Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're all here. So, we'll call the meeting to order. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. So, like to welcome everybody to the September meeting of the Union Township Planning Commission. Uh we just had the pledge of allegiance. Roll call, please. Here. Bradshaw here. Brown here. Haze here. M here. McDonald here. Here. Shingles here.

Here. We are all here. Thank you. Um, next item is approval of tonight's agenda. We have a brief agenda tonight with one business item, new business item. Are there any other items that anyone is aware of that needs to be on tonight's agenda or any other issues with the agenda? Move to approve. Second motion by Olver, second by shingles to approve the agenda as prepared. Any discussion? If not, all in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed?

Okay. So, our motion, our agenda is approved. Next item is approval of the minutes. We last met on August 19th. So, you have those minutes in your packet. Are there any corrections to the August 19th minutes? [Music] I didn't see any myself, but we'll give people a moment to uh speak up if they did. Move to approve. Second

motion by Olver, second by Hayes to approve the minutes as presented. Any discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Okay, so the minutes are approved. Thank you. Next item is correspondence, board reports and presentations. We always start with uh Commissioner Thearing with updates from board of trustees. Floor is yours. Thank you, sir. Um, I will start with uh on 8:13. I see Mr. Nanny had kind of talked about the first reading of the proposed new blight control ordinance. Uh, since then, we've obviously had our first, our second, and adoption of that ordinance. Um, we had approved resolutions, uh, a 1% fee on non-township taxes. Um, it's it's more for it's a tax administration fee to offset the cost incurred by assessing property values, collecting levies, and the review and the appeal process along with a 3% late fee penalty for unpaid taxes. And these are things that this is nothing new. They're things that we've been doing all along. They just could not find where we actually had a resolution. So, what we wanted to do was get right with the world in that respect. So this has been going on for since the beginning of whatever so for a long time. Um we also on 827 had our individual performance review of the township manager. So, if you're interested in um how the board what the board is thinking and feels about the township manager, I recommend listening to that where we go through as a board. There's several questions that we're asked. We grade him on a scale of one to five. Um and based

on our individual scores, sometimes we may have something else to add to that. So, it's a worthwhile it's it's not very long, but it's it's worthwhile. And then what we do is we take all of that and do the math on it so that we have one collective u review for the manager and we'll do that. I don't know if that's our next next meeting or the following meeting. It's coming up soon. So it's all part of the manager's review. That was on 8:27. And last but not least, we had our introduction and first reading to the to a proposed park ordinance update. That's where we are.

Did you say park ordinance? A park ordinance update. Yep. It's it I think it just kind of um we were lacking in some areas especially uh it just is more specific of the things you can do you can't do. M

um if you know we don't want to have people parking their trailers and campers when the parks are closed and lording and if need be there's ways to um but fines for that if if need be kind of one of those things. So Mr. Nanny I don't know if you have anything to add. I'm not really going into great detail about that but And I think the the one thing I would would add is uh that there was uh d it was necessary to make some changes to park parks ordinance to to improve the ability for for local law enforcement officers to be able to enforce our ordinance in the parks. Things like uh trespassing after hours and and and other activities that that uh that might require intervention by law enforcement. our our 1994 uh parks ordinance which is the current one in force was not up to up to date in terms of uh the language that needed to be there related to enforcement so that that law enforcement personnel could could be involved. So the new one uh both addresses that from a legal perspective, our township attorney provided uh the updated language we needed and also makes clear that that uh the various law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction in our area including the tribe u because this is part of the Israel Indian reservation. So the tribe has certain jurisdiction u that they have the ability to enforce our rules. So that language is now clear and explicit in in in the proposed version. I'm all set, sir.

Okay. Thanks, Mr. Any questions from commissioners for Commissioner Thering on board of trustees related matters? Okay, thank you. Uh, next one is Commissioner McDonald. Updates from ZBA. I don't know if there are any, but no meeting again. Okay. I still haven't had the pleasure. Do y'all ever drop each other a line just to say hi and keep in contact? I haven't even like had any correspondence. The only correspondence I've ever had is when Harold would let me know that it was canceled. So that's as far as my toes been dipped into the whole thing. Okay.

I do have one item on that. uh that our our zoning board appeals made the front page of the morning sun the other day uh at our last meeting uh the last board meeting a uh gentleman Franklin McKenzie was appointed as the ZBA alternate we had one open position and he applied and was appointed and we had a reporter here from the morning sun who was here for the first time uh she's new and uh it resulted in a front page story and a picture uh in front of of his swearing in. So if you if you have a chance, be sure to take a look at Yeah, now that you mentioned I did see that. Was the reporter here for some other reason?

Uh the reporter is new uh newly hired to the morning sun and we are part of her beat. So we can expect her her name is uh M Maxine I believe Maxine and uh we can expect to see more of her.

Okay. Back in the day, we even had a reporter would sometimes be at our meetings, but it's been a while. Um, okay. So, we'll move on to uh community and economic development monthly report. Do commissioners have any questions for about anything that you may have seen in the monthly report? Just give folks an opportunity to ask if they've spotted anything that they're curious about. This may be related to this topic. I may be jumping in at the wrong time, but I wanted to see if you had any updates on um the Isabella County or Mount Pleasant Tiny Homes and their application for that lot over on Brookfield. Is it there?

Right. So, I know last time you come in, you said there was there was some issues going on with I think the plan that they had run up and contingencies like being able to build through a winter having kind of sides on the building that would be able to support it and stuff like that. I didn't know if they had reached back out to you yet or any of that with the res revised plans.

Yeah, I don't have anything new since the last when they were here some time ago and provide the presentation. Uh I I do know that they are actively wanting to pursue that. I at this point uh I've I've understood that they were working with civil engineer architects all those types of details put things together. um they have we've met with them previously about the process that they would need to get a plan view development approval uh in order to even head down that road uh but uh we haven't seen them in a little while. I um I wouldn't be surprised to perhaps hear from them again uh not too distant future just because it's about questions come up periodically. Uh but but I I don't know exactly when we might be applying u the uh that's a great question. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. That's it.

I I I I can and I'd love to actually highlight a couple of others if I could. Uh under the ordinance enforcement item, it's on the page nine of the packet, page two of the report. Down at the bottom, uh we have uh uh the bottom item there says uh South Lincoln Road. And Mr. Record, uh I want to just pleased to be able to report that this item is closed. This is item that ordinance enforcement item that has been going on for quite a number of years now. Um and it started with a building built without permits and uh and then partially solved it with a after the fact request to the zoning board of appeals uh but ultimately had to take them take the gentleman to court. But I'm very pleased to say that he did uh do everything he needed to do to comply with the variance that was granted to him by the zoning board of appeals. and uh we're very pleased to give him confirmation that that we're he's good. Everything's all set. The matter's been closed. Um and uh so it's it it is an item. We certainly don't don't want project ordinance for activities to take as long as it's been dead, but but we do stick with them and we we want our goal is always to bring a project a site back into compliance with the ordinance. This one took a number of years to get there. We hope that we can take weeks or months or days even. But uh nonetheless, the goal is always to bring a property back to compliance and we're willing to work with people to do that. And even in this case when this went to court and there was a judgment from the court default judgment, we we included in there the ability sort of one more shot with him to be able to pursue get pursue getting it fixed. U and he did in fact take that one last shot and and took care of it. So very happy about that. Um and uh pleased to to know to disclose um the uh uh

just one one other item. It's kind of tucked in uh on page five of our report, page 12 of the packet. Uh we had a meeting with the new owners of the Prestige Center assisted living facility. You know, that was our first planet development project. Uh the folks that owned it never started the expansion that they received all their approvals for. They had everything but a but a building permit. Um and uh they they never started. They did in fact choose to sell the property. So we had a very nice meeting with the new owners uh to help them to understand where they are uh that and help them understand they that really all we are looking for is building permit to uh to move forward with that expansion. Um and just make you aware that we do have new owners over there. Uh the other item is not in our report. It came in after we mentioned that uh uh we do have uh the a final site plan application for the Mid Michigan College Event Center uh facility and that's currently under review uh based on what what uh Peter has told me. It does look like it will be something we can improve administratively. So far in review everything's turned up just as it should be. Uh but just want to let you know that that that proc that project is moving forward.

Good. So the the infrastructure issue there was addressed that's uh that is yeah that was in process as well. That's called that's those details are being worked out. Uh I'm not party to those those conversations directly. I don't need to be but my understanding is that that they are satisfactory moving along.

Good. Any other questions on the monthly report? I'll just say briefly the the fitness court studio looks like a nice possibility if that were to come to pass. It uh Jameson Park, you know, it'd be a nice addition to Jameson Park. Thank you. Is that a similar to design to what we have here in McDonald Park?

It it is it's a it's it's uh it's essentially an extended version. What uh the this this one needs to be called the outdoor fitness court. The studio uh is basically doubled size. It has a has a fitness court like this one does. And then the other side of the wall where our our wall faces the road on the other side of the wall in this fitness court studio it has an equalized space that has the same kind of padded floor. uh uh but but no equipment in there. So, it's designed for classes, you know, Pilates classes or for unstructured fitness activities in there. And uh uh it it is a it is newer that was not an option when when when we worked with them in 2022 and 2023 on this one. Uh but it's something that they have had many requests for and so they just they've added that as a design option and it seemed to be a very good fit for Jameson Park. Okay. Do you see this as a facility that could be used in coordination with the Commission on Aging next door? Because I know that they have two fitness rooms inside there that they schedule classes for. And I can imagine a great piece to try to, you know, bridge two units together would be to try to get them over there and running that. I know that's something that be opening we'd be open to after putting it in.

Yeah. Yeah. Certainly. We had a number of folks that have asked about having classes. Uh we're certainly welcome to welcome people to do that. Uh we don't have any organized recreational programming at township level, but uh we're happy to work with folks on that and commission agent certainly is always welcome.

Any other questions or comments? Okay, thank you. We'll move on. Are there any other reports or correspondence anyone's aware of needs to come to our attention? I see you had a bunch of flyers on your desk about various upcoming trainings and sort of stuff. So, you can have a look at that on your own. Okay. Um, so we'll move on. Next item is the first public comment of the meeting. We always have a public comment near the front end. It's on items that are not on tonight's agenda. Anyone would like to address the planning commission on a non-aggenda item, they're invited to do so at this time. Just give us your name and address for the minutes and I'll limit at least your initial comments to three minutes. Public comment is open at 7:17 and I don't believe we have anybody online. Okay. And folks are here for other purposes. So we'll go ahead and close that back up. There'll be an extended public comment towards the end of the meeting. So we're ready to move on to our new business item. We have a uh pre SPR 25-05 preliminary site plan application for a new accessory building and expanded parking at the Sacred Heart Academy Athletic Fields, 4245 South Lincoln Road. We will uh hear from township staff first, then we'll hear from the applicant, then we will review the site plan and take our action.

Well, thank you. Everybody should have a copy of our uh report today, September 9th. Said this for the Sacred Heart athletic field just down the road just south of us proposing the indoor batting facility. A nice addition there. This is an interesting site because it it uh they they access it directly from the the building property to the north next door. Uh this has been uh pattern of activity for many many many years. Uh and uh so they're proposing essentially to do a sort of a combined parking facility. Some of the parking is on the neighboring lot. So we can talk a bit more about that, but it's an interesting project, interesting piece of property. U it is what our ordinance calls a non-conforming site. We talked about that before that that that's added to the ordinance that that allows you as a planning commission to review and take action on a site plan that doesn't necessarily bring the the property up to every current standard as if it was a a brand new vacant lot being developed. Uh but instead more narrowly focuses on certain key changes or improvements, public safety deficiencies being the first one. And then just asking for a menu of things to to be done. uh ask you for at least three things from a menu of choices to be taken care of. In this case, the applicants more than met those standards. Um and so what it means is there are some things you don't see in this case. We're not talking about landscaping improvements, for example. That's not one of the items that they they want to pursue. Um and so our focus is a little narrower for changes to existing sites like this. Uh we uh we did find overall the the plan we're happy pleased with the plans. There are a number of details that need to be taken care of. Uh one is really the sidewalks. This is an area uh that

that uh it does not have a sidewalk on on Lincoln Road. U it is an area where where it is eligible for for requests for temporary relief from construction. Uh the applicant has put that request on the plan. So if you are if you do approve the preliminary site plan, you would be approving that that that request for temporary relief, we have asked them in our report um page uh three of our report, page 31 of the packet, you see up at the top a couple of of bullet points there. Uh the first one is we should be asking to make sure to include the reason uh that references from from our adopted policy for this that the board of trustees adopted. We've recommended a reason which is completely valid for this site because there are no sidewalks in this along the stretch of Lincoln Road. Um so we would ask that that be included on the final site plan. And then we also ask that that the connector the sidewalk connector from the Lincoln Road sidewalk shown on the plan coming into the site to the building uh be added because that that is also part a requirement of our sidewalk and pathway ordinance is that connector from the public sidewalk be should be be provided as part of these development projects. It also would be part of the relief is that the if the construction relief of construction would apply to well, we don't need the connector if there's no sidewalk out front, but both need to be on the on the plan and both need to be part of that request for relief. U so those are details. We do not object to the granting of temporary relief. It makes sense in this case but they do need to be on the plan. uh few details about the the loading area that they showed uh and and uh they they had some interesting uh material on the plan about parking. They said they're expanding the parking lot. They showed two options, an option A and

