[0:00] Call the meeting to order with the
pledge of allegiance. Begin with
[0:06] » I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic
[0:13] for which it stands, one nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:19] justice for all.
>> Thank you.
[0:24] Uh the third item on the agenda, review
and approval of the April 27th, 2020
[0:31] six agenda.
>> 7 27
[0:34] » 27
27.
[0:37] » I move we approve the agenda for April
27th, 2026 as
[0:42] um proposed.
>> Four.
[0:45] » All in favor?
>> I opposed. None. Motion carries.
[0:50] Now, we have to approve the March 23rd,
2026 regular planning commission meeting
[0:56] minutes.
Um, you all should have gotten a copy of
[0:59] that. Uh, if you have any errors that
need to be changed, any omissions, any
[1:05] misspellings,
anything that we need to deal with.
[1:10] Now, I'll need a motion.
[1:17] I move we accept the uh
planning commission's regular
[1:25] commission meetings for March 23rd, 2026
as written.
[1:31] » Thank you. All in favor? I opposed.
None. Motion carried.
[1:37] » At this point in the meeting, we open it
up to the citizens comments. Um, if
[1:42] you're here for the public hearing for
the uh Edwards, that will come when we
[1:48] deal with that. That will be later. But
at this point, it's anything else you
[1:52] want to talk to us about. If you have
concerns, problems, um,
[1:58] we'll open up the floor to anybody at
this point.
[2:05] Okay.
All right. Then I'm going to close the
[2:10] citizens comments and participation.
We will move into the zoning
[2:15] administrators report. Mariano,
[2:20] you all should have a copy of the
reports for March. Uh clearly their mark
[2:26] for us. We have quite a few
applications.
[2:31] only one uh violation written and looked
into
[2:37] uh and then just uh notes on the
meetings that we're having now and
[2:43] projects that are coming up in the next
couple months.
[2:48] » Pardon me. I'm sorry I didn't hear that.
>> Just meetings that are coming up.
[2:51] » Okay.
>> And applications for
[2:55] » Okay.
>> Okay. All right. All right.
[2:59] Um, any questions for Mariano?
[3:05] Nope. Okay, we'll move on to the next.
Um, we are going into old business. We
[3:13] have been working on a data center
ordinance for the township.
[3:17] Um our our planner has put together a
comprehensive document
[3:25] that has a lot of um
[3:30] where we should look at where we're
going to have make some definitions for
[3:34] the ordinance. We're going to have to
change some um
[3:40] change some wording for like commercial
uh data center versus computer sales
[3:48] computer center selling um or or fixing.
So and I think there was some issues
[3:57] as regarding the number the restrictions
that if because it is going to be a
[4:02] special use we can have so many
restrictions that we can make it more
[4:07] palatable to the township. Um you all
should have gotten the packet.
[4:15] Any question? I mean Dan kind of want to
go over a little bit just kind of
[4:22] Yes. Thank you.
Sure. To oversimplify
[4:28] um the issue, data centers are part of
the use of permitted
[4:35] zoning or in research and office zoning
district and have been for a while.
[4:51] » Thank you.
um some of the issues that could come
[4:53] with the hypers scale data centers of um
so what we're looking at with the zone
[4:59] ordinance amendment set of zoning
ordinance amendments is to propose some
[5:04] definitions and clarify some things
regarding data centers distinguish
[5:09] especially those data centers um
since our last meeting we've had now
[5:16] three three other discussions about this
issue so um I can kind of drill down
[5:20] some specifics we left off with in
March. Um the comments in our packet
[5:25] regarding this are on page 8 following
along in the packet. Um in March we
[5:30] gathered some comments when we address
these will hopefully provide a
[5:34] comprehensive set of ordinance
amendments. Um the first topic we uh
[5:39] discussed in March was to distinguish
small scale from large scale data
[5:43] centers based on building core area. We
initially had kind of distinction based
[5:47] on that acreage of the parcel. Um but
having it based on building area is
[5:52] going to be easier to enforce from
zoning administration standpoint and
[5:56] from just terms in terms of
distinguishing these these building
[6:01] scale. And so we uh we did agree the
plan commission gave direction that uh
[6:07] in no case should any data center be
permitted use by right. Um, every one of
[6:12] them should have a public hearing
through the special use permit process,
[6:16] whether they're large scale or small
scale. Um, so we uh distinguish large
[6:21] from small at a size of 50,000 square
feet. Um, I don't have an example of a
[6:26] community name off the top of my head,
but I've seen one other community at
[6:30] least in Michigan do that distinction
between large and small, but just to to
[6:35] draw a visual for you to understand what
that looks like in your packet. um on
[6:40] pages 8 and n there are some visual
examples of some sites that you consider
[6:46] around that 50,000 foot threshold. Um,
five images in here. There is a uh two
[6:55] I'm just going to rattle them off here,
but if you're familiar with any of them,
[6:59] we tried to find some in the area
county. Um, the 242 community church in
[7:05] S Township, uh, about 51,000 ft. Um,
there's a warehouse, flexible tent space
[7:11] at 7852nd Street in Dexter, up to the
same size. Uh the bushes in um Dexter is
[7:20] roughly the same size. It's about 49,800
square ft. Uh here in Lima Township,
[7:26] there's a hilltop greenhouse and farms.
Um oddly enough, the the greenhouse
[7:32] portion, kind of the transparent windows
portion of that complex. Those green
[7:37] houses are about 80 feet in total. So
give you an idea of what that looks
[7:41] like. The last example we had was from
Chelsea. The hatch stamping a
[7:46] manufacturing site Chelsea. So from the
outside these look like fairly navigable
[7:54] small mediumsiz warehouse or maybe
mediumiz box retail store. So that would
[7:59] be the distinction where we start
finding this. Um you know of course they
[8:03] all have a public hearing. They all have
to go through the special use process.
[8:07] Um, but it's at that point where the
ones that are smaller will have a a less
[8:11] sprinkled set of regulations and the
ones that are larger. And that's what
[8:15] I'll get into from here to talk about
what some of those regulations would be.
[8:20] Um, before I get into that, just to go
in the sequence of the packet. We also
[8:25] uh put together a map that has the
locations of the combined flood planes,
[8:30] wetlands, and county owner or recreation
parcels um on page 11 of the packet. And
[8:37] uh so that's a map that shows you kind
of where you could expect that
[8:43] if if you're the developer, a
prospective developer of a large scale
[8:46] data center, um you know, I'm sure that
you're looking for places that you don't
[8:51] have those kinds of barriers um to site
usability. And so these would in all
[8:58] likely be places that that you wouldn't
see u being targeted for hyperscale data
[9:04] centers. We don't know for sure, but
just to give you an idea of what some of
[9:06] those environmental sense are um in
it's I guess all these cases whether
[9:14] it's flood planes or wetlands and you
have zoning ordinance restrictions
[9:17] against building those areas or
restrictions with legal um or if it's
[9:22] the preserve parcels those are publicly
owned parcels um there are going to be
[9:26] some barriers that that prevent you from
being able to pursue this kind of use on
[9:31] those sites at least at a large scale.
So just to give you an idea, I think um
[9:36] since mentioned that putting that map
together, it's a good idea.
[9:42] You move down um later in your packet uh
starting on page 14, we get into some of
[9:49] the specific updates that the planning
commission asked us to look at and enter
[9:54] into set of amendments. The first one
and we were kind of um
[10:00] debating this debating it but having an
open-ended discussion about the closed
[10:04] loop cooling system requirement. Um the
first thing we do here is to define what
[10:09] a closed loop cooling system is and
there's kind of a generic definition. Um
[10:13] we you know I think as these ordinances
get developed a lot of communities are
[10:18] working on definitions from different
legal resources. We've certainly done
[10:22] that. and looked at some examples. And
so a lot of this language overlaps with
[10:26] examples that we've seen. Um there's a
definition for the closed loop going
[10:30] system in here which is you need to have
a definition in order to link back to a
[10:36] term you use later in the zoning. This
is just simply laying out what that
[10:40] would look like. It's a sealed system
where uh coolant circulates continuously
[10:45] absorbing heat from the source and then
transfers that heat through the heat
[10:49] exchanger for removal without uh coolant
ever being exposed to the environment.
[10:53] Um which that that would apply to water
coolant coming in and circulating uh
[11:01] inside of inside of closing environment.
