NOTICE & AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONROE ...

NOTICE & AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE

MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

DATE and TIME: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Monroe County Courthouse Annex

Board of Commissioners' Committee Room 125 E. Second Street Monroe, MI 48161

Members unable to attend this meeting; please notify Ryan Simmons at 240-7382; or at 240-7017 after 7:00 p.m. on the night of the meeting. Agenda Materials are available 24 hours prior to the meeting at the Monroe County Website, www.co.monroe.mi.us. Government > Departments/Offices > Board of Commissioners > County Boards and Commissions > Planning Commission.

1. Determine Quorum and Call Meeting to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Adopt/Revise Agenda

4. Approval of the Minutes of the September 13, 2017 Meeting

5. Call to the Public

6. Communications: Correspondence & InformationA. CorrespondenceB. Information

1. Monroe County Community Health and Wellness Fair – October 14 at Bedford High School2. River Raisin Watershed Council – 2017 Semi-Annual Meeting – October 19 at LISD, Adrian

7. Old Business:A. Partners in Planning Update

1. Village of Estral Beach – planning and zoning services2. Milan Township – compiling Zoning Ordinance updates

B. Monroe County Remonumentation Program – attachment 1. 13th Biennial Report To The Legislature

8. New BusinessA. Consent Agenda*

9. Budget & FinanceA. 2018 Planning Commission Budget Update – approved budget attachedB. Planning Director update – Verbal Report

10. Committee Member's/Director's ReportA. Lake Erie Transit Commissioner Report – Patrick Miller

- page 3

- page 11- page 12

- page 13

- page 23

- page 31

Monroe County Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 Wednesday, October 11, 2017

B. Monroe County Parks and Recreation Commission Report – Floreine Mentel

C. Monroe County Road Commission Report –

D. I-75 Corridor Study – Mark Brant

11. Other Items from Members

12. Next Meeting is Scheduled for November 8, 2017 at 7:30 p.m.

13. Adjournment

*Last-minute items not appearing on this agenda may come before the Monroe County Planning Commission in the form of amendments that will be available to the public at the Planning Commission meeting. Recommendations stated in staff reports are not final, and may be changed or overturned by a vote of the Planning Commission.Planning Commission policy prohibits staff from discussing recommendations with applicants or other members of the public prior to the Planning Commission meeting.Anyone may comment on cases by appearing in person at the meeting, or by submitting written comments to the Planning Commission before the meeting.

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

DATE and TIME: September 13, 2017 at 7:30 p.m.

PLACE: Monroe County Courthouse Annex Board of Commissioners' Committee Room 125 East Second Street Monroe, MI 48161

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Webb, Chairman; Scott Assenmacher; Mark Brant; Dan Brooks; Rebecca Curley; Floreine Mentel; Greg Moore, Jr.; Larry See, Jr.; Herb Smith; Mike Sperling

MEMBERS ABSENT: Patrick Miller

MCPC STAFF PRESENT: Ryan Simmons, Planner

OTHERS PRESENT: Michelle Bork, 8153 Jackman, Temperance; Randy Pierce, Monroe County Road Commission; Terri Warren, 8153 Jackman, Temperance

1. A quorum being present, Chairman Webb called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and the Commissionproceeded to transact business.

2. Chairman Webb led the Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chairman Webb stated that Mr. Assenmacher would be leaving the Monroe County Planning Commissionand presented him with a Certificate of Appreciation to honor the work that he has done for the Commission.Mr. Assenmacher thanked the Commission and stated that he would make some comments later in the meetingduring the Road Commission report. He introduced Randy Pierce in the audience who is the ManagingDirector of the Road Commission and said that he would be observing the meeting tonight and the work thatthe Commission does. He stated that he does not know who will be filling in for his role on the PlanningCommission starting from the next meeting. Chairman Webb stated that the Road Commission’s presence atPlanning Commission meetings is valuable due to the ability to pass on Road Commission information toother members of the public.

Chairman Webb asked the other members of the audience to introduce themselves. They stated that they werepresent for the Bedford Township case.

3. Adopt/Revise Agenda – Motion by Mr. Smith, supported by Mr. Sperling to adopt and revise the agenda.

MOTION CARRIED

4. Approval of the Minutes of the August 9, 2017 Meeting – Motion by Mr. Sperling, supported by Mrs. Mentel,to accept the minutes of the August 9, 2017 meeting and to place them on file.

MOTION CARRIED

5. Call to the Public – Chairman Webb stated that the members of the public who are there to speak about a casewill be able to discuss it when we reach that part of the agenda.

Minutes of the September 13, 2017 Page 2 Monroe County Planning Commission Meeting

6. Communications:A. CorrespondenceB. Information

1. Monroe County Health Department, Household Hazardous Waste Collection notice - Wednesday,September 13th, at Bedford Township Hall from 3 until 7 p.m.

2. Notice of Intent to update a Master Plan from Summerfield Township dated August 31, 2017.3. Invitation to attend Farm Bureau annual meeting on Thursday September 21 at the Dundee Mill at

5:30 pm.4. Invitation to attend an open house at Fairview on Wednesday September 13th from 3 – 6 pm. –

Chairman Webb stated that the Open House was well attended and that it was open to the public. Shestated that the millage that was passed has allowed them to put the building into better shape. Shestated that there are currently about 36 people there, and that the purpose of Fairview is to help thepeople who are there find their own place to live. She stated that they will have another open housesoon.

7. Old Business:A. Partners in Planning Update

1. Village of Estral Beach – planning and zoning services – Mr. Simmons stated that he has not heardfrom the Village in the past month.

2. Milan Township – request for assistance – Mr. Simmons stated that Mr. Peven told him that he didnot think that a contract was necessary due to the fact that the assistance entailed just updatingordinance changes. He stated that Mr. Peven would just bill them on an hourly basis for updating theOrdinance.

B. Monroe County Remonumentation Program – 1. Peer Group Meeting – Mr. Simmons stated that Mr. Boudrie attended the meeting on August 15. He

stated that one of the surveyors presented his work at the meeting and that the other three surveyors would present their work when completed at future meetings. He stated that Mr. Boudrie told him that next year’s grant figure is in and that it is for about $73,500, which is about $12,000 more than what was received for 2016.

C. Monroe County Capital Improvements Program – Mr. Simmons gave a copy of the CIP report to the Commissioners and thanked the ones who were on the Committee for their work. He went over the projects in the report and explained the scoring system. Finally, he showed them how all of the submitted projects ranked after being scored by the Commissioners on the Committee. Mr. Brooks stated that he was surprised that one of the Sheriff’s projects was ranked 13th. Mr. Simmons stated that the other project submitted by the Sheriff ranked much higher.

Mr. Simmons stated that he just finished the report and that Mr. Bosanac has not looked at it yet, but that he is not sure that Mr. Bosanac will make any significant changes to the report so he figured that the Commissioners could approve the report at this meeting.

Mr. Brooks asked Mr. Brant about some of the items on the CIP list and stated that they appeared to be routine maintenance items. Mr. Brant stated that this conversation has been going on for many years and the he thought the list should be strictly for capital improvements, and stated that previously there were very routine items such as photocopiers that had made the list. He stated that he believes that every independent budget should have a separate fund for these routine maintenance items, but that he has not been able to get enough people to agree with him on this. Chairman Webb asked if the Commissioners thought that this comment should be made eventually that only actual capital improvements should be in the report. Mr. Brant stated that he believed that this comment should be made because, if only capital improvement projects are funded and maintenance projects are not funded by a separate fund, then those


projects would end up being put off further. Mr. Brant stated that perhaps he, Mr. Brooks and Mr. Simmons could get together and come up with a way to word this, and that he would also talk to Mr. Bosanac about it. Chairman Webb asked for a motion regarding this.

