Jan 10, 2022 Planning Commission

[00:00:01]

GOOD. ABSOLUTELY.

WE ARE. OK, WELL, I'LL STAY HERE.

THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU.

ACTUALLY, I'VE BEEN WEARING THIS SINCE EARLY NOVEMBER, BUT WE HAD VIRTUAL MEETINGS.

YEAH.

I DIDN'T GET TO SHOW IT OFF UNTIL NOW.

[INAUDIBLE] DURING WHAT WAS GOING TO BE THE NEXT [INAUDIBLE].

I WAS TELLING THE BOYS [INAUDIBLE] RECORDED, AND WHEN WE GOT BACK [INAUDIBLE].

I'VE BEEN TELLING EVERYBODY THEY CHICKENED OUT, THEY FOUND AN EXCUSE.

[INAUDIBLE]. I DON'T WANT ANY.

I'M NOT THAT PICKY. I DON'T WANT ANY EXCUSES.

[INAUDIBLE] AND HE LIVES IN CALIFORNIA.

SO ANY TIME YOU CAN SAY YOUR [INAUDIBLE] BACK AND FORTH AND KIND OF DO OUR OWN PLAY-BY-PLAY. AND I DON'T WANT TO GIVE HIM ANY EXCUSES TO WHINE.

HE'S STILL HE'S STILL WHINING ABOUT THE FOOTBALL GAME.

YEAH, YEAH. HE'S STILL SCREAMING ABOUT TERRIBLE FALLS IN THE FOOTBALL GAME.

BUMMER, DUDE. WELL, I LIVE IN A DIVIDED HOUSE.

SO TWO OF US ARE STATE FANS AND TWO ARE MICHIGAN FANS.

IT'S ALWAYS INTERESTING.

MY WIFE USED TO DIVIDE US, JUST DESCRIBE US AS A MIXED MARRIAGE.

OH, BASED ON ALMA MATER.

YEAH. WELL, I GOT DEGREES FROM BOTH.

SO BUT FOR THE FIRST FEW YEARS WE WERE MARRIED.

I ROOTED FOR MICHIGAN JUST TO TICK HER OFF, AFTER FOUR YEARS.

IT'S NOT AS MUCH FUN.

OVER HERE, BILL. COME IN FROM THE COLD.

[INAUDIBLE] WE'RE READY.

OK, SCOTT.

SCOTT'S NOT GOING TO BE HERE. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE, YES, AND I WILL

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

HERE. MR. MCCONNELL.

PRESENT. MS. SHREWSBURY.

PRESENT. MR. RICHARDS.

PRESENT. MS. SNYDER.

PRESENT.

MR. BLUMER. PRESENT.

AND MS. CORDILL.

PRESENT.

MR. BLUMER. I'VE GOT EVERYBODY? YEP. OK, AND I'M HERE, MR. TREZISE, AND WE WILL GO AHEAD.

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS PUBLIC REMARKS.

WE HAVE THREE.

I THINK WE HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING TONIGHT OR I MEAN A.

LET'S SEE PUBLIC HEARING, DO WE HAVE ONE? NO, WE DON'T.

WE DO. OK, SO WE'LL HAVE THREE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE PUBLIC REMARKS.

THE FIRST IS NOW, THE LAST IS AT THE END OF THE MEETING.

THOSE TIME PERIODS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ANY SUBJECT PERTINENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND THEN THERE IS A PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH WILL BE RESTRICTED TO THE SUBJECT OF THAT HEARING.

[00:05:01]

WE WOULD ASK YOU TO FILL OUT A CARD IDENTIFYING YOURSELF AND YOUR RESIDENCE AND GIVING IT TO ME. I DON'T SEE ANY CARDS.

AND DO WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHICH SPEAK NOW OR NOT? DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK NOW OR ARE YOU HERE FOR THE? YOU [INAUDIBLE] THE PUBLIC HEARING? WELL, WE'LL CALL YOU THEN. SEEING NOBODY.

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

AGENDA HAS BEEN PROVIDED, MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

A SECOND WE HAVE MR. BLUMER.

ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.

OPPOSED. OK.

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

MR. PREMOE SECOND FROM MR. RICHARDS. ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES OR CORRECTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

COMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE NO COMMUNICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME. PUBLIC HEARING.

[7A. Special Use Permit Extension – 18-051 – 1954 Saginaw Highway – Multi Family Housing Development]

I'D ASK MR. SCHMIDT IF HE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY TO THIS OR WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE? GOOD EVENING. HI, IT'S MY FIRST TIME ACTUALLY SPEAKING IN FRONT OF YOU.

I AM BRIAN SHORKEY. I AM YOUR NEW SENIOR PLANNER.

I WAS INTRODUCED LAST.

WELCOME. BUT THAT WAS VIRTUAL.

I DON'T RECOGNIZE YOU WITH YOUR MASK.

IT'S MUTUAL. THAT'S FAIR.

I'LL MAKE THIS REALLY QUICK. MR. [INAUDIBLE] SINGH RECEIVED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO PHASED MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WITH SEVEN DWELLING UNITS, TWO DETACHED AND FIVE ATTACHED AT HIS PROPERTY AT ONE NINE FIVE FOUR SAGINAW HIGHWAY THAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 25, 2018AND YOU HAVE THE MINUTES OF THAT MEETING IN YOUR PACKET.

ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WAS THAT MR. SINGH COULD NOT BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE TWO, WHICH WAS THE ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL, A FIVE UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITHOUT THE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC WATER TO THE SITE.

THE APPROVAL GAVE MR. SINGH FOUR YEARS TO COMMENCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE TWO, BUT PUBLIC WATER HAS NOT BEEN EXTENDED TO THE SITE.

NOW THAT WAS AS A SET OF CONDITION.

THE MINUTES FROM THAT JUNE TWENTY FIFTH MEETING SHOW THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALLOWED FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO BE GRANTED.

MR. SINGH HAS REQUESTED THAT ONE YEAR EXTENSION AND IT'S ALL HE'S ASKING FOR TONIGHT.

AND THAT WAS THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS JUST TO OFFICIALLY GRANT THE ONE YEAR EXTENSION.

HE'S ASKING FOR THAT SO HE CAN PURSUE FINANCING FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC WATER, WHICH WOULD ALLOW HIM THEN TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE TWO.

STAFF HAS OBSERVED NO MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THIS REQUEST, AND I DO NEED TO TO UPDATE.

I DID RECEIVE A COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC AS OF 10 AFTER THREE ON FRIDAY.

I DID SPEAK TO HER THIS MORNING AND SHE'S OK.

SHE WAS AFRAID IT WAS A NEW REQUEST.

IT AND ONCE I EXPLAINED IT'S JUST AN EXTENSION.

THERE WERE NO CONCERNS.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE EXTENSION REQUEST AT THIS TIME.

MR. SINGH HAS EMAILED ME AND I'VE PASSED ON TO YOU DIGITALLY THIS MORNING, A LETTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATED JANUARY 10TH.

I DO HAVE HARD COPIES OF HIS LETTER IF ANYBODY NEEDS IT.

THANK YOU.

OH, SORRY.

I DIDN'T SEE YOUR EMAIL.

THAT'S IT, THOUGH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

MR. SINGH, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO US? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

OK. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE ARE TWO POTENTIAL WATER SOURCES TO SOLVE THIS DILEMMA.

THERE IS A WATER LINE TO THE EAST THAT TERMINATES AT THE BATH TOWNSHIP MEIJER.

THERE'S ONE TO THE WEST THAT TERMINATES AT THE NEW HOPE CHURCH AND THEN MR.

[00:10:03]

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE WE SPOKE LAST WEEK, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF RUNNING A WATER LINE FROM THE NORTH THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD IN BATH TOWNSHIP INTO HIS PROPERTY.

THAT WOULD, AND THERE'S AN AGREED THERE'S THERE'S A HE AGAIN, HE CAN GIVE YOU THE DETAILS, BUT THERE'S AN OLDER AGREEMENT IN PLACE THAT FROM BATH TOWNSHIP SIDE, I HAVEN'T SEEN A COPY OF THAT AGREEMENT.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE RECIPROCATED AT THAT TIME, SO I DON'T KNOW THE POTENTIAL OF THAT.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. BUT ONE OF THOSE LINES IS [INAUDIBLE] AND ONE OF THOSE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. THAT IS CORRECT.

OK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. SINGH. [INAUDIBLE] WILL YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? YEAH. FIRST NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] SINGH, LAST NAME IS SINGH.

LIVE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, HASLETT AND I HAVE A SHORT STATEMENT TO MAKE THAT ON THE PHASE TWO.

I HAVE A PROBLEM GETTING THE WATER, THE PUBLIC WATER.

I HAVE THE PUBLIC SEWER AUTHORITY IN THE PROPERTY, SO I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET HOLD OF WATER, WATER LIGHT. SEE IF THEY COULD HELP ME COLLECT THAT AT A LOWER RATE OR HIRE SOME SUBCONTRACTORS WHO CAN DO MUCH CHEAPER THAN THEY COULD DO IT.

THEY GAVE ME A COUPLE OF NAMES TO CONTACT FOR SUBCONTRACTING, GAVE WATER SERVICE HOOK UP FROM THE MEIJER GAS STATION ALL THE WAY, GOING WEST [INAUDIBLE]V 600 FEET TO HOOK UP THE WATER TO MY PROPERTY.

AND OBVIOUSLY I COULD NOT GET HOLD OF ANYBODY AT THE LAST THREE YEARS BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC. A LOT OF TIME WAS LOST AND MY WIFE WHO ALSO HAD A DIAGNOSED WITH BREAST CANCER, SO I WAS TAKING CARE OF HER ABOUT 19 MONTHS.

SHE PASSED AWAY. SO THERE'S A DELAY OF 4 YEARS, I COULDN'T DO MUCH TO CONTACT, SO MY NEXT OPTION WILL BE TO CONTACT THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP BOARD.

SEE IF THEY WOULD HAVE HELP ME IN THIS SITUATION SINCE THE WATER, THE PUBLIC WATER IS CURRENTLY LOCATED NEAR THE CHURCH ON [INAUDIBLE] NORTH SIDE.

