Mar 09, 2026 Planning Commission

[00:00:38]

YEAH. DO WE? WE KNOW COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY WAS GOING TO BE HERE.

DO WE KNOW ABOUT MCCONNELL? COMMISSIONER SNYDER IS NOT GOING TO BE HERE.

SNYDER WILL NOT BE HERE. OKAY, WE'LL GIVE IT TWO MORE MINUTES FOR COMMISSIONER.

OKAY. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, BUT. OKAY.

ANY AND ALL FEEDBACK. ALL RIGHT, BRIAN SAID. I'LL SHOOT.

LET'S SEE WHAT HE SAYS. I GOT AN IS THAT MCCONNELL? YES IT IS. OKAY. SO WE SHOULD NOT EXPECT MCCONNELL.

OKAY. WELL, BEFORE AT 6:35, I WILL CALL THE MARCH 9TH, 2026 MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

HERE. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL IS NOT HERE. COMMISSIONER BROOKS.

PRESENT. AND VICE CHAIR MCCURTIS. HERE. AND THEN THE CHAIR IS HERE, WE'LL NOTE COMMISSIONER SNYDER IS NOT PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL IS PRESENT AND COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY IS NOT PRESENT.

HOWEVER, BASED ON OUR BYLAWS, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM TO OPERATE.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT WOULD MEAN EVERY VOTE WOULD NEED THREE QUARTERS. WE NEED THREE OUT OF FOUR. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. YOU NEED A MAJORITY. YOU NEED A MAJORITY. A MAJORITY OF THE QUORUM.

OKAY. ITEM THREE PUBLIC REMARKS. ANY PUBLIC REMARKS? NO PUBLIC REMARKS. ITEM FOUR ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF TODAY'S AGENDA.

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NAHUM ANY. ALL, ALL, ALL IN FAVOR AYE? AYE. ALL OPPOSED? THE AGENDA IS APPROVED. ITEM FIVE ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 20TH,

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE. I MOVE TO APPROVE.

MOVED BY VICE CHAIR MCCURTIS. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NAHUM.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

MR SHORKEY. STANDARD COMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE WHAT APPEARS TO BE KIND OF A STANDARD NOTICE FROM THE CITY OF WILLIAMSTON ON A NOTICE OF DISTRIBUTION.

[6. COMMUNICATIONS]

[00:05:01]

IF YOU GUYS INDIVIDUALLY GO THROUGH IT, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO DEVOTE A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO GOING THROUGH THIS.

YOU KNOW, CITY OF WILLIAMSON'S MASTER PLAN. BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, IF YOU SUBMIT THEM TO ME, I'LL COMPILE THEM AND I'LL GET THEM OFF. I'LL PUT THEM ON AN OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION AND THE SECRETARY SIGNS OFF AS AN OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION TO THE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THAT CASE. VERY WELL. WE'LL LEAVE IT TO THE MEMBERS TO SEND ANY COMMUNICATIONS. OTHERWISE, WE WISH THE CITY OF WILLIAMSON BEST OF LUCK ON THEIR MASTER PLAN. NUMBER SEVEN ON THE AGENDA. WE HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS REZ #26006.

[7.A. REZ #26006 – Tekchandani]

2936 JOLLY ROAD FROM C-1 COMMERCIAL TO RB SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

THIS IS A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD REZONING. THE APPLICANT WENT IN TO DO SOME REFINANCING.

HE IS, IN HIS IN HIS OWN WORDS, HE'S GETTING OLDER LOOKING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY.

HE DOES LEASE IT. IT IS USED RESIDENTIALLY, HAS BEEN FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

CAN'T GET A REFI ON IT BECAUSE IT'S ZONED COMMERCIAL.

SO THIS BRINGS IT IN THIS, THIS REZONING BRINGS IT INTO CONFORMANCE.

THERE'S NO OTHER CHANGE. THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING AND BUILD NEW OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

STAFF WILL NOTE THE TWO PROPERTIES DIRECTLY TO THE WEST ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION.

WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM, BUT IT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WORTH LOOKING AT AT LEAST IN THE NEXT MASTER PLAN UPDATE SHOULD THEY STILL BE FUTURE LAND USE COMMERCIAL. THE APPLICANT IS REPRESENTED AND I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT REALLY THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHORKEY? I HAVE ONE.

COMMISSIONER BROOKS. I AGREE THAT THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD SO MY QUESTION IS RELATED TO LIKE IT MENTIONS THAT IS SOMEWHAT CONNECTED TO THE OTHER CASE THAT WE HAVE THIS EVENING OR MAIN TOPIC.

SO IF A PROPERTY IS IN THE FLOODWAY, WHICH I THINK THAT'S THE CORRECT TERM.

SO THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE FLOODWAY. YEAH. THAT'S THE.

BASED ON THE PARCEL VIEWER. I'LL JUST SHOW YOU WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.

NOT TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT THAT'S OKAY. BY ALL MEANS, MR. SHORKEY. MAGICALLY, IT STOPS AT JOLLY ROAD, RIGHT? THAT IS MAGIC. NO. SO YOU CAN SEE THE OUR FLOODWAY DATA SHOWS THE WHOLE AREA.

NOW THIS REZONING DOESN'T AFFECT IT. IF THEY WANTED TO DO ANY EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING IN THE FUTURE, THERE IS A PROCESS. IF THERE WAS A BIG ENOUGH, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO DO COMPENSATING CUTS TO IF FOR WHEREVER YOU'RE FILLING IN FLOODWAY. AND IF IT'S, IF IT'S WITH, IF IT'S TEN YARDS OR FEWER, THEN IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BY OUR FLOODPLAIN COORDINATOR.

IF IT GOES ABOVE TEN YARDS, THAT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS.

YEAH, I JUST I WAS THINKING OF THIS PROPERTY AND I WAS THINKING OF THE OTHER ONES IN THIS WHOLE AREA BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN WE GET LOTS OF RAIN LIKE WE HAVE OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS, IT TENDS TO FILL UP. SO I DON'T WANT TO. I WOULDN'T WANT THIS QUESTION TO IMPACT THE CURRENT OWNER.

IS THERE A ZONING, THOUGH THAT WOULD ALMOST. WHAT'S MY QUESTION? IS THERE A WAY TO PREVENT MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODWAY? THIS IS A SINGLE PARCEL AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DIVIDED.

THIS MINIMUM LOT THE MINIMUM LOT, THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IN THE RB DISTRICT IS 65FT.

THIS IS 65FT. YOU CAN'T DIVIDE THIS PROPERTY.

OKAY. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANOTHER HOUSE ON THIS PROPERTY. OR IF SOMEBODY BOUGHT SEVERAL THE THREE LOTS AND COMBINE AND COMBINE THE PARCELS LIKE YOU, I MEAN 65 TIMES THREE, IT'S 202. IT'S 195.

I MEAN YOU CAN GET MORE IN THREE LOTS BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE THREE LOTS THERE, RIGHT.

SO BUT MY QUESTION IS STILL THOUGH. IS THERE A THERE GOING TO BE.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUY THREE HOUSES, TEAR THEM DOWN TO BUILD THREE NEW HOUSES.

THEY FIND. I MEAN THAT'S PRETTY UNLIKELY SCENARIO.

YEAH. I'M NOT I'M, I AGREE. MY QUESTION THOUGH IS IS THERE A, A REZONING THAT WOULD JUST SORT OF PREVENT THE PROPERTY FROM BEING DEVELOPED MORE THOUGH.

