001I pledge algiance 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. >> Would Secretary read roll call, please? >> Mark Smith, >> here. >> Jenny Eller, >> here. >> Derek Musgrave >> here. >> Cliff Cameron >> here. >> Secretary Lundy here. Vice Chair Benz >> here. >> Chair King >> absent. >> Okay. Going to have a little bit different. I'm going to read the agenda and then we'll move on to you. Uh we'll have announcement and correspondence order of business approval of the agenda. And the first one is the resolution of the reszoning request and the second is the approval of the February minutes. and then public forum commissioners report and adjourn them. >> Excuse me.
002>> Chair, would it be all right if we approve the February minutes before we tackled the minutes? [snorts] >> Sure. They were just done. >> So, they're in the record. >> Okay. [snorts] So, with the uh February minutes, everybody had a chance to go over them. Is everybody in agreement with them? If make a motion. make a motion that we accept as >> Okay, second. >> Okay. So, I think we can just do general. >> Everybody in agreement of the approval? >> I Okay, announcements. Excuse [snorts] me. We're pass. Uh we have one correspondent from Paul Hosner um regarding um muck blasters and the full document will be on file in the clerk's office. >> Okay. [snorts] Anything else? Okay. Before I introduce Mr. Davis, the uh meeting from last month was completed and there's
003no more public comments. The public hearing has been closed. Today, we're going to address the resolution. Mr. Davis will address the uh planning commission. >> Could we just procedurally just um approve the agenda? >> I can't remember. >> No, we need to have But let's do it again. >> Okay. About the agenda, is anybody >> motion >> agreement? Yes. >> I'll second. >> I >> All in favor? >> I >> All right. >> Okay. >> So, you've approved the February minutes and you've done approval of the agenda. >> At the last meeting, you uh undertook the public hearing for purposes of the reszoning request 26-1. The applicant was uh given an opportunity to make a presentation to you. There was a call to the public and the public hearing was closed. That means that your
004record for purposes of the public hearing is closed. You won't be accepting any more public comment into the record this evening or any new documents into the record. That record has been bookended with a motion to open and a motion to close. >> [snorts] >> So the issue uh this evening is for you as board members to um talk among yourselves. Um talk back and forth, ask questions of the applicant or work yourself towards any motion that you believe is appropriate under the circumstances presented. And remember, you're deciding this on the record. This is a decision on the record. you're looking [snorts] to see what was established and what maybe was not established or how however you feel. This is um something that you [cough] will be [clears throat] um what we do in the
005township is we propose this in the form of a resolution. Then your resolution goes off to the township board who makes the final decision. So the applicant will have an opportunity to appear before the township board prior to them making a final ruling on your recommendation. your job is to recommend by way of a a recommending resolution. So with that, I mean, if if you had questions that lingered or you want to just talk amongst yourselves, you want to have questions from the applicant or let the applicant uh give another short presentation, however you want to go about it. Well, >> I would say ask the applicant if you have anything to add for this planning commission before we start our deliberations. Good evening, Patrick Williams, Keith Desering, and the African uh tri areas are
006here. Also, uh the only thing I'd add is again, we were trying to ask for the reszoning for the purpose of being able to provide a private ingress egress to properties that are presently landlocked. So it has the only way to get there is from Lake Bill Road through this property to three landlock properties on the north side of the polyan trail. I just want to emphasize that and and uh and the reasoning request was if we're going to have to put a road in there and access an eress egress ement 60t wide and if you look in your standards you can't put it right next to the property line. You have to have 60 foot open and then 60. So you're eating up 120 foot. We make our lot a lot smaller than the
0077.4 [snorts] acres it is. So we're looking to have it reszone. So the roads that would eventually get through there and solve the problem to the north. And that reszoning does match as I said last time the existing suburban farms that's just to our west and even just wanted to reiterate that. >> Okay. Anything else? Are there any questions for the applicant before we start the planning commission? Anybody? >> I have some questions for among ourselves, not for the applicant. >> Discussion. >> All right. What's >> so um looking at it from a zoning standpoint, correct me if I'm wrong, but um agriculture is the one with the most liberal allowances, right? >> Yeah. >> Therefore, if you go to suburban farm now, you start have to do mother may for a lot of stuff
008granted a road access road. You'll still have to do do that anyway. So, assuming that the township at some point grandfathered them into um a for where they're at now. Um, I don't I don't see where um it seems like they're they're using a justification to give up their grandfather to do something that they can do even in in uh a so I'm kind of confused on the the zoning when you can still do a lot more in a than you can suburban farm. So, I'm not Can you help me understand that a little bit? >> Not really. The uh I I'm in zoned agriculture and pretty much I can do what I wherever I wanted to. If I want to put a shed up, whatever. Uh and the master plan has rural estates set
009for that property, too. That's another angle at this, >> right? Anybody else have anything to add? >> I don't know that agriculture is the most liberal. Maybe in some aspects, but in others it may not be >> in selling. >> So I I'm not sure that there is that that's a fair comparison or a fair statement. Um if you're going to be farming, it allows you to do many things. If you're going to be residential, I don't know that it doesn't. I don't speak from understanding the law completely. This is very layman understanding of it. Um I don't think the property was grandfa it has been agriculture for decades. So you know I guess I suppose it is grandfathered in that >> what what he might be saying is that their their acreage is 8.42
010or is 7.4. It's not 10 and yet there. So, right off the bat, you say, "Well, were they grandfathered into the egg or are they just nonconforming?" So, they might be just nonconforming because they're they're in a zoning category that calls for 10, but they're not 10, right? So, that's might that might be what you're trying. >> So, that that's kind of leading to my next question be probably for you, uh, sir. is >> uh is it them non-conforming or is it the township allowing them to be classified that? And cuz last month you said this is a procedural thing, right? So if it's a procedural thing, if they're non-conforming, what's the township's mechanism for them? So you go back and you look at the deeds upon purchase and upon how they were set out.
011Um these parcels all of these parcels were linked together into a bigger set of bridge, >> right? And [snorts] then when they got somehow when they got recorded is when they became distinct parcels. But in the conveyance documents they were all conveyed in one conveyance. [snorts] So historically there was a time where they were treated as one big one big parcel. >> I have two parcels. One and mine together are suburban farm. My one parcel of the homestead can be suburban farm but if I zone the one by itself it would not meet suburban farm. Kind of what you're saying right? >> I understand. >> Yeah. So, Attorney Davis, does that mean that at at that this property has been subdivided one other time? >> Well, I don't know if I would call it subdivided,
012Paul. Would you just when they when it when it ultimately got laid out, they chose to break it into parcels, whereas when it was conveyed, it was conveyed as a big unit. I don't understand how it's land. >> That's a question for you to grapple with. >> And that's what I would ask the conversation to be. Um I'm all for you know making people giving people the opportunity to do what they want. But I would like to know more about the landlock issue and egress. How are they egressing [snorts] right now? Is that something that we should be considering? >> You you know last meeting I gave you a sheet that laid out in your ordinance there's criteria how they're going to develop the land or what they might do with the land in the
013future. Not really in your in your range right now. >> Um a little bit of history in in Michigan in reszoning cases that I'm sure you remember. One of [snorts] the things that would always come up in a resoning case would be, well, what are you gonna do? What are you gonna do? What are you gonna do? And and the courts battled with that because it's not relevant what you're going to do. It doesn't matter. The fact is is that when people were seeking a resoning, they can do whatever they want consistent with the new zoning. They don't have to lock in and tell you what they're going to do. So, what they're going to do, you can listen, but they don't have to do it. They could just tell you they're going to do
014it. They don't have to do it. So, Eventually the law caught up with the way things were going and the law changed and now you can you can do resoloning by it's called conditional resulting and I call it contract resulting. An applicant can come up with a plan and basically just submit that plan. You owe me to SF and this is exactly what I'm going to do. You can't negotiate it. You can't change it. You have to decide based on what they're proposing how do you want to resolve that land? Yes or no. and that's now out there in the arena. But that's not what's happening here. That's why last time I told you this is a traditional resulting request. You look at the criteria and you say, "Have they met it or haven't they?"
015And you look at the criteria, what they say they're going to do. I'm sure they're telling you the truth, but they're not bound by it after they get the result. They don't have to do what they say at the because it's not a proposed contract conditional res. This is a traditional reasoning. It's sort of like if you're going from this zoning to to this zoning when if you get approved for this new zoning, you can do anything in that zoning. You don't have to do what you told the plan. Do whatever you want. So in in more drastic examples and urban areas [clears throat] and in cities. If you say, "Well, what are you going to do? We're going to build a beautiful little store, [clears throat] but it's also zoned for a gas station."
