001Okay. Um, it's 6 pm. I'd like to call this uh meeting of the Township of Addison Planning Commission to order. It is May 13, 2025. We are located at the Addison Township Hall on Rochester Road in Leonard. Uh, if you all would please rise and 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. Uh, Secretary Lundy, would you call roll, please? Uh, Mark Smith, present. Jenny Eller, here. Derek Musgrave here. Secretary Lundy here. Vice Chair Benz here. Chair King. Chair King here. Uh we Linda Garrick is I guess we'll count that as an excuse absence. Yep. Uh next order of business, announcements and correspondence. We did
002receive some correspondence. We received a letter from Bill Chomi regarding the wording of article 4, which is uh item 2B on your agenda. Um that uh correspondence, like all correspondence, is available for review in the township offices during normal business hours. At this point, I'd like to uh entertain a a motion for approval of the agenda. So move. Second. Discussion. Uh, roll call vote, please. Chair King, I. Vice Chair Benz, here. Secretary Lundy, yes. I mean, Secretary Lundy, yes. Derek Musgrave, I. Jenny Eller, yes. Mark Smith, yes. Okay. Next item on the agenda is the approval of the April 8th, 2025 meeting minutes. Um, I have no comment on them. Uh, if so, I'm I'm willing to open up uh again ask or request a u a motion for approval of the minutes. I move
003to approve those minutes. I'll second. Can we just have a general I or no? All in favor for something? Well, actually, well, we can discuss that when we get to the bylaws. As a matter of fact, um, a second. Uh, we have a roll call vote. Chair King, I. Yes. Vice Chair Benz, yes. Secretary Lundy, yes. Derek Musgrave, yes. Jenny Eller, yes. Mark Smith, yes. Motion passes. The minutes are approved. Moving on to U item two. We have four sub items in item two of ordinance reviews for uh the planning commission to take an action or or have a recommendation on the following. I'd like to take these one at a time and lead off with each of them asking the planner to just give a quick summary of what we we're looking at doing
004here. Sure. Thank you. Uh Mr. Chair, as you know, last meeting we held um public hearing on these four ordinance amendments. The first being uh article 4.49 to delete and replace some language regarding open space preservation. As noted, that is something that is required under the zoning enabling act. Um but we wanted to clean it up and tidy it up. uh as well as accommodate uh the additional changes that were being made to the community wastewater and utility system which is article 4 as well as the changes needed for schedule regulations. Uh and then the article 25 deletion of the PU altogether which is not a required section under the zoning enabling act. Um the the uh the community wastewater utility system as there was discussion at the last meeting from the public hearing. There
005was concerns over whether or not that would create any problems for existing facilities uh that are of that nature. And we noted that it would not be a problem that it would not have any issues uh or or challenges related to that. specifically um for the golf course site due to the consent judgment and the consent order require requiring the systems that they have. Um so so with that I'm happy to answer any questions that you have but uh this would be the meeting if you choose so choose to move these uh forward with a recommendation to the township board for approval or adoption. Okay. I'd like to handle them one at a time so we can uh keep our any questions we might have orderly. Um as and I also like to handle those
006as part of discussion. Um on a motion uh uh we also have the discussion first. Does anybody have any I uh any issues they'd like to bring up with the deletion and of the existing and replacement of of article 49 open space preservation? Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to propose a wording change addition before we adopt it. Originally, it read in paragraph three, the second to the last sentence under restricted land, dedication, restrictive covenant, or another legal mechanism that runs with the land. I'd like to propose we insert the language that is recorded after the word mechanism such that it reads dedication restrictive covenant or another legal mechanism that is recorded and runs with the land. That change was proposed or talked about at the first meeting. The township attorney has reviewed it
007and approved it and said that that would be fine. That would be my motion before we discuss approving or denying which is I believe how it's actually uh currently shown in the um the replacement uh page. Sure. You put it uh or I think the correspondence that you and I had uh was to put it in both versions because we needed to talk about it as commissioners and make sure everybody was on board because that was not discussed at the public hearing as a board. It was not. But if you just address that everybody concurs that that is recorded should be added. It's still highlighted. That should suffice because it is now in front of you with those So it doesn't take a motion to change it? No, because it's in front of you with
008those words. I would definitely have a consensus that everybody agrees with what proposed. Any other comments? I'd like to entertain a motion to uh uh delete the existing article 449 open space preservation and replace it with the uh the modified uh streamlined one that is currently in your package which includes the language that uh Mark was speaking of. So I'll go ahead. Any further discussion? Have a roll call vote, please. Mark Smith, yes. Yes. Jenny Eller, yes. Derek Musgrave, yes. Secretary Lundy, yes. Vice Chair Benz, yes. Chair King, yes. Okay. Uh, that is passed. On to article 2B. Article 4, Community Wastewater Utility System. Uh, as the planner noted, this is a a new um regulation that we're recommending the township adopt uh that uh restricts uh construction of any new community wastewater systems. Um
009the are there is there any discussion from any uh the planning commission members? No. Uh I have a question. Do we need to add any language in there that talks about grandfathered, you know, systems that are already in play or as as the correspondence talked about, the the township attorney didn't feel that needed to be done that those systems that are check grandfathered or as was discussed are covered under their legal structure of the consent judgment. As far as our ordinance is concerned, that will our ordinance will govern anything from this day going forward and anything that is governed prior to that by any court measure will will remain as such grandfathered in. Yeah. Unless at some point in time that consent order were to be terminated or they were supposed to they were doing
010something that would be so outside or different from what they're ordered to do under consent then then that might play but the way it's written now is attorney stamped and approved and will not affect them. Justin, does that include any um additional expansion expansions to that area later? I can't say yes. I can't say no. What I can say is if it's expansion that's as part of as part of their consent judgment, then that would not be part of this ordinance. Mr. Chair, I have a question. Yes. Um, we're modifying these now, but if something like this discussion uh comes up later on uh down the road that we didn't foresee um that caused a a big problem for enough people, can we easily convene and modify them again to support that or does it
011take special session or Well, we're not the actual modifying authority. The township board is we're we're simply recommend recommending to it. Yeah. But it would there would be there could be a process if necessary of some future set of circumstances. So made it that way and it would it it's certainly out not outside the possibility again if there was too many problems uh that the ordinance was being too restrictive or creating too many issues that the board could always send it back here for consideration or change. It would depend on the legal, right? Uh any other uh comments from any of board members? Okay. In that case, I'd uh like to get a motion from someone to adopt Article 4, Community Wastewater Utility Systems. I I move we adopt it. We have a motion. A
012second. A roll call vote, please. Mark Smith, yes. Jenny Eller, yes. Derek Musgrave, yes. Secretary Lundy, yes. Vice Chair Benz, yes. Chair King, yes. Moving on to article 2 C, article 24, schedule regulations to amend sections 241B, 2401 C, 241H, and 2401P. And uh if you read that, you'll see that's pretty much just to uh account for the fact that we uh instituted uh article 4. And um is there any uh discussion on the board's part prior to uh taking this up? Hearing none, I'm uh request a uh someone uh propose a motion to adopt the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I move we adopt. Second it. Got a roll call vote, please. Mark Smith, yes. Jenny Eller, yes. Derek Musgrave, yes. Secretary Lundy, yes. Vice Chair Benz, yes. Chair King, yes. Finally, on to item 2D,
013article 25, the PUD, uh, which would be deleted. Uh, it is not a requirement under the state zoning law that we have such an article and we would, uh, list that article 25 is reserved for any particular future use. Uh, is there any discussion? No. Okay. In that case, could I ask for a motion to uh delete article 25? Make a motion. Seconds. Second it. Roll call vote, please. Mark Smith, yes. Jenny Eller, yes. Derek Musgrave, yes. Secretary Lundy, yes. Vice Chair Benz, yes. Chair King, yes. Kind of gets to you after a while. Is she here? Um, the next item we have on our agenda are is a review of the planning commission bylaws. The planning commission bylaws have been uh reviewed both by um our planner uh Justice Prague and also by our
014attorney Bob Davis. Um there's a couple items in there that uh I would like to call to your attention that we should perhaps What? Excuse me. My hand up, but I know you were reading. I wanted to get something in the record. We the uh you you have your opportunity to public forum, which is uh a couple items down the down the road, but you there is a public forum where you'll be able to address the board. um the planning commission bylaws. Um there's a language in there in paragraph one uh where it talks about the composition of the board and particularly that the ongoing members of the planning commission shall to the extent practicable represent the major interest in the township such as agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, etc. Um, my reading of that
015is that is not a a restrictive or an all-encompassing list. Certainly, the idea is is for having a diverse members of the board and which would include other items such as local, age, and background. Um, as the planner and the attorney had no particular issue with the way that was currently phrased, I also do not. I just, Mr. chair. Yes. Just to let you the rest of the board know that paragraph is taken directly from the planning enabling act. Yes. So it's it's it's right. It's not all-encompassing. It's supposed to be a swath or a sampling uh with suggestive ideas, but that's that that paragraph is verbatim from the law. Yeah. I when I read it, I was imagined it it would be it could have been written with an eG in front of it
016as a you know, for example. lawmakers. Um, other items I'd like to bring up. Um, just as a note in paragraph six, we have a uh a desire for a zoning board of appeals representative uh with the unfortunate passing of Eric. Uh we at the moment do not have a zoning boards of appeals representative on the on the on the township board but I imagine that will be rectified here in the coming months. Uh if I could now draw your attention to items uh sorry paragraph six on the agenda. If you'll note on the sequence of items on the agenda, it's there is a reversal between our normal practice and what the bylaws say uh in particular and that uh reports uh appear in the bylaws as a as occurring before the public forum. But
017our normal practice is to u have the public forum first and then have the reports. I would prefer to have the public forum before the reports in case that uh what we hear uh would have some sort of influence on the information that we convey during the uh the reports. Uh I'm not I'm curious as to hear any other thoughts on that. I don't have no preference. Makes sense. It makes sense. It sounds like uh like a float. Yeah. Okay. And the final item I wanted to draw your attention to uh is section three, duties of the planning commission on page six. Um, paragraph three, prepare an annual report to the township board. I don't believe that has actually been a normal practice. Um, probably because our bylaws tend to require that we have a
018township board member on the planning commission. So, the the mechanism of feedback to the township board is is in place and is functioning on a on a meeting by meeting basis. I'm not sure what we would achieve. So an annual report I can give you an example at your next again the planning enabling act requires that annually once a year the planning commission provide a report to the board uh for the board to approve that is a one-page memorandum of this is have we ever done that these are the topics that we've seen this is you know we saw three special land uses had for zoning text amendments for site plans is much that's generally that you don't have to put an attendance report or anything in it but state law does require that once
019a year no planning commission do it um you know review it and approve it or authorize it at their January meeting for the board's next consideration at their next meeting. Yeah, but it's it's part of the state law and a lot of planning commissions don't do it. But I was going to say we've never just a once a year memo of the Here's who we are and here's what we did. Going to be real brief cover sheet for one page. Yeah, I I'll bring Well, since it's part of the planning enabling act, I guess uh we'll have to uh put that one down on on items to to track and knock out. So, does anyone else have any uh items they would like to bring to our attention uh regarding the bylaws and the way
020currently uh draft is structured? What about the voting? about the voting like I don't think just Bob Smith used to do it we and just like a uh no doing the uh minutes and so forth he just have a general eyes's or nays and that would be it and then when we get to the particular ordinances approving then we go specific So the way the bylaws uh address that in paragraph five voting um what page is that? That's par page four. Paragraph five. Mot shall be by voice vote. A roll call vote shall be required if requested by any planning commission member or is directed by the chair or at the discretion of the chair. Um so just discretion each member has a duty to cast a vote on all members pres on all matters
