The resolution was brought forward by board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) of Ann Arbor, who had alerted the board about his plans at the previous meeting on May 7. He said he’d met with residents from the west side of the county about the threat of oil extraction. A drilling permit has been applied for in Scio Township, and residents are afraid that the state will grant the permit.

The two resolved clauses state:

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Washtenaw County, Michigan:

1. Opposes said oil exploration and drilling, and any future oil exploration and drilling in this area and other areas within the boundaries of Washtenaw County; and

2. Respectfully requests that the Michigan Supervisor of Wells, as part of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, deny the permit application to drill the Wing 1-15 well as proposed; and

3. Hereby requests that the State of Michigan and federal legislators move to enact legislation and improve regulations to reduce the risks to public health, safety, welfare and the environment posed by the oil and gas industry, and re-commit to promoting and protecting quality of life, our economic well-being, and our environment through less reliance on non-renewable energy resources.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted as the County’s official comment on said oil drilling permit and application by the Clerk, to each elected official representing Washtenaw County in Lansing, the Office of the Governor, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

At its May 19, 2014 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a similar resolution opposing oil exploration in Scio Township.

At the county board’s May 21 meeting, commissioners heard from two residents who spoke during public commentary – including Gus Teschke from the advocacy group Citizens for Oil-Free Backyards – urging the board to oppose oil drilling.

During deliberations, Dan Smith argued that the issue was outside of the county’s purview, because the county can’t regulate oil drilling. He noted that the easiest way to prevent oil drilling is for property owners not to sign leases with companies that seek to drill on their land.

Other commissioners cited environmental and public health concerns in support of the resolution.

This brief was filed from the boardroom at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The drilling would not take place inside the city limits, as the city is empowered by the state to prohibit drilling, which it does through the city code. However, the location in Scio Township is within two miles from the city limits and less than a mile from the Huron River, which is the source of the majority of the city’s drinking water. And the state zoning enabling act – as revised in 2006 – deprives townships and counties of the ability to regulate drilling.

Opposition to the drilling is grounded in concerns about the impact on the drinking water supply of the city, especially in the context of a 1,4 dioxane plume in the area of the proposed drilling activity.

In addition to expressing opposition to the proposed drilling in the shorter term and in the future, the text of the resolution requests that the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality require an environmental impact assessment, including impacts to surrounding natural resources and public health, before making a decision.

Further, the resolution calls on state legislators to revise the state’s zoning enabling act to provide townships and counties with the power to regulate drilling activity.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The parcel is on the west side of Glenwood, south of Dexter Road. The owners, Kelly Anderson and Victoria Pebbles, also own the adjacent lot. They want to build on the 375 Glenwood site, which is currently vacant. The annexation would allow the site to connect with city water and utility services.

According to a staff memo, the 2014 water improvement charges are $5,345.10 and the 2014 sanitary improvement charges are $8,667.10.

The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St., where the planning commission held its May 6 meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt millage, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt deal voted on by the Ann Arbor council is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

According to the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, the annexation of township property into a village is one of the few instances that requires county board approval. Generally, annexation is handled by the individual municipalities where the annexation occurs.

A letter to the county from Dexter village manager Donna Dettling stated that the annexation request – for a 16.66-acre property – was made by the property owner, Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. The land is adjacent to the Dexter Business & Research Park, where Dextech hopes to expand. The company is one of Dexter’s largest employers.

On May 13, 2013, the Dexter village council unanimously passed a resolution in support of the annexation. The resolution indicates that although the Scio Township board did not take formal action about the request, there was generally support for the action. [.pdf of communications from Dexter regarding the annexation]

Four people spoke at a public hearing on the annexation, including Dexter village president Shawn Keough and a representative of Dextech, who spoke in support of the proposal.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

According to the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, the annexation of township property into a village is one of the few instances that requires county board approval. Generally, annexation is handled by the individual municipalities where the annexation occurs.

A letter to the county from Dexter village manager Donna Dettling states that the annexation request – for a 16.66-acre property – was made by the property owner, Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. The land is adjacent to the Dexter Business & Research Park, where Dextech hopes to expand. The company is one of Dexter’s largest employers.

On May 13, 2013, the Dexter village council unanimously passed a resolution in support of the annexation. The resolution indicates that although the Scio Township board did not take formal action about the request, there was generally support for the action. [.pdf of communications from Dexter regarding the annexation]

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Annexation will allow these properties to connect to city of Ann Arbor water services. Pall has paid all petition filing fees as well as the connection and improvement charges for water and sanitary sewer service that are related to the annexations. All of the parcels are currently a part of Scio Township. They will be annexed with the R1C (single-family residential) category. These annexations are not part of the systematic township-to-city annexation strategy authorized by the city council at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

[Google map of well prohibition zones and property locations] [.jpg of map with well prohibition zones and property locations]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Treecity Health Collective, a medical marijuana dispensary on South State Street. (Photos by the writer.)

One request was the first tied to the city council’s recent approval of zoning regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries. The operator of Treecity Health Collective, a dispensary at 1712 S. State, asked that the location be rezoned from O (office) to C1 (local business). In June 2011, the council approved amendments to the city’s zoning ordinances that prevent medical marijuana dispensaries from operating in office zoning districts. Rather than relocate the dispensary, the operator was asking for the zoning change. The property is located on the west side of State, south of Stimson.

While expressing sympathy for the operator, commissioners recommended denying the rezoning request, noting that the master plan calls for an office district in that area. It will now be forwarded to the city council for final action.

The commission considered a separate request for nearby parcels on the opposite side of South State, where the new Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky opened about a month ago. The property – 1643 and 1645 S. State St., south of the Produce Station – is in Ann Arbor Township, and requires both annexation and zoning. The commission recommended approval of annexing the land, but postponed a decision on zoning. Biercamp owners are hoping for commercial zoning, which would allow them to expand the retail component of their business. The city’s master plan currently calls for light industrial zoning in that section.

In discussions for both Treecity and Biercamp requests, some commissioners pointed to the need for a comprehensive study of the South State Street corridor. Such a study has been planned, but earlier this year the city council voted against funding a consultant to conduct the work.

In other action, commissioners recommended annexing several Scio Township parcels that are located in a recently expanded well prohibition zone related to the Pall/Gelman Sciences 1,4 dioxane underground plume. Pall is paying for the hook-ups to city water and sewer, according to city planning staff.

Commissioners also recommended approval of a site plan at 3590 Washtenaw Ave., at the southwest corner of Washtenaw Avenue and Yost Boulevard. The plan calls for building a 9,500-square-foot, single-story addition to the existing 15,769-square-foot retail building that currently houses the Dollar Tree. It’s in the spot where Frank’s Nursery formerly operated, along the same stretch that’s part of the Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue project.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, gave several updates to the commission. Among them, she noted that four projects previously approved by the city council are now asking for two-year extensions on their site plans: (1) The Gallery planned unit development (PUD) on North Main, at the site of the former Greek Orthodox church; (2) the 42 North residential development at Maple and Pauline; (3) the Forest Cove office building on Miller; and (4) the Mallets View office building on Eisenhower. Those requests are being reviewed by city planning staff.

During his communications from city council, Tony Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on council, mentioned that a final meeting for the R4C/R2A advisory committee is tentatively set for Sept. 21. He noted that the 21st is also Saint Matthew’s Feast Day, which he quipped might help the group finish up the project.

One member of that advisory committee is former planning commissioner Jean Carlberg, who received a resolution of appreciation from the commission at the beginning of Tuesday’s meeting. Her term ended June 30 – she served on the commission for 16 years.

South State Annexation & Zoning – Biercamp

The planning commission was asked to consider annexation of two parcels located in Ann Arbor Township “islands” – 1643 and 1645 S. State St., south of Stimson and next to the Produce Station. The property is owned by Stefan Hofmann, but the request was spurred by a new business – Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky – that Hannah Cheadle and Walt Hansen opened at 1643 S. State about a month ago.

Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky is located at 1643 S. State – the building on the left.

The parcels cover about 0.6 acres and include four non-residential buildings. In addition to Biercamp, other businesses on the property include Zak’s Auto Shop and Hofmann’s Furniture. The building at 1645 S. State is used for storage.

In the township, the site is zoned for light industrial. Hansen and Cheadle have requested that the parcels be zoned by the city for commercial use. This would allow them to expand the business – they eventually would like to sell Michigan craft beer and wine at the shop.

They have also applied to the township for a certificate of occupancy at that site, which would allow the business to be grandfathered in under zoning that permits it to sell items produced there. The city’s master plan calls for light industrial zoning in that area, but only allows for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

Planning staff recommended annexing the properties, but postponing the zoning request until the issue of a certificate of occupancy is resolved with the township. Staff also recommended postponing action on a request to waive the area plan requirement for the site. A waiver is requested because no changes to the site are proposed.

South State Annexation & Rezoning – Biercamp: Public Hearing

The only speakers during a public hearing on the issue were Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle. Cheadle noted that they’d come to the meeting straight from work: “We probably smell like smoked sausages.” She told commissioners that she and Hansen were originally from northern Michigan, but had lived in New York City for six years before moving to Ann Arbor about six months ago to open their business.

Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle, owners of Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

She said they felt the zoning to C3 (fringe commercial district) was appropriate, since the property is located near commercially zoned land along Stimson and South Industrial. The store is directly adjacent to the Produce Station, which is located to the north on State.

An appraisal done on the two properties included a zoning analysis, Cheadle said. The appraiser had talked to city planner Matt Kowalski, who had said C3 zoning would be appropriate in the context of other zoning in the area, she reported.

Cheadle told commissioners that during the month that the Biercamp has been open, the response from customers has been amazing. More than 300 people have already signed up to receive the store’s email, she said. Cheadle noted that one of the city’s concerns is if the parcels were zoned C3, it would be possible for other types of businesses – like drive-through fast food restaurants – to open there, if Biercamp went out of business. Biercamp is there for the long-haul, she said, but they would be limited if the land is zoned for light industrial.

Hansen added that they hope to eventually start selling Michigan beer and wine in the shop.

South State Annexation & Rezoning – Biercamp: Commissioner Discussion

Diane Giannola led off the discussion, saying she didn’t support zoning the land as C3 or C2B (business service district). She said she felt for the owners, but this would amount to spot zoning, which she said the courts have shown is illegal. Even though it’s a great business and the kind of company that the city hopes to see, the problem is what type of business might want to operate there later, she said. If the city approves this type of zoning, then owners of the parcel next to them could use the same excuse to change the zoning too – and it would just continue down State Street. The city needs to be consistent with its master plan, she said.

Further, planning staff and commissioners have talked about the need to do a comprehensive study of the South State Street corridor, Giannola noted. But the city council hadn’t approved funding of the study. To her, that action showed that councilmembers aren’t interested in rezoning the area.

There are many other places in the city where the business could operate and be successful, Giannola said. Just because the owners didn’t do their due diligence before locating there doesn’t mean the city should make an exception about the zoning and risk a lawsuit, she concluded.

Tony Derezinski said he appreciated Giannola’s heartfelt comments, but there’s another side. Sometimes an area is zoned for one purpose but it evolves to be appropriate for other uses, he said. In this case, having Biercamp located next to the Produce Station is a benefit to customers of both businesses, he said. It’s a unique parcel, he added, in part because it’s a township island. For those reasons, Derezinski didn’t think it would set a precedent for zoning, and it’s the type of business the city wants to encourage.

City planner Chris Cheng clarified that the reason for the annexation related to the need to hook up to the city’s sewer system. That has now occurred – the site had already been hooked up to city water. He noted that the township’s I-1 light industrial zoning is very similar to the city’s M-1 limited industrial zoning. The main difference is that the township would allow products made on site to be sold in 100% of the floor area. For the city, M-1 zoning only allows sales on 20% of the floor area. But if the township grants Biercamp a certificate of occupancy before annexation occurs, that would allow the city to grandfather in the business under the township’s zoning, Cheng said.

Cheng noted that the city planning staff feels that M-1 zoning is appropriate for this site.

Erica Briggs strongly supported zoning the parcels as commercial – probably C2B would be best, she said, since it would prevent drive-through businesses. If commissioners simply looked at the south area plan, then M-1 zoning would apply, she observed, but that plan is out of date. Looking at more current indicators – including environmental and sustainability goals – all point to this kind of use, she said: locally produced food, and neighborhood businesses that people can reach by biking or walking. It would be crazy not to support and nurture this, she said. If this type of business continues down State Street, she added, “I say great – all the better.”

The original plan for that area had envisioned it becoming a tech corridor, Briggs noted, but on the ground, it’s evolving into something else. She said she’d support C2B zoning for the parcels.

