Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Cross here here. I have a note that was left for me to uh please excuse uh Gay Christian. So, okay. Make a motion to excuse Gay. I second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none, please. Micro as excused. All right. Uh, wasn't much on the agenda. So, is anybody looking over want to make any changes to the agenda as it's written? I make a motion to approve the agenda. I'll second the motion.

All in favor for approving the uh agenda for this meeting. I Any opposed? Hearing none. So moved. All right. Looking over the minutes from back in May 28th of 2025. Were there any omissions or changes that need to be done to that? I make a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Second. Uh, all in favor?

Any opposed? Approved. Can I get a volunteer to read our statement of purpose? The mission of the Holly Village is to enhance our community's quality of life. Our organization strives for quality services and cost effective government. We all participation decision making. Most importantly, we shall always serve the citiz.

Thank you very much. All right. Uh going to item number six, public comments. Seeing no one in the audience tonight.

I don't have a public comment, but if I could make a comment as just an introduction to our newest commissioner, uh, Jared Hopper. And so, uh, Jared has, you know, been very enthusiastic at other meetings. He was asking where he can get involved and we kind of talked about some of the places which would be a great fit. Um, uh, he's dove right in. Uh, he's been, you know, talking to Chief Watson a lot, but he's also already gone through the MSU, uh, citizen planners course. um through the extension. So he's coming in with some fresh knowledge and you know maybe in his comments at the end he can kind of give you guys hey this is I think this is a good program this is a bad program. He came ready with his Robert's rules ready to go. So I just wanted to introduce uh him to the team. All right.

Nice meeting you. Nice meeting you as well working with everyone. All right. Thank you. Glad you uh stepped up and volunteered. Thank you. All right. Anything else from anybody?

Um, so uh so her appointment was voided. Um and we can talk about um that was so and then Jared was is filling that seat now. Okay, cool. Anything else? All right, moving on to item seven being old business uh discussions on uh the capital improvement process. Uh not seeing Jeremy here tonight. I don't know what

I I can talk a little bit. Um one thing I'm actually so Jeremy is uh remotely talking to me. He says uh commissioners make sure your microphones are on. So he's at home uh you know watching and so uh and you know he says he can hear you Gary perfectly but some of the other commissioners it's a little hard to hear. Um so on our CIP process um so the village has never had a proper CIP before. I mean I know I'm telling this to a team that knows this uh but you know for new new people coming in or anyone that might watch this at home. Um, so when we got here, um, Ro at the time was assisting us with this. Um, Alex, who was previously here in the the initial draft that we got, wasn't really a CIP. It was kind of it it wasn't up to the expectations that I think anyone in this group would have wanted to see on a CIP. Uh, and so we've taken it over. We've been working on it. Um, but honestly, it's, you know, most of it is a wish list. uh you know until we kind of get some of our finance stuff figured out and that's you know where we're looking at. We have done it. We've included our roads, our water sewer projects, all of these things on there. Um getting some of our other infrastructure on there to give us a better one. But right now we haven't had any until we get some of these like until we do some of these uh budgeting processes for the future. We haven't determined what fiscal years that will be tied to. So right now it's all in the TBD line for the most part. We have some things uh that we're looking at, but um staff has been working on building it, but it's also been uh although it's a priority, it has been a lower priority with a limited staff and all the other things we're working on. It's there. Um it's just something that probably what I need to do is just bring you guys the draft version of it so I can get some other minds in on it and like in on the process to be like, "Okay, we're headed in the right direction. We're headed in the wrong direction." Um and give us some like course correction from where

we're currently at. And so next month's meeting or the next time we meet um we'll have a version to you to review at to some extent. Might not have dates on it yet, but it'll at least have projects that we're looking at for that. Okay. Anybody have any questions on that?

Okay. Moving on to uh new business. Item number eight, uh, discussion of short-term rentals, uh, regarding our ordinances and making any changes and or additions to that, um, category. So, in everybody's packet was uh, a couple uh, drafts of other locations um, other just items to look at as a um, food for thought. And then also included was our current um items that we have on ours. So with that being said, um is anyone would like to start off or make any comments, additions, and or uh open a conversation?

Sure. Um there's a type of rental that wasn't addressed. It's a shortterm rental, but owner occupied house, not a bed and breakfast. Jim and I stayed in several of them where it's like they made a mother last week and it's part of their house, but I'm not it's not breakfast. It's a short-term rental, but it's owner occupied. Our ordinance does not um make it so that it cannot be owner occupied.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that I was that's kind of what I was looking at. I believe that we are like mother-in-law suite like rentals are not actually allowed by our ordinance. Uh like we they can't do that in general. Um I know I'm about to get a text from Jeremy in just a second. I know you know whether or not that's true. Uh as long as it's attached they can do it. Why could we not rent a room out? I would I'd have to look because I know that this has been brought up before and I don't know and I'm not gonna put Amy on the spot too much but I don't know if you've looked at ours. I believe ours allows you to rent a room. Yeah, let me look at the texts are coming in. So, it wasn't

right here. Okay. It's in our It is in ours, but it wasn't in the things that you gave us from Franken. Let me from from other in other areas it does say you know that that is not it is to be nonowner occupied but ours does not state that. So he's saying no separate structures allowed only one primary. So so I think in the ordinance it does say this can include one room to the whole house. So as long as it's one as long as it's a single room attached to the house that's fine. Well what what if so if you had a walk out basement and finished basement.

Basically, like if you had like an apartment in your basement, separate entrance, but you lived on the main floor, could they rent out the Airbnb, the basement apartment? Sure. As long as it falls within the period of time that falls underneath that category. Now, going to Miss Eve's point though, I think it is I think Ann Arbor does the same thing too. They set uh um limits on

on where. So, for instance, if it's an owner occupied, you can do it in residential districts. If you're not owner occupied, you can only do it on their main business areas. And I think that that would hopefully reduce and I wanted to also get staff's input on this. If we are seeing complaints, so if the owner's there, you'd have to imagine they're going to put a stop to rowdy behavior. You'll go from owner to police. There is

my only other question I had, I know we s had some limits in there. probably not going to happen. But if the size of the house could hold X number of people, should it be tied to bedrooms in the house? I know I saw some that was 12, 18. I'm like, if they have, you know, if you have a large house, a couple families have several little kids, you could be running again into occupancy issues. the dwelling you're renting is plenty but quite spacious but I do understand you also don't want 10 people rent one bedroom

well ours ours does have in line uh E of U 157 130B it does say it does give a minimum square footage and the uh number of lodgers in that square footage as a minimum Right. But that's for the bedroom space, right? And that's what you were referring to is you couldn't have 17 in that room. You know, sir,

so this kind of goes into a couple of the comments that I was going to bring to the commission's attention, and that's mainly about the subjective of some of the ordinance language particularly around like the some of the points were just made you know by Mr. Crossman about how it can be subjective as far as the the type of room that's being rented as you said Mr. as far as if you have 10 rooms and you rent out 10 rooms and that what does that impact to the community and I think that that ties right into some of the subjective nature. So in section 157.130B subsections A and D, they're both very subjective in nature and I I actually asked for a couple that's is my deal here. So, you're welcome everybody. But, but a couple of the Airbnbs that I pulled up highlight the reasoning behind some of the subjective nature that I'm going to elaborate on. So, for instance, in subsection A where it says must be operated entirely within the principal dwelling, not within any garage or accessory building located upon the premises except for incidental storage. are in use of a residential type garage. If you look at the Airbnb in the packet, that is the Holly Hideway, which technically this is on Tucker Road, so it's outside of the village, but it will highlight the points that I'm I'm trying to make. I'm trying to see if the graphic is here. So, you can kind of see the graphic. So, this is actually a it's a it's a structure that is outside. So,

it's not necessarily it's the one here. It's I don't know what page it's on, but you'll see the Holly Hideway graphic on the front. It is a It's a It could or could not be a principal dwelling, but it has garage doors, which is a common decorative piece that comes into it. So are I guess that leads to say are we looking at a garage that was converted or is this a principal dwelling that is allowing for new decorative features that are considered in style for the times for that. Not to mention, this also has a trailer that's on the property that are used as bedrooms for the Airbnb, which is again an accessory accessory building located on the premises. So, it's that's one part of ambiguity or subjective nature of this interpretation of what that would mean. Um, the second one is kind of going into the parking and so forth that sayction subsection which is shall not constitute an annoyance or nuisance to adjoining residents by reason of noise, smoke or electrical disturbance, night lighting or the creation of unreasonable traffic to the pre premises. Well, what I think is unreasonable and what you may think is unreasonable are different conditions. Like is what I might think is noisy is different than what you might think is noisy. I might think is better, bigger traffic or unnecessary traffic might be considered to be fine for someone else. So that's also why I included the Lynon ordinance in this is that Lyndon seems to have done a pretty nice job

of putting some more I guess more accountability in terms of getting rid of these interpretations that are in the ordinance. It's a little bit distinct and that's what I would put forth to our commission is is that as we're looking at this is maybe making a recommendation that these be revised to make sure that there is less subjectivity. It's like when when I managed employees it's like you can't hold someone accountable for for items that they don't know that they're held accountable for. Well, it's the same here. It's like we could easily be subjected to a situation where someone could interpret something different than we're an issue that way. So

rebuttal. Okay, I got one for you. So um the example of the hideway doesn't apply in the village because nobody can live in a trailer in the village. So you can't have a primary residence as a trailer. So that that one won't work. Well, no, but keep in mind that's not the trailer is not The trailer's an offshoot of the main building, which So I know it's really hard to see, but So if you look at the top right corner, do you see the building in the top right corner of that graphic? Yes.

Yeah. So if you It's hard to see, but if you look this up online, it's a it looks like a garage. like it looks like a garage that they put a door in the center and has two literal garage doors that are in it. So based on what we're saying is a residential type garage, it could totally be interpreted as a residential type garage that was made into renovated into an but it would not be right. But it would not be the but that that false. All right. All right. Um, what I was going to say was our ordinance says it has to be the principal dwelling. Sure.

All right. So, a an accessory building or something made into an accessory building to house people is not the principal dwelling. Okay. But would So, what if somebody made a garage into a principal dwelling with garage doors? You can only have one principal dwelling on a parcel. Okay. So, that like a barium kind of situation. It could be, but it wouldn't be allowed for use in our ordinance because not the principal dwelling. Okay. Planner, do you have comments? I see you nodding your head back and forth.

No, I mean I mean your ordinance is very clear. It says that it has to be within the primary dwelling and that the short-term rentals cannot be located in a garage or an accessory building. So, it doesn't allow for those secondary uses within those uh ancillary buildings. Um, you know, there's these are becoming more and more common. The other thing with the short-term rentals is if you research other communities, many of them have amended their ordinances multiple times because this is an ever evolving trend, right? So, like what used to be popular for short-term rentals in 2019 when you adopted this has changed since then. So most communities that are battling these to an extent if they are an issue they have already amended their ordinance a few times over right so it's not unusual for this to be a living document that you're going to be looking at as time changes and the trend evolves. So we are seeing in other communities kind of what this commissioner is referring to where people are putting multiple small ancillary accessory type of dwelling units with in a parcel and renting them out individually. That is being that is occurring in other communities. Your ordinance really doesn't permit that. Um but I can you know we do see it in other places.

There's a minimal square footage of a house in our our area. So they couldn't do that on multiple Right. That's what I'm saying. your ordinance wouldn't allow it, but we do see it in other communities that we work for where people are taking a large parcel and putting multiple small accessory structures as living units and renting them as short-term rental. So, it is occurring in other places. What is that? I'm just curious like in that example with the trailer that's the accessory dwelling. It doesn't have plumbing or anything in that. It's just beds in a trailer. Oh, yeah. I'm not sure. Yeah. Now, our ordinance does not allow a trailer to be occupied. Period. Okay.

I don't even know if that would meet building and code requirements. So I kind of don't the the thing that and some of the other documentation though that I thought we probably should add to that would be the use of tents because you know people come out and then they you know bunch of kids they want to let the kids sleep outside in the tent. Well, we don't specifically we do say it has to be in the dwelling, but to me it should say not use the tense only for the reason of discouraging the possibility of versus, you know, after the fact

because I have to imagine our ordinance says something about camping, but it's probably limited to a certain like two weeks a year or something like that. Yeah. And I don't remember seeing that in the orange because there's lots of people that will let their kids go out and sleep in a tent in the yard, right? You know, so, you know, I would see that as a possibility where someone could try to get around needing more space and putting some tents up, you know, bringing them with themselves. Not necessarily the person that's running out the house, but the people coming to occupy putting up tents. Commissioner, one more.

Sure. Uh, Commissioner Campbell has been trying to get in this shore up our need to circumvent any of these happening here. Well, I think that's one of the reasons for tonight is also, you know, this is what's being presented, but this was so long ago that we started this document, you know, And I think all the items that we're talking about like on D for example,

they're not all subjective because we already have light trespass, we already have noise ordinances, we already have all these other things. And so if my my thought would be we don't make an adjustment here, we would make an adjustment to our ordinances because we talked about the lights light press pass in the past being outdated with all the LED light bulbs,

right? And noise and things like that. You're saying it's subjective. Well, the subjectivity it really goes out the window because they have to follow the villages ordinance level. It isn't we're not going to dictate a specific reduction in noise based on the use. We're going by the standard or noise levels within the village itself. Whether you're your own house, there's still an ordinance a noise level. So within our ordinance, a dwelling unit, a building of or portion thereof designed for occupancy of one family or residential purposes and having single cooking and bath facility for each. In no case shall a travel trailer, motor home, automobile, tent, or other portable building not defined as a recre recreational vehicle be considered a dwelling.

All right. So it does say ten in there. It is defined as I didn't remember a tent being in there. That's just talking about the primary unit. That's not talking about setting one up. Though

I will do feel like there could potentially be an issue for people bringing campers or tents or whatnot to the site of a short-term rental that you should put that prohibition in the short-term rental section so that whomever is enforcing the ordinance only has to look in one place. It's not really great to put regulations in definitions. It also looks like if we can bring that back up, we are contradicting oursel also because we say no tents, no motor homes, anything not classified as a recreational vehicle. Did I read that right

or other portable building not defined as a recreational vehicle by considered a dwelling? So are we saying our a recreational vehicle may be considered a dwelling? Because I know we call my motor home an RV, which is recreational vehicle because I I mean grant it doesn't have native plumbing, but with an extension cord and a hose, it's got plumbing on board, sewage tanks, everything. I think it's just saying if it's if it's not an RV, it's still not a home. I was going to say so. between a motor home and a recreational vehicle.

I think this is just saying I think this is just covering all the bases is my read on it. That's even if you don't classify it as an RV, it's still not a mobile home or it's still not a primary dwelling unit, right? You may have listing all of those things and saying these are things that are not considered a motor home. A motor home is included, but this is a list of things other than Okay. And here's the recreational vehicle definitions.

So it does list motor home and yeah falls into that category. So, is it would it suffice to actually put a subject to um the general ordinance of occupancy stuff or whatever this ordinance is that we're you were looking at zoning ordinance definitions where this this lives already.

My comment is um there was a period of time Sometimes communities had regulations sitting in their definitions. So when you would look up something like let's say dwelling unit, it would give you some specifications about what a dwelling unit is, but then it might say something that's related to that type of use also that really should live in your zoning ordinance districts, right? So if you envision having an issue with people bringing additional campers or bringing a camper and parking in the driveway of a short-term rental or bringing tents for kids staying at the short-term rental to sleep outside or just people in general, right? Adults, whatever. Then what I would suggest doing is adding that language to your short-term rental regulations so that there isn't um this well maybe it lives in this section, maybe it lives in the definitions. Let's just put it all in one spot so that it's easy to apply and it's easy to for anybody if if you think that that's going to be an issue.

So maybe a clarification then on what you're saying is actually put that wording in this section as well or put a um as subject to dwelling ordinances. Nope. I would just create a letter um O that states that um parking campers and pitching tents at the location of an approved short-term rental is not permitted. Something like that that prohibits those type of uses. And you can use recreational vehicle to kind of cover all of those since that seems to cover all of those.

Any sleeping out of the primary unit does too. And and I think that we're also covered on per zoning for like you have to be connected to water sewer. You have to have a minimum minimum square feet. I think it's like 1,200 or 1400 square feet uh as a minimum to be considered a dwelling. So I think that already prohibits a lot of like what about like the noise ordinances that the chair was speaking about there? Would those need to be tied into this to say like referenceable as far as was ever some sort of dispute that arose.

Well, I I thought about that too, but I also think that just I mean you already fall under to the noise ordinance regardless. So like I don't think that adding extra language error. However, um if it is if it is a stricter adherence, then we might have to define it than the actual because the noise ordinance is written, I think, is you should not be able to hear a any kind of noise outside of the real property lines. So, if you have a radio playing or something, you're not supposed to be able to hear it on another property, which still that I I'm not, you know, so that is kind of an interesting description as well. Up to a certain time also.

Yeah, there is a time noise at all. I'm wondering if um some of that could be included in the um the booklet that goes on the counter in in the dwelling, you know, in the rental. Um that highlights what our noise and some of those ordinances actually are to place it there. But that's all done by the uh person renting the property. You know, that's their their booklet. And I don't think that we have the ability to tell them what they have to have in their booklet.

We we do have items in there stating, you know, for like emergency numbers and things like that. Yes.

