[18:25] stroke. We're going to add that as part of that and Ken will modify that to

[18:29] reflect the fact that we get an annual report from the zoning administrator and

[18:34] then we have a two-year um certified person looking at this. Um

[18:39] Upon or prior to the expiration of the permit, the planning commission may

[18:44] approve renewals of the permit for successive periods of not more than two

[18:47] years in duration, comma.

[18:51] Um, and then I think we need to add if the applicants operations are uh

[18:57] proceeding according to approved plans, they have to have criteria, right? And

[19:03] so the criteria is they're they're operating according to the plans we

[19:08] approved. Does that make it more money or is that um

[19:12] we have to have criteria for them?

[19:18] I think that adds clarity if the applicants operations are proceeding

[19:21] according to approved plans and then the zoning administrator.

[19:28] Any feedback on that?

[19:34] We just making it more. >> I think I'm trying to simplify it.

[19:39] » I think it's just enough that you don't need to come back before us,

[19:45] » you know, going according to what was presented.

[19:50] » Yes. >> ZA looks at we're good. You're good.

[19:53] We'll see you in two years. >> Yeah.

[19:56] We're going to elaborate more on that very point in on line 498 58 to to drive

[20:03] your point home. Dave, um before we get there, the last I'm going to go in order

[20:07] here. Line 397, hours of operation, we had talked about I said I would figure

[20:13] out what other people are doing and give you what I learned. And so, um for

[20:20] So, what I learned is that um Riley does not have I looked on their

[20:27] website. They don't have any um companywide

[20:32] they don't have any companywide policy. They go by the zoning ordinances. The

[20:36] cloth Riley and Haz Township starts at 7:15 a.m. They generally start 7 and

[20:42] work till 7 Monday through Friday. Um Guy White on Wayne City East Jordan Road

[20:48] in the summer they start at day and daylight and I know my husband out the

[20:55] door. So, and then they start later when the light goes away. If you do a quick

[20:59] little search, you'll find out that we have 35 days where it's light at 6 a.m.

[21:04] So, it's a very short window. I know that road building is very seasonal.

[21:10] Um, what would you like to do for a start

[21:13] time? That's what I know about what's currently happening in a couple markets.

[21:18] » If you looked at the ordinance from that they sent for the data centers,

[21:24] All 7 to 7, 7 to 5:30, stuff like that. So, seems like most places start at 7.

[21:32] » Well, now construction crews don't start at 7. And I'm the only one that lives

[21:36] next to this group live next to the biggest the pallet and they start when

[21:42] they have a something. They might start usually six o'clock. You're going

[21:47] sometimes earlier, sometimes later. But again, if you're in the concrete

[21:52] business, you know, it's going to be hot or you rain, you're ser I know a crew

[21:58] and in Gaylord, they'll time for you at 4

[22:02] a.m. deliver and they're done by

[22:07] quit. And

[22:12] » I don't think I I don't think 6 a.m. is

[22:18] and you know we're not talking about 3:00 a.m. or 4 a.m. It's 6 o'lock in the

[22:23] morning. My kids are getting up at 6:20 to get ready for school.

[22:28] I don't know why we have to push it so late for

[22:33] I don't know why 6 a.m. is >> okay. So you feel strongly about that?

[22:37] How about we split the 6:30

[22:42] again they're going to go at daylight and it is to your point it's very

[22:50] acceptable compromise reasonable compromise would you feel very strongly

[22:54] blessed to saybody [clears throat]

[23:00] » if you're you just said they're going to go

[23:05] during that short period 630

[23:14] Correct. Yeah. >> And and we're, you know, again, we're

[23:18] we're counting ourselves to the agricultural community.

[23:22] My opinion, make sure you don't have any tractors going before 6 a.m. I mean,

[23:26] that's ultimately we're saying if trucks are going, trucks are going. You're not

[23:30] stopping anybody else from driving. You're not stopping Dylan from serving

[23:35] his truck out. So you're putting extra burdens on this

[23:42] specific >> industry.

[23:44] » Industry. >> I see your point. Okay.

[23:49] I'm I'm okay with that. >> Does it matter what location?

[23:55] They're really close to res.

[24:00] » Yeah. >> Well, this is this is for gravel mining.

[24:05] So it's

[24:10] except except that all the other things are [snorts] it can't have a certain

[24:14] noise limit at the edge of the property or vibration or whatever

[24:18] with that I guess and if they meet those criteria doesn't make a difference

[24:29] » yeah it does >> no what I meant was putting a

[24:35] restriction on of a time limit. It doesn't matter as

[24:39] long as we've already put a restriction on how much noise or vibration.

[24:43] » If you read on a little bit further in that section, it gives the township

[24:47] board some leeway. you know, it sets the standard at 6 a.m., but if there's

[24:51] unique circumstances, the board can tweak that. So, it's like right next to

[25:10] » it's easier to >> Yes, I see.

[25:17] 6:30 is

[25:21] » okay. Everybody good with leaving it at 6?

[25:26] » No. >> No,

[25:27] » I don't think we should have any hours. Travis says

[25:32] we're not regulating anybody else like that. We spray all night if we have to.

[25:39] all night long and our neighbors can't complain because we have right to farm

[25:44] » but we don't

[25:49] » and I hear you all night long and I hear your fans all night long and it is

[25:53] disturbing but I can't complain so >> saying I I I don't love it either

[26:00] but I know that you have that right so I I think I think you have to have ours

[26:09] I'm not sure if there's a zoning. Are you aware of any zoning ordinance on

[26:13] gravel that doesn't have hours? I'm not. Everyone I looked at hours

[26:32] isn't a special use. to do what works for you. It's not quite

[26:38] apples.

[26:45] » Well, on that the half hour thing about 66.

[26:50] » Well, I'm okay. Oh, okay. >> Sure.

[26:54] » That's reasonable.

[27:01] » Yeah, the daylight will Like you said, the short window of

[27:08] daylight we have throughout the producing months.

[27:17] » All right, Ken, I think we're at six to six unless anyone wants to discuss that

[27:22] further.

[27:28] Marina

[27:39] got talked about I brought up my driveway

[27:45] » that's in our current

[27:50] » that's not

[27:56] allowed smaller guys to operate without having to go through this. But we're

[28:01] going to be getting rid of our police ordinance when this takes over. Correct.

[28:04] » Yes.

[28:08] » So that volume should be reflected in this

[28:15] smaller guys.

[28:18] We do have onage similar language allowing for smaller operations to be

[28:23] excluded.

[28:40] You want to do something different with that?

[28:48] » Point is

[28:53] where you

[28:56] You know,

[29:01] you know,

[29:05] smaller operation.

[29:18] » Okay. What would you propose?

[29:27] What do we have that you referred to excludes

[29:34] on page one starting at line 38

[29:52] So that that covers their day-to-day operation, but that doesn't cover them

[29:57] if they have some property that they want

[30:01] to make sure

[30:18] that doesn't years or months or

[30:23] » it just says the requirement shall not apply under the following circumstances.

[30:31] That is a question that I've had all 2000 [clears throat]

[30:37] over the life of it year.

[30:43] That's not defined. My guess is that

[30:54] » it does say the amount of material is >> that's excluded from this,

[31:01] » right? >> Yeah. And there's a there's a more

[31:05] generic provision above that that basically says if you're excavating for

[31:09] a basement or something building permit, you're not follow.

[31:27] » Okay. What would you like to see here instead

[31:31] of 2000? suggestions.

[31:37] » What's the time?

[31:53] I interpret it as per like they're getting the SU to do a job and it's

[31:59] permit whatever that time frame takes to

[32:03] complete the job that I I'm making an assumption. I thought the whole point of

[32:07] that allowing 2,000 yards out here is something you would have to get. We're

[32:13] talking about a situation where someone might have some property that they can

[32:18] pull some top soil off so they sell the top soil or you know they got

[32:26] large operation or they got good sand and you know I need sand every site so

[32:33] my excavator has sand on this propert

[32:40] and just my inter It would be

[32:45] forever.

[32:57] » Yeah, let's keep the number.

[33:03] » Isn't that what the permit would say originally? How much you think?

[33:07] » These folks would need it. >> So, I'm saying how know if you're gonna

[33:13] know that there's a huge number of guys.

[33:21] » So if you one truck coming and going hour to go and come back

[33:28] numbers completely out 15 yards in that truck 120 yards a day 140 yards a week

[33:34] just to give us some sort of >> reference.

[33:40] They can easily haul $2,000 a week

[33:46] a truck a small guy. You're also, if I can interject, you're

[33:52] also talking about, you're not talking about something that's got big sifters

[33:56] and all that where you're putting up pile. You're talking about somebody

[33:58] that's probably going in with their loader and they've got a sand bill and

[34:02] they're just drawing it straight from the truck and it's going out. To me,

[34:05] that's a that's a completely different situation.

[34:10] » Certainly, you know, >> we're restricting it.

[34:14] » 2,000 a week,000.

[34:24] » But then by the time you get that much out of there, now you got a pretty good.

[34:28] » So now you start looking at it from the other way,

[34:33] don't you?

[34:36] you make it too much at one time then then why do you even have an extraction

[34:42] » ordinance at all?

[34:46] » Any suggestions?

[34:49] » I mean you're right. It's 104,000 2,000 per year. Um

[34:57] I mean I think

[35:02] what would be a reasonable amount before you think this should apply. It's a big

[35:07] enough operation.

[35:23] » It's either one or two

[35:31] there's no

[35:44] It's just another way

[35:50] and that's county. >> Should we defer to that then

[35:55] to the county soil policy and I'll look at that and try to

[36:03] fill in the gap here. I do not absolutely do not want to hinder these

[36:08] guys. >> Right.

[36:09] » Right. >> And I don't know enough about how much

[36:14] is a lot, how much is a little to say because to me, you know, 104,000 is a

[36:20] lot. But if you got a road job or something or you're supplementing, you

[36:25] know, I I know a buddy that's looking at buying some trains because he's got sand

[36:28] on his property over on the west side that he's just

[36:32] going to supplement Grand Traverse County Sand, but it's worth it to him to

[36:37] buy a set of trains to help us, you know, and he doesn't

[36:42] he's just would be a subcontractor and I don't and he's not so I don't know

[36:46] enough to >> know how much.

[36:50] » So, I think we better refer to the county policy on that.

[36:54] » Yeah, you could say total amount of material removed it won't and I'll think

[36:59] of a better way to say it won't trigger the requirement for soil.

[37:04] That seems reasonable >> assuming they're going first of all.

[37:09] » But what but that would be our standard. >> But it would be a number. I mean even if

[37:12] they it would be when they were supposed to apply for

[37:17] » that seems reasonable. >> Yeah.

[37:21] » You want to look up that number or we don't need a number now. We just we kind

[37:25] of do. And now do we need a time frame for this to Curtis's question?

[37:32] » I mean the way It's total. So that would be total.

[37:35] » Yeah, that would be again forever on that property. If you go more

[37:41] than what it would take to require

[37:47] maybe that's amount of material, x amount of

[37:58] yards, >> right? But based on the yard, based on

[38:03] the acres, we know, you know, you're not 100,000 yards out of a

[38:10] maybe.

[38:21] » Say that again. >> To be clear, that doesn't the clock

[38:25] doesn't reset if you sell the property. >> Correct.

[38:29] Somehow you got to know that, oh, that one's already had

[38:34] that one's already hit it limit. So if it changes hands, the new person can't

[38:38] come in and say, oh, let's take out 104,000.

[38:43] » Every one of these things attaches to something else.

[38:47] » Yes, it does. >> And how do you, you know, keep track of

[38:49] it and and all that? That's my >> Right. But if you're doing if you say

[38:55] 14,000 a year, if that's the number, next owner.

[39:00] » Yeah, but that's not where we're at right now. It's now it's for the life of

[39:03] the >> That's the way it's the way it's

[39:05] written. >> That's all I'm saying.

[39:07] » Which is fine. I don't care. It's just it's again something else. How how in

[39:11] the heck does your zoning administrator know 15 years from now that

[39:17] » Well, I guess that's my shouldn't be tapped out.

[39:21] » It shouldn't be for a one time thing. >> Again, that's not how gravel itself

[39:26] works. If there's if there's a I get it.

[39:30] » But you guys got to figure that out.

[39:35] » Well, what if we said just the amount, not total, the amount of material

[39:40] removed will require

[39:46] and that that doesn't put a time frame on it. You know,

[39:51] that way it's just the zoning administrator sees something going on,

[39:56] contacts the county, permits is

[40:04] something

[40:18] » and just on your comment about about earlier and your public comment, it it

[40:23] does affect the cost because if I've got a truck in diesel diesel over $5 a

[40:28] gallon. If I have to truck in gravel from 20 miles away, I better pay that

[40:33] trucking fuel bill. If I have to truck in gravel from two miles away, I I gain

[40:38] that cost. I don't have to pay as much trucking and so it will be a discounted

[40:44] price. So,

[40:49] » okay. Um I just have two more things. Line 507

[40:54] that section is highlighted and talks about the zoning report, excuse me, the

[40:59] annual report by the zoning administrator.

[41:05] And then it says if things are moving along, all good. Looking at five line

[41:13] 502 shall require amended operation or

[41:18] reclamation plans describing their situation saying I'm having a pickup

[41:23] here. We departed from the plan. The amended operation and reclamation plan

[41:31] shall be re reviewed by the command planning commission as submitted with a

[41:35] new application. But we don't want to do that, right? We don't want to have them

[41:40] to go through the application process again.

[41:43] » But this would only be if the zoning administrator determines that things

[41:46] aren't the approved. they they departed in a material way from the approved

[41:53] permit. >> So that would the way it's written that

[41:56] would trigger they'd have to submit a new plan and come back to the planning

[41:59] commission. >> Okay.

[42:02] » I just wanted to that helps clarify. I just want to make sure they go through

[42:05] all the permitting process again as if it were a new permit submitted as as if

[42:10] it were a new application. >> Well, that and that that's the way that

[42:14] it's written. But you know that commission doesn't want

[42:21] but this would be if somebody's not Curtis determines they're not following

[42:25] the permit they're doing something material uh mater

[42:30] were different from what was approved. He would require them to submit plans

[42:35] kind of explaining why they have to go back through the process with those

[42:39] plans. >> And I point Yeah. you come and explain,

[42:46] hey, this is why I'm doing it. This is why I'm doing it. But as far as

[42:50] because at that point, >> it doesn't meet the criteria, then we

[42:54] revoke the permit to start from

[43:00] scratches.

[43:04] » Okay. So to to you guys that's clear. >> Am I am I hearing that or are we all

[43:12] clear on that? It's not a whole new application with all the list of um

[43:17] » well kind of it says the amended operation and reclamation plan shall be

[43:23] reviewed by the planning committee. But so we're just looking at the

[43:28] changes, not the whole thing. I mean, whatever deviated from the original

[43:33] plan, that's all we should look at. Don't look the whole thing. We don't

[43:37] make them go through all. >> So, so maybe we strike as if

[43:41] [clears throat] submitted with a new application.

[43:44] » That's what I think.

[43:48] » Okay. But now the planning commission's going to look at it. They need criteria

[43:52] to get the green light. Yes. And what would that criteria be?

[43:57] » And that's why it's that that that the easy way to do it is to treat it like a

[44:00] new application because then you know what the process and procedure is.

[44:08] » Um how about we say um so they come back to us with their amended plan. We look

[44:14] at it. Um they're I'm not using the right words, but they're good to go. and

[44:21] that we have uh the zoning administrator check back in 30 days and make sure that

[44:26] the plan B is being followed or something like that.

[44:30] I can just say that planning commission reviews it in accordance with this

[44:34] section, you know, with the whole provisions of it. Um, and then what?

[44:40] » Well, then um they would have a followup a check back in 30 days,

[44:45] » okay, >> by the zoning administrator

[44:49] to make sure they're back on track or their amended plan is proceeding

[44:53] according to the amended, you know, the conditions, something to that effect.

[44:58] » After the planning commission app it. >> Yes.

[45:03] » Does that sound reasonable, guys?

[45:08] » They need criteria to get the green light.

[45:13] I guess what are they what are we requiring them to provide

[45:18] their change order? How elaborate? >> Some they don't have it just has to be

[45:24] some narrative saying I planned on this but then this happened and Here's my

[45:29] course of action going forward based on these conditions and I would like to

[45:35] keep moving forward with this permit. Just some sort of narrative describing

[45:38] what their situation was. >> Yeah. And that's not an automatic.

[45:43] » No. >> Did they have to describe the special or

[45:45] unusual circumstances that caused them to deviate?

[45:50] And that will be what will be submitted. Do we believe in you know what if

[45:56] they're providing the information but the planning commission at the time is

[46:02] not that well

[46:07] they're submitting

[46:10] » that's why we're relying our professionals we have to rely on

[46:15] professionals we don't know. Well, if you say planning commission shall review

[46:19] it in accordance with applicable sections of this, you know, that gives

[46:23] us the fall back >> because obviously we've establish the

[46:27] criteria in the we can, you know, we need to consult

[46:32] with an engineer or a traffic engineer or something.

[46:36] » We may have to have them provide that. Yeah, that's fair.

[46:45] I got 473

[47:09] gates in an elephant. I don't receive any

[47:13] operations

[47:17] operation. >> Okay. Do you want me to ask question

[47:22] about that? >> Oh, I just think

[47:28] » how do you secure the site

[47:34] posting in the gate? >> No offense.

[47:39] What's the >> What's the doing?

[47:49] » It's keeping the honest people out. >> Yeah.

[47:52] » Well, it's liability, right? >> But it's their liability, right?

[47:55] » It's not our liability. But you're you're giving them burome.

[48:00] » You know, that's like telling again I go back. It's like telling Dylan he's got

[48:04] to put a six foot fence around his place because he's got gravel there and

[48:07] machinery that somebody

[48:11] And we're already telling he's going to have around his place

[48:15] and spate

[48:20] the gate.

[48:24] Again, we're not our job to keep people trespass

[48:30] over

[48:35] again, you know, outside of some I I just don't see any places that

[48:40] require fenced and again if you have a 40 acre parcel where you're 40 finger

[48:49] but now I got to come back the list clean it up so you're

[48:53] continually >> you

[48:58] proping

[49:03] I see writing something.

[49:20] That's all I have. Anybody else?

[49:34] Yeah. Okay. Let's get this. Okay. So, I'll talk to you after about how we

[49:38] transmit this to Catherine for review. >> Okay.

[49:43] » Is it going to come back to us with the three changes we've requested or we just

[49:47] make the changes, send it to Catherine, and then bring it back?

[49:53] » Make the changes and send it to Catherine. Yeah. And um

[49:58] violation of we can't talk about this in between

[50:03] meetings. So we have to I just have to send Catherine and see what she says

[50:07] those proposed changes >> right and anything whatever she comes

[50:09] back with we'll discuss it the next public meeting

[50:18] » moving on review of permitted use versus special use um Ken put this together for

[50:25] us as we through it section by section. We reviewed all seven districts and uh

[50:35] I think there's some winds here. So we moved in egg we moved roadside stands

[50:39] and cottage industries into permitted.

[50:44] Um in CR we moved cottage industries into permitted

[50:49] » under low density residential we moved cottage industries into permitted use. I

[50:56] have a question before you get too far. So like in CR you move the cottage

[51:01] industries. Why not roadside stands as well?

[51:07] » I mean I guess I don't see the big difference when we talked about it at

[51:12] the last meeting. I don't know.

[51:20] » First of all, your zoning administrator go up to any

[51:24] [laughter] I'll guarantee you'll have to fire me

[51:27] first. >> Okay.

[51:30] » We talked about a definition of roadside stand. Can you help refresh my memory?

[51:35] Anybody? Do we want people to sell their corn whatever their tomato extra

[51:40] tomatoes or >> my notes indicated that we were talked

[51:44] about that you have to it has to provide a significant source of income.

[51:48] » That's right. >> But I didn't elaborate on that because I

[51:52] thought the uh >> who sets that standard

[51:55] » significant >> that's it's that's a tough standard. So

[51:59] I like the language that's there saying 50% of the goods have to be produced on

[52:03] the premises. You know I think that's makes it far operation

[52:10] only 50% >> and that's at least 50% I think it had

[52:18] to be at least 50% >> and that comes from

[52:21] » more could be >> yeah it could be more yeah

[52:25] » where's the other 50% neighbors

[52:28] » the neighbors garden >> maybe I don't care this I guess we could

[52:33] do that >> and that's the same langage in the

[52:35] village district.

[52:40] » Yeah. To say that significant sources in that that's up to

[52:47] » Okay. So Mark, are you suggesting that we move roadside into CR as well as a

[52:52] permitted use? If you if you're going to do cottage industries, I think they go

[52:57] as you're if you're going to allow cottage industries in all of those, then

[53:02] why can't we do stand?

[53:08] » The only difference is that it's they're tied to farms, you know, farms.

[53:14] » Well, like Curtis said, >> a big garden out in the back and you

[53:19] have too many tomatoes. There's a lady in the village there to

[53:24] » and farms are permitted in CR. So that that would make sense to add that there.

[53:29] That's what

[53:32] » I'm good with that. >> So move road stands into CR as well.

[53:45] » Mark, are you saying >> anywhere you can have eggs? Anyway,

[53:50] yeah, >> it seem to make sense.

[53:52] » Okay, >> so that would be allowed in one as well.

[53:55] » Yeah. Okay.

[54:02] » Uh what about home? Yeah, home district. Same thing, right?

[54:14] » Julie got some corn you want to sell. >> Okay.

[54:18] » Well, add that to mobile home. >> But now the aggion

[54:23] that's consistent in a CR and R1 is that agriculture both general and specialized

[54:30] farming, tree farms and forestry that's not in

[54:33] » mobile home. Okay. So no mobile home >> but again if you sell anything

[54:43] for

[54:46] that training You buy the farm.

[54:52] » You buy a chicken, it lays an egg. You sell that egg, your egg.

[54:55] » So you get an egg. >> I don't know.

[55:00] Well, yeah. You can't get shut down your egg. You sold it. You made money from

[55:04] » that's what Katherine told us. The Right to

[55:09] Farm Act is an overall exemption, >> but it doesn't I mean, so in any of the

[55:14] districts, if someone was farming, they would be able to do it, but you have to

[55:18] decide someone who's wanting to start a farm, which districts.

