Oct 23, 2023 Planning Commission

[00:00:01]

THANK YOU. I'M NOW CALLING TO ORDER THE OCTOBER 23RD MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION.

FIRST ITEM. VICE CHAIR TREZISE HERE.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY HERE.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

HERE. COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS.

HERE. COMMISSIONER SCALES.

HERE. COMMISSIONER BROOKS.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

HERE. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS HERE.

AND CHAIR BLUMER IS PRESENT.

WE HAVE A FULL COMMITTEE.

NEXT ITEM IS PUBLIC REMARKS.

I SHOULD NOTE, I UNDERSTAND THAT SEVERAL OF YOU ARE HERE TODAY TO ADDRESS ONE PARTICULAR TOPIC.

IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THAT TOPIC, DO IT NOW, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT ISSUE AS THE MEETING PROGRESSES.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

HOW ABOUT IS IT ERIC FORSYTH? YES. MR. FORSYTH, GO AHEAD. ADDRESS IS 5082 PARK LAKE ROAD.

I'M THE OWNER OF THE 30 ACRES NORTH OF THIS PROPOSED REZONING.

I'M REALLY HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WHY I'M EVEN HERE.

[3. PUBLIC REMARKS]

I'M WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROPERTY.

OBVIOUSLY, THEY HAVE PUT A PACKET TO YOU ON THURSDAY, I BELIEVE.

I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO REVIEW THE PACKET.

IF MY NEIGHBOR HADN'T BEEN LISTENING TO ME AND SAID, LOOK, THIS IS A GAME THEY PLAY.

THEY GIVE YOU THE PACKET AND THEN YOU PUT IT FOR THE MEETING TONIGHT SO THAT THE PEOPLE THAT IT REALLY INVOLVES, WE'RE NOT REALLY PAYING ATTENTION BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TABLED UNTIL THE NEXT HEARING, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER HERE FOR THIS.

WE CAN HAVE THE ROAD COMMISSIONER HERE FOR THIS.

ALL THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE THAT YOU GUYS REALLY NEED TO HEAR TO MAKE A DECISION.

AND RIGHT NOW I'M SITTING HERE SAYING, I DIDN'T GET NOTIFIED.

I GOT NOTIFIED OF THE LAST WEEK HEARING A MONTH PRIOR.

I DIDN'T GET NOTIFIED OF THIS ONE BECAUSE OF THE NEW PACKET.

IT'S ALL NEW INFORMATION, SO I SHOULD BE RE NOTIFIED SO I KNOW WHAT I'M LOOKING AT AND HOW TO COME IN HERE AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

THIS WHOLE ISSUE SHOULD NOT EVEN BE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT.

IT SHOULD BE TABLED UNTIL THE PEOPLE THAT IT INVOLVES THE MOST LOOK AT THE PEOPLE THAT AREN'T HERE BECAUSE NOBODY WAS NOTIFIED. SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE I CALL IT A MIDNIGHT MEETING.

AND THIS IS WHY PEOPLE REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT GOES ON.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT.

THIS SHOULD BE TABLED BECAUSE I HAVE A MILLION QUESTIONS AND THREE MINUTES WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO GIVE THE QUESTIONS.

YOU HAD T HE DRAIN COMMISSIONER HERE LAST WEEK, ALL THIS WATER THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING ON TO MY PROPERTY I DON'T WANT.

NOBODY'S TALKED ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT ME.

I'VE GOT 20 ACRES OF FLOODPLAIN.

I HAVE ACTUALLY MORE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP THAN THEM.

AND SO IF WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THIS WHEN EVERYBODY'S HERE THAT'S BEEN NOTIFIED OF IT, THEN THEY HAVE THE UPPER HAND. BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO SELL YOU WHAT THEY WANT TO SELL YOU, AND NOBODY ELSE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO COUNTER THEIR SALES.

THREE MINUTES ISN'T ENOUGH.

I THINK THIS SHOULD BE TABLED FOR TONIGHT.

UNTIL THE NEXT TIME YOU GUYS MEET.

THEN WE'LL HAVE EVERYBODY HERE THAT NEEDS TO BE HERE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR.

MR. GILLESPIE.

ED GILLESPIE, 2692 ROCKWOOD IN EAST LANSING, MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

I HAD A CHANCE TO READ YOUR PACKET TODAY.

I DID I DID DOWNLOAD IT FROM THE INTERNET.

I'VE GOT SOME COMMENTS ABOUT SOME RECURRING ISSUES THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT AS, FIRST OF ALL, THIS THIS ISSUE REGARDING CONDITIONAL REZONING.

I DON'T THINK IT COMPLIES WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

IN A MEMO FROM THE FROM THE PLANNING PLANNING DEPARTMENT HERE, IT SAID THE PROPOSED DENSITY IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE MASTER PLAN THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET RIGHT NOW, AND THAT'S PART OF THE LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION.

THEN THEY CONFIRM THEN THEY ACTUALLY PRESENTED LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION, AN ACTUAL WORDING TEMPLATE FOR APPROVING THIS TONIGHT.

[00:05:03]

SLIGHTLY HIGHER AND REASONABLE DENSITY ARE NOT GOOD ADVERBS AND ADJECTIVES TO DESCRIBE SOMETHING THAT FITS WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN, IT TALKS ABOUT SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FIT THE MASTER PLAN, AND THEN IN THE DENIAL WORDING THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, WHEREAS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FUTURE USE MAP AND MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. PER THE 2017 MASTER PLAN, WHICH CALLS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES OF THE SITE UP TO 3.5 DWELLINGS PER ACRE, IT'S SAYING THAT RIGHT THERE THAT IT CONFORMS, BUT IN THE PREVIOUS ONE IT'S SLIGHTLY AND IT'S AND IT'S REASONABLE.

I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE TO READ.

I THINK THAT REDWOODS REQUEST IS FOR EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN 3.5 DWELLINGS PER ACRE.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC STILL, I SEE THAT COLLINS HAD A REPORT IN YOUR PACKAGE.

THEY ACTUALLY REWORKED THE REPORT THAT THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED YOU.

THEY SAID THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION USING THE LOOKING GLASS PROPOSAL TO LOOK DOWN AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE TRAFFIC'S GOING TO BE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE MDOTS 2019 PRESENTATION AND NUMBERS FOR THE PARK LAKE SPEEDWAY ARE OUTDATED, AND THEY WERE PRE COSTCO.

THINGS HAVE CHANGED.

SEVERAL OF YOU AT THE LAST MEETING CONCERNED YOU HAD CONCERNS ABOUT EXISTING QUALITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S PART OF THE MASTER PLAN.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS, BUT I THINK THAT TRAFFIC AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENCY IS NOT CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE PLAN, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS CLEARLY DEFINED IN COMMON SENSE.

AND I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

OTHER THAN I HEAR THAT REDWOOD ISN'T REALLY INTERESTED IN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, AND I SEE THE TOWNSHIP HAS A COUPLE LITTLE CAVEATS IN THERE.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAYING OR PLANNING, EXCUSE ME, DEPARTMENT SAYING, YOU KNOW, THERE PROBABLY THIS ISN'T THIS IS ONLY ABOUT THIS PROPERTY.

IT IS ONLY ABOUT THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THIS IS THIS IS GOING TO COME BACK AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE THIS AGAIN.

SO THE DECISION THAT'S MADE HERE IS GOING TO AFFECT WHERE WE GO.

AND I HAVE NO COMMENT REGARDING THE RENTERS RENTERS.

BUT THEY SAY THEY DON'T THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO CONTROL THAT.

I'M HERE TONIGHT TO ASK YOU TO DENY THIS AND USE YOUR FORM THAT THEY PROVIDE YOU TO DO THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR.

MR. LEONE.

VINCE LEONE 5090 PARK LAKE ROAD.

I DON'T THINK THE NEW MATERIAL THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH THREE DAYS AGO REALLY IMPROVES THIS PROPOSAL, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY ALL BASED ON FALSE COMPARISONS.

WHAT THEY START OUT BY SAYING IS, IF YOU THINK THIS DEVELOPMENT IS BAD, IT WOULD BE EVEN WORSE IF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED AND IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED.

BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS IT CAN NEVER BE DEVELOPED AS CURRENTLY ZONED.

THAT'S WHY THERE'S TOO MANY WETLANDS AND DRAINAGE PROBLEMS AND OTHER TOPOGRAPHY PROBLEMS THAT PREVENT THAT.

THAT'S WHY WE'VE SEEN 4 OR 5 PROPOSALS THAT I KNOW OF OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, ONE THAT THEY, THE REPRESENTATIVE EVEN MENTIONED, THAT HAVE TO BE WITHDRAWN BECAUSE THE LAND CAN'T HANDLE THAT INTENSITY.

WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IS NOT LOOKING AT WHAT'S THE WORST CASE SCENARIO THAT'LL NEVER OCCUR.

BUT WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES TO THE WOODCLIFF COMMUNITY.

BUT AGAIN, THEY WANT TO COMPARE IT TO I GOT TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN, THE SAPPHIRE CONDOS, WHICH ARE CONDOS IN A WHOLE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD NOT EVEN CONNECTED TO WOODCLIFF, SEPARATED BY ACRES OF WETLANDS AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WOODCLIFF BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO COMPARE IT TO THE HOUSES ON PARK LAKE ROAD.

BECAUSE THE HOUSES ON PARK LAKE ROAD ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OWNED BY INDIVIDUAL, YOU KNOW, HOME OWNERSHIP WITH TWO HOMES, TWO UNITS PER ACRE, WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT EIGHT UNITS APARTMENTS PER ACRE OF RENTERS THAT WILL CHANGE EVERY YEAR.

FINALLY, THE WITH REGARD TO THE TRAFFIC STUDIES, THEY SAY, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING CURRENT FOR THE AREA AND WHAT WE HAVE IS FOR OTHER CITIES OR COMMUNITIES.

