Joyfield Planning Advisory Committee 7-24-2012
(these is a transcription from a dictation of the recorded meeting, please direct)
Pledge of Allegiance
Members Present: Matt Emery (ME), Ted Wood (TW), Susan Zenker (SZ), Tom Hart (TH), Betsy Evans (BE).
Several members of the public in attendance.
Question From Public- Does the township have a website yet?
TW- No, the township has not yet put a website together.
BE- Let’s take a quick look at the minutes from the last meeting.
ME- Anyone have anything to add or change on those minutes?
TH- I’ve got information in regards to the training for the planning commission. I did contact Lakes to Land, and they said if the planning commission goes through or not, they will still find financing for training. That gives us a little more security in that regard. It is vague on financing and where it will come from and what they’ll pay.
TW- As far as I know, they have two sources, unless they’ve found another grant that’s been approved.
SZ- At the last meeting, I thought I heard them say they had other funders who were interested.
ME- Correct me if I’m wrong. You said if the planning commission ordinance, whether or not if that goes through, they will still pay?
TH- Yes, for education.
ME- But if this doesn’t go through we won’t have a planning commission.
TH- But we can still get the training, because it doesn’t end, we will still be working on a master plan and who knows the climate of the township may swing back around, if this goes down, then we can revisit it. I’m just laying it out there, that’s what he said........ That’s just a small item, I’m not saying it should go up, it should go through, should not go through. If it doesn’t, we can continue. They will still support. They said that at the meeting too, they won’t set us adrift. Lakes to Land will give us a master plan, that’s our beginning.
ME- That certainly adds some discussion in that regard to this meeting. Has anyone had a chance to do much with by-laws or any comments we should pass along to the board on by-laws.
BE- I just reviewed, read through the four samples Susan provided from Benzie County, Manistee County, Blaine Twp and MTA sample. I thought Benzie County was pretty sparse, I thought that Manistee was way out there the other way and I thought that... in my opinion... might be looking towards what Blaine Township has done and what MTA has done.
SZ- I went to a class last month that Kurt Schindler held and we discussed by-laws and he said to be very specific in your by-laws, the best protection you have, is to be very specific in your by-laws. I didn’t bring those notes with me, but I do remember him saying that. He said don’t be afraid to be specific in your by-laws.
BE- I think that Benzie County.....is just really....
SZ- It is very sparse, I expect you might see some changes come to that,
BE- This was amended 1999, that’s the most current?
SZ- Ya and we’re just regrouping up there, and getting our feet under us to start amending a bunch of stuff, updating the master plan and what not. So some of that stuff will change, that was the only example I could get from them.
BE- Anyway, I found that Blaine’s was written pretty well and seemed to follow the MTA structure, and went into more detail. I didn’t look at it word for word, but I thought that was a pretty good template to start from.
ME- I noticed too, that in the ordinance we have to create the planning commission, some of the first orders of business are selecting the chairperson, vice chair, and then also adopting by-laws for the transaction of it’s business, so I think this can create some problems if the ordinance were to fail, we would have this body of people that’s not governed by any form of by-laws.
SZ- Does that mean we could write a set for the advisory committee?
ME- I don’t know, it’s possible, but it probably wouldn’t carry the same weight as if we were a part of the Michigan Planning Enabling act and following that law. I guess my only hope if we could come out of here tonight with something to pass back to the board, some suggestions for what they may want to do, whether or not this referendum passes, fails in August.
TH- What’s required of us to continue with the Lakes to Land, what do they require of us. Can we as this group here continue on? What are the requirements?
BE- It’s my understanding as the advisory committee as long as we continue to represent the township and be on the leadership team I think we can continue on and still do the master plan portion.
TH- Is that something feasible that we can just continue to do, just keep trudging forward and play it by ear, keep it semi-informal?
ME- All this with the goal of having a planning commission, is that what you’re saying?
TH- Sure, ya, we would be treading water, this would be a contingency to that, if it doesn’t go through, if it does, it’s a different story.
SZ- I still can’t help but think that even as a committee, if we adopted a set a by-laws to follow, that it would still be protective of us as we continue forward with the master planning process. We’re not a planning commission, but here are a set of by-laws that we adopted to follow, I don’t see how that could be bad.
BE- Do we really need by-laws if we really don’t having any authority to do anything, we just an advisory committee, not as if we’re going to, all we can do is make recommendations. I don’t know if we even need a set of by-laws.
TH- Forewarned is forearmed and if we’re ready, we’ll have something to jump right into.....the wheel has already been invented.. do we have to.....
TW- I think to work with, trying to get it definitive, to get a decent foundation under it, then recommend to the board that it be put in place so that if we the planning advisory committee is the nucleus of the master plan, we dont’ to have to turn around and invent the wheels at that point
TH- I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. My thought is we be prepared.
TW- Because if the Lakes to Land is going to work with us to put an initiative out there for our master plan that meets a cross section of the township, under, with cooperation with us.
TH- They seem to be very flexible, we’re kind of their stepchildren, we came in late at that awkward stage, they seem very flexible and open to whatever we need them to do for us.
BE- So you think we could come up with a draft for a by laws for the planning commission, and if that’s not passed, then we sort of adopt them for our committee by-laws?
TH- I don’t have any objection.
TW- That’s basically what I was trying to say
SZ- This would be a set of rules, that way they can’t accuse of not following a set of rules and running off into left field to catch a right hand ball.
ME- I don’t necessarily agree with that line of thinking but let’s pretend that we do, out of the sample planning commission bylaws, which elements of this would we keep and try to use as our own by-laws.
BE- This is advisory committee, not planning commission?
ME- We’re pretending that the referendum outcome is that the planning commission ordinance doesn’t pass. There is no planning commission.
TH- We still have to move forward toward to a master plan because we’re not simply going to drop out of the initiative. We have to have something as our foundation. We probably need to look more closely at sample by laws and see what does fit exactly, if we’re on that thought. Maybe that’s something to present to the board, that this is our thought, that regardless of the outcome of the election that we do feel it’s wise, not to commit to anything to but commit to a certain line of thought where we need a platform to start from. Maybe that’s all we need to do as far as the next township meeting. We don’t have to solve everything right now, we just need to give an update to what’s going on and what our thoughts are. And if they don’t go for it, well, we can always retreat, regroup and do what we need to do.
BE- I would think if we have a draft set of by-laws for the planning commission, it would be just taking things away, it wouldn’t need to be as detailed for our committee. It’s easier to eliminate than it is.........
SZ- Matt, you said you didn’t agree, I would really like to hear what.....
ME- If you look back at the reason we’re here, it’s that the board passed this ordinance that says that they create the Joyfield Township Planning Advisory Committee. It says the committee shall advise the supervisor and township board on the creation of an appointment system to ensure that the membership of the planning commission is representative of all segments of the community. Measures that the township might take other than the adoption of zoning ordinance to regulate land use, including placement of wind energy conversion systems within the township, including the adoption of an ordinance under MCL 41 which is police power, and then the other thing was other necessary measures the township should consider in conjunction with the initiation of planning and consideration of zoning, including proposed by -laws for the planning commission. It doesn’t say anything about continuing on if there isn’t a planning commission. So I think we would have to ask the board to re-establish a committee that’s appropriate for that event.
TW- Since you can’t call it a planning commission, what would you call it?
ME- I don’t think the original intent of the board here, based on this document was to serve ...
TW- Wasn’t meant to be dual service.
TH- We should present that to the board to see if they want to drop the whole thing until after the election?
ME- I think so.
TH- Maybe but if they do that, does that mean we can’t participate in the Lakes to Land.
ME- Either that or we would need to change our scope to look at other ordinances. If the township is not going to have a planning commission, are they going to just continue on and have no ordinances of any kind, which may be their choice?
TH- I don’t know that we have to rush into anything. If we present what we have to the board, they’ve got the final say, do they prefer we continue on this way, would they like to make an alteration, would they like to drop it and just put this on hold? We need to see what the ramifications of dropping it would be. I would hate to get to where we’re disconnected from Lakes to Land simply because of their originazation processes, finances involved. Maybe we just need to put to the board our concerns. We’re not going to solve it here, we just need to present our concerns, options. Do we drop it, do we continue as an advisory committee, what are their thoughts? We may have to put it in the boards hands.
BE- The election is Tuesday
TW- The meeting is the first, the election is the 7th, it won’t be until September when they meet again.
TH- It may not be not so bad just to present, okay, this is where we are, we’re at kind of an impasse, and what you want to do after the election, The odds are probably even the it will pass, that’s fine. I wouldn’t advise they just drop it, I mean that makes it’s futile and makes us all look like fools.
SZ- We have time and energy into it, there’s no sense of dropping it, this is our goal.
TH- It shows a certain insincerity.
BE- Well I wouldn’t think dropping it, but maybe being able to say these are the new duties of this advisory committee. So not necessarily saying we’re done, but saying okay the focus has shifted. We don’t need to write by-laws we just need to change what is the purpose of this committee.
SZ- Isn’t it sometime in the next month of so, that Beckett & Raeder are going to want to meet with somebody here about getting started.
TW- Aren’t we in the September-October time frame for that?
BE- Yes I think so.
ME- September-October would be our... if we had a planning commission that’s when they would be meeting?
TW- That’s when our township was in the stack to work on the document.
BE- They were going to start with Pleasanton and someone else.
ME- Which in all the other areas, that meeting is going on between their planning commissions and Beckett &Raeder, right?
TW- Right..... I think they’re going to have it pretty well done by the end of October, we’re definitely, after the election, they want to proceed with our township.
ME- All right, so, at the August 1 meeting, we can let then know we met, and we kind of discussed by-laws but, acknowledging this referendum might negate the need for by-laws for lack of trying to develop one at this point.
TH- Maybe we could also get their opinion on how they think we should continue, because we don’t want to just stop. Do they want to amend the original wording, do they want to put us on hold, do they want to talk to Beckett &Raeder, okay what are our options, we’re in a mess here, help us out. To me they are the authority and they’ve worked with problem children before. There’s always a way out of the box.
TW- As I glance through this, this is for multi-year committee, and we’re a singular task committee after the election, if that’s the direction it takes, than it becomes do we stay with the five that are here or re-populate the advisory committee and a guideline to work with the initiative, still a cross sectional representation of the township interest to a goal of a presentable master plan and then let the township build around that. So whether we feel the five of us should be the nucleus, or repopulation, but give the board a recommendation for consideration, either way. If we know that there’s going to be a planning commission then we say okay we’ve got to get together immediately upon that knowledge and build the document or have something in place so that if Beckett &Raeder in the middle to the end of august and says things are moving along, we’d like to get started, we wouldn’t have to wait until the September meeting and start from ground zero.
TH- We don’t know what the mix is going to be, who’s going to be on the board and there are limitations who can be on planning and on the board as well.
TW- Except the master plan will be basically put together during the tenure of the current board.
TH- Oh that’s right
ME- I think it may very well be that Joyfield, if they were to proceed with creating a master plan without no planning commission, they might set a record for being the first township ever to do such a thing, I think it creates a unique set of circumstances that the board is going to have to look at down the road.
TH- As long as it’s legal, and that’s not for me to say, it’s for someone with more knowledge to determine
SZ- They have assured us several times a different meetings, Mr. Icoangelli has, even at the informational meetings, they assured us that it can happen.
TW- The master plan may be limited in tooth and really if you don’t take the next step to ordinances, then it’s simply a document that says this is the town, this is the township, this is the, not the will necessarily of the township, but certainly the interest of where everything is and it’s good for a number of years. If and when the interest goes into any ordinance development it becomes a footprint.........
ME- I also think that maybe, I’m reading the resolution provided to participate in the collaborative, which I think was based in part on Beckett & Raeder’s document, seems like Beckett & Raeder gave us a sample.
BE- A sample, that’s what they said was in the packet.
ME- Is this theirs and this the one that we actually ended up adopting?
TW- This is what we adopted
ME- Just looking at it here, it says here, whereas joining the collaborative master plan process does not obligate Joyfield to adopt any master plan. It makes a question in my mind, can a township board with no planning commission adopt a master plan?
Audience Member- NO
TW- Beckett & Raeder says that they can work with us to put a master plan together. As they say, if there isn’t ordinance structure supporting it, it’s simply a master plan document that people can look at and see how they feel about it. The ordinance is the enforcement and the master plan, you can’t do an ordinance without a master plan, ...........but there’s nothing that says you can’t have a master plan, as far as I know, it’s you can’t proceed to an ordinance without it and if this goes the way that some wish, there won’t be any ordinance.
ME- I just wonder if knowing that creates difficulties if this board should, you know, be encouraging people to support the planning commission ordinance so this goes through without being toothless or without effect, I mean people going to put their time and energy into working on this master plan.........
TH- I think it’s appropriate because you don’t know which way the wind is blowing.
ME- What’s appropriate?
TH- To proceed with the master plan, I think it’s appropriate to utilize Beckett & Raeder’s expertise and funding that’s available and if we get a master plan, and if public opinion is that we do need some zoning, then we can create that information and go on with the zoning that people want. I’m not saying we should not have a planning commission and I never thought we shouldn’t have zoning, I’m just saying we need to have our options open. A master plan is good for many years. How many years?
Answer: Five years.
TH- A lot can happen in five years. We’ve seen it a lot can happen in 5 months. My view is that public education and communication is of utmost importance and talking to people, and most people I speak to, even the hard line “I don’t want any kind of zoning”, as we continue talking, they’ll say, ‘sure we need something’. I want to see, and not to get into politics, if this doesn’t go through, I don’t see this as being a permanent thing. I think we should be able to make a case, those of use who are involved in planning, should be able to make a case to the community which might turn that around. I think a lot our....just need some convincing, they need to see what’s in it for them...I think most of them would like more input in a realistic way. Input is from small pockets of the population getting to these meetings, I’d like to see more door to door talking and surveys and unbiased communication. Bottom line is, let’s do what we have to do to get the master plan and we can revisit planning at a later time. It’s not this means it will happen, we just have to be ready if it’s voted down, we have to be ready, so whatever it takes to be ready.
BE- My neighbor say that members of this board should try to encourage people to vote for this planning commission. Talking about us, not the township board, maybe we should be talking people and trying to encourage people to support this process.
ME- Well, just whether or not when we come back to the board, we should indicate everybody on the Advisory Committee wants to encourage residents to vote for the planning commission.
Th- I don’t that’s appropriate. ("That’s political" is called out from the audience). I don’t think you want to give an opinion like that because, this whole thing came up because people felt it was pushed without a lot of interaction. I think we need to leave it up to the voters I don’t think we should take a side.
TH- Not until we find out what they do. If it goes through, we hit the ground running, if it doesn’t go through, we’re still running, we’re going to do a master plan, then we can get more education out there, more communication. We can revisit the whole thing, there’s no rush on any of this I don’t think, there’s nothing so urgent we need to be sloppy about it. People have a lot to say, I’ve talked to quite a few and we have....
ME- I would revise that to say, not that we want them to vote a certain way, but to educate people on the ramifications of not letting the planning commission ordinance stand. In other words, letting people.......
TH- That still appears that we would be showing a biased, so..
ME- If we just tell people that if we have a planning commission, then the people that the board chose to serve on that commission would be meeting with Beckett &Raeder, participating in the collaborative. If the ordinance fails, then this committee or some other committee chosen by the board is going to have to attempt to participate in the collaborative even though they’re not being trained as planning commission members, they’re.......I think people deserve to be educated on that subject.
TH- They should have been educated before... a couple of weeks before the election. It’s just campaigning then, it’s kind of the short view. I think the long view is, for me, you make a decision after you have your interactions with people. You don’t make a decision and then talk about it. You gotta talk about it, “what do you what do you want”, then come up with a plan. To me this whole thing for the last year and a half has been backwards, everything has been backwards from wind energy on up. You get educated after the company gets in, you get educated after people are asked for a planning commission. I think we should put brakes on. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have an advisory committee, I think we should. Should be now, I think it should be after people have their input, I don’t mean pockets of people, I mean everyone of our people out here in Joyfield. I don’t care if we have to split up 100 houses apiece and talk to each of them. It’s important you know. This will affect a lot of people, and a lot of them just don’t get out and get involved. I’m almost wanting to insist they get involved. Cause if you get something going and get put in place, then there’s going to be these off the sidelines, they’re going, “well, I wasn’t informed of this why wasn’t I informed?” It’s not enough to say, “well you had the opportunity,” we’ve all been there. We got to just bring it to them, and if they’re indifferent, well, indifferent, yes/no.
ME- Isn’t it true that even if the planning commission ordinance were passed, any master plan is still going to be presented to the township? Any ordinance that is created down the line is going to be put before the people to have the opportunity to accept it or reject it.
TH- I don’t think we should campaign on this issue that’s up for a vote.
ME- Fair enough. All right. I think that the board needs to be aware of the fact that, this creation of this committee and the planning commission ordinance was geared toward, and participation with the collaborative, was all geared toward having a planning commission, and that there might be some things they need to consider as a board, if the planning commission fails, and that is does this committee continue and what the duties of this committee will be if the referendum........
TH- I think we’re all in agreement, that should be presented.
ME- That’s what we say at the next meeting, (township board). And we’ll just leave it to them to decide what they’re options are, or other suggestions that we have.
TH- If we have to hold our breath for a month, we can do that. Consider it in September again.
ME- All right, so Betsy do you have a concise way of saying that?
BE- I think we need to #1 say we’re going to draft some by-laws for either a planning commission or a planning advisory committee, after, depending on the outcome of the election, and that depending on if there is a planning commission or not, if this fails, the we either need to form or reform a new committee and maybe re-state the purpose, that may be required if the planning commission fails and if we’re serving as the advisory committee, they may need to change the original resolution because we’ll have a new purpose.
TH- That sound reasonable.
ME- All right, is there anything else... when is the next meeting.... is there anything that’s ...we’re kind of tabled until..........
BE- We are still having the meetings on the second Wednesday and they sent out a list of the seven committee ideas, they asked for you to rate things one through seven............this next general meeting, I think it will be just working with those committees, well maybe and working with townships on the master plan
TH- I’ll have to talk with them, this middle of the day, middle of the week meetings is not very workable.
BE- Working with the subcommittees it seems like you could form a time that you know work best for.....
TH- The working people.
BE- Right.......................or at least have them some in the day some of the night or set up a varying schedule where if you were working and couldn’t make it to everyone, at least you could make it to some.
TH- I was a little confused. Their list, didn’t really reflect this list here, one of which was specialized farming, kind of moved away from the 26 people wanted to preserve the natural character of the area. It’s not in my mind how they got this list.
BE- Well, I think people suggested ideas.
-Discussion of subcommittees set up by Beckett & Raeder continues.
BE- As far as our next meeting, I don’t think it would be bad to meet post election, we could talk about draft by-laws for the planning commission, or we could talk about relevant issues we need to mention to the board that this committee should be working on.
TH- One way or the other, solidify what’s been happening.
TW- The board at the next meeting can come back and say, “okay this is what we’d like the advisory committee to do pending,” and whether it’s start working on the actual
biological of how the committee should be populated and formulated to proceed on the master plan
ME- I almost think that we were kind of checking out by laws a little bit to maybe pass that information along but if that referendum or if that ordinance passes, I think technically the board has going to have to go to appointing the planning commission and then they would finalize their by-laws.
BE- I can start, maybe start doing a combination of drafts, that we could start looking at. Then in August we could take a look at some drafts by laws and I could start. I mean from Blaine township and the MTA at least something to look at, cross out then add to, sometimes that’s easier than trying to look at so many documents.....and trying to..........
TH- Can you get those to us before that next meeting? So we can review?
ME- Part of what I’m thinking, is that if the board’s intent is to create a planning commission, and we know that some of us are in favor of having a planning commission now and some are not is that relevant information?
SZ- What do you mean some of us?..........
ME- Is everybody here in favor of having a planning commission?
Audience member- I don’t think that’s a question to even ask of this group. This is an advisory group, an informational highway to the board.
TH- That does seem a little..........
ME- We were supposed to be the committee that recommends to them...
TH- Things have changed. The situation has changed, we have to bend with it, and we have to adapt to it. With regard as to if we’re for it or against it, of course we’re for it, or we wouldn’t be doing it. I don’t want to be insulting, but it’s kind of an absurd thing to say, people have been saying it and it puzzles me. It’s more the process people are arguing. To me, it’s once again backwards. I’m all for planning, I’m neck deep in planning. I don’t think its appropriate to imply that any of us here are not in favor of planning. I think it clearly misrepresents a lot of our thought processes.
SZ- I certainly haven’t buried myself in planning since February to not be supportive of planning. All this volunteer time and travel time and the classes I’ve taken on my own. I mean if that doesn’t represent my position, I don’t know what else I can say to people. I’ve never been against planning and zoning.
TH- Like I said, even the people I’ve talked to, the old-timers that want nothing admit they need something. WE have to start pulling this township together. It’s not going to be you and me against them and them. It’s going to have to be us. We are going to have to get away from these polarizations and the lefts and the rights are going to have to come in or they going to have to stay out there. Anyway they’re going to be the ones doing the work and making the decisions.
BE- I would like to set a date for the next meeting.
SZ- Can I?... I meant to at the beginning of the meeting have it added to the agenda and I just wanted to ask an opinion. I know we had our one vision session and they talked about possibly having a second visioning session in August. John said.....
TW- He said additional visioning could be set up, he’d like to do it as part of one of these other, I think, with our township, they’d willing come back in as part of the master plan process and do another session.
SZ- I can appreciate that, what I was wondering, I‘ve put some thought into this. He talked too, also about surveys. They’re going to have one online and doing mail surveys, postage paid to send back. I was wondering if that work for this township to try to get into some of the deep dark corners where people don’t come out to only go to the grocery store, maybe we could encourage more participation that way.
TW- I don’t see a problem with that.
SZ- Just trying to get everyone involved because the master plan is going to affect everybody and I think to try and get as many people involved as possibly while we have this opportunity, while we have someone to pay the mailing....
TW- While we have the funding to put a lot of this stuff together.
SZ- Yeah and I just wondered if that is a smart, feasible way to do it.
BE- They talked about it as if they were going to do it, do you know if they’re going to do it?
SZ- All I heard them talk about was at the last meeting.
SZ- The way i understand it, the questions will be similar to what was asked at the vision session. It will all go in the same sort of direction.
TH- Non specific
SZ- Ya, if we could do that, I think to try and get as much participation... some people won’t come to a vision session. They are uncomfortable in a group setting, or whatever the reason, but they might sit at the kitchen table while they’re paying their bills and fill out a survey especially if there’s a stamp on it.
BE- I think we need to check with John and find out if that’s a part of this process we’re going to do or if we to request, because I was under the impression it was a part of the process. Maybe we need to clarify to make sure it is going to happen.
SZ- If it’s something we need to request of them is it something we want to request of them?
TW- I think it is just part of the process and its just a matter of when they draft the vision thing that certainly isn’t the master plan, it’s simply a guideline to proceed. I think we’re going to have a bit of a long line and also
BE- Do you want to follow up with John?
SZ- Sure, I can send a quick e-mail and ask about that.
TW- They’re meeting on the 8th, aren’t they?
BE- The second Wednesday.
SZ- I’ll send an e-mail and ask him about that and get some clear definite answers and forward them to everybody. The vision session was fun for me, but I just.... we only had 50 people out of over 700 in the township. I just know, I just feel that we should make more effort to try to reach out to everybody.
BE- ............Let people know it’s available online.
TW- I think there’s continued public input accepted in, as this whole thing rolls through, it’s not just simply based on one vision session and formula, it’s totally going to be put to through surveys or people coming to an open meeting and voicing an opinion.
-More discussion on vision sessions and surveys, and how surveys would be verified they were filled out by residents.
-Discussion about Bear Lake Townships and Pleasanton Townships vision session.
SZ- I can’t help but feel people are just not going to come. If we do this then we’ve done everything we can to get everybody’s input. Then people cannot say to us “you never”............and we can say, “wait a minute, we did.”
BE- You follow up on that...
ME- We’ll have a brief update to the board on the 8/1 meeting and then other than that, let’s set out next meeting after the 7th.
BE- Do you want to set it now, or......
ME- I think we should wait until after the 7th.
SZ- If something comes up we can always set something up. A quick note, Benzie County is working on extending to the Betsie Valley Trail in two directions. They want to connect it to Thompsonville, Interlochen, Traverse City. And then they want a M22 up to Empire. They’re working with other townships with other counties to make that happen.
TW- Doesn’t the trail already to to Thompsonville?
SZ- It does, maybe i mis-spoke, they want to extend it from Thompsonville to Interlochen then eventually going to Traverse City. The problem I have with that is it leaves this whole corner of the county without. Blaine will benefit from M22 south but where are we at?? I talked to them a little bit last night, at the Parks and Rec meeting at the county. I don’t want to be left out of stuff, I think if there are opportunities here we should jump on them.
BE- Did you fill out the survey (Lakes to Land) and put your #1 for trails?
SZ- I did because I really want a bridge across the Betsie River. And I talked to them about a bridge. Across the Betsie River. This would be for snowmobilers, bikers, hikers, equines, we want to get across the Betsie River without having to go up U.S. 31 or down M115.
TW- Where’s it going to cross?
SZ- Well, there’s been two suggested places, and from what I’ve been told is at the end of King Road. There’s state land on both sides of the road. I remember hearing stories of when the loggers floated logs down the river, the river is narrow down there.
-Discussion of old Dair Mill Road snowmobile bridge and why it is no longer used by the public.
ME- Well if no one has anything else, we’re adjourned.
Deb Lindgren, Audience Member- N0 public input? At an open meeting?
ME- Sure.
DL- Okay, I thought you had an agenda, I didn’t know.
TW- The advisory committee doesn’t actually have a public input. We’re just sitting here and your welcome to talk, as far as a public input session, there isn’t.
DL- I have a couple of questions. I heard there’s more money than just the two grants they got for the collaborative effort. Is there more money, or is that just a maybe there might be more money.
TW- We talked about that earlier, wasn’t it?
BE- There are only two definite sources I know of, the Mott Foundation and the State of Michigan
SZ- I am sure I heard Tim Ervin say at the last meeting there were other interested funders.
BE- Well they were talking about additional people, I don’t think anything is secured yet.
DL- Just sort of mystery stuff to make it look like..........
SZ- I heard other interested funders, so I take that to be there is people interested in funding......
ME- I don’t think it’s legitimate yet, people are interested. It could be a trust, who knows, I don’t know.
DL- The second visioning session......... I think it was the one where all the townships could go to it.
SZ- It was on the night of our township board meeting.
DL- I was wondering how you guys notified the rest of the township, who didn’t make the first one, there was an opportunity.
BE- They sent me posters and I put them up at the Banks, and Prevo’s and I tried to put them up where........
DL- There wasn’t one on the hall door for Joyfield?
BE- No
ME- Was that for our area??
BE- That was a makeup you could attend from anywhere.
