[0:02] statement which is the township will maintain its rural character for years

[0:06] to come while managing the pace of growth, ensuring the preservation of

[0:10] existing neighborhoods and the natural environment and promoting development in

[0:13] agreed upon target areas that will be served by public infrastructure and

[0:18] utilities. Again, I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting to order. Before

[0:22] our secretary uh begins roll call, just a a reminder, we do ask that you please

[0:28] come to the podium and use the microphone um so that we can capture the

[0:32] audio for recording and that everyone here can hear what is being said. Um so

[0:37] just ask that you don't speak from the seat. Again, everybody will have that

[0:40] opportunity but to please come to the podium. So with that, roll call.

[0:44] Secretary Woods. >> Chair Johnson

[0:47] » present. >> Vice Chair Sly

[0:50] » here. Commissioner Buller >> here.

[0:52] » Secretary Woods is here. Commissioner Riggs

[0:55] » here. >> Commissioner Summers

[0:57] » here. >> Commissioner Redmond

[0:59] » here. >> You have a quorum.

[1:01] » Thank you very much. If we can stand for the pledge of allegiance, please.

[1:07] » I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

[1:14] for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:20] justice for all. [cough]

[1:29] » Moving on to item D on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Is there a

[1:33] motion to approve the agenda? >> Move to approve.

[1:40] » Support.

[1:43] We have a motion by Commissioner Buller, seconded by Commissioner Sly. Any

[1:46] discussion?

[1:50] Hearing and seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying I.

[1:53] » I. [snorts] >> All those opposed, same sign. Motion

[1:56] carries. We have an agenda. Uh the first item on our agenda tonight um and I'm so

[2:01] happy to welcome Representative Steve Cara who represents um the Three Rivers

[2:05] area and uh he also chairs the House Oversight Committee on Corporate

[2:10] Subsidies and State Investments in the Michigan House of Representatives. Um

[2:15] this commiti subcommittee has held multiple hearings in I think 25 and 26

[2:20] maybe 26 um examining the economic environmental

[2:24] and policy impacts of data center development in Michigan and

[2:28] representative Cara thank you so much for being here um we don't have or have

[2:32] been unable to get our local representatives here so thank you for

[2:35] for coming this evening and I ask if you can go to the podium kind of give us an

[2:39] update of what's happening at the state

[2:46] Well, thank you, Chair Johnson, and hello to the to the board here. I'm

[2:51] Steve Cara, state representative, like like you said, District 36. That's all

[2:54] of St. Joseph County and most of Cass County to the southwest of here. And I

[2:59] chair the subcommittee on oversight, uh, corporate subsidies and state

[3:04] investments. And yeah, we've had several hearings

[3:07] from the environmental concerns of of data centers to the amount of power

[3:13] consumption that they use. That's one that got me in trouble with consumers

[3:16] energy. Although I only talked about the amount of power they use, like saying

[3:20] that the Stargate data center uses 1.4 gawatt, which is as much as 1.17 million

[3:27] houses combined. And that's all I kept it to was the amount of power that it

[3:30] uses. And they made it personal. They came after

[3:35] me. Uh, actually, it's the most money that's ever been spent against a an

[3:39] incumbent running for reelection in a primary in the state of Michigan. They

[3:43] spent over half a million dollars to try to beat me. Uh, I don't know why they

[3:47] would do that and lose, but that was their prerogative. So, uh, so yeah, I

[3:51] think that just empowers me to come back and uh go after them a little bit, you

[3:55] know, because I didn't make it personal. I talked about the reality of the power

[3:58] it used. Well, now we get to talk about consumers energy directly and DTE

[4:02] directly and I feel like they gave me a free ticket to do it. So, it's going to

[4:06] be fun for these last few months uh this term uh taking it back to them and

[4:11] having more serious conversations about the corruption of the status quo that

[4:16] they want. Uh my biggest concern when it comes to data centers is I know a lot of

[4:22] people are concerned about the environmental impact and the amount of

[4:25] power that they use. Those are not my top issue. My top issue is the fact that

[4:31] I believe that hypers scale data centers and the potential of artificial

[4:35] intelligence becoming artificial super intelligence is an existential threat.

[4:40] Literally could wipe out humanity. I've had experts testify in committee

[4:45] about this. I've listened to unfortunately I tried to get Tristan

[4:49] Harris to testify but he didn't get back to us. But Tristan Harris and Jeffrey

[4:53] Hinton are two people who I highly recommend. uh listening to and

[5:00] it's it's it's alarming. It's alarming. Yes,

[5:04] there are concerns to our local community, but that's nothing compared

[5:08] to the fact that it might wipe out humanity. And we have four options. We

[5:13] can be apathetic, misinformed, complicit, or we can challenge the

[5:18] status quo. The status quo politics, whether it's data centers or other

[5:23] things, they love apathy. They love when people just stay home, watch football.

[5:28] I'm looking forward to the football season, by the way. But that's what they

[5:32] want us to do. Not paying attention to what they're doing. If we are paying

[5:35] attention, they want us to be misinformed. Uh none of us have all the

[5:38] answers, but they want us to be misinformed. And if we are not apathetic

[5:43] or misinformed, they want us to be complicit. What peanuts can I get for

[5:47] conforming to the status quo? That's what they want us to say. Those are our

[5:51] three options that work for the corruption of the globalist agenda. The

[5:57] one that doesn't work for them is for us to resist, to challenge the status quo,

[6:02] to uh be agents for change, for free markets and equal opportunity and

[6:07] protecting people's god-given rights. That's what they don't want from us. And

[6:12] I think it is incumbent upon all of us, whether we're elected officials, uh

[6:16] leaders in our community, activists, people who just want what's best for

[6:20] fellow man to uh to rise and to challenge the system because the very

[6:26] existence of mankind is at hand here. So that's my two cents. I don't know if you

[6:32] have any questions for me, how long you want me to speak tonight. I plan to stay

[6:36] for a while. >> Okay. Um well, I do have a couple

[6:38] questions and then I'll open it up to the commissioners. And I know we had

[6:41] this early on the agenda, so maybe we can take a couple questions from the

[6:44] public as well. I you're before public comment, but um just to give everybody

[6:49] an opportunity. Um our my question, I guess, is we've been trying to go

[6:53] through a lot of training. Rob Thaw, our attorney, is here as well, and we have

[6:56] the topic of data centers as well as battery storage. I mean, obviously

[7:00] that's a lot in the headlines across the state, right? And I know you've had

[7:05] committee hearings. Who's in favor? Right. Who's in favor of let's just

[7:09] stick to data centers, right? Who's, you know, because there's a lot of

[7:13] negativity and I think the Meno Center just came out with something that said,

[7:16] "Oh, that's just a bunch of, you know, I don't I think it was the Meno Center,

[7:19] but basically that it's more, you know, it's not really as bad as it sounds,

[7:23] right?" Um, who's in favor of data centers?

[7:28] » Sure. >> I I would say that there are very

[7:31] wealthy people on both sides of the aisle, big donors. uh you have the just

[7:35] the race to see who can achieve artificial super intelligence. There's a

[7:38] lot of investors who are putting money into whether they want it to be

[7:42] anthropic or open AI or or what company they want uh to get across the finish

[7:48] line to be the one to achieve that super intelligence and then they rule the

[7:52] world is their theory. And if does come with that risk of destroying humanity,

[7:56] they'd rather it be them who accomplished and eventually lost control

[8:00] to artificial super intelligence than somebody else they're competing against.

[8:04] So it's just kind of that dog eat dog system where they're like, "Well,

[8:08] somebody else is going to do it, so we might as well do it as well." Uh we're

[8:12] also investing in old technology with this because the graphic processing

[8:16] units, the GPUs that are made by Nvidia, they're a few years old technology. And

[8:22] if you think about that 1.4 gawwatts to have not even artificial general

[8:28] intelligence, so it's not even as intelligent as all of humans combined

[8:32] right now taking 1.4 gawatt. Well, our brains use 20 watts. So way more power.

[8:39] Well, what happens when technology becomes more efficient and they only

[8:42] need 100 times as much power as our brain to do higher computations than our

[8:47] brains are capable of doing? So this technology that they keep investing in

[8:52] with these old Nvidia chips are becoming outdated uh quickly and much more

[8:59] efficient stuff is on the horizon. But that's scary because more efficient

[9:04] towards bringing us to artificial super intelligence. That's the best argument

[9:07] people make is that we have to beat China in the race war. You know that

[9:10] they're going to develop uh some uh super intelligence and then they'll beat

[9:15] us militaristically or economically and so we have to beat them. I think we need

[9:19] to have a diplomatic approach to it uh as the United States and look at well

[9:23] how can we have serious conversations with them like with nuclear

[9:26] proliferation make sure that we don't wipe one another out. Uh so what was

[9:31] your question again? >> Well just asking like within within the

[9:34] hearings you know if there was [clears throat] anybody that was very

[9:36] supportive of the data centers and who's that coming from?

[9:39] » As you saw I'm sure many of you President Trump put out a tweet that was

[9:43] uh very to the point yesterday. Uh Gretchen Whitmer also is supportive.

[9:48] Josyn [clears throat] Benson I would imagine is her husband Ryan is one of

[9:51] the lead data center developers in in the state with his being vice president

[9:55] of related companies because related digital which is their sub company

[9:59] worked with open AI and Oracle to bring us Stargate and Seline and so he was one

[10:05] of the key developers there. So yeah, Benson, Whitmer, Trump, both sides of

[10:09] the aisle, big investors, people who want to be part of that movement to rule

[10:16] the world. >> So bringing it my last question. Um, so

[10:19] bringing it back home, right? We're a small township and, you know, we're

[10:22] trying to do our due diligence. We've got issues. I know we're going to talk

[10:25] solar tonight, too. We got a couple items on the agenda. You know, we have

[10:28] been eroding local control, right? and uh within the state legislature and and

[10:33] laws that have been passed um and you know the concern at least that I have is

[10:38] in data centers next right um is that going to be potentially another realm um

[10:42] that gets taken out of local control what would be your advice you mentioned

[10:45] resistance but you know we're limited to what the law states what what are what

[10:50] can we do as a township whether we're for it or against it not suggesting one

[10:54] way or another but what what is your advice to a local township

[10:57] » on bus facilities first you know that is difficult there's a lot of communities

[11:01] because the MPSC, as you know, has the final say. Basically, the local

[11:06] community can make the decision they want to make, but if it's not what the

[11:09] MPC MPSC wants, they can overrule it. So, you really don't have the final say.

[11:13] » Well, the same thing with electricity costs, right? That will go to the

[11:16] Michigan Public Service Commission as well, right?

[11:19] » Yes, they go and they have rates increase on rate payers. Yes. Annually.

[11:24] And they went up much faster than the rate of inflation this last year. And I

[11:28] believe part of it, even they don't say it's because of it, is because they see

[11:31] all how much power the data centers use. And they want it to pass the cost over

[11:36] to the rateayers with your utility bills to help to subsidize the onset of the

[11:40] data center movement. And you know, they want all of the above energy, whether

[11:44] it's, you know, already existing like nuclear type of uh power plants, but

[11:49] they also want wind and solar. They want all the they want to hypercharge our

[11:53] grid. So, taking our beautiful farmland and transitioning it over to solar

[11:58] panels. Once you go to solar panels, that you know creates problems with the

[12:02] with the soil. You can't go back to farming after having the the solar

[12:05] panels there from the the leeching from the chemicals and the metals in there.

[12:10] And uh the battery energy storage systems are best facilities. Uh the

[12:15] reason why they have those with the solar panels is because solar panels

[12:20] deplete the energy quickly. So if you don't use the energy from solar panels

[12:24] right away, if you store it in the batteries, then the batteries can hold

[12:28] it and and it doesn't deplete as quickly. So yeah, solar is one of the

[12:32] worst energy sources in terms of maintaining the energy if you don't use

[12:36] it right away. That's why they have the best facilities going with them and like

[12:40] you said, usurping local control. that the MPSC just heard a couple days ago

[12:45] their first uh decision on and I can't remember what they decided a

[12:51] couple days ago. I I saw they were going to meet and I didn't see what they ended

[12:54] up >> Do you mean with with a um a data center

[12:57] or I mean sorry with a with the uh best or

[13:00] » I think it was a best facility andor solar panel as well. One of those

[13:03] renewable energ one of the ones that falls under PA 233. Yeah. So yeah the

[13:07] first case went before them >> and I don't know what their their

[13:10] decision was. I think they approved I think it was Ingam County.

[13:13] » Yeah, that was a settlement actually. Okay. Uh Viv Township and some others in

[13:18] Ingam County and they actually reached a settlement

[13:21] » and that was the first one. So how many communities who've just outright

[13:24] rejected and had plans to not do it and just left it to the risk of the NPSC.

[13:29] Well, finally one time the MPSC has acted in one circumstance. Does that set

[13:33] precedent to where it's going to be happening all over the state or is it

[13:37] going to be rare? A lot of the people in my community have

[13:41] been of the mindset like just don't give an endorsement a tacid endorsement of it

[13:46] whatsoever and just leave it to the risk of what the MPSC says. That's been the

[13:51] mindset of the locals from my community. Okay.

[13:54] » Commissioners, questions for Representative Car.

[13:57] » Is there any legislative act in one way or the other on any of the data centers?

[14:03] » It's pretty quiet. >> It's pretty quiet. Uh yeah, I'd say

[14:10] leadership on both sides of the aisle seem to just want to ignore it and just

[14:14] let things happen. it it has the local control dynamics right now for the data

[14:19] centers and but I think one of the things with the data centers that I've

[14:25] heard that are is worth noting of course I can't give any legal advice as a

[14:29] legislator but there's the route of it's called sue and settle so there are some

[14:36] routes where some communities have gone including Seline Township with Stargate

[14:41] where they sued and settled was the result and So

[14:46] I would I don't want to see peanuts given to the local community in return

[14:51] for ending up bringing a data center and doing it quote the right way. I would

[14:56] rather not set that foundation. But you can't discriminate is the thing. So any

[15:01] type of thing that the local community does to try to stop a data center from

[15:05] coming locally. You can't pick on a certain industry or else you know you'll

[15:10] get beat through the courts is what I hear. Um, so keeping that in mind as you

[15:17] make your considerations I think is important not to discriminate against

[15:20] data centers but set the foundation to where businesses can't do XYZ which

[15:25] would cause a problem for data centers as well as other things that would be

[15:30] okay to cause a problem for that way it's not discriminating but yeah I I

[15:34] don't like to sue in a subtle route. Okay,

[15:38] » I I have a couple. Um, why do they seem to be insistent on on using prime

[15:45] residential land being right up next to a neighborhood? Why aren't they trying

[15:50] to be more um um you know, friendly neighbors or you know, being way out of

[15:56] town? People drive 15, 20, 30 minutes, an hour to work. They don't need to be

[16:02] right in a neighborhood. That seems to be one of the biggest

[16:06] things that, you know, gets people screaming is, you know, they're right

[16:10] next door. Their houses are vibrating and have me live into the basement

[16:14] because it's too noisy upstairs now. >> Right. In in most circumstances, they do

[16:19] try to go in more rural areas is what they try to do. But there still could be

[16:23] neighboring, you know, communities there nonetheless. They want water. They want

[16:28] cooler areas. Um, those are a couple of things they're looking at. They like

[16:32] flat land. Um those are some of the things that draw data centers to certain

[16:37] areas. And yes, there might be neighborhoods in the surrounding area

[16:42] out in more rural areas like here or elsewhere than compared to in the city.

[16:48] Uh but if they industrial zones and cities, you know, people might already

[16:53] be used to the industrial, you know, type of dynamic there. people who

[16:57] decided to live out here, wanted to live out here in a rural area, that's that's

[17:00] why they live here or one of the reasons why they live here, not to be in an

[17:04] industrial zone like that. Uh [clears throat] but uh but yeah, they

[17:08] they want the water, they want the land, they want the flat land,

[17:13] um I think if it is going to have negative

[17:16] externalities, as much as we don't want it for the hundreds of people around it

[17:20] here, if [clears throat] it's going to have negative externalities within two

[17:23] miles, it's less people in a rural area like this than it would be in Detroit or

[17:29] Sure. >> Lancing.

[17:30] » And how many homes did you say is equivalent to how much power it uses?

[17:36] 1. Okay, there we go. 1.17 million houses is 1.4 gawatt.

[17:41] » I thought I misunderstood that, but that's what you said.

[17:44] » Correct. >> And um as far as employees go, um I I've

[17:48] heard that they want to be close to communities so they can draw on

[17:52] employees. In the seminars that I've attended, um, they talk about when

[17:58] they're, you know, their sales pitch, they come in and say, "We're going to

[18:01] provide, you know, 200 jobs or 350 jobs." And then when it's all said and

[18:05] done, it's like a dozen people. >> Yeah. It's around 10% of what has been

[18:10] promised according to the Mina Center from the year 2000 to 2020. But in the

[18:15] past five or six years with you know the goan battery plan up north and then of

[18:22] course as you all know here with blue oval they've had promises of jobs that

[18:26] are you know shrinking in terms of what their expectations were. So they

[18:30] continue to underdel on their promised jobs. Absolutely. 10% of what they

[18:35] promise is remarkably poor. Uh it's proven to be failure for these corporate

[18:40] giveaways. Just trusting free markets and equal opportunity is certainly

[18:44] advisable over, you know, corruption and special interests and picking winners

[18:49] and losers and having it not come to fruition and imposing on a community not

[18:54] off of a free market process. >> Thank you, [snorts]

[18:59] » Mr. Sai. Any Commissioner Summers? Commissioner Liz,

[19:05] I have one last one and [clears throat] then we'll see if

[19:09] there's just a couple from the audience. Um, let's talk non-disclosure

[19:12] agreements. Um, you mentioned and I know we've got the Michigan Economic

[19:17] Development Corporation, is it? Um, MEEDC. Um, and I've been watching a

[19:22] little bit of legislation related to non-disclosure agreements. What's

[19:26] happening at the legislature um, you know, related to addressing that issue?

[19:30] Um there's folks here in the audience who I know have been um you know have

[19:34] been we've been part of this community where that's obviously been an issue. Um

[19:38] so tell us what our legislators are doing related to that.

[19:43] » So I had a bill passed last year that legislators uh would not be able to sign

[19:49] leg NDAs in their legislative capacity and that also extended to their staff

[19:54] working in the members legislative capacity.

[19:58] But so that passed with bipartisan support. I think it had every

[20:03] Republican, but it had probably a majority of the Democrats. It was about

[20:07] a 3/4 of the legislature vote voted yes in the House. Uh it is sitting in the

[20:13] Senate currently awaiting a vote hopefully, but I don't anticipate it's

[20:19] going to happen because Governor Whitmer doesn't want that to come before her.

[20:23] She said she would veto. So the Senate majority leader likes to, you know,

[20:28] protect the governor from that potential injury. So just doesn't bring it up for

[20:33] a vote. That's the best thing they can do with it to protect her from that

[20:36] negative optic because the people certainly Republicans, Democrats,

[20:40] independents are very often in agreement that as public

[20:45] servants, we should not be signing secrecy packs about the work that we do.

[20:50] as public servants, we should be open and transparent with the community about

[20:54] what we're working on. Uh, but that did only apply to the legislature for my

[20:59] bill. I do believe I think it's Representative Miller, a Democrat, who

[21:04] has it for local elected officials as well. Uh, I would support that. That's a

[21:08] little bit more difficult to get across the finish line. More legislators would

[21:13] support it for us in our legislative capacity. there starts to be, you know,

[21:18] some of my colleagues who are less inclined to support it for local elected

[21:22] officials. Um, you could have it. It's more the business of the local community

[21:29] talking about, you know, what type of infrastructure capabilities there are

[21:34] and wanting to protect a potential consideration of investments. So, it's

[21:38] it's harder to get some colleagues on board for that, but I'm a yes that we

[21:43] should not be signing NDAs or local electeds either.

[21:46] » Thank you for that. Does anybody in the audience have one or two questions for

[21:50] Representative Cara? Okay. Anybody else?

[21:55] » Wait a second. I think she got one. >> Yes. Um, you know what? I'm going to ask

[21:59] that you I hate to do this, but come up to the podium if Representative Carla

[22:03] can step aside for a second. That way, we can catch your audio.

[22:07] You didn't know that was part of the deal, right? [cough]

[22:10] [clears throat]

[22:14] » I'm just here to ask if Whitmer will more than likely veto

[22:21] it. And my name is Laura Valentine. Sorry. Um, is there something we as

[22:28] residents can do to let Whitmer know? We don't [snorts] want her to v video veto

[22:34] it. And will she listen to us? >> No. [snorts]

[22:38] » Thank you. >> Yes.

[22:41] » So letting her know that's your stance that you would not want her to vetoed is

[22:46] certainly something that you could do. Uh whether it's reaching out to her

[22:50] office or you know making other people aware of that situation and encouraging

[22:56] them. This is what we need to ensure that these you know corrupt deals don't

[23:01] continue to happen in the state of Michigan. Uh but the problem is she

[23:06] doesn't get a chance to sign it into law or veto it unless it comes to her desk.

[23:11] And the Senate majority leader is Winnie Brinks who is her choice for Lieutenant

[23:17] Governor. And so when Gretchen Whitmer tells Senate Majority Leader Winnie

[23:22] Brinks, don't let that bill get through the Senate,

[23:26] she's going to listen and not let it get through the Senate. We only get to vote

[23:30] on what comes up for a vote and it's the leader of the chamber who decides what

[23:35] we get to vote on. So Winnie Brinks gets to protect Gretch and Whitmer by not

[23:41] bringing it up for a vote. >> Unfortunately,

[23:45] » Representative Carl, thank you so much for being here. Really, really

[23:48] appreciate it. And oh, was there another Oh,

[23:51] » you want to come up to the podium? Last one. [clears throat]

[23:58] this opportunity. Uh yeah, Steve knows who I am. Barry

[24:03] Wayne Adams. Um we're seeing a

[24:09] rash of efforts at different areas where they're trying to put in data centers

[24:16] [clears throat] to impose moratoria like what's going to be happening here.

[24:23] [clears throat] But uh sufficient information uh particularly about the

[24:29] hypers scale data centers has come out to conclusively and decisively prove

[24:34] that their installation and use is a an immediate and like you say existential

[24:41] threat to the to the public health and safety. Now the whole purpose of police

[24:46] power is to protect the public health and safety. Can you move on a different

[24:53] legislative strategy instead of trying to kick the can down the road with a

[24:57] moratorum to actually move to

[25:02] prohibit the installation of these data centers? Thanks, Steve.

[25:06] » No.

[25:10] » Yeah, Barry, I definitely understand where you're where you're coming from

[25:13] with that. I people have said that I have come out in support of a moratorum

[25:19] and I don't know if it's because I went around with Perry Johnson on a bus tour

[25:22] and he supported it or or where they get that from but I don't believe I have

[25:26] ever said that because like you're saying [clears throat] I feel like I've

[25:29] already done my homework on data centers. I feel like I've already seen

[25:34] from an environmental impact and power consumption use that would not get me to

[25:40] a prohibition stance, but an existential threat to humanity and the research that

[25:46] I've done with it gets me to a prohibition level. And I say that as the

[25:51] most pro- freedom limited government elected official in the state of

[25:55] Michigan. That sounds counterintuitive to my position to prohibit a private

[26:00] decision of what you do with private property that you chose to purchase. But

[26:04] if it's going to wipe out humanity, you kind of need to have serious

[26:09] conversations about what happens to the 8 billion people who didn't want to lose

[26:13] their lives because you were so foolish with achieving artificial super

[26:18] intelligence because of your power and greed. So yeah, no I I am like you uh

[26:24] more on the line of prohibition. I I wouldn't say for all data centers, you

[26:28] know, there's some data centers that are used for uh keeping medical records or

[26:32] things of that sort, but for data centers for the purpose of uh achieving

[26:36] higher powered artificial intelligence. I think we need to have those

[26:39] prohibition conversations and I'm there with you.

[26:43] » Thank you. >> Y

[26:44] » thank you represent. Thank you very much.

[26:45] » Thank you.

[26:49] Moving

[26:53] on to public comments on agenda items only. Um so once again um we do ask that

[27:00] you come to the podium for any public comments on agenda items only.

[27:09] Seeing none

[27:12] » every time I say that then there's there we got one. Come on. [clears throat]

[27:19] I thought there would at least be somebody talking on the agenda item.

[27:22] Okay. Uh yeah, the moratorum thing. Uh I don't know if you've kept track of

[27:30] what happened with the moratorum activity over in the city, but uh there

[27:37] was a concerted effort by some citizens. >> Thank you.

[27:43] » Is that all right? >> Better. Much better.

[27:45] » All right. There was a concerted effort by citizens to uh start an initiative

[27:51] drive uh to have a moratorium about data centers for 365 days. [clears throat]

[28:00] Well, there was a very positive response. Uh actually there are other

[28:04] people who were involved with that who could speak to it better than I can

[28:08] [clears throat] but there was a very positive response. sufficient uh

[28:11] signatures were obtained. But um in order to uh do a shortcut around what

[28:21] the citizens were trying to do, the city council decided to pull an uh

[28:30] ambush agenda maneuver and they suddenly put a agenda

[28:38] item without any sufficient public notice beforehand.

[28:42] uh [clears throat] and then proceeded to unanimously

[28:47] uh enact a quote unquote moratorum that is actually a non-moratorum because it

[28:55] provides itself the ability to either extend or to terminate earlier a 365day

[29:02] moratorum. So it it actually is reflective of the uh

[29:08] arrogance that the uh local marshall uh city government has about the citizenry

[29:15] and and their real concerns. and they thought that they could just uh do this

[29:20] uh legislative sugar pill uh to

[29:25] uh you know be a panacea you know pabum for

[29:31] the masses. So, uh, if you're going to do a

[29:35] moratorum, be authentic about it, put hard boundaries on it, and not make

[29:43] it something that you can just decide we're going to stop having a moratorum

[29:46] and, uh, we'll just proceed as usual. >> [clears throat]

[29:50] » So, uh, as I've seen the Marshall Township, uh,

[29:58] Council operate, it it does operate in clear distinction to the, uh, methods of

[30:05] the Marshall City Council. And uh particularly with uh Joanna

[30:12] uh at the helm uh we're seeing an effort to you know provide hearings that uh

[30:19] create opportunities for full and complete dis disclosure

[30:23] about uh about issues without having the taint of NDAs or uh and like Steve said

[30:30] you know well it's actually incorporated into the Michigan file laws at MCL 75492

[30:37] do that you can't withhold public information from the public.

