KIMBALL TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
KIMBALL TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL OFFICE
2160 WADHAMS RD. KIMBALL, MI 48074
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 30TH, 2026
6:30 P.M.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Stand for the Pledge of Allegiance
Open Meeting: Meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call of Members: (Chair) Orr, Barrett, Henry, Miller, Tuttle, Lokers
Absent: Howard
Also Present: Twp Clerk, Wrubel
Twp Deputy Clerk, Erdman
Twp Attorney, Frances
Building Inspector, Erickson
Twp Fire Chief, Gratz
Twp Treasurer, Jackson
- Approval of Agenda
Barrett: Moved to approve the special meeting of the Kimball Twp Planning commission Agenda dated June 30, 2026. Tuttle offered support to the motion.
All In Favor
Motion Carries
- Approval of Minutes for June 17, 2026
Barrett: Moved to approve the minutes from the June 17, 2026 minutes with clericals corrections to the deputy clerk today. In summary the word council is incorrect and right is spelled Wright. Support from Miller.
All in favor
Motion Carries
- New Business
- Blue Water Commerce Park LLC
Mr Barrett asked the chair to respectfully suspend the agenda order to do some public participation for those that wish to speak before we discuss the motion. Possibly do two participations?
Mr. Orr asked the board if that was okay, and the board agreed.
The deputy clerk played a promotional video for the applicant.
The council from the applicant stated that they will rest on their previous presentation on the public hearing and written communications provided to the commission.
Twp council just wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission members received the second letter from the applicant’s council dated June 24, 2026. He then read the letter to the Commission for the public to hear. He also made sure that the conditions were binding and will run with the land. The planning commission’s job is to make a recommendation to approve or deny the conditional rezoning with the conditions presented to then go to the Township Board. Any motions made need to indicate the reasons for making the motion.
Barrett: I have 3 questions.
1. Does the earlier letter from the applicant apply still.
A) No, the June 24th letter is the one for consideration only
2. The phrase not unreasonably denied to me is very vague.
A) the word unreasonable is a word we like to use. There is a general idea that extensions that can be requested is not offensive to me. We will need to look at the reasons for the extension to be had.
Barrett: No, are we giving away our lawfully limited ability under eh Conditional Rezoning Act?
A) They do not have to offer a time restraint, but the Zoning Act says that is the one condition you can put on. So what you could theoretically do is recommend approval but say no longer than three years.
Barrett: How can we do that with item number 4 in the letter?
A) The extension that’s allowed for in the statute, and again, this is within the statute, the time period specified under subsection two may be extended upon the application of the landowner and approval of the local unit of government. I do not view the addition of the word unreasonably as that big of a deal.
Barrett: Regarding truck traffic, the twp does not own the road, so is this a road commission answer and who will supersede in that case. I also see that Allen road is the only one mentioned, not Ravenswood.
A) Ravenswood is not mentioned so conceivabley heavy truck traffic can use Ravenswood. The township cannot answer what will happen to them using Ravenswood. But they cannot use Allen Road because of the binding agreement. If they use Allen Road with heavy trucks they will be in breech of this contract.
Miller: I think this is a win/win for Kimball township and St. Clair County. I think the Landfill is in better condition than this property. This place will be nice when all of this is done. In the current state the property is detestable.
Barrett: Are all six parcels all or nothing?
A) Conditions cannot be imposed on the applicant.
Orr: Any more questions?
Tuttle: Is the timeline from the start of construction or the completion of construction?
A) Their voluntary condition is that they will commence with construction within two years.
Barrett: I move to suspend the Blue Water Commerce Park LLC agenda item. Support from Tuttle.
All in Favor
Motion Carried.
Audience Participation
Tom Hunt, Allen Rd– Why isn’t all of Kimball Twp here about this project if it will help all of the township?
Scott Sheldon, Business owner in Twp – This will help the community. This will improve the facilities in this township. The place is an eyesore. It is good for the community. Data centers will come, so lets get something good in here to prevent that from happening.
Kevin Kovack, owns Simple Dynamics LLC – That bridge brings billions of dollars through this area. I have been approached by companies about my land and I’m surprised that the State hasn’t demanded. My daughter lives in this township, and I plan on moving here too. There have been bodies on that property, I wanted to buy it but would have had to sink millions. This opportunity will bring iron workers, jobs, and bring good things here. I know the emotion of this. I’ve been on both sides of something like this.
Tom Fitzpatrick, Twp Business owner – We have building plans for 2027 yet we have not been approached about a purchase agreement or dedicated easement agreement. I just want to make sure we are in the loop. I’ve done this stuff like this all over, and you are fortunate to have this kind of investment in this town. There are other communities looking for something like this to pay taxes. There are bad things that go on in that property as it is now.
