Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:13]

I CURRENTLY. YEAH, I NORMALLY HAVE 6000 ALSO AND I HAVE ZERO.

OH, THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

I APPRECIATE THAT. I HAVE A SPECIAL ONE THAT I HAVE TO USE FOR THIS NOTEBOOK BECAUSE IT'S LIKE UV RAYS AND I THINK IT'S DYING, SO.

YEAH. SORRY, THAT WORKS TOO.

I KNEW SCHOOL TEACHERS WERE UNDERPAID, BUT THAT'S RIDICULOUS.

WHAT'S THAT? I KNOW.

I SAID. I KNOW SCHOOL TEACHERS WERE UNDERPAID, BUT THAT'S RIDICULOUS.

I CAN'T EVEN AFFORD IT. YEAH.

I DIDN'T KNOW YOU'RE A TEACHER.

YEAH, I TEACH HIGH SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY AND ENGLISH.

OH FUN TIMES.

[INAUDIBLE].

YOU REALLY HAVE. DON'T SAY THAT OUT LOUD.

ALL RIGHT. IT IS NOW 7:00.

I'M CALLING THE.

SIR. JUST A SEC.

[INAUDIBLE]. OH, WE'RE NOT DONE YET.

OKAY.

ALL SET.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

ALL RIGHT. I'M CALLING THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2022, MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.

FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ROLL CALL VICE CHAIR TREZISE.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL. PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY, HERE.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS NOTIFIED US HE WOULD NOT BE HERE.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER HERE AND COMMISSIONER PREMOE PREVIOUSLY INFORMED US HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE AT THE MEETING AND COMMISSIONER BLUMER IS PRESENT.

WE THEREFORE HAVE A QUORUM FOR THIS MEETING.

ITEM NUMBER THREE IS PUBLIC REMARKS.

THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THERE ARE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FOR THE MEETING TODAY, SO THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC REMARKS.

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SO MOVED.

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE? IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE AGENDA.

SAY AYE.

AYE. POSED NONE. THE AGENDA IS APPROVED.

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]

NEXT IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST EIGHT REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER CORDILL. I HAD ONE ON PAGE TWO UNDER NUMBER EIGHT, UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

IF THERE'S A ROLL CALL VOTE AND THERE ARE NO NAYS, DOES IT SAY NONE? IT'S JUST LEFT BLANK.

PAGE TWO. HMM? YES. IT SHOULD SAY NONE.

IT'S YOUR OWN MOTION.

SO, YES, I ACCEPT THAT.

ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MINUTES? ALL RIGHT, THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES OF AUGUST EIGHT, SAY, AYE II WITH THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

ANY OPPOSITION? NONE. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION.

AND THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

[6. COMMUNICATIONS]

COMMUNICATIONS. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS TO REVIEW? I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WERE ANY.

NO. OKAY.

[7A. Planning Commission – By-law Update]

SO NOW WE'RE ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN PUBLIC HEARINGS.

ITEM SEVEN A IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAW UPDATE.

GOOD EVENING. SO BRIEFLY, THIS IS COMING BACK TO YOU AFTER INITIAL DISCUSSION ON JUNE 13TH AND JUST KIND OF GOT BACKBURNER THIS SUMMER WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS GOING ON.

BUT THIS JUST MAKES A COUPLE OF MINOR CHANGES TO THE BYLAWS.

AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I PLAN ON DOING EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS WITH ALL THE BOARDS AND IS UPDATING AND REVIEWING BYLAWS TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS STILL RELEVANT.

SO YOU WILL NOTE THERE ARE FUNCTIONALLY TWO CHANGES HERE.

SECTION THREE D IS BEING STRUCK BECAUSE THOSE ARE NOT ITEMS THAT WE WOULD NORMALLY DO.

[00:05:02]

ITEM 5.8 C IS STRUCK.

THAT IS AN OLD LANGUAGE ABOUT A NUMBER OF PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE EVENING, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK WITH THE CHAIR ON IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

AND LASTLY, ITEM SEVEN IS BEING STRUCK ENTIRELY BECAUSE THAT IS ACTUALLY CONTRARY TO STATE LAW.

SO THOSE ARE THE RELATIVELY MINOR CHANGES.

BUT YOU'LL ALSO NOTE IN THE BYLAWS THAT CHANGING THE BYLAWS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO THAT IS WHY WE WERE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING.

WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

IF NOT, WE WILL.

IF YOU PLEASE OPEN AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE WILL BRING THIS BACK FOR FINAL ACTION.

NEXT, MEETING.

ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

MAYBE I OVERLOOKED IT, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN IT IS.

THE ORDINANCE IS.

EXTENSION. YEAH, IT IS.

I BELIEVE IT IS ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE.

CORRECT. THE STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION HAS A RANGE AND OUR ORDINANCE SETS HOW MANY THAT WE HAVE LOCALLY.

WE ARE SHORT ONE SINCE.

FORMER CHAIR WAS ABSORBED INTO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

CORRECT. WE ARE 8 AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE UP TO NINE.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT REQUIRES US TO HAVE NINE.

YEAH. I HAD AN INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH DIRECTOR WALSH THIS MORNING AT THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING.

HE MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT HOPING TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE COMMISSION DOWN TO SEVEN BECAUSE MOST TOWNSHIP COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSIONS ARE SEVEN.

IN MY PAST EXPERIENCE, SEVEN IS THE NUMBER ON MOST PLANNING COMMISSIONS.

NINE IS A BIG COMMISSION.

IT ALSO PERHAPS IT'S KISMET, BUT IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY HARD TO GET NINE SCREENS UP THERE ON THAT DESK WHEN WE DO THE TOWN HALL RENOVATION.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE HAD THAT CONVERSATION.

THERE IS NOTHING IMMINENT, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT I MENTIONED AT ONE POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, SEVEN IS MORE NORMAL, MORE REGULARLY SEEN NUMBER.

I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ACTUALLY BEING THOUGHT ABOUT OR WAS HE JUST FLOATING AN IDEA? IT IS. IT'S A FLOATING IDEA.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE BYLAWS, PROPOSED CHANGES? DO WE WANT TO STRAW VOTE ON THIS? WE WE PROBABLY SHOULD.

JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE ON PAGE THREE RD, JUST THE RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION TO SERVE ON THE ZBA.

SO BY STRIKING THAT, I GUESS, HOW DOES THAT WORK? JUST CURIOUS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION SIMPLY MAKES AN APPOINTMENT.

THAT HAS BEEN PASSED PRACTICE.

I WENT BACK THROUGH THE LAST COUPLE OF ZBA MEMBERS AND THAT IS HOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONS HANDLED IT IN THE PAST.

ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S HAVE A STRAW VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT, IF PRESENTED WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TODAY, WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD APPROVE THOSE CHANGES SO YOU.

[INAUDIBLE].

SO ALL IN ALL, WHO WOULD FAVOR THE CHANGES PROPOSED BY STAFF? SAY, AYE. AYE.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? NO. ALL RIGHT.

SO THEN WE WOULD LOOK FAVORABLY UPON THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT THE STAFF ARE SUGGESTING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SIGN ORDINANCES, THE SIGN

[7B. Text Amendment #2022-16 – Sign Ordinance Update]

ORDINANCE UPDATE. YES, SIR.

THIS IS WE SORT OF INTRODUCED THIS AT THE LAST MEETING TO GET EVERYONE READY.

TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY.

WITTY? WITTY IS CORRECT.

ATTORNEY WITTY IS HERE THIS EVENING TO DISCUSS THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY'S REVIEW OF THIS.

SO TO START FROM SCRATCH.

THE IDEA BEHIND THIS IS IS THREEFOLD.

REALLY CLEAN UP, THE ORDINANCE AS BEST WE CAN.

THERE WAS A LOT OF OVERLAP.

THERE WAS A LOT OF THINGS IN WEIRD PLACES.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE THIS WORK BETTER FIRST AND FOREMOST.

SECONDLY, THERE ARE SOME SORT OF STRUCTURAL CHANGES THAT THE COMMITTEE REVIEWED.

THOSE ARE IN GREEN IN THE PACKET.

THOSE ARE NOT THEY'RE NOT MANY HUGE CHANGES IN THERE.

BUT THERE ARE SOME SIZE CHANGES AND HEIGHT CHANGES.

[00:10:02]

BUT THE COMMITTEE DID RECOMMEND THEM.

THE LAST PIECE IS THE IDEA THAT WE ARE TRYING TO SCRUB THIS ORDINANCE OF CONTENT BASED REGULATION.

SO IF YOU HAVE TO READ THE SIGN TO DETERMINE HOW TO REGULATE IT, IT SHOULD NOT BE IN THERE.

THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY APPEARS TO HAVE GENERALLY AGREED WITH MOST OF WHAT WE'VE DONE, AND THEY DO HAVE A COUPLE OF SEVERAL ITEMS IN THEIR MEMO THAT THEY WILL, MR. WHITTY CAN DISCUSS FURTHER.

I WILL SAY FUNCTIONALLY AS KIND OF, I THINK I EXPECTED FROM THE BEGINNING, THIS REALLY COMES DOWN TO NOW LANGUAGE ABOUT TEMPORARY SIGNAGE, WHICH IS WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE THING BACK IN ARIZONA AND FLAGS WHICH ARE JUST REALLY HARD TO DEAL WITH. THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEYS AND THE REVIEW HAVE RECOMMENDED SOME OTHER CHANGES.

BY AND LARGE, WE GENERALLY AGREE WITH THEM, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE PURPOSE STATEMENT LANGUAGE.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE ORDINANCE REALLY COULD USE SOME BEEFING UP.

BUT REALLY, THE TWO BIG ONES AT THIS POINT THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INPUT ON.

AFTER MR. WITTY SPEAKS HERE IN A MINUTE, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM.

IS THE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE IN THE FLAGS BECAUSE THOSE ARE REALLY THE TWO OUTSTANDING PIECES.

AND WITH THAT, I WILL SEE THE FLOOR BEFORE WE HEAR FROM.

WELL, MR. WADE, MAYBE IT WILL BE MR. WITTY THAT I HAVE MY QUESTION FOR.

THERE IS ONE PIECE OF SIGN CONTENT WHICH IS OPEN TO REGULATION, AND THAT IS THE SUPREME COURT HAS LEFT IT OPEN.

SIGNS THAT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE IS.

IS THAT SIMPLY SO IMPLICIT THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT OR SHOULD THAT BE PART OF THE.

SO THERE ARE PROBABLY APPLICABLE LIKE CRIMINAL REGULATIONS THAT WOULD PERTAIN TO THAT.

THE SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT KIND OF THE SPHERE OF WHAT IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, THAT'S VERY BROAD AND THE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT ARE CONSTRUED NARROWLY.

SO LIKE THE SUPREME COURT HAS FOUND THINGS LIKE FIGHTING WORDS OR OBSCENITY TO NOT BE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR CERTAIN LIKE INCITEMENTS TO VIOLENCE.

BUT THOSE ARE UNDER VERY SPECIFIC AND PARTICULAR TESTS THAT I THINK WOULD VERY RARELY BE IMPLICATED BY SOMETHING LIKE A SIGN.

IT'S POSSIBLE.

AND IF THE TOWNSHIP WANTED TO INCLUDE SOME KIND OF CARVE OUT THAT SAYS, LOOK, IF YOU MEET WHATEVER APPLICABLE THRESHOLD IS SET FORTH IN THE SUPREME COURT IS CONDUCT THAT FALLS OUTSIDE OF THE PROTECTIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

THIS KIND OF SIGNAGE IS PROHIBITED.

IT'S JUST HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE SOMETHING ON A SIGN THAT WOULD MEET THAT THRESHOLD BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY HIGH.

OKAY. ANY OTHER PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS HERE SEEING NONE AND I'LL KIND OF GENERALLY DISCUSS SOME OF OUR CHANGES AND THEN IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, WE CAN GET INTO THOSE.

SO LIKE TIM MENTIONED, WE KIND OF DOVE INTO THREE CORE AREAS IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

THE FIRST THING WE LOOKED AT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS, MAINLY IMPLICATED BY LANGUAGE THAT FOCUSES ON THE CONTENT OF MESSAGES EITHER DIRECTLY OR IN SOME CASES INDIRECTLY, BY FAVORING CERTAIN TYPES OF MESSAGES OVER OTHERS.

WE ALSO HIGHLIGHTED A FEW JUST KIND OF PRACTICAL CONCERNS WITH HOW VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WOULD INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER OR THINGS THAT WE PERCEIVED AS POTENTIAL AMBIGUITIES OR TRIPPING POINTS.

AND THEN WE ALSO PROPOSED A FEW MAYBE ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THAT WOULD MAYBE ADD SOME FLEXIBILITY OR DEFENSE ABILITY TO THE ORDINANCE.

SO THE FIRST BIG TOPIC, LIKE TIM SAID, WAS TEMPORARY SIGNS.

THE DRAFT WE LOOKED AT DIDN'T HAVE A DEFINITION.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A DEFINITION AND SO WE INCLUDED A SAMPLE DEFINITION, BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT CAN BE REVISED AS YOU SEE FIT.

THE PERMITTING OF TEMPORARY SIGNS SEEM TO BE KIND OF AN OPEN QUESTION GIVEN THE LANGUAGE AND SECTION.

I THINK IT'S 13 SUB THREE AS WRITTEN THAT LOOKS LIKE IT REQUIRES A PERMIT FOR ALL TEMPORARY SIGNS.

AND NORMALLY WHAT WE ENCOUNTER IS THAT TEMPORARY SIGNS ARE ALLOWED TO BE PLACED WITHOUT A PERMIT, JUST GIVEN THE VOLUME OF THEM AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN THAT WOULD BE

[00:15:07]

ASSOCIATED WITH APPROVING AN INDIVIDUAL SIGN PERMIT FOR EVERY TEMPORARY SIGN.

NOT SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, JUST SAYING THAT IT SHOULD BE CLARIFIED IF THAT'S THE APPROACH YOU WANT TO TAKE.

UM, JUMPING FORWARD TO SECTION 20 WE LOOKED AT.

SO THERE WERE A FEW, I WOULD SAY ON THEIR FACE THEY'RE KIND OF SIMILAR TO TIME, PLACE AND MANNER RESTRICTIONS WHERE THERE'S SPECIAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO TEMPORARY SIGNS.

FOR THE MOST PART, WE THOUGHT THIS WAS FINE IN SO MUCH AS THESE PRIVILEGES PERTAINED ONLY TO KIND OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES.

THE ONE THAT WE THOUGHT WAS PROBLEMATIC WAS SECTION 20 SUB FOUR.

AND TO CLARIFY, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THIS COULD BE HARD TO DEFEND THE AND IT'S NOT CONTENT BASED ON ITS FACE. SO FOR THOSE OF YOU UNFAMILIAR WITH THIS REGULATION, THIS PROVIDES A KIND OF SPECIAL GRANT TO HAVE INCREASED SIGNAGE.

LIKE IN THE I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE TIME AROUND AN ELECTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A LOCATION RESTRICTION AS WELL.

AND SO LIKE THAT, ON ITS FACE, IT'S NOT REGULATING THE CONTENT OF SIGNS, BUT THE TYING OF THAT INCREASED SIGN PRIVILEGES TO THE TEMPORAL EVENT OF AN ELECTION COULD BE ARGUED TO KIND OF UNCONSTITUTIONALLY FAVOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF NON COMMERCIAL SPEECH OVER OTHER SPEECH.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHY DOES THE TOWNSHIP PROVIDE THIS INCREASED ABILITY OF EXPRESSION TO SIGNS DURING AN ELECTION? BUT YOU KNOW, A SIMILAR PRIVILEGE IS NOT AFFORDED TO SIGNS DURING A RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY.

SO THERE IS THE IMPLICIT ARGUMENT THAT COULD BE MADE THERE.

YOU KNOW, JUST THAT SOME SORTS OF NON COMMERCIAL EXPRESSION ARE BEING FAVORED OVER OTHERS.

AND IN THE WAKE OF REID V GILBERT, WHICH AGAIN LOOKS AT WHETHER REGULATIONS ARE CONTENT BASED, IT'S NOT COMPLETELY INFEASIBLE THAT THE TOWNSHIP WOULD SEE SUCH A CHALLENGE SOMEDAY.

ONE OF THE KIND OF ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS THAT WE PROPOSED FOR DEALING WITH THESE KIND OF SPECIAL SITUATIONS FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS IS A FRAMEWORK THAT WE DEVELOPED FOR TEMPORARY SIGN EVENTS. AND WHAT THAT WOULD DO IS IT WOULD ESTABLISH A PERMITTING PROCESS FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS THAT EXCEED WHATEVER LIMITATION IS IMPOSED BY A CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICT.

AND IT WOULD BE LIMITED IN TIME AND ANYONE COULD APPLY FOR THIS IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT.

PRESUMABLY, THE APPLICATION WOULD INDICATE THE EXTENT OF THE SIGNAGE THAT'S BEING SOUGHT, AND IT COULD BE REVIEWED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT LIKE ANY KIND OF SAFETY HAZARDS POSED BY THE SIGNS.

BUT WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS IT WOULD IT WOULD PROVIDE THE ABILITY TO HAVE INCREASED TEMPORARY SIGNAGE FOR ANY KIND OF SPECIAL EVENT, WHETHER IT'S A BIRTHDAY PARTY, A GRAND OPENING, A CHURCH SERVICE, SO ON AND SO FORTH, REGARDLESS OF CONTENT.

IT WOULD PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY.

BUT THE DOWNSIDE IS THAT IT WOULD KIND OF INCREASE THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON THE TOWNSHIP BECAUSE SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THESE PERMITS.

SO IT'S KIND OF A POLICY DECISION THAT I WOULD DEFER TO YOU GUYS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ADDED FLEXIBILITY POSED BY THAT PROCESS WOULD OUTWEIGH THE POTENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.

BUT WE AT LEAST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION.

WE HAD A MINOR PROPOSED CORRECTION TO DRIVE THROUGH ACCESSORY SIGNS.

JUST THE WORDING AS PRESENTED APPEARED A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS TO US.

AND THEN MOVING ON TO FLAGS.

SO WE FIRST KIND OF PROPOSED THE DEFINITION HERE, AND WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE DEFINITION SPECIFY THAT A FLAG IS A SIGN AND IS REGULATED AS SUCH.

BUT THEN WE ALSO AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR FLAGS.

[00:20:02]

PART OF OUR INTENT HERE WAS TO SIMPLIFY SOME OF THE LANGUAGE.

THAT WAS THE SIMPLE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US.

WE ALSO, AGAIN, ALWAYS GOING THROUGH THESE SIGN ORDINANCES, LOOKED FOR CONTENT BASED REGULATIONS, AND THE BIG ONE THAT STOOD OUT HERE WAS THE SPECIAL 60 SQUARE FOOT GRANT TO US FLAGS AND THEN 24 SQUARE FEET FOR EVERY OTHER FLAG.

THAT IS VERY MUCH A CONTENT BASED MESSAGE BECAUSE FLAGS ARE SIGNS AND THAT IS AIMED AT THE MESSAGE OF THE SIGN.

