Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Test test. Yeah. Test test.

Good evening everybody. I'd like to uh call the meeting the planning commission meeting to order for December 2nd, 2025. Uh if everyone would please silence their phones, uh be appreciated. like to make a couple introductions. Uh we have township attorney Robert Sebert's here, township planner Jonathan Palin's here and GFOs Webster planners are here, Stephanie Osborne and Ava Miller. Uh with that, I'm going to uh call to order take attendance here. Um Rick Leel here. Kathy Bosber here. Richard Brokart here. Ryan Carr here. Ralph Jorski here. James Clowski here.

Mark Renault here. Eric Haidider and Carl Leonard. I'm here. I think I am. Um, let's do a 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. I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes from November 18th, 2025.

Motion to approve the minutes from November 18th by Carl Leonard, supported by Rich Brokart. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. I'd like to make a motion to approve the agenda as submitted. Support. Oh, we got

um the regular agenda item uh Chesterfield uh 5 LLC site plan 2025-07 has asked to be uh postponed. So, that's going to be removed from the agenda tonight. And with that, a motion uh to support the uh modified agenda supported by Carl and uh supported by Rick. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. Uh we have public comments. So, anybody in the audience that would like to come up and talk about anything uh you want, you more than welcome to come on up. Um if you're here for public hearings, you'll be able to ask some questions in, but if you had anything else you wanted to talk about that's not on the agenda tonight, feel free to come on up. No, everybody's good. Okay. Uh we have uh two public hearings tonight and uh uh so I'm going to make a motion to open uh the first public hearing uh reszoning number 377. Who supported

myself?

Motion to open the public hearing uh for the reasoning number 377 by Carl Leonard uh supported by Mark Minnow. All in favor?

Opposed? Motion carries. All right. So, um let me just kind of uh read this before we get into it. requesting to reszone 2.015 acres of property located on the northwest corner of 24 mile road and Gratchet Avenue from R1A one family residential and M1 light manufacturing to C3 General Commercial parcel number 15-09-08-476-005. Um, with that, would you like to uh uh read into your letter?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In your packets tonight, there is a letter from uh Gibles and Webster. Gibles Webster, excuse me, um for this reasonzoning. Uh as is noted, the applicants seeking to reszone um the entire property. Uh the property is split zoned M1 um is the majority of the property. R1A one family residential um is in the northwest corner of the site uh and the applicant seeking to reszone the site to C3 which is general commercial. The application indicates that the site will be developed as a gas station but this is not a conditional resoning. So the request is not conditioned on that use or any other conditions. Um the reasonzoning would qualify the property for any of the uses listed in the C3 district. And we've provided a list um of all the uses that are permitted in special land uses in the M1 district, the R1A district, and the C3 district uh in this memo. Again, the site is located at the northwest corner of 24 mile road and Graashia Avenue. It's currently vacant and there are no formal entrances to the site from either road. Moving on to page three of our review letter gets into the items to consider for a reasonzoning. The first is whether or not it's consistent with the master plan. Uh the master plan's future land use map designates this parcel as mixed use. While the proposed C3 district does allow for a mix of uses, it is not as intentional about this mix as a different district such as the MX1 or the MX2 district would be. Um, and that's what the the master plan uh really called for and highlighting the need for a Hamlet mixeduse zoning district. And uh specific text from the master plan that describes that Hamlet mixeduse land designation is at the bottom of page three of our memo. Um I'll note that the master plan further specifies types of hamlets um at different intersections throughout the

township. Uh the master plan had envisioned a hamlet at Grashet and 24 mile road and some key characteristics of that would um include uh having some flexible zoning standards um to benefit the Southerntherland or orig drain that's uh located on the site. Uh having reduced setbacks at the intersection to create a sense of place and slow traffic. and then careful management of access points to enhance safety as that intersection is um uh has quite a few crashes. Uh the that intersection that Hamlet area was also identified as a possible pulse point along the Graashia corridor. Uh, the C3 district permits local retail and service establishments which match the uses listed in the general description of the hamlets, but it also permits many other uses that may be less compatible with other desirable aspects of the area, including autooriented uses in regional retail service establishments. Since the site is adjacent to landzoned R1A to the north, the site could have single family residential on the parcel um even if it were reszoned to C3. development standards for sites zone C3 are less supportive of the design and aesthetic characteristics that the master plan called for than other sites calls for on the site than other existing districts. Um, however, the C3 district could serve as a buffer between the single family residences to the north and to the west and uh Grashet Road and 24 mile road. The second consideration is uh the impact on public services, utilities and natural features. Um as noted, you have a drain that runs through the majority of the site and almost all the site is covered with hydric soils. Uh there is municipal water and sanitary sewer available on the site. Moving on to page five, the third consideration is whether or not the applicant has provided

evidence that the property cannot be developed or used as zoned. And so far we have not received any such evidence from the applicant. Um the application again indicates that a gas station is being proposed for the site and those are only permitted either as special land uses in the C3 district or in the C C4 multi-use district um when part of an overall development. But again this application is not a conditional resoning. and um that if reszoned the applicant is not does not have to build a a gas station there. Uh the fourth consideration is related to compatibility with surrounding uses. The proposed C3 z general commercial zoning district would make all four corners of the intersection have the same zoning designation being C3 and uses that are permitted in the C3 district. So other corners have a convenience store, restaurant, and um a drugstore or retailer. And those are all C3 uses. The subject site directly butts light manufacturing use to the north, but also single family residences to the north and east across Bates Road. The fourth consideration is about um burden on thorough affairs. And um we don't expect that this proposed resoning, if it were to go through, to create a greater burden on either road. Um, but a full traffic study would be needed to determine the full impact of the change. The majority of the parcel is currently zoned as M1, so reszoning to C3 would be downzoning and may potentially result in a less intense use or simply just different traffic patterns and vehicle types that are accessing the site. Um currently Gashit is classified as a minor arterial road and and 24 mile road is classified as a local road in the master plan and Graashia is planned to have a ride ofway of 150 ft and uh 24

