Feb 14, 2022 Planning Commission

ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TODAY IS TODAY IS FEBRUARY THE 14TH.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

[00:00:04]

I AM MARK BLUMER, THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMISSION.

I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

LET'S START OFF WITH A ROLL CALL.

DO I WE DO THAT? ALL RIGHT.

ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE PRESENT.

BEFORE WE GO FURTHER, I WANT TO TAKE ONE MINUTE OF PERSONAL TIME HERE.

MOST OF YOU ARE PROBABLY AWARE THAT TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR RON STYKA WAS SEVERELY INJURED LAST WEEK. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE FELL DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS IN HIS HOME.

HE EITHER HAD A HEART ATTACK FIRST AND THEN FELL DOWN THE STAIRS OR FALLING DOWN THE STAIRS CAUSED A HEART ATTACK.

BUT HE IS IN SEVERE MEDICAL DISTRESS IN THE HOSPITAL.

HIS FAMILY DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME IS LIKELY TO BE.

I CAN SAY FROM A PERSONAL NOTE THAT I HAVE KNOWN AND BEEN FRIENDS WITH RON FOR IN EXCESS OF 40 YEARS. YOU COULDN'T FIND A MORE DECENT PERSON IF YOU SET OUT ON AN EXPEDITION TO FIND ONE. AND I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO FOR ALL OF US TO EXPRESS OUR BEST WISHES TO HIS FAMILY AND HOPE FOR THE BEST OUTCOME POSSIBLE FOR MR. STYKA.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC REMARKS.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE THREE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC REMARKS DURING THE COURSE OF THIS MEETING. THERE ARE TWO OPEN PUBLIC PORTIONS WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR US.

THERE IS ALSO GOING TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY DURING THE COURSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE USE PERMITS PORTION OF THE MEETING.

WE ASKED THAT YOU RESTRICT IF YOU CHOOSE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION DURING THAT PORTION OF THE MEETING, THAT YOU RESTRICT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE SUBJECT MATTER THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED AT THE TIME.

I BELIEVE THE STAFF HAS A CARD THAT YOU CAN FILL OUT TO GIVE US YOUR INFORMATION IF YOU WISH TO MAKE A PUBLIC REMARK.

I ASK THAT YOU PROVIDE.

FILL OUT ONE OF THOSE CARDS AND PROVIDE IT TO OUR STAFF IF YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE A PUBLIC REMARK. THE LAST THING I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND IS THAT WHEN YOU DO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION, YOU WOULD NOT BE ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY. YOU BASICALLY BE TALKING TO THE WHOLE BOARD.

SO WE ASK THAT YOU DO NOT EXPECT A SPECIFIC ANSWER FROM A SPECIFIC COMMISSIONER.

JUST ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS TO THE BOARD AND WE WILL TRY TO RESPOND AS APPROPRIATE TO EACH COMMENT. ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, THEN LET'S GO ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE.

FIRST OF ALL, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT ANYBODY IN THE WISHES TO MAKE AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, THEN LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM IN THE AGENDA WE HAVE.

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

SECOND, MS. KORDELL ALL APPROVED ALL OF ALL WHO APPROVED THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSITION.

NONE, THE AGENDA IS APPROVED.

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

IS ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS AS TO THOSE MINUTES? YES, I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 10TH, 2022 TO REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.

SUPPORT. IS THERE ANY COMMENT? ANYONE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE PRIOR MINUTES? ALL RIGHT. CALL FOR A VOTE, THEN ALL THOSE WHO HAVE APPROVE SAY AYE.

AYE. NO OPPOSITION PRIOR MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT. COMMUNICATIONS, I DON'T RECALL, ARE THERE ANY YOU JUST THAT WE DID RECEIVE A COMMUNICATION LATE THIS AFTERNOON, LATE THIS AFTERNOON FROM [INAUDIBLE] COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO ITEM SEVEN B, A COPY OF THAT LETTER HAS BEEN PLACED AT EACH OF YOUR TABLES. BE HAPPY TO SPEAK TO IT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

HERE, ANY OTHER ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS?

[7A. Special Use Permit – 22-011 – Meridian Company, vacant M-78 property – Building greater than 25,000 square feet]

FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE ITEM SEVEN A, WHICH IS SPECIAL UNIT SPECIAL USE PERMIT 22-011.

THAT IS THE MERIDIAN COMPANY DEALING WITH VACANT M78 PROPERTY, AND THE PETITION IS TO

[00:05:05]

MR. SCHMIDT. THANK YOU ALL.

SO THE REQUEST, APPARENTLY THIS EVENING, IS FROM M&J MANAGEMENT, THE OWNERS OF MERIDIAN COMPANY BUILDING THE PROPERTIES ON THE SCREEN.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE AREA IN THE DARK BLACK IS THE EXISTING BUILDING.

IF YOU GO OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE BURSTING AT THE SEAMS AND NEED A NEW BUILDING, SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD TO CLOSER TO WHERE THE ENTRANCE IS OFF OF M78.

THEY ORIGINALLY PROPOSED A BUILDING OF TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SQUARE FEET IN ORDER TO GO THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS ONLY, BUT DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE BEST BE SERVED SIMPLY BY PUTTING THE MEZZANINE IN THE THEATER ORIGINALLY PLANNED AND GOING TO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING, WHICH IS JUST OVER THIRTY ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

OVERALL, THE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS.

THERE ARE NO IMPACTS PROPOSED TO WETLANDS OR THE EXISTING NATURAL FEATURES CORRIDOR, AND WE'VE RAISED NO MAJOR CONCERNS AT THIS POINT.

THIS IS THE KIND OF PROJECT THAT WE WOULD ALMOST APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVELY IF IT WAS UNDER THAT TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

AND SO WE HAVE WE'VE RAISED NO CONCERNS AND AT THIS TIME WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO CHOOSES.

I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER, AND THEY HAVE PROVIDED EXTENSIVE RENDERINGS IN THE PACKET, WHICH I WAS GOING TO BE ALL FANCY AND PULL UP.

HERE WE GO. BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THIS PROJECT FURTHER WITH ANYONE THAT HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

IS THERE ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION WHO HAS QUESTIONS? IS THERE SOMEONE FROM MERIDIAN WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD? GOOD EVENING TO YOU ALL.

JIM FILIPIC, 5823 WOOD VALLEY DRIVE IN HASLETT.

TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS FOR THIRTY FIVE YEARS AND TOWNSHIP ENTREPRENEUR FOR THIRTY SEVEN AND ESSENTIALLY, LIKE TIM REFERENCED, YOU NEED A LARGER SHOEBOX FOR THE SCOPE OF OUR OPERATIONS AFTER THIRTY SEVEN YEARS OF BUSINESS.

AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A VERY BENEFICIAL ADDITION TO THAT STRETCH OF THE TOWNSHIP SAGINAW CORRIDOR STREET.

AND THAT BEING SAID, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR INQUIRIES ANY OF YOU MIGHT HAVE. I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. SMITH IF I COULD.

SO LOOKING AT THE RENDERING OF THE MAP ON THE PACKET AND THE ONE THAT WAS UP HERE ON THE SCREEN A MOMENT AGO. IT APPEARED AS THOUGH THIS PROPERTY HAS GONE, UNDERGONE A DIVISION AT ONE TIME TO SEGMENT OFF THE PARCEL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS EVENING.

IT WAS AT ONE TIME A PIECE OF THE OTHER PARCEL TO THE SOUTH AND EAST, I GUESS.

IS THAT CORRECT? SOUTHERN WEST.

IT WAS ONE POINT.

IT'S BEEN SOME TIME.

2018. YEAH, IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS, COUPLE OF YEARS.

SO MY QUESTION IS THIS THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY CONNECTION TO SAGINAW FROM THE LARGER PARCEL THAT THIS THAT IS ALSO OWNED BY MERIDIAN.

IS THAT ACCURATE, CORRECT? THERE'S NOT A SEPARATE CURB CUT.

OK. I'M WONDERING, YOU KNOW, IF THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CONSIDERATION GIVEN SOMEHOW TO THAT AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT WE THAT THERE BE A PROVISION INCLUDED TO REQUIRE AN AGREEMENT OR OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.

SO THAT SHOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, THE LARGER PARCEL TO THE SOUTH EVER CHANGE HANDS THIS NOT BE AN ISSUE FOR FUTURE LANDOWNERS.

YEAH, IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WILL REQUIRE TIME OF SITE PLAN.

THEY'LL NEED TO PROVIDE US WITH ALL THE EASEMENTS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THIS PROJECT, AND ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE ACROSS ACCESS EASEMENT IN THE EVENT OF A POTENTIAL FUTURE SET.

OK, SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO TAKE ON AT THIS TIME.

NO, THAT'S A PRETTY STANDARD EASEMENT WE COLLECT TOWARDS THE END OF THE PROCESS.

OK, THANK YOU.

THEN I'LL SIMPLY SAY THAT I LIKE THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THE PROJECT.

I THINK IT FITS IN WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE PARCEL AND THE OTHER PARCEL, WHICH OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE GOING FOR.

AND I WAS VERY PLEASED TO SEE HOW YOU WERE ABLE TO FIT THIS BUILDING IN WITHOUT DAMAGING ANY OF THE SURROUNDING WETLANDS AND NATURAL AREAS.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU.

[00:10:02]

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL FIRST [INAUDIBLE] YEAH, THANKS.

JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION WHEN I WAS READING THROUGH THE WETLANDS REPORT FROM MARK'S WETLAND. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE BEFORE THE SPLIT, SO IT'S REFERENCING CONSTRUCTION DIRECTLY EAST.

BUT IN FACT, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS KIND OF NORTHEAST.

IS THAT RIGHT? THAT THE WETLAND DELINEATION HAPPENED FOR A LARGER AREA? AND THEN NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SMALLER PARCEL.

THE WETLAND DELINEATION, I BELIEVE, WAS CONDUCTED IN TWENTY NINETEEN, I THINK TWENTY NINETEEN, OK.

SUBSEQUENT TO THE REZONING APPROVAL, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS NOVEMBER OF 18.

BUT MY RECOLLECTION WAS IS THAT THE WETLAND SURVEY CONVICTED BY MARKS ENCOMPASS THE ENTIRE 15 PLUS OR MINUS ACRE PARCEL, AND WE SUBSEQUENTLY FORWARDED THAT TO THE TOWNSHIP FOR VERIFICATION FROM THE TOWNSHIP'S WETLAND CONSULTANT.

THAT WAS ALL JUST BEFORE COVID, AS I RECALL.

AND IT SEEMS THAT A VERY EXTENSIVE TREE INVENTORY WAS ALSO DONE AT THAT TIME, WHICH IS REALLY NICE TO SEE THAT THERE'S THAT KIND OF CONSIDERATION FOR WHAT TREES ARE ON THE SITE AND WHICH ONES HAVE VALUE.

SO I DON'T THINK WE REQUIRE THAT, BUT IT'S NICE TO SEE THAT EXTRA EFFORT.

WELL, I GUESS IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT BEFORE WE STARTED DOING ANY SITE CLEARING OR WHATEVER THAT WHAT IS TIM A NATURAL FEATURES, A SURVEY OR ASSESSMENT? THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION WHEN THIS WAS POTENTIALLY GOING THROUGH JUST THE SITE OVERLAND RELATED PROCESS OF GOING INTO THE LAND CLEARING PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE.

AND UNDER THAT PROVISION, WE WOULD EXPECT THE FULL ASSESSMENT OF EVERYTHING ON THE PROPERTY. SO THAT'S WHERE THAT CAME OUT OF.

THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU.

SPEAKING OF TREES, I WAS INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPING PROPOSED.

COULD WE HAVE THAT ON OUR SCREEN? NOT AT ALL. IT'S JUST GREEN FIELDS TO THE HORIZON.

WELL, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT WITH ALL THE METAL AND GLASS, WE COULD USE SOME TREES UP BY THE BUILDING AND LOOKING AT THE PLANS.

I WAS INTERESTED TO KNOW OF OF THOSE GOOD SPECIMENS OF VALUABLE TREES, WHAT ARE BEING PRESERVED ON THE SITE.

SO GENERALLY GENERALLY.

OOPS. THERE YOU GO.

NOW YOUR QUESTION. GENERALLY, EVERYTHING ON THIS PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS BEING PRESERVED BECAUSE THIS IS ALSO WHERE THE WETLANDS ARE LOCATED.

SO IT'S OUTSIDE THE GRADING LIMITS.

THEY'RE GENERALLY PRESERVING IT.

THEY'RE NOT REMOVING ANYTHING THAT'S OUT OF THAT AREA.

AND AND IN THIS AREA, THAT'S CORRECT.

THIS IS DETENTION.

SO THIS WILL BE GRADED, BUT GENERALLY ANYTHING THAT'S WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WETLAND IS NOT BEING TOUCHED.

OK. BUT IN TERMS OF BY THE BUILDING AND IN THE PARKING LOT, I'D LIKE TO SEE BEEFED UP LANDSCAPING AND TREES, ESPECIALLY BY THAT GLASS AND METAL ELEVATION, BECAUSE THAT WILL HELP COOL THE BUILDING IN THE SUMMER.

CERTAINLY, WE HAVE NOT DONE A FULL INVENTORY OF THE LANDSCAPING BECAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW.

WE WILL DO THAT ONCE WE GET TO SITE PLAN, SO WE'LL TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

OK, THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, I BELIEVE AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE HEARD AN UPDATE IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE REAL ESTATE MARKET.

AND IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, INDUSTRIAL WAS FULL IN THE WHOLE AREA.

AND SO THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL PIECE OF LAND.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S ADDING INDUSTRIAL SPACE.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, THERE'S NOT A GLUT OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE AVAILABLE IN THE WHOLE LANSING AREA.

SO I THINK THAT BEING, YOU KNOW, HAVING A BUILDING LARGER THAN 25000 SQUARE FEET THERE MAKES SENSE. THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE, SIR, IS THERE IS A PREEXISTING OFFICE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY, DO YOU HAVE PLANS FOR THAT? WILL IT STAY OR ARE YOU GOING TO TEAR THAT DOWN? OH NO. OH NO.

UPON RIBBON CUTTING CEREMONY INTO THE NEW FACILITY, MY BROTHER MARTY AND I INTEND ON CONTINUING OUR ROLE AS LANDLORDS AND SUBLETTING THAT OUT TO A INDUSTRIAL USE COMPLIANT ENTITY TO BE DETERMINED.

WE HAVEN'T SIGNED A LISTING AGREEMENT YET BECAUSE IT'S STILL TOO FAR OFF.

OK. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

[00:15:03]

I WILL. YEAH.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? WE'VE HAD SOME ALREADY.

BUT IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS AS TO THIS PROPOSAL? NOTHING. I THINK I'M READY TO MOVE APPROVAL.

YOU WANT TO WAIVE THE RULES AND GO STRAIGHT TO APPROVAL.

I DON'T SEE WHY NOT.

I DON'T I DON'T HEAR ANY MAJOR OBJECTIONS AND IT MAKES SENSE TO ME SO.

LET'S TAKE A PRELIMINARY VOTE, THEN ON THE ISSUE OF WAIVING THE RULES AND GOING TO AN IMMEDIATE FINAL VOTE, YES, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE MOVED TO THE SECOND IN THE FOUR WEEK BEFORE TO DO THAT. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE THAT WE WAIVE PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAW 6.4B FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSIDERATION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM THIS EVENING, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. PREMOE. ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR OF WAITING. YES, I GUESS I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT, IS THERE A NEED TO EXPEDITE THIS PROJECT AT THIS POINT? WELL, OUR SITE PLAN IS CURRENTLY OUT AT THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, AND MASON HAS BEEN OUT THERE FOR TWO MONTHS, ALMOST TWO MONTHS.

WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING AN EXPEDITIOUS IT COULD BE ROUNDING THIRD HEAD OF HER HAUL, BUT WE'RE NOT SURE OF THAT. SO IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, YOU KNOW, THE ADDITIONAL TWO WEEKS WOULD BE A HELPFUL BUFFER.

WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ALONG OTHER FRONTS.

OK. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE THERE, YOU SAY IT WOULD BE A BUFFER IF WE PROVE IT TONIGHT. THIS IS WHAT YOU'D LIKE OR DON'T YOU CARE? WELL, WE WOULD. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TO PROVE IT TODAY BECAUSE I COULD.

BEGINNING TOMORROW MORNING, I CAN TURN MY ATTENTIONS.

I CAN KIND OF LIKE RATCHET UP TO THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO ENSURE WE HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY MORNING. OK. LET ME SAY THAT THAT I MAKE THE MOTION BECAUSE I WAS A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND I UNDERSTAND HIS ISSUES.

AND IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY MAJOR OBJECTIONS AND THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO MOVE FORWARD, THAT DOES GIVE HIM SOME LEEWAY TO MOVE FORWARD IN WAYS THAT HE PROBABLY IS ANXIOUS TO DO.

AND THAT'S WHY, FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT, I RAISED THAT ISSUE.

WE'VE BEEN APPRIZED ON MULTIPLE POINTS THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS FROM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, ANTICIPATE DELAYS IN THIS AND DELAYS IN THAT, AND ARGUING THOSE TIMELINES ARE SHORTENING. BUT THEY CERTAINLY WEREN'T APPARENT THREE YEARS AGO.

AND JUST TO TO POINT OUT TO FOR THE APPLICANT AND FOR EVERYONE HERE, JUST WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE. OF COURSE, THIS PARTICULAR SPECIAL USE PERMIT WHILE WE WILL GO TO THE BOARD FOR THEIR FINAL APPROVAL AS WELL.

EXACTLY. SO WE'RE TAKING SEVERAL MEETINGS, HOPEFULLY AND CONDENSING IT DOWN TO SEVEN MEMBER. UNDERSTOOD. SO THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION WOULD DO.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IN MY READING OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT HERE, THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION FROM ANY PARTY THAT REVIEWED THIS.

CORRECT. AND STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF IT.

CORRECT. ALL RIGHT.

SO FIRST, WE HAVE A VOTE ON WAIVING THE RULES AND GOING TO AN IMMEDIATE APPROVAL.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF WAIVING THE RULES SAY AYE.

AYE. NO OPPOSITION.

ALL RIGHT. NOW IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PETITION? I MOVED TO APPROVE.

SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BEFORE WE VOTE? ALL RIGHT. I ASSUME WHAT THE MOTION ACTUALLY IS TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION THAT IS IN THE FOLDER, CORRECT? YES. YES. TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION IS SUBMITTED, WHICH DOES HAVE SOME CAVEATS AND SOME REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE STANDARD.

BUT OK.

ROLL CALL. ALL RIGHT.

SO THE THE PETITION IS AS SUBMITTED BY THE STAFF, WILL BE APPROVED.

AND YOU'RE ALL SET, SIR. THANK YOU.

I'D LIKE TO CONVEY OUR COLLECTIVE APPRECIATION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR THIS MATTER.

THANK YOU. WELL, THANK YOU, TIM AS WELL.

IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY HANDSOME BUILDING OUT THERE.

IT'S GOING TO BE NICE. SO I SAID, ALL

[7B. Special Use Permit – 22-021 – Silverleaf PUD Development, vacant Bennett Road property – Floodplain fill]

[00:20:07]

WE SORRY, YOU'RE ACTUALLY.

LET'S SEE THE NETWORK.

IS THAT BETTER? CAN YOU HEAR THAT? OK? OK. ALL RIGHT.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE ARE NOW ADDRESSING ITEM SEVEN B.

THE TIME IS TWENTY FIVE AFTER SEVEN.

AND THIS WILL BE A TIME FOR STAFF PRESENTATION ON THIS ISSUE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BENNETT ROAD HOLDING HAS SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS SILVER LEAF.

IT IS FOR THE FIRST THREE PHASES.

THEY ARE NOT CHANGED THE LAYOUT OF THE PUD, NOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

BUT NOW THAT THEY'RE AT SITE PLAN, THERE'S SOME SPECIFICS AND ONE OF THOSE SPECIFICS IS DRAINAGE BASIN THREE.

DRAINAGE BASIN THREE HAS A TWENTY SEVEN INCH STORM PIPE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AND IT IS CROSSING TWO FLOOD PLAINS.

SO THEREFORE THE THEY REQUIRE PERMISSION FROM THE TOWNSHIP IN THE FORM OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THE FLOOD PLAIN CROSSING HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES AND ENERGY, AND YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT PERMIT IN YOUR PACKET. IN THAT PERMIT SAID THEY SAW NO IMPACT TO ANY PROTECTED WETLANDS.

OUR WETLAND CONSULTANT, SAID THE SAME THING VIA EMAIL ON DECEMBER 9TH.

THE PLAN, AS SUBMITTED, WOULD REQUIRE THE EXCAVATION OF A LITTLE OVER FOURTEEN THOUSAND CUBIC YARDS OF FILL, THE INSTALLATION OF A TWENTY SEVEN INCH STORM PIPE AND REPLACEMENT OF 29 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL INTO THE INTO THE RESPECTIVE FLOODPLAINS.

AT THE END OF THE PROJECT, THE CONTOURS REMAIN THE SAME.

THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE THE LANDSCAPE OUT THERE.

THE COMPENSATING CUT THEREFORE ENSURES NO LOSS OF IMPOUNDMENT CAPACITY IN THE FLOODWAY FRINGE BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED BECAUSE WE'RE IN SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR VARIOUS REASONS. WE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU HAVE IN THERE, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS.

YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHEN THEIR CONSTRUCTION START DATE.

THEY'RE THINKING...

THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE THIS EVENING AND CAN SPEAK TO THAT, I BELIEVE. ALAN PATRICK WITH KEBS INC.

2116 HASLETT ROAD.

I'M THE ENGINEER WITH CABS AND THE DEVELOPERS TOLD US THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO GO THIS SUMMER. THEY WOULD HOPE TO START CONSTRUCTION IN JUNE.

WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN, BUT I THINK SOMETIME THIS SUMMER IS THE BEST TARGET.

THANK YOU. I JUST HAD A QUESTION OF NOT HAVING BEEN ABLE TO DIGEST THIS LETTER FROM THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER.

RIGHT.

SHARKEY, COULD YOU KIND OF EXPLAIN A LITTLE MORE? SO I'LL ACTUALLY STEP IN SINCE I JUST GAVE THIS TO HIM ABOUT 20 MINUTES AGO.

OK, YEAH, I GOT IT ABOUT 10 TO 5:00 THIS AFTERNOON, SO I SPENT SOME TIME READING IN THE AFTERNOON. THE LETTER SAYS THE PROJECT IS STILL UNDER REVIEW.

OK? AND THIS IS ESSENTIALLY AN INTERIM STEP IN THE PROCESS.

