001It's July 8th, 2025 and we're in the Addison Township Hall. Could I ask Secretary to call role? Um, yep. Chair King here. Vice Chair Benz absent. Uh, Secretary Lundy here. Derek Musgrave here. Jenny Eller here. Mark Smith here. Linda Garrick is on the roll call, but she has um sent in a letter letter of resignation effective immediately. So, and if I could ask everyone to join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge 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. Do we have any correspondence? Okay. Um like to uh if everyone's comfortable with the agenda, could I get a a motion to um to accept it? A motion. Support. All in favor say
002I. I. Um, moving on to the next item of business, approval of the May 13, 2025 meeting minutes. Does anyone have any comments on the minutes? All in favor say I. Uh, on to the second item, solar ordinance review. Um, we've had uh a couple versions of a draft of a solar ordinance to review uh to give us an idea for what we may want to have or not have in in our own ordinance. I went through them a couple of times sort of just trying to discern some of the the differences between them. They're similar. They're very similar. I do see that in the the the first one we have a requirement for an application. Yes. Yeah. Which probably a good idea in my opinion, but I'm curious whether anyone else is any. So,
003and to explain that really quick, not to jump too far ahead. I put that in under the zoning compliance standards that are currently in the Addison Township zoning ordinance. So this reflected was reflective sort of your process now and where you're going to find the other similarities is one these are ordinances that were drafted for two different township communities of mine and so they each had their own little things that they wanted on their own but uh some of those things as you've noticed in this those similarities have carried over. It might be five foot in one it might be six foot in the other it might be 14 foot in one 16 feet in the other. That's what I want to figure out tonight is what do those numbers look like? Uh and and
004yes, so that application piece. Pauline and I have both uh discussed this version is a version that we like better. There are just a few things that I wanted to be able to talk to you about to tweak it. Uh the version that's not on our letterhead um is just another example, but I think this is probably a more complete version. I I would agree after having read the two of them. Um besides the application, we've got there's a we have here and you have a requirement for a sketch plan horizontal and vertical elevation drawings. No, but we're not looking for professional drawings or um so the the drawing would be an administrative review. At a minimum, these are the items that we would need to see for the building inspector to be able to
005issue a building permit to understand that they're going to be um you know assembled to the manufacturer specification. Uh we would want to see from the zoning side that the set tags are adhered to. Um when I call it a sketch plant, no for zoning purposes for the zoning compliance permit, I'm not going to need a stamped engineered an architect on on on that plan. When it comes to construction plans, pulling building permits, we're going to want something that is, you know, considered engineered or building plan specific requirements. That's for the um on structure uh for structural load capacity. Make sure that that's all the manufacturers spec. So, those will be signed, I'm sure. And then again for uh the ground mounted systems. Um so that's being able to show us you know the setbacks
006and making sure that the proper yard calculations are met for percentage of coverage which is one of the numbers that I've highlighted to discuss. One of the things that I was wondering about um in the second version without the stationary on it, a couple of things that are not in it that I don't think I saw in here is as far as like removing any abandoned solar items that might be okay on there. um if that was something it might be difficult to determine abandonment um in that situation because most of these solar systems are just solely for the purpose of the property that they're serving. And so now if there are lighted structures, broken structures or structures in disrepair, then we should probably have a means of doing, you know, addressing that. But that
007might already be addressed in our other ordinances for nuisances and and blight and and that sort of stuff for dangerous structures. Um the other question I had is um in the first version when it talks about extenduating circumstances if you can't put up you know use the backyard or the sideyard and that the planning commission would have the authority to approve a location in the front yard. Is that the planning commission that would have that authority? That's as it's written. uh for the community that I prepared this for. Okay, that's what they wanted to do because they wanted they wanted to save somebody the effort from having to go to the ZBA for a public hearing and a variance if it was a matter of okay, this sideyard's not going to work. The rear yard's
008not going to work. But the front yard could work as long as it's absolutely no way in the front yard set the required set. So the planning commission wanted to be able to leave it in the hands of the zoning and building administrator. But if there's not an option, then the planning commission can make that choice. Uh and and in most communities, that would be typically determined by the ZBA. And in this case, this provision probably might not even have to be written that way if it's for the ZBA because then that variance provision is for all yards, you know. So if if if it can't work if the backyard is an accessory structure, this gave planning commission the ability to figure it out a different way without having to go to a variance for
009everything. Okay, but that was another thing that we discussed. Yeah, I'm kind of too concern is we don't have applications for planning to review. We don't have set standards for it's all geared with naturally go to the zeal. So I pick up on that too and I had a concern that let them go to the zone board of appeals just like every other type of right. I thought we had a default that uh if you want to build in your front yard, you have to go through the long process. Appeals everything in the in the zoning laws are if you need to appeals whereas Justin was saying this community, we're not even set up for an application of this sort. So it would definitely take some work if you got a scope down that road
010versus the board of appeals is already set up. That's their job is to get varants for setback. And I I I think that works. Um the only other place that I've seen instances like this, which is for lack of a better word, let's call it a waiver. Uh you can grant a waiver through the planned unit development which we just eliminated but you can't grant a waiver at the planning commission level which would for all intents and purposes otherwise be called a variance that would go to the ZVA. Uh that's why this community wanted to do that because they they like that process and they have set up standards for review of a waiver. But again, you're not that community. This is for you and what works for you. And so I'm I'm very comfortable
011changing that around and saying if you can't meet your setback requirements front, right, front side or rear, you can go for a variance. You'll just have to demonstrate that the regulation is unnecessarily burdensome or you have an undue hardship that's not self-created. Yeah, the ZBA makes a lot more sense to me. Okay. whatever we do here on the homeowner, right? One one difference I noted between the two and I thought we could discuss was uh the the letterhead version the roof mounts can't be 5t above the highest point of the roof and the other one is the original a peak of the of the roof is what the limit is extend beyond the peak of the roof. All the roof mounted ones I've ever seen were I've ever seen one extend past the peak. I
012maybe haven't paid a lot of attention. So, in some of these when it's considered roof mounted, it's taking into account not only pitched roofing for residential but also building roofing uh if it's a if it's a commercial space. And so the the extension is how far above the building. Okay. Not necessarily above the peak. The roof mounted are going to be flat. Yeah. And they're gonna, you know, the building mounted, they could, you know, mount them tilted angled uh on the on the building. They're not going to be flat on the top of a building. If you think of Walmart, they're going to be angled like this all the way along to get the peak sun angle. It's that measurement from the peak of the okay the system the panel and the elevation of the
013roof face that we don't want to extend above a certain height. That makes sense. I have a similar question along the same parameter. Uh was that um determined for structural uh engineering purposes or for aesthetics like the aesthetics? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. People are kind of used to seeing roof mounted solar on on residential properties. They're not used to seeing roof mounted or building mounted for commercial and industrial properties. And they're really not used to seeing unless you live out some of these farms areas that have the big systems, ground mounted systems um for residential properties. But it's becoming more and more common. Specifically, uh great example, Generrack generators and Tesla both now have a garage installed battery whole house backup system that is powered by ground mounted solar. And and so it's instead of having
014the big diesel generator outside for your house, it's just right in your garage. big battery and it's right on your wall and it's powered by the solar. So that those are becoming more and more popular these days for people instead of doing the the fuel based home generation systems, power generation system. So it's just we're trying to cover all the bases here. We know we haven't got it all right probably because it's such a new industry other than people that have been doing roofing on it for ages. and and just thinking about it from the perspective of accessory, not for utility production. That's it's just a different way of thinking about it. Now, for the um the commercial versions, that's specifically like flat roofs, right? Not just because they're a commercial building, meaning what point
015do we need to start classifying what a business is for? So the way we have it here is that it would be an accessory system and all districts and the the dimensional standards will apply in all districts. Um and so the percentages the uh of of area the heights all that sort of stuff. Uh this this is townshipwide. So, we're not really going to try to decipher if it's, you know, if it's a commercial business that's like me where I'm operating out of my house or, you know, a Walmart or the party store, the restaurant down the street here. You know, they would all be commercial businesses. It would be up to them to show if they wanted to go to one of these systems that they met the standards that we are putting in
016place. You know, a lot of homesteads are they sell stuff or they have big refrigeration units and pole bars. Yeah. And they have uh solar systems. So, would that be a a commercial product or would that just be a residential? The only time it becomes a commercial product is if they're producing the power on site to put into the utility grid. as long as they're using that accessory solar generation for the purposes of providing on-site uh either backup or on-site primary uh meaning they want to be off the grid or up to the point where they're net metering and they're returning back to the grid. But the sole purpose is not to generate power just for the purposes of going to the commercial grid. Those systems are not Right. So if somebody has 20 acres,
017you know, I don't know what the full mega wattage is, uh per acre, um but 20 acres, if they wanted to do 15 of that in solar is not a residential no, you know, capacity. would probably be talking about NRA. I can't cover my entire pond. I have I have a pond. No, we we the we would we would strictly prohibit anybody from using solar for commercial purposes beyond up and above and beyond their own. I guess I was thinking in terms of commercial use like for instance the gas station they wanted to put a solar array on their roof for using support their operations, not that they're going to use that to make money off of. Yeah. No, if they if they wanted to put it on the top of their canopy uh to
018and it was a flat mounted system and it was tied directly into their uh either powering their pumps or putting power into their building to help them get off the grid. We're totally good with that. That's a a pure um perfect example of commercial. the the greatness is um I guess I just don't want to get concerned with uh people driving around and pointing out, hey, this person's selling beef and stuff, so they're a business, therefore they need to follow the business rules of of this versus a residential rules even though they're supporting their own operations. That's right. And and so this is this ordinance here uh similar to how we have section pulled up on the computer and the section uh the section on accessory structures. So it's 421 of the zoning ordinance how
019we say where zoning where accessory structures and uses can be located. That's exactly what we're doing here. We're not looking at it by the use. We're looking at it by where it can be located specific goes back to based on flat road versus Does any uh one else on the board have any uh questions they'd like to bring up regarding the u the draft letter had ZB um solar ordinance? I have a couple if I might. Um the second paragraph talks about um the building inspector in many places. Um I don't think recently when I've been up here to put in an application that's done with the building inspector with the building department but I would like to suggest that this this language is directly out of the ordinance. Yes. Well, it it says that
020an application seeking installation shall be made to the building inspector. You don't make an application. building department. So, I'm being very technical, I suppose, and I apologize, but that's just something that struck me. And, you know, I realize it's the building official that's going to read, but if you put building department, it could be anyone in that department and you're not tying yourself down to one person in that department. I don't it's just I'm looking for some flexibility but maintaining the integrity of that paragraph. So that was just something that I wanted to raise. Um additionally Mark can you back up just so how would you how would you change that? I would replace building inspector everywhere it appears in that building department. Would you leave one of them where it said or addition to
021one of the sentences upon approval of the building? Yeah, it would have to it would have to be you could change it in that first sentence if the township wanted by saying the building department, but the very next sentence is that the building inspector shall have the authority to grant building permits and zoning compliance after recommendation from the plan. So that's a very specific position as opposed to department is the the same thing as the building official. There's two different people. But if we change this also building for a purpose. That's what I thought I heard you say. There's two different people. Is there a building official and a building inspector and is the official approving permits or is the inspector approving permits? The inspector doing on-site inspections, the officials approving the permits. Okay. So
