Oxford Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting: March 26th, 2026

001Okay, if we could call to order tonight's Charter Township of Oxford Planning Commission regular meeting, Thursday, March 26, 2026. If we could start the meeting uh paying respects to our flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you very much. Uh moving on to number three. Noting of the role. >> Noted there is a quum. All right, moving on to number four. Approval of tonight's agenda. >> Uh, move to approve the agenda. >> I'll second. >> Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion? >> Seeing none. All in favor? >> Any opposed? All right, that P. Motion carries. Uh, number five, conflict of interest, exparte contact. Uh, I do

002have a a conflict. >> Okay. >> I don't know if we want to. It's pertaining part C. So, I don't know if I need to explain it now or >> No, we can wait until >> wait till see. >> Just know that just so the chair knows to >> address it at the beginning of seat. >> Thank you. >> No, see. Okay. Anything else? Seeing none, we will move on to number six, approval of minutes. Planning Commission regular meeting March 12th, 2026. >> Move to approve approval of the minutes. Planning Commission regular meeting March 12th, 2026. >> Second. >> I have a motion. We have a second. Uh any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? That carries as well. Seven. Public comment on items not scheduled on this agenda. This

003is an opportunity for the public to address anything not on our agenda tonight. Seeing none, we will move on to number eight, commissioner's comments. Anything uh that needs to be brought up, discussed? Seeing none, we will move on to nine unfinished business. We have none. 10 new business. Item A, the applicant is requesting an amended final site plan approval to split a parent parcel of 5.93 gross acres zoned SF1 into two lots. The parent parcel is located at the western side of Shepard's and Lakesur lanes, parcel number 00436201001. Um, the way this will work is we will start with a presentation by the petitioner. We'll have a public hearing, public uh testimony. Uh, we'll close that hearing and move on to uh township staff. Um, >> we don't have to have there's no public hearing.

004>> Oh, nice. We don't have to go through all this nonsense then. >> Okay. Okay, added an agenda item. >> Are we ready for you, sir? >> Good evening. Matt Pasqua, Carlile Workman Associates. Uh, I'm joined tonight by my colleague, Benny Bono, which you've met before. Uh, one of these nights I'll have him talking in front of you, but tonight we just don't have enough time for prep, so he's just going to be here and look pretty. Uh, and then another guest that we have this evening is building official Tim London. I just want to be able to publicly take this meant to say that working with Tim is a great joy. Uh, he's a great partner with us. uh he's a good building official. So, just wanted to take that opportunity to acknowledge him.

005Uh first order of new business this evening is the applicant is requesting a lot split approval for the parent parcel located in an FS SF1 zoning district at the western end of Shephardds and Luxburg Lane. So, this is part of the North Oakland Woods um condominium development. Typically lot splits are handled administratively by the township but because this is a condominium development and technically one large parcel with subunits within it it's considered amended site plan which means it comes through the planning commission. Um so with that in mind you know we put these we have a process in which we review these under both your council ordinance and the state requirements. Um, and so per that review, uh, the proposed lot split, um, I'm sorry, uh, the lot in whole currently hosts a single family

006home and three accessory structures, one of which being a barn. Uh, the parent parcel is 5.9 gross acres, 5.5 net acres, and contains a portion of the grand of Grand Lake to the west. The applicant is proposing to divide the lots into two parcels. Parcel A being 3 point my apologies. They are proposing for parcel A to be 3.36 gross acres, 3.05 net acres, and parcel B to be 2.58 gross acres and 2.52 net acres. So, your ordinance requires that your um any lots within a zoning district meet that zoning district's dimensional requirements and size based on net acreage, not gross. The way that you calculate net acorage is exclusive at any right ofway or utility easements. So, the difference here between gross and net is the right of way for the road and the

007eastments themselves. Um again, once divided, parcel A will contain single family home which is to be rehabilitated and remained. Parcel contains a barn and two smaller accessory structures which are to be removed. Uh I know the applicants here this evening I believe they're already in process of removing those structures. Um we cannot nor can you approve a lot split that creates a nonconformity. So if these lots were split with excess with just accessory structures that would be in violation of your ordinance because we're in states that in the residential district one principal single family home must be on the property prior to any accessory structures. So typically in these instances where we have these issues, we will we'll still do the review to make sure that the lot that they're proposing is going to work.

008And then what we do is we hold that review until the demolition permit's been issued and closed and then we pass it on to county for assessment. So that way again the applicant can speak the timeline better than I I but we have that stipulation in here that those successor structures on what would be parcel B must come down before weld it processes and forward it to the company. So a real quick overview of parcel A and parcel B as they relate to your specific ordinance. Uh the parcels must meet uh a lot width of 200 ft. They would both comply. They must meet uh two and a half net acres. They both comply. Uh their parcel their depth to width ratios uh cannot exceed three and a half to one. So they cannot be

009three and a half times they cannot be more than three and a half times longer than they are wider. And that's there to create to to ensure that we don't get a bunch of spaghetti string lots. Um and then all parcels need to have access to a public or private road. Obviously both comply um as it relates to the land division act which state law. Um they both have accurate legal descriptions. We will rely on township engineering to confirm that the um the lot descriptions they've given are correct. Um the state says depth to width ratio not narrow narrower than 4:1. They comply meets our standard zoning requirements. They both comply accessible by public or private roads or an easement. They comply. They cannot land like a cemetery. Both comply. Taxes and assessments been paid

010for the past five years. They both comply. and then must not exceed the number of divisions or redivisions from the parent parcel. The state did recently modify this language, but um our assessing department can assess that. So if there's an issue with how these splits, they're asking for assessing and flagable to the county. Uh so with that, I know the applicants here I have to answer any questions. The only items that we've put out to be addressed is that the township engineer confirm accurate legal descriptions. U township assessing confirm the splits and demolition of the accessory structures must occur prior to reporting the last county One other thing I'll throw in there is um they did provide you with amended master deed uh which the township attorney has reviewed and has no problems with. The

011only the only edit there is they're going from and my apologies I'm just pulling the number but they're going from 25 units to 26. So the masteries have to reflect that new unit and how that unit will bring out the share of common costs and all that kind of stuff. >> So with that again I'm happy to answer any questions. here. >> Go ahead. >> Have the demolition permits been um submitted or created? >> My understanding is all the demolition permits are in and I believe they are in the process right now actually the structures down. But I'll let >> any questions for Matteo >> the watch the 25 current. Are they all about the same size SF1 zone >> in that development? They all meet the SF1 standard, but I I think there's a

012relative variation between the lots um just because that's a larger sub. SF1 I think is is two and a half acre minimums, but they can be up to three, four, five. >> Any last questions? One more. >> Go ahead. >> There. Is there any chance this could be reszoned that part to a higher density use? >> No. I mean, someone Well, theoretically, yes. The path would be incredibly complicated and hard and likely that your master plan wouldn't support it. The condominium development wouldn't support it. Um, so I can't stop someone from putting in a reasoning application, but I I don't see a clear path to it. Okay. Thank you. How many other lots do you see potentially wanting to do this if say this was to go through? Is this something we're going to be

013opening a can of worms or is this just a one-off thing? I I don't I I guess I wouldn't say a can of worms from the perspective of every even if a condom condominium development is one large piece of land with separate units within it, it still has to comply with the overlaying zoning requirements. So the way these condos are typically laid out kind of max out the amount of space they can get. This my my understanding of this is that this lot was the original piece of property that sold off around it and the condo developed around it. And now this original home and piece of property has come available and both the developer and the condo associate I believe have an interest in, you know, assimilating it into the development itself and being

014able to get an extra unit out of it. But no, I opening up a can of worms, your zoning is what protects you there as far as you know, someone coming in saying, "I want to turn this one acre into four lots." Well, if it's owned SF1 or R3, that's not going to happen. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any last questions? Okay. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? I do. I like them to follow up on the demolition permits. >> All right, we'll uh take a minute and hear from the applicant. >> Yeah. >> Uh good evening. Thanks to the now also homes which builder building subdivision. Uh I did obtain the permit this week for that unit. We did take down the two small structures and within the next 30 days the large farm

015will be coming down and we'll close the permit out. Obviously the quicker I can get the permit closed out quick selling the construction home. >> All right. Thank you. Any other questions? >> Okay. And with this, we don't have to open up any. >> No, this is ready for a motion if the commission chooses. >> Okay. If there's no other questions from the applicant or Matteo, we'll entertain a motion. So, I will move to approve the amended final site plan for the proposed creation of a new condominium unit on lot one, North Oakwood's parcel number located in zoning district SF1, Suburban Farms at the western side of Shephard's Lane and Larksburg. per lane. The following conditions will apply. Completion of which will be approved by township administration. One, township engineer to confirm accurate legal descriptions

