[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.