[0:06] Good. Thank you. AND,
[0:09] Commissioner Lee, right?
[0:10] could you announce
[0:11] list?
[0:12] Let me
[0:13] confirm, uh, three,
[0:15] Uh, Commissioner Cruz.
[0:17] earlier,
[0:18] uh, informed us that
[0:19] he will be absent, and
[0:20] then, uh, commissioner
[0:21] or a trusted person
[0:22] Foster also
[0:23] recently, uh,
[0:24] wrote to us
[0:24] email and
[0:25] reported that she
[0:26] will also be absent
[0:27] tonight.
[0:28] Commissioner Singh.
[0:29] Uh, I haven't heard from you yet.
[0:30] Commissioner Singh, but
[0:31] I will follow.
[0:32] with their electronic
[0:33] letters.
[0:34] Okay, thank you. Commissioner
[0:35] Lee is present. Commissioner
[0:37] Mallett.
[0:38] Here. Commissioner Walter.
[0:39] Here.
[0:40] Commissioner Watkins.
[0:41] Present. Commissioner
[0:42] Webb.
[0:43] Here.
[0:44] Head Zuber.
[0:45] I'm here, thank you. And let
[0:47] it will be recorded that
[0:48] We have Patrick here.
[0:49] Sloan and Aaron Schlut of
[0:50] personnel, as well as
[0:51] our consultant
[0:52] Courtney Grusa. Thank you. THERE ARE
[0:55] -eh, we have order
[0:56] daily. Oh, we have
[0:57] protocol for
[0:58] approval from 14
[0:59] September.
[1:00] Proposal about
[1:00] approval
[1:01] protocol.
[1:02] Secondly, madam
[1:03] presiding
[1:03] Okay, we have
[1:04] Commissioner's proposal
[1:05] Malletta and
[1:06] Commissioner's support
[1:07] Watkins regarding
[1:07] approval
[1:08] protocol. Does the
[1:09] someone else some
[1:10] discussion? All who
[1:11] "yes", please,
[1:12] say "I".
[1:13] And we have order.
[1:14] daily, which is needed
[1:15] accept.
[1:16] Offer.
[1:16] Proposal, ma'am
[1:17] presiding
[1:18] I support.
[1:19] Okay, that's it this time.
[1:20] vice versa. We have...We
[1:21] not the other way around, everything
[1:22] vice versa. We have
[1:23] Commissioner Watkins, who
[1:24] makes a proposal, and
[1:25] Commissioner Mallett
[1:26] supports. Uh, yes.
[1:27] further discussion
[1:28] ? Everyone who is "in favor", be
[1:30] Please say "I". AND.
[1:31] I. Good, very good.
[1:33] Patrick, do we have
[1:33] some further
[1:34] message, except
[1:35] what you see in
[1:36] package?
[1:36] No additional
[1:37] messages.
[1:38] Good, very good.
[1:39] Thank you. Um, we have
[1:41] period for
[1:41] public
[1:42] discussion. Any
[1:43] the person can speak
[1:44] maximum 3 minutes.
[1:45] If you are here to talk about something,
[1:48] except for one question,
[1:49] which we have for
[1:50] public hearings, and
[1:51] it's about change
[1:52] zoning WB Real Estate
[1:53] Ventures LLC, uh, now
[1:54] your opportunity
[1:55] to go on the podium. Sir
[1:57] McCausland.
[2:01] Good evening,
[2:02] Commissions. Daniel
[2:03] McCausland, Haggerty-
[2:05] road, 328. Um, I
[2:05] I'm going to break this.
[2:07] question, because it seems
[2:08] tonight is
[2:09] topic for this
[2:10] question is okay
[2:11] daytime. You know,
[2:13] about 30 years ago,
[2:15] when was here
[2:15] construction boom, we
[2:17] obliged
[2:18] most buildings
[2:19] have 50% masonry. It
[2:25] led to the fact that in
[2:27] our community
[2:27] mainly
[2:28] was used
[2:29] earth tone brick:
[2:30] red, brown,
[2:32] dark brown. Then
[2:36] there were thoughts that we live in
[2:38] colonial city,
[2:39] what will we have
[2:40] colonial look.
[2:43] Now I see that because
[2:45] 30 years with us
[2:45] what is happening is that I
[2:47] would call it a derivation from
[2:48] operation of these
[2:49] brick buildings, and we paint them. And I see,
[2:53] what tonight
[2:55] one of them, perhaps,
[2:56] will have to
[2:57] paint. I know,
[2:58] what is here, in the future,
[2:59] there were several of these,
[3:01] which have already been painted.
[3:04] Maybe they don't
[3:05] correspond to those
[3:06] standards that
[3:07] earlier, because the brick
[3:08] —it really is
[3:08] timeless cover.
[3:10] This is a durable coating, and
[3:11] it never
[3:12] intended for
[3:13] dyeing. So I think that regarding the requirement,
[3:17] so that the brick is
[3:18] part of the architecture
[3:19] , we moved away from
[3:23] this, and that's good.
[3:26] Many of these conversations
[3:27] happened during
[3:28] renewal
[3:29] master plan
[3:30] about how to get away from
[3:31] this and go to
[3:33] newer, newer
[3:34] structures, you know, from
[3:35] new decoration,
[3:36] perhaps more modern.
[3:40] So I think you
[3:41] need to consider,
[3:42] how to withdraw from
[3:43] brick operation
[3:44] building? How are you?
[3:47] uh, some
[3:48] recommendations regarding
[3:49] of what is possible
[3:50] to paint, that is not
[3:51] can be painted as
[3:53] Can this be painted?
[3:55] What will it look like?
[3:56] building after
[3:57] dyeing? Because
[3:59] you seem to
[3:59] get rid of that
[4:01] established
[4:01] appearance. That's all I have.
[4:05] I can say. Thank you.
[4:07] Does anyone else have
[4:09] to comment on something
[4:10] off the agenda?
[4:16] Michelle St. John.
[4:18] I have lived my whole life in
[4:19] Cantonese.
[4:20] Can you...Excuse me?
[4:21] , Mrs. St. John. Not
[4:22] could you also
[4:23] tell us yours
[4:23] address?
[4:24] Oh, um, 46233 Spinning Wheel
[4:26] Drive.
[4:27] Thank you.
[4:27] I am all my life
[4:29] lived in Canton. I
[4:30] grew up in Sunflower
[4:31] and I knew what I wanted
[4:32] to raise their own there
[4:33] children. In 2016, we
[4:34] bought by husband
[4:35] the house that bordered
[4:36] Gainsborough Commons, with
[4:37] tennis court,
[4:37] swimming pool and
[4:38] basketball
[4:39] playground. To us
[4:39] liked ours
[4:40] location, and we
[4:41] never had
[4:42] noise problems
[4:42] of our community, which
[4:43] enjoys
[4:44] Commons. In 2020
[4:45] the tennis court was
[4:46] converted to three
[4:47] pickleball courts, and
[4:48] our situation
[4:48] changed. Pickleball
[4:50] differs from
[4:50] tennis loudness,
[4:51] frequency and
[4:52] player density.
[4:53] Sounds made
[4:54] two to four people,
[4:54] who play tennis,
[4:55] very different
[4:56] from the sounds that
[4:57] issued by up to 12 people
[4:57] who play pickleball
[4:58] . We love ours
[4:59] community, but courts
[5:00] influenced our
[5:01] ability to peacefully
[5:01] enjoy
[5:02] our home and
[5:03] our yard.
[5:04] Because of the loud,
[5:04] high-frequency,
[5:05] impulsive sounds
[5:06] pickleball, sources that
[5:07] used for
[5:08] installation of courts,
[5:10] recommend
[5:10] minimum distance
[5:11] 350 to 600 feet between
[5:12] pickleball court
[5:14] and the property boundary, and,
[5:15] of course, not less than 100
[5:16] feet. Distance from
[5:17] court fences
[5:18] Gainsborough to the limit
[5:19] my property
[5:20] is 30 feet, and
[5:21] distance from the court to
[5:22] my back door–70
[5:23] feet. Even with
[5:24] taking into account
[5:24] recommended
[5:25] distance of 300 feet,
[5:26] the following are recommended
[5:27] conditions, as
[5:28] high-quality walls
[5:28] for sound absorption,
[5:29] limited schedule
[5:30] work and quiet
[5:31] equipment. For
[5:32] many houses
[5:33] around us, our
[5:34] houses and buildings
[5:35] our neighbors, there are those who
[5:36] that have such
[5:36] noise-absorbing
[5:37] elements. Sounds
[5:38] pickleball is heard
[5:39] inside ours
[5:39] houses with
[5:40] behind closed doors
[5:41] and windows. During
[5:42] discussion with
[5:43] several
[5:43] authoritative
[5:44] companies that
[5:44] are engaged in
[5:45] noise reduction
[5:46] pickleball, me
[5:46] They said it was adequate.
[5:47] the distance is unlikely
[5:48] will be sufficient,
[5:49] considering
[5:49] extraordinary
[5:50] the proximity of my
[5:51] house to the courts and
[5:52] visibility of mine
[5:52] house on the court with
[5:53] second floor. We
[5:54] discussed moving
[5:55] , but the location
[5:56] courts potentially
[5:57] affected the cost
[5:58] our resale.
[5:59] Although the area with
[5:59] platforms for
[6:00] Pickleball is preferred
[6:01] for many people,
[6:01] accommodation on
[6:02] 30 feet away from
[6:03] three platforms
[6:04] for pickleball–no. I
[6:04] read articles in which
[6:05] loss is estimated
[6:06] from 10 to 20% of the cost
[6:07] resale for
[6:08] houses,
[6:08] located across
[6:09] the road from
[6:10] playground for
[6:10] pickleball, and mine has
[6:11] like this on the back
[6:12] yard. For many years we
[6:14] worked on
[6:14] internal methods
[6:15] with our condominium association regarding
[6:16] this question. Our
[6:17] the courts now have
[6:18] locks that require
[6:19] access using
[6:19] key fobs, cameras
[6:20] security, hours
[6:21] working hours from 10:00 to 20:00 and
[6:22] rules that
[6:22] ban music,
[6:23] loudspeakers and
[6:24] foul language
[6:25] . To get to this point
[6:26] moment, needed
[6:27] years of consistent
[6:28] advocacy, but
[6:29] matter of fact
[6:30] the sound of pickleball still
[6:31] not resolved. It
[6:31] the question raised
[6:32] great tension
[6:33] and differences in
[6:34] our community. Our
[6:35] the district recently
[6:36] created a committee that
[6:37] should help
[6:38] determine the future
[6:39] pickleball in our
[6:39] district. This situation
[6:41] is not unique to
[6:42] Sunflower. Similar
[6:43] situations that
[6:43] lead to
[6:44] tensions between
[6:45] neighbors, closing
[6:45] courts and tribunals
[6:46] lawsuits,
[6:47] occurring throughout the
[6:47] country. In Canton, it is valid
[6:49] noise ordinance,
[6:50] which states that
[6:51] the sound should be below 55
[6:52] decibels from 7:00 a.m.
[6:53] until 7:00 pm. Sources
[6:54] they report that the sound
[6:55] pickleball is
[6:56] approximately 70
[6:57] decibels per
[6:57] 100 feet away from
[6:58] sources of impact. However
[6:59] pickleball, as you know,
[7:00] difficult to measure, and for
[7:02] this is needed
[7:02] professional
[7:03] equipment and methods.
[7:04] In our communication
[7:05] with the department
[7:05] planning,
[7:06] officials,
[7:07] responsible for
[7:08] resolutions, and
[7:08] we were the police
[7:09] It is difficult to determine which
[7:10] information needed
[7:11] town for
[7:12] software
[7:12] execution of the resolution
[7:13] about the noise in this
[7:14] specific situation.
[7:16] To protect yourself and
[7:17] save others
[7:18] Cantons from what
[7:19] We survived, I'm here. IN
[7:21] You have 3 minutes, and 3
[7:22] Minutes passed.
[7:23] Oh, sorry. Good.
[7:25] Thank you. Good. Thank you.
[7:32] Good. Someone else
[7:36] ? Good. Then we
[7:38] let's move on from
[7:39] of our order
[7:40] daytime. Uh, first one
[7:42] point of order
[7:44] daytime is public
[7:45] hearing on the item
[7:47] number RZ PZ 2600195. This
[7:49] zoning change WB Real
[7:51] Estate Ventures LLC. We
[7:53] considering
[7:55] possibility of change
[7:57] zoning of the site
[7:59] number 139-99-0027-000.
[8:00] Addresses for this
[8:01] There is no real estate. Hmm
[8:03] , this property
[8:04] free and
[8:04] located on
[8:05] south side
[8:06] Michigan Avenue between
[8:07] South Lilly Road and
[8:08] South Haggerty Road.
[8:09] Hmm, a suggestion
[8:10] is to
[8:11] change zoning
[8:12] areas with G1
[8:12] General industrial
[8:14] on C4 Transport
[8:14] area. Patrick,
[8:15] tell us, Please, that's all.
[8:18] Hmm, of course, thank you. Hmm,
[8:20] the proposal is to
[8:21] in order to change
[8:23] zoning of the site on
[8:24] south side
[8:26] Michigan Avenue, area
[8:28] about 1.39 acres, from
[8:29] Hmm, GI, what is it?
[8:30] General industrial,
[8:32] to C4, which is
[8:33] Transport district
[8:34] . Hmm, the applicant's intention
[8:36] is that
[8:37] if real estate
[8:38] will be rezoned to
[8:39] C4, then, um, the applicant
[8:40] intends to submit
[8:42] application for special
[8:43] land use
[8:44] for automotive
[8:45] gas stations and
[8:46] multipurpose
[8:47] stations, um, with
[8:48] fast food restaurant
[8:49] food that works
[8:50] under control. Hmm,
[8:52] however, the proposal,
[8:53] which is in the package
[8:54] tonight, there is
[8:55] conceptual and not
[8:56] has binding force
[8:58] and may change
[8:59] according to
[9:00] available areas
[9:01] zoning and
[9:01] development options,
[9:03] um, resolutions about
[9:04] zoning. Also,
[9:05] regardless of
[9:06] proposed
[9:07] using
[9:08] applicant at the time
[9:09] zoning changes, our
[9:11] staff report
[9:11] more focused
[9:13] on the proposed
[9:14] in the C4 area than in
[9:15] specific
[9:16] land use,
[9:17] because this application is not
[9:18] is a conditional application for
[9:19] zoning change.
[9:21] Real estate
[9:22] located on
[9:23] south side
[9:24] Michigan Avenue between
[9:25] Morton Taylor Road and
[9:26] Lilly Road. On the screen
[9:29] there is an aerial photo
[9:30] plots. And, sorry,
[9:33] it's between Lilly Road and
[9:35] South Haggerty Road. AND
[9:38] Lilly Road
[9:38] is located to the west,
[9:40] therefore it is marked
[9:41] Here it is on the screen.
[9:42] Haggerty Road no.
[9:43] on the screen, it's a little
[9:45] further east. We have
[9:46] other aerial photographs,
[9:47] which we can
[9:48] place on the screen,
[9:49] if we want
[9:50] look at others
[9:51] areas of this area,
[9:53] but this is, um, a map that
[9:54] is in the package. Area,
[9:55] um, empty, it has
[9:57] vegetation, and, um,
[9:58] she is surrounded, um,
[10:00] a number of different, um,
[10:01] industrial and, um,
[10:03] commercial facilities.
