[00:00:01]
>> LET US CALL THE MARCH 25TH, 2024, MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION, TO ORDER.
FIRST ON THE AGENDA IS A ROLL CALL.
[LAUGHTER] OF COURSE [INAUDIBLE] LIKE I'VE GOT MY NOTES IN THERE.
[INAUDIBLE] COMMISSIONER SNYDER, VICE CHAIR.
>> COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. NOT HERE.
>> THANK YOU. THE CHAIR IS HERE, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC REMARKS.
THIS IS PUBLIC REMARKS ON ITEMS THAT ARE [NOISE] NOT SLATED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TODAY.
IF YOU HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT YOU'D LIKE TO GIVE NOW, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU FILL OUT ONE OF THE FORMS, GIVE IT TO THE STAFF, AND THEN YOU CAN COME TO THE PODIUM.
IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM THAT'S ON THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE'LL HAVE A SPECIAL PUBLIC COMMENT JUST FOR THAT TOO.
SEEING NOBODY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RIGHT NOW, I WILL MOVE TO APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA? COMMISSIONER BLOOMER?
>> SECOND BACK, COMMISSIONER SNYDER. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY POST? I'M SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT, BUT HEARING NONE, [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU.
THEN WE'RE DOWN TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 11TH, 2024, MEETING IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
COMMISSIONER SCALES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO?
>> I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 11TH, [NOISE] MEETING WITH A FEW AMENDMENTS.
>> LET'S HEAR HIS AMENDMENTS FIRST. [LAUGHTER]
>> [NOISE] THE FIRST BEING THAT GOES PRESENT, OUR VICE CHAIR CAN'T BE PRESENT AND ABSENT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I FIGURED IT'D BE TECHNICAL LIKE THAT.
>> [LAUGHTER] I WISH I HAD THAT SUPERPOWER. [LAUGHTER]
>> I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT ONE.
[NOISE] WITH THAT THEN I'M SECONDING.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS SUGGESTED TO BE AMENDED? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 11TH, MEETING, SAY AYE.
ANY COMMUNICATIONS THAT HAVE COME IN SINCE WE GOT OUR PACKET?
>> I GUESS WE ARE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 22-021,
[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
SILVER LEAF FLOODPLAINS SPECIAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION.WE'LL CALL THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER AT 6:32.
>> THANK YOU. THIS SHOULD BE VERY BRIEF.
YOU APPROVED ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO SUP 22-021.
THAT WAS FOR A FLOODPLAIN CROSSING TO INSTALL A 27-INCH STORM PIPE ACROSS TWO FLOODPLAINS FOR THE SILVER LEAF DEVELOPMENT ON BENNETT ROAD.
SINCE THEN THEY'VE GONE THROUGH SITE PLAN PROCESS.
SITE PLAN APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED FOR PHASE 1.
CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT YET BEGUN HOWEVER.
ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCE BECAUSE CONSTRUCTION HASN'T YET BEGUN THE SUP REQUIRES AN EXTENSION WHICH YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TO GRANT.
THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE EXTENSION ARE NOT THE SAME AS GRANTING THE ORIGINAL SUP.
YOU CAN SEE HERE THE THREE CRITERIA YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
FAILED TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIOD.
[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
THAT IS TRUE.THE PROJECT CONTINUES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SPECIAL USE CRITERIA.
THAT IS TRUE. NO CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PROJECT SINCE YOU REVIEWED THIS TWO YEARS AGO, AND REMAINS CONFORMING TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THAT IS TRUE AS WELL.
THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING EXTENSIVELY WITH
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE AND RECEIVED A GREEN LIGHT TO MOVE TOWARD CONSTRUCTION.THE DELAY HAS BEEN THE DRIVING FACTOR IN PREVENTING THE PROJECT FROM PROCEEDING OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST TWO YEARS.
DOES REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE SUP CRITERIA AS I STATED.
STAFF HAS NO MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THIS.
WE'VE RECEIVED NO COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC AT THIS TIME.
WE DO NOTE THAT THIS IS TREATED LIKE A PUBLIC HEARING IN OUR ORDINANCE.
MICHIGAN PLANNING LAW DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME TEETH TO THIS AS IT DOES THE ORIGINAL SUP.
THIS IS AN EXTENSION, NOT A NEW SUP.
[00:05:01]
THEREFORE NO RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THIS, THIS IS JUST A SIMPLE VOTE.>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER SCALES?
>> YES. I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE RULES GOVERNING THIS.
WHAT IS THE APPROVED TIME FRAME?
>> A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS APPROVED FOR TWO YEARS.
IF CONSTRUCTION HASN'T BEGUN AT THE END OF TWO YEARS THEY NEED TO REQUEST A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION.
WE ANTICIPATE CONSTRUCTION TO BEGIN THIS SUMMER.
>> MY QUESTION THEN IS HOW LONG DO THEY HAVE TO APPLY AFTER THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD? IS THIS [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, THEY GET ONE ONE-YEAR EXTENSION, ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE.
[7.A. SUP #22-021 – Silverleaf Floodplain SUP Extension]
>> NO. MY QUESTION IS HOW LONG DO THEY HAVE TO APPLY? SAY THE TWO YEARS RUNS OUT, CAN THEY APPLY YEAR 3, YEAR 4? OR WHEN DOES THE REAPPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION TIME OUT?
>> AT THE END OF THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD THEY ARE THEN ALLOWED TO ASK FOR ONE EXTENSION.
THEY CANNOT ASK FOR A SECOND EXTENSION.
LET ME TRY TO COMMUNICATE THIS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
>> I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS WHEN CAN THEY APPLY, THEY HAVE TO APPLY BEFORE THE TWO YEARS IS UP.
THE APPLICATION WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE END OF THE TWO YEARS.
>> I DID NOT SEE WHEN THE APPLICATION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] REQUEST WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE END OF THE TWO YEARS.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT WE COULDN'T GET IT ON YOUR LAST AGENDA, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PRIOR TO THE TWO YEARS.
SO IT HAD TO COME TO THIS AGENDA.
BUT THEY PROPERLY SUBMITTED THE REQUEST.
>> BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I SEE THAT WE'RE AFTER THE TWO YEARS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH THIS.
THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION I NEEDED, THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BLOOMER.
>> AS I UNDERSTAND IT PART OF THE CRITERIA IS THAT THE DELAY SHOULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR OWN NEGLIGENCE, IT HAS TO BE CAUSED BY OUTSIDE [NOISE] PROCESS.
[OVERLAPPING] THEY'VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY ON THIS PROJECT, THEY JUST HAVEN'T GOT THE GREEN LIGHT FROM THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE UNTIL VERY RECENTLY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? STAFF?
>> I HAVE A QUICK ONE. IF IT'S NOT A RESOLUTION, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD STILL DO THE PUBLIC HEARING TODAY AND THEN VOTE AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> IT IS CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING, SO BY YOUR BYLAWS THAT IS CORRECT, I WOULD NEED TO BRING IT BACK ONE MORE TIME.
BUT I DON'T HAVE TO DO IT BY RESOLUTION, IT COULD BE DONE BY SPECIAL, JUST [OVERLAPPING] STRAIGHTEN A LITTLE THE TIME.
>> ARE WE ALLOWED TO WAIVE OUR BYLAWS?
>> YOU ARE, AND IT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.
>> COMMISSIONER BATCH. [OVERLAPPING] DO YOU WANT TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT, IF THERE IS ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS FIRST, BEFORE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS WAS ADVERTISED AS A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> YOU CAN MAKE ANY MOTION YOU'D LIKE, BUT DO YOU WANT TO [OVERLAPPING] CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? HEAR THE PUBLIC COMMENT IF THERE IS ANY FIRST AND THEN.
>> WELL, ALL RIGHT, I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN.
>> SHALL WE SEE IF THERE'S PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST? [LAUGHTER]
>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO'S WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING? [NOISE] THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, I JUST WANT TO BE FORMAL TO ALLOW OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT IF THERE IS ANY.
>> IT'S PROPER TO MAKE A DUAL MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO WAIVE THE WAITING PERIOD FOR A FINAL DECISION.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER SCALES? I THINK WE SHOULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST AND THEN [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT, I THINK WE JUST CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WE DON'T HAVE TO DO A ROLL CALL, I DON'T THINK.
>> HE SAID HE MADE A MOTION, AND I SECONDED.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S NEEDED, BUT OKAY.
ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? [LAUGHTER] JUST TO BE CLEAR.
>> NOW MY MOTION IS TO WAIVE THE WAITING PERIOD AND MAKE A FINAL DECISION TODAY.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION?
>> MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BLOOMER, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR SNYDER.
>> THIS ONE WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO DO A LITTLE [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES, ABSOLUTELY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER BLOOMER?
[00:10:01]
IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY, AND THE SHARE VOTES, YES.
WE HAVE WAIVED OUR BYLAWS AND NOW I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION IN SUPPORT OF THE EXTENSION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 22-021, BENNETT HOLDING, LLC.
>> I MOVE TO PROVIDE AN EXTENSION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT 22-021 IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.
>> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION?
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROOKS, SECOND, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SCALES.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> JUST SO IT'S CLEAR, THE EXTENSION IS TO ALLOW THEM TO COMPLETE AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED?
>> YES, IT'S EXTENDING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 22-021 THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
>> WE ARE WAIVING THE BYLAWS BECAUSE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT HERE, AND THIS IS JUST TO ALLOW THE PROJECT TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD SO WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THEM WAIT ANOTHER TWO WEEKS.
>> CORRECT. WE HAVE VOTED TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 22-021 IS EXTENDED. THANK YOU.
THE NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
DO WE HAVE ANY OR ARE YOU HERE TO TALK ABOUT OTHER BUSINESS? BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THAT.
>> THEY REPORT THEM TO YOU? THEY REPORT THEM.
>> THIS IS THE SECOND DISCUSSION OF THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA ZONING DISTRICT.
AT YOUR REQUEST, STAFF TOOK THE EXISTING LANGUAGE, MADE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS, AND THEN TOOK THE REFERENCES AND THEN JUST SPELLED THEM OUT, SO YOU COULD SEE EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA ALLOWS IN THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA DISTRICT.
THAT TURNED INTO THE SIX PAGES THAT FOLLOW, IMPRESSIVE.
FROM HERE, THE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS, YOU CAN SEE, THE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS ARE TWO-LAYERED.
THERE'S REGULATIONS THAT APPLY STRICTLY FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AND THEN THE REST OF THE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS AT THE END OF THE ORDINANCE UPDATE, SPECIFY REGULATIONS FOR THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING THAT YOU HAVE IN THE DISTRICT.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE FOR ANY OF THE OTHER STUFF.
AS FAR AS THE USES BY RIGHT, WE DID NOTE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS, THOSE ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED.
EVERYTHING'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED.
BUT SOME OF THE STUFF IN THERE, PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, NONCOMMERCIAL KENNELS.
THERE'S JUST THINGS IN THERE THAT AREN'T IN THE DISTRICT AND MAY OR MAY NOT BE A BIT.
THE SPECIAL USE PERMITTED ACTIVITIES, THAT'S WHAT IT CURRENTLY SAYS.
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWED UP TO 14 UNITS PER ACRE.
THAT'S HOW YOU GOT THE FOUR UNITS ON THE PIECE THAT WAS JUST RECENTLY RESIGNED ON OUR END ON SHAW STREET.
I'VE PRESENTED THIS AS YOU ASKED TO SEE IT AND I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS ANYTHING THAT'S IN HERE AND TAKE IT FROM HERE.
>> AT OUR LAST MEETING, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP WAS, WHY IS THIS AREA DIFFERENT THAN ANYPLACE ELSE IN THE TOWNSHIP? MY RESEARCH CAME TO BEAR THAT THIS IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT OF THE TOWNSHIP.
[00:15:06]
>> ARE YOU SAYING THE TOWNSHIP DESIGNATED IT A HISTORIC DISTRICT?
>> I'M NOT SURE WHO DESIGNATED IT, BUT I THINK I SENT THE INFORMATION TO YOU THAT THIS SPECIFIC AREA,
[9.A. RN – Village of Nemoka Ordinance Update Discussion]
THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA, IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S DIFFERENT THAN EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE TOWNSHIP.BEFORE WE START MESSING WITH THAT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT INFORMATION IS ACCURATE, AND IF IT IS ACCURATE, DOES IT BIND US IN ANY WAY?
>> IF YOU SENT THAT TO ME, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
>> I SENT IT TO YOU THE NIGHT YOU WERE SITTING HERE.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT I GOT WHEN I CLICKED ON THE LINK THAT YOU SENT ME, I GOT AN ERROR, SO I DIDN'T [INAUDIBLE].
BUT NOW THAT I SEE, I'LL FOLLOW UP ON THIS AND SEE WHAT I COME UP WITH.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'LL BE HELPFUL.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTION? COMMISSIONER BROOKS?
>> MY QUESTION IS, SO THE THE UPDATE HERE TO THE ORDINANCE IS TREATING THIS AREA THE SAME AS ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREA WITH THESE SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS?
>> THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING AT, BECAUSE AS I'VE NOTED, AS IT CURRENTLY READS, USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT ARE THE SAME USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE RB DISTRICT.
IT'S TREATING IT THE SAME, IN THAT REGARD AS THE RB DISTRICT, WHICH MEANS WHAT'S DIFFERENTIATING.
COMMISSIONER SCALES HAS A POINT, THIS MIGHT BE A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THAT MIGHT BE OF SOME FOCUS TO THAT DISCUSSION.
>> BUT OTHERWISE, SO LIKE ANY OTHER AREA THAT HAS THAT DESIGNATION IN OUR TOWNSHIP HAS THE SAME SET OF REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING, CORRECT?
>> IF ANYTHING ELSE IN THE TOWNSHIP WAS ZONED VILLAGE IN NEMOKA, IT WOULD HAVE THESE REQUIREMENTS.
THE ONLY AREA OF THE TOWNSHIP IS THE CONTIGUOUS AREA THAT I PREVIOUSLY SHOWED YOU.
>> YEAH. OKAY. I'M NOT ASKING MY QUESTION VERY WELL.
I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS BACK INTO TWO PARTS.
THE FIRST PART IS WHAT ARE WE REZONING, AND I'M SORRY, I DON'T REMEMBER THIS, NEMOKA AS?
>> NOTHING IN HERE IS REZONING THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA DISTRICT.
>> OKAY. SO WE ARE APPLYING THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE APPLIED TO WHAT RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA?
>> THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA CURRENTLY READS A DOG USES AS SHOWN IN THE RB DISTRICT, AND SPECIAL USES AS ALLOWED IN THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS, UP TO 14 UNITS PER ACRE.
WHAT WE HAVE SUGGESTED IS THAT IF YOU WERE TO SEE THIS AND THE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS SPELLED OUT RATHER THAN BY REFERENCE, THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS.
NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED IN HERE.
ESSENTIALLY, WOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION LIKE TO AMEND THAT TO TAILOR THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA? YOU'RE NOT REZONING ANYBODY IN THAT PROCESS.
FOR INSTANCE, IF I MAY, I APOLOGIZE.
>> NO, YOU KNOW THIS BETTER THAN I DO.
>> IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS AND SAY SIDE YARD FOR THREE FAMILY, I'M LOOKING AT I THINK THE THIRD OR FOURTH PAGE, I'M JUST PICKING AT RANDOM, THREE TO 10 FAMILIES SIDE YARD SHOULD BE NO LESS THAN 15 FEET.
MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE 10 FEET BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE SEE OUT THERE. DO YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN?
>> I'M NOT SAYING YOU DO OR DON'T, I'M JUST SAYING THAT IS NOT A STANDARD THAT IS NECESSARILY IN THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA DISTRICT.
IT'S IN THE REFERENCE TO ANOTHER DISTRICT.
>> BUT THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA SAYS YOU REFERENCED TO.
I WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION.
>> I COULDN'T TELL FROM LOOKING AT THIS, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT IS UNIQUE TO THE NEMOKA DISTRICT THAT DOESN'T APPEAR ANY PLACE ELSE IN THE TOWNSHIP?
>> IN DRIVING AROUND THERE AND LOOKING AT EACH ONE OF THE PARCELS, I WAS STRUCK BY THE NUMBER OF DUPLEXES.
THERE ARE EIGHT DUPLEXES IN THERE.
[00:20:01]
DUPLEXES ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND STAFF DOESN'T BELIEVE THEY NEED TO BE TREATED.THAT IE., A SINGLE FAMILY PLOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONAL REGULATION, SETBACKS COULD APPLY TO A DUPLEX JUST AS WELL AS TO A SINGLE FARM RESIDENCE.
>> MY QUESTION IS NOT SO MUCH WHAT YOU SEE WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH, BUT IN THE ZONE PACKAGE THAT APPLIES TO NEMOKA, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT IS IN THAT PACKAGE THAT YOU SIMPLY CAN'T FIND ANY PLACE ELSE IN THE TOWNSHIP? THERE'S NOTHING UNIQUE TO NEMOKA, IS THERE?
>> THERE'S NOT IN THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT REFERENCES OUT.
THERE, GIVE OR TAKE, 1,500 OTHER PARCELS IN THE TOWNSHIP THAT HAVE THESE USES BY RIGHT BECAUSE THE REFERENCES TO THE RB USES BY RIGHT.
>> WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT THEY GO IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.
IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEES THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA UNIQUE AS COMPARED TO THE RB DISTRICT, THEN IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO LOOK AT THE USES BY RIGHT AND SAY, WELL, THIS AND THIS DON'T BELONG IN A VILLAGE OF NEMOKA SETTING.
BUT WE'RE NOT HERE TO SUGGEST ANYTHING.
WE'VE ONLY SUGGESTED THAT MIGHT BE A POSSIBILITY.
>> YEAH. I JUST GOT CURIOUS WHEN COMMISSIONER SCALES SAYS HE FOUND OUT THAT IT'S AN HISTORICAL DISTRICT, I'M JUST WONDERING IF BECAUSE OF ITS HISTORICAL NATURE, DID IT INHERIT ANYTHING THAT THE REST OF THE TOWNSHIP DOESN'T HAVE?
BUT IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY INHERIT, BY VIRTUE OF BEING HISTORICAL.
IT WOULDN'T INHERIT ANY OTHER DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS OR USE REGULATIONS.
IT MIGHT INHERIT SOME ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS DEPENDING IF IT WAS A LOCAL DISTRICT.
BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, SO I'M CURIOUS WHO MADE THIS.
IT MIGHT BE A SHIP OLD THING, STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE.
IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN ONE OF OUR REFERENCES SOMEWHERE.
I WILL RESEARCH THIS AND GET BACK TO YOU.
>> ANYONE'S INTERESTED, THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA WAS PLANTED ON JANUARY 3, 1883.
SO LET ME JUST SEND YOU A LINK TO THIS.
>> BEFORE I WAS BORN. [LAUGHTER]
>> IS THAT THE LIBRARY, CAFFILLARY DISTRICT LIBRARY? I JUST SAW THAT TOO.
>> I'LL TAKE ANOTHER SHOT AT THAT.
LIKE I SAID, THE LINK THAT COMMISSIONER SCALES SENT TO ME, I DIDN'T GET TO OPEN, I APOLOGIZE, BUT IF YOU WANT TO TRY THAT AGAIN, I'LL START THERE AND SEE.
IT'S INTERESTING THAT WAS PLOTTED THAT LONG AGO.
>> PROBABLY NEED SOME UPDATING, HUH? IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
>> JUST FROM MY CARE, YOU SAID YOU WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE AS STAFF MAKING SUGGESTIONS ABOUT THINGS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BELONG THERE.
I'M LOOKING AT USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S NECESSARY GIVEN THE SPACE THAT IT IS THAT GOLF COURSE BE LISTED.
JUST LOOKING AT THE THINGS THAT ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT, CURRENTLY AS IT IS WRITTEN.
BUT I DON'T KNOW CURRENT FUTURE BEST USE.
I DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING, SO I'M NOT SURE IT MATTERS IF IT'S THERE OR NOT.
>> US TO GIVE SOME THOUGHTS ON WHAT WE THINK MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME OUT OF THAT LIST OR BE AMENDED SLIGHTLY.
>> RIGHT. ONE SUGGESTION, I THINK WE COULD MAKE NUMBER 10 IN ALLOWED USES OF SIGNS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 86_685.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS OF OUR ORDINANCE TO HAVE SO MANY REFERENCES BACK IN THE NAME OF TAKING REFERENCES OUT.
I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO TAKE THAT OUT OF ALLOWED USES BECAUSE WE HAVE A SIGN ORDINANCE.
>> THAT REGULATE SIGN [INAUDIBLE] DISTRICTS.
>> ONE LESS PLACE TO HAVE TO UPDATE LATER IF ANYTHING CHANGES.
>> OKAY. SO OUR HOMEWORK, YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK INTO HISTORICAL DISTRICT AND OUR HOMEWORK IS TO COME TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH SOME CONCRETE, OR MAYBE BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING TO GIVE THOUGHTS ON OR BE READY TO DISCUSS, THE NEXT TIME WE TALK ABOUT THIS, IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THINGS THAT SHOULD COME OUT OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THINGS YOU THINK MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE,
[00:25:01]
IS THAT MAKE GOOD SENSE FOR YOU?>> AGAIN, THERE'S NOBODY WHO'S GOT A DEVELOPMENT WHO'S WAITING FOR A DECISION ON THIS, SO IT'S NOT TIME CRITICAL.
I JUST FEEL LIKE IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, LET'S LOOK AT IT AND GIVE IT A FAIR SHAKE.
I THINK ONE THING WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN DOING IS UPSETTING SOMETHING THAT IS RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO CHANGE SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE SOMEBODY A NON-ALLOWABLE USE.
>> CORRECT. YEAH. I CAN PROMISE YOU, THERE'S NO GOLF COURSES.
>> CURRENTLY, YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANYBODY NON CONFORMING.
ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I'D LET YOU KNOW.
>> OKAY. YOU WILL SAVE US FROM OURSELVES. [OVERLAPPING].
>> IN THAT AREA AND MAPPED IT OUT.
I'D TELL YOU IF YOU WERE MAKING SOMEBODY NON CONFORMING.
>> COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M SAYING ALL THOSE PRIVATE DOG KENNELS ARE GOING TO BE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE.
I THINK THIS HAS BEEN HELPFUL DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU. IS NEXT MEETING OKAY TO COME BACK WITH THESE? OKAY.
>> THAT SOUNDS GREAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO NEXT AGENDA.
>> IT'D BEEN TOO LONG. I HADN'T COME AND TALKED TO YOU GUYS FOR A WHILE.
SO JUST WANT TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON A FEW THINGS.
ACTUALLY, I HAVE AN UNLISTED THIRD ITEM THAT WE'LL GET TO.
BUT TO START WITH, I WANTED TO UPDATE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON WHERE WE ARE AT IN THE MARIJUANA LICENSING PROCESS BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION STILL HAS A ROLE TO PLAY IN THIS.
AS EVERYONE'S AWARE, LAST YEAR WE WENT THROUGH AN ORDINANCE UPDATE THAT ALLOWED FOR RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP.
THE BOARD OPENED A WINDOW FOR APPLICATIONS IN JANUARY.
WITHIN THAT WINDOW, AFTER THE ORDINANCE CHANGED, THERE WERE FIVE ZONES YOU COULD APPLY FOR.
WITHIN THAT WINDOW, WE RECEIVED A TOTAL OF FIVE APPLICATIONS, ONE EACH IN WE'LL CALL IT THE HAZLETT ZONE, THE HAGADORN ZONE, AND THE SOUTH OKAMAS ZONE.
THEN NONE IN THE WEST GRAND RIVER ZONE, WHICH IS ROUGHLY PARK LAKE TO THE TOWNSHIP BORDER WITH EAST LANSING, AND TWO IN THE EAST GRAND RIVER ZONE, WHICH IS THE DISTRICT THAT INCLUDES THE AREA FROM ROUGHLY THE SPARROW BUILDING TO MARSH AND GRAND RIVER AND THE NORTH TO TARGET, CALL IT THAT BIG AREA.
AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD ESTABLISHED, THOSE APPLICATIONS THEN WENT THROUGH A REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE.
THAT SUBCOMMITTEE WAS MADE UP OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, THE DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER OR THEIR DESIGNEE.
THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER DESIGNATED ONE OF MY STAFF MEMBERS WHO PREVIOUSLY WORKED ON THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROCESS IN THE TOWNSHIP, AND SO HAD A BACKGROUND IN IT, AND MYSELF AND DIRECTOR CLARK MET AS REQUIRED, HELD PUBLIC HEARINGS AS REQUIRED, AND HAVE AT THIS POINT MADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FOUR LICENSES.
THE FIRST THREE THERE, THE ONLY LICENSEE IN THEIR DISTRICT WILL BE IN FRONT OF THE TOWNSHIP BOARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING AT THEIR NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS THE SECOND, AND THEN THE BOARD CAN MAKE A DECISION ON THOSE THREE LICENSEES IN THE FUTURE.
THE OTHER TWO LICENSEES WILL COME BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING, AND A DECISION TO BE MADE ON THOSE LATER IN APRIL OR EARLY IN MAY.
WHAT DOES THIS ALL MATTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? ULTIMATELY, THE NEXT STEP OF THAT IS THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS.
WE'RE BRINGING THIS FORWARD TO JUST GIVE YOU AN UPDATE OF WHERE WE'RE AT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO START SEEING THESE MOST LIKELY IN LATE APRIL OR EARLY MAY WILL BE THE FIRST APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO COME THROUGH.
I DON'T KNOW, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS THUS FAR.
[9.B. Marijuana Update]
THE HAZLETT AND SOUTH OKAMAS LOCATIONS WERE BOTH EXISTING BUILDINGS, BOTH OF WHICH DID SOME WORK BEFORE THE COVID SHUTDOWN.THE SOUTH OKAMAS ONE AT THIS POINT ACTUALLY HAS TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY AND IS WORKING TOWARDS GETTING THEIR MEDICAL LICENSE ISSUED FROM THE STATE.
THEY WILL BE THE FIRST ONE TO OPEN.
THEY HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
WE HAVE NOT PROCESSED IT BECAUSE THEY TECHNICALLY DON'T HAVE A LICENSE YET.
THE HAZLETT GROUP IS NOT FAR BEHIND.
THEY ARE REVITALIZING THEIR PERMITS SO THEY CAN FINISH THE WORK UNDER THE MEDICAL AND THEN BE READY FOR RECREATIONAL.
THE OTHER TWO, SO THE HAGADORN WILL BE A NEW CONSTRUCTION,
[00:30:01]
ALTHOUGH THEIR NEW APPLICATION IS INSTEAD OF NEW CONSTRUCTION, THEY INTEND TO REUSE THE HOUSE THAT'S ON THE SITE.THEY HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO TO DO THAT.
THE OTHER TWO OPTIONS IN THE EAST GRAND RIVER AREA, ONE WOULD BE NEW CONSTRUCTION NEXT TO SPARE.
THE OTHER WOULD BE REUSE OF THE EXISTING, THE FIRMER CAPITAL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING, WHICH IS BETWEEN OLD CHICAGO AND THE RUG SHOP.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE EVERYONE THAT UPDATE SO YOU HAD THE INFORMATION.
ALSO, BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE COMPLICATED, WE DECIDED TO DO IT IN PERSON SO I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AS OPPOSED TO JUST SLAPPING IT ON PAPER AND THEN LEAVING IT THAT.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS TO WHERE WE'RE HEADED HERE.
>> YEAH, I HEARD YOU SAY. BETWEEN OLD CHICAGO AND WHERE?
>> IT'S THE ONLY CAPITAL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING, SO I'LL PULL IT UP HERE REAL QUICK.
>> [OVERLAPPING] SHOP AS WELL.
>> IT'S THAT BUILDING RIGHT THERE.
OLD CHICAGO RUG SHAW, THIS IS THE OLD CAPITAL NATIONAL BANK. THIS IS THE MALL PROPERTY.
>> AN OFFBEAT QUESTION. DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW IF ALL OF THE APPLICANTS ARE COMMON OWNERSHIP OR ARE THEY SEPARATE ENTITIES?
>> THEY ARE ALL SEPARATE ENTITIES.
THEY'VE ALL CREATED NEW LLCS FOR THIS PROCESS, WHICH MAKES IT FUN TO TRY AND TRACK AS A STAFF PERSON.
THE SOUTH OKAMAS AND THE HAZLETT GROUP ARE THE EXACT SAME GROUP THAT WE VETTED PREVIOUSLY FOR MEDICAL.
IT'S THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE, EXACT SAME OWNERSHIP.
THE HAGADORN GROUP, I BELIEVE ADDED AN OWNER TO THAT GROUP.
IT'S THE SAME CORE BUT I BELIEVE THEY'VE ADDED A THIRD PERSON.
THE GRAND RIVER GROUP THAT WAS SELECTED FOR MEDICAL IS THE SAME GROUP AND THEN THE NEW GROUP IS A TOWNSHIP RESIDENT AND A GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA THAT ARE PARTNERED IN A COUPLE OF LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER SCALES.
>> WILL WE BE ABLE TO GET A LIST OF THE OWNERS' NAMES TO IDENTIFY JUST IN CASE WE MAY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
>> ABSOLUTELY. ONCE THE BOARD MAKES A DETERMINATION ON WHO THE LICENSEES ARE BEFORE THEY COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'LL LET EVERYBODY KNOW WHO'S COMING.
>> JUST FOR OUR REMINDER, THESE SPECIAL USE PERMITS UNDER THE REVISED ORDINANCE WOULD BE WE ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, RIGHT?
>> YES, THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HAS RETAINED FINAL APPROVAL ON EVERYTHING RELATED TO MARIJUANA.
>> OKAY. BUT WE'LL DO A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION?
>> IT WOULD BE HELPFUL WHEN THAT COMES TO US, JUST TO REMIND US OF THE CRITERIA [OVERLAPPING] THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER AS WE LOOK AT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> FOR THOSE THAT ARE PREVIOUS MEDICAL APPLICANTS, WE WILL GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PART OF THE APPROVE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT TOO [OVERLAPPING]
>> SO YOU HAVE THAT COMPARISON.
>> BECAUSE, I MEAN, WE HAVE SOME NEW PEOPLE.
>> INTANGIBLY, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE AT THIS POINT, THERE'S NOTHING THAT HAS JUMPED OUT AT US THAT WOULD LEAD US TO CHANGE OR MODIFY THE CONDITIONS.
I MEAN, FUNCTIONALLY, THEY ACT THE SAME.
THE DIFFERENCE IS GOING TO BE THE HAGADORN PROPOSAL IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE SAME GROUP, AND THEN WHATEVER HAPPENS IN THE EAST GRAND RIVER QUARTER.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, SO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT FOUR LICENSES?
>> CORRECT. THERE'S FIVE DISTRICTS.
ONE OF THOSE DISTRICTS DID NOT GET AN APPLICANT AND SO THERE WILL BE NO LICENSE IN THAT DISTRICT AT THIS TIME.
THE BOARD IS AT ANY TIME ABLE TO OPEN ANOTHER WINDOW TO ACCEPT LICENSE APPLICATIONS.
