Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the July 21st, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. If you would silence your phones, everyone, that would be great. I'd like to introduce a few people here with us. Christine Anderson from Township Attorney. Let me put my glasses on here. Jonathan Palin, Township Planner, Joe Baum, and Ava Miller from Giffords-Webster. So I'm going to call the meeting to order. I should have done that first. Call the meeting to order July 21, 2026 at 7 o'clock. If you would all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. And I'm going to take roll call. Kathy Vosburgh? Present. Eric Heider?

Here.

Alton James? Present. Kevin Hustick? Here. Rick LaBelle?

Here.

Rich Brokart? Yeah. And Carl Leonard here. And we have Brian Carr and Mark Renaud excused tonight. I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes from June, I'm sorry, from July 7th, 2026. I have a motion to approve the minutes from July 7th, 2026 by Carl, supported by Eric. Eric? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Approval of the agenda, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. Support. Any motion by Carl, supported by Rick. Any questions? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. There are no public No public hearings. Public comments. So if you have anything you'd like to talk about, come on up. You've got three minutes, and you can talk about it, anything you want. We're not here to go back and forth with questions, but if you have any comments or anything you'd like to say or talk about, you're more than welcome to come on up.

No?

All right. There are no public hearings. And we've got the regular agenda. And the first item on the agenda is the village at Apple Grove site plan number 2026-06. RM2, 8.42 acres, east side of Gratiot, no wood drive located to the north and south. Parcel ID number 15-09-30-251-047. Address is 48200 Gratiot Avenue. It was postponed from the June 16th meeting in 2026. And I think Jonathan has some comments on this one.

Yeah, thank you Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, this was postponed from the June meeting. The applicant has responded and revised the plans. The outstanding issues that were brought up were The signage, the lighting plan, the percentage of building materials and trash removal. The applicant has indicated that the signage was concept only, just showing the location on the plan and they would be coming back for sign application for A formal application, um, I did talk to Mr real. He's here tonight too. If you have additional questions, but I did talk to him earlier today and, um, inform that that was still showing on the lighting plan that the sign location with the floodlight. So we had a conversation about that and he was good with striking that from the plan and then we could come back and make sure that that meets ordinance requirements when he's ready with the final design. He did indicate on the building plans that there was 80% brick on the street-facing facade and 25% on all other facades. And then for the trash pickup would be picked up curbside on a weekly basis. So those were the outstanding issues from the last time that have been addressed. And as I mentioned, the applicant is here if there's additional questions.

Thank you very much. Did the applicant want to come up? Are you the applicant? State your name and address.

Push the button down the bottom right.

There you go. Thank you. My name is Jack Grillo. I'm with MGM Homes, and we're going to be developing the site. Any questions? Anybody?

We'll find out.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Kathy? Eric? I do have one question. On the front elevation, you said there's 80% brick. I did some calculations myself, and it came to be less than 80%. So I was just wondering how you came up with that calculation of 80%.

I took the windows out of it, out of the equation on it, on the percentage. So still should come in at, if it's not at 80%, should be well at 75% or greater, which is the ruling at 75%.

Well, with my calculations, they come up with less than 75, but I'll do a double-calc, but it seems like it's still less than what is the requirement there. So would you be able to, if it does come in less, would you be willing to offset that? Sure, absolutely.

Okay. No further questions. Thank you. Alden, any questions? Rich, any questions?

No questions.

Kevin any questions Rick I don't and The chair has no questions so Since there's no questions up here. Are you all set? Yeah? I'll entertain a motion I'd like to make a motion mr.. Chairman, okay

regarding case number SPR2026-06. Our applicant is the Villages at Apple Grove, located at 48200 Gratiot Avenue, and its parcel ID, 15-09-30-251-047. I moved to approve the applicant site plan to construct nine buildings in total. This includes five seven unit buildings to six unit buildings and two five unit buildings for a total of 57 units. These townhouses are permitted in the RM two multiple family residential district. It's my position that the applicant meets all zoning ordinance standards and their intent. I'll refer to the following points. in support of this motion. Number one, the Chesterfield Township Fire Department acknowledges in their April 13th letter that the subject property is in compliance with all fire codes and regulations that set forth. Number two, the Chesterfield Township Police Department Traffic Unit does not have any traffic related concerns. Please reference their subject email dated April 7th of this year. Number three, in their June 4th letter, Lerner Surveying and Consulting addressed the four outstanding issues as noted by this commission during our last review of the application. Specifically, A, buildings and paving are adjusted to provide 30 feet between buildings and paving on the westerly side of the site. B, Building materials are detailed by MGM homes and their July 8th subject letter. See the photometric plan and lighting details are provided D and lastly, the plans have been updated to accurately reflect the correct zoning. All other requirements to meet the Chesterfield township zoning ordinance and standards are detailed in the Giffles Webster site plan review dated May 21st of this year. And they're compliant. I want to add two caveats for you, Mr. Grove. First, the signage will come back to the township. And lastly, please double check the brick, you know, 80%, 75% that Eric brought up. And if it's compliant, then I think for the reasons stated, we should approve the applicant's request for site plan approval.

Mr. Barker, can you add an actual calculation of the front elevation? Thank you. Saying 80%, let's say an actual calculation that shows that.

Further to that caveat, could you provide the calculations on how you determined 75%, 80%? We'd like to see the math. Okay.

All right. Everybody's... I got the motion, and so we have a motion. Do we have support? Mr. Chair, I'll support. We have a motion by Rich, supported by Rick, to approve the Village at Apple Grove Site Plan 2026-06. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. You're all set? Next item on the agenda is the Latara Group Inc. DBA CMA Design Services 2026-09. M1, it's 56-1040-482 acres. This is 104 acres, north side of Terra Industrial Drive, west of Gratiot. Parcel ID number 15-09-30-302-019. The address is 25475 Terra Industrial Drive. And with that, we'll have Ava from Giffles to say a little something.

Thank you. So we'll be looking at the Giffles Webster review letter dated July 14th, 2026. Since this letter was written, the applicant has since then submitted updated plans. So I'll address anything that hasn't been addressed already in the letter. This project proposes one 4,200 square foot addition to an existing 2,500 square foot storage building on the site. The proposed building will comprise of 1,000 square feet of office space and 3,200 square feet of storage space. Additional improvements include two curb cuts, a circle driveway, six parking spaces, a loading space, and a dumpster. Going to the top of page two, site background. The site has an existing storage building that the applicant wishes to expand with the warehouse addition. There is currently a loading zone and a driveway on the east side of the parcel with a smaller driveway exiting to the adjacent parcel on the west. To the north of the site is zoned M2 general manufacturing, and the rest of the site is surrounded by parcel zoned M1 light manufacturing. On July 8th, 2026, the applicant received variances to reduce the front setback and rear setback for the building. looking at the table further down the front yard parking setback. So this was one of the variance variances that received from the CPA. Uh, the required setback normally is 70 feet. However, they received this variance to reduce the setback to the County right away line, which is about 35 feet to accommodate the 10 proposed bank parking spaces as shown on the plan. looking at the top of page three for the rear yard building setback. Similarly, a 20-foot setback is required. However, the applicant received the variance from the ZBA to reduce the setback to about two feet. In 1994, a five-foot setback variance was granted for the property but was not developed, which left the existing building around 1.7 feet from the lot line, and the applicant wishes to align the addition with the existing building, therefore requiring that variance. at the bottom of page three, item F. The applicant did update the reference standard as noted. Looking at the top of page 4 now for building surface materials and alteration, sheet A4.0 contains the list of materials as well as some example images, while sheet A4.1 has material specifications. The applicant noted that they intend to have some physical samples of each product at the meeting. The road facing south side of the building is proposed to have one of two provided options, a black brick veneer manufactured by Brampton Brick or a charcoal gray colored split face block manufactured by Grand Blank Cement Products. Also proposed on this facade are aluminum ACM panels with a solid finish. An impact barrier made of gray CMU blocks is provided on the remaining facades of the proposed building, which is compliant. The remaining facades will also consist of one of two options provided beyond the impact barrier. A gray reverse R metal panel that doesn't appear to meet the thickness requirements or a gray insulated metal panel that has the two-inch minimum thickness. Both are manufactured by the American Buildings Company. The minimum area of brick calculation for the road facing facade is provided on sheet A4 and is compliant. However, the other facades do not consist of any brick and therefore do not meet the required minimum. Only CMU blocks and metal panels are provided and CMU blocks are not considered brick. The applicant should provide the minimum 25% brick on each facade that does not face a road, street, or right-of-way, and the Planning Commission may wish to discuss whether the proposed building materials are satisfactory and should be added to the schedule of pre-approved building materials and specifications. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to keep the existing building on the site, clad it with a new roof and wall panels, and add trim gutters and downspouts that match the proposed building addition. And I also did want to note that there are currently no standards specifically for alterations on an existing building. So an impact barrier is not required for the existing building as mentioned in the applicant's response letter. So I just wanted to make note of that. Moving to the top of page 5 for frontage landscaping. The applicant is proposing to add their frontage landscaping trees in the right-of-way as opposed to their front yard setback due to a lack of space. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss whether this is acceptable, considering that required landscaping cannot be located on land bank parking, and that the majority of uses on this street have their trees within the right-of-way. I will also note that the DPW reviewed this and did not note any concerns. going one down to off street parking. After this was written, the applicant added one additional parking space as requested. So now with a total of 19 required parking spaces, the applicant is proposing seven parking spaces adjacent to the existing building and two in front of the proposed buildings garage at the west side lot line, 10 parking spaces are proposed to be land bank near the south property line. the planning commission shall determine if the applicant has submitted substantial evidence showing that the parking needs will be less than the requirement to have that land bank parking. uh... looking at off street loading and unloading item k one loading and unloading zone is located east of the existing building and one garage is provided on the south side of the proposed building all roadways within the site are proposed to be paved with asphalt and sheet eight shows the circulation of trucks Side yards can be used for loading and unloading if such spaces and loading facilities do not interfere with parking and circulation as determined by the Planning Commission. So the Planning Commission may wish to determine whether the side yard is appropriate for this loading and unloading. Item L, at the top of page 6, two 30-foot wide drives are proposed from Terra Industrial Drive. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss if two driveways are necessary based on the location of the driveways on adjacent sites and across the street, turning movements, and traffic volumes. Item and after the addition of another parking spot the applicant relocated the bicycle parking racks to be on the west side of the proposed building With its only access point leading up into a parking space the Planning Commission may wish to discuss if this location is easily accessible from the principle of building entrance approach line as stated on page 560 subsection 4 next item and pedestrian circulation, a five foot wide sidewalk is proposed along Tara industrial drive. It does not appear that any crosswalks are provided to the front entry of the building and the planning commission may wish to discuss if there are any further opportunities. And then that will conclude my overview. And if there are any other questions, feel free to ask.

