Apr 11, 2022 Planning Commission

[00:00:16]

PROBABLY NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN HE'S RIGHT.

THE LAST TIME SHE WASN'T HERE, SHE SENT A NOTICE AHEAD OF TIME.

THEY WOULD'VE PUT HER NAME TAG [INAUDIBLE] THEY WERE EXPECTING HER NOT TO.

[INAUDIBLE] ALL RIGHT, I'LL WAIT A FEW MORE MINUTES TO SEE IF SHE COMES IN.

YEAH, ACCORDING TO THAT, [INAUDIBLE].

ARE THEY GOING TO GIVE US A REPLACEMENT FOR HENDRICKSON BEFORE THE ELECTION, SIR? I HAVEN'T HEARD. HE SERVES UNTIL NOVEMBER.

[INAUDIBLE] SOMETHING, NO MATTER WHAT.

[INAUDIBLE] NO, I'M SAYING FOR THIS COMMISSION.

NO, I KNOW, BUT HE WOULD BE ON AS A BOARD MEMBER, BUT YOU WOULDN'T BE ON HERE UNTIL NOVEMBER.

LIKE THE THIRD TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER.

HE'S STILL ON OUR COMMISSION? NO.

OH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.

[INAUDIBLE] I HAVE NOT HEARD.

[INAUDIBLE] GET STARTED.

[INAUDIBLE] ALL RIGHT, IT IS NOW 7:00.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

FIRST THING WE WILL DO IS TAKE THE ROLL.

ALL RIGHT, AND THE STAFF WE HAVE PRESENT TODAY.

ALL RIGHT, NOW, FOR THE PUBLIC, WE WILL HAVE TIME FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

YOU'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE.

I ASK THAT YOU ADDRESS YOURSELVES TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD AT THE TIME THAT YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE YOUR REMARKS.

ALL RIGHT, SO, FIRST OF ALL, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC REMARKS NOT SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO ONE OF OUR ISSUES TODAY? NO. OKAY, THEN I WILL ASK FOR ITEM FOUR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE AGENDA SAY AYE: AYE.

OPPOSED NONE. THE AGENDA IS APPROVED.

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT? SO MOVED.

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'M SORRY.

[INAUDIBLE] AS LONG AS YOUR NAME IS ON THE TABLE.

THERE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT, ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING--COMMISSIONER CORDILL HAS ENTERED THE ROOM AND IS NOW PRESENT AT THE MEETING.

TWO VERY MINOR CORRECTIONS FOR THE MINUTES.

YES. UNDER ITEM 7D PAGE FIVE OF THE DRAFT, THE VERY LAST SENTENCE REFERS TO THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION, AS DOES THE FOLLOWING.

JUST A VERY MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR.

IT'S A TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AS IT APPEARS LATER.

WE ALL KNEW WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, BUT JUST TO BE--THEY'RE EXCELLENT MINUTES, REALLY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CORRECTIONS OR CONSIDERATIONS OF THE PRIOR MINUTES? YES? I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH THIS MATTERS, BUT ON PAGE THREE, ROUGHLY HALFWAY DOWN,

[00:05:02]

SO IS THAT THE ONE THAT SAYS THAT I JOINED YOU IN YOUR CONCERN? YES.

I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIGHTING.

MAYBE THAT'S WHY THEY HOT THE MINUTES MIXED UP.

ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? [INAUDIBLE] JUST POTENTIALLY ADD A CONDITION IN RELATION TO BOUNDARY SCREENING.

YOU CAN LEAVE THE FACT THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIGHTING AS IT IS.

SPECIFICALLY THE WESTERN EDGE.

ALL RIGHT, THEN THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR WITH THE CORRECTIONS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? NO.

THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED FROM THE LAST MEETING.

ALL RIGHT, PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[6. COMMUNICATIONS]

YOU HAVE A COMMUNICATION.

WE DO? I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT.

[INAUDIBLE] OH, EMAIL.

SCOTT HENRICKSON. [INAUDIBLE] AS CHAIR TAKING OVER FROM FORMER COMMISSIONER HENDRICKSON, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE PERSONAL THANKS. I THINK HE DID A WONDERFUL JOB AND I TOLD HIM SO, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IT OFFICIAL BY PUTTING IT IN THE RECORD THAT I COMMEND HIM FOR THE SERVICES HE GAVE THIS COMMISSION. I THINK HE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB AS CHAIR, AND I'M CONVINCED HE'S GOING TO BE A BENEFIT TO THE TOWNSHIP IN HIS NEW POSITION.

SO I THINK WE'RE ON TO UNFINISHED BUSINESS, WHICH IS THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR

[8A. Special Use Permit #22-041 – 2745 Mount Hope – Montessori Radmoor Addition]

PULLED IT UP ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU THERE, AND I JUST PUT THE AERIAL PHOTO UP JUST SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

YOU DID HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ON MARCH 28TH.

YOU AGREED TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TONIGHT.

YOU RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT A NUMBER OF STUDENTS, ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES, AND SOME LIGHTING ISSUES.

THE APPLICANT HAS RESPONDED.

YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET THERE WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THAT, AND WE DID ADD THREE CONDITIONS TO THE RESOLUTION TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.

I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN PART OF YOUR CORRECTIONS THAT YOU ADDED.

YOU SAY THAT THE LIGHTING SHOULD BE CONTROLLED TO THE EAST.

ACTUALLY, THE LIGHTING ISSUE IS TO THE WEST OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

WHERE IS THAT? I'M SORRY. I WISH I COULD FIND IT HERE.

IS IT IN THE RESOLUTION? IT'S IN YOUR PROPOSED RESOLUTION, YES.

THE LIGHTING IS NOT AN ISSUE TO THE EAST OF THE SCHOOL.

THERE'S NOTHING THERE BUT FOREST AND SWAMP.

THE RESOLUTION ITSELF SAYS LIGHTING ON THE PROPERTIES MUST MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIGHTING ORDINANCE.

ALL LIGHTING MUST BE SHUT OFF AFTER HOURS, AND THAT'S ALL IT SAYS.

IT MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE SUMMARY.

MAYBE IT WAS IN THE SUMMARY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE LIGHTING PROBLEM IS ONLY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, NOT ON THE EAST SIDE.

YES, IT LOOKS LIKE THE ABOVE THAT SCREENING MUST BE WHEREAS NUMBER FIVE, MAYBE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPE SCREENING, BUT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, LET'S JUST SAY NORTH WEST, AND WHERE GAPS AND NATURAL SCREENING [INAUDIBLE] EXIST ON SOUTH [INAUDIBLE] OKAY.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION? YES, COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

IT'S NUMBER THREE.

THE THIRD CONDITION, SECOND LINE, IT SAYS THE NEW HOUSE.

I THINK IT JUST SHOULD BE IN THE NEW EDITION.

YES, IT SHOULD.

ALTHOUGH [INAUDIBLE].

THEY'RE NOT CONSTRUCTING A HOUSE.

NO, BUT A SMALLER BUILDING.

IT'S AN ENLARGEMENT TO THE EXISTING BUILDING.

IT'S NOT A SEPARATE BUILDING. I'M PROBABLY CONFUSING IT WITH SOMETHING ELSE.

[00:10:05]

GO AHEAD.

THIS IS A QUESTION I THINK I WOULD PUT THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE, AT LEAST OUT ON THE TABLE HERE TO I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF IT.

SECOND. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

I'M ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

CONDITION NUMBER TWO ON THAT FIRST PAGE AND IT'S ACTUALLY THE SOUTH, SOUTH WEST, NOT THE NORTH.

SO, I THINK WE'VE GOT IT FLIPPED INSTEAD OF NORTH.

WHAT NUMBER? IT IS PAGE, THAT ONE RIGHT THERE, NUMBER TWO, THEIR DESCRIPTION AND REALLY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE PROPERTY THAT HAS THIS TWO BORDERS WITH THIS PROPERTY, MOST OF THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS SOUTH OF--YOU'RE IN THE APPLICANT'S ALTHOUGH THERE IS THAT ONE LITTLE THE PROPERTY THAT IS SORT OF CUT OUT OF THEIR PROPERTY THAT ALSO IS NORTH.

SO THE WAY IT READS NOW, ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING MUST BE PLANTED ALONG THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH WEST AND WORK GAPS IN THE NATURAL SCREENING EXIST ALONG THE SOUTH AND THEIR DOCUMENTATION SAYS SOUTH WEST AND SOUTH ALSO, AND I THINK AS LONG AS IT'S WHEREVER GAPS OCCUR IT'S OKAY.

YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT NEEDS TO REFERENCE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTHWEST.

OKAY, I SUSPECT YOUR QUESTION [INAUDIBLE] UNDERSTAND THAT.

I THINK THE APPLICANT'S DESCRIPTION IS BETTER THAN OUR UNDERSTANDING.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY, IS THAT I THINK THE APPLICANT DESCRIBED IT THE WAY THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR RESOLUTION IS ACCURATE.

YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY, WE HAVE AN ACCORD.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS LEFT ABOUT THE LIGHTING SITUATION.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BY THE APPLICANT IS TO TURN OFF EXTERIOR LIGHTS IN THE EVENING OR AFTER SCHOOL HOURS.

[INAUDIBLE] I NEED HER TO GET UP TO THE MIC.

SPEAK FOR THE RECORD.

I'M SORRY. JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR US, PLEASE? IRINA JAMESON.

ADDRESS? DO I DO MY PERSONAL ADDRESS OR SCHOOL ADDRESS.

OKAY, GOOD. SORRY, SO WE HAD A RENOVATION DONE.

THE EXTERIOR LIGHTS WERE REPLACED, AND THEN JAMES HEWITT, A NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH, COMPLAINED THAT THEY WERE TOO BRIGHT.

SO THE LIGHTS WERE TURNED OFF IN THE FALL OF 2021 AT NIGHT.

OUR HOURS CHANGED AS WELL.

WE USED TO BE OPEN TILL SIX.

NOW WE ONLY OPEN TILL FIVE.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED A YEAR AGO.

SO WE HAD NO NEED FOR REALLY LIGHTS IN THE BACK THERE [INAUDIBLE] SO WE TURN THEM OFF COMPLETELY. THEY ONLY GO ON IN THE MORNING AND THAT'S FOR STAFF ARRIVALS AND THE EARLY CHILDREN'S ARRIVAL, WHICH HAPPENED AT 7:30 OR STAFF STARTS COMING AT 7 AND THEN IF WE HAVE TO DO SOME SHOVELING.

SO THOSE LIGHTS ARE ON SEASONALLY.

OBVIOUSLY DURING THE WINTER MONTHS THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 6 TO 8, I BELIEVE IS WHAT I PUT ON THAT LETTER, AND THEN WE WILL SIMPLY TURN THEM OFF IN THE SPRING SUMMER, ONCE THE LIGHT BECOMES--I UNDERSTOOD THE EXTERIOR LIGHTS HAD BEEN TAKEN CARE OF PRETTY MUCH IN COORDINATION WITH THE RESIDENT WHO COMPLAINED.

THE QUESTION I HAVE IS INTERIOR LIGHTS.

DO YOU HAVE A SECURITY NEED FOR INTERIOR LIGHTING WHEN STUDENTS ARE NOT--YEAH, SO THE FRONT PART OF THE BUILDING, THE CLASSROOMS THAT ARE FACING OUT HAVE THE SECURITY ONE SECURITY LIGHT IN THE CLASSROOM THAT STAYS ON.

NONE OF THE CLASSROOMS IN THE BACK HAVE THAT.

THAT'S BEEN TAKEN CARE OF BECAUSE THAT'S A LATER ADDITION.

SO THAT WAS NEVER EVEN IN PLACE.

SO WE BELIEVE OUR NEIGHBORS ACTUALLY ARE SEEING THAT ONE CLASSROOM ON THE CORNER THAT STILL HAS A SECURITY LIGHT.

IT WOULD BE FACING SOUTH WEST WAIT...SOUTH SOUTHWEST,

[00:15:08]

SO WE ACTUALLY REWIRING THOSE TWO SECURITY LIGHTS IN THE CLASSROOM.

SO THOSE WILL BE ELIMINATED, I BELIEVE, NEXT WEEK.

WE DO THINK THAT EAST IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE SOME SECURITY LIGHTING.

WE DO FIND THINGS IN A PARKING LOT FROM TEENAGERS.

I DON'T WANT TO SPECIFY THE DETAILS ON THAT, BUT WE DO FEEL THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE SOME LIGHTING IN THAT DIRECTION.

BUT WE WILL REWIRE THE SECURITY LIGHTS THERE ON ONE SWITCH.

YOU KNOW, WHEN THE SWITCH GOES OFF, THAT LIGHT STAYS ON.

SO WE'RE DOING THAT, FIXING THAT.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE PREVIOUS SUP HAD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A MAXIMUM OF 150 STUDENTS AND NOW THE MAXIMUM MAY BE SOMEWHERE CLOSER TO 220.

I JUST I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS MAYBE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED? THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS IS IN THE NEW RESOLUTION? SO THE RESOLUTION TIES THEIR MAXIMUM STUDENTS TO WHAT THE STATE SAYS THE MAXIMUM IS AND TAKES INSTEAD OF PUTTING A HARD CAP NUMBER ON IT.

