Mason County Planning & Zoning Department 0 E. FIFTH STREET SCOTTVILLE, MICHIGAN () - FAX () - 0 0 0 0 March, 0 Minutes of the Mason County Planning Commission meeting held at 00 W. US 0, Ludington, March, 0 at :00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Janet Andersen, Tom Hooper, Frank Redmond, Mike Shaw MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wincek, Doug Robidoux, Dennis Dunlap OTHERS PRESENT: Brady Selner, Cayla Christmas The meeting was called to order at :00 p.m. by Vice Chairman Frank Redmond. Mike Shaw made a motion to approve the minutes of the January, 0 meeting as written. Second by Tom Hooper. Motion carried, yes 0 no. Janet Andersen made a motion to approve the minutes of the February, 0 meeting as written. Second by Tom Hooper. Motion carried, yes 0 no. Additions, Deletions or Modifications to the agenda: None Conflict of Interest: None Public Comment: None Correspondence: Brady Selner received a letter or correspondence from Meade Township stating the township opted out of the sales of recreational marijuana. Brady Selner received a letter of correspondence from The Mason County Clerk s Office regarding a PA application. Frank Redmond opened the public hearing for application PZ00, a special land use request by Robert Peters to place a x dwelling in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-) zoning district in Custer Township described as COMM AT W / COR OF SEC TH E ALG E-W / LINE.0 FT TH N 0 DEG 0'"W 00. FT TO POB TH N 0 DEG 0'"W 0. TH S DEG '0"E 0.0 FT TH S 0 DEG 0'0"E. FT TH N DEG '"W 0. FT TO POB SEC TN RW,. A M/L, Parcel 00-0-00-, access E. US-0. Brady Selner presented the staff report and photos. A portion of the staff report is below: FINDINGS OF FACT. The parcel has access from a ft ingress/egress easement.. The owner is waiting for a Building Permit Approval (BPA) from the Mason County District 0 Health Department.
0 0 0 0. The home will be placed in a location that exceeds all required setbacks for the C- zoning district. (0 front yard, side yard, and 0 rear yard).. The single-wide mobile home will be removed prior to the placement of new single-family dwelling. UNIQUE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS. The parcel is on well and septic. Mike Shaw made a motion to accept the staff report as presented. Second by Tom Hooper. Motion carried, yes 0 no. Lori Peters, representative of the applicant, stated Robert Peters would remove an existing single-wide mobile home and replace it with the double-wide mobile home. Tom Hooper asked Lori Peters if the access to the property was a two-track or a road. Ms. Peters stated the access is a private easement. Mike Shaw asked Lori Peters if the easement was wide enough for emergency vehicles to gain access to the property. Ms. Peters stated it was a wide easement. Janet Andersen stated the placement of the new dwelling would be an improvement from what exists. Frank Redmond closed the public hearing. Mike Shaw made a motion to approve application PZ00 contingent upon approval from District Health Department #0 for the well and septic. Second by Janet Andersen. Motion carried, yes 0 no. Frank Redmond opened the public hearing for application PZ0, a special land use amendment request by Andy Thomas to include a retail operation allowing for on-site consumption in sample sizes and pints, addition of a fenced area for serving and to-go sales, an addition to parking areas for regular business hours, and permitting the use of an existing pole building for future production of beer. The property is located in the Agricultural (Ag) zoning district in Amber Township described N / OF NW / OF SW / OF NW / EXC S 0 FT SEC TN RW. A M/L, Parcel 00-0-00-00 and PART 0 00 00 NEW S 0 FT OF N / OF NW / OF SW / OF NW / SUBJ TO EASE SEC TN RW,. A M/L, Parcel 00-0-00-0, access S. Stiles Rd. Brady Selner presented the staff report and photos. A portion of the staff report is below: FINDINGS OF FACT:. Parcel 00-0-00-0 (residence) is approximately 0 X 0.. The lot was created in.. The home and barn do not meet the side setbacks for the district (-feet).. The owner just purchased the parcel to the north.. Parcel 00-0-00-00 is approximately 0 X 0.
0 0 0 0. Pole building on parcel 00-0-00-00 approximately from the south property line.. Newly acquired pole barn to be used as storage until ready for future expansion. Both pole buildings to be used for the production of beer in the future.. The two parcels, when combined, are acres.. The applicant is using the existing septic system on the property. 0. Employees would include the homeowner and potentially one non-resident additional employee.. Business to move to a regular retail operation with onsite consumption in both sample sizes and pints (two pint maximum).. Attached to the brewery will be a fenced in area to serve approximately people.. A lean-to was added to the pole building, after administrative approval, on June, 0.. A sf sign was permitted and placed in the front yard.. There will continue to be steam ventilation coming from the barn which will emit a faint odor similar to a bakery or restaurant.. There will continue to be no outdoor storage but there will be outdoor seating/gathering areas. **New patio/seating area will require additional building department requirements and approval. Brady Selner received two letters of correspondence supporting the approval of the application. The letters were from Ross Field and Bruce Micinski. Mike Shaw made a motion to approve the staff report as presented. Second by Janet Andersen. Motion carried, yes 0 no. Andy Thomas stated he would like to grow his home based business to operate more like a microbrewery. Janet Andersen asked Andy Thomas what the difference between a nanobrewery and a microbrewery was. Mr. Thomas stated nano is a descriptor to volume produced. Mike Shaw asked Andy Thomas if he was going to serve food. Mr. Thomas stated they would not be serving food, but they might offer snack pretzels. Mr. Thomas stated they did not want people there all day. Tom Hooper noted there was not a dumpster on the site plan. Andy Thomas stated the business was using roll-out bins as there is minimal paper waste with the current brewing operations. Mr. Thomas stated the majority of the waste materials from brewing are fed to livestock. Janet Andersen asked Andy Thomas if there is a difference in licensing for sample sizes versus larger sizes. Mr. Thomas stated the licensing with the State of Michigan is the same and the current limits are set by the special land use and not his license. Mike Shaw asked Andy Thomas how big he planned for his operation to become in the