What you gave us Yeah, you do have a case as a reference guide provided by the village must be made available to all guests. So, you know, that's where you would include those type of attachments. And if you wanted to be clear in your ordinance, you can amend the language to reference the other sections of the ordinance related to noise and all of those general requirements. It's up how you want to.

Well, I I think we do want to be as clear as possible, but at the same token, if we made it as clear as possible in each subcategory, we'd be rewriting the book a hundred times, you know, and it would be so thick, you know, it just wouldn't make sense to me because of the one the cost of it. I think it's easier to do cross referencing too.

I said two things. I want to go back to the auxiliary dwelling units um on property. I think when we look at Holly going forward, that's something that we really should think about allowing. Number one, it's cost effective housing for a lot of people and number two, it's often recommended for aging in place. So to just say no ADUs I disagree with. I think it's something we need to talk about. And the second thing that I noticed in the um Franken stuff that you provided was that they were very specific that you can't park on the street. If you're going to have an Airbnb and you're going to run a bed breakfast, you need to have parking. And I know we have been more than generous giving away.

So I don't know what the answer is, but at least it was there. I had an item too about the parking. Um I think one of the issues that I can foresee is we were uh I think council was talking about uh um fees for for parking, parking licenses or something like that a minimal $5 fee for someone that lives there. I could see something where if you're running a business and you're using it as a hotel, it doesn't seem fair to me to charge that that individual the same $5 parking fee or or no fee and have them take all of the spots for our overnight spots for our residents. So that would be something I would be interested in either working on a in our ordinance or however we have to do that.

So that kind of ties into one one item that was put in this packet as well. And if we look at this, there's a there is an Airbnb that is in the village. It's called Box Car Bunker and it's right across the street from where the Holly Depot is or not the Holly Depot but the park where the farmers market is. It was a commercial building. At least I know of one business that was operated out of one side of that. So I'm not sure if that was zoned for multiuse, you know, single family home that that came before us.

Okay. So I guess what and maybe this is something that our representative from row can can help with with as well is because I I guess where I'm going with this we have very limited parcels to my understanding that are zoned for commercial in the village that we are allowed to utilize for commercial taxable rates. So we are giving up that space for this type of business or an Airbnb which I to my understanding cannot be taxed at the same commercial rate. Should we consider making like a special use district or something within the village of where Airbnbs are possible to be utilized where we're not losing that? I mean, really luxurious or or trying to think of the right word here, but that very limited commercial space that we can utilize, especially in a time of fiscal constraints that we're working So just something for us all to think about maybe discuss. But that's when I saw this that was what I was thinking is like why I get that we don't want to be stringent on the property owners but why why are what are we doing to to not lose that commercial space that we could utilize.

There's been several that came here. I think the one just next to the gas station was reszoned commercial or not gas station the car wash. Actually the car wash up there was commercial and then the one uh you were speaking of the depot.

Now I am for you. I I think the the idea is is solid to um make make a an area where if you're not living on the premises as an owner, if it's not your primary residence, I don't think you should be able to rent it out like a hotel. So, if if you're in a downtown area already, you're expecting more business. If you live like next to my house, which is a business, you're already expecting to have businesses nearby. But if you're in on C Street's not the best example anymore, is it? But use mine. So, like I

So, Cogell Street is close enough to the wedding to where someone can stay and actually my next door neighbor rents that house from California. Like they don't but they do have a representative that comes around, but they it's a long-term rental. They're from California, but if that let's say that which could be a feasible solution. Let's say that he says, "Yeah, I don't want to sell Airbnb." Is that permissible in that area versus I mean be permissible or versus something that's right on like Main Street, you know, building or area where commercial buildings could be procured and help the village with commercial taxable income. So, we're right now what we're looking through is that because I know it's uh it's the CBD, it's R1A, R1B, but I'm seeing if it's actually permitted within commercial right now.

No. No. So, it's already not it's not a special land use within commercial as it is right now. Even within the central business district, it's for the second floor, right? Which is which is the downtown, right? So, but like for instance with this that was approved like this box car bunker this one this was a commercial one side of this could have been a commercial. So what what happened was they came before and they said I want to reszone it and then I think there was discussion uh I went back to look and there was like some people said yes some people said no ultimately uh the recommendation from planning commission was resone it and I believe it went to council and they said reszone it too. Okay.

And and to but kind of to redirect a little bit in the conversation as well and to your point, I think one of the reasons that this came up and I know the village president mentioned this to us was that uh they wanted to look at how we how we could put limitations on amounts allowed. And so that kind of feeds into what you're talking about right there. But I think that's also one of the nar like one of the things that that we wanted to discuss tonight just limitations in general. you know, can we and how how could we best do that?

I would like to see like Mr. uh Hopper, Mr. Hopper brought up here, uh the the main street no limits for instance or limits obviously, but then it you must have a primary person living in the rental unit off on the other areas. All right. So, we just approved an Airbnb for a guy. The guy lives in Vegas. He doesn't Nobody lives there, but his sister's local. So, I And he and she is his manager, area manager, but unoccupied.

So, for something like that, it probably would just be a non-conforming use. They would be grandfathered in, and we're not going to say you must put someone in the house now. So, it would be then from everyone going forward is my understanding of how it would work. And The only reason I was on board with that guy, his sister was here. He had a family a somebody taken care of as opposed to I'm going to hire somebody. Well, right now we had to approve it anyway because it's our ordinance, but if we change the ordinance. True. One of the ways to limit again,

thanks for they can't be within 200 feet of each other. So, You could say, you know, only one per block or something like that is another way to limit them, especially up and was real, this is where you could have them and that's it.

I think that it's I mean just looking at kind of the draw maybe the commission has a better idea of this, but like Now the wedding the wedding business in Holly is a

it's a big business right so that's going to be a reason for Airbnb draw that comes here for that but with that said I also know that just in attending the town hall and some of the meetings and so forth that we're trying to get long-term residents in Holly to establish roots here part of the And with more private equity companies going and buying homes to turn them into Airbnbs and so forth, having a limitation like that would ensure that we do at least give folks a chance to get a long-term establishment here versus, you know, a short-term rental. I don't want to stifle the economy because we need that here, but at the same I think that there's appropriate balance of what we should look at.

Yes. And I and I and I'm of the mind for on the economic development side that if we need a a short-term place to stay, then we should be looking at hotel like those kind of things that are providing that that commercial uh responsibility into and that that are paying into the community, you know, into the tax bases as as such. Um, and problem is when you have your short-term rentals and all those things, it limits the ability to identify that need. So that that I think that's my point of view from those may

Can we t if we were a city, could we have a hotel overnight tax? I mean, you know, when you go to Airbnb and you sign up and all these boom booms? Nope. We are I looked this up to our county. It's based off county in state of Michigan. Uh it is only for a certain population level and I think you have to have under 600,000 people in the county. So I looked at Grand Rapids and Grand Rapids has a bed tax. Yeah. Can't do it in county. So I think that's how they do it. But we are not allowed to do that because we have so many people in the state or in our county.

You um other communities have done a percentage where they uh cap it based on percentage. So like Traverse City is a great example which is actually might be expanding it because they had them allowed in certain zoning districts up to like 25%. And then in other zoning districts it was unlimited and so they're looking to potentially change that unlimited to as well. The thing that you might want to look at is potentially doing unlimited on the second floor and above in your CBD and then potentially doing a cap on your residential districts so that you can, you know, have more homes available for actual residents. And you can also change like the language in terms of the different types of short-term rentals. can be defined as when you have someone living there as their primary residence and they're just um uh renting out their basement or or a room or in maybe another community in AUD. Um so you could do something like that. Um as well as you could define the uses that where it is just you know they can rent the whole house and no one lives on site and maybe you prohibit those. You know, it just depends on what what you guys are trying to regulate and and then we can help you try and figure out how you want to do it.

So, I'm curious though, the new I think it is an Airbnb. The building that's across the street from the Holly Cafe across the tracks is they came before us. That's an Airbnb. Okay. That's occupied all the time. His daughter stays there. caretaker over the garage. She's always there. Okay. But I was just curious like how many He's there.

That's what I was wondering. That's one person. So my question, we can come up with all the restrictions and stuff we want to, but what are we doing about the rogue ones that are happening and they just do it and they never before us that I I don't think we have a stiff enough or even one at all of a fine for failure to register and come before the commission and get it approved. You know, I I think it's just if they don't do it, it's just not happen.

Well, they don't have to come before the commission to get it approved. They have to submit uh to get the permit approved through the village offices. They don't come for us for a special use. They do. Now, if they're going to rent out like a portion of their home for Airbnb, they should for short-term rental. They have to get the permit from the village. They don't have to come to us to have Well, but that big one did on Railroad Street. They they were they were remodeling and doing that completely different. It was a construction.

