Like toddlers taking their first tentative steps, the Independence Township Board of Trustees is moving cautiously through the process to approve a new keyholing zoning ordinance.
At the February 7 regular board meeting, trustees voted unanimously to receive language for the new zoning ordinance, and bring the document back to the board for a first reading.
‘This is a very mild ordinance,? said Trustee Dan Travis, who made the motion. ‘I think this is the right direction.?
According to Township Attorney Stuart Cooney, the new zoning ordinance is based upon similar laws already upheld by Michigan courts. However, Cooney said he added Section 2.2, under Section II ‘Water Access Lot Regulations,? at the request of a local Deer Lake property owner.
As listed in the ordinance, the section gives the township planning commission the power ‘to review and approve or deny any site plan which includes use of an ‘access property? for a picnic area, swimming beach or related activities.?
The commission’s determination is to be based upon material, objective and relevant evidence that the ‘proposed activities will not increase watercraft storage, maintenance, dockage or anchoring in conjunction with use of the access parcel, and that there shall be no negative impact on the waterfront or wetlands.?
‘I received a letter from a property owner’s attorney? but I am aware the owner is still not happy with (Section) 2.2,? Cooney told the board. ‘I have not satisfied the criticism that was there before.?
During a public comment period, Deer Lake property owner Tim Birtsas identified himself as the individual who contacted Cooney regarding the addition of Section 2.2. Birtsas told the board he owns the last parcel available for development on Deer Lake, and feels the current zoning ordinance is written to ‘penalize? his property.
‘There is no site plan at this time, but I have no intention of putting any kind of boat launch on that area,? Birtsas said. ‘I’m planning a common area for swimming or canoeing? I feel the draft falls way short of what I want.?
Birtsas gave several examples of area subdivisions he believes are not in compliance with the ordinance, but would be grandfathered into the new regulation.
‘Who’s being penalized is the last parcel of land to be developed,? he stated. ‘It seems to me like the gun is pointing at us.?
Several other residents stepped forward to voice concerns with portions of the ordinance’s language. Township trustees also asked several questions themselves.
‘I definitely feel there is still some tweeking of the language needed,? said Trustee Dan Kelly, who seconded the motion made by Travis. ‘There’s still work to do, but I’ll support moving forward.?
Supervisor Dave Wagner said he would like to have the zoning ordinance back before the board in another meeting or two.
For a history on the keyholing zoning ordinance, including a more indepth look at other aspects of the regulation, please go online to www.clarkstonnews.com and type ‘keyholing? into the search engine.