[55:28] So, do you think it's appropriate to add that language to

[55:36] » Why do you have to add Why can't you just But you can have

[55:39] roadside stand >> because you're to have a roadside stand,

[55:42] you're supposed to grow 50% of the product on the property. So if you can't

[55:47] have a farm, you're kind of >> well added to mobile home.

[55:56] » I'm not

[56:00] doing that in the mobile home district. >> Okay. [laughter] Yeah. I mean, I don't

[56:04] see a bad idea. >> Okay.

[56:10] So, we'll add it there, too.

[56:14] » All right. Moving on to village district.

[56:17] Um, we're adding cottage industry,

[56:23] residential dwelling on second floor, commercial structure, and then

[56:27] carpentry, plumbing, electrical, sales, services, and contracting offices. Those

[56:31] are all not going to be permitted uses in village district.

[56:39] » And then uh manufacturing we're adding to carpentry, plumbing,

[56:43] electrical sales services and contracting offices and then outdoor

[56:47] storage self storage as a permitted use

[56:52] » and these would all be subject to site plan review.

[56:57] » Okay. Anything else you want to add? in that before we send this off.

[57:13] » Okay. So, um I think we can call for a public hearing on this. I talked to our

[57:17] clerk about timing, thinking of timing. The posting for the public hearing will

[57:22] have to come out October 1st in the interim review. We think we can make it

[57:26] in that window for get her all of this to her to review and back in time for a

[57:31] public notice for a public hearing. >> So get it to Catherine to review.

[57:35] » Okay. >> So I'll just make these changes and send

[57:39] it to you. >> Okay.

[57:42] » Yeah. >> Go ahead. Should I do a public hearing

[57:44] notice, too? >> Yes.

[57:46] » Okay. >> And so if we don't make that window,

[57:48] then we just won't post that notice. >> Okay.

[57:51] But um I would entertain a motion to call for a public hearing on this. Um

[57:57] let's me word this right. Review of permitted uses versus uses subject to

[58:02] special approval in all seven districts.

[58:08] And uh I would I'll make that motion. >> This is for just for

[58:17] » 103.

[58:24] Correct. That's our next meeting. 10:13.

[58:29] » Are you going to be here, Richard? >> Yeah.

[58:34] » And then you're a little

[58:50] Do you want to wait? Are you suggesting

[58:55] » Oh, are you not shaking your head? >> Well, I mean, it's probably better to

[58:59] have everybody. >> Okay. Very good.

[59:01] » Well, then that gives us a nice big window to get this reviewed and get it

[59:05] back in time. Okay. >> So, we could call for a public hearing

[59:08] next. Okay.

[59:11] » Is it possible? I mean, if something there might be some other things that

[59:15] come up that we need a public meeting. Can you do more than one

[59:20] problem at a public meeting? >> Yes.

[59:26] » Yeah. >> All right. Very good.

[59:31] Waterfront overlay district. All right. I gave you guys a piece of

[59:37] paper. Um we had Okay. So, if you could pull up

[59:41] your waterfront district overlay.

[59:51] We didn't know about Inland Lake. So, I did call Leslie Meyers and this is the

[59:55] information that we have for Ellsworth Lake, Wilson Lake,

[59:59] Lake Michigan. And then this would be 2026.

[1:00:03] And we don't have Little torch in this. So, I I would propose we just leave that

[1:00:08] off because we You can't just make up a number,

[1:00:11] arbitrarily assign a number. So I would say we not use a lake level for that.

[1:00:19] Um

[1:00:24] I do have one correction here and K I may have said Lake Sinclair but it's St.

[1:00:30] Clair Lake [clears throat]

[1:00:35] and areas affected. So, knowing what the county says about

[1:00:41] our lake level um and flood plane, if you look at um page two

[1:00:54] where it's it talks about the army corp engineer their ordinary high water mark.

[1:01:01] We should substitute the yeah the county stuff

[1:01:05] that

[1:01:13] Um, Ken wants to know if we want to add on D1 if we want to add height and lot

[1:01:19] coverage limitations. What do you guys think about that?

[1:01:23] » So, it's CR. >> Um, so you'd say maximum lot coverage in

[1:01:29] CR would be what 30%. Is that what you're referring to, Ken?

[1:01:33] » Yeah. Like some, you know, some communities have additional

[1:01:36] restrictions. >> So like only two and a we're trying to

[1:01:40] get people have maximum view. So it says two and a half stories or 35 ft high and

[1:01:45] a 35 30% lot coverage. Is that something you want to include in that or is that

[1:01:49] will just come out in the >> My understanding was it if we do the

[1:01:55] overlay that it still it resorts to the underlying area. So if

[1:02:02] that's CR then those restrictions. I don't know that I change it at this

[1:02:06] point. >> I'm not suggesting we change it. I think

[1:02:09] he's just asking if we want to include it,

[1:02:11] » right? Yeah. That this it would default to the underlying zoning district

[1:02:15] requirements right now. >> So why would we want to say anything

[1:02:19] different unless you wanted to change it,

[1:02:21] » right? Some communities do have stricter requirements in the water.

[1:02:27] » And what was what was the or the overlay What was the how did we come up with the

[1:02:35] overlay? Because when I looked at it, I can't find my phone right now.

[1:02:39] It was like

[1:02:44] road to me. It looked like that property that Dylan bought

[1:02:49] would fall in that. >> Yeah, Julie and I talked about that this

[1:02:54] morning. It doesn't.

[1:03:05] » But yeah, this is >> this is church, right?

[1:03:11] » Oh, okay. >> So that would be the that's the

[1:03:17] » this would be a proposed overlay. Yes. So you've got that whole which was egg

[1:03:24] » is all considered lakefront that doesn't lake

[1:03:30] » yeah this says it has to touch water though

[1:03:34] » the way that this is written the lot would have to apply one of the lakes

[1:03:38] specified river specified >> so he can remain a I see what you're

[1:03:45] saying so that that gets addressed But it has to touch the water.

[1:03:49] » And then to Dave's point in previous meetings, you got 20 acre. What was you

[1:03:56] talking about 20 acre parcel that's touched

[1:04:06] » if it's if it's touching the water? [clears throat]

[1:04:09] » So So that So you made this it was if I've got 20 acres touch one of

[1:04:15] these legs It's a long beach away from the lake. Is

[1:04:20] my whole 20 acres that touches the water included in this or is it just a lot

[1:04:25] size or double lot size

[1:04:30] that's included? >> It's just the 50,

[1:04:35] but the requirements would only apply to that.

[1:04:37] » Okay, that's what I was already at the green belt,

[1:04:41] » right? So, this is only extending 10 ft beyond the green belt area.

[1:04:48] It's the same about 50T.

[1:04:53] » 25. >> I thought it was

[1:04:55] » Well, it says two different numbers.

[1:05:00] » I thought it was 50.

[1:05:04] » Read the definitions. Under definitions, it says 50 ft. And then when you go to

[1:05:09] the 4, whatever it says, it says 25. >> And so you have to You defer to the the

[1:05:17] ordinance the stipulated ordinance in case

[1:05:34] » in the way that this is written you know you look at that section 4.11 which is

[1:05:39] section belt on your

[1:05:44] Aren't you >> making it more restrictive if you want

[1:05:48] to? >> You wouldn't have a bigger green belt.

[1:05:50] You just wouldn't be able to build the structure

[1:05:52] in 50 ft from high water mark other than like you know things that are

[1:05:58] listed like a dock and

[1:06:03] » that already exist

[1:06:08] already exist on >> this would go beyond existing

[1:06:16] » I wish my son was here because he thinks I just get this. Um,

[1:06:23] what's so hard about this >> right now? Right now, if I have a lot on

[1:06:29] Lake Michigan, I cannot build within 50 ft of ordinary high in

[1:06:35] that waterfront overlay district. What changes?

[1:06:40] » You still can't build 50 of the water, right?

[1:06:44] » Correct. >> But there are additional things

[1:06:47] landscaping requirements. There are there are you're being requested to

[1:06:52] build what's called the vegetative area, not the native plant area. So there are

[1:06:58] additional requirements in this. >> This would be curious to read.

[1:07:05] » Yeah. And the goal is of course protect shoreline and keep your shoreline and

[1:07:10] water quality.

[1:07:15] So this elaborates on the existing

[1:07:21] » Curtis I had the same question you did and I put together a document and I'll

[1:07:25] forward it to you on the difference between green belt and waterfront

[1:07:29] overlay. There is some distinctions and it's a real simple table that's easy to

[1:07:34] understand. I'll forward that to you. I'll make a note.

[1:07:37] » I like easy too. Um all right. So guys, so Mark, you're

[1:07:43] saying don't put on the height lot limitations. You're suggesting just

[1:07:46] leave it as in they'll look at the it's under CR. So we got what we got in CR.

[1:07:53] » That would be my suggestion. >> Okay, I'm okay with that.

[1:07:56] » I wonder about and be one that I just wonder. Yeah, it says 50 feet land from

[1:08:06] the ordinary high water mark and it's hard. I still don't understand how they

[1:08:11] get that and I've read it several times on

[1:08:15] but I also I just wonder if

[1:08:22] I mean you might be a foot or so above but if the property is the same level

[1:08:26] for 100 ft and the the lake comes up two feet and sits right in your house then

[1:08:32] so I don't you know does that we have to take that into consideration I don't

[1:08:40] These numbers aren't average, you know, and I think the last, especially this

[1:08:44] last year, it's kind of threat

[1:08:50] commission office.

[1:09:01] » It's current. >> Yeah, it's current, but you know,

[1:09:05] probably not. It's probably too soon, >> but we can amend this. Yeah,

[1:09:11] » there's a website called lakebrief.com and they have rolling updates on I found

[1:09:18] it after but they have rolling updates. They do

[1:09:22] it every two years. They faced

[1:09:30] and what they have is consistent with what county has.

[1:09:34] » Okay. >> But that might change soon.

[1:09:38] Okay. Something to keep an eye on. >> And they do change, you know, Melrose

[1:09:44] Township where they have I mean the high water

[1:09:49] mark was established in 1916.

[1:10:01] » Does any of that affect insurance? a lot of places were underwater when St.

[1:10:08] Clair came up and I don't know if they have problems with that or not or if

[1:10:12] they look at those setbacks and whatever in terms of that

[1:10:19] » I mean some of the reasoning to do some of that setback and is because

[1:10:25] if the water goes up there does that mean it's into the septic tank or in the

[1:10:30] sewer systemever whatever contaminated as well. I know that was

[1:10:36] some >> that's part of the reason why

[1:10:42] » to me at least you kind of want to use the high water mark. I live on Michigan

[1:10:47] and it was really high. >> Yeah.

[1:10:52] We lost a lot of

[1:10:56] answer question forward new construction a low level lot that's flat all the way

[1:11:04] back

[1:11:08] » they're going to have an elaborate field that's going to be nowhere near the lake

[1:11:12] » even if they're pumping it quart

[1:11:18] is going with new construction that's out there out there already.

[1:11:24] » And that's that's a big thing had this chat I know with Alex and some other

[1:11:29] people. Russian ro the lakeside of Russian road.

[1:11:35] How come he's got that? How come they can do that? Oh, it's been there

[1:11:39] forever. I mean you know what you're talking about this overlay that's great

[1:11:43] but it's it's only going to be for something that gets built new. You can't

[1:11:49] on any of the old stuff. I got you got nothing to say about that.

[1:11:53] » And most of it's old stuff. >> So, and this isn't the first year,

[1:12:01] but

[1:12:06] » I hear what you're saying, Chris, but it is our job.

[1:12:08] » Absolutely. I get it. I get it. I just >> lot of nonformance.

[1:12:14] » It's a lot. >> And the other is we can tie this to the

[1:12:20] entrance county numbers and put as >> so when the county updates their numbers

[1:12:25] will automatically >> Okay, that's a great idea.

[1:12:27] » We'll just have to make sure you know keep a copy of this around.

[1:12:31] » Okay, I like that. >> I'm guessing all the money spending on

[1:12:35] the lights are preparing these numbers.

[1:12:41] » Yeah, I would suspect that'll be helpful.

[1:12:46] All right. Um I

[1:12:49] And so in this I'm the one that proposed it now. I'm the one that's going to

[1:12:53] strike it. I just proposed it. Wondered about tents in the lakefront over

[1:12:59] waterfront overlay and I'm just going to strike that and we'll take a reactive

[1:13:04] position instead of a proactive position and we'll just keep in touch with our

[1:13:08] zoning administrator and if he's hearing things then we'll amend it. So strike

[1:13:13] that. >> Okay.

[1:13:16] I I have a question that I read at the end there four. It says waterfront

[1:13:21] development shall maintain to the maximum extent possible open and

[1:13:25] unobstructed views to the waterfront from adjacent properties, roadways and

[1:13:30] pedestrian ways. Why do they have to do that? If that's your property, why do

[1:13:36] you have to I I could see maybe your neighbor, but again, it's your property.

[1:13:42] So I to me that seems Well, it's that might be something you

[1:13:48] want to check out. I mean, that's why it says shall maintain to the maximum

[1:13:52] possible. The idea is you want everyone's home to be in line so

[1:13:56] nobody's view either side is obstructed, but somebody might have a compelling

[1:14:01] reason why they have to go closer. You know, maybe it's wet land

[1:14:06] or something. So, this isn't a hard section of the ordinance to enforce.

[1:14:13] It's to maximum possible. That being said, those are the kind of sections

[1:14:18] that are

[1:14:21] captain needs to take a hard look at that. You know, again, this came from

[1:14:25] another community just as a conversation uh for Banks Township. Um and that one

[1:14:32] has been somewhat controversial in the other community,

[1:14:36] » but I know someone that built on Lake on Michigan Avenue in Charlotte and there

[1:14:42] was empty lot. He bought it and he built and the lady next door was all up in

[1:14:46] arms because it blocked her view and it's like he was all in all the setbacks

[1:14:51] and everything, right? wanted that view. She should have bought the lot before

[1:14:55] him and then she would have had it. >> Kind of ironically she had built a lot

[1:15:01] of other stuff on his property.

[1:15:07] » Um, do you want to wait and see what Catherine says about that or do you feel

[1:15:10] strongly you'd like to strike that? >> I I guess we can see what Catherine says

[1:15:15] about it. I mean, it sounds like it's not set in stone.

[1:15:19] » No, it's not. She she maybe won't like that provision. She'll ask it to be

[1:15:24] deleted. >> Okay.

[1:15:28] » And then the last thing I have on this um future I I have a question on our

[1:15:34] future land use map. So we are proposing this overlay. It is consistent with our

[1:15:40] future land use map. Um but maybe I'll draw your attention. Let's just as an

[1:15:45] example look at little torch.