MY PROPERTY IS ALSO ON THE NORTH SIDE, SO IT'S ABOUT 800 FEET CROSSING FROM THAT LOCATION TO MY HOUSE AND OR MERIDIAN, BWL LOCATION 600 FEET.

SO YOU'RE ASKING $200000 TO HOOK UP, WHICH IS GOING TO COST [INAUDIBLE] FOR ME TO GO FOR THAT KIND OF EXPENSE.

SO THE OTHER WAY I CAN DO IT IS TO INSTALL A WELL, TEMPORARILY UNTIL I GET THE PUBLIC WATER IN PLACE.

THEN I CAN HOOK IT UP TO THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM OR DISCONNECT WELL SYSTEM THAT I CAN DO IT. THE SECOND OPTION I HAVE TO MEET WITHIN ONE YEAR PERIOD.

SO I'M KIND OF STUCK IN THE MUD WITHOUT THE OPTION TO EXERCISE ANYTHING ELSE.

SO I WANT AN EXTENSION OF AT LEAST ONE YEAR, AND THIS TIME I LIKE TO THROW [INAUDIBLE] ANY OPPORTUNITY EXIST IN THE FUTURE.

MAYBE WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.

SO EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR IS KIND OF ASKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE IT.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SINGH? I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE.

OK, SO THAT YOUR PROJECT CAN GO FORWARD, I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

OK. MR. BLUMER.

MR. SINGH, IS YOUR PROJECT OTHERWISE SECURE, EXCEPT FOR THE WATER PROBLEM? YES. SO IF YOU SOLVE THE WATER PROBLEM, THEN THE REST OF THE PROJECT CAN GO FORWARD ON SCHEDULE? WELL, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

IF YOU SOLVE THE WATER ACCESS PROBLEM, THEN THE REST OF YOUR PROJECT IS SECURE.

OK, THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. RICHARDS. I NOTICE THAT THE ONE YEAR TIME PERIOD IS ACTUALLY FROM JULY OF2022 THROUGH

[00:15:07]

SO IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING IT NOW? AS OPPOSED TO BE COMING UP WITH A SOLUTION IN THE SHORT TERM OR IN THE NEXT FIVE MONTHS? YOU'RE ASKING WHY THAT 4 YEAR DELAY? NO, I'M ASKING.

OR MAYBE I GUESS I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF FROM NOW. SO THIS THIS WOULD GIVE YOU A YEAR AND A HALF TO BASICALLY SOLVE THE WATER ISSUE FOR THE PROPERTY, CORRECT? I DIDN'T MAKE OUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I GUESS I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.

I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IT'S IT'S ACTUALLY A YEAR AND A HALF FROM.

HE ALREADY HAS UNTIL JULY TO DO IT.

THIS IS AN EXTENSION BEYOND THE JULY TERMINATION DATE.

YEAH. SO THE ISSUE REALLY IS THAT THE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD IT IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, EVEN IF HE HAD A SOLUTION TOMORROW, GIVEN WHETHER SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES, SO THE EXTENSION WAS GOING TO BE NECESSARY NO MATTER WHAT.

SO WHEN THEY APPROACHED US ORIGINALLY, WE JUST SAID, JUST GET IT IN AND WE'LL GET IT EXTENDED THAT WAY YOU HAVE SOME CERTAINTY AND CAN MOVE FORWARD TRYING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM IN THE NEXT BEFORE.

WHAT IS THE EXPIRATION DATE, NO MATTER WHAT, JULY 2023.

I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT TO MR. SINGH THAT YOUR ALTERNATIVE CHOICE OF BUILDING A WELL WOULD REQUIRE ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE THIS REZONING WAS ALLOWED CONTINGENT ON PUBLIC WATER.

SO IF THAT IS THE ROUTE YOU NEED TO GO, YOU NEED TO BE TALKING BACK TO THE TO THE OFFICE HERE TO ARRANGE FOR AN APPLICATION FOR THAT TO GO FORWARD.

OK, SO THE APPLICATION I SHOULD MAKE IT TO.

I MEAN, TOWNSHIP BOARD.

I WOULD MAKE THE APPLICATION TO MR. [INAUDIBLE]? AND HE WILL GET YOU TO THE RIGHT SPOT IF YOU HAVE TO GO TO A WELL . IF YOU DO FIND A WAY TO HOOK UP TO PUBLIC WATER THAT COMPLIES WITH THE VARIANCE WE GAVE YOU AT THE TIME AND THE SO THAT WOULD COMPLY.

IT'S IF YOU CANNOT GET PUBLIC WATER, YOU NEED TO EXPLORE YOUR ALTERNATIVES FOR A WELL AND GET THE APPROPRIATE PROPER APPROVALS FOR THAT.

AS FAR AS INSTALLING A NEW WELL TO SERVE THIS UNIT, I CHECKED WITH THE INGHAM COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO HAVING A WELL INSTALLED JUST TO SERVE THIS BUILDING UNTIL THE PUBLIC SEWER IS IN PLACE, SO I CAN MOVE FORWARD THAT WAY.

BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE REZONING REQUEST AND THE APPROVAL WE GAVE WAS CONTINGENT ON PUBLIC WATER, SO YOU WILL NEED TO GET THAT WAIVED ALSO.

IT'S JUST ANOTHER STEP.

OK, I'M NOT SURE IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM, IT'S JUST THAT IN ORDER TO GET EVERYTHING IN ORDER, YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE APPROVAL TO MODIFY OUR ACTION FROM 2018 AND THIS EXTENSION TO ALLOW FOR THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A WELL.

OK.

HE'S PROVIDING INFORMATION.

JUST INFORMATION. IT'S NOTHING YOU NEED TO DO TONIGHT.

OK, SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION.

OK. AND WE'VE GOT A SECOND FROM THE BOARD.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

YES. DO WE TYPICALLY HAVE A MOTION THAT SAYS, BECAUSE WE NORMALLY DON'T.

YEAH SO. WE SHOULD ACTUALLY DO A STRAW BALLOT ON THIS.

AND THEN IT WOULD COME BACK WITH THE RESOLUTION AT THE NEXT MEETING.

CORRECT. UNLESS WE WAIVED.

AND WE DON'T HAVE A DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF US TO, I'LL DEFER TO MR. SCHMITT. GIVEN THAT IT'S JUST AN EXTENSION, ACTUALLY, WE TYPICALLY DON'T DO RESOLUTIONS FOR EXTENSION. OK, THIS IS JUST A QUIRK IN THE ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING UNDER THIS SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE.

SO IF YOU DID WAIVE YOUR RULES, YOU COULD SIMPLY JUST MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ONE YEAR EXTENSION. OK.

I WOULD NEED A MOTION TO WAIVE THE RULES FIRST.

BLUMER.

OK, CORDILL. TAKE A ROLL CALL ON THAT, MR. MCCONNELL. YES.

MS. CORDILL. YES.

MS. SHREWSBURY YES.

MR. RICHARDS. YES.

MS. SNYDER. YES.

[00:20:02]

MR. PREMOE.

YES. AND THE BOARD ALSO OR THE CHAIR ALSO VOTES YES.

SO THE WAIVER IS IN PLACE.

AND NOW WE'LL GO BACK TO MR. BLUMER'S MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION SUPPORTED BY MS. CORDILL. AND ABSENT ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, I WILL AGAIN CALL THE ROLL ON THIS.

MR. MCCONNELL.

YES. MS. CORDILL.

YES. MS. SHREWSBURY. YES.

MR. RICHARDS. YES.

MR. SNYDER. YES.

MR. BLUMER, MR. SNYDER. MS. SNYDER. I'M SORRY, IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.

MR. PREMOE.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES, TREZISE.

SO IT IS APPROVED AND GOOD LUCK ON YOUR DEVELOPMENT.

AND I WOULD SAY THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMENCED AT 7:05 AND IS NOW CLOSED AT 7:20. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM EIGHT UNFINISHED BUSINESS, WE HAVE NONE, ITEM NINE.

OTHER BUSINESS. WE HAD THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS.

[9A. Election of Officers]

I MOVE TO COMMISSIONER BLUMER FOR THE POSITION OF CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WHAT IS MR. BLUMER'S FEELING ABOUT THAT? I SPOKE WITH CURRENT CHAIR MR. HENDRICKSON AND AFTER SPEAKING WITH HIM, I WILL ACCEPT THAT NOMINATION.

I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES HAS ANOTHER NAME TO NOMINATE? [INAUDIBLE] I WILL TAKE THE ROLL CALL, MR. MCCONNELL. YES.

MS. CORDILL. YES.

MS. SHREWSBURY. YES.

MR. RICHARDS. YES.

MS. SNYDER. YES.

MR. BLUMER.

THANK YOU. YES. MR. PREMOE. YES. AND THE TEMPORARY CHAIR ALSO VOTES.

YES. AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE OVER THIS MEETING, YOU'RE WELCOME TO.

SEE HOW BADLY I CAN SCREW IT UP FROM HERE [LAUGHTER].

CAN I STAY HERE OR WE HAVE TO? YOU CAN STAY THERE, I BELIEVE.

ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT, THERE ARE TWO OTHER POSITIONS.

WE NEED NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? I WOULD NOMINATE CURRENT VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER.

VICE CHAIR TREZISE.

ASSUMING HE'D TAKE THE POSITION.

I WOULD, I WOULD TAKE THE POSITION IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF THE BOARD.

SECOND THE MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION IN THAT NOMINATION? CAN WE CALL THE ROLL? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

YES. COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

YES. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

YES. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

YES. COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

YES. COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

YES. COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

ALL RIGHT. AND THE LAST DO WE HAVE NOMINATION FOR COMMISSION SECRETARY? I WOULD NOMINATE MR. COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

SECOND IT.

AND THIRD. BEEN THERE, DONE THAT.

WELL YOU CAN TURN IT DOWN.

THAT'S FINE. IS THERE A SECOND FOR MR. PREMOE'S NOMINATION? [INAUDIBLE] ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION FOR THIS NOMINATION? WILL CHAIR WILL CALL FOR A VOTE AGAIN.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

YES. COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

YES. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

YES. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

YES. COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

YES. COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

YES. COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES AS WELL.

