Planning
Commission Minutes
MINUTES
Cascade Charter Township Planning Commission
Monday, October 6, 2008
7:00 p.m.
ARTICLE 1. Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
Members Present: Hammond, Koessel, Lewis, Logue, McDonald, Pennington,
Robinson, Sperla, Waalkes
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Township Consultant Andy Felde, Township Engineer Mike
Berrevoets, Planning Director Peterson, Recording Secretary Hern, and
Members of the Public.
ARTICLE 2. Chairman McDonald led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ARTICLE 3. Chairman McDonald requested a motion for the approval of
the October 6, 2008 agenda.
Member Robinson motioned to approve the October 6th Agenda as
presented, supported by Member Hammond. All in favor with none
opposed, the motion carried.
ARTICLE 4. Approve the Minutes of the September 8, 2008.
Member Sperla motioned for approval of the September 8, 2008 minutes
as presented, supported by Member Robinson. All in favor with none
opposed: September 8, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes were
approved as submitted.
ARTICLE 5. Approve the Minutes of the September 15, 2008.
Member Lewis motioned for approval of the September 15, 2008 minutes
as presented, supported by Member Waalkes. All in favor with none
opposed: September 15, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes were
approved as submitted.
ARTICLE 6. Case # 08-2956: Metro PC
Address of Property: 4700 Quiggle Ave.
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Requested Action: The Applicant is requesting a Type I Special Use
Permit to collocate an antenna on the existing tower.
Planning Director Peterson said the property is located on the East
side of Quiggle Ave. just north of I-96.
The Applicant is requesting a Type I Special Use Permit to allow
the construction of a new antenna on the existing tower. In addition,
a small equipment shelter will be located inside the pre-existing
leased are.
Staff has provided the Standards in their report and Andy Felde is
also present to answer question. Mr. Felde is the consultant who
reviews the antennas when these requests are made.
In Mr. Felde's report, he has noted that with the addition of this
tower, the tower is at 105% and any future collocations would require
reinforcement of the pole.
Staff recommends approval of the Type I Special Use Permit to allow
for the collocation of the antenna at the tower at 4700 Quiggle Ave.
as requested.
Member Robinson asked who is doing the calculations of the tower as
far as its determination that it is 5% overload. Mr. Felde of Drew
Wireless provided a copy of the structure to the Commission. He noted
a State engineer did the review. He has dealt with numerous structural
engineers regarding collocations and all have said that 105% is an
acceptable overage for a tower.
The structural engineers receive their data regarding the tower
from the tower's manufacturer. The field engineers also provide the
information to the structural engineers as to what is on the tower.
This information is whatever is in the tower owner's file. He compares
with what the structural engineer has submitted to what is actually on
the tower. As an example with this particular tower, AT&T has
twelve (12) antennas and there are not currently twelve (12) antennas.
This is due to when AT&T leased the tower, they specified that
they wanted twelve (12) antennas, though they have not installed
twelve (12).
The structural engineer who develops the report generates the
report from the information that is provided. Most of the time, the
reports reflect equipment that is simply not there due to lease
negotiations. Mr. Felde said he reviews these factors in his reports.
Member Robinson said the engineer is assuming that the tower is in
good condition and not corroded or damaged.
Member Robinson asked if the 5% overload is acceptable to the
engineer and Mr. Felde said it should be: the platform towers add more
stress to the tower than the antennas themselves. When the engineer
reviews the towers, the engineer always calculates with the largest
amounts.
Member Pennington referred to AT&T having permission to install
twelve (12) antennas but they have fewer than that. Were the
calculations based on AT&T having twelve (12) or what is actually
on the tower? Mr. Felde said the calculations have been done based on
AT&T having twelve (12). Member Pennington asked if AT&T could
install more and are they able to just install the antennas since they
are allowed twelve (12)? Mr. Felde said that the Township's Ordinance
does require AT&T to come before the Planning Commission to add
any antennas.
Member Hammond asked Mr. Felde if he knows what the lease agreement
states and Mr. Felde does not. Member Hammond noted the lease
information would be helpful and if they are allowed twelve (12)
total, adding this antenna is a concern.
Jon Szotarski of Metro PCS said he is representing Metro PCS and is
employed by American Tower, the owners of the tower, as well.
