or no common space. Three story multiple family dwellings, at a minimum, create an illusion of faster growth, do not promote a rural atmosphere and are not single family homes. OWL understands the need for multiple family dwellings, but believes that they should be unobtrusive and discreet.
(b) Notes. The following notes apply to Table 3-03.
(3) In those instances where both a public sanitary sewer and a public water system are provided, the minimum lot area requirements are as follows: a. R – 3 – Minimum of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. b. R – 4 – Minimum of nine thousand (9,000) square feet.
OWL concerns: This amounts to roughly a 33% density bonus, you get 1 1/3 lot for 1. This is clearly excessive and not the wishes of the Township residents. If we refer to the survey as part of the Master Plan we see: · 83% of Residents believe the Township should maintain a low density Rural atmosphere. · 66% of Residents believe that the Township should encourage more single family homes on larger lots with limited or no common space. · 42% of residents believe that the Township should favor a lot size of between 1 and 2 acres. · 71% of residents believe that utilities should not be extended to allow for denser developments. A 33% density bonus on small lots is incongruous either directly or indirectly with all of the above. OWL recommends that no density bonus be given.
(9) A twenty-five (25) foot natural feature setback shall be maintained from the ordinary high water mark (shoreline) of any lake, pond, or stream and to the edge of any drainage way, or regulated wetland. Along lakes, the setback from the shoreline of any main building subsequently erected shall not be Less than the average shoreline setback of main buildings within three hundred (300) feet in both Directions along the shoreline. Only waterfront structures and appurtenances permitted under Section 3-05 may be located within the shoreline or the natural feature setback.
OWL concerns: There are two problems with this paragraph. 1. First lakes are referred to twice with conflicting direction. In the first sentence lakes should be deleted. Leaving the remainder of paragraph to deal with lakes specifically. 2. Although OWL applauds the second sentence regarding set back along a shoreline however we anticipate one further problem. There are several areas along the lakefront where there are sharp transitions in the setback. Case in point 2727 Hacker Rd, this would presumably be a knock down. The homes to the south have a very small setback probably less than 50 feet while the houses to the north have a setback of about 175 feet. Under sentence 2 a new home on 2727 could be setback as little as 110 feet which would further obstruct the view of 2717. We recommend an additional clause that does not allow a setback of less than that of the immediate next door neighbor.
Sec. 3-04 Accessory Buildings
(d) Detached accessory buildings shall be located no closer than ten (10) feet from any main building and shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from the rear lot line. In those instances where the rear lot line is coterminous with an alley right-of-way, the accessory building shall be located no less than one (1) foot from the rear lot line. In no instances shall any accessory building be located within a dedicated easement right-of-way.
OWL Concerns: Although we do not anticipate this affecting anyone on Woodland Lake, we would like to call this to the attention of the township, and ask if it was your intention to essentially have a 0 setback if a property line is coterminous with an alley right of way?
Sec. 3-05 Waterfront Accessory Uses
(a) Waterfront structures and appurtenances may be allowed as an accessory use to the principal use permitted in the zoning district of the waterfront property. Only docks, mooring apparatus and decks shall be permitted within the required waterfront yard. The allowable accessory use of the waterfront property shall be limited to not more than one (1) dock per lot or dwelling unit, which shall be limited to the mooring of watercraft owned by the occupants of the dwelling.
(b) Boat launching sites and boat docks within a common use riparian lot and dockominiums shall comply with the multi-access riparian sites provisions of Section 13-07.
(c) All waterfront uses must meet the requirements of Article 24.
OWL Concerns: See comments for section 13-07.
Reference: Article 13 -General Provisions
Sec. 13-07 Multi-Access Riparian Sites
(c) In residential developments, including platted subdivisions, condominium projects, multiple family Developments, and PUD districts where no lakefront lots are created within the development, the Maximum number of boats that can be moored or docked from a common open space or stores in any manner with access through the common open space or recreational park area or on the water, shall be determined by the following:
OWL Concerns: 1. Article 13-07B and Table 13-07 are ambiguous as to the number of docks. We propose that the ordinance be clarified such that one Dock with mooring for two boats be allowed for xxx feet of frontage. 2. Article 3-05A allows individual homeowners fewer rights than multi-access riparian sites. Article 3-05A only allows 1 dock per dwelling unit regardless of frontage. Many homeowners have more than 70 feet of frontage. In the spirit of maintaining lower density on the Township lakes OWL recommends that no change be made to Article 3-05A but that this Article be updated to not allow more than 1 Dock per hundred feet for R-2 through R-5 and RM-1.
Article 12 –Planned Unit Development Districts (PUDs)
Sec. 12-02 Eligibility Criteria
(a) Demonstrated Benefit. The PUD shall provide one (1) or more of the following benefits not possible under the requirements of another zoning district, as determined by the Planning Commission:
(3) Common open space for passive or active recreational use.
OWL Concerns: PUDS should offer benefit to the Township
The Township residents do not perceive this to be a benefit. The survey commissioned for the Master Plan Concluded that 66% of Residents believe that the Township should encourage more single family homes on larger lots with limited or no common space.
(4) Mitigation to offset impacts.
What does this mean? It is too vague to be included in an ordinance without a more conciseexplanation.
Sec. 12-04 Residential Open Space PUD
(d) Residential Density. The density of dwelling units within the Residential Open Space PUD shall be be based upon the underlying/pre-PUD zoning district. The number of dwelling units allowed within a Residential Open Space PUD site shall be determined in the following manner:
The applicant shall prepare, and present to the Planning Commission for review, a parallel design plan showing the number of lots that could be developed on the site under the pre-PUD zoning district. The layout of the parallel plan shall comply with State and Township requirements and design criteria for a tentative preliminary plat, fully consistent with Public Act 288 of 1967 (Land Division Act), as amended and the Township subdivision control regulations. This design shall include all information that would be required for a tentative preliminary plat. The Planning Commission shall review the design and determine the number of lots that could be feasibly constructed following the parallel design. This number, as determined by the Planning Commission review, shall become the maximum number of dwelling units allowable within the Residential Open Space Planned Unit Development site.
A density bonus may be granted by the Planning Commission as follows:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
