Gravel Road Capacity Analysis Document

Home , Gravel road, Washboarding

LAND USE ANALYSIS

PARKS & RECREATION ravel Road Capacity Analysis G Livingston County, Michigan TRANSPORTATION & LAND USE

Comprehensive HAZARD Planning MITIGATION GRAVEL ROAD CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Hazard Mitigation

23 Data Book 96 ECONOMIC High Quality DEVELOPMENT Natural Areas

36 Open Space Planning DATA BOOK & Land Use COMMUNITY PROFILES Parks & 23 Recreation County Comprehensive Plan

Economic Transportation COUNTY Development COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

GRAVEL ROAD CAPACITY ANALYSIS A publication of the Livingston County Department of Planning

Livingston County Gravel Road Capacity Analysis Livingston County, Michigan

Summer 2005

This study was prepared by the Livingston County Department of Planning and made possible through the support of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners

Livingston County Department of Planning Administration Building 304 E. Grand River Avenue, Suite 206 Howell, Michigan 48843-2323 Office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Telephone: (517) 546-7555 Fax: (517) 552-2347 Web Site: http://co.livingston.mi.us/planning/ COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF

2005 LIVINGSTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

John E. La Belle, Chair William C. Rogers, Vice Chair and Department of Planning Liaison Dennis L. Dolan David J. Domas Maggie E. Jones Donald S. Parker Michael L. Randall Ronald L. VanHouten Steven E. Williams ______

Robert R. Block, Administrator

LIVINGSTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Reid Krinock, Chair Alice M. Wyland, Vice Chair Bethany Hammond Scott T. Hoeft Sylvia Kennedy-Carrasco Brian Prokuda James Sparks

PLANNING DEPARTMENT TEAM

William D. Wagoner, Director Kathleen J. Kline-Hudson, Assistant Director Jill A.S. Thacher, Principal Planner Florence Davis, Principal Planner Robert A. Stanford, Planner Patrick J. Sloan, Planner Kellie S. Prokuda, Dept. Secretary

Contributors to the Study: Planning and Zoning Center, Inc.; Huron River Watershed Council; Livingston County Road Commission. Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1 Background………………………………………………………………………..2 Challenges…………………………………………………………………………2 Goals………………………………………………………………………………2 Gravel Road Capacity Analysis…………………………………………………………...3 Origin……………………………………………………………………………...3 Methodology………………………………………………………………………3 Countywide Results……………………………………………………………...10 Physical Feature Scores………………………………………….………10 Current Capacity Status………………………………………………….12 Capacity Status at Build-out…………………………………………..…13 Brighton Township Results……………………………………………………...14 Cohoctah Township Results……………………………………………………..18 Conway Township Results……………………………………………………....22 Deerfield Township Results………………………………………………...…...26 Genoa Township Results………………………………..……………………….30 Green Oak Township Results……………………………………………..……..34 Hamburg Township Results…………………………………………………..….38 Handy Township Results…………………………………………..…………….42 Hartland Township Results…………………………………………..…………..46 Howell Township Results……………………………………………….……….50 Iosco Township Results………………………………………………….……....54 Marion Township Results…………………………………………..…………....58 Oceola Township Results……………………………………..………………....62 Putnam Township Results.………………………………………………………66 Tyrone Township Results…………………………………………..…………....70 Unadilla Township Results……………………………………………..………..74 Mitigation Solutions for Gravel Roads that are Currently Over Capacity……………….78 Mitigation Solutions for Gravel Roads that will be Over Capacity at Build-out……..…80 Funding Issues…………………………………………………………………………...83 Regional Investment Needs……………………………………………………...83 State Funding Source – Michigan Transportation Fund…………………………84 Federal Funding Source – Transportation Equity Act…………………………...86 Local Funding Sources…………………………………………………………..87 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….88 Sources…………………………………………………………………………………...89 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………….90 Appendix A: Maps……………………………………………………………….91 Map 1: Livingston County Gravel Roads………………………………..91 Map 2: Livingston County Gravel Road Grades………………………...92 Map 3: Livingston County Current Gravel Road Capacity Status………93 Map 4: Livingston County Gravel Road Capacity Status at Build-out….94 Appendix B: Gravel Road Inventory Field Worksheet …………………………95 Appendix C: Gravel Road Capacity Analysis Results Spreadsheet……………..97 Introduction

The Livingston County Gravel Road Capacity Analysis builds upon two previous publications of the Livingston County Department of Planning: Land Use Analysis in Livingston County, Michigan and Transportation & Land Use in Livingston County, Michigan.

Land Use Analysis, published in 2000, consists of three countywide reports: a build-out analysis, an impervious surface analysis, and an agricultural preservation primer. The Gravel Road Capacity Analysis builds mainly on the build-out analysis by examining the relationship between land use and gravel road capacity. Just as the build-out analysis in Land Use Analysis predicts future population size and distribution based on current zoning, this report goes one step further by predicting the future impact on county gravel roads if the county were to be built-out to the maximum degree possible allowed under current zoning.1

Transportation & Land Use, published in 2001, contains three sections. The first section, titled Transportation, profiles Livingston County’s existing transportation system, identifies current and potential conflicts and deficiencies within the system, and provides a set of suggested goals and strategies with which to properly plan for future transportation needs as a result of projected population and development trends. The second section, Land Use, looks at community land use policies and plans from a countywide perspective. It examines countywide zoning and future land use districts to identify areas that work particularly well together, as well as areas of concern. By working with all twenty cities, villages, and townships in the county, the Livingston County Department of Planning provides information and observations from a third-party vantage point. The final section, titled Policy Implications, explores how a planned and coordinated land use development strategy can better achieve the transportation and land use goals of a community.2

The Gravel Road Capacity Analysis builds on all three sections of Transportation & Land Use by profiling the county gravel road system, identifying areas of current and potential deficiencies, comparing zoning and planning implications of each township, and suggesting strategies and policies that can assist local units of government in sustaining a viable gravel road network.

1 Livingston County Department of Planning, Land Use Analysis in Livingston County, Michigan. 2 Livingston County Department of Planning, Transportation & Land Use in Livingston County, Michigan.

1 Background Livingston County has a long history as a mostly rural county, as evidenced by its large farm areas and gravel road network. Most of the ‘county roads’ (roads maintained by the Livingston County Road Commission) are gravel. Furthermore, approximately half of all land in the county is primarily accessed from a county gravel road, providing these areas with a rural character and feel.

Livingston County has approximately 625 miles of county gravel roads. Most are classified as Local Roads, which means they are designed to receive traffic from the larger Primary Roads and redistribute it to the public or private local roads in neighborhoods.

Challenges According to the 2000 U.S. Census Livingston County’s population grew 35.7% from 1990-2000, which made it the fastest growing county in the state of Michigan during that time period. A May 2005 population estimate from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) estimates that the population of Livingston County has grown by 16.2% since the 2000 Census.3 This estimate is a net addition of 25,445 residents.

Livingston County’s rate of growth, combined with its mostly rural setting, makes it a county in transition. Many residents who move to Livingston County from built-out urban and suburban areas cite the rural atmosphere as a primary reason for moving to the county. However, as population growth continues into rural, outlying areas, so does demand for services to those areas. Not the least of these services is a network of properly maintained roads. Because gravel roads typically cannot accommodate the level of traffic that a hard surfaced road can, more resources must be continually dedicated to maintain busy gravel roads. The most important resource needed to construct and maintain any road is money. In Michigan, both state and local governments continually struggle to raise the revenue needed to keep pace with the demands for road repair.

Goals The objective of this report is to conduct a capacity analysis of each county gravel road. The three major goals of this analysis are:

1. To examine and rate the quality of each county gravel road. 2. To determine which county gravel roads are currently over capacity. 3. To predict which county gravel roads will become over capacity if the area accessing them is built out according to the current zoning.

This report concludes by presenting several options that can assist local governments in achieving desired outcomes of their gravel roads and the land around them. These include options for managing gravel road quality both before and after it reaches its capacity.

3 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), Monthly Population Estimates.

2 Gravel Road Capacity Analysis

Origin The study began with a partnership between the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. (PZC), the Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC), the Livingston County Department of Planning, the Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment, and the Livingston and Washtenaw County Road Commissions. This partnership developed a model and used it in the initial study of four townships (Putnam and Green Oak Townships of Livingston County and Webster and Northfield Townships of Washtenaw County). This study, its methodology, and its results were published in August 2003 in the guidebook titled, How Much Development is Too Much?: A Guidebook on Using Impervious Surface and Gravel Road Capacity Analysis to Manage Growth in Rural and Suburban Communities, which was prepared by the PZC and the HRWC.4

Methodology The methodology originally developed and used in the original guidebook, How Much Development is Too Much, was also used for this gravel road capacity analysis. A step- by-step process of the original analysis is detailed in the guidebook. Though the Livingston County analysis is reformatted for simplicity, each step and its explanation described in this section is taken directly from the guidebook.

The results of the Livingston County Road Commission Gravel Road Inventory Field Worksheet (Appendix B), which were recorded by the Livingston County Road Commission, were entered into a Microsoft Access database by staff in the Livingston County Department of Planning. This information, along with other information as calculated in the following steps, was entered and transferred into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Appendix C). The column data of the spreadsheet is continuously referenced throughout the following steps.

Step 1: Determine which roads in Livingston County are primary and local gravel roads The Livingston County Road Commission via the Livingston County Official Road Map and the Livingston County Road Commission Gravel Road Inventory Field Worksheet (Appendix B) provided this information. Based on these sources, it was determined that Livingston County has approximately 793 segments5 of gravel roads that are maintained by the Livingston County Road Commission. The name (column A), segment start point (column C), segment end point (column D), and township (column O) of each gravel road are listed in the spreadsheet (Appendix C).

A map showing all 793 segments of county gravel roads in the inventory is shown in Map 1: Livingston County Gravel Roads in Appendix A on page 91.

4 Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. and Huron River Watershed Council, How Much Development is Too Much?: A Guidebook on Using Impervious Surface and Gravel Road Capacity Analysis to Manage Growth in Rural and Suburban Communities. 5 In this report, a “segment” is defined as a length of road between two intersections.

3 Step 2: Acquire traffic volume data for each county gravel road segment The Livingston County Road Commission continually gathers Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data for all county roads. While many county gravel road segments have ADT data as recent as 2004, some were last measured as far back as 2002. The most recent traffic count for each segment is listed in column B of Appendix C.

Step 3: Acquire physical feature data The “Livingston County Road Commission Gravel Road Inventory Field Worksheet” included five key physical feature variables for each gravel road segment: · Width · Surface type · Width of the clear zone next to the road · Speed of comfortable travel on the road · Road drainage These five variables were scored to create a gravel road classification system. Each variable has a continuum with three levels of quality; with the first being the lowest quality and the third being the highest. If, for example, all five variables for a given road segment scored a one, the total score for the five variables is a 5 (lowest). If every variable scores a 3, the total score for the segment is a 15 (highest). The five key variables are rated as follows:

1) Width Rating=1 if the average width of the road segment is under 18 feet Rating=2 if the width is 18 to 24 feet Rating=3 if the width is over 24 feet

2) Surface type Rating=1 if the existing surface is earth Rating=2 if the surface is gravel Rating=3 if the surface is limestone

3) Width of clear zone (area at side of road) Rating=1 if width of clear zone is less than 5 feet Rating=2 if width is 5 to 10 feet Rating=3 if width is over 10 feet

4) Speed of comfortable travel (road alignment rating based on levelness and curves) Rating=1 if under 25 miles per hour Rating=2 if about 35 miles per hour Rating=3 if about 45 miles per hour

5) Road Drainage Rating=1 if drainage was determined to be inadequate and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes were over 400. “Inadequate” drainage applies to areas with significant ponding several days in a row, or a non-functioning ditch or culvert Rating=2 if drainage was inadequate but ADT volumes were under 400 Rating=3 if the road segment had adequate drainage

4 Step 4: Calculate physical feature scores and grades Adding up the scores from the Gravel Road Inventory Field Worksheet using the ratings system previously outlined will yield a level of service rating (a numerical score) from 5 to 15 for each gravel road segment. Each numeric score (column E in Appendix C) corresponds with a level of service rating (column F), which is reflected in as a letter grade. The numeric scores correspond as follows:

Figure 1: Physical Feature Score Ratings Numeric Letter Score Grade 13-15 A 11-12 B 9-10 C 7-8 D 5-6 E Source: Planning and Zoning Center, Inc.

Letter grades are assigned to each gravel road segment in order to simplify its score. The definitions of each letter grade, which are shown on the following page, are not intended to give a definitive account of each gravel road segment, but rather provide a general sense of a their condition and the type of traffic they can handle.

5 Grade A: Has the appearance of a paved Level C Road: Fairlane Road, Green Oak Twp

road. There are many layers of hard packed

limestone chips. The widths are wide

enough to allow traffic to travel at moderate

speeds without slowing down. The surface

has been treated to stabilize dust and provide

proper drainage. No sign of road distress.

Level A Road: Pingree Road, Putnam Twp.

Source: Livingston County Road Commission ______

Grade D: Has significant ponding problems after rains. Width is too narrow for two-way

traffic. Loose aggregate, which causes excessive dust in dry times. Potholes, rutting and washboarding may be fairly severe.

Source: Livingston County Road Commission Level D Road: Five Mile Road, Northfield Twp.

______

Grade B: Has good crown and drainage.

There may be some loose aggregate or slight washboarding. The width still allows for

vehicles to travel in both directions without slowing down for each other.

Level B Road: Scully Road, Webster Twp.

Source: Washtenaw County Road Commission ______

Grade E: Road may be closed at times due

to drainage or potholes. Widths do not allow

for two-way traffic. Limited aggregate or

dirt surface may need rebuilding. Roads may

have obstructions that require maneuvering.

Level E Road: Doyle Road, Putnam Twp.

Source: Livingston County Road Commission

______

Grade C: Width allows for two-way traffic, but only at slow speeds. The aggregate

surface is fairly loose which can mean moderate dust and an obstruction of vision.

Moderate washboarding (1 to 2 inch holes)

may be present. Drainage may be a concern in small areas of the roadway, particularly in

the springtime months after heavy rains.

Source: Livingston County Road Commission

6 Step 5: Assign traffic volume capacity to each respective grade Through a regression analysis in the pilot project, a traffic volume capacity threshold level was determined for each grade. The regression had a positive outcome, meaning that as the physical characteristics of a gravel roadway segment improve, traffic volumes also increased. Not surprisingly, it was also found that as the volumes increased, the gravel road conditions typically worsened. Project researchers aimed at identifying a threshold level for each gravel road rating grade and applied them to the gravel road segments that have already been scored. A more detailed analysis of this exercise is located in the appendix of the guidebook.

Figure 2: Volume Levels by Gravel Road Physical Feature Grades Physical Midpoint Thresholds Range of Features Grades (based on existing Acceptable (numerical score) daily traffic volumes) Volume A (13-15) 900 800-1,000 B (11-12) 700 600-800 C (9-10) 500 400-600 D (7-8) 300 200-400 E (5-6) 100 <200 Source: Planning and Zoning Center, Inc.

After assigning each grade a midpoint threshold, we can now use the traffic volume levels found in Step 2 to determine which segments are currently over capacity.

Step 6: Determine which gravel road segments are currently over capacity Column G of the Appendix C lists which gravel road segments are currently over capacity. This is determined by subtracting traffic volume levels (column B) from the midpoint thresholds determined by the physical feature grades. If the result is a positive number, then the segment is under capacity and the analysis continues to Step 7. If the result is a negative number, the current traffic level is more than the midpoint threshold and the segment is classified as over capacity.

Once a gravel road segment is determined to be over capacity, no further analysis in this report is needed. All remaining columns of the spreadsheet (H through N) for over capacity gravel roads are marked with an “X”.

Step 7: Calculate unused capacity Based on the analysis in Step 6, 77% of Livingston County’s gravel roads are currently under capacity. If the midpoint threshold determined by the physical feature grade is greater than the current traffic volume, then the difference equals the unused capacity on that gravel road segment (column H in Appendix C). In short, this number is the number of additional vehicle trips per day a segment can accommodate before reaching a level that is at or over capacity.

7 Step 8: Calculate the number of dwelling units each gravel road segment can accommodate Using the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) standard of 10 trips per day per dwelling unit, the number of dwelling units that could be built without exceeding existing road capacity is calculated by dividing the unused capacity on a gravel road segment (column H) by 10. The result is shown in column I of Appendix C. Knowing how many more dwelling units a segment can accommodate before reaching capacity is very important because this number will be used in Step 10 to determine how many dwelling units per acre a gravel road segment can accommodate before reaching capacity. However, the number of buildable acres along each segment must first be calculated.

Step 9: Calculate the amount of buildable area with access to a gravel road segment with unused capacity Using Geographic Information System (GIS) software, buildable land can be identified and calculated with relative accuracy. This process makes Step 9 the most complicated. As a result, several steps were taken and are chronologically explained as follows: 1. Using a layer containing all of Livingston County’s parcels, create a layer of buildable parcels that directly access a county gravel road by deleting: a. All parcels that are right-of-ways, dedicated parks, and/or publicly owned. b. All parcels that do not directly access a county gravel road. However, some of these parcels were not deleted because they are located on non-county gravel roads that either dead-end or otherwise compel a driver onto a county gravel road. 2. From this new layer of buildable parcels that directly access a county gravel road, delete the following areas that are deemed unbuildable: a. Wetlands per the delineation of the National Wetland Inventory. b. Lakes, ponds, and other water bodies. Because lines (instead of polygons) in GIS are used represent river features, they have no area. To provide the rivers with a relatively accurate area, a 10-foot buffer was drawn around each river line. The area of this new polygon was deleted from the buildable land layer. c. Currently developed land. This includes, but is not limited to, residential, commercial, office, industrial, institutional, transportation, utility, and communications land uses. The existing land uses in this part of the analysis were determined using the most recent (2000) Michigan Land Cover/Use Classification System, which is a multi-level, hierarchical system that classifies Michigan’s land cover/use into approximately 500 categories. The assigned designations of land cover/use are, in large part, based on assumptions made in analyzing aerial imagery.

At this point, the existing layer now represents dry, undeveloped, privately owned land that directly accesses a county gravel road. The buildable acres were calculated for each segment and are found in column J in Appendix C.

8 Step 10: Calculate the maximum number of dwelling units per buildable acre for each segment before reaching capacity Now that the number of buildable acres has been calculated for each county gravel road segment we can now use the data calculated in Step 8 to determine how many dwelling units per acre a gravel road segment can accommodate before reaching capacity. This number is calculated by dividing the data in column I (calculated in Step 8) by the data in column J (calculated in Step 9). The result is in column K of Appendix C.

Step 11: Associate zoning and density with each segment The local township’s zoning map was used to determine what densities residential development can be built at along each county gravel road segment.6 If there is more than one zoning classification along a segment, an average zoning density was estimated based on the amount of buildable area within each classification. The number of dwelling units per acre allowed was entered into column M of Appendix C. For example, if 1 unit per 2 acres were allowed, the number entered in column M would be 0.5.

Step 12: Compare the dwelling units that can be accommodated with the existing unused capacity on the road with the number of dwelling units allowed within the zoning ordinance This is the final calculation in this process. Column M (the number of dwelling units per acre allowed under current zoning) is subtracted from column K (the number of dwelling units per buildable acre for each segment before reaching capacity) and the results are entered into column N. If column N is a negative number, then the density allowed under the current zoning is greater than the maximum density the road can handle without exceeding capacity. This indicates that the gravel road segment will become over capacity if the buildable land is completely built out according to its current residential zoning.

6 Township zoning information used in the Gravel Road Capacity Analysis was taken from the latest township zoning maps available to the Livingston County Department of Planning at that time.

9 Countywide Results

Physical Feature Scores The physical feature scores are represented by a letter grade, which is shown in Figures 3 and 4. As you can see, approximately half of the gravel road segments in Livingston County have a physical feature grade of ‘B’. However, the physical feature scores and grades are not an indication of a gravel road’s current condition; they are simply a means to an end. The grades and physical feature scores are used mainly to provide an estimate of how much traffic each county gravel road segment can accommodate.

Figure 3: Livingston County Gravel Road Segment Grades Grade of Livingston Number of Percentage of County Gravel Road Gravel Road Gravel Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 101 13% Grade B 399 50% Grade C 200 25% Grade D 88 11% Grade E 5 1% Total 793 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning and Livingston County Road Commission

Figure 4: Livingston County Gravel Road Segment Grades 500 400 399 300 200 200 100 101 88 5

Number of Segments 0 A B C D E Grade

Source: Livingston County Department of Planning and Livingston County Road Commission

The grade of each gravel road segment is illustrated in Map 2: Livingston County Gravel Road Grades in Appendix A on page 92. By looking at the countywide gravel road network and corresponding grades, certain trends immediately standout. For example, a greater concentration of Grade A and B roads are located in the northwest quarter of Livingston County while the southwest and northeast quarters have a higher concentration of Grade C and D roads. As one looks at this map in more detail, many other trends will become apparent. A township-by-township analysis of physical feature scores is presented later in this report.

10 The physical feature scores and the number of corresponding segments are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The shape of the curve in Figure 6 indicates that most of the gravel road segments fall within the 9 to 12 (C to B) range. Only 5 segments received a maximum grade of 15, with none receiving the minimum grade of 5.

Figure 5: Livingston County Gravel Road Physical Feature Scores Score of Livingston Number of Percentage of County Gravel Road Gravel Road Gravel Road Segments Segments Segments 15 (A) 5 1% 14 (A) 34 4% 13 (A) 62 8% 12 (B) 143 18% 11 (B) 256 32% 10 (C) 122 15% 9 (C) 78 10% 8 (D) 63 8% 7 (D) 25 3% 6 (E) 5 1% 5 (E) 0 0% Total 793 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning and Livingston County Road Commission

Figure 6: Livingston County Gravel Road Physical Feature Scores 300 256 250

200

150 143 122 100 78 62 63

Number of Segments 50 34 25 5 5 0 0 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 Physical Feature Scores

Source: Livingston County Department of Planning and Livingston County Road Commission

11 Current Capacity Status While the specifics and current capacity status of each gravel road segment can be found in Appendix C, the results are summarized in Figures 7 and 8. Based on the analysis, 18% of the county gravel road segments are currently over capacity. The 146 segments of county gravel road that are currently over capacity totals approximately 110 miles.

Figure 7: Capacity Status of Livingston County Gravel Road Segments Number of Percentage of Gravel Road Gravel Road Status Segments Segments Over Capacity 146 18% Under Capacity 615 78% No Traffic Data 32 4% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning and Livingston County Road Commission

Figure 8: Capacity Status of Livingston County Gravel Road Segments Number of Segments

32 146

615 Over Capacity Under Capacity No Traffic Data

Source: Livingston County Department of Planning and Livingston County Road Commission

The current capacity status of each gravel road segment is illustrated in Map 3: Livingston County Current Gravel Road Capacity Status in Appendix A on page 93. Like Map 2, one can immediately identify certain trends after seeing the countywide network in Map 3. For example, the eastern quarter of the county along the US-23 corridor has a relatively high concentration of over capacity county gravel roads while the western quarter of the county has a very low concentration of them. A closer analysis shows that 40% of the county gravel roads located in the eastern quarter of the county (Brighton, Green Oak, Hartland, and Tyrone Townships) are currently over capacity. This is more than double the countywide percentage of 18%. Conversely, only 4% of the county gravel roads located in the western quarter of the county (Conway, Handy, Iosco, and Unadilla Townships) are currently over capacity. This contrast speaks not only to the quality of gravel roads (i.e. physical feature score and grade), but also to the demand for transportation (i.e. vehicle trips per day).

12 Capacity Status at Build-out A brief synopsis of the results is shown in Figures 9 and 10. In addition to the 18% of gravel roads that are already over capacity, 47% more will become over capacity at build- out under current zoning. The specific results and calculations are in Appendix C. The 373 segments of county gravel road that will become over capacity at build-out totals approximately 338 miles.

Figure 9: Capacity Status of Livingston County Gravel Road Segments at Build-out Number of Gravel Percentage of Gravel Status Road Segments Road Segments Currently Over Capacity 146 18% Over Capacity at Build-out 373 47% At Capacity at Build-out 4 1% Under Capacity at Build-out 238 30% No Traffic Data 32 4% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning and Livingston County Road Commission

Figure 10: Capacity Status of Livingston County Gravel Road Segments at Build-out Number of Segments

32 146

238 Currently Over Capacity

Over Capacity at Buildout

At Capacity at Buildout 373 Under Capacity at Buildout 4 No Traffic Data

Source: Livingston County Department of Planning and Livingston County Road Commission

The capacity status at build-out of each gravel road segment is illustrated in Map 4: Livingston County Gravel Road Capacity Status at Build-out in Appendix A on page 94. Looking at the countywide network, it is obvious to see the large number of county gravel roads that will become over capacity at build-out. Just as obvious is that most of the county gravel roads that will remain under capacity at build-out are located in clusters. These clusters are primary located in Cohoctah, Deerfield, Putnam, and Unadilla Townships. Of the 238 county gravel road segments that will remain under capacity at build-out, 147 (62%) are located in these four townships. There are two main reasons for this. First, these townships are currently rural and have relatively slow rates of growth. Second, the majority of buildable land that accesses a county gravel road in these four townships has large minimum lot sizes of between 5 and 10 acres. Therefore, future capacity status is largely a function of zoning. A township-by-township analysis of county gravel road grades and present and future capacity status is shown in the following sections.

