[00:01:00]
PEOPLE FOR QUORUM. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, YOU HAVE A 7 MEMBER BOARD, WE NOW HAVE 4 PEOPLE, I'M EXPECTING 5. I HAVE HEARD FROM COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL AND THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT.
AND WE KNEW THAT CHAIR SHREWSBURY WASN'T GOING TO BE HERE TONIGHT.
SO, YOU KNOW THE ONLY THING COULD BE MAKING MOTIONS ON IS AGENDA AND MINUTES AND ADJOURNMENT.
SO IF YOU MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURNED AND IT GOES 2-2 YOU HAVE TO STAY IN SESSIONS.[LAUGHTER] I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON HOW LATE IT IS THEN. ARE THE KIDS STILL AWAKE?.AND IF YOU WANT TO GIVE IT A COUPLE MINUTES AND SEE IF MR. ROMBACK SHOWS THAT'S FINE. OTHERWISE. DID YOU SAY HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE COMING. I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT HE IS NOT. OH OKAY.
AND OTHERWISE YOU DO HAVE A QUORUM. AND I DO HAVE A TEXT MESSAGE THAT YOU ARE READY WHEN YOU ARE.
COMMUNICATIONS IS READY WHEN YOU ARE. OKAY, IF I MAY ASK JUST A QUICK QUESTION WITH THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WHEN WE GET TO THAT, IS THAT JUST GOING TO BE LIKE A STRAW POLE TYPE THING.
YOU ARE NOT MAKING A VOTE TONIGHT. YEAH. CORRECT.
WOULD WE EVEN DO A STRAW POLE VOTE THOUGH FOR THAT? JUST TO SHOW, KIND OF WHERE WE ARE LEANING? YOU KNOW.
OR IS THAT NOT EVEN NECESSARY. THAT'S YOUR CALL.
I GENERALLY HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA WHERE YOU'RE CONVERSATIONS GOING.
YOU KNOW THAT IS KIND OF YOUR PRACTICE. OKAY.
WE CAN GIVE IT LIKE 1 MORE MINUTE OR 2. OKAY.
IF THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYBODY. YEP, THAT'S FINE.
I JUST SAW HIM WALK IN THE BUILDING HE WILL BE HERE IN A SECOND. EXCELLENT. OUTSTANDING. WELL, [LAUGHTER] MAYBE WE CAN CATCH HIM ON THE WAY IN WITH THE ROLL CALL.
[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
LETS START WITH ROLL CALL. COMMISSIONER FOWLER.HERE. COMMISSIONER BROOKS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS.
HERE. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL IS NOT HERE, PLANNED ABSENCE CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THEN THE CHAIR SHREWSBURY IS ALSO NOT HERE DUE TO A PLANNED ABSENCE.
ITEM NUMBER 3 ON THE AGENDA, PUBLIC REMARKS. NOTHING.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.OKAY MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. SECOND.
[00:05:03]
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BROOKS. ALL IN FAVOR.AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 5.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 23, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING, JUNE 23RD.MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BROOKS. IS THERE A SECOND. I SECOND.
THAT ANYONE NOTICED THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE TO THE MINUTES FOR LAST WEEK. OK, ALL RIGHT.
ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES THE JUNE 23RD MEETING SAY AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED. OKAY. SO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES IS COMPLETED.
ITEM NUMBER 6, COMMUNICATIONS. THERE ARE NOT NONE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.A, PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 25013.
[7.A. #25013 – Text Amendment – Sec. 86-758 – Landscaping]
TEXT AMENDMENT FOR LANDSCAPING IN THE TOWNSHIP.PRETTY STRAIGHT FORWARD, STAFF HAS DISCUSSED THIS, DRAFT AMENDMENT WITH YOU A FEW TIMES.
THE STAFF HAS DONE A LOT OF WORK ON THIS BEHIND THE SCENES.
WE LAST DISCUSSED THIS AT YOUR JUNE 9TH REGULAR MEETING, THEIR BEING NO COMMENT.
PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR TONIGHT. WHAT IS IN THE PACKET YOU HAVE SEEN, SO THIS IS THE CLEAN VERSION. THIS IS THE EDITS THAT STAFF HAS MADE.
AGAIN THAT YOU'VE TAKE A LOOK AT, YOU'RE NOT MAKING A VOTE TONIGHT.
IT IS A TEXT AMENDMENT AT THAT TIME YOU WILL RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL.
ALL OF THIS INFORMATION TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.
THEY HAVE FINAL JURISDICTION ON A TEXT AMENDMENT. OKAY.
IS THERE ANY ANY COMMENT ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSAL? ANY FURTHER COMMENT I SHOULD SAY? FOR THE RECORD STAFF THINKS THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A LOT EASIER TO WORK WITH.
IT STREAMLINES SOME OF THE LANGUAGE, IT MODERNIZES SOME OF THE LANGUAGE, DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF CHANGES, BUT IT DOES MAKE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE CLEARER AND JUST MAKES IT A MORE WORKABLE DOCUMENT FOR US AND FOR DEVELOPERS.
I HAD ONE QUESTION MR. SHORKEY ON THE SECTION ONE, THE FIRST SECTION.SO IT SAYS PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE ISLANDS SHALL BE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT PARKING AREA IN THE AMOUNT OF 200 SQUARE FT PER EACH 10 PARKING SPACES. CORRECT. AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER.
OH, SO THERE'S THAT LINE ITEM ON LIKE THE SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENTS.
RIGHT. AND THEN RIGHT ABOVE THAT WHICH IS SECTION 11A.
YEAH. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PROVIDED SURROUNDING THE PARKING LOT IN THE AMOUNT OF 1 SQUARE FOOT OF LANDSCAPING PER 20 SQUARE FEET OF PARKING LOT PAVEMENT. RIGHT.
GO AHEAD SORRY. DOES THAT MEAN THAT IT'S 1 FOOT AROUND.
SO THAT'S THE PERIMETER GOING AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE PARKING LOT.
THE NEXT SECTION MAKES REFERENCE TO LANDSCAPE ISLANDS, THOSE ARE INTERNAL TO THE PARKING LOT.
