Welcome to the web page of the Manchester Community Joint Planning Commission! The Commission was formed to consider and develop a joint master land use plan, and to address issues and decisions involving the Village of Manchester and the surrounding townships that comprise the greater Manchester Community. This effort is based on preliminary planning and review work done during 2006-2007 under SWWCOG purview. The starting point for this work will be the SWWCOG Regional Plan initially developed in 2003.
From September 2006 through August 2007, SWWCOG met monthly with assistance from Washtenaw County's Department of Planning and Environment and the Land Information Access Association (LIAA) of Traverse City, to learn more about joint municipal planning, the benefits and requirements of doing so, and the lessons gleaned from other joint planning efforts in Michigan. Joint municipal planning is enabled by Public Act 226 of 2003, the “Joint Municipal Planning Act.” This effort was aided by a grant from LIAA. The proceedings and information summaries of this year-long effort are available on the LIAA Grant web page. The LIAA cooperative effort was completed in August 2007, and the MCJPC began its work in September 2007.
Summaries of monthly meetings, relevant documents, and decisions of the MCJPC are presented below. Agendas and minutes for the current year are available by clicking on the menu to the right. Prior years' agendas and minutes are available at the appropriate link below. Website maintenance is performed by Ray Berg (email@example.com).
Revised 2010 Meeting Schedule - May 18, 2010
2008 Agendas and Minutes
2007 Agendas and Minutes
View Down Main Street of Village of Manchester The River Raisin in Downtown Manchester
November 2009 Discussion Documents
Industrial Section Update as of October 14, 2009
Items to Define (as of October 14, 2009)
October 2009 Discussion Documents
September 2009 Discussion Documents
Draft Joint Planning Agreement - September 9, 2009
Draft Manchester Township Ordinance - September 9, 2009
Draft Manchester Township Adopting Resolution - September 9, 2009
August 2009 Discussion Documents
Joint Planning Agreement - July 29, 2009 Redline Version
July 30, 2009 Transmittal Letter
MCJPC Informational Poster - Riverfolk Festival August 1, 2009
The Washtenaw County Office of Strategic Planning developed an informational poster on the MCJPC to be displayed at the Manchester Riverfolk Festival held on August 1, 2009. This poster summarizes the background, objectives and accomplishments to date of the Joint Planning Commission.
June 2009 Discussion Documents
The following documents are scheduled for discussion at the June 10, 2009 meeting.
Joint Planning Agreement - Clean Version - June 2009
Joint Planning Agreement - Redline Version - June 2009
Draft Ordinance for Manchester Township - June 2009
Draft Adopting Resolution for Manchester Township - June 2009
Draft Repeal Ordinance for Manchester Township - June 2009
Draft Repeal Resolution for Manchester Township - June 2009
Siersma - Carlisle Wortman Comments on Future Land Use Chapter - June 2009
Staff Response to Siersma - Carlisle Wortman Comments on Future Land Use Chapter - June 2009
Final Section 8 of Report - Industrial
Final Section 9 of Report - Residential
May 2009 Discussion Documents
The following documents are scheduled for discussion at the May 13, 2009 meeting.
Letter from Pennington and DeGroot - April 22, 2009
Staff Response to Pennington and DeGroot Letter - April 30, 2009
July 24, 1997 Manchester Enterprise Article
Status of Joint Planning Commissions in Michigan - April 2009
April 2009 Discussion Documents
The following documents were scheduled for discussion at the April 8, 2009 MCJPC meeting.
O'Jack Memorandum on MCJPC Composition 4/6/09
Lenart Memorandum on MCJPC Composition 2/27/09
Revised Draft Industrial Chapter 2/27/09
Revised Draft Residential Chapter 2/27/09
Plan Implementation Chapter- Growth Transition Areas - March 25, 2009
Draft Future Land Use Plan Chapter - March 25, 2009
Draft Future Land Use Map - March 25, 2009
MCJPC 9th Member Discussion Memo
March 25, 2009 Transmittal Letter
The MCJPC seeks to define long-term manufacturing locations.
Key MCJPC Documents
This section provides a table of key MCJPC documents developed to date.
MCJPC Vision and Mission Statement Preliminary Approved Section 1 of Plan
Final MCJPC By-Laws Preliminary Approved Section 2 of Plan
Existing GD Plan Land Uses Latest Draft - Transportation Chapter
Land Use Map SWWCOG 2003 Latest Draft - Natural Features and Community Facilities Chaps.
Planning Map December 2007 Latest Draft - Agricultural and Commercial Chapters
Potential Future Land Use Categories Latest Draft - Industrial Chapter
JPC Mailer November 2007 Latest Draft - Residential Chapter
"Parking Lot" Issues - March 2009 Latest Draft - Plan Implementation (GTA) Chapter
MCJPC Plan Glossary Latest Draft - Future Land Use Chapter
Latest Draft - Future Land Use Map
December 9, 2009 Meeting Summary
The regular monthly meeting of the Manchester Community Joint Planning Commission was held
Dale Weidmayer reported that
The MCJPC reviewed the Plan Implementation Chapter and edited the text in part. Jolea Mull and Laurie Fromhart are to work on revising the Build-Out Scenario section. Due to the late hour, further review and discussion of the chapter was deferred to the January meeting. Members are to review the section on subarea plans so that they are prepared to discuss the topic at the January meeting.
November 11, 2009 Meeting Summary
The regular monthly meeting of the Manchester Community Joint Planning Commission was held
Ron Mann reported
Jesse O’Jack explained the joint planning enabling act changed, therefore the MCJPC needs to update their ordinance. O’Jack said
Larry Lindemann recommended the MCJPC have only one attorney advising them to avoid conflicting opinions from several attorneys. Lindemann also recommended combining planning services to conserve resources. Mann stressed the townships need to trust each other if the MCJPC is going to be successful. O’Jack indicated he would contact Freedom and
The MCJPC completed their review of the residential chapter and edited the text.
The MCJPC deferred discussion of the Plan Implementation Chapter to their December meeting due to the late hour.
October 14, 2009 Meeting Summary
The regular monthly meeting was held at Manchester Village Hall. The members began by discussing the adoption of the revised MCJPC agreement. The Village has adopted the agreement, and the item will be on the November agenda for
The members discussed the revised draft Industrial Chapter. After discussion and comments, the members adopted the amended Industrial Chapter. The members then discussed at length the contents of the draft Residential Chapter.
The regular meeting of the MCJPC was held at Bridgewater Township Hall.
Adoption of Revised MCJPC Agreement
Jesse O’Jack distributed the steps on how to adopt the new agreement for participating jurisdictions. Jeff Wallace inquired how the 9th member will be chosen. O’Jack explained the MCJPC nominates the 9th member, and then recommends confirmation of the nominee to the local boards of participating jurisdictions. O’Jack indicated three of the four local boards of the participating jurisdictions must agree on the selection of the 9th member. O’Jack further explained that officers of local boards can only serve as ex officio members as provided by
Review/edit/approval of Industrial draft chapter
The MCJPC reviewed the industrial draft chapter at length and edited the text. The MCJPC ended editing the chapter at objective three. Due to the late hour the MCJPC decided to defer further review and editing of the chapter to the October meeting.
Review, editing and approval of the Residential chapter were deferred to the October meeting due to the late hour. Discussion of comments on the FLU Chapter from Siersma of Carlisle/Wortman was also deferred to the October meeting due to the late hour. Review and editing of the Plan Implementation draft chapter was also deferred to the October meeting due to the late hour.
This meeting was held at Manchester Township Hall. Discussion began concerning the direction of the MCJPC and the continued preparation of the Manchester Area Master Plan.
Jolea Mull distributed to members a proposal from
Pat Vailliencourt reported that she met with
Dale Weidmayer expressed concern that the County was unfairly criticized at the last meeting, and thought the MCJPC should send a formal letter of apology. Vailliencourt said she did apologize to the County on behalf of the MCJPC. Laurie Fromhart commented the criticism came from the audience and not the MCJPC. Peter DeLoof commented there was also unjustified criticism from the MCJPC, and it was inappropriate to mention the resolution passed by
The MCJPC decided that Vailliencourt will prepare all future agendas. Fromhart will continue to prepare the minutes of each meeting and forward them to Vailliencourt for distribution.
The meeting was convened at Freedom Township Hall.
Public participation began when Jimmy Schiel said he read the master plan, and thought it was sloppy and vague, and accused
Pat Vailliencourt distributed clean copies of the master plan that was prepared by the County. Vailliencourt indicated the book contains everything the MCJPC has worked on up to this point with the latest draft revisions.
The MCJPC reviewed the timeline for completion of the master plan. Adoption of the agreement establishing the MCJPC is targeted for September 2009 including meeting all posting requirements. The MCJPC will then present a completed draft plan to each participating municipality planning commission for review in December 2009. After reviewing the draft plan, each participating municipality planning commission through their MCJPC representative will recommend changes to the MCJPC draft plan in March 2010. Planning commissions will then review modifications to the draft plan and make recommendations to local boards in June 2010. Local boards will review the draft plan and planning commission recommendations, and vote on adoption of the MCJPC draft plan in August 2010.
The MCJPC discussed the direction of the MCJPC, and
Jolea Mull moved to thank and dismiss the county staff. The motion failed for lack of support. Vailliencourt moved to place on the agenda for the September meeting if and how to use county resources. Ron Mann seconded the motion. Based on further discussion, members indicated they would rather try to make a decision tonight so they would have a fruitful meeting in September. Vailliencourt called for a roll call vote. Weidmayer: yes; Lindemann: yes; Wallace: no; McIntosh: no; Mann: no; Mull: no; Fromhart: no; Vailliencourt: no. Motion failed on a vote. Wallace moved to schedule a special meeting for
Jesse O’Jack reported on the revised MCJPC agreement, and indicated a red line version which highlights all the changes is available for review on the website. O’Jack said the revisions were needed to update the agreement to reflect the recent changes in state law and to allow for a ninth member. The MCJPC decided to table adoption until the September meeting to allow members time to review the agreement. O’Jack will distribute copies of the agreement and ordinance to all municipalities. O’Jack advised the MCJPC if the four jurisdictions adopt the agreement, they will have to start notice procedures and provisions all over again including time frames.
Review, editing and approval of the Industrial and Residential chapters were deferred to the September meeting due to the late hour.
There was no meeting of the MCJPC in July 2009.
The MCJPC meeting was held
The meeting began with reconsideration of approval of the revised draft Industrial Chapter and the revised draft Residential Chapter. Jolea Mull requested clarification of the chapters being edited in this process as being a combination of the current master plans of each municipality. Melissa Milton-Pung and Dave Betts confirmed that the individual master plans were the starting point.
The members then resumed discussion of the MCJPC agreement and the 9th member issue. The group discussed at length the draft agreement, ordinance and resolution documents provided by Jesse O’Jack. There was also lengthy discussion on appointment of a 9th member.
The members then conducted discussion of the next steps in the joint planning process, including ways to help members’ Boards and Planning Commissions understand what this process means and doesn’t mean.
The MCJPC deferred discussion of the following items until the August meeting, to allow member Boards and Planning Commissions time to finish their review:
1. Continued Feedback on Plan Implementation draft chapter
2. Initial Review of Future Land use draft chapter
3. Discussion of Comments from Siersma of Carlisle/Wortman
May 13, 2009 Meeting Summary
The MCJPC discussed Jesse O’Jack’s opinion at length, and considered the five options available in choosing the composition of the MCJPC. O’Jack advised that planning commission members would not have an incompatibility problem because they would not be voting on the same issue twice. Under township powers, one board member can be on the MCJPC; however, the supervisor may be different because of how planning commission members are appointed. O’Jack indicated the MCJPC would have to use village powers in order to keep J. Wallace on the MCJPC.
The members questioned whether the MCJPC can appoint a 9th member, or does one of the participating jurisdictions have to appoint a 9th member on a rotating basis. R. Mann moved to adopt option 1.B., with a need to clarify allowance of supervisor as one of the ex-officio members, and procedures on how to appoint a 9th member according to the opinion of O’Jack. O’Jack will report back at the June meeting with proposed language for the MCJPC, and direction for appointing a 9th member.
Melissa Milton-Pung advised the MCJPC that she will provide finalized draft versions of the Industrial and Residential chapters for the MCJPC’s approval at the June meeting.
Anya Dale presented the build-out analysis prepared by
Dale explained that the build-out analysis defines “buildable area” by including overall buildable area and removing what is not buildable. Dale provided an example of the new GIS tool, which pools information, municipal boundaries, wetland square footage and exempt parcels. Dale indicated the first step in the process is to remove all unbuildable areas. The second step adds a distribution of dots representing maximum allowable construction and overlay areas as the current zoning permits, and the third step factors in existing buildings. Dale stated the build-out analysis allows a municipality to factor in costs of development, and to use it for zoning and future land use decisions.
The MCJPC deferred discussion on the Plan Implementation draft chapter, initial review of the Future Land use draft chapter, and feedback on the Parking Lot and Glossary to the June meeting.
April 8, 2009
The April 2009 meeting was held at the Manchester Village Hall. The meeting began with discussion of the JPC Agreement/9th Member issue. Jesse O’Jack presented his opinion regarding related questions on the allowable number of members for the Joint Planning Commission, and the potential incompatibility of offices. He recommended that the MCJPC appoint a 9th member. He explained that appointing a 9th member under township powers with one ex officio member from each
participating jurisdiction would be the most defensible in court, and have a very slight chance of an incompatibility problem. The MCJPC decided to defer discussion until their May meeting, so they would have more time to review O’Jack’s opinion and discuss the matter with their various board and commission members.
The March 2009 Minutes were corrected as follows: On page 2 under item 2, insert “Mann left the meeting at and alternate Kolon took his place.”
The MCJPC agreed to table approval of the draft Industrial and Residential chapters due to the fact that the local planning commissions have not yet met this month, and need time to review and discuss the revisions and provide feedback to the MCJPC.
The MCJPC reviewed the Plan Implementation chapter, and edited the first six pages of the text. Due to the length of the chapter and late hour, the MCJPC deferred further feedback on the Plan Implementation chapter until their May meeting.
March 11, 2009 Meeting Summary
The MCJPC meeting was held at Manchester Township Hall. The Commission began by tabling approvals of the draft Industrial and Residential chapters until the April meeting. Discussion continued on the draft Industrial chapter. Comments included a 3rd paragraph correction to show that M-52 enters Manchester Township from North, then passes through the Village. There was also discussion about defining high water usage and effluent discharge.
The Commission then moved to discussion of the revised draft Residential chapter. Ron Mann noted that housing classification by the Census Bureau shows this region as predominantly residential, rather than agricultural as zoned. This is supported by the Manchester Township Assessor's property classifications. Jeff Wallace suggested that a density (acreage) based map shows a more realistic balance between residential and agricultural.
Melissa Milton-Pung and Brett Lenart discussed the County Build-Out analysis. The Build-out analysis was placed into the “Parking Lot”.
The Commission then moved to discussion of the Community Facilities chapter. Under Public Services Objectives (p.109), the following item discussion took place:
Item 2: All agree. Item 6: Jeff Wallace questioned whether the language is broad enough to cover possible regional opportunities. Larry Lindemann questioned additional detail. The group agreed to limit language in this section, and move additional language to the Implementation section.
Under Storm Water Management Objectives (p.109), the following discussion took place:
Item 10: Peter DeLoof questioned using the term “Best Management Practices.” Group agreed to a lower case use of this term, to de-emphasize to other State or County standards. Item 11: Larry Lindemann – there is concern about the agricultural impact. Peter DeLoof reinforced that Agricultural uses already have additional requirements, so this paragraph should apply only to non-agricultural. County personnel will rework the language per discussion and resubmit.
Under Infrastructure Objectives (p.110), the following discussion took place:
Change word “facilities” to “opportunities.” Larry Lindemann stated that list of cooperating groups should be more general.
The Commission then reviewed the Agricultural Chapter and previous comments. Dave Betts presented the County’s response to the previously submitted Pennington/DeGroot comments. DeGroot agrees with the County changes to A. Introduction (p.112). DeLoof disagrees with “apparent declining” statement about agricultural trends (p.113). County changed wording to “Best Management Practices” (p.116).
The Commission then reviewed the Commercial chapter and previous comments. Dave Betts presented the County’s response to the previously submitted Pennington/DeGroot comments. The following items were noted: Remove M52 and Pleasant Lake Road, because it is not in the MCJPC area (p.128). Ann Arbor SPARK should be in the Industrial chapter because it is their emphasis. Because of their office and commercial activities, it was agreed that this should be included in both the Commercial and Industrial chapters (p.130). Goal 1- Objective 3 revised to eliminate mention of developers (p.132). Goal 1- Objective 4 reworded (p.132). Goal 4- Objective 2 changed “mandate” to “encourage.” Add Goal 4- Objective 4 encouraging re-development of existing historic buildings (p.133). Goal 4- Policy 3 rephrased to positive language (p.136). Goal 4- Policy 5 - Support for Commercial Enterprises moved to “Parking Lot” (p.136).
The Commission then continued discussion of the MCJPC Agreement 9th member issue. Brett Lenart expressed the opinion, supported by MSU, that 9 members are not required by the Joint Planning Act (226 of 2003). Jeff Wallace expressed concern that a legal opinion should be obtained on this issue. A motion was made by Kolon, supported by Daubner, to retain Attorney Jesse O'Jack to render a legal opinion on the need for a ninth member of the JPC, with the cost to be shared equally among the four MCJPC members. This motion was adopted unanimously.
Melissa Milton-Pung requested that the MCJPC jurisdictions publicly post the revised meeting schedule. Milton-Pung also indicated that the County Planning and Environment Department is currently reviewing the new Freedom Township Master Plan update. This will be passed on to the County Planning Advisory Board. Pat Vailliencourt explained the Village Planning Commission action on the Future Land Use Map, with the intention of using the Joint Master Plan language as their 5 year Master Plan update. Bill DeGroot indicated that Freedom Township has set up a lake district in the Pleasant Lake area.
February 11, 2009 Meeting Summary
The meeting was held at the Manchester Township Hall. See February package transmittal letter. The commission members agreed to delay approval of the revised draft Agricultural and draft Commercial chapters until the next meeting to ensure sufficient review time by members and the respective Planning Commissions.
The MCJPC reviewed the draft Industrial Chapter and edited the text. Dunsmore recommended making sure references to the MCJPC were consistent throughout the text. The MCJPC recommended that industrial development should be directed to areas where there is supporting infrastructure. Vailliencourt expressed concern of promoting expansion of industry where there is existing industry. Vailliencourt indicated the Village has existing industry in residential areas which they do not want to see expanded. The MCJPC recommended a brief description of industrial areas, including those areas for possible expansion, and those areas that may revert to something else. The MCJPC also recognized the importance of minimizing impacts on water and air in relation to industrial development. The MCJPC agreed to move extraction operations to the Agriculture chapter, and to add Freedom Township’s extraction sites to the text.
County planners indicated they would present the MCJPC with a newly revised Industrial chapter at next month’s meeting
The MCJPC reviewed the draft Residential chapter and edited the text. The MCJPC recommended removing the tables under “Age of Housing Stock” and “Current Allowable Densities”; removing references to “work force housing” on page 135, and removing references to numbers under “Type of Housing” on page 136. The MCJPC also recommended adding a reference statement that lofts are residentially occupied under “Historic District-Exchange Place” on page 138. The MCJPC recommended that further expansion of population centers around recreational areas shall be discouraged, and only encouraged where it is supported by infrastructure.
County planners indicated they would present the MCJPC with a newly revised Residential chapter at next month’s meeting
The MCJPC discussed the five options available to them in the selection of a 9th member. County staff recommended appointing someone from the Village because it is the most populous unit, and has the most diverse and intense land uses. County staff also recommended appointing a member from Manchester Township because it will have jurisdiction over the proposed Growth Transition Area. Lindemann and Fromhart expressed concern over appointing someone from either of these jurisdictions, and the perception that they may have controlling authority. The MCJPC recommended adopting Option #4, and appointing a member among the four jurisdictions on a rotating basis. O’Jack said he will check into the legality of such an appointment and report back to the MCJPC.
The MCJPC agreed to table discussion on the Pennington memos (Jan. 8 and Jan. 28) and the county’s responses ( Jan. 8 and Jan. 28) until the March meeting, so they would have time to review the memos.
January 14, 2009 Meeting Summary
The meeting was called to order at Manchester Village Hall. Pat Vailliencourt introduced Margene Dunmore as the new planning commission representative for the Village of Manchester.
Melissa Milton-Pung (Washtenaw County) informed the MCJPC that comments and concerns raised by Sybil Kolon have been satisfactorily addressed by the group. The MCJPC reviewed the final draft version of the Natural Features Chapter dated December 10, 2008. Laurie Fromhart requested “parking lot” issues be identified and noted in the text of all draft chapters. In addition, county planners will continue to keep a separate list of all parking lot items. The MCJPC made final edits to the Natural Features Chapter. On page 85, under item “a. NAPP”, the Greiwahn Preserve was stricken from the text since the property has not been rezoned by Bridgewater Township and is not officially a preserve. On page 91, item # 8 was reworded for clarification purposes to read: “Coordinate public and private open space and recreational uses to ensure that the uses are compatible with the requirements for environmentally sensitive areas.” The MCJPC approved the draft of the Natural Feature Chapter with changes discussed this evening.
The MCJPC then reviewed the final draft version of the Community Facilities Chapter dated December 10, 2008, and made final edits to the text and identified parking lot issues. On page 103 in goal 2, the remaining phrase after “open space” was stricken; item # 4 “identical PUD” was stricken and replaced with “mutually acceptable”, and in item # 6 “locus” was stricken and replaced with “center”. Under community character item #1, words in parentheses were stricken, and the words “and appropriate” were added at the end of the sentence, and item #5 was identified as a parking lot issue. In addition, “Growth Transition Area” was identified as a parking lot issue. Brett Lenart advised the MCJPC that the GTA still needs to be defined in the text and delineated on the future land use map. The MCJPC approved the draft Community Facilities Chapter with the changes discussed tonight.
The MCJPC then reviewed the draft Agriculture Chapter dated December 10, 2008, and edited the text. On page 109, the MCJPC recommended adding a statement that statistics are dated and market conditions could cause fluctuations. On page 110, Ron Mann recommended programs that enhance agricultural activities should be referenced as examples, since current programs may not be in existence later. Larry Lindemann recommended striking the word “prime” when referencing agriculture because it is too restrictive, and all agriculture should be considered important to protect and preserve. Lindeman also recommended striking the word “needing” in the first line of the fifth paragraph. On page 113, Lindemann noted Freedom Township currently has 220 acres of disturbed land for extraction with 700 acres permitted for extraction. MCJPC suggested the existing land use inventory may need to be updated. On page 115, Mann requested the year be noted when referencing statistics for farms participating in the PA 116 program. On page 120, under goal 3 item # 2, Lindemann recommended striking the word “limited”. County planners indicated they would present the MCJPC with a newly revised agriculture chapter at next month’s meeting.
The MCJPC then reviewed the draft Commercial Chapter dated December 10, 2008 and edited the text. On page 122 in the second paragraph in the 6th line, “trading and shopping center” was stricken and replaced with “trading center and market place”. Under item #1, “feed store” was stricken. On page 123 item #3, “clustered” was stricken, and in item #4. “Tiny’ and “book store” were stricken from the text. On page 127 under objective 2, “Target” was stricken and replaced with “Encourage the location of”, and on page 131 under item #4, “needs” was stricken. County planners indicated they would present the MCJPC with a newly revised commercial chapter at next month’s meeting.
David Betts gave a brief summary of the goals and objectives for the Industrial and Residential Chapters. The MCJPC suggested revising the goal for the Industrial Chapter, and suggested defining GTA for all townships under goal 1, and consolidating references to affordable housing under objectives for goal 2 in the Residential Chapter. The MCJPC agreed to place goal 4 in the implementation section of the MAMP. The MCJPC will review the Industrial and Residential chapters in detail at their February 11th meeting.
Melissa Milton-Pung distributed a handout on the MCJPC’s options for the appointment of a 9th member. Milton-Pung said discussion is needed among the MCJPC as to how they plan to designate a 9th member out of the proposed four options. Milton-Pung recommended deferring discussion until the February meeting so the MCJPC can consider who they may want to appoint. Milton-Pung suggested appointing someone who has a expertise in a certain area.
December 10, 2008 Meeting Summary
The regular meeting of the MCJPC was held at Manchester Township Hall. See December package transmittal letter.
The group began by discussing a draft Manchester Area Master Plan (MAMP) document amendment process. P. Vailliencourt suggested revising the amendment process so that local planning commissions do not waste time reviewing a draft chapter, only to find it necessary to review it again after the county planners have made further revisions. The MCJPC agreed the MAMP draft chapters should initially be reviewed by local planning commissions, the MCJPC, and the county planners, and then all feedback would come back to the MCJPC to amend the draft. Mann requested that all drafts be dated. County planners will track changes to show amendments.
The MCJPC reviewed the Natural Features chapter’s revisions from their October 8 and November 12 meetings. Brett Lenart provided a non-scientific approach to delineating environmentally sensitive areas. Lenart provided a series of 6 maps showing his work, and depicting all lakes and streams This approach prioritizes all surface water features, proposes a 50 foot buffer in developed areas and a 500 foot buffer in rural areas, compares buffers to wetlands and floodplains, amends the buffer boundary, and comes up with the environmentally sensitive lands overlay layer. Lenart concluded the River Raisin was the most important natural feature and environmentally sensitive area.
Lenart said the MCJPC should consider a buffer along the River Raisin for filtering and protection purposes. The MCJPC expressed concern the amount of buffer may be unrealistic and difficult to enforce, and suggested leaving out the number of feet in the MAMP. The MCJPC discussed natural feature areas that need to be protected and how they can be protected through zoning ordinances. County planners recommended referencing state guidelines for buffers as a resource in the MAMP. The MCJPC recommended adding language that all natural features are important. The MCJPC delayed approving the Natural Features chapter until revisions discussed tonight are incorporated in the draft.
The MCJPC then reviewed the Community Facilities chapter’s revisions from their November 12 meeting. The MCJPC identified some minor typographical errors and made some grammatical corrections to the chapter. County planners agreed to revise the draft with changes discussed tonight before the MCJPC took action to approve it.
County planners distributed a revised draft (Draft 2) of the proposed Agriculture chapter with feedback from Terry Brinkman. Lenart said PDR eligibility needs to be clearly defined in the MAMP, and Bridgewater Township’s master plan already has language for this. Lenart added that prime farmland is already identified in the MAMP, and there has been a long history of conservation throughout the county. The MCJPC will review the new draft and distribute to their local planning commissions for feedback.
Dave Betts introduced the Commercial chapter in summary form. Betts condensed the commercial chapters from all master plans, and provided a summary of policy statements, and goals and objectives, for the chapter. The MCJPC disagreed with the proposed objective, “Base land use regulations on the market demand determined by periodic analyses”. The MCJPC expressed concern the objective implies the master plan may change based on market conditions, and it’s not realistic to do periodic analyses. Due to the late hour the MCJPC agreed to defer further discussion of the Commercial chapter until their January meeting.
Jesse O’Jack distributed a copy of the agreement establishing the MCJPC. O’Jack said the MCJPC needs an additional member to be in compliance with the new Michigan Enabling Act. The MCJPC suggested adding a school board member. O’Jack said he would research the legality of the potential appointment of a school board member and report back to the MCJPC.
Protection of our agricultural resources and heritage is an important part of the MCJPC planning.
