[00:01:01] YOU HAVE THE GO AHEAD FROM COMMUNICATIONS. JUST GIVE ME A QUICK MOMENT. I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE PART IN A SURVEY. YOU ARE GOOD TO GO. OKAY. SOUNDS GREAT. I WILL CALL THE MEETING OF THE JULY 28TH, 2025 MEETING IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6:30 P.M., [1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ] AND WE'LL CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONER BROOKS, PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. HERE. COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. HERE. COMMISSIONER FOWLER. HERE. AND WE DO NOT HAVE COMMISSIONER SNYDER OR COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. CHAIR SHREWSBURY IS HERE. I'LL ANNOUNCE IF ANYBODY GETS HERE LATER. ACTUALLY, WE KNOW COMMISSIONER SNYDER IS NOT GOING TO BE HERE TONIGHT. PUBLIC REMARKS. I DO NOT SEE ANYBODY HERE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC REMARKS. [4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA] APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. [INAUDIBLE] THE AGENDA. SECOND. OKAY. MOVE BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. ANY CHANGES OR QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? GOOD. OKAY. HOW ABOUT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 14TH, 2025 MEETING? [5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROOKS. ANY DISCUSSION? YEAH. NO, NO, I WAS, I GOT NOTHING TO SAY. I WAS NOT HERE EITHER. SO I'M TRUSTING THOSE WHO WERE TO HAVE REVIEWED THESE CAREFULLY. ALL RIGHT. I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE AYE. OPPOSED? MINUTES ARE APPROVED. COMMUNICATIONS. THERE IS NONE. OKAY. PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE HAVE NONE. SO WE ARE ON TO ITEM 8.A UNFINISHED BUSINESS #25013. [8.A. #25013 – Text Amendment – Sec. 86-758 – Landscaping ] TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 86-758. OKAY. TAKE IT AWAY. SORRY. I'M JUST. I'M JUST PLAYING COMMISSIONER HERE. GO AHEAD. YOU'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE. THERE'S NO CHANGE. THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU ASKED FOR WAS MADE, COMMISSIONER ROMBACK, THERE WAS A SECTION THAT WAS. I'M SORRY. I'M. I'M REMISS. I KNOW IT'S I KNOW IT WAS IN THERE, AND IT WAS A CLARIFICATION YOU WANTED THAT WAS STRUCK OUT PREVIOUSLY THERE THAT I FIXED. SO THIS IS THE VERSION THAT YOU ASKED FOR AT YOUR LAST MEETING. OTHER THAN THAT, WE'VE HAD NO COMMENT AND NO OTHER CHANGES. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. THERE IS A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE IN YOUR PACKET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER ROMBACH IS HERE. YEP. AND ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHORKEY? SO THIS IS THE ONE WHERE WE ARE BEING ASKED TO, YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THIS TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD. OKAY. SO I GUESS THIS WOULD BE THE POINT. IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO PUT THAT RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTION FORWARD. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING AMENDMENT NUMBER 25013, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVISED DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND, A SECOND? OKAY. THANK YOU. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROOKS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, THEN I WILL TAKE YOUR ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. YES. COMMISSIONER BROOKS. YES. MR. MCCURTIS. YES. MR. MCCONNELL. YES. MR. FOWLER. YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES. THANK YOU. THAT WAS EASY. NOW, ON TO 8.B #25014. TEXT AMENDMENT. [8.B. #25014 – Text Amendment – Sec. 86-368 – Rural Residential Roosters] [00:05:04] RESIDENTIAL ROOSTERS. RURAL RESIDENTIAL ROOSTERS [LAUGHTER]. SAME SPIEL. YOU ASKED FOR A SECTION THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY DELETED TO BE PUT BACK IN THERE. IT DIDN'T AFFECT WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WITH THE ORDINANCE. SO THAT WAS EASY. THAT WAS AN EASY FIX. THIS IS THE DRAFT THAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR. OKAY. AND AGAIN THERE IS A RESOLUTION TO APPROVING THE PACKAGE. OKAY. YES. BECAUSE THERE'S A RESOLUTION WITH SOMEBODY LIKE TO START BY MOVING THE RESOLUTION. THEN WE CAN DISCUSS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO A MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING AMENDMENT NUMBER 25014, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVISED DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU. THAT WAS COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. CORRECT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. OKAY. IN THE RESOLUTION, IT SEEMS LIKE WE OUTLINE OUR EXPLANATION. CORRECT. WHY WE'RE DOING THAT? AND I'VE READ THIS BEFORE, BUT I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT IN THIS WAY. SO DO WE, DO WE ALWAYS EXPLAIN IN THIS DETAIL IN THE WHEREAS CLAUSES WHY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING? IF YOU'RE PROPOSING AN ORDINANCE, THERE'S GOT TO BE A REASON YOU'RE PROPOSING AN ORDINANCE. YES. THIS IS THIS IS APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF DETAIL, OKAY. EVEN IF IT'S THE COUNTER ACT, SOMETHING ELSE LIKE THE RIGHT TO FARM. IT'S NOT COUNTERACTING THE RIGHT TO FARM. THE RIGHT TO FARM ACT SPECIFICALLY SAYS ZONING REGULATIONS APPLY. SORRY LET ME SAY IT'S TO CIRCUMVENT ANY POTENTIAL RIGHT TO FARM ISSUES FOR PROPERTIES. THIS IS TRUE OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL THAT WAS MY QUESTION. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THAT THAT WAS NORMAL. NO, THIS IS FOR TRANSPARENCY SAKE. THIS IS WHY WE'RE DOING THIS. WE DON'T, AND IT'S IT'S AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO TO STATE THAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SURE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? JUST AS A COMMENT, I THINK SOMEWHAT PRESCIENTLY, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN THE FREE PRESS IN THE NEWS ABOUT A FEDERAL LAWSUIT I THINK I SENT TO MR. SHORKEY REGARDING THE REGULATION OF ROOSTERS. SO IT WAS NOT QUITE THE SAME FACT PATTERN. AND I THINK THE STATUTE OR THE ORDINANCE OUT THERE IS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT THAN OURS. BUT IT WAS JUST SOMEWHAT OF FUNNY TIMING THAT IT WAS. IT WAS FUNNY TIMING. IT WAS NOT IN OUR MUNICIPALITY. AND I WISH HER LUCK. YEAH. APPARENTLY IN THAT PARTICULAR MUNICIPALITY, YOU NEED TO ASK YOUR NEIGHBORS FOR PERMISSION TO HAVE ROOSTERS. AND THERE WAS APPARENTLY PERMISSION ASKED FOR. BUT THE COUNTY DIDN'T FOLLOW. THE CITY DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH AND GO WITH HER NEIGHBORS, AND SHE IS NOW IN FEDERAL COURT FOR 300 GRAND OR SOMETHING. OH MY. I HOPE IT DOESN'T COME TO THAT HERE. WHEN YOU SAID GOOD LUCK, I THOUGHT INITIALLY YOU SAID GOOD CLUCK AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY FUNNY. [LAUGHTER] LET THE RECORD SHOW. BUT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, COMMENTS? ARE WE READY TO VOTE ON THIS RECOMMENDATION AS WELL? OKAY. COMMISSIONER FOWLER. YES. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. YES, COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. YES. COMMISSIONER BROOKS. YES. COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES. MOTION IS APPROVED. THANK YOU. I WILL FORWARD THAT TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD. I'M NOW GOING TO TURN THIS MEETING OVER TO, DIRECTOR SCHMITT WHO IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS. [9.A. 25,000 Square Foot SUP – Discussion ] WELCOME, DIRECTOR SCHMITT. IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU. THANK YOU. IT'S GOOD TO GET BACK TO DOING SOME PLANNING AFTER MY LONG HIATUS. AND JUST TO ADD TO YOUR CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ROOSTERS, WE ACTUALLY GOT ANOTHER COMPLAINT THIS WEEKEND ABOUT A ROOSTER IN A MUCH MORE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAN THE LAST ONE. SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU BUY A BABY CHICK THIS SIZE, THERE'S A 50-50 CHANCE YOU'RE GOING TO GET A ROOSTER. SO I THINK MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE REALIZING HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR THEM TO DETERMINE THE SEX OF CHICKEN AT THAT AGE. SO WHAT I'M HERE TO DO IS TO START THE CONVERSATION ON A TOPIC THAT I HAVE MENTIONED MULTIPLE TIMES IN MY TIME HERE, AND SOMETHING I THINK THAT IT'S RIPE FOR US TO DISCUSS, AND THAT IS OUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR ANY BUILDING OVER 25,000FT². YES. I'VE MENTIONED THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE NEW AND PROBABLY HAVEN'T HEARD SOME OF MY SPIEL ON THIS, I'VE MENTIONED IT TO THE BOARD, IT CAME UP DURING THE MASTER PLAN DISCUSSION. [00:10:01] SO BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT ANY STRUCTURE OVER 25,000FT² AUTOMATICALLY HAS TO GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. I WILL ALSO POINT OUT THAT IT SAYS GROUP OF BUILDINGS, AND I'VE NEVER QUITE UNDERSTOOD HOW FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS, THEY'VE SQUARED THAT WITH NOT REQUIRING AN SUP FOR EVERY SINGLE SUBDIVISION AND EVERY SINGLE HOUSE IN THE TOWNSHIP, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY EVERY SUBDIVISION HAS A GROUP OF BUILDINGS GREATER THAN 25,000FT². BUT I DIGRESS, BECAUSE WE HAVE NEVER REQUIRED THAT. SO WE HAVE DISCUSSED CHANGING THIS FOR A WHILE BECAUSE AGAIN, IT IS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN HERE SINCE 1974 HAS NEVER BEEN CHANGED, ONE. TWO, THERE ARE ALSO PROVISIONS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THAT SET ADDITIONAL STANDARDS, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND THE LOCATION, WHICH ZONING DISTRICT YOU'RE IN. SO IN THEORY, THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST THAT HAVE HAD THREE SEPARATE SPECIAL USE PERMITS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. AND SO WHEN SOMETHING COMES IN FOR A CHANGE, YOU KNOW, WHICH ONE ARE WE CHANGING OR ARE WE GOING THROUGH THE WHOLE RIGMAROLE AGAIN? IT'S A VERY CUMBERSOME PROCESS. AND SO AT LEAST IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS, WE HAVE TRIED TO COMBINE UP SPECIAL USE PERMITS AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. BUT THIS IS STILL HANGING OUT THERE. AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST COUPLE PAST MONTH HERE IS I CUT MY INTERN LOOSE ON DOING A FULL ANALYSIS OF THE LAST 30 YEARS OF THIS PROVISION. THAT'S ROUGHLY WHAT WE HAD AVAILABLE DIGITALLY. RATHER THAN MAKE HER TRY AND GO THROUGH ALL OF OUR HARD COPY FILES, WHICH NO ONE WANTS TO DO. AND IN THAT TIME, THERE'S BEEN 40 REQUESTS. AND SO THIS IS OBVIOUSLY PAST THIS POST, THIS IS AFTER WHEN THE MALL WAS BUILT, AFTER WHEN MYER WAS BUILT. THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'S THINGS LIKE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, IT'S HOBBY LOBBY EXPANDING, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND OF THOSE 40, 37 HAVE BEEN APPROVED WITHOUT ANY CONDITION. TWO WERE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS THAT WERE REALLY NOT RELATED TO THE APPROVAL, AND ONLY ONE WAS DENIED AND THE ONE WAS DENIED WAS A PROJECT THE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR ONE PROJECT THAT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE BOARD, AND THAT'S THE SPARROW PROJECT ON JOLLY ROAD. AND THE ONE THAT WAS DENIED WAS A SENIOR, WAS A IT WASN'T ASSISTED LIVING, IT WAS THE INTERMEDIATE SENIOR LIVING FACILITY. SO IT DID HAVE SOME AMOUNT OF CARE ON SITE. BUT IT WAS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. AND SO THAT WAS AT THE TIME, IT WAS BEFORE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY CAME INTO PLAY. SO WE HAD THE THOUGHT OF DOING IT. WE HADN'T DONE IT YET, AND SO THEY DENIED THE REQUEST BECAUSE IT WAS OUT IN THE AREA OF THE TOWNSHIP THAT WE CONSIDERED RURAL. AND SO AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO BEGIN A CONVERSATION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING BEFORE WE BRING FORWARD LANGUAGE TO CHANGE THIS, BECAUSE IT IS A BIG CHANGE FOR US AS A COMMUNITY. BUT YOU KNOW, IT IS TIME TO MODERNIZE THIS STANDARD. 25,000FT² IS, YOU KNOW, WE TECHNICALLY HAVE A HOUSE NOW THAT'S LARGER THAN 25,000FT² IN THE TOWNSHIP. SO IT'S TIME TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS STANDARD AND AT LEAST MODIFY IT, IF NOT, ELIMINATE IT ENTIRELY. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE THIS EVENING TO HAVE BEGIN THAT CONVERSATION, TAKE WHATEVER FEEDBACK YOU HAVE. AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO LOOK INTO BRINGING FORWARD SOMETHING IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SCHMITT? SURE. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. GROUP OF BUILDINGS. PLEASE SAY MORE. I WOULD LOVE TO. IT'S UNDEFINED. THERE IS NO STANDARD TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS. HISTORICALLY, IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN IF YOU ARE ON THE SAME PARCEL, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE HAVE FOUND WHERE IT'S AT LOTS. THERE ARE SEPARATE PARCELS BUT ARE ON THE SAME COMPLEX REQUIRE IT. SO AGAIN, LANGUAGE THAT'S ILL DEFINED AT BEST. PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE IN THERE OR SHOULD AT LEAST BE EXPOUNDED UPON. QUESTION, IN THE LANGUAGE THAT REFERS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEN LOCATED ON A LOT. IS THERE A SPECIFIC BUILDING TO LAND RATIO THAT'S REQUIRED? NOT FOR THIS. THERE IS IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS THAT THEY HAVE A PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE THAT'S REQUIRED OR A PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY COME INTO PLAY HERE. IT'S SIMPLY DO YOU HIT TO 25,000? THIS TRIGGERS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE IS THIS. IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER. SORT OF A TYPICAL THING THAT SORT OF HAS SOME HISTORICAL BASIS FOR OTHER TOWNSHIPS OR OTHER AREAS, [00:15:08] OR IS THIS UNIQUE TO MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP OR THEY EXIST? I MEAN, THIS STANDARD EXISTS IN OTHER LOCATIONS. IT'S USUALLY AT A HIGHER NUMBER, BECAUSE TYPICALLY WHERE THIS CAME INTO PLAY WAS IN THE 80S, DURING THE BEGINNING OF THE WALMART WARS, WHEN THE COMMUNITIES WERE TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO KEEP THE BIG BOXES OUT. YOU KNOW, YOU ESTABLISH THE STANDARD OF OVER 50,000FT² BECAUSE AT THE TIME, YOU KNOW, 50,000 TENDED TO BE THE THRESHOLD BACK THEN. NOW IT'S 100,000 OR MORE. BUT A LOT OF PLACES, PUT IT, PUT A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT STANDARD IN PLACE IN THE 80S. IF THEY WERE TRYING TO LIMIT SOME OF THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. THE FACT THAT WE PREDATE IS INTERESTING. I MEAN, 1974, AND GIVEN THAT IT WAS PART OF THE ORDINANCE, PART OF THE UPDATE IN 1974, IT TELLS ME IT WAS PROBABLY IN THE ORDINANCE BEFORE THEN, AND I JUST CAN'T TRACK IT BACK TO THE POINT WHERE IT WAS ADDED BECAUSE THE RECORDS GET A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO REVIEW PRIOR TO THAT. IN MODERN HISTORY. YEAH, EXACTLY. THANK YOU. AND OF COURSE. OH. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. ARE YOU I SEE, LIKE IT SAYS HERE SINCE 1998. IT'S GOING TO GO ON MY COMPUTER THAT THERE WERE 40 REQUESTS. OF THOSE, 37 WERE APPROVED WITHOUT CONDITIONS. OR IS THERE AS HARD TO PREDICT THE FUTURE? BUT DO YOU FORESEE GIVING A HIGHER NUMBER? AND IN TERMS OF REQUEST FOR BUILDINGS MORE THAN 25,000? I MEAN, YOU'RE CERTAINLY GOING TO CONTINUE TO GET THEM RIGHT. IT'LL, BECAUSE 25 IS NOT A BIG NUMBER. I MEAN, THE SPARROW FACILITY ON JOLLY ROADS, 29000FT², I BELIEVE. AND IF YOU DRIVE BY, THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT BIG BUILDING, RIGHT? THIS COVERS THAT LIST I GAVE YOU. COVERS A LOT OF THINGS, RIGHT? A LOT OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES. HOTELS ARE ALWAYS GOING TO TRIGGER IT BECAUSE MULTIPLE STORIES. RIGHT? THEY MAY ONLY HAVE A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT FLOOR PLATE, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO GO UP 3 OR 4 STORIES. SO YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SEE THEM. I THINK THE ISSUE KIND OF FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE IS, IS WHAT PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE AT THIS POINT? IF WE'VE ESSENTIALLY GONE ALMOST 30 YEARS AT THIS POINT AND NOT PUT A ANY CONDITIONS. SO WE'VE HAD WHAT THAT TELLS ME IS WE'VE HAD NO CONCERNS WITH THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE BUILDING IN 30 YEARS SO. CAN I, HOP ON THAT? YEAH. FORGIVE ME IF I'M MISREMEMBERING SOMETHING. BUT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, HAVEN'T WE HAD A COUPLE PEOPLE PULL OUT OF POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENTS BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN THEM OVER THAT 25,000? WE HAVE HAD. WOULD TRIGGER AN SVP. THERE IS AT LEAST ONE PROJECT THAT IS PROBABLY WATCHING RIGHT NOW, WAITING TO SEE WHAT WE DO, BECAUSE FOR, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE DO HAVE AT LEAST ONE DEVELOPER OUT THERE THAT JUST ABSOLUTELY AFRAID OF THIS DESPITE EVERYTHING WE'VE TOLD THEM. THAT WAS A LEGIT QUESTION. I WAS NOT COACHED. WHAT WERE YOU WHAT WE STARTED TO SEE. AND I THINK WHAT WE THE TREND FROM THE LIKE, THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS AND THE HASLETT VILLAGE SQUARE, YOU KNOW, WAS THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY GOING UNDER A DIFFERENT STANDARD. YOU KNOW, THEY AUTOMATICALLY SORT OF DISCOUNTED THE UNDERLYING ZONING AND JUST WENT TO THIS OTHER STANDARD BECAUSE IT WAS EASIER. AND THAT'S HOW THE MUP STARTED BECOMING MORE AND MORE POPULAR. AND THAT'S WHY WE RAN IT. THAT'S WHY WE REDID THAT IN 2021. ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I DID WHEN I GOT HERE WAS WORK WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO UPDATE THAT LANGUAGE TO TRY AND GET THE PROJECTS WE WANTED, AS OPPOSED TO IT JUST BEING LIKE THE FAST LANE TO GET TO WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY WANTED. GOOD QUESTION. WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ONE OF THE LOT THREADS OF LOGIC ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING IS AS BUILDINGS GET BIGGER, PROVIDING PUBLIC SAFETY BECOMES MORE CHALLENGING AS YOU CRAM MORE PEOPLE ONTO THE SAME SPOT OF LAND AND THE TRAFFIC COME IN AND OUT. PROBABLY DESERVES MORE SCRUTINY. SO HAVING A REQUIREMENT THAT IT GET MORE THAN AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. I GUESS THAT'S ONE OF THE THE POTENTIAL NOISE OR OTHER NUISANCE KIND OF STUFF. SO THEN THE QUESTION IS IF THAT LOGIC STILL APPLIES. WHAT SIZE OF A BUILDING OR DO WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IF WE'RE NOT PUTTING CONDITIONS ON. AND THEN THE PROPOSALS MUST MEET ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THEY MUST HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE LOOKED AT THEM AND THEY'VE BEEN SEEN AND NOBODY HAD A PROBLEM. SO THEY WERE GRANTED. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE TREND AND WHAT'S THE CONCERN AND WHAT'S THE THRESHOLD IF WE WANT TO HAVE ONE. AND THAT IS CERTAINLY IF ANY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HAVE FEEDBACK ON THAT. [00:20:04] THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. BECAUSE I THINK FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD, I WILL CANDIDLY, UNLESS I HEAR OTHERWISE, I'M GOING TO BRING FORWARD A PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE IT ENTIRELY. I WILL PROBABLY GIVE YOU TWO PROPOSALS, ONE TO ELIMINATE IT, ONE TO, HERE'S A NUMBER THAT MAKES MORE SENSE GIVEN OUR CURRENT GIVEN WHAT WE SEE IN THE MARKET. RIGHT. BUT YEAH, I DO, I HAVE ALWAYS SINCE I GOT HERE QUESTION THE THE NEED FOR THIS. SIMILARLY ON THAT NOTE BECAUSE THAT WAS WHERE COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL WENT, YOU WENT WHERE I WAS GOING TO GO, WHICH IS WHAT'S THE BEHAVIOR WE'RE TRYING TO INCENT VERSUS DISINCENTIVE RIGHT. SO IS THERE A GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF LARGE SPACES BEING AVAILABLE LIKE LARGE BUILDINGS, WHETHER IT'S IN THE MALL OR ELSEWHERE, WHERE WE'D RATHER HAVE BUSINESSES FIND THEMSELVES LIKE FIND A REASON TO GO THERE? AND IN THAT CASE, THERE'S GOING TO BE SURGICAL WITH THE WITH A NEW RESOLUTION TO SAY, OKAY, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE CARVING OUT OF THE 25,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE LIKE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX TO ME KIND OF MAKES SENSE TO CARVE OUT BECAUSE OF THE IMMEDIATE NEED FOR HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO IT'S LIKE A LITTLE LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A NEW BUILDING, I MIGHT LOOK AROUND THROUGH THE TOWNSHIP AND GO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THESE OTHER BUILDING SPOTS AVAILABLE ALREADY. YOU CAN MAYBE PARK YOURSELF INTO, RIGHT? RATHER THAN BUILDING NEW. YEAH. AND I WOULD SAY THAT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, PREVIEW OF SOMETHING YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SHORTLY IS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE STARTED CIRCLING BACK TO THE BUILD OUT ANALYSIS THAT WE BROUGHT UP DURING THE COMP PLAN. AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THAT HOPEFULLY THIS WINTER OF OF THAT, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF SPACES LEFT WHERE A 50, 75,000, 100,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING CAN JUST EASILY GET PLOPPED DOWN, RIGHT. THE EASY SITES ARE LARGELY GONE. I COULD PROBABLY NAME ALMOST ALL OF THEM OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, ONCE YOU GET INTO THE MULTIFAMILY, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE I CAN YOU CAN WIGGLE AROUND THE EDGES. BUT TO YOUR POINT, RIGHT? THEN, YOU KNOW, IF I'M CARVING OUT ONE, SO IF I'M GOING THROUGH THIS LIST OF THE LAST TEN YEARS, PROBABLY, OH, WELL, I THINK HALF OF THEM, MAYBE OVER HALF OF THEM ARE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. SO IF I'M CARVING OUT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, THEN IT'S LITERALLY I'VE GOT AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, THE SPARROW BUILDING, AND A COUPLE OF CAR DEALERSHIPS. SO THOSE ARE PRETTY INCONGRUOUS USES, RIGHT? THERE'S NOTHING THAT TIES THEM TOGETHER THAN THE FACT THAT THERE WERE BUILDINGS OVER 25,000FT². AND SO THAT'S SORT OF WHERE I'VE ALWAYS COME FROM ON THIS IS THERE'S THERE'S ALWAYS ANOTHER STANDARD. YEAH. SO I GUESS I AWAIT JUST GUIDANCE OR SOMETHING FROM YOU GUYS. WHETHER IT IS THAT, WHETHER IT'S A SURGICAL OR WHETHER IT'S AN AMPUTATION. OKAY. I'M NOT PREJUDGING EITHER ONE. JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE MY BRAIN WENT. OH, DO WE WANT TO? JUST LIKE I CAN UNDERSTAND TO SOME EXTENT US SAYING WE HAVE ALL THESE OTHER VACANT SPOTS ALREADY. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THAT? AND THEN I'M SURE THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO LOOK AT INCENTIVES OR WHATEVER'S TO GET BUILDINGS TO TAKE THOSE SPOTS VERSUS AND THEN EVEN A CARVE OUT FOR THINGS LIKE, OH, WE WON'T PUT THIS ON YOU IF YOU'RE BUILDING MULTIFAMILY OR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THE NEED. I JUST AND THESE ARE RELATIVELY MALLEABLE ORDINANCES. YOU CAN KIND OF CHANGE WITH RELATIVE SIMPLICITY. SO. WELL, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. WE'LL LOOK INTO THAT THAT APPROACH. I'M SURPRISED LOOKING AT THIS IS BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS MORE RECENTLY THAN IT LOOKS LIKE THE MOST CURRENT ONE IS FROM 2022, AND I, FOR SOME REASON THOUGHT WE HAD DONE SOME SINCE THEN, BUT I MIGHT BE REMEMBERING OTHER THINGS. SO I FOR ALL THE REASONS YOU SAID. I LIKE THE IDEA OF NOT INCENTIVIZING DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ATTRACT HERE AND NOT PUTTING BURDENS IN THE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT IS A LENGTHY PROCESS TO COME HERE AND THEN TO GO TO THE COMMISSION OR TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD. AND IT ADDS A LOT THAT, AS YOU SAID, TYPICALLY IS NOT CHANGING MUCH. THE ONE THING THAT IT DOES DO IS PROVIDE A SAFEGUARD SO THAT IF THERE WERE CHALLENGES OR QUESTIONS THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE PUBLIC TO BE AWARE OF WHAT IT IS AND HEAR MORE ABOUT IT, LEARN MORE ABOUT IT, ASK QUESTIONS. AND I KNOW THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW APPROVAL PROCESS IS THOROUGH, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT SECRET BECAUSE IT'S ALSO PUBLIC, BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS PUBLIC. AND WE HEAR PEOPLE CONCERNED ALL THE TIME ABOUT NOT KNOWING ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING. SO I JUST, I WORRY THAT PART OF THE REASON THAT IT'S GONE SMOOTHLY IS BECAUSE DEVELOPERS KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT. SO THEY'VE ALREADY I THINK YOU SORT OF INTIMATED THIS, HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CHECKS AND BALANCES BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY WON'T BE SUCCESSFUL IF THEY DON'T. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF I LIKE I SAID, I LIKE THE INTENT AND I LIKE THE PURPOSE OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING. [00:25:04] I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS MIGHT BE. AND SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF A SORT OF A WHAT ELSE IS THERE OR HOW ELSE DO, HOW ELSE DOES THE WORLD LEARN ABOUT THINGS LIKE THIS MORE PUBLICLY IF IT'S NOT THROUGH THIS PROCESS? AND I DON'T PRETEND TO THINK THAT PEOPLE STAY HOME GLUED TO THEIR TVS WATCHING OUR MEETINGS EVERY MONTH. SO I YEAH, KNOW IF WE CAN GET PEOPLE MORE INVOLVED WITH THE MASTERPLAN PROCESS, THAT'D BE GREAT TOO. SO BUT THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. I THINK SOMETHING WE CAN, I CAN PROBABLY PULL SOME INFORMATION TO HELP WITH THAT AS WELL. OKAY. I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY IN YOUR INTRODUCTION THAT IN MANY CASES THERE ARE OTHER SUP STANDARDS THAT WOULD APPLY TO THOSE PROJECTS. CAN YOU? AND THE ONE THAT CAUGHT MY EAR WAS CAR DEALERSHIPS, WHICH I'VE SEEN A FEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ON CAR DEALERSHIPS, AND THEY WERE WELL ATTENDED. YEAH. IF YOU COULD HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE SORTS OF PROJECTS THAT MIGHT COME IN, WOULD BE WHAT WOULD ALREADY BE REQUIRED UNDER OTHER STANDARDS? YEAH. SO CAR DEALERSHIPS, BECAUSE OF THOSE MEETINGS YOU TALK ABOUT, ARE NOW A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT ACTUALLY REQUIRES THE TOWNSHIP BOARD TO APPROVE. THAT'S ONE OF THE FEW IN THE ORDINANCE THAT GOES THAT FAR. YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS LIST I GAVE YOU, RIGHT. THE CONSUMERS CREDIT UNION WAS A DRIVE THROUGH, RIGHT? DRIVE THRU'S AS A GENERAL RULE, REQUIRE SO WE CAN GET A GOOD DESIGN. DO YOU SEE ANY SENIOR LIVING FACILITY GENERALLY REQUIRES IT BECAUSE AND ALSO SO IF IT'S A NON SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE IN A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, THAT'S THE THE BIG CATCH ALL FOR MOST OF THESE, RIGHT. CHURCHES, SENIOR LIVING FACILITIES. THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER LIKE ONES THAT TRIGGER A LOT IN THOSE DISTRICTS. PREVIOUSLY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ANY MULTIFAMILY PROJECT. NOW THAT IS LIMITED WITH SOME OF THE CHANGES WE MADE TO ADDRESS THE REDEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES BACK IN 2023, THOSE ARE PROBABLY THE BIG THE REALLY THE BIG ONES THAT WE WOULD HIT WOULD BE THE DRIVE THRUS WOULD BE THE NONRESIDENTIAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. BUT IN THE END. I MEAN, OUR, OUR C-3 DISTRICT PROBABLY HAS 15 THINGS THAT REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. C-2 HAS ANOTHER 18. SO IT'S LIKE SO THERE ARE ALL THOSE OTHER USES THAT WOULD SPECIFICALLY TRIGGER IT, NOT JUST BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS MEDIUM SIZED. HAVE WE EVER MAPPED THOSE DIFFERENT JUST THE ZONING. I ALWAYS FORGET WHAT THIS IS. THE DISTRICT. YEAH, THE DISTRICT STANDARDS. SO WHETHER IT'S C-1, C-2, OR C-3 AGAINST ALL THE VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS IN THOSE SUBS. IN TERMS OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE APPLYING TO WHAT PROJECTS AND WHAT THE OVERLAPS ARE VERSUS WHAT THEY RESTRICT, LIKE WHAT WHAT DOES ONE PROVIDE VERSUS A THE REST. YEAH. AND NO, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH OVERLAP BECAUSE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SPECIFICALLY SHOULD BE SPECIFIC TO THAT PROJECT AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT AREA. IF WE STARTED TO SEE SITUATIONS WHERE THE SAME CONDITIONS WERE APPLYING ACROSS THE WHOLE TOWNSHIP TO A SPECIFIC USE, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HAVE SOME CONCERN AT THAT POINT THAT WE'RE NOT REGULATING IT PROPERLY AT ALL. SOMETHING'S WRONG. BECAUSE IF IF THE SAME CONDITION HAS TO BE APPLIED TO HAZEL AND MARSH AS TO JOLLEY AND OKEMOS AS TO HAGEDORN AND GREEN RIVER KIND OF THING. THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON THERE, BECAUSE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT SUP SORT OF AS IT RELATES TO ITS SPECIFIC SURROUNDINGS. SO THE SUPS SHOULD TECHNICALLY, DEPENDING ON THOSE DISTRICTS, THEY SHOULD APPLY WITHIN SPECIFIC LOCATIONS OF THE TOWNSHIP. THEY'RE PRETTY, THEY SHOULD BE A LITTLE MORE BESPOKE THAN A NORMAL SET OF STANDARDS. THEY SHOULD BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC TO THAT AREA, BECAUSE THAT'S IF YOU IF YOU READ THROUGH THE STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF AN SUP. RIGHT? YOU'RE GETTING INTO HOW DOES IT FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW. WHAT EFFECT IS IT GOING TO HAVE ON THE TRAFFIC SORT OF IN THAT AREA? YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT THAT INDIVIDUALIZED LOCATION FOR THAT SPECIFIC USE. THAT'S WHY IT'S CONSIDERED A SPECIAL USE SPECIAL FOR THIS SITE. I THINK ONE OF THEM IS, IS IT SERVED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES? PUBLIC UTILITIES IS ONE OF THEM, WHICH WE DON'T TEND TO RUN INTO AS MUCH ANYMORE, WHICH IS GOOD FOR US. [00:30:05] YEAH. BUT THAT IS, HISTORIC. THAT'S ONE, THAT'S SORT OF THE ONE THAT IS THE GRANDFATHER OF MOST CONDITIONS IS CAN YOU SERVE AT PUBLIC UTILITIES? IS IT DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED AND MAINTAINED TO BE HARMONIOUS AND APPROPRIATE IN APPEARANCE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE GENERAL VICINITY? RIGHT. SPECIFIC AREA WILL NOT BE HAZARDOUS TO THE NEIGHBORING USES. SPECIFIC VICINITY. ENTITY DETRIMENTAL TO THE ECONOMIC WELFARE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES SO SPECIFIC TO THAT AREA. I GUESS, THOUGH, MY QUESTION ABOUT THE SPECIAL USE PERMITS THOUGH REQUIREMENTS AND THAT WE HAVE 18 OF THEM ACROSS THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. IT'S IS IT ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT'S THAT WE DON'T WANT SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS THAT GO ACROSS THE ENTIRE TOWNSHIP? SO THE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW COVER THE WHOLE TOWNSHIP, BUT THE INDIVIDUAL USES LIKE IN THE C-3, THEY HAD THERE'S A SERIES OF USES. THERE'S 16 OF THEM. SORRY, NOT 18. THERE'S 16 IN THE C-3 DISTRICT AND THEY'RE ONLY SORT OF PERMITTED IN THAT DISTRICT. AND THEN SUBJECT TO THE THE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE C-2, THERE'S A DIFFERENT SET OF, THERE'S CONDITIONAL ONES THERE. THERE'S A DIFFERENT SET OF 17 THERE. RIGHT. THAT SOME HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS. THERE IS SOME OVERLAP, BUT NOT A LOT. THE IDEA IS AS YOU GO UP THE CHAIN, THE USE GETS MORE INTENSE, RIGHT? SO YOU COULD HAVE A USE IN A C-3 THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT IN A C-1, BECAUSE THAT'S MORE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. SO THERE'S SOME OVERLAP, BUT NOT A LOT. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DIRECTION TO MR. SCHMITT FOR? YEAH, I ACTUALLY I THOUGHT THAT COMMISSIONER BROOKS WAS GOING TO GO AND ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION. WHEN YOU SAID MAPPING ON TO THE LIST OF SUPS YOU GAVE US AND HOW THEY MAP ON THE 17 OR 18 OR THE 13 WOULD REALLY HELP ME TO KIND OF SEE, OKAY, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN. YEAH. WE CAN I'M SURE YOUR INTERN STILL HAS A LOT OF TIME LEFT. WE COULD. WE COULD? ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. NO, IT WOULDN'T BE HARD, ACTUALLY, TO PULL JUST. THIS IS GOING TO FALL UNDER THIS SECTION. THIS IS GOING TO FALL UNDER THIS SECTION. BECAUSE YEAH, MOST OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE THIS IS C-2 PROPERTY. THIS IS C-3 PROPERTY. IT'S LIKE A C-2, C-3 DRIVE THROUGH, NONRESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR PREVIOUSLY MULTIFAMILY. YEAH WE CAN PULL THAT TOGETHER. YOU ALMOST DID IT IN REAL TIME. MR. BROWNBACK, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? WE ALL HAVE THE NAMES ON US, LIKE IN REAL TIME. YEAH. THIS IS MAYBE JUST MORBID CURIOSITY. SO I'M LOOKING THROUGH THE SUP LIST. AND THE 1605 ONE WAS THE NEW HOPE CHURCH. SO I JUST WOULD IMAGINE, LIKE, THAT'S PROBABLY A SITUATION WHERE YOU COULD DO A CARVE OUT BECAUSE GENERALLY YOU CAN'T GET IN THE WAY OF THE BUILDING OF CHURCHES. RIGHT? WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN HOW WE ADDRESS CHURCHES. YES, YES. SO LIKE THAT TO ME IS ONE OF THOSE ONES WHERE YOU MAY WANT TO LIKE IT. AND AGAIN, THIS IS CLEARLY YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE IN THAT MIND BECAUSE I CAN'T, YOU KNOW, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE USING SOME OF THESE STANDARDS WITHIN THE C DISTRICTS WHERE YOU HAVE THESE CONDITIONS, LIKE USE THOSE AS THE REASONS TO CREATE CARVE OUTS AND FLY THROUGH'S, RIGHT. LIKE IF IT MEETS THESE CONDITIONS IN THIS AREA, THEN EXEMPT IT. RIGHT? OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THOSE ARE PROBABLY MORE STRICT THAN IN OUR INTERPRETATION ANYWAY. RIGHT. WE TRY TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH CHURCHES. YES. YEAH. I MEAN, IF I TALKED ABOUT CHURCHES, I JUST USED THAT ONE AS AN EXAMPLE. BUT NO, BUT IT'S A IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE BECAUSE YOU DO TO YOUR POINT. YOU HAVE TO WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH HOW WE ADDRESS CHURCHES AND ANYTHING RELIGIOUS ORIENTED BECAUSE THERE IS A THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF SCRUTINY AT THE SUPREME COURT APPLIES TO THOSE DECISIONS. CORRECT. YEAH. THE LIZARD PART OF MY LAW SCHOOL BRAIN CAME INTO CAME INTO PLAY THERE [LAUGHTER] AND I SAID, OH, MAN, CHURCH AND STATE AND STUFF. YEP. AND JUST KNOWING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED RECENTLY, IF THIS ORDINANCE WERE TO GO AWAY OR THIS REQUIREMENT WOULD GO AWAY, WOULD THEY? THEIR USE IS JUST THERE AND LIKE GRANDFATHERED. LIKE SO. OH, I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING. SO OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PROJECTS ON THAT LIST THAT, IN THEORY, WOULD JUST BE USES THAT WE COULD APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVELY. OKAY. THEY'LL ACTUALLY, 22-11 WOULD JUST IT WAS JUST AN INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION OF THE MERIDIAN COMPANY. THAT 100% JUST IS A NORMAL APPROVAL IF THIS DOESN'T EXIST. OKAY. YEAH. WE CAN WE CAN PULL THAT TO AND JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU A FEEL FOR BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S TWO QUESTIONS ALIGN THEMSELVES [00:35:06] NICELY. OH AND THEN YOU GOTTA, DON'T YOU HAVE TO GIVE SOME PONDERINGS TO LIKE WHAT YOUR STAFFING BECOMES THEN? BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE GOING TO, THERE'S A LOT MORE WORK ON ON. AND I THINK ABOUT BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. IT'S THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. RIGHT. AND YEAH, IT'S MORE WORK FOR YOU GUYS. WE'LL KEEP THE GUYS BUSY. ANOTHER QUESTION. SO COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, YOU WENT TO WHERE I WAS GOING TO GO, BUT EVENTUALLY, BUT THE, SO THEN DIRECTOR SCHMITT SO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THE LIST OF THE SUPS THAT ARE IN THIS DOCUMENT AND THEN SAY WHICH OF THESE WOULD FALL OUTSIDE OF. YEAH, WE CAN FILTER THIS OUT OF LIKE THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST A NORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. IF NOT FOR OKAY, I WOULD I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THAT. AND THEN FOR, FOR THAT LIST TO WHAT ARE THE ONES. IS THERE A REASON THAT SOME OF THEM HAVE LIKE A RECOGNIZABLE LABEL NEXT TO THEM VERSUS THE OTHERS? AT SOME POINT THEY JUST STARTED PUTTING THE NAMES ON THE PROJECTS, AND WE'VE TRIED TO BECOME SLIGHTLY MORE POSITIVE IN OUR LABELING, SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT WOULD BE JUST SIT. FOR A WHILE THEY JUST ALL SAID I TO I AND WE WEREN'T SURE WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE COULD DO THAT, TOO. YEAH. AND THEN. I'M SORRY. WELL, I THINK THIS WOULD BE HELPFUL INFORMATION. FOR THESE, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SAY IF THEY'RE C-1, C-2, OR C-3. THAT'S EASY. YEP. SO THAT THEN WE CAN THINK ABOUT HOW THESE OTHER SUPS POTENTIALLY OVERLAP WITH THOSE. SO WE'LL HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TABLES. ONE WOULD BE THE, THE DATA THAT YOU'VE ALL GRACIOUSLY PROVIDED WITH THE NUMBERS C-1, C-2, C-3 AND WHERE IT FALLS. IF WE GOT RID OF THIS REGULATION, AND THEN THE OTHER TABLE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT DOES SOME SORT OF COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SUPS AND THE C-1, C-2, AND C-3 DISTRICTS. AND THEN I HAD A ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION. SO IF WE GOT RID OF THIS WHAT WOULD THE OKEMOS VILLAGE PROJECT? WHAT WOULD THAT HAVE DONE TO SORT OF HOW WE WOULD. WAS THIS SUP USED? OR WOULD IT HAVE BEEN USED IN THAT PROCESS? SO IT WOULDN'T BE NOW BECAUSE WHAT WE WHAT WE DID WHEN WE MODIFIED THE ORDINANCE IN 22 WAS MAKE THAT THE ALL ENCOMPASSING SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ANY PROJECT. RIGHT. WE WERE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THIS PATCHWORK OF GETTING THREE DIFFERENT APPROVALS. AND