[10:06] Um, north, through, uh
[10:07] -eh, Michigan Avenue, this
[10:08] territory assigned
[10:10] to the regional
[10:11] commercial zone C3 and
[10:12] light industry
[10:14] LI. Uh, in the south, uh,
[10:16] it is attributed to
[10:17] general industrial
[10:19] zones. Uh, in the south
[10:21] it includes, uh,
[10:22] Sock Trail landfill
[10:24] Hills, as well as Canton Renewables,
[10:26] which is a factory with
[10:27] landfill recycling
[10:28] gas and, uh,
[10:29] processing plant. THERE ARE
[10:33] -e, in the east
[10:34] is located
[10:35] general industrial
[10:36] zone, that is, er, Viscount
[10:38] or Vicount Pools and Spas, er,
[10:40] what is, uh, a subcontractor
[10:41] sales institution, e-
[10:43] e, swimming pools and
[10:44] accompanying
[10:45] equipment. And on
[10:47] West, uh,
[10:48] is, uh, zone
[10:49] light industry
[10:51] , i.e. Nissan car dealership
[10:53] of Canton. IN
[10:53] light industry
[10:55] district, uh,
[10:55] car dealerships have
[10:56] special
[10:57] land use and
[10:58] , uh, only allowed
[11:00] along the sections that
[11:01] overlooks Michigan-
[11:02] avenue. Uh, in our, uh-
[11:04] uh, personnel report, I want to point out, uh,
[11:07] one, uh, mistake, and
[11:08] it is rather
[11:09] misprint,
[11:10] which, uh, we'll fix
[11:11] in our report; but
[11:12] at the bottom of the first
[11:13] pages we note in the report,
[11:15] existing
[11:15] classification
[11:16] future
[11:17] land use
[11:18] master plan,
[11:19] hmm, it says
[11:20] residential development in
[11:22] nodes of the district. Hmm, this is
[11:23] was just
[11:23] typographical error, and
[11:25] , um, classification
[11:26] future
[11:26] land use on
[11:28] general map
[11:29] plan–
[11:29] general industrial,
[11:30] so, um, this will be
[11:31] fixed in ours,
[11:33] um, further, um,
[11:34] corrected report. AND
[11:35] throughout
[11:36] our report, I think,
[11:37] we are consistent
[11:38] we note that, um,
[11:39] master plan
[11:40] planned for
[11:41] general commercial
[11:42] , um, in this area.
[11:44] Hmm, end of August
[11:46] , um, I met with, um,
[11:47] potential
[11:48] by the site user
[11:50] and his
[11:50] designer,
[11:51] to, um, discuss
[11:53] the plot and what it will be like
[11:54] submission process
[11:55] applications, if they, um,
[11:57] will want to continue,
[11:58] um, final application
[12:00] to the gas station. And according to
[12:02] with a resolution on
[12:03] There are a number of zoning
[12:04] different options that
[12:05] the applicant can, um,
[12:06] continue, and, um,
[12:07] they remain
[12:08] available as
[12:09] presentation options
[12:10] applications for anyone,
[12:11] who wants
[12:12] to suggest a change
[12:13] zoning of the site
[12:14] or anyone who
[12:15] wants to offer
[12:17] planned area
[12:18] buildings. Districts
[12:19] planned
[12:20] buildings allow
[12:21] to consider any
[12:22] use in
[12:23] resolution on
[12:24] zoning, um, for
[12:24] except
[12:25] industrial
[12:26] using. During
[12:28] our discussions I
[12:29] noted that, uh,
[12:30] acting general
[12:31] the plan recommends
[12:32] general industrial
[12:33] using. He is not
[12:34] recommends
[12:34] commercial
[12:35] use on
[12:36] area or
[12:36] commercial zone
[12:37] district in this area.
[12:40] The applicant stated that,
[12:42] uh, he would like to have,
[12:43] uh, some kind of instruction,
[12:45] which would provide, uh
[12:46] , relatively fast
[12:47] decision making. THERE ARE-
[12:51] eh, although the options
[12:52] application submission, uh,
[12:53] remain
[12:54] available, uh, I
[12:55] pointed out to the applicant that
[12:57] if, uh, he submits
[12:58] change request
[12:59] zoning, it will pass,
[13:01] uh, my own
[13:02] by, that is, after
[13:03] submitting an application for
[13:04] zoning change it
[13:06] falls into
[13:06] next order
[13:08] daily commission from
[13:09] planning. So, this is
[13:10] just a question
[13:11] public
[13:12] message,
[13:13] signs, etc. While,
[13:14] if this was an application
[13:15] on the project-
[13:15] technical plan, were
[13:16] b involved plans that
[13:17] could be much
[13:18] a longer process. Um, and
[13:19] again, this one
[13:20] process, this application
[13:21] remains
[13:22] available for
[13:23] the applicant, but, um, uh,
[13:24] in the interests of time and,
[13:25] probably for
[13:26] faster adoption
[13:27] decision, um, I
[13:28] noted that the change
[13:29] zoning when
[13:30] similar ones are coming
[13:31] applications, um, change
[13:32] zoning often, um,
[13:33] can lead to
[13:34] that the applicant
[13:35] will come before
[13:36] commission with
[13:36] planning, before
[13:37] council, for, um,
[13:38] comments not only
[13:39] regarding zoning changes,
[13:40] but also about
[13:41] conceptual
[13:42] plan, even if
[13:43] conceptual plan
[13:44] is not mandatory.
[13:47] When, um, we
[13:47] considering changes
[13:48] zoning, especially
[13:49] zoning changes where
[13:50] this is not a conditional change
[13:52] zoning, we consider all types
[13:53] land use in
[13:55] proposed
[13:55] zoning district,
[13:57] and not just those who
[13:57] specified by the applicant.
[13:59] Therefore, although the applicant
[14:00] said, "um," about his
[14:01] intention, "um", to submit
[14:02] application for special
[14:04] land use
[14:05] for refueling, if
[14:06] zoning to C4, "um",
[14:07] will be approved, we, "um"
[14:08] , we consider all
[14:09] types
[14:10] land use in
[14:11] zoning district
[14:12] C4. Because if
[14:13] the property has a zone
[14:15] C4, then the applicant will have
[14:16] the right to apply
[14:17] for any
[14:18] land use,
[14:19] available in the district.
[14:20] At the bottom of the second
[14:21] pages and at the top
[14:22] third page
[14:22] our report on
[14:23] we are staff
[14:24] we list all
[14:26] allowed and
[14:27] special types
[14:28] land use in
[14:29] zoning district
[14:30] C4, and we copied and
[14:31] pasted this from
[14:32] resolutions on
[14:32] zoning. Hmm, for now
[14:37] there are some existing
[14:39] available C4 zones that
[14:40] are nearby.
[14:43] Hmm, the purpose and
[14:44] by district designation
[14:45] C4 is a provision, as
[14:47] stated in his
[14:48] name, transfer,
[14:49] uh, commercial, uh,
[14:51] or type
[14:51] service,
[14:52] related to
[14:53] highway.
[14:54] So, this is a transfer
[14:56] service area
[14:57] , which is more
[14:58] serves, uh,
[14:58] travelers
[14:59] highways.
[15:00] So, uh,
[15:01] gas stations
[15:02] listed as
[15:03] special types
[15:04] land use, and
[15:05] also, uh, stations
[15:06] multipurpose
[15:07] uses that
[15:08] can also
[15:08] include restaurants.
[15:10] Hmm, and also, uh,
[15:11] technical stations
[15:12] service
[15:13] cars that, uh,
[15:14] are engaged in repairs
[15:15] cars. On
[15:19] I-275 interchange and
[15:20] Michigan Avenue, and
[15:22] also around it, there is
[15:23] some C4 zones, as well as
[15:25] there are C4 zones that are
[15:26] free and
[15:27] potentially can
[15:28] to be built up, uh,
[15:30] with special
[15:31] land use,
[15:33] er, for refueling.
[15:37] Some of these areas
[15:38] are on
[15:39] Michigan intersections-
[15:40] Avenue and Lots Road, which
[15:41] less than a mile away
[15:43] east of the object, and
[15:44] also in the north
[15:45] Michigan side-
[15:46] Avenue between Lots Road
[15:47] and Hannan Road, which
[15:48] a little more than
[15:49] a mile to the east. Um, so,
[15:52] looking at...When we
[15:53] considering a change
[15:54] zoning, we
[15:55] let's see if there is
[15:56] offer
[15:57] proposed
[15:58] zoning, is there any
[15:59] available opportunities
[16:00] for change
[16:01] zoning, or...Except
[16:02] whether it is suitable
[16:03] zoning change
[16:04] for the site and all
[16:05] criteria that we consider in
[16:07] resolution on
[16:08] zoning, we also
[16:09] let's look at: are there any others
[16:11] available areas that
[16:12] zoned, uh, what
[16:13] the applicant asks which
[16:14] are free, which
[16:15] are nearby,
[16:16] uh, just so
[16:17] to determine whether there is, uh,
[16:18] available land
[16:19] nearby or elsewhere
[16:20] place for, uh,
[16:21] proposed
[16:22] land use,
[16:23] which can be more
[16:25] suitable based on
[16:26] proposed
[16:27] district. Uh, finally,
[16:29] concerning
[16:29] automotive
[16:30] gas stations and
[16:31] multipurpose
[16:32] stations, then the resolution
[16:33] about zoning
[16:34] allows...gas
[16:35] speakers for
[16:36] gas stations
[16:37] or automotive
[16:38] gas stations...in
[16:39] four different
[16:40] areas of the community. Uh,
[16:41] first, the Cherry district
[16:42] Hill Village...
[16:43] allows refueling
[16:44] stations as permitted
[16:45] use, and
[16:46] currently there is a potential
[16:48] the developer who
[16:48] is considering the possibility
[16:50] construction
[16:50] gas station in
[16:52] Cherry Hill Village.
[16:53] Secondly, in
[16:54] commercial district
[16:55] community C2, which
[16:56] allows
[16:57] using
[16:58] gas stations as
[16:59] special
[17:00] land use and
[17:01] limited only
[17:02] reconstruction
[17:03] existing stations.
[17:05] So, some C2 zones
[17:06] to the entire community, who are not
[17:07] located nearby
[17:09] solution, where there is already
[17:10] gas station,
[17:11] can be
[17:12] inappropriate
[17:13] using in that
[17:14] in the sense that they are not
[17:15] allowed
[17:16] to build as if it were
[17:17] new area if
[17:18] She is currently single.
[17:19] But the C2 district allows
[17:20] using
[17:21] gas station as
[17:22] special
[17:23] land use,
[17:24] if it already exists
[17:25] free, but it's not
[17:26] necessarily means,
[17:27] what is she
[17:27] inappropriate
[17:28] using,
[17:29] because
[17:29] reconstruction
[17:30] there is a gas station
[17:31] special
[17:32] land use in
[17:33] area C2. Thirdly, in
[17:34] regional
[17:35] commercial district
[17:36] C3, hmm, allowed
[17:38] using
[17:38] gas stations as
[17:40] special
[17:40] land use and
[17:42] limited only
[17:43] reconstruction
[17:44] existing gas stations or as
[17:46] auxiliary facilities
[17:47] for the main
[17:48] retail
[17:48] use or for
[17:49] individual tenants in
[17:51] shopping mall
[17:52] total area
[17:53] over 50,000 square meters
[17:54] feet. So, this is
[17:55] concerns,
[17:56] for example, the current one
[17:58] gas stations on Meyer,
[17:59] um, the current one
[18:00] gas stations, um, at BJ's, where
[18:02] there is a retail store
[18:03] with an area of ​​over 50,000
[18:04] square feet. AND,
[18:06] as a special
[18:06] land use,
[18:07] retail store
[18:08] with an area of ​​over 50,000
[18:09] square feet
[18:10] can apply to
[18:11] within the boundaries of the C3 district, em, on
[18:12] gas station location
[18:13] in this area. AND
[18:14] again, this
[18:15] special
[18:15] land use,
[18:16] that is, not
[18:16] use by
[18:17] right. They must
[18:18] to answer all
[18:19] criteria
[18:19] special
[18:20] land use.
[18:21] Also, similar
[18:22] types of gas stations, if
[18:23] they will be offered somewhere
[18:25] along Michigan Avenue,
[18:26] um, Kroger will be able to submit
[18:28] application, Walmart will be able to
[18:29] submit an application. These are two
[18:30] retailers,
[18:32] which usually, um,
[18:33] are trying
[18:33] to place, um,
[18:34] gas stations on many
[18:35] their facilities. Um, ah
[18:38] then the fourth, um,
[18:39] transfer area
[18:40] C4 maintenance,
[18:41] which allows
[18:42] refueling as
[18:43] special
[18:43] land use.