THIS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THE QUESTION, FRANKLY.

THIS IS OUR THIS IS RB. THIS MEETS THE RB DIMENSIONS.

[00:10:03]

THE WAY THAT ORDINANCE IS SET UP FUNCTIONALLY, YOU CAN'T BUILD IN THE FLOODWAY.

SO IT APPLIES TO EVERY PROPERTY ALREADY. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SORRY, MR. SHORKEY. NO, IT'S.

I WAS ASKING THIS IN A BAD WAY. SO I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND I AGREE WITH WHAT YOUR POINTS WERE THAT I DON'T SEE THESE GETTING DEVELOPED AS MORE.

I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHORKEY? AS I EXPLAINED TO THE APPLICANT, HE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, HE IS HERE.

YOU'RE NOT MAKING A DECISION TONIGHT. WE'LL COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS WITH A A RESOLUTION.

TYPICALLY IN THE PAST YOU'VE DONE A STRAW POLL AND, BUT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE BOARD? OKAY. HEARING NONE. SIR, IF YOU WISH TO, MR. TEKCHANDANI IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, YOU MAY.

IF NOT, YOU HAVE NO REQUIREMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL MEMBERS ON A STRAW POLL FOR I.

WE'LL BE BACK IN TWO WEEKS. THANK YOU, MR. SHORKEY.

RECORD ALSO REFLECT 6:42 COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL ARRIVED.

NO, JUST FOR A NICE CLEAN RECORD.

NO, IT'S ALL RIGHT. I HAVE NOW LOCKED. SO WE ARE NOW ON ITEM.

[8.A. REZ #26004 – Capstone]

REZ#2600 FOR CAPSTONE. AND WE'LL RECOGNIZE DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

WHAT DO YOU WANT UP? JUST GO AHEAD AND PULL UP THE GOOGLE MAPS.

YEAH, THAT'D BE FINE. SO AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE DISCUSSION FROM TWO WEEKS AGO, THIS IS A REZONING OF THE REAR ESSENTIALLY THE END OF HANNAH BOULEVARD BETWEEN HANNAH BOULEVARD AND INDIAN LAKES ESTATES.

THE PROPERTY IN TOTAL IS APPROXIMATELY 69 ACRES CURRENTLY SPLIT BETWEEN PO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND RAA ONE FAMILY LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL REZONING TO RD MULTIPLE FAMILY, WHICH IS UP TO EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

THEY HAVE PROVIDED A SERIES OF CONDITIONS WHICH ARE THAT THE, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE IN THE FUTURE. THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE SITE SHOULD NOT EXCEED 270.

APPROXIMATELY 38 ACRES OF THE SITE SHALL REMAIN UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE AND A NATURAL BUFFER ZONE OF 248FT SHALL BE PROVIDED ADJACENT TO THE INDIAN LAKES RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. SO FUNCTIONALLY, WHAT THIS, THE APPROACH HERE IS, IS THAT ALL THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE PUSHED AS FAR WEST AS POSSIBLE TOWARDS HANNAH BOULEVARD AND EYDE PARKWAY AND THE AREA ADJACENT TO INDIAN LAKES ESTATES WILL BE PERMANENTLY PRESERVED. WE EXPECT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT DOWN THE ROAD, BUT THOSE ARE THE DETAILS THAT WE GET WITH THE PUD.

AND THAT'S SORT OF WHY THE PUD CONDITION IS THERE, RIGHT? THERE'S STEP ONE, WHICH IS TO GET THE REZONING IN PLACE, BUT YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY DO A PD UNTIL YOU HAVE THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

AND SO THAT'S STEP TWO. I EXPECT THAT IT WILL BE BACK WITH YOU YET THIS YEAR.

BUT THEY HAVE A LOT OF ENGINEERING TO DO, RIGHT? TO CONFIRM SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD LAST TIME WITH RESPECT TO DRAINAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT MAKE SURE THAT THEY'VE GOT IT RIGHT. SO BEFORE IT COMES BACK, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY PROVIDE PROPER ENGINEERING DETAIL ON THAT.

AND THAT'LL BE PART OF THE PUD SUBMITTAL THAT COMES LATER ON.

AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT IT'S A CONDITIONAL REZONING THAT'S PRESERVING ALMOST HALF THE SITE SLIGHTLY OVER HALF THE SITE ACTUALLY, AND THAT WE ARE LIMITING THE DENSITY AND PUSHING IT ALL TOWARDS THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STAFF HAS RAISED NO MAJOR CONCERNS, YOU KNOW, YOU ELIMINATE THAT SORT OF POTENTIAL CONNECTION, VEHICULAR CONNECTION, WHICH NORMALLY WE STAFF WOULD BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF.

BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD REALLY DOESN'T WANT US PRESERVING A SUBSTANTIAL AREA, INCLUDING A LARGE AMOUNT OF WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAIN AGAIN.

AND YOU ESSENTIALLY ARE COMPLETING FINALLY, ALMOST COMPLETING, THERE'S STILL ONE VACANT PARCEL, THE, THE HANNAH FARMS DEVELOPMENT OVER THERE.

AND SO BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

[00:15:03]

THIS IS THE FIRST ONE I'VE SEEN LIKE THIS ACTUALLY. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING GOING FORWARD IS A DATA POINT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.

HISTORICALLY TRAFFIC STUDIES ARE DONE BY, BY THE THE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT IS STANDARDIZED, RIGHT? SO COMMERCIAL GENERALLY SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED OFF THE USE RESIDENTIAL ITS NUMBER OF UNITS GENERALLY BASED OFF THE DENSITY.

THEY DO ACTUALLY APPEAR TO HAVE ENOUGH DATA NOW WITHIN THE TRIP GENERATION MANUALS TO PROVIDE A PER BED ANALYSIS FOR SPECIFIC ONES LIKE THIS.

THE UPSHOT OF IT IN THIS CASE IS NOTHING CHANGES BECAUSE WE'RE STILL PUTTING ALL THE TRAFFIC OUT TO TWO EXISTING LIGHTED INNER SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS.

SO THERE IS NO IMPACT ON THE LEVEL OF SERVICE.

BUT FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, THIS WILL BE VERY INTERESTING. YOU KNOW, IF WE GET ANOTHER PROJECT ON GRAND RIVER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. COMPARING AND CONTRASTING UNITS VERSUS BEDS AND SEEING IF THERE IS A TANGIBLE DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU HAVE A MORE DISPERSED TRAFFIC PATTERN.

BUT IN THIS CASE, IT HAS NO EFFECT. SO DIRECTOR SCHMITT, YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS IS STEP ONE.

STEP TWO IS THE PUD, WHICH IS THE WHICH WE WOULD EXPECT LATER THIS YEAR IS THE IS THAT RECALLED.

THE RESIDENTS AND THE APPLICANT HAD AN AGREEMENT ON NOT CONNECTING A CUT THROUGH.

RIGHT? CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE AT THE PUD STAGE NOT AT THIS STAGE.

SO FUNCTIONALLY THIS WOULD PREVENT IT BECAUSE OF THE UNDEVELOPED NATURE OF THE 38 ACRES.

AND THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN PROVIDED.

BUT YEAH, THIS [INAUDIBLE] TRAIL WILL NOT BE CONNECTED THROUGH IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT WILL BE FURTHER MEMORIALIZED WITH THE PD.

IT WILL BECOME A CONDITION OF THE PD APPROVAL SHOULD IT COME FORWARD.

