Hardy family submits sketch plan, seeks waivers for private access in Barrett Township

Clifford and Carol Hardy asked the Barrett Township Planning Commission on a sketch plan that would subdivide roughly 6‑ and 12‑acre parcels so an existing 2‑acre home occupied by their relative Doug can be conveyed separately, while leaving the remainder in larger parcels. The Hardys introduced themselves during the public presentation and said no new construction is proposed; existing wells and septic systems would remain in place.

The presenter said the primary technical issue is access: a private right‑of‑way that currently measures about 20 feet and serves multiple dwellings does not meet a 50‑foot right‑of‑way standard noted in township guidance. The applicant asked the commission to be open to recommending waivers because the narrower access has served the properties for decades and widening to 50 feet would place a new travel surface close to existing buildings.

A planner explained the subdivision rules the commission follows, noting minimum lot size is two acres and that a private access definition and cartway standards (a 16‑foot travel way plus shoulders) affect whether the parcel could be further divided. The planner said the remaining 3.5‑acre parcel could not be split into two buildable lots under the two‑acre minimum, which narrows the scope for future development of the remnant acreage.

Cliff Hardy described family ownership dating back generations and said he intends to put the land into a trust to keep "Hardy Town" unchanged. "If it's up to me, it's going to stay there forever," he said, emphasizing the sketch plan is meant to correct title and not to increase density.

Commissioners and reviewers discussed technical alternatives, including maintaining a 16‑foot travel way within the existing private access and granting a waiver for full right‑of‑way width where appropriate. Commissioners said the longstanding use of the drive and the desire to avoid demolition near historic buildings weighed in favor of a waiver recommendation in principle, but asked the applicants to return with a final plan showing recorded access, exact widths at culverts and narrow points, and any easement language.

The commission did not take a final vote on the waiver at the sketch‑plan stage; members signaled willingness to recommend needed waivers after staff review and receipt of a final plat. The presenter was directed to prepare the formal subdivision application and supporting measurements for commission consideration at a subsequent meeting.