Lake Policing In Danger

It appears likely that regular lake patrols by the Oakland County Sheriff's marine division will cease in the 2010 season due to budget cuts. The question facing some lakefront residents in Orchard Lake, if this happens, will be whether they are willing to pay for this service.

Let's take one lake as an example: Orchard Lake. It's the simplest to deal with because it lies entirely within the city limits, has an existing sheriff's patrol on busy days, and has an existing special assessment for lake purposes.

The assessment has existed for a number of years and is collected only from riparian owners on the lake, not from other citizens. Owners of property directly on the lake pay $140 a year. "Backlot" owners pay $96. This raises a bit more than $30,000 a year, most of which goes to pay for annual weed harvesting. However a small amount pays half the cost of stationing a part-time police officer at the state launch site -- the city pays the rest. This was done to prevent problems on both land and water during the heaviest use times.

The sheriff has not provided a figure yet for the cost of maintaining the lake patrol. But as a riparian owner on Orchard Lake myself, I would be willing to shoulder my share of the cost because I believe law enforcement on the lake is essential. This could be done by expanding the current assessment. My recommendation would be that we drop the police presence at the launch site as a savings, and because enforcement on the water is more important.

How to answer this question on the other lakes is more complicated. Only a fraction of the Cass Lake shoreline is in our city and getting agreement among owners would be more difficult. Upper Straits Lake could be easier because it is split between the municipalities of Orchard Lake and West Bloomfield, and has a strong lakefront property-owner association already.

It's time to discuss and deal with this now so that we're prepared for 2010.

HOW ORCHARD LAKE VOTED 11/06

In my post following the August primary I questioned whether the number of votes on the Republican ticket really indicated political party preferences in our city. Last Tuesday's results support what I said then.

While Orchard Lake voters remain heavily Republican, Gov. Granholm got four out of every 10 votes cast in Orchard Lake.

Here's how our voting compares with the county as a whole:

First, we had better turnout -- 68.29 per cent of the city's registered voters participated. Countywide turnout was only 58.61. (This was called a "heavy" election but I wonder why so many voters didn't care enough.)

Absentee voting continues to be very popular. Fully one-third of Orchard Lake's 1,206 voters on Tuesday were absentee.

Now, here's how our votes compare with the whole county (or in some cases with the whole district in which legislative candidates were running). The percentages are shown for the winning side in each case. The first number is the county or district total; the second is Orchard Lake. Example: Granholm got 54.03 per cent of all Oakland votes but only 40.75 per cent of Orchard Lake votes.

GRANHOLM 54.03/40.75

STABENOW 53.30/41.22

KNOLLENBERG 51.53/64.09

SPECTOR (county commission) 50.93/34.73

PROPOSAL 2 (ban affirmative action) 57.15/62.91

Finally, voters did discover that three of us were running for City Council, but since there was no contest and this was low on the ballot, many voters ignored it. Among the 1,206 voters, barely 700 cast Council ballots. Nevertheless, I and my fellow councilmembers (Pete Russ and Jerry Kosmensky) thank you for your support.

ARE WE THAT REPUBLICAN?

In the Aug. 8 primary there were four times as many Republican ballots as Democrat in Orchard Lake. Does that actually represent the political division of our citizens? Probably not.

I believe there are a lot more Democrats. What skewed these numbers were two things. First, there were more prominent contests among Republican candidates, bringing the GOP faithful to the polls. Second, in our Congressional district there was a highly publicized battle between incumbent Joe Knollenberg and challenger Pan Godchaux (who lost).

Godchaux publicly encouraged Democrats to vote for her by using the Republican side of the ticket (in Michigan primaries a voter can choose to vote in either party but must stay within the chosen party's column for all candidates). This undoubtedly caused a number of "real" Democrats, as well as independents, to use the GOP ballot in order to support her.

The strategy wasn't enough. Knollenberg got 69.8 per cent of the vote in his ticket. We won even bigger in Orchard Lake, getting 78.2 per cent.

Why Does That House Take So Long?

One of the most common complaints the City hears is the extraordinary time needed to complete some new home construction.

It is not unusual these days for work on a large home to take more than two years, and in a few cases three or four years. During this time there often is noise and distruption of the neighborhood.

Can anything be done about it? As a member of City Council and as a past mayor I have heard numerous discussions of the problem, but very limited solutions.

There are two major obstacles. The City cannot simply stop construction, and if that were the penalty for delay it would merely cause even more delay. The owner cannot be financially penalized (fined) for delay, because by law the permit process allows fees to be no higher than the cost of providing the inspection service.

Permit fees for all construction are set by a formula that takes into account the projected building cost, and for large homes can be relatively expensive. When the initial permit period expires the owner must apply for an extension and pay another smaller fee.

At one point the City adopted a rule that required each repeat extension to increase in cost, but this was deemed to violate the rule that fees could not exceed the City's costs.

For practical purposes there is no limit to the number of extensions, but as they increase the level of approval gets higher, so that long projects require action by the City Council. At this point the owner typically is questioned in detail about the reasons for delay and what can be done to get faster completion.

Although some owners have asked for extensions as long as a year, Council prefers to limit them to six months so that owners must appear again to report their progress.

Generally the City seeks to speed up exterior construction and landscaping first, so that the house from the outside appears largely complete. Interior detail is frequently most time-consuming.

What can neighbors do? First, they should insist that construction sites be kept clean. Unnecessary debris or storage should be reported to the City's building official. Second, they should keep track of permit renewals and register their complaints when the renewals are being considered, especially those that are heard by the Council.

HOW TO GET A ZONING VARIANCE

Zoning variances are a mystery to most citizens, including those who actually ask for one. Here is a description of the process and how you can use it.

A variance is an exception from the zoning laws for a particular property. In effect, it allows the owner to sidestep the law because of unique circumstances.

Variance requests are presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which in Orchard Lake is the City Council wearing a different "hat." The ZBA acts as a kind of court. Granting a variance requires a majority vote (four or more) of all members, not just a majority of those members in attendance.

After more than six years, I calculate I have heard some 300 variances as a ZBA member. The most common problem I find is that applicants do not fully understand the process. Many present their own cases but others are presented by architects, lawyers, etc. The better the presenter knows the law the better the chances.

First, please understand that the ZBA does not exist to make variances easy to get. Experts say that if ZBAs act favorably more than 20-25 per cent of the time, there is a problem with the underlying zoning laws -- which were written to protect the whole community.

The City recently rewrote the variance application to fully advise applicants what they must do to win a variance. These "hurdles" are important because the ZBA does not have unlimited discretion -- it can't approve a variance merely because the applicant tells a good story, because there are no neighborhood objections, because "this won't do any harm," and a host of other reasons commonly used.

Most variances are "dimensional" -- they involve something like a setback, building height, or the size of the structure in ratio to the lot size. To approve a variance, the ZBA must FIRST find that the property has a "practical difficulty" affecting the proposed construction. An example would be an unusual terrain condition.

This difficulty must arise from the land itself, not from the owner's personal circumstances or desires. As the application form states: "A greater return (bigger structure, more profit, etc.) is not sufficient grounds for a variance."

In addition to showing a practical difficulty, the applicant must demonstrate that ALL of the following are true:

* That the circumstances are unique to this property, not found on other properties in the same area or zone.

* That the variance provides substantial preservation of a property right.

* That it does not adversely affect adjacent property owners.

* That it will not materially impair the intent of the zoning ordinance.

* That the need for the variance was not self-created by the owner or previous owners.

As the application states, "The ZBA has no power to legislate or create new regulations; its purpose is to provide some relief...depending on the unique circumstances of the property."

Final advice: if you want a variance, read the application carefully, answer it fully, and make your presentation conform to the issues that the ZBA is required to consider.

UPDATES ON COUNCIL ACTION

At its April 17 meeting, City Council took action on two matters described in earlier items in this Chronicle (see them below):

LAKE ASSESSMENT: Council resolved to begin necessary action to renew the Orchard Lake special assessment for five years. The tax roll will be presented at the next meeting.

BUILDING RULES: Council approved an allowance for overhangs on new houses, which will in some cases allow a house to occupy a slightly higher percentage of its lot. Separately, it discussed at length the recommended changes in building height and sent the proposal back to the Planning Commission for possible changes.

LAKE ASSESSMENT ON AGENDA

City Council will consider renewing the special assessment for lake maintenance of Orchard Lake at its meeting Monday April 17.

The process begins with a public hearing, to be followed by final action in May.

The assessment is paid by all lakefront property owners on Orchard Lake. The new assessment, similar to the one in effect for a number of years, would be $140 a year for owners of direct lakefront lots, $96 for "backlot" owners and $1 per front foot for instititutional properties such as Orchard Lake Country Club.

This would raise $31,000 per year for the five years of the assessment. The largest amount, about $25,000, would pay for weed removal each year. About $5,000 would pay for a part-time police officer on busy days at the state launch site, with the city sharing in that cost.

A seperate assessment for the same group of owners pays for the lake level control facility that allows water to be pumped from Cass Lake, but this does not require renewal.

HOUSE SIZE INCREASES RECOMMENDED

(NOTE: See earlier post below.)

The City Planning Commission approved zoning law changes April 4 to allow taller houses and slightly larger house "footprints" in Orchard Lake. Its recommendation goes to City Council for final action, a process that could commence as early as April 17.

The changes were adopted after a 2.5-hour meeting with spirited questions and comment, but with only five of the nine Commission members present.

One change would allow three feet of additional height on new houses in all zones, except for those with flat roofs. This would raise the current maximum height of 35 feet, or 43 feet for a house with a walkout lower level. However a second change, in the so-called "bonus" allowance for walkouts, would actually permit a house to be 48 feet on its highest side, an increase of five feet from the existing law.

Currently, if a property has a drop of at least six feet somewhere in its footprint, it may be built eight feet higher on the lowest side, for a walkout. The new proposal increases this bonus to 10 feet.

In addition, if the slope within the footprint is at least three feet a bonus of five feet in height would be allowed for "daylight windows" in the lower level.

Separately, the Commission recommended to Council that building overhangs of no more than one foot, plus five inches for gutters, be excluded from lot coverage limits. This would allow owners to slightly enlarge the footprint of new houses if they had such overhangs.

While the overhang question brought relatively little discussion and no outright opposition, building height was debated at length with a variety of alterative suggestions (none of them adopted by the Commission which stuck with its original proposal).

Mayor David Boerger said that in an informal survey of some 20 residents he detected a 50-50 split of opinion. Some residents favored greater height for their own properties, he said, and some because they felt bigger houses nearby would increase their property values. The opposing residents, he said, were concerned about appearance and community character.

City Council may approve or reject the proposals but if it were to make substantial changes they would have to be returned to the Planning Commission for rehearing.