EMMET COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
THURSDAY AUGUST 6, 2015, 7:30 P.M.
EMMET COUNTY BUILDING
200 DIVISION ST
PETOSKEY, MI 49770
MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Eby, Dan Plasencia, Bert Notestine, Kelly Alexander,
James Scott, Shawn Wonnacott, Steve Neal, David Laughbaum
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Tom Urman
STAFF:
Tammy Doernenburg, Monica Linehan
I
Call to Order and Attendance
The meeting was called to order at 7:30PM by Chairman Eby. All members were present except
Urman.
II
Minutes of July 2, 2015
Alexander made a motion seconded by Plasencia to approve the minutes of the July 2, 2015 meeting.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote of the members present.
III
Cases
1. Case #9-15
Jonathan R. Crane for SBA Towers VI, LLC, SPECIAL USE PERMIT –
Radio Tower, 6162 W Robinson Rd, Section 28, Readmond Township
Legal Notice: A request by Jonathan R. Crane for SBA Towers VI, LLC for a Special Use Permit for a 445' tall guyed
lattice tower at 6162 W. Robinson Rd., Section 28, Readmond Township. The property is zoned FF-2 Farm and Forest and
is tax parcel 24-12-08-28-100-003. The request is for a wireless telephone service and commercial radio tower per Section
2102-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is owned by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Packet items: Request & location map, application, 6/16/15 submittal letter, 6/16/15 FAA letter with attachments, State of
MI prelim application and approval, impact statement, 7/20/15 submittal letter, Sabre Industries letter, zoning evaluation,
7/16/15 site plan packet
Doernenburg showed the location of the subject parcel. It is an approximately 488 acre parcel located
on the north side of W. Robinson Road. She noted that the parcel is actually zoned FR not FF-2 as
advertised in the legal notice. The ordinance allows uses in FF-1 and FF-2 to be located in FR and as
regulated in Section 801. Towers are allowed utilizing Section 2102 in the FF zoning districts. The
proposed tower would be located within an 80’x60’ fenced area near the 475’ State Police tower which
is on the adjacent property. The site is wooded, primarily with hardwoods. The proposal is for a 445’
high guyed tower. The site plan and photos were shown. The existing drive to the State Police tower
is proposed to be utilized. Per comments at the township meeting, the site plan has been revised and
distributed. The revised site plan rotates the tower in order to increase the setback from the road rightof-way and create a 204’ setback to the guy wires. An engineering letter has been submitted which
allows for a 50% reduction per Section 2102.2 A). The letter indicates that the tower would collapse
within a radius of 325’. This means that the setback is met from the road but not from the neighboring
property. The township has recommended approval based on the revised site plan.
Jonathan Crane, applicant, stated that their company has a contract with the State of Michigan to build
towers on State lands. The antenna that will be on this proposed tower is for Interlochen radio which
was proposed some time ago on another property. At that time it was suggested that they look into
moving their tower toward the State Police tower. He noted that although the neighboring properties
Emmet County Planning Commission
August 6, 2015
Page 1 of 8
are separate parcels they are all owned by the State of Michigan. He stated that this is a good project.
He presented this proposal to both the township planning commission and the board, both of which
unanimously recommended approval.
Neal asked about the table that was included with the information regarding radio frequency. Will
their frequencies interfere with the police tower? Crane stated that the State Police have thoroughly
reviewed their proposal and have seen no interferences. Neal asked about co-location; how many
antennas would the tower support? Crane stated that five would be supported and they’d likely be
cellular carriers. Neal asked if this was clear as well in their proposal that the police reviewed. Crane
stated that it was and they don’t anticipate any issues. Notestine noted that the FCC would have to
review as well.
Plasencia asked about the township recommendation that stated the existing road would be used
permanently and not adding another road. Bill Sutton, Readmond Township, stated that they didn’t
want to see a new access off of Robinson Road. They intend to utilize the existing entrance that is in
place for the police tower and add to the driveway to go to their parcel. He stated that the township
was satisfied with the submission. They have all of their approvals and were cooperative in rotating
the tower to gain that larger road setback. Sutton stated that it won’t be seen from the road as there
will be 200’ of trees. Doernenburg stated that if there is approval from both State agencies that own
property it would become a zoning lot which would address the setback issue. Neal asked how that
would remain if the property were sold. Doernenburg stated that the lease would likely be written to
follow ownership.
There was no public comment on this case.
Plasencia made a motion to approve Case #9-15, Jonathan R. Crane for SBA Towers VI, LLC for a
Special Use Permit for a 445 ft. tower facility on property located at 6162 W. Robinson Road, Section
28, Readmond Township, tax parcel 24-12-08-28-100-003, as shown on the site plan dated Received
August 5, 2015 because the standards for a tower have been met including: the tower is setback
according to the engineer's certification as required; proper safety measures have been implemented,
collocation shall be allowed as allowed by the structure's capacity, on condition that the trees remain in
the area between the south two guy wires, and because the township has recommended approval. The
motion was supported by Notestine and passed on the following roll-call vote: Yes: Eby, Neal,
Notestine, Scott, Wonnacott, Laughbaum, Plasencia, Alexander. No: None. Absent: Urman.
2. Case #174A-96
Ceci Bauer, SITE PLAN REVIEW AMENDMENT, 1129 N Lake Shore Dr,
Section 25, Readmond Township
Legal Notice: A request by Ceci Bauer/Primitive Image for Site Plan Review for placement of a food concession cart on
the business property located at 1129 N. Lake Shore Drive in Section 25 of Readmond Township. The property is tax
parcel number 24-12-07-25-300-037 and is zoned B-1 Local Tourist Business. The request is per Section 900-4 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Packet items: Request & location map, application, site plan review checklist, impact statement, site plan, zoning
evaluation
The location of this parcel was shown. It is approximately 0.38 acres located on the west side of N
Lake Shore Drive (M-119). It is zoned B-1 as well as the northerly and southerly neighbors. These
properties all have commercial uses. The parcel across the highway is zoned SR-2 while the parcel to
the rear of the property and to the west are zoned RR-2. The proposal is to allow a food vending truck
that is currently located in the driveway of Primitive Images to remain on the property. The site plan
shows the truck being moved to an area out of the driveway to allow the driveway and parking to be
utilized. The current business (Primitive Images) was approved in 1997 and some parking was
deferred at that time (4 of 9 spaces). A freestanding sign has been being used in conjunction with the
Emmet County Planning Commission
August 6, 2015
Page 2 of 8
food truck. It was placed without approval and blocks the designated off-street parking area. The
township recommended approval on the condition that the truck be moved on the south side of the
drive and west of the setback as shown on the plan, that one or more parking spots be added in the
deferred area with clear markings, and that signage be added to direct clients to the parking area in the
rear for both the store and food cart. Photos of the site were shown. The Fire Department reviewed
the plan with no concerns. Doernenburg stated that the MDOT review included concerns with the
driveway and also stated that some sort of official parking directions and designations should be
installed to encourage using the parking area as opposed to parking in front of the business along the
highway. It is a violation of the State law to park along the highway unless parked parallel and
backing out onto the highway is also a violation. Sandwich boards and signs are not allowed in the
road right-of-way without approval. There are no sanitary service requirements for vending trucks
from the Health Department. Doernenburg showed a picture illustrating the parking along the
highway.
Ceci Bauer, applicant, stated that they have had the truck there for about five years now. They didn’t
know they needed to apply as it was not a permanent structure. They don’t have anyone that utilizes
the back parking area. The two adjacent stores were grandfathered in and have no specific parking
requirements so people park along the highway for all three businesses. She stated that she was
required to put in the driveway when she was approved for the store.
Eby asked about the signage issues. Doernenburg stated that she will be working with the property
owner for compliance on the business signs. For the parking, some sort of directional sign seems
appropriate. If the proposed signage were to be located in the MDOT right-of-way, MDOT would
need to approve the sign. If it is located elsewhere on the property and is a 4sf directional sign and is
unlit, there would be no requirement for Sign & Lighting Committee review. Bauer stated that the
parking area was not needed until the past few years. This can be opened up but she is unsure of how
many people would use it.
Bill Sutton stated that the township planning commission felt that due to the fact she has five parking
spaces for the store itself, the food vending truck should require one additional space. They wanted to
see the truck moved out of the driveway to the south and west of the setback. This has been
accomplished on the site plan reviewed tonight. Sutton stated that he isn’t sure what the directional
signage looks like but the township is definitely in favor of that. He stated that there have been and
continue to be discussions regarding that corridor with township and County officials and MDOT to
determine what can be done there. Because it is a State highway, it is subject to different rules and
guidelines. The township recognized the need for evaluation and issues with this commercial district.
In this situation, the township feels that this is a reasonable solution which complies with the zoning
ordinance.
There was no public comment on this case.