THERE ARE NO OTHER ELECTABLE SEATS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT IS ACCURATE. THEN THAT CLOSES 9A, 9B IS PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON

[9B. Planning Commission Liaison Assignments]

AND I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO THE GROUP.

THERE WAS A DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING.

I WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IT BECAUSE I WAS TRYING DESPERATELY TO GET MY DAUGHTER BACK ON AN AIRPLANE.

DIDN'T WORK. SHE ENDED UP DRIVING HOME, BUT I TRIED FOUR TIMES AND I MISSED THE MEETING

[00:25:01]

I'M SORRY. JUST READ IT.

JUST BRIEFLY. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SEVEN COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES GENERALLY HAS A LIAISON TO.

OBVIOUSLY, ANYONE IS PERMITTED TO GO TO ANY MEETING AT ANY TIME.

THEY'RE ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS. BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS HISTORICALLY MADE APPOINTMENTS TO AS A LIAISON TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, THE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY, THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. AND THEN YOU'RE PACKET OUTLINES THE CURRENT MEETING DATES AND TIMES AND THE CURRENT ASSIGNMENTS.

YOU'RE WELCOME TO KEEP THE EXACT SAME ASSIGNMENTS IF YOU LIKE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO CHANGE THEM UP. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSIONS ARE NOT MEETING THIS MONTH DUE TO COVID, AND IT'S DISTINCTLY POSSIBLE THAT FURTHER MEETINGS WILL BE POSTPONED.

BUT THIS IS THE GENERAL SCHEDULE THAT WE WILL BE FOLLOWING FOR THE NEXT YEAR.

I CAN SAY THAT I WILL BE HAPPY TO CONTINUE ON THE PRA COMMITTEE.

MS. CORDILL.

UNLESS SOMEONE IS VERY EAGER TO GO ON THE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY, I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE. SORRY.

MAYBE WE CAN SHORTEN IT BY DOING IT THIS WAY.

IS THERE ANYONE CURRENTLY NOT WILLING TO CONTINUE WITH THEIR CURRENT ASSIGNMENT AS A LIAISON? THE ONLY THING I WOULD POINT OUT IS I BELIEVE I COULD BE WRONG WITH THIS, BUT I BELIEVE HISTORICALLY THE CHAIRPERSON HAS BEEN THEIR REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE MAY.

I'M NOT SURE THAT'S TRUE.

AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S JUST IT'S FALLEN THAT WAY OR IF IT WAS AN UNWRITTEN RULE.

NO. OK. JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TALK ABOUT THAT? AND I DID SPEAK TO MR. HENDRICKSON TODAY, AND HE IS WILLING TO CONTINUE AS THE LIAISON TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. EXCELLENT.

ALL RIGHT. SO AGAIN, THE CHAIR REQUESTS ANYONE WHO IS NOT HAPPY WITH THEIR CURRENT ASSIGNMENT. PLEASE IDENTIFY.

AND I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE APPOINTMENTS AS WRITTEN.

IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? SECOND BY MS. SHREWSBURY.

I GUESS AT THIS POINT THEN WE WOULD.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL, VOTE DOWN THE MOTION FOR PEOPLE TO CONTINUE AS CURRENTLY SITUATED.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

YES. COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

YES. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

YES. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

YES. COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

YES. COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

YES. COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

YES. BOARD VOTES YES.

THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

IT SHOULD ALSO BE RECOGNIZED THAT BASED ON STATEMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER TREZISE, WE EXPECT THAT COMMISSIONER HENDRICKSON WILL ALSO STAY WITH THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.

THANK YOU, ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE MOVE ON TO ITEM NINE C THE AMENDMENT TO FENCE HEIGHT AND

[Items 9C - 9G]

THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE SO-CALLED QUALITY OF LIFE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS THAT WE BRIEFLY STARTED TALKING ABOUT AT THE END OF LAST YEAR.

THESE ARE THE FIRST FIVE.

BRING THEM FORWARD JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, SO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. SO YOU CAN START TO THINK ABOUT THESE.

WE'RE GOING TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY ONCE WE GET A SENSE OF WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THE VARIANCE AND MEETING SCHEDULES.

AND AT THAT POINT, WE CAN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION IF YOU'D LIKE.

BUT LARGELY THESE ARE, I'LL BE HONEST, THESE ARE THE EASY ONES OF THE LIST WE HAVE.

HEIGHT OF FENCES. IT'S AN ITEM THAT WAS DISCUSSED RECENTLY WITH THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S POPPED UP A COUPLE OF TIMES ON PROJECTS ALREADY.

SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING SOME SLIGHT MODIFICATION THERE TO ALLOW SOME FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY IN NONRESIDENTIAL SETTINGS ONLY.

THE STANDARDS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS USES TO MAKE THEIR DECISIONS.

THERE ARE CURRENTLY EIGHT STATE LAW.

ACTUALLY, IT'S FIVE.