IT'S FAVORING PATRIOTIC MESSAGES OVER OTHER KINDS OF MESSAGES.

AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, UNDER SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE, MUNICIPALITIES DON'T NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN THE IDEA OF PROMOTING CERTAIN IDEAS OVER OTHERS LIKE THIS.

SO THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND OMITTING.

UM, ANOTHER THING THAT WE RECOMMENDED OMITTING FROM THE SAMPLE LANGUAGE WE RECEIVED.

SO THERE IS A PROVISION THAT REQUIRED IN NON RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THAT THE A COMMERCIAL MESSAGE ON A FLAG COUNTS AGAINST THE PERMITTED WALL SIGN ALLOWANCE.

THAT'S STRUCK US AS A LITTLE BIT TROUBLESOME FOR TWO REASONS.

WELL, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN ISSUE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST COMMERCIAL MESSAGES.

IT'S, IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO A SOMEWHAT HEIGHTENED STANDARD OF REVIEW.

AND THEN THE I THINK TO ME, THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THAT THIS YOU KNOW, I GUESS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S 60 WELL, CERTAINLY IF IT'S 60 SQUARE FEET, ONE FLAG OF THAT SIZE WOULD BASICALLY BE ALL OF THE PERMITTED WALL SIGN ALLOWANCE FOR A BUSINESS.

AND IF IT'S 24 SQUARE FEET, IF I RECALL, THAT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF IT AS WELL.

SO OUR CONCERNS THERE ARE JUST HOW MUCH YOU WOULD BE RESTRICTING THE RIGHT OF THESE BUSINESSES TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES WITH SIGNS OR WITH FLAGS. EXCUSE ME.

I THINK THE REST OF OUR SUGGESTIONS TO FLAGS ARE RELATIVELY SELF EXPLANATORY, BUT IF THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AS TO ANY OF THESE, I'LL TAKE THEM.

YEAH, GO AHEAD. I HAVE A QUESTION.

I'M NOT SURE WHETHER IT'S FOR YOU OR FOR TIM.

MAYBE BOTH. ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT TO PERMIT A TEMPORARY SIGN.

A TEMPORARY SIGN BY DEFINITION IS A SIGN WHICH COMES DOWN WITHIN 60 DAYS, RIGHT? IF YOU DON'T PERMIT, HOW DO YOU TRACK IT? SO I GUESS FIRST OFF, I KNOW I NODDED IN AGREEMENT WHEN YOU SAID IT'S ONE THAT COMES DOWN IN 60 DAYS.

SO I DON'T BELIEVE THE REGULATIONS WE LOOKED AT HAD A DEFINITION FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS.

AND SO IF THERE IS A BAKED IN TIME PERIOD, I AGREE THAT THAT SHOULD BE IN THE DEFINITION.

AND THEN IN OTHER COMMUNITIES WE'VE WORKED WITH WITH THIS ISSUE, IT'S PRETTY MUCH JUST IF YOU NOTICE, THE TEMPORARY SIGN HAS BEEN OUT FOR A WHILE.

THAT'S SOMETHING YOU TAKE NOTE OF AND THEN YOU COME BACK X AMOUNT OF DAYS LATER IF IT'S STILL THERE AND YOU REGULATE IT THAT WAY.

AND THAT'S JUST KIND OF A WAY LIKE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S GOING TO BE STUFF THAT SLIPS THROUGH THE CRACKS.

BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE YOU HAVE TO BALANCE THE LEVEL OF CONTROL AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN AND ADMINISTERING TEMPORARY SIGN PERMITS.

AND IF THAT'S ALREADY THE TOWNSHIP'S PRACTICE, THEN I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T TRY TO ADVOCATE AGAINST RELINQUISHING THAT CONTROL.

I THINK OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO PERMITTING WERE JUST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER COMMUNITIES AND AGAIN, LIMIT THAT ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.

SO. YEAH, GO AHEAD.

DID I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE SAYING CORRECTLY, THAT TO ELIMINATE THE SECTION INVOLVING ELECTION SIGNS FROM THAT PROVISION? YES. AND PUT THEM ALL UNDER TEMPORARY SIGNS.

SO SELL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN SIGNS WOULD HAVE TO GO GET A TEMPORARY PERMIT.

SO THAT'S A COMPLEX QUESTION.

YES, IT IS. AND MY ANSWERS ARE YES, NO.

AND KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE THE ANSWER.

WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION, OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REMOVE KIND OF THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR ELECTION SIGNS BECAUSE THAT'S VALUING LIKE A CERTAIN KIND OF NON COMMERCIAL EXPRESSIVE SPEECH OVER OTHERS.

THAT SAID, WITHOUT THAT SPECIAL GRANT OF AUTHORITY, I MEAN, THERE'S STILL THE ABILITY TO PLACE ELECTION SIGNS, AS YOU WOULD ANY OTHER TEMPORARY SIGN.

[00:25:01]

SO YOU DON'T NECESSARILY NEED A SPECIAL FRAMEWORK TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE THOSE KINDS OF SIGNS.

THE ALTERNATIVE WE I TALKED ABOUT REGARDING TEMPORARY SIGN EVENTS THAT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO PEOPLE OR PROPERTIES THAT WANT TO HAVE AN AMOUNT OF TEMPORARY SIGNS THAT EXCEEDS WHAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO IF THERE IS AN ELECTION AND SOMEONE WANTS TO PLACE, YOU KNOW, TEN ELECTION SIGNS ON THEIR PROPERTY, THE WAY THEY COULD DO THAT WOULD NOT BE THROUGH SORT OF AN AUTOMATIC EXCEPTION IN THE ORDINANCE THAT VALUES SPEECH DURING THE TIME OF ELECTION OVER OTHER SPEECH.

IT WOULD BE JUST TO APPLY FOR A TEMPORARY SIGN EVENT PERMIT AND THEN RECEIVE APPROVAL TO PLACE THESE SIGNS FOR X AMOUNT OF DAYS.

AND I DON'T RECALL IF THERE IS A LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF TEMPORARY SIGNS THAT CAN BE PLACED ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY.

DO YOU.

I THINK WE HAVE BOTH.

IS IT TOTAL SQUARE FOOT LIMITATIONS? THERE'S A LOT OF ONE SUBJECT TO THEN THE SEPARATE CONSTRUCTION ON ELECTION TIME.

SO IF WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE ELECTION SIGN LANGUAGE, WE'LL NEED TO RETHINK THE LIMITATION ON IN THE OVERALL TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT.

YEAH, I'M THINKING THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF ELECTIONS GOING ON THIS YEAR AND PEOPLE MAY WANT TO HAVE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SIGNS.

AND IF THEY'RE LIMITED TO ONE ELECTION SIGN THEN, I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO APPRECIATE ALL OF THE TEMPORARY PERMITS YOU GET REQUESTED.

RIGHT. I AGREE. AND I'M SORRY.

MAYBE. NO, YOU'RE FINE.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE'S THE TEMPORARY SIGNS ARE NOT ALLOWED EXCEPT FOR ELECTIONS LIKE THERE'S NO.

RIGHT. IN 20 A SECTION 20.

I DO THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING AND THEN THE REGULATIONS [INAUDIBLE].

SPEAKERS]. OKAY.

THANKS, TIM.

SO TO GET BACK TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT TEMPORARY SIGNS, IT DOES LOOK LIKE RIGHT NOW JUST ONE PER PARCEL IS PERMITTED.

AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S NOT ADDRESSED IN THE WRITTEN OPINION WE PROVIDED, IT MIGHT BE A BEST PRACTICE TO MAYBE THINK ABOUT INCREASING JUST KIND OF THE DEFAULT ALLOWANCE FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS EITHER BY THE I THINK COMBINING A NUMBER WITH A SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWANCE IS NORMALLY A PRETTY GOOD APPROACH BECAUSE THAT KIND OF REGULATES THE ENTIRE VISUAL IMPACT.

YOU KNOW, WITHOUT HAVING TO GET TOO OUT INTO THE WEEDS WITH HOW BIG EACH INDIVIDUAL SIGN CAN BE.

AND, I MEAN, IF ONE SIGN IS ALLOWED, THEN THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT IS AFFORDING SOME SPEECH TO RESIDENTS.

BUT IF, FOR INSTANCE, DURING THE TIME OF THE ELECTION, THEY WOULD WANT TO DISPLAY MORE THAN ONE SIGN, OR EVEN IF THERE ARE, I GUESS, WHATEVER ISSUES ARE GOING ON OR THEY WANT TO EXPRESS MORE THAN ONE IDEA SIMULTANEOUSLY.

IT'S IT'S ONE OF THOSE POLICY DECISIONS WHERE THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF VISUAL CLUTTER THAT NEEDS TO BE REGULATED.

BUT IT'S ALSO I MEAN, TEMPORARY SIGNS.

THAT'S A IT'S A PRETTY IMPORTANT MECHANISM OF EXPRESSION.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING I MIGHT RECOMMEND EXAMINING.

AS WELL. YES.

I'VE HEARD SOME CANDIDATES ACTUALLY WANT THEIR SIGNS RETURNED TO THEM FOR FUTURE USE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT PLAYS INTO IT, BUT WHEN THIS CONVERSATION WAS IT, REGARDLESS OF ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE IT KIND OF SOUNDED LIKE THIS WAS THE HOMEOWNER PUTTING OUT SIGNS FOR CANDIDATES THAT THEY FAVORED IN FRONT OF THEIR RESIDENTS, IS THAT RIGHT? SO THE REGULATIONS WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW ARE JUST TEMPORARY SIGNS ON ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

SO THIS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO A HOMEOWNER AND A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AS WELL.

WHAT HAPPENS WITH CAMPAIGN SIGNS ON PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

[00:30:03]

THEY'RE PROHIBITED BY THE ORDINANCE.

SO RIGHT NOW, UNLESS YOU HAVE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT AND THE TOWNSHIP ITSELF, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT SIGNS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO DEPENDING IF IT'S A COUNTY ROAD OR STATE HIGHWAY OR GENERALLY, THEY'RE NOT PREPARED IN THE RIGHT WAY.

NOW, THERE'S ABOUT 40 OF THEM IN MY OFFICE SURE THAT OUR WONDERFUL INTERN, MR. EMERY, IS COLLECTED, BUT BY LARGE, TEMPORARY SIGN IS NOT PERMITTED IN PUBLIC, QUOTE UNQUOTE PROPERTY. SO RIGHT AWAY PARKS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

YEAH. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT EVEN SIGNS NEAR THE RIGHT OF WAY ARE A CONCERN WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE TRAFFIC SIGN LINES AND PUBLIC SAFETY AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

I MEAN, WE'VE CERTAINLY SEEN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS TO WALK IT BACK EVEN FARTHER THAN THE RIGHT OF WAY, BECAUSE THAT'S CERTAINLY A VERY VALID AND IMPORTANT INTEREST THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS AND ENSURING THAT MOTORISTS AND PEDESTRIANS AREN'T GETTING DISTRACTED BY THESE.

I JUST WAS CURIOUS.

I THINK THEY'RE CALLED FEATHER SIGNS.

A SIGN IS A SIGN LIKE A ROSE IS A ROSE.

OR SOMETIMES IT SAYS OPEN OR WELCOME OR I'M JUST CURIOUS WHERE THEY FALL.

CORRECT. BY LARGE, THAT IS JUST THE TIP.

AND WE GET THAT QUESTION REGULARLY.

RIGHT NOW, THAT TYPE OF SIGN IS NOT PERMITTED GOING FORWARD.

IT'S LIKELY NOT PERMITTED EITHER BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE ORDINANCE WOULD LIMIT TEMPORARY SIGNS TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.

WE WANT TO DISCUSS THAT. WE'RE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.

AND WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF COMMUNITIES.

SO I'M IMAGINING THAT A FEATHER SIGN IS SOMETHING THAT DOES IT LIKE MOVE OR IS IT THE ONES WITH LIKE THE BIG PVC? YEAH. TEARDROPS.

SO THE LIKE NATURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS THAT'S OKAY TO REGULATE AND EVEN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST. SO LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T LIKE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGNS, YOU KNOW, LIKE ONES WITH FLASHING LEDS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SAY, WE DON'T WANT THIS KIND OF SIGN IN THE TOWNSHIP WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS FOR LIKE GAS STATIONS.

AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC, LIKE REGULATING THE CONTENT OF THE SIGN.

SO IF THAT IS SOMETHING WHERE YOU THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CERTAINLY OTHER WAYS FOR THAT TYPE OF MESSAGE TO BE EXPRESSED.

AND, YOU KNOW, FROM A VISUAL STANDPOINT, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE TOWNSHIP WANTS TO SEE ESTHETICALLY.

AND MAYBE THE WAY IT'S CONSTRUCTED MEANS THAT IT MOVES SO THAT IT COULD POSE A DISTRACTION FOR MOTORISTS, SO ON AND SO FORTH.

THAT'S SOMETHING WHERE YOU COULD LIKE DEFINE THAT SPECIFIC KIND OF SIGN AND SAY THESE SIGNS ARE PROHIBITED.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

NO PROBLEM. YES.

I THINK I GOT LOST IN THE WEEDS WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING FLAGS.

IF A FLAG IS BY DEFINITION A TYPE OF SIGN, YES.

AND ALMOST INVARIABLY IT WILL MEET OR EXCEED THE SIZE LIMITS FOR SIGNS.

AND ALMOST ALL FLAGS ARE GOING TO BE PERMANENT SIGNS.

NO ONE'S GOING TO PUT UP A FLAG FOR 30 DAYS AND TAKE IT DOWN AGAIN.

IF THEY PUT UP A FLAGPOLE, IT'S A PERMANENT SIGN.

SURE. HOW DO YOU RESOLVE A BUSINESS THAT WANTS TO FLY A FLAG AND PUT UP ITS BUSINESS SIGN AT THE SAME TIME? YOU DON'T COUNT THE FLAG AGAINST THE BUSINESS SIGN.

SO THE FLAG IS. SO THE FLAG WOULD BE JUST A SEPARATE TYPE OF SIGNAGE THAT'S PERMITTED.

IT'S SUI GENERIS.

IT'S IS OWN BEING.

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WAY.

AND SOME OF THAT TO ME IS JUST KIND OF COMING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF FLAGS BEING SORT OF A HALLMARK OF IMPORTANT EXPRESSION, WHERE IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE, YOU KNOW, IS THERE REALLY GOING TO BE A SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE AVENUE FOR SOMEONE TO EXPRESS THIS KIND OF MESSAGE IF YOU DON'T LET THEM FLY A FLAG? YOU KNOW, IT'S A VERY TRADITIONAL AND KIND OF WELL ESTABLISHED METHOD OF EXPRESSION.

NO, I ACCEPT THAT. I'M JUST WONDERING THE RESOLUTION, IF A BUSINESS WANTS TO FLY A FLAG, THEN THERE HAS TO BE A WAY OF RESOLVING THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO OVERWHELM THE LEGALLY, IT'S GOING TO OVERWHELM THEIR BUSINESS SIDE.

SO YOU HAVE TO THE FLAG IS SIMPLY SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE CATEGORY OF CONTROL, RIGHT? YES. AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION TO NOT HAVE FLAGS COUNT AGAINST LIKE PERMITTED WALL SIGNS.

YES. THAT REMINDED ME OF SOMETHING MAYBE A FEW YEARS BACK WHERE I THINK IT WAS LIKE A DEALERSHIP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND IT WAS ALMOST LIKE THERE WERE SO MANY SIGNS AND THEY WERE SO TALL AND SO LARGE.

IT HAD THE EFFECT OF ENHANCED ADVERTISING.

[00:35:04]

TIRE STORE OK.

THANK YOU. YEAH.

SO YEAH.

SO I MEAN, AND AS PRESENTED THE SAMPLE REGULATIONS WE'RE LOOKING AT ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF TWO FLAGS PER PROPERTY AND THOSE I THINK OUR SAMPLE REGULATIONS SAID NO LARGER THAN 60 FEET, BUT I THINK THE PREVIOUS DEFAULT WAS NO LARGER THAN 24 SQUARE FEET.

THAT WOULD BE FINE ALSO.

SO THAT'S THERE'S NOT AN UNLIMITED RIGHT TO DISPLAY FLAGS.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT MAYBE TWO PER PARCEL, I GUESS IN A VERY SMALL PARCEL THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE OVERWHELMING.

BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THAT'S PRETTY MODERATE.

THANK YOU. YEAH, OF COURSE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. WHITT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

SO NEXT STEPS WE WILL MAKE UPDATES TO THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE WITH THE TAXES ATTORNEYS RECOMMENDED CHANGES GIVEN THAT WE'RE HEARING NO MAJOR OPPOSITION AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR TEMPORARY RECOMMENDATION.

ANOTHER THING I WOULD SAY THAT THERE DOES NEED TO BE SOME WAY TO DEAL WITH MULTIPLE POLITICAL SIGNS IN AN ELECTION YEAR, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS. BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT YOUR PROPOSAL COMES BACK.

YEAH. SO IT'S A LOT OF SIGNS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I'VE GOT FOUR IN MY FRONT YARD THANKS TO MY WIFE.

WE'VE GOT A COUPLE PROPERTIES WITH A DOZEN, RIGHT? YEAH. RIGHT.

SO THERE'S AND I GUESS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S, THERE'S A COUPLE OF WAYS TO DEAL WITH THAT.

THE FIRST IS JUST LOOSENING THE RESTRICTIONS, LIKE THE DEFAULT RESTRICTIONS ON TEMPORARY SIGNS.

SO LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE UP TO THREE OR FOUR SIGNS NOT TO EXCEED 40 SQUARE FEET AND YOUR FRONT YARD, PROVIDED THEY MEET A CERTAIN SETBACK THAT WOULD BE KIND OF YEAR ROUND.

EVERYONE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE TEMPORARY SIGNS AND THEY COULD BE TEMPORARY SIGNS FOR GARAGE SALES, ELECTIONS, WHAT HAVE YOU.

THE OTHER APPROACH WAS THAT TEMPORARY SIGN EVENT PERMITTING SCHEME THAT WE DISCUSSED WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE IS THE DEFAULT NUMBER OF TEMPORARY SIGNS YOU CAN HAVE, WHICH IS THE SIGN REGULATIONS ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN AS JUST ONE, BUT THEN UNDER THIS NEW SCHEME, YOU COULD APPLY FOR A PERMIT, YOU KNOW, SAY, I WANT TO HAVE FIVE SIGNS THIS SIZE.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE UP THIS LONG.

YOU GET A PERMIT, YOU DISPLAY THOSE SIGNS FOR THAT DURATION, AND THEN WHEN THE PERMIT EXPIRES, THEY COME DOWN.

THANK YOU. OF COURSE.

YEAH. MY OPINION AND MY OPINION.

BUT TO STAFF AS YOU'RE WRITING THIS, I THINK FINDING SOME WAY TO SORT OF SPLIT THE BABY HERE, IF YOU CAN, BECAUSE I THINK WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE COMPLETELY UNREGULATED AND OUT OF CONTROL YEAR ROUND.

HOWEVER, I THINK HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN PLACEMENT OF POLITICAL SIGNS, IT IS AN IMPOSITION ON BOTH OUR PROPERTY OWNERS AND A POLITICAL CANDIDATE TO TRY TO HAVE SOMEBODY HAVE TO APPLY FOR IT.

THEY'RE USUALLY GOING DOOR TO DOOR AND LIKE MR. JONES, CAN I PUT A SIGN IN YOUR FRONT YARD AND TO HAVE MR. JONES AND OR THE CANDIDATE'S VOLUNTEER HAVE TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO MAKE THAT LEGAL, IF THERE'S ALREADY ANOTHER ONE THERE, I THINK IS UNREALISTIC.

SO FINDING SOMETHING THAT IS USER FRIENDLY AND IT MIGHT BE COMING WITH SORT OF HERE'S AN OPTION TO DO IT THIS WAY.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE MORE WORK FOR YOU, BUT SO LOOKING AT OPTIONS AND THEN MAYBE HAVING US PLAY AROUND OR THINK THROUGH THE NUMBERS THAT MIGHT BE IN THOSE THRESHOLDS UP OR DOWN AND DATES OR DURATIONS OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.

NO, I CERTAINLY THINK THAT WOULD BE DOABLE AND KIND OF A HYBRID APPROACH, BOTH KIND OF INCREASING WHAT'S ALLOWED BY.

RIGHT. AND AND STILL HAVING A PERMITTING SYSTEM FOR ANYTHING THAT EXCEEDS THAT.

SURE. YEAH.

WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING IS AS LONG AS YOU'RE COLLECTIVELY THINKING OF THEM AS TEMPORARY SIGNS, THE CAMPAIGN SIGN, SO THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE CONTENT OF IT.

IS THAT OKAY? YEAH, BECAUSE GENERALLY I DON'T SEE PEOPLE WITH CAMPAIGN SIGNS ON AND ON AND ON.

I SAW ONE UP FOR SIX MONTHS.

MAYBE THAT WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE IN FLORIDA, I DON'T KNOW, FOR A LONG TIME.

I MEAN, IT WAS WELL INTO THE SPRING BUT I MEAN THEY ARE STILL LOOKING FEW 2020 SIGNS UP.

YEAH, THAT'S BECOME A NEW FORM OF EXPRESSION.

THE 2016 ELECTION CHANGED THINGS, A LOT OF POLITICAL SIGNAGE AND WE'RE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT.

[00:40:03]

I JUST HAD SOMETHING TO NOTE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WOULD WORK OUT, BUT AS FAR AS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION HERE WITH THE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE, I THINK FROM WHAT I READ ABOUT THE TEMPORARY SIGNS AND OTHER DEFINED, THE KIWANIS FLAGS THAT ARE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ARE CONSIDERED TEMPORARY SIGNS.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES.

SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN STILL HAVE OUR FLAGS THERE.

GO ON THE KIWANIS.

I JUST THINK THAT'S SUCH A LOVELY PROGRAM.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD FACTOR IN TO THE NUMBER OF ALLOTTED TEMPORARY SIGNS.

SOLUTION TO THAT THOUGHT, FRANKLY, IS TO GET FORMAL AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ROAD DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW IT.

GET WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FOR THEM TO SERVE SUPERSEDES THE.

BUT YES, THAT IS IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD, SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT A LOT AS BECAUSE THIS IS HOW WE.

FROM MEMORIAL DAY TO LABOR DAY.

REALLY? THEY'RE UP.

YEAH. AND THEY. UP AND DOWN AND PUT THEM UP FOR MEMORIAL DAY, 4TH OF JULY AND LABOR DAY.

BUT THEY'VE FALLEN DOWN, RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY GO UP AGAIN LIKE PRESIDENTS DAY.

I DON'T KEEP TRACK OF ALL THE TIMES THEY GO UP.

I JUST KNOW THEY'RE LOVELY.

JUST IN THE SUMMER.

IT'S THREE HOLIDAYS, I BELIEVE.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. WHITTY? THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH, WE WILL WORK ON THIS AND BE BACK? DIRECTOR SCHMITT. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ISSUE? NO, SIR. SO THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS REZONING.

[8A. Rezoning #2022-10 – RRA Deletion]

GOOD EVENING. THIS IS ONCE AGAIN IN FRONT OF YOU THE REZONING PROPOSAL TO REZONE SEVEN PARCELS, SIX OF THEM ON VENTANA ROAD AND ONE ON ETHEL COURT FROM THE RR.A.

DISTRICT, ONE FAMILY SUBURBAN ESTATE TO RAY, ONE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THIS DID HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 8TH AND NO OPPOSITION WAS MADE.

I MADE THE POINT AT THAT MEETING, I GOT ABOUT HALF A DOZEN PHONE CALLS.

I HEARD FROM ONE OF THE LANDOWNERS ONCE.

I EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR THIS.

JUST TO REMIND YOU, THIS IS IN LINE WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT ANYONE, ANYONE'S TAXES, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO LEAD TO ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT EVERYONE WAS SET.

EVERYONE I SPOKE TO WAS SATISFIED.

I'VE RECEIVED NO COMMUNICATION SINCE THAT DATE ON THIS ISSUE.

SO IN THIS PACKET IS A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND A PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

AND THIS FALL FOLLOWED BY THIS IS THE ASSOCIATED TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD UPDATE THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND FORMALLY REMOVE THE, THE, THE, THE RAY DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

QUICK NOTE ON THE SIGN ORDINANCE.

THE R.A. DISTRICT WILL ALSO NEED TO BE STRUCK AND THE FINAL LANGUAGE.

I CAUGHT THAT TONIGHT.

[LAUGHTER] SORRY.

WHAT NUMBER IN OUR PACKET IS THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION? THERE IT IS, 83, 83.

WE'VE ALREADY HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IT'S COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING TO 2010 TO REZONE SEVEN PARCELS, APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF LAND FROM RAY ONE FAMILY'S SUBURBAN ESTATE TO RAY ONE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOUR MOVE BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

YES. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL YES.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL YES.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY YES.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER YES.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

THANK YOU.

AND THEN, AS I SAID, THE NEXT ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA IS THE ASSOCIATED TEXT AMENDMENT THAT REMOVES THE RA REFERENCES AND YOU'VE GOT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN YOUR PACKET AS

[8B. Zoning Amendment #2022-13 – RRA Deletion]

WELL WITH WITH A RESOLUTION.

THE RESOLUTION IS. YES, I AM.

YES. I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE A RESOLUTION.

NO, THERE YOU GO. THERE WE GO.

[00:45:01]

WITH. SHREWSBURY.

YOU'VE MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT 2022-14 TO DELETE SECTION 80 6-370RA1 FAMILY, SUBURBAN ESTATE AND ALL REFERENCES TO THAT SECTION FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY. YES.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL YES.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL YES.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE YES.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER YES.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

RESOLUTION IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU. AND WE ARE NOW ON ITEM NUMBER NINE OF OUR AGENDA AT NINE A IS DAYCARE UPDATE.

[9A. Daycare Updates]

SO BROUGHT THIS UP REALLY QUICKLY.

AT THE END OF YOUR LAST MEETING, WE HAD RECEIVED A COPY OF TOWNSHIP FOCUS AUGUST 2020 OR 2022.

I INCLUDED THE PAGE IN YOUR PACKET AND HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW THE BLURB THAT I'M REFERENCING.

IF YOUR TOWNSHIP HAS AN ORDINANCE SPECIFYING THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN PERMITTED FOR FAMILY CARE, HOME OR GROUP CHILD CARE HOME, YOU MAY NEED TO CHECK YOUR ORDINANCE.

THE UPSHOT OF IT IS THE STATE HAS UPPED THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF HOMES NUMBER OF CHILDREN ALLOWED IN EACH ONE OF THOSE.

AND IT'S BEEN RECOMMENDED TO FOLLOW SUIT SO THAT YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.

THIS NEEDS A PUBLIC HEARING.

AND WE JUST WANTED TO SHOW THIS TO YOU.

IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THIS, WE'LL SCHEDULE THAT AND BRING IT BACK TO YOU OFFICIALLY.

THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD AFTER WE APPROVED IT, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S AN ORDINANCE CHANGE.

THAT IS CORRECT. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY, IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THIS WHERE I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE NON REDLINED VERSION THERE ARE THE NUMBERS ARE MISSING FROM THE GROUP CHILD CARE HOME SECTION.

I'M SURE YOU WOULD HAVE CAUGHT THAT AS YOU BRING IT FORWARD TO US, BUT THAT'S A GOOD CATCH.

THANK YOU. SORRY. I KNOW I WAS READING IT EARLIER TODAY.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN READ THIS STUFF, YOU TAKE ALL THE FUN OUT OF IT.

SORRY. [INAUDIBLE].

OK. THERE'S NOT ANY QUESTIONS.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. VERY GOOD.

WHO'S GOING TO DISCUSS THE MASTER PLAN WITH US?

[9B. Master Plan Process]

SO AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAVE ISSUED THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO PLAN.

WE'VE ALREADY STARTED GETTING SOME FEEDBACK FROM OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND FROM OUTSIDE AGENCIES.

AND SO THIS IS THIS IS A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF WHAT I ANTICIPATE THE PROCESS GOING OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS.

AND THIS IS, AS I'VE SAID ALL ALONG, WE WOULD START THIS PROCESS IN FALL ONCE WE'VE GOTTEN THROUGH THE SUMMER AND WE'VE GOT PEOPLE'S ATTENTION AGAIN.

I HAD ORIGINALLY HOPED THAT COVID WOULD BE A LITTLE DOWN.

IT'S I'M NOT GETTING THAT WISH, BUT THIS IS HOW WE ANTICIPATE TAKING THIS FORWARD.

