CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHOCOLAY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, January :00 pm

Transcription

1 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHOCOLAY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, January :00 pm I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY: / ROLL CALL II. Name Term Ends Attendance Tom Mahaney (Chair) Present Absent Donna Mullen-Campbell (Secretary) Present Absent Cory Bushong (Vice Secretary) Present Absent Don Rhein Board Term Present Absent Susan Maynard Present Absent Kendell Milton Present Absent Ryan Soucy Present Absent ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS / APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to approve the agenda as (written/ changed) by Seconded by Vote: Ayes Nays III. MINUTES December 17, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Motion to approve the minutes as (written/changed) by Seconded by Vote: Ayes Nays IV. PUBLIC COMMENT Limit of three minutes per person. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS None VI. PRESENTATIONS None VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Planning Commission Officers 1. Staff introduction 2. Commission discussion 3. Commission decision

2 B Planning Commission Annual Report 1. Staff introduction 2. Commission discussion 3. Commission decision C. Proposed Planning Commission Priorities 1. Staff introduction 2. Commission discussion 3. Commission decision D. Marijuana Facilities Ordinance Consideration 1. Staff introduction 2. Commission discussion 3. Commission decision E. Rental Considerations 1. Staff introduction 2. Commission discussion 3. Commission decision F. Structure Placement Considerations 1. Staff introduction 2. Commission discussion 3. Commission decision IX. PUBLIC COMMENT Any item of interest limit 3 minutes per person X. COMMISSIONER S COMMENTS XI. DIRECTOR S REPORT XII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND CORRESPONDENCE XIII. A. Minutes Township Board, B. Township newsletter January, 2019 C. Minutes Marquette City Planning Commission, D. Minutes Marquette City Planning Commission, ADJOURNMENT 2

3 Planning Commission Rules for Public Hearings and Public Comment 1. Please wait for chair to acknowledge you before speaking. Individuals not following this rule are subject to dismissal from the meeting. 2. Individuals must state their name and address for the record. Individuals representing an organization must state their name and the organization they represent for the record. 3. Give your comments, opinion and / or question on the issue being addressed. Please stay on topic or you may be ruled out of order. 4. Due to a full agenda, and to ensure that everyone has time to speak, the Commissioners will limit comments to three minutes per person. For the same reasons, please be as brief as possible and try not to repeat what has been said by others before you. 5. No person can grant his or her time to another speaker. 6. Please be as factual as possible and do not make comments on the character of people. 7. Planning Commissioners and Township staff members are not required nor expected to respond to comments, opinions and/or questions from the floor. 3

4 III CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHOCOLAY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, December 17, 2018 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY: Tom Mahaney at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Mahaney (Chair), Eric Meister (Vice Chair), Donna Mullen- Campbell (Secretary), Kendell Milton, Cory Bushong, Susan Maynard, Don Rhein (Board) Members Absent: None Staff Present: Dale Throenle (Planning Director/Zoning Administrator), Richard Bohjanen (Township Supervisor), Jon Kangas (Township Manager) and Lisa Perry (Administrative Assistant) II. III. IV. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS / APPROVAL OF AGENDA Pursuant to prior consent of the Township Board, staff has drafted a minor revision to the Waste Water Collection System Ordinance. Also for consideration would be a change in the sewer billing cycle. Throenle is asking to add this to the agenda as item VIII.F. Motion by Rhein, and seconded by Maynard to approve the agenda as changed. Vote: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 MINUTES MOTION CARRIED November 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Motion by Meister, and seconded by Bushong, to approve the minutes as written. Vote: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENT MOTION CARRIED Anthony Harry, 6369 US 41 S. President of ATV/ORV club, Team Riders, in Marquette County. Asked to be included in discussion of the proposal (VIII.E) when it comes up on the Agenda. Simon Shaked, M-28 Proposed Campground He, Mike, and Terry Huffman will be here to answer questions on the proposal (VIII.D) when it comes up on the Agenda. Public comment closed 7:08 PM Page 1 of 20

5 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rezoning from Waterfront to Residential Kawbawgam Road (deferred to VIII.A) B. Rezoning from Residential to Waterfront Chocolay River Corridor (deferred to VIII.B) VI. VII. VIII. PRESENTATIONS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS A. Rezoning from Waterfront to Residential Kawbawgam Road Mahaney asked Throenle about maps regarding this rezoning as well as the one in item VIII.B. Throenle stated there aren t physical maps for the public tonight but he will have them on the TV screen for everyone to see. Staff Introduction In August and September, the Planning Commission decided to change the zoning district for twenty seven parcels located on the south side of Kawbawgam Road above Lake Kawbawgam from Waterfront Residential (WFR) to Residential (R-1). The purpose of this change is intended to remove those parcels from the Waterfront Zoning District as they do not have direct access to Lake Kawbawgam or any other body of water. The Commissioners recommended the decision be addressed in a public hearing at the November meeting; this hearing was postponed until the December meeting. Forty notifications were sent out to properties within 500 of these parcels and one was returned undeliverable. He had several calls inquiring about possible tax increases but no written comments. The changes the Planning Commission has recommended are consistent with the zoning recommended for this area, and this decision is based on the recommended zoning presented in the Township Master Plan. Throenle stated this change will not affect taxes due to rezoning, the only change with doing this is for the map in the Master Plan. This also takes properties out of the Waterfront that do not belong there. The twenty-five parcels identified in the Township Assessing database affected by this change are: Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Page 2 of Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road

6 Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Kawbawgam Road Two additional parcels will be included as part of this change; currently those two parcels do not have parcel identification numbers, but will be assigned parcel numbers in the near future. Public Hearing Jim Tillison, 121 Wintergreen Trail Curious how to obtain a copy of the Master Plan. Throenle answered it can be accessed on the Township website (which he demonstrated how to access it) or Tillison can come into the Township office to look at the written copy. Throenle also told him he could call or come in during business hours and he would be happy to answer any questions he has pertaining to the Master Plan. Kenlyn Hubbard, 121 Wintergreen Trail had a question to one of the maps presented on the TV screen about colors/properties. Throenle explained the differences. Public comment closed 7:12 PM Commissioner Discussion There were no questions or comments from the Planning Commissioners as this has been discussed in previous meetings. Page 3 of 20

7 Commission Decision Mullen-Campbell moved, and Rhein seconded that after providing required notification to the public, holding a public hearing and considering public input, the Planning Commission recommends that the Township Board approve the changing the zoning district for twenty-seven parcels located on the south the side of Kawbawgam Road above Lake Kawbawgam from Waterfront to Residential (R-1). Vote: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 MOTION CARRIED B. Rezoning from Residential to Waterfront Chocolay River Corridor Staff Introduction Throenle brought the map on the TV screen for the public to see. Throenle explained that along the Chocolay River and a portion of Cherry Creek there are a number of parcels that are labeled residential but the Master Plan indicates they should be waterfront due to their location directly on either side of the river. The changes the Planning Commission has recommended are consistent with the zoning recommended for this area, and this decision is based on the recommended zoning presented in the Township Master Plan. Throenle stated again that even though it is changing from Residential to Waterfront zoning, it will not affect the taxes. He has discussed this with the Township assessor and taxes will not increase due to this zoning change. It does not however, mean taxes will not change in the future based on the property itself. Taxes do not have anything to do with the zoning. The concept of adding this to the Waterfront district is for future planning that the Township has in terms of waterfront areas. In the waterfront areas, we will have the FEMA Community Rating System which will be coming forward in April-May The rating system will affect how FEMA looks at properties and how the Township gets information out to residents about flood plains, etc. Having these properties listed in the Waterfront zoning is one step in the rating system to get us in a general concept for FEMA where flood insurance can get reduced for everyone in that district. The Community Rating System is based on a points system. You get points for notifications, making sure the zoning ordinance is correct, right now the Township is a rating of ten with the ideal rating being one. For every level we come down, the people with flood insurance or looking for flood insurance, the price drops by 10%, and will continue to drop by 10% with each level to level six. Maximum reduction will be 40% if we do everything recommended in the rating system. The one hundred twenty-one parcels identified in the Township Assessing database affected by this change are: Page 4 of 20

8 East Main Street East Main Street Forest Road Misty Trail Misty Trail Misty Trail M 28 E Autumn Trail Autumn Trail Autumn Trail Autumn Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail M-28 East Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail M-28 East Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane Timberlane East Main Street East Main Street East Main Street East Main Street Page 5 of 20

9 East Main Street East Main Street East Main Street Green Bay Street West Main Street West Main Street Lakewood Lane Riverside Road Green Bay Street Lakewood Lane Lakewood Lane Lakewood Lane West Main Street West Main Street West Main Street West Main Street West Main Street West Main Street West Main Street West Main Street West Main Street Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Page 6 of 20

10 Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road East Main Street East Main Street East Main Street East Main Street East Main Street East Main Street East Main Street East Main Street East Main Street East Main Street Glenwood Road Riverdale Court Riverdale Court Riverdale Court Riverdale Court Riverdale Court Riverside Road Riverside Road Riverside Road Forest Road Forest Road Forest Road Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Wintergreen Trail Public Hearing Dave Schuessler, 135 Wintergreen Trail Asked if there was any documentation to help ease the affected residents that this rezoning to waterfront will not affect their taxes. Throenle commented that in the letter that was sent out, there is a statement Page 7 of 20

11 to that affect. Throenle also explained that the assessor has a five year plan and assesses 20% of the properties a year. He does this based on the property value, not where the property lies according to zoning district. This does not guarantee your assessment will not change in the future, but it will not be related to the zoning changes in any way. He is also not sure where the assessor is regarding his assessments this year. Schuessler s concern is so much of his property, where it does touch the river, is not accessible and is in the flood plain. They cannot make any improvements because of the DNR so he was concerned with it being zoned waterfront. Throenle stated in 2017 FEMA redid the flood maps and many people that had federally backed mortgages were required to have flood insurance. Throenle stated there are ways to remove your property from the flood plain in terms of elevation. He would be happy to explain this more if anyone wanted to come in to the Township office to discuss it with him. He does not want to take the Planning Commission s time this evening to do that. Jim Jenkin, 164 Timberlane Asked what this rezoning would do for development of the land. Throenle stated this is where the Community Rating System comes into play. In the terms of residential and waterfront, in the terms of what you can or cannot build etc., the two districts are almost identical. The only difference in waterfront is you have to be 100 feet back from the edge of the water to put up a structure, residential you do not have that restriction unless you are along the water. Where this would come into play with the Community Rating System, it is easier to identify a group of properties regarding requirements. Jenkin also asked if this would bring another set of requirements on how you maintain your property. Throenle stated those are already in place from the County, DEQ, FEMA, Army Corp of Engineers and DNR. FEMA may have more requirements in the future. Jenkins also asked if there are any red flags for anyone due to the fact some of the properties are wetlands. Throenle stated Marquette Building Codes is following the FEMA regulations to stay ahead of FEMA to prevent violations. Jenkins also asked if this goes through if there would be more restrictions for property owners. Throenle stated it would not as the Zoning Ordinance covers this. Kimberly Thomsen, 135 Wintergreen Trail Questioned changes to flood plain maps based on elevation. Throenle stated the maps did not change much regarding numbers, what did change was banks stating certain mortgages needed flood insurance. Throenle stated as far as the floodplain, FEMA coming in and doing new mapping in the near future will not happen due to the fact their next step is to map the entire Great Lakes shoreline. The flood maps that are on record will remain for a while unless there is some drastic event that takes place. Throenle also stated the flood Page 8 of 20

12 plain map is available on the Township website or he can be reached at the Township office to discuss this. Jim Tillison, 121 Wintergreen Trail - Was notified his property was in the flood plain, he had his property assessed he was not in the flood plain but then it was changed. He had to go through an elevation survey to prove that he was not. Wants people to know they can do this. Throenle had a final note to residents, what the Planning Commission recommends this evening will go to the Township Board for approval, if they were not comfortable with what is presented tonight there will be another opportunity to speak at the Board meeting. Kenlyn Hubbard, 121 Wintergreen Trail Questioned if the assessor looks at waterfront property the same, is lake frontage the same as river frontage? For example, she is 100 yards from the river and didn t have access much due to the river being flooded. She wants to make sure waterfront assessments won t affect the taxes. Throenle stated he did not want to speak for the assessor as far as what the assessor does, but he had a conversation with the assessor and the assessor assured him he does not look at a property based on the zoning. Manager Kangas interjected regarding the assessor s land value maps, stating these maps take that into consideration. Ultimately assessment comes down to the value of the structures on your property and the value of the land itself. Hubbard asked how the FEMA maps work. She feels they are bogus. Throenle stated this comes back to a general problem of how the maps are created. The branch of FEMA that takes care of Township business is out of Chicago and the mapping branch is out of D.C. The maps are derived from aerial views and given to the branch in D.C. He did not want to get into a FEMA discussion at the meeting as he wants to have a public town hall in the future. He suggested coming in to the Township office to discuss this further. Faye Williams, 1180 M-28 Does not understand how taxes will not go up, what about the SEV? Throenle stressed again that taxes are not assessed by zoning district, the assessor has assessing districts. Williams asked why are we bothering doing this now? Throenle stated it is to get us consistent with the Master Plan and set up for the FEMA Community Rating System. William s house is two feet under the flood plain and cost him $10,000 for a septic system when his drain field plugged up due to the fact it had to be raised above the flood plain. He has never seen the water come that high so he doesn t understand. Throenle stated there have been three scenarios in the last two years that water has come up on the river. The Community Rating System is to protect the property Page 9 of 20

13 owners from these scenarios. Mahaney stressed when this subject came before the Planning Commission as a public hearing there was no intention to raise the taxes, it was looked at as being along the water so it should be waterfront district to be in line with the Master Plan. Manager Kangas suggested to come into the Township office and talk with the assessor and have him explain your property assessment to you. Commission Discussion Maynard stated she lives on Lakewood Lane and has been present at several meeting where these zoning changes were discussed and it was her first question asked if the taxes were going to go up and Throenle had stated no, they would not. She feels comfortable with this change and will vote for it. Manager Kangas also interjected that your taxes may go up but it will not be due to the zoning change. Mullen-Campbell live on waterfront on Riverdale and had concerns. Her husband came to the office and talked with Dale and he explained it to him. She did some research along with the explanation and is comfortable with this change. Bushong stated he lives on Timberlane on a property related to the discussion as well, is below the flood plain and from a zoning perspective it is not much different than the current zoning. Milton added there were two new GPS satellites put into space today; he feels the FEMA maps may have more information as these satellites will have more capability in elevation and radius. Commission Decision Maynard moved, and Rhein seconded that after providing required notification to the public, holding a public hearing and considering public input, the Planning Commission recommends that the Township Board approve changing the zoning district for one hundred twenty-one parcels located along the Chocolay River and a portion of Cherry Creek from Residential (R-1) to Waterfront Residential (WFR). Vote: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 MOTION CARRIED C. Proposed 2019 Meeting Dates Staff Introduction Dates for the Planning Commission meetings were submitted to the Board for approval. All dates, are on the third Monday of each month. One question that came up in the Board meeting is if the Planning Commission wants to change the start time of the meeting. The approved dates are: Monday, January 21 Monday, May 20 Monday, September 16 Monday, February 18 Monday, June 17 Monday, October 21 Monday, March 18 Monday, July 15 Monday, November 18 Monday, April 15 Monday, August 19 Monday, December 16 Page 10 of 20

14 Commission Discussion The Commissioners discussed among themselves to change the meeting start time and came up with 6 PM and decided this would work for all involved. Commission Decision Rhein moved, Bushong seconded, that the Planning Commission change the starting time of their meetings in 2019 to 6:00 PM. Vote: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 MOTION CARRIED Maynard moved, Rhein seconded, that the meeting dates be accepted as presented. Vote: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 MOTION CARRIED Throenle interjected to propose February 18, 2019 as the date for the Joint meeting with the Township Board. He recommended the Joint meeting start at 5:30 PM and the Planning Commission meeting start at 7:00 PM on this night. Mahaney asked if there was an urgency for the Joint meeting at the beginning of the year. Throenle stated that the Board is supposed to set direction for the Planning Commission for the year. Last year it was late, done in June and the Planning Commission was already into the agendas. Mahaney then questioned why it was not held at the end of the year, as that would give the Board time to hash it over. Throenle asked Richard Bohjanen, Township Supervisor to weigh in. Bohjanen stated the Board has quite a lot of business to transact at the end of the year, such as the budget, appointments, etc. He also stated if it was done at the end of the year, a whole year would be gone by without any concurrence of laying out the plans for the Planning Commission for the rest of the year. Throenle asked if Bohjanen was suggesting two Joint meetings in 2019 and again Bohjanen stated the end of the year is a busy agenda for the Board. Throenle suggested to go ahead with the February meeting and establish at that meeting an ongoing schedule for future meetings. Meister suggested the Planning Commission set their agenda in March after the Joint meeting. Bohjanen suggested may the Planning Commission set their agenda in January and they can discuss it for concurrence at the Joint meeting. The Board just likes to know they are on the same page. Mahaney said it does help to give direction if the Board is thinking of something the Planning Commission may not be. Throenle reminded them that the direction for the Planning Commission generally has a two-year length. Bushong moved, Maynard seconded, that the joint meeting with the Township Board be set at 5:30 PM on February 18, Vote: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 MOTION CARRIED Page 11 of 20