RIGHT. OKAY. AND THAT GOES BASED ON PARKING SPACES BECAUSE THE IDEA TO THE PARKING THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS ARE USED TO BREAK UP LONG LINES OF PARKING SPACES.
SO THEN THE, OKAY SO MAYBE I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE SO, SECTION 1 THAT IS LABELED INTERIOR LANDSCAPING.
[00:10:03]
RIGHT. SO IS THAT INTERIOR LANDSCAPING TO THE PARKING LOT.BUT IF YOU WANT TO PLAY WITH THAT, NOW IS THE TIME, WE CAN DO THAT.
IT'S SPEAKING INTERIOR TO THE SITE ITSELF. OKAY.
IF YOU WANT TO CLARIFY A DIFFERENT THING. IT CAN JUST COVER FOR IT TO IT IS PARKING LANDSCAPING, PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING BUT I'VE NEVER HAD A DEVELOPER ASK ME ABOUT THAT BEFORE? NO, I'M SURE THAT IT IS LIKE, I'M GUESSING HERE THAT PEOPLE INFER THE MEANING FROM THIS.
I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE I NOTICED THAT THERE IS A PERIMETER.
SO THE END PARKING LOTS. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PERIMETER AROUND THE PARKING LOT.
BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO THIS REQUIREMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND THINGS INSIDE THE PARKING LOT.
CORRECT. AREA. CORRECT. AND SO IT WASN'T EXACTLY CLEAR TO ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE 2 AREAS WHERE.
EXCEPT IN THE SUBHEADINGS THOUGHT, IT'S CLEARLY MARKED.
I JUST THINK THE SECTION LEADING UP TO IT COULD BE CLARIFY SLIGHTLY, ARE YOU SUGGESTING PERHAPS THAT WE JUST DON'T MET THE WORD INTERIOR THERE. SECTION 1 , ITEM 1.
JUST LANDSCAPING. YEAH. THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME PERSONALLY OKAY. I MEAN. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND THEN WE'RE FURTHER DELINEATING IT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE PERIMETER AND THEN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ISLANDS, SO IF IT'S MORE GENERAL IN ITEM 1, FOR ME THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE, I SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM COMMISSIONER BROOKS, COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS DON'T YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? JUST WONDERING WHEN YOU SAY, JUST MOVE INTERIOR, I MEAN ITS MENTIONED TWICE, AT LEAST AT THE TOP. YEAH, YEAH. ALL OF THE INTERIOR OR IS IT JUST THE ONE.
COMMISSIONER BROOKS? I'M NOT SURE. I'M JUST TALKING OUT LOUD HERE ABOUT THE WAY THAT I'M INTERPRETING THIS OR ORDINANCE.
SO THERE COULD BE ANOTHER SECTION IN THE LARGER ORDINANCE.
I'M SAYING THAT THIS SECTION IS LABELED LANDSCAPING IS HERE BY AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS, SO. RIGHT. SECTION 86758 LANDSCAPING. SO I'M ASKING IS THERE A SPECIFIC SECTION ON EXTERIOR LANDSCAPING? NO. OKAY. THIS IS OUT OF THE LARGER PARKING ORDINANCE.
OKAY. THIS IS THE LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE FOR PARKING.
IF YOU WANT TO CLARIFY BY TAKING THE WORD INTERIOR OUT OF THAT FIRST LINE OF PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1.
SO IT JUST SAID LANDSCAPING,. AS A HEADING AND THEN LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED, IT DOESN'T LOSE ANY MEANING IN IT AND IT DOESN'T LEAD TO THE CONFUSION, WELL PERIMETER IS NOT INTERIOR.
OKAY, THAT'S AN EASY CHANGE. THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION THEN.
OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER, SO MY BIGGER QUESTION RELATED TO THOSE 2 BULLETS THOUGH, ABOUT THE 20 SQUARED FEET. SO THIS COMES BACK TO ITEM 1.A.
SO THE PARKING LOT PERIMETER LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PROVIDED SURROUNDING THE PARKING LOT IN THE AMOUNT OF 1 SQUARED FOOT OF LANDSCAPING PER 20 SQUARE FEET OF PARKING LOT PAVEMENT. CORRECT. SO IF WE MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT.
IS AND I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO REVISE THIS. NO, OKAY.
THIS IS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, BASED ON THE PARKING SPACE MINIMUM'S THAT WE ADJUSTED EARLIER THIS YEAR.
WOULD THIS CHANGE, HOW WOULD THIS 2 CHANGES RELATE TO ONE ANOTHER.
HOW WOULD THIS RELATE TO THE PARKING NUMBER CHANGES.
YEAH. GOOD QUESTION, I LIKE THAT, SO.
[00:15:02]
EXAMPLE FOR REDUCED COVERAGE IS THE MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, TO REMIND YOU THE 20% OVERFLOW REQUIREMENT WAS REMOVED FROM THE TEXT AND THE BOARD HAS APPROVED THAT.SO THAT IS THAT'S A DONE DEAL NOW. SO ACCORDING TO THIS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO 1 SQUARE FOOT OF PERIMETER LANDSCAPING FOR EVERY 20 SQUARED FOOT OF PAVEMENT, BUT IN A MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WE'RE NOT DOING. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 25% , BUT THAT 25% OVERFLOW, WHATEVER PERCENTAGE THAT IS, ISN'T GOING TO COUNT TOWARD YOUR PERIMETER LANDSCAPING BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT PAVING THAT ANYMORE. BUT THAT'S STILL REMAIN IN GREEN SPACE BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEING PAVED.
DO YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN. CAN YOU GIVE LIKE A ROUGH EXAMPLE.
OF A SITE? OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD? NOT A SITE, JUST SAY LIKE, LET'S SAY WE HAVE, SO UNDER THE OLD PARKING SPACE MINIMUM ORDINANCE. WE WOULD HAVE HAD A 125 SPACES AND 25 OF THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN FROM THE OVERFLOW REQUIREMENT.
OKAY. YES, CORRECT. SO THAT WOULD'VE REQUIRED.
PER 20. THAT'S 25 SQUARED FEET OF PERIMETER LANDSCAPING THAT WON'T BE THERE, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GETTING 25 PARKING SPACES WORTH OF PAVEMENT. RIGHT. IN THAT CASE.
OKAY. AND IN THEORY LET'S JUST SAY THAT REQUIRES A 1,000 SQUARED FEET.
SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE A 50 FOOT PERIMETER.
50 SQUARED FOOT, NOT DEPTH. 50 SQUARED FEET. AROUND.
A PERIMETER. YES. NICE. YES. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED A MAXIMUM ON THIS.
OKAY. PEOPLE WILL PUT MORE THAN 50 SQUARED FEET OF LANDSCAPING AND IN THAT CASE.
RIGHT, BECAUSE THIS IS FINE. OKAY. IS IT ENOUGH, THEN? I WAS WONDERING THE SAME THING. I WAS JUST WONDERING ABOUT, MAYBE THIS IS JUST SOMETHING IN THAT PREVIEW TOO, YOU KNOW IN THE WORLD OF PLANNING. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR IT TO READ SOMETHING LIKE THE ENTIRE PERIMETER SHALL BE PROPERLY LANDSCAPED [LAUGHTER] LIKE IF IT'S LIKE ON A STREET RIGHT, BUT OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LANDSCAPE A PARKING LOT, ITS PERIMETER WHERE LIKE IT MEETS, WHERE PEOPLE ARE WALKING INTO A STORE FRONT.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE. I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT A PARKING LOT, WHERE I'M SURE WE WOULD NEVER SEE IT, BUT WHAT IF? RIGHT, LIKE IT'S ONLY PARTIALLY LANDSCAPED ALONG IT'S PERIMETER.
IT'S [INAUDIBLE] SIDE BORDERS I GUESS A LONG [INAUDIBLE] WELL.
COMMISSIONER BROOKS WERE YOU KIND OF THINKING SOMETHING SIMILAR THERE? LIKE IT'S NOT ENOUGH BECAUSE OF THAT LIKE IT MIGHT NOT COVER THE WHOLE PERIMETER OR WERE YOU THINKING SOMETHING ELSE.
I WASN'T THINKING THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO BE ENOUGH.
I ACTUALLY WAS WORRIED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE TOO MUCH.
BUT I WASN'T THINKING ABOUT IT IN THE RIGHT WAY.
BUT THEN I WAS IN THE IF IT'S NOT ENOUGH, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE WOULD WANT TO PRESCRIBE THAT, BECAUSE LIKE WHERE IS THE PERIMETER OF A PARKING LOT? WHAT IF THERE'S MULTIPLE PARKING LOTS CONNECTED? LIKE DO WE REALLY WANT A PERIMETER THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE AROUND THAT SORT OF STUFF.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT BUT. THIS ESTABLISHES A MINIMUM THAT WE DON'T HAVE.
[00:20:03]
I CAN SAY THAT GENERALLY WHEN I SEE A SITE PLAN COME IN, IF IT'S COMMERCIAL IN NATURE, PEOPLE WANT THEIR SITES TO LOOK GOOD, BUT THAT'S NOT A ORDINANCE.I CAN'T HANG MY HEAD ON THAT. IF YOU WANTED TO START PLAYING WITH THIS NUMBER AND START DOING ANALYSIS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT GONNA LIE, I WISH HAD COME UP A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
YEAH. BEFORE WE GOT TO THE POINT OF A PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT IF YOU WANT STAFF TO GO BACK AND DO THAT, WE CAN DO THAT.
IF YOU PURSUIT THAT COURSE, I WOULD RECOMMEND NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS, GIVE STAFF TIME AND TELL US WHAT IT IS YOU WANT US TO COME UP WITH. YEAH. I'M NOT.
WE'RE NOT ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM. YEAH, YEAH.
BUT I WANTED TO RAISE THEM THIS EVENING. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND A MAXIMUM OR NECESSARILY ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD THOUGHT A LITTLE BIT AT LEAST ABOUT THE PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT CHANGES IN RELATION TO THIS ORDINANCE UPDATE.
NO, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD CONVERSATION. I'M ASSUMING THAT STAFF HAVE DISCUSSED THAT. DO YOU MEAN BEFORE TONIGHT? YEAH BEFORE TONIGHT. NOT SPECIFICALLY. NO, WE CARRIED THE PARKING LOT NUMBER AMENDMENT THROUGH.
I DON'T THINK IT'S, AGAIN YOU KNOW 100 SPACES, WOULD BE 125 SPACES UNDER THE OLD ORDINANCE, IT IS 25 SPACES WORTH OF PAVEMENT THAT'S NOT GOING IN.
AND YEAH YOU'RE GOING TO GET LESS PERIMETER LANDSCAPE.
RIGHT. THAT'S. YEAH. THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENCE, BUT A BIG DIFFERENCE.
YEAH. BUT YOU ALSO NOT GETTING 25 PARKING SPACES WORTH OF PAVEMENT.
RIGHT. SO YOU'RE KEEPING THAT GREEN SPACE. THE 2 TIMES THAT WOULD REALLY COME INTO PLAY WOULD BE LARGE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. I GAVE THAT EXAMPLE DURING YOUR.
YUP. PUBLIC HEARING AND MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE TOOK THAT 25% OUT, THE OTHER CHANGES WE MADE WERE OTHER TYPES OF CHANGES. THEY WEREN'T PLAYING WITH THE COVERAGE.
YEAH. SO ARE THERE? I GUESS IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER ON THIS SPECIFIC LINE OF THE TEXT FOR ANYONE? I WILL ADMIT, FOR ME IT WAS JUST MORE A CURIOSITY WANTING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE NUMBERS COME TOGETHER, IF THERE'S KIND OF A STANDARD, BUT I TRUST THE STAFFS JUDGMENT ON HOW TO COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER, SO I'M OKAY WITH A LANGUAGE AS IT IS CURRENTLY.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS. I MEAN, I CAN'T SPEAK SPECIFICALLY, BUT 3 STAFF MEMBERS WORKED ON THIS AND WE DID RESEARCH, OTHER ORDINANCES AND BEST PRACTICES AT THE PLANNING ASSOCIATION.
I MEAN, WE PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO THIS BEFORE WE BROUGHT IT TO YOU.
YEAH. NO, I LIKE MOST OF IT. I REALLY LIKE THE PART ON THE VEGETATION AND THE RAIN GARDENS.
AND THINK THESE MAKE GOOD CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE.
THAT WAS THE REALLY THE ONLY AREA THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION CLOSELY.
YEAH, I GUESS JUST TO KIND OF ADD ON TO THAT, I WOULD ALSO SAY, LIKE IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT THAT WILL ADD A AESTHETIC VALUE AND OBVIOUSLY GREEN SPACE AS WELL, SO I'M REALLY PLEASED WITH WHAT I'M SEEING TOO.
ANYBODY ELSE COMMENTS, CONCERNS. JUST A QUESTION, I'M CURIOUS WHEN DOES THIS, LIKE WHAT IS THE PROCESS IN TERMS OF IT WHEN IT GOES IN TO EFFECT? SO 2 WEEKS FROM NOW WE'LL COME BACK WITH A RESOLUTION, IF YOU GIVE ME AN INDICATION THAT YOU APPROVE OF THIS, I'LL BRING YOU A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE. SO AFTER JULY 28TH, THAT WILL GO TO FORWARD TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION AND ACTION,
[00:25:02]
3 MEETINGS. SO 10 DAYS AFTER ACTION IS WHEN A TEXT AMENDMENT TAKES EFFECT.SO YOU'RE TALKING AUGUST 3 MEETINGS, SEPTEMBER.
SO IT WILL THEN APPLY TO ANY OF THE, LIKE WE HAVE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT ARE, THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT HERE, LIKE THE CAR WASH. IT'LL IMMEDIATELY APPLY TO THEM OR ARE THEY KIND OF GRANDFATHERED IN BEFORE [INAUDIBLE] YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, I JUST WANTED TO HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION. THE CAR WASH IS IN THE MIDDLE OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
SO THEY'RE UNDER THAT APPROVAL. IF THAT FALLS APART THE NEXT PERSON WHO COMES IN WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS ORDINANCE. ANYBODY MOVING FORWARD WITH A NEW PROPOSAL VIA REDEVELOPMENT OR NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL FALL UNDER THIS. PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE PIPELINE ARE KIND OF IN THERE.
GOT YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH. ANY BODY ELSE. SO THIS IS KIND OF WHAT I WAS ASKING EARLIER SHOULD WE MAYBE DO A STRAW POLE OKAY. BARE IN MIND YOU, DID ASK STAFF TO MAKE A SMALL TEXT EDIT AND THAT IS MARKED, I'VE GOT THAT, SO I'LL BRING THAT BACK. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION [INAUDIBLE] YEAH, SO LIKE IF BECAUSE THIS HAS ALREADY HAD A PUBLIC HEARING.
WE ARE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. YOU ARE DOING THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF WE DID A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THIS, THEN WOULD WE REQUIRE ANOTHER ROUND OF THIS OFF AND YEAH, I MEAN. BUT LIKE A MINOR EDIT LIKE THIS, THAT WORD CHANGE IS ACCEPTABLE? YES, YES. I WOULD LET YOU KNOW IF IF THERE WAS ANY PROBLEM.
I FIGURED THAT. YOU ARE TAKING THE WORD INTERIOR OUT OF A HEADING AND OUT OF THE SENTENCE.
YEAH. DOESN'T CHANGE THE MEANING. RIGHT. THANK YOU.
SO ANOTHER QUESTION, I CAN'T REMEMBER WITH A STRAW POLE OR DO I DO A ROLL CALL OR NOT IS JUST.
YOU JUST KIND OF, IT'S NOT A BINDING VOTE, SO JUST KIND OF OKAY. SO WITH THE THE MINOR CHANGE TO SECTION 1, ITEM 1, REMOVING THE FIRST 3 WORDS THERE, INTERIOR, LANDSCAPING , INTERIOR AND JUST BEGINNING THAT SENTENCE WITH LANDSCAPING SHALL BE WITH THAT MINOR MANAGEMENT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE, SAY AYE.
AYE. AYE.AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. SO WE HERE WE HAVE IT.
[7.B. #25014 – Text Amendment – Sec. 86-368 – Rural Residential Roosters ]
ROOSTERS. OKAY. AGAIN THIS IS A ORDINANCE THAT STAFF HAS TALKED TO YOU ABOUT, WE DISCUSSED THIS LAST AT YOUR MEETING ON JUNE 9TH.THE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC MEETING SHOULD SAY JULY 14TH, TODAY.
THIS IS UPDATED LANGUAGE THAT REFLECTS PART 8 UNDER SUBSECTION B.
USES PERMITTED BY WHITE. THE 1 THING I'LL POINT OUT IN THIS.
YOU ASKED US TO KIND OF SEE WHAT WAS OUR HISTORY OF COMPLAINTS FOR ROOSTERS.
SO STAFF DID DO THIS, THANK YOU, APPRECIATE THAT.
SINCE 2022 TOWNSHIP HAS LOGGED 9 ABOUT ROOSTERS.
7 OF THOSE HAVE COME FROM INSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.
SO THE 2 THAT DIDN'T, IF THEY WERE ZONED RURAL.
THAT WOULD BE A RURAL RESIDENTIAL. EXCUSE ME.
AND WE DIDN'T DO THAT, JUST THEIR OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.
HOWEVER 5 OF THE COMPLAINTS HAVE COME IN 2025, SO 5 OF THOSE 7 HAVE COME VERY RECENTLY. SO THIS IS, WE HAVE SEEN A SPIKE IN THAT, THAT HAS SPURRED THIS ORDINANCE? . I MENTIONED TOO, THE REASON FOR THIS RURAL RESIDENTIAL IS OUR AGRICULTURAL ZONE.
THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE. WHAT WE'RE AFRAID OF IS A RIGHT TO FARM ACT, SO A PROPERTY ZONE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, THAT IS OUR AGRICULTURAL ZONE AND WE GET NOISE COMPLAINTS.