Kirk Westphal drew out the fact that Biercamp was operating without a certificate of occupancy from the township, and that this was somewhat unusual. He clarified with Cheng that the township’s light industrial zoning was more permissive regarding how much of the floor area could be used for retail.

Westphal confirmed this is not the first time that a zoning change has been requested in that area. Cheng reported that the property management firm McKinley had previously requested rezoning from light industrial to commercial for a property further south on State Street, where Tim Horton’s was interested in building a shop. That request had been denied.

In that case, Westphal said, it was a fairness issue – coupled with the fact that the city intends to study that entire corridor in the future. For those reasons, he was inclined to defer to the planning staff regarding their zoning recommendation for the two parcels. The commission also needs to think long-term, he said, and if ownership of the property changes hands, other businesses might open that don’t fit in that area. Westphal said he’d be in favor of doing a corridor study as soon as possible, and he hoped that Biercamp could continue to operate in that location in the meantime.

From left: Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Diane Giannola.

Wendy Woods was curious to know what would happen if the parcels were annexed, but the zoning remained unresolved. What would it mean for the business? Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, said that was tricky. The city doesn’t want to inherit an unresolved situation, she said, and it’s currently in the township’s hands. So far, there’s been good collaboration between the two jurisdictions, she added.

Woods said it seemed like there’s an informal agreement with the Produce Station to use parking for Biercamp customers – is that the case? No, there’s no agreement, Cheng said, although it’s true that some customers who park at the Produce Station do walk over to Biercamp’s shop.

Bonnie Bona wondered why this was coming forward now – why did the business need to connect to water and sewer now, if that hadn’t been an issue previously? Cheadle came forward and responded, saying that she and Hansen had approached the township for an analysis of the parcel’s septic system, after being told by a state health inspector that this was a requirement prior to opening their business. At that point, they were told by the township that the property needed to be hooked up to the city’s sewer system instead, because Biercamp was a new business. The property had previously been hooked up to city water.

Rampson clarified that the property owner, Stefan Hofmann, had been told in 2009 that he needed to connect to a city sewer. He had not come forward voluntarily to do that, she said, so that’s why the issue emerged when Cheadle and Hansen approached the township.

Hansen then clarified that the only reason he and Cheadle were requesting a certificate of occupancy was so that they could be grandfathered in under the township’s zoning. Cheng reported that the township is expected to issue the certificate soon, based on his conversations with township planning staff.

Bona said she hoped the certificate of occupancy would be granted, so that Biercamp could continue to operate there, rather than having them risk being annexed into a zoning category that wouldn’t permit their business. She noted that she struggled with conflicting issues. The master plan is about more than just land use – it relates to transportation, traffic and other issues. The State Street corridor has some of the most intense traffic in the city, she said, especially near Stimson, where the road narrows down from four to two lanes. All she can do, she added, is push for a corridor study so that the zoning is well-planned and not arbitrary.

Meanwhile, Bona added, she hoped that Hansen and Cheadle had a backup plan. She noted that there are a lot of commercial vacancies in the city, especially along Washtenaw Avenue. Bona also asked that a better explanation of the parking arrangement with the Produce Station be provided.

Eric Mahler asked what would happen if Biercamp doesn’t get a certificate of occupancy, and the parcels are annexed under the city’s M-1 zoning. In that case, Cheng said, Cheadle and Hansen would likely be back to the planning commission to lobby harder for C3 or C2B rezoning.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve recommending annexation – the request will now move forward to the city council for approval. A request to zone the properties as C3 (fringe commercial district) was postponed, as was a request to waive the site’s area plan requirement.

After the vote, Derezinski asked Cheadle and Hansen when their shop is open. The store hours are 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Biercamp is closed on Sundays.

Treecity Health Collective Rezoning

In the first such request to the Ann Arbor planning commission following the city council’s approval of zoning regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries, the operator of Treecity Health Collective, a dispensary at 1712 S. State, asked that the location be rezoned from O (office) to C1 (local business). A waiver of the area plan requirement for that location was also requested.

Planning staff recommended denying the request, because C1 zoning is not consistent with adjacent zoning, land uses and the city’s master plan. City planner Chris Cheng told commissioners that the type of zoning requested would be considered spot zoning, and not appropriate.

The Treecity Health Collective opened in 2010. This summer, the Ann Arbor city council approved amendments to the city’s zoning ordinances that prevent medical marijuana dispensaries from operating in office zoning districts – those changes are set to take effect on Aug. 22, 2011. Rather than relocate the dispensary, the business owner – Dori Edwards – is asking for the zoning change. The property is located on the west side of State, south of Stimson, and is owned by Francis Clark.

Treecity Health Collective Rezoning: Public Hearing

Dori Edwards was the only person to speak during the public hearing on these requests. Treecity is a nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary, she said, and provides other health practitioner services. Although the building is located in an area zoned for offices, the neighboring businesses are non-traditional – a masseuse and a palm-reader.

Dori Edwards, employee of Treecity Health Collective, during a public hearing at the Aug. 16, 2011 Ann Arbor planning commission meeting.

The city council has broad discretion to deviate from the city’s master plan, she noted. Edwards said she’s not a planner, but she did read through the city’s master plan online, and could not find anything that indicated her zoning request would be illegal. The city already allows spot zoning to occur, via planned unit developments (PUDs), she said. That kind of zoning requires public benefit, and Edwards said it’s a public benefit to allow her nonprofit to operate at its current location, because of the nature of her clientele. She urged commissioners to approve the rezoning request.

Treecity Health Collective Rezoning: Commissioner Discussion

Diane Giannola began by saying that this request proved the point she made during the Biercamp discussion. The site was located across the street and a couple of parcels south of the Biercamp location. So how could the city approve one request and not the other? It’s arbitrary, she said. The city needs to do a study of the South State Street corridor so that rezoning doesn’t occur arbitrarily.

She asked why the recent zoning ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries didn’t allow that type of business in areas zoned for offices. City planner Chris Cheng said the reason was that dispensaries seemed more akin to pharmacies, not medical offices.

Bonnie Bona asked why the request was for C1 zoning, not C3 or C2B. Cheng replied that C1 was the minimal intensity of commercial zoning that would still allow the dispensary to operate – it doesn’t allow for uses like auto shops or manufacturing. But city staff wouldn’t recommend any type of commercial zoning, he said.

Then directing her comments to Edwards, Bona said that PUDs require additional public benefits tied to the site plan – the public benefit isn’t simply the type of business that’s located there.

Wendy Woods acknowledged that she hadn’t followed the council deliberations on medical marijuana closely. She wondered if the council’s intent was to restrict dispensaries to certain districts in town. She assumed they’d discussed the possibility of grandfathering in the locations of existing dispensaries?

Tony Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on city council, said the council wanted to avoid legal challenges to the ordinance. However, they also wanted to plan for dispensaries to be located in certain areas, with restrictions like distances from schools and churches, he said. There were no specific discussions about instances like the one now being considered by the planning commission, he said.

Derezinski went on to describe the state referendum regarding medical marijuana as poorly written and very ambiguous. For the council’s part, the general notion was to take a more restrictive approach to zoning, he said.

Woods asked if there were other dispensaries located in areas where the newly-enacted zoning would no longer allow them to operate. There are several located in office districts, said Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff. One dispensary held a citizen participation meeting in July, but decided not to pursue rezoning. Cheng noted that no one showed up for the Treecity citizen participation meeting related to the rezoning request.

Erica Briggs said she was frustrated and torn by this situation. This dispensary seemed to her to be an appropriate use of office space, fitting with compatible businesses in the area. No one came to the public hearing to complain, she noted. So she wished that dispensaries were allowed in office districts – but acknowledged that they’re not.

This request differed from the Biercamp request because the Treecity property isn’t located adjacent to other commercially zoned land, Briggs said. She supported extending commercial businesses along South State, but there’s not a precedent for doing that yet. She expressed sympathy for Edwards’ situation.

Kirk Westphal asked whether the fact that Treecity is a nonprofit has any bearing on the request. It does not, Cheng replied. Westphal confirmed with Cheng that any change in zoning would be attached to the land, not the business. Westphal said it was a shame that the state law is vague and that livelihoods are being disrupted, but he couldn’t support the rezoning request.

Giannola asked whether Edwards could apply for a special exception use, to allow her to operate the dispensary at that site. Cheng said he didn’t believe that would be possible. Rampson explained that the zoning ordinance would have to be amended in order to allow a special exception use for the dispensary. That process would begin with the planning commission, she said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted against recommending approval of the rezoning request. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council.

Site Plan for Former Frank’s Nursery

Commissioners were asked to approve a site plan for 3590 Washtenaw Ave., at the southwest corner of Washtenaw Avenue and Yost Boulevard. The plan calls for building a 9,500-square-foot, single-story addition to the existing 15,769-square-foot retail building that currently houses the Dollar Tree. The new space is designated for an additional tenant.

The building addition would replace an existing unenclosed canopy area used by the former tenant, Frank’s Nursery. The site is part of a larger retail center along Washtenaw Avenue that consists of five parcels with the same owner. The site plan includes construction of a new public sidewalk in the Yost Boulevard right-of-way fronting the site. An existing 22-foot service drive on the north part of the site would be converted from pavement to turf, and a new 10-foot-wide non-motorized path is proposed.

The project had previously received approval from the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner for its stormwater system, using bioswales and underground pipes in the parking lot area. Since then, changes were made to the city’s landscape ordinance, which now requires additional modifications to the bioswales and an additional review by the water resources commissioner. That approval is required before the site plan will be placed on a city council agenda. The bioswales will be planted with native vegetation, including trees, and will also act as the required interior parking lot landscaping.

Site Plan for Former Frank’s Nursery: Public Hearing

Two people spoke during the public hearing. Damien Farrell, the project’s architect, said he was there on behalf of the owner [Renken Associates] to answer any questions.

Dennis Ritchie told commissioners that he’d lived for 35 years in a home just south of the Washtenaw Avenue property, and he was pleased to see improvements in the shopping district. It would do nothing but improve his experience as a homeowner if a viable business was located there, he said. The Dollar Tree is less of a problem for him than Frank’s Nursery was – now there’s no one on a PA system saying there’s two bags of sheep shit to be loaded, he quipped.

Ritchie noted that the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority intends to create a pullout along that stretch of Washtenaw Avenue. He wanted to ensure that the site plan wouldn’t have an impact on that project.

Site Plan for Former Frank’s Nursery: Commissioner Discussion

Tony Derezinski agreed that having a vibrant business was better than a vacant property, as is now the case. The site is one of the major pieces in the Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue project, he said, noting that it was part of the bus tour that commissioners had taken earlier this year during their retreat. [The revitalization effort focuses on a five-mile stretch between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which also crosses land within Pittsfield and Ypsilanti townships. It's the county’s most congested – and, in many sections, blighted – commercial corridor. For background, see Chronicle coverage: "County Board Briefed on Washtenaw Corridor"]

Wendy Woods asked where the pedestrian crossing would be across Washtenaw Avenue. At the intersection with Pittsfield Boulevard, Rampson answered. Woods then asked whether the Reimagining Washtenaw project team is still meeting, and if another crossing is being considered? [Arborland is located across the street from the site that was being discussed by the planning commission. There is no bus stop currently in that area on the Arborland side, so people using the bus must walk across Washtenaw, a high-traffic roadway.]

Derezinski said that the AATA had been unceremoniously thrown out of Arborland – the owners of Arborland no longer wanted a bus stop within the shopping complex, and it had been removed in 2009. The stop is now located on the opposite (south) side of Washtenaw Avenue. There’s the possibility of putting a stop on the north side, he added, on property not owned by Arborland, but that hasn’t been finalized.

As for Reimagining Washtenaw, there had been a personnel transition, he said. Anya Dale, the former Washtenaw County planner who staffed the project, has taken a job at the University of Michigan. Derezinski said he’s talked with Mary Jo Callan, head of the county department that’s now overseeing the project – he reported that Callan is determined to keep it alive.

Rampson noted that while the only pedestrian crossing now in that area is at Washtenaw and Pittsfield, the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) is working on an pedestrian underpass project at Washtenaw and US-23. As part of that, there’s discussion about the possibility of a pedestrian crossing at Washtenaw and Yost, she said. City planning staff will be meeting with MDOT officials later this month to talk about these possibilities.

Kirk Westphal asked about the materials that would be used on the building. Farrell said his client had been negotiating with a potential tenant for a long time, and they hadn’t yet settled on specifics. If the tenant signs on, they’ll have some of their own requirements, he said.

Bonnie Bona questioned why there’s a 40-foot-wide lane in the parking lot – is that necessary? Farrell said that’s the way the site is currently configured, and there are no plans to change it. Bona suggested alternatives that would narrow the lane, such as increasing the size of traffic islands or adding more landscaping.

Bona also pointed to landscaping on the building’s east side, and said that might be an opportunity to create some public space, like an area for outdoor seating.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the site plan. It will now be forwarded to the city council.

Annexation of Scio Township Parcels

On the agenda was a request to annex seven parcels from Scio Township – totaling about 2.94 acres – and to zone them R1C (single-family residential). The sites are: 545 Allison Drive; 427 Barber Ave.; 3225 Dexter Road; 3249 Dexter Road; 3313 Dexter Road and a vacant adjacent lot; and 305 Pinewood Street. The annexation and zoning also requires city council approval.

The sites are located in a recently expanded well prohibition zone related to the Pall/Gelman Sciences 1,4 dioxane underground plume. Pall is paying for the hook-ups to city water and sewer, according to city planning staff.

No one spoke during a public hearing on the annexation.

Chris Cheng of the city’s planning staff clarified that the master plan calls for all parcels there to be zoned R1C.

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously recommended annexing and rezoning the Scio Township properties. The request will be forwarded the city council for approval.

Honoring Jean Carlberg

At the start of Tuesday’s meeting, the commission presented a resolution of appreciation to former commissioner Jean Carlberg, whose term ended June 30. She served on the commission for 16 years.

Jean Carlberg with her husband, Bunyan Bryant Jr.

Carlberg is a Democrat whose 12 years on the city council – representing Ward 3 from 1994 to 2006 – overlapped with her time on the planning commission. After stepping down from the commission, she is no longer serving on any other city government boards or commissions. She is a board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, a nonprofit consortium of groups working to end homelessness in the county.

The resolution of appreciation – read by planning commission chair Eric Mahler – cited Carlberg’s “thoughtful and pragmatic approach to projects and issues being considered by the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission,” and stated that she “provided innovation, leadership, equanimity and tireless diligence to the City Planning Commission and the City of Ann Arbor in the interest of the City’s planning efforts.” The resolution stated that the commission will miss her “knowledge, expertise, thoughtfulness and quiet humor.”

Carlberg was on hand to accept the resolution, which was given to her on a wooden plaque. She told her former colleagues that she learned a lot during her tenure, both from the planning staff and from the other commissioners, who bring a breadth of experience to their discussions. The diverse backgrounds of commissioners are a benefit, she said, with each person raising individual concerns from their perspectives.

”I miss you all. I miss the work,” Carlberg said. She received a round of applause from commissioners.

Eleanore Adenekan was appointed in July to replace the position vacated by Carlberg.

Misc. Communications

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, gave several updates. She reminded commissioners that their next regular meeting would be on Thursday, Sept. 8, following the Labor Day holiday. Their next working session, on Tuesday, Sept. 13, would be devoted to a talk on sustainability by Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan’s urban and regional planning program. [Planning commissioners had been briefed on the city's efforts to develop a sustainability framework at their working session earlier this month. The park advisory commission received a similar briefing at their Aug. 16 meeting.]

Rampson also said that the Summers-Knoll School project is being revised. At its May 17, 2011 meeting, the planning commission had granted a special exception use to allow the school to move to a building at 2203 Platt. At that meeting, commissioners had asked that the school add a continuous sidewalk along the east side of the building, and ensure clearly defined walkways to all of the entrances. In addition to that work, Rampson said, school officials have also decided to change the configuration of the parking lot, and have asked for an administrative amendment to do that work. It does not require additional commission approval.

Rampson also reported that developers on several projects are asking for site plan extensions. These are site plans that have been approved by the city council, but that haven’t yet been constructed. City code allows for extensions of that approval in two-year increments, she explained. Now the city staff are reviewing the projects to make sure they still conform with city ordinances, which might have changed since the projects were initially approved. For example, the city council gave final approval in January 2011 to a set of changes in the city’s zoning code for regulations affecting area, height and placement (AHP). The city’s landscaping ordinance has also been recently revised.

There are requests for site plan extensions on four projects: (1) The Gallery planned unit development (PUD) on North Main, at the site of the former Greek Orthodox church, (2) the 42 North residential development at Maple and Pauline, (3) the Forest Cove office building on Miller, and (4) the Mallets View office building on Eisenhower.

During his communications from city council, Tony Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on city council, mentioned that a final meeting for the R4C/R2A advisory committee is tentatively set for Sept. 21. He noted that the 21st is also Saint Matthew’s Feast Day, which he said might help the group finish up the project. [See Chronicle coverage: "No Consensus on Residential Zoning Changes"]

Present: Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Eleanore Adenekan, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods, Tony Derezinski.

Absent: Evan Pratt.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Thursday, Sept. 8 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The sites are located in a recently expanded well prohibition zone related to the Pall/Gelman Sciences 1,4 dioxane underground plume. Pall is paying for the hook-ups to city water and sewer, according to city planning staff.

This brief was filed from the planning commission’s meeting in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Liz Rother attended her first meeting as an Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commissioner on July 13. Her appointment was approved by the city council in June – she replaced Jennifer S. Hall, whose term had expired and who was term limited.

A subcommittee of GAC has been evaluating a potential greenbelt boundary change since November 2010. Options included expanding in Salem Township and Lodi Township to “square” off the boundaries, and allowing properties adjacent to the greenbelt to be eligible for the program. Another option would be to create a one-mile “buffer” around the existing boundaries, and include properties within that buffer if they met stricter criteria. Whatever recommendation GAC eventually makes would require Ann Arbor city council approval.

Also at July’s meeting, commissioners got an update on Scio Township’s land preservation efforts from Barry Lonik (a consultant who works with the township) and Bruce Manny (a member of the township’s land preservation commission). Lonik noted that the township’s 10-year, half-mill land preservation millage expires in 2014. The land preservation commission would like to get a renewal on the November 2012 ballot, to coincide with higher voter turnout for the presidential election.

It was the first meeting for GAC’s newest commissioner, Liz Rother, who was appointed by the city council in June to replace term-limited Jennifer Santi Hall. Another position, held by former GAC member Gil Omenn, remains vacant. Dan Ezekiel – who was elected GAC’s chair at the meeting – urged anyone who’s interested in serving on the commission to contact their city councilmember.

During his communications to fellow commissioners, Ezekiel noted the recent death of “Grandpa” Don Botsford, calling him a real pioneer and champion of land preservation in this area. Botsford was man who lived in poverty rather than sell his land to developers, Ezekiel said. He eventually sold part of his property’s development rights to Scio Township, in partnership with Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program – it’s now known as the Botsford Recreational Preserve, near M-14 and Miller Road. Botsford introduced thousands of people to the natural environment, Ezekiel said, so it was fitting to note his contribution and his passing.

Scio Township Land Preservation

Barry Lonik and Bruce Manny of the Scio Township land preservation commission had been invited to give GAC members an update on land preservation efforts in the township. They were asked specifically to update GAC about how Scio Township is prioritizing its acquisitions to preserve land. Lonik – of Treemore Ecology and Land Services – is a consultant for Scio Township, working on land preservation issues.

The prioritizing process took about a year and was just recently completed, Lonik said. The commission had reviewed applications they’d previously received but hadn’t acted on. Since Scio Township voters had approved a land preservation millage in 2004, the township had completed nine projects, he said, but there are about two dozen others that the commission hasn’t acted on. These applications hadn’t received high scores on the scoring system that the township uses to rate potential acquisitions. For some of them, Scio Township had approached potential funding partners, he said, but no one had been interested, and the applications languished.

In taking a closer look, Lonik said he realized that the applications weren’t the greatest properties. It seemed the land preservation program wasn’t attracting higher priority properties in the township. So at that point, the commission started a process of prioritizing. Lonik referenced a May 2010 memo he’d written to the township land preservation commission, recommending critical factors to consider in the three land categories allowed by the land preservation ordinance: farmland, open space, and potential park properties. From the memo:

Farmland critical factors

• proximity to protected land: properties in the vicinity of protected agricultural properties, including areas in adjacent townships.
• viable agricultural operation: properties where a functional agricultural business is located or is integral to a business.
• blocks of farmland: located along the northern, southern and western boundaries, including areas in adjacent townships.
• scenic: visible from publicly accessible areas (roads primarily).
• soils: highest quality soils for agricultural production.
• size: properties large enough to utilize modern farm equipment.

Open space critical factors

• Huron River Watershed Council bioreserve area: high or medium priority.
• water quality protection: containing a seasonal or perennial stream, or wetlands that provide stream buffers and/or serve as headwater areas.
• corridors and blocks: properties that could add to existing blocks or provide links for wildlife and/or people.
• public access: properties that could be purchased and made available to the public.
• scenic: visible from publicly accessible areas (roads primarily).
• parcel size: properties of a sufficient size that important features could be protected.
• development potential: properties on which structures could be built, which would diminish open space values.

Park critical factors

• size: a regional park large enough to accommodate developed recreational activities.
• location: a more central location to provide easy access to the greatest number of residents.
• visibility: to provide a feeling of safety and for easy way-finding.
• topographic features: a sizable number of acres must be fairly flat to develop sports fields.
• surrounding land use: proximity to higher density residential was a positive, while either entirely rural surroundings or scattered large lot residential was not.
• features diversity: having features such as forest fragments, streams and ponds as well as large open space for active recreation.
• access: properties along major corridors were given a higher rating than property along gravel raods and along minor, less traveled roadways.

Lonik said he’s tromped around Scio Township for about 15 years, and has a good sense for where higher priority properties are located. He developed the list of critical factors – outlined in the May 2010 memo – by using his own knowledge of the area, the ordinance requirements, and the scoring system that’s been used by the township land preservation commission.

Barry Lonik, a consultant for Scio Township, talks about land preservation priorities for the township.

He said he then listed each property that had any natural resource value in the township, and assigned each property a high, medium or low priority in each category of land (open space, farmland or parkland). Lonik said he didn’t want to publicize the list of landlowners at this point, even though the township isn’t actively trying to acquire these properties.

The township also hired Carlisle/Wortman Associates, an Ann Arbor-based planning firm, to develop a series of maps, which show where the priority properties are located in relation to: (1) bioreserve areas in the township; and (2) the township’s master plan designations. Another map shows the high priority properties in relation to areas that are already protected – either by the township’s programs or others. One map shows only the high priority properties in each category, and another map indicates the location of all priority properties – high, medium and low.

Some applications are already in hand for properties that have been identified as high priority, Lonik said. In addition, the township has sent letters and applications to landowners of all high, medium and low priority properties, asking them to apply to the land preservation program. Finally, Lonik said he’ll be personally contacting the owners of all land designated as high priority, to encourage them to apply. Often, people are reluctant to apply to a program blindly, without first establishing a relationship and getting more information, Lonik said.

He thanked GAC members for the partnerships the greenbelt program has already done with Scio Township, and said he looked forward to many more. Lonik noted that the township’s 10-year, half-mill land preservation millage expires in 2014. The land preservation commission would like to get a renewal on the November 2012 ballot, to coincide with higher voter turnout for the presidential election. It’s likely a renewal will pass, Lonik said, given the history of support for land preservation by township residents. The original millage passed with 76% of the vote, and the more recent countywide millage for the Washtenaw County natural areas preservation program was supported by 63% of voters in Scio Township.

Scio Township Land Preservation: Commissioner Discussion

In response to a question from Catherine Riseng, Lonik said that of all the high priority properties, only four are for possible parks – most are open space parcels. The township doesn’t own any park properties, Lonik noted, but that’s of interest in the future, assuming that township officials can find land with the right qualities – located with easy access to the township’s population centers, with a mix of open land for fields as well as natural areas. Not many properties meet those criteria, Lonik noted. Of the roughly 100 priority properties he’s identified through this process, about two-thirds of them are open space, as opposed to farmland or potential parkland.

In response to a query from Dan Ezekiel, Lonik told commissioners that about 8,400 acres of farmland have been preserved countywide in the past 15 years or so. That amount includes land protected by a variety of programs, including township preservation millages, Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, the county’s natural areas preservation program, state easements and land conservancies. By next year, that number will likely push past 10,000 acres, Lonik said. It’s really extraordinary, he said, considering that the first deal occurred just recently, in 1997, when the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy protected property at the corner of Prospect and Geddes roads. He noted that Manny’s farm on Parker Road in Scio Township was among the first farms to be preserved.

Ezekiel observed that the greenbelt program had participated in protecting 3,200 acres. He then asked whether Lonik knew if Saginaw Forest – a property in Scio Township that’s owned by the University of Michigan – is protected through a conservation easement. It’s not, Lonik said, nor have township officials approached the university about that possibility. In Michigan, state law requires that public entities like UM dispose of their assets at market value, he said – UM couldn’t just donate the property. However, it’s possible that the township or city could buy a conservation easement, if they wanted to, he said.

Ezekiel thanked Lonik for coming, and said it would be great if other townships within the greenbelt did this kind of work. GAC was open to suggestions for partnering on properties in Scio Township, he said, adding that the city was very proud of the properties it had already partnered on with the township: the Fox Science Preserve, Scio Woods Preserve, and the Botsford Recreational Preserve.

Ezekiel also wished Lonik a happy 50th birthday.

Greenbelt Boundaries

At GAC’s November 2010 meeting, commissioners formed a subcommittee to explore possible changes to the existing boundary of the greenbelt district. The intent would be to give the program greater flexibility in protecting desirable properties that fall just outside the current boundaries. [.pdf map of existing greenbelt district] Any changes recommended by GAC would need approval by the Ann Arbor city council before taking effect. Since the Open Space and Parkland Preservation millage passed in 2003, the council has expanded the boundaries once, in August 2007, by bumping out the boundary by a mile.

In introducing the topic at GAC’s July 13 meeting, Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund – which has a contract with the city to manage the greenbelt program – explained the rationale for the subcommittee’s recommendations. She said the subcommittee looked at maps of larger properties inside and outside of the greenbelt, reviewing what’s already been protected and identifying other potential greenbelt property that’s in the Huron River watershed and that contains other natural features.

Trocchio reviewed the subcommittee’s two recommended options:

Option 1:

1. Expand the boundaries in Salem Township and Lodi Township to “square” off the boundaries. The Salem Township boundary would be extended 1 mile to the east so the eastern Greenbelt boundary would be consistent with Superior Township. The Lodi Township boundary would be extended 1 mile to the west and 1 mile to the south so the boundaries would be consistent with Scio Township and Pittsfield Township.

2) Additionally, to allow one of the following: a) Greenbelt’s participation on any property that is adjacent to the Greenbelt boundary, or b) Greenbelt’s participation on any property that is adjacent to the Greenbelt boundary, or extends a contiguous block of contiguous protected land, that is within the Greenbelt boundary.

Option 2:

1) Expand the boundaries in Lodi Township and Salem Township as described above.

2) Create a 1-mile buffer area surrounding the Greenbelt boundary to allow the Greenbelt’s participation, for exceptional properties or if stricter criteria are met. The specific criteria are still to be determined, but examples included: a) if there is a local partner willing to take the lead; b) if it extends a block of protected properties that originates in the Greenbelt boundary; c) significant for protection of Huron River Watershed; d) higher percentage of matching funds; e) or limiting the percentage of funds expended in “buffer” area.

Lodi Township has expressed more of a willingness to work with the greenbelt program in recent years, Trocchio said, even though that township doesn’t have a dedicated millage for land preservation. There are also some great, large farmland parcels in Lodi, she noted. Salem Township is also considering more financial contributions to land preservation, possibly by earmarking $200,000 annually from the township’s landfill revenue for that purpose, she said.

Greenbelt Expansion: Commissioner Discussion

Peter Allen began by saying he didn’t see any downside to Option 2 – were there any? Trocchio said the one possible objection would be that an expanded boundary would push protected land farther away from the city.

Map of Ann Arbor greenbelt with potential expanded boundaries. The solid green line indicates the current boundary. The dotted green lines in the lower left (Lodi Township) and upper right (Salem Township) indicate proposed "bump outs." The black line indicates a potential one-mile buffer zone. (Links to larger image.)

Dan Ezekiel, who chaired the boundary subcommittee, noted that distance from the city was a matter of degree. Everything within the expanded boundary would still be within an easy hour bike ride from downtown Ann Arbor – that’s his rule of thumb. He also noted the greenbelt program had vastly more partnership opportunities now than when the program started with the original boundaries. For example, Washtenaw County’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP) was modified last year to allow the county to spend up to 25% of its millage on the purchase of development rights for farmland. [See Chronicle coverage of a presentation on the county's efforts at GAC's March 2011 meeting.]

Laura Rubin asked whether there’s been a decrease in applications to the program from landowners within the existing greenbelt boundaries. No, Trocchio said – the program completed an unprecedented number of deals last year.

In that case, Rubin said, one of the cons to expanding the boundaries might be that there are still opportunities for protecting land closer to the city, closer to Ann Arbor taxpayers who are paying for the program.

Mike Garfield said that one issue is interpreting the intent of Ann Arbor voters who approved the millage. The original boundaries were set more by art than science, he noted. Garfield said he didn’t have a strong opinion about it, but that it made sense to take advantage of opportunities – when valuable properties become available, it’s beneficial to be able to act, as long as the properties aren’t too far from the city. He pointed out that the last time GAC considered expansion, he resisted expanding the boundaries in Lodi Township, because township officials hadn’t been receptive to the program. That’s now changed, he said. It looks like there are a lot of properties worth protecting in the expanded areas. While the program needs boundaries, it hurts not to be able to protect land that’s close, but not within the borders.

Allen suggested supporting Option 2. Tom Bloomer then weighed in, saying he wasn’t necessarily opposed to the expansion, but he wanted more time to think about it. He was particularly interested in flexibility for properties adjacent to the greenbelt, owned by the same person. Bloomer, a Webster Township farmer, was less certain about a general geographic expansion of the boundaries – he said he didn’t want to just keep expanding, because it runs the risk of diluting the program’s efforts.

Ezekiel pointed to one example of a property owner holding land on both sides of a road – one parcel was within the greenbelt boundary, the other was not. The greenbelt program was able to secure matching federal funds for the portion within the greenbelt, but not for the adjacent land that fell outside the boundary.

Carsten Hohnke, a commissioner who also represents Ward 5 on Ann Arbor city council, supported Bloomer’s desire to postpone action. He cited concerns he’s heard expressed by people who feel there’s still land that can be preserved within the existing boundaries, closer to the city. Though it isn’t explicit in the ordinance, he said, there was a good community discussion before the 2003 vote about where the boundaries would be, and that needs to be taken into account. He thought the notion of loosening language to allow for protecting properties contiguous to the greenbelt made sense, in that it would eliminate the “across the street” issue.

Ezekiel clarified that whatever recommendation is made by GAC would be forwarded to the Ann Arbor city council for approval. He noted that when the original greenbelt boundaries were set, GAC almost immediately found the boundaries too constraining. He wished that Lodi and Salem townships had been included in the 2007 expansion, but the thinking at that time was to expand into areas where townships were willing to partner.

Allen asked Trocchio to estimate how much land within the existing greenbelt boundary has already been protected – 50%? 80%? Trocchio guessed it was probably closer to 20%. Garfield noted that the intent was never to get conservation easements on 100% of farmland and open space. The original idea was to stop sprawl, he said, to help farmers stay on their land and make their operations viable. If there are large blocks of protected farmland, he said, the thought was that it would have a ripple effect that would prevent development.

Bloomer observed that identifying a percentage is a moving target, because the program is voluntary. Land is only “available” for protection if the landowner is interested in being part of the greenbelt program. In the greenbelt’s early days, almost no land was available, he said, because people weren’t familiar with the program. It would be hard to measure a percentage, even now.

Trocchio offered to organize a field trip for commissioners, taking them out to see the proposed expansion and the land that might be available if the boundaries are changed. Ezekiel supported that idea, and said he sensed that commissioners were reluctant to proceed at this meeting. Hohnke then made a motion to postpone, which was seconded by Allen.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone a vote on the greenbelt boundary expansion until GAC’s next meeting. A meeting is scheduled for Aug. 10, but might be cancelled if a quorum can’t be achieved.

Election of Officers, Seeking Another Member

Dan Ezekiel, who has served as GAC’s vice chair for the past year, chaired the July meeting and was nominated as chair. Catherine Riseng was nominated vice chair, after Laura Rubin confirmed that Riseng was willing to do it. Riseng said that although she had concerns about the time commitment, she’d be willing to give it a try – unless any of the other commissioners were “gung-ho” to do it. (Apparently they were not.)

Outcome: Dan Ezekiel and Catherine Riseng were unanimously elected chair and vice chair, respectively.

Ezekiel welcomed Liz Rother to GAC, replacing Jennifer Santi Hall, whose term expired on June 30 and who was prevented by the ordinance that established the greenbelt program from seeking additional terms. Both she and Gil Omenn, who also stepped down from GAC as of June 30, had been term limited. Ezekiel noted that Rother was an accomplished gardener and beekeeper, and had been attending GAC meetings for several months before her appointment was approved by city council at their June 20 meeting.

Three seats on GAC are open to the general public, Ezekiel said – he and Rother now fill two of those seats. But a third general public seat – previously held by Omenn – remains open. The commission’s work is nowhere near completion, he said, and it’s important work. The term runs for three years, and members can serve two consecutive terms. Anyone who’s interested in volunteering can contact their Ann Arbor city councilmember. Unlike most other city commissions, in which members are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by council, greenbelt commissioners are both nominated and confirmed by the city council.

Communications: Remembering Don Botsford

During the July 13 meeting, Dan Ezekiel noted the recent death of “Grandpa” Don Botsford, calling him a real pioneer and champion of land preservation in this area.

By way of additional background, Botsford, 82, died on June 27. He was known for generations for the Ann Arbor Gymkana, which closed in 1986, and for his enthusiasm for spaceball – a game combining elements of basketball and volleyball, played on a trampoline. The Chronicle visited Botsford two years ago: “Back to the Future with Spaceball.” The article quotes Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie, who played competitive spaceball under Botsford’s tutelage in the 1960s.

Botsford was man who lived in poverty rather than sell his land to developers, Ezekiel said. He eventually sold development rights to part of his property in Scio Township – it’s now known as the Botsford Recreational Preserve, near M-14 and Miller Road. Botsford introduced thousands of people to the natural environment, Ezekiel said, so it was fitting to note his contribution and his passing.

Communications: More Notes from the Chair

Ezekiel also noted that GAC’s June 16 open house at the Braun farm went well – certificates were presented to several landowners who had participated in the greenbelt program. The Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township is one of the greenbelt’s more recent protected properties.

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, which manages Ann Arbor's greenbelt program, talks with Dan Ezekiel, who was elected chair of the greenbelt advisory commission at the July 13 meeting.

Ezekiel commended the work of Lisa Gottlieb and Jeff McCabe, who recently completed their “20 hoops in 20 days” effort to build hoop houses at local farms – including some located within the greenbelt. Ezekiel reminded commissioners that the couple, who also run the Friday breakfast salon Selma Cafe, had made a presentation about the hoop house project at GAC’s November 2010 meeting. It was a tremendous achievement, Ezekiel said.

Later in the meeting, Ezekiel noted that Bob Sutherland, owner of Cherry Republic – which recently opened a downtown Ann Arbor story at the corner of Main and Liberty – wants to contribute $2,500 toward land preservation in the greenbelt. The city welcomes these kinds of contributions from private businesses, he said.

Communications: Staff Report

Ginny Trocchio reported that the greenbelt program had received $312,620 from the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) to help pay for the purchase of development rights on the 110-acre Lindemann-Weidmayer farm in Lodi Township. That deal will be going to the city council soon, she said. [The council approved the deal at its July 18, 2011 meeting.]

Trocchio also told commissioners that Gov. Rick Snyder has signed the farmland preservation bill (Public Act 79). The law provides incentives to farmers to pay back defaulted Public Act 116 agreements. Farmers who enroll in Michigan’s Farmland and Open Space Protection Program (PA 116) get tax incentives. However, if they quit the program they must repay the state – if not, the state puts a lien against their property, Trocchio explained. Until now, there hasn’t been a way for the state to collect those funds. Payments would be added to the state’s Agriculture Preservation Fund, which is used to make grants to local communities for the purchase of farmland conservation easements.

Proposed Greenbelt Acquisitions

Near the end of the meeting, commissioners went into a closed session to discuss land acquisitions. They emerged after about 45 minutes and voted on two resolutions:

1. a resolution recommending that the city council approve spending up to $121,365 in partnership with Webster Township for the purchase of development rights (PDR) on a property that’s in close proximity to other greenbelt parcels.
2. a resolution recommending that the city council approve spending up to $49,500 in partnership with Ann Arbor Township for the purchase of development rights (PDR) on a property in that township.

The properties were identified only by application number – 2011-03 and 2011-02, respectively. The location of the properties and their owners aren’t revealed until the resolutions are voted on by the city council.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the two land acquisition recommendations.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, Mike Garfield, Carsten Hohnke, Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother, Laura Rubin. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 10 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.