15 D. Proposed M-28 Campground Staff Introduction An applicant is working on a proposed campground project to be located on M-28 east of Shot Point and east of Lakenenland. The applicant has requested a preliminary site plan review to determine if this is a viable project for that location prior to purchasing the property. Staff Findings In reviewing the project, staff has found a number of benefits for this particular location: 1) The proposed project will be located on the existing ATV / ORV and snowmobile trail (trail 417). 2) The proposed project will be located close to existing Township recreation (Lakenenland and Jeske Flooding). 3) The proposed project will provide an additional recreation location for those visiting the Township. 4) The proposed project will provide friendly competition to the other campgrounds in the Township, as it will provide different amenities (teepees and yurts, for example). 5) The proposed project will be located in an area that does not affect many Township residents. Staff recommends that the Commissioners review the proposed campground and determine if the project should be pursued. The applicant is requesting the Commissioners to give recommendations on the project and to provide feedback on changes that should be modified or added to the project. Two drawings (one with the elevations listed and the other with the elevations removed) and an aerial view of the area were attached for Commissioner review. The applicant has provided printed drawings of the project that were available at the meeting. If the project is to be pursued, staff is requesting the Commissioners to direct staff to begin the process for a conditional use permit for the proposed campground. Commission Discussion Throenle reminded the Commissioners this is where Shaked and his group (see earlier Public Comment) be included in the conversation to answer questions. He told them there are very few residents affected in the area around the proposed site and they would be notified in the formal process of this project. The applicant is open to any suggestions and ideas on this proposal. Mahaney asked what the zoning was in this area. Throenle stated it is Agricultural/Forest, and the applicant would have to come in for a conditional use hearing. The good news is the property is over the 20 acres but is required to have to have a conditional permit for the campground according to the Chocolay Township Zoning Ordinance. Mullen-Campbell asked if an ATV trail goes through this property and if it would be kept and Throenle stated there was and it would remain there. Page 12 of 20

16 Maynard asked how many acres is the property, and was told approximately 300. She also asked where the closest house was, Throenle stated there are very few and thought the closest was by Jeske Flooding. Maynard asked how many people would be in the campground if it was full, Shaked replied in the first phase approximately 100. He explained that there will be less sites to allow people to have space and privacy. Rhein asked about the water aquifer, as there have been issues in the past. Throenle stated this was closer to Sand River and felt this was a different aquifer. Meister interjected that the DEQ would be involved and do multiple tests. Throenle added this would be the conditional use portion of the formal application as the DEQ, State, Health Department, Township and County would all be involved. Shaked stated he hopes to have the campground open year round in the future, and he would provide RV camping, hiking, biking, amenities, and many more outdoor activities. Throenle stated he camps a lot and was excited about this. He feels there will be a big draw with the ATV/ORV trail going through it. Also the snowmobile trails goes along there, and there will be space, so you will not be jammed in. Shaked wants to have an education center to educate the people in the heritage history of the area such as Native American history. Maynard asked it there would be a caretaker and was told the plan was to have someone there. Rhein felt it would be great to get more people into our area using our businesses. Mullen-Campbell thought it would be good to work with Native American ideas. Commission Decision Meister moved, and Milton seconded that staff should move forward with a conditional use permit application process for the proposed campground, and present that application at a future Planning Commission meeting for consideration. Vote: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 MOTION CARRIED E. Proposed ATV / ORV Trail Staff Introduction A proposal has been presented to staff for consideration of adding a section of three County roads as a potential ATV / ORV connection in the Township. This proposed trail includes the following connections and directions: The western portion of the trail originates at the former railroad grade, crosses through DNR property near Lake LeVasseur, connects to Kawbawgam Road, and heads south on Kawbawgam Road to the intersection of Kawbawgam Road and Mangum Road. At the intersection of Kawbawgam Road and Mangum Road, the trail would continue east on Mangum Road to the Sand River Road intersection. At the intersection Mangum Road and Sand River Road the trail would go north on Sand River Road and reconnect to the railroad grade trail. Page 13 of 20

17 Currently, the only designated ATV / ORV trail in the Township is the Marquette- Manistique Trail that goes along the former railroad grade; this trail provides access from the Ojibway Casino to Manistique (see attached trail map). ATVs and ORVs are also permitted to ride on State lands located in the Camp Four Road area, but this area is not connected to the Marquette-Manistique Trail. There have been several decisions regarding the ATV / ORV question from the Township Board and the Marquette County Board of Commissioners over the last several years. They are: May 17, 1999 Township Board Meeting The Township Board voted to exclude Chocolay Township from the first Marquette County ORV ordinance. This exclusion prohibited all ATV / ORV traffic on County roads in the Township. June 9, 2008 Township Board Meeting The Board voted to support using the eastern portion of snowmobile trail 417 for ORV usage. This established the ATV / ORV usage from the casino to points east on the former railroad grade. May 20, 2013 Township Board Meeting The Board voted to keep the ATV / ORV road exclusions in the Township, and to support the latest version of the County ORV ordinance. June 18, 2013 Marquette County Board of Commissioners The Commissioners approved the County ORV ordinance, which excludes ATV / ORV traffic on county roads in Chocolay Township and other jurisdictions (see Section 2.a in the attached County ordinance and the County ORV ordinance map) Commission Discussion Throenle reminded the Commission there is a DNR trail in that goes through Chocolay Township and permits ATVs on the trail. The trail comes up from the Manistique area. It starts at the entrance to the casino and goes east, and it would go directly through the campground that was proposed earlier in the meeting. There are ATVs allowed in that area right now; they are also able to ride in the State lands (Camp 4 area). There is a connection problem; there is no trail connecting the two existing trails. Throenle is asking the Commissioners to look at this to see if it makes sense, then the Township would have to write an ordinance to allow ATV on County roads within the Township due to the fact the Township is currently opted out. Mahaney asked if this would go through Township property on the east end of the proposed route, where it comes off of the current snowmobile trail to access Kawbawgam Road. Throenle stated it is State land. Mahaney also questioned the ordinance for signs, would all these roads have signs. He is concerned there would nothing preventing the ATV from going somewhere they should not. Throenle stated on the existing trails there are signs stating when you cannot go any farther. Township police have been presently giving tickets to ATVs that are on Township roads due to the fact they are not supposed to be there. Page 14 of 20

18 Throenle commented he would have Tony Harry, President of the ATV / ORV club, Team Riders in Marquette answer some of the questions. Harry explained Yamaha has certain grant programs for people working on trail systems and the DNR can be contacted to see what is available. He has been working on trails throughout Upper Michigan. He said Marquette Township has opened their trails to County roads, and they have set times for their Township roads. Harry commented that all County roads are open in the Upper Peninsula except for Chocolay Township. Throenle added this would be addressing existing ATV traffic in the Township, by giving a route that would establish a trail connection in the Township without going through major residential areas at this point. This would be a preliminary start for ATV traffic in the Township. If this trail works, and has a good reputation, it could lead to a discussion in the future to expand further into the Township. Throenle stated this has been a contentious in the past and this could be an attempt to show that ATVs can ride in the Township without harm. Throenle stated there are approximately 10 parcel owners along this route. Mahaney asked if they would be notified and Throenle answered they would be due to an ordinance being written. Supervisor Bohjanen mentioned that Sand River Road is the boundary between Chocolay and Onota Townships and was curious how Onota Township feels about this. Throenle stated it would have to be discussed with Onota Township to make it a joint decision. If Onota Township has already opted in, there would have to be a joint decision between both Boards. Meister asked Harry if this would allow people to go from east to west, a way to get around Marquette. Harry answered yes. Throenle stated there is more to be done but the primary question right now is if the Commissioners see this as a viable project to move forward with. If it is, staff will have to be directed to work with Harry and his crew. Harry stated he would help with anything as he works on trails all over the Upper Peninsula. Throenle stressed the Planning department wants to establish a trail with minimal impact to folks in the Township but also wants to provide access to come in from outside of the Township and vice versa. Meister felt it opened up a lot of area with little impact and was a good plan for the ATV people to access a much larger area. Rhein and Mullen-Campbell agreed and felt it would help bring people through the Township. Mahaney main concern is signage to prevent the ATVs from coming past the Kawbawgam Road area. Throenle stated that he has had several discussions regarding signage with the Commissioners. It is a problem throughout the Township and this is why it was made a priority for Mahaney reminded Throenle he was on the Commission when they had a open Page 15 of 20

19 meeting proposing an ATV trail and it was declined, he just wants to assure the residents there will be proper signage. Harry also stated that during the time of the last public meeting, there was some misrepresentation of the ATV club. He wants to work with the people on this project. Mahaney wants it to be clear that this is just a recommendation for this to advance. Throenle answered there is a lot of work to be done for this to happen, he needs a recommendation from the Planning Commission one way or another to do that work. Commission Decision Bushong moved, and Rhein seconded that the proposed ATV / ORV route be recommended for consideration, and that staff should begin the process of drafting an ATV / ORV ordinance. Vote: Ayes: 6 Nays: 1 (Maynard) MOTION CARRIED F. Proposed Amendments to Ordinance 39 Waste Water Collection System Staff Introduction Throenle reminded the Commission this was the item added to the Agenda at the beginning of the meeting tonight. Manager Kangas provided a memo that stated: Pursuant to prior consent of the Township Board, staff has drafted a minor revision to the Waste Water Collection System Ordinance. I request this language be considered by the Planning Commission as a late addition to the agenda for the December 17, 2018 meeting. If the Planning Commission is so inclined to consider the proposed changes, we would expect to schedule a Public Hearing for the January 2019 Township Board meeting to consider the changes. Section 5 Use of Public Sewers Required ADD (C) Any property abutting the public rights-of-way of Riverside Road, Glenwood Road and Highway M-28 East where public sanitary sewer exists, but only those sections commencing at manhole number 156 and terminating at manhole number 172, shall be exempt from this Section until such time as: 1. The existing on-site septic system fails for the respective property, or 2. An undeveloped property is developed to the extent of requiring a waste water system. The intent of this paragraph is to waive any connection requirements along the KBIC sewer extension route until the existing drain field fails, or until a property is developed for the first time. In addition to the language proposed above, we have evaluated the internal costs Page 16 of 20

20 of changing the sanitary sewer billing cycle from quarterly billing to monthly billing. The added cost is anticipated to be less than $200/month and we feel that cost can be accommodated by the new sewer rate adopted by the Township Board at their December 10, 2018 meeting. Section 9 System Charges or Rates (E) Billing and Payment of Charges 1. Service charge and surcharges. CHANGE Line 2, first word: change from quarterly to monthly. As stated above, the intent of this word change is to change the sewer billing cycle from four quarterly bills to 12 monthly bills as a result of the new Township Board adopted rate of $54/Equivalent Unit/month. Commission Discussion Throenle stated for the recorded record the Commissioners were taking a brief moment to read through the memo. Meister asked if this exemption would cover all of the sewer line, including the new extension. Kangas answered yes, it would cover all of the sewer owned by the Township. Mahaney asked how the response has been for people wanting to hook up to the new sewer. Kangas answered there has been no requests as of yet to hook up, but have sold approximately 24 laterals to residents to help them save money down the road when they have to connect. Mahaney inquired of the wording regarding the failure of the septic system, if the pumping of a septic system is considered a failure. Kangas answered no, that would be considered maintenance of a properly operating system. Throenle stated it would be if you were to call the DEQ to have your system replaced, this is would be when you have to connect. Bushong questioned if you add a second drain field. Throenle stated anything that requires an enhancement or replacement of what you already have would require you to connect. Kangas reminded the Commission of the current language that requires everyone to connect as soon as the Township accepts the new extension into the existing system. The intent of the Board was to never to require the adjoining properties to connect at this time because it was the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community asking and paying for the extension. He did not want it to be a penalty for living along the best feasible sewer route for that project. Maynard has heard some grumbles regarding feeling pressure to have to connect, she feels this is more fair. Page 17 of 20

21 Kangas did not feel people were pressured, just offered an opportunity to save some money now. Interpretation is up to the receiver. Mahaney asked if a resident asked if there would be a fee to connect now. Kangas answered there will always be a fee. Kangas also stated that there will be another fee that will need to be discussed as the sewer ordinance is revised. It deals with properties that have multiple connections for one parcel. Bushong asked what the cost to the homeowner would be to connect, outside of the fee. Kangas answered it would be between the contractor and the property owner. It would be the owner s responsibility to hire a contractor. Mullen-Campbell felt the monthly billing makes sense, but Mahaney disagreed. She felt it was easier for residents to have monthly but could also see how business would want quarterly billing. Throenle interjected with the fact that the Township will be getting new billing software and the commercial could be separated from the residential (which it is already) but all commercial properties would have to be either all monthly or all quarterly, there is no in between. Meister asked if the reasoning behind this would be for residents to budget their bills easier with monthly payments. Throenle stated it was the reasoning due to the rate increase. Maynard asked if there have been issues with late payments with the current quarterly billing. Throenle stated there have been but it also helps with the fact if you miss a payment on monthly you would only get a late fee on one month, versus getting a late fee on three months. Meister felt as a former business owner, most places would pay their bills more often to avoid late fees, feels there should not be a difference in monthly or quarterly billing. Kangas commented that if this goes forward to the Board there will be a letter sent out to all sewer customers before the public hearing. Meister asked if someone can pay ahead and Kangas commented that some people already to that, especially snowbirds. Meister felt monthly would be the best option, people can pay monthly or pay ahead whatever is best for them. Mahaney felt it would be good to put the options for payment in the letter sent out. Meister agreed. Kangas thought quarterly was good due to the fact the Township is not set up with autopay of any kind yet and it would be less checks for people to write. Rhein asked if the Township was working on getting a credit card payment system. Throenle stated that it was being worked on with the new financial system that is being installed in He was hopeful the Township would get to that point, may not happen in 2019 but the Township is heading in that direction. Page 18 of 20

22 Commission Decision Meister moved, Maynard seconded to recommend approval of the addition of paragraph C, as indicated above, to Section 5 of Ordinance 39 to grant a connection waiver to parcels abutting the KBIC sanitary sewer extension until such time as the on-site septic system fails or the property is developed for the first time, and to refer the proposed revision to the Township Board for Public Hearing. Vote: Ayes: 6 Nays: 1(Bushong) MOTION CARRIED Bushong moved, Rhein seconded to recommend approval of revising the sewer billing cycle by changing the first word of line 2 of Section 9 (E) 1 of Ordinance 39 from quarterly to monthly, and to refer the proposed revision to the Township Board for Public Hearing. Vote: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 MOTION CARRIED IX. PUBLIC COMMENT Faye Williams, 1180 M-28 Has the Planning Commission done any studies on the water levels on the Chocolay River. Mahaney commented none that he knew of. Williams was wondering if anything was being done to widen the bridge on Green Bay Street to get the water down. Throenle commented there is a replacement project for that bridge in Kangas commented the authority of the bridge is the Road Commission. Williams then asked about the snowmobile trails and Maynard commented that the DNR would be responsible for them. He thanked the Commission for answering all of his questions. Public commented closed 9:15 PM. X. COMMISSIONER S COMMENTS Rhein Accomplished quite a bit today, feels the Commission works good together, looking forward to another year. Wished Meister well in his retirement from the Planning Commission and thanked him for his service. Milton None Maynard Wished everyone Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas. Meister End of his term, has been a pleasure working with staff and the Commission, wished them luck in the future. Bushong Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. Mullen-Campbell Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, thinks Santa will make an appearance at everyone s house this year. Thanked Throenle for all the great information in the packet. Page 19 of 20

23 Mahaney Wished Meister well, could not believe he is leaving, and thanked him for his service. Great public turnout tonight, felt it was great. Thanked Throenle for the great packet. XI. XII. XIII. DIRECTOR S REPORT Thanked Meister for the pleasure of working with him and said Meister will be missed. Reminded the Commissioners of the blue card in their packet with the information for the Township and County surveys and Township Newsletter. He told everyone Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and said he will see everyone in January. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND CORRESPONDENCE A. Minutes Township Board, B. Township Newsletter December, 2018 C. Minutes Marquette City Planning Commission, D. Minutes Marquette City Planning Commission, ADJOURNMENT Mahaney adjourned the meeting at 9:20 pm. Submitted by: Planning Commission Secretary Donna Mullen-Campbell Page 20 of 20

24 To: Planning Commissioners From: Dale Throenle, Planning Director / Zoning Administrator Date: December 19, 2018 Subject: Election of Planning Commission Officers VIII.A Charter Township of Chocolay Planning and Zoning Department 5010 US 41South Marquette, MI Phone: Fax: Each year, the Planning Commission must elect new officers as directed by section VI in the Planning Commission Procedures and Bylaws. The officers of the Chocolay Township Planning Commission shall consist of a Chair, Vice- Chair, Secretary, and Vice-Secretary. The Executive Committee shall consist of Chair, Vice- Chair, and Secretary. Said officers shall be elected by the Chocolay Township Planning Commission from among its members, at its January Meeting, and shall serve for a period of one year. (Amended 2-17) Members eligible to be elected as officers is outlined in the same section. Don Rhein, who is the Boardappointed representative to the Planning Commission, is eligible to be elected to all officer positions except the Chair. Proposed Motions Motion Number 1 moved, seconded, to elect as the Chair of the Planning Commission. Motion Number 2 moved, seconded, to elect as the Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission. Motion Number 3 moved, seconded, to elect as the Secretary of the Planning Commission. Motion Number 4 moved, seconded, to elect as the Vice-Secretary of the Planning Commission.

25 To: Planning Commissioners From: Dale Throenle, Planning Director / Zoning Administrator Date: January 14, 2019 Subject: 2018 Planning Commission Annual Report VIII.B Charter Township of Chocolay Planning and Zoning Department 5010 US 41South Marquette, MI Phone: Fax: Background As required by the Planning Commission By-Laws, an annual report is to be prepared and presented to the Board. The attached document is a summary of Planning Commission-related activities for Staff Recommendation Please review the attached document as it is written. Staff has put together a summary of the activities with the intent of keeping the document brief. Commissioners, however, can decide if the document should be expanded. Recommended Motion moved, seconded, that the 2018 Planning Commission Annual Report be forwarded to the Board as [written / changed]. Alternative The Planning Commission may choose the option to request the Planning Director to expand the report and present the expanded report at the next meeting.

