[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER] [00:01:23] MIC] IT IS 6:29 AND SOME SECONDS AND I'M GOING TO CALL THE SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2024 MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER. START WITH A ROLL CALL. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL HERE. COMMISSIONER BLUMER. YES. COMMISSIONER SCALES. HERE. MR. BROOKS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SNYDER. HERE. AND CHAIR COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY IS HERE. ONE MORE. I'M SORRY, BUT I'M REAL. I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER BROWN HERE. YOU'RE NOT ON MY LIST BECAUSE I GRABBED AN OLD LIST. I'M SORRY. GLAD YOU'RE HERE. THANK YOU. SO WE ARE ALL HERE. THAT'S GREAT. NEXT IS PUBLIC REMARKS. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE, WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THINGS THAT DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SCHEDULED TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA OR ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NOW DURING PUBLIC COMMENT? THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL GO TO APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. [4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA] AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SUGGEST AN ADDITION. THE COMMUNICATION THAT WE HAVE FROM DIRECTOR SCHMITT, I'D LIKE TO PUT AN ITEM UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS TO APPROVE AN UPDATED CALENDAR FOR FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS. SO WITH THAT MINOR AMENDMENT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO ENTERTAIN, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CALENDAR OR APPROVE THE AGENDA BEFORE WE GO. SECOND. OKAY. THANK YOU. IT IS MONDAY, SO I BELIEVE THAT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SCALES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER, WITH A PROPOSED AMENDMENT SUGGESTED BY MYSELF. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. SO AGENDA IS APPROVED WITH THAT CHANGE. AND THEN I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OUR AUGUST 12TH, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. [5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] COMMISSIONER BLUMER MOVES, COMMISSIONER SCALES SECONDS. AND THEN YOU HAVE A COMMENT. YES, YES, I DO HAVE A COMMENT. SORRY FOR THE PAPER SHUFFLING FOR THOSE AT HOME. OH, YES. I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS IN OUR MINUTES THERE WAS ONE AT THE END. I MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THANKING THE PUBLIC THAT VOTED FOR ME AND THAT WAS NOT LISTED IN HERE UNDER NUMBER 13 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE THAT ADDED. YES. OKAY. AFTER AFTER YOUR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BYLAWS. YES. WE ALMOST WE ALMOST ADJOURNED AND THEN I CAUGHT MYSELF. THE OTHER THING IS I THOUGHT I HAD IT MARKED HERE. THERE IS A DISCUSSION HERE ABOUT COMMISSIONER ROMBACH AND MYSELF ASKING ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN OKEMOS PROJECT. CORRECT. UNDER PROJECT UPDATES NUMBER 11. AND. AND ARE YOU STILL IN THE POSITION THAT YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION, SUCH AS WHAT I WAS SPEAKING ABOUT? ARE YOU MAKING A CORRECTION TO THE MINUTES? PARDON? ARE YOU MAKING A CORRECTION TO THE MINUTES? [00:05:03] BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I STATED. OKAY. YES. BUT ARE YOU STILL OF THAT POSITION. BUT THAT'S NOT RELEVANT TO APPROVING THESE MINUTES. SO IF YOU WANT TO ASK ABOUT IT I CAN BRING THAT UP DURING PROJECT REPORT UPDATES, IF YOU DON'T MIND. OKAY. THANK YOU. I CONSIDER THE SUGGESTION ABOUT HIS MISSING COMMENTS TO BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. SO THANK YOU. CHANGE MY MOTION. AND THEN I JUST HAD A QUICK CORRECTION UNDER NUMBER TWO ROLL CALL IT SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL WAS NOT HERE. IT'S NOTED UNDER ABSENT BUT NOT UNDER ROLL CALL. THAT IS POSSIBLY MY FAULT, BUT IF YOU COULD MAKE THAT CORRECTION, I'D APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS QUESTIONS CORRECTIONS? WITH THOSE TWO FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 12TH MEETING. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING WITH THOSE CHANGES SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MINUTES ARE PASSED AS CORRECTED. APPROVED AS CORRECTED. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS COMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE ONE FROM DIRECTOR SCHMITT REGARDING THE SCHEDULE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH WILL TAKE UP IN A FEW MINUTES. ANYTHING ELSE? NO COMMUNICATIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE ARE NOW ON TO ITEM SEVEN PUBLIC HEARINGS. [7.A. SUP #24023 – Okemos Gateway] WE HAVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 24023 FOR THE OKEMOS GATEWAY. AND WE'LL CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER AT 6:34. HERE WE GO. I'LL ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT FOR READABILITY PURPOSE. AND HERE WE GO. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 24023 OKEMOS GATEWAY TO CONSTRUCT AN ADULT USE MARIJUANA RETAILER AT 1614 WEST GRAND RIVER AVENUE, OKEMOS, MICHIGAN 4864 THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT 2.4 ACRES IN SIZE. IT IS ZONED C-2 COMMERCIAL. THIS DOES FOLLOW THE SUP APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOLLOWS THE TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPROVAL OF THE ADULT USE MEDICAL MARIJUANA CONDITIONAL LICENSE ON JULY 23RD, 2024. THE PROPERTY MEETS ALL THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. IT IS SHOWN AS COMMERCIAL IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IT IS WITHIN ADULT USE MARIJUANA OVERLAY AREA THREE. CONDITION AS I SAID, CONDITIONAL LICENSE HAS BEEN APPROVED. YOU HAVE MY REPORT IN FRONT OF YOU. THE APPLICANT IS HERE I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS, OR SO CAN THE APPLICANT. BUT WE'VE SEEN THESE BEFORE, AND. DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I WILL NOTE THIS IS THE FIRST THIS IS OF THE FOUR THAT WE'VE SEEN. THIS IS THE FIRST ONE THAT IS NOT GOING INTO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO THIS WOULD BE FOLLOWED BY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. WE REQUIRE APPROVALS FROM THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BECAUSE GRAND RIVER AVENUE. IT WILL ALSO REQUIRE APPROVALS FROM THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION, AS WELL AS ALL THE INTERNAL AGENCIES AND OFFICES IN THE TOWNSHIP. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. THE APPLICANT YOU SAID IS HERE. LIKE TO COME AND SHARE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU'RE WELCOME TO. YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO. APPRECIATE IT. COME TO THE PODIUM, IF YOU WOULD. IT'S YOUR CALL. PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. OMAR AL-KHAFAJI. 29580 NORTHWESTERN HIGHWAY, SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF OKEMOS GATEWAY, LLC AND APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY. SAME APPLICATION AS IT WAS FOR THE MEDICAL AT THE TIME THAT WAS APPROVED. WE HAVEN'T CHANGED ANYTHING IN TERMS OF DESIGN OR PLAN RECENTLY APPROVED FOR THE RECREATIONAL LICENSE AND LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING THIS DEVELOPED AND WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE MAY CALL YOU BACK IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. AND IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IF ANYBODY HERE WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT IN THIS PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:37, AND I'LL OPEN THIS UP TO ANY ADDITIONAL PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS IF YOU'D LIKE IT, OR IF YOU ARE NOT WANTING TO COMMENT AND YOU WANT TO, YOU'RE READY TO TAKE A STRAW POLL TO GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF. WE CAN DO THAT. SO JUST A GENERAL QUESTION. I WAS READING THROUGH THE STAFF ANALYSIS REPORT IT SAYS THERE'S FIVE AREAS IN THE TOWNSHIP WHERE ADULT USE MARIJUANA RETAILERS ARE ALLOWED. THAT IS CORRECT. IN THOSE AREAS THIS IS I'M GOING TO PREFACE THIS THIS ISN'T A FAIR QUESTION, BUT I'M GOING TO TRY TO THROW IT OUT THERE IN A FAIR WAY. [00:10:01] DOES THAT HAVING THOSE ONLY FIVE AREAS THAT ARE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PUT A CAP ON HOW MANY, HOW MANY DISPENSARIES AND THE LIKE COULD BE APPROVED? NO, THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION. YES IT DOES. ONLY ONE PER DISTRICT IS ALLOWED. OKAY. SO IT ESSENTIALLY MEANS THERE WILL BE THERE'S FIVE. THERE'S POSSIBLY FIVE. THIS IS THE LAST APPLICATION. THIS IS THE LAST APPLICATION WE HAVE. OKAY. NOT THAT I WANT TO DEAL WITH LIKE THE LAW IS THE LAW. THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN PASSED. THEY'RE PERMITTED. BUT, YOU KNOW, FROM AN ALMOST ECONOMIC NOT NECESSARILY EVEN FOR THIS, I GUESS, THIS COMMITTEE, BUT LIKE AT SOME POINT, HOW MANY IS ENOUGH OR VERSUS TOO MANY? NO. BUT AFTER MUCH, MUCH DISCUSSION, THE BOARD DID ADOPT THE POLICY AND THE ORDINANCE THAT CREATED FIVE DISTRICTS, ONE IS ALLOWED IN EACH DISTRICT, BUT THIS IS THE LAST APPLICATION. WE HAVE ONE DISTRICT THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN APPLICATION. SO IT'S IT'S ALMOST A NATURAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. OKAY. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A STRAW POLL, THOSE WHO WOULD SUPPORT DIRECTING STAFF TO PROVIDE A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT. PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY WHO WOULD NOT? OKAY. SO YOU HAVE YOUR DIRECTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ABSOLUTELY. AND THEN THIS IS THIS WILL COME BACK TO US PROBABLY AT OUR NEXT MEETING. YES. WE JUST AGAIN RECOMMEND TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD. SO IT'LL GO TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD AS A NEXT STEP. SO JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT'S NEXT? YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TRICK ME ON THAT ONE. NICE TRY THOUGH. NEXT IS UPDATE OF THE CALENDAR. [6. COMMUNICATIONS] WE HAVE THE THE EMAIL FROM FROM MR. SCHMITT, WHO'S THE INTERIM TOWNSHIP MANAGER AND THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, ABOUT A COUPLE OF OUR MEETING DATES. LOOKING AT HIS EMAIL, HE'S SUGGESTING THAT WE MOVE OUR OCTOBER 14TH MEETING TO OCTOBER 7TH SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CONFLICT WITH INDIGENOUS PERSON'S DAY. OUR OCTOBER 28TH MEETING HE IS SUGGESTING THAT WE CHANGE LOCATION TO THE TOWNSHIP FIRE STATION COMMUNITY ROOM. AND THEN NOVEMBER 11TH MENTIONED BUT I THINK WE HAD ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT WHEN WE SET OUR ORIGINAL SCHEDULE. SO WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING ON THE 11TH. WE HAVE ONE ON THE 18TH THAT MONTH, AND THAT'S THE ONLY MEETING WE HAVE IN NOVEMBER, SO UNLESS PEOPLE HAVE THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE VOTE TO UPDATE OUR CALENDAR TO MOVE THE 14TH TO THE 18TH. THE LOCATION OF THE 28TH. AND WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON THE NOVEMBER MEETING. DID NOT MEAN TO PANIC PEOPLE. WELL. THANK YOU. IT'S ONLY IN MY HEAD BECAUSE ON THE 7TH, I'M HIGHLY LIKELY TO BE OUT OF TOWN. OKAY. BUT. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A CONFLICT WITH THE 7TH THAT MIGHT PUT US IN A PROBLEM FOR HAVING QUORUM? NO, BUT I WAS GOING TO MISS THE 14TH, SO THIS WORKED BETTER. I WAS GOING TO SAY THE 7TH WORKS BETTER FOR ME ALSO, SO. CALENDAR? I'M SORRY. CAN YOU GIVE ME THE SECOND ONE, THE NOVEMBER 1ST AGAIN, PLEASE? THE THE MOVING OCTOBER 14TH CANCELING THAT MEETING MOVING IT TO OCTOBER 7TH. RIGHT. OCTOBER 28TH IS NOT A DATE CHANGE, BUT IT'S A LOCATION CHANGE. AND THEN NOVEMBER 11TH, WE HAD ALREADY NOT HAD A MEETING ON THE 11TH. WE HAD ANTICIPATED THAT BEING A VETERANS DAY AND MOVED OUR MEETING TO THE 18TH. SO OUR SCHEDULE ALREADY REFLECTS THAT ONE. I WILL UPDATE MY SCHEDULE ACCORDINGLY. GOOD. AT LEAST THAT'S HOW IT'S PUBLISHED IN OUR CALENDAR ONLINE. SO MAYBE YES, YOU DID GO THROUGH THAT. YEAH. AND WE ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING IN NOVEMBER AND ONE MEETING IN DECEMBER. CORRECT. BECAUSE OF HOLIDAY SCHEDULES. SO EVERYBODY IN FAVOR OF THAT CHANGE? I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL, DO WE? WOULD YOU LIKE US TO. THAT'S UP TO YOU. I CAN JUST SAY BY CONSENSUS. YEAH. OKAY. SO. YEAH. THANK YOU. SO YOU'LL UPDATE IT ONLINE AND WE'LL. YEAH. I GOT THREE DAYS, SO I'LL TAKE CARE OF IT. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. EVERYBODY IN FAVOR? AYE. NOBODY OPPOSED? EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. OKAY. MOVING. WE'RE GETTING LOOSE HERE. SO WE ARE NOW ON TO ITEM NINE OTHER BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION. [9.A. Planning Commission Discussion i. Planning Commission Bylaw Update ii. Current Land Use Update] WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON A BYLAW UPDATE, AND THAT SEEMED PRETTY SIMPLE. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BRIEFLY AT OUR LAST MEETING. SO I THINK IT'S SOMEBODY MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE A CHANGE TO OUR. [00:15:04] WELL, IT'S NOT A MOTION. WE DON'T GET TO DO THAT YET. RIGHT. WE HAVE TO DISCUSS A DISCUSSION ITEM IF YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. I HAVE TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING THAT WILL BE NOW OCTOBER 7TH. OKAY. AND THEN THE OCTOBER 28TH WOULD BE YOUR DECISION, NOT OUR NEXT MEETING ON THE 24TH. WE COULDN'T DO A PUBLIC HEARING. I CAN'T MAKE THE 24TH BECAUSE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE. I HAVE TO GET IT 15 DAYS. GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S DISCUSS. YES, PLEASE. CAN WE AMEND OUR OWN BYLAWS, OR DOES THE BOARD HAVE TO APPROVE IT? YOU CAN AMEND YOUR OWN BYLAWS THROUGH THIS PROCESS. AND AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, IT'S JUST IT'S ONE WORD, RIGHT? WELL, THERE'S THERE'S TWO PLACES. OH, OKAY. ONE WORD. TWICE. YEAH. OKAY. I SAW THAT TWO PARAGRAPHS AHEAD OF THAT, THE NUMBER OF QUORUM SHOULD HAVE CHANGED FROM 5 TO 4 AS WELL. OKAY. SIMPLE, RIGHT. WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT WE SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DO THIS ANYTIME WE MAKE A CHANGE, INSTEAD OF SAYING A SPECIFIC NUMBER, WHY DON'T WE GO AND SAY TWO THIRDS? I'M SORRY, I'M A MAJORITY. YEAH. DO YOU WANT TO JUST STRIKE THE LANGUAGE THEN OR I MEAN. I WOULD CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT A QUORUM IS A MAJORITY OF THOSE. OKAY. YEAH. INSTEAD OF SAYING A SPECIFIC NUMBER. SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE WOULD ONLY IF IT'S A MAJORITY OF QUORUM, DOES THAT MEAN THE NUMBER REQUIRED IS. I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN. VERY LOW. THE NUMBER DOESN'T CHANGE. LIKE IF THERE'S ONLY THREE PEOPLE HERE. IF IT WAS EVER IF WE WERE EVER TO CHANGE IT, UNLESS WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT MANY PEOPLE APPOINTED, AND THEN IT WOULD BE A MAJORITY IF WE HAD A VACANCY. IT'S SELF-EXPLANATORY. IF YOU USE THE LANGUAGE, I SUGGEST. YEAH, YEAH. IF YOU IF YOU I AGREE. IF YOU TAKE THE NUMBER OUT BECAUSE YOU KNOW UP UNTIL RECENTLY HAD NINE. SO THAT NUMBER WAS FIVE RATHER THAN CHANGING IT EACH TIME. IF YOU GO BACK UP TO NINE, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN. YEAH, JUST AS A HYPOTHETICAL THOUGH. SO IF YOU HAVE FOUR AS A QUORUM AND SOMETHING COMES UP FOR A VOTE AND YOU HAVE TWO TWO, THEN THE VOTE FAILS. VOTE FAILS. OKAY. BUT THEN SO DOES THAT MEAN WE COULD PASS SOMETHING WITH ONLY THREE THREE MEMBERS PRESENT? NO, BECAUSE WITH THREE MEMBERS PRESENT, YOU CAN'T. I MEAN, I MEAN, I MEAN SORRY, SORRY, SORRY WITH THREE MEMBERS VOTING FOR SOMETHING. SO THEN. YES, THAT IS TRUE. THERE WAS SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL HERE AND THERE WERE ONLY FOUR PEOPLE HERE. THEN THAT MEANS. THAT MEANS IT COULD. IT COULD PASS WITH A 3-1 VOTE. YES. THAT IS THAT IS. THAT'S THE RULES. ALL RIGHT. SAME THING IS TRUE IF THERE ARE FIVE PEOPLE HERE. RIGHT? PASS IT WITH THREE. THE ONLY EXCEPTION, OBVIOUSLY, IF SOMETHING NEEDS A TWO THIRDS VOTE. BUT VERY RARELY DOES THAT HAPPEN. AND THAT WOULD BE THE ADOPTION OF THE MASTER PLAN THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT. YEAH. YEAH. I MEAN, QUORUMS QUORUM SO TO FIX THAT PROBLEM, WE'D HAVE TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO. YEAH. I WOULD BE FINE WITH A SIMPLE MAJORITY AS THE LANGUAGE. PLUS, WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS AGAIN. I MEAN, IN OUR PUBLIC HEARING. AND WHEN WE ACTUALLY VOTE ON IT, I DO THINK IT'S PROBABLY EASIER AND AND AS CLEAR TO JUST SAY A MAJORITY UNDER 5.4 AND THEN UNDER 5.7A RAISE THAT TO SAY TWO THIRDS JUST SAY SIMPLY TWO THIRDS MAJORITY. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. THAT DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE CONCERN OR PAUSE AT THIS POINT. WELL IT NEEDS TO SAY TWO THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS. YES. ASSUMING IT'S NOT TWO THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS WHO ARE PRESENT, IT'S TWO THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE WHOLE BODY FOR 5.7A TO ADOPT THE MASTER PLAN. OKAY. AND THEN I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS IF WE GO FROM FOUR TO A MAJORITY OF AND LET'S [00:20:07] SAY WE RUN INTO AN ISSUE WHERE WE HAVE LIKE TWO VACANCIES BECAUSE THE TOWNSHIP BOARD STEALS TWO OF OUR MEMBERS AT ONCE INSTEAD OF JUST ONE. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE BODY. THE BODY. WE'VE RUN INTO THAT. THIS IS NOT MEMBERS APPOINTED AND SERVING. THIS IS OF THE BODY ITSELF. OKAY. CORRECT. SO THAT PUTS US IN A REAL BIND THEN. IF WE HAD THAT ISSUE WHEN YOU WERE STILL OFFICIALLY NINE. I REMEMBER THAT, YES. YEAH. WE HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS WHERE THAT WAS POTENTIALLY AN ISSUE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT THAT WORKS FOR ME. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO BRING THIS AGAIN WITH THE FIXED LANGUAGE? AND THEN YOU CAN SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING? OR DO YOU WANT ME TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN SEE THIS AGAIN, TRUSTING THAT IT'S YOUR CALL THEIR YOUR BYLAWS. PERSONALLY, I TRUST YOU TO MAKE THOSE TWO CHANGES AND BRING IT BACK TO US AT A PUBLIC HEARING. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU, I GUESS, WANTED TO JUST SHARE IT WITH THE BOARD, I'LL PUT IT BACK ON. LET US LOOK AT IT. SURE. YEAH. I'LL PUT IT BACK ON AS A DISCUSSION ITEM. BUT WHAT I WOULDN'T WANT TO DO, I GUESS WHAT I WOULDN'T WANT TO DO IS HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT BE ABLE TO USE THAT AS OUR PUBLIC HEARING, BECAUSE THERE WAS A TYPO IN THIS. BUT WELL, I'LL CATCH I'LL CATCH IT. I MEAN, YOU'LL CATCH IT. IF I MADE IT, YOU'LL CATCH IT, RIGHT? EITHER I DON'T. I DON'T THINK IT'S A DEAL BREAKER. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THAT SOUNDS GREAT. THANK YOU. SO WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO THAT, IDEALLY ON THE AGENDA FOR THE OCTOBER 7TH MEETING. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO SO WE'RE GETTING THE DRAFT VERSION OF THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING. CORRECT. AND THEN THE FOLLOWING MEETING WE'RE GOING TO DO THE PUBLIC HEARING. CORRECT. OKAY. DOES THAT WORK? YEP. YEAH. SO JUST I'VE BEEN WORKING THE MATH IN MY HEAD. IT JUST WOULD SEEM VERY MUCH WHAT THE WORD IS, BUT YOU COULD HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THREE PEOPLE ON A BOARD OF SEVEN VOTE TO MOVE SOMETHING ALONG. YEAH. AND I UNDERSTAND. I MEAN, IT'S MATH, RIGHT? I MEAN, THE MATH DOESN'T CHANGE, BUT THAT'S JUST THE DESIGN IS WEIRD. JUST IT LEVERAGES ITSELF TO ODD OUTCOMES. I WOULD I WOULD TALK TO ROBERT THAT CREATED THE RULES. YEAH. DIG THAT GUY UP. YEAH, IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. I MEAN, IT KIND OF DOES. YEAH. SO IF THERE'S SIX PEOPLE SERVING, YOU'LL NEED FOUR IN ORDER TO PASS A MOTION, WHICH MEANS A TWO THIRDS VOTE. YOU'VE NOW IMPOSED TWO THIRDS RULE ONLY FOR THE ONLY THINGS THAT REQUIRE TWO THIRDS. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, THREE OF SIX WOULDN'T PASS A MOTION, SO YOU'D NEED FOUR, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY TWO THIRDS. NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE THOUGH, BECAUSE IT'S MAJORITY SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT AND VOTING FOR MOST THINGS. THE ONLY THINGS THAT REQUIRE TWO THIRDS ARE THE MASTER PLAN OR OTHER THINGS THAT THAT THE EXCEPTIONS ARE ADOPTION OF THE MASTER PLAN OR ANY OTHER ACTION WHICH BY LAW, TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE OR PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY REQUIRES OTHERWISE. SO NO, IT WOULDN'T FORMALLY IMPOSE THAT. BUT I THINK THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE THAT FOUR OF SIX IS TWO THIRDS. RIGHT. BUT I MEAN, WELL, YEAH, IN EFFECT, LIKE IF IT WERE A 3-3, YOU'RE RIGHT. IT WOULDN'T PASS. SO YES. SO WE HOPE TO NOT HAVE NOT HAVE AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME WHERE WE HAVE A VACANCY OR PEOPLE NOT HERE AND CONTENTIOUS ISSUES. YES. WELL, WE'LL CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE COME TO IT. WELL SORRY. GO AHEAD. NO. GO AHEAD. WELL IF, IF WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THAT SCENARIO, WOULDN'T IT. AND WE CAN HOPE. BUT IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO SORT OF DESIGN THIS SO THAT. NO, WE WOULD MITIGATE THAT? NO. I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU, YOU HAVE YOU HAVE A QUORUM, YOU'D STILL HAVE THE SAME. THE QUORUM IS FOUR. THAT'S THE RULE. NOW, YOU DID FACE THIS RECENTLY, REMEMBER, YOU KNEW YOU HAD A COMMISSIONER COMING ON BOARD, YOU HAD A MAJOR DECISION. YOU WAITED UNTIL HE WAS ON SO THAT YOU KNEW YOU HAD AN ODD NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU YOU'VE SEEN THIS. SO MAJORITY IT'S WHETHER WE HAVE 6 OR 7 IS GOING TO BE AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A QUORUM, YOU HAVE A YOU HAVE A VOTING. YEAH, RIGHT. COMMISSIONER SCALES. THE KEY TO THE WHOLE THING IS ATTEND THE MEETINGS SHOW UP. YEP. IF IT MATTERS, SHOW UP. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THOUGHTS? OKAY, SO WE ARE THERE AND WE ARE NOW ON OTHER BUSINESS A 2.9 TWO CURRENT LAND USE [00:25:03] UPDATE. SO THIS IS I'M MAKING A POINT OF TRYING TO BRING SOMETHING OF INTEREST AT THE, YOU KNOW, DURING OTHER BUSINESS. JUST A LITTLE TIDBIT. I HOPE THIS DOESN'T BLOW UP INTO A HUGE CONVERSATION, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO SAY SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS. THIS IS A LOT OF THIS IS A LOT OF DATA. YOU BETTER STOP THERE. UNLESS YOU'RE ARGUING WITH MY INTERPRETATION OF THINGS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT 1 OR 2 COMMISSIONERS HAS ASKED ME FOR IN THE PAST, AND I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS A LOT BEHIND THE SCENES FOR A WHILE AND KIND OF LOOKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS. BUT THIS IS NOT ZONING, NOT FUTURE LAND USE, BUT AN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT OUR CURRENT LAND USES ARE. NOTE THAT THIS MIGHT NOT CORRELATE WITH WHAT THE PROPERTY IS ZONED. PRETTY BASICALLY IT'S IT'S BEEN LOOKING AT THE OUR GIS EXTENSIVELY. WE'VE HAD CURRENT LAND USE MAPS IN THE PAST AND HAVE KIND OF USED THOSE DESIGNATIONS. MAYBE THEY COULD BE A LITTLE FINER IN DETAIL IN SOME IN SOME POINTS, BUT BY AND LARGE YOU CAN SEE 49%. ALMOST HALF OF OUR TOWNSHIP IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. WE HAVE A LOT OF OUTDOOR, RECREATIONAL, INSTITUTIONAL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 12 ACRES OF MOBILE HOME PARK THAT WAS CALLED OUT SEPARATELY IN PAST CURRENT LAND USE MAPS SO I LEFT IT SEPARATE. THERE'S 1571 ACRES OF LAND THAT IS CLASSIFIED TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITIES, 619 ACRES OF WATER. THOSE AREN'T USABLE LAND. THAT'S NOT USABLE LAND. SO I TOOK THAT OUT OF THAT CALCULATION SO THAT'S WHY IT SAYS PERCENTAGE OF USABLE LAND. THIS IS FOLLOWED THEN THIS IS THE MAP THAT I PUT TOGETHER, AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY IS. AND THIS HEAVY BLACK LINE, THAT'S THE AMENDED URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY FROM THE 2023 MASTER PLAN UPDATE. THAT'S AS FAR AS I CAN ZOOM IN I APOLOGIZE, SO I SHOULD HAVE PUT THESE. NOW I REALIZE I SHOULD HAVE PUT THESE IN SEPARATE PAGES. I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE, BUT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE, THIS IS A BREAKDOWN. THIS IS THE SAME DATA THAT I SHOWED THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT. TOTAL LAND, TOTAL LAND USE CATEGORY, NUMBER OF ACRES PERCENTAGE, SAME DATA. THIS IS HOW IT BREAKS DOWN IN A BAR GRAPH. THIS IS THE PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. SO NOW YOU CAN SEE THAT OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, ALMOST 70% OF THAT PROPERTY IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THOSE PERCENTAGES CHANGE RIGHT. INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, THEN 44%, YOU HAVE A LOT MORE ACREAGE INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. AND THEN OVER HERE PERCENT OF THE OKAY THIS IS THIS IS NOT THE TOTAL ACRES. THIS IS THE PERCENT OF SO 72.3% OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. I THINK THE NUMBER THAT I WAS SPECIFICALLY GETTING ASKED FOR IN THE PAST, THEN THIS DEVELOPABLE OPEN SPACE, 71.3% OF IT IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY 6.9% OF THE LAND INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY IS DEVELOPABLE OPEN SPACE. 11.3% OF THE LAND OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY IS CLASSIFIED AS DEVELOPABLE OPEN SPACE. BUT IT'S MUCH IT'S ONLY 404 ACRES TOTAL. NOW, I KNOW THAT'S A LOT OF DATA. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AND HAPPY TO DO SO. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS. IS THERE A REASON OR RATIONALE WHY YOU COMBINED OUTDOOR RECREATION AND CEMETERY? IT HAD BEEN DONE IN THE PAST. I COULD SEPARATE THEM. WE WOULD HAVE. THE CEMETERY ACREAGE WOULD BE SMALL IN COMPARISON. I JUST DON'T SEE WHERE THE TWO CORRELATE. WELL, I KIND OF RUN AND OCCASIONALLY PICNIC IN CEMETERIES. I SEE THEM AS I DON'T SEE THE RESIDENTS OF THE CEMETERY HAVING ANY RECREATION. I COULD TALK ABOUT THE HISTORICAL VICTORIAN USE OF CEMETERIES, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THAT'S ACTUALLY USABLE TO OUR CONVERSATION. [00:30:02] I CAN SEPARATE THEM IF YOU WANT ME WANT TO, BUT I DON'T I DON'T THINK, I THINK THE, THE CEMETERY ACREAGE ACREAGE WOULD BE NEGLIGIBLE. OKAY. I'M SORRY. HOW DO YOU DEFINE INSTITUTIONAL? DOES THAT INCLUDE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS? GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, NONPROFIT SCHOOL BUILDINGS, HOSPITAL. HOSPITAL? YEAH. OKAY. COMMISSIONER. COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS. CAN YOU DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS IN THIS CONTEXT? YES, I CAN. LET ME GO UP TO THIS MAP. THAT'S PROBABLY GOOD. THIS AREA HERE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. THAT'S COLLEGE FIELDS, THAT IS A COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LANSING. LANSING. AND AS SUCH, THEY'VE IT'S IT'S THEY HAVE ZONING JURISDICTION OVER THAT SAME DEAL UP HERE. THIS IS EAST LANSING. COSTCO. YEAH. THAT'S THE EAST LANSING COOPERATIVE AREA. OH, IT'S A GOOD THING BECAUSE I THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION I HAD IN MY HEAD. OKAY. THESE ARE NOT HOUSING CO-OPS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE THINKING. I ACTUALLY WAS GAMBLING MORE ON. IT WAS LIKE A FARMING TYPE OF AGREEMENT WHERE THERE WAS SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT NO, I THINK WHAT IT DID, THIS WAS DONE YEARS AGO, AND I'M BLANKING ON THE STATE STATUTE THAT ALLOWS IT, BUT IT IT GIVES THE ABILITY FOR THE DEVELOPERS TO CAPTURE THE, THE TIF THAT THE CITY HAS THAT THE TOWNSHIP DIDN'T AND SO THEY COULD DEVELOP AND BRING IN SOME INCENTIVES THAT WOULDN'T HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN AVAILABLE BECAUSE SOMETHING LIKE NATIONAL ALSO HAS ONE OF THOSE, I THINK IN THAT MIGHT BE AURELIUS TOWNSHIP, BUT I THINK THEY HAVE ONE OF THOSE WITH CITY OF LANSING ALSO. YEAH, I WORKED FOR THE CITY OF LANSING WHEN SOME OF THESE WERE SIGNED, AND I HAVE VAGUE MEMORIES, BUT I KNOW JUST ENOUGH TO BE DANGEROUS. AND YEAH, I GET CALLS FROM PEOPLE LIVING IN COLLEGE FIELDS ASKING WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO BUILD, BUILD FENCES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND I SAY, YOU NEED TO CALL THE CITY OF LANSING. YEAH. I WOULD I SHOULD GO BACK TO I REALLY THINK THIS IS A WONDERFUL PRESENTATION OF THE DATA OVERALL BECAUSE IT IS IT IS DENSE. AND I WILL ALSO SAY I SHARED COMMISSIONER SCALES QUESTIONS ON WHY OUTDOOR RECREATION AND CEMETERY WERE TOGETHER, BUT I FIGURED IT WAS A GIS FUNCTION. OR MAYBE IT'S JUST INDICATING THAT NEITHER ONE CAN REALLY BE READILY USED. IT IS PAST PRACTICE. IT IS PAST PRACTICE. BEST PRACTICE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL YOU HAD A QUESTION? YEAH, I GOT ONE. A LITTLE TINY ONE AND TWO GREAT BIG ONES. THE LITTLE TINY ONE IS THE TOWNSHIP BOARD ON AUGUST 20TH APPROVED A ZONING CHANGE 202407 MAYBERRY HOMES. YES. IS THAT PARCEL ON? YES. I HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT FROM DEVELOPABLE OPEN SPACE BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A PUD IN FRONT OF US OKAY. PROPOSING ANYTHING? I IMAGINE THAT VERY SOON I WILL CHANGE THAT TO YELLOW. GOTCHA. THAT WILL CHANGE NUMBERS SIGNIFICANTLY. BIGGER PICTURE, THE THOSE BIG OPEN SPACE PARCELS KIND OF DRAW THE EYE ON THE MAP BECAUSE THEY'RE BIG AND OPEN AND RELATIVELY EASY. THE EXPECTATION IS THAT SOMEBODY AT SOME POINT WILL WANT TO. RIGHT, RIGHT. ALL THE STUFF THAT'S IN YELLOW IS CURRENTLY SINGLE FAMILY, AND IN MANY CASES IT'S BUILT OUT. BUT IN MANY CASES IT'S KIND OF MUCH LARGER LOT SORT OF THERE'S A HOUSE ON THIS LARGE ACREAGE THAT IS CORRECT. GOOD EXAMPLE WALNUT HILLS. YEAH. YEAH. WELL, YEAH. BUT THERE'S ALSO BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY AREAS OF LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY THAT COULD BECOME HIGHER DENSITY DEPENDING ON WHAT SORT OF STRUCTURE IS THERE AND WHAT SOMEBODY MIGHT WANT TO DO. SO I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT SOME OF THAT LAND IS SUBDIVIDABLE. THAT'S IN YELLOW. OH YEAH, DEFINITELY SOME OF THOSE. SO IF A IF I LOOK AT A PARCEL THIS IS A LITTLE BIT BEHIND THE CURTAIN. HOW THIS HOW IT'S DOING THIS. IF I LOOK AT A PARCEL AND THERE'S A HOUSE ON IT AND IT'S ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND IT'S A FIVE ACRE PARCEL, THEN IN THEORY, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING LOT WIDTHS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. BUT IN THEORY THAT'S FIVE PARCELS. THEY JUST HAVEN'T SUBDIVIDED IT YET. BUT EVEN IF THEY DO, IT'S STILL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IF THEY REZONE IT. LIKE FOR INSTANCE, I'M ZOOMED IN AS MUCH AS I CAN, BUT THAT LITTLE ITTY BITTY CORNER THERE, SHELL STREET. I THINK I MIGHT ACTUALLY STILL. SO THAT DEVELOPABLE. I CAN'T TELL. I CAN'T ZOOM IN CLOSE ENOUGH. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. IT EITHER WENT FROM OFFICE TO MULTIFAMILY. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. THE LAST ONE HAS TO DO WITH SOME OF THE TOTALS. [00:35:02] AND WHEN I LOOK, FOR INSTANCE, AT THE OUTSIDE, THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, LAND USE SIDE, YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING LIKE DEVELOPABLE OPEN SPACE OF 404. OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE? YES. AND IT LOOKS LIKE MOST OF THAT IS IN THOSE BIG, LARGE LOTS THAT SHOW UP IN THE RED HATCHING AND THAT OWNED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING REAL ESTATE. THAT IS A REALLY GOOD POINT. THERE ARE THERE ARE OUTSIDE THE PARCELS THAT ARE DEVELOPABLE OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, I THINK. WELL, I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT BECAUSE YOU GOT THIS BIG THING HERE. I WILL SAY THIS THOUGH WHAT I DON'T SHOW ON THIS MAP ARE WETLANDS, RIGHT. AND THAT JUST A LOT OF THAT DEVELOPABLE. AND THIS GOES TO SOMETHING THAT WE'VE SAID SINCE I STARTED HERE. WE'VE DONE THE EASY STUFF. WE'VE DEVELOPED THE EASY PARTS OF THE TOWNSHIP. I GUESS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT WHEN I GLANCE THROUGH IT, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE AROUND HALF OR MAYBE A LITTLE LESS THAN HALF OF THE SORT OF DEVELOPABLE OPEN SPACE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARIES, REALLY OWNED BY A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS. THAT WOULD BE AN INTEREST. YEAH, I COULD I COULD PULL THAT. AND I DON'T WANT TO BE PUBLIC WITH WHO OWNS WHAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'LL PUT THAT IN A MEMO FORM. BUT I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A VALID POINT YOU'VE GOT. CERTAINLY. THAT PIECE RIGHT THERE IS A REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE. THAT'S ONE BIG OWNERSHIP. CORRECT. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, OBSERVATIONS. I HAD A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE TABLES. THE TWO TO THE FAR RIGHT INSIDE THE LAND USE CATEGORY. YEAH. COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE PERCENTAGES AGAIN, JUST I DON'T. OKAY. THE LAND INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY IS 14,592, THE USABLE, USABLE LAND. OKAY. OF THAT, 44.1% IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. BUT THEN THE NEXT TABLE LOOKS LIKE THE SAME. I'M JUST CONFUSED BY THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE THE HEADINGS ARE THE SAME. I DON'T. OKAY. THAT TABLE DIFFERENT. SORRY. HOW MUCH IS INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY AND WHAT THAT SHOWS IS THAT 72.3% OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE TOWNSHIP ARE INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. BECAUSE THE FAR LEFT OF THE. I UNDERSTAND THAT ONE 8903 ACRES OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. YEAH. 72% OF IT IS INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. AND. OOPS. I'M SORRY. AND THEN THIS IS OF THIS TOTAL OF THE TOTAL ACRES INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. 44% OF IT IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SO. AND ALL OF THE INDUSTRIAL. 6434 ACRES OF THE 14,592 ACRES INSIDE OF THE INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S 44% 44.1%. I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH WHAT THIS MEANS OVER HERE. SO IF IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL, WHICH IS THE IF YOU WANT TO SCROLL. OH, SURE. SORRY. PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING HERE YOU GO. SO THE TABLE ON THE LEFT IS ALL OF THE LAND IN THE TOWNSHIP, 18,161 ACRES. OF THAT, 14,582 IS INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, AND 3569 IS OUTSIDE OF IT. SO THEN THIS IS BASICALLY JUST A BREAKDOWN. THE SECOND AND THE THIRD TABLES ARE IN TOTAL ADD UP TO THE TABLE ON THE LEFT. THE TABLE ON THE RIGHT IS JUST A DIFFERENT WAY OF LOOKING AT IT. IT'S TAKING THE TABLE THE THIRD ONE AND SAYING IN COMPARISON TO THE FAR LEFT TABLE, THE THIRD CATEGORY, THE THIRD COLUMN IS 72%. OF THAT TOTAL. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS SHOWING YOU. IT'S BASICALLY DOING THE MATH FROM BOX ONE THE FIRST ONE TO THE FOURTH. AND THEN AND THEN BOX TWO AND THREE ADD UP TO THE LEFT SIDE. YEAH, I THINK I GOT THAT. THANK YOU. IT IS. IT TOOK ME A SECOND BUT YEAH. AND THIS IS JUST THIS IS JUST TOTALING WHAT IS IS THERE THERE'S NO WAY I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT ABOUT TO ASK A [00:40:05] REALLY DUMB QUESTION. THERE ARE NO DUMB QUESTIONS. IT'S JUST THIS IS JUST LIKE THE ZONING AND THEN THE THE MAP ITSELF PROVIDES THE VISUAL OF WHAT HAS HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED. RIGHT. THE MAP ITSELF SHOWS ALL OF EVERYTHING. WELL, YES, I'M SORRY, BUT THE MAP IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THE NOT DEVELOPED STUFF IS ACCOUNTED FOR. NO, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PERCENTAGES. I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S A LAND USE, LIKE ZONED, HOW EVERYTHING IS ZONED. THERE'S A LAND USE. OKAY. THESE AREN'T ZONING OR LAND USE. OKAY. THERE'S A LAND USE CATEGORY CALLED DEVELOPABLE OPEN SPACE. THAT IS, THAT'S THE THAT'S THE AVAILABLE LAND THAT'S SHOWN IN THESE HATCH PATTERNS ON THE MAP. THE CANDY CANES. SO BASICALLY YOU'D HAVE TO LOOK AT AND I THINK COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL WAS KIND OF TOUCHING ON THIS POINT TOO. YOU'D HAVE TO SEE AN OVERLAY TO UNDERSTAND FOR SURE HOW THE, THE CANDY CANE SECTIONS WHAT LAND USE CATEGORY THEY ARE IN. I MEAN, GENERALLY THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE WHATEVER THEY'RE BORDERED BY, BUT TO KNOW FOR SURE. YEAH, YOU'D HAVE TO BE ABLE TO COMPARE. FOR READABILITY OF THIS MAP I SHUT OFF THE PARCEL LINES. I GET IT. OKAY. OKAY. BUT WITH THE MAP, I COULD SHOW ANYTHING. LIKE LIKE I JUST ALLUDED TO A FEW MINUTES AGO. I COULD PUT WETLANDS OVER THE TOP OF THIS AND SUDDENLY YOU'D SEE. OH, MAYBE THAT'S WHY THAT'S DEVELOPABLE. NOW WE CAN. OKAY. SO THAT RAISES A QUESTION. SHOULD WE MAKE A DISTINCTION. YEAH. BUT THEN THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A IF YOU GOT A TEN ACRE SITE AND IT'S GOT FIVE ACRES OF WETLAND, YOU STILL GOT FIVE ACRES OF DEVELOPABLE LAND. IT'S A TEN ACRE PARCEL. IT GETS SHOWN ALL IN HATCHED. I'M NOT DIVIDING STUFF. I'M NOT DIVIDING PARCELS IN HALF BY THIS CATEGORY. YEAH, WELL, THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HELPING ME PROCESS THAT. AND JUST SOMETHING ELSE THAT I NOTICED TOO WAS THE, THE MULTI-FAMILY YOU KNOW, THE ORANGE, THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT. AND THEN THERE'S CERTAINLY NOT MUCH, YOU KNOW, ADJACENT TO IT THAT APPEARS TO BE DEVELOPABLE, WHICH WAS REALLY KIND OF WHAT I'VE BEEN WONDERING FOR A LONG TIME. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU PUT INTO MAKING THIS CLEAR. IF I, IF I UNDERSTAND PART OF WHAT COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL WAS GETTING AT, EVEN SOME OF THE AREAS IN THE YELLOW SINGLE FAMILY AREAS. THE PARCEL ITSELF MAY BE SO LARGE THAT IT COULD BE CONSIDERED WHAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO PHRASE REDEVELOP. OH YEAH. IN THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE LIVING ON A FIVE ACRE PARCEL OF LAND WITH ONE HOUSE ON IT, THAT'S A POTENTIALLY DEVELOPABLE PARCEL, IT WOULD TAKE A REZONE, BUT IT'S AT LEAST POSSIBLE. WELL, IT MIGHT NOT TAKE A REZONING. IT COULD JUST BE A LAND SPLIT IF IT'S WELL, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S STILL A SINGLE FAMILY. YEAH. YEAH. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS A META QUESTION. AND YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE OUTSIDE OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, CORRECT? CORRECT. I DON'T WANT TO SAY HOW WOULD WE COMPARE TO COMPETE, BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY IF YOU'RE GOING TO BRING IN HOUSING, YOU'RE COMPETING WITH OTHER AREAS, RIGHT, FOR THOSE RESOURCES. LIKE YOU SAID, WE'VE DONE THE EASY STUFF. I THINK I'M TRYING TO LEAD TO THE QUESTION OF LIKE, DO YOU SEE A PROBLEM HERE? ARE WE UNDER I WON'T SAY UNDERDEVELOPED. IT'S ALMOST NOT THE RIGHT TERM BECAUSE THE LAND EXISTS, BUT IT'S ABOUT CATEGORIZATION. WELL, HOW ABOUT THIS. SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR PRIME PARKS, PRIME BUSINESSES AND PRIME SCHOOLS. DO WE HAVE PRIME LAND TO MAKE ALL THAT HAPPEN? LIKE IN I'M FORGIVE ME. LIKE IN WHAT REGARD LIKE WHAT DO YOU MEAN? LIKE SO I GUESS IS THE LAND THAT IS AVAILABLE IN DEVELOPABLE STATE. IS IT APPEALING TO HOUSING DEVELOPERS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO BRING IN OR LIKE, DO WE HAVE ENOUGH TO APPEAR APPEALING TO THOSE TYPES? OKAY. DEPENDS ON WHAT IT IS. LIKE OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS APPEALING BECAUSE THIS IS BEING THIS HAS BEEN REZONED AND I'M WAITING. EVENTUALLY THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN WITH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SHOW US HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD ALL THE HOUSES AND PRESERVE ALL THE WETLANDS AND ETC.. SOME OF THESE ARE LET'S SEE I THINK I THINK. OKAY. SO MAYBE MAYBE. I MEAN, YOU'RE MAYBE THE REALITY IS YOU'RE THE, THE REALITY. IT'S NOT MAYBE YOU ARE THE PROFESSIONAL. LIKE, WHAT WERE THE THREE THINGS THAT YOU TOOK AWAY WHEN YOU COMPLETED THIS AFTER ALL THE HOURS IT TOOK? [00:45:05] LIKE WHAT WHAT STOOD OUT TO YOU? YOU'RE ASKING MY OPINION. YEAH. OKAY. WHEN I LOOK AT A MAP OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP IN GENERAL I'M ALWAYS STRUCK AT THE GIANT NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN BUILT HERE. THAT'S NOT A GOOD OR A BAD THING. I'M JUST. YOU'RE ASKING. YOU KNOW WHAT DO I SEE? YEAH. IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL CORE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T HAVE OTHER COMMERCIAL AROUND THE TOWNSHIP. WE HAVE PICA AREAS TO GET THAT COMMERCIAL TO GO. ONE THING THAT SHOWS UP VERY SMALL ON THIS MAP, I DO CALL THE HASLETT OR THIS HASLETT VILLAGE SITE IS DEVELOPABLE. IT HASN'T. WE DON'T HAVE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN ON THAT SITE. WHEN I DO, I MIGHT CHANGE THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT THERE. SIMILAR WITH OTHER THINGS. IT DOESN'T SHOW. WELL, HOW DO I SAY THIS? IF YOU TAKE THIS AND YOU PUT THE WETLANDS AND AND THE TRAILS AND YOU START PUTTING ALL THE ALL THE AMENITY STUFF TOGETHER, IT GOES ABOVE THIS MAP. SO MAYBE ABOVE YOUR QUESTION. I'VE NEVER WORKED IN A COMMUNITY WITH SO MUCH RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL. AND AS AN ASIDE, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU'LL TAKE FROM THIS MAP, I'VE ALSO NEVER WORKED IN A COMMUNITY WITH SUCH FORWARD STRINGENT WETLAND REGULATIONS. YEAH. BECAUSE THE OTHER PART I'M THINKING OF IS THIS. I CAN'T IMAGINE THE HOURS THAT IT TOOK INTO THIS. AND TO SOME EXTENT, WE HAVE A DUTY TO SIT THERE AND FIGURE OUT LIKE WHAT YOU SAW AND MAKE RELATED DECISIONS FROM IT. RIGHT? AND THAT'S WHAT HELPS DRIVE OUR DECISION MAKING. LIKE, I DON'T WANT THIS TO JUST BE IN A PACK AT ONCE AND NEVER COME BACK. NO, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. SO I THINK FUTURE FUTURE ANALYSIS WHEN WE START TALKING IN A FEW YEARS ABOUT MASTER PLAN UPDATES, BECAUSE THAT IS A EVERY FIVE YEAR CONVERSATION. MAYBE THIS IS GOOD TO TAKE. AND, YOU KNOW, I'LL KEEP THIS UPDATED AND I'LL BRING THIS BACK OUT AND COMPARE THIS TO OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP MAYBE AND MAYBE THAT MIGHT DRIVE SOME CHANGES. ALSO, WE CAN COMPARE THIS TO ZONING. NOW SOME OF THAT WOULD BE I WOULDN'T SHOW THIS MAP, I MIGHT SHOW SMALL INSET MAPS, BECAUSE THAT GETS INTO A LITTLE BIT OF A FINE DETAIL, YOU KNOW, ON A HALF ACRE PARCEL. YOU DON'T SEE THAT SO MUCH ON THIS. BUT THAT'S WHERE I THINK THIS MAP IS USEFUL. WHERE WHERE DO WE HAVE THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WHAT WE SAY YOU CAN DO? WHAT ARE YOU ACTUALLY DOING AND WHAT DO WE WANT YOU TO DO IN THE FUTURE? COMMISSIONER SCALES, I THINK WHAT YOU'VE DONE HERE IS A GREAT START, AND YOU'VE RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO THE QUESTIONS THAT SEVERAL OF US HAVE ASKED. THANK YOU. I LOOKED AT THIS AND I COULD SEE THAT IT IT ACTUALLY VALIDATES WHAT I'VE OFTEN THOUGHT, AND THAT IS THAT SAGINAW IS WHERE OUR BUILDABLE AREA IS. OH, YEAH. AND OH, YEAH, I LOOK TO THE EAST AND THAT'S A GOAL ORIENTED PICTURE. I MEAN, OUR GOAL IS NOT TO DEVELOP, BUT THE RURAL EASTERN PART OF THIS TOWNSHIP. SO THIS IS AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF WHERE WE ARE, WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE WANT TO GO AND WHAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL AS A FUTURE CONVERSATION. AND I'M NOT SURE NOW IT MAY TAKE SOME TIME TO DO IT. IS MAYBE HAVING SOMEONE FROM THE DEVELOP, LIKE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE COME AND TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE THE PLACES THAT ARE POTENTIALLY DEVELOPABLE OR COMPARING THOSE TO LIKE HOW THEY'RE ZONED. ARE THEY DEVELOPABLE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD? ARE THEY DEVELOPABLE AS MULTI-USE OR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING? ARE THEY DEVELOPABLE AS COMMERCIAL? AND KIND OF LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE AREAS. AND THAT MIGHT I KNOW WE ALREADY HAVE OUR OVERLAYS AND WE'VE ALREADY TARGETED CERTAIN AREAS, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO TAKE ATTENTION AWAY FROM THOSE AREAS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN FLAGGED FOR DEVELOPMENT, BUT KIND OF UNDERSTANDING, SORT OF TO GET A LITTLE DEEPER IN THIS, MAYBE SOME OF THE POTENTIAL FOR THE AREAS THAT ARE NOTED AS DEVELOPABLE AND ARE THEY REALLY, YOU KNOW, DO THEY DO THEY MATCH WHAT OUR MASTER PLAN SAYS WE WANT IN TERMS OF OUR VALUES FOR THE TOWNSHIP? SURE. MIGHT BE HELPFUL. YEAH. WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS. YEAH, THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING. CAN I GIVE ONE MORE LITTLE TIDBIT? YES, SURE. I LOOK AT THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I SEE AND THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, IT LOOKS THEY TOTALED TO ABOUT 10,000 [00:50:03] ACRES. AND OF THAT, ALMOST 9000 IS IN SINGLE FAMILY AND ABOUT 1000 IN MULTI-FAMILY. SO ABOUT HALF OF US ARE LIVING ON ABOUT 9/10 OF THE RESIDENTIAL LAND IN THE TOWNSHIP. AND THAT ALWAYS STRIKES ME PERSONALLY. I WILL MAKE A NOTE ABOUT THAT. IF I SEE AN INDIVIDUAL PARCEL WITH A DUPLEX. I DO I DO CLASSIFY DUPLEXES AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. BACK CHANNEL I CAN EXPLAIN THAT RATIONALE, BUT I WILL DIE ON THAT HILL. WELL, THAT'S A STRONG STATEMENT, RIGHT? BUT. YEAH, I WOULD I WOULD ALSO ECHO EVERYONE'S APPRECIATION. THIS IS REALLY COOL. I LIKE I LIKE THE WORK. ONE TIDBIT THAT I WOULD OFFER THAT'S INTERESTING, RELATED TO OUR VILLAGE OF NAGDCA CONVERSATION IS THE THE SMALL LITTLE SPOTS OF DIFFERENT COLORS IN THAT SPACE AND IN RELATION TO THE REST OF THE TOWNSHIP. NOT THAT I'M SAYING WE HAVE TO HAVE BIG BLOCKS OF COLOR. IT'S JUST INTERESTING TO SEE THE DIVERSITY IN THAT SPACE. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF PLACES IN THE TOWNSHIP WHERE THE SINGLE ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX AND MULTI-FAMILY IN THE SAME WITHOUT A REZONING. RIGHT. RIGHT. IT'S IT'S PART OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THAT AREA. YEAH. IT'S INTERESTING. THEN AND THERE'S SOME COOL INSTITUTIONAL USES IN THAT AREA, TOO. YEAH. NO, I DON'T MEAN TO. I'M NOT DISPARAGING IT IN ANY WAY. I'M SAYING IT'S JUST INTERESTING TO SEE THAT AGAINST THE REST OF THE, THE DEVELOPMENT. LIKE, I THINK THE WE GENERALLY DEVELOP IN BIG SWATHS, IT SEEMS LIKE. AND BUT WHEN SOME, WHEN A GROUP OF PEOPLE AND OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP IN SMALL POCKETS, THEN THIS IS SORT OF WHAT IT TURNS INTO. AND YOU GET THAT VARIETY IN THAT SPACE. THEN THE OTHER SO I HAVE ONE MORE TIDBIT AND THEN A REQUEST. THE TIDBIT, THE OTHER TIDBIT IS THE MALL IS A GIANT. IT IS A RED POCKET IN THAT SPACE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. YES. IN WHICH I LOOK FORWARD TO WHAT CAN COME FROM THAT SPACE FROM MANY DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVES. AND THEN THE REQUEST I HAVE IS THIS SORT OF PIGGYBACKS A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL WAS SAYING ABOUT THE, THE 9/10 RULE, NOT THE RULE, BUT WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS 9/10 OF THE LAND IS OWNED BY THE A SMALLER POPULATION. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THE DENSITY OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE BROKEN DOWN ON THIS MAP SO. AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE. SO AS AN EXAMPLE, I LIVE IN OTTAWA HILLS AND WE ALL HAVE HALF ACRE PLOTS, RIGHT? WE ARE LIKE, I MEAN, I CAN GET ANYWHERE IN FIVE MINUTES, RIGHT? I CAN GET TO 13 GROCERY STORES OR WHATEVER IT IS IN FIVE MINUTES, RIGHT? I'M RIGHT ON THE NEW BIKE PATH. LIKE IT'S A PRIME PLACE TO LIVE. AND AND WE REALLY LIKE IT, BUT WE ALSO OWN A HALF ACRE, AND WE'RE ONLY FOUR PEOPLE. AND SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE, ARE THERE ARE THERE AREAS LIKE THAT THAT WE MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT AS STRATEGICALLY VIABLE PLACES FOR INCREASING DENSITY IN THE FUTURE? I DON'T KNOW, LIKE I DON'T WANT TO SELL MY HOUSE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AS WE CONTINUALLY MOVE FORWARD. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS MAP IS MAKING ME THINK ABOUT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE A LIKE, I COULD SHOW JUST THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE STUFF, AND THEN I COULD DIFFERENTIATE DIFFERENT DENSITIES, IF YOU'D LIKE. YOU WANT TO SEE THAT KIND OF A DENSITY? I THINK THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL. IS THERE A A LINE? I MEAN, WHERE WHERE DO YOU WANT ME TO BREAK THAT OUT? BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY SUBJECTIVE. ONE MAN'S HALF ACRE IS ANOTHER MAN'S. YEAH. I MEAN, YOU SEE IT AS A LOT OF LAND FOR YOUR FOR YOUR PEOPLE. BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS TOWNSHIP THAT IF I TOLD THEM THEY HAD TO MOVE A HALF ACRE, THEY'D SCREAM. [00:55:01] YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW, DOES ANYBODY. I HAVE NO IDEA. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A THOUGHT ABOUT THAT? EARLIER A FIVE ACRE LOT COULD BE SUBDIVIDED FIVE TIMES WITHOUT A REZONING. DID I HEAR YOU RIGHT? GENERALLY. I MEAN YEAH, YEAH, JUST ON JUST GROSS NUMBER WITHOUT LOOKING. SO THAT'S ONE THRESHOLD I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT ON. IS IT, IS IT FIVE ACRES THAT COULD BE SUBDIVIDED JUST THROUGH A LAND SPLIT WITHOUT REQUIRING A REZONING? YOU'LL GET YOUR MAP IN ABOUT THREE YEARS. SO, LIKE, IT'S LIKE, I'D ALSO SAY YOU'RE THE YOU'RE THE EXPERT WHO'S WORKING ON ALL THIS DATA. AND SO IT'S LIKE, WHAT DO YOU THINK MAKES SENSE? WHAT IF I SHOW WHAT IF I DID THIS BREAK DOWN HALF ACRE? I DON'T THINK I THINK HALF ACRE TO ONE ACRE WOULD BE A LITTLE TOO FINE OF A DISTINCTION BUT WHAT ABOUT. WELL, I THINK IT ALSO DEPENDS ON HOW MANY HOUSES THERE ARE IN THAT AREA. ALL RIGHT. SO LIKE SO I'M THINKING ABOUT MY MY IN-LAWS LIVE IN GRAND RAPIDS AND THEY HAVE LIKE A, I DON'T KNOW, A THIRD OF AN ACRE MAYBE APPROXIMATELY. AND THEY'RE FAIRLY THAT FEELS DENSE TO ME COMING FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. BUT THEY STILL HAVE A NICE OKAY CHUNK OF PROPERTY. WELL, LET'S LET'S DO THIS THEN. THIS MIGHT GET TO WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING I CAN WHY DON'T I DO FIVE CATEGORIES UP TO HALF AN ACRE, HALF ACRE TO TWO ACRES, AND THEN YOU GET AT THAT AT THAT, YOU'RE ABOVE OUR DENSITY OF ALL OUR ZONING DISTRICTS AS WE GO UP TO 40,000 ACRE, 40,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, AND THEY ARE OUR DISTRICT AND THEN GO UP TO FIVE ACRES, TEN ACRES, AND THEN ANYTHING ABOVE TEN ACRES IN SIZE. THAT'S A GOOD START. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S GREAT. OKAY. GIVE ME A MEETING OR TWO. THAT IS A THAT'S A THAT'S A RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD CALCULATION. YEAH. I THINK I HAVE A FRIEND IN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, AND THEY'RE NOW ALLOWED TO IF THEIR LOT IS OF A CERTAIN SIZE, THEY CAN ACTUALLY BASICALLY BUILD A SECOND HOUSE ON THERE AND SUBLET IT. YEAH. AND IT'S LIKE THAT IS JUST HOW BOOMING NASHVILLE IS, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT TO WORK THERE, LIVE THERE LIKE ACCESSORY DWELLING OR RENT AN AIRBNB THERE. YEAH, I READ SOMETHING THERE A COUPLE YEARS AGO AND THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR WAS FOR SALE. I'M LIKE, OH, LET ME JUST SHEER MORBID CURIOSITY. LOOK AT THIS $1.4 MILLION. IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, 1500 SQUARE FOOT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I LOVE ALL THE GREEN SPACE THAT I CAN SEE VISUALLY. RIGHT. THE RECREATION. YEAH, I LOVE THAT. I DON'T CARE IF IT INCLUDES CEMETERIES. CEMETERIES DEVELOPED OR UNDEVELOPED. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. THAT WAS REALLY. ABSOLUTELY. SO NOW WE'RE AT ITEM TEN REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE. [10.A. Township Board update.] SO YOU'RE BACK ON AGAIN. IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE HAD A MEETING, SO LET'S DO THIS. GIVE ME A MOMENT. YES. THIS IS CHEATING. SURE. AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE CREATED A STUDY GROUP OF THREE OF OUR MEMBERS TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF EXAMINING OUR 2004 GREEN SPACE PLAN, AS WE HAVE IN THE MASTER PLAN, AS AN OBJECTIVE. SO THEY GOT TOGETHER FOR THE FIRST TIME YESTERDAY, AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS HAS OFFERED TO COALESCE THE RIGHT STAFF FROM HIS OFFICE AND HOPEFULLY FROM PLANNING AND PARKS AS WELL, TO LOOK BACK AT WHAT WE DID IN 2004 AND SEE HOW FAR WE'VE COME AND SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT. AND I WOULD WELCOME THAT CONVERSATION. [INAUDIBLE] THERE'S WAS DISCUSSION AT THE END OF OUR MEETING ABOUT A PROPOSED BUDGET DISCUSSION, WHICH I GUESS WILL BE IN THOSE TOWNSHIP BOARD MINUTES AND A PROPOSAL TO HIRE A NEW ENGINEER WITHIN PUBLIC WORKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER WHO WOULD PROVIDE STAFF TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, BUT FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE. [01:00:01] SO WE'RE VERY MUCH HOPING THAT IF THAT HAPPENS, THAT WE'LL HAVE QUITE A BIT OF FIREPOWER IN THE TOWNSHIP IN TERMS OF THESE GIS CAPABILITIES AND SORT OF DATA THAT WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE IN 2004. THINGS THAT WE KNOW ABOUT, THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE. THINGS THAT WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED SO. INTERESTING. STAY TUNED. SO UPDATE I GOT IT IN FRONT OF YOU. THERE WAS A HEARING LAST BOARD MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 3RD. THERE WAS A HEARING ON THE 2025 TOWNSHIP BUDGET. ACTION ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THE BOARD NUMBERING SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT THAN OURS, SO IT'S 24-17 HASLETT GALLERY. AND THEN BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS ORDINANCE 202406 TO THE DOLBY ROAD REZONING. THE APPLICANT WAS NOT AT THAT MEETING, AND NO, THERE WAS THAT WAS ALL IT WAS. IT WAS A DISCUSSION. I'LL LET YOU WATCH THE VIDEO IF YOU'RE CURIOUS ABOUT HOW THAT WENT. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK PUBLICLY. HAS THAT BEEN RESOLVED OR. I SAW THAT IN THERE. I SAW THERE WAS AN ISSUE ABOUT THE FIRE TRUCK, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER. I CAN GET THAT FOR YOU IF YOU'RE CURIOUS. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. OKAY. ANOTHER CURIOSITY ON THIS. IF YOU'RE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE I.T. BUDGET FOR THEM AT ALL, BECAUSE I KNOW IF YOU'VE READ THE NEWS RECENTLY, THE CITY OF TRAVERSE CITY, CITY OF GRAND BLANC, THE CITY OF FLINT HAVE ALL BEEN HACKED AND THEIR DATA IS BEING HELD. SO I'M JUST REALLY. YES. SO DON'T KNOW WHY FLINT. YEAH, I THROUGH MY REGULAR JOB, I'VE BEEN IN THE MIDST OF THIS SORT OF STUFF. BUT YEAH. AND IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU START TO REALIZE IF YOU'RE A CYBER CRIMINAL AND HAVE PLACES YOU WANT TO HIT DATA, RIGHT? I MEAN, I'M GOING TO GAMBLE. A LOT OF TOWNSHIPS HAVE PROBABLY NOT PUT THE FORCE BEHIND THEIR IT THAT THEY HAVE THAT SOME OTHER PLACES HAVE. SO THAT WAS JUST MORBID CURIOSITY. I SAID, I KNOW THOSE HAVE BEEN HIT RECENTLY. OKAY. BUT. THANK YOU FOR THAT UPDATE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER LIAISON REPORTS? COMMISSIONER SCALES. [10.B. Liaison reports.] I HAVE ONE FROM THE EDC. AND YOU KNOW, EVER SINCE OUR JULY 8TH MEETING, WHEN I NOTICED THAT THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS WAS NOT ON OUR PROJECT UPDATE LIST, I'VE BEEN ASKING ABOUT IT. AND 'VE BEEN VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT MR. SHORKEY HAS NOT BEEN KEPT IN THE LOOP. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WORKS ANYMORE, BUT THERE WAS AN UPDATE ON THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS AT OUR MEETING ON AUGUST 8TH. AND THEY CONFIRMED EVERYTHING I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU IN A MEMO DATING BACK TO MAY 2024. IT SAYS THAT THE THE COST OF ALL OF THE UPDATES EXCEEDS $10 MILLION ON A PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION THE DEVELOPER CANNOT FINANCE. THE TOWNSHIP CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE THE FUNDING AVAILABLE TO TAKE ON THAT PORTION OF WORK. FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE THE PROJECT IS INDEFINITELY DELAYED AND THAT GOES BACK TO MAY OF 2024. NOW AND I BROUGHT YOU A COPY SO THAT YOU CAN FOLLOW UP ON THAT. THERE'S A WRITTEN MEMO MEMORANDUM DATED AUGUST 20TH, AUGUST 5TH OF 2024 FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. CAN YOU PASS THAT DOWN TO HIM? THE ONLY THING I WILL SAY IS THAT IF THAT MEMO EXISTS AND THAT'S BEEN A PUBLIC MEMO, THEN I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE SAYING A LOT OF THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN KEEPING INSIDE. WHAT I SAY PUBLICLY AND WHAT I HAVE IN MY HEAD AREN'T ALWAYS THE SAME THING. THAT PROPERTY IS FOR SALE. I THINK THAT'S PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. I MEAN, YOU CAN GO LOOK GOOGLE, GOOGLE IT, AND YOU'LL FIND IT FOR SALE. ALSO, I HAD A MEETING LAST WEEK, IT WAS WITH A JUST WITH WITH A FISHING EXPEDITION, IF YOU WILL, JUST. I MEAN THAT NICELY, BUT AND IN THE COURSE OF THAT CONVERSATION, I HEARD SOME MORE OF THIS STUFF. [01:05:07] SO SOME SOMETIMES. I'M. I'M JUST. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE WHAT MORE YOU WANT FROM ME, IF ANYTHING, BUT I BUT I APPRECIATE THIS INFORMATION. THANK YOU. OKAY. MY CONCERN WAS JUST I FELT LIKE YOU WEREN'T INFORMED, WHICH MEANT THAT WE WEREN'T INFORMED AS A BOARD. AND I KNEW OTHER THINGS WERE GOING ON AROUND US AND WE HAD NO INFORMATION. I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE. I HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY FOR, FOR FOR COMING WITH WHAT I HAVE FELT THAT I AM COMFORTABLE IN THE POSITION OF PRINCIPAL PLANNER, NOT A DIRECTOR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SAYING PUBLICLY I FEEL LIKE I RECENTLY SINCE OUR LAST MEETING BECAUSE REMEMBER, WE'VE MISSED A MEETING RECENTLY. I FEEL ENABLED TO SAY MORE THINGS SUCH AS YEAH, THAT PROPERTY IS FOR SALE, THEY'VE PULLED OUT. THAT'S THAT'S A LEGITIMATE STATEMENT NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU. WHAT ARE THEY ASKING? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER LIAISON REPORTS? I'M SORRY. WE'RE GOING TO BE TOO OLD TO CARE BY THE TIME. WOW. OKAY. PROJECT UPDATES. YOU'VE GIVEN US A SHEET. [11.A. Project Report] ANY CHANGES TO THAT OR ANY QUESTIONS ON THE PROJECT UPDATES LIST THAT WAS IN OUR PACKET? I HEAR A LOT OF RUMORS ON SOME STUFF THAT'S COMING, BUT NO ONE'S PULLED THE TRIGGER YET, SO I'LL LET YOU KNOW. YEAH. GOOD TO KNOW. THIS TIME, NEXT MEETING, WE MAY KNOW MORE. RIGHT. WE ARE DOWN TO ITEM 12 PUBLIC REMARKS. ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC REMARKS? OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO SHARE? [13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS] OKAY. I DO HAVE ONE. OH, PLEASE GO AHEAD. I JUST WANTED TO SAY MR. SHORKEY, I THINK YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB IN LIGHT OF EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED OVER THE PAST FOUR MONTHS NOW, SINCE THE CHANGES WE'RE HAVING. YEAH. SO JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK, AND I THINK YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB, SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DITTO. WE APPRECIATE YOU. ABSOLUTELY. WE APPRECIATE YOU. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I MOVE TO ADJOURN. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 7:36. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.