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 Brighton

Draft 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 concise

               explanation.

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:

OWL Concerns:

OWL fundamentally opposes all density bonuses we find them to be inconsistent with the wishes of the residents. 

·         68% of Residents believe the Township is growing too fast.

·         83% of Residents believe the Township should maintain a low density Rural atmosphere.

·         71% of residents believe that utilities should not be extended to allow for denser developments.

However, OWL does recognize the desire of the residents to preserve natural features which can be accomplished if the PUD is used correctly.

The Township has already granted approximately 33% density bonuses for utilities to the underlying zoning in Article 3.03-B note 2.  With the present proposal the Township is granting a PUD with utilities a 63% density bonus over the underlying zoning without utilities.  To say that this is excessive is an understatement.

OWL Proposes that the residential PUD receive a straight 10% density bonus just as the residential section of a mixed use PUD does in Article 12-95-B.

(e)     Dimensional Requirements.   Once the density has been established, the allowable number of dwelling

units may be clustered with lot areas and widths reduced below the minimum requirement of the pre-PUD

underlying zoning district, provided that the open space within the development equals or exceeds the

total area of lot area reduction.

OWL Concerns:

This Article seems to allow arbitrary lot widths, OWL believes that a minimum lot width should be established.

(f)      Townhouses.   Where the pre-PUD underlying zoning is RM-1, multiple family dwelling units shall be

Permitted meeting the density and design standards of this Ordinance.  Where the pre-PUD underlying zoning is single family residential, up to forty percent (40%) of the dwelling units may be townhouses, provided the remaining dwelling units (at least sixty percent (60%)) shall be detached single-family residential.  The townhouses shall be located to minimize impacts from existing abutting single-family residential neighborhoods.

OWL Concerns:

In PUDs where the pre-PUD zoning was not RM-1 the ordinance should allow no townhouses.  Townhouses in areas not zoned RM-1 are clearly outside of the residents intentions.

See the survey taken as part of the master plan development:

·         68% of Residents believe the Township is growing too fast.

·         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.

·         49% of residents believe that the Township should encourage single-family residential only.

Sec. 12-08     PUD Design Standards

(b)     Open Space Requirements

(2)     Areas Not Considered Open Space.  The following land areas are not included as dedicated open

Space for the purposes of meeting minimum open space requirements:

e.        Any submerged land area of a pond, lake or stream.  Protected wetlands and storm water ponds designed to appear and function similar to a natural wetland

May be counted for up to fifty percent (50%) of the minimum open space.

OWL Concerns:

This paragraph is ambiguous.  It should be broken down as Sentence one stands alone.

The second sentence, as regards wetlands, amounts to an additional density bonus over the underlying zoning.  Article 3-03B note 2 specifically excludes wetlands in lot size calculation.  OWL suggests that wetlands be moved to the first sentence such that it is specifically excluded.

(3)     Open Space Location.   Common open space shall be planned in locations visible and accessible

to all in the development.  The common open space may either be centrally located, located to

preserve natural features, located to buffer adjacent farmland, or located to connect open spaces

throughout the development, provided the following areas shall be included within the open space

area:

b.       A minimum one hundred (100) foot wide undisturbed open space setback shall be

maintained from the edge of any stream or natural lake and fifty (50) feet from the

edge of any wetland; provided that the Planning Commission may permit trails,

boardwalks, observation platforms, or other similar structures that enhance passive

                                               enjoyment of the site's natural amenities within the setback.  Docks may be permitted

                                               in accordance with Section 13-07.

              OWL Concerns:

Why is the distinction made for a natural lake?  Several lakes in the Township are impoundments or manmade lakes, including Woodland and Moraine, these lakes deserve the same protection.

          ( c)   Landscaping.   The following landscaping requirements shall be met in addition to other landscaping

                     requirements contained in Section 14-02.

(2)     Storm water Detention Ponds.   All ponds and storm water management facilities shall be

Designed to fit into the natural landscape and provide a natural appearance.  Landscaping

Shall be provided around the perimeter of the pond to create the appearance of a natural pond

or wetland.  Landscaping shall include a combination of canopy trees, scrubs, and grasses

that are adapted to saturated soil conditions.  Canopy trees may be dispersed around the

perimeter, but should provide greater clusters in locations that will provide shade and minimize

the heating effect of the sun on the storm water detention pond.  Storm water detention ponds shall be designed with shallow wide slopes that do not require security fencing.  For ponds not dedicated to the county drain commission, the development agreement shall provide for long

term maintenance of the storm water detention pond by the homeowners association.

OWL Concerns:

Many lakes within the township do not appear to be getting the benefit of their previously established watershed and as such their levels are declining or their turnover rate is decreasing.  One theory is that retention / detention ponds are being constructed in a fashion that diverts the watershed.  Care should be taken to prevent this from happening.

Sec. 24-05     ACTS REQUIRING PERMITS

(a)     Remove any and all vegetation from a wetland, wetland edge or watercourse, which includes the cutting of trees, removal of stumps, plants, wildlife and natural habitat except agricultural uses allowed under Section 24-04.

OWL Concerns:

The wording of this Article seems to imply that permits from the Township would be required for aquatic plant control.  If this is the implication, OWL objects and sites that the MDEQ already requires sufficient permitting.

Regarding the proposed zoning map:

Why are the lakefront zoning designations along the Grand River side of Woodland Lake R–4 instead of R–5?

Why are the Grand River zoning designations on the West side of Woodland Lake R-4 instead of B–1 or B-2?

Why are the Hilton Road zoning designations on the South Side of the Woodland Lake spillway and the remaining area around the wetland zoned R-4 instead of R-5.

Twp of Brighton to hold public hearing on new zoning Ordinance

On Thursday November 20 2003, the township will be holding a public hearing to consider the new proposed zoning ordinance.

There are many issues that OWL members should be concerned with.  In general, it allows the zoning board higher density and taller buildings.  It also strengthens the PUD ordinance.  Please get a copy and review it.

The meeting will be at the Township fire hall at 7:00 PM on Thursday November 20th 2003.

For More Information Contact:

Organization of Woodland Lake
P.O. Box 617 Brighton, MI 48116
Tel: +1 (810) 229-7894
Internet: webmaster@woodlandlake.info

Last modified: 12/05/03 16:58:30 -0800