SEVERAL OF OURS ARE SOMEWHAT OVERLAPPING IN THE ZBA HAS HISTORICALLY STRUGGLED IN TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A COUPLE OF THE STANDARDS, SO WE'VE TRIED TO STREAMLINE THOSE AND GET THEM MORE INTO COMPLIANCE, GET THEM MORE DIRECTLY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAW. THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY THERE WAS A CHANGE MADE TO THE MUPUD ORDINANCE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED A CHANGE AND THEN THE TOWNSHIP BOARD ACTUALLY TOOK IT A

[00:30:02]

WE'RE RECOMMENDING A SERIES OF CHANGES THERE AS SORT OF THE NEW STANDARD FOR WHAT WE EXPECT A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO TO BE SUBMITTED FOR.

THE FRONT YARDS COVERAGE IN THE LAKE LANSING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS SOMETHING THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS STRUGGLED WITH FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS, AND WE'RE TRYING TO. THIS IS SORT OF A FIRST BITE AT THE APPLE ON THAT OVERLAY DISTRICT.

I THINK WE RECOGNIZE THAT SOME LARGE SCALE CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE PATTERNS THAT WE'VE SEEN. BUT THIS IS THE FIRST ONE TO TRY AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE INITIAL CONCERNS ZBA HAS HAD.

AND THEN JUST KIND OF A WEIRD, QUIRKY ONE THAT WE'VE RUN INTO IS THAT TECHNICALLY YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE DECK IN A REAR YARD AND IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE A SLOPED YARD, TECHNICALLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO DECKS IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO JUST CLARIFY THAT SO THAT IT'S PERMITTED.

IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I BELIEVE THE PREVIOUS DIRECTOR HAD A UNIQUE INTERPRETATION WORKAROUND THAT'S ALLOWED IT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CLEAR IT UP. SO IT'S EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS IT IS PERMITTED IF YOU MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

SO THESE ARE SORT OF THE FIRST ROUND OF THINGS.

WE'RE GOING TO GET YOU ANOTHER OUT. WHATEVER OUR NEXT MEETING IS, WE'LL GET YOU ANOTHER ROUND OF THESE AND WE'LL WE'LL START TO KICK THESE OFF TO YOU ON A REGULAR BASIS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS, PLEASE REACH OUT TO ME OFFLINE OR THROUGH EMAIL OR PHONE OR WHATEVER WORKS BEST FOR YOU.

BUT LIKE I SAID, WE'LL BRING THIS FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS I HEAR A GREAT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL UPRISING OVER THEM.

I CAN SAY THAT IT WAS ENCOURAGED BY THE FACT THAT IN MANY CASES, YOU SIMPLIFIED THE LANGUAGE. THAT'S ALWAYS OUR GOAL.

I AGREE WITH THAT. YEAH.

WITH REGARD TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY STANDARDS.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GO, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SELF CONTRADICTORY IN SECTION FIVE, WHERE YOU'RE REQUIRED IF IT'S GOING TO GENERATE BETWEEN 50 AND 99 DIRECTIONAL TRIPS DURING THE PEAK HOUR AND THEN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH BETWEEN TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY AND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY.

AND THERE ARE BOTH CASES THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO YOU MAY WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AND SEE IF WE GET SOME, SOME CONFUSION THERE.

SO FIRST PARAGRAPH IS ACTUALLY A LOWER STANDARD.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY, WELL, IT'S A DIFFERENT STUDY, TOO.

IT'S ACTUALLY A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS BASICALLY LIKE A THREE PAGER.

USUALLY, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS A MUCH MORE DETAILED DOCUMENT.

THANK YOU. OK, I UNDERSTAND.

I HAD A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.

YES. THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE A PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING? CORRECT. IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

WOULD OTHER CONCERNED BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BE EXPECTED TO WEIGH IN AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING? WE WILL BE TAKING THIS TO TRANSPORTATION IN FEBRUARY.

ZONING BOARD APPEALS IN FEBRUARY.

AND THAT'S ALL FOR THIS LIST.

OK, BUT YEAH, AS GENERALLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND DO IS AS WE BRING THESE FORWARD, WE'RE ALSO GOING TO SCHEDULE THEM TO GO TO THE NECESSARY BOARD OR COMMISSION.

THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING THIS TOGETHER AND SIMPLIFYING, AS MENTIONED, I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS OR A LITTLE LANGUAGE DIFFERENCE.

MY THE FIRST ONE.

I WAS WONDERING ABOUT WAS IN THE REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE.

THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SHOULD DETERMINE IT'S THAT ONE.

IT'S NUMBER THREE.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

I WAS WONDERING IF IT MAKES INSTEAD OF PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT. ABSOLUTELY.

AND LET'S SEE.

AND ON THE TRAFFIC, THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE? BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT IS FOR DIRECTION IN ALL TRIPS, WHICH I GATHER IS ONE WAY. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. BETWEEN 50 AND NINETY NINE.

BUT THEN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT IS GENERATING TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MORE.

SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ONES THAT ARE A HUNDRED OR TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY NINE? IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WE'LL.

OK. AND JUST YEAH, SO I SAW THAT THERE IS A GAP THERE, AND I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND THAT IN

[00:35:09]

AND BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF THE SAME HANDBOOK.

SO IT'S JUST REITERATING.

I WOULD I WOULD JUST TO CAPITALIZE ON WHAT SHE JUST SUGGESTED.

