. 11%;;
Mm ..
Wli ”fl... , um}

‘
1 h..,lnv.

s , “W...
.L.. wztu..mWWwivfln
gag?

" cu. ‘ 3 Jam“

 

 

..
?.
259....

3.04.. At 1.14133”
35.13...” 5:63;:
. ‘ , . 2

 

V ~...I‘.IA~.A> 3...u a ‘5 . 4‘. .‘ . .“h. , . ... r
.. \ .znu u 3.1 ‘ .A .13.“. 3.1

 

 

 

 

Date

0-7639

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCES:
THE EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES
USING THE HEDONIC METHOD

presented by

EIeanor HendeTT Ogilvie

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. 5. degree in Resource Devel opment

 

 

Major professor

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuepss-p. 15

STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCES:
THE EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES
USING THE HEDONIC METHOD

By

Eleanor Wendell Ogilvie

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

2002

ABSTRACT
STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCES:
THE EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES
USING THE HEDONIC METHOD
By

Eleanor Wendell Ogilvie

Stream buffers have been well documented as measures that improve water quality and
provide wildlife and aquatic habitats. Some communities have adopted stream protection
ordinances that require stream buffers or restrict riparian land uses to protect water
quality. Other communities are hesitant to adopt ordinances because of the unknown
effect the ordinances might have on property values. Property values differ due to the
combination of their attributes, such as location, lot size, distance to businesses, and age
of house. The hedonic pricing method enters property attributes in a multiple regression
analysis to obtain an implicit value for just one of the attributes, in this case, a stream
protection ordinance. This study involves two townships in the southern Lower Peninsula
of Michigan. Results of the study conclude that riparian property values after the
ordinances were adopted are significantly greater than non-riparian and riparian properties
before the ordinances were adopted, with all other factors remaining constant. These
results could alleviate concerns that property owners and local planners have about their
property values and suggest to local officials that ordinances can be enacted to protect

water quality without decreasing property values.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
Background To The Problem .......................................................................................... 2
Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 3
Purpose Of Study ............................................................................................................. 4
Local Opinions ................................................................................................................ 5
Significance Of Study ...................................................................................................... 7
Hypothesis ....................................................................................................................... 8
Organization Of Study ..................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2 - REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................. 10
Historical Background of Stream Protection ................................................................. 10
Research Related to Valuing Stream Protection ............................................................ 14
Chronological Development of Research Method ........................................................ 19
Summary of Literature Review ..................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 3 — DATA COLLECTION AND RECORDING ............................................ 23
Site Selection ................................................................................................................. 23
Study Area Description ................................................................................................. 24
Research Entry ............................................................................................................... 28
Cannon Township ...................................................................................................... 28
Meridian Township .................................................................................................... 28
Sources of data ............................................................................................................... 29
Stream Protection Ordinances .................................................................................... 29
Cannon Township ................................................................................................... 29
Meridian Township ................................................................................................. 30
Riparian Parcels ............................................................................................ y ................. 32
Housing Transactions ................................................................................................. 32
Additional information ............................................................................................... 43
Summary of Data Collected .......................................................................................... 44

iii

CHAPTER 4 — METHODS AND PROCEDURES ........................................................... 45

Description of Research Methodology .......................................................................... 45
Hedonic Pricing Model .................................................................................................. 47
Dependent Variable .................................................................................................... 47
Explanatory Variables ................................................................................................ 47
Relationship of Variables ........................................................................................... 47
CHAPTER 5 - RESULTS ................................................................................................... 49
Statistical Procedures ..................................................................................................... 49
Results of Regression .................................................................................................... 51
CHAPTER 6 — DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ................................................................... 55
Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 55
Methodological Assumptions ........................................................................................ 61
Uncontrollable factors ................................................................................................... 63
Evaluation of Methodology ........................................................................................... 63
Limitations and Weaknesses ......................................................................................... 64
Estimation Issues ........................................................................................................... 66
CHAPTER 7 — CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 67
Significance Of Study .................................................................................................... 68
Future Research Considerations .................................................................................... 69
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 71
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 77

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Cannon Township .............................................................................................. 25
Figure 2. Meridian Township ........................................................................................... 26
Figure 3. Population Trends for Meridian Township ........................................................ 27
Figure 4. Timeline of Stream Protection Development ..................................................... 33
Figure 5. Cannon Township Stormwater Management Zones .......................................... 34
Figure 6. Example of Meridian Township Wetlands Delineation Map ............................. 35

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Literature Reviewed in Water Resource Valuation ........................ 22
Table 2. Number of Properties in the Sample .................................................................... 44
Table 3. Comparison of Variables to Theoretical Model .................................................. 48
Table 4. Expected Relationships of Variables ................................................................... 48
Table 5. Statistical Information about the Variables ......................................................... 50
Table 6. Results of Regression Analysis ............................................................................ 52

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Policies and Ordinances of Cannon Township ............................................. 76

Appendix 2. Policies and Ordinances of Meridian Township ........................................... 88

vii

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

Water pollution is a global, regional, and local environmental problem. Tremendous
advances have been made in the past 25 years to clean up aquatic environments by
controlling pollution from industries and sewage treatment plants that discharge pollution
at point sources through pipes, ditches, or sewers. However, these point sources that
contain toxic chemicals and heavy metals account for only 9% of the total surface water
pollution in the United States (Miller, 1992). Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution caused
when stormwater runoff carries sediment, nutrients, and other contaminants into surface
waters, accounts for the majority of the remaining sources of pollution and is considered
a significant threat to water quality in rivers, lakes, and streams (United States
Environmental Protection Agency [US EPA], 1996). Approximately 40% of surveyed
rivers, lakes, and estuaries are not clean enough to meet basic uses such as fishing or
swimming as a result of NPS pollution. These pollutants have harmful effects on drinking

water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and wildlife (U .S.EPA, 1994).

Certain land use activities associated with economic development have been identified as
contributing NPS pollution and degrading water quality. As communities grow and
develop, NPS pollution increases due to increased impervious surfaces and alteration of
the natural hydrology. This relationship presents to communities everywhere the common
struggle between managing growth and protecting the environment. Land use planning is
essential for communities to decide the best present and future use of the land by
mapping out suitable locations for specific land uses, such as residential, industrial, and

waste water treatment plants. Land use planning determines where land will be used, then

zoning regulations control how the land is used. Zoning ordinances can designate areas
for certain types of uses and can protect areas from certain types of development. Zoning
ordinances are administered at the local government level and can only address areas
within the government’s jurisdiction. Federal and state regulations set the minimum

standards by which local officials must abide.

The Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over navigable waters of the state.
Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Natural Resources
oversee the use and protection of the majority of the water bodies in the state. County
drain commissioners have authority to regulate the maintenance and use of designated
county and intercounty drains within their counties. Water does not flow according to
political boundaries, thus the management of water resources requires cooperation and

coordination of all agencies.

BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM

Current leaders in land use planning have been promoting better site design criteria to
simultaneously reduce NPS pollution, conserve natural areas, save money, and increase
property values (Schueler, 1998). One component of better site design is a stream
protection ordinance. Communities have initiated stream protection ordinances to control
NPS pollution and exerted local control over local resource protection. These ordinances
include stream buffer zone requirements, land use setbacks, stormwater management, and
other measures to reduce polluted runoff into streams. Many communities have adopted

stream protection ordinances on the basis of the proven and well-documented

environmental benefits to water quality. Other benefits include increased flood
protection, creation of recreational opportunities, and preservation of wildlife habitats
(Schueler, 1998). Individuals that are affected by these ordinances, however, often need
more justification than “it’s good for the environment.” Residents often equate “good for

the environment” with “bad for economic growth and progress.”

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Changing local land use regulations is a difficult task. Local governments need to
evaluate their current rules and procedures to understand how changes would impact the
cost of development, local liability, public safety, and many other factors, including
property values. Controlled change happens only when these impacts have been

thoroughly addressed and understood.

Information about economic impacts is lacking for local governmental planners to use to
make decisions about environmental protection. No studies were found that specifically
address the implementation of stream buffers on private property or how property values
are related to the adoption of an ordinance. Researchers have scientifically determined
the environmental benefits of stream protection practices in controlling nonpoint source
pollution (Correll, 1999). However, analyses concentrated on the economic effects on
property values where stream protection practices are implemented on small tributaries

and designated county drains are scarce.

Ordinances that protect streams can result in varied and multiple uses for riparian areas.
A riparian buffer is any vegetated area adjacent to a river, lake, or stream. Buffers that are
used for recreation, or serve as wildlife corridors, are often called greenways. Parks,
open space, and greenways are usually considered positive additions to a community,
however, these additions are based on the recreational values, not on the sustainable

environmental protection measures that an ordinance provides.

The effect of stream protection ordinances on property values is difficult to study since
most of the parameters are intangible, such as perceptions of water quality and aesthetics.
The fact is that either “the environment” is important to landowners or it isn’t. This study
assumes that stream protection is an accepted policy goal of the communities that have

adopted the ordinances.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

The purpose of this research is to determine the economic impacts on communities if
stream protection ordinances are adopted. Communities are striving to improve water
quality and stewardship of natural resources. Public acceptance of these initiatives,
however, is ofien based on economic principles. If communities can gain an
understanding of the financial aspects of environmental protection, local officials will be
more easily able to determine what measures will be accepted and approved. The
development and empirical estimation of a hedonic model will demonstrate the economic
influences of a stream protection ordinance. The hedonic pricing method analyzes

property values through identifying all the attributes that are contributing to the value of

the property. The method isolates the housing attribute of a riparian parcel sold after a
stream protection ordinance was adopted from the attributes to determine its contribution
to the property value. The method is an indirectly observed valuation technique where
estimates are obtained from observed behavior, i.e., the sale of a house, and values are
derived from the inferred relationship between the sale of the house and the housing
attributes (Mahan, 1997). The use of the hedonic price method has a distinct advantage of
estimating the actual price paid for the stream protection ordinance, reflecting a true
market value. This study has attempted to determine whether stream protection
ordinances adopted in Michigan communities have had an economic effect on property
values and the amount that homebuyers are willing to pay for the protection of the

stream.

LOCAL OPINIONS

Many individuals involved with local government, water quality protection, and real
estate transactions that were contacted during the collection of the data expressed interest
in the issue under investigation. The purpose of the study was often difficult to describe
to those not in these fields of work or interest. Conversing with experts and sharing ideas
of how to approach the research question proved to be invaluable to the progress of this

study.

Conversations with officials in Cannon Township centered on the complexity of the study
and the understanding that property values in that Township have a multitude of variables

associated with determining a selling price. Additional attributes that are difficult to

measure but important to the characteristic of the Township are the rapid grth of the
Township and its unique recreational opportunities, including a ski resort and three
heavily populated lakes. The officials did not have the opinion that their overlay
protection zones had an effect on property values, but they were interested in being

informed of the results.

The adoption of stream protection ordinances benefits townships by reducing the risk of
homes flooding, because houses are farther from the stream, which reduces the
Townships’ obligation to compensate the homeowners for their losses. Often townships
are liable for damage when areas are zoned for construction and floods in those areas
damage property. With no authority to restrict building in riparian areas, townships are

looking for ways to increase authority and leverage enforcement.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is working with many communities
around the State of Michigan to develop ordinances to protect local water resources.
Employees shared their insight to the difficulties and impediments that Townships face

when trying to enact environmental protection regulations.

Real estate agents that were contacted to assist in the selection of variables often stated
that environmental protection measures are not heavily publicized nor often brought to
their attention. Some expressed skepticism that the overlay zones had an effect on
property values, since they believed that most buyers were not aware of the restrictions or

benefits of riparian buffers.

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

Rural areas in Michigan and elsewhere are experiencing rapid urbanization, often at the
expense of the natural resources in those areas. Stream protection ordinances are
designed to protect riparian areas and preserve water quality of streams. Research has
produced scientific information about the impacts and consequences of the destruction of
riparian areas on water quality (Correll, 1999). Increased awareness of the importance of
riparian vegetation has led many communities to make changes in planning and
development rules for their communities (Schueler, 1995). Ada Township, a community
east of the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, was featured in a newspaper article in March
2002. A proposed stream protection ordinance, intended to protect water quality, preserve
plant and animal habitats, and minimize erosion, was raising concerns among the
residents about how their properties would be affected. Residents believed that many of
the proposed rules would not be enforced, and that not being able to use all of their
property would decrease their land values. The Township officials did not think that the
new rules would lower property values, but evidence was not available to support that

claim.

Changes in rules that affect the environment usually emphasize the physical and
biological impacts that those changes will have on the resource in question. Natural
resource management, however, requires the consideration of social and economic
impacts as well. Scientific knowledge cannot be shaped into effective resource policy
without these considerations (Abdalla and Libby, 1982). This study focuses on the

economics of environmental policy change and the role that economics can play in

formulating and implementing those changes. This research documents the economic
impact of ordinances on property values in certain townships, but the information may be
applicable to other areas and municipalities interested in improving environmental

protection measures or implementing stream protection ordinances.

HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis tested in this study focuses on the role and significance of stream
protection ordinances in determining the sale price of a riparian residential property. The

hypothesis is stated as follows:

0 The presence of a stream protection ordinance has a significant influence on riparian

residential property values.

To test this hypothesis, property value is the dependent variable and the adoption of the
stream protection ordinance is one of the explanatory variables included as a housing

attribute.

ORGANIZATION OF STUDY

A problem-focused literature review is included in Chapter 2, which discusses the
literature covering the importance of stream protection measures, economic methods used
to value stream protection measures, hedonic pricing analysis of water resources, and the

criteria for selecting the characteristics of the selling prices of houses. Chapter 3, Data

Collection and Recording, describes the study areas of Cannon Township, Kent County,
and Meridian Township, Ingham County. The methods used to collect and record the
necessary information for the study is explained, including the challenges and
requirements to access the data. The hedonic price method is presented in Chapter 4,
Methods and Procedures. The theoretical model for the hedonic price method and how
the method was implemented to achieve the objectives of the study are discussed. A
description of the data used in the analysis is also included. The study results are
presented in Chapter 5, and Chapter 6 discusses the results and their implications. The
final chapter, Conclusions, presents a summary of the study, discusses its application, and

suggests topics for firrther research.

CHAPTER 2 - REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The research and development of environmental protection has spanned many decades
and produced a wealth of information. However, a limited number of water protection
valuation studies have used the hedonic pricing method. Those that have used the method
usually estimated the recreational or aesthetic values for lakes or high quality rivers. This
literature review focuses specifically on studies that have used the hedonic pricing

method and other non-market valuation techniques to value water quality as an amenity.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF STREAM PROTECTION

Before urban sprawl, growth boundaries, and cluster development were on the minds of
community planners, Aldo Leopold (1949) was writing of the ecological effects of
abusing the land. His collection of essays in ”A Sand County Almanac” spoke of a land
ethic -— the idea that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts,
including soil, water, plants, and animals. Conservation of these natural resources in the
past was motivated by economic incentives to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation in
streams and rivers by encouraging the farming community to implement erosion control
practices. Extending this concept to the rest of the community is difficult because a
conservation system based wholly on economic motives does not take into account the
fact that most landowners cannot recognize tangible economic values in their land.
Today, decisions are still based on economic evidence to be valid, but a higher land ethic
is beginning to emerge as demonstrated with the adoption of stream protection ordinances

at the local and county level.

10

Schueler (1994) describes the evolution of environmental protection ordinances as
beginning with flooding concerns from increased development that led to stormwater
management ordinances. Soil erosion fi'om increased land disturbances increased
sedimentation in rivers, lakes, and streams, which led to soil erosion and sedimentation
control ordinances. The merging of stormwater management controls with soil erosion
and sedimentation controls enabled communities to connect water quantity and water
quality issues. Schueler argues that the stream protection approach addressed both these
issues and led to an abundance of research on developing criteria for stream protection
ordinances. Cannon and Meridian Townships, selected for use in this study, have adopted
some of the concepts of the stream protection approach and are working toward

improving and preserving water quality in their communities.

Extensive research has demonstrated that Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as
soil erosion and sedimentation control measures, stormwater management, and riparian
land use regulations, such as filter strips and riparian forest buffers, can reduce NPS
pollution (Schueler, 1995). Other environmental benefits of buffers include protecting
aquatic ecosystems, providing safe conduit for potentially dangerous floodwaters,
treating stormwater runoff, and preventing drainage problems for adjacent homeowners
(Schueler, 1995). Some community leaders understand the problems associated with NPS
pollution and have adopted and enforced stream protection ordinances to reduce
pollution. Others, however, are unsure of the economic effects that these measures will

have on property values, thus have not attempted to draft and adopt stream protection

11

measures. Communities are often hesitant to enforce an ordinance or restriction that
could negatively affect property values, since an increase in property values generally
results in an increase in property tax revenues for local governments (Miller, 1992).
However, studies have concluded that policies at. the local level are the most effective
means to increase environmental protection (Sanford and Stroud, 2000). Developers
worry that restrictions on land development make properties less attractive. Property
owners might think of an ordinance as a “taking” of their land. These issues lead to
important water resource management questions. What type of protection measures
should be implemented? What amount are homeowners willing to pay for water resource
protection? What are the economic benefits of protection? This study will attempt to use
an economic analysis to determine the effects on property values when communities

adopt and enforce stream protection ordinances.

Vermont enacted a progressive land development and land use law over 30 years ago to
provide greater control over large developments (Sanford and Stroud, 2000). Act 250
established environmental and planning criteria that were intended to be comprehensive
regulations to preserve the state’s rural character and renowned natural environment.
Sanford and Stroud (2000) evaluated the effectiveness of Act 250 by presenting four case
studies of stream buffer use along Vermont streams. Specific criteria were designed to
protect riparian buffers zones and preserve water quality in streams. The results of the
study found that the law has been applied on a case-by-case basis leading to inconsistent
levels of enforcement and possibly ineffective environmental improvements. Regulations

concerning stream buffers need to be strengthened to include a more consistent

12

application of buffers along streams. The goal of the study was to increase understanding
and improve the role of comprehensive land use regulations for protective buffers.
Management goals could be realized if sufficient support for local zoning and planning
rules is gained. The key result in this Vermont study is that stream protection ordinances
need to be clear on the location where they are to be enforced and in the land use
restrictions that apply in those locations to create a consistent and predictable regulation

throughout the state.

Howarth and Norgaard (1992) addressed the sustainability of environmental protection
measures by illustrating that the incorporation of environmental values in decision-
making will not bring about sustainability unless each generation is committed to
transferring sufficient natural resources and capital assets to the next generation to make
development sustainable. The adoption of stream protection measures ensures the transfer
of natural resources from one house sale to the next, which creates the sustainability for

development that is desired for the next generation.

Municipalities can implement strategies to have effective policies with greater
compliance. Johnston and McCartney (1991) concluded that clearly written statute
objectives and an adequate causal theory underlying the need for the policy enhanced the
policy’s implementation. Other factors, such as the availability of strong sanctions and
incentives, committed and skilled local officials, and support from interest groups were

also found to be important to the development of successful policies. Educating the

13

township officials through demonstrated success of environmental policies will enhance

the enforcement and compliance of these policies.

RESEARCH RELATED TO VALUING STREAM PROTECTION

Stream buffers have been extensively studied for their ability to filter pollutants in
surface water runoff and protect water quality. Woodard and Rock (1991) presented a
study that explained the pollutant reduction capacities of natural buffers in controlling
phosphorus and sediment runoff. Federal programs through the USDA Farm Service
Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service offer funding to landowners to
install buffer and filter strips based on the accepted fact that filter strips reduce nonpoint
source pollution. Three watersheds in the State of Michigan, the Macatawa Watershed,
the Saginaw Bay Watershed, and the River Raisin Watershed, are designated areas for the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which offers incentives to farmers to
install filter strips along all streams and drains. The concept of filter strips and buffers
reducing nonpoint source pollution from agricultural lands has been transferred to urban
and developing lands, to reduce stormwater runoff and residential lawn runoff. Other
amenities, such as protected natural features and open space, are generally agreed-upon
positive qualities (Schueler, 1995). Many different land uses exist in Cannon and
Meridian Townships, and demonstrating the benefits of such ordinances for a broad range

of land uses will assist officials in giving these ordinances serious consideration.

The Natural Rivers Program is a national initiative to protect the riparian zone of prized

rivers. The restriction of certain land use activities in the zones is assumed to produce

14

benefits to water quality. A study conducted by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) in 1979 used a multiple regression analysis to determine statistical
significance of zoning and other variables on riverfront property prices. General trends in
rural property prices for three designated Natural Rivers and three control rivers were
established. The study developed one general equation for all classes of river properties
and a composite average of price per acre for the analysis. The study concluded that the
percent in price increases due to the designation as a Natural River was no different than
in the control rivers. The zoning was one of the several significant factors in determining
price and without employing a hedonic model, the zoning could not be distinguished
among the other variables. Admittedly, this design was unsatisfactory for price prediction
purposes (MDNR, 1979). Leefers conducted a similar study in 1997 to again assess the
economic impacts of the designation of a Natural River. Leefers’s study criticized the
previous study for using a model that did not fit the data, and thus discounted the results.
The 1997 study used the hedonic pricing method and determined that property values
were affected by the Natural River restriction. Two factors were described as economic
forces influencing property values. First, the study suggested that property values decline
on the designated rivers due to restrictions placed on land use. The designation, therefore,
is viewed as an opportunity cost (Leefers, 1997). The second factor described is that the
property values may increase due to the improved and preserved water quality presumed
with a Natural River designation. The study focuses on this second factor, since market
transactions could be used in a hedonic model to determine the non-market value of the
Natural River designation. The study hypothesized that if the net effect of the designation

were positive, then the non-market values of Natural River designation would be greater

15

than the lost opportunity costs of land use restrictions. The author concluded that property

values increased as a result of the Natural River designation in select rivers in Michigan.

A study presented by Mooney in the Proceedings of the 3lst Annual Pacific Northwest
Regional Economic Conference in 1997 investigated residential property values in the
Pacific Northwest where water resources are highly regarded for their fisheries and
aesthetic value. The study used the hedonic method to create a number of linear models,
which established the sale price of the house to be a function of the sale date of the house,
the size of the lot, the size of the house, the age of the house, the length of the riparian
frontage, the area of the lot planted in trees, the quality of the house, and the
neighborhood school district. The results of the model indicated that residents were
willing to pay more for additional riparian footage, and willing to pay less with additional
area of the lot planted in trees. Trees were planted in this area to protect the stream and
provide wildlife habitat. The residents wanted to live on the water, but they did not want
trees obstructing their view of the water. The methods used in Mooney’s study provided
guidelines for important variables to include in the hedonic model used for analyzing
Cannon and Meridian Townships. The results differ, however, since most ordinances in
Michigan do not require trees to be planted in the buffer, but instead contain language
that encourages the natural vegetation, grasses and shrubs which don’t block the view, to

become established and remain undisturbed.

Floodplain management often accomplishes stream protection by limiting development

and alteration of the riparian habitat. Holway and Burby (1990) conducted a study on the

16

National Flood Insurance Program, a federal program that requires local governments to
regulate floodplain land uses to reduce the possibility of property loss due to flood
damages and the resulting insurance losses. The floodplain elevation regulations are
similar to stream protection ordinances in that they both limit development in the riparian
area and place restrictions on the land. The study investigated whether floodplain
elevation regulations were affecting the value of vacant land in areas that were likely to
experience flooding. The study also examined whether floodplain regulations lowered the
development expectations of the owners of land in the floodplain. The conclusions were
that local governments have a much greater influence on the land value and development
potential by utilizing zoning as part of their floodplain program, instead of relying solely
on elevation requirements to reduce flood damages. Local governments often need
stronger regulations than merely satisfying building elevation standards to save on flood

damages and protect the environment.

Zoning regulations can often introduce water and natural resource protection. Planned
Unit Developments (PUDs) have the flexibility in the development process to allow for
significant land area to be set aside for preservation. Rivers, lakes, and streams can be
protected since the designs deviate from the traditional rigid lot standards and incorporate
concepts such as cluster development. Waterfront or natural resource overlay zoning
creates consistency between zoning areas and levels of protection. The Michigan
Township Association has promoted the concepts of waterfront overlay zoning and has
offered guidelines of the necessary components to create an effective policy. To create an

overlay zone, municipalities should develop uniform standards to use throughout the

17

zone, adding to the existing zoning district regulation that traverse the overlay district.
Criteria that a municipality might consider in developing the boundaries of the overlay
zone include: the 100-year floodplain, natural boundaries of wetlands, designated coastal
and dune areas, stream corridors including lowlands and select upland segments, water
associated bluffs and other areas of steep topography contiguous to a water area, and
areas contiguous to shorelines that have been determined to require some form of
additional regulatory control or protection. The purpose of the overlay zone is to protect
the existing vegetation, shoreline topography, and view (PZC, 2000). Both Cannon and
Meridian Townships have followed such guidelines in developing their overlay districts

and associated ordinances.

Waterfront properties have always been desirable housing options. The University of
Maine has conducted studies relating lake water quality to lake front property values
(Michael, et al., 1996). Pompe and Reinhart (1995) studied beach quality and the
enhancement of property values. Both studies related the environmental amenities, water
and beach quality, to waterfront property values, and concluded that a decrease in the
quality of the environmental amenity decreases property values. When lakes are visibly
polluted, swimming and recreational activities are restricted. Trash and unkempt beaches
detract from the pleasure of having beachfront property. The presence of a stream
protection ordinance is not a visible amenity, such as clear lakes and combed beaches,

thus its influence on property values is more difficult to measure.

18

Many studies have shown increases in property values from stream protection measures
that include recreational opportunities. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (1996)
concluded that the creation of Penney Park in Philadelphia was responsible for a 33%
increase to the value of nearby properties. A greenway, described as a riparian area
designed for recreation within a natural buffer, was found to have increased aggregate
property values by $5.4 million, resulting in $500,000 of additional tax revenue per year
in Boulder, Colorado (Fausold and Lilieholrn, 1996). Correll, et al., in 1978, found that
housing prices, also in Colorado, were 32% higher if they were located next to a
greenway buffer. Nationally, buffers were thought to have a positive or neutral impact on
adjacent property values in 32 out of 39 communities surveyed by Schueler (1995).
Steiner & Loorrris (1996) studied stream restoration projects in California that enhanced
buffers, improved habitat conditions, and provided increased recreational opportunities.
Homes situated near the seven projects were found to have a 3% to 13% higher property
value than homes located near unrestored streams. These studies all indicate that
including recreational opportunities with riparian protection usually increases

surrounding property values.

CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH METHOD

Griliches (1967) and Rosen (1974) provided the basic hedonic pricing framework and
defined the use of hedonic modeling. Since then, researchers have been calculating the
implicit price of a particular attribute’s contribution to the total value of a property. Most
studies utilizing this method choose a particular attribute that is measurable or tangible to

isolate from all of the attributes measured, such as lake clarity or the use of a bike trail.

19

A study on farmland used hedonic methods to determine the natural and man-made
factors that affect the price of farmland at the urban fringe (Chicoine, 1981). The model
used property characteristics of distance to urban areas, road type frontage, neighborhood
land use, proximity to a water body, soil productivity, and zoning. The proximity to a
large body of water or a flowing stream was expected to enhance the value for a
residential use, but decrease the value for agricultural use due to the risk of flooding. The
results, however, determined that in the agricultural areas, the negative impact was not
significant. The selection methods and measurements of property characteristics in
determining property values employed in Chicoine’s study were considered when
selecting the characteristics of the parcels in Cannon and Meridian Townships to include

in the study.

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews key aspects of studies that have used pricing models to value water
resources. Table 1 summarizes the water resource studies that have been reviewed that

address river and stream protection.

Several points can be drawn from the valuation studies presented in this section. First, a
variety of techniques have been used to value stream protection and water quality,
including techniques that do not measure benefits, but rather opportunity costs. Second,
different techniques tend to capture benefits from different land uses and the value of

uses being measured tends to overlap with different techniques. The distinction between

20

values that are actually being measured is not exactly clear. For example, while the
hedonic pricing method primarily measures amenity values, values for recreational use
and other perceived uses are also likely being captured. Clear estimates of the total
economic value of stream protection ordinances are difficult to make. Measuring the
benefits of stream protection ordinances is an imperfect science, although meaningful
economic information has been obtained in some settings. The hedonic pricing method is
re-emerging in the economic literature to measure the amount that homebuyers are
willing to pay for stream protection by controlling other variables that contribute to the

selling price.

21

Table 1 0 Summary of Literature Reviewed in Water Resource Valuation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

De ndent E lanato Variables
Authors ngiable x[Identifier]y in Study Results
Chesapeake Bay Property Penney Park Increased nearby property
Foundation, 1996 Maryland values values by 33%
Chicoine, 1981 Farmland Distance to urban area
values Road frontage
Neighboring land use
Proximity to water
Soil productivity
2min
Correll, 1978 Housing prices Greenways Houses had 32% higher
Colorado pricing if next to greenway
F ausold and Lilieholm, Property Greenways Increase of aggregate
1996 values property values by $5.4
Boulder, Colorado million
Holway & Burby, 1990 Land values Floodplain regulations Need zoning as part of
floodplain protection
Leefers, 1997 Sale price per Natural River Some evidence indicates
Michigan Natural Rivers acre designation that property values
increase more rapidly with
designation
Michael, Boyle, & Lakefront Lake water quality A decrease in lake water
Bouchard. 1996 property values quality resulted in a
Maine decrease of lakefront
property values
MDNR, 1979 Sale price Natural River No significant results
MichiggNatural Rivers designation
Mooney, 1997 Sale price Riparian buffer strip Willing-to-pay $48 for
Oregon Sale date additional foot of water
Size of lot frontage
Size of house Willing-to—pay $1.44 less
Age of house for every additional square
Length of riparian foot of riparian area
frontage planted in trees
Area of trees planted
Quality of house
School district
Porrrpe and Reinhart, 1995 Beachfi'ont Beach quality A decrease in beach
Maine property values quality decreased
beachfront property values
Schueler, 1994 Property Buffers Buffers have positive or
United States values neutral impact on adjacent
property values
Steiner and Loomis, 1995 Sales price and Urban stream restoration Restored strleamts’ 111;; ased
California assessed values projects 11);ng va ues y ° to

 

 

 

 

22

 

CHAPTER 3 - DATA COLLECTION AND RECORDING

SITE SELECTION

The initial task to accomplish for this study was to investigate which communities
actually had adopted stream protection ordinances. A review of Michigan township
ordinances revealed that few municipalities had distinct stream protection ordinances.
Cannon Township in Kent County administered the Bear Creek Watershed Project, which
resulted in the development of an ordinance to protect the riparian areas in the watershed.
The Township also has two tributaries included in the Rogue River Natural Rivers
designation and has adopted the Michigan Department of Natural Resources regulations

at the local level.

Meridian Township in Ingham County is involved in the Red Cedar River Watershed
project and has drafted regulations to protect the riparian areas in the Watershed.
Meridian Township is well known as proactive toward conservation of natural resources

as demonstrated by the passage in 2000 of the ordinance to protect wetlands.

Maps of the Townships were secured to identify the rivers, streams, and drains that
flowed through the Townships, and to determine if an adequate number of riparian

parcels existed to be a viable sample for the study.

Cannon and Meridian Township officials understand the importance of local control for

the protection of local resources. These municipalities have implemented enhanced

23

measures to protect their water resources and have spent considerable time and effort to

develop comprehensive local environmental review processes.

STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

Cannon Township is situated in Kent County, Michigan, northeast of the City of Grand
Rapids, Michigan. Bear Creek flows through the southern half of the Township. Barkley
Creek and Rum Creek, tributaries to the Rogue River, flow through the northwest comer
of the Township (Figure l). The Township has experienced rapid growth around its three

major lakes, Bostwick Lake, Silver Lake, and Lake Bella Vista.

Meridian Township is located east of the City of Lansing in Ingham County, Michigan.
The Red Cedar River flows through the southern half of the Township and has been the
focus of many studies and protection efforts (Figure 2). Wetlands are highly regarded in
the Township and were recently delineated to identify areas that required precautionary
zoning to protect the ecosystems. After a development boom in the 1970s, steady growth

has been occurring over the years as a result of continued urban sprawl from the Lansing

area (Figure 3).

24

Figure 1. Cannon Township

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘1
u: *I (1
: , we gnome
" M r’- 'h-
E v g _F
- r , Q
o g5 Juana": id § ,
. T +
.l .
6 .
d
s f . ;
'4? g) I N 5
(I
g/i mi :J Cir-pk ‘ b“ ’
3 E t ’ ,
A; Q ,. O
‘ . - a
II F - 3 9"
r lulu ' § ~ . . g
E I I .
3 tr:2 "' k. z '
(j; I' E mna' '5 roe-Imam? " .
r ‘7 o I
t m "- u
[r oubuu = _9 E g, 1
(ll .5 .‘

 

    

k if " 74er:
3e
1. sunnau
E‘fi‘x

mWalh/C 1 "5

mi .r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

Figure 2. Meridian Township

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

 

a UK
s: ’1? I‘ ’0’ - ‘
. ‘ r‘—'
. l" {5
o If "a l '
I I W3] 4 Rd 9* h
70 "0 in. I
'noil
sir ‘ g
It: I! ». - r
3"
§|a*" .
a“ .9 '
_ U . g
n ‘J _ Juno .
0:;-
I,
do!)
.n ' .25 a
ararllra_ ' o .J‘
(3" >. w 5
.afl ”- n‘ ' 4
g s
Pound? , 9‘. .
a a" - ‘ I we:
I ' ,
I a ID .IJ‘
6
u .-
13} *i
g , » .
a! . J0 R‘ )-

 

 

uonemdod Krunoa tuquu'l

Doodm

000.9:

ooodm _.

OOOdON

08.0mm

. 000.com

08.0mm

000.00%

OOON

000E

0mm _.

Ohm _.

Com F 0mm _. ovm —.

 

~1-

di-

1F-

O

H- 08.0

 

 

rrllfi11r

 

. 08.9
H- 80.3

. 000.0N

 

IWII

. 080m

 

I'll

 

IWTI

uogremdod dgusumol uegpuew

80.0w

 

 

frrr

 

H, 80.00

 

80.0w

 

@3052; 55:52 he museum. noun—sac.— .m «ENE

27

RESEARCH ENTRY

CANNON TOWNSHIP

The offices of Cannon Township provided copies of the ordinances and preliminary
examples of assessment information that would be accessible. Information was available
on request and was freely distributed for the required research. The engineering firm
representing the Township provided a map of the stormwater management zones for the
Township’s stormwater ordinance. The Kent County Drain Commissioner’s office
allowed access to the Sidwell map books, which contained reduced parcel maps of
Cannon Township from Kent County’s Property and Mapping Department. These maps
include locations of all streams and county drains. Scant information was available on
Cannon Township’s website (www.cannontwp.org). The Michigan Department of
Natural Resource’s website (www.michigan.gov/dnr) provided information about the

Natural Rivers Designation.

MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP

Meridian Township’s Code of Ordinances, Zoning Ordinance, and other policies related
to water quality protection in the Township were available from the Community Planning
and Development Office of the Township. The Township also provided a wetlands map
of the Township, illustrating surface water and parcel lines. Information from the
Assessor’s office was more difficult to obtain. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request was necessary to obtain the information about the housing characteristics and the

Township charged for this service. The Ingham County Equalization Department houses

28

the Sidwell books that contained Meridian Township’s riparian parcels. Meridian
Township’s website (www.meridian.mi.us) provided information about Meridian’s 2002
Update of the 1993 Comprehensive Development Plan. Drafts of figures to be included in
the plan were available, which included delineations and facts about demographics,

housing characteristics, land use, community facilities, and the infrastructure.

SOURCES OF DATA

STREAM PROTECTION ORDINANCES

CANNON TOWNSHIP

Copies of the Cannon Township ordinances that pertained to stream protection were
obtained from the Township office. In 1993, Cannon Township’s Master Plan identified
areas of conservation that the Township desired to be preserved and protected. The areas
included the Cannonsburg State Game Area and portions of the Bear Creek Watershed.
Bear Creek flows through the southern half of the Township, before joining the Grand
River in the Township’s far southwest corner. In 1996, the Township adopted an
ordinance that required a 20-foot to 50-foot buffer on Bear Creek and all tributaries in the
Bear Creek Watershed. The Township also enacted rules to parallel the protection
measures placed by the State of Michigan under the Natural Rivers Act for two
tributaries, Barkley Creek and Rum Creek, of the Rogue River that flow through the

Township.

29

The ordinance created an overlay zone that delineated the buffer widths adjacent to the
streams. Cannon Township recognized that irregular protection of rivers and streams
resulted from inconsistencies of zoning, therefore, the boundaries of the stream protection

ordinances were defined on the Township zoning maps and the Master Plan.

MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP

Meridian Township adopted Section 82-16 into their Code of Ordinances in 1977,
creating a Conservancy District within the Township. The purpose of the Conservancy
District was “to protect the natural, human, and economic resources of the Township, and
to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; by application of special
regulations for the use of land which may be subject to periodic inundation at predictable
intervals which may be subject to soil erosion, or which may be particularly suited to
provide for the impoundment of waters for the purpose of stormwater control or
groundwater recharge.” The ordinance was drafted as a flood protection measure to
reduce the risk of damages caused by floods and to protect those areas where flooding
should naturally occur. The Conservancy District consisted of three overlay zones:
groundwater recharge areas, floodway areas, and floodway fiinge areas. The groundwater
recharge areas were determined on a case-by—case basis by a professional hydrologist.
The floodway and floodway fiinge areas coincided with the boundaries for floodways
and floodway fiinge areas as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (panel 0010B,
0013B, and 0015B dated August 9, 2000), and by the Flood Insurance Study, as

published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

30

An Environmental Protection Policy, created in 1991 by the Meridian Township Board,
reinforced the Township’s commitment to protecting the natural resources of the
Township by designating sufficient financial and staff resources to oversee construction
and land use changes that would affect the environment and ensure that all pertinent
permitting and assessment requirements were satisfied before any changes took place.
The observation and evaluation of activities had to be documented in a plan to be

approved by the Township Board.

Section 83-1.11 in the Township Code of Ordinances, adopted September 2, 1991,
addresses riparian areas of water features in the Township to minimize erosion, stabilize
streambanks, protect water quality, and preserve fish and wildlife habitat. Structure and
grading setbacks and natural vegetation strips are required on the edges of wetlands, the
Red Cedar River, open county drains or creeks, and lakes. Natural vegetation strips must
be maintained on the Red Cedar River 25 feet as measured from the abutting ordinary
high water mark. Open county drains or creeks must also have a natural vegetation strip
maintained for 25 feet as measured from the top of the abutting bank. Additional
protection measures for the riparian areas include preserving existing soil, organic matter,
and natural ground cover; prohibiting the application of pesticides, fertilizers, and other
chemicals; limiting vegetation pruning and removal activities; minimizing pathways to
access the water features; and maintaining a live root system to provide for strearnbank

stabilization and erosion control.

31

Appendices 1 and 2 contain the policies and ordinances of the Townships that were
reviewed. Figure 4 compares the time frame in which all of these policies and ordinances

were adopted.

RIPARIAN PARCELS

A map of Cannon Township’s stormwater management zones depicted all of the streams
and drains in the Township (Figure 5). The riparian parcels were identified on that map.
Those identified parcels were matched with parcel numbers using the Sidwell parcel
mapping books in the Kent County Drain Commissioner’s Office. The riparian parcels

were then identified on the sales ratio report.

Meridian Township’s wetlands map illustrated the riparian parcels. The wetlands map
was created from aerial photographs, existing topographic maps, the Ingham County Soil
Survey, the US. Fisheries and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory Map, and the
Michigan Department of Natural Resource’s MIRIS maps to serve as guidance in the
administration of their Wetland Ordinance. The riparian parcels were identified and
matched with parcel numbers using the Sidwell books from the Ingham County
Equalization Office. An example of one section of the wetlands map is displayed in

Figure 6.

HOUSING TRANSACTIONS

The Cannon Township Assessor provided the sales ratio reports for April 1, 1996 to

March 31, 1998. The Kent County Equalization Department generated additional sales

32

 

0001 RE 002 00.0 00.0 0.80

 

08008800058080.808080802 00028888820080.3202
.8058 2.80 s 232% 00 .2 800 080 80 20 200 0802 80.00 020.80 02380
803 200 0880 :. :0 88220 20 2 0820820 . 80038 02.0.5.0 20000:

 

030030.". 05 .«0 00.5002 008.00 00 3002000300 05 090000 0053 «05 0000600 :0 00.0 0003
020.02 0033 $003 0000220 302000.025 0000:0002— .. 30 E. :3 020035. 00.00.02

 

 

 

0300000 2003 0208000 000 000002 on 8 000000000, 02300
02280 .820 0020 03080 08 200 03800 020880 800.5 082280 8020 - Ra 08:0 00.2.5.0 00020:

 

0000220 .00 £05. 000 00000 0008030000
0080200 88:80 803250 8020 80222 032.5... 02.50!

 

0000202 03020 .030 000000000, .2300 «00.0.8 0238M
.2003 2000 208 2000 3-8m 258 02 00 05 .820 2:0 .0020 .0000 8800
0.500 .085 020 0202 820 2000 8020 - 00000020 022.5... 5:50

 

£00.00» 000 2.00 00080w0> 00300 020.com .505
02300 8.8 0a 20 V0.20 0820.20. .0020 220 .0020 80 8800 .0026
.0005 0000220 0002203 0.020 000m 02020 - 000 (E: S 020030h 000000

 

 

.0000 00000:

0002203 0.020 000m 0000—05 .0008 2D 0004 0.0500 00 022000 02< 0000200000 033 00$
_ 03000029000 5 002082 .0203 .50 000300030 000 £00m 028m - 32 EQS 020030h 000000

 

 

_ 0208 00 808200 880820 .80: 0280 820 02:02 .020 2000 288 0202 - :3 0008 00.2.5... 02.50

.005 88802, 052 32-8 8.. 0.202 82.00M 2.200

 

 

 

 

0.0203030 508.20 0.8.00 00 2002:. .0 £00....—

33

ii

mszN
sz2m0<z<2 mmk<>>2mOPm
i .5 a

n=IwZ>>Ok zOzz<0

 

$8 §§00§ L

IIIIIJ

 

bounI-vnud‘um

@

z

 

800N “sauna—.02 08.3.0005 9300308 000000 .m PEER

34

Figure 6. Example of Meridian Township Wetlands Delineation Map

 

 

 

 

 

 

.4
1 e
, 1 -
. L \ a
\ \‘0 __ -p..
'||_IL'-b 1|
..'._] ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘x ‘ i *
l - _. /
TIT g
\ .
._ I «
’ “V.
. .: c ' o ’-
i M ’
_. " __ __ _."“°lo
| 2:- - .—
\U/‘;- - M

35

ratio reports for January 1, 1990 to March 22, 2002. The Department was initially
concerned about the confidentiality of the reports and questioned who would be the end
user of this information, but then determined that no privacy rights had been
compromised. Property sales within the Townships provided an indication of market
activity and interest in these properties. Sales data from “regular” sales, under a warranty
deed or land contract, were selected, since these are more likely to reflect true market
values. Parcels with missing data were not included. A total number of 4,688 housing
transactions occurred in Cannon Township from January 1, 1990 to March 22, 2002,

which represented the potential sampling set for use in the hedonic price model.

From this total number of sales, the resulting number with regular sales and complete
information for that time period was 270 parcels. The greatest increase in the number of
sales has occurred in the past five years, as the agricultural land in the Township is

quickly becoming subdivisions.

The sale prices were adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for housing in the Michigan
residential housing market (www.cconomagic.com). Index numbers estimate the percent
change in price on a typical property over time. The index used equaled 100 in 1982. An
index of 127.4, for example, indicates a 27.4% increase in price since 1982. A Consumer
Price Index that calculated the index as 100 in 2002, if available, could be used to adjust

the prices to current rates.

36

The following paragraphs describe the data collected from Cannon Township in further

detail and ways in which the data were recoded to enter into the statistical analysis.

All parcels have a unique 12-digit number (41-11-24-356-036, for example) by which
they are identified for use by County Equalization Departments, realtors, and others. A
variable was created containing this number. This variable was not used in the analysis,

but was necessary for the assignments of the housing attributes.

The selling price of the parcel sold was listed as net price on the sales ratio report. A
continuous variable was created using the actual sale price of the parcel. Another variable
was created to adjust for inflation and annual growth rates for the area. A price index was
applied to each sale according to the date sold, and an adjusted price was entered as a

continuous variable, equalizing all selling prices to 1982 dollars.

The size of the parcel was listed in the sales ratio report. A continuous variable was

created and listed the size of the lot, down to hundredths of an acre.

The year the house was built was included in the Assessor’s Report from the Township.
A continuous variable was created fi'om this variable which listed the age of the house, as

of2002.

The total living area was listed on the Assessor’s Report. This continuous variable is

expressed in square feet of the living area of the house.

37

The business or village centers in the Township include Lake Bella Vista and
Cannonsburg. Lake Bella Vista is a new shopping and business district that has been
developed over the past ten years for the influx of residents occupying the new homes
around the lakes in the Township. Cannonsburg, however, is a historic town, which has
kept its rural atmosphere and protected its historical integrity. Both of these centers are
important to the Township. A continuous variable was created that listed the distance, in
quarter-mile increments, from a parcel to the nearest village, being either Lake Bella

Vista or Cannonsburg.

Maps provided by the three school districts represented in the Township illustrated the
areas that are within the boundaries of each school district. The few areas in the Forest
Hills School District include portions in the southwest quadrant of Section 32, portions of
the southern half of Section 33, and a portion of the west half of Section 34. The Lowell
School District includes parcels in the southern portion of Sections 25 and 26, portions of
the east half of Section 34, and all of Sections 35 and 36. The remaining area in the
Township, representing the majority of the Township, is in the Rockford School District.
The parcels were first identified by school district, and then indicator variables were
created for each school district to indicate if the parcel was in or out of that school
district. Homebuyers are often looking for houses in a particular school district, thus this
variable could have an effect on property values, depending on the reputation of the

school.

38

An indicator variable was created to identify the parcel as being either riparian (1) or
non-riparian (0). This variable was used to create another variable, which incorporated

the adoption of the stream protection ordinance.

The date of the sale was recorded from the sales ratio reports. The variable was used to

apply the price index for that date to equalize the selling prices.

The date of sale information was also used to create another indicator variable, which
indicated whether the parcel sold before (0) or after (1) the ordinance was passed. Four
indicator variables were then created to code the data as: riparian before the ordinance (1)
or other (0); non-riparian before the ordinance (1) or other (0); riparian after the

ordinance (1) or other (0); and non-riparian after the ordinance (1) or other (0).

Meridian Township’s Assessor’s office provided the sales data, once the F OIA was
completed. Home sales information was collected from September 1, 1988 to
September 1, 1994, which was a sufficiently long time period to establish some trends,
both before and after, of the economic effects of the ordinance. The same Consumer Price
Index was used to equalize all selling prices to 1982 dollars. The database from the
Assessor’s Office for that time period included 1,286 single-family property transfers in
the neighborhoods that were identified to include in this study. Meridian Township’s
housing explosion occurred in the 1970s. The average age of homes in Meridian
Township is much greater than for Cannon Township. The number of transactions that

reflected regular sales with complete information totaled 219 parcels. Only the recorded

39

deeds that contained property classifications by assessment officials as residential were
used. The data were further screened by identifying the “arms’ length” sales that were
recorded from a willing seller to a willing buyer, who were neither related nor
professionally associated (business partners) with each other. The result was a total of

163 of sales that were used in the study.

Additional data in the requested report from Meridian Township, besides the selling price
of the parcels, included the neighborhood code, the parcel number, the address, the
occupancy, the year in which the house was built, the average story height of the house,
the class categories, the area of living space, the size of parcel, the state equalized value
for 2001 and 2002, the last sale price, and the last sale date. Meridian Township’s
Comprehensive Development Plan is posted on their website and provided additional
information about housing characteristics, such as ranges of housing values by
neighborhood, location of parks, school district boundaries, condition of the house,
floodplain delineations, types of housing, existing land use, and farmland preservation
sites. The land use map shows the center of the Township, where Marsh Road and Grand
River Avenue intersect, as the main commercial area within the Township. Other
variables were created from this existing data and the following paragraphs describe the
data used from that collected in further detail and the how the data were recoded to enter

into the statistical analysis.

40

The unique number assigned to each parcel was entered into the database as a variable.
This variable was not used in the analysis, but was necessary to assign the correct

housing attributes to the correct parcel.

The selling price of the parcel sold was listed as last sale price on the Township report. A
continuous variable was created using this actual sale price of the parcel. Another
variable was created to adjust for inflation. A price index was applied to each sale
according to the date sold and an adjusted price was entered as a continuous variable,

equalizing all selling prices to 1982 dollars.

The size of the parcel was listed in the Township report. A continuous variable was

created and listed the size of the lot, down to hundredths of an acre.

The year the house was built was included in the Township report. A continuous variable

was created from this variable which listed the age of the house, as of 2002.

The total living area was listed on the Township report as square feet. A continuous

variable was created to express the living area of the house, in square feet.

The center of the Township contains the main commercial area, where Grand River

Avenue and Marsh Road intersect. A continuous variable was created that listed the

distance, in quarter-mile increments, from a parcel to the center of that commercial area.

41

A map included in Meridian Township’s Land Use study illustrated the areas that are
within the boundaries of each school district. The few areas in the Williamston
Community School District include portions in the southeast quadrant of Section 25,
portions of the east half of Section 35, and a majority of Section 36. The East Lansing
Public School District includes parcels in the eastern portion of the Township, including
portions of the Sections 5, 6, 8, and 31. The Haslett Public School District encompasses
much of the northern half of the Township, including all of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11,
12, and portions of Sections 13, 14, and 15. The remaining area in the Township,
representing the majority of the Township, is in the Okemos Public School District. The
parcels were first identified by school district, and then indicator variables were created
for each school district to indicate if the parcel was in or out of that school district.
Homebuyers are often looking for houses in a particular school district, thus this variable

could have an effect on property values, depending on the reputation of the school.

An indicator variable was created to identify the parcel as being either riparian (1) or

non-riparian (0).

The date of the sale was listed from the Township report. The variable was recoded to

state just the year of the sale in order to sort and display the data in a more usable format.

The sale date and riparian variables were used to create another indicator variable, which
indicated whether the parcel sold before (0) or after (1) the ordinance was passed. As

with Cannon Township, four additional indicator variables were then created to code the

42

data as: riparian before the ordinance (1) or other (0); non-riparian before the ordinance
(1) or other (0); riparian after the ordinance (1) or other (0); and non-riparian afier the

ordinance (1) or other (0).

Data selection was based on the availability of property value information. The attributes
of the properties are the explanatory variables in the study. The explanatory variable of
most concern is the presence of the stream protection ordinance. The issue of which
variables to include and their units of measurement was taken into consideration in the
development of the model. Sheppard (1997), for example, states that few models use the
location of a residential property as a variable, thus omitting a central principal of urban
economics that the price of land will vary according to location. This study uses location
variables of whether the parcel is riparian, the type of neighborhood, the school district,
and the proximity to shopping and business centers, thus including this important
variable. The regression model was developed incorporating factors that the economic
literature indicated were important in explaining price variation in the price of a property.
The model used indicator variables, assigned as either 1 or 0, to estimate the effects of

qualitative characteristics, such as whether the parcel is riparian.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Zoning codes, which indicate what type of land use is permitted on a parcel of land, were
available for both Townships. Since only residential codes were used in this study, this

variable was determined to be insignificant to the results, thus was not used.

43

In Meridian Township, all houses are rated according to the quality of building materials
used in their construction. The ratings are coded from A to D, with A being the highest
rating, normally indicating brick construction and other high quality materials. No
comparable information was available for Cannon Township, thus for the sake of

consistence in the results, the information was not used.

Meridian Township’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (www.meridian.mi.us/frame2.htm)
posts several maps on the website, depicting a variety of information about the Township.
The maps illustrating the school district boundaries and the business center were used to
create the variables of Haslett School district, Okemos School district, and distance to

economic activity.

SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED

The data collected were used to quantify the variables that describe the property
characteristics that define to property values in Michigan townships. The study is most
interested in the selling price and riparian parcels, before and after the adoption of the
stream protection ordinance. Table 2 defines the data collected.

Table 2 0 Number of Properties in the Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before Ordinance After ordinance
Township Cannon Meridian Cannon Meridian

Riparian property 24 28 64 42
(9%) (1 7%) (24%) (26%)

Non-riparian property 26 24 155 69
(10%) (15%) (57%) (42%)

Total 50 52 219 112

Cannon Township = 269 parcels

Meridian Township = 164 parcels

44

 

CHAPTER 4 - METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This chapter presents the hedonic pricing method and the multiple regression procedures
followed to determine if stream protection ordinances have an effect on property values.
The research methodology of the hedonic price model is introduced and its practical use

is explained.

The functional form of the hedonic price model is described. The instruments and
materials used to analyze the data are explained, including the process to convert and
transfer the data. The statistical procedures, using SPSS, Version 7.5, are explained and

the methodological assumptions associated with the model are discussed.

DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The definition of hedonic is “pleasurable, as in amenities” (Morris, ed. 1969), thus a
hedonic method strives to put a value on an amenity. The amenity in this study is a
stream protection ordinance. The strength of ordinances and enforcement efforts vary
among governments, which poses difficulties in putting an economic value on the
ordinance. The hedonic pricing method uses a price observed for a market good, such as
the sale of a home, to establish an implicit price for the non-market good, in this case, a
stream protection ordinance (Mahan, 1997). The existence of a riparian buffer as a result
of a stream protection ordinance is an environmental amenity that differentiates

properties. The hedonic pricing method considers residential property as a composite

45

good encompassing many separate component characteristics, including environmental
amenities of stream buffers. Sherwin Rosen provided the framework for the hedonic
pricing method in an article in the Journal of Political Economy in 1974. The method
relies on variations in residential property values to reveal implicit prices for each of the
property attributes, while holding all other attributes constant. These implicit prices can
then be used directly to assess the value of marginal changes in all of the attributes,
including the environmental attributes, one of which is the presence of a stream

protection ordinance.

Realtors have used this method for many years to compare and analyze the housing
market. Many models have been developed for many uses in the housing industry. The
available literature reports mostly on measures of tangible environmental amenities, such
as proximity to hazardous waste sites. The studies did, however, provide guidelines for

the fiamework of the model.

A study by Ridker (1967) was a precursor to the use of the hedonic pricing method. The
study focused on the relationship between property values and environmental attributes.
The results of the study found that property values varied systematically with air quality
levels when median housing prices were regressed against the property characteristics,
using various measures of air pollution as one of the variables. This model was used in

following studies that were interested in water quality.

46

HEDONIC PRICING MODEL

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

The dependent variable in the study is the property value, expressed as the selling price of

a home and land, each adjusted to 1982 prices by the Consumer Price Index for housing.

EXPLANATORY VARIABLES

The information available was compared to the parameters of the theoretical model to
determine what data to collect for this study. Table 3 lists the parameters of the
theoretical model and the variables included in the Cannon and Meridian Township data
sets. Other data were available, but were considered to be insignificant in influencing

housing prices.

RELATIONSHIP OF VARIABLES

Certain characteristics of the property will influence the selling price in different ways.
As the measure of the attribute increases, the selling price will either increase (a positive
relationship) or decrease (a negative relationship). For example, when the acreage of the
lot increases, normally the price would increase as well. The statistical analysis will
determine the nature of the relationship of the attribute to the selling price. The

relationships of the variables are predicted in Table 4.

47

Table 3 0 Comparison of Variables to Theoretical Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parameters In Cannon Meridian
Theoretical Model Township Township
Property value of Selling price adjusted to same year Selling price adjusted to same
parcel year
Property Size of lot Size of lot
characteristics Age of house Age of house
Total living area of house Total living area of house
Exterior condition of the
house
Classification of building
materials
Neighborhood Rockford Public School District Haslett Public School District
characteristics Forest Hills Public School District Okemos Public School District
Lowell Public School District East Lansing Public School
District
Williamston Public Schools
Accessibility Distance to economic activity Distance to economic
characteristics activity
Level of Riparian before the ordinance Riparian before the
environmental Non-riparian before the ordinance
characteristics ordinance Non-riparian before the
Riparian after the ordinance ordinance
Non-riparian after the ordinance Riparian after the ordinance
Non-riparian after the
ordinance

 

 

 

Table 4 0 Expected Relationships of Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attribute Expected relationship to
dependent variable
(selling price)
Stream Protection Ordinance Positive
Acreage of lot Positive
Square footage of living area Positive
Age of house Negative
Riparian before ordinance Negative
Non-riparian before ordinance Negative
Riparian after ordinance Positive
Non-riparian after ordinance Negative
Distance from economic activity Negative
Preferable school district Positive

 

48

 

CHAPTER 5 - RESULTS

This chapter presents results of the hedonic analysis, covering the estimated price
function and the marginal willingness-to-pay. Models were estimated on the relationship

between the housing transaction price and other housing attributes.

STATISTICAL PROCEDURES

The SPSS Version 7.5 statistical computer program was used to analyze the data using
multiple regression analyses. The “Frequencies” function was run to verify the number of
cases being entered into the model, and the statistical summaries, such as the means,
standard deviations, minimum values, and maximum values were calculated. The
variables were selected for the regression model. The adjusted price variable was the
dependent variable and the other variables were the explanatory variables. The statistical
characteristics of the variables were calculated and are presented in Table 5. The
goodness-of-fit statistics were represented in R, R2, adjusted R2, and the Standard Error
of the Estimate. Additional statistics investigated with the regression were the significant
F changes and the Durbin-Watson test for collinearity. The statistical significance of the
stream protection ordinance and other factors on property values was determined.
Multiple regression analysis is a multi-variate statistical technique that describes how the
dependent variable (property value) is related to the explanatory variables (other property

characteristics), which creates the hedonic model.

49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$3: a 80.3. a 20.2 a 28.8 a 08.0: a 02.80 a 5 80 82 800 802.23
08.80 0 80.0.2. 0 80.8 a 80mm 0 08.08 a 08;: a E 80 8.080208
_ _ o o w _ .o 80 80 08 8822c 228 82.20
0 0 o o 2.0 8.0 3: 08 8828c 222 20.0020
0 _ o o 8.0 2 .0 m8 8..” 223 8220.82
0 0 o o :8 8.0 80 80 8820888850082
0 <2 0 <2 0; <2 «2 <2 820.5 880 8.820
0 <2 0 <2 8.0 <2 .8 <2 2220 0880 0220
<2 0 <2 0 <2 8.0 <2 80 082.0 08280
<2 0 <2 0 <2 8.0 <2 08 2880 833
<2 _ <2 0 <2 8.0 <2 .8 2880 .22 02.0
nm on 2.0 no a: 33 80 SN .0202. 0282 2 82220
88 89. 08 22 8.2 a 3:2 08 RN 02.8220 8 00280 222m
a: 02 0 N :8 8.2 80 80 282%
8.0 a do 88 NE 802 80 08 888<
film—0:0: fleas—HQ flaw—ate: flcflflaU gar—0: flan-50 53:02 £630 8—AOE> £650
2222: 2:202: 22222 2:222 :32 28: 22> 22>

 

 

8.829 20 22: 882220 .8828 .m 0.2.0

50

This study used separate models for Cannon Township and Meridian Township, which
allowed the analysis to compare two different types of communities that have different
factors influencing sale prices. Sample sizes for the two models differed due to the

amount of available data from the two townships.

RESULTS OF REGRESSION

The results of the regressions for the functional form are presented with the coefficient of
multiple determination (R2) and the significance of the coefficients in Table 6. Included

in the summary are the number of observations (N), R2, and the Durbin-Watson statistic.

51

Table 6 0 Results Of Regression Analysis

 

Cannon Township

Meridian Township

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Name Coefficient Coefficient
Qignificance) (significance)
Number of Observations N = 269 N = 163
R Square 0.179 .576
Durbin-Watson 1.260 2.1 5 8
71695.86 48111.051
C‘msmm (0.064)*** (.090)***
Acrea e oflot 1241.639 4368.880
g (0.179) (0.516)
A e ofhouse 18.827 -296.236

3 (.912) (0.180)

. . 16.330 39.071
Square footage of l1v1ng area (003),, (000),,
. . . . -18147.9 -7811.697
Distance to economic act1v1ty (000),, (.325)
. . 15422.01
Lowell School Dlstnct (.75 5) N/A
. . 2331 1.32
Rockford School District (.520) N/A
Forest Hills School District Excluded N/A
Haslett School District N/A Excluded
. . 1805.910
Okemos School D1str1ct N/A (.907)
Non-riparian before ordinance -31 834'9 -15560'6
(0.064)*** (.03 I)"

. . . -34882.2 -2215.656
Ripanan before ordlnance (0.028)" (.771)
Non-riparian afier ordinance Excluded Excluded
Ri arian after ordinance 15676.13 17608.232

P (0.140) (011)"

 

 

 

* Significant at the 0.01 level
** Significant at the 0.05 level

""' Significant to the 0.10 level

The model for Cannon Township explained 17.9% of the selling price variation and the

model was statistically significant. The variables of square footage of living area and

52

 

distance to economic activity were significant at the 0.01 level. The variables of riparian
before ordinance was significant at the 0.05 level. The non-riparian before ordinance
variable was significant at the 0.10 level. The Durbin-Watson statistic was below the

acceptable range, which could indicate slightly positive autocorrelations of the variables.

The model for Meridian Township explained 57.6% of the selling price variation and was
also statistically significant. The analysis indicates that the variable of square footage of
living area was significant at the 0.01 level. The non-riparian before ordinance and
riparian after variables were significant at the 0.05 level. The Durbin-Watson statistic was

in the acceptable range, indicating the independence of the observations.

The results were used to estimate the equation to predict the dependent variable from an
independent variable. The constant in the equation is represented by where the line
intersects 0 on the Y-axis. The constant in the equation for the Cannon Township model
is 71,695.86, and was significant at the 0.10 level. The constant in the equation for the

Meridian Township model is 48111.05, which also was significant at the 0.10 level.

A negative coefficients of an attribute implies that the predicted value of the dependent
variable will decrease when the value of that attribute increases, and vise-versa. In the
Cannon Township model, the attributes of the distance to nearest activity, non-riparian

before ordinance, and riparian before ordinance all had negative coefficients.

53

The attributes in the Meridian Township model with negative coefficients were the age of
the house, distance to economic activity, non-riparian before ordinance, and riparian

before ordinance.

54

CHAPTER 6 — DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The statistically estimated function that relates property values to the property
characteristics measured the portion of the property value that is attributable to each of
the attributes listed. The results were analyzed to determine if the influence of just the

stream protection ordinance has an effect on property values.

ANALYSIS

Multiple regression analysis can be used for a variety of analytical purposes (SPSS,
1997). One purpose is to use the results to make strict statistical predictions. Another
purpose is to create models that are more precise by reducing the number of predictor
variables through conducting multiple regressions. A third purpose is to test the

hypothesis concerning the relative importance of certain variables.

In this study, multiple regression was used to estimate the importance of variables in
relation to one another. The means of the variables presented in Table 5 suggest that the
characteristics of the data are similar between the two Townships, thus enabling parallel
conclusion to be drawn. The R2 (coefficient of multiple determination) of the model for
Cannon Township was 0.179, indicating that 17.9% of the observed variability in the
adjusted price is explained by the variables in the model. Many other factors are known
to influence selling prices in Cannon Township. The rapid grth in the Township and
the high value of recreational property currently have a strong influence on the

Township’s property values. The results of this study, which illustrate that property value

55

increased after the ordinance was adopted, should encourage residents to embrace the
environmental protection measures that the Township officials are pursuing. Perhaps
when the housing market becomes more stable in its grth rate, the stream protection
ordinance will begin to have more of an influence on the price as residents begin to
realize that the growth has degraded and reduced the natural features of the Township

that once defined the rural atmosphere of the area.

The R2 of the model for Meridian Township was 0.576, indicating that 57.6% of the
observed variability in the adjusted price is explained by the variables in the model.
Meridian Township is more developed than Cannon Township and the recognition of
natural resources as valuable assets is quite high. The stream protection ordinance has
been in existence for a longer period of time in Meridian Township and prices may now
be reflecting the acceptance of the ordinance and the willingness-to-pay for riparian
protection on the part of the homeowners. The residents of Cannon Township, as the
residents have in Meridian Township, might come to realize that riparian properties are
valuable, and protecting these areas through riparian restrictions is necessary to maintain

environmental quality.

The multiple regression equation represents the line that best fits the data by minimizing
the squares of the distance between the line and the points. The R2 value of the Cannon
Township model indicates that many other factors, which were not included in the model,
are influencing the sale prices of the houses. However, the coefficients for the variables

concerning riparian before the ordinance and non-riparian before the ordinance were

56

statistically significant at the 0.05 and 0.10 levels, respectively, which suggests that
conditions before the ordinance was adopted were different than the conditions after the

ordinance was adopted.

The signs of the coefficients for the variables in both Townships are similar and as
expected, except for the age of the house variable in Cannon Township. With the
increasing amount of development occurring in the area, newer homes would be expected
to capture higher prices. The age of the house would be expected to influence property
values inversely, since older homes are generally less attractive to buyers. The opposite is
shown in the model, however, with a positive coefficient interpreted as older homes
resulting in higher prices. Cannon Township is a rural area, with historic villages and old
farmhouses dotting the countryside. The negative coefficients could represent
homeowners’ desires of living in a rural atmosphere and be interpreted that they are
willing to pay more for the historical significance of the property. Neither of these

variables, however, was statistically significant in the models.

The expected positive coefficients for acreage of lot and square footage of living area
indicate a larger home, thus a higher price. The negative coefficients for distance to
economic activity in both Townships indicates that houses closer to the commercial areas
have higher selling prices. The negative signs for non-riparian before ordinance, and
riparian before ordinance indicate that each of these conditions in both Townships
decrease the selling price of the house as compared to a riparian or non-riparian parcel

sold after the ordinance. The values and signs of the school districts are puzzling. The

57

variable may be meaningless though, since the districts allow school-of-choice, which
allows a resident to apply for attendance at any school in the region, not just the district in

which one resides.

Cannon Township’s model explained some of the selling price in the variables selected.
The coefficients that were significant in the results of the model are interpreted in

following predictions:

1. For every square foot increase in living area, sale prices would increase by $16.33 on

average with all other factors remaining constant.

2. For every half-mile increase in distance from the economic activity in the Township,
sale prices would decrease on average $18,147.90 with all other factors remaining

constant.

3. A riparian parcel sold before the ordinance would have sold for $34,882.20 less than

a non-riparian parcel sold after the ordinance, with all other factors remaining

constant.

4. A non-riparian parcel sold before the ordinance would have sold for $31,834.90 less

than a riparian sold after the ordinance with all other factors remaining constant.

58

Meridian Township’s model explained the majority of the selling price in the variables
selected. The coefficients that were significant in the results of the model are interpreted

as follows,:

1. For every square foot increase in living area, sale prices increase by $39.07 on

average with all other factors remaining constant.

2. A non-riparian parcel sold before the ordinance would have sold for $15,560.60 less
than a non-riparian parcel sold after the ordinance, with all other factors remaining

constant.

3. A riparian parcel sold after the ordinance will sell for $17,608.23 more than a non-

riparian parcel sold after the ordinance, with all other factors remaining constant.

The excluded variable in both models represent the non-riparian parcels after the
ordinance was adopted, which becomes the base case from which the other results are
compared. The signs of both the riparian and non-riparian parcels before the ordinance
were negative. Most would find that curious, since a riparian parcel would be expected to
have a higher value than a non-riparian parcel regardless of the presence of an ordinance.
This finding indicates that unknown factors are contributing to the changes in the
expected values and additional investigations would be required to determine those

factors.

59

The adjusted price in this study was determined by dividing the selling price by a factor
of inflation related to 1982. This adjustment could be partially responsible for the
unexpected results of the parcels before and after the ordinance. Using an alternate
conversion of the data could address this issue. An indicator variable could be established
for each year of sale. The model could use the earliest year in the data as the base case to
create highly significant variables in the model that would get larger as time goes on.
This time adjustment could account for the unknown variables related to the riparian and

non-riparian parcels either before or after the ordinance.

The stream protection ordinance was modeled using indicator variables for riparian and
non-riparian parcels and before and after the ordinance was adopted. The coefficient of
the indicator variable, if statistically significant, provided an estimate of the price
increase or decrease associated with the ordinance, with all other factors being constant.
The fact remains, however, that not all components of housing prices are, nor possibly
could be, included in this study. The addition of variables relating to the physical
characteristics of the properties and the neighborhoods could greatly improve the model,
however. The interpretation of the results, therefore, is carefully presented and should be

accepted conceptually, rather than empirically.

Although the results of these models do not support a strong linear relationship of the
variables, the significance of the coefficients suggests that these variables are important
to the determination of the selling price. The basic variables that are essential information

for a homebuyer and usually the first questions that homebuyer have about a piece of

60

property are included in the model, creating a usable framework if the study were to be

expanded.

Leefers (1996) attempted to estimate price trends for the AuSable River in northern
Michigan to compare sale prices of riparian lands before and after the Natural Rivers
designation. He reported that the regression results were not statistically significant and
concluded that no evidence was able to support or refute any effect of the designation on
property values. The sample size of his study, however, was very small. The results
reported for Cannon and Meridian Townships were based on a slightly larger sample size
and indicate that prices are statistically different for riparian parcels afier the ordinances.
Studies that continue to provide information and improve models for estimating
environmental protection need to be conducted to keep these issues in the spotlight for

planners and officials to use in making land use decisions.

METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS

The use of a multiple regression or ordinary least squares model has assumptions
associated with its use. The model assumes that all of the relevant explanatory variables
are in the model, and the price is linearly related to the variables. Another assumption is
that the variables are controllable and measured without error and with no exact linear

relationship between any two of the variables (MDNR Resources, 1979).

The hedonic pricing method is formed on the assumption that the value of the

environmental attribute of interest is partially realized in property values (Rosen, 1974).

61

Two additional assumptions are required to apply the model. The first assumption is that
the residential area used to model the relationship between property values and
environmental attributes can be treated as a single market for housing services, thus no
segmentation is required. The homogeneous nature of Meridian Township precluded the
need for market segmentation within the model. Cannon Township could be segmented
into markets similar to the boundaries of the stormwater management zones, which
divides the Township into the high-density area of the lakes, the rural residential area in
the central portion, and the urban developed area in the southwest. For this study,

however, Cannon Township was considered to be one market.

The second assumption is that the housing market is in equilibrium, thus home buyers
made utility-maximizing choices given housing pricing for alternative locations, and
these prices brought buyers and sellers together to clear the market for the existing stock
of homes in the market area (www.wrsc.usace.fiarmy.mil). The assumption that the
housing market is in equilibrium excludes the possibilities of a bias in the study. If the
market were not composed of free buyers and sellers, where the prices adjust
immediately to changes in supply and demand, then a biased would be introduced (Hite,

1998).

The model also assumes that buyers have full knowledge of all of the property
characteristics. This is not always the case. Homebuyers hire inspectors to assess the
physical characteristics of a home. Real estate agents are hired to ensure the legality of

the sale, but might not always contact township officials about land use restrictions or

62

intangible amenities that have special rules or ordinances. Most buyers and sellers are
probably not aware of environmental restrictions placed on their properties through
stream protection ordinances, nor are they likely aware of the benefits that stream buffers
have on water quality. The validity of these assumptions could compromise the validity

of the results.

UNCONTROLLABLE FACTORS

Property records are typically very reliable and are filed in an efficient manner for
investigation. Filters can be applied to clean the data and ensure that “outliers,” values
that do not fit the criteria, are eliminated. The availability of the data, however, is often
limited in what is collected for an area in terms of importance to the selling price of a
house. Valiant efforts can be made to collect, analyze, manipulate, and calculate
additional variables, but unknowns will always be present. Property markets are
relatively efficient in responding to information and are thus good indicators of value.
Unknown influences on the markets, however, can often lead to unpredictable uptums or

downturns, which ultimately effect housing sales.

EVALUATION OF METHODOLOGY

The success of the results of a study often depends on the reliability and validity of the
data used in the study. The reliability of the data used in this study appears to be very
high since the information collected was from county and township offices for tax

purposes and under close scrutiny of the tax paying homeowner. To reduce uncertainties

63

of the quality of the data, the actual selling price of the home was used, rather than the
assessed price. The use of the selling price eliminates the subjectivity of an assessor, and
reflects the truer market value of the house. The validity of the data is satisfactory, since
assumptions must be made about whether all of the defining characteristics have been
included in the model. Property values are influenced by many other factors that might

not be quantifiable or attainable.

Property sales information is available to the general public, thus the data were fairly
easily obtained, once the most informative source was found. Property sales can be
related to other secondary sources of data to obtain descriptive variables for the analysis.
The model is versatile in that it can be adapted to consider several possible interactions

between market goods and environmental quality.

LIMITATIONS AND WEAKNESSES

The advantages of using the hedonic price methods are that the estimated values in the
results of the model are based on actual choices, the price that the buyer was willing to
pay, and the price that the seller was willing to accept. A basic assumption in the
application of hedonic modeling to housing transactions is that the individuals
participating in real estate markets have full information about all the characteristics of a
given property (Hite, 1998). Property markets are relatively efficient in responding to
information, when full information is available, and are good indications of value. Stream
protection ordinances are an attribute along with the size of the lot and the neighborhood

school district. The knowledge base of the typical homebuyer does not include the

implications of a stream protection ordinance as it would the reputation of a school, for
example. This difference in the awareness of the value of attributes could influence the

results since the attribute would not be realized in the property price.

The regression analysis may be complicated by the relationship between values and
attributes not being linear if the values increase at an increasing or decreasing rate when
the attributes change. Many of the attributes are closely linked to one another, which may
make the values change in similar ways. Understating the significance of some of the
variables in this case may be the result. Different functional forms and model

specifications for the analysis were considered to address the bias.

The scope ’of environmental benefits that can be measured in this study is limited to those
that are related to housing prices. The hedonic method will only capture people’s
willingness to pay for perceived differences in environmental attributes and their direct
consequences. If homebuyers are not aware of the linkages between environmental
attributes and the benefits to them or their property, the value will not be reflected in
housing prices. The method assumes that homebuyers have the opportunity to select the
combination of features they prefer, given their income. However, the housing market
may be affected by outside influences, such as taxes, interest rates, or other factors. Large
amount of data must be gathered and manipulated. The time and expense to carry out an
application depends on the availability and accessibility of data (www.cbl.cees.edu). The

hedonic method does not tell the researcher why the attributes are affected or why results

65

go one way or another. Further qualitative study would be required, such as interviews, to

get perceptions and reasons for choices made.

ESTIMATION ISSUES

The hedonic price function is estimating the value of the stream protection ordinance as a
reflection of both the value of the land and the value of the house on that land. Stream
protection ordinances normally only directly affect riparian land and not structures on the
land. Difficulties are encountered with that approach “since land and the structures are
ahnost always sold together, therefore the entire land and house transaction prices were

used and the house characteristics were accounted for in the hedonic price equation.

The estimation issues for the explanatory values fall into several categories. Determining
what characteristic will be included as the explanatory variables is the most important
issue. Factors that constitute to selling price will be different for every community.
Investigating what was important to Cannon Township and Meridian Township was at
times subjective. The amount of variables to collect was limited by time and available
information. Unlimited quantities of time, information, and money, could greatly increase

the accuracy of identifying the pertinent variables for the study.

66

CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to contribute to the understanding of the economic impacts
of stream protection ordinances. The hypothesis was presented in Chapter 1 of this study
regarding the impact that stream protection ordinances have on property values. The

hypothesis was:

0 Stream protection ordinances have a significant influence on riparian residential

property values.

The results of the study support this hypothesis, although the regression results do not
suggest strong linear relationships. The results for both Cannon Township and Meridian

Township analyses were statistically significant.

Cannon Township riparian parcels were found to be higher in value after the ordinance
was adopted by $15, 676.13. A surprising similar amount, $17,608.23, was determined to
be the differential price in Meridian Township for riparian parcels afier the ordinance was
adopted. This willingness to pay for riparian parcels after a stream protection measure has
been put in place is a hopeful indication that homebuyers are becoming aware of the
importance of protection riparian areas for water quality and that they are willing to pay

for the aesthetic and ecological benefits.

67

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

As community leaders increase their knowledge of methods to improve environmental
quality, those affected by the decisions become more accepting of the methods. Stream
protection ordinances are gaining in acceptance, and developers, real estate agents, and
homebuyers will be more aware of these regulations and protection strategies in the
future. This study will strengthen the arguments for the adoption of stream protection
measures and inspire developing communities to implement these measures before
streams have been impacted by development. The results of this study could be the
evidence that Township officials, such as those in Ada Township mentioned in Chapter 1,

could present to their residents to promote the adoption of the ordinance.

This study addresses the roles that economics and science have in the formation of
natural resource policies. Continued research on the pollution reducing benefits of buffers
will lead to stronger ordinances. Supporting that research with studied economic impacts
to the community and the individual will facilitate the cooperation of those necessary to
get the ordinances passed. Policy makers and local communities must understand
possible effects of ordinances on property values. Private and public good are served
when ordinances positively affect property values. However, if property values are
affected negatively by an environmental protection measure, local officials must decide if

the public good should prevail over the private loss.

68

An assumption of the model, stated earlier, was that of knowledgeable buyers and sellers
securing the housing transaction (Hite, 1998). If stream protection ordinances were
shown to negatively impact property values, a possible benefit to property values could
still result from this assumption. A knowledgeable buyer might value stream protection
ordinance, but pay less for a home because of the restriction. The sale of that home
influences other properties to have lower values. The effect is that those buyers not
valuing stream protection ordinances and the environmental benefits they provide would

be enjoying other attributes that they do value at lower prices than otherwise possible.

Although homeowners might enjoy the aesthetics of a riparian buffer, they might not
know why or how it exists. Buyers could be willing to pay more for the scenery, not
knowing that a stream protection ordinance exists, which in essence is paying for the
ordinance. If buyers are not aware of the ordinance, the assumption that it affects
property values should not be made. However, when issues are important to homeowners,
such as the township planning to build a sewage treatment plant in the neighborhood,
word spreads around the neighborhood and property values are affected. If buyers are not
aware of the ordinance, then maybe it’s because the ordinance is not an issue in that

community, thus property values are not affected.

FUTURE RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS

A similar study as this could be conducted in communities that have floodplain
ordinances that delineate the floodplain and restrict land use activities in that area. The

date of sale of the parcel could be compared to the date of the completion of the Flood

69

Rate Insurance Map and the model could determine if the delineation had an effect on
property values. Parcels could be identified in the 2—, 10-, 25-, 100-, and SOD-year
floodplains and entered into the database. Questions to be asked include: Does the risk of
being in a floodplain override the impact that the floodplain ordinance might have? Is the
property worth paying more for since insurance is available? Is the property worth paying
less for since it gets flooded? What influence does the floodplain delineation have on

properties outside of the floodplains?

The selection of the variables and the hedonic analysis could be integrated with a
Geographic Information System (GIS). Models can be extremely accurate using GIS
techniques. Factors that contribute to the selling price of a house can be specified and
econometric methods can be used to estimate equations. Measurements of neighborhood

and spatial information are easily obtained with GIS.

Many communities often have bits and pieces of water resource protection strewn
throughout their codes of ordinances and zoning ordinances, but not a comprehensive
stream protection strategy. A study that evaluated these different levels of stream
protection and incorporated those levels as a variable in this model could predict the

effect on property values by the strength of the stream protection measures.

More study areas could be added to this analysis to gain a broader perspective of the
results. Few communities, however, have enforceable stream protection ordinances at this

time. Cannon Township passed a stormwater ordinance in October 2001 that delineated

70

the Township into zones according to the degree of environmental protection required to
protect water quality (Figure 5). Zone A is the most restrictive zone, where the
headwaters of two high quality trout streams exist. Zone B is a slightly impacted area,
where development is occurring and site plans have certain criteria for stormwater
management. Zone C is the urbanized area, where streams are already impacted, and
development rules contain urban BMPs for water quality. Data could be collected in a
few years and entered into this hedonic model to determine if the stormwater
management zones, and their associated restrictions and development criteria, had an

effect on property values.

Additional variables with numeric values, rather than indicator values, would improve the
fit of the model and increase its precision. Many sources are available to collect certain
facts and figures about areas, such a regional planning commissions and real estate
boards. These sources should be more fully investigated to ensure that all factors feasible

to contributing to the selling price have at least been considered.

SUMMARY

Stream protection ordinances play an important role in the quality of local water
resources. The services that stream buffers provide, such as wildlife habitat, water quality
protections, recreation, and aesthetics, are collective-good characteristics, meaning that
they benefit greater society at large (Mahan, 1997). Non-market valuation techniques
were used to estimate the economic value of stream protection attributes that represent

collective goods to improve water protection and land use efforts. This study used the

71

hedonic price method to estimate the impact of stream protection ordinances on property

values in two townships in southern Michigan.

The study analyzed property values in relation to housing attributes. The study found that
in Cannon Township the values of riparian properties after the ordinance were more than
riparian and non-riparian properties prior to the ordinance being adopted, equalizing
prices to 1982 and with all other variables remaining constant. The same was true in
Meridian Township. The hedonic pricing method allows the quantification of the stream
protection ordinance’s contribution to property values. The results showed an effect on

property values, thus a stronger argument for the adoption of the ordinance can be made.

The study of Act 250 in Vermont (Sanford and Stroud, 2000) stressed the importance of
consistent and realistic application of stream buffers to truly improve water quality. The
adoption of the comprehensive land use law is commendable, but the application must be
directed to all activities equally and unifome to be effective and enforces at a local level

for the regulations to become a legitimate consideration of managing growth.

The findings of this study revealed that many different attributes of a piece of property
contribute to its selling price, a stream protection ordinance being one of them. Local
officials must have economic and scientific support for deciding whether to adopt a
protection ordinance for the natural resources in their community. The preliminary
evidence presented in this study provides the economic support that a stream protection

ordinance can increase property values in certain communities.

72

REFERENCES

Abdalla, Charles W. and Lawrence W. Libby. 1982. “Economics of Michigan Wetlands.”
Agricultural Economics Report. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 1996. “A Dollars and Sense Partnership: Economic
Development and Environmental Protection.” Annapolis, MD. pp 21.

Chicoine, David L. “Farmland Values at the Urban Fringe: An Analysis of Sale Prices.”
Land Economics. Vol. 57, No. 3, August 1981.

Correll, Dave. “Vegetated Stream Riparian Zones: Their Effects on Stream Nutrients,
Sediments, and Toxic Substances.” Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland. Eighth Edition, April 1999.

Correll, Mark R., Jane H. Lillydahl, and Larry D. Singell. “The Effects of Greenbelts on
Residential Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open Space.”
Land Economics. Volume 52, Number 2. 1978.

Division of Land Resource Program, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR). 1979. “Economic Impacts of Natural River Zoning Regulations”. CPA-MI-OS-
00-0418.

Fausold, Charles J. and Robert J. Lilieholrn. 1996. “The Economic Value of Open
Space.” Land Lines, Volume 8, Number 5.

Griliches, Zvi. 1967. “Hedonic Price Indexes Revisited. Some Notes on the State of the
Art.” Proceedings of the Business and Economic Statistic Section, American Statistical
Association. pp 324-332.

Hite, Diane. “Information and Bargaining in Markets for Environmental Quality.” Land
Economics. 1998, v74, n3, p. 303(14). August 1998.

Holway, James M., and Raymond J. Burby. “The Effects of Floodplain Development
Controls on Residential and Values.” Land Economics. Volume 66, n3, pp 259 (13).
August 1990.

Howarth, Richard B., and Richard B. Norgaard. “Environmental Valuation under
Sustainable Development.” American Economic Review. 82(2), pp 473-77. May 1992.

Johnston, R. A. and W. S. McCartney. “Local Government Implementation of Mitigation

Requirements Under the California Environmental Quality Act.” Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, Volume 11, pp 53-67. 1991.

73

Leefers, Larry A. and David Jones. 1997 “Phase II Final Report: Assessing Changes in
Private Property Values Along Designated Natural Rivers in Michigan.” Department of
Forestry, Michigan State University. Submitted to Forest Management Division,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand Countv Almanjag. Oxford University Press, New York.
pp 201-226.

Mahan, Brent L. 1997. “Valuing Urban Wetlands. A property Pricing Approach.”
Evaluation of Environmental Investments Research Program. IWR Report 97-R-l. U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon.

Michael, H. J ., K. J. Boyle and R. Bouchard. 1996. “Water Quality Affects Property
Prices: A Case Study of Selected Maine Lakes.” University of Maine, Maine Agricultural
and Forest Experimental Station. Miscellaneous Report Number 398. pp 15 .

Miller, G. Tyler. 1992. Living in the Environment. Wadsworth Publishing Company,
Belmont California.

Mooney, Sian. 1997. “The Aesthetic Value of Riparian Enhancement: A Hedonic Study
of Changes in Property Values.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3lst Annual
Pacific Northwest Regional Economic Conference. Spokane, Washington. April 24-26,
1997. Oregon State University.

Morris, William, (editor). 1969. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

Pompe, Jeffrey J. and James R. Reinhart. 1995. “Beach Quality and the Enhancement of
Recreational Property Values.” Journal of Leisure Research. Volume 27, Number 2,
pp 143-154.

Planning and Zoning Center. 2000. “Community Planning Handbook: Tools and
Techniques for Guiding Community Change.” Michigan Society of Planners, Farmington
Hills, MI 48331.

Ridker, R. G., and J. A. Henning. 1967. “The Determinants of Residential Property
Values With Special Reference to Air Pollution,” Review of Economics and Statistics,
49, 246-257.

Rosen, Sherwin. “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure
Competition.” Journal of Political Economy. Volume 82 (January) pp 34-35. 1974.

Sanford, R. M. and H. B. Stroud. 2000. “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Act 250 in

Protecting Vermont Streams.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.
Volume 43, Number 5, 623-641.

74

Schueler, Thomas. 1994. The Stream Protection Approach. Center for Watershed
Protection. Terrene Institute, Washington, DC. pp 66.

Schueler, Thomas. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Center for
Watershed Protection. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Silver Spring,
Maryland. pp 222.

Schueler, Thomas. 1998. “The Economics of Watershed Protection.” Watershed
Protection Techniques. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. 2(4): 469-
481.

Sheppard, Stephen. 1997. Hedonic Analysis of Housing Markets. Oberlin College.
Steiner, C. and J. Loomis. 1996. “Estimating the Benefits of Urban Stream Restoration
Using the Hedonic Price Method.” Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics.
Colorado State University. pp 18.

Unites States Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Pollution brochure EPA-841-F-
94-005.

Unites States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Nonpoint Source Pollution: The
Nation’s Largest Water Quality Problem. Pointer No. 1 EPA-841-F-96-004A

Woodard, Steven E. and Chet A. Rock. 1991. “The Role of Natural Buffer Strips in

Controlling Phosphorus and Sediment Runoff.” Presented at the 64th Annual Conference
& Exposition, Toronto, Canada. Water Pollution Control Federation.

75

APPENDIX 1

Cannon Township Ordinances

76

CHAPTER 18
. BEAR CREEK WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT .

SECTION 18.01 PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to establish regulations to
preserve and enhance the integrity of Bear Creek, Armstrong Creek, Stout Creek and associated
tributaries which make up the Bear Creek Watershed. These creeks and streams are a valuable
natural resource of Cannon Township as they contribute to the Township’s rural character, provide
scenic views and serve as a habitat for fish and wildlife. The regulations are designed to prevent soil.
erosion along creek banks, prevent sedimentation from entering the creeks, preserve and enhance

vegetation along the creeks, and ensure adequate setbacks for buildings, structures and septic
systems.

This is an overlay district and is intended to supplement the regulations of any underlying
zone.

SECTION 18.02 APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS AND DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.

(a) The requirements of this chapter are in addition to and shall supplement those
imposed on the same lands by any underlying zoning provisions of this ordinance or other
ordinances of Cannon Township. These regulations supersede all conflicting regulations of the
underlying zoning districts to the extent of any such conflict. ‘

. (b) The boundaries of the Bear Creek Watershed Protection Zone Shall include all lands '
which are within 100 feet beyond the ordinary high water mark on each side of those creeks and
tributaries shown on the Official Cannon Township Zoning Map and as described below:

(1) Bear Creek

(2) Stout Creek

(3) ' Armstrong Creek

(4) ' Flowing tributaries (even if intermittently flowing) of any of the creeks ~
' described in (1 ), (2) and (3) above.

SECTION 18.03 DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
(a) . Natural Vegetation Strip

(1) To minimize erosion, stabilize the creek bank, prbtect water quality, keep ’
nutrients out of the water, maintain water temperature at natural levels,
preserve fish and wildlife habitat, screen manmade structures, and also to '
preserve aesthetic values of the creek area, there shall be a natural vegetation ’
strip on all banks within 25 feet of the ordinary high water mark; provided,
however, that artificially maintained vegetation strips along creek banks
within 25 feet of the ordinary high water mark that are in existence at the .

18-1

77

(b)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

time of adoption of this ordinance may continue, but if such artificially
maintained vegetation strips thereafter return to a natural state, then they shall

' not again be artificially maintained.

Natural ground cover shall be preserved to the fullest extent feasible and
where removed it shall be replaced with vegetation that is equally effective
in retarding runoff, preventing erosion and preserving natural beauty.

Within the natural vegetation strip, trees and shrubs may be selectively
pruned or removed for harvest of merchantable timber, so as to achieve a
filtered view of the creek from the principal structure and for reasonable
private access to the creek. These pruning and removal activities shall insure
that a live root system stays intact to provide for streambank stabilization and
eroSion control and to insure that any path to the creek or tributary is no
greater than 10 feet in width, and that it will meander down to the ordinary
high water mark in a manner which protects the soil and vegetation fiorn
erosion. Clear cutting within the natural vegetation strip is prohibited.

Dead, ~diseased, unsafe , or fallen trees and noxious plants and shrubs,
including poison 1vy, poison sumac and poison oak, and other plants regarded
as a common nuisance under Section 2, Public Act 359 of 1941, as amended,
may be removed.

Planting of perennial. native species in the natural vegetation strip is
encouraged, especially where exposed soil and steep slopes‘exist and in
reforestation efforts.

Minimum Setback from Creek

(1)

A principal building shall be set back at least 100 feet from the ordinary high
water mark of any of the creeks or tributaries regulated by this Chapter except
as permitted below.

