Annabel got the first place yesterday for cross country?
I did see a yes. Yeah. That was nice. Was that was up in Duluth?
I believe so yeah.
Yeah, I know Mike last night mentioned that she's probably going to be going out to New Hampshire next. Really? After this weekend year. Hmm. They've got some things going on here at Tech. That's great.
Yes, it is.
Good afternoon, Mayor.
Good afternoon, Dan. How are you doing? Good. I'm,
I'm trying to get my face to show up here too great. oz is trying to get the curtain open, but
I'm having problems. Okay, we'll keep working on it.
All right. Otherwise, I
am here. All right. Mike.
Hey, Bob.
We're just talking about Annabel. She's an amateur?
Yes, she is.
Pretty exciting.
We're about set up
on
our way in that area or it's up north
so the town is Jackson, New Hampshire. Yep. pretty far pretty far up there. It's probably closer to Portland, Maine than it is. Chester New Hampshire.
I like to chime in I used to live in Bethlehem, which is about 10 miles from Jackson.
Beautiful. Yeah,
hopefully the weather holds. They're they're gonna they're having a little warming like us here right now and they'll make it work.
I did time in North Conway, which is where I'm at Washington is and I did time up in Maine. So you
did time
working? Yes.
I was gonna ask the name of the facility.
Wow. They did. The housing was horrible. I'll tell you how much an eight hour day it wasn't quite what we were doing but the pay was real good.
Did you say mean like
are you talking about me? New Hampshire, Jackson, New Hampshire, the NCAA national championships for skiing are hosted by the University of New Hampshire this year. And that's where they ski is up in Jackson.
Right? She kicked butt last week indeed. Yeah.
And we were very glad we were able to go and watch the races. It was pretty awesome to be there and watch them and watch her.
Sure.
Be right back. Hi, I
am Dan. How's
it going?
Not bad. I, I can see you and we can see you now. It's scary.
I won't comment. Okay,
so as you go back to a black screen and also, all of a sudden I go black. That's just a she made her decision. She was my technical
support.
I felt like I was setting up a photo shoot here and I tried lighting
behind you in front of you, otherwise. You don't have a teenage daughter home to help set that all up for you.
It's one of the perks Right.
Yeah. Oh, yeah. By the perks.
Mm hmm.
He also has a driver's license now. 2011
of the perks.
I don't know if that's a perk.
My hair is already white. You can't go gray.
Dan.
Hey, Dan, how are you? Hey, Jan. Hi, john. Hi, Bob.
Man. Yeah,
we get to see Dan's mug.
Yep.
It's scary. It's scary, folks.
This meeting should come with a warning a.
That's right. The gray dog has came from behind the curtain.
It looks like we still have one minute left. And I don't see Brian on here yet.
Okay. I will wait. We will wait.
Oh, it's saying my internet connection is unstable. So if you lose me, I'll come back somewhere along the line. Okay.
If it if it keeps doing that, just turn off the video for a bit.
Oh, I won't mind that.
We'll miss you.
It is 530. Now Bob, I'll start the recording.
Okay.
I don't see Brian here yet. But
we'll start in the I'm sure he'll pop in. Okay, at this time, I would like to call to order the regular meeting of the open City Council for Wednesday, February 24 2021. At this time, I will have the roll call taken and remember when you give your name indicate what tone you are in. Go ahead and Okay. Oh, my mistake. I forgot the Pledge of Allegiance. Would everybody please stand but everybody please join with me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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, now the roll call.
Brian irizarry here, Holden.
JOHN Cole,
here in Houghton
McGowan. You're muted Bob. Bob, are you muted?
I was muted. Yes. Yes. My. My system wasn't here.
Back in here in Holden. Mike Needham, your home. JOHN suits here.
And Dan sailo.
Here Holton.
Alright. I would know, entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday, February 10 2021.
So moved.
Second. Okay. Moved and supported to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday, February 10 2021. We take the roll call on the on the approval of the minute. I didn't
hear who made the first
Brian.
And who was the second
thought he made both. Yeah, okay.
I thought he did too. And I'm confused. Okay. Sorry. Brian made the first is there a second? I'm sorry. Second.
down for a second. Sure. Okay, good.
All right. irizarry. Yes. McGowan?
Yes. Cool.
Asked back in. Yes. Needham. Yes. suits.
Yes. sailo.
Yes.
All right. Next, review and approval of the agenda. I think the ad Okay, we'll go with what's before us. No opportunity for the public to address the council. Keep in mind that everyone is given a five minute limitation to so we understand that right away. Is there anybody who would like to address the council at this time?
I would like to address the council mayor. I
can go right ahead, Jane.
Okay.
This is pertaining to agenda item F on the agenda today. Yes. I'm speaking today's community member in tax for the city of Houston. On a regular meeting of the city council Wednesday, January 13. A situation occurred where a council member lied which has since caused a lot of distrust in the community. I brought this up at the February 10 meeting based on concerns of ethics and trust and asked to be addressed tonight it's on the agenda. As I spend the next few minutes to get my points to the importance of addressing this I want you to know that my concerns are genuine to assuring that we can all work together in city government and as neighbors in this community in a fair and ethical manner. This is not meant to be a personal attack, but a discourse of the situation that occurred. A reminder the chain events chain of events leading up to where we are today. Everybody in the council is aware of the parking deck chain of events prior to August 2020. But I think for the purposes of this discussion, it's a good place to start. On August 4, there was a ballot in the primary election that requested for city council to involve the public more in the waterfront redevelopment process. And August 28. There was a few quotes on the front page of the data mining Gazette interviews by both Jones suits and Jan Cole Jones, who said I think that the refusal to reconsider the development plans or have discussed this further in public is a violation of the trust that I have placed in all of you in her reference to the council when I voted for you in the past. On September 25, Councillor Cole had a Facebook post at the time she was not a counselor yet. As a member of WRC g I'm running for city council since August 2019. I've spoken at council meetings, written letters and as a member of the W AR C. Committee worked to get the Lakeshore drive parking deck initiative on to the August 4 ballot, where it received an overwhelming 79% of the vote. Our city government should welcome our input, not dismiss it or regulate it really gave it to the tail end of the process. It's clear that a change in city council is what is needed now. Second post by Councillor Cole on September 25. For the first time in years, the race for holding City Council's contested five candidates for three seats. I've met with the other two new candidates Brian ears are in Jones suits and would like to endorse both of them. We're all committed to fostering carefully planned growth and thoughtful development that includes more open, transparent and respectful dialogue between residents, businesses and city government. On November 10, the three new counselors who were jumpsuits Virginia colon Brian irizarry took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution, the laws of the state of Michigan and the Charter of the city. And then on January 13. A situation occurred where they were interviewed by Councillor sailo on And I could play that clip if needed. But I do think it's going to hit my five minute time limit if I do that. So I will just go on and say that it is described in the letter that Jane submitted that's in counselor Cole submitted in the agenda packet here today.
I appreciate the timeline of events that were presented in her letter. However, I still believe there are points that should be discussed their counselor cool stated in her letter that herself and counselors are met with the citizens group on January 10, via zoom and drafted an idea, which is a situation we're here referring to tonight. She references that she had been advised on if that wasn't a violation. One Oh, my violations are determined in a court. If there's even a question of an om a violation, it's a red flag and omega n om a case would require FOIA of text emails reviewing emails or documents were deleted, and if so would be subject to civil action. And that's all something that would be determined based on the situation and not determined with a quick call to an attorney or city staff member. So the question here tonight is was it right, there are some these are the same people who accused the Council of backdoor all may violations on the same topic in the recent past. The city attorney was hired last year with our taxpayer dollars to resolve that acquisition acquisition. These are the same people that asked for everything to be public regarding this situation. They met as stated in the letter attached in the agenda packet with members of the public, but in a private meeting. It was not a public forum. It was not advertised publicly, and it was only known to the public after it happened. They met to develop a proposal so detailed included timelines and names of people that would then determine the specific outcome. Members of the public are not the public. They do not replace a public forum. In this case, they were a select group of people with specific agendas and it involves bias there is a reason ex parte contact rules exist in government it's to assure impartiality. To assure that all sides hear how a decision is made. The intent of the proposal was to address an agenda item with the intent of emotion and a vote on it. Was it LMA was it ex parte contact? Those are things that are determined in court. The bigger issue here is the distrust created the ethics behind the situation and the precedent set for both the council and all members of the city government moving forward. In councilor Cole's letter she speaks of her reactions to councilor seelos questions to her. She said, because he sounded angry and accusatory, she could no longer discern the Questions Only the repeated inference that she purposely tried to deceive. She panicked to the aquas. acquisition and repeatedly answered No, she called it an inaccurate response to councilor sales questions. You don't feel that a lie should be covered as an inaccurate response. But I would hope that this type of character is not upheld by our city government. I've been involved with the city for a while, and I've seen a lot of acquisitions. Acquisitions made, I've had a lot of personal attacks against myself and other developers and any business person or community member involved to that degree. counselors are constantly put under pressure. They're here to uphold the laws under that pressure, they are here to protect all the citizens rights in our charter, and they are here to make the decisions that affect people's private property and tax dollars. And they have to do that under a lot of pressure. If the instinct is to lie under pressure, can that be risked again, would anyone else on the council on the Commission on the DDA or the Zba be allowed to act in that matter? What would be the recourse? I hope that this discussion is taken seriously, given the climate of the past and the present situation, and that the outcome sets a precedence to uphold the ethics of the city and the tasks that we are given moving forward? Mayor back and can I ask how much more time I have?
You've got about 30 seconds.
Okay.
I'd like to ask a few questions. Okay. Sure. Virginia, did you write this proposal solely by yourself? I, I
listen to other people's input,
but yes, for the most part, I wrote it by myself.
Okay. Did you attend any meetings about
this proposal before tonight? Now
by any counselor about this proposal, now approached by Mr. Morra about this proposal.
Okay, and then as we all recall, that goes on and then ask counselor irizarry for his input, and he said he was contacted. I would ask that you consider asking for the resignation of counselor Cole and counselors sorry for not upholding the ethics and the oath of office. And I believe with that my time is up.
All right. Thank you, sir. Anybody else who would like to address the council at this time?
Adam Griffis has his hand up.
Go right ahead.
Yeah. Thank you for your time. Mayor. I just have a question regarding the rezoning of the parcel. That's kind of adjacent to Dan and Adams Township. I've I've been following it a little bit, trying to get my head around it. And I don't understand why. It's even up for consideration, because Eric worre has been quoted in several news outlets saying that there's no proposal for any development there. But yet, the city is trying to rezone it for a business use. So I guess I'm just unclear and I'd like the Mr. Ward or the city council to address why they feel it's necessary to rezone something that there's no intended use for. Got this.
Eric are constantly Needham, if you wanted to go I, you go first. Well, first of all, the city is not proposing rezoning this The city is doing what the city zoning ordinance says a request was brought by the property owner to rezone this property. And the city has a process by which it would consider rezoning the property. Now, that's regardless of there is you know, there is no proposal and again, I think I was quoted accurately if I understood what Mr. Griffis said, but the point is, the city is doing what it's supposed to be doing in bringing this to the Planning Commission and if it goes through Planning Commission on to the council, because this request has been made by a property owner. So I don't know if that I don't know how to be much more plain than that on this supposition that the city is trying to rezone This is is in would be incorrect. Because ultimately, we're we've been requested by the property owner to do that. And that's what our ordinance says we must do.
Okay, and the, the request, I guess I'll just maybe I misspoke, but the request doesn't include any proposal or any, any reasoning. So he just or he or she just said, Oh, I decided that I have an r1 property and I want to be too so then you guys just take that up and go from there.
Yes. That's correct. All right. Thank you.
Thank you. there anybody else? We'd like to address the council. One. Okay, then moving along, Bob. Yes,
hold on. There is another hand up, that person is muted.
Okay.
So if you're ready,
we're ready to head.
Hi, I've got a couple of questions about rezoning at Cole's Creek here. I actually live on a parcel of property that straddles both Adams township and Tila, that same annexed r1 property,
which is
carrying on this in just a few minutes. Would you like to talk at that time? Oh,
sure. I'll talk then.
I mean, because we're gonna open it up. Okay to the public. Who would like to address the council? At this time? No hands, no hands. Okay, then let's go with petitions and communications.