SO MY POLICY AND MY PREDECESSOR MAY HAVE TREATED THIS DIFFERENTLY, BUT MY POLICY IS GENERALLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE STATE APPROVAL BEFORE WE'RE EVEN WILLING TO CONSIDER IT.

SO THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THE EAGLE PERMIT IN THE PACKET.

[00:25:01]

SO WE'RE SORT OF THE MIDDLE STEP.

AND SINCE NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED FROM A SITE PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S WHY WE WERE COMFORTABLE BRINGING IN WITH WITH EAGLE, BUT WITHOUT THE DRAIN.

SO THIS LETTER BASICALLY SAYS DRAIN OFFICE IS AWARE OF CONCERNS RAISED BY NEIGHBORS.

IT'S BEEN STUDIED. THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF STUDYING IT BECAUSE THERE WAS A PETITION FILED BACK IN 2020 BY THE HOMEOWNERS OF CHAMPION WOODS.

AND SO WORK IS ACTIVELY OCCURRING ON RESOLVING THE ISSUES THAT EXIST NOW, OK? THEIR REVIEW OF THIS IN THE FUTURE WILL OBVIOUSLY BE TO ENSURE THAT THIS PROJECT DOES NOT CAUSE ISSUES GOING FORWARD.

SURE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY HOUSES CORRECT, BUT THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD BY ANY MEANS JUST IMPROVE THE CAPABILITIES OF HANDLING STORMWATER.

CORRECT. I WOULD NOT SAY I WOULD NOT SAY THAT.

WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE CONTROL OF ITS STORMWATER, UNLIKE OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT PREVIOUSLY THAT DON'T HAVE BASINS.

YOU'LL NOTE IN THE SITE PLAN, I BELIEVE THERE ARE SEVEN BASINS OR FOUR BAYS PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT. AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GETTING TO MODERN STANDARDS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. AND SO THEY'LL BE CONTROLLING THEIRS.

BUT THERE HAS TO BE AN OUTLET SOMEWHERE, AND THAT'S WHERE THIS PIPE COMES INTO PLAY.

OH, TO HANDLE A GREATER AREA, THERE HAS TO BE AN EVENTUAL PLACE FOR THE WATER TO GO, AND THAT'S WHERE THIS PIPE COMES INTO PLAY.

OK, THANK YOU.

SO WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE? I NOTICE IN THE RESOLUTION IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A CONDITION THAT THE DAM COUNTY DRAIN OFFICE PROVIDE APPROVAL FOR THIS ACTION.

SEEMS LIKE THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE REQUIRING IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW.

IT IS TYPICALLY A SITE PLAN APPROVAL, BUT I'M NOT, I DON'T THINK WE'D OPPOSE WRITING THAT INTO THE RESOLUTION THAT'S APPROPRIATE, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT WE HAVE A LETTER COMMUNICATION FROM COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

YEAH, MY CONCERN HERE IS BY PROVIDING A SINGLE OUTLET DRAIN FROM THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT, YOU'RE GOING TO TAX THE ABILITY OF THE COUNTY DRAINS TO HANDLE AN INFLUX IN A QUICKER TIME THAN MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE CASE WHERE WE'RE ALL GROUND COVERED.

SO I THINK UNTIL THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER HAS ALL OF THE FACTORS WHICH WOULD INCLUDE APPROVAL OF THIS DRAIN PROJECT IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, HE CANNOT ASSESS WHAT THE NEEDS ARE FOR THE COMMUNITY DRAIN THAT HE'S 2020.

SO UNTIL HE KNOWS WHAT ALL THE FACTORS ARE, HE CAN'T ENGINEER THAT.

SO I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO APPROVE THIS AT THIS TIME.

EVERYTHING WOULD BE CONTINGENT ON THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER ALLOWING THE HOOKUP TO THE COUNTY DRAIN ANYWAY, SO THAT WOULD BE FACTORED IN AT THAT TIME.

I WOULD AGREE I TEND TO, YOU KNOW, I'M NEW TO COUNTY DRAINS AND COUNTY ROADS, AND I'VE HISTORICALLY TOLD PEOPLE THAT THE COUNTY IS, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO GET ROADS AND DRAINS APPROVAL AND EVEN MORE SO IN THIS PROJECT.

I MEAN, FUNDAMENTALLY, THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE WILL HAVE FINAL SAY ON THIS PROJECT, RIGHT IN THE END.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. WELL, JUST FOR THE PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME, THIS MAP HAS NORTH TO THE RIGHT. THAT IS CORRECT AND BENNETT ROAD ON THE LEFT EDGE.

SO THIS IS KIND OF THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WRAPPING UP AROUND TO THE NORTH, RIGHT? WITHOUT THE ROADS IN THE NORTH, IT TOOK ME A LITTLE WHILE TO ORIENT MYSELF, BUT I UNDERSTAND IT AT THIS POINT. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

IT'S TO THE RIGHT. YEAH, WELL.

YEAH, GO AHEAD.

I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE ENGINEER.

BUT IT'S IT'S BETWEEN.

YOU CAN READ THE LOT NUMBERS, BUT BETWEEN 17, 18, 20 HERE, A.J., CAN YOU SAY IT AGAIN SPECIFICALLY? RE-ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

[00:30:02]

IT GOES BETWEEN THE GAPS THAT ARE IN THE LOT ACROSS THE ROAD.

THE PIPE GOES THROUGH THERE THROUGH THE FLOOD PLAIN BEHIND LOT THIRTY NINE AND 40 AND THEN ULTIMATELY OUTLETS INTO THE FLOODPLAIN.

THAT WOULD BE UPPER RIGHT OF THAT LOT 40.

DOES THAT CURSOR WORK ON THAT LAPTOP.

I CAN SEE THE CURSOR ON THE SCREEN.

I HAVE HERE.

YEAH, YOU GO.

THERE YOU GO. WE'RE JUST PUSHING TIM IN ALL THE TECHNOLOGICAL DIRECTIONS TONIGHT, AND THEY'LL KNOW IT GOES RIGHT HERE.

DISCHARGES FOR THREE DAYS BETWEEN SEVENTEEN AND SIXTY NINE, EIGHTEEN AND OR SIXTEEN AND TWENTY EIGHT. THIS IS MAYBERRY NUMBERING.

I LOVE IT WHEN THEY DO THIS TO ME.

YEAH. AND THEN GOES BEHIND THIRTY NINE AND FORTY TO ABOUT RIGHT THERE.

OH, OK. AND LET ME ECHO WHAT YOU SAY THAT THAT AGAIN, HAVING BEEN A CONTRACTOR AND ALSO A MANAGER OF PROJECTS, INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN IS VERY EFFICIENT AND ALSO VERY COGNIZANT OF WETLAND AND DRAINAGE ISSUES.

AND I THINK THAT IF ULTIMATELY THEIR APPROVAL IS WELL AND YOU KNOW, WHATEVER SUGGESTIONS THEY HAVE FOR DESIGN THAT WE CAN TRUST, IT'LL BE DONE RIGHT.

AND SO IN MY MIND, THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO HOLD UP THE PROCESS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'VE BEEN UNCLEAR PREVIOUSLY, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE HOLD ANYTHING UP.

I'M MERELY SUGGESTING THAT WE INCLUDE THE PROVISION THAT THE KIND OF DRAIN OFFICE ISSUE THEIR APPROVAL FOR APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

I'M NOT SAYING WE WAIT ON ANY ACTION.

WE CAN INCLUDE THAT AS A CONDITION AS WE'VE DONE BEFORE.

ABSOLUTELY. I HAVE ONE QUICK.

I'M A LAWYER, NOT A MATHEMATICIAN.

I'M A RECOVERING LAWYER, ACTUALLY.

YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE FOURTEEN THOUSAND CUBIC YARDS OF FILL AND REPLACE TWENTY NINE HUNDRED CUBIC YARDS AND NOT CHANGE THE CONTOUR.

YOU'RE MISSING ABOUT TWELVE THOUSAND CUBIC YARDS.

WHERE DOES IT GO? I MEAN, HOW CAN YOU NOT BE CHANGING THE CONTOUR? 27 INCH PIPE.

YEAH. WOW.

IT TAKES UP THAT MUCH, THAT MUCH FILL.

I WOULDN'T HAVE GUESSED THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I ACTUALLY DID A LITTLE BIT OF QUICK MATH ON IT, AND IT WORKS OUT ROUGHLY.

OK. COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

YEAH, THAT'S GOOD.

OH, I WAS EVEN THINKING WHAT THEY CALLED THE IMPOUNDMENT AREA, WHICH I GATHER.

THAT'S THE CAPACITY FOR WATER THAT CAN BE HELD.

YES. SEE, I USE THOSE NUMBERS AND THOUGHT THAT THE CAPACITY THE IMPOUNDMENT AREA WAS GREATER. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THAT FILL THAT THEY PULLED OUT AND PUT BACK ONLY ONE TENTH OF IT AND STILL DIDN'T CHANGE THE CONTOUR? YEAH. OK. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? YES. THIS IS JUST FOR MY CURIOSITY SAKE.

I NOTICED THAT THERE'S AN ELEVATION LISTED FOR THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN FOR BASIN FOUR HERE. WHAT IS THE ELEVATION OF BASIN THREE? WONDERFUL QUESTION.

YOU COULDN'T HEAR ME. I'M SORRY.

I WAS ASKING WHAT THE ELEVATION OF BASIN THREE WAS.

YEAH. THE MS..

YEAH, I HEAR YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE FROM THE COMMISSION? IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY ON THIS ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE? THE HIGH WATER ELEVATION OF THAT POND IS 85223.

WITH AN OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE, AND THEN IT HAS AN ESTABLISHED FREE BOARD OF ANOTHER

[00:35:04]

SO IF FOR SOME REASON BASIN THREE THE OUTLET GETS BLOCKED, IT IS ABLE TO OVERFLOW INTO A TWENTY FOUR INCH PIPE THAT OUTLETS BEFORE IT GETS TO THE FLOOD PLAIN.

IT WOULD GO PARALLEL TO THE MAIN OUTLET PIPE, BUT STILL BETWEEN LOTS SEVENTEEN AND SIXTY NINE SIXTEEN AND TWENTY EIGHT EIGHT FIFTY REMAINS.

THANK YOU, SIR.

DID YOU HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS QUESTION? WHY DON'T YOU GO UP TO THE PODIUM AND TELL US WHO YOU ARE, SIR? NORMAN GREENMAN, 2628 CREEK STONE TRAIL IN WOODS AT HERON CREEK CLOSE TO THIS DEVELOPMENT . DOES THE PIPE ACTUALLY DISCHARGE INTO HERON CREEK OR DOES IT DISCHARGE INTO THE FLOODPLAIN ITSELF, INTO THE FLOODPLAIN? SO THEN THERE IS A LEVEL SPREADER AT THE OUTLET THAT'S BUILT TO REDUCE THE VELOCITY OF THE FLOW THAT'S OUT TO GET IT BACK TO A SHEET ATTRACTED TO THE.

I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.

THE OUTLET PIPE HAS A LEVEL SPREADER THAT'S DESIGNED TO SLOW THE WATER DOWN, POOL UP AND THEN OVERFLOW IN A NON CORROSIVE SHEEP FLOW BEFORE IT GOES INTO THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE WETLAND SO THAT WE'RE NOT USING A TWENTY SEVEN INCH PIPE FULL OF WATER, JUST PUMPING DIRECTLY OUT AND DISCHARGE, IT'S GOING TO GET BACK TO ITS NATURAL STATE OF FLOW.

