Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

>> MR. CHUSEZ.

>>HERE.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

[00:00:36]

>> MR. SHREWSBURY.

>> HERE.

>> MR. MCCONNELL.

>> HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS.

>> HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER SCALES.

>> HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER BROOKS.

>> HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

>> HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> HERE.

>> THE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER BLUMER IS PRESENT, SO WE HAVE A QUORUM, SPEAKING IS IN ORDER.

FIRST BEFORE WE GET STARTED, WE HAVE SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE.

IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC GROUPING THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON AN OPEN TOPIC, WE'D GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THAT PRESENTATION.

NO? THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

>> IT`S MOVED.

>> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> BEFORE WE APPROVE THE AGENDA, I DON'T HAVE IT PULLED UP YET, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF I COULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO, OH WHERE IS IT? ITEM 6 COMMUNICATIONS, JUST NESTING THE BULLETS C, D, E, AND F BENEATH ITEM B.

BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE ITEMS WERE NOT SEPARATE COMMUNICATIONS.

THEY CAME FROM COMMUNITY MEMBER LINE PAGE. [NOISE]

>> THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

>> THAT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, NOT A PROBLEM.

>> DO WE STILL HAVE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA?

>> BUT WE DIDN'T GET THAT FAR YET.

>> PUBLIC REMARKS, THE RECORDS SHOULD REFLECT THAT NONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT.

SO NOW WE MOVE ON TO ITEM 4, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA WITH THE AMENDMENT SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER. ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE.

>> COMMISSIONER SCALES.

>> ARE WE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT FIRST?

>> THAT'S JUST A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. IT WAS APPROVED.

>> WHAT WAS IT?

>> IT WAS TO NEST ITEMS C, D, E, AND F UNDER V AND THE COMMUNICATIONS SINCE THEY'RE ALL FROM THE SAME PERSON.

>> ON SAME TOPIC?

>> ON THE SAME TOPIC.

>> ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AGENDA SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSITION?

>> NO? THE AGENDA IS APPROVED.

NOW WE'RE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 5,

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING WHICH WAS APRIL 24 OF 2023. IS THERE A MOTION?

>> I MOVE APPROVAL?

>> SECOND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE PREVIOUS MINUTES?

>> YES.

>> MR. SCALES.

>> WE HAD A DISCUSSION, AND YOU HAD A STRAW POLL ON SUP. [NOISE]

>> 23011, I BELIEVE.

>> ONE, ONE. THE LISTING ON THE YAYS AND NAYS IS INCORRECT.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE A LISTING OF COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? YOU HAVE COMMISSIONER MICK CURTIS VOTING YES AND ALSO ABSTAINING?

>> YES, WE DID. MR. CURTIS WAS ABSTAINING.

THAT IS A TYPO.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY IS UNDER THE YAYS. [NOISE].

>> THAT WAS PROBABLY ME UNDER THE YAYS.

>> YOU GOT FOR CURTIS AND VOTING YES.

>> THAT WAS PROBABLY AUTOCORRECT IT WENT MISSING.

MCCONNELL IS MISSING UNDER THE YAYS. WE WILL ADDRESS THAT.

>>THAT'S RIGHT. WE'RE USED TO [OVERLAPPING]

>> SHOULD I? WE HAD TALKED BEFORE AND IT'S REFLECTED IN THE STRAW POLL FOR THE STRUGGLE FOR THE EARLIER THING, BUT HAVING THE MINUTES, BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN OFFICIAL VOTE, IT'S JUST NOT LISTING NAMES FOR THAT.

NOW, I CAN UNDERSTAND IF IT'S UNANIMOUS, THAT MAKES GOOD SENSE.

THEY MAY HAVE LISTED IT OUT BECAUSE OF THAT.

BUT I THOUGHT IN GENERAL, WE'RE GOING TO THE WILL OF THE BOARD OR THAT BE LISTED NOT PEOPLE'S NAMES JUST SO AS NOT TO CONFUSE THE RECORD.

>> I WOULD AGREE AND WE'RE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION.

>> I LIKE THAT DIRECTION.

>> MR. SCALES.

>> TO COINCIDE WITH THAT,

[00:05:01]

WE SHOULDN'T BE CALLING A ROLL CALL. IT'S A STRAW POLL.

>> I THINK WE NEED TO, NOW THAT WE HAVE A NEW MINUTE DRAFTER, ZACH 3.0 [LAUGHTER] WE NEED TO REWORK HOW WE DO STRAW POLLS AND IN THE MINUTES.

>> THAT'S NOT PROPER ACCORDING TO.

>> I AGREE COMPLETELY.

>> ALSO ON PAGE 6, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY, I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO JUMP IN ON THIS, BUT AT THE BOTTOM, I'M JUST GOING TO READ THE WHOLE THING.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY NOTED THAT THE ORDINANCE ALREADY ENFORCES THE ORDER REQUIREMENT AND SHE RAISED CONCERN THAT PUTTING THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL ON A LEGALLY PERMANENT BUSINESS WOULD NEED A VALID REASON AND ALSO MAKE SURE IT WAS SETTING PRECEDENT FOR ANY FUTURE APPLICANT.

I BELIEVE SHE MEANT WAS NOT.

>> WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS THAT WHATEVER OUR POLICY IS ON THIS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT, SO ANY PRECEDENT AND LISA SHOULD BE.

WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY WHETHER OR [LAUGHTER] NOT THAT LAST MONTH WAS THAT THIS SHOULD BE THE CASE FOR ANY BUSINESS APPLICANT, NOT JUST FOR BUSINESS APPLICANTS UNDER THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE ORDINANCE, ENFORCING EVERYTHING THAT WE REQUIRE UNDER [OVERLAPPING] I DIDN'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOU.

>> I HADN'T READ THAT IT READ FUNNY TO ME.

>> WE CAN FIX THAT.

I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING.

>> I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 6 OF THE MINUTES ON PAGE 6 OF THE DOCUMENTS, OF COURSE.

>> SECTION DECODABLE?

>> YES.

>> AS LONG AS WE'RE NITPICKING [LAUGHTER] TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 3, THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH FROM THE BOTTOM, THE SECOND SENTENCE READS, YOU DID MAKE NOTES FOR THIS CLIENT WAS NOT A LEVERAGED CANNABIS ORGANIZATION.

THAT WAS JUST AN AWKWARD WORDING.

HE MADE NOTE THAT HIS CLIENT WAS NOT A LEVERAGED CANNABIS ORGANIZATION.

>> WE CAN GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AND SEE IF THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO REWARD THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE PUBLIC CAN'T HEAR YOU.

>> DID YOU HEAR ME TALKING?

>> I DID WITH THE PEOPLE AT HOME.

FOR THE FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH FROM THE BOTTOM ON PAGE 3 OF THE MINUTES STAFF IS GOING TO LOOK AT ARE REWARDING AT THE REQUEST OF MR. MCCONNELL, MR. MCDONALD.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSITION?

>> NO. MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

NOW WE ARE INTO COMMUNICATION.

[6. COMMUNICATIONS]

THE COMMUNICATION SHOULD REFLECT THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A LATE LETTERS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCHMIDT THAT YOU SUBMITTED ONE TODAY?

>> YES, SIR. WE WILL INCLUDE IT IN THE NEXT BACKEND AS COMMUNICATION.

CONSISTENT IS HOW WE'VE BEEN HANDLING THESE LATE EMAILS.

WE'RE NOW INTO ITEM 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS.

THE FIRST ONE IS ITEM 7A,

[7A. SUP #23013 – Green Peak Innovations (Skymint) – Vacant Northwind parcel]

WHICH IS THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 23013, GREEN PEAK INNOVATIONS, ALSO KNOWN AS SCHEME AND MR. SMITH.

>> THANK YOU. THE REQUESTS AND FOR ANY OF THIS EVENING IS FOR THIS VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY RIGHT HERE ON NORTHWIND DRIVE AND I WILL ZOOM OUT AND JUST SECONDARY TO GIVE YOU A BETTER SENSE OF WHERE WE'RE AT.

THIS IS HOBBY LOBBY. THIS IS THE SITE OF THE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION TRADER JOE'S GRAND RIVER AVENUE, DAWN AVENUE RIGHT HERE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS SITE RIGHT HERE AT THIS LOCATION WAS SELECTED DURING THE TOWNSHIPS ORIGINAL LOTTERY FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES SCHEME.

IT GREEN PEAK INDUSTRIES, BUSINESSES SKY MEANT ONE THAT LOTTERY ON THIS LOCATION [NOISE] EXCUSE ME, THROUGH THE SUP PROCESSED IN 2019-2020, WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 2020, THAT'S SUP19,S191.

THE REQUESTS ARE FOR YOU THIS EVENING IS FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT REQUEST.

AS WE HAVE MENTIONED, ALL OF THE SUPS FOR THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES EXPIRED DURING THE COVID INTERREGNUM.

THERE ARE SOME MINOR CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN STAFF WHO WILL ADDRESS THOSE AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PERSPECTIVE, NOTHING IS FUNCTIONALLY CHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL REVIEW WHICH DID RECOMMEND

[00:10:02]

APPROVAL OF THE SITE IS WITHIN THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA OVERLAY DISTRICT.

IT WAS PRELIMINARILY APPROVED FOR A LICENSE.

THE PROPOSED USE CONFORMS WITH THE ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE ON THE SITE.

THE APPLICANT HAS DESIGNATED PROPER OPERATIONS, PROCEDURES, PROTOCOLS, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE AS REQUIRED UNDER THE LICENSING PROTOCOL.

THE SITE IS SERVED BY WATER AND SEWER.

SO FROM ESPECIALLY JUST FOR PERSPECTIVE, CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL IN 2020, SAP HAS RAISED NEW MAJOR CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPLICATION.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING THOUGH, AND IT WAS RAISED BY TWO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN THEIR LETTERS TO US.

IT GOES TO A RELATED TOPIC.

THERE'S CONVERSATION AS IT RELATES TO THIS APPLICANT BEING IN RECEIVERSHIP AND SO FROM A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS THAT WOULD LEAD ME TO TELL YOU THAT THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PERSPECTIVE.

HOWEVER, I WILL BE VERY CLEAR.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING THAT WILL BE STUDIED EXTENSIVELY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMIT FOR A LICENSE, PRIOR TO ANY LICENSE FOR MARIJUANA AND ON THIS SIDE.

I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE TO THINK THAT WE'RE JUST BLOWING THIS OFF BECAUSE I WOULD NEVER ASK YOU TO DISCUSS FINANCIAL RELATED THINGS AS IT RELATES TO AN SUP FOR ANY APPLICANT.

BUT BECAUSE THERE'S A SECONDARY PROCESS HERE, THAT ABSOLUTELY WILL BE PART OF THE REVIEW, JUST NOT AT THIS STEP.

I WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT NOW.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS AT THIS TIME.

I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL AS SPEAK.

>> MR. SCHMIDT, I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHICH COMES FIRST, THE LICENSING OR THE SUP APPROVAL?

>> SIR, THE TOWNSHIP HAS ADOPTED A LENGTHY PROCESS.

WE START WITH A PRE-LICENSING ESSENTIALLY AND YOU GO THROUGH THE LOTTERY AND THEN YOU'RE GRANTED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF YOUR LICENSE.

AT THAT POINT, YOU HAVE 60 DAYS TO APPLY FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

IN THIS CASE THEY DID, THEY APPLIED WITHIN THOSE 60 DAYS.

THE 60TH DAY WAS A SUNDAY BUT CONSISTENT WITH THE ADVICE OF OUR ATTORNEYS, ACCEPTING AN APPLICATION ON A MONDAY WHEN THE DEADLINE IS A SUNDAY IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY LEGAL.

>> AT THAT POINT, WE REVIEW THE SUP PROCESS AND THE LICENSE IS JUST HANGING OUT OFF TO THE SIDE, SPECIAL USE PERMIT GOES THROUGH ITS NORMAL PROCESS.

WE REVIEW IT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A PUBLIC HEARING, RECOMMENDATIONS MADE, IT GOES TO THE BOARD, AND BOARD MAKES A FINAL DECISION.

AT THAT POINT, THEN THEY OBVIOUSLY NEED TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

IN THIS CASE CONSTRUCTION WOULD START.

THE LICENSE ITSELF WILL NOT GET ISSUED UNTIL THE END.

THERE HAS TO BE A BUILDING WITH OCCUPANCY READY TO GO FOR US TO GO, YES, HERE'S A LICENSE.

>> WE HAVE MADE AN INVESTMENT [OVERLAPPING].

>> THE STATE THEN IS THE LAST ONE IN BECAUSE ONE OF THEIR LAST CHECKS IS DO YOU HAVE LOCAL APPROVAL? SAY IT'S MAY 17, 2024, AND THERE'S A GRAND OPENING HERE.

ON MAY 16, 2024, IT'S LIKELY THAT WE'LL HAVE ISSUED FINAL OCCUPANCY AND OUR PERMIT WILL HAVE COME, AND THEN THE STATE WILL HAVE GRANTED THEIR FINAL APPROVAL AS WELL.

>> THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT PUTS AN APPLICANT BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL, HAVE TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT AND START THE CONSTRUCTION OR FINISH THE CONSTRUCTION BEFORE THEY KNOW FOR SURE IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE LICENSED.

>> CORRECT. THAT WAS THE DETERMINATION WAS MADE WHEN THIS ORDINANCE WAS STRUCTURED, IT'S THAT THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE IN FOR THE PROJECT IF WE WERE GOING TO ALLOW THIS IN THE TOWNSHIP.

>> THANK YOU. JUST SO I COULD BE CLEAR OR IN MY UNDERSTANDING, YOU SAID A SECOND AGO IN TERMS OF THE FINANCIAL SITUATION THAT COMES LATER.

AT WHAT STEP AGAIN DOES IT COME?

>> IT'S AN ODD SITUATION BECAUSE NORMALLY IT WOULD HAVE ALREADY COME. IT DID.

DURING THE PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE LICENSE, THERE WAS A RUDIMENTARY REVIEW AND THEY OBVIOUSLY WERE AT THE TIME UNDER NORMAL OPERATIONS AFTER WE ISSUED THAT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, AND WE NOW, BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS, THEY'VE GONE INTO RECEIVERSHIP.

NOW, PRIOR TO US ISSUING THAT FINAL APPROVAL, THERE'S GOING TO BE A MUCH DEEPER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FINANCES IN THE SITUATION.

>> WHEN DID THAT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TAKE PLACE WAS THAT?

>> JANUARY.

>> WITH THIS BODY?

>> JANUARY, FEBRUARY. NO, THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

[00:15:02]

>> JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND, BEFORE YOU TAKE THAT DEEP DIVE, THEY START THE WHOLE BUILDING PROCESS, I-BEAMS AND ALL THAT, BRICK-AND-MORTAR, AND THEN THIS BODY CAN SAY OR?

>> THE ACTUAL ISSUANCE OF THE LICENSE IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE BOARD.

AT THAT POINT, THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS SET UP IT'S PERFUNCTORY.

IF YOU'VE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, YOU ARE PRE-QUALIFIED, IT GETS ISSUED.

>> BUT WHAT IF THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE AND I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A CONCERN WITH FINANCIAL SITUATION.

AS TO TAKE A DEEPER DIVE, AND THEN YOU SAY THAT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS BOARD THAT WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, THERE ARE CONCERNS ON VOTE NO OR WHATEVER.

BUT I-BEAMS, BRICK-AND-MORTAR IS ALREADY UP.

IS THAT A POTENTIAL SCENARIO?

>> FOR ANY PROJECT THAT'S A POTENTIAL SCENARIO, THAT SOMEONE STARTS CONSTRUCTION AND THEN MONEY DRIES UP.

I DON'T WANT TO POINT TO ANYTHING BUT WE'VE SEEN THAT HAPPEN THROUGHOUT MICHIGAN.

WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED WITH, I THINK FROM A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE IS BECAUSE WE'RE ISSUING A LICENSE THAT IS SPECIAL IN THIS CASE, THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSE, WE'RE GOING TO DO A MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS THAT WE WOULD DO FOR CHICK-FIL-A.

THROUGHOUT THIS PART OF THE PROCESS WE'RE AT NOW, WE'RE AGNOSTIC TO WHETHER YOU CAN ACTUALLY BUILD THE PROJECT.

BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU MEET OUR ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.

BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A SPECIAL PERMIT THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

BEFORE THEY GET THAT SPECIAL PERMIT, WE'RE GOING TO DO A DEEPER DIVE INTO THE FINANCIAL SITUATION.

IT'S TWO PROCESSES UNFORTUNATELY.

I KNOW THEY BLEND TOGETHER.

BUT IT'S INEVITABLE, I GET THAT.

WHAT WE NEED TO TRY AND DO THOUGH IS IN THIS CASE FOCUS ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PIECE AND THEN CERTAINLY IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THAT CONCERN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO INCLUDE IT AS A RECOMMENDATION SO THAT THE BOARD DOESN'T MISS IT.

I HAVE NO DOUBT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MISS IT BECAUSE WE'RE ON TOP OF IT AS WELL.

BUT THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO EXPRESS THAT CONCERN IF THERE IS ONE.

>> ONE LAST ONE QUESTION THEN I'M DONE.

BUT IN TERMS OF THE DEEP DIVE FINANCIALLY AND THAT DECISION, OUR COMMISSION WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD IF THERE'S A CONCERN OR DO WE NOT DEAL WITH THAT AND ONLY THE BOARD WOULD DEAL WITH THAT?

>> [INAUDIBLE] THE AUTHORITY WHICH HAS NO ROLE IN THE FINANCIAL SITUATION.

>> GOT IT.

>> BUT IF YOU HAVE A CONCERN, GREAT TIME TO RAISE IT RIGHT NOW.

>> OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET CLEARANCE ON. THANK YOU.

>> YES. THANK YOU.

>> I COULD BE CONFUSED HERE BUT SO IT'S THIS BUILDING AND IT'S THE OTHER SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS EVENING.

BOTH OF THEM WERE STARTED AND THEN THEY LAPSED.

>> THIS ONE DID NOT START.

>> OKAY. THIS IS COMPLETELY.

>> THIS WAS COMPLETELY LAPSED. YES.

>> OKAY.

>> BUT APPROVED.

>> BUT APPROVED.

>> IT IS APPROVED BUT COMPLETELY EXPIRED.

>> MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE SOME CONNECTION THERE FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE THAT WE HAD?

>> WE HAD A NUMBER OF PROJECTS EXPIRED DUE TO COVID.

>> OKAY.

>> IT WASN'T JUST THIS INDUSTRY, WE HAD TO DO AN EXTENSION ON THE AMERICAN HOUSE PROJECT, THAT'S NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

THE [INAUDIBLE] AMENDMENTS BODIES WAS DELAYED.

IT HAPPENED TO A LOT OF PROJECTS.

>> OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT.

>> YEAH.

>> THANK YOU. REMIND ME AGAIN, I KNOW YOU'VE TOLD US THIS BEFORE BUT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, IF AND WHEN APPROVED, DOES THAT CARRY WHAT THE PROPERTY OR IN THESE INSTANCES IS THAT ONLY WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT ON THAT PROPERTY SO THAT IF FOR SOME REASON THEY DID NOT GET THE LICENSE, I KNOW THIS IS STILL IN THE DISTRICT BUT A NEW APPLICANT WHO WANTED TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN, CORRECT?

>> BECAUSE OF THIS USE, YES.

A NEW APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN.

>> OKAY. IF WE TRUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS ON THE LICENSURE AND WANT TO PUT SOMETHING IN SPECIAL PERHAPS ON APPROVAL OF THAT TO ASSURE THAT THAT PROCESS GOES THROUGH PROPERLY, WE WOULDN'T BE GIVING SOMEONE ELSE FULL PERMISSION TO GO DO THIS WITHOUT THAT SAME CAREFUL LEVEL OF REVIEW?

>> NO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> KRISHNA SCHNEIDER, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> YEAH. I GUESS I'M JUST GETTING CURIOUS ABOUT THAT FINANCIAL PIECE AND

[00:20:03]

WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN DO WITH OUR CONCERNS RELATED TO THAT.

I WAS LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE, 86127 IN THE CONDITIONS THAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT OR REQUEST TO BE ADDED TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ONE OF THEM BEING NUMBER 5, A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE.

I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF I'M EVEN ON THE RIGHT TRACK HERE.

BUT SOMEBODY UP HERE ON THE BOARD COULD THROW ME IN.

>> THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

TYPICALLY PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE IS USED WHEN THERE IS A SPECIFIC PIECE OF A PROJECT THAT THERE IS CONCERN IT WON'T BE IMPLEMENTED.

TO MAKE SURE THAT IT GETS IMPLEMENTED, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD RECOMMEND THAT A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE BE INSTALLED.

GREAT EXAMPLE, THE SHOTS VET CLINIC SIDEWALK, PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE HAD A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE 10 YEARS AGO.

SINCE THAT'S FORTUNATELY WHERE WE GOT WITH THEM IS A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE.

IN TERMS OF A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE TO ENSURE THE ENTIRE SITE IS BUILT, I WOULD NEED TO DO A RESEARCH ON THAT, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH HAVING DONE ONE OF THOSE BEFORE.

BUT I'M HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> JUST ONE MAYBE. [NOISE] YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S NOT THAT UNUSUAL DURING THESE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS FOR PROJECTS TO LAP, SO IT'S ACROSS INDUSTRIES.

I'M CURIOUS YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A PLANNER WITH APPLICANTS WHO HAVE THE FINANCIAL ISSUES THAT WE SEEM TO BE HEARING ABOUT.

IS IT VERY UNCOMMON IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, HAS IT AFFECTED OTHER APPLICATIONS IN OTHER INDUSTRIES, EVER HAPPENED IN THE TOWNSHIP?

>> I CAN'T SAY IT NEVER HAPPENED IN THE TOWNSHIP, BUT I CAN TELL THAT YOU IT'S HAPPENED.

WE ALL REMEMBER THE GREAT RECESSION.

THE NUMBER OF HOME BUILDERS LLC THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE BANKRUPT ON A SPECIFIC PROJECT AND THEN SOMEONE ELSE HAD TO SWOOP IN AND TRY AND PICK THAT UP OR IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE ANOTHER LLC IF THE HOME BUILDER COULD BUY IT OUT OF BANKRUPTCY.

IT HAPPENS IN THE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY, THE PROJECTS GO SIDEWAYS.

THIS IS JUST A UNIQUE USE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF IT STILL BEING A FEDERALLY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.

>> WOULD I BE CHARACTERIZING OUR SINGLE BIGGEST COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER, CBL AS HAVING RECENTLY GONE THROUGH RECEIVERSHIP?

>> YES. I KNOW OF ITS BANKRUPTCY.

I THINK THEY TECHNICALLY WENT THROUGH CHAPTER 11.

>> SOMETHING THEY CAN.

>> I'M NOT A FINANCIAL OR LEGAL EXPERT.

I'M A PLANNER. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]

>> AMPLIFYING THE POINT THAT COMPANIES GOING INTO RECEIVERSHIP BANKRUPTCY IS A FAIRLY COMMON THING AND IN THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS IT CAN'T BE RARE.

>> IT HAPPENS.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE DIDN'T HAVE AN APPLICANT HERE? SIR NORMALLY WE'D HAVE YOU FILL OUT A FORM.

WE DON'T HAVE THOSE FORMS, THEY GOT BURIED SOMEWHERE.

COULD YOU PLEASE TELL US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS BEFORE YOU BEGIN YOUR STATEMENT.

>> ABSOLUTELY CHAIR. I'M NATHAN KARCH, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS WITH GREEN PEAK INDUSTRIES, DOING BUSINESSES IN SKYMINT.

MY ADDRESS IS 11787, KANE LINE SOUTHEASTERN LAUREL.

>> THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, SIR.

>> FIRST OF ALL, THANKS FOR HAVING US THIS EVENING.

I CAN ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS.

I THOUGHT STAFF DID A GREAT JOB PRESENTING JUST A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF OUR PROJECT, BUT HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>> I THINK WE'RE ALL SET.

DOESN'T APPEAR THAT ANYBODY'S GOT ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> I GUESS WITH THAT THEN I WILL JUST ADD THAT, I NOTICED THAT THERE'S A LOT OF INTERESTS IN THE RECEIVERSHIP, SO I WILL JUST SAY THAT THIS IS ONGOING FOR US CURRENTLY.

HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO RUN IN PERPETUITY AND THE COMPANY ANTICIPATES COMING OUT OF THIS LEANER, STRONGER, MORE FINANCIALLY ORGANIZED, AND READY TO CONTINUE TO BE ACTIVE.

WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING ANY OPERATIONAL ISSUES.

WE'RE JUST GOING FORWARD TRYING TO USE THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE TO EMERGE SUCCESSFULLY.

ONE THING AND I KNOW CHAPTER 11 GOT BROUGHT UP, YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT IN THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY, THAT'S NOT AN OPTION FOR US.

WE'RE NOT A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED BUSINESS.

BACK IN 2020 WHEN THE GOVERNOR SAID CANNABIS BUSINESSES CAN GO THROUGH RECEIVERSHIP, WE CONSENSUALLY MOVED FORWARD WITH THE RECEIVERSHIP AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO COMING OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS AT SOME POINT IN FUTURE.

[00:25:03]

I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, BUT JUST PLEASE UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

>> I FORGOT. YOU CAN'T GO TO FEDERAL COURT.

>> CORRECT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTATION? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? NO [NOISE] [BACKGROUND].

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED IN ITEM 7A? ANYONE?

>> I WOULD START OUT BY JUST SAYING THAT THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED BEFORE, AND WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ANY FINANCIAL ISSUES.

THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE SITE.

IT'S ZONED APPROPRIATELY.