Okay, we have a letter from attorney Robert Yonkers of powers Chapman from Troy, Michigan. I'm contacting you on behalf of Frank Fiala, owner of 15 Elm coffee house. He informs us that in 2018, the city of Holton experienced a rain event that caused widespread destruction to city streets, more specifically dodge Street. It further informs us that the city of Holden in conjunction with m dot failed to repair dodge Street to preclude stormwater drainage from persistently trespassing on to and damaging his property. He also advises us that as a result he is unable to fully enjoy or develop his property. As the patio area floods when there is sufficient rainfall, making it unusable, which is ultimately devalues the property. He finally advises us that he has put you on notice of the problem but you have failed refuse and are neglected to address it. This is unacceptable. This constant flooding situation which is directly due to the actions of the city constitutes an inverse condemnation. Pursuant to Michigan law. Your actions have caused a substantial reduction in the value of the property and ongoing damage. You are instructed to take immediate steps to alleviate this flooding condition and or reimburse him for the reduction in value of his property taken through governmental action. If you do not do so within five days of the date of this letter, we will advise him to preserve any and all legal remedies available Including a cause of action for inverse condemnation. injunctive relief costs, sanctions and attorneys fees, kindly govern yourself accordingly. We have a letter from Trish Bennett of Oak Grove Parkway. I want to thank you for the great job with the snow removal today on Oak Grove Parkway. The crew made several passes on the road and really clean things up. My heart sunk when I saw more than two feet of chunky ice piling up with each pass at the end of my drive. But on the final pass, the crew actually shoveled the pile out of my drive and the end of the road into the yard, keeping my drive clear so I could get out. It just took the crew plow through a few minutes to push that pile off to the end of my drive. And I really appreciate it. We have a letter from Julie warra of home. Thank you. Thank you to the console that sent a large anonymous donation to the City of Hope and beautification committee on my behalf. I'm sure that it will be used wisely to continue to make our city an even better place. I would love to thank our current leader Marty Leonard and current active volunteers. Elena boo Silva, Annie kauppinen Julia Clayton, Jan Cole, Judy dreamer, Margaret hotel, Deborah Kinsey. Betty McGinnis, Mimi MERS Elise Nelson, Mary ovis Val Pizer. Maureen Ron quist petricola, Hilary Sproul and Alison Mora. Thank you also to Eric worre. And the city of Holton for working with us for the past many years. We created gardens and art to enhance a beautiful city, downtown and walking paths is wonderful to know that they are appreciated. That's it.
All right. Moving along, and public hearings are call to order a public hearing regarding proposed ordinance 2020 dash 314.
Just as a lead in ordinance. 314 is a request made to rezone from r1 to B to community business with conditions that all principal uses and all use is subject to conditions as regulated in the b1 district or in any residential district, to restaurants, taverns, or other places serving food or beverages, and three hotels and motels. This would be if we're dividing these into 314, and 315 314 is the larger parcel of property. If you recall, this was originally submitted, and then changed to reduce the size of the requested parcel for rezoning. And I guess, with that I would that lead and I'll just turn it over to where the hands get raised.
Exactly. Well, it's not up to the public as well.
Okay, that gentleman still has his hand raised the one that was talking before. Sure.
If you could,
if you could state your name when you talk so we can put it in the record, please.
rehab.
I don't know if you're referring to me, I guess I'll go ahead and go to your referring me. My name is Chris woods. I live actually in Adams Township. But I have a chunk of partial attached to my homestead that is part of that same city annex property that I live on. And I've received a couple letters three now, I think that have actually asked me to call and, you know, join in on the zoom meetings here. And we have a lot of public input that seems to be ignored or disregarded or maybe tried to be discredited with false statements. And we feel that we weren't very well heard or received in the planning commission meeting. And I guess I just have a few bullet point notes here my own little list that I kind of wanted to ask questions or read here. I guess the first is maybe one of the one of the most important here before we go down the rabbit hole of rezoning This is when we were told to trust the process and this so we did a little looking into this to see what the process was. And it turns out that there is a process and part of that process is permission from the EPA to rezone this, and in fact, it is their permission to rezone this before a decision can even be made. Part of that rezoning process by the federal law requires the property for any change other than r1 which is currently set out to have an environmental study which there's already been showing extremely high carcinogenic properties as well as a lot of other health and environmental risks in it. And then they pull the surrounding radius of communities not necessarily within a city property line or township property line but they go put a pin on the map and they go with Then a radius. And they pull that and I guess one of my questions is has that been done?
Oh, no. I'll just I'll just say no, I'm unaware that the study has been done.
Nor normal, and that
is where that one was required.
Okay, per the NRA EPA, which I think lists all of that shoreline. In fact, I think it actually lists all of the shoreline along the waterway, especially along the Holton Hancock area, as that protection area. And I think that we have an attorney on the line that can maybe cite this a little bit better than I can. But there is required permission before it can be rezoned. And if that isn't there, I guess perhaps we should back up and go about obtaining that permission, as well as maybe slowing this process down a little bit. Because during the planning commission meeting, there was about an hour of comments against this. And it was pretty much a railroad decision against it. I guess another point that we have here is, you know, why are we rezoning this area? We are told in the planning commission meeting, it's because this property has gone stale. Well, how is someone's poor financial decision, their poor investment or their poor pricing that has caused waterfront property which sells extremely fast in the area of a homebuilder and I develop on it routinely? Why is that the public's responsibility, especially against their wishes, with so much comments against it to, to shoulder that, that's on them?
You know, the
same would be said for the seaplane You know, this was a case of, you know, they bought the property knowing what it was zoned, as you know, but please change the zoning so that I may benefit. And I guess, you know, where do we draw the line for that? Is another question. And and why is this topic in our conversation? Now?
I have a quick question. Can you explain what an EPA stands for? Oh, boy,
I have it in my notes here. I've been referring to it in an acronym for so long here. Give me one second off to go through it my email. I think Evans
natural resources, environmental protection, and
there we go.
mentioned in my article.
So in any event, it is a federal governing body for environmental protection, and that whole shoreline per their map is on that protection list.
But back to my point is where do we draw the line for this rezone for the benefit of others? I mean, you know, if we're talking about you know, for commercial development, how many vacant storefronts is holding have everywhere, I'm actually parked in front of one right now or the shopko that pulled out of the area here and said vacant. So we gave away our one of our largest tax bodies to a non taxpaying entity for that, but we want to rezone so that we can build more against the public's wishes, I guess, where do we draw the line and why are we having this conversation?
Okay, there is another hand up again, it's just a telephone number, so I cannot see a name. It the last four digits or one four or five? Oh, if you're ready to address the console.
Hello. Was that me that you want to unmuted?
Yes, you please state your name? Sure.
This is Bruce Quadri. I have sent a letter in and I request that the letter be written or read in its entirety.
We have the letter and when we get to those, we will read it.
We will get
that's it for now.
Okay. Good. Is there anybody else?
attorney Evan Dixon has his hand up.
Read ahead, Evan.
Okay,
thank you. There's a
number of items in the council's packet
B.
That have covered some of the things I'm going to talk about in further detail and I'll make reference to them and hope that you have a chance to read those including the letter from Mr. Woodring, which I think is very helpful and the council should consider. First though, I'd like to draw attention to The record of decision the EPA records decision regarding the Superfund site, which includes this parcel that were is before the council for reconsideration and rezone and in this ordinance, and we did to have that entered into the record at the public hearing for the Planning Commission, several letters, and I have referenced it as well, I would like to incorporate by reference that record of decision into the permanent record of this. That record of decision studied the entire Superfund area running from torch Lake all the way down, and noted significantly, that of all of the areas contained within this Superfund site. The Michigan smelter site was found to be the the one most toxic, having the highest level of carcinogens and unaccept presenting an unacceptable health risk. In other words of all of the sites, including the other smelters, this one has the highest concentration that's already been identified, it's already known, there was a remediation of sorts with it being capped at that purpose of that cap was so as not to disturb these highly carcinogenic substances and heavy metals from being released into the watershed and neighboring environment. Now we know from the Father's Day of flood, what devastation and definitely erosion and wash off into the canal can occur in this area. also significant is directly across the canal within 750 feet of this site is Hancock beach. Now I know that the city of hoghton is not responsible, directly, per se, of course, for the city of Hancock and residents along the opposite shore from here. But I'd like to the council should consider the liability that it's opening itself up to should it take part in
the release of those
toxins.
The city of Flint made a decision to save money in the short term in regarding redirecting their water source of their water supplies. What seemed like a small money making money saving decision at the time ended up with catastrophic results to the health of that community. And I would not want the city of hoghton to undergo such a disaster. And we have the ability right now. to slow down and look into this further before voting tonight to make this decision. I have a calling to Patrick Greeley, where I I asked him I don't know if the city of Holden has liability, their municipal liability insurance covers environmental issues. But it is it's something that you if you're going to pass this you should definitely look into Michigan.
Wait, no, wait, no. Oh, yeah. Are you done?
No, I'll keep it short. I'll just
keep somebody else is chiming in.
Okay. I don't know who that is. Not here. But what I'm saying is that there is long term effects. I don't think there's been due diligence and looking invest. No investigation of study about the environmental impacts of this has been conducted by the Planning Commission, or the city. There's other alternative safer alternatives for the community concerned community members to work together with Council, together with the Planning Commission to come up with environmentally sound ways to use this property and develop this property. This is not the way to go. Not only was due diligence not followed but in in terms of environmental impact, but not even the city's own ordinance 98.772, which sets out guidelines for or factors to consider when consider rezoning. And I won't take the time to go into further detail about that. But I'll draw the council's attention to the excellent rezoning worksheet that was prepared by I think it was Mary Fraley and Liz Gershon, which is in your packet as well. And also the letter by with Bruce Woodruff, the CEO of sigma Capital Group, laid out very important points of the council should consider not saying that this shouldn't be done, but that there shouldn't be any development on that but that this is not the way to go about it.
Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to address the council regarding proposed ordinance 320 20 verse 314. Christine, go ahead.
Thank you. As with many proposals of this nature, there's often information that is circulated some of the information good and some of it misguided. Therefore, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and correct some inaccuracies at this hearing tonight. This is only a zoning request and is not based on any specific proposed development by the owner. To the owners knowledge there are no specific development plans by developer there is not a 10 story or a five story or any major hotel being proposed on this site. The estimates of traffic flow circulating do not reference a formal traffic study based on a proposed development. The petition circulating online was originated with false claims of a 10 story hotel has been online for three months gaining only 776 signers as last checked on February 23. As gained that support based on misleading information does not seem to have verified city of hoghton residents or taxpayers as the only signers. The wetland area has r1 zoning protection in addition to federal and state protections. The site is serviced by city of heightened water and sewer. As agreed upon with the immediately adjacent neighbor there will be private covenants, limiting building height and other items upon approval of the zoning request. zoning does not eliminate or relieve a future developer from complying with all city, county, state and federal permitting and approval processes. We appreciate the city's clear zoning procedures that follow the facts and ignore the misinformation that drama and dramatization that's circulating. Superfund sites have two purposes, clean up the environment and prepare the way for reuse of the property affected. This site fits well with the EPA statement that reads while the program's primary objective is the protection of human health and welfare and the environment. Cleaning up these sites has also resulted in other positive impacts at many sites, such as the reuse of vacant or underutilized properties, the advance of new technologies to characterize and clean up contaminated sites and improve local and regional economies, aesthetics and quality of life. For example, a cleanup that reduces the risk of disease also may improve the area's aesthetics and property values. In addition to the obvious public health and environmental benefits the EPA further defines community benefits as positive social and economic outcomes. The EPA states redevelopment may include resources like businesses, housing, recreation, alternative energy, ecological habitat and agriculture. It does not limit reuse residential only. redevelopment of Superfund sites has been proven successful and completed responsibly using many scientific and engineering tools. Some of those tools are groundwater pumps and treatment systems diversion walls permeable reactive barriers, liners, gas collections, systems, vapor mitigation, system solidification and stabilization and sub slab mitigation systems. It's important to acknowledge that there are hundreds of successful Superfund sites being reused. It was only a small sample of the success stories that had been shared with the council. In the EPA words, EPA share success stories to promote best practices, highlight partners inspire innovative redevelopment and encourage revitalization. The many real success stories include commercial, multifamily and industrial uses, successes are not limited to residential use. It is also important to acknowledge that many of them have previous uses concerns and cap soils just like this site, and they have been successfully redeveloped. Please consider a few more facts in your decision process. This site is delisted from the Superfund site. It is on the EPA list of sites specified for reuse and is noted by the EPA as having mixed uses. The only recorded restriction is the standard requirement to recover any any exposed soils after development. And it is very important to note that the one adjacent neighbor supports the zoning request as they stated at the December 15 2020 Planning Commission meeting. The zoning request will provide a future developer the ability to address important redevelopment considerations allowing higher density use to minimize the disturbance. With fewer foundations r1 zoning could result in 10 to 15 more single family homes, each with their own foundation versus a scenario of just a few multifamily or mixed use foundations.
The revised zoning will also enable the future developer the ability to collaborate with the city and create the next successful and responsibly redevelop Superfund site, making it another city of home success story as the alcohol stands up in. It is an underutilized site. development can be done responsibly. This is only a zoning request. We think the Planning Commission for their unanimous support and ask the council for your support this evening for the zoning request.
Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to comment at this time?
And I for NorCal has her hand up.
Jennifer, go right ahead. Hi. Yes, thank you.
I wasn't actually I was actually my comments were gonna be at the 315 portion for the seaplane but I feel like I just want to ask this, especially after Christine dukeries comments, why then maybe maybe I just kind of an interested, why not request be one? Why not request business? One? It would have the lowest impact on the environment, it would probably create less?
Objection,
why not begin with that? If if it's about development, if it's about you know, I mean, fostering growth,
no one,
I believe in any of these conversations are supposed to tell the city what to do. They're speaking because they're they're worried about impact. They know, they know that these are a property owner Jrg. And a property owner Raptor, who this was residential for years, and now suddenly find themselves in a position. I mean, speculation aside, that they want the zoning changed.
Or
maybe planners have decided that this is a great place to start developing, or maybe, you know, but I would imagine that the beginning of that process should be with with tax payers being able to contribute to the conversation, the Planning Commission, being able to decide having full knowledge of what what they are able to do not a bit not being able to answer questions about I didn't realize that we had to do that. You know, do you have the information that you need? And I mean, I mean, I guess that would be my question for the conversation is why not begin with b1?
Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody else?
Matthew Lifeson has his hand raised.
Go right ahead.
Thank you, you're speaking out 314 at this point. And looking at this, I think there's a whole lot of misinformation first, as Christine pointed out, that there's the idea that there's a 10 story hotel going in. And then there's this leap of logic that goes to the idea that this is all going to be dug up. And it will be all rules and laws of responsible construction will be thrown out. And then somehow this, this environmental monster will be unleashed. That's it. It's simply a scare tactic. I did a review of Mr. Woods race letter in the comments on NPR, RTA. And I was just looking right here on my computer. And first, it strikes me as strange that anyone would make any reasonable argument that the federal government is going to try and affect local zoning that is far outside the federal government's purview. And that there needs to be permission to simply say something to create some kind of fears is irresponsible. The city has competent counsel on that. And in my experience, I don't think the federal government needs to be involved in local zoning issues. And it would be specifically probably forbidden by the Constitution, because these are not interstate commerce issues, but they're within a community and they're local issues. The second the idea that there's somehow going to be some kind of giant impact just by virtue of zoning. And I think what people are misunderstanding is zoning as a fiction. It's it sets up the idea that this area, one area should be built for specific use and purpose. And that's for the social objectives that a community sets out for developing the tax base. Now, this would simply allow for the potential to use private property or what they choose to use it for. So in this case, we have Mr. Woodbury saying our property This is an our property. This is Jared G's property, and john rector's on 315. So this is individuals telling them how they may or may not use their property and the government does that under this fiction is zoning. Now, speaking of fiction, I looked over there and I just looked at The submissions that were put in and I looked at the sky view and it doesn't appear to me that there's a single residential dwelling within the city of potent. In the annexed area. Mr. Botha Meyers house, for example, is not in the city of potent Mr. Woods is not in the city of potent. So to say that this has been four years of residential is really quite incorrect. Four years it was industrial, which is why there's an issue, it was a time when industry did not have the standards that we have today. There are standards for development, there are rules that need to be followed by developers. And you've got a vacant piece of property that's that's large and could be developed. And hopefully it would. The big question, you know, the thing that really stands out is somehow there's this leap of logic that somehow there's going to be huge excavations. And that's going to release all these kind of horrible things. But there's rules and laws against that. This is simply saying whether or not Jrg or whoever purchases the property, to use it to develop, or a hotel or restaurant, or whatever particular use that they see fit to do with their own property. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Regarding 314
k glide down has his hand,
Greg.
Yeah, I don't really have a position on this issue, whatever. But just as a point of fact that nrpa is a state law, not a federal law. So the point about whether the federal government would get involved is mute, mute, mute, mute. Sorry.
Okay. All right. Anybody else?
Okay. Again, the telephone number ending for 540 has his hand up again, I don't know if you want to speak again.
Can you hear me now?
Yes.
Number one, you know, I would call attention to the letter that I've written and request that it be written read into the record in entirety. And the the attachments shown should be entered as well or put on the screen if possible. Okay. Secondly, this is the small community and while there's been suggestions that nobody knows what's going on, that this is only a zoning request. It does not square with what is circulating widely. And I quite frankly with facts and not with rumors and innuendos. But at the end of the day, this is a very serious it will affect not only the city of Houston, but all the canal residents up and down it's beyond the city of Holden's control in which way the current flow you cannot excavate a five storey 10 storey whatever the number is hotel without massive soil disturbance which will lead leak into the key runoff and be distributed up and down the canal in less than 24 hours. So, I would request that you read the letter in entire entirety and that Mr. liason be admonished for calling my letter factually inaccurate, which I take tremendous exception to. Right.
Thank you, sir. Anybody else?
Someone did ask a question I could answer.
It's Evan Dixon. Again,
Evan. Go ahead, Evan. Yeah, I
just want to some gentleman earlier made reference to the nr EPA and I assume he was talking about the state natural resources and Environmental Protection Act. And what what what I what I believe he was referring to as MC l 324. Point 32 311, which states that an existing zoning ordinance or zoning ordinance or a modification or amendment to a zoning ordinance that regulates a high risk area, flood risk area coordinate, your mental area shall be submitted to the Department for approval or disapproval. And that that law is still in effect. Now whether this qualifies as a high risk area, flood risk area or an environmental area, I would certainly I think that a Superfund capped Superfund site would with the history that this one does have would qualify as an environmental area of environmental concern, and also high risk area, but that I'm not running a legal opinion on this. I'm just
giving you the statute that he was referring to.
Thank you. Is there anybody else?
Yeah, I just I wanted to stand corrected there. I mixed up my, my agencies here. I've been reading a lot of those. In fact, it is a state agency, and not a federal agency. And I would also like to add on that Mr. fotor Meyer, who lives on that same properties house was blown out in the Father's Day flood, which would in fact, make it a flood risk area, regardless of whether or not the documentation of the area makes it high risk, which it very clearly shows. But that's all. Thank you.
Anybody else? If not, I'll entertain a motion to close this public. This public hearing,
Bob? Yes. How did you read the letters? Are you ready for the letters? Oh,
go right ahead. Yes.
We have a letter from David and Maryann quayle of Hancock live across the canal from the proposed zoning ordinances. This is our primary residence. And our concerns are the following safety of boaters, kayakers, swimmers, paddleboarders, and water scares, the canal is too narrow for the increased traffic this would bring. The C plan should not be able to use this area for landing or takeoff due to the dangerous this could bring to the hundreds of residents and tourists who use this canal every week of the summer. Not to mention electric wires crossing the canal near their noise would increase substantially the plane traffic is already a problem with the number of flyovers all summer. planes are noisy and go over many times a day. A person cannot carry on a conversation when they're overhead being in the residential area would make the noise unbearable. contamination of the canal and cold Creek is also a major concern. Construction and a large increase in the usage will harm them both. It's hard to imagine what increased traffic would do to the canal road. As canal property owners we purchased our property at a higher price and we pay higher property taxes, believing that this property is and will continue to be zoned residential. We are also concerned that this would lower our property values. We urge you to vote no on the proposed ordinances 314 and 315. I have a letter for Whitney vorskla of Hancock. I'm writing regarding the rezoning of the residential property on Canal Street. I would like to communicate that this Hancock city council has received correspondence from situates expressing concern about this project. We have received numerous emails from residents with canal front property and Hancock expressing concerns about the impacts of a seaplane business operating in this location from the standpoint of noise pollution and the impact of the planes on people recreating in the water. also concerned about the safety risks this noise will have on our public beach. The safety of our constituents is of the utmost importance and there are concerns that the level of noise and frequency from the sea planes raise safety risks for beachgoers see plants will drowned out voices of parents trying to communicate with their children in the water. And most alarming could make calls for help go on heard. There's also concerned about the potential negative effects this level invoice will have on our very popular campaign site. I'm concerned that the resident or the see plans will violate the noise ordinance our city has in place to protect its residents. The last concern that has been mentioned is the environmental impact building on a Superfund site could have on its surrounding areas. I'm writing to ask that you request that the applicant respond to these concerns and that you consider them before making your final decision regarding the rezoning. We have a letter from john let them have Holton. I support zoning change ordinance 2020 314 to create opportunity for uses other than r1 for this site along the canal. Perhaps you remember my interest in securing a future one level condo within the city limits to live in myself. Unfortunately, there are very few options and Holton for this site has good potential for higher density multifamily use. It could have a mixed use future similar to the development at Portage Cove, our fans, we see how nicely that has developed over time. The SEC could also be another jewel in Holden's crown letter from Karen Lottie of REMAX Douglas real estate. I'm extending my support for the proposed zoning proposals 314 and 315 is my opinion that from a real estate prospective, this can only be a positive development, allowing further expansion of various new and existing commercial enterprises in a desirable waterfront location. I have a letter from Derrick bradway This letter is meant to give my support for the rezoning of the former Superfund parcels of land along the waterway between Old Mill Road and cold creek road from r1 to B two with conditions. The goal of every Superfund site is for the land to be put back into beneficial use land once polluted, and a hazard to health is remediated so that it can provide a positive impact for the surrounding community. This is the overarching thrust behind all the endeavors of every EPA Superfund location. by granting B two with conditions zoning to these parcels. The city of Holton takes a step forward and we collectively will benefit. And he included with this letter to the brochure from the EPA on this topic.
We have a letter from Andy moil, I suppose, support both proposed ordinances and see great potential for development in this area once the zoning can accommodate these additional uses. from a developer's perspective, I believe the city is making a positive step two accomplishing the goals of the Superfund sites, which after cleanup is redevelopment. And as a progressive city that is leading the area in development, you're well aware that most ambitious developments are mixed use which this site would lend itself well to. In our area. We've developed several waterfront residential communities that were formerly environmentally challenged properties, the canal crossings condos, which is in the area of the home county Marina and road commission complex. That was formerly Goodell oil and Bayside, townhomes and dollar Bay at the former cnh turned up co coal dock. In order to make these redevelopments happen. The key was allowing commercial development in addition to residential. This allowed for larger higher density structures to be built. That also reduces the number of excavations on any site at Bayside, for example with 160 feet of frontage. We have four homes all larger than 2000 square feet with one foundation. At the condos. We have 21 units and a parking deck on the same footprint. And from a personal perspective, I live on the canal right under the typical seaplane route to the island and I love it. So not exactly my backyard if this property was I would vote in favor of the ordinances. We have a letter from Doug jermel I am a taxpayer in the city of Houston and I'm in full support of the proposed zoning ordinance is 314 and 315. As an avid user of the Royal National Park, I see the importance of the seaplane service, we would regret the loss of the seaplane service and the associated benefits to our area. The seaplane service is utilized by tourists visiting our towns and provides benefit to our restaurants, hotels and stores. Last at the seaplane service would only hurt our small town businesses even more. There are not many more places to develop in the city of Holton, especially on the waterfront. It would be great to see this site redeveloped with mixed uses. The zoning request seems very reasonable and in line with how the waterfront has been used in many of our local areas already seems to me that this area would be a great place to see various types of housing or waterfront related businesses. Progress must be important to the City of Hope and these move forward with approving these zoning requests of a letter from Albert koskela. I'm writing to express my full support of the zoning ordinances as proposed we need to see development in our county. The rezoning of these properties provides opportunity for growth in our area. Our waterfront should be utilized to the fullest. It is not uncommon to see condos or townhouses or businesses along the Portage. All you have to do is look across the lake and there are similar developments in our area already. It seems more than reasonable that this site be considered for the mixed use zoning as requested. The seaplane service owner runs a very respectful business. They service our residents and tourists Well, there are a wonderful part of our community and convenient way to access our oil. We do not want to lose this attraction to our area. It affects our businesses that depend on tourism. Please vote to approve the zoning request. We have a letter from Linda Rawson on behalf of the Friends of the land of the kuna. The proposed zoning ordinance 314 parcel includes part of the torch like Superfund site. It contains mining wastes from the former Michigan smelter, which operated from the early 1900s to 1948. The entire area is in a 100 year floodplain with buried mind wastes containing hazardous chemicals and carcinogenic. This toxic site has a potential to be severely disturbed if large structures are built as deep pilings are needed for a foundation. exposure of the Superfund site could mean toxic leakage into the canal located near the Holton and Hancock beach parks. If damage did occur Eagles view is the owner operator of any building on this site is responsible for restoring the damage or breached cap. According to Eagle the vegetative cap is constructed for two reasons to prevent erosion of the stamp sands into the water and to prevent dust from blowing into the air, thereby protecting human health and the environment. Anything that compromises the integrity of the cap is of concern to the agencies. Eagle monitors the condition of the vegetative cap annually with assistance of home county should not forget the horrendous damage caused by the 2018 Father's Day flood. And remember that we could experience another unprecedented storm in the future. It is the responsibility of all of us to protect the health of our community as much as possible from serious damage like that again. Therefore friends Add to the Cubana is concerned about the degradation and commercial excavation and development on this contaminated section that have on the canal and citizens of the area that use the surrounding beaches and ultimately unexperienced. The community and watershed could be better served if this high risk area was developed for low impact activity on the remediated. 314 parcels Superfund sites
have a letter from Liz gerszten of Brookside drive and home they're up for rezoning involves two thirds mile of Portage waterway shoreline west of haltom city proper is open streets of canal road offers extensive use of the landscape is part of a scenic drive and bike riding loops out of Holden, including the popular autumn color tour through the covered road forested area. The whole county master plan identifies the Portage waterway as a major feature dominated by rural residential and public recreational land uses. In fact, the Portage is a scenic natural resource at the heart of our sense of place, is owning this expansive shoreline from r1 to B two, with conditions allowing Hotels Combined with theaters dictions. Allowing buildings up to five storeys will also allow for the degradation of this scenic view should instead rezoning should benefit residents and property owners and also serve the greater good of the community. Keep it scenic. On the City of Hope and zoning map this annexed area stands out as an island. Good rezoning decisions are made with respect to surrounding established districts. But in this case, most of that context is outside the city of Holton. Certainly our planning commissioners and city councilors have a primary duty to city taxpayers and to the master plan for the city. But with these two ordinances given the area proposed for rezoning has no contiguous border with the rest of the city. I feel it is important to also be considerate of our friends and neighbors and surrounding holten County work townships and those directly across the Portage IN Hancock. I'm not suggesting that Holton has permission from Hancock. I'm merely asking the council to recognize the primarily residential low occupancy nature of established surrounding properties on Canal road, host Creek Road and Hancock waterfront. During the public hearing planning commissioners asserted there are no or just one residential neighbors. However the principal use is granted by these proposed ordinances will generate noise and other negative effects far beyond the few properties technically considered as adjacent. Surrounding properties within earshot of floatplanes. snowmobiles etc. On the canal also include the neighbor for the residential neighborhoods of Northwest Holton, everyone traveling canal road and I'm 26 will be subject to increase traffic. rezoning this large area from r1. Residential to B to business with conditions allowing much higher occupancy and noise will fail to control the intensity of the land and water use. Instead rezoning should benefit residents and property owners and also serve the greater good of the community. Keep it residential. Thank you for considering my thoughts on these two proposed ordinances
have a letter
from Bruce Woodbury of sigma capital. By way of introduction, I'm a resident of Hancock and family members have property and Holton. I'm a licensed pilot and USCG licensed master and have sailed up and down the Portage canal hundreds of times. proposal 314315 proposes that shoreline along the Portage can now be resold. The business's ideas discussed are moving the oil oil service to the site and a five to 10 storey hotel. This poses a number of problems. The primary two are liability associated with takeoff landing of sea planes and liability from disturbing a covered Superfund site. seaplane associated liability. Tech beach area has grown in popularity lately with swimmers kayakers, paddlers and tubers that launch from Hancock beach and float paddle down the canal to the bridge. takeoff landing area being considered is the center of the canal and proximity to the Hancock beach with potentially 25 to 35 takeoffs and landings per day, and summer months. find time for watersports. There is a point during takeoff and landing at which a seaplane is neither fish nor fowl and maneuvering is extremely limited. I know from experience that non motorized canal traffic low in the water would be difficult to see from a plane taking off or landing in excess of 60 miles per hour, particularly when sun and waves are at play. potential for a severe or fatal accidents is significant. To my knowledge the city has not considered permitting of a seaplane base. This undoubtedly will be a decision factor by both the FAA and the state of Michigan regarding an FAA part 135 regulated seaplane base, which is required for carrying passengers out to our oil. failure to properly permit with authorities having jurisdiction will pose a liability for the city of Holton, particularly in the event of an accident. Five to 10 storey hotel, the proposed 214315 rezoning along the canal Portage canal contains the Michigan smelter slag sands. This area was previously part of the torch Lake Superfund site, which was remediated by the US EPA A number of years ago and covered to contain the toxic material. Upon completion, the EPA issued a record of decision and the city of Holton zone the area are one the most restrictive zoning. There are a number of restrictions which must be met prior to rezoning and subsequent approval by Michigan Eagle among others. should be noted that the Michigan smelter slag sands are extremely toxic and not to be confused with the largely inert stamped sands from the R od. Here's a list of hazardous materials in the Michigan smelter slag since some of which represent an unacceptable cancer risk. And he named them construction of a building of this size will undoubtedly result in disturbing the Michigan smelter Superfund slag sands with toxic material leaching into the Portage canal. Make no mistake development of a five to 10 storey hotel would put hazardous materials into the air and water. Yarrow du de is clear on what is buried at the Michigan smelter site and the seriousness of digging and stirring up the remediated and capsule. Installation of airborne contaminants would affect everyone in the area from the homes along close Creek to the homes along canal road to the homes and city park directly across Portage canal. During construction and estimated cancer risks to workers range from two times 10 to one times 10. Also during construction, it is inevitable that hazmat materials will leak into the Portage come out and will not be a localized event. From the attached winter Portage canal flows diagrams provided by MTU and a winter nominal of 10 centimeters a second. Any has met in the water will flow in either direction approximately five miles in 24 hours. I know my personal experience that summer flows are greater. This will impact houses along the waterway in and beyond the city of Holton, Hancock beach swimming areas chutes and ladders and fishing waters all the way to experience beyond risk of carcinogens getting into groundwater wells for residents in the area of significant
delisting of the Michigan smelter from the EPA, Superfund only transferred responsibility for monitoring maintenance and repair of the protective cap from the EPA to Michigan Eagle Eagle performs annual inspections of the Michigan smelter site and made extensive repairs after the Father's Day flooded. 2018. Finally, it should be noted that the wetlands portion of the rezoning that was split off had other protections besides our one under the Michigan and our EPA parks 303 and 323. It's important to note that the area is still under consideration for rezoning is also protected by an EPA part three to three coastal wetlands, permitting the online Planning Commission and city council minutes it appears that the only narrow that only narrowest a few points have been considered. Without understanding or full disclosure of the impact this development would have on toxic materials leaching from the Michigan smelter slag sands. It does not appear that the City of Hope and Planning Commission consulted Michigan Eagle before recommending to move forward on the rezoning proposal which is my understanding is required. It is also my understanding that the City of Hope and Planning Commission is disregarding or minimizing inputs regarding rezoning. There are over 750 city of hoghton. Polk County residents who have signed a petition against rezoning the signer certainly has standing and their objection should be strongly considered the proposed 314 and 315 rezoning a significant negative economic impact and liability after an environmental disaster or aircraft related incident. If allowed to go forward there will be significant liabilities for the city of hoghton city of Hancock and home county. Have you view the city of Hancock insurance policy that does not appear to cover such an event. And in clarification from the insert transasia. Reading the Planning Commission online material bills it also does not appear that the city of Holden insurance company has been consulted prior to the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the zoning request. The cost of any adverse legal action would be crippling to the city budget and faraway any improvement to tax base at the city of Holton might enjoy. This is a bad plan. Please carefully consider the liability imposed by this proposed zoning change and vote to not approve the change.
We have a letter from BB Parker of REMAX Douglas, please know that I am in support of 314 and 315. It would be in the best interest of the people that these would pass. We have a letter from Carol McLennan to introduce myself I'm a longtime resident a potent have been at MTU for over 30 years and have been actively researching the torch like Superfund sites and other sites not included in that program. Since 2013. I'm a social scientist and work with other faculty at MTU in biology and Environmental Engineering on these issues, and have been funded on this work by Michigan Sea Grant, Bureau of Indian Affairs and the National Park Service. I currently have a residence on the Portage canal and I wanted to reiterate a few points that I made at the January hearing and add a few clarifications. I also have recommendations for the council to consider. It is erroneous to compare the oil sands with the Michigan smelter slag tailings. Yes, both were part of the original Superfund assessment in the mid 1980s for what eventually became the torch Lake Superfund site. But there are three aspects of comparison where they're dissimilar. Rural sounds were excluded from the Superfund program in the final document because the city of Holt negotiated with EPA to remediate the site itself and therefore only a small part of the oil sands were actually under the Superfund program. Attorney interdicts and Evan Dixon entered the our od into the Planning Commission documents for the January hearing. City of Holt remediated the area where homes pier block and nearby stands for the water wastewater treatment plant were located. The RFP stipulates requirements to be followed by the city, Superfund may have remediated the section where the wastewater treatment facility is now built. There are some differences in the remediation of the two sites. For one I believe the L royal cap was much more where the Michigan smelter slag tailings site cap is six inches, I will have to check my documents which are in my office. In addition, the sands or tailings at L royal are from the stamped rock waste of the oil mill. I can provide the heavy metal content of these sands from documents of a study done on them by copper range in the 1950s Michigan smelter tailings are composed of slag, not stamped rock. No official account of the metal contents were recorded in archival documents I have found for Michigan smelter. In the 20th century cnh developed a method of granulating slag using the force of water so that it shattered into science tiny slivers. These were then deposited along the shoreline, it will have a smelter and it's likely that Quincy and Michigan smelter use this method as well. granulated slag is different from the solid blocks of slag which were deposited in the earlier smelting era. An example of a large piece of block like slag is next to the Quincy smell Quincy smelter where it was deposited and hardened during the earliest years of smelting and refining. The granulated slag exposes more of a heavy metals to sloughing into soil and water than that of the large solid slag blocks. Also important is the heavy metal composition of slag and sands may be different, but some of the same metals may exist in each the composition may differ and some metals may be prevalent, it's like that or not in sand. Michigan, smelter slag and IO growth sounds differ also in that Michigan smelter slag has a documented unacceptable, unacceptable cancer risk. And the record of decision both arsenic and beryllium were documented at unacceptable levels and other locations in the torch Lake Superfund Oh UI. One or three sites documented an unacceptable risk of cancer. Other torched Superfund sites have documented acceptable levels of cancer risk. Please note that these were considered acceptable and unacceptable cancer risks for individual contaminants in 1992. And it changes in the designation of what is acceptable or unacceptable. Double cancer risk may have changed in the past 30 years since the record of decision. Many Superfund program sites are reevaluated when new rules are developed that measure unacceptable cancer risk. No other location of site tailings and the torch Lake Superfund site has experienced residential or commercial development. There are only two other sites remediation of slag tailings has been completed south of the cnh Hubbell smelter and acreage around the Quincy smelter. Neither has experienced the disruption of slag tailings site at the Michigan smelter. slag tailings is the first one with residential development. No site has experienced commercial scale development or slag removal and relocation on the tailing site has occurred.
The Michigan smelter slag tailings sites suffered significant damage during the Father's Day flood of 2018. This was documented by the eagle Superfund program division in june july 2018. Photos are available of the damage at Cole's Creek and in the soil and vegetation cover through the slag tailings acreage remediated by Superfund. It is the responsibility of Eagle to conduct annual inspections of the soil and vegetation caps on all torch like Superfund sites that have been delisted and to repair the damage. This damage at the Michigan smelter slag tailing site was largely addressed in 2019 and 2020. There may remain some additional work to be done in 2021. This damage points to the flooding potential of the Michigan smelter slag tailings from heavy rains, sediments water and contaminants still located at the upland Michigan smelter building site above will likely drain onto the slag tailings location unless addressed. Before any finalization of rezoning I would like to encourage the haltom city council to consider a review of the original zoning of the Michigan smelter slag tailing site whether the planning commissioners the council consider the contaminant history of the site in its initial inclusion of the property into the city limits, and the initial zoning of the site is r1. Information at hand about the heavy metal content of the Michigan smelter slag tailings site from the rld and the earlier document, our I Fs any updated measurement of cancer risk and the potential for drainage of remaining contaminants from the uphill side The original Michigan smelter buildings. I also urge the city of Houghton to set in motion the recommendation of a shelter every acre of the Planning Commission on the January 2021, hearing to incorporate a review and analysis of non contaminated sites within the city and those affecting the city by virtue of their borders adjacent to or drainage into the city into the master plan in any planning initiatives, the call for the use and development of these six My best wishes for a complex and difficult consideration on this matter. We have a letter from Christine Weidner, who provided a document please find attached some Superfund site information in a sampling of the hundreds of success stories of Superfund sites that have been successfully redeveloped. Any of these sites have similar previous uses concerns and cap soils. You have many types of reuse not all residential. Letter from Steve Mattson, the owner of Great Lakes sounds and vibration. Except this email is my personal support for the rezoning proposals 314 and three and five for the parcels on home canal road. Just as the city's master plan references our rail being important to the area the seaplane service is also important, it reinforces the tourism our businesses rely on a convenient means for access to our oil, it seems appropriate that the service would be in the City of Hope and being it is home to the park headquarters. This location would also limit flight over the city also support the rezoning of the adjacent property and believe it would be exciting to see higher density housing options along with single family residential on the extended waterfront. condos or townhomes or something of that nature would be a welcome addition to the city and our community as it appears that there's a very limited supply at this time. As a city of Holton taxpayer. It has been exciting to see how the city has transformed in a progressive way and I believe the approval of these ordinances would continue to move holding forward. Smart and consistent progress is important to keep holding Hancock in the entire queue ahead of the curve and prosperous even and especially in challenging economic environments.
Okay, okay. Okay. At this time and I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on proposed ordinance 2020 days 314
I moved.
Second. Okay, moving spurted to close the public hearing on ordinance 220 20 days. 314. Do we need a roll call vote on this and not to close? We're not gonna burden? No, no. Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? This public hearing is closed on 314. I will now call to order a public hearing on proposed ordinance 2020 dash 350.
No. 315 is a similar request. It's made for the I guess what would be in the vernacular of the seaplane parcel, which is adjoining the one that we just had the public hearing on. They have requested a conditional rezoning from r1 single family to be to community business with the condition that the use is allowed are all principal uses and all use is subject to conditions as regulated in the b1 district or in any residential district, restaurants, taverns or other places serving food or beverages, hotels and motels and with the additional condition over the previous one that a seaplane passenger service including a pier boat ramp and aircraft storage hangar.
Okay, comments. Is it john? Yeah. JOHN Rector. Yes. Great add, john. Hi.
My family owns the seaplane business. Just for a little overview. In terms of the history of seaplane operations in the area. seaplanes had been flying from hoghton to isle Royale, certainly since at least the 1970s. Probably even as far back as as when the island or the park was formed in the 40s. The previous seaplane company to ours operated right at the Park Service headquarters in downtown Houston for many decades, I think up until the early 90s. And then they move to the parcel that we're speaking of right now. And they operated there until I believe 2001. In terms of our history, our company has been in existence since 2004. with previous management they they took over the park contract in 2004 operating a single airplane from the Houston airport in 2014. My family bought the business with the idea that we would expand service in order to better service the park To attract more visitors to our service. In order to grow the business, we had to add airplanes of larger capacity and airplanes with what's called straight floats, no words, non amphibious floats, so aircraft that can only land and take off in the water. Because amphibious airplanes weigh a lot more because of the landing gear there, they can only carry a smaller load of passengers compared to the ones with straight float planes. So in 2017, we moved to our current property in order to be able to accomplish that expansion. So one of the main objections to our business is the noise impact. We recognized that our operations significantly add to the total noise impact in the community. We've taken a number of steps to lessen that impact. We fought fly only in daylight hours. And in fact, this parcel of property has a deed restriction saying that we can't operate before 830 in the morning on on any day, we've equipped all of our aircraft with three bladed propellers, which reduces the noise that they produce. And we've modified our flight paths in order to impact the fewest number of area residents. We realize that we produce unwanted noise in the area. But it's important to note that there are other noise producers that we all tolerate on everyday basis without giving it much thought, jet skis, powerful speed boats, ATVs, and other recreational machines, logging trucks with engine brakes, and even the neighbor's lawn mower. All of these things produce noise, which is equivalent to our aircraft on a felt basis. One difference is our aircraft leaves the area in a matter of seconds after taking off. While those other noise producers often linger in the area for much longer periods of time, when we take off at full power. In less than a minute, we're a full mile away from from where we started. So that noise impact. While it is significant, it's short lived. On a busy day, our operation will produce a total of less than 16 minutes of noise in the area of our property and the entire day. We we operate eight round trips a day at our peak. So you know, and you know that noise in that area is only felt for a minute or two. So I mean, that's in the overall scheme of things. That's a pretty short amount of time. Our planned flight paths from this property are designed with the idea of lessening the noise impact as much as we can. If when conditions are light enough to not have a significant effect on aircraft performance will always take off and land to the west of our property that will keep the noise away from downtown and away from the largest number of people that would be impacted. We went on
you have about a minute left.
Thank you. When when strength is a factor the prevailing wind directions from the west so most of the takeoffs and landings will be in that direction. Anyway, safety you know, everybody thinks they they know what, what safety is involved in airplanes. But I can tell you that in the history of the NTSB recording aircraft accidents, there are three incidents where a seaplane collided with a boat I'm not talking about per year I'm talking about in the entire history. So you know, sea planes are very safe, particularly when compared to boats, which are often operated by poorly trained operators and maybe impaired and all that. You know, in conclusion, I just want to make the point that Porsche canal is a federal navigable waterway. So the local jurisdictions have no authority to regulate seaplane activity or or vessels on the water for that matter, only the use of the property that's involved here. So the other thing, last thing to say is, we fly up and down the canal all the time, right now. And if we're not able to use this property, we'll still be fine up and down the canal from a different location. All of these people that live along the canal, they're going to hear this noise regardless, actually, in this, this location, we'll get most of that noise around, away from the densely populated areas. Thank you, and I'll I'll still be around to answer questions if need be.
Thank you. Sure. Anybody else would like to
tackle Jennifer NorCal has her hand up again,
Jennifer, go right ahead.
I'm sorry. Thank you. I have a prepared statement here. But I just want to clarify, Mr. Rector said he makes eight round trips. My understanding was that the limitation to iOS trial was that he could make up to 10 per day, is that correct? No,
so the art doesn't regulate how many trips we take, but only the number of people. So in our current capacity, we are at that daily cap.
So
it's about if you expand it on planes, you could make a Is there a limit? Is it unlimited as to how many trips you could make if you expanded your your fleet?
Well, so they don't regulate the number of planes or the number of flights but the number of people?
Oh, okay.
Okay. Yeah, we
can't carry a monkey.
Do you?
I know that I called there when we went through this situation last year. You do also do tours on the half hour? Is that correct?
very occasionally, for instance, last season, we I think we did six tours the entire summer. So that does not significantly add to the number of operations.
Okay, so I would I mean, and this this is
this is
basically meant to expand upon your business, is that correct? The move to this area? I
mean, it's not meant to expand the business, we've already expanded as much as, as we can. It's, it's meant to operate more efficiently and to have a better operating location.
Okay, so so you would
this isn't,
this is specifically serving a need for the community, this isn't. You would still operate, you would just still operate from that location. And so this move would really not take away any of the service to the community. Is that correct?
We would operate somewhere on the canal. If we can do it at this property. It'll be on the canal somewhere.
Understood. Very good. Thank you. Okay.
So I'm sorry, may I read my statement? I probably used up a little bit of time, but I'll be
a couple. You have about two minutes left, Jen. Okay, I'll
do the best I can. Thank you. I'm Jennifer Norco. My husband, john and i live across the canal from this property. We remain against the introduction of an airport into a residential area. We disagree with the reversal the Planning Commission to support the zoning change. It has been stated that the noise argument takes place outside of the city's purview. It is as it is on the water not subject to the city's zoning. And I've heard this argument. We disagree. The city's zoning ordinance for the industrial districts which if properly zoned, would apply to this property. Under principle uses permitted it states any industrial activity that produces glare, noise, vibration, smoke, dust, etc. and shall confine these nuisances to the industrial district. The city has detailed in its own ordinances that it is not permissible to create a nuisance to other properties by their activity. If the city allows for the activity to take place via zoning conditions, how can they contend that this is not their responsibility, not in their purview. This will negatively impact the enjoyment of our property, and the ways that we enjoy our Lake frontage. This will negatively affect our property value and the properties of our neighbors. On the Michigan sellers Disclosure Act disclosure statement. You'll find under other items,
any
encroachments easements, zoning issues, settling flooding, drainage, structural problems, major damage to the property from fire, wind floods, farm or farm operation in the vicinity or proximity to a landfill, airport, shooting range, these are all negative. These are things that would negatively impact a property. This property when purchase was zoned r1 residential which the purchaser should have known or did know. This sets a precedent that the one buyer or a buyer or a developer can purchase a piece of property and simply ask the city to rezone it to fit their desire to use Use it for another purpose. We hope that you will note or we hope that you will vote excuse me no on this rezoning proposal. And we further hope that in the planning stages you consider keeping this area residential r1 or business be one for the lowest negative impact on the environment, neighboring communities while continuing to foster growth for the City of Portland. Thank
you.
Thank you for letting me speak.
Thank you, sir. Anybody else? If not, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on proposed ordinance 21. Unless And do we have other letters?
I read all the letters, but we do have two more hands up. The one is my telephone number again, ending in 48644864. Okay,
hi, I just I just have a question for Mr. Rector. Since my understanding that myself being a pilot as well, actually, in Personally, I'm not particularly opposed to a seaplane base, although I don't know that this is necessarily the best spot. Do you do vehicle maintenance of any kind there? For example, oil changes, anything like that there?
Of course, we change the oil in the airplanes.
Okay, so
per the city's own published zoning requirements on their website, would that not make you ineligible for the business zoning and put you into industrial because they very specifically outline vehicle maintenance of any kind, which I think actually under Part 135 0.1 25, our oil changes.
So not as to the oil change requirement, but as to the zoning requirement? That's not my area of expertise. You don't have to ask the city about that.
And do you have any wireless communication there? I mean, I would assume that you would have a base radio, maybe even an amplifier since most of our radios run line of sight. And given the topography of the area, those don't do too hot around here without an amplifier. Especially since we don't have a tower?
No, the only wireless communications we have is our cellphones.
So you don't operate radios and the aircraft?
In the aircraft? Oh, sure. Of course, yes.
Okay, so that would be part of that business, which again, would put this and I want, my point here is not necessarily to attack you. It's just that I think that the business rezoning is an inappropriate rezone per the city's own published requirements and guidelines on their own website. And in fact, I think it should be I won. And and in that case, I actually hope to ride this out there one day as I got my amphis endorsement A while ago and have yet to put any time on floats. I think it'd be fun to start playing around the queue. Great. Yeah, that's all I have to say. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. Is there anybody else?
Just following up on what he just said. Was that
yes, I would like to speak. Can you hear me? Maria, please? Could you please state your name? Mary Ann quayle. I live right across from that said property. And I did write you a letter itemizing my concerns, which are not their concern. I have not heard this letter A. And I have not heard the concerns that I had in mind. Do you know what happened to my letter? I sent you two copies of your letter was the first letter I read
today, today? Oh, no,
I was listening. I didn't hear it. But I want to emphasize that, you know, I really, I sit on my deck, and I see paddleboarders. And they are not noisy. I see kayakers and they're not noisy. There are pontoon boats and they are not noisy. But that stretch that you're talking about has constant use. And if anybody were to sit and coat, things that go by every single day, as we do, you would understand I mean, then the noise aside, they're very noisy, but as he said, they're pretty quick. We come up with that. But I worry about the swimmers, the kayakers, the boaters paddleboarders that are out on that water when that plane five or 10 times a day comes and goes that's my fear someone will get hurt. And that that's all I wanted to just say thank you.
Thank you, sir. Anybody else else? Oh?
Yes, there's some people there, Bob.
Okay. Where's that, Matt?
Yes.
All right ahead.
When I look at this and, Mr. Director, I think it's done the very responsible thing he's looked to locate his business in the least impactful place in terms of noise and traffic in the city of hoghton. within the city of home. When I look at some of these arguments, I think they're red herrings, the idea that somehow there's going to be liability to the city because there could be an airplane crash someday. It's so far fetched and unrealistic. And legally, I don't think that there's any basis behind that whatsoever. The idea that the seaplane is going to run over swimmers, Mr. Rector cited to three accidents in the history of regulating sea planes with a boat. I think, if we recall a few years ago, there was a boat that did wash up on shore over there from a drunk boat driver. So the risk of a seaplane with a professional pilot is, is very minimal. When you look at the zoning requirements, and the idea that it has to be I one because it makes noise. Remember that we're looking at 16 minutes worth of noise a day, we're not looking at a stamping factory, we're not looking at a Crusher, you're looking at 15 minutes of noise a day, it's basically a storage facility and the way for people to get onto an airplane, the rest of it is on the federal waterway. The the impact of Mr. Rector would have would be minimal. And it would make use of a property that's essentially under power lines. And if you a listen to and we take seriously all the comments about a peon toxic waste, who is going to build a house on a toxic waste dump underneath powerlines. The idea that this one area shouldn't be businesses, and that it's not suitable for a seaplane I think it's a perfectly suitable spot for a seaplane and is perfectly suitable and compatible with the zoning goals of having a taxable property, they're of significant value of the use of keeping that noise from going right through the center of town, which I don't find the noise offending whatsoever, and I to live across the canal. And it really is a very, very, I think, a great match for the zoning and the master plan of hoghton. And when they look at the arguments that it should be r1 these are people who say they care about the environment, but they're saying that people should put their residential houses on this thing that they're saying is so horrible, when in fact, we look at look at the waterfront projects and market, wonderful successes and similar, maybe not similar materials. But there's a lot more avenues and a lot more tools for a developer to develop a remediate site under under a more generous zoning. Because what we need to remember is these are people's properties. And the city has an interest to develop in a positive way. And I can't think of a more positive person I know in my business than Mr. Rector and his business. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Anybody else?
A quick follow up on that. From heaven. Okay, I don't know the name of the previous gentleman who spoke about the importance and applicability of the I one industrial district. It's not, as Matt said about the I one, because it creates noise. It's because and I'm not I didn't come here to speak against the Supreme Court necessarily, but because we do have an ordinance. This specifically I one deals with and makes on one disc within one jurisdiction. I think it would do a disservice to Mr. Mr. Rector, the the plane service and the city to not zone this as an i one which specifically is designed for, for example, terminal operations, airplane hangars, maintenance, airplanes, wireless communications, cargo operations, all of those are in I one under the existing ordinance and I think that that would be the appropriate
if it's to be rezoned. I one would be the way to do that not be to that's all I had to say about that. Thank you.
Anybody else? I don't see Hands up.
Okay, there's still one hand, okay, telephone number 4540454.
Okay, go ahead. 4540
Please state your name.
Good evening. This is Bruce woodridge. I'm a pilot. And I appreciate Miss directors flying in and out. I think that is a I like the sea planes. We live right on the canal, we hear him go over, I always look up. I think this particular location is a bad idea. And I would ask, Mr. Rector, what liability insurance do you have? Secondly, I would ask the city, Have you contacted your insurance agent to determine if you are covered in the event of an accident?
We carry $10 million liability on our aircraft.
Okay, then the city.
I wasn't aware of this was a q&a. But you know, our insurance again, the the incident is the city's insured but in this case, speculatively. I don't know what the
you have to check.
You were working on a hypothetical question here.
Yeah.
On on
a hypothetical in the A seaplane base has been proposed, not hypothetical. So I would request that the city contact its insurance agent and determine what liability you may incur with an either a accident from a airplane or with a disaster from the Superfund site.
I'm starting to feel like this is another one of those red herring gotcha moments. So
this is not a red herring document at all. This is real liability. Element every day and liability every day and risk every day. A
question Check, please check.
In since this was a question, as a council personnel, I'll suggest that our liability or things happening to private businesses and private landowners would be none. Otherwise we'd have a liability for what happens on everybody's property in the city or everybody's business. That's what I would suggest would be the answer.
But anyway, moving on.
Yes, sir. Anybody else? Okay, I'd entertain a motion then. To close the public hearing on proposed ordinance. 2020 days. 315.
Eric, Eric, Eric wanted to say something. Well, I'm
sorry. Go ahead, Eric.
I still see one hand up on my screen. Oh, one
hand up.
Believe that still Mr. witchery, though? Your hand is still up.
Mr. Woodbury? Mr. Woodbury? No. You just muted. Okay, it's done. Okay. All right. Is there anybody else? I don't want to miss anybody. All right, then I'll entertain a motion to close 2020 dash 315.
Support.
They move this forward. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. This public hearing is closed. Moving on to reports. City Manager
I will try to keep this brief public works over the last couple of weeks of course has been plowing and sanding and blowing and sanding. Of course with the warming weather they started to pull Matt I think and read one of many communications I got several emails just from folks today that appreciate with pulling the mat and also taking the birds off the off the road not a people's driveways as they were going along. So I know Public Works, was happy to do that. And I'm happier because the communications I get are happy communications from people when we do that. They'll start widening in the next few days. I think they started in a few areas here once they get the Mad cleaned up and get some whitening and hopefully we won't have to use the room we have created by widening roads. People on from the good news category. If anybody noticed driving into town in Franklin square, we've got a substitute minor there for a little while. Industrial graphics was nice enough to make us a substitute temporary substitute for the minor. With the words, I'll be back at his feet to kind of take the place of the minor as the as people come into town. And we appreciate the job. And the guys doing that for us. They're at industrial graphics, just and he's, he's well anchored with vandalproof bolts and a 400 pound block of concrete. So I hope I hope he stays there until the real one gets back hopefully in early summer. And skating ribbons taken quite a beating last few days in the warm weather, we had to close it for this weekend until the weather freezes up again, and and we can get some good ice there. So once we'll start putting a couple floods on once we get some temps back to do that, we worked with Michigan Tech, Michigan Tech at a sizeable water leak was discovered in the last week or so. And to the point where their water leak was starting to, we were starting to really see the effects on on our pump edge and everything else. And Michigan Tech did finally find the leak and got it turned off. So we're glad for that. And I'm assuming they'll be making repairs as necessary. A couple of meetings ago, I mentioned the telemetry work with the phase two improvements that are going on networks about 95% done now. And there's the last few things to do not a lot more of the running things manually for public works, where somebody has to babysit switches and different things like that. So that'll be coming to a close here. And as spring kicks back in, they'll do the last few the pipe work, so to speak. Other things, the pier project is scheduled to go out for bids next month. And we'll we'll see bids hopefully at the beginning of April, or the end of March actually, or that project. So that's that's moving forward. I had some communication with m dot, they're looking at scheduling a pre construction meeting a public pre construction meeting for the College Avenue project, which that project will be bid a week from this Friday. And once the contractors on board hopefully in early April, we'll look at scheduling a public pre construction meeting as an in addition to the normal pre construction meeting that happens but they wanted to be able to you know, they did a really good job in 2009 with the streetscape project downtown with that communications. And they're hoping to follow suit here as well. with with with the public because this is going to be a bit disruptive for you know, two, almost two summers, or so they're going to they're going to get out ahead of that. So once we've got a date for that, we'll get that out to everyone and possibly maybe even do a short session before one of the council meetings when the time comes just to get this bully pulpit where we do get a lot of attendance. Other than that, some people might recall there was a zoning variance request, which was on tonight's docket, which has since been pulled by the owner developer for a development at 100. Pearl. Simply they had come up with a design which was going to require a variance in the intervening time they had we reassess their design and come up with a design that may not require a variance. So they're gonna keep working on that project. And if it doesn't require a variance, I would assume we would be doing site plan review eventually, someday at planning commission. So any questions or anything else I might have missed in that 30,000 foot view.
Good evening. Seems like tonight would be a good night to have a quick short report. And that's what I have. We took 134 calls for service. During that time, we made two felony arrests. 10 misdemeanors, we issued out 10 civil infraction tickets, of those 134 calls about one fifth of them. 29 of them were accidents, which all took place, right in approximately two weeks ago when we had that cold snap and the city did a good job of getting the mat removed and those were able to clear up. And that's all I have for report. I would like to see give a shout out to and to be able to read all those letters, catch all those motions and who's talking on that. That's that's amazing work on your part. Thanks for being so organized. That's it.
Questions for john
Just one comment for john Ray job done on the fatal accident we had down here on the street here. You guys are cold wet and kept their temper very well. I was next officer Robert few times we followed very different unique names. I thought I'd be called different names in my life. But there were some new ones that came out that day. And when you're freezing cold for two and a half hours, being yelled at by people, your guides did a great job. Thank you, john.
Yeah, that is, it was tragic. To lose a life like that, that fell just outside of the city's jurisdiction. But that is your fire department was there as always, and as a volunteer fire department, you your efforts are always appreciated, too. So right back to you, john.
All right. Anything else for john? Okay, then moving along to business accounts payable.
I move we pay the bills,
or it moves forward to pay our bills at this time. Is there further discussion? Will you pull a counsel? Em? Yes. Going?
Yes. irizarry?
Yes. Cool.
Yes. Back in? Yes. Since? Yes. Say hello.
Yes.
All right, that passes. Next proposed ordinance 2020 dash 314. support a moved and supported to adopt proposed ordinance 2023 14. Further discussion?
If I may, Mr. Mayor, in any way that in any rezoning. There are a number of factors that the council and also the Planning Commission are it's incumbent on them to consider those factors. I'm going to read off those factors right now. And when the counselors or in this case are making their decision, I would ask that as going through these you consider these factors in your decision. Factor number one, is, is the proposed amendment generally compatible with the existing use of the property surrounding the proposed site? That's factor one. And I'm sure people have thought about this a lot already and read up on these but I want to make sure that we've gone through this exercise, so I apologize for dragging this out. Number two, will the proposed amendment result in traffic congestion on the adjacent streets or create a safety problem? Number three, will the proposed amendment have a significant adverse effect on property values in the adjacent area?
Number four,
will the proposed amendment significantly increased noise in the area? Number five, will the proposed amendment satisfy a need in the community? Number six, is the proposed amendment compatible with the master plan for that area. Number seven, does the amendment comply with the intent of the zoning district number eight is the proposed location and appropriate location for all uses which would be permitted under the requested district? Number nine, are the physical characteristics of the site appropriate or the proposed development? Excuse me proposed amendment. I got lost here are the public services available on to meet the demands of the proposed amendment. Number 11. Will the proposed amendment increase the taxable value of the property? Number 12. Will the rezoning constitute a spot zone granting a special privilege to one landowner and not others? Number 13. are adequate sites available elsewhere that are already properly zoned to accommodate the proposed uses. Number 14. Has there been a change of conditions in the area supporting the proposed amendment? Number 15 is the proposed amendment precedent setting. Number 16. Will the proposed amendment conserve natural resources such as aesthetics and historic old growth trees? And number 17? Are there any other factors considered pertinent to the proposed amendment? So when considering a conditional result request that conditions restricting the use or development of the property should be considered when considering the above factors. And of course, I didn't ask everybody for a yes, no. But in this in this context, it's important that the counselors consider those 17 factors in how they're going to vote on this proposed amendment. And I wanted to make that clear. And unfortunately, I am going to do this again, or the next one.
Erica, since we've done that, I've been around enough to have gone through this, I just want to comment on that to make sure that the way I view this is clear, and everybody kind of understands the purpose of this, you're you, you know, we as counselors are using this, this list of questions to inform our final answer, it's not it's not a all or nothing, it's not it's not 100% yeses or nose. And I just want to make sure everybody who's watching and listening knows that that's certainly not the way we look at it. There may be a few things in here that are fuzzy.
And there may be some speculation or unknowns. But we simply use these questions to inform the final vote that we place as counselors, right, this isn't this is neither a checklist nor a score sheet for rezoning request. This is you know, it's simply a reminder to the folks that are going to be voting on this. These are the factors you should consider when you vote. And by me reading it, I want to make sure that you all are considering all of those factors by reading them to you. And of course, you've had these in your packets. And you've all looked at this ahead of time, of course, but I want it to be on the record that that these were considered.
And actually that was a final point I meant to make, which I'm glad you reminded me. I don't want to I want everybody to know that we certainly have reviewed this stuff a lot ahead of time. And this check sheet is not something we're looking at for the first time tonight. These are considerations that we've thought about quite heavily, and manual. Right. But we did we have a motion and a support. I'm just curious, yet. Okay, so yeah, I'm just I do have some things I want to say once you open it up for discussion.
Okay. We're opening it. You have anything else, Mike?
No, no, no, no, I'm what I'm saying is if Eric's done, once you open it up for discussion. I do have some things I wanted to say.
But okay, we're gonna open it up for discussion right now. Okay.
And I'll try to keep it very short and sweet. You know, I was trying to make notes as we were going. I certainly understand everybody's passionate feelings about about this. I'm on the Planning Commission. We, of course, considered this before we unanimously sent it to the city council. I'm going to try to read through some of these and just comment where appropriate. Again, it has as has been pointed out, I have confidence and all of the regulatory agencies that will control any potential future development on this property. The in a range, as somebody mentioned, from local all the way to federal Eagle as the primary for monitoring of the Superfund site, considering its status. The fact that this property is r1 is really a little bit arbitrary, because before it was annexed to public act 425. It had no zoning, because it was part of Stanton Township. I think that's correct. Right, Eric. And the zoning that's on it right now was at the request of the property owner. Is that correct? Eric?
I believe so. I was not here when it was brought in under pa 420. Scotty was,
yeah, that's what I that's the that's the history I had read. So that was that in itself was a bit arbitrary. So, you know, the reality is that was, you know, that was a supposition at the time. So to think that that has been a hard and fast r1 area for a long time is a little bit misleading.
I may just skip over it. I made a comment already about concerns about the city's liability, which I think there are none. All we are doing, were a zoning rezoning. agency in this case, we are not assuming any liability. We've never we've never owned this property in the past. We have no financial interest in the property now. So I'll leave it at that. I think there were enough supporters and non supporters that said the things I wanted to say. I'll say that I greatly respect the fact that the EPA remediating the sites and putting monitoring plans in place, once us, a wants not us once, a redevelopment to happen. And our place in this right now is simply considering a zoning record.
Okay, thank you, Mike. Yeah. Thank you for the anybody else. As soon as mayor, Yes, right.
Yes, sir. Ma'am, before?
Yes. All right, definitely.
Thank you, sir. So, um, yeah, I know, like all the other counselors, we've probably spent a lot of time on this. I know myself,
many hours
trying to come to a decision. It's a live important, a lot of important things involved here. So I have a four minute statement I'm just going to read. So I'd like to begin with my qualms regarding the 425 agreement and offer recommendations for future for 25 agreements, or 25, dash six and seven were approved in January and September 2007. So point one, according to act 425 of 1984, a conditional transfer of property by contract also known as a 425 agreement.
All right, sorry about this that wasn't made, but it must have been entered into for an actual economic development project, or it may be done to prepare the property for future economic development. Okay. And this for 25. There's no mention of any economic development project in the text of 425 dash six and seven, I would recommend there for the next 425 that is brought before the council should mention a specific economic development project, or mention that it is preparing the property for future economic development. Without a named economic development project, the community may not understand the purpose behind a given for 25 as it is not expressly stated, point to again, there's three of these for about unfortunately, five and 14 years the property under discussion has remained an r1 zoned parcel, not our two or three, and the only economic development has been the installation of water and sewer lines as I understand it. This further weakens the public's already weak understanding of why this property was transferred into the city of Holden in the first place. Finally, my third point on the 425. any future development on the property resulting in a higher assessed value will result in $0 for her for holding Portage township schools, as the 425 was written to exempt the property from holding Portage township school district taxes, allowing the property to continue to pay Adams and Stanton school district taxes, which is just fine for those school districts. I understand. Negotiations happen. That's just a heads up. areas of concern. Now regarding the rezoning. The entity that is requesting the rezoning appears to be trying to sell the property not develop the property. It sets the precedent for property owners to request a rezoning if they feel like it will yield a greater profits. The city is obligated to balance this individual financial incentive with the overall impact on our quality of life and our local economy. On this point, the potential positive economic impact on our local economy, in my opinion is outweighed by the potential negative health and quality of life impacts. The second area of concern has been brought up ad nauseum with the public health, environmental concerns, which I share neighboring municipality concerns as my final point, Hancock is definitely impacted by this. So if those are my areas of concern, I want to communicate out these areas of concern can be resolved. And not just say, you know, I'm against something but offer a path forward. The So number one, the entity that plans to develop the property, in my opinion should be the entity requesting the rezoning number to Eagle or appropriate environmental authority determines that the environmental impact caused by any development will fall within safe tolerance levels for our freshwater sources. And finally, three, I'd like to see the Hancock city council formally invited by the hoghton city council to have a seat at the table when a final decision is made, as this issue affects our joint community. And the property location directly impacts Hancock's residential, commercial and recreational areas. So if those three criteria are met, it'd be hard for me all I definitely consider saying yes, but those are my areas of concern and I yield the floor
okay. Sir, anybody else would like to comment regarding 314.
Eric, you can check me on it. You can check me on this. Eric, I just one thing there at towards the end. Brian, you talked about a potential developer, you would rather see them be the one requesting rezoning rezoning needs to be requested by the property owner, not somebody who might buy it. And that's why in the past, you'll see often as a condition of sale, there will be things requested, whether it's a variance or whatever. So potential developer can ask for rezoning. It's got to be the property.
I understand. So I was suggesting that they sell it first, then that party can request the rezoning.
But then it's just the same as the current owner doing it as my point. I guess it's got to be the property owner. So I think that so my point there is I don't see what advantage there is there. Okay.
And we polar Council.
Wait, I'd like to make this drone. I'm sorry. Sorry. It's okay. And I apologize, I didn't prepare a statement. I have a lot of notes. And I'm going to try to stay organized. So first of all, my concern is if there is some permission or due diligence that we need to do before voting on rezoning, I think we should get that I would move in that case that we postpone any further vote tonight. And I do not know I do not know this. This is the first time I heard that perhaps we needed to have some due diligence. Um, that being said, I have some concerns. First of all, I went back to the city council meeting of October 9 2019. I believe the discussion at that point in time was just looking at the seat playing parcel without the r1 zoning.
So
I am gonna defer to the very extensive document which was, which was submitted by Mary Fraley and Liz Gershon, which talks about the the 17 factors we're supposed to be considering. I really appreciate all of the input we've had. I appreciate the information on remediating Superfund sites and successful remediations. That being said, One comment which was made in October 2019, about rezoning is that this rezoning is not in keeping with the current master plan, that property was annexed by the city with the intention of making an r1. And it was, there was no discussion at that time of changing that, if we've already deferred to the Planning Commission to discuss our development. And perhaps this is another issue that we should hold off on voting on tonight and refer back to the Planning Commission so they can look at the master plan. But as it stands right now, we do not we do not have really any congruence with the current master plan. Finally, we were talking about lawsuits and liabilities. And I actually did some research because I have had many phone calls many emails, many stops in the street, about what people think. Um, so I actually looked up liabilities, and I found an interesting one where the city council in Richmond, California, was sued on January 6 of this year, because they had voted to rezone a super toxic dump site to be used for further development and they are suited I do not want our city being sued for any reason. I am concerned about environmental impact, I realized that, you know, it's all going into the canal. But that is a concern. I mean, are the people who have originally developed the country or this area did not worry about future environmental issues, and we're paying the price now. Finally, with regard to B r1. In the area. Yes, I realize that there's some are ones in the neighborhood that are not in the city of Holland. However, the parcel which is budget between the requested property and the water land, that is our one there is the assessor's plat of cold Creek right next door and that is our one and then you've got our neighbors across the canal. So those are my concerns with regard to this. Again, I would recommend that we postpone a vote until we make sure that all due diligence has been done. And I'm done.
Sure Anybody else? We have a motion. Let's take the vote on this motion right now. Go ahead and roll go.
McGowan.
Yes,
say hello.
Yes. suits. No. need them. Yes.
Cool. No. irizarry
No. Back in. Yes. Make note of that a four three in. Yep. All right, next proposed ordinance 2020 dash 315.
And not to not to belabor things, but 2023 15 is a conditional rezoning request for which we had the second public hearing for which would be for the smaller parcel the seaplane parcel, I guess, to use the current vernacular that a lot of people use. And again, I'm going to go through those 17 factors to remind everyone what their considerations should be in voting for this rezoning of on our conditional rezoning, excuse me on ordinance 2023 14. And I'll start again, what is the proposed amendment generally compatible with the existing use of the property surrounding the site to will the proposed amendment result in traffic congestion on the adjacent streets or create a safety problem? Three, will the proposed amendment have a significant adverse effect on the property values in the adjacent area? Or will the proposed amendment significantly increase noise in the area?
Five,
will the proposed amendment satisfy a need in the community? Six? Is the proposed amendment compatible with the master plan for that area? Seven, does the amendment comply with the intent of the zoning district eight? Is the proposed location and appropriate location for all uses, which would be permitted under the request in district? Nine? Are the physical characteristics of the site appropriate for the proposed amendment? 10 are the public services available to meet the demands of the proposed amendment? 11 will the proposed amendment increase the taxable value of the property 12. Well, the rezoning constitute a spot zone granting a special privilege to one landowner not available to others. 13 are adequate sites available elsewhere that are already properly zoned to accommodate the proposed uses. 14. Has there been a change of conditions in the area supporting the proposed amendment 15 is the proposed amendment precedent setting 16 will the proposed amendment conserve natural resources such as aesthetics and historic old growth trees? And 17? Are there any other factors considered pertinent to the proposed amendment? So when considering this conditional rezoning request, the conditions restricting the use or development of the property should be considered when considering all of the factors above. And with that, again, I'll just repeat in how and how the councillors vote on this following issue. I'm saying I've reread those and I've seen some head nods. You've read those already. In your packets, they're in our zoning ordinance. And those are the factors that you're going to use to vote on this particular conditional rezoning request. And with that, I will
stop.
All right. I'll entertain a motion.
Motion for 2023 15.
Support
moving in supported to adopt proposed ordinance 2020 dash 315. Is there no further comment?
I'll comment I'm going to add again if there is some kind of special permission or due diligence we need to do before rezoning. I think we should postpone any vote on this. I realize it might be a little too late since that horse left the barn with last motion. However, I think it's something to be considered the only other concern is I love a seaplane I have had multiple relatives who were planning to come up before COVID. And they're looking forward to take it again. I would point out under number 13 that yes, there is a site available and it's currently operating. So that's the end of my discussion.
Okay. Anybody else? Yes, Bob? Read Mike.
Similar to what I said before, but I'll start out just as a reminder that, you know, this was considered entered, of course, very intently by the Planning Commission, which passed it on unanimously. A few things that were mentioned during public comment. One of the things, and I feel like I just want to correct a few of them, you know, there was a comment, somebody asked questions of the property owner about oil changes and radio. Those are if the primary business is, you know, doing oil changes or mechanic shop, obviously, we all change oil on our property, those sort of things are forbidden, but being a commercial mechanic shop would would be for permit, which it's not, you know, it's their personal use or their private use. Again, I understand there's a lot of passionate feeling about this. I feel comfortable when I say that the Planning Commission considered this and passed it unanimously. You know, our lawyer, certainly has been asked a lot of questions about this. Eric will confirm that there's been a lot of questions, not only directly from the city, but from other people. There has there haven't been any flags raised? You know, this is zoning, that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about hypothetical uses. The indie development that may or may not have that may happen will be regulated as any other development is in this city, by the appropriate agencies. So that's what I had to say on that. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you, Grant.
Mike, I just on one point, I did have a conversation with someone from Eagle last week who actually called me because they had been contacted about these, but both of these, and they had asked about, well, what is this project? What is this and they said, this is a zoning matter? You know, this is a zoning request, it's not a site plan review or any requested development. And, and the the answer I got is a zoning is a local issue. It wasn't an eagle issue, at least to the person I talked to. And I just want to qualify that that was the person I spoke to. I didn't I didn't read personally CFR or, you know, Part 303, or whatever those are in my notes there. But the person from Eagle that contacted me, and I had a long conversation with, you know, this is a matter of zoning and zoning as a local issue. So, and now, if that person was an error, or I was an error, I'm sure someone will point that out to us in the near future. But
I wanted to make that point clear as well. And I asked a question earlier, I want to about an acronym that I didn't understand. And it's probably fair for anybody listening who doesn't know what eagle is. That's the current branding of the state of Michigan environmental regulation arm. So I think everybody needs to follow them d Q. Right now, it's the I think it's environmental and Great Lakes
and energy, and energy, energy, Great Lakes and environment. Right. So
they would be the ones that would, of course, be aware of any concerns related to permission for rezoning. And that's why I brought that up. And I'm glad Eric brought that up to about, you know, somebody saying that zoning is a local issue. And I would say that that conversation at least has been had, which is good. That's all I had. Thanks for the time.
Thank you, Bob. This worried ahead.