AND HOW FAR IS THIS, SO IT'LL DISCHARGE IN HERE, SO IT'S JUST WAY OVER THERE.

YEAH. THE PIPE IS GOING TO COME FROM THE POND I'M USING, I'M USING THE CURSOR ON THE MAP.

NOW HE'S ASKING WHERE THE PIPE IS GOING TO DISCHARGE.

IT'S GOING TO COME ACROSS THESE LOTS THROUGH HERE AND THEN DISCHARGE IN THIS AREA.

AND HERON CREEK IS JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN TO THE NORTH.

OK, THANK YOU. SURE.

GO AHEAD. PICK ONE MORE A LITTLE BIT.

LET ME HAVE COMMISSIONER CORDILL FIRST.

OH, I JUST HAD A QUESTION KIND OF LOOKING AT IT.

IF IT DISCHARGES TO THE NORTH, CORRECT, WHICH IN THIS DIAGRAM, IT'S TO THE RIGHT IS THAT TOWARDS THE LAND THAT WILL BE DEDICATED AS A PARK? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WE SEE A PARTICULAR SEGMENT OF THE PROJECT, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE MORE OF A MACRO LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON IN TERMS OF NEIGHBORING LAND USE.

THE THE PART THE TWENTY TWO ACRES THAT'S BEING CONVEYED TO THE TOWNSHIP IS A LITTLE BIT TO THE NORTHEAST. SO AS YOU'RE LOOKING NORTH ME INTO THE RIGHT, IT WOULD BE LIKE AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT. AND THEN THE FLOW OF THE STORM PIPE GOES LIKE TO THE TOP RIGHT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IS IT TOWARDS HOMES OR IT'S IT'S GOING TO THE NORTHWEST AWAY FROM SOFIA WAY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST? I SEE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND AND THE THE ELEVATIONS WOULD.

I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE LIKE IMPACT OR OR NO IMPACT TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, I GUESS, IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GRAPPLE WITH.

I'LL LEAVE THAT. ALL THE DISCHARGES ARE GOING INTO THE FLOODPLAIN OF WETLANDS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO HERON CREEK AND NOT TO TOWARDS THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS.

OK, OK, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL YEAH.

JUST TO HOLD ON, SIR.

AGAIN, NORM GRANAMAN 2628 CREEKSTONE TRAIL.

SO I THINK IT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

I DO WONDER IF THE PART WHERE IT DISCHARGES IS NOT AT LEAST CONNECTED TO THE TOWNSHIP PROPERTY, IF NOT PART OF IT.

RIGHT? DO YOU KNOW IS NOT? IT IS NOT. IT IS NOT.

BUT IT'S ADJACENT TO IT, RIGHT? IT IS NOT. IT IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO THE GOLF COURSE THAN IT IS TO THE TOWNSHIP PROPERTY.

OK, SO THERE'S A PORTION WHERE THE EXISTING TOWNSHIP PROPERTY STARTS TO RISE PRETTY SHARPLY AND IT DISCHARGES BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT RIGHT? IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, BEFORE, YES.

OK, THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, YOU HAD A COMMENT? YEAH, JUST A LITTLE NOTE OF CLARIFICATION ON THE MEMO FROM THE CHIEF ENGINEER.

THERE'S REFERENCE TO THE PATHWAY AND SIDEWALKS.

YES, WHICH ISN'T REALLY PART OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, BUT I'M VERY INTERESTED IN THAT.

[00:40:01]

THE PATHWAY SHALL BE AT LEAST ONE FOOT WIDE AND LOCATED WITHIN 15, WHO I'M PRETTY SURE THAT MEANS 10 FEET JUST FOR, YOU KNOW, DOTTING I'S AND CROSSING T'S.

I WILL POINT THAT OUT. I SAW THE SAME THING THAT HIGHLIGHTED.

THANK YOU. YEAH, ACTUALLY, YOU GUYS ACTUALLY SEEING A LITTLE BIT BEHIND THE CURTAIN HERE AND THAT THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD GET FOR CYCLING INTERVIEW IS GETTING INTO THESE TECHNICAL DETAILS FROM ENGINEERING.

AND GIVEN THAT IT WAS SOMEWHAT RELATED TO THE FLOODPLAIN ISSUE, WE DECIDED TO INCLUDE IT.

IN FACT, ISD. BUT WE'LL WE'LL LET YOU HONEST NOW.

SO AT THIS POINT, ARE THERE ANY MOTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

YOU HAVE. I WAS ASKING IF THERE WERE ANY EMOTIONS ON THIS ISSUE OR DISCUSSION OR FURTHER DISCUSSION. ARMY APPROVAL, IMMEDIATE APPROVAL.

OH, IT'S NORMAL.

WOULD BE TWO WEEKS FROM NOW.

YEAH, I I.

EXCUSE ME, AND I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE ASKING FOR.

NO. OK.

ALL RIGHT. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT HE'S PROPOSING.

I THINK IT MAKES GOOD CONSTRUCTION SENSE AND AND I THINK IT IT IT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO BE DESIGNED, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF INGHAM COUNTY OVERSEEING IT IN A WAY THAT WILL IMPROVE THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT.

SO. CAN SAY I'VE LIVED IN THIS COMMUNITY LONG ENOUGH, I USED TO GO PHEASANT HUNTING OUT THERE AND YOU'RE TAKING OUT MY PHEASANT HUNTING.

ALL RIGHT, THEN I THINK IT'S TIME FOR A STRAW VOTE ON THIS ISSUE.

THEN ALL THOSE WHO WISH TO SHOW SUPPORT.

DO WE JUST. IS IT A REAL COASTER? ALL RIGHT. LET'S DO IT THAT WAY THEN.

ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S TAKE IT THIS WAY.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL YES, I WOULD SUPPORT IT.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER YES.

BOARD COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

YES. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY YES, THAT'S BOARD COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

YES. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS YES, COMMISSIONER HENDRICKSON, I WOULD SUPPORT IT WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE HAD THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT EARLIER RELATING TO APPROVAL FROM THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER TREZISE SUPPORTED THAT.

I THINK TO CLARIFY WHAT MR. HENDRICKSON SAID, I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD BE APPROVED, BUT THE SITE FRAME WOULD BE REQUIRING DRAIN COMMISSIONER APPROVAL.

YEAH. AND I, FROM THE CHAIR VOTE THE SAME WAY I WOULD SUPPORT IT WITH THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL FROM THE DREAM.

ALL RIGHT. SO THIS WILL BE THIS ISSUE WILL BE TABLED FOR UNTIL THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS.

AND I THINK THAT TAKES CARE OF IT.

ALL RIGHT. THIS SO IT IS NOW SEVEN FORTY FIVE.

THIS ISSUE 7B IS NOW CLOSED FOR HEARING AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 7C WHICH IS THE SPECIAL

[7C. Special Use Permit – 22-031 – Michigan Department of Transportation, 5000 Okemos Road – Floodplain fill]

AS I RECALL, IT IS NOW SEVEN FORTY FIVE.

LET'S OPEN THIS HEARING, MR. SCHMIDT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THIS EVENING, WE APOLOGIZE.

WE HAD A BIT OF A MISCOMMUNICATION WITH MDOT THIS EVENING, SO JUST IMAGINE I AM MDOT JUST FOR A MOMENT. I DO NOT LOOK LIKE AN ENGINEER, BUT I CAN ACT LIKE ONE.

SO BRIEFLY, WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING IS A VERY UNIQUE REQUEST.

THIS IS A REQUEST FROM MDOT TO DO COMPENSATING CUT FOR THE FLOOD PLAIN FILL ASSOCIATED WITH THE OKEMOS IN GRAND RIVER INTERSECTION.

SO THE OKEMOS AND GRAND RIVER INTERSECTION IS CURRENTLY LOCATED WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. IN ORDER TO RAISE THAT INTERSECTION TO GET IT OUT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN TO START ALLEVIATING SOME OF THE FLOODING CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON, THEY NEED TO BRING IT UP, BUT THEN PROVIDE COMPENSATING CUT ELSEWHERE.

THE TOWNSHIP, AS WE'VE DONE IN OTHER MDOT PROJECTS IN THE PAST, HAS A PROPERTY BEHIND THE FIRE STATION THAT DOES HAVE UPLAND AREA THAT ALLOWS FOR THE COMPENSATING CUT.

AND SO THAT'S THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING.

THIS IS ROUGHLY THE AREA THAT YOU SEE.

THIS IS THE FIRE STATION.

THE BUILDING AT THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER OF THE SCREEN.

THIS IS ALL UPLAND AREA.

THIS IS NOT IMPACTING THE EXISTING WETLANDS OR THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN.

SO THIS IS ALL ADDITIONAL FLOODPLAIN FLOODWAY VOLUME FOR THAT COMPENSATING CUT.

[00:45:06]

THIS WILL ALLOW THE OKEMOS AND GRAND RIVER PROJECT TO PROCEED.

WE DO APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY IN GETTING THIS TO YOU, BUT THE FINAL ENGINEERING DID TAKE A WHILE. WE WOULD ASK YOU TO TAKE ACTION THIS EVENING UNLESS THERE ARE SOME MAJOR CONCERNS. IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD SO MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES, WE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

OUR ENGINEERS HAVE REVIEWED IT HAVE NO MAJOR CONCERNS.

MDOT HAS ALREADY RECEIVED THEIR PERMIT FROM EAGLE AND OBVIOUSLY HAVE MET THE LAWS BECAUSE EAGLE WOULDN'T GIVE THEM A PERMIT OTHERWISE.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE. YEAH, BUT YOU'RE PLAYING AN ENGINEER.

I'LL ASK YOU AN ENGINEERING QUESTION.

ABSOLUTELY. YEAH, AN ENGINEER.

I CAN'T WAIT TO GET WHAT I HEAR ABOUT THIS TOMORROW AT WORK, OK? THEY'RE WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS ARE FILLING THE FLOODPLAIN AT THE INTERSECTION, CORRECT AND DIGGING A HOLE DOWN BEHIND THE FIRE STATION.

CORRECT. THERE'S BUILDINGS IN BETWEEN.

CORRECT. HOW DOES THE WATER GET FROM THE ROAD TO THE NEW EXCAVATORS IS GOING TO BE DRAINAGE? IS IT GOING TO BE? SO, SO FOR FLOODPLAIN VOLUME? YOU DON'T THINK OF IT AS A SYSTEM THAT MOVES YOU THINK OF IT AS AN OVERALL AREA.

YOU'VE NEVER DRIVEN IN THAT INTERSECTION.

NO, BECAUSE IT MOVES.

IT DOES. BUT BUT THE IDEA BEHIND THE IDEA BEHIND ACCOMMODATING FOR FLOODPLAIN FILL IS YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATING CUT WITHIN THE SAME AREA OF FLOODPLAIN.

SO IF YOU'RE ON THE EDGE OF THAT FLOODPLAIN, YOU CAN PROVIDE COMPENSATING CUT BECAUSE YOU'RE WITHIN SORT OF THAT BASIN AREA.

AND SO THAT CUT NOW PROVIDES THE VOLUME YOU NEED TO FILL OVER HERE.

SO IT'S NOT THAT IT'S CONVEYING THE WATER, IT'S THAT IT'S PROVIDING ADDITIONAL AREA FOR THE WATER TO BE AT.

OK. IS THIS LIKELY TO CAUSE ANY WATER PROBLEMS AT SOME OF THE BUILDINGS IN BETWEEN? NO. OK. ANY WATER BOMB THEY HAVE NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.

YES. WHAT THIS DOES IS IT PROVIDES THE VOLUME NEEDED ELSEWHERE TO FILL THE SPOT AT THE INTERSECTION. WE'RE GOING TO DRAIN ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE NEW EXCAVATION AND PROVIDE RELIEF. THE THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT THE WATER WILL NEVER GET TO THE INTERSECTION.

IT'LL GO, IT'LL FALL AND GO INTO THIS BASIN BECAUSE IT'S ON THE SORT OF LEADING EDGE OF THE FLOODPLAIN IN THAT DIRECTION.

OK, THAT'S NOT 100 PERCENT TRUE.

CORRECT. THERE WILL BE OCCASIONS WHEN THERE WILL BE WATER, BUT IT WILL GREATLY REDUCE THE DEPTH. YES. THIS IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT WILL READILY ADMIT THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION TO ALL THE FLOODING.

WHAT THIS DOES IS IT HELPS WITH THE PROBLEM WE'VE HAD.

AND FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE BEST THEY CAN DO WITH WHAT THEY'VE GOT. IT'S IT'S LESSENING OF THE ISSUE.

CORRECT. IT'S NOT ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SOLVING.

YEAH. APOLOGIES. I DIDN'T MEAN TO.

I SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

I'M SORRY. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD THERE RAISING THE ROADWAY, WHAT, 18 INCHES? I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE FINAL AMOUNT.

GIVE OR TAKE, IT'S BETWEEN 18 AND TWO FEET, AND THE CONTOURS WILL ALLOW THE WATER TO GO INTO THIS NEWLY CREATED BASIN THAT'S NORTH OF GRAND RIVER AND EAST OF OKEMOS ROAD.

IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE IDEA IS THAT WITHIN THAT FLOOD AREA, THERE IS NOW NEW VOLUME CREATED. SO IT'S NOT THAT IT'S IT'S NOT.

THERE'S GOING TO BE A BUNCH OF PIPES GOING RIGHT TO THAT.

IT'S THAT WITHIN THAT FLOOD AREA THEY'RE TAKING INSTEAD OF HAVING IT AT THE INTERSECTION, THAT VOLUME OF AREA IS NOW ON THIS PROPERTY.

AND MAYBE MY QUESTION KIND OF BLURS THINGS, BUT I GUESS JUST FOR ME TO HAVING EXPERIENCED THE INTERSECTION BEING CLOSED, I'M JUST CURIOUS, YEAH, WHAT? WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SOUTH? BECAUSE THE OKEMOS ROAD SOUTH OF GRAND RIVER HAD WATER OVER IT.

THEY ARE NOT SOLVING ALL THE PROBLEMS. OK. THIS IS INTENDED TO SOLVE THE INTERSECTION SPECIFIC PROBLEMS. SO THAT'S A MITIGATING.

THIS IS ESSENTIALLY MITIGATING FOR THE INTERSECTION YES.

I SEE.

RIGHT, RIGHT? WHERE DO THE [INAUDIBLE] GENERALLY FLOW IN THE AREA? I MEAN, IS WHAT IS SOUTH? IS THAT HIGHER OR LOWER THIS? THIS INTERSECTION, FRANKLY, IS A BIT OF A BOWL IN THAT A LOT OF THINGS DRAIN TO IT.

IT'S NOT THAT IT'S COMING NORTH TO SOUTH OR EAST TO WEST.

[00:50:03]

IT'S NOT THE LOWEST POINT, I CAN'T TELL YOU.

OK, OK, THANK YOU.

SO ESSENTIALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS FLOODPLAIN, IT'S ROUGHLY THE MIDDLE.

YES, TO GO.

AND NOW IT'S GOING TO AT LEAST HOPEFULLY GET THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THAT TO STOP BEFORE IT GETS THERE. CORRECT.

OH YEAH.

YEAH, IT'S REALLY SO MUCH A QUESTION AS A REFLECTION WHEN THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER GOT THE APPLICATION FOR THE BUDDIES PIZZA, THEY REQUIRED SOME STORM WATER MITIGATION TO THE WEST OF BEST BUY. SO IN KIND OF A LONGER TERM PERSPECTIVE HERE, THAT WHOLE TOWNSHIP OWN AREA, THE BITS THAT ARE WETLAND ARE PROTECTED AND THE BITS THAT AREN'T WETLANDS ARE GETTING TURNED INTO KIND OF TEMPORARY WETLANDS FOR STORMWATER CONTROL.

SO IT'S KIND OF A VERY FINE BALANCING ACT OF OF PUTTING THE WATER SOMEPLACE WHERE IT'S IT'S NOT DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD.

AND IT KIND OF MAKES YOU WONDER HOW DOES THAT EVENTUALLY END UP? WHERE DO WE WHERE DO WE GO IN THE LONG RUN? AND IT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION THAT CAN BE ANSWERED.

IT'S MORE ONE THAT I'M JUST PONDERING.

NO, I THINK IT'S A QUESTION A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE ASKING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A FULL SOLUTION TO THIS.

BUT I THINK BY THE GRACE OF OUR FOREFATHERS, THE TOWNSHIP HAS THIS PROPERTY AND IS ABLE TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THESE CONCERNS BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHERE ELSE THEY WOULD HAVE MITIGATED THIS MUCH FLOODPLAIN.

THE FIRE CHIEF HAS BEEN CONSULTED ABOUT THIS.

FIRE CHIEF HAS CONSULTED WITH EVERY PROJECT THAT WE GET.

I HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE FLOODWAYS AND WATERS, AND I THINK ONE IT IS SORT OF NOT RELATED DIRECTLY TO THIS PERMIT, BUT THE ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES IS THE FLOW OR THE HINDRANCE OF FLOW AS IT MOVES TOWARDS MSU AND DOWNSTREAM.

SO THE WE ALL SAW THAT A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN THEY CLEANED ALL OF IT OUT WITH THE FLOW ACTUALLY IMPROVED FOR QUITE A WHILE.

SO I THINK ONE OF THE KEYS IN TERMS OF REDUCING THE FLOODING IS MAKING SURE THAT ANY RESTRICTIONS IN THE DOWN STREAM FLOW OF THE RIVER ARE MITIGATED.

SO I THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE PART OF THE PLAN THAT WE DON'T WAIT 20 OR HOWEVER MANY YEARS IT WAS BETWEEN GETTING ALL THE STUFF OUT OF THE RIVER THAT ACCUMULATED OVER TIME AND SLOWED THE WATER FLOW DOWN BECAUSE IT BASICALLY THAT WATER THAT I BELIEVE THE WATER THAT COMES NORTH OKEMOS ROAD AND CLOSES THAT IS ACTUALLY COMING FURTHER DOWNSTREAM THAN OKEMOS ROAD, CROSSING OF THE RIVER AND WHERE THE BRIDGES ARE, IS ACTUALLY COMING DOWNSTREAM FROM THAT TOWARDS MSU.

SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR FRIEND OR AREA BY THE GOLF COURSE, WHICH HAS A VERY SIMILAR PROBLEM.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE RAISING VAN RIVER THERE ALSO.

AND FOR ALL OF MANY OF THE SAME REASONS WITH MANY OF THE SAME RESULTS.

RIGHT.

AND COMMISSIONER RICHARDS, JUST TO YOUR POINT, I WAS ACTUALLY IN A MEETING RECENTLY WHERE THAT TOPIC CAME UP, AND I CAN I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE RIVER BLOCKAGES THAT HAVE BEEN CLEANED ESSENTIALLY FROM WONCH PARK UP AROUND THE GOLF COURSE IN PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO OF THE PROJECT IS EXPECTED TO KICK OFF SOON.

SO THAT SHOULD HELP A LOT OF THOSE CONCERNS THAT YOU WERE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, OK.

QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE? NORM BRENNEMAN, 2628TWENTY SIX, TWENTY EIGHT CREEKSTONE TRAIL, I'M NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR WHY PUSHING MORE WATER TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN, RIGHT? WHY THAT WON'T INCREASE THE FLOODING THAT CURRENTLY OCCURS AT THE AT THE BRIDGE UP THERE, RIGHT? YEAH.

SO SO DON'T YOU DON'T YOU THINK THAT'LL ACTUALLY MAKE THAT SITUATION WORSE? NO, NO.

FOLLOW UP WITH YOU TOMORROW. OK, GIVE ME YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION.

OK. ALL RIGHT.

HENDRICKSON, I MOVE THAT WE WAIVE 6.4A OF OUR PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF THIS RESOLUTION.

[00:55:03]

SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT. AND LET'S MOVE ON TO THE MAIN ISSUE.

IS THERE EMOTION ON THIS ISSUE? I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION IN OUR PACKET TO GRANT THE WETLANDS INCURSION AND REPLACEMENT REQUESTED IN THIS, [INAUDIBLE] FROM 22-031.

SECOND BY MR. RICHARDS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS.

CALL FOR A VOTE, THEN I THINK WE NEED A ROLL-CALL VOTE.

ROLL CALL] AND THE CHAIR VOTES. YES.

ALL RIGHT. TIME NOW IS JUST SHY OF EIGHT O'CLOCK AND WE CONSIDER THIS PUBLIC ISSUE CLOSED. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON THE AGENDA UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

[9A. Planning Commission Goals]

BUT THIS IS WHERE WE'RE HEADED FOR THE YEAR.

AND I THINK THESE, YOU KNOW, THE SECOND ONE.

ODDLY ENOUGH, THE COORDINATION BETWEEN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE TOUGHEST BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MEETINGS ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE AS THIS YEAR GOES ALONG. BUT I THINK WE'RE JUST GOT TO ROLL WITH THE THE WAVES A LITTLE BIT AND WE WILL COORDINATE AS BEST WE CAN AND JOINT MEETINGS.

CERTAINLY ONCE WE HIT THE SUMMER TIME, IT'LL BE BETTER.

BUT YOU KNOW, I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT SENIOR PLANNER SHORKEY IS ALREADY TENDING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION A LITTLE BIT MORE AND HAS WILL BE IF WE EVER GET THAT SCHEDULE TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT SILVERLEAF.

WE KEPT TRYING TO GET ON THEIR AGENDA TO TALK ABOUT SILVERLEAF AND COULDN'T QUITE GET ON THERE, BUT WE WILL BE ON THEIR SCHEDULE TO TALK ABOUT THINGS.

TRANSPORTATION HAS COORDINATED ALREADY LAST YEAR AND WILL AGAIN THIS YEAR WITH THE EAST LANSING TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ABOUT TOWER AND LAKE LANSING INTERSECTION.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF INTERACTION THAT WE HOPE IS GOING TO OCCUR THIS YEAR.

AND SO I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT THAT MIGHT BE THE ONE THAT GETS A LITTLE WEIRD AND WONKY, BUT WE'LL WE'LL DEAL WITH IT.

BUT THERE'S NO ACTION NEEDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM.

JUST WANTED TO CIRCLE BACK WITH A FORMAL MEMO ON IT.

OK. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ISSUE? ALL RIGHT. SO THE NEXT ISSUE IS YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT.

[9B. Planning Commission Annual Report]

WE WILL SEND THIS ON TO THE 12TH.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

SEEING THAT WAY, TIME.

THE TIME IS A MANMADE CONSTRUCT AND COVID MADE IT EVEN WEIRDER.

THE ACTIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL FORWARD ON TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD FOR THEIR RECORDS.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT READY COMMUNITIES PROGRAM.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET A LITTLE MORE BETTER AT.