Henry reads three letters that had been sent in:
Jeff Kern, This is a good thing for the township
Doug McRoberts, this is a good thing for the township
Steller Home Builders llc, in support of this development
Jane Warsinski, Allen Rd – Concerned about house values going down. Showed a picture of an Eagle in the back yard.
Debby Wolfe, Flinchbough Rd – My husband and I own a manufacturing company in Clyde township. I don’t know much about this and am looking forward to knowing more about this project. It may benefit us. I questioned Dan Caseys statement about this with what he has said previously. Rember this is about money. The video in the beginning is true, we have lost a lot of manufacturing companies. But the reason why is the environment of the business climate and our legation and our taxes that really make a difference in whether we have manufacturing jobs or not.
Anna Henderson, Lapeer – Businesses are not community centers. We cannot wait on a business to help us. There must be another way to help out our residents. We don’t need more jobs we need jobs we have to get better.
David, owners of D&M Services a township business – Traffic is already a concern because Range road is already a busy street. Are my brother and I for this, yes we are, but we need to know what we are inviting in this. What are the safeguards to protect us. Is the gun club still going to be here? To say this facility will detour people from coming, we live near a gun club and that hasn’t deterred anyone. Police and Fire should be priority. What are we going to do with the tax increase? I don’t think they should have access Ashley, Allen, or Ravenswood roads.
Kevin Hernandez, Allen rd – The fire chief’s message really swayed his thoughts on this. I just don’t want grow operations or data centers.
Allen Warzinski, Allen – Grew up on the property. Drag races and other bad things go on this property. Can’t leave this as is.
JD Jowett, owner of Golf Country – I think this is a good thing for the community. Roads and people will benefit; this is not a one year project. We need more people. Need some give and take. We need growth to survive. Tax dollars will provide fire and police. I have been here for 35 years. I had this issue with Pickford rd. they had issues with me putting a driving range here. We don’t want something else here and get stuck with it.
Joe Teronni – The gentleman in the blue shirt kind of spoke for me. Understands this will bring money for the township. Where will the money go? No one can tell me the value of my farm will go up.
Ron Pelk, Smiths Creek – Take a step back to make sure we realize what had happened before, so we don’t repeat it. Who will be holding the bag when they find out there is no bottom in it? Where is the approval going to come from. The commission or are the people going to vote on it.
Orr: This board will vote on it tonight and if it passes will recommend this to the Township board.
Jackie Hildendorf, Allen – Do we know what the tax benefits will actually be? What tax exemptions will be given to them? It is up to us to show up at the board meeting. People can’t leave before the meeting is done. We need to make sure there is revenue coming in from this if it goes through.
Ken Ferguson, Allen – Houses on the east side of the road have had the trees cut down. Can hear heavy equipment sounds now. Concerned with the noise. 330 feet is not enough.
Gary Lokers (Planning Commission) – I have done research on this applicant. His company finishes his buildings and does what he says. Please do your research on this. We don’t have this kind of zoning here in the township. I think this is a win/win situation.
Miller made a motion to proceed with moving on for the vote. Supported by Lokers.
All were in favor
Motion Carried.
Barrett wanted to clarify that the previous motion was calling the question, which would stop the public comment and force us to consider either vote to approve the conditional rezoning application for recommendation or to deny the application.
Francis: I do believe the public comment was closed. Now the question before the commission is to vote on the application. Recommendation for the approval or denial and the reasons why.
Miller made the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to be sent to the board. Reasons being that this conditional rezoning is consistent with the master plan, that it was consistent with the surrounding area, that it would serve the public interest, and that the conditions proposed sufficiently mitigate concerns regarding traffic, noise, odor, environment and other concerns raised by the public. Lokers offered support for the motion.
Discussion: Barrett, I do not agree with the fact statement regarding the Master Plan and Mr Francis is aware of this. I believe there are other tools we should have fought for to protect this community.
Tuttle: I disagree with you on this. This was not using the PUD. This will be a quicker way to move forward and get something done.
Barrett: I don’t agree that the wording fits the Master Plan.
Lokers: I just want to remind everyone that the man is not a lawyer.
Orr: We started working on this (the PUD) for months. We were looking for a more straight forward way to do this.
Roll Call Vote:
Yes: Miller, Lokers, Henry, Orr, Tuttle
No: Barrett
Absent: Howard
Motion Carried
- Development District Definition
Barrett moved to table until next month. Tuttle supported.
All in favor.
Motion carried.
None
Barrett moved to adjourn at 7:47pm. Tuttle supported.