This was brought up to us before back in October. I think john mentioned that in all the Jones has been done by Matt Eliason and by other people about this project, so, you know, and by Eric and everybody else, this is not just came up, you know, six weeks ago, this is somebody that's been worked on for almost a year. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. You're Anybody else? Anybody else? All right, we polar Council.
And before I pull the council, I just wanted to say that we will not be pulling Mayor back in or Councillor Needham.
Can I ask why? Because Bob is Bob didn't vote on that. In
Did he? Yes, he did. Oh, he did. Oh, yes, he did. Okay.
At the Planning Commission. So I'll say
yes.
CeeLo.
Yes. suits. No.
Cool. No. irizarry No.
Okay, so that did not get the four votes, right. Correct. All right.
All right. Moving along, m that College Avenue project documents,
okay m.in and give you a memorandum there with some, which was also in the packets with some forms in there called consent to grade and in the process of their design for the College Avenue Project, m dot also has to do course title work and make sure that everywhere everywhere they're working may fall onto their property. And there's a couple of a couple of instances, in one case where the College Avenue Park is at a gate street where exits, or excuse me, Emerald street intersects College Avenue, they need to grade a little bit onto the city's Park property. When they're working on the sidewalk, they're going to disturb the earth on city property, so to speak, in an another case, through their title work, they found that there is a little square of us for excuse me, US 41 that in their title, where it shows up as still owned by the city of hoghton. You know, it's one of those old tag ends replat type of thing. So in both cases, they have to get a consent to grade which is basically the city's giving them a permit to come onto our property and do what the work they're going to be doing on us 41. So essentially, I'm just asking the council's permission to sign these consents to grade or for both of these properties to allow me to do the College Avenue project. I don't I guess I could, I could go into a lot of detail here. But it's it's not a it's this isn't rocket science matter.
Okay. I'll entertain a motion to allow for the signing of the College Avenue project documents. Second, game mood and support. All right. Will you pull a console? Where is it further discussion? Sorry. We've pulled a console
irizarry.
Yes.
Cool. Yes. Back in.
Yes. Needham. Yes. suits. Yes. Say hello.
Yes.
All right, that passes. Next purchase of real property. Now,
a couple of I think two meetings ago, we had a we had a discussion on closed session of the Council. Looking at the potential purchase of real property by the city. The holding county owns the old transfer station site next to the D pw garage off of Sharon Avenue. And actually it's off of technical drive, formerly formerly on the backside of D pw. hour, they are going to be accepting sealed bids on this property. Now in order for the city to put forth a sealed bid, I have to be authorized to do that. Now the purchase of this property has been in our TIF plans since 2011. If this property became available for sale, which it appears it has, because Tony is going to be accepting seal bids on his property. I would like the opportunity to bid on it because it's in our tiffa plan. And but being it's a sealed bid, the the actual amount is kind of interesting if you're going to authorize a sealed bid be be submitted, which kind of defeats the purpose of a sealed bid. So what I am requesting of the council is our current tiffa plan had a budgeted amount for this purchase of $50,000. And I am requesting your the council's permission to bid up to that amount. Now this is a sealed one time bid. This isn't an auction and asking the council's I guess permission for lack of a better way of putting it to put in an appropriate bid for the property.
I'd like to move that room also for that. Okay, moving supported to prove that but go ahead, john, wave comment.
I was moving to approve. Oh, I'm
sorry. Okay, no, do we have others who want to comment? Will you pull a council and the payment will come out of the tip of fine. We'll
put that in the motion.
Okay. All right.
suits. Yes. McGowan.
Yes. irizarry.
Yes. Cool.
Yes. Back in. Yes. Needham.
Yes.
and say hello.
Yes.
All right, that passes. next January 13 2021. Meeting ethics question.
No, this this was a question that was put on the agenda at the request of the Council. And I'm going to Just turn this over to the council.
Right?
I would like I would like to make a statement.
Go right ahead.
First of all, I'd like to support our city manager, Eric worre and Balraj, Jody Reynolds, Jeff jebsen. And all the office personnel, they all do a fantastic job for the city of home. I'd also like to thank or put my support to the Planning Commission, and also past council members. This is the first time in my 10 years on the council that a council member has attempted to bypass the city manager and council members to pass an agenda. Jan, Jan Cole's letter attempt to turn her answers back on me is weak. I was just trying to get answers from her. And all council members. My Trust has been weakened by this action. Thank you.
All right. Other comments from the council?
I have an excuse me, I have a comment. I'm also losing my voice. I wanted to say everybody on the council got the email from Professor Waddell regarding his scanning of the minutes of the Council, the first half of 2020. Except promotions to I've got this written down except for motions to approve minutes or adjourn your 81 motions to approve, adopt, authorize or accept things which originated outside of the city council, meaning that in theory, this was the first time they were being seen by the Council. Only four were open to discuss or only forehead, any discussion, they were all related to the marijuana issue. My feeling is that if we can't discuss things in public, we are really, we are setting ourselves up for a lack of transparency. There is there is the concern of doing things in public. And so it's difficult to have a discussion over zoom. I know I've tried calling or contacting each of you just to get to know each of you a little bit individually. And that hasn't worked. I hope it does in the future. But I do want to point out that the Michigan Municipal League does have statements regarding what constitutes a violation of the Open Meetings Act, and that involves the actions of a quorum. And I do not believe that counselor, Paul's statement or state her actions were in violation of the Open Meetings Act. I also further took great offense at the comments made by Miss julene at the previous meeting. And tonight. Although she did not call for my resignation, she did not say she again stated that I lied. I did not lie. And I really resent that. So I would like to get to know your counselors personally, it seems that there's a toxic atmosphere leftover from the political environment on national scene where people who have differences of opinion are demonizing people who have have other opinions. I don't think so I really think we need to just talk about our differences. I support our city manager and I support everybody who works for the city. But that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with everything. 100% of the time, I'm trying to do what's right. And I'm trying to find out what's going on with everything. So that's my only message for now.
Anybody else?
Just briefly, Bob Jones. Thanks for that. JOHN, thanks for that. I will say that. I think a bit of whatever may or may not actually be a toxic environment, unfortunately, might still be lingering as a result of our local political scene, which is during you know, leading up to the November election when some things were said both in social media and on the radio regarding the council at that time, by one or more folks that were running for Council, and admittedly you guys were supporting each other and presented a unified front while you were doing that. So I'm hoping like you said that we can get past that because it was disappointing. At the time when that happened, I took that very personally. You know, there were, there's been at least one attempt in an apology. You know, that that's fine. I appreciate that thought. But
it's
always better when you don't have to apologize when people find themselves apologizing a lot, then maybe they're not thinking before they act. So I agree with you. I hope we can get past that. But I'm going to guess that a little bit of that is rooted more locally than NAFTA. I do appreciate you saying that, though, john.
Yeah, well, yeah, I know, I understand. And I do think that something in the future we need to look at is the role of social media, Eric has pointed out to me that you can't take, you can't take everything personally. People will call you all kinds of names. And I've been called a lot of names, including a liar. Now. Try not to take it personally. But it is kind of hard, I would really like to talk to everybody. At some point, I don't want to try to push some kind of agenda, I just want to get to know who you are as people and how you think about the city. So I'm hoping we can do that. I think I'm going to stop talking now that somebody else talks.
I'll just say one more thing.
I don't. I don't
have anything personal against anyone. But I think you're cutting out people that come on to the council, half the distance have to distance themselves from any type of movement committees, organizations, because we have a lot to do here for the city. It's not a one agenda item. And you guys came in on more or less a one agenda item, and it's going to be hard for you to step away, I think, from that agenda. So like I say, I am an easygoing guy, but I have been called every name in the book also. And you guys are just starting, you have to have thick skin to be in this job. And you're just finding that out? No. Okay,
I'm just gonna add that if you read any of my actual campaign stuff, including my statement to the League of Women Voters, I was not one issue person. I was I even stated several times, there's a ton of stuff going on. And I got a ton of stuff to learn. And I intend to be an active participant in all of it. And the other thing I think we all need to work on, is when you say something like you guys, that means there's a block of three. And then you got the idea that there's two factions, there's the good guys and the bad guys. And I think we need to get away from that mentality, I think we need to look at each other as individuals who may or may not have, well, we have many issues in common, and we don't as well. If I was on the council with Mr. Sullivan, he and I would have had a couple of very unpopular opinions in common. And that's just the way it is. It doesn't mean I don't like you or anyone else. It means that I don't agree with you. But I, I'd like us to avoid lumping people together as in you guys, and try to move beyond what somebody says on Facebook.
Anybody else? I'm gonna say something. I think we've missed the boat here at times, and maintaining trust. We've got a tremendous city manager, a tremendous office that they all do a great job, we've got to work with them. And of course, reinforce with them, the process of what's supposed to be taking place, when you start to lose that, then it affects you in many other ways. Think of how many subcommittees you're on, you don't have the trust of the people that you're meeting with at all times. You're losing your perspective of representing all of the residents of this community. And I just feel that we've really got to work hard on supporting those who we have to meet with on an everyday basis, periodic basis, whatever. But let's support the people who are the ones in charge of this operation on a day to day basis. With that, I will end Anybody else? Oh,
you have to think as a we as a council, not I as a council member. We have to work as a team and I've been saying this since All joined us. We are a team. We are responsible to the public. We direct Eric, where to go? We is a word. I know. Not what you want done.
Not your agenda. It's our agenda. That's why we have meetings. Thank you.
Thank you. Sir. Anyone else? Mr. Mayor Ryan, go ahead.
Yes, sir. Thank you for everyone's comments and words, I think this is a productive conversation. I look forward to working with the council. And I also look forward to representing citizens. And if I feel like an issue is important enough to bring to the city manager, or to the city council, I would expect that other city councilors are seeking what whatever their constituents or voters are requesting from them and bringing that to the council to I think, seven people trying to reach out and communicate, interact with the community as a positive thing. And I think it's critical, as you said, Mayor back and to run everything through the proper channels as far as our team, our council, and remembering that, ultimately, it's the voters that are, we're representing. And so it's not just a single set or a subset, but it is the entire city. And I think that's why there's seven of us. So I think we all need to understand we come to the table with biases, unconscious or otherwise, and that it's the responsibility for all of us to hold each other. Just accountable. That's not the right thing to say. But
just to
Yes, it is the right thing to say, Well,
I'm not trying to imply anyone's, you know, being unethical, but I'm just trying to say that it's okay. If someone brings something that everyone disagrees with, as long as it's, you know, run through the process, and it gets shot down at least a citizen, their request was made. And so I think that's, that's also healthy in it. It's good for transparency and public perception. And I look forward to we are new to this dynamic. And I look forward to integrating more with the processes. As I know, I've been banging my drum pretty hard with my issues that I've brought forward. So thank you. If
you're anybody else.
Yes, Mayor back, and I'd like to speak Please go ahead. Again.
First of all, everybody, thank
you. For your comments. They are. I am listening carefully. And they are heartfelt. So I appreciate you taking the time to be part of this discussion. And I'm trying to do my best I think like I get everybody else's. And there's a lot to learn. And I'm certainly up to that challenge to learn what's necessary, if I apologize for any issues that I've created, and I certainly will do my very best to make sure that all the proper avenues which I thought I had tried to take apparently, I may have missed one, Eric, and I've had a discussion about that. And I'm sure we'll have, you know, the proper discussions about both the good things and the tough issues. And I look forward to that. And I look forward to working with the people on this council learning more about my role, and about my responsibilities to the community. And for the error that I made. I'm truly sorry. And I am attending a conference on the MML, about the LMA about social social media. And I intend to always uphold the LMA and any other laws that are appropriate and applicable to what we what we all try to do here. So thank you.
Well, like I said, we can accomplish a lot more for all of our residents, if we work as a cohesive group. And I think that's got to be the case. We've got great people to work with right here in this building. So let's utilize what we can in that way as well. Okay, I guess I don't know if there's anybody else, but if nothing else, we'll get the last date. Um, future agenda items. Start wherever I have 00 Okay. I don't want to go around a table here yet, but is there anybody that wants to comment?
I'm gonna suggest the silence. The silence will cause me to move that we adjourn.
Is that agreeable? We get it. We have a motion on a mic. In just one second. All right.
That's the best support you'll ever do there, john.
Oh, in favor signify with Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Thank you, everyone.
Thank you, Mayor.
Do we not get a second public comment? Oh, was
that the comment was at the beginning. And
at the beginning of the meeting, not anything at the end.
I see. Well, since I'm speaking may I say one thing here before we all hang up?
I'll give you I'll give you a minute.
I don't even need that now that 315 has failed. 314 only benefits one person would that not make it spot zoning. That's the only thing I wanted to say. No. Thank you.