016have been provided. Two, township assessing to confirm available split. Three, demolition of the accessory structures must occur prior to recording the lot split with Oakland County. And four, all stated deficiencies and reports submitted by township consultants, township fire department, and township administration will be addressed. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. So, we have a motion, we have a second. Any discussion? Any last questions? >> All right. Seeing none, we will move to a roll call vote, please. >> Turner. Yes. >> Lo, >> yes. >> Austin, >> yes. >> Blankenship. >> Yes. >> Wagner. >> Yes. >> Bailey. >> Yes. >> Motion pass. >> Thank you. >> All right. I will >> then there's a second. >> I have another motion to make. I will move to approve the second amendment to the master deed of

017North Oakwood's condominium as submitted. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion. We have a second. Uh, roll call vote, please. >> Yes. >> Turner, >> yes. >> Blankenship, >> yes. >> Austin, >> yes. >> Wagner, >> yes. >> Bailey, >> yes. >> Motion passed. >> Thank you very much. All right. So, we are all set on item A. Moving on to B. The applicant is requesting the installation of a controlled access gate for the North Oakland Wood subdivision located across Lake Spur Lane. The gate is meant to detour vehicle traffic from using Lakes Spur Lane as a cutthrough from East Drainer to Bar Road. Okay. So, this is this is actually the same subdivision, North Oakland Woods. Uh the applicant is requesting to install patrol access gate across Lars Lane. Um and this is

018right kind of after the Bar Road intersection. So the gate is meant to deter vehicle traffic from using large lanes of cut through from East Drain or Road to Bar Road. The homeowners association's been in communication with the township probably for a year and a half, maybe two years about this specific project and we've kind of gone back and forth about different information. Um, but ultimately where we blame it tonight is that um, your ordinance does have some reference to gates, but not really in this context. And so looking at this, it's it's really an alteration of a common area in a condominium development and approved site plan. So it comes before you tonight as amended site plan. Uh Lars Lane uh is a private road and the responsibility of the HOA. Uh the gate

019would be located approximately 80 ft back from the bar road asphalt apron. Uh it would be controlled via keypads on both sides of the gate. So these here uh you pull up to these and enter the codes to get through. A Knox key switch is proposed to be installed as part of the gate for emergency vehicle access. Electricity for the gate will be provided from uh an easement via between the HOA and the owner of 1587 Larks Lane. That's kind of what's highlighted here. Uh it's our understanding that that home has a backup generator uh which would keep the gate powered in a power outage. Subdivision signage and reflective tape are proposed to bring awareness to drivers and control the access of the reflective tape being part of the gate. And then signage at the

020other entrance of the development which I believe is only shepherd's lane off of the strain are indicating drivers coming through that there's a controlled access if their intent is to cut through the sign is to bring it to their attention that they will be able to uh the application includes three appendices uh which outline system specifications safety compliance and emergency and scheduled access so as it relates to trash collection school buses obviously you know homeowners would be issued a code be programmed to be open during certain times and stay open, you know, again for specific routes like school and trash or if there's construction taking place in the development. Uh the fire fire department has supplied a review sighting conceptual approval for the gate location, but is requesting modifications for full approval. I do know

021the HOA has been in contact with the fire department um and has reviewed their concerns. you can speak to them this evening as to what modifications those might be. But in essence, they you know, we've structured this in front of you as it's it's a modification to a common element of sub. But even if you choose to approve this tonight, we've recommended a condition that they obviously would need to get the full approval from the fire department. So if you walk out of town hall this evening for approval, it's not a shovel in the ground tomorrow. They need to supply the fire department with the modifications that they're requesting and we can administratively review and approve that and then they can construct the gate. If approved, the maintenance, operations and insurance of the equipment will

022be the sole responsibility of the HOA. Uh they did provide a sample maintenance agreement um in the packet. However, we will we will requesting that one of the conditions be that they provide the township a copy of that once it's executed with all of the members of the HOA. So, with that, the items to be addressed would be that once the final location is determined that a survey be provided to the building department confirming its exact location. Um, relatively certain this is the area it will stay in. We just didn't want to go through the process of the expense of a survey where the fire department modifications that require a move a foot in one direction and then we're kind of back starting line. Uh another item to be addressed will be copies of the

023executed maintenance agreement will be provided building department permitting and installation. And so again, kind of the trigger there is if we don't have approval from the fire department, they don't get permits. And then the can also receive full approval from the fire township department regarding the design specification to control access. With that, I'd be happy to answer questions. I know represents from the HO are here this evening as well. >> Okay. >> I have several. >> So do I. Go ahead. >> Um well, uh the biggest thing is is I'm going to use this as an example. We have a gate at Oxford Lakes and Lakeville Road uh that has been subject to have it so the traffic doesn't cut through. Now the gate is not working and they don't use it and it's more

024of an eyesore. Is this something that's going to be, you know, if it's used, are they going to fix it and are they going to use it 100% or if it breaks and it costs too much money, are they just going to leave it like that? Because obviously that would be an eyesore for the the community. uh just like Oxford Lakes. So, I'd like to know that. Also, has there been traffic studies? Um has there been any dangerous people driving through at high speeds that warrants this? Uh that would be another question. And then also too with UPS, Amazon, post office and everything like that, that's going to slow them down in their business. So, is that going to be something that they can streamline that so they can get in and out quicker? Um

025that'd be another question. And then also too, um, my biggest thing is safety. Um, is this gate going to have stuff where if a kid is going in and out of it, is the kid going to get crushed? Are there going to be sensors? That kind of stuff. So, the more of the specs of the gate, uh, because I've had I've known those old farming gates that they use and they put on the chain, sometimes they don't have sensors or the sensors are clogged and they still end up shutting. So, we don't want that to be an issue, too. >> Yeah. So, I'll I'll speak to what I can and I'll I'll leave the rest to the applicant. Um, we have not been provided with any like specific traffic studies or data. We we have

026been in communication with the HA about their concerns. What they've witnessed and then as far as sensors are concerned. I do believe that there are sensors as part of the specifications that were in, you know, that were part of the specifications they provided did have some level of safety sensors to catch. I do believe like individuals walking through the gate or objects, you know, kind kind of the garage door as it's closing to pick something up at it. Those are the ones I can speak to the rest. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> I'm I'm concerned on in two areas. One that it doesn't appear to meet IFC section 503.2.1 which requires 20 ft for fire apparatus access roads. I'm also concerned that it doesn't meet because it it acts as a dead end. It does

027not meet the 503.2.4 with the turning radius requirements which would allow traffic to come in and make and and turn around and get out. Um that turning radius there's an inside radius of 25 ft and an outside radius requirement of 50 feet. So it would be interesting how that would be addressed those two those two points. >> Yeah. And I believe as it relates to the 20 clearance speak to it. Um there may be an option to relocate the keypads to meet that requirement. Um the turning radius is something where that has been discussed as far as if folks choose not to pay attention to a sign who could imagine um what are they doing when they get to the gate that's closed? How are they turning around? Well, you know, you're you're following maps

028or whatever and and it leads you to a spot and you get stuck and you got to be able to get out and and and there isn't a requirement, >> an IFC requirement, you know, for a particular turning radius. >> Well, and again, like I said, that's part of what what could be a conditional approval is, you know, IFC requires a fire department stamp. Again, from a design perspective, >> no, I no IFC does not require the fire department stamp. It requires a certain opening requirement. So fire department, it's my understanding they can't override what the IFC what the law states, right? >> I mean >> that would be my take. >> Correct. No, no, no. I I understand. Yeah. >> So I as far as how they claim to meet that Okay. >> Any

029questions, sir? >> Uh yes. Go ahead. um describe for me how this knockbox works and who has access to it. >> So again, I can the can speak to that better than I can. I know that the Knox box, I believe, was a because originally there was an SOS system proposed, which is kind of an audible sensor that picks up sirens and is supposed to open up automatically, but the fire department expressed concerns with those that they don't work the greatest. So the switch to the Knox was actually at, I believe, at request of the fire department. Um, and so it would function as any other Knox would as far as the fire department having access to that key, being able to use an emergency situation, which would then open the gate like an override

030function. So, if I'm a independent ambulance company, do I have a key to this box or do I have to go to the fire department, get them to open it? >> How the fire department distributes the Knox box information? I can't speak to. >> I think we need to know what that is to understand who outside of the fire department may have need in the case of an emergency to get through that gate. Okay, I think that's uh Oh, the other thing uh will the township require any kind of a bond or any funding that way. Uh so that in the case in the need of repairs to the gate, as was already mentioned, the township's got the money to repair it and make it look decent. >> I don't believe the requirements I don't

