Village of Oxford Planning Commission Regular Meeting: March 3rd, 2026

001We shall call to order the Village of Oxford Planning Commission meeting on this day, Tuesday, March 3rd, at precisely 7:02 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. >> Let us rise to pay respects to the flag. I allegiance 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. Madam Secretary, a roll call, please. >> Justin B >> here. Flynn >> Here. Knock >> here. >> Did you say piler? >> Yeah. >> Sorry. >> Schultz >> here. >> And Wagner. Um, I will make a motion to excuse the absence of Dave Wagner based on his uh previous communication um and the uh summary of talking points presented for this evening. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any

002opposed? >> Dave, you get a free card. Um, do I have an a motion to approve the agenda for this evening, March 3rd? I'll make a motion to approve the agenda for March 3rd, 2026. >> I'll second that. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Okay. Agenda approved. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes from the January 6th meeting? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the January 6, 2026 meeting. >> I'll second. All in or uh all in favor? >> Any opposed? I was saying I was not here. So >> for the record, uh any correspondence? >> No. >> Okay. Call to public? >> No. Um there is no scheduled public hearing. That moves us to our uh new business. Uh in tonight's packet, there is

003uh um some material in reference to a multifamily zoning within the formbased code overlay district, a twotory versus threetory. Mario, I see a uh memorandum that was presented to the planning commission, I believe, within the last couple of days here within this packet. maybe can you help uh give us a summary and and guide us into the discussion here? >> Yes, absolutely. Uh good evening everyone. Um so as as I've introduced the memo and packet with information in front of you, um the village is seeing uh interest in in getting development in the area. Um a lot of those questions and discussions of all a lot of property typically in the form base code and close to downtown area on the east side. That's where we've seen the most interest. So, we always have uh

004these meetings where developers are are are getting pretty serious and they want to know uh the ability to understand the regulations that that could impact them for their proposed development and also want to know the review and approval process. Well, some of the issues we've uh come up with is some place some some sites we met multiple times and met multiple people uh and the issues eventually come around to wanting to do things that the master plan and the zoning orders permit a residential uh residential higher density buildings or commercial buildings or a new building. But then when we get into the details of utilizing the zoning on their site or the uh the formbbased code or both in combination um they they basically in the end short long story short is they can't make

005it work. they can't make it work because the way the regulations currently um currently are laid out is that uh you can either basically depending on the exact uh you know zoning district and form based you can either have a threetory mixeduse building where uh the first floor is entirely commercial though and then the two stories above could be residential. You could have a um entire commercial building for all the floors and then as far as three floors uh or um I think I already mentioned the mixed use version where it's commercial and the model residential on two floors or but then if you choose to try and go with a residential building you're basically maxed out at two stories. So, and the way we have our transi our land use uh to our zoning

006districts laid out is a traditional uh way in which we want to have the most activity downtown and then the bands move out as you move away from downtown. We have C1 core C1 transition where we allow for some the same type of mix of uses typically but in a lower density and then we have multif family and then we have single. The issue is in these particular sites you just um they run into this issue of they wanted to because uh the reason they're coming with these certain requests were a little bit more heavy on the residential is reflective of the market right you know we what after everything we've experienced with the um pandemic the dip in demand for commercial property the fact that we have active uh really great commercial businesses already

007in the downtown these transition areas is the idea of uh needing to provide commercial on the entire ground floor just to get three stories and have two stories of residential. They just can't make it work because they they might have experience on their communities where they can't rent out those ground floors with all commercial. And then if they want to try and have a focused on residential, then they're automatically shut not shut down, but they got to go down to two stories. >> Yeah. the the the regulations require only two stories on that. So, >> so in the end, um, you know, I showed you some of the the pages within our current zoning ordinance that that are impacting the issue or rather is the individual standards of zoning districts. Then the form based code,

008the map, we're showing where those transition districts are and then the individual standards. We think what happened is it might just been an oversight uh within these uh stand >> regulations. because of the way they're laid out. They don't um for example there's some there's some little tweaks in the form code that need to address the actual quantitative requirements that aren't because they're more focused on design and then so that's another aspect that's part of it too. So basically the question before you I'm curious you know the regulations already allow to me it's two different issues two different issues to consider. One you talk about a three-story building you're talking about the mass of a building right you're talking about the volume of a structure and where it's located and how it is in proximity

009to other uses. That I think is one general aspect you should just need to consider and separate that from the question of what go in there like what uses go on the top first, second, third floor and how that go out because honestly when it comes to this idea of having commercial on the ground floor, it is important for a downtown uh when you want to make sure you generate as much activity as possible, but a like I mentioned, you already have to deal with the demand and the need for that much commercial, but b it's it's not necessarily as much of an issue when away from your core. You know, we have our main commercial core on Washington and directly in the blocks adjacent to it. But then once you get further away from

010downtown, unless we wanted to try and promote a more commercial base away from downtown, you know, is it really detracting from downtown by having residents on that first floor? people. You can have townhouse buildings and that sort of thing where you have um the residential aspect of building attractively designed and it's part of that that you know people visit downtown when they're walking that long past townhouse buildings that's they know they're in a different spot than we're out in the township. So two questions, you know, how you feel about where these three story or four story or even five story uh five stories in the core I should say go where they're permitted and then the mix of uses because in the end I do think uh it could be even though the way I

011presented it is kind of this way it could be subtle tweaks to the existing text that could get us to a point where we g in the end give people more options give people more options for those uses than >> let me let me done through Mar looked at we talked about this again three times we've met with different developers on um property over there by you know where's PUD areas are those vacant lots and then potentially across the street where the bird tree equipment is >> looking to develop that whole thing and we always run across this issue so let's use the wel vacant lands across tree equipment as an example you guys are familiar with the form code district of the map that I put at page 36 you know the formbbased codes

012give a lot of different options outside normal zoning, right? Mixed use and things like that. So, if you look in the middle of that map, the C1 transition, C1 transition is also um mixed use, but within this based code, it even offers more options. So, um, we give a little bit the the ordinance gives a little if you look under multifamily. So, um, page 30, we we give breaks for se multif family if you're in that form based code district. So, there's there's there's multifamilies outside of this district. Also, on this west verdict down here at the bottom of the hill where the condos are, that's multif family. There's what, three sets of condos down here in the west end of those are multif family. We aren't talking about that. You got Berdickwoods Court and

013the ones on Ashley Way. There's a lot of condos down here. Those are multif family. They're stuck at the two story level south on Pontiac towards the end of town by the elementary. There's a large apartments down there. They're at two story. So, we aren't talking about anything to do with those multif family zonings outside of the form base code. We're only talking about the multifamilies and C1 transition in the form based code. Um, and I I'll start with the multif family first. So let's look at the Hampton block property. So if you have your formbbased code map on the south side of Berdick all the way over on the east end where it says RM zoning the orange one perhaps if you that's the Hampton block property and then adjacent to that the long

014narrow piece is the uh railroad rightway that's an area that again that's multifamily but it's within the formbbased code also. So on page 30 there's footnotes at the bottom of the the district regulations under multif family. There's footnote three. It says there is no maximum density within the formbbiz code boundary divided all other standards are met. So a developer looked at how many units can I get on you know this parcel and we said great no limit whatever you can squeeze on there but you have to meet everything else. Footnote four within the formbbased code boundary the setbacks shall be the same as C1 transition which are a little more liberal than the normal RM zoning which is out the condos and things like that as far as off how far off the line and

015things like that. But number three also has a little bit of a a problem with it too. As long as all other standards are met. Well, the regulation standard is two stories. So again, that kind of hurts on some of these developments. So if you go to the the C1 transition, which is then page 34, and I think we included those with that those ordinance there. So now we're something that's in the C1 transition. It has all kinds of different uses in it. We allow three stories and anything over the second story has to have the front set back 15 foot where it fronts the road. Makes, you know, a little bit of sense there, right? That's a standard we don't have any issues with and they do developers. But when you go to the

016formbbased code, which where that map is on page 36 and beyond that, they start getting into the different building types in the formbbased code. Um, starting at page 37, mixeduse building. Mario touched base on this. So a mixeduse building is you can go three stories high but the whole first floor has to be commercial. Floors two and three can be residential but you go three stories high just permitted by right. So you could build a building over there on East Berdick three stories high has to be all commercial on the first floor. And in some cases they might want to take the building and go deep say Bic Street Equipment. If this building's 200 foot deep, there's it's not marketable for them to go all the way to the to the back of that building

017with commercial. Now, you could say, oh, there's four or two or three units across the front of Eastburg. Well, those could be commercial. That would be nice, but the ordinance says the whole first floor has to be commercial in order to get that third story. So, that kind of shoots that down. Then you go to the next page, um 38, a commercial building. Well, if you want to build three stories commercial, you can build a three-story building again, but it has to be all commercial. So, you can do three stories. It's all commercial on the first, residential, second, and third. Or you can go three stories with three stories of commercial. I don't Should I get 38 degrees? I'm not sure. >> It's all right. >> Okay. >> I I've seen it. >> So, it

018kind of just it's nice to have all these options, but there is one more problem with it. So then if you turn to page 40, the multif family and it's how ironic it is because we show like a four or threetory building here and but we only allow two uh under a mixed multif family building and a multif family building may not contain any non-residential space. It's purely residential and if you look down halfway the page under G there has no commercial maker or other residential spaces. Um, it has to be all multif family, but because it's multifamily, you're only allowed two stories. So, it kind of boils down to if you look at the same property, let's is whether it's the wckles vacant lots or the ones across the street, you can have a

019threetory as I described in two different categories. But if you do if you want to provide the residential only, which is the biggest demand we have, you can only go two stories. So, it's not so much the building height that's the problem or perceived problem. It's well, we have to have either some or all commercial in mix in with it. And if you're only only residential, we're going to limit you to two two stories. And when these people start looking at development cost, uh, they just they we've at least three different parties in the last two years we've met with and they've been looking and looking and we've met with them again and they're really crunching the numbers and they just have to walk away. They just can't make it work. >> Um, so that

020that's kind of where we're at. It's like, well, I think there's a little bit of a spot there that maybe some reconsideration can be considered. Do you have a specific recommendation? >> We were listening to thinking what why not allow the three stories whether it's mixed use, commercial or residential. Now the residential causes a a different problem with the the parking requirements in the evening, right? Everybody comes home for the most part. A few night shifters perhaps, but so that's a different issue, but they have to comply with the parking requirements no matter what. And so in some cases, depending on the lot, they might need to put some parking here and buildings above it. >> Well, so now you're putting a building above it and now you're capped at two stories. Well, now you're

021even hurting your case more. >> Uh if you allowed the three stories, you might have parking living and living on second and third, especially if you look into like the Hampton block property, which is not C1 transition, so it doesn't have as many options. It's purely mult uh multif family zoning. Our multif family is hard set at two stories. And if they want to put a dozen town homes on that process property, if they can't, in order to get enough units on it, they want to stack them. If you were to stack them now, they're kept at two. So maybe in the multif family only within the formbbased code area, which is closer to downtown, maybe that'd be a spot we say we don't want to open it up to the options that a C1

022transition has. That's the mixed use and all that stuff. But maybe we'd say multif family in the form based code. you can go up to three stories, you know, because they're not they know they're going to be more dense and they're going to um help them out for their parking requirements because you start putting cars out all like this and you're eating up half of your lot. >> You think that's what they were going to they're going to do in uh downtown Lake Oran across from SEC where it used to be a parking lot and I think that they were running into the same thing where they're just there's no there's no parking there. So, >> and and to the point back like Mario said when we were talking about this too, the East Beric,

023it's a corridor. Steve, Steve Stole, who owns Beric Street Equipment's been there for what, 15, 20 years. He says he still has people that live the other side of Oxford have come in and seen him and said they just realized he was there. >> They've been driving by him for years. Um, so if somebody Nobody's come and beaten on our door wanting to build commercial over there. Everybody that's come beating on our door, we've met with and met with and met with is residential pretty much exclusively. We have some vacant properties. We have some vacant properties on the north side here that you guys approve that the 12 unit for truck, but we have people on if somebody wants to do a mix mixeduse building and they want the M24 traffic, there's options for them.

024But when we have these large chunks over on the east side, Hampton block, Wackle, PUB, Bing Street, those are going to be almost exclusively residentials coming to us because people want to live by downtown. They want to walk to downtown >> and it doesn't do any good to make them build a first floor that's they have to build the residential um building codes more expensive and they're not going to be able to rent them out. So, um, is there a specific wording or text area that you would >> We just thought after the last one, we we we Mario can can craft all that, but we met with them again multiple times, multiple developers over the last three years and we they come to the very they get and they try and they try and

025they try and they have to walk away. >> Part of the suggested if if you wanted to move forward, we're looking at options. Part of my suggestions there will probably be to make it a little bit more clear because it basically a lot of the whenever we meet with the developers the reason we have to is because when they read the ordinance they're unclear as sorry what are the dimensional requirements in the form based code. So it might be so a lot of the some of the things would be just as simple as saying a sentence that's saying buildings within the formbbased code shall comply with the setback with dimension requirements of the district or something like that. you know, subtle u organizational uh edits like that. But then also looking at like we've been

026talking about what alternatives you would be comfortable with in terms of a how tall buildings could be in these districts and then uh be the mix allowing uh how restrictive you want to be on the mix of uses of uses within the building because honestly the simple thing would be within the mixuse building criteria where it says >> well the entire floor has to be >> commercial 1B 1B have a commercial floor. Yeah. to a to a commercial first floor the entire width of the building. you know, that could just be modified in some way to to say a portion of the building or 50% of the floor or something or just >> just the frontage >> the frontage of the building uh you know minimum of X feet or I would probably go actually

027as I think about ground floor area minimum of 30% something other >> are Are we ready to have to discuss a little bit? >> Oh, yeah. >> Um, >> hang on, CJ. >> Well, I just want to say that I think that this is a great example of how when changes occur in um the market and changes occur in our community, we have the opportunity to look at can we respond to those changes in a way without, you know, completely altering our our planning and zoning. And I I think this is a a good idea to explore that and have some language proposed and um come back with that. But I know we have to talk about what that would consist of. So that is all I really want to say. >> Mario, I have

028a question before we open it up. >> Um one of the main goals and objectives this calendar year is to um discuss our master plan. Does the a discussion for potential amendments to support the um evolving market dynamics in residential and commercial construction? Does that directly or indirectly align with our objective to review the master plan >> in terms of doing the edits to this section? >> Yes, >> I would think that uh the master plan currently is focused on the downtown being a dynamic having that mix of uses. To me, this would just be tweaking those uh existing verbiage to to still be inconsistently with the goals already on the plan. So, I don't necessarily think you have to have any kind of master plan specific master plan uh changes that would require it