[1:15:50] And you see how the overlay is only on the western side of the lake

[1:15:55] » and the big chunks are not. And so and same with really everything. Lake

[1:16:01] Michigan and then Ellsworth Lake. Of course, Sinclair isn't on here as a

[1:16:07] waterfront overlay, but um excuse me, St. Clair, not Sinclair. Um do we have

[1:16:15] the authority to because the board to do these lakes, Lake Michigan, these

[1:16:21] specified lakes to to put the overlay on all of the lake or do we have the

[1:16:27] authority to do that >> and should we do that? Yes, you have the

[1:16:32] authority to do it because you know the the future land use the map in the

[1:16:36] master plan is conceptual you know it's almost aspirational in terms of this is

[1:16:42] what we think is going to happen but the zoning ordinances

[1:16:46] the rules that are you know in place now. So if the planning commission the

[1:16:52] board ultimately thinks that the wateration should apply to all all

[1:16:56] parcels that above the water, you can deviate from the future.

[1:17:01] » Okay, that's helpful. And what do you guys think about that? I mean Dave, you

[1:17:06] live on little torch and they've got all these big parcels around.

[1:17:09] » You can't get within 100 foot anywhere that there is a house already. So it

[1:17:15] would I mean it's all swamp >> on the

[1:17:20] and then a big hill up to Richard. So you could build a house on the property

[1:17:25] up there, but the lake is >> I'm speaking up to because I know

[1:17:32] » Yeah, >> right. So, you know, eaten lake is

[1:17:36] swamped all around it. >> That's not in this lake isn't

[1:17:39] » I know, but you're saying all >> no all streams, creeks, and I thought

[1:17:46] » the connecting water >> I The only reason some of it would be

[1:17:50] safety wise that's all but he's right the house

[1:17:55] kind of weird point that it would seem like you would do it for all of them.

[1:18:03] » Yeah. Do you guys want to think about that or should we just put it forward

[1:18:07] with like so this would be all orange then this whole thing even the big big

[1:18:13] parcels. But again the reason I I asked that is because we have

[1:18:18] act that we're six months away from enacting and all of these could get

[1:18:23] small parcelled out. So I guess I would say do the whole thing according you

[1:18:29] know the board asked us to do the whole water body. I would say stick with that

[1:18:33] and if they want us to pair back we can. >> Yeah. And it's it it's I think easier to

[1:18:39] apply it to all the parcels just the waterways identified in the ordinance

[1:18:44] because if you did it you didn't you'd have to justify why this orange property

[1:18:50] on Lake Michigan it applies there but it doesn't apply. I think that

[1:18:55] it torch lakes it wouldn't make any difference and anyone building their

[1:19:02] restrictions you can't put anything down.

[1:19:06] » Okay. >> So changing it to a overlay

[1:19:17] » make a difference but it's protected in the event that

[1:19:25] someone.

[1:19:28] » Okay.

[1:19:33] » Yeah. >> But anything more on this you guys? I'd

[1:19:38] like to if not I'd like to button this up too and send it a version to

[1:19:43] Catherine and then maybe have a public hearing on November.

[1:19:54] Oh, pictures. You put in pictures here. Ken, do you want to add pictures?

[1:19:59] » Well, just just, you know, because I wanted to provide again, this comes from

[1:20:05] so, you know, it's requiring people to build their structure in the forest

[1:20:10] vegetation area, not the natural vegetation.

[1:20:14] » So, that's kind of what it this shows 60 ft. We're only talking

[1:20:19] about But, you know, this requires people to

[1:20:23] basically put their homes out of the sensitive dune landscaping and into the

[1:20:30] trees more or less. >> Okay. Um I have se and every ordinance I

[1:20:34] looked at they always have a picture. >> Yeah.

[1:20:36] » And so I would I would like to include that as I think it's helpful to

[1:20:40] » the residents and I think it's helpful to the zoning administrator and

[1:20:48] » then you put in information here from Eagle. Is there anything more you wanted

[1:20:52] to highlight about that? >> No, that was just because I couldn't

[1:20:54] find what you found. >> Okay.

[1:20:57] » And so I contacted Eagle and they basically said, "Well, we can tell you

[1:21:01] how to calculate it yourself >> and that's what this

[1:21:07] I just disregard. >> Okay,

[1:21:12] very good. Moving on to RVs.

[1:21:21] Everybody get their ordinance out. So, our goals with this increase use of

[1:21:26] time, making it seasonal, avoiding substandard housing situations.

[1:21:32] Um, the first We talk about you can use you

[1:21:39] can use an RV any district with a single family dwelling. Second one has to be

[1:21:44] screened. There's really no deviation from current. Number two talks about

[1:21:49] storage and here's where the big change is. Um you

[1:21:54] can store it May 15 through December 1st if there's no township ordinance

[1:22:00] violations or civil infractions and then it has to be pulled. So that's a big

[1:22:05] deviation from our current.

[1:22:10] » It's any lot, right? Yes. Any any parcel.

[1:22:14] » Yes. Any zoning district. But here's one thing. I was so focused on the mechanics

[1:22:17] I missed this. There is no we we need to specify districts because there is no we

[1:22:23] can't have ours in manufacturing or village manufacturing. So we need to

[1:22:27] specify the five districts. >> I would So that's um

[1:22:36] CR R1 mobile home and village and I would add that that back in the

[1:22:42] specified the district. Okay. So is that clear Curtis? You can't have you can't

[1:22:48] store them in manufacturing or building manufacturing unless they have a self

[1:22:52] storage unit and then that's another matter.

[1:22:55] » So that's a pretty big change. You're allowed to store one

[1:22:59] » one. >> You can store.

[1:23:04] » Yes. >> No. Well, this is we're just talking

[1:23:06] about storage still in two >> vacant parcels, one RV May 15th through

[1:23:13] December 1st. That's kind of the summary of that. Three and four are the same.

[1:23:21] Five is pretty much the same. One RB any district May 15th through December 1st.

[1:23:27] So that shouldn't be in manufactur. >> Correct. Yeah. No, that was just

[1:23:33] something I overlooked. But I'm not the only one because it's from an old

[1:23:37] ordinance.

[1:23:41] Six is two RVs and then the five districts,

[1:23:47] one to three acres, 45 days. And that's an increase of 15

[1:23:53] days over our previous

[1:24:03] and seven. >> I have a question. Okay. So, is

[1:24:08] » I thought if you had one, you can have it there from the 15th through the

[1:24:14] December 1st. But if you have two or more, it's only 45 days

[1:24:18] » in one to three acres. But your one your one can be there from

[1:24:23] May 15th to December. You're only talking about the second

[1:24:27] » third or fourth or whatever, right? >> Yep, that's correct. So, how do we

[1:24:30] clarify that? How do we word it differently?

[1:24:34] » I think self-explanatory. >> Yeah, I think it, you know,

[1:24:37] » you're allowed in the above. >> If you want to have two or you know, two

[1:24:42] um you know, you're allowed the one. >> You could you could clarify it by saying

[1:24:47] the second. You can say two are allowed. The second RV

[1:24:52] » is restricted to 45 days. >> Okay.

[1:24:55] » And then you could do the same thing with the next one.

[1:24:57] » I think that's much clearer. >> The second, third, fourth and or fourth,

[1:25:01] whatever. >> Is that 45 also?

[1:25:04] » Yes. >> Yes. So numbers,

[1:25:06] » you can have four RVs on over three acres.

[1:25:10] » Yes. >> Or month and a half. Six weeks.

[1:25:13] » Correct. In five districts. >> Yes.

[1:25:17] » And That's unchanged from our current use

[1:25:21] because it was 15 and applied for 15 and applied for 15. So the use there change.

[1:25:26] We just we just say are saying >> 45

[1:25:32] [clears throat] those five districts for 45 days.

[1:25:34] » I'll just add a section saying this section doesn't apply in the village.

[1:25:42] » Okay. Okay. rather than just the top.

[1:25:47] » That works for me. >> So you can't have more than four.

[1:25:51] » No, it's a campground. >> State road.

