[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.

Canton Township Planning Commission Meeting - October 5, 2026

Transcript