[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.

August 17, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript