Jul 09, 2024 Township Board

>> COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER HAS AN EXCUSED ABSENCE AND CHAIR SHREWSBURY IS HERE.

THANK YOU. NOW WE ARE ON TO ITEM 3, PUBLIC REMARKS.

I WILL START AT THE TOP OF THE LIST HERE AND CALL YOUR NAME WHEN IT IS YOUR TURN TO SPEAK.

YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

MR. MCCALL, HERE WILL BE RUNNING THE TIMER SO YOU'LL SEE THE LIGHTS GO ON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

PROACTIVE. PLEASE WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

IT IS THE PRACTICE OF THE BOARD NOT TO ENGAGE IN BACK AND FORTH WITH PUBLIC COMMENTERS.

WE WILL SEND TO YOU AS YOU SPEAK.

I WILL START WITH GREG FEDEWA, PLEASE.

>> NAME AND ADDRESS?

>> YES. NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> MY NAME IS GREG FEDEWA. I LIVE AT 7030 COLEMAN ROAD IN EAST LANSING.

I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF FEDEWA HOLDINGS ON OUR REZONING REQUEST TONIGHT.

A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE CURRENT WATER THAT'S IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH FUTURE WATER THAT COULD BE THERE AS A RESULT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

I WANT TO NOTE THAT A GOOD WAY TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE IS WITH DETENTION PONDS.

IT ALSO SOLVES THE PROBLEM AND OF THE CURRENT PROBLEM AND OF THE FUTURE AS WELL.

DETENTION PONDS ARE USED ALL OVER THE TOWNSHIP.

THEY'RE ENGINEERED SYSTEMS. THEY'RE ALSO FLOWING WATER.

SO THEY'RE NOT JUST A DITCH IN THE GROUND THAT FILLS WITH WATER AND STAYS THERE.

THEY ACTUALLY DRAIN THE STREET INTO THE WATER SYSTEM.

IT'S NOT JUST SITTING THERE AND IT GOES AWAY AND IT'S A FULL PROOF SYSTEM.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

IT'S REQUIRED BY THE DRAIN OFFICE AND APPROVED BY MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT, I HAVE JOHN LEONE.

IF I MISPRONOUNCE THAT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

>> LEONE.

>> LEONE. THANK YOU.

>> IT'S LEONE. I HAVE THREE MINUTES WE'RE ON THE FEDEWA HOLDING. I JUST CAME UP.

>> YOU CAN SPEAK ABOUT ANYTHING YOU WANT.

>> OKAY. REAL QUICK. [OVERLAPPING]

>> PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> YEAH, SORRY, JOHN LEONE, L-E-O-N-E, 4544 DOBIE ROAD, OKEMOS, MICHIGAN, 48864.

MAY I SUBMIT A PIECE OF PAPER? I LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE CHURCH.

I SEE WHAT GOES ON THERE EVERY DAY.

THE IDEA OF MORE TRAFFIC AT ALL COMING INTO THERE,

[4. PRESENTATION]

ESPECIALLY TURNING NORTH TOWARD HAMILTON TO ME IS RIDICULOUS.

IN FACT, THE BACKUPS WOULD PROBABLY MAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO THAT DRIVING CIRCLE THAT'S DOWN HAMILTON, WHICH ALREADY HAS BACKUPS.

SO THAT'S WHAT THE HIGHLIGHTED THERE IS MY OPINION, WHAT ALREADY IS A JAMMED AREA.

YOU HAVE SCHOOL CHILDREN THAT ARE THERE EVERY MORNING AND EVENING.

TO ADD MORE TRAFFIC THERE TO ME JUST ON ITS FACE IS SHOCKING.

NOW, I THINK HOW WE GOT HERE, AND MOTIVE ISN'T AN ISSUE, AS I WOULD UNDERSTAND.

BUT THERE'S MANY OTHER PLACES FOR HOUSING.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT OKEMOS, WHY HERE? MY GUT FEELING IS THAT THE CHURCH NEEDED MONEY, OBVIOUSLY.

THEY TRIED TO DO THE SALE ONCE, AND IT REALLY ISN'T ULTIMATELY A FACTOR.

BUT I WOULD THINK BECAUSE THE ULTIMATE RULE IS WHAT THIS BOARD DEEMS IS IN THE HEALTH SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.

BUT WHEN YOU ADD IT ALL UP, THERE'S PLENTY OF PLACES TO PUT MORE HOUSING.

THIS WOULD JAM UP AN ALREADY JAMMED AREA.

THERE'S ISSUE ABOUT THE MASTER PLAN.

I'M JUST GOING TO MENTION SOME THINGS LATER ON, MAYBE I'M NOT PRECLUDED FROM TALKING ABOUT THEM.

AND ALSO THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO BRING UP IS I'VE NOTICED IN THE PAPERWORK WHEN IT SAYS ABOUT THERE'S NO NEED FOR I GUESS WHAT I'LL CALL A FULL TRAFFIC SURVEY.

[00:05:07]

I'D LIKE TO DEFINITELY GOING TO LOOK INTO THAT BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT THE WAY THEY DID THOSE CALCULATIONS, IT'S NOT CLEAR WHEN IT SAYS SINCE THE LAST REZONING.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MASTER PLAN ACTIVITY, WHICH IS NOT, AS I UNDERSTAND, A FORMAL REZONING.

IT'S JUST AN IDEA, AND WHAT WAS DONE, I WOULD IMAGINE ACCORDING TO THE TECHNICAL RULES, BUT WHETHER THE COMMUNITY, I'M NO EXPERT IN THIS AREA, I'M AN ATTORNEY TRYING TO STOP BEING AN ATTORNEY AND THINGS KEEP HAPPENING.

I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW WILL ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS WILL BE TAKEN ALL THE WAY BECAUSE WHOEVER'S OPPOSED TO IT HAS FREE LEGAL COUNSEL ALL THE WAY UP.

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MR. FEDEWA, I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S HERE, DON'T KNOW THE MAN, JUST GOT A GREAT DEAL ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND HE'S TRYING TO PUT THAT IN THERE.

I ONLY GOT 30 SECONDS LEFT.

THAT'S REALLY JUST MY POINT.

I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH. I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO STUDY AS MUCH AS I WANT TO TODAY.

THESE ARE JUST COMMENTS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BE HERE TO MAKE SURE I'M ON THE LIST.

MY GENERAL UNDERSTANDING IS YOU GOT TO SHOW UP SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE LATER.

THAT'S ALL, BUT I'LL LET YOU KNOW, ANYONE WHO'S FAMILIAR WITH THAT STRETCH WOULD SAY IT'S ALREADY JAMMED.

MAYBE WITH MY FINAL TWO SECONDS, WE SHOULD MAYBE GET THE PUBLIC SAFETY OPINIONS ON THIS AS TO WHETHER THEY THINK IT WOULD CAUSE TOO MUCH RISK OF ADDITIONAL ACCIDENTS, ETC.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT IS DAVID FEDEWA.

>> WELL, THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DAVID FEDEWA.

I LIVE AT 278 HASLETT ROAD, HASLETT, MICHIGAN.

ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO BRING TO THE TABLE IS THAT WE ARE A LOCAL BUSINESS.

WE'RE FAMILY-OWNED.

IT'S ME AND FOUR MY BROTHERS, MY FATHER AND MOTHER.

MY WIFE IS THE OFFICE MANAGER.

BY SAYING THAT WHAT I WANT TO IMPRESS UPON YOU IS THAT WE'RE NOT SOME COMPANY FROM LAS VEGAS OR ANOTHER STATE WHERE WE'RE JUST COMING IN TO BUILD THIS BIG BUILDING, MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS WE CAN AND LEAVE.

NO, WE'RE HERE TO BE A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY.

WE'VE BEEN RUNNING THIS BUSINESS, MY DAD STARTED THIS BUSINESS 44 YEARS AGO.

WE'RE HERE TO HELP AND BE A PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

MY KIDS GO TO THE SCHOOLS HERE, AND MY BROTHER'S KIDS GO TO THE SCHOOLS HERE.

WE'RE NOT HERE TO JUST HAMMER UP THIS BUILDING, MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS WE CAN AND LEAVE.

WE'RE HERE TO HELP AND BE A PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WE READ THROUGH THE CONCERNS OF ALL THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY BROUGHT UP TRAFFIC AS IT'S GOING TO BE BROUGHT UP HERE AGAIN.

ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS THAT WE BUILD A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT UNIT.

WITH OUR 2,000 SQUARE FOOT UNIT, WE CAN FIT ABOUT 35 UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY.

WITH 35 UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY, WE WOULD HAVE APPROXIMATELY 70 CARS.

IF YOU HAVE ALL 70 CARS, YOU HAVE A PORTION OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE WORKING FROM HOME AND YOU HAVE A PORTION OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT WORKING.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE LET'S SAY 35 CARS LEAVING BETWEEN 5:00 AM AND 9:00 AM.

WITH THAT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC, YOU'RE NOT HAVING THAT LARGE OF AN IMPACT ON WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE STREETS.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW, THIS IS NOT THIS MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU'RE HAVING TWO OR 300 CARS COME OUT OF THIS.

THIS IS 35 CARS OVER FOUR HOURS.

ALSO, SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER THE COSTS ASSOCIATED TO THE UNIT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID, WE WANTED TO DO OUR OWN MARKET RESEARCH AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MARKET VALUE IS.

WE HAD LOOKED OUT INTO THE MARKET AND FOUND A DTN DEVELOPMENT.

THE DTN DEVELOPMENT ON AVERAGE, CHARGES BETWEEN $2 AND 2.70 PER SQUARE FOOT.

WITH OUR 2,000 SQUARE FOOT UNIT, THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN $4,000 A MONTH AND $5,400 A MONTH. THAT'S THE MARKET RATE.

WHAT WE'RE CHARGING ON AVERAGE IS 2,400-2,600.

AND SO WE ARE WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE OPTION THAN OUR COMPETITORS.

BUT HERE WE ARE WANTING TO BE A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE TENANTS THAT STAY FOR YEARS WITH US BECAUSE THEY GO OUT IN THE MARKETPLACE AND THEY LOOK AND SEE THAT THIS IS THE BEST OPTION FOR THEM AND IT'S A QUALITY BUILT BUILDING.

I WANTED TO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

I APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP IS WAYNE POPARD, AND JUST TO MAKE IT GO SMOOTH ON DECK IS JOEL MAJOR.

>> MY NAME IS WAYNE POPARD.

I HAVE LIVED AT 4554 SENECA DRIVE FOR THE PAST 46 YEARS.

[00:10:02]

I AM OPPOSED TO REZONING FAITH LUTHERAN PROPERTY TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS, MEANING APARTMENTS.

WE ASK OUR NEIGHBORS HOW THEY FELT ABOUT THE REZONING AND THE PLAN TO BUILD 35-60.

THAT WAS MENTIONED LAST MEETING.

APARTMENTS. WE OBTAINED SIGNATURES FROM RESIDENTS WHO LIVE ON HAMILTON ROAD, DOBIE ROAD, FORREST HILL, SENECA DRIVE, ONEIDA, KEWANA, MIRABEAU, CALI, AND SHAKER BOULEVARD.

OF THE 75 RESIDENTS THAT WE SPOKE WITH, 69 OF THOSE RESIDENTS OPPOSED THE REZONING OF THE 4.2 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

THAT'S 92% OF THE RESIDENTS WE SPOKE WITH OPPOSED THE REZONING.

THE SIGNATURES COLLECTED WERE TURNED OVER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING.

NOW YOU KNOW HOW THE NEIGHBORS FEEL.

THEY ARE CONCERNED THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT THE RIGHT ONE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

MR. FEDEWA DEVELOPMENT IS FAR TOO DENSE FOR THE LAND AND IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER EXISTING USES SURROUNDING THE AREA. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS JOEL MAJOR ON DECK OF CECILIA KRAMER.

>> THANKS. MY NAME IS JOEL MAJOR, ADDRESS 4570 SENECA DRIVE, LIVED THERE FOR 24 YEARS WITH MY WIFE.

THANKS. TALKING IN OPPOSITION OF THE REZONING OF THE FEDEWA LAND INVESTMENT.

SPECIFICALLY, I WANTED TO BRING UP THIS PLANNING COMMISSION'S REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF 2023.

SOME GREAT QUESTIONS YOU HAD OF THE APPLICANT AT THAT TIME ABOUT REZONING AND GETTING INTO THE MASTER PLAN.

VICE CHAIR TREZISE NOTED INITIAL HESITATION WAS DUE TO OVERCROWDING.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS MENTIONED SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCES WERE CONCERNED OVER ADDITIONAL BUS STOPS AND DENSITY.

BLUMER, YOU HAD NICELY MENTIONED THE CHANGE IN DENSITY WOULD CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE.

SENIOR PLANNER SHORKEY, YOU'VE ALSO MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD CHANGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT IS CURRENTLY JUST LAWN.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY ASKED ABOUT THE PREVIOUS DENIAL OR OBJECTION, JUST LIKE COMMISSIONER BROOKS HAD EARLIER.

I HAVE A COPY OF THAT.

I'D LIKE TO READ THAT PARTICULAR GROUPS' ANSWERS.

THEIR DISCUSSION WAS, HOMES BACKING UP TO THE PROPOSED PROPERTY WILL REQUIRE SCREENING.

THERE ARE MANY TREES ON THE PROPERTY AND THERE IS A DESIRE TO PRESERVE THEM.

THE CONFIGURATION OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL PROBABLY REQUIRE VARIANCES.

CONSIDERATION FOR DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROPOSED AREA INSTEAD OF A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT AS THIS WOULD BE A BETTER TRANSITION IN THE AREA, CONSIDERING THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE WEST.

RC ZONING IS NOT SUITABLE IN THE PROPOSED LOCATION.

APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD OF THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY HAS ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED, TRAFFIC FLOW AND SAFETY IN THE PROPOSED AREA IS A CONCERN AS THE AREA IS ALREADY VERY BUSY.

MULTIFAMILY PROJECT WOULD CREATE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC ON TO DOBIE ROAD.

LASTLY, THE PROPOSED REZONING TO RC IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

[5. CITIZENS ADDRESS AGENDA ITEMS AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS]

THESE ARE PART OF THE MINUTES, OCTOBER 14, 2019.

THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS TO LOOK AT THOSE AND WHAT THE FOUNDINGS WERE.

SHREWSBURY ASKED ABOUT IT HERE, BROOKS ASKED ABOUT IT AGAIN.

I WOULD SUBMIT THAT FOR YOUR REFERENCE. IF YOU HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THAT.

AND THEN LASTLY, IS THE VERY DETAILED REZONING SITE PLAN THAT FEDEWA BUILDERS HAD PUT THROUGH IN OCTOBER 11TH, 2019, WHICH I HOLD IN MY HAND HERE, WHICH IS AN EXTENSIVE SITE PLAN, ALL SHOEHORNED INTO THE 2.9 ACRES AND ULTIMATELY DENIED BY THAT GROUP BECAUSE OF THE 14 DWELLING UNITS THAT WERE GOING TO BE PUT IN THERE FOR A VARIETY OF THINGS. THAT'S IT.

>> NEXT UP IS CECILIA KRAMER FOLLOWED BY KRISTINA KLOC.

>> YES. HELLO. MY NAME IS CECILIA KRAMER.

I LIVE IN FORREST HILL 4560 OAKWOOD.

BUT I'M HERE THIS EVENING AS THE GOVERNMENT LIAISON FOR THE FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH.

I WANTED TO COMMENT THAT MR. MCCONNELL AND HIS HISTORIC AIR FLOWS ACTUALLY WAS CORRECT, AND THAT THE PROPERTY STARTED OFF BEFORE 1956 AS A FARM FIELD.

ANY TREES AND GROWTH OF BUSHES,

[00:15:01]

ETC, WAS FROM THAT ERA.

THERE ARE VERY FEW TREES ON THERE THAT WOULD PREDATE THAT.

SO IT IS NOT OLD GROWTH FOREST.

THE RATIONALE FOR THE SALE WAS CORRECTLY POINTED OUT, IT WAS A STRATEGIC MOVE BY THE CHURCH COUNCIL AND THE CONGREGATION TO SELL THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PARCEL AND USE THAT MONEY TO PAY OFF THE MORTGAGE FOR THE CHURCH.

THIS WOULD ALLOW THE CHURCH MORE RESOURCES TO BE FOCUSED ON COMMUNITY PROGRAMS, OUTREACH, ETC, RATHER THAN PAYING A $5,000 A MONTH MORTGAGE.

