[0:07] The 1990 traffic analysis addendum
formed the basis for the prohibition of
[0:12] speed bumps in the DUD. Um stated that
studies were mixed on the effectiveness
[0:18] of speed bumps. um we have 30 more years
of of studies um to to look at and in
[0:26] general we find these days that speed
bumps and speed humps are are effective
[0:33] at reducing speed. Um a lot of it's in
the details of what kind of what kind of
[0:39] bumps you're installing, what how
they're spaced, etc. Um and there might
[0:45] be other measures that are more
effective at reducing speed. Um,
[0:49] installing removable speed bumps is
probably the the most cost effective
[0:53] treatment you could you could try to
reduce speeds here.
[0:59] Um,
the 1990 addendum also stated that it
[1:05] said if after the site is constructed
and occupied, significant problems
[1:09] develop, more extreme and expense and
expensive measures can be taken to
[1:14] restrict through traffic. Um, Now, while
that pertains to through traffic, I
[1:20] think you you may be able to apply the
same logic to um to speed and installing
[1:25] speed bumps in this case.
Um so if you know if speed bumps were
[1:31] installed and they reduce speeds that
will make the road safer for all users.
[1:37] So we feel that this condition is met.
Um the second standard
[1:44] um for your consideration
um is subset of that uh site circulation
[1:49] and parking design must be designed to
ensure access for emergency vehicles.
[1:55] Um we spoke to our fire marshall and uh
in Cascade Township we generally allow
[2:01] speed bumps but we want to know what
their size and dimensions are because if
[2:06] they're too tall those can cause an
issue. Um, we also require that there be
[2:10] signs installed that warn people that
there are speed bumps at so that you are
[2:15] not caught unawares.
Um, so we find that this condition can
[2:20] be met by requiring that the fire
marshall review the speed bumps before
[2:25] they are installed.
Um, I will point out that in most cases
[2:31] um,
we don't, you know, we don't have any
[2:35] requirement to do such a review. Uh this
case is kind of uh it may be unique. I
[2:42] don't know of any other planned unit
developments that have a prohibition on
[2:46] using speed bumps. Um so if you were in
pretty much any other planned unit
[2:51] development in the township, you
wouldn't have to go through any sort of
[2:56] review to install speed bumps. That
would just be at your discretion.
[3:00] [snorts]
[3:04] Um, we did uh we received uh one letter
in support of the of the amendment. Um,
[3:15] and two I think it's actually three now
letters that we've received that voiced
[3:19] some concerns. Um, we've also fielded
some inquiries in person and over the
[3:24] phone. mostly from people just looking
for more information about the request
[3:29] because when we put out these um when
when we post these public notices, we
[3:34] don't always include a lot of
information. It's hard to include a lot
[3:41] of information in those. So, I
understand when when folks are looking
[3:44] for more information. I would be too. Um
so,
[3:50] uh stepping through here, do you have
some considerations for the commission
[3:55] tonight. Um, I've changed the wording
slightly from what was in the staff
[3:59] memo, but I mean, first and foremost,
does the proposed amendment meet the PUD
[4:05] criteria uh for a site circulation?
Um, that's pretty straightforward. Um,
[4:10] number two is a little a little more, I
guess, thoughtprovoking. So, we don't
[4:17] prohibit speed bumps on private streets
elsewhere in the township. So, are there
[4:22] compelling reasons to continue to
prohibit them in the watermark PE where
[4:27] they would be allowed or where they are
allowed in other residential areas? And
[4:32] then finally, just not put too fine a
point on it, but granting this request
[4:37] does not mean that speed bumps will be
installed. It would leave that up to the
[4:40] condo association and the members of the
condo association to actually make that
[4:45] decision on whether they're installed um
or not.
[4:50] So with that, I think I'll wrap up my
presentation.
[4:56] Um
I I recommend approval of this. So in
[5:02] front of you here is a a draft
recommendation that includes a provision
[5:07] that um if they choose it says if they
choose to install speed bumps that we
[5:12] would want the fire marshall to review
and approve the type of speed bumps,
[5:16] their plan locations and the location
and types of signs that indicate that
[5:21] there are going to be speed bumps there.
Again, we don't require that elsewhere
[5:25] in the township, but it seems like since
we have a shot at it, we might as well
[5:30] do some due diligence and require that.
>> Thank you. Thanks.
[5:38] » Um, I have a question for you. Uh, is
there anything in the PUB that would
[5:44] prevent
stop signs being installed on private
[5:48] drives?
>> I I saw nothing to that effect. No.
[5:53] Anybody
else have any other questions?
[5:59] » You can go ahead.
>> Yeah, I have a question. Um, on page
[6:03] three of the staff report, it talks
about um the collected wisdom indicates
[6:10] that speed bumps are effective. And you
mentioned verbally kind of a summary.
[6:15] I'm wondering if there's a specific that
stands out. I mean there are a lot of
[6:21] studies out there. Um Federal Highway
Administration has has at least one
[6:27] study out there that finds them to be
effective. Um
[6:32] sorry that I don't have the citation
here but I can get that for you.
[6:35] » Then I had another question with respect
to um the site circulation. Could you
[6:41] since we don't have it written could you
please explain which users were supposed
[6:45] to consider? It's I think beyond
vehicles. Is that correct? It it says um
[6:49] safety and convenience for ve vehicular
and pedestrian traffic.
[6:55] » Okay. And what about things like
bicycles, skateboards, scooters? That's
[7:01] » I would include that as vehicular.
>> Okay. And what consideration was given
[7:06] to those?
>> Um how so?
[7:10] » With respect to how the speed bumps
might influence
[7:13] other than vehicle use of the road,
>> right? Um, well, without knowing exactly
[7:20] what types of speed bumps would be
installed, I I'm not sure how how we
[7:26] we'd be able to evaluate that. And
that's really not that's really not the
[7:30] charge that we have before us tonight.
It's just whether to strike this
[7:34] language or not. So, we're not trying to
approve any specific design. Um because
[7:39] I imagine you could install speed bumps
that
[7:43] don't go the entire width of the road.
So it'd be easy to, you know, ride your
[7:49] bike in between, you know, if you have
two next to each other, um or ride a
[7:54] skateboard in between them. Um so
there's ways there's ways to design
[7:58] things so that they're not uh going to
affect people on bikes, people riding
[8:03] skateboards, um and emergency vehicles,
too. If you make them narrow enough and
[8:08] they're not super tall, you can drive
[clears throat] a fire truck right over
[8:11] that where it kind of straddles
straddles it so they can go through um
[8:16] quickly. So
[snorts]
[8:18] » So I I know we're not approving speed
bumps. Um but we are required to
[8:22] consider all the users of the roadway.
>> Yes.
[8:25] » Okay.
[8:28] » Yeah.
Thanks for your report. I had just a few
[8:32] questions. So I saw that the
applications from the watermark condo
[8:36] association and I I didn't know. Do you
know is that the sole association for
[8:42] the entire PUD including the golf course
and all the private roads in the PUD?
[8:48] » I am not sure.
[clears throat]
[8:55] » Yep. Um it looks like this was generated
based on a speed stud. I mean, there's I
[9:02] think there's reference to it, a summary
to it. Did you receive the speed study?
[9:06] It's not in our materials.
>> I I thought I included a few pages from
[9:12] it.
>> Okay.
[9:13] » Um but if I didn't, I apologize. It
should be
[9:18] » and it it wasn't the I didn't include
the full speed study. I included the
[9:22] addendum that I'm not sure why they
created an addendum back in 1990, but um
[9:28] » Oh, no. I I meant like you know if what
we're saying here is that like you know
[9:33] I mean your first statement like
speeding is an issue along Watermark
[9:37] Drive
>> right?
[9:38] » Yes that is that is as as it has been
conveyed to us there speeding seems to
[9:45] be an issue.
>> Um All right. Yeah. you know, and I know
[9:51] like you're saying, well,
we don't prohibit speed bumps. So, like
[9:57] I don't I I don't think in my
neighborhood, for example, maybe there's
[10:01] a restrictive covenant that says
we don't allow speed bumps, but like we
[10:07] do speed studies in my neighborhood
every single like it seems like
[10:10] constantly because people think people
drive too fast in the neighborhood.
[10:17] If I wanted speed bumps in my
neighborhood on a private on a public
[10:21] road, I mean, I have to go to the road
commission, right?
[10:25] » You would? Yeah. Okay.
[10:30] » All right.
[10:34] » Does anybody else good?
>> I'm good. Does anybody else have any
[10:37] other questions for staff?
>> I I do have several questions, but I
[10:41] don't know if it's should be part of the
schedule. All right, it's for staff.
[10:46] » Yeah, I have uh you know some questions,
but they're probably more into the
[10:50] discussion space and it is what we're
talking about right now, but there's a
[10:54] lot worth I see they want to have them
where they're removable.
[10:59] » Uh who's maintaining those, how they're
going to be removed, what happens if
[11:02] they break, you know, all those kind of
things.
[11:05] » Yeah, [snorts] that's discussion.
>> Part of discussion. So, I'm shutting
[11:08] down.
>> No. Do you have anything for staff? I
[11:09] mean, you have any you Okay, that
Robert, this is a good question.
[11:14] Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
>> Thanks.
[11:18] » Okay. Um,
so this is the portion we're going to
[11:23] lay some ground rules real quick. Thank
you for showing up. You don't usually
[11:27] have this big of a crowd. So, thank you.
Means a lot to us because most of the
[11:31] time we're shooting in the dark. So,
thank you. Um, in a minute here I'm
[11:36] going to ask to open it up to public
hearing. Um, [clears throat]
[11:42] my voice chair said I should give you
guys four minutes to talk, right? Um,
[11:46] please talk to the board. Don't talk to
the audience and let everybody just kind
[11:51] of don't try not to interrupt everybody.
Keep it professional. All the good
[11:55] stuff, right? So, everybody go with
that. When you come up, just state your
[11:59] name and address for the record. Okay.
Um, you can do timer. That would be
[12:05] great. Yes. So, I'm going to make a
motion to go to public hearing. All
[12:10] right. All those in favor say I. I. Any
opposed? Okay. So, now we're open for
[12:16] public hearing. So, if you'd like to
come up to the mic. Oh, no. Wait a
[12:20] minute. We got to hear from the
applicant first. So, I got a motion to
[12:23] close public hearing.
>> This is my first.
[12:27] » Yeah. I got excited because all you guys
were here.
[12:31] » Uh motion to close public hearing. Do I
have a second?
[12:34] » Third. All right. All those in favor? I
>> Okay. like to hear from the applicant.
[12:38] Is the applicant here? That would be the
president or the
[12:44] » HOA.
>> Yeah.
[12:49] State your name and address for the
record here.
[12:52] » Michael Burark.
>> Okay. Michael, you have more than four
[12:56] minutes
>> because we're going to ask you
[12:57] questions, too.
>> Okay.
[12:59] » Okay.
>> Okay. Well, on the board's application
[13:02] to revise water
ordinance by removing the prohibition of
[13:07] speeds. Uh this is based on the
following. Our review of all the listed
[13:11] which you've mentioned as well uh all
the listed PDS have no such prohibition.
[13:16] So why would we uh fire department? We
had our management company both consult
[13:22] with the township and the fire
department to determine what speed
[13:30] and those are the ones that uh we have
if this motion is approved.
[13:35] » And Can you Sorry. Can you push your
button? So, can you push
[13:39] » Is there a button on the mic
>> on the mic? On the base of the mic.
[13:43] » Is it red?
>> Yeah.
[13:44] » Now it's green. There we go.
>> Now we can hear you.
[13:47] » Okay.
>> No, you're good.
[13:49] » Uh it wasn't until the prohibition was
discovered uh that the PUB was uh needed
[13:54] to make u application for this change.
Our traffic is is varied. consist of
[14:00] residents, families of residents,
guests, contractors, delivery vehicles,
[14:05] and a lot of cut through traffic. Uh we
had gates installed, I want to say 2005
[14:10] or so, and that cut down quite a bit of
the cut through traffic, but it still
[14:14] exists because our gates are open in the
morning and the evening for rush hour
[14:19] traffic. Uh we have very limited
control, if any. Uh we we send
[14:23] communication to the uh residents about
speeding. Uh their kids still speed. uh
[14:29] their guest speed. [snorts] Uh I have to
tell my own daughter when she comes to
[14:33] visit to slow down. It it's an ongoing
problem. Uh as a board we mentioned uh
[14:39] spending virtually uh every
communication
[14:42] uh we mentioned speeding and every
communication to the residents and with
[14:46] all the children living in watermark
speeding is an even bigger concern. Uh
[14:50] this mention uh does not reach the
others that contribute to the speeding
[14:55] problem. So, we feel that speed bumps
are probably a way to address it for
[15:00] everybody that uh comes into our
neighborhood. Uh we've had the uh uh
[15:05] sheriff provide digital uh speed bump
signs or uh speeding uh signs that I
[15:11] think they put in the neighborhood for a
week or two weeks and uh they really
[15:15] weren't very effective. I mean people
would uh golf carts would try and go
[15:18] above the uh so they're there to make
people aware that we have a speed limit
[15:24] but then there needs to be a conscious
decision to obey the speed limit. Uh
[15:29] we've also periodically uh check speeds
with speed checking devices and um one
[15:34] of my colleagues will come up with uh
his findings on that.
[15:39] Uh we've already uh had one uh flipped
car accident on our roadways along with
[15:44] many near misses. Uh our important
motivation for this is purely safety.
[15:48] The truth be I don't like speed bumps
either, but we don't have any we haven't
[15:53] come up with an alternative that uh is
better than speed bumps. And the fact
[15:57] that they're removable, it gives us a
chance to maybe change some behavior
[16:01] when they come out for the winter. And
then maybe, you know, we can make
[16:05] decisions down the road whether they
have to be reinstalled.
[16:08] Um, basically our motivation is to keep
our roadways as safe as possible for
[16:13] everybody. And u, uh, you know, this
isn't an old people subdivision. We have
[16:17] lots of children and they play in the
street. They skateboard, they ride
[16:21] bicycles. Sometimes they're careless,
sometimes they're not. And we can't have
[16:25] a car going 35 miles an hour down
Watermark Drive and not expect a a
[16:31] catastrophe to happen. If not now, when.
So, we appreciate the opportunity to
[16:36] speak in front of uh your commission and
u thank you for considering our
[16:40] application.
>> Stay up here because we're we might have
[16:43] some questions for you since you're kind
of the point person for
[16:47] » um Yeah. So, the question a couple
questions I have the speed study I um
[16:55] when was this conducted? What were the
findings? How did you guys conduct this
[16:59] speed study? And maybe like some detail.
>> Well, a fellow board member has that
[17:03] information. Great.
>> Table that until he comes up. Okay. And
[17:07] then a side question for staff. Are
police able to give speeding tickets on
[17:13] private roads?
[17:17] » I don't know. But I don't think so.
[17:25] » Okay. Anybody else? Have you guys looked
at the I read in one of the the emails
[17:31] that somebody suggested maybe stop
signs. Has that been
[17:35] thought or
>> We thought about it, but uh it didn't
[17:41] you'd speed until you get to the stop
sign. Uh for example, if you come in off
[17:44] a small after you make the left turn, uh
that's a perfect opportunity to get up
[17:49] to about 30 35 miles an hour. There's
nowhere to put a stop sign there.
[17:54] » And uh on on the watermark uh part that
goes towards Cascade, there might be a
[17:59] point or two to do that, but um No, it
hasn't been uh it's been discussed but
[18:05] not uh chosen as an alternative.
>> What kind of resident feedback did you
[18:09] guys get? Sorry.
>> What kind of resident feedback did you
[18:12] guys get on the speed bumps?
>> Uh some positive and uh some negative.
[18:22] » May I ask?
[18:27] » Uh it was close to our Spalding uh
entrance or exit. when they went around
[18:32] the corner uh on the straightaway uh
lost control and smashed into a tree and
[18:40] uh uh our resident take children out
playing at the time. So it was a pretty
[18:44] scary situation.
>> Is that at the south end of uh
[18:50] just before you get to Spalding?
>> Yes.
[18:53] » Uhhuh. That's a pretty that's almost
>> right. Thank you.
[19:00] » Thanks. You might have heard my question
for staff. I was just so you're here as
[19:04] a board member of Watermark Condo
Association and so I is that the entire
[19:12] association for everything in the PUD
including the golf course and every
[19:17] private road or
>> Okay, the golf course is totally
[19:21] separate within Watermark. We have three
associations. Uh we have the Watermark
[19:26] Condominium Association and uh I'm not
sure the names of the other two, but
[19:30] they uh uh represent the other two types
of housing, the uh club homes and the
[19:36] estate homes. Uh we as a as a board have
a joint board meeting where officers
[19:42] from those boards attend and we voted as
a joint board to uh enact this proposal.
[19:51] uh our board controls I think 56 or 57%
of the votes but it wasn't right for us
[19:57] to rammer it through. We brought all the
other the other two boards in. We
[20:01] discussed it and then had a vote that um
brought us here today.
[20:06] » All right. Well, yeah, I appreciate that
clarification. The certificate of the
[20:11] secretary authorizing the application
doesn't seem to reflect what you just
[20:16] described to me at all. Um,
[clears throat]
[20:21] so kind of fundamentally I'll have a
little bit of a problem.
[20:28] » And so, so this was a joint board
meeting that where you issued this
[20:32] authorization to file the application,
>> correct?
[20:36] » Okay. Um, and
>> well, no, let me clarify that. It was a
[20:39] joint board meeting to authorize the use
of speed bumps. we were ready to install
[20:45] them and it was determined that this
prohibition uh was in our PUB. So, the
[20:51] plan to install them was put on hold and
we learned in order to make that happen,
[20:55] we had to file an amendment. I don't
know if this is a fair question for you
[20:59] or not, but um like do you
[21:05] what's your understanding of what the
threshold would be for you to install
[21:10] speed bumps in your neighborhood in
terms of approval by residents?
[21:17] » I'm not aware that there needs to be an
approval.
[21:19] » Just the board can unilaterally do it.
>> We're elected to make these types of
[21:24] decisions. I mean people have their
opinions and we certainly will take them
[21:28] into consideration
but somebody has to make the decisions.
[21:34] » I understand.
>> All right. I don't mean
[21:40] » that actually clarified what I was
wondering as far as what the next steps
[21:44] would be if we remove this language. You
know go to a vote with the whole all of
[21:48] the residents just the board.
[21:56] throughout Watermark. Um, are there
pathways or sidewalks for non-vehicle
[22:01] use throughout?
>> Sidewalks all the way from Cascade to
[22:05] Swalling.