016Guess what? They can do a gas station. >> So, whatever they want, >> Mr. Davidson, then uh if I got this reconciled, um we're just catching up to the convey uh catching up the zoning to the conveyance is what pretty much saying >> and you're you're analyzing this. traditional resulting based on the criteria we gave to them. Um, and you go down and you have to, you know, look at the criteria. You look at the master plan. You look at, um, how this community spent a lot of time on a master plan proposing how you want this area to be. I think you said it. This area is master plan five acre re, right? Five acres. Um, and um, you know, that's a factor for you to You've all seen the maps now. You've all
017been [snorts] provided with the master plan. You see what area is north, south, east, and west. You've looked at it all. So >> Mark, last session you asked the question about why not go rural versus suburban farm, and I think the criteria wouldn't wouldn't allow it, right? Well, no, that was in respect to their road and the landlock issue and stuff, which really the question doesn't pertain because we're not supposed to consider that because it could change, but I I wanted to hear their justification for it. Um, just as a matter of curiosity. My research into this um looked at two things. the master plan most importantly and secondly their point that this is contiguous to already suburban farm zone parcels. Those parcels from the research that I did were reszoned way ahead of this
018master plan ever existing and uh the parcels to the east not contiguous but over top of another one or two small non-conforming agricultural parcels are zoned rural states. So you know for me at that point master plan is what is important in this discussion and this decision >> right and with that is there's no other >> are you done or do you have anything else >> at the moment I'm done >> you have more >> no >> anything else >> well you guys you know somebody has the formula you want to go to a motion or whatever you >> Well, I was going to go through what the two ways we can do it or >> Okay. Oh, everyone is due. >> Okay. When we do start deliberations, we need to decide whether we're going
019to go through each point on the draft point by point A 1 2 3 or by having a month having we looked at this and discussed it and like looked up the master plan, we have an opportunity to go through the checklist at home. What we could do then is ask for a motion and then uh discuss the motion with the PC only that we dis we can do a resolution as a whole or go through item by item by item. It's our decision to make. >> If you make a motion and you give a second then your deliberations are limited to yourselves. >> [snorts] >> So at that point um it is my opinion based on the record as a whole including the public hearing process this parcel is suited for reszoning to re
020or rural estates but not SF suburban farms. Therefore I make the following motion which recommends the denial of the application as presented. I move that this planning commission adopt the draft resolution with the resolution stating that the applicant has not factually or otherwise met the ordinance standards at section 31.04 [snorts] of the township zoning ordinance as set forth at items A through I of the resolution. I further find support for this motion because the applicant has not provided support for the factors listed as one through nine in the resolution. For these reasons, I move that the resorting request 26-1 be recommended to the township board for denial and that the resolution be completed to comply with this motion and that the resolution along with this motion and the minutes be transmitted to the township board
021for final consideration and action at a meeting of the township board. >> Is there a second? I second that motion >> and I suggest we have a roll call vote >> or any further discussion >> further discussion if anybody wish >> a motion to discuss the motion whatever your question >> yes >> even if you don't have a second copy of that state >> so at the end the township could still >> approve to prove it. >> All [clears throat] those other suburban farms were before 1996 before our present day. >> So the plan if they go the other way. >> Correct. >> And I think that just makes common sense with the master plan which should follow >> that's what was projected for it. >> Yeah. That should be our guiding principle unless there's
022an extraordinarily compelling reason to deviate from it. And at this point, it's my opinion that there is not. >> I agree. >> And this creates opportunity though for them to present a resolution as well. >> So >> suburban suburban farm is minimum of two acres but not capped at five. Is it? >> No. Suburban farms is two acres or less. That's what I was saying. >> Is five, >> right? >> And then is >> right. Therefore, >> what's that? Three. >> Estates. >> Rural estates. >> I think that's what my sister is. >> Yeah, right. District is five. >> Yeah. Is five. >> Suburban estates is three. Suburban farms is two. >> Right. >> And a is 10. And I think the beginning what you is you would be inclined to be in favor of
023this if they were going to without moisture to be consistent with the master. Yeah. >> Okay. I think I heard you right there. >> Okay. >> You have a motion and a second. >> Any more discussion? Now we can do a [clears throat] roll call. >> Is this uh the current and projected uh zoning maps? >> Yeah. I'm sorry. >> I can't read. >> I know these are tiny. >> I had my magnifying glass out. on the computer. >> Yeah. [snorts] >> I think they're kind of rural residential state. >> It's the minimum five acres. [snorts] Uh >> yeah. Oh, I'm [snorts] supposed to ask him if they have any more >> on this side to our to our west and agriculture to our east. Anyway, so that's the area. >> Would you be open
024to for consistency update your motion to RR versus R? >> Yes. >> I was wondering is it the wrong time to ask one question? I have to wait. >> Well, there's a motion in a second. This one Derek says rural estates on the current zoning map. >> It's the current. So, yeah. map and once the master plan the 5 acre zoning is called what it's called over there on the zoning map it is called the state. So there there are two different maps in front of you. It's fair to think about >> the master but our ordinances are locked in these classifications. >> The zoning ordinances that classification but if we were to pull out the master plan you would see the connection. So the master plan map is brought before you so that you
025can see that is a five acre. [snorts] >> We seem to okay partial before you is master plan. That's and a lot of the property is master. >> Okay. >> If it's all consistent, I I'm fine. Yes. >> Call. Yeah. >> Mark Smith. >> Yes. [snorts] >> Jenny Eller, >> yes. >> Derek Musgrave, >> yes. >> Cliff Cameron, >> yes. Secretary Lundy. Yes. Vice Chair Benz. >> Yes. >> Chair King. Oh, sorry. Not here. >> No, he's not here. >> Okay. So then what will we recommend to the board then? >> The clerk will the resolution that you were presented with has has not you know was drafted to to go both ways. I think March motion [snorts] said I want them all to be has not >> have not. So the resolution would be
026amended to be the has not >> has not >> and then executed and then sent to the township board for applicants still make his case to the township board. >> Yes. >> You're recommending body. >> Okay. Anybody agree with that? Let's have the >> So that's what we're going to recommend to the township board. The motion >> the motion has been carried that we have not met. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yeah. >> Public. You know what? Let's jump into public forum. You can >> Yes, you can. We'll >> Okay. We're [snorts] not trying to do it the hard way. We're just We just thought it made sense because you had existing SF. I get what Mark said. Mark Smith saying that our the master plan is rever. We're not all we want
027is to make sure that the properties I know you're not paying attention to the properties to the north but the client owns four parcels and this is the only way to get to them is through this parcel. So he's trying to ensure that when he puts a road in because we put a road in now our agricultural parcel which is already non compliance will be even more so in non-compliance. right? It's going to go less. It's 7.4 acres. If we put a road through there, it's going to be even less. So, it will not comply with agricultural. So, we thought, well, we got SF to the west. Why not go and match that? If you don't want to do that, you want to stick with the 5 acre RE because that's the master plan. That's
028fine with us, too. We just want to go to get a road through there. And so, our parcel will still be five acres after we take the road out, if you follow me. We're trying to think of I just I mean they have to act on what you requested. I understand. >> I know, you know, right? >> Um, if you [snorts] want to call back and submit a revised or a new application for five acres, I think market or some people are signaling that that that [snorts] might work. And I think it would work for you too, >> right? We're just looking for direction. We want to know the right way to approach. [snorts] I think you got I I think Mark carefully gave you direction as his preamble to his motion. [laughter] I think
029I think you kind I didn't I don't remember the words, but I think it was along the lines of I would be supporting this if it was five acres. >> Yeah. I mean, >> right. So, >> just wasn't presented correctly. >> And wouldn't that get you where you want to be? >> Yeah. We want to have access to the back. That's what we're trying at this point. >> If I'm not mistaken, it's out of our hands as a guiding body and it goes to the >> You're required to act on the applicant's request. And you did. And you did. He did it >> and he can pull it anytime he wants. So, >> he doesn't have to [clears throat] pull it now. He can just re redo a new one >> at five acres and
030it'll come back before you. >> He'll be asking for five acres >> and and do we need to bother going to the budget board if we know we want to >> Yes. Because this is not a final decision. Yeah. Procedurally, >> this is a recommendation. >> I'm saying he needs to go to the plan. >> Yeah. You need to go. You on the agenda for the April meeting. Can we get him on the agenda for the April meeting? >> Maybe we could call and discuss all of this stuff. >> Okay. >> Because if he if he resends it, why is he going to go to the board? >> Yeah, >> sure. Maybe we could ponder this and then let him know. >> Yeah. The only the only pause I'm not trying to be difficult. The
031only pause is we did a public hearing and we passed the motion. Um, let me let me get back to you whether or not it has to >> if it has to go to the board. >> You don't have to do anything. Just, you know, just let the board say we agree with the recommendation and then start the process. >> Okay. >> But I'll get back to you. We'll get back to you. >> But yes, we do have a meeting in April, which I let you guys know what what Monday that was going to be in April. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. >> Yeah. Any other >> anybody else? No. >> KB popcorn only [laughter] commissioners. >> Yes. >> Anybody? Commissioner? >> Yes. So, I think the ZBA has an application
032that's been turned in that uh will be discussed at our 8 meeting. [snorts] >> That's it. >> Anybody want to make a motion for adjournment? >> You can be out of here on time. >> Yeah, I got to go get I'll second. >> Everybody in favor? I >> it passed. Thank you.