LET ME TALK ABOUT THE SALE HISTORY.

AT THAT POINT, WE PUT THE PARCEL ON THE MARKET.

>> A NUMBER OF PEOPLE CAME UP WITH PARK LAND OPTIONS.

WELL, WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK TO HAVING THAT VIA PARKLAND, AND TURN IT TO THE TOWNSHIP.

BUT THE CHURCH IS A 501(C)(3) AND A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPT.

IT WOULDN'T GAIN US ANYTHING AGAIN TO PAY THAT MORTGAGE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO COME FORWARD AND THE NEIGHBORS SAW THE SIGN OUT THERE FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS, NEVER APPROACHED US WITH ANY OPTION OF PURCHASING IT TO TURN IT INTO PARKLAND, BUT ALL ENJOYED THE VIEW OF THE ANIMALS AND TREES.

WE DID HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING WAS BROUGHT UP AS AN OPTION.

SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.

WE HAD ONE GENTLEMAN COME FORWARD, WANTED TO MAKE A COMPOUND OUT OF THE ACREAGE AND PUT A HOUSE ON THERE FOR HIMSELF AND A COUPLE OF HIS CHILDREN.

THEN WHEN YOU'RE SPENDING THAT MONEY ON A HOUSE, YOU NEED TO HAVE EVEN UP AGAINST THE CURRENT CHIEF OKEMOS, WAS A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH FOR THEM AND IT WOULD EVEN WITH GOOD MAINTENANCE, THAT NEEDED MORE BUFFERING FOR THAT TYPE OF AN OPERATION.

THE NOISE NUISANCE FROM DOBIE ROAD WAS A PROBLEM FOR THEM, SO THAT ENDED THAT SITUATION.

BUT BOTTOM LINE, THANK YOU, WE WOULD CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE REZONING AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GO ALONG WITH THAT AND VOTE THAT IN. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT IS CHRIS CLOCK AND AFTER THAT WILL BE DEBORAH MAJOR.

>> HI. CHRIS CLOCK 4538 SENECA GROVE.

I'M HERE TO VOICE OPPOSITION TO THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO FAITH LUTHERAN BEING REZONED AS MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

THIS AREA SHOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

LOOKING AT THE CRITERIA REQUIRED ON THE REASONS FOR REZONING REQUEST, THIS REZONING ACTUALLY MEETS NONE OF THESE CRITERIA.

FIRST CRITERIA, THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT ADDRESS A COMMUNITY NEED.

ADDITIONAL RENTAL PROPERTIES ARE NOT NEEDED IN THIS COMMUNITY.

WHILE THE POPULATION DID GROW BY 4,228 FROM THE 2010-2020 CENSUS, THE US CENSUS BUREAU POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR JULY OF 2023 ACTUALLY SHOWS A DECREASE IN THE POPULATION.

THE SAME DATA ALSO SHOWS THE PERCENT OF OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING TO BE 57.5% IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

THIS IS FAR LESS THAN THE 72.5% FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 64.8% FOR THE UNITED STATES, AND EVEN LESS THAN THE 58.8% FOR THE REST OF INGHAM COUNTY.

I ALSO CHECK WITH THREE NEARBY APARTMENT COMPLEXES, ALL OF WHICH HAVE CURRENT VACANCIES, SO NONE OF THIS SUPPORTS THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RENTAL PROPERTIES.

NUMBER 2, THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER EXISTING USES SURROUNDING THE SITE.

THE LARGEST BORDERING AREA IS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE WEST.

THE PROPERTY THAT DOES EXIST ON THE NORTHERN EDGE MAINTAINS A BUFFER OF TREES AND LANDSCAPE BETWEEN THEM AND THE SURROUNDING HOMES.

MR. PITA WAS MASSIVE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT USES EVERY SQUARE INCH OF THE 4.2 ACRES DOES NOT FIT THIS AREA AT ALL AND IS FAR TOO DENSE FOR THE LAND.

THREE, THE REQUESTED REZONING WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATA, FOR STATION 33-5056, WHICH IS DOBIE ROAD SOUTH OF WEST GRAND RIVER NEAR MONACA TRAIL HAS AN AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TOTAL OF 8,800 CARS.

USING ITE TRIP GENERATION DATA, 60 UNITS ALLOWED WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC BY APPROXIMATELY 840 CARS PER DAY,

[00:20:02]

WHICH IS A 10% INCREASE ON A TWO LANE ROAD WITH NO LEFT OR RIGHT TURN LANES.

EVEN IF YOU CUT THAT DOWN TO 30, YOU'RE STILL A 5% INCREASE IN TRAFFIC.

REPLACING ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND WITH FOUR ACRES OF CONCRETE WILL IMPACT THE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS NEGATIVELY.

IF REZONING IS APPROVED AND DRAINAGE IS DEVELOPED, OR NONE CURRENTLY EXISTS, THE RESPONSIBILITY WILL BE SOLELY WITH THE TOWNSHIP.

THE 4.2 ACRES IS ALSO NOT IN THE MASTER PLAN, ONLY 2.8 ACRES IS IN THE PLAN.

INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT BY 50% CHANGES THE SCOPE AND THE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT SUFFICIENTLY AS TO RENDER IT INCONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

REZONING ALSO DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATED GOALS OF THE MASTER PLAN SUCH AS PRESERVING THE CHARACTER OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, REZONING TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL SHOULD BE DENIED. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT STEP IS DEBORAH MAJOR, FOLLOWED BY DAVID CLARK.

>> HI. MY NAME IS DEBORAH MAJOR.

I LIVE AT 45, 70, SENECA GROVE LIVED FOR 24 YEARS.

I SENT YOU A LETTER THAT WAS A LITTLE MORE DETAILED, BUT I HAVE A FEW MORE POINTS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE.

FIRST OF ALL, I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE FIDO HOLDING REZONING ON DOBIE ROAD.

I AS YOU ALL KNOW BY NOW, THE REZONING WAS DENIED UNANIMOUSLY IN OCTOBER 2019, AND I FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE CAN'T NEGATE THE WORK OF THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION, THREE OF WHO NOW SERVE AS OUR TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES.

MY HUSBAND, JOEL ATTENDED THE OCTOBER 19 MEETING, AND WE HAVE READ AND RE READ THE MINUTES, AS I'M SURE ALL OF YOU HAVE BY NOW AS WELL.

THE COMMISSIONERS PONDERED ALL ANGLES OF THIS REZONING ISSUE BEFORE DENYING MR. FIDO APPLICATION.

THEY TOOK THE DECISION AND THE EFFECTS OF IT VERY SERIOUSLY.

WHILE RC ZONING ISN'T VIABLE ON THIS PLOT OF LAND, EXCUSE ME, LAND.

SINGLE FAMILY OWNED HOMES DEFINITELY COULD BE VIABLE.

CONSIDER A CALL DE SAC WITH ONE ENTRIES SUCH AS DOBE CIRCLE OFF OF DOBIE ROAD NEAR HATCH.

THAT PLAN WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE EAST AND THE WEST WHILE AVOIDING THE NEGATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACT A HUGE MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX WOULD CREATE.

IN ADDITION, IT WOULD PROVIDE MORE GREEN SPACE WHILE ALLOWING SOME OF THOSE REMAINING TREES FOR THE BACKYARDS OF THOSE HOMES.

HAVING SOME REMAINING GREEN SPACE WOULD ALLEVIATE DRAINAGE ISSUES CAUSED BY HIGH DENSITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.

THESE HOMES COULD BE MODEST IN PRICED IF FIT THE MISSING MIDDLE DISCUSSED LAST MONTH WHILE INCREASING HOMEOWNERSHIP IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, WHICH WE DEFINITELY NEED.

MR. FAB NOW HAS THE RIGHT TO BUILD ON THIS LAND AS ALL LAND OWNERS DO.

BUT WHAT IS BUILT MUST NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT CURRENT RESIDENTS BOTH NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.

OUR TOWNSHIP WILL BENEFIT FROM GROWTH IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER, THAT MAKES SENSE FOR ALL.

A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX HERE ON DOBIE ROAD DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

I ASK YOU TO VETO THE RC REZONING. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. DAVID CLARK, FOLLOWED BY PEGGY ANDERSON.

>> HI THERE. DAVID CLARK, I LIVE AT 4538 SENECA.

I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 24 YEARS.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK THIS EVENING REGARDING THE REZONING OF NUMBER 20 4013 BY FIDO HOLDINGS.

I OPPOSE THE REQUEST FROM FIDO HOLDINGS TO REZONE IN APPROXIMATE 4.2 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON DOBIE ROAD FROM RAA SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY TO RC MULTIPLE FAMILY.

I SUPPORT THE SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY ZONING BECAUSE THOSE POTENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS WOULD SHARE OUR COMMON INTEREST AND GOALS.

AT PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, I SPOKE ABOUT THE REASONS WE DON'T WANT THE FOUR PLUS ACRE PARCEL REZONED TO MULTIPLE FAMILY.

REASONS BEING THERE IS NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RENTAL PROPERTIES IN THAT AREA, 59-100 PLUS ADDITIONAL CARS IN OUR CARS IN OUR BACK YARDS THAT GENERATES MORE LIGHT AND NOISE.

ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ON DOBIE ROAD, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO MORE CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC ON SENECA AND SHAKER.

SENECA IS A NARROW STREET.

SENECA AND SHAKER DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS.

I ALSO SPOKE ABOUT THE RETENTION POND PROJECTED TO BE BUILT 10 FEET FROM OUR PROPERTIES.

RETENTION PONDS CREATE A HABITAT FOR MOSQUITOES IN THEIR DISEASES, ALONG WITH ATTRACTING SNAKES.

IT'S A HORRIBLE VIEW FOR US HOMEOWNERS.

THE SMELL OF STAGNANT WATER, THE DROWNING RISK, IF NO FENCE, IF THERE'S A FENCE, THE RETENTION POND BECOMES MORE OF AN EYESORE.

THE RISK OF WATER BEING CONTAMINATED.

I CAN'T GET COMFORTABLE WITH HAVING FOUR ACRES OF WATER PURPOSELY DIRECTED TOWARD OUR BACK YARDS WITH OUR PROPERTIES BEING THE LOWEST POINT ON SENECA GROVE.

IT'S ZONED FOR 14 DWELLINGS PER ACRE.

IT WILL MOST LIKELY BE DEVELOPED WITH 14 DWELLINGS PER ACRE IF IT'S REZONED.

[00:25:03]

MY KEY POINT TODAY AND THIS IS CRITICAL, THE CONCERNS I JUST MENTIONED GO AWAY.

IF THE 4+ ACRE PARCEL REMAINS SINGLE FAMILY, IT REMAINS ZONE SINGLE FAMILY.

SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS WILL MOST LIKELY WANT TO KEEP A BUFFER OF EXISTING TREES AND LANDSCAPE BETWEEN THEIR PROPERTY AND OURS, WHICH WE ALSO PREFER.

SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WON'T LOWER OUR PROPERTY VALUES.

WHILE REZONING A MULTIPLE FAMILY, HIGH DENSITY WILL REDUCE OUR PROPERTY VALUES.

REMEMBER, THAT FOUR PLUS ACRE PARCEL WAS NEVER ZONED MULTIPLE FAMILY WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOMES.

LET'S NOT CHANGE THE RULES MID GAME AND MOVE THE GOAL POST BY REZONING TO MULTIPLE FAMILY.

ONE OF THE GOALS IN THE MASTER PLAN IS TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

I FEEL SHOEHORNING 59 UNITS INTO THAT FOUR PLUS ACRE PARCEL IS NOT PRESERVING THE CHARACTER OF OUR EXISTING SINGLE RESIDENT NEIGHBORHOOD.

ACCORDING TO THE MINUTES ON THE JANUARY 7TH, 2020, REGULAR TOWNSHIP BOARD MEETING.

THE REZONING WAS DENIED, "IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO COME UP WITH A NEW PROPOSAL THAT WILL PROVIDE AFFORDABLE, SMALLER, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THAT PROPERTY, THAT WILL MUCH BETTER MATCH THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD." THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT IS PEGGY ANDERSON, FOLLOWED BY JERRY FIDO.

>> GOOD EVENING. I'M PEGGY ANDERSON.

I LIVE AT 40504 SENECA GROVE.

I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 31 YEARS AS A HOMEOWNER, AND MY HOME BACKS DIRECTLY ONTO FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH.

THE 2023 MASTER PLAN SAYS THAT ONE OF THE GOALS IS TO PRESERVE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.

THAT'S US. THOSE HOMES WERE BUILT IN THE LATE 50S AND THE EARLY 60S.

I'M A 1963 HOUSE.

WE NEVER HAVE A VACANT HOUSE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S HOMEOWNERS WITH SMALL CHILDREN, IT'S RETIREES, IT'S YOUNG COUPLES NOW ALL WORKING FROM HOME.

WE ARE THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PRESERVING BY NOT PUTTING THIS MASSIVE APARTMENT COMPLEX IN OUR BACKYARDS.

WE SURVIVED THE DEATH OF EDGEWOOD ELEMENTARY AND ARE STILL AN ACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD.

MY MAIN CONCERNS AND I HAVE LOTS OF THEM.

THE MAIN CONCERNS FOR ME ARE DRAINAGE AND TRAFFIC.

IF YOU'VE NEVER DRIVEN DOWN SENECA, YOU START OUT IN A DECENT ELEVATION AND THEN YOU TAKE A SERIOUS DROP IN ELEVATION TO A REALLY LOW POINT.

I'M ONE OF THE HOMES ON THE LOW POINT, AND THEN IT CLIMBS BACK UP AGAIN.

AT THAT LOW POINT, THERE IS AN EASEMENT WITH EXISTING DRAINS IN THE EASEMENT TO STOP THE STREET FROM FLOODING THERE AND TO STOP THE NEIGHBORING HOMES, WHICH HAVE FLOODED BUT BEFORE THE DRAINS EXISTED.

YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THAT RETENTION POND RIGHT ON THE BACK OF THAT LOW ELEVATION WHERE THERE'S ALREADY DRAINAGE BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY A KNOWN DRAINAGE PROBLEM.

WHO'S GOING TO MAKE ME WHOLE WHEN MY HOUSE AND MY BACK YARD FILL UP WITH WATER? IS THE TOWNSHIP GOING TO MAKE ME WHOLE? IS FIDO GOING TO MAKE ME WHOLE? I DON'T THINK SO. THE SECOND ONE IS THE TRAFFIC AND THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED A LOT.

IF YOU'VE NEVER DRIVEN DOWN IT AGAIN, NARROW STREET, YOU CAN'T PARK TWO CARS ON A YOU PARK ONE CAR AND ONE CAR, YOU GOT TO START KNOCKING ON DOORS.

THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS, THERE'S NO CURB AND GUTTER.

WE HAVE SCHOOL BUS STOPS, PEOPLE HAVE TO WALK IN THE STREET.

THEY WALK HOME IN THE STREET FROM THE BUS STOP.

YOU WALK WITH YOUR STROLLER ON THE STREET.

WHEN THERE IS ANY CONGESTION OR ANY CONSTRUCTION AT THE DOBE LIGHT.

PEOPLE COMING DOWN HAMILTON CUT SENECA TO SHAKER.

COMING UP, THEY SEE EVERYBODY DRIVING, BACKED UP AT THAT LIGHT, THEY CUT SHAKER ONTO SENECA.

WE'VE HAD THOSE NO THROUGH TRAFFIC SIGNS PUT UP.

IT DOESN'T WORK.

I'VE ASKED THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP POLICE TO COME AND BABYSIT THEM AND THEY GENEROUSLY DO.

BUT YOU'RE GOING TO DUMP MORE TRAFFIC CUT IN THAT AREA BY SHAKER AND SENECA.

THIS PROPOSAL FOR ME, ALTERS MY EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND I HAVEN'T LIVED THERE FOR 31 YEARS TO SUDDENLY HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR MORE TRAFFIC AND MORE DRAINAGE.

THAT'S NOT TO THE BENEFIT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD I LIVE IN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> NEXT, JERRY FIDO FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL MCINTOSH AND THAT'S THE LAST ONE I HAVE, SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NOW, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU FILL OUT A FORM AND GIVE IT TO MR. SHORKEY.

>> GOOD EVENING, PLANNING MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS JERRY FIDO.

I RESIDE AT 6099 EAST LAKE DRIVE AND HASLETT.

I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE TOWNSHIP NOW FOR ABOUT 45 YEARS OR SO.