(i) A principal building to be erected on a vacant legal non-conforming
lot of record may be closer than 100 feet to the ordinary high water
mark if it is demonstrated to the Zoning Administrator that
compliance with this setback requirement would prohibit the‘
construction of the principal structure. The reduction in the setback .
shall be the minimum necessary to construct the principal structure. '
The Zoning Administrator may refer such decision to the Planning
Commission.

l8-2

78

(ii) For lots which have a steep bank abutting the creek, a principal
building may be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the tap of the
bank. For purposes of this chapter a steep bank shall be defined as
being at least 10 feet high (measured vertically from the ordinary high
water mark to the top of the bank) with a slope of at least 33 percent
(determined by dividing the. vertical height of the slope by the
horizontal distance of the s10pe).

(c) Septic disposal fields and tanks shall be at least 100 feet away from the ordinary high
water mark and shall be in conformance with the standards of the Kent County Health Department.

SECTION 18.04 EXISTING USES AND STRUCTURES. Those land uses, buildings and
structures which existed before the effective date of this Chapter and which do not conform to the
requirements of this Chapter shall be non-conforming and subject to the applicable non-conforming
use provisions of this Ordinance. If a natural vegetation strip as regulated herein exists on a lot as
of the effective date of this Ordinance, it shall be subject to the regulations of this Chapter, but any
regulations which are more restrictive than these shall prevail over this Chapter.

18-3

79

. CHAPTER 19
ROGUE RIVER NATURAL RIVER OVERLAY DISTRICT

SECTION 19.01. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply to this Section:

(a) "Bluff" means the top of a steep bank rising sharply from the water's edge of a river
or stream.

(b) "Zoning Administrator" means the agency or individual appointed by the appropriate
governmental subdivision to administer provisions of Act No. 230 of the Public Acts of 1972,
including issuance of zoning permits.

(c) "Cutting edge of the river" means the outside edge of a river or stream where water
velocity has increased to the point where it may cause soil or stream bank erosion.

(d) "Filtered view of the river" means maintenance or establishment of woody vegetation
of sufficient density to screen develOpments from the river, to provide for stream bank stabilization
and erosion control, to serve as an aid to infiltration of surface nmofi‘, and to provide cover to shade
the waters. The vegetation need not be so dense as to completely block the river view. It means no
clear cutting. -

(e) "Natural. river district" means the Rogue River Natural River District as described in
Section 19.02. '

__ (f) "Ordinary high Water mark" means the line between upland and bottomland which
persists through successive changes in water level, below which the presence and action of the water
is so common or recurrent that the character of the land is marked distinctly from the upland and is-
apparent in the soil itself. '

(g) "River's edge" means the ordinary high water mark as used in Act No. 346 of the
Public Acts of 1972, being 281.951 et seq. of the Michigan Compiled Laws and defined in Section
19.01(f).

(h) "Reforestation" means renewal of vegetative cover by seeding, planting or
transplanting.
(i) "Soil erosion and sedimentation control enforcement agency" means the local agency

appointed by the appropriate goverrunental subdivision to enforce the provisions of Act No. 347 of '
the Public Acts of 1972, being 282.101 et seq. of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

19-1

80

SECTION 19.02. BOUNDARIES; RULES 01‘ CONSTRUCTION; DISPLAY AND
FILING OF ZONING MAP; EFFECT OF ZONING PROVISIONS.

(a) The boundaries of the Rogue River Natural River District shall be as hereinafier
described and as depicted in the Rogue River Natural River District as shown on the official Cannon

Township Zoning Map. The Rogue River Natural River District comprises that area described as
follows:

(1) Barkley Creek fi'om Blakely Drive downstream to the west boundary line of 1
Section 6 of Cannon Township. - »

(2) Rum Creek from 10 Mile Read in Section 4, downstream to the north
boundary line of Section 5 of Cannon Township.

(3) The lands lying within 300 feet of the edge of the waters numerated in
subdivisions (1) and (2). . '

(b) The provisions of this chapter do not repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing
easements, covenants, or deed restrictions applicable to lands within the natural river district, except
that where this chapter imposes greater restrictions than found on such easements, covenants, or
deeds, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail.

(c) This chapter does not permit actions prohibited by other statutes or ordinances,
including other sections of this zoning ordinance, applicable to the natural river district, therefore:

(1) All earth changing activities, other than normal landscaping or maintenance,
undertaken within 500 feet of a lake or stream, are subject to provisions of
Act No. 347 of the Public Acts of 1972, being 282.101 et seq. of the
Michigan Compiled Laws.

(2) All dredge and fill activities and construction of permanent structures lying
‘ below the ordinary high water mark are subject to provisions of Act No. 346

of the Public Acts of 1972, being 281.951 et seq. of the Michigan Compiled
Law.

. (d) Where uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries indicated on the Rogue River
Natural River Zoning Map, the following rules shall apply:

(1) Boundaries indicated as approximately following streets or highways shall '
be construed to be the centerlines of the streets or highways.

(2) Boundaries indicated as approximately following lot lines shall be construed
as following such lot lines.

19-2

81

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Boundaries indicated as approximately following such city, township, or
county boundary lines shall be construed as following such city, township,
or county. boundary lines.

Boundaries indicated as approximately following railroad lines shall be
construed to be midway between the main tracks.

Boundaries indicated as approximately parallel to the centerlines of streets or
highways shall be construed as being parallel thereto and at such distance
therefrom as indicated on the official Rogue River Natural River Zoning
Map. If no distance is given, the dimension shall be determined by the use
of the scale shown on the official Rogue River Natural River Zoning Map.

Boundaries following the shoreline of a river, stream, lake, or other body of
water shall be construed to follow such shoreline and, in the event of change
in the shoreline, shall be construed as moving with the actual shoreline;
boundaries indicated as approximately following the thread of streams,
canals, or other bodies of water shall be construed to follow such threads.

SECTION 19.03. PERMITTED USES.

(a) The following uses shall be permitted by the owner upon the owner's pIOperty within .
the Natural River District, subject to limitations and requirements outlined in the zoning ordinance,
and other applicable statutes:

(1)

(2)

(3)
(4)

(5)

PriVate camping and other recreational actiVities not requiring installation of
permanent structures within 150 feet of the designated mainstream and '100 -
feet of the designated tributaries.

Operation of motorized watercraft subject to limitations of local ordinances
established under authority of Act No. 303 of the Public Acts of 1967, being
281.1101 et seq. of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

Fishing and hunting in compliance with existing laws and rules.

Reforestation and other accepted forest management practices, subject to the
limitations outlined in Section 19.04.

Normal agricultural activities, if those activities meet the requirements of this ‘
Chapter, and when the Bureau of Environmental Protection of the

Department of Natural Resources determines that such activities do not
contribute to stream degradation.

19-3

82

(b)

(6)

(7)

Operation of licensed motor vehicles on dedicated public roads or access
roads to private single-family dwellings.

Off-road Operation of emergency and public utility maintenance vehicles.

The following uses are permitted upon approval of the Zoning Administrator:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)
(6)

(7)

One single-family dwelling and appurtenances on a lot not less than 200 front
feet wide, subject to the following limitations:

(i) On the designated tributaries, the setback shall be 100 feet from the
river's edge.

(ii) Setback shall be not less than 15 feet from side lot lines and not less
than 25 feet from the right-of-way of a public road.

(iii) New structures shall not be located on land that is subject to flooding.

(iv) New structures shall not be closer than 50 feet from the tOp of the
bluff on the cutting edges of the river and tributaries.

Plats, if the minimum setback and lot width requirements specified in
subsection (1) are met.

Private boat docks not to exceed six feet in width or 20 feet in length, with
not more than four feet of the dock extending over the water, if designed,

. constructed, and maintained with indigenous natural materials.

Mining and extractive industries more than 300 feet from the ordinary high-
water mark, if constructed and Operated pursuant to applicable laws and rules
of the state and local ordinances.

Utility lines to service private single-family dwellings.

Surface gas and utility lines on lands, or interests in real property
continuously owned by a utility from and after January 1, 1971, subject to
review and apprOval by the planning commission.

Disposal of fields and septic tanks located at least 100 feet from the water's

edge and in conformance with the State and County Health Codes, and the
provisions of this Chapter. -

l9-4

83

(8) Land alteration (grading, dredging or filling) of the land surface, unless the
high groundwater table is within six feet of the land surface, if the activities
meet all provisions of Act No. 347 of the Public Acts of 1972, and _Act No.
346 of the Public Acts of 1972, being 282.101 et seq of the Michigan
Compiled Laws, and approval is granted by the local soil erosion and

sedimentation control enforcement agency and the Department of Natural
Resources.

(9) Signs and outdoor advertising devices if otherwise permitted in the Zone
District must be:

(1) Related to permitted uses.

(ii) Not- more than one square foot in area for residential uses 'and not
more than four square feet in area for any other uses.

(iii) Not illuminated by any neon light or flashing device.
(iv) Not attached to any tree or shrub.

(10) Other uses for which an applicant is granted a permit by the Zoning
Administrator.

SECTION 19.04. NATURAL VEGETATION STRIP. A restricted cutting belt 25 feet wide
on each side of the designated tributaries will be maintained. Trees and shrubs may be pruned for
a filtered view of the river Upon approval by the Zoning Administrator, but clear cutting in the
natural vegetation strip is prohibited. The natural vegetation strip is also subject to the following
provisions:

'(a) Dead, diseased, unsafe, or fallen trees and noxious plants and shrubs, including
poison ivy, poison sumac, and poison oak, may be removed.

(b) Selective removal or trimming of trees for timber harvest, landscaping, or public
utility facilities is permitted upon approval Of the Zoning Administrator.

SECTION 19.05. SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMITS.
(a) Special exception permits may be granted to allow a use in the Natural River District
that is not specifically permitted by Section 19.03, where implementation of that use does not

contravene the purposes of this Chapter.

(b) 'Application for a special exception permit shall be made on a form provided by the
Zoning Administrator and shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval.

1915

84

(c) Upon reviewing an application for a special exception permit, the Zoning
Administrator, at any time prior to renderingadecision thereon, shallrequire the applicant to furnish _
any of the following information as is deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator for
determining the suitability of the particular site for the proposed use:

(1)
(2)

(5)

A detailed description of the proposed activity or use.

A surface view plan giving accurate dimensions on either a scale drawing or
a rough sketch showing elevations or contours of the ground, including
existing earth fills; generalized vegetative cover; size; location and spatial
arrangement of all proposed and existing structures on the site; and the

location and elevations of streets, access roads, and water supply and sanitary
facilities.

Photographs showing existing land uses and vegetation upstream and
downstream from the pIOposed use.

Valley cross sections showing the natural stream channel, stream banks, and
high watermarks and flood marks, if known, with indication of locations of
proposed developments.

Any other information deemed relevant by the Zoning Administrator and
necessary to carry out the intent and provisions of this Chapter.

(d) Before considering applications, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice by
certified mail to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the pIOposed use as shown on
the current tax assessment rolls, to the County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control enforcement
agency, Soil Conservation Service, and Regional Office and Natural Rivers Section of the
Department of Natural Resources, and to any other interested party who requests that they be
notified of such requests in the Natural River District.

(e) In reviewing an application, the Zoning Administrator shall consider all of the

following:

(1)

(2)

All relevant factors specified in these rules in light of the spirit and intent of
the purposes specified in Section 19.01.

The economic effect of the subject property weighed in light of the
applicant's entire contiguous holdings and not merely the portion within the '
Natural River District. If the subject portion is the remainder of a larger
holding, this fact and a description of the title history shall be included in the
hearing evidence.

19-6

85

(3) Increase in flood levels and flood damages that may be occasioned by the
proposed use at the site and upstream and downstream from the site, water
quality consequences, and other factors relevant within the terms of this
Chapter. ‘

(4) Cumulative effect upon the Natural River District from potential
development of holdings in a legal position similar to the applicant's, if the
applicant's request is approved by the Zoning Administrator.

(5) Reasonable alternatives available to the applicant.

(1) In weighing the applicant' 3 request, consideration ofpublic health, safety, and welfare
shall prevail, unless private injury is proved by substantial preponderance of the evidence to be so
great as to override the public interest.

(g) A requested use shall not be granted where the Zoning Administrator determines that
the requested use poses substantial hazard to life or property rights, either public or private.

(h) The Zoning Administrator may require public hearings to be held regarding the
application. The Zoning Administrator shall decide an application within 30 days after receiving
the application, except that where public hearings are held or additional information is required
pursuant to Subsection (c), he shall render a decision within thirty (30) days following the hearings
or upon receipt of the last requested information.

(i) The Zoning Administrator shall attach such conditions to the granting of a special
exception as are necessary to further the purposes of these rules.

SECTION 19.06. SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORD.

‘ (a) The Zoning Administrator may grant a zoning permit for erecting a structure
permitted by this Chapter on a lot of record if the lot is of insufficient width, depth, or area, or there
exists physical limitations on an existing lot or parcel, or a lot described in a deed or land contract
executed and delivered prior to the effective date of this Chapter, which precludes a proposed
structure from complying with the terms of this Chapter. The Zoning Administrator shall insure that
all structures are located to best meet the objectives and purposes of these rules, the adopted Rogue
River Natural River Plan, and the Natural River Act of 1970. -

(b) The Zoning Administrator shall determine if a pIOposed structure on a lot of record,
or a lot described, in a deed or land contract executed and delivered prior to the effective date of this ’

Chapter, cannot conform to those standards listed in Section 19.03 and is, therefore, ineligible for
consideration for use under Section 19.03(b)(1).

19-7

86

(c) Application for a permit on all lots of record shall be filed in writing with the Zoning

Administrator.

(d) In considering a request for use of a substandard lot of record, the Zoning ‘
Administrator shall grant a zoning permit only upon a showing that the following standards are met:

(1)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Will not be contrary to the public interest.
Will not permit establishment Of a use not otherwise permitted by these rules.

Relates only to the property under the control of the applicant, and any
practical difficulties are not the result of actions taken by the applicant.

Will pose no substantial hazard to life or public or private pTOperty rights,
and that the spirit of the rules shall be observed, public safety secured, and
substantial justice done.

Will not, if granted, result in an increase of flood levels or risk of flood
damage to other lands, and will be deveIOped in accord with Department of
Natural Resources requirements under Act 167 of the Public Acts of 1968,
and Act 291 of the Public Acts of 1954, as amended.

Will not significantly impair existing water quality, vegetative cover,
fisheries, or wildlife habitat, or increase risk of erosion.

Will be the minimum dimensional reduction necessary to achieve a
reasonable use of the land after evaluation of alternative dimensional
arrangements and permitted land uses available to the applicant given the
peculiar characteristics of the. lot and circumstances surrounding the request.
Alternatives shall be examined in light of the applicant's entire contiguous
holdings, and not merely a single lot or the portion within the natural river
area. Where dimensional requirements may be more nearly met through lot
combination of contiguous holdings, the, Building Inspector may so require.

Will be granted with the condition that no fill is placed within the natural
vegetation strip, and that approval of both the appTOpIiate County Health
Department, and Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control enforcement
agency is secured.

Will, if granted, contain any conditions necessary to insure proper
development as closely in accord with the intent and requirements of this
Ordinance as is reasonable to require.

19-8

87

APPENDIX 2

Meridian Township Ordinances

88

SECTION ”-16 CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

8246.1 Purpose: It is the purpose of the Conservancy District to protect the natural, human and
economic resources of the Township, and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare;
by application of special regulations for the use of land which may be subject to periodic inundation
- at predictable intervals which may be subject to soil erosion, or which may be particularly suited to
provide for the impoundment of waters for the purpose of storm water control or groundwater
recharge. Said regulations, while permitting reasonable economic use and considering the physical
limitations of such land, will help to protect the public health, public safety and general welfare. and
will reduce the financial burdens imposed upon the community which may result from the improper
use of land. All lands included in said district shall be subject to the terms imposed herein in
addition to the terms imposed by any other district in which said lands may be located.

8246.2 Definltlons:

a. BULKHEADING: The protection of fill material from erosion through the use of a retaining
wall.

D. CUT: Portion of land surface or area from which earth has been removed or will be removed
by excavation; the depth below original ground surface to excavated surface.

'c. DEBRIS BASIN: A barrier or dam built across a waterway or other suitable locations to
retain rock, sand, gravel, or silt or other materials.

d. DEVELOPMENT: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including
but not limited to buildings or other strucrures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving,
excavation or drilling Operation.

e. EROSION: The wearing away of the land surface by the action of wind, water or gravity.

1'. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP: That map or maps prepared by Federal Emergency
Management Agency which classifies the floodplain into various zones for purposes of
determining flood insurance rates within the Township, :1 copy of which is available for

examination at the Department of Community Planning and Development of the Charter
Township of Meridian.

g. FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: A study prepared by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency which examines, evaluates and determines flood hazards, and if appropriate,
corresponding water surface elevations for the Charter Township of Meridian.

h. FLOODPROOFING: Any combination of strucrural and non-structural additions, changes,

or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real esrate or
improved real property. water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents.

VIII-128

89

FLOODWAY: The channel of the watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood
plains which carry and discharge the intermediate regional flood. as determined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and as indicated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map.

FLOODWAY FRINGE: That portion of the intermediate regional flood plain located outside

of the floodway which may generally be considered as the backwater area of the intermediate
regional flood.

GRADING: Any stripping, cutting, filling, stockpiling, or any combination thereof, and shall
include the land in its cut or filled condition.

GRADING PERMIT: A permit issued to authorize grading under the Charter Township of
Meridian Building Code.

INTERMEDIATE REGIONAL FLOOD: A flood which is representative of large floods
known to have occurred generally in the area and is reasonably characteristic of what can be
expected to occur in a particular stream. The intermediate regional flood generally has a one
percent (1%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.

INTERMEDIATE REGIONAL FLOODPLAIN: The area inundated by the intermediate
regional flood. This is the flood plain area which shall be regulated by the standards and
criteria of this ordinance, as indicated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map and as indicated in
the Flood Insurance Study.

MULCI-IING: The application of plant or other suitable materials on the soil surface to
conserve moisrure, hold soil in place, and aid inestablishing plant cover.

OBSTRUCTION: Any dam, ,wall, wharf, embankment, levee. dike, pile, abutment,
projecrion, excavation, bridge, conduit, culvert, building, wire, fence, rock, gravel, refuse,
fill, structure or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, water course, or
regional flood hazard area which may impede, retard or change the direCtion of the flow of

water or that is placed where the flow of water might carry the same downsueam to damage
of life or property.

SEDIMENTS: Solid material, both mineral and organic that is in suspension, if being
transported, or has been moved from its site of origin by air, water or gravity as a product of
erosion.

SEDIMENT POOL: The reservoir space allotted to the-accumulation of submerged sediment
during the life of the debris basin.

SOIL: All unconsolidated mineral and organic material of whatever origin that overlies
bedrock which can be readily excavated.

VIII-129

90

l

t. SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a
structure. the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure
either, (a) before the improvement or repair is started, or (b) if the structure has been
damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For purposes of this definition
“substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alterations of any structural

part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions
of the structure. The term does not include:

1. Any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or
Township health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to
assure safe living conditions; or (2) any alteration of a structure listed on the

National Register of Historic Places or the State of Michigan Register of Historic
Places.

u. TEMPORARY PROTECTION: Stabilization of erosive or seditnent producing areas.

v. VEGETATIVE PROTECTION: Stabilization of erosive or sediment producing areas by
covering the soil with:

1. Permanent seeding, producing long-term vegetative cover,
2. Short-term seeding, producing temporary vegetative cover, or
3. Sodding, producing areas covered with a turf of perennial sod-forming grass.

w. WATERCOURSE: Any natural or artificial watercourse, stream, river, creek, ditch.
channel, canal, conduit, culvert. drain, waterway, gully, ravine or wash in which water
flows in a definite direcrion or course, either continuously or intermittently, and which has a
definite channel, bed and banks. and shall include any area adjacent thereto subject to
inundation by reason of overflow or flood water. ‘

8246.3 Warning and Dlsdaimer of Liability: The degree of flood protection required by this
ordinance is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes, and for promotion of the public health.
safety. and welfare, and is based on engineering and scientific methods of study. Larger floods may
occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. such as ice
jams and bridge Openings restricted by debris. Approval of the use of land or premises under this
Chapter shall not be considered approval, guarantee. or warranty of safety or suitability. This
ordinance does n0t imply that areas outside the floodplain districts or land uses permitted within such
disrricrs will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the
part of the Charter Township of Meridian or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages
that result from reliance on this ordinance or any adminisrrative decision lawfully made thereunder.

VIII-130

91

8246.4 Conservancy District Areas: The Conservancy District shall be considered to overlay
existing zoning districts and shall constitute additional terms over and above those imposed by the
underlying zoning districts. The Conservancy District within the jurisdiction of this ordinance is
hereby divided into three areas: ground water recharge areas. floodway areas, and floodway fringe
areas. The location and boundaries of groundwater recharge areas shall be determined on a case by
case basis by the Director of Public Works & Engineering or any other professional retained by the
Township who is competent in the field of water resources or hydrology. The location and
boundaries of the floodway and floodway fn‘nge areas shall coincide with those locations and
boundaries for floodways and floodway fringe areas as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(panels OOIOB, 00138, and 00153 dated August 9, 2000), and by the Flood Insurance Study, as
published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

8246.5 General Provisions of the Floodway and Floodway Fringe Areas of the Conservancy
District: The restrictions listed in the following section constitute those general provisions which
shall govern development, construction, improvement, and relocation within the floodway and
floodway fringe areas of the Conservancy District.

at. All persons preposing development within the floodway and floodway fringe areas shall obtain
approved permits from those government agencies having jurisdiction over floodplain
development. No building permit or occupancy permit shall be issued until all such
aforementioned permits have been obtained and have been reviewed by the Department of
Community Planning & Development of the Charter Township of Meridian.

b. Developers of new, substantially improved, or relocated structures within the floodway and

floodway fringe areas shall submit to the Department of Community Planning & Development
a written document indicating:

l. The elevation of the lowest floor including basements in the structure, including
basement.

2. The elevation to which a structure has been floodproofed, if floodproofing methods have
been employed.

Details of specifications proposed and as built drawings shall be kept on record and will
be available for public inspection and for use in determining flood insurance risk
premium rates.

c. Persons wishing to develop in areas designated as ”A” zones on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(that “A" having no number or other letter(s) affixed to the designation) shall obtain
intermediate regional floodplain elevations from federal, state, or other sources. Such
elevations shall be subject to review by the Township.

(1. When floodproofing measures are employed, a registered engineer or architecr shall certify that
the methods used are adequate to withstand the flood depths. pressures. velocities.» impacr and
uplift forces and any other facrors associated with the intermediate regional floodplain elevation.

VIII-131

92

All new construction and substantial improvements made to existing structures. including
mobile homes, shall be firmly anchored to prevent flotation and lateral movement, and shall be
constructed with flood resistant materials and methods.

If new and replaced utility and sanitary facilities must be located below elevation of the
intermediate regional floodplain they shall be constructed so as to be watertight, to. resist
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and to be resistant to the effects of buoyancy. All measures
to flood proof utility and sanitary facilities are subject to the approval of the Director of Public
Works 8: Engineering.

On site waste disposal systems such as septic tanks and leach fields shall be located to avoid
impairment by flood waters associated with the intermediate regional flood level.

The application or discharge of persistent toxic compounds whose direcr or indirect effects
through residuals have a half-life greater than six months, onto or within those areas defined as
floodway or floodway fringe areas is strictly forbidden.

Service facilities such as electrical and heating equipment shall be constructed at or above the
intermediate regional flood protection elevation for the particular area or floodproofed.

Fill or other materials shall be protected against erosion by rip- rap, vegetative cover or
bulkheading.

Should any watercourse relocation or alteration be proposed, notification of said change in the
watercourse shall be sent by the developer to all adjacent communities, to the State of Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ‘
With the altered or relocated portion of any watercourse the carrying capacity shall be

maintained.

Additional regulations pertaining to activities and construction within fifty (50) feet of the Red
Cedar River and county drains are specified in Section 834.11.

. All subdivision proposals and proposals for new development shall be designed and located to
be consistent with the need tominimize flood damage. In addition, all subdivision pr0posals

shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer. gas. electrical, and water systems located
and constructed to minimize flood damage.

VIII-132

93

8246.6 Permitted Uses by Right in the Floodway Area of the Conservancy District: The
following uses having a low flood damage potential and present no, or minimal obstruction to flood
flows shall be permitted within the floodway district to the extent that they are not prohibited by any
other ordinance and provided they do not require structures, fill, or storage of materials or
equipment. No use shall in any manner. affect the capacity of the channels or floodways of any
tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system. Approval from
the State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is mded for construction activity taking
place in the floodway and floodway fringe areas of the Conservancy District.

at. Recreation Uses: Parks, playgrounds, playfields, bridle paths, nature trails, natural wildlife
preserves, outdoor tennis courts, archery ranges, boat launching ramps. target ranges, trap and
skeet ranges, game farms, fish hatcheries, and similar uses. Land owned by the developer of
multiple housing or of a planned unit development in the floodway area of the Conservancy

District may be used to provide the necessary open space required under the provisions of this
Title.

b. Golf Courses and Driving Ranges: In accordance with the requirements of Section 82-2 of this
Title.

c. Agricultural Uses: General farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture,
viticulture, truck farming, and wild crop farming.

d. Uses incidental to single family dwellings: lawns, gardens, and play areas.

e. Parking Areas: Provided said parking areas are unpaved and are incidental to those uses
permitted in the subsections listed above.

f. Uses not permitted: Permitted uses in underlying zoning districts shall not be construed as being
permitted uses in the floodway area of the Conservancy District unless those uses are indicated
as being permitted in the subsections listed above.

8246.7 Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit in the Floodway Area of the Conservancy
District: Provided such uses shall not in the opinion of the Flaming Commission be adverse to the
_ purpose of this secrion or damaging to the public health, safety, 0r welfare, or impose a financial
burden upon the community or shall in any manner affect the capacity of the channels or floodways
of any tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or syStem, the
following uses may be permitted by issuance of a special use permit in accordance with Chapter 81
of this Title and any other requirements stipulated herein:

a. Railroads, Streets, bridges, utility transmission lines, and pipelines.
b. Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves.
c. Extraction of sand, gravel. and other materials.

VIII-133

94

Structures for recreational uses such as shelter houses, out buildings or wildlife sanctuaries.

Parking areas.

Other uses similar in nature to uses described in Sectinn 8246.6 which are consistent with
the provisions of this Title.

8246.8 Requirements for Special Use Permits for Uses in the Floodway Area of the
Conservancy District: In addition to the requirements of Chapter 81 of this Title, the application for
a special use permit in the Floodway Area of the Conservancy District shall submit the following:

b.

A letter of approval from the State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

A location map including existing topographic data at two (2) foot interval contours at a scale
of one (1) inch representing 100 feet.

A map showing pr0posed grading and drainage plans including the location of all public
drainage easements. the limits, extent, and elevations of the pr0posed fill, excavation and
occupation.

A statement from the Ingham County Drain Commissioner indicating that he has reviewed
and approved the proposal. -

A statement from the Ingham County Health Department indicating that they have reviewed
and approved the proposal.

A statement from the Director of Public Works 8!. Engineering concerning feasibility of the
proposal and his approval.

Any Other information requested by the Planning Commission.

8246.9 Standards for Special Use Permits within the Floodway: The Planning Commission shall
review the particular circumstances and facts of each proposed use in terms of the following
standards as well as those in Section 81-32

a.

Strucmres shall nor be designed for human habitation and shall have a low flood damage
p0tential.

Strucrures, if permitted, shall be constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer the
minimum obstrucrion to the flow of floodwaters and whenever possible shall be constructed
with the longitudinal axis parallel to the. direction of floodflow.

No special use permit shall be issued for the development of new structures, the substantial
improvement or relocation of old structures, or development of any kind within the floodway

area when such development, construction, improvement or relocation would cause any
increase in flood level associated with the intermediate regional flood.

VIII-134

95

8246.10 Permitted Uses by Right in the Floodway Fringe Area of the Conservancy District: The
following uses having a low flood damage potential and present no, or minimal obstruction to flood
flows shall be permitted within the floodway fringe district to the extent that they are not prohibited
by any Other ordinance and provided they do nor require structures, fill, or storage of materials or
equipment. Approval from the State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is needed
for construction activity taking place in the floodway fringe.

Recreation Uses: Parks, playgrounds, playfields, bridle paths. nature trails, natural wildlife

' preserves, outdoor tennis courts, archery ranges, boat launching ramps, target ranges, trap

and skeet ranges. game farms, fish hatcheries, and similar uses. Land owned by me
developer of multiple housing or of a planned unit development in the floodway area of the
Conservancy District may be used to provide the necessary open space required under the
provisions of this Title, provided the open space requirement of the specific section of this
Title is met.

Golf Courses and Driving Ranges: In accordance with the requirements of Section 82-2 of
this Title.

Agricultural Uses: General farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries. horticulture,
viticulture, truck farming, and wild crop farming.

Uses incidental to single family dwellings, lawns, gardens, play areas, and parking areas.
Uses not permitted: Permitted uses in underlying zoning districts shall not be construed as

being permitted uses in the floodway area of the ConservanCy District unless those uses are
indicated as being permitted in the sub-sections listed above.

8246.11 Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit in the Floodway Fringe Area of the Conservancy

District: Provided such uses shall not in the opinion of the Planning Commission be adverse to the
purpose of this section or damaging to the public health. safety, or welfare, or impose a financial ‘
burden upon the community the following uses may be permitted by issuance of a special use permit

b.

in accordance with Chapter 81 of this Title and any other requirements stipulated herein:

Railroads, streets. bridges, utility transmission lines, and pipelines.

Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves.

Extracrion of sand, gravel, and other materials.

Structures for recreational uses such as shelter houses, out buildings or wildlife sanctuaries.

Those uses indicated as being permitted uses or as being permissible with a special use
permit in those zoning disrricts which underlie the Conservancy DistriCt.

VIII-BS

96

f. Dumping or backfilling with any material in any manner. In the case where floodway fringe
areas have no groundwater recharge or impoundment potential, filling may occur through
compensating excavation and shaping of floodway fringe in such a way as to maintain or
improve the flow or natural impoundment capacity of the floodway fringe. In no case shall
the flow or impoundment capacity of the floodway fringe be reduced.

g. Other uses similar in nature to uses described in Section 8246.10 which are consistent with
the provisions of this Title.

8246.12 Requirements for Special Use Permits for Uses in the Floodway Fringe Area of the
Conservancy District: In addition to the requirements of Chapter 81 of this Title, the applicant for a
special use permit in the Conservancy District shall meet the following requirements.

a. The applicant for a special use permit shall be required to submit that information listed as
necessary in Section 8246.8. -

8246.13 Standards for Special Use Permits within the Floodway Fringe: The Planning
Commission shall review the particular circumstances and facts of each proposed use in terms of the
following standards as well as those in Section 81-32. '

a. All new residential structures and residential structures requiring substantial improvement
shall have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to one (1) foot above the level of
the intermediate regional floodplain.

b'. All new non-residential structures and non-residential structures requiring substantial
improvements shall have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to one (1) foot above
the level of the intermediate regional floodplain or shall be floodproofed to one (1) font
above the level of the intermediate regional floodplain.

8246.14 Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Parks and Subdivisions Located In Floodplain Areas:
When a mobile home, mobile home park or mobile home subdivision is to be developed or
substantially redeveloped or reconstructed and is located either totally or partially within the
floodway fringe areas of the Conservancy District, the following regulations shall apply in addition
to those lisred in Sections 829 and Chapter 104:

a. No mobile homes shall be placed in the floodway fringe area of the Conservancy Districr
except within mobile home parks or mobile home subdivisions which were existing prior to
February 1977. In no case shall a mobile home be placed in the floodway.

b. Mobile homes placed within the floodway fringe area'shall be anchored to resist floration,
collapse, or lateral movement in the following manner:

1. Over-the-top ties to ground anchors shall be provided at each of the four corners of
the mobile home with two additional ties per side at intermediate locations, however.

mobile homes of less than 50 feet long shall be required to have only one additional
tie per side.

VIII-136

97

2. _ Frame ties shall be provided at each corner of the home with five additional ties per
- side at intermediate points along the mobile home; however, mobile homes of less
than 50 feet long shall be'required to have only four additional ties per side.

3. All equipment used to tie down the mobile home shall be capable of carrying a force
of 4,800 lbs.

4. Any additions to the mobile homes located within the floodway fringe shall be
anchored in a similar mariner.

For new mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions, and for expansions to existing
mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions, and for repair, reconstruction, or
improvement of the streets, utilities and pads, in said mobile home parks and mobile home
subdivisions, any of which take place in the floodway fringe area, the following restriction
shall apply.

1. Stands or lots shall be elevated on compacted fill or on pilings so, that the lowest
floor of the mobile home shall be elevated to at least one (1) foot above the
intermediate regional flood protection elevation.

2. Adequate surface drainage shall be provided along with ample access for a hauler.

3. If the stands are elevated on pilings, lots shall be large enough to permit steps.
Pilings shall be placed in stable soil and shall be no more than ten (10) feet apart.
Any pilings which are located more than six (6) feet above the ground level shall be
reinforced.

Any mobile home which is to be located, reconstructed, or repaired, on an individual lot not
associated with a mobile home park or mobile home subdivision and which is located either
totally or in part in the floodway fringe area shall meet those requirements for elevation,
drainage, and piling design set forth in Section 82- 16.14 (c).

All mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions located within the floodway area shall
deve10p an evacuation plan indicating alternate vehicular access and escape routes and shall
submit copies of said plan to the Emergency Response Teams for both Lansing and Ingham
County and to any other disaster relief agency deemed appropriate.

8246.15 Standards for Variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals from the Strict Interpretation
of the Regulations set Forth in Section 8246 of this Title: ‘

No variance shall be granted for the development of new structures, the substantial
improvement or relocation of old structures, or development of any kind within the floodway
area when such development, consrrucfion, improvement. or relocation would cause any
increase in flood levels associated with the intermediate regional flood.

VIII- 137

98

The following four criteria must be met in addition to those stipulated in Section 81-3.5F
before a'variance can be granted:

1.

2.

4.

A sufficient cause for granting the variance must be shown.

A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional
hardship to the applicant.

A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood
heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create
nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with this Title.

A determination that the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief.

Upon application for a variance for construction below the elevation of the intermediate
regional flood, the Township shall notify the applicant for variance in writing that:

l.

Issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the elevation of the intermediate
regional flood will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance
commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest flood
elevation and that,

Such construction below the elevation of the intermediate regional flood increases
risk to life and property.

Record of such notification shall be maintained along with records of all variance
actions dealing with floodplain development.

8246.17 Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit in the Ground Water Recharge Area of the
Conservancy District: Provided such cases shall not in the opinion of the Planning Commission be
adverse to the purpose of this section or damaging to the public health, safety or welfare, or impose a
financial burden upon the community, the following uses may be permitted by issuance of a special use
permit in accordance with Section 81-32 of this Title and any other requirements stipulated herein:

a.

b.

Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmissionlines, and pipelines.

Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves.

Extraction of sand, gravel, and other materials.

Structures for recreational uses such as shelter houses, out buildings or wildlife sanctuaries.

Those uses indicated as being permitted uses or as being permissible with a special use pemiit in
those zoning districts which underlie the Conservancy District. '

VIII-138

99

Otherusessimilarinnatureto usesdescn’bedinSection 8246.14 whichareeonsistentwiththe
provisions ofthis Title.

8246.18 Requirements for Special Use Permits for Uses inithe Ground Water Recharge Area of
the Conservancy District: In addition to the requirements of Section 81-32 of this Title, the applicant
for a special use permit in the Conservancy District shall submit the following:

1.

b.

e.

f.

A location map including‘existing topographic data at two (2) foot interval contours.

A map showing proposed grading and drainage plans including the location of all public drainage
easements, the limits and extent of the proposed fill, excavation and occupation.

A statement from the Ingham County Drain Conunissioner indicating dint he has reviewed and
approved plans.

' A statement from the Ingham County Heslth Department indicating that they have reviewed and

approved plans.
A statement fi'om the Township Engineer concerning feasibility of the plans and his approval.

Any other information requested by the Planning Commission.

8246.19 Standards for Special Use Permits within the Ground Water Recharge Area: The Planning
Commission shall review the particular circumstances and facts of each proposed use in terms of the
following standards as well as those in Section 81-3.2F.

a.

C.