THE RESPONSE FROM THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY SUGGESTS 220.

AS A CAP THEY ARE ADDING CLASSROOM SPACE.

ALTHOUGH THIS AS EXPLAINED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE ADDITION.

SO THAT NUMBER WILL HAVE TO GO UP.

NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I GUESS MAYBE I MISSED IT IN THE RESOLUTION.

IF YOU WERE IF YOU FELT MORE COMFORTABLE CAPPING IT, THEY HAVE SUGGESTED 220 AS A HARD CAP NUMBER.

I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THE CAP.

I JUST WONDERED IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE IN THE RESOLUTION SINCE IT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS SUP.

WELL THE PREVIOUS SPECIAL USE PERMIT HAD IT AT THE LOW NUMBER; THAT DOES NEED TO ADJUST.

YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN? LIKE SO THAT DOES HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED.

SO I GUESS THE QUESTION THEN IS CAPPING IT AT THE STATE ALLOWED NUMBER, ADDRESSING THE 150 AMOUNT? DOES THAT ADJUST THAT? IT DOES BECAUSE THE STATE HAS ALREADY APPROVED THE 220.

WE DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER THE STATE HAS APPROVED.

FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, WE PREFER THAT MEANS WE DON'T HAVE TO GO IN AND COUNT STUDENTS OR ASK THEM TO COME, BECAUSE THE STATE ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO BE THE AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE ON HOW MANY STUDENTS THE BUILDING CAN HOLD.

IT'S NOT AN ISSUE 220; IT'S AN ISSUE OF THE STATE.

SORT OF. YEAH. YEAH.

YEAH. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE LOCALITY IS DEFERRING TO THE STATE ON THAT AND THAT'S PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE.

SO I THINK THAT CONDITION NUMBER FOUR IS FINE FOR ADDRESSING STUDENT CAPACITY.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY [CHUCKLING] THERE'S JUST A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION TO SIFT THROUGH. SURE.

THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] GO AHEAD.

I GUESS IF WE WANTED TO MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR, WE COULD PUT IN THAT NUMBER FOR THAT WE'RE AMENDING THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT SO THAT IT STATES IT, SO THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION IN THE FUTURE THAT IF THERE'S MORE THAN 150, SOMEBODY COMES BACK AND SAYS, WELL, HE CAN'T BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS.

I THINK IF WE PUT SOMETHING IN THERE THAT IS AND I THINK THE OTHER WORD IN THERE MAYBE LIMITED TOO IS A LITTLE BIT MAYBE AND WE SAY THE MAXIMUM WILL BE THE NUMBER OF PERMITTED AND THEN EITHER IN PARENTHESES OR SOMEWHERE REFERENCE WHICH IS CHANGING THE ORIGINAL SUP NUMBER OF 150.

[INAUDIBLE] AGAIN, ONLY IF WE THINK WE NEED TO.

I'LL APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING FOR A NUMBER AND I MISSED THAT LINE ENTIRELY FOR NUMBER FOUR. SO, I MEAN, IF I COULD KIND OF JUST REWIND AND TAKE IT ALL BACK, IT'S RIGHT THERE. I'M GOOD. INTERESTINGLY, IT SAYS IT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER APPROVED BY THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND ANY CHANGE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE TOWNSHIP ANYWAY.

SO WE WOULD GET NOTICE OF CHANGE IN ENROLLMENT IF THE NUMBER CHANGED.

CORRECT. DOES THIS NEED TO GO TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD?

[00:20:03]

IT'S NOT AN AMENDMENT TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THE BUILDING IS.

I DON'T REMEMBER IF THIS WAS 25.

THIS DOESN'T TRIGGER THAT.

THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK.

SO THIS WOULD BE AN APPROVAL OF THIS, AND THEN THEY'D GO TO SITE PLAN.

ALL RIGHT, SO I HAVE LOST TRACK.

HAVE WE SUGGESTED ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION? IN CONDITION NUMBER THREE HOUSE IS BEING REPLACED WITH THE WORD ADDITION.

AND CONDITION NUMBER FIVE.

THE WORD EAST IS GOING TO BE REPLACED WITH WEST.

WEST? AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE NOW.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT CONDITION NUMBER FOUR, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU SETTLED ON LANGUAGE. I THINK WE'RE OKAY WITH FOUR.

IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENT OR OR DISCUSSION ON THIS PROPOSAL? THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS I WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANTS FOR LISTENING TO THE COMMENTS AT THE MEETING LAST WEEK AND RESPONDING TO THEM QUICKLY AND LETTING US KNOW WHAT YOUR INTENTS ARE. SO WE WISH YOU WELL.

YOU KNOW, TIME FOR THE VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION.

ALL RIGHT, IS THERE A MOTION ON THE RESOLUTION PROPOSAL BASED ON YOU DO.

IS IT MADE AND SECONDED? IT'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ALL RIGHT, THEN WE CALL FOR A VOTE.

LET'S DO A ROLL CALL.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER? I'M SORRY. JUST.

I'M SORRY. YES.

YES. THAT'S A YES.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE? YES. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? YES. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? YES. COMMISSIONER CORDILL? YES. COMMISSIONER PREMOE? YES. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

THE MOTION IS APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

I BELIEVE THAT CLOSES THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

SO NOW WE ARE ON ITEM NUMBER NINE.

[9A. Temporary Containers – Text Amendment Introduction]

SO WE'VE GOTTEN SOME CALLS IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS ABOUT SOME RESIDENTIAL STORAGE UNITS POPPING UP, COLLOQUIALLY KNOWN AS PODS.

THIS GOT US TO RESEARCH THE ISSUE AND WE KIND OF CAME TO THE CONCLUSION WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A GOOD MECHANISM FOR REGULATING THEM.

AND WHEN WE LOOKED INTO WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES DO, PODS TEND TO BE REGULATED ALONG WITH OTHER TYPES OF CONTAINERS, ROLL OFFS AND DUMPSTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO FOLLOWING SUIT, WE DRAFTED THE ORDINANCE THAT IS ATTACHED.

IT DOES ADD A NEW DEFINITION FOR WHAT WE CALL A TEMPORARY CONTAINER UNIT, AND THAT BE YOU CAN READ IT ANY PORTABLE TRANSPORTABLE STRUCTURE FOR DISPOSAL, DISPOSAL OR STORAGE OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS OR BUILDING MATERIALS, ET CETERA, AND THEN CREATES A IT'S A VACANT SECTION, RIGHT? IT'S A RESERVE SECTION RIGHT NOW.

SO 86-476 WOULD BE AMENDED TO READ, AND YOU SEE THERE THERE'S ONE THING, THE ONE THING ON HERE THAT I, THAT I'M REALLY KEEN ABOUT IF IT'S TIED TO A BUILDING PERMIT LIKE THERE'S NO, IT CAN STAY THERE FOR THE DURATION OF THE BUILDING PERMIT.

SO IF IT'S THERE FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSE, THEN THERE'S NO TIME, HARD TIME LIMIT AS OPPOSED TO I'M MOVING MY STUFF INTO, INTO ANOTHER STATE, THEN YOU TRIGGER A TEMPORARY, YOU KNOW, A HARD AND FAST NOT TO EXCEED 30 DAYS.

IF YOU THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD ADDRESS IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S COME UP A FEW TIMES AND THEN WE CAN SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT UP.

BRING BACK A FINAL COPY OF THE ORDINANCE.

AND HOW WOULD THE PERMISSION THAT SOMEONE GOT? WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S TRIGGERED BY A PHONE CALL AND AN EMAIL, OR IS IT SOMETHING? SOMETHING IN WRITING, LIKE AN EMAIL A LITTLE BIT MORE, MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN A PHONE CALL.

BUT TIM DOES NOT, DIRECTOR SCHMITT DOES NOT SEE IT AS BEING A FORMAL APPLICATION AND FEES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. JUST I WANT TO PUT THIS UP, WHAT'S MY REGULATION AND RESPONSE BACK? AND SO WE HAVE IT IN WRITING, BUT THAT'S IT.

DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I JUST WAS GOING TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT THE IDEA.

[00:25:04]

YOU USED ONE OF THESE SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHEN I LIVED IN THE CITY OF LANSING.

I'M JUST CURIOUS, THINKING ABOUT LOGISTICS OF SOME OF THIS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE TRULY JUST USING IT FOR A DAY OR TWO TO UNLOAD THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT NOT BE ON A LAWN OR IN A DRIVEWAY.

I'M THINKING ABOUT MY OWN HOUSE.

WE HAVE A DOUBLE GARAGE WITH A DOUBLE DRIVEWAY, BUT THESE ARE SLIGHTLY WIDER AND I'M JUST NOT SURE IF IT'S COMPLETELY REALISTIC.

IF WE HAVE HOMES THAT HAVE A SINGLE DRIVEWAY, SINGLE GARAGE, AND I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO KIND OF CONTROL THEM SO THAT THEY'RE NOT A NUISANCE, BUT I ALSO WANT TO BE COGNIZANT OF SORT OF THE USAGE AND SORT OF RECOGNIZING THAT THERE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT KINDS OF USAGES, THAT THERE'S A SIMPLE PROCESS FOR LESS THAN 24 HOURS OR THE 24 HOURS TO UNLOAD.

AND THEN THEY COME BACK THE FOLLOWING DAY TO PICK IT UP, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A 48 HOURS VERSUS EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

THAT'S LONGER THAN THAT, BUT SHORTER WITHIN THAT 30 DAY PERIOD.

CONCEPTUALLY, I LIKE THIS, BUT REALISTICALLY, MAYBE THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS FOR. IT IS TO, BUT I'M JUST NOT SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NEED THIS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE RECOGNIZE WHAT IT WOULD MEAN IF WE REGULATED IT LIKE THAT.

SO I GET IT.

I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS THIS TYPICAL LANGUAGE THAT YOU'VE SEEN OTHER COMMUNITIES USE AS A SORT OF STANDARD, OR WAS THIS KIND OF LET'S START WITH THIS AND ADJUST? AND NO, THIS IS, I PULLED ORDINANCES FROM ABOUT EIGHT OR TEN COMMUNITIES AROUND THE STATE , AND THIS IS KIND OF A LIKE A GREATEST HITS LIST OF WHAT WE FOUND.

COMMUNITIES DO TEND TO SAY IF THEY'RE IN THE FRONT YARD, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON THE DRIVEWAY, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO STAND HERE AND SAY THAT'S 100% HARD AND FAST RULE EITHER, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, IT DOES LIMIT YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE GOT I, YOU KNOW, MY VERY FIRST HOUSE WHEN WE MOVED OUT OF IT, WE HAD A TEN CUBIC YARD DUMPSTER.

WE HAD A LONG ENOUGH DRIVEWAY THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO DO THAT.

IF YOU'VE GOT A SHORTER DRIVEWAY, SUDDENLY YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PLACE TO PARK A CAR.

I GET THAT. SO IF YOU WANT, IF YOU THOUGHT, IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT, THAT DOES FREE UP.

MAKE IT GO AHEAD.

YEAH, I KNOW THERE WAS A CONVERSATION, THE BEGINNING OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT IF THERE WAS A BUILDING PERMANENT, BUT IS THAT IN THIS ORDINANCE? IT IS. AND WHAT SECTION IS IT? IT IS IN C, IT'S JUST KIND OF A LONG PARAGRAPH.

THE USE OF UNITS ARE OR ARE NOT TO EXCEED 30 DAYS, AND YOU'RE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN TWICE OF TWO OF THOSE 30 DAY PERIODS IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD, EXCEPT THAT A TEMPORARY CONTAINER UNIT USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PERMITTED HOME IMPROVEMENT OR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ARE PERMITTED FOR THE DURATION OF AN ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT.

I GUESS THE THING THAT'S NOT CLEAR IS DO THE REST.

FOR INSTANCE, THE LOCATION IS THAT? CAN THAT BE ANYWHERE, THAT, IF IT'S PART OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR DOES IT STILL HAVE TO BE ON A DRIVEWAY? NO, ALL THAT IS INTENDED TO REGULATE IS THE DURATION.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION PART OF IT, I WOULD HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE SHORTER TERM, BECAUSE LET'S JUST TAKE A ROOFING JOB.

FOR SURE. SINCE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN AND OUT.

I MEAN, I GUESS IN A LARGE 5000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSES, IT MAY TAKE A COUPLE OF DAYS, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT MADE THE PLACE.

YOU KNOW, THE MOST PRACTICAL PLACE MAY NOT BE IN A DRIVEWAY.

OKAY. SO I GUESS BUT I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, TO ME, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF THESE UNITS. THERE'S THE ONES THAT HAVE DOORS AND CLOSE AND PEOPLE USE THEM LIKE THEY'RE A STORAGE UNIT WHERE YOU GO RENT AND PUT STUFF IN.

YEAH, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THOSE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE DEMOLITION, THE INTERIOR OR THERE'S BEEN A FIRE OR SOMETHING AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST LOAD IT UP AND THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A, YOU KNOW, IT'S USED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. SO I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK THAT I THINK YOU GOT TO SPLIT THOSE UP.