029because you're still it's still that emphasis you're doing. You're just it's how you're managing. It's the goal of having residents downtown. the goal of having good commercial mixes, a mix of that. That's the goal. It's already in the plan. What you're what we're doing is tweaking how we go about it. >> So, if if we were to um agree on requesting resources to look at amendments to this zoning ordinance and the language therein, we could justify that um based on master planning alignment. I'm I'm the reason why I'm bringing this topic up is to ensure that if we were to request resources to look at this, it ties into our um general goal and focus of master plan because there's cost and time and energy that requires any amendments whether it be to the master

030plan or these ordinances. How can we justify it? >> And and I'll speak to that because whether we were in the fiveyear area of it's time to re look at least take a a a review of your master plan to see where you're at. Let's say we did that two years ago, we would be coming to you with the same uh uh ideas and perspective now. Well, if it was two years out still, we would be because this is something that's been two or three years now. We've been kind of so it's not like some one person came to us and said, "I wish you would change that for us." No, this is time and time and time again. sometimes two or three meetings with a developer over a eight-month period and a year later

031another developer. Now we just again so um separate but equal I guess. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um and and this is something that were where you you would probably spend less time, energy and effort and money amending this than you would your sign ordinance that you did or the landscape ordinance I should say that one you know. So no different than that. No different than that. >> Okay. >> Exactly. And that's part of your you know reason being honestly the planning mission is to tweak how things work are how things are accomplished to uh reflect on you know current trends I I don't know if I said a lot here I say zoning or isn't written in stone it should be modified to reflect your changes and I think it's all in line with what's

032already in the master >> okay CJ you've been chomping at the >> yeah thank Um so when I was going through the master plan, one of the things that I noticed was that um we called for like a lot like mass like expansion of the C1 district um to include the um property the WLE properties that you were that you were mentioning. Um, while I do agree that we should fix the other the other verbiage, I also think that it's worth considering just expanding the C1 the C1 area. >> The core >> Yeah, the core core area in that way probably take away like solve a lot of those problems already. CJ, does that um suggestion tie into the the scope of amending the zoning ordinance or is that more on a master plan level

033discussion >> there? I mean, I guess the master plan, but it seems extremely relevant for what we're trying to do right now that like like if we're if we're because the goal isn't to change the verbiage. The goal is to attract businesses. And if we're trying to attract businesses, then we should then we should talk about what what options like complete that goal at the end of the day. And that's one of them right now is expanding the C1 area just to match the master plan. It's not changing the master plan. It's it's in the master plan. is just changing how we're solving the problem at hand. >> When when you identify or describe the goal, what I've heard in the um comments from Mario and Joe is really regarding residential and addressing a lack

034of uh availability for residential needs within these districts. the business I think is uh certainly relevant but may not be directly applicable within the scope of addressing residential development opportunities within this C1 transition and multifamily district >> sorry chair I was just going to point out that in the future land use maps uh right now the way the the lands are the land described indicated is just a central business district and it is for our C1 core but it does go along the verdict all the way to the neighbor. >> Uh so within the plan it says this office area should be central business but then in the zoning margins that's where we we choose to use two different tools the core tool and the transition tool. So we use two two to go that

035way. So if you really wanted to consider reszoning you definitely could because uh >> that's just how you do it. But Sure. >> Another question. >> Okay. >> Regina know what? Any thoughts? >> No. >> Okay. Tom, >> CJ, I didn't mean to um cut you off. Anything else um specific to the multifamily zoning? >> Um, no, not right now. >> Okay. >> I guess actually to, you know, just from my my point of view, I think especially um we we've seen the you know the currently how it how it it's written for the C1 transition, you've seen a lot of uh a lot of other communities that have built these kind of commercial on the bottom and residential on the top and you know I I used to live in commerce and there's a

036lot of that going on in Wixom and >> you never saw the commercial never and you know the Last thing that I would really want is, you know, to kind of force a lot of these developers to maybe do things that they've seen hasn't necessarily worked in other communities. Um, and I, you know, I but I mean it can be a bit of a mixed bag, you know, because you go over to Shelby and Shelby has some that work perfectly fine. So, it's um but I I like the idea of giving, you know, giving people the opportunity and if they're willing to if they're willing to build it, I don't see any reason why we wouldn't, you know, let them do it. You know, I you know, after looking at the at the master plan,

037you know, it really gave me, you know, the thought that it's like we don't you know, we're out of space. You know, there's there's not there's no space to build anything else. So, you know, if we can get more residential in here, I think that I think it would be a phenomenal opportunity because people people want to live here. You know, a lot, you know, yes, we have a lot of businesses and those kind of things, but especially commercial wise, I mean, we have a lot of the stores we already have. We have the restaurants. We're not, again, offices aren't really a big thing anymore. So, I would rather do something that's good for, you know, the community and the residents as a whole overall. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> My two cents. >>

038Sure. Maybe three, >> Justin. Um I hearing um the the logic behind this, hearing the demand that is being asked of uh developers in there um understanding as far as um having the businesses underneath the C1 doesn't really make sense anymore. I think uh the world is a different place. I think uh I would recommend that we do um I would agree with recommending looking at changing the verbiage to this so that we could add three stories to the residential which does make sense u because there is demand for housing um there is demand for uh the living community and also it helps the um the development side as well. So I would I would be for looking into changing the verbiage, improving the verbiage I is probably a better statement. >> Clarifying. >> Yeah.

039>> Thank you. >> Improving enhancing. >> Yeah. >> Where's my >> fixing? >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> So I don't know if you've all seen the news much lately what the state of Michigan is trying to fix housing in the state of Michigan and I cringe every time they they go into that territory. >> Um but The reasons why they're taking it up aren't without merit, right? There are some communities around the state that make it difficult. More rural communities, some of the rural communities say you can't take farmland and turn it into acreage less than 10 acres. So, no way is someone going to come out there, buy an acre, put a house up. So, those are some of the reasons that are prompting the state to get involved and try to tweak

040what they have to do. I prefer the local control. I prefer the local flavor. I prefer us to uh take care of it ourselves and be proactive and take care of it. um the accessory dwelling units is above, you know, they talk about now. Um people how they have a a carriage house in the back. Well, and they're in a residential area. That community decided you can have an apartment up there, but I don't want the state telling every community that they have to allow that. Some communities that works for them because they're much even more densely rural than us. Fine. I don't think that's something we want to see. My personal take. But if you look at our multif family district um regulations um a floor area for per unit an efficiency apartment you

041could have an efficiency apartment 350 ft you can have a onebedroom at 500 ft two bedrooms at 700 ft those are small um because people can't not everybody can afford to come to Oxford and spend 380 grand or 450 grand on a home I know there's a council member or two or three over the years that have said geez how can we make it more affordable to live in Oxford So when these developers come to us, they're they're looking at a mix themselves of one unit, one bedrooms and two bedrooms, one bedrooms and two bedrooms. None of them, I don't think, have proposed three bedrooms. Maybe Chucks. His might have. I can't recall those 12 units. Um but for the most part, they realized the cost per square foot to build. Um you got regulations

042for sewer and water and and storm water, which is a pain of my existence. um we have a good multif family regulation about the how they can build something that fits the market or or fits their thing. We just had that weird hiccup where three stories yes three stories yes three stories no and the one we're saying no to is the one that's mostly in demand. So that's where it's just a little I think a short uh moderate tweak of fixing that to give them three. Now you can do three stories in A B or C. And if they came to us and they said, "No, I still want to have some furniture on the front." And okay, that's fine. That is that's always been allowed >> or commercial on the front. So, but I

043I think we're we're on the right path of trying to do it with our own at our own uh pace and our own thoughts versus the state coming down on us. >> Yeah. Let us control our own destiny. >> Um any other comments? I was wondering why we have that tapering that exists like what's is it to allow sunlight into the >> so you don't feel like you're living in a canyon I think and if you're looking I think they look at that at the M24 corridor if you're going to put five stories in downtown do you want to like this or do you want to go up and and back like this that's I think the reasoning for it >> yeah that is exactly what it is in certain streets I mean technically if

044you talk to architects the whole canyon effect. There's there's proportions of the right of way to the building height and stepping back. That's why a lot of 1920 skyscrapers in uh New York were like had those steps back situations. Some pretty extreme. Um so it's just to me also that's a reflection of possibly um when they were considering discussing this they talked about three, four or five stories in the downtown. Maybe everybody you know thought that was going to be just too massive. So a compromise can be to allow for that reduction or require the reduction or the setback in that >> uh those higher floors because then when you're walking down the street you won't feel like you're five or the street but in the end to me I think that's a good option

045because um if people build them and usually when they do and you do see it in downtown we made them do it we made them have they had do it uh then you can suddenly Those upper floors not only are >> well terrace terrace up there. Excuse me. Terrace >> terrace. Then the one about above them gets a balcony. >> Yeah. So then they have nice really nice large. >> I just couldn't put a restaurant on top. >> But like if you look um if you take it street and you get to that roundabout and they have all those those brand new like white condos, >> they do not have that. And it is I just feel like it is so massive and so crazy that it's that close to the road. And I so

046I I at first I was like why would you have that? But then as you say that it's like yeah that it just doesn't seem like that it just seems so out of place and really weird you out a little bit when you come up to that intersection. So >> and a lot of planners agree with that. It feels >> um unwelcoming and people don't like to walk in that those conditions. So it actually doesn't work. >> Yeah. >> For for villages and that sort of thing, it definitely doesn't just because of because you want to reflect the existing business buildings around if you wanted to get to all that kind of stuff, but like you know, downtown Detroit or something. It is what it is, but we're not anywhere like but um so yeah,

047it's a long answer. I would like to uh present a motion uh to enlist Mario and McKenna consistent with and in reference to the February 24th, 2026 memorandum subject multiple family regulations discussion to prepare a proposed for a draft amendment to the Village of Oxford zoning um zoning codes that address the concerns raised in affformentioned memorandum uh for the planning commission review. >> Awesome. Second that. >> Can I have a roll call vote? >> I think I have to read it back. >> No, it's all right. >> I can rewind. >> You can't read it back. >> I can rewind. >> Okay. Ballard. >> Yes. >> Pilac, >> yes. >> Schultz, >> yes. >> Knock. >> Yes. >> I would say CJ's door. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> We can fine-tune the uh

048the verbiage if necessary. >> Okay. Excellent. Let us now carry on to old business. Coming back to um our discussion from January 6th and our um not just a a goal but I believe an an obligation for a five re five-year review of of the master plan. Um there was a suggestion or recommendation that we familiarize ourselves with the master plan. Um and identifying any maybe concerns or recommendations or suggestions for amendments. I would like to very clearly define some some ground rules um to ensure we stay on track and we make the most of our time here. Um one, we need to be mindful of any proposed changes or amendments at the cost. First and foremost, the cost to be incurred by the village. Um second for the discussion um for a recommended change

049or concern that you've identified um any proposal or recommendation for revision should be based on data or fact um to essentially convince your fellow commissioners that we should allocate uh resources in making that amendment. I think that will help keep the conversation focused and on track to uh achieve the goal of confirming the the master plan in this five-year review. Um if there are any maybe objections or comments to those ground rules, we can get aligned now before we open up the forum. >> Okay, we'll take silence as concurrence. >> Um >> may I start Mr. Chair? >> Yes, something brief. Absolutely. >> So there are four denims of the master plan. The near east side, near west side, South Washington redevelopment, and the future transportation plan. The the South Washington triangle, Southwestern development is

050is underway. Um I've put in for the sewer and water permits to Eagle, the sewer ones completed. So hopefully that one build has just come right out of our plan because it's no longer to be developed. I believe the near west side is where we're sitting right now, isn't it, Mario? I haven't looked at that recently. um the the because there was a time that the the village was looking at moving and this was going to be because this is literally um multif family zoning that we're sitting in. I I think that is for the most part off the table. Um there's a commitment made by council. We the parking lot and other buildings and we're looking at maybe some options of the old 18 west vacant part over here. So we may be able

051to whittle a couple of those out is my point. >> Okay. Good. Is there anyone adamant on presenting their findings or recommended changes? I know one on the end. >> CJ, the floor is yours. >> Yeah. Can I use the HDMI cord? >> You want to show on the screen? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, let me turn TV on then. Sorry. My remote. Thank you. plug it back in. See Usually when I plug my computer over the TV has an option for your I did let someone else go first. >> I guess the only thing I I'd say to let everyone know your options action. So Joe actually kind of picked up on some of the uh the subtleties I guess I should say of the uh state law is that basically the way it's

052worded in that one paragraph I quoted it says you shall either amend or adopt a new plan every five years basically. However, I can say the vast majority of communities uh do sometimes they'll do an amendment, sometimes they'll do a new plan, but a lot of times they will just reaffirm uh the existing plan, which is what we've done before because in the end what we take it is it's an exercise that you should always go through to make sure that your master plan is still working for you based on the conditions. So, those would be your options. you can uh go through um that's why I included the 2021 uh report. So basically what it you're is intended to do is you summarize the exist what's in the master plan now do a little

053analysis of whether you think it's good bad or ugly basically and then for each chapter and then at the end of that make a recommendation uh to council to say we reaffirm we believe because of x y and z it might be necessary to to consider a branding plan or because of one two and three we think maybe we should So that's the other options too is like >> you can either reaffirm say because and the reasoning for that could be you're still comfortable with the goals in general and you still feel that um there's more to accomplish that's in the plan like you feel like the plan still has ideas that >> you can by so you can make a recommendation possibly to do another either sub area plan or maybe an economic development

054plan or if there's a topic that you feel the plan is starting to to waver on and you want to re you know >> reaffirm something you can do another sub plan that's why you did the sub area plans in 2015 they're like they like the master plan but they thought they wanted more specifics for individual sites so that's basically why they did the subary plan like Joe said a lot of those things either come by the wayside or no longer relevant so maybe there's other ways to do it or maybe just broadbased um economic development plan for the village overall. That could be another option and it would be amendment to the 2011 plan. I think that's an option or you could if you do feel like there's a lot of deficiencies in the

055current plan or that you want to take advantage of uh some of the recent uh you know things that are out there. Um you could s make a suggestion to to have the council undertake a master plan or a plan for uh last year or excuse me 2021 you did make their motion we did recommend that they start budgeting for it but obviously there's a lot to to go over it to see if it just >> um you know one thing I will say once again if you feel the plan itself there's still more things that need to be accomplished or if you still feel like it's in general So you wanted me to >> I can send it to you. >> Yeah. >> It wasn't me. >> So So once again, those are your

056options you could consider. I guess the only thing I will say is that in terms of not advocating in one way, shape or another or anything, but just to say that, you know, generally speaking, master plans do live for about 20 years because after by the time you get to the 20 year mark some obvious things are the simple thing is data your the master plan even the amendments itself the they didn't even though it was done in 2011 it only had the initial what do you call phase one census data it didn't have detailed data in that master plan so you don't have the benefit of that and now we have the 2020 census although that was that one not because of the pandemic. So, but there's new uh tools available that could give

057a a new more updated glimpse into the demographics of the village. You know, your leadership has changed uh in the village and they might want to have their say as to where the village wants to go. Even even you guys, you know, in the past, I've kind of seen that the zoning ordinance sometimes emphasizes certain things like like like what we do all the time. We've always focused they be very uh mindful of that. They wanted to consider everything. And you can kind of see in the end the change uh count the planning has. If you look at the South Washington side on the west side of South Washington, a lot of those signs have gooseeneck lighting and like the more historic style wood signs with, you know, these type of external lighting. And on

058the west side on the east side, you basically have some of the newer box signs. And I would that you've done a good job about controlling that and like to me it seemed like it allows for the businesses to have brighter signage and it's acceptable. I I haven't heard though if people think that's like contrary to the story and plus those buildings aren't as historic as the ones on the west but you know that it's kind of reflect you might want to communities undertake a master plan when they want to reflect their current needs or they feel like it's not doing what it is. So that's only the real Justin, you had your hand up. >> I just want to see how far along he gets and see if it's >> me. >> Magic. >>

059All right. >> So, something cool that I've gotten is I've gotten >> Do we have a Okay. >> You went off. >> Uh >> or you're not using Wi-Fi. The TV's not. You're connect. >> Yeah, I'm using Bluetooth. >> Oh, okay. >> I don't know. >> All right. So, so what I have is every single property in Oxford Village, how much like where they are, how much taxes they pay, and what what acreage is in there. It's all all,450 properties. and I analyzed every single one of them. >> What's the data source? >> Yeah, this is from the uh Oakland County. So, this is what they they use to assess property taxes and information like that. Um, it come Do you know Eric from >> acquisition? Yeah, he's from the from the Oakland DDA >>

060County DA. So, it's it's a little outdated. It's from 2024, but it should still be pretty much painting a picture of >> everything we have. So, what I did was I wanted to figure out like where are we getting our money from, where who's paying what, like, and how much are the properties worth? And when I looked at it, like the slideshow would make a little bit bigger. >> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. area. >> Yeah. So, I've got different areas. I've got like downtown like DDA North, DDA South, which is up and down um 24. Um I've got Oxford Lakes Village and just general like general classification types. And when we look at this here, what we see is that like downtown is paying t like taxes like crazy. Even if we we're not like collecting

061on it because it like gets sent to the DVA like that type of building is what really pays a bunch of taxes and condos absolutely are like beating the heck out of out of homes as well. like on a per acreage basis, these places pay way way way more taxes. And if there are any like budget shortfalls that might be happening in Oxford, it's probably heavily due to all of this yellow area being places that we've essentially decided that we want to take a loss time after time again. And even in Oxford Lakes where we have a bunch of we have like lakefront property and like large large homes we're just breaking even in that area. We're like we're like and then and and then when you like look at our older housing stock which

062is has less building compared to the land around it they're like we're taking a huge loss on those areas too. Um, additionally in this commercial this industrial area, huge losses as well. like where I when we we look at like where the money's coming from, it's the the orange areas. Um the we like some of the transition areas, but like and like and certainly there are some houses like single family houses that we make money, but like looking looking at it, I was like, "Wow." like it like it's an amazing job from our management team that we're able to like put together a budget at all. >> Hey CJ, um a question. Is this uh open dialogue to ask questions at the end? >> What's your definition of a loss? >> Yeah. Yeah. So what

063what what I did was I took like the total the total like spending of the village which I think was 2.7 million at the time. This was >> sounds about right. >> Yeah. This was done done a little a few years ago. And then I divided it by the acreage of like nonwater land not like non empty land and said okay everyone has like a like a set cost of $6,800 per acre that they have to meet and then scaled it down to like so like if you only had like a half acre of land then it would be cut down to 3,400. And then I also realized we were getting like like some sorts of sub subsidies from a lot of like from like grants and things from other governments that that I took

064into account as well which further lowered it. So what we're looking for is something that a a house that pays or a property that pays enough taxes to cover that difference. It's impervious. I realize that not every single building like has the same >> tax value as defined by the state of Michigan. Well, well like like for example uh a person has different needs from a business and which has different needs from an industrial center which makes like makes it tough with like as a oneman person like crew to like figure out the exact cost which is why I put in this like this the blue line which is just the revenue per acre and that way that that one is like I'd be really surprised if That one was was off because it's really

065upfront with the data and they got like here's how much we're made. Like we know exactly how much property tax someone was paying. So there's not much room for interpretation. >> Okay. I'm only asking to better understand your assumptions made and the data that we're looking at. >> Yeah. >> To follow the the story and the picture you're painting. >> Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, we're looking for 6,800 uh dollars per acre. Yeah. Um I have two things on my mind. One is um the the property tax that's collected within the village is is partially um supports the um the township. >> Do you did you >> I second that out. >> Okay. And then the second thing is um homeowner property value and taxability taxability if that's a word is affected by the Headley amendment.

066Did you factor that in? >> Yes. Yeah. So what I was using was like the actual like the um not the assessed value but the taxable value that was assigned to the house. Um, I had considered using the other one, but then I was using like theoreticals instead of like what we were actually getting. I decided to use the like the actual money. >> So, when you're talking about older homes, you know, and not not having as much tax revenue that's also affected by the Headley amendment. >> Heavily heavily heavily. >> Right. Okay. And >> so that's that that's not flexible. That's going to be what it what it is as long as those people own that property. >> Yeah. Cor correct. And but like even even so like the like how old do you

067think our downtown buildings are? Like that's >> 125 130. Yeah. >> Oldest buildings in there. Those should be like if if age is like the primary factor. You'd expect downtown to be like at the floor because it's the oldest. >> I think it's ownership too. So >> that that's that's correct. >> And that's I don't know how I I mean someone can fill me in about how Headley works with the commercial properties. I'm just thinking of homeowners. No, no. And and I think that's that's a very knowledgeable question. It's also been accounted for. >> Um and and and like when we're and and and that's that's what the reason why every time we go in here and we like something a condo comes up, I'm like yes, like density. Condos make a lot of money

068uh compared to to single family houses. When we Is it the intention of the village of Oxford to be a for-profit organization or are we offsetting our costs? Because I want to be clear on the language that we're using here that it's not a profit center. The taxes are used in order to fund expenses, not generate a profit. >> Yeah. >> If someone disagrees, now would be the time to be clear. >> I don't disagree, but I I would like to add some context to some of the things as I'm hearing them. So, you say when a condo comes in, you're excited. Well, not necessarily. Um, you might have someone that's lived in a condo for 25 years. In 2008, 2009, that condo has dropped down to 180,000 in in taxable value. Now, the assessed

069value might be 350 market value. But then Justin comes along and builds a brand new single family home. He's paying more taxes than that condo even though it's 15 20 years old because of the capping and uncapping. We have a lot of turnover in Oxford Lakes. We have a lot turnover villagewide. So, the uncapping happens a lot. I I would say, you know, 30% of the properties or more in the village have turned over. It might be the same house turning over again and again perhaps, but um we get a lot of turnover and so then you get a lot of uncapping. >> Do you do you know what what percentage that looks like? >> Not off the top of my head. I don't have any hard numbers, but I just we get so many

070people coming and changing their water bills, you know, that's how we see it. >> Okay. >> Um the water bill changing out and things like that. So again, and then when you look at again when and I know you and I had this conversation a couple years ago when I said, "Well, I don't look at it as a profit per acre because the the homes in the purple zone, the industrial zone are there to a produce and and and they they create jobs. Um the the businesses downtown, they're nonhomestead. They're paying a lot of taxes to the school districts, which you probably not factored in because you're talking about village tax only. So they're subsidizing or paying a lot extra to the schools because they're nonomestead. Then you have the homes or the homesteads down

071these uh streets or neighborhoods that are they're providing housing and family um shelter. So there's different categories and different reasons why they all exist and they all contribute differently. Yes. Um but I don't look at it as well this one's better or worse because it makes more per acre or less because then we also have um um parks or things like that that pay zero. Uh it's a it's a good mix. >> Well, we we want we want those those parks for sure. Um as far you put you threw a lot there. I'm going to try this. You talked about condos moving moving over like like some like a new person comes in. I'm telling you that like even if like a new house comes in like and these condos have been living there for

072they've been there for 20 years. The new house is not going to not going to match the per acre output of these condos >> perhaps because you might have two because you have multiple condos. Again, the density is what gets you >> the right because >> people don't pay taxes on empty land. People don't really pay taxes on parking lots. >> No, I think they do both. >> What was that? >> I think I believe they do both. >> Not much, >> right? >> Less. >> You're splitting hairs at this point. like it's it's such a low amount that it's like >> if we compared to putting another unit there >> Mhm. >> we're we're talking about thousands and thousands. >> It's vastly different. >> It's vastly vastly different. >> Yes. CJ, you've spent a

073lot of time preparing this data. >> How does this correlate to our master plan? Yeah, because if we like if we want so let me go with take a step back. How many times have we raised taxes in the last 15 years? >> I don't think that's relevant. It is. >> How does the data you're presenting here relate to a proposed amendment to the master plan? >> Yeah. My my data is saying, hey, >> when we're making these master plans, we need to be thinking about density if we want Oxford to be solvent, to have taxes that are paid, to not like to not increase the tax revenue for people like per person. And if we want if we want that to happen, we need to zone properly. And if we like and we need

074to plan properly and we can't have like what little land that's remaining be eternally damned to um to be like even f even further um put everyone else in debt. Like we that that can't happen if we want like if we want to have a long living community like Is there I I'm sorry to interrupt. I apologize for that. Is there specific language or sections of our master plan that should be looked at to address your concerns? >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I do think so. >> So, what I what I want what I want to see is I want to see our C1 zoning. I want it to like we have things in our master plan that we're not that we're not following. So, actually when I looked at the master plan, I thought

075it was really good. I thought it was really, really good. I think that we should match the business area zone. Um, I think that the areas we don't really have a whole lot that talks about this industrial area at all. We disagree, but but this is most like able to accommodate multifamily housing. We have empty spaces there. It's next to a park where they like they have recreational things to do. That's something that should be in the master plan to like generate revenue, increase housing, like make increase affordability. That those are things that are in there. Um we have single family homes all around here. The reason why Lake Oran is adding condos on their lakefront is because they're a gold mine. If like if we if we had like the this is all vacant

076land all the way up here. Each one of those could be add maybe and and I'm not a developer but maybe 1.5 million in taxable value if you put condos there or if you only put single family houses maybe $700,000. It makes a big big difference if we like financially for the city going forward. and it's not part of our master plan, but it should be. >> Maybe a question is, you know, you're uh you're looking at um wanting to increase the possibility of tax revenue, right? >> And and and for explain maybe I don't understand for what reason. >> Yeah. The the reason is because um as like the the natural cycle that things follow. Um so at one time Detroit was new. It was like fresh and the buildings like everything looked nice.

077It was a great place to live and people went to Warren and Warren was new. It was fresh. Everything like people like liked living there. And then it decayed and then like and then it just kept moving outward and moving outward and now like like Cory it's like like a great place but but to the places that are able to like maintain that that nice area that like that nice feel are going to be people that have a really strong balance sheet. And the problem is that old homes they they break down and they become less financially viable. Um the um and and what I don't want to see is I don't want to see Oxford becoming the next Warren like like and and and it's been a cycle that's just kind of crept its

078way >> its way up. I don't I don't want to see that. I want it to be perpetually nice to live in. I'd like if you can't densify eventually the buildings just get old. >> Mr. Chair, >> absolutely. >> Okay. So, so I don't disagree with most everything in your goals. Your goal is, hey, if if we have a million if we need a million dollars, do you want to spread it over 10 properties or 100 properties? Boy, if you do 100 properties, everyone's it's lesser burden on them. And then by having the density you grow more and you want it's to your point of why you want to do it. You want to make sure our infrastructure and our ability to keep the town nice and safe and the infrastructure updated is there. We

079don't become underfunded to where that stuff becomes decrepit. >> Yes. >> Right. So uh again I I think in the zoning there's a mult multiple ways to do it. A is to raise taxes. The village council here lowered taxes five six eight well before my time 10 years ago. we've only incremented them upward a half a mill and dedicated that to streets specifically. So we're we're charging like two mills less than the state allows currently two or two and a half um and and there's no appetite for increasing that. But by being proactive in the way we're talking tonight about allow us what we see Mario and I with the developers we have existing parcels that will can be built out that can be built out beautifully densely and unfortunately many of them are in

080the DDA district and they will capture that money but nevertheless that money then is still in the community because they capture not only the increase of our tax but the other entities as well that all will come back and help the DDA fund the infrastructure in the downtown area. So in in theory, I understand that we want to develop we want to allow developers to build smartly. Um the community would have to decide whether they think multi-units uh along that lake out there, private lake, association lake, is a good idea or not. Um infrastructure sometimes is is a problem. the between the entrance on Lakeville Road of the Ashra Lake >> Association there's about 10 12 15 acres just to the west of that that and we've tried and tried again with developers the problem

081there is storm water management that is the only reason that is not developed into like 15 to 20 24 homes out there right now it's not zone multif family it's single family but nevertheless there's been plans presented comes out splits culde-sacs there the problem is storm water management it's so much higher than the surrounding property properties to the south and to the east where the subdivision is and the subdivision will not allow them to cut through with their storm water overflow down to the lake. >> Yeah, >> that is the only reason that is not developed. Um but again, private property people owners have private property rights and that's the bottom line. >> We're not going to and or force them to do anything. Um we have the options that we've already discussed on multiple

082places um in on the east part of town. We Chuck Snider's place on North Washington is another example. There's two or three homes up in North Washington that are rental homes and they're not great. The Lakeland sulfur place is not great. Those are there. Developers can come and and build those and have options and to a you take an old property and and get rid of it and build new. You add a new taxable value becomes uncapped as well as the new development that you've added into it. So I I think we're all looking at the same goal of developing it. develop it smartly which will by doing so will develop or benefit not only the village and the village tax base but the residents as well. >> Yeah, let's not forget that as being

083critical um the people that live here also have certain expectations, right? So, um, but what we talk about here at the beginning of this meeting, making amendments to our zoning ordinance directly and indirectly, but more so directly, addresses your concerns here. I would argue that the local municipalities are not responsible to ensure that the age and decay of buildings are. It's not that is through say private enterprise and investment but it's through our zoning codes that attract that development to ensure the perpetual um rehab remodeling upkeep of the the buildings within the the local communities. So by making amendments to our zoning ordinance will address these concerns. I would also like to point out that um the first item that you mentioned already is in the master plan. You know, so the master plan is

084a general plan and the implementation of the plan is still viable. It's still a working plan and um expanding C1 zoning uh as it makes sense to to do that is allowed in the master plan. So I don't think that needs to be changed. There's no, you know, verbage there. >> Sure. But it should be a conversation of like, oh, this is in the master plan. Why aren't we doing it yet? But like that like that should be a conver a conversation that have like maybe it not completely. >> So, so your thoughts are if we change the master plan, people will come and build if we just make it easier in the plan itself. Am I right about what you wanted to do? Well, I my what I want to do is is make

085the changes to the master plan, follow through with the changes, which is >> but we don't imple We we're not the builders. We're not the developers. So the so we can't control that. I mean, our current master plan covers a lot of what you're talking about, but the developers aren't always there. So that's not something we can control. >> Um I'm not asking for us to like to necessarily build it or like like we're not responsible. Our job is to cut down on the barriers that would get us to >> whatever our successes. And that's ironic how like and it's been two three years at least that R and I've been dealing with these other developers and we're like we just fine it's we have to come and and see if you guys are amendable

086to making these changes that are becoming barriers in there and I think you guys are open to it. It makes it's a practical sensible change and that's one step forward to opening up that corridor. >> I was really happy with that. I I really was um I guess >> I had like prepared this some time ago and it's like all right well we're talking about master >> I think like said I think to some degree we're all in agreement of where we're at. I don't think there's a lot of disparity of where we're at. You might have some ideas of how quick we do it and exactly to where we do it but I think the goal is kind of the same. >> CJ I applaud you for taking the time and energy and the

087the passion prepare the data and study on how to um communicate your vision and your concerns, right? >> Um more or less and the the future for the village of Oxford. So, and to to present that to facilitate this discussion. Well done. I I do believe as we talk through this the um addressing these amendments to the zoning ordinance that enable the developers to or break down barriers and roadblocks to promote the development making it easier and the the >> to accomplish some of the goals you're talking about. >> Yeah, it it will accomplish these concerns. You may not see it directly, but it will in fact uh create say the um tax income for the village that you're concerned with. I think that's a repeat theme here and how to maintain financial sustainability within

088our our local community. >> Yeah, I agree. Um >> otherwise you're more than welcome to uh donate more to the village of >> no one's stopping you from doing that. No one's stopping you also from you know us as individuals for pursuing the um high value condos on those open lots. Right? That's the the liberty that that we have as nonplanning commissioners. >> All right. It seems like I'm done here unless questions. >> No, I would encourage us to think about how these um these barriers that we're breaking down in the zone zoning ordinance um address the the concerns raised unless there are again explicit sections of the master plan that should be amended. Um thank you. >> Yep. Good deal. Speaking with which um you know just looking at the amendments um and excuse

089me for not for not knowing everything that has been done in the village. Um is do we have uh any information on if all of these you know redevelopment sites and character change areas have succeeded? >> Well they all have not. Of course, the the the near east redevelopment is the Hampton block area. >> Yep. >> Um and and unfortunately as and dismayed as we are they got their demo permit well before the holidays. I mean, I'm talking August, September. We issued a demo permit. >> I'm sorry, which area? >> Hampton block property, the near east side development area. >> Okay. The post office. >> Thank you. Right. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, um, the fact that it's still standing is a bummer to say the least. Um, they don't have any development plans, but

090just getting it developed and turning it into a nice flat development space would be a big help for the marketability of it. >> We don't have any are there any light things that we we can work on there? >> Yes. Yes. Oh, absolutely. And again, issuing a demo permit to de demo the building was we thought we're on our way. >> Okay. >> Um, and it's a it's a local party, great folks that own it. Um, I think they're just kind of too many irons in the fire at the moment. The other one is, and you guys were not maybe you, but the planning commission was a big part of a year and a half ago on the South Washington development plan with the uh conditional resoning agreement. That was all done and the council

091approved and they went through the uh the um brownfield tiff process and all that too. That's all being worked out. Um, I I expect those condos to be at least some of the infrastructure work to be going on this spring and uh and buildings going up there this this summer. >> So that and that that property has been vacant. >> I mean like forever when I have when you talk to people for whatever >> that's that's 34 units, isn't it? As I remember >> 32 I think eight old buildings are four units. Eight buildings are four units each. >> Um and it's so funny because I was sitting next to CJ when we were talking about that and he's calculating out the money we're going to bring in and I burst his bubble. Awesome. But,

092you know, it's in the DDA district. We don't get any of it. >> Yeah. >> And sorry to bubble, but again, the DDA, they they they paved 95% of the cost of that Northeast lot a couple years ago at 285 grand. >> They use that money that they captured the DDA district to help that infrastructure and those amenities and those parking lots and things in the DDA district, which is a large portion of our town, downtown. So, >> comes around. Sure. >> So, does that mean that >> Hampton block is in the DDA district? >> If these, you know, some of these goals have been met, does that mean that we have to is is this kind of like why we're revisiting this so we can kind of check them off our list and remove

093them? It's not why we're visiting it because >> well I know we have to but I just >> but while we're there and and those two u um the south Washington and the near east near west side which is this building here I think is kind of a >> I don't know if we would want to include necessarily ours and this section into it going forward >> right >> so so usually with the master plan you don't really have to go through and like edit it to remove things okay >> that's already been accomplished just because the idea being eventually that you've gone down the list so So usually what it is is you'll when you've gotten to a point where like there is no further direction you're you can get from the master plan

094then that would be one reason to to look at it. And the one thing about here as you mentioned actually already the fact that where the village can't grow isn't even going to go out anymore. I doubt the township would want us to start saying get to >> so that's why actually when you think about it you look at all these vast majority of the sites that are in the dash lines outlining the dash lines those were the redevelopment sites because there's usually something there not everything I mean some of them are like you know old parking lots or or some open areas or the Hampton lot um and so the the thing the way you might want to approach your review is to see if the ideas in currently in the plan for those

095particular sites, are they still appropriate? Are they still worth pursuing or are they still work or or maybe you want to tweak them, maybe you want to update them. Um so because the master plan is supposed to be that broadbased like pie not pie in the sky but aspirational document to like identify what it is what you'd like to see for the future of the village and to address some things like CJ like you were saying in terms of you want to make sure if you if you feel that you see in the village there's a lot more deterioration there's a lot more lack of investment by homeowners in their properties and you want to emphasize that, then you could put that you could revise the master plan, put it in there and and then

096use once again broad statements to say we want to now focus on amending our ordinances, amending our goals to allow for reinvestment in existing homes or something like that. or we want to uh focus more density in these areas or be more could you know going through the exercises I think um will is is beneficial because then you get a it gives you the opportunity then to be more specific or or more and more more broad >> but if you wanted to be specific you definitely could be you can be like we need to raise the density in certain areas by five units or something like that so you wanted. Um, but in the end, uh, I think the other main thing you would want to, uh, consider either doing a new master plan or

097a sub area plan or a an addendum would be is if you wanted to also possibly uh, either use new data or if you wanted to engage the public. Like once again, if you feel like, you know, a lot of a lot of times master plans can get very uh and we have a lot of tools nowadays, but even though they're old school tools, they're getting out talking to talking to people at public events and that sort of thing, gathering more public input to make sure that you're on the right path. So that's on the one end of doing a a full-blown master plan. That's where you village pick and choose what they want to do. And the other end is, you know, reaffirming once again because we have more to do. And then there's

098everything in the middle. >> I'm good. >> Um, right now I would say the plan is working and we can tweak or respond to any issues that come forward that are specific like we did tonight. So, I'm happy with that plan. >> Good. Um, as a administrative question, do we need a motion to close this agenda topic? >> No, I guess I would just look for direction to them. If if you want Mario maybe to write off a an amendment summary or you know um or a concurrence that you know this meeting or next you say you know what we think master plan is still relevant and and we would like to just um you know go forward with by maybe removing anything that's irrelevant like those sub plans and >> and call it a

099day or do you want to >> so I would it's not an action item I guess we're not specific action you could take action or you can say come back let's come back next month with a a final thought and and and close it out type thing if you wish. >> And just one other thing to give you a ter options for you guys to consider is you know I have that report that we did last time you could uh if you wanted to you could look at editing that to to update it accordingly. >> And one thing you might want to look at specifically is the paragraphs that say review summary uh under each chapter you then that's your opportunity That would be the best place for you to interject like critiques of the

100plan. But then also like you said like you can put in there we find that these are still relevant and we still have much to accomplish. you put that in or you can say, you know, whatever each individual member's critique is of that. I like that idea because it it shows that we actually process this in in a thoughtful way as opposed to just >> that's kind of where that's kind of where I was going with it where I'm like like I don't know if we we we finished some of these things that would be very nice like let's >> point out where you things are accomplished where things are things you want to emphasize because I in the end like we talked about it's kind of like the state this is another example of

101the state from up high you should be doing certain things but not understanding the needs of the local community because to me I always look at this as something that hopefully the council or would look at as a tool for like a know that you're tackling all these issues and b be kind of give them some direction in this particular area because they have to deal with so many different topics right like planning and the future development is one of it so knowing planning commission is here to to handle it and and and you have a specific uh approach that you want to take. Then you can communicate that to council and then they can they can say then they can let you know hey yeah keep going or they can say well we want

102to do this or that. >> Do you have any any comments before I summarize? >> Yes, I do. Just a couple comments is that uh I guess one of the things is is that I've been fortunate enough to be part of uh the review and reaffirmment of the master plan 5 years ago. I've also been fortunate enough to be a part of the complete rebuildment of the master plan for the township as well and how the two areas are completely different where the township has vast amount of land that's really important that the master plan was redone and how the village here is we have we don't have very minimal spots and the master plan I think is very um comprehensive about what it is. One of the things that I specifically wanted to see

103and hear today is um that hear from Joe and hear from Mario the things that we're not hearing because developers come in and say we are looking for X Y and Z for the small pieces that are available. We're looking for um you know from what I hear as well is that housing is always a request. I wanted to hear like u from you guys is hey we do have a hole in X Y and Z and I'm not hearing that but what I did hear is we need that there is a potential small tweak and changes that we need to make to our existing ordinance which will help our master plan in totality. Yes, we do need to take off the um take off the uh South Washington redevelopment. I was part of that

104as well, like uh being in two different things where one we turned it down and another one we we approved it. That's a that's an example of us reviewing it and say, "All right, we can we can take that out now. We can take the other one out now." Um but once again, I don't think there's major changes or any changes really that that that our master plan does not cover. I think our master plan is uh still very relevant. Um, and and I don't see us that changing because business business dict dictates that. If our downtown was so busting at the seams, we might have to rethink that. But they're not banging down our doors for that stuff. So, it's not necessary yet. If there which there's going to be an influx of people

105moving here, but in the township in totality, that's where that stuff is. So, um, once again, I'll I'll recind of iterate is that I think the master plan is still very relevant and that we that very that a cleanup be done to it. That's a that's my thought. >> Then the question becomes how do we formally document that and vote on it? My my suggestion is uh in our next meeting we come back we include this um agenda item in our next meeting. Uh Dave had some thoughts too. I think we owe it to him for him to share his his comments. Um hopefully he's present in the next meeting and then we can make a final say decision. Um and also it affords the rest of the commission an opportunity to present any additional

106very specific amendments um to the language within the master plan. >> Mr. Chair, >> yeah Mario, you can help me with this. Would it be a good idea to have the plan commissioners rather than waiting and bring us some comments or those comments on specific parts in the plan make those notes, send them off to me, us and Mar like two weeks beforehand, he can maybe summarize those and put together some kind of a summary for you guys say, "All right, based on feedback from the plan commissioners, our discussions and feedback, here's what I would think you guys would want to look at um by way of finalizing your review at next month's meeting." >> Love it. >> That's Scott. Are you looking for a specific area, specific data to back that up for the

107changes? Still, >> I don't want our recommended changes to what um others believe is thorough and very much relevant. I don't want recommended changes to be based on a feeling. Right. >> Right. We have to have some logic, rationale, and data behind it because any changes then should reflect the community as a whole, not an individual. thought or feeling. So that's my inherent approach to most things in life. >> So there's really in as I'm hearing it two different um places to look at making comments. One would be comments on the existing comments. >> Um you you pointed out talking about like the review summary underneath each chapter. if we have things we think could be said there or added in, that would that would be a document that would come forward >> with our

108current review. And on top of that, if there are specific areas in the master plan that a commissioner feels need to be amended for some reason, that's different from looking through the summary. And I just want to make that distinction. >> I think that's very clear. >> Yeah. Thanks, >> Mr. Chair. just to go on exactly with your second option what you're saying Leslie then if you wanted to um then suggest doing some kind of amendment or a new document or a topic area you could always like said you can give comments at any time and if you don't know what you're what tool you could utilize for that area I could you know we could have a convers I could have oneonone conversation with you what you recommend like I've just been since we

109have been talking about economic uh taxes and development and density. You know, sometimes an economic development plan is something that could address that. It could supplement it >> um if you wanted, but that's just an example. There's some other topic area, you know, some other approach that council could take. And once again, it's also something that doesn't have to be done like this year. You could give direction of the council within the next five years, maybe we should look at this. We need a motion to close the topic >> or no? >> No, there's no action being requested. It was a discussion and and I think there's enough feedback and and direction to the individuals to put some thoughts, send them out. We'll share them with Mario. So hopefully he can kind of summarize them

110for next month's meeting. >> Great. Excellent. >> Thank you. >> So we do plan to meet next month. Um let let's align the meeting next month with the uh proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance and >> and yeah if not the first Tuesday maybe the third you know depending on >> how stuff comes in and and things like that but >> all the developers that are going to show up and I hear you're going to make some changes. >> Um >> I wouldn't expect anybody to be here. Speaking of public comment, next on the agenda, um I don't believe there is any uh any consultant and administrative comments. >> Uh the planning commission from the um Oxford Township Planning Commission updates. I think Dave is our representative, so we'll wait on that for the next

111meeting. ZBA and DVA, >> nothing ZBA. >> Any comments from the commissioners? Good. Um, I will make a comment that I think we had some good open dialogue. Again, CJ, thank you for bringing the uh the data to the table to the discussion to review that. And uh yeah, we continue on fulfilling and meeting our objectives for the year. Uh do I have a motion for adjournment? >> So moved. >> All right, we shall close then. uh >> at 8:37. >> Who supported you then? By >> I supported. >> Okay, there you go. All right, >> I supported.