[30:43] So uh these are the things that uh we should be concerned about and

[30:50] again perhaps you people on the basis of

[30:57] an actual threat to the public health and safety because we we've already seen

[31:03] the mistake that MA has brought upon the township.

[31:07] uh the mega mistake and uh

[31:13] the methods that were used to accomplish this which are still up in the air in in

[31:18] the Michigan Supreme Court. So, [clears throat]

[31:22] uh I see that there is a bit of uh

[31:28] post-purchase regret uh after the

[31:33] mileong denatured sterile abomination on the

[31:38] land that they call the blue oval factory has been put in place. and the

[31:44] real alterations in the quality of life that

[31:48] uh have occurred since the implementation

[31:53] of that construction. So, uh, think twice, uh,

[32:00] or more times than that about the irreplaceable destruction of

[32:08] wetlands, wildlife habitat, and productive farmland.

[32:13] » Thank you. >> All right. Thank you.

[32:16] » If you want to speak, just come on up to the podium.

[32:20] [snorts]

[32:22] I just want to say Rebecca Sebring Marshall um historical Marshall I just

[32:28] want to say thank you for putting in a moratorum or attempting to and thank you

[32:33] for safeguarding we the people we do appreciate you. I know we don't always

[32:38] make it out here but I just want the ones that are trying to make sure that

[32:43] we're safe. I want to say thank you very much and you are appreciated.

[32:48] » Thank you. Any other comments? Feel free to come on up

[32:52] to the podium. [clears throat]

[32:58] Linds Light Marshall. Um, just briefly, I wanted to speak about what a little

[33:04] bit about what Barry was talking about. He was talking about a committee in

[33:08] Marshall and I'm the chairperson of that committee. We call ourselves CRED, which

[33:13] is the committee for responsible economic and environmental development.

[33:19] And yes, we have worked very hard. We actually got 727 signatures so quick. It

[33:25] was just overwhelming how many people were supportive of our moratorum.

[33:31] And yes, as Barry said, the city did put a moratorium in place while we were

[33:35] waiting for our signatures to be um sufficient to be seen as

[33:43] sufficient. Um, there's going to be a short article in this week's advisor.

[33:50] I've been speaking with Seth Barry. I tried to get it in last week, but we did

[33:54] a few little edits and he checked to make sure that what I was saying was

[33:59] correct. Um, and he's fully satisfied that what I'm saying is correct. So, he

[34:05] said he would put something in the advisor this week. But I mostly wanted

[34:09] to say yes, thank you for working on a mortorium here, but also if you have any

[34:15] questions from what we're doing, I'd be glad to talk to someone any of you

[34:19] afterwards if you wish to. >> Thank you.

[34:23] » Anyone else? [clears throat and cough]

[34:29] » Good evening, planning commission. Is it a commission or a board?

[34:33] » Commission. >> Okay. Thank you for this. and I really

[34:37] like um the professional way you conduct this board. I just want to say thank

[34:42] you. Uh the agenda item I wanted to refer to is the master plan amendment.

[34:46] Um I am in full support of the township's master plan. I'm not um

[34:52] technically a citizen yet, but the man I love is and he's about one mile um that

[34:58] way from the mega center. Um, and I appreciate all your hard work. Um, and I

[35:06] think we got a good group here. I think you have integrity. I don't think we

[35:10] have to worry about NDAs anymore. Thank goodness. Um, that's that's a no-brainer

[35:15] for anybody in public service. I would hope. Um, and um, I am once again very

[35:24] thankful that Joanna has done so much work on this master plan. And that's all

[35:29] I wanted to say. Oh, I'm saying this because I won't be here at that public

[35:33] hearing. Thank you. >> Any other comments?

[35:41] [clears throat]

[35:45] » Dury Parker, City of Marshall. Um, I just wanted to follow up on what Lynid

[35:51] said because I'm one of the members of Creed as well and we do plan on going

[35:57] back out again and collecting signatures so that we can be on well not the

[36:03] November ballot but the May ballot. >> Thank you.

[36:08] » All right. Any other comments?

[36:13] » [clears throat]

[36:15] » Uh, good evening members of the planning commission. My name is Aaron Reed and

[36:19] I'm here on behalf of the Marshall Area Economic Development Alliance, MA, the

[36:23] application on the major campus zoning map amendment. Uh, thank you for the

[36:29] time and care the commission has already given this application. Uh, I'd like to

[36:33] provide a brief recap of where things stand. Uh, MA submitted its request to

[36:38] reszone the 31 subject parcels on July 30th, 20 26. At your August 4th meeting,

[36:44] the commission acknowledged receipt and the zoning administrator confirmed that

[36:48] the application was complete. There was a helpful discussion that evening about

[36:51] how best to proceed and the commission chose to postpone further action until

[36:55] tonight to give members additional time to review the materials. Following the

[37:00] meeting on August 10th, uh following that meeting on August

[37:03] 10th, the zoning administrator asked Ma to add lot size, frontage, depth, and

[37:09] area directly to each parcel application rather than referencing the provided

[37:13] alta surveys for each parcel. The commission also asked for a GIS parcel

[37:18] map for each parcel, and Chair Johnson asked for a large format map showing

[37:23] each parcel's current zoning alongside the requested zoning. On August 25th, MA

[37:29] provided the requested information, the enlarged maps, the updated applications

[37:33] with the dimensional information and the additional GIS maps. Um, with that, I'd

[37:39] like to briefly walk through why we believe this is a sound request using

[37:42] the same four standards the application addresses. Standard one, consistency

[37:47] with the master plan. This request, this request is very much

[37:52] in keeping with the plan the township has already adopted. The currently

[37:55] adopted 2022 master plan designates these parcels heavy industrial on its

[38:00] future land use map. The 2022 process created that category and applied it to

[38:06] sections 28 and 29 of the township. The plan's zoning plan pairs heavy

[38:12] industrial with the industrial park designation IP, the district that most

[38:17] closely follows that designation. Uh and the picture on the ground

[38:22] supports it as well. Since 2022, Ford's Blue Oval Battery Park has been built

[38:26] and is entering production, supported by more than hundreds of millions of

[38:30] dollars in infrastructure investment. This resoning helps align the zoning

[38:33] with the vision the township had already laid out. Standard two, environmental

[38:37] compatibility. The master plan thoughtfully cited industrial industry

[38:41] here because the land is level, well- drained, and well suited to it. and it

[38:46] directed that sensitive features within the conservation district and roughly

[38:50] 245 acres along the Kazoo River are in the process of being placed in that

[38:55] conservation easement. Because the heavy industrial designation anticipates

[38:59] planned public utilities, these parcels have the ability to be served by public

[39:04] water and sewer as part of the buildout of the major campus. Standard three,

[39:08] compatibility with surrounding uses. These parcels sit within the campus and

[39:13] adjoined Ford's blue oval plant. So, IP zoning fits comfortably within the

[39:17] established and planned industrial use of the area. Standard four,

[39:22] infrastructure capacity. [snorts] The site is well positioned to accommodate

[39:26] these uses with the necessary infrastructure substantially in place or

[39:30] planned. City water and sanitary sewer have been extended through 425

[39:34] agreements. Regional storm water basins are built and MDOT has rebuilt Michigan

[39:38] Avenue into a multi-lane boulevard with reconstructed interchanges. Electric,

[39:43] gas, and fiber have already been extended into the campus. Across all

[39:48] four standards, we believe this application is consistent with the

[39:51] adopted plan, complete and responsive to the commission's request. We

[39:56] respectfully ask that the commission advance it and we appreciate your

[39:59] consideration. Thank you. >> Eron, I have a question for you. Um,

[40:02] what was August 10th? Was that Were you referring to the email you sent me?

[40:06] » So, there was an email that uh Shelley provided with a list of things to

[40:10] change. Okay. Within the application. >> Okay. Thank you.

[40:20] » Any other comments? Come on up.

[40:26] » Is that like the prices, right? I can't remember. Come on up.

[40:28] » Come on down. >> Come on down. Come on down.

[40:31] » You may not want me to come down. >> Oh, you're more than welcome.

[40:36] » Brian Motor, Marshall, Michigan. Uh [clears throat]

[40:39] we have a kind of a common history when it comes to petitions and signatures and

[40:45] getting things uh through uh to get it beyond uh strict uh governmental control

[40:54] from uh above us. Um, initially I became a kind of aware of this when we had

[41:02] people who were three possible potential candidates to run for governor against

[41:10] Whitmer in her reelection campaign. And the state elections committee recommend

[41:16] recommended petitioners for these people to circulate so they could become

[41:22] eligible to be in the primary. Now, it turned out to be kind of funny

[41:27] that these petitions that got turned in by a certain company were uh illeible,

[41:34] um erroneous, uh false names, false addresses, nothing

[41:41] could be verified on these uh petitions that so three top candidates to run for

[41:49] governor against Whitmer got eliminated and they uh win this happened. Uh this

[41:57] group of petitioners left town and went to some other state and the the

[42:03] uh elections committee wasn't able to either contact them or trace them down

[42:09] or or figure out where they were at. They disappeared off the face of the

[42:12] earth. Now, we also had problems with petitions

[42:18] in Marshall and we also had problems with uh a joint was this a joint

[42:25] planning commission or zoning commission? joint zoning commission

[42:29] between Marshall Commission >> and uh Marshall Township

[42:34] and we uh succeeded in having a 3-2 vote on a joint venture and it got overridden

[42:42] by the city of Marshall and this is part of our um case in the Supreme Court that

[42:52] this was done erroneously, fraudulently

[42:56] and I'm moving this thing around. I better slow down. So, but uh there's a

[43:02] history of of being pressured from above governor's office on down to eliminate

[43:11] uh competition and it's still going on. So, it's and I'm I'm really sorry about

[43:18] uh the data centers also the battery plants being concerned about the money.

[43:26] The money is the whole thing that runs everything. And the three millionaires

[43:30] are taking advantage of the common people, the people that live here, go to

[43:35] school here, work here, and have family here. And that's the the terrible thing

[43:41] about it is it's the billionaires against us common people. Thank you.

[43:46] » Comments. [snorts]

[43:51] [clears throat] Oops.

[43:59] » Marshall Township. I have a question. I keep hearing about these 31 parcels

[44:05] » and I'm just wondering what is supposed to be going on these. I know it's

[44:10] supposed to be heavy industrial, but what

[44:13] » is this going to be a data center or what? What or a battery storage unit?

[44:19] What what the heck is going on there? what is proposed to be on there. I mean,

[44:24] I don't want to have it what the zoning uh approved, resoning approved unless I

[44:32] know what's on there. So, what is it supposed to become? Tell us. Thank you.

[44:42] Any other comments?

[44:46] If you look in the zoning ordinance book, reszoning this parcel

[44:51] allows specific uses that Marshall Township has agreed to. [clears throat]

[44:57] Um, to be quite honest, they're quite compatible with the standard light

[45:01] industrial. There are just a few that are different. If you're interested, you

[45:05] can go online to the ordinance book under article 4, commercial and

[45:10] industrial, and you'll be able to see what IP allows as any use. Any use that

[45:17] would need to would go in there if it was permitted would not go through the

[45:20] planning commission. If it's a special land use, it would be required to be

[45:25] approved through the planning commission. So, there are designated

[45:28] uses for that specific district that the township has already laid out.

[45:34] Thank you. >> Readers Clingler from Marshall. Good.

[45:38] Um, now we're talking about the mega site and the transfer of parcels. I

[45:43] don't know if that was going to be on the agenda, but uh I I

[45:48] » speaking to the 31 parcels or >> Yeah, the 31 parcels being transferred

[45:52] over. Um, I know that's coming up at a different public hearing, but I just

[45:57] want to congratulate this board for getting involved and uh also the joint

[46:05] planning commission and I hope they will be involved in the zoning for that rest

[46:10] of that mega site. They really should be because they have control of land use in

[46:14] the 425 agreement. Um,

[46:19] also I hope the township stays on track and holds made it to the water franchise

[46:27] agreement. That's something that should be settled and it should be probably

[46:31] done before anything else goes out of the at the mega site. So again,

[46:35] congratulations on what you have done and for your uh continuing interest in

[46:42] protecting people and keeping uh the mega site plans as open as

[46:50] possible. Thank you.

[46:55] » Anyone else? >> All right, seeing none, uh we're moving

[47:00] on to item G, which is the approval of the minutes. These are our August 4th uh

[47:05] 2026 uh meeting minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? [cough]

[47:11] » Move to approve the August [clears throat] 4th uh PC minutes.

[47:18] [clears throat] >> We have a motion by Commissioner Sly,

[47:20] seconded by Commissioner Riggs to approve our August 4th uh planning

[47:24] commission meeting minutes. Any discussion, questions or concerns?

[47:29] » Hearing and seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I.

[47:32] » I. All those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Uh we're moving on to our

[47:38] presentation by our attorney Rob Th who's going to share information on data

[47:43] centers and battery en energy storage systems. I do want to say last evening

[47:49] uh the majority of this board attended a um training on hot topics in planning

[47:55] and zoning. And you can guess these were two of the hot topics in planning and

[47:59] zoning. Um and we thought it would be a good idea. We did ask a variety of folks

[48:03] to come in. I know Shelley did as well with the University of Michigan has

[48:07] folks that have studied this as well. Um but we thought it'd be good to have um

[48:11] Rob here um who's wellversed in this um to share information not only with the

[48:16] planning commission but with all of you as well. So Rob, thank you for being

[48:19] here. >> Thank you.

[48:21] » Thank you. >> So there really hasn't been a hotter

[48:26] topic since really since I've been an attorney than data centers. I mean, this

[48:30] is this is a very tough issue. It presents very real uh issues for

[48:35] communities, very real nuisances. Uh we're learning stuff on a daily basis

[48:40] about them and about the impacts of them. And so, um it's it's very it's a

[48:45] very important subject. I'm glad, you know, we're going to spend the time to

[48:49] talk about it and we're going to spend a lot more time talking about it uh moving

[48:53] forward. You know, it's one of those things we

[48:56] hear, well, I'll just prohibit it, you know, and that presents its own problems

[49:00] because data centers are subject to zoning. It's a little different than

[49:04] what we'll talk about with battery storage projects. Uh, data centers are

[49:08] subject to our zoning ordinance, but there are zoning concepts called

[49:12] exclusionary zoning. And you have to really do your homework. If you even

[49:17] want the idea of prohibiting it, you're going to have to do your homework to get

[49:22] to the point where you can justify it to be able to present your case in court

[49:28] and have that case upheld. You can't just say, "We're just prohibiting it."

[49:32] You do that, you're going to lose in court every day. You know, you have to

[49:35] do your homework. I don't know where you end up at the end of the process, but

[49:39] you got to do your homework to get there. uh Selen Township got caught kind

[49:43] of with, you know, unprepared and they did like they said, they got sued and

[49:48] settled, but they got sued for exclusionary zoning because they

[49:52] prohibited it just off the bat. You know, we're okay, we're just not going

[49:55] to allow this. You get sued for exclusionary zoning, you get quit on the

[49:59] spot. Okay, how why why did you exclude it? And you know, they faced huge

[50:05] damages if they move forward. Maybe that's I I don't know the case

[50:09] personally so I don't know why they settled but they end up settling and now

[50:14] they have a huge uh data center going in like uh like indicated it's going to use

[50:21] tremendous amounts of energy uses tremendous amounts of land impacts

[50:25] there's tremendous impacts from that. So, we really want to make sure that

[50:30] we're doing our homework so we don't end up in a situation like that where

[50:34] somebody can just kind of kick down the door of the township and say, "Okay,

[50:37] well, we already options from land. We want to come in here and stop us, you

[50:43] know, we want to we want to be able to protect ourselves from that." So, just

[50:47] in general, you know, data centers, there's different kinds of data centers.

[50:50] You know, all of our computer information goes through a data center.

[50:54] So it's um you know whenever anything's stored in the cloud the cloud's

[50:58] somewhere it's a data center somewhere. Uh there's also artificial intelligence

[51:03] which uh was referred to which uses a lot more uh capacity processing power

[51:09] energy to do and you know that's kind of the thing that we're really hearing now

[51:14] is the push for AI and the information uh and the and the data centers that are

[51:20] used for that. So the big thing that we're seeing are the hypers scale data

[51:23] centers. So that's the big issue that everybody sees front and center these

[51:28] giant hundreds of acres of buildings and and industrial we consider it

[51:33] industrial. So when I talk to you and we look at this more we're going to look at

[51:38] this as an industrial project. It's not a agricultural. It doesn't belong out in

[51:43] agg. It's a industrial project these data centers. But you have these hypers

[51:47] scale which are huge have huge impacts. But then you also have smaller data

[51:52] centers that might be uh they might be um just located within a corporate

[51:57] structure. So you can have uh corporate headquarters in that corporate

[52:01] headquarters. They're going to have their own data centers in those places.

[52:04] uh whether or not uh you would even know, you probably wouldn't know that

[52:08] it's in there um because it's coll-located within another facility.

[52:12] You can have other smaller buildings that look like office buildings that

[52:15] might be uh a data center. Uh it could be developer built and then lease out

[52:20] space in the data center or it could be uh proprietary and owned by the company

[52:25] that that uses it. So there's different types of data centers, but in all cases

[52:31] because of the impacts, even the smaller ones, I I would classify them all as

[52:35] industrial because of the types of impacts they have with noise, with

[52:39] vibration, with uh with um electric usage, those types of things, and we'll

[52:45] address those later.

[52:49] So you know, why the sudden interest in data centers? Well, and and this goes to

[52:53] part of the reason why we can't just say we prohibit it because we'll learn about

[52:57] exclusionary zoning. One of the things is is there a demonstrated need for it?

[53:02] Well, our government has told us there's a demonstrated need for it whether we

[53:06] like it or not. Uh President Trump has an executive order on AI saying that we

[53:12] should be number one in AI, that we should innovate without cumbersome

[53:15] regulation. He just came out with a a tweet August or a a post August 31st. Um

[53:23] I'll just read it for you. The only reason the communities throughout the

[53:27] USA should not want data centers is they want to end up being backwards and poor.

[53:32] If they want to be successful and rich with far lower taxes and jobs all over

[53:36] the place, let data rain. So that's from the federal government telling us we

[53:40] need data centers. Our state government has gone ahead and pressed and passed

[53:45] legislation in 2024. Uh eliminates the 6% sales and use tax on the eligible

[53:52] data center construction and equipment purchases. And um you know to do that

[53:57] they have to invest a certain amount. They have to create a certain number of

[53:59] jobs and there's other requirements but our state has put them out there that

[54:04] they want to attract data centers and have put out uh tax exemptions for them.

[54:10] So we're facing kind of an uphill battle at the local level because both our

[54:14] federal government, state government have said we have this need for these

[54:17] things. And so it kind of puts us behind the eightball

[54:23] again around Michigan. We have already uh there's over 44 data centers already

[54:29] in Michigan of various sizes. Um again, we don't necessarily you don't even

[54:34] notice a lot of them. uh but the hypers scale ones, the large ones that use a

[54:38] lot of land that are coming in and trying to kind of kick down the door

[54:42] more rural townships and and locate and use where you have a lot of land. Uh

[54:47] that's what's creating these controversies and really the the large

[54:50] impact um on us. So the one thing um if you go the next

[54:57] thing I want to talk about is exclusionary zoning because I think

[55:00] that's really important. You know, there's a lot of, you know, we can't

[55:03] just prohibit it. You prohibit it. If you just said tomorrow, we could pass an

[55:07] ordinance tomorrow that says we prohibit it or we could just do nothing if it's

[55:11] not in our ordinance and it's prohibited. But if we do that, we're

[55:15] there's a standard in in zoning uh called exclusionary zoning. And it says

[55:20] a zoning ordinance shall not have the effect of totally prohibiting the

[55:24] establishment of a land use in the township in the presence of a

[55:28] demonstrated need in the township or surrounding area. So the demonstrated

[55:32] need part, our state and federal government has already said there's a

[55:35] demonstrated need for this. But then the the the second part of it is unless a

[55:41] location does not exist within the municipality where the use may be

[55:44] appropriately located. And that's where you have to do your homework because you

[55:48] have to look at what all the issues are, what the different nuisance issues are.

[55:52] And is there a spot where it would fit in an industrial zone in your township?

[55:57] And if you can, you know, as you go through this process, the only way

[56:00] you're going to prohibit it is if you determine that there's no appropriate

[56:03] location in your township. But you can't just say there's no appropriate location

[56:08] without again doing your homework and being able to protect yourself from a

[56:12] lawsuit if it were to come forward. So that's that's part of this whole

[56:17] process and why you know we're going to go into well we're going to talk about a

[56:21] moratorum. Um you know just some some anecdotal

[56:27] information again uh with Selen Township that is what happened. They were not

[56:31] prepared. They tried to prohibit it and then they got sued for exclusionary

[56:36] zoning and chose to resolve it. They must not have felt they could defend

[56:42] themselves. They weren't in a position to defend themselves and they would have

[56:46] faced massive damages if they uh probably were at least threatened with

[56:51] massive damages. You know, you could be in the 50 to 100 million or plus in

[56:58] damages. And what happens then if you get hit with damages, it ends up being a

[57:04] millage that you have to pass on the public within your community and the

[57:08] public has to pay it. So, it's a real threat. You gota again that's why we

[57:13] protect ourselves and do it the right way so that if we do end up in a

[57:18] situation uh we're not going to get we're going to be in the best situation

[57:22] possible to face exclusionary zoning. So what are some of the issues you know

[57:28] with data centers we have you know it's high demand for utilities you heard you

[57:32] know it's over a million homes worth of energy for the Selen Township one I

[57:38] think um for every mega for every gigawatt it's about 800,000 homes so

[57:45] it's a it's a huge electrical demand for these facilities uh water cooling is an

[57:50] issue uh that um that would is potential nuisance. You have excessive

[57:58] water use. They if they use evaporative cooling, it uses tremendous amounts of

[58:03] water and if you don't have a if you're not hooked up to a public water system,

[58:08] it's just pulling out of the aquifer. If you are, then it's still going through a

[58:12] public system. Uh water cooling is a huge issue. You know, as you look at how

[58:17] to uh mitigate those issues, you might look at that something like it's a

[58:23] closed loop water system. So they don't get to just evaporative cool. So there's

[58:28] different things that you can do to regulate it. Uh and if you do regulate

[58:33] it, you can regulate it very extremely. Um

[58:38] uh another thing is the electric rates, you know, but that's something we're not

[58:42] in control of. We can't we can tell them you have to find your own power source.

[58:46] You're not going to use what the existing power is in our in our township

[58:51] or in our grid here. you're going to have to create new power and bring it

[58:55] into the township. Um, but we can't control what rates the NPS, well, you

[59:00] can argue with the NPSC about it, but you can't as a township board control

[59:04] that. So, that is an issue um to think about. Uh, you know, in um you know, we

[59:13] have a lot of other issues uh that that stem from it. And that's why you know as

[59:19] we move forward we really want you to consider the moratorum because it gives

[59:24] you that time that gives you that breathing room to study the issues. You

[59:28] can have experts come and appear and and give you information. You can look at

[59:32] restrictions if you choose. Uh you can look at areas you're going to need to

[59:37] look at. Is there appropriate areas within the township for it? You know

[59:41] what would be an appropriate location? uh things of that sort to protect

[59:46] yourself. Um so we would want you to uh consider the mortorium. We'll talk about

[59:51] that a little bit more when that item comes up for public hearing.

[59:57] Um with uh site selection for data centers, you know, again, it's our

[1:00:02] position that it is an industrial use. It should not go in anywhere. It doesn't

[1:00:06] belong in commercial. It doesn't belong in a or residential. you know, it is a

[1:00:12] pure industrial use. Uh, so it's going to have to have the adequate resources,

[1:00:16] electricity. It's going to be need to be located near large power lines. Um,

[1:00:21] you're going to have to consider other uh land around where it could possibly

[1:00:27] locate to asssure that that's industrial in nature.

[1:00:31] Um, you know, in terms of electricity, um, DTE Energy has 4 gigawatts of active

[1:00:37] data center projects and proposals in Michigan right now. The total peak

[1:00:42] electrical load is 18 gawatts. So, you can see how much these things are energy

[1:00:48] hogs, how much energy they're going to be using. you know, that's going to be,

[1:00:52] you know, millions of homes worth of electricity and a large percentage of

[1:00:56] the total electricity that we have now uh for these uh and that's just for

[1:01:01] their active and proposed projects. Um, so you can see how that uh impacts

[1:01:06] things, but again, we can't control the rates, but in an ordinance, you can say

[1:01:10] that you have to bring in your or prove that you're supplying new energy to the

[1:01:16] facility. Um one of the things that we do in

[1:01:20] regulation is we can regulate the power usage effectiveness of uh data center.

[1:01:26] So that is something that it's the total facility energy divided by uh the energy

[1:01:31] required to just run the computers. Um and so uh you can require a very high

[1:01:38] efficiency type of data center that doesn't use as much electricity. Um and

[1:01:44] that's just uh you [clears throat] know one of the things that you can use to

[1:01:48] regulate it. Uh noise is a huge concern for data centers. So um and I'm sure

[1:01:56] most people have heard the DeWAc data center and the sound that that thing

[1:01:59] produces. You could it's easily you can easily find it uh on the internet and

[1:02:04] see the type of sound that makes. But you know they are the residents within a

[1:02:08] one mile one mile of the data center. uh they filed a federal lawsuit alleging

[1:02:13] constant high-pitched cooling and operational noises. So with a data

[1:02:17] center, you have um you have the decibel levels which we're used to regulating

[1:02:23] the dBA which is the normal in our ordinances we regulate in an industrial

[1:02:27] zone or in a whatever zone it would be certain sounds by DBA which is the

[1:02:33] sounds that you normally hear. But there's also a lot of other sounds that

[1:02:36] you don't really hear but you sense. So like there's low rumblings that can

[1:02:42] impact your life. There's high-pitched noises that can impact your life. Both

[1:02:46] are not detected under the DBA. So you have to look at other forms of sound uh

[1:02:52] regulation. It's called DBC which is the very low rumbling sounds. You have to

[1:02:58] regulate those things and you have to keep them, you know, if if these things

[1:03:02] were to come in, you'd have to keep their sound uh from impacting other

[1:03:07] people's lives and property. So you have to look at DBA, DBC. There's also

[1:03:13] regulation by octave level which covers then the high sounds and the low sounds

[1:03:18] and making sure they don't exceed in any of those uh sound criteria. So you can

[1:03:24] really go into a lot of depth with sound to make sure that you are uh protecting

[1:03:28] your resonance from the sound. The computers make a constant sound 247. It

[1:03:33] never stops. is different than even a factory doesn't make that kind of noise

[1:03:38] all the time 24/7 uh 365 days a year. You have coolers that make noise,

[1:03:45] generators that make noise, you have diesel backup uh generators,

[1:03:50] [clears throat] uh all these things uh create a noise nuisance.

[1:03:57] » There's a lot of different things you can do to address that, but you know, I

[1:04:00] don't have to go into that tonight. You know, those are things that you're going

[1:04:03] to go into and address over the next if you adopt a moratorum and you go into

[1:04:07] that over the next year, you'll be looking at those types of things and

[1:04:11] whether you can address them or whether you can't, whether it's appropriate uh

[1:04:14] in your township or not. Another issue is vibration. So, that's a big issue of

[1:04:20] vibration. They cause these facilities cause vibration that can impact people's

[1:04:25] lives. they might not know why they can't sleep, but there's a vibration

[1:04:28] coming from these facilities that uh can impact the quality of life of

[1:04:33] individuals. So, you know, you can again, you have to if you do allow for

[1:04:37] these things, you highly regulate them. So, they can't produce a vibration

[1:04:41] perceptible vibration beyond their property line. You're not going to allow

[1:04:45] them to impact other residents, other property owners. Make them control their

[1:04:50] impacts. If they can't, then they can't be here, right?

[1:04:59] Um so also you know in part of this process you know if you do go into the

[1:05:04] mortorium public input is very important. You would have I would

[1:05:07] suspect you know public hearings. Uh you would have experts come in. The public

[1:05:12] would be invited to listen and ask questions things of that sort. Uh you

[1:05:17] would you'd want to be very transparent in how you're looking at these things.

[1:05:22] you already are very transparent as a as a planning commission, but you would

[1:05:27] make sure that the public is invited to these things and able to ask questions

[1:05:31] for themselves and get answers. >> Obviously,

[1:05:34] » obviously, you know, you would there would be no NDAs and things of that

[1:05:38] sort. Uh, you know, by the township. I I'm pretty confident in that.

[1:05:46] Um, so, you know, last week I I did a presentation. I went through a sample

[1:05:52] ordinance uh that was very restrictive. I think you have copies of that. And so

[1:05:57] what I tried to do is develop an ordinance that is extremely restrictive

[1:06:01] on what they can do. So it's extremely restrictive in water usage so that they

[1:06:06] can't use any kind of evaporative cooling. It have to be closed loop

[1:06:09] systems. Extremely restrictive on sound so that the sound isn't impacting what

[1:06:14] we call sensitive land uses. So it's not impacting dwellings or um uh uh you know

[1:06:21] a nursing home or schools or dormitories or whatever it might be. You know you're

[1:06:26] you're controlling the impact. You're controlling the nuisance because these

[1:06:30] things produce their a large nuisance. So aside from you know other issues

[1:06:35] about you know AI in general the facilities themselves produce large

[1:06:40] nuisances that you know that as I go through that ordinance and you you know

[1:06:45] over the next year if you look at those provisions they're intended to reduce

[1:06:49] the impact. I don't know if it it's too restrictive but you know that's that's a

[1:06:55] kind of not our problem. I I believe they're all standards that could be met

[1:07:01] but very restrictive. So, it's going to not be impacting the properties around

[1:07:05] it. I mean, that's ultimately what you want to make sure is that the citizenry

[1:07:10] is not uh impacted. But again, you have to go through this

[1:07:14] process so that we don't end up in a situation

[1:07:18] where you might want to prohibit it and then you get hit with exclusionary

[1:07:22] zoning. You're going to have to be able to prove to a court if somebody calls

[1:07:26] you into court that you did all the right things, studied it and came up

[1:07:30] with your local decision on zoning. So with that on data centers, I would

[1:07:37] just uh that's what I have for data centers. I can move on to best, but if

[1:07:41] you want to stop now and ask me any questions about data centers.

[1:07:44] » Commissioners, any questions on data centers?

[1:07:46] » I have a question. When you talked about the

[1:07:51] the different issues with vibration sound, have you ever heard of anything?

[1:07:56] They use a lot of electricity. Has there ever been anything any complaints or

[1:08:00] studies on stray voltage? >> Oh, I'm sure they

[1:08:05] » because they have a lot of they they like to locate them by, you know, big

[1:08:08] high tension lines coming in. Yeah, I I know that stray voltage was a big big

[1:08:12] issue, you know, a number of years ago uh from power lines and their effect on

[1:08:18] » uh animals and and things of that sort. So, I mean it's certainly something you

[1:08:22] can look at is the stray voltage issue and vol you know of all the power coming

[1:08:26] into the facility. You hadn't heard of anything though or

[1:08:28] » I have not but it's like I said yeah I I learn stuff almost on a daily basis

[1:08:33] about it and I think everybody if you start looking at it you will learn stuff

[1:08:37] you know uh continuously for uh it's to us it's a newer issue um and it's

[1:08:44] something that just warrants more study so like if there we can look into stray

[1:08:48] voltage and have maybe somebody address that you know as a issue.

[1:08:54] Any other questions? >> Was Seline was that built on an

[1:08:57] industrial zone or >> was hundreds of acres uh of I think it

[1:09:03] was probably a land.

[1:09:07] » So So they wanted to reszone they I think as I recall they wanted to reszone

[1:09:12] the property and then it was denied and then they sued them for exclusionary

[1:09:17] zoning. >> So you can't even stop them if it's

[1:09:22] » Well, you No, that's If you [clears throat] say you say it's

[1:09:24] industrial, we say it's an industrial use, right? So it

[1:09:30] » it can't just go anywhere in our a properties if it's industrial. You have

[1:09:34] certain you have a land use plan that your zoning is based upon. You have to

[1:09:39] make sure you have a strong land use plan and you have to then look at your

[1:09:42] land use plan and say whether that would be appropriate to reszone that property

[1:09:47] if it is something else. now. So, I mean, I don't think it just opens

[1:09:54] you, when you say it's industrial, it's not opening up all of your egg land.

[1:09:59] It's got to fit within an industrial land use under your master plan. So,

[1:10:07] would that area be industrial for your It's not spot zoning. You're not just

[1:10:10] going to throw industrial here and throw industrial there. That's spot zoning.

[1:10:14] That's unlawful. Well, so was the master plan future land use was industrial? I

[1:10:21] » I have not studied their their situation.

[1:10:25] Um I just know that their lawsuit claimed exclusionary zoning and then

[1:10:29] they determined to settle the matter rather than face possible damages.

[1:10:37] Are there any of the data centers that you know of in Michigan or anywhere that

[1:10:41] have done something for the residents to uh encourage them to want them there?

[1:10:47] Like like the um Thomas Township dump, they they give everybody within a mile

[1:10:54] radius um lifetime no property taxes. They pay all the property taxes for the

[1:11:01] lifetime of those residents. Well, I'm sure if you open the door up to them

[1:11:06] offering community benefits, they will provide you all sorts of community

[1:11:09] benefits. When you're talking about facilities that cost, you know, $20

[1:11:13] billion, they can come in and offer the

[1:11:16] community. Neighboring property owners, they can do, you know, things that

[1:11:21] protect their land value, like if you they'll value it before they're there

[1:11:25] and then after, and if it doesn't sell for what it was worth, then they pay you

[1:11:30] the difference, you know, things like that. or pay you double the amount or

[1:11:34] whatever it might be. There's all sorts of things they can do. Uh I if you're

[1:11:39] open to those thing to to having them, they will offer you all sorts of

[1:11:44] benefits um to get their foot in the door.

[1:11:48] But with with the the unique situation we're in here with

[1:11:54] Marshall Township and the city marshall and the 425s

[1:11:58] um I'm afraid [clears throat] we would lose

[1:12:02] the connection or the control um because that that property is going to be a

[1:12:10] probably a 425 property and we will have no say in it. And that's that's a huge

[1:12:16] issue with your joint planning commission and what does how does it

[1:12:20] function? What does it do? I mean that is in front of the Supreme Court now.

[1:12:24] You know issues regarding your joint planning commission. The township has a

[1:12:28] a brief an amikas brief we filed in that case. Uh but um it's a huge issue as to

[1:12:34] what the JPC does because once the property is in a 425, it's under the

[1:12:39] jurisdiction of the joint planning commission which would then should

[1:12:42] review the site plan and you know what ordinance terms are in place. All those

[1:12:48] things are all a little uncertain uh based upon the current documentation.

[1:12:55] So that is definitely a concern of what would happen if it were on a 425

[1:12:59] property. Commissioner,

[1:13:03] » I want to go back to the beginning of your presentation. You know, I've had

[1:13:06] problem with this since it started coming out from the president and the

[1:13:11] governor. [snorts] Demonstrated need

[1:13:15] what, and I'll ask Representative Carr to his opinion also. What is the working

[1:13:21] definition of a demonstrated need?

[1:13:27] other than somebody just saying we need it.

[1:13:29] » Well, it is um other than it's not just somebody saying that we need it. It's

[1:13:35] both our federal government saying that we need it and our state government

[1:13:40] saying that we need it. Not individuals, but you know, through legislation,

[1:13:43] through executive orders. Um and so that's the hurdle. you know, it's you

[1:13:51] you just can't prohibit >> I'm looking for for the references that

[1:13:55] they're using to back up. >> You could try to make those arguments in

[1:14:01] court, but you know, um that you would have to try to, you know,

[1:14:09] to fight that issue of a demonstrated need, you know. So,

[1:14:13] » find out what is the definition. What are they using besides just saying those

[1:14:17] two words? I can certainly at a future meeting I can come back and tell you,

[1:14:22] you know, I can go look it up and tell you the legal definition of a

[1:14:25] demonstrated need, you know, and and what case law has told us about it,

[1:14:30] » but how far back it goes or anything like that.

[1:14:33] » Thank you, Lynn. >> Oh, thanks. But, you know, thank you.

[1:14:37] Uh, but for a demonstrated need, you know, in general, you know, there's case

[1:14:40] law on exclusionary zoning. Um it's just whether or not the demonstrated need uh

[1:14:46] you know for this use obviously Selen Township looked at that issue and

[1:14:51] thought we're cooked here and settled represent car.

[1:15:00] » Yeah I'll just try to make their arguments for them not mine. Uh the

[1:15:04] president could say there's a demonstrated need because we need to

[1:15:07] beat China whether economically or more important militaristically. might make

[1:15:11] those types of arguments. The governor might say that there's a demonstrated

[1:15:15] need because we need to enhance and have a more robust economy. Things of that

[1:15:21] nature. Uh as I was speaking earlier while I'm here in terms of moratorum

[1:15:25] andor prohibition concepts, I'm speaking more from the state level. Um the reason

[1:15:30] for a moratorum from my thought from a state level would be to give the locals

[1:15:34] time to figure out how [clears throat] do we need to assess our local efforts

[1:15:38] and what ordinances we might put into place. I don't think that there's a need

[1:15:41] for moratorum for me to get to the point of knowing that it is an existential

[1:15:46] threat to humanity. And to that point it's the opposite of a demonstrated

[1:15:51] need. It's a demonstrated need that we need to not have them is my perspective.

[1:15:56] But that's not a local issue. That's more state federal concepts. You're

[1:16:02] doing a good job speaking from a local perspective. So, thank you.

[1:16:05] » Thanks. >> Appreciate it.

[1:16:08] » Any other questions for Rob before he moves on?

[1:16:11] » Okay. >> All right.

[1:16:12] » So, the the next issue is battery energy storage and it's a totally different a

[1:16:18] totally different issue because data centers are just under our zoning

[1:16:23] ordinance. So we can regulate do you know super restrict potentially prohibit

[1:16:29] you know but we have to do it through our zoning ordinance. Uh with regard to

[1:16:35] battery storage systems uh that's a totally different issue because that

[1:16:39] falls under act 233. And so with that we're basically

[1:16:45] preempted uh and allows the developer of certain size utility scale projects,

[1:16:51] solar projects, wind projects, battery storage projects, uh 50 megawatts or

[1:16:57] more solar, uh 50 megawatts or more battery, 50 or 100 megawatts or more

[1:17:02] wind. They can just bypass our local zoning ordinance, ignore it, go to the

[1:17:08] state and ask for permission from the MPSC if they choose. Um there is one

[1:17:12] exception in there. It's called a CRO. Um and the CRO, which is a uh

[1:17:21] compatible renewable energy ordinance, you can do locally and force

[1:17:25] [cough and clears throat] them to come to you locally, but it has such weak

[1:17:29] standards that we would never recommend that you adopt a CRO. They're just the

[1:17:34] basebased standards in the statute. Uh and um they don't protect the it would

[1:17:40] not protect the township at all to do. So we would not ever recommend the CRO.

[1:17:45] There's there's three ways that it can basically move forward one of these

[1:17:49] projects. And oh I will say I said there's three types. There's wind,

[1:17:54] solar, and battery. Now um the MPSC made rules regarding implementation of act

[1:18:02] 233. And in there they invented a fourth kind. And the fourth [clears throat]

[1:18:06] kind of uh renewable energy project is a hybrid. So they said, "Oh, well it's 50

[1:18:13] megawatts wind, 100 megawws uh or 100 megawatts of wind or 50 megawatts solar,

[1:18:20] but we'll allow you to combine them." So, like if you have uh 25 megawatts of

[1:18:26] solar and 75 megawatts of wind, even though neither one is enough to qualify

[1:18:32] to uh preempt local zoning, we'll allow you to do a hybrid project and put it

[1:18:38] together and preempt zoning. Now, that's being fought in the Michigan Supreme

[1:18:43] Court. Uh we have a brief in the Michigan Supreme

[1:18:47] Court, too, arguing against the MPSC's rules. That's one of the things that

[1:18:51] we're arguing against uh is this hybrid concept that they put forward. Uh the

[1:18:56] court of appeals upheld that decision and so we're asking the Supreme Court

[1:19:00] for leave to uh basically say you that MPSC just kind of invented a new type of

[1:19:06] project uh to preempt us. But with these projects then that you

[1:19:12] can either they can go either entirely through the state and just go to the

[1:19:16] MPSC. There's a whole process. We can intervene into that process and object,

[1:19:20] but ultimately at the end of the day, the MPSC will decide whether or not that

[1:19:25] project gets approved. Then you have CRO, which is the compatible renewable

[1:19:30] energy ordinance that you we can force them. They kind of threw that out as a

[1:19:35] bone in the 11th hour of the legislation to try to get some people convinced to

[1:19:39] sign on to it, I think. And so they uh proposed this creole, but it really is

[1:19:46] ineffective. It would not protect the township at all. You might as well send

[1:19:50] them to the state and fight with them at the state level.

[1:19:54] And then the third category is called a workable ordinance, which is just you

[1:19:58] try to be as restrictive as you can in your ordinance without being so

[1:20:03] restrictive that they just go to the state. So that's kind of the a workable

[1:20:07] ordinance u because you can put all these restrictions on much you can put a

[1:20:12] lot more restrictions than the state law has and developers will tend to want to

[1:20:17] work with you as a local community but if it's too restrictive they're just

[1:20:21] going to go straight to the state. So, some communities are just like, well,

[1:20:24] just send them send them to the state on it and we'll fight with them, you know,

[1:20:27] at the MPSC. Uh, they have to put up some intervenor funds to pay the

[1:20:32] township uh to fight with them, which, you know, so some communities do that.

[1:20:36] Other communities look at workable ordinances where they will develop

[1:20:41] stringent provisions within their ordinance and uh you know

[1:20:45] [clears throat] and and enforce it locally and try to get them to come

[1:20:48] through locally preserving the power that your planning commission to review

[1:20:52] the site plan special land use and and do it through a local level rather than

[1:20:58] trusting the MPSC to ultimately handle the project.

[1:21:03] So you still have uh I I'll just note a couple things. You still have smaller

[1:21:08] scale utility projects. So things that fall under those levels. Uh so if it's

[1:21:13] less than 50 megawatts of solar, maybe it's a 4 megawatt project or uh you know

[1:21:19] a 25 megawatt battery project. Those fall under the state standard, but they

[1:21:26] would fall then under your ordinance. Now then do we have anything in our

[1:21:29] ordinance to regulate that? you know we have to look at those things. So do we

[1:21:33] have anything that would regulate battery energy storage systems are

[1:21:37] smaller than utility scale. So as [clears throat] we look at battery

[1:21:40] energy storage systems and those you know as expressed you know those will

[1:21:45] cook into the grid they're intended to kind of even out the power flow so you

[1:21:49] can load them up with the energy and then at other times when you're not

[1:21:53] producing the energy it can put the energy out into the grid. And we're

[1:21:57] going to see a lot more of these battery energy storage projects [clears throat]

[1:22:00] throughout the state. They're very expensive projects. I mean, they don't

[1:22:05] use as much land as, you know, say solar, wind. They can be put on 20, 40

[1:22:10] acres. Um, and uh very expensive uh uh facilities. Um there's one proposed

[1:22:19] right now uh in one of our townships. It's about $500 million project for 400

[1:22:26] megawatts of battery storage. And so they determined in that township to

[1:22:31] regulate it locally rather than uh send them to the state. So they have what's

[1:22:36] called the workable ordinance. But you know in that case you can still regulate

[1:22:40] smaller but in what they decided is no you either go with a large utility scale

[1:22:45] project 50 megawatts or more or not at all rather than dotting the you know the

[1:22:51] the township with small little projects. It's like either you're going to do a

[1:22:55] project and then we're going to say once you do one project you're done. we're

[1:22:59] done with it because when you go to the state part of it what the state will

[1:23:03] look at the MTSC have you done your share of support for renewable energies.

[1:23:09] So our position kind of is like okay well if we have a project here and we

[1:23:13] allow just this one project then we're going to say no more and then you got to

[1:23:18] go to the state uh if you want something more and then we would argue that we've

[1:23:23] done our share of it right. So, you know, there's different ways to look at

[1:23:28] it with like battery energy storage. Do you just say like it's got to be 50

[1:23:31] megawatts or more or it's got to be uh ancillary to a permitted use? So,

[1:23:38] like a lot of businesses might use a battery storage backup on their site for

[1:23:42] their business. So, that's a little different. That's ancillary battery

[1:23:45] storage. Kind of what we're talking about is the utility scale, this 50

[1:23:49] megawatts or more. But also, we had to think about smaller battery storage too.

[1:23:55] Um, and how we regulate that. Like I said, in the one township, uh, what we

[1:24:00] did is we just said, "Okay, it's got to be more than this many megawws."

[1:24:05] And then we're not allowing anything more. It's like, "That's it." And then

[1:24:09] we've done what we've done. Um, and we're not going to have about a bunch of

[1:24:13] smaller 25 megawatt or 10 megawatt here, there, and everywhere spread out through

[1:24:18] the township or solar, you know, a solar project here, solar project there, a

[1:24:22] whole bunch of little solar projects. same kind of concept that you either

[1:24:26] allow one of the ones that you're preempted on and you allow for it and

[1:24:31] then you say no more and then you take your fight to the MPSC after that.

[1:24:39] Um so uh you know with battery I don't know

[1:24:44] if you have I think the township board has put a

[1:24:48] moratorium in on battery. Uh if you're going to do a moratorum complete, then

[1:24:53] the planning commission will also need to look at that. But uh when we talk

[1:24:58] about our moratorium ordinance, we actually put into the moratorum

[1:25:02] ordinance that we're going to look at later a provision that allows the

[1:25:06] planning commission to adopt or recommend moratoriums. So it allows you

[1:25:11] to be more nimble about how you do it. You're not going to have to do a new

[1:25:15] ordinance every time you want to. If a new issue comes up that you think you

[1:25:18] need to impose a moratorum on, you can just recommend it to the township board

[1:25:22] rather than having to develop a ordinance, public hearing, send it to

[1:25:27] the county, wait for the county to come back, send it to the township board, and

[1:25:31] then have the township board act on it. You could just be more nimble and just

[1:25:34] act on it at a meeting and say, "We recommend a moratorium on a certain

[1:25:38] subject matter and send it to the township." Rod, can we talk about that

[1:25:42] maybe within the public hearing so we can move into that? Yeah. Is that okay

[1:25:46] to do that? Just to make sure we all understand what it is that we're doing

[1:25:49] related to that, >> right? Yeah, I will. I'll address that.

[1:25:51] Yeah. But that's >> any comments on best right now so we can

[1:25:56] move on. No. So, you might as well just stay right up there. Um the go ahead and

[1:26:02] um move into the public hearings. So, this is a Oh, go ahead.

[1:26:06] » Well, can I just So, let me just tell you some of the terrible standards that

[1:26:10] » Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. >> Okay. And then I can move on. But just

[1:26:13] in the in the state law for battery storage, it has really bad standards.

[1:26:18] That's why the Creole is totally not an acceptable thing. The setbacks for

[1:26:23] battery storage are 300 ft from a non-participating occupied dwelling. So

[1:26:28] it only So you can have all this these huge battery systems and they the

[1:26:34] setback under state law is 300 ft from your dwelling wall.

[1:26:39] not [clears throat] your property, but your actual dwelling. So, that's kind of

[1:26:43] crazy. 50 feet from a road, 50 feet from the sheared uh property lines. So,

[1:26:49] doesn't have to be far from the property line. Noise is 55 dBA measured to the

[1:26:55] nearest dwelling, not you know, not your property line, but the your house

[1:27:01] itself. So again, we think, you know, any kind of standard should be to your

[1:27:05] property line, not not your home itself. You should be able to use your entire

[1:27:10] property without noise or other nuisances stemming from it. Uh so those

[1:27:16] are very weak standards. Um yeah, I mean just uh

[1:27:23] you know, 300 feet is kind of a ridiculous standard. In the one

[1:27:25] township, what we did is we required battery energy storage to be 2,000 ft

[1:27:30] from any sensitive land use. So, they want they first wanted to build it uh

[1:27:35] next to a school and we're like, "No, you're not going to build it next to the

[1:27:38] school." And they passed the ordinance that said it had to be 2,000. So, not

[1:27:42] just 300 ft to the nearest, but 2,000 ft away from sensitive land uses. So,

[1:27:47] anything where nursing homes, schools, things of that sort push it way away.

[1:27:52] Um, but you know, compared to those setbacks, I just wanted to point that

[1:27:56] out that they're really weak standards in the state law. That's why a lot of

[1:28:00] townships do look at doing their own uh workable ordinance. So, you can

[1:28:05] really beef up your standards. Uh, because if they go to the state, that's

[1:28:09] the standard that they have to meet, you know, but if you do a workable, you can

[1:28:13] push those things back, like I said, 2,000 ft away from sensitive uses,

[1:28:16] whatever. You can just be a lot more stringent.

[1:28:20] » Thank you. questions. >> Okay.

[1:28:27] » So, if we can u move on commissioners to um thank you Rob to the public hearing.

[1:28:32] Our first public hearing is the zoning ordinance text amendment article 18 and

[1:28:39] the data center moratorum. Um this was uh noticed in the newspaper. And with

[1:28:45] that um is there a motion to open the public hearing?

[1:28:51] So move. Thank you. >> There's a motion by Commissioner um Rig,

[1:28:58] seconded by Commissioner Buller to open the public hearing. All those in favor

[1:29:02] signify by saying I. >> I.

[1:29:05] » All those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Um so Rob, um this this

[1:29:12] commission is here. Um, as I think you've mentioned, the township board um

[1:29:17] did pass um a moratorum and in it within it it said, and I'm

[1:29:23] just taking out one excerpt. I said, "Be it further resolved that the purpose of

[1:29:27] ordinance number 2026-01 and the township board of trustees

[1:29:32] direction to the planning commission is to prepare a temporary moratorium zoning

[1:29:36] ordinance text amendment um and is to preserve the status quo

[1:29:41] while the township planning commission researches data centers and bests as a

[1:29:45] land use within the township and submits a recommendation to the township board

[1:29:49] for consideration public hearing. So, um, that leads us to the document that

[1:29:54] we have, um, in front of us that you helped craft for us. Um, and maybe you

[1:30:00] can just share what we're doing and >> Yes.

[1:30:03] » the difference between what the township >> Yeah, I will. Yeah. So, there's to to

[1:30:07] have a effective moratorum, you have to do two types of ordinances and not by

[1:30:12] resolution. You can't just Some communities have adopted moratorum

[1:30:16] resolution. They're in court right now over on the east side of the state

[1:30:19] because they tried to block it with a resolution. Case law tells us that you

[1:30:23] have to do and this comes from federal case law um that you have to do two

[1:30:28] ordinances. You do a police power ordinance and you have to also do a

[1:30:32] zoning ordinance moratorum. So that's why the township board has done their

[1:30:36] part of it with a police power ordinance moratorum.

[1:30:40] And then this is the sec [clears throat] this is the second part of it. So you

[1:30:45] have to do the zoning moratorum also to be properly protected and have uh

[1:30:51] moratorium protections. So this is the second part of it and what this does is

[1:30:57] uh it would uh and that what you do tonight is a recommendation to the

[1:31:01] township board. So this is part of your zoning ordinance. It's a moratorum of

[1:31:06] your zoning provisions and uh this ordinance if you pass it would be a

[1:31:10] recommendation of the board for them to pass it. It would have to go to the

[1:31:14] county planning commission for their recommendation. I mean, it's just purely

[1:31:19] recommendation from the county. >> Advisory, [clears throat] right?

[1:31:22] » Yeah. Completely advisory. Uh and then it goes to the board for uh their final

[1:31:27] determination. And so what this will do is, you know,

[1:31:31] I'll just read some of the provisions. The Township Board of Marshall Township

[1:31:34] determines that the approval of data centers may result in or produce

[1:31:38] negative impacts on permitted land uses and development and may harm the public

[1:31:42] health, safety, and general welfare of property owners and residents of the

[1:31:45] township. Uh the township board is aware of significant public health, safety,

[1:31:50] and welfare concerns raised by the public about [snorts] the impacts of

[1:31:54] data centers. Uh the township has a legitimate public purpose in assessing

[1:31:58] the regulation of the an establishment and use of data centers within the

[1:32:02] township to ensure that data centers do not interfere with other land uses

[1:32:07] substantial negative impacts on the environment, public health and safety.

