Mar 14, 2022 Planning Commission

[00:00:01]

ALL RIGHT. TODAY IS MONDAY, MARCH 14.

IT IS NOW 7:00.

I CALL THE MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.

FIRST ITEM I WILL DO IS ROLL CALL.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER HENDRICKSON, PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE, PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL, PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY, PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS, PRESENT.

THE CHAIR MARK BLUMER IS PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

WE DID RECEIVE A NOTE THAT SHE WAS HUNG UP AT WORK AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT TONIGHT. ALL RIGHT. AND COMMISSIONER TREZISE, PRESENT.

ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE MEETING IS PUBLIC REMARKS.

THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THERE ARE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT BEFORE THE BOARD, SO I WILL PASS ON THAT.

THERE WILL BE TWO MORE OCCASIONS FOR PUBLIC REMARKS, ONE AFTER EACH PUBLIC HEARING, AND ONE FOR A GENERAL PUBLIC REMARKS SESSION AT THE END OF THIS, AT THE END OF THIS MEETING.

AT THE BEGINNING AT THE PUBLIC REMARKS SECTION, WHICH WILL BE COMING UP DURING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ISSUE. I ASK ANY MEMBERS WHO WISH TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE TO HOLD THEMSELVES TO THE PARTICULAR ISSUE AT QUESTION AT THE TIME, DURING THE GENERAL PUBLIC REMARKS PERIOD AT THE END OF THE MEETING.

THE PUBLIC IS FREE TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUE THAT THEY CARE TO.

ALL RIGHT. NOW THE NEXT ITEM WILL BE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

YEAH. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL MOVED BY MCCONNELL SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

I SHOULD PUT THAT ON THE RECORD EACH TIME SO THEY CAN HEAR IT.

WHICH WE DON'T NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR THAT.

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. ANY OPPOSITION? NO OPPOSITION. THE MOTION PASSED.

THE AGENDA IS APPROVED.

NEXT, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 28, 2022 REGULAR MEETING.

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

VICE CHAIR TREZISE MOVES TO APPROVE, SUPPORT.

SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER HENDRICKSON.

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? NO.

ALL RIGHT. THE AGENDA HAS BEEN APPROVED AND THE APPROVED AND THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 28 MEETING HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

COMMUNICATIONS. ARE THERE ANY COMMUNICATIONS? DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY.

ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE MOVE ON TO ITEM SEVEN IN THE HEARING, WHICH IS PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[7A.Text Amendment 2022-02 – Zoning Board of Appeals standards of review]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS THE FIRST OF WHAT WILL BE MANY OF THE SMALL ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.

THE STAFF WILL BEGIN TO BRING FORWARD THIS ONE WILL.

THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE STREAMLINES THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STANDARDS OF REVIEW FROM EIGHT DOWN TO FIVE.

SEVERAL OF THE EXISTING STANDARDS HAVE SOME DUPLICATIVE LANGUAGE.

THEY OVERLAP A LITTLE MORE THAN I THINK ANYONE WOULD LIKE.

AND THE ZBA ASKED US TO LOOK INTO THIS.

LATE LAST YEAR, THE ZBA DID REVIEW THIS SINCE THE TIME WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIRST SAW THIS IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY, AND NOW.

AND THEY HAVE.

THEY THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

THEY HAD NO MAJOR CONCERNS.

PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO HAD NO MAJOR CONCERNS AT THE LAST MEETING WHERE IT WAS REVIEWED.

AND THUS WE HAVE BROUGHT THIS FORWARD FOR A FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING AND WOULD ASK FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD EITHER TONIGHT OR AT THE NEXT MEETING.

THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD ON THIS ISSUE? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. I'M SORRY.

THANK YOU. SO, AS THE APPOINTEE TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, EVERYTHING THAT DIRECTOR SCHMITT HAS HAS RELAYED TO YOU ABOUT THEIR THOUGHTS IS ACCURATE. THIS IS GOING TO STREAMLINE THOSE MEETINGS SIGNIFICANTLY AND CUT DOWN ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME, WHILE NOT REALLY ELIMINATING ANY OF THE INTENT OF THE ELIMINATED ITEMS. SO VERY, VERY EXCITED TO GET THIS MORE INTO A STREAMLINED FASHION.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN CUT THOSE MEETINGS DOWN FROM THREE HOURS TO TWO AND A HALF.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER HENDRICKSON.

WHAT WERE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE BEING ELIMINATED AS CRITERIA? TO ONE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT PLUS ONE. AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE NOT SELF CREATED.

[00:05:04]

AND IT HAD BEEN THAT WE WERE CONSIDERING EACH OF THOSE ITEMS SEPARATELY FOR EACH CASE THAT CAME BEFORE, AND THERE WAS A LENGTHY DISCUSSION THAT WOULD HAPPEN ON EACH ONE.

WE CAN CONSOLIDATE THOSE DISCUSSIONS DOWN INTO ONE.

AND THERE WAS THERE ARE ONE OR TWO AND MAYBE TIM CAN CAN HELP ME TO REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT WAS THAT WAS ELIMINATED ENTIRELY.

BUT A COUPLE THAT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE TOWNSHIP HAD CREATED ON ITS OWN THAT WE'RE NOT REQUIRED BY STATUTE.

[INAUDIBLE] IT WAS NOT ONE THAT WAS OFTEN REFERENCED.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CORDILL HAD SOMETHING.

OH, YES. ARE WE. ARE WE HANDLING ALL OF THESE AT ONCE? NO, WE'RE JUST WE DO HAVE TO DO FIVE SEPARATE [INAUDIBLE].

OKAY. GOT YOU.

AND ONE OF THESE YOU USE THE TERM, JUST CAN YOU REFRESH MY MEMORY? I'M HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING IT.

LET'S SEE. JUSTICE IN NUMBER THREE, JUSTICE.

THAT'S. THANK YOU. NUMBER TWO.

THREE. SUBSECTION THREE PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

SO THIS IS. SO THE WHOLE CLAUSE IS TALKING ABOUT IT'S SORT OF TWO PARTS TALKING ABOUT THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT ALLOWS SOMEONE TO.

THAT ALLOWS THE PERSON TO CARRY OUT ON THEIR PROPERTY THE ACTION, WHICH IS BOTH IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE, SECURING PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDING THEM SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. SO YOU'RE NOT GIVING THEM EVERYTHING THEY WANT NECESSARILY, BECAUSE THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY.

YOU'RE STILL GIVING THEM SORT OF QUOTE UNQUOTE, JUSTICE UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

AND I THINK THAT THE USE OF THE TERM JUSTICE IS NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT'S TOO SUBJECT TO ALL KINDS OF INTERPRETATION.

I THINK IT'S A CLAUSE THAT'S NOT NEEDED.

I THINK WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT WE WANT TO DO THINGS IN KEEPING WITH THE TOWNSHIP VALUES AND ETC., ETC..

I JUST THINK IT'S WHAT I THINK IS JUST MIGHT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU THINK IS JUSTICE. AND SO FOR ME, IT'S A LEGAL TERM THAT REALLY DOESN'T ADD ANYTHING.

AND I THINK THAT IT ONLY WOULD TEND TO CONFUSE OR CREATE CONFUSION.

IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO PUSH IT THAT WAY.

SO IN MY OPINION, THAT PARTICULAR PHRASE SHOULD BE REMOVED.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

I HAVE A SIMILAR CONCERN WITH THAT PHRASE.

I THINK WHEN I FIRST READ IT, IT FEELS I ASSUME THAT IT'S THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE JUSTICE TO A HOMEOWNER WHO'S SEEKING A OR A PROPERTY OWNER WHO'S SEEKING A VARIANCE.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, PEOPLE WHOM THAT ACTION WHO MIGHT NOT LIKE THAT ACTION ARE ALSO SEEKING JUSTICE.

AND SO THAT. YEAH.

SO, FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR TIM, WHICH IS SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE IS MANDATED BY STATE ORDINANCE. IS IT NOT THEIR STATE STATE LAW? IT IS. THIS IS I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE PIECES.

THE SECOND THING IS, I KNOW THAT IN THE TIME THAT I'VE SPENT ON THE ZBA, THIS CLAUSE HAS BEEN HELPFUL TO US AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE.

AND WE'VE SORT OF VIEW THIS AS THE APPLICANTS WHO ARE COMING TO US FEEL UNFAIRLY IMPACTED BY ONE OF THE TOWNSHIP'S ORDINANCES.

AND SO THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO OBTAIN SOME MEASURE OF JUSTICE AGAINST A AN ORDINANCE THAT THEY FEEL HAS SOMEHOW IMPACTED THEM DIFFERENTLY THAN WAS INTENDED BY THE TOWNSHIP BOARD AND THE FOLKS WHO ENFORCE IT.

AND SO FOR ME, I'M FINE WITH IT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN HERE.

I CERTAINLY SEE THE POINT THAT THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE MADE.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING I'M GOING TO TIE MYSELF TO PERMANENTLY, BUT I HAVE FOUND THAT IT'S BEEN A HELPFUL CLAUSE TO AT LEAST FRAME THE DISCUSSION IN THOSE MEETINGS.

IS RELIEF A REASONABLE TERM, AN APPROPRIATE TERM? I DON'T MEAN RELIEF IN THE SENSE THAT NOTHING IS APPLIED BUT SOME SORT OF BALANCE OF

[00:10:04]

AND CAN WE SEARCH FOR A WORD LIKE THAT? ABSOLUTELY. COMMISSIONER RICHARD.

YEAH, I WAS THINKING ALONG THE SAME LINES, BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS AND BALANCING BALANCES, COMPETING INTERESTS SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR A BALANCE.

AND I THROW THAT OUT THERE, AS DOES IT REALLY IS SIMILAR IN THE CONTEXT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE ON THE ZBA.

IF I MAY MAKE A SUGGESTION.

JUSTICE IS OFTEN COMPARED TO FAIRNESS, AND IF YOU JUST SUBSTITUTE THE WORD SUBSTANTIAL FAIRNESS INSTEAD OF JUSTICE.

I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THE WORD FAIRNESS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WHAT'S FAIR TO YOU IS NOT FAIR TO ME. AND I LIKE WHAT JERRYS' SUGGESTING MUCH BETTER, SAY THAT AGAIN JERRY.

BALANCES COMPETING INTERESTS.

YES. THAT TO ME MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE THAN JUSTICE OR FAIRNESS OR RELIEF OR ANY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE CAN TALK ABOUT BALANCE AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT IN TERMS OF YOUR COMMITTEE'S NEEDS, THAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE THINGS AS EVEN AS WE COULD.

AND THAT IS ABOUT MORE, IN MY MIND OF BALANCE ISSUE THAN A JUSTICE ISSUE.

AS A POSSIBILITY.

BUT GIVEN THAT THIS ISN'T AUTOMATIC, THIS WOULD BE GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PROVIDE SOME RELIEF, AND THAT MIGHT NOT BE WHAT THE DECISION IS.

SO TO IMPLY THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME RELIEF GRANTED, EVEN AT A MINIMAL LEVEL, IS PROBABLY PAINT YOU IN A CORNER SOMEWHAT.

[INAUDIBLE] MAYBE I CAN JUST FOR CONSIDERATION WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THAT CLAUSE IF WE SIMPLY LEFT OUT THE LAST CLAUSE AFTER THE WORD SAFETY? ALL RIGHT.

ARE THERE ANY MOTIONS TO PRESENT? I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE WHOLE PART OF NUMBER THREE, SUBSECTION THREE.

AND I THINK ALL OF THE WORDS THAT FOLLOW ARE DEFINING THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY TOO.

AND SO I THINK THE BALANCE COMPETING, I THINK I WOULD SUPPORT WHAT COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON SAID TO CHANGE IT.

BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT IT'S NOT STAND ALONE JUSTICE.

IT'S JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF THOSE VARIANCE OF THE MINIMUM ACTION.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON.

SO WHEN WE CONSIDER, SAY, A VARIANCE ON A SETBACK, FOR EXAMPLE, ON A YARD, THE OPERATING CLAUSE HERE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY JUST TO PROVIDE THE RELIEF, OR THE JUSTICE, OR THE BALANCE OR WHATEVER IT IS.

SO IF SOMEONE COMES AND ASKS FOR A TWENTY FOOT VARIANCE FROM OUR SETBACK RULES AND WE DETERMINE THAT WE CAN GET ESSENTIALLY THE SAME RELIEF TO THEM BY DOING A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE, WE WILL SOMETIMES MAKE THAT CHANGE SO THAT IT'S A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE INSTEAD OF A TWENTY FOOT VARIANCE, THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THEM SOME MEASURE OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, BALANCE UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

AND SO IT REALLY IS IT'S SORT OF DETERMINING IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, THE MINIMUM AMOUNT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THEM WHAT THEY'RE SEEKING UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

WHICH I THINK YOU'VE CLEARLY STATED, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR THE USE OF THE TERM JUSTICE, BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, I MAY OR MAY NOT THINK YOUR DECISION IS A JUST DECISION, YOU KNOW, RATHER IT MAKES SENSE OR NOT, YOU KNOW, AND IN TERMS OF MY YARD AND MY HOUSE AND MY DOG OR WHATEVER AND SO EITHER IT'S A PHRASE THAT'S NOT NEEDED OR I'M FINE WITH BALANCING, COMPETING, YOU KNOW, POINTS OF VIEW OR WHATEVER.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS AT LEAST AN EFFORT TO SAY WE'VE TAKEN IN EVERYBODY'S ISSUES.

WE'VE TRIED TO CONSIDER EVERYBODY'S ISSUES.

YOU KNOW, LET ME DO THIS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY IN THE RECORD, LET'S TAKE AN INITIAL STRAW VOTE.

[00:15:01]

TWO AYES.

THOSE OPPOSED? ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE OPPOSED AND ONE ABSTAINED.