ALSO A PART OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS ON THIS, BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE LANGUAGE, WE TEND TO DEFAULT TO OUR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE STANDARDS WHEN PEOPLE WANT THOSE DUMPSTERS,

[00:30:03]

SO IF YOU WANTED TO BE MORE LENIENT.

WITH IT. THERE'S NO ISSUE.

MR. CORDELL FOR THE FOR THE SITUATION THAT WAS DESCRIBED EARLIER BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY, MAYBE CREATING A PARKING SITUATION OR OR PULLING IN AND OUT.

WHY DON'T FASHION SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD GIVE THE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DISCRETION IN AND HOWEVER YOU'D WANT TO TERM IT? WHERE PROBLEMS ARISE IN CAR PARKING CARS OR MANEUVERING CARS THAT IT MAY ALLOW THEM TO JUST LIKE A ZBA.

BUT I DON'T MEAN IT TO BE THAT JUST TO GIVE THE DIRECTOR DISCRETION IN SITUATIONS LIKE.

NO, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD CHANGE.

SURE. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU ALREADY HAVE A CLAUSE IN THERE THAT SAYS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES, IF YOU COME AND GET PERMISSION, YOU CAN PARK IT IN THE STREET.

YOU NEED WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT.

YES, YOU'RE GOING TO GET, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT PROVIDES AN OPTION TO PUTTING IT IN THE DRIVEWAY. IT DOES, AND I'M JUST TAGGING THAT.

IT ISN'T. IT'S NOT ENTIRELY AN EITHER OR, I MEAN, THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION.

ALTHOUGH SINCE WE'RE JUST KIND OF BRAINSTORMING HERE, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ROOFING ISSUE, I THINK THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT THE DUMPSTER TO BE OUT IN THE STREET.

TRUE. BUT YOU ARE YOU ARE CORRECT, THOUGH.

YEAH. ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS RECENTLY BEGAN A SUBSTANTIAL HOME REMODEL PROJECT, AND RATHER THAN BRINGING THE MATERIALS AND TOOLS AND STORING THEM IN A TRAILER, WHICH I TYPICALLY WOULD SEE, THEY HAD ONE OF THESE TEMPORARY STORAGE CONTAINERS IN THE CLIENT'S DRIVEWAY WHERE THEY WERE STORING THEIR MATERIALS, WHICH YOU WOULD SEE ON BIGGER CONSTRUCTION JOBS ALL THE TIME. SO THAT DOES SEEM I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE EXCEPTION THAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING IF A POD WAS USED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.

RIGHT. YEAH, AND DOES A BUILDING PERMIT TYPICALLY IF THEY'RE BRINGING A DUMPSTER, IS THAT KIND OF WHEN YOU GET A PERMIT FOR ROOFING, IS THE DUMPSTER KIND OF ASSUMED OR IS IT EXPLICIT OR HOW DOES THAT? IT'S NOT STATED. IT'S THEY'RE JUST BRINGING THEM.

LIKE I SAID, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A MECHANISM FOR REGULATION.

IN THAT CASE, IS THERE HOW DO WE MAKE THAT MECHANISM HAPPEN AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS? IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE? I'M NOT SURE. I'M NOT SURE THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU'RE IN A CONSTRUCTION SITE, YOU'RE BEING EXEMPTED.

YEAH, YOU'RE EXEMPTED FROM.

OKAY. FROM THIS, BUT WHAT YOU SAID, MR. SHORKEY, WAS THAT IT DIDN'T APPLY TO WHERE THE DUMPSTER OR WHATEVER HAS TO BE PLACED.

SO IT STILL HAS TO BE ON A DRIVEWAY AND A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION SITES.

THERE AREN'T ANY PAVED DRIVEWAYS UNTIL WELL INTO THE STRUCTURE.

SO THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

THAT'S CORRECT. OR LAWNS, FOR THAT MATTER.

SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO EXEMPT PERMITTED CONSTRUCTION FROM THE CONTROL HERE OTHER THAN TO NOTIFY THE DIRECTOR THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DONE AS PART OF THE BUILDING.

I DON'T KNOW. OR ELIMINATING ENTIRELY.

OR BECAUSE I'M AFRAID IF YOU BRING IN A DUMPSTER, EVEN FOR YOUR ROOFING, IT MAY BE THERE.

THEY WANT TO PUT IT ON THE LAWN BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE DUMPING ALL OF THE SHINGLES.

MM HMM. YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO DEALING WITH COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY'S POINT ABOUT A VERY SHORT PERIOD.

YOU MAY WANT THIS TO APPLY AFTER THREE DAYS OR AFTER FIVE DAYS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO BUILD A LITTLE BIT OF TRANSITION TIME, AND ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, YOU HAVE TO GET IT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T I DON'T HAVE ANY STRONG FEELINGS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT THAT WOULD ALLOW THE MOVE IN TO PARK THEIR PODS THERE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS

[00:35:02]

I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN THAT TAKES PLACE, BUT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THREE OR FOUR DAYS, I'M NOT SURE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT RISES TO THE NEED OF PRIOR APPROVAL.

WHEN I FIRST READ THIS, I ENVISIONED A DIFFERENT ISSUE ALTOGETHER IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

AT THE END OF MY STREET, THERE IS A SMALL CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX THAT HAS A COMMUNAL PARKING LOT. THERE WAS ONE OF THOSE LOCKABLE PODS IN THAT PARKING LOT FOR THE BETTER PART OF TWO YEARS. RIGHT, AND THIS WOULD ADDRESS THAT.

YEAH. THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT I ENVISIONED THIS ATTEMPTING TO CONTROL.

I THINK IF IT GOES BEYOND THAT, THEN IT'S A DEFINITIONAL PROBLEM.

YOU HAVE TO DIFFERENTIATE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PODS FROM WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DUMPSTERS, BECAUSE DUMPSTERS, BY THEIR VERY NATURE, ARE TEMPORARY, THEY'RE USED IN CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN THEY'RE GONE AND THEY'RE THERE AS LONG AS THE CONSTRUCTION NEEDS IT, AND THEN THEY TAKE IT AWAY.

THE POD ENDS UP BEING A SEMI-PERMANENT STORAGE IF YOU DON'T CONTROL IT.

CORRECT, AND I THINK WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS DIFFERENTIATE WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION.

SO YOU MAKE IT CLEAR WHICH PART OF THE ORDINANCE APPLIES TO WHICH KIND OF CONTAINER.

WELL THE CALLS ARE COME IN REGARDING THE PODS.