THE SQP COMPLIES WITH THEIR REQUIREMENTS, AND ALSO IN THIS SITUATION, THE SQP, IF WE PROVE IT, IS ONLY A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE FEW AREAS WHERE SQP HAS TO GO TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> IN RECALL AT OUR LAST MEETING WE DISCUSS THIS THAT THE WHOLE QUESTION ABOUT OUR MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITY IS GOING TO MORPH INTO RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES AND THAT I UNDERSTAND IS IN LITIGATION THAT PLACES.

DO WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON THAT WHOLE TOPIC?

>> NO, I CAN TELL YOU THE BOARD IS STILL CONSIDERING HOW TO ADDRESS RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.

THEY HAVE NOT MADE A FINAL DETERMINATION ON THAT.

I CAN TELL YOU TRAVERSE CITY DID IT THE WRONG WAY AND IT'S GETTING SUED LIKE NO OTHER I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE DONE IT DIFFERENTLY AND SEEM TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO RIGHT NOW IS USING THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE, CHAT A PATH FORWARD FOR RECREATIONAL THAT IS SEPARATE FROM MEDICAL BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE.

BUT CLEARLY THERE'S SOME RECOGNITION OF THE EXISTING, BECAUSE THE ONE THING I THINK EVERYONE CAN AGREE ON IS WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF FACILITIES WE HAVE.

IT'S STILL A HARD CAP THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO OF NO MORE THAN FIVE.

WHICH IS WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED.

>> IF YOU COULD ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON USE THE TERM SUCCESSFUL AND MAYBE NOT SO SUCCESSFUL.

IF YOU CAN WITHOUT TAKING UP A LOT OF TIME, WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF SUCCESSFUL ORDINANCE OR A DEFENDABLE ORDINANCE VERSUS ONE THAT ISN'T DEFENDANT.

>> IT'S REALLY MORE DEFENDABLE THAN NOT.

THERE'S LANGUAGE IN MANNER THAT THE RECREATIONAL ACT THAT SOME PEOPLE READ TO BELIEVE THAT IF YOU ALLOW MEDICALLY, YOU HAVE TO ALLOW RECREATION.

OTHER PEOPLE WILL READ IT, IF YOU ALLOW RECREATIONAL, YOU HAVE TO ALLOW MEDICAL.

THAT'S THE CRUX OF MOST OF THESE ARGUMENTS AND HOW YOU ADDRESS THAT PROBLEM ULTIMATELY DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT IT'S DEFENDABLE AND WHETHER YOU'RE SUCCESSFUL DEFENDING IT.

THAT'S WHAT STAFF AND THE TANTRUM ATTORNEYS ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE OUR ARMS AROUND AND ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE BEST POSSIBLE ANSWER TO THE BOARD AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER RIGHT NOW.

TRUST ME COMMISSIONER RICHARDS, IF I HAD IT, I'D TELL YOU WHAT IT IS.

WE'RE STILL TRYING TO WORK IT OUT.

>> JUST AS I SHOULD PROBABLY KNOW THIS, BUT WE HAVE A MEDICAL MARIJUANA ORDINANCE ON THE BOOKS.

DO WE HAVE ANY CODIFIED RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA ORDINANCE ON THE BOOKS AT THIS PRESENT TIME?

>> WE DO NOT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS [NOISE], ROBERT? JUST SO STAFF KNOWS THE DIRECTION TO TAKE ITEM 7A, I'M GOING TO CALL FOR YOUR STRAW VOTE.

ALL THOSE WHO FAVOR SUP 23013, SAY AYE.

>> AYE

>> IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS? MR. SCHMIDT, SEE THE DIRECTION THE VOTE IS GOING.

>> WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FINANCIAL SITUATION.

IS THIS THE TIME TO SAY WHAT THE CAVEAT THAT FINANCIALLY YOU ARE NOT TAKING ON A RISK OR AN OBLIGATION?

[00:30:01]

I THINK TO ME IN JUST LOOKING AT THE INFORMATION YOU SAID AND ASSUMING IT'S ACCURATE, IS ONE THING I WILL SAY THEY HAVE A LOT OF DIRT.

THEN THERE'S ANOTHER THING YOU SAY, NOT REALLY MILES AWAY.

THERE'S A CONSIDERABLE DEBT OWED ON A FACILITY THAT'S IN OUR AREA, WHICH GETS A LOT MORE CLOSER TO HOME, LET'S SAY IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

ANYWAY, BUT IF WE COULD PUT THE CAVEAT IN THAT RIGHT UP.

>> I AGREE WITH IT, I THINK STEPH [OVERLAPPING]

>> THAT'S FINE.

>> WELL NOTED. WE WILL WORK SOME LANGUAGE OUT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> JUST THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE INTO A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.

IT COULD BE IN A SEPARATE LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE BOARD IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING IN RESOLUTION IF THAT'S AGREEABLE.

>> I JUST ASSUME YOU HAVE IT IN THE RESOLUTION.

>> I'M OKAY WITH THAT, BUT IT DOESN'T [OVERLAPPING]

>> WE'LL GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF OPTIONS AND SEE WHAT WORKS BEST.

>> THANK YOU. NOW WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM 8A,

[8A. SUP #23010 – MSU to Lake Lansing Pathway – Phase II]

MSU TO LAKE LANSING PATHWAY PHASE II.

>> THE SUPER CONTROVERSIAL PATHWAY CONNECTION PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD BY THE PLAINTIFF CUSHION ON THE 24TH.

WE DID HEAR FROM A RESONANT WITH SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SOME IMPACTS TO CONSTRUCTION.

IT TURNS OUT OUR ENGINEERS WERE VERY WELL AWARE OF THAT ALREADY AND ALREADY HAD PLANNED FOR EXTRA MEASURES TO BE TAKEN AROUND THOSE THREE VERNAL PATHS, AND THERE'S CONSTRUCTION NEAR THEM IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE BY THE PATH, BUT THERE WAS NO CONSTRUCTION THAT SHOULD IMPACT THEM.

THEY WILL BE PROTECTED, THEY ARE NOTED ON THE PLANS.

A LOT OF MAP AMENDMENT IS STILL REQUIRED BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THIS IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, WHICH IS WHY IT'S IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING.

BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT STUFF, WE'D WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS SUBJECT TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTING THAT LOMA TO US, THE LETTER OF THAT AMENDMENT, AND THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES AND ENERGY APPROVES THE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AS WELL.

>> I TOOK THIS AFTERNOON BEFORE IT STARTED RAINING TO WALK THE PATHS THROUGH THERE AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A VERY FREE RIDE.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE AWESOME ACTUALLY.

>> IT REALLY IS A NICE AREA.

I ASSUME THE PATH FOR THE MOST PART IS GOING TO FOLLOW WHAT'S THROUGH THERE WITH A JAG NEAR THE END TO GET OVER TO OKEMOS ROAD, IF I'M READING THE MAP CORRECTLY.

>> YES. IT GOES OFF OF THE END OF CAMPUS HILL AND MEANDERS UP CLOSEST TO THE TRACKS, AND THEN DID I TURN AT THE RIGHT SPOT? [OVERLAPPING] I DID NOT TURN THE RIGHT SPOT.

[OVERLAPPING] IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE OFF ALONG WITH TRACKS, IT WILL POP OUT OVER THIS WAY.

>> YOU HAVE POINTED TO US QUITE DISTANT FROM THE TRACK ITSELF.

[OVERLAPPING] AT SOME POINT YOU WILL HAVE TO MOVE OVER BY THE TRACKS BECAUSE WHERE THE ROAD COMES OUT OR THE PATH COMES OUT NOW, IS A CROSS FROM THE BOARDWALK OVER THE FLOODPLAIN, AND SO THERE'S NO WAY TO HOOK UP.

BUT IT WILL BE NICE.

I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.

>> YOU CAN LOOK IN ALL THE VERNAL ANIMALS AND [BACKGROUND]

>> SCARE AT LEAST ONE DEAR.

>> I WON'T HAVE TO RUN THE HILL ANYMORE, SO I'M HAPPY ABOUT IT.

>> I UNDERSTAND IT'S TRIVIAL QUESTION.

HAS THERE BEEN DISCUSSION OF NAMING OF SEGMENTS OF THIS PATHWAY?

>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY NAMING DISCUSSION THAT'S OCCURRED.

>> I FIRST WALKED THAT PATHWAY AS A POTENTIAL CONNECTOR HERE WITH RACE EVERY 14 YEARS AGO.

JUST BRINGING THAT UP TO NOTE THAT THESE PATHWAYS WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO GET THEM STARTED IT SEEM UNDOABLE.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A PIPE DREAM.

THE INNER URBAN TOOK DECADES FROM INCEPTION TO CONSTRUCTION.