26 VIII.B PLANNING COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT Planning Commission Activities and Requests January February March The Planning Commission completed the following activities in 2018: Elected Planning Commission officers for the 2018 calendar year Reviewed a request to revised Planning Commission bylaws Held public hearings for proposed Ordinance #66 Noise and the proposed mixed use district for the US 41 South / M-28 corridor Both were forwarded to the Board for consideration at the February Board meeting Completed work on the proposed Ordinance #65 Fireworks, and set a public hearing for the next Planning Commission meeting Reviewed proposed Zoning Ordinance definitions regarding rentals Drafted Planning Commission priorities for the 2018 calendar year Held a public hearing on the proposed Ordinance #65 Fireworks and forwarded the ordinance to the Board for review Reviewed proposed Zoning Ordinance changes in regards to rentals, and set a public hearing for the next meeting Reviewed Planning Commission priorities for the 2018 calendar year Approved changes to Planning Commission bylaws Reviewed and recommended a revised map for the proposed mixed use district, and set a public hearing for the next meeting Reviewed and recommended submission of the Planning Commission Annual Report to the Board Held a public hearing on the mixed use district map amendment Held a public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance changes, and forwarded the changes to the Board for consideration Approved Planning Commission priorities for the 2018 calendar year Set review process for the proposed Recreation Plan update

27 April May June July August September Reviewed the proposed schedule for Township road maintenance Reviewed the proposed change in timeframes for updates to the Township Recreation Plan and Master Plan Began an in-depth look at non-conforming properties in the Township Reviewed a proposal to update Township ordinances with consistent penalty clauses for violations No meeting was scheduled. Reviewed Chapter 7 Future Land Use Plan in the Master Plan to determine if land classifications were still valid Began review of Chapter 8 Project Priorities in the Master Plan to determine if the projects listed were still valid and should be pursued Continued review of Chapter 8 Project Priorities in the Master Plan and recommended projects that should be pursued Finished the priorities outlined in Chapter 8 Project Priorities in the Master Plan and recommended projects that should be pursued Discussed the possibility of requiring fire numbers in the Township Discussed adding a mixed use overlay district to the current Township commercial districts (Kassel s Korner, Beaver Grove and M-28, and Kawbawgam Road intersections) Began discussing language for rentals in the Township Considered rezoning and overlay district applications for commercial districts in the Township Completed a final review of the priorities outlined in Chapter 8 Project Priorities in the Master Plan and recommended projects that should be pursued Continued discussing language for rentals in the Township Looked at non-conforming parcels to determine if changes in the Zoning Ordinance should occur to resolve the non-conformances Planning Commission Annual Report

28 October November December Considered a request to look at extending the commercial district to a property on US 41 South Discussed the Township Recreation Plan Held a public hearing regarding the rezoning of two properties from Multi-Family Residential (MFR) to Commercial (C) located at the intersection of M-28 and Kawbawgam Road The Planning Commission approved this change, and forwarded it to the Board for consideration. Held a public hearing regarding adding the commercial properties at the intersections of M-28 and Kawbawgam Road, County Road 480 and US 41 South and Mangum Road and US 41 South to the business overlay district The Planning Commission approved this change, and forwarded it to the Board for consideration. Discussed survey content for the Recreation Plan Held a public hearing regarding the rezoning of twenty-seven properties from Waterfront Residential (WFR) to Single-Family Residential (R-1) that are located on the south side of Kawbawgam Road above Kawbawgam Lake The Planning Commission approved this change, and forwarded it to the Board for consideration. Held a public hearing regarding the rezoning of one hundred twenty-one parcels from Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Waterfront Residential (WFR) that are located along the Chocolay River and the northern section of Cherry Creek The Planning Commission approved this change, and forwarded it to the Board for consideration. Approved dates and a change in time for Planning Commission meetings for 2019 Note that the time was changed for the start of Planning Commission meetings from 7 PM to 6 PM. Reviewed a preliminary site plan for a proposed campground on M-28 Reviewed a request to open several county roads for ATV / ORV traffic (South Kawbawgam Road, east Mangum Road, and Sand River Road) Reviewed updates to the sewer ordinance that will change the billing cycle from quarterly to monthly and exempt connections for residents that are along the new sewer project route The Planning Commission approved these changes, and recommended they be forwarded on to the Board for consideration and a public hearing Planning Commission Annual Report

29 Planning Director Activities In addition to preparing agenda materials for Planning Commission meetings and attending the meetings, the Planning Director completed additional activities and attended training and seminars throughout the year. January February March April Continued to work on a NFIP / FEMA Community Rating System project in relation to the flood plain Attended a Michigan Storm Water Flood Plain Conference in Lansing The majority of the conference centered on procedures and issues with flood plain management and water management. Completed a six night (over six weeks) training process for lake preservation and shoreline design presented through MSU Extension. Attended webinars related to the following: Sustainable Shorelines Gathering Public Opinion from Hard to Reach Citizens Attended the Pipeline Safety program offered after hours in Ishpeming, and also attended part three of the Climate Health Adaptation Workshop in Marquette. Attended the Small Town and Rural Development Conference As in previous years, this conference was very educational and informative, with many ideas shared with others at the conference. Sessions attended included: Saving Small Towns with Big City Ideas how to retain local talent for growth Talent Development & Talent Attraction: Two Sides of the Same Coin attracting talented workers to the community Strong Towns lunch keynote address ways to look at infrastructure in relation to citizen usage and value Grant Writing Lessons from the Front Line mistakes to avoid when writing grant applications Stop, Collaborate and Listen how Grayling turned itself around with collaboration from multiple partners Neighborhoods First multi-hour session extension of the Strong Towns keynote address Planning Commission Annual Report

30 May Attended the Superior Trade Zone meeting in Rock Primary focus of the meeting was review of the draft Superior Trade Zone Marketing Strategy report, which would be finalized in September Attended the UP Energy Summit in Marquette, where a considerable amount of information was shared regarding the energy possibilities in the Upper Peninsula. June No training or conferences were scheduled. July August Attended a four-day FEMA training session regarding the Community Rating System Presented a list of projects for the remainder of 2018 through 2019 to the Township Board. Projects presented were: Township recreation plan Master Plan review and updates Adopting five community-related programs o Chocolay River Watershed Plan o Community Rating System o Firewise program o Michigan Shoreline Stewards program o StormReady program Simplification of the Zoning Ordinance o Readable by all, not just an attorney o Review sign ordinance language to reduce the number of pages (currently 23) o Review language in fence ordinance portion of the ordinance (such as maintenance of fence) o Reduction of non-conformities in the Township Review reasons for 125 minimum frontage Review reasons for 100 setback on waterfront / riverfront Review possibility of reducing AF acreage minimum to 10 acres Review possibility of reinstituting RR-1 and RR-2 zoning districts Review of existing ordinances to determine if the ordinance is still valid, and if so, simplify and update the language, if necessary Position documentation for Planner / Zoning Administrator o High level documentation on procedures, location of documents, etc. Business corridor and tourism development Planning Commission Annual Report

31 September October CABA restart Small business development Recreational activities (such as Harvey Daze) Township marketing Environmental assessments Revision of NMU cooperative study completed in 1999 Attended a Heritage Water Trail Conference This conferenced directly related to water and shoreline protection, with an extended discussion on developing a water history and heritage that could be promoted in the community. Attended the annual Michigan Association of Planners Planning Conference Sessions attended included: Attracting Businesses and Developers Can We Really Afford What We Want to Build? Civic Engagement Strategy Creating Sustainable Retail Districts Empowering Communities to Set Their Own Destinies Infrastructure, Natural Resources, and the Blue Economy Short Term Rentals Social Media Pitfalls and Upsides for Communities The New Localism The Power of Wind Trail Towns Attended a MSU Extension water ordinance conference The training was oriented toward ordinances, language, and practical examples on dealing with flooding and storm water runoff. The training also covered practices that could be implemented in ordinances and through physical structures (such as riparian storm drainage) that could reduce the impact on Lake Superior and Chocolay River water systems. Attended a MEDC funding session This session covered opportunities that MEDC was able to provide to Michigan communities. Areas of funding included business development, land and water projects, and housing projects. Attended a Michigan Association of Planners climate resilience training Planning Commission Annual Report

32 November December This training focused on planning and zoning considerations for communities that are located along the Great Lakes coastal shoreline. Primary focus of this training was preparation for fluctuations in water levels, especially in the Great Lakes. Attended a US Air Force information session at KI Sawyer The United States Air Force presented the information session held at K I Sawyer. Primary focus of this session was the reporting of the status of the water quality on the former Air Force base. Staff attended this presentation because Silver Lead Creek, located near K I Sawyer, is part of the Chocolay River watershed. Prepared index cards that were inserted in the December tax mailing with a web address for the Township recreation survey and the Marquette County master plan survey Attended a Michigan Association of Planning four-hour workshop on the Capital Improvements Program. This workshop was related to the requirement for the Planning Commission to provide and maintain a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Township. This overview provided a very good background on what a CIP is, the process for putting it together and the annual review process necessary for the plan. Prepared a project schedule for the Planning Commission for 2019 Set up and started the recreation plan survey Completed the Planning Commission Annual Report Planning Commission Annual Report

33 To: Planning Commissioners From: Dale Throenle, Planning Director / Zoning Administrator Date: January 14, 2019 Subject: Proposed Planning Commission Priorities VIII.C Charter Township of Chocolay Planning and Zoning Department 5010 US 41South Marquette, MI Phone: Fax: Each year, Planning Commissioners should review the priorities established for the Planning Commission to determine if those priorities are still valid for the upcoming year. Attached is the current priority document, and a document outlining the proposed priorities. Staff Recommendations Staff is recommending the Commissioners review the priorities for to determine if they are the ones the Commissioners wish to address for the coming year. Commissioners should review those priorities with the following questions: 1. Is the item an item for Planning Commission consideration? 2. Is the item in the right priority location (high, medium or low priority)? 3. Are there items missing from the priority list that should be added items for consideration? These priorities will be on the agenda for the joint meeting with the Board in February, Recommended Motion moved, seconded, that the priorities for the Planning Commission for be published as [written / changed], and forwarded to the Board for consideration at the joint Board / Planning Commission meeting in February of 2019.

34 VIII.C.1 PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES Planning Commission Priorities for 2018 Priority 1 1. Complete and adopt language for short term rentals 2. Complete and adopt language for US 41 and M-28 Business Corridor Overlay District regulations 3. Recreation plan review and update 4. Begin planning for implementation of high priority Master Plan projects 5. Asset Management Plan for Township roadways, sewer and water systems 6. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System 7. Consider rewrite of current zoning ordinance 8. Further amend the Zoning Ordinance to address changes in State Legislation 9. Non-conformities regarding properties in the Agriculture / Forestry (AF) district 10. Review existing ordinances Priority 2 1. Plan for four-season transit facility 2. Further amend the Zoning Ordinance to implement the Zoning Plan of the Master Plan 3. Monthly land use explorations in preparation for amending of the Zoning Ordinance to implement the Zoning Plan of the Master Plan, Zoning Classification, Accessory Homesteading Activities, etc. 4. Reconsider the Accessory Homesteading Activities regulations after evaluating public input Priority 3 1. Consider Firewise zoning regulations 2. Reconsider approach to private road regulation Planning Commission Priorities

35 VIII.C.2 PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES Planning Commission Priorities for 2019 / 2020 High Priority Complete and adopt language for rentals Establish rental language for all Township zoning districts Review and update the Township Recreation Plan Review the recreation plan with the intent of presenting it to the Township Board as the five-year recreation direction for the Township Review and update the Township Master Plan Review the master plan with the intent of presenting it to the Township Board as the five-year master plan direction for the Township Develop processes for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System implementation Develop processes and potential zoning regulation additions or changes to accommodate the program implementation for flood protection and flood insurance cost reduction throughout the Township Establish a Capital Improvement Plan for Develop a capital improvement plan for all Township assets as mandated by Section of the Planning Enabling Act This plan will develop a five-year maintenance and spending priority for all Township assets, including infrastructure and property, with an annual review of the plan to ensure Township project priorities are addressed. Develop processes for Firewise program implementation Develop processes and potential zoning regulation additions or changes to accommodate the program implementation for fire and property protection throughout the Township Consideration for rewrite of the Township Zoning Ordinance Review and revise the Zoning Ordinance with the intent to simplify the language and to bring the ordinance up-to-date Review State legislation for potential updates to Township ordinances Update the Zoning Ordinance and other Township ordinances to ensure language matches State-legislated language Address non-conformities regarding properties in the Agriculture / Forestry (AF) district Determine regulations and changes required to reduce property non-conformances in the AF district

36 Review and update existing non-zoning Township ordinances Review and revise the Township non-zoning ordinances with the intent to simplify the language and to bring the ordinances up-to-date Update the Chocolay River Watershed Plan as part of the Community Rating System project Update the watershed plan to reflect changes that have occurred in the watershed since the last document was written The last update on this plan was completed in 1999, and the plan should be updated as a regional plan with local agencies and government units Develop processes for Michigan Shoreline Stewards Program implementation Develop processes and potential zoning regulation additions or changes to accommodate the program implementation for shoreline preservation for properties located along Lake Superior and the Chocolay River watershed Review the Township Asset Management Plan for Township roadways, sewer and water systems Complete this review annually to ensure the Capital Improvement Plan is up-to-date. Determine ordinance status (opt in / opt out) for marijuana regulations in the Township This status will determine if non-medical marijuana facilities should be permitted in the Township Develop process for opting into the County ATV / ORV ordinance Establish ATV / ORV language for all Township roads to accommodate ATV / ORV use within the Township Develop recreation maps and signage for Township-related recreation Develop a standard sign and map format for recreation located in the Township Medium Priority Plan for four-season transit facility This Township-located facility will provide a place for the public to wait for Marq-Tran and ALTRAN public transit Further amend the Township ordinances to implement the Zoning Plan in the Master Plan Review Master Plan recommendations and reflect those recommendations in the Township Zoning Ordinance and non-zoning ordinances Reconsider the Accessory Homesteading Activities regulations after evaluating public input Low Priority Review the activities to accommodate changes in locally-grown food policies and land use changes Reconsider approach to private road regulation Determine if existing language for private roads should be modified 2

37 To: Planning Commissioners From: Dale Throenle, Planning Director / Zoning Administrator Date: January 14, 2019 Subject: Marijuana Facilities Background On November 6, 2018, Michigan voters approved Proposal 18-1, which legalized recreational marijuana and created the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA). On December 6, 2018, the act became law, and as a result of this act, each community is now required to decide if it is going to allow or prohibit state-licensed recreational marijuana establishments. Staff Recommendations Staff has reviewed the act, and is recommending the Township opt out of the act for the following reasons: Allowing recreational facilities in the Township does not necessarily increase the income for the Township. Conversations with law enforcement indicates that most, if not all, revenues received will be redirected to law enforcement related to the establishments. State law is in conflict with current Federal law at this time in relation to the drug status of marijuana nationally. Law enforcement officials have gone on record (including the County Sheriff) stating providing these establishments are not a good option for local communities. The Act is ambiguous in several areas, and opt in language may be difficult to defend in court (see attached documents from the Michigan Municipal League). Staff is recommending the Commissioners do the following prior to the meeting: 1) Review the attached Michigan Municipal League documents. 2) Review the draft Ordinance 67 Marijuana Establishments. Recommended Motion moved, seconded, that proposed Ordinance 67 Marijuana Establishments be presented for public hearing as [written / changed] at the February 2019 meeting. Alternative Motions Commissioners may choose the option to recommend that staff write an ordinance permitting marijuana establishments in the Township. VIII.D Charter Township of Chocolay Planning and Zoning Department 5010 US 41South Marquette, MI Phone: Fax: Commissioners may choose the option to not proceed with a marijuana establishments ordinance at this time.

38 Township Ordinances ORDINANCE 67 MARIJAUNA ESTABLISHMENTS An Ordinance to prohibit marijuana establishments within Chocolay Township. Section 1 Title This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the Chocolay Township Marijuana Establishments Ordinance. Section 2 Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance shall be to provide for and protect the public health, safety and welfare of persons within Chocolay Township by prohibiting marijuana establishments within its boundaries. Section 3 Prohibition Pursuant to the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act, Section 6.1, Chocolay Township prohibits marijuana establishments within its boundaries. Section 4 Effective Date This Ordinance is declared to be immediately necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or welfare; therefore this Ordinance is effect immediately. VIII.D.1 Ordinance 67 Marijuana Facilities

39 VIII.D.2 Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA) compared with Proposal 1 the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) Votes required for future amendments: MMFLA (PA 281 of 2016) requires a simple majority of vote of the Legislature (56 House votes and 20 Senate votes). Proposed MRTMA will require a 3/4 vote of the Legislature (83 House votes and 29 Senate votes). Local Control: MMFLA requires municipality to OPT IN. Proposed MRTMA requires a municipality to OPT OUT. Municipal decision to limit the number of marihuana establishments or opt out is subject to override by the voters of that municipality through initiative petition. MMFLA, a state operating license may not be issued to an applicant unless the municipality in which the proposed facility will be located in has adopted an ordinance authorizing that type of license. o If municipality does nothing, no marihuana facilities can be licensed/operate in that municipality. o If municipality adopts ordinance (opts in), then it may: Authorize any specific or all license types Limit the number of each license type Proposed MRTMA, a state operating license shall be issued to operate in every municipality unless a municipality enacts an ordinance to opt out. o Municipality can completely prohibit all license types or limit the types of establishments allowed and the total number of each license type. o If the municipal limit on licenses prevents the State from issuing a license to all qualifying applicants, the municipality, not the State, is required to select from the competing applicants using a competitive process intended to identify those who are best suited to operate in compliance with the Act. Nothing under the MMFLA nor the proposed MRTMA has direct effect on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA, Initiated Law 1 of 2008; patient caregiver model). Proposed MRTMA broadens the prohibition on the separation of plant resin by butane extraction on residential premises under the MMMA to include methods using a substance with a flash point below 100 degrees Fahrenheit within the curtilage of a residence. Proposed MRMTA substantially increases the amount of marihuana that may be lawfully possessed from 2.5 ounces and 12 plants by a qualifying patient to 2.5 ounces on one s person, 10 ounces secured in one s residence, and no more than 12 plants at a time. While a municipality may regulate the time, place and manner of operation of marihuana establishments, the State must approve and issue a license to a proposed marihuana establishment that is not within an area exclusively zoned for residential use and is not within 1000 feet of a pre-existing K-12 public or private school. A municipality may reduce this distance by ordinance. License Types: MMFLA has five license types: 1. Grower Class A 500 plant limit Class B 1,000 plant limit Class C 1,500 plant limit Michigan Municipal League І November 2018

40 2. Processor 3. Secure transporter 4. Provisioning center 5. Safety compliance facility Proposed MRTMA has six marihuana establishment license types: 1. Grower (plant limits are different than MMFLA) Class A 100 plant limit Class B 500 plant limit Class C 2,000 plant limit 2. Processor 3. Secure transporter Provides for license, but nowhere in the language is there a requirement that marihuana must only be transported by a secure transporter. 4. Retailer MMFLA license is a provisioning center, not retailer. 5. Safety compliance facility 6. Microbusiness Person licensed to cultivate not more than 150 plants; process and package; and sell or otherwise transfer marihuana to individuals who are 21 years of age or older or to a safety compliance facility, but not to other marihuana establishments. MRMTA also defines an establishment as, any other type of marihuana-related business licensed by the State, which would include licensed marihuana facilities under the MMFLA. MMFLA prohibits a caregiver from grower, processor, or secure transporter license types. Proposed MRTMA does not prohibit a caregiver from holding any of the six license types. A person may be licensed under both the MMFLA as well as the proposed MRTMA. Unreasonably Impracticable: MMFLA does not reference this term, found in proposed MRTMA. Proposed MRTMA prohibits any administrative rule or municipal ordinance that subjects the licensee to unreasonable risk or requires such a high investment of money, time, or any other resource or asset that a reasonably prudent businessperson would not operate the marihuana establishment. o Any rule or ordinance could be legally challenged if a person considers it to require too much time, money, etc. Additional information: Definitions of key statutory terms are not consistent between the MMFLA and the proposed MRTMA. Grower license plant limits are not consistent between the MMFLA and the proposed MRTMA. Application process is not consistent between the MMFLA and the proposed MRTMA. o If the State does not begin accepting/processing MRTMA applications within one year of the effective date of the Act, applicants can submit an application to a municipality that has not opted out of the act. Municipality shall issue a municipal license to applicant within 90 days. Municipal license has same force and effect as state license, but the municipal license holder is not subject to regulation or enforcement by the State during the municipal license term. If proposed MRTMA passes, the MMFLA requirement that a three percent tax is imposed on each provisioning center s gross retail receipts is no longer applicable. However, a 10 percent tax will be imposed on marihuana retailers on sales price of marihuana sold or otherwise transferred to anyone other than a marihuana establishment. The percent of the municipal portion of the excise tax collected is reduced from 25 percent under the MMFLA to 15 percent under the MRTMA and is paid only after the State is compensated for its implementation, administration, and enforcement of the Act; and until 2022 or for at least two years, $20 million annually is provided to FDAapproved clinical trials researching the efficacy of marihuana in treating U.S. armed services veterans for medical conditions and suicide prevention. If proposed MRTMA passes, it goes in to effect 10 days after the election is certified by the State Board of Canvassers. Michigan Municipal League І November

41 VIII.D.3 Recreational Marihuana Proposition

42 We love where you live. This paper is being provided by the Michigan Municipal League (MML) to assist its member communities. The MML Legal Defense Fund authorized its preparation by Kalamazoo City Attorney Clyde Robinson. The document does not constitute legal advice and the material is provided as information only. All references should be independently confirmed. The spelling of marihuana in this paper is the one used in the Michigan statutes and is the equivalent of marijuana. Other resources The Michigan Municipal League has compiled numerous resource materials on medical marihuana and is building its resources on recreational marihuana. They are available via the MML web site at: 2 Recreational Marihuana Proposition

43 Introduction This paper is intended to provide municipal attorneys and their clients an idea of what to expect and the issues to be addressed, given the adoption by Michigan voters of Initiated Law 1 of 2018 generally legalizing marihuana on November 6, The scope of this paper will outline the provisions of the initiated statute and address some of the practical consequences for municipalities while raising concerns that local governmental officials should be prepared to confront. It is assumed that the reader has a working knowledge of both the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL et seq., and in particular the Michigan Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA), MCL et seq. While the initiated law, titled the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), uses some of the same terms found in the MMFLA, the language between the two Acts is not consistent. This circumstance alone, as well as other features of the initiated statute, requires a thoughtful and thorough review of the language adopted by Michigan voters and its potential impact at the local municipal level. At its core, the MRTMA authorizes the possession and nonmedical use of marihuana by individuals 21 years of age and older, while establishing a regulatory framework to control the commercial production and distribution of marihuana outside of the medical context. While the regulatory scheme of the MRTMA is similar to that of the MMFLA, it also differs in significant ways. Michigan Municipal League 3

44 When would the proposed law become effective if approved? Under the provisions of Article II, 9 of the Michigan Constitution, an initiated law takes effect 10 days after the official declaration of the vote. The State Board of Canvassers met on November 26 and certified the November 6 election results, so the effective date of the law will be December 6, The immediate effect of the law authorizes individuals age 21 and older to openly possess a small amount of marihuana and marihuana concentrate on their person, and possess and grow a larger amount of marihuana at their residence. Given the relatively short period to adjust to the change in the legal status of marihuana in Michigan, law enforcement officers should be provided training in advance of this change in the law so as to avoid claims of false arrest and allegations of Fourth Amendment unlawful search violations. This becomes particularly acute for law enforcement agencies that use drug-sniffing dogs that were trained to detect marihuana. Those animals will likely have to be retired from service as they cannot be relied upon to provide probable cause to support a search. Additionally, officers will have to deal with how to handle marihuana discovered in the course of a search incident to an arrest for another offense. Another constitutional feature of a voter-initiated law is that it can only be amended by a vote of the electors or by ¾ vote of each house of the Legislature. This likely makes amending the statute difficult, but not impossible, as the MMMA has been amended at least twice since its adoption by the voters in As for the actual licensure of businesses authorized to grow, process, and sell recreational marihuana, the Act requires that the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) begin accepting applications for state-issued licenses no later than a year after the effective date of the law and issue the appropriate license or notice of rejection within 90 days. (MRTMA 9) Unlike the MMFLA, there is not a specific licensing board created to review and grant recreational marihuana establishment licenses. Given the deliberate speed of LARA and the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board in processing and authorizing licenses under the MMFLA, it is an open question whether the statutory deadline will be met. If it can t, then the burden of licensing recreational marihuana establishments will fall to local municipalities, because the MRTMA specifically provides that if LARA does not timely promulgate rules or accept or process applications, beginning one year after the effective date of this act, an applicant may seek licensure directly from the municipality where the marihuana business will be located. (MRTMA 16) Under this scenario, a municipality has 90 days after receipt of an application to issue a license or deny licensure. Grounds for denial of a license are limited to an applicant not being in compliance with an ordinance whose provisions are not unreasonably impracticable, or a LARA rule issued pursuant to the MRTMA. If a municipality issues a license under these circumstances, it must notify LARA that a municipal license has been issued. The holder of a municipally-issued license is not subject to LARA regulation during the one-year term of the license; in other words, the municipality becomes the sole licensing and regulatory body for recreational marihuana businesses in the community in this circumstance. Any ordinance seeking to regulate recreational marihuana businesses should be drafted with the potential for this circumstance in mind. What does the initiated statute seek to do? The purposes actually stated in the MRTMA are many and varied. In addition to legalizing the recreational use of marihuana by persons 21 years and older, the statute 1) legalizes industrial hemp (cannabis with a THC concentration not exceeding 0.3 percent), and 2) licenses, regulates, and taxes the businesses involved in the commercial production and distribution of nonmedical marihuana. According to Section 2 of the statute, the intent of the law is to: prevent arrest and penalty for personal possession and cultivation of marihuana by adults 21 years of age and older; remove the commercial production and distribution of marihuana from the illicit market; prevent revenue generated from commerce and marihuana from going to criminal enterprises or gangs; prevent the distribution of marihuana to persons under 21 years of age; 4 Recreational Marihuana Proposition

45 prevent the diversion of marihuana to elicit markets; ensure the safety of marihuana and marihuana infused products; and ensure the security of marihuana establishments. Whether the MRTMA will actually live up to all of these intentions is open to question as many of the areas mentioned are not directly addressed in the law. For instance, since the establishments that will be authorized to grow, process, and sell recreational marihuana will not be licensed until early 2020, how is it that individuals can lawfully obtain and possess marihuana upon the effective date of the Act? What the statute permits Under Section 5 of the MRTMA, persons 21 years of age and older are specifically permitted to: possess, use, consume, purchase, transport, or process 2.5 ounces or less of marihuana, of which not more than 15 grams (0.53 oz.) may be in the form of marihuana concentrate; within a person s residence, possess, store, and process not more than a) 10 ounces of marihuana; b) any marihuana produced by marihuana plants cultivated on the premises; and c) for one s personal use, cultivate up to 12 plants at any one time, on one s premises; give away or otherwise transfer, without remuneration, up to 2.5 ounces of marihuana except that not more than 15 g of marihuana may be in the form of marihuana concentrate, to a person 21 years of age or older as long as the transfer is not advertised or promoted to the public (registered medical marihuana caregivers and patients will be able to give away marihuana to non-patients); assist another person who is 21 years of age or more in any of the acts described above; and use, manufacture, possess, and purchase marihuana accessories and distribute or sell marihuana accessories to persons who are 21 years of age and older. Although not a direct concern of municipalities, law enforcement and social service agencies need to be cognizant that the Act specifically provides that a person shall not be denied custody of or visitation with the minor for conduct that is permitted by the Act, unless the person s behavior such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor they can be clearly articulated and substantiated. MRTMA 5. Exactly what this phrase means will likely be a source of litigation in the family division of the circuit courts. The possession limits under the MRTMA are the most generous in the nation. Most other states that have legalized marihuana permit possession of only one ounce of usable marihuana, 3.5g to 7g of concentrate, limit the number of plants to six, and do not permit possession of an extra amount within one s residence. An additional concern arises as to how these limits will be applied. It will be asserted that the limits are per every individual age 21 or older who resides at the premises. So, the statutory permissible possessory amounts are ostensibly doubled for a married couple and quadrupled or more for a group of college students or an extended family sharing a residence. While this same concern is also present under the MMMA, the quantity of marihuana permitted to be possessed under the MMMA is significantly less than under the MRTMA, and lawful possessors (patients and caregivers) are required to be registered with the State. What is Not Authorized under the statute The initiated law does not set forth outright prohibitions, but instead cleverly explains what the act does not authorize. Specifically, under the terms of Section 4 of the MRTMA, one is not authorized to: operate while under the influence of marihuana or consume marihuana while operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, snowmobile, off-road recreational vehicle, or motorboat, or smoke marihuana while in the passenger area of the vehicle on a public way; transfer marihuana or marihuana accessories to a person under the age of 21; Michigan Municipal League 5

46 process, consume, purchase, or otherwise obtain, cultivate, process, transport, or sell marihuana if under the age of 21; separate plant resin by butane extraction or other method that utilizes a substance with the flashpoint below 100 Fahrenheit in any public place motor vehicle or within the curtilage of any residential structure (This prohibition is broader than the one limited solely to butane extraction found in the MMMA.); consume marihuana in a public place or smoke marihuana where prohibited by a person who owns occupies or manages property; however, a public place does not include an area designated for consumption within the municipality that has authorized consumption in a designated area not accessible to persons under 21 years of age; cultivate marihuana plants if plants are visible from a public place without the use of binoculars, aircraft, or other optical aids; or; outside of an enclosed area equipped with locks or other functioning security devices that restrict access; possess marihuana accessories or possess or consume marihuana on the grounds of a public or private school where children attend preschool, kindergarten, or grades one through 12; in a school bus; or on the grounds of any correctional facility; and possess more than 2.5 ounces of marihuana within a person s place of residence unless any excess marihuana is stored in a container or area equipped with locks or other functioning security devices that restrict access to the contents of the container or area. MRTMA 4.5 then provides that All other laws inconsistent with this act do not apply to conduct that is permitted by this act. This general statement does not provide for a total repeal of existing marihuana laws, but its lack of specificity to other statutes being impacted, something that the Legislative Service Bureau helps the Legislature avoid, may portend problems in its application. Differences in terminology between statutes addressing medical and recreational marihuana The MRTMA does not neatly fit with the MMMA. It provides at Section 4.2 that it does not limit any privileges, rights, immunities or defenses of a person as provided by the MMMA. This raises the question whether registered patients and caregivers may lawfully possess marihuana exceeding the amounts permitted under the MMMA. However, this may become a moot point, since in all probability, once the commercial provisions of the MRTMA are fully in operation, the number of registered patients and caregivers under the MMMA could reasonably be expected to drop significantly, as its practical application would largely be limited to registered patients under the age of 21 and their caregivers. Additionally, the MRTMA references the MMFLA at several places. In addition to the does not limit language referenced above, the statute at 9.6 provides that for the first 24 months after LARA begins accepting applications for marihuana establishment licenses, only those persons holding a MMFLA license may apply for a retailer, processor, class B or class C grower, or secure transporter license issued under the MRTMA. And 8.3(c), is broadly worded so as to preclude LARA from promulgating rules which prohibit a recreational marihuana establishment from operating at a shared location with a licensed medical marihuana facility. The lack of consistency between the statute addressing medical marihuana and the recreational marihuana statute is reflected in the following chart. 6 Recreational Marihuana Proposition

47 Key Differences between Medical Marihuana and Proposed Recreational Marihuana Statutes MMFLA MMMA Proposed MRTMA Grower Limits Class A 500 plant limit 100 plant limit (limited to Michigan residents for first two years) Class B 1000 plant limit 500 plant limit Class C 1500 plant limit; stackable 2000 plant limit; not clear if stackable Microbusiness plant limit (limited to Michigan residents for first two years) Secure Transporter Required to move marihuana between licensed facilities; may move money No specific requirement to use; no authority to transport money Compliance with Marihuana Tracking Act Required No reference or requirement Plant Resin Separation Butane extraction prohibited in a public place, motor vehicle, or inside a residence or within curtilage of a residential structure or in a reckless manner Butane extraction or another method that utilizes a substance with a flashpoint below 100 F prohibited in a public place, motor vehicle, or within curtilage of any residential structure Possession Limits Registered Patient (18 years and older, but can be less than 18) 2.5 oz. useable marihuana and 12 plants* Registered Caregiver (five patient limit) 2.5 oz. useable marihuana and 12 plants per patient* Michigan Municipal League 7

48 Key Differences between Medical Marihuana and Proposed Recreational Marihuana Statutes MMFLA MMMA Proposed MRTMA Possession Limits Other Persons (21 years and older under MRTMA) Not permitted (a) 2.5 oz. of marihuana, of which not more than 15 grams may be concentrate; (b) 10 oz. secured within one s residence; (c) any amount produced by plants cultivated on the premises; and (d) 12 plants Inconsistent Terms Licensed marihuana businesses Equipment to grow, process or use marihuana Business that sells marihuana Certain parts of marihuana plant Marihuana-infused products Enclosed, locked facility Limitations on scope of local regulation marihuana facility paraphernalia provisioning center Usable marihuana and usable marihuana equivalencies Excludes products consumed by smoking; exempts products from food law Purity, pricing or conflict with MMFLA or LARA rules Specifically defined to address a structure, an outdoor grow area, and motor vehicles marihuana establishment marihuana accessories marihuana retailer Term not used Does not exclude products consumed by smoking or provide food law exemption Container or area within a person s residence equipped with locks or other functioning security device that restricts access to the area or container s contents Unreasonably Impracticable or conflict with MRTMA or LARA rules 8 Recreational Marihuana Proposition

49 Key Differences between Medical Marihuana and Proposed Recreational Marihuana Statutes MMFLA MMMA Proposed MRTMA Inconsistent Terms Property rights License is a revocable privilege, not a property right; facilities subject to inspection and examination without a warrant Not addressed Zoning Municipalities specifically authorized to zone, but growers limited to industrial, agricultural or unzoned areas Municipalities may not limit caregiver operations to residential districts as a home occupation Deruiter v Byron Twp. (July 2018) and Ypsilanti Twp. v. Pontius (Oct. 2018) Municipal regulation limited to: (a) reasonable sign restrictions; (b) time, place and manner of operation of marihuana establishments and the production, manufacture, sale and display of marihuana accessories; and (c) authorizing sale of marihuana for consumption in designated areas or at special events License eligibility Elected officials and governmental employees Not eligible Not addressed Felony or controlled substance felony within past 10 years or misdemeanor conviction for controlled substance violation or dishonesty theft or fraud within past five years Not eligible A prior conviction for a marihuanarelated offense does not disqualify an individual unless offense involved distribution of a controlled substance to a minor Taxation 3 percent on gross retail receipts of provisioning centers 10 percent on sales price for marihuana sold or transferred by marihuana retailers and micro businesses Michigan Municipal League 9