YEAH. IF, IF YOU THINK THIS IS GOING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM, I CAN NARROW THIS DOWN, BUT IN THAT CASE, I THINK IT'S MORE REASONABLE TO ASK THEM TO PUT ON A DRIVEWAY OR A HARD SURFACE BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A GIANT DUMPSTER IN THAT CASE.

I'M JUST SAYING.

SURE. DID YOU? WELL, I GUESS I SEE TWO IN ONE THOUGHT I HAVE IS THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE LONGER THAN SAY 30 DAYS. THEN YOU WILL GET A PERMIT AND MAYBE WE MAKE THAT MORE FORMAL THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO GET A PERMIT AND HAVE A PERMIT PROCESS, BUT IF IT'S THERE FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS, SAY SOMEBODY'S MOVING OR SOMEBODY MOVING BACK HOME AND THEY NEED A TEMPORARY SPOT TO PUT THINGS IN, YOU KNOW, IT COMES THAT WAY.

SO IT'S JUST EASIER THAN BUT ONCE IT'S THERE PAST A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME THAT IT BECOMES MORE THAN THAT.

IT STARTS LOOKING LIKE IT'S THERE FOR A LONG TIME, AND IF TWO YEARS IS, NOBODY WANTS SOMETHING THAT'S TEMPORARY, SITTING LARGE HAVE TO IN THEIR AREA NEIGHBORHOOD FOR TWO YEARS. SO I MEAN THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO ADDRESS IT IS ALLOWING IT TO A POINT AND THEN SAYING AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME YOU NEED A PERMIT, BUT THEN YOU'VE GOT TO TRACK THE TIME AND. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH.

SO IT'S A CATCH 22.

YEAH. I HAD A QUESTION KIND OF ALONG THE SAME LINES OF WHAT CHAIR BLUMER WAS SAYING ABOUT DIFFERENTIATION. I'M WONDERING IF PEOPLE ARE CALLING, IN ADDITION TO THE PODS, IF YOU'RE GETTING ANY FEEDBACK ABOUT LIKE THOSE TEMPORARY, THEY'RE LIKE STORAGE SHEDS, LIKE SHELTER LOGIC, LIKE YOU CAN PUT THEM UP YOURSELF IN LIKE A DAY, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE RATHER MASSIVE, LIKE, LIKE ENORMOUS, AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT'S AN ISSUE AND IF BECAUSE WHEN I WAS READING THIS TO ME, WHEN I SEE TEMPORARY CONTAINER UNIT, I KIND OF THOUGHT THAT THOSE WOULD FALL INTO THE SAME CATEGORY, OR ARE THOSE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY BUILDING. THOSE PERMANENT, THOSE DEPENDING ON THE TYPE? I THINK WE TREAT THOSE AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ANYWAY SO WE DON'T.

YEAH, I KNOW THAT I WAS TALKING TO KEY PLANNER CHAPMAN ABOUT THIS.

I GUESS WE USED TO LET YOU KNOW IF YOU GO TO COSTCO AND YOU SEE THOSE, THOSE PAVILION WE USED TO LET PEOPLE JUST PUT THEIR ON THEIR DECKS, AND WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT PEOPLE WERE CALLING AND SAYING, HEY, THAT WIND LAST NIGHT BLEW THAT OFF MY DECK.

SO WE'VE STARTED REQUIRING BUILDING PERMITS TO PUT THOSE ON DECKS, BUT YEAH, THAT WASN'T REALLY WHERE THIS WAS GOING.

WE CAN LOOK AT THAT, BUT I'M NOT AWARE THAT WE'VE GOTTEN ANY CALLS ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY. I'M KIND OF SURPRISED.

YEAH. SO.

QUESTION; WHAT WOULD THE PENALTY BE FOR SOMEBODY WHO VIOLATED THIS, WHO HAD ONE WITHOUT A PERMIT? BECAUSE THAT MIGHT, [INAUDIBLE], IF IT'S JUST YOU GET A NOTICE AND THEN YOU HAVE TO REMOVE IT, AND BY THE TIME THEY DO THAT, IT'S GONE.

OR IS THERE WOULD THERE ACTUALLY BE A FEE IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS? YEAH. SO IF THEY WERE TO VIOLATE THIS, THIS IS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, OUR ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WOULD ISSUE THEM A LETTER AND A WARNING, AND, AND IF THAT PROCEEDED FAR ENOUGH, EVENTUALLY WOULD TICKET THEM FOR VIOLATING THE ZONING ORDINANCE LIKE ANY OTHER ZONING VIOLATION SIX MONTHS LATER.

SO IT MAY BE MOOT FOR A MOVE.

[00:40:01]

ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT DO YOU.

WHAT DO YOU ALL WANT ME TO DO WITH THIS? I'VE GOT DIRECTORS GOT SOME DISCRETION ABOUT PLACEMENT IN THE FRONT YARD OR EXEMPTING PERMITTED ACTIVITIES FROM PLACEMENT IN THE FRONT YARD.

AND THAT STARTS TO CREATE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN DUMPSTERS AND PODS.

DO YOU WANT TO SEE MORE OF A DISTINCTION BETWEEN DUMPSTERS AND PODS? DO YOU WANT ME TO OPEN THIS UP? OR ARE WE LIKELY TO DO IS TAKE THE SUGGESTIONS WE'VE MADE, REWRITE IT ACCORDINGLY AND BRING IT BACK. OKAY, LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN COME UP WITH THEN.

EXCEPT EVERY SUGGESTION THAT WAS MADE, HOWEVER CONTRADICTORY AND PUT IT IN.

I'M A PLANNER. THAT'S WHAT WE DO.

NO PRESSURE. I APPRECIATED WHAT COMMISSIONER TREZISE SAID, HAVING MAYBE A THREE DAY OR FOUR DAY WINDOW WHERE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS PERMISSION THAT YOU JUST YOU CAN SAY YOU CAN LIVE WITH THE TOWNSHIP, CAN LIVE WITH THIS ON A TEMPORARY BASIS.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE HOUSEHOLD THAT COMES IN FROM OUT OF STATE, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, AND NOW I HAVE A FINE WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT COULD JUST BE A VERY NARROW THREE OR FOUR DAY PERIOD OF TIME.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE ON RESIDENTIAL PODS.

YES, BUT IF WE START GIVING GRACE PERIODS, IT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHEN TO START THAT CLOCK. ALSO, AS I ALSO NOTED, IF WE FOUND SOMEBODY WHO HAD A POD, WE JUST SAY, HEY, SHOOT US AN EMAIL WHEN YOU PUT IT UP AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIND ANYBODY BECAUSE YOU PUT A POD UP WITHOUT EMAILING US.

YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN? RIGHT.