SO WHAT I'VE DONE IS I'VE LAID OUT SORT OF THE NINE THINGS THAT THE STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION WOULD REQUIRE THAT A PLAN HAVE THE THE MIDDLE GROUP ARE REALLY JUST FUNCTIONS OF STAFF. WE WILL PROVIDE THE MAPS, WE'LL PROVIDE THE OF THE UTILITIES OF THE SEWER SYSTEM, THE TRANSPORTATION, ETC.

THE TWO BIGGIES, WHICH ARE THE THREE BIGGIES WHICH REALLY ARE WHAT THE BREAD AND BUTTER OF THE PLAN ARE THE ZONING PLAN, WHICH IS HOW THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP RELATES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE LAST THINGS WE'LL DO.

THE LAND USE MAP, WHICH IS THE BREAD AND BUTTER FOR HOW WE MAKE ZONING DECISIONS GOING FORWARD AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THAT PLAN.

SO HOW WE ANTICIPATE LOOKING AT THIS IS AND WE WELCOME ANY AND ALL FEEDBACK, BUT THIS IS SORT OF HOW WE'VE LAID IT OUT. WE WANT TO START BY WE'RE GOING TO GET YOU A COPY OF THE 2021 COMMUNITY SURVEY AND THE RESULTS OF THAT FROM LAST YEAR SORT OF AS A BASIS FOR IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON JUST OFF THE TOP THAT THE COMMUNITY SAID WE SHOULD? THE SECOND STEP IS WE'RE GOING TO UTILIZE OUR EXISTING FORMS OF COMMUNICATION.

I AM A PERSON WHO DOES NOT LIKE IT WHEN A COMMUNITY STARTS A NEW FACEBOOK HANDLE OR NEW TWITTER HANDLE FOR THEIR PLAN, BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE ZERO FOLLOWERS TO START WITH, LET'S UTILIZE OUR EXISTING SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKS, OUR EXISTING EMAIL DISTRIBUTION USE, OUR AWARD WINNING COMMUNICATIONS TEAM TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITIES TO START GETTING THE WORD OUT. NEXT, ONE OF THE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS IN OUR PLAN IS THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.

IT IS ONE OF THE FEW IN THE STATE.

[00:50:02]

IT'S RELATIVELY NEW TO THE PLAN.

IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME.

AND SO ONE WAY TO MAKE IT MORE DEFENSIBLE IS TO TALK ABOUT IT IN EVERY UPDATE.

SO AS LONG AS I'M HERE, WE WILL HAVE FORMAL, SPECIFIC DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM.

CAN YOU DEFINE WHAT THAT IS FOR US? SO THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY FUNCTIONALLY IS A MAP.

IT'S A MAP.

ITS HARD. IT'S A MAP THAT SHOWS THE AREA IN WHICH WE INTEND TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE PROPERTIES, WATER AND SEWER.

OUTSIDE OF THAT, THE PLAN IS THAT WE DO NOT INTEND TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES.

SO FUNCTIONALLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT STILL MAKES SENSE.

WE'VE AS I MENTIONED IN MY MEMO, THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS RIGHT ON THE EDGES.

THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS JUST OUTSIDE.

DOES IT THE CURRENT LINE MAKE SENSE OR DO WE NEED TO MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS? SO WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING IS A FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT TOPIC IN NOVEMBER, WHERE WE WILL PUT IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC, PLEASE COME TALK ABOUT IT.

I GUARANTEE YOU THAT WE'LL HAVE AT LEAST ONE OR TWO PEOPLE SHOW UP THAT WANT TO CHANGE IT, AT LEAST WANT TO MODIFY IT IN ONE OR TWO SPOTS.

IT'S GIVEN THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS, IT'S INEVITABLE.

SO FORMAL, SPECIFIC CONVERSATION ON THAT ITEM.

AND WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE A DECISION THAT EVENING.

FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE IN ALL THE INPUT AND THEN WE'LL PROVIDE YOU WITH A DRAFT SORT OF AT THE END AFTER WE HEAR EVERYTHING.

AND THEN WE CAN MAKE THE FINAL CHANGES.

OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE ROADSHOW OUT TO ALL THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO START RECOMMENDING TO THEM THAT THEY PROVIDE US INPUT FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ALREADY HAS.

THEY KIND OF GOT AHEAD OF THE GAME A LITTLE BIT AND HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED A LETTER WHICH WE WILL PROVIDE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION GOING FORWARD.

BUT WE HOPE THAT ALL THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WILL DO THE SAME AND PROVIDE US WITH SOME BACKGROUND OF WHAT THEY THINK IS IMPORTANT.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO RECREATE THE PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO RECREATE THE CLIMATE SUSTAINABILITY PLAN.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO RECREATE THE PARK PATHWAY MASTER PLAN, RIGHT? WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE ALL OF THEIR SPECIFIC THINGS INCLUDED, INCLUDING OUR PLAN.

WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS INCORPORATE THOSE PLANS AND REFERENCE THEM AS PART OF OUR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.

SO WE'LL WORK WITH THOSE THOSE GROUPS OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS HERE TO GET WITH THEM BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

AND THEN SORT OF THE LAST BIG PIECE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S A COUPLE MORE, BUT THE LAST BIG ONE IS HOW DO WE ADDRESS SORT OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION. SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S SEVEN WE ARE RECOMMENDING AT THIS TIME GOING TO FIVE OVERALL TOPICS, KEEPING THE PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, KEEPING THE ENHANCE THE VIABILITY OF TOWNSHIP BUSINESSES, KEEP THE MAINTAIN OUTSTANDING CHANGE TO OUTSTANDING BECAUSE I LIKE OUTSTANDING BETTER IN THE CENTRAL PUBLIC SERVICES.

SLIGHTLY MODIFY THE GROWTH ITEM AND MAKE IT ENSURE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH IN THE TOWNSHIP.

AND THEN THE LAST ONE SHOULD REALLY HAVE A HEADING FOR THE PEAK IS BECAUSE THAT WAS THE NEW ITEM THAT WAS INTRODUCED IN THE LAST MASTER PLAN.

AND WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE DO GOING FORWARD WITH THAT IS EACH OF THOSE PIECES GET SPUN OFF AS A SMALL AREA PLAN GOING FORWARD.

SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS IN 2023 WILL ADOPT THE MASTER PLAN.

AND WHAT WE WILL RECOMMEND THERE SHORTLY THEREAFTER IS WE GO INTO AN UPDATE OF THE HASLETT VILLAGE SQUARE AREA AND THEN WE GO INTO AN UPDATE OF THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS AREA. AND SO THERE'S SORT OF A THERE WILL BE AN ONGOING ANALYSIS OF THESE AREAS AS THEY START TO CHANGE.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME CONSTRUCTION IN HASLETT VILLAGE AREA, NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN ANY OF THE THREE PIECES.

FUNCTIONALLY, THERE STILL THERE'S BEEN SOME DEMOLITION, BUT THAT'S IT.

SO I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND WE MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF CHANGES OF THOSE PLANS RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE REALLY IN THIS FIVE YEAR CYCLE, WE HAD TWO YEARS THAT DIDN'T EXIST FOR A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS.

SO I'M RECOMMENDING WE SORT OF SPIN THOSE OFF.

AND FUNCTIONALLY, IN TALKING TO DIRECTOR CLARK FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE, WE THINK WE CAN SORT OF TURN THOSE INTO SORT OF ONE PAGE MARKETING TO TWO PAGE MARKETING PIECES AS WELL AND MAKE IT MORE USEFUL TO THE AVERAGE PERSON AS TO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THERE.

AND SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS SORT OF HAVE A DRAFT OF THE SKELETON GOALS AND OBJECTIVES BY THE END OF THE YEAR WITH THE INPUT THAT WE START TO HEAR BASED OFF THESE FIVE CATEGORIES.

AND THEN SORT OF THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY, ONCE WE'VE REALLY BEGINNING OF JANUARY, FEBRUARY, ONCE WE'VE REALLY GOTTEN WE'VE HEARD THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.

PEOPLE TALKED ABOUT THE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES.

WE WILL DRAFT FUTURE LAND USE MAP THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE.

[00:55:04]

I THINK SENIOR PLANNER SHIRKEY ANTICIPATES HAVING THEM MEET ONE MORE TIME TO WRAP SOME STUFF UP AND THEN WE'LL REPORT THAT OUT LATER THIS YEAR.

SO THAT GIVES US AN IDEA OF THE SPECIFIC AREAS THEY LOOKED AT.

I KNOW FROM TALKING TO THE PUBLIC THERE'S FOUR OR FIVE AREAS OUT THERE THAT PEOPLE WANT TO TALK ABOUT AND SO THOSE PEOPLE WILL COME FORWARD.

I EXPECT TO HEAR FROM THE FIRST OF THEM AT THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE DO IN OCTOBER, AND THEN WE WILL MAKE UPDATES TO THE LAND USE MAP.

WE DON'T ANTICIPATE HUGE WHOLESALE CHANGES.

THERE HAVEN'T BEEN HUGE PROJECTS.

THERE HAVEN'T BEEN HUGE TOWNSHIP DEFINING PROJECTS IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

COVID SORT OF PUT A STOP TO A LOT OF THINGS.

SO I THINK IN A LOT OF WAYS WE'RE SORT OF PICKING AT THE EDGES AND LOOKING AT THOSE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL OR OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY, YOU KNOW, WHERE THOSE CONFLICTS POTENTIALLY EXIST.

DOES THAT DOES IT STILL MAKE SENSE OR DO WE NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE THERE? SO I DON'T THINK STAFF HAS ANY PLANS TO RECOMMEND ANY LARGE SCALE CHANGES.

