Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, so welcome everybody to the May meeting of the Union Township Planning Commission. Roll call, please.

Everyone is here.

Thank you. Next item is approval of the agenda. We've got four new business items, or no, three new business items and one carryover from a prior meeting on the agenda. Are there any corrections that anyone would have to the agenda? Any issues with the agenda?

You want to approve? I'll go with support then. All right.

So the motion was by Bicking with support by Oliver to approve the agenda as prepared. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, so our agenda is approved. Next item is minutes. We last met on April 21st, so you have your April 21st meeting minutes. I noticed a couple of typos, which I sent in via email, and so you have the amended page two of the minutes, page five of the packet. Are there any other corrections that anyone has to the April 21st minutes?

Motion to approve amends.

Support. So motion by Hayes, second by Oliver to approve the minutes as corrected prior to the meeting. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, please say aye. Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, so minutes are approved. So next section is correspondence, board reports, presentations. We always start with updates from the Board of Trustees, and that would be from Commissioner Alderman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Trustees met last week on the 13th. A couple of items of note. The Board authorized the purchase of a 2026 CAT 305 mini excavator from McAllister CAT. That was a $92,000 purchase that was budgeted. and will help our services team do their jobs even better, so pleased with that. We approved the engineering and construction services contract with Gordy Frazier for the rehab of pump station number 10 on Mulberry Lane. That was $28,500. The engineering will take place this fall, and the project is slated for spring of 2027. We did the second reading for PRE Z2602, which was the rezoning of the River Road-Maury Drive property from R2A to AG, and that was approved. And then we accepted the EDA board's participation agreement for $74,000 for recreational facility infrastructure improvements at Jameson Park. There is, by the way, a vacancy on the EDA board that the Board of Trustees has been trying to fill. So if you have any nominees, please send those to Supervisor Mielke for consideration. And that's all I have.

Okay, any questions from commissioners for Board of Trustees related items? Okay, thank you.

Thanks for the report.

Next item is Commissioner Thompson, any updates from ZBA?

Just that we have our meeting scheduled for June 11th at 7 p.m. Okay.

Which means you, because the meeting is scheduled, you have agenda items.

Yes, we do.

Okay. Any questions for Commissioner Thompson? Next item is everybody's favorite the community and economic development monthly report you have that in your packet And so if any commissioners have any questions on anything you might have seen in the monthly report We'll entertain those at this time Okay, not hearing any questions, we'll move on. If you do have any questions, you can always forward those to Rodney. Any other reports, correspondence, anything that any commissioners have? Okay, hearing none, we'll move forward. We always have a public comment towards the front end of our meeting, which is a restricted public comment. limited to items that are not on tonight's agenda. We have two public hearings, so if people are here for the public hearings, they'll have their opportunity to speak at those points. This public comment is restricted to three minutes, limited on items that are not on tonight's agenda. If anyone wants to speak, come to the podium, give us your name and address for the minutes, and again, limit your comments to three minutes. If anyone is online, make your presence known, and we will recognize you to speak. So the first public comment is open at 7.05. And seeing no indications that someone wishes, and there's no one, is there anyone online?

There is someone online, but there's no hand raised.

Okay. And folks in the room are presumably here for other purposes. So we will go ahead and close. The initial public comment, also at 7.06, there'll be an extended public comment at the latter end of the meeting. So we're ready to move on to our new business items. As I mentioned, we have three of them. The first one is PSUP 26-02, special use permit application. South Whitefield Road. We'll hear from township staff, we'll hear from the applicants, and then we will have a public hearing, and then we'll have commission action, deliberation, discussion, and so on.

Thank you. I should have a copy of our report dated May 6th. This is a project that we discussed importantly at an April meeting. The intent here is to convert an existing home on South Whitefield Road to a short-term rental. This is an Airbnb-type rental where it's rented for short periods of time rather than a six-month or yearly rental. That type of use requires a public hearing, requires a special use permit, which is what brings us here tonight. In our report, we did review the application based on the standards, so there were no ordinance for short-term rentals. We found, overall, that the application was in very good shape. A couple of items met those standards, and a couple items are kind of ongoing requirements, these requirements. This project, in addition to the special use permit, if a special use permit is approved, this site would then also become part of our rental inspection program. That's a separate ordinance, housing licensing ordinance, require all rental properties in the township, including short-term rentals, to be certified each year based on the property maintenance code and housing licensing requirements that apply to those rentals. So if approved, this will become part of that program as well. It would be inspected once a year, at least by our rental inspector. One thing I will note, in our report, we did recommend this for approval with the housekeeping condition that just notes the requirement for every part of the rental inspection program. Actually, there should be a second condition there. We noted it in our report on page four, right in the middle of page four. It's another kind of housekeeping condition. Right in the middle of page four, one of the requirements for short-term rentals talks about wastewater disposal, in this case, the septic system. And we did note that there would be a need for the owners to provide documentation of a successful inspection of that system to verify that it's properly functioning. And that inspection has to be within the last three years. We just noted that need to be provided to the zoning administrator before they start operating it as a short-term rental. That statement should have gotten into our recommendation So if you would, just make a note, if you had the direction of approval, if you would, just make that a second condition. Just as it's written there, the whole, it's another housekeeping item, but it's important to go ahead and have that on there so the applicant is reminded of that requirement. With that, as we go along, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any immediate questions for Rodney at this point? Clarifications of that nature? Okay, thank you. So now we normally give the applicant an opportunity to address the commission. Any points you'd like to make before we proceed to the public hearing?

Yeah, I'm Mike Klump. I was here last month. Most of you were here last month. We introduced this and stuff for this short-term rental we're looking for. I mean, it's pretty much in the plans that Rodney said. I don't think there's really anything else. You know, the things like the rental inspections and the wastewater, basically getting an inspection and stuff done by the health department won't be a problem. So I really don't have anything else other than what we've already presented before or things that we've got taken care of with Rodney and Peter. So does anybody have any questions for me?

Any immediate questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. You'll all both be here during the deliberation, so if other questions come up, we'll address those at that time. Okay, so because this is a special use permit, it occasions a public hearing. All special use permits occasion a public hearing. So this was announced, published in the paper, and so on and so forth. We want to give everyone who would like to address the Planning Commission on this special use permit application an opportunity to do so. once i open it if you're in the room and you'd like to comment we'd ask you to come to the podium where the microphone is give us your name and address for the minutes and address your comments to the planning commission there's anyone online who would like to address the Planning Commission on the Special Use Permit Application. Make your desire to do that known. Activate the raise hand feature and we will make sure that you're able to speak. So the public hearing on Special Use Permit Application PSUP 26-02 is open at 7-11. We always give people an opportunity to get up their courage and to decide if they want to speak or not. The person online isn't doing anything. We also always listen for cars pulling up outside. Second call for public comments on the public hearing for the special use permit application. No emails or written correspondence on this. None was received. And final call for public comments at the public hearing. Okay, so let the minutes show that no comments were offered during the public hearing. Public hearing is now closed at 7.13. So next item is commissioned questions and discussion. Now, as was pointed out, we discussed this last month. We heard from the applicant. We looked at the plans and so on and so forth, or at least the sketches. So are there questions from commissioners on this project? If not, we can fold it into deliberation and action.

