[3:40] Our
[3:51] God and heavenly father, we come tonight
as we begin this uh planning commission
[3:58] meeting to ask of you to grant us
wisdom, grant us guidance as we discuss
[4:03] the matters of this township. help us to
make uh decisions that are
[4:10] work for the township and are pleasing
to you. Pray this in Jesus name. Amen.
[4:19] » Do we have any public comments?
[4:26] » Okay, then we're going on to the next
approval of agenda items. We are going
[4:32] to delete the land division act. We do
not have that readily available for us.
[4:37] And we're going to add um introduction
to manager Howard Fist Pink.
[4:46] Thanks, Howard. Would you like to
introduce yourself to us?
[4:54] Me and my family. We live in on the
north side of Holland. Um, I have been
[5:00] in local government management for over
20ish now, maybe 25 years. Uh, I have a
[5:08] degree in planning. Um, so, uh, you
know, one of my expertises is zoning and
[5:14] planning. Um, I have a master's in urban
planning from, uh, University of
[5:18] Illinois at Chicago. Um and uh so I I do
plan to be present at many of the
[5:27] planning commission meetings and to
assist you in in best way that I can uh
[5:33] provide you good information and data
and be a resource in case you guys want
[5:39] something reviewed, researched, um a
deeper dive, if you will. One area that
[5:46] I have quite a bit of experience in is
farmland preservation. Um there's a
[5:52] there's kind of some funny stories as to
how that expertise came. Um but uh
[5:58] sufficees to say I was in an area where
that was uh a huge um uh important topic
[6:05] and and one that was focused on and so
um I have quite a bit of background and
[6:10] education in that. Um and would love to
impart that to you all. Uh and obviously
[6:17] um uh continue to to have that
discussion of what does farmland
[6:22] preservation look like and how do you
actually do it? um as opposed to um you
[6:28] know firing it. Um so that's me in a
nutshell. Um I have a family. Um my wife
[6:38] is a teacher at Black River. Uh my two
kids go to Black River as well. They're
[6:42] 11 and nine. And I have enjoyed very
much the last two, three weeks. That's
[6:48] been quite a a lot to get thrown at uh
in terms of, you know, just trying to
[6:54] digest all of the things and uh figuring
out where everything is located and all
[6:59] the new information. But what I would
say is I've I've very much enjoyed the
[7:03] people. I've enjoyed the board. Um I I
it really does feel like a great fit. Uh
[7:07] and I hope it's a long-term fit. So with
that, um you have any questions?
[7:13] » Thank you, Howard. Anybody have a
question for them?
[7:17] Welcome to Zealand Township.
Okay, on to the minutes. I will need to
[7:25] have an approval of the August 11, 2026
planning commission meeting minutes. Is
[7:32] there any changes or are we ready for an
approval?
[7:41] » Favor say I.
>> I oppose. Same sign. minutes have been
[7:46] approved.
We will then go on to the discussion
[7:50] items.
Um Howard, would you like to take number
[7:55] A, which is a draft community engagement
plan?
[8:00] » Yes. Um so in your packets um we uh have
outlined
[8:07] um the engagement plan that staff has
been working on. Um,
[8:13] one of the things that we need to do
today is to
[8:18] provide that to you all. Um, and then,
uh, at a a subsequent meeting, the
[8:23] planning commission will sort of
officially take over the process of the
[8:27] community engagement plan, uh, the
master plan survey and and other
[8:32] elements of the master plan. Um, the the
key for tonight is to really get the
[8:39] survey done. The community engagement
plan is is also in front of you. Uh
[8:43] fundamentally we are looking at a
planning process that includes kind of
[8:49] three educational sessions. One
educational session on farmland
[8:53] preservation, one educational session on
housing and one educational session on
[8:59] kind of data centers and and
renewable energy. Along with those
[9:05] education centers, there will also be
work uh group uh or focus groups. Um and
[9:11] and Tanya and her team at Williamson
Works will be facilitating those kind of
[9:16] community meetings. Um there will be a
kind of community meeting gathering on
[9:22] each of those three topics. Um and then
uh lastly
[9:28] uh kind of kind of putting it all
together on a from a land use package as
[9:33] well. Um
following that uh you know obviously
[9:39] we're working on um the master plan and
the various chapters. Uh some of those
[9:45] chapters will be completed by the time
that it comes to you officially. Uh but
[9:49] there will still be quite a bit of leg
work to to pick up once it is in front
[9:55] of the planning commission. Um uh Tanya
is your point person uh for the all
[10:01] things process in terms of the master
plan. Uh but that doesn't mean that you
[10:05] have to comply with the thought process
that we had had with those three areas
[10:10] you know farmland preservation housing
and data centers renewable energy. you
[10:16] can you could shift uh those those are
the three areas that we felt were kind
[10:21] of critical to this master planning
process. Um and so we think that there's
[10:26] a lot of value in those three areas. Um
but again once it's in the planning
[10:31] commission hands uh it's your decision
of how you feel best uh to engage the
[10:37] community uh to gather feedback from
various stakeholders um and and
[10:42] eventually to you know facilitate the
creation of the master plan. Um Tanya
[10:48] did I miss anything?
[11:06] Tanya maybe if
[11:11] I go ahead and introduce Tanya.
[laughter]
[11:15] » Okay, let's go to B.
We're going to look at the draft survey
[11:20] and this is where supervisor Bosma will
introduce um Tanya.
[11:27] » Thank you Tanya for coming on out. So I
just wanted to take a few moments
[11:31] because it is worthy of a pause of a
meeting to highlight um planner deva um
[11:38] as we all lovingly call her Tanya. I
just want to say thank you so much.
[11:42] she's come to um interview when we were
looking at different planners in a
[11:47] blizzard, like legitimate blizzard came
over here when we were trying to figure
[11:51] out who we were going to work with. Not
only did she impress many of us with
[11:56] just her compassion of the pressures
that our township currently faces, she
[12:00] also has worked with the communities
that have dealt with some of the
[12:03] pressures that we are currently facing.
So, I'm very excited to see how she can
[12:07] help really help you all plan through
this. just I I took a few notes. So, she
[12:13] is um an AICP
planner. Um going through the Williams
[12:19] and Works um on their website, you'll
see Williams and Works, we build
[12:22] relationships with our clients. We work
with you, not for you. Being an
[12:27] employeeowned company means that our
attention to detail costs is extremely
[12:31] important. We mean team approach to our
assignments and collectively strive to a
[12:35] more efficient and economical in our
business practices. we frequently
[12:40] collaborate to um develop
[clears throat]
[12:43] uh I mean and then they go on to all of
these different tasks that they can and
[12:47] I would just like to say her attention
to detail of what she's been doing for
[12:51] our um the committee that's been working
on the master plan. I've been really
[12:56] appreciative of the work that she's
done. I you all are in good hands
[13:00] because I know that this can be taxing
but she is definitely has the colle um
[13:05] approach and is very very kind but very
knowledgeable and when we talk about hey
[13:12] there's this timeline of of these three
training sessions that to go through
[13:16] there'll be a training session at the
planning commission and then there'll be
[13:19] a public engagement and that is where
her and her her team really shine
[13:24] brightly even more so than what we've
seen here. I've been out meeting
[13:28] multiple different municipalities across
the region here this the past year and
[13:33] when people have found out that we're
redoing our master plan and they always
[13:37] ask who are you using and every single
party has said to me that is so great
[13:43] that your township chose Williams and
work so I just want to tee up Tanya
[13:47] thank you
[laughter]
[13:50] thank you um [clears throat]
so um so yes so hi it's nice to meet all
[13:56] of you. I'm excited to to work with you.
Um, so just to kind of pick that up. So,
[14:03] um, I guess so would you like me to do
talk about the survey itself or I wasn't
[14:07] quite sure in in terms of responding to
Howard's thing. Where would you like me
[14:11] to kind of go ahead and and start?
>> Why don't you respond to Howard first
[14:15] and then we'll get into the survey
because we really want to digest that.
[14:19] » Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That sounds good. Um,
so yes, like what Howard laid out. Um
[14:23] and then what supervisor Bosma um or
Carrie uh you know by the way call me
[14:28] Tanya don't ever call me planner de
Alivera that's very it's very it was
[14:32] very nice but I'm Tanya um so we have
been um developing something that we
[14:38] feel like is responsive to what your
community um is has desired. So um we've
[14:44] been I've been working with the your
community for several months in the
[14:48] sense of with the steering committee
developing a couple of what I call
[14:51] objective chapters. So these are
chapters that more or less document the
[14:55] state of the community whether it's like
the condition of the roads or hydraology
[14:59] and you'll get those later. Today, um,
we want to focus on community engagement
[15:05] and I'm here to be as responsive to, um,
ask answering questions, asking
[15:11] questions, um, doing things for
community engagement that help, um,
[15:16] educate um, answer questions and really
develop a master plan that will be
[15:21] useful to the planning commission and
the township board members as well as
[15:25] approachable for your community members.
Um, I, you know, I'm happy to kind of
[15:31] make the master well of course make the
master plan what you guys like, but I
[15:34] kind of like the less is more and not
esoteric and not full of words and you
[15:39] know um really unnecessary information
when that can mean a different things to
[15:44] different communities. Um but we really
want to dial in and make sure that we
[15:48] get the engagement uh right and is
flexible and fluid um but yet is um
[15:54] intentional to help us then it's not
just engagement for engagement sake but
[15:59] inform what the goals of the master plan
will end up being inform the uh the
[16:04] future land use map and uh the classes
right the narratives that are inform the
[16:09] names that are on those maps as well as
like the implementation chapter. So
[16:14] everything that we're doing for
community engagement, all the questions,
[16:18] all the activities during the workshops,
the the the dialogues that we will have
[16:23] are going to be intentional and we will
do our best to weave those together in a
[16:28] report succinctly that over the course
of a couple months you might be sort of
[16:33] head might be spinning. But the idea is
is through at the end of the engagement
[16:37] process or time when we go say when we
go to work on all right well what should
[16:41] the goals of the master plan be or that
future land use map and those
[16:45] narratives. Well I know what I I know
what I bring to the table you know I
[16:49] have my institutional knowledge the hats
I wear the people I talk with the groups
[16:53] I kind of represent but what did the
community say again a couple months ago?
[16:57] That report um will be there that
documents the things that happen as well
[17:02] as tell the story. So you can have your
institutional knowledge with that
[17:07] compendium or that whole resource that
documents and is is transparent
[17:11] summarizes um the engagement that
happens and the results. So um that's
[17:16] just to say uh you know I'm happy to
move at the pace of the um the community
[17:22] in terms of you know keeping things
moving along but if we need to spend a
[17:25] little bit more time happy to do that.
um if we need to kind of move things
[17:29] along a little bit because everybody's
sort of getting the point and or there's
[17:33] people just have fewer questions, I'm
happy to do that as well. Um and I think
[17:38] you could kind of speak to that because
we've had some um some changes along the
[17:41] way in terms of the way the master plan
has kind of we're meeting and how things
[17:46] are changing here. And I I'm again I'm
happy to respond to what the community
[17:50] wants and is best for the development of
a master plan that will be most useful
[17:54] to Zealand Township. So, um, that's kind
of my response to Howard. Um, I'm happy
[18:00] to move on and, um, address any other
comments or questions.
[18:06] » Planning Commission have any comments,
questions, or anything we want to add?
[18:15] Anything else you want to add to that?
>> Good.
[18:19] » Got a question.
>> Yes.
[18:21] » How have things been going so far? I
mean, as far as pacing or how you how
[18:25] this process typically goes, any
surprises?
[18:27] » Um, no. I think what I've been pleased
at one, um, so the steering committee,
[18:32] we've met, um, for the last several
months, the pace has been, um, so with
[18:39] with the master plan, you kind of follow
you do a couple chapters that again, I
[18:42] call them the objective chapters. They
document things. Um, I bring I brought
[18:46] them forward a chapter at a time uh, to
the steering committee members. you
[18:50] know, they have like a week or so to
review the chapter. Um, and then at the
[18:54] meeting, we come and discuss edits. You
know, you guys know the community better
[18:57] than I do. It's only as good as the
information we have access to. And the
[19:01] group uh comes back with edits. And
that's good because I know if nobody has
[19:06] read it, if everyone just sits and
stares at me, oh, it was great. That's
[19:11] that is nice to hear. But this is not
about, you know, no edits. This is about
[19:16] getting things right or asking
questions. you know, what is missing,
[19:20] what seems like fluff and isn't really
necessary. Um and so the conversation
[19:25] has gone well and there have been some
times where people you know we really
[19:29] want to dig into this or you know make
sure that we're documenting the um the
[19:33] water lines in the right way or what's
really happening with the um uh two is
[19:38] it 231 the um m dot you know potential
for um an exchange expansion and um the
[19:46] steering committee has asked me to go
back and do some research and bring back
[19:50] like an edited version to them and we
talk about it a little bit and kind of
[19:54] move on. So, it's been iterative an
iterative process, right? It kind of
[19:58] does the loops where it's not circles,
it's kind of the loop-de-loops. Um, and
[20:02] that's good because you're building your
knowledge and you're invested in the
[20:06] process. Um, and then I will also say I
mean every you know um is there anything
[20:13] else? No, I think that's a really good
summary and I'm excited to bring it to
[20:17] the planning commission. You guys are
all the going to be the users of it. Um,
[20:22] so we want to make this as as useful to
you all as possible and that, you know,
[20:25] that doesn't happen overnight. Um, that
will take a little bit of time and
[20:29] that's that we have time to do that
right now and to do it right. So, um,
[20:34] that's how it's been going so far. We've
had a couple public members show up at
[20:38] the public meetings. Nobody's said
anything, but you know that that's not
[20:43] like good or bad. It's just a couple
people have shown up um, and been
[20:46] present. So, yeah, that's what I think
I'd like to to share or have to say
[20:50] about it. Yeah, that's good to hear. I
mean, being one of the newer trustees on
[20:53] the board, I've never been through this
process before. So, it's nice having
[20:56] someone that's familiar with how this
works, and I think we may maybe have
[21:00] some folks on the planning commission,
too, that maybe haven't done this
[21:02] before. So, uh it's it's good to make
sure that we're we're kind of staying on
[21:06] track. We have some kind of a reference
to keep us there. Appreciate your help.
[21:09] » Yeah.
[21:14] » Questions, comments.
[21:18] Okay. Thanks, Tanya. Um, we are going to
get into the Zealand Charter Township
[21:24] master plan survey.
>> I can I just want to bring up one thing
[21:29] to make sure we corrected on the draft
community engagement plan. It shows the
[21:33] PC meeting kickoff is October 15th and
it should be October 13th because that's
[21:39] the our meeting date.
15th is a Thursday. So, just so you
[21:44] know, Tanya, we meet the second Tuesday
of every month
[21:47] » at 7 o'clock. Correct.
>> Yeah.
[21:49] » Yep.
>> So, and my my understanding is I will be
[21:53] present now at your meetings for the
duration um to help facilitate the
[21:57] master plan. So,
[22:04] other corrections or anything on the
[22:11] Okay, we'll switch that from October 15
to October 13 at 7 o'clock.
[22:18] Okay, then we're ready for the township
master plan survey.
[22:25] » I'm happy to. Yeah. So, um the draft
master plan survey that you see in front
[22:29] of you is a draft. Uh the steering
committee has seen it um seen it twice
[22:34] in that the first time they saw it, it
was a real
[22:38] um just sort of general, you know,
questions. They um the steering
[22:42] committee just said, "Well, give us
something that you generally provide."
[22:46] We didn't get too much in the details
like into the specifics of what might
[22:49] actually fit the township. And then this
last meeting we had it was really and at
[22:54] sorry at that first meeting we really
discussed um you know some general
[22:58] things of the township and what would
make sense. At this last steering
[23:02] committee meeting we really got into the
details of what would make sense and
[23:06] really critiqued the survey um further.
And then this is like the you know the
[23:12] next iteration. The idea here with the
survey, um, you do a survey for a couple
[23:16] different reasons when you do a master
plan. One is everybody can take it any
[23:21] time at their convenience, whether
they're a first shift worker, third
[23:24] shift worker. Um, you know, they're
they're homebound or, you know, they're
[23:29] they're waiting in line for pickup or
they're at the, you know, I don't know,
[23:32] bank dropping off, you know, expenses or
something. Um, also, you see that this
[23:37] is a paper copy. the um the survey will
be online, but um we always find it
[23:42] handy to have it advertised um that
there are printed copies available at
[23:46] the township hall. So that way people
can take it if they're not comfortable
[23:50] with technology or they would prefer not
to just like paper. Um they are included
[23:55] at the same level, you know, like
there's not any lesser accounting for a
[24:00] paper copy. Um we just have to enter it
ourselves. Um, and so the survey too,
[24:07] you want to kind of find the sweet spot.
Of course, every community is a little
[24:10] bit different, but you want to find the
sweet spot of asking enough questions to
[24:14] get some useful information combined
with being able to keep people's um
[24:18] attention span. So, you know, some
communities, you know, people are like
[24:23] seven minutes, like it doesn't matter.
Like you got seven minutes to get
[24:26] people's, you know, they have seven
minutes of attention and that's all you
[24:29] have. Other communities will use their
master plan survey. they're asking 30
[24:34] plus questions because they really want
to get into um you know getting as many
[24:39] people to get feedback on particular
topics. A master plan survey can be a
[24:44] variety of topics. Uh for this one in
particular it's a little more sort of
[24:47] general but you can dive into housing
related questions or transportation land
[24:52] use um obviously and we try not to use
um like speaker or um planner speakers
[24:59] like ling like fancy language that no
one understands. So, for example, in the
[25:04] survey that we did, um, Linda when she
was reviewing it, she was on the
[25:07] steering committee, there was a word
viewshed. She's like, I don't really
[25:10] know what that means. Can you explain
it, Tanya? And I said, well, another
[25:13] word is view, and why don't we just
change the word to view instead of
[25:16] viewshed because if you don't know,
other people in the, you know, in the
[25:20] public, the community won't know. Um, so
because we really want to have people if
[25:24] they take the survey, like if they click
on the link or they, you know, take a
[25:27] paper survey, we want them to complete
it all the way through and hopefully
[25:30] have it be understandable. Um, so with
that, um, this survey has been put
[25:36] together with intentionality and had
some other, um, eyes on it. And so
[25:40] today, um, I'm happy to take any
comments or or comments of course, but
[25:44] also edits. Um, and then Howard or
Carrie said, I can't remember which,
[25:48] we're hoping to have it go out in the
newsletter because the idea is is um,
[25:54] survey might be out there, but unless
anyone knows that it's out there, no
[25:58] one's going to take it. And so the
survey can pre be promoted through the
[26:01] newsletter if the township wants to put
it on their website, on your social
[26:06] media page. Uh you can also send out
text or email to your text groups and
[26:11] your friends and call in those favors
and say, "Guys, you know, I know like,
[26:15] you know, I'm working on this master
plan. The township really needs you. You
[26:18] know, can you can you do me this favor?
It'll take you like 10 minutes. Um you
[26:22] know, we have anywhere we have a we have
a community survey out right now for in
[26:26] a township down in Kazoo. There's over a
thousand people that have taken it. We
[26:30] also have more rural communities who've
never done a master plan and less than
[26:34] 100 people take it. So, it's really
about you um helping to get the word out
[26:39] there to in terms of how many people
will take the survey. Um so, with that,
[26:45] I will stop talking and um take any
comments or questions, edits that you
[26:51] have or I can also go through the survey
starting with question one and so on and
[26:56] so forth.
[26:59] Hey Tanya, I I will start out. I'm stuck
on number three. I live in a single
[27:04] family home, but I live on a farm. Am I
going with single family home or other
[27:12] as a farm or is it just the home that
you're looking for?
[27:17] » It would just be the structure.
>> Okay.
[27:23] As we look through this, let's um really
digest it. Um I don't know if you go
[27:31] through each one individually and and do
your own or if you want to
[27:36] » I have some edits I want to talk about
and I want to apologize first.
[27:40] » I'm an economist
that is surveying.
[27:44] » Yeah. Well, so can can I can I talk
about that a second? Yes. This is not a
[27:49] statistically valid survey.
>> Right. Let me just be clear. If you
[27:53] wanted a statistically valid survey, it
would cost you thousands of dollars.
[27:57] » And right, so this is meant to get a
taste, a sample. It is not meant to be a
[28:02] social scientist instrument. And so all
those urges that you have, I have a lot,
[28:07] » right? I [laughter] say that because I
took
[28:10] » feelings. I I Yes. Um I I I took social
science um classes in college and in
[28:16] grad school. this this does not pass the
sniff test for all of those things. But
[28:21] the alternative is you don't you don't
get a survey. So we're trying to balance
[28:27] again u I want to listen to your
comments but I just want I want you to
[28:30] know [laughter] I know that this is not
a statistically valid survey. So with
[28:34] that
>> I can cross that. Okay. [laughter]
[28:38] » All right question comes up.
>> What online service is hosting this?
[28:43] Survey Monkey
[28:48] » H1.
Well, you said people can take it more
[28:52] than once.
>> So, technically they can. We have like a
[28:56] there's like a button like behind the
scenes we can we can see all like behind
[29:00] the house, you know, workings. So, we
can have a button that either lets
[29:03] people take it once per device or um or
more than once. So when people go to the
[29:09] library, if one person takes the survey,
uh then that device is no longer able to
[29:15] use it. So a lot of times we toggle off
the use once per device. Um but that is
[29:20] up to the majority of the planning
commission and how they feel. But we do
[29:24] have ability to do that one way or the
other. And I will also say we typically
[29:30] we can also see like through IP
addresses and we don't have people don't
[29:34] take the survey like 20 times. So, but
that I mean, so that's what I can kind
[29:40] of speak to at
>> that's actually a valid thing because
[29:43] and and I why I'm going to speak on this
is just because the experience I've seen
[29:48] um
with our MPSC case that's below
[29:54] in front of MPSC right now when where
you make public comments and I see a lot
[29:59] of people coming in there that aren't
even from around here and and putting
[30:05] copies and copies of the same exact
things. They're just loading it up with
[30:09] » crap. Okay. And I I'm concerned because
this does have a flavor of stuff with
[30:16] solar and stuff in here. Okay. And
renewables and that. And I would be
[30:21] concerned that any outside people if Oh,
there's a barcode. I can go access that.
[30:28] And then I would be concerned if they
could take it more than once.
[30:34] a way to make it so it's just Zealand
Township too.
[30:37] » No. Nope.
[30:41] » Valid concern.
>> In my experience, you're not going to
[30:46] » These are valid questions.
[30:57] » Very rare that you're going to get
[31:04] in a normal situation. Okay,
>> we're it's not been normal the last six
[31:10] months to a year. And that's why I'm
very concerned with that. I'm very
[31:16] heavily involved with this MPSC case and
what's going on with it and the public
[31:21] comments and everything else. And Dennis
has too and a few of us have. And there
[31:26] are a lot of bad actors out there
against our township.
[31:33] So I have a big concern with that.
>> Worried about bots
[31:38] » bots or
outside outside
[31:43] paid groups that get paid to agitate and
and change
[31:49] change things like this. So far we have
not seen where a community has a solar
[31:55] or data center or um wind or or battery
storage like a a project going through
[32:03] their planning commission right you know
contentionality right that's happening
[32:07] right because those are and we actually
we're serving township as their planner
[32:11] of record that's one of the communities
that's really going through the ringer
[32:14] right now right we have not we have not
seen right that and then simultaneously
[32:19] their master plan um process being blown
up by outside people. Is there a level
[32:25] of concern um and from the public and a
level of scrutiny at the like for the
[32:29] planning commission to make sure to get
it right? Yes. But we haven't seen that
[32:33] like outside piece of information um
come in. So I just want to offer that as
[32:40] a as a kind of like a response.
>> Well, that's what my concern is if we're
[32:45] going to that people can take it more
than once.
[32:48] » Sure. So an answer would be you just
toggle that off so everybody who takes
[32:51] it like it's one time per use um you
know for your phone or your tablet or
[32:57] whatnot but yeah
[33:02] » right
>> it's not an individual
[33:07] » I mean I've got
>> and I can't imagine that
[33:09] » I've got a phone and a laptop and an
iPad so I could technically
[33:13] » yeah you could take it three time right
so there's no perfect way around that
[33:17] you have it per device which is good.
>> Okay.
[33:20] » You know, but if you have it that
there's the same device can take it
[33:24] multiple times. That's where I have a
concern. My opinion.
[33:28] » Yeah. I always had a question in there.
You know, if I was doing like 10 county
[33:32] parks, they go to multiple parks. Have
you taken the survey before?
