Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, all. I'd like to call the September 16th Spring Lake Township Planning Commission meeting to order. With that, I think all commissioners are present except for Commissioner Ketchum. Moving right along with the agenda, adoption of the amended agenda. Anybody have a motion for that?

I'll make a motion to adopt the agenda.

Support? Support. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

The agenda is adopted. Adoption of the August 19th, 2026 meeting minutes.

I'll move to adopt those meeting minutes. Support.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Moving right along to general public comment. We do have another public hearing later in the agenda tonight. So please feel free to come up, state your name and address and issue any comments not related to the other item on the agenda that has a public hearing. With that, I'll open it. No partakers, I'll take a motion to close public hearing.

You don't need a motion.

Oh, I don't?

No.

Then we'll close it. Yeah, yeah. Our public comment, yeah.

Someone was interested.

Oh, somebody is still interested? Anyone?

I think they're here for the public hearing. Okay.

Great. Next item on the agenda is the Brill Private Road Special Land Use and Site Plan Review on Parcel 70-03-08, 100-008 near Dogwood Drive and 180th Avenue intersection. I think staff wants to make a few kind of historical comments for us to understand the context and what's occurred with this piece of property.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate that. Just going to give a brief overview on the history of this parcel. Gordon Gallagher is here tonight, our township manager, and so Gordon, please feel free to jump in as needed. But this parcel has a long history in Spring Lake Township, and I just wanted to bring you up to speed for some of those who may not know this, but back in maybe 10 years ago now, there was a parcel swap. So Spring Lake Township owned This 100-acre piece up here, they owned it for quite a while, for maybe 30, 40 years. And then there's this piece down here that was owned by Mr. Brill. This is an 80-acre piece. And so in order to, Ottawa County really felt this was, and the township as well, felt this was a critical piece to be included into North Ottawa Dunes, which is this larger light green space. And you can kind of see it's really a key piece to fit in there without that, you know, there are major trails that ran through and it was, Very ecologically valuable being a forested dune land in this space. So the trade was made for the 100, for the 80. Mr. Bill then owned this piece here and eventually partnered with David Boss, who is a developer in the area, and then worked with this adjacent property owner to obtain the additional 20 acres. So with that, that became 120 acres total here that Mr. Brill and David Boss owned in partnership. And so Mr. Boss is no longer involved with the project or the property. And so since that point in time, Really, there's been a series of negotiations with the township and Ottawa County Parks and Mr. Brill to determine the future of this piece. Some of the original drawings that were sketched here, this shows that entire piece. I don't know what the number of units there, but it's probably in the 200s. There was a parallel plan here that was that was created just to kind of illustrate what was possible out on that site. So really the whole, you know, the most of that 120 acres was going to be developed through a PUD process. That was their original plan. So things, you know, times changed, you know, priorities shifted and through those negotiations, I'm gonna jump down here to show you some things on the, on the screen. So this parcel This parcel and this parcel here, those are the three parcels that make up that 120 acres. And so it has since been divided into those three parcels. This parcel here has been, it's under contract with Ottawa County Parks to be included into North Ottawa Dunes. Ariel on here, too, to help for reference. This parcel here was sold to, despite what it says here, it was sold to a gentleman to the north. It's the Hickory Road LLC, who owns a large expanse of properties to the north. I believe it's used primarily for hunting and just outdoor enjoyment. And so the piece we're looking at here is about 23 acres, and that's purchased or going to be purchased by the applicant. And that's the section that's left for development, so with the seven lots. So it's really substantially different than what the original plan was when the swap occurred and David Boss and Dick Bro were looking at developing the site. One key factor to keep in mind as we look at this, there is, wherever this road or the driveway comes through the private road, there is an easement on that to allow Ottawa County Parks to have access to this. triangular piece here for a potential parking lot. So it'd be a trail head to kind of the eastern trail head to North Ottawa Dunes. And that's why this narrow piece here connects it all the way through. So these are, this dune area here is pretty unique, and so Ottawa County Parks is, they did apply for a trust fund grant in April for that piece, and they did get their preliminary numbers back, and they do look good, like it's in the funding range for that parcel, so we're excited to hear that. Gordon, did I miss anything?

Hey, Gordon. Yes, thank you. Gordon's usually telling us to do that.

Exactly, so that people can hear. One other item that was really important is there was also a sewer line easement developed for North Holiday Hills so that if at any time over the next 20 or 30 years there's a need to run a sewer line, through that parcel to serve the North Holiday Hill subdivision, it would be there. The concern was that if they need sewer someday, better to have an easement there now while this property transaction was happening. So that was the only item that I thought wasn't in there.

Gordon, Lucas alluded to it a little bit, but can you just talk about what David C. Boss had planned for that at that time? Because when he says it's substantially different, I think if we would have done that 20 years ago versus today, much different conversation. So I think in our negotiations, this was a good solve for what was originally proposed on that.

No, there's a lot of conversation at the state level and the Ottawa County level about the need for housing, housing units of any type. Some would say there's a need for more workforce housing, but others would say even if you create higher level housing, you free up homes for other folks. So there's kind of step-in housing, step-up housing and step-out housing, and most of what we seem to see in Spring Lake Township is step-up housing, and what they were proposing was well over 200. I think it was closer to 280 units on that entire site, and there were certainly some folks on our township board that felt that a development of that size would, they were still looking at probably half-acre lots, so a nice development, but then There were also quite a few that said, if it's available to preserve a significant amount for the Ottawa County Parks Department. So that's what won the day was to look at preservation. And then the parcel that was sold to Hickory Roads LLC is what I would call preserved for the next generation. The owner has really stated that they have no interest in developing it. but you never know what future generations might think. But future generations might work towards preserving that as part of Ottawa County Parks, or they might look at a development of some sort. So the fact that there are really only seven home sites being considered is significantly less for the folks who are less development oriented to see seven homes instead of closer to 280. So, and again, to have the easement for potential sewer to North Holiday Hills, if it's ever needed. That's built on a sand dune. They have septic systems. It may not be needed, but it may be that kind of thing. And then also to have the ability to access the north, Ottawa Dunes Park. That has been a wonderful thing for anybody who lives out in that area. People who live in North Holiday Hills certainly see a benefit to being able to access the North Ottawa Dunes from their property. And yeah. Good, thank you.

Great, thank you. But with that, if the applicant would like to come forward and kind of give us your overview, that'd be great.

Thank you. My name is Zach Boovey. I'm with VK Civil. I'm here with Curtis Moran. If we take a look at the site plan, we've kind of got the history, so thank you Lucas and Gordon for that. What we're proposing is a small private road. It's 26 feet wide, which meets the township standards and the fire department requirements for width. With it being private, though, it does mean it can kind of twist and form to the natural environment a little bit more than, say, a public road. And you can kind of see that in the layout. There's a large hill if you jump to sheet three, I think, of five.

I'm sorry, three?

Yep.

One more?

Yeah. And then kind of zoom in right at seven, kind of by the road.

Zoom in here?

Nope, right there where your cursor is. Okay. Sorry.

It's okay, no problem.

But there's a large... Elevation change right there that we are kind of skirting around as well as we can There's some trees to the south of that that we're preserving some nice big beechwood trees And with with the private road that gives us kind of the flexibility to to shape that in that area One thing that's not shown on the plans that we've talked about is that we will be adding a water main to provide public water to these lots. Then the other item that we wanted to touch on is we've been working closely with the Ottawa County Road Commission as far as the connection to 180th. That location was kind of back and forth with Ottawa County as the correct spot for it due to site distance. Going to the south, there's that kind of S curve, if you will, and that location gives you the best shot down that road of getting both of those curves there, so. If there's any other questions, we'd be happy to answer that.

Do the commissioners have questions?

Is the proposed access spot just south of that boardwalk that is along the road?

Yep. Okay. So far enough south that you can see around the boardwalk and staying well south of the wetland area that the boardwalk crosses over. So we wouldn't be impacting that at all. And then there's about a hundred feet between this drive and the school drive, which meets the road commission's spacing requirements as well. Then we did move it back as you can kind of see in the detail and then there's kind of a taper that goes to our drive and then from the south it's just a kind of not a full lane but a paved lane going to the south just for getting up to speed as you're going turning right out of the road heading south.

Mr. Chairman, just as a point here is that it appears the bike path would be moved over to private property. Am I seeing that correctly? So would there need to be an easement there for the bike path?

We'd be given some of that, yep.

All right, thank you.

Cash Lucas, thanks. Any other comments, questions from Commissioners? I did have a couple for you, if you could. You mentioned you're putting in a water main. I did see a note from the Township Fire Department about fire hydrants as well. I didn't see those noted on the plan. What's the intent there?

Yeah, so originally we were thinking well and septic for all these lots. But in the staff review, it was brought to our attention that there's a requirement for spacing of hydrants for new construction in the township. So that'll be added as a condition.

Okay.

But the intent is to meet the hydrant spacing. So I think we've got a plan in process because that was just brought up last week. It's being drafted this week and be ready for submittal next week. But yeah, it'll meet this hydrant spacing. Great. Perfect.

Yeah.

And Lucas, I saw you added provision G about the width of the private road. Does this drawing not represent the appropriate width that the fire code requires?

I believe what's on the plan is 24 feet wide. Is that correct versus 26? I think it's 26, isn't it?

Oh, it is? Okay. If you go to, I think the bottom of the sheet or maybe the bottom of the last sheet. Oh, right here. Yeah. Those details.

I think that's 24 right there.

So it should be 24-foot paved, like the driving surface is 24 feet, but then there's a bit valley gutter, so that would be one foot on.

Is that a two-foot shoulder on each side? Is that what that shows? Okay. So yeah, that would just be reviewed and approved by the fire department as part of that review process.

Any plans for street lighting? No? Okay. The cul-de-sac, there appeared to be a swale at the very end. Is that as intended? I didn't see the paved detail for sections one through 3.5.

I think there's one that's around the cul-de-sac. If you go straight across, if you go back to the right side of the page. Oh, okay.

Yeah, those details.

So yeah, there is a swale. It's for stormwater retention. And each of those lots, that volume was, we took into account putting it in a driveway with a culvert. So the volume that's provided in that swale is greater than what is required because you're gonna lose that little bit with the driveway and a culvert.

That was my concern. Thank you. Perfect. And then... Do you have proposed building envelopes for each site?

Not on this. I mean, it would be within the property setbacks, but each lot has enough unique topography that you're not going to be filling in a huge hole. It would probably work with the natural ups and downs of the site. Right. There are locations that make the most sense to connect to the private road. For instance, on 7, it's probably all the way to the west of that property is what makes the most sense to connect to.

Great. That was all I had. Any other Commissioner comments? Okay. Thank you. Next up is public hearing public hearing.

So you can you can open the public hearing and without a motion and then but you when you close it, you would need a motion for that.

So I'll open public public hearing now. So if anybody has comments again about this item, please feel free to come forward. State your name and address and share your comments. Yeah, please do.

I'm Joe DePrant. I live on Hiawatha, right near this property. I wanted to just say that I support expanding the park. I really appreciate all the work you've done, Lucas, on making this park bigger so that we can enjoy North Ottawa Dunes more. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments?

MY NAME IS MICHAEL CURRAS, 18246 LOSS CREEK LANE. THIS IS MY FIRST INTRODUCTION TO THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT, THIS REDEFINED NEW DEVELOPMENT. AND I HAVEN'T HEARD A LOT ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING TO INTERSECT WITH THE BIKE PATH. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT.

THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT? You can save it and respond to it later, or if you want to respond to it right now, your preference.

Good? Yeah, so the bike path does cross the property currently. We would be relocating and replacing the bike path, just shifting it back a little bit more to account for the approach being set back off the road, which is an Ottawa County Road Commission requirement.

For the apron and the turn-in and everything for the private road?

Yes. And then, yeah, they'll require some additional right-of-way with that, which would move the bike path back onto public property.

And that's the easement you mentioned earlier that you'll work out with staff? Yep. Perfect.

Yeah, it'll be worked out with the road commission, so it'll be back in Ottawa County right away.

Understood. Perfect. Thank you.

Like during construction, there'll also be a flag and a detour route signage for anyone that's using the path. So that'll try to remain open as best as possible during construction, so.

Thank you. Yep. Any other public comment?

Hello.

Good evening.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Danette Holly. Hi Lucas. I have lived within five miles of the Brill property for the past 30 years. I've lived in North Holiday Hills and South Holiday Hills and now I'm in Wildwood Springs. And my children went to Lake Hills Elementary and I was PART OF THE GROUP THAT HELPED MAKE NORTH OTTAWA DUNES A PARK. AND I JUST, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON THIS. I KNOW IT'S BEEN, EVERYBODY'S WORKED REALLY HARD. BUT AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER, I STILL HAVE CONCERNS. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO VOICE MY STRONG CONCERN FOR THE road special land use for the parcel of Dogwood Drive and 180th. Our township ordinances, as well as the Ottawa County Road Commission, must meet safety and clear vision sight lines, especially in a school zone. And this special land use for this, where this private road is proposed, is on a blind curvy stretch of road that sits directly in the school zone it was already stated that it's only a hundred feet away from the bus school entrance and everyday school buses and parents and students that are walking to school and students that are riding their bikes to school are going to be in this area I know legally school zones can extend up to 1,000 feet from a school property. And we are talking 100 feet away on a private curvy road. And by approving this private drive, you really are allowing a dangerous new conflict point on a curve where drivers already have limited visibility. And vehicles exiting this private drive will also have limited visibility to see oncoming traffic. So introducing a multi-car private road corridor to such an area as this is really a massive liability and danger to the students at the school. Now, when we got this ordinance in the mail, it just suggested we were talking about a private road. But really, as we've heard tonight, it's more than just a private road. We're talking about a public access in public parking lots. in scene distance to the school playground that is not fenced in. So this means anybody can drive up into the public parking lots and view the playground and walk around a playground that is not fenced in. And students are curious. It's dangerous for the students. And I don't think, I think you'd have more people here tonight if this was more explicit. That if you were asking for a private driveway and a public driveway and parking lots within a hundred feet of school property. So I urge the commission to table this special land use application to protect the safety. of our neighborhoods and our children and our communities and our bikers. I know that Michigan law has strict safety guidelines for school zones. I ask that an independent traffic safety and site distance study be conducted so we can make sure that this is 100% safe for our community and our students. And if you have any doubts about this being 100% safe, then i ask you then to table your position i have brought pictures that show the limited sight lines and would drive it is 35 miles per hour. So I just, again, I appreciate all your hard work. I know this has been a long, hard project. I've been there since the beginning in 2005 when North Ottawa Dunes was formed. We thought this piece of land owned by Spring Lake Township, they supported us in that and we didn't think it was going to be land swapped and we were going to be in this position today of trying to put in a private road 50 feet from the school bus entrance so I ask that the public be informed of all the ordinance changes so Everybody knows about the parks. Everybody knows about the roads so we can all come and Share our voice because none of us have been aware of everything that has been going on Thank you very much

Thank you for your comments. And just so it's clear, the only piece we're talking about tonight is the private road. The parks and the drive and the parking and all that that was added information is not under consideration tonight.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment?

Hello, everybody. My name is David Carrick. I'm Danette's husband and partially retired doctor.

I'm sorry, could you please state your address?

Yeah, 17867 Waterchase Trail. Great, thank you. Wildwood. Well, I was under the impression this was supposed to be a park, too, and it wasn't. It seems like this land swap, which happens before I was around, I don't know if there was a public hearing on that, but this kind of got done behind the curtains, it seems to me. And just moving on to this road location, I was out there multiple times today, and going north on 180th, at the curve, it is partially blind. There's no doubt about it. It's too much of a curve. Now going south, it's more open. However, as Danette stated, the speed limit does not go down to 35 until you're past the school zone, which means that during non-school hours, people are going to be going 50 all the way down there until they hit the other side of the school zone, on the south side of Lake Hills. So I think that's a problem, as Danette mentioned. It's also very close to the school bus driveway and the school itself. And I have problems also with the park access through that narrow strip. I don't know if that's in the student's best interest for an elementary school to have a park access there. It's heavily wooded there, and let's face it, there's a lot of crazies out there. Um, so I think these things seem like they were hatched behind the curtains and maybe we ought to table this for now and have us as citizens take a good look at how we got to this point of this private road. Um, I think that's, that's very smart and I think in particular, you know, What hasn't been discussed here is the people that this impacts the most. You know, elementary school kids don't really have a say in this. And their parents were not informed of this. And the school didn't know about it. So I think What needs to happen is we need to get these parents involved and have them hear all this, look at all the data, and examine it. And I think we need to have this talk again in several months once we have a chance to look at all the data. I think that's the smart thing.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Lucas, there was a mention of an easement for potential access to the future parking, so there wouldn't be an additional drive. Is there planned or is it too early to tell? That's correct.

My understanding is that the negotiations with the purchaser was to have an easement over the proposed driveway or private road that's there, so there would not be an additional curb cut on 180th.

So these are the two we need to consider tonight. Just the one that's already existing for the bus lane and this new proposed. We have pretty good assurance there wouldn't be another one, correct?

Correct. The easement would basically be on top of the proposed private road that we're looking at tonight and offer. And I'm not sure how far it would come in, but far enough to accommodate a drive to a parking lot.

that clear that makes sense okay thank you yep any other public comment sure if somebody will give you your through their three minutes i'm just kidding i'm just kidding so that's what lucas mentioned is the confusing part for the community and a

like my husband said, a lot of parents aren't aware of this, is that they're asking for a private road, but we're also talking about a public access point. And that wasn't in the public hearing announcement. And I think if it would have been, you would have had a lot more people here tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional public comment? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

A motion to close the public hearing. Board.

Public hearing is closed. Commissioners.

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. All those in favor, just.

Sorry, all those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Public hearings closed. Thank you for the point of order. Commissioners, if you would like to have any other additional comments based on the public comments out there or any other concerns you want to talk about.

I don't think concerns, I think more historical. We've been under litigation on this property for 20 years. The land swap did allow for an extension of that park, which we thought was in the best public interest. There was a potential, like Gordon said, to have 200 plus homes on that site. At some point, we had to end litigation and we felt like that had toiled on for a very long time and we had a lot of means over the years and this was an agreement to protect that land and to protect some of the most beautiful pieces of the land. I understand the safety concerns. Ottawa County as part of one of our bullet points has to approve the driveway connection. So if they deem it unsafe or unfit, it doesn't go there. And I think seven houses is a good compromise to 200 and something in that area, given that connection to the school and where that easement is at for the park system is not our property anymore. That belongs to the parks. So that's why it wouldn't be in a public hearing because it's not our property.

Thanks, Andy. Any other commissioner comments?

Was there any public notice that was sent out for this or like what's the radius that they send out in this type of a situation?

All properties within 300 feet of this parcel were notified.

Including the school?

Yep, and I did have communications with a school board member about this and to help them understand the history. So there was originally some concerns, but once the history was explained and how things were going to be versus what they are today, I think they were generally pleased.

Any other comments from the commissioners?

So are we still waiting on the road commission or they have looked at it and agreed?

I think Zach might answer this question better, but my understanding is it is, the permit has been submitted and they're reviewing this and they also, they are looking at the line of sight matters and looking at it carefully. So I think that's about where it is. It's just a permit that's in process right now. So the likelihood, I'd be surprised if it's something that they would deny. It's just they're going to need to design it in a fashion that fits their criteria through these studies. I don't know about the Road Commission. I know MDOT essentially that if you have a property that is adjacent to their right of way and that's their only access, they're compelled to give you access. They can't landlock a piece of property. So I would see a very similar situation here where they would have a hard time denying access to 180th.

And part of that review too would also be from the Ottawa County Drain Commissioner to see how the swales and the runoff and the culverts were all fitting together.

So stormwater permit is required. There'd also be a stormwater maintenance agreement that would be required and recorded with the Ottawa County Register of Deeds. And most of the items in the suggested motion or the sample motion for you covers many of those items with water resources. looking at the driveway permit, making sure they get that, providing the water main that would require review and approval. The driveway, I call it the driveway, but the road cut at 180th, our engineer will look at that closely for the bike path as well. So making sure that that's, built properly and also in conformance with road commission standards as well. So again, there might be some modification needed to meet the fire code as far as the road width and cul-de-sac, but they'll take a closer look at that. before before the project begins we'll also have a pre-construction meeting with with the applicant and their engineers and all of the parties that are involved which is the road commission dream commission office and just make sure everything is where it needs to be for the approvals and fire department would be included in that too sure and as part of the site plan it includes the lots right that's what we're doing

Reason for the ask is I did see in the draft private street easement and maintenance agreement that there was a clause for splitting, but not saying that they would, but there was potential for that of splitting the lots. But then they said that they wouldn't. It would be subject to, what did they say? They said they could split it, but it would be subject to approval by the township. prior zoning and land division. So if we so chose, we could limit that, right?

So really what's under consideration is the private road itself. It's not the lots that are around it through, which would be just approved through an administrative land division application. The key with seven lots is that the lots were, if you were to divide into eight lots or more, it would require them to go through a planned unit development process. And when you do that, that's an entirely different duck than this here today. But the main difference is that municipal water and sewer would be required. And that significantly adds additional costs. And as far as your return on investment and things of that nature and these smaller, you know. I don't think the intent here is to create limitations in that fashion. At the end of the day, if somewhere down the line somebody wanted to do something to increase the density, they would have the ability to apply. All of the township laws would apply. They would have to go through those review processes. Just looking at this myself and the likelihood of that is probably slim. So I think the other aspect, too, is that one of the concerns was, is this road going to be extended and have development continue further to the west or north? And the way this is laid out, there's no chance that that would be extended. There's no stub being provided to adjacent properties. I think that's intentional. I'm good? Okay.

Anything else from the commissioners or I can entertain a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the site plan and special land use for Richard and Sandra Brill on parcel 700308100008 as presented as the application meets all the criteria in the applicable sections of the zoning ordinance with the following conditions. Normally wouldn't read these out, but I think just based on public comment. I think it's important to a the applicant will comply with all verbal written representations the Ottawa County Road Commission approved the driveway connection to 180th Avenue a stormwater permit be attained from the Ottawa County Water Resources Department Any new street lighting shall be dark sky friendly and approved by township staff in advance of installation. All items required by section 940 be completed and approved by staff, including the township attorney and engineer. As per the 2021 fire code, provide a municipal water main with fire hydrants and locations approved by the Spring Lake Fire Department and township engineer. Utility easements to adjacent property shall also be provided as required by township staff. and G, the width of the private road and cul-de-sac be modified to meet the fire code dimensional requirements.

I have a motion to approve. Is there support?

Support.

Approved and supported. All those in favor, we probably need a roll call for this.

I would do a roll call, yep.

Sir?

Yes.

Johnston? Yes. Miles?

Yes.

Baxter?

Yes.

Clerk, yes. Segovia?

Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Next item on the agenda, Mr. Gallagher, you have a few comments?

Yes. So this may come as news to planning commissioners or maybe you've already heard. Your community development director, planning director Lucas Hill is taking a new job. In some ways that's negative news because he's served the community for over 20 years in a position that's challenging because you have to tell people no or you have to tell people that that doesn't, conform and you need to change your plans. And so he served in that role admirably for over 20 years. But the good news is that he is accepting a job with the village of Spring Lake as the village's assistant village manager. So that will give him an opportunity to work on community development. The village is working on several downtown projects, which will involve bringing stakeholders together, having community meetings, which I think fits Lucas' skill set very well. So it's a promotion. It's good for the community. It's good for Lucas. The challenge for Spring Lake Township will be finding... Lucas Hill 2.0. So one of the things that I'm going to pass out to the planning commissioners that I would really appreciate is an input form, because as we go through, we're going through a significant search process. We've actually hired a recruiting firm to help us with this search. It's already been... put out on several social media sites, also the Michigan Association of Planning, the Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Townships Association. So what I'm hoping to hear, and not necessarily tonight, but what is it that we want as we look for a new person to fill that seat? What are those leadership characteristics on a community level? how they view zoning regulations from a very lenient to a very strict, how you feel about that. So I've got a form that I'll pass out. If you could just try to get that back to me in the next week or two, that would be great. The closing for applications will be the 9th of October. And after that, We will have an interview panel. I probably will invite the chair of the Planning Commission to participate. If he's not available, maybe another planning commissioner so that we have a lot of community input on the selection and offer process. So I hope that didn't come as too shocking news. Certainly congratulations to Lucas, but I'd be glad to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, I guess. Right.

Somehow Lucas negotiated to keep his office so he doesn't even have to move.

Well, that's the hope, but we'll see.

We're going to charge him for it.

Lucas, do you want to say anything?

I have to say thank you, Gordon, for those kind words. It's been, and I mentioned this at the board meeting on Monday night, is that having ... Gordon steers a steady ship. It's been 20 years with ... Well, probably 19 years with Gordon at the helm as the township manager. It says a lot that I'm still here 20 years later, and I think a lot of that credit goes to Gordon and his management style. And so it's truly been a pleasure. There's been some really rewarding projects with the township that I've been able to be a part of. you know, the North Bank Trail and the, you know, the properties that were acquired along the Grand River and the Little Black Lake and plus the Pettys Bayou Park that's in process right now with the trust fund. Those are really special projects that are kind of legacy things that, you know, you can go by and say, yeah, you know, had a little bit to do with that. And that's really, one thing to brag about with your kids but um at any rate um yeah so i'm the good news is too like as as was mentioned that you know i'm still in the same building and i i'm still committed to to making sure that you know no balls get dropped in this process and and you know, the collaboration between the village and the township has been very successful. Again, that's, you know, hats off to Gordon for that and starting that with Chris Burns. And so Brady Sellner will be my new official boss. But he's carrying the torch of collaboration as well. So I'm not... probably going to be sitting here, but I'm still I'm still I'll still be around and helping whoever is sitting here in the future. So so anyway, thank you. It's been a pleasure to to serve you guys and everyone else before. I think the only original commissioner that was here when I started is Jack Ketchum. And then Jeff took a break. But you were back in the old days in the old township hall. So a lot of changes since then. But I think we've done a lot of great things for this community together. And I'll stop there. I can keep going. But thank you.

Well, I'll definitely say when you came on board, you dug right in and jumped at the master plan, North Bank Trail, roll your sleeves up. I'm sure you'll do the same for the village. Sad to see you go. I feel personally duped, but other than that, it's okay.

Definitely big shoes to fill. I think that... Sometimes when commissioners join a board, they're green. And Lucas really does such a good job of guiding people along. So that will definitely be missed.

I'm the rookie of the commission. And one thing I've always admired about you, watching you in action, is your calm demeanor. And that's a great attribute for an individual. Nice knowing you, but I'll stick around.

I've been known to put people to sleep just in my talk. That's how calm I can be. Awesome, thank you very much.

Congrats. Congrats.

Thank you.

Okay, moving right along. Next item on the agenda is the zoning ordinance text amendments for accessory structures and fences in the mobile home park district and the waterfront decks. So we've reviewed this quite a bit, I believe. You've made some texts of changes and other things. Anything else you want to highlight for us?

Yeah, I did put a new version on your table here today when you came in, and I did email that out to you as well, just incorporating Mr. Zylstra's comments, who is here tonight and may want to speak on it as well. And we do have the public hearing as part of this too. But basically, as I've shared with other commissioners, we're not trying to jump in the deep end necessarily on this. We're just really trying to put our toe in the water and create some guidelines or some laws that are generally consistent with what we have in the other districts outside of mobile home parks. So looking at setbacks and some limitations on accessory buildings and lot coverage standards. Obviously there, you know, this is a, it's, you know, a mobile home park is different than your standard subdivision or PDP. But at the same time, I think the same interest is there in making sure that they're not overdeveloped and there's still some airspace between the homes and that there's some just basic limitations there. It's not intended to, you know, the state laws are quite vague and they're not well written in my opinion. And so I think the hope here is that these laws will be beneficial both for the park owners and for the township. administer administering these permits so as as I believe I've expressed before if these aren't working and the owners you know have some feedback and say you know what it'd be really great if we changed this you know this or that within the ordinance we can go back and take a look at this this isn't written in stone so And then the, you know, and I'd also say you could also, you know, hit the kill switch. This is something that if, you know, it's not a, we're trying to, if we don't adopt something, we're still kind of in this, you know, kind of an abyss of not knowing what we should do. So we do, I think we need to do something here. And then moving to the next topic, which is the waterfront, attached decks provision that we're looking at. As noted in my Memo to you is my suggestion is to go with option number one that really takes in the two adjacent decks as part of that consideration and not just giving a blanket deck of 10 feet like in option two. What I like about that is it allows us some administrative flexibility, but if it still isn't working and someone says, hey, I disagree with your... Your interpretation of the ordinance, they can still go to the zoning board of appeals for waterfront setback determination and let that let that body make the final decision. So there's still an option beyond this administrative possibilities. So. Those are my two, that's kind of the summary of where we are. I apologize, I was gonna have this go through Ron, but I haven't yet.

The waterfront decks, that's different than the mobile home part. Correct. Correct.

Yep, yep, yep.

I was gonna suggest we take both of them kind of separately. We'll take comment maybe on either or, but we should probably look at both of them separately.

I think you could have one hearing on those.

Public hearing, but we should vote separately?

Absolutely, but you can vote separately on those, yep, yep. So some of the changes, I'm sorry, going back to the official language here is just clarifying in, let's see, sorry, I've got too much paper going on here. I think the comments from Mr. Zylstra were in number two in the setbacks and 2C, we're just clarifying that that applies only to detached structures for those setbacks. So if you have an attached porch or something like that, that's fine too. to be there, but a detached accessory structure on the front yard is of concern. So I think we clarified that in section two. In section three, the... Sorry. Oh, I think it was the deck shall not exceed 200 square feet in area. So the, I think taking that section out is fine because we've added the lot coverage standard. So if it was, you know, Mr. Ziostra pointed out in his email that there's some decks that are larger than 200 and then those especially on the single wide units that provide much more improved space to enjoy on the site. And number four is adding the height of the carports to 11 feet. I don't see an issue with that as long as the, really it's just keeping that peak below the peak of the home that's on the site. The one item I think that might is the first one in section one where we're talking about the allowance of detached enclosed accessory buildings. And the way it's written right now, You're allowed one enclosed accessory building and one carport. So if you have a shed, then you could have a carport, but if you have a shed, you couldn't have a garage. So you could remove your shed and put in a garage potentially, but this would limit it to one enclosed. And so I think that's the one concern Mr. Zylstra had.

Are there garages there?

There are a few garages.

Like fully with a door and clothes and everything? Okay.

Yep. So with that, I think I'm happy to take any questions, any clarifications. Otherwise, you could have your public hearing.

Under the enclosed accessory buildings with a maximum of 200 square feet, if we're including garages in that, are we limiting garages to 200 square feet?

So a 10 by 20 garage would be your maximum. And that's where maybe some of the wordsmithing, because really when you say garage or shed, it's really an accessory building. They both fall under that same category, being a closed accessory building.

What happens if we have two... What happens? Do they have to take them down? Or are they grandfathered?

They would be grandfathered and they would be an existing non-conforming structure. So they would be able to stay and remain that way. From here forward, we just would, yep.

Other questions from the commissioners? One thing I did notice is that we don't have carport as a defined term in the zoning ordinance.

So there's a definition to add to that. Yep.

Yep. I know you capitalized it. I think you thought it was defined as not. So I just checked it. Cool. With that, I will, I'm gonna open it up right now. We'll open up public hearing. Please come forward and state your name and address and hear your comments.

Well, I was hoping, can I answer questions and stuff, or is this tied to three minutes?

I think we, yeah, I mean, it's really public hearing, so you can state your thoughts, and if you have some questions, then feel free to ask those, and then when you're finished, then we can do our best to respond to those. Yep. But I think we're, you know, we've had general discussion with you before, so I think we could be fairly flexible in how this format goes. Okay. Mm-hmm.

Yeah, I don't live in Spring Lake, but Marcus Sielstra, 5853 Stonebridge Drive, which doesn't mean much to you guys, but I'm in Granville. I'm one of the owners of Horse Lake Estates, so I want to go through some of these. I don't know if you have a different form than the last one I had in front of me or whatever you handed out to them today.

The same thing that I emailed you with the revisions? Okay, was that today?

uh... yesterday uh... yeah that was a good chance uh... so overall we're getting there this has been a long process uh... over a year But I want to back up and just kind of explain, because I know there's been some discussion on mobile home parks and internally in the township side about trying to keep things mobile. That kind of leaked into the accessory structure side of things, whether it could be anchored down or it needs to be able to be movable. But I want to be careful to kind of reset our mind frame here on what the park is. I've owned lots of different parks, some of them nice, some not as nice. Forest Lake is a nice park, and generally what makes it nice is when people view it as their home and their lot, and they're investing money and time into their living space, into their lots, into their homes. That generally means they stay longer. We've had other parks where it's been more transient in nature. view it as a rental. They're coming in, they're coming out. It's more mobile, as you would maybe think. And those tend to have more problems, lack of care on lots, lack of care on homes. There tends to be more problem with crime and law enforcement when people don't care about their space. So the reason I'm saying this is this does leak into not having too restrictive of rules within the community. allowing within, again, as long as they come through our rules, allowing them to invest into nice decks or a bigger shed or a nicer shed, a beautiful carport, or if they want a garage and a shed, we as park owners would allow that. But in general, we're getting closer. But I think all of my recommendations from a couple of days ago that you guys did say, I think do need to pass. I'm grateful that the deck size is allowed to be bigger. Mobile homes, they don't have basements. They don't have attics. Generally, they're square footage in homes that are not very big. So if we're restricting their living space, it's going to create problems. So I appreciate that being expanded. Also, one thing that the carport, so the way section one is written that you didn't give on, I don't understand what the difference is. So as it's written now, you're saying you can't have a garage and a shed. Okay, and first of all, the garage is not big. A 10 by 20 garage is not big enough. There are some 20 by 20s in our park. Looking at it this way, if you allow a 10 by 20 garage and you put a car in there and then they can't have a shed, where's all their bikes and their lawnmowers and all their stuff going to go? That's going to go in their yard and then Francine's got to yell at them because they got stuff out but they don't have space to put it because we didn't allow them to have a shed because, oh, you have a garage. So I don't really see the difference between like, because as it's written, now they can have a carport, which doesn't have sides, and a shed. A carport right now could be a 20 by 20 with no sidewalls, which is a structure that's 20 by 20, and they can have a shed. So I don't know why we wouldn't allow them to have a 20 by 20 or 10, 20, whatever garage, and then also keep their shed. because it's just gonna create, again, they don't have attic basements. It's gotta go somewhere. So I know some of them would be grandfathered in, and this is not, there's not a lot of garages, Andy, to your point. Yeah, there's maybe 10 in here, but I don't wanna handcuff people from investing real money into their home and lot. is that just improves the community. They treat it like a home. They want to be there. They stay there longer. So I would ask you to go with the wording that I had. It still doesn't increase the number of structures. I'm fine with what Lucas has written in terms of like one shed and then a carport or a garage. So it's still, you're getting two of the three, but as it's written now, it wouldn't work. So that's why I changed the wording that way. The deck square footage is good. The front decks is good because it's attached to the home. That was a good change. Allow the shed and garage. I talked about that 11-foot carport. That is good. That is, like you said, still below the peak of the house. That's our park rules. As we've said, as long as it's below the peak of your house, we would allow it. And then the last thing I'll say is lot coverage ratio. I really don't think that's necessary because we're already telling them the amount of things they can have in their yard and what size it can be. So I'm not, just like kind of two of the same things and it's just creating more hurdles. be thinking and planning about. I think in the memo it originally said that lot coverage ratio isn't in the rules and then can be further explored with park owners if planning commissioners desire to be, but then I think it maybe got back in here. So yeah, almost there, very close. We have been working through this, but then it gets jumbled to the lawyers and then circled around and then things change and comes back. So it's been, hoping to get this approved Because I got tenants who would love a carport so they don't have to shovel snow off their cars anymore.

Are you still on a hold of allowing new structures as we work through this process?

Yes. And Francine, our great manager back there, takes the heat. I don't take the heat. But I'd rather her not take the heat.

Is that all you have or is there more?

That's it. I'd ask you to, if somehow we could, you guys could review what I'm saying and approve it. Again, to go back, like I understand why the township's doing this. It's nice to have something to point to, but I will also say I've had nothing. I've owned Forest Lake since 2010, so it's been 16 years and we haven't had these rules. And if you go through our park, I think it's doing quite well and looks good. very nice compared to all the other communities in the area i'm not saying i'm not saying i'm against this i'm just saying let's do what i'm saying and let's move on kind of thank you yep so i could get some people some carports so i don't know if you got to talk about it vote on it or there's only about two other we're having a public hearing so we'd like to see if any of the public would like to speak thank you

Any other comment?

I'm Francine Fields, 14920 St. Clair Drive, Spring Lake, Michigan. I am the manager at Forest Lake. But we really, I also show these houses to people. try to fit the house to the person. We want it to be their home, a place they love, a place they are happy. And I have several tenants I could probably talk into coming up here and all talking and saying, I love it here. And they plan on staying. possibly can. But Marcus made a very good point when he said, if you're going to restrict me, just like one lady said, I guess I'm going to have to move because I can't have a carport and I can't shovel snow off my car. So she's been waiting since August of last year for a carport. I don't know what the holdup is. I'm sorry, I don't know why we can't get past this. We would not approve anything. Everything has to go through us before it goes to zoning. We have to approve it. We would not allow any junk. We would not allow any eyesores. We wouldn't. I actually had somebody over a weekend put up some kind of tarp carport. I said, nope. I'd take it right now. We are not allowing it. I think that we've been doing this long enough, and I worked for a park in Indiana before I came here. I know I've been doing this a long time, and we want the place to look nice. We want people to feel at home. And if they can't have a deck to sit on in the summertime or a patio table and chairs on there or some hanging baskets on a deck, or a carport to put their car in to keep it from sunburn, bird poop, tree sap. They're not gonna be happy and they're not gonna stay. And we don't let just anybody in. I have taken the safety classes. I have taken the Ottawa County Sheriff's classes for safety in the community, the FOIA classes. I've done as many things as I possibly can to learn, to be one-on-one with the police in our area. We tell them they can come in if they have to do something, no problem. Luckily, we don't have a lot of police reports in there. We do really screen our tenants. We have a lot of older tenants, but we do have some children as well. We have a lot of activities that we do for the community and the families, but their home is their spot. It's like if we would come to you and say, hey, sorry, you can't have this. Sorry, you can't build that. Sorry, no deck for you. You would be upset with the limitations. We don't want them to have no yard at all. And most of these people don't want that either. They just want it to look nice and be home. I really, really would like this passed as soon as possible. It's been over a year.

Thank you. Any other public comment? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Second.

Okay, motion to close.

You can make motions too. Second.

And support. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Great. Public hearing is closed. Commissioner comments based on the comments we heard. Or anything else, Lucas, that you might want to share?

Just some options for you to think about potentially in listening to Mr. Zylstra and as far as like if there's an interest in allowing two detached enclosed accessory buildings. That's something that could change. And then down under section three, where we talk about the maximum area, this could be kind of similar to what we do in the residential districts. We say, look, you can have two accessory buildings and your maximum area for all accessory buildings is 574 square feet. or 576, which is 20, like that's a 24 by 24 garage, for example. So on lots that are half an acre or less, that's their maximum by right. And so they can split that up between two buildings or put it all into one building. So we could design that in a similar fashion here and say under number one, each lot is permitted a maximum of two attaching enclosed accessory buildings and one carport. And then under section three, say enclosed accessory buildings shall have a total allowable area of let's say 400 square feet. So that gives them, I could do a 400 square foot garage, or I could do maybe a smaller garage and a small shed and split that area up and divide it up between two buildings potentially 400 isn't a magic number. I just came up with that. So it was mentioned, you know, about a 400 square foot garage that exists on the site. So I think that's That's an option for consideration. And then I think lot coverage is, it just, in my opinion, is helpful because some of the, when looking at the aerial photos, you have some lots that are all double wides and they're all, Place right next to each other and some are single wides wouldn't have larger yards larger larger spaces so Bigger home taking up more of the site to to pack another garage and shed and a carport on that would I think be potentially detrimental to you know to the the massing between the buildings and keeping some open space between the homes. So I do like the lot coverage aspect, and that's something, again, if we realize it's not working down the line, we could revisit that. But some of those single wide lots, I think there's definitely room for a larger garage or a shed and a deck. It seems like it'd be more fitting. And there's a question about the, you know, between a garage, what's the difference between a garage and a carport? And I think the carport, I mean, obviously it doesn't have walls and I think it has a different massing feel to it than something that has, I think that's enclosed and is a walled structure versus an open air structure like that. So just some initial thoughts for you to think about. You know, from here tonight, and just throwing this out there now, is that you don't have to make a recommendation to the Township Board tonight. We can still run this through legal and make sure it gets back to you next month in an ordinance format. Make sure Mr. Bolchee doesn't have any concerns. And then next month, if you're, you can still look at it, make some minor tweaks if needed. And then from there, you could send it up to the board for consideration.

That's what I was going to ask, because this is really just draft language. We really need to see the final to have a vote on it to move it forward, it sounds like.

Yeah. I'm also in favor of just killing this. I said it three months ago that I don't know why we're wading into these waters. We don't understand mobile home parks. Marcus and Francine know more than we do. We're trying to apply R1, R2, R3 rules to this park. Let's be honest, there are not lots. There is one lot. Marcus owns it. He determines the property lines. Somebody moves in, somebody moves out. He can say, no, you get here. No, you get here. We don't know this business. We're now affecting his business for over a year. So if you want to go back and draft language and come back to us, that's fine. But let the man run his business. But I would vote today and just move on from this.

Thanks, Andy. Any other commissioner comments?

Yeah, I don't totally agree with that. I think that now that we've looked at this, we're looking at What the goal of our township is like? We don't want lots that are overbuilt. So. This is a spot where. Unlike every other district in the township. These rules don't apply, so why can't we apply them? Even if it's just as simple. As the lot coverage percentage.

What's the lot size? That's my...

But there is a lot. The people that are living on that have a dimension that they understand as their yard and their lot. Isn't that correct? I mean, yes, I understand.

I mean, kind of.

Mm-hmm.

I'm not saying I'm going to do that. It's just it's not.

So would your comment be then tie it to the unit versus lack coverage? You get one of this, one of that tied to the unit?

I don't have like Lucas's idea of the two enclosed. I think that's a good idea. Coverage rate is at under.

Any other commissioner comments? I tend to agree. The only thing that I think we're looking at when we look at number one, it says and one carport. I think when we're looking at this, for me it doesn't matter whether it's a carport that has a six-foot exposed opening on the side versus a full garage. So if we're going to look at potentially defining two units or three units or whatever accessory building maximum is on the property, Carport is included in that, right? So if we look at it, say, okay, you can have two covered units, not accessory structures, covered units in this many square feet. Something of that language, because I just don't understand the difference between a carport and a garage versus opacity. Like, that's the only thing. So I can't see through it great. But in a setting like this, when there's homes stacked next to each other, capacity is already kind of defined depending on your sight line.

And you're giving flexibility back to Marcus and Francine of like, because if they don't like the look or the aesthetics or it doesn't work for the lot, if you say you could have one of these two, you kind of lock them into approving those. Whereas like, I still want them to have control of like what is best for their park. and that they're dealing with the denials because you are creating more paperwork for us, more administrative burden. We have to approve the deck plans. And again, we're getting into a business and we're debating over lot lines that don't exist. And it's like, we're writing rules and throwing out an arbitrary number of 400 we have no idea so it's like i'm fine if we want to do something but in the meantime let him run his park because he has a village council he has a planning commission and francine will make you tear down your deck if it's not built right and whereas us it's going to take a really long time to inspect that and make you tear it down so like they have an ability to move faster than we could so I get the intent, but when it's been a year, it's like we either let him go back to work and work on this behind the scenes, or we just move on.

Any other commissioner comments? We have a motion to do something.

Allow me to make a suggestion. I don't think we're there yet is what I'm hearing. What I'd like to do is take the concerns and comments tonight, discuss that internally with Mr. Gallagher and the township attorney. and just kind of share where we are, because I just want to make sure that if something isn't adopted, then what? What do we do? Make sure, because my understanding from Mr. Bolchee is that we should do something, because otherwise Section 306 applies, which makes it almost impossible to build accessory buildings. So we would need to just clarify that, and then, you know, Russ, your comment about the inclusion of the carport and that number. And so maybe we can massage that language a little bit too. Let's up the number. Allowable square footage for accessory buildings and not differentiate between a carport in a closed section. And then lastly, as far as lot coverage, I'm confused on that too because I just looked at a zoning permit application and there were lot dimensions for the site. And it was, I think, 55 by... i forget what i think it was about 50 110 110. so if those are you know the they're and i and i hear what mr zeus was saying is that the the property is I think limited to a certain number of units as per what's approved by the state of Michigan through the mobile home commission. So it can only be so many units as per, and we do have some older plans that illustrate that, but the, the lot dimensions, depending on where you're at on the property, can really be varied. So that's a struggle as well. So let us think about that. And I think what we could do is move on to the second text amendment. And I think there might be more synergy behind that one potentially. And either way, I can, what I can do is ask Mr. Bolch to put that one in ordinance format. You guys can take action on that one next month if you want, and we can continue to work on the mobile home part one.

Chair Greg Musil Well, I think let's do this. For the mobile home draft text, we all in agreement that we want to send it back to staff for further work? Say aye.

that say no no is it worth it to just send it to the board and say what do you want yeah i i think i think what what would be good for the mobile home one is is let me confer with mr bolci on that just to make sure that we're not going Because essentially it becomes almost like a zone-free space, from what I understand from Mr. Bolchee. So I would, I don't think now is the time to recommend that to the Township Board for, I don't think it's time for either one. I think what I would like to do is have conversation with Mr. Bolchee, get these in order, and take one more look at them next month. And then at that point, if we're comfortable, we can take action on one or both and send them up to the Township Board for review.

So another two months for him to get moved.

And I think that's another discussion I need to have with Mr. Gallagher about how we continue. I mean, this was really, my impression is that this was not the township saying, no, you stop, you can't do this. It was something that we were working together on with the parks to say, let's, I know there's some people that are very interested in getting some buildings up. I think we can work in some flexibility in that. And so ultimately that's why I'd like to talk with Gordon and Mr. Bolche about that.

Before you go to Ron, I think it just behooves you and Marcus to sit down and get 99% of the way where you're comfortable with the language and he's comfortable because I don't want to come back here next month and we're still talking about the language and we're still debating it and then we're going down this road. Bring us something where you both can live with and his public comment is, I'm in support of this. You each make concessions for the best of the park and the best of the township, but let's get a resolution.

The one thing I want to point out is to keep in mind, Andy, that there is another park in the township, right? Like I get, get Marcus and work with Marcus or two more. So this is not specific only to his park. Okay. So.

And they're not here.

Agreed. But it is. This needs to be written in a way, if we do go through with this, that it, I don't want to use, it guides the township in these spaces, as well as keeping Marcus and Forest Lake Estates, which obviously is a phenomenal mobile home park, right? But it may not be limited to just that park. It's other parks that we need to look at as well.

Your recommendation is to take back both, the waterfront decks too, or you want to have a separate conversation? No, we can do that one. We should talk about that one.

So yeah, let's talk about that one.

Let's send the motorhome, mobile home part one back to you. Okay. And then we can move on to the waterfront decks.

Sounds good. So we did summarize that, and it might, again, my suggestion would be to look at... Look at option one there, and again, if there's a unique situation where they want to go beyond what I or what someone in this position would support, then they could go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a waterfront setback determination and have that public hearing. But ultimately, the reason we want to do this is just make it... These are items that have been consistently approved by the ZBA. So we are trying to just make it easier for somebody to have pretty much the exact same thing that their neighbors have in administrative process.

Any comments from the commissioners?

I think we talked about this at the board level too. Just given all the cases in the ZBA, it seemed to make sense to have some uniformity and the ZBA gets a lot of these and the ruling tends to be the same. So we were generally supportive at the board level in discussion.

Great.

Great.

Any other comments?

So if you'd like to make a motion to send this to the Township Board for consideration with the provision that Mr. Bolcher reviews it as well, I think that would be a reasonable action tonight.

And then we'd bring it back in full text format, or it just goes to the board?

I think this one could just go right up to the board. This one's simple enough. I think we could do that. If there were some major changes, then we'd come back. But otherwise, we'd send it up to the board.

I'll entertain that motion.

I'll make a motion to send this to myself and the board members for review for option one.

Support. Roll call on this one, or are we good?

Voice vote's fine. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Opposed?

Motion passes. Clear the torch, Andy.

All right.

All right, moving along to Commissioner comments. Keep on the roll, Andy. Tell us about the township board.

All right, we got a grant from MNRTF to acquire the Prowitz property that Lucas was talking about, which has been kind of a passion project of his. Just over by the Country Club, we have acquired some waterfront property that we'll develop into a park. Probably some kayak launches and some other stuff. It'll be the only public water access point in Spring Lake Township Do I have that right Gordon? Yeah, so we don't have a lot of places for people to access water So we're excited about that and to get that grant. I think Joanne's here, right? Joanne was named Community Ambassador of the Year by the board and We updated an internal borrowing resolution to help us purchase the Bisaki property that we're intending to develop a business park, so more to come on that. And we approved a work order tracking system. If you guys haven't noticed, we have a new website for the township and the village that is very, we should probably get a presentation for them too, Gordon. As a part of that, allowing our crews to have better software so they can be out there logging tickets, they can get it in real time. It'll add a lot of structure and organization to our public works department and give us some reporting and scheduling options. So we're very excited about that. But that's it from us.

Thanks. In Jack's absence, do you want to give us a ZBA update?

Absolutely. There was a waterfront setback determination last month at the Cuppie residence on Leonard Road that was approved. They just wanted to do a minor addition on their home along the Grand River. And next month, or next week, they have a meeting and there is a waterfront setback determination on Vinecrest, which is over on Lloyd's Bayou on deck, as well as a variance for an accessory building in a front yard up on Hickory, kind of near the 180th area in the northwest part of the township. It's a unique situation where the home was built. It's kind of a narrow rectangular shape. The home was built way to the back of the property where they currently have their septic system, swimming pool, and another accessory building. So there's really no space for them to put it back there. And so they're asking for a variance to put it in the front yard. So we'll see how those two applications are on deck.

Thanks. Recreation Committee? No meeting.

Oh, we did have one. Great report. Yep, we did have a meeting. But it was a brief one. We basically talked about the culture of... Culture of kindness, the results of that effort and getting out with the community engagement on the community along the trails. And two other items really is the beginning discussions of new bike path laws to update the current ordinance that's out there. really the emphasis with that is and you know the the township board is is looking at that as well but you know trying to regulate behavior more than device type at least that's kind of the philosophical approach right now because it seems like device types are just changing all the time nowadays but um So working on those two items plus. Trying to come up with a final concept and because with the additional millage that passed in the township, there's funding still for additional new bike paths. And so with with State Road being complete and Hickory and Rannis underway, there's still some some funds left so. Still kicking around which one makes the most which area makes the most sense. As far as community engagement is concerned, there is a fire department open house coming up on the 24th, I believe that is. And so that's a great event. We will have the consultant will be there from Progressive, and they are going to be asking for input on the M104 corridor plan that's out there. I suspect we'll also be, as far as engagement is concerned, looking at a template for the new bike path laws with the hope of having some type of ordinance in place in the spring, late winter, springtime. So the community ambassadors really kind of guide those discussions. But again, I don't know if you guys have had a chance to meet Beth Ann Peel, who's our community ambassador. Communications director for the township, and I think it'd be great to have her to come here sometime and but she's really Done some great things for us so far and one of the things she worked on is the new township website So if we haven't had a chance to to cruise that please do We're you know I'd love to have your comments if you see some with some glitches Since something's not working so smoothly so we can continue to improve that But there's some nice tools in there. The C-Click Fix is a great tool that you can download an app on your phone. So if you see a tree branch that fell over the trail, you can take a picture of it, boom, and send it right up to staff and they have that picture and they can respond. So if your neighbor has an engine hanging from a tree branch, you can take a picture of that and send it in too. That'll be interesting to see how that unfolds. Right into Corridor Improvement Authority. I think we're really, we're still kind of winding up with the engagement piece of that and just had an update meeting with the consultant and I keep putting pressure on him about the roundabouts in the community and what, what does that look like what is you know in working with the the road commission and mdot and really trying to figure out is you know is is the 148th intersection the right place is the 144th intersection the right place and these are all things that are still kind of percolating So at the end of the day, when that plan is done, hopefully the Corridor Improvement Authority will have a really nice menu of things to chase after and some good costs associated with that so they know what the estimated costs would be on those improvements. I think I covered everything, so.

Your final report, is that set?

I think it might be. We'll see.

Awesome. Gordon, do you have this electronically that we can get to? Because if you have to read my handwriting, you won't.

Perfect. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Nick Maldonado, if you guys haven't had a chance to meet Nick, he's our new assistant planner, so very grateful to have him on board. And I think you said it, Jeff, about, you know, trial by fire, you know. So we're going to keep turning up the heat. But glad to have him on board. Welcome, Nick.

Welcome. Thank you.

With that, I'll take a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

All those in favor?