[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?

September 8, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript