The meeting was called to order at or about 7:00 PM.

Also Present:  Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; David Beschke, Landscape Architect, Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Martha Holzheuer, Woodland Consultant; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Kay Environmental and Associates, LLC for Woodland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 36, at 21000 Turnberry Boulevard, Turnberry Estates Subdivision. The Applicant proposes to place a gazebo in the regulated woodlands and plant native species in the woodlands.

Landscape Architect David Beschke described the Single Family Residential project. The parcel is 19.2 acres, with the home and accessory buildings near the front of the lot. The rear of the lot is a ten-acre woodland. To the west is undeveloped residential containing woodlands, to the north is Single Family Residential containing woodlands, and to the east is existing commercial development zoned OSC.

Mr. Beschke said that the woodland on this site is very mature. It contains about 60% maples, 10% beech, and assorted elm, oak, hickory, ash, cherry and walnut trees. A total of 760 trees were surveyed and only 2% were assessed in poor condition. There are three small vernal wetlands on the property – wet only in the spring and during rain events. There is an existing dirt trail loop used for pedestrian enjoyment of the woodlands and small wheeled vehicles for maintenance and security purposes. ATVs occasionally use the loop for recreational purposes. The property is entirely fenced. There are woodchip and debris piles that have been or will be removed.

Proposed is a 477 square-foot gazebo for passive woodland enjoyment. It is a minimum of 250 feet from any property line. A post foundation will be used to minimize the disturbance to the woodland; no trees will be removed and protective fencing will be used during construction. The gazebo area is already free of trees, a clearing that was probably done so some time ago. The existing trails will remain and will be further delineated using existing downed tree trunks. A woodland management plan was provided to the Planning Commission for review.

Horticultural improvements include planting forty eastern red cedars as a buffer to the adjacent commercial. Dead, diseased and hazardous trees close to the trail will be removed. Invasive understory will be hand-removed. Overpopulated maple red seedlings will be removed. Herbaceous species and shrubs will be planted on the site. Three woodland interpretative signs highlighting the pond, a mature beech grove and a prime salamander breeding grounds will be placed on site. The Woodland Consultant recommends approval.

Aimee Kaye addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. She said that Mr. Beschke’s description of the work proposed was rather capable. She added that Mr. and Mrs. Morgan bought this property in June 2007 and at that time the home had been vacant for two years. The existing home was in disrepair. They have since invested into this property, fixing up the home and upgrading the landscaping. The resulting debris is now being cleaned up. The original intent was to bring horses to the site, but that plan has since been abandoned. Ms. Kaye reiterated that not a single healthy tree is being affected by this plan.

Ms. Kaye said there are two remaining issues from the four identified by the City’s Woodland Consultant. As requested, she has omitted the utility service to the gazebo, which was an error on the plan. The interpretative signage will be shifted out of the wetland and placed in the buffer. Ms. Kaye said the City’s Woodland Consultant does not recommend the planting of the red cedars along the northeast property boundary as screening because of the low probability of the trees’ survivorship. The Applicant would like to reserve the right at their own cost to see of those trees can survive with the help of Mother Nature. There is a heavy canopy and the cedars may not survive in the shade, but the visual screening provided by the cedars would be better than a fence. Ms. Kaye distributed pictures of this property line to the Planning Commission for its review.

When this property owner bought this home, there was no fence along the north ten acres of the woodland. There is an existing path from one of the commercial building’s loading dock into this property – probably made by employees visiting the site for picnic lunches. The red cedars will help buffer this adjacency.

Ms. Kaye said the property owners are committed to conservation of the woodland and this has been demonstrated by the woodland management plan submitted to the Planning Commission for review. This owner is taking an active management approach to caring for this woodland. She did not think that a conservation easement as proposed by the Woodland Consultant is in proportion to the work proposed by this request. The management plan provides for preventative construction techniques to avoid damage to wetlands and woodlands. The property owners are not in favor of placing the regulated woodlands into a conservation easement because the impacts of this proposal are addressed through active management, enhancement plantings and the proposed planting plan exceeds the minimum replacement trees per Ordinance requirements.

Ms. Kaye said that there has been discussion about why the gazebo plans have not been submitted. The property owner does not want to hire an architect to design the gazebo until he is granted approval to place one in this area. The plan proposed at this meeting meets the intent and the spirit of Ordinance, according to Ms. Kaye. There will be eight footings for the gazebo on a ten-acre site. Both sides are in agreement that poured concrete will not be used for the footings. The plan is meant to minimize disturbances.

Chair Pehrson opened the floor for public comment:

• Phil Gasper, Sunflower: Most of his concerns have been addressed. He thought the original agreement for the subject property allowed for a nine-acre clearing for the house and the ten wooded acres would remain. There was never supposed to be a fence, but the previous owner did put up a fence. Most of it was knocked down when the home was vacant. He didn’t like the fence because he said the new owners are trying to turn the protected woodlands into their own private park. He said that he has witnessed a doe being separated from her fawns because of the fence. He thought allowing the changes to the woodlands was a slippery slope – what will be proposed next? He recommended the gazebo be placed closer to the home. He appreciated the owner’s cleaning up his woods – he cleans them up too, as does his neighbor. He asked whether the sign that is outside of his window can be moved, or at least be something akin to a state park sign, perhaps not as big.
• John Popaczak, neighbor: Concerned about the trail being used to race ATVs – which was the case with the previous owner. He would prefer the horses. He said the Whispering Meadows’ wetland is near this site. He thought the City should look at this wetland system to determine where the water goes. He thought that any changes to the path should be studied for their effect to the waterflow. Dead tree removal is also a concern to Whispering Meadows. He has been seeking assistance from the City’s Forestry Department and has been stonewalled. The homeowner who lives near their commons area has had several arborists attest that there are dead trees in the area. He himself has had two tree companies come out and attest that the trees are dead. When he approached Mr. Printz for City approval, Mr. Printz said he couldn’t tell and that Mr. Popaczak would have to send samples to MSU to prove that these trees were dead. Now according to the presentation just given, this subject property owner is being granted approval to remove dead trees. He asked who decides in Novi whether the trees are dead.

Member Gutman said no Public Hearing responses were received so Chair Pehrson closed the Public Hearing.

Member Burke asked whether there were any City Ordinances that would prohibit ATVs on private property. Mr. Beschke said there is no language prohibiting motor vehicles in a woodland. Member Burke determined that perhaps the only violation may be to the Noise Ordinance, which dictates a certain decibel level at the property line. Ms. Kaye said the path is probably one hundred feet inside the property line at its closest location. She said that the owner’s teenaged son does ride his ATV on this path, and this adds to their reasoning why they wish to add a natural buffer along the path, i.e., to prevent further impacts to the intact portions of the woodlands and wetlands.

Ms. Kaye said that the signage can be any size, and she will address any of the neighbors’ concerns. The north signage is planned for the large beech tree grove. The signage is meant to alert users of the path to the features of this woodland, and prevent misuse of the landscaping. This is part of the educational process. This is not a public park meant for visitors and the owner is not proposing large signs.

Member Burke determined that the gazebo is about 450 feet away from the property line. He said that as a property owner, if he had a parcel like this he’d probably want to put a gazebo on it too. He didn’t think this gazebo should impact the neighbor, and might actually block his view of the big screen television in the house. He didn’t mean to make light of the situation, but not a single trees is proposed to be disturbed. He fully supported the request.

Ms. Kaye said that the request is before the Planning Commission because of the gazebo. The other work has been found to be acceptable. The new property owners want to be good neighbors. They want to do the right thing.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth confirmed for Member Burke that the Building Department would review the gazebo administratively.

Member Greco supported the request. The concerns of the neighbors are taken seriously by the Planning Commission members. The issues for their review at this meeting are the signage and the gazebo. The issue is not ATV usage or the intended use of the gazebo. He thought these issues were something that the neighbors could take up among themselves in the future.

Member Wrobel asked about the fence. Ms. McBeth responded that the City does not require a permit for most fences, so it is likely that no permit was required for the fence that was once in place. She said it was fair to say it was legal to place a fence on this property. Member Wrobel asked why the path had to be demarcated with logs if this is not a public path. Ms. Kaye responded that this feature was added to the plan at the decision of the property owner. The path has been violated previously by the landscaping crews, and this feature will deter the future misuse of the path. Member Wrobel thought it was overkill, and the issue could be addressed verbally with the property owner’s staff, but he still supported the request.

Member Cassis asked Woodland Consultant Martha Holzheuer whether she was satisfied with the plan. She responded yes. She supported diversifying the ground cover, removing invasive species, and educational signage. She continued to support the requirement of a conservation easement being placed on the woodland. She confirmed for Member Cassis that there is no evidence of recent tree cutting on the site.

Member Cassis said that this property owner has made a great investment into this site and he wants to be a good neighbor. He did not see much intrusion into the neighbors’ lives as a result of this request. He has seldom seen such a comprehensive woodland management plan; this homeowner has spent thousands of dollars on this project and has been honest about the use of the property. Member Cassis encouraged the neighbors to meet this new homeowner as he will likely respond to them with goodwill. He supported the request.

Member Gutman asked the Woodland Consultant whether she could work with the Applicant on the items listed in her letter. Ms. Holzheuer said the Applicant is free to try planting the red cedars – she was giving them advice that they are a shade-intolerant species.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Burke:

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

There were no Matters for Consideration.