[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.

11.20.2025 Regular Township Board Meeting

Transcript