I'd like to move to approve the PSUP 26-02 special use permit application for short-term rental located at 5320 South Whitefield Road, PID 14-031-20-008-01 in the northeast quarter. of Section 31, and in the Ag Agricultural Zoning District, finding that it can comply with Section 14.3.J, Standards for Special Use Approval, and the requirements of Section 6.58, Short-Term Rental Housing, subject to the following conditions. One, applicant applies for and is granted approval into the Township Rental Program. and two successful system inspection within the last three years for proper function must be provided to the zoning administrator prior to any use of the property as a short-term rental okay so the motion was made by olver uh and i'm going to give the second to shingles because i think it might be his last name get him in a minute

Did I hear in the second condition, did I hear the word wastewater? Should that be in there? Does that matter?

You can add, what I would say is add the word septic in front of systems.

Septic, okay. Successful septic system inspection. Perfect.

Okay, so the motion's been made by Commissioner Olver and with a second by Shingles. Is there a discussion from commissioners?

Just sounds like Goldberg wants to get in there as soon as possible.

Sounds like a nice place.

Yeah, I think we discussed this last month, and I think people are comfortable with the idea. If there are no comments, then we will proceed to a roll call vote, please.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Okay, that was approved unanimously. Thank you very much. So we'll move on to our next item which is also a special use permit application this is psup 26-03 it's an application for an extension of the previously approved airline drove agri-tourism facility at 5297 south whiteville road you'll follow the exact same order of events We'll hear briefly from Rodney. We'll hear briefly from the applicant. We will hold a public hearing, and then we will act accordingly.

Thank you. I have a copy of our report, also dated May 6th. This is for an amendment to an existing special use permit. It was approved previously with a specialty permit in 2022. What you had before you is such an expansion, the growth of that, which we're excited about. We want to see these types of agro-person businesses, agricultural businesses thrive in the community. Union Township is a unique place in that we're both And this agritourism side is all about creating new opportunities for income streams, variety of income streams to farmers, and to help ensure that agriculture is part of our community for the generations going forward. So this is a very positive fact that we're coming back and asking for expansion of their activities. Here in our report, we did review the requirements that apply for this type of operation. And you have our comments in there. Broadly, again, the project complies. There are some details that need to be taken care of. One is related to waivers. There are, in the agritourism section of the ordinance, it allows you as a planning commission to consider waiving certain things like paving the parking lot or certain landscaping requirements. Actually, I think there's also a requirement in there about lighting. In fact, this is the only section where lighting is required unless it's waived, essentially. But anyway, there's some waivers that the Planning Commission has the opportunity to consider. But the applicant has to ask for it. In 2022, the applicant was asked and was granted a waiver related to paving a parking. The only existing facility, the only part of the site that parking is paved is the part that involves barrier-free access. The rest of the parking lot is gravel. The proposal essentially to continue that expansion But they still do need to ask for it. We want that on the site plan, so we do approve the site plan, approve the special use provider, approving those waivers with it. So we note that because that will come up in our recommendation. This is an expansion. We're talking about more intensive use of the barn and multipurpose events. Barn events and as well as market activities there there be out additional outdoor activities additional evening activities you see in there Such operational plans extended hours beyond what the original approval was and then they also proposed for the future a small winery a small distillery and Possibly microbrewery or brewery operation and then a tasting room to enjoy all of those things and You'll see we'll talk a bit more about that as well as in our recommendation. So as I said, we did review the special use permit. We're very pleased to recommend, in favor of it, recommend approval of it. We've included our recommendation for conditions. The bottom two are essentially those housekeeping ones. Condition number three talks about those waivers. It simply says that they will be addressed on the final site plan. You'll see a preliminary site plan tonight. That's the next item on our agenda. But there will be a final site plan that will come back to you. And we would just want to see those requests for waivers be part of that final set plan, and they can be addressed at that time. Condition number four is about construction and change of use for those ag buildings. In Michigan, some agricultural buildings do not require a building permit. These buildings, if they're going to be used for the general public, if it's change of use, we're just making clear that building permit would be required and they need to meet the construction code requirements that apply for those activities. The first two conditions, condition number one is the hours of operation. and inviting you to include action specifically on the expanded hours of operation. The reason is really to simply make clear that you're happy with them or if there's anything you would like to change, this would be the place to make the change. You have full ability to make any adjustments you feel are necessary to the hours of operation to ensure this site, this expanded activity remains consistent with the neighborhood around it. So if you have any concern about the hours, certainly talk to the applicant about it. But you certainly can approve adjusted hours if you choose. So we've kind of given you space to do that in the recommendation. The second condition is related to those future items, winery, distillery, tasting room and such. This one is really only on here because some of these items will require separate state permits. And for some of those things, they require actually a separate action by our Board of Trustees to essentially support the approval of the state license. And so having Planning Commission direction in your motion will be helpful for the Board in the future when they're looking at any license requests that come to them. So if you're comfortable with those items. And as staff, we are comfortable with those items. They are very reasonable in terms of being a part of supporting value-added agriculture products. Alcohol in various forms has long been a value-added agricultural product in the United States, going back to colonial times. And so what they proposed is a very nice design, a very nice layout for their activities. So as staff, we have no objection to any of these items. But we just invite you to include them, include direction in your motion so that when the separate requests come to the board about licensing, that the board can have a copy of your motion section to understand what you said about those items. So with that in mind, we're happy to answer questions as we go along. And as I said, this is the special use permit approval. There will be a separate action for the site plan specifically.

Okay, questions from commissioners for Rodney while he's up there. Thank you.

So...

We haven't explained it. We went over it in pretty good detail last month. And I know you have the plans and stuff that are there. We are just, we already have the permit for tourism. We're really not looking to expand the footprint, I guess, just so everybody is aware, too. I know And here it does show, like, it's for the 80-acre parcel is the parcel we own, but the footprint of what we're actually utilizing on the property hasn't really grown any from what we currently use. You know, just want to use it for other things. You want to be able to use the barn, you know, put the laundry in, those kind of things. Give other... things for customers to come on and do. We get a lot of response. A lot of people love coming out and doing, you pick sunflowers and different fresh cut flowers, all these kind of things that we've been doing, but people want to, they like to have more things to come do. They're always constantly asking, hey, what else can we do here? What else can you put together, you know, why else can we be out here, you know? So we were trying to come up with other things and stuff to bring the public out and just expand the operation, but really not expand, I guess, our footprint, you know, just so everybody was clear with that, I guess. Everything else in there, I don't, there's nothing, there's no issues we have as far as the conforming. I think the two things that we'll ask for was the gravel driveway and the sidewalk. We did have that in the original plan when we come and we got that excluded off the first one. I think it just, I guess we assumed that we didn't have to do that because we already had it excluded, but we'll make that change to the site plan to ask for that exclusion to not have to have a hard surface parking lot and obviously the sidewalk out front would pretty much go to nowhere. Other than that, I guess any questions that anybody has for us in regards?

Questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. okay so again this is a special use permit so it is a public hearing once again presumably announced properly in the newspaper and otherwise uh so we want to give everyone who would like to address the planning commission on the special use permit application opportunity to do so once the public hearing is gaveled open if you're in the room and you want to speak come to the Podium, give us your name and address for the minutes and address your comments to the commission. If you're online, make your desire to speak known and we will make sure that you can speak on this topic. So the public hearing on special use permit 26-03 is open at 727. Second call for public comments. Once again, no written or electronic.

I only received one phone call, inquiry, information only. I directed them to the township website where the packet was online.

Okay, thank you. And final call for public comments at the public hearing for special use permit 26-03. Okay, so let the minutes show that no public comments were offered during the public hearing. Public hearing is closed at 728. We'll proceed. Next item is commissioned questions and discussion. Any questions from commissioners at this point? Again, it was discussed last month. So in a sense, we kind of already talked about it. But if anyone does have any questions now would be the time to ask.

Do you have a question about the lighting? With the extended hours, what is your intent? Can the owner speak to this? What is the intention with the lighting for after dark?

Yes, we'll have parking lot lighting up that will comply with light infiltration and those kind of things and stuff. And I think that was just... So that wasn't something you were probably going to ask for a waiver for? No, we won't ask for a waiver. We know we're going to want lights out there for parking and that kind of stuff.

Thank you.

I've got a guy that draws those plans up for me that I'm sure will get around there.

Okay.

The proposal suggests expanded hours of operation, and I see what those are. Are those the hours that you're requesting, you're recommending, or that the commission typically uses as a guideline?

So the hours that you see right above our recommendation, those are the hours from their

And is that consistent with what we've done? I get the sense that it is. I just want to make sure that I understand that correctly.

No, essentially the hours of operation are subject to your approval. If you're comfortable with what they've proposed, then they would become part of the expression.

Gotcha. Okay.

Perfect. Thank you.

Yeah, so if any commissioners have any concerns with the hours as stated in the application, again, now would be the time to raise those concerns.

Can I ask another question about the hours? Are you thinking already of future event planning, or are you actually already have items that, I mean, things that would be going on that people would be staying until midnight for on the weekends? Are you future planning basically with the hours, or is that stuff you've already planned? Have things ready to go.

Well, it's definitely future planning. We don't have anything set up right now. We can't really. When we do get the barn up and operational, get it past all the codes and those kind of things, we just wanted to have it available so like on a Friday or Saturday night, You know, we had that hour up to, I think it's up to midnight, is what we asked for. It's actually like 1130, 1145 for people to be gone, and then everybody would be, the website would close at midnight. And not just for that, so if we had, if you had some sort of a gathering or something out there, we have that extension to midnight, you know, on those weekends.

Okay, thank you. You know, I just, that raised a question for me.

How does that change or get affected if it's a private event?

You know, because I know that you're planning on using the house across the street for, say, weddings or something like that. How does the township, how do we address usage where it's not open to the public? So it's not public hours that are closing, the private hours.

Well, these are the hours of operation for this facility, whatever they're doing with it.

Whatever they're doing, so it'll cover both ends of that.

And the short-term rental was not for weddings. It might be for hosting the bride or the groom.

Oh, yeah, that was just an example. When I picture it in my head, I'm like, I can see, yeah, bride and groom heading over there, but then using the facility, you know. These would be the hours for the facility. For the whole facility. For anything going on there. Oh, great.

Thank you for the clarity.

So you also discussed in the application about noise levels and talked about having your staff kind of monitoring the, am I correct that even if a group is there, is whatever sound, is that provided by you or could they be providing their own sound? I don't know if that makes sense or not.

Yeah, so we plan on having a representative from our company on site at all times, you know, so obviously we don't want things to get out of control or out of hand, and if we have somebody on site, that's going to keep that under control. And then we looked up the call, did a lot of calling around to see, you know, decibel measuring, right? Like where do you put the meters, how far, where do we want to be, all these kind of things. And so we've got a pretty good idea of what that looks like to basically install a couple decibel meters at a time. most sound productions was one of them we asked and I think like 90 decibels like at the speaker you know was pretty much maximum and I think we were looking at if we could put see we're on an 80 acre parcel and our closest neighbor is quite a ways away really from where we're at but if we went to the outskirts of the property line I think we were looking at was it 60 60 decibels to be measured there which I think is very accommodating. So I think we can kind of have guidelines that we kind of set ourselves to know, hey, so we're going to, so in our contract that we give people to allow them to come in to use our place, we're going to set these guidelines and say, you know, we have decibel meters that are going to be reading, you know, and you can't go over this decibel number, you know, so we don't. Last thing we want is people out there at 11.30 at night with the music cranked up. I got my neighbors over here calling me. That's not what we're after. Us having staff there at all times, and then also having the desolators, that's how we plan to keep it under control. We personally won't be providing the music, though, maybe like a sound production, or if they just had a little, you know, sometimes just like a little live, you know, person with a guitar or something like that, right?

Ballads only after a certain time?

Yes, exactly.

No external PA system built into the bar or anything like that?

No, we're not going to do anything outside other than maybe like during the day, maybe if we had somebody come during the day, literally like a single person like with a guitar or something outside, we're going to have a pavilion, you know, outside. But you're talking like you wouldn't be able to hear it down the driveway, you know what I mean? Those kind of things, but not like a big rock band outside or anything, no.

60 decibels is a pretty good headroom. You're going to get pretty high to get to 60 decibels. Right. It would have to be pretty substantial. Yep, yep.

It's in the vineyard. In the vineyard. And if people get married there, there will be the procession music.

Yeah, we have it on the plans or we show an area there so people would like to get married like out in the vineyard itself and have an outdoor wedding. And yes, there may be like procession music or something like that playing in the vineyard. But I guess we just go with the same plan. I mean, there's no way we're going to have a procession music playing out in the middle of a vineyard. I don't think you're even going to hear it.

I was going to say, unless they're listening to Iron Maiden or something. I guess that's fair. If somebody's processing Iron Maiden, I want to be there.

Interesting choice.

I have a quick one. Do you see this as a space that you would market to high schools for prom or after graduations or those kinds of events?

Yeah, I think we'd be open to that. Sacred Heart even reached out to us last year because they all come out and got their picture taken in front of the barn and stuff. And with the flowers and everything at homecoming, we just let them come out and take pictures and stuff before they went to their dance and stuff. And they, at that time, were asking if they could rent the barn. And we're like, no, Rodney says we can't do that. We can't do that yet. So we have had some interest in that. And I think we'd be open to doing those kind of things for sure. Yeah. What kind of barn, just purely for your curiosity's sake, what kind of barn is it? Is it like a historic barn or is it? Yeah, it's an old style hip roof. Okay. You know, hip roof red barn. We've already restored the barn, you know, considerably. We've already went in and, you know, we repainted it and the roof and the inside and put it all together and fixed it up a lot. I think the barn was built in the 40s, I believe, is about when it was built. Cool.

Other questions?

I'd like to move to approve the PSUP 2603 special use permit for the proposed Heirloom Grove agritourism expansion on 80.01 acres of land at 5297 South Whiteville Road, PID 14-032-10-006-02. In the northwest quarter of section 32, and in the Ag Agricultural Zoning District, finding that the application can comply with Section 14.3.J, Standards for Special Use Approval, and the requirements of Section 6.51, Agritourism, subject to the following conditions. One, the expanded hours of operation are approved as presented. Number two, the proposed future small winery, small distillery, microbrewery, and tasting room operations are accepted as allowable agritourism activities subject to state licensing. Number three, any requests for allowable waivers from parking lot paving, lighting, and landscaping requirements or temporary relief from sidewalk construction shall be addressed in detail by the applicant on the final site plan. If the waivers for relief are not granted as part of site plan approval, the township ordinance requirements shall apply. And four, new construction and the change of use for and necessary modifications to the existing agricultural building to establish commercial uses for this expanded agritourism special use shall be subject to a building permit compliance with building code requirements for a non-agricultural building with access by the general public and issuance of a new certificate of occupancy by the township's building official. Support.

You can have it.

Okay.

okay so the motion was made by oliver seconded by gradshaw to approve the special use permit with the four stated conditions any discussion by commissioners okay hearing none roll call vote please yes yes yes

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Okay, that also is approved unanimously. So congratulations on both of those. Next item is item C, which is the preliminary site plan for this project. PRESPR26-04, application for an expansion of the previously approved Heirloom Grove Agritourism Facility at 5297 South Whiteville Road. And so this is not a public hearing, but we'll go ahead and hear from Rodney and the applicant, and then we'll ask.

I think everybody should have our report dated May the 7th. This is essentially the other half of this process. The special use permits also require a site plan approval of some sort. would require that site plan approval. Anyway, we've talked about most of the items already for the site. There are just some housekeeping details, the kinds of things that are normally noted here that we simply say need to be addressed in the final site plan. I had a comment earlier where I talked about the sidewalk waiver. We just asked for it to be on the site plan so that when you approve the site plan, you're also approving that waiver again, which is done for the policy that was adopted by the Board of Trustees for those sidewalk waivers. We already talked about the parking details, so those will all be addressed in the final site plan, the applicants noted. And so with that, at this point, we're very happy We did include a recommendation of one condition, and if you include the set of motions, there was a motion that had one condition on it, and it's really just housekeeping. It addressed the parking, loading, dumpster, lighting, and sidewalk details of the public site plan. into the final plan. So with that in mind, we're happy to recommend this to you for your approval. I will say that if really all these items are final site plan details anyway, so if you were, even if you chose to simply approve this preliminary site plan as presented, they would still have to take care of those details on the final site plan. So it's up to you which way you'd like to address that.

Do you anticipate that this would be one that the final would be approved administratively?

No, because of the waiver requirements, the sidewalk item and the parking lot, those are all items that only the Planning Commission can deal with. The parking lot waivers, it simply says the Planning Commission can grant the waivers. So you will be seeing the final sidewalk in this project.

Other questions for Rodney? We don't have that many questions, at least not yet.

I appreciate the approval on the one prior. Thank you for that. As far as the safe plan goes, I think what we have to do, a couple of changes that we have to make in the safe plan. Other than that, does anybody have questions? get it back turned over to you.

Your plan then is to, assuming the thing stays gravel, is to just keep it up well and brine it when you need to and that type of thing?

Yes, and we will be pouring some hard surfaces for the handicap parking spots and those kind of things out there. It will be all hard surface, but just the main big parking lot will stay gravel is what we like to do.

Questions for Mr. Clerk? Okay, I think we're good, thank you. All right, so this is commission questions, discussion, deliberation and action. Put them all into one. So any concerns, discussion at this time? Sounds like we will be seeing the final site plan again.

I don't want to hog all the motion making, but if anyone's inclined. Do you want me to start instead? Feel free, please.

Leave the long ones for me, right? I move to approve PRES-PR26-04 preliminary site plan for the proposed Heirloom Grove agritourism expansion on 80.01 acres of land at 5297 South Whitefield Road, PID14-032-08. 10-006-02 in the northwest quarter of section 32 and in the ag agricultural finding that the site plan dated March 24th, 2026 can comply with the applicable zoning ordinance requirements for preliminary site plan approval including sections 14.2.P required site plan information, 14.2.S standards for site plan approval subject to the following conditions. The remaining parking, voting area, dumpster, lighting, and sidewalk details should be addressed by the applicant on the final site plan.

Support.

Okay, so motion was made by Lapp and second by Oliver to approve the preliminary site plan with the one stated condition. Any discussion by commissioners? As she was reading it, I didn't ask about this, but my thought was, do you know where the .01 acre is on your lot?

I assumed it would be on the edge. That's really interesting. That's a great answer.

I'm trying to think, how many square feet is that? I don't know. Well, no, no, the 0.01, how many square feet is that?

That's like... Tim's going to calculate.

Divide by 100. Let's still afford... Well, anyway. Can't do math after... All right, any discussion from commissioners? Okay, roll call, please.

Yes.

Yes.

Bicking. Yes. Lapp. Yes. Hayes. Yes. Bradshaw. Yes. Quattrido. Yes. Brown. Yes. Thompson. Yes. Schengel.

Yes.

Okay, that was also unanimous. Thank you. So we have one other business item tonight, and this is something that was on our agenda two months ago. That's a rezone request, PREZ 26-01, application to rezone the southerly 1.21 acres of a lot at 4080 South Whitefield Road. from agricultural to R2A. And my recollection is we actually did have a public hearing at that time. And so at this point, we asked for some additional information which is included in the packet here. And so I will let Rodney update this and we'll hear from the applicant and then we will proceed.

Well, thank you. You should have our report dated May the 11th. And yes, this was on your March agenda. We did hold a hearing. We have a motion to be noted at the bottom of the first page of our report where you postponed action on it asking for documentation related to the for a two-family dwelling instead of a single-family dwelling. As you noted, we did provide the documentation of the inspections and report from the Central Michigan District Health Department. They're interested in how they worded it, but I'm comfortable and confident in agreeing with and the engineer on this one that essentially the health department said that the well and the septic are sufficient, that they're approved and suitable for a two-family use there. As I said, the report is a little bit obtuse, but I'm comfortable with the engineer's comment that things are approved there for that use. So it essentially takes care of that item of information. We have included in our review, first of all, it's an interesting application. The proposed rezoning is not consistent with our master plan. In 2018, the Planning Commission then approved the rezoning of the northern part of this property, which at that time was also not consistent with the master plan. So it's an interesting challenge. In our report, in our comments, you'll see comments that are favorable to a change, resuming as proposed. There are comments that are not favorable to it. It's quite a mix. And you'll see that also as you turn to essentially in the set of draft motions that you ask us to prepare, we try to help you have actions reasons essentially to cover whatever actions you might choose to make. That's actually the most important to really have direction as to why you're recommending favor or recommending against for zoning change. Because that direction needs to go to the Board of Trustees and if it needs to, if there's ever any legal action related to it, the why of what you're doing is important. So I would recommend that whatever action you may take on this application, whether you do it tonight or at another meeting, that you definitely include, essentially, findings and conclusions for the why of your recommendation, either in favor or against the rezoning. So in our set of draft motions, we did give you a template for a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning. And you'll see there some items. I think there are seven items there that go along the line of findings that are favorable to the idea of rezoning as proposed. The one there, item number two of that list, this is on page 159 of the packet, it talks about rezoning inconsistent with the master plan. And this language is basically taken right from our ordinance. The section on amendments has some findings of fact required and it talks about things to consider when you're looking at rezoning. And it does talk about the rezoning appropriate to to do and so the language here in item two is really taken right from that and but would be asking you to identify what those reasons are what are those significant changes that you feel are relevant to to uh to making a recommendation in favor of the reserve I'm happy to help you with that, but this is not one that we really had anything to share in our report. But we certainly can answer questions if you are headed in that direction. The next page on page 160 is the template for a recommendation of denial. And there we simply get pulled from our report some items that are not favorable to making the change. With any of these motions, you are welcome to use them, change them, throw them out and do a completely different motion. This was just to provide some help as you're thinking about whatever decision you may make. This truly is a judgment call. There are reasons to recommend in favor of it. There are reasons to recommend against. And so we simply recommend that you take time to ponder that and come to the best conclusion as a group. for this area and for the community. We do not have a recommendation on this for that reason. It really could go either way. Your judgment is most important. So with that, I'm happy to answer questions.

Questions for Rodney at the outset.

So just to be clear, it's just for that small portion where the house and barn sit, right?

That's basically the remainder of that parcel. It's about 1.2 acres, if I recall. Part of the parcel is already zoned this R2A district. And so this would rezone the remainder of the parcel to that district.

OK. OK, don't go far. So we can hear from the applicant, please.

I do believe we have the attorney on line as well.

Okay.

Good evening. My name's Tim Beebe. I'm with Central Michigan Survey and Development. My address is 2257 East Bloomfield Road here in the township. And I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I was actually out on site with the health department obtaining the information that you guys had requested. Going through the process with a duplex versus a single, the well needed to be upgraded in its permitting to a class three well, which it has been done. The tests have been run and that's been done. The site was evaluated with health department requirements they don't look at whether or not a structure is a duplex or single family they look at bedroom count how many people are going to be in the building So when they looked at it, they said, okay, you're approved for eight bedrooms. If you wanna do four and four, you wanna do six and two, you're approved for eight bedrooms. And that's what their approval was for. They did an inspection. We dug holes on the extremities of the system so that we weren't digging in the system. We took those holes down to six feet down. They did their inspection of the soils and passed the system. So it's always interesting when you're trying to do an inspection of an existing system because everything is better. So you have to look at periphery and look at what the current conditions are. If you're seeing any failures, then know we're not. So with that, the health department granted their approval and that is what is in your packet. The site is odd. There was a rezoning back in 2018 that I was involved with and at the time there was a proposal to divide that parcel. There was someone that was thinking that they wanted to put a dew flux on it. and decided not to because there wasn't going to be a separate dwelling, that lot split never actually came to fruition. So at this point, what we'd like to do is continue that zoning all the way down. I'm certain you probably have this information, but just in case that you don't, Let's make some copies. The two drawings are, one, a blow-up of the current zoning map. Just shows where the R2A zoning currently is. The subdivisions back there are all R2A. We are immediately abutting the subdivision and would be immediately abutting the other half of our parcel that is zoned R2A. So the one is just the zoning map. The other one, if you're wondering, geez, R2A, and you're turning it into a duplex, are there any other duplexes out there? Yes, in fact, there are. There are duplexes that reside right on the edge of the developers that are separated from this lot by basically one mile. So the use is consistent with the area. The expansion of the zoning will complete the zoning on this parcel so that it is consistent throughout the parcel. It is consistent with all the zoning of the smaller residential lots to the north. It is one of the few small lots that lie south of that section line. So, I believe it to be consistent with adjacent zoning, consistent with adjacent use, and We hope that you see the benefit of consolidating the zoning on that parcel and allowing us to move forward. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer. Mark McKellar, the attorney, is online and would be happy to answer any questions also.

so i know you came in february and we postponed for that uh it's been sitting vacant basically for a while right is that correct yes and changing it to a duplex would make sure that people get there hopefully okay i see that as positive myself so i want to ask a couple questions about the reports um

In your letter, you kind of basically said, well, they recommend this, but they didn't require it. The part about the well being less than 12 inches above grade and recommending to regrade it, I don't know enough about wells to know how serious that is of an issue. But what is your opinion? What is your plan with regard to that recommendation?

The plan is to regrade around the well. That's in the landscape area.

Okay. And then the other question was about the septic and then septic is filled with 36 inches of clay loam and they want you to vent it. What is about that?

The owner talked with the health department when we were out there. They went back and forth. The health department basically told the owner It's for the own health of your system, but it's your choice. So I didn't get a one way or the other. So I am not certain about that one. I am certain about the well.

Okay.

Is the owner intending to use this as a rental then, as rentals, or trying to sell it as duplexes?