THIS IS JUST SUPER EXCITING.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS? WE HAVE A RESOLUTION BEFORE US.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE RESOLUTION BEFORE WE CALL FOR A VOTE?

>> MOVE A MOTION.

>> IS THERE A MOTION?

>> YEAH.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 23010, THE MSU TO LAKE LANSING CONNECTOR TRAIL PHASE II.

>> I SECOND IT.

>> ANY DISCUSSION OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION? ALL RIGHT THEN. I HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS?

[00:35:02]

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER BROOKS?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SCALES?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE?

>> YES.

>> CHAIR VOTES YES.

RESOLUTION PASSED.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> WE ARE NOW ON TO ITEM 8B,

[8B. SUP #23011 – Haslett Gallery (Herbana) 2119A Haslett Road]

SPECIAL USE PERMIT 203011.

THE HASLETT GALLERY, LOCATED AT 2119A, HASLETT ROAD.

>> THIS IS A FOLLOW UP ON THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS HELD ON THE 24TH.

AGAIN, THERE WAS ROBUST DISCUSSION AND ONE THING I WANTED TO CIRCLE BACK TO, IN ADDITION TO THE COMMENTS THAT I MADE TO COMMISSIONER RICHARDS PREVIOUSLY ABOUT THE MEDICAL, THERE IS NO RECREATIONAL YET, SO I HAVE NO GOOD ANSWER OF HOW THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE TOGETHER IF THEY EVEN DO.

BUT WANTED TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE OLDER QUESTION BECAUSE AS YOU MAY RECALL, THE APPLICANT DID STATE IT WAS PREPACKAGED AND THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT MAKING THAT A STANDARD OR THAT IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER APPROVALS.

IN STATS REVIEW GIVEN THAT THE APPLICANT IS ACTIVELY OFFERING IT, AND STATING THIS IS HOW THEY'RE WORKING, THAT IS VERY EASILY A CONDITION THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN IMPOSE, AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR ANY OTHER REQUESTS THAT WE SEE.

BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'VE OFFERED AND IS SPECIFIC TO THEIR APPLICATION.

NOW IF THEY HAD COME IN AND SAID, WELL, HALF OF OUR STUFF IS PREPACKAGED AND HALF OF IT IS LOOSE, AND THEN WE MADE A CONDITION THAT THEY ALL ASKED TO BE PREPACKAGED.

WE'D BE HAVING A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW.

BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE ACTIVELY SAID THIS IS THEIR MODEL, THIS IS HOW WE FUNCTION, WHICH STAFF HAS NO CONCERN MAKING THAT A CONDITION OF APPROVAL AND WE HAVE INCLUDED IT IN THE RESOLUTION AS CONDITION 12.

THE OTHER 11 CONDITIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR THIS SITE, AND AT THIS TIME STAFF CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUP.

>> DISCUSSION.

>> [BACKGROUND] IS THIS GOING TO BE OUR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE TO INCLUDE THIS REQUIREMENT?

>> NO. THE ONLY REASON IT'S BEING INCLUDED IS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT VOLUNTARILY STATED, THIS IS HOW WE FUNCTION AND THIS IS HOW WE ARE CONTROLLING ORDER IS BY PREPACKAGING.

IF ANOTHER APPLICANT DOESN'T DO THAT, THEIR APPLICATION IS LOOKED AT BASED ON THE STANDARDS IN THE ORDINANCE.

BUT IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE REQUIRING OF ANY APPLICANT.

>> CAN YOU BRIEFLY ARTICULATE WHAT PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE WITH THAT?

>> FROM AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S THE EASIEST WAY TO SOLVE AN ORDER PROBLEM AT A SALES LOCATION.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONTACT WITH THE PRODUCT TO THE AIR FACILITY.

IT'S DONE OFF-SITE.

YOU AVOID ANY POTENTIAL ORDER COMPLAINT FROM A NEIGHBOR ADJACENT TO A SALES FACILITY BECAUSE EVERYTHING'S ALREADY PACKAGED.

THERE IS NOTHING TO PROVIDE ORDER TO.

>>THESE ARE PACKAGED BY WHAT TYPE OF QUANTITIES?

>> I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON THAT.

>> [OVERLAPPING] SIR, PLEASE.

>> DO YOU WANT TO GIVE ME GET MY NAME AGAIN?

>> PLEASE, WOULD YOU?

>> BENJAMIN JOE. I'M LOCATED AT 334 EAST WASHINGTON IN ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 3104 IS MY OFFICE.

MY HOME IS 2850 STEIN COURT ALSO ANN ARBOR MAILING ADDRESS 48105. I'M NOT IN THE CITY.

SORRY. [LAUGHTER] REALLY THEY'RE PACKAGED IN THE QUANTITIES THAT PEOPLE BUY IN A GRAM, AN 1/8, 2/8.

A LOT OF TIMES WHAT WE'LL DO IS A LOT OF THINGS ARE PACKAGED IN THE 1/8.

IF SOMEONE BUYS MORE THAN THAT QUANTITY, CANNABIS HAS BEEN SOLD BEFORE IT WAS LEGAL IN THESE TYPES OF QUANTITIES, LIKE AN 1/8 OF AN OUNCE, 1/4 OF AN OUNCE, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND THEN MULTIPLES OF THOSE QUANTITIES.

USUALLY THE BIGGEST QUANTITY THAT YOU SEE SOLD IS REALLY AN OUNCE.

THERE ARE AMOUNTS THAT EACH BUYER CAN HAVE AT ONE TIME.

THEY DO HAVE A QUANTITY LIMIT THAT THEY CAN HAVE UNDER MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND WE CAN ONLY SELL A MONTHLY ALLOTMENT TO THEM.

WE DON'T REALLY PACKAGE THAT BIG OF QUANTITIES.

[00:40:03]

BUT I WOULDN'T SAY SINCE I DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU RIGHT NOW, IS AGAIN, THAT'S OUR STANDARD BUSINESS OPERATING PROCEDURE RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO DO SUCH A THINGS IF THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO GET THE SUP ACROSS.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE WOULDN'T WANT TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER SUP JUST BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THAT OUR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE IS NOW.

LET ME BE CLEAR AND HONEST.

THERE'S NO PLAN TO CHANGE THE OPERATING PROCEDURE.

BUT IF INDUSTRY TRENDS TAKE TURNS OR ANYTHING AND MY CLIENT FINDS THAT HE'S LOSING TONS OF SALES BECAUSE THIS IS THE WAY HE'S OPERATING, HE'S GOING TO WANT TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE.

OBVIOUSLY OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, HE HAS YET TO FIND THAT.

BUT WHAT I WOULD JUST SAY IS THAT WE WOULD WANT EVERYTHING APPLIED CONSISTENTLY ACROSS ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO GET SUPS TODAY AND NOT JUST HAVE A ONE CONDITION FOR OUR PARTICULAR STORE UNLESS WE DO SEE A DIFFERENCE IN THE SITE PLANS AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WE'LL BE OPEN TO THAT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> DO I STILL HAVE THE FLOOR?

>> YES. GO AHEAD PLEASE. [NOISE]

>> BASED ON THE QUANTITIES THAT THEY'RE PACKAGED AT, THE SIZES THAT THEY SELL AT, I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR US TO PUT THIS CONSTRAINT ON THIS ONE COMPANY.

>> STATUS PERFECTLY. WITH THAT, WE'VE MERELY PROVIDED THE CONDITION AS AN OPTION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THIS EVENING.

>> I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THERE BECAUSE I MADE THE COMMENT AT THE LAST MINUTE.

THEN I SPENT THE LAST TWO WEEKS THINKING ABOUT IT AND I THOUGHT AN ORDER CONTROL IS BUILT INTO THE ORDINANCE.

>> I WOULD AGREE.

>> WE DON'T HAVE TO DOUBLE UP ON THAT.

IT'S UP TO THE PROPRIETOR OF THE ESTABLISHMENT TO MAKE SURE HE DOESN'T VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE.

WE DON'T HAVE TO TELL HIM HOW TO DO THAT.

WE JUST HAVE TO TELL HIM WHEN HE'S CROSSED THE LINE.

I PERSONALLY AM WITHDRAWING MY REQUEST, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT SET THIS IN MOTION THAT THE PRE-PACKAGING BE A REQUIREMENT OF THE APPROVAL.

>> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT FROM WHOEVER MAY OR MAY NOT MAKE A MOTION ON THIS, YOU CAN JUST AS PARTY MOTION STRIKE CONDITION 12 OF THE RESOLUTION.

WE CAN ELIMINATE THAT.

>> I HAVE QUESTION FOR DR. SCHMIDT?

>> YES.

>> IF YOU COULD JUST HELP ME OUT HERE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THIS APPLICATION FOR THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS BASICALLY THE SAME AS THE ONE PREVIOUSLY TONIGHT.

