MAY 6, 1997
The regular meeting of the WILLIAMSTOWN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES was called to order by Supervisor Obst on Tuesday May 6, 1997 at 7:34 PM. The Clerk was asked to record who was present and if a quorum was present. Clerk Graham stated a quorum was present and recorded the following: Supervisor Obst, Clerk Graham, Treasurer Nilsson, Trustee Wiegandt and Trustee Zaban. Building Inspector Aven was excused.
The agenda was read over with the following additions: Old Business - Cherry-Valle subdivision and Skyline Billboard Request. New Business - Tom Hamlin Request.
TOM HAMLIN REQUEST - Public was told that Mr. Hamlin asserted that our Zoning Ordinance was unconstitutional and that the Township’s Attorney was planning to respond tonight, at the Board of Trustees meeting because the Board of Appeals does not have the authority to act on this request. Mr. Hamlin would like to rent a house to 4 unrelated graduate students in a subdivision that is zoned for single family residences. The definition of a family according to the Williamstown Township Zoning Ordinance is as follows:
1.   A domestic family, that is, one or more persons living together and related by the bonds of consanguinity (blood), marriage, or adoption, together with servants of the principal occupants and not more than one additional unrelated person, with all of such individuals being domiciled together as a single, domestic, housekeeping unit in a dwelling.
2.   The functional equivalent of the domestic family, that is, persons living together in a dwelling unit whose relationship is of a permanent and distinct character and is the functional equivalent of a domestic family with a demonstrable and recognizable bond which constitutes the functional equivalent of the bonds which render the domestic family a cohesive unit. All persons of the functional equivalent of the domestic family must be cooking and otherwise housekeeping as a single, nonprofit unit. ...
Refer to page 1-13 of the Williamstown Township Zoning Ordinance for the complete definition. Mr. Hamlin’s request states that the Zoning Ordinance is not constitutional and that it discriminates. Mr. Hamlin had no comment other than what is already stated in his letter to the board.
The Township also received comments and letters from people in the neighborhood defending the ordinance as written. Supervisor Obst deferred to Attorney Schultz. Mr. Schultz looked at the Township ordinance with respect to the definition of family and if there is any new case law on this issue. Most cases challenge ordinances that state specific numbers. Those have been stricken. The Court has laid down some guidelines. There is no case law in this state and only one odd one in another state that would show that our definition is improper or unenforceable. There is case law looking at our definition that has been sustained or found valid. Would enforcing the ordinance be discriminatory under the Elliott-Larson civil rights act as stated in Mr. Hamlin’s letter? There is nothing in this ordinance that forces a landowner to violate the Elliott-Larson civil rights act. The requirement that the residents must be a family does not require anyone to discriminate against anyone. It only means that the people living there must live as a family - traditional or non-traditional, nothing more and nothing less. The requirement does not discriminate against various types of familial status, just that they must be living together as a family. Attorney Schultz is comfortable with the ordinance and that it is a fact specific issue. If they are living as a family, then they are OK.
The following residents of Red Cedar Manor Subdivision voiced their opposition to the property in question being rented to a group of 4 unrelated graduate students: Clay Bradon, Don & Karen Bouffard, Ed & Sharon Carter, Veronica Matejko, Alexis Smith, Marirose Carrillo, Vickie Selinger and John McLaughlin. Other citizens voicing statements were Nancy Fink and Michael Musser. Concerns stated were negative effects on property values, changing the character of the neighborhood, negative impact on quality of life in the neighborhood. Opinion was that the current pricing structure on the rental would be a deterrent to most families and that it encouraged the type of group rental that is undesirable and illegal in this neighborhood. There were also concerns about how the residents would be notified if there were any further Township meetings that addressed this issue. Supervisor Obst advised them that they would receive written notification by mail if there were any further developments regarding this issue.
Mr. Hamlin stated that he has lived in this community for 10 years, and he has coached many kids in the community. He is not trying to do anything against the law. He does rent to college students, but he is very particular about the college students he rents to. The four that are interested in this property are very responsible graduate students, who have passed vigorous qualifications and will be in the area for 6-8 years. Mr. Hamlin stated that he has never had this problem before in any of the other communities where he owns rental property.
The residents of Red Cedar Manor submitted a petition to the Township Board should any further action be required in this matter.
SKYLINE BILLBOARD ISSUE - Mr. Rick Imshaug, owner of Skyline Advertising.
The Township Board tabled this issue in the past due to some concern that the owner of the property did not want to go forward with the application. The Board received a letter from Mrs. Speaks today. It stated that she does not favor the sign but does not want to withdraw her name from the application due to possible legal action against her from Skyline. There was a recommendation from the Planning Commission to deny the sign dated Feb. 27, 1997. The motion passed, but not unanimously. Treasurer Nilsson motioned that the Township Board deny the Special Land Use Permit for the sign from Skyline Advertising on the 1476 E Grand River property. Seconded by Trustee Zaban. Discussion: Heard back from Mrs. Speaks that she does not want the sign because she is still in the midst of negotiations for selling the property. Nothing has been finalized yet. Trustee Wiegandt stated that it was a problem of looking into the future to determine what somebody else may or may not want.
Michael Musser stated that he is the individual who is in negotiations with Mrs. Speaks to buy the property in question. He would like the sign to be denied. The sign has no significance with what he plans to do with the parcel. Negotiations will not be finalized until early winter. He has a five year plan that he has discussed with the Planning Commission. Will get a copy to the board. The plan does not include this type of sign on the property. Mr. Musser is concerned that the sign will not permit any use by any organization within the community. Only paid advertisers of Skyline will be allowed to use the sign. Believes the sign would be unattractive and not an asset to the community and that it would detract from his business.
Mr. Imshaug stated that the proposed sign meets all the guidelines of the rules and is actually well within the boundaries. The matter was referred to McKenna and Associates. Skyline has exceeded the recommendations set by McKenna for approval. We have submitted letters from businesses in the community. Dozens of local charities use Skyline’s billboards at no charge. If the sign is denied at this location then it appears the township is saying that they do not allow billboards in this township.
Trustee Zaban stated that there are similar signs in the township further west on Grand River. He doesn't feel the proposed sign meets all the criteria because the piece of land to the west is not commercial, but residential. Mr. Imshaug stated that the ordinance does not say anything about what zoning can be adjacent.
Attorney Schultz - point of information - either incorporate the reasons set forth by the Planning Commission or state some findings about why the motion is opposed. When he reviewed the lease he found the legal description of the property to be leased is defective. The lease states that the property to be leased is the west property line, there is no width mentioned, just the line. Attorney Schultz is not sure if we granted the special use permit, what property is to be included in the lease - there is no width to the parcel. Trustee Zaban moves that the original motion be amended to include the findings of fact from the Planning Commission dated Feb. 27, 1997 denying the Special Land Use Permit, the letter from Mrs. Speaks dated May 6th, and the defect in the lease that does not specify the width of land to be rented. Motion has been amended. Supervisor Obst is concerned about residential uses to the west, the fact that Mrs. Speaks does not feel it is in her interest to have the sign, and the fact that there appears to be a legal defect in the lease. Motion passed unanimously.
Nancy Fink - Special Use Permit to be used at the discretion of the board. Have to look at each case because of having various different zonings next to each other. Should be evaluated on a one by one basis for this purpose.