I DO NOT ANTICIPATE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON.
CERTAINLY, AT LEAST NOT UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
>> ARE THEY, AND I THINK YOU SAID THIS BUT I JUST WANT IT AGAIN, FOR CLARIFICATION, ARE THEY ALL MEDICAL OR MIX, SOME MEDICAL, SOME?
>> THESE ARE ALL RECREATIONAL APPLICATIONS.
>> OF THEM, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO DITCH MEDICAL ENTIRELY.
IT LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO KEEP IT AT LEAST FOR A TIME, AND THE OTHER TWO HAVE LEFT IT UP TO, WELL, IF YOU WANT US TO HAVE IT, WE'LL KEEP IT [LAUGHTER] OR THE OTHER THREE.
IT'S NO SECRET. I'VE SAID THIS MULTIPLE TIMES.
MEDICAL LICENSING IS LIKELY TO GO BY THE WAYSIDE.
>> THE STATE HAS STARTED TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS OF HOW DO WE BLEND THEM TOGETHER.
IT'S JUST GOING TO BE VERY COMPLICATED BECAUSE THE ENABLING LEGISLATION IS SO DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT.
THE MEDICAL WAS FIVE PARAGRAPHS AND THE RECREATIONAL WAS PAGES ON PAGES ON PAGES.
[00:35:07]
[BACKGROUND] AT SOME POINT THOUGH, THE STATE'S NOT GOING TO BE BRINGING ENOUGH OF MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, SO WHY HAVE IT AT THAT POINT?>> I FEEL LIKE I REMEMBER US DOING STUFF WITH MARIJUANA FACILITIES LAST YEAR.
>> YOU DID. LAST YEAR, YOU HAD SO A COUPLE OF THE APPLICANTS LET THEIR MEDICAL APPROVAL EXPIRE, AND PRESUMABLY ANTICIPATING THAT RECREATIONAL WAS COMING, THEY DECIDED TO, TWO OF THEM, DECIDED TO RE-UP THEIR MEDICAL APPROVAL IN ANTICIPATION OF THAT.
THAT WAS HAZLETT AND EAST GRAND RIVER.
THERE'S ALSO SKY MINT. AND AS EVERYONE'S AWARE, SKY MINT NO LONGER EXISTS AS AN ONGOING OPERATION.
>> SO WE APPROVED I THINK IT WAS TWO THAT WE DID LAST YEAR.
>> THREE, WE APPROVED THOSE, AND SO THEN WHAT THESE ARE WILL BE NEW SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR POTENTIALLY THE SAME LOCATIONS.
>> THEY ARE THE SAME LOCATIONS, YES.
>> SAME LOCATIONS. POTENTIALLY IN SOME CASES, THE SAME COMPANIES GOING FOR A DIFFERENT LICENSING STRUCTURE.
>> LARGELY, NOT TO GET TOO FAR INTO THE WEEDS HERE, BUT LARGELY THIS COMES DOWN TO THE FACT THAT WHEN WE DID MEDICAL, WE DID IT BY A LOTTERY SYSTEM.
ALTHOUGH THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION OF THIS AMONGST LAWYERS, MOST MUNICIPAL LAWYERS WILL TELL YOU THAT'S NOT LEGAL FOR THE RECREATIONAL SIDE.
YOU HAVE TO DO AN ACTUAL REVIEW.
YOU CAN'T JUST PICK A NAME OUT OF THE HAT.
WE DECIDED TO COMPLETELY BIFURCATE THE TWO AND HAVE TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES.
>> WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT THIS IS COMING OUR WAY.
>> NO OBVIOUSLY NEXT MEETING, BUT NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.
>> I SUSPECT YOU WILL SEE THE FIRST APPLICATION, EITHER LATE APRIL OR EARLY MAY.
>> THEN THEY'LL TRICKLE IN AFTER THAT.
SOME OF THEM WILL BE RIGHT ON TOP OF THE BALL AND SOME OF THEM WILL WAIT A LITTLE WHILE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> LAST THING WE WANTED TO BRING UP THIS EVENING IS AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS.
THERE ARE EIGHT SEATS AT THE DIES, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS TECHNICALLY AUTHORIZED FOR NINE MEMBERS.
WHEN WE HAD NINE MEMBERS IN THE PAST, IT WAS SOMEWHAT AWKWARD.
THERE WERE TIMES JERRY RICHARDS SAT DOWN HERE.
THERE WERE TIMES BILL MCCONNELL STOOD ALONG THE BACK WALL.
IT'S TIGHT WITH THE WAY OUR ROOM IS LAID OUT.
STAFF HAS BROUGHT THIS UP A COUPLE OF TIMES TO THE SUPERVISOR.
THE SUPERVISOR RECENTLY REACHED OUT TO THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR TO DISCUSS POTENTIALLY MOVING THE NUMBER OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS FROM 9:00 -7:00.
I WON'T SPEAK FOR THE CHAIR OR THE VICE CHAIR, BUT THERE APPEARED TO BE NO MAJOR OPPOSITION TO THAT.
NATASHA BOARD GENERALLY SEEMS SUPPORTIVE AND SO THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS NO BEFORE THEY PROCEEDED WITH INTRODUCTION AND FURTHER ACTION ON THIS.
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD NO MAJOR CONCERNS WITH MAKING THAT CHANGE.
HERE THIS EVENING TO HEAR ANY CONCERNS.
>> ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> WE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRE DISCUSS THIS, AND I ASKED A FEW QUESTIONS AND IT SEEMED LIKE THEY WERE SATISFACTORILY ANSWERED.
MY CONCERN IS THAT THERE ISN'T ANY HISTORY THAT I JUST WOULDN'T BE AWARE OF THAT MIGHT AFFECT THIS? COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].
>> MY ONLY COMMENT IS I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE DECISION SEEMS TO BE BEING MADE AROUND THE IDEA THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CHAIRS.
>> I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE PANEL.
WE SEEM TO BE FULLY FUNCTIONAL WITH SEVEN MEMBERS.
I JUST DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO THINK THAT IT'S SO SHALLOW A DECISION THAT WE'RE DECIDING IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CHAIRS.
>> THANK THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT.
I THINK THE QUESTIONS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AND THAT WERE RAISED WITH US WERE A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN THAT.
JUST COMPARING US TO SIMILAR SIZED COMMUNITIES AND HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN THOSE COMMUNITIES AND HOW MANY MEMBERS THEY HAVE OF THEIR SIMILAR BODIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT COULD WE EFFECTIVELY MEET QUORUM, MAKE QUORUM AND KNOWING OUR HISTORY WHERE WE HAVE HAD VACANCIES AND BEEN ABLE TO FUNCTION WITH A LOWER NUMBER.
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE YOU WRITE, IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT SHARES.
>> NO, AND I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT SINCE SINCE
[00:40:01]
THE PLANNING ENABLING LEGISLATION ALLOWED FOR THIS CHANGE IN 2008, WE'VE ADDED THREE BOARDS THAT FOCUS ON PLANNING RELATED ISSUES.THE CIA, THE DDA WAS RAMPED UP AND THE BRA WAS ADDED.
THERE'S A LOT OF BOARDS LOOKING AT VARIOUS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED ISSUES.
>> I THINK THERE'S ALSO A RECOGNITION THAT IT'S JUST DOWNRIGHT DIFFICULT LATELY TO GET PEOPLE INVOLVED IN GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY.
>> WE ARE TRYING TO GET CLOSE TO FULL STAFF,
[9.C. Planning Commission Number Change Discussion]
BUT WE COULD USE VOLUNTEERS ON NEARLY EVERY BOARD. IF YOU'RE OUT THERE WATCHING.I PLUGGED THE ZBA BECAUSE THE ZBA, WE JUST NEED AN ALTERNATE RIGHT NOW, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE THERE EVERY TIME.
BUT LAST WEEK THEY HAD THREE AND THEY HAD TO USE THEIR ONE ALTERNATE AND THEY STILL ONLY HAD THREE, WHICH IS THE BARE MINIMUM THEY HAD TO FUNCTION.
THE MORE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO GET INVOLVED, WE WILL FIND YOU A PLACE, TRUST ME, WHEN I SAY THAT.
>> MY EXPERIENCE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE ENOUGH, I WANT TO SAY VOLATILITY, BUT MOBILITY ON THE BOARD, THAT OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTICIPATION SEEM TO POP UP PRETTY REGULARLY AS PEOPLE DECIDE TO MOVE ON OR MOVE ON TO BIGGER AND BETTER THINGS, AS SEVERAL OF OUR PAST MEMBERS HAVE DONE RECENTLY. MR. SCALES?
>> YES, I HEARD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT QUORUM.
THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE OUR QUORUM.
OUR QUORUM IS FIVE RIGHT NOW, BUT THIS WILL REDUCE OUR QUORUM TO FOUR.
THIS IS HISTORICALLY TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WHEN I WAS ON THE BOARD IN 2012, 2016, WE ATTEMPTED TO DO THIS THEN, BUT PROBLEMS AROSE AT THAT TIME, AND SO WE HAD TO CHANGE COURSE.
THIS IS A GOOD ACTION TO TAKE AND I DO, I AM SENSITIVE TO DOING IT BY REDUCING THE SEATS OF THE DAY.
BUT I THINK THAT WAS MORE OF A FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT REDUCING IT BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF VOLUNTEERS THAT CURRENTLY TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET MORE INVOLVED IN THEIR COMMUNITY HERE IN THE TOWNSHIP AS OF LATE.
>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION ACTUALLY ABOUT THE QUORUM.
WHAT IS OUR QUORUM REQUIREMENT WHEN WE HAVE NINE MEMBERS VERSUS SEVEN MEMBERS?
>> IT WILL GO 5-4 REQUIREMENTS.
>> IS THERE ANY RISK OF LIKE HAVING A SPLIT VOTE IF STILL A ODD NUMBER FOUR IS STILL ODD?
>> WE HAVE TO HAVE FOUR PRESENT TO CONDUCT BUSINESS.
RIGHT? BUT THE MAJORITY IS STILL THE MAJORITY.
>> YEAH. YOU STILL NEED A MAJORITY.
TWO VOTES ISN'T GOING TO PASS SOMETHING.
>> THREE. THAT'S WHAT I SAY. LIKE IF WE HAD A FOUR AS OUR QUORUM THEN COULDN'T WE END UP WITH TWO ON ONE SIDE AND TWO ON THE OTHER AND THEN WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION?
YOU WOULD NEED A FOUR TO PASS.
>> AM I THE ONLY ONE CONFUSED?
>> YEAH. YOU'D NEED THREE TO PASS A MAJORITY.
>> YOU STILL NEED YOU STILL NEED A MAJORITY OF THIS BOARD?
>> OH, SO ALL FOUR PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO BE FOUR.
>> YOU DON'T NEED A MAJORITY OF THE QUORUM?
>> NO. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUIRES.
>> SAY LET ME GO TO THE BY LAWS WHICH I SHOULD HAVE HEAD OUT [INAUDIBLE]
>> SIMPLE MAJORITY OF PROVIDING A QUORUM IS PRESENT.
A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT AND VOTING SHALL BE REQUIRED.
FOR TWO EXCEPTIONS, THE ADOPTION OF THE MASTER PLAN REQUIRES THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF SIX MEMBERS AND ANY OTHER ACTION BY WHICH LAW, ORDINANCE, OR PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY REQUIRES OTHERWISE.
>> EVERYTHING BY LAW REQUIRES A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD.
>> REZONING AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS WILL STILL REQUIRE A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD.
>> BUT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, UNLESS I'M FORGETTING SOMETHING IN STATE LAW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, WOULD, IN THEORY, BE ABLE TO GET APPROVED BY THREE PERSONS.
>> IT SAID FOR THE MASTER PLAN ONLY.
THE MASTER PLAN REQUIRES A 2/3 MAJORITY UNDER STATE LAW, AND THAT'S SIX IN THIS CASE.
THAT ACTUALLY DOESN'T FIVE VOTES OR SO.
I'M TRYING TO DO THE MATH ON FIVE IN A VOTE OF SEVEN, THAT'S A GOOD ONE.
>> WE'RE STILL GOING TO SAY YOU NEED SIX VOTES TO ADOPT A MASTER PLAN REGARDLESS.
[00:45:02]
>> WELL THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD THING ACTUALLY.
WE WILL WE WANT TO JUST TAKE A QUICK PEEK AT OUR BYLAWS TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING IN THE BYLAWS NEEDS TO BE UPDATED IF THIS GOES THROUGH SO TALK ABOUT THOSE TOGETHER TOO.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONSIDERATIONS? ARE YOU OKAY TO HAVE STAFF PREPARE A DRAFT?