13 Brighton Township Results

Brighton Township has 25 county gravel road segments totaling 18.3 miles, which is only 3% of the county total. This low number is likely due to the many county roads in Brighton Township that are already paved. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Brighton Township’s population is estimated to be the 3rd largest. This relatively large population corresponds with its high demand for paved roads, as well as its high levels of traffic on its remaining gravel roads.

Number of Percentage of Status of Brighton Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 0 0% Grade B 20 80% Grade C 3 12% Grade D 2 8% Grade E 0 0% Number of Segments 25 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 80% of the county gravel roads in Brighton Township are Grade B compared to 63% countywide that are Grade B or higher. This indicates that county gravel roads in Brighton Township are of better quality, and can accommodate more traffic, than the countywide average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Brighton Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 10 40% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 8 32% Number At Capacity at Build-out 0 0% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 7 28% No Traffic Data 0 0% Number of Segments 25 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 40% of the county gravel roads in Brighton Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide. o The township’s population is large and much of the township is already built-out.

· 32% of the county gravel roads in Brighton Township will become over capacity at build-out compared to 47% countywide. o Many segments in Brighton Township are already over capacity. Also, many of the areas surrounding the county gravel roads have little buildable land available.

16 17 Cohoctah Township Results

Cohoctah Township has 69 county gravel road segments totaling 60.1 miles, which is 10% of the county total. This relatively high number indicates that Cohoctah Township is one of the more rural townships in Livingston County. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Cohoctah Township’s population is estimated to be the 14th largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Cohoctah Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 15 22% Grade B 46 67% Grade C 6 9% Grade D 2 3% Grade E 0 0% Number of Segments 69 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 89% of the county gravel roads in Cohoctah Township are Grade B or higher compared to 63% countywide. This indicates that county gravel roads in Cohoctah Township are of better quality, and can accommodate more traffic, than the countywide average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Cohoctah Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 9 13% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 13 19% Number At Capacity at Build-out 0 0% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 45 66% No Traffic Data 2 3% Number of Segments 69 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 13% of the county gravel roads in Cohoctah Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide. o The township’s population is small and its gravel road grades are higher than the countywide average.

· Only 19% of the county gravel roads in Cohoctah Township will become over capacity at build-out compared to 47% countywide. o Zoning is a major factor, as most of the buildable land in Cohoctah Township that directly accesses a county gravel road is zoned AR – Agricultural Residential, which has a large minimum residential lot size of 10 acres.

21 Conway Township Results

Conway Township has 69 county gravel road segments totaling 55.3 miles, which is 9% of the county total. This relatively high number indicates that Conway Township is one of the more rural townships in Livingston County. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Conway Township’s population is estimated to be the smallest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Conway Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 13 19% Grade B 47 68% Grade C 7 10% Grade D 2 3% Grade E 0 0% Number of Segments 69 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 87% of the county gravel roads in Conway Township are Grade B or higher compared to 63% countywide. This indicates that county gravel roads in Conway Township are of better quality, and can accommodate more traffic, than the countywide average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Conway Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 4 6% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 48 70% Number At Capacity at Build-out 1 1% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 15 22% No Traffic Data 1 1% Number of Segments 69 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 6% of the county gravel roads in Conway Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide. o The township’s population is small and its gravel road grades are higher than the countywide average.

· 70% of the county gravel roads in Conway Township will become over capacity at build-out compared to 47% countywide. o Most of the buildable land in Conway Township that directly accesses a county gravel road is either zoned Agricultural Residential or Residential, which both have small minimum residential lot sizes of 2 acres.

24 25 Deerfield Township Results

Deerfield Township has 61 county gravel road segments totaling 49.3 miles, which is 8% of the county total. This relatively high number indicates that Deerfield Township is one of the more rural townships in Livingston County. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Deerfield Township’s population is estimated to be the 12th largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Deerfield Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 6 10% Grade B 29 48% Grade C 18 30% Grade D 7 11% Grade E 1 2% Number of Segments 61 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· The county gravel road grades for Deerfield Township are very similar to the breakdown of the countywide averages. This indicates that Deerfield Township’s county gravel roads are of similar quality, and can accommodate roughly the same traffic level, as the countywide average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Deerfield Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 7 11% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 8 13% Number At Capacity at Build-out 1 2% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 44 72% No Traffic Data 1 2% Number of Segments 61 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 11% of the county gravel roads in Deerfield Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide, which is most likely because of Deerfield Township’s small population.

· 13% of county gravel roads in Deerfield Township will become over capacity at build-out compared to 47% countywide. o Most of the buildable land in Deerfield Township that directly accesses a county gravel road is zoned A-1 – General Agriculture, which has a large minimum residential lot size of 20 acres.

29 Genoa Township Results

Genoa Township has 51 county gravel road segments totaling 33.1 miles, which is 5% of the county total. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Genoa Township’s population is estimated to be the 2nd largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Genoa Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 6 12% Grade B 27 53% Grade C 12 24% Grade D 6 12% Grade E 0 0% Number of Segments 51 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· The county gravel road grades for Genoa Township are very similar to the breakdown of the countywide averages. This indicates that Genoa Township’s county gravel roads are of similar quality, and can accommodate approximately the same traffic level, as the countywide average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Genoa Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 16 31% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 13 25% Number At Capacity at Build-out 0 0% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 17 33% No Traffic Data 5 10% Number of Segments 51 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 31% of county gravel roads in Genoa Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide, which is mostly because of Genoa Township’s large population.

· 25% of county gravel roads in Genoa Township will become over capacity at build-out compared to 47% countywide. o Genoa Township currently has several segments that are already over capacity. Furthermore, much of the buildable land in Genoa Township that directly accesses a county gravel road is either zoned AG – Agricultural or CE – Country Estate, which have large minimum residential lot sizes of 10 acres and 5 acres, respectively.

33 Green Oak Township Results

Green Oak Township has 32 county gravel road segments totaling 26.4 miles, which is only 4% of the county total. This low number is partly due to a large public land area in the northern and eastern parts of the township that does not have many roads running through it. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Green Oak Township’s population is estimated to be the 4th largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Green Oak Township Gravel Road Gravel Road Gravel Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 11 34% Grade B 9 28% Grade C 7 22% Grade D 5 16% Grade E 0 0% Number of Segments 32 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· The county gravel road grades for Green Oak Township are similar to the breakdown of the countywide averages, with the exception that the percentage of Grade A roads is higher in Green Oak Township while the percentage of Grade B roads is lower. This indicates that a slightly higher percentage of county gravel roads in Green Oak Township are of better quality, and can accommodate more traffic, than the countywide average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Green Oak Township Gravel Road Gravel Road Gravel Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 15 47% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 11 34% Number At Capacity at Build-out 0 0% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 5 16% No Traffic Data 1 3% Number of Segments 32 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 47% of the county gravel roads in Green Oak Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide, which is most likely because of Green Oak Township’s large population.

· 34% of the county gravel roads in Green Oak Township will become over capacity at build-out compared to 47% countywide. o Green Oak Township currently has several segments that are already over capacity. Furthermore, the areas surrounding the county gravel roads that will remain under capacity at build-out have little buildable land available.

37 Hamburg Township Results

Hamburg Township has 39 county gravel road segments totaling 25.6 miles, which is 4% of the county total. This low number is likely due to the many county roads in Hamburg Township that are already paved. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Hamburg Township’s population is estimated to be the largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Hamburg Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 1 3% Grade B 10 26% Grade C 17 44% Grade D 11 28% Grade E 0 0% Number of Segments 39 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· Only 29% of the county gravel roads in Hamburg Township are Grade B or higher compared to 63% countywide. This indicates that county gravel roads in Hamburg Township are of lower quality, and can accommodate less traffic, than the countywide average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Hamburg Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 11 28% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 11 28% Number At Capacity at Build-out 0 0% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 9 23% No Traffic Data 8 21% Number of Segments 39 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 28% of county gravel roads in Hamburg Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide. o The township’s population is the largest of Livingston County’s 16 townships. Its county gravel roads also have lower grades than the countywide average.

· 28% of the county gravel roads in Hamburg Township will become over capacity at build-out compared to 47% countywide. o Hamburg Township currently has several segments that are already over capacity. Furthermore, the areas surrounding the county gravel roads that will remain under capacity at build-out have little buildable land available.

41 Handy Township Results

Handy Township has 56 county gravel road segments totaling 40.8 miles, which is 7% of the county total. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Handy Township’s population is estimated to be the 11th largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Handy Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 17 30% Grade B 26 46% Grade C 11 20% Grade D 2 4% Grade E 0 0% Number of Segments 56 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 76% of the county gravel roads in Handy Township are Grade B or higher compared to 63% countywide. This indicates that a higher percentage of the county gravel roads in Handy Township are of better quality, and can accommodate more traffic, than the countywide average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Handy Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 0 0% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 49 88% Number At Capacity at Build-out 0 0% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 3 5% No Traffic Data 4 7% Number of Segments 56 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· No county gravel roads in Handy Township are currently over capacity. Currently, 18% of all county gravel roads are over capacity. o Handy Township’s population is small and its county gravel roads have higher grades than the countywide average.

· 88% of county gravel roads in Handy Township will become over capacity at build-out compared to 47% countywide. o Most of the buildable land in Handy Township that directly accesses a county gravel road is zoned AR – Agricultural Residential, which has a small minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet (0.8 acres).

45 Hartland Township Results

Hartland Township has 43 county gravel road segments totaling 36.6 miles, which is 6% of the county total. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Hartland Township’s population is estimated to be the 5th largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Hartland Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 4 9% Grade B 20 47% Grade C 10 23% Grade D 8 19% Grade E 1 2% Number of Segments 43 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· The county gravel road grades for Hartland Township are similar to the breakdown of the countywide averages, with the exception that the percentage of Grade A, Grade B, and Grade C roads is slightly lower in Hartland Township. This indicates that county gravel roads in Hartland Township are of slightly lower quality, and can accommodate less traffic, than the countywide average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Hartland Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 20 47% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 19 44% Number At Capacity at Build-out 0 0% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 3 7% No Traffic Data 1 2% Number of Segments 43 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 47% of the county gravel roads in Hartland Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide. o The township has a large population and its county gravel roads have slightly lower grades than the countywide average.

· Only 7% of the county gravel roads in Hartland Township will remain under capacity at build-out compared to 30% countywide. o Hartland Township already has many segments that are currently over capacity. The township also has large amounts of buildable land that directly accesses a county gravel road. Most of this land is zoned CA – Conservation Agriculture, which has a minimum residential lot size of 2 acres.

49 Howell Township Results

Howell Township has 68 county gravel road segments totaling 44.5 miles, which is 7% of the county total. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Howell Township’s population is estimated to be the 9th largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Howell Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 6 9% Grade B 46 68% Grade C 13 19% Grade D 3 4% Grade E 0 0% Number of Segments 68 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 77% of the county gravel roads in Howell Township are Grade B or higher compared to 63% countywide. This indicates that county gravel roads in Howell Township are of better quality, and can accommodate more traffic, than the countywide average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Howell Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 10 15% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 38 56% Number At Capacity at Build-out 1 1% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 15 22% No Traffic Data 4 6% Number of Segments 68 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 15% of the county gravel roads in Howell Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide. o Howell Township has an average population size and its county gravel roads have higher grades than the countywide average.

· 56% of the county gravel roads in Howell Township will become over capacity at build-out compared to 47% countywide. o Howell Township has large amounts of buildable land that directly accesses a county gravel road. Most this land is either zoned AR – Agriculture Residential or Residential A, which have minimum residential lot sizes of 2 acres and 1 acre, respectively.

53 Iosco Township Results

Iosco Township has 41 county gravel road segments totaling 42.7 miles, which is 7% of the county total. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Iosco Township’s population is estimated to be the 13th largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Iosco Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 2 5% Grade B 15 37% Grade C 17 42% Grade D 7 17% Grade E 0 0% Number of Segments 41 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· Only 42% of the county gravel roads in Iosco Township are Grade B or higher compared to 63% countywide. This indicates that county gravel roads in Iosco Township are of lower quality, and can accommodate less traffic, than the countywide average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Iosco Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 3 7% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 34 83% Number At Capacity at Build-out 0 0% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 4 10% No Traffic Data 0 0% Number of Segments 41 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· Only 7% of the county gravel roads in Iosco Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide, which is most likely because of Iosco Township’s small population.

· 83% of the county gravel roads in Iosco Township will become over capacity at build-out compared to 47% countywide. o Iosco Township has large amounts of buildable land that directly accesses a county gravel road. Most of this land is zoned AR – Agricultural Residential, which has a minimum residential lot size of 2 acres.

57 Marion Township Results

Marion Township has 48 county gravel road segments totaling 37.3 miles, which is 6% of the county total. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Marion Township’s population is estimated to be the 8th largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Marion Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 4 8% Grade B 27 56% Grade C 11 23% Grade D 5 10% Grade E 1 2% Number of Segments 48 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· The county gravel road grades for Marion Township are similar to the breakdown of the countywide averages, with the exception that the percentage of Grade A is slightly lower and the percentage of Grade B is slightly higher in Marion Township.

Number of Percentage of Status of Marion Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 13 27% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 31 65% Number At Capacity at Build-out 0 0% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 3 6% No Traffic Data 1 2% Number of Segments 48 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 27% of the county gravel roads in Brighton Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide.

· Only 6% of the county gravel roads in Marion Township will remain under capacity at build-out compared to 30% countywide. o Marion Township has large amounts of buildable land that directly accesses a county gravel road. Most of this land is either zoned RR – Rural Residential or SR – Suburban Residential, which has small minimum residential lot size of 1 acre and ¾ acre, respectively.

61 Oceola Township Results

Oceola Township has 57 county gravel road segments totaling 45.5 miles, which is 7% of the county total. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Oceola Township’s population is estimated to be the 6th largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Oceola Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 5 9% Grade B 31 54% Grade C 17 30% Grade D 4 7% Grade E 0 0% Number of Segments 57 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· The county gravel road grades for Oceola Township are similar to the breakdown of the countywide averages, with the exception that the percentage of Grade A is slightly lower and the percentage of Grade B is slightly higher in Oceola Township.

Number of Percentage of Status of Oceola Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 2 4% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 48 84% Number At Capacity at Build-out 1 2% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 5 9% No Traffic Data 1 2% Number of Segments 57 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· Only 4% of the county gravel roads in Oceola Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide.

· 84% of the county gravel roads in Oceola Township will become over capacity at build-out compared to 47% countywide. o Oceola Township has large amounts of buildable land that directly accesses a county gravel road. Most of this land is either zoned AR – Agricultural Residential, which has a small minimum residential lot size of 50,000 square feet (1.15 acres).

64 65 Putnam Township Results

Putnam Township has 50 county gravel road segments totaling 38.9 miles, which is 6% of the county total. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Putnam Township’s population is estimated to be the 10th largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Putnam Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 9 18% Grade B 18 36% Grade C 18 36% Grade D 4 8% Grade E 1 2% Number of Segments 50 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 54% of the county gravel roads in Putnam Township are Grade B or higher compared to 63% countywide. This indicates that county gravel roads in Putnam Township are of lower quality, and can accommodate less traffic, than the countywide average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Putnam Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 10 20% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 9 18% Number At Capacity at Build-out 0 0% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 31 62% No Traffic Data 0 0% Number of Segments 50 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 20% of the county gravel roads in Putnam Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide. o While Putnam Township has a smaller population size (10th largest of Livingston County’s 16 townships), its county gravel roads have lower grades than the countywide average.

· 62% of the county gravel roads in Putnam Township will remain under capacity at build-out compared to 30% countywide. o Most of the buildable land in Putnam Township that directly accesses a county gravel road is either zoned AO – Agricultural Open Space or R1AAA – Single Family Large Acreage Estate, which both have large minimum residential lot sizes of 10 acres.

69 Tyrone Township Results

Tyrone Township has 46 county gravel road segments totaling 37.7 miles, which is 6% of the county total. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Tyrone Township’s population is estimated to be the 7th largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Tyrone Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 2 4% Grade B 15 33% Grade C 16 35% Grade D 12 26% Grade E 1 2% Number of Segments 46 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 63% of the county gravel roads in Tyrone Township are Grade C or lower compared to 37% countywide. This indicates that county gravel roads in Tyrone Township are of lower quality, and can accommodate less traffic, than the county average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Tyrone Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 14 30% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 25 54% Number At Capacity at Build-out 0 0% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 5 11% No Traffic Data 2 4% Number of Segments 46 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 30% of the county gravel roads in Tyrone Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide percentage. o While Tyrone Township has an average population size (7th largest of Livingston County’s 16 townships), its county gravel roads have much lower grades than the countywide average.

· Only 11% of the county gravel roads in Tyrone Township will remain under capacity at build-out compared to 30% countywide. o Tyrone Township already has many segments that are currently over capacity. Also, Tyrone Township has large amounts of buildable land that directly accesses a county gravel road. Most of this land is either zoned FR – Farming Residential or RE – Rural Estate, which have minimum residential lot sizes of 2 acres and 60,000 square feet (1.38 acres), respectively.

73 Unadilla Township Results

Unadilla Township has 38 county gravel road segments totaling 33.4 miles, which is 5% of the county total. Of Livingston County’s 16 townships, Unadilla Township’s population is estimated to be the 15th largest.

Number of Percentage of Status of Unadilla Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Grade A 0 0% Grade B 13 34% Grade C 17 45% Grade D 8 21% Grade E 0 0% Number of Segments 38 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· 66% of the county gravel roads in Unadilla Township are Grade C or lower compared to 37% countywide. This indicates that county gravel roads in Unadilla Township are of lower quality, and can accommodate less traffic, than the county average.

Number of Percentage of Status of Unadilla Township Gravel Gravel Road Gravel Road Road Segments Segments Segments Number Currently Over Capacity 2 5% Number Over Capacity at Build-out 8 21% Number At Capacity at Build-out 0 0% Number Under Capacity at Build-out 27 71% No Traffic Data 1 3% Number of Segments 38 100% Source: Livingston County Department of Planning

· Only 5% of the county gravel roads in Unadilla Township are currently over capacity compared to 18% countywide, which is most likely because of Unadilla Township’s small population.

· 71% of the county gravel roads in Unadilla Township will remain under capacity at build-out compared to 30% countywide. o Most of the buildable land in Unadilla Township that directly accesses a county gravel road is zoned A1 – Farm Residential, which has a large minimum lot size of 5 acres.

77 Mitigation Solutions for Gravel Roads that are Currently Over Capacity

There are two ways to improve the county gravel roads that are currently over capacity. The first, and most obvious, is to pave the road. This is a long-term solution and requires less frequent maintenance than a gravel road. The second is to improve the physical feature score of the road to a point where it is no longer over capacity. This is often a less expensive solution that can be a long-term fix for gravel roads that are not anticipated to surpass their midpoint threshold in the near future.

Pave Gravel Roads that are Over Capacity Of the 146 county gravel road segments in Livingston County that are currently over capacity, 82 have more than 900 trips per day. Therefore, even if the physical feature scores of all 146 over capacity gravel roads were improved to give them a ‘Grade A’, more than half of them would remain over capacity. These 82 segments total about 59 miles and should, according to the results of the gravel road capacity analysis in this report, be a priority to be paved.

Paving the 59 miles of county gravel road that remain over capacity is the easiest way to avoid continually maintaining them. The Livingston County Road Commission estimates that the average cost of reconstructing and paving one mile of gravel road is approximately $1 million. Under ideal conditions (sand base, no alignment changes, excellent drainage, etc.) it can cost as low as $500,000 per mile. However, under poor conditions (muck soil base, alignment changes, poor drainage, etc.) it can cost $1.5 million per mile. Based on this estimate, the total cost of reconstructing and paving all of the 59 miles of county gravel roads that have more than 900 trips per day would range between $30-$89 million. Using an average cost of $1 million per mile, a more realistic cost of paving these roads would be approximately $59 million.

One example of how the cost of reconstructing and paving a gravel road under poor conditions can rise is the 1.5 miles of gravel road on Nine Mile Road between Rushton Road and Dixboro Road in Green Oak Township that was reconstructed and paved in the summer of 2005. Even though this is a ‘Grade A’ segment it accommodates 3,851 trips per day, making it a very high priority to be paved. According to the Livingston County Road Commission, the projects estimated cost came out to approximately $1.6 million per mile due to the presence of wetlands and muck soils.

78 Improve Physical Feature Scores of Gravel Roads that are Over Capacity Of the 146 county gravel road segments in Livingston County that are currently over capacity, 64 have less than 900 trips per day. Therefore, nearly 44% of over capacity gravel roads can be improved to a point where they are under capacity. These 64 segments total about 50 miles and can, according to the results of the gravel road capacity analysis in this report, be upgraded to be under capacity by receiving non-pavement improvements.

To demonstrate how this can be done, Example 1 below examines a county gravel road segment that is currently over capacity but has less than 900 trips per day. After determining why the segment has its current score, improvement suggestions are listed as to how to improve that score and, therefore, increase the segment’s grade and midpoint threshold.

Example 1: · Germany Road from Denton Hill Road to Tipsico Lake Road (Tyrone Twp.) · Physical Feature Score=9 · Grade=C · Midpoint Threshold=500 trips per day · Average Daily Traffic (ADT)=536 trips per day

Width Score=2 The width of the road is between 18 and 24 feet. If it were widened to more than 24 feet, this score would improve to 3.

Surface Type Score=2 The surface of the road is gravel. If the surface were to be replaced with more durable limestone, this score would improve to 3.

Width of Clear Zone Score=1 The area at the side of the road is less than 5 feet. If the area on each side were widened to more than 10 feet, this score would improve to 3.

Speed of Comfortable Travel Score =1 The speed of comfortable travel is less than 25 miles per hour due to the many vertical and horizontal alignment changes (hills, valleys, curves, etc.). It would be very costly to improve this score, as it would demand rebuilding the road in order to change its alignment.

Road Drainage=3 The segment has adequate drainage. This score cannot be improved upon.

If the suggested solutions for improving the width score, surface type score, and width of clear zone score are implemented, the physical feature score of this segment will increase to 13 (Grade A). This will improve the segment’s midpoint threshold to 900 and bring it under capacity. After subtracting the current traffic volume of 536 trips per day the segment will be able to accommodate an additional 364 trips per day before becoming over capacity.

79 Mitigation Solutions for Gravel Roads that will become Over Capacity at Build-out

The following six (6) options are taken directly from How Much Development is Too Much?7, as well as the accompanying white paper, titled, Gravel Road Capacities as Tools to Guide Local Planning and Zoning at the Rural/Urban Fringe.8

Option 1: Enhance permit coordination between local government and the County Road Commission during the site plan review process One example of this option would be for the municipality to agree not to approve a site plan before the County Road Commission reviews the driveway permit application for the project and vice versa. Each would condition approval on the granting of a permit by the other. That would allow for the County Road Commission to reference the existing volumes, physical conditions and future plans for the road in question. If the municipality is targeting development for this area, the needs for infrastructure improvement can be worked out with the County Road Commission and developer before a project is approved.

Option 2: Enable County Road Commissions to require reasonable off-site improvements as a condition of driveway permit approval In rural communities, development approval is typically conditional on the developer obtaining approval from another county or state entity, such as the County Health Department on a septic system or well permit, or the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for a wetland or floodplain permit. This is explicitly permitted through site plan review requirements in the zoning enabling acts. In these examples, there is clear legislation to permit these “higher government” entities, such as the County Health Department and the DEQ, to regulate septic systems and wetlands. The situation is not as clear when it comes to authority for driveway permits by a County Road Commission. Section 247.324 of Act 200 of 1969, the Driveways, Banners, Events and Parades Act states, “permits for driveways shall be granted in conformity with rules promulgated by the highway authority which shall be consistent with the public safety and based upon the traffic volumes, drainage requirements and the character of the use of land adjoining the highway and other requirements in the public interest.” It is not determined whether or not a County Road Commission can require off-site improvements as a condition of driveway permit approval. One case involving safety improvements contiguous to the development held PA 200 provides authority for off-site bypass lanes (see Loyer Educational Trust v. Wayne County Road Commission 180 Mich App 465) while another ruled that requiring a mobile home park to pave a mile of gravel road as a condition of approval is invalid (see Engineered Housing Concepts, Inc. v. Wayne County Office of Public Services and Wayne County Board of Road Commissioners 168 Mich App 581).

7 Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. and Huron River Watershed Council, How Much Development is Too Much?: A Guidebook on Using Impervious Surface and Gravel Road Capacity Analysis to Manage Growth in Rural and Suburban Communities. 8 Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. Gravel Road Capacities as Tools to Guide Local Planning and Zoning at the Rural/Urban Fringe.

80 As a result of the conflict and the general language of PA 200, it appears risky for a County Road Commission and/or local township to use this approach. If, however, the Act is amended to allow County Road Commissions to require reasonable off-site improvements as a condition of driveway permit approval, it could be utilized to set up level of service standards for gravel roads. Local townships could then reference these County Road Commission rules within their zoning ordinances and rely on the County Road Commission to protect these public interests.

Option 3: Implement “Ultimate Paved Road Zoning”, which adjusts the zoning of land adjacent to gravel roads based on its capacity In 1984, Oakland Township, in Oakland County, Michigan was in transition. While it was a mostly rural township (2/3 of all the Township’s roads were gravel), it was experiencing intense development pressure. At the time many of its gravel roads were already in poor condition. The Township conducted a study of its gravel roads in order to forecast their future conditions if the properties surrounding them were fully developed at their current zoning. The study found that if the Township were built out according to its current zoning, the volumes created would exceed the design capacity of their gravel roads. With the assistance of the Oakland County Road Commission, the Township set its maximum capacity level at 800 vehicles per day on a gravel road.

After completing the process of making density modifications by rezoning properties along gravel roads, the Township adopted an “Ultimate Paved Road Zoning” ordinance, which identified properties that would be eligible to receive a density modification if the road to the property was to be improved to a paved road. An official map of these eligible parcels was also adopted. The result was a low density “by-right” zoning option, as well as a higher density option via special land use permit. Since the higher density option was never completely eliminated, there is no basis for a taking claim. The “Ultimate Paved Road Zoning” ordinance has existed within the Township for about 20 years without any court challenges.

This option is mostly enticing to developers in high growth areas. If demand for development is high enough, developers will be more encouraged to work with the Township in order to get their projects approved. Under this option, the developer agrees to contribute to the cost of paving the impacted road in exchange for a higher density for his development. The PZC is not aware of this option being tried elsewhere in Michigan.

81 Option 4: Adopt an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) This option would utilize the level of service ratings and capacities from the local Gravel Road Capacity Analysis, as well as other facility measures such as sewer, water, storm water, schools, etc. An APFO would require a community to adopt a capital improvement plan as a basis for future development decisions in presently undeveloped areas. The capital improvements plan would refer to the Comprehensive Plan for the community to identify where future planned growth for the community would be and where growth should be limited because of inadequate facilities. The white paper, titled, Gravel Road Capacities as Tools to Guide Local Planning and Zoning at the Rural/Urban Fringe, details the steps in setting up an APFO.9 A sample APFO can be found in Appendix O of the compact disc that accompanies How Much Development is Too Much?10

Option 5: Link Gravel Road Capacity to a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Option A TDR option allows a community to created incentives to concentrate development or transfer development rights where facilities are adequate. A community, perhaps in cooperation with a neighboring community, could set up sending areas where development rights could be sold and sent to receiving areas where the public infrastructure is able to accommodate it. This would keep density low in the sending area and allow the landowner to capture the development value without converting the land.

Option 6: Provide strong incentives for clustering Clustering development where access is from paved roads and capacities are greater would relieve pressure on gravel roads. Densities greater than the usual minimum could be used as an incentive to encourage cluster development where there was access to a paved road. Standards for the minimum amount of open space would have to be established, which could be a variation of existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations. Communities considering clustering as a way of reducing development in rural areas should adopt access management standards on their paved roads to ensure safety for new driveway construction. Refer to the Michigan Access Management Guidebook, MDOT, 2001.

Each of the six options is addressed in more detail in the aforementioned documents. In addition, sample ordinance language to implement gravel road capacity limitations can be found in Appendix C of the compact disc that accompanies How Much Development is Too Much?11

9 Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. Gravel Road Capacities as Tools to Guide Local Planning and Zoning at the Rural/Urban Fringe. 10 Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. and Huron River Watershed Council. How Much Development is Too Much?: A Guidebook on Using Impervious Surface and Gravel Road Capacity Analysis to Manage Growth in Rural and Suburban Communities. 11 Ibid.

82 Funding Issues

Regional Investment Needs In its 2030 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan: Regional Transportation Needs, published in November 2004, SEMCOG estimates that it will take nearly $70 billion to alleviate congestion, fix every bridge, correct safety problems, repave every road, develop a more comprehensive nonmotorized system, implement the regional transit plan, and maintain both the road and transit systems through 2030.12 At the same time, SEMCOG estimates that the seven-county Southeast Michigan region will receive approximately $40 billion in transportation revenues from federal, state, and local sources, leaving a $30 billion financial shortfall.

The Winter 2005 edition of SEMscope, a quarterly publication of SEMCOG, is devoted entirely to current and future infrastructure needs in the seven-county Southeast Michigan region. In the road portion of the report, SEMCOG estimates that it will cost $20.7 billion over the next 26 years to adequately fund road construction in the seven-county SEMCOG region.13 However, the current investment over that 26-year period is estimated to be only $11.8 billion, which includes all estimated federal, state, and local sources of funding. This estimate includes $7.1 billion for pavement resurfacing, rehabilitation and reconstruction, and $4 billion for capacity congestion mitigation strategies, such as road widening projects. The estimated shortfall is almost $9 billion, which may change as unforeseen need changes over the next 26 years. To make up for a portion of this shortfall, SEMCOG suggests the following investment options:

· Alternative pavement design and construction extending pavement life

· Increased diesel fuel tax to pay for wear and tear caused by trucks

· Road pricing (e.g., high occupancy toll lanes where prices vary by time of day)

· Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies to maximize efficiency

· Enhanced van/carpooling and transit during major road construction projects

· Public-private partnerships

· Local vehicle registration fees, local option gas or sales tax, and/or impact fees

· State Infrastructure Bank loans

12 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). 2030 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan: Regional Transportation Needs. 13 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), SEMscope, Southeast Michigan’s Infrastructure: A Special Report.

83 State Funding Source – Michigan Transportation Fund The Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) was created by Act 51 of 1951 and is the primary collection and distribution fund for state transportation revenues. MTF funds are the principal source of revenue for the Livingston County Road Commission, which receives no direct revenue from growth and development occurring in the county.14 A minimum of 90% of the MTF is constitutionally restricted to roads and bridges, with the rest going to public and freight transportation.15 MTF funds are generally used for maintenance of current roads, not improvements.

The MTF is divided amongst county road commissions, cities and villages, the State Trunkline Fund, and the Comprehensive Transportation Fund. Approximately 35% of the MTF is appropriated to county road commissions.

According to the Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency, 52% of the MTF was composed of revenue from fuel taxes in 2004. Vehicle registration tax was the second leading generator of revenue with 45% with the rest of the fund was composed of miscellaneous sources. In 1984, 67% of the MTF was composed of revenue from fuel taxes and 30% came from vehicle registration taxes.

The main reason why the percentage from fuel taxes fell from 1984-2004 while the percentage from vehicle registration tax rose is because vehicle registration tax is indexed to inflation (i.e. value of vehicles) and fuel tax is a fixed number. For example, if a gallon of gas is $1, the tax that goes to the state is 19 cents. If the price per gallon rises to $2, the tax per will remain at 19 cents. Because the gas tax does not rise with inflation, its buying power becomes increasingly weaker over time. The only way for gas tax revenues to increase under this method is for consumption in the state to increase.

The Senate Fiscal Agency predicts that by 2007 fuel taxes will no longer be the primary revenue source of the MTF. Michigan’s statewide gas tax is currently 19 cents per gallon (cpg), which was last increased by 4 cents in 1997.16 Compared to the state gas tax of other states Michigan ranks 31st and is below the national average of 20.9 cpg.17 However, Michigan ranks higher in overall tax due to it .875 cpg environmental regulation fee and its 6% state sales tax. The national gas tax for all states is 18.4 cpg.

The state with the highest gas tax in the United States in 2004 was Wisconsin at 32.9 cpg.18 Instead of having a fixed cpg, Wisconsin indexes its motor fuel tax to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and raises its rate accordingly on April 1. Wisconsin does not charge a sales tax on fuel.

14 Livingston County Road Commission. Frequently Asked Questions. 15 Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency. 16 Ibid. 17 American Petroleum Institute. 18 Ibid.

84 In a 2004 presentation to the SEMCOG Transportation Improvement Program Development Committee, the Senate Fiscal Agency representative discussed the following options to increase investment into the MTF should an increase be needed in the future19:

· Raise the diesel fuel tax to that of the gasoline tax. The diesel fuel tax is currently 15 cpg. If it were increased to equal the current gasoline tax of 19 cpg, the 4-cent increase would raise $40 million per year.

· Raise the gasoline tax. Each 1-cent gasoline tax increase would raise $50 million.

· Replace fuel tax with a sales tax. This would involve eliminating the fuel tax and raising the sales tax on fuel higher than the current rate of 6%.

· Index fuel taxes (Wisconsin example). According to the Senate Fiscal Agency if Michigan had indexed its fuel tax rate to inflation in 1997, the cpg would be 23 cents today and would have generated about $200 million more in tax receipts in 2005.

· Increase vehicle registration fees

· Eliminate transportation grants to other state agencies. This would save $41 million.

· Implement an odometer tax or other “user charges”

· Toll roads

Funding Solutions that would provide more revenue for the Livingston County Road Commission through the Michigan Transportation fund:

· Increase the road commission share of the MTF, which is currently 35% of the fund.

· Increase the size of the MTF using any of the options above or any options not mentioned by the Senate Fiscal Agency.

19 Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency.

85 Federal Funding Source – Transportation Equity Act There are several transportation funding programs available for the repair and upgrading of gravel roads through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The table below details some of the programs that Livingston County may be eligible for.

Program Eligible Projects, FY 2001 Eligible How Funds are Application Programs, and Appropriations Recipients Distributed Process Activities (millions) High Priority Improvements to the Determined Annually Cities, villages, Funds awarded No set Projects roadway and transit by Congress county road based on need schedule system. commissions, and merit. MDOT, transit agencies. Surface Reconstruction, $83.7 MDOT and local Funds awarded No application Transportation resurfacing, governments. based on need. accepted Program – rehabilitation, Flexible operational improvements. Surface Safety improvements $26.6 Cities, villages, Funds awarded Applications Transportation on roadways, at rail- county road based on traffic taken during Program – highway grade commissions, crashes the fall of Safety crossings, and other MDOT, transit eliminated and each year at hazard elimination agencies. cost. Maximum of SEMCOG activities. $200,000 award per project. Surface Reconstruction, $27.1 County road Funds distributed County Transportation resurfacing, commissions and to each county Federal-Aid Program – Rural rehabilitation, transit agencies. based on formula. Committees operational determine improvements on roads funding based outside urban areas, on need and transit capital usually every projects. one- to two years. Surface Reconstruction, $71.3 Cities, villages, Funds distributed County Transportation resurfacing, county road to each urban Federal-Aid Program – Urban rehabilitation, commissions, and area based on Committees operational transit agencies. formula. determine improvements on roads funding based inside urban areas, and on need transit capital projects. usually every one- to two years. Transportation Resurfacing and $16.5 County road Funds distributed County Economic reconstruction of rural commissions. to rural counties Federal-Aid Development roads to all-season including Committees Fund – Category standards. Livingston, determine D Monroe, St. Clair, funding based and Washtenaw on need Counties usually every one- to two years. Source: SEMCOG. Funding Resources for Investing in the Transportation System of Southeast Michigan. May 2003

The 1.5-mile reconstruction and paving project for Nine Mile Road, a local gravel road located between Rushton Road and Dixboro Road in Green Oak Township, was mostly paid for through federal funds. While local gravel roads are typically not eligible to receive federal funds, they were available for this project because it is located in the Howell-Brighton-South Lyon Urban Area. An ‘Urban Area’ is an area that has a population of between 50,000 and 200,000 people, and its boundary is determined by the Census.20 Approximately $1.6 million of the Nine Mile Road project’s estimated $2.7 million cost will be covered by federal funds.21

20 Michigan Department of Transportation. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 2004-2006. 21 Livingston County Road Commission. Nine Mile Road Paving.

86 Local Funding Sources

County Road Commission The Livingston County Road Commission receives approximately $12 million per year from the Michigan Transportation Fund.22 This is the primary source of funding for the Road Commission, as it receives no funds from growth and development occurring in the county. Since MTF funds are almost all used for maintenance of current roads, very little is left for improvements. Therefore, even if the Livingston County Road Commission developed a gravel road paving strategy, it would not have the resources to carry it out.

According to the Livingston County Road Commission the actual construction costs of paving a gravel road are roughly 75% of the total cost, with about 25% consisting of preliminary work such as surveying and engineering.23 When a township initiates paving a county gravel road, the Livingston County Road Commission will typically do all of this preliminary work at its own cost.

Special Assessment Some of the townships in Livingston County already have small township-wide assessments for gravel roads. Most of the money raised by these assessments is used to spray local gravel roads with salt water, which is a popular method of dust control. Since the Livingston County Road Commission can only spray primary gravel roads, townships are responsible for any spraying that takes place on local gravel roads.

Townships also have the ability to enact special assessments for the reconstruction and paving of its local gravel roads. Such an assessment was levied on property owners on White Lake Road between Denton Hill Road and Tipsico Lake Road in Tyrone Township. To raise the necessary township funds to pave this 1.5-mile segment, a majority of residents along the segment voted to create a special assessment district and include themselves in that district. The Tyrone Township Board of Trustees approved this district soon after. The 10-year special assessment will end in 2008 and will raise a total of $444,055.16.24

22 Livingston County Road Commission. Meeting with Steve Wasylk. 23 Ibid. 24 Tyrone Township. Telephone conversation.

87 Conclusion

The main purpose of this report is to provide local communities in Livingston County with a tool in making current and future planning and zoning decisions. It does so by showing the current capacity status of all county gravel roads, predicting the impact on them at build-out, and suggesting various methods of preserving or upgrading them. Just as no two townships are the same in terms of present and future gravel road capacity status, each township’s solution for mitigating gravel road problems will be different.

It is unknown how Livingston County’s gravel road capacity analysis results compare to other counties in the state of Michigan. Because Livingston County is one of the first counties, if not the first, in the state of Michigan to conduct a countywide analysis, there are few, if any, counties to immediately compare Livingston County’s to. However, the obvious benefit is that it will hopefully encourage other counties to conduct a similar analysis.

The Livingston County Department of Planning looks forward to working with local communities in the future to assist them in pursuing a strategy for preserving the County’s gravel road network. The Department also looks forward to working with other communities throughout the state of Michigan that wish to conduct their own gravel road capacity analysis.

88 Sources

American Petroleum Institute. State Motor Fuel Excise Tax Rates. [Online] Available http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/mft040105.pdf, 1 June 2005.

Livingston County Department of Planning. Transportation & Land Use in Livingston County, Michigan. 2001.

Livingston County Department of Planning, Land Use Analysis in Livingston County, Michigan, 2000.

Livingston County Road Commission. Frequently Asked Questions. [Online] Available http://www.livingstonroads.org/faq.php, 1 August 2005.

Livingston County Road Commission. Nine Mile Road Paving. [Online] Available http://www.livingstonroads.org/display.php?id=18, 1 August 2005.

Livingston County Road Commission. Meeting with Steve Wasylk. 2 June 2005.

Michigan Department of Transportation. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 2004-2006. [Online] Available http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_STIP_2004-2006_79430_7.pdf, 1 August 2005.

Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency. State Transportation Funding: Where to Next? Presentation to the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) Transportation Improvement Program Development Committee. 16 November 2004.

Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. Gravel Road Capacities as Tools to Guide Local Planning and Zoning at the Rural/Urban Fringe. 23 August 2003.

Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. and Huron River Watershed Council. How Much Development is Too Much?: A Guidebook on Using Impervious Surface and Gravel Road Capacity Analysis to Manage Growth in Rural and Suburban Communities. August 2003.

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). 2030 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan: Regional Transportation Needs. November 2004.

SEMCOG. Funding Resources for Investing in the Transportation System of Southeast Michigan. May 2003.

SEMCOG. Monthly Population Estimates, May 2005. [Online] Available http://www.semcog.org/Data/PopulationEstimates/assets/po0505.pdf, 24 May 2005.

SEMCOG. SEMscope. Southeast Michigan’s Infrastructure: A Special Report. Winter 2005.

Tyrone Township. Telephone conversation. 6 June 2005.

89 Appendices

Appendix A: Maps……………………………………………………………………….91 Map 1: Livingston County Gravel Roads………………………………………..91 Map 2: Livingston County Gravel Road Grades………………………….……..92 Map 3: Livingston County Current Gravel Road Capacity Status………………93 Map 4: Livingston County Gravel Road Capacity Status at Build-out…….……94

Appendix B: Gravel Road Inventory Field Worksheet ………………………………….95

Appendix C: Gravel Road Capacity Analysis Results Spreadsheet……………………..97

The county gravel roads in this spreadsheet are categorized as follows: · Rows with red text are county gravel road segments that are currently over capacity · Rows highlighted orange are county gravel road segments that will become over capacity at build-out · Rows that are highlighted white with black text are county gravel road segments that will remain under capacity at build-out

90 C

L R

C LOVEJOY A E

I R K

LOVEJOY R O A M

B T

S I VEJOY O LO O

B H N H A Y

T W T M RYAN K

U L

U A

N N

N T I

N W

O Appendix A F BRUFF

T E SOBER L OCTAH

E S H CO N

I W I

H RNER S G M TU EL N

TONER I HORN S I C I LEY T BRIM O B M Map 1: Livingston County E O

E N ELLIS P

M O H L

A R A OGAN I H E E

K R A

VOGT R S AN E S HOG F

L O T L H E Y BURNS Y E FOLEY M

F L Gravel Roads I

A Z N

J E E L MOHRLE O GANNON

RL O MOH R

R E G N N GANNON

N O I APP NTER C KN CE

S Y

H A

S DeerL field O O

O H PIERSON D CENTER C L

G County Gravel Roads

S H O

R W L

O I

N D

N I

A N G D T

E S E L MAXWELL G BELL OAK O T ING D L O L I Tyrone N SPAU I N

R C N L

L D

Y L S N C ROH

E I R

H N F GORDO

S K N N H INACKER DEA U F TE R S Other Roads in the County T E

A KILLINGER N G Conway E O EAN D R ES Y P N JO R

W Cohoctah DEAN T A

Y E

N NY L RMA N GE

D E

A O

N L

N N

R R

D M

WOO A SHER A

D G

Y A

C H

B N Paved, Non-County, and/or Private C

B I E

A K B N

M NNE LA U

FAUSSETT B E

R L

E F T MOYER FAUSSET E SANFORD Y

H B

U L

EER L CHASE LAKE G L L

CHASE LAKE B A

F U R

R S TH D HOLTFOR C

K H PARSHALL R

A GRANT R ALLEN C N This map shows all of the Livingston County U

R R D L

E L

A P E L

L A N

L I L R Gravel Roads accounted for in the Gravel

LEN S M AL

HAZARD H

R Road Capacity Analysis Inventory. There CONVERSE L CLYDE V E

S I

L O E DEA CLYD E were 793 segments counted by the Livingston

K SHARPE N G TOWNLEY

R B County Road Commission totaling approximately E DUNN U

C COOK G MARR L BNER U HI R L O MAR

W A L

R G

L R

L 625 miles. H M

Y N

Y WYER E

I D L D

E L U

N A

M DY E CUR

C R

D E

P E S

E L

E N

O N

M B

O F

A CROU

R SE A

T Hartland N

E M

R I

R M T

K C

S E

E Howell R

B RON BARRON

AR G

R B E

A BARRON

A T Y HAM

C DUN

S I K HYD R C E V L Oceola A BROPHY N C BU E BROPHY U

R V L EN WARNER L A

WARNER L

O D

E R

L R

G O AR F BOWEN M S

MONS T

VAN ORDEN LAYTON EM ON O

R D B Handy E

A W

Y E R HENDERSON

T H

N R I JUDD WINEGAR T

G O

A B A O

S C G

N Y

M O

E K

S R

M L

A E H

O A E

R E R E

I R R PARSONS G LONE T

L ETT Y

G MIL D

G G

A E U

L P

E A

E D

E G

G H L R

Y E N IN E O GIN BERG

G E BER E

A C

R T L

D L L

D I S

R L N E SARGENT O A

U E K

F I A N

ENTRY G E G F L T

LOWE X S

A E

A H

M L

N L T

I MERCE R COM

O M

N S Y T UB R CL

H GOLF E

R T

O Y

M C

U L CROFOOT N ENTS R MCCLEM H R O U E L

N K C Y R K O T A F E O IS E T OT FRANC L

R C SANITORIUM L

O O

BECK G E R P U L G

E E L

A E K ODELL LANGE T

V R A T Y

Y N E

E SWEET L L

H EWMAN IGHT N A WR F IOSCO IOSCO JEWELL U V I

S B T

H E SEXTON K N SEXTON R B

N S A

I M E T

I S Y F X SEITZ U MUNSELL C A

R O I K E R O N HERBST L

P G

E CROOKED LAKE

R LAMOREAUX DAVIS G

W Marion PARDEE E NO BUNO BU R E Brighton COON LAKE COON LAKE EIM S S GenoC a

O V P

N A H ENCER R SP N

A MAY A VINES BER L RY A

D M

VINES B Iosco E

R R

E EDAR POINT R G C U H B

C B

T IN

R U S BRIGHTON B INS

I LARK D E LAKE C ROBERTS TRIANGL R

K E

D B

I K

Y A

G N

D U

S E

O Y

O T

E T

L AM LAKE

U NINGH

R CUN T

84 W

N L

E SCHAFER L SCHAFER CHAFER

S B E

W B ISH OP WASSON WASSON LA KE EN H E P A L D

I E

N T L

I F BURGESS E X G A W B

R R

O G Green Oak

E H L

A R C

E E I

N W O H

Y E SWARTHOUT C BEARDSLEY A L

R U

M H E

U H

E Y B

S O

Y H E A ABE H N M MCC P R M L E T E O COWEL L VE MIL O L S REASON S TWE DEEP VALLEY SPEARS RS PEARS O D SPEA H

N A

S N E I R K Hamburg E MERCER B A N

B Y E A L O E

R RUSH LAKE L R R

C E

L T L 3 N G 4 3 N O A V P 4 D H

D H L N V R I E A S U E E R E

T E V R V T B

R I E

O R E

G E L

R N D

Unadilla L A I

S U S

GIR L A A R Livingston County, Michigan C R H L D E B T

PutE nam U V I

G D A L L R I

V N ANE

L A A FAIRL S 4 W V 8 A I F E R E S S RN SPICER N LA ND L S T U

A E T H H Y K R I O L C

E L O

M MONKS L

L R

E E MELVIN

E E K T E OYL NINE MILE 0 1 2 4 6 8

E V D DOYL E

K S I

P E L

H R L ARWIN

D M E

M Miles Y U

O A L O

L A

L S

L L

R O L W D H

S H

T O H W M H

R A

K A E A

D S M L

C R M Prepared by: Livingston County Department of Planning I

L E L B O R V O MILE N HT U EIG

R T I DON E L HEL E S R R L Sources: Livingston County Road Commission and Livingston

K G H P I TIPLADY E L County Department of Geographic Information Systems L BOWDISH O R June 2005

91 C

L R

C LOVEJOY A E

I R K

LOVEJOY R O A M

B T

S I VEJOY O LO O

B H N H A Y

T W T M RYAN K

U L

U A

N N

N T I

N W

D O F BRUFF

T E SOBER L Appendix A OCTAH

E S H CO N

I W I

H RNER S G M TU EL N

TONER I HORN S I C I LEY T BRIM O B M

E O

E N ELLIS P

M O H Map 2: Livingston County L

A R A OGAN I H E E

K R A

VOGT R S AN E S HOG F

L O T L H E Y BURNS Y E FOLEY M

A Z N

J E

L O ON Gravel Road Grades E MOHRLE GANN

RL O MOH R

R E G N N GANNON

N O I APP NTER C KN CE

S Y

H A

S DeerL field O O

O H PIERSON D CENTER C L

S H O

R W L

O I

N D

N I

A N D G T "A" (Capacity=900 Trips Per Day) G

E S E L MAXWELL G BELL OAK O T ING D L O L I Tyrone N SPAU I N

R C N L

L D

Y L S N C ROH

E I R

H N F GORDO

S K N N H INACKER DEA U F TE R S

T E

A KILLINGER N G Conway E O EAN D R ES Y P N JO R

W Cohoctah DEAN T A

Y E

N NY L RMA N GE

D E

A "B" (Capacity=700 Trips Per Day) O

N L

N N

R R

D M

WOO A SHER A

D G

Y A

C H

M B

N C

B I E

A K B N

M NNE LA U

FAUSSETT B E

R L

E F T MOYER FAUSSET E SANFORD Y

H B "C" (Capacity=500 Trips Per Day)

U L

EER L CHASE LAKE G L L

CHASE LAKE B A

F U R

R S TH D HOLTFOR C

K H PARSHALL R

A GRANT R ALLEN C N U

R R D L "D" (Capacity=300 Trips Per Day) T

E L

A P E L

L A N

L I L R

LEN S M AL

HAZARD H

R CONVERSE L CLYDE V E

S I

L A "E" (Capacity=100 Trips Per Day)

L O E DEA CLYD E

K SHARPE N G TOWNLEY

E DUNN U

C COOK G MARR L BNER U HI R L O MAR

W A L

R G

L Other Roads in the County

R L

H M

Y N

Y WYER E

I D L D

E L U

N A

M DY E CUR

C R

D E

P E S

E L

E N

O N

M B

O F

A CROU

R SE A

T Hartland N

E M

R I

R M T

K C

S E

E Howell R

B RON BARRON Paved, Non-County, and/or Private

AR G

R B E

A BARRON

A T Y HAM

C DUN

S I K HYD R C E V L Oceola A BROPHY N C BU E BROPHY U

R V L EN WARNER L A

WARNER L

O D

E R

L R

G O AR F BOWEN M S

MONS T

VAN ORDEN LAYTON EM ON O

R D B Handy E

A W B This map shows all of the Livingston County

Y E R HENDERSON

T H

N R I JUDD WINEGAR T

G O

A B A O

S C G

N Y

M O

E K

S Gravel Road Grades that are calculated in the R

M L

A E H

O A E

R E R E

I R R PARSONS G LONE T

L ETT Y

G MIL D

G G

A E U

L P

E A

E D

E G H L Gravel Road Capacity Analysis. These letter

G R

Y E N IN E O GIN BERG

G E BER E

A C

R T L

D L L

D I S

R L N E SARGENT O A

U E grades are based on a physical feature score, K

F I A N

ENTRY G E G F L T

LOWE X S

A E

A H

M which consists of scores for road width, surface L

N L T

I MERCE R COM

O M

N S Y T UB R CL H GOLF

E type, width of clear, zone, speed of comfortable

R T

S travel, and road drainage.

O Y

M C

U L CROFOOT N ENTS R MCCLEM H R O U E L

N K C Y R K O T A Each physical feature grade corresponds with a F E O IS E T OT FRANC L

R C SANITORIUM L

O O

BECK G E R midpoint traffic threshold, which is an estimate of P U L G

E E L

A E K ODELL LANGE T

V R A T Y how many trips per day each grade can Y N E

E SWEET L L

H EWMAN IGHT N A WR F IOSCO IOSCO JEWELL U V accommodate. This calculation is described in I

S B T

H E SEXTON K N SEXTON R B

N S A

I M E T

I S Y F X SEITZ more detail in the Gravel Road Capacity Analysis U MUNSELL C A

R O I K E R O N HERBST L

P G

E CROOKED LAKE report and the supporting table in Appendix C.

R LAMOREAUX DAVIS G

W Marion PARDEE E NO BUNO BU R E Brighton COON LAKE COON LAKE EIM S S GenoC a

O V P

N A H ENCER R SP N

A MAY A VINES BER L RY A

D M

VINES B Iosco E

R R

E EDAR POINT R G C U H B

C B

T IN

R U S BRIGHTON B INS

I LARK D E LAKE C ROBERTS TRIANGL R

K E

D B

I K

Y A

G N

D U

S E

O Y

O T

E T

N L AM LAKE U NINGH

R CUN

E 4 W

N 8 L

E SCHAFER L SCHAFER CHAFER

S B E

W B ISH OP WASSON WASSON LA KE EN H E P A L D

I E

N T L

I F BURGESS E X G A W B

R R

O G Green Oak

E H L

A R C

E E I

N W O H

Y E SWARTHOUT C BEARDSLEY A L

R U

M H E

U H

E Y B

S O

Y H E A ABE H N M MCC P R M L E T E O COWEL L VE MIL O L S REASON S TWE DEEP VALLEY SPEARS RS PEARS O D SPEA H

N A

S N E I R K Hamburg E MERCER B A N

B Y E A L O E R RUSH LAKE L R R

C E

L T L

O A V P D 43 N 3 N H 4

D H L N V R I E A S U E E R E

T E V R V T B

R I E

O R E

G E L

R N D Unadilla L A I

U S

GIR L

A A R C RD H Livingston County, Michigan E L B T

PutE nam U V I

G D A L L R I V N ANE A A RL

L V FAI S

A I F

E R E 4 W S S RN SPICER 8 N LA ND L S T U

A E T H H Y K R I O L C

E L O

M MONKS L

L R

E E MELVIN

E E K T E OYL NINE MILE

E V D DOYL E

T K

S 0 1 2 4 6 8 I

P E L

H R L ARWIN

D M

E M

Y U O A

L Miles O

L A

L S

L L

R O L W D H

S H

T O H W M H

R A

K A E A

D S M L

C R M Prepared by: Livingston County Department of Planning I

L E L B O R V O MILE N HT U EIG

R T I DON E L HEL E S R R L Sources: Livingston County Road Commission and Livingston

K G H P I TIPLADY E L County Department of Geographic Information Systems L BOWDISH O R June 2005

92 C

L R

C LOVEJOY A E

I R K

LOVEJOY R O A M

B T

S I VEJOY O LO O

B H N H A Y

T W T M RYAN K

U L

U A

N N

N T I

N W

D O F BRUFF Appendix A

T E SOBER L OCTAH

E S H CO N

I W I

H RNER S G M TU EL N

TONER I HORN S I C I LEY T BRIM O B M

E O

E N

P Map 3: Livingston County ELLIS

M O H L

A R A OGAN I H E E

K R A

VOGT R S AN E S HOG F

L O T L H E Y BURNS Y E FOLEY M

A Z N Current Gravel Road

J E E L MOHRLE O GANNON

RL O MOH R

R E G N N GANNON

N O I APP NTER C KN CE

S Y

H A

S DeerL field O O

O H PIERSON D CENTER C L Capacity Status

S H O

R W L

O I

N D

N I

A N G D T

E S E L MAXWELL G BELL OAK O T ING D L O L I Tyrone N SPAU I N

R C N L

L D

Y L S N C ROH

E I R

H N F GORDO

S K N N H Over Capacity INACKER DEA U F TE R S

T E

A KILLINGER N G Conway E O EAN D R ES Y P N JO R

W Cohoctah DEAN T A

Y E

N NY L RMA N GE

D E

A O

N L

N N

R R

D M

WOO A SHER A

D G

Y A

C H

M B

N C B

I E Under Capacity

A K B N

M NNE LA U

FAUSSETT B E

R L

E F T MOYER FAUSSET E SANFORD Y

H B

U L

EER L CHASE LAKE G L No Traffic Data L

CHASE LAKE B A

F U R

R S TH D HOLTFOR C

K H PARSHALL R

A GRANT R ALLEN C N U

R R D L

E L A P E

L Other Roads in the County

L A N

L I L R

LEN S M AL

HAZARD H

R CONVERSE L CLYDE V E

M Paved, Non-County, and/or Private

S I

L O E DEA CLYD E

K SHARPE N G TOWNLEY

E DUNN U

C COOK G MARR L BNER U HI R L O MAR

W A L

R G

R L

H M

Y N

Y WYER E

I D L D

E L U

N A

M DY E CUR

C R

S This map shows all of the Livingston County

D E

P E S

E L

E N

O N

M B

O F

A CROU

R SE A

T Hartland N

E M

R I

R M T

K Gravel Road segments that are currently over C

S E

E Howell R

B RON BARRON

AR G

R B E

A BARRON

A T Y HAM

C DUN

S I K HYD capacity. This is determined by subtracting R C E V L Oceola A BROPHY N C BU E BROPHY U

R V L EN WARNER L A

WARNER L

O D

E R

L current traffic volume levels from the midpoint R

G O AR F BOWEN M S

MONS T thresholds determined by the physical feature

VAN ORDEN LAYTON EM ON O

R D B Handy E

A W B grades. If the result is a positive number, then

Y E R HENDERSON

T H

N R I JUDD WINEGAR T

G O

A B A O

S C G

N Y

M O

E K

S the segment is under capacity (shown in blue). R

M L

A E H

O A E

R E R E

I R R PARSONS G LONE T

L ETT Y

G MIL D

G G

A E U

L P

E A

E D

E G H L If the result is a negative number, the current

G R

Y E N IN E O GIN BERG

G E BER E

A C

R T L

D L L

D I S

R L N E SARGENT O A

U E traffic level is more than the midpoint threshold K

F I A N

ENTRY G E G F L T

LOWE X S

A E A H and the segment is classified as over capacity

M L

N L T

I MERCE R COM

O M

N S Y T UB R CL H GOLF

E (shown in red). This calculation is described in

R T

S more detail in the Gravel Road Capacity

O Y

M C

A U

L Analysis report and the supporting table in CROFOOT N ENTS R MCCLEM H R O U E L

N K C Y R K

O T Appendix C. A F E O IS E T OT FRANC L

R C SANITORIUM L

O O

BECK G E R P U L G

E E L

A E K ODELL LANGE T

V R A T Y

Y N E

E SWEET L L

H EWMAN IGHT N A WR F IOSCO IOSCO JEWELL U V I

S B T

H E SEXTON K N SEXTON R B

N S A

I M E T

I S Y F X SEITZ U MUNSELL C A

R O I K E R O N HERBST L

P G

E CROOKED LAKE

R LAMOREAUX DAVIS G

W Marion PARDEE E NO BUNO BU R E Brighton COON LAKE COON LAKE EIM S S GenoC a

O V P

N A H ENCER R SP N

A MAY A VINES BER L RY A

D M

VINES B Iosco E

R R

E EDAR POINT R G C U H B

C B

T IN

R U S BRIGHTON B INS

I LARK D E LAKE C ROBERTS TRIANGL R

K E

D B

I K

Y A

G N

D U

S E

O Y

O T

E T

N L AM LAKE U NINGH

R CUN

E 4 W

N 8 L

E SCHAFER L SCHAFER CHAFER

S B E

W B ISH OP WASSON WASSON LA KE EN H E P A L D

I E

N T L

I F BURGESS E X G A W B

R R

O G Green Oak

E H L

A R C

E E I

N W O H

Y E SWARTHOUT C BEARDSLEY A L

R U

M H E

U H

E Y B

S O

Y H E A ABE H N M MCC P R M L E T E O COWEL L VE MIL O L S REASON S TWE DEEP VALLEY SPEARS RS PEARS O D SPEA H

N A

S N E I R K Hamburg E MERCER B A N

B Y E A L O E R RUSH LAKE L R R

C E

L T L

O A V P D 43 N 3 N H 4

D H L N V R I E A S U E E R E

T E V R V T B

R I E

O R E

G E L

R N D Unadilla L A I

U S

GIR L

A A R C RD H Livingston County, Michigan E L B T

PutE nam U V I

G D A L L R I V N ANE A A RL

L V FAI S

A I F

E R E 4 W S S RN SPICER 8 N LA ND L S T U

A E T H H Y K R I O L C

E L O

M MONKS L

L R

E E MELVIN

E E K T E OYL NINE MILE

E V D DOYL E

T K

S 0 1 2 4 6 8 I

P E L

H R L ARWIN

D M

E M

Y U O A

L Miles O

L A

L S

L L

R O L W D H

S H

T O H W M H

R A

K A E A

D S M L

C R M Prepared by: Livingston County Department of Planning I

L E L B O R V O MILE N HT U EIG

R T I DON E L HEL E S R R L Sources: Livingston County Road Commission and Livingston

K G H P I TIPLADY E L County Department of Geographic Information Systems L BOWDISH O R June 2005

93 C

L R

C LOVEJOY A E

I R K

LOVEJOY R O A M

B T

S I VEJOY O LO O

B H N H A Y

T W T M RYAN K

U L

U A

N N

N T I

N W

D O F FF Appendix A BRU

T E SOBER L OCTAH

E S H CO N

I W I

H RNER S G M TU EL N

TONER I HORN S I C I LEY T BRIM O B M

E O

E N Map 4: Livingston County ELLIS P

M O H L

A R A OGAN I H E E

K R A

VOGT R S AN E S HOG F

L O T L H E Y BURNS Y E FOLEY M

A Z N Gravel Road Capacity

J E E L MOHRLE O GANNON

RL O MOH R

R E G N N GANNON

N O I APP NTER C KN CE

S Y

H A

S DeerL field O O

O H PIERSON D CENTER C L Status at Build-Out

S H O

R W L

O I

N D

N I

A N G D T

E S E L MAXWELL G BELL OAK O T ING D L O L I Tyrone N SPAU I N

R C N L

L D

Y L S N C ROH

E I R

H N F GORDO

S K N Currently Over Capacity N H INACKER DEA U F TE R S

T E

A KILLINGER N G Conway E O EAN D R ES Y P N JO R

W Cohoctah DEAN T A

Y E

N NY L RMA N GE

D E

A O

N L

N N

R R

D M

WOO A SHER A

D G

Y A

C H

M B

N C

B Over Capacity at Build-Out I E

A K B N

M NNE LA U

FAUSSETT B E

R L

E F T MOYER FAUSSET E SANFORD Y

H B

U L

EER L At Capacity at Build-Out CHASE LAKE G L L

CHASE LAKE B A

F U R

R S TH D HOLTFOR C

K H PARSHALL R

A GRANT R ALLEN C N U

R R D L Under Capacity at Build-Out T

E L

A P E L

L A N

L I L R

LEN S M AL

HAZARD H

R CONVERSE L CLYDE V E No Traffic Data M

S I

L O E DEA CLYD E

K SHARPE N G TOWNLEY

E DUNN U

C COOK G L Other Roads in the County MARR BNER U HI R L O MAR

W A L

R G

R L

H M

Y N

Y WYER E

I D L D

E L U

N A

M DY E CUR

C R

D E

P E S

E L

E N

O N

M B

O F

A CROU

R SE Paved, Non-County, and/or Private A

T Hartland N

E M

R I

R M T

K C

S E

E Howell R

B RON BARRON

AR G

R B E

A BARRON

A T Y HAM

C DUN

S I K HYD R C E V L Oceola A BROPHY N C BU E BROPHY U

R V L EN WARNER L A

WARNER L

O D

E R

L R

G O AR F This map shows all of the Livingston County BOWEN M S

MONS T

VAN ORDEN LAYTON EM ON O

R D B Handy E L Gravel Road segments that will become over

A W

Y E R HENDERSON

T H

N R I JUDD WINEGAR T

G O

A B A O

S C G

N Y capacity at build-out. This is determined by

M O

E K

S R

M L

A E H

O A E

R E R E

I R R PARSONS G LONE T

L ETT Y

G MIL D

G G

A E U

L P subtracting the maximum number of dwelling units E A

E D

E G

G H L R

Y E N IN E O GIN BERG

G E BER E

A C

R T L

D L L

D I S

R L N per acre allowed under the current zoning from the E SARGENT O A

U E K

F I A N

ENTRY G E G F L T

LOWE X S

A maximum number of dwelling units per buildable E

A H

M L

N L T

I MERCE R COM

O M

N S Y T UB acre available for each segment before reaching R CL

H GOLF E

H R

T capacity. If the result is a positive number, then the

O Y

M C

U segment will remain under capacity at build-out L CROFOOT N ENTS R MCCLEM H R O U E L

N K (shown in blue). If the result is a negative number, C Y R K O T A F E O IS E T OT FRANC L

R C SANITORIUM L

O O the current allowable density is greater than the BECK G E R P U L G

E E L

A E K ODELL LANGE T maximum allowable density and the segment is V R A T Y

Y N E

E SWEET L L

H EWMAN IGHT N A classified as over capacity at build-out (shown in WR F IOSCO IOSCO JEWELL U V I

S B T

H E SEXTON K N SEXTON R B

S A I orange). This calculation is described in more M E T

I S Y F X SEITZ U MUNSELL C A

R O I K E R O N HERBST L P G detail in the Gravel Road Capacity Analysis report

E CROOKED LAKE

R LAMOREAUX DAVIS G B and the supporting table in Appendix C.

W Marion PARDEE E NO BUNO BU R E Brighton COON LAKE COON LAKE EIM S S GenoC a

O V P

N A H ENCER R SP N

A MAY A VINES BER L RY A

D M

VINES B Iosco E

R R

E EDAR POINT R G C U H B

C B

T IN

R U S BRIGHTON B INS

I LARK D E LAKE C ROBERTS TRIANGL R

K E

D B

I K

Y A

G N

D U

S E

O Y

O T

E T

N L AM LAKE U NINGH

R CUN

E 4 W

N 8 L

E SCHAFER L SCHAFER CHAFER

S B E

W B ISH OP WASSON WASSON LA KE EN H E P A L D

I E

N T L

I F BURGESS E X G A W B

R R

O G Green Oak

E H L

A R C

E E I

N W O H

Y E SWARTHOUT C BEARDSLEY A L

R U

M H E

U H

E Y B

S O

Y H E A ABE H N M MCC P R M L E T E O COWEL L VE MIL O L S REASON S TWE DEEP VALLEY SPEARS RS PEARS O D SPEA H

N A

S N E I R K Hamburg E MERCER B A N

B Y E A L O E R RUSH LAKE L R R

C E

L T L

O A V P D 43 N 3 N H 4

D H L N V R I E A S U E E R E

T E V R V T B

R I E

O R E

G E L

R N D Unadilla L A I

U S

GIR L

A A R C RD H Livingston County, Michigan E L B T

PutE nam U V I

G D A L L R I V N ANE A A RL

L V FAI S

A I F

E R E 4 W S S RN SPICER 8 N LA ND L S T U

A E T H H Y K R I O L C

E L O

M MONKS L

L R

E E MELVIN

E E K T E OYL NINE MILE

E V D DOYL E

K S I 0 1 2 4 6 8

P E L

H R L ARWIN

D M

E M

Y U

O A L O

L A

L S Miles

L L

R O L W D H

S H

T O H W M H

R A

K A E A

D S M L

C R M Prepared by: Livingston County Department of Planning I

L E L B O R V O MILE N HT U EIG

R T I DON E L HEL E S R R L Sources: Livingston County Road Commission and Livingston

K G H P I TIPLADY E L County Department of Geographic Information Systems L BOWDISH O R June 2005

Appendix B

Livingston County Road Commission Gravel Road Inventory Field Worksheet

Segment and Location:

Road Name: ______Township: ______Section: ______

Beginning of Segment: ______End of Segment: ______

Length of Segment (in feet): ______Road Classification: Primary Local

Physical Features:

Width of Segment: less than 18’ 18’ to 24’ greater than 24’

Type of Surface Material: Earth Natural Aggregate Limestone Other

Comments: ______

______

Type of Roadside Vegetation: Brush Wooded Cropland/Pasture Lawn Other (Specify) Varies (Specify)

Comments: ______

______

Width of Clear Zone: less than 5’ 5’ to 10’ greater than 10’

Type of Clear Zone Obstruction: Cut-slope Fill-slope Trees Other None

Comments: ______

______

Road Alignment Classification: Complex Moderate Slight

Is there a “One Lane Bridge” (less than 17’ in width) along the road segment? Yes No

Is there a weight restriction of less than 12 tons along the road segment? Yes No

Are there any significant restrictive alignment features? Yes No

If yes, explain: ______

______95

Are road intersections adequate for the existing traffic volumes? Yes No

If no, state reason: ______

______

Are driveway intersections adequate for the existing traffic volumes? Yes No

If no, state reason: ______

______

Do roadside ditches exist along the majority of the road segment? Yes No

Is roadside drainage adequate? Yes No

If no, state reason: ______

______

Are the road culverts in adequate condition along the segment? Yes No N/A

If no, state reason: ______

______

Comments:

Is sketch attached? Yes No

Inspected By: ______Date of Inspection: _____/_____/_____

96 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density) Buno 314 Buno E/Pleasant Valley Kensington 11 B No 386 38.6 87 0.44 1 unit per 2.5 acres 0.40 0.04 Brighton 5116 2 2 2 2 3 Buno 6033 Kensington Muir 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Brighton 1048 3 2 3 2 1 Buno 353 Muir Labadie 11 B No 347 34.7 90 0.39 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.19 Brighton 1996 2 2 2 2 3 Buno 429 Nancy Starshine 11 B No 271 27.1 12 2.26 1 unit per .9 acres 1.11 1.15 Brighton 1579 2 2 2 2 3 Buno 429 Starshine Buno W/Pleasant Valley Cutoff 11 B No 271 27.1 17 1.59 1 unit per 1.3 acres 0.77 0.82 Brighton 1774 2 2 2 2 3 Buno 433 Van Amberg Nancy 11 B No 267 26.7 0 0.00 1 unit per .9 acres 1.11 >0 Brighton 95 2 2 2 2 3 Commerce 888 Maxfield Pleasant Valley 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Brighton 7678 2 2 2 2 3 Corlett 763 Newman Hyne 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Brighton 5217 2 3 2 2 3 Hunter 336 Hyne McClements 11 B No 364 36.4 18 2.02 1 unit per 2.5 acres 0.40 1.62 Brighton 3112 2 2 2 2 3 Larkins 657 Pleasant Valley Kensington 11 B No 43 4.3 72 0.06 1 unit per .9 acres 1.11 -1.05 Brighton 8276 2 3 2 1 3 Maxfield 448 Hyne Commerce 10 C No 52 5.2 422 0.01 1 unit per 2.5 acres 0.40 -0.39 Brighton 8823 2 2 1 2 3 McClements 514 Hacker Hunter 11 B No 186 18.6 351 0.05 1 unit per 2.5 acres 0.40 -0.35 Brighton 6864 2 2 1 3 3 McClements 765 Hunter Old US-23 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Brighton 4962 2 2 2 2 3 Muir 3764 Buno Stobart 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Brighton 5377 2 2 1 2 1 Newman 361 Corlett Pleasant Valley 10 C No 139 13.9 33 0.42 1 unit per 2.1 acres 0.49 -0.07 Brighton 5802 2 2 1 2 3 Newman 939 Van Amberg Corlett 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Brighton 797 2 2 2 2 3 Pleasant Valley 545 Moraine Newman 11 B No 155 15.5 37 0.42 1 unit per 1.6 acres 0.62 -0.20 Brighton 1267 2 2 2 2 3 Pleasant Valley 760 Newman Kensington 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Brighton 2022 2 2 1 2 3 Pleasant Valley 817 Way Cross Moraine 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Brighton 1795 2 2 2 2 3 Seitz 113 Dead End Van Amberg 11 B No 587 58.7 4 14.68 1 unit per .9 acres 1.11 13.57 Brighton 2007 2 2 2 2 3 Spencer 537 Kensington Labadie 12 B No 163 16.3 94 0.17 1 unit per 3.8 acres 0.27 -0.10 Brighton 5272 2 3 2 2 3 Spencer 1011 Pleasant Valley Windswept 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Brighton 4752 2 2 2 2 3 Spencer 622 Windswept Kensington 11 B No 78 7.8 60 0.13 1 unit per 1.6 acres 0.62 -0.49 Brighton 2112 2 2 2 2 3 Taylor 2598 Old US-23 End of Pavement 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Brighton 4248 2 2 2 2 3 Van Amberg 276 Pleasant Valley Spencer 7 D No 24 2.4 16 0.15 1 unit per .9 acres 1.11 -0.96 Brighton 4463 1 2 1 1 2 Appendix C 97 98 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Antcliff 522 Chase Lake Steinacker 12 B No 178 17.8 219 0.08 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 -0.02 Cohoctah 5234 3 2 2 2 3 Antcliff 304 Schrepfer Gannon 13 A No 596 59.6 190 0.31 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.21 Cohoctah 4000 3 2 2 3 3 Antcliff 400 Steinacker Schrepfer 12 B No 300 30.0 171 0.18 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.08 Cohoctah 3980 3 2 2 2 3 Betterly 131 Gannon Cohoctah 11 B No 569 56.9 180 0.32 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.22 Cohoctah 5300 2 2 2 2 3 Bohm 74 Bruff Lovejoy 12 B No 626 62.6 228 0.27 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.17 Cohoctah 4845 2 2 3 2 3 Bohm 326 Cohoctah Bruff 11 B No 374 37.4 72 0.52 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.42 Cohoctah 2635 2 2 2 2 3 Bruff 314 Bohm S Bohm N 11 B No 386 38.6 6 6.43 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 6.33 Cohoctah 1260 2 2 2 2 3 Bruff 121 Fleming Rathbon 12 B No 579 57.9 376 0.15 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.05 Cohoctah 5230 2 2 2 3 3 Bruff 190 Rathbon Bohm S 10 C No 310 31.0 76 0.41 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.31 Cohoctah 2627 2 2 2 1 3 Burkhart 1726 Allen Chase Lake W/ Geer 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Cohoctah 5344 2 2 2 2 3 Burkhart 1313 Chase Lake W/ Geer Schrepfer/Burkhart Cutoff 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Cohoctah 2553 3 2 2 2 3 Byron 822 Allen Chase Lake 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Cohoctah 8156 2 2 2 2 3 Byron 675 Chase Lake Steinacker 14 A No 225 22.5 299 0.08 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 -0.02 Cohoctah 5245 3 2 3 3 3 Byron 303 Cohoctah Lovejoy 11 B No 397 39.7 428 0.09 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 -0.01 Cohoctah 7431 2 2 2 2 3 Byron 576 Gannon Cohoctah 11 B No 124 12.4 340 0.04 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 -0.06 Cohoctah 6618 2 2 2 2 3 Byron 526 Steinacker Gannon 14 A No 374 37.4 435 0.09 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 -0.01 Cohoctah 6668 3 2 3 3 3 Chase Lake 1230 Burkhart/Schrepfer Antcliff 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Cohoctah 1256 3 2 1 2 3 Chase Lake 621 Crandall Burkhart/Geer W 12 B No 79 7.9 75 0.11 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.01 Cohoctah 2640 2 2 3 2 3 Chase Lake 599 Fleming Crandall 11 B No 101 10.1 122 0.08 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 -0.02 Cohoctah 2622 2 2 2 2 3 Chase Lake 797 Owosso Fleming 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Cohoctah 5152 2 2 2 2 3 Crandall 62 Allen Chase Lake 10 C No 438 43.8 102 0.43 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.33 Cohoctah 5562 2 2 2 1 3 Durand 926 Cohoctah Richards 14 A Yes X X X X X X X Cohoctah 3962 3 2 3 3 3 Durand 944 Richards Lovejoy 14 A Yes X X X X X X X Cohoctah 3508 3 2 3 3 3 Ellis 173 Fleming Antcliff 12 B No 527 52.7 133 0.40 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.30 Cohoctah 6578 2 2 3 2 3 Elm Cohoctah Oak Grove 8 D 0 1 unit per .7 acres 1.43 Cohoctah 921 1 2 2 1 2 Fisher 249 Allen Faussett 11 B No 451 45.1 303 0.15 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.05 Cohoctah 4139 2 2 2 2 3 Fisher 382 Faussett Lannen 12 B No 318 31.8 28 1.14 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 1.04 Cohoctah 3782 2 2 2 3 3 Fisher 257 Lannen Jones 11 B No 443 44.3 56 0.79 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.69 Cohoctah 2666 2 2 2 2 3 Fleming 143 Allen Chase Lake 11 B No 557 55.7 188 0.30 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.20 Cohoctah 5280 2 2 2 2 3 Fleming 191 Bruff Lovejoy 13 A No 709 70.9 273 0.26 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.16 Cohoctah 4843 2 2 3 3 3 Fleming 256 Chase Lake Steinacker 12 B No 444 44.4 357 0.12 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.02 Cohoctah 7955 2 2 3 2 3 Fleming 280 Ellis Stoner 11 B No 420 42.0 7 6.00 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 5.90 Cohoctah 1303 2 2 2 2 3 Fleming 228 Gannon Ellis 13 A No 672 67.2 269 0.25 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.15 Cohoctah 3925 2 2 3 3 3 Fleming 238 Maxwell Hayner 12 B No 462 46.2 110 0.42 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.32 Cohoctah 2733 2 2 3 2 3 Fleming 258 Steinacker Maxwell 12 B No 442 44.2 111 0.40 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.30 Cohoctah 2640 2 2 3 2 3 Fleming 201 Stoner Bruff 13 A No 699 69.9 252 0.28 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.18 Cohoctah 2666 2 2 3 3 3 Gannon 124 Antcliff Betterly 12 B No 576 57.6 55 1.05 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.95 Cohoctah 2583 2 2 3 2 3 Gannon 171 Betterly Byron 12 B No 529 52.9 179 0.30 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.20 Cohoctah 5232 2 2 3 2 3 Gannon 252 Byron Oak Grove 11 B No 448 44.8 126 0.36 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.26 Cohoctah 6407 2 2 2 2 3 Gannon 43 Owosso Fleming 11 B No 657 65.7 177 0.37 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.27 Cohoctah 5260 1 2 3 2 3 Geer 82 Burkhart Chase Lake 11 B No 618 61.8 374 0.17 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.07 Cohoctah 6762 2 2 2 2 3 Handy 49 Chase Lake Steinacker 9 C No 451 45.1 43 1.05 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.95 Cohoctah 4736 1 2 2 2 2 Hayner 46 Fleming Gannon 11 B No 654 65.4 124 0.53 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.43 Cohoctah 3834 2 2 3 2 2 Jones 174 Oak Grove Fisher 8 D No 126 12.6 74 0.17 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.07 Cohoctah 9833 2 2 1 1 2 Killin 110 Cohoctah Lovejoy 11 B No 590 59.0 422 0.14 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.04 Cohoctah 7656 2 2 2 2 3 Lovejoy 257 Byron S Durand/New Lothrup 10 C No 243 24.3 0 0.00 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 >0 Cohoctah 2624 2 1 2 2 3 Lovejoy Owosso End of Pavement 11 B 5 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 Cohoctah 2200 2 2 2 2 3 Lovejoy 97 Durand/New Lothrop Oak Grove/Byron N 11 B No 603 60.3 108 0.56 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.46 Cohoctah 5334 2 2 2 2 3 Lovejoy 152 Oak Grove/Byron N Killen 11 B No 548 54.8 114 0.48 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.38 Cohoctah 5326 2 2 2 2 3 Maxwell 91 Owosso Fleming 10 C No 409 40.9 172 0.24 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.14 Cohoctah 5284 2 2 2 2 2 Owosso 1200 Chase Lake Sherwood 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Cohoctah 5089 3 2 2 3 3 Owosso 489 Gannon Stoner 14 A No 411 41.1 477 0.09 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 -0.08 Cohoctah 5284 3 2 3 3 3 Owosso 525 Hayner Gannon 14 A No 375 37.5 150 0.25 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 0.08 Cohoctah 2602 3 2 3 3 3 Owosso 784 Maxwell Hayner 13 A No 116 11.6 96 0.12 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 -0.05 Cohoctah 2646 3 2 2 3 3 Owosso 626 Sherwood Maxwell 13 A No 274 27.4 229 0.12 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 -0.05 Cohoctah 5293 3 2 2 3 3 Owosso 186 Sober Lovejoy 12 B No 514 51.4 400 0.13 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 -0.04 Cohoctah 4817 2 2 3 2 3 Owosso 501 Stoner Sober 14 A No 399 39.9 141 0.28 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 0.11 Cohoctah 2666 3 2 3 3 3 Preston 242 Allen Preston/Oak Grove 11 B No 458 45.8 163 0.28 1 unit per 2.5 acres 0.40 -0.12 Cohoctah 4114 2 2 2 2 3 Rathbon 175 Bruff Lovejoy 11 B No 525 52.5 280 0.19 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.09 Cohoctah 4746 2 2 2 2 3 Richards 58 Durand Oak Grove 12 B No 642 64.2 184 0.35 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.25 Cohoctah 6302 2 2 3 2 3 Sanford 1985 Faussett Oak Grove S 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Cohoctah 4644 2 2 2 2 3 Schrepfer 332 Schrepfer Cutoff Steinacker 12 B No 368 36.8 300 0.12 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.02 Cohoctah 6646 2 2 3 2 3 Schrepfer 127 Steinacker Antcliff 10 C No 373 37.3 207 0.18 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.08 Cohoctah 6545 2 2 2 2 2 Steinacker 176 Antcliff Handy 12 B No 524 52.4 151 0.35 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.25 Cohoctah 3969 2 2 3 2 3 Steinacker 163 Fleming Schrepfer 11 B No 537 53.7 121 0.44 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.34 Cohoctah 3897 2 2 2 2 3 Steinacker 156 Handy Byron 11 B No 544 54.4 44 1.24 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 1.14 Cohoctah 2655 2 2 2 2 3 Steinacker 99 Schrepfer Antcliff 11 B No 601 60.1 90 0.67 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.57 Cohoctah 2628 2 2 2 2 3 Stelzer 95 Oak Grove Cohoctah 11 B No 605 60.5 1118 0.05 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 -0.05 Cohoctah #### 2 2 2 2 3 Stoner 65 Owosso Fleming 13 A No 835 83.5 178 0.47 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.37 Cohoctah 5241 2 2 3 3 3 100 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Abbey 146 Cohoctah Bennett Lake 8 D No 154 15.4 38 0.41 1 unit per 15 acres 0.07 0.34 Deerfield 2672 2 2 1 1 2 Burns 67 Latson White 9 C No 433 43.3 57 0.76 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.71 Deerfield 2619 1 2 1 2 3 Center 419 Argentine Green 13 A No 481 48.1 260 0.19 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.14 Deerfield 5360 3 2 2 3 3 Center 515 Green Major 13 A No 385 38.5 73 0.53 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.48 Deerfield 3981 3 2 2 3 3 Center 545 Major O'Connell 12 B No 155 15.5 0 0.00 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 >0 Deerfield 1313 2 2 2 3 3 Clairmont 980 Bennett Lake Dead End 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Deerfield 1989 2 2 2 1 3 Cohoctah 170 Abbey Green 9 C No 330 33.0 76 0.43 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.23 Deerfield 2640 1 2 1 2 3 Cohoctah 114 Argentine Abbey 6 E Yes X X X X X X X Deerfield 2672 1 1 1 1 2 Cohoctah 395 End of Pavement Wiggins 10 C No 105 10.5 41 0.26 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.21 Deerfield 986 3 2 2 2 1 Cohoctah 374 Latson White 12 B No 326 32.6 247 0.13 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.08 Deerfield 4060 3 2 2 2 3 Cohoctah 248 Lutz Latson 13 A No 652 65.2 121 0.54 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.49 Deerfield 2993 3 3 2 2 3 Cohoctah 647 White Argentine 12 B No 53 5.3 369 0.01 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 -0.04 Deerfield 8454 3 2 2 2 3 Cohoctah 397 Wiggins Lutz 12 B No 303 30.3 129 0.23 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.18 Deerfield 2956 3 2 2 2 3 County Line Clairmont Private Portion 8 D 1 1 unit per .9 acres 1.11 Deerfield 1014 1 2 1 1 3 Crosby 539 Bennett Lake Dead End 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Deerfield 1587 2 2 2 1 3 Dean 206 Argentine Green 11 B No 494 49.4 149 0.33 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.28 Deerfield 5272 2 2 2 2 3 Dean 145 Green McGuire 9 C No 355 35.5 295 0.12 1 unit per 4 acres 0.25 -0.13 Deerfield 5300 2 2 1 2 2 Dean 68 Latson Mack 11 B No 632 63.2 347 0.18 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.13 Deerfield 5242 2 2 2 2 3 Dean 59 Mack Argentine 10 C No 441 44.1 273 0.16 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.11 Deerfield 5733 2 2 1 2 3 Dean 157 Wiggins Latson 10 C No 343 34.3 252 0.14 1 unit per 15 acres 0.07 0.07 Deerfield 5342 2 2 2 1 3 Faussett 855 Argentine Green 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Deerfield 5340 2 2 2 3 3 Faussett 996 Green McGuire 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Deerfield 5451 2 2 2 3 3 Gould 158 Center Hogan 8 D No 142 14.2 92 0.15 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.35 Deerfield 5383 1 2 1 1 3 Green 154 Allen Faussett 10 C No 346 34.6 204 0.17 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.12 Deerfield 5281 1 2 2 2 3 Green 225 Center Hogan 11 B No 475 47.5 152 0.31 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.26 Deerfield 5312 2 2 2 2 3 Green 212 Dean Spaulding 11 B No 488 48.8 119 0.41 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.36 Deerfield 2651 2 2 2 2 3 Green 168 Faussett Dean 11 B No 532 53.2 140 0.38 1 unit per 15 acres 0.07 0.31 Deerfield 5278 2 2 2 2 3 Green 170 Hogan Cohoctah 10 C No 330 33.0 193 0.17 1 unit per 15 acres 0.07 0.10 Deerfield 5253 2 2 1 2 3 Green 241 Spaulding Center 11 B No 459 45.9 47 0.98 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.78 Deerfield 2616 2 2 2 2 3 Hidden Lake 287 Jones Dead End 10 C No 213 21.3 156 0.14 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.04 Deerfield 3891 2 2 2 1 3 Hogan 558 Argentine Green 11 B No 142 14.2 273 0.05 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.00 Deerfield 5358 2 2 2 2 3 Hogan 269 Gould Argentine 11 B No 431 43.1 75 0.57 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.52 Deerfield 2627 2 2 2 2 3 Hogan 657 Green Major 11 B No 43 4.3 396 0.01 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 -0.04 Deerfield 4019 2 2 2 2 3 Jones 202 Fisher Hidden Lake 11 B No 498 49.8 77 0.65 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.60 Deerfield 3329 2 2 2 2 3 Jones 324 Hidden Lake Wiggins 11 B No 376 37.6 126 0.30 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.20 Deerfield 3962 2 2 2 2 3 Knapp 82 Dead End Wiggins 8 D No 218 21.8 207 0.11 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.06 Deerfield 2675 1 2 1 1 3 Lannen 109 Fisher Wiggins 11 B No 591 59.1 199 0.30 1 unit per 15 acres 0.07 0.23 Deerfield 5006 2 2 2 2 3 Latson 266 Burns Cohoctah E 10 C No 234 23.4 235 0.10 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.05 Deerfield 5858 2 2 2 2 2 Latson 557 Center Burns 11 B No 143 14.3 97 0.15 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.05 Deerfield 5300 2 2 2 2 3 Latson 398 Cohoctah E Cohoctah W 10 C No 102 10.2 0 0.00 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 >0 Deerfield 700 2 2 2 2 2 Latson 176 Cohoctah W Lutz 11 B No 524 52.4 164 0.32 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.27 Deerfield 4701 2 2 2 2 3 Latson 627 Dean Center 12 B No 73 7.3 211 0.03 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 -0.02 Deerfield 5315 2 2 2 3 3 Latson 807 Faussett Dean 14 A No 93 9.3 255 0.04 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 -0.01 Deerfield 5228 3 2 3 3 3 Latson 180 Lutz Lovejoy 11 B No 520 52.0 151 0.34 1 unit per 15 acres 0.07 0.27 Deerfield 3184 2 2 2 2 3 Lovejoy 236 Murray White 11 B No 464 46.4 92 0.50 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.45 Deerfield 2350 2 2 2 2 3 Lovejoy 394 White Argentine/Seymour 11 B No 306 30.6 74 0.41 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.36 Deerfield 7927 2 2 2 2 3 Lutz 92 Cohoctah Latson 7 D No 208 20.8 123 0.17 1 unit per 15 acres 0.07 0.10 Deerfield 4255 1 2 1 1 2 Mack 124 Allen Faussett 9 C No 376 37.6 271 0.14 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.09 Deerfield 5405 1 2 1 2 3 Mack 225 Dean Center 12 B No 475 47.5 135 0.35 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.30 Deerfield 5262 2 2 2 3 3 Mack 300 Faussett Dean 12 B No 400 40.0 86 0.47 1 unit per 15 acres 0.07 0.40 Deerfield 5290 2 2 2 3 3 Major 39 Center Hogan 7 D No 261 26.1 289 0.09 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.04 Deerfield 5290 1 1 2 1 2 Ryan 281 Argentine Dead End 8 D No 19 1.9 69 0.03 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 -0.02 Deerfield 2772 1 2 1 1 3 Spaulding 83 Argentine Green 10 C No 417 41.7 187 0.22 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.17 Deerfield 5390 2 2 1 2 3 White 162 Burns Cohoctah 11 B No 538 53.8 272 0.20 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.10 Deerfield 5331 2 2 2 2 3 White 262 Center Burns 11 B No 438 43.8 330 0.13 1 unit per 15 acres 0.07 0.06 Deerfield 5236 2 2 2 2 3 White 84 Cohoctah Lovejoy 9 C No 416 41.6 305 0.14 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.09 Deerfield 7047 1 2 2 2 2 Wiggins 702 Dean Jones 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Deerfield 2612 3 2 2 2 3 Wiggins 1381 Faussett Lannen 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Deerfield 2662 3 2 2 3 3 Wiggins 254 Jones Knapp 9 C No 246 24.6 275 0.09 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.04 Deerfield 5290 2 2 2 2 1 Wiggins 153 Knapp Cohoctah 10 C No 347 34.7 363 0.10 1 unit per 20 acres 0.05 0.05 Deerfield 9429 2 2 1 2 3 Wiggins 817 Lannen Dean 14 A No 83 8.3 143 0.06 1 unit per 8 acres 0.13 -0.07 Deerfield 2671 3 2 3 3 3 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Allen 505 Gregory N Gregory S 13 A No 395 39.5 0 0.00 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 >0 Conway 70 2 2 3 3 3 Allen 395 Gregory S Fowlerville 15 A No 505 50.5 338 0.15 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.35 Conway 5151 3 3 3 3 3 Allen 263 Herrington Stow 11 B No 437 43.7 129 0.34 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.16 Conway 4516 2 2 2 2 3 Allen 412 Miller Gregory N 13 A No 488 48.8 5 9.76 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 9.26 Conway 2638 2 2 3 3 3 Allen 351 Nicholson Miller 11 B No 349 34.9 47 0.74 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.24 Conway 2700 2 2 2 2 3 Allen 279 Stow Nicholson 12 B No 421 42.1 139 0.30 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.20 Conway 5359 2 2 2 3 3 Bell Oak 142 Herrington Stow 11 B No 558 55.8 267 0.21 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.29 Conway 4763 2 2 2 2 3 Bell Oak 190 Stow Nicholson 9 C No 310 31.0 247 0.13 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.37 Conway 5293 2 2 1 2 2 Brimley 68 Herrington Stow 11 B No 632 63.2 177 0.36 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.14 Conway 4933 2 2 2 2 3 Chase Lake 384 Herrington Stow 10 C No 116 11.6 86 0.13 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.37 Conway 4499 2 2 1 2 3 Chase Lake 831 Robb Owosso 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Conway 5180 3 2 2 2 3 Finlan 35 Mohrle Vogt 10 C No 465 46.5 156 0.30 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.20 Conway 2646 2 2 2 2 2 Finlan 39 Pierson Mohrle 9 C No 461 46.1 35 1.32 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.82 Conway 2637 1 2 2 2 2 Grant 69 Miller Gregory 11 B No 631 63.1 143 0.44 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.06 Conway 2637 2 2 2 2 3 Grant 46 Nicholson Miller 11 B No 654 65.4 99 0.66 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.16 Conway 2608 2 2 2 2 3 Gregory 134 Allen Grant 12 B No 566 56.6 63 0.90 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.40 Conway 2640 2 2 2 3 3 Gregory 247 Chase Lake Sherwood 13 A No 653 65.3 164 0.40 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.10 Conway 5308 3 2 3 2 3 Gregory 104 Grant Chase Lake 13 A No 796 79.6 99 0.80 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.30 Conway 2629 2 2 3 3 3 Gregory 259 Killinger Pierson 10 C No 241 24.1 307 0.08 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.42 Conway 5135 2 2 2 2 2 Gregory 141 Sherwood Killinger 12 B No 559 55.9 48 1.16 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.66 Conway 2603 2 2 2 3 3 Horn Dead End Fowlerville 8 D 22 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 Conway 1164 1 2 1 1 3 Killinger 218 Gregory Fowlerville 12 B No 482 48.2 173 0.28 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.22 Conway 5190 2 3 2 2 3 Lovejoy 285 Fowlerville Owosso 11 B No 415 41.5 432 0.10 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.40 Conway #### 2 2 2 2 3 Marsh 214 Hayner Mohrle 11 B No 486 48.6 110 0.44 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.06 Conway 2612 2 2 2 2 3 Marsh 241 Mohrle Sober 12 B No 459 45.9 622 0.07 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.43 Conway 7954 2 2 2 3 3 Miller 38 Allen Grant 11 B No 662 66.2 11 6.02 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 5.52 Conway 2633 2 2 2 2 3 Mohrle 443 Finlan Fowlerville N 13 A No 457 45.7 203 0.23 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.27 Conway 4034 3 2 2 3 3 Mohrle 154 Fowlerville S Marsh 11 B No 546 54.6 109 0.50 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.00 Conway 2642 2 2 2 2 3 Mohrle 200 Herrington Stow N 11 B No 500 50.0 182 0.27 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.23 Conway 4070 2 2 2 2 3 Mohrle 323 Nicholson Finlan 12 B No 377 37.7 115 0.33 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.17 Conway 3990 3 2 2 2 3 Mohrle 374 Stow N Stow S 12 B No 326 32.6 8 4.08 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 3.58 Conway 706 2 2 2 3 3 Mohrle 321 Stow S Nicholson 12 B No 379 37.9 181 0.21 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.29 Conway 5320 2 2 2 3 3 Moyer 102 Herrington Stow 11 B No 598 59.8 62 0.96 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.46 Conway 4557 2 2 2 2 3 Nicholson 1199 Allen Grant 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Conway 2117 2 2 2 3 3 Nicholson 472 Bell Oak Pierson 11 B No 228 22.8 118 0.19 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.31 Conway 2651 2 2 2 2 3 Nicholson 637 Chase Lake Sherwood 14 A No 263 26.3 233 0.11 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.39 Conway 5156 3 2 3 3 3 Nicholson 1122 Grant Chase Lake 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Conway 2521 3 2 2 3 3 Nicholson 1600 Handy/Conway Twp. Line Allen 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Conway 600 3 2 3 2 1 Nicholson 373 Mohrle Vogt 13 A No 527 52.7 141 0.37 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.13 Conway 2650 2 2 3 3 3 Nicholson 507 Pierson Mohrle 11 B No 193 19.3 216 0.09 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.41 Conway 2658 2 2 2 2 3 Nicholson 579 Sherwood Bell Oak 13 A No 321 32.1 391 0.08 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.42 Conway 5304 3 2 3 2 3 Nicholson 229 Sober Lovejoy 13 A No 671 67.1 111 0.60 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.10 Conway 4370 3 2 2 3 3 Nicholson 304 Vogt Sober 14 A No 596 59.6 215 0.28 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.22 Conway 5290 3 2 3 3 3 Pierson 259 Finlan Gregory 12 B No 441 44.1 24 1.84 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 1.34 Conway 1235 2 2 3 2 3 Pierson 97 Nicholson Finlan 11 B No 603 60.3 216 0.28 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.22 Conway 3965 2 2 2 2 3 Robb 160 Allen Chase Lake 11 B No 540 54.0 143 0.38 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.12 Conway 5290 2 2 2 2 3 Robb 262 Chase Lake Sherwood 13 A No 638 63.8 353 0.18 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.32 Conway 5290 2 2 3 3 3 Robb 161 Sherwood Hayner 12 B No 539 53.9 431 0.13 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.37 Conway 7963 2 2 3 2 3 Sherwood 188 Fowlerville Robb 12 B No 512 51.2 219 0.23 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.27 Conway 5247 2 3 2 2 3 Sherwood 306 Gregory Fowlerville 12 B No 394 39.4 303 0.13 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.37 Conway 5240 2 3 2 2 3 Sherwood 340 Herrington Stow 12 B No 360 36.0 317 0.11 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.39 Conway 4636 2 2 2 3 3 Sherwood 257 Nicholson Gregory 11 B No 443 44.3 271 0.16 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.34 Conway 5280 2 2 2 2 3 Sherwood 168 Robb Owosso 11 B No 532 53.2 327 0.16 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.34 Conway 5264 2 2 2 2 3 Sherwood 271 Stow Nicholson 11 B No 429 42.9 284 0.15 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.35 Conway 5306 2 2 2 2 3 Sober 166 Fowlerville Marsh 11 B No 534 53.4 237 0.23 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.27 Conway 5317 2 2 2 2 3 Sober 101 Herrington Stow 12 B No 599 59.9 228 0.26 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.24 Conway 5070 2 2 3 2 3 Sober 291 Marsh Owosso 11 B No 409 40.9 251 0.16 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.34 Conway 8061 2 2 2 2 3 Sober 388 Nicholson Fowlerville 11 B No 312 31.2 330 0.09 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.41 Conway 7907 2 2 2 2 3 Sober 120 Stow Nicholson 11 B No 580 58.0 186 0.31 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.19 Conway 5284 2 2 2 2 3 Stow 288 Allen Chase Lake 12 B No 412 41.2 59 0.70 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.20 Conway 3812 3 2 2 2 3 Stow 145 Bell Oak Mohrle 10 C No 355 35.5 111 0.32 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.18 Conway 5310 2 2 1 3 2 Stow 136 Brimley Sober 12 B No 564 56.4 133 0.42 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.08 Conway 2642 2 2 2 3 3 Stow 436 Chase Lake Moyer 11 B No 264 26.4 141 0.19 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.31 Conway 2657 2 2 2 2 3 Stow 257 Mohrle Brimley 12 B No 443 44.3 314 0.14 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.36 Conway 5381 2 2 3 2 3 Stow 247 Moyer Sherwood 11 B No 453 45.3 40 1.13 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.63 Conway 2667 2 2 2 2 3 Stow 169 Sherwood Bell Oak 9 C No 331 33.1 292 0.11 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.39 Conway 5329 2 2 1 2 2

99 Stow 99 Sober Lovejoy 12 B No 601 60.1 262 0.23 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.27 Conway 4272 2 2 2 3 3 Vogt 58 Finlan Fowlerville 7 D No 242 24.2 148 0.16 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.34 Conway 3970 1 2 1 1 2 Vogt 62 Nicholson Finlan 11 B No 638 63.8 169 0.38 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.12 Conway 3946 2 2 2 2 3 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Bauer 249 Challis W Dead End 8 D No 51 5.1 133 0.04 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 -0.13 Genoa 3288 1 2 1 1 3 Bauer 1058 Cunningham Lake End of Pavement 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 1208 2 3 2 2 3 Beattie 195 Coon Lake Pardee 11 B No 505 50.5 10 5.05 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 4.85 Genoa 2607 2 2 2 2 3 Beattie 156 Pardee Crooked Lake 9 C No 344 34.4 68 0.51 1 unit per 4 acres 0.25 0.26 Genoa 2668 1 2 1 2 3 Beck 408 Chilson Nixon 12 B No 292 29.2 162 0.18 1 unit per 4 acres 0.25 -0.07 Genoa 5652 2 2 3 2 3 Beck 479 Fisk Chilson 11 B No 221 22.1 173 0.13 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.07 Genoa 5109 2 2 2 2 3 Beck 122 Nixon Dead End 9 C No 378 37.8 168 0.23 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.03 Genoa 3947 1 2 1 2 3 Brady 147 Schafer Brighton 8 D No 153 15.3 47 0.33 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.13 Genoa 6657 1 2 1 1 3 Brighton 440 Brady Richardson 12 B No 260 26.0 121 0.21 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.01 Genoa 5341 2 3 2 2 3 Brighton 2658 King End of Pavement 9 C Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 615 3 3 1 1 1 Brighton 835 Richardson King 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 3819 2 3 2 1 3 Challis 1000 Conrad Dorr 9 C Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 1211 2 2 1 1 3 Conrad Challis Dead End 8 D 11 1 unit per .5 acres 2.00 Genoa 1583 1 2 1 1 3 Conrad 1060 Clifford Challis 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 3820 3 2 1 2 3 Crooked Lake 622 Beattie Chilson 12 B No 78 7.8 161 0.05 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.15 Genoa 5848 2 2 3 2 3 Crooked Lake 849 Chilson Nixon 14 A No 51 5.1 198 0.03 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 -0.14 Genoa 3260 3 2 3 3 3 Crooked Lake 79 Dorr Dead End 10 C No 421 42.1 116 0.36 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.26 Genoa 2595 1 2 2 2 3 Crooked Lake 554 Fisk Beattie 12 B No 146 14.6 88 0.17 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.07 Genoa 1573 2 2 3 2 3 Crooked Lake 1855 Nixon Fishbeck 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 5275 2 3 2 3 3 Cunningham Lake 208 Sundance E Bauer 9 C No 292 29.2 17 1.72 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 1.52 Genoa 2629 2 2 1 1 3 Cunningham Lake Sundance W Sundance E 9 C 89 1 unit per 3 acres 0.33 Genoa 3836 2 2 1 1 3 Euler 406 End of Pavement McClements 11 B No 294 29.4 168 0.18 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.03 Genoa 4773 2 2 2 2 3 Fishbeck 457 Crooked Lake Itsell 7 D Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 2627 1 2 1 2 1 Fishbeck Itsell Dead End 13 A 134 1 unit per 7 acres 0.14 Genoa 1138 2 2 3 3 3 Golf Club 785 Argentine Kellogg 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 5244 2 2 2 3 3 Golf Club 885 Hughes Argentine 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 5246 2 2 1 3 3 Golf Club 718 Kellogg Hacker 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 5264 2 2 2 3 3 Grand Oaks 3235 End of Pavement Latson 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 2988 3 2 3 2 3 Herbst 1251 End of Pavement Hubert 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 3024 2 3 2 2 3 Herbst 1103 Hubert Grand River 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 5660 2 3 1 2 3 Hubert 173 Herbst Grand River 8 D No 127 12.7 54 0.24 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.26 Genoa 3997 1 2 1 1 3 Itsell 174 Fishbeck Dead End 8 D No 126 12.6 102 0.12 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.38 Genoa 3516 1 2 1 1 3 Kellogg 469 Grand River McClements 11 B No 231 23.1 146 0.16 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.34 Genoa 5974 2 2 2 2 3 Kellogg 408 McClements Golf Club 12 B No 292 29.2 396 0.07 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 -0.03 Genoa 5259 2 2 2 3 3 King 906 Schafer Brighton 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 6216 2 3 2 1 3 Latson 6706 Grand Oaks End of Pavement 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 1550 3 2 1 2 3 McClements 435 Euler Hacker 12 B No 265 26.5 79 0.34 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.24 Genoa 2646 3 2 2 2 3 McClements 503 Kellogg N Euler 11 B No 197 19.7 0 0.00 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 >0 Genoa 1332 2 2 2 2 3 McClements 460 Kellogg S Kellogg N 11 B No 240 24.0 140 0.17 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.07 Genoa 1336 2 2 2 2 3 Nixon 631 Chilson Seim 13 A No 269 26.9 16 1.68 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 1.48 Genoa 1416 2 2 3 3 3 Nixon 668 Crooked Lake Sweet 13 A No 232 23.2 199 0.12 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.08 Genoa 5322 2 2 3 3 3 Nixon 620 Seim Crooked Lake 12 B No 80 8.0 103 0.08 1 unit per 4 acres 0.25 -0.17 Genoa 4000 2 2 2 3 3 Nixon 397 Sweet Beck 12 B No 303 30.3 64 0.47 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.27 Genoa 2675 2 2 3 2 3 Old Hacker Dead End Hacker 10 C 5 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 Genoa 272 1 2 3 1 3 Pardee 91 Beattie Westphal 10 C No 409 40.9 67 0.61 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.41 Genoa 4016 1 2 2 2 3 Richardson 426 Brighton Coon Lake 11 B No 274 27.4 50 0.55 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.35 Genoa 2820 2 2 2 2 3 Richardson 269 Schafer Brighton 9 C No 231 23.1 139 0.17 1 unit per 3 acres 0.33 -0.16 Genoa 5306 1 2 1 2 3 Schafer 906 Richardson King 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Genoa 1314 2 2 2 2 3 Seim Nixon Dead End 9 C 42 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 Genoa 363 1 2 2 1 3 Sweet 219 Nixon Dead End 10 C No 281 28.1 73 0.38 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.18 Genoa 2925 1 2 2 2 3 Westphal 171 Coon Lake Pardee 12 B No 529 52.9 77 0.69 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.49 Genoa 3748 2 2 3 2 3 101 102 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Bishop 297 Fieldcrest S McCabe 12 B No 403 40.3 91 0.44 1 unit per .9 acres 1.11 -0.67 Green Oak 4230 2 3 2 2 3 Bishop 391 McCabe Fieldcrest N 12 B No 309 30.9 30 1.03 1 unit per .5 acres 2.00 -0.97 Green Oak 5515 2 3 2 2 3 Dixboro 1056 Twelve Mile Silver Lake 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Green 7488 2 2 1 2 3 Eight Mile 1221 Earhart Dixboro 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Green 3242 3 2 2 3 3 Eight Mile 1103 Rushton Earhart 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Green 5046 2 2 2 3 3 Evergreen 405 Silver Lake McCabe 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Green 5073 1 2 1 1 3 Fairlane 569 Fieldcrest Tuthill 11 B No 131 13.1 87 0.15 1 unit per .7 acres 1.43 -1.28 Green Oak 2495 2 2 2 2 3 Fairlane 252 Tuthill Marshall 10 C No 248 24.8 177 0.14 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.11 Green Oak 4220 2 2 2 1 3 Hammel 987 City/Township Line Rickett 9 C Yes X X X X X X X Green 7412 2 2 1 1 3 Marshall 683 Eight Mile Nine Mile 9 C Yes X X X X X X X Green 5220 2 2 2 2 1 McCabe 173 Bishop Evergreen 9 C No 327 32.7 26 1.26 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 1.06 Green Oak 2476 2 2 1 1 3 McCabe 202 Evergreen Silver Lake 14 A No 698 69.8 212 0.33 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.67 Green Oak 6905 3 2 3 3 3 McNally 159 Dead End Marshall 8 D No 141 14.1 78 0.18 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.02 Green Oak 2529 1 2 1 2 2 McNally 658 East Shore Dead End 11 B No 42 4.2 28 0.15 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.35 Green Oak 1003 1 2 2 3 3 Musch 504 Spicer Winans Lake 13 A No 396 39.6 10 3.96 1 unit per .5 acres 2.00 1.96 Green Oak 2242 3 2 2 3 3 Nine Mile 3851 Rushton Dixboro 14 A Yes X X X X X X X Green 8145 3 3 2 3 3 Peer 788 Ten Mile Twelve Mile 15 A No 112 11.2 110 0.10 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.90 Green Oak 7793 3 3 3 3 3 Pleasant Valley 67 Grand River Dead End 8 D No 233 23.3 1 23.30 1 unit per .5 acres 2.00 21.30 Green Oak 850 1 2 1 1 3 Rushton 2025 Doane Twelve Mile 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Green 4817 3 2 3 2 3 Rushton 1677 Eight Mile Nine Mile 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Green 5178 2 3 2 3 3 Rushton 2288 Twelve Mile Silver Lake 14 A Yes X X X X X X X Green 2631 3 3 2 3 3 Sharon 172 Township Line Dead End 8 D No 128 12.8 1 12.80 1 unit per .5 acres 2.00 10.80 Green Oak 1300 1 2 1 1 3 Silver Lake 1539 McCabe Rushton 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Green 5254 3 3 2 2 3 Silver Lake 3378 Rushton S Rushton N 14 A Yes X X X X X X X Green 1392 3 3 2 3 3 Silver Lake 1489 Silverside McCabe 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Green 5850 3 3 2 2 1 Silverside 3078 Marshall Doane 9 C Yes X X X X X X X Green 5564 2 2 1 1 3 Spicer 775 M-36 Musch 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Green 3856 3 2 2 1 3 Spicer 246 Musch Whitmore Lake 11 B No 454 45.4 218 0.21 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.79 Green Oak 6473 2 2 2 2 3 Sutherland Dead End Kensington 10 C 1 1 unit per .5 acres 2.00 Green Oak 1457 1 2 1 3 3 Tuthill 194 Fairlane Marshall 7 D No 106 10.6 161 0.07 1 unit per .6 acres 1.70 -1.63 Green Oak 5584 1 2 1 1 2 Twelve Mile 317 Peer Dixboro 11 B No 383 38.3 205 0.19 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.01 Green Oak 5321 2 2 2 2 3 Twelve Mile 450 Rushton Peer 13 A No 450 45.0 65 0.69 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.49 Green Oak 2640 2 2 3 3 3 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Bauer 953 Bishop Lake Cunningham Lake 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Hamburg 7553 2 2 1 2 3 Bauer 1255 Hamburg Teahen 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Hamburg 2569 2 3 1 2 3 Bauer 1845 Teahen Bishop Lake 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Hamburg 486 2 3 2 3 3 Bishop Lake 465 End of Pavement Bauer 10 C No 35 3.5 0 0.00 1 unit per 40 acres 0.03 >0 Hamburg 9231 2 2 1 2 3 Chambers 514 M-36 Rush Lake 11 B No 186 18.6 41 0.45 1 unit per 1.5 acres 0.67 -0.22 Hamburg 5256 2 2 2 2 3 Chambers 256 Rush Lake Swarthout 9 C No 244 24.4 94 0.26 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.24 Hamburg 5120 1 2 1 2 3 Chambers 76 Swarthout Schafer 8 D No 224 22.4 8 2.80 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 2.30 Hamburg 6724 1 2 1 1 3 Cowell 417 Chilson Teahen 9 C No 83 8.3 1 8.30 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 7.30 Hamburg 2326 2 2 1 1 3 Cowell 240 Pleasant Lake Hamburg 8 D No 60 6.0 63 0.10 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.90 Hamburg 5124 1 2 1 1 3 Cowell 354 Teahen Pleasant Lake 9 C No 146 14.6 11 1.33 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 0.33 Hamburg 2134 2 2 1 1 3 Cunningham 508 Bishop Lake Sundance W 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Hamburg 7464 1 2 1 1 3 Fernlands Pettys Dead End 8 D 1 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 Hamburg 1994 1 2 1 1 3 Galatian Drive M-36 Dead End 8 D 21 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 Hamburg 3205 1 2 1 2 2 Girard 403 Kress M-36 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Hamburg 2062 1 2 1 1 3 Hall 484 Sheldon Strawberry Lake 10 C No 16 1.6 40 0.04 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.96 Hamburg 4000 2 2 2 1 3 Hammel 671 Welle Hamburg/Green Oak Twp. 9 C Yes X X X X X X X Hamburg 2715 2 2 1 1 3 Henry 315 M-36 Pettysville 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Hamburg 2868 1 2 1 1 3 Hull M-36 Dead End 9 C 1 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 Hamburg 812 1 2 1 2 3 Humphrey Sheldon Dead End 9 C 39 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 Hamburg 978 1 2 1 2 3 Melvin McGregor Dead End 10 C 8 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 Hamburg 1402 2 2 2 1 3 Mercer 130 Chilson Dead End 8 D No 170 17.0 80 0.21 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.79 Hamburg 3062 1 2 1 1 3 Merrill Hamburg Twp./County Sheldon 12 B 40 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 Hamburg 580 2 3 2 2 3 Merrill 1030 Sheldon Strawberry Lake 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Hamburg 4530 2 3 2 2 3 Old Hamburg Hamburg Twp./County Sheldon 11 B 9 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 Hamburg 1220 2 2 2 2 3 Old Hamburg 170 Sheldon Hamburg 9 C No 330 33.0 19 1.74 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 0.74 Hamburg 3470 1 2 2 1 3 Richardson 247 Swarthout Schafer 10 C No 253 25.3 110 0.23 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.27 Hamburg 8172 2 2 1 2 3 Rush Lake 550 Chambers N Chambers S 11 B No 150 15.0 61 0.25 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.25 Hamburg 1312 2 2 2 2 3 Rush Lake 818 Chambers S End of Pavement 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Hamburg 1950 2 2 2 2 3 Rush Lake 296 Farley Chambers N 9 C No 204 20.4 48 0.43 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.08 Hamburg 4430 2 2 1 1 3 Schafer 281 Brady Chambers 11 B No 419 41.9 0 0.00 1 unit per 40 acres 0.03 >0 Hamburg 1515 2 2 2 2 3 Schafer 248 Chambers Richardson 8 D No 52 5.2 104 0.05 1 unit per 4 acres 0.25 -0.20 Hamburg 5966 1 2 1 1 3 Schafer 257 Farley Brady 10 C No 243 24.3 115 0.21 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.29 Hamburg 1585 2 2 1 2 3 Sheldon 2387 Humphrey End of Pavement 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Hamburg 2043 2 3 2 2 3 Sheldon 496 Merrill Humphrey 12 B No 204 20.4 23 0.89 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.39 Hamburg 1950 2 3 2 2 3 Teahen 281 Cowell Bauer 8 D No 19 1.9 117 0.02 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.98 Hamburg #### 2 2 1 1 2 Van Antwerp 1034 Hamburg Huron Oaks 7 D Yes X X X X X X X Hamburg 2050 2 2 1 1 1 Van Antwerp Huron Oaks Dead End 10 C 4 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 Hamburg 2882 2 2 2 1 3 Welle 441 Hamburg/Maltby W Hammel 9 C No 59 5.9 4 1.48 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 0.48 Hamburg 1530 2 2 1 1 3 Welle 443 Hammel Maltby 9 C No 57 5.7 1 5.70 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 4.70 Hamburg 1220 2 2 1 1 3 103 104 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Allen 383 Fowlerville Robb 15 A No 517 51.7 317 0.16 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.84 Handy 5190 3 3 3 3 3 Allen 337 Hogback Owosso 12 B No 363 36.3 76 0.48 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.02 Handy 2532 2 2 2 3 3 Allen 402 Robb Hogback 12 B No 298 29.8 151 0.20 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.80 Handy 2014 2 2 2 3 3 Briggsville 180 Judd Van Orden 12 B No 520 52.0 47 1.11 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.14 Handy 2685 2 2 2 3 3 Briggsville 134 Sargent Judd 10 C No 366 36.6 211 0.17 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.08 Handy 5275 2 2 2 2 2 Cedar 147 Judd Van Orden 11 B No 553 55.3 50 1.11 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.14 Handy 2647 2 2 2 2 3 Cedar 112 Mason Sargent 11 B No 588 58.8 214 0.27 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.98 Handy 5240 2 2 2 2 3 Cedar 158 Sargent Judd 12 B No 542 54.2 207 0.26 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.99 Handy 5274 2 2 2 3 3 Cedar 74 Van Buren End of Pavement 9 C No 426 42.6 113 0.38 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.87 Handy 2539 2 2 1 1 3 Cedar 32 Van Orden Van Buren 9 C No 468 46.8 181 0.26 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.99 Handy 3773 2 2 1 1 3 Cemetery 156 Dead End Van Riper 8 D No 144 14.4 4 3.60 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 2.35 Handy 897 1 2 1 1 3 Cemetery 617 Van Riper Grand River 11 B No 83 8.3 110 0.08 1 unit per .5 acres 2.00 -1.92 Handy 3942 2 2 2 2 3 Converse 224 Stow Nicholson 14 A No 676 67.6 217 0.31 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.94 Handy 5300 2 3 3 3 3 Damman 50 Sargent Layton 11 B No 650 65.0 305 0.21 1 unit per .5 acres 1.25 -1.04 Handy 7989 2 2 2 3 2 Gregory 438 Dead End Grand River 10 C No 62 6.2 199 0.03 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.22 Handy 5228 2 2 2 3 1 Gregory 176 Grand River Allen 13 A No 724 72.4 311 0.23 1 unit per .7 acres 1.43 -1.20 Handy 8548 2 2 3 3 3 Gregory 303 Judd Van Buren 14 A No 597 59.7 146 0.41 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.84 Handy 5299 3 2 3 3 3 Gregory 133 Mason Sargent 13 A No 767 76.7 346 0.22 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.03 Handy 5274 2 2 3 3 3 Gregory 234 Sargent Judd 12 B No 466 46.6 262 0.18 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.07 Handy 5326 2 2 3 2 3 Gregory Van Buren Dead End 10 C 5 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 Handy 969 1 2 2 2 3 Glover Van Buren Dead End 7 D 5 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 Handy 1163 1 2 1 1 2 Hogback 211 Grand River Sharpe 9 C No 289 28.9 45 0.64 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.61 Handy 4262 2 2 1 1 3 Hogback 169 Sharpe Allen 11 B No 531 53.1 170 0.31 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.94 Handy 4798 2 2 2 3 2 Hogback Warner Grand River 11 B 176 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 Handy 6153 2 2 2 2 3 Judd 137 Briggsville Cedar 10 C No 363 36.3 72 0.50 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.75 Handy 2633 2 2 1 2 3 Judd 218 Cedar Nicholson 11 B No 482 48.2 388 0.12 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.13 Handy 5251 2 2 2 2 3 Judd 78 Nicholson Gregory 12 B No 622 62.2 164 0.38 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.87 Handy 5318 2 2 2 3 3 Layton 314 Damman Smith 14 A No 586 58.6 140 0.42 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.83 Handy 2650 3 2 3 3 3 Layton 363 Fowlerville Damman 14 A No 537 53.7 157 0.34 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.91 Handy 2635 3 2 3 3 3 Layton 133 Smith City/Township Line 12 B No 567 56.7 311 0.18 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.07 Handy 5337 2 2 3 2 3 Potts 149 Dead End Grand River 13 A No 751 75.1 159 0.47 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.78 Handy 5462 2 2 3 3 3 Sargent 228 Briggsville Cedar 12 B No 472 47.2 67 0.70 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.55 Handy 2617 2 2 2 3 3 Sargent 361 Cedar Nicholson 11 B No 339 33.9 230 0.15 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.10 Handy 5254 2 2 2 2 3 Sargent 199 Damman Smith 13 A No 701 70.1 67 1.05 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.20 Handy 2660 3 2 2 3 3 Sargent 262 Fowlerville Damman 11 B No 438 43.8 171 0.26 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.99 Handy 2646 2 2 2 2 3 Sargent 698 Gregory Fowlerville 12 B No 2 0.2 211 0.00 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.25 Handy 5247 2 2 2 3 3 Sargent 223 Kane Briggsville 12 B No 477 47.7 42 1.14 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.11 Handy 1415 2 2 2 3 3 Sargent 345 Nicholson Gregory 12 B No 355 35.5 382 0.09 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.16 Handy 5252 2 2 2 3 3 Sargent 103 Smith Truhn 11 B No 597 59.7 305 0.20 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.05 Handy 5340 2 2 2 2 3 Sharpe 523 Cemetery Hogback 13 A No 377 37.7 122 0.31 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.94 Handy 2368 2 2 3 3 3 Sharpe 414 Hogback Owosso 13 A No 486 48.6 75 0.65 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.60 Handy 2622 2 2 3 3 3 Smith 130 Layton Dead End 12 B No 570 57.0 62 0.92 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.33 Handy 3675 2 2 2 3 3 Smith 161 Mason Sargent 11 B No 539 53.9 230 0.23 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.02 Handy 5285 2 2 2 3 2 Smith 89 Sargent Winegar 12 B No 611 61.1 397 0.15 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.10 Handy 5295 2 2 2 3 3 Smith 87 Winegar Layton 13 A No 813 81.3 80 1.02 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.23 Handy 2634 2 2 3 3 3 Stow 693 Converse Allen 12 B No 7 0.7 119 0.01 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.24 Handy 2080 2 2 2 3 3 Stow 165 Dawn Grand River 13 A No 735 73.5 66 1.11 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.14 Handy 1194 2 2 3 3 3 Stow 756 Grand River Converse 14 A No 144 14.4 126 0.11 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.14 Handy 4143 3 2 3 3 3 Van Buren 88 Cedar Nicholson 9 C No 412 41.2 173 0.24 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.01 Handy 6275 2 2 1 1 3 Van Orden 615 Briggsville Cedar 13 A No 285 28.5 179 0.16 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.09 Handy 2638 2 3 2 3 3 Van Orden 992 Cedar Nicholson 14 A No -92 -9.2 138 -0.07 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.32 Handy 5265 3 2 3 3 3 Van Orden 653 Wallace Briggsville 14 A No 247 24.7 24 1.03 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.22 Handy 1698 3 3 3 2 3 Van Riper Railroad Tracks Cemetery 10 C 1 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 Handy 807 2 2 2 1 3 Wheeler 278 Dawn Grand River 10 C No 222 22.2 13 1.71 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 0.46 Handy 1352 2 2 1 2 3 Wheeler 233 Dead End Dawn 11 B No 467 46.7 151 0.31 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -0.94 Handy 4492 2 2 2 2 3 Winegar 29 Smith Dead End 9 C No 471 47.1 36 1.31 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 0.06 Handy 1737 1 2 2 2 2 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Allen 251 McGuire Linden 11 B No 449 44.9 224 0.20 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.30 Hartland 4831 2 2 2 2 3 Bergin 700 Hacker Rolling Hills 9 C Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 6424 2 2 2 2 1 Blaine 988 Maxfield End of Pavement 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 1726 2 2 3 2 3 Brophy 354 Hacker Cullen 11 B No 346 34.6 306 0.11 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.39 Hartland 5428 2 2 2 2 3 Bullard 441 Clyde Read 6 E Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 3073 1 2 1 1 1 Bullard 509 Dunham Hibner 12 B No 191 19.1 176 0.11 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.39 Hartland 5316 2 2 3 2 3 Bullard 516 Hibner Clyde 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 5257 2 2 1 2 1 Clark 441 Highland (M-59) Dunham 12 B No 259 25.9 84 0.31 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.19 Hartland 4649 2 3 2 2 3 Clyde 845 Bullard Fenton 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 5304 2 2 2 3 3 Clyde 1582 End of Pavement Bullard 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 6684 3 2 2 2 3 Clyde 769 Fenton Tipsico Lake 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 5413 3 2 2 2 3 Cook 413 Runyan Lake Hartland 10 C No 87 8.7 68 0.13 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.37 Hartland 1207 2 2 1 2 3 Crouse 901 Cullen S Old US-23 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 4570 2 2 2 3 3 Cullen 779 Brophy Crouse 9 C Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 3378 2 2 1 1 3 Cullen 404 Clyde Parshallville 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 6506 1 2 1 1 3 Cullen 346 Crouse Dwyer 11 B No 354 35.4 64 0.55 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.05 Hartland 2164 2 2 2 2 3 Cullen 249 Dwyer Townley 12 B No 451 45.1 149 0.30 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.20 Hartland 2661 2 2 2 3 3 Cullen 653 End of Pavement Brophy 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 3570 2 2 1 2 3 Dunham 474 Bullard Fenton 11 B No 226 22.6 149 0.15 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.35 Hartland 5281 2 2 2 2 3 Dunham 648 Clark Bullard 12 B No 52 5.2 316 0.02 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.48 Hartland 5207 3 2 2 2 3 Dunham 330 Fenton Tipsico Lake 7 D Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 3318 1 2 1 1 2 Dwyer 151 Musson Cullen 10 C No 349 34.9 502 0.07 1 unit per 1.3 acres 0.77 -0.70 Hartland 8005 1 2 2 2 3 Hacker 1604 Bergin Highland (M-59) 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 5323 2 3 2 3 3 Hacker 1485 Golf Club Bergin 14 A Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 5158 3 3 2 3 3 Hacker 367 Highland (M-59) Brophy 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 5183 1 2 1 1 3 Hartland 614 Clyde Parshall 12 B No 86 8.6 159 0.05 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.45 Hartland 6280 2 2 3 2 3 Hartland 532 Cook Clyde 11 B No 168 16.8 95 0.18 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.32 Hartland 4871 2 2 2 2 3 Hibner 627 Bullard Fenton 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 5112 2 2 1 2 1 Hibner 432 Fenton Tipsico Lake 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 5328 2 2 1 2 1 Holtforth 241 Fenton/Denton Hill Tipsico Lake 7 D No 59 5.9 107 0.06 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.44 Hartland 5249 1 2 1 1 2 Holtforth 239 Mabley Hill Fenton/Denton Hill 9 C No 261 26.1 116 0.23 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.28 Hartland 5121 2 2 1 2 2 Hyde 266 Fenton Tipsico Lake 8 D No 34 3.4 106 0.03 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.47 Hartland 3380 1 2 1 1 3 Lone Tree 266 Pleasant Valley Tipsico Lake 11 B No 434 43.4 413 0.11 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.39 Hartland 5379 2 2 2 2 3 Mabley Hill 288 Read Holtforth 10 C No 212 21.2 28 0.76 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.26 Hartland 3625 2 2 2 1 3 Maxfield 523 Blaine End of Pavement 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 4565 2 2 1 2 3 Maxfield 626 Commerce Blaine 14 A No 274 27.4 54 0.51 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.01 Hartland 2054 3 2 3 3 3 Parshall 456 Hartland Bullard 10 C No 44 4.4 179 0.02 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.48 Hartland 3404 2 2 1 2 3 Parshall 303 Runyan Lake Hartland 11 B No 397 39.7 456 0.09 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.41 Hartland 4878 2 2 2 2 3 Parshallville 239 Clyde End of Pavement 11 B No 461 46.1 153 0.30 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.20 Hartland 4888 2 2 2 2 3 Pleasant Valley 1170 Commerce Lone Tree 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 5805 3 2 2 2 3 Pleasant Valley 3610 Lone Tree End of Pavement 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Hartland 1171 3 2 2 3 3 Runyan Lake Cook Clyde 12 B 56 0 units per 1 acre 0.00 Hartland 3978 3 2 2 2 3 Townley 227 Dead End Old US-23 10 C No 273 27.3 180 0.15 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.35 Hartland 2603 1 2 2 2 3 105 106 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Allen 145 Burkhart Dead End 11 B No 555 55.5 78 0.71 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.61 Howell 2418 2 2 2 2 3 Allen 613 Byron Preston 11 B No 87 8.7 151 0.06 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 -0.11 Howell 4236 2 2 2 2 3 Allen 501 Crandall N Crandall S 11 B No 199 19.9 2 9.95 1 unit per 1.5 acres 0.67 9.28 Howell 489 2 2 2 2 3 Allen 331 Crandall S Burkhart 10 C No 169 16.9 39 0.43 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.07 Howell 2798 2 2 2 1 3 Allen 556 Fleming N Fleming S 11 B No 144 14.4 1 14.40 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 14.30 Howell 188 2 2 1 3 3 Allen 393 Fleming S Crandall N 11 B No 307 30.7 67 0.46 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.04 Howell 2085 2 2 2 2 3 Allen 872 Oak Grove Fisher 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Howell 5231 2 2 2 2 3 Allen 556 Owosso Fleming N 11 B No 144 14.4 400 0.04 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 -0.13 Howell 5249 2 2 2 2 3 Allen 452 Preston Oak Grove 11 B No 248 24.8 69 0.36 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.14 Howell 5280 2 2 2 2 3 Armond 62 Brenda Byron 10 C No 438 43.8 50 0.88 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.12 Howell 3724 1 3 2 1 3 Armond 287 Henderson Brenda 10 C No 213 21.3 6 3.55 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 2.55 Howell 535 1 3 2 1 3 Barron 415 Brewer Byron N 12 B No 285 28.5 57 0.50 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.00 Howell 1283 2 3 2 2 3 Barron 370 Byron S Oak Grove 12 B No 330 33.0 95 0.35 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.15 Howell 4782 2 3 2 2 3 Barron 652 End of Pavement Fisher 11 B No 48 4.8 9 0.53 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.47 Howell 1781 2 2 2 2 3 Bowen 374 Burkhart Tooley 12 B No 326 32.6 81 0.40 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.10 Howell 5230 2 2 3 2 3 Bowen 244 Tooley Brewer 13 A No 656 65.6 177 0.37 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.13 Howell 5314 2 3 3 2 3 Brewer 415 Bowen Barron 12 B No 285 28.5 215 0.13 1 unit per 1.5 acres 0.67 -0.54 Howell 5729 2 3 2 2 3 Brewer 1106 Henderson Bowen 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Howell 2673 2 3 2 3 3 Brewer 769 Highland (M-59) Henderson 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Howell 2624 2 3 2 2 3 Burk Dead End Emmons 10 C 6 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 Howell 950 1 2 2 2 3 Burkhart 2113 Crandall Allen 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Howell 2380 3 2 1 2 3 Crandall 121 Burkhart Allen 7 D No 179 17.9 69 0.26 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.24 Howell 3825 1 2 1 1 2 Crandall 189 Marr E Burkhart 10 C No 311 31.1 294 0.11 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.39 Howell 5873 2 2 2 1 3 Crandall 548 Marr W Marr E 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Howell 555 2 2 2 1 3 Crandall 1116 Warner Marr W 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Howell 8130 2 2 2 2 3 Deal 79 Fleming Dead End 7 D No 221 22.1 55 0.40 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.10 Howell 1360 1 2 1 1 2 Dieterle 255 Mason Lowe 11 B No 445 44.5 153 0.29 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.21 Howell 2410 2 2 2 2 3 Emmons 171 Burk Fleming 11 B No 529 52.9 29 1.82 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 1.32 Howell 1307 2 2 2 2 3 Emmons Dead End Burk 11 B 63 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 Howell 1360 2 2 2 2 3 Emmons 163 Fleming Grand River 11 B No 537 53.7 153 0.35 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.15 Howell 3285 2 2 2 2 3 Fisher 445 Barron Curdy 10 C No 55 5.5 126 0.04 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.96 Howell 3062 2 2 1 2 3 Fisher 495 Clyde Allen 11 B No 205 20.5 336 0.06 1 unit per 1.5 acres 0.67 -0.61 Howell 5382 2 2 2 2 3 Fisher 365 Curdy Marr 11 B No 335 33.5 33 1.02 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 0.02 Howell 2065 2 2 2 2 3 Fisher 1209 Oak Grove Barron 14 A Yes X X X X X X X Howell 8293 3 3 3 2 3 Fleming 240 Deal Allen 11 B No 460 46.0 98 0.47 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.03 Howell 4046 2 2 2 2 3 Fleming 180 Emmons Grand River 11 B No 520 52.0 89 0.58 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.08 Howell 2590 2 2 2 2 3 Fleming 485 End of Pavement Marr 13 A No 415 41.5 269 0.15 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.35 Howell 6392 2 2 3 3 3 Fleming 374 Marr Deal 12 B No 326 32.6 113 0.29 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.21 Howell 3401 2 2 2 3 3 Harmon 380 Mason Dead End 11 B No 320 32.0 141 0.23 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.77 Howell 3269 2 2 2 2 3 Henderson 470 Armond Oak Grove 11 B No 230 23.0 1 23.00 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 22.00 Howell 1278 2 2 2 2 3 Henderson 393 Brewer Byron 11 B No 307 30.7 14 2.19 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 1.19 Howell 2615 2 2 2 2 3 Henderson 324 Byron Armond 11 B No 376 37.6 31 1.21 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 0.21 Howell 2635 2 2 2 2 3 Layton 422 City/Township Line End of Pavement 11 B No 278 27.8 77 0.36 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.14 Howell 1370 2 2 2 2 3 Layton 422 End of Pavement Millett 9 C No 78 7.8 180 0.04 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.46 Howell 6300 2 2 1 1 3 Lowe 144 Truhn Dieterle 11 B No 556 55.6 51 1.09 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.59 Howell 3762 2 2 2 2 3 Marr 634 Burkhart Crandall 11 B No 66 6.6 90 0.07 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.43 Howell 2443 2 2 2 2 3 Marr 343 Byron Preston 12 B No 357 35.7 111 0.32 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.18 Howell 3419 3 2 2 2 3 Marr 727 Crandall Byron 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Howell 7501 3 2 2 2 3 Marr 413 Fleming Burkhart 13 A No 487 48.7 279 0.17 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.33 Howell 5190 3 2 2 3 3 Marr 490 Oak Grove Fisher 12 B No 210 21.0 321 0.07 1 unit per 1.2 acres 0.83 -0.76 Howell 5922 3 2 2 2 3 Marr 377 Owosso Fleming 14 A No 523 52.3 345 0.15 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.35 Howell 5295 3 2 3 3 3 Marr 885 Preston Oak Grove 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Howell 2562 3 2 2 2 3 Millett Layton End of Pavement 12 B 14 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 Howell 2134 3 2 2 2 3 Millett 155 Truhn Layton 11 B No 545 54.5 116 0.47 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.03 Howell 6456 2 2 2 2 3 Parsons 424 Burkhart Dead End 11 B No 276 27.6 2 13.80 0 units per 1 acre 0.00 13.80 Howell 1852 2 2 2 2 3 Preston 260 Marr Allen 11 B No 440 44.0 332 0.13 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.37 Howell 7788 2 2 2 2 3 Sleaford Dead End End of Pavement 7 D 131 1 unit per .5 acres 2.00 Howell 3236 1 2 1 1 2 Tooley 273 Bowen Warner 11 B No 427 42.7 179 0.24 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.26 Howell 2612 2 2 2 2 3 Tooley 659 End of Pavement Bowen 12 B No 41 4.1 8 0.51 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.01 Howell 1235 2 2 2 3 3 Tooley 559 Grand River Highland (M-59) 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Howell 571 2 2 3 2 1 Tooley 659 Highland (M-59) End of Pavement 11 B No 41 4.1 40 0.10 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.40 Howell 971 2 2 2 2 3 Truhn 113 Lowe Sargent 10 C No 387 38.7 13 2.98 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 2.48 Howell 1299 2 2 1 2 3 Truhn 213 Mason Lowe 9 C No 287 28.7 76 0.38 1 unit per 1.8 acres 0.56 -0.18 Howell 3939 2 2 1 2 2 Truhn 125 Sargent Millett 10 C No 375 37.5 113 0.33 1 unit per 1.6 acres 0.62 -0.29 Howell 2701 2 2 1 3 2 Warner 319 Burkhart Crandall 11 B No 381 38.1 37 1.03 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.53 Howell 2554 2 2 2 2 3 Warner 273 Crandall Tooley 11 B No 427 42.7 115 0.37 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.13 Howell 2605 2 2 2 2 3 Warner 172 Grand River Burkhart 9 C No 328 32.8 174 0.19 1 unit per 1.6 acres 0.62 -0.43 Howell 5146 2 2 1 2 2 Warner 323 Hogback Grand River 11 B No 377 37.7 150 0.25 1 unit per 1.5 acres 0.67 -0.42 Howell 7900 2 2 2 2 3 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Coon Lake 167 Bradley Gregory 10 C No 333 33.3 370 0.09 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.41 Iosco 6555 2 2 2 2 2 Coon Lake 478 Bull Run Dutcher 11 B No 222 22.2 463 0.05 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.45 Iosco #### 2 2 2 2 3 Coon Lake 315 Gregory Bull Run 11 B No 385 38.5 140 0.28 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.23 Iosco 5257 2 2 2 2 3 Coon Lake 115 Kane Kleinschmidt 12 B No 585 58.5 98 0.60 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.10 Iosco 2566 2 2 3 2 3 Coon Lake 137 Kleinschmidt Bradley 12 B No 563 56.3 413 0.14 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.36 Iosco 5456 2 2 3 2 3 Crofoot 207 Dead End Kern 9 C No 293 29.3 84 0.35 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.15 Iosco 2275 2 2 1 2 2 Crofoot 75 Elliot Gregory 11 B No 625 62.5 404 0.15 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.35 Iosco 7812 2 2 2 2 3 Crofoot 104 Gregory Bull Run 11 B No 596 59.6 112 0.53 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.03 Iosco 3869 2 2 2 2 3 Crofoot 331 Kern City/Township Line 9 C No 169 16.9 271 0.06 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.44 Iosco 6829 2 2 1 2 2 Dutcher 325 Coon Lake Munsell 11 B No 375 37.5 162 0.23 1 unit per 1.5 acres 0.67 -0.44 Iosco 5318 2 2 2 2 3 Dutcher 586 Munsell Lange 12 B No 114 11.4 104 0.11 1 unit per 1.8 acres 0.56 -0.45 Iosco 5058 2 3 2 2 3 Dutcher 305 Schafer Vines 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Iosco #### 1 2 1 2 2 Dutcher 238 Vines Coon Lake 9 C No 262 26.2 73 0.36 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.14 Iosco 2756 2 2 1 2 2 Dutton 56 City/Township Line Roberts 9 C No 444 44.4 152 0.29 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.21 Iosco 5442 2 2 1 2 2 Dutton 48 Roberts Bradley 9 C No 452 45.2 141 0.32 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.18 Iosco 4878 1 2 1 2 3 Gregory 139 City/Township Line Roberts 8 D No 161 16.1 301 0.05 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.45 Iosco 5210 1 2 1 2 2 Gregory 248 Coon Lake Lamoreaux 10 C No 252 25.2 29 0.87 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.37 Iosco 3890 2 2 2 2 2 Gregory 359 Lamoreaux Iosco 10 C No 141 14.1 157 0.09 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.41 Iosco 3997 2 2 1 2 3 Gregory 216 Roberts Coon Lake 8 D No 84 8.4 269 0.03 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.47 Iosco 7920 1 2 1 2 2 Iosco 117 Gregory Bull Run 11 B No 583 58.3 332 0.18 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.32 Iosco 4539 2 2 2 2 3 Iosco 256 Kane Elliot 13 A No 644 64.4 312 0.21 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.29 Iosco 6623 3 2 2 3 3 Kane 173 Coon Lake Iosco 10 C No 327 32.7 305 0.11 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.39 Iosco 8896 2 2 1 2 3 Kane 184 Iosco Odell 9 C No 316 31.6 85 0.37 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.13 Iosco 2601 2 2 1 2 2 Kane 215 Odell Mason 11 B No 485 48.5 204 0.24 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.26 Iosco 8809 2 2 2 2 3 Kane 123 Roberts Coon Lake 10 C No 377 37.7 202 0.19 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.31 Iosco 7050 2 2 1 2 3 Kern 822 Crofoot E Crofoot W 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Iosco 1002 2 3 2 2 3 Kern 1089 Crofoot W Mason 14 A Yes X X X X X X X Iosco 3386 3 3 2 3 3 Kern 437 Lange Crofoot E 12 B No 263 26.3 138 0.19 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.31 Iosco 3049 2 3 2 2 3 Kleinschmidt 31 Coon Lake Dead End 8 D No 269 26.9 128 0.21 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.29 Iosco 1390 1 2 1 2 2 Lamoreaux 136 Bradley Gregory 7 D No 164 16.4 153 0.11 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.39 Iosco 7183 1 2 1 1 2 Lamoreaux 91 Gregory Bull Run 8 D No 209 20.9 149 0.14 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.36 Iosco 5052 1 2 1 2 2 Lange 285 Bull Run Kern 10 C No 215 21.5 220 0.10 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.40 Iosco 4929 2 2 2 2 2 Lange 118 Gregory Bull Run 11 B No 582 58.2 167 0.35 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.15 Iosco 4340 2 2 2 2 3 Lange 366 Kern Dutcher 10 C No 134 13.4 267 0.05 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.45 Iosco 7837 2 2 2 2 2 Munsell 395 Bull Run Dutcher 10 C No 105 10.5 527 0.02 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.48 Iosco #### 2 2 2 2 2 Odell 244 Kane Elliot 11 B No 456 45.6 289 0.16 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.34 Iosco 6792 2 2 2 2 3 Roberts 116 Bradley Gregory 10 C No 384 38.4 241 0.16 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.34 Iosco 6570 2 2 2 2 2 Roberts 363 Dutton Bradley 10 C No 137 13.7 3 4.57 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 4.07 Iosco 1314 2 2 1 2 3 Roberts 163 Gregory Bull Run 11 B No 537 53.7 249 0.22 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.28 Iosco 5032 2 2 2 2 3 Roberts 94 Kane Dutton 8 D No 206 20.6 282 0.07 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.43 Iosco 6506 1 2 1 2 2 Weller 246 City/Township Line Bull Run 9 C No 254 25.4 473 0.05 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.45 Iosco 4190 1 2 2 2 2 107 108 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Amos 340 Burkhart Mason 12 B No 360 36.0 31 1.16 1 unit per .46 acres 2.17 -1.01 Marion 3413 2 2 2 3 3 Bentley Lake 448 Schafer Cedar Point 11 B No 252 25.2 403 0.06 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.94 Marion 8094 2 2 2 2 3 Brighton 427 Pinckney Brady 10 C No 73 7.3 243 0.03 1 unit per 1.5 acres 0.67 -0.64 Marion 9746 2 2 1 2 3 Cedar Lake 1088 Coon Lake Jewell 14 A Yes X X X X X X X Marion 7714 3 3 2 3 3 Cedar Lake 377 Schafer Vines 11 B No 323 32.3 323 0.10 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.90 Marion 9932 2 2 2 2 3 Cedar Lake 849 Vines Coon Lake 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Marion 3750 3 2 2 2 3 Cedar Point 217 Dead End Bentley Lake 10 C No 283 28.3 72 0.39 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.61 Marion 2200 2 2 1 2 3 Coon Lake 992 Dutcher Pingree 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Marion 1769 2 3 2 3 3 Crofoot 229 City/Township Line Pingree/Norton 11 B No 471 47.1 52 0.91 1 unit per .75 acres 1.33 -0.42 Marion 2800 2 2 2 2 3 Davis 196 Dead End Pinckney 10 C No 304 30.4 118 0.26 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.74 Marion 3889 2 2 1 2 3 Davis 907 Pinckney Fisk 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Marion 5015 2 2 2 2 3 Eisner 14 Jewell Dead End 7 D No 286 28.6 40 0.72 1 unit per .75 acres 1.33 -0.62 Marion 1356 1 2 1 1 2 Fisk 986 Beck Francis 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Marion 2079 2 2 2 2 3 Fisk 361 Crooked Lake Wright 11 B No 339 33.9 325 0.10 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.10 Marion 5192 2 2 2 2 3 Fisk 907 Davis Crooked Lake 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Marion 282 2 2 1 3 3 Fisk Francis Dead End 10 C 6 1 unit per 1.5 acres 0.67 Marion 344 2 2 2 1 3 Fisk 359 Wright Beck 11 B No 341 34.1 77 0.44 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.06 Marion 2910 2 2 2 2 3 Francis 1517 Pinckney Fisk 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Marion 5124 2 3 3 2 3 Hinchey 205 Schafer Vines 10 C No 295 29.5 299 0.10 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.90 Marion #### 2 2 1 2 3 Jewell 365 Eisner Cedar Lake 11 B No 335 33.5 295 0.11 1 unit per .9 acres 1.11 -1.00 Marion 2866 2 2 2 2 3 Jewell 197 Pingree Eisner 11 B No 503 50.3 272 0.18 1 unit per .8 acres 1.25 -1.07 Marion 3608 2 2 2 2 3 Keddle 936 Peavy Pinckney 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Marion 2442 2 3 2 2 3 Lange 845 Dutcher Pingree 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Marion 2857 2 3 2 2 3 Lucy 605 Dead End Industrial 11 B No 95 9.5 271 0.04 1 unit per .75 acres 1.33 -1.29 Marion 5993 2 2 2 2 3 Mayberry 88 Dead End Bentley Lake 7 D No 212 21.2 13 1.63 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 0.63 Marion 1298 1 2 1 1 2 Peavy 689 Keddle Tracilee 12 B No 11 1.1 105 0.01 1 unit per .5 acres 2.00 -1.99 Marion 3513 2 3 2 2 3 Peavy 394 Sexton Keddle 10 C No 106 10.6 75 0.14 1 unit per .9 acres 1.11 -0.97 Marion 3247 2 2 1 2 3 Pingree 392 Coon Lake Jewell 10 C No 108 10.8 239 0.05 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.95 Marion 8083 2 2 1 2 3 Pingree 389 Jewell Lange 11 B No 311 31.1 64 0.49 1 unit per .75 acres 1.33 -0.84 Marion 2660 2 2 2 2 3 Pingree 1066 Lange Crofoot 14 A Yes X X X X X X X Marion 2623 3 3 2 3 3 Pingree 591 Schafer Vines E 11 B No 109 10.9 364 0.03 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.97 Marion 9175 2 2 2 2 3 Pingree 616 Vines E Vines W 11 B No 84 8.4 30 0.28 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.72 Marion 1737 2 2 2 2 3 Pingree 677 Vines W Coon Lake 11 B No 23 2.3 61 0.04 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.96 Marion 2581 2 2 2 2 3 Pingree/Norton 1300 Crofoot Amos 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Marion 6139 2 3 2 2 3 Rubbins 506 Dead End Triangle Lake 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Marion 4113 2 2 2 1 3 Sanitorium 270 Dead End County Farm 7 D No 30 3.0 86 0.03 1 unit per .6 acres 1.67 -1.64 Marion 1812 1 2 1 1 2 Schafer 213 Dutcher Pingree 8 D No 87 8.7 78 0.11 1 unit per 7 acres 0.14 -0.03 Marion 2490 1 2 1 1 3 Schafer 285 Pingree Hinchey 9 C No 215 21.5 121 0.18 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 0.01 Marion 5490 2 2 2 1 2 Sexton 481 County Farm N Peavy 11 B No 219 21.9 266 0.08 1 unit per .9 acres 1.11 -1.03 Marion 5230 2 2 2 2 3 Sexton 317 Jewell County Farm S 10 C No 183 18.3 72 0.25 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.75 Marion 3404 2 2 2 1 3 Sexton 456 Peavy Pinckney 10 C No 44 4.4 381 0.01 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.99 Marion 5007 2 2 1 2 3 Triangle Lake 465 Sierra Rubbins 11 B No 235 23.5 95 0.25 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.75 Marion 5115 2 3 2 1 3 Triangle Lake 657 Sierra End of Pavement 12 B No 43 4.3 122 0.04 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.96 Marion 3776 2 3 2 2 3 Truhn 463 Dead End Mason 6 E Yes X X X X X X X Marion 2300 1 2 1 1 1 Vines 92 Dutcher Pingree 8 D No 208 20.8 27 0.77 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.23 Marion 1750 1 2 1 2 2 Vines 330 Hinchey Cedar Lake 11 B No 370 37.0 54 0.69 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.31 Marion 2375 2 2 2 2 3 Vines 93 Pingree Hinchey 11 B No 607 60.7 136 0.45 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.55 Marion 3964 2 2 2 2 3 Wright 308 Pinckney Fisk 11 B No 392 39.2 18 2.18 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 1.18 Marion 5101 2 2 2 2 3 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Allen 194 Argentine Green 10 C No 306 30.6 247 0.12 1 unit per 7 acres 0.14 -0.02 Oceola 4960 2 2 2 2 2 Allen 304 Fisher Latson 11 B No 396 39.6 1028 0.04 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.46 Oceola #### 2 2 2 2 3 Allen 170 Green McGuire 10 C No 330 33.0 317 0.10 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.00 Oceola 5254 2 2 2 2 2 Allen 238 Latson Mack N 9 C No 262 26.2 250 0.10 1 unit per 8 acres 0.13 -0.03 Oceola 5003 2 2 1 2 2 Allen 316 Mack N Mack S 11 B No 384 38.4 6 6.40 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 5.40 Oceola 250 2 2 2 2 3 Allen 238 Mack S Argentine 10 C No 262 26.2 182 0.14 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.04 Oceola 5311 2 2 2 2 2 Argentine 650 Bergin Highland (M-59) 11 B No 50 5.0 148 0.03 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.84 Oceola 4197 2 2 2 2 3 Argentine 369 Golf Club Bergin 11 B No 331 33.1 236 0.14 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.73 Oceola 6375 2 2 2 2 3 Armstrong 100 Dead End Musson 7 D No 200 20.0 90 0.22 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.65 Oceola 2636 1 2 1 1 2 Bachelor 32 Brophy Dead End 9 C No 468 46.8 70 0.67 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.20 Oceola 885 1 2 1 2 3 Bergin 291 Argentine Kellogg 8 D No 9 0.9 144 0.01 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.86 Oceola 5568 2 2 1 1 2 Bergin 318 Kellogg Hacker 9 C No 182 18.2 103 0.18 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.69 Oceola 5247 2 2 1 2 2 Botsford 140 Highland (M-59) Brophy 9 C No 360 36.0 122 0.30 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.57 Oceola 5325 2 2 1 2 2 Brophy 220 Argentine Botsford 11 B No 480 48.0 156 0.31 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.56 Oceola 2614 2 2 2 2 3 Brophy 307 Bachelor Musson 11 B No 393 39.3 287 0.14 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.73 Oceola 4568 2 2 2 2 3 Brophy 307 Botsford Bachelor 11 B No 393 39.3 0 0.00 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 >0 Oceola 684 2 2 2 2 3 Brophy 262 Eager Latson 10 C No 238 23.8 306 0.08 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.79 Oceola 5274 2 2 2 2 2 Brophy 229 Latson Listerman 9 C No 271 27.1 211 0.13 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.74 Oceola 2586 2 2 1 2 2 Brophy 129 Listerman Hughes 10 C No 371 37.1 60 0.62 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.25 Oceola 2610 2 2 1 2 3 Brophy 201 Musson Hacker 10 C No 299 29.9 72 0.42 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.45 Oceola 2590 2 2 2 2 2 Clyde 496 Eager Latson 13 A No 404 40.4 413 0.10 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.77 Oceola 5183 3 2 2 3 3 Clyde 458 Fisher Eager 13 A No 442 44.2 205 0.22 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.65 Oceola 5201 3 2 2 3 3 Clyde 1018 Latson Mack 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Oceola 5107 3 2 2 3 3 Clyde 848 Mack Argentine 13 A No 52 5.2 304 0.02 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.85 Oceola 5227 3 2 2 3 3 Curdy 451 Eager Latson 12 B No 249 24.9 294 0.08 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.79 Oceola 5268 2 2 2 3 3 Curdy 383 Fisher Eager 11 B No 317 31.7 227 0.14 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.73 Oceola 5304 2 2 2 2 3 Curdy 310 Kimberly Argentine 10 C No 190 19.0 73 0.26 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.61 Oceola 2618 2 2 1 2 3 Curdy 347 Latson Listerman 11 B No 353 35.3 159 0.22 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.65 Oceola 2604 2 2 2 2 3 Curdy 328 Listerman Mack 11 B No 372 37.2 156 0.24 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.63 Oceola 2611 2 2 2 2 3 Curdy 231 Mack Kimberley 11 B No 469 46.9 242 0.19 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.68 Oceola 2646 2 2 2 2 3 Dunn 107 Argentine Green 11 B No 593 59.3 305 0.19 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.68 Oceola 5173 2 2 2 2 3 Eager 471 Bigelow Brophy 11 B No 229 22.9 372 0.06 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.81 Oceola 5314 2 2 2 2 3 Eager 286 Brophy Curdy 11 B No 414 41.4 194 0.21 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.66 Oceola 5324 2 2 2 2 3 Eager 232 Curdy Clyde 11 B No 468 46.8 152 0.31 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.56 Oceola 5305 2 2 2 2 3 Eager 2632 Gentry Eager Pines 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Oceola 1134 2 3 2 2 3 Fairlawn Highland (M-59) Dead End 8 D 1 10 units per 1 acre 10.00 Oceola 1354 1 2 1 1 3 Fisher 459 Marr Clyde 11 B No 241 24.1 93 0.26 1 unit per 1.2 acres 0.83 -0.57 Oceola 3255 3 2 1 2 3 Gentry 369 Eager Dead End 10 C No 131 13.1 147 0.09 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.91 Oceola 1906 2 2 2 1 3 Green 110 Clyde Hazard 11 B No 590 59.0 79 0.75 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.12 Oceola 2635 2 2 2 2 3 Green 111 Dunn Clyde 11 B No 589 58.9 47 1.25 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 0.38 Oceola 2618 2 2 2 2 3 Green 279 Hazard Allen 11 B No 421 42.1 186 0.23 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.64 Oceola 3425 2 2 2 2 3 Gulley 521 Golf Club McGunn 11 B No 179 17.9 163 0.11 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.76 Oceola 5270 2 2 2 2 3 Gulley 306 McGunn Highland (M-59) 12 B No 394 39.4 104 0.38 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.49 Oceola 5229 2 2 2 3 3 Hazard 59 Argentine Green 10 C No 441 44.1 150 0.29 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.58 Oceola 5198 1 2 2 2 3 Hughes 568 Golf Club Highland (M-59) 12 B No 132 13.2 397 0.03 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.84 Oceola #### 3 2 2 2 3 Hughes 450 Highland (M-59) Brophy 11 B No 250 25.0 221 0.11 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.76 Oceola 5263 2 2 2 2 3 Kellogg 624 Bergin Highland (M-59) 12 B No 76 7.6 73 0.10 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.77 Oceola 5227 2 2 2 3 3 Kellogg 569 Golf Club Bergin 12 B No 131 13.1 180 0.07 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.80 Oceola 5338 2 2 2 3 3 Kimberley 59 Dead End Curdy 7 D No 241 24.1 63 0.38 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.49 Oceola 1526 1 2 1 1 2 Listerman 84 Brophy Curdy 11 B No 616 61.6 129 0.48 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.39 Oceola 5303 2 2 2 2 3 Mack 114 Clyde Allen 10 C No 386 38.6 255 0.15 1 unit per 1.2 acres 0.83 -0.68 Oceola 5750 2 2 1 2 3 Mack 120 Curdy Clyde 10 C No 380 38.0 161 0.24 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.63 Oceola 5306 2 2 2 2 2 McGunn 151 Latson Gulley 9 C No 349 34.9 27 1.29 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 0.42 Oceola 2613 1 2 1 2 3 Musson 258 Armstrong Dwyer 14 A No 642 64.2 102 0.63 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.24 Oceola 2658 3 2 3 3 3 Musson 352 Brophy Armstrong 11 B No 348 34.8 63 0.55 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.32 Oceola 2658 2 2 2 2 3 Musson 235 Dwyer Clyde 12 B No 465 46.5 203 0.23 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.64 Oceola 5312 2 2 2 3 3 Musson 459 Highland (M-59) Brophy 12 B No 241 24.1 80 0.30 1 unit per 1.15 acres0.87 -0.57 Oceola 5300 3 2 2 2 3 109 110 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Beardsley 194 Bentley Lake Gawley 11 B No 506 50.6 163 0.31 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.21 Putnam 5170 2 2 2 2 3 Bentley Lake 312 Beardsley Schafer 10 C No 188 18.8 280 0.07 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 -0.03 Putnam 8250 2 2 1 2 3 Bentley Lake 171 Cedar Lake Beardsley 10 C No 329 32.9 64 0.51 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.41 Putnam 5992 2 2 1 2 3 Burgess 148 Hinchey Cedar Lake 8 D No 152 15.2 34 0.45 1 unit per 8 acres 0.13 0.32 Putnam 2600 1 2 1 2 2 Burgess 72 Pingree Hinchey 8 D No 228 22.8 113 0.20 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.10 Putnam 5260 1 2 1 2 2 Cedar Lake 357 Bentley Lake Spears 12 B No 343 34.3 87 0.39 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.29 Putnam 4854 3 3 1 2 3 Cedar Lake 529 Burgess Schafer 13 A No 371 37.1 61 0.61 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.51 Putnam 4798 2 3 2 3 3 Cedar Lake 520 M-36 Bentley Lake 14 A No 380 38.0 456 0.08 1 unit per 8 acres 0.13 -0.05 Putnam 4618 3 3 2 3 3 Cedar Lake 512 Monks Mower 11 B No 188 18.8 5 3.76 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 3.26 Putnam 1316 2 2 2 2 3 Cedar Lake 486 Mower M-36 10 C No 14 1.4 37 0.04 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 -0.06 Putnam 3187 2 2 1 2 3 Cedar Lake 314 Patterson Lake Monks 10 C No 186 18.6 65 0.29 1 unit per 9 acres 0.11 0.18 Putnam 3725 2 2 1 2 3 Cedar Lake 418 Spears Burgess 12 B No 282 28.2 87 0.32 1 unit per 9 acres 0.11 0.21 Putnam 5891 3 3 1 2 3 Darwin 1390 Dexter-Pinckney Colony 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Putnam 5390 2 3 1 1 1 Dexter Town Hall 634 Tiplady County Line 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Putnam 1300 2 2 1 2 3 Doyle 24 Patterson Lake Kelly 6 E No 76 7.6 4 1.90 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 1.70 Putnam 6250 1 1 1 1 2 Farley 1423 Rush Lake Swarthout 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Putnam 4603 2 3 2 2 3 Farley 245 Swarthout Schafer 10 C No 255 25.5 100 0.26 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.16 Putnam 8314 2 2 1 2 3 Gawley 160 Beardsley Schafer 9 C No 340 34.0 73 0.47 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.37 Putnam 7741 2 2 1 2 2 Gawley 246 Reason Beardsley 11 B No 454 45.4 122 0.37 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.27 Putnam 2601 2 2 2 2 3 Hanes 111 Dead End M-36 12 B No 589 58.9 19 3.10 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 2.90 Putnam 510 1 2 3 3 3 Hinchey 320 Burgess Schafer 13 A No 580 58.0 122 0.48 1 unit per 9 acres 0.11 0.37 Putnam 4854 2 3 2 3 3 Hinchey 618 M-36 Spears 13 A No 282 28.2 187 0.15 1 unit per 3 acres 0.33 -0.18 Putnam 4280 2 3 2 3 3 Hinchey 553 Spears Burgess 12 B No 147 14.7 144 0.10 1 unit per 9 acres 0.11 -0.01 Putnam 5260 2 3 2 2 3 Kelly 213 Doyle Monks 11 B No 487 48.7 18 2.71 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 2.54 Putnam 1093 2 2 2 2 3 Kelly 142 Monks M-36 7 D No 158 15.8 51 0.31 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.21 Putnam 8700 1 2 1 1 2 Kelly 134 Patterson Lake Doyle 11 B No 566 56.6 160 0.35 1 unit per 8 acres 0.13 0.22 Putnam 4681 2 2 2 2 3 Monks 167 Kelly Cedar Lake 10 C No 333 33.3 110 0.30 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.20 Putnam 7990 2 2 1 2 3 Mower 1073 Cedar Lake Pinckney Village Limits 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Putnam 2119 2 2 1 2 3 Patterson Drive 767 Patterson Lake Dead End 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Putnam 681 2 2 1 2 3 Pingree 588 Burgess Wasson 12 B No 112 11.2 81 0.14 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.04 Putnam 1340 2 2 2 3 3 Pingree 1148 M-36 Spears 13 A Yes X X X X X X X Putnam 3985 2 3 2 3 3 Pingree 643 Spears Burgess 12 B No 57 5.7 284 0.02 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 -0.08 Putnam 5330 2 2 2 3 3 Pingree 405 Wasson Schafer 11 B No 295 29.5 45 0.66 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.56 Putnam 3639 2 2 1 3 3 Reason 454 Gawley Pinckney 10 C No 46 4.6 61 0.08 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 -0.02 Putnam 1680 2 2 2 3 1 Rush Lake 404 Pinckney Farley 12 B No 296 29.6 282 0.10 1 unit per 9 acres 0.11 -0.01 Putnam 5441 2 3 2 2 3 Schafer 927 Cedar Lake Bentley Lake 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Putnam 5081 2 3 2 2 1 Schafer 446 Hinchey Cedar Lake 13 A No 454 45.4 65 0.70 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 0.53 Putnam 2618 2 3 2 3 3 Schafer 481 Pinckney Farley 12 B No 219 21.9 91 0.24 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 0.07 Putnam 3885 2 2 2 3 3 Silver Hill 194 Patterson Lake Tiplady 9 C No 306 30.6 27 1.13 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 0.13 Putnam 2284 1 2 1 2 3 Silver Hill 16 Tiplady County Line 9 C No 484 48.4 9 5.38 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 5.28 Putnam 2645 1 2 1 2 3 Spears 100 Hinchey Cedar Lake 9 C No 400 40.0 78 0.51 1 unit per 8 acres 0.13 0.38 Putnam 4070 1 1 2 2 3 Spears 270 Pingree Hinchey 13 A No 630 63.0 158 0.40 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.30 Putnam 5250 2 3 2 3 3 Swarthout 2296 Farley Township Line 14 A Yes X X X X X X X Putnam 1295 3 3 2 3 3 Swarthout 2635 Pinckney Farley 14 A Yes X X X X X X X Putnam 3835 3 3 2 3 3 Tiplady 614 Dexter Town Hall Toma 12 B No 86 8.6 23 0.37 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.27 Putnam 1317 2 2 2 3 3 Tiplady 184 Silver Hill Dexter Town Hall 9 C No 316 31.6 289 0.11 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 0.01 Putnam 9089 2 2 1 2 2 Tiplady 338 Toma Dexter-Pinckney 11 B No 362 36.2 47 0.77 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 -0.23 Putnam 2994 2 2 2 2 3 Toma 322 County Line Tiplady 10 C No 178 17.8 4 4.45 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 4.35 Putnam 930 2 2 1 2 3 Toma 755 Tiplady Patterson Lake/Darwin 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Putnam 4049 3 2 2 2 3 Wasson 247 Dutcher Pingree 10 C No 253 25.3 2 12.65 1 unit per 10 acres 0.10 12.55 Putnam 2650 2 2 2 2 2 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Bullard 986 Parshall End of Road 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 2642 2 2 2 1 3 Center 821 Hartland Mabley Hill 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 5201 2 2 2 3 3 Center 571 Mabley Hill Denton Hill 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 5312 2 2 1 2 3 Center 1056 O'Connell Linden 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 5181 2 2 2 2 3 Dean 165 Linden Old US-23 9 C No 335 33.5 183 0.18 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.32 Tyrone 5229 2 2 1 2 2 Dean 263 Parkwood Linden 11 B No 437 43.7 71 0.62 1 unit per .7 acres 1.43 -0.81 Tyrone 1400 2 2 2 2 3 Faussett 284 Hartland Mabley Hill 11 B No 416 41.6 139 0.30 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.20 Tyrone 5299 2 2 2 2 3 Faussett 444 Runyan Lake Hartland 11 B No 256 25.6 262 0.10 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.40 Tyrone 4564 2 2 2 2 3 Foley 351 Denton Hill White Lake 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 4161 1 2 1 2 2 Foley 332 Hartland Denton Hill 10 C No 168 16.8 435 0.04 1 unit per 1.6 acres 0.63 -0.59 Tyrone #### 2 2 2 2 2 Foley 409 Runyan Lake Hartland 7 D Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 5270 1 2 1 2 1 Germany 536 Denton Hill Tipsico Lake 9 C Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 5505 2 2 1 1 3 Germany 219 Hartland Mabley Hill 11 B No 481 48.1 142 0.34 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.16 Tyrone 5300 2 2 2 2 3 Germany 289 Mabley Hill Denton Hill 10 C No 211 21.1 85 0.25 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.25 Tyrone 5326 2 2 1 2 3 Gordon 69 Runyan Lake Hartland 8 D No 231 23.1 130 0.18 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.32 Tyrone 5070 1 2 1 1 3 Hartland 380 Faussett Germany 11 B No 320 32.0 51 0.63 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.13 Tyrone 2648 2 2 2 2 3 Hartland 374 Germany Gordon 12 B No 326 32.6 154 0.21 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.29 Tyrone 2757 2 2 2 3 3 Hartland 484 Gordon Center 11 B No 216 21.6 146 0.15 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.35 Tyrone 5247 2 2 2 2 3 Hartland 360 Parshall Faussett 12 B No 340 34.0 120 0.28 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.22 Tyrone 5377 2 2 2 3 3 Hogan 963 Linden Sonora 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 3902 2 2 2 2 3 Hogan 1493 Major End of Pavement 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 4372 2 2 1 2 3 Hogan 986 Sonora Old US-23 11 B Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 1320 2 2 2 2 3 Linden 368 Dean Center 11 B No 332 33.2 275 0.12 1 unit per 1.7 acres 0.59 -0.47 Tyrone 5239 2 2 2 2 3 Linden 712 Hogan Turner 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 2574 2 2 1 2 1 Linden 294 Parkwood Dean 10 C No 206 20.6 89 0.23 1 unit per 1.38 acres0.72 -0.49 Tyrone 3237 2 2 2 2 2 Linden 591 Turner Bennett Lake 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 6592 2 2 1 2 1 Mabley Hill 115 Faussett Germany 7 D No 185 18.5 122 0.15 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.35 Tyrone 2678 1 2 1 1 2 Mabley Hill 81 Germany Rohn 8 D No 219 21.9 137 0.16 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.34 Tyrone 2395 1 2 1 1 3 Mabley Hill 192 Holtforth Faussett 10 C No 308 30.8 136 0.23 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.27 Tyrone 5352 2 2 1 2 3 Mabley Hill 113 Rohn Center 9 C No 387 38.7 247 0.16 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.34 Tyrone 5730 2 2 1 2 2 McGuire 176 Allen Faussett 8 D No 124 12.4 162 0.08 1 unit per 3 acres 0.33 -0.25 Tyrone 5316 1 2 1 1 3 McGuire 168 Faussett Ledgewood 12 B No 532 53.2 176 0.30 1 unit per 3 acres 0.33 -0.03 Tyrone 4630 2 2 2 3 3 Nimphie 130 Hogan Lee Jones 10 C No 370 37.0 22 1.68 1 unit per 1 acre 1.00 0.68 Tyrone 2604 2 2 2 1 3 Nimphie Lee Jones Old US-23 9 C 11 1 unit per 1.38 acres0.72 Tyrone 2161 2 2 2 1 2 Nimphie Old US-23 Hogan 8 D 1 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 Tyrone 1136 1 2 1 1 3 O'Connell 253 Driftwood Center 11 B No 447 44.7 265 0.17 1 unit per 3 acres 0.33 -0.16 Tyrone 3728 2 2 2 2 3 Rohn 318 Denton Hill Tipsico Lake 10 C No 182 18.2 187 0.10 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.40 Tyrone 5343 2 2 1 2 3 Rohn 117 Mabley Hill Denton Hill 8 D No 183 18.3 142 0.13 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 -0.37 Tyrone 5377 1 2 1 1 3 Runyan Lake 249 Faussett Gordon 15 A No 651 65.1 102 0.64 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.14 Tyrone 5428 3 3 3 3 3 Runyan Lake 328 Parshall Faussett 15 A No 572 57.2 46 1.24 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 0.74 Tyrone 5363 3 3 3 3 3 Tipsico Lake 346 Baker Woodland (PVT) 9 C No 154 15.4 87 0.18 1 unit per 1.38 acres0.72 -0.54 Tyrone 3162 2 2 1 1 3 Tipsico Lake 187 Bone Baker 7 D No 113 11.3 52 0.22 1 unit per 1.38 acres0.72 -0.50 Tyrone 2808 1 2 1 1 2 Tipsico Lake 233 White Lake Bone 7 D No 67 6.7 130 0.05 1 unit per 1.38 acres0.72 -0.67 Tyrone 5861 1 2 1 1 2 Tipsico Lake 756 Woodland (PVT) Jayne 10 C Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 3480 2 2 2 1 3 Turner 445 Linden Dead End 6 E Yes X X X X X X X Tyrone 5700 1 2 1 1 1 Whitaker 475 Bennett Lake Lobdell 10 C No 25 2.5 0 0.00 1 unit per .69 acres 1.45 >0 Tyrone 1616 2 2 2 1 3 111 112 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P SCORES Unused Number of DU's per Zoning Difference Daily Physical Clear A-E Over Capacity DU's with Buildable Buildable Acres Zoning Minimum Lot DU's (Capacity Surface Road Segment Name Traffic Road Segment Start Point Road Segment End Point Feature Township Length Width Zone Align Drain Rating Capacity (Trips Unused Acres with Unused Size per Density-Zoning Type Volume Score Width per Day) Capacity Capacity acre Density Arnold 99 M-36 Spears 9 C No 401 40.1 170 0.24 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.04 Unadilla 9153 1 2 2 2 2 Barnum 326 Joslin Lake Hadley 8 D Yes X X X X X X X Unadilla 464 1 2 2 1 2 Barton 296 M-36 Spears 9 C No 204 20.4 196 0.10 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.10 Unadilla 9745 2 2 1 2 2 Bowdish 77 Jaycox Worden 9 C No 423 42.3 32 1.32 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 1.12 Unadilla 2996 1 2 2 2 2 Bowdish 75 Leeke Jaycox 9 C No 425 42.5 2 21.25 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 21.05 Unadilla 3753 1 2 2 2 2 Bullis 108 M-36 M-36 8 D No 192 19.2 19 1.01 1 unit per 4 acres 0.25 0.76 Unadilla 2052 1 2 1 1 3 Bullis 236 Unadilla M-36 9 C No 264 26.4 6 4.40 1 unit per 2 acres 0.50 3.90 Unadilla 1520 2 2 1 1 3 Deep Valley 64 Dead End Dutton 11 B No 636 63.6 296 0.21 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.01 Unadilla 4341 1 2 2 3 3 Donohue 153 Spears Wasson 8 D No 147 14.7 119 0.12 0 units per 1 acre 0.00 0.12 Unadilla 7957 1 2 1 2 2 Doyle 296 Rockwell Worden 10 C No 204 20.4 306 0.07 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.13 Unadilla 7446 2 2 1 2 3 Dutcher 107 Wasson Schafer 8 D No 193 19.3 82 0.24 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 0.07 Unadilla 3275 1 2 1 2 2 Dutton 94 Deep Valley M-36 9 C No 406 40.6 288 0.14 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.06 Unadilla 5347 2 2 1 2 2 Dutton 128 Dexter Trail Deep Valley 10 C No 372 37.2 87 0.43 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.23 Unadilla 5211 2 2 2 2 2 Dutton 127 M-106 Dexter Trail 8 D No 173 17.3 46 0.38 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.18 Unadilla 5175 1 2 1 2 2 Dutton 293 M-36 City/Township Line 10 C No 207 20.7 98 0.21 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.01 Unadilla 5069 2 2 1 2 3 Graves 104 Doyle M-36 7 D No 196 19.6 59 0.33 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.13 Unadilla 7792 1 2 1 1 2 Gregory 108 Wasson City/Township Line 11 B No 592 59.2 21 2.82 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 2.62 Unadilla 2218 2 2 2 2 3 Holmes 117 Williamsville Doyle (M-106) 10 C No 383 38.3 133 0.29 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.09 Unadilla 3367 2 2 2 2 2 Howlett 150 Doyle M-36 8 D No 150 15.0 87 0.17 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.03 Unadilla 5365 1 2 2 1 2 Joslin Lake 493 Barnum Williamsville 9 C No 7 0.7 3 0.23 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.03 Unadilla 963 2 2 1 1 3 Joslin Lake 463 County Line Barnum 9 C No 37 3.7 8 0.46 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.26 Unadilla 1343 2 2 1 1 3 Livermore 715 Doyle M-36 12 B Yes X X X X X X X Unadilla 4336 3 2 2 2 3 Rockwell 94 Bowdish Doyle 11 B No 606 60.6 38 1.59 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 1.39 Unadilla 8592 2 2 2 2 3 Roepke 438 Bowdish Williamsville 11 B No 262 26.2 16 1.64 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 1.44 Unadilla 2630 2 2 2 2 3 Roepke 273 Williamsville Doyle 10 C No 227 22.7 57 0.40 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.20 Unadilla 5845 2 2 2 2 2 Spears 244 Arnold Barton/Donohue 11 B No 456 45.6 0 0.00 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 >0 Unadilla 1310 2 2 2 2 3 Spears 193 Barton/Donohue Pingree 11 B No 507 50.7 437 0.12 1 unit per 6 acres 0.17 -0.05 Unadilla 9386 2 2 2 2 3 Spears Dead End Van Syckle 8 D 77 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 Unadilla 375 1 2 1 1 3 Spears 255 Gregory Arnold 11 B No 445 44.5 169 0.26 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.06 Unadilla 5443 2 2 2 2 3 Spears 50 Van Syckle M-36 11 B No 650 65.0 46 1.41 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 1.21 Unadilla 3284 2 2 2 2 3 Van Syckle 113 M-106 Dexter Trail 9 C No 387 38.7 302 0.13 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.07 Unadilla 7888 1 2 2 2 2 Van Syckle 45 Spears M-36 11 B No 655 65.5 115 0.57 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.37 Unadilla 4218 2 2 2 2 3 Wasson 200 Bradley Gregory 11 B No 500 50.0 325 0.15 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.05 Unadilla 5428 2 2 2 2 3 Wasson 463 Bull Run Donohue 11 B No 237 23.7 16 1.48 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 1.28 Unadilla 2918 2 2 2 2 3 Wasson 309 Donohue Weller 11 B No 391 39.1 27 1.45 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 1.25 Unadilla 1327 2 2 2 2 3 Wasson 212 Weller Dutcher 9 C No 288 28.8 312 0.09 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 -0.11 Unadilla 8516 2 2 1 2 2 Weller 174 Wasson City/Township Line 10 C No 326 32.6 153 0.21 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.01 Unadilla 2482 2 2 2 2 2 Worden 101 Bowdish Doyle (M-106) 9 C No 399 39.9 128 0.31 1 unit per 5 acres 0.20 0.11 Unadilla 7950 2 2 1 2 2 T Y P L A N N U N I N O G C D N E P O A T R S

T G M

T L

A PARTNERSHIP IN PLANNING

Partnership in Planning is the management philosophy of the Livingston County Department of Planning. The philosophy recognizes the common destiny shared by the 184,000 residents of the sixteen townships, two villages, and two cities that comprise the Livingston Community. It is a philosophy that calls upon the officials of the twenty local governmental units within the County to work cooperatively toward that shared destiny. The vision of the future - that shared destiny of the Livingston community - is unique in that the Partnership in Planning is citizen driven, that is to say, it is a philosophy that holds that the citizen, through their local government, should direct and control the planning process. Through this Partnership in Planning local government, working cooperatively with County Planning, determines the nature of the Livingston community of the future.