50 *Under 8 of the MMMA a patient and patient s caregiver may also collectively possess a quantity of marihuana that is not more than reasonably necessary to ensure an uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treatment. There also appears to be some inconsistency within the MRTMA itself. Section 6.1 permits a municipality to completely prohibit or limit the number of (recreational) marihuana establishments within its boundaries. However, 6.5 provides that a municipality may not prohibit a recreational marihuana grower, processor, and retailer from: 1) operating within a single facility; or 2) operating at a location shared with a marihuana facility operating pursuant to the (MMFLA). (Emphasis supplied) The italicized phrase has been interpreted by some marihuana advocates as precluding a community that opted in to the MMFLA from opting out of the MRTMA since to do so would prevent recreational establishments from co-locating in a medical marihuana facility, which is prohibited. However, this argument overlooks the clear grant of authority at 6.1 permitting a municipality by either legislative action or initiative ballot from completely prohibiting recreational marihuana establishments. The real concern with 6 is for those communities that permit both recreational and medical marihuana businesses. The plain language at 6.5 seemingly permits the more intensive grower (which under the MMFLA is restricted to industrial, agricultural or unzoned areas) and processing operations to share a location with marihuana businesses more conducive to being located in commercial or office zoning districts. A legislative fix may be needed to clarify that only analogous medical and recreational marihuana businesses can be co-located. What may a municipality do? Unlike the MMFLA, where municipalities must opt in, under the MRTMA, a municipality must opt out. The proposed statute permits a municipality to completely prohibit or limit the number of marihuana establishments. Given the language used in Section 6 of the MRTMA, a municipality should not rely upon prior ordinances or resolutions adopted in response to the MMFLA, but should affirmatively opt out of the MRTMA or limit the number of marihuana establishments by ordinance, not by resolution. Further, petitions containing the signatures of qualified electors of the municipality in an amount greater than five percent of votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election, may initiate an ordinance to completely prohibit or provide for the number of marihuana establishments within the municipality. The initiative language in the MRTMA is problematic. Given the wording, it cannot be assumed that voters can initiate an ordinance to opt in should the local governing body choose to exempt the municipality from the Act. Rather, the initiative options are either to completely prohibit or limit the number of marihuana establishments. It is an open question whether the initiative authority to provide for the number of establishments could be an avenue for voters to override the local governing body s action to opt out of the statute. Additionally, the vague wording of the statute leaves it open to question as to whether an initiative providing for the number of marihuana establishments must (or should) set forth proposed numbers or limits for each separate type of marihuana establishment or whether the limit on establishments is collective in nature. Logic would favor the former, but the statute is not precise. Not opting out of the recreational marihuana statute will impact existing medical marihuana facilities in a municipality because for the first 24 months of the Act, only persons holding a MMFLA license (in any community where such is permitted) may apply for a recreational retailer, class B or C grower, or secure transporter license under the MRTMA unless after the first 12 months of accepting applications LARA determines that additional recreational marihuana establishment licenses are needed. MRTMA Recreational Marihuana Proposition

51 A municipality choosing not to opt out of the MRTMA may adopt certain other ordinances addressing recreational marihuana and recreational marihuana establishments provided that they are not unreasonably impractical and do not conflict with the Act or any rule promulgated pursuant to the Act. The statutory definition of the redundant term unreasonably impracticable, found at Section 3(u), almost begs to be litigated. As defined by the initiated statute, the term means: that the measures necessary to comply with the rules or ordinances adopted pursuant to this act subject licensees to unreasonable risk or require such a high investment of money, time, or any other resource or asset that a reasonably prudent business person would not operate the marihuana establishment. Unfortunately, given that the possession, cultivation, processing, and sale of marihuana remains a crime under federal law, how does one assess an unreasonable risk or determine what constitutes such a high investment of time or money so as to deter a reasonably prudent business person from going forward? Further, does this definition remove the judicial deference and presumption of reasonableness that accompanies ordinances? The term unreasonably impractical was taken directly from Colorado law, and as of this writing, it does not appear to have been construed by an appellate court in that State. As an aside, would reasonably impracticable regulations be acceptable? Specifically, an ordinance may establish reasonable restrictions on public signs related to marihuana establishments; regulate the time, place, and manner of operation of marihuana establishments, as well as the production, manufacture, sale, or display of marihuana accessories; and, authorize the sale of marihuana for consumption in designated areas that are not accessible to persons under 21 years of age or special events in limited areas and for a limited time. A violation of ordinances regulating marihuana establishments is limited to a civil fine of not more than $500. MRTMA 6.2. However, some of these regulatory authorizations are problematic. For instance, the ability to establish reasonable restrictions on public signs related to recreational marihuana, being content-based, likely runs afoul of the holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S.Ct (2015). Further, the MRTMA does not, unlike the MMFLA, specifically authorize a municipality to exercise its zoning powers to regulate the location of marihuana establishments. Rather, the MRTMA authorizes ordinances that regulate the time, place, and manner of operation of marihuana establishments. The use of the time, place, and manner First Amendment test on the ability of government to regulate speech is ill-suited and inappropriate to the licensure and regulation of local businesses. One cannot help but believe that the choice of the time, place, and manner language was an intentional effort so as to permit marihuana establishments to heavily borrow from established legal precedent that largely circumscribes the ability of governmental authorities to restrict speech. Specifically, valid time, place, and manner type of restrictions must: 1. be content neutral; 2. be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest; and 3. leave open ample alternative channels for communication. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) citing Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984) The above formulation is not consistent with Michigan zoning law doctrine, which, although subject to the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, generally requires that there be a reasonable governmental interest being advanced by the regulation. See Charter Township of Delta v. Dinolfo, 419 Mich 253, 268 (1984). To this end, the only clear reference to the zoning power in the MRTMA is the grant to municipalities to reduce the separation distance between marihuana establishments and preexisting public and private schools providing K-12 education from 1000 to a lesser distance. A municipality s ability to authorize designated areas and special events for the consumption marihuana holds the potential to give rise to specialty businesses such as in California where restaurants make marihuana-infused food and drinks available to diners. Section 6.5 of the MRTMA specifically precludes a municipality from prohibiting the transportation of marihuana through the municipality, even though it has otherwise opted out. Michigan Municipal League 11

52 If a municipality limits the number of establishments that may be licensed, and such limitation prevents LARA from issuing a state license to all applicants who otherwise meet the requirements for the issuance of a license, the MRTMA provides that the municipality shall decide among the competing applications by competitive process intended to select applicants who are best suited to operate in compliance with the act within the municipality. MRTMA 9.4. This provision presents the Pandora s Box which confronted municipalities that attempted to cap the number of licenses issued under the MMFLA. Any competitive process that seeks to determine who is best suited inherently has a subjective component that may expose the municipality to legal challenges based on alleged due process violations by the municipality from unsuccessful applicants asserting that the process employed was unfair on its face or unfairly administered. While there may be good reasons to limit the number of recreational marihuana establishments, any community that chooses to do so should be prepared to defend itself from challenges by unsuccessful applicants. A municipality may adopt an ordinance requiring that marihuana establishments located within its boundaries obtain a municipally issued marihuana establishment license; but, the annual fee for such a license is limited to $5,000 and any qualifications for licensure may not conflict with the MRTMA or rules promulgated by LARA pursuant to the Act. What limitations on the State are applicable to municipalities? According to the statute, a State rule may not be unreasonably impracticable, or limit the number of any of the various types of license that may be granted, or require a customer to provide a retailer with identifying information other than to determine a customer s age or acquire personal information other than that typically required in a retail transaction or preclude the co-location of a marihuana establishment with a licensed medical facility. MRTMA 8.3. The State is required to issue a license under the Act if the municipality does not notify LARA that the proposed establishment is not in compliance with a local ordinance and if the proposed location is not within an area zoned exclusively for residential use and not within 1000 feet of a pre-existing public or private school providing K-12 education. A municipality is authorized to reduce the 1000 separation from a school requirement. MRTMA 9.3. Additionally, the grounds for disqualifying a license applicant based on a prior controlled substance conviction is much reduced under the MRTMA than under the MMFLA. An applicant for a medical marihuana facilities license is disqualified if they have any of the following: a felony conviction or release from incarceration for a felony within the past 10 years; a controlled substance-related felony conviction within the past 10 years; or a misdemeanor conviction involving a controlled substance, theft, dishonesty, or fraud within the past five years. In contrast, under the MRTMA any prior conviction solely for a marihuana offense does not disqualify or affect eligibility for licensure unless the offense involved distribution to a minor. Thus, persons convicted of trafficking in large amounts of marihuana would be eligible for a municipal marihuana establishment license. MRTMA 8.1(c). Additionally, LARA is precluded from issuing a rule and municipalities may not adopt an ordinance requiring a customer to provide a marihuana retailer with any information other than identification to determine the customer s age. MRTMA 8.3(b). In this regard, the MRTMA provides an affirmative defense to marihuana retailers who sell or otherwise transfer marihuana to a person under 21 years of age if the retailer reasonably verified that the recipient appeared to be 21 years of age or older by means of government issued photographic identification containing a date of birth. MRTMA There are also limitations on holding ownership interests in different types of facilities. Owners of a safety compliance facility or secure transporter may not hold an ownership interest in a grower, or processor, or retailer, or microbusiness establishment. The owner of a microbusiness may not hold an interest in a grower, or processor, or retailer, safety compliance, or secure transporter 12 Recreational Marihuana Proposition

53 establishment. And a person may not hold an interest in more than five marihuana growers or more than one microbusiness, unless after January 1, 2023 LARA issues a rule permitting otherwise. MRTMA 9.3. Finally, for the first 24 months after LARA begins accepting applications for licensure, only persons who are residents of Michigan may apply for a Class A grower or microbusiness license and to be eligible for all other licenses, persons must hold a State operating license pursuant to the MMFLA. MRTMA 9.6. What if the State fails to act in a timely fashion? If the State does not timely promulgate rules (despite the Act not providing when those must be issued) or accept or process applications within 12 months after the effective date of the Act, an applicant may submit an application for a recreational marihuana establishment directly to the municipality where the business will be located. MRTMA 16. A municipality must issue a license to the applicant within 90 days after receipt of the application unless the municipality determines that the applicant is not in compliance with an ordinance or rule adopted pursuant to the Act. If a municipality issues a license, it must notify the department that the license has been issued. That municipal license will have the same force and effect as a State license but the holder will not be subject to regulation or enforcement by the State during the municipal license term. It is unclear whether, if the State puts in place a licensing system during the term of a municipal license, the establishment can be required to seek State licensure or is merely required to renew the license with the municipality. Municipality as an employer or landlord The MRTMA does not require that an employer permit or accommodate conduct otherwise allowed by the Act in the workplace or on the employer s property. The Act does not prohibit an employer from disciplining an employee for violation of a workplace drug policy or for working while under the influence of marihuana. Nor does the Act prevent an employer from refusing to hire a person because of that person s violation of a workplace drug policy. MRTMA 4.3. In this regard, the statute appears to codify the holding of Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 764 F Supp 2d 914 (WD Mich 2011) aff d, 695 F3d 428 (6th Cir 2012) permitting a private employer to discharge an employee who as a registered patient under the MMMA used marihuana outside of work hours, was not under the influence while at work, but tested positive after suffering an injury while at work. However, note should be taken that in Braska v. Challenge Manufacturing Co., 307 Mich App 340; 861 NW2d 289 (2014) the Court determined that under the terms of the MMMA, employees discharged from employment solely on the basis of positive drug tests for marihuana were not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. In the event that a municipality has created a housing commission, or otherwise provides housing or otherwise leases property and therefore acts as a landlord, the MRTMA permits the lessor of property to prohibit or otherwise regulate the consumption, cultivation, distribution, processing, sale, or display of marihuana and marihuana accessories on leased property, except that a lease agreement may not prohibit a tenant from lawfully possessing and consuming marihuana by means other than smoking. MRTMA 4.4. Michigan Municipal League 13

54 Municipal share of Marihuana Excise Tax Fund Under the terms of the MMFLA, municipalities (cities, villages, and townships) in which a medical marihuana facility is located get a pro rata share of 25 percent of a medical marihuana excise fund created by the imposition of a 3 percent tax on gross retail sales at provisioning centers. However, under the terms of the MMFLA, if a law authorizing the recreational or nonmedical use of marihuana is enacted, the tax on medical marihuana sales sunsets 90 days following the effective date of the new law. MCL Thus by early March 2019, the excise tax just beginning to be collected by provisioning centers under the MMFLA will be repealed. The MRTMA seeks to fill the gap created by the loss of the 3 percent excise tax under the MMFLA by creating marihuana regulation fund through the imposition of a 10 percent excise tax (which would be in addition to the 6 percent sales tax) on the sales price of marihuana sold or otherwise transferred by a marihuana retailer or microbusiness to anyone other than another marihuana establishment. However, the sale to be allocated to municipalities is reduced to 15 percent and before any money is provided to cities, villages, and townships in which a marihuana retail store or microbusiness is located, the State is made whole for its implementation, administration, and enforcement of the Act and until 2022 or for at least two years, $20 million from the fund must be annually provided to one or more clinical trials approved by the FDA that are researching the efficacy of marihuana in the treatment of U.S. armed services veterans and preventing veteran suicide. MRTMA 14. The net effect for municipalities could result in more money under the MRTMA than under the MMFLA. This is because: a) the tax rate levied is over three times higher under the MRTMA (10 percent v. 3 percent); b) there is a larger pool of potential consumers (registered patients and caregivers v. all persons aged 21 and older); and c) the allocation to municipalities under the MRTMA is based on the number of marihuana retail stores and micro businesses as opposed to all types of marihuana facilities under the MMFLA. However, if a municipality does not permit recreational marihuana retail establishments, it will not receive any revenue under the MRTMA, but will still have to deal with the social consequences of marihuana use. The following table illustrates the differences between the two statutory approaches based on assumption of $1 billion in annual gross sales, State regulatory expenses being recouped by applicable fees, and a municipality having one percent of the total number of medical marihuana facilities or recreational retail businesses. Annual Gross Retail Sales Applicable Excise Tax Rate Amount of Excise Tax Fund Less Allocation for Veterans Health Research until 2022 Percentage Allocated to Municipalities Amount Available for Municipalities 1 percent of facilities or retail establishments in municipality MMFLA $1,000,000,000 3 percent $30,000,000 0 $30,000, percent $7,500,000 $75,000 MRTMA $1,000,000, percent $100,000,000 -$20,000,000 $80,000, percent $12,000,000 $120,000 Seemingly to convince voters to approve the MRTMA, 35 percent of the marihuana regulation fund will be allocated to the school aid fund for K-12 education and another 35 percent to the Michigan transportation fund for the repair and maintenance of roads and bridges. Unlike the MMFLA, which allocated 15 percent split equally (5 percent each) between county sheriffs where a marihuana facility was located, the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards for Officer Training, and to the State Police, there is no allocation directly to law enforcement purposes under the MRTMA. 14 Recreational Marihuana Proposition

55 Conclusion As challenging as it was for municipalities to come to grips with medical marihuana regulation under the MMFLA, the difficulties posed by the proposed MRTMA regarding recreational marihuana are likely to be significantly greater. Under the MMFLA, many municipalities took a wait and see position on the issue of broad commercialization of medical marihuana, which only required that the governing body of the municipality do nothing. And for those municipalities that chose to opt in, the MMFLA granted them a great deal of regulatory discretion, which some representatives of the marihuana industry have called onerous [Langwith, Local Overreach, 97 Mich B J 36, 37 (August 2018)], so as to reasonably safeguard the public safety, health, and welfare. The MRTMA on the other hand, requires a municipality to affirmatively take legislative action to opt out of regulating recreational marihuana commercial enterprises. For those municipalities that choose to permit recreational marihuana establishments to exist in the community, the regulatory framework is much more circumscribed than under the MMFLA, and is certainly more likely to raise legal issues. Fortunately, commercialization of recreational marihuana is at least a year away, and by that time the State regulatory framework for medical marihuana will have been in place for nearly two years. Apart from the commercialization of recreational marihuana, municipal law enforcement officials and officers will be required to know the new rules surrounding legalized marihuana within days of the election. At a minimum, county and municipal prosecutors should be ready to provide training on the law in early November. It is also likely that defendants who committed marihuana offenses prior to November 6 will seek dismissal of those charges given the approval of the ballot proposal. Several county prosecutors have been reported as being willing to dismiss pending marihuana possession charges issued before the election if the alleged conduct falls within the scope of the initiated law. In the meantime, municipal attorneys would be well-advised to read through the initiated statute more than once and be prepared to advise their clients of the significant ramifications of legalized marihuana on local governmental and social services. Michigan Municipal League 15

56

57 To: Planning Commissioners From: Dale Throenle, Planning Director / Zoning Administrator Date: January 14, 2019 Subject: Rental Considerations VIII.E Charter Township of Chocolay Planning and Zoning Department 5010 US 41South Marquette, MI Phone: Fax: Background In September 2018 the Commissioners developed a rental checklist for rentals in the Township. The Commissioners also reviewed draft Zoning Ordinance definitions, a proposed rental form, and a draft outline of the Township Information document. Staff was given direction to draft a separate rental ordinance in relation to this topic. Staff Findings Staff determined that the best form of tracking rentals in the Township should be through an annual registration process, and staff has updated the draft rental form to reflect that direction. Staff reviewed the Commissioner s comments, suggestions, and directions, and prepared a draft ordinance for the Commissioners to review. As part of the development of the draft ordinance, language related to the ordinance must be updated in the Township Zoning Ordinance. A draft version of that language is included for Commissioner review. Staff Recommendations Staff is recommending the Commissioners do the following prior to the meeting: 1) Review the proposed proposed Ordinance 68 Rentals to determine if changes or additions are required. 2) Review the draft Rental Property Registration form to determine if changes or additions are required. 3) Review the proposed definitions and additions for the Township Zoning Ordinance to determine if changes or additions are required. 4) Review the draft extraction of the Township Information document to determine if changes or additions should be included Recommended Motions 1) moved, seconded, that the proposed definitions and language for Ordinance 68 Rentals be accepted as [presented / revised]. 2) moved, seconded, that the proposed definitions and language for the Zoning Ordinance be accepted as [presented / revised]. 3) moved, seconded, that the draft Rental Property Registration be accepted as [presented / revised]. 4) moved, seconded, that the draft extract of the Township Information document be accepted as [presented / revised].