I'M ON THE FENCE. IS THERE A MOTION TO MAKE TO SUGGEST PROPOSED AMENDED LANGUAGE? SO I THINK WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST AT THIS POINT IS, GIVEN THAT THIS IS JUST THE PUBLIC HEARING, NO MOTIONS ARE NECESSARY, GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK INTO THIS, BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING WE HAD PROPOSED TO CHANGE.

THIS IS EXISTING LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN IN THE ORDINANCE SINCE 1974.

SO WE ARE NOT FULLY PREPARED TO CHANGE THIS ONE ON THE FLY RIGHT NOW.

SO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK INTO IT AFTER WE'VE HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL BRING SOME REVISED LANGUAGE BACK TO THE BOARD.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY. CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION JUST FOR CLARITY? IN THE DRAFT THAT WE HAVE THAT'S REDLINED, THERE ARE SOME TEXT THAT'S ADDED OR STRUCK THAT'S RED AND SOME THAT'S BLUE.

IS THAT JUST A MATTER OF DIFFERENT EDITORS OR IS THERE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO? JUST A MATTER OF DIFFERENT EDITORS.

GOT IT. THANKS. I WAS AT THE FRONT DESK ONE DAY WORKING ON THIS ONE.

I'M SORRY.

I'M GOOD WITH THAT. WITH THE CURRENT.

I'M GOOD WITH THE GIVING.

GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK.

I WOULD POINT OUT THAT BY ELIMINATING THAT CLAUSE DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE CONCERNS FOR THE MEMBERS. IF YOU LOOK AT ALL FIVE PIECES TOGETHER, THERE IS A WEIGHING IMPLIED FOR IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS AND FOLLOWING THE ORDINANCE.

SO THAT MAY BE SUPERFLUOUS LANGUAGE THAT COULD END AT THE END OF BEFORE THAT.

COMMISSIONER HENDRICKSON. YEAH, AND SEE WHAT THE WAY THE WAY I HAVE VIEWED THIS AS IS CLAUSE THREE, AS IT'S WRITTEN HERE IS THE ARBITER BETWEEN THE PERSON AND THE ORDINANCE, WHEREAS CLAUSE FOUR SORT OF WEIGHS THE THE APPLICANT VERSUS THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THE NEIGHBORS. RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S HOW I'VE ALWAYS VIEWED THOSE TWO ITEMS WHEN WE COME ACROSS THEM IN DISCUSSIONS.

BUT I THINK RATHER I WOULD PREFER GENERALLY THAT WE FIND SOME WAY TO ADDRESS IT WITHOUT STRIKING THAT CLAUSE ENTIRELY.

WE CAN FIND A WORD THAT'S MORE SUITABLE IF BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS IS IS WHAT WE GO WITH OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, THAT'S FINE.

I DO THINK IT'S THE BETTER.

WE FRAME THIS IN THE GENERAL GUIDELINES, THE EASIER THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE FOR THAT BODY, THE MORE VAGUE IT IS, THE MORE DIFFICULT IT IS.

RIGHT. AND SO, AS AN EXAMPLE, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES [INAUDIBLE] PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HAS BEEN AN ISSUE THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TIME AND TIME AGAIN, WELL WHAT IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? RIGHT. AND THAT MAY AGAIN BE SOMETHING THAT'S REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.

DEFINITION OF WHAT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS.

AND SO AS FEW OF THOSE AS WE CAN MUSTER WOULD BE HELPFUL.

MY OWN OPINION ON THIS, AND I HAVEN'T YET EXPRESSED IT, IS THAT THE PHRASE PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DOES EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

IT THROWS VAGUENESS INTO THE INTO THE ORDINANCE WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD NOT BE THERE.

IT'S AN INVITATION TO ARGUE OVER WHETHER OR NOT JUSTICE WAS PROVIDED, AND MY OWN POSITION ON THIS WOULD BE EITHER ELIMINATE IT ENTIRELY OR USE COMMISSIONER RICHARD'S SUGGESTED ALTERNATE LANGUAGE, WHICH I THINK IS HIGHLY APPROPRIATE.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL I THINK I AGREE WITH YOU.

THE CLAUSE RIGHT BEFORE THAT SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY SEEMS LIKE IT COULD ALSO RIGHT IN BALANCING THE APPLICANT'S NEEDS AND THE GENERAL INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC.

I LIKE THAT IDEA OF BALANCING AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IS IS IN THERE FOR. I ALSO IN IN CLAUSE TWO, I AM PARTICULARLY FOND OF THE PART THAT WAS STRUCK OUT THAT THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, WHICH WILL RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE WOULD UNREASONABLY THAT LANGUAGE SHOULD BE STRICKEN JUST ON GRAMMATICAL [LAUGHTER]. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLIMENT THE STAFF.

I THINK YOU'VE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB ON THIS IN SIMPLIFYING AND CLARIFYING GRAMMATICALLY IMPRECISE LANGUAGE.

I THINK IT'S A REALLY A VERY GOOD JOB OVERALL.

BUT I DO AGREE WITH THE SUGGESTION TO AMEND TO AMEND THAT PARTICULAR PHRASE IN IN PARAGRAPH THREE, WE WILL FIND SOME LANGUAGE AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL JUST ONE MORE.

[00:20:03]

LEGISLATION. I'LL NEED TO LOOK INTO THAT.

IT'S A I KNOW IT'S IN THE PLANNING LEGISLATION.

I WAS JUST THINKING OF THAT BECAUSE LIKE SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY.

I, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF A PARTICULAR INSTANCE OF THAT.

I MEAN, YOU THINK BUILDING CODES AND FIRE CODES DEFINITELY ADDRESS THAT, BUT.

I'M JUST TRYING TO SEARCH.

IT HELPS ME TO MAYBE OUR FORMER CHAIR HENDRICKSON COULD GIVE US INSTANT EXAMPLES.

OR YOU DIRECTOR OF SECURING PUBLIC SAFETY IN AN ISSUE WHERE YOU MIGHT OR MIGHT BE ASKING FOR LESS RESTRICTIVE OR APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE, I GUESS.

WELL, ONE OF THE EXAMPLES THAT I WOULD GIVE IS FROM MY PREVIOUS JOB, WE HAD A REQUEST FOR A METAL RECYCLING FACILITY IN THE INDUSTRIAL PART OF TOWN THEY NEEDED A VARIANCE FROM FUNDAMENTALLY, IT WAS THE PAVING STANDARDS BECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT THEY WERE BRINGING IN WAS JUST GOING TO DESTROY THE PAVING.

SO THEIR POINT WAS, LET'S JUST GO TO A MORE APPROPRIATE SURFACE, LIKE A [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S GOING TO HARDEN UP AS IT GETS BROKEN UP AS OPPOSED TO CONCRETE, WHICH IS JUST GOING TO PIT AND CRACK AND HAVE TO REPLACE.

AND A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THAT VARIANCE WAS SURROUNDING THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT BOTH GROUNDWATER AND RUNOFF AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON THE SURROUNDING STREETS WHERE THEY MAY HAVE GRAVEL COMING INTO THE ROAD AND AFFECTING CARS BECAUSE IT'S A LARGE TRUCK THAT'S GOING TO KICK IT UP.

SO TYPICALLY WHEN YOU GET TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC SAFETY QUESTIONS, THOSE ARE LARGELY GOING TO BE MORE ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, FRANKLY, THAN THAN THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HENDRICKSON.

I HAD A RECENT EXAMPLE THAT WE SAW HERE JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO WAS THE THE ZBAS CONSIDERATION OF THE PARKING SPACES [INAUDIBLE] WHAT WILL BE THE NEW TRADER JOE'S.

WITHOUT THEM, WE EXPECTED THAT PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO CROSS THE STREET FROM THE HOBBY LOBBY PARKING LOT OR COME ACROSS A VACANT LOT FROM THE PARKING LOTS TO THE SOUTH.

SO THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT PUBLIC INTEREST AND SAYING PUBLIC SAFETY BY HAVING THOSE PARKING SPACES BE ON SITE AS OPPOSED TO SOMEWHERE ELSE FURTHER AWAY WHERE THEY MIGHT HAVE TO ENDANGER THEMSELVES CROSSING A ROAD.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS.

SO THE MATTER IS THEN REFERRED BACK TO STAFF FOR WE WILL BRING IT BACK.

NOW THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN MET.

WE WILL BRING IT BACK WITH SOME REVISIONS AND POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION IN THE FUTURE.

ALL RIGHT. THIS ITEM OF PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AT 7:25.

ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM FOR FOR HEARING IS PUBLIC HEARING IS ITEM SEVEN B, WHICH IS TEXT

[7B.Text Amendment 2022-03 – Lake Lansing Residential Overlay District – Lot Coverage]

SO THIS IS A RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD ONE.

AGAIN, AS A RESULT OF A SERIES OF ZBA CASES, STAFF WILL POINT OUT AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BROADER LOOK AT THE LAKE LANSING RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT. IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE FUNCTIONING IN THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY, AND WE THINK WE CAN MAKE SOME FURTHER CHANGES.

BUT THE TWO AMENDMENTS YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING WILL ADDRESS THE TWO MOST COMMON PROBLEMS THAT WE SEE.

THIS WILL INCREASE THE DRIVEWAY LOT COVERAGE THAT'S PERMITTED IN THE FRONT YARD ON BOTH THE EXISTING LOTS LESS THAN SIXTY FIVE FEET AND ALL OF THE LOTS GREATER THAN SIXTY FIVE FEET. THE GREATER THAN SIXTY FIVE FEET GENERALLY AREN'T THE PROBLEM, BUT WE ALLOWED FOR A SLIGHT INCREASE THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT LEAVING THEM BEHIND.

THE ONES UNDER SIXTY FIVE FEET ARE WHERE YOU FIND THE PROBLEM.

AND SO IN LOOKING AT THE VARIANCES THAT HAD BEEN GRANTED, 65% LOOKS TO BE THE SWEET, SWEET SPOT FOR MOST PEOPLE UNDER THAT, BECAUSE THAT STILL GETS THEM SORT OF THE TWO CAR GARAGE ON EVEN OR A TWO CAR DRIVEWAY ON EVEN THE SMALLER LOTS, BUT DOES NOT NEED THEM TO

[00:25:01]

THEN WE WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS THE MORE COMMON SITUATIONS, AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THIS. ANY DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL. WHAT IS THE TYPICAL WIDTH OF BASICALLY A TWO LANE DRIVEWAY? YEAH. SO, SO NORMAL NORMAL PARKING SPACE, WHICH IS THE EASIEST WAY TO THINK THROUGH THIS, IS GOING TO BE NINE BY TWENTY.

SO NINE FEET WIDE, TWENTY FEET DEEP.

SOME PLACES MAKE THEM TEN FEET.

IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE EXTRA SPACE, ELBOW SPACE FOR YOUR DOORS.

SURE. SO TYPICALLY WITH THE DRIVEWAY, MINIMUM IS GOING TO BE EIGHTEEN FEET WIDE.

NOW, MOST PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU THAT WE NEED A LITTLE EXTRA SPACE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET TWO CARS THAT CLOSE TOGETHER IN YOUR DRIVEWAY AND STILL BE ABLE TO GET OUT EITHER THE DRIVER OR THE PASSENGER SIDE INTO THE MIDDLE.

SO YOU NEED A LITTLE EXTRA SPACE.

AND I THINK THAT'S LARGELY WHAT WE STARTED TO SEE, IS WE STARTED TO SEE THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE ADDING ONE AND TWO AND THREE FEET ON THE EDGE OF THEIR [INAUDIBLE] THEY WERE ADDING A LITTLE BIT ON THE EDGE OF ON THEIR DRIVEWAY AND IT WAS KNOCKING OVER THE LOT COVERAGE.

AND SO I WOULD TELL YOU THAT MOST MODERN DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE BUILT IN NEW HOUSES, THEY'RE GOING TO BE TWENTY FEET WIDE.

IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD NOWADAYS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PLAYS INTO I THOUGHT THIS ONE THOUGHT OF MINE MIGHT HELP REDUCE THAT. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO LIVE WITH IT.

I'VE SEEN IT WHERE WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS FLARED BY THE GARAGE.

BUT THEN IT NARROWS.

SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO PULL OUT.

I MEAN, NOT THAT. NOT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PULL OUT TWO CAR SIMULTANEOUSLY, BUT TO PULL OUT ONE CAR AT A TIME.

SO THAT WORKS. AND WE SEE THAT A LOT OF SUBDIVISIONS ACTUALLY IT WORKS REALLY WELL IF YOU HAVE THE 8 TO 10 FEET TO GO AROUND THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE THAT'S PEOPLE TEND TO PARK THEIR LIKE EXTRA VEHICLES OR THEIR BOATS OR WHATEVER ALONG THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE IN THESE TIGHT LOTS AROUND THE LAKE.

IT DOESN'T DO AS MUCH FOR SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU'RE REALLY ONLY WORKING WITH, IN SOME CASES ONLY A TWENTY FOOT DEEP SPACE ANYWAY.

SO IF YOU FLARED IT OUT BY THE TIME YOU CUT THE FLARE BACK, YOU'RE HALFWAY INTO THE ROAD TO GET IT TO NECK IT DOWN.

SO MOST OF THESE DRIVEWAYS END UP JUST BEING RECTANGULAR SLABS THAT PULL OUT INTO THE ROAD BECAUSE THERE'S JUST NOT SPACE.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE DEPTH IS TOO IS TOO SHALLOW TO REALLY MAKE THAT? YES. AROUND THE LAKE, THE DEPTH IS GENERALLY TOO SHALLOW BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE FOUND IS MOST OF THESE LOTS ALSO HAVE A SPECIFIC SETBACK OFF OF THE LAKE THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MEET.

THAT'S WELL IN EXCESS OF ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE.

AND SO EVERYONE IS PUSHING THEIR HOUSE AS CLOSE AS THEY CAN TO THE ROADS WHILE STILL HAVING SOME DRIVEWAYS TO PARK IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THAT.

