When areas of the village were platted over 75 years ago, planners probably didn’t take things like two-story medical offices or condos into consideration.
Those same plats remain today, but some of the plans have changed. And on part of Pelton’s Point along Lake Orion on M-24, it’s created a bit of controversy.
As a result, last week the village’s construction board of appeals was called in, holding their first meeting in Orion Township in decades.
The appeal was made by a pair of Pelton’s Point residents, one on each side of the proposed Orion Pointe condominiums, and centered on easements along a common roadway.
Building Official Tom Berger determined that the roadway could be expanded from 10? to 22? after looking into who served as ‘owners? of the easement. Berger’s assessment was ultimately upheld by the construction board.
‘Nine out of 10 times when you look at a plat, easements are very well defined,? Berger said. ?(This plat) was never specifically spelled out.?
Paul Bailey, a Lake Orion attorney, argued on behalf of residents Tom and Sue Albert and Mark and Jennifer Brancheau at the construction board meeting last Wednesday.
‘There’s very little guidance. The plat doesn’t tell us much,? Bailey said. ‘The plat was done back in 1930 and as far as I can see there’s no real direction for the easement. But there’s no question that my clients use it to get to their property.?
Both Bailey and Berger said the issue boils down to who are considered ‘owners? of the easement.
In coming to his decision, Berger said the residents don’t qualify as owners under the State Construction Code. Reading from the code, he said, ‘an owner is someone who holds title, is in possession, or is otherwise directly or indirectly in control of the property.?
‘I suggest that my clients are indirect owners,? Bailey said. ‘No one has the exclusive control.?
In addition to the condominiums, the Orion Pointe Planned Unit Development includes a medical professional building and marina slips, and the entirety of the property (owned by Winfire Companies) stretches from M-24 to the waterfront.
‘It’s going to be a substantial change,? Bailey said of his clients? roadway. ‘There’s going to be a lot more traffic. It will become a commercial access.?
After a brief discussion, the construction board (consisting of Mike McReynolds, Richard Hamilton, Phillip Gentile and Robert Smith, with Steven Auger absent) moved to uphold Berger’s decision.
Among other things, their decision noted, ‘A determination that the easement interest holders described in Section 6.9 of the PUD Agreement are not ‘owners? as defined in and for purposes of building permit applications under the State Construction Code Act, however, the easement interest holders have a privilege to use the easement areas.?
Mark Brancheau said they plan to appeal the decision to the state.