58 Township Ordinances VIII.E.1 ORDINANCE 68 RENTALS An Ordinance to regulate rental of dwellings within Chocolay Township. Section 1 Title This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the Chocolay Township Rentals Ordinance. Section 2 Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance shall be to provide for and protect the public health, safety and welfare of persons within Chocolay Township by establishing regulations pertaining to rental of registered dwellings within Chocolay Township and to provide for penalties for the violation of this Ordinance. Section 3 Definitions For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following definitions shall be used: Word or Phrase Dwelling, Registered Rental Owner / Agent Section 4 Purpose Definition A dwelling unit providing temporary accommodations for periods of one day or more for a fee. This definition does not include bed and breakfasts, campgrounds, group day care facilities, group day care homes, hospitals, hotels, mobile homes in mobile home parks, mobile home parks, nursing homes or resorts. Property owner or designated agent for the property where a registered rental dwelling is located The Township will use the registration of rental dwellings as an effective resource to promote responsible property management and provide a tool for prompt contact with owner / agents from police, fire, emergency and other government personnel when issues or emergencies develop. The annual registration is used to update owner / agent information, remove a sold property, remove registered rentals, or add a newly acquired property as a rental. Section 5 Registration Requirements General requirements of rental dwelling registrations are as follows: The owner / agent must provide current owner and management company information, including addresses, contact numbers, and alternate contact numbers on the registration form. Ordinance 68 Rentals

59 Township Ordinances An alternate contact must be designated on the registration form to respond to calls from police, fire, emergency and other government personnel when attempts to contact the owner / agent have failed or the owner / agent is unavailable to respond in a timely manner. The designated alternate contact person must be located in the Township or within twentyfive miles of the Township s boundaries. The owner / agent must maintain a current list of the rental occupants. Upon request by police, fire, emergency and other government personnel, the owner / agent is required to present the list of occupants to the requesting agency. Property ownership changes require a new registration form to be completed within thirty days of the property title's transfer and recording at the Marquette County Register of Deeds office. Incomplete or inaccurate information submitted on a registration will result in denial of the registration application. A new owner / agent of a rental property must register the property within thirty days of the property title's transfer and recording at the Marquette County Register of Deeds office. An affidavit must be filed with the Township when a rental ceases to operate; otherwise, the property will be considered in rental status. Section 6 Registration Renewal The renewal of rental property registration will occur annually between March 1 and April 30. A rental dwelling's owner / agent must submit a current and accurate registration of the rental property to the Township annually. The owner / agent must also update the Township registration record if the rental is removed, the property is sold, or the property is acquired through a purchase or transfer. A renewal form will be sent to the last known address of the property owner prior to the start of registration period to ensure timely completion of the renewal form. For that reason, it is crucial that any changes of ownership or mailing address be reported to the Township to ensure receipt of a correct renewal notice. Section 7 Prohibition No person who rents or offers to rent a property dwelling without first applying and registering the property as required in Section 5 of this Ordinance will be subject to a civil penalty as indicated in Section 8 of this Ordinance. No owner / agent will be permitted to re-register a property if three substantiated ordinance violations occurred at the property within the previous registration year. It is unlawful to rent, receive rental income from, or offer to rent a dwelling on a property within the Township s boundaries without first registering the property, unless exempted below. Ordinance 68 Rentals

60 Township Ordinances The following are exempted from the registration requirement: Bed & breakfast Campground Group day care facility Group day care home Hospital Hotel / motel Mobile home in a mobile home park Mobile home park Nursing home Resort Section 8 Penalty An owner / agent who fails to register a property rental shall, upon determination of the violation or admission by the person, be responsible for a civil infraction and shall pay a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each violation plus costs. Section 9 Severability The phrases, sentences, sections and provisions of this Ordinance are severable and the finding that any portion hereof is unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable shall not detract from or affect the enforceability of the remainder of this Ordinance. Section 10 Repeal All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 11 Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect thirty calendar days from xxx x, Ordinance 68 Rentals

61 Rental Property Registration Chocolay Township Planning and Zoning Department 5010 US-41 South Marquette, MI Phone: Fax: Application Number RR- - VIII.E.2 Rental Property Information Rental address Applicant Name Address City / State / Zip Contact number Property Owner Name Address City / State / Zip Contact number The property owner grants permission for the applicant to act as the agent for the property owner. Owner Signature Date / / Property Rental Information Property Address Rental Type Single family residence Multi-family residence Number of rental units Number of rental units Single Family Residence Only Owner Occupied Owner lives at rental address year round Owner lives at rental address part time (seasonal) Owner does not live at rental address at any time Property Manager Contact Name Address City State Zip Contact number Alternate contact number All rental properties shall meet the standards defined in the Township Zoning Ordinance and Ordinance 68 Rentals and all requirements outlined in the Marquette County Building Codes. Failure to do so will result in a violation, and could result in the registration being voided. Draft

62 Alternate Property Manager Contact An alternate contact must live within the Township or within twenty-five miles of the Township s boundaries. Name Address City State Zip Contact number Alternate contact number Application Conditions 1. I understand that this application does not satisfy the need for all permits required by Marquette County or the State of Michigan, and that other permits may be necessary before beginning the rental use. 2. I certify the requested rental does not violate any deed restrictions attached to the property involved in the request. 3. I certify that the proposed rental is compliant with all other applicable federal, state, and local statues, regulations, and ordinances, and I understand that my registration may be revoked if it is found that the rental is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law, or regulation. 4. I have reviewed Ordinance 68 Rentals, and agree to comply with the ordinance text. 5. I understand that anyone renting the property must be provided a copy of the latest version of the Township Information document. For Single Family Use Only 1. I understand no signs will be posted at the property advertising or indicating the location of the rental property or related services. Owner / Agent signature Date / / Township Office Parcel Id Zoning District Approved Not Approved Date registered / / Violations in previous year No Yes If Yes, number of violations Dates: / / / / / / Registration eligibility date / / Registration start date / / Registration expiration Date / / Additional Conditions of Approval Zoning Administrator signature Date / / 2

63 VIII.E.3 Proposed Zoning Ordinance Changes ( ) II. Definitions Used in this Ordinance Word or Phrase B Bed & Breakfast D Dwelling, Multi-Family Dwelling, Registered Rental G Group Day Care Facility Group Day Care Home Definition A use of a single-family dwelling unit in which guests are provided temporary sleeping rooms, meals, and related amenities in return for monetary payment to the owner. The dwelling unit is the owner s personal residence, is occupied by the owner at the time of rental, and the owner does not provide more than six sleeping rooms for guests. This definition does not include group day care facilities, group day care homes, hospitals, hotels, nursing homes, registered rental dwellings or resorts. (# ) A structure containing two or more dwelling units designed for residential use, with or without separate kitchens or dining facilities, and conforming in all respects to the standards set forth in Section 6.3 of this ordinance. This definition does not include bed and breakfasts, group day care facilities, group day care homes, hospitals, hotels, nursing homes, registered rental dwellings or resorts. (# ) A dwelling unit providing temporary accommodations for periods of one day or more for a fee. This definition does not include bed and breakfasts, campgrounds, group day care facilities, group day care homes, hospitals, hotels, mobile homes in mobile home parks, mobile home parks, nursing homes or resorts. (# ) A private home, or a facility other than a private home, receiving more than six preschool or school aged children for day care or supervision for periods of less than twenty four hours a day. A facility licensed as a day care center or a home licensed as a group day care home by the Michigan Department of Social Services. This definition does not include bed and breakfasts, group day care homes, hospitals, hotels, nursing homes, registered rental dwellings or resorts. (# ) A private home in which more than six but not more than twelve minor children are given day care and supervision for periods of less than twenty-four a day unattended by a parent or legal guardian, except children who are related to an adult member of the day care home family by blood, marriage, or adoption. This definition does not include bed and breakfasts, group day care facilities, hospitals, hotels, nursing homes, registered rental dwellings or resorts. (# )

64 Word or Phrase H Hospital Hotel N Nursing Home Definition Means a licensed institution providing primary health care services and medical or surgical care to persons, primarily inpatients, suffering from physical or mental conditions, and which may include related facilities as an integral part of the institution. This definition does not include bed and breakfasts, group day care facilities, group day care homes, hotels, nursing homes, registered rental dwellings or resorts. (# ) A place of business that rents multiple rooms at the same location for temporary occupancy, and generally offers other amenities that may also be offered to the public (such as restaurants, pools, meeting rooms, and retail stores). The length of stay for the same guest is not limited to a set number of calendar days. This definition does not include bed and breakfasts, group day care facilities, group day care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, registered rental dwellings or resorts. (# ) Means a structure designed or used for residential occupancy and providing limited medical or nursing care on the premises for occupants. This definition does not include bed and breakfasts, group day care facilities, group day care homes, hospitals, hotels, registered rental dwellings or resorts. (# ) IV. Zoning District Regulations 4.1 Single Family Residential District (B) Permitted Principal Uses 1. Detached single-family dwellings 2. Family Day Care homes 3. Registered Rental Dwellings (# ) 4.2 High Density Residential District (R-2) (Harvey) (B) Permitted Principal Uses 1. Single and Two family Dwellings 2. Family Day Care Homes 3. Registered Rental Dwellings (# ) 2

65 4.3 Multi-Family Residential District (MFR) (B) Permitted Principal Uses 1. Multi-family residential developments 2. Mobile homes in mobile home parks (# ) 3. Registered Rental Dwellings (# ) 4.4 Waterfront Residential District (WFR) (B) Permitted Principal Uses 1. Single-family dwellings 2. Registered Rental Dwellings (# ) 4.5 Commercial District (C) (B) Permitted Principal Uses 1. Offices 2. Establishments selling goods and services at retail 3. Gas stations and service stations 4. Private clubs 5. Hotels 6. Nursing homes 7. Funeral homes 8. Bakeries 9. Restaurants 10. Indoor theaters and other places of amusement 11. Motor vehicle sales and rentals 12. Storage units 13. Registered Rental Dwellings (# ) 4.7 Agriculture / Forestry District (AF) (B) Permitted Principal Uses 1. Growing and harvesting of timber and bush fruit 2. Agricultural 3. Wildlife management 4. Outdoor wood boilers (see Section 6.5) (# ) 5. Single-family residences 6. Registered Rental Dwellings (# ) 3

66 VIII.E Zoning Ordinance Change Summary Comparison of Existing Ordinance with Requested Changes Number Change Revised Document Page 1 II Definitions Bed & Breakfast 5 Updated definition 2 II Definitions Dwelling, Multi-Family definition 3 II Definitions Dwelling, Registered Rental 9 Updated definition Revised Document Impact 10 Updated name, updated definition 4 II Definitions Group Day Care Facility 11 Updated definition 5 II Definitions Group Day Care Home 11 Updated definition 6 II Definitions Hospital 12 New definition 7 II Definitions Hotel 12 Updated definition 8 II Definitions Nursing Home 15 Updated definition 9 IV Zoning District Regulations 4.1.B 21 Added text 10 IV Zoning District Regulations 4.2.B 21 Added text 11 IV Zoning District Regulations 4.3.B 22 Added text 12 IV Zoning District Regulations 4.4.B 24 Added text 13 IV Zoning District Regulations 4.5.B 25 Added text 14 IV Zoning District Regulations 4.7.B 26 Added text

67 VIII.E.5 Chocolay Township Township Information 2019 Edition

68 Local Ordinances The Township has ordinances, or rules, that control the environment. Ordinance 22 Public Street Parking Ordinance Purpose Rule Violation consequence To regulate where motor vehicles can park on public streets in the Township On-street parking is not permitted between 1 AM and 7 AM when there is snow on the ground or between November 15 and April 15 of the next year. This is so that snow plowing of streets can occur without interference for the snow plows. Vehicle will be towed and stored at the owner s expense, and a fine up to $100 can be given for each occurrence Ordinance 37A Regulation of Nuisance Ordinance Purpose Rule Violation consequence Ordinance 47 Watercraft Speed Ordinance Purpose Rule Violation consequence Ordinance 49 False Alarm Ordinance Purpose Rule Violation consequence Ordinance 53 Traffic Code To control trash, blight, and junk that is visible to the public Residents and guests are expected to keep trash, blight and junk off of the property and properly dispose of it. Fine of $100 per day for each day the issue is not resolved To control watercraft speed on the Chocolay River All watercraft on the river cannot exceed a slow-no wake speed. Fine of $100 for each occurrence To prevent false alarms for the Township fire and police departments No false alarms to either the fire or police department are permitted. An alarm system may go off by accident under some circumstances (such as storm conditions, working on the alarm system, power loss to the system, and local utility damage); these circumstances are not necessarily preventable, and will not be counted as a false alarm. Fines and fees will be determined on a case-by-case basis Ordinance Purpose Rule Violation consequence To conform to Michigan traffic rules and regulations All drivers of vehicles in the Township must have a valid driver s license, be properly insured, and must follow all Michigan traffic rules and regulations Tickets will be issued for each violation 1

69 Ordinance 55 Vehicle and Trailer Parking and Storage Ordinance Purpose Rules Violation consequence To control where vehicles and trailers can be parked on private property All vehicles, including trailers, must be properly licensed and in good working order (no parts removed, jacked up, flat tires, etc.) No more than three currently licensed and operable recreational vehicles or trailers or a combination may be parked, stored, maintained, or placed in the front or side yards of the property Vehicles must be parked in the driveway when possible Additional recreational vehicles or trailers must be parked, stored, maintained or placed only in the rear yard and be substantially screened from public view No junk cars (ones that are not licensed and / or are not in working order) are permitted on the property in public view Recreational vehicles can be occupied for up to 90 days per year Semi-trailers cannot be used for storage unless they are located in the rear of the property screened from the public Fine of up to $500 for each occurrence Ordinance 57 Bicycle And Snowmobile Ordinance Purpose Rule Violation consequence To define bicycle and snowmobile regulations All bicycles ridden on designated bike paths in the Township will follow the Michigan traffic code No motorized vehicles (other than wheelchairs or other mobility device designed for a mobility-impaired person) are permitted on Township bike paths except that snowmobiles can be operated on the portion of the bike path along US 41 and M-28 that lies in the MDOT right of way from December 1 to March 31. Look for the signs designating the correct location Snowmobiles must obey all motor vehicle traffic laws, state snowmobile laws, local ordinances and must yield to all motor vehicles when using the authorized street and alley areas Fine of up to $100 for each offense Ordinance 59 Outdoor and Open Burning Ordinance Purpose Rules To inform the public as to when and where outdoor and open burning can occur No burning of any kind is allowed if the DNR or the Governor of Michigan has stated it is a no burn period (see michigan.gov/burnpermit for more information) No burning of trash, construction materials, demolition wastes, hazardous substances, furniture and appliances, tires, plastic, treated or painted wood is permitted An outdoor campfire for cooking, ceremonies, or recreation is allowed as long as the campfire does not cause a nuisance. Open burning of trees, logs, brush, stumps, leaves, and grass clippings is allowed if the burning is: Completed in a safe, nuisance-free manner, when wind and weather conditions minimize adverse effects and do not create a health hazard or a visibility hazard Done in conformance with all local and state fire protection regulations Located at least 100 feet from the nearest building which is not on the same property Constantly attended and supervised until the fire is extinguished and is cold. The person attending and supervising the fire must have a container with water or a water hose nearby in case the fire gets out of control. 2

70 Not burned upon any street, curb, gutter or sidewalk Not burned on the ice of a lake, pond, stream or water-body (except for a campfire) Not burned within twenty-five feet from any combustible material, a combustible wall or partition, an exterior window opening, building exit access or exit unless authorized by the Fire Chief Violation consequences 1st offense within 3-year period $50.00to $ nd offense within 3-year period $ to $ rd offense within 3-year period $ to $ th or more offenses within 3-year period $ to $ Ordinance 61 Firearms Ordinance Purpose Rules Violation consequence To regulate where firearms can be used in the Township No shooting of any firearm within 450 feet of any occupied building, dwelling, house, residence, or cabin, or any barn or other building used in connection with a farm operation, without written permission from the owner, renter, or occupant of the property No shooting is permitted in the following zoning districts (with the exception of a shotgun that is not loaded with slug, ball, buckshot or cut shell load): C Commercial I Industrial MFR Multi-Family Residential MP Township properties R-1 Single Family Residential R-2 High Density Residential (Harvey) No shooting is permitted across property lines without permission from the neighbor. Fine of up to $500 for each offense Ordinance 62 Animal Control Ordinance Purpose Rules To control dogs and other animals within the Township All dogs older than four months must have a current license and a current rabies vaccination Dogs not hunting must have a collar on at all times with the license and rabies vaccination tags attached If you wish to have more than four dogs, cats, or other animals as pets (or a combination of these) at your residence, you must obtain a kennel license; however, kennels are only permitted in the mixed use overlay district (US 41 South, M-28 and Cherry Creek Road business corridor). Kennels are permitted in the Agriculture / Forestry (AF) zoning district with a conditional use permit. All animal enclosures (fenced in areas, shelters, etc.) must be clean and dry for the animal s protection Any animal that bites or scratches another animal or person will be held for ten days to ensure that the biting animal does not have rabies. Animals that are not leashed can be seized on neighboring properties and given to law enforcement to be impounded. Up to six chickens can be kept on the property at one time for personal use. No selling of the chickens or eggs is permitted. Chicken structures must be built in a way to keep out rats, mice and other rodents, and must be kept clean. Chickens can only be enclosed or in an enclosed structure in the back yard area (exception is the Waterfront (WFR) zoning district front or back if properly screened) Violation consequences 1st offense $75.00 to $300.00, plus costs 2nd offense within 3-year period $ to $300.00, plus costs 3