031believe that requirements has been placed on this project. Um I do know that there's in conversation with township attorney as relates to liability or responsibility. here the gate the township wouldn't have any but no as far as a financial mechanism to force the repair to the township doesn't have anything in place for that >> I think we ought to look at how we could have that added >> I wouldn't disagree but I would I would want us to dig deeper to see do we who are we requiring it for as it relates to not just this project but other projects and right >> that's fine >> but it's time that we step up and start putting some teeth behind these these special projects. If we're not careful, we'll have gates on 90% of the streets

032in the township. And and again, I would request that we uh have some kind of a traffic study done to support the need to put this gate in. Right now, we just have the desire of the HOA, but what's the numbers of vehicles? You know, we've heard complaints about uh Water Stone and traffic there. I've driven through this area and I can't believe there's that much traffic. But let's get some data. >> You good? >> I'm good. >> Okay. questions here. >> Okay. >> Um I tell you when meeting with meeting with the HOA was strong support. I assume there was an applicant or there was an application submitted >> support from Wisconsin >> for the for this request for the gate >> as in the HOA supporting it, >> right? >> Uh I would

033assume so. Do you do you know if anyone spoke out in the HOA to object to it and if so objections I would defer to the applicant. >> Okay. Okay. So we'll hear the applicant after >> Yeah. once I sit down. >> Okay. Um do we have any idea if bar will be paved at some point? >> So bar road kind of dances between I think bar road is is Addison Township right away. So I don't I can't speak to the plans, >> but there's no plans that you know or no discussions I guess Mr. Chair, you know, from Oakland County Road Commission or from other discussions with uh there's no because I know there's some discussions about Dunlop at some point in the future. >> Yeah, I think that one's a couple years out

034though still, >> right? But there's no discussions for that happening here. Okay. >> Not my would be as jurisdiction. It's it's all county. I'm not familiar with anything >> and this road is maintained by the HOA >> larks lane is >> that so once you enter through this gate so to speak or some there's some line there >> there you were in within that development responsibility for snow removal and for maintenance and everything so so they take care of it okay correct um I'm not sure if you would know this but um the traffic apps that we ways and Google maps and those types of things. Is there a way to contact those companies that you know of and ask them to remove roads like this as a cut through? Because I mean, you're driving

035down a dirt road bar and then you see this nice paved road and it seems like it's a great opportunity to to cut through. Um maybe that's what's happening here. It seems that's what's going on. Yeah, I would I would love to take your money to try to spend how many hours tracking down Google Maps to get them to take this off, but no, it's it's a fair question. I actually I did not look to see if like if you go from point A to point B across the sub if it actually directs you that way. I think my my understanding of it is that the condition of drainer is such that any any bypass someone can take that's on a paved road, they're going to take drainer can be rough at times. That's my

036understanding. >> Okay. Basically, you don't you've never heard of anybody like us being involved or I should say township or HOAs in our community contacting those companies to try to get cutthroughs eliminated or taken off their >> I'm not familiar I wouldn't I'm not familiar with that process. >> Okay. >> In practice. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. That was just giving me a hard time about calling. I'm sorry. I said I was just giving you a hard time about calling that stuff. No worries. >> Any question? >> No. >> Okay. >> I have one more question. >> All right. Go ahead. Before I start >> the u the road is more than 150 ft long, right? Lane. >> Yeah. Where this where this um >> gate would be. >> Yes. I would Yes. I'd

037comfortably say yes. Okay. Because it would that would also make it subject to yet another IFC rule to allow emergency vehicles to be able to turn around. Is that okay? I mean, I know our ordinance has certain road length requirements. It can be a dead end after so many feet without that requirement as well. Um, >> but this is section 503.2.5 2.5 which which addresses dead ends and it says any fire apparatus access road that exceeds 150 feet in length must be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. So I that would be sort of the the third concern. >> Sure. >> Is there a reason why they're not putting gates at both entrances? Uh because that way it' eliminate the cutthroughs from both sides and have vehicles from not stopping. >>

038You just stole my question. >> You only have one. >> You took it. >> Damn it. >> No, I got one. >> That is that's not been discussed, but that would be again a fair question. Or is that something that we could, you know, if this does come to tuition or thing, making them put two gates in just so it would eliminate having the back up and back? Cuz I can see that person on the first driveway getting very upset with people getting stuck and then having to go back around and and backing in the driveway, going on the grass, then that person's now upset with everything. So, I mean, we still got to look out for our neighbors, too. >> Yeah. I think to answer the question you may have been asking, may not

039have been answer asking, but The point is that something like that would not be part of a conditional approval would want them to resubmit with that. >> Okay. >> Fully hashed out. >> Anything else? >> N I can cross this one out. >> Um, a couple questions. Um, I think, uh, we touched on one of them, but you know, what if there is emergency damage done to this thing? If police, fire, whatever gate malfunction and it's screw the gate, go through it, who's picking up the tab on that? >> As far as how the liability exists between the fire department's insurance and the HOA, like I couldn't speak to. >> Okay. Um, we touched on the gates at both ends. Um, looking at where it's at, where would a vehicle, if I pull into the

040gate to cut through and can't and now I've got emergency vehicles pulling up behind me, where do I move turn around and get out of the gate? >> Yes, that probably speaks back to Mr. concerns about turn. >> Okay. Um, next question. The power and stuff is coming from that one house. Um, I don't pay my electric bill that month. Now there's no power of what runs this gate. >> Okay. I sell the house and he doesn't want to pay that electric bill, >> right? >> Who now pays the electric or how what powers that gate? >> How that's all structured again? I kind >> Okay. Um, and the big thing, uh, or two things. Firet truck one goes through after running the Knox box. Gate closes behind. 30 seconds later, the next truck is

041going to stop, have to get a Knox box, open the gate back up. Every vehicle is going to have to go through this >> that I I guess I couldn't guide either way. My understanding is that it could remain open after the initial vehicle goes through, but I don't I couldn't offer that 100%. >> Okay. Um, and the big one for me is the Knox box. Um, having served as a firefighter for years, the way the Knox box works, it's not a fast process. Building fire is one thing, but if grandma's having a heart attack on the floor and they're out messing with a Knox box, an ambulance pulls up and they're waiting because the Knox are in firet trucks. They're not in the ambulance. They're waiting until a firetruck shows up or somebody comes

042up to get a Knox box. What's What's the fast way in without a Knox box? >> Again, I'll I'll let the applicants speak to the conversations they've had with the fire department. Excuse me. My understanding again, the fire department shied away from the SOS system. They've had issues with it in the past. So, I believe the Knox was requested by the fire department, but I don't the applicant can kind of speak to that. >> Okay. Not that the concern isn't valid, but I believe it was at the direction of the fire department. >> Okay. I think that answers most of my questions for now. >> Sir, >> um, do we know the direction that emergency response would typically take? It's a, it's a good question. I mean, the the entire station is northwest of this

043location. So presumably, I mean 24 or Glassby or something to kind of get down to drainer as quick as possible and then in from presumably Shepherd's Lane, which is the road at the other end, but >> that'd be for a medical emergency for a fire. They're coming in from both ends. >> That's There you go. Like I said, my my response is purely speculative. Okay. And and this might be for the applicant, but the next question is, if I come in from the other end, drive all the way through and hit a gate, how do I get out? Turn around and drive back. >> You mean if the gate's like >> the gates closed? If I pull up and go, oh, I shouldn't have cut through here. Now I'm turning around and going back. >>

044Correct. I mean, yes. >> Okay. Okay. Um, any more questions? >> I've been relatively useless thus far. >> But thank you. >> Thank you for your patience. >> Maybe the applicant. >> You made it clear at the beginning you were here as a pretty face. >> I was supposed to be helpful. >> Oh, >> you good. >> I'm good, sir. >> Okay. And with this one, we are gonna have public no public. >> No, we hear from the applicant now. >> Okay, with that, we will open it up for the applicant to present and uh we'll have some questions. >> Good evening. This is James Deutsch. I'm on the HOA for North Oakwoods. I mentally had a checklist of some of them, but you want to ask in certain order. Um >> well we could

045we could start with the uh with the opening um >> section IFC section 503.2.1 requires 20 ft of opening for fire apparatus. >> So that was in the uh packet information fire department's response highlighted that fact. Um so between that coming out last week or whatever today um investigating the option is we'll just move the keads to the side of the road. technically on the opposite side of the road from where you're driving meaning you have to pull over to the other side of the road to hit the keypad to go through but there's a gate so no oncoming traffic coming at you >> so when you hit the keypad both gates open or just one >> they would both open so originally as shown in this drawing originally the keads were going to be

046on the island and the gates would only open one side at a time >> right >> but given the opening requirements that both gates would open every All right. So, so to get through it though, someone will have to get out of their car and go around and punch in the keypad or something because if you put it on the side of the road for the residents in the neighborhood, there will also be like garage clickers. >> Oh, okay. >> Won't have to get out. Basically, guests or whatever would have to keep >> and how would emergency fire or not fire but um um ambulances get in and out. So that's a good question. Honestly, I just have the direction the fire department gave us which has Matt >> right >> discussed was they requested

047we go to an Xbox from the SOS system. >> Okay. And then um the there was two other um IFC ordinances. Uh one that addresses dead ends 503.2.5 and that's the fire apparatus. So fire truck comes through, he's got to be able to turn around and get back out. And and where would he do that? >> Um, it's a good question. So coming in from Bar Road, obviously there's enough of an apron for a turn. They come all the way down. There isn't enough width there to meet that requirement. Obviously though, they would be able to open the gate is the idea. That's the whole point of knockoff. In the event that they aren't, then I guess the proposal would be put some limestone down or something and create that width of the road to

048turn around. >> All right. And then and that would follow along then with section 503.2.4, which is the turning radius for, you know, somebody comes in and goes, "Oh crap." You know, Google Maps led me in the wrong direction. Now I got to be able to turn around and get out. There has to be enough of a turning radius, you know, per per the ordinance in order to allow to get out. And and what would you do about that? >> You would you would >> widen the road >> of the road right prior to the gate to provide enough space for that which I have to remember how much of we have the road there. I forget you said you say 50T was require >> well yeah there so you got two requirements. one is

049a um a 50 foot outside radius and then there's standards for fire apparatus which I haven't looked up yet but um that you would have to you'd have to look those up which which are probably significantly larger than the 50t would be my would be my guess given the size of the trucks. Um and then where would you put that and and do you have enough? Yeah, I have to look at what it is for the fire department. Okay. >> Fire apparatus. If you're talking about 50 feet road and size, I think we have enough to cover that within what's our ement. >> Yeah. >> For fire apparatus significantly larger, then we would have to figure that out with the homeowners those parcels. >> Okay, >> I'm good. >> Okay. >> Um, one of the

050things was is have you done a traffic study so far? Not officially, but I have two dogs and now two children under two and do a lot of walking. We don't have sidewalks in the neighborhood. Um, and I walk twice a day, primarily around rush hour. Um, there is significant amount of traffic and on the order of 50 to 60 vehicles each time of day that are not residents of our neighborhood, which is a problem only for two reasons, which is really what spurs this whole request. One, it's private road that we have to pay to upgrade. That's a significant more traffic than the 20 soon to be 27 lots that we have uh in the neighborhood. So that's one financial concern. But the second more important concern is the absolute irresponsibility of the people

051that are driving through there. Um repeated occasions more times I can count probably 80% of people driving through there regularly go 40 to 50 miles an hour. >> Have you guys posted any signs? We have we have 15 mph sign posted limits in neighborhood. >> Have you put any signs that say no cut through? >> Have you called the Oakland County to facilitate that? >> Department does regular drive-throughs, but given the priority of this versus what the job is, they don't come during rush hour. So, we've essentially done everything within our power aside from physically blocking that entrance. Um, obviously, it's been noted borrowed and drainer are Oakland County responsibility. They're poorly maintained. I think that drives them knows that and uh again as you said I don't blame people for the fact that it's

052an obvious cut through but it doesn't excuse the fact that there's a big safety responsibility honestly if people routinely went the speed limit that we posted this would probably less of a concern but the roads are so poor that actually Oxford and Lake Oran school districts drive through with their school buses even though there's no bus stop and it's not on the route so we've contacted both schools and they have to talk to their dispatchers and told their drivers to not drive through there because they're it's not the official route they're supposed to take and still they do. >> So that is the state of the roads surrounding us. They aren't going to be paved um anytime soon if ever and there's really no other option. So I'll address one of the other questions you

053had which was a gate on both entrances. Yes, feasibly possible obviously twice the expense for our small neighborhood uh which isn't insignificant. Um, but our idea was that we don't want to for all the emergency reasons, for everything else, blocking both entrances didn't seem necessary. And I would say 80% of the traffic of our neighborhood residents coming and going goes out Shepherd's Lane. So, blocking this entrance was less of a an issue for the people that live there, but still provided a remedy to people coming through. And then also the HOA, do you have any sort of uh dues subject to this for maintenance in the in the in the coming years? I know with you know road maintenance and everything like that it's a highly cost um so doing that if you deplete your

054funds in the HOA to fix the roads are you going to have enough money down the road to fix the gates because there is maintenance on these. I have gates and they're very costly. >> Yes. So we actually recently just upped our dues. We're very financially responsible. We're not a big neighborhood, so we have to keep that in mind. Um, but there is planning already for how we fund the roads. Uh, one of our residents actually used to work for a road commission, so we have good insight into the longevity and what we should expect. So, we've been planning for that. Um, we'll do a special assessment to pay for the actual gate itself. Um, and as far as the maintenance and your concern about it being dilapidated and not getting fixed, that's where the

055uh maintenance and liability agreement comes in that he would sign and notoriize and hand over to the township that we are fully responsible to maintain responsible for all those aspects. >> Matteo, >> yeah, >> is that is that something we can hold standby if they have that document and signed? >> Is that something we can hold >> perspective? Yeah. No, I mean, no. I mean, we would have it on record to say that you've agreed to do this, you're not doing it. And if there may be a code enforcement route, >> okay, >> to take um but it doesn't it it doesn't fulfill like the bond thing that you know, Mr. Wagner was on. >> Okay. I think that's all I have right now for you. Thank you. >> Yes, of course. >> Any questions,

056sir? Well, how was it determined that a gate should be put up to begin with? And how many of your condominium residents are in favor of this? >> 100% of them. So, in our annual meetings, the past two, this has been an ongoing discussion for over two years now. We brought this up and as our our neighborhood has not completed construction. There's still a couple houses being built. Everybody that's lived there and then new residents the following year have all agreed that this is important. Basically, anybody that has been there long enough to see cars going through have agreed that this is required um from their perspective. In terms of why a gate, uh, again, we've really tried every other means to resolve this issue primarily because the gate's expensive. It's expensive to maintain. We

057trying to avoid that, but there we have not found another feasible option other than begging the county to pay the roads. >> So, and that's millions and millions of dollars versus tens of thousands. >> Okay. I I have one more quick question. >> Okay. Go ahead. What is the width of that road by the way? >> I have it. >> 22 or 24 >> 32 32 feet. >> 32. Okay, thank you. >> Pretty bad. >> That's pretty good. >> That's big size. There's no curbs. So again, from the turnaround perspective, yes, I understand it. Um, and putting some some limestone or something, but there's no curbs that you're trying to jump or hop. It's >> So for for what it's worth, I did just look up the uh requirements for for, you know, for fire,

058you know, department type vehicles. And turnabout turnarounds are number one. You can have either a 120 what's called 120 foot hammerhead, a 60 foot wide or 96 foot diameter culde-sac. So it's like three times four times the width potentially of the existing road. >> So that that was honestly another avenue. We even enter we entertained everything. So another avenue was why don't we propose just turning it into a call this act and closing the road completely. >> Sure. Sure. >> Um >> we assume that would be a larger objection from from this this committee here um and also from emergency services to not have entirely lose that access versus lose it with having a gate that they can open. >> Okay. Thank you. That that's it. >> Have you considered speed bumps? Uh we have

059but the fire department and um all the other services are not in favor of that. >> Okay. >> Nor are we and also require maintenance. >> Okay. I'll reserve comment on that. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> How many of the uh 25 lots future 26 built are built on? >> Um so it'll be 27 total if that split that split goes through. Um there one joint lot that isn't going to be built on or at least has no foreseeable plans to be built on uh based on the owners that have it. Um so it should be 26 of the 27 lots. >> I'm sorry. >> 26 of the 27 lots will be built on time total at the end. Currently we have excuse me 22 that are built 22 that are built and

060a couple that are will be done in the next 12 months. >> Okay. Okay. So, you're almost built out. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you know, safety came up before and um can you you know, you mentioned there's 100% of support within the community for the for the gate. Um, have there been any kind of have you had safety issues beyond um what you've observed where you've had a call say the authorities to have something addressed or >> sounds like you may have contacted for some monitoring during busy hours but they're busy. Is that what you said earlier? >> Yeah. So, so monitoring based on speeding. So, from a again safety perspective, there's no sidewalks walking on the side of the road. Generally, it's one of these. Hey, slow down. Um, multiple occasions. I kid

061you not, people either accelerate even faster. >> Oh jeez. >> Do not move over or move closer to me. So, um, those are instances that we brought up with the sheriff's department to say, "What can we do about this?" They offered we can do more routine drive-throughs, but again, I work from home. I see when they come, it's like 10 a.m. Again, I don't fault them. It's not a priority. Um, so that uh aside from that, and I guess would support the two gate solution, um, we've had people in and tear up a bunch of lawns. Uh we've had younger high school age kids doing donuts in the middle of the intersection of Shepherd's Land and Larks. >> Um so pretty much everything you can think of has happened in this little stretch of road.

062>> You've had no say medical emergencies or um >> Thankfully, no, but it's a matter of time, >> right? I'm not Right. I'm not just asking a question, that's all. >> Um let's see. That's it for now. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, kind of going back to a couple of my questions earlier, um, you know, that that power is tied to that one house. What if something happens, they don't have power, uh, don't pay their bill, whatever, and now there's no electricity to the gate. >> Sure. So, that's uh, one of the factors was again the fact that that house has a natural gas generator. So, will alleviate some of the concern from a power outage perspective from the if they do not pay their electrical bill. Um well that's an interesting uh scenario but

063um if that were to happen there's also this is comes back to the spec of the gate. There are um gates that are purely solar. We didn't want to do that. Doesn't get enough sun there. There's gates that have a battery backup system that holds power so that it can operate under a power outage situation. So if that is a a primary concern, then that's something that can be speced in. So it runs off of power naturally, but basically as a power storage to run X number of cycles without power until resume. >> Okay. And when that homeowner sells and the next person says, I'm not paying high electricity on a gate. >> Was trying to look for and I don't think I have print in front of me. So, the um the agreement that

064we have with that homeowner um I'd have to go back and look at it, but I'm assuming it's tied just to them individually, not the property. Um so, that would be an issue that we would have to address obviously at the time of the sale and with the owner if it were to come that they do not want to pay that. I mean personally or what our plan is is that we are going to give a uh reduced rate on the dues for that homeowner for paying for that electricity throughout the year. Right? So we will essentially compensate them back for that. Um if there is an issue that the next homeowner down the road does not want to support this and pay for this and deal with this um then we would have to

065either go to the homeowner on the other side of the road uh and to have it run from from them. Um or we would have to convert to a fully battery powered solar gate which again we have questions about the reliability. >> Okay. And I the other question that I had brought up is the liability of the gate. Um again having been behind the wheel of those fire trucks, I pull up to an emergency scene like that and there's a gate, it's not working. We're going through it. who's paying to fix it. >> We would uh in the convers the context of there's obviously insurance questions and going through that whole process, but that's another this is how desperate we are. We even we will pay for it. How first of all hopefully that doesn't

066happen very often, right? That that is a need, but we would rather incur that financial cost and not have this. >> Okay. And then my other question, um, I know the Knox Knox box is the backup plan the fire department has, but I'll be honest with you, I'm not a fan of that because I know how long it takes for that code to come in to get the key to go over, open the gate, go through that process all while you've got a family member three roads down that's having a heart attack while I'm messing around with the gate. Um, I'm not a fan of that. What's the backup plan there? It's a good question. So again, this was directed the request from the fire department. So we took what they asked as a solution

067and said they find that's sufficient. That's that's sufficient. Um I suppose a backup plan uh would be to share that code with every emergency department. >> It's not a code. It's a it's a tone that comes into the box that opens up a key that's in the fire department. >> Understood. I'm saying share the code to the keypad. >> Are you making emergency uh code is what you're saying? >> Essentially. >> Okay. Um yeah, I' I'd be curious to hear what the fire department really thinks on this. I I have a hard time believing that they are in support of this, but that is what it is. Um one other question. You said you're putting the keypads on the opposite sides of the roads now. So if I'm pulling in to bunch the code, I'm

068now on the opposite side of the road, which to drive on the wrong side of the road is illegal. Has Oak County Sheriff looked at this and said, "Yeah, that's feasible." Or >> it hasn't been discussed yet because this is a three-day old plan when the fire department informed us of the access opening requirement. >> Um, understood that you're not supposed to drive that side of the road and that's that's an issue. There's no way to solve that problem otherwise for the emergency vehicles. >> Okay. And then my other question earlier was I pull up to the gate and realize we can't cut through. Where do I turn around if I now have cars right behind me on bar road to pull in? Especially if they're emergency vehicles. How do I get out of the

069way? >> Um so that apron and that opening is um quite wide. Um I don't have the mention in front of me, but it opens up quite significantly. There's plenty of room for say even an emergency vehicle to turn around on that side of the gate. Um, >> no, I'm saying I pull up to the gate looking at the the picture that's right there. I pull up to the gate, realize I can't get in now. I have to back up, turn around, and move away. And I've got emergency vehicles or other cars right behind me. Where do I back up, turn around, and get out of their way when they are cars right behind me? >> You're talking about from Larksburg. >> From Bar Road. >> Oh, from Bar. off to the side of the

070road right next to the gate. >> No, I'm up against the gate and realize I can't get through. Where do I go? And I've got an emergency vehicle or another vehicle right behind me. How do I get out of the way, turn around, move around without impeding traffic? >> Get out of the way. I'm not sure. >> And if I'm coming down Larksburg and realize, oh, I shouldn't have cut through here. Where do I turn around and go back the other way? That's the turning radius that Wagner was referring to that's required that we have to solve whether that's paving a wider area or limestone or what have you. Another option that we had talked about um previously talking to the fire department about a year and a half ago was essentially putting this is

071also something that exists elsewhere an emergency access road that's essentially again limestone next to the gate that they can go around at all times. So, we have a cut through for the cut through. >> It's not an ideal solution. I am just as open to other solutions. Trust me, if you have other ideas, I'm more than happy to hear them. >> Okay. I Yeah, I'm having been in the emergency services, to me, this is a nightmare waiting to happen. And I see it as a delay in emergency services. I don't know. >> I fully appreciate that. Trust me, my fellow board member here can attest because uh his mother-in-law was in that situation and emergency crews came from both sides quickly and it was very important. >> But what's going to happen when they have

072to sit for three, four minutes waiting for a gate? This is why we originally proposed the SOS system which opened it in five seconds once it heard the the sirens but fire department said that that was not as reliable. Um, I don't have an answer for you, but I will also say if we're really concerned about emergency response time, then the township needs to talk to the county because that road alone will deter you longer than the getting in that gate to get to a person. >> Any last? Um, is there a breakaway feature on this could just be pushed force? >> Uh, question. >> Okay. Any last questions? Yes. >> Um, who owns the property on either side of the gate? >> That that is all common elements of the condominium development. talking about

073the ements next to the road and both sides of the road. It's a private road. That's a common element. And then the ements on either side are common element. >> So if I pull up and the gate doesn't work, you're not going to shoot me if I drive around on the grass or whatever >> to get through. >> No, >> I didn't see a sniper option. >> Yikes. >> That was extra. No, but I got a logging chain in my truck. Teacher. >> Okay. Anything else? >> No, I think that's it. >> Okay. You had one more. >> I'm good. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um >> with that, we will entertain a motion. So we don't want to have any discussion before that. >> We can >> I wouldn't mind, Mr. Chair. >> Discuss.

074>> Absolutely. Go ahead. >> Which reminds me of um a development recently that we proved to the north. It's the peninsulas I believe where we have a gate at one end for fire access and an offer drainer. >> That that's by the scout camp. There is a James Hunt Road, I think it is. >> Right. that goes up in and there's a gate there, but there's also and then that gate opens to go into the subdivision that's being built now, >> right? >> That one I think is just an emergency access. >> I guess my point is there's one access off and I believe there's one off of close proximity to another. >> Correct. So then emergency vehicles don't have to drive all the way to the back. And this arrangement reminds me of that.

075>> Well, I think those gates are manual gates just with a breakaway. So there wouldn't be any delay or any >> That's what I was wondering. Yeah. if this arrangement they're proposing could be a breakaway feature for emergency vehicles where they just pull up and I don't know if the vehicle if they would even do that you would know >> and I if they would actually just bump into it and let it fly open or how that would work but um then maybe it would spring back at the vehicle I don't know but >> it just reminded me of that arrangement and we approved an arrangement like that for that development >> and once everybody figures out feature than what stops everybody from doing that. >> Well, it's it's a deterrent, right? You know, >>

076the HOA looks like they have consensus amongst them to try to improve the the safety of their community and and if they're in agreement, which seems pretty rare actually, to get 100% alignment, >> I think uh I think maybe a traffic study would be in order before approval. The reason why I say that is because it's more of an emotional thing now uh with people walking and stuff like that. If we have a traffic study, then we can have a little bit more data. And then I believe we should probably maybe have Oakland County sit there a little bit more too because this is something that is dangerous. So I I agree with him. If I had if I was walking and I had my kids maybe driving their bikes and people were doing that

077and they were speeding up, I'd have an issue, too. So, I I I agree with them that the something needs to be done, but I just don't know what, you know, and I and to be honest with you, I don't want another Oxford Lakes where you just see a dilapitated entrance way that's not worked ever because they literally quoted it's too much money to fix. And that's that's a very, you know, great point. You know, it is they are very expensive to replace, thousands. So, in the maintenance on a yearly basis, there's only 27 homes. So, I mean, it's a burden to 27 homes. If, let's say, we have five or six people that don't agree with it later on down the road because they buy a house. Now, they still have to pay for

078that and they're going to get assessed every single time the grip the gate breaks. So, that's another issue. It is a new road now. So, I I do understand the the issues with cutting through and the maintenance and the cost that it will, you know, occur for that because it is very expensive when you have constant traffic going through there. But it is only 27 homes. So you're only driving possibly a hundred cars through there a day if you live there. But if there's maybe six or 700 going on in a daily basis, that's an issue. That's a real issue. But if there's only 20 or 30 cars coming through there a day or maybe 40, that traffic study would would amount for that. And I think that that's something that we need to do

079diligence because if somebody does come in to this board and says we need to we want a gate after this and we keep approving these we're going to have gates all over Oxford and then that's going to be a real issue for you know concerns of people having heart attacks or something like that. So and I don't agree with the speed bumps because I put them in and they're they're a pain in the butt because what happens is the plows hit them. they they're constant maintenance and I would rather have somebody driving fast with an ambulance than creeping up to those things and stopping every 20 30 40 yards to have a new bump and a new bump and just be honest if the person's in the back that's that's that could cause more damage.

080So I think that there is some validation on their point. I think it's it's we should as a board and I'm saying this in my opinion we should do a little bit more research before we just shut everything down. we we need some answers and I think that that they could come back to us later on and come up with that data and then we would have a little bit more understanding because right now it's more of a safety issue for us and having other people wanting to come and put gates in everywhere and I see that a problem. So we don't want to you know open a can of worms where we now have to approve every single gate but if they have knowledge and traffic studies we can um we can hold other

081people to that standard and they'll have to go do that. So if they want to they want a gate, they have to do all these studies and they have to prove. So like it can't be just a a subdivision that's a dead end that you want to put a gate in because you don't want people going through or you know instance like waterstone, you can't put a gate there because it's a township road. So this is a private road. So it would we'd have to have some sort of you know stipulations on that. So I think personally this is my opinion now. You guys can take it how you want, but I think that they should go back to the drawing board and get a little bit more data, maybe a traffic study, have those

082strips go across the road. They know how many times they're leaving as residents. If there's 27 homes, they can't be going through the sub more than four times a day each person. So then that's a 100 times. If we're we're getting studies of 600 700 cars a day or may say 5,000 a week, that's a problem. And I I think as a board we we owe it to them to at least think about it and give them the option later on down the road because I I totally see and I hear that the emotions in him when he has kids that's safety. We have to think of his kids too, not just if somebody has a heart attack. So I think that's a big thing that we should, you know, and that's my opinion. So

083take it how how you want. >> I guess I have a few concerns. Maybe we could even start with the with the keypad being put on the side of the incoming traffic. That's something needs to be looked at if that's even a viable option or not. Um it sounds hazardous to me, but the the other thing I'm concerned about is that maybe more planning does need to be done on this with respect to the roads. Do you have the easements you need to make the road modifications in order to support the emergency equipment, in order to support the turnarounds, things like that, so they can actually do that. So, so I think more work needs to be done into the done to this before we can approve it. I think at this point is my

084opinion. >> I agree with that. I think there's more work that needs to be done on the gate design. and where the controls are for the gate. Maybe something different for a power study. So, I'm I'm not ready to approve it yet. And I have been out there. I have driven the area. So, I I have a visual site of what's going on. >> Okay. You guys have anything else? I don't think I have anything that hasn't been said. >> Okay. >> So, Mr. Chair, just talk to talk openly. I'm not proposing or make a motion to for a vote, but if we did do that, would an appropriate motion be to postpone this so that more data could be gathered and address some of the fire marshal things? I just I think from a

085procedural standpoint, you have too many concerns with this design as presented. So if you were to deny this, it wouldn't stop them from bringing a new application. Postpone postpone could, but that kind of implies that they will for sure be back and obviously they they probably have conversations. So I think given that there's nothing there doesn't seem to be much about this design that you're comfortable with. So, I think an appropriate action would be to deny it. There'll be minutes, there'll be videos for them to take record of what your concerns are. They can bring back a different >> All right. So, denying this won't won't hurt the applicant down the road to bring bring us bring forth a modified design, >> bring back a new application. Okay. >> I got one question. If they

086if we deny it, do they have to wait a grace period to come back? That's the only concern I have, too. >> No, that's a fair question. And is there a separate cost to reapply? >> Yeah, because I don't want to >> because we could also make a motion to table it. >> May I? >> But yeah, >> if you postpone it, you have to give it a definite date, >> right? Yeah. >> That we are going to reconsider this on this date, which may not give them enough time to decide what they want to do. >> Okay. >> If you table it, it's laying on the table >> when for whenever you decide to pick it back up again. >> Okay. which then would require a motion for you to take it off the

087table. >> So, >> but a but a denial is this this is not approved. They can come back with something else. As far as the timeline associated with bringing something back, I think if it's a if it's a new application, the only the only time in which I recall we are we are asked to highlight the last time an application was submitted is for resellings, not for >> Okay. Because Yeah, I agree. I' I'd like to see specifically the fire department 100% on board with everything. I I agree the safety thing is a concern. Um but at the same time, I also don't want to open up a can of worms and have every association of water stone all of a sudden want to gate off everything because it's going to happen. >> What What

088did this cost the applicant to apply? >> The fees are the fees to for the planning commission is $750. >> If it was denied today, >> they'd have to pay another 750. >> Pay another we should, right? So that's what I'm saying. If you are trying save them money, >> yeah, why not? >> You might want to table it. >> All that just means if they're not ready next month, >> it can just sit there on the table until they are ready. It's just when it comes to that agenda item, you will have to make a motion to take it off the table. >> Okay. That makes sense. >> Yeah. >> So, >> saves them money and gets >> All right. So, with that So, with that, I would move to table the amended final

089site plan for proposed controlled access gate located near the intersection of Bark Spur Lane and Bar Road. >> I'll second that. >> Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Any last discussion? Okay. All in favor? I >> I >> Any opposed? >> Okay, that motion carries as being tabled. >> It's a new one. >> There you go. >> Haven't done that one yet. >> Just one thing in I don't want to forget to tell you this. Um because it sounds like most of your concerns are from the fire department aspect. Uh on in BJ's letter is his number. All of you can call him anytime. And also I think you might want to request that he be here. Yeah. Okay. >> Well, there there's there are several ordinance or issues IFC, you know,

090laws that have to be complied to. So, it's >> and I think it would be good to have BJ here. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I mean, great. >> Okay. Okay, moving on to C. Applicant is requesting approval of an amended final site plan for 3020 Adventure Lane, Oxford, Michigan, parcel number 04 04376006. Um would like to ask to request to be allowed to abstain from discussion, deliberation, and action on this matter because of perceived and or actual financial interest. Okay. I will move to allow Commissioner Austin to abstain from discussion, deliberation, and action on this item because of a received and or factual financial interest. >> I'll second. >> Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion? I think I have to be >> You vote on this. >> You vote on

091that. >> You vote on this one first. >> Okay. You're allowed to vote. Okay. >> Any discussion? Okay. >> Um, all in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Okay. You are excused. Can he >> say yes to actually leave? You're good, sir. >> Okay. So, the the third item on the agenda this evening um is an amended approved final site plan uh that the applicant is requesting. So this is Baron Industries. Uh we provided I'll kind of go through it quickly, but the timeline here is in September of 24 at a regular meeting the plan commission conditionally approved a preliminary site plan for this project uh in which an existing building was being modified but with a large addition uh redoing a parking lot layout, landscaping um safety path etc. Uh in December of 24, the

092planning commission regular meeting uh they provided a conditional final approval. Then in February of 26, uh the ZBA granted variances for the front yard setback. Oh, I'm sorry, for the building setback and the parking lot setbacks. And then I'm sorry, my apologies. Uh ZBA was in 2020 2025. In February of 26, uh the an has amended submitted an amended site plan. Uh so they they had preliminary approval, they had final approval, they had CBA approval, um but they're coming back to you uh to amend the final site plan that was approved uh in 2024. Um our report kind of outlines, you know, everything in detail. Uh but just uh at a glance uh the site drainage is being redirected to an existing basin. The western portion of the site um eliminating previously proposed retention ponds.

093Concrete safety path along road has been removed. This requires a recommendation from the planning commission. There's a reduction in the overall site landscaping. Modified modified waivers and new waivers from the planning commission will be required. There's a reduction of one parking space to accommodate a new transformer. and then the relocation of the septic field off to the eastern side of the site uh which will require the removal of some mature trees. Uh that move was a result of the Oakland County Health Department uh placement my yeah movement of where they were proposing their original. Uh so no structural changes are proposed to the building. Um the previously approved uh on-site detention ponds have been eliminated as mentioned. All site storm water be redirected to an existing pond located west of the venture lane. Uh the

094existing basins will be regraded uh and the new outlet system will be installed to connect uh the drainage area to the other side of the venture lane. Uh they have received approval. Um the storm water management uh has been reviewed by township veterinarian has approved it as designed in this amended site plan. Uh the proposed 8 foot wide concrete safety path located along uh Oakwood Road has been removed. Uh the So we can kind of see here in our report we tried to compare the final that you approved in the amended that they're proposing. So this is Oakwood. This was the safety path that was part of that site plan. This is the amended path that they're proposing. Uh they did go to the safety uh path committee to request a payment in lie of

095option. So the payment for the fund as opposed to constructing the path. The safety path did recommend the payment in lie. So then the process is now the planning commission either makes a recommendation to approve or deny the payment loo option and the board ultimately decides if the p if the safety path um is allowed to be removed from the site. Uh we do cite that there are some mature pines uh along that oak frontage that would remain in place if the safety pad is not installed. Um parking space in this area had to be eliminated uh per the installation of the transformer which was a requirement of DT. Even with the loss of the one space, they still meet all the parking requirements. Uh no changes have been proposed to the underwater storage tank.

096Uh that was per the fire department. That was their requirement since the site is unwell. The underwater storage tank remains the same. Um As we had mentioned, final uh they did receive final engineering approval from the township for the uh for the amended site plan. Um however, if the planning commission provides some level of conditional approval this evening, um those drawings would need to be resubmitted to engineering again just to make sure with whatever landscaping modifications may be approved tonight that it doesn't affect drainage and things of that nature. So, they will have to go back to engineering for that approval commission approves or modifies the waiverss. kind of get into this is the parking space that they lost and again that's per transformer requirement for the utility. So, uh, the as it relates to

097landscaping, uh, as we had mentioned, the applicant was granted multiple waiverss at the September 26, 2024 planning commission meeting. Planning Commission granted landscaping waiverss for buffer requirements on the west, east, and south portions of the site. Further modifications to those waivers have been requested by the applicant. I'll kind of go through them per each standard and then kind of recap with you guys after that. So for general site landscaping the the original amount of landscaping required by your ordinance for this site. So I'm not citing I'll cite what your landscaping or what your ordinance required what they originally proposed and what they're proposing now. So what's required are 11 trees. They previously proposed 11 trees. They're now proposing none. So that requires a waiver for landscaping adjacent to roads. Uh for Oakwood Road, there were

09816 trees required. They previously proposed 15 trees. Now they're proposing 13. For at for Adventure Lane, 18 trees would have been required. Uh they previously proposed 10 trees, now they're proposing eight. Uh for ornamental trees along road frontage for Oakwood Road, they there were five ornamental trees required. They previously proposed two, now they're proposing none. For adventure lane ornamental trees, six trees were required. They previously proposed seven, and now they're proposing five. Uh for shrub requirements along roads, uh for Oakwood Road, 80 shrubs would have been required. They previously proposed 67. They're now proposing none. For Adventure Lane, 95 shrubs would have been required. They previously proposed 67 shrubs. Um again, they're proposing none. Uh for green belts uh along the north property line, 16 trees or 80 shrubs would have been required. They previously

099proposed 12 trees and 30 shrubs. Now they're proposing just 13 trees. The west property line, 11 trees would have been required or 55 shrubs. Uh they originally proposed nine trees, nine deciduous trees and three ornamental trees. Now they're proposing four trees. East property line would have required 11 trees and 55 shrubs. They proposed existing vegetation which the planning commission was agreeable to and they're not they're not modify any changes there. Just along the slide, it would still be the uh the existing vegetation. So to sum it all up, the total landscaping standards require for this site 94 trees and 175 shrubs. At the time of final site plan approval, the applicant was granted a waiver reducing this requirement to 69 trees and 134 shrubs. With the proposed final site plan amendments, the applicants now requesting

100approval for 43 trees and 15 shrubs to come to the required landscaping. >> C can you say that again? 43 trees and >> so just the last one. >> Let's see. So we went to we went from 69 to 43 for the trees, right? >> And then from 134 shrubs to 15 >> to 15. 134 to 15. So 69 went from 69 to what again? >> 43 and >> page 12 of the packet. >> Is it? I'm sorry. >> Then I'll get out. And then how many shrubs again? 69 to >> uh so shrubs we went from so for trees it's your ordinance requires 94. >> you said yes to 69 they're asking >> they're asking for 43. >> For shrubs your ordinance would require 175. >> You approved 134. They're asking now for 15.

101>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. >> Yeah. Um then the way that so in this consideration right you have all these landscaping along the road general landscaping here parking lots you have discretion here to kind of go whichever way you want with it. Um, one of the things that we offered up that if you if you are if you are agreeable to some modified agreement that you can provide that we expect x amount of trees and x amount of shrubs to be and their location to be administratively approved by the township unless you have a specific point where you would like them as long as it meets that standard we offered up in that conversation tonight. So there's modified waiverss to consider. Um there's modified waiverss to consider and you'll need to

102consider whether or not you're going to recommend approval or denial of the payment for the safety to the township board and ultimately it's the township board's decision with that I have to answer questions and I believe the applicants as well. >> Okay, starting on your >> No, I I have questions for the applicant. >> Okay, any question? Just a couple. Um, there's no other sidewalk along Oakwood, is there? >> I didn't see any looking. >> No, I don't believe there's a sidewalk on the south end. >> The sidewalk sidewalk wouldn't connect if it was installed wouldn't connect to any existing. Correct. >> No. Um, the only the only connection that is foreseeable but not a given. So, just to confirm your So, no, there is no safety path on the south side of Oakwood, but

103if you recall, um they're not back for final yet, but the Red Barn development was did receive preliminary approval and did have the safety path on their portion of the site. >> They've not gone to safety path committee to request waivers, have they? >> Not not yet. >> Okay. >> They haven't submitted anything yet. >> Okay. So that would be the only presumable connection would be. >> Is there any residential? It's all as um light industrial in that area, isn't it? >> Yeah, they this way, but but low density kind of in both directions >> and as far as you know, there's no connection. This doesn't help another strategy of connecting more paths. This seems like all new be removing mature trees to put a path in. >> Correct. Yeah, those. So, you can see

104them here. These this landscaping here would get would get removed to meet the safety path location, grading requirements, etc. Um, and I feel very confident in saying that this area is not on the safety path master plan, but I am not citing that as 100%. >> I I can give you the 100%. It's not It's not on the master plan. >> I owe you five bucks. Thank you. Yeah. >> Any more questions for Matteo before go to the >> Actually, I do a couple. Um, so looking all these changes to the landscaping, they seem relatively minor for a light industrial area. Um, they're still doing putting trees and shrubs and things like that, but it's not Yeah, the numbers just don't seem like they're that severe with the density of that lot and trying to

105accommodate that landscaping. I'm just trying to compare it if we're setting the precedence for letting others reduce and reduce our requirements. I guess I'm more sharing the thought than I have a question. >> No, I mean you you make a fair planning Context provides I mean context can provide direction. So yes, this is the northern part of the township. It's predominantly zoned light industrial through kind of this core area. Your residential off to the east and the west is low density. Um you know the site does have visibility from Oakwood. It currently it would obviously have visibility from Adventure Lane. Um, it currently has visibility from M24. Obviously, while not not a given, we're anticipating development of this lot eventually, right? >> Um, but no, I mean, I guess context context is important when considering

106waivers like this. >> Okay, I think that's everything. No, I I've got one. >> Uh, in the latest plan, it shows a single catch basin for surface runoff and that it is to go across the vent a venture lane into a area there. The area that it's to go into Is that in any way affected with the gas station project? >> Is that property owned by Baron? >> So this this detention basin is on their property, Baron's property. >> And I don't I know my recollection of Red Bar is they had their own detention that there's there's currently not a plan to share. >> Okay. For what it's worth, the alterations that they've made for storm water have been approved by engineering. >> Well, I know it may be approved, but has it been looked

107at to make sure Baron's water is not going to end up running on to Red Barn Gasoline's property? >> I would, if Jim's approved it, then I would I'd be confident to say that no, it's not going to run their property. >> Put that in writing. We're all set. >> Well, I think I think Jim did when he approved the engineering plan, the storm water engineering plan. >> I get your point, but yes, engineering has >> I mean, having I've been through this personally where commercial property decided that their runoff ought to be in my backyard. I think we're good. >> Thank you. Yeah. So my my questions are pretty simple. So you you were approved for a reduction to 69 trees. Now it's 43. Why we going why the reduction in trees? So, by

108removing the the safety path, um we get to keep trees that are already there, trees along Oakwood, and there's like five large pines and then five or 10 cedars in a line there. So, we figured that was kind of a win-win. We just keep what was there, it's mature. >> Yeah. >> And then we wouldn't have to replace you know, tear it out and and place it. So, >> and um >> well, you're you're talking about going, you know, reducing the number the required number of trees by what? 26. So, are you saving 26 trees by >> roughly half? We're saving about 15 trees along um Oakwood right there. So, you'reaving because we're not tearing them down to put the path in. So, you're saving 15. >> Yes. Okay. And the other one is is

109why the why the the the massive shrub reduction as well. >> We did have a bunch of shrubs that we did take out because we pulled that pond that was down um just north of Oakwood between the parking lot and Oakwood. We had a big detention basin in there. >> So we were going to plant like water tower plant and stuff in there. Now that we've redirected everything to the existing detent space across the street, we really didn't have to put say that many bushes in there because of that hill that's there. At first, we were cutting that hill down. There's a BM that those trees sit on to put the path in there. >> Now that we're not cutting it down, we kind of got a BM with trees on it. So, you're not

110really going to see bushes between us and the parking lot. They kind of kept that BM up higher, >> if that makes sense. I I I understand your your logic, but but there's still an ordinance requirement for a certain number of bushes on on the property. And then and you're asking to go from a reduction down, you were given a reduction down to 134. Now you're asking basically to go to, you know, a handful because you're really not going to see them anymore because of the path not being installed, right? So you're not really going to see them from Oakwood. The only place you'd see him is if we pulled in our parking lot, right? So it wouldn't be a really decorative or seeable from Oakwood as you're driving by. >> So there's no place

111on the property then to make them. >> There could be, but >> Well, yeah. There was over 300 plantings or something >> that were in that detention basement up front. >> Yeah. Well, in the whole the whole scheme, which >> it was you talking about context, when you look around, it's like it's going to look good. You're going to have you'll have lawn and you'll have good visual impact as aesthetically pleasing like our other property. Yeah. >> Flex Drive. We take very take pride in our property and we want it to look good for ourselves, for customers, and for the community. So, it'll look good. just to do just to hit a number and put plants around. Just hit a number didn't make sense when we when we changed the plan. I said there's a

112lot you would see. You don't have as many detention basins that you >> We were hiding kind of the detention basically pulled all the small detention basins out. We didn't need to hide them anymore. >> Okay. >> Are you going to hide the retention basin? That's a >> putting a little bit more around there, right? We are putting more in for context to there's going to be a 17,800 foot building going on that property. So there's not a lot of room to put more plantings out there either as well. So I mean we aren't taking a huge chunk of land to put a building up. >> Okay, I'm good. >> Good. >> Any questions? Okay. All right. I think we're good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> This doesn't require it. >> Okay. Any discussion

113and questions, concerns? >> Yeah, I guess I guess I'm concerned about, you know, the maybe I'm not sure about the shrubs, but certainly the net loss of trees. you know, they're asking for, you know, yet another further reduction in trees. Um, just because they're looking for a it appears just because, you know, they're they're saving some trees because of the safety path, but you know, the number of trees they're saving for the safety path is less than the reduction they're asking for. So, that's, you know, that would be my one one of my concerns. Yeah, and I understand the building takes up a big chunk of the land, so maybe sticking shrubs around there may be difficult. I'm not sure, you know, if there's an aesthetic value to that or not, but but it is

114still a huge reduction when they did ask for a reduction and now they're going basically down to nothing >> because there's what 26 trees >> requested. >> Well, 15. They're saving 15. So they're going they're asking to basically go from 69 to, you know, 58. So they're looking for a reduction of, you know, 11 11 additional trees from from the reduction that they already received. >> So I have a comment. So essentially what I can tell you know this is an ordinance that you know we put in place for when we bring buildings the newly bought up to the the ordinance code when they make a modification. I don't know if you know sometimes context applies. So, I don't know if necessarily adding all of this greenery in a industrial district is is really applicable

115here to the level that, you know, was originally asked for agree with your point that the waiverss did bring them down, but I just wanted to kind of make that comment publicly understood. You know what I mean? like this this is something that was asked of them because of the the the addition of the building and recently purchased and bringing things up to the standard right so so just context like we were talking earlier it's it kind of applies here I think so just something to throw out there Any last questions? >> No, thank you. >> Okay, with that I will entertain a motion. And maybe one last final comment on the uh on the safety path. It is not the safety path they're asking to remove and and provide pay in lie of is

116not on the is is not on the master plan for our safety path. >> Right. >> So that's good to note too. I think u putting a safety path here destroying the trees that are there may not be the best either >> and the payment in l would probably assist safety paths other places. So, I will make a motion here. I will move to recommend to the township I will move to recommend to the township board approval of the applicant's request to provide payment in lie of constructing the safety path along Oakwood Road. >> I'll second. We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion or Okay. Can we get a roll call on them? >> Yes. >> Blankenship? >> Yes. >> Wagner? >> Yes. >> Turner? >> Yes. >> Bailey? >> Yes. >>

117Motion pass. Motion pass. Thank you. Okay. >> Next consideration for someone else. Well, if you want to modify the numbers, that's >> I'll move to approve all the requested landscaping waiverss. >> I'll second. >> Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Any last discussions? >> Okay, with that roll call, please. >> Turner, >> yes. >> Blankenship, >> yes. Wagner. >> No. >> Bailey, >> yes. >> Motion pass. >> And then one the third motion regarding the amended final site plan. So, I will move to approve the amended final site plan for Baron Industries, 3020 Adventure Lane, parcel number 04 with the following conditions, completion of which will be approved by township administration. One, revised engineering plans will be required to be reviewed and approved administratively by the township engineer. And two, all stated

118deficiencies in reports submitted by the township consultants, township fire department, and township administration will be addressed. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion. We have a second. Any last discussions? With that, a roll call, please. >> Wagner, >> yes. >> Blankenship, >> yes. >> Turner, >> yes. >> Bailey, >> yes. >> Motion passed. >> Thank you. Okay, with that, we will move on to number 11. Uh, communication committee reports, ordinance review committee. >> Mr. Sheriff, >> sir, should we bring Mr. Austin back in for that? Do we have to >> just for point of order that doesn't have to be voted >> to come back in? Okay. >> I'll just say you're welcome, Ryan. >> That's all I'll say. >> Don't know what you're talking about. >> Remember No one else did. >> All

119right, I'll provide context. I remind the chair that you needed to come back for. >> By the way, you got nominated for a few committees. >> Yeah. >> Oh, jeez. >> We're creating four new subcommitt uh OC will meet in a few weeks. Um, we are currently, we'll probably have some informal model ordinance language for you guys to review. I'll say no later than May, one of the May meetings, maybe here sooner. Um, and then we'll also start to work on our next round work plan. So, those are kind of the two big items coming up to you guys at not the next meeting, late April, early May. list of our work plan and some take a look at not a public hearing but just kind of unofficial review some stuff we're working on just

120flows in the planning reports right >> yes sir >> um from a planning perspective uh we're busy um but uh sustainable I think from a calendar perspective I I don't foresee us having the first meeting in April I think it's the be the 9th. Don't quote me yet, but we'll know next week. I would anticipate a meeting April 23rd the second meeting. But other than that, things have just been busy. You have any questions? I'd be happy to answer. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> All right. >> With that, I guess we'll uh take a motion for adjournment. I have a motion. Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> We are adjourned.