No, no, no, no. That house was burned out. That had been used for the fire department exercises and they leveled it and they built it from the ground up and they built it as a residence and then they came in and asked for special use permit. Mr. Mills. Yeah. Yeah. I think I think Mr. Point is the same. If Airbn Airbnb on the side. What is the village's report? Because I don't believe the planning commission can take it or find anybody. It is up to the village.

There should there should be a a a fee or a penalty for not registering and being caught that you're using it as such. Correct. Most communities that deal with these type of uses on a regular basis, they actually have them living in their general ordinances with a registration program under their business chapter. So the business chapter of your general ordinances, which is outside of your zoning ordinance, you can create your registration and all of that as well as create penalties

because right now we if if somebody popped up an Airbnb right there, we could say don't do that and they could say I'm going to do it anyways. And well, if we know about it, it's one thing. Yeah. Yeah. But yeah, there's no what is the penalty from I'm going to keep doing it. So I that was one of the things I I looked at too. And one of the municipalities um they required mandated in their ordinance that you must list your license number in the listing for the short-term rental. So they said you must list your license number and you must list um the maximum occupancy of your building.

And I think that would work both ways because we all heard stories where I went on vacation. Somebody rented my house up in the Airbnb while on vacation. It wasn't me renting it. If they didn't have that, what was your permit number? No, it's So then if they didn't register, I believe it was a $500 fine, municipal fine per day. That would be nice. That would be nice. Yeah. Well, I can see per day or per day while the lifting's up because you're like, "Oh, okay. I got to take it down to do the right steps. It's going to take me some time to do the right steps. As long as I pulled it off,

I'm I should be okay to not get fined as long as I'm doing the step to go back on.

So Amy and I were talking about some of this uh real quick and I think one of the answers is that we need to add it to our business section of our our ordinances and identify as a business making it a requirement to register as a business. And that way we can use first of all the uh fines that currently exist for not you know operating for operating a business without being permitted all those things but also in that place also incorporate what fines would be uh entail uh not registering it and we can uh we don't have to necessarily create the sausage tonight on that but if that's something we want to proceed on we can start drafting up examples to bring before you next time if that's something we're interested in. I agree. That's something we should proceed on.

Yeah, I like that. Okay. Yeah. Uh again, you know, it would go to our our charter ordinance committee and they would be the ones that would approve it, right? So it wouldn't really need to go up front, but we could still work on language and you know if that's something we want to we we do

something else that uh I made a note on my um cheat sheet here is I know we do talk about uh the night lighting and so on and so forth. um in sub the subsection D uh of the ordinance um where like for nuisance disturbances and things like that. Um I'm not sure that that is specific enough for how everyone is now hanging their draped lighting all over their backyards and decorating and things. Basically, in my opinion, for in your neighborhood, if you're going to have your neighbors all lit up all the time, it would be a nuisance for somebody next to you possibly. So, I thought something uh along those lines would need to be in there. Another thing that uh I'm assuming would be covered underneath um building codes, but we don't have anything in there specifying that there must be at least two exits for the structure that you're renting out.

Does there have to be two exits by default for like for what we consider a dwelling or house. Does it by default Anyway, I'm not absolutely sure. I don't think code says it has to. Yeah, I think I think an upstairs apartment. He's he'll comment that anyhow other than maybe have a emergency ladder. Two X's are required according to building code. [Laughter] Okay.

Um then the other thing we don't have listed in there is we do talk about smoke detectors and fire alarms. Um but we do not list anything regarding carbon monoxide textures. And that is would be part of the um the I've talked to the uh chief but also uh Kurt Nichki our assistant chief who does our like shortterm rental program

right they're required down like around furnace areas and things of that nature uh but I don't believe they're required up in a like a second story like up in the bedrooms or anything like It's just required around a source being like a furnace or hot water tank or things of that nature. Well, Michigan building code requires both. He's uh saying that we they are required smoke pickers and CO2. So according to vision building code so every floor carbon monoxide CO2 and CO2 and fire okay I according to Michigan building code so even I mean it's which is more stringent than ours

no that's the building code now is that for instance my old home is 120 years old I was going to say it's nice to have the requirements in your structure that's old right has not required that does not have current building.

So, can we can we inspect or enforce things on the inside of the house? If we say got to have a protector, have CO2 detector in your Airbnb. Yes. Yeah. When we do the as short-term rentals as or long-term rentals too. Um yeah, they so a long-term rental I think has to get inspected annually. It's either annually or two years two years and then short terms are every year then. So I think short terms short terms are twice six months. Every twice a year by annual every two years. for short term. I think it was uh two times a year.

All short-term rentals shall be reviewed and inspected on a bannual basis. G that was written incorrectly because I thought we were looking at twice a year. So, uh so maybe we have to semi.

Yeah, Jeremy is saying short-term every uh shortterm uh two times per year and longterm every two years. Um but if it's not So this is saying we'll be reviewed, inspected on a bianual basis by the zoning administrator. Um so I don't know if that's if there's a different one that speaking on like the fire inspections. No, like if you're renting your house out itself being a long-term rental there, it's uh bianual. You're um you know, it's every other year for long term.

But I thought we had down for short terms, it had to be every six months or twice a year. That's what it was. That's what our discussion, right? If that was in the motion, the ordinance could be just wrong. which is quite possible. So if we're looking at things that's a correction I think we should consider or at least clarification. Now, do you think is every six months? That's a lot.

So, we're building a uh a inspection uh like inspection program. In fact, we're like the first in the I think state or the country. They're using this new program called I roll uh inspection reports online and um they're you know, we don't have the capacity currently. We're building the capacity to uh like professionalize inspection program and to do it like really well. Um I would not I don't want to say that we are uh we're right Reena right there yet. I would rather have Kurt and Jeremy speak on that because they live it every day, but um I know that right now they're behind, but they're kind of they like having the ability to do it as often as needed here. So, I have a out of the box one that I'm hoping Amy can help with here for this. So, I feel like that a lot of the complaints I've always heard from family and friends about Airbnbs in an area is the impact to the neighbors that come into it, especially if it's like in lake communities or places with high volumes of traffic and with the wedding venues and so forth, there's a lot of volumes of traffic. So my question is is there a way like maybe for someone to be approved for a permit for an Airbnb, can you get like buy off from a certain subsection of your neighbors like like from like in my street for instance, if it's like Fenwick to Sherman or Sherman to whatever's down the road, can you say that like if you got 12 houses in that section, including your house, you would have to get like 60% buy off from those houses within that part on a petition before you turn in for a permit?

I don't I don't see any I mean, is it an acceptable use? is the answer like and like does it meet those criteria that the planning commission does it meet our master plan all of those things and like this is the board that this is the council decides those things sure and um it's I you know because that that's hard because what you what happens if that person moves sure

or or you know so like we that's why we got to have to just establish acceptable standards that across the board and it might be uh like we mentioned you know we they allow one per block or one per this distance. Um, and I that's I think that's the reason a lot of communities have had a hard time uh limiting them because they have to decide this language. Also, Michigan, I know that we're working on this and we're working on it like hard to do new language. There's been legislation that's been at the state level for a couple years now where they're looking at taking the our ability to control this out of the local hands. Um, and so and there's competing legislation that's trying to give us more So, and then uh like Airbnb is suing the city of Miami for you know overregulating. Uh and so you know I mean obviously we would be small potatoes probably not ever come to that for us but these are considerations are out there.

You don't ask you don't know. Yeah. So, one other limit I saw, um, again, Grand Rapids, they they put a limit on the number of units that are allowed to apply each year. So, they say you're allowed to apply X number and once that's once that number is done, boom, done. I think there's quite big, but I think theirs was 200 for example. So, we would if we have 200, we have a problem. That's when you would kind of remove the language again or probably kind of like a medical marijuana staff to run the lottery.

I see you could also boundary ass There's different ways to do it. You just have to tell us how you want to regulate it so that we can do we have any language. So if I got I went and got my Airbnb all legally signed up and then did it for a few months and it said I don't want to do it. waited two or three years. I'm like, you know what? I want to do it again. It seems like there should be a our language.

Yeah. A reinstatement process over, you know, when I was uh for emergency medicine, I had to renew things at a certain, you know, our registration is a annual registration, I believe, for for the use for businesses, for special You're This is a once and done. It's 50 bucks a year. No, I'm talking about the the fee and the like for inspections planted

rental inspection short-term by annually 140 rental short-term annual 50 bucks. So other communities what they'll do is they'll do the 50 bucks annual but then if you file it late there's a fee. So you could say, "Hey, you want to do it again? You owe us bunches of back money." I think every year you have to renew that. Yeah. 50 bucks.

