Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we will call the August 19th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order. Roll call, Madam Secretary.

Sure, no. Are you really making me do it?

Kind of put her on the spot.

Everyone except, sure.

Andy.

Is here.

Perfect.

Okay. All right, adoption of the agenda. I'll entertain a motion to adopt the agenda as printed.

If no one has anything they want to add to the agenda, I'll make that motion to move as presented.

Second.

The agenda is adopted. I'll entertain a motion to adopt the July 15th, 2026 meeting minutes.

I'll move to adopt those minutes.

I'll support. Thank you. Those are adopted. And now we can open it up to general public comment. Please approach the podium, use the microphone, and state your name and address and any concerns you may have.

Oh, good.

Juan Johnson, 16162 Coventry Lane. I just wanted to welcome Gil Segovia.

Thank you.

To the commission here. And that's basically what I wanted to say.

I want to add, all those meetings you and your husband sat there, you finally have come up and said something, so welcome.

I've spin up a number of times. You've been out of town.

In the olden days, yeah.

Oh yeah. You've been out of town, that's why.

I'm wandering minstrel, what can I say?

I know.

Awesome, thank you. Any other public comment?

Mr. Chairman, I think now might be a good time to just do a round-the-table introductions for Gil, who's here on his first night. Read my mind. Perfect.

So with that, I'd like to welcome Gil Segovia to the Planning Commission as a newly appointed member. Gil, if you'd like to state a little bit about yourself, and then we can do the same for you.

Okay. Been in Spring Lake Township for about 18 years. Love the community. Been a banker for 42 years. Recently retired about four years ago. Love my family. Love this community and just want to help out. Welcome.

Thank you. Welcome, yes.

Yo, I'm Jack Ketchum. I've lived here since 02.

You better speak into your mic.

I forget. We're live. We get real sticklers about this. Sounds good.

I moved from the Whitehall area here in 02. And I think I got involved in like 05 or something with the planning commission. So it's been an interesting task. So I have three daughters. None of them are on my car insurance policy. None of them live in my basement. Life is good.

Hi, Gil. I'm Kelly Clark. I'm a physical therapist by trade and a mom of three. And I've been in the planning commission for, I'd say, five years.

Welcome. Jeff Baxter, been here on this planning commission again for the second term for about three or four months now. I served with Jack many years ago for five or six or seven years, whatever it was, when we established the master plan and everything else to live here in Spring Lake again. Took a little hiatus, which took me off the board and then came back. I became a troll below the bridge. Now we're back on the right side of the bridge. But yeah, like you, love the community, love the area, want to make sure that we're doing right by its citizens and by the township at large. Welcome.

I'm Cassandra Johnston. We've been in Spring Lake full-time for about six years. I'm retired from corporate America, but I do some bookkeeping and finance stuff for some family companies. I have two little kiddos, 11 and 9, that keep me very busy. And I've been in the commission now three years?

At least.

Somewhere around three years. So welcome. We're good to have you.

Russ Tiles. I think I've been on the planning commission 15 years? It's been a while.

It's been a minute. Not quite as long as Jack.

I can't remember you not being on it. Director of Engineering for Furniture Brand. I think I might be the only village resident on the commission. So I offer hopefully some little bit of village voice here, but that's it, so.

Great. Is there any other public comment?

Make a motion to close public comment. Support.

The comment is closed. Thank you. Moving to the next item on the agenda, Accessory Structures and Fences in the Mobile Home Park District. We had a nice memo from Lucas guiding us kind of what was said at the Township Board. You want to recap that for us and kind of walk us through next steps?

Sure, sure. Basically the Township Board was interested and felt that the direction the planning commission was going with this language was the right direction. Understanding it's a different district, it's a different type of land use than our typical single family residential districts. So they're happy to hear we were working with the park owners on this and involving them as a stakeholder for review. We did talk a little bit about the, we have limitations that are outlined in this draft ordinance, but we did talk about lot coverage as well and that the challenge of the parks basically stating they don't have defined lots. They're somewhat fluid, but we also know that when somebody moves into a site that they're given boundaries that, hey, this is your space that you get to use and maintain. So generally speaking, they gave us a thumbs up to continue walking down this path to create something. But I think it's also baby steps. So trying something that's maybe not extremely restrictive, and see how that works and see if we need to make changes a year from now or something after we start applying it. Sometimes you don't see the parts that need improvement until you start to really apply that on site. um so i i do you know at this juncture same with the the next item here is is that if you're if you're comfortable we can schedule this for a public hearing next month and get some public input we can continue to discuss the lot coverage aspect and be inclusive of that if if there's a way to do that that that is uh amicable i guess if you will with the township and the owners and figure that out but I think that's part of the concern. Certainly not all of them, but some of the lots have decks and sheds and carports and fences. They really start to feel overcrowded, at least in my opinion, and it's something that We regulate in the other districts. So should we be conscious of that in these districts? And so, but I do think, you know, we're not, I should say we're not in a hurry. However, we do have tenants within those parks that are interested in putting up carports and decks and stuff. And they've been on hold for a while while we go through this process. So if we can dial something in next month to recommend to the township board in October, I think that would be really good because I know there's some older folks that want a carport before the snow flies. And that's understandable to get some cover on their cars. So I think that would be the hope is to move it sooner than later and kind of open the door for people to start reapplying for things out there.

And is the draft language in your memo kind of where you would start to ground that language for the ordinance?

What I'd also recommend is that we send it over to Ron Bolche, our attorney for review and get his opinion on things and really get it into ordinance format for us and point out any concerns that he may have as well.

Any other comments or questions or concerns from the rest of the commission?

I'm curious on the fence rule in the front yard. Like is that, so if you have like small kids, and I know it's not like a busy street, but the intent of the fencing is only to be side yards and backyards then? So the, yes, fence standards. I don't really have a change of view on that. I was just curious for clarification.

That's a good point. From a standpoint of like in the township residential districts, fences are allowed in the front yard and they can be as tall as four feet, but they have to be 50% see-through. So maybe that could be changed to where it's three feet in height, but needs to be 50% see-through in the front yard. Okay, good call. Does that make sense, Cassandra?

Yeah.

I don't know if anyone else has a better memory than I am, but the detached enclosed accessory structure in item one, you have in parentheses shed or garage. I thought... I thought we had talked about no enclosed garages. So it's just kind of confusing. If we are allowing garages, but then they can only be 200 square feet, do we just want to drop garage from that line?

It might make sense to just take shed and garage right out, really.

Yeah, because you call out the enclosed accessory structure lower square footage.

So an accessory building is a defined term within the ordinance. Correct.

Do the fire marshal have any concerns?

They were I think their concern was that making sure there's at least that three feet, and I ran that past a building official as well.

Well, you know, it's interesting having visited two of the three parks. I've still not been to the third park up in Fruitport Way. But some of these issues about no attached additions, boy, there's a number of attached additions. Is it country estates that's on the west side of the road and country estates that's the other way around?

Yeah, country estates on the east side.

Country estates has quite a few, but even Forest Lake Estates also has some. And they are definitely, I mean, they're literally... nailed it or screwed it and attached. I'm assuming we're going to have to have some sort of grandfather clause where that would be a legally non-conforming structure but anything new that goes from this point on.

I think that's really our goal is from this point on. Yes. I mean I do think there's some other matters that you know as far as and you know some enforcement issues some safety issues and building maintenance and things like that that might need to be addressed but Again, just not jumping head first into the pool. It's just kind of a slow process and working with some of the park owners to, they need some help to, you know, because they understand that there's some concerns and we can help them with that. But yeah, I think it's really, right now we're focusing on new structures from this point forward. Yeah.

Because there are Forest Lake, no, Of course, the ones on the east side of the road, it's really unattractive in there. I think about how diligent the township has been in people maintaining their homes and so on to think, but it's really that park has some issues that are really quite unattractive. Enforcement by the management to get that going. So I was worried about the grandfather clause. Fire marshal, the size of the garage, which you're suggesting, 200 square foot, that's pretty slim pickings. Isn't a standard garage 22 or 24 by... 10 or 12?

So it would essentially be a single stall garage. Oh, okay. All right. That's the intent.

Okay. So what if Graham and Grandpa both have cars? One has to park it out in the snow and the other one gets to go in the garage? Well, they do have a carport option. Oh, carport. Right. Okay. Gotcha. Yes, those were my primary concerns. I think it's a good start. I like the baby steps concept, and I like involving, at this point in time, it's really after the fact, involving the management of those places as well. So have you contacted all three of the owners?

I've just been working with the two. Okay. So I haven't talked to anybody from, I think it's Lone Oak.

And I haven't driven through there yet, so my mistake.

I will. I'll make sure they get a copy of this in advance of the next meeting. Thanks, Lucas.

I know that they don't have defined lot sizes, but I wonder with this, if we could have a guesstimate of what our lot coverage percentage looks like with these. Like is there an average lot size and an average size home where we could say, okay, are we at 70% with this or are we at 50? I don't really see where we could back down from the structures either. So maybe it doesn't matter.

No, it would be interesting. So if they tell somebody, here's the lot that you get to use, they should be able to draw those dimensions on a site plan and illustrate that for them and for us. And so when they do apply for something, it's... available, it would seem, I mean, it might take, so that's maybe just something to explore.

Again, to remind me, so these lots are all leased. the renter, if you will, or the leasee, they own their unit, their home and their deck and so on, but they're actually just leasing the property or the property to be able to allow that to be on that property.

They are tenants, so they own the structure the owner, the park owner, owns the ground beneath it. And so part of the challenge is that we do see stick-built permanent structures on foundations that have been, and this has been previous to in the last year, but those permanent structures are placed on the property. And Those, I mean, some of those you can't really take with you. I mean, you might be able to dismantle them to a certain extent, like a deck. Maybe you could dismantle it. I just had a phone call where somebody was moving out and they wanted to take a deck apart and move it over to the next, to their site, you know, and reuse that, which I thought was great. But so that kind of gets into a little bit of that. You know, 200 square feet is also kind of the magic number in that if you stay at 200 or below, you don't need a building permit. All you need is a zoning permit. Okay. So that's helpful, too, so it doesn't eclipse that number. And with the carports, I think the building code looks at those differently because I think there's just a special section in there for those. And so overall, the stick-built ones are... I think if you stay under that 200, it might actually be easier to move something and you can buy a prebuilt 200 square foot garage, I think, that gets delivered.

So when someone builds a 200 square foot garage, stick built, and they put a carport and they don't have to have, they just need a zoning permit, is there an increase in the taxes for that lot?

As I alluded to, it used to be the lot or the tenant of that lot would get taxed. Yes. But that, I believe the assessor has informed me that now it's actually the owner of the park receives that tax bill now for that improvement. There's been cases where those taxes just weren't paid by the tenant and they were unrecoverable. own anything per se. They're just getting the tax bill. And so when they left, it was just impossible to So unlike when you buy a house, if those taxes aren't paid on a house, right, that's easily rectifiable. So that's how that works.

And so the owners must then build that into the lease and they must have adjustments that they can do to these leases in terms of, because they're not paying out of the goodness of their heart. for that increased tax bill on lot 221 when they put up a garage and so on.

Yeah, there's probably some inner workings there. Thank you.

Any other commissioner comments? I really see this as a backstop for the owners of the parks. This gives them an ability to say something to whoever and then say there's a process to go through, you have to do this. for the tax purposes, probably pass it along as HOAs down the road. So.

And I also like Jeff, as we've made a point, as I just alluded to about, it's important that our residences look decent. That gives a little bit of control to us too, where you're setting some standards that are gonna have to be adhered to. So, okay. I think this should go on to the board.

What do you need from us? So just direction to notice the public hearing for next month and to send that to Ron Bolche for review. Go ahead. Probably a motion. No, just consensus really. But if you want to make a motion, that'd be fine.

We have consensus.

Do we have consensus to move forward? Everybody good? Yes. Okay. We'll move forward.

Perfect. Thank you.

The next item on the agenda is waterfront decks. Maintain the same memo. Lucas, do you wanna walk us through your thoughts and comments there?