THIS IS A FORMAT THAT I UTILIZED IN THE CITY OF HOWELL DURING MY TIME THERE AND COMBINED WITH THE WORK OF SENIOR PLANNER SHORKEY IN CONSOLIDATING A GOOD CHART OF PROJECTS FROM LAST YEAR. THIS IS THE REPORT THAT WE PRESENT.

BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY INPUT AS WE GO FORWARD INTO NEXT YEAR'S REPORT, BUT WE THINK THIS SUMS UP THE YEAR FAIRLY WELL FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE'D ASK THAT YOU ADOPT THIS AND FORWARD IT TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

IN DISCUSSION ON THIS. YES, I WOULD THANK YOU FOR THIS.

IT'S VERY SUCCINCT AND YET INFORMATIVE, AND I THINK IT MAKES A GOOD REPORT OF WHAT SEEMED LIKE A VERY STRANGE YEAR AND SOMETIMES DIDN'T THINK LIKE WE WERE DOING A LOT.

BUT I GUESS WE ACCOMPLISH MORE THAN WE THOUGHT.

YOU DID A STRANGE INTERACTION HERE, SO THANK YOU FOR THIS.

I WOULD I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL AND SIGN ON TO THE BOARD.

THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS, DO WE HAVE A FINISHED COPY OF WHAT IT IS YOU PLAN TO PRESENT OR DO YOU HAVE ANY ANY REFINEMENTS THAT YOU WISH TO KNOW THIS? I'M HAPPY WITH THIS UNLESS THE COMMISSION HAS SOME SUGGESTIONS.

MR. RICHARDSON I NOTICED THAT THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT VARIANCES IN THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.

IS THERE A SEPARATE REPORT FOR THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OR NOT? THERE'S NOT, AND THAT'S WHY I HAVE HISTORICALLY ALWAYS INCLUDED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPORT, SIMPLY SO THAT THERE IS A REPORT OUT OF THE ZBA'S YEAR.

[01:00:04]

OK, SO MAYBE IN THE COVER OF THIS PROBABLY IS NOT A COVER LETTER HERE.

BUT IF WE WANTED TO SAY THIS IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT WITH ALSO THE ZBA INCLUDED OR SOMETHING, YEAH, WE CAN INCLUDE SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I LOST TRACK, THERE WAS A MOTION AND A SECOND.

YES, IT WAS A SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY ON THAT LAST POINT IN THE TABLE SYNOPSIS OF PLANNING ACTIVITIES, ARE WE SAYING WE'D LIKE TO SEE A SEPARATE SECTION THAT WAS VARIANCES THAT GAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL LIKE WE HAVE ON REZONING AND ZONING AMENDMENTS? WE CAN WE CAN ABSOLUTELY ADD THAT THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR ME.

I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FOLLOW THE THE ZBA ACTIVITIES, AND I IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WERE SOMETHING LIKE 15 REQUESTS, AND IT'D BE JUST INTERESTING TO KNOW WHAT WHAT IS GETTING TO THE ZBA AND HOW ARE THEY HOW ARE THEY COMING DOWN ON IT? ABSOLUTELY. WE'LL PUT THAT TOGETHER, AND WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL WHEN WE SEND IT TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, WE'LL SEND A FINAL COPY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL.

THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHING] KNOCK YOUR SOCKS OFF.

THAT'S WHAT I DO. I MEAN, JUST JUST BY VIRTUE OF ACKNOWLEDGING THE EFFORT ZBA PUT IN, IT'S WORTH IT, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN A SENTENCE.

I REALLY DON'T THINK IT'S THE NECESSITY FOR A ROLL CALL ON THIS, SO ALL THOSE IN THE COMMISSION WHO FAVOR SENDING THIS ON AND APPROVING IT AS PRESENTED SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSITION? NONE. ALL RIGHT.

SO AT FIVE MINUTES AFTER EIGHT, THE BOARD APPROVED THE AGENDA, APPROVED THE ITEM AS PRESENTED. MR. SCHMIDT WON'T YOU TALK TO US ABOUT TEXT AMENDMENTS.

[9C. Text Amendment 2022-06 – Sight Triangles]

SO WE KEPT THE TWO QUICK ONES THIS MONTH.

THE FIRST ONE IS THE SITE TRIANGLE CHANGE.

THIS IS ACTUALLY A IT'S ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO ALLOW FOR SOME LENIENCY IN VERY LOW SPEED RESIDENTIAL SITUATIONS.

THE REASON THIS CAME UP, FRANKLY, IS PROBABLY MY FIRST WEEK ON THE JOB.

WE TOOK A COMPLAINT ABOUT AN OVERGROWN TREE.

WE WENT OUT AND TOOK A LOOK AT IT.

IT WAS ON A CUL DE SAC AND A STREET THAT WAS NOT A THROUGH STREET.

IT WAS ACTUALLY A U.

SO MAYBE, MAYBE 50 CARS A DAY TOTAL.

ASK THE POLICE ABOUT IT.

THEY'RE LIKE, WE'VE NEVER, EVER HAD A CALL TO THAT INTERSECTION.

THERE ARE STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION.

AND SO IT GOT US TO WONDERING IF FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, THESE KINDS OF TREES ADD TO THE AMBIANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I MEAN, THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT IS LARGE, MATURE TREES THAT HAVE GROWN UP IN FRONT YARDS.

AND SO WE'RE SIMPLY PUTTING IN SOME LANGUAGE HERE, ALLOWING US TO WAIVE THAT REQUIREMENT IN SITUATIONS WHERE THESE LOW VOLUME SITUATIONS EXIST.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE, I THINK YOU MAY BE DOING MORE THAN THAT RIGHT NOW.

AS PROPOSED, IT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO FOLIAGE SIGNS, WHATEVER INSTALLED OR PLANTED AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THIS AMENDMENT.

CORRECT. SO IF WE HAVE SOME OVERGROWN INTERSECTIONS WITH LARGE TREES AND THAT ARE SERIOUS, THIS DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY MEANS TO ADDRESS THOSE.

AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS ANOTHER WAY TO DO THAT IN THAT.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE THEM CLEAN THOSE INTERSECTIONS UP? YEAH, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING WE COULD DO RIGHT NOW, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO DO BECAUSE SUBSECTION C IS A MAY NOT A SHALL.

SO IT HAS TO ACTUALLY BE AN AFFIRMATIVE FINDING BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO WAIVE THE SITE TRIANGLE REQUIREMENT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. SO IF THERE'S AN INTERSECTION RIGHT NOW, I COULD GO OUT AND ISSUE A LETTER TO THEM, AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.

IT WAS A LETTER GOT SENT OUT.

WE WENT AND TOOK A LOOK AT IT AND WE WERE LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S PROBABLY NOT AS BIG OF A DEAL ON THIS ROAD AS IT WOULD BE ON THE GRAND RIVER.

EXCEPT YOUR SUBSECTION THREE HERE SAYS YOU CAN WAIVE THE SIGHT LINE ISSUE.

NOT THAT YOU CAN ENFORCE IT.

WELL, IT'S ALREADY ENFORCEABLE.

[01:05:01]

AND THEN UNDER SUBSECTION THREE, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY JUST GIVING OURSELVES THE OPTION IF THERE IS A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MEETS THESE REQUIREMENTS TO WAIVE IT.

WHY WOULDN'T THE WAIVER APPLY TO EXISTING VEGETATION THEN? IT DOES, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN AFFIRMATIVE FINDING BY US TO WAIVE IT.

SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WE'D HAVE TO GET A COMPLAINT.

THEN WE'D GO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND BE LIKE, OK, THIS IS TWO RESIDENTIAL STREETS.

THERE'S A STOP SIGN.

WE TALK TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY EXISTING VEHICULAR CONCERNS WITH THIS INTERSECTION? IF NO, THEN WE COULD APPLY A WAIVER TO THAT INTERSECTION.

OK. EXCUSE ME.

JUST CURIOUS IF YOU CHOSE TO WAIT.

AND I'M NOT SURE THIS IS REALLY WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, WHICH IS A CURIOSITY HOW THIS MIGHT WORK IF SOMEBODY YOU GO OUT BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A COMPLAINT, PRESUMABLY SO IT BOTHERS SOMEONE. WOULD THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THIS HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT BEFORE THE THE WAIVER WAS GRANTED? AND WOULD THERE BE A RECORD OF THE WAIVER? AND DOES IT HAVE A DURATION OR WOULD IT BE SORT OF IN PERPETUITY? I GUESS I CAN SEE IT NOT BEING AN ISSUE WHEN IT'S THIS TALL, BUT BECOMING A BIGGER ISSUE WHEN IT GETS THIS TALL. AND I WOULD HATE FOR SOMEBODY TO HAVE A WAIVER THAT ALLOWED IT TO GO ON WHEN IT WAS AN ISSUE WHEN IT HADN'T BEEN PREVIOUSLY AGREED.

AND I THINK WE STILL NEED TO WORK OUT HOW TO IMPLEMENT IT.

BUT ULTIMATELY, IF THERE WAS AN ACTUAL COMPLAINT, WE WOULD ACTUALLY TALK.

WE IF PEOPLE LEFT THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION, WHICH I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO DO IF YOU FILE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE TOWNSHIP, WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY CONTACT THEM AND HAVE A CONVERSATION. AND THEN BUT TO YOUR POINT, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO SEE UNDER THIS IS WE'RE MORE IT'S MORE LIKELY TO BE LIKE WE GET CALLED ON SOMETHING AND WE'RE OUT THERE AND WE GO TREES ARE OVERGROWN AND WE ONCE WE'RE AWARE THAT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY WHAT BROUGHT THIS TO OUR ATTENTION AND THEN FOLLOW UP QUESTION, IF I MAY. YOU MENTIONED IT SHALL ONLY APPLY TO LOW VOLUME ROADS.

IS THERE A DEFINITION SOMEWHERE OF LOW VOLUME ROADS THAT WOULD INDICATE WHAT THAT MEANT? OR IS THAT A JUDGMENT CALL ON YOUR PART? I THINK RIGHT NOW WE WOULD HAVE THAT AS A JUDGMENT CALL, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO A PRACTICAL DEFINITION.

YEAH, IF THERE'S A SOLID DEFINITION, IT JUST MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER AND EASIER EVENLY APPLY.

IN MY EXPERIENCE, ISN'T IT MORE LIKELY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ISSUE UNDER THIS RULE IS THAT A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WOULD GET CALLED IN? WOULDN'T BE A POLICE OFFICER, IT WOULD BE A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

HE OR SHE WOULD GO OUT AND THEY WOULD PRESENT THE CASE.

IT COULD EVENTUALLY END UP IN COURT.

WHEN I WAS AN ACTIVE MAGISTRATE, ONE THIRD OF MY CASES WERE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES THAT DEVELOPED BECAUSE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT.

OFFICER WENT OUT AND SAID NOT THAT TREES TOO CLOSE TO THE CURB.

IT'S EXACTLY WHERE THIS WOULD COME FROM.

WE WOULD IT WOULD BE A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE THAT WE WOULD SEE AND WE WOULD FOLLOW UP WITH THEM NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RULE IN PLACE AND WE'VE HAD THE RULE IN PLACE SINCE THE MID NINETIES I BELIEVE.

THIS SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE GOING FORWARD, RIGHT, BECAUSE WE SHOULD HAVE PLANNED FOR IT GOING FORWARD. IT'S THE OLD STUFF THAT THE TREE MIGHT HAVE BEEN PLANTED A LITTLE TOO CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION AND IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A INSTEAD OF A COLUMNAR TREE.

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SPREADING TREE.

AND SO YOU GET MORE OF THAT BLOCKAGE.