SO IN THAT SCENARIO. THIS GIVES US THE ABILITY TO PUT TO GO AND HANDLE NUISANCE COMPLAINTS FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, IRRESPECTIVE OF RIGHT TO FARM ACT AT THAT POINT.
[00:30:03]
WE ARE NOT PUTTING TOGETHER THE ROOSTER POLICE.OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION. YES.THAT'S FINE, OF THOSE 5 COMPLAINTS, ARE THEY DIFFERENT PEOPLE OR ARE THEY SAME PERSON.
PLANNER ROMMIT. YOU HAD A COMMENT ON THAT, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT RESEARCH IT.
OH. YES OR NO IS AN ANSWER. I CAN'T QUITE REMEMBER, BUT I CAN LOOK AND SEE.
STAFF DOESN'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF OUR HEAD IF IT'S.
YEAH, YEAH. BECAUSE IT'S LIKE A MARKET DIFFERENCE IF IT'S 1 PERSON COMPLAINING 5 TIMES. I WILL SAY I DO NOT BELIEVE STAFF WOULD BE DIRECTED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. IF IT WAS 1 PERSON MAKING 5 COMPLAINTS.
AND THEN 2, I KEEP RE READING SECTION 3 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
BUT I MEAN CANDIDLY, I LIKE THE REDLINE VERSION A LOT MORE THAN THE NEW REDLINE VERSION.
I THINK IT'S NICE IN A STATUTE LIKE THIS OR AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS TO SAY, THESE ARE THE SPECIFIC THINGS WE WILL ADMIT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THIS PROVISIONS. I'M GOING TO SCROLL DOWN AND YOU TELL ME IF I'M LOOKING THAT THE RIGHT THING, [INAUDIBLE] RIGHT THERE.
YOU DO NOT WANT TO STRIKE OUT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT, WELL. OKAY. I'M NOT SAYING I KNOW WHAT I WANT OR DON'T AT THIS POINT, BUT FROM A CLEANLINESS PERSPECTIVE, I JUST LIKE THE FACT THAT CURRENT 3 LIST THE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT COULD DO IT, RATHER THAN SAYING WELL, A PRIVATE RESTRICTION BEATS THAT.
BUT IT DOES. CORRECT, BUT PRIVATE LIKE IN MY MIND, PRIVATE RESTRICTION IS NOT A TERM OF ART, THAT YOU NECESSARILY KNOW. SO LIKE THERE'S CERTAIN LEGAL TERMS, TERMS OF ART THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN, LIKE PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS TO ME IT DOES NOT MEET THAT, THE OTHER DEFINITIONS GET THERE BECAUSE IT'S SPECIFIC.
LIKE IT SPECIFICALLY SAYING A MASTER DEED RESTRICTION OR AN ASSOCIATION BYLAW, WHICH HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT BEAT THIS, RIGHT. IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEELS LIKE THAT, I CAN GO BACK AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT.
I THINK WE CAN WE CAN MOVE THIS FORWARD AND WE CAN TAKE THAT OUT.
BUT IT IS CLARIFYING AND I MEAN, IT DOES CLARIFY THE TOWNSHIPS POSITION. THE TOWNSHIP DOES NOT GET INVOLVED IN THE INTERPRETATION ENFORCEMENT OF PRIVATE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS, DEED RESTRICTIONS ETC. NOR SHOULD IT. AND THIS JUST IT CLARIFIES THAT.
I USE THE WORD CLARIFY. STAFFS THINKS THAT THIS CLARIFIES IT BY TAKING OUT SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.
WHY ARE WE LISTING SPECIFIC EXAMPLES WHEN IT'S ALL PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS.
YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN. BUT IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T WANT TO CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE THEN.
IT COULD JUST BE ME. IT IS NOT THE POINT OF THE ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE.
IT WAS SIMPLE. I THINK IT WAS A MORE MATTER OF WE'VE GOT THE HOOD UP.
WHAT ELSE CAN WE CLARIFY AND THIS WAS LANGUAGE.
BUT THAT'S I LEAVE IT UP TO THE PREROGATIVE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WHAT DOES PARAGRAPH 3 SAY IN NON ORDINANCE SPEAK? SO WHAT IT SAYS, LIKE, SO I'M PRESIDENT OF A HOA, I CAN RUN AN HOA, WE COULD VOTE THROUGH AN HOA AMENDMENT THAT WOULD TRUMP FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, A MAJORITY OF THIS.
SO REMEMBER THAT THIS SECTION IS UNDER NOT THE ROOSTERS.
YOU CAN'T AND IT'S ON THE HOA TO ENFORCE THAT, NOT US.
BUT THAT'S NOT NEW LANGUAGE. THAT'S NOT A NEW POSITION.
[00:35:04]
BUT THIS ISN'T LIMITING OUR ABILITY TO ENFORCE NO ROOSTERS.WHAT IF THE HOA, LETS CHICKENS AND WE SAY NO CHICKENS.
THEN THE HOA WINS. WELL, WHY WOULD WE SAY NO CHICKENS.
IF YOU LOOK HERE, RAISING AND KEEPING OF CHICKENS AND RABBITS IS ACCESSORY TO ONLY TO 1 FAMILY DWELLINGS AND THEY ARE R-3, R-2 AND R-A ZONING DISTRICTS. SO I GET A CALL EVERYONE ONCE IN A WHILE AND I SAY YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE YOU'RE AN RV ZONE AND IN THAT CASE I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR HOA SAYS, YOU'RE NOT DOING IT. WELL I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THIS.
I'M HESITANT ABOUT THAT BECAUSE.
RIGHT, BUT YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. NO.
WE'RE GOING TO PULL THIS BACK AND FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
THIS IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS ORDINANCE. THIS IS NOT CHANGING.
THIS IS WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS. I THINK THAT WE ARE ALL TRYING TO CLARIFY KIND OF WHICH IS, WHICH TAKES PRECEDENCE HOA VERSUS TOWNSHIP. I BELIEVE THAT WHAT YOU ARE COMMUNICATING, IS THAT IT IS THE TOWNSHIP THAT TAKES PRECEDENCE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ZONING.
IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW R.A DISTRICT A SUBDIVISION WITHIN THAT DISTRICT.
IF THE TOWNSHIP SAYS NO CHICKENS, THEN THE HOA CANNOT SAY, ACTUALLY WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE CHICKENS.
NO. AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? YOU UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY.
SPECIFIC TO A CHICKEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN YOU ARE BRING THE CHICKEN IN TO PLAY. NO, TAKE THE CHICKEN OUT OF THIS, FOR THIS IS WHAT I WAS SAYING. OKAY, BECAUSE ITS DIFFERENT IF YOU TAKE THE CHICKEN OUT. BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT MORE CHICKEN SPECIFIC ORDINANCES.
THE MORE RESTRICTIVE ORDINANCE BETWEEN A HOA AND A ZONING DISTRICT WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE.
SO IF YOUR HOA SAYS YOU HAVE TO BUILD A 12,000 SQUARED FOOT HOUSE AND I SAY WELL WE TOOK THIS OUT.
OH, BUSINESSES, HOME BUSINESSES, A LOT OF HOAS WILL SAY NO HOME BUSINESSES.
BECAUSE WE ALLOW CHICKENS TO BE REGISTERED, IN OUR R-3, R-2 AND R-A DISTRICTS.
WE DON'T HAVE TO ALLOW THEM IN ANY OTHER DISTRICT.
IT'S, I MEAN TO ME ITS A, THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO KNOW WHAT A PRIVATE RESTRICTION IS.
CORRECT. RIGHT. CORRECT. SO I GO HOME TODAY AND I GET MY HOA BOARD TO VOTE, TO SAY WE ARE CHICKEN FRIENDLY.
OKAY, WHAT'S YOUR ZONING? WELL I DON'T WHAT MY ZONING IS, I LIVE OVER.
IF YOU'RE R-A, THEN WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT, YOU CAN REGISTER YOUR CHICKENS AT THAT POINT.
OKAY. IF YOU WANTED TO OPEN THAT REGISTRATION UP, THAT IS A DIFFERENT AMENDMENT.
I JUST, I GUESS IT IS A CONSTRUCTION THING TO ME WITH THE STATUTE.
[00:40:01]
LEGAL TERMS OF ART, LIKE CONTRACT IS A LEGAL TERM OF ART RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU HAVE OFFERED ACCEPTANCE AND CONSIDERATION, PRIVATE RESTRICTION, WELL YOU DON'T DEFINE IT, COULD BE ANY REALLY NUMBER OF THINGS AND THAT'S WHY I KIND OF PREFER THE OTHER LANGUAGE, BUT IF STAFF AND AS YOU MENTIONED COUNCIL WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT.I CAN GET ON BOARD WITH IT, CURRENTLY CONSTRUCT IT.
I JUST WANT TO I GUESS PUT THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE'S A MUCH DIFFERENT WAY YOU CONSTRUCT STATUTE WHEN YOU NAME THINGS OUT VERSUS WHEN YOU JUST KIND OF CREATE A CATCH ALL. IF YOU GOT A DIFFERENT THING YOU WANT TO SAY.
IT'S PROBABLY NOT OUT OF THE ORDINARY. NO, BUT I MEAN WHEN, BUT OF THE WAY THE STATUTE IS CONSTRUCTED, ITS GOING FROM DEFINING PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS. PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO D RESTRICTIONS, KIND OF A NEW MASTER D RESTRICTIONS, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BYLAWS AND THE COVENANT DEEDS. RIGHT. NOW IT'S JUST SAYING, WELL THE PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS, AT LEAST THE PROPERTY SHALL REMAIN ENFORCEABLE AND TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER REGISTRATION. INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED. LIKE IT'S TAKING OUT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS IS BUT AGAIN WE HAVE LISE COUNCIL.
SORRY. CORRECT. LIKE I CAN GET BEHIND THAT. IT'S JUST SOME SENSE OF PREFERENCE THING.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO JUST ADD ONE WORD THERE TO KIND OF SATISFY BOTH OF ENDS OF THIS, BUT LIKE PRIVATE PARTY OR PRIVATE PROPERTY RESTRICTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WORKS, BUT IT KIND OF GETS AT THE SAME IDEA.
YEAH. I JUST WORRY IT'S LIKE, I COULD COME UP WITH A WEIRD HYPOTHETICAL, BUT IT'S ALSO REALLY WEIRD AND YOU CAN'T HAMMER OVER EVERYTHING OUT. WAS IT PROBLEMATIC FOR IT TO BE IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH? NO, IN FACT THE SENTENCE IS ALREADY THERE. THE INTERPRETATION, ENFORCEMENT OF A PRIVATE RESTRICTION ITS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED.
ITS CURRENT SENTENCE IT'S REDUNDANT. IT'S GOT THAT SENTENCE STRUCK OUT,YEAH. IT SHOULD JUST SIMPLY, THIS SHOULD JUST BE ELIMINATING THE 2ND SENTENCE LISTING OUT SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, BUT IT WON'T CHANGE OUR PRACTICE. RIGHT. THAT PART OF THE AMENDMENT IS NOT WHAT WAS ADVERTISED, IT'S NOT. SURE. ITS NOT MATERIAL. YEAH. IT'S NOT MATERIAL TO ROOSTERS.[LAUGHTER] WHAT IS MATERIAL TO A ROOSTER MR. SHORKEY, THAT'S RHETORICAL. I'M NOTING THAT'S RHETORICAL.
[LAUGHTER] OKAY. I MEAN IF NOBODY, IF LIKE IF I HAVE NOT MOVED WITH MY CLOSING ARGUMENT HERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT BECAUSE PRIOR TO BEING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THERE WERE TIMES THAT I WAS LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE AND SOMETIMES IT'S VERY CLEAR AND I UNDERSTAND, AND I WAS ABLE TO COME TO A CONCLUSION, OF OH THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT SAYS, I'M ALL FOR ACCESSIBILITY AND I THINK THAT ADDING THOSE EXAMPLES ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE OF, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, YOU COVER ALL YOUR BASIS.
OKAY. IT WOULD PROVIDE CLARITY FOR PEOPLE. OKAY. SO I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. ANYBODY ELSE, YES COMMISSIONER BROOKS. I HAVE A FAULT QUESTION MR SHORKEY.