[33:37] » Yes or no? And in certain cases, at a
certain point in the study, it was a
[33:41] kill question. If they said yes, thank
you.
[33:44] Other times, it was okay.
[33:52] But if with bots it would be a kill
question. Um but with firing somebody
[33:57] they would just say no. So I don't I
don't know the way around that.
[34:01] » But at least if there's one per you know
I mean we still could get bad actors in
[34:08] there but not one bad actor may doing 10
surveys.
[34:17] So, we know we've got a concern there.
So, let's continue on. Christian, did
[34:25] you have any other ones that you want to
>> I can be fast, I promise.
[34:30] » Okay. Well, why don't you uh do all your
questions first and then we'll go step
[34:37] by step through the survey.
For question two, u if you live in the
[34:43] township, do you own or rent your
residence? Do we want to know I mean
[34:48] they're going to own rent? I do not live
or the other. Do we want to add if
[34:52] they're living with someone or
>> So this is the idea that um usually when
[34:58] you have a survey, you typically have a
lot of people who own their property or
[35:04] their house rather that is responding to
this. And it's helpful to know and to
[35:09] see if you're getting some people who
are renting to respond to your master
[35:12] plan because they're part of your um
community as well,
[35:16] » but if they live with family, so they're
not owning or renting.
[35:20] » But there's questions later on in the
survey that kind of address that with
[35:23] the multi-generational and
>> and yeah, and I think that goes to
[35:27] question three. I think after question
three, question 13 and 15 should be
[35:31] inserted.
>> Okay, go back to question two. I mean,
[35:36] » I do not live in the township. Wouldn't
that kick it out right away or not?
[35:40] » So, we don't have that as a question to
like a kill question. We have that. So,
[35:45] when you're, you know, when you get the
results or when we're um so when we can
[35:50] kind of see the survey responses in real
time, kind of back of the house stuff,
[35:54] if something's looking funny, I'll
contact Howard or Carrie and let them
[35:58] know like something's up. We have not
had that before. Um I do master plan
[36:04] like master planning is one of the major
main primary things that I do. Um but it
[36:08] also lets you know like let's say 5% of
the people respond a question two is I
[36:13] don't live in the township. You can say
oh about 5% of the people then responded
[36:17] and five you know you can also do what's
called crosstabulations. So we can kind
[36:22] of remove because the way that the um
survey monkey uh collects the data and
[36:27] then um gives it to us, we can then
actually um when we're doing the
[36:32] analysis remove those um answers like
the whole way through the survey. So
[36:38] that way you could just um get rid of
them. However, people who live in the
[36:43] city of Zealand would select this.
people who live in the city of
[36:47] Hudsonville would select that if they
wanted to take your survey which again
[36:51] uh there's few people who will take a
master plan in the in the if they don't
[36:56] live in the community. Um so it's uh
there again just so you know if
[37:02] someone's taking the master plan and I
mean um if they're if they live in the
[37:06] township or not.
>> That's where after question two
[37:12] I think question three follows that well
but three, it should jump to how long
[37:17] how long have you lived in Zealand,
which is question 13. And then question
[37:22] 15, which would
answer her question. Which of the
[37:27] following best characterizes your
connection to the township
[37:32] resident? I should it should say
resident.
[37:37] » Oh, what you're saying is the order of
the questions.
[37:40] » Yeah, they're in the demographic
section. I don't think 13 and 15 are
[37:44] demographic questions.
I think they would be better suited in
[37:48] my opinion after question three
because we're still establishing our
[37:55] survey taker. That's how question one,
two, and three were who's taken our
[37:59] survey? They live here. They own single
family. They've been here x number of
[38:05] years. They are a resident. They said we
do not live in the township for number
[38:11] two. Question 15 would then clarify
they're a business owner. Okay. So they
[38:17] but this is their connection to the
township.
[38:19] » Would you also include question 13 and
14?
[38:23] » 13 I 13 I would include 14 is a
demographic question. I'd keep that in
[38:28] the demographics. Uh once you get to
demographics people get touchyfey about
[38:32] answer
>> and you wouldn't have the demographics
[38:35] in the beginning.
>> That's no my experience has taught me
[38:39] that's the quickest way to get a No sir.
Especially when you ask income.
[38:47] » Okay. So we're okay with one, two, and
three
[38:51] » and then we should jump to 13 and then
to 15.
[38:55] » That's how I feel that it should flow
because those are establishing the
[38:58] survey taker.
>> Tanya, any questions on that?
[39:01] » Happy to do what you guys want.
[laughter]
[39:03] » Okay. Anybody else? I understand what
Christian is saying.
[39:09] So between three and four we would add
we would move 13 and 15 there. You're
[39:13] saying
>> I would make question two a skip logic.
[39:16] I do not live in the township. It goes
straight to 15. Well what's your
[39:19] connection
>> if I believe with survey monkey if you
[39:21] do skip logic it will end up making it a
lot more complicated along down the
[39:27] line. We tend to not use rarely if ever
do we use skip logic. Um,
[39:33] so I'm I would advocate that we don't um
but to So I was I did So you said two,
[39:40] three. Yep. Two, three, and then 13. Is
that what
[39:43] » 2, three, 13, 15?
>> Okay.
[39:45] » And then four starts asking opinions.
[39:52] » I didn't know where to ask this
question, but we have and not that it's
[39:56] a big draw, but and I don't know if it
belongs in the master plan, but we don't
[40:00] really have anything about short-term
rentals, but again, we're not Grand
[40:05] Haven.
People are uh buying homes for
[40:09] short-term rentals, but do we want a
question that addresses?
[40:13] » But that wouldn't be their primary
residence.
[40:15] » No, but no, but if we get to number
four, what type of housings are needed?
[40:19] And we have all these.
>> So, when we're looking at the type of
[40:22] housing, we tried to stick to a
short-term rental is a kind of how you
[40:25] program your your your your residential
structure, right? Just like condominiums
[40:30] are a type of ownership style. It's not
a housing type. So these are supposed to
[40:35] be if you look on the next page then you
see images. Um these are the way that
[40:41] we're trying to you know when someone
says condo it can actually mean a
[40:45] variety of things. Um
and so you know right like in people's
[40:50] minds is was what I was referring to. So
the question four is about the types of
[40:55] housing and we're not we're trying to be
less uh let's say use more common
[40:59] language right instead of saying housing
structure right just housing and the
[41:03] images then correspond and so your
short-term rentals it's it's a way that
[41:07] you would program using your residence
not so much um the actual like housing
[41:12] type. So
>> I'm gonna I'm gonna jump in if if I if
[41:15] you don't mind. I'm gonna just add a
little bit of element to what
[41:21] just a little bit different.
Um, when you talk about short-term
[41:26] rentals, we need to understand what the
existing zoning says on short-term
[41:31] rentals. I believe, if I'm not mistaken,
you don't really there's short-term
[41:36] rentals are not permitted uh in the
township, right? So, unless it's
[41:41] specifically authorized in your zoning
code in terms of um uh you you say in a
[41:49] residential district, we are allowing
short-term rentals um and it's
[41:53] specifically authorized in that
residential zoning classification,
[41:57] they're essentially prohibited. And so,
uh, it's I'm not saying we shouldn't ask
[42:04] a question about short-term rentals, but
before we ask that question, I want to
[42:08] make sure that the planning commission
is aware of that legal kind of
[42:13] definition, if you will. That make
sense?
[42:16] » What do you consider short-term rental?
>> The the law considers short-term rental
[42:21] anything less than 28 days. 28 days or
less. And if if if it is not expressly
[42:28] authorized in your zoning code, they are
prohibited.
[42:32] And just trust me on that. I [laughter]
I spent the last I spent the last, you
[42:39] know, seven years dealing with this
issue in Park Township. It's very clear
[42:44] under the law that you have to expressly
authorize them unless you allow um you
[42:49] know, unless you allow hotels and motel
in your residential zoning districts.
[42:53] and that there's a loophole there.
>> But I so my sense is that if you look at
[42:59] the the legal definition of short-term
rentals, my sense is that they're not
[43:04] permitted uh in Zealand Township. That
doesn't necessarily mean we're going out
[43:08] and, you know, enforcing and regulating,
right? There is such a thing as
[43:13] selective enforcement, but under the the
under the legal statute, under the uh
[43:19] you know, in terms of are they allowed,
my sense is that they're they're not
[43:23] they're permitted prohibited
>> that motel in residential or egg.
[43:30] uh
in a
[43:34] » you're talking about the BU
>> in a PUD
[43:38] in a PUB.
[43:42] » Okay. Because there are Airbnbs
in Zealand.
[43:46] » There may very well be and there are
Airbnbs all throughout America. Um, but
[43:52] under the look Michigan law, under the
Supreme Court of the Spring Lake case,
[43:57] which was ruled about 4ish years ago,
you have to expressly pro permit uh
[44:06] short-term rentals in your residential
district. That that case identified
[44:11] short-term rentals as pantamount to a
hotel or a motel. And so unless you
[44:16] expressly authorize them in their
residential zoning classifications, they
[44:20] are not permitted.
>> That when they came up with the
[44:22] short-term rental licensing,
>> however they do it.
[44:26] » So you only have the rule, you only have
the rights. No. Short answer is no. The
[44:32] long answer is you only have the rights
given to you by the governmental entity
[44:37] above you. In zoning law, you only have
the rights given to you that it's
[44:42] expressly authorized under the zoning
code. So if you look at your zoning um
[44:49] use classification under your
residential, you will see certain
[44:53] classes there. You know, residential is
allowed, farm is allowed, you know,
[44:57] various things. You only have the rights
given to you by the zoning district,
[45:04] right? And so if you're not provided
those rights, it doesn't mean the
[45:08] absence the the the the silence of those
rights does not mean that you are
[45:14] permitted. It means that you're
prohibited. So if there's something
[45:18] that's not identified in your zoning
code, that doesn't mean that you can go
[45:22] do it. It means that you can't do it
unless the township expressly gives you
[45:27] that right. And this is how short-term
rentals got so confusing is because
[45:33] after COVID it it it ballooned. It
became this massive issue. No one had
[45:39] any language in their zoning ordinances.
And so there was no it was almost you
[45:46] had to deal with this after the fact,
right? Because it became so prolific.
[45:51] And then all of a sudden when the
Supreme Court case came out in Spring
[45:54] Lake and that ruling came out from the
Michigan Supreme Court, then the
[45:59] communities, it was very clear that if
you wanted to allow short-term rentals,
[46:03] you had to expressly permit it.
>> Does it matter if they're renting a
[46:08] house or a bedroom?
>> No.
[46:11] » Airbnb and it's just a bedroom in their
house. That's still considered a short
[46:16] term.
>> I believe that's accurate. You want to
[46:18] check with your legal counsel on that
though. But yes,
[46:22] and and the statute or the the state
generally defines short-term rentals as
[46:27] 28 days or less.
[46:31] Okay.
[46:34] Uh question five. Are we okay to go on?
Uh for question five, I'm just wondering
[46:42] um based on my experience if we want to
quantify some of those categories. Young
[46:48] families, do we want to add age brackets
there? Senior citizens, do we want to
[46:52] say 65 or 60 and above?
[46:57] But when we say lowincome households or
middle income, do we want to put
[47:02] my experience with survey takers is they
need all the breadcrumbs
[47:07] possible to guide them to the right
category.
[47:12] » Leave it up to assumptions,
>> what one person considers middle income,
[47:17] » then you you're going to end up with a
lot more categories.
[47:20] » Well, no, you just put in parentheses
senior citizens 16 and above or 65,
[47:24] whatever you I mean, I don't know. Or
does it not matter? I don't
[47:28] » I think for what we're using it for here
>> I might be getting too I want scientific
[47:32] data. [laughter]
>> I understand I understand
[47:34] » it's good to have one of you in the
group. I understand it's they're they're
[47:38] valid things.
>> I mean that's just something to think
[47:41] about.
>> Sometimes if you give people too much it
[47:44] confuses
>> they're guard rails to keep them
[47:47] in their mind going. Okay. Question six.
Is that referring to current housing
[47:51] stock
or just what you It says um you know if
[47:56] you were to relocate within the township
is the housing type you're seeking
[47:59] available.
>> Could it be available or is it available
[48:02] now?
>> Is it available?
[48:04] » Is it like a snapshot right now?
>> So we're talking about current housing.