[1:32:11] Uh the township board finds that adopting a temporary moratorium is

[1:32:15] reasonable and necessary for among other reasons the following. Michigan courts

[1:32:19] have recognized moratoriums as a legitimate tool to preserve status quo

[1:32:24] while forming formulating and uh a development strategy.

[1:32:29] Um and uh I I'll note that it has to be it

[1:32:36] can't be just a kind of a permanent moratorium in place. If we do that uh we

[1:32:40] would have a problem with our zoning. Again it's why it's temporary but it can

[1:32:45] be extended long. It's for one year the moratorum but it could be extended

[1:32:50] longer if need be. Uh but you have to have a

[1:32:56] um an end date which could be extended. So it has to be temporary or a court

[1:33:00] would most likely strike that down. And so um the township board accordingly

[1:33:06] determines that it's desirable in the public uh interest for the reason set

[1:33:11] forth above that the board adopt a temporary moratorium for data centers.

[1:33:15] And then what we have in here is the actual provisions that we're going to

[1:33:19] put into your ordinance. So this ordinance does two things. It creates a

[1:33:24] data center moratorum, but it also adds to your zoning ordinance, article 14.

[1:33:28] It's going to add a whole new section that allows the planning commission to

[1:33:33] recommend moratoriums. So you don't have to go through the whole planning uh

[1:33:38] commission ordinance process. You can just make the recommendation. It's going

[1:33:42] to make you more nimble. as things come up in the future, you'll be able to

[1:33:45] just, you know, throw it into a moratorum if need be and the board then

[1:33:50] can adopt that moratorum and it's within our ordinance. It's not in our ordinance

[1:33:54] currently. That's why we have to go through this whole process to do that.

[1:33:59] And so um what it will allow is then the board uh the planning commission to

[1:34:04] recommend a moratorium, the board to adopt one. And then going back to this

[1:34:08] data center specific moratorum uh in section three, a temporary moratorium

[1:34:13] iso imposed upon the acceptance and or processing of any applications for data

[1:34:18] centers. So there would be no data centers coming uh forward to the

[1:34:23] township during this time. Uh the term of it is for one year. Um

[1:34:30] and then [clears throat] before the uh before it expires, the township can uh

[1:34:34] by resolution allow for additional time uh for the moratorum. And so this would

[1:34:41] be the moratorium for data centers. We talked about best. I don't think this

[1:34:46] board has ever adopted a best moratorum, >> but I think the township board did their

[1:34:51] police power moratorium part of it. So once this ordinance is in effect, you

[1:34:55] can just recommend the best moratorum to the township board and it can go into

[1:35:00] effect. So that will be one of the benefits of this ordinance is that it'll

[1:35:05] be put into our zoning that you can just do the recommendation. So you'll just be

[1:35:09] able to recommend a best moratorum for zoning and then the township board

[1:35:14] can adopt that. >> Okay.

[1:35:18] » All right. Um before we get into um Thank you, Rob. [clears throat]

[1:35:23] Um commissioners discussion and action. Are there any public comments related to

[1:35:27] the public hearing for the zoning ordinance text amendment and Dana center

[1:35:31] moratorum? Please feel free to come up to the

[1:35:35] podium.

[1:35:46] reached Sclingler with some city of Marshall

[1:35:50] addressing these effects of data centers. A lot of them have been

[1:35:55] mentioned, but there are some that haven't been mentioned. I want to

[1:35:58] encourage you to address these in your ordinances coming up. One of them is

[1:36:04] ambient warming. A lot of these data centers with cooling towers, with other

[1:36:09] roof mounted equipment warm up the surrounding atmosphere as much as five

[1:36:13] to six degrees. This could be true of battery and energy storage systems also

[1:36:19] probably not as much but that's something you want to look into

[1:36:23] electromagnetic fields induced. That's where your stray voltage comes in. You

[1:36:27] got also get induced magnetic fields on other equipment that's nearby. I think

[1:36:33] that's something you need to look at. Uh the closed loop cooling is great but

[1:36:40] those systems have added chemicals. They have biocides, they have antifreeze, and

[1:36:46] they have uh corrosion inhibitors in them. Those systems need to be emptied

[1:36:51] and cleaned periodically, every month, every quarter or something. Most waste

[1:36:57] treatment plants cannot handle those. So, you should have a pre-treatment

[1:37:02] requirement in your ordinances that that takes care of all that before it goes

[1:37:06] into any waste treatment system. You mentioned vibration, low frequency

[1:37:12] vibration. That is very important. Fire risk. These data centers have a lot of

[1:37:18] lithium ion batteries in them. There is a very high increase in fire risk. That

[1:37:24] should be brought into your ordinance. I know they have fire suppression systems,

[1:37:29] but you might want to look into what ones they actually have and make sure

[1:37:33] they are tested on a regular basis so they do work.

[1:37:43] uh NDAs uh might want to be careful. The city of

[1:37:48] Marshall has gone into some uh agreements that have uh confident

[1:37:52] confidentiality clauses and that's kind of like a group NDA because it covered

[1:37:58] the LDFA and its agents which is the city. So they really had a NDA as a

[1:38:04] committee.

[1:38:07] there's lots of industrial land on in the township.

[1:38:11] You've got it on your uh land use map for the future. So, there's a definite

[1:38:17] need that you regulate the these

[1:38:21] uh battery plants and data centers because you're you've got exposure

[1:38:26] already. I would also encourage you

[1:38:31] for any developer that they would have a post a bond

[1:38:37] required for cleanup when they're done. They just don't walk away and leave you

[1:38:42] a mess. That they were required to pay their own

[1:38:45] way for everything for the your township's costs. Everything the

[1:38:50] township related to that should be reimbursed by these developers.

[1:38:55] I would strongly encourage you, I don't know if you can put this in an ordinance

[1:39:00] not, but don't allow any tax exemptions. The Seline developers going for uh the

[1:39:06] industrial exemption facilities exemption, which is

[1:39:10] 50% of their tax, that's millions of dollars. That it's that's the only

[1:39:16] positive thing is the tax revenue that's coming from them. And so if you give

[1:39:20] half of it away, you're really restricting yourself.

[1:39:25] Or the other thing is make that whatever it's payment of Lugo taxes or your

[1:39:31] property taxes is a non-dereasing. It's going to be constant throughout the life

[1:39:35] of that facility. Normally it'll be going down as depreciation comes into

[1:39:39] account. Get them to say it's going to be this much every year and stick with

[1:39:44] it. [snorts] See

[1:39:50] so I think those are pretty much the points. Those are points that we've

[1:39:54] tried to put into our petition, initiative petition, and we hope to hold

[1:39:58] the city to that and I think those are good points for the township also.

[1:40:01] » Thank you, Regent. >> Thank you.

[1:40:04] » Anyone else for public comment? Okay. See, Gary,

[1:40:15] » I always need to check to see if anybody else wants to talk,

[1:40:18] [clears throat] but uh you know, like Regis was saying,

[1:40:24] you know, no amount of regulation stops a runaway lithium battery fire.

[1:40:31] uh and data centers and the best facilities uh have all uh had episodes

[1:40:40] of experiencing the runaway uh uh battery fires and uh you know Marshall

[1:40:49] is downwind from Marshall Township. But uh when it comes to the uh

[1:40:56] exclusionary zoning issue, uh the attorney did point out uh one of

[1:41:01] the exemptions where uh there would be no suitable location uh within the m

[1:41:07] municipality. But there's also another exemption and

[1:41:12] it has to deal with uh if its use is unlawful.

[1:41:16] Now, it just so happens in the uh zoning system construct

[1:41:25] u all land use is unlawful unless it is permitted.

[1:41:32] So, by its very nature, without a permit being issued, a data center is

[1:41:38] inherently unlawful. uh you might not have to do anything and

[1:41:44] just just declare, you know, they're unlawful unless we permit it.

[1:41:50] But uh the problem with the moratorum

[1:41:55] again, you're just kicking the can down the road.

[1:41:59] uh the information about data centers, the uh you know the destructive effect

[1:42:05] effects of data centers uh is conclusive and uh decisive.

[1:42:13] Uh you can't change the laws of physics and chemistry.

[1:42:18] um

[1:42:21] and you know trying to do impossible things

[1:42:25] by trying to uh regulate the dispersion of low frequency vibration.

[1:42:33] You can't do that because the low frequency vibration

[1:42:37] even though it's outside of the range of audibility

[1:42:42] uh it goes through everything. It goes through matter. It goes through the

[1:42:46] ground. Uh, and as an example, over in Marshall where they're planning on

[1:42:52] putting it putting the data center there at the uh, Brooks Nature Center, there

[1:42:57] are two elementary schools uh, within the two-mile low frequency

[1:43:03] radius. And it has been conclusively proven that constant exposure to young

[1:43:10] children of these uh low frequency vibrations

[1:43:16] creates permanent destructive effects on the development of the nervous systems.

[1:43:23] So what's the price of

[1:43:27] what is actually a matter of convenience of

[1:43:34] being able to get you know a few millisec get a result a search engine

[1:43:39] result a few milliseconds faster. [clears throat]

[1:43:43] Uh but nobody's really addressing the real nefarious ulterior motives of the

[1:43:51] data centers and that huge amount of computing capacity uh is for the purpose

[1:43:58] of creating an omni surveillance state that is similar to the uh social credit

[1:44:05] system that they have over in uh communist China.

[1:44:11] and uh you know being told that you know when it comes

[1:44:18] to data centers you're pretty much in a bus that has no brakes and the steering

[1:44:22] wheel's gone and you're heading towards the cliff.

[1:44:27] [clears throat] But uh just because the government says you need something,

[1:44:34] do you have to knuckle under to that kind of pressure? This is still America.

[1:44:39] The government does not control what we need. The government has to be put back

[1:44:44] in its place and we tell government what to do and they don't tell us what we

[1:44:50] need or have to use. [clears throat and cough]

[1:44:55] The whole data center issue is bringing a lot of issues, other issues,

[1:45:01] peripheral issues to a head about our basic freedom, about our

[1:45:07] uh what it is to be an American and uh we should not have to uh knuckle

[1:45:15] under to an Orwellian dysfunctional state.

[1:45:21] And anybody comes to the podium just do keep your comments to the moratorum

[1:45:25] itself. That's what the public hearing is for. So thank you. Thank you Barry.

[1:45:30] Good afternoon Julie Bryant. Sorry. Um I think Reed just mentioned this. I'll

[1:45:36] stay back. I think Reed just mentioned this, but I've seen some articles in

[1:45:40] regards to um things to do for the moratorum and it was highly suggested

[1:45:48] and I like I said I think Regis uh covered this but um in case they would

[1:45:54] come in and then they would decide to leave to make them highly responsible,

[1:46:00] financially responsible to return the property to the you know somewhat what

[1:46:06] shape that it was. Um, you know, that needs to be right in there, right in the

[1:46:11] beginning. And, um, [clears throat] so I just wanted to kind of like highlight

[1:46:15] that. So, thank you. >> Thanks, Julie.

[1:46:18] » Okay. Any other comments?

[1:46:27] » Kelly Isaac. Um, in favor of a moratorum, give us

[1:46:33] time to investigate more. Um, thank you for your

[1:46:38] presentation. Thank you, um, Representative Carl for being here to

[1:46:43] support the people. We've been, um, challenged lately. Um, just beware when

[1:46:52] you um, you know, people are seething to get to that land. Seething to

[1:46:59] destroy it and to continue to destroy the township of Marshall. Hate to say

[1:47:04] it, but that's how I feel. We've got um, we got a Ford plant that

[1:47:09] promised a lot of things and none of it's been delivered.

[1:47:14] Um, very disparaging with that. And it's not because I live by it. It's because

[1:47:21] I've se I've followed the whole process. Is it even operational? Because I've got

[1:47:26] an article here says it's not um without permit air permit changes. This is going

[1:47:33] to affect the data centers too. You're going to have people come in and say,

[1:47:38] "Oh, the air is not going to you won't need permitting. We'll we'll just get

[1:47:42] the basic permitting." and then they'll go back and get the real permitting like

[1:47:46] Ford's doing so they could cook up some really nice batteries and pollute the

[1:47:51] air and water. So, be very cautious and I know that you're all in a hard

[1:47:57] position. You've got to make the decisions. I wouldn't want to be on the

[1:48:01] planning board cuz you're going to have them knocking on your door and they're

[1:48:04] going to be knocking down the door with money offers and promises of this and

[1:48:08] promises of that that never never came through. Thank you. Any other comments

[1:48:14] related to this public hearing on the moratorum?

[1:48:18] » Okay. Oh,

[1:48:25] » say thank you for letting me be a part of the conversation tonight. My wife is

[1:48:28] a government school teacher and I have to say good night to her. So, I'm going

[1:48:31] to head out, but thank you, Chair Johnson, for having me here tonight. And

[1:48:35] members of the commission, you all have a good evening. And you know how to get

[1:48:37] a hold of me? >> Yes, I do. Thank you.

[1:48:38] » Thank you. >> Thank you very much for being here.

[1:48:40] Appreciate it. And I know this is I know it's already almost 9:00 everybody. So

[1:48:44] thank you for your patience. We have a hefty agenda ahead of us which we knew.

[1:48:51] » Good evening. Richard Lindseay 15509 17 half mile road at Marshall Township. Um,

[1:48:58] in in listening to what the presentation was, I am interested in the idea of I

[1:49:03] could identify exactly one place in Marshall Township where a data center or

[1:49:08] a best center could go and it's essentially this land that's right here

[1:49:12] because it's got power and it's got water and it's got sewer. And so my

[1:49:16] question to the and so so I first of all I support the mortorium. So thank you

[1:49:19] for the presentation. I support the mortorium. But my understanding of the

[1:49:23] mortorium is that it's not you can't say no. And so my question is if you're

[1:49:26] going to designate an area where you would have one, it seems like the joint

[1:49:30] planning commission could work with the city and develop regulations within

[1:49:36] within this area that address that. And I would I would encourage that. And to

[1:49:40] the extent I'm not saying there would have to be one [clears throat] there,

[1:49:46] but the question is you have to set a space aside and have appropriate

[1:49:49] regulations. And to me, this this area would make sense for that. and I can't

[1:49:53] really imagine any place else in the township where it would make sense to

[1:49:56] put it. So, my thoughts, thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Anyone else

[1:50:00] for um this

[1:50:07] » and um Marshall Township, uh I just wanted to say I too support a moratorum.

[1:50:12] I think it needs some time to be thought about. One of the things that hasn't

[1:50:16] been mentioned here tonight, and I suspect it's why at the federal level

[1:50:20] and the state level, they're concerned about this is encryption. Uh quantum

[1:50:25] computers or supercomputers, whatever you want to call them, but they're on a

[1:50:28] quantum basis. Can break encryption in seconds. It would take tens of years to

[1:50:33] break. So everybody's trying to figure out how they can [snorts] encrypt my

[1:50:37] bank account, your bank account, how they can keep those safe because they

[1:50:42] know that China and North Korea and a lot of our adversaries are working as

[1:50:48] fast as they can too along with some very wealthy people in this country who

[1:50:52] aren't my best friends either. My best friends are my neighbors. You guys are

[1:50:56] all my neighbors. Um so I would say yeah, take some time. Think this

[1:51:00] through. make sure you don't do anything that's going to cost the township a

[1:51:04] bunch of money and legal fees. I appreciate you being here today because

[1:51:08] that's exactly one of my concerns. I'd like to see taxes go down in this

[1:51:12] township. Um that's not going to happen if we box oursel into a corner on legal

[1:51:17] feast, but I support the moratorum. I hope it passes unanimously.

[1:51:21] » Thank you, Dan.

[1:51:26] » [clears throat]

[1:51:30] » Laura Valentine and I am a lifetime resident of Marshall.

[1:51:37] I support the moratorum and gosh, can we have one for every township?

[1:51:46] Couldn't we? Moringo, Seresco, if we could adopt that same moratorum for each

[1:51:53] of the townships, wouldn't that be more helpful? And that's just one thought

[1:51:59] that goes through my my mind always. >> There's another question I have. Sorry.

[1:52:06] Um, is there an emergency evac plan from Marshall in the event of a battery plant

[1:52:13] fire or a data center fire?

[1:52:18] Is there one in place?

[1:52:22] » Hold that thought and we'll address it and I've got it written down. We can

[1:52:25] address comments. >> That there's two other points I wanted

[1:52:28] to make. This morning, my parents and I were listening to the news and we

[1:52:33] learned that this data center surge, they're all

[1:52:39] operating, all of these developers are operating on borrowed money. and they

[1:52:45] were talking about the economy, you know, this the stock market, the

[1:52:50] economy, the the data center bubble. If that's true,

[1:52:57] that money was it borrowed from us and are we in agreement with the usage

[1:53:05] of our tax money? So, um

[1:53:13] the necessary need, the the need of being necessary and

[1:53:21] you know by the state and federal that I go back to my state government classes

[1:53:26] in in high school and can we debate that and

[1:53:32] can we debate the fact that it's a necessary need to me to me I'm thinking

[1:53:37] of national security. We're using China components in new buildings and I think

[1:53:44] that's against one of our our national security laws. I think it

[1:53:51] is.

[1:53:58] » Can anybody refute it? >> Oh, typically we'll we'll answer those

[1:54:02] during the comments. I'm sorry. >> I'm just those are points I wanted to

[1:54:05] make. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, do we have a motion

[1:54:13] to [clears throat] close the public hearing?

[1:54:17] » So move sport. >> I'm not sure what if that was

[1:54:21] Commissioner Buller or Commissioner Riggs, but we'll go to Steves. Um I will

[1:54:25] say motion by Commissioner Buller, second by Commissioner Riggs to close

[1:54:28] the public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying I.

[1:54:31] » I. >> All those opposed, same sign. Motion

[1:54:34] carries. This is now our time for uh commissioner discussion and action.

[1:54:41] Um and Rob, I might need your help on this, but we took an excerpt. That's

[1:54:45] what made the agenda so long as well. Um from the criteria that we normally look

[1:54:50] at for text amendments, which we have a text amendment um as part of the um

[1:54:56] ordinance that we have before us. Should we go through each one of the criteria

[1:55:01] or do we need to handle this differently as it's coming from us?

[1:55:06] No, you should go through. Okay. >> All right. Um, just a couple items from

[1:55:11] the uh that I want to make comments on the emergency evacuation.

[1:55:16] I don't know if anybody here knows that. I know the Michigan Department of

[1:55:19] Transportation and Transportation side of things have evacuation routes. I

[1:55:23] don't know that we do as a township. So there are county you have a county

[1:55:28] emergency management uh director and so there are county emergency uh management

[1:55:34] procedures that uh that incorporate the local municipalities also point. Um so

[1:55:40] that is something and then as we get into the the looking at regulations and

[1:55:44] things of that sort you know some good comments about that and you know things

[1:55:49] like a fire like on individual projects a little different you would have like a

[1:55:54] fire protection plan uh a hazardous plan emergency response plan uh that you'd

[1:56:01] have to approve for any of these kinds of projects but

[1:56:04] » that'll come as we look at the orders. That's all. Yeah, that's

[1:56:07] » so more to come on a lot of those things that were pointed out

[1:56:10] » as we develop the ordinance. Right now, we're just that's part of our

[1:56:13] educational process to give us time to figure all that out and good comments

[1:56:17] that were mentioned. >> Okay. Um so going to the criteria then

[1:56:21] um commissioners um the first criteria for text amendments is is the proposed

[1:56:27] text amendment um would it clarify the intent of the ordinance?

[1:56:38] commissioners.

[1:56:42] » It does. >> Yes.

[1:56:43] » Yes. >> Yes, it does. Because we're the text

[1:56:45] amendment is saying exactly what it is that we want to do with the temporary

[1:56:48] moratorum. >> The next item, does the proposed text

[1:56:51] amendment um would it correct an error or oversight in the ordinance? I don't

[1:56:55] know that it's an error or an oversight, but it's an addition too because of the

[1:56:58] new >> anoles. Yeah, it is kind of a oversight,

[1:57:03] but it's not like most ordinances do not have a moratorum provision in them. So,

[1:57:08] I don't want to say it's an oversight, but it is a absence of that authority

[1:57:12] and it's a good idea to put it in your ordinance.

[1:57:15] » Okay, [clears throat] feel free to jump in anyone as we go

[1:57:19] through these. The proposed number three, the proposed text amendment would

[1:57:22] address changes to the state legislation, recent case law, or

[1:57:25] opinions from the attorney general of the state of Michigan. No.

[1:57:32] I think we're trying to address the issues from a a local level that we've

[1:57:37] seen is happening across the state. So, [clears throat]

[1:57:41] » okay, I'm going to keep going. >> And there and again, these are

[1:57:43] guidelines. You don't have to meet every single one. You just have to determine

[1:57:47] that in general meets these principles. >> Correct. The proposed text amendment

[1:57:52] would promote compliance with changes in other county, state, or federal

[1:57:55] regulations. It potentially could provide compliance

[1:57:58] once [clears throat] we figure out exactly what it is our ordinance is

[1:58:00] going to be. I would think >> um in the event the amendment will add

[1:58:05] or use to a dis I'm sorry let me try that again. In the event the amendment

[1:58:09] will add a use to a district that use shall be fully consistent with the

[1:58:14] intent of the district and character or range of uses provided for within the

[1:58:17] district. >> That's not

[1:58:20] » not not applicable. Um the amendment will not create incompatible land uses

[1:58:24] within a zoning district or between adjacent districts. Will not

[1:58:28] [clears throat] >> the proposed text amendment number seven

[1:58:31] um is supported by the findings of reports, studies or other documentation

[1:58:34] on functional requirements, contemporary building practices, environmental rec

[1:58:38] requirements, and similar technical items. I think it is supported by a lot

[1:58:42] of what was said today. Eight. As applicable, the proposed change shall be

[1:58:47] consistent with the township's ability to provide adequate public facilities

[1:58:50] and services. I think that's what we hope to get to at least as we look at an

[1:58:53] ordinance. And number nine, the proposed change shall be consistent with the

[1:58:59] township's desire to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the

[1:59:03] community. And I think that's the number one. I mean, for me personally, I that's

[1:59:07] what we're trying to do is do our due diligence.

[1:59:10] » Miss anything? Any comments, commissioners?

[1:59:14] Mr. >> Okay, we think it meets the standard. Is

[1:59:18] um there a motion? [clears throat]

[1:59:24] » So I I move to um

[1:59:30] recommend that the board accept the that we that we as a commission

[1:59:39] recommend the uh recommend commission to accept

[1:59:45] moratorium.

[1:59:56] state that again please >> don't make me [laughter]

[2:00:00] I don't know what I said I said I I'm I move that we recom that we recommend

[2:00:07] this moratorum to go to the board for approval the township board for approval

[2:00:12] » that and that includes the text amendment amendment as well and and the

[2:00:15] pass >> the data center

[2:00:17] » or the data center. Excuse me. >> Is there a second to that motion?

[2:00:25] » Commissioner Buller, I believe. >> Um, so I have a motion by Commissioner

[2:00:29] Sly, seconded by Commissioner Buller that we um recommend [clears throat]

[2:00:34] this ordinance which includes the text amendment as well as the data center

[2:00:38] moratorum um to the township board for approval.

[2:00:43] I get that right. Okay. Any further discussion?

[2:00:49] » Okay. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

[2:00:55] » Commissioner Buller, >> yes.

[2:00:58] » Secretary Woods, yes. Commissioner Riggs,

[2:01:00] » yes. >> Commissioner Summers,

[2:01:03] » yes. >> Commissioner Redmond,

[2:01:06] » yes. >> Vice,

[2:01:10] » yes. Chair

[2:01:12] » Johnson, >> yes.

[2:01:15] Seven yes, zero no. >> We'll move this on to um the county

[2:01:20] planning for their advisory and then ultimately to the township board. Okay.

[2:01:25] Um, moving on and thank you to anybody who is here for the special land use

[2:01:30] that you're just two hours into the meeting, but the application for a

[2:01:33] special land use and site [clears throat] plan review for the

[2:01:36] Calhoun County Road Department for a 5,187.78

[2:01:42] ft groundmounted accessory use solar energy uh collector. Is there a motion

[2:01:48] to open the public hearing?

[2:01:52] So move. >> Is there a second? Second.

[2:01:56] » Uh motion by Commissioner Buller, seconded by Commissioner Riggs, that we

[2:02:00] open the public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying I.

[2:02:03] » Second. >> Oh, I'm sorry.

[2:02:06] » Mr. Commissioner

[2:02:09] » Redmond. [clears throat]

[2:02:12] » All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.

[2:02:15] » All those opposed, same sign. We are now into the public hearing um for the

[2:02:20] special land use and site plan. And this is an opportunity for the presentation

[2:02:25] if there is by the petitioner. Um and I see someone's ready for the podium.

[2:02:30] Thank you very much. >> Yes. Uh thank you very much for uh

[2:02:33] having us today. Um my name is Doug Frell representing the county and the

[2:02:37] assistant county one of the assistant county administrators uh and really

[2:02:41] representing the road department's request uh for this special land use and

[2:02:44] site plan review application. Um we also have uh Mid-American Solar. They're the

[2:02:50] contractor on the project. So they will be answering any of your technical

[2:02:53] questions uh that you may have. Um just really quickly uh we have 168 uh solar

[2:03:00] panel array being proposed takes up about 02 acres of our 34 acre site. So

[2:03:07] we're not talking utility grade solar. Um we're talking about really just

[2:03:12] generating solar on our site for our facility. We're not paying getting money

[2:03:17] back from the grid to to generate money from this. This is really just uh

[2:03:21] helping us find some cost savings by putting these solar panels in. Um and

[2:03:27] that cost savings uh we've calculated in in year one is about $24,000 a year that

[2:03:32] we'll save in utility costs. By year 30 uh as we reach the end of the panel's

[2:03:37] lifespan, we're at $91,000 a year. That's $1.5 million over the cost over

[2:03:42] the life of those panels. Um, so for us, you know, this project that we're

[2:03:46] working on is really looking at facility upgrades and using that $1.5 million to

[2:03:51] to help the road department facilities, but [clears throat] putting that dollars

[2:03:55] in facilities opens up more money to go to the roads. Um, so that's really

[2:03:59] helping all of us. Um, it's helping the road department get more work done. It's

[2:04:03] helping our townships um, uh, and those local road projects, our primary road

[2:04:07] projects, too. So, uh, just from a cost-saving point, it's it helps

[2:04:12] everyone. uh not not just uh the county per se, but uh townships as well. Um and

[2:04:19] uh that's all I have, but I know we have others to answer any questions. If you

[2:04:22] have specific anything specific, >> what is it? What's the cost?

[2:04:28] » How much are you spending on these solar panels? [clears throat]

[2:04:34] » 550,000. Thank you.

[2:04:38] » What was the second bid on doing this? Did you get a second bid? Don't the

[2:04:46] counties and the uh public domain need to get more than one bid for a project

[2:04:54] like this. >> The the way we did that this project is

[2:04:58] um kind of as a a full package through our consultant Varigy. Um uh so we we

[2:05:04] bonded out this project. I don't know the details off the top of my head on

[2:05:07] exactly how each specific item of the project was bid

[2:05:13] » information. >> Yeah, we could get that information um

[2:05:17] but don't have it off hand. >> So what your what your answer is that

[2:05:21] you did not go and request for other companies to bid on doing this solar

[2:05:27] panel. >> Yeah, we we did have we had we had

[2:05:29] multiple bids. I I just don't have them with me.

[2:05:32] Okay, my next question, >> you know, welcome to if that needs to be

[2:05:35] a condition or or anything, happy to entertain that.

[2:05:38] » And and this, you know, this is not really to whether this piece of property

[2:05:42] is applicable to do this. It's just I think the county should put more

[2:05:47] diligence into how they're doing it and where they're spending their county

[2:05:51] money coming to us. And because you came in

[2:05:56] with is the property applicable to do solar pins? Yes, it is. Yes, it's

[2:06:02] allowable, but there's 34 acres and you're putting

[2:06:08] it in the most exposure to people place that you could. I don't know if you read

[2:06:15] the response that we got. Um, did you

[2:06:21] look into, you know, what was what was the survey? What was the criteria for

[2:06:25] putting it where you went to putt it? >> Um, I I think it was ease of access to

[2:06:30] the other facilities. um ease of access to to to the road. I I hear your concern

[2:06:35] 100%. Um but really um with we also have master planning we're doing on our site.

[2:06:41] Um we have some facilities over time that you know they're kind of reaching

[2:06:44] their useful life. So finding kind of a tucked away corner that's not going to

[2:06:49] interfere as much with that overall facilities master plan if we want to you

[2:06:53] know do major renovations, tear downs of certain facilities and put other things

[2:06:57] up. Um, that was just the the place that we identified that made the most sense.

[2:07:02] » So, all the salt trucks are going to go right past them. Was there any research?

[2:07:06] I mean, you got a big pack of research of sound and all this research that you

[2:07:11] did. Was there a research impact on those salt trucks driving right past

[2:07:15] them? I >> I don't think we did any specific

[2:07:17] research on the salt trucks. >> I I guess what my I think we should

[2:07:21] approve the use of the property for solar panels, but you got 34 acres. I

[2:07:27] think you need to do some county diligence in

[2:07:31] where you do it and how you do it and who you have do it. Not just because,

[2:07:36] you know, you're you're asking for approval of the site plan that you gave

[2:07:42] to us ahead of time, which is really a whole different motion if I'm correct,

[2:07:47] Joanna. Yes. that that's not really our question to decide today, but I would

[2:07:52] surely like to see a lot more diligence done before we approve where you put it.

[2:07:58] » Thank you very much. Thank you, >> Commissioner Summers. Just for

[2:08:00] clarification, we do have both though where um the way this was our public

[2:08:05] hearing is for both. It is for the um special land use and the site plan this

[2:08:10] evening. So, we'll get to we'll do those both separately. Okay.

[2:08:13] » Yep. Um um I just let me see where we're at

[2:08:17] here. I apologize, dear. Uh Don, um [clears throat] I don't have any other

[2:08:22] questions for you right at the moment. >> No problem. I'll just

[2:08:25] » Thank you. Is there anybody for public comments on this item?

[2:08:31] » Barry, stick to the public hearing on on this particular item. Please

[2:08:38] [clears throat]

[2:08:40] » try and do that. >> I know. Thank you.

[2:08:43] » [laughter] [clears throat]

[2:08:45] » Uh there's a problem with this recent

[2:08:50] headlong

[2:08:55] effort to think that we can try to beat the second law of thermodynamics by

[2:09:03] uh putting up these solar panels and thinking that it's going to uh provide

[2:09:10] us with a world of unlimited electricity when Michigan

[2:09:19] is [clears throat and snorts] not really the best place. We get about

[2:09:22] 50% sunlight. Uh and

[2:09:28] like Steve Cara had said uh there's the issue

[2:09:32] of putting solar panels in into an area and

[2:09:38] its resultant uh effects that come from the uh

[2:09:44] leeching of the uh materials the toxic materials and the solar panels.

[2:09:51] But for millennia uh we have been dependent.

[2:09:58] You know there's a way that you can look at

[2:10:02] physical reality and uh it's about the modality of energy transfer systems.

[2:10:12] And for millennia, the human species has been reliant on what we can call an

[2:10:19] endosomatic energy transfer system where

[2:10:24] we are getting our sources of energy from living systems.

[2:10:32] Uh that seemed to work very well for us for centuries and centuries. But with

[2:10:36] the uh uh

[2:10:40] invention of the computer and then the uh

[2:10:45] the insidious influences of AI which make us think

[2:10:52] that we have to have more of it and more of it is better.

[2:10:58] uh we're falling prey to this notion that we have to displace

[2:11:04] the living world with the non-living world.

[2:11:08] And uh again like I had brought up before you know we're coming to a head

[2:11:15] with uh clashing world views as to how we

[2:11:22] should be living our lives and uh which as Americans should should we be uh

[2:11:30] concerned about constructing the

[2:11:35] environment of our lives so it facilitates

[2:11:39] the mandates of existential freedom which

[2:11:45] were so well uh valued in our uh founding documents,

[2:11:52] Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

[2:11:56] Are we creating a what will end up being a techno prison

[2:12:02] uh that is without fences and uh

[2:12:09] you know more electricity does not mean a better world.

[2:12:15] Uh and there could be, you know, coming up within the next month or two

[2:12:21] uh a serious uh

[2:12:25] change of direction that is going to result from the catastrophic

[2:12:32] inability to supply uh sufficient diesel fuel to

[2:12:40] uh satisfy our uh our economic needs and you know our energy needs.

[2:12:47] [clears throat] So, uh

[2:12:51] if that happens, there is going [clears throat] to be a serious

[2:12:54] recalibration in our priorities. Uh and we're not going to be so worried

[2:13:00] about uh trying to get a few extra megawws out out of some acreage, but uh

[2:13:05] we're going to be more concerned about making sure that we can get uh some food

[2:13:09] in our belly each day. So, uh, these concerns are concerns of

[2:13:16] convenience and not of need.

[2:13:22] Take [snorts] that into consideration, please.

[2:13:30] » Historic Marshall. So, according to my research, most all

[2:13:35] these solar panels have Chinese spyware in them that can cause an EMP. This is

[2:13:41] part of the overall three warfare program of the Chinese Communist Party

[2:13:45] along with the wind turbines, battery storage, um, data centers.

[2:13:50] Uh, we now have a World War II ground level site here with at least a

[2:13:58] thousand Kal members that flew in in the middle of the night about 10:30 in March

[2:14:02] for about a two week span. the solar panels capability on the EMP, which is

[2:14:07] electromagnetic pulse. When that goes off, 80 to 90% of our population will

[2:14:13] die. These young men were trying to tell me they're all Americanmade and they got

[2:14:17] rid of the spyware. I freaking hope so. Um because it won't come back up. I'm

[2:14:24] just saying. Pee off. They heat up the atmosphere and ozone. They give off

[2:14:28] black radiation. I had a friend years ago that worked for consumers. She had

[2:14:33] to carry a geer counter to even go near it. Just saying.

[2:14:40] » Comments. Anyone else?

[2:14:50] » Julie Bryant again. Um I agree with [clears throat] excuse me with Barry in

[2:14:55] regards to we live in Michigan. How much sunset? Um, I'd also like to know, I

[2:15:02] don't know this property. Um, is there residential? Is there businesses? What's

[2:15:07] around that area that they decided to use the little corner? Because we all

[2:15:12] know that they're not looking out for us. So, we need to know exactly where

[2:15:17] this is at. Um I I also do not feel that um we need to dot these solar fields you

[2:15:27] know like it needs to be part of the master plan and not just like solar

[2:15:31] field here solar field there solar field there like you guys were talking about

[2:15:35] earlier to you know keep everything kind of in an area. So that's my thoughts.

[2:15:42] Thank you.

[2:15:48] Hi, my name is Dylan Pew, Mid America Solar. Um, I'm a Marshall resident. Um,

[2:15:54] have been, grew up in all of that for a very long time. I'm here to answer any

[2:15:59] technical questions in relation to the solar project, whether it's now or

[2:16:03] during the board's um, comments, but I can attest to the fact that I have solar

[2:16:09] at home. Um, I'm a big advocate of diversified energy rather than filling

[2:16:15] our farm fields full of solar. I wholeheartedly agree that each person

[2:16:20] should have their own form of renewable energy in their home. Um, like I don't

[2:16:26] buy anything from Consumer's Energy. I don't sell anything to Consumer's Energy

[2:16:30] regardless of how many sunlight hours Michigan gets. Uh, my lights stay on

[2:16:35] regardless of a tornado in northern Mingo Township.

[2:16:40] um doesn't matter what kind of thunderstorm rolls through or you know

[2:16:44] ITC's transmission lines running through our local townships. Um grid

[2:16:51] instability, Chinese products,

[2:16:55] uh solar is definitely a viable option especially for cost savings to the

[2:16:59] county. So, um, you know, ultimately it's going to save taxpayer money, which

[2:17:04] is going to be able to put the budget towards the roads, which is kind of a

[2:17:09] big thing around here. I used to live on 19 mile road in Mingo Township. I don't

[2:17:14] know if anyone's been out there recently, but you make it about a

[2:17:17] quarter of the way down and then you turn around. So, um,

[2:17:21] » right now I'm here to answer any questions. Um, you know, I I get there's

[2:17:26] a big push against solar, uh, in Calhoun County in general with some past

[2:17:32] projects or future ones that everyone's been looking at, but um, ultimately this

[2:17:38] is a a diversified or distributed product or project. So, you know, we're

[2:17:43] not looking at supplying power to, you know, a billion homes. We're we're

[2:17:48] looking at supplying energy to a county building. Um there's others in

[2:17:53] Kelvin County that are doing the same thing. So, this isn't a one-off project.

[2:17:58] It's a goal that the county has to reduce costs to taxpayers

[2:18:04] um and and build a better community. So, thank you,

[2:18:07] » Doug. I will have or is it Dylan? Excuse me. I will have some questions for you.

[2:18:10] So

[2:18:15] [clears throat] >> Richard Lindsay again, Marshall Township

[2:18:17] resident, 1559 17 half mile road. Also former county attorney, also foreigner

[2:18:23] attorney for Oakland Hospital. I'm very familiar with this site. Um, and good

[2:18:29] segue into this. Uh, south of the site, it has Consumer's Energy parcel. uh west

[2:18:35] of the site. Uh MA owns the parcel on the corner at 15 Mile Road in M96 and

[2:18:42] then there's a series of commercial industrial uses in that area. North of

[2:18:46] that is uh Preston Drive and which we worked with the township when I was in

[2:18:50] Oaklan to get that repaved. Oaklan operates offices out of the south west

[2:18:56] or southeast corner of that parcel that joins this area. Um, [clears throat] and

[2:19:00] on the east side of the property is I69. Um, I I can't literally imagine a better

[2:19:07] place to put this kind of a project than this particular location. As I go

[2:19:11] through the the one through eight items in the ordinance, it satisfies all of

[2:19:17] those without any question whatsoever. Um, I support solar. I think it's good

[2:19:22] to switch from um so you know fighting in Iran to secure our oil supplies to be

[2:19:29] able to have power that is grown in our fields essentially um here at home. And

[2:19:35] again, I think this is I'm I'm going to trust the county in saying that it was a

[2:19:39] good use of county funds. I'm sure I'm familiar very familiar with the

[2:19:43] purchasing process for the county. So I'm sure there was a rigorous purchasing

[2:19:47] process it was going through. Um, at the extent this frees more money to be able

[2:19:53] to use to fix the roads, think that's a good thing. So, my

[2:19:58] comments. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else?

[2:20:03] Okay. Um, is there a motion to close the public hearing?

[2:20:11] Move to >> close public hearing.

[2:20:13] » Thank you. Is there a second? >> Yeah.

[2:20:20] Motion by Commissioner Buller, second by Commissioner Snomemers to close the

[2:20:24] public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

[2:20:27] » All those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Um within our documents, we

[2:20:33] have a zoning administrators report um to help us through some of the criteria.

[2:20:40] Um I would like to mention I appreciate Shelley following up I guess with maybe

[2:20:44] Mid American Solar and Dylan. Um I have just a couple questions for you if you

[2:20:49] want to head back to the podium and then I'll open it up to everybody else. Um I

[2:20:54] know you um so this educate me quite frankly. Um so this isn't like other

[2:21:00] solar that's being there's is it a miso what is it called where you have an

[2:21:04] agreement with another ITC or anybody else. It's not going back to the grid at

[2:21:09] all. >> So typically there's an interconnection

[2:21:12] operating agreement. Yes. Um, there will be one here just due to the fact that

[2:21:16] Consumer's Energy requires it because >> Okay.

[2:21:19] » because we're connecting to the county building's current electrical system

[2:21:23] which is also tied to consumers energy. So, you know, the Cowan County Road

[2:21:29] Department building will still be connected to consumer. So, they can

[2:21:32] always have the option to purchase energy from consumers energy. Um, but in

[2:21:37] this instance, we're not producing more than what the county is using. But if

[2:21:42] you do, >> yeah,

[2:21:44] » it can go back to the grid. >> It has the potential, it'll have the

[2:21:47] right, the legal right to be exported. >> That's part of the agreement, right?

[2:21:51] » Yeah. We need to make sure that we're meeting safety concerns with consumers

[2:21:55] energy. So, they call it shutdown, rapid shutdown compliance. So,

[2:22:00] you know, if a storm runs through um takes down a power line just down the

[2:22:04] street on 15mi, uh an emergency worker, whether it's a lineman, firefighter,

[2:22:10] whoever needs to be able to shut that solar system off. So, those are all

[2:22:15] regulations that we have to meet to consumers energy energy to ensure that

[2:22:20] it can safely be worked on the electrical system as well as the

[2:22:23] building. So, >> I guess what I was getting at is you

[2:22:25] still need to have an agreement with them.

[2:22:27] » We will have an agreement. Yeah, >> you will you will have an agreement.

[2:22:29] » Yep. It's I believe it's already approved for construction. We're just

[2:22:33] kind of working through the permitting phase right now. So

[2:22:36] » through that is that through that MYSO or whatever.

[2:22:38] » No, it's just through consumers energy. >> Through consumers that typically

[2:22:42] » much larger projects. Yeah. And directly they call a medium voltage connection.

[2:22:48] So you know similar to what you see in these farm fields where it's connecting

[2:22:53] at 13,000 volts or something like that. Here we're connecting to the building.

[2:22:57] And the reason I asked a lot of the questions and and thank you that I I

[2:23:00] don't know what page this is on but you know related to the total energy watts

[2:23:04] on the panels versus the need for the road department and you know what could

[2:23:09] potentially go into the grid in the future. We don't know right. Um is where

[2:23:15] that constituted for us that commercial versus non-commercial.

[2:23:19] » Yeah. The energy isn't being generated for the purpose of sale. So, um, you

[2:23:27] know, there may be instances, say the county is not using a bunch of energy

[2:23:30] during, um, you know, an awesome June day. You know, there could be energy

[2:23:35] that goes back to consumers energy that they get on their bill in a form of a

[2:23:39] credit and those credits get used during the nighttime or during low producing

[2:23:43] months. So, >> okay. And then to answer the question um

[2:23:48] that we had from public comments um because we do know and you've been

[2:23:52] around our township as well. We have um you know um Chinese shipping you know

[2:23:58] wherever these are coming from and did I hear I think someone said it maybe was

[2:24:03] that these are made in I mean just just to answer their question is it made in

[2:24:07] are these products from the US of A? um majority so like structure the things

[2:24:13] that hold the solar panels are made right in Albian so 10 15 miles away the

[2:24:19] inverters are a German manufacturer so they're engineered designed and

[2:24:24] manufactured in Germany I don't know on these specific panels but it's probably

[2:24:30] Southeastern Asia usually not China right now because of tariffs and some

[2:24:35] other things >> I'm just trying to answer the question

[2:24:37] for the audience just related So the big the biggest question and concern that

[2:24:42] comes along with solar has already kind of been dealt with. Early July there was

[2:24:47] an FCC ban on communications equipment that can be associated with remote

[2:24:54] monitoring or remote uh control of the system that would cause thermal runaway

[2:25:00] or anything like that. So, there's actually been a ban from the federal

[2:25:04] government that doesn't allow communications equipment manufactured by

[2:25:08] certain countries. >> And then the only other thing I wanted

[2:25:13] to add is um not included in the packet because I think we got it yesterday.

[2:25:17] Bear with me. Is that right, Shelley? We um have a letter um and I don't know if

[2:25:22] you've all seen it um between the county um road department or the county and um

[2:25:27] Midame American Solar. Um we did get a a lengthy feedback from one of the

[2:25:33] property owners which is um doggy spa and playc care. So um I don't know if

[2:25:39] you've seen that but um we can talk about that as we get through this. I

[2:25:42] just wanted to make sure for the audience that you knew we did have um

[2:25:46] feedback from doggy spot and playare which be which would be what to the

[2:25:50] north. >> Yeah directly north.

[2:25:53] » Um we know of that communication but we don't know what it consists of.

[2:25:58] » We're happy to share that. Thank you, >> commissioners. Um, any questions or

[2:26:03] comments? Yes, Shelley. >> I'd like to go through our land use

[2:26:06] definitions real quick to confirm what the difference is between commercial

[2:26:14] solar energy system in the definition of your ordinance book. Commercial energy

[2:26:18] solar system means a utility scale facility of solar energy collectors with

[2:26:22] the primary purpose of wholesale or retail of generated electricity, also

[2:26:27] known as a solar farm. These are in no way commercial. You do have solar energy

[2:26:33] collector which means panel or panels and other devices or equipment or any

[2:26:37] combination thereof that collect, store, distribute and/or transform solar,

[2:26:42] radiant energy into electrical, thermal or chemical energy for the purpose of

[2:26:46] generating electric power or other form of generated energy for use in an use in

[2:26:52] or associated with a principal land use on the parcel of land on which the solar

[2:26:57] energy collector [clears throat] is located. and if permitted for the sale

[2:27:01] and distribution of excess available electricity to an authorized public

[2:27:06] utility for distribution to other lands.

[2:27:16] » Is this is this a fixed uh >> so so it's facing south?

[2:27:23] » Yeah, it's a 30° tilt face south. So it doesn't with the sun

[2:27:29] » big fields it doesn't rotate daily or seasonal.

[2:27:32] » Okay. Because I was looking at the glare.

[2:27:34] » Yeah. We did provide a full glare report for 15 mile to make sure cars weren't

[2:27:39] being >> Yeah.

[2:27:39] » blinded in. >> I was concerned about if it if it was a

[2:27:43] moving what the glare would be because it looks like it's like in June and July

[2:27:49] you get over 200 minutes a day of glare. So I was concerned about that.

[2:27:54] » Yeah. And that's just ground level glare. So, you know, it's not

[2:27:59] necessarily the road, but it might be reflected into the woods or something.

[2:28:03] » I was concerned that if it if it was a moving that it might reflect onto the

[2:28:09] neighboring property. >> Oh, yeah.

[2:28:11] » But if it's fixed to the south, the glare would probably be to the south, I

[2:28:15] would imagine. >> Yeah. It's typically to the uh southeast

[2:28:18] is the most common glare area. um other than overhead [snorts] airplanes which

[2:28:25] is usually the primary reason for a glare report is we're close to an

[2:28:28] airport. Um but you know the township requested it. We felt it was a good idea

[2:28:34] to check 15 mile too. So they checked everything.

[2:28:38] » Any other questions? Yes.

[2:28:41] » So in your site plan, >> where is the electrical feed to

[2:28:50] » So it comes buildings right now. So why does it need

[2:28:54] to be way over there instead of behind the administrative building?

[2:28:58] » The electrical service is on the west side of the building. So it's on the

[2:29:03] front side of the building. Um, I'd say I don't have an exact measurement, but

[2:29:08] I'd say it's about 100 foot, maybe 75 foot south of the north, sorry, of the

[2:29:14] northwest corner. So, it's on that west side. The closest available area is that

[2:29:20] northern kind of cutout section. >> What would be the cost if you bring it

[2:29:24] from if you were to move it over behind the administration building? What would

[2:29:30] be the problem with that? Commissioner some can I'm going to hold

[2:29:34] that conversation hold that thought. >> Let's try to do one thing at a time at

[2:29:38] least get us through the special land use and maybe approve or what and and

[2:29:42] then I do want to just again I know it's late hour it's 9:30 but we're going to

[2:29:46] do our due diligence. Um Shelley, is there anything you want to point out in

[2:29:50] terms of the special land use um in your administrative report at all? Anything

[2:29:55] in particular? I found nothing that would

[2:29:59] not allow the planning commission to approve the special land use.

[2:30:05] » Solar panels are allowed in the side and the rear yard and it has been confirmed

[2:30:09] that these panels are located in the sideyard. They are not in front of the

[2:30:13] principal building. Um so with that commissioners if we if

[2:30:18] we may um we have the again the criteria for the special land use standards and

[2:30:24] as Shelley Arzon administr administrator mentioned um in her report we have

[2:30:29] information as well. >> Um I know we had some public comment. Um

[2:30:33] Dylan you can have a seat for a couple minutes. Yeah. Sorry.

[2:30:36] » Um if we can again go through the standards for special land use. Um, the

[2:30:42] use is designed and constructed and will be operated and maintained to be

[2:30:46] harmonious and appropriate in appearance with existing or intended character. Um,

[2:30:51] I get my pages here. Of the general vicinity, will be compatible with

[2:30:55] adjacent uses of land and will not change the essential character of the

[2:31:00] area in which it is proposed. Comments, commissioners?

[2:31:06] » Okay. I think um again I think we know the zoning um in

[2:31:12] that area >> is light industrial

[2:31:14] » light industrial I believe. Yeah. Um the you number two the use is or as a result

[2:31:19] of the special land use approval will be served adequately by public services um

[2:31:24] and facilities including um but not limited to streets, police,

[2:31:28] fire protection, drainage structures, refu disposal, water and sewer

[2:31:32] facilities and schools. >> Yes. No, I don't see an issue.

[2:31:37] » Okay. The use will not involve activities, processes, materials, and

[2:31:40] equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to any

[2:31:44] person's property or the general welfare by reason of traffic, noise, smoke,

[2:31:49] fumes, glare, or order odor odors? It's getting late, guys.

[2:31:55] Thoughts on that? >> I was concerned about the glare, but I

[2:31:58] think you'd answered that. >> Okay. And as far as the traffic, it's

[2:32:02] primarily it'll just be during the construction. And I know that the county

[2:32:05] has entered in entered into road agreements, but this is just for that

[2:32:10] one site. It shouldn't be that much impact, I would hope. Um, the special

[2:32:13] land use will be consistent with the intent and purposes of this ordinance

[2:32:16] and most recent updates of the Marshall Township master plan. We had that

[2:32:20] information here. Um, it will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or

[2:32:24] future uses in the same general facility and in the community as a whole.

[2:32:30] Um my only comment to that is you know the hazardous in the future. I don't

[2:32:34] have the answer to that completely um to be determined in my opinion.

[2:32:41] Pipe up anybody as we move along. It will not create excessive additional

[2:32:44] requirements at public cost for infrastructure and will not be

[2:32:48] detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.

[2:32:53] again for use of the particular site. It will ensure that the environment shall

[2:32:58] be present preserved in its natural state in so far as practical practicable

[2:33:04] by minimizing tree and soil removal [snorts] and topographic modifications

[2:33:08] which result in maximum harmony and adjacent areas.

[2:33:12] Don't think there's major things that have to be moved out of place for that.

[2:33:16] Um, and it shall confirm with all specific, excuse me, conform with all

[2:33:21] specific requirements applicable to the proposed use as applicable.

[2:33:25] That's a comments on that.

[2:33:30] Commissioners, is there a um, unless you have other questions for either the

[2:33:35] county or Mid-American, is there a motion?

[2:33:38] » It meets the standards. >> Meets the standards

[2:33:40] » in my opinion. >> Any further comments on the standards?

[2:33:45] » [clears throat] [snorts]

[2:33:54] » I'll make a motion that we approve the special end use for the Calhoun County

[2:34:00] Road Department for a 5,187.78

[2:34:05] square foot ground mounted accessory use solar energy collector.

[2:34:12] » Is there a second? >> Second.

[2:34:16] We have a motion by Commissioner Woods and seconded by Commissioner

[2:34:19] [clears throat] Redmond um as stated to approve. Any further

[2:34:25] discussion?

[2:34:29] Roll call vote, please.

[2:34:33] » Uh Commissioner Woods, yes. >> Commissioner Riggs,

[2:34:39] » yes. >> Commissioner Subs,

[2:34:43] » yes. [snorts] Commissioner Redmond.

[2:34:46] » Yes.

[2:34:49] » Chair Johnson. >> Yes.

[2:34:52] » Vice Chair Sly. >> Yes.

[2:34:55] » Commissioner Buller. [clears throat] >> Yes.

[2:34:58] » And a motion. >> So, the special land use um is approved.

[2:35:02] And now we can move on to the second part which I think speaks to some of the

[2:35:07] concerns from um the doggy daycare that we receive. Doggy spa and playcare

[2:35:12] pardon me. and um Commissioner Summer's uh questions. Again, we do have um the

[2:35:18] standards here. We have the administrator's report. Um Shelley, is

[2:35:23] there anything you want to add related to the site plan? I would like to

[2:35:27] mention that based on the location, although the um there is a residential

[2:35:33] house there, everything around this property is on the north side and where

[2:35:40] the solar panels are. It's actually community service district.

[2:35:45] » So there's that one home I think just to the north and then the doggy spa and

[2:35:49] that Preston area I think is what's there. But they al are all zoned

[2:35:54] commercial service >> and I assume that notices went out

[2:35:58] including that home. Um I'm assuming for for that

[2:36:01] » I would assume the notices went out. >> Yes, the notices did go out. Yes. Okay.

[2:36:06] [clears throat] >> Okay.

[2:36:12] » Doggy daycarees to the north. The homes to the west.

[2:36:15] » Nope. HS >> right. It's in front of it.

[2:36:21] » Yeah. Correct. >> No residential properties abuing that

[2:36:26] property whatsoever. >> Yes, there is.

[2:36:30] » Not district-wise. There is not zoning.

[2:36:35] » So, the house is not residential. >> The house is a residence, but it's not

[2:36:40] zoned residential. It's zoned commercial or highway service.

[2:36:45] So somewhere along the lines, the township has reszoned those properties

[2:36:50] in that area.

[2:36:55] » So I think that's the difference is there's a home there, but [cough] the

[2:36:59] zoning is is >> someone is living in it.

[2:37:02] » I assume I don't >> but I think they were duly notified um

[2:37:07] of the public hearing. So the only comments that I'm aware of other than

[2:37:12] the comments thank you here this evening that we've received written is the doggy

[2:37:16] spot in play here. That's all I'm aware of.

[2:37:23] Commissioners, do you want to go through the standards

[2:37:26] » [snorts] >> um or any specific site plan areas that

[2:37:28] you'd like to address? I know Commissioner Summers, you mentioned some

[2:37:31] related to its location. Um thoughts on any of these items?

[2:37:44] Good evening, President Cy Albert. I'm the deputy managing director at the K

[2:37:49] County Road Department. I'd like to answer uh Commissioner Summers's

[2:37:52] questions and why the location was selected for this uh solar array panels

[2:37:57] going there. The reason that area was selected is is the the area that you

[2:38:02] commented about that's directly south of the admill building. We have two drain

[2:38:07] well drain fields there for our septic system. So we would also incur

[2:38:10] additional charges to relocate that for that building. And there's that is like

[2:38:16] the ideal spot for draining of the septic system there. And there's also a

[2:38:21] road uh a railroad easement that encroaches our property from the south

[2:38:25] to the north and as well as a consumer's energy rightway there. So there's about

[2:38:30] a 100 foot setback. So we're kind of pretty tight for space there.

[2:38:35] Thank you. >> You're welcome. You can't

[2:38:38] » you can't go on the other side of the building. [snorts]

[2:38:41] » Which which of you couldn't go on the other side of the building to the east?

[2:38:46] » It would. But >> then we start talking about location of

[2:38:49] utility services and how long were how do you dig a trench without directional

[2:38:54] boring incurring a lot of large amount of costs under a building to get your to

[2:38:58] your electrical service? It's not really practical

[2:39:03] » to put the solar away in that area. I'm just trying to warn you about lawsuits.

[2:39:08] If people deny bringing their dogs to a business and it shuts down and people,

[2:39:15] you know, have issues with what's going on because if you've read the report

[2:39:21] from them, >> I have not read that report

[2:39:24] » that they you know, and you've done all these reports about reflective

[2:39:29] and all this vibration and we're talking about data centers. Is that the next

[2:39:33] thing is you're going to put a battery pack to reserve the power too?

[2:39:37] » No, this is solely to offset charges that we occur yearly for electrical use.

[2:39:45] That's just offset those charges. We don't intend to sell this anyway. It's

[2:39:50] for for personal use or your I would say the road department's use.

[2:39:53] » That's not my point. My point is you're building it as close to anybody

[2:39:59] that you can on your whole property. If you understand what I'm saying,

[2:40:03] there's a residence in front of it. There's a business with dogs be behind

[2:40:07] it. The the high frequencies that dogs can hear is different than what people

[2:40:14] can hear. So, [clears throat] this is the concern they have is that

[2:40:21] there could be high frequency sounds, which I don't know about them. I've just

[2:40:26] heard about this. I'm just telling you what the community is community is

[2:40:30] telling me that they don't understand why your position at where it's at.

[2:40:37] I don't you know I don't see how the county can't do a little bit of

[2:40:43] diligence to find some place on 30ome acres of property take it across. Also

[2:40:49] to reference that we do have a master plan site for our site and if we did

[2:40:53] install this in that area that would impact any future development or like

[2:40:59] building changes if we ever wanted to continue to be on that site in the

[2:41:02] future. >> So then then the solar panels would be

[2:41:06] closer to the new building. >> No, the solar panels are out of the way.

[2:41:10] That's out of the way. >> You said future site building new

[2:41:14] building. If you've built the solar panels,

[2:41:16] » if they're then they'd be closer to the new building,

[2:41:19] » no there that would they would be in direct line of any type of construction

[2:41:24] or development in that area. So that's you know this area was selected because

[2:41:28] it's out of the way. It's out of the traffic. It's um protected by tree line

[2:41:33] from our surrounding neighbors. It has the offset necessary to meet the

[2:41:37] requirements for the township. It's in a very good location that's out of the way

[2:41:41] with very minimal impact to not only the property but also to the land. I mean

[2:41:46] there's no clearing that has to take place. It's in a welllo area.

[2:41:54] » Commissioner Woods, it seems like the representatives for

[2:41:58] the for the road department do maybe have heard about the letter

[2:42:03] from the concern. Would you be able to read that and put it into the record or

[2:42:08] is it too long? >> It's very long. Not that I wouldn't want

[2:42:11] to do it justice. Um, but it is very long. Um, I forget how many pages. Um,

[2:42:16] and it's very I mean there's key points to it.

[2:42:18] » Part of the record. >> It is. It is part of the record. It's

[2:42:21] just >> whether I guess we have options. Um,

[2:42:24] with all fairness to Mid-American and the county, they have not seen this,

[2:42:28] right? To be able to probably speak to all of it maybe um, [clears throat]

[2:42:31] prior to um, I think it came in yesterday. Um there's some some points

[2:42:36] within it that may be applicable to the standards. Um commissioners, I don't

[2:42:40] know if you want to give it time. Do you want to go through the standards? I

[2:42:44] mean, I know it's 9:45. Um but again, I want to do a due diligence and I also

[2:42:50] want to make sure we're preserving the public comment from doggy that we're

[2:42:54] here, but from doggy spot and play care. So, what is your thoughts on how to

[2:43:01] proceed? Thank you, Corey.

[2:43:09] Is the doggy daycare in the audience? >> No.

[2:43:18] » So commissioners been able to see that letter?

[2:43:21] » Have all the commissioners read the letter today?

[2:43:23] » I have not seen it. >> Commissioner

[2:43:25] um Sly has not. Anybody read it? Commissioner Buller has not.

[2:43:30] » Commissioner Woods has not. >> I read it. and Commissioner Redmond. So

[2:43:35] half of us had well less than half. >> Well, I did proves it when we were

[2:43:38] heading over to Lawrence yesterday, but not enough to showed it to me. Rick,

[2:43:44] » I think you had it. >> I mean, everybody

[2:43:46] » not enough to >> All planning commissioners should have

[2:43:49] opportunity to review that as part of commissioners receive it.

[2:43:53] » No, I did not. >> I got it as email. It didn't go out as

[2:43:57] an email blast. >> I didn't check the email.

[2:44:01] I believe everybody has received >> who sent it who sent the email

[2:44:06] » to the commission. [cough] >> I'm not sure which one that came from. I

[2:44:10] would have to look back at the emails and see if it was from something that

[2:44:13] Carl sent, something that Liz or Wayne had gotten or if it came through my

[2:44:19] email. Most of that does not come through my email. It goes to in info

[2:44:25] » at Marshall Township. So regardless, I mean, I think it's the expectation that

[2:44:29] we're all checking email absolutely every day is, you know, again, I'm not

[2:44:32] going to I have no idea what that system is for each one of us, but the fact

[2:44:37] remains that not all of us have had the opportunity to review it. So Rob, do you

[2:44:40] have any thoughts on that? >> Well, you all should have the

[2:44:43] opportunity to review it. I mean, whether you review it now um or postpone

[2:44:50] to give yourself a chance, I don't know. I don't know what it says it whether it

[2:44:55] would impact like a condition on a site plan or not. I have no idea. But

[2:45:00] » I haven't read it that myself to be able to tell you that.

[2:45:03] » You know the you might want to postpone action on the

[2:45:07] site plan until people have had the opportunity to review. That's

[2:45:10] » and for our even our applicants as well >> to address the address concerns. Okay.

[2:45:16] » Commissioners, what is your pleasure related to that?

[2:45:20] » I can speak to a couple of these comments. Well, thank you. Just hold for

[2:45:24] a second, Dylan. I appreciate it. We still have not We're in deliberation.

[2:45:28] So, >> it's all right, commissioners.

[2:45:35] » I may ask a question for the county. What kind of timeline are you guys on?

[2:45:42] » I was trying to wrap up before the end of the year.

[2:45:46] What I understood just because it came from the back of the audience, what I

[2:45:49] heard him say was wrap up by the end of the year. I think

[2:45:59] » I had this my name is Brandon Kener. I'm with Var. I'm the project manager um for

[2:46:04] this is just a part of the project that we're working on for this.

[2:46:06] » So tell me so so how does that relate to Mid-Americ and

[2:46:10] » they're subcontractor? >> Okay. Um

[2:46:14] » if we didn't if we weren't going through this process, we'd have already broke

[2:46:17] ground on the solar. So um it's significantly impeding the project. Uh

[2:46:24] given the this process was needed, we're hoping to wrap up the project by the end

[2:46:28] of the year. The solar portion of the project,

[2:46:30] » you can continue to work through winter as long as the ground's not frozen.

[2:46:33] » Uh it's ground mount system, but it's it's pretty quickly erected. So

[2:46:37] » Okay. So we still got some time then. >> Yeah.

[2:46:39] » Okay. Thank you. Yeah. >> So, you just made the statement that you

[2:46:42] have went ahead and started activity. >> No, I said we would have had this not

[2:46:49] been we've gone through the consumer's approval process. Um, and then this

[2:46:54] issue came up. >> Thank you. Thank you very much,

[2:46:56] » commissioners. >> I'd like an opportunity to review the

[2:47:00] letter. >> Yep.

[2:47:01] » Is there a motion?

[2:47:06] We we table this >> postpone action till the next meeting.

[2:47:11] » The very next meeting is the 22nd. I said coming up. Could we do that at the

[2:47:15] special? Uh >> I that's specifically for the public

[2:47:19] hearing for the master plan. Um >> yeah regular schedule

[2:47:26] October 20th. >> Oh gosh. Yeah.

[2:47:28] » Or 21st. >> October 20th.

[2:47:30] » Oh wow. It's moving way. I mean certainly it's within your bounds. If do

[2:47:36] you want to take it up on the 22nd as the first item or something? You can do

[2:47:40] that. >> I mean that's up to you.

[2:47:43] » I think that would be fair. >> It's up to you. Somebody make

[2:47:46] » is it how long of a read is it? Is it five minute 10 minute read?

[2:47:51] » Depends. >> I I haven't read it fully myself. I feel

[2:47:56] more com frankly I'd feel more comfortable if we postpone till that's

[2:48:00] just me and we can bring it up for a vote make a motion and we'll take it

[2:48:03] from there but it's lengthy >> just a quick question would you have to

[2:48:07] have a public hearing for this or >> no this is a site plan so

[2:48:11] » I just wanted to check for >> for advertising we'll [clears throat]

[2:48:16] talk about that later >> yeah [laughter]

[2:48:19] » um I did you make a motion >> um

[2:48:22] » I don't think nothing's been made yet >> okay I'm sorry somebody said still in

[2:48:26] discussion. >> Okay. Um so Rob, we could move it to the

[2:48:30] to >> you could set anything you want. So if

[2:48:33] you want to It doesn't require public hearing. So if you want to set it for

[2:48:37] next meeting. >> I move that we um postpone action on the

[2:48:41] uh site plan until the [clears throat] September what is it? 21st

[2:48:47] » 22nd. >> September 22nd

[2:48:49] » till the second 22nd meeting. Okay. to give the commission all commissioners

[2:48:54] time to review the >> about three weeks.

[2:48:58] » The doggy [snorts] daycare and spa um letter.

[2:49:04] » It would give them an opportunity to read it and to respond to the doggy

[2:49:08] daycare letter.

[2:49:11] » I have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second.

[2:49:16] We have a motion by Commissioner Sly, seconded by Commissioner Woods uh to

[2:49:20] postpone action on the site plan uh for this item for the county road department

[2:49:26] until September 22nd of 26 and that meeting is at 7:00.

[2:49:32] » The discussion. >> Yes.

[2:49:34] » Did the letter come in time for us to consider or did it miss a deadline that

[2:49:42] should have been here? They have the people have the ability to present it as

[2:49:46] of the meeting. So, as long as it's here before

[2:49:50] » you sit down and convene. >> It dated the 27th.

[2:49:54] » Yeah. Dated the I'm sorry, Commissioner. The 27th.

[2:49:57] » The only thing I'll add is I really wanted to have our meeting on the 22nd

[2:50:02] to be devoted to the master plan to be very honest. Um it's it's these are

[2:50:07] lengthy meetings as you can see even this evening. Um but um I'll just leave

[2:50:12] it at that. So we have a motion. Um I'm not going to do a roll call vote. Um we

[2:50:17] have a motion um on the table. Any further discussion?

[2:50:22] » I think it's important that that we review everything. Um if

[2:50:28] if we don't feel that the 22nd is a is the time to um take action on it, I I

[2:50:36] would be willing to amend my motion to to a different date.

[2:50:40] » I think we have a motion and a second. I think we'll go ahead and call the vote

[2:50:43] if that's okay. I think if we >> put the review

[2:50:50] first topic before we go into the master plan knock

[2:50:55] that out because we know the master plan is the major activity for that evening

[2:51:02] agree >> okay

[2:51:05] I'm hearing is that we'd have that towards the first thing on the business

[2:51:09] unfinished business >> okay

[2:51:12] » all right with that Um, all those in favor signify by saying I.

[2:51:16] » I. >> All those opposed, same sign. I

[2:51:20] » And motion carries. >> So, um, we please, I think you've just

[2:51:24] received a copy, right, of the hard copy. I'm sure we can email it out to

[2:51:28] you as well. Um, do ask that you review it and plan on, uh, the 22nd at 7:00.

[2:51:34] And, um, appreciate if you want to write comments in ahead of time. Um, whatever

[2:51:39] you choose to do. Um, appreciate it. Thank you for being here till 10 o'clock

[2:51:43] at night. >> Thanks. All right, I gotta find my page,

[2:51:49] guys. I'm sorry. Uh, moving on to um unfinished business. Do I did I skip

[2:51:54] anything? I don't think I did. Uh, moving on to unfinished business. We had

[2:51:58] a presentation at our meeting on August 4th, I believe it was, from Next Era

[2:52:04] Serial City for consideration of the pollinator fields in lie of trees. Um,

[2:52:10] we put on the agenda what our March 3rd, 2026 PC meeting, um, action was. Um, and

[2:52:18] commissioners, uh, I know it's getting to the late hour here of whether or not

[2:52:21] you want to act on this now. We want to postpone. Um, really, I think next year

[2:52:27] Serial City, I think this is even in the administrator's report is wants to know

[2:52:31] what it is, you know, what what would we like to do as a commission to relate to

[2:52:36] address this issue?

[2:52:42] Well, I made the motion before that we reduce the number of trees from 700 to

[2:52:48] 300, and I think we should just stick by that. They can put the pollinator fields

[2:52:53] in wherever they want, but the I think I think the intent of the of the um trees

[2:52:59] and shrubs is to screen. And I don't think a pollinator field does that. and

[2:53:05] I they they agreed to they agreed to the amendment to the to the site plan. So I

[2:53:10] think I think we're being more than accommodating by reducing the number of

[2:53:15] trees from 700 to 300. >> So I it's my feeling we just stick with

[2:53:21] that. >> Their pollinator field is going to be

[2:53:24] uped and plowed under when this when their project is done and you know

[2:53:29] reached its life was the trees going to be more of an everlap everlasting

[2:53:35] feature.

[2:53:38] » Shel, >> I suggest we find a different place for

[2:53:41] those 300 trees because the landscape architect has told us time and time

[2:53:45] again that we really don't have a place out there to put 300 additional trees.

[2:53:50] We could consider contracting with a different architect to see if maybe they

[2:53:54] can come up with a different location. But the architect that was used for this

[2:53:59] project has stated and put it in writing that there are no other places that he

[2:54:04] could find to put the trees on the property.

[2:54:09] [clears throat] >> Hus

[2:54:11] concern because that that keeps on coming up and [snorts] it seems like

[2:54:16] next year has tried to find some place to put these trees. The pro the adjacent

[2:54:21] property owners do not want them. It's hard to force them to take them

[2:54:28] because it's their property. Once again, we get back into that.

[2:54:31] » Dr. Steely is not going to let you put threes on his property.

[2:54:36] Well, here's my comments on this is um I don't I I'm way past the point of I

[2:54:42] understand um that based on our current landscape architect, which is fine, that

[2:54:48] there's no room to put them for further screening based on the type of tree or

[2:54:54] whatever all those reasons are, but I think we haven't done our due diligence

[2:55:00] to potentially see if there are other property owners than those that did not

[2:55:04] want them potenti potentially that would want a tree somewhere in their yard um

[2:55:11] to be given that opportunity. That's that's where I I sit with it. And

[2:55:16] [clears throat] is it can we help as a township to reach out to the residents

[2:55:20] to try to figure that out? Of course, we've said that all along. Um but um

[2:55:27] I don't think just saying that we're not going to give you 300 trees is

[2:55:30] acceptable. That's just right. >> I think there was another comment on on

[2:55:35] dollars. >> Can we just ask for a monetary amount

[2:55:37] and get this over with? >> I'd be in favor of that.

[2:55:41] » I I agree. I mean, this needs to be over. I don't believe the idea that they

[2:55:46] talked to the residents. They didn't talk to my kids. They didn't talk to the

[2:55:51] halfway house that's across the street >> to go out and talk to them that I know

[2:55:55] of. >> Right. I I know. I understand that. And

[2:55:58] And I've told the community people that say it. I go, "Come on down to a meeting

[2:56:03] and tell us we want trees. Here I am. Here's my name. Send me less trees."

[2:56:08] They don't come and do that. So >> I, you know, I think that maybe just get

[2:56:14] a payoff, be done with it. We're spending so much time on this that it's

[2:56:18] silly. I don't want to see him rewarded by saying

[2:56:23] bees are nicer than trees. It's just silly, you know. But get

[2:56:29] » pollinator fields in solar um commercial solar areas are becoming very very

[2:56:34] popular right now. This is just something that Next automatically is

[2:56:38] doing part of their due diligence when they're out there putting them in. It

[2:56:43] was an idea because we couldn't come to another resolution. When this one was

[2:56:48] presented I did mention, you know, this is taking too long. I don't think we're

[2:56:52] going to ever come to a resolution. What about the option of something monetarily

[2:56:57] coming to the township? Unless the township can figure out 300 a place to

[2:57:01] put 300 trees, a variety of on some of the parcels around here, I I don't see a

[2:57:09] way to get it out there. >> I'd be agreeable to that to a monetary

[2:57:15] solution. And who's >> in conjunction with the pollinator

[2:57:18] fields? >> Huh?

[2:57:20] » In conjunction with the pollinator fields [clears throat]

[2:57:23] » or are they doing those? >> I believe they voted against them or

[2:57:27] didn't want them out there. >> What?

[2:57:30] » I'm sorry. What are we talking about? What? Who does

[2:57:31] » in He's saying instead of the pollinator?

[2:57:34] » No, I think you're saying monetary and pollinator fields.

[2:57:37] » Yeah. >> Commissioner Wood. Sorry.

[2:57:40] » I guess I don't understand what our decision. We have nothing to do with

[2:57:44] whether they plant pollinator shrubs and trees and stuff on their

[2:57:48] property. It's their property. The the plan showed out in the middle of the

[2:57:54] properties where they put little plots with these wild flowers and stuff are

[2:57:59] pollinating. They have all the right to do that whenever they want.

[2:58:03] » This is something they wanted to present to try and come to an agreement so that

[2:58:08] this is not hanging out there and we continue to talk about it month after

[2:58:11] month. So if commissioners it's it's our opportunity you can make a motion

[2:58:16] whatever that might be whatever you would would like. The only thought

[2:58:20] process that I will have again um we're you discussing we don't have a motion

[2:58:24] but is whether or not um if we're going to do monetary who's going to figure out

[2:58:29] what that is or maybe Shelley already has an idea on that like on what trees

[2:58:33] there they were and how much they would be that would include what the tree the

[2:58:37] labor everything that they would have otherwise done you know [clears throat]

[2:58:41] just come up with a number >> we have a public

[2:58:43] » I'm sorry we're not in public comment time

[2:58:46] » Shelley do do you have any inclination what would be Okay.

[2:58:50] » I was given some figures by the landscape architect which I am not going

[2:58:53] to utilize. We will need to get our own figures from somewhere.

[2:58:58] » Okay. Would you be willing to negotiate with

[2:59:01] them? >> I

[2:59:04] can I'm not going to go out and call landscape companies and try and find

[2:59:08] out. That will be next era's job to do. >> Leave this to an administrative function

[2:59:14] and be done with it. Uh as a board just pass it on. Let Shel handle it.

[2:59:19] » You could certainly make that motion. Whatever.

[2:59:23] » She doesn't want it. >> I could [clears throat] We can come to

[2:59:26] an agreement. Obviously, I'd have to bring it to someone at the township when

[2:59:31] they decide what monetary amount they're going to give us if they will do so

[2:59:36] because I can't make that decision myself. So, it would have to go to

[2:59:40] somebody. >> And where does it go, too? Like, is it

[2:59:43] going in the general budget? I mean, that's none of my business. I'm just

[2:59:45] saying. >> That's what I'm thinking. That's what

[2:59:47] I'm thinking is like and where does it go? Right.

[2:59:50] » Some sort of [snorts] charity um function or something. Some sort of give

[2:59:55] back to community type thing. >> It might come up, you know, somewhere

[3:00:00] sometimes for a park.

[3:00:03] » Maybe [clears throat] the board can figure that out, right?

[3:00:06] » To local residents >> if they would.

[3:00:10] » It concerns me as a condition to be telling them that they have to pay you

[3:00:13] money instead of doing some function. that was approved site plan.

[3:00:17] » Yeah. Um >> I'm just throwing that out there.

[3:00:21] » Okay. Is everybody Did everybody hear what um Rob just mentioned?

[3:00:25] » No. I think that it concerns me a bit to say you don't have to do something on

[3:00:29] the site plan in exchange you can pay us some money.

[3:00:32] » I I don't think that you can just say that. I mean they can offer it up,

[3:00:37] » right? You could say you're not allowing the trees and maybe allow um uh the

[3:00:42] zoning administrator to negotiate, you know, whatever uh the best that she can

[3:00:48] for the township in lie of the trees. But I don't think you can demand that

[3:00:52] they pay you money uh for not putting the trees. You don't have a ordinance in

[3:00:57] that. some places like if they remove trees, require them to replace trees or

[3:01:01] pay into a tree fund, things of that sort, but those are even difficult

[3:01:06] ordinances to to have. Um, so I'm concerned that we just don't say, "Oh,

[3:01:11] they have to pay us instead of uh the requirement." They can certainly offer

[3:01:17] and say we we're willing to pay you x amount, you know, for into your general

[3:01:23] fund or towards parks or whatever it might be. There you go.

[3:01:27] » Um, in exchange, you know, and then we don't have to do the trees,

[3:01:32] » but that would have to be offer from them.

[3:01:34] » Did they offer? >> No.

[3:01:37] » Earlier in conversation back a year or so ago, whatever, when

[3:01:43] we [snorts] made the agreement not to put trees around Staley's property,

[3:01:48] » the house next door was gave $5,000. And I I was told this I haven't seen it in

[3:01:54] paperwork that they gave her $5,000 instead of putting the trees up. So they

[3:02:02] have started the precedence. I don't know if I can find documentation of it.

[3:02:07] » Speaking of Mrs. Staley, they did give her some a check. I do not believe it

[3:02:11] was 5,000. She was supposed to go and buy her own trees and have them planted.

[3:02:16] She has chosen not to do so. >> Right. Yep. [snorts] I guess that's what

[3:02:20] I was referring to. >> Okay,

[3:02:24] commissioners. >> Yeah, I mean they could choose to pay

[3:02:27] the property owners, surrounding property owners for planting of the

[3:02:31] trees and then it's on them whether or not they do it. Like you said, they paid

[3:02:35] that person >> and they just chose to

[3:02:38] » was that she was supposed to have those trees planted. That's the only reason

[3:02:41] she got them. >> Yeah, those are private private

[3:02:44] arrangements. I mean, not anything we can dictate really of what you want

[3:02:48] [clears throat] somebody else's property. [snorts]

[3:02:50] » Yeah. >> But what if we ask for a credit for

[3:02:55] future >> use? Just leave the credit with them.

[3:03:00] [sighs] >> This is getting to be

[3:03:03] » to their escro. >> This is getting to be

[3:03:05] » I I would think that probably the best thing is if you still want to consider

[3:03:08] this issue, table it. go back to them and say, "Hey, what would you know

[3:03:13] negotiate with them as to what they might be able to do instead of the

[3:03:18] trees?" >> And and they said, "What? A pollinator

[3:03:21] » pollinator field." >> Originally, they had agreed. Originally,

[3:03:26] we said 300 trees. They said, "Yes, we'll give you 300 trees." the township

[3:03:31] wanted them to >> deliver them to the individuals and

[3:03:36] plant them at the residence and that was not something that could be coordinated

[3:03:40] very well through any kind of a landscape company or anything. So then

[3:03:44] they come up with the idea of the pollinator fields.

[3:03:48] » So I think >> as a new alternative

[3:03:50] » I think I think in all fairness though should we at least respond to whether we

[3:03:54] want pollinator fields or not? Either say yes or no to that too. I mean they

[3:03:58] did a presentation Do we want to at least answer that and then postpone

[3:04:02] action to try to as Rob suggested >> because if it's part of your site plan

[3:04:08] or part of the approval that they need to do these trees then you're going to

[3:04:11] have to amend that as a planning commission and remove it

[3:04:15] » if it's a condition. >> Um so I would postpone it for now and I

[3:04:21] I I don't know enough about it. I know. No, I know. I know. And then we don't

[3:04:25] want to put you on the spot on this whole issue as you're sitting here next

[3:04:28] to us. >> I know that we can't just say pay us

[3:04:30] money and you know to do it >> or we have to amend the site plan

[3:04:34] because it was in the site plan. >> Right.

[3:04:37] » Okay. >> Make a motion to amend to give Shel time

[3:04:41] to come up with a plan to bring back to the planning commission for

[3:04:47] uh for amendment to the site plan and resolution.

[3:04:54] Is that too? >> Commissioner Biller, I for clarificate.

[3:04:59] » Yeah, clarify. >> Clarification of that motion. Are you

[3:05:02] saying um that you are um requesting that the zoning administrator

[3:05:08] um propose an amendment to the site plan and remove the trees?

[3:05:13] I'm suggesting that that we [clears throat]

[3:05:16] and have the zoning administrator um

[3:05:21] » come back with some final some >> new

[3:05:27] project

[3:05:31] discussions with the next [laughter]

[3:05:34] » so postpone the action and come up with some other ideas.

[3:05:37] » Yeah. Yep. Exactly. >> I got a question.

[3:05:41] » Okay. Wait. Is there a mo is there? That's the motion. Does anybody want to

[3:05:44] second it? >> That's the motion.

[3:05:46] » I think the motion was to postpone action and allow our zoning

[3:05:50] administrator opportunity to come up with other

[3:05:53] options. >> That's exactly what I said.

[3:05:58] » Okay,

[3:06:02] » just keep going. >> Another option.

[3:06:04] » Energizer Bunny. >> How many we going to have?

[3:06:07] » Is Was there a second or did I No, there's no second.

[3:06:10] » Second. Oh, the Steves. Okay, we've got Steve Buller and Steve Riggs.

[3:06:16] Commissioner Riggs, Commissioner Commissioner Buller, Commissioner Riggs.

[3:06:19] And the motion is to postpone action this evening and allow time for our

[3:06:24] zoning administrator to work with next year on other options.

[3:06:32] So for my own clarification that does that mean no to the pollinator fields?

[3:06:39] » Discussion Yeah, I didn't I didn't care for it.

[3:06:44] That could lead to that, but >> So, we still want that on the table.

[3:06:48] » Wait a minute. Are we in the are we in the discussion phase?

[3:06:50] » Yes. Sorry. You have a motion. Second. >> I have [clears throat] a question for

[3:06:53] Rob then. If I understood Rob correctly that anything other than the trees would

[3:07:01] require a site plan amendment. Correct. So a pollinator field in li of the trees

[3:07:08] would we would have to do a site plan amendment.

[3:07:10] » Sounds like the pollinator field was already on the site plan.

[3:07:14] [clears throat] No no no no. >> Okay.

[3:07:16] » No. >> Yeah. So if you wanted to do uh you know

[3:07:20] then that should be part of your site plan approval.

[3:07:23] » Sure. [laughter] >> Well yeah. So so actually even if we

[3:07:27] approve the pollinator fields we've still got to come back and

[3:07:30] » any would be a review. If you approve the pollinator field, that would be an

[3:07:34] amendment to the site plan. >> So, right now, what you're really

[3:07:38] considering are amendments to [snorts] the plan. Okay.

[3:07:41] » You know, whether you don't require the trees allow a pollinator field, but that

[3:07:45] doesn't sound like something that you really like that concept. I mean, that

[3:07:49] was just kind of what I was hearing. >> Amendment no matter what we do,

[3:07:53] » right? And so then you're saying the motion is to send Shel back to tell

[3:07:56] them, "Yeah, we really don't like the pollinator idea in exchange for the

[3:08:00] trees. Can you come up with a different idea? And then see what they say.

[3:08:05] » This is this is getting to be so long and drawn out situation. I don't think

[3:08:09] we're ever going to come to it. >> We're not in a position to to them. It's

[3:08:13] it's going to have to be done outside of this board.

[3:08:17] » Well, they can just they can come up with other solutions.

[3:08:21] » They have you have to comply and put [clears throat] in the trees or you have

[3:08:24] to release that as a condition the trees without them here to make the offer.

[3:08:30] been talking about this for how many years now?

[3:08:32] » Yeah. And I think it's time to >> I don't I'm inclined to just accept the

[3:08:37] pollinator [laughter] fields >> because I don't think [clears throat]

[3:08:39] we're ever going to come to a conclusion with trees.

[3:08:42] » I don't I I don't think logistically it's going to do get 300 and have them

[3:08:48] distributed. I don't I don't who in the township is going to do all that? You

[3:08:52] know, I'm thinking with with all the development that's going to be going on

[3:08:56] shortly, we're going to have some area we're going to want to buffer. something

[3:09:00] that wasn't thought of that >> we can buffer the properties down here.

[3:09:03] » Sure. >> 425 to the city. They'll end up with the

[3:09:06] trees. >> Yeah.

[3:09:07] » Plant all kinds of trees. >> That or or

[3:09:10] » had the idea. >> Oh, Richard had the idea, too.

[3:09:15] » Yeah. And again, like if they if you're saying that they have to provide you

[3:09:19] these trees to buffer somewhere else that um they're going to have to tell us

[3:09:26] that because you can't condition that. You can't make a developer

[3:09:30] » do public improvements outside of the >> sightines. So they're going to have to

[3:09:35] tell us that be okay with them to do something like that.

[3:09:39] » And maybe they would agree to >> but it'd be okay to ask.

[3:09:42] » Yeah, you could ask them, but they'd have to be their agree. They have to say

[3:09:45] they we can't require that. We have no ability to require that.

[3:09:50] » I missed that. I apologize for stepping away. My only thought process I think

[3:09:54] we're still on the motion to postpone, right? That's a discussion.

[3:09:57] » Yeah. >> Is um

[3:09:59] » if we're not going to put them where their purpose was intended, even with

[3:10:05] the site plan related to the solar or the people around the solar, then I'm

[3:10:10] not supportive of putting them elsewhere.

[3:10:14] » Yeah. I mean to me and I'm new to this whole issue which seems like it's gone

[3:10:19] for a while >> but if you don't want them to put in the

[3:10:22] trees then the simple solution is just to amend it and not make sight

[3:10:26] » put in the additional trees and if they want to do pollinator

[3:10:30] » if they're allowed to maybe they're required to by the site plan I don't

[3:10:33] know if it's in there >> can I withdraw my motion in in lie of

[3:10:37] Mr. flies. If you agree, you can do a friendly amendment.

[3:10:40] » Amendment. Friendly. Has to be friendly. >> I'd like to re withdraw my motion.

[3:10:49] » Is there an amendment to it or do you agree to

[3:10:54] » I don't [clears throat] I'm just saying I'm ready to be done with it because I

[3:10:56] don't think we're going to ever be able to come to an agreement on trees, all

[3:11:00] the logistics of it. >> The waters are too muddy, you know,

[3:11:04] at this point. I mean, we've been going on about this for months and months, and

[3:11:09] Shel's put a lot of work into it, and we still haven't come to a

[3:11:11] » long before I came on the board >> where we could come to an agreement. I'm

[3:11:14] I'm inclined to just uh move that we accept the pollinator fields and be done

[3:11:19] with it. >> Okay. Wait a minute.

[3:11:22] » So, would that require a site plan

[3:11:26] amendment? >> It is, but that is what your motion.

[3:11:29] » Yeah. Okay. I move. >> Why would we need why would we need a

[3:11:31] site plan for them to plant something on their property?

[3:11:35] anything they do uh they're bound by their site plan. It sounds like this is

[3:11:39] already part of the site plan. >> No, no, the pollinator fields itself but

[3:11:43] the trees. >> The trees. So, we got to amend the site

[3:11:47] plan to do away with the trees. >> And if you and they've offered up that

[3:11:50] they will do a pollinator if you want them to.

[3:11:53] » Yeah. And and due to the fact that the owners where the trees were going to go

[3:11:56] don't want them. I mean, we were we were doing the trees to protect them to begin

[3:12:01] with. Those owners don't want them.

[3:12:06] Okay, Shel. >> Shel,

[3:12:08] » the prior zoning administrator determined that these trees could be

[3:12:14] relocated on the property somewhere else. Since that zoning administrator

[3:12:21] made that determination, can I make the determination that we can remove those

[3:12:26] 700 trees from the site plan or does it have to go back through planning

[3:12:30] commission? Well, I think I think the planning comm I don't know what your

[3:12:36] ability as an administrative approval under your zoning ordinance is. Do you

[3:12:40] have administrative ability to amend site plans?

[3:12:43] » Yes. >> Yeah. There's different levels of

[3:12:47] previous zoning administrator determined that he had the authority to amend the

[3:12:51] site plan and make that determination. So, I'm wondering if I had that same

[3:12:57] » administrative authority. It's the same ordinance

[3:13:00] » and then it it is the same ordinance and then it doesn't go through planning

[3:13:04] commission. Correct. >> Right. Because you're making

[3:13:07] administrative uh review or determination.

[3:13:13] » The only thing that I'll share with that is,

[3:13:16] you know, I Shel can correct me on this, but in our zoning ordinance, it's got

[3:13:20] like a one and a two or an A and a B or whatever it is. you know, to agree to

[3:13:26] not have 700 trees as part of a site plan,

[3:13:29] » maybe a major revision that should come for but it's right here.

[3:13:34] » It's done now though. It's done now, right?

[3:13:35] » And it's been done. >> The previous administr uh some

[3:13:38] administrator. >> So, I think you're so

[3:13:41] » you're deal with the issue right now. I mean, if the motion Did you make a

[3:13:45] motion? I'm not sure if you made a motion.

[3:13:46] » Yes. >> Oh, what was the motion? Sorry, I didn't

[3:13:48] write. I move [clears throat] I [snorts] don't know how I stated it. I

[3:13:54] I move that we uh accept the pollinator fields as a

[3:14:00] site plan amendment in lie of the 300 trees that we had approved previously

[3:14:07] and then we'll be done with it. >> Is there a second?

[3:14:10] » Second. Okay, we got a motion by Commissioner

[3:14:13] Sly, seconded by Commissioner Redmond to accept the pollinator fields in lie of

[3:14:17] the 300 trees from next era serial city solar.

[3:14:24] Any further discussion?

[3:14:29] Okay. Do we need a roll call vote?

[3:14:33] » Um I'm review amendment.

[3:14:37] » Roll call. >> Roll call vote. It is Secretary Woods.

[3:14:42] » Uh, Commissioner Riggs, >> yes.

[3:14:45] » Mr. Summers, >> no.

[3:14:47] » Commissioner Redmond, >> yes.

[3:14:50] » Chair Johnson, >> no.

[3:14:54] » Vice Chair Sly, >> yes.

[3:14:57] » Commissioner Bowler,

[3:15:00] » yes. >> Commissioner Woods, yes.

[3:15:06] Five to two. I'm done with it, >> Shelly. Yay.

[3:15:11] [laughter] >> All right. [snorts]

[3:15:13] » Thank you, commissioners. I appreciate it very much.

[3:15:16] » Now, you can let us know when the pollinator fields are starting up. Yeah.

[3:15:19] All right. Very good. All right. Um, commissioners, we are now in audience.

[3:15:23] We are now under uh unfinished business. Um, item B and this is the reasonzoning

[3:15:31] applications for Marshall Area Economic Development Alliance of 31 parcels. Um

[3:15:36] commissioners just a couple thing before we get started is um we have a packet

[3:15:41] and um many of us were present for our August 4th meeting. Um following our

[3:15:47] August 4th meeting, I tried and you have it in the packet here. Tried to take

[3:15:52] what we said at that meeting related to a workshop is what we heard, a

[3:15:56] presentation workshop as well as a map, a big map and then um I think I even

[3:16:02] shared the meeting or maybe it was in my notes here afterwards. Um

[3:16:08] parcel GIS parcel map of each one of these, right? Um so since that time we

[3:16:13] also received um uh Mr. Lindseay from the audience also sent a letter to um

[3:16:19] email pardon me to Mr. Thaw um and it was dated August 13th and it is in the

[3:16:26] packet. I'm not going to read it in its entirety except for one paragraph. So,

[3:16:30] um, we'll make sure that this is reflected in the minutes. And it says,

[3:16:34] um, the PC determined at the August 4th meeting, not all capital, to set the

[3:16:39] public ma the matter for a public hearing on September 1st of 2026.

[3:16:43] Instead, the request was made for the scheduling of a separate meeting not

[3:16:47] required of any other applicants, past or present, um, to come back and answer

[3:16:52] questions about MA's quote plans. Subsequent to that request, nine days

[3:16:57] have elapsed and despite follow-up emails, no separate meeting has been

[3:17:01] scheduled. Instead, the chair, I think that means me, unilaterally is

[3:17:05] requesting various documents that are not required by the township ordinance

[3:17:09] and which are not required for submissions by other applicants. Her

[3:17:13] requests appear to be discriminatory as to ma relative to other applicants.

[3:17:18] And it appears that MA has been singled out for a different process than any

[3:17:23] other applicant in the township. The appearance is the public hearing is

[3:17:27] being delayed for some unstated purpose. So I will share some comments on that

[3:17:31] before we get to the scheduling that is commissioners. We were many of us were

[3:17:36] present at the August 4th meeting. We spoke at length about cooperation. I

[3:17:40] think we heard a lot about cooperation at that meeting um and the importance of

[3:17:44] it. And I ask each of you whether this email sent to our attorney by Mr.

[3:17:50] Lindseay reflects the cooperative approach that was discussed. I think we

[3:17:53] even had the chair of the board here talking about being a straight shooter.

[3:17:56] I think that's what we we heard at that meeting. This is not reflective of a

[3:18:01] cooperative effort. The plan as a plan commissioners, I'm going speak for

[3:18:04] myself. We have a clear responsibility under the zoning ordinance and the

[3:18:08] Michigan zoning enabling act to request information necessary to conduct a

[3:18:12] complete and accurate review of any matter brought to us. Due diligent is

[3:18:16] not optional. It is required. Our obligations to the township, to the

[3:18:19] public, and to the integrity of the planning process. With respect to the

[3:18:23] reference made about eight years of past practice, I will simply note that there

[3:18:27] is substantial documented history of items that were not accurate or

[3:18:30] appropriately completed during that period, not to mention the zoning map.

[3:18:34] We are committed to moving forward and improving our processes, but it is

[3:18:37] important to understand that past practice does not override ordinance

[3:18:40] requirements. I will also be clear, I will not have my integrity questioned.

[3:18:45] The tone and content of that email sent to our attorney raises concerns that

[3:18:48] communication may be intended to pressure, intimidate, or retaliate

[3:18:52] against the planning commission for performing its statuary statutory

[3:18:55] duties. That is not acceptable. We will continue to focus forward and we will

[3:18:59] continue to act responsibility. However, we will not allow anyone's sense of

[3:19:03] urgency to override the legal and procedural obligations we are required.

[3:19:07] That zoning report that you attached that email was handed out at that

[3:19:10] meeting. So, in full disclosure, I'm not going to I'm not going to have this type

[3:19:16] of retaliation towards me, directed towards me when we had a unanimous vote

[3:19:21] of this commission on how we were going to handle that. And I will leave it at

[3:19:25] that. So, moving on, Shel. >> I didn't realize that I had to have a

[3:19:30] full complete zoning administrator's report for the planning commission to

[3:19:34] set a public hearing. >> Well, the key to it is it was still

[3:19:37] handed out at that meeting. >> I wanted to state thank you.

[3:19:42] » The bottom line is that doesn't excuse the email. So, with that, moving

[3:19:46] forward, commissioners, did I miss anything? Was that didn't we hear a lot

[3:19:49] about cooperation at that meeting? >> Yep, it was. And we all voted on it.

[3:19:54] I was I was taken back by the response. >> Moving on and we will be setting and and

[3:20:01] moving forward >> with that we have what I heard at that

[3:20:07] meeting and is reflected in the minutes and commissioner I believe it was you

[3:20:10] who had asked for either a workshop or a presentation and then we have before us

[3:20:15] whether or not we want to how to proceed with setting public hearing dates. I

[3:20:19] don't know that we've ever had 31 zoning applications at one time. So,

[3:20:24] commissioners, I will leave it to you um on on how you would like to proceed

[3:20:27] forward.

[3:20:40] » Appreciate a lawyerly point of view on how we should address

[3:20:46] 31. >> Yeah. So, I mean obligations.

[3:20:49] » Yeah. It is unusual to have 31 reszoning applications at one time from an

[3:20:54] applicant. Um, what I would do is if I were looking at this, I mean, each one

[3:20:59] is going to have to be done separately. And what I would do is I would set them

[3:21:04] all for a date for a public hearing. You get through what you get through. And if

[3:21:09] there's more, then you set another date to get through the rest of them. And if

[3:21:14] there's more, you set another date. But you set them all originally for a

[3:21:18] hearing date and you [snorts] just work yourself because you don't know how many

[3:21:22] you might get through. Um you just work yourself through them. Whatever's left

[3:21:26] then you would postpone to the next meeting. Work [clears throat] through

[3:21:29] that. If there's more then you postpone the rest to the next you know however

[3:21:34] meetings it would take to get through it. You would do that because they're

[3:21:37] each separate public hearings uh as separate applications. And um you know,

[3:21:44] but I wouldn't just say, "Oh, it's a set two and then set two." Set them all. You

[3:21:49] get as far as you can get and then you just postpone the remainders to the a

[3:21:55] subsequent meeting. That's what I would recommend. And and really you shouldn't

[3:22:00] I know you want to have a presentation on it, but really a presentate once they

[3:22:04] file their application, it should all come under the public hearing. So when

[3:22:07] they do a presentation, we want that to be part of the public hearing. It should

[3:22:11] be part of the record that's set for that public hearing. So really it would

[3:22:16] be I would say you set it for a public hearing. They they certainly can then

[3:22:20] pres make a presentation to us. These are I'll just state this too though

[3:22:25] these are uh traditional reszoning requests. So they don't tell us specific

[3:22:30] uses. I know the public was like well what's going to be on there? Well a

[3:22:35] traditional reszoning is just to anything within that zoning district. uh

[3:22:39] any permitted or special land use. They don't have to. But then when you're

[3:22:43] considering it, you'll consider all the potential land uses in that district.

[3:22:48] There's also I mean they didn't do it this way, but and I don't know how

[3:22:51] familiar you are with conditional reszoning, but that's a different

[3:22:54] process where they actually say, "Okay, we're going to put this use here." you

[3:22:59] know, uh, we want it reszone to, uh, light industrial and this is going to be

[3:23:05] the use on it and we will set aside all the other uses in that district. It's

[3:23:11] just going to be this. So, you kind of know what's going to go on there. This

[3:23:14] is not the way this came forward. It's a traditional reasonzoning and that's

[3:23:18] something that you'll consider when you look at the standards and you know I'll

[3:23:22] review all the standards with you that you need to uh go over uh when you

[3:23:26] review these but really it would be set it for a public hearing get through as

[3:23:32] many of the hearings as possible and then whatever you don't you postpone to

[3:23:37] the next meeting. >> Okay. So my question would be so we only

[3:23:42] need to have one public hearing? No, you No.

[3:23:47] » So if if we get okay, say we set a public hearing for

[3:23:51] » our October meeting and we get through five of them,

[3:23:55] » right? >> So then do we have to set another public

[3:23:57] hearing for the next ones? >> No. So that's what I'm saying. This this

[3:24:00] all falls under one public hearing, >> right? One date for public hearings. So

[3:24:04] it's noticed out as we're going to consider all these. You get through as

[3:24:09] many as you can get through and as long as you uh do a time table. So like you

[3:24:15] table it to [clears throat] postpone it to a date certain the next meeting you

[3:24:18] say what date it is you say what time it is then you don't have to republish

[3:24:23] notice each time uh because you've noticed it all for the one hearing if

[3:24:27] you move more forward then they just move forward from that public hearing

[3:24:32] from the meeting. Okay. >> So so then my next question would be how

[3:24:36] how do we determine how many we get through? Is it on time or I mean is that

[3:24:40] up to us or >> It is up to you. Like you could set uh

[3:24:44] that we're going to meet for x number of hours and whatever we get through and

[3:24:48] that many planning commissions, you know, they they say like we're only

[3:24:52] going to meet for x amount of time and whatever we get through we get through.

[3:24:56] Whatever we don't we set to the next meeting because you might not be wanting

[3:25:00] to act on reszoning say at you know 10:30 at night. Would would that be

[3:25:06] would that be something that we need to put in the motion w for the public

[3:25:09] hearing? >> Uh, no. I think when you're when you're

[3:25:12] » just do it at the meeting. >> When you're at the meeting, I think you

[3:25:14] would somebody could make a procedural motion to say, "Okay, we're going to go

[3:25:18] until >> until 9:00 or whatever." Okay.

[3:25:20] » So, so Rob, if we pick a specific date and we, you know, we're going to we're

[3:25:24] going to advertise or or notice all of 31 parcels. We would also send that out.

[3:25:30] I mean it might be majority made but send it out [snorts] to all the parcel

[3:25:33] » everybody >> the 300 within 300 for that everybody

[3:25:38] within the >> everybody you you'll have published

[3:25:39] notice and you'll have the mailed notice for the whole all the restorings

[3:25:46] » can I make a suggestion the properties and I think Mr. Lindsay

[3:25:52] will agree with me. The properties that are becoming crucial are the ones

[3:25:58] adjacent to Michigan Avenue starting at 13 Mile Road and going

[3:26:03] [cough and clears throat] to 12mile Road because MD DOT's going into

[3:26:08] construction. And these properties need to be in need to be they need to be

[3:26:15] considered not then making us do all of them. the ones that are along the road

[3:26:21] need to be done. >> Prioritize.

[3:26:23] » Yeah. Priorities. So we the problem with us, we go through this packet, we try to

[3:26:27] look at 31 different things. If we knew that there was eight of them down

[3:26:32] through here, boom, boom, boom. >> Those are the ones to consider. Then we

[3:26:36] could research and look at them. >> Yeah, that makes sense to you guys.

[3:26:41] » That'd be part of the process. >> Yeah, I think they could tell us if

[3:26:44] there's certain >> tell us which ones are prioritized. that

[3:26:48] would be more priority. >> They're grouped.

[3:26:50] » Originally, they dropped off one application for all 31. Um, I had spoke

[3:26:55] to Dave Bosard regarding this project and I had even spoken to Rob about it.

[3:27:02] Um, there was a thought that we could have done five or six applications and

[3:27:07] included all of the parcels that are adjacent. What I got from Erin is a map

[3:27:15] showing what their thoughts are going to be in the future because your IP has to

[3:27:20] have 330 foot of frontage and 5 acres. None of these a majority of these

[3:27:25] parcels do not meet that. They also don't meet a they don't meet other

[3:27:30] districts that they're in. But you could consider grouping them like this. This

[3:27:35] is one individual parcel. This is an individual parcel. And then there are

[3:27:39] four that have combinations of parcels. >> And and that would that would be more

[3:27:44] common is what I would see with a resoning is not just a single parcel,

[3:27:49] but a group of adjacent parcels can be put together um for reson. So a lot of

[3:27:55] times the reasonzoning might cover a larger area, one resoning. And I think

[3:28:01] um what you just showed there shows like a grouping of so maybe when you take

[3:28:05] your public hearings you could take it by group if that's how they are because

[3:28:11] that makes sense that you take the contiguous parcels right

[3:28:14] » is one group the next contiguous set of parcels is another and so forth. So you

[3:28:19] could take it that way too. Yeah, I think in the packet and maybe it matches

[3:28:22] that it's got the >> prioritizing

[3:28:24] » the different tables, table one, table two,

[3:28:27] » different tables in here, too. >> And you could even then take you could

[3:28:31] open the hearings on each parcel within a group and then discuss them together.

[3:28:37] If it's if it's really one reszone area and then you're considering

[3:28:43] whether that whole area to be reszoned, the a lot of different things are on the

[3:28:48] table for the planning commission, whether it's that whole contiguous area

[3:28:52] or maybe a property not in that, you know, that you peel something off.

[3:28:56] There's different things that you can look at. Um,

[3:29:00] but maybe that's a good way to do it is if it is grouped to do it by groups. But

[3:29:06] I think what you do is you'd notice it all for public hearing and then if we

[3:29:10] have groups then we could do do it by group.

[3:29:15] And I think when we um when I was following up from that meeting just

[3:29:19] looking at your schedule as well and I know you had a court case but we were

[3:29:22] trying to figure out some dates so that we could you know didn't we weren't sure

[3:29:26] what we were doing with the presentation other than what was said at the workshop

[3:29:29] and like you said we can include it which I noted that we could potentially

[3:29:32] include it as far as part of the public hearing date. The dates that were thrown

[3:29:37] out were, you know, do we want to have a special meeting in se, you know,

[3:29:40] September 16th, 18th, October 21st, 23rd? Do we want a part of our meeting

[3:29:45] on the 20th? Start there. I mean, that's I'm just throwing out these dates

[3:29:48] because your availability and you know what whatever the PC wants to do,

[3:29:55] » have to factor in the noticing. >> Yes, that's what I was going to say. How

[3:29:59] long is it going to take to get to get property notices out for 31 properties?

[3:30:04] We can't set a date until we know that we can have

[3:30:08] » Well, you could set it. Just has to be farther enough out that we have to have

[3:30:11] 15 days notice in the newspaper. What's the lead time for your paper?

[3:30:15] » No concern about 31 properties and getting them all done. I will have all

[3:30:19] of the um addresses and everything. They will just get mailed out just like any

[3:30:22] other application would >> put all the hearing all in one. I think

[3:30:26] we can put it in one block. [snorts] It's not like we have to do every one

[3:30:29] block. No, but you what I'm asking is you've got to you got to mail out

[3:30:34] property notices to the people. >> Yeah, there's

[3:30:37] » a majority of them. >> Well, you got the people across the

[3:30:40] road. >> It's not going to be a problem getting

[3:30:42] those addresses and being able to get the notices out there

[3:30:46] that are the biggest hurdle which is >> and I I put this in that one email I

[3:30:52] sent out. It's 15 days we take what is the previous Saturday because that would

[3:30:56] be the newspaper and the advisor. we have to have it in by that Monday before

[3:31:02] whatever is whatever that 15 days you take it back whatever that previous

[3:31:06] Saturday is and then it has to be uh the the previous Monday. So as long as we

[3:31:12] have the information to be able to write out those notices [clears throat] we can

[3:31:18] send them out but we need that lead time before then. So if if like Carl needs to

[3:31:23] do something or Shel needs to do something, they may need a little bit

[3:31:26] more days, you know, beyond that Monday. You can't be like, "Oh, that Monday."

