KIMBALL TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
KIMBALL TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL OFFICE
2160 WADHAMS RD. KIMBALL, MI 48074
SPECIAL MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2026
6:30 P.M.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Open Meeting: Meeting opened at 6:3pm with Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call of Members:
Present: Orr, Henry, Barrett, Miller, Tuttle, Lokers (Twp Board representative)
Also Present: Becky Wrubel-Twp. Clerk, Michele Erdman – Deputy Clerk, Erick Neilson – Twp. Building official, Al Francis – Twp. Attorney, Greg Dilone-Applicant (Blue Water Commerce Park) and Lawrence Opalewski-Applicant’s Lawyer
I. Approval of Agenda
Barrett made the motion to approve the Agenda for the Special Meeting and Public Hearing for the Kimball township Planning Commission on June 17, 2026, with support from Henry.
All were in favor. Motion Carried
II. Approval of the Minutes: May 26, 2026
Barrett made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of May 26, 2026, with the following changes:
Page 1, change Planning Board to Planning Commission; and on Page 4, referencing page 810 the Master Plan has that listed as 8-10.
Supported by Tuttle.
All were in favor, Motion carried.
III. Public Hearing for Conditional Rezoning of Parcels listed below
Motion to open Public Hearing for Blue Water Commerce Park LLC Conditional Rezoning request to open at 6:33pm by Barrett for the conditional rezoning for the properties listed below.
74-25-013-3006-200
74-25-013-4009-000
74-25-013-4009-100
74-25-024-1002-100
74-25-024-1003-000
74-25-024-3001-000
Supported by Tuttle.
Roll Call Vote:
Yes: Barrett, Tuttle, Orr, Henry, Miller, Lokers
No: None
Absent: Howard
Motion Carried.
Chairman Orr: asked for the Township Attorney, Al Francis, to come to the podium to speak on what the hearing is about and a summary of what a conditional rezoning application is and about.
Mr. Francis: 1. The Applicant can come to the board with propositions and conditions for rezoning; however, the Commission cannot impose conditions on the applicant.
2. The body does not have to vote today.
What the board should look to that is important to consider: reflection of the conditional rezoning with respect to the Master Plan.
Consistent with the Master Plan.
Compatibility with surrounding uses
Adequacy of public infrastructure and services. Are there proposed restrictions on proposed uses?
Whether there are changes to the nature of the property, the economy, nature of the township since the last zoning of the property was done.
It is my understanding that the Future Land Use Map designates this property as development focus. Pointing to this property as a development focus area the board should look at.
Commissioner Tuttle: questioned if the vote on this subject is just a recommendation for the Zoning Board to change the zoning of this property?
Mr. Francis explained it is a recommendation to the Township Board not the zoning board because your zoning is an Ordinance and the township board has legislative authority to adopt Ordinance. The zoning map is included in the township Ordinance.
Commissioner Barrett: clarification, is the conditional rezoning application the same as the May 8, 2026, application? Is the letter we received by Dickenson and Write to be an addendum to the application that was submitted in May? With no amendments?
Mr. Francis: stated that the May 8, 2026, application that was submitted to the board at the May 26, 2026. The June 9th, 2026, letter submitted to the Planning Commission is to be considered a supplement clarification as part of the application. Just so everyone understands, if this approved by the Township Board, whatever conditions the applicant has proposed and the Township Board agrees, will be reduced to a written contract and will be attached to an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and make it recordable with the register of Deeds will be a formal binding condition. We will need to make sure of the clarity of what the offers are so that we can advise the board with the recommendation on what we should do, as this will be a binding commitment.
Commissioner Lokers: what does the power of the people have in a hearing like this?
Mr. Francis: stated that the public should focus on what is relevant of the rezoning aspect of the property.
A citizen from the audience had a question for the Township Attorney, and it was explained that normally the Twp attorney doesn’t typically answer questions from citizens, however, it the commissioner wants to approve it he won’t have any objections.