71 Ordinance 65 Fireworks Ordinance Purpose Rules Violation consequence Ordinance 66 Noise To regulate when fireworks can used in the Township Consumer fireworks (does not include items such as sparklers) can only set off during the day preceding, the day of or the day after a national holiday between the hours of 8 AM and 1 AM. The national holidays are: Holiday New Year s Day January 1 Martin Luther King, Jr s birthday Washington s Birthday Memorial Day Independence Day July 4 Labor Day Columbus Day Date the third Monday in January the third Monday in February the last Monday in May Veteran s Day November 11 Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day December 25 the first Monday in September the second Monday in October the fourth Thursday in November Minors cannot possess or use fireworks. Sky lanterns are not permitted unless they are tethered to the ground Fine of up to $500 for each offense Ordinance Purpose Rule Violation consequence To control excessive noise All residents and visitors cannot make or maintain loud noises near private property that will disturb the neighbors. This includes: Constant use of horns or signaling devices (unless it is an emergency situation) Loud radios, sound equipment, car radios between the hours of 11 PM and 7 AM Loud speakers or amplifiers (unless it is an emergency situation) Shouting, singing, yelling, or other similar sounds between the hours of 11 PM and 7 AM Constant pet noises (dog barking, birds, etc.) Fine of up to $500 for each offense 4

72 To: Planning Commissioners From: Dale Throenle, Planning Director / Zoning Administrator Date: January 14, 2019 Subject: Structure Placement Footnote Background When issuing permits for structures in the Township over the last two years, an issue has arisen as to the placement of structures that are less than 100 square feet in size for properties that are zoned either Single Family Residential (R-1) or Waterfront Residential (WFR). Staff Findings There is an exemption in footnote 2 in Section 6.1 of the Township Zoning Ordinance that states: A detached accessory building less than 100 square feet and so located that no portion is located in the front yard setback is exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. This particular exemption creates a scenario where sheds and other structures under 100 square feet can be placed directly on the property line between neighbors, and could potentially develop a fence of structures on that line. Staff Recommendations Staff is recommending that the Commissioners review this exemption with the intent of removing it from footnote 2 in Section 6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Recommended Motion Charter Township of Chocolay Planning and Zoning Department 5010 US 41South Marquette, MI Phone: Fax: moved, seconded, that footnote 2 in Section 6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance be presented for public hearing as [written / changed] at a future Planning Commission meeting. VIII.F

73 VIII.F.1 Proposed Zoning Ordinance Changes ( ) VI. General Provisions 6.1 Height and Placement Regulations (A) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Ordinance, no structure shall be erected or maintained between any lot line and the pertinent setback distance listed below and no structure shall be erected or maintained which exceeds the height limit specified below. Where there is no rear lot line as otherwise defined herein, the required rear setback distance shall be measured from a line through the point on the lot most distant from any front lot line of the same lot, which line shall be perpendicular to a line from said point to the closest point on any front lot line. If there is more than one such line, the rear setback shall be maintained from any one of them at the option of the owner. Where a lot fronts on two streets within 30 degrees of being parallel, but not of their intersection, no rear setback is required. The side setback requirement applies to a side lot line and also to any lot line which is neither a front, rear, or side lot line. All distances are measured in feet from the drip lines of said structure/s. Schedule of Regulations District Front Side Rear Height R R MFR WFR AF C I PUD MP District Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width 3 R-1 25,000 square feet R-2 10,500 square feet 50 MFR 20 acres None WFR 25,000 square feet 125 C 25,000 square feet 125 I 1 acre 150 AF 20 acres None PUD 5 acres 300 MP None None

74 Footnotes: 2. A detached accessory building not exceeding l4 feet in height and not exceeding 720 square feet may be located within six feet of a side lot line and 20 feet from a rear lot line. A detached accessory building less than 100 square feet and so located that no portion is located in the front yard setback is exempt from the provisions of this ordinance ,750 square feet where lot is served by public sewer and/or water supply. 2

75 VIII.F Zoning Ordinance Change Summary Comparison of Existing Ordinance with Requested Changes Number Change Height and Placement Regulations Schedule of Regulations table Height and Placement Regulations footnote Height and Placement Regulations footnote 4 Revised Document Page 65 Updated text Revised Document Impact 66 Remove second paragraph of text 66 Updated text

76 XII.A December 10, 2018 A Regular meeting of the Chocolay Township Board was held on Monday, December 10, 2018 at the Chocolay Township Hall, 5010 U S 41 South, Marquette, MI. Supervisor Bohjanen called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. TOWNSHIP BOARD. PRESENT: Richard Bohjanen, Ben Zyburt, Max Engle, David Lynch, Don Rhein, Judy White, Mark Maki. ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Jon Kangas, Suzanne Sundell, Scott Jennings, Brad Johnson, Lisa Perry, Pat Beck, Dale Throenle Supervisor Bohjanen indicated that this was the first time a Consent Agenda is being used. As explained the memo, if there are items that the Board feels require more discussion or consideration, they can be removed from the Consent Agenda and be addressed as separate items of discussion. PUBLIC COMMENT. Stephanie Gencheff, 597 Lakewood Lane for Deborah Mulcahey, 633 Lakewood Lane Deborah questioned if the large expenditure for the Tribe was a lawful expenditure. The concept to approve this based on the firefighters would be able to use this is a farce. Under the concept of mutual aid the water would be available anyway. Deborah urged the Board to not allow the Tribe to hold the Township hostage. In regard to Manager Kangas comment on a verbal agreement what he reported as a verbal agreement is apparently not what the Tribe is going forward with. Study was done on providing water to help the residents in the area. Deborah was also questioning if there was a Tribal attorney present at this meeting, along with our attorney. (Both were present.) Robert Mielke, 360 Karen Road works for Marquette Township water department, so understands the need to upgrade. Contesting the way it is randomly charged. One equivalent user is equal to approximately 5,000 gallons. Has three tenants two of them are at 1 EU apiece and the other is at 1.5 EU. He does not feel that they are using the amount of gallons this would be equal to. He would like to go to a meter system, so everyone would be charged fairly. Jennifer Misegan, Beartown Road, Baraga MI KBIC she is here for the Elevated Water Tank discussion. She assured the Board that this will be a win-win situation for the casino, the surrounding residents, and that it will be available for fire protection. The funding and financing for this water tower will be through 2% funds - $75,000 has already been given to the Township. They will be paying the remainder up front. No funds from the Township will be used on this 1

77 project. This does not mean the end to the Township s 2% funds they plan on continuing the $45,000 given to the Township bi-annually. She thanked the Board for their continued support. Darrell Adair, 141 West Terrace Street was wondering how many residents will be benefiting from the water tank. He feels there are plenty of sources to get water for firefighting. Wondered if everyone was going to have a water bill? Trustee Maki answered there would be no water bills. Adair feels there should be more of a study done on this from what he s heard the reservation and the casino will get most of the benefit. Supervisor Bohjanen stated that eventually all of the Township will need a water system, but that is not happening now. Adair wondered if we need to start saving now for the water lines. Supervisor Bohjanen stated there would need to be engineering studies and feasibility studies done. Jason Ayres, Beartown Road, Baraga MI KBIC he is here to answer any questions that he can on the elevated water tank. Darrell Adair, 141 West Terrace Street questioned the size of the water tank, how many, and where will they be. Clerk Engle answered that there would only be one at the casino for their use. Boyd Snyder, 311 West Fairbanks spoke on the sewer rate hikes. The way this was brought to the attention of the residents was not acceptable. The increase will basically add another 5 months to the annual sewer cost. This should have been done over the course of a few years. He has had major problems with the sewer system since the beginning. He doesn t feel that this all needs to be done in one chunk. The Township is doing no favors for any one. Brian Miller, 217 Judy Street agrees with previous comments the planning was not good. If you have infrastructure you need to save for replacement. How many other increases will there be? Who s responsible for this happening? How are they held accountable? How do we keep this from happening again? Public Comment closed at 5:50 PM. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS. A. Approve Minutes of Previous Meeting November 12, B. Approve Bills Payable, Check Register Reports - November 14 (Check # s , in the amount of $34,233.26) and November 28 (Check # s , in the amount of $120,539.04). C. Approve Bills Payable, Regular Payroll November 1 (Check # s and Check # s , Federal, State, and MERS for a total of $32,202.29), November 15 (Check # s and Check # s , Federal, State, and MERS for a total of $35,598.51), and November 29 (Check # s and Check # s , Federal, State, and MERS for a total of $35,991.67). D. Approve Financial Reports, Revenues and Expenditures January 1 through October 31,

78 E. Approve Treasurer s Report, Certificates of Deposit and Investment Reports October 30, F. Approve Treasurer s Report, Fund Withdrawal and Deposit Report November 30, G. Accept Letters of Resignation from Eric Meister (Planning Commission) and Karen Alholm (Zoning Board of Appeals). H. Appoint Ryan Soucy to a 3-year term on the Planning Commission, effective January This item was removed for further discussion. I. Appoint Paul Charboneau to a 3-year term on the Zoning Board of Appeals, effective January J. Appoint Anthony Giorgianni to a 3-year term as the Alternate to the Zoning Board of Appeals, effective January This item was removed for further discussion. K. Reappointments to Boards and Commissions. Maki indicated he would like to remove items H and J for discussion. Engle indicated that no motion would be needed. White moved Zyburt seconded that the consent agenda be approved as modified, with Item H and Item J being removed for further discussion. MOTION CARRIED. Maki asked about additional applications Bohjanen indicated that he had reviewed the applications and chose Ryan Soucy based on his experience. Maki asked if Tony Giorgianni was in the audience, and asked him a few questions about Zoning Board of Appeals. Maki indicated that there was training available if he was interested. Giorgianni indicated he would be able to do this. Lynch moved, Rhein seconded to appoint Ryan Soucy to a 3-year term on the Planning Commission. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Maki) MOTION CARRIED Lynch moved, Rhein seconded to appoint Anthony Giorgianni to a 3-year term as an Alternate to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION CARRIED SUPERVISOR S REPORT In January, the Manager will be completing his first year of employment, and needs to be evaluated. Bohjanen questioned the other Board members of if they would prefer to be involved in the process. The Board agreed that they would like to be involved. Bohjanen handed out an evaluation form to be filled out and brought back for the next meeting preferably a week prior to the meeting to be able to collate the information. 3

79 John Gehres, the Assessor, had indicated when he took the job with Chocolay Township that he would like to be able to pick up extra employment. If our needs are met, Bohjanen feels that this would be a win-win situation, and that the Township should maintain flexibility for him. Bohjanen is looking for Board consensus on Gehres being able to proceed. Maki doesn t think this seems reasonable we are paying him for 5 days per week. Maki has no objection to him taking on other units, but his first priority is the Township. Lynch agreed that Gehres had signed on as a 40 hour per week person. White agreed that Gehres would still need to put in a 40 hour week (possibly 4 10 hour days). If not putting in 40 hours, benefits and wages should be reduced. CLERK S REPORT. Clerk Engle reported that the November 6 election was audited by the State, with the County Clerk conducting the audit. Everything went well. PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION ADOPTION PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF 2019 SEWER RATES AND CHARGES. Darrell Adair, 141 West Terrace Street asked about the new line that will be running from the casino, and if people along M-28 would be able to hook up to it. Adair also questioned the sewer rate increase, and why it took such a jump. Bohjanen indicated that this increase is needed in order to repair the problems, and it was a rate that was suggested by our engineers. Adair wondered how much was charged for the study, where did the Township get the money to pay for it, and if this was only being done due to the Casino project. Manager Kangas took this opportunity to explain the sewer rate increase. We are looking at a project that will cost approximately $3 million dollars. This project is not being looked at because of the casino project, and it will happen no matter what happens with KBIC. We have to do this project. Our system is small and 40 years old, and all the pumping equipment is just as old. These numbers don t come up arbitrarily. We now have an Asset Management Plan, which gives us a look at what it will cost us going forward. The reason for the increase is that we do not have the money to rebuild 5 lift stations and 3 grinder stations. We will probably not qualify for any grant money, but may be able to qualify for low interest loans. Chris Johnson, 203 Hotel Place questioned the Casino hooking into the sewer system, and how much they would be charged. He was also wondering if the residents along the sewer line extension would be able to connect into the sewer system, and if that would bring in additional revenue. Manager Kangas indicated that as drain fields fail, anyone within 200 would be required to connect. Johnson stated he is currently paying $26,000 per year for sewer, which will be raised to $42,000. Boyd Snyder, 311 West Fairbanks what he s hearing is that the Township does not charge as much as surrounding communities. It sounds like the Township is trying to build in a profit because others are charging more. He feels the residents are being charged for something that the Township failed to do at the beginning, which would have been saving for this project, rather than charging all at once. 4

80 Manager Kangas indicated that we are not charging based on what everyone else is charging the Township is charging based on operating cost, our cost of a pending construction project, and our cost of depreciation based on an Asset Management Plan that was submitted in July, Darrell Adair, 141 West Fairbanks questioned how many people are on the sewer system. Also wondered about how the Township was able to pay the consultant. Bohjanen explained that the consultant fees are added to the total cost of the project. He also explained that what happened 40 years ago, and that the sewer project was necessary. Going forward, the DEQ will not authorize a septic system for people that have access to a sewer system. Ryan Ellis, 308 East Main what are the future plans for extending the sewer line, and will it be mandatory for people to connect. He feels you cannot wait for a drain field to fail when you have PVC pipe. Are there more plans to continue to extend the sewer lines each year? He feels there needs to be a plan to get everyone connected in the Township, such as a millage. Chris Johnson, 203 Hotel Place wondered if it was possible to see the numbers it would be nice to have access. Manager Kangas indicated that the Asset Management Plan and Township Budget are available on the website. C. Johnson was also questioning how the Township is spending the money, and if the Township tax dollars are being used for this. DPW Foreman Brad Johnson indicated that the sewer budget funds itself by sewer user fees. Rob Mielke, 360 Karen Road wondered if there is anything in the zoning ordinance that would prevent him from putting in a dry compost system. Manager Kangas stated this would be governed by Public Health Code Marquette County Public Health. Mielke also asked about where the Township money is invested. Manager Kangas gave an overview based on the Treasurer s report. Mielke also questioned the believability of the consultants. Maki indicated that Mielke should put the questions in written form and submit to the Township for complete answers. Public Hearing closed at 6:48 PM. Maki asked about options to take some money from the General Fund to help reduce the amount. Bohjanen indicated that it is important to keep the General Fund where it is at. After conducting a public hearing on the proposed rates, White moved, Lynch seconded to adopt the following rate resolution as specified by the Township Sewer Ordinance: Whereas, the revenues and expenditures for the wastewater collection and treatment system have been reviewed, and 5

81 Whereas, the current equivalent user fee of $33.00 per month is not adequate for the projected 2019 replacement cost of the system, and Whereas, the proposed equivalent user fee of $54.00 per month will be sufficient to offset the Township debt payments of $14.50 per equivalent user per month, to pay the construction loan for the pump station rehabilitation project, and Whereas, the proposed equivalent user fee of $54.00 per month will be sufficient to fully offset the depreciation funding cost of $6.50 per equivalent user per month, to pay for future operations, maintenance, and replacement costs. Now, therefore be it resolved the Chocolay Township Board established the equivalent user fee of $54.00 per month and a user connection fee of $ beginning January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, or until amended by resolution. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle, Bohjanen NAYS: None MOTION CARRIED PRESENTATIONS ELEVATED WATER TANK FINANCING AND TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT AND TRI-PARTY FUNDING AGREEMENT. Roger Zappa, Chocolay Township Attorney there are two contracts that are under discussion. The first contract is a Tri-Party Agreement between Chocolay Township, Gundlach-Champion, and KBIC. This is a legitimate governmental expense, and any municipality can enter into an agreement with another municipality or interlocal agreements. This one is a little more complex as the Township is dealing with a sovereign nation. There is a State statute that permits this. The key issues that the Township Auditor, Mike Grentz, questioned were the financial and legal ramifications of this agreement. In order to engage in this type of transaction, the Township needs to be receiving a benefit. After extensive rewriting of the agreement, the Township will have the right to withdraw water from the tower, and the Township will also have a perpetual easement. In the Tri-Party agreement, the Township is acting as a conduit of funds. KBIC will pay $695,000 to Chocolay Township, and Chocolay Township will serve as the intermediary of those funds. $75,000 of this money has been placed in an account with the Township at this point. KBIC will pay the remaining $620,000 up front, as a lump sum, to avoid any expenses that the Township would have to pay. The other agreement is a Financing and Terms of Use Agreement, which is between KBIC and Chocolay Township. The general idea is that KBIC would continue to pay to Chocolay Township the 2% KBIC funds. One of the concerns of both the Attorney and the Auditor was that future payments would only consist of the repayment. It is now stated that KBIC s intent is to pay historical 2% funds, which amounts to approximately $90,000 per year. KBIC will make their best effort to pay this amount, in addition to a repayment of approximately $62,000 per year. Atty. 6

82 Zappa then went through different scenarios on repayments. If, at some point, there are disputes that need to be resolved, it can be arbitrated versus litigated. Lynch questioned why the possibility of water for residents along Kawbawgam Road was left out of the contract. Manager Kangas stated his interpretation was that after the study that GEI conducted, it was determined that it would be too costly and the contract was ended. Lynch felt that it was wrong to not include this in the contract, and that it was a disservice to the residents along Kawbagam Road. Maki asked for clarification of the money we would receive. He was also questioning the amount that we are entitled to get. Atty. Zappa stated this is not an entitlement question KBIC gets a myriad of requests and they have to decide where the funds will go based on their gaming compact. Maki also asked for clarification on the provision stating the Township would be able to use the tank as long as it did not drop below 40,000 gallons. Bohjanen reminded the Board that the Township is not paying for the water tank. We are getting a benefit from the water tank by cooperating with KBIC to use 2% monies to recover the cost of the tank. He doesn t feel we lose. Danielle Webb, Attorney for KBIC the Gaming Compact includes language to give 2% of the gaming revenue to local units of government within the surrounding area. It does not say that it has to go to specific areas of government it is within the discretion of the Tribe as to where it goes. The actual Gaming Compact is on the State of Michigan website. It does not define the surrounding area. In 2022, the Gaming Compact will need to be renegotiated with the State of Michigan. Jennifer Misegan, KBIC At the time of the last negotiation, the State was asking for the entire 10% for themselves, but the Tribal Chair at the time stressed that 2% should be going to the local governments. The benefit of the entire project is growth. ELEVATED WATER TANK FINANCING AND TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT. White moved, Zyburt seconded to approve the Financing and Terms of Use Agreement with KBIC as presented, according to the Township Attorney s review and approval. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Maki) MOTION CARRIED ELEVATED WATER TANK TRI-PARTY FUNDING AGREEMENT. Engle moved, Rhein seconded to approve the Tri-Party Funding Agreement with KBIC and Gundlach-Champion, Inc. as presented, according to the Township Attorney s review and approval. AYES: 6 7