Mr. Szotarski said what the structural analysis takes into account
is every piece of equipment that is leased, whether installed or not.
In addition when running for a new carrier, there is field staff that
monitors the site to ensure what is approved to be installed is
actually installed. The structural analysis takes into account every
piece of equipment on the tower as well as what is leased. The 105% in
this report takes into account AT&T's possible installations for
their leased twelve (12), along with any others and meets the State's
guidelines.
Member Robinson noted a point of clarification in the engineer's
report that if any other equipment is added the tower are required to
be reinforced. His understanding is also that the equipment of Metro
PCS is included within the 105% and does not include equipment from
future installations. Mr. Szotarski clarified that AT&T is leased
for twelve (12) tower top ampliphiers and currently they have six (6)
and six (6) antennas. If they installed the additional six (6) of
each, that is already taken into account in the calculations of 105%,
even though they are not there.
Member Lewis asked if a copy of the calculations was submitted with
the application and Planning Director Peterson said it has been.
Member Lewis asked what the liability insurance is if one of these
towers were to come down and if the Township is liable since they
would have approved it? Mr. Felde said it is very rare for a tower to
fail and if it were to, he believes it would be the engineer's and
tower owner's responsibility.
Member Lewis noted that if the Township were to approve this at
over 100% an attorney could find fault with the Township since they
knew the tower was 5% over capacity. Mr. Felde noted that the
engineers due state that the 5% overage is acceptable over-stress and
it is in the Revision F Standard.
Member Robinson noted that he is registered as a structural
engineer in Michigan along with other states and he has yet to hear
another engineer say that 105% is acceptable. The design load is 100%
and he is not sure what the safety factor is on the towers. He also
questions if the tower has been thoroughly inspected for any damage or
corrosion since it is almost 10-years old. He noted the engineer's
report says that the 105% is based on non-damaged tower conditions.
Member Robinson said that he could not approve a request for 5%
overage on the tower.
Member Robinson noted that the report states that Metro PCS's
equipment added to this tower would provide the 5% overage to the
tower. Any additional equipment after this, the pole would have to be
reinforced.
Applicant Jon Szotarski, representing American Tower, noted they
are planning to install a 9 x 15-foot steel platform in the existing
compound to house two (2) equipment cabinets and their power supply.
They would also be installing three (3) antennas at 150-feet each on
the tower.
Addressing the tower structure, they are only installing three of
the six (6) antennas and they could go back and recalculate with just
the three (3).
Chairman McDonald clarified that the Applicant is installing only
three (3) of the six antennas requested and the three (3) antennas
would not take the tower to 105%, correct? Applicant Szotarski said
that is correct. Chairman McDonald asked what the potential additions
could be to this tower after these three (3) were installed. The
Applicant clarified that if AT&T were to install their additional
antennas and Metro PCS install their additional three (3), then the
tower would reach 105%. Chairman McDonald asked that if the additional
six (6) were to be installed by AT&T, then the request would have
to come through the Planning Commission, correct and Planning Director
Peterson said it was.
Member Koessel supported Member Sperla's concerns if AT&T
wanted to install their remaining six (6) antennas and surpassing 100%
capacity. He asked Staff if AT&T's additional antennas have been
approved. Planning Director Peterson said the Township has approved
the antennas and equipment shown, not any of the lease agreements or
proposed/future antennas. Member Koessel questioned what was approved
for AT&T and Planning Director Peterson what is on the tower today
is what has been approved. Member Koessel noted that even though
AT&T has a lease for twelve (12) antennas, the Township's
ordinance would supersede the lease. Planning Director Peterson noted
that AT&T has planned for more but the Township has not approved
more.
Member Sperla asked if Staff has reviewed the numbers noting that
the report says the tower is at 105% if the Applicant's request is
approved this evening. He noted that if he were a lawyer and the tower
was allowed at 105% and someone were to get hurt it places tremendous
liability on the Township if approved with the 5% overage and he has a
hard time allowing the overage.
Planning Director Peterson noted the Township's standard is for the
Applicant to provide information containing the structural integrity
to support the addition. Member Robinson said that if he is reading
the report correctly, that the tower is at 105% with the addition of
the three antennas the Applicant is asking for. The report further
states that anything added in the future would require the pole to be
reinforced. Planning Director Peterson said that is correct.
Member Koessel asked the Applicant that if he were his client and
had a lease with him and has agreement saying that he is allowed so
many antennas and another leaser comes along, why would the tower
allow the lease agreement with the new client, knowing that there is
already a lease agreement prior to the new agreement? Mr. Felde noted
that the initial lease is already taken into account when entering
into a new lease with another client.
Member Waalkes noted that the 105% is all-inclusive with equipment
that is currently located on the tower and includes the proposed
equipment within the leases and this is not accurately reflected in
the engineer's report.
Member Koessel asked Mr. Felde if he is saying if the tower is at
105% currently, with what is on the tower now, or when and if the
Applicant's request has been added? Mr. Felde clarified that his
report reflects 105% including everything within the leases and what
is physically on the tower currently and the Applicant's request.
Member Robinson referred to Page 1 of the structural engineer's
report said the report does not reflect an inspection of the tower and
his calculations are based on the tower being structurally sound and
undamaged but the tower was not inspected after 10-years. His concern
lies within the tower's inspection. Applicant Szotarski said that the
structural engineer did not inspect the site. The site supervisor who
is responsible for the annual maintenance on the site has. The tower
was originally built in 1999 and extended in 2004, at that time every
bolt was checked. During annual inspections, the structure is
inspected for any percentages for cracking, corrosion, rust and other
factors all based on Federal and State guidelines.
Mr. Felde noted that the 105% is for everything that is leased at
the site, not actually everything that is currently installed.
Member Lewis said he would like to review a structural engineer's
report that show what is currently on the tower right now, with and
without what Metro PCS is proposing and accounting for those that are
installed by AT&T and what is within their lease.
Member Sperla noted that the report is based on assumptions and the
report would be better if based on actual installations and
percentages. He would like to review the information prior to voting
upon the Applicant's request.
Member Lewis motioned to open the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Robinson. All in favor with none opposed. The Public Hearing
was opened.
Chairman McDonald asked if any phone calls or letters were received
at the Township regarding the case and Planning Director Peterson said
he did not receive any comments from the Public.
Member Lewis motioned to close the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Robinson. All in favor with none opposed. The Public Hearing
was closed.
Member Robinson requested a report from the structural engineer and
maintenance crew, based upon the additions from Metro PCS, that shows
the tower is not overloaded. He would like to see the percentages from
what is currently on the tower today as well. The tower should also be
physically inspected to ensure it can support the equipment and is not
overloaded and in sound condition.
Member Waalkes further requested an explanation behind the numbers
presented. The numbers come from codes that have been developed over
years and he would like to review the explanations behind allowing
105% and the code that supports the allowance for the overage.
Member Robinson motioned to table the Applicant's request for a
Special Use Permit to collocate an antenna on the existing tower at
4700 Quiggle Avenue.
Member Koessel requested that AT&T's approval is checked for
what has been approved by the Township.
Member Koessel seconded the motion made by Member Robinson.
Chairman McDonald called the motion to question. All in favor with
none opposed, motion carried. Case # 08-2956: Metro PCS tabled.
ARTICLE 7. Case # 08-2954: Clearwire US, LLC
Address of Property: 3000 Kraft Avenue
(PUBLIC HEARING)
Requested Action: The Applicant is requesting a Type I Special Use
Permit to collocate an antenna on the existing tower.
Planning Director Peterson noted the Applicant is requesting a Type
I Special Use Permit to collocate an antenna with a small equipment
structure at the existing tower site at 3000 Kraft Avenue, the RBC
Ministries site.
The antenna being added is in the middle of the tower that is
currently at 88%.
The equipment is housed in a structure as opposed to an outside
fenced area. Mr. Felde is also available to answer any questions of
the Planning Commission.
Staff recommends approval of the type I Special Use Permit to allow
the collocation of the antenna at the tower at 3000 Kraft Avenue.
Member Robinson asked if the Township received a structural
engineer's report on this tower as well and Mr. Felde said the
Township has.
Chairman McDonald asked Staff if any additional landscaping would
be required and Planning Director Peterson said no.
Mr. Felde noted that the antenna would be directly mounted to the
pole and the equipment housed in the current structure. He indicated
the antenna that is to be mounted and the other antennas that require
platform structures: this antenna is being mounted directly onto the
pole.
Member Sperla asked why Cascade Township seems to have an abundance
of these requests and Mr. Felde said he is seeing requests for new
towers and Cascade Township is lucky to be having requests for
collocations instead of new towers. The population is growing and new
carriers are entering the market, more requests will be forthcoming.
Chairman McDonald asked Mr. Felde if the 88% reflects everything
that is physically on the tower or includes leased/future antennas?
Mr. Felde said he physically counted the equipment and the tower is at
88% as is, with the proposed addition from the Applicant.
Member Lewis asked when the tower was built and Planning Director
Peterson believes this tower is older than the tower in the previous
case this evening. He also added that the Township has worked with Mr.
Felde over the years because he has been able to establish the tower
requests in better places to enable collocations versus erecting new
towers. The Township has limitations as in the residential areas and
by the airport and Mr. Felde has done a great job in identifying the
best spots for the towers.
Member Logue asked if Mr. Felde foresees any new tower requests
forthcoming and Mr. Felde noted there might be a desire in Ada the
Township might have to work with them with.
Applicant Amy Valleau, representing Clearwire of 5738 Foremost SE,
said the tower was built in 1997 according to their structural
analysis. They are looking to install an additional 140-feet on an
existing platform. The platform is currently empty right now.
Clearwire is a wireless Internet provider as opposed to a
traditional cell phone carrier. As a wireless Internet provider, their
needs for antennas are a bit different than cell phone carriers. They
are not looking to add any new towers in the Township but are looking
into other areas to expand into. Their towers and antennas need to be
three (3) miles apart because they use microwaves that allow the data
to travel faster on the Internet.
Member Koessel motioned to open the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Waalkes. All in favor with none opposed. The Public Hearing was
opened.
Chairman McDonald asked if any phone calls or letters were received
at the Township regarding the case and Planning Director Peterson said
he did not receive any comments from the Public.
Member Koessel motioned to close the Public Hearing, supported by
Member Logue. All in favor with none opposed. The Public Hearing was
closed.
Chairman McDonald opened the meeting for further discussion and
being none, Member Waalkes motioned to approve the Applicant's request
for a Type I Special Use Permit to collocate an antenna on the
existing tower at 3000 Kraft Avenue, supported by Member Koessel.
Chairman McDonald called the motion to question. All in favor with
none opposed. Motion carried.
ARTICLE 8. Case # 08-2945: Russ Spees
Address of Property: 6010/6080 28th Street SE
Requested Action: The Applicant is requesting to revise the existing
Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) at 6010 28th Street SE in order to
include the property at 6080 28th Street SE.
Planning Director Peterson noted this case was awarded preliminary
approval at the September 15, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. At
that time, the Planning Commission directed the Applicant to revise
the plan to incorporate the comments from the Township Engineer as
well as to revise the site plan to incorporate the comments regarding
the internal traffic flow movements.
Planning Director Peterson reviewed the new site plan noting the
one connection between the two (2) sites furthest south on the site
with the curb extension. He noted the parking near the existing
shopping center has been changed to parallel parking to allow for
two-way traffic to and from 28th Street.
Planning Director Peterson noted some minor adjustments that were
made for the commercial trucks. Some of the parking is not striped on
the west side of the site.
Staff believes the revised site plan within the Commissions'
packets addresses these items. Chairman McDonald asked Staff to define
the traffic flow from 28th Street and Planning Director Peterson
reviewed. Chairman McDonald asked if there would be stop signs at the
connection and who receives the right-of-way. Planning Director
Peterson said stop signs could be installed at the connection without
stacking of cars into 28th Street since the area is far enough to the
back of the site.
Planning Director Peterson also noted that the building in the rear
is 10,000-square feet and will be either retail or office.
In addition, Staff has also drafted the amendments to the existing
P.U.D. Ordinance for the Planning Commissions' review. The Applicant
has also been provided a draft copy of the ordinance and has
incorporated their comments.
The Public Hearing has been scheduled for this case to be
considered by the Township Board on October 22, 2008. If the Planning
Commission is satisfied with the changes, Staff recommends a favorable
recommendation to the Township Board.
Mike Houseman of Houseman Construction noted that Russ Spees is
also present to answer any questions the Planning Commission might
have. Mr. Houseman said he appreciates the Commissions' comments
regarding the site plan and they believe this site plan is better.
Member Lewis asked Mr. Houseman to show the traffic pattern for the
drive thru if entering the property from the front. Mr. Houseman
showed the two (2) choices the driver would have: one entrance is off
of 28th Street and showed the other entrance. The drive thru can
accommodate up to twelve (12) cars stacking and they have left the
areas open for better vision of other traffic on the site for exiting
the drive thru.
Member Waalkes asked the Applicant if they are proposing having a
pedestrian connection between the two (2) buildings and Mr. Houseman
noted the pedestrian connections between the two (2) buildings and to
the front of the site.
Member Waalkes referred the crosswalk to the south that runs across
with an island, it seems narrow to him and asked the Applicant if they
expected any commercial truck traffic to enter the site from 28th
Street. Mr. Houseman said they do not anticipate the trucks to enter
from 28th Street but the area Member Waalkes is referring to does
maintain a 24-foot wide street and there is ample room for a truck to
get through the area.
Member Sperla asked the Applicant where the storm water goes for
this site. Mr. Houseman said there is an existing culvert the water
flows into that is in front of 6000 28th Street. The site discharges
to the existing culvert, the water then flows through the Foremost
drain and into a regional detention basin, through that is owned and
maintained by the Kent County Drain Commission (KCRC). From there, the
water flows north into Schooolhouse Creek and ends up in the
Thornapple River.
Member Sperla asked if anyone has done any studies regarding how
much more water Schoolhouse Creek could handle? Mr. Houseman does not
believe so but each site is to uphold the Storm Water Ordinance, this
does not mean that there is no increase in the storm water but it is a
way to control water. Member Sperla noted there is an increase of
water into Schoolhouse Creek and there is an accumulative affect, he
knows because he lives on the creek. He is concerned with the storm
water from this site because the project will add more water into
Schoolhouse Creek.
Member Pennington asked if the site was developed prior to the
Applicant's request and Mr. Russ Spees said the site was developed and
used to be Rapid Packaging and there was no detention for the site at
the time. Member Pennington noted that the Applicant is providing
detention for this project and Mr. Spees said that is correct.
Member Waalkes asked if the curb cut would still be provided for
the pump station and Mr. Houseman said yes.
Chairman McDonald thanked the Applicant for revising the plan, it
is much better and the Applicant thanked the Commission for their
input in developing a better site plan.
Member Robinson motioned to approve the revised site plan and amend
the existing Planned Unit Development for 6010/6080 28th Street SE,
supported by Member Waalkes. All in favor with none opposed. Motion
carried.
ARTICLE 9. Discussion with the Township Engineer regarding storm
water.
Chairman McDonald opened the meeting for discussion.
Planning Director Peterson has asked the Township Engineer to
provide a short presentation on storm water and the Ordinance and will
then answer questions of the Planning Commission.
Chairman McDonald noted that Member Sperla has a genuine concern
regarding storm water runoff entering the creeks and rivers in the
Township and asked if the Township has ever assessed the storm water
runoff into the creeks? Township Engineer Berrevoets said the Township
Board adopted the Storm Water Management Plan. The plan identifies
some of the Township's districts and where the water is flowing to,
specific culverts along with some erosion issues. The plan also
identifies specific culverts that are undersized, some of which are
owned by the Drain Commission.
Member Sperla noted that the KCRC has installed curbing as well
that is also affecting Schoolhouse Creek and believes there will be
more water added to the creek due to the curbs.
Member Sperla said he has attended some of the Township Board
meetings regarding water runoff and Schoolhouse Creek does not seem to
be getting the attention it deserves.
He noted that there have been at least ten (10) new developments in
the area that now release their water runoff into Schoolhouse Creek,
granted in a controlled way, but Schoolhouse Creek cannot handle
anymore water runoff from developments in the area. He has spoken with
engineers regarding the erosion and has planted trees and landscaping
to help prevent the erosion, only to have the plantings washed away by
all the water runoff.
Planning Director Peterson noted that the water runoff is not just
a problem for Schoolhouse Creek; the plan identifies other areas in
the Township that have issues. Member Sperla noted that when he
studied the plan, a lot of the areas identified did not have
residences near or on them that were being impacted but yet, these
areas were a higher priority for the Township to alleviate the runoff
issues.
Member Pennington asked if the Storm Water Plan identifies the
various zones and Township Engineer Berrevoets said the plan does
identify the zones. Normally for a site plan review, the creeks are
not encompassed in the review. As an example with the previous case
this evening, the engineers review what is in the Storm Water
Ordinance and this is the standard the developers are held to.
He also noted that with any development there is an increase in
water runoff. There is the potential for more stream-bank erosion and
the ordinance tries to address the storm water runoff, the soil
erosion, and the source of the runoff, pollution and tries to minimize
these affects.
Member Sperla noted that the new developments could retain or
detain the water and all the developers are doing is reaping the
profits while causing damage to the homes on the creeks. The residents
on Schoolhouse Creek cannot take any more water; the creek is a creek
and not a drain. Twenty years ago the people voted down turning the
creek into a drain. The developers need to find another route for the
water and not into Schoolhouse Creek.
The Township Engineer noted that the developments are allowed to
utilize the existing drainage courses. Part of the ordinance requires
setting the water limits for a 25-year detention with a restricted
outlet. The idea is to hold the water and release it at a slow rate
and all the water to drain into its pre-existing drainage course.
Member Sperla noted that the water has widened the creek to twice
its size and trees have been washed away. It seems insensitive on how
the creek has been handled by the KCRC, by developments and no one
seems to be looking at the big picture.
The Township Engineer noted that as opportunities arise, such with
tonight's case, the developer added on-site detention. Cascade Villa
Apartments were also required to add on-site detention as they have
converted the apartments into condominiums. As these opportunities
arise, the Township is requiring on-site detention to alleviate some
of the water runoff, holding the developer to the new Storm Water
Ordinance.
There are three (3) different zones within the Storm Water
Ordinance: Zone A that is the most restrictive and then Zone B and
Zone C. Zone C is the usually near large water bodies, such as the
Thornapple River, where the water is free to drain directly into them.
Zone A requires infiltration if the soil conditions permit.
The Storm Water Ordinance was a model ordinance for all of the
communities in the area. Most communities adopted the model with some
minor changes to suit their community. Cascade Township adopted the
ordinance in 2002. After working through some developments, the
Township wanted more control within the ordinance in Zone A and
required developers to provide more information and in essence have
made the default infiltration unless they can prove the soils would
not allow it.
Chairman McDonald asked if the county is held to the Township's
standards and the Township Engineer said they do not.
Member Koessel asked what the county could do for Schoolhouse Creek
in establishing it as a drain? Township Engineer said it would enable
the Drain Commission to specially assess for improvements. Member
Koessel asked if that could potentially eliminate a lot of the current
erosion and the engineer said that is correct; it would help
curtailing the erosion and hold the developers responsible for their
water runoff.
Member Koessel suspects that when Rapid Packaging was on the site,
there was less controlled water runoff than there will be now. As more
developments go in, more water will run into Schoolhouse Creek and if
the new standards are doing their job, the water runoff will be for a
prolonged period of time not more large rushes of water that cause the
erosion, is this not the theory? The Township Engineer said Member
Koessel's theory is correct and the base flow would still be there and
the erosion is due to rain events.
Member Sperla said one thing that could be done is requiring bigger
detention ponds, more retainage, especially if the soil is conducive
to this. He believes the developers should keep their water on their
site. The Township Engineer noted that if there were a clay-layer, the
detention would turn into a pond since the water does not have any
place to go and the land would be undevelopable. Ultimately it comes
down to the Storm Water Ordinance and its requirements.
Member Koessel noted that the Storm Water Ordinance was amended in
May 2008 that enlarged the three storm zones and the Township Engineer
also noted that less was subject to interpretation of the developers.
ARTICLE 10. Any Other Business
Chairman McDonald opened the meeting for any other business. There was
no other business of the Planning Commission.
ARTICLE 11. Adjournment
Chairman McDonald requested a motion for adjournment.
Member Robinson supported by Member Sperla moved to adjourn. The
motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
Government
~ Departments ~
Community
Business ~
Reference Desk ~
What's Happening
Help ~
Home ~ Search ~ Site Map
Comments? Feedback? Questions? Click here to send an email.
Site Use Policy
This page last modified
06/08/04.
All information © 2003-2004Cascade Township, Michigan
|
Site
Design/Development by
 |
|