SO FOR MUPUD, NO, IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE IF YOU'RE DOING A MIXED USE PROJECT, IT'S GOING TO HAVE ONE APPROVAL. THAT'S IT. SO THAT THE MUPUD ORDINANCE BASICALLY NOT OVERRIDES IT. IT BECOMES THE REST OF IT. IT'S THE TRUMP FOR THE PROJECT BASICALLY. YES. OKAY. WE JUST FOUND THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE EASIEST WAY TO ADDRESS THESE, BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY SO COMPLICATED TO BEGIN WITH. LET'S JUST MAKE IT ONE APPROVAL BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS HAD MULTIPLE APPROVALS. YEAH. AND IT WAS A CHALLENGE TO GET UP TO SPEED ON. SO THEN THE 25,000, THIS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THEN IT AM I SPEAKING OUT OF TURN IF I SAID IT SEEMS LIKE IT ONLY APPLIES TO STANDALONE BUILDINGS? MORE AND MORE IT REALLY DOES ONLY APPLY TO STANDALONE BUILDINGS. YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY AS WE'VE MADE THOSE CHANGES TO THE YOU MADE THE CHANGES TO THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT. YOU REALLY ARE GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE TARGETS AND THE MERIDIAN COMPANY'S EXPANSION AND THE MYER. RIGHT. BECAUSE LIKE MYER IS AN EXAMPLE. YOU KNOW, THE GAS STATION, WELL NOT A GAS STATION. BELL TOWER IS ON IT'S OWN PARCEL. JIMMY JOHN'S ON IT'S OWN PARCEL. THE CHIPOTLE BUILDING ON IS ON IT'S OWN PARCEL NOW. THE OLD SHULA'S BOOKS WAS ON ITS OWN PARCEL, SO THAT EVENTUALLY, HAVING CARVED THOSE ALL OFF NOW, IT REALLY JUST DOES APPLY TO MEYER. WHEN, IF THE MALL DECIDES TO DO A REDEVELOPMENT, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S PART OF ONE BIG PROJECT. STILL, BECAUSE THE AVERAGE PERSON DOESN'T KNOW THE MALL IS CARVED UP AS WELL, BUT IT'S LIKE THE MEYER SITE. THAT'S CLEARLY LIKE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THE JIMMY JOHN'S BUILDING, NOT TO THE MEYER SITE. RIGHT? YEAH, NO. GOING INTO THE CHIPOTLE THERE. I WOULD NEVER HAVE GUESSED THAT THAT WAS A SEPARATE PARCEL. [00:40:02] YEP. AS IS CHICK-FIL-A. YOU KNOW, JUST ONE LAST TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT AS YOU WORK THIS AS, LIKE, IF YOU DO PONDER THIS, THESE ARE CARVED OUT. THESE ARE CARVED IN, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALSO THAT SECOND PART OF LIKE, OKAY, THIS BUILDING DOESN'T APPLY, BUT USE IT AS AN EXAMPLE, THE OLD RITE AID THERE IN THE CORNER OF WHAT'S IT GOING TO TAKE TO GET SOMETHING IN THERE, SOMEBODY COMES AND SAYS, I'D RATHER BUILD AND YOU COULD SAY, OR THERE'S HERE. SO LIKE WHAT? WHAT DOES IT TAKE FROM THE THE GOVERNMENT SIDE TO PUSH THAT. YEAH. TO PUSH THAT OR TO PUT SOME FRICTION. RIGHT. YEAH. THAT MAKES SENSE. I MEAN AND AGAIN IT COULD BE SHORT TERM BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW THINGS GO. BUT IT JUST, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THE IDEA OF BUILDING LARGE BUILDINGS, THE HEYDAY MIGHT BE OVER. IT JUST SEEMS WE MOVE TOWARD MORE ONLINE, WE MOVE TOWARD, YOU KNOW, SMALLER FOOTPRINT. BUT YEAH, RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT IS GOOD GOVERNMENT. I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE. YOU CAN YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ARE IN A TIME WHEN THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE AS MANY BIG BUILDINGS BUILT. YEAH. SO IT'S GOING TO BE A MINUTE. YEAH. SO THEN IT'S THE INCENTIVE TO FILL WHAT WE HAVE VERSUS TO BUILD NEW UNLESS IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED LIKE HOUSING AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. SO BUT I SAY MAKE THE STATUTE MALLEABLE. BUT YOU MENTIONED WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THIS SINCE 1974. SO IT'S KIND OF COUNTERINTUITIVE, BUT I'M ALSO JUST SITTING HERE. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I READ DOCUMENTS. SO WHAT IS NEXT STEP? YOU COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION. WE'LL BRING BACK A PROPOSAL OKAY. AND THEN WE CAN TALK MORE. TALK ABOUT IT, AND THEN WE'RE IN NO RUSH. IT'S JUST IT WAS TIME TO GET THIS BALL ROLLING, I'VE BEEN MENTIONING GETTING THIS BALL ROLLING FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW, AND IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD TIME. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS? I GUESS THAT'S FEEDBACK. THANK YOU. OH GO AHEAD. SORRY. I HAVE ONE MORE. I. WHEN I, SO I LIKE THE REVISIONS THAT WE'RE DOING TO THE DIFFERENT ORDINANCES THAT WE'VE TOUCHED THIS YEAR. WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE WAY THAT WE'VE INTERACTED WITH THEM, THEY WERE SORT OF TOUCHING THEM AT DIFFERENT PIECES AND TRYING TO TAKE SMALL BITES TO ADDRESS THE LARGER WHOLE, RIGHT? WHICH I THINK MAKES SENSE. AND SOME OF THE INSTANCES THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH IT SEEMS LIKE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF SUPS TO YOUR POINT THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITHIN THESE DIFFERENT C DISTRICTS. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THIS TO GO ALL ENCOMPASSING ON THOSE C DISTRICTS. BUT GIVEN THAT WE HAVE THE MUPUD NOW WHICH TRUMPS SOME OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, I DO WONDER IF IT'S POTENTIALLY WORTH THINKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT CORPORATE DISTRICTS THAT WE HAVE OR SEA DISTRICTS THAT WE HAVE IN RELATION TO THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC. BUT I DON'T HAVE A ONE. I COULD GO EITHER WAY ON THIS, I BUT I TEND TO GO LARGER SCALE WHEN WE DO THIS. AND THEN MR. SHORKEY ASKED ME TO REFRAIN FROM EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF THINGS [LAUGHTER]. I DON'T RECALL THOSE WORDS [LAUGHTER], BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE TAPPING INTO IS SOMETHING I THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE WHEN WE HAVE A ZONING ORDINANCE DIRECTING DEVELOPMENT IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT HASN'T BEEN OVERHAULED IN 50 YEARS. THERE'S, THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN 50 YEARS, RIGHT? AND SO WE'VE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION INTERNALLY LIKE, WELL, WE COULD SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN FOR SIX MONTHS AND JUST WORK ON THIS. WE COULD DO THE WHOLE ORDINANCE. BUT THAT'S RIGHT. SO WE'RE, THE GOAL BY THE END OF THIS YEAR IS ESSENTIALLY GET TO 3/8. AND THEN NEXT YEAR WE'LL GET TO HALF. YOU KNOW THE YOU KNOW WE'LL NEVER TOUCH LIKE THE, THE BASIC PROCESS STUFF AND THE NONCONFORMITY AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS JUST DON'T CHANGE. I MEAN, THEY CAN BE THERE FOREVER. BUT YEAH, WE'VE MADE GOOD PROGRESS. THERE'S STILL MORE TO COME, AND I THINK HITTING ON THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS IS PROBABLY COMING DOWN THE PIPE SOON, BECAUSE I THINK TO MR. ROMBACKS POINT, GONE ARE THE DAYS OF JUST SLAPPING DOWN A 120,000 SQUARE FOOT STRIP MALL, RIGHT? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION AND APPRECIATE ALL THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS. AND THANKS TO ANNALISE FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER FOR US. IT'S A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU. LOOKING FORWARD TO HER MATRIX. I DO LOVE A GOOD MATRIX [LAUGHTER]. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE AT REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. [10.A. Township Board update] TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE. I CAN PROVIDE AN UPDATE. [00:45:04] YES. THE BOARD, YOU WILL BE SEEING AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE. A PROPOSAL FOR THE PROPERTY, I'M GOING TO STEAL YOUR GOOGLE MAPS. I'M SORRY. RIGHT HERE ALONG CENTRAL PARK DRIVE. THIS IS CENTRAL PARK ESTATES. THIS IS A BIG WETLAND. THIS IS A PRETTY BIG WETLAND. THIS IS ALL PART OF A LAWSUIT THAT DATES BACK TO 1989. AND I'M NOT GOING TO BORE YOU WITH MY LONG AND EXTENDED HISTORY TONIGHT. BUT THETHE OWNERS AND THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP HAVE, DID APPROACH THE TOWNSHIP BOARD AT THEIR LAST MEETING WITH A EARLY CONCEPT AND THAT WILL GET REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW IN THE NEAR FUTURE. I WOULD ALSO JUST POINT OUT THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD DID ADOPT THE FIRST SET OF PARKING STANDARDS, AND THEY APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON IT. AND THE HAZARD VILLAGE SQUARE BROWNFIELD PLAN HAS BEEN UPDATED UNDER THE MISSION OF HOUSING TIF STANDARDS AND WE ARE AIMING TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION THIS FALL STILL. SO THANK YOU. GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS? LIAISON REPORTS. ANYBODY HAVE LIAISON REPORTS TO SHARE? [10.B. Liaison reports] THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION BEGAN REVIEWING A WETLAND USE PERMIT. TOWNSHIP IS THE APPLICANT FOR A BOARDWALK AT THE LOCATION YOU SEE HERE ON BENNETT ROAD. I'LL LET OUR PLANNING STAFF BRIEF US ON THE PARTICULARS. BUT WE, AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, SAW THE SCHULZ VETERINARY CLINIC, EXTENSION AND SILVERLEAF ESTATES IS OFF TO THE LEFT SIDE THERE, AND AS A CONDITION ON THOSE PROJECTS, THE COMPLETION OF THAT PATHWAY FROM BENNETT WOODS WAS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION. HOW AM I DOING SO FAR? I THINK YOU'RE DOING GOOD. I WAS HAVING A SIDEBAR CONFERENCE, SO IT'S GOING TO BE A TEN FOOT WIDE BOARDWALK ON POSTS THAT WILL GO INTO THE WETLAND. AND THERE WAS CONCERN AMONG THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION THAT THAT WETLAND CONTAINS AN ENDANGERED REPTILE. BUT THERE WAS ASSURANCE FROM TOWNSHIP ENGINEERING STAFF THAT ROAD DEPARTMENT IS HAS PLANS TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THAT CULVERT THAT LINKS THAT WETLAND DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THE GOLF COURSE SO THE ENDANGERED TURTLES CAN'T GET ONTO THE GOLF COURSE. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THE AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE AMOUNTS TO FOUR POSTHOLES. OKAY. FOUR WAYS FOR TO HOLD UP THE BOARDWALK. OUT OF THE WETLAND. FOUR POSTHOLES. YEAH. FOUR POSTHOLES, IT'LL BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON OKEMOS ROAD OR ANY OF THE NEW WIDE PATHWAYS. BUT I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT THAT WAS PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWNSHIP PLANNING STAFF GETTING THESE REASONABLE CONDITIONS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THAT PATHWAY. BECAUSE SILVERLEAF STATES, KIDS ARE TRYING TO GET TO AND FROM THE SCHOOLS THERE, AND HAVING A PROPER PATHWAY IS GOING TO BE HUGE. AND WE'RE HOPING FOR SIGNAGE AND SOME OTHER FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE WETLANDS THERE TO CHARGE IT UP. NICE. HOW DID THAT. SO WE HAD A CPA MEETING. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS EXACTLY. I THINK IT WAS A WEEK AGO. TWO WEEKS AGO. AND WE APPROVED A VARIANCE FOR THE PATH. THAT DOESN'T CONTRADICT. I'M ASSUMING WHAT YOU ALL. RIGHT. NO, THERE'S NO CONTRADICTION THERE. AND SO WHAT THE CPA HAD WAS THE SETBACKS. YEAH. BECAUSE WE'RE. YEAH. YOU'VE GOT TO RAMP IT DOWN. THAT'S ON MY LIST TO REVIEW AS WELL. WE ARE PROBABLY GOING. WE'RE WORKING ON AN ORDINANCE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE FLOODPLAIN TOOL TO ALLOW THESE DE MINIMIS, LIKE UNDER 10FT² OR 10YD² TO BE ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEWED. BECAUSE AS WE GET MORE INTO THESE DIFFICULT PROJECTS, THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN MORE AND MORE. SO BUT NO, THEY'RE SEPARATE SET OF STANDARDS. THE COOL THING THAT I LEARNED ABOUT THE PROJECT IS THAT THEY USE WHAT THEY CALL A HELICAL PILE, WHICH SCREWS INTO THE GROUND RATHER THAN BEING DRIVEN THROUGH. AND SO THE AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE ON A WETLAND IS ACTUALLY NEGLIGIBLE BECAUSE THE POST IS SITTING IN ON BASICALLY THIS HUGE SCREW. AND THEY HAVE TO PUT DOWN TIMBER MATTING BECAUSE THE MACHINERY HAS TO BE UP THERE. [00:50:04] BUT TYPICALLY WHEN THEY REMOVE THE TIMBER MATTING, THE VEGETATION RECOVERS QUITE QUICKLY. WHAT'S THE PLAN TIMING FOR THIS? THEY'RE GETTING THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT THIS YEAR AREN'T THEY? I BELIEVE THE HOPE IS STILL CONSTRUCTION THIS YEAR. OKAY. I THINK WE'RE STILL WAITING ON THE EAGLE PERMIT FOR THIS ONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, WE'LL WAIT TO SIT DOWN BEFORE WE ASK ANOTHER QUESTION. ANY OTHER LIAISON REPORTS? OKAY. PROJECT UPDATES. NO CHANGES, NO UPDATE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND PUBLIC REMARKS. AND WE STILL HAVE NO PUBLIC. ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS? OKAY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BROOKS AND ALL. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 7:20 P.M. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.