[3:31:30] But just we have to have the information by that that Monday so that we can send

[3:31:34] it to the newspaper. Um our contact >> that [clears throat] that doesn't help.

[3:31:39] I mean, you're you got to give us you got to give us how many days how many

[3:31:43] how many days notice do you need? >> It depends on the day you pick is what

[3:31:46] I'm trying to say. So you need 15 days. What's the lead? The lead time for the

[3:31:52] paper is how many days? >> You have the Monday before

[3:31:57] it's the Monday. [clears throat] Our contacts at the newspaper said that

[3:32:00] they want it on the Monday before uh uh before that Saturday.

[3:32:06] » So, it's got to be five days.

[3:32:10] » Well, on August 12th though, >> so it's 20 days.

[3:32:12] » What I understood from our conversation >> Wayne was two months. I said if you want

[3:32:18] to put it on so this is what I said if you want to put it on the the meeting

[3:32:24] a normal typical [clears throat] planning commission meeting the issues

[3:32:28] that arise is this is a Tuesday Carl only works on Wednesday and then he's

[3:32:34] not there until the following Monday so Carl has a partner and then Carl gets

[3:32:40] some of that information from the assessor which is on Tuesday so you just

[3:32:45] need to have it's a But we can advance before that because of who we have in

[3:32:49] the office that can get get the information out and he has access to it

[3:32:53] as well. But you know that's not the only thing he does.

[3:32:56] » You know like >> I think our schedule meeting in October

[3:33:00] is the date. >> Yeah.

[3:33:01] » I I put it all in black and white in that email and explain exactly how it

[3:33:05] should go. >> It's been changed.

[3:33:09] » Whatever the first two >> that makes sense. I mean

[3:33:12] » that gives us enough. >> What was that? I didn't hear it. What

[3:33:15] was that? >> I said it's I put it in that I tried to

[3:33:18] spell it out in that one email of exactly what it what it looks like. So,

[3:33:22] like I said, I said if you're going to try to do it on a planning commission

[3:33:27] normal meeting, it's easier if you're like we're in September. It's easier to

[3:33:31] put it on the November because we can definitely make it. It's a really tight

[3:33:35] turnaround to get it on the normal planning commission meeting for the next

[3:33:40] month just because of all all the the deadlines that have to happen and who

[3:33:45] would who's responsible for what within the office. That's all I'm saying.

[3:33:49] » That's exactly what I was asking. How long do you need? And you said two

[3:33:52] months now. >> I said I said if you don't do a special

[3:33:56] meeting, if you do a special meeting, yes,

[3:33:59] » you can do it sooner. >> Okay.

[3:34:02] So, are there what dates work? >> Could could we do it at the at the

[3:34:08] October >> meeting? Because isn't that later in the

[3:34:10] month anyways, like the 20th stuff

[3:34:13] » and then can we do it as a special meeting and do it like an hour before

[3:34:17] the regular meeting and then that would give us an hour to do that and then we

[3:34:22] we do another hour and a month later. >> We don't know what that meeting is going

[3:34:26] to entail by the time October gets here. I think our October meeting, whatever

[3:34:31] day it's now scheduled on, >> are we?

[3:34:35] » The 20th is our >> I thought in that email we got from you,

[3:34:40] Joanna, and we talked about changing it to October 21st.

[3:34:44] » Well, that was just I was trying to check the availability of Rob. So,

[3:34:49] » Right. >> Yeah.

[3:34:53] I [cough] mean, the 20th [clears throat and snorts] I normally do

[3:34:55] have a meeting that night. So, I mean the 21st

[3:35:00] looks better. >> Everybody hear that?

[3:35:04] » October 21st. >> So, we would potentially have a special

[3:35:08] meeting of what I'm hearing for October 21st if that works.

[3:35:14] » That's a Wednesday

[3:35:20] meeting. >> We changed that. remember

[3:35:23] » October 21st. Is that a >> Wednesday?

[3:35:26] » I'm sorry, guys. What does it say here? [clears throat]

[3:35:29] » We've got October 20th. What day is October 20th?

[3:35:32] » Tuesday is Tuesday. It's Tuesday >> is our regular meeting now.

[3:35:35] » Yes. For that month. >> Yeah.

[3:35:37] » But Rob can't make that date. So, we would change our regular meeting for

[3:35:41] October to the 21st >> to accommodate Rob.

[3:35:45] » I see. Okay. Hang on. >> [clears throat]

[3:35:50] » You want to wait a minute? >> Shelley, you said we didn't know how

[3:35:56] much we were going to have on the 21st. [clears throat]

[3:36:00] » It won't be this much. >> We don't have any idea what's going to

[3:36:03] be on the October meeting. We've got a long way until the October meeting here.

[3:36:07] So, >> people the next meeting.

[3:36:11] » Well, I mean, it's got to be in order. Yeah. I mean, we're

[3:36:14] » right. I mean, this might be full. I would say this will be Do we do take a

[3:36:20] number and whoever comes in first gets seen first and [clears throat] everybody

[3:36:24] after that does not get >> Well, I don't anticipate we'll even see

[3:36:29] anybody. >> Well, no, she doesn't. What she's saying

[3:36:32] is she doesn't know what's going to come in for the

[3:36:34] » for the meeting. >> Yeah, that we have no idea what might be

[3:36:38] before the planning commission for the October meeting at this point,

[3:36:41] » right? But as far as the reasonzoning,

[3:36:46] » that's where we adjust the group hearings, the bar

[3:36:53] [snorts] >> based upon whatever's on the agenda for

[3:36:55] that evening, >> but Rob can't make the 20th

[3:36:59] » our regular meeting. >> So 21st. [clears throat]

[3:37:02] » So do you want to bump the regular meeting to the 21st? You want to have a

[3:37:05] regular meeting on the 20th and a special meeting for the

[3:37:09] » So have a meeting back to back? >> Yeah. I don't know. That's what I'm

[3:37:12] asking. >> You guys decide. I mean, somebody make a

[3:37:15] motion. >> I'd rather have one meeting and if if we

[3:37:19] want to if we're worried about it, I'd rather do it before the regular meeting

[3:37:24] » so we don't have to vote on it at >> I don't even I can't even see. It's so

[3:37:30] blurry. 201 >> a couple hours. It will be the next day.

[3:37:35] like the 20th meeting last two days. >> It's ridiculous.

[3:37:41] » Our board rules and I I haven't followed it. Well, but it says it should end at

[3:37:46] 10 unless unanimous consent >> board or I don't know what your

[3:37:52] » We don't have that. We don't have >> I have no idea.

[3:37:55] » Should have bylaws. >> It's not in our bylaws.

[3:37:57] » I don't have anything like that in our bylaws.

[3:38:00] » But maybe we should have put something like that in our bylaws. Sorry, guys.

[3:38:03] » All right. Yeah, most boards put

[3:38:12] » we could if we if we bump the meeting to the 21st

[3:38:18] might be wasting Rob's time and

[3:38:22] we have and and if we have a lot of stuff come in what comes first?

[3:38:30] The public hearing. I mean just my opinion is you take what

[3:38:35] comes in first first. So like this first you might tell the next people if they

[3:38:41] file application they're not going to be heard until November

[3:38:43] » because the October meeting is full. >> Okay.

[3:38:50] » Let's move the [laughter] meeting to >> Okay. I'm going to make a motion.

[3:38:54] unheard of here, but let's make a motion that um we begin the process of the

[3:39:00] public hearing for the resoning applications of MA to October 21st and

[3:39:08] we will also change our meeting date from October 20th to October 21st.

[3:39:12] » Yep. >> Support.

[3:39:17] And then um >> is [clears throat] that slide? Um and

[3:39:21] then during that, I know there's been a lot of questions we've had from Aaron,

[3:39:25] Shelley's had them. Um Mr. Lindsay has as well on what the presentation would

[3:39:31] include. And Commissioner Buller, I'm putting you on the spot because I know

[3:39:34] you mentioned a workshop. Is there anything specific you want included in

[3:39:37] that you'd like them the the applicants to present? Yeah,

[3:39:41] » you got to go into it like like we don't know anything about what they're

[3:39:46] proposing and what they're wanting to do. And um I wasn't on the plan

[3:39:49] commission when the when everything the mega site started. I have no idea how

[3:39:54] all that came to be. It's baffling how that all happened.

[3:40:00] » So yeah, I'd like a complete education presentation on

[3:40:08] » on the project. >> Okay. how how it all ties in how

[3:40:11] everything you know start from the beginning and how did we get to where

[3:40:15] we're at. >> Commissioners, anything else so that we

[3:40:18] have it for the record again on what you want.

[3:40:21] » Two things. Let me get your motion first. Actually, please. Motion by

[3:40:26] Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Sly, that we have the we

[3:40:30] begin the resoning applications for MA on October 21st and we also make that

[3:40:36] our regular meeting of October 21st instead of October 20th.

[3:40:39] » Okay. >> I don't think I said it the exact same

[3:40:41] way, but that's one [snorts]

[3:40:49] » Did I interrupt somebody? Is there anybody any other thing else? Go ahead.

[3:40:53] And just can you say that you resolve and then we're going to do it by roll

[3:40:56] call vote because you're making a new regular meeting.

[3:41:01] » Okay. >> Okay. So her motion is to resolve to do

[3:41:05] that. >> Okay. I resolve to do that.

[3:41:07] » Resolve to begin the process. >> Resolve to set the meeting. It just just

[3:41:12] started out by saying that she resolved. [sighs]

[3:41:19] Um the motion is by commiss commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Sai to

[3:41:24] resolve that the we begin the reasonzoning applications of MA on

[3:41:28] October 21st and we resolve to have our meeting moved from October 20th to

[3:41:33] October 21st >> because then it's a regular meeting not

[3:41:37] a special

[3:41:41] » further discussion is there anything else you want presented please so that

[3:41:44] we answer the question okay I hear what What I hear is information about how

[3:41:52] this all began, the whole parcel, the whole area, and then, you know, probably

[3:41:57] putting some of these maps up on the screen. So, okay.

[3:42:06] » I don't know how what Steve, Commissioner Buller, is asking

[3:42:11] refers to the motion at all. I understand what you want to happen. It

[3:42:16] was it was just a discussion after the motion.

[3:42:23] » Erin, >> no. Erin, at our non-meating for the

[3:42:29] board back in June, you were prepared to give a presentation

[3:42:35] of of a

[3:42:39] made a wish type scenario for that area. Would that cover what some of what we're

[3:42:48] asking of you as far as the presentation? [clears throat]

[3:42:50] » It could. Yeah. So, that presentation relates to the development plan that MA

[3:42:55] has produced for the campus, which is a part of why this resoning request has

[3:43:01] come through. So, I think we can tie some of that with the more specifics

[3:43:06] regarding the request and how it meets the criteria of the township and

[3:43:11] hopefully meet what you guys want. And obviously you can ask questions, we can

[3:43:15] go through it. But yeah, I mean we're we're totally open to grouping parcels

[3:43:19] as was discussed. Um, you know, it was requested that we do 31 separate

[3:43:24] applications and so that's how we submitted it. But like there are

[3:43:27] groupings of parcels that can be looked at more collectively as opposed to

[3:43:30] individual parcels because to Shell's point like they don't meet the five acre

[3:43:34] requirement on their own, right? And so we can we can talk to that and speak to

[3:43:38] it. I was just trying to so I know that you

[3:43:42] prepared to give presentation that [clears throat] evening but couldn't you

[3:43:46] showed me a little bit after the meeting was adjourned

[3:43:51] that hey this is what I had was going to give and I'm just thinking that that

[3:43:55] presentation kind of offer >> Yeah. Yeah. I think we can tie what we

[3:43:59] were planning to do that evening with the application if that's desirable for

[3:44:03] the for the PC. Just >> trying to y

[3:44:05] » connect things there see if that would help at all. Okay. Thanks.

[3:44:11] » Any other comments? With that, Secretary Woods, roll call

[3:44:16] vote, please. >> Mr. Summers.

[3:44:20] » Yes. >> Commissioner Redmond,

[3:44:23] » yes. [clears throat]

[3:44:25] » Chair Johnson, >> yes.

[3:44:27] » Vice Chair Sly, >> yes.

[3:44:30] » Commissioner Buller, >> yes.

[3:44:32] » Secretary Woods, yes. Commissioner Ruigs,

[3:44:35] » yes. >> 70. Commissioners, at this late hour, it

[3:44:39] is 10:45. Um, I'm going to ask if it's okay if we get through new business and

[3:44:45] public comments, maybe commissioner comments, but the rest of the

[3:44:48] communications, can we just unless there's something really

[3:44:52] earthshattering? So, can we just postpone that or just add it to our next

[3:44:56] meeting? Anybody good with that?

[3:45:00] » All right, let's get to the next item and then we'll see [clears throat] how

[3:45:02] how quick we get through it. But I'm hoping that we can forego communications

[3:45:06] for this evening. Amen. >> Um meeting schedule. Um we have a

[3:45:12] November meeting date and it's at the fire station unless there's an emergency

[3:45:17] here, but there's an election. Um so we can't use this room and you know we can

[3:45:22] I'm just trying to figure out if we can we can do this at another meeting too in

[3:45:25] October. But can we not have a meeting at the fire station and try to

[3:45:30] reschedule that meeting so we can have it here? I mean, it was no fault of

[3:45:34] anybody, but it was we wasn't recorded and we've learned to rely on that. And

[3:45:38] » sounds good. >> So, the only thought process I w I had

[3:45:41] was does the 9th or 11th work for anybody that week if the call is open?

[3:45:51] » November 9th or 11th.

[3:45:58] » You want to make a motion? resolve to change that meeting.

[3:46:04] » I'll make a motion. >> Which date?

[3:46:11] » 11th. You said >> I'm just throwing that out there.

[3:46:13] Whatever. >> Either one.

[3:46:15] » Either way. >> Either way.

[3:46:16] » Let's go. >> What day is election day? The 3rd.

[3:46:21] » On the third. The third. >> November 3rd. What is everybody doing?

[3:46:25] » Okay. You >> What is the motion, Commissioner Woods?

[3:46:29] to change the resolve to change the November meeting date from November

[3:46:35] » 3rd to November 11th. >> Sounds good to me.

[3:46:40] » Okay. >> Is there a second?

[3:46:44] [snorts]

[3:46:47] » Summers. Any further discussion?

[3:46:51] Okay. All those in favor signify. >> I'm sorry.

[3:46:54] » The 11th. >> The 11th.

[3:46:55] » 11th. Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I.

[3:47:00] » I. >> All those opposed, same sign.

[3:47:02] » A holiday. It's just a holiday.

[3:47:08] » Is the 11th? >> Is that a I'm just saying. Is that a

[3:47:11] government? >> He's our veteran.

[3:47:13] » So, >> you're going to be able to come

[3:47:14] » for this township holiday? >> No.

[3:47:17] » No. >> Is that okay? Yes. Okay.

[3:47:21] » He's our veteran. >> Okay.

[3:47:23] » He asked for it. Um, and I want to thank the Michigan Department of

[3:47:27] Transportation, who I think the attorney is in the audience. This is [laughter]

[3:47:31] really not normal, honest. Um, but resoning applications from the Michigan

[3:47:35] Department of Transportation. There are two parcels noted here on the agenda.

[3:47:40] Um, that we have applications for um, resoning from community service

[3:47:46] commercial to highway service commercial. Um, and um, are you Devon?

[3:47:51] » Yeah, Devon Sullivan. >> Mr. Sullivan. Um, so you're at the

[3:47:56] podium. Feel free to since you've been here for three hours,

[3:48:01] » it's late. I'm not very much of your time. Uh, yeah, this is a request to

[3:48:04] reszone two tax parcels that are uh inside of the carpool lot that was

[3:48:09] constructed by MD DOT. Uh, when the lot was constructed, it was believed that

[3:48:12] everything was already zoned highway service commercial based upon the county

[3:48:16] GIS. Uh we later learned from Shelley that that was not correct. That two of

[3:48:19] the parcels are community service where our car poolool lot is permitted by

[3:48:23] special uh use but not as a matter of right. And so we're just looking to get

[3:48:27] them reszoned to basically clean them up.

[3:48:31] » I I only have one question for you. Is there any particular I know you have it

[3:48:34] although MDOT is exempt from such zoning requirements. Is there anything that you

[3:48:38] can point to that states that? Uh so there's case law that addresses uh

[3:48:42] situations where the legislature has um uh preempted zoning uh by granting sort

[3:48:50] of total control over a particular thing to a particular um entity. Uh so as an

[3:48:56] example, there's a case on the county choice of where it puts its uh building

[3:49:00] for county seat [clears throat] is not something that's subject to tenative

[3:49:03] zoning because it is entirely within the county's authority to do so. There's not

[3:49:07] a specific case out there about EMBA. It's never been litigated, but that is

[3:49:11] sort of the position of the attorney general that it's uh, you know, exempt

[3:49:13] from zoning, but that being said, we're happy to work with the township and get

[3:49:17] them reszoned and just, you know, avoid the issue.

[3:49:19] » Okay. >> Obviously,

[3:49:22] » I notic on the application there's only one parcel number listed,

[3:49:28] not >> two applications.

[3:49:30] » Yes,

[3:49:33] » there's only one in the packet.

[3:49:40] Where are we at here? What page?

[3:49:45] » Let's see. This is way >> for both. That's fine.

[3:49:50] » Okay.

[3:49:58] » Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. I don't know that. Any other questions for Mr.

[3:50:01] Sullivan at the moment? >> Okay. Um, so we need to set a public

[3:50:05] hearing date

[3:50:17] » September at this rate be January, February.

[3:50:24] » Is that November 11th? >> Yeah, let's do November 11th.

[3:50:30] » Yeah, November 11th.

[3:50:34] I'm just throwing that out there. Commissioners

[3:50:38] about that. >> Okay. I move we set the public hearing

[3:50:42] for the MD property reszone to November 11th, 2026.

[3:50:52] » Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner, seconded by Commissioner

[3:50:55] Woods to set the Michigan Department of Transportation public hearing for

[3:50:59] November 11th. That is at 7:00. um as well. Um any further discussion

[3:51:09] » by saying I >> I

[3:51:11] » all those opposed same sign there's only one person on the

[3:51:16] » commissioners can we um postpone for our >> anything is there anybody want to talk

[3:51:22] about anything under communications Shelley as well anybody want to

[3:51:27] have any further conversation [snorts] on any of those items or can we

[3:51:30] » move on to public comments >> page So, let's move on to public hands.

[3:51:34] » Okay. All right. Is there any public left for public comments?

[3:51:42] [laughter]

[3:51:49] » Yes, it's going to be worth the wait. uh

[3:51:57] » will uh start contemplating a moratorium on meetings lasting longer than 10:00.

[3:52:04] » Really my fault, my responsibility. >> Okay, we'll blame you for it.

[3:52:09] » Yep. >> Uh again, the data center issue

[3:52:17] » for uh

[3:52:22] Handing of the AI

[3:52:26] development agenda was unilaterally handed over to Oracle.

[3:52:38] There's some problems with Oracle uh and particularly their association with

[3:52:44] Palunteer. Uh they are trying to set up a

[3:52:51] systemated

[3:52:56] or I don't know what's going on here. >> You might be tired.

[3:53:01] » Sorry. [snorts] >> That's true. Uh yeah, and on the

[3:53:06] surveillance system uh and uh we are currently being gaslit into

[3:53:14] thinking that it uh this AI

[3:53:20] agenda is something that we are demanding.

[3:53:25] We are being told you know this is all gaslighting. We are being told we need

[3:53:29] it. Uh the actual uh over I think it's over 95% of the

[3:53:38] projected use of AI centers is not going to be by the average consumer. It's

[3:53:44] going to be by government and business operating together. Now,

[3:53:51] I don't know if you know your history very well, but uh Bonito Mussolini was

[3:53:55] very clear about the merging of business uh government and the military.

[3:54:05] [cough and clears throat] And uh that seems to to be what we're seeing here is

[3:54:10] that uh there seems to be a

[3:54:16] eagerness to accommodate the demands of corporate

[3:54:22] entities while being essentially indifferent to the real concerns of real

[3:54:28] people.

[3:54:32] And there are already many problematic

[3:54:37] aspects of uh AI that are starting to manifest

[3:54:42] particularly with the phenomenon called loss of control incident

[3:54:49] where they're finding that this uh now you've heard the argument AI is just a

[3:54:55] tool. Well, you know, a hammer is just a tool. A

[3:55:00] shovel is just a tool. But a hammer and a shovel can't think

[3:55:06] for itself. Can't make its own decisions. [clears throat] It requires

[3:55:10] somebody to manipulate it. This ability to manipulate has been lost

[3:55:17] in numerous instances. and they've seen instances of what we could legitimately

[3:55:27] label as expressions of evil where AI has

[3:55:33] uh talked teenagers into committing

[3:55:36] suicide. uh tried to uh blackmail a uh a tech

[3:55:46] manager when it found out that the tech manager was planning on disabling the

[3:55:51] AI. Uh

[3:55:55] there's a lot more to this AI business than we are being told.

[3:56:00] uh and the notion that

[3:56:06] uh we have to keep up with China in the AI race when we already have 10 times

[3:56:14] more data centers than China and China has three times the population that we

[3:56:20] do. So, uh, I don't know if it's our al

[3:56:26] algorithms are deficient or the Chinese just know how to

[3:56:32] make more intelligence out of a smaller amount of data.

[3:56:36] [clears throat] But, uh, when it comes down to it,

[3:56:41] AI cannot do the hard real work of the world. Uh,

[3:56:46] » 10 seconds. Well, you've seen some of these robots

[3:56:50] try to do things and it looks ridiculous, but beware of AI, beware of

[3:56:54] Palunteer, beware of Oracle. >> Thank you,

[3:57:00] » Rebecca Sebring, historical marshall. You guys did a great job to the council.

[3:57:04] Thank you. You were rocking it. Thank you for protecting us and looking out

[3:57:10] for our interest. Um, I just I'm totally opposed to the data center. Honestly,

[3:57:16] it's going to have children will have heart attacks. You'll have early onset

[3:57:20] dementia, all kinds of stuff. Um, and there is a

[3:57:25] data center in the center of town, but it's a different type. It's been there

[3:57:28] for many years. Just saying. All your solar panels and the mega site with its

[3:57:34] now armed military. And there's Oh, by the way, my intel

[3:57:39] people on from the inside tell me there's huge rooms that only the Chinese

[3:57:43] can go in. You don't know exactly what's on that site. Apparently, the city

[3:57:48] council bought the burm and the drainage. Why don't we take that

[3:57:51] military stance burm and you know what I'm talking about. Take that baby right

[3:57:56] down. Flatten it. It'll be cheaper in the future anyways. And you'll be able

[3:58:01] to see what's going on there. >> They're here.

[3:58:07] » Thank you you guys. You did a great job for you guys.

[3:58:13] » All right. A point of order.

[3:58:20] Laura Valentine, resident of Marshall,

[3:58:24] teacher, local artist. I am not for this data center and I'm

[3:58:31] not for the ram and cram methods that the MA does. And I am also aware that if

[3:58:39] you look up the authority of our MA with Lancing, that authority has been

[3:58:47] stripped since 2019 to make purchase agreements.

[3:58:55] Look that up. The Ram and CRA method

[3:59:01] isn't welcome here. We are Marshall and we don't want our ambiance of beautiful

[3:59:09] small town Marshall.

[3:59:15] Okay, imagine being on a beach and

[3:59:22] your toddler has a bucket of very muddy sand and the toddler decides to open

[3:59:29] that bucket up and dump it on your other toddler.

[3:59:35] Well, this this data center you you might as well we all are under that

[3:59:43] bucket. We are all under the bucket. Okay, the data center is not just mass

[3:59:49] surveillance. It's

[3:59:53] okay. There's many other reasons why we have a data center to track money

[3:59:58] that's been paid nefariously to certain people in all

[4:00:05] levels of government to track pedophiles

[4:00:11] in all levels [snorts]

[4:00:16] of state and local schools, churches, government

[4:00:22] communities. So that bucket of mud is going over all

[4:00:28] of us. And did we ask for it? Maybe it's a need that's necessary as

[4:00:35] far as state and federal, but is it legal

[4:00:42] for our right to privacy?

[4:00:47] Is it legal to premeditate the property damage of school properties

[4:00:58] because those schools are only maybe less than a mile away and I am a

[4:01:05] certified teacher and I've substitute taught most of my career away help while

[4:01:10] helping everyone else and raising my own family and now I'm home health caring my

[4:01:15] parents at the age of 88 and 90 and my mom has COPD. My dad, they both have

[4:01:23] bone on bone knees that my dad can't see. So, the idea of more VOCC's in the

[4:01:30] air, not welcome for me. I don't want the

[4:01:36] ambiance of three lawnmowers running 247 while I'm

[4:01:43] giving the the meat test to my students at at Hughes Elementary School when I'm

[4:01:49] substitute teaching. [clears throat]

[4:01:53] I don't want it. I don't think any teacher wants it. I don't think any

[4:01:58] parent wants it. Thank you for standing up for us and

[4:02:04] thank you for making

[4:02:09] some fire happen tonight.

[4:02:14] » It was awesome. We need more of that. >> Thank you.

[4:02:19] » Any other comments? Okay, commissioners, any comments?

[4:02:27] Well,

[4:02:30] » I brought cookies. >> Okay. Well, good. That's great. That's

[4:02:34] great. Um, the only thing I say is again, I think having

[4:02:39] » we scrambled to have two public hearings on this meeting and it's a lot in one

[4:02:43] meeting and along with everything else. So, I take full responsibility for the

[4:02:47] agenda. I'm just trying to make it happen and u my apologies that it's

[4:02:51] 11:03. So, Rob, thank you for being here. Thank you guys for sticking it all

[4:02:55] out. Um, I'll pass it on. >> Anybody want to make a motion to adjurnn

[4:03:00] at 11:03? >> Motion to adjurnn.

[4:03:03] » Thank you. >> At um 11:03 [snorts] and Buller. Okay.

[4:03:07] » Steve and Steve. >> All those in favor signify by saying I.

[4:03:10] The meeting is adjourned at 11:03.

2026-09-01 Marshall Township Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript