Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, call this meeting to order. We'll begin with the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Uh well, um introduction of commissioners. Um I thought Chris wasn't going to be here, but I'm happy that he is. So, I'm I'll scratch that off the agenda. And uh um well, why don't we just go around the room and so Ted can have a a refresher course on names.

Jean Kapper, Cindy Vanler, Dave Wallace, Va Hunt, Chris Ford, and Tadren. Very good. Um are there any additions or corrections to the agenda? Motion to approve. Second. All in favor say I. I. Um, we have minutes from June or July. July. Yeah. We didn't have any June, didn't we? Well, we could we didn't have any business in September and then we couldn't get a quorum in October or

No, wait a minute. August and September we didn't meet. Okay. Well, we we didn't have any business in August and we couldn't and we couldn't get a quorum in September. That's why our minutes are so dated. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? I think we already approved. Oh, could we have another meeting? What did we just do? Okay. There a motion to approve. I move. So move support. All in favor say I. I.

Okay. Minutes are approved as written. We'll give you that autograph. Um public comment. Well, the audience is not chosen showed up tonight. Uh so we will and I assume there's no one on the owl out there in TV land. double check, but no, I'm in.

So proud of myself for even remembering that fact. Um u we don't have any new business. U moving on to old business. Um there's been a question about the uh terms of office of uh planning commissioners and whose term is we think some of us may be up now we're not sure and so uh BATA and I have been working with the clerk um and our current plan of attack is to try to find the oath book. I actually I don't know who got your email or not, but do you did you get information? I found back from 2018.

Oh, so um three of us are 2026. I'm the only one that's still on the board from here, but depending on who you took over, you can trace it back and see when your um term is up. Um I 2026 at this point is all the two-year terms and then there's threeear terms and those would be in 2027. Well,

they should have gotten renewed last year. I just wrote it down here. This is supposed to be 204. So threeear terms is 2027. Two year terms is 2026. But I don't know if we've done anything since 2018 to actually like renew people. Well, I think I think the oath book will be our best source of information because that I believe the oath form has such and such a day to so

yeah I joined in 2020 2021 maybe wearing a mask probably. Do you know who's Were you uh replacing someone in the middle of a term or Right. Yeah. Well, this was in 2018. I think this is the last time that we actually did anything with this. All I know is that I ran for trustee and didn't make it and the next day I got called and asked to be on the planning commission. You think it was 2020? That's when the election was. Yeah. Yeah. And I believe David Gleason filled Rob Johnson's unexpired term. Okay.

And Ted, you you just filled a an open spot. Yeah, probably. So, when you took your oath, what I don't know if it was a two-year or a threeyear, we'll figure it out. We're getting there. You have any recollection? Oh, I don't. Okay, we'll tell. So that's I came up with sometime in the fall winter of 23 and I don't know if I was filling a term or it was

yeah I mean between what we know and but I haven't taken an oath I don't think probably five years I mean I took the original one but I haven't right I don't I don't think you have to take an oath again just because you're reappointed. Yeah, I think you're right. I don't can't imagine. That's a good question for near and far friends tomorrow for our clerk. Just why uh she Jennifer's speaking at near and far friends. Yeah, election about elections going back to the the oath of the placements. But anyway, we'll figure out

that is true. I don't think that will answer the question. It'll just say when we started. We can start to narrow it down anyway. We'll get there. Did everybody get that? Cuz I thought I sent it to everybody. Do you have a What is it? It's just like it was a It showed the terms a new computer, but we don't know. You know, you're the only one on this list who's still here. But at least we know in 2018 everybody was starting. I must like every six years it must all everybody must end at the same time. Stag threeyear terms.

Yeah. But that doesn't which is kind of odd too. It's got 2018 for every single one of them and you don't want everybody to expire. You would think to make copies of it. No. There's uh this one's kind of written on but he's got 2018 to 2011. It's 2024. I'm sure. Or 21, I guess. Or is it 2008 to 2011? No, because it's only three years. It was supposed to be 2021. Jim Trrell 18 to 21. This is just when your term ends. Oh, anyway, we got to find the book.

Okay. Well, anyway, we got a little seed. Um um there was a uh a request from from the public about looking into a what I'd call a dark sky ordinance uh which refers to lighting conditions. Um and uh I looked through our ordinance and had a um didn't you know, basically kind of says, well, lighting shouldn't be glaring, but it doesn't make any standards to it. Uh, I know the uh portage point in SUP uh makes reference to uh trying to adhere to dark sky lighting standards. Um be the only standard they do adhere to, right? Um and so the village um just adopted an ordinance and so when we first brought this up it was suggested well why don't we look at the villages and try to mirror it since you could cross the street and be into the township and we just soon have the ordinances kind of mesh uh and u I mentioned at yesterday's township board meeting and uh um got a lot of well what about this what about this and I didn't have answers because I didn't have the ordinance in front of me um but uh one of them was I assumed that this would be more towards residential districts and commercial

what about egg um well to answer your first questions uh non-residential. Yeah,

single family and two family would be exempt probably from this really going to regulate. It's difficult to regulate that. You really don't need to. It's kind of more designed towards non-residential uses. Uh um and then uh agriculture. Um well, if it's a it's a certified commercial operation for agriculture, they examine any uh you know from from the zoning as long as it follows the the um uh general accepted management practices for agriculture. But um I'd have to pull it up and see if there's at the end of that ordinance there is it says it's exempt. I mean residential's exempt from this I believe.

Right. I was thinking more of the agriculture. I can't remember if there's anything in there about the village as a ham agriculture. Is there a particular problem anywhere someplace in the village? Are they looking to exempt that? Well, Supervisor Meister brought it up because he said he has a hallogen light that shines 150 foot circle on his on his property. And I don't think that's really what the dark sky ordinance had intended. Uh uh

well if you can even in a residential area I think we wrote the villages ordinance that if it can be determined that it is in fact glare even for residential you can take it you can take action on it but you wouldn't have to necessarily require you wouldn't require that the homes have all sharp cut offs uh light fixtures in for like a single family home because I think most home single family homes probably have something similar to a carriage lights at the front door around a You know, you didn't want to step into that. I light up my flag, you know, at the Mhm. I don't know if you ever seen it. That's a pretty good size flood light.

It says single family and two family residential lighting is exempt. Doesn't say anything about a really neighbor asked me to turn it off on the party on the dock. card. Well, and which I do if they request

and there there are uh they another thing they brought up is should there be a um a time when when your light gets shut off um on a timer like 11:00 at night or 10:00 at night uh so that people don't have to have the light shining in their bedrooms. Yeah, there is a provision in there um that says all lighting except for security lighting would need to be extinguished. I think it's by I think it's by 11 p.m. Um

that's in the non residential. I mean some people might want that lighting for facility. But then were they thinking even like like single family residential to to extinguish that? I um I mean that's what that's our decision where where we're going to where we would recommend applying it to. No, but what were you saying you would question that? Were they with the I was I was questioned on on agricultural land.

Okay. Both with the lighting being extinguished at a certain time. No, no. U whether whether the ordinance would apply to an agricultural property. Um that was the first thing. That was the first thing. And then the second one was was somebody just brought up the idea that that lighting should be u have a there should be some kind of a sunset law to it. But but was the person who brought that up also saying that there should be some type of sunset time on residential or was it just I think it was just in general. Okay. Okay.

So for so so for the villages for commercial outdoor lighting fixtures have to be turned off between 11 between 11 p.m. and sunrise. Uh except for those used for security purposes. Not negative, but that's not residential. I mean, one could argue that some residential might consider security purposes as well. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Beach gets pretty dark at night, you know, where I live. You know, a lot of people going to the channel. Mhm. I don't think you're going to want to try and regulate single family residential lighting. It'll be a nightmare.

Yeah. I mean, I I looked at some other places um and they were like a paragraph, you know, and we've got already if we adopt this, it's one, two, three pages, you know, versus a paragraph at some larger actual place or township. So, I think this is plenty uh regulated. Yeah. I mean, and there's currently add egg that is a non-exempt. Was was that was that the was that the purpose of the question was to exempt a

well I didn't exactly understand the question anyway because you know if you had existing lighting the ordinance a new ordinance wouldn't affect existing lighting anyway. So um um he had a light though you said that charge and he was concerned about that. Yeah. And now, okay. So, okay. So, we're talking about single family. It's like a single family residential use in an area zone for agriculture. We're not talking about exempting agricultural uses. No. No. No. Is that like in a resident? It's in his yard. It shines over his front yard.

I gotcha. Okay. So, again, that could be considered security if we Yeah. Yeah, it would be non-conforming anyway, even if they adopted the words. I mean, because it's existed.

You want to just let it go? I was just wondering would somebody mentioned the lighting at Langland. So, yes. would that

and I've seen other posts about about what can we do about the lighting at uh not referring to this community but other communities uh the lighting at the township hall that's greater than everybody else's and and uh never it never goes out uh and uh [Music] that would probably just be another exempt use. You know, some place like Langdenham Park, you don't want to turn the lights out. You don't want to make it attractive for Well, that's security. I mean, it allows for security. Yeah. So,

so are the lights at Langland, are they flood or are they directed downward? They don't go there at night, but telling you the truth, I'm like, I mean, if if anything else, the village and both the township should walk the talk. Yeah. Yeah, you know, they'll tell everybody else that they have to, you know,

there is something about that and I wish I could it I do believe that they don't that they are not tilted down that there was the idea that they that those were interrupted the night sky the ones at land. I mean over time I mean we could we could replace those or if can they be angled down or they just kind of could they be angled like that or they like testing pictures they're just like that

and that may have been where the concern came from because Langland Park is a a nice place to go look at the evening sky right and

yeah I don't know if you saw the the news article but tonight you know it's supposed to be a good night for Northern Lights. [Music] So, are we just going to put this on hold? And I mean, because if we were to do anything, we'd have to send it to Tom Greer and have him review it. And and you know, I I'd just assume not spend township money for something that we're kind of scratching our heads over and somewhat lukewarm on.