mile road is planned to have a rightway of 120 ft. The sixth consideration relates to um whether or not there's other land currently available for this use. Um there are other parcels that are zone C3 along Graashia, but many of them have been developed. Uh there are two parcels zone C3 that appear to be vacant at other parts and of the township. Um but the applicant has not provided evidence that there are no other parcels that are zone C3 that are suitable for their proposed use. Uh consideration seven has to do with whether or not the site could be developed um and meet the C3 uh district requirements. Um it appears that the site could meet most of the dimensional standards of the C3 district. Um but uh we would need to see um building plans and a site plan to confirm that. Um the lots provide adequate room for minimum square footage and the lot width required. Um and again what we would confirm other things with building plans. The eighth consideration at the bottom of page five um asked if resoning is the best way to address this request and um that would be the case. Uh it would be better to reszone as opposed to amend the zoning of the existing uh districts to allow the a gas station um or other C3 proposed uses. Um, consideration nine, there does not appear to be any changes in the area since the master plan was adopted that would affect uh this case. And item 10 has to deal with um spot zoning. As we discussed, uh the request is not consistent with the master plan for the area. Um it could create a logical extension of the existing zoning district. uh creating the making the fourth corner at at that intersection C3 and providing a buffer between the roadways and the existing residential to the north and west. And

then the final consideration for spot zoning is whether or not the request would grant would whether or not approving the request would grant a special benefit to the property owner developer and that's for the planning commission to determine if that applies. Um, the rest of the memo includes pages from the zoning ordinance that show the permitted and special land uses for the districts at that the parcel is currently zoned and C3 which is proposed and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Um, with that is the applicant here

like to come up state your name and address and on the right hand side there's a button down toward the bottom

this one working thank you uh Bert Cassab on behalf of Harbor Property Holdings uh address 31000 Northwestern Highway sweet 100 farmington Hills Michigan thank you for your time this evening um so I you know spoke with the seller about this site they've owned it for over 20 years they've had it for sale for over 10 years they've had no user have stepped up to try and develop it with the current zoning. It It's an Frankly I I practice real estate law and in 38 years I've never seen a parcel that's this kind of zoning. A third roughly residential and then twoth3 um industrial and then you put the drain in the middle and you've got nowhere to develop either of these uses frankly. Um ironically the other corners in checking with with Jonathan um were reszoned at some point as well. I think the northeast corner went from residential to commercial. The southeast corner went from residential to commercial. Um the southwest corner was commercial I guess all along. So it would be making consistent with the other three corners. Um as far as you know the master plan I I think if anything this would create a spot zoning if you were to zone it to the zoning of the master plan. Our intent is to work with the drain. Uh it's a challenging uh part, but I think we can work through it and and meet all the requirements. I have met with the drain commission, with the road commission, uh Mcome County road commission and drain commission to make sure that we can fit something practical on that site. Um also considering proper screening for the neighbors to make sure that we we give adequate screening to have minimal impact on the neighbors. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Um, we're going to have the, uh, uh, public come up and ask any questions and discuss whatever concerns they have, uh, or questions they might have and then we can have you come back after that to address it. So, with that, is there anybody from the public that would like to come up? You have three minutes. Uh, please state your name and address and uh, tell us what's on your mind.

Hi, good evening. My name is Rhonda Rickettts. My address is 53141 Bates Road. I'm approximately 100 feet maybe from the proposed site. Um, my husband and I purchased a property, our home say 25 years ago. We did our due diligence before the purchase to see what neighboring properties were zoned at. It's consistently brought up that we're going to reszone this, reszone that for people to make money. That's not what we purchase the property for. If this property and especially is developed into a gas station, our property values will take a dive. Our home is for most people the number one financial investment people make commercial wise go up and down grash. What is the supply and demand? There's plenty of supply of commercial properties but obviously no demand since they're sitting vacant. My husband and I oppose this resoning. We have that same drain going through our property and we deal with it. I believe that is all I have to say.

Thank you for your comments. [snorts] Uh, anybody else like to come up? State your name and address. State your name and address and you have three minutes. Thank you. Barbara Crest 29233 Red Maple Drive and I live in Whispering Pines Condos right at 24 in Grashet. Also, um we don't need another gas station. If you look from 23 in Grashett to 26 in Grashet, we have five gas stations. You got Meyers 26 mile in Grashet. There's two gas stations right next to each other. One on one side, one on the other side. Go down 23 near 94. There's a AMO. Then you just got Sheets that opened up. 24 in Grashia, there's a lot of homes. It's residential. There's two great schools down 24 mile road. The buses in the summer when the kids are out, tons of kids walking to 711 and coming out. And I've experienced the traffic there. Put a gas station on that corner. It's going to get worse. We have enough problems with 23 in grass It's like our downtown Chesterfield and coming to 24 in that little property, put another gas station. It doesn't make sense. And you got the drainage dish. Yes, you're going to try to take all the time say nothing's going to leak, but something leaks into that drain. What happens to our water? We sit outside, the wind blows. I don't want to smell the odor of the gas station. 50 years ago, I lived at 8 mile shainer and there were gas stations. We couldn't even sit in our backyard. And you know, and yes, property values will go down because if I'm going to sell my condo and look out

my door and see a gas station, I I would have never bought a condo over there because it doesn't make sense. And then um that's about it. The drainage dish, the schools, it's just too much. We don't need six gas stations within two miles of each other. It's ridiculous. I mean, it seems like everything that's being built up is either gas station, car washes, or storage units. And I think if it is reszoned, something else could go in there, but not a gas station. I think the neighborhood would be ruined. I really do. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody else? State your name and address and tell us what you what you're thinking. Lower right corner push button there. There you go.

530.81 Bates Road. We're directly across the street from the property. Rob and Linda. Um we we did not find out till tonight that it was going to be a gas station. Totally opposed the leakage. If it leaks, it's going to go in our We're all on wellwater there. It's It's not going to be good for our real estate market if we, you know, end up turning around selling our house. I definitely don't want to wake up in the morning. I see an empty lot and then to wake up in the morning now and find out and look out and see a gas station. I would rather see a house built there or maybe a house with a like a a boutique, you know, something like that. Not no gas station that if we sit out on our porch and we smelled the fumes, that's like right across the street from us. We are totally opposed against it. our value. If they're going to do it, they might as well buy our house, too, because our value of our house is going to be horrible.

I don't know how I can put it any better. I've been a lifelong resident in Chesterfield. All for money, big dollar. You going to crush people's lives. We got to stop the traffic.

Thank you. I It's all set. The traffic with us being right there on the corner, I see so many accidents. that is like from my understanding it's I think one of the top three areas that are you know with accidents it's pretty bad there and I'm a school bus driver so I see a lot of stuff that happens on the road 23 is like really one of the bats worst roads I mean not 23 24 sorry thank you so much anyone else You already came up. You're allowed one one time.

It's the It's not It's not It's not not my rules. Um, anyone else like to come up? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. And uh with that uh if the applicant wants to address any of these uh

comments as noted earlier in the comments, we do intend to perform a traffic study to make sure we address any traffic concerns. This is a commercial corridor. Respectfully, um as noted in the comments also by the by the township u uh consultant, this is actually a it's a buffer zone between the corner and the residential. at this point and we're actually downzoning from industrial to this commercial use. So hopefully the the planning commission sees sees the benefit of doing that and respectfully considers the recommendation to the board to approve. Thank you. Thank you. Uh if you could shut off the uh

Yes. Thanks. Thanks a lot. Um so with that I'd like to bring it back to the commission, but I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Carl Leonard, supported by Mark Renault to close the public hearing. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. And we'll bring it up to the commission here. And Kathy, would you like to get us started? No questions at this time. Thank Thank you. Um, Eric,

I guess just one quick question. Have you thought has the owners are they in the gas station business? Have they thought of any other alternative possibly for that site? Yes, please for the comments.

Oh, no, no problem. No problem. Happy to do that. Um, so we're not the current owner. We're under a purchase agreement with the current owner. Um the current owners as I understand again have tried marketing it for the last 10 years for alternative uses. A gas station is not our exclusive use frankly. Um I've developed Tim Hortons. I've developed um uh mini plazas. Um I've developed other retail. The group I'm working with has done gas stations. We threw that as as something just to lay out to see if it would work on the site. Um but we're we're not foreclosing other possible uses, frankly. a little bit.

Thank you. Uh Ralph, you said you met with the drain commission and I apologize. I just noticed this on the drawing tonight. Those tanks, those fuel tanks are right next to the drain. What is the I'm not an engineer. So, can they be that close to a drain?

So, that was just a proposed location. There are other ways to locate the tanks, frankly, but we just needed to note them somewhere. Uh, obviously, whatever the drain commission were required in that regard, we would comply. Keep in mind, the standards have changed significantly over the years for these tanks. They're practically leak proof today. They have to be. They're they're double doublewalled. Uh they've got all kind of sensors on them. Um that's not necessarily the final location, frankly. So, we would be open to anything that would be a a concern as far as that. And again, that just just looking at that just purely conceptual. Purely conceptual as far as the location of them. Nothing nothing set in stone there.

Okay. And you say they're leak proof, doublewalled. Yes. They literally put double walls on the tanks today. Okay. And if the first wall were to have a leak, then it would send a sensor out to let you know that there's a leak out there. Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]

Thank you. I just want to remind the board that we're here just for the reasoning, not for any specific business that might be uh suggested for the site. So, it's strictly just the reasonzoning as a standalone. U Mr. Cl. Yeah, [clears throat] that is that three corners are C3 and it's a logical to go to the C3. We do have the master plan saying that it's it's the uh Hamlet type. So there's kind of weigh in those two together. So right now we would almost be leaning toward the commercial at this time and as the chairman pointed out very important that we have to go through special land use uh as well as um you know dimen dimensional site plan dimensional uh to to see if it's even going to fit. So it's not it's not a slam dunk by any any uh for a gas station. Let's put that. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Mr. Brokart, one question and it's for Stephanie. Stephanie Osborne. Uh in item one, you referred to the hamlet could also be a pulse point along Grashet. I don't I don't know what a pulse point is. Can you help me understand that please?

Um and actually I might defer to Jonathan. I was not part of the master planning process um that the commission went through or actually any of the commissioners who were here for that process. Um that term is also unique. Um and no one on our team was the consultants from GIFs who uh worked on the plans also are no longer on our team. So um I was at a little bit of a loss to understand what that is. I thought based on um what it what it could mean would be that it would be kind of a node. We talk more we use the term node more frequently now to talk about um kind of anchors along a corridor where there might be some activity or some destination. Um so that was my best interpretation of it in today's context. Um but I'll also like I said um if Mr. uh chair doesn't mind um opening up to any of the commissioners that were here during that process or Mr. Palin to um maybe fill in some of the historical data on that.

I was reading when you asked your question, but was it what the pulse point is? Is that Did I pick up on that right? I I don't know what a pulse point is. Yeah. So, just looking for a definition.

Um in in the master plan, it talks about pulses of activity. Um, so as a means of memorializing the past, this plan recommends pulse of activity to be located at key points. This one talks about the Jefferson shoreline, but then it's also referenced, so it's referenced in the Jefferson focus area and the Gratchet focus area. And there could also be um pulse points for um pedestrian activity, so biking and walking in certain areas. Um, and I believe that um, that intersection at 24 and Gratchet was, and maybe Trusty Vosper can help me on this one. I think that was recognized as a historic, not a historic area, but there was a historic um, little village area there back in 1800s, I believe. So, I believe that's what it's referencing. Uh, sorry, I don't think I kept reading, but um it says these pulses would include a brief background on the history of the area and would serve as both educational and placemaking elements.

Thank you. Are you all set with your questions? I'm all set. Um, Mark,

just to echo, I guess some of the other the concerns that have been brought up. I'm just curious. I know you said you've met with the drainage commission. Can you give us any more feedback on where that's at and where you're going? Because u like the residents, I mean, I'm somewhat concerned and I I'll preface this with I I understand current gas station standards and what they're because I actually finance some of those. So, I know what goes into building those and I know they are basically almost bulletproof these days. But Mike, but it's still concerning considering putting gas fuel tanks that close to that drain. I mean, any feedback on that or

um again, please understand this is not intended to be for sight plant purposes. Um we have plenty of room in the back of the building if it gets developed as a gas station to put tanks there as well. Uh the drain commission pointed out we're going to have to enclose the drain like they did at CVS across the street uh with with specific liners and specific systems and make sure the water flows accordingly uh to protect the the drain area and we intend to take all the proper measures to do that. Um I maybe we shouldn't have put the tanks there because it was not intended to show you that that's a final location or even a proposed location at this point. It was just some conceptual plan that the engineer wanted to throw in there. No, that's fair. I just I was just curious where you are with the drain commission because obviously that would be that would be a concern quite frankly and so I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. U Brian, I have no questions regarding the reasoning. Mr. Leel,

just one comment. Um the way that the property is currently zoned, it um it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me that you've got residential slicing across the back of the property and you've got M1 or in, you know, light industrial up in the front of the property. If anything, this property should be one zone. So, I I I do believe we need to do something with this piece of property. It's not fair to the applicant as well as it's not fair to the rest of the township that that you've got on such a small lot, you've got two different zones there. Um the next question is uh Mark Mr. Renault the the decline in property values that that comes up quite often. Um it really it truly is your expertise. I mean, we've never had anybody give us any kind of um hard data, statistical data stating that if they put in a a dog walking yard, it's going to make their property level go down or a gas station in the area. Is there is there any really any from your history, your knowledge, can you elaborate?