021presented for consideration. Uh, I'm willing to um uh if make it a our practice, if the board is willing to make it our practice that we certainly vote on all matters that require, for example, forwarding language to the township board. Um but for more administrative matters, um agendas, minutes, should just go with a ending of the mini. Yeah. Uh just go with a non-roll call vote. Okay. I think it makes it up to the chair. So don't up to be up to the chair, right? I wasn't looking necessarily for a a change in language, more a matter of a an agreement to adopt a practice. Okay. Should we consider the ZBA language that the clerk gave us copy of public hearing? I think we should consider that. All right. Let's have that discussion. So the
022the ZBA has put in their meeting minutes that we would um that they will um deliberate after uh give at least one meetings worth of time before they make a decision on something that comes out. Unless of course it was something that was easy to make a decision on clear-cut kind of thing that could happen in that particular day and they've just spelled it out in their meeting minutes that that was something that they could do. I think the language that is here, it says unless a vote is otherwise taken to act the same night as the hearing, right? So, first of all, it would be a procedural vote to say we we'd like to act on this tonight. And then you'd have a vote to actually or a motion to actually act on whatever
023was before the board at that point. And I that's very easily added to um item J under section seven public hearings on page six. I'm curious um if the planner has any knowledge of other practices of other townships. Uh you are the only township that I've worked with that has the requirement to table to the next meeting. Um, you could have with the language that was provided by the clerk tonight, you would have been able, let's take the PUD ordinance for example, the deletion of it. You would have been able to enact that vote and then had the public hearing last month and then take an action that night to send the deletion of the PUD to the township board. That's a non-controversial ordinance. Uh it it if it works for the township to take
024another month, that's fine. Uh but you're the only community that I've worked with in 23 years that has that pro procedure, but it's it's what's right for the township. There is no there is no right procedure other than the right procedure for the township and the law, I guess. Any other opinions? So, if the motion didn't pass, we wouldn't vote on it. Not everybody agreed to something like that. We could conceivably, for example, um hold the public hearing and then and then still move forward at hold them off until the next meeting or we could conceivably decide that uh we just like to go ahead and and somebody this was in your this was in your bylaws after your public hearing. somebody on the board could make a motion uh to either a take the
025vote that evening or b this is this is an important discussion. We need time to think about it. Um so I I support you know the tableing till the next month. I don't think we'd have to have a motion to table it till the next month. By default it is that correct? Correct. You have to have a vote to not act on it meeting. We did that a couple times too in the past. So the default is deliberate. Correct. Okay. Is there a reason why it's set up like that now that protects us and the township? So the previous planner who was with us for over 20 years, he felt it only fair to the public and for you guys, especially the CBA to listen to what the public has to say and then it
026gives you 30 days to check the information out to check any or maybe you want me to give you additional information. So it gives you that time to make sure everything is in order before you actually make a motion. Haste makes waste. Yeah. I think me personally, I'd like to have 30 days. I You hear what the public says? Sometimes things don't sink in for a couple days. Well, even at our last hearing, it was the last time people spoke. It took me a couple days to have everything register. Yeah. So, I don't mind that. But I'd like Justin, your verbiage of um did you say non-constructive? Non-controversial. Yes. I think that is uh when it's pretty upfront to me. Right. Right. And we have in front of us a the great example of the
027PUD. Yeah. Which other than a few people wondering what the PUD was. Yeah. Sounds terrible. Don't want it. Well, we have two items therefore that uh would be potential changes to the draft bylaws. Uh, one would be the of course this uh language comparable to that item nine from the ZBA uh regarding the ability to uh close out an item the same day as a public hearing at our at our option which would require a vote. Um and the other item is the reversal of uh reports and public forum and the agenda sequencing. motion required to we we could uh include the exceptions. We could we could include those two items as as exceptions to the draft and then request it and then uh approve the bylaws. Actually, I can distribute a final copy after
028after those corrections have been taken. So, I move we accept the uh bylaws with the two exceptions to be added and assume that they are added that we'll vote on this sort of. Well, we could vote on it now. That's amen right now. Yeah. Okay. Right. But it will be added with the with the assumption it's added. Yeah. Be like uh adopting um minutes as amended. I'll second the motion. Any other discussion? No. Get a roll call vote. Mark Smith, yes. Jenny Eller, yes. Derek Musgrave, yes. Secretary Lundy, yes. Vice Chair Benz, yes. Chair King, yes. Next item on our agenda is the solar energy ordinance review. This is a again simply a review with no necessary action taken care of uh required. This is a um this this got into the board package uh
029last week and uh hopefully everyone had a chance to uh look that over and I'd like to let allow the the planner to introduce uh where it stands and lead off any discussion. So I know we've been talking about this for a little while. What you have tonight is a refinement of direction on solar energy systems for accessory use only. Meaning that the two drafts that you have uh the one that has our letter head on it and then the other um that does not have our letter head. Our language that we've prepared for communities just to deal with homebased or business-based on-site power generation to support or back up that house or business. Meaning somebody wants to have a backup generator. solar powered on their property. This is it. This does not allow for
030utility level solar development. Okay? No 5 acres, no 10 acres, uh no 100 acres, 600 acres. This is for the sole purpose of being on somebody's property or an individual business to provide backup power support to that individual facility. Uh both of these text uh are are very similar. Uh they're not the same. And so what I really wanted to do is give you a month to sort of sit and think on this and how you would really like to see this if you wanted to see this in this community. And uh public act 233 which regulates the largecale utility systems for wind energy, battery energy storage and solar energy. um is still in effect. That is still um a law that is being challenged by many townships uh through the Michigan Public Service Commission.
031But at this point, I I with it being in court, I kind of see two things happening with it. One, that the court system resolves it and makes a lot of corrections on behalf of those townships requests. Or two, we're going to have a new governor next year. Uh we have a new house and senate right now and our current governor will not repeal even though that language was put through this house two weeks ago and approved by the house. It's going to stall in the senate. But but my feeling gut feeling is is um with a new administration coming in next year there's a good chance that law goes away altogether. So I don't want to take the time to put all the work and effort into crafting that ordinance. Um it's it's state
032author state authorized sighting uh essentially if it's over a certain size. This is stuff that affect us. What's that? This one here would affect us. This one would. Yes. Um what is not addressed uh is anything that is larger than accessory scale single property use. Uh we are not putting that in the ordinance as the nature of our laws. Our zoning is permissive, meaning if it's stated, it's allowed. If it's not stated, it's prohibited. Um, so if the state can site the big projects and we can allow people to have their individual projects in between, we're not permitting. When I say in between, that's anything over uh somebody's individual personal use. Does it restrict anyone from having solar as their primary energy source? Not as long as it's for their own own property. Yeah. Private
033land owner. Yeah. Yeah. So from the power generator to the property. Making sure DT& is not part of this. Okay. Yeah. So we we we discussed this tonight, but really what I wanted to do is make sure that you got it before this meeting so I could introduce this and kind of talk about it with you this evening. let you spend some time to think on it just like we talked about with the bylaws and then be able to have a full discussion on this at your next planning commission meeting with some clarity of direction as one of these two documents more appropriate for the township uh is the the heights that I've highlighted in here uh 5 foot above the roof maximum height or uh where do they fit in the side yard setback
034front yard setback rear yard setback we want we want all of those answers, but I want you to just kind of take the time to think about what this is and what it isn't. Does that make sense? Is does it is this a current ordinance that Anderson Township has right now? No. No, this would be a new ordinance. Okay. Proposed draft then. Yeah. So, I saw the yellow highlighting in the in the in the first iteration yet. It's it is that supposed to illustrate where the it differs from the second? No, that was that was me wanting to point out to remember what I wanted to point out uh for you to take a look at. You'll see some of the language is very similar. Yes. Uh some of the heights in the other ordinance
035are a little higher or lower, vice versa. I I highlighted it here for myself to make sure to be able to to see it and and remind you of the things that I kind of really wanted you to think about. U like that item D on the first one where it says 50%. I have that highlighted because I don't know if if that's the right number or not. It could be, it could be. It's going to fe it's going to be what the township feels is important. Uh, so anywhere on that first page that or that first document where you see some highlighting, that was really me more so wanting to remind myself things that I'd like you to consider. And it's not encompassing to that either. If you want something else, if you want
036more restrictive, you can have more restrictive uh this is a wide open a wide open uh draft right now. So we can we can take it in any direction you choose. Do you have to know whether um Michigan is does reverse metering? They do some net metering. Uh whereas so if you have on-site solar generation and you produce more than you need, you can sell it back to the utility at at the wholesale cost. But if you need the power from the utility, then you buy it at the retail cost. There is uh some laws that are being drafted uh with with help of DTE and consumers energy that will allow for what they call community scale solar which wouldn't be these 600 acre sites. It would be 5 10 20 acre sites. That would
037be smallcale utility generation. Right now we don't have that but that is something they're looking at which would be up to the municipality locally to decide where those are cited or how they're cited not under the purview of the state like large scale unit utility generation. Are there any other differences between the two different um ways you have things phrased here you'd like to bring to our attention or No, and this is just a sample of of draft um of the communities that I work in. I can see if I can find other language. Um, and then I'll also again go back and verify with the township association as well as u Michigan State University Extension who did a report uh on on rural zoning for utility projects. Most of those reports are generated towards
038larger scale or community scale, not accessory structure scale, but I'll see what I can find between now and then. if I find something that's, you know, worthwhile, I'll make sure to get it to Pauline and have her send it to you before the next meeting. And just to make sure I understood you correctly previously, um, the current machinations you see going on at the state level, you don't think will affect the accessory? Uh, no, no, no. The accessory structure is going to be accessory structured. That's that's going to be your your local control. It's only when you get to 50 megawatts of solar or battery energy storage or 100 megawatts of wind that the state's going to step in right now. Uh so as no action uh is required on this this tonight. We just
039it was informative information only and we can uh digest that and and uh perhaps have it on the agenda for the next meeting to for further discussion after everyone's had a chance to uh think about it some more. Sounds good. Any other discussion before we move on? Okay, we are now at the public forum uh forum portion of our agenda. Uh this is the opportunity for the public to uh address the uh the planning commission and the chair. Uh will we listen? We don't respond or dialogue. Uh please state your name and uh if necessary limit yourself to three minutes. that's typically not a problem. Uh the but it it really only becomes an issue when we have a lot of people that want to address the uh planning commission. That said, I'd like to
040open up the public forum. It's 6:40. My name is Fa Wright and I'm here for Copper Hills Golf Course. I just want to state something that'll go on the record regarding uh item two be in your agenda. Uh we at Copper Hills just want to make sure that Copper Hills and Copper Hills development is excluded from this ordinance change. You have stated that is based on consent judgment. We would like that language in the ordinance so there is no misunderstanding for the future. In the future the waste treatment facilities flow will change back to its original intended output and this will happen as more households are added to the system. So, we just want to make sure that this ordinance will exclude our development. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Do we have
041I doesn't appear we have anyone else uh from the public will will uh desiring to address the planning commission. In that case, uh we will close the public forum at 6:41. Are there any commissioner reports? Um, probably not since our uh township board members uh has an excused absence and we we still have yet to appoint uh get a new member on the zoning board of appeals. But here's your chance to say anything if you have not voiced it yet. Okay. In that case, the last item on the agenda is adjourning. Does uh get a motion to adjurnn? I move we adjurnn. Second. I'll second. All in favor? I I see that works good. Motion carries. Okay.