[00:30:05]

BUILT PROBABLY 300 HOUSES IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, AND WE HAVE BUILT FIVE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS.

EACH ONE OF THEM HAS A DETENTION POND AND GOING BACK TO 2002, 2003.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY DRAINAGE PROBLEMS WITH ANY OF THOSE SITES.

THERE'S BEEN NO SMELLING, NOBODY'S COMPLAINED ABOUT ANY SMELT, NOBODY'S COMPLAINED ABOUT ANY MOSQUITOES.

I THINK THAT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS IN THIS 36 UNIT DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE THAT WE MIGHT EVEN TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS WATER THAT THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY HAVE.

BUT WHEN OUR ENGINEERS ARE DONE AND THE DRAIN DEPARTMENT IS DONE, THIS PROJECT WILL ALL DRAIN IN A SLOW MANNER OUT TO DOBIE ROAD AND INTO THAT DOBIE ROAD DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

>> WE'VE DONE FIVE DEVELOPMENTS.

WE'VE DONE FIVE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS, ALL REALLY HIGH-END CONSTRUCTION, QUALITY STUFF.

WE HAVE A LIST OF PEOPLE THAT WANT TO RENT IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP BECAUSE OF EXCELLENCE SCHOOLS AND OKEMOS SCHOOLS, EXCELLENCE TOWNSHIP.

IT'S JUST VERY NICE PLACE TO LIVE.

THIS TOWNSHIP HAS A 5,000-KID STUDENT POPULATION RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

YOU HAVE A MORE OF A LARGER NEED FOR MULTIFAMILY THAN A TYPICAL TOWN IN MICHIGAN.

[6. INTERIM TOWNSHIP MANAGER REPORT]

WE SEE IT EVERY DAY.

THERE'S TONS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE LOOKING FOR RENTAL.

NOW, SOME OF OUR PEOPLE WILL RENT FOR TWO AND THREE YEARS BECAUSE THEY'RE QUIET, THEY'RE ENERGY EFFICIENT, AND THEY'RE NICE FLOOR PLANS.

WHEN WE'RE DONE, SOME OF THEM HAVE PURCHASED NEW HOUSES FROM US, BUT A LOT OF THEM WILL STAY IN THE AREA.

THEY END UP IN THE AREA AND THEY END UP STAYING.

IT'S A DRAW FOR FAMILIES, AND IT'S A THING THAT'S NEEDED.

NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD SAY IS JUST LAST DECEMBER, THIS BODY UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THIS PROPERTY TO BE MULTIFAMILY, AND THAT FUTURE IS NOW.

WE'RE ASKING YOU TODAY TO NOT BE FEARFUL OF THE TRAFFIC, THE WATER, AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

THOSE ARE NOT REAL THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.

THIS IS GOING TO HAVE 35 CARS TODAY.

YOU REMEMBER WHEN THE BRIDGE WAS CLOSED, AND EVERYBODY WAS GOING UP AND DOWN.

>> IF THE COMMISSION HAS FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL HAVE YOU COME UP AND ANSWER IF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> MY NAME IS MICHAEL MCINTOSH.

I LIVE AT 4562 SENECA DRIVE.

UNFORTUNATELY, MY LETTER TO THE BOARD DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE COMMUNICATIONS TODAY, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SENT TO BRIAN SHORKI.

HOWEVER, I WANTED TO MENTION A PORTION OF WHAT I WROTE.

THAT'S WHY I CAME DOWN HERE TODAY.

IF THERE WAS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO RENT OR SEE THESE MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS, I WANT TO KNOW WHY THEY'RE NOT HERE TODAY.

WHY IS IT ONLY THE CHURCH AND THE FEDEWAS THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS BUILD? I BELIEVE THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES.

DURING THE JUNE 10 MEETING, COMMISSIONER SCALES STATED THAT THE HOMEOWNERS DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF THIS PARCEL WOULD BE DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED BY THIS REZONING.

BEING A RESIDENT DIRECTLY TO THE WEST, I CAN AFFIRM THAT THIS WOULD INDEED BE THE CASE.

THE NOTION THAT THE LAND IS LITTERED WITH DEAD TREES AND DISCARDED ELECTRONICS IS ALSO FALSE.

IT IS A VIBRANT AND VALUABLE NATURAL AREA.

AS A FORMER MARINE CORPS INFANTRYMEN, I HOLD VALUES OF RESPECT AND INTEGRITY IN HIGH REGARD.

JERRY FEDEWA HAS SHOWN US RESIDENTS NONE [INAUDIBLE].

[7. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS]

HE WAS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED BY THE BOARD TO MEET WITH THE AFFECTED RESIDENTS TO THE WEST, AND ALTHOUGH HE'S NOT OBLIGATED TO DO SO, NONE OF US HAVE BEEN CONTACTED.

THIS BOARD DESCRIBED THE CREATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT ARISE WHEN DISCUSSIONS OCCUR BETWEEN BUILDERS AND RESIDENTS, YET NOTHING HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

I URGE THE BOARD TO RECOGNIZE THIS AS A SIGN OF JERRY FEDEWA'S SELFISHNESS AND DISREGARD FOR THE COMMUNITY.

THIS ISSUE IS CLEARLY NOT ABOUT HELPING THE RESIDENTS OR CONTRIBUTING TO MERIDIAN TOWNSHIPS HOUSING NEEDS, IT IS PRIMARILY ABOUT FINANCIAL GAIN FOR JERRY FEDEWA.

I LOVE THIS TOWNSHIP, I LOVE THE PEOPLE, AND I RESPECT THOSE THAT LIVE HERE, AS DO ALL OF THE OTHER RESIDENTS THAT HAVE ATTENDED THESE MEETINGS.

WHILE I UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THE PARCEL OWNER'S RIGHT TO DEVELOP THEIR LAND, I BELIEVE THAT ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME ZONING.

I AM NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT BY ANY MEANS,

[00:35:03]

I SIMPLY ADVOCATE FOR IT TO CONSIST OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RATHER THAN MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS.

MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP IS RENOWNED FOR ITS EXCEPTIONAL QUALITY OF LIFE, A SENTIMENT ECHOED BY OUR TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR, SCOTT HENDRICKSON.

PRESERVING OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOODS AND NATURAL SPACES IS ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAINING THIS REPUTATION.

REZONING THIS PARCEL TO RC WOULD UNDERMINE THE CHARACTER AND VALUES THAT MAKE OUR TOWNSHIP A DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE.

I URGE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE LONG TERM IMPACTS IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND REJECT THIS REZONING PROPOSAL.

LET US PRESERVE THE SANCTITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND ENSURE THAT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS ALIGN WITH THE PRINCIPLES AND NEEDS OF OUR RESIDENTS.

WE ALREADY LIVE HERE AND WE DESERVE TO BE HEARD.

I URGE YOU TO NOT REZONE THE PARCEL THAT WILL DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECT MY FAMILY AND THOSE AROUND ME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT WAS THE LAST PUBLIC COMMENT FORM THAT I HAVE.

I WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? JUST A REMINDER THAT THERE IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY AT THIS ITEM.

IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA OR ANYTHING ELSE, THIS IS THE TIME TO DO IT, UNLESS YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE MEETING.

WITH THAT SAID, NOW I AM MOVING TO THE NEXT THING, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA ITEM 4.

IS THERE A MOTION TO MOVE? MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SCALES, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> HAVEN'T MOVED A MOTION YET. [LAUGHTER]

>> I SAW YOU RAISE YOUR HAND AND I WAS JUST LIKE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STAND OUT LOUD?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR THE JULY 8, 2024 MEETING.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SCALES.

>> SECONDED.

>> COMMISSIONER BLUMER, DO YOU STILL WISH TO SECOND?

>> YEAH, I GUESS.

>> A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, PLANNING COMMISSION FOR JULY 8, 2024, AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> IN THE MINUTES, WE'LL SEE A DISCUSSION FROM OUR LAST MEETING ABOUT WHETHER CERTAIN SIDEWALKS ARE ON OUR SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN, AND ALSO A QUESTION ABOUT THE RATIO OF RENTAL-OCCUPIED AND OWNER-OCCUPIED.

I'M JUST WONDERING IF THOSE CAN BE INCLUDED AT SOME POINT IN OUR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING.

I GUESS THE FIRST ONE IS RELEVANT TO ITEM 8A.

ACTUALLY, BOTH ARE, SO MAYBE THEY'RE BEST LEFT UNTIL THAT DISCUSSION.

>> NO NEED TO AMEND THE AGENDA.

>> THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT, NO.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED, PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? AGENDA AS APPROVED.

NOW WE ARE AT THE POINT OF APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 24, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

COMMISSIONER SCALES, YES.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 24, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

>> THANK YOU. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. ANY DISCUSSION? I JUST HAD ONE.

I THINK ONE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS,

[8. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

I THINK THE NAME IS MISSPELLED, JUST FROM LOOKING AT A COMMUNICATION WE RECEIVED TODAY.

I THINK THERE'S A T MISSING IN NUMBER D. CHECK THAT.

>> I WILL CORRECT THAT. THANK YOU.

>> THEN I DID HAVE A QUESTION.

ON APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING, IT SAID THEY WERE TO APPROVE AS AMENDED, BUT IT DIDN'T MENTION HOW THEY WERE AMENDED.

I KNOW SOMETIMES IF IT'S JUST A TYPOGRAPHICAL THING, WE DON'T GET INTO A LOT OF DETAIL.

I DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO GO BACK AND REVIEW MY NOTES, THEY WERE AT HOME AND I WAS AT WORK.

BUT I THINK IF THERE'S ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, JUST REFERENCING WHAT THEY WERE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A CLEAR PATH OR APPROVAL.

SINCE THEY DON'T COME BACK AS AMENDED IN THE PACKET, THAT'S JUST HOW THEY'RE POSTED.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS BESIDES MINE? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES WITH MY MINOR AMENDMENT TO CORRECT A TYPOGRAPHICAL CHANGE, SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED?

>> I ABSTAIN. I WAS NOT AT THAT MEETING.

>> THANK YOU. APPROVED WITH AN ABSTENTION.

NOW WE ARE ON TO COMMUNICATIONS.

[9. CONSENT AGENDA]

I KNOW WE HAVE SEVERAL IN OUR PACKET, AND THEN WE HAVE QUITE A FEW MORE IN FRONT OF US.

I THINK YOU SAID LAST TIME YOU WERE AMENABLE TO HAVING THESE LISTED IN THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING SO THAT WE HAVE

[00:40:01]

A RECORD OF ALL OF THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT WERE RECEIVED?

>> YES. IN FACT, THE CORRECTION WAS ON EMAIL.

>> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. NOW WE ARE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

WE HAVE NONE. ITEM 8, UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

8A, REZONING 24013, FEDEWA HOLDINGS ON DOBIE ROAD.

[INAUDIBLE].

>> EVERYONE'S FAMILIAR WITH THIS BY NOW.

THIS IS THE FEDEWA REZONING, NUMBER 24013, A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.28 ACRES ON DOBIE ROAD FROM RAA SINGLE FAMILY LOAD DENSITY TO RC MULTIPLE FAMILY, MAXIMUM 14 DWELLINGS PER ACRE.

THE HISTORY JUST REAL QUICK.

AS YOU KNOW, A SIMILAR APPLICATION FOR A SMALLER PORTION OF PROPERTY WAS DENIED IN 2019.

YOU ASKED FOR HISTORY OF THAT.

THAT IS IN YOUR REPORT.

YOU WANT AN IDEA OF SOME "MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS" IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

GOING THROUGH APPROVED PROJECTS LAST FEW YEARS, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE SEEN.

YOU WANTED A COMPARISON BETWEEN THIS APPLICATION IN THE PAST AND THE 2019 APPLICATION.

THERE WAS A REPORT ON THAT.

YOU ALSO WANTED A DISCUSSION, AGAIN, WHERE YOU WANTED US TO RESEARCH FAITH LUTHERAN'S PARTICIPATION IN THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE, AND THAT IS DOCUMENTED HERE.

THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT IS IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL IN ATTACHMENT.

THE WEBSITE HERE GOES TO THE ORIGINAL PACKET, IF YOU WANTED THE ORIGINAL ATTACHMENTS.

THAT'S COMMON PRACTICE.

I'M GOING TO DESCRIBE WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.

YOU HAVE THREE OPTIONS.

AS ALWAYS, I'M GOING TO SKIP AHEAD A LITTLE BIT, THE TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE RIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING.

THE TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE RIGHT TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZONING.

NOW, TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, ANY DECISION THEY MAKE TONIGHT IS NON BINDING, IT IS A RECOMMENDATION.

THEIR DECISION GOES TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

THEY HAVE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY ON WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE THE REZONING.

YOU DO HAVE ANOTHER OPTION.

YOU DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECOMMEND AN AMENDED PROPOSAL.

YOU CAN RECOMMEND A MORE APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICT.

IN THIS CASE, IF YOU WANTED TO STAY CONCURRENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THERE ARE TWO DISTRICTS THAT ARE LESS DENSE THAN THE RC DISTRICT, THE RD AND THE RDD DISTRICT.

THAT IS DESCRIBED HERE.

THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU'RE ALLOWED THAT LEEWAY BY MICHIGAN PLANNING LAW.

AGAIN, THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK IT WAS, TOWNSHIP BOARD SAID, WELL, OKAY, BUT THEY REZONED TO RN, SO THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY.

I'M NOT MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.

YOU ASKED FOR A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND TO DENY, BOTH OF THOSE ARE IN YOUR PACKET.

I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER SCALES?

>> I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

[12.A. Community Survey]

THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX SITUATION THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN, YET I THINK THERE ARE WAYS TO RESOLVE THIS.

THERE COULD HAVE BEEN WAYS TO RESOLVE THIS MUCH EARLIER WHEN THIS WAS A SMALL PROBLEM, BUT NOW IT IS A MUCH LARGER PROBLEM.

FIRST, I'D LIKE YOU TO GO INTO A LITTLE DETAIL.

HOW THIS GREW FROM WHAT WE ADDRESSED WHEN WE WERE ADDRESSING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MASTER PLAN BECAUSE MY RECOLLECTION IS WE WEREN'T DISCUSSING 4.23 ACRES AT THAT TIME.

>> CORRECT. LET'S BRING UP AREA, JUST SO WE ALL SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

HERE WE GO. THERE'S FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH.

[00:45:02]

YOU CAN SEE CHIEF OKEMOS TO THE NORTH.

YOU CAN SEE THE RESIDENCE TO THE WEST AND TO THE EAST AND SOUTH.

IN 2019, THERE WAS A REQUEST TO REZONE THE NORTHERN 2.9 ACRES OF THIS SITE.

IN 2022-2023, THE TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION WENT ABOUT THE FIVE-YEAR UPDATE OF THE MASTER PLAN.

NOW, THE MASTER PLAN IS NOT AN ORDINANCE, IT'S THE GUIDING DOCUMENT THAT MICHIGAN PLANNING LAW SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE.

FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE, THAT LOOKS AT THE NEXT 20-30 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT AND MAKES GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT.

FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH APPROACHED THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEVERAL TIMES, ASKED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDER CHANGING THE NORTHERN DESIGNATION FROM INSTITUTIONAL IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

THE REQUEST WAS BASED ON THE 2.9 ACRE PROJECT FROM 2019.

AFTER THE MASTER PLAN WAS ADOPTED, STAFF RECEIVED A LAND DIVISION APPLICATION.

THE LAND DIVISION APPLICATION WAS FOR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH.

THE LAND DIVISION APPLICATION MET THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE LAND DIVISION APPLICATION WAS FOR 4.3 ACRES.

BECAUSE IT MET THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MICHIGAN PLANNING LAW SAYS WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE LAND DIVISION.

THE SUBSEQUENT REZONING REQUEST WAS FOR THE 4.3 ACRES, NOT THE 2.9 THAT WAS CONSIDERED DURING THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> YES, THAT DOES.

>> DO I STILL HAVE THE FLOOR?

>> I KNOW THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER QUESTIONS.

IS YOUR SECOND QUESTION FOLLOW UP TO THAT ONE?

>> NO.

>> OKAY. LET'S SPREAD IT AROUND A LITTLE BIT, THEN COMMISSIONER ROMBACK, GO AHEAD AND THEN ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS QUESTIONS.

>> MINE'S NOT NECESSARILY QUESTION, BUT IN REVIEWING THE DOCUMENTS HERE AND ACTUALLY TALKING TO MY WIFE, IT TURNS OUT THAT SHE HAS A SMALL MARKING DEAL WITH FEDORA AND I THINK BASED ON THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATUTE, MCL 125.33, CONFLICT ARISES WHEN A MEMBER OR A MEMBER'S RELATIVE HAS A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST, POSITIVE OR DETRIMENT IN THE OUTCOME OF THE DECISION OR AN ACTION THAT THE MEMBER MAY TAKE AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.

I ACTUALLY DON'T BELIEVE THIS MY SITUATION MEETS THAT CRITERIA, BUT I FELT IT NECESSARY TO JUST BRING IT TO THE GROUP TRANSPARENTLY.

IT'S A SMALL MARKETING DEAL.

I'M NOT SURE WHOM THEY WORK WITH AT FEDORA, BUT SEVERAL IT WAS USELESS. THANK YOU.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN CALL YOU UP, BUT I WOULD SAY IT'S AN OVERALL SMART MARKETING DEAL, AND IT IS NOT CONTINGENT UPON THE OUTCOME OF THIS PARTICULAR VOTE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE CONTRACT PREDATES MY APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD AND ACTUALLY GOES FORWARD FURTHER PAST, LIKE THIS DAY, SO I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT I FELT THE DUTY TO BRING IT TO THE BOARD AND NOTE IT FOR THE RECORD.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE COULD BE A VOTE FROM HERE OR WE COULD JUST WHATEVER.

I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE, MAKE SURE IT'S BEING TRANSPARENT, MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S OUT ON THE RECORD.

>> THANK YOU. AS I UNDERSTAND OUR PROCESS, THE BOARD MAY DETERMINE WHETHER WE FEEL THAT THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT EXISTS CONSIDERING MR. ROMBACK'S DISCLOSURE.

IS IT APPROPRIATE TO DO IT NOW?

>> YES. IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT THE COMMISSIONER WOULD POTENTIALLY PERSONALLY PROFIT.

THAT'S THE MEASURING STICK FROM AN APPROVAL AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT, THEN YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECUSE HIM FROM THIS DISCUSSION AND ULTIMATELY LEAVE THE DECISION.

>> JUST TO GIVE AN IDEA, THE CONTRACT, I BELIEVE STARTED SOMETIME IN JUNE ENDS AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER ROUGHLY SO IT'S A THREE-MONTH CONTRACT.

TO ME, THE TIME FRAME INDICATES THAT FROM JUNE TO SEPTEMBER DOES NOT INTERACT WITH THIS AND MY APPOINTMENT TO THIS COMMISSION WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE CONTRACT AND CERTAINLY WASN'T RELATED TO MY WIFE'S MARKETING EFFORTS BECAUSE UNTIL RECENTLY, I DON'T KNOW IF SHE HAD THE CONTRACT BECAUSE I PAID THAT MUCH ATTENTION.

[12.B. Whitehills Lakes Subdivision #7 – Streetlight SAD Resolution 3]

BUT I DID WRITE THE CONTRACTS AND THEY HAVE AUTOMATIC END DATES, SO IT'S NOT OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NO CONDITION ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS WRITTEN TO THAT CONTRACT FOR ME OR MY WIFE TO PROFIT.

BUT FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY, I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH BRINGING UP.

BUT IF IT MEANS ANYTHING, I WOULD JUST AVERT THAT.

THE CONTRACT HAS ZERO IMPACT ON WHAT MY VOTE WOULD BE IN THIS PARTICULAR MATTER.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS DISCLOSURE? COMMISSIONER SCALES GO AHEAD.

>> I WOULD JUST ASK THE QUESTION DOES ANYBODY FEEL LIKE HE HAS A CONFLICT?

>> I DO. I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A SMALL ENOUGH CONFLICT THERE

[00:50:02]

THAT BASED ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING AND WHO'S INVOLVED, THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO RECUSE HIM.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SHARE A THOUGHT/OPINION?

>> I'M LOOKING AT THE ETHICS STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE ON OUR WEBSITE AND I THINK MAYBE THE OPERATIVE PHRASES, I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY GOVERNMENTAL DELIBERATION OR ACTION THAT WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT A BUSINESS ENTITY IN WHICH I HAVE A FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL INTEREST.

IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WHAT MR. SHORKEY IS SAYING.

WHAT LITTLE I KNOW ABOUT THIS SITUATION DOESN'T SOUND TO ME LIKE THERE'S CLEARLY AN IMPACT IN A BUSINESS ENTITY IN WHICH I HAVE A FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL INTEREST, BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND I WAS HAVING A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT IN THIS.

>> ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SHARE.

I AM JUST CHECKING ONE THING THAT YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY LOOKED AT IN OUR BY-LAWS.

>> I DIDN'T LOOK AT BY-LAWS.

>> I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ALSO.

>> IN THE MEANTIME, I'LL SUE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL AN INSTANCE AND MEETING I PARTICIPATED.

I WATCHED ON TELEVISION.

THAT KIND OF HEADS UP.

THAT'S WONDERFUL.

>> I AGREE. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THIS IS NO DISRESPECT TOWARDS YOU.

>> NONE TAKEN. IT SAYS AT THE END, PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP OR WHAT IS IT FAILURE FOR REMEMBER TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CONSTITUTES MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE AND I AM NOT FOR MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE.

I STAND FIRMLY AGAINST IT.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. I GUESS COMMISSIONER BLUMER THEN COMMISSIONER SCALES.

>> I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO ALLOW HIM TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION OF THIS MATTER.

>> THAT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO GET THE DISCUSSION STARTED.

>> I SUPPORT THAT MOTION.

>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER BLUMER HAS MOVED TO ALLOW COMMISSIONER ROMBACK TO PARTICIPATE.

COMMISSIONER SCALES HAS SECONDED.

FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE ON THAT MOTION? COMMISSIONER SCALES.

>> I JUST PUT MY HANDS ON SOMETHING THAT IF I WERE LOOKING FOR IT, I WOULD HAVE NEVER FOUND IT.

[BACKGROUND] IT'S THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP APPOINTMENT OFFICIALS ETHICS STATEMENT THAT WE ALL SIGNED WHEN WE BECAME A MEMBER.

THERE'S 10 POINTS HERE.

OUT OF THAT 10, THERE'S ONE THAT WOULD BE GERMANE TO THE CURRENT ISSUE.

NO, THAT'S THE WRONG ONE.

[LAUGHTER] I WILL AVOID

[12.C. 2nd Quarter Budget Amendments]

PARTICIPATING IN ANY PUBLIC DELIBERATION AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, WHENEVER IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT MY CONTINUED PARTICIPATION WILL PRESENT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR GIVE RISE TO THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

BUT THEN, I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY GOVERNMENTAL DELIBERATION OR ACTION THAT WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT A BUSINESS ENTITY IN WHICH I HAVE A FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL INTEREST.

FROM ALL THE INFORMATION THAT OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONER PROVIDED US, I FIND NOWHERE WHERE HE HAS A FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL INTEREST HERE [OVERLAPPING] IN THIS PROJECT, SO I WILL MOVE TO ALLOW HIM TO CONTINUE TO DELIBERATE AND ALSO BRING TO CONCLUSION ABOUT IN THIS MATTER.

>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I WANT.

>> GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.

>> I GUESS I HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT ON THAT THAT IF SOMEONE'S SPOUSE IT'S NOT YOU, YOU HAVE A PERSONAL INTEREST IN YOUR SPOUSE DOING WELL AND SO IN THIS INSTANCE, I WOULD ARGUE THAT HAVING A DIRECT FINANCIAL CONNECTION TO

[00:55:01]

THE BUSINESS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THIS MOMENT IS FAIRLY PERSONAL, IN MY OPINION.

I THINK I'M GOING TO BE VOTING NO.

>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

JUST TO SPEAK OUT, I DO PLAN TO SUPPORT THE MOTION AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT A SPOUSE'S BENEFIT IS DEFINITELY A PERSONAL CONNECTION.

I GUESS WHERE I DISTINGUISH THIS IS THAT I THINK THAT THE PROJECT THAT WE'RE DECIDING ON IS NOT CONTINGENT ON THAT CONTRACT BASED ON THE DESCRIPTION THAT WE'VE RECEIVED AND SO THAT'S WHY I SEE THE DISTINCTION.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ON THIS, BUT I THINK TO ME, IT'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS PROJECT AND BENEFITING FROM THIS PROJECT AS OPPOSED TO BENEFITING FROM ANY WORK THAT THIS APPLICANT MIGHT DO OR SEPARATE WORK BY THE APPLICANT. YES, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER.

>> I ALSO SEE A DIFFERENCE.

IF SHE WERE EMPLOYED BY THE FEDERAL COMPANY I WOULD DEFINITELY SEE THAT AS A CONFLICT.

BUT THEY HAVE A FINITE RELATIONSHIP THAT'S ABOUT TO EXPIRE THAT STARTED BEFORE THIS WAS AN ISSUE.

I DON'T SEE THE DIRECT CONNECTION THAT'S DIRECT ENOUGH TO DISQUALIFY HIS PARTICIPATION IN THIS MATTER.

>> THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENT, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> I VOTE TO ALLOW IT.

>> COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> AND COMMISSIONER ROMBACK, YOU'RE PROBABLY [OVERLAPPING]

>> COMMISSIONER BROOKS?

>> NO.

>> I THINK I HAVE TO ABSTAIN FROM THAT VOTE.

>> ABSTAINING YOU FROM THAT VOTE ARGUABLY, AND THE CHAIR VOTES, YES.

WE HAVE 1,2,3,4: 1.

MOTION TO ALLOW CONTINUED.

COMMISSIONER CARRIES. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP AND THANK YOU FOR MOVING FORWARD.

BACK TO THE CONVERSATION AT HAND ABOUT REZONING NUMBER 24013, OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT.

>> I ACTUALLY I HAVE ONE.

>> OKAY. MR. ROMBACK.

>> MR. SHORKEY, I'M PROBABLY CATCHING UP HERE BUT THE JUNE 10TH REPORT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A STAFF REPORT.

A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO TRY TO SEE IF ARE CONNECTED OR NOT.

IT SAYS THE PHYSICAL FEATURES, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPED AND VEGETATED.

I THINK I WOULD AGREE, MY KIDS HAVE PLAYED AT FAITH LUTHERAN AND I'M AWARE OF THE PYRO CHIP STRUCTURE, AND SO ARE THEY.

THEN YOU HAVE THE ANALYSIS HERE ON THE LAND USE FOR THE TRAFFIC.

IT ENDS UP SAYING PLUS 169, BUT IF IT'S UNDEVELOPED AND VEGETATED, INHERENTLY, THERE'S NO TRAFFIC TODAY.

>> CORRECT.

>> I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A 250 ADDITIONAL DIRECTIONAL TRIP LIMIT WHICH WOULD HAVE TRIGGERED AN IMPACT STUDY.

>> IT'S NOT COMPARED TO WHAT'S THERE.

IT'S COMPARED TO THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY IS NOT ZONE WOODLAND, THE PROPERTY IS ZONE RAA.

THAT IS WHAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS BASED ON WAS THE DENSITY ALLOWED UNDER THE SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGNATION.

>> UNDERSTOOD.

>> YES. IT WASN'T A ZERO.

>> CORRECT. [OVERLAPPING] I THINK MAYBE MY ARGUMENT HERE IS I UNDERSTAND THE COMPARISON AGAINST EXISTING ZONING, BUT THE REALITY IS AT ZERO BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET TO THIS LAND, AND IT'S LANDLOCKED, ESSENTIALLY, RIGHT?

>> NO. IT FRONTS ON DOBIE ROAD.

>> IT FRONTS ON DOBIE ROAD. I THOUGHT IT WAS.

>> IT IS THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE FAITH LUTHERAN SITE AND IT HAS ALMOST 300 FEET, I DON'T WANT TO QUOTE THAT.

[13.A. Fire Truck Financing]

BUT IT HAS I THINK ALMOST 300 FEET OF FRONTAGE [OVERLAPPING].

IT'S NOT LANDLOCKED. IF IT WERE LANDLOCKED, THEN THIS WOULDN'T BE HERE BECAUSE WE DON'T ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A LANDLOCKED PROPERTY.

>> LIKE I SAID, MY COMPARISON POINT WAS SAYING, WELL, IF IT SEEMS DIFFERENT IF IT SAYS IT'S UNDEVELOPED AND VEGETATED, AND THEN WE'RE SAYING, WELL, IF WE'RE COMPARING TRAFFIC AGAINST THAT, BUT THAT WAS MY FAULT.

THIS ISN'T ALWAYS COMPARED TO WHAT IT IS ZONED AS RATHER THAN WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY IS.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> NOT TO SPEAK DIRECTLY FOR BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

I WAS HOPING FOR SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THE ISSUE OF PRICE POINT THAT WAS FLOATED BOTH BY THE APPLICANT AND I THINK IN THE PACKET.

I'M NOT NEARLY AS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THAT AS COMMISSIONER SNYDER DID SO I'M WONDERING ABOUT SOME OF THE STATEMENTS I SAW ON OUR UNITS RENT FOR MUCH LESS THAN $1.30 PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARED TO $2 PER SQUARE FOOT.

THOSE NUMBERS ARE NOT REALLY GERMANE TO ME.

MORTGAGE FOR A NEW 2000 SQUARE FOOT HOME WOULD BE ABOUT THE SAME AS OUR RENT PRICES.

I'M JUST SEARCHING FOR GUIDANCE FROM

[01:00:06]

STAFF ON THE DEGREE TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED THERE MEETS THE SORT OF THING THAT WE'RE THINKING THAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE OF.

SORRY. THAT'S A TERRIBLE POSITION TO PUT YOU IN.

[LAUGHTER]

>> DURING THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE, STAFF DID A PRETTY EXTENSIVE RESEARCH PROJECT INTO WHAT OUR HOUSING PICTURE IS VIS A VIS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, WELL, ALL HOUSING.

IT WAS IT TALKED ABOUT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, AND IT TALKED ABOUT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

THE RESULT OF THAT ANALYSIS, THEN THIS IS ALL APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN THE TOWNSHIP ALL THE WAY UP TO ELEMENT, A SINGLE-BEDROOM APARTMENT IN THE TOWNSHIP GOES ON AVERAGE FOR NORTH OF $2,000.

THIS BEING A 2000 SQUARE FOOT, I THINK I HEARD THE WORD TOWNHOUSE THROWN AROUND.

THESE ARE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

FROM MY EXPERIENCE, THAT'S SORT OF IN THE BALLPARK OF LIKE MERIDIAN MEADOWS.

>> WHAT'S MERIDIAN MEADOWS?

>> ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT UP EAST ON GRAND RIVER THAT I USED TO LIVE IN.

[LAUGHTER] THAT'S MY RESEARCH.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT GETS TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

WITHOUT A SPECIFIC QUESTION, THAT'S WHAT WE LOOKED AT THOUGH.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT IS WHAT THE DATA SUPPORTS, AND WHEN WE WENT BACK AND UPDATED IT, IT'S NOT ANY BETTER.

>> IF I COULD A COUPLE OF MY OWN.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY. I KNOW COMMISSIONER SCALES HAS MORE QUESTIONS TOO, SO WE CAN PING PONG BACK AND FORTH OR YOU CAN TAKE YOUR TURN.

>> YOU CAN GO AHEAD.

>> THEN HE CAN GO AFTER YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SCALES.

THE FIRST ONE I THINK MAY HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN SOME COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THE RATIO OF RENTAL VERSUS OWNER OCCUPIED, WHICH I THINK WAS CITED AT 57.5% FOR THE TOWNSHIP.

I HEARD AND REPEATED MANY TIMES THE 50% BUT I STAND CORRECTED.

>> THAT'S A CENSUS NUMBER, AND I THINK THAT'S INACCURATE.

>> THE OTHER WAS THE ISSUE OF THE WALKABILITY OF THE SITE AND WHETHER THAT SECTION OF THE PATHWAY IS ON OUR TOWNSHIP PATHWAY MASTER PLAN AND WHAT ITS DESIGNATION IS.

THOUGHT THAT QUESTION GOT ASKED AT ONE POINT.

>> I THOUGHT I SAID THAT IT WAS.

THAT'S DOBIE ROAD.

FRONT SIGN DOBIE ROAD, SEVEN FOOT PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY.

WELL, I'M RELATIVELY SURE IT'S PATHWAY.

WE HAVE A RECENTLY UPDATED TRAIL AND PATHWAY MAP.

>> WHILE WE'RE SEARCHING FOR THAT, I KNOW THAT WE CAN'T CREATE A CONDITION ON A REZONING APPLICATION.

BUT WHEN APPLICANTS COME WITH CONDITIONS THAT MAKE THE PROPOSAL MORE ATTRACTIVE, THAT CAN HAPPEN.

BUT I GUESS FOR STAFF THE QUESTION IS, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY, WOULD AN UPGRADE TO THE EXISTING PATHWAY NATURALLY BE PART OF THE SITE PLAN?

>> IF THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN SHOWED IT.

THE STAFF REPORT DOES KNOW THAT THERE'S A SEVEN FOOT PATHWAY.

IF, FOR INSTANCE, THE TOWNSHIP PATHWAY PLAN SAID IT HAD TO BE A 10 FOOT, THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR UPGRADING IT.

>> GOT YOU.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE A BIG BLUE LINE ON [INAUDIBLE] ROAD THERE. YOU'RE RIGHT THERE.

>> THAT'S THE SANDER FARM.

>> GOES THE OTHER WAY.

>> SEE, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ENGINEERS DO MAPS.

[LAUGHTER]

>> KEEP GOING NORTH.

>> THIS IS CENTRAL PARK.

THAT'S MARSH, THIS IS GRAND RIVER.

>> RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE NOW.

>> UP IN TO THE RIGHT.

>> KEEP GOING RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING]

[01:05:01]

>> I SEE YOU RIGHT THERE. I APOLOGIZE.

I'M SUCH A LOUSY TEACHER OF THAT.

EXISTING PATHWAY.

IT IS PART OF THE PATHWAY SYSTEM.

>> THE EXPECTATION IS THAT WHEN THAT PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED, THAT PATHWAY WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED TO MEET OUR CURRENT STANDARDS.

>> IF IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY MEET OUR STANDARD, IT WOULD BE BROUGHT UP, THE STANDARD.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER SCALES.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

>> MISS CAPITO, I'VE KNOWN YOU FOR MANY YEARS AND I'VE KNOWN THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE AND THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE SPECIFICALLY IN SIERRA RIDGE IS EXCELLENT.

>> I KNOW YOU DO GOOD WORK. BUT WHEN YOU FIRST CAME BEFORE US, I ASKED YOU A QUESTION.

THE QUESTION I ASKED WAS, WHAT DO THE NEIGHBORS FEEL ABOUT YOUR PROJECT? YOUR RESPONSE WAS, WELL, WE'LL SEE.

NOW WE'VE SEEN, WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST NOW?

>> WELL, I WOULD BE REASONABLE.

I HAD SAW THAT THERE WAS AN OPTION BROUGHT UP THAT THE SCALE COULD BE DOWNSIZED TO EIGHT UNITS AN ACRE.

OUR DEVELOPMENT IS SUCH THAT EACH OF OUR UNIT WILL HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE.

THAT EIGHT UNITS AN ACRE PROBABLY WOULD MEET AND THAT WOULD BE TONING IT DOWN AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.

BY TONING DOWN THE DEVELOPMENT, MAYBE ADDING A FENCE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, MAYBE ADDING A LINE OF TREES TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

SOME OF THOSE THINGS WOULD MAKE THE NEIGHBORS FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE AND THAT THE DETENTION POND WOULD BE AWAY FROM THE KIDS.

ANY NOISE OR ANY LIGHTING WOULD BE DIFFUSED BY THE TREES.

THOSE KINDS OF THINGS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO US.

>> AS COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL STATED, AND I UNDERSTAND, BY STATE LAW, WE CANNOT OFFER CONDITIONS BUT YOU CAN OFFER CONDITIONS.

BUT THE OTHER THING I STATED AT THAT MEETING WAS, I DIDN'T STATE IT, I ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT I KNEW WHERE A CHURCH WAS AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO GET TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT THIS SITUATION, AND THAT NEVER OCCUR.

I THINK THOSE TYPE OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN

[15. OTHER MATTERS AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]

THE VARIOUS PARTIES WOULD HELP BRING SOME TYPE OF AMENABLE SOLUTION TO THIS SITUATION.

>> I CAN'T MAKE ANYBODY DO THAT.

I CAN'T ORDER FROM THIS DAIS THAT UPON ANYBODY.

BUT I CAN RECOMMEND AND SUGGEST IT TAKE PLACE.

>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THIS MAY BE FOR STAFF, AND ACTUALLY MAYBE FOR YOU, MR. FETOLA.

>> COMMISSIONER ROMBACK.

ATTACHED IN THE PACKET, THERE IS A LETTER THAT STARTS WITH, DEAR MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO OUR REZONING APPLICATION PRESENTATION.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS FROM THE FATALIST.

>> BECAUSE IT IS UNSIGNED, UNDATED, AND IT'S NOT ON LETTERHEAD.

>> NO, IT'S LISTED AS AN ATTACHMENT ON STAFF REPORT. THAT IS FROM THE FATALIST.

>> THAT IS RIGHT BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE I GOT CONFUSED AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THAT DOCUMENT BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN HERE THAT I CANNOT DETERMINE IF IT WAS WRITTEN IN A PROFESSIONAL OR PERSONAL CAPACITY, IF THERE IS A COMMITMENT IN HERE, AND SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS. I GUESS THAT IS HELPFUL BUT I'M SOMEWHAT INTERESTED IN THE LAST SENTENCE HERE THAT THE PEOPLE LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO LIVE WOULDN'T ATTEND A PLANNING MEETING TO DISCUSS A PARCEL ON W ROAD.

BUT I THINK PEOPLE SEARCHING UNSUCCESSFULLY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN YOUR DECISION.

I'M JUST WONDERING HOW WE WOULD DO THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HERE, AND I CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS AND THEY OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T FILE ANY DOCUMENTS.

[01:10:06]

>> TRY TO SPEAK ON THE MICROPHONE.

>> I TURNED OFF, I'M SORRY, IT'S MY FAULT.

>> THAT'S A POINT WELL TAKEN.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR RENTAL UNITS, WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO MOVE THE NEXT MONTH.

VERY ORGANIZED PEOPLE WILL TRY MAYBE SIX MONTHS IN ADVANCE.

BUT NOBODY GOES BEYOND SIX MONTHS.

COMING HERE TO A MEETING TO SAY THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN A RENTAL UNIT THAT YOU HAVE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROPOSE IN ALKAMAS, WELL, THAT WON'T BE AVAILABLE RIGHT AWAY FOR THEM TO EVEN MAKE THAT DECISION.

THEY WOULD MOVE ON TO THEIR NEXT POSSIBLE RENTAL UNIT OPTION AND SPEND THE TIME TO COME TO A MEETING TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO WAIT FOR THAT THEN THE BUILDING TO TAKE PLACE.

THAT'S WHY THOSE PEOPLE ARE THE SILENT PEOPLE, BUT WE HAVE AN AWFUL LOT OF THEM.

WE HAVE NOTHING AVAILABLE IN A THREE BEDROOM, 2.5 BATH, TWO CAR GARAGE UNIT IN OKEMOS SPOT.

OR WE HAVE ONE AVAILABLE IN HASLETT.

BUT THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE, AND PEOPLE ASK US ALL THE TIME.

WE REACH OUT IN ADVANCE AND WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE STAYING TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, AND MAYBE BEYOND.

THEY'RE HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER BECAUSE THEY HAVE THREE BEDROOMS. WE'RE CURRENTLY PROPOSING A FOUR BEDROOM TWO STORY THAT IS OVER 2,000 SQUARE FOOT.

THAT'S FOUR BEDROOMS, 2.5 BATHS.

THESE ARE PLACES THAT ARE REALLY SOUGHT AFTER BECAUSE OF THE GARAGE, BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, AND SO FORTH.

>> I THINK THE CRUX OF MY QUESTION IS, IF YOU WERE SITTING IN ONE OF THESE CHAIRS, HOW WOULD YOU WEIGH THE INTERESTS OF THOSE UP AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE SITTING IN FRONT OF US?

>> WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S A INFILL PROJECT.

IT'S REAL CLOSE INSIDE THE CITY.

IT HAS ALL OF THE AMENITIES.

IT HAS THE BUS STOP UP FRONT.

IT HAS THE BICYCLE OR THE PATHWAY OUT IN FRONT.

I I WOULD SAY THAT THE LAND WAS AVAILABLE STARTING IN 2019.

I UNDERSTAND.

EVERYBODY WANTS TO HAVE A WOODS IN THEIR BACKYARD.

EVERYBODY DESIRES TO HAVE THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

THIS HERE PARTICULAR PROJECT, YOU CAN WALK PLACES AND GO PLACES.

YOU CAN BICYCLE PLACES.

THERE'S A CHURCH RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

THERE'S A LOT OF AMENITIES THAT ARE SO CLOSE THAT ARE REALLY SOUGHT AFTER BY THE COMMUNITY, AND PARTICULARLY THE SCHOOLS.

PEOPLE REALLY WANT TO BE IN OKEMOS SCHOOLS.

WITH ALL OF THOSE THINGS, THEY REALLY WOULD LOVE TO BE AT THIS LOCATION.

I TRY TO BALANCE THAT.

AS I SAID BEFORE, WITH THE SCREENING IN THE BACK AND ALL OF THAT, WE WOULD DEFINITELY WORK ON DOING A BUNCH OF THOSE THINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS PRIVACY STILL.

>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE COMMITMENTS AND THINGS AVERTED TO IN THIS LETTER, YOU'RE TELLING US THAT THAT WOULD CARRY THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, AND THESE ARE THE THINGS YOU'RE COMMITTING TO?

>> YES. WE'RE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

YOU'LL FIND OUT THAT WE'RE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

WE'VE BUILT THE SIA RIDGE, WE'VE BUILT THE PLACES THAT ARE CHIEF OKEMOS CIRCLE, HAMILTON PLACE, BRATTON WOODS.

ALL OF THESE PLACES ARE NICE PLACES TO LIVE.

>> I WOULD SAY YOU DO HAVE A SOLID REPUTATION IN THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S JUST, LIKE I SAID, WHEN I WAS READING THE LETTER, I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT MIGHT TAKEAWAY. IT SHOULD BE.

>> I UNDERSTAND. HOPEFULLY, THAT ADDED SOME IDEAS OR DIRECTION FOR YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER BROOKS, YOU HAD A QUESTION OR A COMMENT?

>> I DO. I HAVE A QUESTION. MR. FIDO, AND I DON'T KNOW THIS FOR A FACT, BUT I'M GUESSING YOU WERE AWARE OF THE 2023 MASTER PLAN UPDATE WHEN THE 2.9 ACRES OF THE 4.3 ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS UPDATED?

>> YEAH, I WASN'T AS INTIMATELY INVOLVED AS I SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

[01:15:05]

>> I'M JUST CURIOUS. DO YOU KNOW WHY WE DIDN'T OR THE REQUEST WASN'T MADE TO UPDATE THE ENTIRE 4.28?

>> 4.28. I THINK DAVID WAS INVOLVED IN ALL OF THIS. THANK YOU.

>> I WAS WORKING WITH TIM SCHMITT THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

WHAT IT WAS WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, IT DIDN'T HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 50 FEET.

ALL IT WAS WHEN WE ACTUALLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM BATH LUTHERAN WAS THROUGH DISCUSSION WITH THEM, THEY DIDN'T NEED AN ADDITIONAL 50 FEET. THAT'S ALL IT WAS.

WE ADDED 50 FEET AND DIDN'T REALIZE THAT ON THE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THAT LINE WAS A HARD SET LINE.

WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD WAS THEY WERE PORTIONING THE NORTH PART OF THAT PROPERTY TO BRC.

WHEN WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IT, IT WAS 50 FEET AND THEN WE SLID IT 50 FEET OVER BECAUSE THE FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH OFFERED, AND WE SAID, YEAH, SURE, WE'D LOVE TO PURCHASE THAT PORTION.

THAT'S WHERE THE DISCREPANCY CAME FROM, WAS THE FACT THAT IT ORIGINALLY WAS SUBMITTED AND THEN THE LINE SLID 50 FEET, AND THAT'S WHAT WE ENDED UP PURCHASING.

>> CAN I JUST ADD TO THAT?

>> OF COURSE.

>> THE 50 FEET THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS 50 FEET OF WIDTH.

THAT 50 FEET OF WIDTH TURNED OUT TO BE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM THE INSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH WAS A 50 FOOT.

IT'S A NARROW SWATH OF THE DEPTH OF IT, LIKE 600 AND SOME FEET BY 50 FEET WIDE.

WE'RE NOT BUILDING IN THAT 50 FEET, BUT THAT IS 50 FEET THAT IS NEEDED FOR A SETBACK.

THAT'S WHY THAT WE EXTENDED THAT SO WE COULD BE AT THE ORIGINAL 300.

IT'S ABOUT 300 FOOT.

>> 298.

>> NOW YOU'RE REQUESTING THIS REZONE BECAUSE OF THAT ADDITIONAL EFFORT?

>> NO, WE'RE NOT REQUESTING A REZONE.

IT HAS BEEN IN THE FUTURE PLAN, BEEN FUTURE REZONED.

WE'RE JUST REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THAT REZONING NOW.

>> I'M DONE FOR NOW, THANKS.

>> THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, THOUGHTS?

>> HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET MY HEAD AROUND THE 2.9, 4.3 ISSUE FOR A WHILE, AND I'M AFRAID DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SENIOR PLANNER ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE MASTER PLAN AND LINES SLIDING 50 FEET.

I'M STILL HAVING REAL TROUBLE.

>> MR. SHORKEY THOUGH.

>> MY HEAD AROUND.

>> [OVERLAPPING] GO BACK UP AND SHOW.

>> THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME.

>> THANKS. WE MAY CALL YOU BACK WITH OTHER QUESTIONS.

MR. SHORKEY, IS IT INDEED THE SETBACK PORTION OF IS THAT REALLY WHAT'S IN QUESTION?

>> [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN EXPAND THE PROPERTY TO MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT, IF IT'S A SETBACK FROM THE CHURCH, YOU'RE JUST GETTING CLOSER AS YOU'RE APPROACHING THE SETBACK.

>> BUT IF THEY SPLIT THE PROPERTY, I THINK IS HOW I UNDERSTAND IT.

THE PROPERTY IS NOW LARGER.

THE PARCEL IS LARGER.

BASICALLY, THEY'VE INCORPORATED THEIR SETBACK INTO THEIR PROPERTY IF I'M HEARING IT CORRECTLY.

IT MIGHT HELP IF YOU HAD A LITTLE MARKER YOU COULD DRAW A LINE FOR US.

>> CAN WE GET A WHITEBOARD?

>> THAT IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.

WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS IS THAT THERE'S A REQUIRED 50-FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY AND ANY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

THE CHURCH IS ZONED RAA, THE SAME AS THE PROPERTY.

ON THE WEST SIDE WHERE THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WHERE THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, THERE'S A 50-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

FROM WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE, THEIR LAND DIVISION TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THAT 50-FOOT BUFFER.

THAT'S A NON-BUILDABLE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

[01:20:04]

>> I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY EARLIER THAT AFTER THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE, WHICH CONCERNED THE 2.9.

>> [OVERLAPPING] MAYBE SCROLL UP TO THE PICTURE JUST ABOVE. YES.

>> SURE. A LAND DIVISION WAS REQUESTED WHICH MET OUR ORDINANCE AND THEREFORE HAD TO BE GRANTED.

CORRECT AND THAT NOW WE'VE GOT NEW PARCELS THAT DON'T FIT THE LINES IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MOUTH PERFECTLY.

>> THEY DO NOT.

THE LINES ARE DRAWN WITH GIS.

THEY APPEAR MUCH MORE RIGID THAN PLANNING LAW, BUT YES, THERE IS A DISCREPANCY OF ABOUT 1.4 ACRES.

>> IS THAT THE NORTHERN PORTION? NO.

>> NO. THAT'S THIS PIECE IT'S THIS PIECE HERE BY ENLARGEMENT.

>> I'M SORRY. GO BACK DOWN FOR A SECOND.

>> SORRY.

>> THESE TWO PIECES HERE.

IT'S THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN BOX.

>> THIS IS THE CHURCH.

THIS IS AN EXISTING CHURCH.

>> WHEN THEY DIVIDED THE CHURCH LAND, THEY GAVE 50 FEET AT THE NORTHERN PART OF THE CHURCH SITE TO THIS PROPERTY BUT IT WASN'T CHANGED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AM I UNDERSTANDING?

>> [OVERLAPPING] CHANGE THAT THE LAND USE MAP.

THEY DIVIDED A PIECE OF LAND.

>> BUT THE LAND USE MAP DIDN'T HAVE THAT PIECE OF THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE LAND THAT WAS DIVIDED WAS STILL FUTURE LAND USED IN ITS ORIGINAL PART.

>> THE MASTER PLAN WAS UPDATED BEFORE THE LAND DIVISION APPLICATION CAME IN. YES.

>> HAD THAT LAND DIVISION BEEN DONE PREVIOUSLY, IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT THE MASTER PLAN WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THE ENTIRE HAD THE DIVISION COME PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MASTER PLAN.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE USED FOR THAT AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON.

YES. ALL OF THAT IS STILL LARGER THAN THE 2.9 2019 APPLICATION.

>> QUESTION.

>> GO AHEAD, MR. SKIN.

>> THIS IS GOING TO THE BOARD AS A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS IS 25,000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER.

>> NO. IT'S A REZONING.

>> IT'S REZONING.

>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT 25,000 NUMBER YET BECAUSE WE AREN'T AT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION.

WE ARE AT SITE PLAN.

THERE'S A LOT OF THE SITE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS SUCH AS DRAINAGE AND ROADS THAT WOULD GET ANSWERED IF IT GETS PAST THE REZONING, BUT THEY AREN'T EVEN THERE YET.

>> BASED ON THE PREVIOUS 2019 INFORMATION AND BASED ON THE LARGENESS OF THIS PROPOSAL, THIS GREATER THAN THE 2.9 THAT THE BOARD AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGREED ON CHANGING.

I SEE NO REASON TO RECOMMEND THIS TO THE BOARD TO PASS IT.

>> DID I HEAR A MOTION FOR THE RESOLUTION NOT TO APPROVE?

>> NO. WE'RE IN DISCUSSION AND I WANT TO HEAR WHAT OTHER PEOPLE FEEL. I'M SKATING THE POINT.

WE KNOW WHAT THE BOARD FEELS ON ONE HAND.

SEVERAL MEMBERS WERE PART OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 2019.

BUT WE ALSO KNOW WHAT THE BOARD FEELS ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY APPROVED WHAT WE RECOMMENDED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY IT'S UP TO US TO MAKE A SOUND DECISION HERE AND HELP SHEPHERD IT FORWARD.

YES, I WILL MAKE A MOTION.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> THERE'S TWO OPTIONS HERE.

>> NO, I'M NOT LIMITED TO THE TWO OPTIONS.

>> YOU ARE NOT.

[LAUGHTER]

>> I'M LOOKING AT RC AT 14 UNITS PER ACRE.

I'M LOOKING AT RD AT EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.

BUT I LIKE RDD FIVE UNITS PER ACRE SO THAT IT'S NOT AS DENSE.

[01:25:05]

DENSITY HAS BEEN THE LARGEST PROBLEM THAT I'VE HEARD OTHER THAN TRAFFIC, BUT TRAFFIC IS ASSOCIATED WITH DENSITY.

ABSENT ALL PARTIES GETTING TOGETHER AND SITTING DOWN AND TALKING ABOUT THIS AND TRYING TO FIND SOME TYPE OF RESOLUTION.

I WOULD OFFER THAT WE RECOMMEND RDD AMENDING IT TO RDD, WHICH IS FIVE UNITS PER ACRE, AND LET'S HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT GOING FORWARD.

NOW, WOULD THAT CAUSE FOR YOU TO WRITE US ANOTHER RESOLUTION AND BRING IT BACK TO US AT A FUTURE MEETING?

>> WASN'T THERE AN OPTION?

>> I THINK WE COULD AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND SWAP OUT RDD WITH THE ENSUING DEFINITION OF MULTIPLE FAMILY, MAXIMUM FIVE BILLING UNITS PER ACRE IN PLACE OF RC, MULTIPLE FAMILY, AND MAXIMUM 14 BILLING UNITS PER ACRE IN THE TWO PLACES IN WHICH IT APPEARS.

>> I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.

I WOULD ADD AREAS IT SAYS WHEREAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE REQUESTED RC IS, WHAT'S THAT EFFECT TOO DENSE FOR THE AREA, DENSER THAN THE CHARACTER, DOES NOT FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.

I WOULD ADD AREAS ALONG THOSE LINES THAT STATES WHY YOU DON'T THINK THE RC IS APPROPRIATE.

>> MR. SCALES, WOULD YOU CLEAR TO MR. ROMBACK?

>> MAYBE JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR ME.

WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE VOTE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TONIGHT? IS IT STATUTORY OR IS IT JUST PROCESS-DRIVEN? BECAUSE CANDIDLY, WHAT I STARTED TO HEAR FROM BOTH THE FETOS AND THE RESIDENTS IS SEEMS THAT PEOPLE WERE MOVING SOME WAYS WHERE THEY COULD FIND SOME LEVEL OF COMFORT WITH EACH OTHER.

THE OTHER PART IS, I PRESUME IN THE APPLICATION, IT WAS THERE WAS A FINITE REQUEST.

WE REQUEST REZONING TO X.

IF WE APPROVE Y, DO THEY GO BACK AND REFILE THE APPLICATION? NO.

>> DO WE RECOMMEND TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD? OUR ACTION TONIGHT ALLOWS THIS QUESTION TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT STEP.

IT MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT TAKEN A VOTE, BUT IF IT IS CLEAR THAT THE WILL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT TO RECOMMEND WHAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR, BUT TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING ELSE, IS IT YOUR PREFERENCE THAT YOU BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME MORE WORK ON THIS AND COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE MAY OR MAY NOT TAKE UP YOUR PREFERENCE, OR WOULD YOU PREFER THAT THIS MOVE FORWARD AND YOU BEGIN TO MAKE YOUR CASE WITH THE TOWNSHIP BOARD? I DON'T WANT TO THROW THIS AT THE BOARD.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE MAKE A GOOD DECISION AND A GOOD RECOMMENDATION HERE.

BUT THE PROCESS KEEPS MOVING FORWARD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER MORE CLEANLY, I THINK AT SOME POINT.

I'M NOT TRYING TO PUNT THIS QUESTION TO THE BOARD, BUT I THINK IT IS A COMPLICATED QUESTION.

AT SOME POINT, IT STILL HAS A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE BOARD.

>> THEN THE BOARD MAKES A DECISION.

THERE'S STILL MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONVERSATION.

>> THERE'S THREE MEETINGS AT THE BOARD.

THERE'S AN INTRODUCTION.

THERE'S A, I FORGET THE FORMAL TERMS, A MIDDLE, AND THEN AN ACTION.

TO GO BACK TO YOUR EARLIER QUESTION, I GUESS THAT'S A FOURTH OPTION.

I DIDN'T THINK OF, YES, IF YOU WANTED TO ASK TO TABLE THIS, YOU CAN DO THAT IF IT'S SUPPORTED, BUT IF STATE A REASON THOUGH.

PROCESS-WISE, YES, YOU'VE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU'VE HAD AN EXTRA MEETING.

NORMALLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES THE DECISION AT THE NEXT MEETING.

YOU'VE HAD TWO MEETINGS SINCE THEN.

YOU ARE IN A POSITION WHERE YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE A DECISION.

IF YOU THINK THAT THERE'S SOME MOVEMENT AND YOU WISH TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE IT IF IT'S ACCEPTED, THEN THIS WILL COME BACK.

>> LIKE I SAID, I HEARD SOME FROM THE RESIDENTS SAY THAT WE WOULD BE MORE AMICABLE TO A PARTICULAR REZONING.

I HEARD SOME CONCESSIONS FROM THE FETOS THAT GOES BACK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER SCALES AND WHAT I'VE WRITTEN TO THE RECORD WAS THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION OF WHAT DID THE RESIDENTS THINK.

THAT GETS TO IT BECAUSE ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT'S LIKE THE RESIDENTS ARE TALKING, THE FETOS ARE NOT TALKING TO EACH OTHER.

[01:30:01]

IF THERE'S SOME VALUE IN THAT.

>> BUT YOU CANNOT REQUIRE.

>> [OVERLAPPING] I'M NOT GOING TO REQUIRE IT.

>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU CAN SUGGEST. I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

>> THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CRUX OF MY MOTION.

>> IS IT BACK TO ME?

>> COMMISSIONER BROOKS, GO AHEAD.

>> [OVERLAPPING] DON'T WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE?

>> NO.

>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT WAS MAKING A MOTION AND WE WERE FORMULATING [OVERLAPPING] OF THE MOTION OF GOOD GOOD CASH.

I HEARD THAT I SHOULD HAVE ANOTHER AWARE AS IN THERE IN AMENDING THIS RESOLUTION.

IF YOU'RE NOT WANTING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RC, YOU SHOULD HAVE AWARE AS, AND WHY YOU DON'T THINK THE RC IS APPROPRIATE, THE RDD IS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> WHILE HE'S DOING THAT, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION?

>> SURE. [LAUGHTER].

>> MR. SHORKEY, THE NORTHERN PART OF THIS PROPERTY, CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT IS IT CURRENTLY ZONED AS?

>> RAA.

>> WHICH IS.

>> SINGLE-FAMILY LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. I CAN SHOW YOU.

>> [OVERLAPPING] THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS ZONED RAA.

>> [OVERLAPPING] IT IS ZONED THAT WAY.

>> IT'S THE DISTINCTION IS IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHERE THE NORTHERN PORTION ARE MULTI-FAMILY.

I DON'T THINK IT HAS A ZONING DESIGNATION.

>> WHICH ONE I'M SORRY?

>> NORTHERN ONE.

>> THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

>> THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE CHURCH?

>> FOR THE PROPERTY.

>> FOR THE PROPERTY IS SPLIT RIGHT NOW BETWEEN MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL.

>> BUT ALL THREE OF THE MULTI-FAMILY.

>> ALL OF THE MULTI-FAMILY.

>> [OVERLAPPING] STUCK WITHIN MULTIFAMILY.

>> BUT RC IS THE MOST DENSE OF THOSE OPTIONS.

>> OF THE THREE WE'RE LOOKING AT.

>> OF THE THREE OPTIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

>> HERE'S YOUR RAA DIMENSIONS AND REQUIREMENTS JUST SO YOU'RE WONDERING.

SIDEBOARDS 10 FEET, BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THERE'S A 50-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK THAT HAS TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED BECAUSE IT'S A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

I'M SORRY. LET ME LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN.

IF THIS WAS DEVELOPED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, THERE'D BE A 10-FOOT SETBACK INSIDE.

WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE THOUGH.

MINIMUM LOT AREA IS 13,500 SQUARE FEET.

A LITTLE BIT LESS FIELD INDULGE ME.

>> YES. PLEASE PUT THAT IN.

>> 4.28*43,560/13,500.

>> JUST A GROSS NUMBER.

YOU WOULDN'T GET THIS BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO BUILD ROADS AND YOU'D HAVE DRAINAGE THINGS, BUT JUST A GROSS NUMBER YOU GET.

I'M GOING TO TRUNCATE IT TO 13 UNITS ON THE CURRENT 4.28 ACRES UNDER OUR AA ZONING.

NOW, LIKE I SAID, YOU WOULDN'T GET THAT.

WE DON'T ALLOW ACCESS VIA EASEMENT, SO YOU'D HAVE TO BUILD A LOCAL ROAD UP THE MIDDLE, YOU'D HAVE LAND TAKEN UP BY STUFF LIKE THAT.

STORMWATER, SYSTEMS, THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S YOUR GROSS NUMBER.

>> IN LIGHT OF THE IMPENDING MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER SCALES IS CURRENTLY DRAFTING, IF WE WERE TO INCREASE THE ZONING FROM RAA TO, I'M BLANKING ON WHAT THIS ONE'S CALLED, BUT IT'S LIKE THE FIVE UNITS.

>> YEAH. RDD.

>> RDD, OR THE EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.

>> THE EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE IS YOU GET IN THAT 30-35 RANGE THAT THE [INAUDIBLE] HAVE PROPOSED IN THEIR LETTER.

>> RIGHT.

>> IF YOU GO WITH THE RDD, WHICH IS FIVE UNITS PER ACRE, I'LL TRUNCATE THAT TO A GROSS NUMBER OF 21.

BUT AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT.

YOU'VE GOT A 50 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, IF NOTHING ELSE, ON THE WEST AND SOUTH PROPERTIES TO TAKE THAT UP.

>> WE'VE GOT THE EIGHT TIMES FOUR IS 32 ROUGHLY, THEN THE FIVE TIMES FOUR IS 20 ROUGHLY, VERSUS THE CURRENT WHICH IS 13.

>> THANK YOU. THE FIXES FOR THIS RESOLUTION THAT I HEARD RECOMMENDED, DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

>> GO AHEAD. [INAUDIBLE]

[01:35:03]

WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR A LITTLE WHILE.

WHY DON'T WE TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK AND GIVE TIME TO WRITE A COMPLETE RESOLUTION.

>> OKAY. ARE YOU ASKING ME TO RUN UPSTAIRS, AND TURN MY COMPUTER ON, AND PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER FOR YOU? BECAUSE I CAN DO THAT IF YOU LET ME USE THE RESTROOM FIRST.

>> THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING.

>> OKAY. [LAUGHTER]

>> DO YOU HAVE DIRECTION? BECAUSE I'M READING THROUGH IT, AND I CAN SEE A COUPLE OF PLACES.

>> LET ME GIVE YOU SOME DIRECTION ON THAT BECAUSE WHAT THIS IS SAYING IN THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE IT'S SAYING THAT EVERYTHING THAT'S BEFORE US IS GOOD.

THAT IS NOT WHAT MY INTENT IS.

EVERYTHING BEFORE US IS NOT GOOD.

THE 4.28 IS NOT GOOD.

MY INTENT IS TO REDUCE THE DENSITY DRAMATICALLY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE MASTER PLAN POINT OF PRESERVING THE NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT JUST SAYING THAT THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING COMPLIES WITH MASTER PLAN GOALS REGARDING INCREASED HOUSING DIVERSITY.

I WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF PRESERVING THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

THE END RESULT OF THIS MOTION IS TO CREATE MORE DISCUSSION.

NUMBER 1, I HEARD MR. FIDO SAY HE COULD REDUCE DOWN TO EIGHT, BUT HE DIDN'T SAY HE COULD REDUCE DOWN TO FIVE.

I WANT TO GIVE HIM SOMETHING THAT HE'S NOT HAPPY WITH.

THE RESIDENTS SAID THEY COULD SUPPORT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, BUT THEY COULDN'T SUPPORT THE DENSITY THAT THEY WERE FACED WITH.

I WANT TO BRING THE DENSITY WAY DOWN, AND MAYBE THE TWO PARTIES IN THE INTERIM CAN FIND SOME COMMON GROUND, AND MAYBE WE CAN COME BACK AND EVENTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING THAT CAN WORK IN THAT COMMUNITY.

IF NOT, MOVE THE WHOLE PROJECT TO DOWNTOWN OKEMOS AND PUT IT IN THAT DIRT PARKING LOT OVER THERE.

[LAUGHTER] [APPLAUSE] DOES THAT GIVE YOU SOME TYPE OF IDEA OF WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS?

>> YES, PLEASE. THEN WE'RE GOING TO BREAK FOR 10.

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION?

>> DO WE THINK THAT WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS READY IN ORDER FOR US TO VOTE ON IT THIS EVENING THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE VOTING ON THIS AND THEN SUBMITTING IT UP TO THE BOARD?

>> WE'LL SEE. [LAUGHTER]

>> WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE ZONING REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PERSPECTIVE.

>> NO. I'M NOT SAYING THAT.

WE CAN'T CHANGE HIS REQUEST.

>> HIS REQUEST IS HIS REQUEST.

WE'RE CHANGING OUR RECOMMEND.

>> WE WERE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.

>> [INAUDIBLE] IS GOING TO GO FORWARD AS IT IS.

>> ONE CONCERN I HAVE IS FOR MR. SHORKEY HERE AND FOR ALL OF US.

I DON'T WANT TO PREDETERMINE OUR OUTCOME, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME IN DRAFTING SOMETHING.

I HATE TO DO THIS TO YOU, MR. SCALES, BUT I'M THINKING WE MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION.

ARE WE INCLINED TO BE WILLING TO CONSIDER THIS DIRECTION BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE ASKING HIM TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS FOR NOT, AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

>> GOOD POINT.

>> MR. [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING]

>> I'VE BEEN SITTING ON A COMMENT FOR QUITE A WHILE HERE.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO COMMISSIONER SCALES, I THINK MOST OF YOU KNOW WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING, SO I'M USED TO ADJUDICATING THINGS.

I HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE [INAUDIBLE]

[01:40:02]

THEY'VE BASICALLY REBUILT THE EXTERIOR OF MY HOUSE, AND THEY DID A PHENOMENAL JOB.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE QUALITY OF THEIR WORK.

THE PROBLEM I HAVE HERE IS THAT ANY TYPE OF MULTI-FAMILY UNIT THAT WOULD BE APPROVED BY US IS COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH HAS BEEN STABLE FOR 40 YEARS.

I WOULD NEVER VOTE IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF THAT LAND, THE [INAUDIBLE] COMPANY, OF AN ABILITY TO BUILD SOMETHING ON IT.

BUT HE ALREADY HAS PERMISSION TO BUILD SOME RATHER NICE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IF WE HAD AN OPTION TO REDUCE IT TO FIVE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS PER ACRE, I WOULD STILL VOTE AGAINST IT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE TRYING TO FIND A HAPPY COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE TWO EXTREMES, IT STILL WOULD BE AN IMPOSITION ON THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF AN OTHERWISE VERY STABLE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I HEARD PEOPLE SAY THAT THEY WOULD APPROVE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.

THEY SIMPLY CAN'T STOP THAT.

BUT ANYTHING WHICH WOULD BE A DENSER DEVELOPMENT THAN THAT WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED THERE FOR DECADES.

SO I WOULD VOTE AGAINST ANYTHING OTHER THAN A DENIAL OF THE REQUEST TO REZONE.

>> THAT'S WHERE I JUMP IN TO SAY THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT WE DID HAVE AT SOME THEORETICAL LEVEL WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING AND APPROVING THE MASTER PLAN.

IN THAT, WE SAID AS A GROUP, AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD ALSO SAID THAT AT LEAST FOR A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY, WE WERE OKAY WITH IT BEING MULTIFAMILY AS OPPOSED TO BEING SINGLE FAMILY.

GRANTED, THIS IS A LARGER PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHICH, GIVEN THE EXTENSION, AND THIS IS WHY IT'S BEFORE US.

I THINK THAT THE EXTENSION ALLOWS MORE BUILDING BECAUSE IT BUILDS IN THE BUFFER THAT GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP MORE.

SO THIS IS A REALLY WORTHWHILE QUESTION FOR US TO BE TALKING ABOUT, AND DISCUSSION TO BE HAVING.

BUT WE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND THEORETICALLY SUPPORTED A CHANGE THAT YOU'RE NOW SAYING YOU'RE OPPOSED TO, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE THIS PERSONAL.

>> THAT'S FINE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE MY POINT CLEARER.

UNDERSTAND THAT MASTER PLAN AND LAND USE IS A PERMISSION.

IT'S NOT A MANDATE.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN DO IT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO APPROVE THEM DOING IT.

AS LONG AS NOT APPROVING IT DOESN'T DEPRIVE THE LAND OWNER OF A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

IF WE WERE TO SIMPLY SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPROVE ANY BUILDING THERE, THAT WOULD BE TAKING HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.

THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL, AND IT WOULD BE IMPROPER.

WE CAN'T DO THAT. BUT THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY ZONED FOR MULTIPLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.

SO WE'RE NOT TAKING AWAY AN ABILITY TO BUILD SOMETHING PROFITABLE ON THAT PROPERTY.

MY POSITION IS, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE SAYING YES TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT'S ALREADY RECOGNIZED AS APPROPRIATE TO THAT [INAUDIBLE]

>> COMMISSIONER ROBERT.

>> I THINK COMMISSIONER SCALES' EFFORTS TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER THAT WE CAN VOTE ON, ADMIRABLE.

BUT PERSONALLY, AND THIS MIGHT JUST BE MY JUNIOR STATUS HERE, I HAVEN'T BEEN TO MY SECOND MEETING, I JUST DON'T FEEL I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE TO VOTE ON THAT.

I TOOK THE TIME TO READ THIS, AND THE RESOLUTIONS, AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, AND I JOINED COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

I FEEL THE REQUEST IS X, AND I WOULD RATHER, I USE THE TERM ADJUDICATE.

I'D RATHER ADJUDICATE APPROVAL OR DENIAL RATHER THAN WE CAME, WE DESIGNED SOMETHING IN A SINGLE MEETING AFTER HEARING EVERYBODY'S FEEDBACK.

THAT WOULD BE MY TWO CENTS.

THIS ALMOST GOES BACK TO MY PROPOSAL EARLIER, WHICH WOULD BE TO TABLE IT, ALLOW FOR MORE TIME.

BECAUSE IF WE WANT ANOTHER OPTION, OR IF WE WANT MORE COMMUNICATION, OR IF WE WANT MORE INFORMATION, THAT BUYS US THAT.

BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A LIGHT DECISION.

>> MR. MCCALL.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT HELPS CLARIFY IN MY MIND THAT THE SAME PRINCIPLE THAT PREVENTS US FROM IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON AN APPLICATION,

[01:45:07]

FEELS TO ME LIKE IT SHOULD RESTRAIN US FROM TRYING TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SOLUTION THAN AN APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT TO US.

THAT FEELS TO ME EXCEEDING OUR AUTHORITY.

I'M ALSO MORE COMFORTABLE EITHER WAITING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANOTHER OPTION THAT IS BROUGHT TO US THAT IS MORE ACCEPTABLE, TABLING THIS ISSUE, OR MOVING ON, EITHER ACCEPTING IT, OR RECOMMENDING ITS ACCEPTANCE, OR RECOMMENDING ITS DENIAL.

MY SENSE OF THE COMMISSION AT THE MOMENT IS THAT WE WOULD TEND IN FAVOR OF RECOMMENDING DENIAL.

IF WE FELT WE HAD TO ACT TONIGHT WE WOULD RECOMMEND DENIAL EXPLAINING WHY.

I BELIEVE THAT OUR DRAFT RESOLUTION, OUR DRAFT MOTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL SAYS IT'S INCOMPATIBLE.

THERE WAS A QUESTION ASKED EARLIER, DO WE INTERRUPT THE CLOCK THAT'S TICKING BY STATE LAW BY NOT MAKING AN ACTION ON THIS ISSUE TONIGHT?

>> THE STATE LAW CLOCK WAS MET WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU CAN TAKE THE TIME YOU NEED.

HAVING SAID THAT AS YOUR STEP, LET ME ASK YOU IF YOU INTEND TO TABLE THIS, TO WHAT END?

>> THAT WOULD BE ME. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT THAT I'M HEARING THAT THERE IS NOT FULL THROATED SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED TO US.

THEN IT BECOMES A QUESTION OF, ARE WE INCLINED TO DENY IT TONIGHT? OR WHAT WOULD WE WANT TO SEE FROM AN APPLICANT BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THAT WE DO TAKE THIS UP AGAIN? AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN? THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT RESULTED IN THIS BEING ON THIS AGENDA VERSUS OUR LAST MEETING AGENDA.

BUT SOME OF THAT, I THINK, WAS THE HOPE THAT THEY'VE HAD FOUR WEEKS NOW TO DO ANY ANYTHING ELSE BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD AT OUR INITIAL MEETING ON THIS, AND WHAT WE HEARD AT THE LAST MEETING, ALTHOUGH IT WASN'T ON THE AGENDA.

I'M INCLINED TO SAY UNLESS WE HAVE SOME ASSURANCE THAT AN ENSUING NEXT AMOUNT OF TIME, IF WE TABLE THIS, IS GOING TO GIVE US NEW INFORMATION, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT.

IT IS ESSENTIALLY YEAR TO WHAT END? COMMISSIONER SCALES?

>> I HAVE TWO POINTS. I THINK THAT WAS SOME VERY GOOD DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AMONG OURSELVES.

DON'T CUT ON YOUR COMPUTER.

[LAUGHTER] BUT SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO DO THINGS TO DRIVE PEOPLE TO MAKE A DECISION.

>> AS FAR AS TABLING, I DON'T WANT TO TABLE THIS.

>> THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN COMING HERE TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND THEY DESERVE AN ANSWER OUT OF US TONIGHT, WHETHER IT'S YES, WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND IT FORWARD TO THE BOARD OR NO, WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND IT TO THE BOARD NOT TO ACCEPT.

BUT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO DISPOSE OF THIS UNIT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND MOVE TO THE BOARD WITH WHATEVER THEIR POSITION IS, AND SAME WITH MR. FEDEWA, THEY NEED TO HEAR SOMETHING FROM US.

WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE, FOLKS? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?

>> BUT YOUR MOTION HAS NOT BEEN SECONDED.

>> I DON'T HAVE A MOTION.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MOTION.

>> I'M TRYING TO PUT THOSE IN MOTION. [OVERLAPPING]

>> IF YOU GO TO PAGE 4 OF THIS ITEM.

>> THIS IS THE APPROVAL.

THIS IS THE DENIAL.

>> I THINK IT'S UP FURTHER THOUGH YOU HAD.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> THE LANGUAGE.

>> I THINK THAT MIGHT HELP COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

I FOUND IT VERY HELPFUL. THERE YOU GO.

>> I SEE IT THERE IN THE DARK.

I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF REZONING NUMBER 24013 TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.28 ACRES LOCATED ON DOBIE ROAD FROM RAA SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY TO MULTIFAMILY RC.

THE REASONS I'M MAKING THIS MOTION ARE THAT

[01:50:03]

THE PROPOSED REZONING DOES NOT MATCH THE CHARACTER OF ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE WEST.

>> THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER AND SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER SCALES TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF REZONING 24013 TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY TO 4.28 ACRES ON DOBIE ROAD FROM RAA TO RC.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ON THE MOTION.

>> COMMISSIONER SCALES AND THEN COMMISSIONER ROMBACK.

>> PROCEDURALLY, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THE LANGUAGE IN HERE IS THAT 4.2 ACRES NOT THE 2.9.

>> 4.28 ACRES.

>> THAT HAS TO BE REZONED.

>> IT SAYS, MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF REZONING THIS PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY 4.2 ACRES.

SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS NO TO 4.2 ACRES.

>> YES, YOU ARE.

>> WHAT DOES THIS ALLOW TO HAPPEN GOING FORWARD? ANOTHER PROPOSAL TO US OR JUST MOVING IT ON TO THE BOARD?

>> THIS APPLICATION, ALL THE COMMUNICATIONS, YOUR RESOLUTION, ALL OF THE STAFF MEMOS, THE ATTACHMENTS, WILL ALL GET FORWARD TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

THEY CAN ACCEPT YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

THEY CAN APPROVE THE REQUEST.

THEY CAN APPROVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE REQUEST, LIKE WAS DONE WITH THE SHAW STREET PROPERTY.

THEY HAVE LATITUDE, JUST AS YOU HAVE LATITUDE TO A COMMITTEE.

>> IS THAT A SATISFACTORY ANSWER?

>> I AM COMPLETELY SATISFIED. MR. ROMBACK.

WHERE DOES THAT PUT THE APPLICANT? DO THEY GO BACK TO SQUARE ONE?

>> CORRECT.

>> SO WHATEVER THEY PUT INTO IT, IF THEY REAPPLY IT RESTARTS THE CLOCK?

>> CORRECT.

>> YOU'LL SEE IT ALL OVER AGAIN.

>> WE'LL SEE IT AGAIN.

>> THERE'S A MINIMUM TIME FRAME FOR THE SAME APPLICATION THAT THEY HAVE TO WAIT PER THE ORDINANCE.

THEY WOULD BE FREE TO SUBMIT A DIFFERENT APPLICATION.

THEY WOULD BE FREE TO SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS WHAT HAPPENED HERE AND TALK ABOUT PATHS FORWARD.

BUT THIS APPLICATION ON ITS FACE, YOU WOULDN'T SEE AGAIN FOR A WHILE.

I DON'T HAVE THAT ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD. AT LEAST A YEAR THOUGH.

>> CAN WE MAKE COMMENTS?

>> YES. THIS IS TIME FOR DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY A FEW THINGS.

FIRST, I'M GOING TO BE VOTING IN SUPPORT OF THIS DENIAL.

HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I WILL FOR IN THE FUTURE IF THIS VOTES TO GET REZONED AGAIN.

THE REASON IS BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF THE MASTER PLAN.

IT'S WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.

AND I THINK BUILDING DENSITY IS APPROPRIATE FOR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THE TOWNSHIP AND WHAT OUR GOALS ARE.

AND THAT I HEAR THE CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC ON THE ONE SIDE, BUT THEN ALSO SEE THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND NEW PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A TUNNEL OF LAND LEFT TO BUILD INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.

I THINK THIS JUST HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE RIGHT ON THIS BOUNDARY, WHICH MAKES IT A VERY DIFFICULT SPACE TO WORK IN. THAT'S IT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE? I WILL CALL ALL OF THEM.

>> YES, MEANS YOU'RE VOTING TO DENY.

>> I KNOW. BUT I WAS GOING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE I HATE TO OPINE HERE, BUT WHEN THE BOARD ALLOWED ME TO VOTE IN THIS MATTER, WHEN I DIVULGED WHAT WAS NOT FOUND TO BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, I SAW SOME CONSTERNATION AMONGST THE RESIDENTS.

I THINK IN TRANSPARENCY, MAYBE FOR THE BEST EFFORTS, I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM THE VOTE.

ALTHOUGH I WAS ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE AND I APPRECIATE THE PARTICIPATION, WHEN I SAW THE REACTION OF THE RESIDENTS, I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO VOTE.

SO I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN ON THIS ONE.

HOWEVER, I'M NOT GOING TO FOREBODE MYSELF FROM VOTING ON ANY FURTHER APPLICATIONS FROM FEDEWA BECAUSE THEY ARE A BUILDER HERE, AND THAT WOULD PROBABLY MAKE IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO SERVE IN THIS COMMISSION.

[01:55:03]

I'LL NOTE IT WITH THOSE POINTS. I WILL ABSTAIN.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROOKS?

>> AND I CHAIR VOTES, YES.

I COUNT THAT AS 4-1 AND ABSTAIN.

>> ALL OF THIS WILL BE SENT TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, AND I DON'T HAVE THE DATE OF THAT AT THIS POINT. I WILL LET YOU KNOW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE HERE FOR THIS.

NEXT, I'LL GO TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD AND IT'S NOT BACK AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNTIL OR UNLESS THE BOARD SENDS IT BACK TO US OR IT COMES AGAIN AS A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE HEARD A REQUEST FOR US TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK.

THANK YOU. WHY DON'T WE RECONVENE 10 MINUTES? I HEARD 10 MINUTES, NOT A LOOSE 10 MINUTES.

>> I WANT TO GO HOME.

>> IT'S ALMOST MY BED TIME.

>> I KNOW. 8:40, AND WE ARE RECONVENING THE JULY 8TH MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING.

WE ARE ON ITEM 8B, REZONING NUMBER 24015 COPPER CREEK PHASE 5.

>> YOU SAW THIS AT YOUR LAST MEETING.

THIS IS THE REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 139 ACRES ON HASLETT ROAD FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

WOULD MAKE IT THE SAME AS THE EXISTING COPPER CREEK.

THIS IS INDEED THE NEXT PHASE OF THE COPPER CREEK DEVELOPMENT.

WE HAD ONE PERSON WHO CAME FROM WILLIAMSTOWN TOWNSHIP, WHO ASKED SOME QUESTIONS.

I HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM HIM.

AND YOU INDICATED SUPPORT FOR THIS.

SO THERE IS A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING APPROVAL IN YOUR PACKET.

AS BEFORE, THIS IS A REZONING, SO THIS WILL GO TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD FOR THEIR FINAL APPROVAL.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> SCROLL TO THE PROPOSED ADOPTION LANGUAGE, PLEASE.

>> OF COURSE.

>> I MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING NUMBER 24015 TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON HASLETT ROAD FROM RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

>> SUPPORT FROM COMMISSIONER SCALES TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING 24015.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I'M SORRY, ROLL CALL. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> COMMISSIONER BROOKS?

>> AND THE CHAIR VOTES, YES. SO THE MOTION IS ADOPTED. THANK YOU.

NOW WE ARE ON TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT, NUMBER 24017 HERBANA ADULT USE MARIJUANA.

>> ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A REQUEST.

THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

AS YOU SAID, FOR ADULT USE MARIJUANA, IT WILL GO TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD BECAUSE ALL SUPS FOR USE MARIJUANA FACILITIES DO.