I THINK WORDS LIKE REASONABLE AND JUSTICE ARE SO NEBULOUS THAT THEY NEED TO NOT BE USED.

I THINK SOMETHING LIKE ACCEPTED THAT IMPLIES THAT SOMEBODY WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP HAS TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IT? WHO DETERMINES WHAT IS REASONABLE AND HOW DOES A PERSON APPLYING KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS? IN THE SAME WAY THERE ARE VARYING OPINIONS ON JUSTICE.

SO I MEAN, THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE IN TERMS OF USING WORDS THAT ARE, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY REASONABLE THAT ARE THAT CAN BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD AND AND REPRESENTED BY THE TOWNSHIP.

I THINK SOME OF OUR PROBLEMS AT TIMES ARE WE USE VAGUE LANGUAGE THAT THEN CREATES A LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT NEED TO OCCUR IF WE WERE MORE CONCISE.

THAT'S THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION RELATIVE TO ANY CHANGES YOU MAKE IN THE LANGUAGE.

I HAVE MORE, IF I MAY.

I'M SORRY.

I LOOKED AT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT OR IMPACT STUDY MAY BE WAIVED BY THE DIRECTOR. I'M JUST TRYING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

[INAUDIBLE] AS THE EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE IS NOT DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST OR SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF THE SUBJECT SITE.

I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE LIKE A NUMERICAL TIPPING FOR ONE OR THE OTHER, CAN YOU CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT TO LEND ITSELF TO THAT SITUATION? YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? I MEAN, I THINK SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD PROBABLY BE THE BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING ON GRAND RIVER AVENUE.

IF SOMEONE WAS COMING IN PROPOSING A NEW BANK THERE WHERE THERE WAS NO CHANGE TO THE CURB CUTS, NO CHANGE TO THE BUILDING, NO CHANGE TO THE PARKING LOT BECAUSE IT HAS A DRIVE THROUGH REQUIRES A SPECIAL LAND USE.

WE WOULD PROBABLY WAIVE THE TRAFFIC STUDY IN THAT REQUIREMENT.

IT'S THE EXACT SAME USE IN THE EXACT SAME BUILDING, THE EXACT SAME ACCESS POINT, EVEN THOUGH TECHNICALLY ONE WOULD BE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF BANK OF THAT SIZE, WOULD PROBABLY HAVE MORE THAN 50 DIRECTIONAL TRIPS IN A DAY.

SURE. WOULD IT EXCUSE ME FOR SAYING IT? WOULD IT BE REASONABLE THEN TO TO TO STATE THAT KIND OF SCENARIO WHERE IT'S NOT A CHANGE IN USE? YEAH, I DON'T.

I DON'T THINK WE'D WANT TO CODIFY THAT INTO THE ORDINANCE.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WE'RE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S JUST A CIRCUMSTANCE AND THAT'S FRANKLY THE ONLY ONE I CAN COME UP WITH OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

OK, SURE, THAT'S FINE.

I'M SORRY. CAN I BUG YOU ON ONE MORE? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S WONDERFUL.

THIS IS THE LAKE LANSING RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT.

YEP. AND MAYBE IT'S HOW I READ IT.

I SHOULD PROBABLY READ IT AGAIN.

SO ITS MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY COVERAGE A DRIVEWAY SHALL NOT OCCUPY MORE THAN SIXTY FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE FRONT YARD FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS CREATED AND RECORDED PRIOR TO A DATE IN 1960 AND ARE LESS THAN SIXTY FIVE FEET AT THE STRAIGHT STREET LINE.

I JUST RECOMMEND JUST FOR CLARITY SAKE TO AN ARE LESS THAN SIXTY FIVE FEET IN WIDTH TO FOLLOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER RESIDENTIAL LOTS BECAUSE I WAS, IT ALMOST LOOKED LIKE THE DRIVEWAY WAS GOING TO BE SIXTY FIVE FEET WIDE AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENT.

IT'S THE LOT WIDTH.

UNDERSTOOD. AND I THINK THAT'S I THINK IT'S THESE ARE GREAT CHANGES, AND THAT'S THAT'S THE LAST ONE I NOTICED.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL'S QUESTION MADE ME REALIZE I'M NOT CERTAIN HOW A FRONT YARD IS IS

[00:40:05]

IS THAT HOW THE WE UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION OF A FRONT YARD? NO. TYPICALLY, SUBDIVISION COVENANTS HAVE A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN MOST ZONING ORDINANCES, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE SITUATION WITH THE LAKE LANSING RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY.

BECAUSE THE PROBLEM WE FIND IS MOST OF THESE LOTS ARE ACTUALLY ALSO REQUESTING FRONT YARD VARIANCES. AND SO THAT INSTANTLY PUSHES.

WHAT IT DOES IS IT SORT OF SHRINKS THE AREA THAT YOU CAN MAKE THAT CALCULATION OFF OF.

AND SO NOW YOUR FRONT YARD IS FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE THE STREET LINE OR TO THE TO THE YEAH, THE STREET LINE, THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE.