Um, we also
[11:07] have um on on pages 14 and 15 of your
packet, we have the same amendments we
[11:13] looked at previously with adding the
data centers to the light industrial
[11:16] district as special name uses, removing
them from the research office district
[11:21] and then applying some of the
terminology about uh computer repair
[11:25] that was associated with it into the
village commercial district. You have
[11:30] more like retail commercial stores
Then we get into this what are called
[11:35] the supplementary regulations which
apply to specific special land uses. Um
[11:40] many special land uses have a set of
specific requirements as we'll see with
[11:44] the the cemetery tonight. It's much
simpler set of departments but uh
[11:49] special use requirements nonetheless. Um
for data centers we've established some
[11:54] initial requirements under the
supplementary regulations. Um the first
[11:58] one that I'll highlight is on page 15.
we talk about the land area um for the
[12:05] small scale 50,000 foot and under these
would be um we recommend they adhere to
[12:12] the minimum zoning district requirement
of 1 acre and and surely they'll likely
[12:17] be larger if it's 50,000t building. Um
but then you get into larger scale and
[12:22] that's where we can have a conversation
about um scaling up the size of the
[12:27] building um or the size of the site
based on the size of the building. You
[12:31] might have a a ratio of acreage based on
the size of the building. For example,
[12:36] each fraction of um let's say 10,000
square ft um of building area. You might
[12:43] add an acre of land requirement,
something along that those lines and we
[12:46] can look at developing that further. Or
you might say based on the setbacks and
[12:52] um you know requirements for managing
storm water on the site there's going to
[12:56] have to be a certain amount of open
space based on a building of a certain
[12:59] size and sometimes the acreage of the
site doesn't matter that much and in
[13:03] fact you might save some land for other
uses or preservation purposes if you if
[13:07] you don't have a minimum acreage in
there. So it's kind of a philosophical
[13:11] discussion. One item I ask you to look
at as a planning condition is if you
[13:14] want a minimum acreage requirement for
the large sites. Um, moving on to
[13:20] setbacks. On page 15, we have some uh
specific setback requirements. Again,
[13:26] for the small sites, you might have the
basic setback that's used in the zoning
[13:31] ordinance um for the light industrial
zoning district. And then for the larger
[13:35] sites, uh looking at this 150 foot
setback from lot lines to the building
[13:41] and 100 foot set back to the parking
area.
[13:44] Um, fencing and screening is another
item that we can have some flexibility
[13:49] on. There may be no specific fencing and
screening requirement as long as you
[13:53] adhere to the other fencing requirements
in the zoning ordinance. Uh, or you may
[13:57] have decorative fencing requirements.
Maybe it's a 6ft tall
[14:03] metal um, decorative metal maybe a black
or decorative metal fencing that would
[14:09] apply to a property like this or perhaps
a brick screening wall. Um, we really
[14:13] haven't gone into the fencing and and uh
wall requirements yet, but those are
[14:18] things that would be reasonable to ask
for at least along the front of the
[14:21] property. Um, buffering and green belts,
we recommend um again for the smaller
[14:26] sites adhering to the basic
requirements, but for the larger sites,
[14:30] um, you might look at a 100 foot wide
green belt maintained around the
[14:34] perimeter of the property in which
there's a burm um at a 3:1
[14:39] uh rise. Uh, so basically a you have a a
burn that rises at a rate of three feet
[14:46] for every three feet wide for every one
foot tall. So, um to get up to that six
[14:51] foot height minimum that we recommend
would be at least 18 ft on on both sides
[14:55] of the outside and then a 10ft kind of
shelf minimum wage on the top where you
[14:59] plant trees. Um just to give some
additional buffering and and spatial
[15:05] protection to neighboring properties
there. Uh moving on to noise which is
[15:09] subsection G on page 16. We talked about
changing the requirement from being
[15:16] based on the receiving building on a
site nearby to being based on the
[15:21] receiving property line. And so the
requirement here would be to keep it at
[15:25] measurement of no higher than 55 dB as
measured at the nearest residentially or
[15:30] agriculturally zoned property line. Um
and that's a pretty enforceable standard
[15:35] that you could use a sound study to um
evaluate what the anticipated impacts
[15:40] are before you consider an approval
project. Uh cooling methods again um to
[15:46] preserve the uh this is a new
requirement again we added subsection J
[15:52] on page 16 would be to preserve the
availability of nearby portable water
[15:56] supply and to maintain the integrity of
various surface and groundwater
[16:00] resources. any data processing or
computer center that proposes to use
[16:03] water cooling must do so primarily
through a closed loop system or recycled
[16:08] water system. Um and then we could add
something, this isn't in the packet, but
[16:14] we could add something that says if the
a more efficient water usage um method
[16:20] is presented by the applicant, the
planning commission and the board have a
[16:24] discretion to approve an alternate. Um
if you'd like us to include something
[16:28] like that, we can include something like
that.
[16:30] Um, and then another couple of items
here moving down toward the bottom of
[16:36] the the list of of u
components of this supplementary
[16:41] regulations. um the set of supplementary
regulations, the decommissioning plan,
[16:45] there would be this kind of language
that we borrowed or um over overlapped
[16:52] with a lot of from another example, but
um looking at decommissioning and having
[16:57] some requirements for how the applicant
shall include a decommissioning plan in
[17:03] their project that shows the anticipated
life of the data processing center, the
[17:08] manner in which it's decommissioned, the
actions that will be taken to resto
[17:11] restore the site, removal of the
equipment, the estimated cost of
[17:15] decommissioning, the method for ensuring
the owner and operator will have
[17:18] sufficient funds available to
decommission later. Um, and then there's
[17:23] also a requirement in here that
automatic decommissioning could kick in
[17:27] if um there is no operation at the data
processing or computer center for more
[17:34] than one year. Um, then there would have
to be decommission that sets in motion.
[17:40] So, all new aspects to think about there
in addition to the other requirements
[17:46] that you see on page 16, well, actually
page 14 through 17, which we um reviewed
[17:52] previously. Um, I guess the last thing
I'll say is that, you know, kind of
[17:56] zooming back out, you and the planning
commission are really only obligated to
[18:00] allow uses or approve uses through site
review that are permitted in the
[18:04] underlying zoning district. Um and the
township is really only obligated to
[18:09] engage in bringing a different zoning
district to a parcel to make the um make
[18:13] a use available on that parcel through
resoning if the resoning gels with the
[18:18] future land use map of the master plan.
And so that brings us back to um kind of
[18:23] the fundamental issue here. There's very
limited acreage in Lima Township on
[18:28] which it's zoned appropriately to allow
all these things to kick in that we're
[18:32] describing here, especially for at least
for large data center sites. Um and so
[18:37] another exercise that um that we're
starting with this process is to um not
[18:45] make the conditions for a hyperscale
data center with this set of zoning
[18:48] ordinance amendments in terms of setting
aside a future land use map amendment or
[18:54] reszoning a bunch of property. We're not
recommending any of that occurs right
[18:57] now, but what we are recommending is
that there's at least a mechanism in the
[19:00] zoning ordinance to um bring in those
discussions and allow study of areas um
[19:07] based on uh somebody demonstrating that
there's a regional need and that
[19:11] environmental impacts will be satisfied
and all those kind of high level
[19:16] planning goals um through a master plan
amendment. um and that that sets the
[19:20] township up to not um fall into an issue
of exclusionary zoning. So, there's um
[19:26] some some adjustments to the amendments
section of the zoning ordinance that
[19:30] will allow um kind of a very specific
process for kind of outside initiated
[19:36] master plan or future land use map
amendment. um that allows the planning
[19:41] commission to bring in studies and allow
people to make their case for kind of
[19:44] restarting the master planning process
to um make room for large sites whether
[19:49] they're data centers or other uses. Um
but just so that you have a means to
[19:53] recommend that to people so that there's
not kind of a a no with no way to appeal
[20:00] more or less. So that's the the final
aspect of this set of amendments is to
[20:04] have some specific language around
amending the future land use map of the
[20:08] master plan.
So with that we um we have some
[20:14] questions that could probably be
answered with some additional discussion
[20:17] from the planning commission but
otherwise we're happy to continue
[20:21] preparing this for an eventual uh public
hearing.
[20:25] um you know coinciding with uh there's a
moratorum that's going to be expiring
[20:30] here in a couple of months and we could
probably get this close to finalization
[20:35] um around that time frame. So I'm happy
to we're happy to answer any questions
[20:38] that you might have at this point and
facilitate any discussion you want to
[20:41] have.
>> Okay,
[20:44] » questioning
[20:50] fencing. What are pros and cons about um
well screening versus fencing? I mean,
[20:57] do is it better to have a visual barrier
or do you want to be able to see what's
[21:01] going on in there?
>> Yeah, I I'm sure the proprietors in
[21:05] these places want to have a lot of
security, but that can be done through
[21:10] means other than just walling them off.
And I think that generally
[21:15] it's a best practice to shed some
daylight on places to the best extent
[21:19] you can with uh maybe transparent
fencing and landscaping um often serves
[21:24] the community better than having walls
um even for large impactful sites. side.
[21:29] Now, if there's a need for a wall as a
um as a sound barrier, if the sound
[21:35] study comes back and says that there
would be a need to provide sound
[21:38] mitigation, that's certainly something
we could allow for make make room for in
[21:42] the zoning ordinance. Um but primarily,
uh it seems that the best approach for
[21:47] sites like this is typically put more of
a decorative fencing around the
[21:50] perimeter and landscaping.
[21:55] » Okay. Yeah. And it does seem like
they're going to want fencing anyway for
[22:00] security,
>> right?
[22:01] » Um
so that's fine.
[22:07] Um just a a and
well on page 16
[22:14] letter J. Can we take out the word
primarily?
[22:18] Seems like a loophole.
[22:22] » [clears throat]
>> Yeah, I think that's a good
[22:26] recommendation to be clear. Um,
along with that, would there be an
[22:32] interest in having a a way for a
alternate
[22:37] water usage plan to be presented? I
don't know what that looks like.
[22:41] » I think so. Yeah.
>> Yeah. And that could be graywater uh
[22:46] recycling.
Maybe some of it would be not
[22:49] technically um closed loop, but there
may be some other ways that um
[22:53] manufacturers might recycle water that
perhaps this isn't contemplating. So I
[22:58] think it's a good idea to strike
primarily and then have something that
[23:01] says an alternative
water usage plan would be proposed if
[23:07] that makes sense.
>> And then I just had a question about the
[23:11] decommissioning. Um how does that work
with the financing like the bond and
[23:15] letter of credit? Like if they have a
letter of credit and we grant them the
[23:21] zoning, they build their thing and
everything. Does the letter of credit
[23:24] can that be like withdrawn later and us
not know about it or is it something
[23:29] that's created and continues?
I'm not sure I'm asking that. I think
[23:34] you know what I mean.
>> Yeah. Well, um,
[23:39] the letter of credit would typically
have the municipality
[23:44] assigned on it so that there's a it's
connected to L Township. Um,
[23:52] » so we're kind of the beneficiary sort of
thing.
[23:54] » Yeah, I'm trying to think of examples.
um whether it's a performance bond or a
[23:59] letter of credit u it's something that
there would have to be typically the
[24:04] financial institution would file that
with the municipality um so that I want
[24:10] to come back with a better answer on
that um so that we know that that's a
[24:15] something that can't be received
>> yeah I'd just like to understand how
[24:18] that works like if they the company
folds and goes away
[24:22] » does the money go to the township and
then the township is responsible for um
[24:27] administering that and yeah
>> yeah that is the ultimate goal. Um yes
[24:32] we'll come back with some more research
on that to make sure there's um sound
[24:37] returns on that. I'm not sure if there's
anywhere else in the zoning ordinance we
[24:40] really get into um financial shies like
that. We'll try to be consistent and
[24:47] make sure that what we write is legally
defensible for sure.
[24:52] » Okay.
That's all I had.
[24:55] » All you had. Anybody else?
>> Um the only thing I said I agree with
[25:02] you on um
Jay that if there's a more efficient
[25:07] water system that becomes a you know
that is brand new. Yeah, brand new. Um
[25:14] that is better then we could maybe add
something in there that if if that comes
[25:20] about then you know. And then the other
thing is on uh monitoring wells for if
[25:27] it's a well septic piece of property. Do
we one want to have a definition for
[25:32] what a monitoring well is
and and just I mean just as long as it's
[25:39] noted in there that if it is well and
septic that there may be what do we say
[25:45] go provide details for monitoring wells.
>> Yes. Yeah. Yeah, I think having a
[25:51] definition is a good idea. Um,
>> yeah,
[25:54] » we added some language in here that I
didn't go over today. Um, subsection K,
[26:00] uh, there is a statement that, uh,
trying to
[26:07] I'll read the last sentence because it's
short. If the private private well water
[26:12] supply method is proposed, provide
details for monitoring wells. So it's a
[26:17] very simple statement but there's a
that's in the section about water usage.
[26:21] Um we also mentioned having water
utilization report that's submitted with
[26:25] the application that shows intake volume
water sources etc. So
[26:31] » um yes that that um
details for monitoring walls they do a
[26:35] lot of latitude planning commission has
to ask for you want to ask right but I
[26:39] think we should have a definition.
All right.
[26:43] Um, the only other thing, let me see if
there's anything else
[26:49] notes here.
[26:54] Okay. So, are we good with not saying
the large scale
[27:00] um acreage amount for that? They are
kind of um they be applicable as each
[27:09] tied to the size of the building. We
good with that? Okay. All right. Then um
[27:16] and I think the minimum in light
industrial is 1 acre. Is that correct?
[27:20] Yeah,
>> it is.
[27:21] » Y
let me see.
[27:26] I think that's it.
And again, they're they're both going to
[27:31] be special uses. So, we do have some
leeway.
[27:35] » We didn't talk about for the large ones.
I think I don't think we talked about um
[27:39] specifying a minimum
>> minimum acreage
[27:42] » acreage.
>> Right. Right.
[27:43] » Yeah.
>> Right. So, we're just going to leave it.
[27:46] » I don't know. But it was
>> Are we
[27:50] » Yeah.
>> What do we say?
[27:52] » Well,
>> just let the block coverage ratio and
[27:55] all that kind of stuff,
>> right? black coverage ratio and and
[27:59] maybe um
>> limited
[28:00] » equivalent to the size of the building
maybe or if the building gets too huge,
[28:07] would you want more acreage?
>> Well, you made the good point. I mean,
[28:13] we could require more a larger ratio of
land to building size, but then it's
[28:20] also taking more land off out of other
uses. Mhm.
[28:24] » So we would be left with just letting it
be determined by setbacks and lot
[28:30] coverage ratios and everything.
>> Okay.
[28:32] » So I mean that's the question. Is
everybody comfortable with that?
[28:35] » Right.
>> Right.
[28:36] » Right.
>> I would offer two I
[28:41] didn't see this. We talked about open
space requirements. Um, you know, if you
[28:47] if you wanted to, you could keep it so
that there's no minimum acreage
[28:50] requirement, but you could also have a
requirement that states you need to
[28:57] maintain 25% of the site as open space
or or something along those lines. We
[29:03] looked at some examples of what other
communities have done for that. Of
[29:06] course, again, that makes us might be
polluting the site, but it also ensures
[29:10] that that's um in a way that preserves
natural resources, right? Helpful given
[29:16] all the environmental impacts.
>> Yeah. If you could get some examples of
[29:20] that.
>> Yeah. Yeah, that might be good because
[29:24] it looks like the setback for the large
one would be
[29:28] say 15
>> 150 ft from all lot lines.
[29:34] » So,
Well, what if they wanted to put some
[29:38] kind of power generation system? I mean,
there's different requirements for
[29:41] setbacks on those.
>> That's a good point. Um because we said
[29:46] specifically building and parking
setbacks,
[29:50] » power accessory substation or something
along those lines. It would be um just
[29:55] the default unless we make something
specific for those. So if we wanted to,
[29:59] we could recommend that there's a 150
foot set back from buildings or
[30:06] accessory substations or similar power
generation facilities, those kinds of
[30:11] things.
>> Yeah, that that makes sense.
[30:16] Okay, anybody else? Any other comments?
If not,
[30:24] I think we kind of giving you a little
bit more direction and maybe we can I
[30:30] know we can't have a uh
cannot have a public hearing for our
[30:34] next meeting because of Memorial Day and
we're a week early. So, it would be June
[30:41] when we would have the public hearing
for this if and that gives you a couple
[30:45] months to get get it kind of dialed in.
>> Mhm. So
[30:50] » yeah, if we could try to get a revision
done for the May meeting, um possibly at
[30:55] least an interim update and then have
the hearing in June if that schedule
[30:59] still works.
>> Yep. Yep. Okay. Does that sound good to
[31:03] everybody?
>> Yep.
[31:04] » All right. Thank you, Dan.
All right. Now, we're going to the new
[31:10] business, Edward Cemetery. Um,
we'll start with and I don't know. Is
[31:17] there an extra survey for people to look
at if they're here to talk about?
[31:21] » You need to um Oh,
>> really?
[31:24] » Yeah. Yeah. I put an extra copy survey
>> that lets people know what they're
[31:30] talking about.
>> Yeah. I just have one extra. I thought
[31:34] we were going to get big ones brought.
Did you bring some big ones, Mariano?
[31:38] » No.
>> Oh, you can use mine, too.
[31:41] » Yeah, you can use mine. Just get As long
as I get it back, I'm good.
[31:44] » No, let him use mine. I I'll have him
use mine and then my other spare.
[31:48] » Okay. Okay.
[31:52] » That way you can keep an eye. You know,
you know what we're talking about.
[31:58] » Okay.
[32:03] I guess what we'll do is um first what
I'd like to do
[32:08] » is before the public hearing I'd like is
the applicant here?
[32:12] » Okay. What I'd like you to do is say
what you're planning on doing
[32:17] and then we'll open it up to the public
for their comments and concerns
[32:22] questions. And if you have a question or
concern, you got to address us, not
[32:27] them. So, okay. All right. So you can
just kind of tell us what you're
[32:31] planning on doing.
>> Well, just a simple 16 sight family
[32:36] cemetery with a simple fence around it.
We've got a nice clear spot away from
[32:41] anyone else's view on our property. Um
we picked out so far. It's visible in
[32:46] that survey you guys have in your
packets.
[32:49] Um I don't know how many personal
details you want to know. That's about
[32:53] all as far as factual business details.
Um
[32:56] » okay.
All right. Then I and now we we'll open
[33:01] up for the public hearing.
>> Do you want Dan do his review?
[33:04] » Well, yeah, Dan, I guess you could do
your review.
[33:07] » Or you think we should do the public
hearing first?
[33:12] » I guess if if my review it might help u
clear up some details maybe.
[33:18] » All right, why don't we do that? Do your
review
[33:21] » and then you guys get
>> Sorry. Sorry everybody waiting. Um,
[33:26] thank you everybody for letting us
comment on this request. Um, the
[33:29] applicant's materials in your packet
start on page 22. I think that some of
[33:34] those materials I did not um cover my
report, but I do want to mention the
[33:38] applicant uh submitted
responses to the special land use
[33:45] criteria from section 334 of the zone or
which I refer to as well and they
[33:51] provided their own answers to the um the
criteria and uh I just encourage you to
[33:57] look at those um because they they give
a lot of personal detail in the
[34:02] background that um this report does not
necessarily get into. Um so I just want
[34:07] to mention that they've submitted
materials. Um of course our report
[34:11] starts around page
34 and I'll get into my comments here.
[34:17] Um as mentioned I think this is a
request for a a private cemetery. uh
[34:23] private cemetery is a permitted special
need use in the RR rural residential
[34:29] zoning district which is this parcel
zoning uh under the line of zoning
[34:33] ordinance. Um the parcel is zone rural
residential. It's also master plan for a
[34:39] one one to 5 acre parcels which uh
aligns with that zoning. There are no
[34:44] flood zones or wetlands that appear on
public uh publicly available mapping on
[34:49] the site. Um the submitts that were
provided include uh six sheets uh sealed
[34:55] by a surveyor. There's a vicinity sketch
uh parcel boundary cemetery survey
[35:00] cemetery details and two sheets of legal
descriptions.
[35:05] Um this is a special land use and
because uh special land uses require
[35:10] site plan review under the zoning
ordinance um all requirements under
[35:14] article 7 of the zoning ordinance were
reviewed with this report and so we're
[35:19] obligated to kind of call all them out.
I know this is a long report um pretty
[35:23] simple site we work through findings on
all these requirements. Um some of these
[35:28] standards are not applicable to a site
of this nature. It's not a um it's not a
[35:32] site that has any paving or or very
detailed design um features and so some
[35:37] of the requirements don't apply but some
do. I'll just summarize the ones that um
[35:42] would apply from article 7 that don't
appear to be provided so far. Um the
[35:47] first one is relating to uh topographic
information. If the surveyor um can
[35:53] provide some elevation data, some
grading information proposed or existing
[35:58] contours, I assume the topography is not
going to change very much. Um that would
[36:02] be something we look for on the plans.
Um simple request is to have the name,
[36:08] address, and phone number of the
property owner um
[36:12] and the uh applicant on the actual site
plan drawings. I know the surveyor's
[36:18] information was on those drawings, but
having owners on there as well would be
[36:22] required under article 7. We also would
look for um the proposed there's a
[36:29] section that pertains to proposed
streets and driveways. Um within that
[36:33] section, what appears to be missing that
should be provided is the propos
[36:36] proposed surface type and width of the
access driveway. Uh there's an easement
[36:42] that's provided. I didn't see the the
surface materials um for the the width
[36:47] of the driveway. So, those details
should be added. Um moving down to some
[36:53] other standard information, just adding
notes pertaining to the existing zoning
[36:57] of the site and the surrounding sites.
Uh we're looking for required yard
[37:02] setbacks and that can just be a list um
coming from article 4 of the zoning
[37:07] ordinance. There can be a list of what
the setback requirements are. Uh, and
[37:11] then landscaping strips is something
that the zoning ordinance calls out in
[37:16] article 7 here. There's a more specific
section that pertains to landscaping
[37:20] that I'll go in greater detail on a
little bit later so we can talk about
[37:23] that then. Um,
it appears there are no buildings and I
[37:29] mentioned that a couple times in the
report, but I just wanted to verify
[37:31] there would be no elevated structures.
Is that correct? Headstones. Okay. Um
[37:38] and um
we also mentioned in this section the
[37:44] last thing is just uh means of water
providing water if there's any well
[37:48] water that available for irrigation or
for um you know watering uh watering
[37:54] bases or anything of that nature. So
just giving some details on supposed
[37:57] watering methods. Um and moving into the
supplementary regulations for cemeteries
[38:02] under [clears throat] section 512 of the
zoning ordinance. Um I'll again just go
[38:07] over what was not provided or what's not
available from the plans. Um
[38:12] you know setbacks are not a concern.
They they uh meet all I will say the
[38:16] planning how this is written the
planning commission um she'll be re
[38:21] reviewing the proposed setbacks to make
sure that they're appropriate u based on
[38:26] the existing planned neighboring land
uses. Um the site is over 100 feet from
[38:31] any lot line and it's very um apparently
low impact use and setbacks appear to be
[38:37] adequate from a planning perspective. Um
that's ultimately up to the planning
[38:41] commission. Um there should be no
building located closer than 100 ft of
[38:46] the property line and there are no
buildings. Um getting to what's what's
[38:50] not met here. There needs to be adequate
what calls off streetet waiting space
[38:55] provided for funeral processions. the no
vehicle stands or waits in a dedicated
[38:59] driveway. Um there is significant uh
access driveway length that is provided
[39:06] but we would ask that the applicant just
show where they anticipate having the
[39:10] off streetet waiting space designated on
the site and um along with that uh you
[39:17] know an estimate of the ant anticipated
highest number of vehicles on the site.
[39:21] Um, you know, it's kind of a thing you
don't want to have to think about too
[39:26] much or estimate, but we do want to have
some perspective of um how many vehicles
[39:31] will be on the site at once. Um,
we also mentioned um that there's a
[39:38] public road access. This is a parcel
that's got two narrow access points to
[39:42] the public roads on Sci Church Road
along the north edge of the site and
[39:47] then um more specifically on Fletcher
Road where the driver will be entering
[39:52] the roadway. There is a proposed
easement uh and we have other comments
[39:56] regarding the easement. Um we would ask
ultimately that whatever easement is
[40:00] provided is recorded um with the
Washington County Register of Deeds and
[40:04] then provided to the township within 45
days of recording.
[40:08] um give or take that can be up to what
the sometimes the timing of those things
[40:12] takes longer or shorter. So that can be
up to the township to determine. Um we
[40:18] also recommend the uh documentation of
perpetual care and maintenance is
[40:23] provided with the easement or the
easement agreement. Um so there's
[40:27] demonstration of perpetual care on that
property. Um getting into the location
[40:32] and site arrangement. Again, this is a
partial the actual parcel on which the
[40:36] cemetery plot is proposed is uh
officially landlocked. There's zero
[40:40] frontage and so they would have to use
the parcel to it which I call parcel one
[40:45] in the site step plan report at 2071
South Fletcher Road. There's a home on
[40:50] that parcel and then the parcel the
cemetery will be on is landlocked. Um it
[40:54] appears that there are solid lines on
the survey drawings showing that the
[40:58] cemetery is further divided from that
parcel. Um I would recommend against any
[41:03] site that has a true real property um
that's divided out there because that
[41:09] will run into frontage limits and issues
with the land division act. So in in its
[41:15] place that should be a recorded easement
rather than a new divided parcel. Um and
[41:20] that would alleviate a lot of concerns.
Um although not all. I will I'll mention
[41:24] some more further down here. Um
I uh
[41:31] I mentioned in the report um that this
is a parcel that because it's landmocked
[41:38] it's um it's has to use the property in
front of it and it's essentially a zero
[41:43] frontage parcel which under section 12.2
to the zoning ordinance. Any lot that's
[41:48] been created that has zero frontage or
non-conforming frontage is required to
[41:54] be seen as a non-conforming lot on which
you can only build a single family home
[41:59] or an accessory
um building that's customarily
[42:03] incidental to the home. So, picture a
shed or an accessory building with a
[42:07] home. Um the zoning ordinance does not
capture private cemeteries under that
[42:12] terminology. And so we run into the
issue with this parcel um that you you
[42:18] can't build a new use like a private
private cemetery on a parcel of that
[42:23] nature um unless you get approval from
the board of zoning appeals. And so this
[42:29] review ultimately um has to get back to
the zoning board of appeals. It's
[42:34] interchangeable DZA, ZBA, whatever you
want to call whatever it's officially
[42:39] called. I think it's the ZBA. um they'll
have to go to the ZVA for approval. Um
[42:44] per section 12.2 paragraph 3 um
basically says to build anything like we
[42:49] had a couple months ago with a different
project other than a single family home,
[42:53] you have to get approval from the ZBA.
So
[42:56] » um the complicating news with that is
that there has to be an application to
[43:00] the ZBA. Basically has to go through the
the dimensional variance type of review.
[43:05] Um, I will say that just glancing at
some of the criteria that's been
[43:11] addressed with the special land use
application, um, probably some of that
[43:15] can translate to a zoning board of
appeals application as well, but
[43:18] ultimately that's a separate application
that has to go to the CDA. Um, and
[43:23] that's the most significant issue. It's
um, really comes down to the
[43:26] configuration of the land, making sure
that there's no new splits and based on
[43:30] the fact that this is a landlock parcel
that it goes through the appropriate
[43:33] review process. Um, moving to the rest
of my comments, there are no concerns
[43:39] with uh any other dimensional
requirements of the property. Um,
[43:43] there's no concerns about height um of
any buildings. Of course, there's no
[43:47] density because there's no dwelling
units here. um the width of the parcel
[43:52] is sufficient for the use that's
required in terms of the the width of
[43:55] the the parcel once you get into the
parcel even though the official um
[44:01] technical width of the parcel is
determined by its frontage which there
[44:04] is zero width as we discussed um on page
42 of the packet uh there's some
[44:10] discussion of landscaping
um I will say that under anything that
[44:14] requires site plan review all of the
landscaping standards or those zoning
[44:17] ordinance apply um but only the specific
requirements. Um I I go through these
[44:25] one by one. Um some of the zoning
ordinance landscaping requirements are
[44:28] based on parcels that have parking lots
or required parking areas. There is no
[44:34] minimum required parking lot for a
cemetery. And so essentially that's a
[44:38] non-applicable requirement. There's no
required landscaping based on parking.
[44:42] Um there's no frontage and so there's no
required landscaping based on
[44:46] [clears throat] the frontage or green
belt of the site. Uh there's no
[44:50] buildings and that alleviates um two
aspects of landscaping that would
[44:54] typically apply where you have to do
perimeter landscaping around a building
[44:58] and also there's an requirement of
screening between buildings and
[45:03] residential uses and in this case
there's no building on this site. Um so
[45:09] officially you go through the list and
there are no specific landscaping
[45:13] requirements. However, the planning
commission may recommend specific
[45:16] landscaping as a condition of their
special land use approval to make sure
[45:20] this use coheres with the the
neighboring properties and blends in
[45:23] well. Um and that's the discretion of
the planning commission. One thing I
[45:28] will mention related to that going back
to the arrangement of the site um this
[45:33] is a the way it's drawn up you'll see
that the access ement on their middles.
[45:37] It kind of goes across that um the flag
portion of their property at 2071 South
[45:43] Fletcher. Um but then it crosses over
part of that property kind of on an
[45:50] angle. And one recommendation I would
have um fully understanding there's not
[45:54] an intent for the the home site that
would be changing hands or changing
[45:58] families, but there is always the chance
that that will occur. So my
[46:02] recommendation would be to make the
easement flush with the property line so
[46:06] that um if ever there is a split between
the the use of the private sanitary one
[46:11] family and whoever's living in the house
that there's a kind of a a clean
[46:15] separation there and that there's no
need to kind of cross over the easement
[46:18] or share that part of the property more
than is necessary. Um that's a little
[46:23] bit nit nitpicky, but it just would
clean up a potential access concern in
[46:27] the future if there is ever a split
where the family is no longer associated
[46:31] with um the frontage parcel. Uh so
that's just one recommendation. I I kind
[46:35] of put a little graphic in the packet
that shows having that ease flush with
[46:40] property line, maybe widened out a
little bit so that there is room to
[46:42] plant some trees or have uh some some
greenway separating that house. Um, and
[46:48] that's really the discretion of the
planning commission if they want to
[46:51] adopt that as a condition of approval.
Um, and uh up to the applicant how they
[46:56] would plan that unless the planning
commission has specific requirements
[47:00] that they impose on that. Um, my report
also includes special land use findings
[47:06] on page 44. Uh, because this is a
special land use and zoning ordinance.
[47:09] Um, I will try to summarize these as
best possible. Um the first is that the
[47:15] uh special land use will be harmonious
and in accordance with the general
[47:19] objectives of the township master plan.
Um
[47:23] the the cemetery will be anticipated to
bring low levels of traffic to the site.
[47:27] There will be use that's compatible with
preservation of low inensity land use
[47:31] that's typical of the agricultural
zoning districts. So um it appears that
[47:35] that standard doesn't matter.
Um the use has to be designed,
[47:40] constructed, operated and maintained so
as to be harmonious and appropriate in
[47:44] appearance with the existing or intended
character of the area. Um again this is
[47:48] a small site 2288
ft of total uh cemetery plot space um on
[47:55] over 9 acres of land that's presumed to
be largely open space. So again
[48:00] harmonious it will be anticip
anticipated to be harmonious with its
[48:04] surroundings. Um it's also not
anticipated to be hazardous or
[48:07] disturbing to existing and nearby uses
uh which is one of the criteria we have
[48:12] to look at um in section C. Um so long
as the appropriate approvals are um
[48:18] received from the county health
department. I believe that standard has
[48:21] been met um that the use is compatible
with existing and adjacent uses of land
[48:26] um and will promote the use of land in a
socially and economically desirable
[48:30] manner. Uh the proposed use will have
minimal impact on the adjacent
[48:33] properties and will allow the subject
site and adjacent properties to develop
[48:38] in whatever manner they choose in a in a
socially and economically desirable
[48:43] manner. Essentially
uh whether the site will be served
[48:47] adequately by public water uh private
public or private water and waste
[48:51] treatment services. Again, um pending
any information on irrigation or water
[48:57] for races, um there's really anticipated
to be very minimal public utility
[49:02] component to this. Um that the use will
not create excessive public uh public
[49:07] costs and will not significantly
decrease property values of surrounding
[49:10] properties. Um that one again this is a
preserving open space and will involve
[49:16] no development that will cause
detrimental impacts to neighboring
[49:18] properties that will reduce property
values that you can anticipate. Um last
[49:24] two here the second last is that they
will meet the requirements and standards
[49:28] of the zoning ordinance and other
applicable law standards and
[49:31] requirements or regulations. Um those
will be met subject to the conditions of
[49:36] this report. Um and then finally that
this will be harmonious with the natural
[49:40] environment and more unique natural
features and again this is a small
[49:43] disturbed area in a larger site that'll
be mostly open space. So we believe that
[49:48] criteria criterion has been met and so
we think there's adequate justification
[49:54] for the special land use approval in
this report pending um any action by the
[49:58] ZBA on uh the um the variance aspect of
it or the the ZBA's review aspect of it
[50:04] and then pending preliminary and final
site plan review. Um that being said, I
[50:11] we think that this use could be um
conditionally approved for special end
[50:17] use and um potentially for preliminary
site plan understanding that there would
[50:22] have to be significant more details that
come back with the final site plan
[50:25] review. um the procedural aspect of
that. If this if and when this goes to
[50:31] the ZBA, the ZVA needs to have a
preliminary site plan approval in hand
[50:37] that they can reference if they're going
to approve that part of it. So, it's
[50:40] kind of a back and forth process. Um but
the planning commission could um
[50:45] uh grant preliminary site plan approval
and special land use approval today um
[50:50] pending ZDA approval and pending site
plan final site approval at a later
[50:54] date. um subject to the conditions I've
mentioned uh throughout my statements
[50:58] here um which I believe I have stated
throughout my other comments here. I
[51:03] don't um I can certainly help walk
through those again if you'd like as
[51:07] we're writing a motion but I won't
repeat them now. I think okay
[51:10] » summarize everything so far. So happy to
answer any questions
[51:16] turn it over back to the planning
commission and the public.
[51:19] » Okay. All right. What we can do now is
open up the public hearing to the people
[51:24] that want to talk. Uh haven't, you know,
want to express something about this. Um
[51:31] if you stand up, say state your name and
your address for the record and we'll
[51:37] whoever wants to go first.
>> Jim Brley. Uh I own property right there
[51:44] on the corner.
>> Right. So I'm on
[51:47] » Yeah. My question is, and I guess you
know it's legal to have a family
[51:53] cemetery,
is there going to be any cost to their
[51:58] township?
The reason I asked that, I mean, I don't
[52:01] think any township and ours included are
not running with all kinds of money. So
[52:08] if if all it's one thing if the township
has to pay something that's only going
[52:14] to benefit
you, you know, and and the other
[52:19] question I have is
is there something in there, maybe I
[52:25] missed it, how the actual burial sites
um uh are I mean is it the same as what
[52:35] it would be in another else, you know, I
mean, is it going to be in a casket? Is
[52:40] it going to be a mold or whatever? You
know, I mean, that's a couple of
[52:44] concerns that that I have.
>> Okay.
[52:48] All right. Um,
>> I have some questions unless you need to
[52:52] answer his. No, I mean basically what
we'll go over I know there's something
[52:56] in in the um in the review that talks
about uh perpetual maintenance and that
[53:06] they will
take care of it and it will not go back
[53:10] to the township. I think it was
something like that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[53:15] So that would be the only thing that you
know one question [clears throat] it
[53:19] should be it's their responsibility.
Um and then you know if they default on
[53:25] that then we go after them. So
>> Right. And they were talking about the
[53:30] the specifications of getting to and
from.
[53:35] » Right. Right.
Yeah. Cuz it's I I think the thing off
[53:39] of Fletcher is pretty narrow. Is it 66?
Is it
[53:42] » I believe it's only 25 ft.
>> 25 ft. And it's only 25 off of side of
[53:47] church too. Isn't that correct? Yeah.
Yeah. So, are they going to be required
[53:51] to
build a separate driveway to that plus
[53:56] their home driveway or
>> um the way it looks like on the plan
[54:02] » comes out?
>> It comes off the home driveway.
[54:04] » Yes.
>> The home driveway. Now, they might need
[54:07] to to you know,
>> well, it' be an ement
[54:12] » fortifi. Yeah, it' be an e
>> easement for the cemetery.