AND THEN THEY SAY WE DON'T HAVE TO DO A TRAFFIC PLAN FOR PARK LAKE ROAD, BECAUSE OF COURSE, IF THEY DID, THEY'D KNOW IT WOULDN'T HELP THEIR PROPOSAL AT ALL IF THEY REALLY CARED ABOUT THE 700 TRAVELERS PER DAY THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING OUT ONTO PARK LAKE ROAD AT ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS IN THE TOWNSHIP, THEY WOULD ADD A CONDITION TO THEIR PROPOSAL THAT THEY WOULD REBUILD THAT INTERSECTION TO MAKE IT SAFER FOR EVERYONE, INSTEAD OF STICKING

[00:10:09]

BECAUSE I KNOW FROM MY REPRESENTATION OF MDOT IN THE PAST, YOU NEVER HAVE A LIGHT AT THE BOTTOM OF A HILL ON A 45 MILE AN HOUR ROAD, BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE LOOK UP AT THAT ROAD, THEY CAN'T JUDGE FROM THE SIGHT DISTANCE HOW FAST THAT VEHICLE IS COMING TOWARDS THEM.

SO THERE'S LOTS OF ACCIDENTS AT THAT INTERSECTION AND THERE'S A LOT MORE NEAR MISSES.

SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO DENY THIS PROPOSAL.

I ALSO HAVE TO PROVIDE TO YOU A OVERLAY OF THE WETLAND MAP OF THE TOWNSHIP, WITH THEIR PROPOSAL TO HAND OUT TO YOU.

THANK YOU, [INAUDIBLE]. OKAY.

SEAN O'BRIEN.

HI. SEAN O'BRIEN AT I LIVE AT 16948 PINE HOLLOW DRIVE IN EAST LANSING.

I REPRESENT THE MCCOOL BROTHERS, THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

THEY'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR THE LAST 20 ODD YEARS.

THEY PURCHASED IT IN TWO DIFFERENT PARCELS.

THERE'S OVER 36 ACRES OF LAND WITH THE TWO PARCELS.

AND THEY'RE APARTMENT OWNERS.

THEY HAD PURCHASED THIS TO DEVELOP FOR THEIR OWN USE.

THEY'VE, HOWEVER, REACHED CLOSE TO RETIREMENT AGE, AND THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT GOING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S WHY THEY'VE SEEKED MY ASSISTANCE TO HELP THEM FIND A DEVELOPER THAT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THIS TYPE OF SITE.

WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE COME TO THE TABLE WITH IDEAS ABOUT THIS SITE.

REDWOOD I'VE HAD A RELATIONSHIP FOR A LONG TIME.

THEY'VE DONE VERY NICE PROJECTS IN SEVERAL COMMUNITIES IN DEWITT TOWNSHIP AND THROUGHOUT THE WEST, AND DELPHI AND DELTA, AND HAVE WANTED A SITE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

AND THIS SITE WITH THE ZONING ALREADY FOR RA AND RDD OR RD, EXCUSE ME, ALLOWS UP TO 37 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND 105 MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS.

THIS PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU OR WE DO NOT HAVE AN FULL SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE LESS THAN 110 UNITS COMPLETE FOR THE 30 FOR THE REALLY THE 34 ACRES OF WHICH THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE PLANNING ON DEVELOPING AT ALL.

SO I BELIEVE THIS MEETS WITH THE WHAT THE INTENTIONS WERE FOR THIS PROPERTY WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED.

THE FUTURE LAND USE, OR THE RECENT LAND USE UPDATE EVEN IS IN MORE CONSISTENCY WITH THIS SINGLE FAMILY OR REALLY SINGLE STORY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE LESS THAN THREE UNITS AN ACRE WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE.

SO THE OWNERS, MCCOOL BROTHERS, ARE SEEKING YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THIS REZONING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR.

ALL RIGHT. THE LAST ONE WE HAVE NOTICE FROM IS MS. CURTIS.

YES, PLEASE.

I'M BARBARA CURTIS I LIVE AT 5248 PARK LAKE ROAD, I'M NOT FAR FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND I DID SPEAK LAST MONTH AND I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO MULL OVER IT IT AND I STILL IMPLORE YOU NOT TO APPROVE THIS.

WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE, I HAVE HALF AN ACRE.

I LOVED ALL THE WOODED AREA, THE LACK OF TRAFFIC WHICH, AS I SPOKE OF LAST YEAR, LAST MONTH RATHER HAS SUBSTANTIALLY BECOME SO HIGH INTENSITY SINCE THE COSTCO WENT IN.

WE DO NOT NEED A SINGLE OTHER CAR ADDED TO PARK LAKE.

PEOPLE SAY, WELL, LET'S FIX THE TRAFFIC AND PARK LAKE.

WELL, THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO TO FIX IT IS SHUT DOWN THE COSTCO AND NOT ADD ANY MORE CARS.

WE LOVE THE GREEN SPACE WE DON'T WANT TO BUILD, OR I DO BELIEVE THE MASTER PLAN INDICATES WE DON'T BUILD ON EVERY SQUARE INCH.

AND SO I AM HOPING THAT YOU WILL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND NOT APPROVE THIS PLAN.

[00:15:09]

ALL IN FAVOR? I MOVE TO APPROVE.

SECOND. I'M SORRY.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? SURE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA SAY AYE.

THERE ARE NO OPPOSITION.

SO THE AGENDA IS APPROVED.

THE NEXT IS. WE HAVE TWO SETS OF MINUTES FOR APPROVAL.

LET'S TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.

WE HAVE THE SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2023 MINUTES.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 11TH.

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL? I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY.

I THINK AT THE END OF THOSE MINUTES WHERE IT SAYS MOTION TO APPROVE, AND I MIGHT HAVE THE TWO CONFUSED, BUT I COULDN'T HOLD ALL OF THIS STUFF OFF THE COMPUTER.

BUT I THINK IT'S GOT THE WRONG DATE OF THE OF THE MEETING.

THIS BEING ADJOURNED.

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]

THANK YOU. PARDON? YOU WERE. THAT WAS A GOOD CATCH.

OKAY. SO MY MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, AS AMENDED. I SUPPORT THAT THE SEPTEMBER 11TH MINUTES AS AMENDED.

I THINK UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CAN PROBABLY SHORT CIRCUIT THE PROCESS.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING SEPTEMBER 11TH MINUTES, AS AMENDED SAY AYE, AGAIN, THERE IS NO DISSENT.

NOW, THE SEPTEMBER 25 AMENDMENT MINUTES, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 25 MINUTES? I BELIEVE IN THOSE MINUTES THERE'S SOMETHING STATING THE SAME NAME TWICE.

I WALKED OFF AND LEFT MY NOTES.

IT SAYS CHAIR BLUMER AND IT ALSO SAYS VICE CHAIR BLUMER IN A MOTION.

I CAN FIND THAT FOR YOU.

YOU CAN CORRECT IT LATER.

BUT I DID SEE THAT WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THE MINUTES AND I MADE A NOTE OF IT.

I APOLOGIZE RIGHT OFF OF MY NOTES ON MY DESK.

IF YOU WANT TO GET BACK.

SHOOT ME AN EMAIL. I CAN MAKE THE CORRECTION IF YOU MAKE THE MOTION.

I CAN. I CAN DO THAT.

SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEN THE MOTION IS SUBJECT TO CORRECTION THAT YOU'VE NOTED.

YOU MOVE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] SUBJECT TO YOUR NOTATION OF NEEDING CORRECTION.

YOU MOVE, YOU MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES I DO.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? I'LL SECOND IT ALL.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? QUESTION. WE HAD TALKED BEFORE ABOUT THE STRAW VOTES NOT BEING PERSON BY PERSON LISTED IN THE MINUTES, AND THEY STILL SEEM TO BE IN THIS ONE, IS THAT I CAN REWORD IT, BUT THERE WERE TWO POLLS AND IT WAS KIND OF SPLIT. IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO REWORD THAT AND TAKE NAMES OUT OF IT, I CAN DO THAT.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A CUSTOMARY WAY TO DO THIS, AND I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR IT HERE AND NOW, BUT IT'S WE WERE IN A GOOD PLACE WITH THE PREVIOUS PERSON WHO WAS DOING THE MINUTES, AND NOW STAFF IS TAKING THEM BACK OVER.

SO WE'RE STRUGGLING AMONGST OURSELVES TO TRY AND ACCOMMODATE EVERYTHING.

SO WE WILL WE'LL TRY AND WORK BACK TOWARDS THAT.

WE APOLOGIZE.

I MEAN, IT'S PUBLIC RECORD, SO I GUESS IT'S NOT.

I JUST WOULDN'T WANT SOMEBODY READING THE MINUTES TO THINK THAT THAT WAS AN OFFICIAL ACTION OF THE COMMISSION.

AND I THINK IT'S EASIER WHEN IT'S THE COMMISSION INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO OR THE MAJORITY OF AS OPPOSED TO PERSON BY PERSON.

UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU.

SO SIMPLY STATING THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A CONSENSUS, A CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO GO FORWARD ON THIS BASIS.

THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE.

OKAY, I'LL REWORD THAT.

THANK YOU. SURE.

OKAY, THEN I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

[00:20:03]

AGAIN NO DISSENT.

ITEM NUMBER SIX. COMMUNICATIONS SHOULD REFLECT THAT.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS WHO WROTE IN AHEAD OF THIS MEETING.

THEY HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN OUR MEETING PACKAGE AND WE HAVE READ THEM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEM 2023 -6. GOOD EVENING.

I TOLD YOU THIS WAS GOING TO COME.

THIS IS THE ON A TEXT AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, SECTION 86-436 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL APPLICATIONS FOR SMALL PROJECTS IN FLOODPLAINS, MOSTLY DECKS, BUILDING ADDITIONS, THAT SORT OF THING.

SO IN ORDER TO KEEP THOSE SMALL SUPS OUT OF, YOU KNOW, FROM GOING INTO THE WHOLE

[6. COMMUNICATIONS]

ONE OF THOSE IS TO MOVE DECKS FROM BEING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN FLOODPLAINS TO MAKING THEM ALLOWED USES IN FLOODPLAINS,

[7A. ZA #2023-06 – CV: Conservancy District]

AND COMING BEFORE YOU FOR A FOR A SMALL AMOUNT OF CUT AND FILL.

THIS IS AS I DESCRIBED AND THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE PAPER, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? NOTHING I WOULD SAY IS WE DID GET A COUPLE OF LETTERS TODAY THAT TALKED ABOUT CHANGING THE NOT THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, BUT THE THEY CALL IT THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THIS, THAT YOU MAY WANT TO REVIEW, THAT YOU HANDED THEM OUT TONIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW, IT HAD TO DO WITH THE THE MASTER PLAN.

OH CORRECT.

CORRECT. THAT'S THAT'S YEAH, I REMEMBER THAT EMAIL.

I WASN'T IN RESPONSE TO THIS.

IT WAS A MASTER PLAN COMMENT.

RIGHT OKAY. BUT YES, THIS DOESN'T THIS DOESN'T REMOVE ANY PROTECTIONS.

SOMEONE DOING A DOING A DECK IN A FLOODPLAIN STILL GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE STATE AND GET THEIR EAGLE PERMIT.

STILL GOING TO BE REVIEWED BY OUR FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR.

UM, IT IT JUST IT IT MAKES FOR BETTER CUSTOMER RELATIONS.

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TELL SOMEBODY YOU'RE MOVING FIVE CUBIC YARDS OF DIRT TO BUILD YOUR ADDITION, HERE'S THE WHOLE PROCESS YOU GO THROUGH.

SOMETIMES THEY GET DISCOURAGED AND GO HOME.

AND FOR THAT SMALL AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE, IT'S RELATIVELY EASY TO REVIEW.

WE DID THIS. WE WROTE THIS AMENDMENT IN CONSULTATION WITH BOTH OUR CHIEF ENGINEER AND ONE OF HIS STAFF PEOPLE HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS WITH THEM.

THEY ARE SATISFIED WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF THEM OR IN FRONT OF YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YOU NEED SOME CONSENSUS OPINION FROM US AS TO MOVING FORWARD ON THIS, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DO SO FOLLOWING THIS PUBLIC MEETING FOR NEXT ACTION NEXT TIME.

OTHERS MAY DISAGREE.

YES, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

YES. THAT'S TRUE.

YES. ALL RIGHT.

NOW WE NEED PUBLIC COMMENT.

IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT HAS SOME.

IS IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE? SURE. I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FLOODPLAINS AGAIN.

HERE WE ARE.

SIR, CAN YOU PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE SO WE CAN DO THE MINUTES.

HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FLOODPLAINS AGAIN.

AND OF COURSE, I'VE GOT ONE OF THE LARGEST ONES IN THE TOWNSHIP.

SO NOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE RULES, THAT MEANS THAT I CAN FEEL A LITTLE BIT IN EVERY YEAR.

OKAY. AND EVENTUALLY IT WON'T BE A FLOODPLAIN ANYMORE.

SO THE RULES ARE THERE TO PROTECT OUR WATERSHED.

THE RULES ARE THERE TO PROTECT OUR RE-ENERGIZING OF OUR DRINKING WATER AND OUR WATER USAGE.

SO WHY ARE WE WHY ARE WE PLAYING THIS? WELL, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT EASIER.

LOOK, THE RULES ARE IN PLAY.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE THERE FOR. THEY'RE THERE TO PROTECT US.

AND EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

YOU GUYS SEE ALL THE RAIN.

IT RAINS EVERY DAY.

IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY PLACE FOR THE WATER TO GO.

[00:25:04]

AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AND WHEN THE WATER'S GOT NO PLACE TO GO AND IT FLOODS EVERYWHERE BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO PUT CONCRETE ALL OVER EVERYTHING.

HERE WE ARE AGAIN TALKING ABOUT FLOODPLAINS AND WATER [INAUDIBLE].

WE HAVE TO STOP PLAYING WITH OUR WATERSHEDS.

THE MORE WE PLAY WITH THEM, THE MORE TROUBLE WE'RE BRINGING ONTO OURSELVES DOWN THE ROAD.

WATCH THE NEWS.

YOU SEE IT EVERY DAY.

THE RAIN, THE RAIN, THE FOUR INCHES OF RAIN, THE FIVE INCHES OF RAIN.

AND THERE'S NO PLACE FOR IT TO GO.

AND HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PLAYING WITH OUR FLOODPLAINS.

I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD DO IT.

I THINK YOU SHOULD LEAVE THE [INAUDIBLE] LINES WHERE THEY ARE.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SIR. RIGHT.

[INAUDIBLE] RECORD SHOULD REFLECT.

I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS FOR PEOPLE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE.

SO WHERE DO WE GO WITH THIS? I GUESS WE CAN PULL THE BOARD AT THIS POINT.

WE DO GET OBJECTIONS.

YEAH. WHY DON'T WE TAKE A STRAW POLL SO THAT THE STAFF KNOWS THE DIRECTION THE BOARD IS LEANING ON THIS ISSUE? DO WE NEED A CONSENSUS VOTE OR DO WE NEED AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE? I THINK I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF PEOPLE HAVE FEELINGS AGAINST THIS OR FOR IT, THAT THEY EXPRESS THOSE.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE? THERE IS NONE. I GUESS THEN I WOULD ASK IF IT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD THAT THIS SHOULD COME BACK TO US WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL.

ALL RIGHT. DOES THE I THINK THE CHAIR SEES THAT IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF, AND I WOULD MY POSITION IS I WOULD SUPPORT WHAT YOU'VE RECOMMENDED HERE.

OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO EXPRESS POSITION ON THIS? I THINK IT IS A MINIMAL APPROACH THAT IS DESIGNED TO EASE BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE ADMINISTRATION, AND I DON'T SEE ANY HARM CAUSED BY THIS AMENDMENT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I JUST REMEMBER DISCUSSING THIS AT OUR LAST MEETING AND IT WAS THE SAME.

WE KIND OF SHARED SIMILAR SENTIMENTS, THAT WE'RE JUST MOVING IT OFF OF THE PLATES OF STAFF, AND IT'S ONE LESS THING THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH.

IT'S OVERSEEN BY PROFESSIONALS WHO UNDERSTAND.

WELL, I DON'T THINK THIS REMOVES ANYTHING FROM THE STAFF'S RESPONSIBILITY.

IT JUST REMOVES IT FROM COMING TO THE BOARD FORMAL.

IT'S THAT PROCESS THAT'S REMOVED.

THIS WILL BE THE SAME.

IT STILL NEEDS THE SAME APPROVALS, RIGHT? BUT IT DOESN'T NEED TO COME HERE FOR A, IT CAN BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.

UP TO TEN CUBIC YARDS.

ALL RIGHT. [INAUDIBLE] OR I'LL COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION OR WITH A RESOLUTION AT YOUR NEXT MEETING. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

NOW WE ARE ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

AND THAT IS THE REZONING REQUEST FOR ITEM NUMBER 23030 PARK LAKE ROAD.

THE OTHER HAND.

OH. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.

SO BRIEFLY, JUST TO REITERATE WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES, THIS WAS A REQUEST TO THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD AT THE LAST MEETING.

AND AS STAFF POINTED OUT AT THE MEETING MULTIPLE TIMES, IT WOULD BE BACK FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW ONE MONTH LATER.

THAT'S WE KNEW AT THE TIME THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION TURNED AROUND IN TIME FOR THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS WHY IT'S BACK AT THIS MEETING THIS EVENING. THE REQUEST IS FOR REZONING OF 8.72 ACRES, WHICH IS ONE PARCEL OF LAND AT 5010 PARK LAKE AND A PORTION OF THE

[8A. REZ #23030 – Park Lake Road]

INITIALLY, THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSING SIX CONDITIONS WHICH ARE LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

NOTABLY, THAT WOULD BE LIMITED TO 16FT OR ONE STORY IN HEIGHT, MINIMUM 1,200 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE PER UNIT, PRIVATE ROADS AND BUILDING LENGTH OF 196FT², ALSO ALL ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE STYLE UNITS.

AFTER HEARING THE FEEDBACK THE LAST MEETING, THEY'VE ADDED THREE CONDITIONS TO TRY AND ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED.

ONE, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT EXCEED 106 DWELLING UNITS, SO WE HAVE A HARD CAP NOW AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, NO DEVELOPMENT WILL BE PLACED OUTSIDE OF THE AREA DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT B OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.

[00:30:01]

IT'S THEY'RE PROPOSING NOT TO DEVELOP ON THAT.

AND NO CLUBHOUSES, POOLS, TENNIS COURTS, BASKETBALL COURTS, GYMNASIUMS, ETCETERA ARE ALLOWED IN THE DEVELOPMENT.

JUST TO REITERATE, THIS IS A CONDITIONAL REZONING.

THE APPLICANT CAN VOLUNTARILY OFFER CONDITIONS.

WE CANNOT WE CANNOT CONDITION OUR APPROVAL ON ANYTHING.

WE CANNOT ASK FOR ADDITIONAL THINGS.

THIS IS THEY CAN OFFER.

THIS IS THE WAY THE STATE SET IT UP.

AND THESE CONDITIONS RUN WITH THE LAND.

THEY WILL RUN WITH THE ENTIRETY OF THE LAND.

SO THE AREA THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING NOT TO DEVELOP ON THIS WILL BE A CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD THIS GO FORWARD.

FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, JUST TO POINT OUT.

OUR MEMO CLEARLY STATES THAT THE DENSITY BEING PROPOSED IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION OVER THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY.

IF YOU LOOK AT JUST THE AREA THEY'RE DEVELOPING, IT IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE MASTER PLAN DESIGNATES ON THE PROPERTY.

SO THIS IS SORT OF THE CHICKEN AND EGG OF THEM SETTING ASIDE LAND OF NOT DEVELOPING.

BUT IF YOU TAKE THAT OUT OF THE CALCULATIONS, IT DOES IT DOES HURT THEM.

SO THIS IS WHY WE HAVE POINT OUT THAT THIS IS A BORDERLINE CASE.

THIS IS A PROJECT THAT IS SORT OF RIGHT ON THE CUSP OF SORT OF YOUR THE DENSITY THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT IN THE THIS SORT OF MASTER PLAN ZONE, BUT THE ZONING DESIGNATION IS HIGHER THAN YOU WOULD EXPECT.

AND SO TO OFFSET THAT, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO LIMIT WHAT THEY CAN DO ON THE SITE.

THERE'S A THEY'RE PROPOSING A BIT OF A BALANCING ACT HERE.

STAFF IS AT THIS TIME RECOMMENDING APPROVAL GIVEN THE LIMITATIONS ON THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, SPECIFICALLY THE BUILDING AND DENSITY HEIGHT CAP.

IT'S A REASONABLE PROPOSAL FOR THE SITE, IN OUR OPINION, BUT WE DO RECOGNIZE THE BORDERLINE NATURE OF THIS REQUEST AND THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED.

AND SO WE HAVE PROVIDED YOU BOTH WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND A RECOMMENDATION TO DENY AND THE SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS HEARING.

BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THIS TIME.

I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING TO SPEAK AS WELL.

I WOULD LIKE TO PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

A MOTION TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE? I THINK THE RULES. THERE HAS TO BE A MOTION ON PROPOSED ACTION IN ORDER TO ALLOW DISCUSSION.

SO IF MR. SKATES WANTS TO SCALES.

I'M SORRY. HE WANTS TO PROVIDE A MOTION.

THEN YOU CAN DECIDE IF THERE'S A SECOND AND THEN DISCUSS IT.

OKAY. WHEREAS REDWOOD LIVING HAS REQUESTED THE REZONING OF AN APPROXIMATELY 8.72 ACRES OF LAND ON TWO PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5010 PARK LAKE ROAD AND THE VACANT PROPERTY TO THE REAR FROM RA SINGLE FAMILY, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO RD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

AND WHEREAS THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED A SERIES OF NINE CONDITIONS ON THE SITE, LIMITING DEVELOPMENT TO A MAXIMUM OF 106 DWELLING UNITS OVER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND PRECLUDING DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH EASTERN 14 ACRES OF LAND.

AND WHEREAS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSED THE REZONING AT ITS REGULAR MEETING IN SEPTEMBER ON SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2023.

AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THE 2017 MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN, WHICH CALLS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES OF THE SITE UP TO 3.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

AND WHEREAS THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE SITE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE.

AND WHEREAS THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED WHY THE REQUESTED REZONING TO MULTIFAMILY IS APPROPRIATE, OR WHY THE CURRENT RA ZONING IS UNREASONABLE.

AND WHEREAS THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES COULD BE DEVELOPED AS CURRENTLY ZONED.

[00:35:05]

AND I SO MOVE.

SECOND. THERE WAS A SECOND DISCUSSION.

I JUST HAVE A QUESTION SO THE MOTION WAS PUT FORWARD THAT WE DENY.

CORRECT. SO NOW WE ARE DISCUSSING THE DENIAL RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.

RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.

AND SO IF THIS MOTION FAILS THEN SOMEONE CAN PUT FORWARD A MOTION FOR A APPROVAL.

CORRECT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. JUST TO CLARIFY ROBERT'S RULES.

YEAH. ME TOO.

WELL, CAN I SPEAK TO MY MOTION.

I LOOK AT THE SITUATION AS IT IS OUR JOB TO MAKE A SIMPLE RECOMMENDATION BASED UPON THE FACTS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO US AND OUR RECOMMENDATION THEN MOVES ON TO THE BOARD.

WE'RE NOT DECIDING IF THE PROJECT SHOULD SHOULD ACTUALLY OCCUR OR NOT.

WE'RE SAYING BASED ON WHAT WE SEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR MASTER PLAN, WE RECOMMEND ACCORDINGLY.

I CAN'T BUY INTO THIS, THIS IS HALF PREGNANT.

EITHER IT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN OR IS IT NOT.

AND I SEE IT AS NOT BEING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

AND SO I WOULD RECOMMEND TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD NOT TO APPROVE THIS, AND IT WILL BE UP TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD TO DECIDE WHICH WAY TO GO, NOT THIS BODY.

HENCE MY MOTION.

THANK YOU. FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE HAD MORE COMMENTS FROM CONCERNED CITIZENS ON THIS ISSUE THAN ANY OTHER ISSUE SINCE I'VE BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THIS BOARD.

IT IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING OF DEEP CONCERN TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

THE PRIMARY CONCERN APPEARS TO BE THERE ARE OTHERS, BUT THE PRIMARY CONCERN APPEARS TO BE ADDING TO AN ALREADY EXTREMELY HEAVY LOAD OF TRAFFIC ON A RELATIVELY MINOR ROAD.

I DON'T SEE ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN THE SITUATION BASED ON THE AMENDMENTS PROVIDED BY THE PETITIONER.

THEY'VE REDUCED THE POPULATION A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT'S STILL GOING TO ALL DUMP ONTO PARK LAKE ROAD, COMING AND GOING ALL DAY LONG.

SO OF THE MAJOR ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE CONCERNED CITIZENS, THAT ONE DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BY THIS AMENDMENT OR BY THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SCALES THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, YOU STILL HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THIS IS THIS CONTRADICTS THE MASTER PLAN.

WHY HAVE ONE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE CONTRADICTING IT AT THE FIRST CHANCE? AND I ALSO HAVE A ONE OF THE ONE OF THE COMMENTS MADE TODAY WAS THAT THERE WAS A RATHER IMPORTANT SET OF AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE PETITIONER, AND THE PUBLIC DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL THEY WALKED INTO THE ROOM TODAY.

AND UNLESS THEY HAPPENED TO CHECK OUT THE PACKET BEFORE, THEY BEFORE THEY GOT HERE.

BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE WHO WISH TO COMMENT ON THE NEW FEATURES PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER THAT WE MIGHT ASK THEM TO PRESENT IN WRITING TO THE STAFF? BUT THAT'S JUST ISSUES THAT I SEE PRESENT WITH THIS CURRENT ISSUE.

YES. I JUST I'M CURIOUS.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS PLAN, WHY PEOPLE THINK THIS CONTRADICTS THE MASTER PLAN.

THAT'S I'M CONFUSED BY THAT STATEMENT.

COMMISSIONER SCALES. I WOULD ASK DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

HE CAN EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT CONTRADICTS THE MASTER PLAN AS OUTLINED IN MY MEMO.

I BELIEVE THAT IT MEETS CERTAIN PROVISIONS, WHEREAS IT DOESN'T MEET OTHER PROVISIONS.

[00:40:02]

I DO BELIEVE IT'S HALF PREGNANT WITH RESPECT TO THE CURRENT PLAN.

AND SO IT IS A BIT OF A JUDGMENT CALL ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PART AS TO WEIGHING THOSE PROS AND CONS, GIVEN THAT IT'S A CONDITIONAL REZONING.

IF THIS WAS A STRAIGHT REZONING REQUEST, THIS WOULD BE A VERY EASY DISCUSSION.

SO DIRECTOR SCHMITT, THIS IS MOSTLY IT'S NOT A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A LOT OF GRAY AND A LOT OF THE PROS AND CONS.

THERE'S A GRAY. IT'S NOT A STRAIGHT DECISION HERE.

WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE TO SAY? I WOULD SAY IT'S FAIR IN THIS CASE TYPICALLY IT'S NOT THE CASE WITH THE REZONING.

BUT ONCE YOU GET INTO THESE CONDITIONAL REZONING'S IT STARTS TO TURN GRAY.

YEAH. I KIND OF WANT TO LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR ME.

BUT BUT BECAUSE OF THAT THEN IT TENDS TO SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT STRADDLES THE FENCE OF THE MASTER PLAN IN A SENSE, DOESN'T FULLY ALIGN WITH THE MASTER PLAN, BUT IT DOESN'T FULLY GO AGAINST THE MASTER PLAN EITHER, I WOULD AGREE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THAT'S ALL I HAD. YEAH.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THIS IS A SPLIT ZONING SITUATION.

AND ACTUALLY BY CONSOLIDATING THESE UNDER THE SAME ZONING CODE, THE RATE PER UNIT IS LIMITED TO 106, PROBABLY FALLS WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE AREA LESS THAN THREE AND A HALF PER TOTAL ACREAGE, INCLUDING THE PART THAT THEY'VE AGREED NOT TO DEVELOP.

WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS, AND I APPRECIATE MR. LEONE BRINGING THE THE WETLANDS MAP.

I'VE GOT IT UP HERE ON THE COMPUTER, TOO.

THERE'S A LOT OF WETLAND HERE, WHICH MAY GREATLY RESTRICT WHAT CAN BE BUILT ANYWHERE BASED ON THE STATEMENTS FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE, FROM THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER.

THERE'S SOME REAL DRAINAGE ISSUES, SURFACE WATER ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

SO EVEN IF WE WERE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS, I'M NOT SURE IT COULD GO FORWARD.

ONCE THE ENGINEERING CAME IN AND A SITE PLAN CAME IN.

I JUST CAN'T PREDICT THAT.