[48:08] » Yeah. We're trying to understand, you
know, it seems to be like there's a
[48:11] housing issue, right? That's the general
take. This is a one way to get uh a
[48:16] wider swath on that take. And if there
is, perhaps the master plan should
[48:22] address housing in a greater more
specific capacity or or not.
[48:27] » But then that's where, you know, we
we're asking these questions in this
[48:30] survey, but then our workshops, one of
them is going to be housing and we bring
[48:34] the community and we're getting more
details there, too.
[48:38] » I would probably add, is the housing
that you would be seeking currently
[48:42] available?
[48:46] By adding currently, you're saying now?
If can you go on to Zillow and see the
[48:51] house you want currently is good now
>> because when I read it I was like well I
[48:54] mean it could be available.
>> I see what you're saying.
[49:00] » It's the wording. It's the wording in
it.
[49:02] » Yep.
>> Uh seven I have a couple of additions
[49:06] here where we say not too far from the
city of Grand Rapids.
[49:10] » I'm wondering if that should say
proximity to the city of Grand Rapids.
[49:14] Same thing with proximity to Zealand and
Holland. I know we used that word
[49:17] proximity three times in a row, but
I thought not too far from the city of
[49:22] Grand Rapids.
[49:26] » Casual. That's just my
>> I like using proximity.
[49:30] » I'm both.
>> I mean, that's one of the reasons I love
[49:35] where I live because I can go to Grand
Rapid in 25 minutes. I can be in Grand
[49:40] Rapids, Grand Haven, Holland. So, I can
be anywhere, you know. Well, that also
[49:45] brings up, do we want to add a box for
access to healthcare because a hospital
[49:51] right there and then everything going up
right by Taco Bell.
[49:56] » I think that's a valid thing to be
asking or asking people to get feedback
[49:59] on, especially since access to health
care in a rural community or not major
[50:06] metropolitan areas is something that is
a growing concern. Another category I
[50:11] would consider is um about my friends
and family live here.
[50:18] I don't know if that falls underneath
the people and sense of community.
[50:22] » That is generally like yes, that is
generally how you would refer to it
[50:27] because the opposite is is what if you
were to keep that one but remove the
[50:30] other one? I like to me they're the
same. You know, I don't care which way
[50:34] it's worded. It doesn't make a
difference to me, but to me they would
[50:36] be the same thing. We want to add a low
property tax or a property, you know,
[50:42] current property tax level to see is
this a traction that property
[50:47] » everyone has a different idea of what's
low, medium, and high.
[50:55] » What are other really getting in detail
bushes a little bit?
[51:00] » Well, I think you should add at least
the access to healthare. I I strongly
[51:03] agree with that as well.
>> Yeah. Healthcare I I like.
[51:06] » And I like changing both of those other
ones to proximity too.
[51:09] » Yep.
>> Yep.
[51:12] » Everybody okay with that? Following
along? Yep. Okay.
[51:16] » Question nine. A couple pages.
>> Oh, let's go to eight a minute.
[51:19] » Okay.
>> Any any questions on eight?
[51:42] I just like that there's an unsure
option on that one because I'm sure
[51:44] there's some people that really don't
have much of an opinion or don't know
[51:47] much about it and sometimes if you don't
include that they'll just mark one just
[51:51] to mark one
>> right unsure is good
[51:53] » might not really be how they deal.
>> Before we move on, if if I can just Hey,
[52:00] Madam Chair, um is there any questions
that the planning commission has on this
[52:05] issue of farmland preservation? Isbody
familiar with, you know, what it means
[52:10] to have purchase of development rights?
[52:22] » Yep. We're ready for nine.
That third option, protecting existing
[52:26] views. I have no idea what that means.
>> See, that's where
[52:30] » views. View sheds. So,
>> she used to she had view sheds there and
[52:34] then at at our committee meeting, I'm
like, what's a view shed?
[52:37] » Oh, yeah. So,
>> it's the views
[52:39] » sometimes. Many times
>> at my house, I've got beautiful sunset
[52:43] and sunrise views.
>> And I wouldn't want that changed. I
[52:45] don't want a building going up out in my
backyard because I like to look out and
[52:49] see the see the cows or see see the um
see the beautiful rolling hills or I
[52:54] like to, you know, look out and and see
um you know, the es and flows of the
[52:58] wetland, you know. So, it's very squishy
and soft and and and you know, but the
[53:04] idea is is a lot of times it's
addressing it's a way to address the one
[53:09] of the ways that when people say they
don't like change or they don't want
[53:12] change, it's because it's like when they
when they're at their house, they look
[53:15] around and they like the way it looks,
whatever that means. It is very
[53:19] subjective, but it is um usually a not
uncommon
[53:24] um sort of underlying concern to pushing
back against, you know, various kinds of
[53:31] development um or or change, you know,
we could including redevelopment, right?
[53:35] not so much here in Zealand Charter
Township, but that's um it is soft and
[53:39] squishy, but it's that way um on purpose
related to the way that uh as planners
[53:45] we tend to get information or responses
from people.
[53:48] » It's often times used practically. It's
oftentimes used to protect views of the
[53:55] water. It's probably where the vast
majority of you shed protection comes in
[54:03] and it can be legally enforcable.
So there are some properties, they're
[54:09] not in Zeland Township, but in the area
where if you look through the deed, you
[54:14] will see you will see restrictions
of what can be built in front of the
[54:20] house and and those are essentially
viewhed protections. And so that's
[54:25] traditionally that's where it's used.
I've I've I've never seen um any kind of
[54:30] enforcable action on anything other than
water. I don't I've generally
[54:36] » I've never seen anything enforceable on
like farming or
[54:39] » No, but a lot of people like this
question a lot of times gets at being
[54:43] able to preserve the agrarian landscape,
>> but you I mean it's it's a soft squishy,
[54:49] right? You can't do much about it, but
it does let it does give that space for
[54:53] people. Oh yeah, that is what I like. I
don't want it to change. And then
[54:56] however you however that then informs
what we do later with it is a whole
[55:00] different thing. But it is it can be
useful.
[55:03] » Is this part of the is that going to be
the survey taker going to see this
[55:07] language?
>> Yep. They're going to see everything
[55:08] that's on here.
>> Okay. So that language when I got to
[55:12] that question had two possible
>> Yeah. Yeah, in my mind was one it was
[55:16] about
>> I I don't want a big building in front
[55:19] of my sunset.
>> The other one was more social views.
[55:24] We're conservative.
>> Ah, so it could be we should be able to
[55:27] use the word physical
>> policies and stuff. So now my mind was
[55:31] split. Okay. Are we talking?
>> So these are physical views, not social.
[55:35] » We say landscape views
>> or just
[55:37] » Yeah. I So I do appreciate that
especially given like the nature of of
[55:42] community here. So I would think
protecting existing uh landscape views
[55:47] would be um would be a good smart
>> when I read that you know it's saying up
[55:52] here programs policies activities
investments to attract business
[55:59] » area that we like this [snorts] protect
that or are we talking about
[56:03] » we're not getting the politics of that
kind of politics we're getting into land
[56:06] use politics.
>> Well then that kind of builds on
[56:08] question four
>> encourage green infrastructure for storm
[56:12] water. I did a study on storm water.
>> My survey takers did not like the word
[56:19] green.
>> I had to change to sustainable.
[56:23] » Sure.
>> Green.
[56:26] » Agree.
>> A bias built in.
[56:28] » So I removed everything green.
>> Sustainable.
[56:31] » Some Yeah. Just encourage sustainable
infrastructure for storm water projects.
[56:36] Put green in there. And
[56:42] » as you keep going down there, housing
choices that meet different needs. What
[56:45] is that?
>> So again, it's subjective. Like do you
[56:50] feel like, right, this is the survey
taker. Do you feel like if people have
[56:54] different needs that their housing is
met? So for example, maybe you know that
[56:59] you're um you know, maybe you're you're
a recent or not so recent empty neester.
[57:04] And I'm making some assumptions here,
right? this all kind of assumptions
[57:08] and you're um you know you're young your
son married a daughter and they've got
[57:13] you know one on the way and they can't
afford housing right and then but you
[57:17] also know your neighbors down the street
would love to move out of their house
[57:20] but there's no um more dense uh senior
living options available or the person
[57:26] that you go to church with they're new
in the community they're still commuting
[57:29] from Moskegan because they can't they
want an apartment but there's no
[57:33] apartment here so it's just the idea of
of all the people, you know, is there
[57:38] different types of needs that they have
and are they unmet? Um
[57:42] » how important it is.
>> Yeah. And and I will also say like you
[57:45] could say, well, we've already kind of
addressed that in previous questions.
[57:48] Sure. So, it's just um different pla
different places and different ways in
[57:53] the survey to answer different things.
So,
[58:02] » I think question nine has an awful lot
of
[58:07] » to read and to click
>> supporting the development of an ADA
[58:13] accessible playground.
[58:19] Like the idea of asking if
we if we need playgrounds
[58:26] All playgrounds
if if we build one, aren't they all
[58:30] required to be ADA?
>> No.
[58:33] » They have to be.
>> No, no, no. They they are not required
[58:36] to be. Um there was a steering committee
member who was very passionate about um
[58:42] like incre increasing ADA accessible
play spaces for young folks. Um, and so
[58:48] that was that was that why that was on
there
[58:52] » because one of my other additions to
question 10 was
[58:57] I was thinking more playgrounds. I don't
want to make a redundant question that's
[59:01] already if you're making an ADA
accessible playground
[59:08] like I want to ask the community do you
think we need more playgrounds? Not that
[59:11] we have any place to put them but
>> we can ask both. both are valid
[59:16] questions because they're different
they're they're different pieces of
[59:21] information. Um again this was a c you
know sometimes what happens when you
[59:25] make a survey you have like and you're
editing it uh this was there like at a a
[59:31] previous iteration and maybe like you
know it's the second pair of eyes the
[59:35] fourth pair of eyes that read it there's
other questions that you raised. So um
[59:40] again it was put in there because it was
a very passion important thing to one of
[59:43] the steering committee members um and it
is important to ask about that um in
[59:48] some sense.
>> No it is if I I I was under the
[59:51] assumption that if
built the playground it does not have to
[59:56] be I didn't know that. So then that
makes that question necessary
[1:00:00] » just whether or not we want to add a
playground question. I don't think it'd
[1:00:04] be out of place in question 10
>> question 10 I could put add playground
[1:00:09] or recre playground
>> I already recreation area
[1:00:14] » I already have that we got 10 parks
trails recreation playgrounds
[1:00:19] » um
>> mall and and tennis and
[1:00:22] » so so I will also say there is a lovely
thing called the parks and recreation
[1:00:26] plan and that gets like that gets very
much into park and recreation planning
[1:00:30] and let's just because I think my
understanding is the Zealand Recreation
[1:00:34] Authority exists and there is a um that
plan
[1:00:40] » it's a separate plan and you guys are
covered under it for whatever that means
[1:00:44] to you. However, um if the township
wants to do its own, you can do that.
[1:00:48] There's a whole different program. You
do it at a certain time in a certain
[1:00:51] way. it sets yourself up for DNR um um
trust fund DNR grants and like you know
[1:00:58] and so one of the outcomes of this
process might be um we want to do a park
[1:01:02] and wreck plan in the future but I would
I would because you people only have so
[1:01:07] much time and space and that's like its
whole own effort I would sort of say
[1:01:11] let's focus at a high level the park and
recreation questions you know sprinkle
[1:01:15] in three or less and then you know if
it's if you get some uptake on that well
[1:01:20] again we'll
um put that so I like I would take note
[1:01:23] of that and we'd put that in the
implementation chapter and just a little
[1:01:26] bit of a spoiler alert that
implementation chapter is like the um
[1:01:31] to-do list for the township over the
next 5 to 10 years it's like a
[1:01:34] breadcrumb trail so like you know three
years from now when this is all done
[1:01:37] you're like what are we supposed to do
what did the community say so like and
[1:01:41] that's down the road so I just want to
say good ideas but let's not focus and
[1:01:45] get in the weeds on that particular
topic in the master plan survey
[1:01:50] Okay. And we have a whole bunch of the
solar wind.
[1:01:54] » Do we need anything about the P is the
power plant in our town off of
[1:02:04] » No. Okay. No, never mind.
>> So, so quick quick question if I can
[1:02:07] back to this ADA accessible playground.
It sounds like you guys want to maybe
[1:02:11] sort of move that to question 10. Can I
suggest that we move the ADA like the
[1:02:16] the park and wreck general question and
the ADA park and rec uh question into
[1:02:21] question 10? I think that's a great idea
because you know what if we put in there
[1:02:27] like more you know playground park and
recreation like that and people identify
[1:02:33] if they do identify that that will give
us a pulse of whether we pursue that
[1:02:41] park and recreation
um separate plan thing in the future.
[1:02:46] It'll help give the pulse
>> that that that's what it seems like it
[1:02:50] sort of has moved to make sense.
>> What do you think?
[1:02:53] Yeah,
>> Scott looks like he wants to say
[1:02:56] something.
[1:03:06] » It it it like otherwise it looks a
little like disjointed because then you
[1:03:09] might be oh well this and then like well
it's over here and it if you if you can
[1:03:13] put like things together um it you know
looks a little more organized. helps
[1:03:17] your survey thinker taker think kind of
you know more more logically.
[1:03:22] » As a suggestion,
Mr. Chair, may I as a suggestion, I
[1:03:28] would um regardless of what feedback you
get on the
[1:03:33] playground stuff, I would put in as the
imple
[1:03:38] desire to have the
parks and wreck mass.
[1:03:45] It's important for, you know, somebody
who's, you know, probably upwards of $3
[1:03:51] million now in terms of great.
It's important to have that document and
[1:03:57] go through that planning process with
respect to not only just the grants but
[1:04:02] also just whatever
>> just that our plates are full. I think
[1:04:07] after we get through this
>> No, no, no. It's not a now thing, right?
[1:04:10] » But it's definitely an implementation
thing that
[1:04:14] » the future implementation. I agree.
>> That's why we put it in the
[1:04:17] implementation chapter so you don't
forget it. But it's it's over there.
[1:04:22] » Okay. So, is everybody okay with me
moving those two items to number 10?
[1:04:29] » So, we're moving the development of the
trails and to
[1:04:32] » trails and the ADA.
>> Yep.
[1:04:35] » Yeah. Cuz I had that and for question 10
was parks, trails, recreation, uh
[1:04:40] playgrounds.
[1:04:49] » So, we're Are we okay with nine? And now
we're going to go move to 10.
[1:04:57] Any questions on 10?
>> Um I
[1:05:02] [laughter]
[1:05:04] it's depending on what data points
you're looking for. I think more
[1:05:08] residential development should be
separated between single family
[1:05:12] residential and multif family.
[1:05:18] » A question I have back for you. I don't
disagree. However, with a general um
[1:05:23] survey taker, member of the general
public, um not thinking ill of them, but
[1:05:27] because every community is different, do
you think that they will understand the
[1:05:31] difference?
>> Absolutely. I think so.
[1:05:34] » Okay.
>> Oh, we do.
[1:05:36] » I would want to know in question,
we already are we already asking them in
[1:05:42] question four, what types of housing is
needed?
[1:05:45] » Yes. And we we're really getting into
the weeds there.
[1:05:49] » You know, that's a good We may be able
to rem I mean,
[1:05:54] » might be able to drop it out then. Yeah,
that's right. Good point. We're already
[1:05:57] asking. I'm in four.
>> Well, yeah, this number four asks what
[1:06:03] types.
>> This is just saying where.
[1:06:06] » Okay.
>> So, I think we still want it.
[1:06:08] » Yep, you're right. there.
>> But I don't know if we need to get in
[1:06:11] the weeds there because we're kind of
getting in the weeds right here.
[1:06:15] » And we do ask people where they live in
that four, you know, section area from
[1:06:22] the beginning.
>> You want to leave it more residential,
[1:06:25] that's fine. I
That's such a broad broad.
[1:06:30] » It is. It is.
>> I also added if we want or had a
[1:06:34] question, do we want to add anything
about civic institutions?
[1:06:38] Do we need libraries more? What What's
the community thinking about that?
[1:06:44] I don't know what Zealand Township needs
to add, but
[1:06:50] » is that something that you guys have
been contemplating? Is that
[1:06:55] » okay,
>> somebody out there's thinking where, you
[1:06:58] know, Jamestown has
[1:07:04] » who knows what people think.
[1:07:09] Hudsonville, Jamestown.
>> Jamestown,
[1:07:14] the city library.
>> City library.
[1:07:19] » Yeah,
[1:07:26] » that's all I have until question 12. So,
>> so set with 10, then we will move to 11.
[1:07:45] Okay.
[1:07:49] » So, the map is it refer helps you sort
of look when you're looking at um
[1:07:53] question 10,
>> it helps to kind of give people instead
[1:07:56] of you know everybody doesn't
necessarily have the same orientation or
[1:08:01] whatever. This gives you a grounding
point when you're taking the survey. um
[1:08:05] in terms of sort of general general
areas.
[1:08:11] So,
>> so if so online um it says a map of the
[1:08:17] township is provided below this question
for your reference online it will be
[1:08:21] below
>> right it's just
[1:08:23] » okay
>> it's just because of the limitations of
[1:08:25] the page size so that's how that will
work out thank you
[1:08:29] » yeah you're welcome
>> that makes it more
[1:08:31] » sure sure okay
let's go to 11.
[1:08:42] Get anything on 10? Right. I kind of
Yeah, 10. We're done. Okay. Now 11.
[1:08:58] We got questions on 11.
[1:09:03] » 12.
[1:09:06] I just thought maintenance of existing
streets slash
[1:09:11] reason I added that was because the
question above.
[1:09:18] So um from a pragmatic implementation
standpoint many times the streetscapes
[1:09:25] and I streetscapes is a little urban
right like I I realize that right um
[1:09:29] some areas of the township are more
developed and some are less and
[1:09:34] streetscape stuff generally is going to
be under the purview um the authority
[1:09:40] the maintenance of the township streets
um do you guys have any township owned
[1:09:45] roads
>> all of them are owned by the
[1:09:49] » everything is owned by the road
commission.
[1:09:54] » Some sometimes townships own a couple
roads or they have gra. A few if some
[1:09:59] have fallen through the cracks.
>> Sure. But that's why I'm asking. So it
[1:10:03] sounds like there's maybe a few if if
any. Okay. So yes, correct. That's
[1:10:08] right. So if people say maintenance of
existing streets, you know that you
[1:10:12] can't do much about that and that will
fall back on the road commission. It
[1:10:16] also gives people an outlet, right, to
say that. And again, sometimes these
[1:10:19] surveys are about pe g giving people an
outlet, right? They just want to be
[1:10:23] heard. So that's why it's kind of framed
that way is because uh if people answer
[1:10:28] the streets, the township knows that's
the authority and the purview of the
[1:10:32] road commission. We can't do much about
that. Um if it's about streetscapes,
[1:10:36] well, perhaps we should consider putting
together street design guidelines. Um
[1:10:41] and those are things again that's on the
implementation chapter. That's something
[1:10:44] that we can talk about later in this
planning process. What that is, what um
[1:10:49] what that might be something you could
explore two to seven years from now in
[1:10:54] some areas like along um Chicago Drive
or right by the city. Um it's a more
[1:11:00] urban thing. It is it's a way to kind of
create a sense of identity or arrival.
[1:11:05] It would not be a blanketed thing, but
it's just a piece of information on the
[1:11:10] survey that helps you explore if you
want to if the community would like
[1:11:14] support some of that in some areas. That
being said though, I mean that's just a
[1:11:20] response to the way that um those
answers were structured.
[1:11:23] » No, that's right.
>> So, but Christian actually that's not a
[1:11:27] bad because streets are the commission,
but what about the street lights? Yeah,
[1:11:33] it would be. Well, it kind of it sort of
depends.
[1:11:35] » Lights are generally um for the most
part that's not 100% accurate, but for
[1:11:42] part street lights are owned by the
[1:11:49] » but it's not like that everywhere
because I just went
[1:11:51] » No, it's very common for street lights
to be owned by the
[1:11:58] Holland. Those street lights are
some communities have elected to take
[1:12:05] over ownership of street lights. There
is like that's a thing that that there's
[1:12:10] a
>> like Zealand Township has taken over the
[1:12:12] ownership of the street light at the end
of Air Park Drive because when I became
[1:12:17] president of the HOA, no one owned it.
No one knew what to do with it.
[1:12:22] » Some communities have done that for
throughout their entire community.
[1:12:26] literally taken ownership of all of the
street lights and then that revenue
[1:12:31] comes to them. But then
issues of of repair. For the most part,
[1:12:37] street lights are owned by the uh
[1:12:44] so if you want to like like re get into
the question of better street lighting
[1:12:48] for whatever reason, you know, safety or
otherwise, I might suggest that we add
[1:12:53] its own separate like box maintain of
existing um street lights.
[1:12:58] » I think we're BPW
in Prairie Winds. When our street lights
[1:13:02] go out, I call PB.
>> And it's all and it's all different.
[1:13:07] Like on our street, we're actually Great
Lakes Energy.
[1:13:12] » Depends on who your utility.
>> It's all over the place here.
[1:13:15] » I think the one thing that I would add
to question number 10 is um trees
[1:13:22] » 10 or 12.
>> Uh oh, excuse me. Thank you. 12. um when
[1:13:25] you're talking about street improvements
and if I'm thinking that you know the
[1:13:31] community is looking at you know
corridor kind of improvements
[1:13:35] » I I would think that most of that's
going to kind of generate to street
[1:13:38] trees and plantings and
>> that's in part of the first question so
[1:13:45] it could be its own
>> if you want to sort of draw specific
[1:13:48] attention to it and just highlight
trees. Um,
[1:13:51] » but isn't that what we do when we're um
approving a subdivision?
[1:13:55] » You may have you may So I I don't know
your zoning ordinance in and out, right?
[1:14:00] Um you you guys I would think know um
you know, some of you may know it better
[1:14:03] than others, but perhaps you do have
stuff.
[1:14:06] » Um you you maybe this would give you
purview to kind of start exploring
[1:14:11] making some of it stronger if you wanted
to. I don't you know, again, I don't
[1:14:15] can't speak to how good it is or not,
but you may have some of that in there.
[1:14:18] Um, so you know, again, like we could
strike some of this and it's just
[1:14:26] » is the goal of this question. I mean,
the way it's phrased is, you know,
[1:14:29] what's most important to people, not
necessarily who would you talk to about
[1:14:33] making changes, right? So, we could even
if we don't have direct control over it,
[1:14:37] if we understand it's important to the
residents,
[1:14:39] » right?
>> We could always pass that feedback along
[1:14:41] to whoever's in control of it.
[1:14:53] Yes, that is
>> more roundabouts.
[1:14:58] So, we could we could Yes, there could
be something in there about um Oh, I'd
[1:15:03] have to think about how to phrase it
correctly, but like um you know, reduce
[1:15:07] traffic congestion or um or other kinds
of things like and and sometimes
[1:15:14] congestion and street improvements sort
of goes it's in the line of safety.
[1:15:18] Other times it's more about because you
reduce crashes and those kinds of
[1:15:21] things. Other times it's no, you want
like you want less congestion. Um I I do
[1:15:27] like to remind people that you are
traffic.
[1:15:29] So
in the sense of
[1:15:32] » I know but in the
>> correct
[1:15:39] » sure sure
[1:15:44] » I have when I've tried to when I get off
the highway and I try to get over here
[1:15:50] I'm I I am surprised at the number of
people leaving the lake shore to go out
[1:15:54] to the city. Um so I have experienced
that myself. So, two things I may be
[1:15:58] hearing is add a add a box that sort of
addresses traffic congestion and then
[1:16:03] are we also want to um add a box that
talks about u maintenance of existing
[1:16:07] street lights.
I'm seeing shakings of heads.
[1:16:12] Okay.
[1:16:24] Yeah. I don't know if it's I don't know
if I'd call it maintenance of existing
[1:16:28] street lights. Maybe it's also um
>> street lights. Yeah,
[1:16:33] » more street lights.
>> More street lights
[1:16:35] » or just put,
>> you know,
[1:16:37] » I I will word smmith it, but like it's
the issue of just like more street
[1:16:41] lights rather than maintenance of it.
Yep. Yep. Yep. Okay.
[1:16:49] » Uh reduce traffic congestion.
Was that green infrastruure?
[1:16:55] » I already Yep. sustainable.
>> Sustainable.
[1:16:57] » No one will pick that with that word
there.
[1:17:00] » Okay.
>> Um
[1:17:04] Okay.
>> I think you may want to add just another
[1:17:07] the permable pavement.
[1:17:15] » H yes green. Um,
>> say that again, Christian. just change
[1:17:21] the examples under the
>> so the issue with sto bio well [snorts]
[1:17:26] » I mean
it
[1:17:31] » will people know bio swailes if they
don't know permeable pavement will they
[1:17:35] know bioalailes in
>> they planted uh drainage strips
[1:17:40] » much better straight plain language
>> what it is
[1:17:45] » planted what strips
>> planted drainage strips
[1:17:56] Huh?
>> We're not asking soil. We're not doing a
[1:17:58] soil.
>> Right. [laughter]
[1:18:06] » That was all my issues with 12.
[1:18:10] » Anybody else have anything on 12?
[1:18:19] on to 13 which we're moving
>> 13 and 15
[1:18:23] » 13 and 15 we're moving
>> but was there any question with 13 or 15
[1:18:29] » we're okay with the question itself
we're just moving it
[1:18:34] and number 14
>> I have at our
[1:18:38] » discrimination
>> committee committee meeting
[1:18:40] » did I miss one go up to 75
>> yes so I believe I'm expling explain to
[1:18:45] these guys what I what I brought up in
the steering committee meeting. So,
[1:18:48] we're it basically is a cut off at 65
plus. Well, there's a a lot of people
[1:18:53] between 65 and 75 that are still
extremely active and you're going to get
[1:18:58] different answers from the people that
are maybe 80 85, you know, as they more
[1:19:02] toward they might go for more h housing
of of assisted living or this or that.
[1:19:07] So, I suggested making a category 65 to
74 and then 75 plus and just adding one
[1:19:13] more category. Sorry about that
oversight.
[1:19:15] » Wise.
>> That's okay.
[1:19:18] » I think I got all the rest of the edits.
[laughter]
[1:19:22] » That's why you read it what I provide
because you know I am human.
[1:19:25] » Yeah. So we all are.
>> The only thing I had about the the
[1:19:29] demographic questions if you want to
know education and income
[1:19:34] just because that's stuff I collect. So
it's just a bias.
[1:19:36] » We typically try to stay away from
income because that lets
[1:19:39] » it's always my last question,
>> right? Um, and that doesn't really add
[1:19:43] any value to a master plan survey from,
you know, for because it's people who've
[1:19:47] taken it. We don't really care to get
into the business of how much money you
[1:19:51] make in terms of what that answer means.
Usually planning commissions are like, I
[1:19:56] don't want to know. So, we don't want to
ask. Um, and then what was the other
[1:19:59] one? The education. I mean, again,
that's kind of up to you guys. Um, you
[1:20:04] know, we we we we serve we hope to our
target is the public and yeah, that's up
[1:20:12] it's up to the planning commission bias
of wanting to know my survey.
[1:20:17] » I can separate their answers by
different
[1:20:19] » Yeah.
>> Yep.
[1:20:24] » Okay. Question. Do we want education on
there?
[1:20:28] » No.
>> Guess I'm not sure how we would use
[1:20:32] that. I understand what you're saying in
your surveys, but
[1:20:35] » here I don't know. I guess I'm good
either way.
[1:20:37] » I don't think there's any.
>> Okay.
[1:20:41] » Thanks for your criticality.
[1:20:45] » Patience.
>> Okay. Number 16.
[1:20:52] Does it matter how many people are in my
household?
[1:20:58] So this like this this is a question
that you know communities sometimes
[1:21:02] really love this question other
communities are like h so um this like
[1:21:07] if one person's taking the survey um
sometimes communities like to know like
[1:21:12] well how many people do you live with in
terms of um another kind of demographic
[1:21:18] question um you know uh and and like is
your if you're taking the survey is
[1:21:25] someone else in aunt um
household doing so and then like just
[1:21:32] the size in terms of family.
>> I can't make a good argument as to why
[1:21:37] this is a great question. Some
communities just really like it.
[1:21:42] » You can kind of spin this into like
housing related information,
[1:21:45] » right? Because then you can see like the
size of families or okay, how what
[1:21:50] percentage of the population are are are
two right
[1:21:53] » people house two people living in a
house, you know? Let's just say the
[1:21:56] majority of your houses in or your
majority of your houses are single
[1:21:59] family houses are 25 um00 square feet,
right? Yes. 2500 square feet and a
[1:22:06] majority of your township demographics.
Your survey taker is two people. You
[1:22:11] know, there's probably a mismatch there
in terms of like, you know, housing size
[1:22:14] or whatever. It it can just be another
data point. Um I I don't feel
[1:22:19] particularly strongly either way about
this question. So, it's up to the
[1:22:23] pleasure of the planning commission.
Ask number 17.
[1:22:28] What do you
>> It's about children,
[1:22:30] » right? So, it's about if you know um
like if your um households have kids and
[1:22:36] like if a lot of people who take the
survey have kids, that means that
[1:22:40] they're answering it in a way that is uh
probably related to looking more towards
[1:22:44] the future or answering with younger
people in mind.
[1:22:50] » I'm just looking at there's a lot of
questions here. What can we do?
[1:22:54] » For sure. 100%. So, yeah, I mean, these
are okay ones to cut.
[1:22:57] » You know, some Yeah, I put this together
based on other communities similar to
[1:23:03] yours and what questions they have
typically liked. Um, I would find these
[1:23:08] ones to be less valuable. And if you're
trying to look cut a couple, I think
[1:23:12] these are ones are totally fine to cut.
>> I think some of those data is available
[1:23:16] in the census as well.
>> That is correct. Yes. And we have a
[1:23:19] whole chapter devoted to the census. So
you have some of your demographic of you
[1:23:24] have the demographic of the township.
This would just be more demographic of
[1:23:27] your survey takers.
[1:23:31] » Okay. So what is the planning
commission's census on? Do we want to
[1:23:38] keep 16 and 17 in?
>> Is that I would like to.
[1:23:42] » We need 18. We need
so 18 is helpful when you're looking at
[1:23:47] again the housing needs of the
community. Um our understanding is
[1:23:51] generally very generally there are more
multi-generational households than there
[1:23:55] were 20 30 40 years ago and that is
usually because of the cost of housing
[1:24:00] has gone up. So whether it's younger
people starting out they can't afford a
[1:24:05] house either to own or rent or um you
parents who are aging in place um they
[1:24:10] have certain needs that are being unmet
because of the residential developments
[1:24:14] are not available to them in proximity
to their community. So, that's what
[1:24:19] that's there for. Um, some communities
again have found that question to be
[1:24:23] extremely helpful and help inform what
their master plan might start to say
[1:24:27] about housing. But, if you guys are
already going to have a housing based
[1:24:31] workshop, you might be um, you know,
again, if you're looking for questions
[1:24:36] to cut, you could say, "Well, we're
going to have that whole discussion at
[1:24:40] that housing workshop." Now, that means
are everyone who's going to take the
[1:24:43] survey going to attend the workshop? The
answer is going to be no. me, right? But
[1:24:48] that that's where that question comes
from.
[1:24:51] » I'm just looking at it. If I was taking
the survey,
[1:24:56] I would say, wonder what they want these
questions answered for. What's the
[1:25:02] motive behind it? So, I kind of question
that's just me thinking,
[1:25:10] I got too many people in my household.
They're gonna raise my taxes because
[1:25:14] they got, you know, I I just I'm
concerned on
[1:25:18] » But they don't put their address.
>> They don't. They don't. But I just kind
[1:25:23] of, you know, are these things that we
really need to
[1:25:28] » and I'm okay with it. I'm just asking
I'm being devil's advocate here. Just
[1:25:33] kind of saying, is it really what we
want? when I'm look when I look at at
[1:25:38] these questions I the way I look at it
because I I used to be in uh quality
[1:25:44] assurance
>> again statistics and you know doing
[1:25:48] everything and and this type of
information I I think could help us shed
[1:25:53] light on
>> what are the needs for our we got a lot
[1:25:57] of people that
>> you know what if what if 60% of our
[1:26:01] households have kids under 18. That's an
that's a kind of a vision to the future
[1:26:05] of what could happen,
>> right? And that would go back to some
[1:26:09] » years, right?
>> And to see just where that is. Same
[1:26:14] thing with I mean that's that's my
opinion that I think this we could use
[1:26:18] this information to look at future for
the housing. And yes, we're gonna have a
[1:26:24] housing workshop, but we're not going to
have as many people at a housing
[1:26:28] workshop that we're going to have that
are going to take
[1:26:32] » hopefully
hopefully more
[1:26:35] » if they don't um finish this.
Not like one of those that pop up saying
[1:26:42] you didn't.
>> No, no, no.
[1:26:44] » They can leave things open.
>> They can leave it blank.
[1:26:46] » People cannot answer they can answer one
question, right? Um so when we complete
[1:26:51] the um summary of the results we show um
>> could we add to these three questions to
[1:27:00] make people feel comfortable
I'd rather not answer
[1:27:05] to
>> or just if if if there's a concern that
[1:27:12] people may feel uncomfortable
>> then they'll just leave it blank
[1:27:15] » then they would leave it blank right
>> yeah they'll leave it blank
[1:27:19] » I was going to say is is like so we we
we you know penel provided like the you
[1:27:23] know what people took but it's like so
in question 17 um of the 500 survey
[1:27:29] takers 489 took this one uh 460 took
this one 500 took this one so you'll see
[1:27:36] a people skip a few questions along the
way um
[1:27:39] » so you know you can take that in with
your you know your piece of information
[1:27:43] and usually the questions towards the
end of the survey if your population is
[1:27:48] not so you get the survey fatigue.
You'll see the questions drop up at the
[1:27:51] end. Um, that's why you try to put the
other ones towards the front. So,
[1:27:55] » and these are easy questions,
>> right?
[1:27:57] » Yeah, they're they're not that. Oh my
gosh, I got to think about this.
[1:28:01] » I was just thinking the same thing on
those. If we're looking at shortening
[1:28:03] the overall survey, you probably don't
cut these questions. You probably look
[1:28:07] at some of the ones that take more time.
So, and I think I'd rather have a
[1:28:10] general note maybe at the beginning that
says you can answer as many or as few of
[1:28:13] these questions as you want. I don't
know if that's maybe you don't want
[1:28:17] that. Maybe you want them to try to
answer.
[1:28:19] » I would Yeah. I say if we're going to do
a survey, they'll decide if they get
[1:28:22] tired or if the baby cries or whatever,
right? Um they'll
[1:28:28] » Yeah, that's right. That's right. I will
remind you guys at the very beginning it
[1:28:32] does say anonymously, right? So, um I do
understand some people may may get
[1:28:37] their, you know, um a little suspicious
at the end or whatnot. And that's and
[1:28:40] that's fine, right? People, that's you
cannot control people's thoughts. That's
[1:28:43] natural. No problem. But it does
explicitly state it is anonymous and we
[1:28:48] won't know unless they write in the
comments, you know, Linda Walker at 123
[1:28:53] Smith Avenue and I So every once in a
while you do get that and I will also
[1:28:57] say um just a little bit sort of peak to
the future on the community survey
[1:29:01] results uh with the comments that you
get, we will give all 50 or 500 to you.
[1:29:06] We um if there are uh curse words un
comments unbecoming that are like really
[1:29:12] bad uh I will talk with Howard we may
provide an unredacted version and a
[1:29:18] redacted version because uh we don't
want comments that are slanderous
[1:29:23] unnecessarily
um or you know if people just kind of go
[1:29:26] off on a rant um and so we typically
allow things in that maybe have a less
[1:29:32] likely curse words there's rare if any
but to let people know like we said
[1:29:37] we're going to be transparent. What do
you know? We are. So, um just to kind of
[1:29:42] let you guys know too again, we might
like if we have to update a you know um
[1:29:46] do a grammar thing because it's a whole
paragraphs a run on sentence or
[1:29:49] something but um so just to kind of a
little bit of a peak of to how we handle
[1:29:54] things and that's I will also say the
last question is what are your comments?
[1:29:57] What are your thoughts? And people will
tell us and then you will have them. So
[1:30:02] um for better or for worse.
[1:30:07] » Okay, we have gone through it.
Now that we do we have any questions,
[1:30:12] concerns? Are we okay with all the
different
[1:30:18] » a couple just
stupid? Well, not question.
[1:30:23] » No questions. Stupid.
>> Um on the map that shows Beverly
[1:30:34] circles, which I don't
>> tell me how you want it.
[1:30:37] » Well, I don't care about that. But in
our mixed use development thing, um
[1:30:43] there it specifically talks about one
quarter mile from the centers of
[1:30:47] Beverly.
[1:30:52] Well, if they see this,
I mean, and I don't know that this
[1:30:59] outside
>> in this questionnaire, but
[1:31:03] » um
up before is how far out does this mixed
[1:31:09] use village go? Um
[1:31:18] » so, a couple comments on that then. So,
one we can um I'm pretty sure because
[1:31:22] this is made in GIS, we can go out a
quarter mile quarter mile, right?
[1:31:27] Quarter mile from the center. Like we
can we can we can you know we can do
[1:31:30] that. We can math it if you will and
change that so it's actually more
[1:31:34] accurate. Um the other thing I'll say
like this is a survey. It's not a zoning
[1:31:39] tool. But I mean
>> I don't and like I said I don't care if
[1:31:43] if this is only used in this
>> it is it's only used in the survey
[1:31:47] » to someday go out
right here and that this ends up
[1:31:53] » but it would it just be better to go and
change it to a quarter mile from the
[1:31:58] center. Was it quarter mile from the
intersection?
[1:32:00] » Say quarter mile from the center, right?
>> Would you rather see it as a circle
[1:32:05] rather than the
>> Well, it would typically a circle.
[1:32:10] » Yeah,
>> sure.
[1:32:13] » Is that
[1:32:19] Tim if I so is that for Beaverdam,
Raiseland and Drenth in terms of the
[1:32:23] quarter mile
>> correct?
[1:32:24] » Okay,
>> that is what
[1:32:27] » the mixed used village part of our
ordinance had.
[1:32:30] » Yeah, thank you.
>> Um and the other part isn't really a
[1:32:37] question. Well, it's a question.
[1:32:42] Our residential district and the mixed
use do have bed and breakfast listed as
[1:32:47] a use
[1:32:51] » is that different bed and breakfast
under the law is very different from
[1:32:55] short-term rentals. Very different.
[1:33:05] » Cool.
>> Anybody else have any questions,
[1:33:07] concerns, changes, additions?
I'd just like to say thanks for putting
[1:33:14] this together because it's so much
easier for us to look at something and
[1:33:17] then ask questions about it versus
having us come up with questions.
[1:33:21] » Yeah, no problem. I mean that's that's
what you've hired us to do. So um I'm
[1:33:26] you know I'm glad that you uh received
it well and I mean that's that's what
[1:33:30] we'll be doing for you guys. So yeah,
>> thank everybody for their feedback too.
[1:33:34] It was really good feedback and um
thank you Tanya for putting that
[1:33:40] together. Nice work.
>> So if I if I if I can madam chair. So um
[1:33:45] I want to get some clarity from somebody
what the directive is. So I will be
[1:33:50] making these edits. Um
and and and then what how?
[1:33:57] » Yeah, I think go ahead and send that to
myself and um I think the chair. Um and
[1:34:03] then we coordinate if there is another
round of edits necessary.
[1:34:10] I ideally um madame chair if this is
something that that you and I uh and
[1:34:16] Tanya can look at and sort of bless that
would be best because we're trying to
[1:34:21] meet the deadline of getting it in for
the newsletter.
[1:34:24] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. Because when does the newsletter
[1:34:28] uh get out? Is that next week? The
newsletter needs to be out. Um, yeah, I
[1:34:34] mean, it needs it needs to be well on
its way next week.
[1:34:40] It's the end of the month is the
deadline, but but but we're in the
[1:34:44] process of designing it as we speak. And
so, you know, we really want to make
[1:34:50] sure that we have that tool available
for the community. They, you know, we
[1:34:55] can get the master plan survey out to
everybody.
[1:34:59] And that saves us a few thousand dollars
to just do it.
[1:35:02] » Someone's knocking. Someone's knocking
at the door.
[1:35:05] » That's got to be Troy.
>> You had to step out for a minute.
[1:35:08] » Who is it?
>> Yeah.
[1:35:10] » Oh.
>> So, can I get them to you by the end of
[1:35:14] the week?
>> Uh, yeah, that should be okay.
[1:35:18] » Okay.
>> End of the week should be fine.
[1:35:22] » Thank you. Um what what what I would say
is what would be more helpful is to get
[1:35:27] us a QR code
>> that's very easy
[1:35:30] » and get us the language that you want
associated with the survey and the
[1:35:36] master plan sort of you know something
like you know the township is
[1:35:41] going through its master planning
process. We you know desire you know
[1:35:46] significant community feedback you know
um you know have you know, a bunch of
[1:35:53] community meetings and we're also doing
this survey. You know, here's the QR
[1:35:58] code kind of thing. Get us that language
and then um and then the QR code uh and
[1:36:03] then the actual survey then can wait a
little bit. Then you have a little bit
[1:36:08] like extra time.
>> I can get you those things promptly. I
[1:36:12] also know that um I will get the edits
to you because you will need to approve
[1:36:16] the edits and whatnot. But yeah, right
that that is that sounds very um that
[1:36:21] that helps. So,
>> but then if you had an edit at the very
[1:36:25] end,
you could make that edit and the survey
[1:36:31] QR code is already gone out.
>> Yep. Once the once people start taking
[1:36:36] the survey like when does the uh when
does the newsletter like go out?
[1:36:43] End of the month. So, you know, we can
tweak the edits to the survey, but I um
[1:36:50] it's always great to get something like
done and finalized and off your plate.
[1:36:54] We're all thinking about it now. So, um
Okay.
[1:37:01] » Okay. Carrie, is there anything else
that you want to add to this or are
[1:37:05] you're all set with this too now?
[1:37:10] » Thank you. I stepped out for a second.
Yes. So the big most important piece is
[1:37:14] having the QR code and having that
language so we can get it in the in the
[1:37:18] flyer for the print having the survey
and having if if if the planning
[1:37:23] commission is comfortable with having a
hey we we've given our stamp of approval
[1:37:28] on the survey contingent upon our chair
and our manager
[1:37:33] reviewing it. I think that would be a
great step forward for moving forward
[1:37:36] here. And then if any edits needs to be
done before the flyer goes live. Um,
[1:37:41] again, I just want to say thank you for
your time looking at this. This is
[1:37:45] fantastic.
>> Yes.
[1:37:50] Okay.
[1:37:53] Okay. So, everybody's all set. We are
going to um give the approval on it once
[1:37:58] we've got the edit done and then we will
get it ready for distribution through um
[1:38:05] the newsletter.
Okay. Um just a quick comment. Um we are
[1:38:11] handing out
um
[1:38:15] this is Plymouth Township Council. Uh
this is forformational purposes only. We
[1:38:22] will eventually
um be looking at this down the road, but
[1:38:27] we want to give you time to uh look at
it, study it,
[1:38:33] ask questions eventually, write
questions down. um Linda Walker gave it
[1:38:39] this to us so that we could um look at
it again. This is coming. It's not now.
[1:38:47] It's going to be in the future. But this
way it gives us time to study it.
[1:38:52] » Something to Yeah. something that we
can,
[1:38:56] » you know, because we're going to have to
address some data centers at some point.
[1:39:00] And this will give us uh just a starting
point. just information. It we don't
[1:39:06] have to use it. There's a there's
another one also um uh this was this
[1:39:12] Plymouth Township one was a statement um
for a Danish data center application and
[1:39:17] demands that they made. This is what
they asked of that that application. And
[1:39:22] the second one is a that uh Howard
graciously got ready to uh and if
[1:39:27] anybody wants a PDF copy, I can email
that. But it's a um a working it's a
[1:39:35] inworking
model ordinance for data centers. I
[1:39:39] think it was for Howell Township.
>> Yeah.
[1:39:41] » Yeah. For Howell Township that they're
working on
[1:39:44] » that they actually put an advisory
committee together with their their
[1:39:48] community with community members and
their their township board too. And
[1:39:54] again, this is forformational purposes
um as we proceed.
[1:39:59] » And again, hang on to it. It'll probably
be a couple months from now um that we
[1:40:04] need it.
[1:40:08] » More of the how ones are coming.
[1:40:14] » Thank you, Howard, for getting it for
us.
[1:40:21] » Bringing it to our attention.
you for taking care of that. I
[1:40:25] appreciate it. I think the more
knowledge we have the better going into
[1:40:28] this
>> and this gives us time to study it to
[1:40:31] look at it.
[1:40:37] » Do we need more one?
>> We have Tanya. Did you get one?
[1:40:43] » Tanya Tanya should have both of them.
>> Yeah, sure.
[1:40:47] » Yeah, there's the there's one of them
there coming up. Give her that one.
[1:40:53] There you go.
>> More extra.
[1:40:58] » Hey, I've got a
>> desire to read it at night. We're
[1:41:00] » good. We're okay.
>> Put you to sleep.
[1:41:02] » Yep.
>> Tanya, did you get the other statement
[1:41:04] one, too? Okay, you've got both of them.
Okay, everybody's got both of them now.
[1:41:10] » Okay,
>> perfect. Thank you, Linda, for uh giving
[1:41:14] this to us and Howard for stapling it
and printing it all off. So,
[1:41:19] okay. Number nine on the agenda is
public comment. Do we have any public
[1:41:25] comment?
[1:41:29] Number 10, board member comments.
Anybody from the board planning
[1:41:34] commission here want to have any com?
>> I got a quick update if you want to hear
[1:41:39] what went on at the last uh board
meeting.
[1:41:41] » Yes, I do.
>> Try to keep that real quick for
[1:41:43] everybody.
>> Okay.
[1:41:44] » Uh we approved uh some playground
equipment for the Drenth Grove uh
[1:41:47] playground. So, uh, that's, you know,
it's got some, uh, some ADA components
[1:41:52] to it. Try to make it accessible for
people. Uh, making sure that it matches,
[1:41:56] you know, the rest of the equipment
that's already in from the design, uh,
[1:41:59] drawings that we saw from Brian
Newuhoff. Looks like it's going to be
[1:42:02] pretty cool. So, that was already in the
budget. It was actually less than what
[1:42:05] was budgeted for that. Uh, so that
should be moving. Uh, we revised the
[1:42:10] moratorium on the data center uh,
resolution. Now, involves energy
[1:42:13] facilities along with data centers. Uh,
foyer policy. Just some clarification on
[1:42:19] some of the things there. Uh making sure
that we were uh charging the appropriate
[1:42:22] amount but also you know doing it the
most inexpensive way for the people uh
[1:42:26] in the public who are requesting the
information. Project clarity some of you
[1:42:30] may be familiar with it's uh the Ottawa
what the ODC acronym
[1:42:37] » uh
>> outdoor discovery center. It's the the
[1:42:40] project clarity came from uh a desire by
the folks around Lake Makatawa to have a
[1:42:47] more clear water uh lake. Now,
ironically, you can't really get clear
[1:42:53] water in Lake Makatawa because of the of
the bottom of what what is Lake
[1:42:58] Makattow. Not because it's dirty, but
just because of the ecology of the lake.
[1:43:04] But that's actually how Project Clarity
came about is clearing uh the water from
[1:43:10] Lake Maktau.
>> Yep. And that's looking at the overall
[1:43:14] Makatawa waterershed. So even though you
know we're Lake Makatawa is not in
[1:43:18] Zealand Township, but phosphorus levels
from farms and from other areas here end
[1:43:22] up in the runoff which all contributes
to the phosphorus level in Lake
[1:43:25] Makatawa. So, we approved a $20,000 uh
donation to them for over the next five
[1:43:31] years for a total of $100,000 to help
with that effort. And they've uh they've
[1:43:37] been doing this for a while now. We
haven't contributed uh as a township in
[1:43:41] the past. So, it seemed like a
worthwhile thing to to support. And part
[1:43:44] of their efforts involve working with
local farmers and trying to provide ways
[1:43:48] that they can do things that maybe help
contain the amount of phosphorus. uh
[1:43:53] keeping it here in the farmland where it
does good, keeping it out of the lake
[1:43:55] where it doesn't do so good.
>> And then we also looked at uh uh the
[1:44:01] treasur. So, we did a uh had a change in
the way that we did things as far as the
[1:44:06] treasurer and the finance director uh a
couple years ago. I think it was just
[1:44:10] before I got elected. Um, they moved
from having the elected officials doing
[1:44:15] a whole bunch of the actual work, uh, to
saying they're going to be figureheads,
[1:44:20] not a great word for it, but more of a
figurehead type position and having the
[1:44:23] hired township employees do more of the
operational, uh, duties. One of the
[1:44:28] things that uh, changed there was the
capital improvement plan. Uh, used to be
[1:44:33] that uh, the treasurer would be uh,
heavily involved in that as well as uh,
[1:44:38] the manager. And what the previous folks
on the board wanted to do is say, well,
[1:44:42] let's separate that. Let's have the
treasurer do just the treasurer stuff
[1:44:46] and then we would have the uh the hired
superintendent uh now that we had one uh
[1:44:51] do the capital improvement plan. And
in doing that, there were some things
[1:44:58] that maybe the the CIP wasn't quite as
complete as before. Um and looking at,
[1:45:03] you know, there's nothing in the statute
that says that has to be like a clean
[1:45:06] line of separation. uh it's it's
perfectly fine to have the treasurer and
[1:45:10] the superintendent collaborate on that
and uh because we have, you know, a lot
[1:45:14] of experience, you know, it's there's
really no harm in having them work
[1:45:18] together. So, uh we put $4,000 that have
been removed from the treasurer's salary
[1:45:23] back into that uh for the work that
she's done already. And then also, you
[1:45:27] know, moving forward, she would
collaborate on those things. And I think
[1:45:30] it's going to be an overall good thing.
I think the uh the folks that changed
[1:45:33] the structure took a stab at what it
would take. uh there's probably more
[1:45:37] hours left for the elected officials
than what they estimated. So, this is a
[1:45:41] move to kind of correct that. And then
as we go forward, you know, if we want
[1:45:44] to transfer more of that to the the
hired officials of the township, that's
[1:45:48] fine. We can do that. But we want to
make sure that we're not uh doing
[1:45:51] something that's going to hurt the
quality of the documents or the
[1:45:54] procedures uh just to try to get there
faster.
[1:45:58] And then, uh the tax rates, uh we talked
about some possible millage reductions.
[1:46:02] There was uh one of the mill reductions
we're going to go forward forward with.
[1:46:06] There's another one we're going to wait
a little bit. Uh the approach in the
[1:46:09] past has been to make uh some small
adjustments and try to be conservative.
[1:46:13] And if we can give back more the next
time, then we can keep doing that. Uh
[1:46:17] one of the things that uh that was
shared by the treasur is what we don't
[1:46:21] want to do, especially for people with
mortgages, you know, that have an escrow
[1:46:24] account. We don't want to reduce that.
So all a sudden they're saying, "Oh,
[1:46:27] hey, I've got way more in my escro
account than I need." So they reduce it
[1:46:30] and then a year later then you reduce
the millage or increase the millage or
[1:46:34] change it to the point where now they
have to readjust that. So trying to make
[1:46:37] those incremental changes, make sure
we're set up well for the future, but
[1:46:41] also keep the tax as low as we can.
>> Does that show up on our assessments
[1:46:44] then when we get our assessment?
That's an excellent question that I
[1:46:50] don't know the answer to, but uh
[1:46:55] » we won't see it till the winter tax.
>> That'd be your next tax bill, I would
[1:47:00] assume. Yeah.
[1:47:05] » Yeah. And if you got if you have any
want any more detailed information on
[1:47:08] that, I'm sure Melissa can answer any of
those questions. Yeah.
[1:47:12] » Good question.
>> And Denny, you had a question.
[1:47:16] » Project clarity. Do you know much about
that deal? We were super involved with
[1:47:21] that thing 10 years ago, 15 after 10
years about five years ago the thing
[1:47:27] fizzled.
What is going on with it? We used to get
[1:47:30] cost shares for cover crops. We used to
do all cover chop and they would cost
[1:47:35] share this the cost of the plant and of
that and everything and then it fizzled
[1:47:41] and nothing happened. We as farmers hear
nothing about project clarity anymore at
[1:47:45] all. They didn't say at the time why it
ended
[1:47:48] » there. Well, the funding was gone.
>> Okay.
[1:47:50] » The fund Hayworth was a big pusher of
this. They gave a lot of money to
[1:47:56] project clarity for cover crops
and I think Hworth stopped doing that
[1:48:02] and now it on the farm level it's
fizzled to nothing. We hear nothing
[1:48:06] about it.
[1:48:09] » So I can answer half of that. Um I I
want to follow up with Travis to
[1:48:18] understand why they're not continuously
doing cover crop. Um so I I want to look
[1:48:23] into that in more depth. So I just you
know want to be clear that um this is
[1:48:28] only kind of half an answer. But one of
the things that's happened with project
[1:48:32] clarity is is there's really two stages
of project clarity. And the first stage
[1:48:38] of project clarity you've really
completed. The first stage of project
[1:48:42] clarity was a collaboration
between um and and there were a number
[1:48:48] of individuals around Lake Makatawa.
Hworth was one of them, Devoses, Van
[1:48:55] Andandals, there are a number of big
names that provided some pretty sizable
[1:49:00] contributions to project clarity.
Steve Boltis when he was at the MAC, uh
[1:49:06] he was one of the first ones to go
around to the local communities and to
[1:49:11] essentially match uh some of the don
large donations that were given and that
[1:49:16] there was um the local um or the the
municipalities uh uh in the area um
[1:49:24] committed uh pretty sizable uh funding
for Project Clarity for the first phase.
[1:49:32] And the first phase of project clarity
has really been mostly lowhanging fruit
[1:49:37] BMPs. So things like cover crop things
uh like uh small projects that would you
[1:49:46] know restore vegetated swailes or uh do
you know cleanup um things that will
[1:49:53] have a an immediate impact on the
phosphorus load that exists in Lake
[1:49:59] Makatawa. over the last I would say year
or two some of that has um uh kind of
[1:50:08] con concluded because when we look at
the data the data is essentially showing
[1:50:13] us that um we've we've gotten to a level
and now we're kind of stuck and the
[1:50:22] level that we've gotten to is now we
have to address the phosphorus condition
[1:50:28] that is existing in Lake Makati and
continues be added to the water. And so
[1:50:33] there has to be an engineered solution.
And so the things that you were talking
[1:50:37] about which was the cover crop and the
things that were directly related to the
[1:50:42] farmers much of those efforts have
concluded because as project clarity has
[1:50:49] indicated they've they've um have
essentially communicated that you know
[1:50:54] those they've done all those BMPs.
They've they've done all of those kind
[1:50:59] of lowhanging fruit projects um that
kind of get you to a better phosphorus
[1:51:05] condition and now the issue is one how
do we create more sustainable funding
[1:51:11] model and two how much is it going to
cost and what is an engineered solution
[1:51:18] look like for the rest of the phosphorus
load that exists in Lake Matala. So, I
[1:51:25] mean, at this point now, they're a
they're analyzing uh essentially having
[1:51:32] uh you know, almost like a lock system
where they potentially would treat the
[1:51:37] water either going into Lake Mack or
coming out and treat all of it and in
[1:51:42] sort of an engineered solution. And that
engineered solution is going to be in
[1:51:48] upwards of three to$4 million. uh and
and that's not even a guarantee at this
[1:51:53] point because they're still kind of
analyzing that. And so that's really
[1:51:58] what this sort of phase two of project
clarity is and phase one has concluded.
[1:52:04] » What are the contri what are the
contributions of other communities?
[1:52:09] » Park Township contributed um 50,000
over I think a 10-year period. So half a
[1:52:17] million. Holland, Charter Township,
Oswell, half a million. Um the city of
[1:52:23] Holland I believe was also half a
million. Um and then the other
[1:52:28] communities um Lake Town and others
could lower amounts. Um so we're talking
[1:52:34] about sizable contributions for quite a
period of time from most of the local
[1:52:40] communities.
One of the things that we asked for in
[1:52:43] return is if they've got data specific
to Zealand Township, whether it's
[1:52:47] phosphorus levels, absolutely different
areas, they could share that with us and
[1:52:51] they said they could certainly do that
so we could get an idea of, you know,
[1:52:54] are there still more efforts that need
to take place here because they
[1:52:57] mentioned t you know, working with
farmers and and things like that. So,
[1:53:01] » one that's one of the reasons, you know,
$100,000 is is not, you know, a small
[1:53:06] donation. So, we'd like to understand,
you know, how how well is it working,
[1:53:10] » right? And also and also some
transparency on how their money is used.
[1:53:16] » Sure.
>> And you know what are their actual
[1:53:19] projects that they're doing? You know
whether it has to do with us or not.
[1:53:24] What are they doing with the money? What
is their actual project and where's the
[1:53:28] money going? Is it all going you know
90% to administrative and you know what
[1:53:32] I mean? You see that in a lot of
nonforprofits. Not that I'm I just see
[1:53:37] it through those eyes. I I would like to
see data. So I think that would be a
[1:53:41] good thing to ask of them.
>> Yeah. Reasonable questions.
[1:53:44] » I understand right. The phosphorus load
has dropped considerably.
[1:53:48] » That's correct. That's correct.
>> And that's one of the reasons why
[1:53:51] they're sort of moving on to phase two
is because they have seen a significant
[1:53:57] drop in the phosphorus load. They've
done quite they've done quite good work
[1:54:03] over the last decade. And now now now
you're looking at okay what do we do
[1:54:09] with the legacy contamination? What do
we do with the rest of it? Because
[1:54:14] you're not going to you're not going to
receive
[1:54:17] um any more bang for your buck, if you
will. Uh continuing those kind of
[1:54:23] lowhanging fruit BMPs. Now now you
really got to look at an engineered
[1:54:28] solution for the all the whole of the
lake.
[1:54:30] » Some of it's due to the heavy clay soil
here.
[1:54:33] » That's right. It does a lot of runoff
where if you have a grally based subs
[1:54:37] soil, it goes down.
>> This here will naturally it's always
[1:54:42] been high. Lake Mac has been high for
years because of the high phosphorus
[1:54:45] level in the ground naturally here.
>> Right.
[1:54:49] » There are elements of this that are
unavoidable. Um the project clarity is
[1:54:55] working with the Annis Water Institute
of um uh Grand Valley and so some of the
[1:55:01] best minds um are sort of addressing
your concerns and and there's a whole
[1:55:08] academic cohort of individuals that
reviews these projects. I I will tell
[1:55:14] you that the projects themselves there's
a there's they're pretty they're pretty
[1:55:18] transparent with what they've done. In
fact, they they present on this every
[1:55:23] single year. There's a huge, you know,
presentation that exists at Boat Works
[1:55:29] uh on a annual basis. Um and and they
would come in and present all the
[1:55:34] projects. I just I'm not an expert in
this area, so I can't like
[1:55:39] name them all, right? Those the ones
that I could think of, they came to my I
[1:55:43] had um but they they want to work with
the farmers. They want to work with the
[1:55:49] agricultural community because the
agricultural community is a huge
[1:55:52] contributor
um to to to water quality issues
[1:55:58] » along with the homeowner that puts a
bunch fertilizer on their lawns and gets
[1:56:02] washed. There is data that shows that
there's a big load coming just from
[1:56:06] homeowners.
>> We agree.
[1:56:08] » We you are absolutely correct.
>> You are absolutely correct. Part of part
[1:56:13] of how this all funnels into municipal
work is that
[1:56:21] it used to be that the McTar Area
Coordinating Council was in charge of um
[1:56:28] uh watershed issues as it relates to MS4
rules and rags. Do you guys know what
[1:56:35] that is? It stands for um uh municipal
separated storm sewer system. And that's
[1:56:42] actually the how um the uh law around um
the clean water act that's much of the
[1:56:51] implementation of the Clean Water Act.
And so those rules and regulations,
[1:56:55] which it's it's not generally talked
about very often at a township level
[1:57:00] because most of that goes through Joe
Bush's office and and we don't have to
[1:57:04] deal with, you know, enforcing silt
fences and enforcing, you know, planted
[1:57:11] strips and, you know, blankets in in the
drains and things like that. Um, but
[1:57:17] that used to be housed at the McIntyre
Area Coordinating Council. A few years
[1:57:22] ago, that was shifted to Project
Clarity. And so now all of the watershed
[1:57:29] planning and all of the MS4 planning
rules and rags
[1:57:35] actually occur out of Project Clarity
and the Outdoor Discovery Center. And so
[1:57:41] they took that all over. And so now
actually the watershed planner for the
[1:57:46] region works for ODC. And so um it is an
entity that is very much integrated into
[1:57:56] the government world. It's almost like a
quasi government nonprofit at this
[1:58:00] point.
[1:58:06] » Thank you, Howard. Um anybody else have
any questions, concerns? Any comments?
[1:58:25] » In favor say I.
>> I. Same sign. Don't forget to turn your
[1:58:31] speakers off.
Who seconded that over there?