0 0 0 0 future. Mr. Thomas stated he would look into a different location if he wanted to expand any further as the current site is still home. Frank Redmond noted the maximum would be for people. Mr. Redmond asked if there would be directional arrows for traffic. Andy Thomas stated the driveway was a wrap-around drive and could easily be signed. Andy Thomas stated there were two areas of concern with Section.0. Mr. Thomas stated he had acres and not the required 0, and he did not have active farming on at least acres. Mr. Thomas stated he buys hops from many different farmers whom are willing to plant hops for his business. Mr. Thomas added he would be making an agricultural impact elsewhere in the community. Janet Andersen asked Brady Selner if the land is required to be owned by the applicant where the farming is taking place. Mr. Selner stated that was a requirement. Mr. Selner added the purpose of agribusiness is to help diversify farming. Frank Redmond opened the floor for public comment. Shawn McDonald shared his support for the growth and stated Andy Thomas has been a good neighbor. Tom Alway, Amber Township Board, stated the growth would be a great opportunity for more traffic and further growth of Amber Township. Mr. Alway added, as a hop grower, that he appreciated Andy s business growth. Alison Wolf, a local hop farmer, shared her support of the growth. Dave Hackert stated he had a bad feeling that the Planning Commission would be opening a can of worms if they approved the application. Mr. Hackert stated he did not mind the brewing taking place at the location and stated Andy Thomas should have a fair chance, but he did not support the growth of the business in the current location. Jordan Solowiej shared his support for the growth of the microbrewery. Mr. Solowiej stated the operation is one of a kind. Brian Josefowicz shared his support for the growth. Mr. Josefowicz stated the set-up is experiential and people go to the location for the experience and move on to the next location. Dannee Hoffman stated the environment would be controlled. Frank Redmond closed the public hearing. Frank Redmond read through the Section.0 for standards of Agribusiness Uses.
0 0 0 0. The maximum portion of any building used for agribusiness sales shall be five-hundred (00) square feet. Meets. All buildings shall have a front setback of at least fifty (0) feet from the edge of the proposed road right-of-way. Meets. At least eighty (0) percent of all sales shall be farm products capable of being grown in Mason County. Meets. Adequate trash receptacles shall be provided and shall be completely obscured from view by a screen fence or wall. Meet. There shall be no more than two () freestanding or ground signs, neither sign to exceed sixteen () square feet of sign area. Meets. Agribusiness uses shall have frontage on a public road. Meets. All ingress and egress to the site shall comply with the applicable regulations of the County Road Commission or the Michigan Department of Transportation. Meets. A minimum of five () off-street parking spaces shall be provided and shall be laid out in such a way that they can be safely and conveniently used by the customers. The Planning Commission shall determine the number of additional parking spaces necessary based on each individual use and the anticipated traffic that will be generated. Meets. Wineries, micro-breweries or micro-distilleries may be allowed as an agribusiness use subject to the requirements above and as follows: a. All required licenses and approvals shall be obtained from the appropriate state and federal agencies. Meets b. A minimum parcel size of ten (0) acres shall be required. The property owner owns acres. Would need a variance. c. At least two () acres of the parcel on which any of the foregoing facilities are located or, alternatively, at least two () acres that are owned or operated by the owner or operator of the winery,
0 0 0 0 micro-brewery, or micro-distillery must be in active production of a fruit, grain, vegetable or other principal ingredient of the beverage to be produced. The property owner would need a variance. d. The on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to tasting room quantities. The facility shall not function as a bar. The property owner would need a variance. e. Retail sales subordinate or related to the operation or production of the beverage produced may be allowed, such as boxes/packaging containing wines, beer or liquors, glassware for serving alcoholic beverages, wine and bottle openers, clothing, and coffee cups. The retail sales area shall be no more than twenty five () percent of the floor area devoted to the winery, micro-brewery or micro-distillery, but in no case shall it occupy more than two thousand (,000) square feet of floor area. Meets f. Adjunct food services, consisting of snacks, sandwiches, luncheons, or pre-arranged dinners provided on the premises in connection with the operation of wineries, micro-breweries and micro-distilleries may be provided. Meets g. Parking, buildings, and processing areas shall be set back a minimum of fifty (0) feet from all property lines. Screening, consisting of an earth berm, evergreen screen, or an obscuring wall or fence, shall be provided on those sides abutting or adjacent to a residential use. The Planning Commission may waive the screening requirement in specific cases where cause can be shown that no good purpose would be served by the screening requirement. Additional screening is not required. Meets Janet Andersen asked if the Planning Commission should postpone a decision until more information was gathered. Brady Selner stated the Planning Commission could either approve with conditions or postpone a decision. Tom Hooper made a motion to postpone a decision until the noted variances are answered and the site plan is updated with the use of the new pole building defined.
0 0 Second by Mike Shaw. Motion carried, yes 0 no. New Business: None Unfinished Business: None Zoning Directors Report: Brady Selner stated the agenda items for the March th meeting would include discussion on Mike Hankard s report for LWEP as well as discussion on the Master Plan Update survey. Zoning Board of Appeals: Brady Selner stated the ZBA would be holding the first meeting of 0 on March 0 th. Frank Redmond opened public comment. Dave Hackert asked if Stiles Road would be patrolled more by police if the microbrewery growth was approved. Andy Thomas stated he had spoken with Mason County Sheriff, Kim Cole, and received his support for the project. Meeting adjourned at :0 PM. Dennis Dunlap, Secretary Mason County Planning Commission