Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Uh welcome to the uh planning commission meeting on March 3rd uh 2026. If you would please silence your phones, we'd appreciate it. Um, I would like to welcome uh some people here tonight. Robert Sbert, Township Attorney. Um, Jill Bomb from and Ava Miller from uh Web Gifles Webster. Um, Jennifer Bron from the planning uh department. And uh that's it. And us and welcome. Uh would you please uh stand for the pledge of allegiance? I'd like to take role. Um, Rick Lebell

here. Kathy Vosberg here. Richard Brokart here. Brian Carr here. Ralph Jorski here. James Kowski here. Mark Renault here. Eric Haidider here. And Carl Leonard, I'm here. I'd like to make a motion to approve the uh minutes from uh prior meeting February 17th, 2026. support supported by Mark. Have a motion by Carl supported by Mark to approve the minutes. Uh all in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. I'd like to make a motion to approve tonight's agenda as submitted. Have a motion by Carl, supported by Kathy, to approve the agenda as submitted. All in favor? I

opposed. Motion carries. So, we have a couple of public hearings uh on the agenda tonight and you'll have an opportunity to come up and uh and sign in and uh talk about it if you'd like, ask questions. Um right now we have public comments and this would be about anything at all. It can be anything. It it's uh public hearing though you won't need to do that now. You can do that later. Um so with that is anybody uh in from the public like to come up and have any questions about anything any comments?

Yes sir. Just for clarification the data center that you guys talk about will I have to speak then or should I if I come up now? Yeah told me that. I just want Yeah. If you wanted to ask about it uh it's on the last thing on our agenda. I'm not sure how deep we're gonna dive into it tonight, but if you have some comments, uh, sure like to hear them. They know it's not correct. Go ahead. And if you would, uh, there's a button on the lower right.

How's that? All right. Uh, my name is Sean Wagner. my wife uh Donna uh we uh live just north of a M2 parcel on 24 Mile Road. Um her family has lived there for 40 years. Um so just, you know, we appreciate uh the board, you know, getting ahead of the issues. We're kind of realizing that our little parcel is not going to stay our parcel forever. um and everybody's coming in. But, uh some considerations that we just ask of you guys as as you're going through um retention on site. So, the um pits drain is run south. Omeg is on the north side of our property and there is a water natural water course that runs through our property. when they redid 24 mile road, all the ditches somehow ended up coming onto our property. So, if we don't maintain the ditch that's a natural water course, our property gets water locked. So, however, the retention of the water would be considered. We'd, you know, appreciate that. Um the lighting the 3000 Kelvin which I think they had recommended is a is a good temperature for you know u lighting is kind of my niche. So uh it's a good color temperature to go with. We just asked that maybe you guys consider shielding cutting off of the uh lighting source because you guys are welcome to come to our property. Even right now the lights from Texas Roadhouse. You can see the light pollution is already uh pretty bad out there. Um they have sensors that control, you know, auto dimming motion. So if maybe you guys can consider that. Um the screening and the setbacks, you know, we just ask, you know, we don't want to we'd like to not walk out and

see Google headquarters out there. So um as maybe the buildings get taller, the setbacks get further. Um the screening also gets higher. Um and then last is just the noise, the decibb. Um you know, the closed loop water systems seem to be a um would be a quieter source of cooling um and probably would have less of an impact on our water resources in this area. So with that, that's it. Thank you guys. Anyone else? Anyone else like to come up and talk about anything, ask questions?

No. All right. Thank you. Bring it back to the board. Uh we have two public hearings tonight and uh I'm going to make a motion to open the uh the first one. It's Mark. have a motion to open the public hearing for uh sheets uh resoning. Uh uh motion by um Carl Carl supported by Mark. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. Um so the first one it's Sheets Inc. Conditional reasoning number 378 requesting to reszone 3.4 448 acres of property located at the southwest corner of Burden Road and 26 Mile Road from MX2 to C3. Well, MX2 uh is county line crossing mixed use and C3 general commercial. Partial ID number is 15-09-01-1000- 005. The address is 56945 Burden Road. Uh with that, we'll start off with uh Ava Miller from Goss Webster.

Joe will be doing

Oh, I'm sorry. Joe Bond will be doing this one. I think so. Uh good evening. Um so this is an uh this application for a reasonzoning uh is for a use that also requires a special land use approval. So we thought it would be easier to separate these out. Um the applicant indicated uh interest in moving both of these things forward together uh in a manner of being efficient and expedient. Um, we'll do the resoning letter first, the review, and you can talk about that, have the public hearing on that, and then move on to the next item. Um this particular case is a conditional resoning and for the members of the community that are here a conditional resoning is an option that an applicant has to reszone property but restrict it off of off by offering their own conditions to what they will uh not allow on a site. This doesn't allow them to have any kind of variances or special approvals um and they can only do what's permitted in that district. So, in this particular case, the applicant has proposed uh four conditions. Those include the inclusion of a 10-ft shared path along the 26 milei road and burden road frontages, paved pedestrian sitting area at the intersection of the shared use path. Um, amenities there would include a bike rack, bike maintenance station, bench seating, and enhanced landscaping. enhanced landscaping along the western portion of the property adjacent to the I94 freeway entrance and permitted outdoor seating and dining areas, bike rack, and direct access to the perimeter shared use path system. In addition to that, the applicant has included a site plan and has included that as a

condition of approval in which case, should this be approved, this would be what would be built with the provision with the extra amenities presented by the applicant. um their presentation of those conditions are related to the current zoning of the property is MX2, the county line crossings and some of the goals of that uh land use and that zoning district um which are promoting their areas of walkability um and um more of a well more of a walkable pattern in that area. Um, as we move through the letter, um, page two of our letter, um, again just highlights the, um, existing zoning as well as the zoning alongside that. Um, and to the north, to the north is, excuse me, Lennox Township. The zoning there is general business. Um, and it's developed currently with a 7-Eleven convenience store and a mobile gas station. Um, the properties to east across Burden and then south are zone MX2, County Line Crossing. those are currently undeveloped. Um, and to the west is the freeway. If we move into, uh, the third page of the letter, um, you'll see some of the items that are included for consideration for making a zoning map amendment or a reszoning. Um, and those include, um, the first one is consistency with the master plan. Um, and there is some discussion there about how you may consider this use to be consistent with that. um thinking about the county line crossings concept plan which is included on page four um and the proximity of this property to that area as well as to the freeway. Um you will see that on page five. Um the other uh impacts requested by the requested zoning on public services, utilities and natural features. Um it doesn't appear that there would be any additional burdens at this time. Um the

applicant has not uh provided necessarily evidence that the property can't be used as zoned. Um but they do have some additional information about the gas station and the appropriateness um that they feel that warrants that uh change in zoning. Um item four is a proposed zoning district and potential land use compatible with surrounding uses. Um, we do note the the freeway on the west side as well as the mobile gas station across the street um and some of the additional development further to the west and east um in the area. Um, moving on to page six, item five, will the proposed zoning place a burden on nearby thoroughares? Um, it doesn't appear that there would be a burden on nearby thoroughares since 26 mile is the predominant uh roadway that would serve this use as well as the interstate. Um, number six is other land available for this use. Um, there are other C3 parcels located along Gratchet and 21 mile. That's a little bit of a distance away from this site. Many of those are already developed. Uh, item seven, will development of the site under the proposed zoning be able to meet the zoning district requirements? Um, we have the review that we completed for the ext the additional um, review that we'll talk about later. Um, but that is part of the consideration for that. Um, number eight is resoning the best way to address this request or could the existing zoning district be amended to add the proposed use? So, again, the intent of the M2 district is to provide for a village scale development, um, more walkability, um, commercial businesses, professional offices, hotels, technology, u, missing middle housing, um, and residential uses. Um it doesn't appear that that would be um adding the addition of a gas station necessarily consistent with that district, the rest of the district. Um and um we've included that um in this review as well. Um number nine, has

there been a change in circumstances and conditions since adoption of the master plan? It doesn't appear to be um that since the master plan was adopted in May 2021. And then the final question, would granting the request result in the creation of an unplanned spot zone? Um we have some additional comments there. Um that while the request itself isn't necessarily consistent with the future land use map, um which corresponds with the MX uh county line crossings mixeduse zoning, um the uh the next item is a proposed zoning district, a logical extension. thinking about the properties to the north, even though that is Lennox Township, um, and some of the parcels that are, um, closer nearby, um, zone C3, um, may be less, um, of a conflict there. Um, and that is essentially the review letter. Um, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you have before you turn it over to the applicant.

Thank you. Um, is the applicant here tonight?

Yes. Good evening. Bob Kirk, 19500 Hall Road, Clinton Township. Thank you for letting us bring the Sheets product into the community. Dave Bucker is here from Sheets, John Acriman, Kimley Horn, Ashley Reuba from Skilkin Gold. Dave is going to go into the more of the project, but uh going into the mechanism using the conditional reszoning. I think it fits perfectly for the reasons uh Jill set forth. Um your MX district's kind of nick mixuse walking walkable area. However, this parcel is all the way on the west um near the freeway which doesn't lend well to that. But I think our product being a sheets with food, outdoor seating, benches, I think that lends well with the uh over the intent of the um MX district. So for those reasons, I think it works well. I think we have a good product that'll fit in fit in there well. You know, we build attractive buildings and run a good operation. So that's just a consideration on that. Thank you, Bob. Again, David Bucklemeer with Sheets, 39300 West 12 Mile Road, Farmington Hills. Um, it's a pleasure to be in front of you all. Uh, again, it's been some time, but uh, since we spoke last, uh, we've opened up our site at 23 and Donner, and uh, we hope you've enjoyed what we've done there. It was a great investment into the community, and we've been so happy to, uh, open up there. We've got all 35, uh, employees there going crazy making food. If you've stopped in, we're pretty busy slinging sandwiches out of the kitchen. So, uh, we thank you for working with us on that site. Uh, so we're excited to present another site. Um, if I could get the next slide, please. Thank you. A quick refresher on who Sheets is, what what are we? So, Sheets started in 1952 in central Pennsylvania. It started as a dairy deli carry out and it was no more than, you know, a neighborhood convenience corner store. And in a lot of ways, we feel like we still are today. We're on the way to people's work. We're a convenient stop uh spot to

stop and grab a sandwich or a cup of coffee. Uh so we still hold true to those those restaurant roots today if you if you've stopped in. Um a little bit of backup information to still being a family-owned, family operated company. Today 25 members of the Sheets family show up every day to make decisions uh in the business. Still a lot of input from the family, which is kind of interesting. You know, having 820 locations, a lot of places lose that family touch and Sheets has yet to do that. We have committed to being a familyrun, family operated company. Going back to the restaurant focus of our store, I know that's something we've talked about and how we feel that we fit into the MX2 district here uh as an amenity on the corner. Um we have 30 indoor seats at every one of our locations. Uh in in addition to that, we have 16 outdoor seats. So, we really put our best foot forward on our restaurant. We make sure we have a space for people to come in, enjoy a cup of coffee, grab a meal, maybe hop on the free Wi-Fi, and be on their way. Some examples of just what our sites look like. I know you've got an example at 23 Ander, but we do provide some of the best looking architecture. Full section brick and stone. Uh really modern looking convenience station, uh convenience store, restaurant fuel station. And a quick reminder on what we provide to all of our employees because I feel it's really incredible to to think about. Um all of our employees that are full-time have health, vision, dental, 401k, paid time off, tuition uh reimbursement, and a whole host of other benefits that are available to them. And that's something really incredible. It's something that helps us become that number two retailer in the entire country, which is something we've been really proud to be voted. With that, I appreciate you bearing through me with a refresher on who Sheets is. Uh we'll get into a little bit more about what we're requesting tonight. Uh so again, it's a request for a conditional resoning agreement as well as a site plan approval. Um the

restaurant is going to be our standard uh 6139 foot building, which you've seen before at 23 and Donner. Um we would include on this location something a little bit different in that we have a mobile through pickup lane. So it's really just a a convenience pickup lane. There's not an order station. There's no nothing there to communicate with verbally or a touch point or anything. You just pull up to the window after you order on an app and you grab your bag of food. It's pretty awesome. Um, so that's one small difference from the other site. And again, just a quick overview. This full parcel is 3.45 acres. We'll go through a couple of the challenges of development with this parcel here in a second. Um, in this location, we'll have eight fueling pumps, meaning 16 fueling positions. So, if you can look here at this site plan, it's it's hard to see, but you can on the northwest corner of this site plan, there is a very large gas transmission easement. Uh, it's pretty large. It's it's one of the encumbrances of this property, which is why you see 3.45 acres, but our real developed property is is much smaller than that because of some constraints along with that pipeline. Uh there's an additional 25 ft of temporary construction easement should that pipeline ever need construction. So couple of of things there that make this property difficult to develop as a corner. Um and and why we kind of fit so well. We're able to sneak this development up along the road because the west side up along the the freeway ramp is just undevelopable with a large transmission line. So couple of things uh of why you see the site plane laid out the way you do today. um with the two access points on on Burton as well as our uh convenience store located to the south and then the pumps up to the east along 26 mile. One of the things we did want to take into account, you know, we know this MX2 district is something that that has been

recently looked at and we wanted to make sure we put a nice top-of-the-line uh landscaping plan in here. So, we've put a lot of uh good street trees along the roads on 26 and Berdon and then we've provided some other trees and shrubs as we can near that gas main easement. However, there are restrictions to large plantings in that easement. So, couple of things we had to balance out there. And again, just to reiterate that premium architecture, this is very similar to the 23 uh mile site. full brick and stone sections, a great looking building with a lot of glazing and a really nice look. Staff already went through the zoning conditions, so we can we can skip that unless anyone has any questions about those. And with that, I would love to take any questions or or comments you may have to discuss with me.

We'll probably do that uh at a later time. Absolutely. We're going to bring it out to the uh residents and then uh we'll go from there and see what questions come up. Thank you all very

So this is a public hearing. If there's anybody from the public that has questions, comments, uh anything at all about this uh proposed uh uh gas station store, uh please come up and and let us know. No one. Okay. Thank you. Um, we'll bring the applicant back up and uh do you guys want to ask questions now or wait until we should ask questions about want to ask questions now. The recommendation for zoning change.

Okay. Uh, I could close. All right. So, um, yeah, I had the applicant. So, I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing.

Motion by Carl, supported by Mark to close the public hearing for the uh, sheets reszoning, conditional resoning. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. So, with that, we got the applicant back up and we'll bring it up to the uh, board. And Kathy, did you have any questions? Uh, I have one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The uh inclusion of a 10- foot shared youth path along 26 mile and on Burden. Can you um describe how you um envision that being shared, how that would work?

So, this would be constructed ahead of the other developments that are proposed south of us. And that path we would envision, you know, assuming that there are residential mixed uses down there, they would be able to walk all the way up to our site and around our site. So, it's really future thinking of uh, you know, potential bikers or or walk walking path for people um that could that could circulate around to our site. And that would serve as your sidewalk as well? Yes, that would serve as our our sidewalk and it would be a 10- foot wide uh shared use path. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Eric, you got any questions?

Uh no, I'm uh I'm pretty happy with the condition reszoning portion of this, so I have no problem with that. Thank you. Uh Ralph, this is just I didn't we approve something a pilot or something over in that corner? No, that was the other side. That was on the east side. Yeah. Okay. So, it was on the east side. So, there was But did we approve that or we were just talking about that? Don't know if we ever got to approval on it. Okay. We did approve it.

Right. Right. Right. I mean, where I'm going with it, it seemed like we had already approved something for that corner. And I'm thinking this particular the sheets It is across. It's next to the freeway. Yep. I think it's better fit and I sure what

there it is. From what I understand, what what what transpired is is um they they they we did approve it. If you remember, they were going to have a big Chesterfield sign in the front of the building. Um it was it was was going to be a very nice place. Um from what I understand because of uh the sewer situation um they had made a decision to build it at Watams Road in 994 and I believe that that is completely off the table now. Where I was just going with that. I mean it seems like that is a very good use for that corner uh with this particular plan. So and I do like the one at 23 and Donner. So thank you. Thank you, James.

Yeah, we're are we are just uh dealing right now with the resoning. We're not looking at any site plan type thing, just resoning. Okay. Yeah, I have I I think it looks good as a resoning. I think we u being that it's separated on the other side of Birdon Road, I I I think it would fit well. Thank you. Uh, Rich, no questions. I think it looks good. Thank you, Mark. Yeah. Um, everyone else, no questions. Just to thank you for your presentation and what you submitted because it was pretty complete and looks good. So, thank you, Brian.

Yeah, similar to what's already been said. I mean, I when we did our master plan, I think the only reason why this is acceptable is because it's at the end of the mixeduse and there's really nothing you can do at this corner. So, the fact that they're going to utilize it, I think it's a nice bookend for a mixeduse um you know, to integrate into the mix because ultimately we do want the mixed use, but I think this is a good bookend alternative uh because of the site restrictions, the shape, and the location. There's really not much else that would, you know, go there. I think they have the best shot at being profitable and making it a nice, you know, book end of the the M, you know, the MX. So, so I'm good with it.

Thank you, Rick.

Mr. Carr summarized exactly what I was going to say. Um, the only thing I'd like to add to it is is because Sheets has the restaurant, it has the walkability, it has the you're walking, you can have something, you can sit outside. The only caveat is is that they sell gas as to uh what would go into an MX classification. Um with that I I I think it's the right fit. Thank you. Thank you. Um the chair has uh no questions. Pretty much everything's been asked, but I did want to make a comment about the the uh sheets on 23 and Donner. Uh, I waited a few months to go in. Um, and I met the manager. I can't remember his name. Brett, Brad, I forget.

Uh, anyways, he's real nice uh, gentleman. And he kind of gave me a little tour. And I asked him because when we had the public hearing for that, um, there was a lot of people in the audience because there was a lot of residential area around there. Uh this one I didn't think we'd have many people because it's, you know, not filled with residential necessarily. And um so I asked him how the residents are were dealing if he heard from anybody. He said they loved it. And he said many of them were putting in applications for employment. So it fit in real well when he told me that. Uh it just in the other place it really it was not a destination for anybody. this seems to and it's always got people in there for different things. So, uh it's it's done well and uh guys are keeping it up real well and this seems to fit that that in lot as well. Um I think if we chose not to work with you on this, it might be a vacant parcel for quite a while until somebody else came in was able to put something together. Uh but if it's not a gas station, what? So, uh, that's all I have. Uh, so if you have anything else to add.

No, I appreciate your comments. Thank you. I'll bring it to the board for a motion. We usually postpone u this for up to the next. Just two weeks. Okay. So, we're going to uh open to a motion uh from someone.

Actually, Mr. I'd like to make a motion to suspend our normal practice on the resoning and just uh put it up for a vote this evening. Well, um I kind of brought that up at a at a past meeting and uh I think this is kind of a no-brainer, but um I think we should probably stick with the same process because we do have another um public hearing on this uh same uh item. And um I I think uh I'll leave it up to the board, but we we did postpone uh from the last meeting uh uh a recommendation. So I'm kind of thinking we should maybe uh stay the course.

Take a vote. I can take a vote, Kathy, tonight or wait two weeks. motion tonight. Suspend the rules and uh to do it tonight or wait two weeks. Someone someone needs to support. Oh, okay. The motion was to uh uh to suspend the process and and vote on it tonight. Uh we need a I'll I'll support. Okay. So, we have a motion and a support. So, tonight or two weeks Eric,

well, we go both ways because if you want to be consistent on our on our normal rulings, we should submit it for two weeks. This is a no-brainer. Uh I think everybody's on board that, you know, this is perfect for a mixeduse because it is a mixeduse business. So, I I guess in this case, I think uh let's vote. Okay. I don't think we're setting a precedent by doing this. I think we just, you know, based on what we have. I don't know what's going to happen on the on the next part of this, but uh we can vote on this part. Um if the board still chooses Ralph, I do agree that it's a no-brainer, but I have to remain consistent with my other vote. So, two weeks.

Okay. James, tonight, Rich, tonight. Mark tonight, Brian. Tonight, Rick. That's right. And uh I'm gonna vote tonight just because I think that we have every opportunity to stay the course and I think that, you know, that's why we brought it back here. So, with that, um would somebody like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. regarding conditional reasonzoning of MX going from MX2 to C3 partial ID 15 0901 0-005. This is 3.448 acres located at 56945 Burton Road. I'd like to make a recommendation. I' I'd like to make a re I'd like us to make a recommendation to the township board to approve this resoning based on multiple factors. Let me go through a few of them. I number one, I find it very consistent with the master plan. Uh and I am referencing the GLES Webster report that was reviewed earlier today. I think it aligns with the MX2 County Line Crossing mixeduse zoning district. Number two, uh there is no impact regarding this requested reszoning on public services, utilities, and natural features. Three, the EV the applicant has not provided evidence that the property can you be used in another way, but it does fit very very well at the end of this this spot. And I think we all echoed that sentiment. Number five, would the proposed zoning place a burden on nearby thoroughares? I don't believe it will. Uh there is other land available, but again, this is a unique application in a very specific spot. So I think it's very consistent with the master plan. It does not appear to be a site that pro that uh provides a special value or a special advantage to the developer. For these reasons and the previous reasons, I move

that we make a recommendation to the board to approve. Support. Thank you. We have a motion uh and by Rich and supported by Mark. Mr. Chair, any questions? Um, Mr. Burkhard, um, you said it was a resoning. It's a conditional resoning. If you're going to include that in your motion that it is a conditional resoning. Thank you for that, Rick. Yeah, a conditional resoning. Continued support.

All right. Uh, we have a motion by Rich, uh, supported by Mark for the conditional resoning, um, and a recommendation to the board. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you.

Okay, we have uh uh another uh public hearing here for the Sheets Inc. site plan. Uh special land use 3.448 448 acres, southwest corner of Burden Berden Road and 26 Mile Road. Parcel ID number 15-09-01 dash 1000- 005. The address is 56-945 Burton Road. So, I'd like to make a motion to open the public hearing. Motion by Carl, supported by Mark to uh open the public hearing for the sheets special land use. And with that, Joe will do a walk through for us.

Oh, that's you. All right, you guys keep moving around here. So, all right, we'll let Ava do this one. Oh, yeah. You threw me off. Um motion to open open the public hearing. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you guys. And with that, uh Ava Miller will do a walk through. Good.

All right. So, I'm going to be looking at the our review dated February 23rd, 2026. This review is based on the standards of the C3 district as if the resoning were already approved. Um, the applicant is seeking a special land use approval to permit a fast food restaurant and to permit a gasoline service station. While the planning commission is not permitted to ask for conditions related to the resoning request, conditions may be placed on the special land use. I'm going to skip a couple pages, start on page three. Um I'm going to mainly go through our bolded items that require planning commission or applicant um review. So looking at the convenience store development standards, all of those are compliant found on page four, the use standards for gasoline service station are all compliant as well. Looking at item B at the bottom of page five for fast for the fast food restaurant use two egress and ingress uh are proposed on Burden Road. The southern egress is not on the subject property. The applicant shall provide information about this proposed access drive and the planning commission may wish to discuss with the applicant if the proposed ingress and egress is adequate for the anticipated traffic and sight circulation particularly to and from the southern uh ingress and egress. The planning commission may also wish to discuss the traffic flow on the site and operations if the queue of vehicles exceeds the stacking area. Uh the planning commission may also wish to discuss any nuisances or uh discuss noise mitigation with the applicant. Regarding building surface materials, the applicant is proposing brick and anchored caststone veneer for the building. It appears that the materials are up to the recently updated standards for building materials based on the information provided. There appears to be an adequate impact barrier and all

elevations appear to meet the minimum area of brick. However, exact percentages are not provided. The other materials used are a stone veneer, a bright red metal seam for the roof and awnings, and a dark bronze roof equipment screening. The fuel canopy columns proposed are match the building. The planning commission may wish to consider if the building materials are acceptable. Uh, as for the corner clearance, the landscaping, fences, and signs do not appear to be in the clear vision triangle, but this should be provided on the plans to confirm. For tree preservation on page seven in the middle, uh, the application, the applicant has not submitted an application for a tree removal permit, but has provided a tree survey. All of the materials required in section 5.35G shall be provided by the applicant. As for general landscaping, planting and staking details shall be provided and the planning commission uh may wish to review the landscaping plan for adequate compliance. G parking lot landscaping. There are 46 parking spaces proposed for this site. One tree is required for every 10 parking spaces for a total of five parking lot trees being required. Uh there are um trees proposed on the edge of the western most parking area. 10 more trees are proposed east of the east parking area along Burden Road for fronted landscaping and do not count towards the parking lot landscaping. The applicant shall add one additional tree uh and up to 20% of the parking lot trees can be planted on the exterior edge of the lot. So, one tree can be planted there. Uh the planning commission may wish to consider the location of the proposed trees to determine if the standard for parking lot landscaping has been met. Uh the frontage landscaping is compliant. For lighting, the applicant has not provided a phototric plan and lighting details and shall provide them. For vehicular parking, the total number of

parking spaces required for the site is 55. The applicant is proposing 46 spaces including two ADA accessible spaces. The applicant shall provide the additional required spaces or seek a variance for the deficiency. Additionally, the applicant shall confirm that the restaurant employees are included in the eight employees for the gas station and retail area in order to determine the parking lot calculations. Uh the vehicular ingress and egress was addressed above uh for Ballards. The applicant shall provide details for the parking lot posts and Ballard showing their height and location in relation to the edge of the curb. The applicant is proposing multiple B multiple bicycle parking facilities on the site. A detail of the parking facilities shall be provided. Looking at drivethrus when the direction of traffic in an adjacent lane or aisle is opposite the direction of the drive-through lane. The required separation shall be provided using a landscaped island, sidewalk, or any other similar barrier at least five feet wide as determined by the planning commission. Uh the applicant is proposing a drive up window only service. As mentioned beforehand uh with two pickup windows, only one pickup window is permitted. Uh with one window and drive up only service, a minimum stacking area of four total vehicles is required. The stacking spaces um should be 19 ft along um in the plans and the lanes should have a minimum minimum curve radius of 15 ft labeled on the plans. Uh the applicant should also provide information about how operations are altered when the demand for the drive-through exceeds the designated stacking lane capacity as shown. Uh, regarding fences, the applicant is proposing a decorative dark bronzecoled aluminum fence to separate the outdoor

seating area from the rest of the brick patio and parking. No details of the fence have been provided. Um, but the planning commission shall determine if the proposed materials and design are acceptable. Regarding pedestrian circulation, the planning commission may wish to discuss opportunities for additional safety enhancements for pedestrians, particularly those parking at the south end of the site and walking into the building across the southern access drive and the drive-thru area. Uh, regarding the trash recepticles, uh, the receptacle is proposed to be painted a dark bronze on the inside and the painting of materials is not permitted and will need to be revised. And then if there are any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh applicant like to come back up. Jennifer, if we could pull up the site plane again on my uh presentation. Thank you. Wonderful. Okay. Well, um there's a couple couple things to go through there. Um I'd first like to start talking about access with the board. Um if you wouldn't mind. So, we have two proposed access points. Um both off Burden. Um, you can see we've spaced those out, you know, thoughtfully to try to make sure that as people circulate our site, you know, say that there is some kind of backup unbburden or or something like that, they're able to, you know, go to the more southern, you know, plane south access drive and and get out of the site that way. Um, really for our type of use, one access point is just not something that's feasible. It ends up overloading the access point. It turns into a little bit of chaos uh sometimes. So having two access points is pretty critical uh in the restaurant convenience uh industry. Um the other nice thing that this does is it creates some some flow around. You can see we've kind of separated our drive-through use with a lot of the incoming traffic for the fuel use and so the pedestrians actually entering the site in between the two. We felt that was the safest location we could bring them in. So um that's a little bit about there. Do we want to take this piece by piece and talk about um each portion traffic and then we can talk about landscaping and section or how would we like to do this? Okay, let's uh if you wouldn't mind we can start having a conversation about about traffic and I I suppose site circulation if that works. So I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about that.

Well, I before you do that, I just had a question. I mean, so, uh, put together, uh, things that are missing on the plans. And usually we get updated plans based on those comments so that we don't waste our time commenting on things that, um, because right now the plans aren't in compliance 100%. So, I'm just I'm curious to know why we didn't get updated plans that reflect those revisions because if they addressed them, then that's them many less questions that we got to ask, you know. So, I'm just trying to figure out how to how best to do that because again, typically we get updated plans based on their comments before it comes to us. Um, you know, because why are we talking about it? They should be going back to their engineers, taking the comments from GIFs Webster, which is our consultant, updating the plans, then they give it to us as a planning group, and then we only focus on those things that are uh subjective or ordinance related. You know what I mean? That which is what our job is, not not engineering. I mean, that's I'm just to me it seems like these plans were rushed in front of us because no matter what, we can't we're not going to prove them because they they haven't addressed any of the Gibles Webster stuff, let alone anything we bring up. So, I I kind of don't really know how to

Yeah, I I agree with you there. There's a lot of uh areas that uh came up for discussion. Some of them uh were based on our input, some of it out of our hands that it just has to be changed. So I don't know if we go through uh if he makes all the changes on here. Um, our input would be put off for two weeks and would we be in a position uh to modify the revised site plan if there are a couple simple things and still approve the recommendation. Yeah, Carl, I I think this commission is is deserving of a formal response to all of the GLES Webster um comments

and then once we have had it once we have that I mean I'll go home I'll I'll read it. I'll note my questions, put a check mark by the ones that make sense and then we can have a discussion after we've had a chance to look at your response to all the issues. And I think you're you're probably going to want some time to go through them. So, I think that's what we should expect. Well, and that's, you know, the the last one was uh do we vote tonight or or postpone it? And I wasn't sure how this one was going to uh go, but our our process has always been to have documents that were uh complete and uh we're not going to get to that tonight. So,

Mr. Chairman, I I still think it would be a good to have a little back and forth discussion with the applicant tonight so that he's clear on everything that that we we have concerns about. There might be a few things here.

Do you think there's anything that Goss has not mentioned that we might come up with uh questions or suggestions? There is one on the um I have question about that ingress egress is that those those one is kind of for the gas station is that the idea more or less and the other one is for the store to kind of keep the flow different because I could see people you know it'd be nice to have to keep that more or less separate because otherwise people would come in and then cross the parking area to get to the gas and maybe just labeling those, you know, the southern one for the store store entrance and the other one for the uh

Carl, can you show up? Oh, sorry. Yeah, the northern one would be labeled gas station. But that's just an idea that I had uh to

in regards to the southern one. Right now it shows that it's outside of your property line. So like to me the first question has to be answered is how are you showing a pro an exit ingress egress that's outside of your property limits? Absolutely be happy to answer that. So the property owner has agreed to give us uh that access into the site and it would be used as future common access for anything that comes into the south. So, we do have uh an agreement in our lease as well as an ECR that we've drafted with the property owner that identifies this as as a second access point for our site, which is great. Is that in our packet?

Because that's what I'm saying. Like, I'm reviewing things and I see questions that aren't in our information packet, which again makes it difficult for us to do our job um you know, thoroughly, which is again why I asked to me a complete package before I you know, because otherwise we're just going to go back and forth. I want to make a suggestion and see, you know, how it sits with everybody. I I agree with Brian. I think this isn't g we're just not going to rush this through so that we can look at it next week and say, "Oh, okay. Everything's complete." I I do agree that we should have everything updated. So, any questions that these people have up here, um they can review uh everything. we can get an update on the uh review letter from GIFOS and just check everything out and then discuss it next week and hopefully everything is discussed and resolved and we can vote. But if there's a few things left over, you know, I I think that's going to be a more thorough process. I think um if we just go through a list, we might miss some things and we don't I I just think it might be a little bit uh chaotic to try to shortcut this process. And I I agree that I personally think I'd rather see every all the documents complete. Uh there's some people that ask some very good questions up here and it might be better if they base it on uh information that's either written or drawn.

Sure. No, can certainly appreciate uh appreciate your comments. I suppose tonight if if I had any other feedback from the board of other major items you may have thought of looking at the plan that aren't included in that list, we are in the process of updating airplanes. Uh so I can appreciate um your your comments on wanting to see, you know, an additional submission made. Um, if you have any other updates or or comments on what what you have in front of you today that aren't addressed in the GLES letter, I would I would love to have those at this time so we can compile all of those into one submission here.

I can go down the line and see if anybody has a specific question. If if not, then we can pause and and then save it. Uh, but I'll give everybody an opportunity to uh ask if they have anything. Uh, we'll start with Kathy if you Mr. Sure. I believe that the protocol is is that you uh you give the public an opportunity to speak, ask their questions to close the public hearing, and then we continue on with that with that dialogue.

So, with that, um is there anybody from the public that would like to come up and ask any questions? I'm kind of thinking not since the last one there wasn't. So, uh again, anybody want to come up? Okay, with that, uh, I bring it back I bring it back to the board and I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have support? Support. Motion by Carl, supported by Rick to close the public hearing for the special land use. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. So, with that, the applicant wants to come back up and I think we're all set. If we want to start with Kathy, we'll work our way down. If you don't have anything, we can put it off until we get the revised drawings here. I just have one. Uh, do you have any idea how you're going to address the parking deficiency? 10 spaces is a lot. Are would it be a getting a variance or do you think you'll be able to apply the extra 10 to the site plan?

Yeah, we're intending to relationship for a variance in this instance. U you know, knowing that we have enough parking for our needs, I have parking data that I'd be happy to submit to staff that shows that at 42 parking spaces at some of our highest performing stores that covers me for 99.9% of the time. And that doesn't necessarily include the eight fuel um the 16 fueling positions that we have. So there's a really a lot of parking uh allowed for on this site. The other constraint I have here is that easement. I don't want to go building anything across that. You know, it's it's going to create some issues there. Um I can install pavement over top of it in limited amounts, but if I go doing that and then they come back and make do maintenance, it's going to all get torn up. So, a little bit of a balancing act. So, from a parking standpoint, we're very very comfortable with the number of parks that we have provided on this plan.

Yeah. The the board will have to determine if we're going to wave some of those parking spaces or if you would have to go through the zoning board of appeals if we get a final site plan approval on that one. But again, but again, that's part of it almost seems like we need to see the revision 100%. That's why to get more specific on bringing it out there. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you, Ralph. Maybe with Jill. I'm not didn't look at that part of the ordinance. Do your ordinance allow for any banking of parking? I have a by chance. Okay.

All set. James, I don't this is a little outside of the of it, but uh have you had any discussions for a stoplight at Birdon and 26 with the road commission by chance? So, we have a traffic study and it's drafted and we're still in the process of circulating that and getting comments back, but at this time that study doesn't show the need for a traffic light at this time. Um, but we've got to finalize our conversation with engineering staffs at the county. So, still some ongoing. It it tends to take a lot of time to work through the county.

Yeah, it's it's getting pretty close because I I live there and I travel through there. It's the traffic is picking up continuously. So, just the just the thought. Yeah, we will make sure we continue our conversation with both your staff and then the county. Thank you, Rich. Nothing at this time. Oh, I'm good. Thank you.

Um, just a couple things. Um, so I mean, and first, you know, just not to, you know, I understand I'm I'm a big proponent pushing for the updated documents, but on a positive, I mean, you guys do do nice plans overall. Um, you're always comprehensive and and I do appreciate that because I remember your last set. Um, you know, uh, you know, besides the things that Gil Webster did a nice job pointing out, your plans are comprehensive, right? Like we like to see storm water management, your utilities, your grading, your existing surveys. You you do check all the boxes. So, we it so you do do a nice job. So, I do appreciate that. I just have a couple questions. Um uh just you know I think from a pedestrian standpoint I think you know you did a nice job because you did you know it looks like you are going to be striping you know coming off the sidewalk. So I mean you have that to me that's that should be sufficient from that perspective. Uh I mean the only thing in theory you could do is maybe do arrows for vehicular traffic but I'll let your traffic uh engineers you know your uh take a look at that. Um, but one question I had was, um, Berdon is a dirt road, correct?

I think this portion of it is is paved at this point. No, it's not. It's still dirt.

And I thought it was dirt. And so my question is is are you least going to I assume it's a county road, I'm assuming. like are you at least going to pave up to your second drive so that it's it's a paved road from your So that's one question I have is are you going to pave that work with the county and pave at least to your southernmost entrance so that it's paved. So um so that's one of my questions. Uh um the other question that I had was um a bike rack. Uh, I know you have one in the corner with a little repair station, which is really nice again for the mixeduse type things, but is there a bike rack adjacent to your building?

We always have one adjacent to the building. I will have to double check our sidewalk planes, which we just got back like today. So, that's part of why they're

Yeah, cuz I don't see it indicated anywhere, but obviously, you know, you know, people will ride their bikes up and, you know, grab something. So, just make sure you know we see like a bike rack next to the building, you know, to promote uh I mean, if anything, you'll probably get more people riding a bike than you would walking because where are they coming from really? So, um then I think outside of that, I think in the new plans you'll be showing the floor plan so we can at least check that out. Um, no. I think other than that um I think other than that I think you did a nice job. I didn't have an issue with any of the the other items. So, no. So, yeah, those just those couple items and and then the Goss Websters. Thank you.