ABSOLUTELY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE? RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL RIGHT.

CLOSE THE DISCUSSION. SO DO WE WANT TO REFER [INAUDIBLE] DO WE NEED A STRAW POLL? ALL RIGHT. LET'S HOLD A STRAW POLL TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT WE RECOMMEND REFERRING THIS IN ITS CURRENT STATE TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE STRAW POLL FAVORED SENDING THIS LANGUAGE IN ITS CURRENT FORMAT TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

WE'LL CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION AT 7:30 AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE.

AND PUBLIC HEARINGS WOULD BE ITEM SEVEN C, WHICH IS TEXT AMENDMENT 2204.

[7C.Text Amendment 2022-04 – Lake Lansing Residential Overlay District – Front Yard Setbacks]

SO THIS IS THE OTHER PIECE OF THE LAKE LANSING AMENDMENTS WE'RE PROPOSING RIGHT NOW.

THIS TAKES IN INSTEAD OF A STRAIGHT 20 FOOT SETBACK THAT REMAINS IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S ALLOWING FOR AN OPTION TO REDUCE THAT SETBACK TO THE AVERAGE OF THE SETBACKS TO THE HOUSES WITHIN A HUNDRED FIFTY FEET.

THIS IS ACTUALLY BORROWED FROM ANOTHER PART OF THE ORDINANCE.

THIS CONCEPT ALREADY EXISTS IN OUR ORDINANCE.

AND SO WE'VE CLARIFIED IT A LITTLE BIT AND BROUGHT IT TO THE LAKE LANSING DISTRICT TO ADDRESS THE SETBACK CONCERNS THAT THE ZBA WAS SEEING.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

I HAVE A SISTER AND SEVERAL FRIENDS WHO LIVE ON LAKES AND THEY'RE ALL VERY INSISTENT THAT THEIR FRONT YARD IS THE ONE THAT FACES THE LAKE.

SO IS THIS GOING TO BE CLEAR THAT IS FROM THE STREET? BY DEFINITION IT IS FROM THE STREET.

THEY'LL ALL BE CONFUSED BY THAT JUST BECAUSE I KNOW, LAKE PEOPLE, I'VE HEARD THAT AS WELL FROM EVERYWHERE I'VE BEEN. BUT SETBACKS BY BY ZONING CODE ARE ALWAYS FROM THE STREET.

GOT IT. THANK YOU.

[00:30:03]

IF YOU DRIVE AROUND THE LAKE, ESPECIALLY ON THE ROADS THAT ARE DIRECTLY HOUSES DIRECTLY ON THE LAKE, IT'S A REAL HODGEPODGE OF DISTANCE FROM THE ROAD WHEN IT COMES TO THE SPLIT FRONT YARD SETBACKS.

THIS WILL HELP TO HOMOGENIZE THAT A LITTLE BIT.

AND SO I'M PLEASED THAT THAT THIS LANGUAGE EXISTED ALREADY AND THAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT IT HERE. I THINK THIS IS A PRETTY NEAT SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT HARDER TO DEAL WITH.

SO I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS AS IT'S WRITTEN.

A LOT OF THAT VARIANCE PROBABLY DEPENDS ON THE AGE OF THE HOUSE.

THERE'S A VERY WIDE VARIATION IN AGE OF THE BUILDINGS ALONG THE LAKE FRONTAGE, AND THIS PROBABLY IS A RESULT OF THAT.

ARE PEOPLE READY FOR A STRAW VOTE ON THIS ISSUE? IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A STRAW VOTE THEN ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE LANGUAGE SHOULD BE RECOMMENDED TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? NONE OPPOSED.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL CLOSE THIS ISSUE THEN AT AGAIN, 7:32.

THE NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION, PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE ON ITEM SEVEN D, WHICH IS TEXT

[7D.Text Amendment 2022-05 – Fence Height]

SO THIS ADDRESSES RESIDENTIAL VERSUS NON RESIDENTIAL VS NONRESIDENTIAL CURRENTLY WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.

THAT DISTINCTION DOES NOT EXIST.

WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT NON RESIDENTIAL FENCES TEND TO BE A FOOT OR TWO TALLER BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO SCREEN OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT OR SCREEN OUTDOOR STORAGE, OR YOU JUST NEED A SLIGHTLY TALLER FENCE BECAUSE YOU CAN GET OVER A SIX FOOT FENCE, EASIER TO GET BACK INTO THE CONTRACTOR'S YARD.

SO THIS PROVIDES FOR A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY THERE FOR NON RESIDENTIAL USERS TO HAVE A EVER SO SLIGHTLY TALLER FENCE UP TO EIGHT FEET.

UPON APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT.

ALSO A RESULT OF A ZBA CASE RECENTLY.

ANY DISCUSSION? YEAH.

SO THE XBOX, I THINK THAT THE THE DISCRETION PROVIDED IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE, IN THE IN THE CASE THAT DIRECTOR SCHMITT WAS MENTIONED REFERRING TO WAS ON DAWN AVENUE IN OUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED A SIX FOOT FENCE.

EVERYONE AROUND THEM HAD A SEVEN FOOT FENCE, AND THERE WAS NO REASON THAT THEY COULD GIVE WHY THEY NEEDED A TALLER FENCE, EXCEPT THAT EVERYONE ELSE ALREADY HAD IT.

AND SO WE FELT OUR HANDS WERE RELATIVELY TIED AND I DON'T THINK WE ENDED UP GRANTING THAT PARTICULAR VARIANCE WHEN THEY CAME FORWARD BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REAL RATIONALE GIVEN FOR WHY NO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE COULD BE HAD HERE.

AND SO I THINK THIS IS THIS IS GREAT.

IT GIVES THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THE ABILITY TO GO TO SEVEN FEET IF ALL THE FENCES IN THE AREA ARE SEVEN FEET OR GO A LITTLE BIT TALLER, IF EVERYWHERE ELSE IF IT MERITS IT.

SO I THINK THIS IS THIS IS A GOOD, FLEXIBLE CHANGE THAT IS BEING IMPLEMENTED HERE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE PARTICULAR ISSUE OF HAVING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PLANNING HAVE FIRST AUTHORITY OVER MAKING THAT DECISION? OR IS THAT SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS? IT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD NECESSARILY NEED TO RISE TO THE LEVEL OF COMING TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.

I THINK IT'S SORT OF THE SORT OF THING THAT MIGHT BE HANDLED AT A SITE PLAN LEVEL ORDINARILY WITH THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PLANNING.

AND I THINK THAT THIS IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

JUST FOR A POINT OF CLARITY, IF THE PLANNING OFFICE DENIED AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, COULD THEY THEN APPEAL THAT TO THE ZBA OR WOULD IT BE DONE THERE? THAT IS IN FACT THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD GET TO THE ZBA IS IF WE DENIED IT AND THEY THEN APPEALED IT. IT DOESN'T PREVENT THEM FROM GOING THERE IF THAT'S WHERE THEY HAVE TO GO TO

[00:35:02]

OKAY. BUT THE ZBA COULD NOT IF IT WAS EIGHT FEET SUBJECT TO THE ZBA.

THAT'S NOT A WORKABLE STANDARD BECAUSE THE ZBA IS NOT A PERMISSIVE BODY THEY DEAL WITH APPEALS. WELL, THERE'S THAT.

AND THE FACT THAT YOU'RE NOT GETTING AWAY FROM.

CORRECT. THESE HEARINGS THAT AREN'T PARTICULARLY PRODUCTIVE IN MOST OF THOSE CASES ARE THERE IS USUALLY A PRETTY GOOD REASON FOR WANTING A SLIGHTLY HIGHER FENCE, IF THEY AT LEAST STATED. MR. HENDRICKSON. I THINK I MIGHT BE WRONG, BUT I THINK WE CONSIDERED AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PLANNING'S DECISION IN THIS BODY AT ONE POINT.

ARE THERE TWO DIFFERENT APPEALS PROCESSES? YEAH, ACTUALLY, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PLACES IN THE ORDINANCE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, AND IT'S WRITTEN IN THAT YOU APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WILL BE TAKING A LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE IT SEEMS UNUSUAL, BECAUSE APPEAL, I MEAN, THAT'S PRETTY STRAIGHT OUT OF THE STATE STATUTE IS APPEALS AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS GO TO THE ZBA.

SO I HAVE TO REMIND MYSELF HOW THOSE ARE WRITTEN.

BUT YES, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SPOTS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS IT, IT WAS A WHILE AGO.

WELL, I THINK IT WAS QUESTION OF A VARIANCE ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT WAS GRANTED AT ONE POINT OR SOMETHING.

AND NEIGHBORS WANTED TO BRING IT BACK TO US AND SAY THEY'RE ASKING TO AMEND IT.

THIS ISN'T A SIMPLE AMENDMENT.

AND SO WE GOT INTO IT THAT.

UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT MAKES SENSE GIVEN THE CONTEXT.

IN FACT, THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE A ZONING ISSUE.

I MEAN, THERE IS CERTAINLY A CASE TO BE MADE THERE THAT THAT IS A JUDICIAL QUESTION.

BUT. ALL RIGHT, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT? LET'S TAKE A STRAW VOTE THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RECOMMENDING THE LANGUAGE AS PRESENTED TO THE TO THE BOARD SAY AYE, AYE.

ANY OPPOSITION? NO, THE MATTER IS RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD THEN.

ALL RIGHT, SO THAT WAS ITEM SEVEN D THE LAST ITEM ON THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION IS SEVEN

[7E.Text Amendment 2022-06 – Yard Encroachments Permitted]

THAT IS TEXT AMENDMENT 2022-06.

YES. SO THIS IS THE FIRST ONE THAT DID NOT GO TO THE ZBA.

THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY STAFF.

AND I ASKED THE QUESTION WHY? AND WE STARTED DOWN A RABBIT HOLE.

AND THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT NO BUILDING MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE PORCH IN ANY ONE YARD, AND PORCH AND DECK ARE FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME IN THE ORDINANCE.

AND SO WE STARTED ASKING QUESTIONS AND WE'RE LIKE, OKAY, LET'S JUST STRIKE THAT.

THERE'S, THERE'S REALLY THERE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY REASONS WHY SOMEONE COULD NEED TWO PORCHES OR TWO DECKS IN A YARD IF THE GRADE IS DROPPING OFF, IF THERE'S A SEPARATE SLIDING GLASS DOOR FROM THE MASTER AND FROM THE KIDS WING OF THE HOUSE, AND THEY WANT SEPARATE DECKS. I MEAN, I CAN COME UP WITH REASONS WHY THIS DOESN'T NEED TO EXIST, AND IT COMES UP EXTREMELY RARELY.

BUT EVERY TIME IT COMES UP, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY ALWAYS HAD TO TRY TO FIND INTERPRETATION AROUND IT.

SO WE'RE JUST PROPOSING WE STRIKE THAT.

IS THERE ANY HISTORY THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF AS TO WHY IT CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE? NO, BUT I CAN I CAN TELL YOU WHEN IT COMES UP IS WHEN WE DEAL WITH CONDO COMPLEXES AND SOMEONE WANTS TO CHANGE A DECK THERE.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

YEAH. LOOKING AT THIS LANGUAGE, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE LIMITATION OF EIGHT FEET ALSO, SO THE EIGHT FOOT SET BACK, OH, IT CAN'T BE REQUIRED SIDE OR YOU'RE NOT TO EXCEED EIGHT FEET OF PORCH OR PATIO.

SO THERE'S STILL AN INTENTION THERE TO GET A MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK OF EIGHT FEET.

SO OFF OF THAT PROPERTY LINE, YOU CAN ENCROACH UP TO EIGHT FEET.

SO IN SOME IN SOME DISTRICTS THAT SETBACKS FIFTEEN FEET NORMALLY.

SO YOU CAN HAVE A SEVEN FOOT DECK.

IN SOME DISTRICTS, THAT SETBACK IS TEN FEET.

SO IF YOU'RE IN A SIDE YARD, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE A TWO FOOT DECK OR HAVE A LITTLE WIDOW'S BALCONY. BUT THERE IS AN ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN THAT EIGHT FOOT OF SETBACK BECAUSE GETTING MUCH CLOSER THAN THAT AND YOU START GETTING INTO SOME FIRING ISSUES.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE A STRAW VOTE, THEN, ON WHETHER THE BOARD RECOMMENDS WHETHER THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THIS TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD IN ITS CURRENTLY EXISTING LANGUAGE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE.

OPPOSED. NO OPPOSITION.

MATTER IS RECOMMENDED.

THANK YOU, MR. SCHMIDT.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

FINISHED PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 7:37 FOR NUMBER FOUR AND 7:40 FOR NUMBER FIVE, THE MINUTES

[00:40:06]

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

NO, THERE IS NONE.

ALL RIGHT. OTHER BUSINESS.

[9. OTHER BUSINESS]

I'VE GOTTEN THREE PHONE CALLS SUGGESTING THAT CITIZENS OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE FACT THAT $7 MILLION AND THAT'S THE FIGURE THEY'RE QUOTING, $7 MILLION IS BEING GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPERS OF DOWNTOWN OKEMOS.

NOW, WHAT THAT SAYS TO ME IS WE'RE NOT DOING A VERY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING WHAT'S GOING ON. AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY GOT THAT NUMBER AND I DON'T KNOW.

AND AND THE CLARIFICATION YOU SENT TO ME, I PASS IT ALONG TO THOSE THREE CITIZENS.

BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF KEEPING THE CITIZENRY INFORMED AS TO WHAT'S COMING FROM US AND WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, AND AND ALSO THE USE.

THE MINUTE I SAID IT'S FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, PEOPLE CALMED RIGHT DOWN BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD, OH, PUBLIC GOOD, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WERE HEARING.

SO I JUST THINK IN MATTERS LIKE THIS, ESPECIALLY WHEN TOWNSHIP MONEY IS INVOLVED, WE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR WITH OUR CITIZENS AND PUBLIC AND IT'LL STILL GET CONFUSED.

BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO BE STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH WITH THAT AND I WILL BRING IT UP AGAIN THURSDAY WITH THE BRE COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT'S AN ISSUE THAT DIRECTLY IMPACTS THEM.

BUT I JUST THINK COMMUNICATION WISE, WE NEED TO DO WE NEED TO DO THE BEST WE CAN.

AND I WOULD JUST I WOULD I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE PARTS OF THE NEW WEBSITE THAT IS AS UP TO DATE AS ANYTHING, AND WE'LL BE KEPT UP TO DATE AS ANYTHING.

COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER HAS DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB OF WORKING ON THIS DEVELOPMENT PIECE, SPECIFICALLY IN THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS.

SPECIFICALLY, BE HAPPY TO TALK TO ANY RESIDENTS THAT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT OUR WEBSITE IS UP TO DATE AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE MOST UP TO DATE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN GET OUT THERE. AND PART OF WHAT I DID WAS TO REFER TOO, I SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING TO THE WRONG WE DON'T WE'RE NOT MAKING THAT DECISION ON MY COMMISSION.

SO YOU'RE NOT TALKING TO THE RIGHT PERSON.

THEY GOT MY NAME FROM A FRIEND OF MINE WHO SAID, OH, CALLED PREMOE HE OWNS OWNS THE TOWNSHIP [LAUGHTER].

SO WHATEVER WE CAN DO AND I AGREE THAT THE WEBSITE IS A GOOD ONE.

NOT EVERYBODY NECESSARILY ACCESSES IT.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THE STATE YOU'RE IN WOULD DO A BLURB.

WHATEVER COMMUNICATION VEHICLES WE CAN ACCESS WHEN WE MAKE THESE KINDS OF DECISIONS, I THINK IT'S JUST TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ALL POSSIBLE VEHICLES IS A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE PUBLIC MISINFORMATION, AS WE ALL KNOW, HAS BEEN PANDEMIC, TO USE A PHRASE.

YES. JUST FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THERE IS VERY LITTLE LOCAL COVERAGE ANYMORE THAT I CAN SEE. I MEAN, I I'VE BEEN A PLANNING COMMISSIONER IN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES SINCE 1999.

AND I REMEMBER SEEING PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO I PRESUME TO BE MEMBERS OF THE PRESS, AND THEN YOU WOULD SEE A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SHOWING UP.

SO MAYBE THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE, TOO.

PEOPLE AREN'T READING LOCAL PAPERS LIKE THEY USED TO.

I THINK WE'RE LOSING SOMETHING FOR THAT TOO IN OUR CIVIL.

BUT ANYWAY, THAT THAT MIGHT BE SOME OF THE ISSUES.

NO. AND TO THAT POINT, DIRECTOR [INAUDIBLE] AND I HAVE A VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH [INAUDIBLE] WHO'S THE LOCAL REPORTER, AND I THINK THERE WAS AN ARTICLE ALREADY ON THE [INAUDIBLE]. SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE INFORMATION OUT THERE AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO WORK. WE ARE AT THE ALL THREE BEGINNING OF THE BUSY PART AND ALL THREE CALLS WERE FROM

[00:45:01]

AND THE FIRST THING THEY SAID IS THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME ANY MONEY, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S SORT OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, AND SO I'M JUST I'M JUST SAYING I'M NOT FOLDING AS MUCH AS I'M JUST ENCOURAGING.

ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.

YEAH, I CERTAINLY CAN SEE WHERE THERE MIGHT BE SOME SOME CONFUSION AROUND THAT.

I THINK I FIND WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SEVEN AND A HALF, THERE'S A REQUEST TO THE [INAUDIBLE] FOR 3.2 AND A REQUEST TO THE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR 4.3.

THIS IS OFF OF THE TOWNSHIP'S WEBSITE.

THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S BEING GRANTED.

ALL RIGHT. I THINK IT COULD BE I DON'T WANT TO MISSTATE AND GET THE WRONG INFORMATION, BUT I BELIEVE THAT A SMALLER AMOUNT MAY HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD FROM THE [INAUDIBLE] IS NOT INVOLVED YET.

I'M SORRY. [INAUDIBLE] YEAH, NO.

AND THAT ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TOMORROW NIGHT AT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

THE RECOMMENDATION IS SUBSTANTIALLY SMALLER THAN THE ORIGINAL REQUEST.

AND ALSO WHAT PEOPLE AREN'T AWARE OF IS A LOT OF THE MONEY THAT'S BEING REQUESTED IS COMING FROM THE STATE.

YOU KNOW, IF THEY SAW THE PERCENTAGES IN TERMS OF WHAT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP IS PUTTING UP, IT'S A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE COMPARED TO WHERE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES ARE COMING FROM.

AND LIKE I SAY, THE MINUTE YOU SAY IT'S INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY GO, OH, THAT'S THE COMMON GOOD. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THE 1.25 MILLION THAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE AND THAT WAS HELPFUL INFORMATION AND I APPRECIATED THAT BEING SHARED BECAUSE I IMMEDIATELY PASSED IT ALONG.

AND AND, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE THREE PEOPLE HAD DONE THE FOLLOW UP TO FIND THAT OUT. AND THE OTHER TWO WERE STILL RANKLED UNTIL THEY HEARD THAT.

SO AND I FIGURE IF THERE'S THREE, THERE'S PROBABLY MORE.

ABSOLUTELY. COMMISSIONER CORDILL DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? OH, NO. COMMISSIONER TREZISE YEAH.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLIMENT THE TOWNSHIP FOR SOME NEWER AREAS OF COMMUNICATION THAT THEY'VE BEEN USING, SOME SOCIAL MEDIA, NEXTDOOR, WHATEVER, AND EVEN FACEBOOK THAT IS GETTING SOME OF THAT INFORMATION OUT TO A GROUP THAT MAY NOT GO SEEKING IT OUT AT THE WEBSITE, BUT THEY MAY HAVE OR THEIR SPOUSE MAY SAY, I'M GOING TO LOOK AT NEXT DOOR OR WHATEVER. AND THERE'S AN ARTICLE IN THERE EXPLAINING WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF GRAND RIVER AVENUE, OR THERE'S SOME INFORMATION AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN.

SO THERE IS INFORMATION GETTING OUT IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

BUT I AGREE THAT NEWSPAPER COVERAGE IS ALMOST NONEXISTENT ANYMORE IN THE AREA, AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. ANY FURTHER.

FURTHER? I'M SORRY.

OTHER BUSINESS. ALL RIGHT.

HOW ABOUT ITEM TEN? CLOSING ITEM NINE.

ITEM TEN. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.

[10A.Township Board update.]

THERE'S BEEN NO MAJOR CHANGES AT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD SINCE LAST WE MET.

THEY WILL MEET TOMORROW NIGHT AND TAKE ACTION ON THE MERIDIAN COMPANY BUILDING GREATER THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET.

THEY WILL TAKE ACTION ON THE FIRE HOSE CONNECTION ORDINANCE THAT STAFF HAS PROPOSED AND THEY WILL TAKE ACTION ON THE FINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SANCTUARY THREE.

YOU MAY RECALL THIS IS A SMALL SUBDIVISION OF, I BELIEVE, SEVEN LOTS TO THE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ROBINS WAY.

IT HAD BEEN HELD UP IN LITIGATION FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.

THAT HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND THE DEVELOPER, [INAUDIBLE] HOMES, IS PLANNING ON MOVING FORWARD THIS YEAR WITH IT.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM TEN B LIAISON REPORTS COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

[10B.Liaison reports.]

THE VRA COMMITTEE IS MEETING THURSDAY.

CURRENTLY, THERE IS A GROUP THAT HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO BRING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OFFICERS OF THAT COMMITTEE.

I AM ASSUMING THAT MIGHT HAPPEN THURSDAY AND BE DEALING WITH THAT THURSDAY AND ALSO THE THAT IS A COMMITTEE THAT IS INVOLVED IN FUND ALLOCATIONS TO THE PROJECT IN OKEMOS.

[00:50:10]

AND I THINK MR. SCHMIDT DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING ALL THAT LAST TIME.

SO I DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH IT AGAIN.

BUT ANYWAY, WE'LL FIND OUT THURSDAY.

COMMISSIONER HENDRICKSON, THE ZBA WILL MEET ON WEDNESDAY TO CONSIDER A CASE OF A REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR SIGNAGE AT THE NEW SPARROW EMERGENCY ROOM DOWN ON JELLY ROAD.

MR. HENDRICKSON. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

THE EDC MET I THINK A LITTLE OVER A WEEK AGO AND RECOMMENDED TO THE TOWNSHIP TO APPROVE ABOUT 1.2 MILLION FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS, MAINLY ROADS, DRAINAGE, RETENTION PONDS.

AND THEN I THINK THAT'S GOING TO THE BOARD TOMORROW.

THERE WAS ALSO A PROPOSAL FROM A DEVELOPMENT GROUP OUT OF WESTERN MICHIGAN TO DEAL WITH THE HASLETT PROPERTY.

IT'S KIND OF EXCITING AND ONE OF THEIR REQUESTS FROM THE EDC IS FOR ABOUT $800,000 TO DO DEMOLITION. A COMMITTEE WAS PUT WILL BE PUT TOGETHER FROM THE EDC AND THE TOWNSHIP TO LOOK AT THAT. THEY'RE HOPING TO BUILD UPWARDS OF 300 HOUSING UNITS THERE WITH 25, 30,000 SQUARE FEET.

I THINK IT WAS MAYBE A LITTLE LESS THAN THAT OF COMMERCIAL.

AND WE PROBABLY WILL BE SEEING A MUPUD COME BEFORE THIS BOARD IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO GET APPROVAL FOR THE DEMOLITION AND START THIS SUMMER.

IT'S A 5 TO 7 YEAR BUILDOUT.

IT'S EXCITING. IT'LL USE THE BALANCE OF THE HASLETT.

IT HAS A CIRCLE OR WHATEVER VILLAGE CENTER HASLETT VILLAGE, HASLETT SQUARE OK, TO FILL OUT AND TO UPGRADE THAT PROPERTY.

KIND OF EXCITING IT'S THE FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN THAT TYPE OF YEAH, IT'S BEEN BAD FOR A LONG TIME.

AND BETWEEN THAT AND THE SENIOR LIVING CENTER THAT'S GOING IN THERE, IT WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT ENTIRE CORNER.

SO MORE TO COME.

THAT WAS ALSO REPORTED IN THE PAPER THE OTHER DAY.

DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

I MISSED THEIR MEETING BECAUSE I WAS OUT OF TOWN ON VACATION.

BECAUSE OF THAT, I CONTACTED DIRECTOR CLARK AND ASKED HER IF THERE'S ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT I SHOULD REPORT TO THIS BOARD FROM THAT.

SHE'S AN AMAZING LADY.

AND SHE SUGGESTED THAT HER OVERVIEW LETTER THAT SHE WROTE BE GIVEN TO THE BOARD, WHICH I ASKED DIRECTOR SCHMITT TO DO.

THAT'S WHERE THAT LETTER CAME FROM.

I THINK IT GIVES A VERY GOOD OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE CURRENT STATUS IS FOR DDA.

SHE ALSO WAS AT THE EDC.

AND I BELIEVE HER PLANNING IS.

HER PLAN IS TO DO A VIDEO THAT WE POSTED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR UP TO SOMETHING LIKE AN HOUR TO LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE COMING IN TO [INAUDIBLE] TOWNSHIP AND TO GIVE AN UPDATE TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND SHE HOPES TO GET THAT OUT IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BUT THAT'S ON HER TO DO LIST.

SO SHE IS SHE IS A HARD WORKING LADY.

SHE IS. AND AS I'VE ADMITTED BEFORE, NUMBERS ARE NOT MY STRONG POINT, BUT THEY APPEAR TO BE HERS. YES.

ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER LIAISON REPORTS? ALL RIGHT. WE CLOSE THAT ITEM, THEN.

ITEM 11, PROJECT UPDATES.

[11. PROJECT UPDATES]

IS THERE ANY INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THAT YET OR IS IT.

THEY'RE PROPOSING AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, GIVEN HOW IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED AS AN SUP.

SO WE'LL COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR AN AMENDMENT.

I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT WE DID RECEIVE SUPER LATE AFTER THE PACKET WENT OUT A PROPOSED THEY'VE SUBMITTED AS A PUD, ALTHOUGH I HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT IT EVEN QUALIFIES SO WE'RE

[00:55:04]

FOR THE SMALL PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE ENTRANCE TO THE HIGH SCHOOL ON HEWLETT ROAD. IT'S BEEN MARKETED FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW AND FINALLY GOT SOME INTEREST AND LOOKING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AGAIN A VERY SMALL LITTLE COUPLE LOT SUBDIVISION THERE.

SITE PLANS RECEIVED APPARENTLY NONE.

ITEM ELEVEN C SITE PLANS APPROVED, APPARENTLY NONE.

SO THIS IS THE LAST SECTION OF PUBLIC REMARKS.

AGAIN, THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THERE ARE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT, SO THAT ITEM IS CLOSED. WE ARE NOW IN ITEM 13, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. HENDRICKSON SECOND COMMISSIONER PREMOE ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. OPPOSED NONE.

THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 7:55 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WALKS OUT, I DID JUST GET A TEXT FROM MR. WALSTON WHO WAS WATCHING AT HOME.

HI, FRANK. WHO WANTED TO SAY HE SENT A QUICK EMAIL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

HI, DAVE. THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS REGARDING COMMUNICATION WITH VILLAGE OF OKEMOS.

WE CAN ALWAYS DO BETTER, SO JUST KNOW THAT WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING ON IT.

[LAUGHTER] BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING AND WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING.

THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.