AND SO WE'RE GOING TO HEAR WHAT WE HEAR FROM FROM THE PUBLIC AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS SUCH.

AND THEN, AS I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, FORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS, WE WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO DO A KICKOFF IN OCTOBER.

WE'LL HAVE ONE ABOUT THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, SPECIFICALLY HAVE ONE ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN JANUARY AND THEN PROBABLY HAVE ONE FORMALLY WITH THE DRAFT PLAN COME FEBRUARY.

SO THAT'S THE CURRENT STRUCTURE THAT WE'VE LAID OUT.

WE WOULD WELCOME ANY AND ALL FEEDBACK.

AND SPECIFICALLY AS YOU GO FORWARD HERE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE IS WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE WANT TO ASK THE PUBLIC? AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IN THIS DAY OF SOCIAL MEDIA, IT'S INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO HOLD PEOPLE'S ATTENTION FOR LONG FORM DISCUSSION. WHAT I KIND OF WANT TO GET AT AND WHAT WE HOPE TO WORK WITH COMMUNICATIONS ON IS SORT OF A SERIES OF STRAIGHTFORWARD ONE WORD, ONE LINE ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN PUT OUT OVER FACEBOOK AND TWITTER AND EMAIL THAT, YOU KNOW, START TO GET THAT QUICK FEEDBACK, EASY FEEDBACK, SEE WHAT THREADS EMERGE FROM THAT.

FROM A SOCIAL MEDIA PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, FOR A I DON'T I THINK IF WE HAD A LARGE SCALE GIANT PUBLIC HEARING JUST ON THE MASTER PLAN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET A LOT OF PEOPLE COME OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CONFLICT RIGHT NOW.

WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MAJOR CONTROVERSY FROM A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE.

I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T HAD AN AUDIENCE IN A.

WHILE, IN FACT, NOT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.

REALLY. SO I THINK THE IDEA OF TRYING TO REACH OUT IN A MORE TARGETED WAY TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY ENGAGED IS A REALLY A GOOD APPROACH FOR US. SO I'VE TALKED ENOUGH.

DOES ANY OF THE MASTERPLAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION PUBLIC FINANCING? SO TYPICALLY THE MASTER PLAN DOESN'T GET INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE FINANCING.

SO HOW IT TRICKLES DOWN IS YOU HAVE THE MASTER PLAN REALLY TRUE.

A LOT OF PLACES CALL IT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SO IT'S INTENDED TO COMPREHENSIVELY LOOK AT YOUR COMMUNITY.

THAT TRICKLES DOWN INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS IMPLEMENTATION SIDE A AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WHICH IS IMPLEMENTATION SIDE B.

AND THEN THAT FURTHER TRICKLES DOWN INTO THE BUDGET, WHICH IS REALLY WHEN YOU GET INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE FINANCIAL PIECE.

SOME COMMUNITIES DO A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.

I'VE DONE ONE IN THE PAST.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'VE TOSSED AROUND IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD, AND IT'S SOMETHING WE MAY LOOK AT DOING HERE, BUT IT'S ALSO IT'S A TOUGH TIME TO BE DOING THAT BECAUSE WE'RE COMING OUT OF COVID.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, EVEN TRYING TO PREDICT BUILDING REVENUE FROM YEAR TO YEAR IS A LITTLE BIT INTERESTING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT'S BEING DRIVEN SO MUCH BY LARGE SCALE PROJECTS LIKE WE THIS LAST MONTH, YOU KNOW, FUNCTIONALLY ALMOST HIT OUR ENTIRE VALUATION FOR LAST YEAR BECAUSE THE AMERICAN HOUSE PROJECT IN HASLETT PAID FOR THE PERMIT.

$20 MILLION VALUATION RIGHT OFF THE BAT IN ONE PERMIT.

AND SO WE WENT FROM BEING 60% OF LAST YEAR'S VALUATION TO 150% IN JULY.

SO IT'S AN INTERESTING TIME TO BE TRYING TO MODEL FINANCIAL THINGS FROM A LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE.

THE REASON I ASK THE QUESTION IS BECAUSE I'M THE LIAISON TO THE DDA AND 50% OF ALL THEIR DISCUSSIONS HAVE TO DO WITH FINANCING.

IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ENVISION A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT DOESN'T HAVE A PIECE OF PUBLIC MONEY INVOLVED IN IT.

AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT GETS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

[01:00:01]

I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY THAT THAT IS THE MAKINGS OF A GOAL OR OBJECTIVE UNDER THE SORT OF PIKKA HEADING OF HOW WE APPROACH INCENTIVIZING PROJECTS.

BECAUSE AS I'VE SAID DOZENS OF TIMES, WE WERE A GREENFIELD COMMUNITY.

WE ARE TRANSITIONING INTO A BROWNFIELD COMMUNITY AS WE START TO SEE THESE REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ARISE.

YES. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

SOMEWHERE I SAW A REFERENCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FROM OUR LAST DISCUSSION ON THIS ABOUT TRYING TO ENGAGE VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS OR ORGANIZATIONS AND ENCOURAGING US AND ANYONE ELSE TO DO THAT.

I'M WONDERING IF YOUR COMMUNICATIONS TEAM MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP WITH THAT BY EITHER DOING THE OUTREACH WITH THEIR EXISTING CONNECTIONS? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE TOWNSHIP DOES.

OUR MY NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENT GETS OUTREACH FROM THE TOWNSHIP ALL THE TIME.

SO THAT'S GOOD. BUT LIKE SHARING BLURBS OR PREPACKAGED THINGS THAT COULD GO IN A NEWSLETTER OR OUT IN AN EMAIL OR IF NOT OUT TO THEM, MAYBE ALSO TO US, TO JUST SO THAT WE CAN SHARE IT.

BECAUSE I WANT TO SHARE, BUT I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT TO SHARE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW SORT OF WHERE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE ARE QUITE YET.

BUT AS THOSE ARE DEVELOPED, I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO EASILY PASS THEM ON.

ABSOLUTELY. I HAVE A MEETING TOMORROW WITH THE NEW COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER AND I WILL BRING THAT UP.

YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ANYTHING FANCY, BUT EVEN JUST THE WORDING AND THE GO TO THIS PLACE ON THE WEBSITE OR HERE'S THE TIME FRAME AND HERE'S WHEN YOU NEED TO STEP IN AND SHARE WHAT YOU THINK, BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR ANNUAL MEETING COMING UP NEXT MONTH.

AND SO THE TIMING MAY NOT BE RIGHT FOR US TO PUT SOMETHING IN FRONT OF OUR PEOPLE, BUT WE DO SEND COMMUNICATIONS OUT REGULARLY.

ABSOLUTELY. THAT'D BE GREAT.

THANKS. ANY OTHER.

YOU HAVE SEVERAL THINGS, MOSTLY NITPICKY AND SOME BIGGER.

IN YOUR MEMO, YOU ARE LAYING THE RATIONALE FOR AN UPDATE AS OPPOSED TO A REVISION ON THE NOTION THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN SUBSTANTIAL LAND USE CHANGES IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

AND WHILE WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE CHANGES THAT WE ULTIMATELY ENVISIONED IN THE PECOS, WE CERTAINLY HAVE SEEN A BIG LAND USE CHANGE.

I MEAN, THEY'VE BECOME VACANT PROPERTIES THAT WERE OPERATING BUSINESSES AND THEY'RE PRESUMABLY MOVING TOWARDS SOMETHING NEW.

SO I GUESS IT'S A QUESTION OF GLASS HALF FULL OR HALF EMPTY.

THE. ISSUE OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.

I UNDERSTAND STREAMLINING AND I UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF TRANSPORTATION SITTING WHERE TRANSPORTATION SITS AND OPEN SPACE AND LAND PRESERVATION AND OTHER PLACES ENSURE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH IN THE TOWNSHIP IS A PRETTY BROAD AREA AND IN MY BOOK SUSTAINABLE GROWTH IS A NON SEQUITUR.

BUT IT'S OKAY.

I UNDERSTAND WHERE IT'S GOING.

PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL AREAS.

I DIDN'T SEE THE LAND PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD AND YOUR LIST OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT WERE GOING TO BE CONSULTED AND IT FEELS A LITTLE BIT FROM THAT IN OTHER PARTS OF YOUR MEMO THAT THAT'S KIND OF ASSUMED TO BE PART OF THE PARK'S MASTER PLAN.

AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH THE PARKS MASTER PLAN, BUT IT SEEMS THAT IF WE'RE ESPECIALLY TALKING ABOUT THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, MAKING SURE THAT THE LAND PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD IS PLUGGED IN IS CRUCIAL.

ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S SIMPLY AN OVERSIGHT.

YEAH. THE WHILE THE PATHWAY PLAN DOES SET OUT OUR VISION FOR THE NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES, IT DOESN'T GET TO THE POINT OF HUBS. RIGHT.

SO WE'RE SEEING THAT HASLETT THAT THE DEVELOPER IS OFFERING A TRAILHEAD AND THE TOWNSHIP HAS MADE A LOT OF EFFORT TO GET A TRAILHEAD OUT THERE AT GAYLORD SMITH CENTER, PURCHASING PROPERTY AND SUCH.

SO EITHER OUR TRANSPORTATION PLAN, I THINK, NEEDS TO GET MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THOSE KINDS OF CONNECTIONS BETWEEN TRAILS AND HUBS AND TRAILHEADS AND STUFF, OR WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEHOW THAT'S CAPTURED IN THE MASTER PLAN SO IT DOESN'T FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS.