Yeah, we'll make sure we get back to you on that. Thank you. You did good. Brian's not that complimentary on many drawings. Sorry. Rick,

um, just a couple of things. Um, you had there there was a comment made about parking and and I and I remember very well is um at your other site what we had talked about is um the possibility as Mr. Kirk had come up and mentioned was um banking some parking and what we had talked about um at the other site in which I don't know if it's being utilized or not if you've had to is right where your tank farm is at on the north side of the property the um the possibility of banking some parking there if in fact you need it. So, just a suggestion. Um, and then I want to comment also that you guys did a great job with your plans for what you had and and I personally can understand why you don't have a complete set of plans yet because you don't have approval with a conditional zoning. So, why would you spend all the money on creating a whole set of documents if you don't even know if it's going to get reszoned? So, and um and because you have the opportunity, the township has the opportunity to uh present this to the main board, which isn't going to happen next week. And there's probably going to be, I'm assuming, Jennifer, a month, probably about a month. So, you've got plenty of time to update things. So, giving you an opportunity, and we do appreciate the fact that you're conscious and you're you're willing to do that. Um that, Mr. Chair, that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I I also had a a question on the paving. Uh, I know it's it's all gravel all the way down, but with the amount of traffic flow and customers you're going to have going in and out, you might be creating a big mess and bringing it from the root street into your parking lot. And uh, you know, in the winter time, it just the the gravel roads, that one, it gets pretty nasty. I've driven on that in the winter time and it's pretty nasty. So, you're going to have a lot of u traffic in that corner. So, it might be something to think about and consider. I don't know if it's something you have to do, but I would strongly recommend it. I just think it'd be a good idea to keep it clean. So, keep the whole site clean. So,

let's bring that back in front of you in a couple weeks here. So, I kind of think that um if you follow all the things from Gifles Webster and the comments that were made up here tonight, uh hopefully everything's addressed and we can uh look at a nice clean set of revised drawings and uh and and wrap this up for you. So, we'll see how that goes. Uh so with that um we're going to make a a motion not for two weeks but probably goes give you up to six meetings. Mr. Chair, can the applicant have his uh his plans ready for our next meeting?

I think if we have the six meeting buffer, that's more than enough. We will attempt to have all of our drawings in ship shape before the next meeting. If you communicate with the uh with the planning uh with Jonathan uh about you know all of that um they can get it back on the agenda and we can look at it sooner than later. But uh so we we'll um uh I'll let somebody make a motion uh and uh we'll go from there.

Chair I'd like to make a motion to postpone making a decision on sheets site plan 2025-14. Um, the partial ID is 15-0901 100--00005, giving the applicant an opportunity to update the drawings and give us the information that is uh that we're asking for. Um, as far as setting a timeline, if the applicant could um, do you want us to postpone up to a certain period? How much time do you need? I think we can get it done in two weeks, but could you give me four? Could you give me two meet a two meeting span? I don't know how the board tends to do that. It's a public hearing. I always like

that. That's acceptable. We will try to be in front of you again in a timely fashion here. Yeah. You might run into a situation that you can't control. So, the public hearing is closed. So, we can give you up to six meetings if you'd like. I will accept that. But that'll make a motion to give the applicant up to six meetings to make the uh adjustments on the drawings. We have a motion by Rick. I support I'm sorry, who made the uh who supported that? Ryan did. Ryan, go ahead. Uh, we're gonna put Brian's name down there. So, I have a motion by Rick, supported by Brian, to postpone up to six meetings. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries.

Thank you, and we'll see you uh sooner than later, hopefully. Um, the next item is item A. It was a resoning. We had the public hearing already and it was uh closed. So, I just see if uh Ava Miller has Miller has anything to add to it. Um, does the is the applicant here? Yes. If you have anything to add,

Charlie Stapleton representing Lombardo Homes, the applicant. Um, this parcel is currently zoned C3. Um, we are proposing a split zoning of C3 and RM2 on this parcel. Um the remaining corner of the property uh will remain C3 due to the hard corner of 25 mile and Gratchet Avenue. Um as well as the heavy industrial across the street of Gratchet Avenue. Um we believe this would act as a good transitional area from industrial to residential. Um the remaining RMT portion of the parcel um would be reszoned to match the township's master plan. Um, as of now, um, Lombardo does not have a future development plan with this property. Um, but being a residential builder, our goal is to keep this Lombardo, um, ownership and develop something residential once our due diligence is completed. Um, we are aware there are wetlands on this property and would like to delineate these wetlands, do soil testings, and any other due diligence necessary um, in order to, you know, gauge the capacity this parcel. um could handle as far as residential sites. Uh please take this information into consideration for the approval of reszoning this property. Thank you. Thank you. And uh just for the record, I failed to uh read the uh uh the the resoning information, but it's uh this this is for resoning number 379, just for the record. And u so bring back up to the board if anybody up here has anything. Kathy, Eric, Ralph, James, Rich,

one one quick question. Uh, on January 9th, GIFles Webster provided us with an overview. They they mentioned that the survey should be updated for consistency with the application. Did you update the survey? Yes, I was updated to match the RM2 zoning because we had RM1 on the survey. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Thank you, Mark. Brian, good. Uh, the chair is good. Um, so with that, uh, I'll entertain a motion. I'd like to Go ahead, Jim.

Oh, no. Uh, I would like to make a motion to approve reszoning number 379, the request to reszone 15.86 86 acres. Property located north of 25 my road and south of Graation Avenue from C3 General Commercial to C3 and RM2 residential multifamily parcel number 15-09-04-5451-00003 for their following reasons. The proposed zoning is consistent with the m master plan. Proposed zoning will have minimal impact on public services and utilities. The applicant does not provide has not provided evidence the property cannot be developed as zoned. However, C in the C3 district only single family residential is permitted. The proposed zoning is consistent with the surrounding uses. road zoning will have minimal impact on traffic as Grashid Avenue is a principal arterial road. There is other land available for this use. However, demand is growing. The development of this site will be able to meet zoning district requirements. Reszoning is the best way to address the request. There has been no change in circumstance and condition since adoption of the master plan. The granting of the request would not result in the creation of an unplanned spot zone. Uh the proposed reszoning is a logical extension of the existing zoning district and that would be uh uh for um recommendation to the board. I have a motion. Do I have support?

Support. I have a motion by James supported by Rich to approve the reszoning number 379. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. You're all set. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay. Um,

we have uh the next item on the agenda is Chesterfield 5 LLC site plan number 2025-07 M1 uh 4.331 acres north side of 21 mile road between Grashet and Herb Drive. Parcel ID5-09-30-352- Z006. Uh, this was postponed at the last meeting. And, uh, with that, uh, does Ava have some updates. Thank you.

All right. So, I'll be looking at the applicants revision letter that they provided and I'll just run through the list. So the first bullet refers to identifying the rear property line, showing where the existing tree canopy is in relation to the property line while also showing the proposed additional screening. The applicant shows this this on sheet L1 and appears that the existing tree canopy abuts and extends beyond the property line in some locations. in the area that doesn't have the spillover from the existing trees. The applicant is proposing additional screening consisting of 16 Colorado spruce trees. Um, additionally mentioned at the meeting was the mention of a um topography plan and that should be submitted as well. Regarding the second bullet point, the burm detail on sheet L1 was updated to provide the correct width of the burm at 15 feet on either side aso as opposed to 10 feet. The dimensions of the curb and gutter are shown on uh sheet C1. The applicant has provided a circulation plan for trucks and noted the fire apparatus turnaround on sheet C1. Uh, and as for updated building materials, uh, they have been provided on sheet A1 through A3. Since the application for this site was submitted in October of 2025, uh, only the old building material standards uh, may be required, uh, the front facades of each building have been revised to have a minimum of 75% brick with the other material consisting of splitfaced concrete blocks. According to the old standards, the planning commission should decide whether uh the concrete blocks is a comparably durable decorative material. Uh to improve uh according to the new building material standards, the applicant could provide a 25% brick facade on all sides except the

front elevation uh which requires the 75% which is compliant. Uh the concrete PL blocks proposed on all facads are not on the updated pre-approved building material list and would require planning commission uh approval to consider the material and adding it to the list. Um or would require the applicant to update the material according to the list or propose another material um for the photo magic plan. Uh the correction was shown on on sheet P1. uh no parking spots or parking areas have zero illumination. Uh but there also does not appear to be a minimum standard for lighting for this. Um for Ballard location details, six ballards are proposed at the rear of each building shown on sheet C1, A1, and A3. They are concrete steel post 42 in high which is compliant. The appearance of the ballards are not noted and should be placed at least 3 and 1/2 ft from the front. uh from the wall of the building. The applicant provided a bike rack detail which is compliant except for needing to increase the height to at least 36 in. And the applicant added a wood fence board on the trash enclosure enclosure with a metal gate frame. It is noted on the plans that these will be painted. Uh and the painting of any material is not permitted and should be updated. Um, a door clearance detail is provided on sheet C1 and the ADA parking was moved to have the doors open into the access aisles. We question the location of the doors in the access space, but we defer to the building department to accept um to assess whether this is acceptable or not. Uh, and then also revised was adding parking blocks along buildings. The applicant said they would like to ask the planning commission for a waiver on this. And that concludes my

review. Thank you. Thank you. Uh the applicant like to uh address those uh issues.

Greg Iabelli, 53639 Christy Drive, Chesterfield, Michigan 48051, representing Chesterfield 5. Yes. Um we were here two weeks ago and uh we made the several of the revisions uh requested by the planning commission. Um I uh question I got is on the on the on the facade. Um we've updated the the drawings to um the front-facing facades along 21 Mile Road will be full face brick. We're going to use a product called uh Sebrick which um I brought a a brochure sample. It's basically it's basically a brick a block that has a brick fl. It's a very popular product and it gives the it it it is a face brick but it's it's a combination with a brick and a block combined together. Um I don't I I have a question on the uh coverage. I don't know if she said 25% or 75%. We our understanding is it's 75% correct. Okay. So we've addressed that. Um pipe biards 3 and 1/2 ft from the front of the buildings. Is that uh you want them 3 and 1/2 ft from the edge of the building. Okay. We can we can note those dimensions on on revised drawings. Um the berm's been corrected. the screening in the back. Um we're proposing additional screening along we we bumped the curb uh an additional 5T from the rear property line to allow more room for screening there. Um so we think we've met that coverage and uh we'd ask we're asking the planning commission to let us uh leave the existing um screening that's in place there on the

east half of the west half of the rear property line. Um phototric plan's been corrected, the bicycle rack details has been revised, the curb gutter details been revised. Um you mentioned something about paint on the on the gates. Is is it I mean usually we we just do the cedar wood. We don't let it we don't stain them or anything. Those will just those will those will age naturally. If he's got if he labeled them as painting, then we we would certainly not paint them. At at best we would put a a clear sealer on them. So, I can revise that drawing to correct that. And uh we would ask we'd like to ask the planning commission um the bumper blocks along the building. We generally um most of our buildings that we've built and most of the buildings we own, we do not have parking bunker parking bumpers along the buildings. Um it's a they become they become a nuisance for snow plowing. They get hit. They they they get moved around. Um, we've, you know, like I mentioned last time, last meeting, I've I've never had in 35 years of doing this, I've never had a building get, I've never had a person pull into a building from a parking spot. It's kind of similar with a garage door on a house. Not too many people um drive through a garage door. Um, I've had buildings get hit by hyos with the with the tenants. that that's happened a few times, but we haven't had um we've never had a car from a parking lot hit a hit a building. Um the parking bumpers, too, if we were to put them there, they're we're providing 20 foot spaces there. If you do put parking bumpers there, it it's going to be human nature to not pull up as close as you can to the building and then it'll just leave it'll leave more cars. It'll leave the the back ends of the cars staggered. Some people might stay four feet away from the parking bumper. When they see a wall there, it's a lot easier to judge

it. Um, but yeah, that's a, you know, that we that's a waiver that we would ask for the planning commission for approval on that. And, uh, we have a topography. We've got a full topography. I didn't note on there that we needed to attach it, but I can attach it to the we would attach it to this resubmitt of the drawings on that. That will certainly be attached to the engineering drawings. that'll be provided as the engineering package. And uh if there's any questions, I can hopefully answer them. Thank you. Um we'll bring it back up to the board. Uh Kathy, you have anything?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't think we require bumpers along the building of of a in the parking lot along a building, do we? So, I I would um agree with that. That's not necessary. I'm just making a statement because they're not allowed. Correct. I mean, they're not required. I'm sorry. Um, you're gonna check that.

Okay, we can come back to that. Is that all you had, Kathy? Thank you. Eric, yeah, thank you for uh uh addressing most of the items. Now, on your survey that you submitted, is does that include a utility plan with that? No. Utility plan will be created The next stage the utility plan will be created at the next stage at engineering. We've we've got an idea. We've got a storm sewer outlet. We know where the water main and sanitary lines are. We'll have to that'll get designed with the buildings. Fire suppression lines will have to be brought into the both facilities.

All right. We usually uh have that submitted with the plan so we can see that. So uh okay. Uh second thing on the the truck simulation plan. Um it seems still a little tight with your radiuses on the on the back area of the parking on what your your diagram shows that the uh the semis with your trailers on that uh turn rate just seems a little close to some of those parkings that it doesn't look like it's going to meet that radius. Do you have comments on that?

Yeah, we've got a um um I got this late so it wasn't attached to it, but we've got a a more formal one that actually will show the the simulations that we'll resubmit with the drawings. Are you going to lose any parking? And uh um I believe we um stepped down three parking spots from that from from um on this one. Not from this drawing here. This matches this from the previous meeting from two from two weeks ago. We provided a 45 foot radius all the way around. Okay.

I guess one last comment on traffic flow coming into a one one entrance spot off 21 mile. You got employees, you got customers, you got trucks, you got semi semmitis with trailers going into that one spot right in the middle coming off 21 mile which is kind of a five lane highway. What's the traffic flow going in and out of that? Especially if there's a backup, especially on uh on a rush hour. If you have a semi going in and you got uh uh maybe a shift change and all of a sudden you got 10 cars coming in and out. What do we know the traffic flow or what the what that's going to be?

Traffic flow will be the you know there'll be the employees coming and going probably at at in the morning and in the afternoon at 4:30 5:00 coming in at 6:30 7:00 and uh the deliveries will be the deliveries. It's hard to you know that's hard to gauge um until we've got a tenant secured. We won't we won't know that. But this is a typical um this is a typical development that we've that we've done. This we we call this our T our T formation. And uh it seems to seems to work fine. We don't have any any issues. Um if there's going to be backup, if you know if 21 mile road gets busy, there's going to be a backup. It just we have to deal with it. It's like any other any other um um ingress egress. There will be um you you'll if you've run into the situation where you know you might have a semi coming in and a semi leaving you know that might that might have to wait for one to get sometimes that traffic turning left on the 21 on the grasser from 21 mile road

could back up a little bit there but um is there any requirements on a del lane in in an instance like this or no off 21 I don't believe the road commission would The road commission. Yeah, that's it's five lane. Yeah, I know it's a road. Yeah. So, okay. I'm all set. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. James, Rich, I'm all set here, Mark.

Yeah, I was just going to touch and Eric already touched on most of it. I still actually the traffic patterns here for the truck. I just I don't see how it works. I really don't um I'd love to see something that actually show this is viable because I'm looking at it as proposed. I don't see that working as it's listed right here. Um so I that is an issue for me. So Brian,

um just a few things. Um, yeah, I I know that the truck thing was brought up, but I'm I'm just going to ask one other part of it. So, an average semi-trail is a 53-footer and you have a 45-footer. So, what um so is there a reason why you used a 45 foot and not a standard tractor trailer, which is a 53-footer for your turning radiuses? 45 foot radius. Push your button again, please.

45 foot turning radius is is what is needed for a uh it's the minimum that's needed for a uh a full tractor a full tractor trailer. Yeah. I see I Okay. I mean it says I the

I just see I see 45 I mean technically you have inch, but it says 45 inch semi-tra turning radius. So, I assume you meant 45 ft semi-trail turning radius. So, I'm I'm just reading the words that your engineer put on here. I'm not making it up. So, typically I would see a 53 foot semi-tra turning radius. And so, if it's we again, that's I'm just saying I'm just going by what's on your plan, not I'm not making it up. So, are you going by the length of the trailer or by the turning radius?

Well, I'm just 45 on here. It says 45 ft semi-trail. So I'm just assuming I All I'm saying is I see 45 foot. I'm I'm used to seeing it say 43 foot. You're you're use you're saying radius. This says I'm just using English which is says 45 foot semi-trail turning radius. So what you're it's it's not talking about the actual radius. It's talking about the size of the trailer according to this. So that's why maybe you can just clarify that that and confirm that you actually are using a 53 ft trailer for your for your radius just so that we can confirm that it is a you're you are actually are using a standard semi-trail that would be helpful. Um just to kind of help clarify that one and then obviously we'll see the simulation and that'll be good. Um and then uh the parking blocks just to address that. So I brought up the parking blocks two weeks ago. Yeah. Whether it's required by ordinance, I I can't I can't speak for that. Um, but typically you try to protect real property. That's why they call that's why they're called parking blocks. So it stops a vehicle at the wheels from hitting something, right? So whether it's required or not, I don't know. But I mean, typically um you know, you would like to try to protect your property. So that's the only reason why I asked that. But again, if it's not required, that's something that engineering and and uh they can work out in your plans. Um on your east and west side of your the two respective buildings, you have an exit. Again, assuming they're fully sprinkled buildings, which I I did see that, you know, I read your code thing. And assuming you you hit the I think it's 250 ft for egress. So assuming all that's right, you still have at least one egress on both the east and the west side going to grass areas. I didn't see

any type of concrete stoop or something out there. So is there something that uh is to receive people that are egressing out of those doors? Because typically it doesn't go just to grass or dirt. It usually will go to at least a concrete stoop and then andor, you know, a pathway to get uh to a paved area. Is there what's the plan for those east and west um egresses?

There should be a a minimum 5 foot x 5 foot sidewalk of landing thereight and that would get picked up at the building department as well. They would not that would be part of their inspection along with fire. But see, typically that's we kind of we were looking at that, right? Because we're looking at uh you know, again, you know, pedestrian and vehicular type safety items. So, you know, I was just pointing that out that that would be something that would be good to, you know, just confirm and all that. Um he's showing the he's showing the the 5x5 square there. We just need to label it. We can we I don't see it on your plan on A1. If you look at the AR if you look at the floor plans, I'm looking at the proposed site plan. So, I'm just looking at the site plan on for that stuff.

Yeah, we can we can add those and label them because even on your um and he doesn't show it even on your floor plan, so I'm not quite sure. I didn't see any stoops at all, but it's not on there. Um but again, I just wanted to bring that up as just another note that um you know, we'd like to see that. Um you're right. I'm looking at it here. He's got a I'm looking at the square right here, but it's not it's not designated for that. But we will designate we'll designate the lady. That's all. I mean that's

um and then Oh, and then if you look on your first sheet, sir. Um that's maybe it's the second sheet. Let me look. It's the that first sheet. Yes, the first sheet you're on. I don't think they'll be able to zoom in there, but I was curious. Um, when you look at the parking right at the entrance to where your admin buildings are, you'll see four dimensions. I don't know. Can you zoom into that thing? Yeah. Scroll down to the main plan. You'll see uh four dimensions 8889 and they don't line up with anything. What What is that? It's a mistake.

Okay. Yeah. I'm I'm looking at the 888. The 38s are for the 88 spots. The the the two he what he did when he when he relocated it for the doors, he left the dimensions in the same spot. That's a mistake. He's I got to have him redimension that. Okay. Yeah, cuz I was trying to figure that because they they can't be 8 foot parking spaces. They're not We'll advise that. The 8 foot is it's the three for the ADA. 888. Yeah. So, yeah. Should be there'll be a minimum of nine. The regular parking spots will be nine. Okay, understood. Yeah.

Um, and then I think you mentioned something about the Ballards. Uh, I can't remember. Did you mention about the painting of the Ballards? Because the we typically What's the What's the the your Ballard materials? Are you going to do like the plastic? They're pipes. They're they're steel pipes. Steel pipes filled with concrete and then we paint them. We we we usually paint them safety yellow.

Yeah. Yeah. No, I know. Typically we do that as well. Um do we do that? I So typically we don't uh most industrial sites. You're correct. That's what we do. I worked in the auto industry for a long time. So but I know we started switching to the plastic sleeves because typically I know we don't uh allow that. But that's just something you might have to work out with the building department. I was just uh curious about that because yeah, typically we we like to have prefinished products. Um, let's see. Concrete. I think I got I think that's all of it other than for the um um on the um if we um if we can get it approved tonight contingent, we'll resubmit the drawings and we'll have we'll have this detailed exactly. Um, keep in mind we

we've got to build this these buildings so they're marketable. We we're not going to build these so semis can't get in and out of them. It just we we've got a market to to to meet especially especially today's market. The the buildings are more logistics. We have more logistic tenants than we have uh actual tool and die and manufacturing guys. And that's one of the most important things is to make sure trucks can get in and out. No, for sure. I Yeah, I know. Uh but you know, it's like anything else, right? Um, you know, the planning board is all part of a I mean, you know, it's like a I don't want to say team effort. I don't know what the right word is, but but we're one part of the whole process, right?

So, our board has a responsibility to the to the community and to the township. So,

I can appreciate you verbally saying those things, but that's why again, we have to capture in the plans. If we don't capture in the plans, we got to capture it in a motion so that it's properly documented. That's that's the reason why um you know we bring that up and that's the same reason why the utilities is an important thing that we always see on site plan approvals because like for instance in your your case I mean you're taking a a pvious property and you're bas basically making like 90% of it impervious. So storm water management is a big deal and understanding you know like the previous applicant not to compare but like they have an underground return you know storm water retention right like and I had mentioned that to you a couple weeks ago is just trying to understand how your storm water management um is on the site seeing you know again we don't need it engineered but we we you know typically we do like to see you know again how you're managing that because um site plan approval typically is contingent on um understanding where your utilities are where they're coming in at making sure that they're protected properly because that would might have you know sight ballards or things of that nature. That is all part of what we we typically like to look at. So um just you know that's that's the reason why we're asking for those for those things. So other than that I think that's good. Thank you.

Thank you Rick. Anything left?

I have nothing. Um the only thing that uh I have is with the traffic in and out um I frequent not every day but I frequent the uh CVS and couple of the other places in there and I have to turn left to head back home once I leave there and it's horrendous trying to turn left out of the uh and I go to the furthest drive um away from the corner and I found myself at times making a right turn and going and then making a U-turn and coming back. Now, that's not all day long, but um there are times when that happen. So, uh the the question about the uh the traffic and trucks and if they're backed up on the 21, it just exacerbates the uh possibilities that, you know, it could be a problem. But, um that's that's that's my comment on that. So, um, Mr. Chair, if I may.

Sure. I worked across the street for almost 30 years, and, um, there are times it's difficult to get out of there, but I can tell you you can you can make a left-hand turn out of there, especially with that turn lane in the middle. I'm sorry, they call the queuing lane. That's something that's been called in the past. Um, there is traffic, especially when the kids are going to school and they're just learning how to drive. um being close, but I can tell you that we have always been able to get it out of this.

Yeah. And I don't know if there's that many accidents there. And uh but you know, I've played it safe and I you know, coming out of the CVS, you're closer to the corner, so you're getting traffic going west and then if it's backed up going right, sometimes you can get in the middle lane, but it's because it's closer to that corner and the cars are backed up. we're waiting to turn left. So, the the center lane's not even available. So, and I understand what Rick's saying, you go further down uh to to the west, uh it's going to clear out a little bit better. So, uh but yeah, it's it's a little busy. So, um with that, if uh oh, I I wanted to uh address the Ballard question. Uh Ava's has some not Ballards, the uh the parking blocks. Sorry. Yes. So, in the off streetet parking section of the ordinance, section 5.39D16, it states, "Reinforce concrete curbs meeting the construction standards of the township engineering design standard. Regulations in chapter 30 shall be required uh and the use of bumper blocks is discouraged except in such circumstances as determined by the planning commission where the site characteristics warrant their use. Okay. All right. Um, thank you for that. So, um, I'm going to entertain a motion. Uh, if there's nothing else to add, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Um, this motion is in reference to Chesterfield 5 LLC site plan 2025-07. Um the applicant is proposing an M1 um construction of buildings on the north

side of 21 Mile Road between Grashet and Herb Drive. The parcel ID is 15- 09-30 252006. Um Mr. Chair can make a motion to approve as um as drawn. Now, um my approval is based upon the revised drawings submitted and drawn on 218 of 26 um with the caveat that um there's still in um a discussion with the semi um circulation throughout the site. The applicant has a uh revised drawing with him. I'm going to ask the applicant if he could leave it with the chair so we have it for record. And um the reasoning for my um my request for approval is is the fire department has um closely looked at these drawings. They're very comfortable with how things are in the site as well as the applicant I think has proven that um that or is concerned as well as we are about um traffic circulation. Um, also the applicant has um agreed to make sure that during the engineering stage and the building permit stage that he includes a concrete landing outside of the egress doors. And as far as the bumper block goes, um I would say that um that is not something that we would want. Uh with that, I'll make a motion to approve. Have

a motion. Have support.

Support. have motion by Rick, supported by James. I just have a question on that. Um, if we're going to accept these drawings, I I did uh noticed that the pet the applicant was making notes and other changes to the plans. Um, is there are there too many things going on with those plans and and making changes that are we still comfortable with those plans that everything's going to be addressed because there were some engineering uh items brought up? So, I'm just asking the question. I didn't um see anything that was of any uh detriment or concern of ours. Um most of it is engineering issues. Um, unless somebody has something else that they'd like to add to the motion, but I don't um I don't see anything else. So, as long as we have a list uh for review uh with the revised plans, then uh we we will probably be okay with that and then the uh other items will be picked up by other departments. Um, so with that, I have a motion by Rick, supported by James uh to approve uh the uh Chesterfield site plan 2025-07. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. We have that drawing for our record. more professional. That's fine. As long as we have got something for record.

Well, you know what? While he's uh looking for that one. Yeah. Um if there's any changes to the plans, would he have to come back to us? Let's say in the utility plan, retention is is needed because it is mostly impervious. Typically the utilities are an engineering function. Okay. You know, as far as storm water, um things of that nature. Um um excuse me. Do you have any other uh you wanted the the whole set of drawings, right? This is the rev. This is what he's going to attach to just that. All the other items that were written down with the

painted ballards or plastic and and parking, you know, all the other I think it's incidental personally. Yeah. Okay. I didn't know if we I thought you wanted everything. It I took the notes. We we will I'll resubmit to Jonathan with the with those changes on there showing all the things. We'll we'll update these. We'll put the ballards three and a half feet from the building. Okay. Yep. All right. Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you. With that, we have item C, uh, Mr. Lot one, site plan, uh, number 2026-01, M1, uh, 2.2 2 acres norththeast corner of Chesterfield Road and Morelli Drive. Partial ID is number 15-09-17-301-00001. The address is 27025 Merlly Drive. Um, with that have

Can we make a uh we have to make a motion for me to abstain from voting because I provided the building plan on this. Oh, okay. Only the building. Uh, somebody I'll make a motion to uh uh have Eric Haidider abstain from uh this uh part of the process. Uh, do we have support? support. Um motion by Carl, supported by James to allow Eric to abstain from uh voting on this uh item. Thank you.

Oh. Uh all in favor? Opposed? Motion carries with that. Ava.

All right. I'll be looking at the GLES Webster review dated February 24th, 2026. The project proposes an industrial building with an office and shop/warehouse. Uh the facility will be used by Frost and Cretch Plumbing as their office and warehouse headquarters. The applicant has laid out areas for future building and parking expansions that appear to meet setback requirements. Looking at the M1 light manufacturing district district standards table on page two uh for the interior sideyard to the east for the building setback. The required setback is 5 ft and the proposed is 26 ft. Um the planning commission may wish to discuss uh the note on the site plan for the 5- foot side setback and whether the building may be increased in size. Um, as for the site standards found in the middle of page three regarding building materials, the south and west building elevations facing the roads are composed primarily of dimensional brick face with a small portion composed of dimensional stone face surrounding the part of the building that is designated as the office. The north and east elevations are entirely composed of pre-stained CMU blocks to match the brick. Accepting the portion of the office visible from the east elevation. CMU blocks are not an approved building material. Uh the planning commission may wish wish to uh review the material and determine if it is a durable decorative building material and warrant special consideration according to the industrial district standards. uh additional information regarding the manufacturer of the materials, material thickness, etc. Um would allow the site to be further uh be in compliance with the updated building materials. Um as for parking lot landscaping found in the middle of page 4, uh there are 37 spaces

present. Seven trees are required. Uh the applicant proposed six. One tree may be placed at the exterior edge of the parking lot while the others must be placed within the surface of the lot within a curbed planting space. The applicant shall rec relocate the trees to be within the surface of the lot and provide an additional tree. Uh the landscape plan table should be updated to show the correct number of trees. As for lighting, the applicant shall note that lights will be stationary and constant in intensity and color at all times when in use. For vehicular parking, 31 spaces are required. The site plan includes 37 spaces, two of which are barrierfree. The planning commission may wish to discuss if additional parking is needed for this use. Uh as for the ballards, the applicant shall provide a detail of the proposed ballards meeting the requirements of the section. Uh and then the applicant shall confirm what areas will be used for loading and unloading and for pedestrian circulation. The planning commission may wish to discuss whether add additional pedestrian safety measures are needed and then we can answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I would like to ask if we could take a three or four minute recess real quick. Um, restroom break. Um, be right back. Anybody else?

Thank you. I do apologize for the uh interruption there. Uh Mr. Morelli, go ahead and you have the floor.

Uh David Morelli, 22756 Mcome Industrial Drive, Clinton Township. Um we're proposing to build an 11,700 ft new headquarters for Frost and Crush Plumbing. Um to clarify one thing, the north and west side of the shop are the CMU block and I believe that's perfectly allowed. I don't know why they was brought up that CMU block is not, but we just built the building last year the same way. We do have brick all along the Chesterville Road and Merlly Drive sides of the building, both the shop and the office. And um the owner would want he's upgrading to 3T of stone along all around the office. So it's going to be a very upgraded nice building. One question about the proposed ballards. Same thing as a less applicant. We do steel ballards filled with concrete. If the building department does not uh want to see something different, that's we can do the um the plastic safety yellow cover that they can always do that if we have to. The lights are um we can add that note. They're they're stationary and constant. They um they're a cut off lights that shoot down. They don't shoot out because I know there's a residential subdivision across the street. We don't want to have too much light shining on them. So, they'll shoot down. And I'm aware now that we are short some parking lot trees and I can offer to the uh the commission along Chestville Road. We can we have 37 spots, 31's required. So we have six extra spots. We can eliminate maybe two spots in different areas and do a curved island and we can add the trees in those two locations. And also the current little island that's adjacent to the park the office parking area. There's three burning bush in there. We're one

tree short. We can add a tree in there in lie of the burning bush. Um let's see what else. We do have a loading area for the owner. Um and I'm here for any other questions. We we do have the five foot burm all along Chesterville Road as well. Landscape of trees. You all set? Yep. Thank you. Uh we'll bring it back up to the uh board. Uh Kathy, you have anything? No additional questions. Ralph,

James, Rich, I have a couple questions for you. First question maybe is is to the commission. Are we or are we not okay with the CBU blocks to match the brick? The the applicant says we are and I don't know that we are or aren't. The report says we're not. Do we do we know are the are the u pre-stained CBU blocks to match the brick acceptable to this commission? We have conflicting information.

I'm sorry. CMU. I'm sorry. Those blocks. CMU.

Okay. Hey Joe, try turn on on and off again. There. There you go.

Oh, I thought green meant go. I'm sorry. Uh, so our our comments may not have been clear that the application did come in just immediately prior to the building materials ordinance being adopted by the township board. Um, so they they don't necessarily need to follow the list, but those standards that you had previously. Obviously, we would ask the applicant, you know, in light of the fact that the ordinance was just adopted if they would be willing to um work with the new building materials that were approved by the township. That would be great. Um and otherwise, that would be up to you to determine based on the previous um ordinance. That makes sense.

Thank you. Thank you. Did you have another question? I might I need I need one more minute here. Okay. And then Dave David, you're willing to uh to note off streetet loading and unloading areas as needed. Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Mark.

Rich got my question. Brian Um, I I think his alternative to adding the couple trees is that that'll work. Uh, doing the island. I don't have an issue with the CMU on the two sides because technically if he if he did get it in, I mean, we we need to honor that. I mean, that's just all part of it. and and the two sides that he has the CMU on, it's, you know, they're facing uh other industrial buildings. So, it's it, you know, as long as it's a prefinished material, which it says it is. I I mean, I don't uh see an issue with it. And then I think he, you know, I think we should do the yellow plastic sleeve baller covers if possible. Um, especially because they're going to be on the front of the building. So, I would recommend that. Um, but otherwise I think it's sufficient.

Thank you, Rick. I too I agree with with with Mr. Carr about the CMU. Um, especially on the I guess it would be the north elevation. If you're going to be putting up an addition on the building, why why why brick it now? Um, and then as far as the I guess it would be the east elevation, it's up against another industrial building. I don't in this instance I especially being as um as as the application was given I don't have a problem with it. Um that's all I have. Thank you. Uh thank you. And uh uh the chair has no additional questions. Um any other comments from uh you?

No. Anything else from the board? There's nothing else from the board. I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion regarding a site plan approval for Morelli Custom Homes case 2026-01. This site is 2.2 acres zoned M1 Light Manufacturing located at 27025 Melli Drive. This planning commission has reviewed the applicant's plans and considered the Guple Webster report dated 22426. For these review following these reviews and today's discussion, I move to approve the applicant site plan as described via the GLES Webster site plan review dated February 24th and the details packet provided in today's agenda with two following caveats. First, the applicant will relocate trees to be within the surface of the parking lot as noted in the site standard section 4G, and the applicant will note off- streetet loading and unloading areas as needed to provide better understanding of required loading and unloading areas. Should the applicant agree with the above caveats, I ask this commission to approve the site plan as we reviewed today. We have a motion by Rich to approve and supported by Mark. So we have a a motion by Rich to approve uh Morelli uh site plan 2026-01 supported by Mark. All in favor?

Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. So, uh, presentation. Um, we have, uh, Joe Bum that's going to be doing a little discussion about the, uh, data centers. Hi. Um, thank you. You had a lot to get through tonight. Um, and so I understand we've been it may be getting late, but I just want to give an introduction to some of the materials provided to you for our continuing discussion on data center um, ordinance language. So, um, just based on our presentation that we prepared for you and the discussion that we had last month, just kind of taking a look at again as we said, you know, where might this go um, compared to other things that might be similar. So, we provided a couple of definitions so you get a kind of a parameter on what we're talking about. Some of those smaller data centers um and you can see those are um defined by their size in terms of square footage. For example, the accessory is just something that's part of another use already. Um but a minor data center might be um 10,000 square feet or less. So, we're not that

big. um and uh the um megawws one megawatt capacity. So that means the amount of of energy that it requires to sustain itself. Um those are fairly um you know smaller in scale and we can talk about that where those might go. Maybe that's M1. Um but as you start increasing in size and capacity that does seem more in alignment with the um M2 district. So you'll see the table there that outlines your current standards. And one of the things that that we talked about last time was rather than creating a whole new set of standards just for this one use that it is a better practice to take a look at the ways that you regulate things currently that might be similar. Look to see um what might need to be strengthened, added, changed, amended. Um and maybe there are still some specific things that we want to talk about with data centers. But I do think going through your ordinance, looking at the M2 district, looking at your general standards in the ordinance, I think there's some opportunities to tidy some things up, update some standards, um, as well as then come up with some new things that would address maybe, bless you, not only data centers, but potentially other uses as well. So, I don't know that I I won't go through each one of these yet, and I will let you uh let me know what you'd like to do in terms of going through this. So one option is um you know so we have just kind of general categories here. We've got the intent um we have the dimensional standards where we've recommended um a a need to increase the height for the M2 district. Um maybe there are some additional setbacks that need to apply if we're going into something of that height. Um, and we can

talk about those as maybe more specific things. If you go on to what I believe I hope I put a page number on there. Yeah, page two there. Now you start getting into some of the um the impacts that you would see from the external um externalities. So, we're looking at noise, odors, glare, and heat, vibration, smoke, um, dirt, dust, radioactive materials, power, electrical, radiation, waste, you know, all of those things. Um, and looking at how the ordinance, uh, addresses those things. Now, um, there are separate standards for the M2 or there may be a few a little bit more leeway given to some of the uses recognizing that by their nature, they may have more impact. that might be a place to begin um thinking about whether we want to tighten those things up um and bring them closer together. Um I think all of the categories are likely covered in here. Um there may be a few additional things that we want to add um based on additional concerns that you may have. Um, so happy to dive more into that if anybody has any specific questions about any of the comments that we put in there.

I've I've got a few comments. First off, thank you for doing this. I We're dealing with a unicorn as far as I'm concerned. We've not seen anything like this in the past. So, I I think when it comes to definition,

we really have to define each of the different types of data centers that are possible. And that definition, you've talked about size and capacity and that's good. I think cooling systems and and and noise, vibration, and harshness footprint. What do they sound like? Now, a cooling system can be one of a couple things. So, what I'm saying is we really have to work on the definition of what we're dealing with. Then, once we fully understand those definitions, we can start to categorize these things. and then everything that you're talking about makes more sense. But we have to remember the acoustical footprint of these things are it's very different than anything we've ever seen before because it's a constant decibel and frequency, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for years and years and years. The uptime on these things is 99.997%. which means there are no peaks and valleys on the acoustical side. What you hear, you hear day and night, every day, years and years. So, we have to know what what these things are by definition. And then we have to modify our our ordinances and our our standards of what's acceptable noise. 70 dB going down the highway at five o'clock on a Friday, that's fine because guess what? Sunday morning at 4 am. It's not 70, not 70 dB. So, we have to understand what these things are and we have to start this whole this whole effort with definition.

So, we I mean, if Google's coming in here and they're going to put 100,000 square foot thing, that's going to sound differently than a mom and pop shop and we need to treat them differently. So, we got work ahead of us and and it should be it should be actually a fun ride figuring all this out and I know Mr. Sabbert's talking to maybe get an expert in here on the acoustic side to talk to us so we can learn. The last thing we want to do is set up a standard where somebody can come in here, start a start a data center, and then the surrounding neighborhoods can't barbecue in their backyards at night because that constant noise is so irritating. We have to be able to address these things. So, great start,

but we've got a lot of work here. We're not going to get any of that done tonight. Oh, no. But we have to really understand this unicorn and we start that with definition,

right? And I appreciate all those comments and and the only thing I would say that um you know fortunately this isn't it's not going to be tested out tested out here but it's been done elsewhere. So we can look to places that have had these for a number of years. we can look at what they're doing to their ordinances to um address those impacts that they've had. And we have seen based on your comments from the last meeting that were focused on the noise and the sound and the low um have seen some different ordinances that are reflecting that particularly in places where they do have them. So that's it is an interesting um thing that we can look at. Um my the only comment I was going to say is and you more or less just said it is uh you know why why are we reinventing the wheel? I mean these have been built for years now. There's has to be communities that have now seen success from learning, right? I mean the first one that was out there who pioneered the first data center now that's been doing it you know for the decades you know we should you know if we can find that that model and baseline and to me that's a start of a good draft. It's a lot easier when you're working off of a baseline than when you're creating it. And I don't I don't see why we're trying to create it. So,

um, you know, so I I don't know how you do that research. I mean, you guys are pretty good at it, you know, but I'm sure you have access to those around the country that that are similar type communities to ours that already have data centers. Um, so they have ordinances in places. to me that that would be what I would like to see is you know two or three samples of what you would recommend is

good examples of that have been tried and tried and you know passed you know kind of things. Um to me that's what would be helpful because again I there's no reason to reinvent it. um you know we can tailor it but I'm sure there's communities that are similar to us that are you know similar type communities with similar type properties that would be available that we would have to reszone right and so right so to that of course it is it's very helpful to look to best practices from other places

but and I think this outline is intended to help us see um again not to create a whole separate section of our code but to weave those things in where they make sense, where we already have them, so that we don't end up with conflicts in our ordinance, so we don't end up with like two businesses in the M2 district,

one's a data center, the other one is a big warehouse, and we're applying different standards to those things, wildly different. We don't want to have conflicts where we're confused by how we have to deal with this and why this and not that. There there may be things like the sound might be one that's just like but but again any use that produces that kind of sound should have that same treatment. It shouldn't we don't necessarily need to focus only on the data centers. So just being you know when we see things we're like we can pull that and then like look at our code. Okay how do we talk about it? Maybe we tweak this. Maybe we add this. Maybe we take this whole thing out and replace it with this so that we're just being consistent. Yeah.

But yes.

Yeah. I mean I just it just again um you know with my you know past experience in the automotive industry and building you know you know million square foot buildings right there's the three things you typically look at right is sight smell and sound right are the three things that we t tend to look at when we're going into a community and so but there's a big difference when you're building a 30ft building and a 70ft building and that's that's kind of why I was trying to I mean I I understand we're trying to integrate which is I'm just saying that the the two of them are treated differently. I'm saying from a visual perspective, you know, to me that the higher buildings need to have in theory, you know, different types of screening, bigger setbacks, things like that, right? Versus a 30 foot building

makes sense. But, you know, when we're talking about the odors and the glare like and I'm just looking at these and the odors and the gases in particular, we have it three different places in the code and they're not conflicting, but they're a little bit different. Yeah. So, wouldn't it be good to clean that up and like have a standard that it is consistent? Um, same with the glare. Um, M2 says glare and heat shall be deflected to prevent danger outside of any building. And then in our performance standards, it says no glare visible at the property line. Like we could make those things more consistent or make them more clear. So, that's what we're trying to do. Mr. Chair, if I may.

Sure. One thing that I kind of want to discuss and I don't know what the legalities are here is if in fact we do get a a data center we get a unicorn and um it's this building what about having something in our ordinance for decommissioning de decommissioning the site and if a bond is going to be required if that's something that is done in this level or there something done that's you know done with legal um that's that's all I really have if you can elaborate on that.

Decommissioning is a tricky one and I'll let Mr. Sbert chime in on his thoughts about decommissioning. We know we can do we can treat certain uses that way and require them to be uh restored or mitigated um because we have state statute that tells us we can. So mining is one of the examples. um some of the energy facilities, wireless communication facilities, we're allowed to do those things because we're we're we're explicitly authorized to do so, but not every other use allows us to do it. So, I think that's something that we will have to look at and work through. Um because it's not like it doesn't make sense. um you know what do we do with these buildings when they're all the stuff goes up to the moon or wherever it's going or new technology you know technology we weren't even talking about this eight months ago six months ago um what is it going to be by the time we're done creating this ordinance that might even everything else might have changed um so but understanding that you know we could have buildings we could have equipment in these buildings we should at least be able to provide that anything that's hazardous is removed. Um so I think though there's some basics that we can do. Um and then we'll have to see what we feel are all comfortable with in terms of the bonds and things the per the performance guarantees on those. You know, the issue with respect to decommissioning, you know, there are, as Jill said, there are statutes that give municipalities the ability to require that. I'm most familiar recently with um solar facilities. I'm I'm involved in several pieces of litigation involving

developers that want to put in extremely large solar energy developments, you know, thousand acres. and act 233 which regulates solar energy facilities and battery storage facilities for that matter specifically provide that a the local unit of government may require as part of the U approval a decommissioning plan and providing financial security so that when the end of life comes for a solar energy development that the municipality will have in place a written de a decommissioning plan and a letter of credit, for instance, that is updated every five years. That will ensure that when that development has end of life, that the developer will remove all of the solar panels in in attending installations in connection with the development. And if they don't, the municipality has adequate financial guarantees. That's permitted because the state law allows it. But absent state regulation, you know, a local unit of government in a zoning area can only impose regulations that are either implicit in your zoning authority or there is some legitimate governmental interest. That's always the test. And courts will tell you what is a legitimate governmental interest. But I would ask this just out loud for discussion. If you've got a factory that's I don't know 300,000 square foot industrial building that is autoreatated and that auto goes out of country and that facility is no longer utilized that building is going to sit and remain vacant. And I think you'd all agree that the township cannot compel that factory that it's now vacant to be torn down to the ground simply because it's not being used.

The question would be, what is the difference between a data center that is no longer operational and a factory or a warehouse or a gas station or a commercial strip center that's vacant. You see them all the time. You go to different buildings. You drive through the city of Detroit, you see vacant buildings that have been there since I was a kid, they're still vacant and there's no legal authority to decommission those buildings. So I have ser and again this is all new. So, you know, my opinion is is there's no legal authority one way or the other, but I have severe reservations that a municipality could dictate that one particular user must decommission a building when it becomes vacant. Yet, you would leave other industrial buildings, other commercial buildings, make up whatever use you want. A restaurant that's out of business, grocery store that's out of business, factory that's out of business, they stay vacant. You can't require them to be torn to the ground simply because they don't have any current uses. And I I wonder out loud what the difference is between a data center and any of the other facilities. It's a warehouse. The only thing there is they're warehousing computers instead of warehousing clothes or you know whatever. So I I I would be reluctant to say that you have a blank check to require decommissioning, but it hasn't been tested. Who knows? And and let me ask you, what what do you think the reason would be that you would treat a data center differently than say a large warehouse, an Amazon warehouse versus a data center? Why would you require one to be decommissioned and not the other?

Anybody? Yeah. Yeah. What do you think the difference would be?

I couldn't I didn't have a microphone. Um, where I was going with that is, um, in the second part of my statement, which I didn't make it, was is if we could set it on a size limit because we do have, we currently have a very large industrial building in Chesterfield Township that sits vacant. We had Kroger in there for a while and, you know, can we can we set a limit? So if if it is 300,000 square feet um a half a million square feet, can we set a a minimum or a maximum that the building a minimum the building has to be before a requirement is made to decommission the building?

I can give you that answer right now. The answer is no. You you can't say because there's a large industrial building that has become vacant that that it's so large that we're not going to leave it vacant. You have to tear it down to the ground. There's no way that's g that's going to be considered a taking of property without just compensation and you can you can have them tear it down. You're going to pay you're going to pay for it. Okay. That's what the fifth amendment's for. Bob, what if there was environmental hazard or something like that? I'm not saying there is, but there was

different that would be different and and that would likely not be the township's issue. That would likely be another governmental agency's issues, whether it be the EP, the federal EPA, whether it be the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, there's there's there's MEPA, there's Michigan Environmental Protection Act, uh there's eagle requirements. Those agencies may very well come involved where there's a hazardous materials and things of that nature, but the townships only have those powers that are given to you by the Michigan legislature. You don't have any inherent power at all. If there wasn't a statute that allowed a police station, a fire station, all these other services, you couldn't do anything. You have to look for specific enabling authority for you to to do anything. And so, you know, there are certain areas of regulation that townships just don't have any jurisdiction over. So, if there's an environmental uh issue with a data center, the likely call on the phone would be to to Eagle or to the EPA. It wouldn't be at the township level. Any anyone else?

Yeah, I have uh so it can we make specific ordinances that are target data centers or do they have to be looked at in the larger context of a manufacturing ordinance? You could make specific data center standards, but it might also make sense to have them apply more globally to your industrial buildings only in the things that we think are really really different about the data center that can have its own special standard to address it. Um, but otherwise it seems as though any of the things that we've talked about should apply to any business, any user

based on the size of it, the um its capa its electrical capacity. If we're thinking of it in those terms, anything else that comes along that's like that, they would have those same standards. And uh one thing uh Elon Musk is talking about putting data centers in space with with the sun uh uh solar power. So you don't we don't know. They either them or us,

Jim. They they've got data centers off the coast of Australia underneath the surface of the ocean because they draw a ton of water and they create a ton of heat. The ocean cools them and the ocean provides water. So, these things are all over the place. I've got some I've got a report from the University of Michigan entitled, "What happens when data setters come to town?" I've got a copy for everyone if you want to bring it home. This is a huge, very important subject. And again, I think we start with definition and and then just modify our ordinances to make sure that we're protecting the rights of people in in the township. I I what you've done is really really good. We got a lot of work to do

and we could make that I I'll let you go on. Go ahead if you want to finish. Did you want to finish? But he had just brought up or all right I have question can we do we have to um because I don't know what kind of a building it is what kind of an operation it is technically does it have to fit in our current zoning do is there certain zoning we have that we have that they would go in or can we set our own you could create a whole separate district if you felt that was appropriate you might call it a technology zone or something. Okay.

Um Yeah. And then this is I don't think we have any area big enough for this, but do do they can they go on like a brownfield type area or a former landfill, something like that? They can. It's I think it it depends on the property and what condition it's in and how how willing a property owner is to do the work that needs to be done to make it suitable. Yeah. I mean,

in comparison to other areas that may they may not need to do that. Well, because they're thinking of that because some of the the political part of that we hear they're taking up big huge former farms or or you know corn fields or whatever. These beautiful

were considered beautiful pieces. Now they're beautiful pieces of property. Before they were just a corn field, right? and and then um by covering that the footprint of of the building um that's that's different now than taking maybe an area that um was that has that building that's no longer being used. Could we could we say you can only put it there, reuse a building or that type of thing? I think definitely you can make sure that that by creating that dis it's it's M2 or it's maybe it's an overlay that goes over different parcels but they have a a characteristic of being developed um previously so that they're not farmland currently. Um you we could definitely do that and thinking too of where there's it that makes sense because they're going to have you know more access to the electricity that they need and probably the water as well. So those do I think go hand in hand. Anyone else?

Are we okay? Are you all set? Sure. So, what maybe um would be a good next step is we'll do some research and find a couple of good ordinances that we agree on um with Mr. and maybe we can then uh from those kind of point to you know here's this section um we would how it aligns with your ordinance and where we might need new things or new standards. So I I've got a question on the M2.

Um there's only so much of that available and this the size of these properties and these buildings. Do we have any any property of even available that would house anything bigger than maybe one of the smaller data centers? I haven't looked to see if you've got the hypers scale capacity. I don't know that you do and probably not in the right area where it would be feasible. So So can we limit the location to the M2? Yeah. So, I mean, we might there might not be anything that's real suitable based on what we have to offer in the M2. So,

and maybe that's another um piece of research we can do for you to look at the sites and the capacity. We can look at the transmission lines as well to see where they line up with the districts. Um because that would be where people would be interested in doing that. I've had people mention, well, you we got all that water, you know, you could put it near the water. Well, where, you know, you don't have the land, right? So yeah, it's it's a unicorn definitely because there's so much there's more we don't know, you know, and it's just a lot of, you know, cherrypicking all these ideas. Would have liked to that gentleman that was up there in the beginning.

Maybe his concerns are a little bit over the top because of where he's located that he might not even have to worry about these things being where he's got to look at the lights and that. I I don't recall exactly where his property is, but 24 mile, I think. I'm sorry. I think he said he was north of 24 mile. Um but I property where the um the company was going to come in and put the cars. Oh, okay. That's 25 and Bates. What was the zoning on that property there? that was.

But I I thought that the that the comments that were made earlier by that resident were about water runoff, um lighting, talking about the color temperature, um maybe motion sensor on some of the lights. I think those are good. I didn't realize the property was where it's at. So, yeah, that's pretty large piece of property. And that goes to the other comment just a little bit ago. Maybe additional setbacks with any additional building height. um and uh more about noise. So, I thought the comments were good and things very consistent with what we're talking about. Okay, we're all set. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else on my right? Anybody else on the left? For data centers. Data centers. I do have a little question for you. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, um one by one. I just the last question that I have is um at a last meeting there was there was a comment about a subcommittee. Is that uh gone by the wayside?

That's where we'd have the subcommittee if we're going to have a subcommittee or not like we did for the uh for the building

and the other things the cannabis. Yeah. we had four people that you know got together and brainstormed some some things and then shared it with the group. So I don't know Mr. Mr. Chair, if I can I can just add I've had a discussion with Jonathan about this subcommittee. Um, and it's certainly legal and it's it's often done where planning commissioners will put together a subcommittee to meet and and try to brainstorm some of the issues. But depending on what this subcommittee does, it is likely going to be subject to the Open Meetings Act. So uh if you appointed a committee of three or four people short of a quorum that committee is still going to be meeting here in open in public to talk about the issue. So um you need to know that and you want to make sure that if you are going to create a subcommittee you specify exactly what what the charge of that committee is what you expect out of them and what they're sort of empowered to do. So when we did it for the cannabis and that we only had four people and we drove and we did research and went to the growing facilities and and all of that. Uh is this because it's this topic with the data centers that's going to create that we have to have uh uh opens meeting open meetings?

No, it it's not because it's a data center. It the it depends on what you're authorizing the committee to do. If the committee is going to sit down and start preparing drafts of ordinances, for instance, to bring back to the full planning commission, if you're going to meet with an expert, for instance, to talk about what some of the parameters would be on noise, for example, you're deliberating towards making public policy. And the open meetings act cases are very clear that you don't necessarily have to be a decision maker, but if you're in the position where you're deliberating towards making policy that that is oftentimes considered by the courts to be a public body and it would be my strong recommendation and I've recommended to Jonathan that if that committee is is created that it post its meetings and it be done in public. The last thing you want to do is is have a subcommittee meet, have somebody challenge it, and have a court decide that that should have been open to the public. So, the best thing to do is to post it and have it open.

Okay. Yeah. The other committees, all we ever did was we we brainstorm, come up with some ideas. We never created policy or ordinances. We just make suggestions and share our ideas with GIFOS, uh, Webster, depends on, you know, who was involved. It could have been through the township, you know, years ago when Patrick was was working with us on things. I think that's when we were dealing with the cannabis centers. I think Patrick was with us. I think but uh Okay. Yeah. Just just be definitive in what it is this committee is going to do. That will dictate whether or not it's going to be subject to the open meetings. Actually, okay.

Rick, did you have anything else? Anybody else have any thoughts or on that? Not on that, but okay. Well, just jump in. you don't formal

um my only comment is um just relate to I can late so I'll make this quick but just a little frustration in regards to again the consistency in the documents that were provided um in particular like we had a good good you know like because we had three different um site plan reviews on the agenda you can actually see the difference right like two of the three candidates had to me the requirement, you know, the requirements mostly, but in particular like the one that that's the second time they've came involved that, you know, there's there's no site utilities, there's no storm water management. That is part of what site plan review is. And and if anyone thinks that that's not, then I I'm I'm really confused because I've been to planning boards around the country on that side when I worked at DT and and my current uh job and storm water management, all that. That's stuff that we have to show. That's stuff that the board asks because at the end of the day, we're the first reviewers of those site plans. Just again, we don't need the calculations. I don't need the the data but they have to have a conceptual plan to understand again how their storm water retention I mean that one property in particular that came to us I mean they literally like 90% of that property is now pvious or impervious and that again will be engineered out but as a planning commission we we we're supposed to be vetting that and and again the other two applicants you can see had the site utilities had a general layout of the storm water they had I mean the one had an underground detention system if you noticed right telling you that hey this is how we're managing it this is how we're doing it this is how we're controlling our runoff again we just need to see the high levels but you still have to have it it's not engineering so I just to me when those things those plans are coming to us to me they should be vetted and there should be a

consistent template that uh our planning department is telling the applicants to make sure that we're checking those boxes to make sure that that information is being provided to the because all it does is you know it we're either going to miss things or it requires them to go come back multiple times and I just to me if you check the box and you make sure that the applications are consistent I mean to me it's much more efficient process and it allows us to do a thorough review from the community perspective that's just my two cents. Yeah, to expand on that, Brian, um I agree with you on everything you said about especially with uh uh the one applicant that didn't provide the utility plan for storm uh especially and uh uh usually nowadays that uh if you have properties that are you know over one two acres in lot you have to provide your own retention. Uh, so like I was trying to present before is if if he didn't submit it and all of a sudden that he has to provide a retention pond if it's not underground that could change up the whole site plan that we approved. So he would have to come back because if it's one of the buildings gets smaller or if he loses parking uh or if where it's located. So I think that's why, you know, we gave them a little bit of a pass by not seeing that utility plan to see if there's anything that had been actually kind of engineered as a basic basic plan. So uh so I agree with that.

You know what? I don't agree with that. And and if you're going to start requiring applicants for site plan to come in and start showing you their storm water detention, that's what you have engineers for. And I attend unfortunately like Jill a lot of planning commission meetings in a lot of communities and none of those communities require any of that sort of detail in their site plans. Those are 100% engineering issues. They come in, you lay out lay out a site plan, you approve that site plan, then it goes to engineering. If they can't satisfy your engineers that they can't get rid of their storm water, they got a problem. They're not going to get engineering approval and they're not going to get a building permit. There's nothing in your zoning ordinance, I'll bet, although I don't know it anywhere near as well as your team does, that requires storm water detention calculations. I guarantee it it doesn't. That's going to be found in your in your utilities ordinances that your your um township engineer or one of your three consulting engineering firms are going to review. That's not for the planning commission to start reviewing engineering calculations. Um, yeah, and I can see that point. I'm the uh the one we're talking about, there was a lot of little things. He was marking up plans and there was all kinds of stuff going on. And I I kind of thought that we were going to ask him to not not the engineering part of it, but all the other little notes and stuff he was changing and, you know, a little sketch. And I thought we were going to table that until we had a full uh set of plans with all the dimensions and the little stuff that was being asked for.

Then you could have voted no.

Well, yeah. You know, I I didn't think it was that big a deal. If a motion was made and supported, um I didn't think it was that big a deal, but Brian brings up that the consistency, you know, that part there. I think, you know, there's been other cases where they've been asked to clean up the plans and then bring them back and and everything's done. But, um, yeah. So, uh, always good to have a conversation moving forward and and deal with everyone on its own. So, that's all I got. Isn't part of the the requirements for uh site plan application is provide a a survey and a basic utility plan. It doesn't have to be storm calculations but a basic uh utility plan. Isn't that part of the application process?

Utility. Yeah. So, in my experience, anything that's a physical So, again, I I I know I clearly said we didn't need calculations. So, I I don't I don't know where it got done with the calculations. Anything that's physical on the site for site plan approval to me needs to be part of the site plan. So, well, you don't know how large the detention basin's got to be until your engineers look at it. Well, that's why in theory they're supposed to be doing that we're supposed to be looking at. Okay. My opinion is it's not the planning commission's decision to tell them how big or how deep or or what the slopes are on a detention bas on the property or whether it's going to be whether it's going to be

you know above ground whether it's going to be underground whatever it's going to be that's what your engineers are there for maybe you can do a high level review but very high level um I don't know what sort of detail you're looking for on the site plan with respect to engineering issues what do you want to see

oh I just want to see the the physical character istics, right? Just like how we've had in the past too where like I can't remember the one where they had to put the you know they had to work with DT and put a put a um a large transformer in on their site and I remember they originally they showed it and we had provided us some comments because it was like right next to the parking lot where people drive and they can hit it. So we had them like add ballards and protection around that because to me that's site plan review. We're looking at vehicular safety, pedestrian safety, you know, things like that. the Bowers is fair game. That's totally fair game.

But that's that's all I was looking at. Like I look at the physical characteristics of the site itself. That's that's all I'm looking for is just understanding how they're putting that site together. Um is I look at all I just look at all those aspects. That's all. I mean, I don't I don't need to see the calculations. I just want to see that they that what is their plan. Like again, it's just like I said, they show because usually I'm used to seeing a a the existing to um site like an existing survey and then they'll show their proposed site plan. That's what I'm looking for. And then the then the physical characteristics of that new site plan off of that survey. That's what I'm looking for. just those relationships just like how just like like sometimes you'll see like like I mentioned today with that one like he's got egress going to you know where he's kind of running into two property lines and he's not and he's like oh yeah you're right that's not shown that's the kind of stuff I'm looking for egress public that's ingress and egress that's not public utilities

oh no I know I'm just looking for those physical aspects because again we've had other ones again where they making sure that they're again from a staging perspective they're not putting that you know where because again I look at vehicular and pedestrian traffic that's all legit that's all that is all meat and potatoes planning stuff that's the day-to-day drudge of planning I get that I'm talking about if they show I'm going to put a retention base in here that's good enough all you need to ask it's here

that's all I that's all I wanted that's what I just asked him how he was managing his storm water because he was showing nothing and it's a legitimate question Mr. See for because again he was going from a site that was totally pvious to impervious. So asking him how he was managing a storm water to me is a legitimate question because he's that's all because like I said if you look at sheets they showed you hey we're putting underground detention system. That's why I didn't ask any questions because I saw what they were doing. I don't need to see their calculations or their slopes but I know how they're managing their storm water now and I was that was sufficient for me. That's all. But I I know what you're saying. I I get it. But I guess what I'm saying is stay in your planning lane and don't get too in too much into the engineering because it goes beyond what the planning commission's here for. That's why you got a total set of consulting engineers to look at these plans and they may say, you know what, you don't need a detention basin on this site. There's a different way to do it. That's why they're the subject matter experts. That's all.

Understood. Yeah. Thank you. Well, one last question. It has it could be more than just, you know, storm retention, you know, especially with a utility plan. We're talking about possibly, you know, electrical. What if there's a an electrical overhead easement in the middle of the property that they didn't know about since we didn't see that and all of a sudden they have a building that goes right through a, you know, a 20ft eman. So that's what the utility plan kind of kind of shows. Not just storm and underground utilities. It could be overhead or it could be, you know, a sanitary. But if that's the case, they wouldn't be able to build a building. But

and it goes back to what Mr. receiver was just saying about a detention pond. If in fact the engineering comes back and they say they need a detention pond, now the site plan that we approved is no good. They got to come back in front of us anyway. It's a gamble that the that the applicant is taking. You know, whether or not he needs to do all these things. If in fact there's things that come back from engineering that he can't make fit, then his what was approved on the drawings dated 218 of 26 don't match what's going what was going to happen. You got to come back in front of us anyway. As far as easements go, it they couldn't build the building anyway. That that's that's the due diligence of the applicant. Is it really our is is it our problem? And I don't feel it's our problem. with that good discussion. You know,

got one more thing I'd like to say. I'm sorry we don't have time. The last thing I want to say before we go is I want to commen commend Miss Vosberg with her interview on channel 7. It was very professional. She represented our township very well and thank you for doing that. Thank you. So, I think we're all set. So, with that, um, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:44. Motion by Carl, supported by Kathy, to adjourn the meeting at 9:44. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.