Motion by Mr. Smith, supported by Mr. Sperling, to approve the Capital Improvements Program report and to look at not including routine maintenance projects as part of the Capital Improvements Program.

MOTION CARRIED

Mrs. Mentel stated that she did not believe that it is fair to actual capital improvement projects when the same maintenance projects are coming in every year competing for the same funds. Mr. Assenmacher pointed out that the introduction of the CIP Report does not include an actual definition of what constitutes a capital improvements project, and that he believed that this definition should be formulated and perhaps that it would need to be approved by the County Board. Mr. Brooks pointed out that Mr. Bosanac actually put a figure of $200,000 on the table this year designated for capital improvements and that it impacted some of the decisions that he made about projects.

8. New Business:A. Consent Agenda

Chairman Webb asked the two members of the public in the audience which case they were present for. They replied that they were present for the Bedford Township case. Mr. Assenmacher pointed out that Mr. Pierce in the audience could also speak about the Ash Township case. Mr. Brant stated that they may not have to speak about the cases if there is a motion regarding the Consent Agenda that would approve those cases in their favor. Mr. Brant did state that he would like to pull the Whiteford Township case from the agenda, however.

Motion by Mr. Brant, supported by Mr. Sperling, to approve Staff’s recommendations for the cases on the Consent Agenda and the revised agenda except for the Whiteford Township case. Mr. Assenmacher stated that he would abstain from voting on the Consent Agenda due to the Ash Township case. Mr. Moore left the room and abstained from voting due to having an interest in the Bedford Township case.

MOTION CARRIED TOWNSHIP ZONING REVIEW

200.1-9-17-28 Whiteford Township (map) This is an official request to change the zoning on a parcel portion totaling approximately 2 acres from AG, Agricultural to R-1, Single Family Rural Residential District. The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to build a house. The parcel is located on the north side of Consear Road west of Sylvania-Petersburg Road.

Recommendation: That the Monroe County Planning Commission advise the Whiteford Township Board that it recommends denial of the proposed zoning change request, as the rezoning would be contrary to the Future Land Use Map of both the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Whiteford Township Master Plan, and for the other reasons stated above.

Mr. Simmons presented Staff’s review, explaining that Staff’s reasoning for recommending denial was that a rezoning to Residential would be contrary to the County Future Land Use Map’s designation of this area of the County as Agricultural Preservation.

Mr. Brant stated that properties on all three of these corners are already zoned R-3 and stated that, like the Bedford Township case that was just approved by the Planning Commission due to being adjacent to


similar properties, that he believes that the same reasoning would go for this property as well. He stated that if they had to split off five acres of the property for a residential use due to the current Agricultural zoning that this would just take away more valuable farmland. Mr. Simmons stated that ideally the five-acre minimum should not be allowed in the Agricultural Districts either and that the minimum should be much higher in order to ensure that farmland is preserved. Mr. Brant stated that townships that do this such as Milan Township have hurt their tax base by requiring such a large minimum. He stated that large lot residential properties proliferate throughout the County where so much land is wasted that could be farmed instead. Chairman Webb stated that she believes that the 10-acre minimum in Frenchtown Township is way too much.

Mr. Assenmacher asked what would stop applicants from continuing to chop up their properties to make more residential parcels. Mr. Brant stated that nothing is stopping them except for the five-acre minimum rule. Chairman Webb stated that the agricultural community recommends that people choose to build houses on the corners of their properties so that there is more land that can continue to be farmed. Mr. Brant stated that with four splits and a two-acre minimum, that would only be eight acres used residentially, but with a five-acre minimum that it would be 20 acres, so more farmland would still be preserved.

Mr. Simmons reminded the Planning Commissioners that the Whiteford Township Zoning Ordinance was recently approved and that concern was raised back then due to all of the spot zoned residential parcels throughout the Township. He stated that approving residential zoning in agricultural areas would just create more of the same sort of thing. Mr. Brant stated that the only way to prevent this would be to pass some kind of law preventing property owners from splitting their properties as long as they comply with the minimum. Mr. Moore stated that he understood the need to preserve agriculture but that he understands Mr. Brant’s point that there is already a cluster of three residences already and that it would be okay to put a fourth residence there as well.

Mr. Simmons brought up that if there is an area that the County intends to be residential that it might be better suited to actually change our County Plan to indicate this. He stated that Mr. Brant is looking at it from a pragmatic perspective in that a residential rezoning would actually preserve more of the farmland, but that Staff’s view is that this would set a precedent that would encourage any part of Whiteford Township that is designated as Agricultural to be rezoned residentially. Mr. Moore asked if we could approach it from the perspective that every case is different, though. Chairman Webb stated that we are not supposed to do that, and that the idea is that we should be following the Master Plan, which is updated on a five-year basis. However, if we see enough of a trend like this, then we should begin to look at the plan to see if it needs to be changed in response to this. She stated that the Plan is supposed to be followed for at least that five-year time period, though.

Mrs. Curley asked for clarification regarding Staff’s statement in their review that residential uses should be limited in agricultural areas, but which also states that farm houses are acceptable residential uses. She mentioned that we do not know whether they are seeking the rezoning in order to build a farm house or not. Mr. Simmons replied that, because the AG District in the Township does allow residential uses, that the applicant could already build a farm house by right because the property is already more than five acres, as there is presently no house on the property. He stated that it is more likely that they are attempting to sell some of the farm land and to use part of the property residentially.

Mr. Smith stated that, when he was on the Ida Township Planning Commission and they used a 10-acre minimum in their agricultural district, more often than not most of the area of the 10 acre lots that were used residentially were wasted land that was not farmed, so they were overall not successful preserving farmland by mandating a large minimum lot size. Chairman Webb stated that there is a similar situation on Williams Road.


Motion by Mr. Sperling, supported by Mr. Smith, to recommend going against Staff’s recommendation and to recommend approval of the rezoning.

Mrs. Mentel asked how many years ago the other three residential properties adjacent to this property were granted and whether we had the same Master Plan at the time. Mr. Simmons stated that he did not know but that he generally recommends denial for most residential rezonings in areas that are designated for agricultural preservation.

MOTION CARRIED

Mr. Simmons asked the Planning Commissioners if he should review these types of agricultural to residential rezoning cases any differently based upon the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding this case. Mr. Moore stated that he thought that Staff should review the case based upon our Plan, and that it is good that the Planning Commissioners can discuss individual cases and then make exceptions to the Plan if necessary. Mr. Brant agreed with this. Mr. Simmons reminded the Commissioners that Staff’s review would not be sent out to the Township as its recommendation is in disagreement with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

200.1-9-17-29 Bedford Township (map) This is an official request to change the zoning on a parcel totaling approximately 2 acres from R-2A, One-Family Residential District to PBO, Professional and Business Office District. The purpose of the rezoning is not stated. The parcel is located just south of the southwest corner of Dean Road and Jackman Road.

Recommendation: That the Monroe County Planning Commission advise the Bedford Township Board that it recommends approval of the proposed zoning change request, as the rezoning is in agreement with adjacent land uses and is appropriate for this location in the Township, and for the reasons stated above.