Scott made a motion to approve Case #174A-96, Ceci Bauer/Primitive Image, Site Plan Review
Amendment for an addition of a 7'x14' food concession structure at 1129 N Lake Shore Drive, tax
parcel 24-12-07-25-300-037, Section 25, Readmond Township because the uses are principal uses
permitted in the zoning district, the use meets the setback standard, it meets the standards of Section
2405, and the township recommended approval. Approval is on condition that the signage be brought
into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and that directional signage for parking be installed. The
motion was supported by Plasencia and passed on the following roll-call vote: Yes: Eby, Neal,
Notestine, Scott, Wonnacott, Laughbaum, Plasencia, Alexander. No: None. Absent: Urman.
Emmet County Planning Commission
August 6, 2015
Page 3 of 8
3. Case #10-15
Carolyn Sutherland, SITE PLAN REVIEW-AMENDMENT, 1075 N Lake
Shore Dr, Section 25, Readmond Township
Legal Notice: A request by Carolyn Sutherland for Site Plan Review for Market Days to allow up to 15 local vendors on
the business property located at 1075 N. Lake Shore Drive in Section 25 of Readmond Township. The property is tax
parcel number 24-12-07-25-300-014 and 019 and is zoned B-1 Local Tourist Business. The request is per Section 900-4 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Packet items: Request & location map, application, impact statement, zoning evaluation, applicant prepared site plan, staff
prepared site plan
Doernenburg stated that the township has recommended postponing this case due to the fact that the
site plan was insufficient for review. She stated that the applicant also asked that the case be
postponed. This case will be postponed at the request of the township and applicant. It will be heard
again at the next regular meeting.
4. Case #19A-13
Warren & Laura Morché, SPECIAL USE PERMIT-Wind Energy System
over 60’, 4717 Arbutus Ln, Section 35, Friendship Township
Legal Notice: A request by Warren and Laura Morché` for a Special Use Permit for a Wind Energy System over 60 feet in
height at 4717 Arbutus Lane, Section 35, Cross Village Township. The property is zoned FF-1 Farm and Forest and is tax
parcel 24-05-04-35-100-007. The request is to allow a 110 ft. Wind Energy System per Section 2102-16 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Packet items: Request & location map, application, answer letter from applicant, 5/12/15 site plan, impact statement,
Aleko spec sheet, aerial, tower mfr spec sheets, 7/15/15 record of phone call from June Summers, zoning evaluation
This parcel is a 40 acre parcel located on the south side of Arbutus Road. Proposed is a 110’ high
wind energy system on a lattice tower; the ordinance requires monopole construction. The setbacks
are met. The dB(A) is indicated at 38dB(A) at a distance of 164.042 feet. This tower is proposed to
be setback farther than 164.042 feet. The ordinance allows for 40 dB(A). The township
recommended denial with a vote of five against and zero in favor on a motion to approve. They stated
that this action was not taken lightly as the development of alternate energy is an important aspect of
the future. The site plan and photos were shown. A future home site is shown on the site plan.
Warren Morché, applicant, stated that he’s owned the property for the last 7-8 years. He has worked
in the elevator trade for years and has worked on many high lattice towers with guy wires. Radio
communication towers and cell towers are primarily lattice towers. He stated that there are thousands
of lattice towers in the tri-state area. Most large turbines such as the ones in Mackinaw City and on
wind farms are what draws most of the media attention and are the focus of written codes however
95% of wind energy systems are erected for personal use to have an electrical backup system, to
reduce carbon footprint, or, as in his case, they are in a rural area where obtaining access to the power
grid is cost prohibitive. Morché stated that his proposed unit is a 10kw unit with a rotor speed less
than 300rpms which he equated to a ceiling fan. It is a lattice tower so it is lightweight and more
economically feasible because it can be erected without cranes and large equipment. It is a Rohn
tower which is considered the Cadillac of towers. It is a self-supporting tower which can range from
50-300’ by adding larger base units to fit the application it’s being used for. If lattice or guy wire
towers are prohibited by the ordinance it takes away from private towers and makes them at least five
times more expensive making them cost prohibitive and increasing the carbon footprint. Morché
asked what is more aesthetically pleasing, a lattice tower on a heavily wooded 40 acre parcel or a clear
cut of 10’ through four 10acre parcels in order to install power poles to his property? He stated when
he priced this out with the power company in 2006, this would cost at least $20,000.00. The tower
would be invisible from Lake Shore Drive and probably not even visible from Arbutus Road. Due to
the tree cover, he stated that he would be dealing with lack of power if power lines were ran with the
amount of falling trees and downed lines they’d have to deal with due to the amount of wooded
Emmet County Planning Commission
August 6, 2015
Page 4 of 8
acreage. Morché stated that he has received a favorable response to his proposal from the neighbor
which would be closest (south). Their house is at least 3/8 mile away. The next neighbor is ½ mile
away. He also stated that he re-measured the location he has proposed for the tower and it would be
280’ from the road. The only negative response at the township meeting was from a neighbor to the
north. He stated that he had a favorable response individually from board members but in response to
the negative reply from the neighbor they had a split vote and voted to deny. He stated that most of
the problem is the wind turbine stigma. This is not comparable to the large turbines. The generating
head can be picked up by himself. Morché stated that where the tower would be sited no one would be
able to see it. He knows there is a good wind flow there. The White House has put out a press release
recently that stated that they have a plan to distribute solar panels and potentially small wind energy
systems to low income families. He has several houses downstate that utilize both solar and wind
energy. The government encourages environmental friendliness and green thinking and that is how his
house has been planned. The plans have been brought into the building department for preliminary
review. The wind energy system would provide most of the power when the winds are up and he can
add 1000 watts of solar to the installation when the house is erected. He plans to be self-sufficient. He
stated that when he bought the property he questioned the viability of putting this up with the county
and was told that he could do so with the proper permits. It took him eight years to find a tower and
now is faced with the fact that he may not be able to install it because it is an lattice tower without an
explanation of why. There is no maintenance to this tower because it has sealed bearings and is selfgoverning. This is a quiet tower and is not big enough to cause noise issues and flicker is the same
non-issue. The tree noise in this area is louder than the turbine would be. Morché stated that he feels
that the ordinance cannot be a one-size fits all.
Doernenburg stated for the record that the township had voted 5 against 0 in favor on a motion to
approve; not a split vote as the applicant had stated.
Eby asked how high the WES on Hill Road is. Doernenburg stated that she would have to look at the
records. Morché stated that it is over 60’ and the main issue is gear noise on that one. Notestine asked
the applicant why a 60’ tower wouldn’t work for him. Morché stated that the rule-of-thumb is to be
30’ higher than the highest tree in a 300’ range. The trees along Arbutus are mature trees 60’ plus in
height and existing pines on his property are well over 40’. He stated that most issues with noise are
when there isn’t a clear shot for the wind through trees. Laughbaum questioned the distance from the
road. Morché stated it would be 280’. From the house would be 130’. It would be 1400’ to the corner
of the neighboring property and the neighbor’s house on the far side of their 40 acre parcel. Plasencia
asked for clarification on what is allowed at what height. Doernenburg noted that a lattice tower
would be allowed at 60’ or less and could be administratively approved. Over 60’ requires review by
this board and a monopole construction. Plasencia stated that he has a hard time seeing where this
tower would be an issue on this property. Is there a potential for an exception? Doernenburg stated
that the ordinance does not allow for modifications in this section. Neal stated that he worries that we
are re-opening an issue that has been somewhat fixed if we make changes again. Doernenburg stated
that Alfred LaCount recommended allowing lattice towers after sitting through all of our meetings on
this issue. Eby stated that he has evolved to look at lattice towers differently especially in wooded
situations. Laughbaum stated that he likes lattice towers. Neal noted that his previous comment didn’t
have anything to do with lattice vs. monopole towers but feels that deviating from the established
ordinance would make all the work that was done for naught. Eby stated that if the ordinance needs to
be changed this can be discussed at a later time. Wonnacott stated that he appreciates that the tower
isn’t already up. Laughbaum stated that in terms of liberty and self-sufficiency there should be some
latitude that prevents people from getting priced out of the market. Eby asked if all of the other
conditions for a wind energy system are met in this case except for the lattice tower issue.
Doernenburg stated that all other conditions are met including the decibel levels. She noted that wind
Emmet County Planning Commission
August 6, 2015
Page 5 of 8
assessment systems are allowed to be on a lattice tower. Would this be an option? It may allow the
applicant to have something during the time necessary to review the ordinance if that is the direction
this board is going. Laughbaum asked if he could go to the ZBA for a financial hardship.
Doernenburg stated that the ZBA must review hardship based on the conditions of the property not
financial issues. Notestine stated that he feels that it is important to look at type and height. Eby
stated that the ordinance could be written to allow for the Planning Commission to waive the
monopole requirement in certain circumstances. Wonnacott stated that he still wants to see wind
energy systems that exceed 60’ in height. Plasencia asked if this case should be postponed to allow
time to look at the ordinance. Doernenburg stated that she could bring in some language next month.
There was no public comment on this case.
Neal made a motion, supported by Wonnacott to postpone this case to allow time to look at a potential
change to the zoning ordinance. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the members present.
It will be heard again at the next regular meeting.
5. Case #11-15
William Muzyl for Alpine Propane, LLC, SITE PLAN REVIEW-Propane
gas service yard, 7470 Keystone Park Dr, Section 11, Littlefield Township
Legal Notice: A request by William Muzyl for Alpine Propane, LLC for Site Plan Review for a propane gas service yard
at 7470 Keystone Park Dr, which is Lot 1 of the Keystone Industrial Park in Section 11 of Littlefield Township. The
property is tax parcel number 24-07-17-11-127-101 and is zoned I-1 Light Industrial. The request is per Section 1300-4 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Packet items: Request & location map, application, property owner email, impact statement, zoning evaluation, picture of
tank/sign, 6/25/15 site plan packet
Doernenburg presented this case. The parcel is 1.03 acres and is zoned I-1. It is a vacant parcel with
adjacent parcels to the north, east, and south zoned I-1 and a residence to the west (zoned FF-1). The
proposal is for a 2800sf (40’x70’) office building and three large propane distribution tanks. The
existing conditions site plan was shown which shows an existing commercial access drive to M-68 and
a private access drive to the north. The proposed site plan was shown. Doernenburg noted the drive
would be asphalt up to the building when built and gravel behind. There is a proposed 6’ high fence at
the propane storage location. There is a 50’ rear setback and it would be approximately 100’ to the
closest home from the propane tanks. The signs and lighting would need Sign & Lighting Committee
review. There is no other outdoor display proposed or allowed. The township recommended approval
but asked that the dumpster be moved to the east corner behind the propane tanks and be lit. A Knox
box is required by the Fire Department. A sealed drainage plan has been submitted. The floor plan
and elevations were shown as well as photos of the site.
Bill Muzyl, applicant, stated that they started their business in Gaylord a year ago. In meeting with
zoning staff they found that there were very few parcels that were zoned properly for what they want
to do. They found this parcel and decided to move forward. This years’ plan is to install two propane
tanks. They are not ready to put in the building yet and aren’t sure if they’ll be putting in an office
here or just run the business from Gaylord. The building would be several years out.
Plasencia asked what their operating process is with just the tanks there. Muzyl explained that the
semis would fill the holding tanks and then the operator would fill their trucks from those tanks to
distribute throughout the day. It would not be manned. Eby asked why the township would want the
dumpster lit. Muzyl stated that they asked to move it to the location behind the tanks and there is a lit
area there. They are fine with moving the dumpster there until the building is built.
There was no public comment on this case.
Emmet County Planning Commission
August 6, 2015
Page 6 of 8
Plasencia made a motion to approve Case #11-15, Alpine Propane for Site Plan Review for an office
and propane storage facility on property located at 7470 Keystone Park Drive, Section 11, Littlefield
Township, tax parcel 24-07-17-11-127-101, as shown on the site plan dated Received Jun 25, 2015
because the standards of Section 1000 and 2405 have been met, and on condition that the exterior
lighting be reviewed by the Sign and Lighting Committee, a Knox box shall be installed on the gate,
the dumpster will be moved to the east corner of the property until the building is built and will be
screened, and because the township made the recommendation to approve this case. The motion was
supported by Scott and passed on the following roll-call vote: Yes: Eby, Neal, Notestine, Scott,
Wonnacott, Laughbaum, Plasencia, Alexander. No: None. Absent: Urman.
6. Case #15D-02
Highlander Golf LLC, FINAL MIXED USE PUD-1-Amendment, Section
13, Friendship Township
Legal Notice: A request by Highlander Golf LLC (c/o John Hover) for a Final Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development-1
(PUD-1) amendment at 2500 True North Drive in Section 13 of Friendship Township. The property is zoned FF-2 Farm
and Forest with a PUD-1 Overlay and is part of tax parcel 24-06-12-13-100-014 and tax parcels 24-06-12-13-110-161, 162,
163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, and 179. The request is per Article XVIII of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Packet items: Request & location map, application, impact statement, Health Dept email, Third amendment to master
deed, zoning evaluation, 7/13/15 site plan, 7/24/15 site plan, 7/24/15 revised zoning evaluation
Doernenburg explained that this site was approved last month for a preliminary PUD by both the
Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners. There is one small change; the preliminary
request was for 88 units where there are now 89. They are still within the maximum allowable density
for the 320 acre site. Each of the sites will be individually owned but will be managed by True North.
This final PUD request is for the individual home sites; they will come back for review of additional
uses in the future. The current request is for 17 individual lots, some with shared drives and parking
and all with individual septic drain fields and wells. The site plan was shown. Doernenburg noted that
details were provided just before the packets were sent out so the revised plan was sent out with a
revised staff report. It appears that all of the standards of the Zoning Ordinance have been met. This
request will go to the Board of Commissioners for final review. The township has recommended
approval. Photos of the site were shown.
John Hover, applicant, stated that they have had a lot of interest from people who like the added
amenities and have sold two more lots.
Plasencia asked what happens if someone purchases a lot and then wants to put in a garage later.
Hover stated that the larger lots with full homes are required to have garages. Single car garages and
carports on these lots would be available as an option. Plasencia stated that it reminds him of the lots
in L’Arbre Croche in which the ZBA has had many variance requests because people didn’t anticipate
wanting garages built. He wants to make sure that this issue isn’t being created here as well and that
there is room on the sites for a garage if wanted. Doernenburg noted that the setbacks are reduced to
5’ on the sides which is less than the typical 20’ side setback in the FF district. This is allowed in a
PUD as long as the perimeter setbacks are maintained.
There was no public comment on this case.
Notestine made a motion to recommend approval of Case #15D-02 KH Development LLC. - John
Hover for a Final Mixed Use Planned Unit Development-1 (PUD-1) at 2500 True North Drive, Section
13, Friendship Township (Site Plan dated July 24, 2015) to allow an increase in density to 89 site units
within the True North Golf Course development, the parcels are identified as tax parcel IDs 24-06-1213-100-014, 110-161 thru 110-168, and 110-173 thru 110-179. Approval is recommended for the
following reasons: 1) the characteristics surrounding the property will not change significantly; 2) the
Emmet County Planning Commission
August 6, 2015
Page 7 of 8
effects would not adversely impact adjacent properties; and 3) the standards of the Zoning Ordinance
have been met. The PUD-1 allows for single family dwellings and tourist homes, a golf course and
those uses customarily associated with a golf course and outdoor recreational uses and because the
township has recommended approval. The motion was supported by Plasencia and passed on the
following roll-call vote: Yes: Eby, Neal, Notestine, Scott, Wonnacott, Laughbaum, Plasencia,
Alexander. No: None. Absent: Urman.
7. Case #12-15
Dan Gorman for Steve Sewejkis, SPECIAL USE PERMIT-Exception to
accessory building size standards, Section 24, Friendship Township
Legal Notice: A request by Dan Gorman for Steve Sewejkis for a Special Use Permit for an Exception to the size of an
accessory building at 3060 Welsheimer Road, Section 24, Friendship Township. The property is tax parcel 24-06-12-24200-014 and is zoned FF-2 Farm and Forest. The request is to add a 3200 sq. ft. addition to a 1,036 sq. ft. accessory
building where a 2400 sq. ft. accessory building is permitted. The review is per Section 2201, paragraph 6 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Packet items: Request & location map, application, impact statement, zoning evaluation, 7/13/15 site plan
Doernenburg noted that the township requested postponement as the applicant did not provide them
with site plan materials to review until their meeting. The applicant also requested postponement.
There was one unidentified member of the audience that was in attendance for this case on behalf of
his sister. She is concerned about the size of the building, the lack of vegetation, and the proposed use
of the building.
Plasencia asked if the reported business has been addressed. Doernenburg stated that she has notified
the applicant that a business is not permitted.
This case will be postponed at the request of the township and applicant. It will be heard again at the
next regular meeting.
IV
Public Comment: None
V
Other Business:



VI
Planning Commission By-laws: There were no new comments. A clean draft will be
presented at the next meeting.
Enforcement Report-Distributed with little discussion. Doernenburg noted that there were
calls regarding the DWD recycling decision. They are moving toward compliance and have
continued to keep in contact with staff.
Melrose Twp Master Plan review-Doernenburg noted that the draft Master Plan for Melrose
Township was emailed and a memo prepared. Scott made a motion supported by Alexander to
authorize the Chair to sign the memo of support. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote
of the members present.
Adjournment
There being no other business Eby called the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
________________________________________
James Scott, Secretary
Emmet County Planning Commission
August 6, 2015
____________________________
Date
Page 8 of 8