SZ- There were 2 people from Blaine, and 10 from Arcadia, and 2 from Pleasanton, they had at least a dozen folks.
DL- I don’t think the people in our township have a clue what’s going on here. Most of them have absolutely no idea. They got postcards from Beckett & Raeder that told about the visioning sessions. I think if you’re going to communicate with Joyfield, you’d better send something out from Joyfield, and quite sending it out from this big thing.......
BE- We did send out postcards
DL- For the visioning sessions?
BE- For the informational meetings.
DL- For the informational ones, but not the vision sessions, that’s was just to go find out what the whole thing is about. The visioning session is where they got to talk about what they want for their community. I had people say there were 7 townships and they didn’t have one in ours. Why doesn’t our board, why doesn’t our township, if we are doing this an individual, why aren’t we doing part of it as an individual and not part of this giant thing. Most of these people, I don’t think, have a clue what’s going on in this township. If I remember right, that is one thing we were really in trouble for, we weren’t letting people know. We still don’t have a website, we don’t have a newsletter.. you aren’t communicating. I don’t see where there’s communication. I don’t think a lot of people have a clue, it’s so big it doesn’t look like it’s Joyfield stuff. The 7 categories that Beckett & Raeder set up, what were they??
BE & SZ- Regional Trail System, Dredging, M22 Corridor, Infrastructure and Roads, Invasive Species and Watershed
DL- And specialized Ag.
BE- And specialized Ag.
DL- Ok, when we had our visioning session, because I was there, I think every single table came up with, except one, every one of them had Ag at the top. One table had specialized Ag at the top of the list when they went up front and read their three things. And yet when the report came out, it’s specialized Ag? What is the definition of that exactly? Now the main thing on this report...
BE- You’ll have to ask B&R on their website or call them directly.
DL- I know that Chuck Beale was at our township visioning session and was there to help Tamra to prioritize all that stuff and get it on the wall. Somehow plain ole fashioned Ag seemed to have slipped through the fingers of this whole thing, this whole report on it, it’s specialized Ag, it’s not Ag, and I’m trying to figure it out.
BE- On the website they still have at my table, whatever was said..
DL- So they actually have pictures of those things that were written?
ME & BE- Right
DL- Because I couldn’t figure out how with that many tables talking about agriculture, the one table talked about specialized agriculture, how it came up specialized agriculture, and not agriculture AND specialized agriculture. It was just to the alpaca and blueberry thought, and I thought that left the regular ole farmers here just ah.... , we’ll have to switch to alpacas I’m not sure, but I really think if you guys want the people, if you truly want the people, and you want their thoughts, you’re going to have to quit letting Beckett & Raeder be the one that’s sending things. It’s Joyfield Township. People want to see... people who don’t see Joyfield township, they see Beckett & Raeder and 7 townships listed. You’re gonna have to make it personal, because it’s too big for them. They don’t even know what’s going on, most of them don’t have a clue.
SZ- I did have a fellow ask me what was up with us and all the other townships. He didn’t understand the when he card for visioning sessions. He didn’t understand.
DL- Maybe you ought to ask the board to have a special meeting and invite just Joyfield people in and explain what’s already going on and they don’t know. How can they answer surveys when they don’t know what’s going on. Because no one has been invited. The township has not had a special meeting, they haven’t talked to the people. I thought that’s what the whole recall was about, because you’re going to talk to the people. I haven’t seen any talking going on from anyone.
BE- You didn’t receive a postcard from us in Joyfield township?
DL- I got a postcard, but I already knew what was going on, so I knew what it was about.
Most of your people out there don’t have a clue. I come to the meetings. We’ve got about 100 people who know what’s going on in this township, 50 of them know really well what’s going on in this township. The other 600 and some don’t have a clue.
SZ- I do agree.
DL- They don’t have a clue and If it keeps coming from Beckett & Raeder, it’s still going to go right over their heads.
TH- Maybe we need to back up a step, explain what the process is, maybe a newsletter, maybe in the paper.
DL- And not everyone gets the paper. Send out a newsletter to everyone in the township about just Joyfield.
ME- I think that’s a good point. It’s a process, but that’s something that later on in the visioning is the first step, then there is supposed to be a collaboration with the planning commission or other body that helps secure input and then develop a master plan. It’s nowhere near done.
DL- But the visioning is worthless. We went through visioning, I sat there, you got 40 people.
TH- I think it’s important to get more engagement from the community, if it means starting from scratch and drafting up an explanation of what’s going on, why we’re connected to Lakes to Land, what we have to gain, things like that and putting it in layman’s terms. I don’t think it’s inappropriate to come up with something like that.
DL- I don’t think the community has been included at all.
TW- I think that Susan did a pretty good job of getting some information out, I got one of her emails where she sent, I don’t know how widespread, but you put a very good email out reminding people that this was going to take place.
SZ- In a letter to the editor?
TW- No, you sent an e-mail
SZ- I have sent e-mails, I have a small e-mail list I send things out to the people to try to keep everybody updated. My email list is about 20.
TW- You did a very good job putting an idea out there for people to become involved.
SZ- It’s tough, some people don’t want to be involved.
Audience member- I think what Deb is saying it’s that it’s just not enough.
DL- We’re not getting to most of the people.
TW- It’s never enough, but you have to start with something and build from there. The building process expands but you don’t get everything done in the first shot.
BE- Maybe we could find out about this survey deal and see if it could include that information as well, additional sessions, have more explanations, maybe that could be included in there.
DL- Since the board changed that the first meeting, 2 ordinances, 2 resolutions and something else, moratorium, there we go. Nobody in our township had a clue what was going on. This has been a lot of major moving forward and telling no one.
ME- How many were at the visioning session again?
Answer- about 50
DL- You got a lot of people who live in this township that don’t have a clue what’s going on in this hall, at all. But there’s a lot of forward motion, HUGE forward motion.
TH- That’s not a fair representation of the community
Audience- 10 of them (of the 50) are sitting in this room.
DL- If the people come and vote for planning and zoning and by God we’ll shoot the first truck that goes through with a turbine picture on it fine. But you’re not getting to the people. Our township has not got to the people. There’s no way. It hasn’t tried. I’ve not seen anything go out to everyone that says “hi, we’re the Joyfield township board or whatever and this is what we’re already doing.” But, some of the board is here and I feel the whole set-up of the township is it hasn’t done what it says it wants to do, which is let the people participate.
TH- I don’t think it would be inappropriate at all for us to assist in educating the people. That’s largely what our goal is. I like the idea of combining the survey and an explanation, okay this is what’s really going on, just so people know what the heck we’re talking about. A lot of people don’t unless they’re neck deep in it, like people who come to the meetings. And there are a lot of people out there, I’ve burned a lot of gas talking to people, they don’t really have a preference to be fair, to be all inclusive, we need to do something like that. We need to get a letter to them explaining this is what’s going on. These are the steps, this is what we need from you, and we appreciate your input and how valuable it is.
ME- Since this is kind of informal,should we just add to our report to the board, that we had a discussion after the meeting and it was thought that all efforts should be made to encourage public involvement.
TH- There we go
ME- I think that’s the point.
GG- In Joyfield Townships vision, where we are looking for the township to end up, is that process like it normally is, where the state overrides county, county overrides township, township overrides villages and cities, so in the effect that, for instance, Benzie County, in their vision says they want a Walmart or Kmart or Meijers put in here by year 2000 and Joyfield township says not in our township. I am curious if anybody knows what, does the county override the township?
DL- No
ME- If the township doesn’t have any zoning that’s a completely open question. If someone wants to build a Walmart and someone is willing to sell, and the county has no zoning and the township has no zoning.
SZ- Then it falls back on the State of Michigan and they have to follow the State of Michigan rules pertaining to that.
GG- Even if the township were to adopt a vision of where they want this township to go, and the county says no it’s okay, and the township says no we don’t want that there......
SZ- The county and the region, they want it to flow together, they don’t want residential next to residential if they can help it and so they just want everything to flow together. The county master plan does not supersede the township in anyway. Same with ordinance. If the township has it’s own zoning that’s it.
DL- Well the county master plan right now sits on the shelf collecting dust. It doesn’t do anything, it has no authority whatsoever, no county zoning.
SZ- But there is a reason to have it, the State of Michigan wants everybody to have a master plan, they want everybody to have a vision of how they want their community to be. Basically they want communities to work together. As far as the master plan goes.........once in a draft form, it will have to be sent to Blaine, and Pleasanton and Weldon, and the county and everybody will look it over, and maybe someone will have a comment about it, something that needs adjusting. A suggestion and working together, it doesn’t say, hey you guys can’t do that.
DL- I think if Beckett and Raeder does a survey of the people, I think all the ones that go to Joyfield residents should be sent back to Joyfield township, so we don’t get our stuff mixed up with Blaine or the lake people. We are not lake people.
SZ- I think they use numbers to keep track of everything.
DL- As long as it’s specific, you don’t have to know who the people are, but I think you need to know you got the answers from your township.
DG- Like Tom said, they can tell if somebody didn’t return one.
Matt Emery’s phone rings, ends meeting.
No comments:
Post a Comment