THEY'RE BOTH ESSENTIALLY JUST GIVING PERMISSION TO ALLOW THESE PROVISIONING CENTERS TO GO AHEAD AND EITHER BUILD OR REMODEL AN ALREADY EXISTING BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARIJUANA PROVISIONS. AM I CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> THEN THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS IS DEALT WITH BY THE BOARD AND THAT'S HANDING OVER THE OFFICIAL LICENSE.

>> TAKING NEXT STEP IS TO FIT THE BOARD APPROVES OF THE SUP, AND THEN THEY BUILD AND THEN THEY GET THE LICENSE.

>> RIGHT.

>> YES, CORRECT.

>> IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION TONIGHT, WE HAD ZERO QUESTIONS OF THE PRESENTER WITH REGARD TO ORDER ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE AND OUR STRONG VOTE WAS A YES.

I THINK FOR MY OWN UNDERSTANDING, I NEED THAT CLARIFICATION JUST TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS AND TO UNDERSTAND HOW EVERYONE ELSE'S UNDERSTANDING HOW THE PROCESS WORKS TOO, BECAUSE WE HAD SO MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT TWO WEEKS AGO AND I WAS SURPRISED NOT TO HEAR ANY OF THOSE SAME CONCERNS POP UP EARLIER TONIGHT WITH THE PREVIOUS PERMIT FOR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING.

>> I'D LIKE TO MOVE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION WITH THE COMMENDED CLAUSE STRICKEN.

>> SUPPORT NUMBER 12.

>> NUMBER 12. JUST TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION.

I STRUGGLED WITH THE NOTION OF PARTICULARLY TRYING TO PAY ATTENTION TO ORDERS IN ONE INDUSTRY VERSUS ANOTHER AND I CAN SEE DIFFERENCES, BUT THEY'RE NOT CLEAR.

CERTAINLY AMONG APPLICATIONS, IT SEEMS REALLY IMPROPER TO IMPOSE A CONDITION ON ONE APPLICATION VERSUS ANOTHER.

SINCE WE ALREADY DO HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM, IF WE WANTED TO DO SOMETHING MORE STRINGENT THAN THAT FOR THIS INDUSTRY, I THINK THAT WOULD BELONG IN THE ORDINANCE AND NOT ON A CASE-BY-CASE APPLICATION BASIS.

>> I STAINED AT THE LAST MEETING BECAUSE I WANT IT TO READ THE MATERIAL.

[00:45:08]

I THOUGHT READING THE MATERIAL WOULD BE IMPORTANT.

I WASN'T HERE ON THE COMMISSION WHEN IT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY BY THIS COMMISSION.

HAVING READ THE INFORMATION, I'M NOW PREPARED TO VOTE AND SUPPORT THIS SUP.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? [BACKGROUND]

>> TWO THINGS, I THINK ONE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS ONE AND THE PREVIOUS ONE WE JUST DISCUSSED IS THIS IS ONE PART OF THE BUILDING IS BEING USED FOR THE INTENDED USE WHILE THE OTHER, IF I UNDERSTAND IT RIGHT IS A STANDALONE BUILDING.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY RELEVANT, BUT THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION AND ALL THE INFORMATION RECEIVED THE LAST TIME.

I READ THROUGH MOST OF IT, THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO LITIGATION THAT WAS ONGOING, AND THEN THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THIS LOCATION MAY CHANGE BETWEEN THIS LOCATION AND IN THE BUILDING TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION.

THAT WAS PART OF THE LEASE, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I GUESS I'M JUST INTERESTED IN IF THE LITIGATION THAT'S PENDING AND THEN TALK ABOUT WHAT THE LITIGATION REALLY WAS, BUT ENDS THE LITIGATION TIED TO THIS PARTICULAR USE OR NOT?

>> STAFF, THE TOWNSHIP IS NOT PARTY TO THE LITIGATION.

I'M NOT AWARE OF WHAT THE LITIGATION IS OVER.

WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT AS PART OF THE LOTTERY PROCESS, THIS WAS THE LOCATION THAT WAS SELECTED.

IF THIS SWEEP DOES NOT GO FORWARD BECAUSE OF SOME OUTSIDE LITIGATION, THERE'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM WITH THE ORIGINAL LOTTERY.

>> WELL, IT DIDN'T REALLY SAY, IT WAS INTERESTING THAT IF THE OTHER TUMORS IS UNIT 4, BUT IT SAYS SOMETHING LIKE IF THAT'S AVAILABLE, THEN THEY WERE GOING TO MOVE BETWEEN THE TWO.

I GUESS I DON'T KNOW, THAT JUST STRUCK ME AS A LITTLE BIT ODD THE WAY THAT WHOLE THING WAS.

BUT I GUESS IT IS WHAT IT IS.

I'LL JUST SAY THIS, THAT I WILL BE VOTING NO, I MAYBE THE ONLY PERSON VOTING NO, BUT I WILL VOTE NO, BECAUSE I JUST DON'T THINK THIS AGAIN AS MAYBE A PROTEST VOTE HERE IN TERMS OF THE LOCATION, WHICH IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE WE'VE PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT, SO I WILL BE VOTING NO.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CALL FOR VOTE?

>> THE VOTE BEING CALLED FOR IS APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ELIMINATION OF THE LAST CLAUSE, WHICH IS NUMBER 12.

LET'S DO IT THIS WAY. COMMISSIONER SNYDER?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER BROOKS.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> NO.

>> COMMISSIONER SCALES.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

> >YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

>> YES.

>> THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> OKAY.

NOW WE ARE ON. IS THEIR OTHER BUSINESS?

>> MASTER PLANNER [LAUGHTER].

>> SIR.

>> IT SAYS MANAGE DIDN'T KNOW IF ANYTHING THAT ADDED?

>> NO.

>> NOW WE'RE ON ITEM 10,

[10A. Build Out Analysis]

WHICH IS THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE.

>> SIR, I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF UPDATE ON THIS BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST NEW THINGS THAT STAFF IS PROPOSING TO ADD.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BOTH SENIOR PLANNER SEAN KEANE AND I HAVE DONE IN PREVIOUS MASTER PLANS.

WE THINK IT'S A VERY USEFUL EXERCISE THAT WILL HELP US GOING FORWARD.

WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE HAVE TAKEN ALL THE VACANT PROPERTIES IN THE TOWNSHIP AND WE HAVE FILTERED OUT THOSE THAT ARE OWNED BY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, OR DRAINS, OR CHURCHES.

ALL THAT IS FILTERED OUT.

WHAT WE HAVE LEFT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS VACANT.

WITHIN THAT, WE THEN APPLY A FACTOR TO IT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, SIZE OF PARCEL, WETLANDS, ETC.

TO GET US TO A STARTING POINT OF, HERE IS THEORETICALLY THE MAXIMUM BUILD-OUT OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND THIS IS ALMOST ALL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES REMAINING IN THE COMMUNITY.

[00:50:04]

WE JUST WANT TO PUT THIS OUT THERE TO GET YOU TO START THINKING AS WE MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE ONE OF OUR GOALS AS PART OF THE MASTER PLAN, ONE OF THE ACTION ITEMS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IS TO FURTHER REFINE THIS SO THAT WE CAN TELL YOU THAT JUST LOOKING AT THIS NUMBER, IT'S HIGH BECAUSE I KNOW THAT SOME OF THESE PARCELS THAT WE'VE APPLIED A 75 PERCENT YIELD FACTOR TO ARE 95 PERCENT WETLAND, AND THERE'S NO WAY YOU'RE GOING TO GET FOUR HOUSES ON THERE.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT SOME OF THESE VACANT PROPERTIES ARE NEXT TO SOMEONE'S HOUSE, AND THEY BOUGHT IT SPECIFICALLY TO NEVER DEVELOP IT.

AND ALL THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO DO IS TO NEVER DEVELOP IT IS TO COMBINE THE PARCELS UP.

SO WE'RE GOING TO DO A DEEPER DIVE INTO THIS AS WE GO FORWARD TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT THE POTENTIAL IS FOR THIS COMMUNITY BECAUSE UNDER THE STATE OF MICHIGAN TAXATION STRUCTURE, NEW CONSTRUCTION IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF MOST COMMUNITIES.

AND SO KNOWING WHAT THAT NUMBER IS THEORETICALLY OUT THERE, AND THEN BEING ABLE TO SAY, OKAY, WE NEED TO FOCUS BACK IN ON OUR PKS, WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE GRAND RIVER CORRIDOR OR THE SAGINAW CORRIDOR.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING IT. SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT IT OUT THERE.

I'M REALLY NOT SEEKING ANY FEEDBACK.

WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW BEST TO PRESENT THIS IN THE PLAN.

WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A MAP BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE IMMEDIATELY GOING TO LOOK FOR THEIR FAVORITE PIECE OF VACANT LAND [LAUGHTER] AND THEY'RE GOING TO FIND OUT WE PUT 120 UNITS ON THERE AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE MAD.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHY THAT IS.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS JUST GET THAT CONVERSATION OUT THERE SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, WE'RE WELL PAST THE TIME IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP WHERE IT WAS JUST GROWTH.

ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES, ALL 500, AND SOME OF THEM THAT ARE LEFT ARE WEIRD IN SOME WAY.

THERE'S NO EASY ONES LEFT.

LIKE 70 OF THEM ARE FROM EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS.

ALMOST 90 OF THEM ARE UNDER 6,000 SQUARE FEET.

AT BEST, YOU GET ONE HOUSE ON THAT IF WE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO ALLOW THAT IN NEW YORK.

IT'S JUST AN INTERESTING PIECE OF NUANCE THAT WE'RE ADDING TO THE PLAN THAT I WANTED TO PUT IT IN FRONT OF YOU SO YOU CAN THINK ABOUT AND HAVE THEM IN THE BACK OF YOUR HEAD AS YOU'RE HAVING COCKTAIL CONVERSATIONS [LAUGHTER] WITH PEOPLE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE TOWNSHIP AS WE GO FORWARD.

THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAVE TO SAY, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I WILL SAY THAT WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS A DRAFT AND WE HOPE TO GET YOU GUYS A DRAFT HERE IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. [NOISE]

>> DID YOU GET IT?

>> YOU PROBABLY ANSWERED A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS I HAD JUST ASKED YOU WERE SPEAKING BECAUSE I HEARD THEM, BUT I DIDN'T CATCH THEM.

HOW MANY VACANT PROPERTIES IN THE TOWNSHIP THEN? IS IT A 500?

>> HOLD ON A SEC, LET'S SEE IF HAVE.

RIGHT NOW, THIS ISN'T VACANT BECAUSE THERE'S THREE SHEETS TO THE SPREADSHEET AND THERE'S THAT.

[LAUGHTER] THERE ARE ABOUT 375 RESIDENTIALLY ZONE PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY VACANT.

THERE OF A REASONABLE SIZE.

THERE'S ANOTHER 87 THAT ARE TINY.

THAT POPULATION REALLY REPRESENTS YOUR CONSTRUCTABLE PARCELS.

THERE'S 620 THAT ARE VACANT, SLASH HAVE A CHURCH ON THEM BECAUSE SUCH CHURCHES ARE TAX EXEMPT, THEY SHOW UP AS VACANT IN THE DATABASE, [LAUGHTER] THERE ARE 620 PARCELS [BACKGROUND] ONLY REALISTIC TO EVER EXPECT DEVELOPMENT ON; OWNED BY A CHURCH, OWNED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, OWNED BY THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER, OWNED BY MDOT, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO IN TOTAL, THOSE THREE NUMBERS, 375, 87, AND 620 PLUS YOU CAN THROW ON THE 58 COMMERCIAL PARCELS THAT ARE VACANT.

THAT'S HOW MUCH VACANT LAND IS LEFT IN THE TOWNSHIP.

IT'S NOT A LOT, TO BE HONEST.

[NOISE].

>> THANK YOU, SCOTT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> DOES THAT EXCLUDE OUR LAND PRESERVATION PARCELS?

>> LAND PRESERVATION WOULD BE IN THE 620 PARCELS THAT ARE NOT DEVELOPABLE.

>> OKAY.

>> THAT WAS WHEN WE REALIZED WE HAD A BIT OF AN ISSUE WITH OUR DATA.

[LAUGHTER] WE PICKED UP ON THE LAND PRESS PARCELS AS HAVING A COUPLE OF HUNDRED UNITS [LAUGHTER].

WE STARTED SCRUBBING OUR DATA THEN.

>> SO IF YOU DON'T ENVISION THIS AS A MAP AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THE WISDOM OF NOT DOING IT THAT WAY, DO YOU ENVISION IT AS A DESCRIPTOR HERE, BUILT OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THE MASTER PLAN OR HOW DO YOU [OVERLAPPING].

>> PROBABLY A CHART, TOO.

>> OKAY.

>> I ENVISIONED A COUPLE OF CHARTS, SOMETHING ALONG A PIE CHART TO SHOW THIS IS TOTAL VACANCY, THIS IS WHAT ACTUALLY CAN BE DEVELOPED.

AND THEN PROBABLY SIZE, A BAR CHART SHOWING SIZE OF PARCEL.

BECAUSE IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE REALLY SURPRISED TO REALIZE THAT THE VAST MAJORITY

[00:55:02]

OF VACANT PARCELS ARE UNDER AN ACRE, IT'S NOT EVEN ENCLOSE.

>> ONE OTHER NARRATIVE PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT I THINK MIGHT BE HELPFUL IS WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SIZE, BUT LIKE, ARE THESE SMALL PARCELS CONTIGUOUS TO ONE ANOTHER, OR ARE THEY LIKE HERE, HERE, HERE SPREAD OUT AND WHERE THEY FIT WITH RELATION TO ONE ANOTHER WOULD BE A GOOD PIECE OF INFORMATION TO TALK ABOUT.

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. ABSOLUTELY.

>> ALSO BUILDING ON THAT, AND I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THEM ARE INSIDE OF, VERSUS OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARIES.

>> I HAVE THAT.

>> IT DIDN'T APPEAR IN THE MEMO.

>> SO THE ISSUE IS THAT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY CUT JOGS ODDLY.

I THINK IT'S IN SECTION 12, AND I'M STILL TRYING TO ACCOUNT FOR WHICH SIDE OF THE LINE SECTION.

I THINK IT'S SECTION 12, BUT I DIDN'T LARGELY HAVE THAT.

SO YES, WE'LL HAVE IT.

THAT'LL BE IN THE FINAL VERSION.

BUT EVEN THOSE PARCELS, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME AT LEAST ONE, BECAUSE YOU STILL CAN BUILD A HOUSE ON A PARCEL.

IT'S ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL, STILL PERMITTED.

IT WAS AN INTERESTING EXERCISE.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL TO US IN THE LONG RUN.

>> THIS PROMPTED SO MANY QUESTIONS FROM ME, [LAUGHTER] BUT I WON'T ASK YOU ALL OF THEM.

FIRST OFF, BASED ON POPULATION TRAJECTORIES FOR MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, DO YOU THINK THAT THIS WILL IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO HOUSE THAT? THOSE NEEDS. [BACKGROUND]

>> I THINK WHAT WE'LL ALWAYS SEE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP IS THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A DEMAND FOR MORE HOUSING BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF OUR SCHOOLS.

OPEN SCHOOLS ARE AMAZING, HOUSES AT SCHOOLS ARE RIGHT BEHIND.

UNLESS OR UNTIL YOU SEE A FUNDAMENTAL COLLAPSE IN EITHER A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR THE HOUSING MARKET JUST GOES HAYWIRE, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A DEMAND.

NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE'RE ALL GOING TO TALK ABOUT OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, DURING THIS MASTER PLAN CYCLE, IS HOW DO WE ALIGN THAT DEMAND WITH WHAT WE NEED AS A COMMUNITY.

AND THAT'S THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE MISSING MIDDLE, THE OTHER TYPES OF HOUSING THAT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, ALL WE GOT WAS A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 2000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSES ON A 90 FOOT WIDE.

WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE? WHAT CAN WE DO TO TRY AND TWEAK THAT NUMBER UP A LITTLE BIT INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, IN AREAS THAT ARE ALREADY DEVELOPED, IN AREAS THAT ALREADY HAVE SERVICES? I THINK THAT IS A QUESTION GOING FORWARD.

>> GREAT. OKAY.

I'M ABSTAINING. [LAUGHTER]

>> I CAN'T IMAGINE THE DATA SCIENTISTS DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT DATA. [LAUGHTER]

>> ONCE YOU'VE MENTIONED DATA QUALITY ISSUES, I WAS LIKE, OH MAN, I'M JUST GOING TO BE QUIET.

>> IT WAS FUN.

>> COMMENT REALLY. ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED TO SEE THE STAFF HAS GOTTEN TO THIS POINT.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE INFORMATION WE SHOULD HAVE.

I CAN IMAGINE AT SOME POINT, HAVING A LONGER DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.

MAYBE A MAIN AGENDA ITEM, OR MAYBE EVEN SOME WAY OF GETTING MORE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON THE TOPIC.

>> WITH A MAP.

>> I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN MAP.

[LAUGHTER]

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE.

>> NO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE'RE ON ITEM NUMBER 11A, TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.

[11A. Township Board update.]

>> I'LL BE BRIEF FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FIVE YEARS.

I DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT SIGNS FOR ANY EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

THE TOWNSHIP BOARD DID ADOPT THE SIGN ORDINANCE.

THEY THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR WORK ON IT.

YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THE FIRST APPLICATION UNDER IT AT YOUR NEXT MEETING BECAUSE THE STARBUCKS ON OKEMOS ROAD, CAN'T BELIEVE I BLANKED ON THAT, ALL OF A SUDDEN, IS RENOVATING THEIR DRIVE THROUGH SIGNAGE.

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE NEW ORDINANCE, THAT COMES TO THIS BOARD BODY FOR APPROVAL.

WE WILL SEE THE FRUITS OF OUR LABORS RIGHT AWAY.

THE KID STRAIGHT REZONING WAS ADOPTED AS WELL TO ALLOW THE OWNER TO ADD ONTO HER HOUSE REASON PROPERTY BACK TO RESIDENTIAL.

[01:00:01]

WE HAVE ACTUALLY HAD ANOTHER OWNER NOW REACH OUT TO US.

THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN WHEN THEY DREW THAT LINE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF HAZZLE, THEY GRABBED A COUPLE OF HOUSES ACCIDENTALLY BACK 1940, WHATEVER I [INAUDIBLE] LONG FAR BACK AS WE CAN TELL.

WE MAY END UP WITH A COUPLE OF LEASE NOW THAT WORD HAS GOTTEN OUT.

BUT WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES.

THE LAST THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS YOU ARE GOING TO SEE A SECTION 61 APPLICATION AND YOU MAY ASK YOURSELF, WHAT IS A SECTION 61 APPLICATION, I HAD TO ASK MYSELF THAT BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY HAD ONE IN MY CAREER.

THIS IS A REQUEST WHEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY BUILDING SOMETHING.

FIRE STATION BEING THE ONE THAT WAS MOST PROMINENT IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

BUT PREVIOUSLY, WE HAVE ALSO USED THIS PROCESS FOR THE LAND PRESERVATION ACQUISITIONS.

LAND PRESERVATION FUND HAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE ACQUIRE A PROPERTY ON CORNELL ROAD AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HAS REFERRED THAT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

STAFF IS PREPARING THAT WE WILL BRING IT FORWARD AT A FUTURE MEETING.

>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WE STOPPED TAKING LAND PRESERVATION PARCELS BUT THIS IS AN EXCEPTION TO THAT?

>> I'M SORRY, I'M NOT FOLLOWING YOUR QUESTION.

>> IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE NO LONGER ACCEPTING ANY MORE LAND PRESERVATION PROPERTIES, BUT THE BOARD MADE AN EXCEPTION WITH THIS ONE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF ITS SPECIAL NATURE?

>> I BELIEVE THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE ACQUIRING NOT ACCEPTING AS A DONATION.

>> THAT'S WHAT I MEAN, ACQUIRING, I'M SORRY.

>> I DON'T THINK THE BOARD IS SPECIFICALLY GOTTEN AWAY FROM ACQUISITION.

I THINK THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, IF I HAD A MUCH CLOSER EYE ANYTIME THE REQUEST COMES UP, THERE HAVE BEEN FAR FEWER REQUESTS OR OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM.

THIS IS THE FIRST ONE I'M AWARE OF IN FIVE YEARS, I BELIEVE.

IT'S NOT THAT IT CAN'T HAPPEN, IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN ANYMORE.

>> I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BOARD HAD SAID THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUY ANYMORE, BUT THEY MADE AN EXCEPTION THIS TIME.

CAN WE GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. [OVERLAPPING]

>> I'D HAVE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

>> I'D APPRECIATE THAT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LIAISON REPORTS.

[11B. Liaison reports]

THANK YOU FOR THAT MR. SCHMIDT.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> LIAISON REPORTS. DID ANYBODY ATTEND ANY MEETINGS? I ATTENDED THE DOWNTOWN.

>> IT'S A BIG ONE.

>> I ATTENDED THE DDA MEETING.

THERE WASN'T MUCH HAPPENING OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT APPARENTLY THEY ARE NOW TOTALLY FINANCIALLY SOLVENT.

THEY INVITED A LOCAL BANKER TO COME IN TO DISCUSS THE PROCESS THAT THE BANKERS GO THROUGH IN APPROVING NEW BUSINESSES IN A DEVELOPMENT AREA.

ASIDE FROM THAT, THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT I CAN REPORT.

>> I ATTENDED THE EDC MEETING AND AS I SPOKE BEFORE IN JUNE, THERE'S GOING TO BE A JUNETEENTH FESTIVAL FOR THREE DAYS.

THAT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS IN THE PAST.

THIS YEAR IT'S GOING TO INCLUDE A BLUES AND JAZZ EVENT AT LAKE LANSING PARK AND IN AUGUST, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PRIDE.

THAT STORE ALSO THAT'S BEING PUT ON BY THE TOWNSHIP THAT'S PARTNERING TO PUT THIS ON.

I WOULD RECOMMEND EVERYONE CHECK THE TOWNSHIP WEBSITE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE TWO EVENTS.

BUT THEY BOTH SOUND LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO BE VERY EXCITING AND THE TOWNSHIP WILL BE VERY PLEASED WITH WHAT I HEARD BEING PLANNED.

MATTER OF FACT, BRIAN FROM YOUR OFFICES SPEARHEADING THE PRIDE EVENT.

>> IS THAT GOING TO BE OUT HERE AT THE FARMERS MARKET OR ALL OF THE LAKE LANSING?

>> WHERE?

>> WHERE'S IT GOING TO BE LOOKING?

>> I'M SORRY.

>> WHERE'S THE FESTIVAL GOING TO BE LOCATED? PART OF IT WAS LAKE LANSING.

>> NO. THIS IS GOING TO BE RIGHT HERE IN THE TOWNSHIP.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> AT THE FARMERS MARKET FACILITIES.

>> YES.

>> EXCELLENT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS?

>> ALMOST. TIM HAS GOT A DRINK OF WATER.

COULD YOU JUST MENTION FOR THE FOLKS AT HOME THE MEETING TOMORROW EVENING IN THIS ROOM.

[01:05:02]

>> YES. [NOISE] JUST AS A REMINDER, TOMORROW NIGHT AT SIX O'CLOCK IS THE MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPERS OF THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS PROJECT TO GET UPDATE ON PROJECT.

IT WILL BE TELEVISED.

THE LAST I HEARD IT WILL BE TELEVISED.

IF YOU CAN MAKE IT GREAT, IF NOT, FLIP US ON TV AND I'M HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU OVER THE TV AS WELL.

>> I THINK THAT CAME UP RIGHT AT NUMBER 12 PROJECT UPDATES.

[12A. Project Report]

>> I WOULD SAY THE BIGGEST UPDATE THAT I HAVE TO GIVE YOU ON PROJECTS ASIDE FROM WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS SPREADSHEET IS GOT NOTICED THIS AFTERNOON ACTUALLY THAT THE HASLETT VILLAGE SQUARE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE STATE TAX COMMISSION.

THEIR ENTIRE CAPITAL STACK APPEARS TO BE IN PLACE NOW, AND WE ARE CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC THAT WE WILL SEE THAT PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION THIS YEAR.

EXPECTING SITE PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED ANYTIME.

GOOD TO HAVE THAT ONE GOING.

>> I'D LIKE TO STEP BACK FOR A SECOND TO LIAISON REPORTS.

SOMETHING THAT I ASKED AT THE MEETING JUST FOR MY OWN CLARIFICATION, BUT IT MIGHT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE HELPFUL TO THE OTHER BOARD.

I ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THE DDA IS ACTUALLY A JURISDICTIONAL CUTOUT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR WHETHER WE OVERSEE THEIR ACTIVITIES.

THE BEST ANSWER I GOT WAS YES.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS A SUPERIOR AUTHORITY OVER THE DDA AND WE HAVE TO APPROVE WHATEVER THEY COME UP WITH.

IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC PASS THROUGH.

>> CORRECT. ACTUALLY FUNNY YOU SHOULD SAY THAT, IT PROBABLY AS A SECTION 61 REVIEW.

IF THEY WERE DOING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.

WE ACT IN CONCERT WITH THEM.

>> I WAS WONDERING WHETHER THEY WERE VIRTUALLY INDEPENDENT FROM OUR AUTHORITY AND THE ANSWER I GOT WAS NO, THEY'RE NOT.

>> NOBODY IS INDEPENDENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S OPINION.

[LAUGHTER]

>> ANY OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS? VERY GOOD. PROJECT UPDATES, I THINK YOU FINISHED THAT.

PUBLIC REMARKS, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD? RECORD SHOULD REFLECT NO PUBLIC REMARKS SO WE ARE NOW AT THE ADJOURNMENT STAGE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT, SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE ALL SET.

>> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.