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA

TOWNSHIP ZONING REVIEW

200.1-9-17-30 Ash Township (map) This is an official request to change the zoning on a 5.84 acre parcel from FS, Freeway Service District to I-1, Light Industrial District. The purpose of the rezoning is for the Monroe County Road Commission to construct the Northeast District salt storage facility on the site. The parcel is located on the south side of Labo Road between Telegraph Road and Interstate 275.

Recommendation: That the Monroe County Planning Commission advise the Ash Township Board that it recommends approval of the proposed zoning change request, as the rezoning does not conflict with neighboring land uses and is well-suited for the Interstate 275 and Telegraph Road interchange, and for the other reasons stated above.

9. Budget & Finance:

A. 2018 Planning Commission Budget Update – Mr. Simmons stated that Finance approved an amountsimilar to what we requested, as we requested $349,513 for 2018 and what was actually approved was $349,559, which was actually slightly more than what we requested. He stated that Mr. Peven still needs to meet with Finance to finalize the budget. He also stated that Mr. Peven wanted to point out to them that $10,000 was approved for a part-time employee to work throughout next year in order to help Jeff out with mapping work.


B. Planning Director Update – Mr. Brant stated that he has no new information regarding the Planning Director position. Chairman Webb stated that she is becoming a bit exasperated due to her belief that we should be hiring and be willing to pay a good person for the job, and that we should not just offer a lower salary and hope that we find a good person for the job. Mr. Simmons stated that he had a discussion with some Planning Commissioners and with Mr. Peven and that he is planning on applying to the job. He stated that there may be more qualified candidates out there, but that they are not currently applying for the job, and that if somebody more qualified applied then he would not have a problem with the County hiring that person.

Chairman Webb asked who would do the work that Mr. Simmons is currently doing if he were hired, emphasizing that we need another person working in the Planning Department, and that the reason it does not seem like the Planning Department does much anymore is because the Department has been cut to the bone already. Mr. Brooks stated that the money that Mr. Simmons is making could then be used to hire another planner. Chairman Webb pointed out that this might not be the case as salary funds that the previous Director before Mr. Peven was earning were lost when Mr. Peven became Director, and that it is imperative if Mr. Simmons took over the Director’s duties that another Planner be hired right away, and that it would not be fair to have the Director cover both jobs.

Mr. Simmons stated that the Planning Department might have a better chance to hire a Planner fresh out of planning school, like himself when he first started his job, rather than hiring a new Planning Director for what the County is offering for the position. Mrs. Mentel agreed with this. Chairman Webb pointed out that Mr. Simmons is already doing stuff that Lee Markham used to do before he retired, and that we cannot leave another office empty like Mr. Markham’s is now.

Mr. Sperling stated that he believes that it is unfair to not fill the position of a person who is leaving with another qualified person. Mrs. Mentel stated that Mr. Simmons cannot do everything, and Mr. Brant stated that filling the Director position with the Staff planner would solve one problem but create another. Mr. Moore stated that he receives frequent questions from some of his constituents about whether the County had a Planning Director yet, because they understand the importance of the Director position for the County. He stated that he did not believe that the advertised salary covered the qualifications that it takes to do the Planning Director job. He also agreed that, if the money for Planning Department salaries is not used, then it could just disappear. Chairman Webb stated that this has already happened before. Mr. Brant stated that the money for both positions is presently in the budget. Mrs. Mentel stated that it is imperative to keep that money in the budget, though.

Mr. Assenmacher asked for clarification about whether Mr. Peven’s role in the Department would be weaned out once a Director is hired. Several Commissioners replied that this is the case. Mr. Assenmacher stated that this would then be a good opportunity to immediately put out a request for an entry-level planner if Mr. Simmons happened to be hired for the Director position. Mr. Simmons pointed out that positions were lost in the past when the Department was in a financial crunch, but that we are not within a financial crunch anymore, so that we are less likely to lose the positions. Mr. Sperling pointed out that those positions have not returned, though. Mr. Brant stated that Detroit Edison is going to appeal its tax assessment which could potentially mean losing $2 million out of the County budget.

Chairman Webb asked about whether a caveat could be placed upon Mr. Simmons’ application for Director stating that another Planner would then need to be hired. Mr. Brant stated that the money is already approved for both positions so the budget will not change, but that it would just create an issue of filling a vacant Planner position. Mr. Brant agreed with Mr. Simmons that it might be easier to fill that position. Mr. Assenmacher stated that this may string Mr. Peven along for longer while they are trying to fill the Planner position. Mr. Brant stated that Mr. Peven has already said that he would stay on as long as is needed, but that this is not really fair to him.


Chairman Webb asked about the possibility of sitting in on the job interview. Mr. Brant asked Mr. Simmons if he has applied for the position yet. Mr. Simmons stated that he has submitted his résumé, but that he still needed to finish filling out the application because he has been busy with preparing for the Planning Commission meeting, but that he will finish it this week. Mr. Brant stated that he is not sure how the process would work after this but that it goes through Human Resources. Chairman Webb asked if it would take about a month. Mr. Brant guessed that it would, and that it would eventually come before the Board. Mrs. Mentel pointed out that Mr. Simmons is already a known quantity while hiring somebody from outside might be more risky. Mr. Brooks pointed out that here is a learning curve for the Director position.

10. Committee Member's/Director's Report:

A. Lake Erie Transit Commissioner Report – Dr. Miller was not present to give the Report. Mrs. Mentel stated that everything seems to be going all right at LET. She stated that Jefferson Schools is going to go back to transporting high school students. Chairman Webb stated that traffic seems to have been cut back this year as not as many parents seem to be transporting their children now and not as many students seem to be driving either. She also stated that it was too bad about the bus renting issue that she spoke about at the August meeting, as she thinks if they had not let that go that people would have seen the good side of LET.

B. Monroe County Parks and Recreation Commission Update – Mrs. Mentel stated that there is one seasonal employee working limited hours for the next month or month and a half and one other seasonal employee has already returned to college but who will hopefully return for next summer. She stated that the water samples for Nike and Vienna Parks have been tested by the Health Department. She stated that there have been 213 reservations so far this year and she listed each park and the number of reservations that it had. She stated that it has been a great year. She stated that Waterloo’s trash service is being performed as scheduled and the same goes for the other parks. Waterloo has had the weeds cut down along the river bank. Staff acquired a canoeing and kayaking sign that will be put up there for next year. Weeding and landscaping was done at Nike Park and the Boy Scouts will be using the Park. The basketball hoop area at Heck Park was maintained and low branches were trimmed and weed spray was used at the Park. Loranger Square was also sprayed with weed spray and the landscaping was refreshed. Trimming and mowing is continuing. Weed killer was used at Vienna Park and the baseball diamonds were dragged in preparation for tournaments. A fence was removed and signs were posted to create a parking area for these tournaments. The bushes were trimmed at the Country Store and stone was hauled in for the parking lot. At West County Park, a National Park biologist was brought out to look at the management burn. She stated that the burn will not all be done at the same time. She stated that ticks have been sprayed for and brush cleared at the Park. She stated that a small view of the river was exposed when brush near the Native American memorial was cleared. She stated that even after the burn the Park will be left as prairie.

Mr. Sperling asked if a more permanent sign would be made for Territorial Park. Mrs. Mentel stated that that is not under the park direction but is under the Museum director. Mr. Sperling asked who he could talk to about this. Mrs. Mentel suggested that he could speak to Mr. Bosanac about that.

C. Monroe County Road Commission Report – Mr. Assenmacher thanked the Commissioners for the certificate of appreciation that he received. He stated that he has made many new friends and acquaintances among the Commissioners and that he appreciates all of the discussions that they have had and that he has learned a lot and that it has been a lot of fun. He stated that he appreciates that Mr. Pierce came in tonight to see the work that the Planning Commission does and that one of his goals is that there will be a good transition for whoever takes over his role on the Commission. Chairman Webb told Mr. Assenmacher that she hopes that his replacement will bring just as much to the Commission as he did, and that he did an excellent job bringing reports from the Road Commission.


Mr. Sperling mentioned regarding the topic of input about which railroad crossings need repair that Ida-Maybee Road is getting really bad. Mr. Assenmacher stated that the railroad companies have done most of the repairs on their own, and that there are a lot of them getting done. He stated that most of these repairs are being done on very short notice from the railroad companies. He stated that he does not have an update, but that he thinks that they might be using the program to decide which crossings to work on.

D. I-75 Corridor Study – Mr. Brant stated that a presentation was given at the last County Board meeting. He stated that the Study is done, and that presentations have been being given to the local municipalities along the Corridor to get them on board with the Study. He stated that the next phase will be a marketing phase, and that there is still money in the budget to promote the Study online. He stated that there is a link to the Study on the County’s website. He asked Mr. Assenmacher if there is a link to it on the Road Commission’s site yet. Mr. Assenmacher stated that there is not one yet but that they can put one up if the link is sent to them. Mr. Brant stated that they would also like to be linked on the Drain Commission’s site.

He stated that there was a presentation given on the Study tonight at the economic development meeting at the College, and that the Study is not going to just be put on a shelf but that they are going to try to keep the Study active and promote it to investors and developers and to get it online as many places as possible. Mr. Assenmacher suggested mentioning the Study and putting the link in the Developers Streamlining Guide as well. He asked if Mr. Peven is still updating the Guide. Mr. Simmons replied that he thinks that he is. Mr. Moore asked if there has been talk about getting it on the municipalities’ websites. Mr. Brant stated that there has been and that it is already linked on several of them.

11. Other Items from Members:

A. Chairman Webb asked Mr. Pierce in the audience if there was anything that he would like to say. Mr.Pierce thanked the Planning Commission for allowing him to be there and that he has learned a lot and that it will be very difficult to replace Mr. Assenmacher. Chairman Webb thanked Mr. Pierce for coming to the meeting.

12. Next Meeting is scheduled for October 11 at 7:30 p.m.

13. Adjournment: Motion by Mr. Brant, supported by Mr. Sperling, to adjourn the meeting. The meetingconcluded at 8:49 p.m.

MOTION CARRIED

MEETING ADJOURNED

:rds

Join your first responders and public health agencies for a few hours of fun and education aimed at making

you and your family safe and healthy.

When: Saturday, October 14, 2017 from 9am to 12pm

Where: Bedford High School, 8285 Jackman Rd., Temperance, Michigan 48182

The following events, clinics and health screenings will be available:

PHYSICAL FITNESS EVENT - 9AM to 10AM - Football Field

“Train like a Trooper”-Academy style warm up and workout.

Get an idea of what a Recruit School P.T. session is all about. Wear your workout clothes for this one.

PERSONAL & HOME SECURITY CLINICS - 10AM-12PM Bedford High School Gym

“Target Harden Your Home”-Tips on how to make your house more secure and tougher target for would-be thieves.

“Be Aware of your Surroundings”-Learn lessons that will make you more observant and less likely to fall victim to criminals.

“Firearm Safety-Keeping Your Loved Ones Safe”- Learn how to make sure your guns are secure and your family is safe.

“Safe Driving Tips-Don’t Drive Distracted”-This presentation is focused on providing safe driving tips to new drivers, but all are welcome.

HEALTH & PHYSICAL FITNESS DISPLAYS - 9AM to 12PM Bedford High School Gym

Family Medical Center of Michigan: Free Blood Pressure Checks and Health Information Provided

Monroe County Health Department Free Hearing and Vision Tests for children ages 3-17 years of age

Free Blood Sugar Checks

Health and Wellness Information Available for all ages

Physical Fitness Information Provided by:

Go Mad Fitness

Super Fitness Center of Toledo

Light the Fire CrossFit

PUBLIC SAFETY DISPLAYS - 9AM-12PM, Bedford High School Parking Lot

The below public safety agencies will have their vehicles and equipment on display for you and your family to see:

Bedford Township Fire Department

Dundee Police Department-Bear Cat Tactical Response Vehicle

Frenchtown Township Fire Department

Ida Township Fire Department

Monroe County Sheriff’s Office

Monroe Township Fire Department

Monroe Community Ambulance

Michigan State Police Specialty Units:

Aviation Unit (UAS Display)

Emergency Support Team (SWAT)

Canine Unit

Motor Unit (Motorcycle)

Underwater Recovery Team

Estimated program format as follows (unofficial times):

6:00 – 6:30PM: Refreshments and Meet & Greet

6:30 – 7:00PM: Business & Watershed Updates – RRWC

7:00 – 8:00PM: “Geology of the River Raisin” – Julie Hewlett

8:00 – 8:30PM: Discussion & Closing

Thursday, October 19th, 2017

When: 6:00PM – 8:30PM

Where: LISD Tech Center (Adrian)

Location:

LISD Tech Center 1372 N. Main St.

Adrian, MI 49221

Let your voice be heard! Share your ideas, questions, comments,

concerns, and stories about the River Raisin

Watershed in your communities.

What can we do for you? We need your input!

www.RiverRaisin.or

g (517) 264-4754

RICK SNYDER GOVERNOR

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING

SHELLY EDGERTON DIRECTOR

13th BIENNIAL REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

State Survey & Remonumentation Program 1990 PA 345 et seq

July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2017 Purpose and History of the State Survey & Remonumentation Act (SSRA)

Act Purpose 1990 PA 345 Created the State Survey and Remonumentation Commission

Created the SSRA fund and provide for its use Coordinate and implement the remonumentation of property

controlling corners in the state Provide for duties of certain state and local officers and agencies Require the promulgation of rules

ERO 1996-2 ERO 1997-12

Dissolved the State Survey and Remonumentation Commission and its Executive Director, transferring their statutory authority, powers, duties,functions, and responsibilities to the Director of the Department ofConsumer and Industry Services, now Department of Licensing andRegulatory Affairs (LARA).

1998 PA 5 Permitted counties to “expedite” completion of their county plan. These counties would complete remonumentation sooner by “loaning” local monies to the county’s remonumentation program to pre-fund the completion of their remonumentation work. These loaned monies could then be recovered at later dates through grant distributions or contractual agreement with the Department.

2002 PA 700 The Revised Judicature Act of 1961 was amended to increase county recording fees to set aside $4 for the State Survey and Remonumentation Fund. This increase, however, included a 2013 “sunset.”

2006 PA 76 $15 Million was transferred from the State Survey and Remonumentation Fund to the State’s General Fund. As part of the amendment, the Legislature intended to guarantee deposits of $10.134 Million in FY 2005- 2006 and $11.134 Million in FY’s 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 by making up the difference between these totals and the statutory deposits from the Registers of Deeds collections. Due to the economic situation during this timeframe, monies were not available to the Legislature to make these intended appropriations, and the 2006 PA 76 language guaranteeing the State General Fund deposits was removed from the act under 2014 PA 166.

2006 PA 662 Extended the sunset date from 2013 to January 1, 2023, at which time the$4 set-aside for the State Survey and Remonumentation Fund will return to the original $2 through the Revised Judicature Act of 1961.

P.O. BOX 30254 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909 www.michigan.gov/bcc Telephone (517) 241-9302 Fax (517) 241-9570

State Survey & Remonumentation Program 13th Biennial Report to the Legislature Page 2 of 10 September 2017

2010 PA 259 Established a joint commission with the State of Indiana for the “…recovery or replacement of durable monuments defining the Michigan- Indiana state boundary line…”

2010 PA 260 Funded Michigan’s share of the Michigan-Indiana state boundary line project, providing a set-aside of $500,000 from the State Survey and Remonumentation Fund “…to pay the costs of the monumentation of the Michigan-Indiana state boundary line…” In 2014 a $200,000 project appropriation was made to support these activities.

2014 PA 166 Expanded the use of the fund to allow counties to perpetuate corners that were not monumented in the original GLO surveys

Required coordinate values for each corner Allowed funds to be used to maintain CORS infrastructure Reinstated the State Survey and Remonumentation Commission as

an advisory panel Required counties to review and update the county plans after the

promulgation of rules Statutory Reporting Section 6(1)(f) Requires a biennial status report to the Legislature and each county board of commissioners from the Department identifying seven specific items to be reported on. Those items and Department comments follow.

Section 6(1)(f)(i): A summary of the Department's activities regarding administration of this act.

We are reporting on this item referencing Sections 6(1)(a) through (e) which identify the Department’s responsibilities.

Sections 6(1)(a) Coordinate the restoration, maintenance, and preservation of the land survey records and monuments of the public land survey system in this state, including, but not limited to, all pertinent field notes, plats, documents, and monuments.

In 2011, the Department entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), the Michigan History Foundation and the Archives of Michigan to image, catalogue and provide online access to the original U.S. government survey plats. Following completion of this project in 2012, a second project was initiated to image and catalogue the original field notebooks used by the U.S. government surveyors to record their work and make them available to the public online. This provides access to County Registers of Deeds, county surveyors, private land surveyors, and the public access to the information which is currently limited due to its fragile condition as well as a safe secondary storage method for preserving the original records.

Sections 6(1)(b) Establish a policy to maintain and provide safe storage of records required to be filed with the department under this act. In the initial phases of the program, the Department established a database for Land Corner Recordation Certificates (LCRC) completed through the State Survey and Remonumentation Program. Through this database LCRC documents completed through county

State Survey & Remonumentation Program13th Biennial Report to the Legislature Page 3 of 9 September 2017

remonumentation efforts are imaged, catalogued and made available to the public online. During 2017, it was discovered that this database software used since the inception of the program became obsolete as a result of upgrades to Windows that began in December 2016. A temporary fix has been utilized while a true next-generation solution is being planned at this time.

At the inception of the State Survey and Remonumentation Program, the Department acquired records from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) for all of their horizontal and vertical control stations located within Michigan. These records were disseminated to the counties and updates solicited. NGS has since developed an on-line digital database of their control stations. Access to this data is available to the public, and there is no longer a need for the Department to update records for these stations.

Section 6(1)(c) Coordinate memoranda of understanding with other state, federal, and local agencies to promote the activities necessary, incidental, or appropriate to promote this act.

In 1993 through 1995 the Department collaborated with the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) to establish passive geodetic control stations as part of High Accuracy Reference Network (HARN) for Michigan. The Department was the central point of contact for NGS and coordinated efforts between NGS and locals to establish 80 control stations across the state.

In 2002 through 2008, the Department collaborated with NGS, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and counties to densify a network of next generation active geodetic control stations, i.e., Continuous Operating Reference Stations (CORS), in Michigan. Through these joint efforts, the State of Michigan currently maintains 88 CORS.

In 2006 and 2007, NGS initiated a height modernization project in Michigan, combining efforts between NGS, MDOT and the counties to maximize passive control station recoveries ahead of NGS and MDOT’s work to measure station locations through GPS observations and high accuracy spirit leveling.

We are currently working with MDOT, MDNR and the U.S. Forest Service to coordinate efforts of filing LCRC’s through the county programs, which may lead to one or more memoranda of understanding.

Section 6(1)(d) Foster, encourage, and promote county plans for each county in this state and, after submission of county plans, review the plans for approval.

The Department is in the process of working with the State Survey and Remonumentation Commission to develop a new model county plan to incorporate the changes from 2014 PA 166. After a new model county plan has been accepted, it will be distributed to the counties for them to provide revised county plans to reflect the statutory changes of 2014 PA 166.

Section 6(1)(e) Coordinate and administer a grant program for grants to counties to implement this act.


With the support of the Department, all 83 Michigan counties have implemented remonumentation plans and are actively participating in the program.

In June, 2017, LARA evaluated the Remonumentation program through the Lean Process Improvement (LPI) system. The preliminary conclusions included in part:

The creation of a handbook to provide information and guidance to anyone involved inthe grant process.

The establishment of an annual kick-off/training meeting for grant administrators andcounty representatives to review the process, forms and any process updates.

The development of a new software system to update existing software functions.

Section 6(1)(f)(ii): An assessment of the progress of the implementation of county monumentation and remonumentation plans throughout this state.

We estimate, based on the annual corner counts reported by the counties in their 2016 completion reports, that the remonumentation of corners is approximately 67% percent complete. It is estimated that there are approximately 225,500 total remonumentation corners in the state. At the close of the 2016 grant year 146,900 of those remonumentation corners have been completed.

With the 2015 grant year three counties (Kent, Muskegon and Ottawa) have moved out of the monumentation and remonumentation plan and are now working under their perpetual monument maintenance plan to maintain their corners both physically and in the public record. No other counties have moved into their perpetual monument maintenance plan at this time.

Section 6(1)(f)(iii): A statement regarding the amount of money that was received and disbursed from the fund.

See Table A.


Section 6(1)(f)(iv): An assessment of how much money is necessary to carry out monumentation or remonumentation of the entire state.

We anticipate changes made by 2014 PA 166 implemented in the 2015 grant year will significantly change our previous estimates to complete remonumentation of the state; however, not enough data is available at this time to project the updated program’s needs.

Once remonumentation of the entire state is completed, we estimate the perpetual monument maintenance program will require approximately $10 Million a year to maintain all remonumentation corners on a 20-year cycle. This estimate is based on the average cost to complete a corner in 2014. This estimate will be revisited once the Revised County Plans are approved.

Section 6(1)(f)(v): An assessment of whether the money received in the fund is adequate to implement this act.

The money currently received in the fund is the minimum amount needed for the program to progress at an acceptable rate. If the average annual funding remains relatively constant, it will take approximately 20-30 more years to complete the remonumentation of the entire state. However, with the current sunset date for the set-aside from registers of deeds recording fees of January 1, 2023, at which time the $4 set-aside for the State Survey and Remonumentation Fund will be reduced to $2, it is estimated that it may take 40-60 years or more to complete remonumentation of the entire state.

Section 6(1)(f)(vi): Recommendations including, but not limited to, the level of funding that is necessary to implement this act.

Amend 1961 PA 236, Revised Judicature Act of 1961, remove the sunset date, and maintain the current register of deeds recording fee set-aside of $4 for the State Survey and Remonumentation Fund.

Section 6(1)(f)(vii): A statement of the amount of money disbursed from the fund to each grantee, the average amount of money spent per corner by each grantee, and the percentage of work in its county plan completed by each grantee.

Table B reports the program status through the 2016 grant year. Program changes from 2014 PA 166 were not implemented until 2015.


TABLE A

Grant Year

Remonumentation Fee

(in $)

FY Deposits into Remonumentation

Fund (in Millions of $)

Funds Appropriated for

Remonumentation Grants

(in Millions of $)

Funds Expended for

Remonumentation Grants

(in Millions of $)

1991 $2.00 $1.29 N/A N/A

1992 $2.00 $3.42 N/A N/A

1993 $2.00 $3.87 $4.00 $4.00

1994 $2.00 $4.26 $5.00 $5.00

1995 $2.00 $3.30 $3.00 $3.00

1996 $2.00 $3.72 $4.00 $4.00

1997 $2.00 $3.83 $4.00 $4.00

1998 $2.00 $4.78 $4.00 $4.00

1999 $2.00 $5.48 $4.00 $4.00

2000 $2.00 $5.10 $4.50 $4.50

2001 $2.00 $4.78 $5.00 $5.00

2002 $2.00 $6.50 $6.00 $5.91

2003 $4.00 $8.67 $6.00 $5.75

2004 $4.00 $14.49 $10.00 $9.69

2005 $4.00 $10.71 $10.00 $9.60

2006 $4.00 $10.02 $10.00 $9.71

2007 $4.00 $8.47 $10.00 $9.79

2008 $4.00 $6.95 $7.50 $7.29

2009 $4.00 $6.08 $4.00 $3.82

2010 $4.00 $5.83 $5.30 $5.00

2011 $4.00 $5.92 $5.30 $4.85

2012 $4.00 $6.45 $5.30 $5.21

2013 $4.00 $7.85 $5.30 $5.13

2014 $4.00 $6.47 $7.30 $7.13

2015 $4.00 $6.78 $7.30 $7.12

2016 $4.00 $6.63 $5.13 $5.06

Total $161.65 $141.93 $138.56


TABLE B

County

Total Remon Corners

In County

Remon Corners

Completed thru 2016 Grant Cycle

PercentRemon Corners


Average Spent per Corner

Completed

Total State

Grants Awarded thru 2016 Grant

Cycle

Total State

Grants Earned thru 2016 Grant

Cycle

Alcona 2,411 1,160 48.11% $832.46 $969,583.97 $965,650.55

Alger 3,802 1,494 39.30% $835.49 $1,251,781..97 $1,248,221.80

Allegan 3,131 2,869 91.63% $653.99 $1,959,314.41 $1,876,303.71

Alpena 1,973 1,060 53.73% $841.96 $827,833.67 $822,596.20

Antrim 2,148 843 39.25% $1,062.74 $904,011.89 $895,891.65

Arenac 1,398 677 48.43% $880.82 $596,450.46 $596,314.21

Baraga 3,643 1,153 31.65% $1,018.77 $1,182,285.86 $1,174,637.78

Barry 2,070 1,729 83.53% $709.98 $1,252,741.50 $1,227,557.94

Bay 1,925 1,994 103.58% $913.10 $1,913,418.83 $1,820,720.23

Benzie 1,249 963 77.10% $596.83 $664,764.29 $574,742.51

Berrien 2,279 1,254 55.02% $1,354.69 $1,737,034.19 $1,698,781.91

Branch 1,872 1,154 61.65% $774.50 $894,508.59 $893,769.60

Calhoun 2,604 2,579 99.04% $819.35 $2,144,234.92 $2,113,109.30

Cass 2,236 861 38.51% $1,067.82 $952,100.29 $919,392.33

Charlevoix 1,621 652 40.22% $1,540.53 $1,001,233.13 $1,004,424.60

Cheboygan 2,604 1,418 54.45% $790.65 $1,123,541.09 $1,121,135.26

Chippewa 6,480 3,352 51.73% $704.11 $2,360,193.70 $2,360,190.54

Clare 2,223 1,698 76.38% $612.39 $1,040,069.51 $1,039,843.26

Clinton 2,071 1,208 58.33% $1,016.85 $1,231,183.20 $1,228,353.61

Crawford 1,970 1,157 58.73% $747.57 $877,557.04 $864,934.95

Delta 4,791 3,829 79.92% $505.93 $1,940,466.15 $1,937,197.64

Dickinson 3,098 2,085 67.30% $536.51 $1,120,150.08 $1,118,618.49

Eaton 2,050 1,829 89.22% $916.12 $1,675,806.33 $1,675,590.78

Emmet 1,955 958 49.00% $942.38 $909,269.46 $902,797.57

Genesee 2,203 2,158 97.96% $1,421.39 $3,094,888.25 $3,067,355.03

Gladwin 1,741 1,391 79.90% $637.03 $886,106.80 $886,106.80

Gogebic 4,097 3,028 73.91% $494.29 $1,504,425.61 $1,496,701.81

Gr. Traverse 1,967 1,603 81.49% $793.88 $1,274,241.09 $1,272,582.44


County

Total Remon Corners

In County

Remon Corners





Completed

Total State

Grants Awarded thru 2016 Grant

Cycle

Total State

Grants Earned thru 2016 Grant

Cycle

Gratiot 1,940 1,194 61.55% $868.08 $1,037,629.95 $1,036,492.82

Hillsdale 2,059 1,142 55.46% $919.02 $1,049,997.48 $1,049,524.33

Houghton 3,920 1,376 35.10% $1,051.94 $1,452,117.94 $1,447,468.87

Huron 3,017 1,671 55.39% $765.36 $1,303,879.70 $1,278,922.69

Ingham 2,038 1,913 93.87% $1,173.76 $2,245,480.77 $2,245,395.00

Ionia 2,598 1,442 55.50% $741.13 $1,068,711.26 $1,068,711.26

Iosco 1,868 1,054 56.42% $849.72 $902,575.86 $895,602.48

Iron 4,275 2,993 70.01% $516.27 $1,547,570.49 $1,545,196.58

Isabella 2,192 1,819 82.98% $647.18 $1,177,315.17 $1,177,227.72

Jackson 2,476 2,036 82.23% $924.98 $1,901,323.12 $1,883,249.55

Kalamazoo 2,137 1,635 76.51% $1,241.80 $2,161,905.42 $2,030,336.08

Kalkaska 2,135 1,713 80.23% $498.85 $852,752.00 $854,522.00

Kent 3,371 3,371 100.00% $1,205.97 $4,755,045.84 $4,065,336.11

Keweenaw 2,670 698 26.14% $988.60 $694,930.48 $690,045.25

Lake 2,097 1,587 75.68% $531.89 $844,111.00 $844,110.60

Lapeer 2,240 1,303 58.17% $1,053.29 $1,374,183.59 $1,372,437.58

Leelanau 1,573 970 61.67% $690.13 $673,847.83 $669,423.49

Lenawee 2,541 1,611 63.40% $922.99 $1,558,217.99 $1,486,944.54

Livingston 2,350 2,350 100.00% $1,207.33 $2,939,233.67 $2,837,215.27

Luce 3,617 1,587 43.88% $735.29 $1,166,909.28 $1,166,909.28

Mackinac 5,354 2,422 45.24% $599.73 $1,452,893.25 $1,452,536.04

Macomb 1,732 1,670 96.42% $3,490.99 $5,833,758.50 $5,829,954.07

Manistee 2,306 1,447 62.75% $589.07 $867,501.55 $852,378.41

Marquette 7,547 2,356 31.22% $1,212.65 $2,859,675.52 $2,857,008.34

Mason 3,360 1,674 49.82% $489.55 $823,868.43 $819,502.81

Mecosta 2,182 1,965 90.05% $497.99 $988,951.24 $978,556.53

Menominee 4,076 3,748 91.95% $417.99 $1,611,185.27 $1,566,609.51

Midland 1,912 1,418 74.16% $828.19 $1,174,371.52 $1,174,371.52

Missaukee 2,319 1,450 62.53% $571.06 $828,037.57 $828,037.57


County

Total Remon Corners

In County

Remon Corners





Completed

Total State Grants Awarded thru 2016 Grant

Cycle

Total State Grants Earned thru 2016 Grant

Cycle

Monroe 2,362 1,467 62.11% $1,038.32 $1,564,471.67 $1,523,218.85

Montcalm 2,632 2,115 80.36% $778.46 $1,650,409.73 $1,646,447.12

Montmorency 2,054 1,367 66.55% $596.78 $819,799.20 $815,794.40

Muskegon 2,012 2,012 100.00% $804.62 $1,712,682.11 $1,618,897.33

Newaygo 3,368 2,842 84.38% $613.80 $1,744,455.71 $1,744,405.54

Oakland 4,406 4,334 98.37% $2,263.04 $9,908,765.18 $9,808,015.13

Oceana 2,025 1,637 80.84% $544.03 $891,109.85 $890,578.30

Ogemaw 1,986 949 47.78% $954.28 $910,292.87 $905,613.26

Ontonagon 6,159 3,028 49.16% $538.74 $1,687,072.33 $1,631,310.59

Osceola 2,180 2,091 95.92% $492.48 $1,029,828.85 $1,029,774.23

Oscoda 2,240 1,691 75.49% $473.79 $801,177.03 $801,177.03

Otsego 2,073 1,030 49.69% $748.76 $833,483.25 $771,222.29

Ottawa 2,186 2,245 102.70% $1,024.64 $2,481,697.81 $2,300,318.87

Presque Isle 2,424 1,424 58.75% $665.13 $947,141.68 $947,140.95

Roscommon 2,155 1,618 75.08% $745.81 $1,210,621.55 $1,206,725.59

Saginaw 3,080 1,846 59.94% $1,054.56 $2,035,819.88 $1,946,726.40

Sanilac 3,480 2,075 59.63% $723.07 $1,500,722.68 $1,500,364.28

Schoolcraft 4,980 2,120 42.57% $733.43 $1,555,183.35 $1,554,872.94

Shiawassee 1,838 1,590 86.51% $866.05 $1,377,833.77 $1,377,021.46

St. Clair 2,753 1,491 54.16% $1,554.70 $2,325,976.09 $2,318,056.88