[18:45] So, um, according to
[18:46] the text itself
[18:47] resolutions on
[18:48] zoning, there are four
[18:49] different zones where, um,
[18:50] allowed
[18:51] to place gas stations
[18:53] . Besides, as I already
[18:54] mentioned earlier, um,
[18:56] they could be, um,
[18:57] uh, they might be
[18:59] application submitted through
[19:00] PDD, the process of planning
[19:01] development of the district. Ahem,
[19:05] moving on to
[19:06] criteria
[19:07] rezoning
[19:08] resolutions on
[19:08] zoning, there are 10
[19:10] criteria that must
[19:11] resolution on
[19:12] zoning and
[19:12] determine whether
[19:13] expedient
[19:14] rezone
[19:15] real estate. And these
[19:16] criteria
[19:17] apply to
[19:18] of all applications for
[19:18] rezoning, not
[19:19] only to those who are
[19:20] unique for
[19:21] certain areas or
[19:22] certain use
[19:23] . Um, I just, um,
[19:24] I will touch on a few of
[19:25] them, um, in the conclusions
[19:26] staff regarding all 10
[19:28] of them in our report
[19:29] staff, so I
[19:30] won't have to
[19:31] view and
[19:32] repeat them all,
[19:33] but two that I want to note, these are the first
[19:35] two criteria. First-
[19:37] is this, um, will it be
[19:37] proposed
[19:38] amendment to respond
[19:39] basic intentions and
[19:41] the purpose of the resolution on
[19:42] zoning. Um, in this one
[19:45] part of the criteria in
[19:46] upper part
[19:47] fourth page
[19:49] our report
[19:49] staff we
[19:50] copied and
[19:51] inserted, um, a statement
[19:52] about the purpose and intentions of
[19:54] C-4 zoning district, and
[19:55] it is highlighted
[19:56] italic in the middle
[19:57] pages. And, um, first
[20:01] the sentence says: "
[20:02] The purpose of creation
[20:03] service area
[20:05] C-4 transplants are
[20:06] software
[20:06] opportunities for
[20:07] development
[20:08] regional business
[20:09] areas that
[20:10] adjacent to
[20:11] solution
[20:12] motorways". Therefore,
[20:14] the first sentence indicates
[20:15] on what should be, hmm,
[20:16] contiguity with
[20:17] solution,
[20:18] regardless of whether
[20:19] or the area itself
[20:20] adjacent to
[20:21] solutions, as well as in some areas
[20:24] communities where, um,
[20:25] C-4 site may not
[20:26] to adhere to
[20:27] solutions, but it
[20:28] adjacent to others
[20:29] areas of zone C-4, hmm,
[20:31] which are adjacent to
[20:32] solutions. So, hmm,
[20:33] based on
[20:34] location of this
[20:36] adjacent area
[20:37] there is no C-4 zone. She
[20:39] much further from
[20:41] solutions, hmm, than, hmm
[20:42] , many others
[20:43] areas that
[20:44] are in the area
[20:46] C-4, hmm, closer to this one
[20:47] solutions. Um, we don't
[20:51] we believe that
[20:51] proposed statement
[20:53] to change zoning
[20:54] will respond
[20:55] the first criterion, which
[20:56] she answers
[20:57] basic intentions and
[20:59] the purpose of the resolution on
[21:00] zoning, based on
[21:01] some others, um,
[21:02] criteria of intentions,
[21:04] mentioned in our
[21:05] report, but taking into account
[21:06] statement of intent
[21:07] district C-4, where district C4
[21:09] should be adjacent to
[21:10] solution with
[21:11] highways. Second
[21:13] the criterion that we note in the change
[21:16] zoning, consists of
[21:17] therefore, whether it corresponds
[21:18] proposed
[21:19] amendment
[21:19] comprehensive plan
[21:20] or general
[21:21] village plan. Ahem,
[21:23] map of the future
[21:24] land use
[21:25] master plan
[21:27] classifies the area
[21:28] as
[21:28] general industrial,
[21:29] and characteristics
[21:30] general industrial
[21:31] zones are described on page 207
[21:33] accepted
[21:34] master plan. AND
[21:36] until the adoption of the current
[21:38] master plan
[21:39] previous map
[21:40] future
[21:41] land use
[21:42] previous plan
[21:43] classified
[21:44] the area as mixed,
[21:45] which recommended
[21:46] zoning change to LI,
[21:47] office or C3. Uh, on
[21:49] based on estimates that
[21:50] were held during
[21:51] preparation and
[21:52] acceptance of the current
[21:53] master plan, e
[21:54] -eh, what took
[21:55] about three or four
[21:56] years, uh, this area
[21:57] was recognized more
[21:58] suitable for
[21:58] general
[21:59] industry, and it
[22:00] classified as
[22:01] this is on the map
[22:02] future
[22:02] land use
[22:03] today. Uh,
[22:04] based on her
[22:05] location, uh, and
[22:06] surrounding lands, e
[22:07] -e, classification
[22:08] future
[22:09] land use with
[22:10] mixed
[22:10] was used
[22:11] reduced in size,
[22:13] because she is not
[22:13] suitable for
[22:14] many areas
[22:15] Michigan Avenue and there,
[22:16] Where was she, uh,
[22:17] provided for
[22:18] previous map
[22:19] master plan. THERE ARE
[22:21] -e, map of the future
[22:22] land use
[22:23] master plan
[22:24] classifies the area
[22:25] in the west as
[22:26] light industrial,
[22:27] the area in the east as
[22:28] general industrial,
[22:29] and the area in the south
[22:30] like a landfill,
[22:31] because it
[22:32] includes Canton Renewables, which
[22:33] is a factory with
[22:34] recycling and
[22:35] landfill recycling
[22:36] gas, as well as himself
[22:37] landfill. Uh, this is
[22:38] some are quite heavy
[22:39] industrial and
[22:40] intensive types
[22:41] use that
[22:42] adjacent to
[22:43] areas, and
[22:44] replanning it for
[22:45] uh, commercial
[22:46] district, uh, we consider it inappropriate
[22:48] . Also, um, in
[22:52] the master plan is
[22:53] special zones
[22:54] planning in the east,
[22:56] um, this is the zone
[22:56] Michigan planning-
[22:58] avenue, and in the south,
[22:59] which is the zone
[23:00] planning
[23:00] landfills. Ahem,
[23:03] they celebrate
[23:04] problems on them and
[23:05] near
[23:06] landfills, but
[23:07] they do not indicate
[23:08] support
[23:09] future
[23:09] zoning C-4 or
[23:10] similar
[23:11] commercial
[23:12] use on these
[23:13] areas. Hmm, finally,
[23:15] regarding the general
[23:16] zoning plan
[23:17] C-4 territories,
[23:18] master plan
[23:19] recommends
[23:20] to place these
[23:21] plots in general
[23:22] commercial areas
[23:23] future map
[23:24] land use. AND
[23:27] characteristics
[23:28] general
[23:29] commercial areas
[23:30] described on the page
[23:31] 199 of the master plan
[23:33] . Um, although the earth
[23:34] directly on
[23:35] north, on the north
[23:36] Michigan side-
[23:37] avenue, which, um,
[23:37] is located on
[23:38] distances over 200
[23:39] feet across the boulevard
[23:40] and separating
[23:41] the strip, um, although
[23:41] part of this
[23:42] property
[23:42] classified as
[23:43] general commercial
[23:44] on the future map
[23:45] land use,
[23:46] um, this area
[23:47] is located on
[23:47] distances over 200
[23:48] feet. It is divided.
[23:49] state
[23:50] highway, and
[23:51] some of these species
[23:51] use on
[23:52] north side
[23:54] Michigan Avenue has
[23:55] a little more
[23:55] commercial nature
[23:56] . They are located
[23:58] further from
[23:58] landfills. Um, me too
[24:00] I will not consider
[24:01] the other eight criteria
[24:03] and conclusions, although
[24:04] I can answer
[24:05] questions and
[24:06] discuss them more
[24:07] in detail. Ahem,
[24:08] our recommendation
[24:09] editorial office, um, this
[24:11] recommendation regarding
[24:12] refusals
[24:12] satisfaction of the application
[24:14] to C-4 zoning. Ahem,
[24:15] regarding the change request
[24:17] zoning, commission on
[24:18] planning should
[24:19] to give a recommendation
[24:20] to the village council of trustees.
[24:22] Hmm, application-commission with
[24:23] planning can
[24:24] recommend
[24:25] approval or
[24:25] deviation, um, or
[24:26] planning commission
[24:28] can postpone
[24:28] consideration of the application to
[24:29] consideration of information,
[24:31] received on
[24:31] public
[24:32] hearings, or
[24:33] getting additional
[24:34] information,
[24:35] necessary for
[24:36] giving a recommendation
[24:37] village council. Hmm, change
[24:38] zoning cannot
[24:39] to be approved by
[24:40] conditions, if these
[24:41] the conditions will not be
[24:42] specially
[24:43] proposed
[24:43] by the applicant, um, through
[24:44] conditional application for
[24:45] zoning change. Ahem,
[24:46] based on our
[24:47] criteria analysis
[24:49] resolutions on
[24:49] zoning and
[24:50] consideration of the application, um,
[24:51] our recommendation
[24:53] consists in rejecting
[24:54] zoning C-4 on
[24:55] the appropriate area.
[24:56] Um, in the application or in
[24:57] staff report, um,
[24:58] we prepared
[24:59] typical request, um
[25:01] , about the recommendation
[25:02] regarding the deviation
[25:03] change request
[25:04] zoning. Hmm, however,
[25:05] if there is another
[25:06] recommendation, um, or
[25:07] recommend
[25:08] approval, or
[25:09] postpone consideration
[25:10] applications, we can
[25:11] prepare
[25:12] alternative
[25:13] petition, um, for that one
[25:14] time. So, on this
[25:15] ours is coming to an end
[25:16] staff report, and I will be glad.
[25:17] to answer any
[25:18] What questions?
[25:19] Thank you, Patrick. Or
[25:20] sponsor present
[25:21] project? Is present?
[25:26] sponsor of this
[25:27] project? Good. You
[25:33] want to express
[25:34] your position?
[25:35] Commissioners, hello,
[25:36] My name is Ari.
[25:37] Goldstein. I am a lawyer.
[25:39] WB Real Estate Ventures.
[25:41] Good.
[25:43] So, uh, we're very
[25:44] appreciate, uh, the report
[25:46] staff. Um, you know,
[25:48] I think we, we, and we want to start with
[25:51] problem solving
[25:52] threshold: if, uh,
[25:53] open, uh,
[25:54] C4 rezoning, which
[25:55] you know, it could be
[25:57] use for
[25:58] any quantity
[25:59] permitted species
[26:01] use in C4, there is
[26:02] the main question, we
[26:03] would be more than happy to discuss with
[26:06] staff
[26:06] planning, you know,
[26:08] possibility
[26:08] holding a conditional,
[26:10] uh, rezoning,
[26:11] which, you know,
[26:12] would record
[26:13] previous projects. I mean, here
[26:15] there is no attempt
[26:16] to replace someone, but
[26:17] if we want
[26:18] to formalize this, we
[26:19] completely, um, ready
[26:20] to cooperate with
[26:21] staff with
[26:22] planning on this.
[26:24] Now I want
[26:25] consider a few
[26:26] points from the report
[26:27] staff. Because I think
[26:30] that like many others
[26:31] legal matters, there are
[26:32] several ways to do them
[26:33] read, right?
[26:36] And here is the definition, which
[26:38] I, I, I'm going
[26:39] read more than
[26:40] just the first sentence
[26:42] resolutions on
[26:43] zoning, which
[26:44] defines the purpose of C4.
[26:47] We already have the first sentence.
[26:48] heard. It says, um,
[26:49] what is the purpose of the district
[26:50] service
[26:51] transfer node
[26:53] C4 is the provision
[26:54] opportunities for
[26:55] development
[26:55] regional business
[26:57] areas that
[26:57] adjacent to
[26:58] motorways. IN
[26:59] resolution on
[27:00] zoning actually
[27:01] not possible
[27:02] definition of "adjacent"
[27:03] . Well, and, you know,
[27:04] Cambridge
[27:05] English dictionary
[27:06] languages, as you know,
[27:07] says that
[27:08] most common
[27:09] the meaning of "adjacent" is "
[27:10] nearby". So, maybe
[27:14] , we now have
[27:14] linear problem
[27:16] drawing, because how
[27:17] far from the junction
[27:18] motorways are needed
[27:19] to be, to cease
[27:20] to be with her, to
[27:22] stop being around?
[27:25] And then we will continue.
[27:27] read. To types
[27:28] businesses that
[27:29] are considered appropriate
[27:30] in this area,
[27:31] belong to regional
[27:32] shopping centers,
[27:33] office buildings, and
[27:34] This is exactly what I'm on.
[27:35] I will stop,
[27:36] enterprises that
[27:37] serve the needs
[27:38] those who travel to
[27:39] within or through
[27:40] village. And I can't
[27:42] come up with nothing that
[27:43] would be suitable for this
[27:44] better than refueling with
[27:45] food directly on
[27:46] the main highway.
[27:49] Uh, so I think there is,
[27:50] yes, there is a possibility
[27:51] read it in its entirety.
[27:54] And, uh, to deepen
[27:55] this is holistic
[27:56] interpretation, I want to
[27:57] please contact me
[27:58] master plan,
[27:59] which determines, uh,
[28:01] or is considering an idea
[28:02] general
[28:02] commercial district,
[28:04] which C4, uh, how much
[28:05] this is about the map
[28:06] future
[28:07] land use,
[28:08] should be located
[28:09] inside the general
[28:10] commercial areas. Goal
[28:13] , as indicated for
[28:14] general
[28:14] commercial areas,
[28:15] consists in creating
[28:16] regional business
[28:18] areas near
[28:18] junctions
[28:19] motorway. So, if
[28:22] the whole concept
[28:23] general
[28:23] commercial district
[28:25] consists in creating
[28:26] regional business
[28:27] areas near
[28:28] junctions
[28:29] highway, then I have
[28:30] meaning that on
[28:31] future map
[28:32] land use is
[28:33] a lot of property, which
[28:34] zoned as general
[28:35] commercial, right?
[28:39] Including, uh,
[28:40] a piece of land that
[28:41] runs south
[28:42] from Michigan Avenue,
[28:43] maybe two or three
[28:45] areas further from this one
[28:46] plots. So it's not that
[28:50] on this corridor and
[28:51] this side of Michigan-
[28:52] there is no avenue
[28:53] commercial
[28:54] using.
[28:56] In fact, most
[28:57] neighboring areas
[28:58] actually
[28:59] used for
[29:00] commercial purposes.
[29:05] So, uh, I'm a little
[29:06] I'll jump here. Uh, me
[29:12] I want to contribute
[29:13] corrections, I want
[29:14] consider this idea,
[29:15] what if you approve
[29:16] this is rezoning, this is
[29:17] can open the door
[29:19] for anyone to appeal any
[29:21] zoning
[29:22] classification of any
[29:23] whose
[29:23] general industrial
[29:24] plots in the town. THERE ARE-
[29:27] uh, we have a few
[29:28] specific reasons,
[29:29] why do we think this
[29:30] the site is appropriate
[29:31] for rezoning. AND
[29:32] I already mentioned that
[29:33] majority
[29:34] surrounding areas
[29:35] used for
[29:36] commercial purposes. It
[29:38] also comparatively
[29:39] small industrial
[29:40] area. Uh, a lot
[29:42] industrial areas
[29:43] in the town a lot
[29:44] bigger than this one. And a lot
[29:46] permitted
[29:47] industrial species
[29:48] use in
[29:49] industrial zones
[29:50] have requirements for
[29:51] the size that makes
[29:52] this area absolutely
[29:53] unsuitable for them.
[29:56] Uh, you know, a lot of
[29:57] they have
[29:58] minimum size
[29:59] at least 3 acres or
[30:00] more, right? AND
[30:03] if you have a plot of land
[30:04] with an area of ​​1.3 acres, it
[30:05] excludes an entire lane
[30:07] general
[30:07] industrial
[30:08] use, for
[30:10] whose property is this
[30:11] supposedly intended. THERE ARE-
[30:14] uh, and this, I think, too
[30:16] related to this
[30:17] the idea that, uh, in
[30:18] point one, staff
[30:19] planning believed that
[30:21] , uh, based on
[30:22] character and area
[30:23] current policy
[30:24] master plan,
[30:25] the plot does not adjoin
[30:27] to the solution with
[30:28] motorway. She is not
[30:29] seems suitable
[30:30] for regional
[30:31] commercial facilities. I think it's excessive.
[30:33] fixation on, uh,
[30:34] term such as
[30:36] regional trade
[30:37] objects that exist only
[30:38] one of many
[30:39] permitted species
[30:41] use in areas
[30:42] C-4, would be approximately
[30:43] the same as saying: "Oh
[30:45] , well, you can't
[30:46] to do, uh,
[30:47] gigantic, uh
[30:48] hydration system
[30:49] "There's water here, right?" Or
[30:50] any big thing,
[30:52] you can't
[30:52] build a factory
[30:53] of any type, you do not
[30:54] you can do it on
[30:56] area of ​​such
[30:57] size. So, me too
[31:05] I would like to pay
[31:07] attention to the idea that, uh,
[31:14] zoning change may
[31:15] create unacceptable
[31:16] high volume of traffic
[31:17] passenger
[31:18] cars. And we don't
[31:23] completely understood why
[31:24] this was the final
[31:25] thought after paragraph,
[31:26] which explains how
[31:27] the master plan has,
[31:29] uh, the section about
[31:30] renewable
[31:30] natural gas. And there
[31:34] it is noted that
[31:35] arrangement
[31:36] Sok landfills
[31:37] Trail Hills on
[31:37] southern border
[31:38] The canton is represented by
[31:39] another unique one
[31:40] opportunity for
[31:41] production
[31:41] renewable
[31:42] energy. Considering,
[31:43] what a dump
[31:44] planned to close
[31:45] during the next
[31:46] 10-15 years old, village
[31:46] could consider
[31:47] possibility of cooperation
[31:48] with the operator, what, I think it concerns
[31:50] operator
[31:51] landfills, for
[31:51] methane collection, which
[31:52] formed in
[31:53] result
[31:53] decomposition during
[31:54] settling period
[31:55] . After the methane
[31:56] will be captured, his
[31:57] it will be possible
[31:58] to turn into
[31:58] renewable
[31:59] natural gas. Good,
[32:00] that's good, but then
[32:02] written by Canton Renewables. I
[32:03] not sure which one
[32:04] they are related
[32:05] have to cooperate
[32:06] town with
[32:07] operator
[32:08] landfills, but
[32:09] Canton Renewables investments
[32:10] in its current and
[32:11] future activities,
[32:12] of course, there are earlier ones,
[32:13] where it is stated that
[32:14] they had to invest in some
[32:16] soundproofing and
[32:17] additional external
[32:18] equipment; uh, but there is
[32:20] part of their
[32:20] approved plan
[32:22] plots in 2022. But
[32:23] this is characterized by
[32:24] as an investment that
[32:25] continues in his
[32:26] future activities
[32:27] and points to it
[32:28] long-term
[32:28] presence. And with
[32:30] we must do this
[32:31] to conclude that
[32:32] approval
[32:33] commercial
[32:33] zoning of the district,
[32:35] which will attract
[32:36] large volume
[32:37] passenger
[32:37] transport,
[32:38] incompatible with the neighboring one
[32:39] landfill and
[32:40] installation with
[32:41] gas recovery; and I
[32:42] just not sure,
[32:44] What is the relationship between one
[32:45] has to another, honestly
[32:46] speaking, especially when
[32:47] You look at the airplane.
[32:53] I don't think there is.
[32:54] some entry or
[32:55] exit from Michigan Avenue
[32:57] which will be affected, and
[32:58] there is already a section C3,
[32:59] zoned slightly lower
[33:00] behind the store near
[33:01] swimming pool, and in
[33:02] resolution on
[33:03] zoning for C3
[33:04] specifically stated
[33:05] that such types
[33:06] using,
[33:07] probably,
[33:08] will generate
[33:09] large volume
[33:10] transport. Therefore,
[33:15] you know, if there is already
[33:17] area of ​​zone C3 only
[33:18] 500 feet on the right.
[33:23] I'm not sure.
[33:24] Where is this from?
[33:24] concern about
[33:25] increase in volume
[33:26] passenger
[33:27] transport, which somehow
[33:29] related to the collection
[33:30] methane. You are asking
[33:33] about zoning C4.
[33:34] Right.
[33:35] But you are talking about
[33:36] that C3 is the same,
[33:38] because there is a C3 for about 500
[33:40] feet-600 feet at
[33:42] west of the Ypsi site.
[33:44] It
[33:44] other zonal
[33:45] area.
[33:45] Yes, but they
[33:46] located on
[33:47] distance 500 feet
[33:48] from each other. Therefore,
[33:49] the nature of this
[33:50] the corridor is such that we don't think that it's here yet.
[33:56] there is a lot of movement
[33:56] transportation, right?
[34:00] C3, which is behind
[34:01] 500 feet on a long
[34:03] highways, -this
[34:04] enterprises which, as
[34:05] known to generate
[34:06] large volume
[34:07] transport. IN
[34:09] decree this
[34:10] specifically stated.
[34:13] So I'm not sure that
[34:15] there are C4 companies that
[34:16] can generate
[34:17] significant additional
[34:19] volume of transport, or
[34:20] how will it interfere
[34:21] Canton Renewables.
[34:28] So, let's summarize. I understand that this
[34:37] the plot was
[34:37] replanned for
[34:39] process time
[34:39] renewal
[34:40] master plan
[34:41] 2025, and before that it
[34:42] was the object
[34:43] mixed
[34:44] use, and I don't
[34:45] absolutely sure which
[34:46] the foundations lay in
[34:48] basis of this decision
[34:49] about redevelopment. I
[34:51] viewed all
[34:52] public documents,
[34:53] which I was able to find for
[34:54] that time, that
[34:55] relate to
[34:56] discussions of this
[34:57] process
[34:57] redevelopment, and not
[34:58] found nothing that
[34:59] specifically
[35:00] would provide
[35:01] redevelopment of this
[35:02] areas or any
[35:03] discussions, which,
[35:04] you know, you would do it
[35:06] logical result
[35:07] . So, you know, if
[35:10] they were, we would like
[35:11] hear the main
[35:12] the reasons for this. Hmm, but
[35:15] it doesn't matter to us
[35:16] meaning, and when we
[35:17] considering
[35:20] resolution and
[35:21] master plan in
[35:22] Overall, I think there is
[35:24] reliable
[35:24] interpretation of what,
[35:26] maybe it was
[35:27] wrong
[35:28] rescheduled when
[35:29] it was recycled in 2025
[35:30] year. But I didn't take it.
[35:32] participation in these
[35:33] discussions, and I
[35:34] it was not easy to find
[35:35] explanation as to
[35:36] what were the main ones
[35:37] reasons. But we already
[35:39] presented our
[35:40] considerations regarding
[35:41] why, in our opinion,
[35:42] approval of this
[35:43] redevelopment can
[35:44] answer
[35:45] master plan
[35:46] and the resolution, and we will be happy
[35:47] to answer any
[35:48] What are your questions?
[35:49] Good. Thank you.
[35:51] Of course.
[35:52] I mean that
[35:54] we must open
[35:55] public hearings,
[35:56] but
[35:57] Yes. We must
[35:58] open public
[35:58] hearing, so everyone,
[35:59] who wants...
[36:00] I am sure that I
[36:01] open, I entered
[36:01] offer to open
[36:02] public hearings.
[36:03] Second.
[36:03] Good. We have
[36:04] offer to open
[36:05] public hearings
[36:06] from Commissioner Weber,
[36:08] which supports
[36:08] Commissioner Lee. Any
[36:09] further discussion
[36:11] ? All in favor, please.
[36:12] Speak up.
[36:13] I.
[36:14] Me: Is anyone "against"?
[36:15] Good. Someone from
[36:16] the public wants
[36:17] to speak out of this
[36:19] reason? Sir
[36:20] McCauslin.
[36:21] Of course. Yes, good.
[36:29] evening. Damon again
[36:31] Carson, Haggerty Road
[36:32] , 328. Well, oddly enough, 2
[36:33] years ago I stood behind
[36:35] this rostrum and
[36:36] encountered such
[36:37] the confrontation itself.
[36:39] Except that
[36:40] my situation, I think,
[36:42] was different. Um, over
[36:44] I was 40 years old.
[36:45] basic zoning C-4. AND
[36:48] this was prevented
[36:49] corporate
[36:50] imposition. We
[36:53] proposed
[36:53] remove
[36:54] corporate
[36:55] overlay and
[36:56] use
[36:57] zoning C-4. So, I don't look at the process.
[37:05] I don't care about the project.
[37:07] . I'm looking at the process.
[37:10] at this time
[37:11] the point is that
[37:13] , do we create
[37:14] more C-4 zoning,
[37:15] do we strive not to
[37:16] create more
[37:18] C-4 zoning? Because
[37:20] 2 years later I still
[37:22] I don't have any.
[37:23] zoning. IN
[37:24] You have nothing. You have
[37:26] Is there anything wrong? IN
[37:27] I'm still not here...
[37:28] I am not here.
[37:28] relief in
[37:29] zoning through 2
[37:30] years. I mean,
[37:31] that we had to leave
[37:32] another way.
[37:33] Yes. Yes.
[37:33] Which we did. Exactly
[37:35] Yes.
[37:35] Right.
[37:36] So we had to leave.
[37:37] another way. AND,
[37:38] I hope this is the way.
[37:40] will work. But I think
[37:46] what if you are going
[37:47] to look for apples for
[37:49] oranges, then these
[37:50] two plots if you
[37:51] look at them,
[37:52] they are not identical with
[37:53] zoning point of view
[37:55] districts and
[37:55] future
[37:56] land use.
[38:00] Well, it can
[38:01] change, I don't know.
[38:03] But if that changes
[38:05] for one, it has
[38:06] to return to mine
[38:07] also. This is mine.
[38:08] argument. Thank you.
[38:10] Okay, thank you. Someone else
[38:12] ? I'll take a look.
[38:13] Madam Chair, whether
[38:13] Can I bring it?
[38:14] proposal about
[38:14] closing of public
[38:15] hearings?
[38:15] Good. Secondly, madam
[38:17] presiding
[38:17] Okay, we have
[38:18] Commissioner's proposal
[38:19] Watkins on
[38:19] support or
[38:20] Commissioner's proposal
[38:20] Weber in support
[38:21] Commissioner Watkins
[38:22] about the closure
[38:22] public hearings. Or
[38:23] there is further
[38:24] discussion? All who
[38:25] "for", say "I".
[38:27] I.
[38:28] Good. Now we
[38:30] discussing. So, what
[38:33] it? No, you, you...Yes,
[38:35] I...
[38:36] You raised your hand.
[38:37] Okay, thank you. Uh, mine
[38:39] the question is
[38:40] because I'm trying
[38:41] understand that
[38:42] is happening. I saw
[38:44] gasoline, I saw coffee,
[38:46] uh, your mark is, uh, there
[38:47] it was simply written
[38:49] gasoline, so I don't know
[38:50] , is it specific
[38:51] brand, but you drank
[38:53] coffee, what else did you drink?
[38:55] Coffee and
[38:57] palm trees. You need
[39:00] come to the microphone
[39:01] and introduce yourself, please
[39:02] affection. Name yours
[39:05] name and address.
[39:06] Ali Ali Wahab. Uh, me
[39:07] I don't live in Canton, but
[39:08] we have coffee
[39:09] concept called
[39:10] Motto Marble. You can
[39:11] find it on the Internet
[39:12] . We offer
[39:13] brunch options. Um, in
[39:15] we are also full
[39:16] coffee menu,
[39:17] coffee concept. Uh,
[39:19] you know, just new
[39:20] coffee shop in
[39:20] American style
[39:21] , and we have a very
[39:22] unique menu that I beg you, guys,
[39:24] to consider, and which one we also want
[39:26] bring to the site.
[39:27] Therefore.
[39:28] My question: do you have
[39:29] gasoline, and coffee, that's what do I mean, or
[39:32] wrong?
[39:32] Yes, it will be...We
[39:33] we offer a coffee shop with
[39:34] gas station, yes. Therefore,
[39:36] there will be store C, and
[39:37] then half
[39:38] the building will look like
[39:39] coffee shop with
[39:40] gas station. This is what we
[39:42] ...
[39:42] So I'm also trying
[39:43] get traffic
[39:44] transport. So you have
[39:45] there will be people who
[39:46] will come to
[39:47] breakfast...
[39:47] Uh, this will be the place for
[39:48] seat? It
[39:49] there will mostly be food
[39:50] takeaway and
[39:50] gas station. So this is
[39:51] ...We don't mean
[39:52] ...You mean
[39:53] come in and sit...
[39:54] I'm just trying.
[39:55] understand the function. I
[39:56] I'm trying to understand.
[39:57] what is it like, how is it
[39:58] works. You get
[39:59] gasoline,
[40:00] and then, like,
[40:01] and get breakfast.
[40:02] Yeah, like, uh, they
[40:04] can take something on
[40:05] like a sandwich or
[40:06] tartine with a cup of coffee
[40:07] and move on.
[40:08] Good. Thank you.
[40:09] No problem.
[40:12] Hey, I felt that you
[40:13] You're getting a little stuck. IN
[40:14] you were...
[40:15] No, I'll wait. Good.
[40:17] Commissioner Singh
[40:22] . IN
[40:23] I don't have any.
[40:24] questions, but overall
[40:26] statement that
[40:28] zoning C-4 for this
[40:30] territory requires
[40:31] compliance 10
[40:32] standards. And, um, to
[40:35] you guys got it
[40:37] this is approval,
[40:38] it is necessary that these
[40:39] standards were
[40:40] complied with. Everyone. I see that one or two
[40:45] you can do,
[40:47] but you need
[40:48] find all the others
[40:49] standards, and if you
[40:50] can you think of
[40:51] reasons, I don't see them.
[40:54] Uh, I see what this is.
[40:56] small area. Uh,
[41:00] there is no big deal there
[41:01] industry. Uh, in
[41:05] at some point in
[41:06] the future may
[41:07] to be different
[41:08] using. This can
[41:11] not to be
[41:11] general industrial,
[41:13] but C-4 is a far-fetched
[41:14] idea at the moment.
[41:17] Thank you.
[41:18] Commissioner.
[41:20] Watkins.
[41:21] Of course. So, again
[41:22] very quickly, commissioner
[41:23] Singh hit it straight in
[41:24] point. You know, there is
[41:25] many things that you
[41:27] must
[41:27] follow. We are not
[41:28] everyone understood. I
[41:29] grateful to you
[41:30] to the lawyer for
[41:31] definition of the word "
[41:32] adjacent". I...it's me
[41:33] I like it. Well, this is
[41:34] It was a great attempt,
[41:35] but I don't think we,
[41:36] you know, the commissioners are here
[41:37] in order to
[41:38] discuss
[41:38] the meaning of "adjacent",
[41:39] isn't that right? I think that
[41:40] this word by itself
[41:41] says, and we don't
[41:42] we want to try
[41:43] to cling to
[41:44] this today
[41:45] in the evening. Thirdly, I think you yourself
[41:46] answered their own
[41:47] question as if I am not
[41:49] sure why we
[41:50] here is not for the conditional, but
[41:51] not for what you are talking about
[41:52] ask today. And I will quickly postpone
[41:54] conversation, Patrick and, uh
[41:56] - er, to Agrus' adviser. I am preparing a conversation for you,
[41:58] so as not to catch you
[41:59] suddenly. Usually I
[42:01] I'm doing it. What would it be?
[42:02] correct context
[42:04] now if they
[42:04] wanted
[42:05] use
[42:06] conditional option, not
[42:07] what they are talking about
[42:08] are asking today
[42:09] in the evening? That is, whether
[42:10] can they do it
[42:11] to transform, or to eat
[42:11] will have to
[42:12] return,
[42:13] resubmit
[42:14] application and return
[42:15] her to the commission? And I ask this because
[42:17] if you have
[42:17] the answer to which you
[42:18] responded within
[42:19] the first 30 seconds here,
[42:20] this is probably what you need
[42:22] should have started
[42:22] to do from the very beginning, not this. So I pass on the word.
[42:25] employees
[42:26] commissions.
[42:28] Um, I can start with
[42:29] application point of view.
[42:32] So, for the conditional
[42:33] rezoning, er,
[42:34] Zoning Law
[42:36] Michigan
[42:37] allows conditional
[42:38] rezoning, when,
[42:39] um, the applicant can
[42:40] to offer, uh,
[42:42] conditions, uh, because
[42:43] application and, um, through
[42:44] conditional agreement
[42:45] rezoning. As
[42:48] village, we can't,
[42:50] um, demand
[42:50] specific conditions or
[42:52] specific conditions.
[42:54] The applicant can them
[42:55] to offer, and
[42:56] then we can
[42:57] decide, um, whether, um,
[42:58] you know, the village council
[43:00] planning commissions
[43:01] can decide, um,
[43:02] Do you know whether to accept?
[43:03] them as conditions
[43:04] rezoning. Uh,
[43:05] conditional rezoning
[43:06] usually takes
[43:07] a little more time, um,
[43:08] because it is needed
[43:09] conditional agreement
[43:10] rezoning. Uh, this is
[43:11] should be considered
[43:12] employees
[43:13] village council, this has
[43:14] to be considered
[43:15] legal advisor. Therefore,
[43:16] from the moment of submission
[43:17] applications for conditional
[43:18] redevelopment
[43:19] can usually pass,
[43:20] uh, at least two-
[43:20] three months until her
[43:21] there will be no question
[43:22] put into order
[43:23] daily commission from
[43:24] planning for
[43:24] public hearings. It
[43:26] takes a little longer
[43:27] time. Uh, and that could be a little longer than,
[43:30] uh, the applicant indicated,
[43:31] what, uh, they can
[43:32] there will be time to decide
[43:33] purchase question
[43:35] real estate. Uh, but
[43:36] submission process
[43:37] application remains
[43:38] available.
[43:39] Of course.
[43:40] These are separate, uh,
[43:41] public hearings.
[43:42] Part of these
[43:43] there are public hearings,
[43:44] uh, definition, uh,
[43:45] certain conditions, and, uh, with
[43:46] conditional agreement
[43:47] replanning when
[43:48] public
[43:49] asks for it or
[43:50] wants to see her, we
[43:51] would like
[43:52] make sure that this, eh
[43:53] -e, maximum
[43:54] will be simplified when it
[43:55] will be scheduled for
[43:56] public hearings.
[43:57] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[43:59] .
[43:59] Thank you. Okay, I will move on to another one.
[44:02] end, commissioner
[44:03] Mallard.
[44:06] Nothing. I mean
[44:07] , you know, how I am again
[44:08] I looked at this, this
[44:10] it was like, hmm, you didn't
[44:12] answer 10
[44:13] requirements, standards.
[44:15] But I mean,
[44:16] if I agree with
[44:17] another commissioner regarding
[44:18] this, you know, if there is
[44:20] opportunity to do
[44:21] this is like a conditional application,
[44:22] then maybe this is it
[44:23] the right way.
[44:27] Good. Thank you.
[44:30] Commissioner, uh, Walter
[44:31] , checking my mind.
[44:36] Optimal
[44:37] optimally with
[44:38] adjacent
[44:38] using,
[44:39] direct
[44:40] adjacent
[44:41] using, this
[44:42] the area is better
[44:42] suitable for light
[44:44] industry, in my opinion.
[44:48] Good. Commissioner
[44:50] Webber.
[44:52] So, I will join in.
[44:53] what he said, uh,
[44:56] Commissioner Watkins, but
[44:57] I won't be in this.
[44:58] resort. I would...I would...I
[45:00] would be ready
[45:01] to discuss with you
[45:02] regarding the meaning of the word "
[45:03] "adjacent", but, um,
[45:05] we don't need it here
[45:06] it's a trick. What
[45:10] concerns
[45:11] rezoning to C4, I don't consider it that much.
[45:14] this building, how much
[45:15] this development, which
[45:16] doesn't really have
[45:17] value at this time
[45:18] moment, because I
[45:19] I'm looking at that.
[45:20] allowed in the C4 area.
[45:24] And things allowed in the C4 area, exactly
[45:26] incompatible with the fact that for
[45:28] what are they intended for and
[45:29] are used
[45:30] neighboring objects
[45:31] real estate. In particular,
[45:35] to be honest,
[45:36] this is a garbage dump. Emm
[45:40] , I have a problem with
[45:41] considering a downgrade
[45:42] categories of this
[45:43] real estate to
[45:44] district C4, uh,
[45:45] zoning is only from
[45:47] for this reason. Emm,
[45:52] also, regarding your
[45:53] comments on
[45:54] notes in the conclusions
[45:55] staff about
[45:56] high volume
[45:57] passenger traffic, uh,
[45:58] which does not correspond
[45:59] requirements for
[46:00] landfills and
[46:01] gas utilization. I think that's key.
[46:05] the word here-
[46:06] passenger flow. Emm,
[46:08] you don't want to, that is,
[46:09] let's see
[46:10] face to face
[46:11] landfill, not
[46:12] renewable sources
[46:13] energy is not
[46:14] the most beautiful
[46:15] using
[46:16] real estate. There are things,
[46:18] who accompany those who
[46:19] which is not necessarily the case
[46:20] pleasant for
[46:22] direct
[46:23] arrangement
[46:24] real estate, etc.,
[46:25] be it smells, noise
[46:26] etc. So, I think,
[46:27] it's not so much about
[46:28] because of how much traffic
[46:29] it generates how much
[46:30] in the type of traffic that
[46:31] is generated. This is just
[46:33] my opinion. Besides
[46:36] this, I would like
[46:37] to note that you
[46:38] remembered that, on your
[46:40] opinion, this area
[46:41] was rescheduled
[46:42] during the process
[46:43] developments
[46:43] the master plan, and
[46:45] I don't think so.
[46:46] right or wrong,
[46:47] Patrick? Perhaps,
[46:49] future
[46:50] land use
[46:51] was changed. It was
[46:52] part
[46:52] master plan,
[46:53] but in reality it is not
[46:55] was rescheduled.
[46:56] So I just want this.
[46:57] to clarify, so that
[46:58] to make sure that we speak as one
[47:00] in language. In addition, in
[47:02] me at the moment
[47:03] there are no others
[47:04] comments, and I...uh...
[47:06] yes, I...I don't have one
[47:07] problems with your
[47:08] development project
[47:09] etc. I just don't
[47:10] I think that
[47:10] redevelopment here
[47:12] appropriate.
[47:14] Er...sorry. Yes, we are discussing this now,
[47:18] so yes. Hey, Patrick,
[47:20] do you want
[47:20] answer this
[47:21] question about change
[47:22] classifications
[47:23] land use in
[47:24] future for this
[47:25] areas and why it
[47:26] was changed?
[47:27] Uh...of course. Um, in
[47:30] previous
[47:31] general plan,
[47:32] except, um, just this one
[47:33] changes in the area, there was
[47:34] several areas that
[47:35] were changed to
[47:36] master plan
[47:38] for future map
[47:39] land use.
[47:42] Um, and one of the things on
[47:44] future map
[47:45] land use,
[47:46] which we considered with
[47:47] points of view, um,
[47:48] areas that are not
[47:49] suitable for
[47:50] future class
[47:51] land use on
[47:52] at that time, um, was
[47:54] in that big
[47:55] Michigan areas-
[47:56] the avenues were just, um,
[47:57] classified as
[47:58] mixed use
[48:00] . And it looked almost
[48:04] as a kind
[48:05] medley classification,
[48:06] which, um, was painted
[48:08] with a wide brush. IN
[48:10] previous
[48:11] master plan
[48:12] there were several points
[48:13] about which ones
[48:14] large areas
[48:15] Michigan Avenue, um,
[48:16] will apply
[48:17] various recommended
[48:19] zoning. But even
[48:23] when we go deeper under
[48:25] this big layer
[48:26] mixed
[48:26] use on
[48:27] previous map
[48:28] future
[48:29] land use and
[48:30] let's look at these
[48:31] marked points,
[48:32] there is a lot
[48:33] difficulties in
[48:34] determining which
[48:35] was a vision or
[48:36] expediency
[48:37] the presence of such
[48:38] big stripes in this, um
[48:39] , quote, zone
[48:40] mixed
[48:40] use, because
[48:42] , um, she actually is
[48:43] didn't look like
[48:44] real zone
[48:45] mixed
[48:45] use, um,. AND
[48:49] it was just great
[48:50] the territory that
[48:51] included, as in this
[48:52] case, you know, this
[48:53] could be
[48:54] industrial, could be office, could be
[48:56] to be C3. We don't know.
[48:57] which one exactly, but maybe
[48:58] be any of these
[48:59] three. Um, that's less.
[49:01] associated with mixed
[49:02] using as
[49:03] like this, and more so,
[49:05] that we don't know what
[49:06] this property will become
[49:07] so let's add
[49:08] there are three different zones
[49:10] areas and let's see,
[49:11] What will happen? Hmm, this is
[49:14] not quite
[49:14] corresponded
[49:19] long-term
[49:20] a plan for how we want it to look like
[49:22] Michigan Avenue and how
[49:23] we want to
[49:24] other areas looked
[49:25] mixed
[49:25] using. Um, we
[49:27] preserved
[49:27] classification
[49:28] mixed
[49:29] use on
[49:29] map of the future
[49:30] land use.
[49:32] We have clarified some
[49:33] wording regarding
[49:34] that she
[49:35] will include, and we
[49:36] reduced it to
[49:37] specific areas that
[49:38] would be more
[49:39] justified for
[49:40] mixed
[49:41] use than
[49:42] just, um, adding,
[49:44] um, some incompatible ones
[49:45] zoning districts as
[49:46] parts of, um, plan
[49:47] zoning. Therefore,
[49:49] doing this when we
[49:50] considering this
[49:51] a plot specifically with
[49:52] Michigan's perspective-
[49:53] avenue, if it
[49:54] now
[49:55] classified as
[49:56] mixed
[49:57] use, and it
[49:58] has these, um, these zone ones
[49:59] areas that, um, have
[50:01] many conflicts
[50:02] between these three. So,
[50:03] even looking at
[50:04] this, even if we
[50:05] were according to the previous one,
[50:06] um, general
[50:07] plan, we would
[50:08] didn't really know,
[50:09] What do you think about this?
[50:10] the plot because it
[50:11] could be an office,
[50:12] industrial or C3. It
[50:14] doesn't really give
[50:15] no instructions regarding
[50:16] that it can
[50:17] make. So, when we
[50:19] considered
[50:19] master plan and
[50:21] updated it, we
[50:22] considered
[50:22] the surrounding area
[50:24] , er, car dealership, er,
[50:25] selling contractor
[50:26] pools in the east. Uh,
[50:27] there is a little here
[50:28] commercial
[50:29] element. Uh, but,
[50:31] looking at the adjacent
[50:32] types of use, these
[50:34] two related species
[50:35] use, they
[50:36] also compatible with
[50:37] a number of different types
[50:38] industrial
[50:39] use like this
[50:40] shown on the map here
[50:41] , where, uh, dealer
[50:42] the center is located
[50:43] next to the old one
[50:44] furniture warehouse on
[50:46] in the south, which
[50:47] southwest of this area. Ah, uh,
[50:50] Bi-County Pools, er,
[50:52] they are next to
[50:53] landfill, uh, with
[50:55] contractor that
[50:56] supplies swimming pools. It
[50:59] commercial
[50:59] use, but it
[51:01] not very intense
[51:02] commercial traffic, where
[51:03] you will not get
[51:04] of this type
[51:04] passenger
[51:05] transport, which
[51:06] rides for supplies
[51:07] for the pool or in
[51:08] store, as in
[51:09] gas station, where people go
[51:10] walk. If you drive a vehicle
[51:13] by motor vehicle
[51:14] internal
[51:14] combustion, you will
[51:15] refuel: some
[51:16] in a day, some,
[51:17] you know, once in a while
[51:18] a week or so
[51:19] that. Um, in addition
[51:20] before passing through
[51:21] car and those
[51:22] things that C4 sees.
[51:24] So, um, that's enough.
[51:25] long way
[51:25] explain some
[51:26] general processes
[51:28] of a plan for, er, string
[51:29] different areas, uh
[51:30] , get rid of that
[51:31] amount of mixed
[51:32] the use we
[51:33] classified, and
[51:34] try to narrow down
[51:36] area and look at
[51:37] those areas which
[51:38] excluded from
[51:38] classifications
[51:39] mixed
[51:40] use, and then
[51:41] determine which one is theirs
[51:42] most appropriate
[51:43] future
[51:44] land use.
[51:45] Considering this
[51:46] plot for,
[51:46] newly
[51:47] specified in our
[51:48] personnel report, uh,
[51:49] more appropriate for
[51:50] general
[51:50] industry,
[51:51] just coming out of, uh
[51:52] , current zoning
[51:53] district. It
[51:54] general industrial,
[51:55] that's why it was
[51:55] zoned as
[51:56] general industrial
[51:57] for several
[51:58] years. Um, and this area
[51:59] seems appropriate. AND
[52:01] also neighboring areas
[52:02] use with
[52:03] landfill and
[52:04] Canton Renewables. Um, and then
[52:05] in our report
[52:06] staff we note that, uh,
[52:08] There is also a torch behind.
[52:10] So at night sometimes it can
[52:11] to be quite bright with this torch.
[52:13] Hmm. Thank you. Okay, me.
[52:16] nothing to add to
[52:18] what has already been said
[52:19] my colleagues on the committee
[52:20] . Um, so I guess, er, we can consider
[52:23] petition.
[52:34] I'll take the metal thing.
[52:35] .
[52:35] I-I-I-I-I'll do it.
[52:37] Good.
[52:37] Unless you
[52:39] Do you want to do this?
[52:40] Brian.
[52:40] This is quite long. Uh,
[52:42] Of course, I'll take it. Uh,
[52:46] I-I tried, uh,
[52:48] to shorten something, but,
[52:49] I think we
[52:50] Let's move on. I propose
[52:53] recommended
[52:54] refusal of the request for
[52:56] zoning change
[52:57] plot number
[52:58] 137-99-0027-000 from
[52:59] general industrial
[53:00] GI appointment on
[53:02] long-distance service C4.
[53:03] Since the proposal
[53:04] does not respond
[53:05] following standards
[53:06] section 27.06 D4
[53:07] resolutions on
[53:08] zoning, this
[53:08] stated in the report
[53:09] staff and
[53:10] accompanying attachments
[53:11] to the report. Firstly,
[53:12] proposed
[53:13] amendment not
[53:14] corresponds to the main
[53:15] the purpose of the resolution on
[53:16] zoning, and the statement
[53:17] about Zoning intentions
[53:19] district
[53:19] service
[53:20] transport
[53:21] C4 solutions in section
[53:22] 18.01 resolution on
[53:23] zoning describes
[53:24] zoning district, which
[53:25] is unsuitable for
[53:26] of this area,
[53:27] because he is not
[53:28] adjacent to the junction
[53:29] motorways or to
[53:31] commercial district,
[53:32] adjacent to
[53:33] motorway junctions.
[53:34] Second,
[53:35] proposed
[53:35] the amendment contradicts
[53:37] the master plan,
[53:38] which recommends that
[53:39] this area was
[53:40] geographically object,
[53:41] and neighboring areas on
[53:42] west, south and
[53:43] east–as
[53:44] light industry,
[53:45] landfills and
[53:46] general industrial
[53:47] objects respectively.
[53:48] Third, although some
[53:49] conditions have changed since
[53:50] moment of acceptance
[53:52] resolutions on
[53:52] zoning, recently
[53:54] accepted
[53:54] master plan
[53:55] considers more
[53:56] suitable options
[53:57] development, which
[53:58] take into account
[53:59] contextual
[53:59] sensitivity of the territory
[54:00] , including
[54:01] Sauk Trail Landfill
[54:02] Hills and Kent Renewables, which are
[54:03] mainly
[54:04] industrial.
[54:06] Master plan
[54:07] passed active
[54:08] participation and analysis
[54:09] the public, and in
[54:10] result carefully
[54:11] took into account
[54:11] land use
[54:12] and special zones
[54:14] planning, and not
[54:14] supports zoning
[54:16] C4 in this area. On-
[54:17] fourth,
[54:17] redevelopment
[54:18] areas at the junction
[54:20] C4 will provide special
[54:21] privileges, because this
[54:22] the plot is not
[54:23] planned as
[54:24] general commercial in
[54:25] master plan
[54:26] and not located
[54:27] near the junction, and
[54:29] area C4 is unsuitable
[54:30] for development, which
[54:31] encouraged
[54:32] master plan in
[54:33] this zone. If
[54:34] C4 interchange zoning
[54:35] will be approved on
[54:36] area that is not
[54:37] planned for
[54:38] general commercial
[54:39] activities in
[54:40] general plan,
[54:41] providing special
[54:43] privileges of this
[54:43] property will create
[54:45] an unequal situation. On-
[54:46] fifth, in Kent Township
[54:47] there are already many districts,
[54:49] which are attributed to
[54:50] C4 interchange zoning
[54:51] and/or supported
[54:53] master plan
[54:54] zoning C4, therefore
[54:55] refusal of this application
[54:57] for redevelopment
[54:58] areas at the junction
[54:59] C4 is not exclusive. On-
[55:01] sixth, proposed
[55:02] amendment to
[55:03] C4 interchange zoning
[55:04] will create the appropriate
[55:05] precedent, because
[55:06] she will blow up
[55:07] master plan and
[55:08] will contribute
[55:09] improper
[55:09] zoning of the C4 interchange
[55:10] in areas where it is not
[55:11] planned or
[55:12] undesirable. Seventh,
[55:14] C4 interchange area
[55:15] particularly incompatible
[55:16] with the existing
[55:17] Sauk Trail landfill
[55:18] Hills and
[55:19] land use
[55:20] Kent Renewables to the south.
[55:24] Eight, finally, the district
[55:25] service
[55:26] C4 solutions are not
[55:27] corresponds
[55:28] development trends
[55:29] of land in total
[55:31] area,
[55:31] including recent
[55:33] expansion
[55:33] playground for
[55:34] landfill recycling
[55:36] Kent Renewables gas on
[55:37] South.
[55:38] I support.
[55:39] Okay, we have
[55:40] Commissioner's proposal
[55:41] Watkins and
[55:42] Commissioner's support
[55:43] Weber. Any
[55:44] further discussion
[55:45] ? Okay, Commissioner Lee,
[55:47] Could you please?
[55:48] to announce
[55:48] voting?
[55:49] Commissioner Lee, no. I have
[55:51] I mean, yes. Yes,
[55:52] deviation.
[55:53] Yes.
[55:54] Good. Commissioner Malloy
[55:55] ? Yes. Commissioner
[55:57] Singh?
[55:58] Yes.
[55:58] Commissioner Waters?
[56:00] Yes.
[56:00] Commissioner Watkins?
[56:01] Yes.
[56:02] Commissioner Weber?
[56:03] Yes.
[56:04] And Chairman Zuber?
[56:05] Yes. So, the proposal
[56:07] accepted. Thank you.
[56:14] Okay, we have
[56:15] next point
[56:17] agenda is
[56:18] new business, and this
[56:20] item number D I R {dash} P Z
[56:22] 26-00160, and this is Target on Ford
[56:24] Road. We are considering
[56:29] making changes to
[56:31] plot plan on
[56:33] plot number 040 {dash}
[56:35] 99-0006-701, which also
[56:37] known as 4367 43670 Ford
[56:39] Road. Real estate
[56:41] located on
[56:42] north side
[56:43] Ford Road, between North-
[56:44] Morton Taylor Road and
[56:45] North Sheldon Road.
[56:46] They offer
[56:47] some changes to the facade and
[56:48] signs. Patrick,
[56:49] tell us, Please, that's all.
[56:52] Of course, thank you. Therefore,
[56:57] Target on Ford Road
[56:58] plans to make some
[56:59] changes to the facade,
[57:00] mainly on
[57:01] west side
[57:03] building, which, um,
[57:04] goes out on
[57:04] common entrance, which
[57:06] adjacent to Fifth Third Bank
[57:07] and BJ's gas stations. Therefore,
[57:13] changes to the facade, hmm,
[57:14] not really
[57:15] planned around,
[57:16] hmm, the main facade,
[57:18] visible from Ford Road.
[57:21] Although this implies
[57:22] hmm, painting already
[57:23] painted areas
[57:25] . Hmm, there is a significant part
[57:28] buildings, it is prefabricated
[57:30] concrete product that
[57:31] currently painted,
[57:32] and, um, the applicant
[57:33] offers
[57:34] repaint, hmm,
[57:35] some of these areas. AND
[57:38] , hmm, the shades are enough
[57:40] similar to what is there,
[57:41] from the point of view of, um,
[57:42] many earthy
[57:44] tones. Hmm, existing, hmm,
[57:48] brick areas, hmm,
[57:49] not planned
[57:50] to paint, hmm, or
[57:52] delete, except
[57:53] several, hmm, brick ones
[57:55] areas near the entrance.
[58:02] Hmm, uh, reason
[58:03] proposed, uh,
[58:04] brick removal near
[58:06] entrance is that
[58:07] to cover it, uh
[58:08] ...I'll try to see,
[58:10] can I get
[58:11] visual representation
[58:12] here. Yes, there is, uh,
[58:19] Nichiha siding, which
[58:20] similar to
[58:21] fiber cement
[58:22] siding, which, uh,
[58:23] the applicant proposes
[58:24] to set, uh, with
[58:26] left and right
[58:27] sides of the entrance. AND
[58:33] images provided
[58:35] applicant, show
[58:36] those areas where they
[58:37] suggest deleting
[58:38] brick. Uh, first of all, there is
[58:40] this one is, uh, painted
[58:42] red brick. I am not
[58:43] sure when it
[58:44] painted in
[58:45] red color, but
[58:46] she is from
[58:47] left and right
[58:48] sides of the entrance. Uh,
[58:50] the applicant proposes
[58:51] to set, uh,
[58:52] fiber cement
[58:53] siding Nichiha floor, e
[58:55] -uh, these areas. And I think that
[58:58] something is offered
[58:59] kind of imitation
[59:00] wood. Uh, further, there is,
[59:03] uh, painted
[59:04] brown brick behind
[59:06] the current Target sign.
[59:09] And, uh, she's drowned.
[59:10] from this main
[59:11] facade area. Uh,
[59:13] the applicant proposes
[59:14] cover it with EIFS (
[59:15] electronically
[59:16] ventilation
[59:17] system) and do
[59:18] his, uh, on a par with
[59:20] the rest of the facade
[59:21] left and right. AND,
[59:24] hmm, that will also remove
[59:25] brick, which
[59:26] is behind.
[59:30] Therefore, the applicant
[59:31] offers, um, on this
[59:33] front facade,
[59:34] which is western
[59:36] aside, um,
[59:37] reduce approximately 743
[59:38] square feet
[59:39] bricks. And this will reduce
[59:45] total percentage
[59:48] bricks in the building with 26.41%
[59:51] up to 24.28%. Hmm, in particular, on
[59:56] west side
[59:58] these buildings
[59:59] proposed changes
[1:00:01] will reduce it from 32.6% to
[1:00:03] 25.4%. Um, for now
[1:00:06] resolution on
[1:00:07] zoning requires,
[1:00:08] so that commercial
[1:00:09] the buildings were made of brick
[1:00:11] by 50%. Um, this building
[1:00:14] was built before
[1:00:15] how we had these
[1:00:16] brick standards,
[1:00:18] so, um, from the perspective of
[1:00:19] requirements 50%brick, this
[1:00:21] not even close
[1:00:22] . Um, one of the main
[1:00:25] questions: even if
[1:00:27] is it less than 50%, um, or
[1:00:28] supported
[1:00:29] further reduction,
[1:00:31] um, commission on
[1:00:32] planning? Hmm, some
[1:00:35] areas where it does
[1:00:36] it is a little less
[1:00:37] impressive, is that
[1:00:38] these brick areas
[1:00:39] deep from
[1:00:40] main facade,
[1:00:41] so they are not like that
[1:00:43] noticeable, like another
[1:00:44] the main brick in this
[1:00:45] zone. Um, they too
[1:00:47] already painted. Um,
[1:00:48] so these are some things that
[1:00:49] if it were any
[1:00:51] what other brick on
[1:00:52] the building they
[1:00:53] would like to paint
[1:00:54] or delete, um, this
[1:00:55] it would be much
[1:00:56] more impressive. Um, although
[1:00:58] this is near the entrance, this is
[1:00:59] more noticeably, um,
[1:01:00] it is painted and
[1:01:02] deep. Um, too
[1:01:05] there is, um, the wording in
[1:01:06] central
[1:01:07] business district regarding
[1:01:08] colors and textures,
[1:01:10] what, um, colors
[1:01:10] must be
[1:01:11] muffled by
[1:01:12] in tones, um, low
[1:01:13] coefficient
[1:01:14] reflection of neutrals
[1:01:15] and earthy colors,
[1:01:17] er, use
[1:01:18] high-intensity
[1:01:19] colors, metallic
[1:01:20] colors, black and
[1:01:21] fluorescent
[1:01:22] colors are prohibited.
[1:01:24] Um, earthy colors
[1:01:25] remain
[1:01:26] prevailing
[1:01:27] in colors on
[1:01:27] west side
[1:01:28] buildings. Um, red.
[1:01:30] the area will be smaller
[1:01:31] noticeable, um, if
[1:01:32] view from Ford Road,
[1:01:33] um, but she will be
[1:01:35] more noticeable if
[1:01:36] to look, um, with
[1:01:37] shared entrance.
[1:01:39] So, if you look
[1:01:40] before and after,
[1:01:41] changes in the western
[1:01:42] side from the point of view
[1:01:43] paint color changes are
[1:01:45] significant from the point of view of
[1:01:46] number of new
[1:01:47] red one, which one is there
[1:01:48] is offered. It
[1:01:51] just a question,
[1:01:52] because this, um,
[1:01:53] rather secondary
[1:01:55] color in relation
[1:01:56] to other earthy
[1:01:57] tones on this side
[1:01:58] buildings, hmm, the main thing
[1:02:00] the question is
[1:02:01] so, is it appropriate there?
[1:02:02] red scale.
[1:02:07] Finally, hmm, what
[1:02:08] regarding signage,
[1:02:09] hmm, it will be, hmm,
[1:02:10] question to
[1:02:11] the appeal board with
[1:02:12] zoning issues.
[1:02:14] The applicant submitted an application.
[1:02:15] for deviation, so that
[1:02:16] allow more
[1:02:17] wall signs,
[1:02:18] than allowed
[1:02:19] by a resolution on
[1:02:20] zoning.
[1:02:20] Maximum
[1:02:21] permissible area
[1:02:22] wall signs
[1:02:23] is 150
[1:02:24] square feet.
[1:02:25] The applicant proposes
[1:02:26] increase the area
[1:02:27] wall signs to
[1:02:28] 488 square feet. AND
[1:02:30] , hmm, main focus, hmm
[1:02:35] , changes, differences,
[1:02:36] is that
[1:02:37] regarding the wall area
[1:02:38] signs, if there are any, hmm,
[1:02:40] building with a strip
[1:02:41] diversion, hmm,
[1:02:42] located on
[1:02:43] distances less than 150
[1:02:44] feet from the lane
[1:02:45] diversion, and the building
[1:02:47] Target is located
[1:02:48] quite close to
[1:02:49] Ford Road.
[1:02:51] Maximum
[1:02:51] permissible area
[1:02:52] wall signs
[1:02:54] is 150
[1:02:54] square feet. And in
[1:02:56] resolution on
[1:02:56] zoning is permissible
[1:02:57] wall area
[1:02:58] signage is increasing
[1:02:59] when the building
[1:03:00] moves away from
[1:03:01] main road. Therefore
[1:03:02] , hmm, this question will be
[1:03:03] to be considered on
[1:03:04] meeting
[1:03:05] the appeal board with
[1:03:06] zoning issues
[1:03:07] this Thursday, um, on
[1:03:08] meeting
[1:03:08] the appeal board with
[1:03:09] zoning issues.
[1:03:10] So, um, commissions from
[1:03:11] planning, hmm, no
[1:03:12] will need
[1:03:13] to make decisions with
[1:03:14] about this.
[1:03:15] Zone decision
[1:03:16] wall signs
[1:03:17] will be based on
[1:03:17] application for
[1:03:18] deviation, submitted
[1:03:19] to the Board of Appeal with
[1:03:20] zoning issues. But
[1:03:21] , recommendation
[1:03:22] staff
[1:03:22] The Board of Appeal with
[1:03:23] zoning issues
[1:03:24] is to
[1:03:25] reject this request
[1:03:27] for deviation, but
[1:03:28] allow
[1:03:28] modified query
[1:03:29] for deviation, according to
[1:03:31] with which instead
[1:03:31] distance measurement
[1:03:33] front indentation
[1:03:34] yards from Ford Road
[1:03:35] for wall-mounted
[1:03:36] signs, measure
[1:03:37] wall distribution
[1:03:38] signs based on
[1:03:39] distance from
[1:03:40] common entrance
[1:03:41] west. We claim this because
[1:03:46] that in the resolution on
[1:03:47] zoning
[1:03:47] recommended
[1:03:48] recognize
[1:03:49] proportionality between
[1:03:50] a great distance
[1:03:51] buildings from the road and
[1:03:52] increasing the area
[1:03:53] signs, the further you go
[1:03:54] moving away from
[1:03:55] roads. In the resolution
[1:04:00] about zoning is
[1:04:00] factor that allows
[1:04:02] more signs,
[1:04:02] because the building
[1:04:03] is further from
[1:04:05] roads to a certain
[1:04:05] distances. So, our
[1:04:07] recommendation
[1:04:07] The Board of Appeal with
[1:04:08] zoning issues
[1:04:09] is to
[1:04:10] use this
[1:04:11] methodology and
[1:04:12] measure this
[1:04:13] distance from
[1:04:13] western border
[1:04:14] plots. From this
[1:04:15] main entrance
[1:04:16] the road is located
[1:04:17] main parking lot.
[1:04:18] That's where this entrance is.
[1:04:19] goes west.
[1:04:21] So, we would
[1:04:22] recommended, um,
[1:04:23] less deviation. AND
[1:04:24] we will present this
[1:04:25] The Board of Appeal with
[1:04:26] zoning issues
[1:04:27] this Thursday. Uh,
[1:04:28] but this is what I wanted
[1:04:29] would provide the Commission with
[1:04:31] planning as
[1:04:31] prerequisites. Therefore,
[1:04:33] Commission decision on
[1:04:34] planning, whether
[1:04:35] approve changes to
[1:04:36] brick removal and
[1:04:37] painting, or not
[1:04:38] approve them, or
[1:04:39] some modified
[1:04:41] version, regardless of
[1:04:42] area request
[1:04:43] wall sign,
[1:04:44] which will be considered
[1:04:45] The Board of Appeal with
[1:04:46] zoning issues
[1:04:47] later this week.
[1:04:51] So, our
[1:04:52] the recommendation is
[1:04:53] in that if changes
[1:04:55] facade, paint colors
[1:04:56] and reduction
[1:04:57] coverage, respectively
[1:04:58] to section 26.06
[1:04:59] resolutions on
[1:05:00] zoning, there is
[1:05:01] acceptable for
[1:05:01] Planning Commissions,
[1:05:03] then we recommend
[1:05:04] approve the application for
[1:05:05] plot plan, with
[1:05:06] taking into account actions
[1:05:07] Board of Appeal with
[1:05:08] zoning issues
[1:05:09] regarding any
[1:05:10] relevant requests
[1:05:11] for deviation. AND
[1:05:13] again, this is just
[1:05:14] provided that the changes
[1:05:15] facades are acceptable for
[1:05:16] planning commissions.
[1:05:19] Some changes are quite
[1:05:20] significant, based on
[1:05:21] only from the quantity
[1:05:22] red, but we will pass on the decision
[1:05:25] planning commissions
[1:05:26] regarding whether they are
[1:05:27] The scale is appropriate.
[1:05:28] So, with that in mind, I will be glad.
[1:05:30] to answer any
[1:05:31] What questions?
[1:05:32] Thanks, Patrick, and I assume you are
[1:05:34] project sponsor,
[1:05:35] Sir. Would you like to add something to that
[1:05:38] What did Patrick say?
[1:05:39] Yes.
[1:05:39] please.
[1:05:40] enter your name and
[1:05:41] address for the protocol.
[1:05:46] Good evening,
[1:05:47] Gentlemen Commissioners. Me
[1:05:49] My name is Omar. I
[1:05:50] Dearborn resident-
[1:05:50] Heights, but I work with
[1:05:51] Kimley-Horn in Michigan
[1:05:53] , these are engineers-
[1:05:53] builders who
[1:05:54] working here with Target. THERE ARE-
[1:05:55] uh, I think the commissioner
[1:05:56] Patrick said this
[1:05:57] pretty good, and I'm here,
[1:05:59] to answer
[1:06:00] any questions,
[1:06:01] if there are any.
[1:06:02] Okay, thank you. Good. I
[1:06:06] I'll start with the commissioner.
[1:06:07] Mallada today
[1:06:08] in the evening, this time.
[1:06:09] Do you have any?
[1:06:10] question? No?
[1:06:12] Commissioner Walworth? IN
[1:06:13] I'm fine.
[1:06:14] Good. IN
[1:06:15] I don't have any.
[1:06:16] questions.
[1:06:17] Good. Commissioner Lee?
[1:06:18] Commissioner Singh? AT,
[1:06:20] Sorry. I thought you will say "no". Good.
[1:06:22] Commissioner Singh?
[1:06:23] Uh, just one thing. I see,
[1:06:25] that he is driving up, that is
[1:06:26] non-existent sign,
[1:06:28] so this is what you,
[1:06:29] Guys, add. It
[1:06:30] some new service or
[1:06:31] something like that, guys.