MY GUESS IS WHAT THEY'VE GIVEN TO US IS A DRAFT BASED ON WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IN THE FLOODPLAIN MAP PROBABLY COULD NOT BE BUILT AS DESIGNED THERE, BUT THERE MAY BE OTHER WAYS TO GET TO THAT.

THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR PRESENTATION.

RIGHT. YEAH, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY BUILDABLE.

THAT BLUE LINE WE KNOW AND HAVE FIELD VERIFIED OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO I'M MISINTERPRETING THAT.

YEAH WE ACTUALLY UNIQUE TO THIS PROJECT HAVE A WETLAND DELINEATION ALREADY DONE.

BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT GOING TO PROCEED UNLESS THEY KNEW THEY COULD OVERCOME THE WETLAND ISSUES OKAY.

SO THAT REMOVES THAT ISSUE.

BUT I DO THINK THERE ARE SOME DRAINAGE ISSUES THROUGHOUT THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS EXPRESSED TO US.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN GO FORWARD WITH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

AND I WOULD PROBABLY SUPPORT THIS MOTION ON THE TABLE.

COMMISSIONER, I'M SORRY.

SO TO GO BACK ON THE DRAINAGE, I JUST WANT TO SAY LIKE KIND OF SET THE TABLE ON WHY I'M SO WE JUST MEANING THE TOWNSHIP JUST CLEARED UP A LOT OF DRAINAGE ISSUES ON GRAND RIVER, AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO A LOT OF DRAINAGE ISSUES ON OKEMOS ROAD THAT WE JUST CLEARED UP.

AND SO SO I SAY THAT NOW TO GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER TREZISE WAS SAYING, MY QUESTION IS, IF SO, WHAT WHAT'S PROPOSED HERE THE WETLANDS, I MEAN, IT WILL NOT BE A DRAINAGE ISSUE BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE SAYING THAT THIS CREATES.

NO, WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANYWHERE WITH DRAINAGE YET.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL COME UP DURING SITE PLAN REVIEW THAT RARELY, IF EVER, COMES UP AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCESS.

THAT'S WHAT I FIGURED. THAT WAS VERY UNIQUE, TO HAVE THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE WEIGHING IN ON A REZONING REQUEST.

SO, AND THE REASON WHY I'M HESITANT TO APPROVE IS BECAUSE OF THE PAST ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD WITH WATER AND IN OUR TOWNSHIP WITH, AGAIN, OKEMOS ROAD NEAR THE I FORGET THE NAME OF THE PARK, BUT I'M SORRY, BUT YOU KNOW, THE PARK I'M TALKING ABOUT.

AND THEN ALSO WITH A YEAR OF WORK THAT JUST TOOK PLACE ON GRAND RIVER TO RELIEVE A LOT OF THE WATER ISSUES.

[00:45:06]

SO SOMETIMES I GET CONFUSED, AND MAYBE IT'S JUST ME ABOUT WHAT OUR EXPLICIT ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY IS IN THINKING ABOUT THESE TYPES OF ISSUES AND IN THINKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE ISSUES AND THE WETLANDS ISSUES. I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE PART OF ALL OF THIS.

I ALSO THINK, THOUGH, BASED ON WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THOUGH, IN THIS PROCESS, IS THAT IF WE VOTE TO SUPPORT THIS REZONING ISSUE, THEN THAT'S JUST ONE STEP.

AND THAT IS THE PART WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR.

AND WE'RE SAYING WE THINK THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE REZONING REQUEST, BUT IT STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE OTHER HOOPS IN ORDER TO BE ALLOW, ALLOWED TO BE BUILT.

CORRECT? CORRECT.

IT'S A VERY LEADING QUESTION.

IT'S AN ACCURATE LEADING QUESTION.

OKAY. SO WE ARE SIMPLY SAYING WE THINK THIS REZONING MAKES SENSE.

HOWEVER, IT STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE REVIEWS AFTER US.

THE SECOND THING THAT I KEEP THINKING ABOUT, AND I'VE BEEN THINKING A LOT ABOUT THIS ISSUE THROUGHOUT THE PAST MONTH OR SO, IS THAT O UR STRATEGIC PLAN IS A LIVING DOCUMENT, AND IT GETS UPDATED EVERY FIVE YEARS.

OTHERWISE, WE WOULD BE LIVING WITH A STRATEGIC PLAN FROM A LONG TIME AGO THAT DIDN'T.

THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN IMPACT ON US NOW.

WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT PLACE THAN WE WERE, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHERE WE ARE NOW.

AND WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON OUR NEW STRATEGIC PLAN.

AND THERE ARE A HOST OF ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS.

NOT ONLY WETLANDS, NOT ONLY NEW DEVELOPMENT, NOT ONLY EXISTING RESIDENTS OR PARKS.

IT'S ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

AND ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES I THINK, WITH, WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT IS THE IDEA OF HAVING CONTROL AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

SO WE DON'T ALWAYS HAVE CONTROL OVER THE LOCAL LEVEL OF WHAT'S GOING ON.

RIGHT? SOMEBODY BUYS A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THEY GET TO DICTATE WHAT THEY DO WITH THAT.

BUT WHAT I THINK WE'RE PRESENTED WITH HERE IS ACTUALLY A GOOD SCENARIO FOR THE TOWNSHIP WHEREAS THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE RELATIVELY LOW DENSITY BY COMPARISON TO WHAT PART OF IT CAN ALREADY BE DEVELOPED.

AND SO THERE WILL BE SOME TRAFFIC INCREASE ON PARK LAKE NO MATTER WHAT.

THERE'S GOING TO BE TRAFFIC INCREASE ON PARK LAKE, WHICH IS NOT PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER.

NOT THAT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER.

AND I'M SAYING ALL THIS AND I DRIVE ON PARK LAKE EVERY DAY.

I WALK ACROSS THE INTERSECTION ON PARK LAKE AND GRAND RIVER EVERY DAY BECAUSE I LIVE IN OTTAWA HILLS, AND I GO TO THE GYM AT F45 IN THAT LITTLE STRIP MALL RIGHT NEXT TO TINKER TOYS OR WHATEVER.

LIKE I DO THIS EVERY DAY.

SO LIKE, I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.

AND I THINK BY RESTRICTING THIS OPPORTUNITY, WHICH IS WHAT I SEE IT AS AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS, WE ARE BASICALLY SAYING, YOU JUST CAN'T EVEN KEEP GOING AND LOOKING LIKE, BECAUSE IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT SOMEBODY DOWN THE ROAD IS WITH THE WITH THE TOWNSHIP OR WITH EAGLE OR WHOEVER THE GOVERNING BODY IS.

THEY REVIEW WHATEVER THEY SAY AND THEY'RE LIKE, YOU ACTUALLY CAN'T BUILD THIS MANY UNITS.

YOU CAN ONLY BUILD 60 OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

AND SO I THINK IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE FOR US TO SAY, WE'VE GOT THIS OPPORTUNITY, WE CAN ACTUALLY SAVE 14 ACRES OF LAND, WHICH IS THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THEY'VE AGREED NOT TO DEVELOP, IN THESE CONDITIONS.

AND WE CAN ALSO KEEP THE DENSITY OF THE HIGH DENSITY AREA LOW ENOUGH THAT IT REDUCES THE HIGHEST THRESHOLD OF, OF OF CARS ON THE ROAD FROM THIS PROPERTY, WHICH I THINK IS A BEST CASE SCENARIO REALLY, IN TERMS OF THE CONTROL THAT WE CAN HAVE.

[00:50:02]

COMMISSIONER SCALES.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

CHAIR BLUMER, I'D JUST LIKE TO PROVIDE A POINT OF INFORMATION TO WHAT MY COLLEAGUE JUST STATED.

YOU WERE HALF RIGHT WITH WHAT YOU SAID.

AND THAT WAS IF WE SAY YES, ALL THESE OTHER THINGS GO FORWARD.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS IF WE SAY NO, ALL THESE OTHER THINGS STILL GO FORWARD.

US SAYING NO DOES NOT STOP THIS FROM GOING FORWARD.

IT'S JUST SAYING THIS IS HOW WE FEEL ABOUT IT AND WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE PROCESS WHATSOEVER.

THE PROCESS CONTINUES AFTER WE VOTE ON THIS RESOLUTION, WHETHER WE SAY YES OR NO, WHAT WE ARE MERELY SAYING IS THIS IS HOW WE FEEL ABOUT IT.

AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE MOVING SOMETHING FORWARD THAT I'M NOT CONVINCED IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE MASTER PLAN, SINCE WE'RE THE ORIGINAL ARCHITECTS OF THE MASTER PLAN.

I JUST WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO COMMISSIONER SCALES JUST SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS.

WHATEVER HAPPENS HERE, THIS MATTER STILL GOES BEFORE THE BOARD.

THEY MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION AND THE BOARD AND THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER, BASICALLY COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER.

AND I WANT TO EXPRESS A POSITION THAT I HAVE HELD SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD.

AND THAT IS IT'S NOT JUST THE MASTER PLAN.

THERE'S ALSO AND I THINK THIS WAS EXPRESSED BY SOME OF THE MEMBERS WHO RECENTLY RETIRED.

IT'S ALSO OUR POSITION ON WHAT WE THINK IS RIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MASTER PLAN AND HOW IT MIGHT FIT IN.

IF WE DON'T THINK THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS RIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY IN THAT LOCATION, THEN WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EXPRESS THAT OPINION AS A BOARD.

THE BOARD, THE THE TOWNSHIP BOARD CAN ULTIMATELY REFUSE TO ACCEPT OUR POSITION.

THAT'S UP TO THEM. BUT I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO CONSIDER NOT JUST EXACTLY THE PARAMETERS OF HOW THIS FITS IN WITH WITH THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN, BUT ALSO DO WE HAVE A FEELING THAT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S RIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY? YEAH. I THINK IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE THAT THIS COMMISSION CONSIDER CONFORMANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN. AND I AGREE WITH ALL THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THAT EFFECT.

AND IN THIS CASE, I'M MORE OF THE ON THE FENCE IN TERMS OF ITS CONFORMANCE WITH THE LETTER OF THE MASTER PLAN.

AND EVEN MORE SO WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE OF A MASTER PLAN OF TRYING TO ENCOURAGE INFILL DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN GOING OUT TO THE FRINGES OF THE TOWNSHIP.

AND SO FROM A PURE KIND OF EUCLIDEAN SENSE, THIS IS INFILL.

THIS IS NOT OUT IN THE EASTERN THIRD.

IT'S BUT IT'S A GREENFIELD.

SO IT'S NOT YOUR CLASSIC BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT SORT OF INFILL.

AND PART OF WHAT THE CURRENT MASTER PLAN CALLS FOR IS WALKABLE BIKE ABLE COMMUNITIES AND THE BARRIER THAT IS PARK LAKE ROAD TO WALKABLE AND BIKE ABLE KIND OF DISQUALIFIES THIS PROPERTY AT THE MOMENT, IN MY MIND, AS BEING A WALKABLE THING.

I MEAN, THERE'S LOTS OF GREAT STUFF WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE, BUT IF YOU'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD, THERE'S NO SIDEWALK AND YOU'VE GOT THAT TERRIBLE INTERSECTION.

SO AT THAT POINT, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS MORE BUREAUCRATIC.

WHEN A SITE PLAN REVIEW COMES TO THE TOWNSHIP, IT'LL GO TO THE ROAD DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL OF WHATEVER.

HOWEVER THEY'RE GOING TO GET VEHICLES ON AND OFF OF THIS PROPERTY.

IS THAT CORRECT? THE ROAD DEPARTMENT DOES REVIEW PROJECTS WHEN THEY GET TO THE SITE PLAN PHASE.

YES. IF IT WERE DEVELOPED BY RIGHT, WOULD THAT ALSO TRIGGER A YES? A BI-RITE BI-RITE SITE PLAN REVIEW STILL GOES THROUGH.

THE SITE PLAN IS SORT OF THE THIRD LEG OF THE STOOL, AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT GOES TO EVERYBODY.

NO MATTER WHAT FIRE BUILDING, ENGINEERING PLANNING GOES TO THE ROAD DEPARTMENT AND GOES TO THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER, YOU NEED TO GET SIGN OFF FROM ALL PARTIES BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION.

SO I GUESS I'M KIND OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO USE THE SYSTEM THAT WE'VE GOT TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS THAT EVERYBODY SEEMS TO AGREE EXIST ON THAT ROADWAY, AND I DON'T IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT THE REZONING IS GOING TO TRIGGER THAT TO HAPPEN UNTIL THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.

MAYBE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T CONTROL THE ROADS, SO WE CAN'T MAKE THAT DECISION ABOUT THE SIGNALIZATION AND WE CAN'T IMPOSE THAT

[00:55:05]

CORRECT. SO IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF HOW DO WE HOW DO WE FIX THE PROBLEM THAT THAT HAS BEEN SO CLEARLY ENUNCIATED? YEAH, I MEAN, FROM A, FROM A TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE CERTAINLY GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE BETWEEN THE ENGINEERING AND THE ROAD DEPARTMENT AT SOME POINT. IT WOULD CERTAINLY IT WOULD CERTAINLY HELP IF WE HAD UP TO DATE TRAFFIC COUNTS FROM THE ROAD DEPARTMENT.

I SAW COUNTERS AT GRAND RIVER AND PARK LAKE A WEEK AGO.

IT SHOULD BE ABOUT ON THE SCHEDULE, SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S COMING UP.

BUT THESE ARE ALL YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES ALONG PARK LAKE.

I DRIVE IT EVERY DAY.

YOU KNOW, IT'S A MATTER OF WHAT IS THE SCALE OF THE CHANGE VERSUS WHAT THE ROAD DEPARTMENT CAN DO TO A MINOR ARTERIAL WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.

AND IT IS, YOU KNOW, IT IS A ROAD THAT IS INTENDED TO TAKE MORE TRAFFIC THAN OTHER ROADS.

AS FAR AS THE CUT THROUGH, IF I MIGHT, THE CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC.

I ALSO RECOGNIZE I HEAR THAT CLEARLY FROM THE RESPONSES WE GOT FROM THE COMMUNITY.

I AM THAT CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC, BUT I'M ON TWO WHEELS PEDDLING, SO I HOPE I'M NOT ADDING TO THE DENSITY TOO MUCH.

BUT I RECOGNIZE AGAIN, THAT'S THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT AFFECTS LOTS OF COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD, AND WHEN'S THE RIGHT WAY TO GET TO SOLVING THAT PROBLEM? IS IT THIS REZONING REQUEST OR NOT? I DON'T I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S NEEDS TO BE MORE HIGHLIGHTED IN OUR IN OUR REVISED MASTER PLAN THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE WE'RE TRYING TO FIX SO IT DOESN'T DIP OFF THE RADAR UNTIL THE NEXT TIME SOMEBODY COMES AND SAYS, I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO DO SOMETHING.

THOSE ARE MY INCONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER.

MR. SCHMITT, IS THERE A THERE IS A CONCERN EXPRESSED BOTH BY THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER AND RESIDENTS OF THE POTENTIAL FOR FLOOD CONTROL.

ABSOLUTELY. THEY INTRODUCE A LOT OF CONCRETE INTO AN AREA THAT RIGHT NOW IS GREEN.

THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE WATER FLOW.

IS THERE ANY KIND OF STUDY THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT PREDICTS THE DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW? NO. I MEAN, UNTIL THEY GET INTO FORMAL ENGINEERING ON A PROJECT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

I ASK THAT QUESTION BECAUSE COMMISSIONER SCALES SAID SOMETHING THAT TRIGGERED A MEMORY IN MY MIND, AND THAT IS WE'VE HAD MAJOR FLOODING PROBLEMS ON GRAND RIVER, WHICH IS 200 YARDS AWAY FROM WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

YEAH. NICK CURTIS.

I'M SORRY.

THAT'S OKAY. THE QUESTION THEN, IS, ARE WE SIMPLY GOING TO PUT THE ROAD COMMISSION BACK WHERE IT WAS TWO YEARS AGO WHEN GRAND RIVER FLOODED EVERY SIX MONTHS? YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK THE ISSUE IS WHAT A LOT OF THE FLOODING THAT WE SEE ON THE MAJOR STREETS IN THIS TOWNSHIP IS BECAUSE FOR YEARS WE DIDN'T HANDLE STORM WATER.

AND IT WAS THAT'S NOT SINGULAR TO US.

THAT WAS A COMMON THEME THROUGHOUT 70S AND 80S CONSTRUCTION.

STORM WATER REALLY DIDN'T START TO BECOME A THING UNTIL YOU HAD AREAS THAT HAD BUILT UP AND WERE NOW STARTING TO FLOOD, AND WE'RE STARTING TO GET MORE AND MORE PRESSURE.

AND SO THAT'S WHEN YOU STARTED SEEING DETENTION BASINS MORE REGULARLY, AND YOU STARTED SEEING UNDERGROUND STORAGE AND YOU STARTED SEEING THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND SO THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER STANDARDS NOWADAYS TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

AND, YOU KNOW, THEY I THINK MOST DEVELOPERS WOULD TELL YOU THAT THEIR ANSWER RIGHT NOW IS NOT A DROP OF WATER LEAVES THAT SITE THROUGH A, THROUGH UNNATURAL MEANS.

YOU KNOW, THEY ARE GOING TO CONTROL WHERE EVERY DROP OF WATER GOES ON THE DEVELOPED PORTION OF THAT SITE.

AND THAT IS WHAT THE SITE, THE ENGINEERING, THE ENGINEERING PART OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW IS LOOKING AT, THAT IS ONE OF THE KEYS TO THAT IS HOW ARE WE HANDLING STORM WATER.

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF ANYONE? THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION AS WELL.

RESTATE THAT THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD THAT WE DENY APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION.

THERE HAS BEEN A SECOND.

WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

YES. JUST SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR ON THIS, IF YOU VOTE YES, YOU'RE VOTING AGAINST APPROVAL.

OKAY.

SO I JUST WANT TO FOR THE PUBLIC THAT IS NOW LISTENING BECAUSE HOMTV HAS AUDIO AGAIN.

THANK YOU. MANAGER [INAUDIBLE] THIS MATTER WILL NOT BE ON THE NEXT BOARD AGENDA ON THE 9TH.

[01:00:06]

THAT IS WHEN IT'S CURRENTLY SCHEDULED TO GO FORWARD.

BUT ULTIMATELY, AGAIN, THE BOARD'S PACKETS ARE POSTED THE WEEK BEFORE AND THAT'S WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL THE END.

I DON'T SET THE AGENDA.

I JUST SUBMIT ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION.

AND SO YOUR BEST BET IS TO CHECK THE BOARD'S AGENDA FOR THE SECOND MEETING IN NOVEMBER.

THANK YOU. MIGHT JUST STAY THERE FOR OUR NEXT ISSUE.

CAN I JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, NOT THIS COMMISSION.

CORRECT. IT'S THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

LET'S MAKE THAT CLEAR. ALL RIGHT.

WE ARE NOW ON ITEM 9, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE.

IT IS THAT TIME OF YEAR.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE THAT SENIOR PLANNER SHORKEY PUT TOGETHER, STICKS TO OUR ROUGH CADENCE, AVOIDS ANY MAJOR HOLIDAYS, AND DOES DROP TO ONE MEETING A MONTH IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, CONSISTENT WITH OUR PAST PRACTICE BECAUSE WE GET ONCE YOU GET CLOSE TO THANKSGIVING AND CHRISTMAS, WE HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING A QUORUM TOGETHER FOR ALL OUR BOARDS, NOT JUST THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO THIS IS WE ARE REQUESTING THAT YOU DO ADOPT THIS THIS EVENING AGAIN.

WE CURRENTLY MEET AT 6:30.

PLANNING COMMISSION IS ABSOLUTELY PERMITTED TO MOVE THAT UP TO 6:00 IF THEY'D LIKE, AND BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, OR WE CAN LEAVE IT AT 6:30.

[9A. 2024 Planning Commission Schedule]

HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN MAKING THIS PITCH? THREE. WAS THIS THE THIRD TIME I'VE DONE THIS, I BELIEVE.

WAS THAT PITCH WITH A "P"? YES, YES.

PERSONALLY, I'M HAPPY WITH THE EARLIER START, BUT I KNOW THAT PEOPLE HAVE REAL COMMITMENTS, SO I'M HAPPY TO OBLIGE.

I'M ALSO HAPPY TO DO 6:00.

I WOULD LOVE TO DO 6:00, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALISTIC FOR ME.

I'M AFRAID I'LL BE LATE ALL THE TIME.

YEAH. SOMEBODY WANT TO MOVE THIS? DOES IT TAKE A MOTION OR IS THIS.

WE DO NEED APPROVAL.

DO YOU NEED APPROVAL? THE CHAIR WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA PROPOSED BY STAFF.

SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE THEN.

LET'S DO IT THIS WAY.

YOUR FUTURE AGENDA HAS BEEN APPROVED.

YES. THIS IS CONTINGENT UPON YOU HAVING CAKE ON OCTOBER 21ST.

I THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

I'D APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

DID I MISS ANYTHING? NO.

ALL RIGHT, MASTER PLAN UPDATE.

YOU KNOW, I WILL JUST SAY THAT WE ARE AT OUR NEXT MEETING GOING TO BRING BACK THE MASTER PLAN FOR OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS WILL BE THE OFFICIAL HEARING THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW.

AND WE WILL BE ASKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.

TO DATE, WE'VE TRIED TO FORWARD ON MOST OF THE COMMENTS.

ALL OF THE LETTERS WE'VE GOTTEN FROM THE PUBLIC HAVE BEEN SOME VARIATION OF THE LETTERS THAT YOU'VE BEEN RECEIVING FROM.

IT'S FROM A GROUP OF NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE ON VANADA.

WE, I DID TALK TO WILLIAMSTOWN TOWNSHIP.

THEY THINK IT'S A GREAT PLAN.

THEY'RE VERY HAPPY WITH THE WORK WE'VE DONE, AND THEY WILL BE PROVIDING SOME COMMENT TO US TO THAT EXTENT.

HAVE NOT HEARD FROM OUR OTHER NEIGHBORS, THOUGH.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT TO MOVE THAT FORWARD.

I JUST WANTED TO LET EVERYONE KNOW.

[10. MASTER PLAN UPDATE]

TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.

YOU KNOW, THE MAIN UPDATE I WILL POINT OUT IS THE BOARD HAS INTRODUCED AND IS SET TO ADOPT THE RC HOUSING ORDINANCE UPDATES THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED.

AND WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF HOMEOWNERS ALREADY LOOKING INTO THE IDEA OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

SO THIS IS WE MAY HIT THE GROUND RUNNING WITH THIS I WAS HOPING TO UNDERLINE ONE ISSUE THAT CAME UP IN DISCUSSION OF THAT ORDINANCE WHEN I SAW IT IN THE BOARD PACKET, IT REMINDED ME WE MAKE REFERENCE TO A MANUFACTURED HOME, AND I SEE IT NOW LEADS SPECIFICALLY TO THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE.

BUT WHEN WE WERE TALKING LAST TIME, IT SEEMS LIKE THE LANGUAGE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT THE STATE CALLS MOBILE HOME.

[11A. Township Board update.]

[01:05:05]

BUT THEN IT MADE ME THINK, WELL, DO WE WANT TO BE PROHIBITING WHAT THE STATE CALLS A MOBILE HOME AT THE EXPENSE OF WHAT MIGHT BE A MANUFACTURED HOME THAT WE MIGHT ACTUALLY WANT? YOU KNOW, THERE'S A THEY SELL A SHED AT HOME DEPOT THAT'S TWO STORIES WITH A WINDOW UP STAIRS.

I KNEW I KNEW WHERE YOU WERE GOING WITH ALL THAT BIG SHED.

IT'S A BIG SHED WHICH LIVES UPSTAIRS.

BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK INTO.

WE HAVEN'T THAT HAS NOT COME UP YET.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WILL, BUT IT'S CLEAR THE WAY THE THE ORDINANCE, THE DEFINITIONS THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING ARE PRETTY CLEARLY TRYING TO GET AT MOBILE HOMES COMING ONTO A SITE.

AND SO I THINK WE PROBABLY HAVE ENOUGH DIFFERENTIATION THERE THAT WE'D BE SAFE UNDER THE ADUS, BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT MEET THE DEFINITION. BUT WE'LL LOOK INTO IT FURTHER AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE OKAY.

ANYTHING FURTHER ON THE TOWNSHIP BOARD? THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT.

LIAISONS. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MET ON SEPTEMBER 21ST.

ON THE BIG PORTION OF THE MEETING WAS A REPORT FROM CATA.

CATA TALKED ABOUT READY RIDE.

WE HAD A READY RIDE DISCUSSION.

AND SO FROM AUGUST 2018, AUGUST 2023, THEIR RIDERSHIP PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 52%, SENIORS 20%, YOUTH 11 AND ADULT READY RIDES 11%.

THEY SHOWED A PIE CHART.

THEN IT HAD A GOOD AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT BOOKED RIDES THROUGH READY RIDE FOR THE PAST 18 MONTHS,

[11B. Liaison reports.]

BUT FOR THE MOST PART.

OH, AND THEN LASTLY, PHIL DESCHAINE PRESENTED THE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION TO READY RIDE FOR $380,000 TO COUNCIL . BUT THAT WAS THE TRANSPORTATION.

YES. BROWNFIELDS MET LAST WEEK AND APPROVED THE BEGINNING OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE AMERICAN HOMES IN HASLETT VILLAGE, THE SENIOR HOUSING, TO START COLLECTING SOME OF THEIR MONIES BACK THROUGH THE TAX ABATEMENT THAT THEY EXPENDED ON ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP.

IT TURNS OUT IT'S GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE LESS THAN 60% OF WHAT THEY INITIALLY WERE APPROVED FOR, BECAUSE IT CAME IN A LOT CHEAPER THAN THEY EXPECTED.

SO THAT'S ON THE WAY.

ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER LIAISON REPORTS? I ATTENDED THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING.

I GAVE BRIAN A COPY OF THEIR MINUTES, MOSTLY BECAUSE ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP WAS DISCUSSION OF OF ENTRY SIGNS INTO DOWNTOWN OKEMOS.

AND THEY HAD SEVERAL PROPOSED ONES, SLIGHTLY EACH ONE IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, BUT AND THERE WERE SOME PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TOO.

BUT IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT FOR, WELCOME TO OKEMOS SIGNS.

THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THAT PACKAGE.

SO YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE AND SEE WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE.

THERE WAS ALSO SOME DISCUSSION OF STATE FINANCING FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS, WHICH BASICALLY WENT IN ONE EAR AND OUT THE OTHER.

I HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, BUT THEY ARE SEEKING MONEY FROM THE STATE FOR VARIOUS DEVELOPMENTAL ISSUES IN THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AREA SO.

OKAY. MR. SCALES.

I ATTENDED THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MEETING ON OCTOBER THE 5TH.

THE MOST INTERESTING INFORMATION WAS ABOUT AN UPDATE OF THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS AND THEIR RAP GRANT AND PROJECT UPDATE.

SUFFICIENT MONIES HAVE BEEN AGREED UPON AS FINANCIAL INCENTIVES BY VARIOUS DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS.

I'VE GOT A LIST AND I'VE GOT A LIST OF FUNDS HERE, BUT WHAT THEY'RE WAITING ON IS TO GET A RAP GRANT FUND FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND MICHIGAN, AND THE STATE OF MICHIGAN HAS NOT RELEASED ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE RAP GRANT AT THIS TIME.

SO THINGS SEEM TO REMAIN ON HOLD.

[01:10:02]

THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FEET IS 26,399FT².

OBVIOUSLY, THAT TAKES IT AWAY FROM THIS GROUP AND GIVES IT THE SOLE CONTROL OF THE TOWNSHIP.

BECAUSE THERE'S OVER 25,000FT².

RESIDENTIAL UNIT COUNT IS 206.

FIRST FLOOR WALK THROUGH ACCESS AND ONE STORY PARKING STRUCTURE ON BLOCK ONE AND UNDERGROUND PARKING ON BLOCK TWO.

ROOFTOP LIVING SPACE AND COMMON PATIO AMENITY FOR RESIDENTS.

OFFSITE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO INCLUDE BIORETENTION BASIN AND OFF SITE STORM WATER RETENTION.

AND CURRENTLY IT SAYS THAT THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AT THIS TIME REGARDING ANY APPROVAL OF FUNDING FROM THE RAP GRANT.

SO THERE'S STILL A WAIT AND SEE FROM WHERE THIS IS HEADED NEXT.

YEAH, THE RAP GRANT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ALSO.

OKAY. YEAH.

ANY OTHER REPORTS? OKAY. VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM THEN IS PROJECT UPDATES.

BRIAN, IT'S IN YOUR PACKET.

JUST WHAT WE HAD. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

YOU DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING COMING UP NEXT MONTH.

I DID ADD THAT TO NEW APPLICATIONS.

IT'S REZONING AT 4660 MARSH ROAD.

VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT THEN.

WE ARE UP TO THE LAST PUBLIC REMARKS.