SO, I'M NOT ASKING US TO COMPARE ALL THESE OR TO CHANGE ANY OTHER THING IN THE ORDINANCE.
OFF COURSE, I APOLOGIZE. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND.
[LAUGHTER] IS THERE ANOTHER SECTION IN THE ORDINANCE.
THAT'S LIKE, THAT'S SIMILAR TO THIS THAT REGULATES OR HAS AN ORDINANCE AROUND HOW THE TOWNSHIP DOES BUSINESS WITH ANIMALS OR SOMETHING LIKE IT THAT ALSO HAS THIS PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS COMPONENT EMBEDDED IN IT.
AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE IF WE'RE ALTERING SECTION 3 HERE.
DOES THAT CHANGE HOW IT WOULD BE INTERPRETED POTENTIALLY AND AGAINST THOSE OTHER PLACES?
[00:45:06]
SO THE ONLY THING THAT COMES TO MIND. I COULD LOOK UP AND SEE HOW WE REGULATE DOGS.THIS WOULD NOT AFFECT THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT REFERENCING TO DOGS.
I'M NOT TRYING TO BE FLIPPANT. YEAH NO, I GET IT. THIS IS REFERRING TO A VERY SPECIFIC CASE, PEOPLE IN THE R-2, R-3 AND R-A ZONES WHO WANT TO HAVE 4 CHICKENS AND OR RABBITS AT THEIR HOME.
RIGHT. THIS DOES NOT AFFECT ANY OTHER ANIMAL TYPE IN THE TOWNSHIP.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S A STATEMENT THERE, BUT THE PRINCIPLE WOULD APPLY IF YOUR HOME OWNER ASSOCIATION LIMITS YOU TO 1 DOG, THE TOWNSHIP CERTAINLY DOESN'T LIMIT YOU TO 1 DOG.
RIGHT. YEAH. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY SPELLED OUT THERE.
YEAH, AND I'M NOT ASKING US TO EXAMINE ALL OF THAT, I JUST, I AGREE THAT I'M NOT SOLD ON THE PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS ASPECT OF WHAT'S IN HERE.
BUT I AGREE THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
HOWEVER I THINK IF OUR ATTORNEY IS ADVISING US TO DO A SPECIFIC THING, THEN WE SHOULD AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T BECOME OUT OF STEP WITH ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE.
NOT THAT WE HAVE TO OPEN THAT CAN OF WORMS RIGHT NOW.
WE DON'T REFER TO CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE ORDINANCE.
RIGHT. THANK GOODNESS. WHAT I CAN DO, WELL FINISH YOUR CONVERSATION, I'VE GOT A IDEA BUT I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
I MEAN, I WOULD MOVE TO KEEP THIS, I MEAN REALLY IT WOULD BE TO KEEP THE KEEP THAT PRETTY ORDINANCE AS IS, THAT WOULD BE THE MOVEMENT RIGHT? BECAUSE WHAT'S CURRENTLY REDLINED THERE, IS WHAT'S IN ORDINANCE TODAY.
OKAY. YES. RIGHT. CORRECT. SO IT WOULD BE TO SIMPLY MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.
AND I THINK NOW LIKE THAT, LIKE THERE'S A GOOD DEFENSE OF IT BECAUSE LIKE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BY LAWS, THERE'S STATE REGULATIONS THAT ESTABLISHED ASSOCIATION BYLAWS, RIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ESTABLISHED UNDER THE MICHIGAN NON-PROFIT ACT, LIKE THERE'S STATE LAWS THAT YOU CAN POINT TO, THAT IT KIND OF MAKES SENSE FROM JUST A PARITY PERSPECTIVE. RIGHT. AS YOU WORK YOUR WAY DOWN.
AND I JUST THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THE WORD PRIVATE RESTRICTION.
YOU HAVE TO GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT IT IS AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SNYDER WHEN SHE SAID THE THE PHRASE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO. SO THEIR COULD BE OTHER TYPES OF DOCUMENTS THAT REGULATE YOU KNOW A PARTICULAR PARCEL, A PARTICULAR HOME THAT WOULD APPLY INTO THIS,[INAUDIBLE] THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIAL PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS.
I WILL DOUBLE CHECK AND MAKE SURE IT'S OKAY. BUT IF YOU WANT US TO TAKE THAT AMENDMENT OUT OF THIS, THAT DOES NOT CHANGE OUR PRACTICE, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE STATUTE AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THE ROOSTERS.
OKAY. OKAY. SO BASICALLY WE ARE LANDING ON JUST TO LEAVE NUMBER 3 THE SAME, AS IT CURRENTLY IS.
OK. SORRY, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. SORRY, MR. SHORKEY. OKAY SO UNDER 8, ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT ROOSTERS.
CORRECT. SO, GIVEN THAT AND SECTION 3 THERE. DOES THAT MEAN THAT IF AN HOA OR SOME OTHER PRIVATE AREA THAT WAS ZONED R AAA, R-AA OR R-A AND HAD A LESS STRICT. AND THEY ALLOWED ROOSTERS BUT OUR ORDINANCES SAYS ROOSTERS ARE NOT PERMITTED ON PARCELS WITHIN THE URBAN
[00:50:01]
SERVICE BOUNDARY AND THEIR HOA IS INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.THEY'RE NON MALE CHICKENS THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR, A PERMIT FOR.
RIGHT SO I MISS STATED THE ZONE. IF YOU WERE AN RR PARCEL INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.
THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ROOSTERS MOVING FORWARD THAT IS THE AIM.
THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. RIGHT, YEAH, OKAY.
AND AGAIN RIGHT. FOR ROOSTERS AND ARRESTING THEM RIGHT YEAH.
AND THAT FUNCTIONS EVEN IF AN HOA WE DIDN'T WANT ROOSTERS OR IF THEY DID WANT ROOSTER.
CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANYTHING FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR 86-368.
[LAUGHTER] I WILL LOOK IN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN TAKE THAT LANGUAGE BACK, BUT ASSUMING I CAN, I'LL COME BACK WITH, WHAT I'VE GOT IN FRONT OF YOUR RIGHT NOW, IS KIND OF I'VE BEEN CARRYING FORWARD THE LANGUAGE OR THE THE STUFF FROM ATTORNEYS, I WILL PUT IT INTO THE PROPER LINE NUMBER, ORDINANCE, FASHION FOR YOU FOR YOUR VOTE.
OKAY, SO SHOULD WE DO ANOTHER STRAW POLE. YEAH.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE ZONING AMENDMENT 86-368, BUT LEAVING THE ITEM THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED A FEW TIMES, ITEM 3 THERE AND THE SAME AS IT IS.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE .AYE. ANY ONE OPPOSED.
OKAY. OKAY. AWESOME. I THINK WE CAN WORK WITH THAT.
[LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT. SO MOVING ON THEN, TO ITEM NUMBER 8 UNFINISHED BUSINESS, THERE IS NONE.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR YOU TOMORROW. ALL RIGHT, ITEM B, LIAISON REPORTS. OK.
[10.B. Liaison reports]
I THINK I WAS FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE TOWNSHIP BOARD TO SERVE AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. CORRECT. I JUST NEED TO GO COMPLETE BY SWEARING IN.WHICH I HAVE NOT DONE YET. [LAUGHTER] WELL, THANK YOU, ON BEHALF OF ALL US FOR TAKING THAT ON, THAT ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. [LAUGHTER] YEAH.
I'M APPRECIATIVE PERSONALLY. OK. ALL RIGHT. SO MOVING ONTO ITEM 11, PROJECT UPDATES.
[11. PROJECT UPDATES]
I WILL SEE THAT YOU HAVE [INAUDIBLE] PACKET. YOU HAVE AN UPDATED PROJECT REPORT IN FRONT OF YOU, NO REAL COMMENT ON IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT ITEM NUMBER 12 PUBLIC REMARKS, ALL RIGHT AND THEN ITEM 13 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.[13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS]
THROWING OUT JUST FOR FUN BECAUSE THIS CAME UP IN MY HOA NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTLY RELATED HERE.BUT MICHIGAN PUBLIC ACT OF 2024, PUBLIC ACT 682024 PASSED ABOUT THE YEAR AGO AND THAT IS THE SOLAR PANEL POLICY AND IT REQUIRES ANY HOA TO IN WRITING CREATE A SOLAR PANEL POLICY AND I LEARN THIS BECAUSE IN MY HOA SOMEBODY APPLIED FOR ONE AND WE HAD TO WRITE A LETTER.
SO YES, IT'S QUITE INTERESTING. BASICALLY THE CRACKS OF THAT LAW IS IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN YOUR ASSOCIATION BYLAWS, THAT SAYS NO SOLAR PANELS, ITS VOIDED. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO PUT A POLICY TOGETHER.
WOW. YEAH. SO WE HAD A NEIGHBOR APPLY FOR ONE AND IT WAS KIND OF FUN.
INTERESTING. WE ALWAYS KIND OF WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE WHAT WE WOULD DO IF THAT EVER HAPPENED AND SOMEBODY DID IT AND WE'RE LIKE. ALL RIGHT, I GUESS WE ARE GOING TO LEARN WHILE WE GO. GUESS WE ARE GOING TO FIGURE THIS OUT. [LAUGHTER] MAYBE FOR THE GOOD OF THE RECORD. YEAH, ANYBODY ELSE COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.
IF I CAN MAKE A QUICK COMMENT, I'M LOOKING AT THE DATE HERE.
IF YOU APPROVED BOTH OF THOSE RESOLUTIONS, THEY WILL MOVE FORWARD.
IF STAFF DOESN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING BY 5 O'CLOCK TONIGHT IN THE FORM OF A NEW APPLICATION.
YOU WON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR YOUR AUGUST 11TH MEETING AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND CANCEL THAT.
[00:55:01]
JUST TO CLARIFY BY 5 O'CLOCK. 5 O'CLOCK TOMORROW. TOMORROW, OKAY. YEAH.OKAY. AND THEN THE NEXT MEETING IS IN 2 WEEKS THOUGH 7-28, RIGHT.
RIGHT AND THAT WILL BE THE FOLLOW UPS TO THESE 2 AND DIRECTOR SCHMITT IS GOING TO BE HERE UNDER OTHER BUSINESS TO DISCUSS OUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENTS 25,000 SQUARED FEET AND OVER.
EXCELLENT. I GUESS ALMOST FORGOT TO MENTION, I WILL BE IN CANADA FOR THE NEXT MEETING ON 7/28, I APOLOGIZE. I WILL NOT BE HERE FOR THAT. BUT I WILL DEFINITELY BE WATCHING FOR DIRECTOR SCHMITT'S PRESENTATIONS FOR SURE.
JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY THINGS HAPPENING ON THE 28TH IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO IS GOING TO BE ABSENT ON THE 28TH, THAT THEY KNOW OF. I'M GOING TO BE HERE, BUT JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE SINCE WE ARE CANCELLING THE AUGUST 11TH. LIKELY. LIKELY CANCELLING. COMMISSIONER ROMBACK, ARE YOU CHECKING, SOMEBODY ELSE WAS CHECKING DATES, I WASN'T SURE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE DOING. NO, I WAS.
I'M SORRY. REMEMBERING WHEN ANNIVERSARY WAS SO.
[LAUGHTER] OH. AND NOW ITS ON RECORD. I WILL BE HERE THE 28TH, JUST NOT THE 28TH.[LAUGHTER] EXCELLENT, SORRY I DIDN'T MEAN TO CALL YOU OUT LIKE THAT. YOU ARE FINE, I PROBABLY WAS STARING AT GOOD A GLUM [LAUGHTER]. ALL RIGHT.
I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO MOVE ON WITHOUT ANYBODY, ANYBODY ELSE COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.
OKAY. I AM TO ENTERTAIN MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING.
SO MOVED. ALL RIGHT. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. OKAY.
SO WE HAVE A MOVE BY COMMISSIONER ROMBACK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BROOKS AND THE MEETING
IS OVER AT 7:26PM.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.