Barrett: For clarity purposes, are we following similar procedures as before? That being we receive an overview from the township attorney, then receive a presentation from the applicant and after that we will receive public comments from the residents for the public hearing portion? That residents will sign up to be heard?
Chairman Orr stated yes, this is how this meeting will go?
Mr. Francis asked if there is a time limit on public speaking? The chairman stated there is indeed a 3-minute limitation.
Lawrence Opalewski, lawyer for Dickinson Write, we are outside zoning council for Interstate Capital on this project. My client is Greg Dilone, who is here to speak as well. We are here for a conditional rezoning application. I will let Greg start first.
Greg Dilone gave an introduction. We have had our eye on the 300 acres that backs up to the gun range, for the past 6 or 7 years. It has had a lien on the property for the past 20 years, until May 2023. We are interested in this property for no other reason other than what is economically beneficial for this area.
There is no other spots or immediate freeway access like this in Eastern Michigan that has the opportunity. To be this close to the Blue Water Bridge and not have the opportunity to build jobs and tax base is what has been missing for a long time. Port Huron’s industrial park has been there for over 30 years and are looking for new space. Commerce from the Blue Water Bridge. The 2 Detroit bridges are competing with the Blue Water Bridge, and the Ambassador bridge is the only private bridge crossing and because of the price hike by the Ambassador bridge there is a lot of commerce going back and fourth through the Blue Water Bridge. There is nowhere for the commerce to stop before going into Canada. This is an economic opportunity that would benefit all of St. Clair County and especially Kimball township. We have a multi-phase park planned, so this will take time. So, voices will be heard between now and later.
Phase one is 385 thousand square feet (three hundred eighty-five thousand) Phase two grows off of that same one. There are a couple properties that back up to that and there will be conversations that can and will be had about that. The immediate freeway access and the crisscross of two of the longest freeways and the Blue Water Bridge, there is nowhere else to put this. Tried to rezone 65 acres in Marysville and will be back there. They are losing jobs like Mopar, they are running out of opportunity. Port Huron is just truly out of space. One site is usable and that is in Port Huron Twp. 40 acres is useable because of wetlands. We have permitting and will be starting on that first. We are here to hear all of your voices we want to hear your voices. We want to work with you, and are invested in this community. We own the property and it was a big risk on our end initially. We see ourselves being here.
Last year I spent the summer chasing people off of this property. A ton of Kimball township spent over 100 trips out there with people on this property over the year. I have caught people fishing on this property. I want this to be an opportunity to be a benefit and allow people to use the property.
Thank you, I will be back up to answer questions.
Larry Opalewski: came up as council for the applicant and presented a PowerPoint
The Property
-6 parcels
-300 acres
-current zoning is vacant land, commercial, and industrial
What Interstate Proposes
-A first-rate commerce/industrial park
-Estimated $300 million investment into the Township
-Plan Consists of 5 clean, modern buildings
-40+ acres dedicated for public/recreational use
-Jobs and tax revenue for the township
The Zoning Approval Process
We are looking to create a conditional rezoning to l-1 (Light Industrial)
-MCL 125.3405 Michigan Zoning Enabling Act
-Applicant proposes conditions on rezoning
-More protective of community than basic rezoning
-Conditions are enforced as part of zoning approval
-Township cannot require certain conditions but can provide feedback and engage in dialogue on conditions.
Site Plan approval is still required following approval of rezoning
-This is the beginning, not the end of the approval process
-2025 Township Master Plan has designated the Property as a “development” area.
-Current zoning of the Property is inconsistent with use and future development.
The property is currently zoned with a mix of AG, C-2, and R-2
-The proposed rezoning follows the Master Plan, the reality of the Property’s use, and sound planning principles.
-Enhance buffering along wester portion of Property
-Public Amenities
–NO DATA CENTER
Dan Casey: (Economic Development Alliance of St. Clair County) came to speak next.
Wanted to give thoughts of what the county thinks about this proposition. 12 industrial parks in St. Clair County and all are built out. There are properties that are zoned industrial in the county. They are not nearly as marketable as this location is. We have known this for years, and have been in discussion with the Township about this for years. We have not had the opportunity to move until now. In my opinion, looking at all the places in the county for industrial this is the best place. Why? Its on an expressway. You have the noise from the expressway to buffer truck traffic coming out of the park. Business want easy on and easy off. This would allow them to do that. It has a rail line, even if it is not used, it is a potential. It has water and sewer. Top site in the County for future tax base and jobs. Having said that, we are very respectful of wishes and desires of the community. Top of mind for us for any development or project, it has to work for the community.
The state of Michigan has prioritized this site as one of only 12 sites in the state that it is prioritizing investment and marketing prospects. If it doesn’t get rezoned, it will be dropped. But if it does get rezoined, the state of Michigan through the Michigan Economic Development Corporation is already working with my organization to gather all the data all the studies and all the maps to help market this site for opportunities in the future. Nationally and internationally.
Barrett: of all the 12 sites you mentioned, how many were privately owned petitioned rather than municipally created? That being typically in the past they were bought by the local unit and deed restrictions were put on like the City of Port Huron. Where the applicant is coming and saying I am going to create a park. How many of these parks were done that way?
Mr. Casey: Port Huron and Yale.
Public Comments for the Hearing
3 are read for the record by Commissioner Henry
-resident living on Broad Axe is concerned about traffic, noise, and tax values
-resident living on Allen Road had the same concerns of traffic, noise, and tax values
-resident on Allen Road had 3 main concerns. 1.) Park area, will there be fence or barrier? 2.) Where are storage areas going to be located? 3.) does not want trains behind homes.
Anna Henderson, Lapeer Rd, I lived in Kimball township for 6 months now. Questioned Data center comments, questioned if Kimball twp lawyers personal or legislative statement on the plots to develop. If it can be promised that the 5 buildings will not be a data center, what will they be? Concern over a bad economy and abandoned buildings. Lastly, what parameters are the wants and desires of community come from.
Mr. Francis: responded to the question from Ms. Henderson. My comment was not a personal statement. It was based on the master plan that was approved by the Township Board.
Dale Stires, Allen Road, Property value concerns, doesn’t feel Kimball township has the adequate resources for this project. Concern over potential fires and lack of resources to deal with this kind of destruction. I am vehemently opposed to this project.
Kevin Hernandez, Allen Road, I live next to the easement. Who owns the easement? Will they build a road down this easement? If the 330 feet gets approved (buffer zone) is this permanent or can the applicant change this down the road? Is Ashley Road going to be the entrance of the park. Are they going to use Allen Rd as an entrance. How do these questions get answered?
Mr. Orr, we have our attorneys here or Mr. Erickson is here.
Mr. Francis explained that this is a public comment for residents to voice their concerns. Afterwards, the applicants may answer if they want.
Joe Tironi, Allen Road, my property will not be given 330 feet of a buffer. I feel I am left out of this deal, and it is not fair to me.
Roberty Radatz, Allen Road, I am concerned about train noise and blocking of the roads. Infrastructure concerns and who will pay for this?
Richard Richman – Board member at Blue Water Sportsmans association. What are they doing for the residents living on Broad Axe? What will the impact be on the gun range because they border us on 2 sides.
Jackie Hildgendorf, Dove Road. Commented on pollution, truck noise pollution, security concerns.
Matt Laforge, Allen Road. What exactly will the buffer zone be? Why can’t it be larger?
Jane Worzinski, Allen Rd. Property values will go down. Wildlife we enjoy will be gone.
Roselyn Judd, Allen Rd. Want something clarified. So it is the Planning Commission that advises the Township Board? The township board is the one that makes the decision, correct? Who is here from the board? Why are they not all here? Will they here all of this?