I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR, YOU KNOW, YOUR INPUT TONIGHT.

YOU MADE A COMMENT TONIGHT THAT THE COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER CAN GUIDE THE WATER.

[12A. Project Report]

ONCE YOU FILL THE GLASS AND IT'S FULL, THE WATER COMES OUT.

WELL, WHAT HAPPENS WHERE THIS PROJECT IS IN MY PROPERTY IS ONCE THE RIVER IS FULL, IT COMES BACK.

AND WHERE IT USED TO BE, ONLY TWO FEET DEEP.

NOW IT GETS EIGHT FEET DEEP.

SO YOU CAN'T GUIDE THE WATER.

[13. PUBLIC REMARKS]

THESE THINGS HAVE TO BE PLANNED.

YOU'RE PLAYING WITH FLOODPLAINS.

YOU'RE PLAYING WITH WATER.

WATER WHEN IT STARTS COMING BACK, JUST ASK THE PEOPLE ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

WHEN IT STARTS COMING BACK, YOU CAN'T STOP IT.

SO I'M GLAD YOU MADE THE DECISIONS YOU MADE WHEN IT CAME TO THE FLOODPLAIN AND EVERYTHING TONIGHT.

BUT THIS HAS TO BE NOT ONLY WOULD THIS PROJECT, BUT IT HAS TO BE WITH EVERY PROJECT THAT PLAYS WITH THE WATER BECAUSE WE CAN'T STOP IT.

THE ONLY WAY WE CAN STOP IT IS NOT BUILD ON IT SO THAT IT'S GOT SOMEPLACE TO GO WHEN IT'S TIME FOR IT TO GO.

AND YOU GUYS HAVE SPENT, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON GRAND RIVER AND OKEMOS OKEMOS ROAD IS THE SAME WATERSHED AS MINE, SO YOU CAN IMAGINE WHEN THAT GETS THAT HIGH, YOU CAN CANOE FROM MY HOUSE ALL THE WAY TO THE RED CEDAR RIVER WHEN THE WATER COMES UP THAT HIGH, SO YOU CAN ONLY MOVE THE WATER TO A POINT.

AND THEN WHEN IT STARTS COMING BACK, YOU'RE DONE.

WATCH IT COME.

SO I'M GLAD WITH YOUR DECISION TONIGHT, BUT IN THE FUTURE, I REALLY THINK THAT THE FLOODPLAIN NEEDS TO BE ONE OF THE REALLY MAIN, IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE TALK ABOUT.

BECAUSE IF WE'RE BUILDING IN THE FLOODPLAINS, WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR THE DAMAGE WHEN IT BACKS UP? IT SHOULDN'T BE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

IT SHOULDN'T BE. IT SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE THAT MADE THE DECISION TO BUILD THE FLOODPLAIN TO BEGIN WITH.

SO THOSE AREAS WE CAN'T TOUCH, WE GOT TO LEAVE THEM ALONE, THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR.

ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.

SO I THINK I'VE ASKED IN THE PAST ABOUT WHAT'S LEFT OF BUILDABLE PROPERTY AND PARCELS IN THE TOWNSHIP.

AND SO FOR ME, WHEN I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THIS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT THE DECISION TO POTENTIALLY REZONE SOMETHING TO MULTIPLE FAMILY, IT JUST CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THAT AREA.

THAT'S WHAT I LANDED ON.

AND SO BUT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME MAKING THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS BECAUSE I DON'T WHAT'S LEFT.

[01:15:03]

RIGHT. SO WHAT'S LEFT TO BUILD ON? WHAT IS WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL?

[14. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS]

YOU'RE DONE.

GIS. I'D LIKE TO GO OVER IT INTERNALLY WITH STAFF BEFORE I GO PUBLIC WITH THAT, BUT I THINK WE CAN GET TO A POINT WHERE I CAN GIVE YOU AT LEAST A REALLY GOOD IDEA WHAT'S OUT THERE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE USB.

AND I DON'T MEAN TO RUSH ANYBODY.

IT'S JUST, YEAH, I'M NOT RUSHING.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S GOOD, BUT I'M NOT.

SO I'M NOT READY TO TALK ABOUT IT SPECIFICALLY, BUT WE ARE WORKING ON IT.

THAT'S AWESOME. THANK YOU.

CAN I GET A COMMENT? AND I PREFACE THIS WITH THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION.

BUT AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALWAYS TAKING AN OVERARCHING VIEWPOINT ON WHAT WE'RE DOING.

I MEAN, I SERVED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROBABLY 12 YEARS AGO, AND THEN I SERVED ON THE BOARD, AND NOW I'M SERVING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I'VE SEEN THE EFFECTS OF WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS DONE BEFORE IT GOT TO THE BOARD, AND NOW I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM THE OTHER WAY.

AGAIN, TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

I WAS ON THE BOARD WHEN WE DECIDED THAT WE WERE GOING TO PUT PARK LAKE ROAD ON A ROAD DIET, AND WE, WE PUT THOSE BICYCLE LANES RIGHT THERE ON PARK LAKE ROAD. AND I BRING THAT UP AS AN EXAMPLE OF LET'S LOOK FROM AN OVERARCHING VIEWPOINT.

WE HAVE PUT ROAD DIETS THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP.

BE CAREFUL ABOUT PUTTING MASSIVE HOUSING PROJECTS IN THE TOWNSHIP.

THOSE TWO DON'T THEY'RE NOT CONGRUENT.

IF YOU'RE TIGHTENING UP THE ROADS THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP, DON'T DUMP A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO BRING CARS WITH THEM INTO THE TOWNSHIP. WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT THOSE THINGS WHEN WE'RE MAKING THESE DECISIONS AS A GROUP.

WE NEED CONGRUENCY THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP.

THAT'S A MAJOR PURPOSE OF A PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I DO, I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT THAT WE SHOULD TAKE EVERYTHING HOLISTICALLY AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.

I JUST AM, I MEAN, IN REGARDS TO OUR RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT YOU JUST SPOKE TO, I THINK THAT THE QUESTION THAT I COME BACK TO IS WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ALREADY ZONED HIGH DENSITY OR WHATEVER THE MULTI DENSITY IT IS, THAT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT. AND SO WE'VE WE ARE RECOMMENDING NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A REZONE. AND SO WE ARE GIVING UP CONTROL THAT WE COULD HAVE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY REDUCE THE MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF DEVELOPMENT IN THAT SPACE.

AND SO WE ARE THEREFORE SAYING THERE COULD BE MORE TRAFFIC THAN WHAT WE WERE ALREADY PUTTING FORWARD. THAT PIECE IS BEEN LIKE THAT FOR DECADES AND WE HAVE NOTHING THERE.

WELL, BUT YOU COULD SAY THAT ABOUT A LOT OF PIECES OF PROPERTY, I THINK.

ONE OF THE RESIDENTS, MR. LEONE, ACTUALLY MADE THE STATEMENT THAT IF YOU LEAVE IT ALONE, IT'S NEVER GOING TO DEVELOP BEYOND WHAT IT ALREADY IS BECAUSE IT HASN'T ALL ALONG AND IT JUST WON'T. AND I THINK AND I KNOW MR. LEONE, HE'S LIVED IN THE SAME HOUSE ON THAT ROAD FOR AN EXCESS OF 40 YEARS.

I THINK HE'S GOT A PRETTY GOOD IMAGE OF WHAT'S GOING ON THERE, AND A PRETTY GOOD, PRETTY GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT PROPERTY IS CAPABLE OF.

WELL, I'LL TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE, BUT I THINK THAT THE WE COULD ALSO SAY THAT ABOUT MANY PROPERTIES IN THE TOWNSHIP.

I MEAN, HOW MANY PROPERTIES THAT YOU'VE LIVED HERE FOR 40 YEARS AND SAID THAT'LL NEVER DEVELOP, BUT THAT PARCEL IS PRIMARILY WETLANDS, RIGHT? SO. YEAH.

[01:20:03]

ANYWAYS. I'M DONE.

JUST ONE REQUEST FOR US TO KIND OF GO BACK TO A PROCESS THAT I THINK WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE FORMALIZED WHEN I FIRST JOINED THE BOARD, WHERE WHEN WE OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING, WE HAVE SORT OF WHAT THE PROCESS IS AND WE SAY IT.

I HEARD A STATEMENT THAT THE STAFF HADN'T GIVEN NOTICE.

AND I THINK AS IT WAS EXPLAINED WHEN WE DID HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS TOPIC LAST TIME, STAFF GIVES NOTICE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN AFTER THAT IT'S IN THE MEETING PACKETS. AND SO I JUST DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO BE CONFUSED ABOUT WHEN AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET INFORMATION AND MISS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE THAT THEY THINK MIGHT BE COMING WHEN THAT'S NOT PART OF WHAT'S LEGALLY REQUIRED OR PART OF WHAT HAPPENED.

SO IF WE CAN, EVEN IF IT FEELS REALLY REDUNDANT AND REPETITIVE, SAY THAT IN THE INITIAL PUBLIC HEARING AND EVEN MAYBE HAVE IT IN OUR WRITTEN MATERIALS.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE USED TO HAVE SORT OF HERE'S WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS IS, HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS.

AND I THINK FOR PEOPLE, WE HEAR IT A LOT.

SO IT MIGHT FEEL LIKE WE'RE HEARING IT YET AGAIN.

BUT FOR PEOPLE WHO FOR WHOM THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THEY'RE HEARING IT, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED TO JUST SPELL THAT OUT BETTER SO THAT THERE ISN'T CONFUSION AND THAT STAFF ISN'T BEING MISCHARACTERIZED AS NOT DOING SOMETHING THAT THAT REALLY ISN'T PART OF WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES, AND PART OF WHAT THE TOWNSHIP'S PROCESS IS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? WELL WE'RE ON THE LAST ITEM, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.