November 12, 2008 Meeting Summary
The meeting was held at Sharon Township Hall. The members began by continuing review of the draft Natural Features chapter. Discussion focused on the following topics:
The Natural Features revised draft will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
The members were advised that PA33 created changes that must be accommodated in the Joint Planning Ordinances and the Joint Planning Agreement. These must then be passed by the respective boards/commissions, and previous decisions of the MCJPC be reauthorized. This will be placed on the December agenda. It was also announced that Sharon Township would not join the Joint Planning Commission.
The MCJPC then began review of the draft Community Facilities chapter, both the goals/objectives/policies and the detailed text. It was noted that the Bridgewater sewer plant was not shown in the draft. There was concern that there may be too much unneeded detail on some of the community activities, which can be edited out.
The sewer transition map was discussed. This will set the stage for the “village limitation” discussion similar to what was done in the Frankenmuth study.
The public tower discussion should be expanded to mention all jurisdictions and include all towers, including the Wireless Washtenaw program.
The plan should also include the county’s historical tours in the area, as well as other historical sites and the County’s Cultural Plan which was recently passed.
Several comments were also made to the Goals, Policies and Objectives section which will be incorporated by county staff.
October 8, 2008 Meeting Summary
The October 8, 2008 meeting began with the election of new officers for the MCJPC. The following persons were nominated and elected:
Chair – Pat Vailliencourt
Vice Chair – Ron Mann
Secretary – Laurie Fromhart
Treasurer – Dale Weidmayer
Mark Roby informed the MCJPC that Washtenaw County is cutting back several positions due to budget constraints. The Planning staff will be reduced from 8 to 6 employees, and integrated into a new department called Strategic Planning. Roby said he will be leaving the Planning staff in the middle of November, and moving to the county’s mental health department. Melissa Milton-Pung will be the county’s lead person on the MCJPC project, and they have recruited an intern who is a semi-retired planner from Chelsea who wants to get back into the field. Roby stressed the county is committed to seeing this project through to completion. Pat Vailliencourt moved to adopt a resolution thanking Mark Roby for his service and contributions. Ron Mann seconded the motion which was adopted unanimously
Mark Roby presented the first draft of the 2009 Manchester Area Master Plan. Roby said he thought it would be helpful for the MCJPC to have the whole picture of the master plan to look at, but still continue to work on the plan by sections. Roby said this is still very much a work in progress, but didn’t want the MCJPC to get lost in various drafts. Roby noted the draft plan is a compilation of all the area’s master plans and incorporates some of Frankenmuth’s plan. Roby indicated the MCJPC will need to determine if the content of the categories are right, and if they are current and pertinent to the Manchester area. Roby said one of the reasons for the draft plan is because he is leaving, and he felt he needed to discharge his responsibilities. Roby briefly presented the chapters of the draft plan, and pointed out that the MCJPC needs to make sure there are no glaring omissions from all master plans. The MCJPC decided they would distribute the draft plan to all planning commissions, but continue to review the plan chapter by chapter. Lenart recommended that very few items should be placed in the “parking lot”.
Mark Roby stated that the MCJPC never finalized a joint planning agreement due to changing state laws. P.A. 33 of 2008 consolidated all planning acts. The Village and Township Boards need to adopt a joint planning ordinance, and then execute a joint planning agreement. Roby suggested the MCJPC wait to execute such documents until the MCJPC knows whether or not Sharon Township plans to participate and become a member. Rich Jones said he would have an answer for the MCJPC in 30 days. Jesse O’Jack will draft all the necessary documents.
The MCJPC edited the draft of the Natural Features chapter. The MCJPC made changes to the text on pages 2, 4-8, and 10, and will revisit items #8 and #9 under Goal II on page 10. The MCJPC indicated the terms topography, woodlands, wetlands and floodplain need to be added to the definition section of the plan, and the terms environmental conservation zones, surface water and stream need to be defined. Lenart suggested text boxes as a side bar to define terms and provide a hyper-link to the glossary section. Roby said he will update the natural features chapter with the changes made tonight.
September 10, 2008 Meeting Summary
The September 10 meeting of the Manchester Community Joint Planning Commission began with a discussion of the overall planning process. To better facilitate the process, Jolea Mull proposed that any items or issues that the MCJPC cannot immediately agree on will be deferred for further discussion, and placed in the “parking lot” to be addressed at a later date but before the draft plan is finalized. Mark Roby stressed that there needs to be consensus among the MCJPC members on language for the goals, objectives and policy sections of the plan, and recommended avoiding terms that are vague and do not provide guidance for the use of the plan. Roby stated that if the MCJPC is not sure of a goal, objective or policy, it is better to leave it out of the plan. M. Pung also stressed that by using the word “may” in a statement, that the MCJPC is weakening the document. P. Vailliencourt expressed concern of locking the MCJPC into certain standards, and that there needs to be some flexibility between the Village and the Townships.
The MCJPC then edited the most recent revised draft of the Transportation Chapter. The MCJPC placed the following items in the parking lot: ROW Standards and WCRC ROW Master Plan, Road Capacity, Historic Corridor definition, and, on page 15, items 5 and 8. The MCJPC recommended a definition section be added to the plan, and indicated the need to define the following terms: “urban”, “bonus lots”, “Manchester Experience” and “complete streets”. The MCJPC also recommended that traffic volumes, pavement management rankings, and the WATS Transit and Nonmotorized Plan be referenced by links only. P. Vailliencourt moved to approve the draft Transportation Chapter with modifications made and agreed on tonight, with the attachment of the parking lot issues to be addressed at a later date. Mull seconded the motion which was adopted unanimously.
August 13, 2008 Meeting Summary
Mark Roby of Washtenaw County Planning Department introduced Melissa Milton-Pung as a county planner who will be partnering with him on the MCJPC project. Pung is a historic preservation specialist, and will be working closely with the MCJPC to help maintain the community’s character throughout the plan.
Terri Blackmore, Executive Director for Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, presented the county’s transit and non-motorized plans. Blackmore explained that WATS is an independent intergovernmental agency formed by the federal government to guide federal, state and local funding for transportation planning. WATS analyzed data to support a countywide service plan by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) and other transit providers. Blackmore discussed existing service improvements and expansions, new countywide and regional services, transit plan deficiency criteria, and plan recommendations. Blackmore explained that the goals and objectives of the transit and non-motorized plans are to promote economic vitality and quality of life for county residents.
Blackmore’s presentation was followed by a brief question and answer period. Members raised questions regarding telecommunication services versus commuter services, projected date for services, and how road classification determines if federal money is available for improvements.
MCJPC members then discussed feedback from local planning commissions on the draft Transportation Chapter. Some planning commissions still need to provide written feedback to Roby. Members discussed the WCRC’s ROW Master Plan and whether the MCJPC should support it or not. Members also discussed the definition of natural beauty and scenic roads, and determined that all roads in the MCJPC area are scenic. Roby will revise the chapter based on comments discussed tonight and further feedback from planning commissions. Roby will provide a revised draft of the transportation chapter for the September meeting.
July 2008 Meeting Summary
There was no July 2008 meeting of the Manchester Community Joint Planning Commission.
June 11, 2008 Meeting Summary
The June 11, 2008 MCJPC meeting was held at Freedom Township Hall. It was a joint meeting with regular MCJPC members and alternates, and representatives from the Boards and Planning Commissions of the constituent governments (Village of Manchester, Manchester Township, Freedom Township, and Bridgewater Township).
Mark Roby began the meeting by explaining the history of SWWCOG, and the development work which led to the creation of the MCJPC. Roby explained that the MCJPC is far enough along in their discussions to touch base with the various boards and planning commissions, to update them on their activities. Roby stated a public workshop was originally scheduled for May, but was delayed due to the large undertaking of the project.
Roby distributed “Mapping out the Future” brochures, process review and timelines, the first draft of the transportation chapter along with draft maps for future non-motorized transportation improvements, right of way requirements, and the road classification network to all members.
Roby explained the proposed 2008 work flow, and the process review and timelines for the joint master plan sections. For each section of the master plan, an outline is provided for guidance regarding each section’s construction, components and approach. Roby then writes a draft of the section in compliance with the outline. The MCJPC reviews the preliminary draft of the section, and distributes to each local planning commission or sends it back to Roby for more editing. Local planning commissions review the draft of plan components, and provide written feedback to Roby for inclusion in the next draft of the section. The MCJPC then considers feedback and approves this component for inclusion in the draft plan document.
Roby explained that he has been incorporating language from the SWWCOG 2003 Regional Plan and each jurisdiction’s master plan into the MCJPC plan. Roby said he has also taken language from Frankenmuth’s master plan that fits the Manchester community. Roby stressed that this is “work in progress”, and that timelines are meant to be flexible.
The MCJPC members briefly discussed the draft transportation chapter. Members discussed referencing and acknowledging the WATS and WCRC ROW plans with the understanding the MCJPC does not have to adopt these plans. Some minor revisions were made to the text under section II. Due to the late hour, the MCJPC decided to defer further discussion of the transportation chapter until their July meeting.
There was a brief question and answer period regarding the role of local planning commissions in the development of the joint master plan. Each jurisdiction’s planning commission will be working closely with the MCJPC through their designated representatives in developing the joint master plan. Members were advised that the final draft plan will go before each jurisdiction’s Board of Trustees to vote on the plan. Each jurisdiction has the flexibility of opting out of joint planning if they decide to do so for whatever reason.
Mark Roby of Washtenaw County Briefs the Washtenaw Council of Chambers - April 22, 2008.
May 14, 2008 Meeting Summary
Mark Roby began the meeting at Freedom Township Hall by presenting a revised Draft Future Land Use Map incorporating the changes made by the local jurisdiction Planning Commissions. He noted the following open items on this map:
These definitions will be defined further under their respective “modules” by the MCJPC.
Mr. Roby then introduced the spreadsheet entitled “Process Review”. This spreadsheet is a column-formatted timetable of events and actions to be undertaken by the MCJPC, with Action Date, Mark Roby Tasks, MCJPC Tasks, and PCs Tasks defined. This master schedule runs from May 14, 2008 through December 31, 2008, utilizing a “revolving-door” approach to processing the tasks and information flow.
Modules are defined as follows: Transportation, Natural Features, Public/Quasi-Public Preserves, Agriculture, Commercial, Industrial, and Residential. The MCJPC then discussed the timing of a joint meeting with all jurisdictions’ Boards and Planning Commissions, which will be held in June, as well as the format and timing of each step in the schedule.
The MCJPC then began detailed review and discussion of the Transportation Module. The components of the module were reviewed, and the following comments/additions were noted:
· Major Corridors – identify the qualities of a major corridor, such as access management
· M-52 – role of bicycle paths on each side to be added during reconstruction
· Hibbard Road – the “alternative route” issue and pros/cons
· Scenic Roads – add definition and discussion of “Natural Beauty Road designation”
· Community Character – Movement of farm equipment on roads, setbacks, M-52 bypass possible development, Adopt-a Road programs
· Circulation within Manchester – use of traffic “calmers”
· Pedestrian travel – sidewalks, bike paths
· Park and Ride – issue of Manchester residents going back and forth to Ann Arbor for work
The draft module will be updated with this input.
The MCJPC then reviewed the requirements and routines for posting minutes and meeting notices of the MCJPC. In particular, the issue of special notices when Boards and Planning Commissions attend MCJPC with majority quorums was addressed. The schedule of remaining MCJPC meetings was reviewed.
The role of the MCJPC Secretary was discussed, and the need to separate officers among the MCJPC jurisdictions. Laurie Fromhart of Bridgewater Township was appointed to take notes for these meetings.
The Frankenmuth regional plan was offered by Mr. Roby as a good example of goals and definitions, particularly with respect to urban boundary limit. The MCJPC members have received copies of these sections as a reference.
The June 11 meeting of the MCJPC was moved to Freedom Township for better capacity, due to the attendance by township/village boards and planning commissions. The regular SWWCOG for June 2008 was cancelled. The July 9 meeting of the MCJPC will be held at Bridgewater Township, along with a regular SWWCOG meeting. The goals are to review the Natural Features module and approve the process schedule.
April 9, 2008 Meeting Summary
The MCJPC meeting at Manchester Village Hall began with discussion of the shortened amount of time available for detailed MCJPC discussions because the SWWCOG meeting prior to it runs long. It was agreed in the short term to hold the next SWWCOG meeting on May 14 to 30 minutes to provide more time for discussion of MCJPC issues.
The Community Open House tentatively scheduled for the end of May will be rescheduled. It was concluded that we are not far enough along with the draft Regional Map and Proposed Land Use Goals to have a meaningful meeting with the general public. It was decided that the township supervisors and the village president would meet to work out procedures for communications between the MCJPC and the various jurisdictional bodies. The June 11 meeting will be a special education and update session with the Planning Commissions and Boards from all jurisdictions.
Mark Roby provided feedback on the revisions to the Regional Planning Map based on comments from the March meeting. The MCJPC made several comments on the density levels and the terminology applied among the jurisdictions. Discussion on the Land Use Goals was tabled due to time constraints.
March 12, 2008 Meeting Summary
The March JPC meeting was held at the Manchester Community Schools offices. The meeting began with public input from Karl Racenis, representing the Manchester Downtown Development Authority. He presented a letter with accompanying maps to illustrate the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority and the Historic District Commission. The intent is to ensure that the DDA and HDC are on the same page as the JPC in terms of commercial areas and historic districts, as the JPC is referencing the 2003 Manchester Village planning maps, wherein commercial boundaries do not exactly match those of the DDA and HDC plans which were authorized after that date. This letter and maps were received by the JPC.
The JPC began hearing feedback from the individual jurisdictions’ Planning Commissions in response to the planned use map homework assignments given at the February meeting. The review consisted of looking at previously published land use maps, and contemplating what has or might change. The following comments were discussed:
There was extensive discussion on “gateways” along M-52, Pleasant Lake Road, and Austin Road, as “corridors” into and within the Manchester community. Current and desired appearance, improvements and planning for these corridors is important.
There was debate on the following topics:
The definition of each land use category by municipality will be summarized prior to the next meeting.
Regarding the signing of the formal Joint Planning Agreement, Freedom Township and the Village of Manchester need to supply publication dates to Jesse O’Jack, then a formal signing will occur.
Discussion began on Land Use Goals. It was noted that CBD and Regional Commercial designations need to be added. Each unit will send feedback to Mark Roby prior to the next meeting on current land use categories, and which ones need to be added.
Mark Roby presented a proposed March to May timeline, which was discussed. The first Open House event was set for May 29, 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM, with location to be determined. The draft Regional Map and draft Goals and Objectives are needed for this Open House.
Additional public input received was the need for bicycling and walking routes.
Note: After the March 12 JPC meeting, Mark Roby forwarded a Michigan legislative update summary on land use and regional planning issues, including PA 12 of 2008 and PA 33 of 2008, and SB 115 of 2007 (would enable joint planning on a phased basis). Please refer also to these links:
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2007-HB-5032 (PA 12)
February 13, 2008 Meeting Summary
The Manchester Community Joint Planning Commission reviewed final comments on the revised Section 2 of the plan. Some specific topics discussed included the accuracy and methods used to determine future population densities and demographic data, additional discussion on PA116s for agricultural preservation, the impact of land preserves overall on regional planning, and expanded discussion on open space preservation. The Commission gave preliminary approval to Section 2 of the plan.
Extensive discussion was held on the potential Future Land Use Map, comparison of current land uses vs. potential future land uses, the process to be used uniformly among the JPC members, and some specific comments developed by JPC member reviews to date. (See the two maps: Existing GDP Land Uses and Land Use Map SWWCOG 2003). The individual members’ planning commissions will provide input on “how have things changed” since the 2003 SWWCOG Regional Land Use Map planning, and compare their existing land use plans to new conceptual plans. There was discussion on the format of the maps, and the best way to allow input from the members in meetings. Exclusionary zoning issues were discussed. This topic will be revisited next month.
The Goals, Objectives and Policies documents were initially reviewed (see individual documents: Matrix, LIAA Summary, GOPs). Some specific comments included the need for a “Highway Commercial” designation for areas along M-52 and US-12, the distinction between “General Commercial” and “Local Commercial”, the effect of commercial zones within PUDs, and a dedicated CBD commercial designation. This subject will be revisited next month.
The timing and structure of a “Community Open House” for public input on the Joint Planning Commission process was discussed. Local input is desired at the individual Planning Commission level and also through a JPC public forum. The format is envisioned as an “exercise”, where citizens see the process and hear some of the issues being discussed before finalization by the JPC, not a “workshop” where teams develop specific inputs or solutions. Mark Roby will begin to develop the proposed format and timing for this open house, with perhaps two sessions to be held before summer.
A PCL Quarterly paper on Form-Based Zoning was distributed.
January 16, 2008 Meeting Summary
The January meeting was held at the Manchester Village offices.
The JPC meeting began with Mark Roby requesting preliminary approval of the modified Section 1 of the report. Comments generated during and since the December meeting have been incorporated. The Commission members discussed the changes and granted preliminary approval to Section 1 of the report.
The status of the formal signing of the Joint Planning Agreement was discussed, and clarification was asked of each jurisdiction as to:
Each jurisdiction will verify this information and reply to Jesse O’Jack to ensure we have a complete approval process.
The JPC discussed the timing of a public forum for citizen input. The March meeting is being considered for this forum.
Members provided their comments on the draft of Section 2 of the report. Comments were extensive and wide-ranging. Of particular note were the discussion of “form-based zoning” and design standards as a way to ensure that new construction enhances and complements existing community character. Other issues discussed included greater emphasis on the agriculture-based local economy, efforts to preserve both agricultural land and open spaces, use of PA 116s and the Preservation of Development Rights (PDR) program as ways to demonstrate the significance of these land uses in the plan narrative.
Two maps were distributed for initial review. One, “Existing Master Plan/Growth Development Plan Land Uses” illustrates future land uses in the four current individual master plans. Two, “Regional Plan Map 2003,” is the proposed regional future land use map as found in the 2003 SWWCOG Regional Plan. Members of the MCJPC are to review the Regional Plan Map and discuss its applicability (with possible revisions) to the joint master plan.
Establishment of a “village growth boundary” was identified as a necessary addition to the regional plan map. In addition, identifying appropriate places for more dense housing was suggested as a future activity for the MCJPC. The lack of senior citizen/retirement living communities within the Manchester Community JPC area (residents must leave the community when they need this level of service) was suggested as an example of more dense housing.
MCJPC members will review the Regional Plan Map with their local planning commissions. Discussion of the Regional Plan Map and a revised Section II will continue in the February meeting.
Clustered housing density is an issue being addressed by the MCJPC.
December 12, 2007 Meeting Summary
The December 2007 MCJPC meeting was held at the Manchester Township Hall. The following items were addressed by the members:
Amendments were made to the draft MCJPC By-Laws, and the Final By-Laws were approved by the members. The Manchester Village Hall will be added as a principal meeting place in accordance with the Open Meeting Act.
2008 Meeting Schedule
The 2008 meeting schedule was agreed upon, and set to align with the conclusion of the regularly scheduled SWWCOG meetings, as has been the practice throughout 2007. This results in the 2008 published meeting schedule.
Role of Planning Consultants
The members discussed the role of the local unit planning consultants in the development of the Joint Plan. It is felt that local unit of government planning consultants (currently Carlisle-Wortman, Don Pennington and Bill DeGroot) should be involved and integrated into the discussions, and be present at the MCJPC meetings. How local planning consultants interact with the MCJPC proceedings will be important in ensuring that local planning direction does not conflict with the overall plans developed by the MCJPC. Each local government unit will discuss this with their local boards and planning commissions, as well as possible collaborative efforts.
Draft Section 1
The draft of Section 1 (“Introduction”) of the Plan was distributed and discussed. A wide range of comments was received from different participants. Reference was also made to the 2003 SWWGOG Regional Plan for inputs. Members considered whether this draft addressed all the important issues and themes, and identified what they thought was missing or incorrect.
Future Land Use
MCJPC members were given an assignment to be completed for the next meeting. They will consider future land uses in the Manchester Community. A planning map was provided, as well as a document entitled “ Potential Future Land Use Categories”. Members were asked to mark up the map as to where they believed certain types of growth, activities, establishments, etc. should be placed in the future. A “bubble diagram” approach was suggested to show the general limits of such things as the “Village Growth Boundary” (i.e., where village infrastructure such as water and sewer would stop). Members should also consider such reference material as the 2003 Plan, soil conditions, topography, etc. A 10-year planning window was suggested by John Enos of Carlisle-Wortman.
November 14, 2007 Meeting Summary
The Manchester Community Joint Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting at Sharon Township Hall on Wednesday, November 14 at 8:00 PM. The proposed by-laws underwent a final review, and a new Draft By-Laws document was prepared for final approval at the December meeting. The Commission also reviewed and adopted a Vision and Mission Statement to guide the commission’s activities.
An updated Workplan document was distributed, which will direct the Commission’s activities over the next year. The Commission also reviewed, edited and approved a MCJPC Informational Mailer to be mailed from the LIAA office to all residents in the affected jurisdictions of the MCJPC as well as Sharon Township residents.
A summary of the October 27, 2007 MCJPC Training Session was also distributed for information.
The Committee members discussed alternative meeting scenarios, the establishment of subcommittees, and the process of engaging the public in the planning process. These topics will be continued at the December meeting, which will be held December 12 at the Manchester Township Hall after the SWWCOG meeting (7:00 PM).
October 21, 2007 - Update on MCJPC Training Session
The Citizen Planner Training session for MCJPC members will be held Saturday, October 27, 2007 at the Manchester Village Hall, beginning at 8:00 AM. The draft Training Session Agenda is available for viewing. This is a training session only, and no decisions regarding the MCJPC objectives will be made.
L-R: Elected Members Ron Mann, Bob Little, Pat Vailliencourt, and Jolea Mull, with Mark Roby and Brett Lenart of Washtenaw County
October 10, 2007 MCJPC Meeting Summary
The Manchester Community Joint Planning Commission (MCJPC) met at the Bridgewater Township Hall for its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday October 10. Each participating jurisdiction confirmed both the elected (E) and appointed (A) representatives to the Joint Planning Commission and their alternates (Alt). The following were confirmed as representatives and/or alternates to the Joint Planning Commission:
Bridgewater Township: Jolea Mull (E), Christopher Brown (A), Amy Riley (E Alt), TBD (A Alt)
Freedom Township: Robert Little (E), Larry Lindemann (A), Jennifer Alexa (E Alt), Peter DeLoof (A Alt)
Manchester Township: Ron Mann (E), Deena McIntosh (A), Sybil Kolon (E Alt), George Daubner (A Alt)
Village of Manchester: Pat Vailliencourt (E), Gina Lentz (A), Martin Way (E Alt), Jeff Wallace (A Alt)
The following officers were elected: Jolea Mull as Chair, Pat Vailliencourt as Vice Chair, Deena McIntosh as Secretary, and Bob Little as Treasurer. The MCJPC also discussed the role of recording secretary and noted that a volunteer would be sought for future meetings. The Commission also discussed the publication of a meeting synopsis. Ray Berg was designated the webmaster for the MCJPC.
Final Agreement Establishing the MCJPC
The final agreement establishing the MCJPC, which has been adopted by the respective participants, is available by clicking here.
Adoption of By-laws
M. Roby introduced a draft by-laws document that was modeled after other planning commission by-laws. The MCJPC discussed several proposed changes to the draft, and Roby will coordinate with Jesse O’Jack and present an updated version for adoption at the next meeting. The draft by-laws will be posted to this web page shortly.
It was also agreed that Manchester Village be the coordinating FOIA entity and that Jeff Wallace be the FOIA Coordinator.
Due to the late hour, M. Roby suggested the scoping exercise be performed at the training session and the members of the Commission concurred. An overview of the proposed training was distributed.
Review and Agree on the Timeline/Workplan
M. Roby presented the draft workplan that was provided in each member’s binder ahead of the meeting. Roby requested that each member review and be prepared to discuss the workplan and timeline template at the upcoming October 27 training session.
Finalize LIAA Citizen Information Mailer
J. Mull had several comments on the mailer, and indicated she would fax them to Mark Roby for incorporation. The Commission agreed that the document should be consistent in its use of terminology and that the questions on the back and front of the document should be different. The final mailer will be posted to this web page when complete.
Role of the Planning Consultants
M. Roby provided a handout on the role of planning consultants, and discussed future interaction with Planning Consultants. R. Mann suggested that coordination with the respective consultants should be the responsibility of MCJPC members. This coordination should extend to communication with other participating jurisdictions’ boards, and the commission suggested that this be included in the by-laws.
M. Roby reminded members that the MCJPC training session would be held on October 27th at the Village of Manchester Hall. Jeff Wallace indicated that the Village Hall location was acceptable. Roby reminded members that the training had to be posted, as a quorum would be present, for compliance with the Open Meetings Act. The Commission discussed the importance that meetings are posted in each jurisdiction as well as the location where the meeting will be held.
October 10, 2007 MCJPC Meeting, Bridgewater Township Hall
September 12, 2007 SWWCOG Meeting Summary
This meeting began with a survey of participating municipalities in the Manchester Community Joint Planning Commission (JPC). The signatories to the Joint Planning Agreement will be: Manchester Township, Freedom Township, the Village of Manchester, and Bridgewater Township. Sharon Township has opted not to participate in the JPC.
Initial appointments to the Manchester Community Joint Planning Commission were announced:
Jolea Mull and Chris Brown (Bridgewater Twp.), with alternate Amy Riley.
Pat Vailliencourt and Gina Lentz (Village of Manchester), alternates to be named later.
Bob Little and Larry Lindemann (Freedom Twp.), with alternates Jennifer Alexa and Peter DeLoof.
Ron Mann and Deena McIntosh (Manchester Twp.) with alternates Sybil Kolon and George Daubner
The preliminary Work Plan was distributed. A meeting schedule for the Manchester Community Joint Planning Commission was discussed. It was proposed that the regular SWWCOG meeting be held for the first 30 minutes, followed by the Joint Planning Commission, with meetings each second Wednesday. R. Mann stated that more time should be allowed for SWWCOG business. R. Little suggested a flexible approach.
A motion was made by R. Little for a 7:00 PM - 8:00 PM (or sooner) SWWCOG meeting time, followed by 8:00 PM (or earlier) - 9:30 PM for the Joint Planning Commission meetings, with Open Meetings Act concern addressed by posting the start time as “after SWWCOG” or “7:30 PM or later”. Motion supported by R. Mann, and approved by acclamation.
A Citizen Planner grant has been obtained to host a one-day training/team-building session. M. Roby suggested a Saturday in October or November, and R. Mann suggested an e-mail survey of each member providing three available dates. P. Vailliencourt recommended holding the training session before the end of the year to mitigate avoidable plan creation errors before training. Sections I and II of the workplan should be completed by the end of the year.
M. Roby presented and discussed the Work Plan. A Community Open House may be held in January 2008. R. Mann stated his view for this session to be a community visioning opportunity. P. Vailliencourt suggested the respective Boards and Planning Commissions be involved after the community visioning. LIAA may assist in organizing and promotional efforts for this visioning session.
J. O’Jack pointed out that the Joint Planning Ordinances for each participating jurisdiction need to be revised to reflect the correct number of participating jurisdictions. He will undertake the revisions.
P. Vailliencourt thanked Heather Seyfarth, Mark Roby, and Jesse O’Jack for their great efforts in making the Joint Planning Agreement happen. M. Roby suggested a public ceremony for signing the Joint Planning Agreement. A motion was made by D. McIntosh, supported by R. Little, to send a letter to LIAA thanking Heather Seyfarth and LIAA for their efforts. This was approved by all SWWCOG members.
The MCJPC seeks to balance tradition with growth.