an option B. Uh the option A is is not anything that could work. It's not really a a safe layout. uh it creates some uh potential safety challenges for for between motorists and pedestrians in that space because of angles and curves and such. Uh but we're very comfortable with option B. Uh it it does do the job. it that it's not a perfectly straight line coming off the neighboring site but but the the adjustment of the angle is such that that creating safety or visibility issues and it also creates with the loop around uh creates the space for emergency vehicle access to the batting facility which would be important. Um so we'd recommend that that option B be prov be used. Uh as I said, this is involving the neighboring property. So there will be a requirement for uh signed and executed shared parking agreement between the two property owners. There's language in our ordinance that talks about what that needs to look like. Um they may even have something already and if they do that, we can work with that. Uh but if not, then we'd be looking for Senate for an agreement be executed. And then also uh the cross access easement between the two properties. uh that there actually should needs to be an easement there that shows that that the synchron has the right to to to access the neighboring lot use the neighboring lot for access. Uh so if there is no existing easement we would need that to be provided uh and with that with and recorded on both on both properties. And so those are details. They're really final site plan details, but we need to address them at this stage as conditions of approvals and ensure that they uh come in as part of that final site plan. Uh so with that that in mind and these are really our details u uh and even with the parking with two options, we're very comfortable recommending this plan

for approval simply with the condition that that option B be used on the final site plan. And so you'll see in our recommendation on page five of our uh report, page 33 of the packet that we are recommending approval of the the site plan, we have four conditions and and they really are just to address the details we just talked about. So we very pleased to recommend plans for your attention this even. Are there any immediate questions for Rodney from commissioners?

How long does the temporary relief for the sidewalk last for? Is that a yearly review or would that be something that say say we look five say we look five years down the low the road development continues into a situation where we're considering adding sidewalks along that place. How easy is it to revisit for this and have them still be responsible for what normally would be on the ordinance?

Yeah. So, so uh the uh we have we have our sidewalking pathway ordinance. It simply says build the sidewalk. Uh but as part of that uh the board of trustees adopted the policy original policy was adopted in 2018. They updated updated that when we when we adopted the new sidewalk and and so we simply follow that policy and that policy in for example in this case as you noted in that language that we recommended uh it talks about that there's uh less than 50% of the surveyed sections of the township uh along the roads fronting the development have sidewalks. Uh so in that circumstance if that changes because we have other sites we start getting sections of sidewalk in or the county should build sidewalks in other parts of it that if that circumstance changes that's one of the reasons why we could uh request that these sidewalks be constructed. Uh but essentially the policy itself lays that out when when that could change uh for for sites like this one. This is not a high priority area for sidewalks. Uh it it u it's an area far we'd like to get paved shoulders out there like we done on Broomfield right around the corner. Uh so that that's more of what we focus on is trying in the more rural areas is try to get the pave shoulders there. So it is not likely to be an area that we'd be we'd be pulling this this request in for for construction anytime it' be essentially indefinite that the relief would be granted.

Okay. But if we we wouldn't be losing easement access if we wanted to like again do that pave shouldering. That's correct. I believe these these sidewalks if I recall are in the rightway. So they're so it's not there's no easement shown for this one. U but if there were we would actually if they were shown out of the rightway then they would need to provide the easement for that. Uh as part of as part of this project so the easement would be there for the future. Great. Thank you Ron. appreciate. Any others right now? Okay. If not, I think we're ready to hear from the applicant. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Tim Bbe. I'm with Central Michigan Surveying and Development. I'm here on behalf of Sacred Heart Parish, who owns uh Sacred Heart Parish of Mount Pleasant, who owns the Sacred Heart Academy athletic fields, which are out on uh Lincoln Road. We're looking at putting an indoor batting facility as was discussed. and um kind of want to go over a couple items as far as uh adding the note um to clarify the the reason for the request for uh sidewalks being set aside for the the time being. We have no no issue adding that that out. uh adding the 5-ft walk from the public sidewalk several hundred feet up the hill to the site. We do take some objection to because this is a facility that people drive to. So, we added the internal walkways from the parking lot to the the ball field from where people park. This is not a site that you get people walking to. And as we just heard, in the foreseeable future, you're not going to see sidewalks out there for people to do that. So, I I don't see putting something on the plan that this is an existing non-conforming site. You have 10 items to choose from, which we chose our items from. That was not one that we decided to choose. Internal access

out to the roadway. We chose internal access specifically so that it would be used coming from the parking lots to the facility. So I don't see the benefit of adding that and that's so we do take some objection to that. Um there's a a requirement of putting some no parking signs understood exactly what you're looking for there. Uh it's along where that walkway is so that make sure that nobody parks. sometimes they don't understand what striped out areas are. So understand that completely. Um as far as uh the reason that we had given option A and option B, why why did you turn in a site plan? Two options. Well, this piece of property has a 50-foot rear yard setback to an area that the city uses to put all the line in the back. Not exactly the most friendly neighbor. That's a construction activity going all the time. We are having to buffer from them. Not them buffering from us, but we are buffering from them. 50 ft. That is what the ordinance requires. It's a 50 foot setback for the building. Option B is actually taking that setback down to 25, allowing us to get additional parking, better access, everything else, but that would require a variance. So, I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page as we're going going through this. Um,

I would like I would love nothing better than to take your approval tonight if we can and say that we're approved and we don't need to go for that variance, but I'm not sure that that's the case. So, um, and and perhaps I'm wrong on the setbacks, but from what we saw, we had, uh, this zoned is our one area, which

okay. So, um, we agree option B is a better option, but we had to have an option just in case we can't get a variance. So that's why the two options uh as far as turning in for for lighting, we gave a representation of how the um the lighting would be uh utilized. We're going to upgrade the the couple of uh ballpacks that are are existing so that they're downshielded and have compliance with the ordinance and everything that we put on the new building will be in in conformance. Um, as far as another item that we were going to discuss. Let me get to it. Don't you hate when the train falls off the track? So, we talked about the options parking. Oh, the easements. Yes, thank you. I have my mouse in my pocket over here. Um, there is an existing easement that benefits Sacred Heart and the adjacent property is subject to a copy of that was sent to Peter this afternoon. So, um, we do have ingress, egress, and parking easements on the for the adjacent property. That's that's already in place. It was in place with the previous owner to the the current one. When they sold the property, they sold it subject to that easement right in their deed. So, we do have a copy of

that if if it needs to be left. That include Mhm.

Yep. So I think I think we've got that all set. So um with that we happen to have and I had to write down the title development director Lindsay Lei from Sacred Heart. So, if you have any questions specific to the owner of the property, Lindsay is here. Um, constructionwise, we have Andy Tyson from Conwayinsky Construction, which is also uh a member of Sacred Heart in case you have any any questions in regards to the the facility itself. And with that, happy to answer any questions that you might have. Okay, thank you. Um I think I'll start. Um so the the the side sidewalks or the pave pavement that you are proposing from the parking lot to the facility, you're not asking that's what you would intend to build. That's not a waiver sort of thing.

No.

Okay. No, that's that's something that we're looking at saying we need we need a pathway from that adjacent parking lot through the site. Yeah. Right now it's just a a grass gravel type area out there. Uh there is no rhyme, no reason on how people park and this is going to organize the parking and with that um we wanted to have a walkway from one parking lot to the other. Mhm. Now, on your point about the the suggestion about building a a sidewalk from the from Lincoln all the way in, I understand your argument, but I want to also clarify uh that the assumption is that that would be deferred until there's actually a sidewalk on Lincoln. So, you know, your argument nobody walks there. Uh, one of the reasons they don't walk there is because there's no sidewalks. And so if there were ever a point at which there was sidewalks out on Lincoln, then perhaps it might make sense to have that uh lead in. Is that correct? It wouldn't be there's no there's no conception of of having someone build a sidewalk from Lincoln in if there's no sidewalk on Lincoln. Is that right?

That that is correct. Yes. both the sidewalk along Lincoln and this connector going in there uh would be part of that temporary relief. One thing I would note, Mr. BB mentioned that that uh that the non-conforming site section and and that's very useful section. We we're very happy it's there and we can narrow up our focus, but that only applies to the zoning ordinance requirements. Uh the sidewalk and pathway ordinance is not a zoning ordinance just like our storm water management ordinance is not a zoning ordinance. And so it applies no matter what. The sidewalk and pathway ordinance simply applies. We can't we we it we can't say that that the non-conforming sight section allows us to ignore an ordinance that's outside the zoning. So that's why we really that's why we have this this policy, this temporary relief of construction. That's how we address this issue. Yeah.

So, what sidewalk and pathway ordinance itself says is that a sidewalk must be constructed along the the front edge of the property u either within the right of way or within an easement. Uh and a connector needs to be constructed from the from that sidewalk out front into the property to the building basically to create a a pedestrian access to the building. I I don't object at all to Mr. BB's argument that the that people come to the site driving. Of course they do because there's no sidewalks because most people are coming from all around the area uh to to to enjoy this site. Um as I said, I don't expect that that that this is an item that' be called in anytime you in in our foreseeable future because this is not an area where we're expecting to have sidewalks built in the near future. U and that's why we have the policy and why it was written the way it was to to allow for this temporary relief. But it does need to be shown on the plan so that we can then it becomes part of what the relief is granted. I understand it's a long section. It's you they proposed to build this building at the back uh in the back of the property. If it was built up close to the road, it would be a shorter connection. U but it does need to be shown on the plan at a suitable location and then simply it becomes part of the the temporary relief that's granted. Um, I I apologize because I was trying to do two things at once while you were talking, but I just want to be clear. Is it your position that a sidewalk from Lincoln into the building is required by some aspect of uh of our

the sidewalk and pathway ordinance requires both the sidewalk along the road and the connector going into the property to to the to the building or whatever the okay activity both are required under our ordinance. Right. What is the applicant's recourse once we get to that point? If sidewalks magically appear and we've got to enforce this thing, that's a lot of sidewalk to ask somebody to retroactively come in. Right.

Yes. The policy the policy language is there and frankly that any any because this is a board of trustees policy and a board of trustees adopted ordinance, they absolutely can go to the board of trustees and and ask about it. What would happen? We, if you might recall, under the old 2018 policy, we had uh several sidewalks that that were called in. They've been given relief and it was felt uh that the relief really was not appropriately given or it was not appropriate to have given that relief there. And uh and the direction uh from from the board of trustees was to for staff to to actually require that those sidewalks be constructed. And it in those cases, we we worked with each of the property owners involved. Uh, in a couple of cases, frankly, our our DDA, West DA district, actually took care of them, uh, because we were the West DA was looking at doing sidewalks in that space anyway. And so, we said, we're just going to cover those. And, uh, uh, I I'm I'm trying to think. I think there was one that that relief was was granted again, if I recall correctly, because recognized it was simply not practical to be able to get a sidewalk in that in that location. Uh so what B even if a even if a relief the relief was called in and and request was made to have the sidewalk constructed there would be multiple pathways for discussion and even appeal if necessary to the board of trustees and as was mentioned a time period to allow for that construction to happen. So there there's no no opportunity for a permanent relief in the current policy.

This the the sidewalk and pathway ordinance simply requires that sidewalks be constructed and and and so this policy was put together by the board of trustees to provide that flexibility. that the challenge it's interesting zoning is an interesting creature that we do we have some ability under zoning to to we have we create districts we we can allow in one district we allow a lot of activity high-rise buildings and such and but we can zone a different property as long as we do it for a plan do it resource say nope all that could be is farmland so we we can have different things allowed and prohibited in different areas based on this long-term plan with a regulatory ordinance outside of like the sidewalk and pathway ordinance like our storm water management ordinance. Uh it applies generally across the community. It there there's there's none of this districts or uh this is allowed here but not allowed there. it simply applies generally and so they the policy that was added by the board to provide this ability to look at sites like this and grant for these uh but but it's not something where it can be granted permanently because that the ordinance is structured to to simply require them to be constructed.

The sidewalk thing is one that continues to trip me up because it doesn't often make sense to me uh when when we look at this. So it it seems to me that that's one that could be revisited by the board. Um, in terms of yes, in certain locations that makes perfect sense. In a location like this, I I don't get it. Even if there is a sidewalk, who's walking out there? Who's walking to the Sacred Heart athletic fields and up 360 ft or whatever it is up from from Lincoln Road?

I I just that to me doesn't make sense. And so I would love it if the township could figure out a way to make some more common sense out of the sidewalk and pathways ordinance. uh if say for instance that area becomes extremely economically developed in the next 10 to 20 years uh where there are suddenly residents and people are wanting to walk uh all up and down those pathways because there are suddenly residents there then I I think there should be a way to get those older uh pre-existing places into compliance with a with a new residential area that we may not foresee in our terms but may happen uh you to our future selves or to our children.

I understand that and and I get the if scenario, but at the same time, I don't think you should put undue burden on today's society for the future of maybe someday somebody will want a sidewalk here. So, I have I have a question regarding that. Somebody else can put that sidewalk in.

So, I have a question for uh regard for Rodney regarding that. Um sorry. Uh so to make it clear uh from my understanding the the request for temporary relief basically you need to show that you're capable of building the sidewalk on your plan. You need to have it on the plan so that if in the future you're called to build it there is space for it. But you don't actually need to build it.

That's correct. And and frankly you don't even need to fully engineer it. You just need to show that it's possible to put there, right? That's how that's what we've told the direction we've given. We're not looking for you to engineer every detail. Just show us that it can be accomplished there for and that's why I mentioned for that sidewalk along the front as we've seen, we've had cases where folks have pushed that out of the rightway because to do it in the rightway would be very troublesome ditches or utilities, whatever. And we said, "Sure, show it out of the rightway. Simply put an easement on it that'll that allows in the future that side of what to be constructed in the next phase." I I don't see a case for undue burden uh to the applicants when it's it's basically a theoretical exercise on the on the application uh that at some point in the future you may need to build this so save the space for it. I that's just my opinion. I think if anything I'd like to see where that's a that's a lot of money all at once, especially for a church when you have a distance that long, you give them more time or something like that rather than 365 days.

Well, sounds like Mr. Huge expense. It sounds like Mr. Rodney said that uh that they do that in some cases where uh if if there is a complicating factors they they reinstate that temporary easement for a longer period of time. Is that correct?

We had Yes. One of in that set that that came up before there was one that Yes. In the end we we recommended that the temporary be reinstated and and the plan you did as plank commission do that. Um so completely okay with with doing that here. As I said ultimately there's also I mean the 365 days remember this is a policy of the board of trustees we're following a policy document policies first of all can be changed but also the board of trustees can choose to give different direction so that's why in any of these cases if something were to come up where where that relief was called in the the the applicant sacred art could could come to the board and and make a request to make a change let's do this differently to they could come in with alternative proposal. They can come in and say we need more time, whatever that may look like and and the board of trustees can do with it what they wish because it's the board's policy. So there are multiple venues even beyond what the policy language says about about three requiring it within 365 days. I I understand the concern. I understand it's a significant expense. As I said, if the building was built near the road, it would be a short section. Uh but again that's a that's a site constraint. Ultimately as was said this is essentially a theoretical exercise. We're not asking for it to be fully engineered. Just show where it will go and uh and show that it's possible for it to go there. U and I think in this case that's that's fairly easily done in the plan. There's space to do it. uh and uh it uh it one of the interesting things I'll say about the area the area is interesting we um talked to some people and they say it's this is this is rural and talked to other people and they say this is urban u and uh and there are utilities some utilities there some of the utilities are city utilities uh

there's some city water there uh for some property owners um there the uh there's some commercial zoning there the building, the property next door, the one that that is used for access to the sacred art uh fields is an industrial use. Uh now that is a legal non-conforming use of that land. Uh but but there have been industrial uses there for decades. Um and it's just a different industrial use at the moment. U as a contractor's establishment. Um so it's we have of course commercial businesses around the corner and office stuff right right nearby. It it is an interesting mix that has in that space. So, it is certainly not rural. Um, but it is certainly also an area that does not have sidewalks and it is not on our high priority list to have sidewalks. So, uh the relief is completely reasonable. All we're asking is show the details in the plan for the sidewalk and pathway and we can move forward from there.

I do have one I have one question. I don't want to make any assumptions here. So, I just want to ask is uh Sacred Heart is a private school or is it a public school? Private school. Okay. So, um I saw you guys were looking up some stuff over there. Any any further or any thoughts on the assertion that the plan B would require a variance?

So, have to apologize. Uh this was not caught uh with option B. Uh option B would require variance. the the set rear set back uh is 50 ft and uh and the option B version would would push that to 25. So if if you uh if you decide to pursue what we recommended uh and we still would recommend it and the problem with the option A design is first of all I don't think it's going to pass the fire department. This building has to have a fire lane. It has to have emergency access and option A is not going to do that. Uh, and so my bet is even if we wanted to, I think the option A version would not get get past the fire department. U option B will the layout is perfect for it. It creates a fire lane that I suspect would make the fire department very happy. Mhm.

And in fact, the design where that that that 8 foot uh hashed out no parking the walkway hashed out walkway which is really part of the the asphalt uh surface of the parking lot uh allows for an easy maneuvering of of emergency vehicles. So uh I think for that that reason and and for uh uh that there's there's some validity to looking at variance in this case. Uh I don't I don't have an objection to uh to moving forward with what we recommended uh and recommending the option B version. Uh I would simply suggest that you add a fifth condition that that uh that approval of a variance by zoning board appeals for that re setback to reduce it from 50 ft to 25 ft would be required before the plan could receive final sight approval.

Yeah. But what about the idea of uh leaving option A in there as a as a recourse in the event that they don't get a variance? Now, obviously, if the fire department doesn't approve it, then it doesn't go forward. But I just it's not going to meet the fire code. They they need a fire lane there. It there's just no way option A is going to do that. Not without simply wiping out all the parking on this on the building side. I mean, they did that. it it it it made made a big turnaround there uh for the the emergency equipment that could do it. But of course that would negate the whole reason to have the parking.

So I I my thought would be is is to is to pursue really option option A is simply not an option. It's not viable. It's also not viable because as said with the angles and such that they were showing it's not safe. Uh if you were if you were driving into that space uh you would not feel safe driving in. guarantee that any pedestrians walking in that environment would not be safe because drivers couldn't see them because of the angles. Mr. Tyson. Okay, I'll recognize Mr. Tyson for comment.

So, I've been referred to several times. So, like everyone knows, I'm Andy Tyson with Conwinsky Construction. Um, our intent wasn't to try and trip anyone up with the option B. We just knew that the setback was 50 ft. So, we would love to build option B, but option A also has fire lane access, and I would encourage the commission to let the fire department rule on that as opposed to township staff as it is fire department authority. Um, the parking easement and arrangement that's recorded at the county stipulates that we have full use of both lots. I say we, I mean Siger Hart, as I am a parish member. Um, so we do have parking lanes there. They're not shown on our plan because that's not part of our work scope, but that parking lot continues further than what our plan shows. So, the fire department will be able to pull in the existing parking lot that belongs to Surfro and in fact loop back around. So, there is a fire lane that's available not shown on our plans. We'd be happy to include that in a final version. Um, but option A does function that way. And as Rodney said, if if it doesn't, and Phil, you mentioned it, the fire department won't approve it. But we do in fact think that that will suffice. And then not to dig up the sidewalks again, but we understand the principles of relief. We're requesting relief from the roadway sidewalk as well as the internal sidewalk. If it comes to question and we have to do it, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Um we understand the ordinance and and what purpose it serves for future development. If if that comes to be, then we'll we'll deal with it. um albeit maybe a little bit odd in this instance. Um but I have no problem going to speak to the board of trustees about that uh in the future. Um but I I do think I would I would hate to see us denied tonight because we're making assumptions for the fire department that that they don't have a chance to weigh in on that. So if you were to say option A was

approved pending fire department approval as is all your projects, I think we would see that it would work just fine. Okay. Thank you. Uh, if you had your choice and option A was approved, is that your choice? Is that the one you'd prefer to have? You want option B. B, but the variance, but requires a variance. And so we knew if we presented something that required a variance only, there's a chance that we might be denied for a variance.

With staff, option B works much better. We all prefer it, but unfortunately we can't go to the CDA to get that variance first. We have to cut this up. Uh when we have conditions like this, we try to set it up so that that that the applicant can submit a final site plan that addresses all the conditions and it could potentially be approved administratively. Uh because it meets all the requirements including conditions you had placed in the preliminary plan. uh under our ordinance that the amendment to the site plan section from last November, the zone administrator can take action administratively to approve it and it does not have to come back to you which of course saves time uh for the applicant. So we try to set things up. So that's a possibility and that's one of the reasons why I'd recommend including the option B item. The option A is just not a good design, not only because of for the reason we talked about fire lanes or whatever, but but the angles and such. it really is just not a safe design. Um, and uh, I don't see how it could be made safe without creating the need for the variance that that we're talking about. So, my suggestion is keep the option B item in there. U, if the board of appeals were to say no to the variance, they could still come back with a final site plan that shows parking that meets our ordinance requirements. Period. just meet the ordinance requirements and and it can be approved because that's the that's the standard for final site plan approval. If all of the applicable requirements of our of our ordinance township ordinances are satisfied, then site plan must be approved. Uh that's the language of the ordinance. That's the language of the state act. So if they don't get the variance, they could go that route. It might require other changes uh to get make that possible.

So essentially they could they could come back with option C on their own essentially. and and ultimately if if there's any question about that, we simply bring the plan back to you. Uh and and you you would then ultimately decide whether they met the requirement or not. Uh so and if there's any question about whether the requirements met, we're going to be bringing the plan to you for your your

I have a a minor uh tangental question uh related back to the sidewalks, but in a different context. Um, I just not I'm not familiar on on the necess or on on all of the uh sidewalk ordinances. Is there any language that says that the internal sidewalks have to be connected somehow? Um, because I I I noticed that on a lot of other site plans that we've reviewed, is that is that a requirement or is that just a nice to have? No, it's a requirement of the sidewalk and pathway or that internal connection be provided from the public sidewalk. Well, no, I meant like the internal sidewalks themselves. Like do they do they have to be like can you have a sidewalk here and a sidewalk here that are not connected but are completely internal?

Oh. Oh, that's up to the applicant beyond that. The requirement of the sidewalk and pathway ordinance is sidewalk out up front along the road and a connection from that sidewalk to the to the building essentially. Okay. That's that's all our sidewalk and pathway ordinance talks about. It's the idea of of treating pedestrians the same as we treat uh voters. Yes. Okay. uh that the same direct connection is is available both ways.

So if that's the case, then if if the uh if the sidewalk in the frontage needs to have a connection to the the building um the current site plans that I'm seeing here, I I don't see how like I can see how it's possible to connect the the current sidewalk to there. Like you can either go behind or in front of the um the the main baseball field there. Uh but I I don't see how they're able to connect that then to the front of the building because there are a number of parking spaces in the way for that. So it seems like um it would take a major restructuring of this drawing in order to meet that requirement.

Well, we don't design the site. M Mr. B is an excellent civil engineer. I have no doubt that that the plan could be crit the space. I mean I'm I'm sure the plan can be. Yes. Yeah. I just I'm just I'm not seeing it on this current plan and I I I'm trying to figure out how to proceed from there. Well, but that's that's up to really up to Mr. BB to work out the details of that. I I look at the site, it can be done. Uh there are variety of ways to get it done. You've seen you've seen a variety of ways to get that done u in in various plans we've had come before us. So, uh I I have don't have a concern that Mr. PB will be able to show that it's possible to do it.

Okay. I'd like to make a comment earlier, Mr. Be said about the assumptions that people are going to be using this as an auto only entrance, right? That's why you were opposed to having the pedestrian walk up. I mean, that's that's a great assumption, but it's an assumption of privilege. You know, that's an assuming that no one that's going to this facility needs to walk. I mean, I remember when I was a kid in high school going to my practices, I was riding my bike. You know, I wouldn't have that ability to get a drive or get a ride every time. And I think when we come back to talking about these sidewalks, it's again a matter of privilege because this is accessibility for people. This is accessibility for a lot of people. When we look at larger development plans of these giving variances for sidewalks going forward, it will limit our ability to make these areas that are less accessible to the public that's doesn't have the ability to get in a car every day, be safe, be able to get in there. my my father-in-law live in this town in a wheelchair for years and in Union Township. It's hard to go, you know, half a mile with a sidewalk and then none and then back on and then none. You know, it could lead to a lot of lack of safety. And I see it out here on Picker going down, people trying to take their kids in strollers down the side of the street, you know, and this is an example now where that's an issue. I'm not opposed to granting the variance here, but I think it's tricky for us to assume that people can get by because they have access to certain amenities that other people in our community don't. And we really need to be careful of saying an undue burden is being placed on a private institution that's building a $100,000 batting cage. You know, these are these are requirements that are made sure that our township can grow for everyone. And then part of that when you're developing you need to make sure people have access to the land that you're developing coming in in an equitable way.

That's all. Other comments. Does anybody have an objection to recommending the 25 ft variance and putting it in our motion? What would be any theoretical objections to that? I mean uh I guess uh so they me or you mentioned or they mentioned that um the 50 foot uh setback I it's designed for the residents on the other side but that they appreciate it more because it's construction over there. So um

but it's actually residential setback for the zoning district. Uh so the idea normally would be that's your backyard minimum big backyard. Uh in this case the property on the other side is is city mount pleasant. It's a utility site and it's essentially an industrial site in terms of how they use it. So, so there's not doesn't sound like there's going to be any residential over there at all. It's just it's all going to be utility construction. Is is there is there noise emanating from the mount city of Mount Pleasant site that could intrude on them? That's you heard Mr. BB about that. Yeah. Okay. So, not just noise, but it sounds like dust and smoke potential. Yeah. I mean, they're they're hauling lime out of their That's contaminant.

So you looking at there have to be remediation or partitioning if we're doing this 20 foot variance versus the 50. Is it subject to you guys more to that lime dust or anything like that to the kids? That's that's not what we were getting at. No, I'm just asking. You might have been you might not have been getting that, but I'm asking if if if having a lower variance or you know offset from that does expose kids to more exposure. Center fielder would be in the most trouble. I'll recognize Mr. Ty Tyson for a brief comment.

The building design intentionally left out windows and doors on that facade. We don't find that activity to happen. very frequently. Um, in my 42 years and most of them having been involved with Saber Heart, uh, I've been out there for hundreds of of athletic events. The city closeup shop pretty regularly at 5:00. So, games are going on after the activity is ceased. They don't work that facility during the weekends aren't aren't an issue. So, we personally as the applicant have no objection to that concern. It was something we considered, but felt like it was a non-issue for us. So, I appreciate the comment, but we feel like we've addressed that.

That would have been a concern to me, too. Good enough. Thank you. Okay. So it sounds like I mean you know I've not heard anything to indicate that this is not something that should be sent forward. The question is what conditions? Um so I don't know if we want to look at at the individual conditions that were suggested and have any discussion specifically on those. Um, I will say for myself that while I accept the argument that, you know, certainly building the sidewalk all the way from Lincoln to the building is going to would be a significant expense, doesn't sound like something that's going to happen anytime soon. And I don't think that asking them to show it on the plan is an overwhelmingly is not burdensome in and of itself. and the township staff's position is that it's required by the wording of the ordinance. So, um my suggestion would be to keep that one in there. Um I guess the loading area one is not controversial. Um and then the qu then the next one is is whether to eliminate option A at this stage. We don't actually mention anything about option A. So there's we're not really eliminating anything. Not going to talk about it.

Well, the the third condition as proposed, the third condition would eliminate option A. Oh yeah. In other words, you know, town uh township staff's position is that option A is on is not workable. uh applicants position is that it is perhaps workable and it hasn't been rejected yet by by uh the outside agencies. Um so that's kind of where we are on that. Yeah, I could say it's not their preference to use a

nobody wants to use a I don't see any reason to to try and include a uh staff doesn't want it, applicant doesn't want it. It sounds like we don't even want it. So, um, and you know, unless I'm mistaken, uh, just excluding that completely and going with the B and, um, either being neutral or positive on, uh, supporting the variance, uh, for them, I think, would be enough to, uh, to help them with getting the option B approved. And if the option B for whatever reason cannot be approved, then it would probably be better for all parties to just redraw that so that it is compliant if they cannot for some reason secure the variance.

Okay, that's a I agree rational statement. Any any thoughts otherwise? Okay. And then the last one I don't think is I didn't hear any uh issues with the uh shared parking agreement and cross access easement. Um, so I think uh basically we should uh discuss crafting up language for a fifth condition uh regarding the uh uh variance and our recommendations for that so that we can put a vote a motion to vote. Okay. You want to suggest one?

I drafted something which I would be happy. By all means that and you can tell me Rodney if this needs to be more specific. The planning commission recommends a variance to the 50oot setback be recommends that a variance to this 50oot setback be approved due to the nature of the site and the neighboring property to the east. Is that sufficient or does it need to be more detailed? Uh uh the only thing I would ask is to refer to rear 50 foot rear yard setback. Okay.

Uh and I think the other addition I would have would be a second sentence that simply says uh approval a variance approval is is required prior to final site plan approval because it or is let's put it that way. Variance approval is necessary prior to final site plan approval. Mr. You know you mean 25 ft not 50. Well the the rear pack is 50 feet. So it would be okay. Is it important to include that 25 ft in that? So a variance from 50 to 25 or does that language not matter?

I would simply say a variance from the 50 foot set. That way if turns out that 26 ft is what you need or 24 what we don't want you doesn't lock you in. Gives you a little wiggle room. But I I do think that a second sentence that that variance approval is necessary prior to final site plan approval will address what we need for the final site plan. And who is it that approves that variance? Uh our zoning board of appeals would be meeting. So yeah, wanted to get that on record. We've been on this board for 18 months. They haven't had a meeting yet.

Should we start doing more zoning boards of appeals just to ensure that the board So, so this uh it would require a separate application. Tell you the property is zone residential. So, this would be the residential application which is a little lower fee. Um but it it does require separate application. It does require public hearings. We need four weeks before the meeting uh to get notices out and such. Uh their next meeting uh the October meeting, it's too late for the October meeting. So, their next meeting I think was November if I recall. uh 1 Wednesday November would be the date for it. Put it right there. Is that because of the posting?

Yeah. Time time for us to get because we have to both uh publish notices in the paper and then we also have to get notices out in the mail. Uh and so we typically ask for that four weeks ahead to in order to have time to do that meet the meet the ordinance the state law requirements for those books. trying to understand the the circular nature of the conversation. Is the applicant requesting the variance or is the planning commission requesting the variance? The the planning commission is providing uh direction related to variance but the applicant will need to submit their own application for it. Okay. So there wouldn't be a waiver of fee in this in that we seem to be the ones recommending that.

No, we we can't request that variance. It it has to come from the from the the folks that control the property. Okay. So, there's such a thing as township or commission initiated reszonings, but there's not such a thing as township or initiated uh township or commission initiated variances. That's correct. All right. Yeah. The ordinance is very specific of the resing that allows you to res but not not a variance. All right. When is the when is the ZBA meeting? They meet on the first Wednesday of most months. Not every month, but most months. They're scheduled.

But wouldn't it Isn't that If something went out tomorrow, would that give you four weeks? No, we're third. Our next meeting is is right at the beginning of October. Oh, I thought you said the third Wednesday. No, first. I'm sorry. So, it looked like November 5th. Yeah. So, sorry. I thought you said the third. Third. My bad. Now, we we can an applicant can request a special meeting. This is a board that hasn't met in a very long time. We we have a couple of members that have never met. Uh so we're gonna have to have a little bit of a training anyway.

So my thought would be is we're going to need a little time to make sure that everybody is ready to to hear this. So I I would want to really aim at that November 5th meeting so we can have a board that's ready to do this. But that would mean they also the applicant would then have a little time to get this application together, get it in because they even though we talked about it, you you would propose a uh potentially a condition that that provides some direction uh in favor of it. The applicant still needs to provide the their case. They still need to say here are the reasons why this is the right thing to do essentially so that appeals can review that ahead of time. you we always tell the applicant in the board of appeals it's it's your job to tell the board of appeals why your decision what you want is the right decision uh if you simply come in and say I want a variance but don't say why the board of appeals is going to deny it why should we bother so they they will still need a little time to put their their uh application together and state those reasons

okay am I reading I guess I'm ready to special. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Just if they would request a special meeting, I guess I don't know how much time that give them anyway because of the four weeks, but if they Yeah, it would be my suspicion if that's we might pick up a week. Yeah, it just is not really worth

worth it. Um and and as I said for our on our side because our our zoning board appeals is not met in a very long time which is a good thing. Uh but we do need to make sure that that everybody is is up to speed on what the requirements are and we do have like we have at least two members that have never participated in the meeting. U I'm sorry three members yes uh three members have not participated. So we there's some training opportunities there. make sure everybody has gone through the training that Michigan Towns Association has. That's Thank you. I'm sorry, Jessica. I was just going to make a motion.

Yeah. Uh, I move to approve PRS PR25-05 preliminary site plan for the Sacred Heart Academy Athletic Fields indoor batting facility and expanded parking lot on the PID14-028-10-00004-00 and-004-01 lots at 4245 South Lincoln Road in the northwest quarter of section 28 and in the R1 Rural Residential Zoning District. finding that the site plan dated August 26, 2025 can comply with the applicable zoning ordinance requirements for preliminary site plan approval, including sections 14.2P, required site plan information, and 14.2 standards for site plan approval subject to the following conditions. Number one, revise the final site plan to show an internal sidewalk from South Lincoln Road to the existing athletic fields and new batting facility and update the request for temporary relief from construction to include it and to add a reason consistent with the board of trustes adopted policy resolution for such relief. Two, add the loading area height, clearance, dimension, and paving materials details to the final site plan. Three, use the option B parking layout with the addition of no parking signage along the east side to help protect the asphalt pedestrian pathway from encroachment. Four, add details of the shared parking agreement and cross access easement between the two property owners to the to the final site plan and provide as recorded copies of these documents to the zoning administrator prior to issuance of a build building permit. And five, the planning commission recommends a variance from the 50-foot rear yard setback due to the nature of the site and the neighboring property to the east. Variance appeal is necessary prior to final site plan approval.

Seconded. So the motion was uh by lap seconded by Brown. Um read the very last sentence again. Variance approval is necessary prior to final site plan approval. Okay. I thought I think you might have said variance appeal, but it says variance approval in your motion. Oh, okay. Should I might have written it incorrectly. Variance approval. Variance approval. Okay. Just any further discussion? Does that get you all where you need to be?

Well, if we get the variance, absolutely. If we don't get the variance, I think What do you think the objection would be to a variance if anything just from your hardship? Okay,

that's that's going to be what is going to be the challenge of writing this is what is your hardship? Why not move your building? Why not conform? Why not put the parking down the all the way up to the road. Well, from practical standpoint, I've got to try and show there has to be buffer areas between the ball fields and the parking lot. Otherwise, every car that gets pulled in there is going to get by. Um so it's always variances are always a challenge to to show your own hardship on why you can't can't meet the ordinance.

So that's that's the challenge. So thank you.

If I may just add to that a little bit. So the the uh there are a couple of of standards that that create trouble for for things like this. One of them is the the need for the variance is not self-created. by the applicant or the applicant's predecessors in title. Uh I think I think the argument can be addressed with that part of it as was even said it's not just about the need for not just about this site but also the neighbor the city of Mount Pleasant and what what's going on over there. Um there there are elements here that how access to the site is the indirect access uh creates the limiting factor. So that's not that means that's not self-created by anybody uh that that is involved in this. Uh so I think that can be overcome that I would actually disagree with the hardship comment only in that the actual standards of practical difficulty with compliance with the ordinance that that that there is a practical difficulty that prevents the the applicant from being able to comply with the the requirement. Um, and so it's it's a it's a little bit lesser standard than a than the other language in the or in the state act is undue hardship. Uh, but that applies to use variances. Uh, so and and the court the court case law on this says undue hardship is kind of this high level one. You might say the mast's level and practical difficulties is a little easier standard. Um, now I say they still have to prove it. They still have to show how they do it. the even the topography question is a valid one. Uh the the the baseball fields and the need for the the buffer areas. These are all things that that that do create limiting factors. U so I uh I mean we we we can't prejudge a case. U NIVA can't pre prejudge the case. U but uh there are this is one that that certainly there are valid reasons to to consider a variance and and we do this

all the time. Normally we don't do this in a public meeting. We normally do this next door in the conference room and sit down with people and talk about this. U and we're happy to we help people with these kinds of applications. So if there's if there's a need, we're certainly happy to meet uh Peter and I to meet and talk about uh the application before they submit it. U but uh uh I I will I I'm very free with telling people I think you have a very high mountain to climb uh to be able to try to get variance. It's not mean, it doesn't mean you can't climb it, but it's just a very high mountain. This is these are small foothills. I see this is a very valid case to take to the board of appeals for the reasons we've discussed. Uh so it's they still have to put the application together, but but I think I think they have foothills that they need to get over, not mountains,

and it has to go to the board of appeals. It could not be granted by the planning commission. Right. All right. So, we have a motion. It's been seconded. Any further discussion by commissioners on the motion? Okay, hearing none, I'll ask for a roll call vote, please. Sorry. Bradshaw, approve. Brown, approve. Haze, approve. Lap, approve. McDonald, approve. Over approve. Shingle approve. Fairing approve. Squash.

Yes. Yeah, approving was throwing me off. Usually I We've been We've been yeses for like years now and then all of a sudden somebody comes along with an approve. We just all followed right along. I was trying to decide whether to go with I or approve. I I followed follow verbage we use in All right. So that motion

that motion carries no longer be called. So, we'll wish the applicants good luck with their process and we hope to see the new building out there reasonably reasonably soon. Um, we've reached the extended public comment portion of our meeting. Extended public comment is a public comment that's open to any topic whether it was on tonight's agenda or not. Um, and so if anybody would like to make an a public comment during this portion, come to the microphone, give us your name and address for the minutes and restrict your comments to five minutes. If anyone is online, make your presence known, we'll allow you to speak. Extended public comments open at 8:23.

There's nobody online. Okay, nobody is online. Nobody's moving towards the podium. So, we'll go ahead and close that back up. Extended public comments closed again till next month. We have final board comment. Any comments from board members?

Yeah, I just have one. Um and this is for um township staff. Um I know that the zoning board of appeals has that planning commission has no jurisdiction over the zoning board of appeals. Um uh Commissioner McDonald was mentioned. I think you've been on on that committee for more than a year and it hasn't met it. It it hearkens me back to my days on the sidewalks and pathways committee before it was dissolved where we just kept saying and my my point is it it appears that we've waited during the period and I'm saying we being the zoning board of appeals because you said there needs to be some training. So, this is just a comment of should we be developing a readiness plan because we could be kicking this back a month just because that committee hasn't been trained as as was stated by you Rodney and it's just it's just an observation and and I guess to keep it people engaged if nothing else maybe a training session where that that you know preparedness would be there and they would be ready to act as soon as there's something that would come come their way and I think today's sole purpose was to make sure that that committee had some work and they do now. So I I appreciate the advice on that. Uh we do we are we do regularly encourage our our board members and commission members as you know to to take training and and there's various we we share the training outside agency training information with folks. U all of our boards and commissioners have access to the Michigan Townships Association online learning uh database. Uh but I I appreciate your your direction. I agree with you that that uh that uh we we this is one where we did enjoy the the lack of need uh longer than we should have. It will not delay uh putting them in the next regular meeting. We'll make sure that folks had

they have plenty of time to access it. Uh the main thing that we'd like make sure everybody uh does is that they participate in that Michigan Township Association online learning. Uh there's a three three videos uh that are there for specifically for the board of appeals. Excellent training. I encourage y'all take a look at it. Uh of course there's lots of planning stuff in that that database as well. But but there's three modules for for for the zoning board appeals. And so we'll we will remind all of our board appeals members to participate in that and we'll be also be making sure that that all of them have the other material that they they need. there was a you know some other written materials that they could look at. So uh it will not delay but beyond that November 5th we'll make sure everybody's ready for that.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments from board members? If not we've completed our uh agenda. So we'll stand in adjournment until October.