022the job that go again I'm being too detailed and I just wanted to ask the question um uh let's see paragraph or section six paragraph E I believe there are errors that need to be corrected. Um, in the second sentence, a shall not be considered and expansion. I believe that should be and I've already fixed it. Okay, there should be a comma after the word but I believe and in the last sentence required to meet and placement should be requirements. I didn't realize until it was talked about up here today because I read this on my phone which is difficult that there was actually two applications. I read it as one ordinances. So tried to collect my thoughts a little bit on the second option. It talks about ground mounted systems being added to the
023lot coverage calculations. There is no such statement in the letterhead version of it. I didn't know how others felt about that. I'm not sure. What was the question again? So in the second option it talks about lot coverage calculations that whatever is ground mounted solar being added to that. So for example, I know Pauline can tell you exactly, but let's say suburban farms, you have three acres and lot coverage is 10% allowed, you can put structures within zoning ordinances covering up to 10% of that 3 acres or.3. If you put a ground mounted solar on it, according to the second option we had for us, if it was a th00and square feet, that adds to the square feet of lot coverage that you're using. So it adds so that was that was what we they
024wanted it to be that way. um this other version the way we wrote it uh it's you have like 50% of the primary Yep that I have highlighted there so that's uh that's one of the numbers that I wanted us to take a look at tonight is what what does that area need to be if that's the way you wanted to go and we've had other communities and I think it's one of these two options that have stated also that the accessory use shall not count towards, you know, if you're if you're allowed two sheds and you already have two sheds and you want to put this in, this doesn't count towards your accessory use allocation. It's it's different, but that's I'm happy to see if worded any way you would prefer if you want
025it to be added to the maximum percentage or If you want to restrict the total uh percentage of area uh that it's that it's used towards but not overall coverage area. Mark, would you like to see that it should be part of it? I think that's the large issue. It's the smaller Can I make a recommendation because the whole idea is open space, right? Uh so lot percentage is a key factor but also the the use is a major factor meaning you you need so many panels for for your your resident. So, Michigan state law is uh you can't have a garage bigger than 60% of your total square footage. If there's a way we can calculate not number of panels, but number of kilowatts or something as the max per lot based on your
026your residential consumption or something. Well, my followup question was % of the primary residence enough to generate enough kilowatts to make it viable and I don't know that I'm not energy systems engineer so I don't know that I guess I'll I'll give you an example um in my case personally not that I'm considering one of these but um I have 14 acres suburban farms I just built a barn as big a square footage as my house and it has considerable power draw because of some of the hobby shop things I like to do up there and would 50% would a would a mounted 50% the size of my home be enough to power all that or you know most of it and I don't know right well and consideration there is in that in that
027instance if it's not um one they they so there's a couple ways you can look at it one they could ask for a variance for an additional uh coverage average if it was let's say 50% was the number their manufacturer specs came back and said well actually it's going to put you at like 54%. And because of your lot size that would be something that could be looked at through the ZVA two. This is kind of taking the the way it reads it kind of takes the presumption of it's a and or you're either going to have roof mounted or you're going to have ground mounted but doesn't take into account that it could be both roof and ground mounted. So you may uh you may not be able to make the ground mounted requirement
028based on a percentage but if you can make that uh total power number work between the combination of both then you're still going to be okay. Also, uh, with with these, we the the aesthetics is the biggest thing because it's the arrays, right? We don't want to see solar farms around here, right? The biggest thing with a solar system is storage. You need more storage than you really need panels because you're not going to be you might, but most most cases, you know, you're not using the solar as it's coming in. Therefore, it's it's going to re regen uh throughout the day and stuff and you'll use a little bit through the storage. So, storage which is the biggest hazard uh and in my mind because the the fire potential and stuff. So, that's something
029we probably also talk about smaller lots and coverage of the primary structure would suffice at that point because a small lot have huge primary structure. The caveat there, I think, is commercial. If they want to do it, why not let them do it on 100% of a flat roof that you can't see from the ground and generate as much power as they can for their own use. But there again, well, they can on the roof. They can on the roof because that coverage only applies to ground. Okay. I thought the um the roof um one of these had the requirement that it has to be 3 foot offset from the notice it can't the first one says can't go over the eaves correct the second one now the ridge isn't addressed in the second one
030first one is 5 foot above the roof and can't go over the eaves I like the fact though that we could actually have our businesses be self sustainable with this too. The other statement in the second one that I'd like maybe consider adding to the first one is actually the last number 11 onsite use of solar energy systems may be installed over a big vehicle parking lot to encourage dual usage of the site. I'm not sure what they make it look like a carport. Yeah, I think that's great. You're already paving it. You're already using it. Not much else with it with this over top of it. But does that not count towards your 50% of the structure? I mean, what what benefits does the homeowner get by doing that? If we'd like that and
031encourage them to that, I don't think this states it, but I don't know. My previous owner paid mine. I think structurally that might not fit well into the fabric of the community though. That's what I was going to say too because at the new library they can then put solar panels there and sustain the library through that. But aesthetically driving by that's not going to be something. No, I would I I would think to maintain the aesthetics out here if commercial was doing it you would either want it wall mounted not facing the primary street as we have it written or roof mounted. I wouldn't I I wouldn't vouch for like I've seen Michigan State that it took one of their parking garages top floor is all panled and it's like being in a carport
032really. But I just don't know how that would look out here. Protect you from hail. Hey, one hailtorm in your solar cells. Yeah, it's toast, right? So really for me then um I would just want direction and the second option any of those coming straight over to the first option and the first option where I have things highlighted aside from the typos. Uh already fixed a few while we've been sitting here. I got document open. Um, are the numbers good here? 14 ft. And our current ordinance for the ASE and SF districts, our accessory structures or our buildings, uh, shall not exceed 20 ft in height. I left it at 14 here. I don't think we want to see at max peak 20 foot. Most of them only go up to 16. That's about as
033high as it get. I went with 14 just because I wanted to make sure that that's if somebody's putting them in their backyard at 14, you're probably not going to see it. I definitely wouldn't want to go higher than 14 ft. Everyone okay with 14 ft? Yes. Okay. So, that's a number. Uh, I'm going to change it back to reflect ZBA. Um, I'm also going to fix that section about the ground. This is the one Paul and I kind of briefly discussed that. So it's E uh section six item two sub E being an accessory ground mounted solar energy system on a non-conforming user lot shall not be considered an expansion of the non-conformity they didn't want to be able to prevent a non-conforming structure to not be able to do this but in this
034case Paul how how did you phrase the question well I've Um I just saw that today and I'm kind of coming to terms. So a non-conforming law or nonforming structure there isn't a whole lot there forever. So I I've come to terms with that but nonforming it's like so we're going to encourage nonforming use that so that should that should be lot of structure that not lot use yeah structure maybe that's the use Before we go forward, typically in our for each section, it doesn't say don't blank blank. It's just a whole section. So when we just delete number two, just delete that full. You don't have to even We don't. So then what I want to do because I definitely want the dimensional standards so I could delete. Yes. A uh two could come
035out completely and that CD and you would extend probably modify 6A to read grounded solar energy system shall be located in the rear required setback because now you don't have that second paragraph of it. So there's no need for the first one. It can be just one sentence. Good. So you're saying take out uh no just just a and then subp paragraph one there. Yeah. Just make that all a single sentence. A take out as follows in the first sentence and shall be located in the second sentence and then put the two what remains together as one sentence. Or I can also just take that I and just make that B and then move everything else down because I want to make sure. But if accessory ground solar energy system shall be located as follows.
036It should have something that follows it directly related to it. Not B which okay outline. Okay. And so then I'll pull out two all together. I have a question for you. So a house that was built some time before zoning ordinances area that is zon commercial. So it's a nonforming use. Correct. It would be structure if it's a house. It would be it would be both because the use would be no longer permitted under the ordinance if it was a commercial district. You can't have a residential use. But then you could also have a non-conforming structure. However, if it's a residential structure and a commercial zone and it's not being used for residential purpose but office purpose, then it would be could be a conforming structure. Yeah, because that's a lot if it's if it's
037C1 and it was prior, they're considered grandfathered. Correct. Until the use ceases or the structure is demolished. That's what I'm trying to do. What is Let's take a ton of outside storage that's against the start of garbage or they're running a business that's not use. So I'm going I'm thinking why are we going down this road but a structure Yeah. Not a not a condemned one or or failing one. I perceive a nonconforming use to be something that is legal albeit nonforming because something changed and it uses continue. Not thinking about illegal uses. Those issues have been taken care of by a building official or zoning off. or something. Not always. It's like why are we size? You can't change the structure. I think if it's a nonconforming use done legally, I don't see a
038nonconforming structure saying that's well if it's a non-conforming based on the examples if it's non-conforming this is coming from a an engineering background guy uh where I've seen a lot of repurposing of buildings. So if if it's a repurpose and they have to go to the the building official to get the permits should whether or not they're doing it behind closed doors because it's all interior that that'll be the issue. Uh otherwise, if it's something that's being repurposed, uh the building official and their team, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, all that should be hacking off on on the plans. It's why uh there was a lot of talk on the on the sketches. I think the chairman asked, should these be somewhat professional sketches on the plans because If they miss it during the permitting process,
039then it's on the township for being non non-conforming. Uh at some point they if they catch it, they can petition the owner to fix it to be back in conforming. Does that still not help Mark? It does. I agree. But in those cases, few then it's got to be a permitted use. So it wouldn't be nonformative. If it's new Yeah. If it's new, for sure. And then if it's a repurposed building, you're going to repurpose it. You got to get all the permits to get to CO. It's got to be a permitted use. I guess the the the homeowner's non-conformance would be if let's say you uh did one under the cover of darkness, put one in your backyard, nobody sees it, and you install it inside your barn or whatever, then that's non-conforming. Well,
040it would be an illegal it would be an illegal installation. If if a required they don't do it, township would have recourse to go take it out. So until they tell the difference between illegal versus non-con non non-conforming is when a non-conforming lot is when you have a lot that does not meet the required lot size standards. So it might be a lot requirement for 10,000 square feet and you only have 8,000 square feet. That would be a non-conforming lot. So conformance is based solely on zoning offsets and correct and so that so that zoning use where we have non-conforming use is any use that exists as a present time that is a legal use at which time the zoning changes and that use is no longer permitted within that district. So that's when we
041call it a grandfathered use. It can stay until it ceases to exist and once it ceases to exist it can't come back. And then a structure again is any structure. Uh I like to use this example a lot. Uh you build a house that at the time you build it the requirement was 1,000 square ft first floor minimum. Now the ordinance has changed and it requires 1,500 square foot first floor minimum. Uh now you are a legal non-conforming structure and therefore you can't expand upon that structure in any way that increases the conformity. So, you have to in order to be conforming, you would have to I guess to help me and Mark out and our like-minded folks out there in the community, should we have a some kind of clause in here that states
042difference between conformity versus illegal? We do. Yeah. We have a non-conforming section of the ordinance, but one that has the that differentiates between what a lot of use and a illegal versus conforming. Okay. Yep. Yep. We got that. So for me, I think what I've heard tonight, the only thing that's left that I really was curious about was that 50% number for highway basin something off 50% of the principal structure for the maximum lot for the maximum area that can be for ground mounted systems. uh or do you want to define uh like you spoken to in the other sample a the the lot coverage is what it is in the ordinance and this does count towards your lot coverage and you cannot exceed your lot coverage under the ordinance. I'm good with either way
043as long as it's for ground for ground mounted systems. Or if you want I can clean up this ordinance and put both side by side so you can read them side by side and think on it till your next meeting. Do you have an SCS engineer contact resource that you could ask what kind of depth output you can get and is 50% within reason? Um because I do like that. I think that's a great way to look at it. You know, it doesn't go by lot side. It goes by primary structure, which I think is very reasonable. Otherwise, you go to the DBA. But I just don't want to I have a couple of companies that I work with that both solar residential and industrial utility scale PA233 work. So I can give them a
044call and see what they say. I would be interested to know. So square footage of the principal building. Uh square footage would include second story if one existed. Square footage would include the walkout basement if one existable. I would tie that down to footprint. First floor. Yeah. And I would give your contact some additional cont. That's a big difference. You have a 2,000 square foot first floor and the same size second floor in a fully completed basement. That's a thous you have 5,000 living square feet and you can only build 1,000 square feet of solar panels on the ground because that's half of your 2,000 foot floor. The reason why I said it that way is because most of our schedules of regulation when they're talking about footprint, first floor minimum is what they go
045by. And so I don't remember what our first floor minimum is right off hand for like the re district, but I can look it up. So that's that's typically what it's based upon is first floor only. But I I'm happy to ask that question to see to see what their reaction is. Miss Pauling, do you happen to know the smallest uh parcel we have in the township? As far as like I guess a homeowner that uh the smallest parcel that a homeowner has, it might decide to ever have solar. I guess would it be safe to say on average most of them are greater than two two acres a lot of people would be concerned Well, but I think what will come into play there, especially with the lake, is most those lots are nonforming.
046You can't have no rear yard set and they're going to have problem anywhere because I do like that it's some of the And then we're just going to have a lot of complaints coming up. And then as far as if we're only going to do it for individual home when you start just doing a percentage of your opening up to some people have 80 acres 100 acres. If you're going to start doing a percent Yeah. 50% of 80 acres that's a farm. So I'm kind of like We have so much. So let's uh let's let's use for example your SF suburban estates district. Your minimum first floor requirement is 1,350 square feet. I'm sorry 1,100 square feet. So you can bump that number up at 50%. You can bump that up to 80%. of the
047required minimum or 100% of the minimum for whatever residential district you're located in. And I do like Pauline's thought maybe for the lake district we just limit it to roof mounted almond. Uh that you can in areas where you're able to do ground mounted. Great. That's not what I said. No, that's what I was based on having the conversation that when you had is is maybe maybe the lake district maybe we just want to do roof mounted and that way we don't have to worry about the definition of the front yard uh being the lakefront and the definition of the rear yard being the street front and then having all of those potential ground and facing the street. There are some paracyard I think the small coverage. I think that's important to cover whereas the
048other district. So then are we going to say 50% of your I I think if we limit it to to roof fountain because again if we're saying in the beginning of this article section that we can't have anything in the front yard doesn't say anything in the front yard. It doesn't it says nothing in the required front yard if the side and rear yard are unacceptable unacceptable. So we took that out. So we'll go to the ZV8. Um so if if the front yard or if the the front yard as we know it is the street side but in a lake district is reversed um then we would have ground mounted right and and the street side and I don't think we were trying to get to that is it possible to say anything so
049that would only be Okay. No, I think we I think we can do that. So for ground energy systems SF SF being suburban size definition. top. I think R1 would still be okay for ground. I think they would be able to do that on one acre. Yeah. Yeah. I think based on the question Mark had, you going back to the engineers with uh ask them to also uh give a recommendation on on storage because I think that's going to answer a lot of lot of people's concerns because I don't panels. It could be it could be storage but it could be uh a conversion. So it could be straight uh conversion into the power system for the house like a AC/DC converter or it could be battery storage like they're doing now for Generact where
050it's a battery energy system that's uh mounted to the wall inside your garage. Right. So, I can ask about that. What we wouldn't allow what we wouldn't allow is for them to put a pad in their backyard and start stacking up lithium lithium ion storage. That's that's only for utility scale. And I'm happy doing it on the structure size 50% or whatever, but it depends on what we start with and what the Does it come out big enough or reasonably so if you will because I think it you can get widely varied result depending on the calculations you use. Well, you could like there's a number I I'll talk to I'll give him a call and see if I can get some answers to that. So my other thought was even if what you could
051say 100% of the minimum first floor requirement So for the SF district it could just be 1100 square feet. That's the amount of space that you are allowed uh for even if your home is 3,000 square feet. The minimum is 1100 that's that's required. Therefore your array could be 1,00 and if that's not enough then look at your ground and roof mounted options and see if there's way those pianos are so efficient these days. I don't I think that would be an abundance of panel here. So Justin will these panels will they if I wanted to get my solar panels on my pole barn and I do that is that separate from doing the house I mean what if you want them on your pole barn if you're mounting up to the roof of the
052pole bar that's the only coverage that we're talking about here is for ground mounted specific ground. And Mark, you're afraid you're afraid that 50% will limit somebody who wants to utilize that system and can't because of the size of their house. It isn't the percentage. I would say it is if if it's the first floor minimum is a thousand square feet or that's what we're going to start with and 50% of that means 500 square ft of solar array, but the house has three finished floors and it's really 4,000 square feet of living space. Is that enough? Right. So, the manufacturer will have to spec it. They So, like when I was going to get sized for a generator generator, they came in the house and ran our power loads and said, "You need a
05321 kilowatt diesel generator." So, they'll the manufacturer will be able to spec if you've got, you know, a 3500 foot home. This is your power generation load currently and usage. they'll be able to spec out what that looks like. So, I I can't do that. But what I can do is see if I can talk to some of my contractors to give me some some previous specs that they've done on a variety of different homes and sizes to let that I can bring back and share with you to see what we're really working with here as far as an area. The biggest concern that most people had had in these other two examples is they want to make sure that they don't allow an area large enough for somebody to over build and and try
054to get away with now they're doing both uh utility generation and powering their own site. So, we wanted to have some sort of limitable mechanism there to prevent somebody like like to again the example that was brought up, somebody has 10 acres, they only need 1,000 square feet to do their house, but all of a sudden they're applying for five acres. And that's that's just Yeah, that's people. You give them that inch, they will take it. And I agree. But in your generator example, let's say the township said you can't have a generator at your house greater than what you need to power the first floor, which is 1,000 square ft, and that's 10,000 kilowatts. But your contractor says you need 21,000, but we've limited you to the first floor calculation, which is what in
055essence we're doing with the solar at 50% if we only start on the first floor. And that's why I'm asking for some context to try to understand that. Let me Yeah, let me let me do some research on that. We've been uh been at this for a while. Um I is there a uh aspect we have not spoken of that anyone wants to bring up? I have one potential loophole to address. Um heard a few times manufacturers specs and stuff. Uh is there anything in here that clearly states that it has to be in manufacturers or no homemade? I will make sure that's in here, but that's anything that's being submitted for approval has to meet manufacturer specification. That's that's a reputable manufacturer or like a manufacturer like I can manufacture something. Uh it would
056be a license to Yes. a reputable manufacturer, you know, it's like anytime you get a user's manual or something like that. We there's installation spec specifications uh putting in an HVAC system. There's manufacturer specifications for installation and setup. We want that same thing to apply here. We're not just going to let somebody go buy a couple of panels or, you know, find a couple of panels and then and then slap it up without the manufacturer specification. It'd be like avoid the warranty. You can avoid the license compliance. Any anything else? So, uh we'll Just to sort of summarize real quick, we're going to uh run with the uh letterhead version so you don't have to repeat the information for the non-letterhead version. We're going to uh Oh, I think we can also get rid of
057that alternative definition of accessory energies. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. Uh we're going to uh drop off the extension extenduating circumstances about which which initially called in the planning commission. We're not going to replace that with ZBA. We're just going to drop that off and re revamp your numbering appropriately. We're going to add the lot coverage calculation. We're going to figure out non-conforming structure or lot. I don't know about the 50% of the square footage of the principal building. I think we're probably going to have some different language that to look at. I need to call some folks and no homemade systems like my hunting cabin. We'll mention that. Say you got to move to the DP if you want one of those. Yeah. Um and then we'll take another stab at the uh at the apple
058next uh next time you bring it up. That okay with everyone. Can we say we're removing that number? Yes. Roman numeral two. Yeah. Okay. Um, moving then on to uh agenda item number three. U Mark Smith has been appointed by the township board to be our PC representative on the ZBA. You might recall that in the bylaws discussion we had a a meeting or two ago uh we were not in compliance with that and uh we are now. But if we've lost uh Linda, we'll have to get someone on the the township board to be in compliance with the that part of the bylaw. Um next public forum. I don't see anybody in the audience, but uh I'll open a public forum at 7:02. Uh anyone wishing to address the planning commission may do so.
059Seeing no takers, we'll close it at 7:03. Do any any does any trustee or have any commissioners reports? I haven't yet. Okay. Uh that said, uh I think we're ready to adjourn. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Opposed? None. Thank you very much. Our next scheduled meeting is August 12th.