>> Okay. And those can be used by bicycles,
[22:08] scooters. Are there?
>> Yeah. Like we would expect adults to
[22:13] ride the bikes in the street, but uh the
kids are probably on the sidewalks.
[22:26] Okay.
>> Okay.
[22:29] » All right.
>> Okay. Can we speak to the uh board
[22:34] member that has the uh speeds data?
>> Sure.
[22:38] » Please. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[22:46] » Good evening. Cory Kefir 2202 watermark
drive.
[22:52] » So tell us about the I mean do you have
any opening statements that you want to
[22:55] » um No, I'm pretty much the data guy
here. A little background. So the car
[22:59] that flipped it was outside my home. So
that kind of brought to light. Uh this
[23:04] happened a couple years ago. We
currently have a six and a half, four
[23:08] and a half to 2-year-old. So we're busy.
They play in the yard, things like that.
[23:12] So when this happened is more or less
when I really started to pay attention
[23:16] and you can kind of eyeball it. I think
people have brought up here today like
[23:19] they look like they're speeding and
everything like that. So I just went
[23:22] online and and bought a Bushnell radar
for 120 bucks on Amazon and sit in my
[23:27] driveway and [snorts] people basically.
>> So that's what I do. Sometimes my kids
[23:33] join in the elevator and slow down.
Sometimes
[23:37] » So you're the speed.
>> Yeah. Uh I do have the data here. So I
[23:41] pulled 50 from May and June of this
year. So our average is exactly 28 and a
[23:46] half. Our max is 52 as mentioned. Our
men was 14. Uh 18% of the 50 studies
[23:53] were between 18 and 24 miles hour. 64%
or 32 of the 50 were between 25 and 34
[24:00] miles hour. And then 16% or eight were
35 plus miles per hour.
[24:07] » That's 50 over what? over
>> uh I would say six to seven random days
[24:14] of the week. I do have to admit I try on
Saturdays. That's when there's heavy
[24:17] traffic, but we're busy. Uh I also have
copies if anyone wants I have five
[24:21] copies of this with the pictures or
anything else you might like as a
[24:25] reference point.
[24:30] » Okay. Does anybody else have any other
questions?
[24:35] » All right. Thank you.
>> Thanks. Appreciate it.
[24:40] Okay. Now, I'm going to make a motion to
go to public hearing. Second.
[24:44] » All those in favor?
>> I. Any opposed? Okay. Now, you get the
[24:49] opportunity to come up.
[24:55] » Is the applicant done?
[25:02] » John Socker, 1763, Water Drive. I lived
there for 23 years. I was unaware of a
[25:09] speech study being done and I was not
given notice that this was going to be a
[25:13] subject of a board meeting and we don't
see the problem. We talk that every day
[25:17] and we do not see the problem or the
need for speed bumps. First of all, the
[25:23] speed limit of 18 miles hour is
arbitrary and it does not comply with
[25:28] statute in Michigan statute is by the
legislature section 257.627.
[25:35] The statuto speed limit in a residential
neighborhood is 25 miles an hour and
[25:40] according to that statute the speed
limit can only be changed by an agency
[25:44] with authority to change that. So uh the
statute applies the speed limit is 25
[25:49] miles an hour. Second of all the statute
the Michigan manual on uniform traffic
[25:55] control devices says that speed limits
must be the signs must comply with very
[26:01] specific standards. There are no such
signs in watermark. There's no
[26:06] indication of what the speed limit is.
There's a little looks like a golf cart
[26:10] sign like that, but that does not comply
with the standards at all. Absent a
[26:15] posted speed limit. To the contrary, the
default speed limit is the statutory
[26:20] limit of 25 miles per hour.
Um,
[26:25] now about speed pumps as a solution.
According to the National Association of
[26:30] City Transportation Officials, speed
modes should be no more than 500 ft
[26:34] apart to get to achieve an 85 percentile
speed of 25 to 35 mph. The Federal
[26:41] Highway Administration recommends that
speed pump must be between 250 and 500
[26:46] ft apart to achieve an 85 percentile
speed of 25 to 35 miles hour. We're
[26:52] already within that limit at 29 miles
per hour and even lower in most case. If
[26:57] the speed study is to be taken as having
you know incredible um so watermark
[27:04] drive is 5200 feet long we would need 10
speed bumps in order to achieve the 85%
[27:10] compliance with a 25 to 35 mph speed
limit. That's an excessive number of
[27:15] speed bumps. Having a small amount is
not going to achieve the effect we want.
[27:20] And we're already in mostly compliance
with the speed limit targets if the
[27:25] average speed is in fact 8.5 miles hour
is completely unwarranted. Um, also the
[27:33] Federal Highway uh administration talks
about in their study the effect on
[27:38] emergency vehicles and especially
ambulances and it indicated that
[27:43] ambulance response time can be reduced
by as much as 10% per speed. It also
[27:49] reduces police and it also reduces fire.
especially ambulances though when
[27:55] there's somebody inside the ambulance it
slows down the amount of time it takes
[27:58] them to get out to bring people away so
there is in fact a safety issue um at
[28:04] cause here um and I'd just like to point
out that this was done without input
[28:10] from the residents we were not consulted
we were not asked for our feedback we
[28:14] found about about this when we read the
announcement that the board had already
[28:19] made this decision so we would like to
see a chance for us to have some
[28:24] deliberation amongst ourselves and to
figure out what we want to do as
[28:28] association which I know can still
happen but the board's already decided
[28:31] to do the speed bumps. So if this board
takes the prohibition away, we will have
[28:37] speed bumps. And it's just unfortunate
that our residents be put at risk in
[28:42] terms of response time from emergency
vehicles without proper input from
[28:46] residents.
You have any questions or I have copies
[28:49] of some of the studies.
[28:54] » You mentioned the 25 mile per hour speed
limit and um signs.
[29:02] Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[29:03] » Are you recommending that that be
considered? It seemed like you were
[29:07] alluding to that.
>> I have recommended it at board meetings
[29:10] in the past and that was not followed.
Also, it is required by statute that
[29:16] speed bumps be identified by a sign. So,
if they're going to put speed bumps in,
[29:20] they need to add a sign that says
there's a speed bump there and it needs
[29:24] to comply with these these standards. It
can't be another hand painted wooden
[29:32] design for golfarts.
[29:38] » Yeah, I just have an easy one. I think
>> I'm not supposed to be asking questions.
[29:42] » We can.
>> Okay. Because, you know, he's got the
[29:45] study, but I was just curious um he
brought up that this HOA is the ones who
[29:51] brought up the idea of putting speed
bumps in and that's why we're here.
[29:55] Uh, is it true that it no notice went
out to all the residents that this was
[30:01] going to happen before it became this
point?
[30:04] » I do not see any notice at all.
>> I want to say we're very grateful to our
[30:11] board. They do an excellent job and we
really do appreciate their efforts. We
[30:14] just disagree with them on this one
particular point. So, we don't have a
[30:19] dissatisfaction with our board in
general, but
[30:21] » we really rather not see All
[30:27] right. Thank you.
[30:35] » Uh Cynthia Aendulus and 5361 Prairie
Home Drive. Um Watermark is a very
[30:42] unusual community because we have three
associations
[30:47] that all reside within the development.
I have been on the board of my
[30:52] association
uh pretty much every year except for two
[30:56] and that's been over 20 years. Uh when I
moved into the neighborhood, most of the
[31:02] back end of the property was not there.
Phase three was never done. Uh the
[31:08] property today is extremely different.
We have children where we never had
[31:13] children. We have families. We have
elderly people. Um I think what's
[31:19] interesting is is um people want to talk
about the speed bumps, but really what
[31:24] we're asking for is literally just the
lifting of that prohibition so that the
[31:29] organizations within the community can
come together. Um it is um it is a
[31:36] mistake to say the residents were not
notified. Um the boards were all
[31:41] notified. We notified our residents. I
can tell you that often what we find is
[31:48] even though we have communicated with
our residents. They maybe weren't paying
[31:52] attention, but this is something that
has been discussed and residents were
[31:58] told about this and if they had issues,
they were supposed to go to their boards
[32:05] and then those boards come together with
the joint board who have to make
[32:09] decisions. We do have stop signs within
the neighborhood. There are stop signs
[32:15] throughout the neighborhood. I am on the
corner of Watermark Drive and Prairie
[32:19] Home Drive. There is a stop sign there.
No one stops. So, unfortunately,
[32:24] that's why this idea of putting stop
signs in was considered, but it hasn't
[32:32] been effective with the ones that are
there. Um, I I think it is most of us
[32:38] understand that we who loves speed
bumps? No one does. But when I sit and
[32:43] look out on my front yard, I mean,
literally crossing to my neighbors,
[32:47] there are people going 45 miles an hour
constantly. And it's not just them, it's
[32:53] also delivery trucks, it's contractors.
Um I I think and and you have children
[33:01] who are driving, you know, golf carts
around, too. Um sometimes these are like
[33:07] 14, 15, 16 year old kids. So there is a
there is a safety issue. Um and whether
[33:15] we like it or not, it's not a question
of if, it's a question of when we are
[33:19] going to have another tragedy like the
flipping over of the cars. I guess my my
[33:25] question to all of you is is given what
your charge is whether or not it's you
[33:33] we're not asking you to decide speed
bumps not speed bumps what we're asking
[33:37] for something fairly simple which is
taking away that prohibition so that the
[33:43] associations can if they feel like they
have to have more discussion we
[33:48] certainly should do that but I think we
should do that as a neighborhood.
[33:52] Okay. and thank you for your time. We
appreciate it.
[33:55] » Thank you.
[34:01] » Although I love you guys raising your
hand. You don't have to do that. You can
[34:04] just come on out. That's fine.
>> School.
[34:07] » Uh Lori Boss. I live at 1825 Watermark
Drive. I have lived there since 2007.
[34:13] Um raised my kids there. Um, my husband
Daniel and I both oppose the speed bump
[34:19] or the rem I should say the removal of
the prohibition from the amendment. Um,
[34:24] if you've been on Watermark Drive, first
of all, I run, I walk, I bike there
[34:29] every single day. You'll see me out
there every morning doing one of those
[34:34] three things. And I have never ever felt
unsafe on that street. Not once. The
[34:41] street um, since I've lived there has
now have gates. The gates are closed
[34:45] most of the day. The gates are opened in
the morning for the bus and in the late
[34:51] afternoon for the bus and as understand
it on Sundays for open houses in the
[34:56] afternoon. So most of the time through
traffic is cut out. The street is
[35:00] narrow. So anytime somebody has a guest
or a contractor, they're parking on the
[35:07] streets. We try to get, you know, tell
your people guests to stay on one side
[35:10] of the street. They don't. There's a lot
of negotiation. It slows down traffic
[35:15] from
people trying to get through
[35:18] automatically because the street is so
narrow. And I'm thinking, why was this
[35:23] prohibition put in place? Watermark's
unique community. It's large.
[35:28] There's four to five
curves along that stretch. I live
[35:34] probably 3/4 of a mile from the Spalding
Gate. I'd say between there and my house
[35:39] there's probably four curves of which
I'm not great with math but probably
[35:42] around 90 degrees that automatically
slows traffic down. We have a golf
[35:46] course there. When they talk about 98
other PUDs in this township don't have
[35:53] that prohibition. Has anybody looked? Is
there another one with a golf course? We
[35:58] have standalone condominiums. We have
apartment style buildings. So it's
[36:03] unique. The golf course has uses it. So
there's golf course workers, maintenance
[36:09] workers, golf course people using
because we don't have just sidewalks. We
[36:15] also have cart paths going through the
neighborhood. So I don't know if any of
[36:18] you have been there, but it's both. And
as I understand the PUB also includes
[36:23] the golf course. So I don't know why or
I didn't see their name on the list of
[36:29] um addresses that were informed of this
amendment. So, I don't know if the golf
[36:33] course had a chance to speak because
they have a lot of expensive equipment
[36:35] going through that neighborhood that
they use on a daily basis. Um, I was
[36:40] aware that in uh 2022 the car flipped.
No one knows why the car flipped. Maybe
[36:46] she hit the gas instead of the brake.
Who knows? Um, but for one incident
[36:50] since I've been there, which is like
going on close to 17 years,
[36:56] we're going to change this amendment.
When this slows down, as we've
[37:00] discussed, emergency vehicles. So,
what's more likely to happen on
[37:04] Watermark Drive, there's cardiac
arrests, strokes, accidents. We've had
[37:09] painters fall off ladders. I myself was
over at a neighbor's house. There was a
[37:13] life-threatening incident. We had to
call an ambulance. Those are the most
[37:17] likely things to happen. Not accidents.
There's been one. So I think that um
[37:26] you know there should be cons some
consideration for what actually how the
[37:29] street is used and how emergency
vehicles and not just fire trucks but
[37:34] EMS needs to respond. I did not hear
about the
[37:39] speed bumps. I was not informed. I read
all the emails information that is sent
[37:44] to me. There was um information that was
sent to us about speed bumps that were
[37:49] going to be put in installed. We so we
got a note I think on an email on Friday
[37:54] evening. I knew because I've read the
PUD ordinance that they're not allowed.
[37:58] So I did contact the township by Monday
morning and that was uh stopped and then
[38:04] we then received this information that
they want to um
[38:10] install the speed bumps and change the
the ordinance. So, I had a lot of
[38:15] questions, but um some of them and I
wrote a note that was submitted and I
[38:20] don't want to read the whole entire
thing because I know you guys can read
[38:23] yourselves, but did the golf course
receive notifications of this amendment
[38:27] since they use the property and the and
the roads? Where is an engineering study
[38:32] of traffic patterns and concerns? Um, I
agree with some of the comments that
[38:37] were made that an average speed in a
residential neighborhood is 25 if most
[38:41] people are going 25 to 28 miles an hour.
I think that most people are in
[38:46] compliance with that sort of speed um
limitation.
[38:51] And then I know this board is only
responsible for allowing the POD to be
[38:56] amended, but if that's amended, that
opens the door wide open. So, how what
[39:00] size, what type, how many, where will
they be placed? What are the abatement
[39:04] procedures for noise in the areas? Who
will install and remove them? What costs
[39:08] are associated with damage?
>> Sorry.
[39:10] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah.
[39:12] » Sorry.
>> No, that's good. Thank you.
[39:14] » Any questions?
>> May questions. No.
[39:17] » Okay.
>> Thank you.
[39:24] » Hello, John Kendall. Uh 2201 Watermark
Drive. So, I am the first house when you
[39:29] go back office of Spalding, been there
23 years. Um, the the per the accident
[39:36] in question was a person that lived
there. Uh, she was in the condos, so she
[39:41] was going fast like a lot of people do.
I don't have young kids anymore. I did
[39:46] um originally when uh I was at the
forefront to get the gates in. Um, I
[39:52] know people keep talking about the
emergency vehicles, but we have gates,
[39:55] so they're going to have to stop at the
gates anyway. And of course, which
[39:59] somebody had said, um, I think you had
said earlier when you have you can place
[40:03] them so the, you know, the vehicles can
get through. Again, we're just asking
[40:08] for you guys to get rid of that so we
can do it as a um, you know, as a
[40:12] community and I think we can vote on it.
So that's all we're doing. But if I am
[40:16] at the I hear that people revving their
engines all the time there. I'm like
[40:22] right there in the front right across
from Corey. If people haven't seen
[40:26] people speed there, I I think I don't
know what they're listening looking at
[40:29] or anything like that, but that's all we
would I would ask is if you can let us
[40:33] decide it as a group. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[40:46] » Sharon Stadler. I live at 1901 Watermark
Drive. lived there 20 years. Um, raised
[40:53] my kids there. They they made it through
all fine. Um, I wanted to talk about the
[40:58] PUD part of it. Um, I wanted to
acknowledge the fact that I believe ours
[41:04] is the only PUD that includes a golf
course and private roads. There is
[41:10] another PUD that it does have a golf
course, but it's public roads and five
[41:14] houses. So, it's quite unique in that
way. And um to change a PUD just because
[41:21] of unique language seems a bit
ridiculous to me because there are many
[41:26] PUDs there. There's one tall pines
across the street. They have things
[41:31] about farm use and land use for farms
and we don't have that. So do they have
[41:38] to get rid of that because of that
language being in there? Doesn't that
[41:43] part didn't make sense to me? Um,
I have a question for you. I understand
[41:49] with the new zoning laws that have gone
into effect that if we do amend our PUD,
[41:55] we will have to make sure our
neighborhood is compliant with the new
[41:59] zoning. And I wanted to know if that
would mean we would have to make any
[42:04] other changes.
[42:07] » Do you want to answer that? That's a
good question.
[42:10] » Yeah. So, uh, the new zoning doesn't
affect existing PUDs. So, a PUD is like,
[42:16] sorry, this is very okay. Um, a PUD is
essentially a your own bespoke zoning
[42:25] ordinance for a given area. So, the PUD
here is your zoning.
[42:30] » Okay. I thought when I read the new
zoning laws, it said that the PUDS would
[42:34] would stay in effect, but if there was
an amendment made to it, then the entire
[42:41] neighborhood had to be put it the PUD
would remain in effect, but the
[42:46] neighborhood had to be compliant to the
current zoning.
[42:50] » Didn't doesn't it application too? They
their application was received prior to
[42:55] the new zoning. Um, I'm not sure if that
has any effect and I'm I'm not
[43:02] sure what what language you're talking
about um in the new zoning ordinance.
[43:07] » I don't remember that either.
>> Yeah,
[43:10] » that's a good question. We did.
[laughter]
[43:13] » Yeah. And that was when I was trying to
figure out the whole vote thing.
[43:17] » Any new development would fall under the
new zoning rules. Any of the current
[43:21] development falls under the existing
PUDS. There could still be changes made
[43:26] to those existing PUDS, but if you're
going for a whole new development, then
[43:30] it would fall under the new zoning.
That's my
[43:33] » Can you ask Nick if our
>> Nick is our attorney on Okay.
[43:39] » Okay.
>> We'll get back to Okay.
[43:40] » Yeah. Thank you.
[43:44] » I'd have to have
[43:49] » Hi, Heidi Herbrook 5380 T17 Court. Um,
we are new to the neighborhood
[43:57] and um, I keep up on what is sent to us
from the board. We had no idea as I
[44:07] don't remember her name, but as she
stated that we got an email and I have
[44:13] it in my hand right here. Um, and it was
sent on a Friday informing us that
[44:21] Monday they were putting in the speed
bumps.
[44:26] And if they had let us know, I'm sure
more than just one person would have
[44:32] been calling
the township to let you know. So, um,
[44:39] just feel like they were trying to pull
one over our eyes. So, just wanted to
[44:46] let you know that. So, if in fact you do
pass this, we will get speed bumps
[44:53] because if they don't have to come to us
as residents, then it's going to be
[44:58] done. So, and there will be a lot of
people that are not happy that are
[45:03] living there. I'm afraid that our
property values will go down, too. So,
[45:09] okay. Thanks.
>> Thank you.
[45:22] Leo Ditch Creek, 1712 Watermark Drive.
Um, and addressed this uh commission
[45:28] here on the issue of speed bumps. Uh, we
had every intent I'm a a board member as
[45:34] well of installing speed bumps for
calming these speeds down. We consulted,
[45:40] we've been working with the township,
uh, also working with the fire
[45:44] department on getting speed bumps
installed. The township fire department,
[45:49] as you may know, already has guidelines
out there for speed humps. Uh, and we
[45:55] had communicated with the fire chief, at
least our management company did, about
[45:59] installation of that, getting the
specific size, and we had some uh
[46:03] already uh bumps already picked out. Uh
the fire chief, as a matter of fact, uh
[46:08] approved those uh as well as the
township. It was unfortunate. We did not
[46:13] realize that the PUD had a prohibition
on speed bumps. The only PUD and
[46:19] township that we know of that has that
prohibition. And that's what stopped the
[46:24] whole thing. When we found that out,
that's when we had to put a stop to the
[46:27] planning of installing the speed bumps
and uh um go back to the drawing board
[46:33] of getting this amenity and get that
prohibition to be removed. We have seen
[46:37] in a lot of cases, I think you saw the
case with the flip vehicle and yes, that
[46:41] was one incident. I personally have seen
issues where cars were be speeding
[46:46] along. I myself driving along Watermark
Drive will notice a ball coming out into
[46:51] the street and here's a 5-year-old
running after the ball. If I wasn't
[46:55] going 18 miles an hour,
it would be a very different story.
[47:02] So again, from our perspective, from the
board's perspective, we're interested in
[47:06] safety. Uh again, you're going to have a
lot of people. I personally do not have
[47:11] any children. Um, yeah. And I personally
probably don't like speed bumps, but I
[47:17] will tolerate them if if it protects my
neighbors kids and everybody else in the
[47:23] neighborhood. Thank you.
>> I do have a question for you. You're
[47:27] you're a board member.
>> Yes. Um,
[47:30] how many times did you guys reach out to
the other people in the um in the
[47:37] development to let them know that you
were going to be having a discussion
[47:40] about
>> I think we've been talking about it in
[47:42] and not only in our annual meetings. Um,
we haven't taken a survey as you
[47:48] probably are aware. If we do that, we're
going to get 50% in favor and 50%
[47:53] against. And again, we're looking at
strictly from not a uh popularity
[47:58] viewpoint, but more of a safety issue
within our organ within our uh
[48:01] neighborhood. Um safety to us is
probably the most important thing.
[48:06] Trying everything we can from electronic
signs
[48:09] um just hasn't been effective and we
think that this is the next, as somebody
[48:14] pointed out, is the next effective and
efficient way we can possibly calm the
[48:18] speeds down a little bit within our
neighborhood.
[48:21] » Okay. Becky.
[48:26] [clears throat]
[48:30] » Good evening. My name is Gerard Hickeyi,
2019 Craftsman Court. Um, just as a
[48:39] point of information, I am a board
member of the Watermark Club Homes.
[48:43] Um, I'm here just to address what you're
supposed to be charged with tonight, and
[48:48] that is whether or not we can remove
that language from the PUD.
[48:53] Um, it's part of the CCNR language that
everybody buys into when they bought
[49:00] into watermark.
And for you to be able to just delete
[49:05] that is something
it's not up to you. we are owners of
[49:12] that property and we are ab we have to
abide by the rules and regulations that
[49:19] we accepted as being a member there. So
my proposal would be is that this would
[49:24] have to be presented to the whole uh
membership for a discussion whether or
[49:32] not we want to remove this phrase from
the CCNRs.
[49:36] I understand that if it is removed that
the board can do whatever they want, but
[49:41] the point is and the point I think that
you're charged with tonight is whether
[49:44] or not we should be able to eliminate
that from the CCNRs. And I don't think
[49:50] that that should be done without the
membership's consultation and a vote
[49:56] as they would if they wanted to change
anything else in the CCRs. And if you
[50:00] look, I think it's about a 60% uh
approval rate if they want to change
[50:06] something major in the CCNRs. And if
this is a part of it, I think that they
[50:11] would be subject to it. So my point is
that yes, we can talk all we want about
[50:18] putting in speed bumps, but whether or
not what you are charged with tonight is
[50:22] something that should be approved,
that's where I'll leave it. Thank you.
[50:27] » Thank you.
[50:40] Good evening. I'm Alex Dianer. I live at
1820 Watermark and I'm also on the
[50:46] board. And I just want to emphasize to
me the issue before you is whether we
[50:53] have this provision or not in the
ordinance.
[50:57] I've been on the board off and on for
six years.
[51:01] The pros and cons are all over the map.
You are like at a meeting that we would
[51:06] have, but that's not what you're being
asked to do. You're not being asked to
[51:11] take our role. Our role as a board is to
use our fiduciary duty and do what we
[51:16] think is best for the development.
What if 100% of the people wanted to
[51:23] have speed bumps? We couldn't do it with
this resol with this uh prohibition in
[51:28] our ordinance. So the issue is give it
back to the community. There's been some
[51:35] criticism of us. I understand that. I I
don't agree with it all. But we're not
[51:41] permanent members of that organization.
They can vote and have a different board
[51:45] in. By the way, the or the the speed
bumps we're talking about can be taken
[51:52] out and put back in. And if a new board
comes in and they want it, then fine.
[51:56] Then the owners have spoken.
So far, they've spoken. They've elected
[52:00] us. And we've decided it's best on our
view for the good of all the
[52:06] organizations in there, all the
associations to have speed bumps. Let's
[52:10] try it. If it doesn't work, it doesn't
work. We'll take them out.
[52:16] All we're asking you is get rid of the
prohibition and allow the community then
[52:20] to go forward and decide what it wants
to do.
[52:24] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[52:38] » Hi there. John Clark, 940 Monroe. I
don't live in Cascade Township. Can I
[52:42] still talk?
>> Sure.
[52:44] » All right. I'd love it. So I'm uh I own
a Quesacia group and we manage all three
[52:48] of the condo associations in the
development and we manage a bunch other
[52:51] in Cascade Township, Ada Township, Grand
Rapids Township and in our profession we
[52:57] get two complaints and it's speeding in
our neighborhoods and it's leaving trash
[53:01] cans out. That's and dog waste. So we
have three that's what I deal with every
[53:06] day. So speeding is is the big one and
um in all of our associations we've
[53:12] tried lots of things. cameras, speed
bumps,
[53:16] um shaming people on Facebook, which is
a lot of fun. That that gets ugly real
[53:21] fast. Um the boards have talked about
cameras for years. Cameras are like 10
[53:26] to 20 grand and then somebody's got to
monitor them. Um and then the board
[53:31] doesn't have the ability to like find
anybody with a ticket for speeding. Um
[53:35] so really from a management standpoint,
speed bumps we found have been really
[53:40] good. We put them in Cascade Lakes. We
put them in Cascade Point. Um, there was
[53:45] a question about, well, what happens
when they break? You know, who's going
[53:48] to put them in? Well, us as the
management company, we put them in. If
[53:52] they break, the association knows that
they own that asset, so they replace it
[53:56] on their dime. Um, and to a couple other
board members points, if they don't work
[54:01] out, they're removable. And when we take
them out in the winter, which they do
[54:05] get taken out every winter so the roads
can be plowed, we use a coaul adhesive
[54:09] that we fill the holes with so it
doesn't deteriorate the road. Um, our
[54:13] company stores them for free on behalf
of the association. Um, so I think it's
[54:18] a really good idea to allow speed bumps.
Um, at the very least try them, see if
[54:23] it works. The positions might not be the
best. There might need to be less. There
[54:27] might need to be more. But I think at
least opening it up for
[54:31] the ability for the boards and the
association to make that determination
[54:35] would be um in everybody's best
interest.
[54:42] » Since our attorney is not here to ask,
I'm hoping you can answer this question.
[54:46] I'm also not an attorney,
>> but I'm hoping you understand since you
[54:50] manage all three associations
who has the ability to make the request
[54:56] to the township to change their PUD.
I've heard from board members saying
[55:00] they have the ability as board members
to request a change and I've heard from
[55:04] somebody else saying that there has to
be a 60% majority of the residents
[55:08] within the community. So my
understanding is that the joint board
[55:13] there's a split ownership that's like
57% 36% and 7%. Those three have to get
[55:20] together and come up with an approval
before anything's submitted to you
[55:23] folks. Um I don't think it needs that
twothirds majority of all of the
[55:28] neighborhood to vote on it. My
understanding would be that the joint
[55:31] board as long as they've come to this
conclusion
[55:35] have the ability to submit the
application. That's that's my biggest
[55:38] question. Like the legality of it is who
has the right. I understand
[55:44] » people are not happy and not but and I'm
not trying to be rude. That's
[55:49] » I don't live in watermark. So my voice
in that piece of it doesn't really
[55:52] matter what I would want if I live
there. But the question as a board what
[55:57] we look at is what legally who has the
right to come to us and ask us for this
[56:01] change
>> on behalf of the community. I believe
[56:05] they followed the right protocol based
on the structure that's in place at the
[56:09] moment.
>> All right. Can you describe for me the
[56:12] structure? There's three associations
and what are their names?
[56:15] » The Watermark Condominium Association,
the Watermark Estate Homes, and the
[56:19] Watermark Club Homes.
>> Okay. And the application was submitted
[56:22] just on behalf of the
>> I'll tell you the watermark condominium
[56:28] association. So that's one of the three
submitted the application.
[56:32] » Correct. asking for an amendment that
affects all three,
[56:36] » but that's the 57% one, right?
>> Correct.
[56:40] » I have they have weighted
>> I didn't make up the rules. I'm just
[56:44] trying
>> Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I may help clarify
[56:49] this. It's very common in uh
condominiums that they have multiple
[56:53] associations and then there typically is
a master association or what they call
[56:58] the joint board and the joint board does
have responsibility for the common
[57:02] elements like roads uh because they
obviously traverse uh through the
[57:06] development and so it would be
appropriate for the joint board uh to do
[57:09] that. Now that being said now they would
not have to have a two-thirds vote
[57:13] typically for example that or 60% that's
often to amend the master dean bylaws.
[57:19] So I we have not reviewed uh those
documents as part of this uh but uh if
[57:24] and I know it was mentioned that someone
thought it was you know speed bumps were
[57:28] in there that's not necessarily true. I
mean the uh the speedups are not always
[57:33] you know listed as a condition of the
master dean bless but it would be just
[57:37] to clarify the master master association
would represent all three and they are
[57:41] responsible for the common elements like
the roads
[57:43] » and requesting
>> so you mean you have the application in
[57:49] front of you is there anything that you
see in the application that would tell
[57:51] you that was submitted by a joint board
>> uh again I have not reviewed the master
[57:58] dean bylaws and so I don't know what the
name of the master board or the joint
[58:01] board is
>> okay.
[58:03] » That would be the the right that would
be the
[58:06] » you're saying at the staff level
threshold inquiry you staff can tell us
[58:12] that this applicant has the authority to
request this.
[58:17] » I I'd have to review the master bylaws
which we have not done.
[58:20] » Right. Okay. Yeah.
>> Because I can't like I said then there's
[58:25] um like consent resolution that's
attached and it doesn't say anything. It
[58:29] doesn't say anything about joint provo
joint meeting. Um any
[58:37] » Thank you. Do you have a question? I'm
sorry.
[58:39] » Just based on what you said, you
mentioned two other uh associations that
[58:44] have the speed bumps. How many homes are
in each?
[58:49] » Uh Cascade Lakes, I think, has 80. Um
that's pretty close to uh to Watermark.
[58:55] and Cascade Point has I believe 30.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[59:01] » Yep.
>> Thank you.
[59:02] » Yeah.
>> Thanks.
[59:04] » I have a quick question though. Um, as
you know, when you sign by laws on the
[59:09] HOA, well, I don't know. I I think you
could probably
[59:12] » We have to stay up.
>> Yeah.
[59:14] » Nobody else can stay. Are you
>> No, I Okay. Yeah.
[59:16] » I was just using him because he's
familiar a little bit. Uh when the
[59:20] residents sign these agreements, do you
know that in the agreements they know
[59:26] what they're signing? So they say, "Hey,
no swimming pools, no this that." Do
[59:30] they have to give approval to have it
changed as majority instead of saying
[59:35] this PDA, this uh PDF that they have to
sign off on it first and approve it as a
[59:41] majority before they can make a change?
So that's if if you're asking like a
[59:47] master deed change question. If it's
going to be a material change, then
[59:51] oftentimes the master deed requires
twothirds of the ownership to vote and
[59:55] approve that. Um
this isn't a change to the master deed.
[1:00:00] I'm not sure if I'm answering your
question. This is outside of that. Um so
[1:00:05] again, I don't think it requires the
membership to do a twothirds vote in
[1:00:09] order to approve some amendment. This is
us coming to the township to ask for the
[1:00:14] » Yeah.
>> ordinance to change.
[1:00:16] » They're not asking to change their
rules. They're asking to change our
[1:00:18] rules.
>> If we want to change our rules, then I
[1:00:21] think we need twothirds if it's a
material change.
[1:00:23] » Yeah.
>> Thank you.
[1:00:30] [clears throat]
[1:00:38] I've been seeing a lot of arm signals
back there.
[1:00:42] » Yeah.
>> Hi, my name is Ed Young. I live on 5390
[1:00:48] Brassy Court. Um, and I am privileged to
live my front porch is 50 feet off
[1:00:54] Watermark Drive and we spend the whole
summer sitting out there. And so I think
[1:01:01] the homeowners board is kind of getting
ahead of their skis to some extent. Um
[1:01:08] most of this is anecdotal evidence. Um
there's some kind of unofficial speed
[1:01:13] studies. I don't think there's been a
true traffic study in Watermark. Um I
[1:01:18] stopped by the planning office today and
I have a map of the proposed
[1:01:25] um speed bumps. I'm not sure who decided
where those speed bumps were going, but
[1:01:30] there's four of them. Um, two out of
four make some sense because they're on
[1:01:35] straightaways, but some of them are in
really congested areas where people
[1:01:40] really can't build up speed anyway. So,
I just think that there there was no
[1:01:46] notification. I'm um I'm part of the
homeowners association and I pay
[1:01:53] attention. I go to the annual meetings.
I they first started talking about speed
[1:01:58] bumps at the last annual meeting like it
was going to happen this week or next
[1:02:02] week and then all of a sudden we get
this notice. Well, we the speed bumps
[1:02:07] are on hold. I know very few people in
Watermark knew about this PUD the very
[1:02:14] few I certainly didn't and I'm I'm one
of the original board members. I was a
[1:02:19] the original board member back in the
early 2000s that helped put in the
[1:02:23] gates. So there was very little
notification. So I just think we need to
[1:02:29] sit back and think about this a little
bit more.
[1:02:32] » Thank you. Thank you.
[1:02:44] » Going once.
>> Going twice.
[1:02:48] » Mr. Chair, a little Oh, sorry.
>> Can I say something again? I just have a
[1:02:53] question.
>> Yeah. And do you have the map that he's
[1:02:57] talking about?
>> Yes.
[1:02:59] » Okay.
>> Because on the longest straightaway
[1:03:02] there's only one.
>> So just to
[1:03:08] » Wanted to make sure you had
>> Thank you,
[1:03:12] » Mr. Chair. I got a couple uh
clarifications. Hopefully able to read
[1:03:16] the sections of the Michigan Vehicle
Code, Michigan Uniform Traffic Code. And
[1:03:20] it can only so speed limits can only be
enforced if the road is open to the
[1:03:23] general public
>> and is appropriately signed. So in this
[1:03:26] case, I don't believe they'd be able to,
you know, enforce speed limit. Um so
[1:03:30] that they also read the zoning enabling
act. I didn't see anything in there that
[1:03:34] would um or require change other changes
based on just this uh this amendment
[1:03:40] bringing forward. Uh so and then finally
um obviously any action taken by this
[1:03:45] board would not change their uh master
teams. It would be up to them to make
[1:03:50] those amendments if they so choose.
>> And because it's a private road, they
[1:03:53] can dictate what the speed limit is. It
doesn't go based on
[1:03:57] » right state regulations.
>> But for for police officers to enforce
[1:04:01] it, it would have to comply with the
state regulations.
[1:04:04] » Okay. [clears throat]
Okay.
[1:04:08] » All right. Anybody else? Public comment.
>> All right. I'm going to make a motion to
[1:04:14] close public comment.
>> Is there anybody online?
[1:04:19] All right. All those in favor?
>> I
[1:04:22] » I Any oppose?
Okay.
[1:04:27] Well, first off, thank you everybody for
coming. Um,
[1:04:33] it's never easy. It's never easy ones.
Um,
[1:04:38] and while I understand and appreciate,
we're going to talk some more, but I'm
[1:04:42] just gonna say I get it, right? I mean,
I constantly, my kids are older now, but
[1:04:47] I used to yell at people
running through Beard Farm all the time
[1:04:52] and speed. I know it's an issue. Um, and
I understand. Um,
[1:04:58] we have to look at the township, right?
Not just an individual neighborhood. Um,
[1:05:03] I'm gonna say that my concern is,
you know, if you let if we let this
[1:05:10] happen, then tomorrow some
neighborhood's going to say, "Well, we
[1:05:14] want 8 foot fences, you know, we want
barbed wire, we want whatever, right?"
[1:05:18] Um, I think I'm a little concerned that
I don't feel like the the um the other
[1:05:26] residents had an opportunity to to voice
their opinion and you know, we just got
[1:05:31] hammered on that here um in the Cascade
Township with all the PUB ordinance
[1:05:37] changes. Um even though we had multiple
outreaches, right? Um that's a concern.
[1:05:45] I mean, I I
I understand what they're saying and I
[1:05:50] don't disagree with it, but I don't
know. Um,
[1:05:56] I just have some concerns. So,
jump in. Whoever whomever
[1:06:09] Yeah. So, thanks. I appreciate that.
Thanks everyone for coming.
[1:06:15] It makes it kind of challenging for us
sometimes, but it's nice to hear from
[1:06:18] everybody. And I just want to say too, I
I hear everybody here. I understand the
[1:06:23] difficulties of boards trying to get
things done. That's an issue I encounter
[1:06:27] all the time. I understand residents
with kids and speeding covers. I
[1:06:32] understand safety. I mean, just saying
this is a safety concern. Um, I get I'm
[1:06:38] probably going to be a no here. Um, and
this is hard for me, too, because I'm in
[1:06:42] favor of property rights. when I hear
somebody come up and say like, "Let's
[1:06:45] just handle this as a board. Let's
handle this as a community. We just want
[1:06:48] you to get out of our way." Um, you
know, that that speaks to me also. Um, I
[1:06:56] just I have some concerns.
Um, on the face of the application, I
[1:07:02] couldn't get confirmation from staff.
This is submitted by one association.
[1:07:09] people are telling me they're the
controlling association perhaps but
[1:07:13] there are three they're asking this to
be stripped from the entire PUD
[1:07:18] um which if I understand it again just
from comments today that that will
[1:07:22] affect more than the applicant
association
[1:07:26] even if they might be controlling I
don't know that um I also am just a
[1:07:32] little bit so staff posed this I think
as a thoughtprovoking question is well
[1:07:37] that we should consider wondering if
there's a if there's a compelling reason
[1:07:41] to keep this prohibition. Um I don't
agree with that is what our charge is
[1:07:47] today. Why isn't it is there a
compelling reason to remove it? That's
[1:07:51] not what our ordinance says. Um these
coming to us on PUB reviews. It's kind
[1:07:58] of a weird standard really, but it was
approved by the township. They said that
[1:08:04] it met the safety standards when they
put this prohibition in there. And to
[1:08:09] me, at least I think there has to be
some kind of somewhat high to remove it
[1:08:15] because it is part of the ordinance.
It's part of the public record.
[1:08:18] Everybody who bought in here saw that
this existed. And to come to us and just
[1:08:24] say based on a statement that speeding
is an issue along Watermark Drive, which
[1:08:31] sounds kind of like anecdotal evidence
to me, not a statement of fact, that we
[1:08:36] should just vote to remove something
that was in place in 1990 in every
[1:08:42] amendment since. Um
[1:08:47] I don't I don't I don't feel right about
it based on the record before. So that
[1:08:51] that's kind of how I'm looking at it
again all the concerns.
[1:08:58] » I Yeah, I feel like I have a lot of
things. One, I think my main concern is
[1:09:03] just wondering who has the right to come
here and ask us if they want this. And
[1:09:09] and based on that, I feel like it should
be postponed our decision until we get
[1:09:13] that information and that staff has the
ability to dig in or legal counsel has
[1:09:18] the ability to dig in. Because in my
opinion, if it is all three boards and
[1:09:24] all three boards come to us with a
statement saying that they all have
[1:09:29] agreed to that, then that's part of
living in that society is you have a
[1:09:34] board that's making those choices for
you and they're coming and asking and
[1:09:38] then they can kind of talk amongst
themselves to decide if they really want
[1:09:41] to put them in or not put them in. Um, I
think that's my biggest concern is just
[1:09:48] making sure because we don't have a
statement from all three boards. We're
[1:09:53] being told one has a majority rule over
it, but we don't know because nobody's
[1:09:58] we haven't looked into that. I think
that I feel that we can't make a
[1:10:01] decision based on that and that it
should be pro postponed until we get
[1:10:07] that piece of it and then some sort of a
notice from all three boards officially
[1:10:13] that they all three are recommending
this change and then it would be kind of
[1:10:18] a different thought process for me.
>> Okay. Well, I want to say we know that
[1:10:24] private roads are a problem in Cascade
and the new zoning hopefully will
[1:10:30] alleviate that, but that doesn't help
all of you. But I I also think that um
[1:10:35] we're not quite ready. We don't have
quite enough information to um approve
[1:10:39] this.
>> Do you have something else?
[1:10:42] » I was just going to say, Wendy, that I
you know, I agree with what you're
[1:10:45] saying. I have that same concern. But
just for the record, I'm not sure if you
[1:10:50] went so far as to say this, but I would
disagree if you're saying, well, if all
[1:10:54] three come to us, well then they have a
right. I mean, essentially just to
[1:11:00] dictate that we change the PUD. Like
that that's not the standard. Like just
[1:11:03] if you're the owner of the PUD, you
can't come to us and say you have to
[1:11:07] change this because we say we have the
authority. That's that's definitely not
[1:11:12] our standard,
>> right? But I I haven't heard compelling
[1:11:15] reason either why. I mean, if other
private roads have them within the
[1:11:18] community, I don't understand why we
would tell one you can't have that. If
[1:11:22] the if the authorities within that PUD
come to us and said they want them, why
[1:11:28] would we deny that if we allow it in
other PUDs?
[1:11:31] » No, I understand that.
>> And that's your point. Like if if if we
[1:11:35] didn't have any speed bumps in any PUD
within the community, then that would be
[1:11:39] different. We could say no, you know,
maybe our fire department doesn't want
[1:11:42] them or the somebody doesn't want them.
But knowing they're in other PUDs if
[1:11:48] whoever the powers that be within
Watermark that can make these requests
[1:11:53] and have legally have the ability to
make these changes, which that's not my
[1:11:57] decision to make. That's part of the
water the makeup of the watermark
[1:12:02] association. if they come to us and want
this, I don't know how we could say no
[1:12:07] if others within the community has it.
That's all I'm saying. But right now, I
[1:12:12] don't know who has the ability to ask us
that. And I think we need that answer
[1:12:17] before we can move forward any further.
I agree with that, but also I think it's
[1:12:24] community by community specific. What
was Can you refresh my memory as to the
[1:12:28] first consideration, the wording of it?
The second one was related to safety,
[1:12:33] but the first one was important as well.
[1:12:38] » Are you talking you're not talking about
these considerations, are you? Are you
[1:12:42] the two factors in the PD? Uh, I don't
think I have those here. Let me read
[1:12:46] them off.
>> Sorry. I think there's somewhere
[1:12:49] » I thought it was in here. Yeah.
>> Yeah, it's in the staff.
[1:12:51] » No, it's not in the staff. No, it's not.
>> It's like the standard of approval and
[1:12:56] staff review.
>> Yeah. the um site circulation and
[1:12:59] parking areas must be designed to ensure
safety and convenience for vehicular and
[1:13:05] pedestrian traffic.
>> So the site circulation I think could
[1:13:08] vary from community to community. So I
think that even if we were to receive
[1:13:13] that that's a factor that we have to
>> consider because that would be different
[1:13:17] based on each community.
>> Yeah.
[1:13:23] » Robert, this is your chance. No, the
only excuse me, I'm sorry. Um, knowing
[1:13:29] what the bylaws are the bylaws changed
by the community itself or only by the
[1:13:35] board and I know when I signed our
bylaws, it says everything in there, but
[1:13:40] if you had to change the bylaw, they had
to be approved by a majority in the
[1:13:44] actual neighborhood. So, if you have
three of them and only one of them
[1:13:49] brought it out, the other ones don't
even know anything about it. So, I agree
[1:13:52] with Wendy and with Scott and you that
we should wait and have more discussion
[1:13:57] on this and have them come back with a
better plan than what was just thrown in
[1:14:02] front of us.
[1:14:05] » Yeah, I I I
applaud you buying the radar detector.
[1:14:11] What a great one, you know, and that's
great. I just um
[1:14:16] I don't know. I
[1:14:20] I'd like to hear from
and I get being on the board I
[1:14:25] understand what you guys are doing. It's
just it's difficult because
[1:14:31] part of me feels like
you guys are trying to do all of me
[1:14:35] feels you guys are trying to do the
right thing, but I also feel like
[1:14:40] maybe you're not listening to the people
that you're representing, right? And or
[1:14:46] maybe you haven't given them the chance
to,
[1:14:49] you know, have a discussion. Um, and
maybe I'm saying that and thinking that
[1:14:53] because we just went through a big
battle with changing all the workes here
[1:14:57] at Cascade. And again, we did reach out
multiple times to the public and had
[1:15:01] public input and we still had a battle.
And I I and maybe I'm getting this
[1:15:08] wrong, but I don't feel like you guys
reached out to the rest of the residents
[1:15:14] and and that bothers me a little bit,
right? Um,
[1:15:19] so I mean I'm okay tableling it. I mean
that's not what I was thinking, but I'm
[1:15:26] okay tableling it to give you guys an
opportunity to circle the wagons and see
[1:15:31] if you can get more input from your
residents. Um,
[1:15:39] I as it sits right now I don't support
it.
[1:15:43] » Let me ask a question. Stupid question.
Do you guys an HOA or a P? Do you
[1:15:48] repeat? You're trying to amend a PUD as
an HOA. Correct.
[1:15:51] » Correct.
>> You need to vote on it as an HOA and
[1:15:55] bring it to us with an approved. It's
got to be approved by the board. That's
[1:16:01] the only way you can amend the PUB.
>> Mr. Chair, clarify.
[1:16:08] » But you guys, but you didn't notify
anybody to who? Where's the vote?
[1:16:14] the it's got to be a homeowner. The
homeowners have to vote on it, not the
[1:16:17] not the board.
>> Oh, here's the here's the the homeowners
[1:16:22] associate. If a development has been
handed over to a community, major
[1:16:26] changes to common areas or neighborhood
rules usually require a vote and request
[1:16:30] by the home by the HOA homeowners.
>> Mr. Chair, may go ahead.