Thank you. Um, the applicants here just like to come up and,

discuss whatever it is you'd like to say if you could hit the button on the lower right there you go thank you hi i'm joe vanney from cma design services this is tony kabusi from cma and i think everything was pretty well covered in that overview essentially we're requesting approval of our proposed project, the 4,200 square foot addition to the existing pre-engineered metal building that's on site. We did bring a sample of the brick. So if there's any questions from the board, we'd be happy to answer those.

Bring it up to the commission, Kathy. I think it's on a timer.

what do you think that thank you thank you for bringing this project did to see expansion of businesses in the community wonder if you could address the issue of the sidewalk and access to the sidewalk that was brought up by a consultant uh... you're afraid of the cross cross walked back to the building uh... i think that was left off just as those parking spaces were proposed to be banked uh... but certainly if you know we want

Add a crosswalk that kind of led to a grass or a greenbelt area so you know we Probably plan to have that crosswalk when if and when those bank parking spaces ever had to be developed That's fine, I just wondered what your comments would be thank you Eric Good evening.

Thanks for coming page 8 on your circulation page Can you kind of explain a little bit of your western approach on the turn radius? It seems like the angle of the second approach on the west is a little too far, angle to the west. to make a turn radius even for a car around to go east. And you're using a 35 foot wide box truck compared to what if a semi is 45 feet or longer. That radius would not work in there. So I don't know how you would address that. I guess depending on what type of business you're utilizing. If a semi does come in, can't make that radius, how would you address that, especially that little radius on the inside of the island where the parking is? Because that's really tight on the west side there.

Yeah, correct. We aren't anticipating the use of any longer semis for access to this site. There'd be shorter box trucks. The reason that we're proposing the second driveway is so it would prevent trucks from having to do a back-in maneuver off of Terra Drive, which I know the ordinance is not in favor of. So it's kind of... It is a tight spot for anything longer than that, but we don't feel that it's going to be an issue considering the use of the property itself.

The user pretty much uses short state trucks for delivery. It's all very repetitive assembly of rack systems and what have you, so they use the same truck over and over, and I don't foresee a lot of large deliveries coming here.

Would it be advantageous or a plus or minus if it's a one-way in, one-way out, coming from the east side in and one way out on the west side because of that turn radius in case of certain circumstances? Would that help or no?

I don't know if it would necessarily be a benefit. I mean, for, for the regular traffic parking traffic, uh, I think two, two way traffic is going to be preferred, but of course it is right. Um, for a truck, uh, you know, if they're knowing the property and they're familiar with the site, they're probably going to kind of figure out which is the best way that works for them. Honestly, larger trucks might be able to come in and maneuver and kind of back their way in if, if they needed to. Um, but, uh, I'm not really sure if it's necessary to have just a one-way and one-way out just for truck traffic.

You all set? Yes. Alton?

Yeah, one second. And thank you guys for being here. Trying to get back to where I was in my spot. It was... Pardon me, I lost my spot. Okay. Ava, I believe, yeah, there we go. It was item in the pedestrian circulation. I'm just curious as to, because I know, Ava, you were saying there was, we could potentially discuss this, but I'm just wondering what that would kind of look like in terms of pedestrian access with the walkway along the property. It was on page five. referencing section 6.1.c.8.c.7. Do you think a five-foot sidewalk is proposed along the tier industrial drives?

Yeah, that will connect the east and the adjoining properties. And then from there, we've got paved parking lot and driveway leading out to that. If we need to, we can provide that on an updated drawing just to kind of illustrate where that would end up going. If you're referring to the bank parking spaces, the crosswalk for that, yeah, we can definitely show that.

Okay. I know, Kathy, you kind of initially brought that up as well. Just curious, because even in hearkening back to what Mr. Hyder was talking about in terms of the space for a truck to back up, I'm thinking in my head about THE WINTER AND SNOW AND WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF ACCESS OR TRUCKING IN AND OUT, IF THERE ARE ANY UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MADE JUST NAVIGATING THAT SPACE ANY MORE DIFFICULT THAN IT NEEDED TO BE. I'LL LEAVE THAT AS MORE OF AN OPEN ENDED THING FOR THE GROUP VERSUS TRYING TO HAVE A DIRECT ANSWER. SO THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

Just two points. The first one, I think, Ava Miller, this one's for you. At the beginning of your report out, you mentioned that there was an updated plan submitted by the applicant as well as added parking spaces. One added parking space was also added. When were they added to our information packet? I download these and I print them out on Monday mornings. So if it came in after Monday, I didn't see it.

The updated plan is the seven 16, 20, 26 one. So if that matches your date, then that would be the updated plan.

Seven 16.

Yes.

Okay. It does.

Thank you. Okay.

And then Mr. Kapusi, I'd like to see the building material sample you have. Thank you. That's all I've got.

Uh, so thank you both for being here. Um, I, I was more curious about the frontage landscaping issue that Ava had raised about, um, you know, whether it would be acceptable to have the, uh, required landscaping being in the land bank parking area. What, if that is an issue, like what do you have other suggestions on how to accomplish that?

Well, the, the, the frontage parking, The bank parking creates the issue of where we can actually put those frontage trees. On Terra Drive, if you go down the street, you'll notice all the frontage trees are actually within that right-of-way. So I don't know if those were just implemented possibly before any type of ordinance language was developed for that or what. The issue with this property and where we currently propose those trees to be is just that it's a unique shape. Um, and we had a hard time trying to make sure that we accommodated the appropriate amount of parking for future use. Um, again, the existing occupant that's going in here isn't going to require those parking spaces, but we wanted to make sure if something ever changed in the future that we would be able to implement those without having to tear out any trees.

Thank you for that. And the other part kind of ties into what Alton and Ms. Vosburgh mentioned about just the walking part and even the entrances. This is so tight. Do you foresee any issues with when it comes time for plowing and being able to accommodate all of those?

No, I don't think there's going to be an issue with anything like that, especially in the wintertime. This is down an industrial road, so even though you do periodically get pedestrian traffic, it's a very low pedestrian area. Additionally, they have provisions for, you know, stacking and stockpiling, you know, plowed or pushed snow in some of the rear greenbelt areas or, you know, worst case scenario, if it's a really bad storm, you know, hauling it away.

Thank you. That's what I have for now, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Rick?

I do have a few things. One being the dumpster enclosure. What is it constructed of?

I believe we're proposing to build that out of black masonry. If we do use brick veneer on the front of the building.

Our ordinance does require it to be the same building material as the building. When I was looking out here, there appeared to be a poured concrete wall on my drawing. That is something that's going to have to be addressed. We're going to want to see that in the drawing. The elephant in the room building materials on that existing building... For one, is there a foundation underneath that building? Is there a footing underneath that building?

Yes, yes, there is a foundation that's constructed for the use of a pre-engineered metal building. However, there's not a substantial enough footing that would support a block wall or a two-width wall system where you'd have block and then brick veneer in front of it, which is why we're proposing to just reclad that building with fresh metal building material.

Well, what I would personally like to see is you two a requesting is that um that you do match the facade in the front of the building with that with that brick um we had an opportunity to talk earlier we recently adopted new ordinance allowing more more building materials that are they're user friendly and there are other things out there that you can use on the front of that building um that would satisfy the ordinance without getting into the block and the brick. Would you consider looking into that and proposing something for that? It's going to be a beautiful building. I love the curtain wall in the front. That's awesome. I've always liked that glass in the front. I always thought it was going to look. But then we get into a metal building next door. You've got this beautiful addition and you've got a metal building. How can you carry that into the new building? I'm sorry, into the existing building?

Right. We can apply some of those other cladding products that we proposed for the front of the addition. We did provide a sample of an ACM panel from Al Pollack. And then the other alternate we've considered using is an actual insulated metal panel, which is a little bit more rigid and durable than just your standard panel. We do have a sample of that, too, that we can bring up to you for review. Okay.

Yes, yes. We've all seen those for years.

Yep, absolutely. And then these are the Alpolic metal panel samples. So again, it's a very lightweight product. It's a little more architecturally satisfying.

Architecturally pleasing. Yeah. We have in the past allowed metal panels, more architecturally pleasing, you know, rectangle squares, things of that nature. Would you consider doing something a step above the whole barn siding that is on the building as drawing. I mean, I certainly don't want to be unfair, but I think you have always presented such nice product. I think this is...

The product that we're using from American, they do have updated materials and It's a matter of being able to apply it to that existing foundation and building. Yeah, I mean, absolutely. The owner would like to do a nice job on that front elevation. We'd have to investigate what would secure it. And colors and colors help as well So luckily today, there's a multitude of colors that there is absolutely and sometimes getting rid of that We changed our ordinances because there's so many there's so much out there now that dumb that you can do As compared to what was offered in the past you're correct a lot of a lot of there's a lot of plastic materials and composites that you can use as well and Yes, anything that's as light as that material, if we can use it and it'll secure the building, of course.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Yeah, the building materials have changed. They've evolved over the last 10, 15 years. So we thought it was time for us to, you know, get out of the 90s and really, you know, expand it. Because architecturally, there's a lot of, you know, curb appeal with a lot of these new products. And so you're seeing a lot of that now with... A LOT OF DIFFERENT BUSINESSES. YOU'VE GOT CULTURE STONES. YOU'VE GOT MANY PRODUCTS THAT YOU DON'T NEED A FOOTING. So maybe there's something else that would work out for you that you would be able to apply.

With regard to like cultured stones or other masonry-like products, the problem is... Just anything that you could support it, you know, you stick it on the wall. With a pre-engineered metal building, we've got basically a base condition channel, and then five feet above is typically the start of that first girt. So you have to find something that is capable. Being suspended from that, not only that, but also make sure that the building is structurally... designed to support.

So there's enough variety that we'd like to see something a little more current.

Or even using the same material that they're proposing and creating maybe a belt line and a color change of that so at least it breaks up the monotony of that front elevation of the pole barn look. Even if you use the same material, maybe a three or four belt line and change the color, that would even kind of help out to match more of the uniformity of the new you know, modern look that you're trying to achieve on the, on the, on the building, you know, with the canopy of some sort, you know, like I say, it could be the same material, but just break it up.

Thank you. Um, so what's the board's pleasure? I'll entertain a motion. If you want to see updated plans, have Jonathan, um, handle it administratively, whatever you guys are thinking.

Mr. Chair, quite honestly, I'd like to see, I'd like to see what their, what their proposal is. Um, they do have, you know, something else to update is the, the dumpster enclosure. I always bring this up and I'm a stem and stickler on that. So I'm going to, I'm going to want to see what they're going to do on the dumpster enclosure and have it on a drawing as well as I would like to see what they do for, um, you know, the front of the building, the facade so that, um, You know, Chesterfield Township could be very, very proud of what you have done over the years and continue on with that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll support Mr. LaBelle's recommendation on that also.

So do we have enough time? How much time would you need to make a revision and come back? We're back here in two weeks.

We'll have it by the next meeting. Well, they can have it for six weeks.

You can have up to six weeks just in case.

Well, hold on. What are we asking for? We're asking for a commitment on the material for the dumpster.

I am.

And you're looking for a commitment on materials for the building. Correct. I'll give you an updated panel right now, and I'll give you whatever brick material you want on the dumpster now. I mean, I think it's simply resolved.

So you got an idea what you can do in the front of the building? I mean, what are you proposing then?

I'll give, yeah, we will not use a pole barn type siding. We'll use a higher end flat. I don't know if I can hide fasteners, but I should be able to give them a more updated panel. But it's still going to be a metal panel.

Does that make sense? Well, I'd like to see what you're proposing.

Are those comments towards just the front elevation of the existing barn or the side elevation as well?

Well, the back, I'm not too concerned about the back. It's up against Motor City Stamping, right? I'd like to see it carry down the east wall as well. Because you are in a curve. You would see that as you come around the curve.

Okay. Yeah, I just want to make sure that I...

So with that, that's my motion.

I'd like to give them an opportunity to make adjustments and give them as much time as they need, up to six meetings.

I will support that, yes. So you have up to six meetings, but if you can come back here at the next meeting with the revisions and some samples... then we can be done with that. We don't like to do things on the fly with a blindfold on. And so just all the back and forth, it doesn't really show the actual price.

So, um, how, how many days in advance does it need to be submitted?

Lindsay, does he have enough time to get it? Yeah, we don't have a meeting scheduled for August 4th because of the election. So the next regularly scheduled meeting is August 18th. Um, and we need plans a week at a time. So,

So that'll give you that extra, that extra time. Okay. So we have a motion, uh, by Rick supported by Eric, um, to postpone our decision. Uh, and the, uh, petitioner is going to bring in revised drawings or submit revised drawings and showing the updated materials. And that would be up to six meetings. So if you're ready for our next meeting, we'll be ready. Yes.

Was that a motion in support? Yes. I have a comment on the motion. Yeah. I'm just wondering if there's consideration to let the planning department look at it and appeal, because now we are a month away. And if they wanted to get moving on their project.

If Jonathan can look at it, personally, I'd be okay with it, because he knows pretty much what we're looking for. the color and different things would matter but there's other people up here so uh... what's the board's pleasure on that so that we'd like to see the drawing couple problems in the past where we just try to move things along and it's just not a good thing. So if there's a feeling that we want to see it, then everybody's on the same page and you're good to go. And, and uh, so, so that's where we're at. I have a motion. Um, And by Rick, supported by Eric. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Okay. Thank you.

Do you have a business that's going in there that you know of? You said there was a business.

It's actually a tenant that's currently down the street in one of the other owners' buildings. I'm sorry, what? It's a current tenant. It's a current tenant of the existing landowner. They're growing out of their space, and they're going to be moving just down the street, like two buildings down.

Thank you. Looking forward to working with you. See you in a few weeks.

Okay. Mr. Chair, before you move on down the agenda, I just want to clarify if the meeting minutes from June 30th, the joint meeting, were approved. I think that may have been skipped and there wasn't a motion for it. So if not, can we just go back and make sure that those minutes do get approved?

Well, I had it on my agenda, but then I didn't see anything to sign here.

I have them here. But we can take care of that after, but just as long as they get approved tonight.

Yeah, because I saw them and I just realized since they weren't here, maybe it was Eric. So I'm going to backpedal here for a minute and I want to make a motion to approve the minutes from June 30th, 2026. Motion by Carl, supported by Kathy. Any questions on the motion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Minutes are approved. We do have a presentation tonight, zoning ordinance discussion on data centers, a draft ordinance. And I think, Jill? Mom is going to come up and have a chat. Yep. That's what I was told. Bye. And when you're ready, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Good evening. So I thought it might be helpful as we talk about the draft data center ordinance amendments that the township board has asked the planning commission to develop. We do a little bit of an informational overview. We have a couple of new members who weren't here with us in February when we did this, and we have some members of the community that have come out tonight. So just a little bit of that overview. background and then we'll get into the development of the ordinance. Um, and then just to sort of preface all of that, um, back in the beginning of the year, the township board asked the planning commission to develop ordinance language for, uh, the regulation of data centers as a land use. Um, planning commission has received a, uh, talk to him. We had our opening, um, in overview, um, back in February. And following that, we had professional staff from the township in public safety, department of public works here to present and answer questions of the planning commission. And we also had an acoustician who's a sound engineer that came and talked about that and answered some questions. So the Planning Commission has been in a fact-finding mode over the last six months, and this is the first time that they'll be looking at the language around this. It's a draft, so I'm anticipating there will be questions and revisions before the Planning Commission is ready to send that along. So why are we talking about data centers? So certainly I think people understand that and have heard that artificial intelligence, AI, is driving rapid expansion of the data centers. I think it's really helpful to understand. Also, it's about cloud computing. It's about things that people use every day. So our apps on our phones, banking, email, social media, businesses are using it for operations, logistics. And we're also hearing even more businesses are utilizing this. And we'll talk a little bit about that in a minute. for having that data closer to them than maybe the cloud. But even the cloud is not really like in space, it's actually in a building somewhere. Entertainment, media streaming, healthcare, emergency services, educational research, the bottom line is that everything is connected. We have some updated statistics. The interesting thing about data centers and about this technology is that it's changing really fast. So trying to stay on top of things. But basically, all of our data is always on all the time. It's always running. Current estimates are about our data centers use about 2% of the world's electricity. about 6% of the U.S. total. They can generate and consume a lot of water, which is needed to cool this equipment. It's a very important aspect of them. And that can be anything from 50,000 gallons of water a day to 5 million gallons of water a day. It depends on the size of the data center. They can be very large. They can be many, many acres and many square feet. The Americas share 50% of the global capacity AND THAT INCLUDES SOUTH, CENTRAL, AND NORTH AMERICA. AND THE FASTEST GROWTH RATE GLOBALLY IS HERE IN THE AMERICAS. AND THERE'S AN ESTIMATED INCREASE OF 60% IN LOCAL EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITY. NOW THAT'S OLDER DATA. THAT'S 2016 TO 2023. THAT'S FROM THE U.S. CENSUS. AND THAT MAY REFLECT BOTH CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT AS WELL AS DATA CENTER OPERATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AS WELL. Just a couple of things. Data centers are used for some of their objectives, some of the reasons why they might locate where they do. They're trying to reduce latency. That's the amount of time it takes to store, transmit, and process data. So you can imagine if something is really far away, it takes a long time to get where it needs to be. And so that's one of the reasons why you might see more of these centers popping up. Redundancy. So we want to make sure that we have seamless and uninterrupted service. So we have a lot of systems in place to do that. Security is a really important aspect of the location and the objectives of data centers. So not only we think about cybersecurity and the inside of these things being safe, but it's also the physical security as well that's really important, keeping people from breaking in and stealing equipment. There are a very wide variety of types. So the biggest one and I think the one that is most concerning to most of us are the hyperscale. Those are the biggest ones. Those are the ones you hear about in the news that are over 100,000 square feet or more million square feet and generate or consume 100 plus megawatts of capacity. they're going to be the largest users like Meta, Google, Amazon, and others. From there, they can kind of come down. So they can be smaller in size. They can be smaller in the energy capacity that they consume. They can be edge data centers where they're going to be smaller to the end users. They can be a co-location or a retail data center where maybe a couple of different businesses get together and use a data center for their own purposes. You may also hear of cloud, like Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud, and they also have another type of data center. So they're thinking about where they're going to go. They need electricity. They need to make sure that the local utility can produce and transmit the required power for the current and future demand. They need to be connected so they're located where fiber routes are available and connected. Cooling, again, is a huge issue for these facilities. making sure that sufficient water or coolant is available. Places where they don't have a lot of natural hazards, so they want to minimize their risk, so they want to, like, particularly from flooding. And then compatibility. They would like to be in places where there are, with similar uses that have the same kinds of noise and vibration and things, fumes from generators. That photo there is a data center in Grand Rapids. It's been there for a number of years. and it's right off the highway. Kind of a smile, I don't know how big it is. If we think about where they are, they're really all over the country. The data center map is one of the resources that you can look up and drive around on the map and see where data centers are being built or under development. A lot of them on the coasts, but a lot of them in particular in Virginia. Virginia was an early adopter, if you will, of data centers. And the more data centers that located there, the more data centers that wanted to be there as well. They have been doing this for a really long time. In fact, a third of the data centers are located in Virginia, Texas, and California. And it is interesting, too, when you think about some of the hazards that we talked about, like minimizing flooding. You think maybe California with some of the fires, earthquakes, and things like that, you know, would it be the most safe and secure location? The flip side is that that's where all the people are that use the data center, so that's kind of where they have to be. They have a lot of power, land, network access, so they go where those places are. that may change as those places are built out and the technology becomes such that they can be located in other places. A lot of states want the construction jobs, they want the local tax revenue, and they want the future business opportunities. That was Virginia's reason, really, for jumping in, is they wanted to make sure that when the technology was developed, available that it could help with their business growth and development. And it has. And then there's other side issues or the consequences from that. So many states have financial incentives to encourage them. Michigan has, oh, the next one I guess is what we're going to talk about. So there's about 70 data centers in Michigan right now of varying sizes. There are tax incentives tied to the size and the value of larger data centers. So there's a sales tax exemption for qualified data center equipment. And that's when the data center is bringing in $250 million in digital infrastructure and 30 jobs at 150% of the area median income. The legislature thought if we could bring in really good, well-paying jobs, then we can trade off some of the sales tax exempt, sales tax. And then the other positive for the community is that the property tax revenues stay in the local community. So I don't know how many data centers have actually been to that level. I don't think there have been very many. This little photo is a 25,000 square foot data center in Van Buren Township. Again, energy usage, data centers use most of their energy for computer chips that perform trillions of calculations every second and cooling systems that prevent the servers from overheating are the next major draw of electricity. And then we have a variety of statistics on energy consumption. You can see, not surprisingly, that Virginia, where they had the most data centers, also has the highest demand for energy. In 2024, most of the electricity came from natural gas, followed by renewables, then nuclear, and then coal. I think there is some concern that now that's changing, that there needs to be more energy and that it's going to be more of the fossil fuels. And that's something that we can talk about in a minute with our ordinance language. Again, cooling systems, these servers and their equipment generate a lot of heat. Water is one of the most efficient ways to remove that heat. There's two types of systems, the closed loop system and the open loop system. The closed loop system keeps all of the water and the glycol that's mixed in with it to circulate inside the structure inside the building it's it more expensive to install and maintain but at least it uses less water than the open loop water system uh... there are a lot of technology advances There are companies that are using reclaimed water sourcing. They're using hybrid systems. They're talking about chips that cool themselves. I think the more that technology changes and improves, because that's a big barrier to data centers construction, is the community's concern over water and energy usage. And again, security is really important. So if we think of a site design issue, these are very highly secure facilities. Building heights can be increased for mechanical equipment. So their interior heights are about 13 feet floor to ceiling. They want to have enough light to support their security. We want to make sure that they don't have any spillover or glare. They don't need a lot of parking. They do have people that work there, but not a huge number of them. And then we'd note that if projects are phased, then we should include plans for that, for understanding how long a phase is going to last, what's the future build out from a one, two, three year perspective. how long does that go so why do we have to consider amendments well currently we don't have data centers listed as a use the industrial districts the m1 and m2 district provide for the widest variety of uses some uses are permitted by right which means they just have to meet the satisfy the ordinance standards and and go through site plan review, the special land uses give the township more discretion. You're able to impose more conditions that are related to the use. and that directly respond to the conditions of, uh, the, where the location is of the proposed use. Um, and it also requires public hearing. Um, we do just note that, um, in Michigan, Michigan law says that zoning ordinance should not have the effect of totally prohibiting an establishment of a land use within the local community. when there's a demonstrated need for that land use, either within that local unit of government or the surrounding area. So the bottom line is that we should be thinking about accommodating land use that's reasonable, that's something that is needed, and then be mindful of the things that we would be concerned about and write our ordinances for those. So if we think about what a similar use would be, what it does, what are the other characteristics of these data centers? So a warehouse might be similar, a large storage facility with minimal customer foot traffic. But they can be, they have a lot of other impacts that a normal warehouse wouldn't necessarily have. So regulations would look at mitigating those impacts like noise, water usage, discharge, public safety concerns. So noise and other nuisances, there's impacts from generators and cooling equipment. We do have two different sets of standards that address noise in the township. We have the township's general code, and then we have section 5.38, and we'll talk about changes that we might need to be making in those sections in a minute. Parking, our industrial and warehouse standards are five spaces plus one per 500 square feet of floor area. 50 000 square foot building would require 105 parking spaces which may be excessive for a use that really doesn't have that many people working at it so thinking about minimizing paved surfaces or for unnecessary parking building height and we didn't change this in the proposed ordinance but we just note it here the current industrial standards limit heights to 35 feet there are some ordinances that allow additional heights to accommodate two to three stories of the data center equipment and clearance plus their rooftop equipment. And then building designs, we have, as we were just talking about, design standards for industrial buildings. So where should data centers go? Office and commercial districts, probably not appropriate. Industrial districts where there may be other uses with similar impacts. And these are the standalone data centers. so in the first draft you have and this i'll just go through just a couple of slides as by way of overview and then we can talk about it the way our ordinance is laid out we have the definitions are always in the chapter two in article two of our clear zoning ordinance and so that's why we put those at the beginning then the district standards are in section three new standards go in section four And then site standards, so things like lighting and our noise and our performance standards, those are in Chapter 5 of our ordinance. So that's how the ordinance amendment is laid out. So we start with definitions. We do not have any battery energy storage system, any best standards at the moment. So that's needed to address any onsite energy storage. If a data center had solar panels or other renewables, they need some place to store that energy. defining data centers, separating them between accessory uses and principal uses, creating a new category called high intensity industrial development which includes data centers but potentially other uses that have other negative impacts. And then a nameplate capacity which really relates to the battery energy storage system but it explains the energy output of a facility. SO THE SUGGESTED LANGUAGE INCLUDES ACCESSORY DATA CENTERS AS BEING PERMITTED IN THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL AND M1 DISTRICTS. THESE ARE DATA CENTERS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO A BUSINESS THAT IS ONGOING. Accessory would be not a separate use. It would just be to support the activities of that business. So like a bank or a hospital, any of those kinds of uses that had their own storage, essentially a larger IT server room closet, but something a little bit bigger. And then the principal data centers in high-intensity industrial development, special land uses in the M2 district. So that would be the only district, and they'd be special land uses. So again, requiring a public hearing ADDITIONAL STANDARDS AND THEN THE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF THE TOWNSHIP AS WELL SO AGAIN ACCESSORY DATA CENTERS LIMITING THE SIZE OF THEM STAYING THAT NO ENERGY STORAGE IS PERMITTED ON SITE The access would be from inside the principal use so no exterior doors and all of the mechanical equipment has to be fully enclosed. I put in a note about in Ann Arbor the Michigan Medicine just brought a data center in house and they said for better security and control. So their website notes that the data includes about 72 million filing cabinets full of information. So that's the amount of information, if you can put your mind around that. It's really difficult to do, but that was a massive undertaking. But it's an example of a user who wants to have their own information close by to reduce some of those other things we talked about before. Then the high intensity industrial uses standards, screening plus increased screening from residential, addressing public safety, fire and emergency response plans, addressing water usage and discharge, prohibiting hazardous contaminants, and requires the ability to update the systems. Again, trying to anticipate how technology might change in the future. Energy usage requiring a data center applicant to demonstrate that energy is available. All sources are required to be identified. Outside agency approvals would be required. And decommissioning, returning the buildings to a usable state. It doesn't necessarily mean taking the building down, but taking out all of this equipment so that buildings could be reused again. Battery energy storage system. So there's the new energy, it's not new anymore, but 2023 energy siting law that allows communities three approaches to regulate. These are the large scale utility projects. So these are really big, exceeding 50 megawatts and 200 megawatt hours. You can adopt a compatible renewable energy ordinance, a CREO. requiring a state certification for a large BEST project or adopting an incompatible but working zoning regulations. I think this draft is largely compatible with state law. The standards here address setback, screening, lighting, stormwater management, fire and emergency response plans, and decommissioning plans. The top image is a rendering from DTE of a project. The rendering's from 2024, and I don't know if it's been built. in Trenton that's a large battery energy storage system project and then the bottom photo is a residential battery storage system which would be permitted and that doesn't need any of the additional standards, but we do call it out just to clarify that if someone had Solar on their rooftop that they wanted to store it on their on their house that they could do that So making sure that that all of the ordinances in the township are up-to-date the performance standards this is a Larger area for modification, so there's a lot of really good standards in there already But adding in standards on odor vibration airborne matter smoke or other air contaminants dust Noise, we may consider a standalone noise section, so we'll talk about that too. Additional provisions to be added, a development impact statement. So the township's ordinance does not have any standards for traffic impact statements or environmental impact statements. Seems like a good idea, something that we should add. And then again, the phasing plan standards. So if there's a multi-year period of construction, really being able to understand what that is and mitigate any impacts from a two or three year construction project. And then asking if there are other standards that we might need to talk about. Building appearance, is there anything additionally that we should be thinking about with building appearance? Energy generation, should the township require that any energy generated on site is renewable? Other modifications to the M2, maybe height, if that's needed, or impervious surface coverage, which we don't have. So those are just a couple of other things to talk about with everything else. next steps for this would be the Planning Commission will review and refine and continue working on this I would imagine that will be over a couple of more meetings when the Planning Commission is comfortable and ready with the language there'll be a public hearing held and then the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Township Board and the Township Board will adopt and take the final action on those new ordinance standards so that's the end of