AND SO TYPICALLY, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE HERE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP IS IT'S GOING TO BE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NOT NECESSARILY THE BUILD TO LINE, BECAUSE SOME SUBDIVISIONS HAVE IT PUSHED BACK FURTHER.

ALTHOUGH THEY CAN ALIGN, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY ALIGN.

OK. I'M INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT HOW THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BUILDING LINE AND A FRONT OF THE HOUSE KIND OF THING.

JUST BUT WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE TIME HERE.

YEAH. WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE ONLY THING THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME WAS YOU USED THE PHRASE QUALIFIED TRAFFIC ENGINEER, BUT THERE'S NO DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES QUALIFICATION.

AND I GUESS I'D FOLLOW THAT UP.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LICENSE OR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TRAINING OR CREDENTIALS OR SOMETHING? YEAH.

WE'LL LOOK INTO THAT. YEAH, THAT'S JUST INVITING CONTROVERSY IF YOU DON'T DESCRIBE WHAT THEY HAVE TO QUALIFY AS.

UNDERSTOOD.

SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER SIMPLIFICATION.

THE REFERENCE TO THE MANUAL COULD ACTUALLY FIT AT THE END OF SECTION TWO.

A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT OR IMPACT STUDY MAY BE REQUIRED AS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THIS STANDARD AND THEN IN TWO PARAGRAPHS LATER ON, IT'S ALREADY UNDERSTOOD YOU DON'T NEED TO REPEAT IT.

WHICH MANUAL IS BEING USED.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? GOTCHA. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY IN USE IN SECTION TWO YOU'RE TAKING OUT B THREE, WHICH SAYS ALL OTHER SPECIAL USES THAT ARE REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE FOUR, DIVISION TWO. I DON'T SEE THAT PICKED UP DOWN BELOW IN THE REQUIREMENTS.

IS THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NO LONGER A REQUIREMENT OR SHOULD THAT BE SOMEWHERE TOO? ARE THERE OTHER CASES THAT AREN'T DESCRIBED HERE THAT? NO, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

WE'RE TRYING TO DESCRIBE ALL CASES IN THESE CHANGES.

OK, SO THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT ISN'T DESCRIBED.

OK, SO WE CAN GET RID OF ALL THE EXTRA LANGUAGE.

GOT IT! THANK YOU. HAVE YOU EXPLAINED THAT BEFORE? I APOLOGIZE. NO.

GOOD QUESTION. AND THEN I HAD ONE MORE ON THE ON THE LAKE LANSING PIECE.

I SEE THAT IT SAYS A COVERS THOSE THAT ARE CREATED AND RECORDED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 5TH 1960 AND ARE LESS THAN SIXTY FIVE FEET IN WIDTH AT THE STREET LINE.

AND THEN B IS THOSE THAT ARE GREATER THAN SIXTY FIVE FEET AT THE STREET LINE.

BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE THAT ARE AFTER 1960.

THAT MIGHT BE WIDER THAN THAT, JUST EVERYTHING THAT'S WIDER THAN SIXTY FIVE FEET? THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT'S WIDER. BASICALLY, THE WAY THIS ORDINANCE IS SET UP MORE BROADLY IS THAT SIXTY FIVE FEET APPEARS TO BE SORT OF A TIPPING POINT FOR WHETHER YOU CAN GET SOME ADDITIONAL HELP OR NOT.

SO IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR THOSE THAT ARE LESS THAN SIXTY FIVE FEET BUT BUILT AFTER 1962? THAT SHOULDN'T BE A LEGAL LOT. OK.

GOT IT.

A WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE IT.

SO, THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY NITPICKY QUESTIONS.

NO, THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT THESE FORWARD LIKE THIS.

THAT CLOSES ITEM NINE AND 10 TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.

ACTUALLY DO NOT HAVE AN UPDATE FOR THE BOARD PLANNING COMMISSION, I THINK MET TWO DAYS AFTER THE TOWNSHIP BOARD IN DECEMBER.

AND SO OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER, I BELIEVE THE CALENDAR FELL THAT WAY SO THAT WE WERE THE LAST BOARD TO MEET LAST YEAR.

[00:45:02]

WE HAVE NOT MET THE BRE COMMITTEE HAS NOT MET FOR A WHILE, SO NO REPORT THERE.

SO THERE ARE NONE.

ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE AN ITEM OF 11 NEW APPLICATIONS, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY, ARE

[11. PROJECT UPDATES]

THE ONLY NEW THING THAT WE'VE GOTTEN RECENTLY IS THE TRADER JOE'S SITE PLAN THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW. AND NO APPROVED SITE PLANS THEN.

NOT QUITE. ALMOST.

SO THIS BRINGS US TO ITEM 12, WHICH IS OPEN PUBLIC REMARKS AND WE HAVE NO, WE ARE ON THE AIR. WE ARE.

DO WE KNOW IF ANYBODY IS TRYING TO CALL IN? WE DO NOT HAVE A PHONE LINE THIS EVENING.

SO THEN ABSENT ANY OTHER INFORMATION, I BELIEVE THAT WE'LL CLOSE ITEM 12.

SO WE ARE NOW TO ITEM 13 ADJOURNMENT.

IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE, ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED. AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COULD ONE OF YOU SEND OUT?

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.