YES, BUT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE HERE. IT'S APPROPRIATE AT THE PD. NO.

AND IN FACT, YOU CANNOT ADD CONDITIONS TO THIS UNDER A CONDITIONAL REZONING UNDER STATE LAW.

IT'S TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT OF WHAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDES.

THANK YOU STATE LAW. ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR SCHMITT? DOES ANYBODY ON THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BROOKS. AND SIR, IF YOU WOULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR THE RECORD.

SURE. JOHN ACKEN ON BEHALF OF CAPSTONE COMMUNITIES, 12 SPRING STREET, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA.

THANK YOU SIR. COMMISSIONER BROOKS. THANK YOU.

THANKS FOR REDOING THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT, BY THE WAY, I APPRECIATED THAT.

I AM CURIOUS ABOUT A FEW THINGS IN IT. SO I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST TO WALK THROUGH THIS THING.

OKAY. IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR ME AND FOR EVERYONE THAT I'M ASKING THE QUESTIONS OF.

SO. ON TABLE FOUR, ON PAGE TEN.

OR MAYBE TABLE. ACTUALLY, I'M NOT LOOKING. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY? YES. OKAY. YEAH. PAGE TEN OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S GOT PAGE NUMBERS IN OUR. THERE YOU GO.

PAGE 11. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YEAH. SO ON ON TABLE FOUR.

SO IN THE COMMENTS HERE IT SAYS. UNDER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH UNDER THERE IT SAYS CONDITIONS ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT ALL INTERSECTIONS IN THE STUDY AREA ARE ANTICIPATED TO OPERATE AT A LOS "C" OR BETTER DURING THE MORNING AND AFTERNOON PEAK HOURS, ETC.. AND THEN THERE'S OTHER PARAGRAPHS IN HERE WHERE THERE'S SAYS THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BASICALLY THE, THE USING THE UNIT COUNT VERSUS THE BED COUNT.

AND THEN IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH ON THE SAME PAGE, IT SAYS THE MOST AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL TURNING MOVEMENT IN THE STUDY AREA WAS AT THE HAGADORN ROAD AND EYDE PARKWAY INTERSECTION. THE SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURNING MOVEMENT LOS IS ANTICIPATED TO DECREASE FROM A LOS

[00:20:06]

AND I COULD BE MISUNDERSTANDING THE TABLE IS, IS EVERYTHING STILL ABOVE AN LOS "C" IN THE FUTURE? I THINK THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD THIS.

AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, AS THE DEVELOPER, NOT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER, THE ENGINEER WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE OF THE STUDY ITSELF.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING, I THINK THIS IS TRUE IN THIS PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH THAT LOOK AT THE TOP OF PAGE 11 THAT THE THE WAY THIS WILL WORK IS THAT THERE MAY BE SOME DELAY THAT MAY REQUIRE SOME CHANGES TO THE SIGNAL TIMING IN THE FUTURE.

BUT WHEN THAT OCCURS, WHICH IS STANDARD, THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC AND THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF COURSE, FROM OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND TIM, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SHINE SOME LIGHT ON THAT FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF HOW THAT WORKS WITH REGARD TO CHANGING OF THE TIMING, WITH REGARD TO THE STACKING LANES? YEAH. SO I THINK PART OF WHAT WE'RE GETTING AT HERE WITH THIS SPECIFIC ITEM IS THAT THAT LIGHT AT SOME POINT IS GOING TO BE UPGRADED, RIGHT? BECAUSE THE PRIMARY EXIT IS THE NORTHERN EXIT AND THE BOULEVARD HAGADORN IS OBVIOUSLY THE BIGGER INTERSECTION.

THE EYDE PARKWAY, HAGADORN INTERSECTION CURRENTLY.

AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MARK, STILL ONLY HAS DOES NOT HAVE A LEFT TURN LIGHT AT THIS TIME.

IT'S A SINGLE PHASE TURNING AND COMING. SO COMING OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT YOU HAVE LEFT AND RIGHT TRAFFIC, SHARING A LANE AND SHARING A LIGHT AT SOME POINT THAT WILL NEED TO GET UPDATED.

WHETHER THIS PROJECT GOES OR NOT, IT NEEDS TO GET A LEFT HAND TURN TO GET TO AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT IS DOWN THE ROAD, SOMETHING WE HAVE TO WORK WITH THE ROAD DEPARTMENT ON. BUT OUR PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE OTHER INTERSECTION BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE THAT HAS A LOT MORE TRAFFIC.

IT'S GOT THROUGH AND RIGHT. AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER WAS THAT THE PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. BUT. BUT THE TIMING OF THE SIGNAL TIMING MAY ADJUST, WHICH CAN BE DONE WITHOUT A PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT TO THE INTERSECTION.

I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST LONG TERM WE NEED A LEFT HAND.

THERE IS. I THINK THAT I'LL READ BETWEEN THE LINES FOR OUR PURPOSES.

SURE. THE LONG TERM IT NEEDS A LEFT HAND TURN.

YEAH. AND I APPRECIATE THAT THE THAT THERE ARE WAYS TO MAKE SIGNAL ADJUSTMENTS IN ORDER TO ADJUST THIS.

I ALSO THOUGH AM I'M JUST. I'M, I DON'T READ THAT IN THERE THAT SAYS TABLE FOUR IS BASED ON IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND SO FOR US TO CLAIM THAT THAT THERE'S NO IMPACT OR THAT EVERYTHING IS LOS "C" OR ABOVE SEEMS INCORRECT IN THIS DOCUMENT. AM I MISTAKEN IN SAYING THAT? SO I THINK THE ISSUE IS THAT YOU HAVE. SO THAT INTERSECTION HAS TWO TURNING MOVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, RIGHT? YEP. SO ON IT ON WHOLE THE INTERSECTION STILL MEETS THE STANDARD.

THE ISSUE IS THAT WHEN YOU TAKE THE FURTHER STEP TO GO TO THAT SECT, THAT SUBLEVEL OF TURNING MOVEMENT, THAT THAT SECOND LEVEL OF TURNING MOVEMENT IS THE CURRENT PROBLEM.

FUTURE PROBLEM REQUIRES SIGNALIZATION ALIGNMENT.

SO IT'S STILL SAFE TO SAY IT'S STILL VERY. IT'S HONEST TO SAY THAT THE INTERSECTION MEETS LEVEL OF SERVICE C OR GREATER.

IT'S THAT YOU HAVE A SUB CASE WITHIN THAT INTERSECTION THAT DOES NOT.

OKAY, SO THE INTERSECTION GETS AGGREGATED. CORRECT.

OKAY. BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE DELAY IS AT THE INTERSECTION, NOT THE DELAY TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN AT THAT SPECIFIC INTERSECTION. IT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE WHEN YOU HAVE FOUR WAY MOVEMENTS.

IT'S A LITTLE HARDER WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE TWO WAY MOVEMENTS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT THROUGH LANE.

AND NORMALLY I WOULD SAY, OH, THE OTHER SECTION HAS IT. WELL, THE OTHER INTERSECTION YOU HAVE TO TURN RIGHT TO THEN TURN LEFT. SO THESE ARE TWO INTERSECTIONS THAT ARE UNIQUE IN THE TOWNSHIP AND THAT THEY'RE BOTH THREE LEGGED INTERSECTIONS.

WELL, THAT ONE'S A FOUR BUT IT ACTS AS A THREE.

THIS ONE'S A THREE. THAT REALLY WOULD BE BETTER OFF SERVED AS TWO.

BUT I DIGRESS. YEAH. SO IF YOU.

[00:25:08]

SO ON THIS. SO THE, THE NUMBERS NOT IN PARENTHESES ARE THE A.M TRAFFIC AND THE IN PARENTHESES ARE THE P.M PEAK TRAFFICS.

TRAFFICS TRAFFIC PEAK. CORRECT. SO BASED ON THIS, WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE CHANGE? SO THE THE THE LOS TRAFFIC STUDIES ARE JUST. AND PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THIS SPECIFIC INTERSECTION IS BECAUSE IF I WANT TO GO INTO THE HANNAH BOULEVARD, I WANT TO GO INTO HANNAH BOULEVARD, RIGHT.

THE INTENTION OF THE WAY THIS AREA WAS DESIGNED WAS THAT YOU MAKE [INAUDIBLE] LEFTS TO MAKE A RIGHT.

THIS IS THE ONLY INTERSECTION THAT ALLOWS FOR A HARD LEFT IN HARD LEFT OUT, WHICH IS WHAT DRAGS IT DOWN BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE END UP GOING THERE AND THEY DON'T REALIZE IT. THEY'RE PROBABLY WAITING LONGER TO MAKE A LEFT WHEN THEY COULD HAVE JUST DONE LEFT AND GONE UP TO. RIGHT. BACK UP TO HANNAH BOULEVARD. WELL, SO WHAT I THOUGHT ABOUT WAS READING THIS, AND THIS TRAFFIC REPORT ACTUALLY STATED THAT THAT ONE OF THE HIGHEST TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS THAT HAPPENS IN THIS AREA ARE REAR ENDS AT THE LIGHT. SO WHAT THAT MADE ME THINK OF IN ADDITION TO THIS, GOING FROM A D TO AN E GRADE IS THAT THEN IF YOU'RE TURNING LEFT LEFT ONTO I RIGHT AFTER.

THE HANNAH BOULEVARD CROSSING WHICH BACKS UP ALREADY.

IS THIS JUST. IF PEOPLE ARE ALREADY BACKED UP TO TRY AND GET IN ON HANNAH BOULEVARD AND THEN WE ADD ALL THESE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT ENTRANCE.

WHICH IS JUST DOWN THE ROAD AND THEY'RE GOING TO END UP BACKING UP FURTHER ON HAGADORN BECAUSE THAT LEFT HAND TURN AND ONTO EYDE PARK OFF OF HAGADORN IS NOT VERY LONG.

YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK NATURALLY YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME TRAFFIC MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CROSSOVER OR THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY TO TURN LEFT.

BUT YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THIS TRAFFIC, IF, IF IN READING THIS, YOU KNOW, A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC IS GOING STRAIGHT THROUGH THAT HANNAH INTERSECTION, WE'RE HEADING NORTH.

AND SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO START TO SEE IS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT NEED TO GET IN THERE ARE GOING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET TO THE INTERSECTION AND GO STRAIGHT ACROSS BECAUSE THAT'S THE EASIEST MOVEMENT.

ALTHOUGH PREDICTING DRIVERS IS. WHY I'M ON THIS, WHY I'M NOT TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

YEAH. I MEAN, I I REALIZE THESE ARE ALL ESTIMATES.

YEAH.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR SCHMITT. I APPRECIATE YOU STEPPING UP FOR THAT ONE.

CAN I KEEP GOING? YOU MAY. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE, THE PARKING CALCULATION AND THERE'S NOT A, I DON'T REMEMBER THIS BEING CLEARLY, CLEARLY STATED.

BUT IT WAS IN. LET ME JUST FIND IT AGAIN. APOLOGIES.

I DON'T HAVE THE DIRECT REFERENCE.

SO THEY REFERENCE THEIR PARKING RATIO ON THE MAP ON PAGE 18.

ON PAGE 46 OF THE PACKET. PAGE 18 OF THEIR INFORMATION.

YEAH. THANK YOU. SO ONE QUESTION ABOUT THAT IS.

SO THERE'S 824 BEDS. THE PARKING RATIO REQUIRED WITH THIS IS 907.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF, IF WE TAKE THIS WITH THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT AS WELL.

SO ASSUMING THE NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT ARE HAPPENING VERSUS 900.

[00:30:04]

I KNOW THAT THIS ISN'T PART OF THE PD AT THE MOMENT, SO I'M JUST TALKING OUT LOUD ABOUT THIS NUMBER THAT SEEMS REALLY HIGH.

GIVEN THAT THERE'S 824 BEDS AND IF WE HAD, LET'S SAY WE HAD A THREE BEDROOM UNIT, YOU WOULD ASSUME HOW MANY PARKING SPACES FOR THAT. FOR A THREE BEDROOM UNIT? YEAH. TYPICALLY IN STUDENT HOUSING, WHAT WE LIKE TO PLAN FOR IS ABOUT 1.1 PER BED PARTS PER BED.

THE REASON FOR THAT IS REALLY, YES, WE ONLY HAVE ONE RESIDENT PER BEDROOM, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IF THERE'S A SOMEBODY VISITING, THERE'S A THERE'S THE ABILITY TO HAVE A CAR THERE FOR THAT PERSON WHO'S JUST VISITING, EVEN TEMPORARILY, NOT SPENDING THE NIGHT, NOT BUT JUST LITERALLY A FRIEND WHO'S COMING OVER TO VISIT.

AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AMPLE PARKING TO ALLOW FOR THAT.

WHAT WE SEE WITH STUDENTS A LOT OF TIMES TOO, IS THEY WILL PARK THEIR CARS AND THEN NOT TOUCH THEM FOR A LONG PERIODS OF TIME.

THEY ALMOST USE IT LIKE THEY COME IN, THEY DRIVE TO SCHOOL, THEY'RE TAKING TRANSIT BACK AND FORTH TO SCHOOL. SO THEY JUST SIT.

AND SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, YOU HAVE A GUEST PARKING AVAILABLE FOR THOSE THAT WOULD COME OVER TO VISIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE THAT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE. YEAH.

NO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S GENERALLY WHAT WE SEE TOO, IN A LOT OF THESE COMPLEXES IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL GET COMPLAINTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ABANDONED VEHICLES BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T MOVED FOR SO LONG. WE HAD ONE A COUPLE, A COUPLE YEARS NOW OVER AT THE TOWER WHEN THEY HAD SOME WATER BACK UP AND WE THOUGHT THEY HAD AN ABANDONED VEHICLE.

AND THEY EVENTUALLY FIGURED OUT IT WAS JUST ONE OF THEIR STUDENTS THAT HADN'T MOVED THE CAR FOR A LONG TIME.

BUT TO YOUR POINT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO THE WEEDS ON THE PARKING YET.

IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO, WE'LL LOOK AT ONCE WE GET A PD AND WE HAVE AN ENGINEER PLAN AND SOME MORE DETAILS BECAUSE I MEAN, I'VE SEEN CONCEPTS OF FLOOR PLANS. I HAVEN'T SEEN GOOD FULL FLOOR PLANS YET.

LIKE WE CAN JUST GO BASED ON, YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE KIND OF PROPOSING AT THIS POINT.

IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REVIEW AS PART OF THE PD. YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT. AND I'M I ALSO THINK, THOUGH, THAT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IN THE REZONE IS THAT AND GUARANTEEING THESE CERTAIN ACREAGES THAT ARE SET ASIDE IS ALSO BASED ON THEIR, YOUR CURRENT CALCULATIONS OF HOW MANY UNITS OR BEDS YOU CAN BUILD, HOW MUCH PARKING YOU NEED FOR THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF HOW MUCH SPACE YOU NEED.

AND I'M NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN AND PARKING WHERE PEOPLE ARE STORING CARS, I GUESS. SO I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN MINIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF PARKING.

YEAH. I WILL SAY THE ONE THING ABOUT THE DESIGN THAT THEY HAVE HERE IS THAT CERTAINLY LULLS YOU INTO A SENSE THAT THERE'S NOT NEARLY AS MUCH PARKING THERE AS THERE'S A LOT MORE PARKING THERE THAN YOU THINK THERE IS BECAUSE IT'S ALL HIDDEN.

BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE'LL LOOK INTO WHEN WE GET TO THE PD IS HOW DO WE MINIMIZE THIS TO THE EXTENT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, CANDIDLY, IF IF JOHN'S NOT GONNA WANT TO HEAR THIS, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY, IF THEY HAVE AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM, IT'S NOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE. IT'S REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO REDUCE THE CARRY ON THE LAND.

SO, YOU KNOW, I SUSPECT THEY PROBABLY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY BUILT IN IF THEY NEEDED IT TO REDUCE THINGS AS WE GO ALONG HERE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, UNTIL WE GET DOWN TO BRASS TACKS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW THAT.

SURE.

OKAY, THAT'S THAT'S I'M DONE. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU SIR, ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? WITH THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION.

CAN WE HAVE, COMMISSIONER, CAN WE HAVE ONE? IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE LIKE, CONVERSATION BEFORE THAT? OPEN IT UP TO CONVERSATION FOR THE BOARD. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE TECHNICAL TERM.

I. AND. MR.. SHORKEY HERE. DIRECTOR SCHMITT. THIS MIGHT BE.

FEEL FREE TO INTERJECT HERE, I THINK, BUT. I'M STILL REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE ATTACHMENT OF A, THIS VAGUE IDEA OF A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME TO THIS LOT.

I DON'T KNOW WHY. IF SOMEBODY CAN CONVINCE ME THAT THIS IS REASONABLE, I'M WILLING TO.

BUT LIKE, IT JUST SEEMS ODD TO ME TO SAY, TO ATTACH TO THIS

[00:35:10]

SO I THINK PART OF THAT IS COMING OUT OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, IN THAT THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN DO AT THE REZONING LEVEL TO ENSURE THESE THINGS THAT CAPSTONE AND THE EYDES ARE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

RIGHT. I CAN LIMIT WE CAN WE CAN. I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL.

I SAY THIS, WE CAN ACCEPT A CONDITION THAT LIMITS THE DENSITY.

WE CAN ACCEPT A CONDITION THAT PUTS A TIME FRAME ON IT.

WE CAN ACCEPT A CONDITION THAT HAS A AREA OF GREEN SPACE SET ASIDE.

BUT YOU KNOW, UNTIL WE HAVE ENOUGH DETAIL TO BE ABLE TO SAY YES, THAT TRAFFIC CONNECTION IS NOT GOING TO BE MADE OR YES, EMERGENCY ACCESS IS GOING TO GO HERE AND NOT THERE.

I CAN'T REASONABLY SAY AT THIS POINT WE WOULD ACCEPT THAT.

RIGHT? AND I I'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH MR. PAVONA AND AT LEAST ONE OTHER MEMBER OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE PUD COMES INTO PLAY, BECAUSE THAT IS WHEN WE GET INTO THOSE NUTS AND BOLTS WHERE WE CAN THEN TIE DOWN THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THAT IN, WE'RE GOING TO PUT EMERGENCY ACCESS HERE. WE'RE GOING TO THIS IS THE DESIGN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE. THERE'S GOING TO BE THE COTTAGES ARE HERE, THE APARTMENTS ARE HERE.

SO THERE'S A STEP DOWN TOWARDS ALL THOSE THINGS, RIGHT? AND SO BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE RUB IS THAT TO GET TO A PUD, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE UNDERLYING ZONING FIRST.

SURE. RIGHT. AND SO IT'S A BIT OF A, IT'S A LEAP OF FAITH, BUT BY ALL PARTIES THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH CANDIDLY US HOLDING THE [INAUDIBLE] CARD IN THE END, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ABILITY UNDER STATE LAW TO REZONE ANY CONDITIONAL REZONING.

I BELIEVE IT'S A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME. I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK THE SPECIFICS.

AND SO IF WE'RE IF IF THIS IS MARCH OF NEXT YEAR AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET, STAFF IS VERY LIKELY GOING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE BOARD ABOUT INTRODUCING AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THIS BACK. BECAUSE WE WANT TO UPHOLD OUR END OF THE DEAL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CONTROL THE DEVELOPMENT AND NOT JUST ALLOWING STRAIGHT RD ZONING. YOU KNOW, YOU PUT 270 UNITS ON IT, YOU CAN SET ASIDE THIS, BUT YOU KNOW, THEY'RE DESIGNING IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY OR THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OR THEY'RE GOING TO PUSH FOR AN EMERGENCY ACCESS POINT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

RIGHT. AND SO IT'S JUST THIS, IT'S A TWO PIECE.

IT'S THE KEY AND LOCK SYSTEM WE GOT GOING HERE.

OKAY. I THINK THAT HELPS. DO YOU WANT DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? I HAVE THE SAME CONCERN. THE LANGUAGE IN A, IN A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME DOESN'T ADD ANYTHING TO THE RESOLUTION IN MY VIEW, AND IT ADDS EXCEPT CONFUSION.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE DEAL IS THAT ONCE THE REZONING IS ACCOMPLISHED THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PUD WILL FOLLOW PROHIBITS ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE UNTIL A PUD IS SUBMITTED.

CORRECT. SO THERE IS NO, I DON'T SEE A REASON TO MENTION A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME. MR.. IF YOU WOULD ON THE LARGE SCREEN, CAN WE GO TO PAGE 21 OF THE PACKET, WHICH IS WHERE THE CONCLUSION WHERE THE LANGUAGE IS? BECAUSE I WOULD SAY I JOINED COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL ON THE.

CONCEPTUALLY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, MY VOTE WILL BE TO APPROVE.

BUT ONE OF THE OF THE, OF THE RESOLUTION, A PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE IN A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME. OKAY.

THAT TIME FRAME OTHERWISE BEING UNDETERMINED IN THE DOCUMENT.

SO I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THIS.

THAT IS THE LANGUAGE FROM THE APPLICANT. AND I AM BEHOLDEN UNDER A CONDITIONAL REZONING TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE LANGUAGE FROM THE APPLICANT.

WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS GIVEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERNS, IS I WOULD EXPRESS ON THE RECORD THAT IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT SEE A PUD APPLICATION WITHIN WHATEVER TIME FRAME YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE, THEN WE WOULD CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO INVOKE THE REZONING

[00:40:10]

BUT WE CAN'T. YOU CANNOT. YOU CANNOT COMPULSORILY ADD A CONDITION, BUT YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY EXPRESS YOUR INTENT ON THE RECORD.

TO KEEP THINGS MOVING FORWARD. WELL, BUT ISN'T IT A HOLD ON ONE SECOND, PLEASE.

ISN'T IT SO. SO LET'S SAY THIS WENT INTO FORCE AND THIS IS JUST OUR RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, RIGHT? BUT LET'S SAY THIS, THIS WENT INTO FORCE AND.

SO UNDER YOUR POINT ABOUT THE REVERSING A REZONING.

IF. DO WE HAVE TO HAVE DECISION CRITERIA FOR THAT.

LIKE WHAT IF, WHAT IF THE DECISION WAS THAT A PD WASN'T SUBMITTED? IF THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH A CONDITION BASED ON THE VIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THE DECISION WAS MADE. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO REVERT IT.

I WILL ALSO SAY THAT TO MY POINT ABOUT INTENT, I WOULD BE SHOCKED IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDED THEIR INTENT AND I DIDN'T GET A REVISED LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE NEXT 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THIS GOING TO THE BOARD.

EXPRESSING THAT, YES, THEY CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INTENT.

TO SORT OF GET TO YOUR POINT. COMMISSIONER ROMBACK ABOUT THE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S LEGAL OR NOT.

WELL, IT'S NOT EVEN LEGAL. I MEAN, EVEN UNDER YOUR FACT PATTERN WHERE IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT GO FOR THE PD YOU, THEORETICALLY THE TOWNSHIP COULD TAKE ACTION TO REVERT IT, RIGHT? SURE. BUT THEN Y'ALL WOULD END UP BACK UP FIGHTING BECAUSE YOU WOULD SAY, WELL, WHAT TIME FRAME? A SPECIFIC ONE. ANY TIME FRAME IS A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME BECAUSE TIME IS IN FACT SPECIFIC.

SURE. NOW WE'RE GETTING ESOTERIC ON ESOTERIC WAY.

I AGREE. I'VE BEEN SITTING ON THAT ONE FOR A WHILE. I'VE WANTED TO USE IT. JUST HAD TO LET IT OUT.

APPRECIATE IT. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. SO, SIR, I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU.

I'M WAITING. I JUST SIMPLY WANTED TO SAY THAT THE ENTIRE INTENT BEHIND IT WAS THAT WE WANTED AMPLE TIME TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE WANT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AS FAST AS POSSIBLE BUT WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT WE'LL BE WORKING THROUGH THESE STORMWATER ISSUES.

WE WANT TO GIVE OURSELVES AMPLE TIME IN ORDER TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HAVE AS MANY MEETINGS AS WE NEED IN ORDER TO GET EVERYBODY COMFORTABLE AS WE CAN AND WORK WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEER. SO. YES. AGREED THAT IT IS VAGUE.

AND THAT WAS REALLY IN ORDER TO TO ALLOW US THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THAT EVEN TO DATE, WE'VE SPENT A NUMBER OF MONTHS WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE WANT TO CONTINUE FORWARD IN THAT VEIN. SO IT WAS THAT WAS THE INTENT.

UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN, BUT JUST WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF THE INTENT. SO THIS IS NOT A QUESTION FOR YOU, BUT I WOULD I WOULD WONDER THIS BECAUSE WE ARE REQUIRED TO UTILIZE THE THE RESOLUTION AS SUBMITTED.

I WONDER COULD WE COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO USE THE RESOLUTION AS SUBMITTED.

WE'RE REQUIRED TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THE APPLICATION AND THE CONDITIONS.

CORRECT. WE CAN MAKE WHATEVER RESOLUTION WE WANT TO MAKE, BUT WE CAN'T.

I THOUGHT WE COULD. WE CANNOT ADD CONDITIONS OR WE CAN'T ADD CONDITIONS.

CORRECT. RIGHT. YEAH. YEAH. YOU COULD CHANGE.

YOU COULD MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOLUTION. YOU CAN'T MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS. GOT IT. SO IS ONE THERE A IS A ONE.

THERE IS A CONDITION. CORRECT. THOSE ARE THE THOSE FOUR ITEMS ARE THE FOUR CONDITIONS FROM THE COVER LETTER THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED.

ONE SOLUTION MIGHT BE TO. CONSIDER. I'M SORRY.

I'M JUST TRYING. I THINK WE'RE DANCING AROUND A LITTLE BIT.

I MEAN, THEY WANT TIME. THEY WANT TIME TO WORK WITH JOE.

AND THE BEST OF WORLDS. IT WOULD BE BACK BEFORE YOU DURING THIS CALENDAR YEAR.

BUT WE DON'T WANT THE WHOLE THING TO COME APART AS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THAT, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THINGS TAKE A HECK OF A LOT LONGER THAN WE THINK.

ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH. I MEAN, AND YES, WE DO 24 MONTHS THAT IT WOULD BE BEFORE YOU.

I MEAN, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A LOT LESS THAN THAT. BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THE OFFICE, THROUGH EVERYBODY. AND SO SO THAT IT'S NOT A SPECIFIED TIME THAT'S NOT SPECIFIED.

I, I READ IT, I THOUGHT THE SAME THING, BUT I.

SO IF IF THE APPLICANT JOINTLY DID THIS IS COMFORTABLE WITH 24.

[00:45:03]

THAT THAT THE PUD WOULD BE SUBMITTED SUBMITTED, SUBMITTED WITHIN 24.

SO THE FULL APPLICATION WOULD BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 24 MONTHS.

AND GENTLEMEN, IN YOUR WISDOM AND EXPERIENCE, 24 MONTHS PROVIDES YOU ENOUGH TIME TO ACCOMPLISH EVERYTHING.

I THINK SO, YES. MR. SHORKEY, YOUR MR. OR DIRECTOR SCHMITT? I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO SUGGEST IT'S KIND OF IN LINE WITH A LOT OF THE LANGUAGE IN OUR ORDINANCE ON OTHER STUFF, LIKE IF YOU SUBMIT AN IF YOU GET AN APPROVED SUP, YOU GET 24 MONTHS TO SUBMIT SITE PLAN.

SO I'LL JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE. THAT'S I, IT'S GIVING THEM PLENTY OF CUSHION.

THAT'S A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. HISTORICALLY, WHEN I'VE DONE THIS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, TWO YEARS IS WHAT WE SUGGEST. BEFORE WE EVEN CONSIDER REVERSION.

JUST, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE NUANCES OF DEVELOPMENT.

SO I THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE APPROACH TO EXPRESS YOUR INTENT ABOUT ON THE RECORD.

DOES THE I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. SO IF IT'S TWO YEARS FOR A SUBMISSION, WHAT'S THE SORT OF TIME THAT YOU'VE SEEN THESE GET SUBMITTED IN LIKE THE FASTEST VERSUS THE LONGEST? I MEAN, SO IT'S, IT'S KIND OF UNIQUE, RIGHT? WE'RE BOTH REZONING AND THEN DOING A PD.

SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY JUST A MATTER OF HOW MUCH ENGINEERING GETS INTO IT.

I MEAN, I KNOW CAPS IS A GOOD LOCAL FIRM AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON IT QUICKLY BECAUSE RIGHT, THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT SPECIFICALLY THE STORMWATER IS GOING TO PASS DURING COMMISSIONERS OFFICE.

YOU KNOW, I COULD SEE THEM GETTING BACK TO US IN SIX, NINE MONTHS IF THEY'RE ABLE TO GET A MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND GET EVERYTHING WORKED OUT THAT THEY WANT TO WORK OUT. BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, PUT MY THUMB ON THE SCALE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE THEIR TIME THERE. BECAUSE THAT'S CANDIDLY, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE, THE SLOWING FACTOR IS GETTING THE PEOPLE TOGETHER.

YOU NEED TO GET TOGETHER. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE ENGINEERING DESIGN. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE ARCHITECTS.

IT SOUNDS LIKE IF I REMEMBER THE LAST MEETING THOUGH APPLICANT HAS A PRETTY GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE, WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION. BUT EVERYTHING THAT I'VE BEEN TOLD IS THAT IS THE CASE.

SO AT THIS POINT, THEORETICALLY, SOMEBODY WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND CONDITION ONE TO ADD.

WE WOULD NOT AMEND THE CONDITION. NOT AMEND THE CONDITION.

IT'S I, I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS CERTAINLY MADE THEIR INTENT KNOWN, AND WE WILL GO FORWARD WITH THAT.

WHAT? GOOD. COMMISSIONER A MOTION. BUT IF YOU WANT TO KEEP TALKING, GO AHEAD.

I MEAN, I LET YOU MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE I THINK.

I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION THEN BEFORE THAT. I'M SORRY.

SO JUST IN READING THIS, IT ALSO SAYS THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE SITE SHALL NOT EXCEED 270.

ARE WE CONCERNED AT ALL ABOUT THAT OR IS THAT THAT'S OUR STANDARD LANGUAGE THAT WE USE? THAT'S A PRETTY STANDARD. LIKE WE WOULD THAT'S HOW WE WOULD WRITE IT IF WE WERE WRITING IT.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. GO AHEAD. NO, I MEAN, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE EXPRESS ON THE RECORD THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT A, SORRY, A REZONING AGREEMENT THAT INCLUDED A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME OF 24 MONTHS.

THEN I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO VOTE ON IT, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ACTUALLY SAY THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE ARE ALL AMENABLE TO. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, CAN WE JUST NOTE THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING AT ABOUT 24 MONTHS FROM NOW, WE ADD THAT THIS IS AN ITEM ON IT JUST TO. JUST SO WE DON'T LOSE TRACK OF IT.

YEAH. WE WILL NOT LOSE TRACK OF IT. AND I THINK THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN, AND I'M SURE THAT WE WILL HAVE A FORMAL UPDATE BEFORE IT GOES TO THE BOARD.

OKAY. WITH THAT. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING NUMBER 26004 TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 69 ACRES LOCATED AT THE EAST END OF HANNAH BOULEVARD FROM PO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND RAA FAMILY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO RD MULTIPLE FAMILY, UP TO EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONAL REZONING AGREEMENT. I DON'T PRESUME I HAVE TO READ ALL OF THAT, DO I? I THINK WE CAN JUST NOTE THAT IT ALL ENCOMPASSES.

PAGE 20 OF THE PACKET. PAGE 20. PAGE 21 OF THE PACKET.

[00:50:01]

OH, SORRY. IS THERE A SECOND? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. I WOULD, I THINK IT'S WORTH CONSIDERING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO RECOGNIZE THE VERBAL OFFER OF THE APPLICANT AT TONIGHT'S MEETING TO A 24 MONTH TIME FRAME WITHOUT TRYING TO INTRODUCE THAT AS A CONDITION, BUT AS PART OF OUR MOTION THAT THE BOARD WILL SEE. SEEMS LIKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ME.

YEAH. WE HAD A VOTE ON THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

AS LONG AS HE'S OKAY, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. DID SOMEBODY SECOND THE FIRST MOTION? YES, YES I DID. YES. I HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE WAS UP FOR DISCUSSION.

SORRY. YOU'RE DOING GREAT. I MEAN, I AM. ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.

SO? SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR THEN IS TO APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION.

THE THE APPLICANT IN FRONT OF US, THOUGH. HASN'T PUT ANYTHING BEFORE US THAT WE WOULD THAT WOULD PUT THEM WITHIN THIS SPECIFIC TIME FRAME. SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE CURRENT VERSION.

RIGHT. ISN'T THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING? I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE APPLICANT MAY AMEND THEIR APPLICATION IN BETWEEN OUR SEEING IT AND IT GOING TO THE BOARD, AND THEY CERTAINLY PROVIDED THEIR INTENT TO DO SO.

SO I THINK THE POINT OF MY AMENDMENT WAS TO FLAG THAT SO THAT WHEN IT DOES GET TO THE BOARD, IF THAT CONDITION HAS NOT BEEN CODIFIED IN THE APPLICATION, THEN WE'LL WONDER WHY.

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE APPLICANT IS INTENDING TO ADD THAT ANY WAY TO AVOID THAT PROBLEM WHEN IT GETS TO THE BOARD, RIGHT? YEAH. SO, MR. MCCONNELL, ARE YOU SAYING THEN THAT YOUR CONDITION OR YOUR IT'S NOT A CONDITION, YOUR AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION, YOUR AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION OR THE MOTION AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION, THEN IS THAT. A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDATION IS CONTINGENT ON. OUR. OUR APPROVAL ON THIS EXISTING RESOLUTION IS CONTINGENT. CONTINGENT ON THAT RESOLUTION GETTING UPDATED WITH A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME OF 24 MONTHS.

NO, I'M SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE MADE OUR RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION IN LIGHT OF A VERBAL COMMITMENT MADE AT THIS EVENING'S MEETING.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M UNWILLING TO DO THAT, BUT OKAY.

OKAY. SO THEN WE ARE AT WE HAVE THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, AND THEN WE WOULD BE AT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION WITH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

WE'RE VOTING ON DISCUSSIONS. SO ONCE DISCUSSION IS OVER THEN ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FOR DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, THIS IS A ROLL CALL. THIS WILL BE A ROLL CALL.

OKAY, SO THIS IS TO APPROVE. AND THEN ALSO NOTING COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL ADDITION, THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

SO. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. YES. COMMISSIONER NAHUM.

YES. VICE CHAIR MCCURTIS. YES. COMMISSIONER BROOKS.

NO. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES. SO I BELIEVE THAT IS A MAJORITY OF A QUORUM.

AND SO THE RESOLUTION WOULD PASS. CORRECT. OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE WE HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS UNDER ITEM NUMBER NINE.

ITEM NUMBER TEN. WE HAVE REPORTS ANNOUNCEMENT.

[10.A. Township Board update]

THEY HAVE NOT MADE A FINAL DECISION, ALTHOUGH IT IS UP FOR A POTENTIAL DECISION ON TUESDAY NIGHT.

[00:55:01]

I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER UPDATES THOUGH. THEY'RE, THEY STILL HAVE NOT GOTTEN ME A REVISIONS FROM THE LAST BOARD MEETING.

YEAH. CAN I JUST ADD INTO THAT? A GOOD DEGREE OF THE DISCUSSION WAS ALSO IN CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLY CONSIDERING SENDING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I DON'T THINK THEY WILL DO THAT, BUT THAT WAS THAT WAS MENTIONED.

BUT I THINK THEY'LL LIKELY MAKE A DECISION AMONGST THEMSELVES, BUT JUST AS A WARNING THAT THAT DID COME UP.

DIRECTOR SCHMITT. IF THEY DID SEND IT BACK, WHAT WOULD THEY SEND IT BACK FOR? STAFF HAS MADE VERY CLEAR THAT THEY NEED TO BE EXTREMELY SPECIFIC IN THEIR REASONING FOR SENDING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED.

WELL, I THINK I SAID SPECIFIC ABOUT 3 OR 4 MORE TIMES.

YES. LAST TUESDAY. WITH A SPECIFIC QUESTION. YES.

IF I HAVE SPECIFICALLY PICKED ON DIRECTOR SHORKEY AS WELL, WHEN THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS SENT BACK TO US, I SAID, WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC QUESTION? BUT UNDERSTOOD THAT IS.

AND I GUESS IN MY OWN DEFENSE, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE CHARGE I LED, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ARE AN APPOINTED BOARD UNDER AN ELECTED BOARD, TO ME, YOU ARE OF A SPECIFIC CHARGE, CORRECT? RIGHT. I WOULD AGREE WE SHOULD NOT BE. WE ARE LIMITED BY THE BOARD'S CHARGE BACK TO US ON ANY GIVEN ISSUE.

THUS, YOU KNOW THE NEED FOR A DIRECTED QUESTION TO ANSWER.

CORRECT? I COMPLETELY AGREE A DEVELOPMENT OR CHICKENS OR ROOSTERS OR WHAT OTHER OTHER QUESTIONS? MAYBE LLAMAS? VICE CHAIR MCCURTIS. IS THERE ANYTHING? AND I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I HOPE I GET IT RIGHT.

I JUST WONDER, IS THERE ANYTHING LIKE FROM A COMMISSION STANDPOINT THAT WE CAN DO TO PREVENT THE WHOLE PUNTING BACK AND FORTH? NO, WE COULD NOT. NO, WE KNEW WE COULD NOT HAVE QUORUM.

YEAH, I KNEW THE ANSWER. I MEAN, FUNCTIONALLY.

SO JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, LIKE I THINK I THINK [INAUDIBLE] CHAPMAN AND MYSELF DO THINGS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY THAN MAYBE THEY WERE DONE 5 OR 10 YEARS AGO.

RIGHT. WE TAKE THEM ORDINANCES TO DISCUSS WITH YOU AS OPPOSED TO IN THE PAST, RIGHT.

ALMOST ALL THE ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION WAS BORED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO STAFF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

BOARD. RIGHT. IT WAS A UP AND DOWN CIRCUS. WE'RE A LITTLE MORE PROACTIVE IN THAT WE SEE A PROBLEM.

OKAY, HERE'S A SOLUTION. IF YOU LIKE IT, GREAT.

IF NOT, NO HARM. OFF OUR BACK. THIS IS WHAT WE DO FOR A LIVING.

SO I THINK THAT THERE'S ALWAYS A ROLE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PLAY IN LOOKING INTO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS.

ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT IF THE BOARD DOES LIKE IF THE BOARD DECIDES TOMORROW THAT WE NEED TO REGULATE DATA CENTERS, THE NEW HOT THING, RIGHT? EVERYONE'S DOING IT.

YEAH. BY LAW, THEY TECHNICALLY HAVE TO SEND THAT TO YOU, RIGHT? TO UP TO BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE STATE LAW IS SET UP TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, YOU HAVE TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S PRETTY RARE NOWADAYS THAT THEY PUNT BACK.

IT USED TO HAPPEN A LOT. I THINK, BASED ON MY READING OF THE MINUTES AND STUFF AND THAT IT WAS JUST A CONVEYOR BELT.

ANYTIME AN ORDINANCE CHANGES. BUT THAT'S ALSO PROBABLY WHY OUR ORDINANCES HAVEN'T CHANGED BY AND LARGE SINCE 1974, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T AS MUCH OF THAT AS MAYBE NEEDED TO HAPPEN.

AND SO THAT'S, I THINK WHAT WE TRY TO HEAD OFF PARKING ORDINANCE BEING GREAT EXAMPLE.

WE KNOW IT NEEDS UPDATED. LET'S JUST START PICKING IT OFF PIECE AT A TIME.

YEAH, JUST ONE COMMISSIONERS OPINION, I WOULD SAY STARTING THINGS AT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THEN TAKING THEM TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SEEMS A LOT MORE SENSIBLE BECAUSE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS THE ONE ACTUALLY HANDLING THINGS LIKE ORDINANCES AND SEEING THE VIOLATIONS AND THOSE ISSUES, AND THEN THEY SHOULD GENERATE THAT. AND THEN THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IS FOR. YEAH, YOU CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AT SOME OTHER POINT.

AS A MEMBER OF THE DEEP STATE, WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO OUR WORK. PLEASE CONTINUE.

ON JUST ON JUST DATA CENTERS FOR ONE SECOND. SINCE YOU MENTIONED THEM, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THOSE AS AN ANCHOR TENANT FOR THE OKEMOS VILLAGE PROJECT? YOU KNOW? YOU KNOW, I WILL SAY MY OFFICIAL AND I THINK THE BOARD IS GOING TO TAKE UP THIS TOPIC, AT LEAST FOR DISCUSSION, SOMETIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE. MY OFFICIAL POSITION IS I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PLACE THEY CAN PUT THEM IN THE TOWNSHIP BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VACANT LAND. BY, TO YOUR POINT. YOU KNOW, THAT'S MAYBE WHAT EACH OF THOSE BLOCKS IS.

AN ACRE, I THINK. YEAH. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY.

SO DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT. BUT THE SMALL ONE IN LANSING IS ON A MULTI ACRE SITE.

SO. RIGHT. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE SPACE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU GET A SMALL ONE UP ON SAGINAW HIGHWAY POTENTIALLY IF SOMEBODY BOUGHT THE EXACT RIGHT PIECE OF LAND,

[01:00:04]

THEY'RE GOING TO GO OUT TO WHERE THE LAND IS PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR.

YEAH. BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY SPENDING EXORBITANT AMOUNTS OF MONEY SPECULATING ON THE FUTURE OF MONEY.

THE FUTURE OF MONEY. I'LL KEEP PITCHING IDEAS.

WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE IT OUT. WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE IT OUT. NO, NO.

THERE'S AN ARTICLE ABOUT A AN AI DATA CENTER, I THINK IN MISSOURI OR MISSISSIPPI IS ONE OF THE MS TALKING ABOUT HOW THE, THE RESIDENTS WERE ALL FOR IT. AND NOW THEY'RE ALL IN COMPLETE REBELLION BECAUSE THE NOISE IT'S PRODUCING IS JUST UNBELIEVABLE. LIKE, APPARENTLY THEY PUT UP A NOISE DEFLECTING FENCE AND SOMEHOW THE RESIDENTS CLAIM IT GOT WORSE.

YEAH, IT'S A IT'S A CHALLENGING TOPIC ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT LEVELS.

OKAY. SO THAT IS OUR TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE. THANK YOU.

DIRECTOR SCHMITT. THANK YOU. LIAISON REPORTS WHO WAS LIAISING NOWADAYS NO LIAISON REPORTS.

[10.B. Liaison reports]

HEARING NO OTHER LIAISON REPORTS. PROJECT UPDATES I DON'T BELIEVE NO.

NO UPDATES, NO UPDATES. PUBLIC REMARKS NOTING THERE IS NO PUBLIC.

GOT IT. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS?

[13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS]

SO THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT YOU MIGHT HOPE THAT I'M SILENT SOMETIMES, BUT NOPE, NOPE.

SOMEBODY ONCE SAID, DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS.

SILENCE, I SUPPOSE. BUT I WILL JUST NOTE THAT ON THAT PARTICULAR RESOLUTION, THE LACK OF A TIME FRAME WHEN IT SAYS SPECIFIC TIME FRAME WAS, YOU KNOW, ONCE I READ THAT, I SAID BECAUSE THERE'S YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE IT.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SO MOVED. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SO MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BROOKS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NAHUM.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.