I think the most helpful way to go forward from here is um because we could uh is really get the opinion of uh the commission like and as you guys have interpreted uh the master plan and the village like what what do you want to see from this like how what do you want to see limited and allow Amy, myself, Watson to kind of come up with some draft language that you could like review and say, "Hey, does this mean it rather than like I don't think we necessarily go line by line, but if there's, you know, big things that you want taken out or there's, you know, key objectives from this, if we're looking at limiting it, we're looking at um, you know, if we're limit looking at limiting it by zone, like, hey, we have no problem people doing it in CBD on the second story, that can be a free-for-all because that is kind of the expected use there." But in our, you know, in our uh residential areas, we want to really look at limiting it. So, you know, I guess what is your expectation for us? So, we can come back and like come up with some suggestions for that. Would you agree?

Can I ask some questions that might lead us to what we would be developing for you? So in terms of the village, are you looking to again have it be unlimited in the central business district for the second floor up? Does that make sense? I would say yes, except for the parking.

Parking is an issue. I will say, you know, you want people downtown, right? You want people to be frequenting these businesses. And if you're concerned about the residential neighbors and neighborhoods and of short-term rentals being in those, you really want to put them somewhere that has lesser impact on the residential neighborhood. So, really downtown is a great spot for them. I mean, here's the deal. If somebody's going to frequently use a place for this, they're going to try and figure out a place that the people are going to park because that's going to be a complaint and a reason why they're not getting people rerenting, right?

Because people are going to write reviews and if people write reviews and say, "I can't you're not going to find parking." Then, It's not going to work out, right? But but that's going to hurt the other businesses in our category downtown. Okay. So, okay. So, you don't want them downtown. I guess I No, I'm I'm saying we do want them for the upper areas, but parking right now, we have limited parking for the businesses in the first place where people can't find places to park to utilize the business aspect of the daytime.

What did we have for the short term that you could not park on the street? other than where you know it's allowed. And wasn't it also if for downtown they were supposed to be parking in the municipal parking lot? Well, we had tried to get the employers to make the employees. Yes. That also, but that doesn't happen either. you know, there's no ordinance or anything that says they have to um

there is um there is overnight parking space in the municipal parking lots. And so whether it's a short-term rental or a long-term rental or an owned apartment, um that's the overnight parking. So unless and there are a few buildings that own parking space um in the backs and so unless they specifically own parking space, it doesn't matter who's dwelling in the in the apartment, it still falls into the long the overnight parking. Um so I think parking with with that downtown scenario, it's almost a mute point because it's whether you're renting for a night or you're renting for a year, you still park in the same place.

So, the only argument I would have for that though is if I'm renting and I'm bringing family together, we're bringing more cars. So, in the short-term rentals, I could see them bringing more cars because they're just meeting up. They're all going to a wedding. they're all doing whatever they're going to do versus the one person that's renting a single room that just has one car for that for that rental.

But I think that when we're saying that though, it's kind of like, you know, you're you're kind of in in a stuck spot regardless. If we're going to choose one or the other, whether it's going to be taking the parking on the streets and the residential areas or working through that conflict in a place that we're already expecting I I think that that's a better choice personally just to unlimited that way and just press hard and and downtown's dead at night and that's where most of the people are going to be staying and parking is overnight.

The concern I have would be more around the wedding venues in the neighborhoods and around our recreation lakes. Um Bush Lake is where I have heard complaints from people that live there and that's where I think I do like every 500 ft or something or put some limit on how many could be around the edge of the lake.

We can't limit just as for because I know that Cheryl you'd mentioned it earlier. Um we can't limit usage of the on the on the village streets. We can't say hey you can't park here if you're like if I mean we can and we can't permit parking. We can't say you know only village resident because it's it's they're public roads or public streets you know people can park on them. can't, you know, make it so it's like only for the resident. Um, just, you know, just to be clear as we're going.

What we developed here though, I believe required a certain amount of off- streetet parking per person uh is already built into this for residential scenarios. So, you know, if you've got three bedrooms that hold you know, a total of six people, then you're you have to provide at least three or four parking spaces off street on your property. So, that is already kind of a restriction on what can and cannot happen. You know, if they have three people come over to visit them while they're there, they park on the street, that's on the street. Um but that was built into this um how many how many parking spaces you are required to have uh for that um for that premises based on the occupancy

plus plus that kind of gives a I mean I know this is not kind of the full objective of that but that also gives a safeguard to the to the B2B owner or the Airbnb owner that like I've suppinate some of our properties. You know, if you've got a 35 ft frontage, you are not going to be able to put four parking spaces in your yard. you know, your your home, your lot automatically disqualifies you from having an Airbnb because you don't meet the qualifications property wise.

So then, where's where's the parking on the short term? I don't see it. It was supposed to supposed to be in there. Um, actually, there was a table. There's supposed to be a table that goes with this. A table from what? for parking. Uh adding uh off. Let me see. Do you have one with the table?

Yes. So, actually just not to not to, you know, so it was in ordinance number 457 that was uh done in uh June of 2019. earlier this week or over the last couple weeks, I've actually been going through all of the previously uh completed ordinances that were codified and whatnot to verify. I was going line by line with them and I've noticed some of them that were like only partially codified and this was one of them. And so where the language was, but there was a table in there under use um and has business commercial short-term rental one space for three people up to the maximum occupancy capacity. That's what was approved by council, but yet it was not codified within it's still approved. It's still within our ordinance, but it's not been codified within the the the ordinance. So, it's just within our on our website right now. Um, it needs to go through the full cotification process. I don't This was approved in 2019. I don't know why.

Right. But this does not it does not state parking spaces on premise to for them to Yeah. I'm not sure how um I don't want to speak to how you what I'm saying is all right. Yeah, we got right out in front of the street here. You can park five cars across our lot area. You know, it's like that wasn't the intent. Mary Ray with her Airbnb across the street across over here. Has to meet certain parking requirements for her air um her bed.

Her bed and breakfast has a has a parking requirement. Typically in your parking section of your zoning ordinance, it states that the parking requirements have to be met on site. So there that would be in another section of your ord says that here's your requirement and in another section your parking section which is typically where parking requirements are which this would normally be. This is under the off streetet parking space. Then it'd be under this is a table within off streetet parking space. This table is this table is for off- streetet parking spaces. Minimum number of off- streetet parking spaces by type of use shall be determined in accordance with the following schedule. And it goes through. But you were saying the short term is not actually on the website.

It's on the website. It's not on the in that table. Yep. This table. Yeah, it should be. But it's not. That's And that's that's what I'm saying. Like the rest of the language was codified except for that table wasn't for some reason. And there's other ones that I've seen that it like just has like the uh the definition or the the term with no definition behind it. I've got I've been going through the charter and I've probably got three 400 things already and I'm only 50 pages in that need to be altered and it's a pretty thick book. Yeah. For one clarifi for one item for clarification. So when you say codified, council approved it. So it is yes it's been approved. So it is like this is still our standard to do but it's just not on the website. It's on the website.

This is the short-term rental part is on the website. It's on the website. it's not in the actual charter document. So if you go to our website and you go to new amended ordinances and you go to 457 is uh the one that this is under that it has this. So when what I did was it used to have 30 documents on there from then and I literally went through every single one to make sure every single letter that was put in there was done correctly and then if it was all done correctly I removed it out. So if you still see it in new and amended, that means that it hasn't been properly codified into it. So I left it on the website so it's still out there for the public to view as an amended ordinance.

I see something else for the parking area measures 157 146 and all the different funeral homes and single family homes, but there's nothing in there about he's saying that that's where it's missing, but it's not 456. It's 15 157 157.146B. Okay, perfect. I'll show you exactly how it Yeah, 146B.

So, to go back because I'm trying to figure out what we need to be drafting for you in the residential districts, R1A and R1B, do you want to put a percentage cap like other communities where they're only allowed 25% So, real quick, of all the zoned parcels of those zoning, do we want to see the map of where that district is? Those districts, we have it available. I looked I can

what I think would be the most conducive to help you land on your percentage if that's the route that you want to go is that we would get your assessing data, figure out how many units in each of those two zoning classifications you have, and then we would do some examples for you. If you picked 25%, you would have 50 short-term rentals throughout the entire R1A zoning district. If you picked 10%, you'd have such and such. We can do those calculations for you based on what you're looking for. If you want to cap them by percentage,

it sounds like you want to cap. You just have to tell me how to cap them. We would be able to do maybe a combination where a percentage not to exceed but also a limitation of proximity to each other. They have both. Yeah. Now, do we want to classify anything different if the owner is occupying it? I think I think there is a different if the owner is occupying it. That was my next question. So, I beat you then. Yeah. Let me Okay, so tell me what do you you want to a percentage and you want to see a proximity. Is that what you're asking? I think that would be

okay. So, you want a percentage per zoning district and then a feet apart. I would rather do feet apart versus block because a block can be 500 ft long and a block can be right. So, that's not really helpful. We're like 50 feet. for a village lot is 50 to 100 ft. 35t wide 35 because it's easier. Yeah. Around around the lake, most of lots are somewhere just shy of 100 wide. Just shy of 100. So 500 feet apart would be every fifth house. Every fifth house is that

I think that's I think 500 feet is a long way. I think it's bigger than you think. Yeah. Um, and we will also give you parameters on how to measure that typically line to lot because you don't want that to get to be too big for medical marijuana. Okay. So, and what are the thoughts on a uh number? So, if my So, for instance, if we come out and say we're limited to 25%, everyone's going to say submit now.

Do we want to cap it per year? So that would be a standalone like registration program that would be in your business licenses. Do you want that as well? Okay. So then that would be a separate section under your businesses.

So hold on. I want to go back to your zoning ordinance regulations. So let me make a note. Where that starts where that starts getting messy is

coming and going of established um permitted uses. All right. And now somebody decides, okay, they're no longer going to do it. All right. So now the village has that record and this parcel was taken up by the not any closer then type scenario but now they're no longer going to function that as a business. So then now they're removing themselves from that scenario. you know, basically now, you know, muddying up where someone else could be just a little bit greater than that distance apart, but now too close to somebody else that's was existing,

right? But if your goal is to limit these, that I don't see why that becomes an issue because really you've actually just created more of a limitation. And if you get a one-year license, you know, Say you do it for four months. Well, that license will expire after 12 months and then it's an available license anywhere in the district.

Now, the only potential I could see for one potential I could see for abuse right now. Our fees are 50 bucks a year. If someone wants to maintain their license, 50 bucks a year is not much. So they could just squat on it and then do what they want to do, which lock anybody else out from 50 bucks a year. If I hate Airbnbs, I can gladly pay a year. But that that doesn't hurt the village because they're not any different tax base. And also your village should assess their fees and $50 based on their staff time, their software time, all that $50 may not cover it. would pay for one inspection of the Airbnb.

Well, that's we were because again, it's not classified as a business yet. We're talking we're going to have to reclassify within our ordinance as a business, which is going to change how we do all of this. So, it like we can't really do compare about what our current rates are right now because we're redefining the whole program and how we're doing it. So, okay. So then do you want to require the primary owner occupy a portion of the structure that would limit these to just be to always have somebody on site? I don't think we can due to past.

Well, you can you can amend your ordinances at any point. What that means is that the the uses that are have already been approved that do not meet the requirements become nonconforming. And once those uses have lapsed for a year, etc., and they're not operating any longer, then they lose the non-conforming status. So, you can change your ordinances at any time to change how you want to do it. It just does create some non-conforming uses. So, okay. So, we're going to leave it open. I'm just I'm eliminating things that I have to work to. So we do not want So I'm not comfortable with putting that occupied restriction on there just in residential areas.

I'm not comfortable with that. So what is your concern with that? It it pretty much would bounce out Airbnbs period. There's only a small minority of them that are occupied by the owners. And I know, you know, I've stayed in a couple uh when we've traveled and I really don't want to stay in somebody else's bedroom in their home. If that's the case, I'm going to go find a relative to spend the night with, you know, I I'm not going to spend the night in a stranger's home.

So, I I agree with you. I'm not going to either, but as a neighbor of someone that has, for not, they're not Airbnb at my house, but if I live next door to someone that has an Airbnb that has a constant flow of people coming through, I would want to know that the owner is there because it's my house that they're partying right next to.

I I like that stance a lot just thinking about some of the scenarios that could, you know, could arise and I see what you're saying. We're going to have police, fire, whatever bad scenario we have somebody take care of that at least if there if you have a party next door the police medical emergency everything happens and we know but built into that license renewal annual renewal is um two um infractions and you lose your license you can work penalties on my list you me

license revocage revocation and fines and punishment. So or maybe maybe to add to that like a major like because I I see your point with it. I'm thinking to myself like if you have a transient population that is constantly moving in and out of like I

I know that if I was living next to one I wouldn't want someone on the property, they could essentially steal something from the property and then be gone, you know. So, like it's I guess that's where that brings up a really interesting point that if it was an owner, you know, that was there and could review it. Maybe that is resolved through penalties or some sort of anonymous people. They're going through Airbnb credit card. Airbnb has their own dispute resolution. They have their own Well, you're also making allow them to do this.

So, these are our neighbors though. These are this is our home. So, I mean they're they're guests coming into our area. And I I think you get a different type of person that does it that wants to spend you know a night in someone's house. I think Mr. when he goes out, I can picture him partying every night and that's why he doesn't want bangers out there. Drunken bras.

I I think where we would be overrestricting by making it requirement for the owner to be occupied. When you don't have AUDs and you don't allow them in accessory structures and stuff like that, you will decrease the number of short-term rentals exponentially because people aren't going to want to stay in other people's houses. If you were a community that allowed accessory dwelling units, then you can easily see people doing this because they're living on their site. They want an additional source of income. So, they're going to renovate the upper floor of their garage and they're going to rent that out as and then they're on the site which is nice because then they can watch things but until you start allowing those it gets a little bit hard to really for this to be a business person. So um okay that answers my question. Um and then you gave us some additional direction for some language that you currently have which was maybe incorrect or you need some more clarification on. Um I I think I have what I need to potentially get you something. It sounds like the bulk of these regulations you're okay with. Do you still want to handle them as special land uses?

What are our options? Well, here. So, you're going to have this registration program and this potential licensing program that's going to live in your general ordinances that's going to be reviewing them on an annual basis and then making sure they meet the requirements, right? The 25 ft or the 500 ft separation, the 25 percentage, all that. So, that would live outside of the zoning ordinance, right? And so really, you almost don't need that additional step of the special land use because you're going to have somebody reviewing them all annually and making sure they meet the requirements.

So, it's up to you. I mean, it it adds an additional step. It does have the mailings that go to the surrounding neighbors, but if you typically approve them anyhow, maybe it's better to just let them be a registered business and go through that process.

My experience was with the house on Railroad Street and I came on the commission after they built the house and they came here to get their special use permit and the neighbors were all here for the public hearing and they're all grumbling because Why are we doing this public hearing? We all know this is going to be an Airbnb. And it just did feel kind of like a charade in some respects. I like the idea if it's a business, treat it like a business, operate like business. The courts have upheld that these are commercial operations. Okay?

So, you can very well lean on that. And the other thing about, you know, a special land uses, if something meets the requirements of your ordinance and and whatnot, you do have to approve it. So, yeah, having neighbors come out and speak against it, even if it meets the requirements, unfortunately, as a board member, your hands are tied and and you have to listen and and unfortunately, you can't always go in their favor if the requirements are made. So, so if that's the case, is that what you're inclined to do so that I can also

I agree with that. The only thing I I have a little bit of issue with what she said with the mother-in-law and stuff that are attached if you have an eldering in place and stuff if it's has a certificate of occupancy. I don't have an issue with, you know, your detached mother-in-law suite after she passes, you know, and becoming an Airbnb type of thing. But that has to be classified as a multif family dwelling before you can even use that as mother. So

you need to do other amendments. You don't have a whole different that's a whole different than what we're talking about here. Okay. So I think I I have what I need to get you something and I can work with Tim on it or if Tim's going to take the lead. We can review it however you want to do it. Um so I think do we want anything to for um I did like the license on the listing so we know if so for instance we will give them a license number

and we would say you must put this number on your Airbnb listing. If you don't have it on your listing, we know there's something a foot you're not registered yet and you're paying a fee.

Yeah. However, and then we had um right now I don't think I think right now the onus is on the village to go out and do the inspection. Can we put the onus on the homeowner? I understand. So, for instance, I'm pretty I'm pretty confident there are short-term rentals that have been over two years without an inspection. Okay? So, in theory, they're operating without an inspection.

Right? Now, I'm I'm assuming that the village would say you must do an inspection, and they're not getting a letter, so they're not doing an inspection. I would say the person knows they need an inspection. if they're not getting an inspection, even if the village hasn't notified you. So they're so they would be responsible for like coming to the village and having inspect whoever's designated to inspect it come in and do that however however it needs to happen. Something of that nature. So

that gets that gets kind of cumbersome because I have a couple rentals and you had it inspected January this year. Okay. And now you put in, you send back in your fee to have it redone, but now the inspector doesn't come out until June or July. Now, I have to keep track of of what's going when. That's a good point. I That's That's a good point. Yeah, that that doesn't work. So, are you saying then that it would be the If we're going to require a license, that's software, that's data input, it pops up automatically, you send out the stuff, okay,

for renewal, and maybe maybe or um in something with the language that says that your inspection must be done prior to the renewal of your license. Okay. You'll build all of that into your registration program. For example, I I started an entire rental registration program for the city of Brighton. Had to implement write the ordinance, etc. And we use BSNA. All of the parcels that were renters rentals were easily notified through assessing records. And we were able to create notification etc. that were sent out to applicants. Hey, you need to register. Hey, you need to get your inspection, etc. Hey, you're in violation. So, it's easy to build all of that into your

Well, and I think it's also going to be easier for us to add it since it's going to be a business and we're going to be able to like for you to get renewed. The onus is on you to do timely inspections, you know. So, we can add all that. And um do we want to talk about uh a failure to renew fee or is that part of the ordinance or is that well failure to renew meaning you're still operating but you didn't you did not submit your paperwork and pay your fee or maybe you're not operating and you don't want to have to go through the whole process again.

I would say I would say because there is a lot of like variables to this I would say let uh Amy and myself like draft up And then you can like look at and say, "All right, I think we're missing this portion of it." Because I think a lot of that will be covered in the language that you know, the standardized language that we're going to kind of find. Well, I I think with where you're going with that, my opinion would be all right, your renewal date was this and here's your 30-day grace window. If you're late, there's a, you know, penalty fee that goes along with it for being late, whatever reason it is, right? Yeah. And if you don't renew, you're just done.

Well, no, you should always renew, but you're but you're operating with an expired license, right? Just like anything. Do another one. I saw bring this last one up. Um, sub Airbnb. So the only person that was only able to so for instance I'm leasing from somebody uh as I have a year lease am I allowed to Airbnb that would be part of your lease. So translation creative if you are renting a home that is between you and the person you're renting from your land contract or your

by default you typically know you cannot sublet and Airbnb is considered subleting. So that should be part of your lease with whoever you're paying. But we could as the municipality say that's not allowed or you have to you have to say it's it's it's authorized by your landlord. And to that extent we could also require them to have insurance. I like the insurance thing. Um if they were doing a land contract there you'd be in a sticky wicket because they're not owning but they also don't have It's it's a muddy water. Um I would

it would be very hard for us to like enforce or regulate that when it would be incumbent on the person that's renting it out to have provisions within their license to enforce that that gives. And typically also when you submit an application for anything, it typically requires owner signature. So if you're trying to submit something and your landlord says, "I'm not signing this. This is against your lease." Then this certifies that you were the owner of this property. I mean, we do that with already with business registrations that you like even if you're uh getting a business registration, you still have to get the owner's signature on that business registration.

Anything else before I move on? Okay. All right, we've beat that pretty good. Yeah. Number nine, training. It was It was good. All right. I know that we've seen documentation out regarding budgets and training and things like that. So, uh there's no training as of right now. Um this an opportunity to let Mr. Hopper talk about what he went through.

Yeah. So um yeah, if you want to briefly give an overview of it and I will talk a little bit about um some of the other opportunities for getting it covered the cost uh recover.

Sure. So I took the training through it's a Michigan State University Extension program called citizen planner training. It's there are several options. I did the online option to take the training and I found it to be very worthwhile. I I learned a lot especially in preparation because I I wanted to come into this role as educated and and make you as my fellow commissioners feel like someone that sat in the seat actually did their diligence before coming in. And so I did I took that training. I went through it. I learned a great deal that I would have never known coming in to this being somebody that's new to a planning commissioner role. I learned a great deal about it. It was really well put through. There's there's videos. There's actual exercises where it makes you even go through your own ordinances in comparison to what you're learning through. They call it Spartyville is the

Sparty. Yeah. Is the the um which as a U of M grad just kills

but it's So I went through Spartyville and did necessary trainings. Uh, but I found it I just felt so much more prepared coming into this and having constructive dialogue and hopefully you guys all felt the same way that my contributions were much more worthwhile tonight, my first meeting, which I wouldn't have felt that way if I didn't take the training. Um, it was the citizen planner online was $250 for the initial training and as will There are some additional classes and courses you can take that are a little bit more intense like a master citizen planner course, but if any of you are looking to to take the course, I highly recommend it.

And so the $250 cost, I already talked to our insurance cover uh our municipal insurance. A lot of insurance covers cover can cover some of the expense. So, I've already they have uh once you've completed the program and I'll uh Jared will be my first test subject on this, we fill out an application and they will cover because it's a risk reduction by having a good trained planning organization, they'll cover 75% of the that cost. So, that would leave like what 62 $65 for the individual or the municipality to cover. So, at least that we know that we'll reduce some of those costs right away. Um but you have to have a certificate. They have to pass it first and then they'll they'll uh recoup that expense. So, okay.

Any other questions? Okay. It's fantastic. Moving on to reports. ZBA. Do we have anybody on ZBA? No meeting. Okay. the quilt shop. Yeah. See, I ran out of middle.

So, what was my ignorance? What was done right there? Well, I know where I know where you're talking about, but it was a variance that was it was brought to planning commission first and then they and you guys gave it a conditional approval with the variance the variance that you guys uh you guys CDA approved the variance that you parking lot I think that's right. So,

I know Jeremy's not here, but then I noticed I they we still haven't seen anything done with the parking area. Yeah, I can't remember. I think they have six months to do. Yeah, I think they got a provisional C of completion of certain things within a certain time. All right. I just Okay. All right. DDA.

So, nothing. Okay.

So, I did ask President Brandon why we were bringing up the U short-term rental thing. Um, and I didn't think it had been approved that long ago. Why are we bringing it up again? Why do you want to see it? And she was she basically relayed that it was um the whole the whole ordeal with the special assessment district kind of touched her with the the residents not being able to plan ahead and she was thinking that people be getting priced out with a bunch of Airbnbs coming in. So, she was trying to tighten that up a little bit. So, um, just passing that on of why we're doing that. And I I I personally think it's kind of a good um good thing to see us working on ordinances because this was the first ordinance I've worked on here and I've been on a couple years now. So um I'm looking forward to it. And our village manager has mentioned he has a a sheet of all the ordinances that he thinks need to be adjusted or something's wrong with them. So hopefully we can be working on those.

A lot of it's like just capitalization, grammar, spelling errors. um some of our larger things. One example I'll give you because it'll probably on the next agenda is that we we created new zoning provisions for allowing marijuana facilities and all these things, but we never repealed our uh prohibition chapter 117 on not allowing uh marijuana facilities. So that's still in our our ordinance that we're prohibiting marijuana facilities while allowing all these other things. So that will probably be on our next agenda for council is to repeal that uh thing in our ordinance. talking on both sides of our mouth. So, yeah, I thought that was in the wording of the approval of the thing, too.

I thought so, too. I looked through it. I'm having some other people look through it, too. But it doesn't specifically repeal the language in 117. And you can see because when all the other language has been codified, 117 still remains prohibited prohibiting those kind of facilities. that that's one of many things, but that's a bigger one, I guess.

Got some more for you. You ready for this? All right, here we go. Uh there there has been talk of cityhood. Um our village manager has been working on some presentations for that and uh documentation for um sharing with the the residents. And if anyone has any questions on that, um go to Tim. So, I think he's a great person to talk to about. It's on the back desk back there too on your way out if you want to read it. If you have any questions, um finance committee is also this was this one I think is a big one. So, I'm just going to share it even though it's it hasn't been before the the council yet. Uh staff and the committee members are working on modifications to our water rates. So, hopefully we'll see some good things with that.

Can I ask you one thing? Is the modification going to have anything to do with what John L stands up and talks about meeting. So, there's a couple things he talks about. The first one is uh Bolt, which says we can't do it because it's illegal. So, I did look up and I read the opinion piece um from the appeal. So, three judges ruled basic. Now, don't quote me on this watching because it's not exact. Um essentially the reason what we're doing is legal is um we were granted the we were granted the authority for bonds before Hedley amendment came out and because we were granted the authority before Headley even if it was attacked which it's not considered a tax Headley says if it's legal before this amendment it's legal now.

Okay. So that's that's one of the things. The other thing is um he will talk about usage rates, right? And um basically he always says big users pay the same amount for bond debt as small users. So um yeah, I think that's hopefully one thing we can we can tackle. Okay. Thank you. We'll see. Anything else? What else should I say? Anything? Uh let's think. It's my wife's first day of school today. So, congratulations, honey. And also, I do have a picture, actually. Yes. So, she's going back to school. That's great.

She's going to be a nurse. She's an accelerated nursing program right now. So, yep, she's been pick up the pace. I I have picked up the pace. All right. Alrighty. um parks commission. I don't believe we have anybody on that and I don't think that they've had anything that I'm aware of. Um nothing uh nothing I think that would pertain to do they have anything to do with?

Yeah, I mean yeah Sarah Sarah McKenna is uh you know the chair of the committee and you know we're doing that holiday September 6th. Come out have a good time free hot dogs. Okay, moving on to commissioner and staff comments. Okay,

I have a question on Oakwood Street. We approved um that set of condominiums and their um description said that they were going to have black shutters and we happened to be driving by the day the guy was installing the white shutters and Jim wouldn't let me jump out of the car to tell him they were supposed to be black. So my question is who makes sure that they do what they said they were supposed to because the white ones look crappy and like are we supposed to be the eyes and call Jeremy and say, "Hey, they're putting up white shutters when they're supposed to be black or how does this work?"

Well, yeah. So they they should get in sight inspection and I can check on the journey and see what the plan is and how they usually handles those. And and is color something we should be I mean it's nice if I if I not mistaken yeah they're black the shutters well it's black doesn't say yes it says black in the description it says that they were going to be prevanished black shutters but if I'm not mistaken as long as the colors fall within our color schemes we really have no say

so they're white Yeah, I I don't uh you know that would be uh yeah, I don't think as long as it meets the color schemes with that are established with our ordinance um and it's been approved by on the um the building permit,

but Jeremy can check. But yeah, I I think as long as it falls within our color scheme pallets, we can't hold them specifically to that color that they call out. It's like you gave us a specific list that said these were going to be prefinished black shutters. So if we're saying, "Okay, you don't have to do black." Do we say, "Okay, you don't have to do the stone facade and you don't have to do this." I mean, where do you draw the line? They could always request an amendment to Jeremy's department and maybe it's something minor that could be handled administratively depending on what your zone.

Yeah. And I don't know how much we actually shutter colors and things like that. Like I know even though they may brought it before us, that might not be something we have a preview on, you know, like determining that. So that that's something I have to So that's what I'm trying to find out. Do you do you make them stick to what they say they're going to do or do you let them go off and do something else and how far off they get to go? Because we did have that discussion about the uh the waste recept waste recepticle behind the the scooters coffee, I think it was. And what if they just change it to something else? approved. Do we not have a say in that?

We have a say regarding um materials. All right. But not necessarily color. Um as long as it falls within the pallets of our colors. Okay. To my understanding.

Richard, um I have a question about the turning. uh at um Marathon. Marathon. Any time frame on that? I met with them at 4 PM today. Yeah,

I met with them. I'm meeting with them at 9 a.m. on Tuesday and we're on site and we're going to go over it. Um they are they've requested or we're working with um so next year we we're uh the road commission is modernizing that intersection. They're going to put like they're going to do ADA. They're going to do like a new a new lighting system. Uh they're completely modernizing it. So, as they're doing the turn lane within the permit that, uh the road commission is doing, they want to make sure that it meets all those criteria so they don't have to redo the work. And so, um we talked to uh Marathon today. We're moving. Uh we're going to try to like make sure the road commission is part of that conversation on Tuesday. Um, and yeah, they're they're they're they could be ready to open as a business. They're not going to meet the occupancy the CO uh certificate of occupancy stuff, but they they're about ready within like a week except for that turn lane. And so, um, they have to get that turn lane done. They want to start working on it, but they have to get their permit from, uh, Oakland County to start that work. And that's where they're sitting right now. And we're going to try to help make sure that permit process gets started and it's done right. That took forever even to get it that far in the first place. Do you know in my chamber documents um from the 1940s there is a letter that

you were in the chamber in 1940s. Chamber sent to the um to M Dot requesting a curbing be put in that intersection because cars were taking that curve that turn so fast that they were hitting the pumps. So to think that we're putting in a turn lane at this point, you know, 80 years later is kind of interesting. An official. Yes, an official tour. Lori, just wanted to say thanks to everybody.

Thank you. Sure. Thank you, sir. I do want to welcome the overachiever. I mean, Mr. He's just giving you competition. Yeah. He's trying to show us all up by coming in with the education ready to go. All prepared. Who is this guy? Who is he? No. Welcome. Uh uh I have nothing. Thank you. That's it. Huh? Yes, sir.

I have one more general question if we have time. I just wanted to know about Andy's place and the historic commission and how does all that work? I mean, I feel bad that whatever is happening, they don't have the right windows and this and that and do we have anything to do with any of that? I can talk about it during my comments. Okay. So, okay.

Um, let me finish. I guess I had two questions. um where couple meetings ago I had asked Jeremy to look into the parking at the Premier Coding there at the corner of Sagena and Rosette where they had changed hands um because there there's not adequate parking currently for the occupancy level of the building. Um they're way they're way undersized in their parking area. Um plus they park across the street which is a piece of parcel they own by the railroad tracks, but there's also the apartments right next to there. So that area is not screened from from their vehicle views and things. Um because Like I say, they they're parking on grass in their side lot, which is not permitted. So, you know, that needs to be addressed because every time you drive by there, it's going to be one of these situations where, well, this company's doing it. Why Why do I have to follow the rules?

And I don't and I I don't know the specific case, and I don't know, Jeremy, you know, he's still watching, but um he'll have to update the committee next time on that. I would just say like obviously, you know, the way it's written in the if it's a non-conforming use, if they submit a building permit for anything, then they have to bring it back up to uh to conforming standards. So, I don't know the specifics on this. I'll have to have Jeremy speak on it.

I do know he mentioned something to me about he has been in conversation with them. Um hopefully I haven't seen the vehicles on the grass as much lately because have changed that um and is working through some things with ideas in conversation. Can I ask what businesses? It's Premier Codings. It's right on the corner of Sagenov Street in Rosette. It's that great big building right by the Battle Alley Group. Okay.

And so if you go up Rosette just before you get to the railroad tracks on the right hand side, they've got a little sliver of land and they're plant putting a whole bunch of um I think that's what you're talking about stored over there. But I do know that Jeremy's been in constant contact with them and you'll have an update available next next time. Um I think that's about it. Everything else they finally got that going pretty good on the uh other marijuana dispensary. So that's been a long time coming. Are they going to be open by the deadline?

Hopefully. I mean they're they're you know the the only thing that's been holding them up were some u previous easements um that we kind of had to assist and get taken care of those taken care of. So the for storm drains uh and got them taken care of. They're helping out uh with some of the other businesses providing the storm drains as well including our fire department. Um so uh looks like we're moving ahead pretty well with that. So

okay that's all I have. So, uh, with with Andy's place specifically, so it went in front of the HTC, um, previously HDC said, "Yes, you have to do these like three windows in this style." When and Andy hired an uh, an engineer to do it and they didn't do it. And so, and that's kind of where it was at. And so right now they she's been told basically you have to bring it back up to conforming standards or you know bring us a uh you know give it you know like just be the engine the the architect did the wrong thing or the people that you hired to do do it did the wrong thing. They need to correct this. And that's kind of where we're at right now. And that like whether or not she needs to take legal action against the the the person that did it wrong or not that's out of our hands. But what we do is we have a historic standard that they have to meet and unfortunately that she, you know, that they had a bad situation with this uh particular person that did the wrong thing by them. And so that's kind of where it sits. And um although we want to be able to help out, we also need to preserve our HTC and do all that. So that's kind of where we're sitting with that. And we're, you know, we're working with her as much as we possibly can while also preserving the things that we need to do within our ordinance. Um, and then the the only other thing I was going to update, I think we've talked about a lot of things about city hood, all these things. Um, and eventually I'll want to do a presentation uh to the planning commission on it. Not tonight, but like to talk about like how that would kind of change with our charter and things if we were to ever get to that point. However, the one thing other thing I was going to add that I had to add to our uh our our ordinance which we didn't have before is we're required to have a construction board of appeals um uh by the state because we have our own building uh code that we enforce. We're required to have a construction board of appeals. We've never had one. And so uh so in the next council we will uh I believe there will be an item that will be um ordinance updates um creating a

construction board of appeal with five members. Um, and that specifically is when you have a um a an issue like the building officials came in and they said this building isn't structurally sound or whatnot and you believe the interpretation is incorrect that the uh building officials did, plumbing inspector, whatnot is where you can go to appeal that decision. Um, and there's all kinds of restrictions on it. I mean anyone can appeal but I mean it's in it's in the same vein uh of you know like what the ZBA does and such but that will be another organization we're going to be looking for people that have you know uh you know building inspection experience architecture those kind of things that would want to participate in that. Um so be a five looks like it'll be a five member board one of those being a council leaison. uh they can't be village employees and we're looking at if we can actually open it up rather than having like a village residency requirement have a open county residency requirement that will allow us to have like a larger pool of like experienced people to pull in and help us interpret some of these codes that we that might seem a little more vague. So, but that's kind of where we're sitting on that and still getting the the language down on that. But I just want to let you know that that is another big thing and that and that kind of could affect, you know, not affect but uh uh assist or amplify what you your your board does. So,

all righty. Language has already been written. We're just uh got to get approved. All right. From there, we'll move on to public comments again. No one in the audience. Let's adjourn this thing. Exactly. That was a little fast. Not bad. Not bad.