[19:25] We just got the bill for the September
planning commission meeting over
[19:32] I would imagine they charge
people tend to forget. Just get a bigger
[19:39] venue.
[20:31] You can actually see out there.
>> You can actually see out there.
[20:36] » I see over here.
You know
[20:43] » he looked at
[20:48] peasants forever.
>> Yeah.
[21:00] You guys ready?
>> Ready.
[21:04] » 6:30 we'll open the meeting.
>> Roll call.
[21:09] » Mike Codington
>> here.
[21:11] » Sue Doss
>> here.
[21:12] » Jonathan Hoenstein
>> here.
[21:14] » Matt Counts
>> here.
[21:15] » Tim Bull
>> present.
[21:16] » Shane Fagan
>> here.
[21:18] » Bob Wilson
>> here.
[21:20] » Please join me in the pledge to the
flag.
[21:26] Pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[21:32] republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[21:38] justice for all.
[21:47] » Called to the board. Any additions or
subtractions to the agenda?
[21:51] » Mr. Supervisor, if I may.
>> Sure. Uh,
[21:56] I believe we need to add approval of the
agenda to the agenda. It's perhaps
[22:01] implied, but it is not part of the
agenda.
[22:05] As well as I would motion to move the
call to the public before the data
[22:13] center moratorum
ordinance discussion.
[22:17] » Okay. So, regarding the call to the
board, that's what we're doing is
[22:20] approving the agenda under the call to
the board.
[22:23] » Okay. And then under the ordinance and
the call to the public, the intention is
[22:29] to have the board discussion, deviate
the agenda to call to the public, listen
[22:35] to call to the public, deviate back to
the discussion, and have the vote.
[22:40] » Understood.
>> That satisfy
[22:42] me. Yes.
>> All right. So, is there a motion to
[22:45] approve the agenda? Move to approve the
agenda as presented.
[22:49] » Support.
>> Motion by Hoenstein, second by Doss.
[22:51] Discussion. All those in favor?
>> I
[22:55] » opposed. Motion carries. Approval of the
minutes of the regular board meeting for
[23:00] October 14th.
[23:04] » Move to accept the minutes from October
14th as presented.
[23:08] » Motion by Hoenstein, second by Counc.
Discussion.
[23:13] All those in favor? I
>> I opposed.
[23:16] » Motion carries. Dat data center
moratorum ordinance.
[23:22] Mr. Patterson.
>> Uh Chris Patterson. I hope everyone can
[23:26] hear me. Township council. I'm getting
good noise. So I think that that's true.
[23:31] Um wanted to sort of present the
mortorium. Our office did prepare it at
[23:35] direction from the township board at a
prior meeting and I thought it was
[23:38] helpful. I wanted to ensure that at
least in the conversation related to the
[23:41] moratorum that's in the packet that we
had a good understanding of how it
[23:45] worked. So a little bit of background on
it and then um particularly and I'll
[23:50] talk about the actual moratorum
ordinance the content that's in it. I
[23:54] did um provide on your table when you
sat down just a really simple flowchart
[23:59] between what looks like two sort of
scenarios and I'll discuss those uh so
[24:03] that you're aware of what they say but
it was only for purposes of sort of a a
[24:07] graphical representation of what I'm
going to actually then uh speak to. So,
[24:11] with respect to sign of kind of why
we're here, um, township board, I think,
[24:15] directed the drafting of of a moratorum
to look at basically putting a pause on
[24:21] the review and sighting of actual zoning
applications for purposes of a data
[24:26] center or data processing. And I think
you'll see I'm going to try to hit on
[24:29] this point, but the real key that's in
the moratorium and the direction is
[24:33] looking at the actual use and sighting
of a data center in processing. And I'll
[24:37] get to the the distinctions. Now, under
the How Township zoning ordinance, you
[24:42] currently have data processing. You
don't have a definition or elicit use
[24:45] for data center. So, the idea is to take
a look at that use itself and determine
[24:49] if you were to site it to a specific
piece of property um what those
[24:54] standards may look like. And of course,
right now, data processing is listed in
[24:58] research and technology. So, it would
look at expanding on that. I understand
[25:02] the board have sort of directed that
conversation to a committee. So this
[25:06] moratorium is really designed to sort of
support that process while they're going
[25:10] through that ordinance review and they
bring back those legislative
[25:13] recommendations. We would be putting
sort of a freeze as they essentially say
[25:17] on the review and the processing of
specific applications to site the use on
[25:22] a specific piece of property. Now, the
Michigan Zoning Enabling Act itself
[25:27] doesn't specifically address
moratoriums, but they're generally
[25:30] supported by US Supreme Court case law
and other case law that is an
[25:34] appropriate use for zoning tools to make
sure that we don't create any
[25:38] inconsistencies in a land use while
we're working at developing what may be
[25:42] standards that come from the actual
committee itself. One thing though
[25:46] that's always important with zoning,
zoning is always a balance of looking at
[25:50] individual pieces of property. So you'll
see when I talk through the actual
[25:53] sections in the ordinance, there is a
part that's in the ordinance that's for
[25:56] a waiver and that's to really look at
people's due process rights and just
[25:59] ensure that there isn't any facial
taking of anybody's property rights in
[26:04] the process. This would sort of be uh a
safety valve or a gap just for
[26:08] additional sort of legal defense, a
conservative approach to make sure that
[26:11] if there's some situation in adopting a
blanket moratorum that hasn't been
[26:16] completely considered, the board would
always have an ability to look at that
[26:19] more that waiver piece which I'll get to
and address that situation on a
[26:23] case-byase basis. Um looking at the
actual moratorum language itself. So
[26:28] that was in the packet and I just wanted
to highlight a couple pieces and then in
[26:32] doing so we can talk through sort of the
flowchart because one of the things that
[26:35] I think is important particularly I
think um relevant to even the public's
[26:40] attendance is the current pending
resoning application. So we do need to
[26:45] think about the moratorum in relation to
the adoption of that moratorum, its
[26:49] effective date and then what its impact
is on the current pending resoning that
[26:53] was already started to be processed and
we had a recommendation out of the
[26:57] planning commission.
The moratorium ordinance itself, if we
[27:01] go to section one, um that's really
where the rubber meets the road. So
[27:07] that's the piece that specifically
indicates we're putting a blanket
[27:10] prohibition on establishment of the use
of data centers and that would be the
[27:15] approval. But it's important to realize
that when we think about the application
[27:18] of of actually allowing the use to be
approved in the zoning context, we're
[27:23] talking about administrative requests.
So site plans, special use permits, the
[27:28] actual documents that would get
presented to us later in a process. that
[27:33] is not cons that is not the same as the
legislative request that's being asked
[27:38] to do a resoning because a resoning
that's being presented currently is a
[27:43] change in use. That's a legislative
decision to ask to change that current
[27:47] A1 district to a different use district
research and technology and decide if
[27:52] you're okay with that use district
change. So, I just want to be clear that
[27:56] section one currently is focused on if
enacted by the board, it would not allow
[28:01] the review and approval of an actual
application to site a data center. So, a
[28:07] site plan or a special use permit,
whatever gets recommended out of the
[28:10] committee that gets adopted through the
planning commission and zoning process.
[28:13] It's not addressing the legislative
action that's being requested of the
[28:17] township. the reszoning that that's
basically an amendment to the map. That
[28:21] map's a part of the zoning ordinance and
that power ultimately rests with this
[28:26] board. So, you don't need to put a pause
on that. It's your decision as to how
[28:30] you take that up. So, I just want to be
clear about that. Section one is
[28:33] designed to prohibit, if in place, for
the term of the moratorum, the review
[28:38] and the sighting of zoning application
requests for site plans or special use
[28:42] permits. completely separate from the
legislative request that's currently
[28:46] pending the reszoning to determine
whether you would reszone A1 to RT.
[28:53] Um
the term and this also dubtales with the
[28:58] waiver. So the term is set up for 6
months or unless the township board uh
[29:04] adopts something extending it or if we
get an ordinance in effect that
[29:07] essentially deals with the reason you're
putting this moratorum in place. The way
[29:12] that the common law works is it supports
a freeze on these temporary uses during
[29:16] the time that we're trying to prepare
and draft that new legislative policy.
[29:20] So we don't cause any conflicts with
sort of deciding how we would site a use
[29:24] now in relation to something that we
might get in a couple months. Whatever
[29:28] gets recommended through that process
and we don't necessarily know exactly
[29:33] how long it will take. You have to go
through the planning commission process.
[29:36] My understanding is probably the
committee or the planning commission
[29:39] will start working on something that
gets recommended out and so it gives you
[29:42] some time to sort of have that process
play because it is a complete
[29:46] prohibition. So no uses can be reviewed
or applied for. Our current zoning
[29:52] ordinance would allow you to apply for
data processing if you were in the right
[29:56] use district. Right? It's already
listed. It's been listed in there. And
[30:00] so to just deal with anybody who would
look at the zoning ordinance and say,
[30:04] "Well, wait. I'm allowed to apply for
this use today on properly zoned
[30:08] property. Um, but now I have a moratorum
in place that's impacting my ability to
[30:12] proceed. The waiver is just designed to
deal with those case-bycase uses. If
[30:16] someone were to present a situation that
we're not all aware of today, then
[30:19] certainly that waiver would be
effectuated. Now, the waiver itself
[30:23] still requires a process by the township
board. So, it's not like it's automatic.
[30:26] The way the language is written in
section six, um, that waiver still is
[30:30] going to require a request. It's still
got to come before the township board
[30:32] and that request would have to accompany
itself with sufficient evidence to
[30:37] satisfy you all that you think that
that'd be appropriate. But we just put
[30:41] that in there as a stop gap. We do it in
we do it in a lot of our moratoriums
[30:44] more recently to just deal with some of
the claims that we would get about the
[30:47] due process rights and the takings
pieces because you can't figure out
[30:50] everything today that might come in the
next six months.
[30:53] And then for purposes of moratoriums
adopted as a police power um this one
[30:58] we're going to make effective
immediately. realize that we're not
[31:01] doing this through the zoning process,
right? So, we're implicating that zoning
[31:04] process by doing this, but this is a
police power ordinance. So, something
[31:07] that may have to come after this is
obviously doing basically a very similar
[31:11] thing through the zoning process. That's
another reason that we allow the waiver
[31:14] is just to protect those potential legal
claims. And if there's a case or some
[31:18] unusual circumstances the board needs to
address, the waiver does that.
[31:23] Now what's what's I think sort of tough
is in the it's one thing to talk in the
[31:29] abstract about the different sort of
approval process and the way the
[31:33] moratorium plays out in that section
one. So what I did put in front of the
[31:36] board was just something pretty simple I
sketched out this morning related to a
[31:40] flowchart of what I'm trying to make the
distinction of related to the
[31:43] legislative request that's pending
because I just want to make sure there's
[31:46] clarity on this before there's action
taken. Um, you currently already have
[31:51] the resoning application pending. It's
already been before the planning
[31:54] commission, recommended out, sent during
the review period to the county planning
[31:58] commission. So, really the last step is
for that to come back to the township
[32:02] board for some action to be taken. In a
normal situation, the next step for that
[32:06] reasoning review is that the township
board would set it for a meeting. And
[32:10] it's your prerogative under the zoning
ordinance if you would set it for a
[32:13] public hearing and take it back up or
you actually could just take it to your
[32:16] meeting and discuss it. On the first
sheet that has the blue boxes, it says
[32:21] scenario one. So this is the scenario
that presents itself as the moratorum is
[32:26] drafted and and we put it in the packet.
What it indicates is you currently have
[32:31] that application pending. If you adopt a
proposed moratorum,
[32:36] you go down the right side. That
resoning request is legislative. That's
[32:39] a change of a land use district. It's
not implicated. You could set it for a
[32:44] public hearing. you could take action on
that reszoning and then when you come
[32:48] back down that moratorum is then is when
the moratorum would still implicate the
[32:53] developer could not proceed forward on a
request for an actual site plan or
[32:58] special use or whatever gets recommended
out from that committee until after the
[33:03] moratorum is over or expires or there's
an ordinance adopted.
[33:08] The only way to short circuit that
administrative request during the six
[33:11] months the moratorum is in place is on
the left side which is through that
[33:15] section six that's in the ordinance.
Right? You'd have to have a waiver filed
[33:21] and the waiver would have to be granted
by the board and then only at that point
[33:25] could the administrative resoning
request of either currently data
[33:29] processing for instance is a site plan.
It's permitted by right in that use
[33:31] district. Only then could that use
request proceed for which to actually
[33:37] site a data center on a specific piece
of property. Otherwise the moratorum
[33:43] then ends and then just like any other
use currently under the zoning ordinance
[33:47] it would be it would could be applied
for and it would be processed as the
[33:50] zoning ordinance requires. So scenario
one is saying if this board were to be
[33:56] inclined to put the moratorum in effect
that reszoning as a separate legislative
[34:00] request to change the zoning map to a
different land use would still proceed
[34:04] forward. The board would have to decide
what's the timing of meeting again on
[34:09] it. A public hearing processing it.
Whatever process whatever you get done
[34:14] doing you get to decide if you would
approve or deny that reasonzoning. The
[34:18] moratorum is still in place. So once
that action gets done, um if you were to
[34:23] deny it, then it's pretty much then you
can't obviously seek any administrative
[34:26] approvals on that specific piece of
property because it's not in the right
[34:29] land use district. If the reasonzoning
even were approved, however, that
[34:33] moratorium is still in place. So it
would require a section six waiver.
[34:37] You'd have to take that issue up before
they could seek an administrative zoning
[34:41] approval for the actual facility being
pro proposed on a specific piece of
[34:46] property.
So then the the second scenario is just
[34:50] a situation where and this is what I was
trying to to make sure that there was
[34:55] clarity on because sometimes people
would read the moratorum as prohibiting
[34:59] and currently including the current
pending application. So I think scenario
[35:04] two is what you might have thought and
we just want to make sure this is clear
[35:07] with the language that we've drafted. Uh
scenario two would actually have the
[35:11] moratorum. Some people might be
believing that moratorum would actually
[35:16] uh apply to that reasonzoning and that's
not the case. That's not what drafted.
[35:20] But we just wanted to show you the
differences. That's like a straight
[35:23] line, right? The mortorium would go into
effect. You'd still have a section six
[35:26] waiver, but they'd have to apply for a
waiver before any further action could
[35:29] happen. The the reason that we don't
recommend that is because the
[35:33] reasonzoning is a legislative act. It
ultimately rests at this board. So you
[35:37] would get to determine the timing and
how you would decide to move forward on
[35:41] that. Anyways, you don't need a
moratorum to put that in place. The
[35:44] moratorum is designed so that staff at
the township, everybody who would
[35:48] process the administrative piece of an
actual application knows, hey, township
[35:53] board has given us direction. We have a
current ordinance in effect. We are
[35:57] basically prohibited from proceeding
forward on that request. So, I just
[36:01] wanted those two scenarios for you so
that if you had questions or concerns
[36:04] about the moratorum, you completely
understood um those distinctions on how
[36:10] that process would play forward. And
then I do think that as it relates to
[36:14] looking at the moratorum ordinance,
depending on whether you decide to
[36:19] effectuate it or not, of course, if you
don't effectuate it, you're still
[36:22] sitting at scenario one essentially
anyways because it's the only current
[36:25] application you have pending, right? But
um you still probably need to decide
[36:29] then what you're going to do with that
conditional resoning if you're going to
[36:32] proceed forward the timing of that
public hearing that you're whatever
[36:36] you're doing with respect to that that
piece. So wanted that out there. Wanted
[36:41] to make sure that if there were any
questions on the moratorum that we could
[36:44] answer those um and then if there was
any other thoughts on it we would be
[36:48] sure to clarify those as well.
>> Okay. Any members of the board have
[36:52] questions for Chris regarding the this
discussion
[36:56] explanation?
>> Mr. Chair, I do.
[37:00] » So Chris, what you're what you're
basically saying is is this moratorum is
[37:04] only for the application of the building
of a data center. It does nothing to
[37:08] affect the resoning request.
>> Correct.
[37:12] » So if it's a conditional resoning for a
data center, can you proceed with a
[37:18] resoning?
>> Yes.
[37:22] So once the resoning is complete, what
if
[37:26] that almost guarantees you could put a
data center there? Correct.
[37:30] » No. So it all depends because under the
moratorum, if there's no waiver applied
[37:36] for, you have limited the ability for
any applications to proceed, right?
[37:40] » For six months,
>> correct? Or an extension by resolution
[37:44] as decided by the township board. I
would assume that if the purpose of this
[37:48] moratorum is to have a committee and the
planning commission work on new
[37:52] regulations for the zoning ordinance,
that time is typically going to be
[37:56] commensurate with the time it takes for
those changes to get back to you.
[37:59] However it is that you are all deciding
to make adjustments to your zoning
[38:03] ordinance to deal with the saving of
data centers or data processing.
[38:08] So, one of the questions with this with
this particular application is because
[38:12] it's a reszoning for a data center and
it's being reszoned to research and
[38:16] technology
and I'm not sure there's an agreement
[38:20] that that's where a data center should
belong and I think that's part of the
[38:25] moratorum is to determine that maybe
further down the line but if it's
[38:30] reszoned in the meantime to R&T
and data processing is in there and data
[38:36] center doesn't included.
How does that I I guess I'm a little
[38:41] confused.
>> So, two things on that. First, the
[38:44] conditional reszoning is a legislative
change. You are still reszoning it to
[38:50] RT, but you're actually reszoning it to
a narrower land use district. RT only
[38:56] permitting the use data center, but
you're not actually citing this specific
[39:01] data center in that location. So it's
one step along the process that would
[39:05] allow the applicant to then come back
and say, "Well, I now have land zoned
[39:09] RT, a use that currently has data
processing, and I have sought my
[39:14] approval and only am allowed to do a
data center." So the other use, the
[39:18] reason for the conditional resoning, the
other uses that are listed in RT are not
[39:24] viable with this legislative decision.
you you can't put them in that zone
[39:28] because you've literally reszoned it RT
with the condition that it only can be
[39:31] used for a data center use. When that
decision is done, let's go to the next
[39:36] step then. So they come back and they
apply and if it comes out as you decide
[39:40] it's a special use permit that should be
applied for to site a data center,
[39:44] that's still a discretionary decision.
So yes, they would have RT and that that
[39:49] land use is correct. You could seek that
type of land use data center for that
[39:54] parcel, but you'd still have to review
the special use permit application or
[39:58] you'd still have to review a site plan
if you leave it permitted by right. They
[40:02] would have to in a site plan situation
satisfy all standards in your ordinance
[40:07] to even be deemed to be allowed to then
be constructed at that parcel. If it's a
[40:11] special land use, you could still
determine based on looking at those
[40:15] discretionary standards that are on the
special use permit piece that this is
[40:19] not the the right location for it. So
that question would still be developed
[40:24] down the road. It's still a final
decision would have to take place to
[40:27] determine whether or not it's an
appropriate location. The the piece that
[40:31] you raised, you said there is an open
question we that you would say as to
[40:35] whether or not a data center should be
located there. That's a legislative
[40:39] decision based on your guidance at the
township board, based on information
[40:43] that you currently have in the master
plan, in the zoning ordinance, all the
[40:46] things that you that you probably also
heard and were covered at the public
[40:50] hearing for the PC. Those are the pieces
that you could act upon to determine
[40:54] whether you think it's even appropriate
to put RT out there on that acreage
[40:59] » or whether or not a data center should
be an RT period. Should it be in an
[41:03] industrial?
>> Right. So what happens if
[41:07] » in the during the moratorum when we do
stuff for a data center do an ordinance
[41:12] that really encaptures the data center
it doesn't end up in RT I think that's
[41:16] really his question what if it ends up
in industrial or industrial flex
[41:20] » what does that mean for this property
>> so I think the property is still RT
[41:24] conditional resoning is only it's a
approval that automatically will reszone
[41:28] back to A1 so if you were to take that
position and move it to industrial and
[41:32] it's no longer listed as a use that's
viable in RT then the when the moratorum
[41:36] is lifted they could not apply for that
use. It it wouldn't be a use you no you
[41:40] no longer listed in your zoning
ordinance.
[41:44] So they'd have to turn back around and
they'd have to seek and see if it would
[41:47] be appropriate to make it industrial
flex or industrial otherwise it's no
[41:51] longer a permitted use in the use
district.
[41:56] » Okay.
[42:01] » Sorry. So just to clarify if it's if the
resoning goes through let's say we we
[42:06] adopt the moratorum and it it doesn't
stop the resoning the resoning can still
[42:10] come back it technically at our next
meeting correct
[42:14] » yes
>> and it's passed as research and
[42:16] technology
[42:20] but the moratorum and through the
ordinance that is get develops later
[42:24] it's decided a data center ends up in an
industrial classification
[42:30] so the reasoning that was done since it
was conditional on R&T reverts back to
[42:35] agricultural. Is that what you're
saying?
[42:38] » Yes, pretty much. I mean, the applicant
has to have to revert it back, but I
[42:42] would think they would have no reason to
leave it as RT if they can't apply for
[42:45] the use that's a part of the conditional
resoning. So, yeah, it would revert back
[42:48] and they would have to attempt to seek
well, it's their determination, right?
[42:51] The I mean, in the zoning process, it's
the applicant and the property owner who
[42:54] determines how they want to proceed.
They would have to then presumably if
[42:58] they wanted to go further file a new
application to try to reszone to
[43:01] industrial if you put it there or
industrial flex to determine is that
[43:05] appropriate land use for that acreage.
If you said no, well then you can't site
[43:09] it there, right? Because it's not a
permitted use in the A1. So that that no
[43:12] nothing could be cited there. If you
decide that well those that acreage it
[43:16] it could be viable for industrial flexer
industrial then you're kind of going
[43:20] back down you know the path that we're
talking about now. They would get that
[43:23] resoning. it'd probably still be
requested as a conditional resoning
[43:27] limited to data center. Once they got
the resoning complete, they could then
[43:30] come back and apply for
depending on what the ordinance
[43:34] amendment does. Either a use permitted
by right or a special use, right? We
[43:37] don't know what this ordinance will look
like, but one of those is going to be
[43:40] the option because it's the only two
options you have. So, it's either going
[43:43] to come back through a site plan review
for actual sighting or for a special use
[43:47] permit review
>> because in this particular application,
[43:50] one is the text amendment that was that
was attempted to be put in at the
[43:55] planning commission level, which will
come back to this board next month, I'm
[43:58] assuming, and and that would actually
classify RT for data centers, but
[44:05] so far that that hasn't passed the
planning commissions at this point. So
[44:12] that was the purpose of the ordinance
was maybe to make it maybe it's an
[44:15] industrial use. We don't know because we
haven't had the time to do that. So
[44:18] » and so and generally since that final
legislative decision is at the board
[44:22] anyways it's your it's it's going to be
your prerogative to determine what is
[44:26] the timing to analyze the reasonzoning
or the text amendment right to determine
[44:31] how that aligns with what you would
otherwise be reviewing and exploring.
[44:34] You don't need the moratorum to prohibit
it because it's a legislative action for
[44:38] which rest with this board. the point
that this board would be taking a
[44:41] decision, a legislative decision to
adopt the ordinance to put a policy in
[44:45] place that says, "Hey, everyone else in
the township, we're not currently
[44:49] accepting site plans or special use
permits for data center because we're in
[44:52] the process of determining how this land
use fits within the permitted uses of
[44:57] our township. Does that make sense? You
you already control the final decision
[45:00] on the
>> I guess it does. It just in this
[45:03] particular instance, why would you go
through and reszone the property?"
[45:07] Well, and and that's a township board
decision. You may determine it's again,
[45:11] it's their application, right? So, they
file the application. It goes through
[45:14] the statutory process. They're currently
at basically the last step. It rests at
[45:18] the township board. Under the MCA, the
pieces that would be left for the
[45:22] reasonzoning is one, taking it up at a
regular meeting. to holding a public
[45:27] hearing and taking it up at a and I
didn't mean to say regular meeting but a
[45:30] meeting of the township board special or
otherwise public hearing take it up at
[45:34] the township board or you have the
ability to also refer it back to the
[45:37] planning commission. Those are the third
three things that are sort of next in
[45:40] the process for this since it's already
been through the planning commission to
[45:44] the county planning commission. The
30-day statutory period will pass and
[45:48] then it'll be at the it'll be up here at
the township board to determine what to
[45:51] do next. If your prerogative is um we're
just not going to do anything with it
[45:56] until we see what's going to play out
with ordinance amendments in the zoning
[45:59] ordinance, then again that power already
rests here. You don't need an ordinance
[46:04] binding this board or another board from
taking future legislative action. You
[46:08] already have that power, right? You have
that inherent power now. You get to
[46:12] decide the prerogative of the
legislative resoning request.
[46:18] » Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.
And just so the board knows, um I spoke
[46:24] to Scott Barb, county planning director,
and the application, I mean, it was
[46:30] considered last night at county
planning. Um they should have the
[46:33] application back to the township in time
for the township to consider it at the
[46:37] December 8th regular board meeting
should that be the path we go down.
[46:44] » Okay. Any other questions? Chris,
>> Mr. Supervisor, I have a question for
[46:49] councel.
>> Sure. Um just to address the elephant in
[46:53] the room um and I think it's really on
most everybody's mind through a
[46:58] moratorum or any other process of the
township is there even a legal path for
[47:05] no data center at all in Howell
Township.
[47:10] So that
[47:26] » uh so given the fact that you've already
sent it to a committee and you're
[47:30] deciding what the planning commission
will do with changes to the zoning
[47:33] ordinance, it's going to be up through
that legal process to determine where
[47:37] the use is permitted. There is one
limitation in the zoning enabling act
[47:40] that often comes up which is that we're
not allowed to exclude a use. It's in
[47:44] the statutory section but there are some
factors to that exclusionary zoning
[47:48] piece. So whether or not you can say is
there a legal process to just bar a data
[47:53] center you have to sort of put together
the data to say under some under that
[47:58] statutory language whether you satisfy
it. Like for instance is there a
[48:01] demonstrated need for data centers in
the township? There's some other pieces
[48:04] that come within that provision, but it
it may be after you do that factf
[48:08] finding that you might determine that
it's that there are not any appropriate
[48:12] locations within the township. For
instance, many are probably very
[48:15] familiar with the second amendment the
the situation we had. I mean, the data
[48:20] center currently doesn't have any
statutory or constitutional protection.
[48:24] So, you get to treat it like a lot of
other normal uses. So you could go
[48:27] through that process and you might
determine there's some land use district
[48:30] for which you don't even think is viable
for it. But in doing that process you do
[48:34] need to satisfy the steps in the zoning
enabling act. I don't and that's not up
[48:38] for tonight. You don't need to do it
tonight. But there's a process for which
[48:40] you would just make sure that um you're
looking at the extent to which data
[48:44] centers would satisfy not being listed
in any use. And it and it is a bar for
[48:50] which you just want to analyze and
ensure that you don't impact anybody's
[48:53] rights because it can cause some legal
implications. Sure. Understood.
[49:01] » I have a question more directed at the
board if I may.
[49:05] » Sure.
>> Um probably be best for you, Mr. Bull,
[49:08] Trusty Bull, uh because you are very
well researched and so familiar. Um do
[49:16] you see appropriate zoning in the
township for this data center? have not
[49:22] at the proposed site location.
Is there is there a better place for it?
[49:28] I guess is the
>> I think industrial would have to be
[49:31] strongly considered.
The ones I visit visited resemble
[49:36] industrial to me. Now has that research
that would be something that would be
[49:41] done during the moratorum.
And then uh just a follow-up question if
[49:46] I may. Uh industrial and our uh
definitions within our ordinance I
[49:52] believe defines as a processing of
materials or goods. Is that right? Could
[49:58] you
>> There's several different
[50:00] classifications.
>> Okay. Uh that's all I have, Mr.
[50:04] Supervisor. Thank you.
>> Anyone else?
[50:08] » I did have an additional question. Sure,
Mr. Chair. So, so Chris on this second
[50:12] scenario too, there's a reasonzoning
application pending that also covers
[50:18] resoning application and administrative
zoning approvals, but you're saying this
[50:22] isn't the moratorium that's being
presented to us tonight.
[50:25] » Correct. Can I ask why? Uh for the
reasons that I said because I I think a
[50:30] moratorum looks at the administrative
process to pass the ordinance to look at
[50:34] staff and other individuals. So the way
the zoning ordinance is designed, it
[50:38] classifies the land uses with sort of
four different bodies that take a role
[50:41] in it, right? Zoning administrator,
zoning board of appeals, planning
[50:45] commission, township board, elected
officials at the township board. You you
[50:49] retain the inherent legislative
authority to determine how these things
[50:52] would play out anyways. So you don't
need to put a prohibition on your own
[50:55] legislative authority. And there's some
case law that you as a board should not
[50:59] take an action that would bind a future
board from its power to exercise
[51:04] legislative authority. So we generally
draft moratoriums to have this board
[51:10] tell those other three players in the
zoning process, zoning, board of
[51:13] appeals, planning commission, and
particularly the zoning administrator
[51:16] who's doing the administration piece of
it, that we are not accepting
[51:19] applications and we're not proceeding
them forward. So that that's why it's
[51:24] presented as only focusing on the
administrative part, not the legislative
[51:28] piece.
>> Is there a moratorium that does cover
[51:31] the legislative piece?
>> Uh yeah, I mean you you could decide to
[51:34] include it. I just don't think it's I
don't think it's exactly consistent with
[51:38] the way that moratoriums are designed.
If you do if you do cover it, the reason
[51:42] that I listed the scenario too um is
that you still have a waiver provision
[51:46] in section six and if that were to
remain then you still can limit some of
[51:51] the legal problems with deciding to
include uh sort of handcuffing your own
[51:55] legislative authority at the township
board.