If it's lukewarm, forget it. You know, well, I mean, you don't need the burden. What are some of the other comments from the board members? I mean I mean, do they think we should move forward? I mean what I asked the village council is we're looking at an ordinance amendment is this what you want you know because you know don't send us down a path to do all this work and then said okay well well we really didn't want that anyway you know I mean so are they somewhat supportive of it is it are they no I don't think I don't think they really are okay u and uh um was it just Dave or I mean I wasn't at the meeting last night so I don't know

well I don't think I got any other comments other than other than Dave's. Um, and uh I did mention, you know, that um I know Chris, you did a survey of the of the village to see what issues there were in the village that would be affected by your proposed ordinance. And I think you told me

no they were all most of them were in compliance except when I walked by the fires and I you know even even you know easy mark you know when I when I'm standing out on the sidewalk along Main Street measuring uh the foot candles and even then you know they were within they were just under you know 10 foot candles

you know for for comparison purposes. um you know like a full moon you know like we had was it a few days ago when it was really bright that that'll measure I think about 34 candles you know so 10 is can be it can be it can be bright so when you look right at the light you know the source it can be bright but if you kind of turn away and look you know another way a different direction and that doesn't seem to be quite as bright as looking right at the source So, you're feeling the board was not supportive based on Dave's comments?

I had the feeling that the board was not didn't really give uh anxious uh agreement to moving forward with it. I would comment that that this is very relevant to the village because it is commercial. Yeah. This is really 99% or commercial and you know so it's maybe not even as relevant to the township. Well, the township has it has some asma marine. So it would apply to that. It would apply to commercial.

It doesn't really apply to residential. It would apply to a new business like Shaes if it ever opened. Yeah. And then they may not have realized that really this is primarily focused on commercial slide to the to the fairgrounds if nothing ever happened there unless the county was exempt. Well, I was kind of thinking, you know, future uses. So maybe maybe they understood wishful thinking more what this would impact. um that might help them. So, let me clarify.

All right. And I'm not going to suggest moving it on to Mr. Greer. Uh, and we'll just keep it in our back pocket to if it we get a lot of we do a survey sometime and and we hear about it, maybe we'll revisit it and and maybe address a little bit more residential if you know and I think we'd have to just commercial.

We'd have to see what it's pretty hard to embrace a dark sky in a residential district. I mean, everybody's got their even even uh interior lighting is going to disrupt the flight of the birds.

So, okay, moving right along. Um um BATA brought up um accessor the accessory building ordinance which is 1018 and some legality issues and I'm going to let BA address this because she knows she's been studying. So did nobody get that email either this morning? Are we taking Yeah, I got Are we talking ADUs accessory dwellers? We talking accessory. Well, dwelling. Okay. Isn't that 1018? No, I think 1018 1018 is the accessory. But remember, I think

Jody brought up an inconsistency in the language. All right. So, let me Yeah, you said 1018. Get the one that we have now. Guest house or second dwelling on a parcel. Yeah, this is the one that I was talking about. Okay. And it does not allow it, but So I uh it does not allow what does not permit a second dwelling. What we have now is not correct. This ordinance would the 1018 would allow

except as stated in this section it says. So I printed this to help as I don't if I can you guys share or uh you I have it I can just look at it. Yeah, that's okay. Yeah, I got color which I didn't realize till just now. Isn't that what this is? I have it on my computer, too. Yeah, this was Mary Riley's comment. Yes. Yes.

So, I took her comments and I inserted them into the ordinance. And if we could just maybe go through it one at a time.

Sure. Um, so she had commented I'm going to actually skip ahead about um so language restricting use of a home that discriminates based on protected class such as race, religion, age, weight, political beliefs, etc. may be subject to violations of a civil rights act. from an enforcement perspective, it could pose a challenging. And so this first highlighted I wasn't sure if that was something that would apply to that comment she made recognizing the need for others to take residents near their home or family but in separate living quarters. Is that okay? That's just something that maybe we should think about whether that's needed or not. Let me just keep going through everything and then circle back. Can can I just, you know, ask maybe if we start at the 10,000 foot level?

Yeah. What what's the goal of of accessory dwelling? Because on a couple of those articles, you know, it talked about, you know, what accessory dwelling units can accomplish. You know, it talks about increased housing options. Uh we've been talking about affordable or workforce housings, age in place, sustainable development. I mean, is are those all those that that we want to accomplish? Yeah. And I I feel like when we initially did this, we were thinking more about age and place

and not necessarily about um density and workplace housing, but those are all really important things that are, you know, becoming more and more important. And um the family reference I feel like is

does it matter? Would it be okay if they're if they're unrelated individuals, but they're more, you know, long-term rentals as opposed to short-term rentals? You know, if you want if the intent is to provide another housing opportunity, why would an accessory dwelling unit, say maybe they have a square footage between 6 to 800 ft uh in floor area that would allow somebody or a young couple to move into the area at an affordable rent? and then uh you know work and then hopefully then save up at some point to you know to purchase a home and be a be a permanent resident. When I was in college, we moved into a duplex and the lady next door at the time we moved in I think was 88 years old. Her and her husband built that back in the 60s because he was a he was a chemist at uh the Upjunk company. But they built it specifically knowing that as they age in place, they wanted somebody living next door that could actually then kind of look look out for them and then help them. So when we moved in our chory, we got both both stalls of the garage because she didn't have a car. But then, you know, then then I said, "Okay, then we'll do the snow removal and then we'll cut the grass." So, we were there to help her out as she aged in place. And it worked out really well. And I could see something like that happening here, especially as you know, if you if you if you've looked at the, you know, the demographics for the area lately, you know, you know, the majority of the people here are 55 plus. you know, we're all going to it'd be nice to be able to, you know, age in place, but it's going to be more difficult to age in place, you know, as you get older if it's if it's a completely detached unit like the ordinance requires today.

So, but I guess I guess my thought was is would it be worthwhile just to, you know, start from scratch? Maybe we go through it and and then revisit that. That's that's a good idea.

Um, in number three, she had a question about why 800 square feet. And I will put an aside here that the one in Bula is 600. It's smaller. Um, but I know we probably went with that because that's our minimum for uh primary building. Um, and she was asking is it based on anything particular and to articulate the basis. So I just added must meet the minimum floor area requirements in article 375g. And it could be period right there or you could leave all the rest of that on there. I don't know normally how things are written if you are redundant from one to the other but um that that just includes if we keep that floor space you know maybe we change that but that's why it was 800 um four was good five was good going to number six the distance between the principal dwelling or use of the and secondary dwelling is twice the required sideyard setback And so this brings up I noticed in the Bula that they can have over garage or attached um and we are saying that that's not something we do and I don't recall why we did that but um I just wondering if anyone recall the reasoning for needing to have double the distance between the two buildings. I know when this started it was because of a carriage house that was being built out near neck of the woods. I think red uh red park is that it's called somewhere in that area. Someone was building wanted to build a carriage house. But

um does is that something that we need to keep in there? Is there was there a good reason for not allowing a a secondary dwelling to be above a garage or attached to a house? I'd suggest that that you know we expand it to allow it to be either

detached you know uh or detached you know a loft above a garage uh or attached or even you know if someone's got a a lower level walk out you know they could you know use that as a as an ADU Um, so continuing to B 7B I guess and the language that says the ZBA cannot grant a variance for X, Y, and Z related to guest homes is unconventional compared to other ordinances because this states that they cannot they shall not grant a variance to construction of a secondary dwelling And so, um, she's saying the ZBA should be able to grant a variance when there's evidence of practical difficulty for any dimensional regulation in the ordinance. And so that's something that could be struck. Um, and then the next one is language restricting the use of a home that discriminates based on a protected class. read that earlier and that that's referring to uh limited to adult members of the extended family, the owner of the principal dwelling. And then I didn't address I guess the eight weeks in the calendar year. I'm not sure how we would even monitor that, but um and then if you go to the next one talking about Thank you. This was your heads up about um homestead tax purposes. she can say that that's not appropriate to be in an ordinance.

Um, so at the end at the end of the day, she's got a key question to consider for the board is what is the government interest in the regulation that limits guest dwellings to adults? What governmental interest is the regulation trying to further? Is it supported by the master plan? And I had specifically asked her about the adult part of it to start with. Um, for example, was there something about only having adults in the dwelling that helped to get the regulation adopted? Is is it that they didn't want larger groups in the house, like a family of four, noise, overcrowding? Did they not want STR rental?

Uh, was it that they I have a hard time with acronyms. Was it that they wanted opportunity for just one or two older adults, which I think kind of was part of it. It was a mix between this carriage house and um having the aging in place. Um, so that that's uh relative to number two above. And then at the end, I've got gas houses cannot be used as long-term rental properties. And I wasn't sure if we are able are we we're able to are we able to regulate that? It says that we are previous rental of any kind was forbiddhed. That's actually in the ordinance.

Yeah, I'm not sure. And then it goes on to say these are allowed for guests and for extended family living quarters, mother-in-law, etc. Housing CA above. And again, that yellow highlighted is is again going back to is that a protected class? Um, so I've just got to know confirm that with in our rights to limit the usage or strike that and then is the reference to guests of family considered discriminatory. So those were my comments. Um, and then I had just printed out the one that had was G that was referred to on the front page is that second page where she said you need to really need to document what you're referring to. um under 10183 I guess A3 well the situation that Chris was talking about still wouldn't be allowed the way this is written

not unless you removed the part about twice the Um, set back required yard set back. No, I'm talking about the short belt long-term rental. I mean, oh, right. This was the duplex. They were renting part of the That would be a question whether or not we are even allowed to limit that. How how you know? Well, it sounds like this ordinance was the intent was originally just to to allow like family members or relatives to stay there on a temporary basis because it says or or or adults only year round.

Then the one guest houses cannot be used for as long-term rental properties.

Well, if they're family, they're not renting theoretically, I think it seemed thought. Yeah, I want that. So I guess the question I had was is there a desire to expand, you know, one more options for construction? Uh and then for you know people that are you know outside of the outside of the immediate maybe not even immediate but just outside of the family. I think we need to determine whether it's even legal to say that only the family can live there. Personally, I think that was part of she she pretty much said that the language that has to do with protected classes is race, you know, way litig.

Well, I'm sure the I'm sure the fellowship has a definition of family. So, what is the definition of family? because they could say that it's my brothers, uncles, brothers, sisters, mothers. You know,

when we took our our class, um I recall specifically, I was Mary saying that we we don't we don't tell people what they do with a property. We just tell them how we can build it. And and this is like getting into something that's not necessarily what our our role is as far as saying who can stay there and how long they can stay and um so that maybe we just need to find out what's legal and what's not legal and you know

come up with something we like and have him look at it. Well, you know, beyond the I'm just thinking of examples and and certainly, you know, having a a mother-in-law orders. Um, if it's if you know there are stairs involved, that might be a problem. But if there aren't stairs involved, it might be perfect uh to have that separation. But there are also instances where uh um u uh your you have a a couple who are your friends and and they'd really like to move up to Portage Lake uh and they'd like to build a house and they'd like to be here while the house is being built, but they don't have anywhere to live. But it just so happens that you just happen to have this little guest house and nobody's living there and so they want to come and live there for a year. Well, so they can go watch the watch pound nails and are we saying they can't do that? You can't do that. Well, I think this is saying that you have to be an adult to say there. But again, going back to I don't think that we are supposed to be saying dictating what the usage is of of the unit. We're just supposed to be saying how do you build it? And that is that makes sense. Well, I think I mean to some extent you can kind of regulate the use based on the zoning district in terms of separating residential from from industrial. Um, but the the township's definition of family is just is probably what 75% or more the other community's definition of a family. So there's there's kind of two definitions. One is those that are related by blood, marriage or adoption. And then the second one is a collective number of individuals doiciled together in one dwelling whose relationship is of a

continuing non-transate domestic charact who are cooking and living in a single nonprofit housekeeping unit. And then it goes on for for some more. But so that basically says that you can't regulate you know if if you have unrelated individuals living in a in a housing unit as um and cooking and acting as as a single household unit. Yeah. Well, yeah. Yeah. Like it was I mean it doesn't you know my daughter has a roommate be a commune. I mean theoretically that's what tibo was though.

Can I make a just a comment? I think if you if you don't mind like from the 10,000 foot level I think the zoning ordinance that we're dealing with is the intent is single family residences. Okay. And so these were some exceptions, you know, made made to that because if you start going into, you know, higher density and, you know, there's an additional living unit above the garage, uh, now you're really talking about having things like duplexes, you know, in a residential area that, you know, for better or worse, had been intended to be for single families. However, that's

you think that's why they wanted the separation. I mean,

the 20 ft is related to fire safety and it's also I think related to this maybe I don't know how old this zoning ordinance is, but let's not we don't want high density. So, if your lot's not big enough to get 20 foot separation, you can't do it. I think there's a number of reasons. But yeah, I think it's a big it would be a big switch I think for the community to say let's really start moving towards higher density. I mean there's it's called resort residential for a reason. But I'm not taking a position saying it's be a very big change.

Well, they already can do it. What? This is an existing ordinance. they already can but it's quite as you pointed out it's quite restrictive so it's it's eliminating the spirit of it it's being discouraged not being encouraged is because of the limitations on distances size the distance well the size of the structure the distance the the need for a a you know family relationship you know all those things I'd just like to know if if that's legal

well I think it is uh cuz you know the Chris comment standard across the United States. to have zoning that tries to restrict things to family units and they may be conventional family units or they might be communal cooking and cleaning arrangements like my wife and I mean it's ultimately I mean it's kind of a legal issue but from my perspective you tried to restrict it to only family members uh and then they point Now the definition of the township family I I think they're going to lose.

Well, also the 18 or older, I just don't see how in any world that, you know, are we going to be policing that? Uh, yeah, I think you're right. I think it was the age limit. I just think that's improper, but it's kind of what brought this Yeah. all up. And then the zoning thing you mentioned and we Well, we've got a master plan that says that we should consider, you know, alternative housing to Well, that's where I'm at. Times have changed and you know if you have to spend a quarter of a million dollars to get a starter home

to your point maybe you get some young couples in here that can afford something like this and andor help out the person that's living there or Yeah. They have they have their benefits. Um you know I mean I don't know how many people actually build one right and then there's that too. Yeah. um and then you know you know rent it out. But it is a way to you know to get more rental units in here. The other question I would have is can you can you can you prohibit a short them being used for short-term rental? Well theoretically we could limit how many short-term rentals we allow. I don't think we've done that. That's a whole another ordinance.

Right. I mean and that's theoretically not our our ordinance. That's that's just it. No, it's not it's not part of this book. Short-term rentals. It's a police. It's not a planning commission thing. Yeah. Well, we're the ones that did it, though. We developed it. We But we did it for for the township board. But that's that's a You're right. It's police power ordinance. You leave it out of the zoning, which honestly should apply to every property in the township without exception, but it's a different topic. The point being, you could theoretically limit how many you gave out of those, which we never have. I don't even know if anybody actually signs up for that. Oh, yes.

Good. The deputy clerk didn't the deputy treasurer has been entrusted with the short-term rental much. Maybe you could put language in here that says that if you know people that are staying in this accessory dwelling unit must be more than more than 30 days because anything less than 30 days is considered a short-term rental and they or you could say it needs to be registered as a short-term rental. But if the goal is to help with housing that's more affordable or attainable, then I think you kind of want to not allow them to use them for short-term rental. But the temptation would be there. I'm sure

I'll give you an example. I ran on my guest house for a couple who have relatives in the area. They come up for short term. I mean, that's another thing, you know, people who just want to visit. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and I tell you, there are contractors that come into this area from pretty far away, like the ones that are doing my garage.

They need a place. then they need a place state. Yeah. Because yet, you know, they're coming from Midland area. But I I guess I think the idea of attainable housing, if you will, um I don't see that becoming a um uh something that residential districts are going to jump to. To me, to me, attainable housing for the people who work in the service industries around here that sell us the pizza and the and the coffee and whatever. um they want they need attainable housing that's on their own little parcel of land maybe smaller than our zoning ordinance allows uh and with a and with a with a shared well and with a shared septic system that becomes a sewer um if it's more than one residency um and it's the little cluster housing um

yeah I mean That's a that's a good point because that's certainly going to add cost to anybody who who would want to do a um a separate unit separate standalone unit wouldn't be you know your well and your septic system that goes with it unless they I mean that's going to add a fair amount of expense unless they can utilize what's already existing. I would also comment that while that's sounds wonderful, we know we have a septic issue and and it's just not a reality right now that we could is it unless they put in their own septic. They they'd have you'd have to find a I mean my little dream out there is is you find I don't know how many acres it would take 7 to 10 and and you carve out these these smaller parcels uh much like the city does that are that are 6,000 square ft uh and you put a you put a little um 600 square foot uh footprint on that lot probably don't have a garage. Uh unless they want to maybe maybe they can get a carport to go next to it. Shared well shared septic uh and uh suddenly instead of maybe spending 230,000 maybe you're maybe 180. I don't know. Oh, that's a what I'm paying for my garage.

Well, what are we thinking?

So, because of my schedule today, I did not see this when you emailed it earlier. So, first time I looked at it was about an hour and a half before the meeting. And the email was talking more about the legality of this. And now I think this discussion is taking this document beyond the legality. It's now saying, "Hey, wait a minute. What what if we use this instead for addressing affordable housing?" And I mean I'm using my words but so I I mean as to the question of legality my belief based on previous experience is it can restrict the status of who uses that property which it does. If we're now going to discuss should we change this ordinance to do other things, I would want more time to research.

Um because I didn't think that's what the discussion was going to be. And it's just kind of we digressed. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm just saying so now to say what about it? I'm like okay, this has gone totally different than what the agenda said. And so do we want to continue to revisit it or do we just want to address the legality?

Well, let me think if it's still legality, it just should probably have to forward it on to the township attorney. They're going to have the final say. Although I would think that when this ordinance got adopted, it would have been it was reviewed and approved by the the township attorney. Or maybe it was somebody different back then than it is today in terms of No, it still would have been done. The case the case law changed on the I mean that that provision on the you lose your homestead exemption. I mean that was actually based on an IRS rule that the Michigan Court of Appeals said was irrelevant is Wrenchler v. Melrose Township and there's been a lot of cases. So I think you know the advice she got from Michigan Township Association.

Yeah. She also said talk your attorney just so you know. I think it'd be helpful to people to have a footnote to say uh renting your property could impact your uh principal residence exemption. Just leave it at that. But I take that out and I take out the age limit because it like you pointed out like you know somebody you know with their 12y old like needs to live with you and that stuff. There's no problem with that. We can always revisit the global

but maybe just work on the the specific legalities. Right now it's getting to be the end of the year here. [Music] I can redo it. You want to condense it into the the pieces parts that Yeah. you want to address. And I think the age, the adult only and the zoning, right? Those are kind of the two main things or not zoning, the homestead,

but call call it principal residences because that's homestead actually refers. They're used interchangeably, but they should That sound

okay thank you be yes thank you for all the work I might know that that again yeah so yes so we basically focus on the things that originally and we can address short-term rental and all that kind of stuff down the road and you know whether we want to have a joint or over garage. Okay. And sort of since we've been talking about affordable housing, there was a question about affordable housing in the master plan.

Just that make ensuring that the master plan addressed it because the law they added that to the the the law last October, I think it's about a year ago, saying that master plans needed to address affordable housing. We had addressed it and said we supported it. We didn't have a plan to fix it, but uh anybody does. Yeah. you know, I think people are really looking for, you know, places for employment, you know, and if you if you to do um more affordable housing in this area, I mean, the old adage, you know, build it, they will come. Um or would it be better served being more in a the larger area like closer to the to the city of Manasty? Would people want to commute? um you know, for for employment opportunities. I mean, you got you got the casino that's not far from here. Um

it'll be interesting to see what that new apartment complex does. It's huge. The one by the middle school. Yes. Yeah. One Kennedy school said that was just like 50% of what's proposed. So, it's like it's like it's supposed to be like 430 units or something. So,

Wow. And some of it's some of it's market rentals and some of it's there's a little bit of section 8 in there I think. And hope there's a quiet clerk. It only comes up when I go to a motel. Um, okay. Um are once again I'm just putting PPI on the on the agenda. Um it's kind of uh what do we do? Do we do anything? Uh uh I was out there today and and uh um there has been some progress on the ball field. I would say more progress on the ball field than there has been on the on the residence next door. But uh

I mean how many consent degrees um I don't I mean what's I have my own ideas but does anybody else have any direction they'd like to do I called Bob saying he was going to come back to us with kind of like what he thought was going to be doable and timelineish. Yeah. I thought we were going to have that discussion.

I thought you were going to get together in a smaller group or we were and he was going to he said he would join us I think um to redo the um the SU.

Well, he did he did come in June. and he talked about what's going on. Um, you know, the um I I guess it I should contact him and just say we have a memory of of you bringing us kind of a a plan going forward and and and then we have something to react to. because I really don't don't know what he's

I recall the it being an issue that he's involved in the lawsuit and we have to go before the judge or something if we want to change the SU because it's he's not able to proceed with that because of the lawsuit without the permission of that was the statement made by the one lady. Okay. But then he was also having discussions with the village about sanitary sewer. Does anybody know how that was there? Miller sat here I don't know maybe a month ago and said that the meeting had never happened. Right. Oh,

you know and that's because I had I had told Bob I said you know you you kind of have kind of have two two uh last chance options. One would be to to uh get the village to allow you to connect to them because they're already at Little Eden. So, some of the distance is taken care of. Then you just um and the other would be to take some of the ball field and put in a private sewer. And I know he's he's done the drawings for that. He's had his uh his design firm can't remember the name of him now.

I think as I recall when he was here once he solved the sewer pro problem or you know came up with a with an alternative then everything else would then should take off. But they still don't want the gas dock or the marina. And there's or the boat barn in the lawsuit is my understanding. Those are the things she said that they No, it's not it's not the marina. It's it's it's the gas duck and and the ramp and the ramp. Yeah. Which is right on right. So even if he gets the sewer, he isn't going to be able to do those other things.

I'll make an observation on on his on the sewer. It's really all everybody's problem in a way. But the sewer problem, you will not be able to put in a private sewer line like say over to the ball field without getting the permission of every single land owner abudding that right away. So he might not know that, but

Oh, I I don't I don't doubt that per. So it's just I mean there's just obstacles after obstacle without a public sewer. And you know, we I we just if if that was what he wanted to do, uh I think we'd have to say, look, look, township residents, you've been saying all along, we really want the Portage Point in to succeed. We really we really would like like it to be a place and you know, it's it's such a gem on the lake and on and on and on, but not in my backyard. Well, it's it's not still in your backyard.

A lot of people would agree to it. It's like what's the problem, right? All underground, but it would just take one person to object and you can't push that through eminent domain for a private sewer. So, I don't know. I mean, he could his other alternative would be where the existing septic field is is or somewhere install like an onsite wastewater treatment. It would be very expensive. Well,

and I don't know, you know, is he going to want to do that if he doesn't get these other pieces that in theoretically financially support the payment for that? That's exactly right.

So, where are we? So, Dave, what were you saying? Your thought, you said you had thoughts. What were your thoughts? Well, if if we could uh we could get Bob to agree that that, you know, the cast dock and the and the and the boat ramp just aren't going to happen. And the 50-ft boat barn, there will probably be some kind of structure there, but it's not going to be a 50ft boat barn. Uh, it's going to be a more or less a a storage shed for riding lawnmowers, if you will, and snowplows. Um, and then go to uh concerned citizens and say, "Look, these are these are things that were on the top of your concern list for for filing this lawsuit." Uh uh and and they've gone away now and would you be willing to to drop the lawsuit and and go through the motions of going to court and and so everybody's which would allow Bob to uh put in his sheet pilings and get them off the ball field and because Right now his his seaw wall is 8 foot pilings and it's starting to wash out and if it washes out then you've really got a massive portage point in cuz

no yeah it doesn't the pilings aren't deep enough it look like the cut of the property I over there on my bicycle it looks like the sand in front of that seaw wall is sunk down like 4 feet Well, so I'm glad it's not my footings.

Um, but I mean, if if we could get that process going, then suddenly the ball field is is is cleaned up. The comm the community over in that area is, you know, they're happy. They're saying, "Hey, this looks nice. you know, uh maybe maybe the parks and wreck will work with Bob and they'll do something pickle ball courts or something. I don't know. But but uh there's no question that the ball field an eyesore that we don't need. And Bob's talked about he could take the steel away and use it elsewhere. But

so I hear what you're saying, but what's planning commission's role? I mean, I don't think we are the negotiator. And that's almost what I think I'm hearing you say. I don't want to negotiate it. I want to I want to convince Bob to uh uh get CCPL into the room and smoke the Eastpipe. Let them let them negotiate with each other. with each of them knowing what they what

but is that planning commission's role or is planning commission's role just making sure that Bob is adhering to special use permit and doing what we need to in that regard? Well, planning commission's role is complicated because of sewer. Planning commission's role is is is land use and the lawsuit.

And so we're trying to [Music] find the highest and best use for that land and and uh and if it's got obstacles to make it happen, how can we how what suggestions can we make to to uh make it go forward? [Music] But I do think it's it's would be important at this point to to contact Bob and and just say we have we were expecting some kind of timeline game plan from you and we haven't seen anything.

That's what I recall. He was supposed to come back to us. Well, first complimenting him on on getting rid of the floating dock off the ball field. I noticed that's gone. So, has Do you know if anybody's had any communication with him since he was here last? Dave might have, but I haven't. So what are what are you thinking?

I don't know that I'm thinking anything. I was asking him his opinion and then trying to understand how Dave was viewing our role in this. But as I said when I we began I I believe that Bob because we had talked about the special use permit and he as I recall committed to coming back to us

and he hasn't and so I don't know how we move that forward. Well, I think we just say we we talked about it our last meeting and and everyone's asking you never return to us with anything. What about it? But to your point, unless he negotiates something with concerned citizens, there's nothing he can do, right? No, there is. All kinds of things could

the problem the hotel right now is that it's that's empty is blight. Okay. So I mean I don't I don't know you know if the township revoked the special use permit uh does that mean the condominiums also have to close? I mean I yeah this is just going to go on forever unless some leverage is supplied. That's, you know, and that's I what Cindy's saying is perfectly appropriate. I'm not sure what the planning commission's role is other than to enforce the special. Right.

Well, and and just so you know, Ted, I don't know, um the marina is an accessory use to the Portage Boy in. So, if if Bob were to say, "Well, I I can't it's too much money to fix the hotel and and that and and can't put in a kitchen because I can't get a sewer and so I'm just going to tear it all down." Well, you just lost your marina because the the portage point in has to exist for the marina to exist. And we and that was written into the because I'm sure And sure in his mind he might like to just stay in the marina business. That's what he knows.

You know the uh a lot of people refer as the grand hotel many the mini grand hotel. Sure. So I think we should bend over backwards to keep that hotel. You know, I think it's a landmark on Portage Lake, but within reason. Yeah. And and I think the entire community feels that way. Um I think a lot of them unfortunately feel like they'd like to have the Portage Boy in as it existed in 1957. uh and that that ship is s

the condos took all the uh wastewater capacity. I mean that's what and I wasn't even around when that happened. That's so I'm going to contact Bob say what I heard is it's your ball in your court to contact him. Anything else? Yeah, that's a slide in with public comment. I appreciate that. Well, late as it was, you know, copy that. You said bad things about Camposbo. No, I didn't. I didn't know if I wanted everybody to have

Well, I thought I emailed it to everybody. But yeah, there's really no answers on here because I'm the only one that's on here that's still on the board. So, but at least it shows you what they thought the terms were for these people back in 2018. Well, I'll save this and and see if I get enough of her work on that. Well, she's got she should have the the oath of oath of office book in her possession. So, maybe she'd figure out at least who took over for who. Well, and when they took an oath of office, I I don't I think only the new folks, you know. Well, all of us have at one time or another. I

because I don't even know when this started. I do. It was 2019, I think, cuz it was on it was on something that I went on a minute. So, I was going through. Okay. June June 2019. May be 28th, actually. And for my daughter's birthday, we she was born in 2018. Let me make one further comment on that. Yes, there's zoning laws. You know, when I first bought my home, the floor bought me really hard. I'm putting in a dock really hard. She said, "Well, I was going to drain Lake Michigan." Think like that. Like,

it is. And you know, it ended up in court. It cost I think it cost the township 50,000 cost me $30,000 and this was 94 95 was a lot of money back then you know to fight it and everybody got their backup and everyone in the township said they didn't receive it then later on they apologized said yeah they did get it just we should like point we should give them every break as much as possible that's all I'm saying agree you know

I support that So, some man your place was Beckwoods. Be backwards. Be backwards. Yeah. Gerald Ford's best man. Was he? Yes. I wrote for it and he wrote letter and I found a little prayer thing, you know, funerals and I had his name as a pole bear on. So, I wrote him was retired at the time and he wrote me a nice two-page letter. It was interesting. But he went to Yale with back with

that's what he met and he was up there you know I don't know if you guys know Mary Carter if you did know her Carter is live next to me and they she used to have GOP on the green parties you know supposedly and who was the governor that Milikin Milikin I think yeah they and Ford was there we think one bedroom is presidential So wallpapered. So we figure that's a for good assumption. Do we need a motion to uh if you'd like to make one? I would like to make a motion to I'll second it. It's a nice story.

Yeah. Yeah. I got a lot of them from so fourth was that was Paul. Is that his brother? His brother. Here.