WE HAVEN'T HAD NO COMMENT ON THIS AND YOU INDICATED SUPPORT.

SO THERE IS A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT IN YOUR PACKET.

>> THANK YOU. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SUP NUMBER 24017 TO CONSTRUCT AN ADULT USE MARIJUANA PROVISIONING CENTER AT 2119 A HASLETT ROAD, HASLETT, MICHIGAN.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BROOKS AND SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER SCALES TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 24017 TO CONSTRUCT AN ADULT USE MARIJUANA PROVISIONING CENTER AT 2119 A, HASLETT ROAD IN HASLETT.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. I WILL CALL THE ROLL CALL.

COMMISSIONER BROOKS?

>> COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> AND THE CHAIR VOTES, YES. MOTION RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.

>> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU. WE ARE ON TO 9A OTHER BUSINESS,

[02:00:02]

LOOKING FOR REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY.

>> I SPOKE TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, CLARK ABOUT THIS.

IT IS NOT MANDATED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE ON THE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY, YOU MAY AT YOUR DISCRETION, HAVE ONE.

IT'S NOT A POSITION THAT'S IN THEIR BY-LAWS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S AS YOU NOTED, AT YOUR LAST MEETING, IT'S ADVISORY.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE DOESN'T VOTE.

SO IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO GO TO THE CIA MEETING, THAT'S FINE.

LIKE LAST MEETING, YOU KIND OF HAD A STANDSTILL AND YOU DON'T APPOINT SOMEBODY, THAT WILL NOT IMPEDE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE CIA.

>> THANK YOU. REMIND US AGAIN WHEN THEY MEET IT'S ON WEDNESDAY.

>> I BELIEVE IT'S THE THIRD WEDNESDAY OF EACH MONTH.

>> OKAY. IN THE EVENING, RIGHT?

>> THAT WAS COMMISSIONER BROOKS' PROBLEM.

HE WAS COMING OFF THE CIA INTO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND THEN AN AUTOMATIC SCHEDULE CONFLICT.

>> I BELIEVE IT'S AT SIX O'CLOCK.

>> SIX O'CLOCK. BEFORE WE DECIDE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE, IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO VOLUNTEER FOR THIS RESPONSIBILITY? HEARING NONE. COULD YOU ASK THEM POSSIBLY OR COULD YOU WHOEVER STAFFS THAT TO JUST ADD ME TO THEIR AGENDA LIST.

IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT SEEM RELEVANT TO US, IT MIGHT BE THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS AMONGST OURSELVES TO TRY TO GET SOMEBODY THERE OR I COULD TRY TO BE THERE.

>> THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I REALLY CAN'T COMMIT TO BEING A REGULAR MEMBER EVEN JUST ONCE A MONTH, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO STAY INFORMED IF THAT IS POSSIBLE.

>> OKAY.

>> DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYBODY? GREAT. THANK YOU.

WE ARE DOWN TO 10.

YOU MAY AS WELL STAY RIGHT THERE.

REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE, 10A.

>> I HAVE NOTHING FOR YOU TONIGHT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

10B IS ON REPORTS.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY NEWS ON REPORTS?

>> I HAVE ONE.

>> MR. SCALES.

>> IT'S TO MR. SHORKEY.

CAN YOU MAKE SURE THAT THE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KNOWS THAT I AM THE REPRESENTATIVE AND INCLUDE ME IN THE PACKET?

>> I WILL DOUBLE CHECK WITH DIRECTOR CLARK.

>> I WAS MARKED ABSENT TO A MEETING THAT I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED.

>> THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CANCELED ANOTHER MEETING BECAUSE OF LACK OF BUSINESS, LACK OF ISSUES.

>> THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALSO CANCELED THEIR MEETING FOR TOMORROW.

>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> WE DID HAVE A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING AND WE HAD FOUR I SUPPOSE YOU CALL THEM APPLICATIONS OR REQUESTS, AND ALL FOUR WERE APPROVED.

>> WHAT?

>> WHAT KIND OF THING? [LAUGHTER] THIS IS A QUIZ.

>> I'LL TELL YOU TWO.

ONE WAS THE 242 CHURCH PROPERTY ON JOLLY ROAD.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE IT IS. THEY OWN TWO PARCELS THERE.

>> BENNETT ROAD?

>> BENNETT ROAD, SORRY. THEY REQUESTED THIS WAS MY FIRST MEETING, SO YOU'RE TESTING MY LANGUAGE HERE, BUT I BELIEVE THEY WERE REQUESTING AN AN EASEMENT ON A BRIDGE THAT THEY WERE BUILDING BECAUSE THE BRIDGE WAS CROSSING TWO PROPERTIES AND DIDN'T HAVE THE CORRECT SETBACKS, I BELIEVE, AND SO THEY WERE ASKING FOR AN EASEMENT ON THAT REQUIREMENT; IS THAT CORRECT?

>> IT'S AN EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT.

>> IT IS AN EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT.

>> I LOVE THE SYMBOLISM OF IT, BY THE WAY.

IT'S BUILDING A BRIDGE OVER THE CREEK BUT THEY DIDN'T NOTICE THAT THERE'S A PROPERTY LINE THERE, SO YOU HAD TWO SIDE SETBACK ISSUES.

>> MY QUESTION WASN'T SO MUCH TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT MORE TO ALERT OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THE STUFF THAT GOES THERE IS STUFF THAT YOU MIGHT THINK WOULD COME HERE, BUT IT TENDS TO BE MORE SMALL EXCEPTIONS KIND OF STUFF.

[02:05:04]

>> NO, YOU PROMPTED ME, SO NOW I'M GOING TO TELL YOU. [LAUGHTER] YOU'RE STUCK.

THE SECOND ONE IS ACTUALLY RELEVANT TO THAT BECAUSE THE SECOND ONE IS THE PROPERTY THAT'S TO THE EAST OF TRADER JOE'S.

IF YOU RECALL, WE DID THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH THERE.

THEN AFTER THAT, WE JUST SAW THIS AT THE ZBA, THEY NEEDED TO REQUEST A SET OF THE LANGUAGE.

BASICALLY, A SET OF VARIANCES.

THAT'S THE WORD. THANK YOU.

>> IS IT TRADER JOE'S OR WHOLE FOODS?

>> NO, IT'S TRADER JOE'S.

>> BANK OF AMERICA, COFFEE.

>> YEAH, BANK OF AMERICA.

>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE.

>> THE UNKNOWN COFFEE SPOT.

[LAUGHTER].

>> OKAY.

>> AFTER WE HAD THIS BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THAT AND THE CURB CUTS AND THE SIDEWALKS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THEN WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT WAS THEY HAD TO REQUEST ALL THESE VARIANCES, BASICALLY, TO BE ABLE TO BUILD IN THE DESIGN THAT THEY WERE REQUESTING, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING.

THE OTHER TWO, I DON'T THINK CAME THROUGH HERE. BUT THAT ONE DEFINITELY DID.

>> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> FIFTY PERCENT. [LAUGHTER].

>> ELEVEN A PROJECT REPORT.

I SAW YOU HAVE ONE IN OUR PACKET.

>> YEAH. YOU HAVE AN UPDATED PROJECT REPORT, THREE NEW APPLICATIONS THAT I ADDED OF SUPS UNDER REVIEW FOR SAN HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE BOARD.

HERBANA WILL BE MOVED TO THE BOARD NOW.

THE REZONING FOR COPPER CREEK THAT'LL SAY CONTINUE UNDER REVIEW, THAT'S GOING TO THE BOARD.

CONSUMERS ENERGY, I MOVED FROM A NEW APPLICATION TO UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW.

WE HAVE RECEIVED THE SITE PLAN FOR THE CONSUMERS ENERGY SITE.

THE ONE I REALLY WANTED TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO, SILVERLEAF PUD PHASE 1 HAS FINALLY RECEIVED ITS SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND IS MOVING FORWARD, SO THE FIRST 25 HOMES OF THAT.

I WAS HANDED THAT SITE PLAN ON DAY TWO, SO IT'S TAKEN ABOUT A LITTLE OVER 2.5 YEARS FOR ME TO GET IT TO THAT POINT.

>> THAT'S GREAT. CAN TRADER JOE'S BE MOVED TO DONE OR IS IT STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION HERE? [LAUGHTER]

>> WHICH ONE, SO I REMEMBER?

>> FOR TRADER JOE'S.

>> OKAY. I'LL TAKE THAT OFF.

>> MR. [INAUDIBLE]?

>> ONE IS MISSING FROM HERE, AND THAT'S THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS. WHAT'S GOING ON?

>> THE OFFICIAL LINE IS THAT THEY ARE STILL IN SITE PLAN REVIEW.

>> I'VE GOT INFORMATION THAT THEY SAID WE'RE PUTTING THIS ON HOLD INDEFINITELY; IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I AM TELLING YOU WHAT I CAN TELL YOU.

I HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD ANYTHING ELSE OFFICIALLY AT THIS POINT.

>> WELL, I GOT MY INFORMATION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.

[LAUGHTER].

>> I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU. [LAUGHTER].

>> IT'S A TRANSPARENCY ISSUE HERE.

I GET IT. THANK YOU.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE STATUS OF TRANSFER IS?

>> THE PERUVIAN RESTAURANT?

>> HOPEFULLY, ABOUT TO OPEN FROM WHAT I HEARD TODAY BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFICS.

>> BECAUSE HE WAS INJURED OR SOMETHING.

>> THEY WEREN'T GOING THROUGH SITE PLAN, THEY WERE JUST BUILDING PERMITS, SO I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO OPENING.

>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE PROJECT REPORT? WE ARE AT ITEM 12, PUBLIC REMARKS.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK DURING THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC REMARKS? DO WE NEED ANOTHER FORM OR CAN WE USE THE SAME FORM?

>> I KNOW WHO THEY ARE.

>> OKAY. PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WHEN YOU COME UP. THANK YOU.

>> I'VE BEEN TAKING NOTES THE WHOLE NIGHT.

AGAIN, I'M DEBORAH MAJOR, 24 YEAR MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP RESIDENT 4570 SENECA DRIVE.

I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME AND TO MY NEIGHBORS.

THIS PROCESS REMINDED ME HOW LONG MY NEIGHBORS HAVE ACTUALLY LIVED IN NAVAJO RIDGE AND IN SHAKER HEIGHTS AND HOW COMMITTED THEY ARE TO THIS COMMUNITY.

I FEEL HEARD BY THIS BOARD AND I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

[02:10:03]

I LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING OUR POSITION WITH THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

I JUST CONTINUE TO FEEL THE NEED TO SAY THAT THE 2023 MASTER PLAN IS A GUIDELINE SUGGESTION.

IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN STONE.

IT WASN'T THE REZONING, WHICH IS WHAT TIM SCHMITT TOLD ME HIMSELF AT THE LISTENING SESSION ON JUNE 25.

SO I CONTINUE TO HOPE THAT YOU'LL ALL KEEP THAT IN MIND BECAUSE I KNOW FROM MY RESEARCH THAT, AND TIM SCHMITT TOLD ME THAT THERE WERE ONLY SEVEN UPDATES FROM THE 2017 MASTER PLAN TO THE 2023 MASTER PLAN, AND OUR BACKYARD PROPERTY ON DOBIE ROAD HAPPENED TO BE ONE OF THOSE UPDATES, AND WE WEREN'T NOTIFIED THAT THAT CHANGE WAS GOING TO BE MADE.

SO WE DID NOT APPEAR AT THOSE MEETINGS, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN FULL FORCE HERE NOW, JUST LIKE WE WERE IN 2019, WHEN WE WERE ACTUALLY NOTIFIED THAT THE BOARD WAS GOING TO BE DISCUSSING IT.

HAD WE BEEN NOTIFIED, I GUESS, MORE DIRECTLY IN 2022 AND 2023, WHEN YOU STARTED THOSE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT CHANGING THE MASTER PLAN, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD US ALL HERE THEN, TOO.

I DON'T THINK IT WAS A COINCIDENCE THAT THE SELLER AND THE BUYER WERE HERE BUT NOT THE NEIGHBORS TO THOSE MEETINGS.

AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC COMMENT? WE'RE AT COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.

ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE?

>> I JUST WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD.

I TOLD A COUPLE OF THE PEOPLE WHO VISITED US TODAY, SO I WANT TO MAKE IT A MATTER OF RECORD.

I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE ARTICULATE AND INTELLIGENT PRESENTATIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY ON THIS ISSUE.

I THINK IT HELPED US REACH A DECISION AND IT WAS A PLEASURE PARTICIPATING IN THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE OF THAT.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, WOULD YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?

>> ONLY FOUR. [LAUGHTER] THE FIRST ONE, ECHOING MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, HAVING VIBRANT PUBLIC DEBATE, HAVING VIBRANT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS CRUCIAL TO WHAT IT IS THAT WE DO HERE.

I AM VERY APPRECIATIVE THAT FOLKS HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES TO COME OUT AND PREPARE REMARKS.

I CAN ONLY SAY THEY MUST BE PRACTICING BECAUSE THEY DO BETTER ON THAT THREE MINUTE TIME THAN ANY GRADUATE STUDENT I'VE EVER SEEN ANY SEMINAR EVER.

[LAUGHTER] ON THE FLIP SIDE, DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THE DOBIE ROAD REZONING, I HEARD SOME COMMENTS THAT CAUSED ME SOME CONCERN AND THEY FALL IN THE AREA OF WHAT I WOULD CALL AN AD HOMINUM ATTACK, ATTACKING THE CHARACTER OF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL.

WHILE ALMOST ALL OF OUR DISCUSSION HERE THIS EVENING WAS CIVIL AND CONSTRUCTIVE, ATTACKING THE CHARACTER OF AN APPLICANT FOR REZONING I THINK IS OUT OF PLACE, AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN DO MORE AS A COMMISSION TO KEEP THE DISCUSSION HERE CIVIL AND RESPECTFUL.

ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, I WAS DELIGHTED TO HEAR FOLKS COMING HERE WHO HAVE READ AND CONSULTED OUR MASTER PLAN.

THE AVERAGE PHD DISSERTATION IS READ 1.5 TIMES AND ONE IS BY THE MOTHER OF THE PHD, SO PEOPLE WHO TAKE THE TIME TO READ OUR MASTER PLAN AND CONSULT AND BRING IT BACK TO US AND SAY, IS THIS WHAT YOU INTENDED, AGAIN, IT'S WHAT WE'RE ALL ABOUT.

WE DO STILL HAVE IN OUR MASTER PLAN AN OBJECTIVE TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

I WANTED TO JUST REMIND US THAT THAT OBJECTIVE FALLS UNDER A BROADER GOAL THAT WE ADOPTED PURPOSEFULLY TO STRENGTHEN AND EXPAND RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES.

THAT'S IN MY MIND, THE POLICY QUESTION THAT WE'RE SITTING ON HERE IS, WE'VE GOT SOME GREAT NEIGHBORHOODS, WE WANT TO DO INFILL DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE FRICTION AND WHERE DOES IT LIE.

ARGUMENTS ABOUT PROTECTING SANCTITY OR AVOIDING TRANSIENT POPULATIONS WHO DON'T KEEP UP THEIR PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS OWNERS STARTS TO RUB ME IN A DIRECTION.

I'D RATHER NOT BE RUBBED IN.

I'D LIKE TO PARAPHRASE, I BELIEVE, FORMER COMMISSIONER PRIMO, WHO WAS A BUILDER HIMSELF BY TRADE AND HAD A LOT OF GREAT INSIGHT.

[02:15:01]

AT ONE POINT, I HEARD HIM SAY, WE ALL LIVE IN HOUSES SOMEBODY ELSE DIDN'T WANT.

[LAUGHTER] WHICH ISN'T ABSOLUTELY TRUE. IT'S NOT ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT WAS PARAPHRASING, I THINK THAT WAS A DIRECT QUOTE.

>> BUT IT HIT ME, BUT THAT'S OFTEN THE CASE.

FINALLY, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER SNYDER IS AT HOME WATCHING AND LISTENING TO EVERY WORD, I DID VISIT TRADER JOE'S THIS WEEKEND AND I DID APPROACH THE PROPERTY THROUGH THE OLD BANK OF AMERICA SITE, AND I FOLLOWED A CUSTOMER OF TRADER JOE'S GOING UP ACROSS THAT ONE STEP RIGHT INTO THE PARKING LOT AND RIGHT INTO THE STORE, SO THERE'S ALREADY A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THAT'S OPERATING.

I LOVE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR INDULGING ME.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?