I have a feeling if the right person came along and wished to purchase it, it would be up for sale. But right now, the intention is to be able to rent it.

Doesn't the rental policy require a septic review every, is it three years?

That was actually a requirement for the short-term rental. There's only ordinances there. Our rental inspection program simply required verification that those systems are functioning. So they certainly would need to be inspected every so often. I don't know that it's necessarily on a three-year cycle.

But if they sell it, then they would have to do another septic review, correct, under the current ordinances? Yeah, time of sale.

I believe it has to have within a year. And as long as you have a valid inspection within the year, that's actually a state requirement, not a township requirement.

Rodney, as you're thinking about this and reviewing this, I'm getting tripped up a little bit on two for an approval approach, and that is the following new information or conditions. The only new information we have, then, is that the septic is acceptable, correct?

Well, keep in mind that what we're talking about here in this item, the language there, the new information or conditions, it's just taken right from the ZOE ordinance. finding, in fact, a section of amendments that there's a reason to, that new information or changes in conditions are a reason to consider a resumé that's not consistent with the master plan. In terms of new information, you're really or changing conditions, really looking at something that's tied back to the master plan that indicates that the master plan's designation as property to remain essentially agriculture is no longer appropriate. So the septic is not, that's important information. That was important to know that it's possible to use the property as R2A. That's not a reason to rezone it. Now we know that if you did propose or recommend to rezone it, that it can actually be used for that purpose with existing well as septic. The reason that was important actually is related to the purpose of the R2A zoning district. I recall in our report, I think we talked about this before, that in the statement of purpose for the R2A district, it's very specific. It says that this district is intended for property that's in our water and sewer service area. Not unwell incentive. We have a whole neighborhood next door that's not well in subject. So certainly there have been properties that have been zoned R2A. Those properties have been zoned R2A for a very long time that are not consistent with that purpose. But still, you're considering a new, an additional property, an additional rezoning. And so the idea is that if you're looking at that, at the very least, to even get in the neighborhood of being consistent with that statement of purpose, there are Well, and their septic system ought to be functional for what the R2A district allows, which is essentially the most intensive use is that duplex activity. So we kind of covered that. And that actually is... You see item one there in that motion to recommend approval talks about that there's adjacent zoning, adjacent archway zoning, even though it's not in the Water and Sewer District. So that kind of gets in that space. But in terms of new information, this septic and well information is really not something I would necessarily say here. You're really looking at reasons to make this change, reasons why the 2018 Master Plan designation for rural agricultural activity is no longer valid.

Well, could I, I mean, to me, first of all, the report was extremely helpful. I feel like there are significant arguments, as you said, about why one might not be eager to do this in terms of consistency with the Master Plan, etc., etc., The biggest argument in favor of it, it seems to me, is that you have this structure on there that is sitting empty and that, at least according to the owner, would be more likely to be occupied and thriving with this type of change. And so, to me, that's the new information is that since the structure was built, the circumstances of the structure of chain. Plus, you know, that particular lot is no longer eligible for agriculture, is no longer available for agricultural preservation, right? It's been built on. So I don't know. Does any of that?

I think that's actually a very valid proposal. The home is unusual, to say the least, both in terms of size, in terms of how it was set up, Its original purpose was not really a single family home. It was a single family home and a coach's office, really. A very large home occupation activity. It is what it is. It's a very unusual structure. And so that is a very valid reason to acknowledge that unusual building and that reasonable use of that would be a duplex. And it requires some zoning in Newark for that to happen.

All right. If I could speak on that. I think coming off of your findings, initially I'm hesitant to approve this. And I think some of that comes back to, like, how do we get to this spot with this house, with this building? How did this come? And I went through a lot of the pieces you brought out here, and I had some questions to see if I could get some So on page 19, it says that it was originally only designed for storage under the drain field design, right? The drain field was only designed for storage, and it wasn't until after the rooms were built that the township was made aware. We're looking on page 121. We received a call from McGurk regarding the bedrooms and the current address. The storage construction was done, and there was one to two bedrooms anticipated. After receiving more in-ship, it was not known that these facilities and bedrooms were being built in the storage unit. Is that correct?

So what I would suggest with regards to this would be to ask the attorney. So if you could briefly tell her. Yeah. And then I would suggest that he could answer your question.

Yeah. Was there prior authorization to doing the addition to the rooms? Because I can see that there was a request for it, but it seems in this that the township became aware of it after the building.

Yes, good afternoon. I would refer to TMDB on that, although I would say this much, that any prior actions that may be inconsistent with any zoning or code is not a basis for finding them. I would totally understand the inconsistencies within the master plan layout. They think he's demanding 20 acres, 40 acres, and they're looking to develop a community like that in a neighboring one. I think that is a wholly different animal, and I think Mr. Mann is correct in kind of analyzing You know, these two different buckets, and I think that would be the case. But in this case, I don't think it's precedent-setting. We're not looking to do a new development.

No, no, I'm not asking about bigger development. I'm asking about this facility in particular. If I could finish. If I could finish. Nope, okay. Just a second.

I have my hand raised in the middle of the chairs. You can speak to the issue with regard to the permanent mortgage.

structure was built in the Ag district as a separate structure. And then in order to put living quarters in that structure, it had to be attached, if I recall correctly. So it was a process. The building did get built. Then they were looking at remodeling that to put bedrooms, kitchen, everything else in it. And when they came to the township and asked for that, they said, you can't do that. You can't have two living structures on one side. So therefore, the only way that you can do it is to join the whole thing. I wasn't involved in all those steps, but that's my recollection. Do you recall it differently?

Well, this is before my time, but I don't disagree with Tim's approach. The other thing I'll add to that, I know that the paperwork appears to show that there may have been some things that were done Not necessarily in the proper order. Again, this is before my time with the township. I'm not going to be opposed to that. Other than I will simply say, with any ordinance violation, the township's goal has always been simply to resolve the problem. Resolve the violation, bring things back into compliance. In this case, that certainly was done. In the end, the use, the property, building, met the requirements, they received the permits needed, they received approvals, inspections, and certificates of occupancy that are needed. So whatever there may have been that was done, is resolved. And so it really should, I agree with Mr. McKellar, that it should not be looked at as part of whether or not the grant is resolved.

Okay. Again, I bring it up to my point because we're looking at such a specific site. This is not something typically we see where we get like a $5,000 square foot, a 5,000 square foot building that comes up, you know? And it's asking for a very different variants here that doesn't go in line with our master plan because I was just wondering how we ended up in this position you know I guess that gives them a little bit more clarity to me like how we did that built prior and then again the township looks to resolve that issue which it should but it helps me I think understand then how this came to be in the beginning here which I had a little confusion in this

Okay, other questions or comments from commissioners?

I'm inclined to support the motion to rezone for the simple sake of consistency. I think Chairman Scatrito, you made a good point about the land use, that being new information, and making sure it's consistent throughout the parcel. It's a unique situation, and I think it's best resolved promptly.

Other comments? Could I just ask, just as a kind of nosy or curious question, how is that going to be divided? Is it going to be the house is one piece and the barn is another piece, or is it going to be divided in some other way?

I have only been in it one time. As you come down the stairs from the upper level, you come down into the connection portion, and there is a door that separates what was the existing garage, and then there's the access way behind that goes to the house, and there's a separation door in there. And that is my understanding of where it would be separated.

Okay, other comments or questions? If anyone is feeling ambitious, we can have a motion, although it's gonna take some work, I think, on this one.

I'm struggling with that point, too, just on how to word that with respect to the new information and how complex or simple that needs to be for sake of consistency going forward.

Here I think they make two comments I think are valid. One is that the structure is unique in its size and it's simply a unique structure and Appropriate in use of that structure or the more appropriate in each of that structure is a duplex. I think that was essentially the direction that was going the other comment was that The property itself, although it's Currently zoned agriculture is simply no longer feasible for agricultural use that can be argued they've seen farm operations in a very small parcels, but but I don't find that that's a valid statement to make. If you as a planning commission decide that that's a relevant statement. So those could be the items that you include.

And that, from your perspective, Mr. Nani, that would cover the Planning Commission with a good recommendation to the Board of Trustees for future generations of people to look back on and not have questions about how we approached this.

What I will say is that you saw in a previous report, we shared the 2018 motion, I don't know if it's in this one or not, but the 2018 motion did not have any reasons But really, there was not really a whole lot of discussion in the minutes from that meeting. And so we can sort of guess, based on what the media shared, why they did what they did. They didn't document it. And so it really is best, especially in a rezoning case, to document. And that's why we recommend, really, although it's a long motion, that you do include all the items there, just so it makes clear why you're doing it.

As someone who was here then and participated in that, I would simply say that, and I don't have an ironclad memory of it either, but what I would say is that I'm sure we had a good thorough discussion over it. I think what may have been lacking was the record. I mean, granted they're all recorded, but the written, Documentation of that was probably a little bit lacking compared to what we're doing now, but I'm sure we spent time on it Well here on Whiteville Road night.

I will make a motion that here we go We'd like to move to recommend to the Township Board of Trustees that the PREZ 26-01 zoning map amendment to rezone the southerly 1.21 acres of 4080 South Whiteville Road PID 14-030-20-001-00 In the northeast quarter of section 30 from ag agricultural to R2A low density one and two family residential zoning district be adopted based on the following findings and conclusions. And I really wish I'd brought water with me tonight. A rezoning inconsistent with the statement of purpose for the R2A district is warranted because there are existing R2A parcels in the township not serviced by township water and sanitary sewer services, including the adjacent neighborhood to the north. Two. Rezoning inconsistent with the master plan's future land use designation of the lot and surrounding land to the southeast and west for rural preservation is warranted because of the following new information or conditions that have changed significantly since the master plan was adopted in 2018. I'll call them A, the unique nature of the structure, B, consideration of more appropriate use as a duplex, and C, the property is no longer feasible for agricultural use. Three, the lot has a minimum road frontage width and total square footage required for a two-family residential dwelling under the R2A zoning district. Four, South Whiteville Road and East Broomfield Road have sufficient capacity and are in more than adequate condition to support this limited expansion of the R2A zoning district for a two-family dwelling use. Five, the existing well septic system and drain field were inspected by the Central Michigan District Health Department in April of 2026. The agency then prepared reports concluding that the well and septic system drain field are approved for the eight person duplex with recommendations to improve both the well and drain field. Six, the proposed rezoning would not adversely impact availability or capacity of existing emergency services for the site. And seven, whether approved or denied, the proposed rezoning will not result in any unlawful exclusionary zoning. Support.

Got it in there. So the motion was made by Oliver. It was seconded by Bicking. You heard it there. Any discussion from Commissioner?

I think eliminating the split zoning is a really good move for the township. And I agree that with the structure already built on the part that's ag, it's no longer a place for agriculture, so I think the split zoning to the R2A makes more sense. It would be nice if our master plan was perfect, but it seems like we keep running into little glitches here and there where things don't quite match, and so I think it's, good to try to make sense of the situations we have rather than focus solely on what we think the land ought to be used as in every case okay other comments i think just be nice to have a res a residence that actually is occupied more than anything

that I would invite you to consider changing in your motion. In item five, it refers to approve for an eight-person duplex. That should say eight-bedroom. So it's a change to eight-bedroom.

Thank you. I accept that friendly amendment. Yeah, we want to be accurate with that.

OK, so motion has been corrected in item five there to eight-bedroom. Any further discussion? Okay, roll call, please.

Bradshaw. Yes. Thompson.

Yes.

Contrito. Yes. Brown.

Abstain.

Lapp. Yes. Over. Yes. Page. No. Bicking. Yes. Shingles. Yes.

Okay, that motion carry, although not unanimously for the carry. So that is a recommendation that goes to the township board township board will then act accordingly.

So what will happen from here is this has to go to the to the county plan.

Okay, so that was our other business. So the next item is extended public comment.

Before we go to the next item, Mr. Brown, do you want to put on record why you abstained from this vote? Because that's unusual. I know you abstained from a previous one because you were an immediate neighbor. Do you want to put on record why you abstained?

the balance of the pros and cons versus give me a second here Essentially, I see the value in having a potential dwelling that can be occupied, but there's no guarantee that it can be, and that the original R2A parcel, the split zone of that section was supposed to be used for a duplex, but never was. So there's just lots of conflicting information, and I don't feel, especially since I was not present last month to hear other arguments that other people were privy to, that I don't have enough information to make an informed decision.

If I may just share a thought in regards to that. The vote is what it is, but I would encourage abstention This has come up at this point. Typically, if someone's going to abstain from voting on an item, they should bring that up at the beginning of when the item is brought up immediately. And typically, the only reason to abstain from voting is if there's a conflict of interest. And essentially, you would say, here's my conflict of interest. The item, the other, the more driver's zoning was a very appropriate case where your immediate neighbor would say, you know what, I'm going to abstain from this one. And typically at that point actually you step away from the table and you don't participate until that ends over. I will say that the extension should only happen really for that conflict of interest case. It is completely appropriate to say no because you can't say yes. But really the only reason to stay is if there's a conflict of interest. So I'm just mentioning it for the future. I appreciate the information. It's just kind of from a training element for the future to keep in mind. As I said, there's no reason to change the vote. The vote is what it is. But we'll find out what that is. and share that additional information for you next time.

Thank you. Can I ask a question? Yeah. What drives that standard? Is that standard within township policy? Is that standard within, we're not using Robert's rules here.

No, this is basically coming out of the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, Michigan Zoning Enabling Act.

Okay, all right, then you just answered my question.

Thank you. Do we have a duty to vote on any thing coming for us?

I know you're referring to Robert's Rules of Order, but yeah, you get that.

You're talking about stipulations under our bylaws.

So there is a standard driven by best practice, and that's been in place. That's all I need to know.

And it's even appropriate, when you have a motion, then you have discussion, it's even appropriate at that point to bring up, I am not ready to vote yes on this. And here's why. And to say that, and I've seen cases where it looked like basically everybody was in favor of it except one person. Think of a jury. One jury member out of 12 is against everybody else. Well, they can't close until they have a unanimous vote. Well, what I'm saying here is I've seen cases where there's been one person who says, listen, I'm simply not ready to take action on this. I need a little bit more time. Can you give me a little bit more time? Can we postpone this to the next meeting? I just want to look at it some more, or maybe I have questions I want to answer. And I've seen the case where the rest of the commissioners will say, you know what? That's fine, we'll give you that time. And so it is important to bring those kinds of things up, even if it's during that last discussion as the motion is being discussed. Because it may change what happens with that motion. Thank you, I really appreciate that.

Okay.

Thank you. And thank you for sharing the standards so that we know. Because obviously we have a lot of new commissioners, so you may not be aware of those standards. Because people abstain all the time in different governance structures. So we know now what the standards are driven by.

But so, I mean, not to belabor this, but so the practice, the standard practice would be if you, if a person who doesn't have a conflict of interest gets to the point where the vote is imminent and they are not ready to vote yes because they don't feel like they have been convinced, their default is to vote no.

Well, certainly they should bring up their concern, and it may be simply to bring it up. I'm not ready to vote on this. To talk about why or what I need to be able to be ready, they need simply time to think about it. There's always a desire to move these things forward, but that doesn't mean you have to. And it's completely appropriate to say, look, we're not quite ready to vote on this yet. We could give it a little more time. But yes, ultimately, If a motion to, in this case, a motion to recommend approval is the motion, and a commissioner, very appropriately, is not ready to support that motion, then the other answer is no. And that's okay. That's completely okay.

Just for a point of clarification, earlier, Rodney, you said that should be brought up in advance.

Oh, abstention from a conflict of interest perspective. That comes up at the very beginning of the item. And our bylaws talk about conflict of interest and what that means. And if you feel you have a conflict of interest as a commissioner, on a particular item, like you're the immediate neighbor or you're the son-in-law or whatever, close family member. then you would want to bring kind of flag down the chair at the beginning if i may just like to interrupt i i believe i have a conflict of interest uh and i would like to abstain from this this item and then just share what that conflict is uh the rest of the commissioners can essentially by consensus or by a motion by vote can can agree with that or not uh what i will say is if there is a vote if the rest of the commissioners vote say hey that's not a real conflict then you as a commissioner should move ahead and vote on that But in most cases, if somebody brings up they believe they have a conflict, the answer to that question is thank you and you can step away from the table until that item is finished.

Okay, thank you. So now I think we have completed our business, other business, and so we'll have extended public comment. So this is the portion of the meeting where individuals are invited to address the planning commission on any item, whether it was on tonight's agenda or not. If you want to do so, if you're in the room come to the podium give us your name and address for the minutes if you're online raise your hand make your presence known and we'll you know we'll arrange for you to speak so extended public comment on any agenda on any item is open at 8 31. Seeing none, we have our biggest audience of the year so far tonight, but no public comments. So we'll go ahead and close that back up, also at 8.31. So now we move to final board comment, and cue the music.

We don't have any music. How many decibels?

No, no, no. Like violin music, something inspiring. It's my understanding that this would be Commissioner Shingles' last meeting. because he submitted his resignation effective June 1st, and we will not meet again before June 1st. I'm assuming this is because you're relocating? Correct. That was about that. Oh, that's right, all right. So, gosh, I don't remember exactly when you first got on the Planning Commission, but it was not long after me. Had to have been around 2010-ish, somewhere in there. And you served for a number of years and then stepped away for professional obligations, and then you came back. So you've had two tours of duty, at least, that I can think of on the Planning Commission, probably amounting to, I'm gonna guess, between 10 and 15 years, I don't know exactly. But so thank you so much for your service to the community. It's been a pleasure having you on the board. Your comments are always, relevant and apropos of what we're doing and also are likely to bring up things that no one else has thought of which is always a good thing on a commission like this and we'll miss you we'll miss your presence and send us care packages from wherever you're going

everybody around me. And the work that's done is thankless in many instances. Today was the Whiteville. The Whiteville showed up. So it's civic duty is what it is, and I've enjoyed my time. And as I was brought back to the commission, I had a greater appreciation than when I was volunteered the first time by my vice president. At the university, it was said, we then asked to make recommendations, and I was like, why would I wanna do that? Only to find out that it makes a huge difference in our community, so I thought it was something that I saw. I was voluntold. originally, but I don't know if I've ever said that before, but I just said it in public. Unfortunately, he's passed away, so I guess he can't come back and say, I can't believe you. I wouldn't be like that. No, in all seriousness, it's been a pleasure, and this community is a great community. I've lived here for 37 years, in the township for 28, so yeah, so thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Rod.

Get a chance to know that guy right there, because I think between

You, Chair Squartuto, you've been the chair the whole time I've been the commissioner. And Tim, I don't know if I've seen anybody more than the two of you. Because, yeah. Thank you.

It's not my turn to say, but it has been a pleasure to have you on.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. I agree.

Very good. Any other comments from commissioners?

Yeah. So it's only been a few months for me to be here. And I think this Whiteville specifically, the building that we just voted on was probably the most enlightening one. There was more discussion against it than there was for it in some cases, but it still passed and it was very helpful to hear every side to really make an informed decision. And very helpful that despite the abstention that Brown did, we still had a learning from it. So it's just very nice to have all that. Thank you.

Occasionally we make some sausage around here. Any other comments?

I'd just like to express my appreciation to the staff. I think they do a phenomenal job in challenging circumstances from time to time, and we appreciate the guidance and direction.

Yes.

Yeah, that's been, I mean, in all my time on here, it's been essential to have that support in the background because that's what allows us to do the work.

I'd like to thank Stan for all his time and effort here, and hope he's moving out to someplace with greener pastures and better food.

Best wishes in your final actual retirement and relocation. And we've completed our agenda, so we'll stand adjourned until June.