I actually can. Um, for the first I will tell you for the first time in the I'm almost think seven years I've actually served on this commission. Um, this is actually the first time I would agree with the residents that there would be an impact. Um, when you put something of that nature next to a residential like that, um, when you a butt right up next to it, you will see about a 5 to 10% decrease in property values. You just will. Um, some people think it'll be much greater than that. It really isn't um over 35 years, but I can tell you there's about a 5 to 10% impact on that. There just is. Um outside of that, um yeah, there's not much more of an impact on other than that. Yep.

Sure. Go ahead. Couple of things. Um you know, again, you got the mixed zoning, which is again very rare. I've never seen that. And then you got the drain. You can't build u on the front side of the drain. You don't have enough room. You can only build behind the drain. And if you have to do it within the industrial is virtually impossible because you would never meet the setback from the residential. So, and this is again arguably a downzoning from the current industrial. And it please understand we understand that a gas station is going to require a special land use permit even if it gets zoned to C3. So, we're nowhere near the gas station phase. If that doesn't become the option, then we go to some sort of retail that is C3 at that point. So,

and that's why I gave the example of a dog walking facility because we don't know what's going in there yet. We're only here tonight for the reasonzoning. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um the chair has no questions uh at this time. Um, so typically we uh we don't vote on these the night of. We uh wait until the next meeting. So uh I entertain a motion for us to uh uh postpone this uh until our next meeting which from what I understand won't be until first part of January. Is that true?

January 6 is the next scheduled meeting. Okay,

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to postpone um item reszoning number 377. The parcel ID is 15- 09-08-476-005 until our next meeting. With that, I'd like to make a motion. We have a motion by Rick Label, supported by Mark Renault to uh postpone the uh decision on the uh reasonzoning of property at 24 and Grashet. All in favor? I

opposed. Motion carries and uh we'll see you back here on uh whoever wants to come up. Mr. Chairman, back on the January 6th. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I just want just for the public's information and for the applicant, just a reminder that that um vote on January 6 is a recommendation to the township board. So once the planning commission votes either way, it'll be forwarded to the township board for the final decision.

Thank you for adding that. Okay, with that, um, we'll move on to the next item. And, uh, we have a public hearing to, uh, amend our, uh, building, uh, products. So, I'm going to make a motion to open the public hearing for the, uh, text amendment to, uh, chapter 76 zoning ordinance. That was

Mark again. Motion was made uh by Carl Leonard to uh open a public hearing uh supported by Mark Renault. All in favor?

Opposed? Motion carries. So with that, I guess we'll have GLE's. Well, let me uh let me read what this says. amendments to provide for the appropriate and compatibility standards of building materials within the township, including specific standards relating to the building surface materials and alteration ordinance. Uh so with that, we'll have let Stephanie fill us in.

Great. Great. Thank you. Um in your packets, you have a memo on building materials. This should look very familiar. This is um essentially the same one that we brought to you. It is the same one we brought to you in October. It's just now um up for a public hearing. So, there were no additional changes from the October meeting, but just to back up and remind everyone, um the purpose of doing this amendment was to add some clarity and um direction for developers in what the planning commission wants to see and would approve and to help uh township staff provide guidance to applicants um without uh just just give some guidelines and um help help them through this process. So, um, we made, uh, several changes. Some of it was reorganization. Um, but the probably the most substantial changes were in creating a schedule of, uh, pre-approved materials and specifications that are required for building materials. Um, and then we did update what's required for facades in all buildings, um, except the waterfront district. There's a table for that. and then um standards specific to the waterfront district. In terms of um one additional change that is not listed here after talking to Mr. Seabbert today and Jonathan as well, um we suggest that the last paragraph, so if you're looking at the clean version on page five of our memo, um that would be alternative building materials item D. Um, we recommend adding a note that anything that the planning commission approves would then be that was not already on the pre-approved list would then be added to the list um and it would just be preapproved in the future. So um that's something that we can add if the planning commission um agrees with that

suggestion. Um but otherwise um we've discussed this previously. many of you were involved in um drafting this. Uh but I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about what's in front of you. Thank you. Um we'll just start down on the end with Kathy and uh see if anybody has any questions. I appreciate all the work that uh went into this. I have no further questions.

Thank you, Eric. No, I think this is a fantastic uh uh table for, you know, clarity for us and future applicants on the direction on exactly uh our materials that are going to be specked out for uh for the future. Thank you. Thank you, Ralph. James, uh just job well done, Rich. Nothing here. Thank you, Mark. Just want to echo thank you to all the commissioners that uh participated in redoing this. You guys did an excellent job and uh really appreciative of that. So, thank you.

Thank you. It was a group effort. You know, some of the commissioners got involved. You had a lot of support from Gifles and Jonathan and so it came together pretty well. Ryan, no comments. M Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? Sure.

I I did call Stephanie today and I called Jonathan and I had all my questions answered, but I have a question that I I've simply posed to the commission. If you look at the clean version of the um section 5.4, which are on pages four and five of your packet. um if you look at page five there, it's the first um table and it indicates that there's a minimum area of brick and it's got 75% and 25% and I get that. But if you drop down to the next table, it talks about minimum area of masonry and then in parenthesis it's got brick and or stone. The only question I have is in the first table where it says minimum area where you've got to have 75% of the facade that faces a road, it says 75% brick. Does that mean brick or does it mean brick or stone as it does in the second table? Well, I believe we feel that brick and masonry as a stone is kind of the same type of product because it's a hard surface. So if it's a dimensional stone, dimensional stone and brick is somewhat, you know, relatively the same thing I think on a

I I think that I agree with you. I'm just saying but that the two the two tables read inconsistently. The first one says brick. The second one says brick or stone. So if I want to come in and put in 75% stone on my facade, I'm good. Right. Yeah. So all I'm suggesting is maybe that first table where it says minimum area of brick, it should say brick and or stone. Sure, that's it. I mean, I'm not I'm not being too critical, but but I could, you know, that in in the law, you know, when they say when you mean one term and it's not included in the second, you know, five years from now, if it's not modified, it could be an issue. That's all.

Thank you for that. Um, one thing that is going to get brought up, Rick's going to talk about it, but it it it came up at the last meeting. We were talking about uh stain, solid color stain was used on an existing building and uh I don't think that's been addressed anywhere. Um, so I'm not sure if we should or u it it'll probably come up again. I mean, we hadn't even voted on this and that came in front of us. So, Rick, did you want to say anything about that?

Yes, I do. Um, first of all, are Mr. Sberts has Mr. Sbert's question been answered? Has that been addressed completely? Because I agree with you. You know, there there needs to be more clarity there so that so that we don't because because when you talk about masonary, when you talk about masonry, it can be a block. A block, you know, eight an 8 inch block is considered masonary. And we don't want that in front of our buildings. Well, in your second chart, you define masonary by definition as being brick or stone. Yes,

that's the def essentially. I looked in your your definition sections because the first question I had of Stephanie was since I'm a lawyer, not a builder, I didn't know what a facade was necessarily. I got I thought I did, but it is defined in the ordinance. And so your gold there, but I didn't really know what masonry was. I I know in my head what I think it is, but when you look at the second chart, it says masonry is brick or stone or both. That is masonry. But if you look at the first chart, it says brick only. And all I'm suggesting is that you may want to you may mean that, but if you don't, they should both say the same. That's all. Thank you. And I just want to make sure that you were that your point was made. Okay.

Mr. Palin, you want to speak on that? I just one thing that did come up when we when we talked about that, you know, the brick, stone, masonry, and what's what is the fact when we get the large industrial buildings because I think everyone on the committee agreed that if we get a 500,000 square foot industrial building, it's not really practical to have that front-facing wall all brick or stone. So, I think that's where really that conversation started from. But now if we're going back to the masonry being only brick and stone, we're kind of back to that same conversation again. And if that's what the planning commission is looking for, that's fine. But I think that needs to be clear that that's the expectation. I believe that the intent was is that if in fact you did have a million square foot uh facility come into the township and they wanted to put block up or they wanted to put m some you know a standup system or pre-cast system that because the way the ordinance is written they have to come in front of us and at that time we can discuss what we can and what we won't what we will allow if it's not not allowable. My understanding of all of this or part of the reason we're doing all of this is to make things a little bit easier for the other people the other 95% of the applicants that come in come into the township. That's the way that I understand it. Um and back to the statement about the stain. um if if in fact if everybody had a chance to read um the the the item A on the regular agenda they they were talking in their in their proposal even though it's been post postponed and the applicant is going to come back at a later date but this this this highlights the stain situation it um if you're reading the packet the the the applicant is proposing to put up a masonary product

I'm assuming it's some kind of a block or something and stain it. Now, there's not a clear understanding as to what they mean. So, are they going to put block up and then they're going to stain the block and are we going to allow that? I don't think that we should. And um and I just want to make that very clear and to emphasize the the at least my position on stain is is that it's not allowable as a as a um a product that can be applied in the field. The whole intent in my opinion again of what we were doing is to make sure that if there's any kind of other material being applied to masonary, um, steel, aluminum, it will be done in a factory setting where they can give us a guarantee that that the that that the what they're putting on is UV stable and it's durable. it's going to last over a long period of time so that we're not having a a conversation again about an applicant coming in or a business coming into the township and um staining the building and changing the color of the building, you know, at their whim. That was the one comment I had. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, and I I agree. uh we we probably need to address that um if that's going to be allowed or not um in the future or that was just a one-off uh when that happened because we don't have it listed anywhere and we've never allowed painting or staining. So um uh leave it up to the board if they if anybody has any comments. I believe that as as it stands right now, the way that this proposal is written, they can't stay unless they have it in unless they have approval from us anyway. So, is that on new? Is that on new or is that on existing or both? Both.

Okay. Mr. Palin is on both new I mean existing buildings and new buildings.

Well, that if it's an existing building and it's already you know, that's kind of the way that it's been in place. Now, if it's an existing building that's already stained or painted, they can do maintenance on it and they can do the same thing that was already done. It would just be for new buildings where you couldn't. Um, you know, the the question of the stain, you know, that's one of the many reasons that, you know, that brought us to coming to this ordinance amendment. Um I know that there's at least three buildings um in this township that were approved in the last 5 to seven years that were the block building and the applicant did propose stain and they were approved by the planning commission. Um there's one on structural drive, there's two in North Bay. Same exact construction of those ones that are going to be coming for in front of you in January. Same builder. Um there's also two more of them right on the township border in Mcome Township. Um so you know that was one of the reasons is because there's always you know we don't allow painting of exterior materials and I I'm not a material expert either so I'll defer to our architects that we have on the commission but that's also my understanding is when you approve a building with that block material it has to be sealed somehow. So I don't know of way of going about that other than a paint or a stain or some other way. So I do think that's important to be addressed because you know that's a lot of the times you know when we have a if we have a commercial if we have a a sheets come in or a Starbucks you know they typically have their prototypical design or they meet you know whatever the community is asking for um and it's it's very easy to have that conversation with those developers when an industrial user is coming in and they want to build this building and they want to know what materials they can use that's very hard to answer on admin on an administrative end. And that's why it's very important that we address this issue specifically

and everything else that comes along with that, what is allowed and what isn't, because that's the exact what you're bringing up right now is the exact issue we run into. And they want to know, you know, what what can I do because they're trying to get their ducks in a row and I think it's important. So,

so again, with the staining, staining is not required for masonry. It it doesn't it doesn't have to be stained. I'm assuming they're staining it because they want to color it, but it doesn't have to be sealed. And the question that you have to ask from a township perspective is the same reason we don't do paint is what is the what is the life expectancy of that stain? Is it a fiveyear product, 10 year product, 20-year product? What we're trying to get rid of or we're trying to minimize is a maintenance issue for buildings that sit vacant. So that's ultimately what we're trying to avoid in the township is so that we don't have buildings that are disrepaired. We can look at the staining. We talked about the staining. Reason why we didn't incorporate it into this was because from our understanding, I'll just speak for myself from my understanding it has to be reapplied. No different than resealing your concrete or your brick papers on your patio. Every couple years it's got to be redone. So, but that's the that's the reason why that wasn't addressed. In regards to um um uh Mr. Seaffort's uh brick was supposed to just be brick. So, we can revise that to be brick and stone. Um the reason why it's brick and stone on the uh waterfront is because we are trying to provide as much aesthetic flexibility as possible to create an aesthetically pleasing waterfront zone. Um but the idea for more commercial manufacturing facilities where the first one would fall under the idea was more durability. So brick is the most durable product. The reason why we want to be careful is because we don't want faux brick because if we if we open it up too much then people could come and just put um build [clears throat] a a stick shell and they'll come out with a faux brick that they'll just apply to the front like hey I'm meeting your masonry

requirement. We actually want brick like it currently states. Uh that's why we had brick on the first one and brick and stone because we could be more flexible with the waterfront districts because we want to promote that look and that aesthetics and give them the architects and designers flexibility where on the commercial manufacturing side where that first one will fall in they're more utilitarian. They're functional. We want durability, function, you know, because they're different types of um, you know, they're different type of uses and we're trying to promote both the flexibility to the designer and developer and the long-term durability for us as a township so that we have buildings that can be sustained. That was the idea behind it. But, I mean, I'm open to flexing. I just know that that was when I was pushing all that. I mean, that was the reasoning behind it. So there was thought to it, but I'm definitely open to my only thing I get concerned with on the first one. [clears throat] Being an architect, I'm definitely all for the aesthetics. It's just if we open up to the stone, stones are veneer pied. So we're getting back to that whole veneer application.

I wasn't advocating.

Oh yeah. No, no, I appreciate it. No, that's a great comment. I was just trying to give you the I was just trying to give you the the reason behind it. But again, that's why I was because there was thought behind it. Uh that's all and so it is a good point. Um but I we were at least from my perspective I was trying to avoid the veneer products on the main like manufacturing commercial facilities. But that was that was my that was my part. So I just want to explain some of the basis behind it. So hopefully that helps. So, what is the board's pleasure? Are we good with it as is or just wrong with it or is there no need for change? We got an understanding of intent.

Well, I guess the only one you got to ask I don't think we're we're going to be hurt either way. Uh if with because even with Mr. see for his [snorts] clarification or if we decide to keep it as is, I think you're still okay because again remember we're trying to hit like the 90% that he can manage administratively that the one offs are still going to have to come to us and if someone does come to us and say hey we want to invest and put marble on the front of our building well that person's coming in front of us regardless you know what I mean to ask for that you know that that variance so um I think the question is again I'm just not trying to dictate I'm just trying to help focus the conversation is just the staining part. If we want to entertain and incorporate into this, then obviously we're going to need another month to do that. Um, but again, [clears throat] my only thing with that is we just have to ask ourselves township again is just that maintenance issue. Unless there's a product that Eric knows or or someone else knows, they have to be reapplied. So, if we're trying to avoid the paint thing, and the reason I say that is because I remember when Gordon Foods came in front of us, and I felt so bad for them because we denied them. And then they said, "Okay, we're not going to invest at all." And I always remember I told you that story when I was there shopping like a couple months later and talking to the manager because I was looking for some stuff I couldn't find and things and she just started complaining about the township and how they wouldn't let because they didn't Gordon didn't invest in that store. She didn't know I was on the board. But I always remember that story because it's like [clears throat] if we're going to go down that road because that was an existing building, right? It's not new and we could have let them painted it if we chose to, but we decided to stay consistent, which I'm okay with, but we just got to decide if we're going to how we're going to stay consistent. That's all. Uh so, Mr. Chair, this idea of this staining and painting, again, I'm not advocating anything. This is not my area and I don't advocate anyway, but my role is to make sure that this ordinance is clear so that when somebody comes back with your first application, if the township

board approves it, that there's no ambiguities. This paint and stain issue, I don't see the language in this draft that addresses that. So, if it's something that is important to the commission to recommend to the board, that language has got to be put in here. I I think what happened the last time around we um decided it was appropriate to strike um 5.4E [snorts] um from the ordinance and I think section D also got removed which is the no materials that are painted or require painting shall be permitted on any elevation of any building in any zoning district except single family and two family. I think that's supposed to remain in there and it was it was taken out

unless somebody else has a different recollection of why that was removed. But Stephanie just reminded me that this is strictly for new uh new construction. So the the painting staining stuff really wouldn't apply to this document. Correct. Right.

So we can still deal with the painting staining issue as it comes before us and the way we feel about it. But the other thing is when Gordon Food came before us, that was a number of years ago and the products have definitely improved and had they come before us now, uh, regardless of this all this other stuff, I think we would have been more inclined to try to work with them just because the products, all of them across the board are so much better over the last 10 years. And I'm guessing it was probably pushed 10 years ago with Gordon. So,

um, so that's, uh, that's all I have. So, um, nobody else has any modifications, changes, or anything else. Uh, I entertain a motion. No, I I do think that I do think that that language in regards to no painting, I think that that does need to be added to this though because if if again, if someone's building a new building, they need to understand that that's that's a limitation. So it's missing from that language. It has to be added and it is up above, right? And but then it's not below because it's not struck out above. So to me it should be in that

unless unless I'm So I think there's like two parts to this. So one um for new builds the finish which I understand to be paint or stain or gloss or whatever it may be that is in the specifications for material type. So in the second table beyond the text that's going in the ordinance there's a a column that says finish and for every single type of material it says factory applied. So it'll have to be done. There's no painting on site. none of that, no staining on site. So that's for the new builds. So I think in my mind that's covered um in terms of new uh development. In terms of existing development and what can be done to improve it, we could um add back in item D that was removed. Um that no materials that are painted or require painting shall be permitted on any of the elevations. Um, but I I do think that that's addressed in the specifications table. Um, and sorry, I that did not actually address it, but we could add a a separate um separate item in here that says existing buildings that have um finishes that have to be applied on site such as paint or stain. And then it would be whatever the planning commission wanted. Do they have to come get permission to redo that? Can they do it as part of general maintenance without planning commission review or you know what what would the commission like to see if we were to add that in? Um I haven't quite gotten full direction but we can add that in. I think the point I want to make is for new builds I I believe it's already covered and for those in building materials tell me if I'm missing something there. Um, and so really we

just need to address what we do with existing buildings that have finishes um that would be undesirable and not permitted under the current under the standards that are proposed here. Um, but we have to deal with them because they're existing. Thank you.

Is the current language stay? I guess I'm still a little lost here and I apologize. But um on page two is this says current language building service materials and alterations is section 5.4 building service alteration. Is that going to be staying as part of the township ordinance or is that or is the the clean version going to supersede what what What is above on page two? So, is page four going to supersede page two?

Yes, we recommended the committee recommended uh the clean language as presented on page four.

Yeah, that first that first p on page two, the 5.4 is how it currently reads in the ordinance right now. Then the next red line is showing the existing language with what's taken out and what's being added. Then the clean version is what would replace the existing.

So Rick, I think if we go to page two and we look at section 5.4D and we can make that consistent with the clean version, then I think it addresses everyone's needs. So instead of striking it, just keep it. Then I think we have a clean document so to speak. Does that make sense? Because it says no materials that are painted or require painting shall be permitted on any elevation of any building in any zoning district except single family and two family homes. that that'll address all the new buildings. So Stephanie, if we add that to the clean version, it'll be consistent with everything in your matrix or everything in your chart. And it just says it, I think, pretty clean. Yeah, I think it's redundant, but it is maybe clearer to someone who's not looking at the um the specs table. Um I think your question about what do we do with existing buildings is not addressed in that.

You're right.

It is in 5e though. So, I'm trying to come to a resolution here. If we added five E, that would if we added 5D and E, then it would make new buildings more clear. You're you're right. There'll be a little redundancy, but for people like me, that would help actually. And with 5e, it'll address all buildings, so we have them both covered. What do you think, Eric?

Yeah, I think you're right. And I think that uh covers everything for the the novice. One thing about Sorry.

Uh, one thing our team discussed about item E is the um requirement to have awnings and canopies come back for review. Is that something that you would like to include or just have it be uh limited to the exteriors like the the main building material facades? and and while you're looking at that section that section 5.4E cannot mean what it says. It says all buildings except one family having a brick exterior shall not be reconstructed, remodeled, altered, etc. without prior planning commission approval. So, if I've got a building that's got a brick exterior, what about my roof? Do I have to come if I want to replace the roof? Do I have to come to you for approval? Don't tell me yes, because that's not going to be upheld by any court anywhere. But that's what it says. It says shall not be reconstructed, remodeled, or altered. Doesn't say the brick facade can't be. It says all buildings cannot be. That's bad language. And I had talked to to your planners about that before. There's no court in the world that's going to uphold a provision that says if I've got a building and I want to put a new roof on it or I want to put new windows in it, I've got to come to you for approval. And just to follow up on that too, even if it is the brick facade, if they're coming forward to alter it or reconstruct it with something that's 100% in compliance with

our ordinance and our schedule, why do they need to come before the planning commission to do that? I I think that's an extra unnecessary step. So, I I don't think I I think we can get away with eliminating E. Um, and I think D maybe needs to be clarified a little bit and added back in. And I I I guess for my own purpose and you know administering this ordinance, there's been a little bit of conversation between new buildings and existing buildings and I'm not sure what the why we're distinguishing is it is are you talking about buildings that are existing and that are already painted? Are we talking about maybe they're not painted but they don't meet current material requirements? Or are we talking about in the case of Gordon's Gordon comes in and wants to paint and are we saying that maybe we would allow them because it's older. That's I need clarification on that because I I think that needs to be very clear on what the expectation is.

I think if it's an existing building that has already been painted, it should be repainted because it that's a m uh a maintenance, you know, issue. if it's been painted once, it can be painted and it it doesn't have to come through us because it's already it's already there. So, um so I agree with Jonathan on that that

just to hit on that and to answer that because uh Bob and I had a conversation about this earlier. Um and there's a section in the ordinance for non-conforming structures and buildings. And there's a section for repairs and maintenance. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to prevent routine repairs and maintenance of a non-conforming building or structure so long as such repairs and maintenance do not add to its nonconformity. Um, I think that's covers it. If Bob agrees, I think that would be fine. There should also probably be on the awnings and canopies something a little more of a clarification because there's a a big uh range of canopy and awnings in relationship to vinyl steel uh metal um shingles. So I think we would have to clarify that because you know an awning for someone might be oh it's a vinyl awning in uh in a kind of a modern setting. It could be a steel steel uh detail that's made out of iron and uh beams. So it looks like we need to do some more work. Um uh I I will say uh from my perspective and it might have been my own ignorance uh when I was providing my input for this it was for new new buildings. It was for new structures. So obviously I never asked the questions about existing structures. Um but I think we probably need to go back and do a little more work to break out um what the expectation is for existing

structures that they want to renovate. Um, and then obviously this would be perfect for new construction because it's already all set. Um, but I think we also need to look at uh a third one which is um and then obviously uh Mr. Seiffer would have to look at the legality of it is to me what always has bothered me um is when an applicant buys an existing building that is like 50 years old. We've seen it with the marijuana facilities where they buy an old building uh and they only want to spruce it up but they don't want to bring it to current standards. That is what I feel we have to actually address more than painting or not painting because you know to me uh like I know uh you know like um I could be you Eric or someone else could correct me wrong but like you know like for instance if you build if you uh purchase an existing building and you want to renovate it I think the code is if you're renovating more than 51% of that building you have to bring the entire building up to code but if it's less than that you can only you you're only you know you only have to bring whatever you're renovating up to the current code. Right? To me, we got to figure out something with those existing buildings. Like, if you're going to buy that building and you're going to change the use of that building, then to me, that building from an exterior perspective should be brought up to whatever the current ordinance is for a building in that zone. And that to me, and again, I don't know the legalities of it. Well, we'll think it through for a second. All right. I [clears throat] buy a building that was built in the 1950s. It met code then and if it meet if it doesn't meet code now, it's got to meet code. I get that part. But if you send your building official out and your mechanical and all your inspectors and they said it meets the book, it meets all the code requirements. What is it that you're going to expect them to bring up to current standards? You're

not going to require if there's no brick on the front, you're not going to tell me I got to take a 50-y old building and put 75% brick on it. Because if I'm the owner, that ain't going to happen. That's what I was trying to figure out. I'll see you in court. That ain't going to happen. Discussion. Yeah. So, what's the governmental interest? What's that? What is the governmental interest in taking a building that fully meets all of your building codes and requiring the new owner to put a brick on a building that is, I don't know, whatever the material it is now, it meets code and telling me that I have to put 75% brick on the front of it. what's the government interest

because that's always the test as to whether an ordinance stands a challenge as to what the governmental interest is. Yeah. And that's what I'm trying to understand is if again if we if we have any position on that if again if your direction is we don't that's what I'm trying to understand is

I'm I'm not what I'm saying is the question that that I was in court yesterday on a case not dealing with this issue. But the first argument that the plaintiff always makes is they imposed a regulation that had no legitimate governmental interest. It was simply a discretionary uh standard with no legitimate governmental interest. And all I'm saying is if I bought a building and it's a 50s building and it meets all codes and the municipality says we're not going to give you co to occupy that building unless you take what is now I don't know name the material and you put 7 metal and you put 75% brick on it. The first thing I'm going to do when I sue you is I'm going to say to the judge, "Judge, I meet all applicable codes. This building is safe as hell." But they want me to put 75% brick on a building that's rock solid and meets all codes. The judge is going to look at the other attorney and say, "What's the governmental interest?"

I can't think of one. But but but I see what you're saying. But then what's the governmental interest of us not letting people paint? Well, what business of it is it yours? Yeah, that's I guess I'm saying. So in theory, then we should allow people just to paint and everything. Well, that that's if it's if they're going to paint it and it's going to fall off the next day. There is there is some there is some governmental interest in ensuring that there's the buildings are built to quality standards. That's that's fine. Yeah. But to say you have an existing building that predated the ordinance that you now have to bring up to code. Building codes are different. I'm talking you're talking now.