IT WOULD BE A COMPLAINT DRIVEN.

IT OFTEN IS. LET ME TAKE A LOOK AND SEE WHAT I CAN DO WITH THAT.

I HAVEN'T COME ACROSS A GRACE PERIOD, BUT I FEEL LIKE MAYBE THAT WOULD BE WORKABLE IN A POD SITUATION. BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I THINK WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN A LOT IS SOMEBODY MOVES IN ON A WEEKEND, THEY GET THEIR STUFF OUT OR THEY MOVE OUT IN A WEEKEND.

THEY BRING THE POD IN ON FRIDAY, THEY LOAD THEIR STUFF UP AND THEY TAKE IT OUT.

WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IT'S THERE BECAUSE IT'S ON WEEKEND.

RIGHT? THAT IS WORKABLE AS OPPOSED TO A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT THAT IS GOING ON, YOU KNOW, LONG TERM. LET ME LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.

I CAN TELL YOU I'VE SEEN THESE FROM THE OTHER END BECAUSE AS A MAGISTRATE, THESE USED TO COME BEFORE ME WITH A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AND TYPICALLY BY THE TIME IT GETS TO THE ENFORCEMENT STAGE, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS LOST ALL PATIENCE.

YEAH. THEY DON'T JUST MARCH IN AND ISSUE A CITATION.

THEY TYPICALLY NEGOTIATE WITH THESE PEOPLE FOR WEEKS.

YEAH, AND THEN FINALLY THEY JUST GIVE UP AND SAY, OH, THE HELL WITH IT.

I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT. SO I DON'T SEE IT AS A MAJOR.

I DON'T SEE THAT PART OF IT AS A MAJOR ISSUE BECAUSE BY THE TIME IT GETS TO ENFORCEMENT, THEY'RE JUST NOT COOPERATING.

CORRECT, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S AN ISSUE.

YEAH, I'VE DONE THIS ON ENFORCEMENT.

YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT. IT TAKES WORK, BUT YOU DO GET THERE.

IT'S HARD TO NEGOTIATE. YEAH, THAT'S TRUE.

YEAH. OKAY, QUESTION TWO, SECTION TWO.

SEE WHERE IT SAYS THE USE OF SUCH UNITS SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN TWICE DURING ANY 12 MONTH PERIOD. I JUST WONDERED, I GUESS, HOW NECESSARY THAT DISTINCTION IS OR THAT LIMIT IS WHEN IN TO BE.

IT SAYS THAT THEY'RE ONLY PERMITTED WITH WRITTEN APPROVAL ANYWAY.

LIKE YOU GET THE WRITTEN APPROVAL, YOU GET 30 DAYS AND THEN YOU CAN DO IT AGAIN WITH ANOTHER 30 DAYS.

SURE. YOU HAVE TO GET APPROVAL AGAIN.

RIGHT, BUT THEN YOU'RE LIMITED TO THAT TWO TIMES.

RIGHT. BUT DON'T BOTHER WRITING A THIRD LETTER.

IF YOU TAKE THE TIME PERIOD OUT THEN.

RIGHT. YOU CAN GIVE US WRITTEN PERMISSION IF YOU WANT, BUT NOTHING KEEPS US NE KEEPS YOU FROM KEEPING THE POD THERE FOR TWO YEARS.

THIS IS [INAUDIBLE] COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY THAT PROMPTED ANOTHER QUESTION, AND THIS MAY END UP BEING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS MAY NOT, BUT IN THE INSTANCE OF THE CONDO

[00:45:06]

I WILL LOOK INTO THAT. I DON'T HAVE THAT QUESTION.

YOU GUYS GOT ME THINKING, ALL RIGHT, LET'S SWITCH [INAUDIBLE].

YOU COULD HAVE FOUR UNITS COMING IN AND OF COURSE, OF A YEAR KIDS MOVING IN OR OUT.

YEAH. OH, YEAH.

ALL RIGHT, YOU HAVE FOUR DIFFERENT APPLICANTS.

IS THIS TIED TO THE PROPERTY? THE PROPERTY OR THE PERSON? PARDON ME? I THOUGHT I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY EARLIER IN A SITUATION YOU STILL WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A UNIT NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH AN ADDRESS, BUT YOU WOULDN'T IF IT WAS THERE INAPPROPRIATELY. ANY CITATION OR CODE VIOLATION, I THINK WOULD GO TO THE PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T KNOW WHICH APARTMENT TO TIE IT TO NECESSARILY.

SO A VIOLATION WOULD BE A.

OR IN THE SITUATION THAT THE CHAIR WAS DESCRIBING, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW NECESSARILY WHICH UNIT IT BELONGED TO.

IF IT'S IN A PARKING LOT FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, WHAT WE WOULD DO WOULD BE GO TO THE GO TO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX AND SAY YOU HAVE AN ISSUE.

AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO FIND OUT WHICH RESIDENT HAD THAT WAS LEAVING THE POD IN THE PARKING LOT. THE CONDO ASSOCIATION.

YEAH. LET ME LOOK INTO IT.

MAYBE I'LL CALL A COUPLE OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES.

I'M SERIOUS. I'M SERIOUS.

MAYBE I'LL JUST RIP IT ALL UP.

I WISH I HADN'T DONE THAT. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE? WE'VE KEPT HIM VERY BUSY.

IT'S ALL GOOD. IF YOU'RE GETTING THAT MANY COMPLAINTS, I THINK IT'S WORTH THE TIME TO DISCUSS IT AND COME UP WITH SOME.

DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.

PLANNER CHAPMAN SET US ALL UP.

HE SAID, OH, HE'S ON HIS OWN TONIGHT.

LET'S MAKE IT FUN.

HE'S PROBABLY LISTENING WHILE HE'S ON VACATION.

ENJOYING THIS? YEAH. ALL RIGHT, SO THAT CLOSES ITEM 9S.

[9B. PUD Decks – Text Amendment Introduction ]

I THINK THIS IS A MORE STRAIGHT FORWARD ORDINANCE.

THE PAST FEW DECADES, STAFF HAS HAD TO DEAL WITH PROPERTY OWNERS IN SOME OF OUR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, ESPECIALLY SOME OF THE OLDER ONES.

WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING, THEY WANT TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AND WHAT THEY FIND OUT IS, HEY, YOU TRIGGERED A PUD AMENDMENT.

I KNOW THAT FROM TIME TO TIME.

YOU SEE YOU SEE SOMEONE IN HERE WITH A MAJOR PUD AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT A DECK.

EARLIER, PUDS WITH WERE APPROVED WITH BUILDABLE ENVELOPES OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

AND THAT REQUIRES NOT, YOU KNOW, THE ENVELOPE WASN'T VERY LARGE, AND THAT REQUIRES ANY ADDITION OF THE STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE THAT BUILDING ENVELOPE.

IT TRIGGERS THE MEIJER AMENDMENT.

NEWER PUDS DON'T HAVE THAT ISSUE BECAUSE WE REQUIRE LARGER BUILDING ENVELOPES.

YOU PUT A DECK IN, YOU'RE STILL INSIDE YOUR BUILDING ENVELOPE.

STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THIS AND ASKING TO AMEND THE POD ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT OF THE OPEN SPACE 10% OF THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE FIRST PAGE I'M LOOKING AT, AND SEE WHERE IS THIS.

2A.

YES PARAGRAPH 2A, LINE 19 DECKS NOT TO EXCEED 10% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. SO IF YOU HAVE A 1500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, THIS WOULD ALLOW YOU TO BUILD 150 SQUARE FOOT DECK WITHOUT HAVING TO AMEND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO DO IT, AND IS THAT ROUGHLY THE EXTRA THAT WE NOW HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT IS SIMILAR? YOU SAID WE NOW SPECIFY A BIGGER ENVELOPE.

IS THAT BIGGER AROUND THAT SAME SORT OF CONFORM?

[00:50:03]

WHAT WE DID WAS LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE HOMES OF THESE PUDS THAT TEND TO GET AFFECTED, AND 10% SEEMS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE, BUT THAT'S YEAH.

SO THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM IN THE CURRENT OR THE NEWER PODS TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO A 10%? RIGHT. RIGHT.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE ASKING.

WELL, I WAS THINKING OF DID WE EXPAND THE BUILDABLE ENVELOPE BY 10%? BUT THIS 10% IS THE REMAINING OPEN SPACE.

SO IT'S A DIFFERENT SLICE OF THE PIE.

RIGHT, AND NOW THAT I THINK OF MY QUESTION, ANY WAY TO ANSWER IT, BECAUSE ALL PARCELS ARE DIFFERENT [INAUDIBLE]. SO SORRY.

IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. JUST SO I'M CLEAR, WHAT YOU SHARED WITH US HERE IS AS IT WOULD BE CHANGED, IT SAYS IT'S RED LINED, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY CHANGES.

RED LINE, IS IT? NO. THE ONLY CHANGE THAT DOES THAT, IF IT WERE RED LINED, THE ONLY CHANGE YOU'D SEE WOULD BE IN LINE 19.

OK. EXCEPT DECKS NOT TO EXCEED 10% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE.

IF YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT, WE'LL SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.

LET'S DO THAT. MOVE IT FORWARD.

DOES THIS APPLY TO, SAY, CEMENT PADS, PATIOS, WHATEVER, OR JUST TWO DECKS? AND DO WE WANT IT TO APPLY IF SOMEONE'S GOT A DOUBLE DOOR ON THE BACK AND THEY WANT TO PUT DOWN A PATIO AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT INFRINGES IN THE BUILDABLE SPACE OR NOT.

I DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ATTACHING IT TO THE STRUCTURE.

OKAY, I'LL DOUBLE CHECK THAT.

YEAH. AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU MAY BE A CEMENT SLAB MAYBE ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE.

IN FACT, IF YOU'RE SMART, YOU DO CREATE A FLOOD.

YEAH. LET ME ASK. LET ME LOOK INTO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT OR NOT.

JUST WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT TWICE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, DOES THAT CLOSE THAT ISSUE? IT DOES. VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE ARE ON TOP HERE.

[10A. Township Board update.]

IS THERE A TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT WE GOT A LETTER FROM THE NEWEST TOWNSHIP BOARD MEMBER?

[10B. Liaison reports.]

ANY. I WENT TO THE PDC MEETING LAST WEEK AND I THINK I MENTIONED AT OUR LAST MEETING THAT THE HASLETT, THE PUD WE WILL BE LOOKING AT IN THE FUTURE TO DEVELOP THE HASLETT VILLAGE HAD ORIGINALLY APPROACHED THE EDC TO GET 800,000 AND SOME CHANGE FOR DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE NOW.

THEY HAVE WITHDRAWN THAT REQUEST AND ARE GOING A DIFFERENT ROUTE TO TRY TO GET THE FUNDING THROUGH BROWNFIELDS AND THE STATE GRANTS AND SOME STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO BUT THEY STILL CLAIM THAT DEMOLITION THEY STILL PLAN ON DEMOLITION.

THEY HOPE TO GET EVERYTHING APPROVED AND START BUILDING THE SUMMER IF THEY CAN GET ALL THEIR FINANCING IN THE ROW AND GET ALL THE APPROVALS FROM THE TOWNSHIP.

SO I ATTENDED THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING.

NOT MUCH HAPPENED, BUT ONE THING THAT I THINK IS OF GENERAL INTEREST IS THAT THEY ARE PLANNING ON ACQUIRING GENERIC SIGNS TO DIRECT PEOPLE TO LOCAL BUSINESSES DURING THE CONGESTED TRAFFIC PERIOD FROM THE CONSTRUCTION.

WHICH PLAYS A LITTLE BIT INTO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING WE'RE SCHEDULING MEETINGS OF THE [INAUDIBLE] AMENDMENT SUBCOMMITTEE.

THOSE OF US WHO WERE UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO GET APPOINTED TO THAT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DIRECTOR SCHMIDT HAS PROPOSED, WHICH I AGREE WITH, IS THAT THE TOWNSHIP ITSELF IS EXEMPT FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCES, SIGN CONTROLS, AND THESE SIGNS THAT THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS TALKING ABOUT WILL BE TOWNSHIP SIGNS.

THEY WILL NOT BE PRIVATE BUSINESS SIGNS.

SO AND THE WHOLE PURPOSE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ALTHOUGH THEY WILL KEEP THEM FOR FUTURE USE, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S GOING TO BE CRITICAL TO TRY AND ENCOURAGE AND DIRECT PEOPLE AROUND THE TRAFFIC BLOCKADES TO PRESERVE THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES.

[00:55:01]

NO. ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL GO ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11 PROJECT UPDATES.

[11. PROJECT UPDATES]

BICKFORD HOUSE ON OKEMOS ROAD HAS SUBMITTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT THAT WILL BE BEFORE YOU IN TWO WEEKS.

THEY'RE LOOKING AT EXPANDING THEIR FACILITY AND WE HAVE NO SITE PLANS RECEIVED OR APPROVED. NOT AT THIS TIME.

ALL RIGHT, AND THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THERE ARE NO FURTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE FOR ITEM 12, THE SECOND PUBLIC REMARKS PERIOD.

SO THEN WE ARE AT ITEM 13, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT.

IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.