>> SO THEN FOR US TO HAVE A MEETING OUR QUORUM IS FOUR PEOPLE?
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING IF WE WENT DOWN TO THIS?
>> I WOULD REPHRASE THAT TO SAY THAT WE CAN HAVE A MEETING, WE JUST CAN'T TRANSACT ANY BUSINESS.
>> GOOD POINT. YES. THANK YOU.
WE'VE DONE THAT ONCE OR TWICE BEFORE WHEN WE HAD THINGS TO DISCUSS, THE LARGER [INAUDIBLE] SOUNDS GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> NEXT, YOU SAID YOU HAD ONE OTHER BONUS ITEM?
>> I'M GOING TO TIE IT INTO THE UPDATE FROM THE BOARD HERE.
[LAUGHTER] JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS FROM THE BOARD.
STRAW STREET REZONING WAS ADOPTED, IF PREVIOUSLY WE HAVEN'T SHARED THAT.
THAT IS WHAT IS DRIVING A LOT OF THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RN DISTRICT.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD ENDED UP ON FOR THAT REZONING.
THE SUB-STORAGE FACILITY WAS TURNED DOWN ON GRAIN RIVER AVENUE, AND THEY INTRODUCED THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED.
THE LAST THING I WANT TO BRING UP THIS EVENING IS YOUR NEXT MEETING IS APRIL 8TH.
AT THAT MEETING WE ANTICIPATE AT THIS TIME TO HAVE A REQUEST FROM THE DEVELOPERS OF THE VILLAGE OF OKAMIS, FOR CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW FOR AMENDMENTS TO THEIR MUPUD PLAN.
UNDER THE MUPUD ORDINANCE THAT, IT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST BIG THINGS I DID HERE ACTUALLY, WAS FINISH UPDATING THAT ORDINANCE, IN 2021.
WE ADDED A POTENTIAL FOR A CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW.
STAFF REALLY DOESN'T EVEN GET INVOLVED.
WE BRING IT TO YOU, BRING IT TO THE BOARD FOR FEEDBACK. THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
IT'S TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THEY SPEND THE TIME AND EFFORT TO DO FULL ENGINEER DRAWINGS, TO GET FEEDBACK ON CHANGES ON A PROPOSAL.
IN THIS CASE CHANGES TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE EVERYONE A HEADS-UP, THAT IS COMING.
WE DO NOT HAVE THE APPLICATION YET, SO I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT IT IS.
WE EXPECT THAT IT'S COMING NEXT WEEK.
THE BOARD IS AWARE THIS IS COMING, I'M MAKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AWARE THIS IS COMING.
IT'S NOT A FORMAL MOTION, IT'S REALLY JUST THEY'RE SEEKING FEEDBACK ON THE PROPOSED CHANGE.
POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, OR IN BETWEEN.
>> LIKELY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPER HERE [INAUDIBLE]
>> I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE SEVERAL.
>> WE'LL HAVE THINGS. INTERESTING. THAT'S A DEVELOPMENT.
>> JUST TO VERIFY, THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO THAT THEN.
>> THERE IS NOT. PUBLIC'S ALWAYS WELCOME.
>> BUT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A FORMAL SUBMITTAL.
REALLY IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT, IT'S A GREAT IDEA.
IT GIVES SOMEONE WITH AN IDEA FOR THE CORNER OF, I DON'T KNOW, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO JOLLY.
DON'T READ INTO THIS FOR ANYTHING, [LAUGHTER] IT'S A FARM FIELD.
SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO LIKE A THREE-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING WITH A RESTAURANT IN FRONT AND SOME COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING OR WHATEVER.
THEY COULD COME FORWARD AND GET SOME FEEDBACK WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH.
IT MAY NOT WORK FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT, THEY MAY NOT FIND THAT OUT LATER,
[10.A. Township Board update.]
BUT AT LEAST THEY KNOW UPFRONT THERE'S AT LEAST SOME APPETITE FOR THE PROJECT.THAT'S WHAT IT'S INTENDED FOR.
IN THIS CASE IT'S JUST A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A FEW CONCEPTS FOR THIS ONE.
INTERESTING, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT VERY MUCH.
>> THIS IS THE SAME DEVELOPER WHO'S BEEN WORKING WITH US,.
>> THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR INDULGING ME THIS EVENING.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? LIAISON REPORTS?
>> ZBA DID MEET THIS PAST, WAS IT MONDAY? LAST WEDNESDAY, I WAS THINKING.
STATUS QUO, JUST A SERIES OF VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED BY RESIDENTS FOR WHETHER AS A DECK OR TO ALLOW ANOTHER HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY,
[00:50:04]
BUT STATUS QUO, NOTHING MAJOR.>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO SHARE? PROJECT UPDATE REPORTS, ARE THERE?
>> THERE WAS NO CHANGES. THERE IS NO [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE'LL LOOK AT THE ONE FROM THE LAST PACKET.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO GIVE PUBLIC REMARKS? THIS IS OUR SECOND OPPORTUNITY FOR OPEN PUBLIC REMARKS. SEEING NONE.
ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, WHO HAVEN'T ALREADY, ON ANYTHING ELSE? SEEING NONE. YES, GO AHEAD.
>> FOR THE SIZE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGE, IF THERE IS ANY IMPACT TO OTHER RULES, I WOULD AT LEAST BE OPEN IN ENTERTAINING CHANGING RULES THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO ACCOMMODATE SEVEN MEMBERS IF STAFF WERE TO SEE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE, JUST WANTED TO THROW IT OUT THERE LIKE AS A POTENTIAL PROPOSAL.
>> I THINK THE SEVEN MEMBERS MAKES SENSE, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WORKS IN THE LONG TERM.
>> WHICH BRINGS UP A QUESTION I'VE GOTTEN NOW THAT YOU MENTIONED IT.
[LAUGHTER] DO WE HAVE OUR OWN AUTHORITY TO AMEND OUR OPERATING RULES, OR DO OUR CHANGES HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE TOWNSHIP BOARD?
>> YOU UPDATED YOUR BY-LAWS LAST YEAR.
THERE'S A PROCESS FOR YOU GUYS TO AMEND YOUR OWN BY-LAWS.
ANYTHING ELSE? ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> I MOVE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING OF MARCH 25TH, 2024, OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SCALES.
SECONDED BY [LAUGHTER] COMMISSIONER BLOOMER. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU, EVERYONE. THE MEETING HAS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.