AND LASTLY, BRINGING US LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FROM THE PEAK IS I THINK IS GOING TO BE REALLY, REALLY USEFUL, ESPECIALLY AS THE WHAT DID YOU CALL THEM, MINI PLANS OR SMALL AREA PLAN? SMALL AREA PLANS? I THINK THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

[01:05:01]

I THINK THAT PROCESS IS GOING TO BE LOOK VERY DIFFERENT IN THE FOUR CORNERS WHERE THERE'S ALREADY AN ACTIVE COMMUNITY AND LOTS OF DISCUSSION AND LOTS OF ENERGY AND THOUGHTS AND HASLETT WHERE I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT LEVEL OF SORT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK, BUT IT DOES SEEM THAT IT'S GOING TO RUN DIFFERENT AND ENCOURAGE THOSE WHERE WE HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN ANYTHING HAPPEN YET IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ONE.

BUT SEEING THOSE LESSONS LEARNED, I THINK IS GOING TO REALLY HELP US GUIDE THAT DISCUSSION.

THANKS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? VERY GOOD. SO OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS ULTIMATELY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, I BELIEVE, WITH THE TOWNSHIP BOARD AS WELL, JUST TO START KICKING IT OFF.

THE MORE YOU TALK TO PEOPLE, TELL THEM THAT WE'LL HAVE THE WEBSITE, WE'LL HAVE A PAGE DEDICATED ON THE WEBSITE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

OBVIOUSLY, I'LL GET THAT LINK OUT ONCE WE HAVE IT.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS OR THOUGHTS AS WE GO HERE, PLEASE JUST PASS THEM ALONG.

THIS IS YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE AN UPDATE, QUOTE UNQUOTE, AS OPPOSED TO A WHOLESALE REVISION, BUT IT'S STILL IMPORTANT.

IT'S STILL THE IDEA BEHIND THIS IS WE'RE STILL TRYING TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, FIVE, TEN, 20 YEARS OUT.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO COVER ALL BASES TO THE EXTENT WE CAN.

SO WE WILL START THIS BALL ROLLING DOWN THE HILL.

NOW, I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS ONCE BEFORE, BUT IS MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ONE OF THE CONTIGUOUS ENTITIES THAT'S NOTIFIED IF THEY ARE? AND I'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM CAMPUS PLANNER TROOST AND HE AND I HAVE A LONG HISTORY FROM MY TIME IN EAST LANSING AS WELL.

AND THEY LOOK FORWARD TO IF THERE'S ANYTHING THEY CAN DO TO AID US IN THE PROCESS, THEY WILL DO SO.

THEY ALSO HAVE THEIR DRAFT.

I THINK IT'S THE DRAFT PLAN.

IT'S NOT JUST FINDINGS COMING OUT SHORTLY HERE FROM THEIR PLANNING CAMPUS PLANNING EXERCISE THAT'S GOING ON.

AND SO THAT MAY SPEAK TO SOME OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO LOOK AT, ESPECIALLY IN THE HAGEDORN CORRIDOR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE A TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE?

[10A. Township Board update.]

THE RECORD SHOULD SHOW THAT WE'RE NOW ON ITEM TEN OF THE AGENDA TEN A IS TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.

THE MOST RECENT TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE WOULD BE THAT THEY TOWNSHIP BOARD IS TWO THINGS ON THE LAST AGENDA.

I BELIEVE SINCE WE LAST MET THE HASLETT VILLAGE SQUARE PROJECT IS MOVING FORWARD AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD IS NOW CONSIDERING AND WE'LL CONSIDER ON THEIR NEXT MEETING.

ADOPTION OF THE BROWNFIELD PLAN AND THE CRA ABATEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY, ESSENTIALLY THE FINANCING INCENTIVES ON THE FRONT END OF THE PROJECT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE TRIGGER FOR THE DEVELOPER TO BUY THE PROPERTY IS THE APPROVAL OF BROWNFIELD.

SO SHOULD THAT BE APPROVED? I THINK WE'RE GOING TO START TO SEE THAT MOVE MUCH QUICKER THAN ANY OTHER PROJECT WE'VE HAD IN A WHILE.

AND SECONDLY, THE THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HAS DIRECTED STAFF TO BEGIN LOOKING INTO THE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA POTENTIAL ORDINANCE CHANGES THAT WILL INVOLVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE THERE IS A ZONING ASPECT AND A LICENSING ASPECT, WE STAFF IS IN THE INFANCY OF THAT DISCUSSION.

WE WILL LIKELY HAVE SORT OF AN INITIAL THOUGHTS TO THE BOARD, NOT THE NEXT MEETING BUT THE FOLLOWING MEETING.

SO SOMETIME IN OCTOBER AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL SEE THAT I WOULD EXPECT BY THE END OF THE YEAR, ALTHOUGH IT COULD GO INTO NEXT YEAR.

WE'RE NOT IN A HUGE RUSH, BUT WE HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO START WORKING ON IT.

AND I HAVE NO ANSWERS TO ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE'RE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO.

BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO LISTEN.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE LIAISON REPORTS?

[10B. Liaison reports.]

AM I THE ONLY ONE? ALL RIGHT.

7:00, 7:30 THIS MORNING, THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAD A MEETING AND IT WAS THERE.

PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY DIRECTOR CLARK WAS THAT SHE HAD PUT IN FOR A $5 MILLION GRANT FROM WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE RAP PROGRAM REVITALIZATION AND PLACEMAKING.

AND THAT WAS DENIED.

BUT APPARENTLY THEY CAN RE-APPLY WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IF I UNDERSTOOD HER CORRECTLY.

SO JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S BECAUSE I MEAN, DC IN THEIR ACRONYMS, THE RAP GRANTS

[01:10:06]

WAS THROUGH RECOVERY ACT FUNDING.

SO THEY ARE $8.

THEY HAVE ALLOCATED 83.7 MILLION OF 100 MILLION.

WE EXPECT THAT THE REMAINING 17 MILLION IS COMING, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT ONE REGION WASN'T FUNDED.

AND SO THAT PROGRAM APPEARS TO NO LONGER BE AN OPTION.

WHAT WE'RE BEING TOLD IS THAT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT WERE NOT FUNDED IN RAP ARE BEING GEARED OR BEING PUSHED TOWARDS THE CRP PROGRAM, WHICH IS THE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PROGRAM.

I HOPE I GOT THAT RIGHT.

IT'S A VERY COMPETITIVE PROGRAM AND IT STARTED.

THE STATE'S FISCAL YEAR IS GETTING READY TO RESTART.

SO ALL THOSE DOLLARS WILL BE REPLENISHED AND HOPEFULLY THEY'LL THEY PUT A FEW MORE BUCKS IN THERE BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF PROJECTS THAT ARE LOOKING TO GET FUNDED.

YEAH, A LOT OF THAT WENT RIGHT OVER MY HEAD BECAUSE I CAN'T EVEN BALANCE MY OWN CHECKBOOK.

BUT IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR FROM WHAT SHE WAS SAYING THAT THE MONEY IS NOT PERMANENTLY LOST.

IT'S JUST THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE GRANT DIDN'T GO THROUGH AS PLANNED.

YEAH. WE'RE GOING TO SHIFT TO A DIFFERENT POT OF MONEY NOW.

IT WAS ABOUT IT WAS AN INFORMAL MEETING BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A FORMED LAST WEEK OR THE WEEK BEFORE.

I WENT TO THE EEC MEETING AND DIRECTOR CLARK HAD ARRANGED OR PUT TOGETHER A SHOPPING BLITZ FOR SOME OF THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE SUFFERING UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION.

SHE HAD ABOUT 40 PEOPLE SHOW UP AND THEY TOURED THERE AND THEY ALSO ADOPTED A BUDGET AT LEAST AND STILL WORKING ON A PROGRAM TO SUPPORT SOME OF THE BUSINESSES IN THE GRAND RIVER CORRIDOR THAT ARE STILL HAVING PROBLEMS FOR SOME INCENTIVES TO BUY BUSINESS CARS WHERE PART OF THE FUNDING WOULD COME FROM THE EDC.

AND THAT'S LOOKING AT SOMETHING AROUND LATE NOVEMBER CHRISTMAS TIME TO ENCOURAGE SHOPPING IN THERE.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHERE WE'RE AT.

WE HAVE A BRE MEETING ON THURSDAY WHICH WILL BE LOOKING AT BROWNFIELD PLAN FOR OKEMOS VILLAGE THAT THEY'VE PUT IN TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE GRANT PROGRAM AT THAT POINT, TOO.

SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

ANYONE ELSE? I GOT TO SAY, I'VE WORKED WITH DIRECTOR CLARK ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS WHEN VERY IMPRESSIVE LADY.

SHE KNOWS WHAT SHE'S DOING AND SHE GETS IT DONE ANYWAY.

ALL RIGHT. YOU GO? NO ADDITIONAL LIAISON REPORTS.

WE ARE NOW ON ITEM 11 PROJECT UPDATES.

[11. PROJECT UPDATES]

WE ISSUED A SITE PLAN APPROVAL LETTER FOR AN AMENDED SITE PLAN AT COMMON'S CHURCH ON DOBIE ROAD.

THEY'RE EXPANDING THEIR PARKING, DOING SOME IMPROVEMENTS THERE, AND SOME REPAIRS TO THE PATHWAY IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY.

IF WE RECEIVED ANY REQUESTS FOR SITE PLANS OR NEW ONES THAT I'M AWARE OF.

WE'VE GOT A COUPLE FLOATING AROUND, BUT LOTS OF RUMORS.

NO ONE'S PULLED THE TRIGGER.

ALL RIGHT, THEN WE ARE NOW ON ITEM 12 PUBLIC REMARKS.

AGAIN, THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THERE ARE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

SO THEN WE ARE READY TO ADJOURN THEIR MOTION.

TO ADJOURN THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

SUPPORT. SUPPORTED ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT.

AYE.

WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.