renamed this blog on 5-20-18 This agenda item was cancelled/ has not been rescheduled to date.
WEDNESDAY, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 9, 2018 @ 7 pm. Currently the last agenda item, but could change. Public Comment is permitted during the agenda item.
I have written other blogs about this topic. See the archived list in the right hand column .....
The actual list of variance requests that this blog is about can also be found here:
http://bloomfieldtwphappenings.blogspot.com/2018/05/zba-bl-twp-5-9-18-part-2-variances.html
or....
AGENDA #18 https://bloomfieldtwpmi.documents-on-demand.com/
A major abuse (my opinion) of the Township zoning and ordinances.
- This property listed on the ZBA agenda is two lots that are currently vacant. There is a consent judgment (CJ) on the two properties which must be changed for this proposed site plan to occur, but no changes to the CJ to date. Why?
- The listed parcels in this appeal are NOT the configuration of the proposed lots in the proposed site plan as the applicants have not been granted any lot split or change. One must view the proposed site plan to see the new lot shapes being requested. However, no site plan has been before the Board of Trustees with the official Public Hearing. No site plan approval and No lot split granted to date.
- The land is vacant. In my opinion, it is the developer(s) responsibility to design/build according to the zoning and variances of the township. It is the Township Planning Department's responsibility to protect the rules and ordinances set forth in writing. Why is the Planning Dept. apparently actively assisting the developer(s) in creating a plan with so many Permission Requests and Dimensional Variance requests? Could it be because the current Treasurer Brian Kepes is party to the O-1 vacant lot and party to the proposed development?
- The current consent judgment allows only commercial (B-1)
and office (O-1).
Before designing all of this and spending money, one would imagine that
a new consent judgment (CJ) be obtained. It has not been done by the
township and the developers. The developer(s) want to change
sections of these two vacant lots to become RM Multi-Family Residential
Use
and B-2 Commercial 
...
which is a commercial designation that allows fast food restaurants,
and more. In fact, the proposed site plan for the commercial area has
two large buildings with drive thru lanes indicated. The surrounding
neighbors for the most part have asked the CJ be just the residential /
or some limited commercial and certainly not more intense than the
current B-1 Local business zoning. Zoning changes have not
been granted. Those changes are not part of this agenda item but
apparently the variance requests are assuming those new zoning
designations will be granted by the Township at a future meeting. - The township reopened and sought a Master Plan Amendment specifically for this lot, with the questionable (my wording and opinion) conclusion ....coincidentally matching the proposed plans of the developers ....and almost totally opposite the opinions of the general public neighborhoods surrounding the vacant land. That proposed Master Plan Amendment has not been before the Board of Trustees for a Public Hearing.
- As far as the "wetlands" request, that issue did go before a Wetlands Board (same people as the Planning Commission members) for review. The minutes are not posted on the township website for the public to review. I heard that the "fountain" in the wetland /drainage pond be removed from the plan, although it was intended to keep the water moving and purer. Why?
- Speaking of posting, this ZBA meeting was not listed on the Township website under LEGAL although all previous ZBA meeting for years have been posted there. This particular ZBA is not on the usual day/night either. Therefore, is this meeting, not posted correctly, legal?
- As you read the variance requests and permission requests that I copied below from the agenda/board packet, all or most should be denied. The land is vacant. The developers are creating their own problems. Therefore, the requests should be denied. Period.
- The overcrowding of units and size of buildings designed are intentional but could easily be designed differently. Choosing to design oversized buildings and excess buildings therefore create the deficiencies in setbacks (front, back and side) and air conditioning locations that need variances.
- There is a formula in the township ordinances for how many rooms may be in the RM zoning. Again, the developers have chosen to ignore the formula and jam many more units on the property thus creating their own problem. There is also a minimum distance between 2 buildings and the ordinance states in part: "..in no instance shall this distance be less than 50 feet." But, these variance requests on this agenda include a deficiency in the distance between buildings in the residential portion.
