Whether or not Addison Township Planning Commission is going to allow Lakeville Lake resident Jonathan Dreffs build a covered boat hoist is still up in the air.
After lengthy debate concerning township ordinances, the commission voted 5-1 at the July 14 meeting, to table their decision until the Aug. 11 meeting. Commissioner Chuck Sargent was the lone ‘no? vote and Vice Chair Gene Louwaert was absent.
According to Dreffs? proposal, the only way he can get the boathouse he wants is to construct is to make an upland cut into the natural protection strip area, which is a violation of the ordinance.
According to township ordinance section 13:5 ‘A natural protection strip shall be maintained within twenty-five (25) feet of the normal high-water line of the lake, which shall remain in native trees, shrubs or grass. The natural protection strip shall not be filled or excavated except to position water pipes. Trees and shrubs may be pruned to afford a view of the water.?
Section 13:7 states that ‘All structures shall be set back twenty-five (25) feet from all natural feature areas? as defined by the ordinance? However, 13:7 also states that ‘this setback may be reduced by the township board upon recommendation by the planning commission.?
Township Planner Rand Bowman pointed out that the ‘natural protection strip is a very unique feature.?
‘Most provisions of the zoning ordinance are subject various considerations by the Zoning Board of Appeals,? he explained. ‘This particular provision is so very important, the authors of the ordinance prohibit the zoning board of appeals from interfering in cases such as this where a special land use and site plan are required with two exceptions if water pipes need to extend into the natural feature area or two, if a clear public interest is demonstrated.?
It was the 25-foot natural protection strip that spurred debate among commissioners. While commissioners take an oath to uphold all the ordinances of the township, Commissioner Ed Brakefield felt enforcing the ordinance to the letter was ‘closing their eyes? to others on the lake who are in violation of the ordinance.
‘I can’t in my heart say one person can’t and the other people can even though it’s following our ordinance to the letter,? he said. ‘We should have followed our ordinance to the letter for everyone else.?
Sargent, on the other hand, felt the ordinance was very clear cut and Dreffs? proposal would ‘not be compatible.?
‘The natural protection strip exists by ordinance to be protected. The property requesting is also in the confines of a fragile water course, (which was) identified by the planning commission and approved by the township board? the mission for which is to preserve and protect and that was affirmed (by the planning commission) in 2012 (will) come up again for reaffirmation in 2017.?
Brakefield argued the lake is a man-made lake, which would make it not a ‘natural resource.?
‘Some of this is not a natural resource as far as the lake is concerned,? he said.
Commissioner Philip Marshall felt if Dreffs wanted to put the boathouse in the natural strip, then there should be stipulations to try and replace some of what is removed so it’s not an ‘eye sore.?
‘I am happy to put back what is disturbed, assuming I dredge. Obviously it’s impossible to keep it completely natural, but I’m happy to put back what would, I don’t know the correct word, to make it attractive,? Dreffs said. ‘Obviously, it would be respectable or what people would want to see on the lake.?
Sargent continued to argue the granting of a special land use permit to Dreffs would not be compatible with the natural environment or conserve the natural resources.
‘Then let’s take every boathouse off the lake than because it all doesn’t look compatible with natural resources,? responded Comissoner Joe Schnur.
Chariman Lawrence Smith noted that there are probably a couple hundred houses on the lake with ‘probably 100 that don’t comply with the zoning ordinances.?
‘They are there. We can’t change them at this point, but what we’re here for is to try to do something constructive from this point on or when the ordinance was drawn up,? he said. ‘The boathouses that are there, in my humble opinion, you can’t do anything about them, but what you can do from now on is control, kind of, sort of what we allow to be built from here on in. I think we’re hung up on what’s there. I don’t think we should be hung up on what is there now, but hung up on doing something constructive at this point forward.?
Brakefield said he didn’t want to set a precedent with Dreffs that no one else going forward would be able to do what he is requesting.
‘We can look at what everybody else has got (on the lake) right now and say ‘I will not discriminate,? he added. ‘I’m going to follow what I see, which is a lack of discrimination and be fair with everybody. I’m trying to be fair. That’s all it is.?
Sargent, who’s been a lake shore owner since 1996, said in his 19 years he’s not ‘observed a construction of a boathouse on the shoreline of the Lake.?
‘As far as establishing precedent, I do not think we’re doing that,? Sargent said. ‘Because any property owner on the fragile water course of Lakeville Lake can make an application for construction of a boathouse and be given the same opportunity and due process that we’re now involved with in regard to the Dreffs property.?
Brakefield believes if they deny Dreffs, but down the road approve someone else making the same exact request, they would be opening themselves up for a lawsuit.
‘I think if you drive around the Lake, short of lots that don’t have houses on it, you will find the vast majority have exactly what I would like to have, yard that I can use at the bottom of the lake, not 25 feet of trees and leaves before I get to the lake,? Dreffs said. ‘I think that seems fairly fair. I could be wrong and haven’t looked at every single house, but I don’t think you can find a house on the lake that has a 10 foot path back to the house with nothing but trees and leaves in front of it.?
Brakefield was the one who offered the motion to table, because he wanted to allow Dreffs the opportuninity to ‘address the issues? laid out by the planner and ‘convince the board to vote ‘yes.??
Public response
The lack of decision did not sit well with the public.
‘I am literally appalled tonight to sit here and watch my planning commission be afraid to make a decision, a decision that is clearly supported by the facts,? said resident Wayne Hodges.
Gene Crombez agreed.
‘It’s my understanding that everyone on the board took an oath to follow the township ordinances. I believe the township representatives are not doing that in saying they’re afraid of the future. You’re choosing what ordinances you agree with and don’t agree with. It is entirely wrong,? he said. ‘Just because you want to follow the example of our President of the United States where he picks and chooses what laws he wants to enforce, I don’t think you have that privilege.?
Smith noted they had not ‘totally remissed their duties? and the issue would be coming back to them.
Resident Jeff Banaszynski told Brakefield if he’s worried about lawsuit for complying with the ordinance than he should worry about lawsuits if they don’t comply.
‘We talk about ordinances being guidelines. In this case we’re discussing whether an ordinance impacts an individual, but the other side of that is the 200 other property owners who have an expectation based on the ordinances for what their environment is going to be,? he added. ‘The ordinance isn’t for just one individual, it sets an expectation for the community and those ordinances set them in place. I think the community in general expects their environment to be controlled by the ordinances.?
In addition to the boat hoist, Dreffs? proposal also included dredging approximately 3,000 square-feet and removing approximately 3,750 square-feet of vegetative mat and creating 20 feet-by-20 feet swim area. Bowman pointed out the mat removal and dredging is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
‘Because the overall size of the wetlands is bigger than 5 acres, the DEQ reserves the right to regulate that,? he said. ‘The swim area is also in the water, so that would also be DEQ regulations, not township regulations.?
Hodges didn’t like that.
‘It occurs to me that nobody would want anybody to be capricious, but yet we clearly have a disconnect here,? he said. ‘Activities of the DEQ and their interpretation of their responsibility and our own planning commission. There isn’t the level of collaboration that really needs to happen to offer the public in Addison Township what I believe we deserve.?