83 NAYS: 1 (Maki) MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF 2019 MEETING SCHEDULE. Lynch moved, Zyburt seconded that the dates, as amended, for the Chocolay Township Board, Chocolay Township Planning Commission, Chocolay Township Zoning Board of Appeals, Chocolay Township Fire Department and Chocolay Township Tax Board of Review as indicated in document XII.A.2 be approved for MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF 2019 HOLIDAY SCHEDULE. White moved, Rhein seconded that the 2019 Chocolay Township Holiday schedule be adopted as indicated in Item XII.B.2 and placed in a conspicuous location on the Township website, MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF SEWER USE FEE CHANGE, 2250 US 41 SOUTH, SUITE 1 Zyburt moved, Lynch seconded that the Equivalent User Fee for 2250 US 41 South be reduced down to one (1) equivalent user effective October 1, 2018 until the building is reoccupied. MOTION CARRIED CONSIDERATION OF REVISED UTILITY REVIEW COMMITTEE BYLAWS. Maki moved, White seconded to approve the Utility Review Committee By-laws as amended October 15, 2018, and authorize the Township Supervisor to sign on behalf of the Township. MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT OVERTIME REIMBURSEMENT REVENUES. Zyburt moved, White seconded that Whereas a budget was adopted December 11, 2017, by the Chocolay Township Board to govern the expenditures of anticipated general fund receipts within the township for the next fiscal year, and Whereas, as a result of unanticipated changes in revenues, and / or needed expenditures, Now Therefore, Be It Hereby Resolved, that the aforesaid budget be hereby modified as follows: EXPENDITURE PREVIOUS CHANGE AMENDED Police Salary $ 284, $3, $ 287, REVENUE PREVIOUS CHANGE AMENDED Miscellaneous $ 25, $3, $ 28, ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle, Bohjanen 8

84 NAYS: None MOTION CARRIED CONSIDERTION OF NETWORK FIREWALL REPLACEMENT. Lynch moved, Rhein seconded to authorize up to $1, from Capital Improvement Fund to purchase a new network firewall device through Lasco. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle, Bohjanen NAYS: None MOTION CARRIED AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND CAPITAL FUNDS TO PURCHASE UP TO TWO (2) ELECTIONS TABULATORS. Clerk Engle stated that an Election Commission meeting was held prior to the Township Board meeting and had recommended the purchase of one (1) tabulator. Lynch moved, White seconded that the Clerk expend up to $6,000 from the Election Capital Improvement Fund, , for additional election equipment to be used in the AV County Board. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle, Bohjanen NAYS: None MOTION CARRIED PUBLIC COMMENT. None. Lynch moved White seconded to adjourn the meeting. MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS. A. Great American Disposal Holiday Refuse Collection Schedules for 2019 and Remainder of B. December 2018 Chocolay Township Letter. C. UP Insurance Agency / Accident Fund Dividend Notification Letter, November 27, D. Minutes Chocolay Township Planning Commission, Regular Meeting of November 26, 2018, Draft. 9

85 E. Minutes Chocolay Township Zoning Board of Appeals, October 25, 2018, Draft. F. Minutes Marquette Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Advisory Board, Regular Meeting of October 18, 2018, Final. G. Minutes US-41 Corridor Advisory Group, Regular Meeting of October 9, 2018 Max Engle, Clerk Richard Bohjanen, Supervisor 10

86 XII.B CHOCOLAY TOWNSHIP NEWSLETTER January 1, 2019 DEPARTMENT REPORTS Manager By Jon Kangas Last month, I discussed the new sewer rate of $54/EU/month. That new rate has been officially adopted by the Township Board and will be effective January 1, At the December Township Board meeting, we heard from several concerned customers about the impact of the new rates on the quarterly bill. This is understandable, especially for those on fixed incomes. Doing the math, a quarterly bill will increase from $99 to $162. We know this is a significant increase, but it is the correct rate to charge moving forward for the sustainability of our sewer system. In January, the Township Board will hold a public hearing regarding two proposed changes to the sewer ordinance. Those changes would have an impact on existing sewer customers as well as those properties along the sewer extension being constructed by KBIC for their facility expansion. The first change is to add language to Section 5 of the Ordinance and it would essentially grant a waiver to Section 5, meaning any property within 200 of the sewer extension will NOT be required to connect to the new sewer EXCEPT if: The property owner desires to connect and pays the associated construction costs for the lateral and the necessary connection permit, or The existing on-site septic system (drain field) fails and the house is within 200 of the new sewer, or If a currently undeveloped parcel within 200 of the new sewer is developed to the point of needing sewage treatment (i.e. a home is built or a business is built with internal plumbing). Nothing in the proposed language would require a property to connect to the sewer if the property changes ownership. The second proposed change would affect the billing cycle for all current sewer customers. Township staff has determined the added cost of changing the billing cycle from quarterly billing to monthly billing would not exceed $200/month. In fact, the added cost is not expected to be more than $1,200/year. Based on this information, we believe it may be more beneficial to our residential customers to pay their sewer bill on a monthly basis than on a quarterly basis. This seems to be especially true for those living on tight budgets. If this change is approved, the next sewer bill received by customers will be the last quarterly sewer bill. That bill will be $99/EU and will cover the last quarter of Those bills will be received in the first week of January, The first monthly bill will be issued in late January and received by customers in early February. That bill and every monthly bill thereafter will be $54/EU. Neither of the proposed ordinance changes mentioned above will be adopted without holding a Public Hearing. Those affected have received a letter documenting the proposed change and informing them of the scheduled Public Hearing for January 14, 2019 when the Township Board next meets. Feedback received in writing prior to that meeting and any comments made during the Public Hearing will be taken into account when considering the proposed revisions. Any impacted citizen is encouraged to participate in this Public Hearing. Moving on, we are about to enter a new Fiscal Year where many challenges await us. I will (hopefully) be entering my second year on the job and I also hope to receive constructive criticism of my performance to date at the January Board 1

87 meeting. I know I m not perfect and I know I ve recommended some changes that have not been popular. However, my goal is to always recommend change that I believe is in the best interests of the Township as a whole. With that, I want to wish everyone a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year! Assessing By John Gehres Marquette County Equalization issued their finalized studies. Chocolay Township s residential and agricultural increases are negligible as they are already above the target 49% of true cash value. Individual assessments, however, may have large adjustments based on the re-appraisal. The commercial came back with a 4.7% increase, representing the largest jump in several years. Personal property statements are being sent out this month with a February 20 th due date. Clerk By Max Engle We have received the new Tabulator and ballot box to be used for the AVCB. At this time there no elections scheduled for 2019, but that does not mean we won t have any. I do believe that the AVs will continue to increase in the future, especially after the Proposal 3 that passed in November allowing no reason AVs. I hope that everyone had a good Christmas and New Year. Suzanne will begin training this year to get her Clerk s certification, that is a 3 process with 1 week of training each year in March. By Lisa Perry December has flown by. I have been getting ready for Getting schedules and calendars converted takes time, one doesn t realize how many things need to be done to get ready for a new year. We have also been going through the election closet, adding shelving, purging, etc. This is a good time of the year for doing this. We had a potluck with the Township employees, the Board was also invited. We closed the office for one hour to allow staff to enjoy the meal and to socialize with our fellow workers. Even though you work together every day, you don t always get to visit. I would also like to take this time to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Planning / Zoning By Dale Throenle General Staff wishes to extend a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all. Planning 2019 will be a very busy year for staff. There are two major projects for the year: the recreation plan update and the start of the Master Plan update. Both projects will take a considerable amount of time, which will include a number of meetings with the public for input. There are several sub-projects that are related to both plans. Those sub-projects are: Program Chocolay River Watershed Plan Community Rating System Firewise Sponsoring Agency Chocolay Township / Superior Watershed Partnership FEMA National Fire Protection Association Purpose Update plan and coordinate with Community Rating System project NFIP flood insurance and community protection from flooding Individual / Township fire prevention measures 2

88 Program Michigan Shoreline Stewards program StormReady Sponsoring Agency Michigan Shoreline Partnership National Weather Service Purpose Individual / Township shoreline protection and watershed projects Individual / Township storm readiness The recreation survey is now available for you to take. The survey is one way of gathering data for the recreation plan update that will be taking place in If you have not taken the survey, you can take it online at surve; paper copies of the survey are available at the Township office front desk. Also remember to take the Marquette County 2040 Master Plan survey if you have not done so. All residents are encouraged to take this survey, which serves as input to the development of the County master plan. The survey can be found at Planning Commission The Planning Commission agenda this month was focused on: A public hearing regarding the rezoning of twenty-seven properties from Waterfront Residential (WFR) to Single-Family Residential (R-1) that are located on the south side of Kawbawgam Road above Kawbawgam Lake. The Planning Commission approved this change, and recommended it to be forwarded on to the Board for consideration. A public hearing regarding the rezoning of one hundred twenty-one parcels from Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Waterfront Residential (WFR) that are located along the Chocolay River and the northern section of Cherry Creek. The Planning Commission approved this change, and recommended it to be forwarded on to the Board for consideration. Approval of dates and a change in time for Planning Commission meetings for Note that the time has changed for the start of Planning Commission meetings from 7 PM to 6 PM. A preliminary site plan review for a proposed campground on M-28 A review of opening several county roads for ATV / ORV traffic (South Kawbawgam Road, east Mangum Road, and Sand River Road) An update to the sewer ordinance that will change the billing cycle from quarterly to monthly, and exempt connections for residents that are along the new sewer project route The Planning Commission approved these changes, and recommended they be forwarded on to the Board for consideration and a public hearing. Projects for the Planning Commission for 2019 include beginning a revision of the Zoning Ordinance to simplify language and to set priorities for the schedule. Planning Training and Conferences Staff did not attend any training or conferences during December. Technology Staff continues to review technology purchases for 2019 to develop a purchase and installation schedule for the purchases. This review includes updates to network hardware (sometime during the first quarter of 2019), desktop software (sometime during the first quarter of 2019), accounting software (this will occur across several months during the first half of 2019) and a phone system upgrade (sometime during the first half of 2019). Beginning in January, staff will begin using 3

89 Facebook to communicate Township-related activities and updates. Facebook posts will be provided to give the residents (and surrounding neighbors) updates on Township business (meeting dates, upcoming ordinance changes, etc.) and provide updates on projects that are going on in the Township (such as the sewer line expansion and the casino development project). Staff is looking at this as one more way to get the word out to our residents. Another project on the schedule for next year is an update to the Township web site. Currently it is very difficult to look at the web site on mobile devices (such as tablets and phones), the site is not ADA-compliant, and some of the material on the site is no longer needed. Staff will be changing this site after review from the staff, the public, and the Board, so keep watching for the rollout date of the new site. Expected time frame for the new web page is June of If you have additional ideas on what you would like to see posted on the Facebook or web page, please contact us at the office and let us know. Zoning Training and Conferences There were no zoning-related training or conference sessions this month. Zoning Board of Appeals The Zoning Board of Appeals did not meet in December, and will not meet in January. Police By Jennifer Stanaway The prescription drug collection continues to grow each year as more residents are concerned for the environmental impact of the medications that go into the landfill and/or water-wastewater treatment facilities. This program began in 2014 with 54 pounds of medications being turned in. In 2015 the amount grew to 87.5 pounds, 112 pounds in 2016, it dropped to 106 in 2017 and 2018 being the highest weight being turned in, 139 pounds. Administrative Assistant Jennifer Stanaway attended and was recertified in 2018 for another two years as a Safety Seat Technician. Our department partnered with the WIC (Women, Infant, Children) KARS (Kids Always Ride Safely) program to promote car seat safety. If a person is on WIC, they may purchase new car seats from the program at a discounted price. The person must make an appointment with a technician for an educational session to learn and then properly install their car safety seat. The first year participation 9 sessions were held. Each year the amount of sessions has increased, 17 in 2016, 18 in 2017, and 20 in These sessions are also available to all of our residents of the county who have their own car seat. Sgt. Carrick, Officers Carter and Weaver took part in the annual Shop with a Cop for the foster children in Marquette County. The event was held on December 1 at Walmart. The DNR Snowmobile Grant was accepted for the season. The sleds are ready to go, all we need now is snow! Public Works By Brad Johnson In the very early stages of the KBIC sewer project, GEI consultants had to make sure that our current lift stations number 2 and number 4 would be able to handle the additional flow capacity that would be generated from the casino expansion. During their assessment they found that the pumps in both stations needed to have larger impellers installed on them to get the appropriate GPM s. The work was to be paid for by the KBIC. Crane Engineering out of Wisconsin was up in December to replace the impellers and while in station 4, they found some pretty significant damage internally on one of the pumps that needed to be fixed. The motor/pump shaft needed to be spray welded and then machined. They also had to install new bearings, seals and motor steam/bake. This is a cost that the KBIC will not cover as it is due to age and wear. The pump is due back, tentatively, around the second week of January with an estimate of $

90 On December 19 th I received a call from the utility billing department at the Board of Light and Power saying that we had a substantial spike in usage on November 29. Our average usage for that station is 18KWH/day and on November 29 th it jumped to 61KWH. She said it did drop down some to an average of 50 KWH/day, but we are still way above our average. After some trouble shooting we found that the heater was stuck on. We replaced the thermostat and solved the issue. Two separate letters have been sent out, one was to sewer customers and the other was to potential sewer customers. Both letters are to inform people of the public hearing being held at the January 14, 2019 Township Board meeting on suggested changes to the Waste Water Collection Ordinance. Both letters included information on the language about the proposed connection waiver to residence along the KBIC sewer expansion route. The second letter was to current customers about suggesting the language be changed from a quarterly billing cycle to a monthly billing cycle. I have received calls from residents and business owners on the suggested change to a monthly billing cycle, it seems that most residents are in favor and most business owners are against the proposed change from quarterly billing to monthly billing. Great American Disposal has been our contractor for trash and recycling pickup for many years. They have been a fantastic company to work with and have always been very competitive in the bidding process. In 2014 we sent out formal bids and again GAD was the lowest bid and I was happy to suggest to the Board that we award the contract them. In 2016, their service started to slip and they had many changes in supervision within their company. They made many promises to me that they were working on the problems within and that they would be back to our satisfaction in no time. In mid-2017 we started to see their service rebound for the positive. Our garbage contract was set to expire on June 30, I assumed that we were on the right path with GAD and with the change of glass not being accepted as a recyclable and the talk of the Marquette County Landfill possibly going to a single stream recycling system I thought it would be in the best interest of the Township to grant an extension of the current contract to GAD. So, I brought a suggested motion to the Board to authorize up to a 2 year extension of the garbage contract with GAD, which was approved. Not long after the extension was signed, we started to see a decline in service again. In 2018 we had 65 written complaint logs, 6 of those issues were unresolved by GAD and 1 of those complaints included a whole subdivision not being collected. To date, my opinion is that the Marquette County Landfill is no closer today than they were last year to implement a single stream recycling system and we were promised several times by GAD that their service would improve which it really hasn t. So, I have been working on updating the solid waste contract and plan to send it out for proposals. My timeline for this will be as follows: Send out for proposals in February, sealed proposals due in May and contract award at the June 10 th meeting. Treasurer By Pat Beck Taxes are coming in steadily along with most of the mortgage companies settling as of December 28 th. Taxes to be collected for 2018 is $6,017, and taxes collected so far is $4,103,713.18, since the 28 th of December. The December Board of Review met and adjusted 13 properties. Six properties were made veteran exemptions, 4 properties had principal resident exemptions and 3 personal property adjustments. This also included 5 refunds due with the changes in these properties. One certificate of deposit came due on December 3 rd with Stifel and was reinvested with Stifel with the Choiceone Bank of Sparta. Four certificates will be coming due in January. Eight landfill permits were purchased so far this month. Six items notarized. 5

91 The Plat Books came in and we sold 6 right away. Two Chocolay Township History books sold and 3 firestarter packages from Lakestate. The township participated in two community donations this Christmas season. The Toys for Tots did very well even a bike was donated along with the many toy items. The nonperishable food collection did well, not as good as last year, but every little bit counts. We donated one and a half bags to St, Vincent DePaul and the Salvation Army. Thank you everyone it will be greatly appreciated. Fire Department By Lee Gould The fire department participated in the Shop with a Hero Event sponsored by Meijer. The event was put on for under privileged children to shop with a local hero. Children shopped for themselves and their families for holiday gifts. It was so much fun interacting with the children and other Police, Fire and EMS personnel in this wonderful event. We are working on a spec for the replacement of our main pumper. This truck is 1998 Pierce Saber Pumper. Trucks are generally replaced every 20 years. The process of getting a new truck takes about two years. The fire department recently completed our CPR recertification. This is a requirement every two years by the American Heart Association. This is a vital certification as we respond to multiple cardiac arrests each year. Ice and snowmobile rescue season is upon us. We are focusing our training efforts on these rescue techniques as well as our normal fire ground tactics as we generally see more fires in the winter season. Our December call volume was steady. One was a structure fire. We will finish 2018 in the mid 70 s for calls this year which is about average. Generally we run calls per year. 6

92 STATISTICS Freedom of Information Requests Prescription Drug Collection Prescription drug collection through the drop-off box at the Township Police Station. Month 2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Pounds To Date Pounds Year To Date