St. Joseph 2,224 1,369 61.56% $828.08 $1,135,360.64 $1,133,647.36

Tuscola 2,900 1,567 54.03% $927.55 $1,454,337.48 $1,453,473.49

Van Buren 2,304 1,391 60.37% $1,209.57 $1,716,779.31 $1,682,517.06

Washtenaw 2,722 2,178 80.01% $1,290.85 $2,853,498.20 $2,811,473.08

Wayne 3,017 2,292 75.97% $4,939.72 $11,952,568.79 $11,321,831.77

Wexford 2,144 1,357 63.29% $689.14 $935,226.94 $935,156.77

Total 225,218 146,897 $141,554,828.92 $138,564,310.95

Average 67.38% $932.08

C O N S E N T A G E N D A Monroe County Planning Commission

Regular Meeting – October 11, 2017

CASE NUMBER TOWNSHIP ZONING REVIEW

200.1-10-17-31 Bedford Township (map)

This is an official request to change the zoning on a parcel totaling approximately 35.78 acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development District to R-1, One-Family Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is so the applicant can revoke the PUD plan and split the rezoned Residential parcel into four new parcels for development. The parcel is located just east of the intersection of Consear and Douglas Roads.

Recommendation: That the Monroe County Planning Commission advise the Bedford Township Board that it recommends approval of the proposed zoning change request, as the rezoning is in agreement with both the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and with the Bedford Township Master Plan, and with adjacent land uses, and for the other reasons stated in Staff’s report.

FARMLAND REVIEW

200.4-10-17-12 Monroe Charter Township (Owner: Anteau & Son Farms L.L.C.)

The property consists of three parcels totaling approximately 62.577 acres in size. It is located on the east side of Hull Road north of the intersection of LaPlaisance and Mortar Creek Roads.

Recommendation: That the Monroe County Planning Commission approve this application for inclusion in the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program because it is consistent with the intentions of Part 361 of Public Act 451 of 1994 (more commonly known as PA 116), and for the reasons stated in Staff’s report.

Agenda Item 8A

2017 (X) OFFICIAL ( ) UNOFFICIAL

TOWNSHIP ZONING REVIEW Monroe County, Michigan MEMORANDUM DATE: October 11, 2017 TOWNSHIP: Bedford TO: Monroe County Planning Commission SECTION/P.C.: 21 FROM: Staff AERIAL PHOTO #2015 SUBJECT: Case #200.1-10-17-31

SUBJECT Request: This is an official request to change the zoning on a parcel totaling approximately 35.78

acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development District to R-1, One-Family Residential District.

Purpose: The purpose of the rezoning is so the applicant can revoke the PUD plan and split the rezoned Residential parcel into four new parcels for development.

Location: The parcel is located just east of the intersection of Consear and Douglas Roads.

EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS Area: The parcel has an area of approximately 35.78 acres.

Current Land Use: The site is currently undeveloped. There is an existing private road, Greycliff Lane, that runs through the middle of the parcel.

Surrounding Land Use: North: Single-Family Residence; Church South: Indian Creek Park; Condominiums East: Undeveloped; Agricultural West: Single-Family Residential

Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1, One-Family Residential; PUD, Planned Unit Development South: R-2A, One-Family Residential; RME, Elderly Housing East: R-1, One-Family Residential West: AG, Agricultural

Floodplain: The 100-year floodplain of Indian Creek runs through a small area of the western portion of the site.

TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Bedford Township Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning at a meeting held on September 13, 2017. APPLICABLE PLANS AND POLICIES Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (2009) – Residential Bedford Township Master Plan Update (2015) – Suburban Residential REQUEST This is an official request to change the zoning on a parcel totaling approximately 35.78 acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development District to R-1, One-Family Residential District. The purpose of the rezoning is so the applicant can revoke the PUD plan and split the rezoned Residential parcel into four new parcels for development. EXISTING & PROPOSED ZONING The PUD, Planned Unit Development District is designed to provide the standards for the submission, design, review and approval of planned unit development (PUD) projects. The application of these PUD regulations are intended to encourage the use of land in accordance with its character and adaptability, conserve natural features and provide for open space, encourage innovation, flexibility, variety, economy and efficiency in land use planning, provide enhanced housing, employment, shopping, traffic circulation and recreational opportunities for the people of the Township, and bring about a greater compatibility of design and use between neighboring properties. The R-1, One-Family Residential District is intended to provide predominantly low-density, one-family detached dwellings along with residentially related facilities. The minimum lot size in this District is 15,000 square feet, with a minimum lot width of 90 feet. Principal uses permitted include one-family detached dwellings, public libraries and recreation facilities, schools, family day care homes, pools and other accessory buildings. Uses subject to special approval include churches, child care centers, group day care homes, private recreation facilities, and private stables and kennels. SURROUNDING USES To the north of the site there is a single-family residence and a church. To the south of the site are Indian Creek Park and a condominium development. To the west of the site are single-family residences. To the east of the site there is a mixture of agricultural and undeveloped land. RELATIONSHIP TO PUBLIC PLANS AND POLICIES The site has access to public water service but not to public sanitary sewer service. Douglas Road is a two-lane major collector road at the location of the site. It has an average daily traffic count of approximately 4,200 vehicles at the location of the site. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this site as Residential. The rezoning would be in agreement with the County Plan. The Bedford Township Master Plan designates this site as Suburban Residential. The rezoning would also be in agreement with the Township Master Plan.

PLANNING ANALYSIS The parcel is part of the Greystone Manor PUD that was approved back in 2006. The parcel already has a private road located on it, and the applicant proposes to eventually split the parcel into four parcels if the PUD is revoked. According to the minutes from the Township Planning Commission meeting, the existing private road would become a shared driveway that would serve the four newly created parcels. As this portion of the PUD already has an underlying zoning of R-1, One-Family Residential, Staff does not see a problem with rezoning the parcel from PUD to R-1. Furthermore, the rezoning is also in agreement with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Bedford Township Master Plan, and would also likely not be in conflict with adjacent land uses. So long as development does not occur in the floodplain on the western portion of the site, Staff does not have an issue with developing this parcel residentially. Therefore, Staff supports the rezoning of this parcel from PUD, Planned Unit Development District to R-1, One-Family Residential District. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Monroe County Planning Commission advise the Bedford Township Board that it recommends approval of the proposed zoning change request, as the rezoning is in agreement with both the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and with the Bedford Township Master Plan, and with adjacent land uses, and for the other reasons stated above. RS

2017 FARMLAND / OPEN SPACE REVIEW Monroe County, Michigan MEMORANDUM TOWNSHIP: Monroe Charter DATE: October 11, 2017 OWNER: Anteau & Son Farms L.L.C. TO: Monroe County Planning Commission SECTION/P.C.: P.C. 346, 347, 348 FROM: Staff TOWN/RANGE: SUBJECT: Case #200.4-10-17-12 AERIAL PHOTO: #2015

LOCATION OF PROPERTY The property consists of three parcels totaling approximately 62.577 acres in size. It is located on the east side of Hull Road north of the intersection of LaPlaisance and Mortar Creek Roads. RELATIONSHIP TO PUBLIC PLANS The property does not have access to public water service or to public sewer service. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan designates the properties as Secondary Agricultural. The Monroe Charter Township Master Plan designates the property as Low Density Residential. The site is not located in a known flood zone. EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS Of the 62.577 acres being applied for, approximately 56 of the acres are cultivated with cash crops. As the property is greater than 40 acres in size, it should qualify for the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program. PLANNING ANALYSIS The primary soils on the property are Blount and Del Rey soils that are capable of producing approximately 106 to 115 bushels of corn per acre. The applicants wish to have a 15-year agreement on the property. Staff feels that this property should be included in the farmland preservation program, as the property is designated as Secondary Agricultural in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Monroe County Planning Commission approve this application for inclusion in the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program because it is consistent with the intentions of Part 361 of Public Act 451 of 1994 (more commonly known as PA 116), and for the reasons stated above. RS

101 GENERAL FUND72100 PLANNING COMMISSION

2016 2017 2017 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION ACTUAL AMENDED EXPENDED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET

BUDGET THROUGH BUDGET REQUEST FINANCE FINANCE BOC BOCAUGUST REQUEST

101-72100-705000 SALARIES AND WAGES 97,629$ 98,608$ 65,030$ 163,399$ 163,399$ 163,399$ 163,399$

101-72100-707100 PART TIME EMPLOYEES 55,642$ 57,277$ 23,402$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$

101-72100-709000 LONGEVITY 725$ 750$ -$ 775$ 775$ 775$ 775$

101-72100-711000 OVERTIME PAY-STRAIGHT TIME 199$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

101-72100-711100 OVERTIME-TIME AND 1/2 245$ 1,000$ 675$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$

101-72100-715000 SOCIAL SECURITY 11,273$ 12,059$ 6,449$ 13,402$ 13,402$ 13,402$ 13,402$

101-72100-716000 EMPLOYERS-RETIREMENT 25,473$ 27,333$ 17,596$ 46,053$ 46,053$ 46,053$ 46,053$

101-72100-716010 EMPLOYERS-RET HEALTH CARE 22,734$ 27,298$ 17,876$ 27,134$ 27,134$ 27,134$ 27,134$

101-72100-717000 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 152$ 78$ 44$ 87$ 87$ 87$ 87$

101-72100-718000 WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 29$ 14$ 8$ 14$ 14$ 14$ 14$

101-72100-719000 HEALTH INSURANCE 27,924$ 27,722$ 18,481$ 36,829$ 36,829$ 36,829$ 36,829$

101-72100-720000 LIFE INSURANCE 187$ 187$ 132$ 308$ 308$ 308$ 308$

101-72100-721000 OPTICAL INSURANCE 202$ 131$ 87$ 323$ 323$ 323$ 323$

101-72100-722000 DENTAL INSURANCE 1,506$ 1,629$ 1,085$ 2,505$ 2,505$ 2,505$ 2,505$

101-72100-723000 DISABILITY INSURANCE 1,345$ 1,137$ 743$ 1,879$ 1,879$ 1,879$ 1,879$

101-72100-725000 ACCRUED WAGES AND FRINGES 167$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

101-72100-728000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 299$ 1,250$ 1,086$ 1,250$ 1,250$ 1,250$ 1,250$

101-72100-729000 PRINTING AND IMAGING 1,471$ 1,750$ 371$ 1,750$ 1,750$ 1,750$ 1,750$

101-72100-729020 AERIAL MAPS -$ 1,000$ 760$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$

101-72100-730000 POSTAGE AND MAILING FEES 932$ 1,500$ 564$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$

101-72100-731000 COMPUTER & DATA PROC SUPPLIES 372$ 48$ -$ 48$ 48$ 48$ 48$

101-72100-732000 SUBSCRIPTIONS & PERIODICALS 1,208$ 1,130$ 1,593$ 975$ 1,130$ 1,130$ 1,130$

101-72100-806000 CONTRACTUAL AND TEMP PERSONNEL 1,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

101-72100-810000 BOARD PER DIEM 2,550$ 4,075$ 1,675$ 4,075$ 4,075$ 4,075$ 4,075$

101-72100-810020 BOARD MEMBERS TRAVEL 855$ 1,500$ 588$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$

101-72100-814015 SOFTWARE LICENSE FEE 11,670$ 11,400$ 11,100$ 11,400$ 11,400$ 11,400$ 11,400$

101-72100-830000 ASSOCIATION & MEMBERSHIP DUES 3,689$ 4,023$ 3,506$ 4,023$ 4,023$ 4,023$ 4,023$

101-72100-851000 TELEPHONE 2,568$ 2,220$ 1,089$ 2,220$ 2,220$ 2,500$ 2,500$

101-72100-861000 TRAVEL 589$ 2,200$ 141$ 2,200$ 2,200$ 2,000$ 2,000$

101-72100-864000 CONFERENCE AND CONVENTION -$ 1,000$ -$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$

101-72100-911000 GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE 2,638$ 1,636$ 922$ 1,812$ 1,812$ 1,812$ 1,812$

101-72100-933000 MAINT-OFFICE EQUIP AND FURN 627$ 629$ 247$ 629$ 629$ 630$ 630$

101-72100-942000 COPIER EXPENSE/LEASE 2,493$ 1,500$ 2,020$ 2,690$ 2,690$ 2,500$ 2,500$

101-72100-958000 TRAINING AND SEMINARS 1,761$ 2,000$ 474$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$

TOTAL 280,153$ 294,084$ 177,743$ 343,780$ 343,935$ 343,826$ 343,826$ -$ -$

NOTICE & AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONROE ...

Documents