[1:16:35] » I think to clarify, we're talking about
two different things. Uh so uh what's
[1:16:40] being presented tonight is the PUD
ordinance that was passed in 1990.
[1:16:44] » All right. Uh and so that can change
that does not change their master eater
[1:16:50] bylaws.
>> Correct.
[1:16:51] » They would have to take separate action
to do that. So it's two separate things.
[1:16:55] This would simply allow them if they so
chose uh to and I again we haven't
[1:17:00] reviewed the master team bylaws. I don't
know if speed bumps are ever
[1:17:02] contemplated even in that document. Um
but it would not it would still leave it
[1:17:06] up to the board to make that decision.
based on their input from their
[1:17:09] residents.
[1:17:12] [clears throat]
[1:17:18] » I mean, do you guys want to table it for
30 or 60 days? What do you What do you
[1:17:23] What do you
>> I prefer to wait. I don't I don't feel
[1:17:29] like I have enough information to know
if this is something we can even
[1:17:34] consider to vote yes on. I have a
question. If we vote and it is not
[1:17:40] approved, does that preclude a later
application? They would have to pay for
[1:17:45] a secondary application, right? Put it
postponing it allows them to get
[1:17:50] together what they need to get and bring
it back to us with
[1:17:54] » the additional information we're asking
versus them having to reapply.
[1:17:59] [snorts]
>> Can I ask a question specifically? What
[1:18:01] information do you want? We did Jo we
did vote as a joint board. I'm the
[1:18:07] president of the estate homes board and
have been since 2003
[1:18:10] » and we did vote as a joint board to
approve.
[1:18:15] » I think that attestation within our
packet is just from the one board.
[1:18:19] » It is.
>> Yeah. So I think that
[1:18:21] » and the reason that's the way it is is
because
[1:18:25] » the homeowner association which is site
the single family homes
[1:18:30] » is usually the point person. So they're
the that deal with repaving the roads.
[1:18:35] They were the ones that were dealing
with the gates and the management of all
[1:18:40] that, the installation. They're the ones
that deal with most of our management
[1:18:44] who you had up there a little bit
earlier, John Clark.
[1:18:47] » Um, we did vote.
>> Okay.
[1:18:51] » So,
>> and notice did go out.
[1:18:53] » So, Michael, I I appreciate that. But
you you guys it's also there's threshold
[1:18:58] like again the threshold question is
does the applicant have the question
[1:19:03] have the authority to ask for this? I
understand what you're telling me but
[1:19:07] it's not in the materials that we
received. In fact I don't know who you
[1:19:11] have preparing your resolution your
board resolution which was attached to
[1:19:15] our documents which is the one document
which would show that you have the
[1:19:20] authority and it doesn't. It says that
it's one board that that that's
[1:19:24] submitting it. And so that's why we have
a question.
[1:19:32] I I guess I would
[1:19:37] I'm just counting to 10. [clears throat]
Um I guess I would say if you guys have
[1:19:41] nothing else to submit, then we can just
vote on now.
[1:19:46] » What you want us to submit? I
given you guys an opportunity to
[1:19:52] » I I think that's a fair question. Just
clarify what you're saying.
[1:19:56] » Well, I mean, I would like to see um I'd
like to see the residents hold.
[1:20:03] » Well, I I don't Yeah, I want to see the
documents that just say that you have
[1:20:08] that ability and the information from
all of the boards.
[1:20:17] So
[1:20:20] » and the legal documents that would tell
us that the ability to make those
[1:20:24] requests. I think that's we don't and I
think what Alen is saying is that we can
[1:20:29] wait and postpone this for you to bring
that to us or we can make a vote now not
[1:20:34] with the information we have which would
change personally what I would vote for
[1:20:37] because if I don't have the information
I can't say yes.
[1:20:40] » Any more information? I think that's a
perfectly fair request
[1:20:43] » that we can provide you that additional
information including the legal stuff.
[1:20:47] » Yeah.
So, yeah. So, does anybody have any any
[1:20:52] other internal conversation? So, does
I'll make a I'll make a a motion to
[1:21:00] uh table this postpone. I got to get
back to the front page. See what
[1:21:06] postpone or table?
>> Don't Don't use the word table, please.
[1:21:09] » Okay. I'll make a motion to postpone
case number 263924
[1:21:14] until additional documentation is
submitted with the minutes and the legal
[1:21:20] documentation showing that the watermark
condomination has the authority to u
[1:21:27] bring this to the board.
Uh how long we postpone?
[1:21:32] » Let's let's do 60 days. That's
>> 60 60 days. 60 days. That enough? Okay.
[1:21:38] six for 60 days. So this
>> max of 60 days, maximum of 60 days. So
[1:21:44] you guys could submit earlier.
>> Um
[1:21:50] anybody want to do it?
>> No.
[1:21:52] » Okay. Anybody support a second?
>> Did you want to add something? Yeah, I
[1:21:57] was going to see if we could I think it
would help to have some other like So I
[1:22:02] would like So what you said I I'd like
though if you when you submit your
[1:22:08] materials if you could identify
whatever provision you say authorizes
[1:22:14] the boards without of the co-owners to
alter um the common road infrastructure.
[1:22:22] Um, and I would like just the question
answered
[1:22:26] in the material submitted whether the
owners um were given notice um and an
[1:22:32] opportunity to vote.
>> And I get it. If you're going to say
[1:22:36] they don't have to, then just explain to
me why they why they don't.
[1:22:40] » Okay. So motion to postpone case number
263924
[1:22:45] for up to a maximum of 60 days uh so
that they can provide additional
[1:22:49] documentation of the minutes and the
legal documents showing that they have
[1:22:54] the authority to uh represent that they
have the authority to make a
[1:22:59] recommendation and to show any
documentation if any that they did reach
[1:23:05] out to their uh fellow residents Is that
>> good?
[1:23:11] » Yep.
>> Okay.
[1:23:14] » All those in favor say I.
>> I.
[1:23:16] » Any opposed?
>> Okay.
[1:23:22] » And thank your board members because
guys, this isn't easy doing what we do
[1:23:25] up here. So, thank your board members.
>> Thank you.
[1:23:32] » Okay. Uh,
[1:23:38] I'll just give
[1:23:42] No.
>> Hey, if you guys can bring it outside.
[1:23:45] » We're still
>> Hey,
[1:23:49] we're still in session. So, if you guys
can bring it outside, that'd be great.
[1:23:52] Thank you so much. Appreciate that.
[1:23:58] » I know. Grace is like,
>> "Watch it." That little the little one,
[1:24:03] the handle fall. You better watch it.
She almost hit me. I I told I told him
[1:24:06] to do it. I
>> think I made our new planning director
[1:24:08] jump when I did that, too.
>> It was all Dan It was all Dan's fault.
[1:24:13] » So, um All right. Article eight,
acknowledge visitors and those wishing
[1:24:18] to speak. Anybody online? Okay. Um
article nine, other business.
[1:24:24] » I'd like to thank everybody for voting
for I don't care how you voted, but if
[1:24:29] you voted, thank you for voting. And uh
I believe um talking to Wendy that the
[1:24:35] uh new PD ordinances went into effect I
think the next day. So
[1:24:41] » um
[1:24:44] » zoning ordinances I'm sorry new zoning
ordinances
[1:24:47] » will prevent.
>> Yes, we can.
[1:24:50] » So um
>> if not take notes and bring them to us.
[1:24:53] [laughter]
>> Yes. So thank you for everything. Does
[1:24:55] anybody else have any other business?
Just I just have one thing just with the
[1:25:00] new zoning just that I'm excited that we
have some fresh eyes that are looking at
[1:25:05] it and I think as a planning commission
as well um because it was reorganized
[1:25:11] along with some things that were changed
that if anything comes up during our
[1:25:15] meetings that we do want to be addressed
um just to make notes with Dan and so
[1:25:20] that those things can be looked at if
there is anything that might need some
[1:25:25] adjusting in the future. Um, and if so,
those changes would come back to us as a
[1:25:30] planning commission to make
recommendations to the board, which I
[1:25:34] think is the appropriate way for things
to happen. And I just want to stress
[1:25:38] that that that is part of the plan
commission's job is to make any of those
[1:25:43] recommended changes or amendments in the
future to them um to bring forward to
[1:25:47] the board. So, I just think that's an
important point. I know when we had the
[1:25:51] old one, we would always have the
planning director make notes that needs
[1:25:55] to be changed. Look at that. the new
zoning. Yeah. Um so I just I don't think
[1:25:59] that needs to end. I think that it's
>> great,
[1:26:02] » you know, something that if if things
come up that we think seem weird and
[1:26:05] don't seem right. It's things that we
need to bring forward.
[1:26:09] » And if you have questions, Wendy, Grace,
and I were part of the team that kind of
[1:26:13] redid those. The McKenna guys are gone
now. The ones that were in the or
[1:26:18] they're moved on to a different project
>> just left us.
[1:26:20] » Yeah. And then uh Yeah. So, I made the
same request of staff as to make notes
[1:26:25] and then as we see issues maybe
administering the ordinance, uh we can
[1:26:29] bring those forward to you uh and uh
suggest some potential amendments, but I
[1:26:33] think uh we'll do that as a maybe a
quarterly check-in or something of that
[1:26:37] nature. That'd be great.
>> Thank you.
[1:26:39] » Yeah.
>> What's that?
[1:26:41] » Prevention.
Yes. So, any any other business?
[1:26:48] All right. Article 10 meeting adjourned.