Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Is your mic on? Yeah. The Plymouth Planning, Plymouth Township Planning Commission meeting will come to order at 6.30 and Acting Secretary Tim Boyd will call the roll.

Dennis Zabulski. Here. Tim Boyd here. Stuart Pond is excused. Sandy Groth.

Here.

Dan Callahan.

Here.

Ashley Krieger.

Here.

And Bill Eichs has resigned as he's now on the Board of Trustees. So we have a quorum.

Thank you. And is there a motion to approve the agenda as submitted?

I will make a motion to approve the agenda as submitted for the August 19th, 2026 meeting.

Second. Moved by Commissioner Groth and supported by Commissioner Boyd to approve. Approve the approval of the agenda. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. And the approval of the, let's go with the July 15th minutes. Are there any additions, corrections, comments?

Yes, I had a couple.

Yeah, I do too, so. Why don't you go first, Amy? Mine comes, it's on page six. It talks about the action to approve the text amendment to the zoning ordinance, and it refers to a specific section, but then on page seven, it's the same thing. I would just like it to be specified which was the ARC quarter. You've got numbers that might define it, but it doesn't really spell it out. So I looked at it a couple of times. We need to spell out which one is the ARC.

That's a good suggestion, yes.

Planning isn't doing the minutes anymore.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

Planning isn't doing the minutes, hasn't been doing the minutes.

Yeah, it's okay. I just, I'm just making the motion that I would like that changed. So it, and I want to make sure it's the 14.2.3, which is the ARC, correct? So that's on page six. And you just need to spell out that it's the ARC, Ann Arbor Road corridor. Okay.

Sandy, anything more?

One more thing. We talked about the master plan, and I just want to make sure that the future land use changes were put into the master plan because we did change the land use on a certain area. So I just want to make sure that that is part of the record. All right.

Yes, those changes were made, Sandy, or Commissioner Groth. I can't hear you. I'm sorry, those changes were made, and you'll see them at the board meeting next week.

Okay. On page three, just a couple typos up at the top. It talks about the location of the signs. It's actually Ann Arbor Road and South Main Street, not Valley Road. That needs to be corrected on both of those bullet points at the top of the page. or at the very bottom, Dennis' name is misspelled, so we should just fix that. And check the grammar in that sentence. I'm not sure it's exactly correct. Yeah. Just check that. Let's see. On page five at the very bottom, speaking to the text amendment, that whole little box should actually be pushed to the left. So left justify that. Shouldn't be indented. I kind of did a kind of a double take there until I figured that out. And I think that was it.

All right. Is there a motion to approve the July 15th minutes as corrected?

I'll make that motion.

Support. Moved by Commissioner Roth and supported by Commissioner Boyd to approve the July 15th minutes as amended. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And how about the June 17th minutes? No change.

The only change I saw was the spelling of a person's name and I've already given that to Ashley so she can correct it.

but we'll call on it as amended or corrected then. All right, then is there a motion to approve the June 17th minutes as amended?

I make that motion.

And I support it. Moved by Commissioner Groth and supported by Commissioner Boyd to approve the June 17th minutes as amended. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Public comments. This is the time for anyone that is here that wishes to speak on any non-agenda items. So is there anyone here like that? Under old business, we have application 2576, vacant Ann Arbor Road conditioning zoning proposal.

Thank you, Chairman Cebulski. Liz Hart with McKenna. So this will be your third time reviewing the conditional rezoning for the property at Ann Arbor Road in McClumpa. The last time you saw this was in June 2026, where you tabled the application to ask the applicant to come back with a letter from MDOT stating that they would not be allowed to have individual driveways onto Ann Arbor Road, as well as ask if they could attempt to save some more trees. So nothing has really changed from the plan that they've put forward. They're still planning 13 detached single units. And they did provide a letter from MDOT and MDOT did state that they would not allow the individual driveways on Ann Arbor Road. And the main change that was done is to the conditions that they're providing for the conditional rezoning, which they added a new condition, condition number five, stating that the owner surveyor will try to save additional trees when plot plans are prepared for individual lots. Tree removal for construction of roads and utilities shall be coordinated with Plymouth Township's Department of Public Works, and trees within the building envelope will only be removed following approval of the plot plan for each lot. Replacement trees will still be provided per the approved site plan. That is my update for this application. I'm happy to take any questions, and the applicant is here as well. Thank you.

Is the applicant here too? Make any comments?

Oldie Vittens, Vittens Engineering, representing Bandoli-Hosari Express General Construction Inc. And they're located in Livonia, Michigan. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that the committee might have. Are there any questions from the commission?

Yes. I'm interested in how this Offer number five will be done. In effect, what I'm interpreting is that you will not clear cut the plot at the beginning. You'll only cut what needs to be cut to put in the infrastructure and the roads.

Yeah, initially that was the plan was just to coordinate with the DPW and just remove those trees that are needed for the road construction and installation of utilities. and that we would leave the other, you know, the building envelope untouched until we had a plot plan. And then, you know, the plot plan's more like a detailed grading plan. We've got the actual footprint of the building. And that way we could see if there's some additional trees that could be saved. That's the intent, is to try to see how many more trees we can save. And sometimes we can, we're gonna have a couple of different models. They'll be ranch style, fairly modern. We had submitted some photographs at the previous meeting. But once we have the actual building footprint, we can maybe flop the garage one way or the other way. you know, and see, you know, if there's some additional trees that could be saved. But that's down the road and that's when the surveyor gets involved.

So, but importantly, you're not just going to cut all the trees?

Yeah, no, we're not planning on clear cutting the whole site at once.

That is, in my opinion, a major improvement.

Yeah, and then if there's any delays in construction, you know, the trees will still be there. I mean, the economy's doing great right now, but it's hard to, you just never know.

You know, along this line, just let me ask Liz, it says this would be done with the Department of Public Works. Is that Sarah Vissell? Would she be the key person on that?

No, I believe that's Patrick Fellrath. Patrick Fellrath. Patrick Fellrath, yeah.

Okay. would ask that you get with Patrick and really explain the concern of the Planning Commission on this and really ask him to do a really thorough review and find the right balance between what the developer needs and the desire of the township to preserve as many trees as possible.

And I echo Commissioner Boyd's statement. I think for someone to say that I will try to preserve sounds great, but there's nothing that's binding on them when we say I will try to preserve. So I think we need to do whatever we need to do to ensure that it's done properly.

We can make that part of the motion.

Yeah, that's good.

Any comments at this end?

So there's some other additional conditions included in the MDOT email. Do you have any response to those?

Yeah, I could explain their letter a little bit. And we touched on it at previous meetings. When we initially met with MDOT, they had told us that they would not approve individual driveways out to Ann Arbor Road. And then we had shown them the preliminary layout, which is similar to what you guys reviewed. And they didn't 100% agree to the access out to Ann Arbor Road. They have agreed to that now. We have to relocate a small piece of guardrail because of the tapers on the drive approach. And we still need to, we haven't submitted formally to MDOT like detailed engineering plans. And, you know, they're going to want to see that. They're going to want a contractor that's installed guardrail before one of their, you know, they have a bunch of contractors that they've approved at the state level. And we're going to have to use one of their contractors for the guardrail work.

So am I properly understanding that you're saying that there will be a direct access to McClumpa Road?

That's what they've approved tentatively right now. We still have to work out some details, but their traffic engineer was good with that. And, you know, the permit engineer, she wrote the, you know, the email indicating that, you know, that, you know, we're going to be doing that.

Again, that's contrary to the letter dated August 6th from Mr. Hosary, Hosary? because it says we're committing to not having driveway access, and I think that should be removed from the letter if that's not the case.

Well, this would be individual driveways and not, you know, this would be a road access out to Ann Arbor Road, which is, it's different. We're looking for a drive approach, not an individual driveway.

I was okay with that. I understand.

Any other comments, concerns?

I had a, Liz, I had a concern with the write-up, and it's a fine point, but again, I'm just, each time we do one of these, I want to make it really crystal clear so that if we ever have a future situation, we can refer to it. So on page four at the bottom of your criteria number two, summary of findings, The second bullet point says the future land use map calls for one to three units to acre. The proposed 3.2 units per acre is slightly above but still within the low to intermediate density intent. I would prefer that you eliminate the word still within and then add the word close to the beginning to the next sentence so it would read The future land use map calls for one to three units per acre. The proposed 3.29 units per acre is slightly above the low to intermediate density intent, especially given adjacency to major roads and close to the existence of similar smaller lot developments. So what I'm trying to say here is recognizing this, the future, that this is not exactly agree with the future land use map, but there's the two considerations being adjacency to the major roads and the development that's catty-cornered across the intersection are proof that it is close to the justification. So if we could just clean that up just a little bit, I would prefer.

So that is not in the sample motion here, but you would want it to be added or modified in her findings. So that would go along with the project file. So in the future, someone could refer back, okay. So it won't be in the motion, but.

Right. And we don't need to refer to it in the motion? No, no. Okay.

No, the motion is the proposed motion. Anything else from anybody? Okay.

I did want to ask one question. On page six, Paragraph B, it says the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2015 master plan. I'm just curious to know how that portion of the master plan differs from the master plan that we are looking for approval on now.

I don't think it does in that particular.

I don't think of anything that would.

We didn't change the moving criteria for the individual. Not that I can recall.

So it's not different?

I don't believe it is.

Okay. I was just curious to know. That's a good question. So what you're suggesting is in compliance with a letter from MDOT the changes to the guardrail and properly doing it and securing it, and I appreciate that.

And we're okay with the recommended motion here, because that's really what's going to be sent to them.

I have one question. So Liz, when this is presented to the Board of Trustees, does this letter go with it or you're just, it's just our recommendation that goes before them?

I'll give them everything that was given to you guys. So I'll make the edits to the report.

Okay, because I know in the past they've asked, what was our thinking when we make a recommendation? So I think our thinking is well represented in the report.

Okay. Mr. Chair, I move that we... adopt the additional rezoning to the R1 one-family residential district at the northwest corner of Ann Arbor Road and McClumpa, PC number 2576, be recommended for approval to the Board of Trustees based on the following findings of fact as noted in the planner's report and with a special notification that this will require extra attention of the Department of Public Works to find the right balance between maintaining the maximum amount of trees and allowing the developer to place the lots in the appropriate places on the development. Okay.

Second.

We already have a... Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm having a hard time hearing, so yeah. I'm going to the doctor tomorrow, but it's like there's a wall right there that's blocking me out. Okay.

I have a question about that last condition that we placed, I guess for the township attorney. Is that an enforceable condition, the way it was worded?

And I apologize, I'm having a little trouble hearing this. Can we just restate that last condition?

It was that we asked the Department of Public Works to pay extra attention to reviewing each of the individual plot plans to find the right balance between preserving the maximum amount of trees for the township, but also allowing the developer to develop the lots in the way that he needs to to be able to place the homes.

Sure, yeah, I mean, it assists in the administration of the intent of the conditional rezoning offer, I guess is what I would say. Getting down to brass tacks, could we, I would say it's helpful without an actual.

Better than the commitment in the developer's letter that said we will try to save more trees?

This would at least give a framework to try to ensure that we're properly enforcing that obligation to try. I think the only way that we could go further which would be really above and beyond would be a tree survey beforehand and mark every single tree that would be saved which would be pretty burdensome and so I think this is about as reasonable as we could get and based on the condition of each of the trees when they get to that location.

And it clarifies our intent to preserve as many as possible.

Yeah, clearly.

Thank you, that's helpful.

All right, so it has been moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Callahan to recommend to the Board of Trustees rezoning of properties, the conditional rezoning. All in favor signify.

We should wrap into a roll call, don't you think? We can.

Okay, so I'll ask the Acting Secretary to call roll.

Watch what you ask for. Dennis Zabolsky? Yes. Tim Boyd, yes. Sandy Groth?

Yes.

Dan Callahan? Yes. And Ashley Krueger?

Yes.

Okay, the motion carries. And congratulations and good luck along the next steps.

Okay, yeah, we'll bring in engineering drawings for final.

Yeah, we're looking forward to seeing it come through. Thank you. We'll see you again, for sure. Next is Application 2602-13101, Echols Road, Administrative Review. And do you want to walk us through that, Liz, or whoever's going to do that?

Good evening, Commissioners. Sasha McBurroughs with McKenna. Before you have a major administrative review, it's for 13101 Eccles Road, specifically the fence and gate portion. The proposed site is for the construction of an access drive and new internally located gate. It's owned industrial and it currently contains existing industrial buildings. It passed a major administrative review in planning for vehicular access and circulation, parking, corner visibility and clear vision, and the preservation of site features, but the application is before you today for the fencing. The proposed fence is six feet high with two heavy duty hydraulic barrier aluminum gate arms. Currently, the ordinance does not allow a fence to be built closer to the street than the front setback line, provided that no fence shall be built closer to the street than the established front building line. So the proposed gate is placed closer to the street than the established front building line, and the approval of administrative review will be conditional on the approval of Planning Commission on the proposed location. of the fence or the gate or the removal from the area that it is currently located in.

Okay. Is the applicant here? Yeah, please.

I have a question for staff. As part of the administrative review, was there a fire department review of this? There was.

I believe so. Fire and engineering both looked at it as well.

OK. And there were no concerns with how this gate would operate in emergencies, like an emergency override or anything like that?

So the site plan wasn't attached, but the gate isn't actually enclosing It's located in a manner that it's not actually blocking off the second access point. It's only sectioning off a portion of that parking lot to encourage trucks to go in one direction or not. So it's not creating any limited access or barrier.

Thank you, that's helpful. Why do they want to move it closer to the street? Why do they want it to come out beyond the building? Maybe you can answer that.

Hi, my name is Doug Cahan with Plymouth Industrial Center. They wanted to be able to limit the speed and the amount of traffic going. The tenant that this is for wanted to be able to limit the speed and the amount of traffic going into their leased area. The parking lot, or the lot, is about 102 feet in length, in width, I should say. I mean, we could put it any place, wherever it is allowable. I mean, they would want, they just want to be able to control the traffic. I don't really understand the code about the, it can't be further than the building line. I don't know exactly where that is or what that means, but... We are just blocking off a portion of the parking lot to be able to control traffic.

You're talking about a current tenant, and a future tenant might not have those same desires or same needs, so I just want to understand.

If it's a future tenant, we would take it out. I mean, if we had to, if we needed it for a future tenant. These people left, but they're supposed to have a 10-year lease. We would have to remove it. if it wasn't necessary.

What is it? Has it been a problem for them? What kind of control is it that they're trying to achieve?

They're just trying to limit access of trucks. There's a lot of truck traffic in the complex, and they don't want to have... They prefer just to limit trucks. They're going to their delivery pickups, and they didn't want to have any mix-ups. They had to have... Ease of circulation, that kind of thing.

Do we need a report from the fire department that they've reviewed this? Usually, I mean, we get reports from the fire department for anything like this.

Because this is only for the fence before the Planning Commission, that's why it wasn't provided to you. I don't know if we have a letter from them, but I do know... We can't hear you. Sorry, I do know they did look at it, though.

But we need to know that. We need to see what they have to say. Okay, we'll look for it.

But they verbally told you that they're okay with it?

It's their responsibility, so they should just do it. That's why I'm not the boss here, but the reality is we need to know that it's...

It's been approved.

That they approve it.

Yeah. Because I know where there have been gates put elsewhere, there are always breakaways, so if they're locked or secured in some way, that they can go through it.

While she looks for that, is it okay if I ask some questions?

Sure, yeah.

Can you describe kind of the normal operating kind of process or how this gate will operate under normal use?

Yeah, when the trucks come in, there'll be two ways. Some trucks will have the company trucks will have a transmitter. They'll be able to just open, like a garage door opener, be able to open the gates. Other trucks that aren't, don't have a transmitter, they'll have to call the office and they can push a button and they'll open the gates. That's getting in. As far as coming out, they come up automatically when you exit. There's no, it's a free exit.

Is that gate occupied 24-7? The person with the controls door in the gate?

No, no, but it'll be only, no, no, but they wouldn't be expecting it. I don't think anything.

Well, they might not, but my concern again is access. It's safety. I think the fire department needs to let us know that they're okay with that because after hours, if they need access, we need to know that they're going to have it.

Commissioner Sandy, up on the screen is the approval letter from the fire department.

Fire department, sorry. Yeah. I know. There is another access on the north end of the property. I don't know if that was mentioned. That's free. It's open. Free access.

So you're saying that the fire department could access the site either through the gate that you're proposing or this other?

Well... We could always maybe provide the fire department with a transmitter if they have one in emergencies, but if they were to come in this designated approach that we're hoping to install, they would, I guess they could, if there was an emergency, they could just break down and just run through the gates, or they could freely get into the approach on the north side of the complex. There's no gates over there.

Is it a big distance for them to travel if they... Between the two entrances?

No, I don't think so. It's maybe 400 feet or so. What do they do on this site? They manufacture boxes, cardboard boxes for the automotive. I don't know, maybe it's a business you've run into before.

My former husband was the fire chief, so I've been around this stuff for years, and I've heard the complaints when they can't make access in an emergency situation because at that time, they don't need anything that's going to be a pitfall for them to gain access and for them to even have to go further down and access that. What if it's at this particular building for them to have to go further down and come around? It's problematic for the fire department and could impact their ability to save and or not save a building. So that's why I'm being such a stickler about this because I know it's important.

Commissioner growth, just to clarify the exact location. So the access drive is directly across from the access drive in the center. There's an additional one located at the north and the south and the fence is going to be between the north access drive and the middle access drive. So it'll be right about here. so they would have access from the north and the south. Show me a point to what you're talking about. I don't know if you can see. Can you see the mouse?

Yes.

OK, so that's where the gate is going to be, right here?

It'll be a little bit south of that.

OK, right about here, right next to where the parallel proposed access drive is. So this gate, they'll be able to enter from the north from the center and from the south. So the gate shouldn't inhibit any kind of access of emergency vehicles. Or we don't anticipate there being any kind of access concerns. Because the gate isn't actually blocking off any area, it's just discouraging vehicles from coming in a certain way.

So once a vehicle comes in, let's say that main gate, I'll call it for now, the ungated entrance, that truck could just easily maneuver over into the area of the operation that wants the gate.

Yes, and we were told that the gate arm would open automatically.

We were just kind of told tonight that, as it stands right now, that's not... what we're being told, correct?

No, if you're coming from the north down the parking lot, the gates open automatically, north being the top of the map. Any traffic heading south from the north, the gates open automatically. It's just going from the new approach, which is in the center, would be the center of the parking lot. Going to the north, you'd have to have a transmitter or a call-in.

Is this a 24-7 operation? No.

Is there a potential for that to cause any truck stacking issues onto Eccles, or is that not a concern?

No, we've had, and I have anticipated that question. I do have a picture, a traffic maneuverable study, how it would work if you're interested in seeing it. Yes, please. Okay.

Thank you. Come through here on a given day. Do they generally come at the same time of day? Is it all throughout the day? At what frequency do they come? Is it all around the same time?

I did, thank you.

It's important when you're looking at this image to realize that the new entrance is not shown on this map. There will be a third entrance into the building directly across from that road to the right. Can you highlight on the map there where the new entrance will be?

The new entrance is parallel, or it's exactly across from this entrance of the neighboring property, so it will be right across.

So there's a Berman parking between it, right? Excuse me? I can't hear you.

I also can't hear you.

I'm sorry. What did you say? I said, so there's a berm and parking between that entrance that you just pointed out and the entrance to the new, the proposed location. I mean, the street doesn't go through.

Yeah, they were administratively approved for the access drive. We're just here for the proposed fence. So engineering has looked at the access drive and planning has administratively approved the access drive, but the fence is what needed to come to Planning Commission for approval.

If you guys have the blueprints, that's clearly shown on page five of the blueprints. It also shows where the fence would be. added in and then above that that's the game there's a line that goes across that's where the fence would be yes so I like to ask a question of planning I'm still unclear on Did the fire department review this and approve it? And you have written approval of that? Yeah. Do you want to put it back on the screen? No, just I couldn't see it to see if that's what it was. If you're telling me that's what it is, it's fine.

That's for 13101 Eccles. It's for this site plan that was submitted.

So we have fire department approval? Yes. This entrance has already been approved by administrative review. So really, I thought the only question was about the fence.

It's just the location of the fence. The issue is that the current ordinance, the fences have to be behind the front of the building line. So with this site, they could put it... They could put it on like the side of the building in line or anything that is behind the front line of the building, but they're proposing it in the parking lot, which is in front of the front line of the building. And that requires planning commission approval.

Okay.

The one other item that you cited, and it's also shown on page five, that the fence is eight feet tall. and your review notes it needs to be six feet tall. Do you, as the applicant, agree that the fence is only six foot tall?

Pardon me, I couldn't...

Your blueprint shows that the fence is being eight feet tall.

No, it's six foot. It is six foot. That was mistakenly. Yeah, it's six foot tall.

So you will fix the blueprint?

Yes, yes. Okay.

Yeah, it's listed as one of the conditions of...

Okay. Just wanted to double check.

Has this been a long-term tenant?

Ten years.

And are you, when I look at this one design, so it's a cyclone fence, but you're putting the webbing in between that?

It wasn't brought up.

I mean, if we had to, we could, but it wasn't something that was... Well, usually we don't permit that, but I see on here it says fabric. So I don't know what that's referring to. Where's that? Oh, on the... It's on this single page illustration. Okay. Because generally we don't permit that.

We won't put it in. I don't know why it says, I don't remember why that's there.

I do think we did allow it on the Bosch site because of security reasons. You know, they have things outside that are proprietary. So there was a legitimate, strong reason for it there. But typically we don't approve it. I don't know why it would be needed on this gate. We go ahead with this. Yeah, no fabric or no weaving of material, fabric or plastic or whatever it is. No weaving of material between the, I don't know what you want to call it, the wiring, I guess. Well, it's your pleasure.

It seems to me that the applicant knows what they're doing here, that the automatic gate certainly allows southward travel. With the three entrances, it seems to me that people can get to where they need to go. So with the understanding that the fire department has approved this, I would be inclined to go ahead and authorize it. Any other comments?

Well, my only comment would be I don't want any weaving. I don't think that's based on what we've done in previous applications.

Okay, I'll make a motion then to approve the application for the Plymouth Industrial Center driveway and gate review number one with the condition that the sheet five of the blueprints be updated to reflect the fence height of six feet and with the understanding that there'd be no fabric weaving on the fence material.

No weaving of, I would say, material, because it's not only fabric, it's vinyl and anything else. No weaving of screening material.

Screening material on the gate fence.

Is there support for that motion? Support. Okay, moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Callahan to approve application 2602 subject to set conditions. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

I was going to say aye for opposed.

Okay, let the record show that.

Chairman Cebulski, did you say no weaving material for the fence?

No weaving material that's screened. No screening material. So it's not just fabric, but they use vinyl. Sometimes they do wood. Next is the receive and file of our monthly planning report. Are there any questions or comments on that?

I just want to say that I appreciate it. It's very thorough and it's very helpful.

I agree. I had a couple questions on the review. On page two, about halfway down, application number 2558. This is the northwest corner of Plymouth and Hagerty. It says the applicant has decided not to move forward. I just want to confirm that it's done and dusted and we're not gonna see a proposal from the applicant on that, is that correct?

We do, yup, it's closed. The applicant's not coming forward anymore. We actually have a different application coming to you in September.

There's what coming in September?

A new application. New application, okay. Not from that applicant, a different applicant.

Different applicant, okay. All right, on page three, halfway down on page number 2589, Tractor Supply has withdrawn their application to locate next to Meyers. Do we know why they withdrew?

I believe they were having issues with getting Meyer to do some of the requirements we wanted them to do for the street, and they just never moved forward with it. And I reached out to them, and they said that they weren't moving forward either. So it was something to do with how they were working out how to do the street with Meyer.

Something to do with what about the street?

The road, just the access road there.

Okay, that's unfortunate. Okay, then on, let's see, page five, at the top of the page, speaks to the vacant site at North Territorial in M14 that's been zoned multifamily and for the last, goes back to the late 1990s, the township map actually showed it with an apartment complex at the time it was called Windermere Apartments. What do we know about this new application that is appropriate to share here?

So they'll be coming in September. It's for the Andover apartments, multifamily apartments. They are permitted by right, and I've done the preliminary review, and we were ready to come to this meeting, but the applicant requested to have a meeting with the supervisor and the the chairperson prior to the September meeting to just get more information and confirmation before coming to the next meeting. So we have reviewed and engineering and fire have also reviewed and they do meet most of the current requirements, but there are some things that they will need to work on before final.

I would ask that you give special attention to the traffic situation.

We're requesting a revised traffic study from the original one that was submitted, and we have spoken with engineering, and we're aligned on the concern for traffic and safety on Hidden Pond Drive.

Yeah, there's going to be a lot of traffic, and that's not a signalized intersection right now, and it doesn't really have the right approach ramps, so it's going to need some work.

Yeah, the S curve is... a primary concern, and the road is only 25 feet at the moment. So we're definitely conducting an analysis on that and going to be requesting revisions.

Would you be taking into consideration the potential development in Salem?

Of the apartment?

Sugar Springs, I think. Salem Springs. Because I don't know what's happening with that. It seems stalled out, but that developer seems pretty committed to moving forward on that. It's just getting financing.

From a long-term perspective, Salem Springs will add significantly to the traffic on North Territorial. It's not necessarily going to impact this right now, but for the long-term, it's going to have an impact. Yes. It needs to be part of the consideration.

Engineering is, based off of the report that we received from them, they're requiring that the drive, the hidden pond drive be put to Wayne County standards so that it can take any future and proposed capacity increases, especially as there are 320 units proposed with this multifamily development. Those requirements should potentially cover the concerns of a stable, but as you mentioned, any future development would require a future traffic study and analysis.

Okay, thank you.

I'll just note, commissioners, we are requiring the applicant to notify the neighboring subdivision. Good. That will happen before the September meeting.

Yeah, I do think it's important to note that that piece of land has been zoned for multifamily going back into the, at least to the mid 1990s. So this is not a surprise, right? Okay.

That's all I have. Okay. Anyone else have anything on the report, the monthly report? Okay. Then I guess we're ready for the data center discussion.

That's a big discussion. Thank you, by the way, for the very comprehensive report with all of the information.

I second that. I was very impressed with the level of detail you all went into this.

So we're hoping that all of your answers, all the answers to the questions that you gave us before were answered in this document, but just to note a few of the changes. We did include the Ford site in a possible use for enterprise and colocation hyperscale if it was repurposed. And we have examined the surrounding communities and what ordinances they have available and given more information about signs. sound water usage and those things. But before we get into the actual draft text, do you guys have any questions about the memorandum or any additional thoughts?

I do. Me too. Why don't you go first?

We had one of the senators come to a township board of trustees meeting and talked about ensuring that any ordinance that we come up with protect the community and even express that the potential existed to prohibit data centers from coming into the community. So I would like to know if you've done any research on what the Senate I think is doing in regards to that because they're working on a proposal to kind of give people the language and the way to get around some of these things. So I just wanted to know if you are aware of that and what you know about it. And I also wanted to verify that Northville Township is not allowing data centers? Okay.

They were never in their zoning ordinance data centers and they chose to keep it that way. Okay. They've never been permitted and will not be permitted. Okay.

I'm done. If I could just add on to that. So there is absolute obligation under the Zoning Enabling Act to prohibit exclusionary zoning where you wholly prohibit a use, and so the fact that it is not put within the zoning ordinance itself or space for it is not created, it doesn't mean that it's wholly prohibited, it's just a certain process to go through, and I think that's what, I think we had Rosemary Baer here, correct? Yeah, and so she had made a reference where you can certainly, limit its intrusion into the community, but by reference, you know, Wixom just implemented an ordinance, a limitation in their zoning ordinance, which included a 2,750 foot setback. And that was challenged immediately on the basis of exclusionary zoning. So that's what we have to be careful about.

Mike, everybody has their I wanted to point out some items on page two of the memorandum has the maps that show the areas along Halyard. I want to point out that Item A, that piece of land has two retention ponds, which you can see on there, but there is part of that land that could be developed. Immediately to the west of that land is one of our two manufactured housing communities in the township, and we should be just as specific about preventing any data center from impacting that area as we would any other single-family housing in the township. that community is a part of this township and we need to protect it just as we would any other part of our residential area. So I wanna really make everybody clear about that. Also then on page four, which now shows the Troy manufacturing site, which is the former Ford site, directly to the southwest of that, actually directly to the south That one road that goes up that's being where there's a lot of just on the other side of m14 south That's being there's a lot of teardowns in there virtually. It's a bridge with the name Yeah, and there's new homes being built in there some I would guess are well over a million dollars And then immediately to the west of that is I believe it's called North Beacon woods or North Beacon Estates Those again are very that's a long time ago subdivision was built in the late 80s, early 1990s, and there is certainly traffic noise from the freeway, but we have to be careful that any noise that would come from the use of this site for a data center would be arranged in such a way that would not impact either of those two developments. And that then leads me to a comment on, I believe it's page 13 of your deck, which says that setbacks, this is under board's mitigation measures, and the first bullet point is called setbacks, and it says that industrial zones commonly require 100 to 200 feet from residential property lines, while data center campuses often negotiate 500 to 1,500 feet. In the draft ordinance, let's see, it's page three, under setbacks, you're proposing only the 500 foot setback. I'd like to know why we are only proposing 500 when it appears that based on your memorandum that anywhere from 500 to 1500 is the setback that other communities are using.

As Attorney Chubb brought up, it's just the concern of getting into the area of exclusionary zoning and requiring something that would not be feasible on most of the sites that are currently available to be used for data center development.

Well, I guess I would like to suggest that you consider amending that because we do have to be worried about exclusionary zoning. There's no question about that. But I would suggest if we could amend this to leave it at 500 feet, except when there is an adjacent residential home development, either single family homes or manufactured housing. And for that, at least 1,000 feet might be appropriate. And let me just put this in context. I live in Fox Point subdivision. Most of the lots are 100 feet wide. If it's all 500 feet, that's only five homes into the subdivision. That's not very much. And particularly with the manufactured housing community across the street, that's not appropriate. Maybe on the other ones that cross over M14, maybe it's not quite as critical. But I would say, and I would suggest that in terms of exclusionary zoning, we could make the case in court that residential developments require a higher standard. So I'd just like to put that on the table. Is it possible?

We can make that change. And, uh, if attorney Chubb has no issue with raising it to a thousand, we could raise it. Um, but we're just trying to be cognizant that if there's any lawsuits or any, uh, kind of questioning of that exclusionary zoning.

Well, if I may, just to add on to that, I'm making this presumption that the distance is to mitigate the noise. So couldn't that be mitigated by effective insulation of the building?

Well, based on what I read from all of this, there's a lot of ways to mitigate the various types of noise and vibration and other things that go on, but it is a mitigation. I'm guessing it's not gonna be totally, it's not gonna be totally effective. And what I also took away from this is that the biggest thing, not all cases, but generally, the biggest thing you can do to mitigate the noise vibration is increase the distance. So that really needs to be a consideration, I think. I just want to. I read this, I didn't flyspeck it, so if I'm wrong, please don't, you know.

I just want to note that most of the noise producing mechanical units are located exterior to the buildings, so the sound concerns are valid. You were talking about proper insulation of the building, but most of these generators, bath systems, they're located outside, exterior to the building, so that's where most of the noise concerns do come with data centers. If there was proper noise insulation for the... It's because it's exterior to the building that the noise is traveling.

Well, then I think it's important to... additional landscaping or sound walls or, you know, I don't know what would be appropriate, but.

They are required by the current draft to put in a 10 foot berm, a 10 foot high berm, which will mitigate some of the noise. We do have a standard for highways and expressways that you have to put in either a 10 foot or 12 foot high berm or a 12 foot sound wall. So that could potentially be something that we can implement. But you would have the aesthetics of a sound wall located on the property.

In fact, I recall the memorandum, it did say that berms reduce the noise, but they're not totally effective.

You can see that on freeways where they, the freeways are depressed and they still have the wall. Yeah.

Yes.

My comment was, or I'm sort of curious, going back to Commissioner Boyd's first parcel here on page two, parcel A. Isn't that the site where there was a proposed billboard? Yes. And whatever happened to that? I know it was in litigation.

What was proposed?

A big billboard that was right on the corner. I'm not familiar with that one, but I'm happy to look into it. It was, I want to say probably four years ago now.

The Planning Commission reviewed it and the ZBA eventually ruled against it. And then there were discussions with the lawyers and so forth. And then I believe in the end, the board, the touch of board voted against it. and went into litigation, but I haven't heard anything in a long time.

That for me raises the question about the availability of that parcel toward our data center. And my other question is, so this draft ordinance that you put forward, is this sort of putting the cart before the horse because there's a moratorium or what is the plan for the township? reviewing this information as long as others in other municipalities?

Again, so when we State law allows for us to have moratoriums only as a temporary solution while we move forward toward that implementation and so that's why we we do continue to move forward. I know there are potential changes in state law that will render, that will essentially nullify this process, but we can't really rely upon them. And so that's why we are moving forward. But I think this one in speaking with the planners, you know, this is in draft, you know, certainly still in draft format, just as we move forward on these items and talking at a higher level about these issues. And one thing I'd point out is also, you know, in addition to that, that, linear footage setback, we still do have those sound obligations and sound regulations that while 500 feet may be permissible because it's consistent with other setbacks for similar types of uses, they would still have to meet those sound obligations independently to say at the site, you know, and I can't reference our draft as it sits right now, but for example, at the property line, it can't be higher than 60 decibels from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m., something along that, for example, let's just throw that out there. As the planners referenced, you know, for example, the Saline Township one, well known, the barn, my recollection is the last site plan that they had showed 75 of the biggest generators you've ever seen essentially lining the building. You'd have to be thousands of feet to meet any sound standards at the property line. that will apply some practical potential additional distance unless they come up with some alternative technologies to build these data centers in a way that they currently don't. Because I thought the same thing, 100 foot line, that's five doors down. That's really close.

As drafted, does this ordinance require continuing compliance with the sound piece and all the other requirements?

Yeah, absolutely.

Because it looked like where I was reading it, they were part of the submittal requirements, but I guess I might have missed the ongoing compliance piece. And again, I didn't read the whole thing in depth and detail.

Yeah, and I think that's only as it relates to the proposal submittal requirements, the actual sound requirements will be within the sound ordinance.

Okay.

But that would absolutely be a requirement. Again, this is still being built, but that's an absolute necessity. I mean, certainly the final product will include that if this doesn't reference that.

Okay. there there is a section I think if yours reports double-sided it might not be the same page okay I'm on page four at the bottom under number nine are we talking about the memo or I'm of the draft ordinance

Which page did you say?

No, page four.

Okay.

It says within six months of the date of occupancy of any completed data center development and by annually thereafter actual sound levels for scenarios listed under Section 28.5, Subsection 4, so that's referencing our code above, must be measured by a qualified engineer with experience in environmental acoustics and a final sound level report must be submitted for review and approval. and if they exceed the maximum sound pressure listed, corrective actions must be completed no later than 90 days from the date of the submission of the report.

Is that the same for water and generators, lighting? I think there is one for water. I see that they reference other sections of the ordinance, so maybe in there they require the ongoing compliance.

There's one for vibration. There's a water feasibility study and an annual report for that. I do think it covers it, but we'll double check. Okay, thank you.

There's a couple other minor comments. On page four of the ordinance under the performance standards paragraph, the last sentence, XXX administration needs to fill that in as to whatever that is specifically.

You repeat that.

Yeah, on page four of the draft ordinance at the top performance standards, the very last sentence in that paragraph, says Article XXX Administration, so you need to just correct that.

Yes, so I just want to preface with this draft ordinance. A lot of the section references reference to our current standards that are in the zoning ordinance. So our approach in this initial draft was to mark the subsections that currently exist, and then we will have to review each and every section that we currently have to determine whether those standards are sufficient for the data centers. So you can think of the yellow highlights as current placeholders. We're just, in this draft, it's more of, is there anything missing from this text before, or does there anything that needs to be removed before the subsection analysis gets completed?

Okay, and then on page eight, a couple comments. Section 10 liaison, paragraph B, Upon operation of the data center, Plymouth Township shall notify and provide contact information for the facility liaison to property owners within 500 feet of the facility. Is that 500 feet of the property line of the facility? Okay, you might want to add the words property line.

We can add that.

And then on the next paragraph, extraordinary events. If the data center experiences a failure, fire, leakage of hazardous materials, personal injury, or other extraordinary or catastrophic event, the operator must notify Plymouth Township within 24 hours after, say, an incident. I would say they need to notify immediately.

I would agree with that.

Can everybody state where that is?

Yeah, it's on page eight. It's second to paragraph 11, about halfway down the page, a little bit more. The third sentence. Got it?

Attorney Chubb, would we be legally able to require immediate notification or would that be for fire and emergency services?

I would think that in light of the fact that it could be a hazard, that it definitely, we could require that because it's not about them, it's about the exposure for others.

Yeah, and I think because of the enormity of these potential centers, the obligation to ramp up potential response is reasonable. It would make it reasonable to require immediate notification.

Okay, we'll amend that.

So what is the process? Are we to, I mean, I read through it, but again, like Tim had said, I didn't go word for word and try to piece the thing together. So is there a deadline, a timeline about when you want this to move forward? Are we waiting for the trustees to,

So our original timeline had it adopted in October. So if we want to stay consistent with that, we would need to have your comments and recommendations in time for revisions to be made to the document and then the revised document to be provided to Spalding to Decker for engineering, building, fire, public services to ensure that anything they would need on their end is clarified. And then in time for the addition to the packet for October. I will work on getting you a date for that. We will also need to make any of those section edits and section analyses. So depending on the number of edits that need to be made and whether you all would like to see another version after this prior to the October meeting, the deadline could potentially move further?

When does the moratorium expire?

It was 18 months long. I can't listen. It's in the next year.

We still have a cushion. I believe it's in one of the emails or in the presentation that we forwarded for the data centers, but we confirmed it's not in this calendar year. So we do still have an amount of time.

It was passed in January of 2026. So 18 months from January. So we still have time.

June 27th.

But that's good that we're working on it, looking at it, and talking about it.

I have a question. I'm sorry, go ahead. Go ahead. Would this require a public hearing, either the Planning Commission or the Board of Trustees? I would think so. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Go ahead. Yes, come on up.

So I'm Dave Ladewick from 14354 Northvale Road here in Plymouth. I just, I have a couple things that have always gone through our minds. We've talked about it, you know, when I was on the commission, but I don't, I'm not privy to reading this, so I might be just replacing or reciting what's in there, but I have a couple things. And I think when I was... writing one of the last ones down as I was back there, one of the things that doesn't seem like it's being talked about, we're talking about noise, but we're not talking about vibration. And vibration, I'm not an engineer, so I can't be totally sure about this, but vibration actually is the thing that causes the noise. And that means whatever... noise it is, it could be the motor running, but it's amplified by the vibration of what it's sitting on. So that might be something we need to look into.

It is actually referenced in several places in here. What's that? The vibration issue is referenced in this material, and it makes many of the same points that you just did. It's a key consideration.

I put it on the screen if you would like to look.

All right, cool. So I'm not that way out there. The other thing that actually Senator Rosemary and I talked about when she was here for the commissioner's trustees meeting, we talked about in the parking lot, was the fact that these buildings are basically using up a lot of property, but they're also single-use type buildings. And one of the things that the state is looking at is that they're trying to come up with a wordage in their code system that is going to make sure that there's funding to dismantle those buildings. And I don't know how that could be done. It almost has to be some sort of tax on that building or some sort of fee on that building almost on a yearly basis because we sure don't want 10 years down the road when we know that these buildings probably aren't going to be used for anything. Data centers won't even be around. There'll be some other type of AI type of thing out there. But somehow we have to, as a community, should have some idea of how we're going to recoup the cost to dismantle. Because those companies will probably be... if they're smart, they're gonna be gone, but they're not gonna have any funding to do it.

There's actually quite a bit of work.

And I think my last one was that, and I think Dennis and Tim and I talked a little bit about this.

Can I respond to your second point? There's actually quite a bit of wording in here about that very point that you're making. So it's specific requirements of the developer on what they would have to do if the site is vacated. There's also wording about how the township would be protected financially. It goes into a lot of details. So when this... is available for public comment. I would ask that you take a look at that and see if it meets your expectations.

I got one more point. I think we talked a little bit about this before the meeting. I think it's in Washington right now that they're trying to pass this. I don't think it's at the state level. I think it's in the federal level that these companies cannot pass on the water and electricity charges back to the community. So however that is to be handled or talked about needs to be talked about. So I'm sorry if I reiterated what was in the sheets, but I think it's some of those things that need to be looked at for too much longer before you start passing it on to the folks. Thank you. Thanks for your time.

Yeah, thank you. I'm not as clear on how this responds to the third point that was just made, so.

And to that point, that is something that we've legally determined is really within the sole purview of the Michigan Public Service Commission. And so we are relying on the state to make those determinations. They do review each application on a case by case basis, but there's certainly, even some of the applications that have been passed, there's certainly been some after the fact questioning as to whether they do actually negatively impact other local rate payers. And so I think that's why there are some potential state laws that are to be enacted to focus on exactly that.

So when this is presented to the board and to the public, we need to be clear that the reason that we don't have a more precise description in our own proposal is because of the rule of the state.

Absolutely, and I think we'll definitely make that a big piece of the explanation of the final version is what we can't regulate, I guess, and so that's why you don't find it within the ordinance.

Okay, thank you for the comments.

Which gives me the idea that when we're at that point, when we're going to have our public hearing, there'll be, I'm sure, a lot of controversy. And as you say, data centers and people get all upset about it. So if you could put, consider having a PowerPoint presentation and have those key things that people mention so much, and that's the noise, the vibration, cost of powering it, the water, how's it gonna be cooled? And I think that would help. walk people through that process. So something to think about once we get closer to a final draft.

That makes a lot of sense. We can do that. We can do that. Sorry.

Currently, right, I believe you're near a 5G tower. You can't be with residential so far. What is the 5G or whatever the use is at the data center? Are they communicating the information?

Do you guys know? I'm not clear on that.

Do you mean the connection to electric, or do you mean the fiber optic, like internet access? Phone signal. I believe we can double check this, but they need to be located to available cell towers. large-scale cell towers. But in all of our reviews and analyses, actual data transmission through the internet hasn't come up. So I don't know in what capacity we would know how it would affect internet speeds or that aspect of it. It's a good question, though.

I have another question. So if an applicant came in, or I guess not an applicant, but if someone came in and was able to meet all the requirements in the ordinance, could they just, as a right, build their data center? What is the approval mechanism here?

It is a special land use, so you would have to have findings of fact for your reason for denial of the application. Do you have anything to add to that, or is that...

Well, more importantly, that is true for denial, but the good thing about a special land use is it is on a case-by-case basis we can impose additional requirements based on that, you know, site-specific conditions.

Where in here does it say it's a special land use?

So it'll be listed as data center specifically will be listed as under the special land use category of each zoning district. And then this is just a subsection that people will come back to and refer to the requirements.

Okay, thanks.

That puts an extra burden on the planning commission because we do the, we're the final authority for special land use.

Quite frankly, the Planning Commission should be the subject matter expert. We can't expect the Board of Trustees to get into this level of detail. This is our role, at least as I see it. I would just summarize that I think this is excellent work going forward, and I encourage you to keep the effort up and continue to refine it. I like that we're well along you know, months in advance. So we know with the master plan that there are a lot of delays that come along the way. So just keep up the good work and keep the momentum going.

Thank you. We'll follow up with an email for the date that we would need any written comments or revisions, either through email or dropping it off on our desk so that we can get those comments incorporated into the new draft. And then we'll give you an update on whether the whether we will make it in time for public hearing for October and the timeline moving forward.

was some of these thoughts that are in this ordinance, these directions, where were they secured from? Were they from other municipalities or the Michigan Township Association? Who determines are these the best practices?

So there has been a lot of research done, specifically the University of Michigan has gotten together and done national research on this topic. And they've come up with preliminary findings and recommendations. We've also looked at state level research and analysis. And I do believe we've included most of our sources in the document, but we have also looked at existing and draft ordinances that other communities, whether it's be in the state of Michigan or across the United States for our draft recommendations.

Yeah, I think there should be some follow up in terms of like Michigan Townships Association, what they're recommending and suggesting, because that's really who we get our biggest amount of input from. And I think that should be known and incorporated where it should be in this draft.

We will see if they have any recommendations, but I what I will say is that everyone's trying to play catch up with data centers. So some of these it might be the case that some of these recommendations would come after the ordinance is adopted. It can always be amended and. So it depends on whether we would like to reach out to them before they have provided their official recommendation and analysis, or if we want to proceed with our timeline of the moratorium.

I understand that. I just think it's important because we are a municipality. I'm more interested in what MTA says and what the University of Michigan says. I appreciate what they're saying, but we need to protect ourselves. That's my concern because they're working on this too.

Would you, if they don't have any material available?

Actually, on the 23rd, they're doing a... I mean, like a Zoom type meeting presentation about data centers. So I certainly can collect all of the information that I get and pass it on to you.

That's the MTA?

Yes.

Yeah, I went to the webinar maybe six months ago or seven months ago. It was a pretty basic, and maybe they've improved their gathering more information. I'm hopeful. Yeah. You know, it was pretty basic stuff with, you know, the different kinds of data centers and that kind of stuff, which was interesting. And I think it's on their website. You know, they record those. I'll have to check and see. I have to get the exact title.

Okay.

I know I haven't.

Okay, and I'll see what I can provide to the planners so that they can incorporate it.

And my colleague, Rob Thal, is a municipal attorney on the west side of the state. He's been the one that's been writing all of the MTA presentations that they, or articles that they have been posting in their monthly magazine. And so I'll certainly talk with him to see if they do have anything in the works.

I think October is a little aggressive, but I could be wrong.

It was an extension of the original timeline, but if we need further revisions or reviews, we can discuss the timeline with Supervisor Kermie and see if we can be more flexible and have more time for that.

Any other comments or thoughts?

Great job.

Yeah, it was very good.

Very comprehensive and we appreciate that. And we appreciate you also as our legal counsel working with them to ensure that we're getting the best information.

All right, and then Commissioner's comments. Does anyone have any parting thoughts?

Okay, I'm sorry. I can't hear either, so I don't know how loud I'm talking.

Do you have any pearls of wisdom, Sandy?

No, you had a good question.

How does a data center get data?

I don't know. Could you repeat that?

He wants to know how a data center gets data.

Yeah, I think I understood your question better when you referenced 5G. So when we were, we just did a similar presentation yesterday in Grand Blanc Township and they said the three big factors that data center locations or potential locations being reviewed by the developer are water, electricity, and fiber. And so I think that is a huge piece of it is that they're able to, that there is fiber available so that they can receive the data, process the data, I guess, and then send it back out. I think with the amount of information they're getting, that would be the only feasible way. Certainly not 5G or cellular or anything like that.

How long before we're all fiber?

So we did just have an update on this. There's easy fiber, ripple fiber, one more, but they're all permitted within or going to be permitted in the township. And it's basically a fiber war right now until, excuse my language, of who... gets there first. So it is coming, and I'm assuming it might be for this specific use, or it could potentially be. So fiber's on the way.

There's some reason that they're out there, yeah, pushing, pushing, pushing for that. So EC fiber is being installed throughout the township right now. Ripple, there were some issues with it previously. I don't know what they were, but I think I saw somewhere there was another one. coming up too, so.

Yeah, I think it's going before the board. That's how they will get their information communicated.

That's it, okay, Ashley, nothing, okay. Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7.59? Mr.

Chair, I move we adjourn at 7.59 p.m.

Support?

Support.

Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Gross to adjourn the meeting at 7.59. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We're adjourned.