Any fill proposed to be deposited in a ground water recharge area must be shown to have some
beneficial purpose and the amount thereof not greater than is necessary to achieve that purpose.

Fill or other material shall be protected against erosion by rip- rap,bvegetative cover or
bulkheading.

Reduction of surface water infiltration shall be kept to a minimum.

8246.20 Plans for Control of Soil Erosion: Any development in Meridian Charter Township shall
comply with the Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control as adopted by the
Ingham County Soil Conservation District on April 21 1970.

VIII-139

100

COMPLIANCE: No site plan, except for single family residential structures which must meet
Standards approved for the plat, shall be approved unless it includes soil erosion and sediment
control measures in accordance with the technical standards of the Ingham County Soil
Conservation District. No certificate for occupancy of any building may be granted unless and
until all needed erosion control measures have been completed or substantially provided for in
accordance with this Title and the Standards and Specifications of the Ingham County Soil
Conservation District. The developer shall bear the full responsibility for the installation and
construction of all required erosion control measures according in the provisions of this Title and
to the standards and specifications of the Ingham Soil Conservation District.

DATA REQUIRED: The developer must submit to the Department of Development Control of
Meridian Township and to Ingham County the following for the entire tract of land, whether or
not the tract will be developed in stages:

I. Aboundarylinesurveyofthesiteonwhichtheworkistobeperformed.

2. Description of the features, existing and proposed, surrounding the site of importance to the
proposed development.

3. General topographic and soil conditions on the site available from the Township Planning
Department or the Ingham County Soil Conservation District.

4. Loeation and description of existing and future man-made features of importance to the
proposed development

5. Plans and specifications of soil erosion and sedimentation control measures in accordance
with standards and specifications of the Ingham County Soil Conservation District

6. .A timing schedule indicating the anticipated starting and completion dates of the
development sequence and the time of exposure of each area prior to the completion of
effective erosion and sediment control measures.

GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit valid for no more than six months unless extended by
new application as provided for in the Township Building Code shall be required for each
development. This permit may not be issued without the approval of both the Planning Director
and the Building Inspector.

GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES: Practical combinations of the following general principles
will provide efi‘ective sediment control when properly planned and applied:

1. The development plan shall be fitted to the topography and soils so as to create the least
erosion potential.

VIII-140

10]

2. PennanentvegetefimandhnpmvunenBsuchusfleds,s%msmmordheeresof
thedevelopmentcapableofcarryingstormrunofi‘inasafemanner,shallbescheduledfor
msmflafionmthegreatestanentpossiblebefomrunommevegaafiwcoverfioman
area.

3. Where feasible, natural vegetation shall be retained and protected.

4. Where inadequate vegetation exists, temporary or permanent vegetation shall be established.

5. The smallest practical area of land shall be exposed at any one time during development.

6. When land is exposed during development, the exposure shall be kept to the shortest
practical period of time.

7. Critical areas exposed during construction shall be protected with temporary vegetation

and/or mulching.

8. Sediment basins (debris basins, desilting basins, or silt traps) shall be installed and
maintained to remove sediment fi‘om run-ofi‘ waters from land undergoing development

9. Provisions shall be made to effectively accommodate the increasing run-ofi‘ caused by
changed soil and surface conditions during and after development

10. The permanent final vegetation and structures shall be installed as soon as practical in the
development.

c. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: All development plans, specifications and timing schedules
including extensions of previously approved plans, shall include provisions for erosion and
sediment control in accordance with the standards and specifications established by the Ingham
County Soil Conservation District.

1. Technical standards for the design and installation of erosion and sediment control measures
are on file at the Ingham Soil Conservation District ofice in Mason, Michigan, and with the
Township Planning Director.

f. MAINTENANCE: Individuals or developers carrying out soil erosion and sediment control
measures under this Title, and all subsequent owners of property on which such measures have
been installed. shall adequately maintain all pemranent erosion control measures, devices and

‘ plantings in efl‘ective working condition.

8246.21 Conflict Between this Section and the Remainder of this Title: In the event of conflict
between those regulations stipulated in Section 82.16 and the remainder of this Title, those regulations
found in Section 82.16 shall take precedence over the remainder of this Title.

VIII-141

102

8246.22 Relationship of this Chapter to State and Federal Law: Nothing in this Chapter shall be
deerncdtoexernptadeveloperfi'omtherequirunemsofanyStatcorFederal statuteorregulation
applicable to the proposed activity; nor shall any permit or approval issued to a developer fiom a State or
Federal agency be deemed to exempt the deveIOper from the requirements of the Chapter.

VIII- 142

103

 

WHEREAS, protection of the environment and conservation of
natural resources are of the utmost importance not only to the
residents of this planet, this nation, and this state, but also of
particular concern to the citizens of Meridian Township and to the
Township Board of Meridian Township,- and

WHEREAS, this Township Board feels that an awareness of and a
sensitivity to environmental constraints is absolutely vital to the
preservation of our environmental resources; and

WHEREAS, this Township Board recognizes that proper evaluation
of proposed changes to the environment and natural resources of
Meridian Township is a necessity for the protection of those
elements of the environment and natural resources deemed critical
to a viable. natural environment; and

WHEREAS, this Township Board concludes that the existing body
of regulatory legislation from Federal law, State law, and Township
ordinances would allow for the proper evaluation of those proposed
changes to the environment and natural resources of Meridian
Township.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(1) The Township Board of the Charter Township of Meridian
will commit sufficient financial and staff resources to
ensure that any proposed change to either the environment
or the natural resources of Meridian Township will have
first been taken through the required regulatory process '
to obtain those permits required by the appropriate
Township, State, or Federal regulations. Examples of,
but not to be construed as an exhaustive list of, those
regulated activities requiring the issuance of permits
are those activities requiring permits under the
Environmental Protection Act of the United States, the
Goemare-Anderson Act, the Inland Lakes and Streams Act,
the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, and the
Plat Act of the State of Michigan, and the Code of
Ordinances of the Charter Township of Meridian.

(2) To ensure that the Charter Township of Meridian
will commit adequate resources, the Township
Superintendent is directed to. submit for Township

board approval a plan whose activities shall

achieve the following objectives: ,

a. To the extent possible, the observation of all
activities within the Charter Township of
Meridian that will change the environment of
or the natural resources of the Charter
Township of Meridian. To ensure said proper...

104

and timely observation, said plan should
include any supplemental ‘steps necessary to
provide Township staff with the appropriate

.means to properly carry out the goals of this
policy.

'The timely reporting of such activities to the
proper Township [authority for evaluation by
said authority as to whether or not said

activity requires the appropriate statutory or
’ ordinance permits.

The timely determination by the proper
Township authority as to whether or not said,
permits have indeed been acquired.

The taking of those steps necessary to ensure
compliance with, or the acquisition of, the
applicable permits. Said steps shall include
the filing with the appropriate courts for
those legal instruments to cause the cessation
of those activities operating without the
appropriate permits, or in non-compliance with
those permits required under State or Federal
statute or Township ordinance.

ADOPTED: July 16/17, 1991

105

83-1.8 Relocation of Existing Buildings and Structures on Parcels or Lots in the Township: 'No
existing building or other structure within or fi'om outside of Meridian Charter Township shall be relocated
upon any parcel or [or loeated in Meridian Charter Township, unless the building design and construction
are compatible with the general architectural design and construction of buildings or Other structures
presently located in the immediate area of the zoning district and construction are in conformity with the
Building Code of Meridian Charter Township and unless the building or structure can be located upon the
parcel or lot and conform to the other requirements of the zoning district in which the parcel or lot is
located, as determined by the Building Inspector. This shall not be deemed to restrict houses of modular
construction which meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code, as amended and adapted by Meridian
Charter Township, and which are constructed away from the site and brought to the site to be erected.

83-1.9 Access to Commercial, Research Park and Industrial Districts: Access to commercial, research
and industrial districts shall not be permitted through residential district zones, except by means of those
principal and minor arterials indicated in Section 82-8.l or by Special Use Permit in accordance with
Chapter 81. ' '

83-1.10 Lots Along Railroad Rights-of-Wey: Any lot created or recorded after May 9, 1988, that is
adjacent to or along a railroad right-of-way, shall not be used for any residential purpose unless it has a
depthofatleast 250feet Inno caseshallany dwellingunitbeloeatedcloserthan 175 feetfromarailroad
right-of-way.

83-l.11 Setbacks From Water Features: Recognizing the special conditions and relationships in
transition areas between water features and developed areas, minimum setbacks are hereby established to
prevent degradation of the water features ofthe Township, provide protection during high water episodes in
flood prone areas, and preserve the aesthetic values of water features. This regulation is based on the
police power, for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, including the authority granted in
the Township Rural Zoning Act, RA 184 of 1943, as amended.

a. Structure and Grading Setbacks: All structures and grading activities shall be setback from the
edge of a water feature as follows:

1. Wetlands regulated by the Township, the State, or by federal law equal to or greater than
two (2.00) acres in area: forty (40) feet. The Township may require the permit applicant
to have the precise boundary of the wetland in question delineated in accordance with
Chapter 105 of the Charter Township of Meridian Code of Ordinances.

2. Wetlands regulated by the Township, the State, or by federal law equal to or greater than
one-quarter (0.25) acre in area but less than'two (2.00) acres in area; twenty (20) feet.
The Township may require the applicant to have the precise boundary of the wetland in
question delineated in accordance with Chapter 105 of the Charter Township of Meridian
Code of Ordinances.

b)

The Red Cedar River: fifty (50) feet as measured from the ordinary high water mark on
the side of the River where the structure is to be located or grading activity is to occur.

VIII-159

106

Us

Opencountydrainsorcreeks: fifiy(50)feetasmeasuredfromthetopofthebankonthe
sideofthedrainwherethestrucmreistobelocatedorgradingactivityistooccur.

Lakes equal to or greater than two (2.00) acres in area: forty (40) feet as measured from
the ordinary high water mark. ‘

Lakes equal to or greater than one-quarter (0.25) acre in area but less than two (2.00)
acres in area: twenty (20) feet as measured fi'om the ordinary high water mark.

'Natural Vegetation Strip: To minimize erosion, stabilize strearnbanks and wetland edges, protect
water quality, and preserve fish and wildlife habitat, a natural vegetation strip' shall be maintained
fiom the edge of a water feature as follows:

1.

b)

Us

10.

Wetlands regulated by the Township, the State, or by federal law: twenty (20) feet. The
Township may require the pemiit applicant to have the precise boundary of the wetland in
question delineated in accordance with Chapter 105 of the Charter Township of Meridian
Code of Ordinances.

The Red Cedar River: twenty-five (25) feet as measured from the abutting ordinary high
water mark.

Open county drains or creeks: twenty-five (25) feet as measured from fire top of the
abutting bank.

Lakes: twenty (20) feet as measured from the ordinary high water mark.

Existing soil and organic matter shall not be altered or disturbed within the natural
vegetation strip.

Natural ground cover shall be preserved to the fullest extent feasible, and where removed
shall be replaced with other naturally occurring vegetation that is equally efi‘ective in
retarding runofi‘ and preventing erosion.

A lawn shall nor be considered a natural vegetation strip.

Application of organic or synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or other chemicals shall not be
permitted in the natural vegetation strip.

Planting of perennial native species in the natural vegetation strip is encouraged, especially
where exposed soil and steep slopes exist and in reforestation efl'orts.

Within the natural vegetation strip, trees, shrubs, and ground cover may be selectively
pruned or removed to provide reasonable private access or views to water features, to

remove potentially hazardous or nuisance exotic vegetation, and to improve or protecr
wildlife habitat. Said pruning and removal activities are subject to the following:

VIII-160

107

(a) No more than ten (10) percent of the length of the strip shall be clear cut or
mowed to the depth of the strip.

(b) Pathways accessing water features shall act exceed ten (10) feet in width.

(c) A live root sysrem shall be maintained to provide for strearnbank stabilization and
erosion control.

Exceptions: The following exceptions shall apply to Secrion 83-l.1 1. All uses that fall within
such exceptions must comply with all other requirements and standards of this Title and all other
applicable regulations and laws.

1.

Ix)

la)

Subsection 83-1.11(a), Structure and Grading Setbacks, shall not apply to the following:

(a) Plats that have received Township preliminary or final approval prior to
September 2, 1991.

(17) Site plans and condominium plans that have received final approval prior to
September 2, 1991.

(c) Unplatted lots under two (2.00) acres in area, created prior to September 2, 1991,
on which an occupiable building is located for which a building permit was issued
prior to September 2, 1991.

For plats that have received Township preliminary or final approval between September 2,
1991 and the efi‘ective date of this Section, for site plans and condominium plans that have
received final approval between September 2, 1991 and the efl‘ective date of this Section,
and for unplatted lots under two (2.00) acres in area, created between September 2, 1991
and the efiecnve date of this Section, on which an occupiable building is located for which
a building permit was issued between September 2, 1991 and the efl‘ective date of this
Section, the requirements of Subsection 83-l.ll(a), Structure and Grading Setbacks, shall
be modified to provide that when a forty (40) foot setback is required, decks, porches, and
patios may project a maximum of ten (10) feet into the required setback.

The limitations as to grading activities in Subsection 83-l.ll(a), Strucrure and Grading
Setbacks, and Subsection 83-1.ll(b), Natural Vegetation Strip, shall not apply to the
following:

(a) Plats that have received preliminary or final approval prior to the etfective date of
this Seetion, including littoral rights running with platted lots.

(b) Site plans and condominium plans that receive final approval prior to the efi'ective
date of this Section. .

VIII-161

108

(c) Unplatted lots under two (2.00) acres in area, created prior to the eEective date of
this Section, on which an occupiable building is located for which a building
permit was issued prior to the efi‘ective date of this Section. including littoral
rights running with unplatted lots.

4. The limitations as to grading activities in Subsection 83-l.ll(a), Structure and Grading
Setbacks, and Subsection 83-1.! 1(b), Natural Vegetation Strip, shall not apply to grading
activities required by the Township Engineer under the Township's land development
ordinances and regulations.

5. Bridges, docks, piers, sea walls, or wharves. incidental to the permitted uses of the zoning
district in which a protected water feature is located are exempt from the water feature
setback. ’

6. Structures that do not require a permit from the Township incidental to the permitted uses
of the zoning district in which the protected water feature is loeated are exempt from the
water feature setback.

7. County Drain Commission normal activities including, but not limited to, drain cleaning,
dredging, and depositing and grading of dredge spoils are exempt ’fi'om the water feature
setback. The adverse efl‘ect on the natural vegetation strip shall be minimized

8. Landscaping and lawn maintenance incidental to the principal use are permitted in the
waterfeamre setback, excluding the natural vegetation strip.

. 9. Other activities are exempt fi'om the water feature setback to the extent the Township is
prohibited from regulating by its ordinances or other laws.

10. Subsections 83-l.ll(a) and 83-l.ll(b) shall not apply to. any driveway, pathway, or

sidewalk less than or equal to 12 feet in width and/or utilities that have been granted a

. permit to pass through a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) or

Township regulated wetland The exception shall apply only to the areas of the setback

and natural vegetation strip which the driveway, pathway, sidewalk and/or utilities must

pass through as it enters and/or exits the wetland. All conditions of the MDEQ or
Township permit shall be met.

Section 83-l.12 Buildings Greater than 25,000 square feet in gross floor area:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Title, any building or group of buildings on a lot with a

combined floor area greater than 25,000 square feet shall require a special use permit in accordance with

Chapter 81, regardless of the use(s) or the zoning district in which the building(s) are located. as provided
by Section 86-9 of this Title.

VIII-I62

109

SECTION 83-2 SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS

Section 83-2.1 Uses of Structures for Temporary Dwelling: No strucrure shall be used for dwelling
purposes that does not meet the minimum standards as defined in this Title and in the Township Building
Code. In addition no temporary structure may be occupied for temporary dwelling purposes for any length
of time unless by issuance by the Building Inspector of a special occupancy permit which may be valid for
a period not to exceed six (6) months. No permit may be transferrable.

83-2.2 Accessory Building: Authorized accessory buildings may be erected as part of the principal
building or may be connected to it by a roofed-over porch, patio or breezeway, or similar structures, or
they may be completely detached. Ifattached to the principal building, an accessory building shall be made
structurally a part of it, and shall comply in all respects with the requirements applicable to the principal
building. An accessory building not attached and not made a part of the principal building as provided in

the preceding Statement shall not be nearer than ten (10) feet from any other separate structure on the same
lot.

83-2.3 Accessory Uses, Outdoor Storage of Commercial Vehicles: No outdoor storage or overnight
parking of commercial vehicles over one ton capacity shall be permitted in any residential district. Space in
a garage or parking ramp accessory to a multiple family dwelling may be used for parking purposes by
persons other than occupants of that dwelling only if adequate parking is maintained for that dwelling in
accordance with this title; and, only'when approved by the Planning Commission in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 81, Special Use Permit. In Rural Residential Districts vehicles associated with a
permitted agricultural use are exempted from these restrictions.

83-2.4 Excavation of Topsoil: Topsoil shall not be stripped, excavated, or otherwise removed fiom any
premises for sale or for use other than on the premises on which the topsoil was originally located except
that in accordance with all other requirements of this Title construction grading, excavation or sod farming
may be done by special use permit in accordance with Chapter 86.

834.5 Excavation of Soils and Minerals Other Than Top Soil: The excavation of peat, muck, sand.
gravel, clay, shale or other natural mineral deposit. including the quarrying of rock materials, but except
crude oil, may be authorized in any district by the Flaming Commission by the issuance of a special permit
upon the completion of procedures and with the imposition of the conditions and safe-guards outline in
Chapter 86. A special permit may include authorization for the erection. installation and use of necessary
buildings, apparatus, and appertances incidental to the excavation operation.

83-2.6 Fences, Walls, Screens: The following regulations shall apply to all fences, walls, screens or
similar devices of structural or plant materials:

a. No fence, wall or screen of any material other than plant materials shall be erected higher than six
(6) feet from the average grade elevation on the property.

b. No fence, wall or screen, or any planting shall obstruct visibility at street intersections between the
heights of three (3) feet and ten (10) feet, within the triangular area formed by the intersection of
the street right-of-way lines and a line connecting the two points along those right-of-way lines
which are thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the two right-of-way lines. measured
above the elevation of the centerline of the road.

VIII-163

110

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

mu(«in(rmimwuuzuwlnl