[51:58] So another question that I had not not
necessarily related to this but even if
[52:02] this is adopted the the board approves
this do they have the authority to come
[52:08] back in two months and and negate it
>> legislative authority correct
[52:13] » so yes except for um just the procedural
process is important whenever you adopt
[52:20] a specific formal action there's a
there's a principle out there called the
[52:24] equal dignity doctrine and so to undo it
we would have to follow the same process
[52:27] for for which we did it. Since this is a
police power ordinance, it requires
[52:31] publication and effective date. We'd
have to do it through another ordinance.
[52:34] So, yes, you could go and basically
amend this ordinance, right? And you
[52:38] could repeal it if you so desired in
advance of the expiration date, but it
[52:42] still, right, it still requires some
formality. You'd have to have a draft
[52:45] repealer, adopt it, and then publish it
so that it's enforceable. You couldn't
[52:49] just sort of take up a decision later
and say, "Well, we're not going to
[52:53] follow our own ordinance, and so we're
going to take action on this." I guess
[52:56] that's the point I'm trying to make.
you'd want to follow the same formality
[52:58] you are this evening and taking action
on the ordinance
[53:02] » but the way you're counting the
legislative authority for the
[53:04] reasonzoning you also have the
legislative authority on this other part
[53:07] of this the ordinance also
>> I didn't hear that I'm sorry
[53:11] » so you also have the legislative
authority to actually come back and and
[53:14] negate this or or repeal it
>> yes
[53:17] » and and before six months
>> yes
[53:21] » it's worthless essentially
>> so why would we do it
[53:26] Uh well again the the you the township
board directed to want a moratorum put
[53:32] in place and again the township board
already determines its own agenda as to
[53:36] how you're going to decide zoning
actions. What you're trying to do though
[53:40] is that you're not the individuals at
the township hall that are collecting
[53:44] applications, processing them, putting
them before the planning commission.
[53:47] Those are pieces that are written in the
zoning ordinance that say if you file an
[53:51] application, we shall review it. We'll
get it in front of the planning
[53:54] commission, etc. So the whole point of
this and the reason that that
[53:58] municipalities adopt moratoriums is to
freeze that application process while
[54:03] you're looking at the legislative
changes that you would like to make to
[54:06] the zoning ordinance. So that that's
your whole point. That's the
[54:10] understanding for which the township
board directed to be put together.
[54:14] That's the dovetailing that it has with
the committee. If the committee is
[54:17] looking at the fact that data processing
is not defined, that data processing
[54:21] doesn't have additional standards for
which govern its practice in the current
[54:26] ordinance, right? And it's also a use
permitted by right. It allows you the
[54:30] process to say, look, we'd like to look
at additional standards. We'd like to
[54:33] further research this use. And when we
list it back in that land use district
[54:37] or you're raising to say you might put
it in another land use district, you're
[54:41] doing all of that without creating any
inconsistent additional applications
[54:45] coming through the pipeline. That's the
reason that they're put in place. They
[54:49] they really are looking at the pipeline
aspect is we don't control right under
[54:53] the zoning ordinance. We the township
board, we don't receive the
[54:56] applications. We don't process or direct
how they proceed. That's all done
[55:00] through the administration process. This
action here would put a stop gap on
[55:05] that. That's the point of it. You stop
coming new stuff coming into the
[55:08] pipeline while you're trying to take a
look at what you want the regulations to
[55:11] look like. It still has that effect just
like other moratoriums do that
[55:15] municipalities adopt and it still
accomplishes that goal.
[55:20] » Okay. Thank you.
[55:24] » Anyone else?
>> I think my questions were answered.
[55:28] Thank you.
>> Good. I'm good.
[55:33] » Okay.
Uh, I would entertain a motion to
[55:36] deviate to call to the public.
>> Mr. Chair, I'd make the motion to
[55:42] deviate to the call the public.
>> Support.
[55:45] » Motion by B, second by Henstein.
Discussion. All those in favor?
[55:50] » I
>> I
[55:51] » opposed.
Motion carries.
[55:55] We'll open up the call to the public.
Uh, we're going to put a twominut time
[55:59] limit on the thing. We'll have a timer
up here for you. Uh just need your name
[56:04] and address for the record
and
[56:10] » um
>> that should be it.
[56:12] » Okay. Terrific.
>> Hang on one second.
[56:13] » Hold on. It's not coming on.
[56:18] » Can't display the timer.
>> Bruce,
[56:23] point it back here.
Back to back towards me.
[56:29] the remote.
>> Yeah, we're Yeah, we'll have you line up
[56:32] along the wall over here. So,
[56:51] » all right. Corey Alen, 800 Sleafford
Road, Howell Township. Um, everybody
[56:57] quiet for just a second. So the reason
we came tonight was so that we would
[57:01] have a moratorum that would stop the
current application. That's not what's
[57:04] happening. So the whole point here that
you guys are here tonight is to make
[57:10] sure this board doesn't vote yes. The
current application for the data center
[57:15] is going to continue. That worthless
moratorum does not do that. You guys
[57:20] need to make sure this board feels the
heat and understands that no is the only
[57:25] answer when they vote.
No is the absolute only answer.
[57:35] You guys have to come back to the next
meetings. This is not the end. But to
[57:39] the board, to each one of you, you have
a chance to get this right.
[57:47] » You got a chance to get this right. And
if you're worried about what happened in
[57:50] Selen here, I'm from Spring Lake and I'm
exploring running for state
[57:54] representative. So, Michigan has become
an essential target for massive data
[57:58] center developments, specifically in
small towns in Michigan. And I'm very
[58:03] proud to say that small towns aren't
just going to stay quiet. Um, while
[58:08] these politicians and companies are
approaching these communities and
[58:11] describing their projects as
opportunities for economic growth, new
[58:14] jobs, and a future built on advanced
technology.
[58:19] It's just not true. And I think it's
vital that we understand that. The truth
[58:24] is simple. Data centers do not come
without major costs and are too
[58:27] frequently those costs would fall on
these local communities.
[58:32] » You know, oftentimes data centers try to
sell their ideas that they're going to
[58:35] create jobs, major job creators. In
reality, once the construction phase
[58:40] ends, these sites would usually only
staff a small number of permanent jobs.
[58:44] A billion dollar facility might employ
only a few dozen workers long term. Even
[58:48] more alarming, the very technology a of
AI these data centers are helping power
[58:53] is expected to automate far more jobs
than these senators would ever ever
[58:57] create. Let it be clear they
[59:03] » so
[59:09] what this means for these people and I
don't live here but I'm pissed. IT MEANS
[59:13] HIGHER ELECTRICITY bills for households.
It means more strain on already
[59:18] unreliable Michigan power grids and
greater dependent on fossil fuel.
[59:23] Now this has happened in Salem Township
BL Blendon Township. It's happening in
[59:27] LOL. It's happening here. Now we're told
that residents are not going to carry
[59:31] these costs. But it's clear major
infrastructure bills always somehow find
[59:36] their way back to the local taxpayers.
So
[59:40] I want to say we see in Georgia, we've
seen in Iowa, these are dangerous data
[59:46] centers. They take away people's water.
They take away running dry
[59:52] running dry.
[59:57] » Thank you.
[1:00:09] I'm Mary Mto 780 Henderson Howell
Township. I stand in front of the Howell
[1:00:15] Township board. All of you are elected
officials. Ultimately, you are entrusted
[1:00:22] to care for your constituents. You see
us all here tonight.
[1:00:29] You care for me, my husband, my
children, my friends, my family. I find
[1:00:36] myself baffled that you aren't
listening. You're not trusting your
[1:00:41] public. Your public is begging you to
not bring a data center to our area.
[1:00:48] We're pleading for you to hear us. Hear
us say we don't want it in any way,
[1:00:56] shape, or form. It doesn't follow the
master plan.
[1:01:01] Listen to your township commissioner,
the township planning.
[1:01:09] Listen to all of us. We don't want it.
We don't need it. It will take away our
[1:01:15] jobs.
Where is this breakdown coming from?
[1:01:21] It appears to be motivated by money
driven by unknown promises of of
[1:01:26] grandeur.
With the Howell Township and Livingston
[1:01:31] County Planning Commission both
recommending a denial of the reszoning,
[1:01:37] we the people, the bosses, we implore
you.
[1:01:47] We are entitled to explore the truth
about the actual impacts that this will
[1:01:52] impose on our community. Let's see the
research and the reports, the proof.
[1:01:59] Listen to your people. We stand united
tonight begging for your respect. We've
[1:02:05] given it to you. Give it back.
That's all I have. Thank you.
[1:02:21] Hello everybody.
[1:02:25] » Oh god, I've been here too many times.
My name is Charles Smith. I live at 5136
[1:02:34] Fleming Road, approximately 25 ft from
the proposed data center. I'm going to
[1:02:40] make this short and sweet. been known to
talk a lot. Some of you folks up here
[1:02:43] even know me and heard me. Okay.
Deny the reasonzoning and put the
[1:02:49] moratorum on all future data center
projects. Deny it first. You can do
[1:02:56] whatever you want to after that, but you
deny it first. Okay, done deal. I heard
[1:03:01] so much stuff up here. I'm a halfway
intelligent person and that gentleman
[1:03:05] over there talked for so long I saw
people's eyes start rolling back in
[1:03:08] their heads up there.
Deny it. It's the simplest thing. It's
[1:03:13] the best thing. It's what everybody in
this place wants.
[1:03:17] Okay, deny it. Then take the time to go
back look at Okay, you got a moratorum.
[1:03:25] Hey, I'm all for a moratorium. As a
matter of fact, I'd like to see a year
[1:03:29] moratorum because if anything else
happens, it's all going up to a vote
[1:03:34] November of 26 at best worst case
scenario. Best case scenario, I'd like
[1:03:40] to call for a vote before that and a
special one. I got a lot to learn, but
[1:03:44] I'm going to learn fast.
>> Oh, no.
[1:03:46] » Okay. Now,
I I need to ask the question because I
[1:03:51] don't know. Is everybody up up there a
trustee? I I I was I'm hearing the words
[1:03:56] trustees. I I So everybody up here's a
trustee. Okay.
[1:04:01] The key there is trust, folks. It's
trust. The definition of trust is a firm
[1:04:07] belief in the reliability, the truth,
the ability or strength of someone or
[1:04:13] something that may represent you. You
represent us. I want to be able to trust
[1:04:19] you folks. I I've got this thing here
where it says hm freedom from suspicion
[1:04:26] and doubt. That's the third definition.
Freedom of suspicion and doubt. I've
[1:04:31] voted for most of you people. I know a
lot of you and I've met a lot of you
[1:04:35] shortly for crying out loud.
[1:04:44] » Okay.
[1:04:48] » Sorry, Charles. Your time's up.
>> Okay.
[1:05:07] » Yeah. Hello. My name is Don Lee Shalier.
I live at 2900 Brewer Road, Howell.
[1:05:13] And I don't know, I know you're catching
a lot of flack up there and some of it
[1:05:21] most of it's not deserved, but wouldn't
the simplest thing be for this board to
[1:05:28] take and say we want this to become a
vote of the people? We're recommending
[1:05:34] that it be put on the ballot. That would
answer your question also because once
[1:05:39] it's on the ballot, it takes all
recourse away from the data center
[1:05:44] because then it's voted on. So they
would be mute. They could go for
[1:05:48] something else somewhere else, but it
would be nice if you would just all
[1:05:53] maybe take a vote saying, you know, it's
too hard for seven people to try and do
[1:05:59] what's right for everybody when most
everybody at least here is against it.
[1:06:04] And I think if you put it on a ballot, I
think you'd find probably 80% of the
[1:06:09] people would vote it down. And that
takes you out of the limelight, takes
[1:06:14] you away from the firing line, and
you've done a good job in the process.
[1:06:18] That's all I have.
>> Thank you.
[1:06:30] » Good evening. Dan Wallahan. I'm an
attorney who's lived in Livingston
[1:06:33] County almost 47 years. I'm the former
three-term Livingston County Republican
[1:06:38] Party chair and former seventh district
GOP chair. As chair, we were 31
[1:06:43] statewide and in congressional races,
including flipping the congressional
[1:06:47] seat in 2024. My wife and I are in the
Fowlerville area, two streets away from
[1:06:51] the zoning. I'll ask all you to follow
recommendations of your plan commission,
[1:06:55] our county plan commission, which oppose
the reszoning. Amend the proposed
[1:06:59] moratorium to reject the resoning for
good. Period. End of story. The
[1:07:04] opposition to this resoning is one of
the 8020 issues and rare bipartisan
[1:07:08] issues in our community today. There's
one issue that has this kind of uniting
[1:07:12] power and I've seen it before.
Disruption to our neighborhood
[1:07:16] communities. The title of the resigning
request is R&T, but let's not dress it
[1:07:21] up. It's industry. Resigning a thousand
acres of ag residential zoning land to
[1:07:27] industry or R&T is significant
disruption of community and deviation
[1:07:30] from the master plan in harmful spot
zoning counselor I know you know what
[1:07:35] that is survey after survey about zoning
master plans li county show concerns
[1:07:40] about protecting our rural character
some big law attorney on the side of the
[1:07:45] data center proponents may be in your
ear about exclusionary zoning I don't
[1:07:50] think there's a strong case for that we
have tremendous resilient Howell
[1:07:53] Township. It's there. If you're not
excluding it, if you think about
[1:07:59] approving resilient, do advice for
council, reconsider it.
[1:08:03] My day job involves elections and I've
involved with them. I've know an 8020
[1:08:10] type of issue when I see it. I've been
involved more elections than I can
[1:08:14] count, including recalls, packs, and
ballot questions. We've beaten big law.
[1:08:19] We've beaten DTE.
I'm confident if you do the right thing,
[1:08:24] we all have your back. If you do the
wrong thing, you can join Green Township
[1:08:28] and go Shin and what happened there.
Please do the right thing.
[1:08:49] Hi, I'm Rob Hower and I'm running for uh
the 22nd district state senate um which
[1:08:55] is Livingston County. Um I'm a scientist
and I know all the problems that we're
[1:09:00] going to have with this including
everything that everybody has said here
[1:09:04] is absolutely true. Um there's going to
be um pollution problems. There's going
[1:09:09] to be electrical significant increases
in electrical bills. We don't need this.
[1:09:16] Um we don't need the water pollution. We
don't need the white light pollution.
[1:09:20] I've been living in Livingston County
for 22 years and I love this county. Um
[1:09:26] the rural feel of it. There's still
there's industrial places where you can
[1:09:30] put this and this is not one of them. um
what you have planned here is the wrong
[1:09:35] thing to do. And this moratorum
is is a band-aid. It's not going to fix
[1:09:40] the problem because we're going to have
to to come to every meeting for the next
[1:09:45] two years to stop the the actual
reasonzoning.
[1:09:49] » Well, we will.
>> We will. We're going to do it.
[1:09:53] But why don't you do it now? And and I
agree with put it on the ballot. Let the
[1:09:59] people decide. That's what we need to
do.
[1:10:06] That's about all I have to say. But
listen to us. We're the ones who put you
[1:10:10] on this board and
>> you got to you represent us. That's what
[1:10:16] government is for. You represent the
people, not the big business.
[1:10:21] » Thank you.
[1:10:31] Hi, Vanessa North, uh, 2950 West Mar
Road, Howell Township. Uh, thank you for
[1:10:37] listening to all of our comments. Uh,
one of the things I think that made
[1:10:40] Michigan look so good to some of these
companies is our Great Lakes. Uh, one
[1:10:45] statistic I would like to point out is
according to the Alliance for the Great
[1:10:49] Lakes, water is a finite resource. Only
1% of the total volume in the Great
[1:10:56] Lakes is replenished each year by
rainfall, snow melt, and flow from
[1:11:02] groundwater. 1%.
So, if we keep thinking that water is
[1:11:07] just going to always be there for future
generations, that's why we have these
[1:11:11] clean energy bills. We actually did pass
one in 2023, Michigan's Public Act 235
[1:11:17] in 2023, establishing a clean energy
goal of 80% by 2035 and 100% by 2040.
[1:11:25] Keeping that in mind, across the US,
retirements of at least 34 fossil fuel
[1:11:32] generating units totaling 16,491
megawatts of capacity have been delayed
[1:11:39] due to reliability concerns cited mostly
from data center usage.
[1:11:46] In September's meeting, we were advised
by Mike Vote that this proposal is for
[1:11:51] conditional reszoning of the land where
the applicant must comply with certain
[1:11:55] standards within the conditional zoning
ordinance. I must say no contract is
[1:12:01] ever airtight. The term loophole exists
for a reason. Please do not think for
[1:12:07] one minute that if and when this company
does not meet the conditions in the
[1:12:11] zoning ordinance and when the township
tries to enforce these conditions that
[1:12:16] they will not find a loophole or just
sue the township. They will most likely
[1:12:20] be able to continue operations during
pending litigation and potentially leave
[1:12:25] this township bankrupt. So for those who
are in favor of this proposal because of
[1:12:29] the tax revenue, it could be the same
thing that bankrupts us. In closing, I'd
[1:12:34] like to say that if data centers are
improved are approved by townships like
[1:12:38] us and continue to grow at this
astronomical rate, they will eventually
[1:12:42] use up all of our natural resources.
When future generations are dying
[1:12:48] because of the lack of clean drinking
water, remember
[1:13:06] Hello, my name is Emma Sova. I live here
in Howell at 322 West Washington Street.
[1:13:10] And I'm against this proposed data
center. There are plenty of other places
[1:13:14] where this data center could go.
Abandoned factory areas, brown zones,
[1:13:18] what have you. But they're choosing to
put it here. In those other places, they
[1:13:22] wouldn't have to fight to put their
useless data center there. But they're
[1:13:25] going to go through the hassle to put it
here in Howell. Going through the hassle
[1:13:29] to make plans to move Grand River. Going
through the hassle to have Howell
[1:13:33] officials sign NDAs and no doubt line
those officials pockets.
[1:13:37] » There's absolutely no reason to be going
through all this trouble other than one.
[1:13:42] This huge company who is remaining
anonymous, mind you, is trying to buy up
[1:13:46] more land so there's less for the common
folk. That includes you all on the
[1:13:51] township board, mind you. As a How
resident and graphic designer, my future
[1:13:56] is at risk due to this data center and
AI in general, and I haven't even
[1:14:00] graduated college yet. To those on the
township board, I want you to look at me
[1:14:06] and see your children, nieces, nephews,
and grandchildren. My future isn't the
[1:14:10] only one being doomed. Their future is
too. Allowing this data center to invade
[1:14:15] our community would be not just a
mistake, but practically a knife to the
[1:14:19] throat of all the citizens of Howell. do
the right thing and refuse the data
[1:14:24] center's existence in not just the
proposed area but for anywhere in How
[1:14:28] Township or better yet put it on the
ballot. Thank you.
[1:14:32] » Thank you.
[1:14:41] » Hi, my name is um Jess Cuffer at 3575
Brighton Road in How, Michigan. I hate
[1:14:48] speaking in front of people, so it says
a lot I'm here. Um, I don't believe this
[1:14:52] should be a difficult decision. There
are already existing data centers and
[1:14:55] communities that have had similar
promises made to what's being sold to
[1:14:58] us. When you look at these communities
now, they are struggling with higher
[1:15:02] electricity costs, sediment in their
water, wells running dry, pollution,
[1:15:07] impacts to wildlife, and more. Research
already exists on the impacts of a data
[1:15:12] center in a community, and it's not
what's being promised. I've learned
[1:15:16] early on if something is too good to be
true, it probably is. And right now
[1:15:20] they're trying to fasttrack a data
center with little to no transparency
[1:15:23] here and in other communities within
Michigan. Um just to scratch the surface
[1:15:28] on some of the existing information out
there on data centers, uh a study by
[1:15:32] Carnegie Melon University and North
Carolina State University published in
[1:15:36] June says that electricity rates could
rise 8% on average across the US through
[1:15:41] 2030 because of increased demand from
data centers. And keep in mind that's
[1:15:44] just the average. Some communities have
seen a 20 to 30% plus increase. Today,
[1:15:49] data centers make up about 4% of total
US electricity demand and in the next
[1:15:53] three years that's expected to triple.
And some key findings from a U of M
[1:15:58] forward school of science, technology,
and public policy report published in
[1:16:02] July titled, "What happens when data
centers come to town?" highlights other
[1:16:06] valid concerns. I'd love to list them
here, but I just don't have the time to
[1:16:09] read through it. Um, I do want to
include some quotes from those who live
[1:16:13] near data centers or those who live near
data centers that are currently under
[1:16:17] construction. Beverly Mor Morris from
rural Georgia lives 400 meters from a
[1:16:22] data center. I can't drink the water.
Alexis Humphre, a resident from XAI data
[1:16:28] center in Memphis, Tennessee. I can't
breathe at home. It smells like gas
[1:16:31] outside. Greg Piio, a resident near a
data center in Virginia. There are no
[1:16:36] birds around here anymore, he said,
noting that the humming or buzzing noise
[1:16:40] the center emits scares away a lot of
wildlife from his area. As my husband
[1:16:44] would say, they're trying to spit China
turd and call it gold. I hope we take it
[1:16:48] a step further with the future
memorandum and that bans data centers
[1:16:51] entirely for a set amount of years with
no back doors baked in. We should be
[1:16:56] putting the people first and not big
tech billionaires. Thank you for
[1:16:59] listening.
>> Thank you.
[1:17:09] Hi, Lauren Prebenda, 930 Gully Road. Um,
I'm disgusted to be honest.
[1:17:16] This is a slap in the face to every
single person that is in here, to every
[1:17:21] How Township resident and every
Livingston County resident. No wonder
[1:17:25] the developer, the developer's attorney
yesterday stated that they are in full
[1:17:29] support of a moratorum. I was thinking
to myself, why would a Fortune 100
[1:17:34] company in the middle of an AI arms race
driven by the greed of billionaires
[1:17:37] support a blanket prohibition of data
centers in How Township? Because they
[1:17:42] knew this all along. They knew it would
allow them to proceed with resoning.
[1:17:47] They knew that you all could strike down
this moratorum at any time and allow
[1:17:51] them to further proceed with
development. And I hope for all of your
[1:17:55] sakes that you didn't know this, too.
>> Because if so, what a monumental failure
[1:18:02] of public trust and what a monumental
failure of your position.
[1:18:08] » We've heard over and over again from
this developer that they're committed to
[1:18:11] being a good neighbor and doing what's
right. A good neighbor doesn't hide
[1:18:15] their identity and pressure local
officials to sign NDAs to keep
[1:18:19] information from the public.
[1:18:24] A good neighbor wouldn't wait until
there's public outcry over a monstrous
[1:18:29] 10 building water and electricity
sucking site plan to then decide to do
[1:18:34] what's right and offer additional
setbacks, fewer buildings, and dry
[1:18:38] cooling technology. A good neighbor
would have come to the table with the
[1:18:42] best, most ethical and respectful honor
or offer, but they didn't do that
[1:18:47] because they aren't a good neighbor.
They aren't a neighbor at all. They are
[1:18:52] a multi-billion dollar corporation with
the goal of patting shareholder pockets,
[1:18:57] not protecting residents.
[1:19:03] » So, I'd like to make something very
clear. Regardless of what happens
[1:19:06] tonight, we are not going anywhere and
our minds will not be changed.
[1:19:14] » This resoning request is a terrible
deal. It will continue to be a terrible
[1:19:20] deal tomorrow. It will continue to be a
terrible deal three months from now, 6
[1:19:24] months from now, a year from now
[1:19:41] align with our future land use. There
will be no changing that.
[1:19:46] » We need a moratorum.
[1:19:52] Your your time's exceeded.
>> Your time's up.
[1:20:08] » We'll let the If you want to come back
around, we'll let you come back around.
[1:20:16] » All right. Two minutes. We'll give you
two more minutes. Go.
[1:20:24] » This proposal does not align align with
the township or county master plan, both
[1:20:29] of which emphasize keeping Howell
Township rural. It does not align with
[1:20:33] our future land use map, which clearly
marks these parcels for agricultural
[1:20:36] preservation. And most importantly, it
does not align with our community
[1:20:40] values. That will not change. Period. We
need a moratorum. Whether the community
[1:20:45] likes it or not, data center development
is sweeping the country and Michigan.
[1:20:50] And if we are caught with our proverbial
pants down without some ordinances, we
[1:20:54] are screwed. So I know a moratorum is
not the solution, but it is a solution
[1:20:59] that we need to enact in order to ensure
that we are protected. So given that we
[1:21:05] need a moratorum, there is no other
option for you all than to vote no on
[1:21:09] resoning. Enact a moratorum. And until
then, we will be at every meeting. We
[1:21:14] will continue calling your office. We
will continue emailing you. And we will
[1:21:18] not stop until that happens.
>> Thank you.
[1:21:29] » Hi, my name is Gina Low, 5789 Preston
Road. I'm a mother in this community
[1:21:34] against this uh really against this, but
I'm hearing about these NDA NDAs. I'm
[1:21:38] new to this. So, I wanted to use my two
minutes just to ask every one of you
[1:21:43] because I don't believe anybody signing
an NDA is working for their
[1:21:46] constituents. I know you, Tim, right?
You came and said you did not sign an
[1:21:50] NDA with this company. You have not,
sir. You have not signed an NDA. No, you
[1:21:56] have not signed an NDA. Have you signed
an NDA? You have you signed an NDA?
[1:22:00] » I'll approach it under the supervisor's
report.
[1:22:02] » What was that?
>> I'll approach it under the supervisor's
[1:22:04] report.
>> So, a yes or no. Have you signed an NDA
[1:22:06] with this corporation?
Have you signed an NDA, sir?
[1:22:11] » Yes, sir.
>> Yes or no?
[1:22:17] » No. Okay. You, sir, have you signed an
NDA?
[1:22:19] » No comment.
>> I just
[1:22:21] » Come on.
>> Just let them We burn up your That's all
[1:22:25] I just want. And down the line. So,
you're silent, sir. Are you silent as
[1:22:30] well?
>> All right. And have you signed an NDA,
[1:22:33] sir?
>> Okay. And have you signed an NDA? And
[1:22:36] have you signed an NDA? Okay, I believe
all of you should be recalled and should
[1:22:41] not have a place in this vote. That's my
that's my opinion.
[1:22:47] And I do I do have one more thing to say
about I'm I'm not I'm not I'm really
[1:22:52] don't know about laws and I understand
you guys are much more educated on that,
[1:22:54] but I do know that Livingston County as
a whole has done a very good job of
[1:22:59] keeping women's health clinics and
dispensaries out of Livingston County.
[1:23:03] So, I do think that it is possible that
Howell Township can keep this data
[1:23:07] center out of Howell Township. Thank
you.
[1:23:25] » Andrew Ham, 14 Santa Rosa Drive, Howell
Township. I'm here to ask whether Howell
[1:23:30] Township has any ordinances regarding
drone use. Recently, a neighbor filed a
[1:23:35] complaint against me with the Livingston
County Health Department. They followed
[1:23:38] up, investigated, and found that the
complaint was invalid. However, the
[1:23:43] complaint included drone photos of my
home, which raises a different concern
[1:23:47] altogether. I live on 12 acres. The
photos that were taken are all private.
[1:23:53] They're not in public view of the public
or from my neighbors. My hot tub's in
[1:23:58] there. It's in a fenced in private area.
I want to make sure we have protections
[1:24:03] in place so a neighbor isn't able to fly
a drone over my backyard and take
[1:24:08] pictures, especially if my daughter is
out suntanning or my wife.
[1:24:12] Um, I don't think anyone here wants a
situation where they have to worry about
[1:24:17] a resident who
is hovering a camera flying a drone over
[1:24:22] their private areas and their family
spaces that are that are private. So,
[1:24:27] I'm simply asking for clarification on
whether Howell Township has a drone
[1:24:31] ordinance and if not, whether it is
something the board would consider
[1:24:36] addressing. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you.
[1:24:47] Annaise Patterson, 1789 South Hughes
Road in Genanoa Township.
[1:24:54] Whether you are elected or appointed,
your oath of office is what gives you
[1:24:59] the lawful authority. And that oath is
the legal instrument that creates the
[1:25:05] public trust relationship
where you hold delegated powers as
[1:25:09] trustees. All of you, whether appointed
or elected,
[1:25:15] and the people stand as the
beneficiaries, and by swearing or
[1:25:18] affirming faithfully to discharge your
duties, you've accepted that office of
[1:25:23] public trust that must be administered
with loyalty, care, honesty, and good
[1:25:29] faith. And that oath binds you as
fiduciaries, which means you're
[1:25:33] obligated to act solely for the benefit
of the people, never private developers
[1:25:37] or corporate consultants. So help you
God. That is on your oath of office. So
[1:25:43] help you God. That also means you
submitted to a higher power.
[1:25:47] » So
also when it talks about in Michigan law
[1:25:52] the it it talks about MCL25387
it requires that every development
[1:25:59] decision promote public health, safety,
morals, order, prosperity and general
[1:26:06] welfare. Morals also means the ethical
governance and decision-making free from
[1:26:10] improper influence or reliance on bad
faith actors. And I'll get to that a
[1:26:16] little bit later. But the general
welfare includes our community health,
[1:26:20] safety, infrastructure, capacity,
natural resources, property values,
[1:26:24] rural character, economic stability, and
orderly harmonious development of land.
[1:26:30] None of this is harmonious. The
Department of Justice has issued a
[1:26:33] public notice documenting that this
particular developer and consultant has
[1:26:39] falsified certifications.
That means they're operating in bad
[1:26:42] faith and you're in breach of fiduciary
duty by even entertaining it. So help
[1:26:46] you God.
>> Thank you.
[1:26:58] » Hi, my name is Pete McCarter. I live in
Fatherville.
[1:27:02] You know, it's very disturbing to hear
that some of you are doing things in bad
[1:27:06] faith behind our backs. As people of
this community, we want this community
[1:27:10] to stay rural. We want it to stay small.
Do not reszone this community. Do not
[1:27:15] change it. This is not part of our plan
here. So, please don't do that. And we
[1:27:20] need to as the people expose the ones
that are doing this crooked crap. This
[1:27:25] is wrong. Nobody should be signing NDAs
with these lizard people. You people,
[1:27:31] this will be on you for all of history.
