[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.

Planning Commission Meeting, April 27, 2026 (audio only)

Transcript