[00:01:06] SO I LEAVE IT UP TO YOU. IT IS 6:30. YOU DO HAVE A QUORUM. I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ALISANDE. I DON'T, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE SHE IS. AND I KNOW THAT MR. MCCONNELL WILL BE HERE. YEAH, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHEN. OKAY. YOU GUYS, IS EVERYBODY. SO IF YOU'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT GETTING A SPLIT VOTE ON THE AGENDA. NO. WE CAN GIVE HIM FIVE MINUTES. OKAY. THAT WON'T HURT ANYBODY. OKAY. GIVE ME TIME TO GET MY COMPUTER ON, TOO. YEAH, I GOT HIM. I CAN DO IT. I DIDN'T DO THAT EITHER. I THINK YOU'RE,[INAUDIBLE] IS PROBABLY ON THE MIC RIGHT THERE. YEAH, I'M NOT GOING TO MESS WITH THAT. OH, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. MAYBE I'LL JUST TRY ONE OF THESE OVER HERE. HERE WE GO. OH, THAT'S ALL I HAD TO DO FOR THIS ONE. PROBABLY PUSH A LITTLE BIT HARDER. TRY NOT TO PUSH IT SO HARD. MAYBE. GOOD EVENING. HOWDY. NO WORRIES. I JUST. I WAS JUST HERE. I JUST GOT HERE A MINUTE AGO. HE'S DOING A CONSULTING DEAL, AND WHEN I SAY I HAVE A HARD STOP, I THOUGHT THAT WAS OPTIONAL. AND I'M LIKE, IT'S NOT OPTIONAL. IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO STOP RIGHT THEN. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY THOUGHT YOU MEANT. [00:05:19] TRY AS I MIGHT. DESPITE MY BEST EFFORTS. THIS IS AS GOOD AS YOU'RE GOING TO GET TONIGHT. [LAUGHS] THANK YOU. I FEEL LIKE HAVING THE GAVEL ON MY RIGHT IS TOO MUCH OF A TEMPTATION TO MOVE IT TO MY LEFT. SO WE'RE GOOD? YEAH. YOU'RE GOOD, YOU'RE GOOD. SO I WILL CALL THE JANUARY 26TH, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER, [1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER] IT'S A REGULAR MEETING AND WITH THAT, I WILL GO TO ROLL CALL WITH COMMISSIONER NAHUM HERE. IS THAT PROPER? YEP. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. I'M HERE FINALLY, AS ON TIME AS WE EXPECT. COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. HERE. COMMISSIONER BROOKS. HERE. AND COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY. HERE, AND WE KNOW COMMISSIONER SNYDER HAS EMAILED AND SAID SHE WOULD NOT BE ATTENDING TODAY. ON THAT, I WILL MOVE TO, OH COMMISSIONER ROMBACH IS HERE ALSO. I GUESS I SHOULD NOTE THAT I'M HERE. WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC REMARKS. SEEING NO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, WE CAN MOVE DIRECTLY INTO APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. [4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA] I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. SECOND. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NONE. WE CAN MARK THE AGENDA APPROVED. [5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 12TH OR JANUARY 12TH MEETING. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 12TH MEETING? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. SO, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NOPE. WE WILL HAVE THE MARK THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12TH MEETING. NEXT SECTION IS ON COMMUNICATIONS. THERE ARE NO COMMUNICATIONS. THERE ARE ALSO NO PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND THERE IS NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS. SO WITH THAT, WE ARE AT NUMBER NINE ON THE AGENDA, STARTING WITH A PARKING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION. [9.A. Parking Ordinance Discussion] I GUESS WE'RE OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT YOUR LAST MEETING. STAFF GOT A LOT OF COMMENTS, A LOT OF QUESTIONS. SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE MEMO I WROTE AND JUST KIND OF HIGHLIGHT WORK WE'VE DONE. HOPEFULLY ANSWERED SOME QUESTIONS AND AND MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. FIRST THING I WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION, I SAID I WOULD COME BACK WITH A COMPARISON. YOU'LL REMEMBER THAT STAFF WAS SUGGESTING A A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. THIS WAS IN THE NAME OF LIMITING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON A PARKING LOT. THERE WAS CONCERN THAT THAT MIGHT LIMIT SPECIFICALLY RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE. STAFF SAID WE GO BACK AND COMPARE THAT. WE LOOK AT WHAT WAS APPROVED FOR THE PANDA SITE PLAN AND WHAT WAS APPROVED FOR THE SITE PANDA SITE PLAN WAS 64 PARKING SPACES WHEN THEY REQUIRED 24. SO STAFF IS NOT GOING TO DIE ON THIS HILL. AND BUT THAT IS UP FOR YOUR FURTHER DISCUSSION. THAT CAN CAN MOVE OR IT CAN JUST COME OUT. IT'S UP TO YOU. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE APPROVING AUTHORITY. NOW, I KIND OF I KIND OF WENT INTO THIS, I THINK WE WE, I THINK WE CLARIFIED THIS MORE. THE VILLAGE OF NEMOKA LANGUAGE THAT SAID PLANNING COMMISSION OR DIRECTOR OR PLANNING DIRECTOR. I'M JUST GOING TO REFER TO PLANNING DIRECTOR. THAT WAS GIVING AUTHORITY TO GRANTS WHERE THAT AUTHORITY DIDN'T EXIST FOR THE DIRECTOR. BUT THIS IS NOT THE SAME SITUATION. THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE IN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT'S BEING REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU GUYS ARE MAKING A CALL BUT ON A SITE PLAN BY THIS LANGUAGE, THE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR IS MAKING THAT CALL. [00:10:01] THAT IS WHY THAT LANGUAGE WAS WAS PUT IN THERE. IT'S NOT THE SAME SITUATION. I CAN GET IN, I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK WE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION ON WHY WE PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN HERE, BUT WE TOOK IT OUT OF THE VILLAGE AND NEMOKA A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT LOCATION OF GRAVEL DRIVEWAYS, HOW THEY COMPARE TO PAVED DRIVEWAYS. EXCUSE ME. BASED ON THAT DISCUSSION, WE UPDATED THE DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE AND PUT SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT STATES NO NEW GRAVEL DRIVEWAYS ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY AFTER APPROVAL OF THIS UPDATE. THAT IS BASED ON THE CONVERSATION IT'S SUBMITTED FOR YOUR DISCUSSION. COMMERCIAL TRUCKS. YOU ASKED US TO REVIEW THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THAT AND CLARIFY. SO WE REWROTE THAT PARAGRAPH DID A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH ON HOW OTHER OTHER COMMUNITIES LOOKED AT THAT. THINK WE CLARIFIED THAT AND TIGHTEN THAT LANGUAGE UP. THE DISCUSSION ABOUT NATIVE LANDSCAPING. YOU ASKED US TO LOOK INTO SOME LANGUAGE TO ENCOURAGE NATIVE PLANTINGS IN THE BUFFER AREA. SO WE DID ADD A SENTENCE THAT STATES BUFFER AREAS HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN SECTION 86-758(1)(D). REMEMBER THE LANGUAGE SAID DURING THE DISCUSSION, WE REALIZED THAT LANGUAGE ALREADY EXISTS. IT SPEAKS ABOUT NATIVE, NATIVE, NATIVE LANDSCAPING. SO RATHER THAN HAVING DISCUSSED IN TWO DIFFERENT PARTS, IT JUST REFERS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. FINALLY THIS THIS SECTION ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT NOT BIKES, NOT CARS, NOT MOTORCYCLES, THOSE IN BETWEENS. I SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING INTO THIS. AND THE TERM THAT REALLY GETS THAT SEEMS TO BE MOST COMMON FOR WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THIS MICRO MOBILITY. SO THAT'S HOW I'M GOING TO REFER TO IT IN THE FUTURE. E-BIKES, SCOOTERS, THINGS LIKE THAT. I DID FIND A DEFINITION. SMALL LOW SPEED VEHICLES INTENDED FOR PERSONAL USE, STATION BASED BIKE SHARE PROGRAMS, DOCKLESS BIKE SHARE SYSTEMS, ELECTRIC ASSIST BIKES, ELECTRIC SCOOTERS, THINGS LIKE THAT. THEY WEIGH UNDER 1,100 POUNDS, DON'T EXCEED 28 MILES AN HOUR. THAT'S NOT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT STAFF SAYING THAT. I'VE ACTUALLY FOUND SOME SOME TECHNICAL LANGUAGE. THERE'S A LOT YOU GUYS CAN DO WITH THAT. THIS IS A SEPARATE DISCUSSION IN ITS OWN. WHEN YOU START GETTING INTO THIS, SOME COMMUNITIES ARE PUTTING IN CHARGING STATIONS FOR E-BIKES. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO MARK OFF AREAS. WE CAN INCENTIVIZE THIS. SO STAFF DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING IN HERE RIGHT NOW. BUT WE'RE IN A MUCH BETTER POSITION TO DISCUSS THIS WITH YOU. HAVING SAID THAT, STAFF IS READY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND CONTINUE ON THIS ORDINANCE UPDATE. OPEN UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. WELL, FIRST, THANKS TO STAFF FOR TAKING ON ALL THE STUFF THAT WE ASKED YOU TO TAKE ON. I ESPECIALLY APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION ON MICRO MOBILITY. IT IS A TERM THAT I SEE IN VERY, VERY FREQUENT USE. PRECISE DEFINITIONS TEND TO VARY AS THE TECHNOLOGY EVOLVES, SPEED LIMITS AND WEIGHT LIMITS, AND NUMBER OF PASSENGERS IN WHAT I TEND TO SEE. MICRO MOBILITY ALSO TENDS TO BE 1 OR 2 PERSONS AT MOST. YEAH, THERE'S ANOTHER KIND OF FEATURE OF THEM. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S IT'S PROBABLY MORE THAN WE WANT TO TRY TO TAKE ON THIS EVENING AS A DISCUSSION ITEM, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THERE ARE OTHER FOLKS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO HAVE INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSATION. AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN THINKING ABOUT MICRO MOBILITY, WHETHER THAT'S THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, FOLKS WHO HAVE BUILT RECENTLY, FOLKS WHO HAVE ARE OPERATING BUSINESSES, WHETHER WHAT THEY'RE SEEING IN TERMS OF TRENDS IN THEIR CUSTOMERS, WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T REALLY APPLY TO US YET, WE DON'T NEED TO BE WORRIED ABOUT IT, OR IT'S ALREADY BECOMING AN ISSUE THAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON. MY PERSPECTIVE IS THE MSU CAMPUS, WHERE IT'S OBVIOUSLY A BIG ISSUE, BUT I DON'T SEE THE SAME ISSUES IN THE TOWNSHIP. I TEND TO AGREE. I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU. YOU YOU MENTIONED REACHING OUT TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. [00:15:05] WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I'LL REACH OUT TO DIRECTOR CLARK, WHO STAFFS THE DDA AND THE CIA, AND SEE IF SHE HAS ANY FEEDBACK AND WANTS TO BOUNCE IT OFF ANY OF HER PEOPLE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? OKAY. THERE COULD EVEN BE STRATEGIC LOCATIONS THAT ARE PRIORITIZED FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE IT MAY BE MORE BENEFICIAL, LIKE AT TRADER JOE'S AND WHOLE FOODS AREA. YEAH. I'M ALSO THINKING, SINCE WE'VE SEEN SUCH A HUGE SHIFT AMONG OUR UNIVERSITY POPULATION WHETHER WE'RE EXPERIENCING THAT IN OUR SCHOOLS HISTORICALLY, THERE'S BEEN A SMATTERING OF STUDENTS WHO RIDE BIKES MAINLY TO HIGH SCHOOLS, BUT ALSO TO SOME OF THE MIDDLE SCHOOLS AND AT SOME POINTS THAT PARKING INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN INADEQUATE. BUT I CAN IMAGINE THAT IT WON'T BE TOO LONG BEFORE HIGH SCHOOLERS START TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ELECTRIC ASSIST. I CAN I CAN LOOK INTO THAT FOR YOU, TOO. NOT THAT WE HAVE MUCH PLANNING CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS ON A SCHOOL CAMPUS, BUT IT. NO, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW THAT IT'S THAT IT THAT IT'S EMERGING SOMEWHERE. SO OUR STUDENTS RIDING STAND UP SCOOTERS TODAY WITH NO GLOVES ON CAMPUS. AND I JUST AM AMAZED AT THE LENGTHS THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL GO TO. SO, MR. SHORKEY, THE ONLY THOUGHT I HAD WHEN GOING THROUGH THIS WAS ON THE MICRO MOBILITY. THERE'S GOT TO BE A WEIRD LINE WHERE SOME OF THESE LIKE IF A, IF A, IF A MICRO IF A NON MOTOR OKAY. IF, IF A TRANSPORTATION ITEM THAT QUALIFIES UNDER HERE. WHAT BASED ON OUR DEFINITIONS, THE ONLY THING I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS LIKE WHAT IS SEPARATELY REGULATED BY LIKE STATE REGISTRATION STATUTE OR ARE WE PUTTING, I GUESS, WHERE THE IDEA IS, WE'RE INCENTING THE ABILITY TO CREATE PARKING FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF BIKES. WE'RE NOT REALLY REGULATING THE BIKES THEMSELVES. RIGHT. YEAH. SO NEVER MIND. OKAY. OTHERWISE I WILL SAY I APPRECIATE THE WRITE UPS BECAUSE I KNOW A COUPLE OF THESE WERE MY QUESTIONS ON THE APPROVING AUTHORITY AND THEN ON THE PARKING FOR FOR RESTAURANTS. OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS, CONCERNS. ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE MICRO MOBILITY SPECIFICALLY OR. I'M. IN GENERAL. AT THIS POINT, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE CLOSED OUT MICRO MOBILITY. OKAY. BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE A BIT AMORPHOUS AT THIS MOMENT. I ACTUALLY APPRECIATE THE SPECIFICITY OF THE DEFINITION THAT YOU BROUGHT FORWARD. MR. SHORKEY. THANK YOU. I FELT LIKE THE LINE HAD TO BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE. YEAH. I MEAN, AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOMEBODY THAT SAYS YOU DREW THE LINE AT THE WRONG SPOT, BUT THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF LINE DRAWING. BUT FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION, WE HAD TO. YEAH, BECAUSE 1,100 POUNDS SEEMS BIG FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT CALL MICRO. BUT YOU PULLED IT OFF. NO, I'M NOT ARGUING. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND THE DEFINITION. IT'S JUST. SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY STUFF. YEAH. SO. SO IT SAYS IN THE PARAGRAPHS DESCRIBING WHAT WAS DONE, IS THAT NO GRAVEL DRIVEWAYS NOW WILL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. RIGHT. AND IT SAYS IN SECTION C OR SECTION NINE, PART C AS OF THE APPROVAL DATE OF THIS REVISION. RIGHT. SO. I DON'T KNOW HOW OTHERS FEEL ABOUT THIS. WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK OR LAST TIME WE MET AND THINKING ABOUT THIS. I GUESS I WAS MORE CONCERNED THAT LIKE, OF THE FINANCIAL RAMIFICATIONS OF OF ENFORCING LIKE A NO GRAVEL AREA. BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE, IF YOU'RE IF YOU HAVE ONE OF THE HOUSES THAT ARE IN MERIDIAN THAT ARE RELATIVELY AFFORDABLE, WHICH ARE NOT VERY MANY, OR YOU HAD A NEW ONE AND YOU WANTED TO PUT IN A DRIVEWAY, WHICH THEY MOSTLY GENERALLY HAVE THEM ALREADY. WHAT IF YOU ONLY HAD MONEY TO PUT GRAVEL DOWN? LIKE IS THAT DOES THAT SEEM LIKE A. [00:20:08] I DON'T KNOW, IT JUST SEEMS ODD TO ME THAT WE WOULD PLACE A STIPULATION LIKE THAT. I'D SAY I WOULD JOIN COMMISSIONER BROOKS IN THAT COMMENT. I'M NOT. IT SEEMS A BIT OF AN OVERSTEP TO SIT THERE AND SAY, WE ARE GOING TO SAY NO MORE DRIVEWAYS. OKAY. STAFF CAN TAKE THAT LANGUAGE OUT. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S WHY IT WAS THERE JUST TO DISCUSS IT. YEAH. OKAY. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A STRETCH FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT SEEMS LIKE AN ACTUAL LAW. YOU MAY PASS OR ORDINANCE OR SOMETHING. WOULD PROBABLY COVER THIS BEFORE, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE ANSWER. WOULD A GRAVEL DRIVE PASS A BUILDING CODE INSPECTION? IT'S NOT A BUILDING CODE ISSUE. THE GRAVEL DRIVE IS NOT A, IT'S NOT INSIDE THE BUILDING. OH, GOTCHA. IT'S ALL A SITE PLAN THING, RIGHT? YEAH. BUILDING. BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOESN'T GET INVOLVED IF SOMEONE WANTED TO PUT A CONCRETE SLAB IN THEIR BACKYARD BUILDING, BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOESN'T GET INVOLVED IN THAT UNTIL THEY DECIDE THEY'RE GOING TO PUT WALLS AND ROOF ON IT. OKAY. BUT IT WAS THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT ISSUED THE PERMIT FOR MY SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT. IT WAS, IT WAS PROBABLY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. PUBLIC WORKS. IF IT WAS A SEWER LINE, NOT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. I GOT THE APPLICATION UPSTAIRS. YES. OKAY. WE SHARE THE SAME SPACE WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS. OKAY. I THINK OF THEM AS LIVING OVER THERE, BUT. [LAUGHS] OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. MS. SHREWSBURY. GOING BACK TO GRAVEL, WOULD AN HOA BE ABLE TO RESTRICT OR LIMIT A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY WITHIN ITS BOUNDARY? ABSOLUTELY. HOA'S ARE ALWAYS ALLOWED TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE TOWNSHIP. A CONVERSATION WILL COME BACK TO YOU LATER IN THIS AGENDA. I SAW THAT. THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED ME TO ASK A QUESTION. AS MY HOA PRESIDENT FOR THE NEXT MONTH. I HAVE THOUGHTS ON HOA IS. OKAY, I'M GOING TO BRING UP THE PARKING THING. ALL RIGHT. SO SO WE HAVE THE PANDAS EXAMPLE IN HERE. YEAH. SO 64 SPACES VERSUS THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OR REQUIRED MINIMUM OF OF 24. RIGHT. HERE LET ME PULL UP THERE. THERE WE GO. SO THE PROPOSED CAP OF PARKING SPACES THEN THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO 28. RIGHT. SO THEY CAN STILL ASK FOR A VARIANCE. THEY COULD ASK FOR A VARIANCE. THEY COULD. AND YOU'RE YOU'RE PUTTING A THAT'S A BIG VARIANCE TO BE FAIR. LIKE IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE LIMITED TO 28. YOU'RE WANTING 64. SHOW US. THAT'S SHOW US THE DATA BASICALLY. AND TRADER JOE'S DID WHEN THEY GOT THEIR VARIANCE. ANYWAY. I'M SORRY. NO. IT'S OKAY. THIS IS A CONVERSATION. I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS COMMENT. BUT I GUESS MY. WOULD THIS LEAD TO, YOU KNOW, A LARGE AMOUNT OF VARIANCE REQUESTS? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITH MORE. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT WITHOUT MORE RESEARCH. YEAH. THAT WAS THE EASIEST EXAMPLE THAT CAME TO MIND IS THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLE. YEAH. TRADER JOE'S IS NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE BECAUSE THEY GOT A VARIANCE. COMMERCIAL WISE, I'M NOT HAVING. I MEAN, WE'VE WE'VE GOT A COUPLE. I COULD LOOK AT STARBUCKS, I COULD, I COULD KEEP LOOKING INTO THIS AS MY POINT. YEAH. HOW FAR DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE DO YOU WANT ME TO TO GO? WELL, I GUESS LAST COMMENT HERE FOR A SECOND IS, I GUESS I FEEL LIKE I MEAN, I LIKE A MAX PARKING LIMIT. AND FRANKLY, WHEN WE WERE TALKING TO PANDA EXPRESS AND TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE VERSUS THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT THEY HAD ACCESS TO, I HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING THEM FILLING UP 64 PARKING SPACES. SO LIKE NOW WE'VE BUILT THIS SPOT OUT HERE THAT'S USING ALL THIS LAND AND IT'S GOT LOTS OF ASPHALT. [00:25:09] WE'LL HAVE LOTS OF ASPHALT. SO I'M PERSONALLY IN FAVOR OF TRYING TO LIMIT THAT. OKAY. AND I ALSO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME FLEXIBILITY SO THAT THE VARIANCES DON'T IMPACT THE ZBA SO MUCH. BUT I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE POINT. WHEN I DRIVE AROUND AND LOOK AT THE SIGNS, LIKE A LOT OF COMPANIES JUST GO WITH WHAT THE SIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE. AND FOR THE MOST PART, IT SEEMS LIKE IT. AND THEN THERE'S A FEW THAT COME UP AND THEY'RE LIKE, WE'RE GOING TO SEE IF WE CAN GET A VARIANCE ON IT AND THEN THEY GET IT. BUT FOR THE MOST PART, IT SEEMS LIKE THE COMMERCIAL ENTITIES JUST ADHERE TO WHAT IS KIND OF EXPECTED. AND SO IF A CAP LIKE THAT CONSTRAINED BEHAVIOR IN SOME WAY, BUT THEN THEY COULD STILL REQUEST A VARIANCE. I THINK I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT. IS 20 TOO LOW OF A CAP? I, I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANYTHING. I'M ASKING. IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT DIRECTION. YES. SO IN OTHER PARTS OF THE PARKING UPDATES, WE'VE THERE'S A MECHANISM TO DEFER TO THE DIRECT TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. WHAT WAS THE LANGUAGE? I JUST WENT OVER THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. OKAY, LET ME THROW THIS OUT HERE. COULD WE STIPULATE THAT A PARKING LOT VARIANCE TO GET ADDITIONAL SPOTS COULD BE DELEGATED TO THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, RATHER THAN ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, AND THEN THAT WOULD SPEED THE PROCESS? NO. OKAY. THE MOMENT IT'S A VARIANCE TO THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. THERE'S A MICHIGAN DEFINED PROCESS FOR THAT. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, BUT. MOVE TO COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS FOR A MOMENT. YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION. I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION. I MEAN, IT SAYS THAT PANDA IS REQUIRED A TOTAL OF 24 PARKING SPACES. THEY HAVE A CAP OF 28 UNDER THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED WITH THE 20 WITH THE 20% INCREASE MAX. GO AHEAD. YES. SO THEY WERE APPROVED FOR 64. SO WHERE DOES THAT HOW DOES THAT COME INTO PLAY? I MEAN, IF THEY WANT MORE, THEY CAN JUST DO IT. NO. IF THIS LANGUAGE PASSED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR ANOTHER 38, 36. WHATEVER. 64 -28. I'M SORRY. 36. 36 PARKING SPACES. THEY WOULD HAVE TO REQUEST. THEY WOULD HAVE TO REQUEST THAT FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO GET THAT SAME 64. NOW, THEY DIDN'T GO INTO A GREEN SITE EITHER. THEY WENT INTO AN ALREADY DEVELOPED SITE WITH AN ALREADY PAVED SURFACE. MAYBE THEY DIDN'T NEED 64 SPACES, BUT THEY HAD THE THEY WEREN'T GOING TO THEY WEREN'T GOING TO PAY. YOU DON'T TYPICALLY SEE PEOPLE PAYING TO RIP ASPHALT OUT TO PUTTING GREEN, YOU KNOW, IN A BUILT SITE. I WAS JUST CONFUSED BY THEY SAID IT WAS APPROVED FOR 64 PARKING SPACES. THE LANGUAGE MIGHT, IF YOU READ THE SIZE OF THE PANDA SITE, LED TO A REQUIREMENT FOR A MINIMUM OF 24 PARKING SPACES. YES. YEAH. AND THEY ASKED FOR 64. YES. SO BY OUR ORDINANCE, THEY WERE FINE BECAUSE THEY WERE THEY MET THE MINIMUM MINIMUM AND ABOVE. AND WE'RE SAYING WE IF WE DID THIS, WE WOULD HAVE LIMITED THEM TO 28. SO THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO ASK PERMISSION TO EXCEED A MAXIMUM RATHER THAN GOING AHEAD AND BUILDING MORE THAN THE MINIMUM. OKAY. DOES THAT HELP? SORTA. YEAH. I JUST THINK THAT LAST LINE I MEAN, I GET IT. PANDA PROPOSED AND WAS APPROVED FOR. MAYBE I'M MISSING SOME COMMAS. AND APPROVED FOR 64 PARKING SPACES. OKAY, YEAH, I COULD I CAN SEE THAT. I'M GOOD. COMMISSIONER NAHUM. YEAH, I, I THINK, I MEAN, WITHOUT KNOWING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW MANY LOTS OR HOW MANY ARE BUILDING CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN THE MINIMUM. IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHAT IS A REASONABLE CAP THAT WOULDN'T AFFECT, LIKE, MOST BUSINESSES OR SOMETHING, BUT 20% SEEMS PRETTY NARROW THAT LIKE YOU, YOU HAVE TO DO. YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BUSINESS TO DECIDE. THEY MIGHT NEED A BIT MORE THAN THE MINIMUM. IF IT WAS, YOU KNOW, I WOULD THINK MAYBE SOMETHING CLOSER TO 40 OR 50% MAKES A LITTLE BIT MORE [00:30:05] SENSE. AND IF THEY NEED CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN THAT, THEN BECAUSE I CAN IMAGINE FOR PARTICULAR LOTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE TO PUT A COUPLE MORE SPACES HERE THAN NOT HAVING TO TROUBLE FOR A VARIANCE, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY PROPOSAL. SO, MR. SHORKEY, THINKING ABOUT THIS. SO I KNOW WE PULLED PANDA NOW. LET'S PONDER. JOE'S ON JOLLY. OKAY. NEW BUILD VERSUS, I GUESS, PANDA IS A NEW BUILD ON A ON AN EXISTING SITE. IT'S ON AN EXISTING SITE. RIGHT. BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, SO COMPARE PANDA TO JOE'S ON J=JOLLY, RIGHT. LIKE UNDER THE CURRENT UNDER THE PROPOSED. HOW MANY WOULD JOE'S HAVE, JOE'S ON JOLLY HAVE GOTTEN VERSUS WHAT DID THEY END UP WITH? I'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO, I CAN LOOK INTO JOE'S. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT ME TO LOOK INTO? I THINK THOSE NO, I THINK NO, I'M SERIOUS, I'M SERIOUS. I, I'M JUST SAYING, LIKE. BECAUSE IF YOU'RE THINKING OF YOURSELF AS A RESTAURANT, RIGHT? MAKE YOURSELF A RESTAURANT. YOU PUT A RESTAURANT HERE, YOU'RE GOING TO GO INTO A NEW SPACE. A THAT'S ONE OPTION, RIGHT? AND I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF HOW I'M PARKING THE PANDA EXPRESS EXAMPLE BECAUSE IT'S AN EXISTING SPACE. IT'S THERE'S SOMETHING THERE'S THE WHEAT JEWELERS THERE. I KNOW IT'S GOT TO GET REFORMATTED, BUT THEN THERE'S LIKE THE NEW BUILD THAT JOE'S ON JOLLY WAS RIGHT. AND THEN I THINK IF WE HAVE THOSE TWO EXAMPLES, WE'RE ILLUSTRATING KIND OF THE TWO OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR RESTAURANT OWNER. OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'VE SEEN LATELY OR THAT'S COME THROUGH US, ACTUALLY A QUESTION AND AN OBSERVATION HAS BEEN SORT OF OUTBUILDINGS ON LIKE THE MALL SITE OR YOU KNOW, AND SO THOSE ARE EXISTING PAVED, LIMITED SPACE, BUT MAY ALREADY, YOU KNOW, SO I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO GO BACK THROUGH ALL OF THEM. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT EXERCISE WOULD BE WORTH IT, BUT IF YOU FIND ANY EXAMPLES OF THINGS LIKE THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THIS, OR THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE ANY OTHERS OF ANY RECENT ONES THAT SEEM ANOMALOUS TO SORT OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I TEND TO BE INCLINED TO GO A LITTLE HIGHER THAN 20%. YEAH. JUST BECAUSE I THINK THAT MAY BE TOO RESTRICTIVE, JUST EVEN WITH THE ONE EXAMPLE YOU SHARED WITH US. SURE. AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. I THINK THAT IT WAS MENTIONED AT OUR LAST CONVERSATION THAT A VARIANCE IS ONLY SPECIFIC TO THAT APPLICANT, SO THAT IF THERE WAS SOMEBODY ELSE THAT REDEVELOPED THE PANDA SITE IN THE FUTURE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEEK AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE. YOU KNOW, IF THIS WERE IN PLACE AND THEY NEEDED A VARIANCE TO GET TO HIGHER PARKING, ANY SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPER OWNER OF THAT SITE WOULD HAVE TO DO THE SAME IF THEY WANTED TO KEEP THE LAYOUT, EVEN IF THEY TOOK THE BUILDING AND WERE USING IT FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. RIGHT. SO WHEN A BUILDING CHANGES USE, THEY HAVE TO COME IN FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOOK AT IS THE PARKING CALCULATION. WHAT ARE YOU LEAVING VERSUS WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING? IF WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING MAKES YOU HAVE TO BUILD MORE PARKING SPACES THAT WILL TRIGGER SITE PLAN APPROVAL BEFORE YOU CAN GET YOUR BUILDING PERMIT. THAT'S WHY WE LOOK AT THAT. SO. BUT WITH THAT MUCH PARKING THERE, EVEN IF PANDA WAS TO CHANGE TO SOMETHING ELSE IN THE. IN THE C-2 ZONE. I DON'T KNOW HOW LIKELY IT IS THAT SOMEONE WOULD COME IN AND ASK FOR MORE PARKING ON THAT SITE. BUT EVEN LIKE, LET'S SAY PANDA CLOSES A YEAR FROM NOW AND PICK A DIFFERENT RESTAURANT OPENS IN THE SAME SPOT WITH KIND OF THIS. THEY DON'T DECIDE TO BUILD, THEY DON'T NEED A BUILDING PERMIT. WOULD THEY BE PERMITTED TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT MANY PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE TO THEM, OR WOULD THEY HAVE TO REDUCE IT BECAUSE THE VARIANCE WAS GRANTED TO PANDA? OR IS THAT TOO SPECULATIVE? NO, NO. TYPICALLY. I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO SAY SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO. TYPICALLY A VARIANCE RUNS WITH THE LAND. OKAY. OKAY. SO LIKE A DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE, FOR EXAMPLE SOMEBODY'S GOT A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO BUILD THEIR HOUSE CLOSER TO THE LOT LINE THAN IS APPROVED. THAT VARIANCE GOES WITH THE LAND FROM THAT POINT FORWARD WHEN YOU WOULD YOU WHEN YOU START GETTING INTO VARIANCES FOR LIKE A SIGN SOMEBODY WANTS A SECOND WALL SIGN AND THEN SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THAT BUILDING, THE NEXT THING HAS TO CONFORM TO THE, TO THE ORDINANCE. SO IN THIS CASE, I DON'T THINK WE, IF PANDA CLOSED, WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THEM PULL OUT 36 PARKING SPACES AND PLANT GREEN FOR THE NEXT PERSON TO COME IN. I'M TRYING TO BE FACETIOUS. I'M JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THEM CONFORM THE SITE TO TO THE PARKING ORDINANCE. THE NEXT PERSON WHO COMES IN IS GOING TO HAVE 64 PARKING SPACES TO PLAY WITH. [00:35:05] WHY WOULDN'T WE MAKE THEM CONFORM TO THE PARKING ORDINANCE? DON'T WE MAKE THEM CONFORM TO THE BUILDING ORDINANCE? THE PARKING, THE PARKING, THE LIKE. THE PARKING EXISTS THAT IT'S IT'S PART OF THE LAND. IT'S PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AT THAT POINT, FROM THAT POINT FORWARD. SO, LIKE, IF TRADER JOE'S WAS TO MOVE OUT AND A NEW BUSINESS WAS TO MOVE INTO TRADER JOE'S, THEY'D HAVE THAT PARKING, THAT PARKING WAS APPROVED FOR THE SITE. SO LIKE VARIANCE IS RUN WITH THE LAND. YEAH. YEAH. SO I GET THAT THE VARIANCE IS RUN WITH THE LAND. BUT LIKE WHEN SOMEBODY REDEVELOPS A PROPERTY THOUGH AND THE BUILDING IS OUTDATED. CORRECT. DOESN'T IT HAVE TO BE UPDATED TO THE TO TO THE CODE IF THEY'RE REDEVELOPING IT. THAT IS AN INTERESTING. OKAY. SO IF YOU PUT THIS INTO PLACE AND LIKE OKAY, SO LIKE WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING MR. CAR WASH, RIGHT? THAT'S NOT JUST MOVING INTO A NEW A NEW BUILDING THAT'S THERE. THEY TOOK DOWN THE OUTBACK. THEY'RE BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE. THEY'VE. YEAH, THAT'S A VALID POINT. LIKE YOU ARE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, YOU YOU'RE YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO HAVE TO GREEN SOME OF THIS SPACE OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO. I COULD SEE THAT. I COULD SEE THAT ARGUMENT I DON'T KNOW. I'D LIKE TO TALK FURTHER WITH OUR WITH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ON THIS, I FEEL LIKE. I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO MISSTEP. THAT'S OKAY. WELL, [INAUDIBLE] OF THAT. WHO DO YOU PUT THE ONUS ON? DO YOU PUT THE ONUS ON THE EXITING OWNER? DO YOU PUT IT ON THE NEW OWNER COMING IN TO PAY THE COST? WELL, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE PUTTING IT ON SOMEBODY NEW, THAT'S A SEVERE DISINCENTIVE TO TAKE THAT SPOT UP. AND THEN YOU HAVE AN EMPTY THEN YOU HAVE AN EMPTY STOREFRONT. YOU WOULDN'T YOU WOULDN'T PUT THAT ON THE ON THE LEAVING PERSON. THAT'S HOW YOU, YOU KNOW. YEAH. SIGN, SIGN, YOU KNOW, OUT OF DATE SIGNS, THINGS LIKE THAT. THEY GET LEFT BEHIND. THAT'S A MYRIAD OF THE CRUX, THE CRUX OF WHEN I KNUCKLEBALL US INTO THIS, INTO THIS DISCUSSION, ADMITTEDLY, WAS INCENTIVES OR DISINCENTIVES FOR NEW RESTAURANTS TO MOVE INTO THE AREA. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND TO ME, LET'S JUST SAY PANDA EXITS EVERYTHING AS IS. NEW, NEW OWNER COMES IN, WHAT'S CALLED A SHEETZ, BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALL SORTS OF GOOD PR RIGHT NOW THAT SAYS, WE WANT TO COME IN. OKAY, OKAY. SHEETZ, IN ORDER FOR YOU TO COME IN, YOU GOT TO ELIMINATE 38. WAS THAT THE NUMBER WE CAME UP WITH ON THE MATH? YEAH, YEAH. YOU HAVE TO PAY TO ELIMINATE 38 SPOTS. WHAT'S THE FIRST THING SHE SAYS? I'M GOING TO EAST LANSING. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO IT'S DEFEATING. THOSE LOTS ALREADY EXIST ON THE SITE, RIGHT. THEY'RE INHERITING THOSE. YEAH. SO LIKE THAT, I'M. WELL, WE'RE BEING VERY SPECIFIC ON PANDA. MY, THE MY KNUCKLEBALL WAS ON THE INCENTIVE VERSUS DISINCENTIVE TO COME TO MERIDIAN. YEAH. AND NOW WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS THAT THAT, LIKE, TELL ME IF THIS MAKES SENSE WITH THIS A LITTLE BIT OLDER, BUT. SO I TALKED ABOUT JOE'S ON JOLLY. THAT WAS A NEW BUILD, RIGHT? YEAH. IT'S I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE WEIRD TOO, BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY MIXED USE. THERE'S A GYM THERE TOO, WHICH. RIGHT. BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS BUILT ON THE BACKSIDE. YEAH. YEAH. LOOK OKAY. BUT THEN LIKE I'M THINKING ABOUT AN ISSUE WHERE A RESTAURANT CAME IN TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE ONE THAT'S COMING TO MIND IS ANNA'S HOUSE. OKAY. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY NEEDED ANY ADJUSTMENTS BECAUSE THEY WERE COMING INTO. THAT WAS AN OLD PIZZA HUT, RIGHT? IT WAS. NOW, I DON'T THINK THEY EVEN HAD TO GO THROUGH SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THEY WERE A RESTAURANT CHANGING TO A RESTAURANT. THEY JUST, YOU KNOW. YEAH. YEAH. SO I CAN LOOK INTO THEIR PARKING SITUATION. YEAH. THAT WOULD BE LIKE, I JUST I'M JUST LOOKING FOR THAT COUNTERBALANCE FROM NEW BUILD TO EXISTING. RIGHT. AND ENSURING THAT A NEW RESTAURANT COMING INTO AN EXISTING BUILDING WOULD NOT FIND ANY DISINCENTIVE TO BE HERE BASED ON PARKING. OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT MAKES SENSE. AND I DO NOT SEE A SCENARIO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO MAKE PEOPLE TAKE PAVEMENT OUT TO [LAUGHS] YOU KNOW. RIGHT. I MEAN, WHY? BUT. BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T DO IT. THEY'VE GOT THE PARKING LIKE IT JUST IT'S A DEVELOPED SITE. RIGHT. IT IS. IF THEY HAD IF THEY CAME INTO A SITE AND THEY HAD TO DO SOMETHING TO MEET A LANDSCAPE, A LANDSCAPE SECTION, LIKE YOU ARE INHERITING A SITE, YOU'RE GOING THROUGH SITE PLAN APPROVAL, YOU'RE GOING TO PUT SOME LANDSCAPE ISLANDS IN. ABSOLUTELY. LIKE WE WOULD MAKE THEM PUT IN REQUIRED GREEN SPACE. THAT WE CERTAINLY WOULD DO LIKE YOU'VE GOT YOU'VE GOT YOU'RE YOU'RE PURCHASING AN OLD SITE. YOU GOT 50 PARKING SPACES ALL IN A ROW. YOU GOT TO BREAK THOSE UP NOW. SO YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IN 3 OR 4, 2 OR 3 LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND AND KEEP THOSE GREEN. YOU REQUIRE BUFFER SPACE. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, WE'LL WE'LL MAKE THEM PUT IN BUFFERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. [00:40:03] SO ENTIRELY POSSIBLE MAYBE THEY'LL HAVE TO DO SOME OF THAT WORK. BUT. SO IN MY MIND THE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF LAND IN THE TOWNSHIP AND WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED. YEAH. SO IN MY MIND, THE. USING PAST CASES TO DETERMINE WHAT THE ORDINANCE SHOULD LOOK LIKE NOW SEEMS RELATIVELY DIFFICULT BECAUSE REALLY, IF ALL THE LAND HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND A LOT OF IT HAS TOO MUCH PARKING. THEN DON'T WE NEED SOME MECHANISM FOR CREATING MORE BUILDING SPACE THAT MATCHES THE AMOUNT OF PARKING? SO LIKE I DON'T WANT TO DISINCENTIVIZE BUSINESSES FROM COMING HERE. HOWEVER, I ALSO FEEL LIKE OUR PLACE OF LEVERAGE IS THAT BUSINESSES PROBABLY WANT TO COME HERE. AND. NOW, OF COURSE, WE'RE ALWAYS IN JUST ECONOMIC THINGS COME AND GO RIGHT. SO THINGS CHANGE. BUT WE HAVE GREAT SCHOOLS RIGHT NEXT TO MSU. AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO BUILD MORE HOUSES. SO LIKE. I GUESS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY I'M LIKE, ARE WE GOING TO TRY AND CREATE POLICY MECHANISMS THAT KIND OF CREATE GUIDELINES THAT MOVE US TOWARDS MORE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION THAT AREN'T MORE PARKING SPOTS? LIKE, I GUESS THAT'S HOW I THINK ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE LIKE WHEN I GO TO TRADER JOE'S AND WHOLE FOODS LATELY, HAVE YOU NOTICED THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE AT THAT INTERSECTION? IT IS PACKED, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WALKING BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THE STREET TO GET TO PLACES. SO IN MY MIND, LIKE THAT PLACE HAS GROWN UP AND NOW IT'S THE WAY IT IS AND IT'S NOT. IT'S LIKE, DO WE NEED MORE PARKING SPOTS THERE OR OR IS IT, IS IT THAT THERE AREN'T WAYS FOR ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TO GET THERE. I DON'T KNOW, SO, LIKE, IF HOBBY LOBBY GOT REDESIGNED OR, LIKE, GOT BOUGHT OUT AND REDEVELOPED, LIKE, DO WE WANT THAT WHOLE PARKING LOT TO BE ALL PARKING LOT? BECAUSE EVEN WHEN TRADER JOE'S IS PACKED AND WHOLE FOODS IS PACKED, THE HOBBY LOBBY PARKING LOT ISN'T FULL. WELL, GOOD POINT ABOUT THAT. WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN THAT CREDIT UNION WENT IN THERE. SOME OF THOSE PARKING SPOTS DID GO AWAY TO PUT THAT CREDIT UNION IN. SURE. THEY HAD ADEQUATE PARKING. I WANT TO EXPLAIN THIS IN ONE REAL QUICK, REAL, IN A DIFFERENT IN A DIFFERENT WAY THAT OCCURRED TO ME. YOU'RE THINKING IN TERMS OF VARIANCES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO GO BACK TO PANDA. PANDA'S GOT 64 SITES. THIS ORDINANCE GOES IN PLACE TOMORROW, JUST LIKE IT SAYS 20% MAX. THEY'RE NOW A LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING SITE. THE NEXT PERSON THAT GOES IN THERE HAS 64 PARKING SPACES. THAT'S A LEGALLY NONCONFORMING. YOU CAN YOU CAN PURCHASE A LEGALLY NONCONFORMING BUILDING. WHAT YOU CAN'T DO IS ENLARGE THAT. YOU CAN'T MAKE THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING BIGGER. IF THEY EVER DID TAKE PARKING SPACES OUT, THEY CAN'T PUT THEM BACK. BECAUSE ONCE YOU REDUCE A NONCONFORMITY, YOU CAN'T GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL NONCONFORMITY. YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT VARIANCES AT THAT POINT. SO IF SOMEBODY CAME IN AND SAID, WELL, 64 IS NOT ENOUGH, WE GOT TO GO TO 75. NOW IT'S A VARIANCE BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO INCREASE THE LEGAL THE NONCONFORMITY. YEAH. IT THAT'S HOW TO LOOK AT LOOK AT THIS. STAFF CAN LOOK AT JOE'S ON JOLLY AND ANNA'S HOUSE AND ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT US TO LOOK AT. BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE PANDA SITE. I WILL TRY TO BRAINSTORM ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY HERE BEFORE THE END OF THE MEETING. I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUALLY SEND STAFF ON A WILD GOOSE CHASE. I DO. [LAUGHS] COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL IS A GREATER MAN THAN THAT. I DEFER TO HIS WISDOM. IT'S OKAY. [LAUGHS] IT'S OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, WHEN IT COMES TO REDEVELOPING SITES, I THINK IT'S. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT ANYONE WOULD REDEVELOP A SITE WITHOUT DESTROYING THE EXISTING PARKING, [00:45:02] WHICH IS PROBABLY ALREADY VERY DETERIORATED BY THE TIME IT GETS TO THAT POINT. IF WE THINK OF THE OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE. YEAH, SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE KNOCKED THAT BUILDING DOWN AND PUT A NEW RESTAURANT, BUT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO LEAVE THAT PARKING LOT WITHOUT REBUILDING IT, AND THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO DESTROY A LOT OF IT DURING CONSTRUCTION ANYWAY. SO I FEEL LIKE THAT'S KIND OF A MAYBE NOT SOMETHING WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT AS MUCH. BUT TO INCREASE THE GOOSE CHASE ANGLE, SOME OF THE SITES THAT WE MIGHT LOOK AT WILL HAVE POTENTIAL SHARED PARKING, AND SOME WON'T. WHEAT JEWELER AND PANDA EXPRESS ARE RIGHT NEXT TO A LOT THAT'S HUGELY OVERBUILT FOR PARKING AND WAS RECENTLY RESURFACED. BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE ARE DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO SHARE PARKING. CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STORY ON JOE'S ON JOLLY IS. THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF PARKING DOWN THERE THAT I BELIEVE IS OFF OF THAT SITE, BUT TOTALLY AVAILABLE TO SOMEBODY WHO GOES IN ON AN EVENING AND THE JOE'S ON JOLLY PARKING IS FULL. THEY JUST GOT TO WALK AN EXTRA 50FT. IS THAT ALLOWED? I DON'T KNOW. IS THERE AN AGREEMENT? I DON'T KNOW. ANNA'S HOUSE. IF YOU STAND IN THEIR PARKING LOT AND LOOK EAST, YOU'LL SEE A SIGN THAT SAYS IF YOU'RE GOING TO ANNA'S HOUSE, YOU CAN'T PARK OVER HERE IN FRONT OF THE COTTAGE AND PIZZA, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT VERY LIMITED PARKING ON THIS SITE, AND WE DON'T WANT OUR PICKUP PARKING FOR OUR PIZZA JOINT TO BE FULL OF ANNA'S HOUSE CUSTOMERS. AS A POLICY DECISION, I THINK IF WE'RE TRYING TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF UNUSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE SHARED PARKING WHEN IT MAKES SENSE. AND WE WANT TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS, I DON'T NEED THE MINIMUM, BECAUSE THAT PLACE IS ALWAYS CLOSED WHEN I'M OPEN AND I'VE GOT AN AGREEMENT TO LET MY FOLKS PARK THERE. AND THIS, THIS HAS LANGUAGE IN THERE TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. JOINT USE OF PARKING FACILITIES. RIGHT? RIGHT. AS WE LOOK FOR USE CASES. WELL, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I'LL LOOK AT IN JOE'S ON JOLLY. JOE'S ON JOLLY WAS A WAS PART OF A MUPD DOWN THERE WAS PART OF THE WHOLE I. IT WAS PREDATES ME. SO I DON'T WANT TO START TALKING SPECIFICS, BUT IT WAS PART OF THE WHOLE BIG DEVELOPMENT DOWN THERE. SO IF I CAN SEPARATE THE PARKING OUT, I WILL. OTHERWISE, IF I CAN'T, I'LL NOTE THAT. THANK YOU. YEAH, JUST IT JUST SEEMS LIKE AS I'M THINKING THROUGH, IT'S LIKE I CAN'T THINK OF ALMOST ANY, LIKE, FREESTANDING BUILDING RESTAURANTS IN ANY, LIKE I'VE LIVED HERE SINCE 17. LIKE, JUST TRYING TO THINK OF, LIKE, ONE WHERE, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, THERE WAS CULVER. I DON'T KNOW WHICH CULVER'S GOOD, ONE OR THE OTHER ONE [LAUGHS] THE ONE ACROSS FROM ALDI'S. THE ONE ACROSS FROM ALDI. YEAH, JUST THAT'S THE OTHER. THAT'S THE OTHER. THE OTHER SCHEME I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND IN MY HEAD IS JUST THE IT WAS IT WAS A RESTAURANT AND NOW IS AND PERHAPS ANNA'S HOUSE IS THE BEST EXAMPLE I DON'T KNOW. JUST THEN I THINK WE CAN DEDUCE FROM THE RANGE OF THE TWO. OKAY. HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH RANGE DO WE WANT TO GIVE A DEVELOPER. AND IF IT IS 50%, MAYBE IT IS 50%. BUT I THINK YOU JUST NEED THOSE TWO. THOSE BECOME THE GUIDEPOSTS. I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER BROOKS WAS TALKING ABOUT. OKAY, OKAY. STAFF WILL LOOK INTO THAT. ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON PARKING ORDINANCES? COMMISSIONER. THE SMALLEST OF BUGABOOS. IN SECTION 11 LANDSCAPING, YOU INTRODUCE A TABLE THAT REPLACES SOME LANGUAGE. IF YOU COULD JUST VERY, SO IT'S, SO SECTION AND ON THE. OH, RIGHT HERE? THE NEXT TABLE. KEEP GOING. THERE. YEAH. OH, OKAY. YEAH. IF YOU COULD JUST CHANGE IT TO GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 50 VEHICLES BECAUSE CURRENTLY IF YOU HAVE 50 VEHICLES YOU DON'T HAVE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER. OKAY. BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE IT CONFORM WITH THE THE PARAGRAPH THAT WAS STRUCK OUT. THAT IS A THAT IS A GOOD CATCH. OR GREATER THAN 49. WELL, I'M MAKING IT MATCH THE PARAGRAPH THAT WAS STRUCK OUT. YEAH. OKAY. THIS IS IT MAY JUST BE A TYPO IN THIS DOCUMENT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THIS IS HOW IT IS IN THE CODE, BUT IN SECTION SEVEN IT SAYS BUILDING ADDITIONS OF OTHER BUSINESS, OTHER INCREASES. AND I THINK THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE AN OR. AM I GOING. UP TO SECTION. OH, SECTION SEVEN. YEAH. SIX. SEVEN. RIGHT THERE. OKAY. I THINK IT SHOULD BE AN OR NOT AN OR IN THAT TITLE, BUT I THINK THAT MIGHT JUST BE UNIQUE TO THIS. [00:50:06] OKAY. SO THAT MAY NOT MATTER. BUT NOPE. THAT'S THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. OKAY. NON-SUBSTANCE EDITS. OKAY I NEED TO FIND OUT. EVENTUALLY IT GOES INTO AN ORDINANCE. IT'S FINE. I HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT ON THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ON ANY DEVELOPMENT SITE. SO ON THE. ON SECTION SIX OF THAT PAGE TWO. OH, THAT'S NOT SECTION SIX. YEAH. IS THERE? WHY ARE OUR SCHOOLS, CHILD CARE CENTERS, HOSPITALS OR PLACES OF WORSHIP SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MINIMUM OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS? SO WHY ARE THEY EXCLUDED FROM THIS? RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S SAYING. YEAH. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. IF YOU ARE ASKING WHERE THAT CAME FROM, I DON'T HAVE A NOTE THERE. I CAN'T, I CAN'T TELL YOU. ALL RIGHT. I KNOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE SITE PLAN CONTROL OVER SCHOOLS. I DON'T KNOW. CHILD CARE CENTERS, THE HOSPITALS OR THE PLACE OF WORSHIP. I DON'T KNOW WHY THOSE WOULD BE EXEMPT. YEAH, I JUST DON'T. IT'S IT'S IT'S ALSO NOW THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IT ALSO INTERESTING THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH AND DID A PARKING REQUIREMENT UPDATE. IT WASN'T A MAX THAT WAS REMOVED, BUT THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LANGUAGE WE TOOK OUT, THE 25% REQUIRED OVERFLOW. JUST SAID TWO TWO SPACES PER. YEAH. THIS IS THIS THEN TURNS AROUND AND PUTS A [INAUDIBLE] I GUESS IT'S NOT THE SAME THING. NEVER MIND. SORRY, I WAS JUST THINKING OUT LOUD, I GUESS. WELL, WE DID JUST GO THROUGH THAT. AND THAT HAS LIKE, HOUSES OF WORSHIP IN IT TOO. AND AS I THOUGHT, WE HAD A DISCUSSION ON PLACES OF WORSHIP THAT MADE A LOT OF SENSE THAT IT COULDN'T BE REGULATED LOCALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE SEPARATION ISSUES, RIGHT? THEY GO THROUGH SITE PLAN, THEY GO THROUGH SITE PLAN. YEAH, THEY GO THROUGH. THEY STILL GO. THE BIG THING IS THAT THEY GO. YOU DON'T HAVE A DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR THEM, THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME PROCESS, THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THEM THE SAME. WE CAN'T TELL THEM, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. YEAH. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS MAKES ME THINK OF IS THEY'RE THOSE KIND OF ESTABLISHMENTS ARE EXCLUDED THAN THEY HAVE SOME. I'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT AND GET AN ANSWER FOR YOU. I DON'T KNOW WHY THOSE SPECIFIC. I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. I LIKE I KNOW YOU YOU GOT DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON THE 50 VERSUS 20% VERSUS 40% CAP. I'D LIKE THE CAP LOWER. BUT I'M OPEN TO EVIDENCE THAT SAYS, LIKE, THESE ARE CAPS THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE HAD THAT ARE SIMILAR TO US, THAT ARE MAKE SENSE? OKAY. AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO SAY ABOUT ALL THIS IS THANK YOU FOR DOING THE NATIVE LANDSCAPING. OH, AND ALSO GOING THROUGH ALL THESE OTHER COMMENTS AND EDITS. ABSOLUTELY. IT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. LAST CALL FOR PARKING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION. [9.B. Joint Board and Commission Meeting Discussion] MOVING ON. PAGE 26. IN THE PACKET REFERENCES THE JOINT BOARD COMMISSION MEETING, WHICH IS THE NEXT ITEM 9.B. YEP. YOU GUYS WANTED THIS BACK AS A DISCUSSION ITEM. SO STAFF PUT THIS MEMO FOR YOU TOGETHER, TOGETHER FOR YOU REALLY QUICK. YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS WHAT WHAT OF YOU, WHAT DID YOU APPROVE THAT WENT ON TO THE BOARD. NOT EVERYTHING YOU APPROVE GOES TO THE BOARD. YOU KNOW, SPECIAL USE PERMITS. MOST OF THEM ARE FOR THE APPROVING AUTHORITY. BUT STAFF SUMMARIZED THAT HERE. AND THEN. OTHER THAN THAT, SOMEONE SHOULD BE AT THIS MEETING. YOU'RE ALL WELCOME AT THAT MEETING. THAT'S JUST. COMMISSIONER CURTIS. SO THE LAST MEETING I COMMITTED TO GOING TO THIS. UNFORTUNATELY, I CANNOT, BECAUSE I HAVE A RECITAL I HAVE TO GO TO. [00:55:03] I WOULD IMAGINE I AM AT THE SAME RECITAL OR A SIMILAR ONE THAT NIGHT [LAUGHS] AND I HAVE RSVP'D IN. IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. OKAY. I HAVE AN ALL DAY BOARD MEETING FOR MY REAL JOB. THAT SOMETIMES GOES LATE, SO I CANNOT COMMIT TO BEING HERE BY 6:00. I'M. IT'S ON MY PLANS, BUT THAT MY MY, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER IT ONCE IT STARTS, SO I'D RATHER HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE BE OUR REPRESENTATIVE. OKAY, I'LL BE HERE FOR MORAL SUPPORT AS SOON AS I CAN BE. I ALSO RSVP'D IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. AND IF NO ONE ELSE CAN DO IT, I'M HAPPY TO STEP UP AND TAKE THAT ROLE. BUT I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO WAS HERE THAT FULL YEAR. YOU'RE AT ALL THE MEETINGS [LAUGHS] THIS IS LIKE A HAZING THING, YOU KNOW. WELCOME. WELCOME TO THE BOARD. YOU GET TO DO THIS FUN THING. IT'S AS WELL THAT, IN MY EXPERIENCE THEY'RE HAPPY TO BE FLEXIBLE WITH WHO PRESENTS WHEN. IF THE REPRESENTATIVES AREN'T THERE, THEY CAN SKIP. AND THERE'S NOT REALLY A STRICT. I'M SURE IF THE SUPERVISOR KNEW THAT ONE OF US MIGHT BE COMING IN LATE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT MAKES IT ANYWAY. I, JUST MENTAL BANDWIDTH. I'D JUST AS SOON HAVE SOMEONE ELSE DO IT THAN ME. I GET IT. THAT'S POSSIBLE. YEAH, IT'S IT'S A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. YOU'VE GOT SOME BULLET POINTS HERE TO TO KIND OF GUIDE YOU. YOU'VE GOT THE ANNUAL REPORT THAT I JUST WROTE. IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, THINGS YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW WHERE I AM. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. THANK YOU. ARE WE GOOD? WE ARE GOOD. OKAY. WE GOT NINE. SEE, UNDER OTHER BUSINESS, THE CHICKEN ORDINANCE UPDATE. [9.C. Chicken Ordinance Update] I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THIS HAS BEEN REFERRED TO YOU BY THE BOARD. WE'VE GOTTEN SOME QUESTIONS. SO OUR CHICKEN ORDINANCE, AND I WANT TO MAKE MAKE THIS POINT REAL UPFRONT. WE JUST UPDATED OUR ROOSTER LANGUAGE. THIS IS NOT THAT. THIS. REMEMBER WHEN WE DID ROOSTERS? I MADE THE DISTINCTION. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CHICKENS. OKAY? NOW IT'S THE OPPOSITE. BUT THIS ISN'T. WE'VE GOTTEN SOME CALLS FROM PEOPLE. HOW COME THEY CAN'T HAVE CHICKENS? AND THE ANSWER IS THEY'RE ZONED RB. BOARD HAS ASKED THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THIS. THE, THE ORDINANCE IS ATTACHED TO THIS. YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING THAT ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. I'LL JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVERYONE ON THE SAME PAGE RAISING AND KEEPING OF CHICKENS AND RABBITS IS ACCESSORY TO ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE ARE TRIPLE OR DOUBLE AND OUR ZONING DISTRICTS. AND THEN THERE'S A NUMBER OF REQUIREMENTS, ONE OF WHICH IS ROOSTERS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. THE QUESTION THE BIG QUESTION IS SHOULD RB AND POTENTIALLY RX, WE DON'T HAVE MUCH RX ZONING IN THE IN THE TOWNSHIP, BUT WE DO HAVE IT. SHOULD THOSE BE ADDED AND IF THEY ARE ADDED, SHOULD THERE? NOW THAT WE'RE OPENING THE LID, SO TO SPEAK, ON THIS ORDINANCE. WHAT OTHER UPDATES CAN BE MADE SUCH AS SHOULD THEY REQUIRE HOA APPROVAL IF THEY'RE IN A, IN A IN A IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH AN HOA? THERE'S THERE'S AN IDEA. AT LEAST ONE STAFF PERSON HAS DONE THIS IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY WHERE BEFORE THEY GOT THEIR APPROVAL, THEY HAD TO GET SIGNATURES FROM ALL ADJACENT NEIGHBORS THAT IT WAS OKAY, THAT THEY DID IT. AND THEN I GUESS A QUESTION FROM THE BOARD WHAT TO DO WITH THE BABY CHICKENS AND RABBITS HAS BEEN RAISED. I SO I'M JUST PUTTING THAT ALL OUT THERE TO YOU. AND WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE STAFF TO DO WITH THIS? MR. CURTIS. WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION. I MEAN, WITH THE ROOSTERS, AND I GET IT. IN THIS ORDINANCE, ROOSTERS SHALL NOT, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. RIGHT. GET THAT PART. CAN WE USE SIMILAR LANGUAGE FROM THE ROOSTER ORDINANCE AND APPLY IT TO THIS AND LIKE, TAKE OUT THE ROOSTER PIECE? I'M JUST TRYING TO. IN TERMS OF THE IN TERMS OF THE ZONING AND THE YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ASKING THE SAME QUESTION. OH ROOSTERS BY DEFAULT ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE RB DISTRICT BECAUSE CHICKENS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE RB DISTRICT. AND THE THE BASIC QUESTION IS, SHOULD CHICKENS GO IN THE RB DISTRICT? IS THE IS THE FIRST THING ROOSTERS STILL WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED IF YOU SIMPLY JUST PUT RB INTO THIS ORDINANCE. SO I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME. IT'S NOT THE SAME ORDINANCE, ISN'T IT? OKAY. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. [01:00:06] OF THE FOUR BULLET POINTS IN THE MEMO, THE FIRST ONE STRIKES ME AS RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE LOTS AND WHETHER THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE AT THAT SIZE OR NOT. THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH BULLET POINTS ALL LOOK TO ME LIKE VERY DEEP QUAGMIRES. THERE ARE VERY ACTIVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS THAT COULD MAKE A DECISION ON A NEIGHBOR OWNING CHICKENS AT A WEEKLY MEETING. THERE ARE OTHERS THAT HAVEN'T MET IN YEARS. SO SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH TIME DOES THE HOA HAVE TO RESPOND, AND IS IT ACTUALLY CONSIDERED ACTIVE? AND THAT SEEMS LIKE AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN FOR A PLANNING DEPARTMENT. BABY CHICKENS OR RABBITS? NOW, A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS GOT TO GO AND TRY TO DETERMINE THE AGE OF A CHICK. I JUST DON'T SEE THAT AS A REASONABLE BURDEN TO PLACE ON A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND SIGN OFF BY YOUR NEIGHBORS. WOW, WOULDN'T IT BE WONDERFUL IF WE ALL LIVED IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE KNEW OUR NEIGHBORS? WE'D KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND SAY, HEY, I'M THINKING OF GETTING SOME CHICKENS IF YOU'LL JUST SIGN HERE. IT JUST SEEMS. AND I SAY THAT HAVING HAD A DAYCARE, SEVERAL DAYCARES ESTABLISHED INSIDE OF MY HOA, SOME OF WHICH HAD DIFFERENT RESPONSES FROM NEIGHBORS, BUT THE MOST RECENT ONE, THE OWNERS, CAME TO THE HOA AND SAID, HEY, WE'RE THINKING OF DOING THIS AND WE'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR OPINIONS. WE THINK WE'RE WITHIN TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE, BUT WE WANT TO REACH OUT TO YOU. AND THAT WAS WONDERFUL. AND THEY DID. AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MINOR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THEIR PARKING AND THINGS. BUT YEAH, I PERSONALLY THINK THE TOWNSHIP BOARD SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED FOR ASKING US TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S A BABY CHICKEN. [LAUGHS] SO, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY. THANK YOU. I GET LIKE CHICKENS WITHOUT A ROOSTER. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE BABY CHICKS UNLESS YOU BRING THEM ON THE PROPERTY. BECAUSE WHAT YOU DO, HOW ELSE DO YOU GET THEM? WELL, YOU GET THEM. BUT BUT I THINK THE QUESTION WAS WHAT HAPPENS? LIKE IF A RABBIT, WHICH IS LIKE THE EPITOME OF HAVING BABIES, GETS PREGNANT AND HAS BABIES AND YOU'RE LIMITED TO FOUR, BUT YOU'VE GOT THESE LITTLE BABIES THAT YOU CAN'T RIP AWAY FROM THEIR MOTHER BECAUSE SHE HAPPENED TO HAVE THREE INSTEAD OF TWO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I THOUGHT THAT'S HOW I SAW THAT FOURTH BULLET IS WHAT TO DO. BUT THE BABY CHICKS PIECE, IT'S LIKE, IF YOU DON'T BRING MORE THAN FOUR BABY CHICKS ONTO YOUR SITE AND YOU DON'T HAVE A ROOSTER, YOU'RE NOT LIKELY TO HAVE MORE THAN FOUR CHICKENS. BUT DIVINE INTERVENTION. YEAH, YEAH. BUT YEAH, I AGREE IT WOULD BE A QUAGMIRE TO TRY TO FIGURE ALL THIS OUT. AND AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO LEGISLATE IT ANY BETTER THAN ANYTHING IS HERE NOW. I WONDER, LIKE, SOMETIMES WE DO THIS WITH LIGHT AND NOISE AND OTHER THINGS OF. WE SET A STANDARD OF SHALL NOT IMPINGE ON NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, LIKE HOLD THEM TO THE NOISE ORDINANCE. YEP YEP YEP. AND THE NEIGHBORS CONTINUOUSLY COMPLAIN OR THEY GET OUT OF THEIR CAGE THAT YOU HAVE TO KEEP THEM IN AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I ALSO, I WAS SURPRISED, I APOLOGIZE, I DIDN'T READ THIS IN ADVANCE. AND SO I'M SEEING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME NOW AND WAS SORT OF SURPRISED THAT YOU CAN'T SELL EGGS. SO THIS WOULD BE PEOPLE RAISING CHICKENS FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT, NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANYONE ELSE. OR IF THEY WERE RAISING THEM TO SELL EGGS, THEY WOULD BE SELLING EGGS. CORRECT. IN ANOTHER VENUE, NOT AT THEIR HOME. CORRECT. YOU COULD BARTER. YOU COULD BARTER. YEAH. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S IN THE MINDSET OF A LOT OF FOLKS WHO RAISE CHICKENS AND DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING EGGS, BUT THEY SHARE THEM FREELY. AND SOMETIMES THERE'S FAVORS THAT GO BACK AND FORTH. OKAY. AND THAT THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF HOW. YEAH. OKAY. THEY'RE NOT SETTING A ROADSIDE STAND UP AND BARTERING. THEY'RE TALKING TO THEIR NEIGHBOR WHO'S COMING OVER. AND I'LL TRADE YOU IF YOU DONATE $5 WITH. SO THE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE COMING IN ARE SORT OF WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF ISSUES THAT ARE ARE BEING RAISED? IS IT NUISANCE OR IS IT PEOPLE WANTING TO DO SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN'T AND THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT LEGALLY? THAT'S THE THAT'S THE THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. YES. THAT IT'S NOT THAT PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NUISANCE, THAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING, I WANT TO DO THIS. NO YOU CAN'T. WHY? I'VE TOLD A FEW PEOPLE SINCE MORE AND MORE THAN A FEW PEOPLE SINCE I STARTED HERE. NO, YOU CAN'T DO IT. YOU'RE IN THE RB DISTRICT. [01:05:01] AND THIS DOESN'T LIKE RABBITS THAT ARE KEPT INSIDE THE HOUSE AS A PET WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THIS. THIS IS ONLY RABBITS THAT ARE OUTSIDE IN A HUTCH BEING. I'LL GIVE YOU THIS. I HAVE A RABBIT. SOMETIMES IT'S OUTSIDE, AND NOT. SOMETIMES IT'S INSIDE, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH LEVERAGE MY KIDS HAVE OVER ME. BECAUSE I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN OUTSIDE RABBIT WHEN WE ADOPTED IT IN A HUTCH. I WAS. THEN IT GOT COLD OUTSIDE, BUT THEN IT GOT COLD OUTSIDE AND AND ALTHOUGH WE GOOGLED SEVERAL TIMES WHAT TEMPERATURES BUNNIES CAN SURVIVE AT THE BUNNIES INSIDE ON OCCASION I HAVE NOT HAD ANYBODY CALL AND ASK ABOUT RABBITS. I'VE HAD PLENTY OF PEOPLE CALL AND ASK ABOUT CHICKENS. I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION, ALTHOUGH. YEAH, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. YEAH, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN I DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PET RABBIT AND RABBITS. OUTSIDE RABBITS, IT JUST SAYS RABBITS. AND I DIDN'T HELP YOU AT ALL WITH THE QUESTION ABOUT THE MAX FOR AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT BABY BUNNIES OR BABY CHICKS. LIKE, I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR THAT, BUT I WOULD SAY IF MAMA RABBIT HAS BABIES, I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE BABY NUMBER FOUR TOSSED. WHEN WE WHEN WE TACKLED BABY RABBITS. OR AN EXCEPTION. LIKE WHEN. WHEN THE ROOSTERS CAME BEFORE US, WASN'T THERE A RIGHT TO FARM ISSUE THAT WAS KIND OF TRAILING IN THE BACKGROUND? WASN'T THAT A BIT OF THE THE THE PRECIPICE FOR PUTTING IT HERE? THAT'S THAT'S IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH TOO. IN THE ORDINANCE. OKAY. CURRENTLY. SO NOT REGULATE THE KEEPING OF CHICKEN DURING [INAUDIBLE]. YEAH. THAT I THAT WAS THAT WAS. YEAH I KNOW, I REMEMBER WHAT I REMEMBER THAT I CAN'T PULL IT UP. I WOULD SHOW IT TO YOU, BUT BUT THERE WAS SOME. YEAH. THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE. THAT WAS WHAT, WE DIDN'T HAVE A ZONING ORDINANCE MECHANISM FOR GOING FOR FOR ENFORCING THE ROOSTER LANGUAGE. THE ROOSTER ORDINANCE WAS DONE TO GIVE US A ZONING MECHANISM SO WE COULD CALL IT A ZONING VIOLATION, BECAUSE IT WAS A RIGHT TO FARM. BUT RIGHT TO FARM DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU'RE EXEMPT FROM ZONING REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT WAS THE POINT. OKAY. YEAH. SO WE DO HAVE A LIMIT HERE ON THE NUMBER. SO WE DO WANT TO LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF CHICKENS AND RABBITS THOUGH BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN FARM THEM. AND SO WE WANT TO HAVE SOME LIMIT IN ORDER TO HAVE A ZONING CONTROL OVER THIS. OH YEAH. YEAH. THESE ARE NOT, THESE ARE NOT FARMS. THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. YEAH. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. WE SEEM TO BE REGULATING THE SEX OF OUR CHICKENS, BUT WE DON'T SEEM TO BE DOING THE SAME FOR RABBITS. THIS IS CORRECT. BOY RABBITS DON'T CROW AT DAWN [LAUGHS] THIS IS CORRECT. SO IT'S NOT ROOSTERS. IT'S NOT A REPRODUCTION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IN THE CHICKEN CASE, ALTHOUGH IT HAS THAT SIDE BENEFIT. BUT WHY? IF YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT NUMBERS, WHY WOULD YOU ALLOW? APPARENTLY THEY'RE CALLED BUCKS, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS HOW IT SHOULD BE. BUCKS AND DOES NOT HAVE. RIGHT? ANYWAY. I THINK WE SHOULD ASK THE TOWNSHIP BOARD TO THINK ABOUT REGULATING MALE RABBITS. IN IN CHICKEN ORDINANCES THAT I'VE SEEN, IT SEEMS LIKE I'VE SEEN IN INSTANCES LIKE IN OTHER PLACES, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S DEFINED. DEFINED LIKE TO GET AROUND THE BABY THING A MINIMUM AGE, YOU KNOW, OF, OF THE CHICKEN, LIKE A CHICKEN IS DEFINED AS THREE MONTHS OR OLDER TO GET, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT A BABY CHICK IS NOT THE SAME AS A FULL GROWN CHICKEN IN A COOP. I COULD STAFF COULD LOOK INTO THAT IF YOU WANTED US TO. OF THE BULLET POINTS, STAFF CAN DO WHATEVER I. SOME OF THE QUESTIONS REALLY, TRULY ARE NEED, NEED, NEED DIRECTION ON THIS. YEAH, I WOULD TEND TO JOIN AT THOSE COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL MENTIONED. THE LAST THREE JUST SEEM CANDIDLY, TOTALLY OUT OF BOUNDS TO A PLANNING COMMISSION OR, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT I DON'T SAY I'M NOT. THERE'S LITTLE WISDOM TO ME IN TELLING AN HOA WHAT TO DO. FOR MANY OF THE REASONS COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL RAISED, SOME ARE ACTIVE, SOME ARE NOT RIGHT. AND HONESTLY, YOU'RE GOING TO KIND OF GET AN INDIRECT REGULATION ON IT. BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A COOP PER SE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO YOUR HOA AND PROBABLY GET PERMISSION TO BUILD THE COOP BECAUSE THERE'S USUALLY CURTILAGE REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD AN OUTBUILDING, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED HOA APPROVAL THROUGH [01:10:02] AN ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE OR SIMILAR COMMITTEE. SO IT'S LIKE BY DEFAULT IT'S ALREADY THERE. THE SIGN OFF FROM NEIGHBORS. I MEAN, SHOULD YOU? YES. SHOULD IT BE MANDATED BY ORDINANCE? I DON'T THINK SO, PERSONALLY, BUT. AND THEN LASTLY, THE QUESTION OF BABY CHICKENS AND WHAT TO DO WITH THEM. THAT IS A TO ME, A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION MORE SO THAN AN ORDINANCE QUESTION. WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT A DEFINITION OF THREE MONTHS OUT THERE. SO I'M. WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION. I'M JUST SAYING I'VE SEEN THAT IN OTHER PLACES. IF WE WERE GOING TO GO UP THIS ROUTE, I WOULD LOOK THAT UP AND I WOULD I WOULD DEFINE THAT BETTER. MAYBE A MIDDLE GROUND ON NEIGHBOR SIGN OFF MIGHT BE NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION. WE NOTIFY PEOPLE WHEN THERE'S A ZONING APPLICATION IF THEY'RE ADJACENT THAT THEY HAVE. YEAH. BUT THERE'S A HEARING IN THAT CASE THERE'S NO HEARING INVOLVED. THIS PERMIT IT TALKS ABOUT IS SIMPLY EMAIL THE COMMUNITY PLANNING DIRECTOR AND SAY, I WANT TO DO THIS. WE DON'T HAVE A SEPARATE APPLICATION. RIGHT. BUT THEN YOU COULD NOTIFY ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. TO WHAT END? YOUR PHONE NUMBER AT THE BOTTOM AND SAY, IF YOU OBJECT, CALL BRIAN AND BY THAT YOU MEAN CALL THE NEXT THE NEXT PERSON OF BRIAN'S JOB AND THE NEXT PERSON, THE NEXT PERSON AFTER THEY'RE FACING THREE, YOU KNOW, NINE PHONE CALLS A WEEK FROM ANGRY NEIGHBORS OVER CHICKENS. THE ONLY THING THAT MR. CHAIR, THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT ON, IS THAT WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED. I DON'T THINK THIS BULLET POINT IS PROPOSING TO DICTATE TO AN HOA, BUT RATHER IT'S GIVING THE GIVE. LIKE WE DON'T WANT TO APPROVE SOMETHING AND WE DON'T REGULATE HOA AT THE TOWNSHIP. RIGHT. WE'RE PUTTING WE WOULD THIS WOULD PUT THE ONUS ON THE PERSON WHO WANTS TO PUT THE CHICKEN IN CHICKENS IN. OKAY, TELL US IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOUR BOARD BECAUSE IT'S NOT UNCOMMON THAT AN HOA WOULD SAY NO, YOU CAN'T. IF THAT BEING THE CASE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. IT'S NOT US TELLING THE HOA WHAT TO DO. IT'S US ASKING THE HOA. WHAT WOULD YOU DO? DO YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN? THE DISTINCTION. RIGHT. BUT EVEN PERSONALLY, AS AN HOA PRESIDENT, I LIKE TO POINT BACK TO ORDINANCE AND SAY ORDINANCE CONTROLS, ALTHOUGH YOU CAN ARGUE IT DOES OR IT DOESN'T. BUT I LIKE TO SIT THERE AND SAY ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE RULES RATHER THAN HOA RULES. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO RULE ON THINGS AS AN HOA. I DON'T WANT TO HANDLE THOSE ISSUES. I DON'T WANT TO AND DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OR TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THERE'S PLENTY OF THINGS THAT HOA, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THEY'RE JUST WORDS ON A PAPER, ON A PIECE OF PAPER. YOU CAN INTERPRET THEM A LOT OF WAYS. AND I'M GOING TO PUSH BACK HARDER. OUR COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS CLEARLY PROHIBIT CHICKENS. AND THE ONLY WAY WE GET THEM IS BY SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THAT. GO NOTIFY THE TOWNSHIP. AND WE LIKE THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO ENFORCE THAT, OTHER THAN SUING ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS, WELL, YOU COULD FIND THEM, AND THEN YOU COULD PLACE A LIEN DUE TO THE FINE. WELL, WE COULD, THOUGH, IF WE IF WE SAID TO FOLLOW YOUR LOGIC, IF YOU IF THEY COME TO YOU AND SAY, CAN I DO THIS? AND YOU SAY, GO TALK TO THE TOWNSHIP. IF THEY TALK TO THE TOWNSHIP. OKAY. BUT WHO SAYS THEY CAN'T TALK TO THE TOWNSHIP? BECAUSE AGAIN, I SAID, I DON'T HAVE A PERMIT. I DON'T HAVE A I DON'T HAVE LIKE YOU CAN'T GO INTO THE INTO THE INTO OUR DEPARTMENT AND AND PULL THE CHICKEN PERMIT. IT'S IT'S JUST IT'S IT'S A IT'S A MORE INFORMAL. YEAH. SO IF YOU DECIDED YOU DIDN'T LIKE TOMORROW YOU DECIDE TO TAKE A HARD LINE STANCE. WE WOULD JUST STOP ALLOWING THOSE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ENFORCE IT. WE WOULD JUST NOT APPROVE IT. I'M DEFENDING A BULLET POINT THAT I DIDN'T PROPOSE. [LAUGHS] WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE. THE HOA, THOUGH. IS THAT. OR NOT? NOT THAT ACTUALLY. SO DO. SO THIS IS ALL ABOUT CHICKENS AND RABBITS. AND WE HAVE THIS MAX CAP. DO WE HAVE REGULATIONS ON AN ORDINANCE ON DOGS, LIKE WHEN YOU GET A DOG? YES. IT'S A BIG SCARY DOG. LIKE, DO YOU HAVE TO GO TELL YOUR NEIGHBORS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET ONE? NOT A DOG. WE DO HAVE WE HAVE A WE HAVE A DEFINITION FOR A RESIDENTIAL KENNEL AND A COMMERCIAL KENNEL. AND YOU DON'T TRIGGER THOSE UNTIL YOU GET TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DOGS. I'D HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE THE SPECIFICS. A DOG ISN'T GOING TO TRIGGER THAT THOUGH. SO IF. SO LET'S SAY I HAVE FIVE DOGS, BUT I DON'T HAVE A KENNEL. I JUST HAVE DOGS. THEY'RE MINE. IS THAT THE SAME THING AS HAVING FOUR CHICKENS OR FOUR RABBITS? [01:15:04] NO. A KENNEL IS ANY LOT OR PREMISES USED FOR SALE BOARDING OR BREEDING OF CATS, DOGS, DOGS, CATS, OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD PETS OVER THE AGE OF SIX MONTHS. ALSO MEANS THE KEEPING OF FIVE DOGS, CATS OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD PETS HAVING FOUR LEGS OVER THE AGE OF SIX MONTHS. SO IF YOU'VE GOT FIVE DOGS, YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY, BY DEFINITION, A KENNEL. NOW THAT'S FOLLOWED BY COMMERCIAL KENNEL. THAT'S IF YOU'RE COMMERCIAL SALE BOARDING TREATMENT OF DOGS. SO NOW YOU'RE NOW MONEY'S INVOLVED, RIGHT? YEP. AND THEN WE GO ON TO REGULATE WHERE YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO A KENNEL. AND I'D HAVE TO DIG, YOU KNOW. YEAH. BUT IT'S NOT TREATED THE SAME. OKAY. SO IS IT. SO TEN DOGS. IS IT MORE RESTRICTIVE. AND THE CHICKEN AND RABBIT CASE OR LESS RESTRICTIVE BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED? WHAT DO YOU MEAN RESTRICTIVE? LIKE IT SAYS, YOU CAN KEEP TEN. YEAH. SO YOU BECOME A KENNEL. SO THAT MEANS YOU COULD GET YOU COULD GET NINE DOGS AND I WOULDN'T HAVE TO TELL A TOWNSHIP ANYTHING. NO, IT'S 5 OR 5. OKAY. SO I COULD GET FOUR DOGS AND I WOULDN'T HAVE TO TELL THE TOWNSHIP ANYTHING. YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT. THEN IF I GOT FIVE, I'D HAVE TO TELL SOMEBODY. IF YOU GET FIVE AND SOMEBODY COMPLAINS, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING DISTRICT AND SEE IF THAT'S ALLOWED AS A USE, RIGHT. IF YOU'VE GOT A CHICKEN, WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO AT LEAST EMAIL US AND LET US KNOW YOU HAVE A CHICKEN. SO WE HAVE A RECORD OF IT, RIGHT. BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT FOR A DOG, RIGHT? AND A DOG. THEY BITE PEOPLE. THEY. BUT THE COUNTY REQUIRES A LICENSE FOR THOSE, DON'T THEY? I'M SORRY. DOESN'T THE COUNTY REQUIRE THAT YOUR DOG BE LICENSED? YES, THAT IS TRUE. SO IT'S NOT OUR ZONING, BUT THERE IS A LICENSURE FOR A PET DOG. IS THERE ONE FOR CAT? I THINK SO. YEAH. I MISREAD THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE KENNEL. PRIVATE, WHICH ALLOWS UP TO TEN ANIMALS COMMERCIAL KENNEL, REGARDLESS OF THE OWNERSHIP SO A KENNEL, A COMMERCIAL KENNEL, AND THEN A KENNEL. OKAY. SO KEEPING MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL, KEEPING MORE THAN TEN ANIMALS IS A COMMERCIAL KENNEL, REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP OF THE ANIMALS. SO YOU BECOME REGULATED AS COMMERCIAL. YOU CAN STILL HAVE THE TEN. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK IT'S SAYING REGARDLESS. SO. SO LET'S SAY I'M WATCHING THE I'M WATCHING THREE OF MY NEIGHBOR'S SNAKES AND I HAVE FOUR DOGS, THREE CATS NOW I AM A PRIVATE KENNEL BECAUSE I HAVE TEN ANIMALS REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP. BY DEFINITION, THEY DON'T HAVE FOUR LEGS. FOUR LEGS. [LAUGHS] SORRY I MISSED THE DEFINITION IN THE FIRST DEFINITION OF KENNEL. KENNEL ALSO MEANS KEEPING A FIVE DOGS, CATS, OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD PETS HAVING FOUR LEGS OVER THE AGE OF SIX MONTHS. OKAY. SO I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GETTING A FIELD OF THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF YOU. YEAH. WELL, NO, I DON'T THINK WE ARE, BECAUSE MY POINT WAS THAT THAT CHICKENS, TO ME AT LEAST, THAT THEY. LIKE, I DON'T I STRUGGLE WITH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHICKENS AND RABBITS AND DOGS AND CATS. THEY ARE REGULATED COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY. THE BASIC QUESTION IN FRONT OF YOU IS, DO YOU WANT THEM IN THE RB DISTRICT AND THE RX DISTRICT? AND THEN IF YOU DO, DO YOU WANT OTHER REGULATIONS ON TOP OF THAT? SINCE WE'RE OPENING THE LID ON THIS, WHAT IS THE DENSITY IN RB/RD? I'M SORRY RB [INAUDIBLE] RB IS 8000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS HERE. THANK YOU. YES, YES. I JUST WANT TO SAY, THOUGH, THAT YOU SAID THE BASIC QUESTION IS WHETHER WE SHOULD EXPAND IN ZONING. I AGREE. AND THERE'S ALL THESE OTHER POINTS UNDER HERE. [01:20:04] RIGHT. AND IT SAYS WHAT DO WE DO WITH CHICKENS AND RABBITS? AND I'M, I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE THAT. I THINK THAT CHICKENS AND RABBITS ARE PETS OR THINGS THAT PEOPLE EAT OR LAY EGGS. AND IF WE SET A CAP ON THEM OR WHATEVER, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT, LIKE THAT'S ALREADY IN HERE, THAT SEEMS APPROPRIATE. SO THE QUESTION WAS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, JUST TO COMPARE THE RA DISTRICT WHERE CHICKENS ARE ALLOWED IS 10,000FT² MINIMUM LOT. AND THEN THE RB DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE CRUX OF THE QUESTION. HONESTLY, WE HAVE A LOT MORE RB PROPERTIES THAN WE DO RX. THAT'S AN 8000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. RX IT DEPENDS. THE THING ABOUT THE RX ZONE IS THAT IT ALLOWS A DUPLEX, SO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE DEPENDS ON IF IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX. IT'S A HIGHER MINIMUM FOR DUPLEX. CAN YOU IMAGINE ALLOWING CHICKENS ON A DUPLEX. SO ACTUALLY SO, I ACTUALLY HAVE BACKYARD CHICKENS. AND CURRENTLY THE RULES FOR THE SETBACKS MEAN THAT THEY REALLY WON'T IMPINGE OTHER THAN LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF NOISE ON THE NEIGHBORS. THERE'S NOT ISSUES WITH LIKE, SMELL OR THINGS LIKE THAT. AND SO PERSONALLY, I FEEL THAT AS LONG AS THOSE SETBACKS ARE MAINTAINED, WHICH THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE CHICKEN ORDINANCE, I, THE I DON'T KNOW IF THERE NEEDS TO BE A A ZONING RESTRICTION AS LONG AS THERE'S SPACE FOR THEM. THAT THAT'S ONCE AGAIN, I'M VERY PRO CHICKEN. I HAVE THEM MYSELF. BUT THAT WAS MY FEELING IS THE SETBACKS IS REALLY WHAT IS NECESSARY SO THAT YOU DON'T BOTHER YOUR NEIGHBORS. AND THEN THERE'S ALL THE RULES ABOUT SANITATION AND STUFF TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SPACE AND A GOOD, A GOOD PLACE TO KEEP THEM. LIKE, I CAN IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, A TOWER COMPLEX AND THEY WANT TO HAVE THEIR LITTLE CHICKENS IN THE CORNER. AND I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HURT ANYTHING, BUT THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE. I JUST PUT IT OUT THERE WHEN I READ THIS AND WENT THROUGH THIS, I DIDN'T WANT TO TOUCH THIS QUESTION AS A WHOLE AND JUST SAY, WE'VE REVIEWED AND WE FIND THEM APPROPRIATE, LIKE I. I THINK THOSE SETBACK ISSUES ARE REALLY IMPORTANT, AND I WASN'T FOCUSING ON THAT PREVIOUSLY. IS IT CONCEIVABLE THAT A SMALL ENOUGH LOT WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL GIVEN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS CONCEIVABLE? SURE. WE HAVE UNDERSIZED LOTS THAT EXIST. THE LAKE PLOTS VERY OFTEN HAVE TO GET VARIANCES TO BUILD DECKS, HOUSES, ADDITIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT WOULD BE THE MECHANISM. WELL I WANT, I WANT TO PUT CHICKEN, I'M RB. YOU'RE NOW LETTING THEM IN THE RB DISTRICT. I WANT TO PUT THESE CHICKENS IN. BUT I GOT TO BE FIVE FEET NOT TEN FEET. I DON'T KNOW UNTIL I SEE THE ZBA CALL, I'LL MAKE A CALL ON THAT [LAUGHS]. I DON'T KNOW WHICH. I WOULD EVEN BEGIN TO PREDICT THAT, GIVEN THE COMPLAINTS THAT YOU'VE HEARD, IS THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FUNCTIONING AS YOU WOULD HOPE? WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY ZBA REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES. WE HAVEN'T ANY VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE CHICKEN COOPS. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION THAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING. THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING HOW COME I CAN'T HAVE IT WHEN MY NEIGHBOR DOWN THE STREET DOES? AND THE ANSWER IS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ZONED, RIGHT. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY. SO AS I WAS JUST KIND OF GOOGLING USING AI LIKE WHAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES SAY I NOTICED THAT DETROIT'S ORDINANCE ALSO INCLUDES A PROHIBITION ON SLAUGHTERING THE ANIMALS ON THE PROPERTY. SHOULD OURS HAVE THAT TOO? I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULDN'T. BUT IF IT DOESN'T SAY IT, SHOULD IT? OR IF WE'RE PROPOSING SOME CHANGES ANYWAY. NO, YOU CAN'T SELL THE EGGS. BUT, LIKE, IF YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT STAFF TO DO THAT, TO LOOK INTO THAT STAFF WILL. THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, NEVERMIND. BUT IF IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEELS LIKE THAT'S A, THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS. I'M JUST THINKING IF IT'S GETTING OPENED UP AND CHANGED, THIS MIGHT BE THE TIME TO ADD THAT. BUT IF IT'S NOT AN ISSUE, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE US DOWN A PATH. BUT SO MY PERSPECTIVE, IF IT WAS SUCH A SMALL NUMBER OF ANIMALS, IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LARGE OPERATION OF LIKE A SLAUGHTER DAY AND IT'S GOING TO BOTHER ALL THE NEIGHBORS. LIKE THE PREPARATION. I'VE NEVER SLAUGHTERED ANY OF MY CHICKENS. THE RACCOONS GET THEM BEFORE I CAN. BUT LIKE, THAT'S A PROCESS THAT'S USUALLY DONE, LIKE, IN YOUR KITCHEN, AND IT'S NOT A BOTHER TO ANYONE. [01:25:05] I DON'T KNOW. DO THEY HAVE A LOT MORE CHICKENS ALLOWED IN THERE OR THEY ALLOWED UP TO EIGHT? I GUESS MAYBE THERE'S TWO. I MEAN, TO THAT POINT, THOUGH. SO THE CHICKENS ARE GETTING EATEN BY THE RACCOONS, AND THE RACCOONS ARE RUNNING AROUND AND SPREADING THE CHICKENS AROUND. AND I'M ASSUMING THAT NOBODY'S CAUGHT THE AVIAN FLU YET. NOT ANY OF MY CHICKENS. ALL RIGHT, I. SEE. OKAY, THIS IS JUST ME. THIS IS WHY I WAS ON THE. IF WE EVEN OPEN THIS UP. BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM OR ISSUE WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE. LIKE IT IS, PEOPLE ARE ASKING WHY THEY CAN'T HAVE CHICKENS. THEY CAN'T HAVE CHICKENS. YOU'RE JUST NOT ZONED FOR IT, YOU KNOW? I MEAN, ZONING RESTRICTIONS, NO MATTER WHAT. LIKE IS IT? THAT'S WHY I HESITATE TO OPEN IT UP. I MEAN, AND IT JUST DOES SEEM I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG YOU'VE HAD YOUR CHICKENS, BUT, LIKE, I THINK ABOUT MY WIFE PERSONALLY. AND SHE WAS ON A BIG CHICKEN KICK FOR A WHILE BECAUSE SHE SAW THEM AND THOUGHT IT'D BE COOL TO HAVE CHICKENS. AND I DO NOT. AND IT DIDN'T GO ANY FURTHER. SO IT'S LIKE IT'S JUST JUST LIKE A PASSING FAD BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING MY WIFE WOULD DO, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. LIKE, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE ZONE. WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE ORDINANCES IN ORDER FOR, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE OR NOT ACCOMMODATE A FAD. SO I'VE HAD MY CHICKEN. THERE WERE A PANDEMIC PROJECT, SO MAYBE IT WAS A FAD. THOUGH I HAVE NEIGHBORS TWO DOORS DOWN THAT HAVE HAD CHICKENS FOR OVER A DECADE. AND YEAH, SO I WOULD, I WOULD SAY PEOPLE IN ZONE RB, IF THEY HAVE A LOT BIG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE THE SETBACKS, I DON'T SEE WHY THEY COULDN'T USE PART OF THEIR YARD TO HOLD A COOP. JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE IN RB. BUT ONCE AGAIN, I'M VERY PRO CHICKEN. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT THAT SHOULD BE THE ACTION OF THE BOARD, BUT THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO. I AGREE. I MEAN, I THINK RB OR ANYTHING WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, WHICH IS WHERE THE CHICKEN ORDINANCE IS PRIMARILY BEING APPLIED HERE. SO AS LONG AS IT CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT SETBACKS, I DON'T SEE WHY THOSE ZONES COULDN'T BE ADDED. OKAY. WELL, PRESUMABLY THEY WERE EXCLUDED WHEN THE CHICKEN ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. HOW DO WE OF KNOWING WHY THE ORDINANCE EXCLUDED THOSE TWO ZONING DISTRICTS WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED? THAT IS A DEFINITE MAYBE. SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING FOR AN INTERN. IT ALL GOES BACK TO THE RR DISTRICT, WHICH IS ITS OWN ISSUE. I GUESS THE ONE KEEPING OF. ACTUALLY, NO, I COULD LOOK, THIS IS LOOK IT WAS AMENDED 51722 BY ORDINANCE 2022-07. I YEAH, STAFF COULD LOOK INTO THIS RIGHT AT THE END OF THE I HAVE A BAD ARGUMENT WHEREAS RESOLUTION. NOW THEREFORE YEAH. YEAH THAT'S THAT'S NOT VERY THAT'S NOT VERY LONG AGO AT ALL. STAFF CAN LOOK AT THAT AND GET BACK TO YOU. THANK YOU. IF YOU'D LIKE TO PUNT THIS A BIT. SO IN THIS WILD CHICKEN CHASE. WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DEFINE FOR YOU, MR. SHORKEY? LIKE WHICH ELEMENTS OF THESE WE ARE INTERESTED IN? YEAH. AT SOME POINT STEPH'S GOT TO WRITE A GOT TO PUT TOGETHER A RESOLUTION. I MEAN, DO WE WANT TO DECIDE TONIGHT WHICH OF THESE WE SEND STAFF ON SUCH A CHICKEN CHASE FOR. OR LET ME, LET ME SUGGEST, IF I MAY, LET ME LOOK INTO THE QUESTION OF WHY WERE THEY LEFT OUT. A 2022 ORDINANCE IS NOT THAT LONG AGO. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT. LET ME PUT THAT TOGETHER FOR YOU AND COME BACK. AND THEN WHEN YOU SEE THAT YOU'VE YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT A CHANCE. STAFF WANTED TO INTRODUCE THE QUESTION TONIGHT, BUT WE DON'T EXPECT AN ANSWER TONIGHT. OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES. JUST BEFORE WE SENT YOU OFF ON RESEARCHING FOR BULLET POINTS, I WAS GOING TO SAY IF THERE'S TWO WE ARE GENERALLY DISINTERESTED IN, THEN WE KNOW THAT'S VALID. YES, YES. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE, LIKE I SAID, I. DID BULLETS TWO, THREE AND FOUR ARE, I WOULD JUST SAY OF GENERAL OR OF NOT INTEREST TO ME. AND OTHERS. YEAH I AGREE AS WELL. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF GIVING MORE AUTHORITY TO THE HOA. [01:30:09] JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. THAT IS A CORRECT INTERPRETATION AS AN HOA PRESIDENT. AND I WOULD SAY I AGREE WITH YOU, EXCEPT FOR THE QUESTION OF SORT OF DEFINITION OF THE NUMBER, IF THE ORDINANCE HAS A NUMBER AND THERE'S SOME QUESTION THAT LITTLE ONES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED SOMEHOW FROM THAT NUMBER, WE DO HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CHICK OR A BABY BUNNY. VERY WELL. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S AGREEMENT ON BULLET ONE. AND THEN MAYBE THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION OR BULLET FOUR OF AN EXCLUSION FOR NEWBORN OR NURSING SOMETHING ON CHICKS AND RABBITS. OKAY. BECAUSE. YEAH, IT. YEAH. CHICKS AND RABBITS SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED UNTIL THEY ARE OF A CERTAIN AGE. RIGHT. AND THEN. YEAH. TOWARD THE MAX. OKAY. I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION. OKAY. IS THERE ANY IS THERE ANYTHING IN OUR ORDINANCE IN WHICH A SINGLE FAMILY LOT REQUIRES SIGN OFF FROM ADJACENT NEIGHBORS IN ORDER TO DO THAT ACTION? A COMPARABLE. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. BECAUSE. BECAUSE IF IT'S IF IF IT WAS ONLY GOING TO BE PUT ON THERE FOR CHICKENS ANY NOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORS IS GOING TO INVOLVE A HEARING OF SOME SORT. WE USED TO WE USED. WHEN I STARTED HERE, WE DID A HEARING FOR SITE PLANS. SITE PLANS ARE ADMINISTRATIVE, BUT THERE WAS A BIT IN THE, IN THE, IN THE LANGUAGE WHERE WE HAD TO HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE, BEFORE IT COULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. AND THAT'S NOT DICTATED BY STATE LAW. SO WE DON'T HAVE A 300 FOOT NOTIFICATION. THAT WAS ADJACENCY. AND WE TOOK THAT OUT. AND THAT WAS JUST OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT, NOT OPPORTUNITY TO VETO OR SIGN OFF ON. RIGHT, RIGHT. SO THIS THIS THIS WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING OF, OF OF HOW THIS WAS DONE IN, IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY BY ANOTHER STAFF MEMBER. LIKE IF THEY GOT A, IF THEY GOT THEIR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR WAS TO RESPOND AND SAY, WELL, NO, I DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE IT, THEY WOULDN'T GET THAT PERMIT. WE DON'T HAVE THAT MECHANISM ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE ORDINANCE. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, [INAUDIBLE] COMMISSIONER BROOKS. I MEAN, TO ME, WHY A CHICKEN, CAT, DOG? YOU KNOW, MY MOTHER IN LAW JUST GOT DONKEYS IN HER PLACE IN CLAIRE, LIKE, I MEAN, GOOD FOR YOU. WHY PICK CHICKENS FOR NEIGHBOR APPROVAL? SO, I MEAN, I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I THINK PART OF THE REASON IS THE ORDINANCE IS LIKE THIS IS BECAUSE CHICKENS AND RABBITS ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY, LIKE, USUALLY RAISED OUTSIDE AND IN A WAY THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE DISRUPTIVE TO NEIGHBORS. IT'S TRUE THAT YOU CAN HAVE, LIKE, PET RABBITS INSIDE AND, YOU KNOW, BE HONEST, YOU COULD HAVE A PET CHICKEN INSIDE IF YOU WANTED TO, BUT YEAH, I THINK IT'S THAT THESE THINGS ARE KIND OF USING THEIR YARD IN AN UNORTHODOX WAY THAT CAN IMPINGE ON THE NEIGHBORS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE TOO CLOSE OR IF THEY'RE NOT KEPT IN SANITARY CONDITIONS AND SUCH. THAT DOES MAKE SENSE. WHAT IF I HAD A REALLY LOUD CAT THAT WAS OUTSIDE. OKAY. AND YOU GOT NOISE ORDINANCES, RIGHT? MR. SHORKEY, DO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED FOR THE NEXT FOR THE NEXT MEETING ON THE CHICKEN ORDINANCE? YEAH. LET ME LOOK INTO THE 2022 ORDINANCE THAT CREATED THE CHICKEN ORDINANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND SEE IF THERE WAS ANY GUIDANCE THERE. AND YOU WANT ME TO LOOK INTO THE DEFINITION AND MAYBE PUT A MINIMUM AGE OF A CHICKEN BEFORE IT COUNTS AS A CHICKEN OR RABBIT FOR COUNTS, CHICKEN? RABBIT? YEAH, THAT'S NO PROBLEM. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON ELEMENT 9.C THE CHICKEN ORDINANCE UPDATE? WE SHALL STRUT ON TO REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. [10.A. Township Board update] TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE. OH. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC EXCEPT THAT THE AUTHENTIX THAT I SAID AT THE LAST MEETING WAS GOING TO BE ON THE NEXT BOARD AGENDA, WASN'T ON THE NEXT BOARD AGENDA. THERE WAS AN ILLNESS. SO IT'S BEEN MOVED. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT'S COMING UP. I HAVEN'T I'M NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THAT. BUT THAT DECISION IS STILL FORTHCOMING ON THAT CENTRAL PARK BOULEVARD CENTRAL CENTRAL PARK DRIVE PROJECT. OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE NOTHING FOR YOU. THANK YOU, MR. SHORKEY. LIAISON REPORTS FOR THOSE OF US THAT LIAISE THE REPORT? NOTHING TO REPORT. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. NOPE. PROJECT UPDATES, I BELIEVE, WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. [11. PROJECT UPDATES] YES. I'D BE PLEASED TO SEE THAT THERE'S SOME EATERIES ON THERE. YES, I'M EXCITED FOR CROISSANTS, I BELIEVE. RIGHT. [01:35:05] YES, YES. PUBLIC REMARKS. THERE ARE NO PUBLIC TO HEAR TODAY. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. HEARING NONE. I MOVE TO ADJOURN. SECOND. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BROOKS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? WE ARE CLOSED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.