presentation and happy to answer questions about that we can dive in thank you that's a good presentation so to the board Kathy you have any any questions you want me to come back to you

I have some questions, but if you could come back, please. Okay.

Mr. Chair, if I could real quick.

Sorry. I just wanted to also point out that I did ask Mr. Brown to be here tonight from K&S Engineering because you also had the draft of the standalone noise ordinance. So there is a little bit of overlap between the draft that we got from Giffles-Webster and the draft that Mr. Brown provided. So he's also here to answer questions on that. So I just want to make sure you're all aware.

Thank you. Was there anything that he was going to add or just here to support?

Why don't you go through with what Jill has first?

Yeah. So, Eric, go ahead.

Does every state have data centers? Does every state have data centers? Yes, I believe so.

You all set?

Alton?

I don't have a question so much as a comment, just that I would like for us to be able to consider. I like that you had in the presentation about are we going to require them to have a certain amount of or percentage of their power coming from renewables. I love that. Breaking down the difference between the closed loop and the open loop system in terms of water consumption. As we're here by the Great Lakes, we have one of the largest freshwater bodies around us in the world, and I think it's our responsibility to be good stewards of that and to use as little as freshwater as possible that we have around us. Absolutely. If that ever comes to pass, where an industry would be here, that they're using a closed-loop system and that they can use renewable energy in terms of cooling versus using our water. I'll yield, though, and continue on.

Thank you. Rich? I'll comment as well. First, I did go through all 72 pages of your draft proposal. Uh, Joe, I have to tell you, I was very impressed. You did, you guys did a really nice job there. So we have more work to do, but I think we're off to a really good start here. And, um, this is one of the issues that come comes before this commission on occasion. It's a NIMBY, not in my backyard. Our job isn't to decide whether or not we're gonna get a data center or anything like that We don't make that decision But what we do need to do is we need to put together an ordinance That is good for the people of Chesterfield Township, and I think we're off to a really good start so I'll yield that I look forward to more discussions here Thank You Kevin yeah, so

That much like Alton mentioned, I'm a technologist by trade and one of the things that is very important to me is that we look at a way to look at a closed loop system if possible and looking at those renewable resources as it's a technology that continues to evolve. We want to make sure that we're being good stewards of the resources. I like the way that you put that. I also had a chance to go through this that I'm the newest member of this this Commission but having went back and watched all the previous meetings to try to catch up I do feel that we're headed in the right direction but we definitely have some work to to do and I really appreciate that this captured a lot of the conversations that have happened in the last four or five meetings so this is definitely a very good starting point So I'll probably have more to say as we dig into this deeper, but thank you, and I appreciate that.

Thank you. Rick, any questions, comments?

Just a question for Jill. When I read all 72 pages, didn't or aren't you proposing that our ordinance is going to require a closed-loop system, or did I read that incorrectly?

I think what it says is, I'll go for it.

It already states that it must be a closed loop system. But maybe I'm reading that incorrectly. Let's see here.

It's under water usage. This will be on page 8. It requires them, the applicant, to detail the amount of water that's used. The requirement is that they use the most water efficient and environmentally sound cooling process available that generates the lowest possible impact to the wastewater system and the environment. So I think we decided to come a little short of saying it was a closed loop system was required because we don't want to have to amend our ordinance every time technology changes, which is quickly.

Right.

So we, I think if someone came in tomorrow, we'd say you need to put in a closed loop system and that would, and we'd want them to demonstrate why that's the best. And then we also said that they have to be able to demonstrate the ability to update the system as more efficient options become available. So it's the expectation that you bring in the best you can do at the beginning and if new technologies come along, which they probably, I mean, will want to do because they're going to want to be more efficient with the way that they're cooling the center and the servers and all that too. So I think it's in everybody's best interest to require that as well.

Okay. Thank you. One more question. I brought this up before. If I could just present a scenario that we have seen in other areas where in a data center, and this is certainly all hypothetical, because we don't know of anything in our township, comes into an area that is not zoned M2, and they go through and they get a consent judgment to allow the data center in another area that is not zoned M2. Something that I've brought up in the past is in our M2 areas, our fencing requirements are industrial looking Can we should we do something a little bit a step above? if in fact They do come into an area that is not traditionally an empty area and not have a You know a chain-link fence with barbed wire on top requiring them to do something because These days just as your picture has shown These data centers do have a lot of high security and they have eight 10-foot fences around them to keep people out, employees in. And so is that something we need to look at? And also my last question is and maybe you can explain to me your thoughts on this. is you talk about the setbacks of mostly of an industrial building trying to incorporate or update our industrial requirements to not only for a data center but for other industries that create the same types of sound, possible pollution, things of that nature. Is our current setback sufficient From regional major secondary collector roads for a data center. Do we find that? Do should we consider? having a separate setback requirement for those buildings not only from a Setback requirement from a residential piece of property, which I believe should be a thousand feet and not 500 feet But also should we do something more? as a setback from the main arteries, the main roads, because there could be an opportunity for residential to be across the street or a church to be across the street or a daycare or something else on those major roads. What was your thought when you were developing this?

Um, I think really focused primarily on the setbacks from the residential and having that be in that high intensity, um, industrial use section. Um, so it is 500 feet, um, from what we were proposing, um, from residential zoning district or property used for residential purposes. Um, So that could be, and that would include across the street as well.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. But what about a church? What about a daycare? What about a, um, you know, other facilities where schools, a school. Yeah, there you go. Assistant living. Yeah. Well, that would be residential resident assistant living party residential. Should we consider adding that language?

something to think about yeah you know we did it with uh... we did it with uh... cannabis that we made it a thousand feet just kind of put a buffer out there for everybody and uh... i'm almost thinking that some folks might like the data centers further away than the cannabis outlets so i think to keep the inconsistency at least a thousand feet and protect all those other uh...

So when we think, I think, well, let me ask then. So for residential, that seems easier to understand why we, particularly with noise, the appearance of the buildings, the mechanical equipment, why we would have it from residential. But what would be the impacts on a school or a church that would also require the same setback distance? And I'm not saying that there isn't. I'm just asking, like relating the impact to the regulation.

I mean, just off the top of my head, the one thing that I think about is many of our churches in the area, we have something called McRest, where they allow people who are for whatever reason, homeless at that moment, they move from church to church, and they spend a week sleeping there in those churches. That is one thing. Daycares, we have children who are napping during the day. We have automotive plants where people are napping during the day, but I'm mostly concerned about the children. I mean, that's just two things that come off the top of my head.

Okay. Would the size of the building kind of determine the impact of distance? You know, like 1,000 square foot building compared to 100,000 square foot building in relationship to the depth possibly?

I think that the way that it's written right now is the high intensity. But, you know, it's not only a data center. You know, it could be other things. But I think data centers is what we're mostly concerned with because it's that consistent, that consistent noise.

Right.

And you do have in that section, there is enabling the planning commission to provide a waiver up to 100 feet. If there's like a road or if, you know, under other circumstances you felt that 500 feet was too much and you want to go to 400 feet, you could do something similar based on the size of an application and its impacts and their mitigation strategies for all of the things that we are concerned about. So that could be part of that so it's maybe it's a thousand feet, but you could provide a waiver of up to 500 feet depending on The criteria So we do say that sufficient noise mitigation and screening has been implemented to warrant such reductions. I

One of the things that I wanted to rehash, I don't know if we fully covered this the last time, and Mr. Brown, I don't know if you can answer this question. My big concern, I think the level in the document was 60 decibels, but where is that recording taking place? Where is the 60 decibels being measured? Is it at my front door? Is it inside my house I'm hearing 60 dB? Is it 50 feet away from the facility? Where is that measurement taking place? Because 60 dB doesn't seem like it's that loud, but if you're hearing that constantly, that's fine.

In the proposed ordinance, we are talking about that, and that's at the property line.

It's at the property line of the business, right? So then how many DB can be expected? I don't know if we can ask Mr. Brown. Like per 100 feet away from the facility, are we going to have a fall off or a degradation of that DB level? Because that would give me a lot of insight into how far away things should be, what should be. I'm not sure if this is the right time to address this or not, but based on what I had mentioned to the Planning Commission before,

is I propose that the noise ordinance be separate from this new ordinance. And the reason for that is a community should have one noise ordinance that functions for all areas, not just one use. So some of the items that you might be seeing currently in this new proposed ordinance. So the timing of me presenting my noise ordinance was a little bit delayed relative to the other work that people were doing. So we haven't come together on that yet. But there are similar ideas in both of them. If you look at the proposed noise ordinance, there's actually two sets of limits. And you mentioned a 60 dB at residential property. I'm proposing that that would be a maximum sound level. I'm also proposing that there would be long-term average sound levels that are 55, and this is daytime. That's a daytime limit. There would also be penalties if there were tonal sounds. There's also C-weighted sound level limits, so that we're concerned about low frequency noise, and that would address that as well. This is actually quite comprehensive, and probably more comprehensive than it needs to be. But I wanted to start big, and we can cut it back as need be. Some of it's a little bit redundant, and there are also some sections that may or may not be needed in the noise ordinance that you would want to adopt.

Okay, thank you. Sure. We can go back to the noise part later. Thank you. You sure?

I wanted to give Kathy a bite at the apple here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My perspective comes from more of a policy thing. And whatever it is we come up with, that it be something that is a clear policy, clear to the applicants, clear to us, and enforceable. So I had some questions. I'm grateful for all the technical questions, because I wouldn't know how to ask those. And I'd sent these to Jill ahead of time. But there's reference in the section on page 8 of 19, the section 4.59 of screening and buffers, and it talks about light pollution. Is that an industry term or is there a definition for light pollution? I don't need the answer right now, but I would want to make sure that we would have that, and that could apply to anything, not just data centers. I know we have a certain ordinances or requirements for current lighting. I just wanted to get an answer to that. And then on page 10 of 19 talks about at the top shall not wastewater shall not contain hazardous contaminants. And is there a list of that or is that. defined by a certain organization. What might be hazardous to me, maybe in the industry is not considered hazardous, so that was something I was concerned about. And then there's a decommissioning plan that brought to mind, are there any other items in the township that should be should also have a decommissioning plan or there are the problems that we had known problems that we have in current businesses that we could apply to this decommissioning plan. Jonathan might know or the building department might know more of that. And let's see. Oh, there's a performance guarantee and What are acceptable performance guarantees? That was really, again, do we need to define that or is there already an industry definition of that? And I don't think I've got more yet. Oh, it had the noise. I can maybe ask this under the noise thing, but it had timing for the noise. I was just curious how those times came up. And the day exclusion, there was some exclusions curious about that, but I'll save that for the time noise discussion. I think that's it. That's it for now.

Thank you. Thank you. Um, does anybody else have any other comments or questions? Mr.

Chair, I just want to make a couple of quick comments. One was we got these drafts out fairly quickly, so the real idea was to get the commission talking about the meat and potatoes of these ordinances. As far as the structuring goes, and I'm sure some of that's going to change as well, and You know, the commission did seem receptive last time to a standalone noise ordinance, so I did have a brief conversation with Mr. Siebert, so we'll work with him and Mrs. Anderson on the best way to incorporate that, whether it's a zoning ordinance or a regulatory ordinance. I think all that stuff still needs to be figured out and figured out the best way to do it, but right now it's more so getting into those details and making sure that the standards are correct. And the other thing I wanted to add, there was a conversation about the, the setbacks from from other uses of the residential uh... one thing to think about is when it's written right now is that those uh... high-intensity uses are set back from a residential district uh... and then some of those uses that we talked about like for uh... church for example of places of worship can be located in industrial districts by ordinance slash is some one way of looking at that that some uses maybe route permitted in other districts and not so when it says residential districts or a residential use, that would also incorporate a lot of daycares that are permitted in residential districts or churches that are also located in residential districts. So there's some overlap there and some consideration for that. That's all I had. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sure. I wanted to mention that Commissioner Vosburgh also in the comments asked about like who evaluates these things like how do we determine and that's something else that we want to be adding in to this is to make sure that it's understandable that should you get an application that the Planning Commission is equipped to understand if the material is being submitted as accurate and what you want. How do we do that? Do we do that? Do we have a third party? I think that was one of your questions too. And so just kind of thinking through those things as well. I have seen highly complex requirements such that I don't know how a community can evaluate whether they're being met or not. And then further, whether they can be enforced. Does the community have the ability to, you know, have all the technical equipment and the personnel needed to be able to enforce those? We really want to make sure that what we're doing is, you know, puts you in the best seat for reviewing, understanding, and enforcing, because the ordinances aren't good at all if they can't be enforced, so.

Thank you. I appreciate the process that we go through when we have easy decisions to make and then we have more difficult ones. And I really appreciate the process and the effort put in by everybody, Giffords, Webster, Jonathan, the attorneys. this group up here obvious to missing and uh... uh... i really appreciate all the great questions that come because everybody has a little different look at things from a different perspective and uh... it really does uh... create a good situation we make a tough decision uh... the master plan uh... we spent a lot of time and that i think we did pretty good for revising it making some additional changes but the The process was always there. Same with cannabis. And this one here is, uh, sometimes I think this is bringing out more people from the community than, uh, the cannabis. And we had a lot of people that showed up, but it dwindled pretty quick and then nobody cared. They kind of saw where we were going. Um, we've had a couple of meetings ago. We had, uh, some people from another community, uh, come up and, uh, make comments about how they appreciate exactly what i said that we we take your time and uh... and uh... we just don't rush in the things if we have any say and uh... they wish that they had that there because it just sits on like to just jam and they're trying to jam a data center through and that going well we don't want that process we wanted to go well and we wanted and try to be on the same page in a You know, we can agree to disagree on some things, but we want the outcome to be good. So it's something that's going to show up, and there's no way to stop it. And so all we can do is just try to do the right thing. So with that, I don't have anything else. Commissioners? Were you making a presentation then tonight? I wasn't sure.

We specifically had a presentation.

That's what I thought. So you got questions? Yeah.

You went through all the trouble to create this. Yeah, come on up.

I wasn't sure if there was questions for you. Again, we'll start with Kathy if you have any questions. Kathy? I could come back to you. Okay. Eric?

Alton? For me, it's not so much more of a question. It's more of something for us to think about collectively. With all the comments, we've been thinking about impact and what it'll look like, whether it's a church or whether it's residential. And for me, I just worry about whether there's people there or not. So if I'm at work, I don't want to be impacted by something crazy and be... messed up all day at work and then I get home and then I'm just zapped, you know. Or I also want to think about, you know, our pets and the wildlife. You know, if we've got Mr. Brown here, obviously certain sounds don't impact us, but hypersonic stuff impacts wildlife and impacts our pets. So I just want us to not only think about where impacts are happening, but to who all it's happening to, no matter where they are, whether they're at work, they're at home, they're enjoying their time wherever they may be. Um, but I don't know that the only thing I could think of for Mr Brown would be, are there any impacts we should think about in terms of what I mentioned in terms of wildlife or pets, things of that nature?

Sure. Actually what you made me think about and something that I was trying to incorporate into noise ordinance that, you know, maybe it could spread beyond that is that we recognize that there are certain uses in our communities that tend to be maybe even a little bit more sensitive than residential. that might be hospitals, that might be places of worship, that might be retirement facilities, whatever that location might be. Maybe there's a special use park that needs to be quiet. That could be what I would call an annoyed, sensitive land use. And you could incorporate that maybe into other areas of the ordinance as well, but that's something I would promote into the, at least the noise portion of the ordinance. Thank you. Sure.

Rich?

No questions. Thank you for being here anyway.

Sure. Kevin? No questions at this time on this. Thank you for being here. Sure. I think Rick has some questions.

looking at your chart on it's 5.1 maximum permissible sound levels by zoning district. Um, I can understand what you're, what you're thinking is, do we need to have, do we need to have all of those different levels for different zoning districts? And, um, if you could elaborate on that as well as, um, when you get into the C weighted, sounds, if you can explain to me again why that can be a higher decibel level than the A-weighted sounds, shouldn't they or in my mind, in my simple mind, I'm thinking that they should be the same dB level. But if you could explain to me again why there's a difference in those levels of allowable levels.

Sure. So I'll start with the different land uses. So I mentioned noise sensitive. Of course, there's residential, commercial, and industrial. And the reason we promote different limits for different use categories is because there's different expectations of what's occurring within those categories. So one thing I'll note is that Um, this is based on the receiving land to use. So certainly an industrial property is not going to be as sensitive to noise coming onto their site compared to a residential property. Um, an industrial application is going to expect some more noise, whether it's truck traffic, um, industrial operations or, you know, large scale mechanical equipment. So that's why in general for industrial properties we would allow higher sound levels on those properties. Likewise, with commercial, you know, we have different expectations as to the activities and things going on with commercial properties. Typically, commercial properties by nature are a little bit more noisy. You know, there's more activity going on in those sites. And then as far as the limits, I mean, so between daytime and nighttime, it's commonly observed that, you know, Nighttime hours, it's generally quieter because there's less activity going on most people are resting so there's this anticipation We're going to have a quieter environment at nighttime, and we want to maintain that Even if a business is operating 24 7 we want them to observe that you know properties at nighttime Expect to be quieter so that people can relax And then the difference between A- and C-weighted. So A-weighted sound is meant to emulate our human hearing at low, moderate sound levels. The C weighting doesn't really emulate our hearing very well at all. But what it does is it's very sensitive to low frequency sounds. So even as we're here in this room, the A weighted sound level is probably somewhere around 65 dB. But the C weighted sound level is going to be around 70 to 75 just because there's a little bit of rumble from the mechanical equipment. Or, you know, if there were some road noise, it would impose itself a little bit on that C level that we wouldn't hear as well as we would if we were measuring A level. So the purpose of C weighting is to be able to measure those lower frequency sound levels. Those lower frequency sounds can potentially penetrate our buildings more readily. So particularly for a residential structure, Imagine that you have a data center, and it's 2,000 feet away from a residential property. And if we only limited A-weighted levels, the C-weighted levels might go unchecked. And so there might be some lingering low-frequency noise that when you're outside, maybe you kind of hear a hum. But then when you go indoors, that low-frequency noise will penetrate the building facade more easily. and you'll hear it indoors more readily than you would outdoors. So the C-weighted is mostly targeted to help limit that low-frequency noise, help protect the interior of homes as well as outside. Thank you for that. Sure. And, you know, if I come and present again, you know, I can bring some charts to kind of explain how these different frequency weightings measure up against, you know, broadband noises such as mechanical equipment, traffic noise, and the like.

But should we limit the C weighted noise even more than the A weighted noise?

No, I don't believe so. Like I said, C-weighted sound levels, because it's capturing more energy. So the A-weighted sound levels lowers the low frequency. So it's a filter where essentially it emphasizes what we hear best and it de-emphasizes what we don't hear as well. And we don't hear low frequencies very well unless they're very loud. The C-weighting It doesn't limit much at all. It's almost a flat weighting where it permits most everything to come through. At the very lowest frequencies, it does start to taper off a little bit. Some of the higher frequencies are also tapered off a little bit. But in large part, it's a flat weighting. So it's taking in a lot more sound energy than the A weighting scale. So naturally, it will have a higher sound level. Another thing I can demonstrate for you is there's something called the loudness curves. And over years of study, what they've done is they've had hundreds of test subjects, and they've played different tones to those subjects to find out what level do they feel is equivalent to thousand Hertz so if if you had a tone at a hundred Hertz and a tone at a thousand Hertz they try and equalize that so the person says those are about the same level and what they found is that those low frequencies have to be considerably higher in magnitude for it to be perceived equal loudness so they've created these equal loudness contours and And if you studied those equal loudness contours against a waiting versus C waiting, you'd find that you would have to make a 10 to 15 DB difference to come up with something that's kind of equivalent in magnitude. So I've started with 10 DB here, um, which is on the lower side or I should say, yeah, the lower side of what a limit could be. I wouldn't recommend going below 10, um, over the a level. anything lower than that, you're going to start running into background noise. If you go out and measure sound levels in the community, you're going to find that frequently the C-weighted levels are about what I've provided here. So, sure.

Carol, I got a question. Yes. This is more of a comment. Would it benefit us as your sound sensitivity, like a category that would break up the use group of each business per se and the decibels of each business per the sound weight category? You know, like a tool and die shop or a stamping company or a residential or a hospital or an office on what each category is to show us kind of on a layman terms for, you know, the average person that, all right, if, you know, this use group has the maximum, you know, in an industrial building as like a category and say, here's all these use groups from residential to industrial and each one has a maximum benefit in exactly what what they would kind of fall into just as a reference.

So you're saying just to provide a rough reference of what people would expect to? Exactly. Sure. So I do have something similar to that, maybe not exactly what you're saying, but that's an interesting concept that, you know, normally what we do is we'll give different sound levels. like 180 decibels you know is Rocket taking off at you know a thousand feet or something you know of that magnitude very loud Or you know something a little bit more common that people are familiar with a vacuum you know 80 DB or 85 DB you know at the operators position and Of course, it depends on the vacuum, right? But these are just conceptually ideas. I mentioned the conversation I'm having with you right now, it's approximately 65 dB. Somebody's bedroom in a quiet setting could be somewhere between 25 to 35 dB. So those are kind of the situations I might present to people to help them understand what sound levels are. But the thought of, say, an office space, it might have a background sound level of around 40 to 45 dB. Operating room with a lot of equipment operating, it's gonna be kind of high, it's gonna be 65 to 70 and we've even run into situations where they're too loud and the people working can't communicate. So I like that concept, and maybe I'll come up with a list that kind of shows occupational-related noise levels.

Yeah, more than just like, oh, okay, here's, oh, I live right next to Southridge. Right. That's pretty large, even though that's not, you know, consistent, but people are sometimes bothered by, you know, jet planes, you know, landing and taking off, and they live right behind on the... on the landing zone or Pine Knob. So, yeah, as more of a reference saying, oh, okay, you know, data centers are falling under this category, use group. Okay. Can I ask a question about sound?

This is not open to the audience. Sorry.

One final question for you. We've talked about noise in the ordinance. We've talked about vibration in the ordinance. Should we consider harshness?

Harshness is a sound quality index. And it's not commonly measured. So it's not even something I typically measure. Usually that's something that's measured in enclosed environments such as cars airplanes You know if you're working with headphones and microphones That might be there and harshness is kind of a broad term too There's there's some specific sound quality metrics that they might use to measure harshness So I would say no harshness is not really appropriate for community or environmental sound measurements.

Thank you sure Could that be more of a harshness as personal preference category than anything? What you think is harsh, I don't think is harsh.

Is that, could that be? Right. A subjective quantity than a qualitative. It is certainly, it does get into more of what we call psychoacoustics. Um, yeah, subjective. What sounds good? What doesn't sound good? You know, something that sounds good could be loud and something that sounds bad might not be that loud, but it still is more bothersome. So yeah, that, that comes into the harshness or the psychoacoustic character. Yeah.

Kathy, you ready?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I am ready. Um, in the, uh, sample or the draft ordinance is reference to um noise during certain time frames and then also there was exemptions from i said in this one bells or chimes from any building school or place of worship um i'm not asking this in terms of should that be in the ordinance if we're going to have a noise ordinance it might cover that but what i'm wondering is is How do we decide what time, what the time frames would be? You mentioned in the evening, but not everybody is ready to be quiet at 8 o'clock or 10 o'clock or whatever.

Sure, sure. Yeah, and that can be approached in different ways. So the common understanding in most municipalities in the world of acoustics is that nighttime is between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and then we call the rest daytime. There are some standards that discriminate evening hours between five or six o'clock and 10 o'clock. And so they might have a separate noise limit for that time period, recognizing that people are getting off work, they're coming home, and maybe they want a little bit quieter period of time in the evening. But it's not common. It can be done. But that is something you guys can consider. And if that's something you want me to explore, I can do that.

All right. And Jill might be able to address why were there certain, like a bell or a chime, why were those, I'm just curious why those were sighted separately, not just other noises or other sounds. I think that there were many different reasons. Sure. Especially if, if they are allowed to, um, have those sounds coming from them. Um, so perhaps that, I don't know if it's in that ordinance or that if we do a separate noise ordinance, those kinds of things could be incorporated in that.

I timed out. Um, So keep in mind what I've presented here is kind of expansive, and it's like letting you look at a lot of different content that you might like, you might not like. You mentioned the chimes and the bells, and that is based on churches that would ring their bells on Sunday morning for people to come to service. That might be a bit old-fashioned. I don't know that churches practice that so much anymore. So you might not want to put that in there. But, you know, maybe it still applies in your community. I'm not sure.

Sure. Okay. And my last question, Mr. Chair, have you written noise ordinances for other municipalities?

Yes, I have.

And how have they stood up in court?

All the ordinances that I've worked on today have stood up well in court. I will preface it with this. I am not an attorney, so I do rely on municipal attorneys to review what I'm proposing. They're going to review the comments you're making and what you'd like to see, and they're going to help make sure that it works well with the ordinance as a whole. So I can recommend language that I'm familiar and comfortable with that has been used before. We might be creating some new language, and we do need to be careful what we do, but that's why we work as a team to look at this and make sure that it's strong.

Thank you. I didn't mean that to challenge you. Oh, no, not at all.

I take that criticism openly.

This is a new thing for me after years of policymaking. Thank you.

Thank you. Everybody all set? Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you so much. So start with Kathy. You've got three minutes if you've got any additional comments or anything. Still raring to go?

I'm just thankful, again, for a very fruitful discussion and also polite. I'm glad that people from the public were here for them to continue learning about this issue of data centers. So thank you.

Agreed. Thank you, Eric.

Just happy to be making rules that will apply to all industries, no matter what they are rich. I'm all set. Thank you, Kevin.

I just want to echo kind of what's been said. I appreciate the work that's happened so far. It is great to see that this is being done in a slow and methodical way so that there's no rush to get this done. And I am appreciative of everyone's comments and look forward to continuing the work.

Thank you. Rick?

Of course.

I want to welcome Kevin. I had the opportunity and the pleasure of working with him on ZBA, and I think that he's going to bring, just as Alton is, I'm excited about working with Alton as well, and how much you both have already brought to this board, and I do appreciate that. On another note, when we finally get back into the master plan, just a consideration that we might, that I'm, I believe that we should consider, it was brought up earlier about light pollution by Ms. Bosburg. Maybe we should consider more focus on a dark sky ordinance to eliminate these issues. We currently have a facility on 26 Model Road that has a lot of lights that are just shining out into nowhere. And it goes against our ordinance. And it does create a lot of ambient light that may not increase the lighting level in your bedroom, but you can see it. So I think that I'm excited to work on the master plan and possibly adopt something. I know that Patosky recently adopted it. And I read the ordinance, and it's very interesting. I don't know that we need to go to that extreme, but yet I think that we need to, to look at it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Um, one thing about sitting in this chair, everybody has so many good comments and questions and input. Uh, doesn't leave a lot for me, but there's always enough that I can throw a couple of sentences out there, but really appreciate everybody I work with. And, uh, With that, I would like to make a motion to adjourn at 8.55 p.m. I have a motion by Carl, support by Rich, to adjourn the meeting at 8.55. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Good night. Thank you all for coming out.