Thompson Township residents question proposed township road, driveway rules

A set of ordinances presented to Thomson Township residents last week has people talking, and not all of them are in favor of more government control over their properties.

At issue are two proposed resolutions that would require a shared maintenance agreement and minimum design standards for private shared driveways and roads in the township. The proposals would ensure safe and adequate access for public safety and to permit future upgrading, proponents on the board say.

More than 40 residents came to a public hearing at the town hall to discuss the draft ordinances on Thursday, Jan. 26, surprising township officials and supervisors with the large turnout.

Township attorney David Pritchett said the ordinances are something the township has been drafting for years, due to the increase in population in the township and safety concerns due to the condition of some private roads and driveways.

"You know, a lot of parcels get divided up and they need access to a public road," Pritchett said. "What we're trying to do is put some rules on how that is accomplished, so that our fire services or ambulance services and public workers can all come out if you've got a problem."

The proposed ordinances define private roads and driveways, would require maintenance agreements for all homeowners on a shared private road or driveway, and outlines violations and penalties for not following the various rules and outlines in the ordinance.

The new ordinances - which are very similar and each 10 pages - would apply to only "shared" roads and driveways, not to private driveways or roads leading to only one home.

That bothers township resident Travis Davidsavor, who questioned the purpose of the ordinances: if it were truly better access for fire, ambulance and police the resolutions should also apply to individual roads and driveways, he pointed out to the board during the meeting and in a letter sent to township zoning official Dan Stangle.

"There were a lot of things in the ordinance that aren't related to safety directly, in my opinion," said Davidsavor, a civil engineer who has written ordinances for clients and sees room for improvement. "It's hard to find another ordinance that has that much packed into it."

Davidsavor shared a number of concerns with township officials. He noted that words like "neat" or "workmanlike fashion" in the ordinance were undefined. He also wondered if he would be allowed to make improvements to his existing home, since the ordinance appears to state that building permits will be denied unless a shared driveway maintenance agreement is in place. Finally, he said a requirement in Section 9 that costs of review by the town engineer, town attorney and other consultants be paid by the applicant were not insignificant and "cannot be 'blue sky'" (or undefined).

Some residents felt the township hadn't done enough homework. Rick Liljegren suggested that the township take some time to determine the difference in rules for newly created private roads and ones that already exist in the township, set up a list of road standards so that residents can see what will be expected of them in maintenance agreements, and potentially offer a boilerplate maintenance agreement for residents to use.

Other residents disagreed with the need for the ordinance entirely.

Township resident Gerald Bittner told supervisors: "I caution you about interjecting too far into things that are maybe not your business. The government seems to be wanting to take the role of the protector and the arbitrator of everything."

Other residents agreed with Bittner's statements during their comments to the board with some questioning why an ordinance needs to be approved at all if the public is against it.

Board chairperson Ruth Janke encouraged township residents to submit their suggestions and concerns to the office in the town hall.

Pritchett said the township is in the early stages and there will be another meeting after the community's comments were taken into consideration.

"Think about how it applies to your property, provide those comments, and then we're going to take that all into consideration," Pritchett said. "At some point, the board will approve this ordinance, it might be a month, it might be six months, it might be a while."

In a phone interview earlier this week, Davidsavor said he felt like township officials heard what the residents were saying. He is hoping the township will form a committee with citizens before they take any more steps. He's willing to volunteer, he said.

The township will publish a notice of the next public hearing on its website and in Pine Knot public notices, which they did in advance of last week's meeting. Currently, the township is not sending out any physical notices of hearings by mail.

Many residents did receive a notice before Thursday's meeting, but those weren't sent by the township, perplexed township officials said.

"It seemed like they were frustrated that a citizen sent out the notices, but I see it more as a service to the community," a grateful Davidsavor said.

Draft copies of the proposed private road and private driveway ordinances are available on the township's website at thomson.govoffice.com.

Pine Knot News editor Jana Peterson contributed to this story.