No, I know you're saying and that's what I was trying to understand is if we have anything and if we don't then yeah then I then we don't. That's what I was curious about.

So no that makes sense. I understand. So, it's like if we have a I don't know if we do, but a a Victorian house in a in a commercial district that houses attorneys for a professional office and we want to spruce it up, you know, yeah, we can't make them do brick because it doesn't meet, you know, the ordinance of brick, but that style of a Victorian house that is a house that's 80, 90 years old in a in a in a business district that that meets all the codes, if it has a handicap ramp, if it's been painted and if they want to spruce it up. We can't make him put brick. That is just unheard of in that respect, which I agree with you on that. Yes.

So, correct me if I'm wrong. So, we're dealing with new construction only here. Are we still looking to make a couple changes? Uh adding uh uh letter D back in or leave it as is? What's the Mr. Chair? I have a question I think to help us move along with this whether we're going to table it or if we can still do something tonight. Um I heard discussion back and forth and then it seems like it becomes resolved in our discussion. Are there a lot of changes that need to be made? Because if so, we might want to table it. But if there's just one or two, we could maybe correct that. Now,

it sounds like there's just a couple of things. We've kept dealing with letter D and E. Uh what is D? just so it's just D. Um, so bringing D back into the uh document.

So we can do that. That can be done. So, if we just specify, you know, whatever one or two changes we're going to have, that can be done and we can move this along on tonight and deal with existing structures, you know, if we want another another time if we have any concerns with that. So, um, Mr. Chairman, yes, sorry, I'm having a little bit of trouble hearing you. Um, sorry,

but I my take on it is is I have to take this to the board and present it to the board. So, I would like to make sure that everything's buttoned up and clear and we have a clear expectation of what we're asking them to approve. There's been a lot kicked around tonight on what's adequate and what's not. So, my preference would be that we bring it back in a final draft form one more time just to make sure that we're buttoned up so when it goes to the board, all these questions that are brought up tonight are firmly addressed by the planning commission.

Do we have uh does anybody have a uh a list of what modifications we were talking about? Do you do is there a lot of them? Two. Just two. Two that. So, it's it appears there's only two things that we're going to change. We can make those changes and then and not have any of us meet and just bring it back to the next uh board meeting in the sixth the commission meeting or detail these two changes and uh vote on this tonight.

Yeah, I I guess if the if the commission's comfortable. Um, but you know, I just don't want, you know, we we spent a lot of time on this and I'd hate to, you know, push it along just for the sake of pushing it along. I'd rather do it in one shot and not have to come back in six months. Why don't we do this? Why don't we have Stephanie tell us exactly what she's going to change and if we're all okay with that, then that'll be the two changes and we can vote on it. Or do we want to post? I think you should have her I think I don't know why we're rushing it before the holidays. We've already been sitting on it. You know, we've been working on it for like eight months. So Stephanie knows the revisions. I say Stephanie sends out an an updated clean version prior to January 6th. We put it on the January 6th agenda. We vote on it and we move on.

We can do that. I was just uh it it didn't sound like there was that many changes. So I just wanted to clarify a couple of things that Yeah. Yeah. I'm like three inches. I'm about a couple of Yeah. Unless I eat it. I was standing back a little bit or sitting back. Um yeah, we can do that. There's no hurry. I mean, it's, you know, whether we do it now or a few weeks from now, let's make the changes and when we uh we get it, just tell us what the changes were to this document and then we'll be prepared for uh the next meeting. Everybody okay with that? I'll second that. Uh somebody want to I guess I can turn that into

Mr. Chair, would you have Miss Osborne review the two changes that are going to be made?

Sure. Would you like to do that? Uh looking at page three of your memo, item D at the very top that says, "No materials that are painted or require painting shall be permitted on any elevation of any building in any dis any zoning district except single family two family homes." I'm planning to move that to if now if you look at the clean version on page five um under the tables it'll be item C4. So it would go right under there in terms of bure building material composition. And so that would be one change. And then the second change again on the clean copy at the bottom of page five where it says alternative building materials will add a statement that says all materials approved by the planning commission through the alternative building materials approval will be added to the list of pre-approved materials for future reviews. Anybody have any questions on that or we're good.

All right. one procedural uh are we going to keep the public hearing open or making changes? I don't from I'm sorry. I'm having trouble hearing as well. What was the question, Jim? The uh should we keep the public hearing open?

Yeah. Again, I I I tend to agree, not tend to, I do agree with Jonathan that trying to draft an ordinance at a public meeting always has a bad ending. I think the better way to do it is to see the text with your own eyes so that you can come back and take a look at it because the questions that are going back and forth are great questions, but the fact that you have the questions means that it's not yet crystal clear. And as a result, I think what you should do is is make a motion uh to uh continue the public hearing at a date certain. That way, you won't have to republish it again. So, anybody that would have been at this meeting knows that the public hearing will be continued at the January 6th or whatever meeting, but it's got to be a date specific. So, I'll make a motion to um um to to you've already made a motion to close the public hearing. make a motion to continue the public hearing for the January whatever 1st or second meeting in January and at that point you'll now have new text in front of you and anybody that wants to attend that meeting will obviously have an opportunity to speak on it. Okay. So there's no procedural errors with it. Is that a motion? All right. I'm going to make a motion to uh uh keep the public hearing open uh until the January 6th uh planning commission meeting. We should have all the couple of changes back in front of us and hopefully we'll be good to uh to vote on this at the next meeting. So, I'll make that motion to leave it open until the January 6 meeting. support motion by Carl Leonard, supported by Rich Brokart to uh leave it open until January 6th. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. All right. That wasn't as easy as I thought it was going to be, but um so there's nothing on the regular agenda that's been moved to uh not sure yet, but sometime in January, maybe on the 6th. Uh any presentations, reports, discussions, nothing. Planning commissioners comments. We'll start down on the end with Kathy. Um have a very merry Christmas everyone and you're all invited to Friday night to the tree lighting here at the township facilities and you can tour the buildings in the historic village. Merry Christmas to all.

Merry Christmas. Happy holidays. Merry Christmas. Ditto.

Happy holidays. And uh the chair would like to wish everybody a great Christmas and New Year's and uh our wonderful staff that joins us uh uh every week or every uh every couple weeks. So uh we'll come on back in January 6th and uh hit it running. So uh with that I'd like to make a motion to adjourn at 827 motion by Carl Leonard, supported by Kathy Vosberg to adjourn tonight's meeting.