Planning commission recommends Turkey Foot Road subdivision with sidewalks, rejects fee‑in‑lieu

Peters Township planning commissioners voted to recommend approval of the Turkey Foot Road preliminary subdivision plan after debating pedestrian access, emergency connectivity and open‑space options.

Staff presented the proposal to subdivide roughly a 13‑acre portion of a 30‑acre parcel into 15 lots, describing steep slopes on the upper ridge, two transmission lines crossing the property and existing sanitary sewer and utilities serving the site. Staff said storm water would be handled by two ponds in easements and that an impact fee of $2,153.33 per lot would be assessed at building permit. Staff recommended conditional approval pending outstanding technical review comments, a decision on sidewalks and consideration of whether to request a future interconnection to adjoining land.

Commissioners debated three central issues: whether to require a secondary or emergency access (a township policy generally favors interconnections), whether sidewalks should be installed, and whether to allow a fee in lieu of dedicating on‑site parkland. Staff and the project engineer noted that a potential future connection would likely cross into Union Township and could be difficult or impossible to permit because much of the adjoining land exceeds local slope disturbance limits. Alberta of Gateway Engineers told the commission that “if you read their section, they’re very strict about how much you can disturb in steep slopes,” and that steep terrain would make a road extension hard to permit.

Nearby landowner Charles Tracks Jr. urged the commission to preserve a wide planted buffer between the development and his farm, saying, “Our biggest concern was the noise and the farming operation going on over here,” and asking that buffer plantings and setbacks be maintained. Staff responded that the ordinance requires a 25‑foot Buffer Yard A along agricultural boundaries, to be planted with evergreen trees and two rows of shrubs at minimum sizes, and that plantings and setbacks will be enforced.

On sidewalks, one commissioner argued sidewalks provide safety for children and bus stops and recommended sidewalks on both sides of the interior cul‑de‑sac; other commissioners said the cul‑de‑sac character and limited number of homes reduce the need for sidewalks. The commission clarified the motion to require sidewalks only within the new development’s property lines and for the 11‑home section off the new street, not along the adjacent Mlen Road frontage.

A motion recommending approval passed 2‑1. The motion asked that the developer (1) address all outstanding review‑letter comments, (2) provide sidewalks within the proposed development as described in the motion, (3) not be required to provide a future connection to adjoining property, and (4) not be permitted to substitute a fee in lieu of the open‑space requirement. The planner said the appraisal to set a fee in lieu amount was expected shortly; the commission’s recommendation will go to the board/council for final action.

The commission also noted technical items that remain for final plan review — for example, a required geotechnical report and any revisions requested in review letters — and confirmed that stormwater easements, pond sizing and HOA maintenance responsibilities will be spelled out in final documents.

The commission’s recommendation now moves to the governing board; the planner said staff will forward the record and the appraisal value for any fee in lieu prior to council action.