Randy Bradshaw, Allen Road. Is this a big secret? I have friends in the area and no one got those letters. Why didn’t everyone get those letters? Are our taxes going down?
Commissioner Orr: commented that the township is required to notify the property owners 300 feet from the applicant’s property lines. That is what we did. That is the procedure.
Tom Hunt, Allen Road. This decision involves everyone in Kimball township. Why aren’t everyone here? Why weren’t they invited.
Commissioner Orr: we send notification based on proximation on where they live.
Erickson: publication was released in the Times Herald.
Jeremy Collins, Lapeer Road. What are Greg’s current established businesses/industries?
What can be developed around the ponds?
Toni Jakubiack, Allen Road. Concerns over noise. Does not want hazardous waste or garbage dumps and no grow centers.
Brian Fanion, Allen Road. 3 years ago, everyone east on Allen Road from RR tracks to Ravenswood had ½ acres of land. Now I have .35 acres of land. Our properties were cut by 1/3rd My property line goes through the middle of my yard. Yet, property taxes went up. What are the plans for Allen Road? Just wanted everyone aware of it.
Mr. Barrett wants to make sure everyone has spoken that had wanted to speak. He wants to be clear that now is the time to give comments. Once the hearing is closed the comments are done.
Barrett moved to close the public hearing at 7:34 PM regarding the conditional rezoning application received from Blue Water Commercial Park llc. Supported by Tuttle.
Roll Call Vote:
Yes: Barrett, Tuttle, Orr, Henry, Miller, Lokers
No: None
Absent: Howard
Motion Carried.
a. Public Comment on Proposed Conditional Rezoning of Parcels:
Hearing Closed at 7:34 PM
IV. New Business
a. Blue Water Commerce Park LLC
Mr. Francis : Township council, wanted to clarify some items regarding a possible vote tonight. The commission is free to vote tonight, but they do not have to vote at this time. But I do think there should be some clarification to the applicant about what is actually happening opposed to passing it over.
When the comment was made about not discussing the new business, I think what I’m hearing is that the Commission would like to take this up at the next meeting for a vote? Is that what I’m hearing?
Mr. Orr (chairman) That is what I would like to happen.
Mr Francis: Would the Commission entertain a supplement from the applicant to address perhaps concerns that were raised here today? To be presented prior to the next meeting?
Commissioner Barrett: I have concerns and questions. We have heard a lot of comments, Mr Francis, both last month and now. I want to be clear with the people what the options are. Our hands are tied to a degree because this is a conditional rezoning request. That being it is not going back and forth. We cannot tell the applicant what we want. This is not a typical “Special Use” request, where we can say we have these stipulations, this is Not the case. We cannot go back and forth. Those stipulations or offerings have to come from the applicant, correct?
Mr. Francis stated “that is correct”.
Barrett: As a result there are a lot of communications going on back and forth, and especially from the public and myself regarding the application. Are these items going to be addressed or not addressed. If the applicant will come out and state NO, I’M NOT GOING TO DO THIS. That may change the trajectory of the vote of this board. We understand an error occurred, so now we have a back and forth. We have buffer questions, vegetation questions, access points. Is there going to be enough time to respond to this. We have topics that have been brought up. An equality question in the buffer zone brought up. What are our options? All this is new to the Board. We want to be respectful to everyone’s time. I sit on this board to represent this community that I’ve lived in and been a part of for 44 years of my life. This will have a lifetime impact, but I’m aware that an Ordinance is an Ordinance and I will do what is required of me.
Mr. Francis: I appreciate your comments. To concrete what you said. We cannot make demands. These have to be conditions offered by the applicant. The applicant may or may not want to address. Your question about timing is a fair one. We can ask the applicant if we can give the board more time or not. The township board has an open meeting and will discuss this all in public and everyone is invited to the board meetings at all times. I’ve written items down, I’m sure they have as well.
Mr. Orr: my concerns are possible truck traffic on Allen road.
Larry Opalewski: We can speak and address some of the items now if you would like?
Mr. Francis and Mr. Barrett have given a good overview of the process. We are glad for this discussion as we want to encourage this. I want to reiterate there will not be a Data Center on this property.
Are these conditions permanent? This will be a binding legal document and only amendment is if the Twp amends it. No changes on our end can be made.
Noise and nuisance concerns, your ordinance does address all of this. This is the beginning of the process, and the applicant has to abide by those ordinances.
A question by the county easement is controlled by the county. I believe it is the drain commission that owns the easement and we will confirm that as well.
Property value questions, it is our opinion this will not lower tax values. This will bring tax revenue, jobs, increase infrastructure benefits, schools would benefit as well.
Greg Dilone: Thank you for all of your comments. All of our projects are manufacturing and distribution sites/Warehousing. That is the focus and need. Our sites are in Portage Michigan, Battle Creek Michigan, and Pavilion Township. We’ve got Ford, Pfizer and Bradford White. We’ve got Zoetis and we have Fedex. Some of those tenants have rail spurs and we have never even used those. In the form of Data Center, no data center and no grow places.
I have similar concerns as you. We have videos on YouTube if you want to look. He gave an overview of what they do in building and getting these projects going.
V. Old Business
a. Development District Definition
Not discussing tonight.
VI. Audience Participation
Ronald Pelk, Smiths Creek Road. Is this park going to last and will it fail like the others have failed in the past. Who will be in charge of this.
Barrett: Lets make it clear, there is an I-2 permitted use list. Special Exception would come to the board. If it is a permitted use, it will not come before this board.
Erickson: asked the fire chief to come to the meeting to give some records of what has been going on on this property for the last 20 years.
Ed Gratz– Kimball township fire chief. This property has been classified as a Nucience property. Events that have happened on this property are people being seriously hurt, cars being burned, something being burned, campers being burned. We have had people die out there. We have confined spaces out there, old hydrant systems out there. We have no idea what could be in those pits out at this site. People would have events out there and none could enforce protection out there. We have had a total of 117 events since 1993. Car fires, motorcycle events, and personal injury events. It is incredibly difficult to get in and out of this property. My personal preference is we have an opportunity to make a difference in this property; it will take time. Please understand your comments are being heard. Please know your fire safety is a huge concern for me and I hear your concerns. We do our best on that property.
Mr. Barrett: I am concerned about this process, where is the security and assurance where this will be completed to protect this community in case this is not finished. We need to learn from the past, so this doesn’t happen again.
Mr. Francis: an assurance can be provided is an assurance right. Address the money aspect every step of the time in this project. In multiple layers as you can. Site Plan address it. In speaking with council of the applicant, they are interested in moving this along, but I do think they are interested in the next meeting. A bond would be something to look into and can be discussed. In discussion with their council, we cannot demand anything, but they are hearing us.
Motion: Postpone further consideration of potential decision of the Blue Water Commerce Park LLC conditional rezoning application to a special meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on June 30th, 2026 at 6:30pm to allow the applicant, if it desires, to respond to Commission and Public concerns raised at this meeting. And as part any business regularly scheduled for the 23rd of June meeting to be forwarded to the June 30th Special Meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion was made by Commissioner Tuttle with support from Mr. Barrett.
Roll Call Vote:
Yes: Tuttle, Barrett, Orr, Henry, Miller, Lokers
No: None
Absent: Howard
Motion Carried
Barrett made a motion to postpone the Development District Definition with support from Henry. All were in favor, motion carried.
Audience member, Anna – Lapeer Rd, How tall will the buildings be. Want to make it clear that this is a sales tactic and they are not community members and find it appalling.
Erickson: We do have a light meter and decibel reading gun and our twp ordnance does reflect those readings. Met with county drain commission. They are working with Interstate Capital on this.
VII. Adjournment
Barrett made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:19pm with support from Tuttle
All in favor, meeting adjourned
respectfully submitted by: Michele Erdman, Deputy Clerk