So remember that. It's not just the
[1:27:35] people in this room. We will remember
you. Our children will think about what
[1:27:40] you want to leave in this on this
planet, in this life. All of you. Do not
[1:27:46] do something like this. It's disgusting.
[1:27:59] Hi, my name is Cheryl Morris and I live
at 3259 Newand Circle.
[1:28:06] If there are NDAs being signed and the
company is not going to be upfront with
[1:28:14] what's going on, there is no reason to
believe that this data center should be
[1:28:20] built here.
[1:28:29] First of all, it's going to take a lot
of energy. The data centers typically
[1:28:35] house more computer power per server
rack compared to conventional data
[1:28:40] centers. And this need for more
computing power is projected to strain
[1:28:45] our already fragile energy grid. Data
centers won't just strain our energy. It
[1:28:52] also consumes significant amounts of
water for keeping the servers from
[1:28:56] overheating. This reduces water locally
and everywhere else. With all that water
[1:29:04] going in, there is wastewater coming
out. This can pose an even bigger
[1:29:10] problem. Wastewater discharge from data
centers can contain various contaminants
[1:29:16] including chemicals, heavy metals, and
other pollutants.
[1:29:20] This wastewater can degrade the quality
of local water bodies posing risk to
[1:29:26] ecosystems and human health, critical
for human water management.
[1:29:33] Our how and surrounding areas wed
ultimately leads to our Great Lakes. We
[1:29:40] have 1/4th to 1ifth of all fresh water
in the world in our Great Lakes. Is it
[1:29:47] worth polluting our local water and the
water of our Great Lakes just so that a
[1:29:54] few people can make money? No.
>> Thank you.
[1:30:06] Hi, Kristen Dennison, 7196 Manor Lane. I
want to echo everything Corey and Lauren
[1:30:12] so clearly and passionately
communicated. I am pissed. We will not
[1:30:17] stand for the continued lack of
transparency and integrity. We wanted a
[1:30:21] moratorium on reszoning, including the
current applicant, and you all knew it,
[1:30:25] and so did your lawyer. Data processing
in RT does not inherently or
[1:30:31] automatically include data centers and
the entire point is to give the township
[1:30:35] the chance to determine where and how
data centers might fit in our township.
[1:30:40] This moratorum is disingenuish
disingenuous and does not accomplish
[1:30:44] what the township wants or needs. Shame
on the lawyers and anyone involved in
[1:30:48] intentionally misconstring our desire
and our intent. And shame on cutting the
[1:30:52] mic on people. We were kept in the dark
for over eight months. If we need to be
[1:30:56] here till 3:00 a.m. again, let's do it.
[1:31:09] My name is Robert Peterson. I'm a land
owner in Handy Township, a business
[1:31:13] owner in Howell. There's a bigger issue
here. Yes, water, electricity, costs,
[1:31:19] agriculture, all important, but you
talked about what do we need? What are
[1:31:25] the needs of the people here? I mean,
what is a data center for? It's a
[1:31:30] control grid to enslave us.
>> And if you're going to participate in
[1:31:37] enslaving my family, my children, my
grandchildren, I will fight to the
[1:31:43] death.
[1:31:49] Right.
[1:31:57] I'm Bernardet Mallister from neighboring
Milford, Michigan, and I'm in agreement
[1:32:02] with them. I think you should grant the
moratorum, deny the variance changes and
[1:32:09] also consider how would howl protect its
citizens from terrorist attacks on a
[1:32:14] data center which is being proposed to
be one of the largest data centers in
[1:32:19] the state of Michigan.
>> Thank you.
[1:32:28] » Yeah, my name is Tom Gibbons. I live on
Warner Road and I talked to a couple of
[1:32:34] you guys. You I talked to you come out
to the house asked for my vote. I put a
[1:32:39] sign out no data center out in the front
of my house. He's up. Well, why did you
[1:32:45] why are you against it? Well, you got a
couple hours. I'll tell you why. But
[1:32:49] first of all, I think all of you guys
got to stop this right now. I mean, this
[1:32:55] is this is our community and I we don't
want no data center. We got a good water
[1:33:01] supply here. We want it to stay that
way. We don't need to have any pollution
[1:33:07] or anything that we got. We got enough
to deal with without having to deal with
[1:33:11] more. Pollution is a big thing. And this
area is one of the better. We got one of
[1:33:18] the freshest water supplies in the area.
Why would you guys want to do that? Why?
[1:33:24] Seriously, that doesn't make no sense.
And then you want to divert Warner uh
[1:33:30] Grand River down Warner Road. What is
the purpose of that? I mean, come on
[1:33:35] now. You guys are not thinking very
realistic at all. And you're not
[1:33:39] thinking of the community. Not what one
iota.
[1:33:46] » Thank you.
[1:33:53] Hi, my name is Jacine Peters and I live
at 2035 Norton Road in Howell. Um, I
[1:33:59] believe I can give a unique perspective
on this. I have a degree in network
[1:34:02] administration. I've worked in a data
center before actually for a very large
[1:34:06] company here in Michigan. I worked in
that data center for about a year and a
[1:34:10] half. Do you guys want to guess how many
times I walked inside that data data
[1:34:14] center to uh provide support?
>> Zero times. Um, I did go in it once
[1:34:20] though for a tour, but it was like with
regular people off the street. It wasn't
[1:34:23] really for anything important. Um, at my
work now, I do a support in a
[1:34:27] manufacturing facility. We don't really
touch the servers. The people who work
[1:34:30] on the servers, do you know where they
live? Do you think they're local?
[1:34:34] » No, they live in India. And it's awful
working with them to be completely
[1:34:38] honest because it's it's difficult with
the time change and everything. But this
[1:34:42] is all for if you guys think there's
going to be like these $100,000 jobs
[1:34:47] with these big salaries and like, wow,
they're going to be hiring. Absolutely
[1:34:51] not. I mean, honestly, if that were the
truth, I would love this. I would be
[1:34:54] able to drive down the road. I wouldn't
have to have an hour commute to go to my
[1:34:56] job. I drive all the way to Detroit
every day. This isn't going to happen,
[1:35:00] guys. Like, nobody's going to be in that
data center. This is the cloud. The
[1:35:04] support is on the cloud. Nobody's going
to be there to support the cloud. So,
[1:35:09] thank you. And that's all I
[1:35:18] Hi, I'm Evelyn Redwine. I live at 444
Inest in downtown Howell. Um, I'm not
[1:35:24] that far from this thing. Having having
this noise pollution, the water issues,
[1:35:30] the electricity, it's all going to cost
us. We've all talked about that. The
[1:35:33] quality of water has a direct direct
correlation to the quality of life.
[1:35:40] This is why I'm not allowed to drain the
pond that I get every spring in my
[1:35:45] backyard, which is almost flat, but my
yard gets a one quarter of it is covered
[1:35:50] in water. I can't touch it because it
goes down into the aquifer. And I don't
[1:35:56] I don't fertilize because that's the
drinking water that everybody here
[1:36:00] drinks.
You pollute that. We lose our drinking
[1:36:04] water. We lose our lives.
The one lady spoke about being a target.
[1:36:10] Yeah, we could be a target. I remember
knowing as a kid that there was a nuke
[1:36:14] aimed at at L uh Leavonia and I lived
not too far from there. That's that's
[1:36:20] sobering to know that we can become a
target.
[1:36:24] » It's not on the master plan. The master
plan was made to keep things like this
[1:36:28] out of Howell, to keep our beauty and
our our culture out here. Beyond that,
[1:36:36] I'm a graphic designer. I'm a web
developer. I am a writer.
[1:36:42] AI is stealing all those jobs and
devaluing them. You're taking and you're
[1:36:46] saying there's going to be 100 jobs.
There's going to be 20 and the rest are
[1:36:49] going to be in India. Like she said,
I the same job that I made $80,000 a
[1:36:56] year for, I try to get that now and it's
$15 an hour. I might as well go work at
[1:37:01] McDonald's. I can get two jobs and, you
know, make what I made and work my butt
[1:37:07] off.
Please don't do this to our our
[1:37:11] community. Please don't do that to
America and our jobs.
[1:37:16] Thank you.
[1:37:26] Good evening neighbors and officials.
I'm Gary Berker from Conway Township. I
[1:37:30] was saw you all back in September. I
talked about how, you know, my concern
[1:37:34] was the consumption of these things and
how it consumes like a small city. But
[1:37:37] tonight, I want to ask you why we're
even considering this, right? A thousand
[1:37:41] acres of farmland here, pristine
farmland on beautiful Livingston when
[1:37:45] there's actually over 26,000 acres of
nonreal available industrial land today
[1:37:50] in Michigan. 6,000 of that are meed
sites that are already prepared for with
[1:37:54] roads, infrastructure, uh, fiber optics,
everything that's needed. And us
[1:37:59] taxpayers already paid $460 million to
develop that land. All right, we were
[1:38:04] happy to do that. All I'm saying is that
investors already did this properly.
[1:38:07] Investors already partnered with the
state officials to do this properly. And
[1:38:11] we should make sure that those business
owners are getting their rightful uh
[1:38:14] prospects as well. Intercepting like
having big tech intercept farmland
[1:38:19] owners to save met pennies is not what
Michiganers are about, right? We're
[1:38:23] about combining farmland and farmers and
communities with good officials that all
[1:38:28] work together to build a better, more
retainable Michigan. That's what we all
[1:38:33] want to see. We want a sustainable
Michigan built responsibly. So, I
[1:38:36] personally feel like we should have a
statewide moratorum um all the way
[1:38:40] across Michigan until we are have used
all industrial spaces, right? Let's quit
[1:38:46] let's quit flipping our agricultural
land over to industry. Let's let's keep
[1:38:51] the development flowing into these
sectors that already have it. Let's use
[1:38:55] what we already have. Let's repurpose
and rebuild these green fields, these
[1:38:58] brown fields, I'm sorry. Let's use what
we have and quit consuming the farmland.
[1:39:02] The future generations will need the
land. They'll need the water. And we all
[1:39:06] need our peace. Thank you all for doing
the right thing. Thank you.
[1:39:18] » Farmland can't be turned back.
My name is Dan Banello. I'm at 3531
[1:39:24] Warner Road in Howell. Um I'm here to uh
voice my position to the Pearls Data
[1:39:31] Center development. And I urge you to
vote yes no on the six-month moratorum.
[1:39:37] Um
I would really like to just cut to the
[1:39:40] chase and vote no on the resoning of
this property altogether.
[1:39:46] Just rip the band-aid off. So over the
past couple months, we've heard from the
[1:39:51] attorneys for the data center
developers, the developers themselves,
[1:39:55] representatives from DTE, and the
property owners themselves, the Van
[1:39:59] Gilders, as well as very few residents
that would like to see this data center
[1:40:04] happen for selfish reasons. I'm amazed
at the stakeholders in this potential
[1:40:09] data center would think that we're so
stupid as to think that we would even
[1:40:13] entertain anything like this, especially
when the details are veiled in secrecy
[1:40:17] and the promises of benefits at no ill
effects to the community aren't even
[1:40:24] aren't and won't be in writing. They
will not even provide solid numbers on
[1:40:29] the projected water electric usage. It
has been said that the property values
[1:40:33] will not be affected and may be
increased. I can tell you personally
[1:40:37] that since this potential data center
project went public, my property values
[1:40:41] decreased by $32,000.
Who will make up the difference and who
[1:40:45] will buy my house when I can't sell it?
They won't even discuss the names of the
[1:40:50] Fortune 500 corporation that will be the
enduser of the data center, but they
[1:40:55] will tell us once it's approved.
This is akin to a certain congresswoman
[1:41:01] once saying, "We have to pass the bill
so you can find out what's in it." How
[1:41:06] did that work out? This is like a person
telling a total stranger, "Marry me and
[1:41:11] I promise you that you won't regret it."
I don't think so. One of the things that
[1:41:17] stuck out to me is when Ryan Van Gilder
stated that if the data center project
[1:41:21] goes through, they will continue to
live, farm, and be active in the
[1:41:25] community. That statement rings hollow
to me when they are selling their homes
[1:41:29] and their historic barns and buildings
used for their operations that the data
[1:41:34] center would sit on.
[1:41:53] Hey Dan, let's
>> wrap it up, please.
[1:41:58] » Thank you.
[1:42:10] » I'm short. Uh, hi Casey Helton, 2854
High Meadow Drive in Howell. I wasn't
[1:42:15] planning on speaking tonight, but um, I
guess I'm up here uh, to confirm from
[1:42:20] Mr. Wallahan's left flank, a person who
I have had a somewhat acrimonious
[1:42:25] relationship with over the years that
this is very much a bipartisan issue.
[1:42:29] And I've been thinking about why that
is. Why is that such a bipartisan issue
[1:42:32] for so many of us? And I think it's
because since the beginning like of the
[1:42:36] industrial revolution, people here have
been we we've experienced our ancestors
[1:42:41] have experienced um resources mined at
our expense at the expense of the masses
[1:42:49] for the few for the benefit and the
wealth of the few. And I think people
[1:42:52] are tired of it and we're entering a new
age. We're entering a new age, an
[1:42:57] information age, where we are seeing new
types of speculation where this is
[1:43:02] nothing more than like the gold diggers
in in out west. This is a new version of
[1:43:06] that. This is a new version of mining.
Okay? This is this is coal miners in our
[1:43:11] age. And we are not the people are
standing up at their backyards and
[1:43:15] they're saying this stops at our
backyards. We are not going to let you
[1:43:19] exploit us anymore.
>> Y amen. and the board. I just want to
[1:43:22] say I just want to say I know this feels
bad. I I run I ran for office three
[1:43:27] times as a Democrat in Livingston
County. I didn't win any race. So I
[1:43:30] can't say for sure how you're feeling
because I didn't win any of my races,
[1:43:32] but I imagine it probably doesn't feel
good being yelled at up here. But where
[1:43:36] you're at is a privilege. This is a
privilege where you are sitting
[1:43:40] » because these voters, they put their
trust in you. they put that's why
[1:43:45] they're being so harsh because they've
voted for you because they believe in
[1:43:48] you to protect them to protect their
interests first. So I know that there's
[1:43:53] a lot of concern about legal
implications. That is what they want.
[1:43:57] They want you to be scared. They want
you to be intimidated so you'll bow
[1:44:00] down. But these people here
overwhelmingly are asking you, begging
[1:44:05] you to fight for them, to fight for
their property. So I I just wanted to
[1:44:09] say thank you and please do the right
thing. Please stand for them. Thank you.
[1:44:25] » Good evening. My name is Thomas Ranki.
I'm at Sergeant Road in Ferville. You
[1:44:29] know, we could talk all night about uh
the environment, the health concerns,
[1:44:32] the loss of jobs, destroying property,
contaminated water and air, and wildlife
[1:44:36] extinction. as a good neighbor, you
would have shot this down before we ever
[1:44:41] got to this meeting. Our fight is not
against flesh and blood, but against the
[1:44:45] rulers, you the
authorities against the rulers of the
[1:44:50] dark world, the spiritual forces of
evil, says Ephesians 6:12. God tells us
[1:44:54] to fear not. I am with you. I will
strengthen you. I'll help you. I'll
[1:44:59] uphold you
to be righteous. Isaiah 41.
[1:45:04] Our property is an extension of
ourselves.
[1:45:08] When you destroy people's property, you
harm them, causing harm to others.
[1:45:12] Matthew 12 dishonors leaders, corrupt
society, exploit the weak. We are urged
[1:45:18] to pray as I'm praying for all of you
now, says Timothy 1:2.
[1:45:24] God does not appoint evil leaders. The
evil presents itself from the greed. We
[1:45:31] all know about those of you who've been
bought and paid for just like a $2
[1:45:36] watch.
[1:45:49] My name is Harold Wines, 4,400 West
Grand River Avenue. I have a little
[1:45:54] different perspective on this.
Gentlemen, ladies, take a look at this
[1:45:59] crowd.
How much how many people in this crowd
[1:46:03] are over 65? How many people moved into
this township to live out their life in
[1:46:10] retirement without fear of everything
being taken away from me?
[1:46:17] I've lived in this county for 70 years.
I'm 71 years old. My wife and myself
[1:46:23] never turned down an hour of overtime in
40 years of marriage.
[1:46:29] What we are looking at now is our
property going to hell, not being worth
[1:46:34] anything. We have looked at what it
would take to buy what we have and what
[1:46:40] we own into another piece of property.
We might be able to pay cash for that
[1:46:47] house, but our taxes would run between
$800 and $1,000 a year. our property
[1:46:54] taxes. That's more than my house payment
was for 30 years.
[1:47:00] Do you think for one moment that a $1.58
trillion business gives a about
[1:47:07] what these people think or what's going
to happen to them?
[1:47:14] And and I'm sorry to say what I just
heard here a little bit ago about NDAs
[1:47:22] and some people not answering that
question. The second you signed an NDA,
[1:47:28] you no longer represent us.
[1:47:45] Hi, Michelle Vita, 3252 Warner Road,
dirt road, across from a cornfield in a
[1:47:52] very rural neighborhood. Um, I prefer to
keep it that way, as do 88% of the
[1:47:58] Howell Township residents who were in
favor of agricultural preservation in
[1:48:02] the master plan. Um,
>> so I ask for a minute. We forget about
[1:48:07] the data center and we focus just on the
resoning. I don't want it resoned to
[1:48:12] anything other than agricultural
preservation.
[1:48:19] I think they agree. Um, second, I know
we've heard some people threaten to not
[1:48:24] reelect you or to recall you. U, we know
that you were up here because you are
[1:48:30] supposed to be the voice of the people.
So, I'd like to ask tonight if you have
[1:48:34] changed your mind and you no longer want
to resent the represent the people,
[1:48:39] there's no need to wait for a reelection
or to be recalled. Hold on. Hold on. You
[1:48:45] have the right to step down. And if you
do not want to represent us, I ask that
[1:48:50] you resign tonight. Thank you.
[1:49:02] My name is Victoria Alchin. I am a proud
Howell Public Schools elementary school
[1:49:08] teacher. And I will not be able to face
my students, nor will I be able to face
[1:49:14] my own two children at home if this if I
behaved the way in secrecy and without
[1:49:21] transparency, the way that the board and
this multi-trillion dollar corporation
[1:49:27] is behaving. We should not be keeping
secrets. Now, board, I implore you to
[1:49:34] listen to them. There is an enormous
group of people including my husband who
[1:49:40] are working 40, 50, 60 hours in addition
to their full-time jobs to get to gather
[1:49:47] information to make sure that this
community is informed about what's going
[1:49:53] on because you are not doing it. That's
taking away
[1:49:58] Yeah. And if you don't if you are not
part of those Facebook groups, if you do
[1:50:02] not know where to find that information,
talk to your neighbors and be ready to
[1:50:07] mobilize because whatever happens, we
are together. We do not want this data
[1:50:12] center and we have we have the power and
the strength of the people to say
[1:50:17] absolutely not.
>> Thank you.
[1:50:30] Hello, Angela Barbash 4211RELE.
[1:50:35] It should go without saying that we
should vote down the resoning request
[1:50:39] and not have data centers. I think
you've heard that from everyone. But
[1:50:43] because we've been thrust into an
atmosphere of distrust, I want to bring
[1:50:47] something to you to give you the
opportunity to either dispel this as a
[1:50:52] false rumor or to acknowledge that there
is a real conflict of interest here. May
[1:50:58] I ask is our township attorney Chris
Patterson of Fehee Schultz Burchick and
[1:51:03] Roads.
Is that you?
[1:51:07] » Yes.
>> Do you work for that law firm?
[1:51:10] » Yes. Is it true that your law firm is
representing Van Gilder Farms and the
[1:51:15] sale of the land to the technology
company?
[1:51:20] » No. So I wanted to give you the
opportunity
[1:51:24] » to dispel that
>> if you don't we don't interact. It's
[1:51:29] public ask your question. But we're
we're in be I bring this up and I'm
[1:51:35] giving the opportunity and public
comment here because there's been so
[1:51:39] much distrust seown in this process that
all kinds of things will fly across
[1:51:46] everyone's desk at this point and I
wanted you to have the opportunity to
[1:51:51] say that that's not true in front of
everyone or to say yes that is true and
[1:51:55] there's a conflict of interest. So thank
you. Thank you for answering even though
[1:51:59] you didn't have to. Thank you for taking
the question.
[1:52:01] » Thank you.
[1:52:12] » Uh Stephanie Booth, city of Howell. Um
just want to point out a couple of
[1:52:16] things. The uh presentation sponsored by
our GOP chair, I think it was Monday
[1:52:21] night 6 to 11. very little in attendance
um other than another GOP member who
[1:52:28] happens to have property up for sale for
3.2 million. Um I don't know what the
[1:52:33] rushes or you know why they are people
with um a lot of special interests in
[1:52:37] this and I don't understand why. Um and
you know and this is all very public
[1:52:43] information.
Uh the other thing is I've been to the
[1:52:48] uh PL or excuse me the board of
commissioners uh self-appointed uh
[1:52:52] health advisory committee and they cited
a study from 1997 talking about infant
[1:52:58] um what decibel level is appropriate and
they came up with between 45 and 55 and
[1:53:04] this is within two or three months ago
um during a reg a regular planning
[1:53:09] commissioner meeting and they were using
this to reject solar farms which you
[1:53:14] were all I'm sure quick to reject and
maybe I understand why now but just
[1:53:19] pointing out a similar argument there.
Um and the other thing is um gosh I give
[1:53:26] me a moment to think. Okay, our county
planning commissioning uh commissioners
[1:53:30] yesterday uh rejected it. So if you're
going to you're going to usurp their
[1:53:35] authority, which I'm assuming is way
more than the authority here, that
[1:53:40] that's a very interesting choice. Um,
and really that's all I've got. The NDAs
[1:53:45] are ve very telling. Thank you.
[1:54:00] » You start at 159, not two for everybody.
That's not fair. Um, there are already
[1:54:09] My name Patricia Murphy. I live near
Thompson Thompson Lake in Howell. There
[1:54:14] are already 57 data centers in Michigan.
Why? Because I get a 25-year tax break
[1:54:22] which does not benefit any citizen who
pays taxes. The state fiscal agency
[1:54:30] analysis estimated that the proposed tax
breaks these data centers get would
[1:54:37] reduce the state and local tax revenue
by more than 90 million through 2065
[1:54:46] when their tax breaks expire.
And to qualify for this tax break, each
[1:54:53] data center has to invest 250 million
and create only 30 jobs above the
[1:55:01] minimum
um local 150% of the local medium wage.
[1:55:09] Most of the jobs a hundred is estimated
in the end will only be uh will mostly
[1:55:16] be maintenance.
So
[1:55:20] why is this da d d d d d d d d d d d d d
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
[1:55:22] d d d d d d dic reszoning even being
considered? How does it benefit the
[1:55:27] community and its vision? do 10 build
buildings or maybe they adjusted it a
[1:55:35] little bit less 50 to 70 feet high five
to seven stories high benefit the
[1:55:42] community I've lived a long time and
seen what they what happened in Detroit
[1:55:49] to Poletown
Poletown was absolutely destroyed to
[1:55:55] build a factory there
was gone the surrounding ing communities
[1:56:00] negatively affected and now years later
there was a vacant factory last time I
[1:56:08] looked left to rot and ruin and no
people the whole community was
[1:56:15] destroyed. Do you want this community?
[1:56:21] » Thank you.
[1:56:30] Hi, my name is Susie Klepinger. I live
in Marian Township. I am 66 years old.
[1:56:38] For 50 years, I've lived in Livingston
County.
[1:56:42] I am struggling daily, daily as a
competent human being to understand what
[1:56:52] the possible benefits
could be to destroying water, using
[1:57:00] remarkable amounts of electricity, and
going against the wishes of all these
[1:57:06] people. I mean, I come from a family of
people that served uh the public good
[1:57:12] for many years. My mother was the
supervisor in a township in Livingston
[1:57:16] County, and they've always served.
I'll be very honest, if you choose to go
[1:57:24] through with this project, me and the
majority of the people here will never
[1:57:30] vote for you again.
>> That's right.
[1:57:33] While I appreciate
all the work you do, I understand the
[1:57:39] heart of a public servant. Honestly,
I've lived it. Please make the right
[1:57:44] choice.
>> Thank you.
[1:57:56] » Good evening. I'm Alan Roma Oaso Road
and um I had some things I wanted to ask
[1:58:01] you guys and and and you know one of
them was uh these uh non-disclosure
[1:58:06] agreements. I was thinking it was a
terrible rumor and um I'm I'm
[1:58:11] disappointed that it's not um
disappointed. Um another thing I about
[1:58:17] transparency, you know, and I've heard
rumors about that. I'm trying to give
[1:58:23] you guys the benefit of a doubt, but
guess what? you keep on feeding me
[1:58:27] doubts. Now I'm at the point of all
these actions signal these are signs of
[1:58:33] unethical behavior and um please please
you know look into your hearts you know
[1:58:42] and don't vote for pollution don't don't
vote for money don't vote for conflicts
[1:58:49] of interest but stick to your guns and
and and do what needs to be done in a in
[1:58:56] in the right fashion here. you know,
you've got an opportunity to go ahead
[1:59:00] and create ordinances that could be a
model for the state of Michigan.
[1:59:06] Okay, consider consider that. You know,
I
[1:59:12] I don't know much here, you know, about
the only thing I figured out from the
[1:59:15] lawyer is that a moratorum is a timeout.
That's when you give THE KIDS IN SCHOOL,
[1:59:21] A TIMEOUT.
We're adults here. Let's start. Let's
[1:59:27] start acting the way that we need to and
do the right thing. You know, I'm 60
[1:59:32] years old. I don't rather 70 years old.
I wish I was. Uh I
[1:59:38] thinking young. I got 18 seconds about
the only thing I have to say is is I
[1:59:43] don't love being up here. We don't love
being up here. You don't love being up
[1:59:48] here. You know, the Van Gilders, I've
known them for years. Multi-billion
[1:59:53] dollar corporation.
you know,
[1:59:58] nothing else to say. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:00:10] » Good evening. My name is Alyssa Recker.
I live at 7171 Manor Lane. Um, so I'm on
[2:00:14] the Kohaka side. Um, but I'm within two
miles of the the proposed data center. I
[2:00:20] wrote a whole thing tonight about the
ordinances that we should be looking at
[2:00:24] during a moratorum. Um, I'll save that.
I I sent that in. But as we've been
[2:00:29] sitting here talking about the moratorum
and this potential project, you know,
[2:00:33] one thing that I think is important to
consider and that I would ask you all to
[2:00:36] consider is um looking at our
enforcement mechanisms because when we
[2:00:41] talk about zoning and ordinances for all
of us in here, right, the rules are the
[2:00:46] rules and you're going to find us when
we violate a condition of of zoning.
[2:00:51] Right.
>> Right. for for a company like Meta or
[2:00:55] whoever is behind behind this project, a
$1,000 fine is absolutely nothing,
[2:01:02] » right?
>> So, I would ask you to consider as you
[2:01:04] are thinking about the moratorum, as
you're thinking about this project and
[2:01:08] the ordinance updates, I would ask you
to also consider what are we going to do
[2:01:12] about enforcement when we're dealing
with a trillion dollar company instead
[2:01:16] of an average neighbor. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:01:31] didn't get a minute. Oh,
>> my name is Debbie Manisto. I live at
[2:01:36] 2330 Tuli Road in Howell Township. Um,
kind of wrote some notes down so that I
[2:01:43] don't flounder.
I'm not here with specific data. I'm
[2:01:48] here speaking from my heart. Um, I want
to know what we're doing to the next
[2:01:53] generation. I right now don't have
grandkids. I hope to have them one day
[2:01:58] and I want to leave them a good
environment.
[2:02:02] I've lived in Livingston County since I
was little. Lived in Howell for 30
[2:02:07] years. It's a beautiful community.
I think for what what bothers me the
[2:02:14] most is it seems like it's all about
money. That's only going to enrich a few
[2:02:19] people. Right?
>> You look at this big crowd of people
[2:02:22] here that we have worked hard all of our
lives to do the American dream to own
[2:02:28] our own home and this could all
disappear.
[2:02:34] I just pray that you guys do the right
thing and make the right decision for we
[2:02:41] the people in all of this wonderful
community that we live in. Thank you.
[2:02:46] » Thank you.
[2:02:58] My name is Jody Fulton. I live 1.5 miles
from the proposed site. This project
[2:03:03] does not fit under data processing in
RT. I spoke I spoke about that last
[2:03:08] night. Permitting it would twist the
allowable use for this project and risks
[2:03:14] legal ramification.
There is an onslaught of new industry
[2:03:19] knocking at the door and we are woefully
illprepared.
[2:03:26] But they are not here in our small towns
by coincidence.
[2:03:30] We are being sought out for many
reasons. Our lack of experience
[2:03:35] negotiating with trillion dollar
companies being one of them.
[2:03:40] We need time to level the playing field.
We need impact studies. We needed in e
[2:03:47] economic analysis. We need laws on the
books. We might be illprepared,
[2:03:54] but we are not ignorant.
[2:03:59] So, here is your chance. Vote down this
project. Work with us, not against us.
[2:04:06] And let's get to work.
[2:04:19] Good evening. David Foreman, 6126
Feeasant Ridge Drive. I live in
[2:04:23] Fowlerville, but um north on AASO and it
seems that this data center is probably
[2:04:28] closer to Fowlerville than many parts of
Howell. So, appreciate the say here. Um
[2:04:35] couple of interesting things is that we
again live three miles. It's going to be
[2:04:41] about$ two billion dollars to build a
data center for a largesiz data center
[2:04:47] which is or maybe a bit larger. In the
third quarter of 2025 ending September
[2:04:52] 30th 2025 Amazon Web Services generated
an operating profit of 11.4 billion for
[2:05:00] the full year 2025. Analysts project
that that will be 48 um.9 billion. U
[2:05:08] meta which I believe is what's coming in
here. Quarter 1 2025 was 16.6 billion.
[2:05:14] Quarter 2 was 2025 was 18.3 billion and
Q3 was 18.6 billion. And there's some
[2:05:22] other tax things that bring that down,
but that's what it should be. What's
[2:05:25] interesting, Governor Whitmer um chief
is providing tax exemptions. Governor
[2:05:30] Whitmer signed legislation that uh
provides the sales and use tax
[2:05:35] exemptions for these data centers. And
so it's very interesting that we will
[2:05:40] end up paying for it. What I would like
to understand here because we're all
[2:05:44] talking about the data center um asking
you not to put it in, but what if it
[2:05:50] does, we have a governor who is pushing
it. Um if it does go in, then what
[2:05:57] really does happen to us? What are you
doing then to protect our values if our
[2:06:03] home value does go down and you have a
48 billion dollar profitable
[2:06:08] organization right next door? What are
you doing to fight for some rights for
[2:06:15] us if this does happen? So, we spent a
20 years just to get to the point where
[2:06:23] we could actually start to build our
dream. And now we're really concerned
[2:06:27] about going away. So what will you do if
it does happen? How are you going to
[2:06:32] protect everybody in it? Especially a
half a mile away. If nobody cares, you
[2:06:37] have no recourse. So
there's
[2:06:41] » Thank you.
[2:06:50] » Hi, my name is Ryan Fasel, 5200 autoen
court or drive. Uh, I live approximately
[2:06:56] half a mile away from this data center.
My wife and I moved to the area because
[2:07:00] we thought it was the perfect rural area
and now I hear that water pollution,
[2:07:07] noise pollution. I want to raise a
family here and now I really don't want
[2:07:11] to. I don't want to be a part of a
community that's going to allow a data
[2:07:14] center in here. Why? For what reason are
we having a data center here? It
[2:07:20] produces no
support to this community. It makes
[2:07:24] people want to leave
>> a perfectly good community. People don't
[2:07:28] want to be near a data center. You're
losing citizens. I've had neighbors
[2:07:33] already selling their houses because of
this and they've been on sale for a
[2:07:37] while.
Nobody wants to come to a community
[2:07:40] where they're going to have to fight
with water pollution and noise
[2:07:44] pollution. I have methane gas in my well
and I have to possibly redig a well and
[2:07:48] then I hear that they could dry out my
new well. Who pays for that? Me.
[2:07:53] they don't pay for it.
>> That's not fair. So, I would really I
[2:07:59] want you guys to just not reszone it at
all. I think that's the right thing to
[2:08:02] do for this community. Keep your
citizens in mind. Keep them here. Keep
[2:08:07] them here. Bring more people in. Leave
it as an agricultural area. That's all I
[2:08:12] got to say.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
[2:08:22] » Hi, my name is Kimberly Wan and I don't
want to be here and probably most of
[2:08:27] these people don't. I didn't want to
have to learn about this. I didn't want
[2:08:31] to have to study it and figure things
out. I still don't understand it all.
[2:08:37] But we trust you guys to make the right
decision for this community and say no
[2:08:42] now and in the future to this data
center and reszoning. And if you don't,
[2:08:48] the joke might be on you. And here's
why.
[2:08:52] Up these data centers have been studied.
550
[2:08:58] data centers were studied by the by a
university in California. They found
[2:09:03] that these data centers may cause u by
2030 20 billion annually in additional
[2:09:10] health fees.
These um diesel generators that they're
[2:09:15] going to use as backup emit uh nitrogen
dioxide diesel particullet above the
[2:09:22] state levels and above areas around
there and they can be found up to two
[2:09:26] states away. So this can cause
respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular
[2:09:32] stress, incre increased hospitalizations
and the degradation of quality of life.
[2:09:37] So those might be things that the joke
might be on you and your family and your
[2:09:42] grandkids and your kids just like
they'll be on ours. So we're trusting
[2:09:46] you to make the right decision and say
no as you must you must consider under
[2:09:52] our health, safety, and welfare mandate
for Howell Township. Thank you. Thank
[2:09:57] you.
[2:10:10] Hello, my name is Dave O.
Data center. It is what it says.
[2:10:17] It's to collect our data, to monitor our
lives, and ultimately control us. In the
[2:10:22] end, it's wanted to track everything we
do and every convenience they sell us
[2:10:27] for more control. It's wanted to track
our money, to take it from our hands. We
[2:10:32] won't be able to move a penny to have a
garage sale without being tracked or
[2:10:37] taxed or lock us out of our digital of
our digital currency. They are trying to
[2:10:42] force us force on us using these
centers. It's wanted. It's wanted to
[2:10:48] monitor everything we look at online and
everything we say online. It's to
[2:10:54] shadowban us, to cancel our voices
if they so choose and don't like what we
[2:10:59] have to say.
We won't have the choice in the future
[2:11:04] to stop the monitoring and control of
our lives if we don't stop it now.
[2:11:10] » Thank you.
[2:11:18] Facebook shut me down today. My account
>> didn't like I'm waiting for the time.
[2:11:25] » Sorry.
>> No problem. Jess Mace 1220 Weatherstone
[2:11:28] Lane Howell.
>> Howell is speaking to you.
[2:11:33] You cannot deny that the collective
voices of the people are speaking to you
[2:11:37] when the Republicans and the Democrats
alike are here working together facing
[2:11:41] this bipartisan bipartisan challenge in
the community together.
[2:11:50] » When both sides are saying no, I think
you have your answer.
[2:11:56] Michiganers have been vocal across the
state louder this week than ever that
[2:12:01] they do not want data centers in the
rural communities where Michigan's
[2:12:05] resources are most prevalent and most
protected. KCASa raised their collective
[2:12:10] voices in one this week and Sale is
continuing to yell as loudly as they
[2:12:14] can.
Listen to your residents. We voted for
[2:12:19] you and we expect you to hear our voices
and represent us as you promised to. We
[2:12:25] are begging you to do what is right for
Howell, for Michigan, and to say no to
[2:12:30] this data center so that our community
can get to work in protecting itself
[2:12:34] from future predatory behavior from big
tech companies.
[2:12:40] » Let's make sure that they know that
Howell's beautiful resources are not up
[2:12:44] for grabs.
Thank you.
[2:12:57] » Hi, my name is Jake Ivan. I live at 4300
Fleming Road, right on the Devil's
[2:13:03] Doorstep of this uh project. I couldn't
get any closer really, unless I was part
[2:13:09] of the family. I'm I'm concerned for my
health and safety. Um, with this project
[2:13:16] going in across the street, there's been
this whole thing has been rushed. Me and
[2:13:22] my neighbors have had very little info.
Um, it's very concerning the way this
[2:13:27] has all been gone about. And um, I moved
out here for peace and quiet. I moved
[2:13:34] out here with my high school sweetheart
and uh just before the lockdown and I
[2:13:39] love this community. It's uh it's been a
great place to live and I couldn't
[2:13:43] imagine something like this going in in
uh one of our farms and I I realize the
[2:13:50] family it's their land to do what they
want but um there has been no
[2:13:56] transparency in this deal and all the
dishonesty among uh everyone involved
[2:14:02] has been uh unacceptable
and there's uh there's just nothing in
[2:14:09] uh in place to protect me and my
neighbors like like this man here um
[2:14:15] from the pollution. They say they're
going to build a burm, plant some trees,
[2:14:20] but what about everything else that
comes with this place? This
[2:14:24] corporation's got the money to do what
they want and they will steamroll us. My
[2:14:29] property value will be nothing. I'm I'm
completely downwind from this thing
[2:14:35] right across the street. They want to
put this power station about
[2:14:40] 30 feet outside my property line. It
seems like I mean I'll be sleeping with
[2:14:45] the servers technically if uh if you
guys let this go through and it will
[2:14:50] just it will deem my property pretty
much unlivable, unsellable. So please do
[2:14:57] the right thing and vote no on the
reasonzoning.
[2:15:00] » Thank you.
[2:15:12] Good evening. My name is Richard Allen
and I actually live in Chiwasi County,
[2:15:16] but a road does not divide us. I am your
neighbor.
[2:15:21] » I have I have seen the runup to this
before. About six years ago, uh, Ranger
[2:15:27] Power, uh, introduced themselves to the
county officials in our county and they
[2:15:32] told them all the benefits that they
were going to bring when they built the
[2:15:35] assembly solar site, which I which I
must say uh, incidentally uh, the same
[2:15:40] family that is pushing the data center
here is uh, the first ones to sign a
[2:15:45] lease in Chias County of over 500 acres.
And uh so we have that in uh common. And
[2:15:53] also um all the promises that are made
and uh in the runup, none of it came to
[2:16:00] fruition. People's, you know, we talk
about nobody's talked about flooding
[2:16:04] here. When you take when you do an
undertaking of this sort, you're going
[2:16:07] to have flooding all over the place. We
had propane tanks flooding up there,
[2:16:11] floating after after a good rain because
of the uh the the way they move the top
[2:16:16] soil around. And uh there's a lot to be
discovered as as uh a few people before
[2:16:22] me said we need more information on
this. But I think it's ironic that we
[2:16:26] have to um this is f this reminds me of
Watergate. It's not it's not the
[2:16:31] original sin. It's the cover up. Every
day you have to go on Facebook
[2:16:35] ironically and you have to get the news
of what's happening here from Mark
[2:16:38] Zuckerberg who's trying to destroy this
community. If that that doesn't make you
[2:16:43] crazy, I don't know what what will.
[2:16:48] You know,
[2:16:52] you know, I have been at many county uh
many meetings in Livingston County
[2:16:56] because uh I fight against industrial
solar. I've done that for about four
[2:17:00] years now and I recognize the tactics of
developers and they all maintain the
[2:17:05] same uh status quo with that. that come
in here, they think you're gullible.
[2:17:08] They think they I can't I'm disappointed
that you s uh the majority of you sounds
[2:17:13] like signed NDAs with what happened in
Green Charter Township uh with the Gian
[2:17:19] Fiasco and um in Mundy Township much
closer. Those people that signed NDAs
[2:17:24] are not on not on the township board
anymore and because they were recalled.
[2:17:31] » Thank you.
[2:17:38] Thank you.
[2:17:52] » Hi, my name is Maggie Tennant. I live on
2578 Mar Road. And when we first heard
[2:17:58] about this, I really just thought, what
is the purpose of zoning if it doesn't
[2:18:02] protect us from this,
>> right? What is the purpose of this
[2:18:06] committee if you don't protect us from
this? Literally, I this just blows my
[2:18:11] mind.
It doesn't matter if we reszone it to RT
[2:18:16] or industrial. We don't want either.
This those types of facilities belong in
[2:18:22] facilities like the lawyer said that are
properly zoned for that. This area is
[2:18:27] not for a reason. We don't want it.
We're not made for it.
[2:18:32] Also, the attorney said over and over
again, "The legislative decision is in
[2:18:37] your control." He said it over and over
again, "You already have the power to
[2:18:41] stop this, so stop it.
[2:18:49] This is very likely the most important
and impactful decision of your career.
[2:18:54] We voted for you. Now you vote for us."
>> Thank you.
[2:19:08] Good evening, commissioners and fellow
Howell ites.
[2:19:13] Uh my name is Mark Freud, 3550 Byron
Road, Howell Township.
[2:19:19] Uh 16 years ago, my wife and I moved
from Leavonia out here, bought this
[2:19:25] foreclosed house that was stripped on 10
acres, and we'd come out here and work
[2:19:30] on it one night a week and and on the
weekends. And we would sit on our front
[2:19:35] porch and gaze upon our property and my
wife and I would say, "I can't believe I
[2:19:41] live in such a beautiful place."
And our community is changing and you
[2:19:47] know change is inevitable but we need to
we need growth in in a in a wise a wise
[2:19:56] way. I mean this this is you know um let
me sidetrack a little bit. Couple years
[2:20:03] after I moved here, I knew of got to
know some people in Howell Township and
[2:20:09] I was uh nominated to be on the planning
commission and appointed by the board
[2:20:15] and I felt it an honor and I was very
proud to be part of someone representing
[2:20:22] my community. I wanted to give back to
my community, you know, be a part of it,
[2:20:27] try to be positive
and, you know, it it's a difficult task
[2:20:34] and it doesn't pay crap, but you know, I
felt like I was contributing and uh and
[2:20:41] I went and every decision I made, it
might not have been to my betterment,
[2:20:47] but I I made it and and I tried to
be as uh
[2:20:55] transparent, honest,
and
[2:21:00] for what was best for the community at
large. Not any particular person. And
[2:21:06] some of the decisions weren't in my best
interest, but they were in the best
[2:21:11] interest of our community.
Um,
[2:21:18] and I I also was part of drafting not
the current.
[2:21:29] » Give me a minute.
>> Um, I was part of drawing the master
[2:21:35] plan, not the one in that's in place
now, but I assume it's very similar to
[2:21:40] the one in place now. There is a reason
why that property we wanted
[2:21:46] agricultural. There's a reason why we
have an industrial there and and we have
[2:21:52] turned down plenty of other
proposals because they did not fit the
[2:21:58] master plan or the zoning. And
one more point,
[2:22:05] we don't we don't need a moratorum and
kick the can down the road. you can vote
[2:22:11] on it and I trust that you would like to
vote in the best interests of your
[2:22:17] community as I always try to do. Thank
you.
[2:22:21] » Thank you.
[2:22:35] Hi, good evening. My name is Marty
Kubak. Aaso Road about 2500 feet from
[2:22:41] the the site.
I'm not in opposition to progress, but
[2:22:48] defending something more vital, our
land, community, and our future. Once
[2:22:53] you pave farmland, you can't get it
back,
[2:22:56] » right?
>> There's nothing left of it. Data
[2:22:59] centers. We've already talked about
enormous drain on water. Yesterday, a
[2:23:04] rep for the company, whoever that is,
probably China company, because they're
[2:23:09] too ashamed to represent and know who
they are, but made a commitment that he
[2:23:15] would cover our wells if there was a
damage to the wells. Well, that's a
[2:23:19] little too late. That's kind of closing
the gate after the horses take off. I
[2:23:23] believe that should you do something
like this, and but I appreciate you guys
[2:23:27] staring at me, too. That's awesome for
the attention. But
[2:23:32] I think you should if you go forward to
make sure that there's some sort of a
[2:23:36] bond, some sort of insurance. There is
somebody that already said you don't
[2:23:40] have the power to stop a big company if
they're not going to do what they say
[2:23:44] they're going to do. So some sort of a
$10 billion bond that would give
[2:23:50] insurance for us, not so much to protect
our wells, but have to buy 5,000 homes
[2:23:56] at a half a million dollars each.
[2:24:04] And then to protect them, they should
also invest in inspecting every single
[2:24:09] well in Livingston County ahead of time
so that that we don't have to argue
[2:24:13] whether their system contaminated our
well or destroyed our well.
[2:24:23] He also mentioned engineers might be
able to come up with dry water cooling.
[2:24:28] I work for a largest truck manufacturer
in the world and we have engineers and
[2:24:33] we have warranty because of engineers
[2:24:38] and thanks for offering a burm around
400 ft. Um, sorry we're in a farming
[2:24:44] community that's lipstick on a pig. It's
still a pig. Thank you.
[2:24:48] » Thank you.
[2:24:58] Hi, my name is Andrew Kimell and I live
on 1039 East Avis Road just south of
[2:25:03] Howell. I absolutely despise AI but want
to focus on the resoning. We moved out
[2:25:08] to the area 5 years ago because of the
rural community and the serenity found
[2:25:12] here. I strongly oppose resoning to
industrial. I'm not the only one that
[2:25:17] feels this way. A neighboring township,
Marian Township, Justice South,
[2:25:20] published survey questions in its master
plan that all point to rural local rural
[2:25:25] residents generally oppose such
industrial development in their
[2:25:29] neighborhoods. The township, this
township and Marian Township are very
[2:25:32] similar with rolling farmland, quaint
houses, and acres of undeveloped
[2:25:36] woodlands. Of the 605 total responses to
the survey, 75% of the citizens
[2:25:42] responded that open space is why they
chose to live in the area. 94% of the
[2:25:47] responses also say that rural character
is what they like about living in the
[2:25:50] area. Closing off a large portion of the
township to a commercial industrial
[2:25:54] complex and rerouting Grand River would
eliminate that rural character. On a
[2:25:59] scale of not important to very
important, 55.5% of the people responded
[2:26:04] that new industrial development is not
important. Over half oppose new industry
[2:26:09] and that's with the assumption that
industry brings good paying jobs. This
[2:26:13] does not. Other survey categories
include that non-resident residential
[2:26:18] development would what nonresidential
development would be preferred. The
[2:26:23] least selected option was heavy industry
at only 1%.
[2:26:27] And light industrial at nine. Um with
most prefer small shops and or nothing
[2:26:33] whatsoever. In summary, rural neighbor
neighborhoods prefer to keep it small
[2:26:38] and keep it to the necessities, not a
nearly 1,200 acre industrial complex in
[2:26:42] the middle of our farmlands.
Please do not allow for the reszoning of
[2:26:46] the beautiful farmland into commercial
or industrial. It would significantly
[2:26:50] hurt the housing prices as no one wants
to live near a 24-hour complex like
[2:26:55] that. It would destroy the charming
character of the area. The local
[2:26:58] citizens live out here to get away from
the commercial indust industrial
[2:27:02] commotion of Metro Detroit. Please do
not bring that here and drive everyone
[2:27:06] away. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:27:16] Good evening. Salam Fati 206 West Auburn
Trail also representing my parents who
[2:27:21] moved here to retire and live on Lake
Chung. Mike votes council for the
[2:27:25] applicant provided verbal guarantees
that any damage to local wells and
[2:27:29] aquifers would be covered by the data
center. That in and of itself shows that
[2:27:34] they know they will damage residential
water. They know they will damage our
[2:27:39] community. Guarantees from mega
corporations mean nothing and they won't
[2:27:43] be honored when their mega law teams
bankrupt How. Protect our residents and
[2:27:48] surrounding neighborhoods. Don't allow
this data center.
[2:27:52] » Thank you.
[2:28:03] » Good evening everyone. My name is Don
Donald Atkins. I live at 2660 Bowen Road
[2:28:10] about three and a half miles from the
proposed data center. I'm not going to
[2:28:16] speak on water, power, taxes, or
property rights. Those points have
[2:28:21] already been made and debated endlessly.
I would like to add new discourses to
[2:28:27] the conversation. It poses as a simple
question, how much is too much? It gets
[2:28:34] more complicated the more you unravel
it. But I am not convinced that
[2:28:38] persistent advances in convenience are a
net positive for humans. I think it is
[2:28:44] pure indulgence. The kind of which that
makes you fat and the kind of which that
[2:28:48] makes you stupid and dull.
[2:28:53] We've lost any notion of moderation in
our culture as being square or
[2:28:58] backwards. It's been used as a porative
term for those who wish to p practice
[2:29:02] temperance.
Once an admiral trait, but largely
[2:29:06] ignored today. And the future is not
looking good. Uh I need everyone over
[2:29:11] the age of 50 to understand that you
will not inherit the future. This is a
[2:29:16] normal part of life.
Your kids and grandkids will.
[2:29:22] And if anything about this data center
makes you feel makes your stomach feel
[2:29:25] ill, please fight for them.
For it is the youth who will suffer the
[2:29:32] consequences and you must fight. And I
do mean fight. And I don't I don't
[2:29:38] honestly believe that my words are going
to convince anybody in a part of meta or
[2:29:45] anything like that.
[2:29:50] » You got us convinced. Thank you. I
appreciate it.
[2:29:53] » Thank you. Have a good one.
[2:30:04] My name is Sandy Busard. I live at 3011
Fiser Road in Howell, Michigan. I never
[2:30:11] intended on speaking at any of these
type of things. I'm not a public
[2:30:16] speaker. I don't have anything prepared,
but I'm just felt the I had to speak up
[2:30:23] for all of us here and tell you
deny this data center. It's not what we
[2:30:32] want as a community.
I don't know how you guys would be able
[2:30:38] to look in the mirror yourselves if you
>> if you vote this and don't vote this
[2:30:46] down. Um
again I I don't have anything prepared
[2:30:52] but really it the kids from Fville it's
going to impact them and how they're
[2:31:00] learning and just the water consumption.
Everything I've heard at any of these
[2:31:05] meetings has just turned my stomach. And
I've lived here all of my life. And so
[2:31:13] many of these other people have or have
moved here because they want the rural
[2:31:19] community and that master plan to
continue. I have a niece, Tiffany
[2:31:26] Bessert, who is expecting a ch another
child. And I don't want those
[2:31:33] great nieces and nephews to grow up with
this kind of um effect on their health
[2:31:40] and and well-being. Please, I implore
you for everybody here
[2:31:48] vote. Do not
re deny this reszoning for the
[2:31:56] corporation who is trans who will not
disclose their name.
[2:32:04] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:32:17] » Who's next?
Thank you.
[2:32:23] » Paul Murphy, I live off a huge road in
How I want to touch base on some of
[2:32:28] issues I brought up yesterday, which
blatantly is the fire department. If
[2:32:34] there's a fire here, our fire
department's not ready for it.
[2:32:39] We have pumpers. We have volunteers.
Who's doing the training? Who's going to
[2:32:44] be preparing for it? These fires happen
on a regular basis. I've been studying
[2:32:49] and looking for up for information on
this all day and I cannot find where
[2:32:53] there is any place safety in place. Um,
let's be realistic with DTE here. We
[2:33:02] don't even have to have the wind blow
and our DTE our energy is gone.
[2:33:08] That causes a surge.
How can we rely on DTE to make sure we
[2:33:14] have power if they're going to make sure
they have power first?
[2:33:18] Are we going to have more blackouts
around here? Who's going to be first?
[2:33:23] Who's going to get repaired first? What
if there is a fire there? It only takes
[2:33:27] one spark, one piece of dust, a
lightning strike, temperature sensors,
[2:33:33] uh, humidity monitors, airflow
detectors,
[2:33:37] blackmail, cyber security, anything can
happen where they
[2:33:44] malfunction and there's a fire, who's
going to take care of it? Who's going to
[2:33:49] be how are is our fire department
prepared for something like this? Like I
[2:33:55] mentioned yesterday when Eevee cars out
became a big thing
[2:34:01] uh Brighton town Brighton's fire chief
had big article about the fact that they
[2:34:08] were not prepared for even car fires let
alone data centers
[2:34:14] um environment
where the studies that they actually
[2:34:19] have that are real the ones I found
kind of go back and forth kind of like
[2:34:24] CBD CDC with everything else. I want to
see some actual studies that there's no
[2:34:30] environmental risk because everything
that I have actually read is the fact
[2:34:34] that there the air and land is
contaminates
[2:34:38] um with fine fine miracles that will
cause
[2:34:43] respiratory distress. The IVA
[2:34:54] your mic's off. So,
>> thank you.
[2:35:09] » Good evening. My name is Maggie Tons and
I live at 1405 Shire Court about maybe
[2:35:15] two and a half miles from the data
center. I'm not going to go through the
[2:35:18] water and the electricity because you
all know that and you've heard it from
[2:35:21] people. I do have a question though. Is
there a difference between a data center
[2:35:27] and hypers scale data center and okay I
don't know that that was clarified. Um
[2:35:33] some back info and I do watch too much
news and I go through cable all the
[2:35:37] stations and I watch a lot of podcasts.
our current administration, which I
[2:35:43] watched this week during a state dinner
and is pushing for these data centers
[2:35:49] because they want to beat China in the
AI race. That has been said over and
[2:35:54] over. Um, you can look it up yourself.
Um, I also saw Mark Zuckerberg, I read
[2:36:01] an article by him, has committed $600
billion
[2:36:05] to data centers. That's a lot of money.
I also watched Elon Musk this week.
[2:36:13] Okay. He said that once AI comes in,
there won't be any reason for people to
[2:36:20] work. He said this, "We can stay home
and play games." That's kind of
[2:36:24] frightening. You know, these data
centers are not creating jobs, people,
[2:36:29] for our kids. I don't have a grandchild
or anything. Um, you know, I don't have
[2:36:33] any skin in the game or anything. Um,
it's not creating jobs. It's not. And I
[2:36:38] think you people know that. Um I've also
read that like they're talking about oh
[2:36:44] human resources, maintenance, um
security. Those jobs will probably be
[2:36:49] contracted out. Okay. I don't have much
time. Um let's see here. Oh, the company
[2:36:56] is already getting Oh, the company in
Seline is already asked for 50% tax
[2:37:01] break. Um there was a town hall on
Monday. I don't know what that was all
[2:37:05] about. Uh, let's see here.
Okay. Oh, I watched I'm sorry. I need
[2:37:12] another time. Rick and Ryan Van Gilder
did an interview with um WHMI couple
[2:37:17] about a week ago. Um, I was surprised
that Ryan didn't even know what Eagle
[2:37:23] stood for.
Okay. Which um the interviewer Googled
[2:37:29] it during a break. It is
[2:37:34] » okay. Time
What
[2:37:36] » time?
>> I really want
[2:37:39] » I want to say one more thing, please.
>> Okay, one more thing real quick.
[2:37:42] » Okay. Um I don't All right. Thank you
everyone here. We are so indebted to
[2:37:48] Corey Elchin. He has done hours and
hours and hours of work. Thank you,
[2:37:54] Corey. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:38:04] » Good evening. I'm Christa Miner. I live
on Mar Road in Howell Township. I don't
[2:38:09] need two minutes. I just have a quick
statement I wanted to make. It's a
[2:38:12] question I've been asking myself in
these meetings that I've attended. I
[2:38:16] know you can't answer. 10 years ago, we
there wasn't a big talk about data
[2:38:20] centers and the need for these types of
buildings. The technology is changing
[2:38:24] quickly. Obviously, where is this
building going to be in 10 years when
[2:38:29] what they put in there is obsolete?
We're going to be stuck with a huge
[2:38:34] shell and no partner.
>> That's all. Thank you.
[2:38:37] » Thank you.
[2:38:46] » Good evening. Nathan Warzaka 8574
Shyawasi River Fowlerville. Um count
[2:38:51] following up on her point. I've read a
lot of reports that AI is the next
[2:38:56] bubble is the dot bubble is the housing
bubble. Um we have a mountain red seedar
[2:39:01] crossing uh subdivision. We have an
example of this. We have in the front of
[2:39:05] our sub is a handy water handy township
water plant. It's built to h handle a
[2:39:11] thousand houses. Uh our sub has about
400. The plan was for all of Van Beern
[2:39:18] to be subdivisions and for this water
treatment plant to service the whole
[2:39:21] area and no one pays a lot because it
gets spread out. Our sub was built in
[2:39:25] 2006. 2007208
the housing market crashed. No more
[2:39:30] houses were built. Now Handy Township
says, "Well, you guys got to pay for
[2:39:34] this whole treatment plant. We're not
going to build more houses. It's just
[2:39:38] it's going to cost you more." And we've
been fighting them to get this changed.
[2:39:42] So because of mix of corporation and
government actions during that time, our
[2:39:48] subdivision has this huge plant that we
don't need that's now our burden to pay
[2:39:52] for because of the housing bubble and
how that affected everything. So my
[2:39:57] concern is that this is like the last
person said, this is the next bubble in
[2:40:02] 10 years. What's this going to be? Is AI
the next fad? Are we going to have an
[2:40:05] obsolete center? um with the last 30
seconds. Also, if you look at the area
[2:40:11] in Virginia that's now the data center
capital of America, uh none of the
[2:40:15] multi-million dollar houses around there
wanted data centers. They plunked one
[2:40:19] down. When one came in, they said,
"We'll just build more.
[2:40:23] » We'll build another one here and we'll
now they have 20 or 30 data centers
[2:40:27] right next to these expensive houses.
They're much more than how and no one
[2:40:31] you go interview people there, they say
it's horrible. It's noisy. No one wants
[2:40:35] this." And they're building even more
down there. I'm afraid once you open the
[2:40:40] door for one of these, it's just going
to skyrocket to get Meta in there, to
[2:40:43] get Google in there, to get Amazon,
whoever wants to build next to it, and
[2:40:47] just expand it. So, vote no.
>> Thank you.
[2:41:00] » Hello. Uh, Steve Smith, Conway Township.
Like many here, I was infuriated to
[2:41:06] learn that certain members of this board
signed a non-disclosure agreement in
[2:41:12] knew from April about this. This not
only affects Howell Township, it affects
[2:41:17] everyone else in our community.
Um, however,
[2:41:24] I'm going to give the board an out
tonight.
[2:41:28] People have called for your resignation.
for the people who signed the the NDAs.
[2:41:34] I think that's appropriate. However,
[2:41:41] however, I would accept an apology.
>> Oh, no.
[2:41:45] » And I and and
I had a long career in business and I
[2:41:51] made a lot of mistakes. And I tell you,
the best apology you can make is I
[2:41:55] screwed up.
Somehow I don't see certain of you doing
[2:42:01] that.
Um, now in Conway Township in Kahaka,
[2:42:07] we've been fighting Ranger Power Solar
for about three years. This is also the
[2:42:13] Van Gilder family. There's been
you could learn a lot from what we've
[2:42:20] been through
and I can talk about that more at
[2:42:24] another meeting. I'm going to close. I
ran across a poem by William Ernest
[2:42:30] Henley. I I'll say the last two lines. I
am the master of my faith. I am the
[2:42:36] captain of my soul. He was a very sick
man when he wrote that. Now, do you want
[2:42:41] our faith and our soul to be these damn
data centers?
[2:42:45] » I doubt. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:42:59] Hello, my name is Maya. I live on
Amberwood Trail right behind the
[2:43:03] township hall. I'm 25 years old. I would
love to have a family in this small
[2:43:08] town. Um, pretty much everybody here
does not want this. I would hope that we
[2:43:13] would not have this. My parents worked
really hard to have their home here and
[2:43:19] we love our property. We love our
surrounding properties. We love our
[2:43:22] community. If we can't um we just don't
want a data center. If we're going to
[2:43:27] keep it as anything else, I will donate
the first five goats if we keep it as a
[2:43:33] farm. I'll donate the first five goats.
I'm just saying I will do that. I have
[2:43:39] purebred Nubian goats. I will donate
them to this farm if we can keep it a
[2:43:43] farm. I love Howell. Everybody here
loves Howell. for I mean this is people
[2:43:48] come here to live out the rest of their
days and I would love to be an old lady
[2:43:51] here. I've lived here for 15 years. The
last time I was here in this auditorium
[2:43:58] I was in Miss Micah's choir class and we
sang O Danny Boy on this stage and now
[2:44:03] I'm here trying to use my voice to not
have a status center. So I just want to
[2:44:08] thank everybody here for coming and this
country is amazing. Okay? Because
[2:44:14] nowhere in the world can people come
here and rally and do this amazing
[2:44:19] stuff. Come here in front of you guys.
This is the only country that has that.
[2:44:27] So hopefully you guys can hear us. We
love our town. That's pretty much all
[2:44:32] that I have to say. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you.
[2:44:42] My name is Christa Smith, um 2024 Oak
Grove. Uh my family has lived in
[2:44:46] Livingston County for over a decade and
we currently reside in Howell Township.
[2:44:50] I'm speaking on behalf of my pre-teen
children who could not be here tonight,
[2:44:54] but who are also opposed to the resoning
from agriculture due to their concerns
[2:44:59] about the negative impacts on the
environment. They've spent years
[2:45:01] visiting Howell Nature Center learning
about conservation and preservation and
[2:45:05] they are baffled at how our local
leaders could continue to allow for
[2:45:08] habitat destruction in our community. My
husband is home with our kids tonight
[2:45:12] and he works in it and he also has
serious concerns about a data center
[2:45:16] being in this allowed in this community.
Along with my family, I oppose the
[2:45:20] resoning. Please listen to all of us
here when we say we don't want this
[2:45:24] here. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:45:33] Hi, my name is Joy Dling. I'm at 2516
Kurtie Road and I'm sorry for you. This
[2:45:41] would be so hard to be sitting up in
your seats. I would be peeing my pants
[2:45:45] right now, especially if I signed an
NDA. And because it is so clear what the
[2:45:52] people want, we're here. It's obvious. I
think it's obvious to all of you. It's
[2:45:58] obvious to all of us that we're the
communities together on this issue and
[2:46:04] what I see here. I've been so impressed
by this community around this issue. the
[2:46:09] way I've seen community members standing
up uh doing research hours and hours. I
[2:46:15] can't even imagine the amount of
research some of our community members
[2:46:18] are doing, how intelligent I've seen our
community members, how much they care,
[2:46:23] how passionate they are, and what I see
are wheels in motion. The community does
[2:46:28] not want this. We will do whatever we
need to do to keep this out. I hope that
[2:46:34] you are with us and that you will help
us with that. I'm sure that if you get
[2:46:39] in our way that we will do whatever we
can to keep this out of here because we
[2:46:45] are united. Please make the right
choice. Make the moral choice. I trust
[2:46:51] that you know what the moral choice is
and it is for you to be a conduit for
[2:46:59] the wishes of the people. Please stand
with us. Thank you.
[2:47:03] » Thank you.
[2:47:14] I had a couple comments. Um, I was at
the Clearly Clearary meeting.
[2:47:19] » Name and address, please.
>> Uh, John G,
[2:47:22] Putnham Township. I was at the Clearary
meeting, Cleary College, and I was
[2:47:27] talking to the engineer that was working
for the contractor and the closed loop
[2:47:33] system for the water consumption,
they're going to do that. But when it's
[2:47:38] when there's warmer temperatures,
they're going to incorporate swamp
[2:47:42] coolers. Anyone familiar with what those
are?
[2:47:46] » They use a tremendous and this is from
the engineer. I'm not making this up.
[2:47:50] You can you can talk to them. um they
use a tremendous amount of water and
[2:47:55] that water probably has to be
conditioned. You can't just take raw
[2:47:58] well water out of the ground because
there's too many deposits in it. It's
[2:48:03] not pure. So, I'm sure they're going to
put some type of chemicals in that water
[2:48:08] and it's going to part of it evaporates
and the other part's going to be
[2:48:12] discharged and I don't know where
they're going to put that,
[2:48:15] » you know. Well, that's the thing. I
mean, these companies are like, these
[2:48:19] large corporations are are like
vampires. They come and they suck all
[2:48:23] the resources and then when they're
done, they just leave. You can't do
[2:48:28] nothing to them. So they and it's proven
Flint, Pontiac, and Detroit. And
[2:48:34] Detroit, the only reason that's still
breathing, the simple fact is the
[2:48:38] government, the state, and the federal
government giving them billions and
[2:48:42] zillions of dollars to stay alive. But
you go past that one little area, it's
[2:48:47] dead. So, this is what these companies
do. And it's just an a terrible thing.
[2:48:54] And I don't mean to give anyone a hard
time here, but I was at the AASCO u um
[2:49:01] solar thing. DT was there and here last
night. And the representatives these
[2:49:06] companies they can they'll sit up here
for 15 20 minutes telling their spiel
[2:49:10] and then they tell us well you got 3
minutes you know and you know last night
[2:49:16] we were here and the fellow was here for
15 minutes and you know you're telling
[2:49:20] people you're cutting them off two
minutes you know and I understand there
[2:49:23] may be a time thing but you know there
is a first amendment you know we do have
[2:49:26] a right to adjust this government for
redress grievances and there's no time
[2:49:31] constraints in that and you should know
that you're an attorney
[2:49:35] That's the first amendment. That's what
gives us the right here to speak. And if
[2:49:41] you're not doing that, then there's a
real problem here. There's something
[2:49:45] wrong. You should you there's that
shouldn't be up there. There should be a
[2:49:49] picture of how or something.
>> Thank you.
[2:50:01] » Thank you. NBA step down.
[2:50:07] » Anyone else for call to the public?
>> Let's go.
[2:50:11] » Step down.
>> All right. I'll entertain a motion to
[2:50:16] move close the or we don't need a motion
to close the call to the public, but to
[2:50:20] move back to the data center moratorum
ordinance.
[2:50:27] » So moved. B support.
Motion by Bowl, second by counts. All
[2:50:33] those in favor?
>> I
[2:50:35] » opposed.
>> Okay. Discussion,
[2:50:40] thoughts,
>> Mr. Chair.
[2:50:44] » Yes.
>> This this
[2:50:47] addition to the moratorum was presented
to us. Chris, have you had a chance to
[2:50:51] look at that by chance?
>> Yes. So when I when I first brought the
[2:50:56] motion forward to have the discussion of
a moratorum,
[2:51:01] we we often we wondered what was going
to happen with the resoning request. We
[2:51:06] found out when we sat down here tonight.
Um
[2:51:10] so this this suggested revision does
include a moratorium on the resoning
[2:51:15] too. Is there anything improper or
illegal about that?
[2:51:20] » Uh there's nothing illegal. I think the
point I made earlier is that you already
[2:51:24] control the ability to sort of decide
what you want to do with that resoning.
[2:51:27] So you can take that action up on your
own. That's that's the point. But
[2:51:32] » so in layman's terms, this moratorum is
basically a commitment from this board
[2:51:37] not to do anything for 6 months.
Correct. Because they can come back
[2:51:41] because they can come back
>> and basically change it at any time or
[2:51:44] we can come back. Correct. As a board.
>> Correct.
[2:51:52] Okay. Got more. You good? You good?
>> Does anyone else have any questions?
[2:52:03] » Mr.
[2:52:12] » Okay. Come on. Can we have the meeting,
please? Let's
[2:52:15] » step down.
[2:52:18] So I would I would make a motion to
approve the moratorum with the amendment
[2:52:24] that it has the suggested revision that
we were given when it came up which does
[2:52:30] include the zoning also. If not I mean I
guess we're ready to vote at our next
[2:52:35] meeting if it comes back from the
county.
[2:52:41] So Chris, if there's
>> Can we please
[2:52:46] » we're not going to achieve anything if
we keep doing this? Thank you.
[2:52:53] » Chris, the cons is there any I mean the
question was is there any concern of
[2:52:57] adding this in?
>> It's the same piece I already indicated
[2:53:02] as the distinction between the
administrative and the legislative. But
[2:53:05] if if you want to wrap this in, as Mr.
Bull indicated, it's basically a policy
[2:53:09] statement that you're going to put it on
a six-month hold. You already have the
[2:53:12] legislative authority to approve it or
deny it in the same process separate
[2:53:16] from the moratorium anyway. So, you're
basically just making that decision as a
[2:53:19] part of this moratorum.
Be no different than two separate
[2:53:23] motions. If the board decided we'll pass
the moratorium and then just say
[2:53:26] separately, you're going to put the
reszoning and table it for 6 months.
[2:53:29] You're basically doing the same thing.
You're just doing it in one document.
[2:53:32] So,
>> please don't deny it. Deny it.
[2:53:37] » Okay. So,
>> thoughts, concerns?
[2:53:44] » I mean, my thought is that we're
treating it differently than every other
[2:53:48] application. Um, every every other
application we get goes through the
[2:53:52] three-step process.
[2:53:58] » Every other application goes through the
three-step process. goes to county goes
[2:54:02] to township planning, county planning,
township board. I don't know why we
[2:54:05] would treat this any differently. I
think we do need a moratorum. I think a
[2:54:08] moratorium is a smart move. I think
putting it in place so that no matter
[2:54:14] what happens,
uh land use cannot happen with a
[2:54:17] moratorum.
And I I think that is a a smart move to
[2:54:21] make for this board. I think there's a
lot going on with data centers. We have
[2:54:26] a lot of people that are concerned
obviously
[2:54:29] and I think looking into it further
makes sense.
[2:54:32] » Thank you. Thank you.
>> So I guess I'll ask Mr. B. Do you really
[2:54:37] believe that this board would come back
and undo this moratorum or is it just
[2:54:41] you want clarity that it could happen?
>> I would just like clarity that the the
[2:54:46] reasonzoning would also be halted for
the moratorum.
[2:54:51] » So you wouldn't
[2:54:57] You would say that when the resoning
came to this board coming from county
[2:55:01] planning
>> that we don't approach that that we'd
[2:55:06] let it sit there for 6 months or
turn it down and be done or vote it yes.
[2:55:12] I mean
[2:55:16] my suggest my suggestion would be have
it have it held in advance for six
[2:55:21] months or tabled for six months if that
if that can be done. And if not, then we
[2:55:25] won't hear you.
>> So you're you're saying repeat that. I'm
[2:55:30] sorry I couldn't hear you.
>> So my my request or or my suggestion
[2:55:34] would be to have the reszoning held in
advance until the moratorum is completed
[2:55:38] also as well as the ordinance.
>> Okay.
[2:55:45] » So I guess where are we? What what's the
Anybody else have any input thoughts?
[2:55:57] Um
>> so first of all I would just like to say
[2:56:00] thank you to everybody for coming
tonight. I think uh one lady spoke about
[2:56:04] the fact that that's one of the greatest
things we have in this country is the
[2:56:07] ability to speak our mind first
amendment rights and I think that's
[2:56:10] true. The other great thing about this
country is our is our ability to have
[2:56:15] debate
civily. So, I appreciate that as well
[2:56:21] and I would appreciate if you would give
us the opportunity to conduct business
[2:56:26] because that is what you elected us to
do. So, thank you.
[2:56:31] Um, excuse me. I agree with Trusty
Holstein and that I think a moratorum is
[2:56:40] due and I think it's due because of the
fact that the state legislature has
[2:56:44] enacted certain bills that that provide
tax incentives for large corporations to
[2:56:52] come here and build hypers scale data
centers. And I think we given the fact
[2:56:57] that we have so many people here tonight
voicing their opinion, we need the
[2:57:01] ability as a township and our planning
commission needs the ability to
[2:57:05] understand what that means from a zoning
perspective. So I don't believe that the
[2:57:10] uh moratorum is worthless as some have
stated. I think it is worthwhile and I
[2:57:15] think it would help protect the
community and I think it would help uh
[2:57:19] give us an opportunity to to properly
find a right place for this type of
[2:57:25] zoning. Um I understand what uh Mr.
Patterson said and I think the zoning
[2:57:34] rests with us anyway. So
whether or not it's included, this
[2:57:40] language is included in the moratorum,
um I'm indifferent to it. I think it
[2:57:46] rest with rests with us anyway. So um I
could go with it either way, the
[2:57:51] additional language being added. Thank
you. Okay.
[2:57:58] Anyone else?
Um, this is certainly a a very great
[2:58:06] country that allows us to debate things
that we don't see eye to eye on and
[2:58:11] hopefully do it civily.
Um,
[2:58:15] I would be hesitant to support a
moratorum because at the end of the day,
[2:58:19] the the community's goal here is no data
center. um and and then doing a
[2:58:27] moratorum, it basically paves the way
for a data center to be here.
[2:58:32] I am simply not of the opinion that no
data center is an option for Howell
[2:58:37] Township.
I'm also the of the opinion that
[2:58:42] uh these farming families have invested
into their properties and should be able
[2:58:49] to sell them to who they want. And when
that developer comes in, then we have
[2:58:54] questions that need to be answered. I
believe there is a system in place to
[2:58:59] answer all those questions. There's
preliminary site plan approvals and uh
[2:59:04] performance guarantees that can be put
in place to protect the people of all
[2:59:09] the concerns set forth here today.
I would be willing to support a
[2:59:15] moratorum but I do want to be clear that
I am not a a no data center advocate. Um
[2:59:23] I believe this is the opportunity for
this country to move forward. I believe
[2:59:28] it will present
[2:59:37] » I believe it'll present more opportunity
than it'll take away.
[2:59:43] Come on.
[2:59:46] » Shame on you. You're a liar.
>> Hey,
[2:59:51] » we let you speak. Let him speak.
[3:00:00] » You signed the NBA.
[3:00:12] I believe I've said all I've had to say.
Um,
[3:00:20] » come on.
>> Please,
[3:00:24] » sir.
>> Live here.
[3:00:26] » Stop.
[3:00:31] Get that out of here and then we'll
put it into a land truck.
[3:00:34] » Come on.
>> Can we have a meeting, please?
[3:00:36] » No. He needs to resign.
>> All right, we're done.
[3:00:42] » Yeah, that's all I've had to say. Thank
you, Mr. Supervisor.
[3:00:47] » All right. Is there any motions?
>> Mr. Mr. Chair, I I do have some
[3:00:51] additional discussion. Uh, I would just
like to add that I am not I do not
[3:00:57] believe that a data center is a a
terribly bad thing. I I I think it I
[3:01:02] think it may I think it we and we have
to think of exclusionary zoning also. So
[3:01:10] » can I can I finish? Can I finish?
>> Not a dime. Not a dime. Not a dime.
[3:01:15] Sorry.
>> Okay.
[3:01:18] » So my concern is the zoning. That's
zoned agricultural preservation. I I
[3:01:24] think 88% of the people have spoken.
They want to keep it there.
[3:01:28] Um,
>> so maybe the maybe the choice for a data
[3:01:33] center isn't in that location.
>> Correct.
[3:01:36] » But regardless, we still need an
ordinance to regulate data centers
[3:01:41] » wherever they are.
>> So in that respect, I support the
[3:01:45] moratorum because it gives us time to do
that. We need time.
[3:01:52] » But I'm also concerned that we don't
change the zoning in the meantime.
[3:01:57] Now if
>> it
[3:02:00] » okay
>> so my motion was to enact the moratorum
[3:02:04] with the language that includes
the reasonzoning at the same time.
[3:02:11] » Is there support?
[3:02:21] » Okay. No support. Second motion. We have
>> some decorum.
[3:02:28] Just go ahead. Um I am I would be
concerned that we are as Trusty
[3:02:35] Hoenstein said, we're treating uh a
specific situation that's already in
[3:02:40] process differently than other
applications that have come before us.
[3:02:46] » And that would be my concern with that.
>> So as far as as far as as far as adding
[3:02:52] this language, right? I think if we want
to if as as Mr. Patterson had stated
[3:02:59] the the power to approve or deny the
resoning is already coming to us on
[3:03:04] December 8th. That's that's that that's
why.
[3:03:08] » So
Jonathan, maybe you can help me out as a
[3:03:11] zoning administrator. If a if a
reasonzoning is denied, the applicant is
[3:03:15] is barred from applying again for how
long?
[3:03:20] » I believe the ordinance is a year. So if
we enact this moratorum on an ordinance
[3:03:25] and the resoning comes back in de in our
December meeting December 8th I believe
[3:03:30] correct and it's denied the applicant
would have to wait a year.
[3:03:35] » Yes.
>> Or he's going to get approved.
[3:03:38] » I'm sorry. Say that again.
>> Or he will get approved.
[3:03:42] » So you're Okay. So if the if the board
has the the public hearing on the 8th of
[3:03:47] December.
>> Yes.
[3:03:50] There's there's multiple options that
the board can make, but if they approve
[3:03:54] it and the moratorium's in place, they
can't move forward with citing a a data
[3:04:00] center on this property.
>> But at that point, the land's already
[3:04:03] zoned as re research and technology.
>> If if you if the board says yes, then
[3:04:08] yes.
>> Okay.
[3:04:10] If we enact the moratorum and then say
no, then the property is not reszoned,
[3:04:17] but people still cannot apply to have a
data center cited in the township while
[3:04:24] we work on the ordinance.
>> So that's the option.
[3:04:28] » But if if it's a no, then the applicant
cannot come back to reszone that
[3:04:32] property for a year.
>> I believe that's correct.
[3:04:38] So would it be in the benefit of the
applicant to possibly wait six months
[3:04:42] until a decision can be made?
>> Would it benefit the applicant?
[3:04:47] » Possibly.
>> Who are you working for?
[3:04:53] » I don't I don't I don't
I I'm just trying to get the six months
[3:04:59] moratorum for the zoning in actually. So
>> I guess
[3:05:07] I didn't hear. I didn't hear.
>> Did you have a question?
[3:05:13] » Well,
[3:05:17] » so it it if it comes back on the 8th,
it's either got to be approved or
[3:05:20] denied.
>> Correct.
[3:05:22] » Approved, denied. Or you could say you
want you could move it to more meetings.
[3:05:25] I mean, we
>> or we could have additional meetings.
[3:05:27] » Correct. But yeah, your decisions under
the zoning ordinance are approve or deny
[3:05:31] the conditional reszoning that's
presented.
[3:05:33] » Okay.
But if it was denied, they would have to
[3:05:38] wait.
>> One year on the same request. Yeah.
[3:05:42] » I'm sorry.
>> One year on the same request.
[3:05:44] » All right.
>> By then, we can put it on a ballot, vote
[3:05:49] it all down.
>> Okay.
[3:05:51] » So,
[3:05:58] » discussion should be on the mics.
[3:06:03] So has the has the motion died from lack
of
[3:06:06] » Yeah, there's lack of support. So
>> I mean so I would make a motion to
[3:06:10] support the moratorum as presented and
set the uh current resoning application
[3:06:16] for a public hearing on December 8th at
the township board meeting. Um as a side
[3:06:22] comment so that the
community gets an answer and so does the
[3:06:26] applicant and it's being treated every
applicant the same.
[3:06:32] Okay. Is there support?
>> Support.
[3:06:35] » Motion by Hornstein and seconded by
>> Fagan. Thank you
[3:06:40] discussion.
>> So I'm going to support the moratorum on
[3:06:47] the ordinance and we'll look forward to
the vote on the 8th.
[3:06:51] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Uh roll call.
[3:06:54] » We need a we need a ordinance number
first.
[3:06:57] » 296.
>> Right. Sorry. I I amend my motion to
[3:07:02] include the number ordinance 296.
[3:07:12] » Okay. Roll call, please.
>> Ball,
[3:07:19] » yes.
>> Counts,
[3:07:21] » yes.
>> Wilson,
[3:07:23] » yes.
>> Doss,
[3:07:25] » yes. Fagan,
>> yes. Hoenstein,
[3:07:28] » yes.
>> Caddington,
[3:07:30] » yes.
Ordinance passes.
[3:07:34] Our motion passes along with the
ordinance.
[3:07:39] Um, move on to unfinished business,
renewable energy ordinance overlay
[3:07:43] district.
Um, if you'll remember from the last
[3:07:48] meeting, we had microphone. Sorry.
If you'll remember from the last
[3:07:54] meeting, we had a couple of changes to
the ordinance. Those changes have been
[3:07:58] made and u the ordinance before you
um
[3:08:04] you want to pause for a couple of
minutes and let
[3:08:11] » Sorry.
[3:08:20] Good night.
[3:08:46] Everybody.
[3:09:01] » Uh, no. I can get it.
>> They're extra special.
[3:09:08] Yeah, probably not that.
[3:10:41] So you don't have to
>> I'd like to make a motion that we recess
[3:10:44] for 10 minutes.
>> Support bowl.
[3:10:47] » Motion supported for recess for 10
minutes. All those in favor?
[3:10:51] » I
>> opposed. Recess for 10 minutes. You got
[3:10:54] a timer.
Okay.
[3:17:45] I'm missing Tanya.
[3:17:56] » Where the hell did she go?
>> Hm.
[3:17:58] » She went to check the batteries.
>> I don't know where she went. Maybe she
[3:18:02] went to pick up her stuff. Oh, we did
have a deputy here.
[3:18:08] could have used him.
[3:18:14] » See
>> what
[3:18:16] » if she back out there.
>> Yeah, she probably went to the bathroom
[3:18:18] or something. I don't know where she
went.
[3:18:27] » She still got three minutes.
[3:18:31] » We can't start without her cuz that
cause all kinds of problems. Pretty sad
[3:18:34] when she's the important one.
>> You can start without me, but you can't
[3:18:39] start without.
>> Right. That's what I said. Pretty sad
[3:18:41] when she's the important one.
[3:18:55] » What do we do?
[3:19:11] Oh, there she is. She's coming.
>> Here she comes.
[3:19:47] That's it.
>> Okay. Is there a motion to reopen the
[3:19:51] meeting?
>> I'll make that motion.
[3:19:52] » Support.
>> Motion by DOS, second by accounts.
[3:19:56] All those in favor?
>> I
[3:19:58] » I opposed. Okay, back to renewable
energy ordinance.
[3:20:03] » Um, so you member from the last meeting,
we asked for two updates. The to update
[3:20:07] the bond rating to match what county
planning had suggested and then
[3:20:12] including that noise be measured at the
property line um not at a neighboring
[3:20:17] properties wall. Uh so we did make those
updates and that's what you have before
[3:20:22] you.
Okay. Questions, comments, concerns?
[3:20:29] » I got a question. Uh, Mr. Supervisor, if
I may ask the planning commission
[3:20:35] representative,
Mr. Bull, um, this solar overlay
[3:20:40] ordinance when it was taken upon by the
planning commission, how did that come
[3:20:46] about? Was that by recommendation of the
board or is this uh, something that's
[3:20:51] been sitting there for a while?
Do you recall
[3:20:56] » solar solar solar overlay was was there
before I came to the planning
[3:21:02] commission. It it had just been tossed
out there in areas of the township where
[3:21:07] if and when industrial solar approached
us, would we have an area to put it in
[3:21:12] and not be subject to exclusionary
zoning?
[3:21:16] So that area was added in there for that
reason.
[3:21:22] did. So, you said it had been sitting
there for a while untouched. What was
[3:21:28] the
um what was the initiative that got that
[3:21:33] moving along again? Was that initiative?
>> It was during the discussion in one of
[3:21:36] the plan one of the several planning
commission meetings we had on it. I
[3:21:40] don't recall who brought it up.
>> Okay. So, the planning commission took
[3:21:44] the initiative to bring that back on the
table.
[3:21:46] » Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um,
[3:21:55] that's all I have on that. Okay.
Any other questions, concerns,
[3:22:03] motions?
[3:22:10] Uh, move to accept. Is it I'm sorry
before we start. Is it 297?
[3:22:14] » Yes.
>> Okay. Um move to accept ordinance 297,
[3:22:18] the zoning ordinance amendment
um the renewable energy facilities and
[3:22:24] overlay district as presented.
>> Support bowl.
[3:22:31] » Motion by Henstein, second by that
right?
[3:22:35] » Correct.
>> Thank you.
[3:22:37] » Discussion.
[3:22:40] Roll call.
>> Hoenstein. Yes.
[3:22:45] » Bull.
>> Yes.
[3:22:47] » Counts.
>> No.
[3:22:51] » Wilson.
>> No.
[3:22:53] » Fagan.
>> Yes.
[3:22:55] » Doss.
>> Yes.
[3:22:56] » Caddington.
>> Yes.
[3:23:00] » Okay. Ordinance passes.
Other unfinished business? Hell Township
[3:23:06] versus Fagan.
Justformational.
[3:23:10] » Justformational.
New business to 2026 water connection
[3:23:15] fee.
[3:23:19] So, our ordinance requires that we um
set our water connection fee. If we
[3:23:26] don't, um it it mandates that it goes up
by 5%. Um we have held the water and
[3:23:33] sewer connection fee steady for several
years now. Um, but we do that through uh
[3:23:41] resolution. So, you do have the
ordinance before you. The board can set
[3:23:46] a different rate other than what it
currently is, which is $5,000.
[3:23:50] Um, if we do nothing or we don't approve
uh a different rate, then it will
[3:23:55] automatically go up by 5%.
[3:24:01] Okay. Thoughts, questions?
Mr. Mr. Chair, I reached out to um our
[3:24:07] assessor and asked about
how we're doing on our sewer and water
[3:24:12] fund and he said we're fine just holding
it as it is and we can hold it with no
[3:24:17] increase
and I would make a motion
[3:24:21] to have a zero increase
>> support.
[3:24:26] Okay. Motion by second by counts.
Discussion.
[3:24:30] Uh, I have a question I guess directed
as at the board as a whole or those who
[3:24:36] may have more knowledge. Is there any
room for a decrease in the rates
[3:24:42] or would that be bad practice? You know,
there's something we could give back or
[3:24:48] make it easier for uh residential
development.
[3:24:53] » So, I I I if I can answer a little bit,
Mr. Chair, when speaking with Brent, he
[3:24:58] said next year that might be something
that we need to look at that we that we
[3:25:01] would be able to look at. So, if that
helps at all.
[3:25:07] Well, in in our this this board and and
it's been this been going on for a
[3:25:10] while, even before some of the new
members, um we've been discussing that
[3:25:15] once the sewer and water debt is
completely paid off, that we would be
[3:25:19] looking at a full rate investigation
between what we charge for sewer, what
[3:25:24] we charge for water, what we charge for
connection fees to make sure that what
[3:25:28] we're charging is is fair and equitable.
But in really until that's paid off, we
[3:25:33] didn't really want to mess too much with
what's going on. We don't want to make
[3:25:37] it any harder for homes and more
expensive for homes to hook up. If we
[3:25:40] can do that and we've been able to hold
that rate steady for I wish I'd have
[3:25:45] written the number down, but it's been
several years since we've changed it.
[3:25:49] Um, so we are we are trying to to keep
the fee as as contained as we can until
[3:25:54] that is actually paid off and then do a
full picture look at our sewer and water
[3:25:59] stuff.
Just to be clear when you say paid off
[3:26:02] you mean pay back the general fund.
>> Yeah. So right as as you know we've we
[3:26:07] paid off the the bonds but the general
fund is still owed a lot of money from
[3:26:11] the sewer and water fund. So we are
working towards paying that back and
[3:26:15] that is the the goal we have set to say
all right now we're going to look at
[3:26:19] everything
>> and and these connection fees actually
[3:26:22] go into the system to pay for
maintenance on the system and and things
[3:26:27] like that. Right. So technically when
you pay your connection fee, you're
[3:26:31] paying for your slice of the if this
we're talking about sewer, the sewer
[3:26:36] plant. So you're paying for your little
slice. Um yeah, I mean that this money
[3:26:41] goes into a fund that when things need
to be done, this is what it gets paid
[3:26:45] out of. And you know, the connection
fees is the main way that we've been
[3:26:49] able to pay for all of the updates at
the wastewater treatment plant that we
[3:26:53] have made to try to keep it in, you
know, really good shape.
[3:26:58] Thank you.
>> Okay. Any other discussion?
[3:27:04] » Does that need to be done by resolution?
>> That doesn't need a resolution number.
[3:27:08] That was going to be my next question.
If they could if you could give us the
[3:27:11] resolution number so they could add that
back in.
[3:27:14] » 558.
>> 558. And if Mr. B will accept that.
[3:27:20] » Would that be for both of them?
>> No.
[3:27:22] » Nope.
>> 559.
[3:27:23] » 59.
So I would make resolution 11.2558
[3:27:29] and 559 as 0% increases
for the following year.
[3:27:37] So you're going to do both of them the
same time
[3:27:39] » if we could.
>> Okay.
[3:27:43] » I'll accept the changes.
>> Okay.
[3:27:48] Any discussion?
Roll call.
[3:27:52] » Doss. Yes.
Counts.
[3:27:55] » Yes.
>> Wilson,
[3:27:57] » yes.
>> Fagan,
[3:27:58] » yes.
>> Bull,
[3:28:00] » yes.
>> Hoenstein,
[3:28:02] » yes.
>> Paddington,
[3:28:05] » you were last.
>> I'm sorry. Yes,
[3:28:07] I can't hear you. So, I said yes to him.
Oh,
[3:28:11] » but yes, I'm I'm a yes also. Sorry.
Okay.
[3:28:16] Uh 2026 meeting dates.
[3:28:21] Um, we also have to set our meeting
dates by resolution. Um, and so the
[3:28:26] clerk's department prepared the
following calendars and uh general dates
[3:28:32] following our the rules for our
meetings. Uh, we do have exceptions for
[3:28:37] some of the meetings. Uh, just as an
example, the planning commission and ZBA
[3:28:42] in November and December don't meet
their typical week because of the
[3:28:46] holiday. So, we we bump those up a week.
Um and we always run into issues with
[3:28:51] the township board in March for the
March border review. So um sometimes
[3:28:56] those dates get uh moved beyond what is
the normal schedule. But they prepared
[3:29:01] these and the resolution
um for your review.
[3:29:06] Okay.
[3:29:10] Discussion motions. Move to accept
resolution number 11.2560.
[3:29:18] support.
>> Motion by council, second by Honstein.
[3:29:21] Discussion
roll call.
[3:29:26] » Hoenstein.
>> Yes.
[3:29:28] » Fagan,
>> yes.
[3:29:30] » B,
>> yes.
[3:29:32] » Counts,
>> yes.
[3:29:33] » Doss,
>> yes.
[3:29:35] » Wilson,
>> yes.
[3:29:36] » Caddington,
>> yes.
[3:29:41] Foil appeal for Ben Gresco.
[3:29:46] Uh, Chris Patterson, again, I said I
would assist on this. I don't think
[3:29:49] you've regularly actually had a FOYA
appeal, so we did put the documents
[3:29:52] there, but I thought I'd give it just a
quick summary overview of what you're
[3:29:55] looking at, and then if you had
questions, um, you can certainly ask
[3:29:59] those. We, the township received a foyer
request, which is in the packet. It's
[3:30:03] the email that lists um the different
documents that were selected to be
[3:30:10] retrieved through the foyer request
process including all emails text
[3:30:14] messages as a list of items related to
correspondence and the subject matter
[3:30:17] sort of relates to the the data center
piece that's been talked about earlier
[3:30:20] this evening. When we process or receive
the foyer request the statute has
[3:30:25] specific timelines related to responding
and then we have to also look at certain
[3:30:29] exemptions. So if you look at the
document that was then um presented
[3:30:34] which is the October 13th 2025 response
that was from our office um by a
[3:30:40] colleague in my office. We did grant the
request. So it says partial grant
[3:30:44] partial denial is required by the
statute to list whatever items we
[3:30:47] wouldn't provide but the requests were
actually um reviewed. Correspondence was
[3:30:52] sent out documenting those requests to
all the township board members, any
[3:30:56] bodies or or even department heads who
would have received documents. That was
[3:31:00] all compiled. And there are two sort of
sets of categories for which were not
[3:31:05] produced. That was like personal
information related to contact
[3:31:08] information or details that might be on
a letter and email that to um the
[3:31:12] knowledge of those who reviewed the
records was not in the public record.
[3:31:15] And then the second piece would just be
any attorney client privileged. If you
[3:31:18] if you look for all emails or
correspondence, there'd be legal
[3:31:21] opinions and stuff that could come
within that fold, those are allowed to
[3:31:24] be um exempted from production just like
would happen with any litigation that we
[3:31:28] do that partial grant and denial. The
way the FOYA process works because this
[3:31:32] does relate to the appeal. You have to
calculate there's a worksheet that was
[3:31:36] provided to you in the packet. The
calculation of those fees is
[3:31:39] specifically prescribed by statute that
was done by the township in calculating
[3:31:43] a fee of approximately $297.
If that initial fee estimate exceeds
[3:31:49] $50, then you you end up asking for a
good faith deposit of 50%. So that was
[3:31:55] paid. It was approximately $150.
Currently, there remains outstanding um
[3:32:01] an amount that is about 14310. So that's
what's documented in the response. So
[3:32:05] just so you understand the basic request
and then the response, it was granted
[3:32:09] but for really redactions, removing some
personal identifying information. Uh and
[3:32:14] then the attorney client priv any
attorney client privilege pieces that
[3:32:17] would have been subject to the scope of
that. The individual does have a right
[3:32:22] which we put the statute in the packet
15240 sub A. They're allowed to appeal
[3:32:27] to the head of the public body. You are
the public body as the board. So we
[3:32:30] bring appeals to you to determine
whether you are going to want to affirm
[3:32:36] or modify what is currently been the
partial grant and denials by the FOY
[3:32:40] coordinator. The appeal that you
received is actually the first part in
[3:32:44] your packet. And so they identified
essentially three reasons. One is the
[3:32:49] cost for purposes of the appeal. Uh and
then there was an issue with respect to
[3:32:54] the scope of the partial denials that
did happen and then also a request.
[3:32:58] There's a process in the statute. You
can do a public interest waiver, but
[3:33:02] those public interest waiverss typically
can relate to pretty narrow grounds and
[3:33:05] so that was not applied in this case. So
that is coming before you. Normally the
[3:33:10] way that these are handled is in the
latter part of your packet after you get
[3:33:15] past the worksheet in the statute. This
is just a proposed determination. So it'
[3:33:20] have to be the action item would be to
accept that as presented or you could
[3:33:23] modify it if you wanted to reverse some
piece of what was done. Um but what's
[3:33:28] currently being presented is to affirm
both what is actually being asked of as
[3:33:32] a FOYA fee appeal. You're allowed to
first appeal the fees. And what we
[3:33:37] provided you is the worksheet. It's
calculated in 15-minute increments and
[3:33:42] it has to be using the lowest paid
employee which what what which what was
[3:33:45] done. Now the problem is the request is
so broad there was various employees
[3:33:49] involved. So the township used that
lowest employee for the different parts
[3:33:52] of the records that could be located.
Those were build in those 15-minute
[3:33:56] increments. That's how you get to that
297. The request I think there was like
[3:34:00] almost over 15 hours spent sort of
coordinating and finding all these
[3:34:03] different records to produce to the
requester. So we in the document that's
[3:34:08] before you, we have recommended to
uphold the fee calculation. The FOYA
[3:34:12] coordinator did do it correctly and it's
not unreasonably high in relation to the
[3:34:16] amount of documents and the amount of
searching, locating, copying uh and
[3:34:21] review that was done.
That's would be on the first page of
[3:34:24] that proposed letter to accept. The uh
next part was an issue that was taken
[3:34:29] related to the lowest employee that was
capable of doing it. Because the search
[3:34:33] did include public records that would be
in emails, phones that we also asked for
[3:34:38] from department heads, we have to rely
on those specific department heads to
[3:34:41] search their devices. That's there and
why that lowest hourly rate was the
[3:34:46] correct hourly rate in that fee
calculation. So we are recommending uh
[3:34:49] that that was done correctly and
calculated as well. And then there was a
[3:34:53] question related to the amount of time
spent for purposes of similar foyer
[3:34:57] requests. But the sort of broad nature
of the request itself, the all any there
[3:35:02] really wasn't a similar request. So the
fee calculations go into looking at the
[3:35:07] amount of hours and locations for those
specific documents plus then the review
[3:35:11] for any redaction polling of privilege
to produce it. So we think it was done
[3:35:16] correctly. We're recommending that the
FOYA coordinator be affirmed on that
[3:35:19] ground as well. Um, and then I think
there's certainly obviously discretion
[3:35:23] in the application of the public
interest fee. Historically, the township
[3:35:26] has in a case similar to this, uh, they
would not apply that public interest fee
[3:35:30] waiver. We certainly appreciate that
individuals would want those public
[3:35:34] records. We regularly produce those, but
they do cause a pretty high
[3:35:37] administrative burden and cost on the
township for purposes of the normal
[3:35:41] business that someone might be doing
when we otherwise ask you all to then
[3:35:44] coordinate produce those records. So,
we're recommending that the public
[3:35:49] interest fee waiver that was denied in
the original response would continue to
[3:35:52] be the case, which then would mean that
those fees would be charged. There is an
[3:35:57] actual also piece that's raised in the
appeal which we did address in the end.
[3:36:01] Um, as far as the redactions that are
applied. Now, we did analyze that and we
[3:36:05] think that the redactions that are
applied are appropriate. The only
[3:36:08] interesting thing I'll note is that
there's actually still an outstanding
[3:36:12] amount on the fee. So the document
hadn't actually been received. So to my
[3:36:16] knowledge, the requester doesn't
actually have the documents to know the
[3:36:20] extent that we applied the proper
redactions, if that makes sense. But we
[3:36:24] did go back and we reviewed them
ourselves. They haven't been picked up
[3:36:26] because there's an unpaid amount on the
balance. Um, but we did go back and take
[3:36:30] a look at them. We worked with the
township to confirm that we think all
[3:36:32] the redactions when they are paid and
received are appropriate. So, it's
[3:36:36] probably a little bit premature to to
appeal on that issue, but we we did
[3:36:40] appropriately address it and we do think
that everything was done correctly by
[3:36:43] the forward coordinator on that.
So, the the sum is there needs to be an
[3:36:47] action if you agree with that and what I
just explained if you don't have any
[3:36:50] questions to accept the the uh denial of
the fee appeal and affirm the foyer
[3:36:56] coordinator which we have in in the doc
in the packet. If you accept that, then
[3:37:01] that will end up being sent out when the
township when this township meeting is
[3:37:04] complete. And then if you got any
questions, happy to sort of discuss any
[3:37:09] modifications or changes to that
approach.
[3:37:13] Okay, questions, concerns?
[3:37:18] Is Mr. Gusco in the audience?
>> Does he get an opportunity to speak if
[3:37:23] he was here?
>> Uh, if he's here, I'll defer to the
[3:37:26] township if you want him to be able to
present on his
[3:37:28] » I have no issue.
And these documents haven't been picked
[3:37:33] up as of yet.
>> And they were processed separately. I
[3:37:38] know there was at least three different
FOYAS and they were all processed
[3:37:41] separately.
>> Yeah, they're all processed separately.
[3:37:44] The requests are not all identical. So,
as far as what we had to canvas and
[3:37:47] review, we had to request from officials
get collected. It's not all the same,
[3:37:51] but those hours are separately
calculated. And of course, if we already
[3:37:54] searched and located records, we're not
I mean, nobody else is getting charged
[3:37:57] for records that have been located. So
that was one of the issues he raised and
[3:38:00] that is addressed in the FOY appeal
determination.
[3:38:06] » I I did notice in his because I saw this
FOYA obviously and um he did include a
[3:38:11] lot of alls and
I understand that
[3:38:16] I think you made mention of that that's
why it would increase the cost.
[3:38:22] Okay. What's your pleasure?
[3:38:26] Um, I will move to adopt the township's
uh township attorney's recommendation as
[3:38:31] to Mr. Greco's Foya appeal and to
authorize the supervisor to sign the
[3:38:35] appeal determination and related
certification for the township
[3:38:40] support. Motion by Holenstein, second by
Fagan. Discussion
[3:38:46] all those in favor.
>> Opposed?
[3:38:50] Motion carries.
planning convention appointment to open
[3:38:55] seat. Um I think we have most of the
applicants here tonight. Have you come
[3:39:00] up to the microphone, introduce
yourself, tell you tell us why you're
[3:39:03] interested in doing the job. I'm just
going to take them in the order they
[3:39:06] were in the packet. And Moren Hiken here
first.
[3:39:19] Do you got a mic?
Nope. Bruce,
[3:39:24] there you go. Sounds like he got
something.
[3:39:26] » Nope.
Where'd Bruce go? He's up there.
[3:39:34] » Well, that's problematic.
[3:39:38] » I can I can hear you.
>> Mike.
[3:39:41] » Yeah. If you want to
>> try it really loudly. Yeah.
[3:39:44] » Can you hold on a minute so I can put
the recording down there since it's not
[3:39:47] » Oh, okay. Sure.
Maybe Bruce will come back by then.
[3:39:54] » Maybe not.
[3:39:58] » Yeah.
[3:40:09] Well, if you're comfortable talking
loudly, um I guess if if you want to
[3:40:13] come up and use a microphone up here,
that that would be appropriate also, I
[3:40:17] guess.
[3:40:23] My name is
[3:40:29] I've been in Living Countyust
[3:40:41] Township
[3:40:48] supervisor in How Township. Oh, look
that
[3:40:51] » Bruce is back.
[3:40:55] And then in that capacity, I also served
on the fire authority, water authority,
[3:41:01] sewer authority,
um
[3:41:05] started the road committee
and uh worked with the uh planning
[3:41:11] commission obviously
in multiple ways and seen many site
[3:41:17] plans as well as reviewed many
townshipwide improvements including
[3:41:22] sewer and water.
I definitely have experience in
[3:41:28] the master plan, zoning and more
ordinances, zoning appeals, public
[3:41:34] hearings. I understand the importance of
following the documentation that we have
[3:41:41] and I also understand the importance of
modifying the plans, the ordinances to
[3:41:47] fit when they no longer fit.
And I do think I would make an excellent
[3:41:53] candidate. Not planning on leaving the
township anytime soon.
[3:41:58] So I would really like to take that
experience
[3:42:03] and
get back in and make a difference again.
[3:42:09] » Okay. Thank you,
>> Melissa.
[3:42:17] » Mr. Sure. Would we be able to ask the
applicants questions?
[3:42:22] » Uh, sure. I'm sorry.
>> If if we could have Moren back up there.
[3:42:28] Just one quick question if I may.
>> Yep. Go ahead.
[3:42:32] » Thank you, Mr. Supervisor. Uh, Moren,
thanks for being here and thanks for
[3:42:36] your application. Very much appreciate
it. Um, in reading your letter, you
[3:42:41] reference that your experience and
vision can support the planning
[3:42:45] commission's important work. Could you
elaborate a little bit on what your
[3:42:49] vision for Howell Township would be,
what that might include?
[3:42:54] » Well, I think it's important that we
hear our residents and right now and it
[3:43:02] honestly has not changed. They want to
maintain a rural community. But on that
[3:43:08] we have to balance it with development.
We can't exclude development. That's how
[3:43:12] we lose. So you have to have that
balance of we are still keeping our
[3:43:17] character but we still plan for that
development. And that's where the
[3:43:21] planning commission is really important.
We have to look at where we have
[3:43:26] existing
development right now and start doing
[3:43:31] more complimementaryary planning.
Right now we do not have the best
[3:43:36] complimentary planning.
[3:43:40] » Thank you Morin. That answers my
question.
[3:43:43] » Anybody else have any questions?
>> Okay. Thank you
[3:43:54] » again.
Um once again, my name is Alyssa Recker.
[3:43:57] Um so I am not a Howell Township
resident. Um, I live just off Chase Lake
[3:44:01] Road, um, on the Kohaka side of the
line, but I do own agricultural property
[3:44:06] in Howell Township over on Burkhart
Road. Um, my husband and I, we moved out
[3:44:10] here about 5 years ago. Um, we traded in
short commutes for, uh, a more rural
[3:44:16] lifestyle and everything that this
community has to offer. Um, I'm a
[3:44:20] material science and engineer by degree.
Um but for the last five years I have
[3:44:25] worked as a government affairs official
for um a vehicle manufacturer. Um in my
[3:44:32] jobs it spans everything from ensuring
compliance with all applicable laws and
[3:44:37] regulations working with state and
federal agencies to develop um policy
[3:44:43] recommendations and regulation um and
economic development like plant
[3:44:47] expansion and site selection. Um, it's
given me a huge appreciation for the
[3:44:52] role that folks like you and our
planning commission um, play in our
[3:44:56] communities. I believe that my
background uh, lends itself well to
[3:45:00] being able to look at planning issues
through a datadriven uh, regulatory
[3:45:05] lens. Um, and since I t I intend to be
in this community for a very long time,
[3:45:11] um, these issues are extremely important
to me.
[3:45:14] I've also done a significant amount of
work in the um utility space um like
[3:45:20] utility general rate cases. So given
some of the projects that are before the
[3:45:24] township, I believe that my experience
could be a benefit to the planning
[3:45:28] commission um and this community.
I've seen a lot of boards and agencies
[3:45:33] from this side of the podium. Um, and
the handful of times I've been to the
[3:45:36] Howell Township Planning Commission
meetings, um, I've been incredibly
[3:45:40] impressed by how diligent and
thoughtful, um, every member of that
[3:45:44] commission is. So, kudos to you folks.
Um, and it would really be a privilege
[3:45:47] to join them. I'm happy to take any
questions.
[3:45:52] » Uh, just one, and I think you kind of
answered it throughout the night, um,
[3:45:57] but what what sparked your interest in
the open seat in the planning
[3:46:01] commission?
>> Well, I think, um, I've sent in several
[3:46:06] uh letters and um uh recommendations
over the last few weeks both to the
[3:46:10] planning commission and to this board.
Um you know, my home is is just two
[3:46:15] miles from the proposed data center site
and my agricultural property is within a
[3:46:19] mile of the site. So, this is something
that directly affects me. Um and
[3:46:23] honestly, when I saw the seat open, I
was very excited to see an opportunity
[3:46:27] to get engaged in in the local process.
Um, I deal with the state and the
[3:46:32] federal uh side of things all day, every
day. Um, and honestly, it it's just an
[3:46:39] exciting opportunity to be able to to
bring what I do um actually back home
[3:46:43] and hopefully benefit the people in this
community.
[3:46:47] » Okay, any other questions?
>> I I do have a question. Um, I know
[3:46:52] you've made comments about the the data
center, but believe it or not, the data
[3:46:56] center isn't all we do here. Um, and so
I just want to make sure that your
[3:47:00] interest extends beyond a data center
because an ordinance will eventually get
[3:47:05] done and then we move on to all the
boring stuff where we have one person in
[3:47:08] the audience. I just want to make sure
that you're okay with that.
[3:47:11] » Yeah, absolutely. No, I I do completely
understand that the um the commission is
[3:47:17] has to deal with all issues. Um, so like
I said, I have a background in other
[3:47:22] utility spaces um that I think you know
I can bring some knowledge as well
[3:47:26] whether we're we're um thinking about
things like water and pollution um I
[3:47:31] deal regularly with things like PIFA
regulation um and working through things
[3:47:36] like air quality permitting. Um, so
these are all aspects that I think I can
[3:47:41] bring to the planning commission, not
just on the data center project, but
[3:47:44] really on any site plan and any projects
that are proposed in the township.
[3:47:50] » Thank you. Okay, any other questions?
Thank you, Elizabeth. Thank you.
[3:48:00] Aaron,
[3:48:12] my name's Aaron Curry. Uh, uh, boy, I
grew up from zero to 13 on Bowen Road.
[3:48:19] Um, from that point forward, I was on
Allen Road. About 80% of my life I've
[3:48:27] spent in Howell Township. Uh I live in
Kaka Township now just right over the
[3:48:32] border off of Chase Lake Road. My
interest in serving the planning
[3:48:37] commission
is to being familiar with zoning and
[3:48:42] planning and code and um having been on
both sides of the table whether it was
[3:48:48] to propose a project or to rule on it.
My ambition to serve the planning
[3:48:53] commission is to serve the board of
trustees. You guys put together code,
[3:48:57] you put together zoning and that job is
to uh be able to understand it and apply
[3:49:04] it as you guys put it forward. So my job
is simply to come and assist you and be
[3:49:10] even with the community and and take my
expertise of being in real estate for
[3:49:15] more than 30 years and apply it to the
position. Uh, I'm long-term stable. Uh,
[3:49:21] I've lived in Livingston County my whole
life. I've been married more than 30
[3:49:25] years. Have raised my kids here. My
parents are still with me and now my
[3:49:29] grandson's with me. So, I'm happy to
serve should you decide to choose me.
[3:49:34] » Any questions I can answer?
>> Questions?
[3:49:37] » Uh, I just have one and it might
surprise you. Uh, did you use chat GPT
[3:49:46] to write your letter to the township
board?
[3:49:48] » Uh, no. I used my son now. He may have
used Chad GBT to write my letter to the
[3:49:54] board.
>> That's all I have. Thank you.
[3:49:58] » Any other questions for Aaron?
>> I I do. Same question. Um, you've made
[3:50:03] comments known about the data center.
>> Sure.
[3:50:05] » Um, your interest extends beyond the
data center.
[3:50:09] » It sure does. Yeah. I'm here to serve
the community long term. I've been here
[3:50:12] my whole life and and I will continue to
serve.
[3:50:16] » You also sit on the township's border
review. Do you have any issues with
[3:50:21] being able to perform both duties?
>> I have no issues with being able to
[3:50:25] perform both duties.
>> Okay. Anything else?
[3:50:31] » Thank you.
>> Thank you,
[3:50:34] » Jeff Smith.
[3:50:37] Seen Jeff?
>> No.
[3:50:39] » Okay.
Dan.
[3:50:57] My name is Dan Benol. I've lived in the
township for 32 years. Um my experience
[3:51:05] is I have a uh two degrees, one in
architectural technology and a business
[3:51:11] administration degree. Um I've worked
for since I was I'm 68 now, retired, but
[3:51:19] uh uh my career spans from working for
civil engineering and landscape on and
[3:51:25] uh land land surveying companies um
architectural firms on big scale
[3:51:31] projects. not not I've done some
residential but mostly hospitals and uh
[3:51:38] fort and uh auto plants. Uh I did the uh
plans for the Kensington Metro Parks
[3:51:45] building. Um, so but I so I've been in
the architecture and engineering fields
[3:51:51] for
uh about
[3:51:56] 15 years of that and then I owned and
operated a home improvement company uh
[3:52:02] for 10 years and uh then I worked for as
an insurance adjuster on a taskfree
[3:52:09] teams for um three different insurance
companies. So, uh I'm I was also a
[3:52:17] registered uh building code um building
inspector and uh that's pretty much my
[3:52:25] experience. So, I do know all about
ordinances, all about codes. um you know
[3:52:32] and uh my interest in becoming uh uh on
the planning commission is because I
[3:52:41] like the community and I want to see it
grow, but I want to be see it grow in a
[3:52:46] responsible manner and uh and
side with the people to keep it as um a
[3:52:55] rural community that they want but uh
with responsible growth. So that's uh
[3:53:01] that's it in a nutshell.
>> Okay. Thank you. Questions?
[3:53:07] » Yeah. Mr. Banello, uh it's kind of the
same question I asked of another
[3:53:12] applicant. What what was it that sparked
your interest in this open seat? um just
[3:53:18] being just being a resident here and uh
like I said, I love the community and I
[3:53:24] want to see it develop, you know, in a
responsible manner and uh you know, as
[3:53:31] far as like uh uh zones for a a lot of
it's got to do with zoning um and where
[3:53:38] things are and and obviously you know I
do have an issue with the data center
[3:53:43] and uh I'm not embarrassed to say it,
But uh and you know how I stand on that.
[3:53:50] I don't think that property should be
reszoned to uh and there we do have um
[3:53:57] industrial zoning in the township
anyway. You go down McFersonson, you got
[3:54:01] all those big buildings there. Um
anything along a freeway that's, you
[3:54:06] know, already has noise and uh big
buildings that are are here and already
[3:54:11] accepted. Um I think that's a place for
a data center. But um so that's where I
[3:54:17] stand. I'm not against data centers.
It's just where they place the data
[3:54:21] centers and that's part of the
responsible
[3:54:24] um zoning.
>> Just one follow-up question if I may.
[3:54:29] » Sure, Mr. Supervisor. Um, all that being
said, if if you were to end up on the
[3:54:35] other side of these tables here and you
had a community uh yelling at you um
[3:54:42] saying maybe you took bribes, things of
that nature, would you be able to hold
[3:54:46] your composure and not uh
lash back at the community?
[3:54:51] » Oh, sure. Sure.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
[3:54:55] » Okay.
[3:54:59] uh trend.
[3:55:11] » Good evening. My name is Trent Hullman.
I've been in How Township 23 years. Um
[3:55:16] bought property in 2000, built myself,
um did the subcontracting and a lot of
[3:55:23] the work myself, raised a family. Um, I
was encouraged to, um, apply for this
[3:55:29] position due to my interest in public
service. You I can sit there and talk
[3:55:35] about changes to people, but I think I
can better place myself in a position
[3:55:40] where I can help make changes and help
the community to grow. We moved out here
[3:55:45] as a sometimes people call it a
compound. My mother-in-law lives by me,
[3:55:50] my uncle lives by me, and my family. and
we want to continue keeping it a rural
[3:55:56] community as well as balancing the
growth of it. We do need to continue to
[3:56:00] grow the community. Um that's
inevitable. It's going to happen. Um my
[3:56:05] experiences in my past 30 years, I have
developed processes to meet governmental
[3:56:12] regulations. uh my current position of
chief operating officer. I deal with
[3:56:17] regulations on a daily basis and
developing processes and policies to
[3:56:23] meet those and keep us out of trouble
and keep our company growing. And I'd
[3:56:27] like to bring those experiences to the
commission.
[3:56:32] » Okay. Questions, concerns, thoughts?
>> I just have one question, Mr. Trent and
[3:56:39] thanks again for being here um and
presenting. Uh reading through your
[3:56:44] letter, you stated that your interest in
joining the commission stems from a
[3:56:49] recent concerns about the direction of
certain township decisions. Uh so what
[3:56:55] are the concerns you have about certain
township decisions or what are those
[3:56:59] decisions specifically that you're
concerned with as you stated in your
[3:57:04] letter?
>> Now some of the decisions have not been
[3:57:06] made yet. Um, I do want to adhere to the
the master plan and taking a look at the
[3:57:13] rural community and trying to maintain
that and I want to be part of those
[3:57:18] processes. Now, the master plan
identifies areas for different growth
[3:57:23] areas and I do believe the master plan's
coming up for re a redo uh an update.
[3:57:30] I'd like to be a part of that so we can
look at those areas and see what is the
[3:57:34] right place to do the continuous growth
in the organiz in the company or
[3:57:39] township.
>> Okay. Any other questions? No further
[3:57:42] questions. Thank you. Questions on the
other end of the board. Okay. Thank you,
[3:57:47] sir.
[3:57:50] » All right. With that, I will make a
recommendation to appoint Trent Hullman
[3:57:55] to the open seat of the planning
commission.
[3:58:00] Move to accept the supervisor's uh
appointment of Trent Hullman to the
[3:58:04] vacant planning commission seat term
ending 123127
[3:58:11] there support
>> support
[3:58:17] motion by Henstein second by discussion
>> Mr. Chair
[3:58:22] » yes
>> I'd like to thank everyone that came out
[3:58:27] I think they're
all good candidates.
[3:58:30] Um I hope if we ever have a vacancy
again, you will reconsider.
[3:58:35] Um because I think you deserve to be
here, but only one person could make it.
[3:58:40] So
>> absolutely.
[3:58:44] Any other discussion? All those in
favor?
[3:58:46] » I
>> opposed. I oppose.
[3:58:51] » I don't like the way you guys uh appoint
people.
[3:58:55] » We got two people, two opposed.
>> Yep. Okay.
[3:59:02] All right. We'll go to call to the
public.
[3:59:10] Oliver Champine from Spring Lake.
If you want to talk about order
[3:59:16] but not care about justice, you're a
coward.
[3:59:21] And the fact that some of you,
Bull being the only one that had the
[3:59:26] goal to be able to even say no
to this project, clear as day, you set
[3:59:33] it back another time. You are cow.
People came here and showed up. A bunch
[3:59:39] of people. And there's not it shouldn't
in a township like this. You never have
[3:59:43] meetings like this. It's so clear as
day.
[3:59:47] Shame on you.
I drove two hours here and I will be
[3:59:52] back on December 8th because I care
about Michigan. I care about our water
[3:59:55] and I care about protecting the people.
You clearly don't because people can
[4:00:01] show up day and night here talking to
you, telling you from water to
[4:00:06] electricity bills to not actually
creating that many jobs to destroying
[4:00:10] farmland. What else do they need to tell
you?
[4:00:14] And you want to get mad for people
interrupting? No, you're the
[4:00:17] interruption.
You're the problem. You're going to get
[4:00:21] pissed at me for yelling at you. No,
Shane Hogan, you're a coward.
[4:00:26] You're a coward. A data center is good
for who? Cuz clearly you're making
[4:00:32] something.
There is nothing beneficial for me
[4:00:36] unless you're a goddamn billionaire or
being funded by them.
[4:00:42] » No, you're a coward.
>> Uh, I didn't mean to listen to any of
[4:00:47] you. children.
>> Okay, we're good then.
[4:00:50] » Nope. I got my 30 seconds. I still use
them.
[4:00:53] » Do your job.
>> Learn how to do it.
[4:01:11] » Yeah, you're not in my district.
Because AI center shouldn't be built
[4:01:16] anywhere.
[4:01:21] » Do your job.
>> Thank you.
[4:01:32] » Hi, my name is Jennifer Pvenzel. I live
at 245 Foxfire Drive. Um my husband and
[4:01:37] I, we moved out here in 2013 with our
two young kids from Westland. And um we
[4:01:42] came from hearing gunshots and um sirens
out here to a nice peaceful community.
[4:01:49] When we first moved out here, our power
would go out every day, three to five
[4:01:53] times a day. I would reset the clocks
and I would wonder why I can't get into
[4:01:57] my garage. I called DTE and they're
like, "Oh, we have no clue what's going
[4:02:01] on." And that was on a beautiful sunny
day. So the fact that we are considering
[4:02:06] a data center really scares me as of
this moment. I'm really tired. I'm tired
[4:02:11] because my husband and I work 50 to 60
hours a week to support our two kids in
[4:02:15] the life that we are trying to live out
here. We do have a special needs
[4:02:18] daughter who we are constantly fighting
for to get the support that she needs
[4:02:22] and that was part of the reason why we
moved out here also. And then um I do
[4:02:27] have a um high school uh senior this
year who is in the FFA program through
[4:02:35] Fowlerville Public Schools that um
services the community. I want to know
[4:02:40] how I can go home to her tonight and
tell her that all the work that she's
[4:02:43] doing in her class is making a
difference because that's why those kids
[4:02:47] are in those classes. They're there to
make a difference. So when you go home
[4:02:51] tonight, think about the difference that
you want to make in the community and
[4:02:55] that impact that we have on each other
because I know I'm tired and I'm sure
[4:02:59] you guys are tired of being yelled at,
too. Thank you.
[4:03:02] » Thank you.
[4:03:14] Good evening. Um, I this is what I had
actually planned to say during
[4:03:20] » Can we get your name and address,
please?
[4:03:21] » Kristen Dennis, 7196 Manley.