AND SO GOING, THERE'S LIKE A GAP BASICALLY OF LIKE GOING FORWARD 40 YEARS FROM NOW, THIS WON'T BE A PROBLEM. FORTY YEARS AGO, IT WASN'T A PROBLEM, BUT WE'RE SORT OF IN THAT MIDDLE PERIOD WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON HOW THIS WOULD ACTUALLY WORK. IN REALITY, YOUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EITHER FINDS IT ON HIS OWN OR GETS CALLED BY A DISGRUNTLED NEIGHBOR OR LIKE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, WHERE YOU COME UP TO AN INTERSECTION AND YOU COULDN'T SEE ONE WAS A T INTERSECTION AND ONE PORTION OF THE TEA WAS BLIND. YOU COULDN'T SEE IT BECAUSE THE TREE COMPLETELY BLOCKED THE VISION.

SO THE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WOULD BRING A COMPLAINT TO THE OWNER OF THE TREE.

CORRECT. THE OWNER OF THE TREE NOW.

AND THAT FIRST, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WOULD COME BACK TO YOUR OFFICE AND SAY, DO YOU WANT? DO YOU WANT ME TO ENFORCE THIS? IS THAT RIGHT? PRESUMABLY, HE WOULD TAKE IT TO THE OWNER FIRST TO HAVE A CONVERSATION, OK? IF THE OWNER TOLD HIM TO GET OFF HIS PROPERTY AND LEAVE HIM ALONE, THEN HE WOULD COME TO YOU. YOU GET AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE IT BY ENFORCING IT, THOUGH YOU'D END UP GOING TO COURT AND HAVE A CIVIL HEARING IN FRONT OF A MAGISTRATE OR A DISTRICT JUDGE.

THEORETICALLY, THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD END UP.

YES, IF WE DIDN'T GET COMPLIANCE.

ALL RIGHT. MY ONLY QUESTION IS IS THE IS THE WHEN YOU BUILD THE ABILITY TO WAIVE ENFORCEMENT OF A LAW INTO THE LAW, YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY CREATING PROBLEMS WHEN YOU ULTIMATELY GO TO COURT AND THE JUDGE IS GOING TO LOOK AT YOU AND SAY, WHY DIDN'T YOU

[01:10:01]

I ALSO THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE AN EXTRAORDINARILY RARE THING THAT WE ARE GOING TO COME UP AGAINST. MY OBSERVATION IS I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CONDITIONS WOULD CAUSE A WAIVER TO BE CONSIDERED.

AND I THINK THERE ALSO NEEDS TO BE A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WOULD OVERTURN A WAIVER. I DON'T THINK IT SOUNDS A LITTLE LOOSEY GOOSEY TO ME.

UNDERSTOOD. I GUESS BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS AND THE DISCUSSION OF THE PROCEDURE, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT AT PRESENT, WHETHER THIS IS AMENDED OR NOT, YOU WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT CODE VARIATION AND NOT TAKE IT TO COURT AND ENFORCE IT.

AS I ASSUME AT TIMES THERE ARE CODE COMPLAINTS THAT COME TO YOUR OFFICE AND SOMEONE SAYS THAT'S NOT A THAT'S NOT A VIOLATION OR IT'S NOT WORTH PURSUING.

TO BE CLEAR, THERE ARE TIMES WE SAY IT'S NOT A VIOLATION, BUT THERE'S THERE'S NEVER A TIME WHERE WE WOULD SAY IF THAT'S NOT WORTH PURSUING, WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON EVERY COMPLAINT WE GET. OK, THEN YOU DO WANT A LITTLE BIT OF THE AUTHORITY TO USE YOUR JUDGMENT AND BASICALLY YOUR PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AS TO WHETHER TO FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING OR NOT BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

YEAH. BASED ON CLEAR TERMS. OK. AND I THINK THOSE NEED TO BE CLARIFIED THAT.

WE'LL FOLLOW UP ON THIS ONE.

THE SECOND ONE WE HAVE FOR YOU THIS EVENING IS TO ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THE ZONING BOARD

[9D. Text Amendment 2022-07 – Lake Lansing Front Yard Setbacks]

AND I'VE SAID THIS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AND I'VE SAID THIS TO CHAIR EMERITUS HENDRICKSON THAT THE LAKE LANSING OVERLAY PROBABLY NEEDS RESTRUCTURING.

I'M NOT SURE THAT IT WORKED FROM THE BEGINNING THE WAY WE REALLY WANTED IT TO, AND THERE'S STILL SOME ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO WORK OUT.

BUT IN THE INTERIM, WE'VE GOT TWO CHANGES.

WE'VE ALREADY BROUGHT FORWARD THE FRONT YARD LOT COVERAGE ISSUE, WHICH ARE WIDELY ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD. WE'LL BRING BACK FOR PUBLIC HEARING IN THE NEAR FUTURE AND GET THAT MOVING. THIS IS THE SECOND PIECE TO ADDRESS THE FRONT YARD COVERAGE OR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS ACTUALLY BORROWED LANGUAGE FROM ANOTHER PART OF THE ORDINANCE. THIS IS ACTUALLY EXISTING IN THE ORDINANCE IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

SO THIS IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT.

WE'VE CHANGED IT A LITTLE BIT TO SET A DISTANCE THAT YOU WOULD TAKE THIS SORT OF AVERAGE FROM BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY SET UP IN THE ORDINANCE ESSENTIALLY IS THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS THIS WEIRD OPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY CAN ESSENTIALLY SET A SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE ORDINANCE CALLS FOR.

IT'S NOT A VARIANCE.

IT'S AN ODD SECTION OF THE CODE THAT I'VE NOT SEEN IN OTHER ORDINANCE.

BUT THE BASIS OF IT IS WHAT THE ZBA IS TRYING TO DO AROUND THE LAKE IS GET SOME SORT OF UNIFORMITY BETWEEN WHAT IS BEING GRANTED OUT THERE.

IF IT'S GOING TO BE LESS THAN THE REQUIREMENT, WHICH THE MAJORITY, I MEAN, THE MAJORITY OF NEW CONSTRUCTION OUT THERE TENDS TO BE LESS THAN THE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE WHETHER IT'S THE SIZE OF A GARAGE OR THERE ARE SPECIAL SETBACKS OFF OF THE LAKE THAT ARE PLATED INTO MOST OF THOSE LOTS OUT THERE.

DID YOU JUST START TIGHTENING UP? WHAT KNOW? IT LOOKS LIKE A BIG LOT ON A MAP, BUT IT STARTS TO TIGHTEN UP PRETTY QUICK.

AND SO WHAT THIS DOES IS ESSENTIALLY SETS UP A THERE'S ALREADY A TWO.

IT'S ACTUALLY THERE'S ALREADY A TWO STAGE SET BACK IN THE ORDINANCE TO 20 FEET OR FOUR LOTS ON, ET CETERA.

THERE'S A SEPARATE SET. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PROPOSING IT'S STILL 20 FEET TO THE BASIS.

IF YOU CAN MAKE 20 FEET GREAT OR YOU CAN GO TO THIS REDUCED SETBACK IF YOU'RE IF YOU MEET THE AVERAGE OF THE PROPERTIES WITHIN A HUNDRED AND FIFTY FEET.

SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ASSUME A 60 FOOT WIDE LOT ROUGHLY, WHICH IS THE BREAKPOINT OUT THERE, IT TENDS TO BE EITHER A LOT SMALLER OR A LOT BIGGER.

ASSUME THE 60 FOOT WIDE LOT THAT'S THREE IN ONE DIRECTION OR THREE IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.

SO THIS IS SORT OF A CONCEPT THAT WE'VE FLOATED WITH THE ZBA BRIEFLY AND WE HAD MENTIONED WE WE RAN IT AROUND STAFF WISE AND TRYING TO UTILIZE SOMETHING THAT'S EXISTING IN THE

[01:15:01]

YES. IN TRUTH.

QUICK QUESTION, WOULD THAT THEN NEED TO STILL GO BEFORE ZBA OR COULD IT BE GRANTED BY A STAFF IF IT MET ONE OR THE OTHER OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS? THE WAY THIS IS SET UP RIGHT NOW WOULD BE GRANTED ADMINISTRATIVELY PERFECT.

SO I MEAN, THE INTENT WAS TO REDUCE THE BUREAUCRACY.

CORRECT. AND THE STUFF THAT COMES BEFORE ZBA, IF IT CAN BE MORE UNIFORM.

CORRECT. BUT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.

NOW I'VE GOT TO ADMIT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE STILL GOING TO TRY AND GET THE 20 FEET BECAUSE THAT'S PARKING A CAR.

BUT THIS AT LEAST GIVES THOSE CERTAIN PEOPLE THAT AREN'T AS WORRIED ABOUT PUTTING A CAR IN THEIR DRIVEWAY OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME REDUCTION.

AND IT WOULD BE THEIR CHOICE OF THE TWO, RIGHT? CORRECT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? MR. SCHMITT, THANK YOU. WE'LL GET THIS ONE LOADED UP.

MORE FOR A GENERAL QUESTION FOR THE STAFF.

IS THERE A POINT WHERE THE DO ANY SORT OF REVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ON A QUARTERLY OR ANNUAL BASIS? I KNOW THAT YOUR PREDECESSOR USED TO HOLD VERY SMALL MEETINGS QUARTERLY THAT DID THAT.

SO I KNOW THE SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF DOING IT, AND I FOUND IT PERSONALLY INFORMATIVE.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT FORUM WAS VERY EFFICIENT, BUT IT'S I THINK IT'S REALLY INTERESTING INFORMATION THAT CAN BE HELPFUL.

AND I WAS LOOKING AT ONE REPORT AND THERE WERE SOMETHING LIKE ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY COMPLAINTS IN SITE TRIANGLES WERE TWO OF THEM.

SO IT'S REALLY A VERY SMALL CATEGORY OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT.

BUT AS WE THINK ABOUT CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE, HAVING THAT KIND OF BIGGER PICTURE OF WHAT IS IT PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT AND WHAT ACTION DOES END UP GETTING TAKEN COULD BE USEFUL. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY WE CAN.

WE CAN RUN THOSE REPORTS.

I AGREE THE FORMAT OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS IS NOT SOMETHING I'M COMFORTABLE WITH BECAUSE I DO NOT LIKE. I WILL SAY THIS TO ANYONE THAT I DO NOT LIKE TALKING ABOUT CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES IN PUBLIC BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE'S HOUSE GENERALLY.

IN THE FEW TIMES I'VE HAD TO DO THAT IN MY CAREER HAS BEEN EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE.

WE'LL DO IT IF YOU WANT TO.

BUT BUT LET ME LOOK INTO, I'M SURE THERE'S A WAY WE CAN PROVIDE THE DATA, THE RAW DATA WITHOUT THE PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION.

I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE THAT PROBABLY 50 PERCENT OF ALL THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES THAT COME UP HAVE TO DO WITH TRASH AND UNCLEAN YARDS.

I WOULD SAY THAT THAT IS THAT MIGHT BE LOW.

YOU KNOW, MY PREVIOUS JOB, IT WAS ALL GRASS, ALL GRASS, ALL THE TIME.

WHAT I TELL YOU HERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE.

WE GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT CARS PARKING ON THE STREET, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY A POLICE ISSUE. IF YOU'RE WATCHING AT HOME, PLEASE CALL THE NON-EMERGENCY.

BUT IT'S THAT SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE BIGGER COMPLAINTS WE GET HERE IS CAR IS PARKED ON THE STREET AND IN ODD LOCATIONS LIKE ON CURB, SO IT'S HARD TO SEE AROUND ANYTHING.

OK. ALL RIGHT, WE ARE NOW ON ITEM NUMBER 10, WHICH IS TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.

[10A. Township Board update.]

THERE'S ACTUALLY NOTHING FROM PLANNING.

WE'VE HAD A BIT OF A QUIET RUN HERE.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT THEY ARE TAKING UP AN ORDINANCE TO STANDARDIZE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S HOSE NOZZLE CONNECTIONS TO THE HYDRANTS, TRYING TO CODIFY A LONG TERM POLICY.

YOU MEAN THEY'RE NOT STANDARDIZED? TURNS OUT, THEY'RE NOT.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ONES OUT THERE.

IT POPS UP EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE.

POLICY HAS GENERALLY BEEN ANY TIME THAT YOU PULL A BUILDING PERMIT ON A BUILDING.

THE ADJACENT HYDRANT GETS UPDATED.

ON OCCASION THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE MAKING IT A LAWN OUT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAPPENS.

THE ONLY OTHER THING I WILL TELL YOU IS THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WILL BE AT SOME POINT SOON DISCUSSING NEXT STEPS ON SPEAKING CODE ENFORCEMENT.

WINSLOW MOBILE HOME PARK.

WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF ISSUES WITH THE PROPERTY AND CONTINUE TO HAVE A NUMBER OF ISSUES WITH THE PROPERTY, AND IT CONTINUES TO BE A STRUGGLE AND WE WILL UPDATE PEOPLE AS WE HAVE AS WE HAVE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION.

BUT WE'VE ISSUED DOZENS UPON DOZENS OF TICKETS IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS.

OUT THERE CONTINUES TO BE A STRUGGLE, SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THE TOWNSHIP BOARD RIGHT NOW. AGAIN, THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS TO THE STYKA FAMILY AND HOPEFULLY WE HAVE SOME HOPEFULLY HEAR ABOUT A MIRACLE HERE SOMETIME SOON.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM 10B, LIAISON REPORTS.

[10B. Liaison reports.]

[01:20:04]

AND AS A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, GETTING THAT OUT WAS GOOD.

I'D LIKE TO JUST EXTEND MY GRATITUDE TO COMMISSIONER HENDRICKSON FOR THE FINE JOB THAT I THOUGHT HE DID FOR THE TWO YEARS HE SERVED AS OUR PRESIDENT.

SO THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] YOU WEREN'T THERE WHEN WE SO WE COULDN'T WE? WE KEEP SILENT. WE COULDN'T RECOGNIZE WHAT A WONDERFUL JOB YOU DID.

THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME.

MAY I GO AHEAD? YES, PLEASE.

WEDNESDAY, THE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY MEETS AT SIX P.M.

. ANY OTHER LIAISON, MR. TREZISE. YES, LAST WEEK, ADJOURN OR EDC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MEETING WAS SCHEDULED TO ADDRESS A REQUEST FROM THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS FOR A GRANT OF SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $2 MILLION TO DO SOME IMPROVEMENTS ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS, WHICH IS IMPROVING DRAINAGE STORM DRAIN SOME OF THE ROADS.

WE DID NOT HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE'RE MEETING TOMORROW MORNING AT 7:30 IN HOPES OF GETTING THAT THROUGH THE EDC SO IT CAN BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD, BOARD OF THE COMMISSION.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOMORROW NIGHT AT THEIR MEETING TO APPROVE FOR IF THEY CAN TAKE THIS TO EAGLE AND WHOEVER ELSE THEY NEED TO GO TO TO TO GET SOME OF THE FUNDING PUT TOGETHER SO THEY CAN DO SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.

THAT'S WHERE THAT'S AT.

ARE THEY WORKING WITH THE DDA ON IT.

THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE DDA, THE DDA HAS FUNDING FOR CERTAIN THINGS.

THIS IS FUNDING THAT THE EDC IS LOOKING AT OUTSIDE THE BLOC OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT TO IMPROVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND IT.

SO IT'S NOT DEALING WITH ANY OF THE BUILDINGS OR ANY OF THE CONSTRUCTION.

IT'S DEALING WITH THE SURROUNDING TO IMPROVE SOME OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUES AND STORM DRAINS, THAT SORT OF THING. AND THE OTHER LEADERS ON REQUEST? THANK YOU. YES, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION HAS NOT MET IN SOME TIME, BUT IS VERY ACTIVELY IMPLEMENTING A WETLANDS EDUCATION PROGRAM AND HAS BEGUN IN EARNEST A NEW STUDY GROUP ON ORGANICS, WASTE PROCESSING, COMPOSTING AND ANAEROBIC DIGESTION THAT'S CONNECTED TO THE BROADER CAPITAL AREA SUSTAINABILITY PARTNERSHIP, WHICH RECENTLY RECEIVED A GRANT FROM EAGLE TO STUDY THE POTENTIAL FOR DIVERTING ORGANICS FROM LANDFILLS INTO COMPOSTING OR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION.

SOUNDS LIKE IT'S RIGHT UP IN MATTHEW'S ALLEY.

WE'RE HOPING TO.

WE HAVE BEGUN PARTNERING WITH THE FOLKS AT MSU TO DO A COMPLEMENTARY FEASIBILITY STUDY WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP AT A MUCH FINER GRAIN THAN THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DO FOR INGHAM AND CLINTON COUNTIES. MR. HENDRICKSON.

ZBA WILL BE MEETING ON WEDNESDAY FOR THEIR NOW MONTHLY MEETING, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND, BUT THEY HAVE A VERY FULL DOCKET, WHICH WILL NO DOUBT KEEP THEM BUSY, MUCH WELL-LIT WELL INTO THE EVENING AND JUST A COUPLE OF OTHER QUICK NOTES.

AS I WAS DRIVING HERE, I NOTICED THAT SOME CARS DID NOT.

WE'RE NOT AWARE OF THE CLOSURE OF THE OKEMOS BRIDGE, WHICH OF COURSE TOOK EFFECT TODAY, AND WE'RE DIVERTING ON SOUTHBOUND OKEMOS THROUGH THE VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS.

SO IF YOU ARE WATCHING AT HOME AND ARE CONSIDERING DRIVING SOUTH ON OKEMOS ROAD ACROSS THE RIVER, PLEASE KNOW THAT IT IS CLOSED AND THERE'S A DETOUR OVER ON DOBY ROAD.

AND THE RESIDENTS OF INDIAN HILLS WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THAT DETOUR AS OPPOSED TO DRIVING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

CLOSURE WILL REMAIN UNTIL NOVEMBER.

THAT'S RIGHT, IT'S A LONG TERM CLOSURE.

IT'S GOING TO BE HERE THROUGH THROUGH NOVEMBER.

POSTED FOR SEVERAL WEEKS.

YEAH, YEAH. AND THE TOWNSHIP HAS PUT OUT A BUNCH OF PRESS RELEASES AND NOTICES AND SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

BUT AND THEN, OF COURSE, COMING UP IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, WE'LL HAVE THE GRAND RIVER CLOSURE OR NOT CLOSURE, BUT REDUCTION IN IN LANES.

THOSE OF US THAT LIVE CLOSE TO DOBIE ROAD ARE JUST THRILLED.

I'M SURE. WELL, THOSE OF US THAT LIVE JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OKEMOS BRIDGE ARE ALSO THRILLED.

TONIGHT WITH PLACES LIKE YEAH, EXACTLY, EXACTLY.

[01:25:02]

JUST TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETS ON THURSDAY OF THIS WEEK, SO SHOULD LET YOU TALK ABOUT THE LAST WEEK OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

THEY DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE OTHER THAN THE ELECTION OF NEW OFFICERS IN THEIR COMMITTEE AS WELL. ANY OTHER? NO. OK. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE IN ITEM 11, PROJECT UPDATES.

[11. PROJECT UPDATES]

SITE PLANS RECEIVED, VILLAGE OF OKEMOS AND SITE PLANS APPROVED.

NONE OF THOSE. SO WE'RE IN THE LAST PUBLIC REMARKS SECTION.

[12. PUBLIC REMARKS]

SO JUST AS AN ASIDE, AS THE PERSON WHO WROTE THE FIRST ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION ON THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, JUST I THINK YOU SHOULD BE AWARE WE AS BOARD MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO BE HERE BY LAW IN ORDER TO FORM A QUORUM AND TO CONDUCT ANY BUSINESS ON BEHALF OF THE TOWNSHIP. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT PEOPLE WATCHING FROM HOME HAVE TO BE HERE.

AND IF THEY WANT TO PARTICIPATE WITH PUBLIC REMARKS, THERE SHOULD BE A METHOD OF CALLING IN. I ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE WITH MR. SCHMIDT THE LAST TIME. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE WERE ABLE TO ARRANGE THAT CAPABILITY OR NOT. I KNOW WE WERE ABLE TO DO IT DURING THE VIRTUAL MEETINGS THAT WE HELD.

IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY EASIER WITH THE VIRTUAL MEETINGS IT IS, AND I DON'T.

I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO STRESS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE.

OK, IN TALKING TO TALKING TO FOLKS, THEY AREN'T ENTIRELY SURE THEY HAVE A GOOD SOLUTION FOR IT IF IN A CERTAIN SETTING LIKE THIS.

WELL, THAT'S RIGHT. SO UNTIL WE ARRANGE ANY OR ARE ABLE TO WORK OUT ANY KIND OF A TECHNICAL METHOD OF DOING IT JUST SO THAT IT'S CLEAR WE HAVE TO BE HERE, BUT THE PUBLIC DOES NOT. YES, MR. NUMBER, I JUST WANTED TO AS SOMEBODY WHO IN MY DAY JOB HELPS COORDINATE PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE HYBRID VERSION IS A LOT HARDER.

ALL OF ONE OR ALL OF THE OTHER IS DOABLE, BUT HYBRID CREATES ALL SORTS OF LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM, AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE WATCHING.

I SYMPATHIZE WITH STAFF AND WOULD NOT WANT TO PUSH THAT ON THEM IF THEY DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE TECHNOLOGY COULD DO IT.

I AGREE THAT IT'S NICE TO ALLOW IT, BUT THE OTHER THING I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JUST LAST WEEK, I BELIEVE, ISSUED AN OPINION RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND THE NEED TO ALLOW FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES THAT PREVENT THEIR IN-PERSON BOARD MEMBERS OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO PARTICIPATE.

SO IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT, OUR ATTORNEYS ARE LOOKING INTO IT TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. YES, I WILL ALSO ADD THAT FOR CITIZENS WHO CAN'T MAKE IT HERE, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ANY WRITTEN DOCUMENTS TO THE STAFF, PREFERABLY BEFORE FRIDAY, WHEN THE PACKET GOES OUT, BUT REALLY ANY TIME.

SO YOUR COMMENTS PROBABLY COMMENTS ON PRETTY MUCH ANY TOPIC CAN BE MADE BY EITHER WRITTEN OR BY EMAIL, TEXTING WHAT HAVE YOU TO STAFF? YEAH, THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT, BECAUSE YOUR COMMENTS WILL BE RECORDED AND WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AT THE NEXT MEETING.

HMM. VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS TO CONSIDER THEN.

SO NOW WE'RE AT THE STAGE OF ADJOURNMENT.

IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MS. CORDELL ANY SECOND ON THAT MOTION? ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT.

AYE.

THEN WE ARE ALL SET. THANK YOU, FOLKS.

THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH. THE MOTION TO ADJOURN PHASE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.