[54:15] » Right. Right. even though it's a
personal drive, it would be an easement,
[54:19] » right,
>> for there to get to the cemetery. So,
[54:25] » be an easement to get back there. And
then, as he had um Dan had said, maybe
[54:30] you want to from the driveway portion of
the site go down,
[54:36] » put a little down to go into where the
uh burial sites will be.
[54:44] Okay, Richard, if you don't mind, I
don't want to stand. So, that's fine.
[54:48] Take off.
>> No. Um,
[54:50] » several questions, but I'm going to go
back partly to what Mr. First had to
[54:53] say.
Sadly, you guys are gone. I'm going way
[54:57] down the road.
No one from the family is available to
[55:03] maintain the cemetery.
What happens at that point? they they
[55:09] have to set aside money in the beginning
for for upkeep and and stuff, you know,
[55:15] 25, 50, 75 years down the road.
>> Mhm.
[55:19] » Um, how is that handled?
>> I'm not sure. Is there is like bonds are
[55:23] there bonds that are put for something
like that or not? Or
[55:27] » didn't say it goes with the property,
the responsibility goes with the
[55:30] property owner.
>> Goes with the property owner. Yeah.
[55:35] » Yes.
>> Okay. And there was that question. Who
[55:38] owns
>> parel two?
[55:40] » Who owns parallel two?
>> Um, it looks like she
[55:48] » Jeffrey Spencer.
>> It's your father.
[55:51] » Yeah. So, I'm in Edwards now cuz I'm
married, but I see Spencer was my father
[55:56] and he passed away in 2021.
>> Okay. Inherited
[56:00] » and you've got the property above that.
You've got the house above that. Okay.
[56:06] That's great.
>> And we're planning to change that name
[56:08] out of or the parcel out of his name to
our name
[56:10] » to your name. Okay. All right.
>> Okay. That that helps.
[56:14] » Whoops.
>> Because I was going to say I know Jeff's
[56:16] not here, but if it was in a state or an
LLC or something,
[56:19] » right?
>> Just in terms of clarification there.
[56:22] Um, the other question that I have, if
you'll look at your certified survey,
[56:27] uh, we have the property just to the
north on Sio Church and we border along
[56:31] the other ement, which is fine, but you
have us looking like we own all the way
[56:37] to the far right. David and Barb Miller
own that property. It was formed by
[56:42] Crafts.
>> They're not listed here as a owner. It's
[56:46] like you have us all the way across
that.
[56:48] » Oh, I see. I see. They probably should
have notified. I don't know if you
[56:52] notified them or not.
>> I don't know.
[56:54] » I guess once I can tell
>> you.
[56:58] » Oh, you didn't.
>> Not
[57:01] » because you don't live with you don't
live within 300.
[57:05] » Yeah, they do say 300 ft. It's 300. It's
to live within
[57:09] » but the person
>> generally we would notify you. Okay. Got
[57:17] » so
>> so I believe that you need to get a
[57:19] correct survey done
certified surveyor.
[57:24] » Yeah. [laughter]
>> You missed the house
[57:26] » cuz he didn't put that down. Yeah,
you're right.
[57:32] » And we'll let them know. But I think
they officially [clears throat] should
[57:36] get something from the township. I I
doubt there's any issues, but it's
[57:40] something
>> they Yeah, they should have. I agree.
[57:43] Maybe because I don't know why that
didn't show up. H I don't know.
[57:48] » Yeah, because you have our names going
further to the east than we own.
[57:52] » Right. Right. Like over over where that
260 is.
[57:57] » Correct.
>> Gotcha.
[57:59] I do have the list of people.
>> Correct. If you follow the north south
[58:02] line that comes along partial too,
you'll continue straight to Saturn
[58:06] Church.
>> What was it? What was their names again?
[58:09] » Dave and Barb Miller.
>> Dave and Barb Miller.
[58:14] » Let me see here.
>> She's got a list of the people that she
[58:16] had not.
>> Yes, I did send a a notice out to Dave
[58:20] and Barb Miller. Okay. Okay. There.
Yeah. Good. And who else were we
[58:23] questioning?
>> That's it.
[58:24] » Oh, okay.
>> Well, Tim Brisk is quering, but
[58:27] » Yeah, I know. [laughter] But he's not
within the 300 ft. Yeah.
[58:30] » Yeah.
>> You're too far down the road.
[58:32] » You're too far. It's too far down the
road.
[58:34] » Too far. [laughter]
>> Okay.
[58:38] » Um, [clears throat] any other
>> just in this the same vein? Cuz I caught
[58:41] something he said, but I wasn't sure.
So, down the road, cemeteries in place,
[58:47] everything's fine,
>> right?
[58:48] » Can they split off partial two and have
other homes built up there? Do they have
[58:54] some odd restrictions for that?
It depends on when when was the original
[59:00] parcel. How big was the original parcel
for your dad? Yeah, it's it's
[59:04] landlocked.
>> Um he's always had it in those two
[59:06] parcels.
>> All right. Yeah.
[59:10] » So, um I think because it's landlocked
and it's because it's got only like 25
[59:17] ft to one.
>> You going to make it into one parcel or
[59:20] are you going to keep them two? Um, we'd
like to pursue getting a combined.
[59:25] » So then it would become one parcel
instead of two,
[59:29] » but with the 25T easement, they wouldn't
be able to subdivide that property
[59:34] anyhow.
>> No, I don't think they'd be able to
[59:36] divide it with the
>> 256 foot wide easement.
[59:39] » Right. Right.
>> To be able to put multiple homes on
[59:41] them.
>> And the only other thing they could do
[59:43] is, and this is why, it has to go to the
ZBA. Anytime you you try to use
[59:49] something different than uh a
non-conforming lot can be used as a
[59:54] residential home. That's it. So anytime
you would try to put like four or five
[59:58] residential homes that would have
>> used
[1:00:03] » that would not be allowable unless they
went to the ZBA and the ZBA.
[1:00:08] Yeah.
>> So, if I'm understanding what you just
[1:00:10] said, [clears throat] 20 years from now,
if they chose with another sibling to
[1:00:16] let them build a house, that's not going
to be an option for them.
[1:00:19] » Um,
[1:00:22] » I don't I mean to to split the land off
and put another house on it.
[1:00:28] » I'm not sure.
>> Is that the question? Is it a primary
[1:00:31] use?
>> It would be a primary use, but
[1:00:33] » could they split it off? I'm not even
sure you could split it off to be honest
[1:00:37] with you.
>> Let me word it different. Could they,
[1:00:40] you know, build a second home and
subleasase it to whomever? It doesn't
[1:00:46] have to be a family.
>> Yeah.
[1:00:49] » I'm really, you know,
>> not really highly worried, but just I
[1:00:53] caught I thought he said that the
property could not be split again or
[1:00:57] could not be used as a building site.
I'm just trying to clarify that
[1:01:01] » and I think and you know I think because
neither one of the accesses are 66 ft
[1:01:07] wide
>> right they got since they got a second
[1:01:09] access that might
>> that might change it I don't know if
[1:01:13] » they if they got the access off the sire
church in addition to the access off of
[1:01:17] uh
Fletcher they're still
[1:01:21] » it's still not 66 ft wide
[clears throat]
[1:01:24] » I thought you just need to access
Well,
[1:01:31] » why is there two? Is that what you're
asking?
[1:01:33] » No. No.
>> He thought
[1:01:36] » you can only put one house on a parcel
if you don't have more than if you don't
[1:01:39] have 66 foot wide. You need two way
traffic. All I'm saying is there's two
[1:01:43] access points to the property. One's off
of Fletcher and then there's another
[1:01:47] easement off of
>> side. I think when the house was
[1:01:51] originally built
>> or going to be, he wasn't sure to build
[1:01:55] it.
>> Yeah.
[1:01:55] » Which he was going to use. And if you
see the layout, he picked the much safer
[1:02:00] direction. [laughter]
>> I know. I looked down early.
[1:02:03] » Is it? Oh, okay.
>> So, nobody might even be able to get
[1:02:07] back there from the one side. [laughter]
>> That's not That's not even the most sane
[1:02:12] direction.
[1:02:15] » Okay.
Um, you know, I don't,
[1:02:20] like I said, parcel two and we've got
parcel one.
[1:02:26] I think
>> I think it was the two.
[1:02:31] » One parcel is believe 9 acres that has
our home on it and the other one is 72
[1:02:38] years old.
[1:02:42] » Doesn't it the sizes are correct? I may
have back [laughter] apologies.
[1:02:48] » The homes on the 3 acre. Yes.
>> And then the larger parcel where you
[1:02:53] have the
>> the cemeteries on the 9 acres.
[1:02:56] » I always thought we had 13. So that
>> Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. Um
[1:03:04] » in on the question about future build.
>> Mhm.
[1:03:08] » Um I did look at Google Earth or on our
parcel map. I can't remember which, but
[1:03:14] you have to zoom out. Um, the only I
think all all parcels around you have
[1:03:18] home sites on them and they're they're
there's no way to get to Fletcher Road
[1:03:22] or side of Church Road in a way that you
can develop anything more than what's
[1:03:26] there right now, but to the south
potentially someday there could that
[1:03:31] there's a larger farm property. I forget
the name of the road to the south, but
[1:03:36] conceivably somebody could build a road
through that and then subdivide that.
[1:03:42] That's pretty um pretty hypothetical. Um
>> right
[1:03:46] » in terms of these two parcels, I think
there was a good hypothetical that was
[1:03:49] raised.
>> You under the zoning ordinance can build
[1:03:53] up to one single family home and it's
accessory building on any non-conforming
[1:03:58] parcel that would include the the
complete landlock parcel,
[1:04:02] » right? technically and they could gain
access through an ement either the one
[1:04:06] that's existing out to Fletcher Road or
up to Style Church Road through that
[1:04:10] other there's a there's a strip of
access there but there's no driveway. So
[1:04:14] » um that other par could have a home on
it someday in theory but it's virtually
[1:04:20] possible the way the land is configured
now that any other any further approval
[1:04:24] could occur. You couldn't build a
subdivision or a second back there
[1:04:27] because there's no room for 66 foot wide
private roads right away for example to
[1:04:33] get through there anywhere. So
>> yeah,
[1:04:36] » just a another little bit perspective.
>> Okay. All right. Is that
[1:04:41] » Yep.
>> Clear as mud. Okay.
[1:04:44] » Truth. I live just south of
>> this farm. Okay.
[1:04:49] » Truth. Is it truthale? Okay.
>> Truth. And I have one question I guess
[1:04:54] where the driveway currently goes up now
>> and the proposed easement will go up to
[1:05:00] the site location.
>> Mhm.
[1:05:03] » Is that going are they going to be
required to put in an access road to get
[1:05:07] there or just provide a easement for
future use?
[1:05:14] » H
>> to the cemetery.
[1:05:17] » Yes. The way it was written, it was
going to be grass off once off of your
[1:05:24] drive, right?
>> Yeah.
[1:05:25] » It's going to be a grass drive getting
to the cemetery.
[1:05:29] » Okay.
>> And then I think you did make it, Dan,
[1:05:33] you did say something about making an
easement
[1:05:36] » to the cemetery. So, it would be an
easement. It wouldn't be a road,
[1:05:40] » but it would be an improved easement or
is it just
[1:05:44] » um healed like it is now? I think it's
it well the way this is drawn it's just
[1:05:49] feel
>> as it is now.
[1:05:51] » Yeah. But it says
that in the grass
[1:05:58] » there is um there's no requirement I'm
looking here
[1:06:02] um in the specific standards for
cemeteries although we do want to have
[1:06:06] the information on what the surface
material is on the site plan. Um
[1:06:12] in section 5.12 for cemeteries um you
have to show
[1:06:17] uh that there will be direct ingress and
egress from a paved public road which
[1:06:22] means you have to have the easement
connect all the way to Fletcher Road. In
[1:06:26] this case there needs to be an easement
for ingress and egress from the public
[1:06:30] road to the land on which the cemetery
is located and that easement must be
[1:06:34] recorded. Um and there of course we
talked about the provisions for
[1:06:38] perpetual care and maintenance of the
cemetery property which would include
[1:06:41] everything encompassed in that easement
up to the cemetery. Um but there is no
[1:06:47] specific standard or requirement for
what the road paving material is that
[1:06:52] I'm aware of unless
>> Okay.
[1:06:54] » So I guess it could address one one way
of saying it could be unpaved.
[1:06:58] » Um that brings up the question. Okay. So
it's there's no specific
[1:07:07] does the the guy that's going to dig the
or the cemetery or the I don't think
[1:07:14] Johnny going to drive by disrespect but
I don't think Johnny's going to drive up
[1:07:19] there with his car cuz that driveway is
very very narrow and the brush and
[1:07:24] everything else. I just I didn't know if
cemetery people have certain, you know,
[1:07:31] requirements.
>> Mhm.
[1:07:32] » You know, even if you had to take a
backhole up there and that kind of
[1:07:36] stuff, you know.
>> Mhm.
[1:07:40] » That was leading to my question of how
are you going to get there?
[1:07:43] » Right. Right. Right.
>> If you recall, when this cemetery down
[1:07:48] here was not being cared for,
my father was buried there. We had a
[1:07:54] rainstorm.
Johnny Mitchell put the cast in the back
[1:07:58] of a Suburban. [laughter]
[1:08:04] » If it needs to be done, it'll get done.
That's probably not an issue. If I can
[1:08:08] just say something to you, we've spoken
to the funeral director at the home
[1:08:12] about that because it is pretty rural,
rough land. And he said, "As long as
[1:08:16] you've got the paperwork and everything,
you can strap it to a trailer if you'd
[1:08:20] like and
>> Okay. Okay. Well, where my parents are
[1:08:24] buried down in
Oh, well, it's off of it's in the
[1:08:30] country down towards Blissfield
>> and it's just grass drive. The the
[1:08:35] cemeteries in the middle of the field,
>> so and they make it,
[1:08:43] » which is fine,
>> right?
[1:08:44] » No, I just it's not odd to have
especially the older seven,
[1:08:49] » right,
>> to have a grass driver, right?
[1:08:53] And I and they're like 16 sight uh
burial plots. Is that correct?
[1:08:58] » Yes.
>> And they're like 10 by
[1:09:04] » No.
>> 10 by
[1:09:05] » 10 by four.
>> Yes.
[1:09:07] » I have I question. This is more out of
curiosity than anything else because
[1:09:14] » we're very far away from your property
line is. Mhm.
[1:09:19] » Um what type of burials is it going to
be vaulted? Is it going to be um green?
[1:09:28] » I think at state health department
state.
[1:09:32] » Yeah.
>> The state would tell them.
[1:09:34] » Well, I mean I'm not oppo I mean opposed
either way,
[1:09:38] » right?
>> I just my concern is with the amount of
[1:09:41] wildlife that seems to be up in that
direction,
[1:09:46] [laughter]
>> you know, I just And the depth of the of
[1:09:50] some of the reading I was doing, you
know, the depths
[1:09:54] are different.
>> Right. Right.
[1:09:56] » It's not six feet anymore.
>> It's not 6,
[1:10:03] » but I but I think the um I I I know the
state regulates
[1:10:08] » a lot of that.
>> And I don't we didn't get is there
[1:10:12] something from We didn't get anything
from the state or anything. Yeah. Yeah.
[1:10:16] Yeah.
So,
[1:10:19] uh, anybody else any questions?
>> All right. Did we answer your questions?
[1:10:28] » Yeah,
kind of. [laughter]
[1:10:33] » I don't want to come back and fight the
township.
[1:10:35] » Right.
>> Right. And that's what that's definitely
[1:10:38] what we don't want to.
>> We've already got several township
[1:10:42] cemeteries that we have to deal with.
Yeah, sure. Right.
[1:10:47] » Okay. All right. Well, then I will close
the public hearing unless there's any
[1:10:51] other comments. All right.
Now, we can discuss this.
[1:10:59] Um,
okay. So,
[1:11:05] you guys
questions, concerns?
[1:11:10] I mean, I think as long as we have the
state regulations that you adhere to,
[1:11:16] um, I think it sounds to me like it's
going to be a very natural cemetery, so
[1:11:20] there's not going to be paved roads or
anything like that. Um,
[1:11:28] yeah, I don't. And it's kind of like a
little small parcel, a small acreage
[1:11:34] area within a 9 acre parcel.
And I don't think any nobody out there
[1:11:40] can see that area from where you are.
But you know,
[1:11:44] » you can barely see
>> barely see it.
[1:11:46] » Probably if you walked to the back of
our property.
[1:11:49] » Yeah. Yeah. If you went way back. Yeah.
Okay.
[1:11:52] » Cuz Yeah. I think you would be the
closest
[1:11:55] according to my survey here.
>> The property the 9.9 is that currently
[1:12:01] farmed or just grown up or
>> just grown up? Yeah. We have several
[1:12:05] mobile fields, but that's all. Okay.
>> It's It's backed by forest, so
[1:12:12] really only people can see.
>> Oh, okay.
[1:12:16] » And you're going to keep all the trees
and all that jazz. Okay. Good. Good.
[1:12:20] [laughter]
>> Okay.
[1:12:22] » Dear sounds like
>> Yeah.
[1:12:25] » Yeah.
>> The deer will be visiting a lot. Yes.
[1:12:29] Questions? Anybody else?
concern.
[1:12:36] » So the way I'm sure
>> perpetual is taken care of.
[1:12:38] » Yeah. As long as it's there is an
agreement for perpetual maintenance.
[1:12:43] Yes.
>> Even if it changes hands or something
[1:12:46] like that
that it be becomes a responsibility of
[1:12:50] the new buyer and it's clearly stated to
that buyer that they are responsible.
[1:12:55] » Yes.
[1:12:58] » Okay. Um,
so I guess what we need to do, there's
[1:13:03] several things on the plan that need to
be dealt with.
[1:13:07] Um,
but for them to go to the ZBA,
[1:13:13] we would have to approve the preliminary
site plan with all the conditions that
[1:13:17] need to be dealt with. Is that correct?
>> As well as the special use.
[1:13:22] » As well as the special use. We can
approve the special use and then
[1:13:25] » conditions. You can
>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
[1:13:28] » Yeah, you could um postpone action on
the special use, but if you're feeling
[1:13:35] ready to um there's no reason you can't.
You can do both a [clears throat]
[1:13:39] special use and a preliminary site
interview today. What the ZBA would need
[1:13:43] to review the case would be a approved
or conditionally approved preliminary
[1:13:48] site plan. I don't think the uh the
special use can come now or can be
[1:13:52] later.
>> Okay.
[1:13:54] And then um the final site plan will
come before us.
[1:13:59] » Yes.
>> For the final approval with all the
[1:14:01] changes made and things like that.
>> Yes. That would be right after the ZVA.
[1:14:05] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[1:14:09] All righty.
So, what do you guys want to do? I don't
[1:14:13] see any need for any landscaping or
anything.
[1:14:16] » It's already done.
>> It's kind of done.
[1:14:20] » Green. Um, so I'm willing I'm ready to
make a motion to approve the special use
[1:14:27] permit number where is it? It's not on
there.
[1:14:31] » Uh, 26001
>> one. Um, with the conditions that the
[1:14:39] site plan is corrected to include the
emissions noted on the planners report.
[1:14:46] And um they the applicant obtains
approval from ZBA for the um site
[1:14:55] limitations and they get the health
department approval
[1:15:00] and I yeah I guess a separate motion for
the
[1:15:04] » for the site plan. Yeah, let's let's do
the special use first.
[1:15:09] » I'll support that.
>> Support. All in favor?
[1:15:14] » Opposed? None. Motion carried. Now we
need to do the site plan preliminary.
[1:15:26] » All right. So I will move on this first.
I will make the motion
[1:15:31] lost her words. What? No. Him.
>> Yeah. [laughter]
[1:15:38] » Elizabeth is better at the words. No,
>> you don't know cuz nobody thinks that
[1:15:45] you don't ever do it.
>> We have Howard went for the adjournment.
[1:15:48] He always [laughter]
>> That's all good.
[1:15:53] » All right. So, I I move that we give um
preliminary site plan approval.
[1:15:59] » Okay.
>> To application I don't know 20261.
[1:16:03] » Yep.
um conditioned upon the applicant put
[1:16:08] correcting the site plan to include the
information that was missing as noted on
[1:16:14] the planners report.
[1:16:19] » Is that everybody good? Well, I need a
second.
[1:16:23] » H is that was that you?
>> Did you mention the ZVA on that?
[1:16:29] » No, I did not because it's a preliminary
site plan approval. Oh.
[1:16:33] » Yeah.
>> Okay. I'll support.
[1:16:37] » All in favor? I
>> oppose. None. Motion carried. Okay.
[1:16:43] » All right. So, you've got some work to
do getting your site plan [laughter]
[1:16:47] the final to us
>> and then um
[1:16:54] » and again, like I said, we'll we'll
check the final and and if there's
[1:16:58] anything on the final we need to change,
we can change it.
[1:17:03] That's a question too. As far as burial
goes, I assume I need the final final
[1:17:08] approval before that can occur.
>> Um
[1:17:12] » I think so.
>> I think so. Yeah. Just to be safe.
[1:17:15] » Yeah, I I assume so. We The only thing I
wanted to say ask that for is that uh he
[1:17:21] passed back in November and we've been
paying storage fees for him for that
[1:17:25] long already and we'll be paying them
now for I think you said two more months
[1:17:29] until the next meeting. Yeah,
>> in June, right? So,
[1:17:32] » well, if there was any way to do that,
that's the only reason I wanted to ask.
[1:17:36] But
>> if you can get something to us for the
[1:17:39] May meeting, it'll be the the 18th of
May cuz we're a week early because
[1:17:44] » you got to do the ZBA.
>> But you got to do the ZBA. That That's
[1:17:47] going to be the problem.
>> Okay.
[1:17:51] » Well, that won't happen until
>> Pardon me. The
[1:17:55] » ZBA normally Thursday,
>> like two days, 3 days from now.
[1:18:01] Oh, okay. But you could do it in Well,
the end of the month on Tuesday. Is that
[1:18:06] what you're talking about?
>> Last Thursday.
[1:18:10] » The last Thursday. Oh, wow.
[1:18:18] » Suggestions.
>> A special ZBA meeting.
[1:18:23] » Yeah, you can do a special ZBA meeting.
[1:18:30] Uh, you'd have to do that right now.
>> Yeah.
[1:18:34] » I don't know. How long does the ZVA
notice have to be? Is it like us 15
[1:18:38] days?
>> Yeah, 15 days.
[1:18:40] » Well, that ain't going to happen.
>> Well,
[1:18:46] » appreciate it.
>> Sorry.
[1:18:48] All right.
>> At least you know it's approved and you
[1:18:51] know you know there's an end in near so
[1:18:58] » okay let me see where am I
as much as
[1:19:04] » Thank you.
All right we will move on to committee
[1:19:08] reports township board activities
minute. What did you guys do?
[1:19:13] » We had a few things on we was a There
was an overage in the wolf account way
[1:19:20] back when
>> doing the wolf property the planning.
[1:19:25] » There's quite a bit still owed but we're
the township's taking responsibility for
[1:19:30] it and saying it's for the 425 agreement
from planning.
[1:19:35] » Okay.
>> So we're going to close that one out. to
[1:19:38] get agree on road agreement
and we're putting out 350,000 this year
[1:19:46] for roads.
[1:19:51] » Yeah,
[1:19:59] » um
as far as let's see, we did approve the
[1:20:03] landscaping waiver for the gas station.
>> Good. do that. And I did mention at at
[1:20:10] the recycling
to them about their
[1:20:14] » no decision at this point for
>> No, I told him he needed to probably
[1:20:17] speak with the people there.
>> Okay.
[1:20:21] » Okay. Uh Thornton Farms, that's still
with both attorneys.
[1:20:28] » All right.
>> There's been no decision yet. And
[1:20:32] actually, Bill um found out that Sykes
Drive and Wood Drive should be kept up
[1:20:39] now that we shouldn't have to worry
about it as far as for our road
[1:20:45] agreement. That it's something that both
of those roads should have been kept up
[1:20:50] without us having to put money towards
it.
[1:20:54] » The county should have maintained it.
Gotcha.
[1:20:57] » Why is that?
There's something to do with the um
[1:21:02] with the state
and because they're along the highway,
[1:21:10] both of them.
>> Mhm.
[1:21:11] » They're service guys,
>> right? They're service drives.
[1:21:14] » I agree. They need upkeeping cuz they
really need up.
[1:21:17] » They never have had it.
>> It's always been up to us if we want to
[1:21:21] do anything.
>> Well, good. That's good. I'm glad
[1:21:25] commission. How do we get the state to
pony up some money to do it?
[1:21:28] » He's working on it.
>> Yeah,
[1:21:32] » he did find that out though.
>> Good for him.
[1:21:34] » Yeah.
>> Anything else?
[1:21:37] » That's it.
>> Any questions for Nette?
[1:21:42] » Thank you, Nette.
>> Move on to the supervisor's report. Just
[1:21:46] ran out of here.
[laughter]
[1:21:53] » He had something come up, so that's
fine. Uh let's just move the joint um
[1:21:58] planning for Silvin and Lima.
>> Okay. We did sign on the intent to plan.
[1:22:05] We did that a couple of months ago.
>> Mhm.
[1:22:08] » Uh we
will have a public hearing on use for
[1:22:13] that property. That just for everybody's
knowledge, it's the property just south
[1:22:16] of uh 94 between Fair Road and 52. It's
about 28 acres. There's a 425 agreement
[1:22:24] between Wimma and Silven Township on
that that property. Uh so Elizabeth and
[1:22:30] I are on the joint planning commission
for that property. So we will be holding
[1:22:34] a public hearing on
you know ideas for special use I guess.
[1:22:41] » Oh okay.
>> Interesting. All right. I think we're
[1:22:45] going to try to the master plan for
it'll refer to the limema master plan
[1:22:51] and the uh silver master plan so that
we're not doing
[1:22:55] » so be a whole complete master plan.
It'll be like stuff specific to that
[1:22:59] site and then
>> okay
[1:23:01] » for the all the background information
and all that administration that goes
[1:23:06] into the master plan it's it's going to
refer to the other.
[1:23:10] » So at this point there's nothing going
on with that. Yeah.
[1:23:14] » And then anybody that would come in for
like something the development would
[1:23:19] have to go to you guys.
>> Yeah.
[1:23:23] » Even though there's no
>> plan yet, but it's under
[1:23:29] » right under that 425 in place,
>> right? Cuz that's
[1:23:33] » Yeah, cuz it's a joint.
>> Yeah.
[1:23:36] » Okay.
>> All right. Makes sense. I had no
[1:23:40] correspondence.
Final public comment. Anybody any
[1:23:45] questions, comments?
>> Thank you for coming.
[1:23:50] » And noward
>> Howard, hit it.
[1:23:54] » I'm over your journey.
>> Second.
[1:24:01] » Can Okay. All in favor? I They do. You
do it so fast I can't keep up.