>> Thank you. Um,
[4:03:26] to put it very politely, I'm exceedingly
frustrated that my public comment was
[4:03:33] not included in the packet. The the one
that I emailed um was not included in
[4:03:37] the packet or as an addendum. Um, no
one's public comment submissions were
[4:03:42] included.
I'm sure there is probably some
[4:03:45] technical legitimate procedural basis
for that decision, but if I'm being
[4:03:50] honest, it reflects pretty poorly on the
board who is obviously already under
[4:03:55] significant public scrutiny. It feels
like our voices are being silenced after
[4:03:59] being denied transparency for over eight
months and it feels incredibly tonedeaf
[4:04:04] at best. The moratorum is and was on the
agenda and any public comments like mine
[4:04:09] that were submitted electronically
deserve to be heard and considered by
[4:04:13] the board who has already kept far too
much a secret from the community.
[4:04:17] Furthermore, our public comments serve
as a public record to document exactly
[4:04:21] how we feel about this and any issue.
So, as you neglected to forward my
[4:04:25] public comment submission and that
report that I attached to it to the full
[4:04:29] board and to the public, I would like to
use this opportunity to delve into some
[4:04:32] areas of concern. most of which I did
not even include in that original
[4:04:36] report. I will be using more than my
three or two minutes or 30 seconds I
[4:04:41] have left. So, can I get
>> six hands?
[4:04:45] » Yeah.
>> Thank you.
[4:04:46] » Go ahead.
>> Um I promise I'm not reading my entire
[4:04:49] lengthy report. Um
so I I appreciate a bit of extra time
[4:04:56] tonight and in the coming weeks. I
encourage the board to give considerable
[4:05:00] thought and scrutiny to the true
long-term implications of a hypers scale
[4:05:04] data center of this size in our small
town. I don't just mean the
[4:05:08] environmental impacts or the noise or
the water, though those are absolutely
[4:05:11] worthy of critical analysis as I
evaluated in great detail in that
[4:05:15] report. But the more I've been
researching about the impacts of data
[4:05:19] centers, the more I realize our small
town may be dangerously unprepared for
[4:05:22] and unaware of the true scope of
unintended consequences as the perceived
[4:05:27] benefits may be outshining the risks
associated with them. Firstly, one of
[4:05:32] the benefits which no one is denying is
the creation of hundreds, likely even
[4:05:36] thousands of construction jobs. This is
a great thing for the construction
[4:05:39] industry. There's no doubt. However,
despite the developers claims that
[4:05:43] they'll try to hire local crews, the
reality is there's no legislation
[4:05:47] requiring that of them. These projects
require specialized experience, of which
[4:05:52] there may likely be none in our area.
And upon looking at how other data
[4:05:56] centers around the country have been
built, the vast majority of these crews
[4:05:59] are indeed not local. Has the township
considered the implications of this?
[4:06:04] Where will the thousands of construction
workers who may be here for more than a
[4:06:07] decade live? Will they be commuting in?
What does that mean for traffic on 9659
[4:06:12] Grand River? Oh yeah, we were informed
last night that the developers are
[4:06:16] already pushing to have Grand River
permanently rerouted. So, can you
[4:06:19] imagine the traffic nightmare and
headache of that project on top of the
[4:06:22] data center construction?
But back to housing the workers, where
[4:06:28] will they live locally?
The economic development officer in
[4:06:33] Albuquerque who I spoke with said that
in their area these crews set up and
[4:06:37] live in man camps with RVs and portables
being set up around the construction
[4:06:41] site. Is Howell really okay with that?
If not, where on earth is the housing
[4:06:46] for these crews? It simply doesn't exist
right now. Such an influx will put
[4:06:50] tremendous upward pressure on rents and
housing prices, which will inevitably
[4:06:53] price out local residents. One outcome
of such a housing crisis will be to
[4:06:57] build more housing, likely more
apartments and highdensity multif family
[4:07:01] units. The exact thing that this
township and county residents largely
[4:07:05] want to avoid. Even a reason that some
folks cite in support of the data
[4:07:09] center. At least this land can't be
converted to a thousand homes. Well, if
[4:07:13] you bring in a thousand construction
workers, they're going to need a
[4:07:16] thousand homes. So now we have a data
center and more highdensity housing.
[4:07:20] Second, that influx of workers will put
significant strain on the local small
[4:07:24] businesses. What is the township
preparing to do to help them plan and
[4:07:28] prepare for such an increase in demand
for their goods and services? And beyond
[4:07:31] that, looking long-term when the
construction ends or at least tapers
[4:07:35] off, what type of economic support is
the township planning on providing to
[4:07:39] the local businesses when the demand
tapers off with the construction? to do
[4:07:43] nothing would leave a massive economic
collapse as businesses no longer have
[4:07:46] the customer base to support their
expanded operations and will be forced
[4:07:50] to downsize or close up entirely. So
what does the township intend to do to
[4:07:54] support these businesses and the
longtime local residents behind them
[4:07:58] through such periods of growth and
expansion? How much will it cost to
[4:08:02] provide that support?
Third, other municipalities, including
[4:08:07] ones much larger than our own, hire
third-party economic and financial
[4:08:10] advising to help them evaluate the
return on investment, account for other
[4:08:14] unforeseen costs involved with
overseeing the development of such large
[4:08:18] projects like data centers, among other
factors. And notably, they do this all
[4:08:22] before any reasonzoning approvals. Who
has the township hired to fill this
[4:08:27] role? The developers have mentioned time
and again how they will reimburse the
[4:08:31] township for infrastructure upgrades and
expansion. And that sounds nice and they
[4:08:35] should pay for that. But the reality is
that without careful attention to how
[4:08:39] these agreements are structured, the
financial liability will almost
[4:08:42] certainly remain on the township's
books, not the developers. Should this
[4:08:46] project fall through as Howell has
firsthand experience with in the recent
[4:08:50] past, or should the industry crash or
technology change so drastically that
[4:08:54] entire warehouses of servers can fit in
a single closet, a possibility already
[4:08:58] being discussed in the technology
sector, the financial liability for
[4:09:02] those infrastructure balances will fall
on the township. Allowing them to fund
[4:09:06] an escrow, use payments in le of taxes,
issuing bonds, using tax increment
[4:09:10] funding, etc. all places considerable
burden and risk on the township if not
[4:09:15] carefully negotiated with the assistance
of financial adviserss well-versed in
[4:09:19] avoiding any such loopholes. This data
center is unprecedented not just for the
[4:09:23] township but also the county and
arguably even the state of Michigan. We
[4:09:28] are in uncharted territory and sorry to
be blunt but it would be foolish to
[4:09:32] proceed without some outside advisers
helping us navigate this process. One
[4:09:36] side of the table is a multi-billion
dollar corporation with teams of
[4:09:40] expensive lawyers who have their
propaganda presentations and
[4:09:42] negotiations down to a science.
The other side of the table right now is
[4:09:47] just us, a small town with limited funds
and practically zero experience in
[4:09:52] negotiating deals of this magnitude and
significance. With all due respect to
[4:09:56] those currently involved with those
negotiations, we simply don't know what
[4:09:59] we don't know. And the risks of
overlooking something seemingly small
[4:10:03] may have disastrously enormous
consequences.
[4:10:07] Fourth, it's no secret that data centers
require huge amounts of electricity.
[4:10:11] Regardless of what you believe to be
true about the potential impacts on
[4:10:14] residential utility bills, the township
needs to consider the possibility that
[4:10:18] data centers, particularly large
hyperscale ones such as this, will
[4:10:22] include some type of energy production
and/or storage on site. If not now, then
[4:10:27] in the near future, their site plan
already accounts for several
[4:10:30] substations. What details do you know
about those? What ordinances do we have?
[4:10:35] From what I can tell, none to regulate
the size, location, and impacts of
[4:10:39] these, especially within the RT zoning
that they're requesting. Do you know or
[4:10:44] did you know that one of the ways data
centers claim to improve the grid
[4:10:47] reliability that they're claiming as a
benefit is by building battery energy
[4:10:52] storage systems on site and selling the
excess capacity back to the grid. The
[4:10:57] developers, when I question them
directly about this, did not deny this
[4:11:00] was a potentiality. and DTE also
directly confirmed to me that this is
[4:11:04] definitely one thing data centers
contract with them to do. As you likely
[4:11:08] know, best comes with substantial risks
and concerns of their own and are
[4:11:11] another thing the township completely
lacks ordinances for. If this data
[4:11:15] center gets approved as is, is the
township prepared for the risk and push
[4:11:19] back if developers add best to their
site plans? What can the township
[4:11:22] reasonably do at that point to protect
the community's health and well-being?
[4:11:26] What kind of liabilities will the
township face should residents
[4:11:29] experience harm from an unregulated use
like that? And another possibility to
[4:11:33] consider that is almost inevitable,
small modular nuclear reactors. These
[4:11:38] are drawing more attention in recent
months as a potential means for data
[4:11:42] centers to supply their own energy on
site. How does a township feel about a
[4:11:46] nuclear reactor being situated in the
middle of agricultural and residential
[4:11:49] land? What protections or restrictions
does the township have in place for such
[4:11:53] a possibility? And if this resoning
request is approved, what power would
[4:11:57] the township truly have to prevent this?
And again, what kind of liabilities
[4:12:01] would the township face should these
SMRs be built without a single ordinance
[4:12:05] on the books for them and something, God
forbid, goes wrong?
[4:12:09] Has the township truly considered
whether the substantial potential tax
[4:12:13] revenue is all good? Of course, all
those zeros are appealing. Who doesn't
[4:12:17] like the idea of such a substantial
financial boost? There's little argument
[4:12:21] that additional tax revenue could do
tremendous good for the community, but
[4:12:25] as the saying goes, if it seems too good
to be true, it probably is. The current
[4:12:29] board, and from what I've come to
understand, particularly the supervisor,
[4:12:32] has done a phenomenal job of turning
around a dire financial situation for
[4:12:36] the township. Clearly, the current board
has a solid understanding of making
[4:12:40] healthy financial decisions, but reality
is the current current board will not be
[4:12:44] in charge forever. Whatever decisions
were made in the past that nearly led
[4:12:49] the township to financial ruin could
absolutely happen again in the future
[4:12:53] with a single taxpayer making up such a
substantial portion of revenue from 33%
[4:12:57] at a minimum to over 83%
or more if the total investment exceeds
[4:13:02] the initial 5 billion projection.
If anything goes wrong with the AI
[4:13:07] sector, the township could face
financial ruin like it's never seen
[4:13:10] before. From obsolete technology and
facilities to the AI industries bubble
[4:13:14] bursting to the axe my tax initiative
passing and eliminating property taxes.
[4:13:19] Any number of things could lead the
township to losing a substantial portion
[4:13:22] of its revenue. So what does the
township intend to do to protect the
[4:13:27] community's financial well-being in such
an event? One option might be to
[4:13:31] formally sequester a significant portion
of that revenue, thus only meaningfully
[4:13:35] collecting a significantly smaller
portion of taxes with which to actually
[4:13:39] invest in the community.
And while this would protect the
[4:13:43] finances, it would also significantly
diminish the true financial benefit the
[4:13:47] township would reap. As far as I can
tell, that's just about the only aspect
[4:13:50] of this that could be reasonably
considered a benefit to the community.
[4:13:55] So now the township would be taking on
all the risks that have been discussed
[4:13:59] adnauseium with very little financial
benefit to speak of. So, wouldn't it
[4:14:03] make more sense to simply attract a
smaller project with fewer negative
[4:14:07] community impacts and more long-term
local jobs for the same modest and
[4:14:11] responsible amount of revenue?
Another option would be to diversify the
[4:14:16] tax base. The only way this happens is
by expanding economic growth in the very
[4:14:20] ways the community claims to want to
avoid. Increase housing development,
[4:14:24] increase and expand commercial and
industrial development. By bringing in
[4:14:28] more taxpayers from other sectors, you
do shrink the portion of revenue
[4:14:31] collected from this one entity and thus
you shrink the risks associated with
[4:14:35] such a huge concentration from the data
center. But this obviously comes at the
[4:14:39] cost of maintaining our small town
character and appeal. It would mean a
[4:14:42] fundamental and permanent change to our
township and the county, one that
[4:14:46] residents and this board have all
overwhelming overwhelmingly expressed
[4:14:50] opposition to. So, please consider that
the tax revenue alone is not necessarily
[4:14:55] the blessing that it may seem to be. A
final thought I would like to ask you to
[4:15:00] consider is the type of community member
this unnamed entity would actually be.
[4:15:04] They are no doubt exerting tremendous
pressure on this board to pass the
[4:15:08] resoning despite public public
opposition. They keep saying how they
[4:15:12] want to be a long-term community member,
how they intend to take care of us and
[4:15:15] look out for us and value our input and
concerns. Yet, they're also telling you
[4:15:20] we can't do better than the conditions
they're offering. But from a cursory
[4:15:24] dive into other existing ordinances,
that's simply not true. We can do much
[4:15:28] better and plenty of other
municipalities already are. They are
[4:15:32] threatening to walk away if this doesn't
happen on their timeline and that
[4:15:35] someone less caring about our concerns
will come next. They are also likely
[4:15:40] possibly threatening or at least
alluding to a lawsuit for one reason or
[4:15:44] another. Are these thinly veiled or even
overt threats the mark of a caring and
[4:15:48] considerate community member? Is that
type of manipulation and pressure the
[4:15:52] sort of character we want to bring into
the community? I'd say those threats and
[4:15:56] that pressure is all the more reason to
tell them no. A healthy relationship
[4:16:00] between any two individuals or entities
does not involve pressure to move
[4:16:03] quicker than you're comfortable with,
and it does not involve coercion. If
[4:16:08] proceeding on our terms or not at all
means they make good on their threats to
[4:16:11] sue, then so be it. The public will
support the board for having our backs.
[4:16:16] We do not want nor need a company
willing to financially harm us in order
[4:16:20] to get their way. They can either prove
their worthiness by backing off as a
[4:16:24] developer in Kasca just rightfully and
respectfully did or they can prove our
[4:16:28] skepticism valid by trying to force
their way in. Do not make hasty
[4:16:32] decisions out of fear. We have been just
fine without a data center and will
[4:16:36] continue to be. Stand boldly with us and
for us in the face of such undue
[4:16:40] pressure come what may. In closing, I do
hope my full report that I sent in can
[4:16:45] be distributed to the entire board for
further analysis of all the issues
[4:16:49] surrounding data centers. I did not
write it as a formal research paper, but
[4:16:53] I did site over 50 sources and tried to
make an honest evaluation of the pros
[4:16:56] and the cons. I know reading such a
document can be tedious, but the
[4:17:01] significance of this decision deserves a
significant investment of time and
[4:17:04] attention, which I know all of you are
putting in. Thank you for the
[4:17:09] opportunity to share my concerns tonight
and please don't hesitate to reach out
[4:17:12] to me to discuss these matters in more
detail.
[4:17:15] » Thank you.
[4:17:26] Mine will be very short. This is Maggie
Tunks again. Um I'm just have a question
[4:17:31] or a concern about the candidate that
you're picking for the planning
[4:17:34] commission. I think it's a terrible time
to pick a candidate to come on board.
[4:17:40] Everyone, I'm sure that is considering
this has an opinion, either positive or
[4:17:46] negative. I just I just don't see it
being a good idea. And you've asked,
[4:17:50] someone said he was, you know, for we
know one person was for it, but you
[4:17:54] didn't choose him. Um, and also
regarding planning, these people, I
[4:17:59] think, should live in the township, you
know, not just be part of the county. I
[4:18:04] mean, I think they should actually not
just own property here, but live and
[4:18:08] care about it, you know, to develop it,
you know, not someone that has a
[4:18:13] business interest like maybe a realtor.
So, that's all I want to say. I just
[4:18:17] think getting or choosing a a candidate
right now or to fill that position,
[4:18:22] which it's been open for months, I
understand. Um, in fact, I think it was
[4:18:26] even back in March it was it was open.
So, I'm sorry. That's all I want to say.
[4:18:30] I really think you need to consider
choosing someone at this time. Thank
[4:18:34] you.
>> Thank you.
[4:18:43] » Hi, Dan Wallahan again. Um, couple
things comments want to make. Um, first
[4:18:48] I heard talking exclusionary zoning
doesn't really apply here. It would be
[4:18:53] spot zoning though.
But we have industry east Burkheart
[4:18:59] south of Grand River Emmens.
That's a good place for something like a
[4:19:03] data center which is industry if you're
going to do it. DT they're been they're
[4:19:08] sticking their necks in there. They're
corrupt as can be duopoly. They control
[4:19:12] the state
and they'll raise our rates more and
[4:19:16] we're going to be paying for it. Um,
hear lots about back channel stuff about
[4:19:22] lawsuits and threats. Um, big law is
beatable. I've personally beaten
[4:19:28] Dickinson, Wright, who's the attorney on
the attorney firm for the developer.
[4:19:35] I've beaten Goodman Aker, the solo
practitioner. They're beatable.
[4:19:40] My wife has beaten big law. Don't be
scared of them. Do the right thing. File
[4:19:45] your planning and county planning
commission. You have some backup here.
[4:19:49] If they threaten your jobs, you do the
right things, you'll win. We'll have
[4:19:53] your back. I've run more elections than
I can count.
[4:19:58] Now, if the wrong thing happens, well,
2013, Genanoa, they tried to wait and
[4:20:03] pave my dirt road when I lived there.
3,000 bucks. I killed the millillage.
[4:20:09] After I left Genanoa, the board got
fired. Newer board, different board got
[4:20:12] fired over lats and development. Green
Township, Goan, Eagle Township, they all
[4:20:17] got recalled. I know how to run a recall
campaign, get that going 24, 48 hours. I
[4:20:22] don't want to go that route. I'd rather
go defense and say, "Our board did a
[4:20:27] good job. Let's protect them. Please do
the right thing or are you going to
[4:20:32] create a lot of extra work for me?"
>> Thank you.
[4:20:45] Good evening. My name is Jason Montter,
3450 Amber Oaks Drive. Um,
[4:20:51] not not for the data center in that
area. You know, for data centers, I see
[4:20:58] a need for it, but yet I don't see a
need for it. Um,
[4:21:05] my biggest concern is energy usage. Um,
my brother-in-law is
[4:21:12] been working for DT at the coal fired
plant down Monroe or Frenchtown Township
[4:21:18] now for about 7 years. Um, they are
looking at closing that plant. I think
[4:21:25] it's supposed to be happening in 2026 or
27, so it's coming up pretty close. Um,
[4:21:32] he's not sure exactly what he's going to
be doing after that.
[4:21:37] Um,
[4:21:40] so I don't I don't see how all these
different data centers that they're
[4:21:44] wanting to build and plan where that
extra power is coming from. And I know
[4:21:49] that in previous summers,
uh, you know, we've been asked, hey,
[4:21:54] turn up your thermostat. You know, we
don't want your air conditioner running
[4:21:58] and so forth. We've also had issues with
brown oats in our subdivision at least
[4:22:04] uh here in H Township. So, those are
some of my concerns about it. You know,
[4:22:09] I appreciate all your guys'
being here late, you know, hearing all
[4:22:15] these people talking and so forth.
In addition to that, um had a question
[4:22:21] more specifically about uh and I don't
know if there's been any updates since I
[4:22:26] last read about uh in meeting minutes,
but uh Wrangler Saloon as far as that
[4:22:31] being demolished, torn down,
it just looks to be an isore for one,
[4:22:38] but two, the roof is in really bad
shape, and I don't know if it's going to
[4:22:43] make it through the winter, and the one
wall looks like it's already bowing out
[4:22:47] quite badly and I see cars parked there,
you know, just hanging out and things
[4:22:53] right next to it. Um,
so just something I I guess does anybody
[4:23:00] know what's currently going on with that
project?
[4:23:07] » They're working on a development at this
point, but we can look into it and keep
[4:23:12] it moving forward. Yeah, I guess just
some updates on that project as far as
[4:23:16] uh where they go or maybe just fencing
it off for the time being until they do
[4:23:20] tear down. So, all right. Thank you.
Anyone else for a call to the public?
[4:23:28] All right, moving on to reports.
Supervisor report. Um, unfortunately,
[4:23:33] everybody left. Uh, the NDA is a big
question. I did sign an NDA. And the
[4:23:39] reason I signed the NDA is realtor comes
in with a resident, not a Van Gilder,
[4:23:44] um, presents a project to us and the
realtor is underneath the NDA. So, in
[4:23:52] order to get into the room to understand
this billion-dollar project, we're
[4:23:56] requested to sign an NDA. So, I did sign
the NDA. We did go into the room.
[4:24:02] nothing was ever disclosed on who this
company was. Any of the information that
[4:24:07] was given in those meetings was
released. Um, so you know that that's
[4:24:13] what I got. And I guess I think it was
Steve that said I screwed up. Maybe I
[4:24:17] did. But I also have a fiscal
responsibility that if that project
[4:24:24] would have been some small seed company
that happened to sit in the middle of a
[4:24:27] field and not been a problem went to the
next township over and it was found out
[4:24:31] that well you didn't want to send NDA
for this simple little itty bitty
[4:24:35] project.
It kind of holds me responsible for a
[4:24:38] large tax base going away. So I did not
see an issue signing an NDA going into
[4:24:43] that. Um I know how to get out of NDAs.
It's I work in an industry that uses
[4:24:49] NDAs on a regular basis. So that that is
I did do it. Maybe I screwed up. Maybe I
[4:24:56] didn't. But before any meetings were
made public, we had them rescended. So
[4:25:01] legal counsel helped us with that to
make sure they were true and clearly
[4:25:05] gone. So
unless you have any questions of the
[4:25:09] supervisor, move on to Trevor.
>> Mr. Supervisor. Sure. Um, I would like
[4:25:15] to entertain a discussion about
releasing the uh FOYA, the 900page FOYA
[4:25:23] that was shared with the board as a
matter of transparency for all the
[4:25:27] public um if the board would be
interested in
[4:25:32] u publicly posting that FOYA that has
been fulfilled.
[4:25:38] So that's all
[4:25:42] » I don't have a problem with it.
>> Okay.
[4:25:44] » It's a public document now.
>> Yeah.
[4:25:46] » Once it's once it's done and paid for,
it's a public document. I don't have a
[4:25:50] problem.
>> What would be the method? And I guess
[4:25:52] Chris, what is is there there should be
no legal issue with that?
[4:25:56] » No, no problem. They're they're all
public records anyways. So, uh, we
[4:25:59] wouldn't have any opposition to it.
>> So, it' literally just be the link to
[4:26:02] the Dropbox. Is that how we really
>> Yeah, we'd have to figure out where's
[4:26:06] the easiest way to host. I don't know
how large the PDF is as a single file.
[4:26:11] So, but we could figure something out.
>> Okay.
[4:26:13] » Because couldn't we do it on our web
page somehow, so anybody that goes there
[4:26:16] could see it
>> possible.
[4:26:19] I guess I don't know.
>> I'm not the
[4:26:22] » You'd have to um you'd have to just look
at the size of things perhaps like a
[4:26:27] folder structure or something
compressing the documents and whatnot to
[4:26:30] like make it consumable. You'd also want
to look at this the there could be some
[4:26:35] size constraints on the website that say
only certain documents of certain size
[4:26:39] can be uploaded. So you just have to
figure it out, right? I'm sure our tech
[4:26:43] team can help us with that or whatever.
>> I think it was 149 megabytes.
[4:26:49] » That's
a lot of documents.
[4:26:53] » I couldn't send it to anybody. So
>> yeah, you wouldn't be able to send
[4:26:56] something like that via mail.
>> Okay. Any concern with releasing that?
[4:27:02] Not hearing any.
>> Shall I make a motion?
[4:27:05] » Are we good? I think we're good. Okay. I
don't see
[4:27:08] » I don't have a problem with it.
>> I think it's a good idea.
[4:27:10] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[4:27:11] » Release it.
>> Any other questions? Supervisor
[4:27:13] treasurer.
>> Um, you have the you have the report, so
[4:27:17] that's it.
>> Okay,
[4:27:20] clerk.
>> Um, we're just kind of busy with FOYAS
[4:27:24] over inated with them. Um, other than
that, we're trying to get the things
[4:27:30] done that need to be done.
>> Okay, I lost
[4:27:36] very sorry. Can we go back to the
treasurer just real sure, Jonathan? Mind
[4:27:41] » is a real quick question. Um, on the I
believe it's the permit uh revenues,
[4:27:50] there's a line item known as enhanced
access fees. Could you explain what that
[4:27:55] is for me?
So those are the fees that people pay
[4:27:59] when they use their card.
>> Okay. Simply that just a card processing
[4:28:04] fee.
>> It is. And so this is also the old
[4:28:06] processing company. And this will be the
last report you get um because we've
[4:28:11] moved on to the new company. And so they
we don't the the old company despite us
[4:28:17] trying to get out of it uh would send us
money back. We asked if they could
[4:28:21] reduce the rate instead and they said
no.
[4:28:24] » So yeah. So we we that's what these
numbers are.
[4:28:27] » Yeah, I saw a separation of so they they
take a chunk and we get a chunk of that.
[4:28:34] » Yeah. So like year to date they've sent
us $85.
[4:28:38] So
>> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. That's what I
[4:28:41] suspected it was. I just wanted a
clarification. So thank you Mr.
[4:28:45] Treasure.
>> Okay. Any questions of the clerk before
[4:28:49] I move on to the clerk?
>> No item.
[4:28:50] » Okay. Thank you. zoning
uh report.
[4:28:55] » I have one for uh zoning.
>> Okay.
[4:28:58] » I attended a Michigan Township
Association meeting
[4:29:03] a month or so ago and what I did learn
in that meeting is
[4:29:08] our board um in the ADU ordinance
uh restricted that to only family. But
[4:29:15] then when I go to the Michigan Township
Association meeting, they tell me that
[4:29:19] that's just open. And you said that Mr.
Patterson down there. I believe you're
[4:29:23] opening yourself up to a first u
constitutional violation by limiting to
[4:29:29] limiting ADUs to just family.
I think that needs to be looked back
[4:29:34] into.
Weren't you there, Chris?
[4:29:38] » I don't I'm assuming maybe you were
thinking of the docket in the afternoon.
[4:29:42] I don't I'm assum maybe it was the hot
topic. I I didn't present on ADUs at
[4:29:47] that conference, so I'm thinking it's
somebody else. It was at Oola Township.
[4:29:52] » Okay. Definitely definitely not me.
>> I didn't know if you're there or not,
[4:29:56] but anyway, I think that needs to be
looked into before the township gets
[4:29:59] sued.
>> Okay.
[4:30:04] Anything else under zoning
assessing? Got a report. Fire authority
[4:30:12] reaffirmation of our health and um
healthcare savings plan. Basically, they
[4:30:19] took the longevity of the retiring
firefighters. Uh rather than having it
[4:30:24] be covered going forward, they are
putting $30,000 or $3,000 a year into a
[4:30:31] health savings account. So when they do
retire, they'll have that gap between
[4:30:36] the time they go on to Medicaid,
Medicare, um that they can use that
[4:30:40] money. So as opposed to before they had
their medical covered from the time they
[4:30:46] were retired till they decided to take
that,
[4:30:50] that's just a longevity cost for the
town or for the fire authority that they
[4:30:55] wanted to bring down. Uh, engine 22,
which has been a heartache for several
[4:31:02] months, was back out of service. They
got it back for a minute and then it
[4:31:05] went back in.
Next month we'll be able to report that,
[4:31:09] you know, there's a replacement and
hopefully that engine will been sold.
[4:31:14] Uh, had a long discussion on the radio
system. I think we've covered this a
[4:31:18] couple times. The 800 megahertz system
the county doesn't want to invest in.
[4:31:22] Uh, sounds like there's actually some
movement moving forward that they're
[4:31:25] going to put put the extra towers in,
but those are not going to be funded.
[4:31:30] So, it's still going to fall back onto
each individual using it, fire, EMS,
[4:31:36] sheriff, and everything else to cover
the maintenance on those, which is the
[4:31:40] radios and the contracts and all of that
stuff. And I think that was about it.
[4:31:47] Okay. Questions of fire authority?
What what radios do you use right now?
[4:31:54] » Well, there's two different system. VHF
is the one that is used for dispatching.
[4:32:00] So, both EMS and fire uses that. So, 911
will hit a tone. Tone opens up all their
[4:32:07] pagers. That's how they respond. Um, as
soon as that tone happens, they go into
[4:32:14] an 800 system. that was supposed to be
the the new and the latest and the
[4:32:19] greatest been in existence probably 25
years. There's not enough towers to give
[4:32:26] coverage good coverage around the
county. So how area fire does really
[4:32:31] well because the tower is here. Um when
you get down into the green oaks and the
[4:32:35] the Putinhams and the people that get
out, you know, further that 800 system
[4:32:41] does not work well. uh they run into
issues when they're inside a structure,
[4:32:45] they'll lose radio service and things
like that. So, the goal is the original
[4:32:50] plan was there was I believe five or six
towers supposed to be across the county
[4:32:55] when it was originally implemented. 20
years ago, we're still working off the
[4:32:58] one tower. So now they're we're pushing
to get the other towers in that were
[4:33:05] needed years ago to be able to but the
the VHF system is also a there there's
[4:33:11] calls not being uh
received. So you know EMS people they
[4:33:18] sleep at night they got their pager
there and the pager is supposed to wake
[4:33:22] them up when they have a call to get in
the ambulance and go service people.
[4:33:26] they're actually sleeping with their 800
radio because if the Minitor or the
[4:33:31] pager doesn't go off,
Central will start calling them on the
[4:33:35] 800 and they'll wake up and and be able
to hear the 800 being called. So there's
[4:33:41] there's it it's a huge issue. So uh
hopefully the county will move forward
[4:33:48] on the the all of the funding for the
911 comes from the your service fee on
[4:33:53] your phone bill.
Uh it was set at like a $1.75 way back
[4:33:58] when it was the law was passed. It can
be up to $3 now. Uh the county has no
[4:34:04] interest in moving to that $3 mark in
order to fund this type of stuff.