[1:25:57] » That's not a big

[1:26:07] and then of course it's subject to the sanitation code and all that. So how is

[1:26:10] this sitting with you guys? Are you It's a big departure from current

[1:26:16] everybody comfortable with this.

[1:26:23] » Okay. Well, let's have let's put those changes in and I'm going to forward that

[1:26:27] to Catherine just to get some feedback from her

[1:26:32] and maybe we'll call for a public hearing in November on this too. Any

[1:26:37] further comments, questions?

[1:26:46] Ken, did you get all of that? >> I did.

[1:26:48] » Okay.

[1:26:56] » All right. Setbacks. Um, Ken's forwarded to you

[1:27:01] a new ordinance, a revised ordinance, an amended

[1:27:06] ordinance that says it moves setbacks in R1 from 30 to 20. Um, you remember last

[1:27:15] meeting at the end of the meeting in public comment time, Marv said, "Hey,

[1:27:19] you guys, are you sure you're following the rules here or is this you better

[1:27:23] check on this?" And indeed um we were out of order there. So we have to have a

[1:27:28] public hearing. We can't vote and say no, we don't want to take this up. We do

[1:27:32] have to have a public hearing on this and so um I would make a motion that we

[1:27:38] have a public hearing again another fund on in November for this. But we can I

[1:27:43] guess I can call for the public hearing the next meeting.

[1:27:45] » Yeah. And Katherine needs to look at it first. I think that's the procedure.

[1:27:50] » Yep. So we'll have Catherine look at this. But we will have a public hearing

[1:27:53] on this and It's because um I was out of order and I'll take responsibility for

[1:27:58] that. So this will get discussed further. We can deliberate further at

[1:28:02] our >> What are you What are you doing? What

[1:28:04] are you changing?

[1:28:08] » Okay.

[1:28:13] » And that's all I have to say about that. Talk about that more. All right. Data

[1:28:17] center. Um

[1:28:21] [cough] We went to [clears throat] I I learned

[1:28:24] quite a bit at the conference about this and I'm really there's a lot of great

[1:28:29] information coming up. Ken, do you want to share any highlights about data

[1:28:32] center? >> Um, we can send us the ordinance that's

[1:28:37] out for all Michigan Township Association townships to have at if they

[1:28:42] so choose. So that's in your packet. I am not prepared to make any motion or

[1:28:47] movement on this. I want to take up our full time to learn all that we can about

[1:28:53] and things like that. So, and there's no rush to do that. We have the moratorum.

[1:28:57] Um, so read through that ordinance. Um, and is

[1:29:03] there anything you'd like to share? I I to share, but always

[1:29:08] say about what you learn. >> Well, just Katherine gave the

[1:29:10] presentation, you know, I I thought you very well done. It was not the sky fall.

[1:29:16] It was, you know, this is a unique enough land use that should enact a

[1:29:22] moratorum to at least give you time to research to determine whether or not you

[1:29:27] need to add something to your own. Um, you know, the MTA, the Michigan

[1:29:34] Association did that template ordinance. It touches on all the areas that have

[1:29:39] been flagged as maybe problematic with the large scale data centers. Um, there

[1:29:43] are four four types. There's the ones that are grabbing the head, the utility

[1:29:48] scale ones, but there are smaller scale ones, too.

[1:29:51] Um, you know, it just Catherine basically

[1:29:55] said, you know, work on this legal counsel.

[1:30:01] [clears throat]

[1:30:05] » She also said that he thought areas where electronic transmission lines and

[1:30:11] gas lines cross, that's where these are going to go. That's where they want to

[1:30:15] be. That's their sweet spot, so to speak. So, not too many of those

[1:30:21] Northern Michigan, but you know we talked about everything electronic they

[1:30:27] find a way to do it smaller better

[1:30:35] ask you ahead of time. Is there anything you want to share about that as soon as

[1:30:38] you >> I made lots of

[1:30:43] prepare you? >> Um

[1:30:46] no not really I mean I generally just think we need to keep an open mind. We

[1:30:53] want to have some protection but and I think they're gonna change you know I

[1:30:59] mean computers got smaller watch that does everything.

[1:31:06] So I think um we just need to just be careful. I think we they're necessary.

[1:31:13] So, we can't just turn a blind eye and say we won't.

[1:31:18] Is it likely to come here? Not >> not the hyper.

[1:31:21] » No. No. I mean, [clears throat] I think they're going to mostly all be hyper.

[1:31:25] It's like, why you spend so much money on a little one when you can spend

[1:31:30] probably less money for whatever and build a bigger one.

[1:31:37] She did say one thing. If you have an area in your community where high

[1:31:43] tension wires, a real good electrical source, and a good water source come

[1:31:48] together that those are spots that they're going to hone in.

[1:31:53] » Yes. >> And so you have to be careful. And if

[1:31:55] you look at that map, we really And it technically it has to go in a

[1:31:59] manufacturing zone. So we really don't there's a little one in Atwood and then

[1:32:04] there's one at the end of the

[1:32:11] change.

[1:32:16] Okay, I won't duplicate any of your information. I know one thing that was

[1:32:21] of interest to me there can be developers cannot have any NDAs for

[1:32:26] confidential agreements. So, they have to be very forthright when they come

[1:32:29] into your community and let their intentions be known up front. Um,

[1:32:33] regarding the type of building, they're more they're a cross between industrial

[1:32:37] and office manufacturing. So they want them mostly in the industrial zones, but

[1:32:43] we could potentially have one in a manufacturing zone. Um the smaller ones.

[1:32:48] So yeah. So we'll just keep reading and learning.

[1:32:52] » There was a a workound too though. She mentioned about trying to if they come

[1:32:57] and want to do something, try to negotiate with them because you can get

[1:33:01] benefits out of it. But I can't remember. I'm sorry I didn't look that

[1:33:06] over specifically, but there was a that you could go to the state and get under

[1:33:14] and get an okay to put it in there. There were some qualifications for that.

[1:33:19] I don't >> Yeah,

[1:33:22] » you remember that? >> Yes, there's 10 case 10 or 11 cases

[1:33:26] right now where they skipped the township,

[1:33:30] » but those were those were renewable energy. So, that was either solar, wind

[1:33:34] or battery energy storage. There's a specific

[1:33:39] I thought that was interesting too that I think we talked about this way back

[1:33:44] when you know there's a state law that regulates the large scale solar wind

[1:33:49] battery energy storage and facilities have the right to appear by those rules.

[1:33:55] However, they've had 11 applications and in two

[1:34:00] years they haven't approved a single one of them. So these facilities are willing

[1:34:06] to work with the locals even if their requirements are more stren they know I

[1:34:11] wait six months I wait two years and it's been two years and they haven't

[1:34:14] received approval from the state so I thought that was pretty interesting

[1:34:18] » the other thing that I just remembered and I we have to be careful of how we

[1:34:23] define essential services because these data centers providers are

[1:34:28] making the argument we're an essential service and a lot of ordinances provide

[1:34:34] that essential services are exempt from zoning. So they're trying to squeeze

[1:34:39] themselves in for that. So you know we got the moratorium in place and I'll

[1:34:43] make sure that our definitions and other things

[1:34:50] well I went down

[1:34:54] I don't see the water consumption as an issue.

[1:34:59] The water disposal is an issue. They have a lot of

[1:35:05] internal they don't use as much water as they started out as they still use

[1:35:13] that dispos

[1:35:26] have to generate power that kicks back to the grid

[1:35:31] drains the grid. And I don't there's one spot that I came

[1:35:36] up with with my that hey this is away from residential areas away all that

[1:35:42] stuff

[1:35:45] where I came up with that where I would put it away from I don't see it getting

[1:35:50] approved this industrial space or the

[1:35:57] manufacturing small

[1:36:00] » they are but they the data centers are getting smaller. One of the smallest

[1:36:04] ones is called the edge edge and it's called um it's on the edge or public

[1:36:11] activity and it's it's considered a data center for zoning purposes and um it's

[1:36:17] really the analogy they made is like the size of

[1:36:21] your neighborhood corner store. So there's something that would fit in our

[1:36:25] manufacturing district that would be considered a data center in the smallest

[1:36:30] one of the largest one is concept was a hypers

[1:36:34] scale. Think of that like your Walmart super center massive footprint um and

[1:36:39] its own campus the middle one was called collocation. Think of that like a large

[1:36:44] apartment building for zoning purposes but the only thing that lives in that

[1:36:48] large apartment building is computers and then edge

[1:36:53] Unless so that's yeah that's regarding um and then a question while we were

[1:37:00] there I snag can can egg be res to industrial so I mean would that that's a

[1:37:07] question >> we have big agricultural

[1:37:11] parcels and if Oracle should call Joe >> we we have a process zoning foring

[1:37:22] evalation criteria, you know, one of them is is it consistent with the future

[1:37:26] land use? That's only one. So, you know, we evaluated that under the criteria. I

[1:37:33] mean, top of my head, probably not, but you know, it would be up to the planning

[1:37:38] commission and ultimately to make that determination after

[1:37:46] that process.

[1:37:49] » Okay. So, keep reading all the articles and for sharing any articles you forward

[1:37:53] to us. They're helpful. We'll just continue to study offsite

[1:37:58] impacts about this. There's no such thing as banning them

[1:38:02] out, right? It's a question that gets asked. You have to find a place for them

[1:38:07] and then you have to tell them noise, vibration, all of those things are

[1:38:14] over. Is there you say we're going to allow you edge?

[1:38:20] » This is what we're allow.

[1:38:27] » No. So if Oracle should call our clerk and say, "Hey, do you have a zone an

[1:38:32] ordinance for data centers?" The clerk can say, "Yes, we do." And here it is.

[1:38:37] And it's just this tiny little area. So

[1:38:43] » that is what Catherine If you identify your industrial area as

[1:38:47] the zone for data centers and the parcel sizes are small the large scale work

[1:38:57] it becsu

[1:39:12] big ones the same noise issue. >> No

[1:39:17] small footprint, little offsite impact. So far,

[1:39:20] » the noise isn't what we think of noise like, well, that's too

[1:39:24] » it's the frequency that you know the birds know the deer know that everything

[1:39:28] is the dogs are acting weird and it's like living under the power.

[1:39:32] » Yeah. >> Right.

[1:39:34] » Yeah. Right. And all of that keep learning

[1:39:38] about this.

[1:39:41] All right. review of zoning map.

[1:39:48] I'm just going to read read one more time what was asked of us

[1:39:54] from the board. They said oh look at the planning commission

[1:40:00] review zoning map proposed changes to move large parcels from CR and R1 to egg

[1:40:05] and have waterfront district that would include conservation and possibly CR and

[1:40:09] egg. And so that a request and um really in just thinking about this and

[1:40:16] conferring with other people that are much smarter and know more about all of

[1:40:20] this stuff than me. This is um this every anything we do, any decisions

[1:40:26] we make, they have to be based in our master plan and they have to come from

[1:40:29] our future language map. And um so knowing that what I would ask what I

[1:40:37] would suggest is that we ask our planner to look at that and then come back to us

[1:40:42] with recommendations on zoning changes that are reasonable that he would

[1:40:46] propose. So and then that would be tied in of course the master plan. anything

[1:40:51] else we do in this matter, you know, if we take this matter into

[1:40:57] our own our own hands, what we're doing is circumventing the public process and

[1:41:01] we can't do that. So, >> decided not to do that to the last

[1:41:06] meeting. That was our original request and then Richard

[1:41:14] wasn't on board with that request. That was very confusing at the last board

[1:41:17] meeting. What was like

[1:41:24] » um I can pull up. So are you suggesting that that request isn't relevant

[1:41:29] anymore? >> Richard, what's your

[1:41:45] » I did watch the meeting and >> that's the case.

[1:41:53] I guess you know just looking

[1:42:01] it's the splitting of parcels I see some places it's

[1:42:13] one or the

[1:42:18] paper agenda this quarter this quarter that

[1:42:25] you're in or out of whatever you're

[1:42:34] » Okay, this won't let me pull up the minutes.

[1:42:40] » I guess I was thinking

[1:42:46] I [snorts] can remember. >> Okay. So, Dave, repeat. What? What is

[1:42:50] it? You think that they rescended this request or amended it?

[1:42:56] » Rescended it or amended it or same people that voted on it to send it.

[1:43:03] It's >> this is I think it's off the table.

[1:43:07] » My recollection. >> Okay. Mark, is that you were at the

[1:43:09] meeting? Okay. Well, that is easy.

[1:43:28] That's enough. I don't have anything else.

[1:43:43] Thanks. While the meeting was going on, somebody

[1:43:46] text me and reminded me something that at one point um selling firewood in the

[1:43:52] lakeore zone was a problem.

[1:44:06] » Anybody else? >> I'd love to go

[1:44:09] Anderson. Um, just listening tonight, they were talking about roadside stands

[1:44:14] and that 50% has to be grown on site. >> Who's going to enforce going around

[1:44:20] telling all the little kids that they can't sell?

[1:44:22] » I just said I wasn't going to do that. >> Right. So,

[1:44:24] » were you here for that? I said >> that's not You got to try to work that

[1:44:29] out. Um, when does having a garden won't be there? Hopefully,

[1:44:37] that didn't make sense to me. Um, going back to last month's meeting, I

[1:44:43] wasn't here. I did watch

[1:44:51] talking about square footages and math by 200.

[1:44:57] were ludicrous to ask for the change. I'd like to remind you that 30 ft back

[1:45:06] is 10,000 more square feet that I can't use

[1:45:11] apples and oranges.

[1:45:16] And I guess I'd like to answer what you mean by your comment.

[1:45:23] » Okay, we already have this Well, I took it

[1:45:28] » Curtis has his only administrator been to your house and denied you building

[1:45:34] anything you've proposed. >> It's not the question I asked.

[1:45:38] » That's what I meant by my comment. >> I've known where I live the entire time.

[1:45:45] » Have you been denied? right now.

[1:45:57] So, can

[1:46:02] » anything else? >> Um, I think that the only other thing I

[1:46:07] was going to say is that if you're talking the front setbacks between 20

[1:46:10] and 30 ft, I think the precedent's already been established that the 20

[1:46:14] foot front setback isn't necessarily an unsafe thing.

[1:46:28] I don't think

[1:46:56] consistency.

[1:47:03] [snorts] >> Okay, got the minutes here. Just got

[1:47:09] motion.

[1:47:13] Motion by Maron

[1:47:17] and changes to large.

[1:47:35] » Yeah. Okay.

[1:47:38] So, so game on

[1:47:44] It was an amendment, not a resending of the request. And so I would ask

[1:47:51] to review our future land use map, our master plan, and come back with

[1:47:56] recommended changes that would seem reasonable for starting

[1:48:02] point for discussion.

[1:48:07] Any

[1:48:15] other comments? Planning Commissioners last

[1:48:20] call for a motion to adjourn.

[1:48:27] Call for a motion to adjourn.

[1:48:32] » Motion. >> Second.

[1:48:34] » Support by Richard. All in favor say I. >> All right. Next meeting October 13th.

[1:48:40] Thank you everybody.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting 9/8/2026

Transcript