- Because of the overcrowding of the buildings on the acreage, the fire trucks need a different way out of the residential portion than how they enter so therefore this project needs to use two different lots giving an easement for the fire trucks to use for access. Unacceptable. Other large trucks may need to enter this development (moving, landscape, etc). How will they turn around and exit? The easement pathways are proposed to be gated and only for fire truck emergencies.
- The commercial section has been designed with buildings so large and with proposed drive thru lanes and outdoor seating, that the parking lot and setback requirements can not be met. This is self created. A design can be made to FIT THE PROPERTY within the ordinances. Variances should not be granted. A masonry wall between the commercial and the residential should also be mentioned and enforced.
- The request to NOT demand a parking study for the commercial is simply unreasonable. The ordinance says Shared Parking Study SHALL be submitted. According to the proposal, that would mean the developer (Brian Kepes, Treasurer, as party to this project) would be the logical responsible party to pay for that parking study. Of course, this variance should be denied and a study be required.
- There are more requests for variances. What some don't mention is the materials being proposed. The township has demanded quality from many other projects, yet this apartment and commercial proposal uses products (aluminum fences and vinyl siding vs other materials). I'm not sure why the township so far has not addressed the quality of the materials proposed.
- There is an existing wall/fence running the length of the property at the southern end of the proposed project. It is in poor repair as it was there with the previous commercial project from the 60-70's. That wall is NOT part of this AGENDA item. However, many homeowners bring this wall up and that basically did confused the Planning Commission members and may perhaps confuse the ZBA members. This wall needs attention and repair.
- However, a masonry wall needs to surround the PROPOSED Commercial lot to separate it from the Multiple Family Residential Apartments. That too is not mentioned here... but should be. I would conclude that the public safety is at risk from people leaving the commercial area and going into the residential area if there is no masonry wall or fence. The noise, fumes, and lights from the constant commercial lot will create an injustice to those adjacent residential units. The Commercial property is proposed to be greatly diminished in the setback requirements from the residential... and that should NOT be permitted. Again, this project has been created on vacant land.... and the problems that occur are self created for the majority. The exact lot size of the commercial property has not been approved as yet...legally.
- This will be a real test of honesty, understanding of the ordinances, and guts for the members of the ZBA to make motions that are meaningful and represent the intent of the ordinances. While a developer has "rights"... the first right (my opinion) is to respect the ordinances already set forth in a community and strive to be a good neighbor. I don't believe that some township officials/employees nor the developer(s) have acted in good faith to provide a proposal worth granting variances.
- ON ANOTHER DISTURBING NOTE: Manchester Squirrel, LLC apparently has sent a letter to the Supervisor, Leo Savoie, not sure what word to use since I have not seen the letter, would it be "demanded ?" or "requests ?" or "suggests?" (don't know the word used) that Trustee David Buckley, who is a member of the ZBA, recuse himself from the discussion and vote at the ZBA meeting because... again, I have not seen the letter, reportedly he spoke against parts of the project as a private citizen at previous public meetings. I also got the impression that there might be a "suggestion?" of a lawsuit by the developer if...... if what? He doesn't get what he wants? The other developer is Treasurer Brian Kepes (in part w/ owning the O-1 lot). Was Mr. Kepes a party to that letter to Supervisor Savoie?
- In my opinion, this is a continuation of what I have called the GANG at Bloomfield Township using their political position to attack and pursue actions to discredit and bully others into giving up/ with fears of personal lawsuits coming against them. This GANG at the township not only does this to other Board members, but to the public as well. This project has been going on since 2015 with the township and developer(s) conducting the process and controlling the process throughout.
- FYI: The ZBA is appointed by the Supervisor. The Supervisor has in the past NOT renewed a member of the committee....why? My opinion, that person asked great questions, knew the ordinances, and sometimes voted in the minority. Supervisor not happy? Member removed at the end of 3 year term. How will this ZBA Board members review all the issues? Do they understand the ordinances? The standards for granting variances?
Marcia
No comments:
Post a Comment