[1:06:32] Yes, in modern Target
[1:06:34] now there are mobile
[1:06:34] points of issue
[1:06:35] orders that we
[1:06:36] now denote in
[1:06:37] Cantonese sidewalks
[1:06:38] stripes and signs,
[1:06:39] but it's more of a way
[1:06:41] to navigate in
[1:06:41] road for people who
[1:06:43] moving from
[1:06:43] shared passage. THERE ARE-
[1:06:45] Well, it's easy if you
[1:06:46] will have to go
[1:06:47] there to understand,
[1:06:48] where is it located, we believe that for
[1:06:50] better circulation
[1:06:51] data is a signboard
[1:06:51] from above. This is enough.
[1:06:52] common phenomenon in
[1:06:53] such supermarkets,
[1:06:55] like this one.
[1:06:55] Thank you. No questions asked,
[1:06:56] Madam Chairwoman.
[1:06:58] Good. Commissioner
[1:06:59] Watkins?
[1:06:59] Very quickly. Patrick,
[1:07:01] Can you go?
[1:07:02] to...I mean, 36-
[1:07:03] its pages...Yes, it is
[1:07:05] should be page 36 in
[1:07:06] package. I think there
[1:07:08] shown, er, yes, 36-
[1:07:10] there. It is shown there
[1:07:11] space for a gap
[1:07:12] time. Um, oh. Uh, on
[1:07:14] what term
[1:07:15] planned
[1:07:16] implement this
[1:07:16] project? On which
[1:07:17] the term they
[1:07:18] will cover half
[1:07:19] parking?
[1:07:20] Yes, this project
[1:07:21] actually too
[1:07:22] corresponds
[1:07:22] internal changes to
[1:07:24] website. Hmm, project
[1:07:25] the plant will last 3
[1:07:27] months, will begin
[1:07:29] in the spring of 2027. Therefore,
[1:07:30] we don't have...We have
[1:07:31] intention for it to last
[1:07:32] maximum from May to
[1:07:33] August.
[1:07:34] Great, because I was going to
[1:07:35] tell you what if
[1:07:36] you were going to do it now
[1:07:37] to explain, this intermediate
[1:07:38] the area is huge, and this
[1:07:39] would be a nightmare during
[1:07:40] holidays. So
[1:07:41] Yes. This is our maximum,
[1:07:43] which we considered
[1:07:43] fair
[1:07:44] show, but
[1:07:45] because internal
[1:07:46] improvements will be
[1:07:48] much faster,
[1:07:49] than external, this
[1:07:50] intermediate area
[1:07:51] will decrease
[1:07:51] pro rata.
[1:07:52] Of course. Thank you,
[1:07:54] Madam President.
[1:07:55] Absolutely.
[1:07:55] Yes, uh, does anyone have one?
[1:07:56] any thoughts on
[1:07:57] red? No one
[1:07:58] didn't say anything about
[1:07:59] red color on
[1:08:00] facade.
[1:08:01] I like it.
[1:08:02] I feel that
[1:08:03] we will open for
[1:08:04] you, Madam Chair.
[1:08:06] This is their standard
[1:08:07] branding now, right?
[1:08:08] Tell me, Madam Chair.
[1:08:10] You all speak
[1:08:11] simultaneously. Sorry.
[1:08:12] I just wanted to say that it is theirs
[1:08:14] standard. It
[1:08:14] standard
[1:08:15] branding now, because
[1:08:16] this does not match
[1:08:17] our resolutions,
[1:08:18] so I just wanted to find out if there is
[1:08:20] someone strong
[1:08:21] feelings about this
[1:08:22] reason. I suppose
[1:08:23] that you don't have, because no one
[1:08:25] I didn't mention that.
[1:08:26] So, I mean, I don't mind. I could
[1:08:29] to claim that in
[1:08:30] some parts
[1:08:31] countries are red
[1:08:32] soil, so it can
[1:08:34] to be earthy
[1:08:35] shade. Hmm, but this
[1:08:37] exaggeration, because in
[1:08:38] We don't have it. Hmm,
[1:08:40] but
[1:08:41] ours is dirty gray.
[1:08:42] exactly.
[1:08:43] Yes. Uh, no, I have
[1:08:45] there are no problems with this.
[1:08:48] One short one.
[1:08:49] Of course.
[1:08:49] Very good. Uh, me
[1:08:52] I like yours.
[1:08:53] explanation, uh, because,
[1:08:54] you know, I think that's
[1:08:56] far from, uh,
[1:08:57] Sorry, Ford Road,
[1:08:58] but in reality it is
[1:08:59] actually drawn
[1:09:01] to...It is not addressed
[1:09:02] to the front road,
[1:09:03] so the standard is not at all
[1:09:05] another. I think you know.
[1:09:07] that in my head we are not trying to have
[1:09:09] dealing with...So, I think
[1:09:10] where you are going is
[1:09:11] exactly where I am going with you
[1:09:12] I agree. So, that's all,
[1:09:14] What should I say?
[1:09:15] Thank you.
[1:09:15] Well, by the way, about that,
[1:09:17] Patrick, it would be
[1:09:18] question if
[1:09:18] measure the distance from
[1:09:20] that side, uh, lateral
[1:09:21] the road that runs along
[1:09:22] access road,
[1:09:24] common roads
[1:09:25] access, is it
[1:09:26] is located on
[1:09:27] distance of 450 feet?
[1:09:32] Uh, that would be less than
[1:09:34] 450 feet. Uh-huh. So, I can...Uh.
[1:09:39] Just curious,
[1:09:40] for example, what would be
[1:09:41] ...Will they allow
[1:09:45] to set signs
[1:09:46] from this driveway
[1:09:47] roads?
[1:09:49] Uh, signs from the driveway
[1:09:51] roads, uh, this, uh,
[1:09:53] the distance is 368
[1:09:55] feet. Oh. And, uh, so,
[1:09:58] from the shortest
[1:09:59] driveway area
[1:10:00] roads to the front
[1:10:02] parts of the building are
[1:10:03] about 368 feet. AND
[1:10:07] The resolution allows, e
[1:10:08] -e, 2/3 square
[1:10:09] ft. for every ft
[1:10:11] retreat distance. AND,
[1:10:15] uh, that sets the uh
[1:10:17] , which establishes, uh,
[1:10:18] which establishes
[1:10:19] allowable area
[1:10:21] the walls are even smaller. But
[1:10:26] for corner apartments
[1:10:27] and corner houses with
[1:10:28] other people's premises
[1:10:29] tenants, if they
[1:10:31] located on
[1:10:32] corner area or
[1:10:33] adjacent to the road
[1:10:34] and general
[1:10:35] entrance, resolution
[1:10:36] allows 50% bonus for
[1:10:38] wall area. That is, according to
[1:10:42] essentially, it's 2/3
[1:10:44] per square foot
[1:10:46] every 1 foot of distance
[1:10:47] retreat in this
[1:10:48] range. And then,
[1:10:50] if there is a 50% bonus for
[1:10:51] the area of ​​the angle, then this
[1:10:52] brings him to
[1:10:53] actual distances
[1:10:55] indentation, which
[1:10:56] is 368
[1:10:56] square feet.
[1:10:58] So, 368 square
[1:10:59] feet less than they are
[1:11:01] they ask, but,
[1:11:02] will probably allow
[1:11:03] to highlight it for them. I think that many of
[1:11:05] their increases
[1:11:06] now, they just have
[1:11:07] sign, main sign-
[1:11:09] this is a Target apple, and they
[1:11:10] want to place
[1:11:11] there are the words Target, which
[1:11:12] take up a lot
[1:11:13] more space.
[1:11:14] Of course. Good.
[1:11:17] Through the chair, if
[1:11:18] one more point.
[1:11:20] Thank you. So, quickly
[1:11:21] two Targets in Canton, yes
[1:11:23] ? Uh, this one might be a little
[1:11:24] to differ in that,
[1:11:25] I think it might be
[1:11:27] tenant in another
[1:11:28] residential complex,
[1:11:29] so are there any
[1:11:30] expectation that
[1:11:31] branding on the site
[1:11:32] Michigan Avenue too
[1:11:33] should be changed?
[1:11:34] At least I'm fine.
[1:11:35] I don't plan to, with this I can talk.
[1:11:37] Thank you.
[1:11:39] I also think that regarding
[1:11:40] color like him
[1:11:41] indicated in the document,
[1:11:42] prevailing
[1:11:43] in Ford colors
[1:11:44] The roads will be earth, and
[1:11:45] red will be less
[1:11:46] noticeable, and this
[1:11:47] corresponds to theirs
[1:11:48] brand.
[1:11:48] There is a little on Ford Road
[1:11:49] red, I give up
[1:11:51] , but
[1:11:51] Yes. Not that it doesn't
[1:11:52] cry.
[1:11:55] Well, we have that too.
[1:11:57] This is true. We have
[1:11:58] big red
[1:11:59] furniture store.
[1:12:01] That's a good point.
[1:12:02] Thank you.
[1:12:03] And then a little closer
[1:12:04] before that, although he
[1:12:05] smaller in scale,
[1:12:06] we didn't include this in
[1:12:07] our report
[1:12:08] staff, and now it
[1:12:09] dental
[1:12:10] building. So, this one
[1:12:11] red is now blue,
[1:12:12] but it was a department
[1:12:13] urgent
[1:12:14] help. First
[1:12:15] it was built
[1:12:16] as a department
[1:12:17] urgent
[1:12:18] some help
[1:12:19] years ago, and he
[1:12:20] there were red panels,
[1:12:21] that came out on Ford-
[1:12:22] road. It is smaller than
[1:12:24] proposed by the applicant, but
[1:12:26] the scale is much
[1:12:27] larger in terms of
[1:12:28] percent of the building and
[1:12:29] vicinity of Ford-
[1:12:30] road.
[1:12:31] Of course.
[1:12:32] Uh, now it's blue. It
[1:12:34] dental
[1:12:35] center, but he...Yes...
[1:12:36] used to be
[1:12:37] approved as
[1:12:38] red.
[1:12:38] Thank you. Thank you. Someone
[1:12:40] wants to contribute
[1:12:41] offer?
[1:12:42] I will do it, ma'am.
[1:12:43] presiding I suggest
[1:12:46] approve the application for
[1:12:48] room layout
[1:12:49] proposed changes
[1:12:51] facade at the address
[1:12:53] Ford Road, 43 670, at
[1:12:55] plot number
[1:12:56] 040-99-0006-701, with
[1:12:57] taking into account
[1:12:58] zoning. Haha.
[1:13:02] Appeals.
[1:13:03] Appeal proceedings
[1:13:04] any
[1:13:05] applicable queries
[1:13:06] for deviation. My
[1:13:08] the mouth stopped
[1:13:08] work.
[1:13:09] Good. We have
[1:13:10] Commissioner's proposal
[1:13:11] Watkins and
[1:13:12] support from
[1:13:13] Support.
[1:13:13] Hmm.
[1:13:14] He has already supported
[1:13:15] so thank you. We
[1:13:16] received a backup
[1:13:17] support from
[1:13:17] Commissioner Mallet.
[1:13:18] Perfectly.
[1:13:19] Um, there are some more
[1:13:20] discussion? Good.
[1:13:22] Commissioner Lee, is it not
[1:13:23] could you announce
[1:13:24] voting?
[1:13:24] Yes. Commissioner Lee, yes.
[1:13:26] Commissioner Mallet.
[1:13:27] Yes.
[1:13:28] Commissioner Singh.
[1:13:29] Yes.
[1:13:30] AT.
[1:13:30] Commissioner Walter.
[1:13:31] Yes.
[1:13:32] Commissioner Watkins.
[1:13:33] Yes.
[1:13:33] Commissioner Webber.
[1:13:35] Yes.
[1:13:35] Head Zuber.
[1:13:36] Yes. Proposal
[1:13:37] accepted. I am very
[1:13:39] I hope that some
[1:13:40] internal updates
[1:13:41] will include
[1:13:42] non-blocking
[1:13:43] fire exits.
[1:13:45] I can only speak
[1:13:46] with external
[1:13:47] staff, but ladies
[1:13:48] word. Thank you very much,
[1:13:49] guys.
[1:13:50] Thank you. This is me.
[1:13:51] drives you crazy.
[1:13:52] I guess I need
[1:13:53] call the police.
[1:13:54] Oh, oh. Fire trucks
[1:13:56] blocked. IN
[1:13:57] they have, um, they have something
[1:13:58] like a small one
[1:14:00] places where you can
[1:14:00] get vaccinated at CVS,
[1:14:01] and there is such a small one
[1:14:03] a corridor leading
[1:14:04] back, you know, this
[1:14:04] a small corridor
[1:14:06] , which has at the end
[1:14:07] marked firemen
[1:14:07] door. If there
[1:14:08] someday it will happen
[1:14:09] emergency situation
[1:14:11] , phew. This will be bad.
[1:14:12] news. Sorry, I don't
[1:14:15] I can turn it off.
[1:14:16] I know.
[1:14:18] Well, as a lawyer, I would say that this
[1:14:20] also potential
[1:14:21] question
[1:14:21] responsibility.
[1:14:22] Yes, I know, we think that they, I think they would like to
[1:14:25] clean it.
[1:14:26] Yes. Yes, don't block
[1:14:27] fire exits, be
[1:14:28] affection. Okay, very good.
[1:14:29] Okay, thank you.
[1:14:31] So, we have another one
[1:14:32] question is okay
[1:14:33] daytime. We have old ones
[1:14:35] cases, as well as
[1:14:36] amendment to the text
[1:14:37] resolutions on
[1:14:38] zoning where we are talking about fences,
[1:14:40] wall and wall in
[1:14:41] singulars and limits,
[1:14:42] fences in the plural,
[1:14:43] wall in the singular, border in the
[1:14:44] plural.
[1:14:45] I have been on the committee for 6 years.
[1:14:46] I think we
[1:14:47] talked about fences
[1:14:49] all six years.
[1:14:49] I think that's probably true.
[1:14:52] Yes. So, uh, Patrick
[1:14:54] , tell us
[1:14:54] more about
[1:14:55] appointment
[1:14:56] public hearings. THERE ARE-
[1:14:57] there are,
[1:14:57] Of course, thank you. Uh,
[1:14:59] we, uh, discussed
[1:15:01] proposed, uh
[1:15:02] amendment to
[1:15:03] decrees on, er,
[1:15:04] previous meeting,
[1:15:05] and then we talked
[1:15:06] about, uh, changes to
[1:15:08] examination requirements,
[1:15:09] and also, uh, walls and
[1:15:10] fences at the entrances to
[1:15:12] residential buildings. Uh,
[1:15:14] since we
[1:15:15] last time, uh, them
[1:15:16] discussed, there was no
[1:15:17] too many changes. Uh, me
[1:15:19] I think it was probably
[1:15:20] , a couple of months ago. THERE ARE-
[1:15:22] Well, one of the points,
[1:15:24] which we added, was, uh-
[1:15:25] e, fences for
[1:15:26] sports fences. AND
[1:15:28] now the resolution on
[1:15:30] zoning restricts
[1:15:31] fence height up to 6
[1:15:32] feet. So, if in
[1:15:33] is there anyone
[1:15:34] basketball
[1:15:35] tennis court or playground
[1:15:37] for pickleball,
[1:15:38] regardless of whether
[1:15:39] is it a condominium, or
[1:15:40] apartment building
[1:15:41] complex, then its
[1:15:42] height limited to 6
[1:15:43] feet, because none
[1:15:44] the fence cannot
[1:15:45] exceed 6 feet.
[1:15:47] I think there are some
[1:15:48] exceptions for
[1:15:48] industry, but this
[1:15:50] not very successful
[1:15:50] comparison. So, we
[1:15:54] recommended
[1:15:55] include a separate
[1:15:56] section to the resolution
[1:15:57] about signs, on
[1:15:58] addition to those about
[1:15:59] which we spoke on
[1:16:00] one of the previous ones
[1:16:01] meetings with
[1:16:02] survey regarding
[1:16:03] requirements and walls and
[1:16:04] fences near entrances
[1:16:05] to residential buildings,
[1:16:06] to allow
[1:16:07] installation of fences,
[1:16:08] surrounding
[1:16:09] recreational
[1:16:10] platforms, heights
[1:16:11] up to 10 feet, provided that the fence is not
[1:16:13] is within
[1:16:14] front yard, and
[1:16:15] recreational
[1:16:16] playgrounds
[1:16:17] located on
[1:16:17] public
[1:16:18] property or within
[1:16:19] total area
[1:16:21] residential development. Ahem
[1:16:25] , for the purposes of this
[1:16:26] subdivision,
[1:16:27] qualified
[1:16:28] residential development
[1:16:29] there will be a residential area,
[1:16:30] condominium,
[1:16:31] residential complex
[1:16:32] or a park of artificial
[1:16:33] houses. So, this is not
[1:16:34] there might be something on
[1:16:35] someone's back
[1:16:36] yard. If this
[1:16:37] common common
[1:16:38] element,
[1:16:39] bona fide joint
[1:16:40] room, then, um,
[1:16:41] they can have 10-
[1:16:43] foot fence. We have
[1:16:44] there were some condominiums that
[1:16:46] wanted to set 10-
[1:16:47] foot fences for
[1:16:48] pickleball, basketball
[1:16:50] and tennis. So, this is
[1:16:51] would take into account some of the
[1:16:53] those demands that we heard
[1:16:54] . Hmm, so I need more
[1:16:56] nothing to add, and, um,
[1:16:58] if there are any changes, we can add them to
[1:17:00] public hearings.
[1:17:02] Good. Thank you. Someone
[1:17:04] has anything to say?
[1:17:10] Is this just a coincidence?
[1:17:11] circumstances that today
[1:17:12] are remembered in the evening
[1:17:13] court fences,
[1:17:14] considering
[1:17:15] public
[1:17:16] the discussion we have
[1:17:17] had before?
[1:17:18] Um, I don't know if this is, uh-
[1:17:20] uh, I don't know if that's it
[1:17:21] coincidence or not.
[1:17:24] Um, just because
[1:17:25] The fence did not give in.
[1:17:26] problem. It was...
[1:17:28] Yes, that was...
[1:17:29] I know. I...I don't
[1:17:30] I am going to contact
[1:17:31] to her...
[1:17:32] Yes, I think it's...me.
[1:17:33] I think that's it.
[1:17:34] coincidence, but, um,
[1:17:35] on the topic of noise, when
[1:17:36] we are considering our
[1:17:36] rules regarding centers
[1:17:37] data processing, we consider the points in
[1:17:39] our resolution
[1:17:40] regarding noise that is not
[1:17:41] related to centers
[1:17:42] data processing from point
[1:17:43] in terms of provision
[1:17:44] compliance. I don't know,
[1:17:45] To what extent will this affect
[1:17:46] for recreational
[1:17:47] objects, but, um, this is what are we working on at the same time
[1:17:49] we work with centers
[1:17:50] data processing, if
[1:17:51] This is worth something.
[1:17:52] Yes, we should.
[1:17:53] to offer some
[1:17:54] acoustic fences.
[1:17:58] Good. But that's enough.
[1:17:59] difficult. Let's do it.
[1:18:01] Let's make a contribution
[1:18:02] proposal.
[1:18:03] Of course, I will contribute.
[1:18:04] proposal. I propose to appoint
[1:18:05] public hearings
[1:18:06] regarding the proposed
[1:18:07] amendments to the section
[1:18:07] 2.2 resolutions on
[1:18:08] zoning like this
[1:18:09] provided for in
[1:18:09] attached to the resolution,
[1:18:10] proposed for
[1:18:11] fences, walls and
[1:18:12] curbs. Second...
[1:18:13] Okay, we have
[1:18:14] Commissioner's proposal
[1:18:15] Watkins and
[1:18:16] Commissioner's support
[1:18:17] Webber. Any
[1:18:18] further discussion
[1:18:19] ? Good. Commissioner Lee, is it
[1:18:21] could you not
[1:18:21] to announce
[1:18:22] vote, be
[1:18:23] affection?
[1:18:23] Yes. Commissioner Lee, yes.
[1:18:25] Commissioner Mallett.
[1:18:26] Yes.
[1:18:26] Commissioner Singh.
[1:18:28] Yes.
[1:18:28] Commissioner Waters.
[1:18:29] Yes.
[1:18:30] Commissioner Watkins.
[1:18:31] Yes.
[1:18:31] Commissioner Webber.
[1:18:33] Yes.
[1:18:33] Head Zuber.
[1:18:34] Yes. Petition
[1:18:35] accepted. Good. Or
[1:18:39] were there any others
[1:18:40] conversations?
[1:18:41] I just want
[1:18:42] continue
[1:18:43] discussion of this
[1:18:44] question on
[1:18:44] public
[1:18:45] discussion. When we hear comments like this,
[1:18:49] it seems that this
[1:18:50] real problem.
[1:18:52] She is located
[1:18:53] only 30 feet away
[1:18:54] court. So what are we can do and what
[1:18:57] next step?
[1:18:59] Well, before you
[1:19:00] go to this
[1:19:01] parts, mine
[1:19:02] question: is this in
[1:19:03] Sunflower district.
[1:19:05] And they have rules.
[1:19:06] through their condominium association regarding
[1:19:08] their part,
[1:19:10] their
[1:19:10] recreational
[1:19:11] space, right?
[1:19:13] Where is the condominium here?
[1:19:14] This is true.
[1:19:16] Um, condominium, because it is
[1:19:17] can act to
[1:19:18] install additional
[1:19:20] restrictions than those that
[1:19:21] we can have in
[1:19:22] resolution. Um, in such
[1:19:25] cases, um, not
[1:19:26] necessarily
[1:19:27] concerns
[1:19:27] Sunflower, but whatever
[1:19:29] which condominium, because
[1:19:30] I think we have
[1:19:31] over 200 condominiums in
[1:19:32] Cantons to which condominiums
[1:19:34] can install
[1:19:35] additional restrictions.
[1:19:37] So, regarding the common
[1:19:38] elements and
[1:19:39] shared facilities
[1:19:40] for recreation, such
[1:19:41] like their sports
[1:19:42] courts, swimming pools, etc. I know what's in this.
[1:19:46] in the case of condominiums
[1:19:47] locks were installed
[1:19:48] outside. This limits the time,
[1:19:51] when they are active, and
[1:19:52] when people can
[1:19:53] to reach them. Hmm,
[1:19:54] they used
[1:19:56] cameras for
[1:19:56] monitoring. Hmm, they
[1:19:58] set limits
[1:19:59] for hours. They
[1:20:00] allow this
[1:20:01] during the day. So this is
[1:20:04] that, um, we can
[1:20:05] to consider in the future if
[1:20:07] there will be a conflict with
[1:20:08] work, as well as with that the resolution
[1:20:10] regulates regarding
[1:20:11] permissible noise.
[1:20:15] So was there an apartment building?
[1:20:16] these have been converted
[1:20:17] tennis courts on
[1:20:18] pickleball courts?
[1:20:19] Yes. Yes, before that
[1:20:20] There was a tennis court.
[1:20:21] It was converted
[1:20:23] under pickleball. I am not
[1:20:24] sure when exactly
[1:20:25] it happened. I don't think so.
[1:20:26] what is the area of ​​the court itself
[1:20:27] changed. I think that
[1:20:29] just him
[1:20:30] painted and
[1:20:30] painted.
[1:20:33] So, in my opinion,
[1:20:37] what are they expecting,
[1:20:38] except for regulation
[1:20:39] working hours or
[1:20:40] something like that? What
[1:20:42] they expect from
[1:20:43] villages? Even if
[1:20:44] Do you think their
[1:20:46] the problem is the noise,
[1:20:48] installation
[1:20:49] a bigger fence or
[1:20:50] nothing else will solve it
[1:20:51] this problem. Um, I have
[1:20:56] meaning that this
[1:20:58] the problem of the condominium association, not
[1:20:59] the problem of the village.
[1:21:01] That's right.
[1:21:04] Well, except for this
[1:21:04] exceeds the norms for
[1:21:06] noise, right? This is already
[1:21:08] another question. I have on
[1:21:09] mind you, here it is
[1:21:10] what is it about
[1:21:11] concern.
[1:21:12] If this is a problem, then
[1:21:14] that's okay, but
[1:21:15] it seems like she was
[1:21:16] rather...that is, if in
[1:21:17] we have noise regulations,
[1:21:24] I think it's worth it.
[1:21:25] to think about
[1:21:26] future
[1:21:26] installation
[1:21:27] platforms for
[1:21:28] pickleball, where we could
[1:21:29] I would consider, uh,
[1:21:30] recreational noise, but
[1:21:32] this is completely different
[1:21:33] topic for research.
[1:21:41] Can we do this?
[1:21:42] do in social
[1:21:43] village networks,
[1:21:44] for example, to teach
[1:21:46] people, condominiums, uh, so
[1:21:47] that many can
[1:21:48] consider
[1:21:49] possibility
[1:21:49] transformation of their
[1:21:50] tennis courts on
[1:21:52] platforms for
[1:21:52] pickleball, which you are talking about
[1:21:54] Don't you think? When is this
[1:21:57] happens, then already
[1:21:58] too late. So, this is
[1:22:03] a good idea for someone,
[1:22:05] you know, came out and
[1:22:06] started teaching people
[1:22:07] about these improvements.
[1:22:11] We can work with
[1:22:13] our administration
[1:22:14] over this. Hmm, I know that.
[1:22:16] this is a problem that, um,
[1:22:18] has existed for a long time in
[1:22:19] this condominium, with
[1:22:20] proximity
[1:22:20] pickleball courts
[1:22:22] to residential buildings.
[1:22:26] And those in Gainsborough,
[1:22:27] a little further from
[1:22:28] pickleball courts and
[1:22:29] from residential
[1:22:30] houses. There is
[1:22:32] swimming pool, as well as
[1:22:33] basketball
[1:22:34] ground. Hmm, I don't.
[1:22:35] I know if there are any
[1:22:36] noise problems from
[1:22:38] swimming pool or
[1:22:38] basketball
[1:22:39] playground. And I know,
[1:22:41] that they also have the same
[1:22:42] hour restrictions
[1:22:43] work. Regarding pickleball
[1:22:45] , I don't know very well
[1:22:46] this sport, so
[1:22:47] regarding noise,
[1:22:48] which he creates
[1:22:49] compared to tennis
[1:22:50] court or
[1:22:50] basketball
[1:22:51] playground, I don't really know.
[1:22:53] The only difference
[1:22:55] between the noise of tennis
[1:22:56] and tennis is
[1:22:57] because you have
[1:22:58] plastic ball, and you get this noise from
[1:23:01] rackets, from the court. I understand that noise,
[1:23:04] which one is it about
[1:23:05] spoke,
[1:23:05] it was more about
[1:23:06] the noise of people.
[1:23:07] Number of players.
[1:23:08] Then the number
[1:23:09] players, because they,
[1:23:10] maybe a little
[1:23:11] Are they making noise or something?
[1:23:12] like this. Okay, so you
[1:23:13] control it by
[1:23:14] with your help
[1:23:15] noise regulations and
[1:23:16] hours of work. I have on
[1:23:18] I mean, I don't think so.
[1:23:19] that the village can
[1:23:20] to do something more.
[1:23:22] I mean, you
[1:23:23] bought a house in
[1:23:24] this neighborhood,
[1:23:25] I hate you for this.
[1:23:26] say. Did you know that
[1:23:27] He is there when
[1:23:28] bought a house. I just don't think so.
[1:23:32] ...I don't think so.
[1:23:33] is among ours
[1:23:34] powers
[1:23:35] to solve this
[1:23:35] problem for them. I think they need it.
[1:23:38] to turn to one's
[1:23:39] Condominium.
[1:23:41] And we will talk to
[1:23:41] our officials
[1:23:42] individuals and our
[1:23:43] lawyer on issues
[1:23:44] service
[1:23:45] residents. Perhaps,
[1:23:46] they have already participated
[1:23:47] in this matter, so that
[1:23:47] see what they have
[1:23:48] information or what
[1:23:49] they have
[1:23:50] recommendations regarding
[1:23:51] further action, but,
[1:23:51] you know, for...Yes, you are right. From the point
[1:23:53] view of the resolution, this
[1:23:54] difficult because of everyone
[1:23:56] our condominiums, which have
[1:23:57] shared amenities, and,
[1:23:58] you know, the noises that come from
[1:23:59] They are being reported.
[1:24:01] Yes, if you spoke
[1:24:02] about this issue in
[1:24:03] one of ours
[1:24:04] public parks, in
[1:24:06] Florin Park or Park
[1:24:07] Independence or
[1:24:08] somewhere else, and we...but then
[1:24:09] the courts concerned
[1:24:10] neighboring residential
[1:24:11] at home...sorry...
[1:24:14] Yes, let's be.
[1:24:15] accurate...
[1:24:17] Um, another question then.
[1:24:18] yes, then we can
[1:24:19] solve the problem,
[1:24:21] but, you know, we
[1:24:22] must act
[1:24:23] careful when
[1:24:23] we start working
[1:24:25] private rights
[1:24:26] property, etc. I have
[1:24:28] meaning that in the condominium...
[1:24:29] Let's see.
[1:24:30] honestly, a lot
[1:24:31] Which one of them is in this?
[1:24:32] they don't have a town
[1:24:33] problems with
[1:24:34] fence adjustment
[1:24:35] and whether people can
[1:24:36] to put up a fence, or
[1:24:37] what type of fence
[1:24:38] to put etc. Then
[1:24:40] What do you mean?
[1:24:42] But, you know, let
[1:24:43] they are doing this.
[1:24:46] Yes, I was.
[1:24:46] It's a shame to interrupt her,
[1:24:47] but she was going
[1:24:49] to continue further
[1:24:49] for a while.
[1:24:50] I know.
[1:24:51] Yes, and condominiums have
[1:24:52] better position in such
[1:24:53] cases, because there are
[1:24:55] many people who are
[1:24:56] members of the condominium association and want
[1:24:57] play pickleball, and
[1:24:58] there are also many people,
[1:25:00] who live nearby and
[1:25:01] want different rules.
[1:25:03] So, how much is this?
[1:25:04] maybe, yes, some
[1:25:05] compromise, you know,
[1:25:07] who is affected by this, and
[1:25:08] on the residents, and on
[1:25:09] players, and on condominiums,
[1:25:11] which represents them.
[1:25:16] But for our part, we will cooperate
[1:25:18] with organs
[1:25:18] executive branch and
[1:25:19] our lawyer with
[1:25:20] questions
[1:25:20] service
[1:25:21] residents to see which one
[1:25:22] they did the work
[1:25:23] here or elsewhere
[1:25:24] sites to see,
[1:25:25] can this help
[1:25:26] from our point of view
[1:25:27] resolutions.
[1:25:28] Okay, thank you. I remember
[1:25:30] proposal about
[1:25:31] transfer
[1:25:32] meeting.
[1:25:32] I support.
[1:25:33] We don't ask everyone
[1:25:34] speak at the same time
[1:25:36] Okay, we have
[1:25:36] proposal about
[1:25:37] transfer
[1:25:37] meeting from
[1:25:38] Commissioner Singh, which
[1:25:39] supports Commissioner Lee.
[1:25:40] All in favor, please.
[1:25:41] Speak up. Someone
[1:25:43] "against"? I am not like that.
[1:25:44] I think.