[4:34:11] They want to stay on that low tax base
thing. So they and they feel that moving
[4:34:17] from a dollar to $3 is an additional
tax. So
[4:34:22] it's it's a mess. Um,
>> so where are the funds going to come
[4:34:26] from to put the towers up? You said you
would you guys would be responsible for
[4:34:29] maintenance.
>> The county has the money.
[4:34:32] » Are they going to spend it to put the
towers up?
[4:34:34] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[4:34:35] » They're investing in the towers
themselves. Um, but an example, um,
[4:34:43] there was federal money that came, Mr.
Barrett brought it, I believe. I don't I
[4:34:48] can't say for sure. It was like
$400,000. And and the reality is that
[4:34:53] will uh they'll put a foundation in for
one of these things. They're they're
[4:34:57] about a million dollars to power. So you
got
[4:35:01] and then the maintenance is thousands
and thousands of dollars a year. So plus
[4:35:06] all of the individual radios, they all
have to be coded to match that 800
[4:35:09] system using those towers.
>> Okay. So how does how does fire
[4:35:13] authority plan to pay for the
maintenance then? Are you are you
[4:35:16] looking at like how much that's going to
be? And I mean, we were talking earlier
[4:35:20] about how much fire trucks were.
>> Yep.
[4:35:23] » And I mean, fire trucks keep going up
and now you're adding additional items
[4:35:27] of maintenance.
>> A lot of the maintenance comes into the
[4:35:30] radios. Um,
think a portable radio I think right now
[4:35:36] is about $3,000.
Uh, so these guys are carrying them into
[4:35:40] fires and things happen to them. You
know, they get dropped, they get So, uh,
[4:35:44] that's that's part of the maintenance.
Originally when the 800 system was set
[4:35:49] up, um county did cover all the radios.
Each people got each department got x
[4:35:54] amount of radios per year. Um but
they've stepped away from that. So now
[4:35:58] each individual department has to buy
their own radios. So that type of
[4:36:01] maintenance something they're very
accustomed to. I mean they've been
[4:36:04] paying for the maintenance for years,
but they'll be happy if they have the
[4:36:09] towers to maintain honestly. So, okay.
Any other questions of fire authority
[4:36:16] mhog?
[4:36:21] Got to go back a month, not yesterday.
>> Oh, I
[4:36:28] uh I have my notes from yesterday. So,
um 56 million uh gallons of water for um
[4:36:36] October. um update on the maring cross
country main. Uh the open cut on Cedar
[4:36:42] Lake and Nort Road is complete. Their
directional drilling um uh as part of
[4:36:46] schedule A and then the um
DNR property where they hit that very
[4:36:54] very soft pete that was causing some
structural issues. uh they're getting
[4:36:58] preliminary contract pricing from their
structural engineer and they're going to
[4:37:03] work with the general contractor to put
a price together to figure out how much
[4:37:07] that's going to cost. Um we did have to
do a change control um about $20,000
[4:37:14] give or take. It's important to note
actually that um the Greg Greg and the
[4:37:18] whole LHog team have done a really good
job. We've not done this is actually the
[4:37:23] first change control we've done and I'd
say they're probably about 60 to 70%
[4:37:28] done with the project. So that's pretty
dang good. They have spent nothing of
[4:37:32] the contingency budget yet so far. So
overall I think they're doing pretty
[4:37:36] good considering what they've been
running into. Uh we did a development
[4:37:39] review. All of that's going very well.
Um and then fall hydrant flushing is
[4:37:45] complete. So
>> any questions of them?
[4:37:51] Planning Commission.
>> So, the planning commission had two
[4:37:54] meetings since we met last. The first
one was on October 28th. Um, that was a
[4:37:58] fairly light meeting. The minutes are in
front of you. Um, we did introduce the
[4:38:03] data data center committee um to the PC.
It was wellreceived.
[4:38:09] Um, I think since then they've had some
reorganizational structure. They've met
[4:38:13] a few times and I think they would like
to present that to the board if they
[4:38:18] can. That would be okay.
>> Anybody have an issue with that?
[4:38:23] » Sure.
[4:38:36] » Hello again.
When this Do I need to state my name?
[4:38:42] I'm sorry.
>> Do I need to state my name again or are
[4:38:45] we good?
>> Does she need to state her name again?
[4:38:47] » Oh, no. You're good.
>> Okay. Uh when this committee was formed,
[4:38:50] it was approved and created for the
purpose of aiding the township to
[4:38:55] provide an extension of resources in
order to better explore what ordinances
[4:39:00] and regulations others utilize for newer
uses such as data centers and related
[4:39:06] developments like cryptocurrency mining,
battery energy storage systems, etc. But
[4:39:13] limited detail and committee structure
was determined when it was formed. The
[4:39:18] purpose of the committee as approved by
the board was to gather and analyze
[4:39:22] information and relay it to the township
for further review simply to ensure that
[4:39:28] they had additional resources and
further opportunity for due diligence
[4:39:32] with these newer uses being brought
before the community.
[4:39:36] Afterward, we were strongly advised by
the township to not make any changes to
[4:39:41] the number of committee members or to
the members themselves.
[4:39:45] We were also advised not to assume a
role that interacted with the public as
[4:39:50] the public already had avenues to
directly contact the board and the
[4:39:54] planning commission.
We were asked to assign roles and told
[4:39:59] we could reorganize as we saw fit, but
with the stipulation that
[4:40:06] um chair positions could not also be
board members as this would be a
[4:40:11] conflict to have a committee chair
person present to the same board that
[4:40:16] they also sat on.
It is our understanding that because we
[4:40:21] are not writing or crafting ordinances
and regulations from scratch and only
[4:40:26] researching and passing information
along to the township for further
[4:40:30] review. The meetings the committee um
has are not subject to OMA requirements
[4:40:36] and we would like uh confirmation on
that topic. We need some guidance
[4:40:40] please.
At our last PC meeting, the planning
[4:40:44] commission seemed very supportive of
this committee and we were encouraged in
[4:40:49] the interest of being a truly
residentled
[4:40:52] uh committee to ensure that the citizen
residents served as the only chair and
[4:40:57] voting members on the committee with the
township officials serving in a
[4:41:02] supportive oversight capacity.
With the above information in mind, the
[4:41:07] citizen residents of the committee have
composed our organizational structure
[4:41:12] and request the township's approval. We
hope that this additional information
[4:41:17] provides clarity and respectfully
request that we be given the opportunity
[4:41:21] to fulfill our role. Thank you for your
consideration. And I do have the
[4:41:25] organizational structure to give to you
guys, too.
[4:41:29] » Okay.
>> I don't know if you want me to read that
[4:41:31] out loud, too.
>> Sure. Yeah, we got to understand what
[4:41:34] we're working with here.
>> Sure. Um, so, uh, resident research
[4:41:39] advisory committee
>> objective. The resident research
[4:41:44] advisory committee is a residentled
advisory group established to gather,
[4:41:50] analyze, and present information
relevant to ordinances and regulations,
[4:41:55] including but not limited to the
following uses: cryptocurrency mining,
[4:42:00] data processing facilities, battery
energy storage systems, etc. to Howell
[4:42:05] Township.
Its purpose is to help protect public
[4:42:10] interest by identifying potential
impacts on water, air, energy, land use,
[4:42:16] noise, emergency services, taxation,
community character, and more. and by
[4:42:22] recommending for review appropriate
related regulatory safeguards and
[4:42:27] ordinances
provide research-based recommendations
[4:42:31] to Howell Township that are aligned with
the master plan and future land use map
[4:42:37] and pertain to ordinance and regulatory
updates and zoning protections to assist
[4:42:42] with well-thoughtout long-term planning
decisions. recommend responsible
[4:42:47] development that prioritizes the health,
safety, quality of life, financial, and
[4:42:51] other interests of township residents,
and the sustainability of shared
[4:42:55] resources through effective
well-ressearched planning and
[4:42:58] regulation.
The committee operates independent of
[4:43:02] developers and utilities,
collaborates closely with township
[4:43:07] officials, and serves as an extension of
resources with citizen resident
[4:43:12] perspective.
Its conduct shall be to adhere to
[4:43:18] township requirements, to operate in a
safe manner for all members, to conduct
[4:43:24] all business in a respectful,
professional, and collaborative manner
[4:43:28] within and outside of committee
meetings,
[4:43:33] to ensure all members focus on the
intent and purpose of the committee.
[4:43:38] Board members sit on the committee for
oversight and final decision on what
[4:43:42] information to put forward to the
township will be made by majority vote
[4:43:47] of the citizen resident members. In the
event of a tie, there will be a rotating
[4:43:52] tiebreaker decision from one of the two
co-chairs.
[4:43:56] And we also um at the advice of the
township chose a different co-chair
[4:44:02] because we can't have Mr. Wilson sit as
co-chair because he also sits on the
[4:44:06] board. was the advice we were given. Um,
and so we wanted to name Corey Ulten as
[4:44:11] the other co-chair. Um, myself a
co-chair and I'm already listed that
[4:44:16] way. Kristen Dennison we wanted to
designate as secretary and Dan Banelloo
[4:44:21] as treasurer. And then those are the
committee members. And then the advisory
[4:44:25] members we have Brent Kilpella, Bob
Wilson and Tim Bull. Thank you.
[4:44:33] » Okay. So the question was since they
were formed by motion before, do we need
[4:44:38] a motion to accept this from the the
board? I think
[4:44:44] » I I mean it probably doesn't hurt in my
opinion. I I have another follow-up
[4:44:47] question when we're done with this one.
>> I don't have a problem with what they're
[4:44:52] doing. I mean,
>> I'm sorry.
[4:44:55] » I don't have a problem with what they're
doing. If we I don't think we need to
[4:44:58] vote on it. I just let them do what they
want to do.
[4:45:01] » If you want to vote, we'll vote. Well, I
I would say that the board took a
[4:45:07] position and voted to make you the chair
and to make Tim, I believe, the co-chair
[4:45:13] and that was the structure of the
committee. And now without any board
[4:45:19] approval or disapproval, the structures
changed. So, we certainly as a board
[4:45:25] need to evaluate these changes and see
if it fulfills the intention of the
[4:45:30] board.
>> Okay. I also have a question
[4:45:35] » since they're not all residents.
>> Hang on one second.
[4:45:38] » I'm co-chair and Mr. Wilson is co-chair
currently. That's how the structure is
[4:45:43] currently laid out.
>> That was on that reconstruction.
[4:45:46] » No, that that's how the committee was
originally set up,
[4:45:49] » right? Okay.
>> Okay.
[4:45:50] » Y
>> sorry to interrupt, Sue.
[4:45:52] » Sue,
>> so
[4:45:55] aren't they supposed to all be residents
of the township?
[4:45:59] Is is Kristen the only member that's not
a township resident?
[4:46:05] » Yeah. Okay.
>> I I this is all new. So, I mean that's
[4:46:11] at the discretion of of us, I guess. I
mean,
[4:46:15] » well, my only goal was to give the
citizens an opportunity to have a part
[4:46:19] in this.
>> So, may I just weigh in a little bit on
[4:46:23] that? Um,
I do live only obviously, you know, two
[4:46:28] miles or so away as the crow flies from
the data center proposed site, which is
[4:46:33] a lot closer than a majority of Howell
Township does. Um, the facility would be
[4:46:40] directly across the street from Handy
Township. The township line between to
[4:46:45] the north is only a mile um beyond the
property line as well for Kahaka and
[4:46:50] Conway. the
municipal water mhog would also draw
[4:46:56] from Marian Genanoa Oola townships
that's seven counties directly affected
[4:47:00] by this so it's true I'm not a hell
resident so I don't know if there's like
[4:47:03] a you know technical legal ramification
of it
[4:47:07] » that's what I want to know
>> and how would the residents feel that
[4:47:11] somebody from Kaka Township is
representing them and making their
[4:47:14] decisions
>> right well that that's kind of what I
[4:47:16] was speaking to is you know as it is
right now Howell is the only one with a
[4:47:21] official say in the matter, but we all
have all these other townships do have
[4:47:26] vested interests. So, oops. As long as
there's not like a technical reason, I
[4:47:31] think, you know,
>> is that a problem or no?
[4:47:35] » No, it's a it's an ad hoc committee that
the board created. The qualifications of
[4:47:39] it are at the board's decision
discretion.
[4:47:41] » Okay.
>> Personally, I think I realize that she's
[4:47:44] not a resident, but I think Kristen has
a lot of information to provide.
[4:47:51] So, um, the question I had is actually
for Chris and so Corey and I had a
[4:47:57] convers well, we've had a couple
conversations in communication and I
[4:48:01] provided him with your
uh, is it a legal letter that you
[4:48:05] provide and and one of them was about
the open meetings act and so I guess
[4:48:10] that goes to the question of do you have
any issues with them not complying with
[4:48:15] the open meetings act as you've heard
their committee is organized? I I I'd
[4:48:20] have to see the documents. I don't know.
When you say opinion, you could be
[4:48:23] referring to like an e-letter that I've
written. There was a recent Michigan
[4:48:26] Supreme Court case that sort of confused
the process. It's Pine Brook versus
[4:48:30] Warren. We've talked about it. I've
lectured on it. It's an unfortunate case
[4:48:33] that complicates the situation. So
listening to my ear is a little bit
[4:48:37] different than discerning it by being
able to read it. So I would want to sort
[4:48:41] of reserve that to if this is what the
direction you're going I kind of need to
[4:48:45] understand comparing that in relation to
the board's direction. Generally it
[4:48:50] seems probably unlikely because I it's
if I'm gathering it correctly it's
[4:48:54] really a factf finding body to gather
stuff. No decision making no
[4:48:58] deliberation on public policy that
should fall outside that case but it
[4:49:02] it's a little conflated the way that it
was decided by the Supreme Court. So it
[4:49:05] needs to be looked at.
I I believe ering on a side of caution
[4:49:12] and making it um subject to the open
meeting open meetings act would only
[4:49:18] further ensure transparency through this
process. So I don't I I wouldn't
[4:49:24] understand why these should be a closed
session. Um it was said that there's uh
[4:49:31] discussions on what um on what evidence
or information to present the board. All
[4:49:38] that acts as an advisory committee to
the board that helps the board formulate
[4:49:43] its decisions. So I really don't see how
this uh committee could be exempt from
[4:49:50] the open meetings act as it's been
presented. personally.
[4:49:54] » Are you currently meeting at at private
residence and scheduling it when it
[4:49:59] works for your schedule?
>> Yeah.
[4:50:01] » Well, just so we only had one formal
meeting scheduled um and it got
[4:50:08] cancelled. So, we haven't
>> So, you haven't met yet?
[4:50:11] » No, I mean, we've been communicating,
but we haven't officially started
[4:50:14] anything because we don't have a
structure approved yet. So, that's what
[4:50:17] we're here. So, we can start like I've I
research on my own. I'm sure, you know,
[4:50:23] we all research on our own, but we
haven't done any formal, you know,
[4:50:29] committee business yet because we
haven't we're here tonight to
[4:50:34] » we're not writing ordinances either,
right? To that point about the Supreme
[4:50:38] Court case. We did look at that and as a
resident research committee that is the
[4:50:43] whole intent is that we comply with that
court case because their issue was they
[4:50:49] were writing ordinances directly to the
township board from my understanding
[4:50:53] » with a recommendation
>> with recommendations. We are not doing
[4:50:56] that. So I I did research that case that
you're talking about, Chris, and I think
[4:51:00] that was taken in that context that they
were they were actually doing quite a
[4:51:05] bit. It was locally, too, wasn't it?
Like Royal Oak somewhere down southeast
[4:51:09] Michigan.
>> Uh so it's it's a little little
[4:51:12] complicated. It's recommendations that
they made on an application. One one of
[4:51:15] the things that's problematic about the
case is there's a line in there used to
[4:51:19] relate to you draw the line on whether
it was a deliberation or decision on
[4:51:22] policy. the the K the court sort of has
a conjunctive test. There's a part where
[4:51:27] they said, well, the fact that city
council received the materials from them
[4:51:31] and then accepted it with no further
deliberation seem to suggest that
[4:51:34] effectively they thought practically
there must have been meetings that were
[4:51:37] occurring in violation of the Open
Meetings Act. So, it it's a little bit
[4:51:42] more than just suggesting the structure
alone can prevent the problem with that
[4:51:45] case. That's why it's that case causes
some problems with committees now. So,
[4:51:49] I'm just saying it needs to be looked
at. I don't know the answer tonight, but
[4:51:52] right ordinances in that situation.
>> I actually my memory is that it's
[4:51:56] recommendations on applications for
marijuana licenses. It's a city, not a
[4:52:01] township and it came with actually staff
involved at the city level. Uh and it
[4:52:06] was a question of whether or not that
committee that didn't meet in compliance
[4:52:09] with the open meetings act had violated
it when those applications came before
[4:52:13] the council with no deliberation and
were then accepted and awarded.
[4:52:17] » Chris, I have a question.
>> Yes. Do we rem do we remove ourselves
[4:52:22] from any conflict if we remove the
advisory committee members two being
[4:52:28] board members and one being an employee
of the township?
[4:52:32] » Do you remove concern?
>> Do we remove the conflict of the open
[4:52:35] meeting issue go away if Brent the
assessor Bob the trust
[4:52:39] » Oh no that's that's not the issue. If
there if you potentially are still
[4:52:42] creating the commiss committee and
you're asking them to do something that
[4:52:46] falls within the line of that case, then
the issue still arises. It because
[4:52:49] you're right, you're cloaking them with
some official capacity on behalf of the
[4:52:52] board. It's not an issue that you have
two board members and the assessor on
[4:52:55] there.
>> Does anyone have an objection with
[4:52:58] providing their paperwork as they have
laid it out to Chris for review?
[4:53:03] » No, that was going to be my
recommendation.
[4:53:05] » I don't have any issue with that at all.
>> Yeah. To to get us that information so
[4:53:09] we can look at it. Number one, our next
meeting is only two weeks away. Um, I I
[4:53:14] would go for a consensus of the board
that they have no issue of them
[4:53:18] continuing to meet and working on
whatever they're working on under that
[4:53:22] structure
in the next two weeks. But
[4:53:25] » they haven't they haven't met yet. They
haven't met yet. Right.
[4:53:28] » Right. But if they wanted to get
together and start working towards that
[4:53:31] direction, I'm not hearing anything that
is anybody's absolutely opposed to this,
[4:53:36] but I think we need to make it right.
>> Sure. And I think the other question
[4:53:40] would be is how is the information
relayed back to the planning commission?
[4:53:43] Is that going to go, you know, is one of
the co-chairs going to bring that
[4:53:48] information back? Is it going to go
through Tim being the liaison of the
[4:53:55] planning commission or that would be
>> in theory? I I I would think that and
[4:54:00] that's another thing we need to because
we weren't sure where the moratorum was
[4:54:03] going to go is is planning commission is
it going to be referred to the planning
[4:54:07] commission to start crafting an
ordinance on data centers at this point
[4:54:12] or is that going to come down further
down the line that would come from us
[4:54:16] correct it historically it has it
doesn't have to um and that's one of the
[4:54:21] things I've been thinking about is that
if we'd maybe been a little more on the
[4:54:26] ball and thought about it all the way
through. We could have made that motion
[4:54:30] a while ago and we'd be two months
ahead, right? So, there's no reason the
[4:54:35] planning commission can't take it up,
especially considering that we put the
[4:54:39] more we voted for the moratorium to be
put in place even though we didn't make
[4:54:42] a formal recommendation for them to look
into it. There's no reason that they
[4:54:46] can.
[4:54:49] » So, my thought would they would be
working with the planning commission in
[4:54:52] the crafting of an ordinance. So, I I
know there's a couple examples out
[4:54:57] there, but if you're saying we don't
need approval of this board to actually
[4:55:01] start doing it, we will need some
guidance at the planning commission
[4:55:05] level, I would think, though.
>> Well, I mean, the thing that I thought
[4:55:10] is I I don't know how the interaction
between them and the planning commission
[4:55:13] works. If it's if it's at meetings, then
we don't have to make really any other
[4:55:18] accommodation. if it is. Um Tim, I don't
know if you were on the board when this
[4:55:23] happened, but when Joe was zoning
administrator, he they and the planning
[4:55:26] commission, they kind of set up this
subcommittee of the planning commission
[4:55:31] to review things first with Paul and
then, you know, that the goal was to get
[4:55:36] a lot more work done in between meetings
and so that when it got back to the the
[4:55:41] planning commission, a whole bunch of
extra steps had already taken place as
[4:55:45] opposed to I know you've you've been on
there and you It was just it was just a
[4:55:49] subcommittee. Right.
>> Right. But like they they've looked at
[4:55:53] ordinances for for six months and it you
know it goes back and forth and you can
[4:55:56] kind of I'm not saying you have to cut
down that time but it does provide the
[4:56:00] opportunity to cut that time down but if
if that's going to happen then we need
[4:56:04] to be if if they're meeting with the
planner we need to as a board say that
[4:56:08] we're okay with that. Whatever that
financial cost is either set a cap on it
[4:56:12] or say that we understand that's going
to happen.
[4:56:15] » I thought they were a research
committee. Well, I just I need to
[4:56:18] understand how they're going to
interact. That's that's what I'm trying
[4:56:20] to get.
>> That's where we're trying to get to that
[4:56:22] full structure.
>> Um present to the planning commission on
[4:56:26] a get a spot on the agenda.
>> So, you want you want it to happen at
[4:56:30] the planning commission meetings with
your with your slot on there when you're
[4:56:34] discussing these. Okay.
>> And are we allowed to email things to
[4:56:38] you guys and the planning commission?
How does that work so that we're not
[4:56:41] violating anything? Do we have to wait
and only present
[4:56:46] at the planning commission. Is that the
direction? I'm sorry.
[4:56:49] » So, like we you can't be having a
discussion with planning commission
[4:56:53] members.
>> Okay.
[4:56:55] » So, if you email things to me, um I mean
obviously that's how things get on the
[4:57:00] planning commission agenda. Okay.
>> Is by getting it to me. So,
[4:57:04] » um I just I need to know from the board
if it comes to me and it's information,
[4:57:09] is this something you want me to send to
Paul as well? Again, it's incurring
[4:57:14] cost. I just need to make sure we're
comfortable.
[4:57:16] » Yeah, I'm I'm sorry. I don't want to
oversimplify it, but we had we have
[4:57:19] subcommittees like like the Shywasi
River Committee, right? We we have that
[4:57:23] committee.
Why not just have this committee as
[4:57:27] Corey had recommended like have a spot
on the
[4:57:32] » agenda
>> on the planning commission agenda?
[4:57:36] » Well, that's that's what the planning
commission discussed. Yeah. And that's
[4:57:39] what essentially we agreed to. I just
want to make sure I understand what the
[4:57:42] board's direction is. I don't I don't
want to do things that incur costs that
[4:57:46] then get us in trouble later because the
board didn't know about it, didn't
[4:57:50] approve the cost. So, if it's just in
front of the planning commission, there
[4:57:55] are you thinking
>> if if we're doing additional things,
[4:57:59] they they said that they want to be on
the planning commission meeting. So,
[4:58:01] that means they're not meeting with
Paul, right? But if there's other stuff
[4:58:05] going on in between that that's where if
if we're contracting with anytime Paul
[4:58:10] touches an ordinance that costs us
money.
[4:58:13] » But they're not they're not doing
anything with ordinances. They're
[4:58:16] they're a research committee. They're
factbinding. That's it.
[4:58:19] » So they can present the the information
to the planning committee and Paul or
[4:58:23] our planner will be there anyway. So
there
[4:58:25] » or the planning commission could take
that information.
[4:58:27] » The planning could do it. The planning
commission could
[4:58:30] » we'll already have the planner there. So
if it if it occurs during the planning
[4:58:34] commission meeting,
>> I mean if there's too much if there's
[4:58:38] too much like confusion or like I would
say then like we should as a board we
[4:58:44] should probably officially disband the
committee and let them do their own
[4:58:48] thing. That that's what I would then
recommend. That's the that's probably
[4:58:53] the the cleanest. But I understand the
benefit of saying
[4:58:58] there a research committee that then
presents back to the planning
[4:59:02] commission.
>> I would add that the planning commission
[4:59:06] was unanimous in support. They are
wanting the support for
[4:59:11] » I I'm not I'm not debating I'm not
debating that. Cory. Yeah.
[4:59:15] » It it's certainly a unique situation. We
typically don't have uh um advisory
[4:59:22] committees to the planning commission
other than the one you spoke of and our
[4:59:26] planner of course. Um
and I am kind of with Matt. It's almost
[4:59:32] better to disband this and let the
community do what it does and make
[4:59:37] contact with the uh planning commission
at this point. I guess I got uh maybe a
[4:59:44] followup question to something that was
stated about your roles. Did you state
[4:59:48] that Dan would be the treasurer of this
committee?
[4:59:51] » Yeah, and I apologize. Um, okay. We
thought that we had to assign somebody
[4:59:56] as secretary and treasur. We don't we
don't plan on spending any money.
[5:00:00] » It's It was It's just getting into more
questions is, you know, what's this
[5:00:04] committee need a treasurer for? Is the
township financially responsible?
[5:00:08] » We definitely don't plan on using any
money.
[5:00:11] » So, that that's all. If it's not needed,
then um I guess I'd look to the board as
[5:00:18] what's the direction from here.
>> Well, I mean, we we established it.
[5:00:22] They've made some slight changes. I
think we get those changes to Chris to
[5:00:26] make sure that we don't have any issues.
As long as we don't have any issues,
[5:00:30] then I say because what I've heard from
them and from us is they'll interact at
[5:00:34] the planning commission level, which
means no additional funds needed. So, I
[5:00:39] I say that we we do that. We get Chris's
review. As long as everything's all
[5:00:43] right, we'll let them know and then they
can get started on their stuff. We'll
[5:00:47] make sure anytime that the stuff's on
the agenda for the planning commission
[5:00:50] that they're on there. That allows them
to to participate in in the whole
[5:00:54] process. Does that sound acceptable?
>> Yep. I I I just I I really want us to be
[5:00:59] able to see the structure that was
written.
[5:01:01] » Yeah.
>> And and so No, you not tonight, but
[5:01:04] » Okay. I was going to say
>> if you can just send it to Jonathan, he
[5:01:06] can forward it out and then you know if
there's more questions next month then
[5:01:09] or in two weeks we can
>> we can cover that and
[5:01:13] » okay
>> take care of any details because we'll
[5:01:15] have maybe have Chris's report. It's
only two weeks away so
[5:01:21] the area.
>> Okay, I think we're good.
[5:01:25] » Thank you. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
[5:01:28] Also, just real quick quick, we had a
planning commission meeting last Tuesday
[5:01:33] and there was a reasonzoning which will
be coming.
[5:01:37] » I don't think it will make it by
December.
[5:01:40] » No, it'll it should make the county
December meeting.
[5:01:44] » Okay. So, it was sent over today
January.
[5:01:47] » So, it should be should be January. It
was to reszone two parcels on Tuli Road
[5:01:51] and it was a it was a split vote so it
didn't it didn't get approved but
[5:01:56] it'll end up here.
>> Okay.
[5:02:01] » Question for the supervisor perhaps on a
split vote. What does that mean? I mean
[5:02:06] ultimately it's an advisement. So just
the same it comes to the board.
[5:02:10] » Still it's a no vote. So
>> it's a no vote is it? If it doesn't get
[5:02:16] approved, then it's it's a denial.
>> I got you. So, thank you.
[5:02:20] » Okay.
All right. Anything else for planning
[5:02:23] commission CBA?
>> Nothing.
[5:02:26] » Nothing. Uh wastewater treatment plant.
>> Um the only item on there is the biotech
[5:02:32] agonomics contract that needs to be
renewed. They are the company that um
[5:02:38] spreads the bioolids onto farmers
fields. Uh to my knowledge, they are the
[5:02:43] only company in the state that does
that.
[5:02:45] Um,
and so our contract is up. We had uh Sue
[5:02:50] did send it to Greg and James to look at
and they didn't see any issues with it.
[5:02:56] » And they said it was a good price for
it.
[5:03:00] » Okay.
>> Did they find the air leak?
[5:03:02] » They did.
>> They did.
[5:03:03] » Was it the good one or the bad one?
>> It's the It's the good news.
[5:03:06] » It was the good one.
>> Yeah.
[5:03:07] » What? I'm sorry, Tim. What was your
question?
[5:03:09] » Did they find the air leak?
>> Oh,
[5:03:12] » they had an air leak. They were fighting
>> digging up
[5:03:16] » going out to the sand.
>> Is there a motion for the
[5:03:18] » uh move to accept the agreement with
biotech agronomics for three years as
[5:03:22] presented?
>> Support.
[5:03:24] » Motion by Hoenstein, second by Doss.
Discussion.
[5:03:28] » All those in favor?
>> I opposed.
[5:03:32] Motion carries. Anything else?
Wastewater.
[5:03:35] » That's it. Uh Parks and Recreation. Uh
>> the report's in there. Okay.
[5:03:41] » Any questions of that?
Property Committee,
[5:03:44] » nothing.
>> Parks and Recreation Committee.
[5:03:47] » Uh you do have a report in there. There
will be another one in the next board uh
[5:03:51] packet. And most likely the board will
also see the uh plan for the park at the
[5:03:57] next meeting. Well, maybe not December.
Depends on how December plays out.
[5:04:03] » Okay. Uh Shywasi River Committee and
we'll report their dispersements.
[5:04:10] Move to accept the dispersements as
presented and any normal and customary
[5:04:13] payments for the month.
>> Support.
[5:04:16] » Motion by Honest Knight, seconded by
Count.
[5:04:20] » All those in favor?
>> I opposed. Motion carries. Is there a
[5:04:25] motion to adjurnn?
>> Motion to adjurnn.
[5:04:27] » Support.
>> Motion by count. Second by doss. All
[5:04:31] those in favor?
>> I.
[5:04:34] » We are adjourned.