Yep, so as same with the mobile home park accessory buildings and fences, the board was supportive of this action and of this text amendment. And I didn't get a solid preference on option one or two, but the one I think that probably landed on the better side was that was option number two, just allowing that 10-foot deck off the main level. So I think the public hearing notice is going to be a little more general, so we can still contemplate these two options, but So option two seemed to kind of rise above, and I think either one would probably get through at the board level. So it's a matter of preference at this juncture. But I think from an administrative standpoint, option two is obviously easier to do.

Comments, questions from the commissioners?

You know, would it be, as you put together the packet or you have the packet, would this be just a little side conversation we could have with the ZBA just sharing those two options? I thought that'd be interesting because we're the ones that are dealing with that all the time and so on. I also would like to see the language added, no wider than the dwelling, too, which you alluded to, but I don't see it. No wider than the dwelling?

Yeah.

Okay. Good call.

On option two? Option two, it's in there. Oh, but not on option one, yeah.

And I too slightly lean towards of the two. I mean, they're both strong, but I thought option two was, in my opinion, a little better. So whichever option goes, and so when they come to do a building permit and you talk to where the deck can be and so on,

should they disagree they still have the option of appealing that the zoning board of appeals correct okay is 10 feet deep a current standard or is this it isn't a standard really it doesn't exist at this point so 10 feet was really just kind of a number that's i mean it's not a magic number by any stretch it could you know it just felt like a nice even number.

I'm just wondering at the ZBA level, how often was the deck only 10 feet deep? It just feels like it's not often going to be enough and then it's going to lead to ending at the CBA. That's my personal opinion.

That's where option number one really has the advantage where you could consider really look at those two adjacent decks and say, yeah, your neighbors have this. This makes sense for it to work. And we can line that up on GIS and do that pretty easily as well. So there is an advantage there.

What if the two houses next to you don't have decks?

That's right. Then even that person in the middle gets to do a 10-foot deck. Okay. So, yeah.

I'd be curious. I'm just thinking if you put a table on the deck, you know, like a three-foot wide table, deep table, and then do you have enough? It just doesn't seem like it's a very big space. I know you don't want to be able to make a massive deck, but like 12 feet maybe? I don't know.

Maybe that's where option one is beneficial because it's saying, well, you can put a deck out that's comparable to your neighbors. And that way it's, and someone could still build that into their design. So if they wanted a bigger deck, then they could just back their house up a little bit. They'd still be able to come out as far as their neighbors, but if they wanted more than that, then they'd just have to bring their house back four feet or something to accommodate that larger size.

And of course, if you're not on a bank, then you still could have a patio, something at ground level or up six inches above. You could go to whatever the setback is on your property line. It's an interesting discussion you're having there because I now, I see some advantages to option one that I had not considered. I am concerned, too, though. There's no statement about containers. And I know it's a big deal on the ZBA that I'm on in Florida. We have so many toys now, so then they want a four-foot by 72-inch tall by three-foot deep storage cabinet. We pretty much want any of those decks to have at least 50% or more visual through it and so on. We don't want sidewalls on them and so on. Should we have something... language in there regarding storage containers or large objects or height or something. It's one thing to have an umbrella, which when it's closed is only about 12 to 14 inches in diameter as a visual obstruction. And when it's open, it's just, you can see right through it. I wonder if we don't want to cover that. We state that often in passing a deck, but would it be better to have that language, whichever options have that language about no. This container's higher than, I don't know, 36 inches or 42 inches or whatever, something.

Yeah, it's an interesting comment because we had a property owner on the waterfront. They put one of those semi-permanent gazebos on their deck. And then in the wintertime, they put all their chairs and stuff underneath that and then wrapped it with a tarp. Called it a shed, like their storage shed for their, and our phone rang when that happened. So at any rate, because it was blocking a tremendous view of Spring Lake on one of the bayous. So yeah, I think, you know, that's an important factor and it's, those kinds of what I'd call semi-permanent type structures become difficult to really get out there and enforce. When you think about chairs and tables and umbrellas and things that people put on their deck, it's gonna have some blockage of that view shed. potentially, but you just have to... So I'll think about that and see if there's a way of crafting that that makes sense and makes it... Because we do say in here that the railing should remain at least 50% see-through. And that's a permanent structure that's easy to regulate. It's the stuff that they put on it that gets a little harder too. But I'll make a note of that.

Thank you. I just want to add, I think, as great of an idea maybe that is, I think it's a slippery slope. to that because now we're telling people what they can put on their deck, right? And it's one thing to say, okay, you can go this far because then even if it's a 50% transparent deck rail or whatever, there's a cutoff to where that structure is. As soon as, why are we setting a cutoff right, if we're saying, okay, well, you have to be able to see through that 10 feet anyway, right, with what structure's on it, because I mean, hot tub, you're gonna be completely out, you're not gonna be able to do it. You know, grill, table, I mean, it's just a slippery slope.

Just towels hanging over the railings, right?

Well, I would assume those go away eventually. You know, maybe on like a windy day, they fall down.

But correct me if I'm wrong, the 10 feet we're talking about in option two is really in addition to what they can put up to the average waterfront setback, right? So they could have, in essence, if they have 20 feet to that, they could have a 30 foot deck, right? Which would make it plenty large. I did like option two because it does set a limit versus something subjective or having to be negotiated between the two other houses. I did like that, but the other question about grade came up in my mind, especially in the dunes where you might walk in on level one, but you have two or three floors below you. And are we putting a deck off of the grade where you enter or the grade where you're actually at grade on the backside of the house? That's, I think we've got to look at how we define grade or how we define that term a little bit for our intent.

You know, I just thought it was a grade on the back side, if you will, or in a lakefront property, the front side of the home, but yeah.

Well, like building heights though, we say average grade, right? So if you have that pitch, you have an average grade, you pick that point and that's your set point to be able to do your height. So it's, where is this deck?

I do think we have definitions that help us with that in the ordinance, I believe. You just want to reference back to them. Yeah. I'll take a look at that as well.

My in-laws had one that they had a deck on every level off the backside when you entered at the main level, and then they had four floors below it. Oh, wow. Yeah.

A patio at the bottom and then three decks above?

Yep, every level.

Nice. Well, and while summer is short here, a lot of people who live, especially on waterfront, that's a big entertainment factor for them. Absolutely. They want a 30-foot deep deck. They want to have all that. Or sometimes someone who, one of the people in the home is confined to a wheelchair or a motorized wheelchair or whatever, and they want all of 10-foot just to be able to negotiate, still have tables and chairs and get that chair out and negotiate it around, so. And Russ, my idea was not necessarily just setting a limit of height, such as 40 inches or 42 inches, because yeah, I see that slippery slope.

I understand. Any other commissioner comments?

I just, I had one just to kind of bring Gil up to speed, and I think we covered this in our meeting, but the reason we're looking at this is because the Zoning Board of Appeals will often modify their waterfront setback allowance to allow somebody to have a deck that's similar to what their neighbors have. But the only way to do that is through the waterfront setback determination process, which requires an application to the ZBA, plus there's a fee that goes with that, and there's timing, and it's just a matter of convenience. And so when the ZBA continuously approves things like that, we start saying, okay, is there a way to modify the ordinance and make it more of an administrative approval for them and make it easier and less expensive to do that. So that's why we're doing this.

I'm hoping by next month Gil gets away from the paper name tag too. Absolutely. Okay, just uncover here for our new member.

If you guys are good, we'll go ahead and get that one on the public notice as well and run it by run.

I think we have consensus. All agreed?

Yes.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is commercial signage. Again, containing the same memo from staff. Lucas, you want to kind of walk us through your thoughts and obviously you're prepping us for what's coming.

Yes, that's right. That's right. So we do have some results from the corridor plan, the M104 corridor plan that's underway right now. And hopefully you guys had a chance to take that survey. If not, there's still opportunities for input. But one of the items in that plan that was in the scope was to look at commercial signage and get some community input and feedback about that. The digital sign that the township has put up at the new community center has been of interest now by the commercial businesses along M104. And so that just kind of started that question or started that conversation about, all right, is it time to look at our ordinance and maybe open the door for additional signage in the commercial districts along M104? I think it's going to focus around the digital sign. Maybe not. There's some other topics that might come up. Adam Beck is here. Hi, Adam. I know you were hiding behind the podium. Yeah, but Adam is the chair of the Corridor Improvement Authority, and he's been interested in looking at the signed ordinance, and I think the whole authority really is interested in having that discussion. And as I shared with them, yesterday when they had their meeting is that the philosophy on digital signs was really mimicking what Orchard Market has. So you have your stationary permanent sign and then you have your complimentary digital sign below it. And that's really what our ordinance allows is a kind of an accessory digital sign along with the stationary sign. The other philosophy that was considered when this ordinance was written is be conservative on the ground signs, like the monument signs that are out, you know, detached from the building out near the street or sidewalk. Make those a little smaller, but be very liberal on the building signage and allow larger signs there. So that was kind of the balance that the township at the time felt was a reasonable approach to signage. And I think generally there was just a desire to see more of the monument lower ground signs than the taller pylon type signs in the community. I just wanted to get this out in front of you guys, get you a little more familiar with it. Signage has a few components. One is safety, that we wanna make sure they're placed in locations that are safe, not blocking. views to roadways at intersections and things of that nature. But of course, on the other side of that, it's also an aesthetic issue. And of course, there's a functional issue with the owners, the business owners. mixing all of those together can be can be a challenge and so because there isn't necessarily a perfect answer and the the at the end of the day it's you know trying to get everybody to at least let's say a 75% win or something like that so it's It's not a perfect science and signage is kind of interesting these days because we don't regulate content. So someone can put a sign up and they can pretty much put whatever they want on it. It doesn't have to necessarily relate to the business that's there. One of those examples is the kayak rental place on M-104 where they have a heating and cooling business on one of their signs that they had. So it essentially kind of serves like a billboard, but the ordinance gave them the right to do that, to have an additional ground sign. So it's, I forget the name of the legal or the court case, but that was a freedom of speech. or case and said you know you get to put whatever you want on the sign and so but we do regulate location and size and type of in type so other than that you know it's really just wanted to bring it to to your attention that there you know this is something that's that's coming and we're I think we'll know more when we get done with the corridor improvement plan and get more input from the community.

Commissioner comments? Questions?

Yes. I continue to be concerned with the bright flashing signs with messages that change every five or ten seconds. I'm not really seeing that addressed here, but you'll remember I had some concerns, which were nicely addressed when they put up that digital sign. The 174th Street Fire Station was really bright. I mean, you could read a book at midnight by the light on that sign at 50 feet, and they toned it down. Where I live in Florida, part of the year, there are a lot of digital signs. And typically, right at intersections where there's a lot of left turns, right turns, traffic, three lanes each way and so on, it's really distracting. And so I'm real concerned More so when you have them anywhere near our major intersections, such as 148th and M104 and so on, where there are pedestrians. I mean, there's lots to see. So I hope that the, as this progresses, I hope that people start paying some attention to that. It's the old bigger and better. If Joe Blow at Shell Station has a digital sign that's kind of like, well, I want one, but it's going to have to be louder and brighter and larger and so on. So I hope there's some regulation that gives consideration to not just aesthetics, although part of it with me is aesthetics, but also safety issues that revolve around these signs where they're flipping and it takes your eyes from the road to look and read it.

Those standards are very common. I think the old Rite Aid that's here in town, they just put up a new sign, digital sign, and I've noticed at night that there's a lot of glare that comes from that. Per the village ordinance, they're actually supposed to have an automatic dimmer on that. It senses when it gets dark and then that should tone down, but I don't think they've either they haven't installed it or they haven't programmed it for that yet or something. So, but those are the, yeah, those are the kinds of things that can be absolutely required for digital signs and the digital billboards that, you know, that are out there and they're required to do that too. But I know there's, or may be required depending on, you know, the municipality, but, but yeah, that's, that's, Typical type of ordinance that would include those dimmers to help with that. And then, of course, intervals, intervals, intervals. And, you know, you know, I think in our ordinance, it's, you know, the message fades. It goes in and out. It doesn't just. It doesn't flash and boom, change quickly. And it needs to be a full, complete message. So you're not reading a paragraph, trying to read a paragraph as you drive by in your car type of thing. So it's meant to be short, sweet, and effective really is the intent of what's in this ordinance today.

It has grown such that in the maybe many areas, but the area I'm familiar with in Florida, the really busy intersections, the entrepreneurs will erect just about a normal size billboard, whatever that is, 25 by 10 illuminated in messages. But in Florida, their traffic control is such that If you catch a red light just as it turns red, you literally can read a whole chapter in the book before you get a green to go. So you really have a captive audience, great advertising techniques.

Any other comments from the commissioners? Thanks. I think we'll take the under advisement to start brushing up on that. And I agree there are some standards that are out there for luminosity and distance and timing. You see that all the time. And it's probably not a bad thing to have in the ordinance for future stuff. Great. Moving right along into commissioner comments. Township board. Andy's not here. Lucas, you want to fill in on that?

Well, Gil was appointed to the Planning Commission. I remember that one. Let's see if I can remember anything else off the top of my head. I looked at Joanne on this one. You weren't at that one? Okay, okay. If not, we can move along.

We can move along.

ZBA?

Jack?

Go ahead. Our last ZBA was an interesting meeting. We have been dealing with a two properties on, oh gee, I didn't write that, Oak, what is that street where Oak, Mr. Zucca, Zucca,

Oh, that one is Highland. Highland Drive.

Yeah. And it was an unfortunate situation to develop through no fault of the owners, but we did come up with a resolution of denial as reviewed by our township attorney to deny them that, but also give them time. They only recently moved within a year. to the township, give them time because a building is going to have to be removed. It's on the waterfront and so on. And then there was on 15364 Leonard, authorizations, which is right around the bend, if you will, as you're going Leonard to the east. when it starts to straighten out on that lakeside. Authorizations for an oversized accessory building was approved, but they also wanted to, it's already legally non-conforming, I think at 22 feet, and they want it to be at 27 foot, because they want a loft and a variety of things. So we did allow the authorization for the oversized building but not for the height to increase. It's an interesting thing when you've got lakefront property and you've got roads. We still want the lakefront, even if you can't walk across the lawn, to be visual so people can drive down the road and you can see the river or you can see the lake or whatever. So the board did not like that height to increase because it's a large structure, though there are long, deep lots right there. So that was... Authorization for the height increase was denied. Then on 15656 Willow Drive, there was a waterfront determination and oversized attached garage authorization. They're actually going to have a gym, I think a full-size gym in this house. It's the first time I've ever run into that where the applicant and their representative, in this case, was a designer contractor. who literally knew, either through Lucas or whatever, that we weren't gonna like how that infringed, because it's on a bayou of Spring Lake, how it infringed on the views, especially the neighbors that are further up. the bayou to the east of them, the lake being to the west. He volunteered right off the bat. He said, well, we're going to move this house back a number of feet. The addition he wanted to put on would not be obstructing the view. We did some negotiations and worked, and I think we worked out a pretty good agreement on that. It was a good meeting and did not last three hours. That's all I have to say.

Thanks, Jack. Yep. Recreation Committee? We didn't have a meeting. Great report. Thank you. Keep it up. Community engagement.

So I would just touch on, and Michael came up and reminded me of this, is that the Culture of Kindness initiative is underway. And so we've been going out and doing pop-ups along the bike path. There was one tonight at the River Run Park from 4 to 6. There's another one next week out at the North Bank Trailhead on 144th. And just spreading the word of kindness and, you know, have members of our community ambassadors group, you know, that are out there. Joanne was out there tonight. And so the... you know, Gordon Gallagher, our managers out there, and we've had elected officials that show up and it's just a nice way to be outside and engaging with the community and spreading the word on slowing down really on our bike paths and being more cautious and courteous. So that's kind of a fun program, but that'll lead into the next step, which is creating some new bike path laws that hopefully will be in place by next year. and maybe we'll look regionally as we do that too so our bike path laws are somewhat consistent hopefully because people ride into different communities and if we all had the same laws and that would that would work really well especially northwest ottawa county

Before we move on with that, and there are gifts if you get to show up at one. They have free stickers, they have goodies that they hand out, which is very nice. You might have noticed that a week or two ago, Grand Haven City Council passed some real rigid restrictions on bikes downtown and so on. And I remember being down, it happened to be in downtown Grand Haven the day that school got out last June. There were kids, traffic laws be darned, they were everywhere and they were fast. And being now a grandfather, you start worrying about the health of these kids because they were like, just hoping that Grand Haven was kind and people didn't run over them as they went down the main drag doing some of that stunt. So I see they're restricting the scooters, both in that section, kind of the entertainment district, if you will now. And near the river as well, I believe the whole boardwalk now is restricted as well. And I'm seeing that in other, I belong to the West Michigan group too, and their newsletter has alluded to that as well. And the newspapers are reporting it, so people are becoming aware of what's going on. Absolutely.

The other topic that's worth noting is the township is in the early stages of deciding where the next bike path should be constructed. So there's, you know, Boom Road has been one of those on the list, and that's always of interest. And then there's some other sections for connectivity, like one is, I think it's the It's not Lone Oak, but it's the mobile home park on the north end up by Fruitport, putting one out there possibly to connect them up to the intersection and connect into our bike path system and into Fruitport. So there's some other spaces that would make sense, and there's also the boardwalk over Lloyd's Bayou on Leonard Road. It's not up to standard, I would say, and it's lived its life. It's probably 20, 25 years old, so we're kind of looking at that space as well, but I suspect we'll have a community forum of some sort where people can come in and talk about that. And eventually we need to get to a spot where we're making a recommendation to the township board on where to spend those remaining dollars. So I think with Russ and the recreation committee will play a big part in that.

Any progress on the washout?

Um, well the sewer lines reconnected and the, um, so that's functional again. So the, as far as I think they'll continue to rebuild that mound, uh, and then they'll let that settle and then do some testing, maybe some compacting and we might see asphalt in the spring, but I don't think we're going to see it before then.

Well, they want it to settle during the winter then?

That's, I think, the recommendation from the engineer, from Kevin.

Not something you can just tamp down there.

I mean, that's a whole lot of earth. So I'm sure there's some standards they need to meet to make it to where it's going to last another 100 years like it did this time.

But at my age, I'd settle for a good 10 or 15. I'll do it. Thank you.

Any further comment on the Corridor Improvement Authority?

So they had a meeting Tuesday and they did talk about the, they had an update on the corridor improvement plan. There was also a discussion about the Bizaki property that was recently acquired by the township out across, it's on the south side of M104, across from Bizaki Auto Parts. So that's 40 acres that's under contract. And they're doing some environmental testing right now, just to make sure all of that's kosher. And if those go through without any problems, then the township will acquire that and begin the process of developing it for light industrial, is what I think is on the docket for that. Corridor Improvement Authority was instrumental in helping to acquire that and pay the loans, assist in paying the loans for that property. So that's also a Township Board update as well. That was a major item on their agenda.

Will they continue to look for a second entrance as was a concern of the Planning Commission for that property?

That's absolutely on the list and we'll yeah I mean that's that's a huge access management issue and if we can keep traffic from from entering and exiting exiting on M-104 that's a huge it's a huge win so um As far as CDD, I think it's August 31st. Nick Maldonado will be joining the Spring Lake Township team as an assistant planner. So he is... pretty fresh out of college. He lives in Bolingbrook, Illinois right now, but he's moving up here and he's been an intern at the village of Bolingbrook and another city nearby outside of Chicago. So we're excited to have him joining the team and

But you're really excited.

Yeah, I'm really excited. Yep, yep. So it'll be fun to have some fresh eyes on things. And Nick's got, I think he's got a lot of energy. So, and he's excited about the field. And hopefully I don't ruin that for him. No, you don't.

That'll be good.

Will you bring him to one of our meetings? I always tell them, it's never too late to change your career path. Absolutely, he'll be coming to these meetings for sure. Okay. Thank you.

I think that concludes the agenda.

I do have one other thing. Does Adam have something he wants to say before we adjourn to all of us, or will you meet with us afterwards?

Done.

I never leave my home without my express card. I'll meet you there.

On that note, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. I'll make that motion. I'll support. Aye. We are adjourned.