Hi All,
Well,
Again,
I question what was done by my township "leadership" and the attorney we pay to protect our rights.
The following is my opinion and the facts as I see it.
Watch the Archive Videos of Board of Trustees Meetings - June 24, 2013
Agenda item # 8 Public Hearing Consider Approval of the Final Site Plan and Proposed Rezoning for 4145 West Maple Rd.
Tonight there was a PUBLIC HEARING. This particular parcel is at the SW corner of Maple and Telegraph next to the Maple Theater and adjacent to a residential neighborhood called Birmingham Farms Subdivision. This agenda item was legally noticed in the paper to the public and to the neighborhood with the written announcement to accomplish a specific purpose: To change a 1.29 acre parcel with an old bank building from zoning classification O-1 to B-2 and to amend the legal 1962 Consent Decree protecting the property and to approve a site plan use for the existing former bank building. The specific property parcel was intended (via a legal agreement in 1962) to be zoned O-1 as a buffer between residential and commercial.
WELL.... That entire concept..agenda item..proposal...legal notice..... was changed DURING THE COURSE OF THE MEETING. People were changing the agenda item. How can that be legal? I protest. I may even show up at court or write to the judge when the township goes to file the amendment to that consent decree. I object to the proceedings and the consent decree "amendment" that was not really explained at this public hearing. I bet someone or all of the township leadership will need to watch their own TV appearance.... so they know what the heck they even motioned and approved on this agenda item. THIS IS/WAS A REZONING ISSUE. A VERY IMPORTANT CHANGE TO OUR TOWNSHIP. The new zoning classification "runs" with the land. So, there might be retail proposed for that location today.... and perhaps a fast food restaurant later. That would now be legal....because of the change to B-2 classification.
This agenda item needed a re-do as there were questions by some of the leadership and it was motioned to Table the agenda item and put it on a future agenda. However, the township leadership failed in a vote to TABLE it, a mistake in my opinion. Instead, they (six people and two attorneys -one for the land owner and our township attorney) tried to create during this meeting a new condition for the property rezoning.. giving different dimensions/ different classifications.... different ideas and ways to rezone the property....but saying the "details" will be worked out later. Really? Then there was a motion, exactly what I'm not sure, and then with a VOTE that...whatever it was... motion was approved. Egads.
The vote: 4-2 Devine and Roncelli voted NO. Khederian was absent. Savoie, Barnett, Kepes and Buckley voted YES . But who knows what was really voted on?
I guess something was passed at that meeting for this agenda item. We'll need to wait to read the minutes and the quickly written details of any new legal documents created this evening....as the documents prepared for this agenda item and posted in the board packet were NOT the ones approved.
BOTTOM LINE: Something on that parcel of land is now zoned B-2 and I question whether or not it was done legally.
Apparently, a legal consent decree means nothing. The township Board Packet has the document for review if anyone wishes to read it. The Township solution to change or amend the legal document, the 1962 Consent Decree: is, why don't we just WRITE a new ordinance, of course. The township is great at writing new ordinances to fit every immediate need to make things "work". What else is needed to change the zoning? Well.... Throw in some conditions: such as requirements for parking spots. In the past, the ZBA usually approves every parking lot variance the DRB sends to them. So, don't count on any "parking provision" to keep unwanted B-2 businesses out. NOW, at this location, on this property, you have the same conditions as the Tim Horton B-2 zoning situation all over again. Commercial B-2 adjacent to residential. The situation becomes: the property owner has "rights" too.... different rights now than the O-1 rights, but now the "rights" are for B-2 development. Our attorney did not, or possibly cannot or will not defend against businesses that our B-2 ordinance allows.
One thing I did NOT HEAR at the meeting.... was someone making a motion about the proposed ordinance. I did NOT hear it specifically motioned and/or approved. This would be the new ordinance the Township wrote about changing the zoning on this particular property. I expect to see that back on a future agenda. But will it??? That ordinance was another one of the township's written "special ordinance to fit an immediately needed situation to make it work".
Again, in an effort to PLEASE a commercial customer.... the rules and regulations go out the door. The proposed B-2 business just "wants to get his permits to start the work". Hey, he has a space already in that same shopping center. Follow the rules. Nobody even SHOWED the site plan of this guy's new (currently existing in another location) endeavor at the meeting. Why not? The agenda item also was to approve a site plan. Did anyone look at a site plan for the old bank building? The public didn't see any plans. What kind of PUBLIC HEARING was this?
Going back to the Legal Consent Decree of 1962 supposedly protecting the adjacent subdivision:
Why did the Birmingham Farms subdivision leadership tell the planning commission that it was OK to rezone the adjacent commercial property thus basically OK-ing the breaking of the 1962 consent decree? Why? Was it no big deal? Was the approval given only verbally? Was there any letter signed by the board of directors of the Birmingham Farms subdivision? Were there any signatures from the adjacent homes filed on the record? Did our Planning Commission members demand verification of that given statement?
Thank you, Jan Roncelli, Clerk/Trustee, for checking for some facts in the neighborhood. According to your statements at this public hearing... you went to the subdivision and talked to some people and they did not know that their subdivision leadership took that position on the rezoning. That should have been enough reason to TABLE the agenda item. But, NO. Why not, Leo? You cast the vote to make it a tie....thereby failing to TABLE the agenda item. What couldn't wait another two weeks???
The following is a made-up scenario....but interesting....
My gut wants to tell me ...that feeling that something isn't quite right..... but I have no proof... just a suspicious imagination??? My gut says: since the Birmingham Farms subdivision president never showed up for the first RE -zoning request in 2012 at the public hearing (to my knowledge) or mentioned in the board packet info. So why show up now? Did anyone at the township have a meeting with him? Was a deal made? Hey, was anything said like: agree to break the legal document since 1962 protecting the homeowners in the subdivision, so the developer can rezone from O-1 to B-2 ? Maybe ... the township can come into your subdivision and do asphalt repair...... on the township dollar?
Am I accusing anyone of anything....NO. But it does make interesting reading.
Did
the above scenario happen? Of course I don't know. ...but I have to
admit: that imagined scenario was running through my head as I watched
my leadership conduct BUSINESS at the Board of Trustees meeting on Cable
15 on June 24, 2013.
Gee, at this same Board of Trustees meeting, A REAL and different agenda item was presented: Agenda Item #3: 2013 Asphalt Resurfacing Program
A road department program, according to the board packet.... that had been discontinued since 2006...all of a sudden...oh, no, excuse me, it was noted in a township letter that contracted asphalt repair by outside contractors was budgeted back in for this year. However, upon fact checking the Township $ 4 Million dollar ROAD budget, I could not find any line item that was ZERO last year and is now almost $200,000. So, excuse me, when and by whom was this asphalt repair job by outside contractors get approved to be started up again? Please know, the whole process of bidding was done quite legally, with request for bids/ awards/ etc. Hubbell Roth & Clark engineers were NOT used. All plans/specs/inspections were/will be done "in house" by township employees. However, guess what subdivision gets the asphalt repairs on the township dollar? Yup. Birmingham Farms Subdivision. The same subdivision where the subdivision leadership told the Planning Commission that the subdivision was ok with the rezoning, etc. Coincidences happen all the time.
That asphalt road repair job that was presented by the road department on tonight's agenda item passed tonight without much, if any discussion. Cost: just under $200,000.....so asphalt repair it is... done on township dollars for this SAME Birmingham Farms subdivision. The subdivision is involved in the O-1 to B-2 rezoning issue because of its adjacent location and the 1962 Consent Decree with the adjacent commercial land. In fairness, there is another subdivision benefiting from this asphalt contract. No Special Assessment District for either of them. Why those subdivisions? Why not your neighborhood? Did you ask for road repairs? Did they? Are you being asked to pay for your road repairs through Special Assessment District costing thousands? YOU paying back Bonds for15 years for resurfacing your own road? Ask yourself: How is that FOUR million dollars EACH YEAR of your tax money spent on roads in Bloomfield Township? Don't know? Time to ask. The ROAD DEPARTMENT millage ends in a few years.
I watched my government vote for commercial development rather than defending the residential community and the 1962 legal document that protected it for so many years.
That land has been zoned O-1 for a long time. The O-1 owner had the right to request rezoning. The township had the right to deny that request. But they did NOT.
Isn't Bloomfield Township supposedly known for it's residential areas? Not any more. More commercial. More crime. More concrete. Go figure why.
Marcia
Showing posts with label 4145 Maple Rd.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 4145 Maple Rd.. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Friday, May 31, 2013
Back Again/ Proposal to CHANGE ZONING to B-2/ Break Legal Agreement
Hi All,
Planning Commission meeting on MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2013 @ 7 pm.
Two Public Hearings
One site Plan
In typical Township fashion, issues will come back and back until the desired outcome is reached, or the public is so worn down or not notified that the outcome happens by default. I see no local paper, either in print or online that really covers all sides of government issues/actions. Writing about the results of an issue instead of notifying the public of upcoming meetings and Public Hearings is not covering local government for the people. A standard "legal notice" is not really covering issues.
BACK ON THE AGENDA: 4145 Maple... a one + acre parcel of the shopping center at the SW corner of Telegraph and Maple Rd. that is ZONED O-1 requesting to be REZONED B-2.
The current O-1 zoning is to protect the adjacent residential properties and there is an agreement that the land/property will stay that way. There is a vacant existing bank building on that parcel. The rest of the property is parking, also adjacent to the residential area.
Back in October 2012, the shopping center owners requested a ZONING CHANGE to B-2. That was NOT recommended by the Planning Commission. It went to the Board of Trustees as NOT recommended and NO CHANGE was the result.
Now, it is quietly BACK on the AGENDA. This time the developers are claiming they have a retail POTENTIAL tenant. Therefore, a "claim" as to why they need to request the zoning change. Mind you, there is VACANT retail all over town and more vacant spaces in this shopping center at Telegraph and Maple already zoned B-2. In fact, the proposed tenant is actually saying they are going to move from their existing spot in the same shopping center into the old bank building (next to the Maple Theater) IF the zoning change is approved. Maybe. It doesn't have to happen. Once the zoning is changed....ANY accepted B-2 zoned business MAY go on that property.
However, stick around for another agenda item: there is actually a proposed site plan for that bank property. I didn't see any details in the board packet. Guess we all get to be surprised? Remember..it does NOT have to happen... the developers just want the zoning change and this is one way to try and get it. According to the Township Planning director:
Supervisor Savoie, often talks about the RIGHTS of each property owner. Not liking a business can NOT stop it for the most part. Once a property becomes zoned B-2, that owner has the right to have a fast food restaurant, for instance. A property owner does not have that right if it is zoned O-1.
Remember the Tim Horton issue at Woodward and Square Lake? Despite overwhelming objections from the public, the property adjacent to residential....the township attorney said basically that the developer had the RIGHT to use the B-2 property and it's parking spaces in a B-2 way. De ja vu? The Tim Horton's restaurant was put in the PARKING Spaces and the main section of the parcel fronting Woodward is now the Rusty Bucket Restaurant. Two separate businesses on the same lot, in different buildings, sharing parking.
In the Tim Horton case, the developers provided "perks" for some residents to their property. In the case of the recently approved commercial development at the SW corner of Telegraph and Square Lake, some residents will also be getting "perks" on their property. I guess if you take away some of the adjacent resident complaints.... the rest of the community be damned. Can developers "buy" support?
What will be interesting to see is how the Township manages to "amend" the AGREEMENT that protects the adjacent residential community. After all, what's a 50+ year old legal document worth these days? It has protected the residents...why end it now?
Look for words that that seem to protect the residents rights forever....Does "forever" go away at the whim of the township leadership, developers and attorneys? See the PC (Planning Commission June 3) Packet pages 38-43 to read the Consent Decree from August 24, 1962.
I mentioned this parcel requesting the change in Zoning from O-1 to B-2 is next to the Maple Theater. There's another interesting Township development. The CINEMA owners convinced the township leadership to CREATE a new ordinance permitting alcohol to be served by the glass to patrons in the movie theater. Well, as of the last Board of Trustees meeting, one no longer needs to be a movie patron to buy alcohol. The CINEMA "lobby" has a "separate" business..a coffee shop/bakery/ and a what else do you want to eat opportunities.
So why call it a liquor license for a CINEMA? What a joke. Every other liquor license to serve by the glass is associated with a full menu restaurant. They have a huge investment in their kitchens. Is this "Maple Theater" now a bar since people entering do NOT need to attend a movie? Just drink?
Another interesting fact is the Maple Theater liquor license also has an "entertainment" provision. Do you think the Maple Theater and all it's separate businesses might want to lease the adjacent vacant bank building to move their "CINEMA" liquor license there? If yes, it needs a B-2 Zoning. It is a subject that has been discussed. Will the Township have it's first BAR? ... on a CINEMA liquor license? I heard there is already "entertainment" in the theater lobby??
Why should you care? When the leadership can write new ordinances to fit any situation and get away with it because of a public that does not pay attention or is not well informed by the leadership .... when the zoning can be changed and long standing legal agreements can be made null and void...when developers can "buy" some surrounding good will to get what they want... I guess you could say, it's all about MONEY. The Township wants money in terms of tax revenue, the Developer wants to earn money from his development and the surrounding people want the old standard of Bloomfield Township as a mainly residential community with trees and serene surroundings. Some might say...everyone wins. Just remember that win/win feeling when the next zoning change or newly written ordinance is in YOUR backyard.
Speaking of YOUR backyard, another PUBLIC HEARING this same night. Is there a non-conforming lot near you? READ THE PACKET (Planning Commission June 3 PC Packet) for details.
The last May 28 Board of Trustees meeting had many residents at the meeting and the issue of the commercial development at SW corner of Telegraph and Square Lake took at least an hour and a half to get through. The development got approval. At the end, I was taken aback by Supervisor Savoie's suggestion to the audience to talk to the developer again... because the developer still likes his first proposal the best, which was denied. Is Savoie trying to change what was approved? Of course that previous proposal included a change in ZONING to B2...which was soundly defeated. DON'T go back to that...a change in zoning will get you that fast food restaurant. The grease trap enclosure is already on the property. The neighborhood saving grace at this moment ... is that the approved commercial property is still zoned OR-1. Be strong. Be happy with your trees and walls.
How many residents will show up for the Planning Commission meeting concerning the ZONING CHANGE at the different SW corner ...this one being: Telegraph /Maple? Is that neighborhood association strong? Will all the neighborhood be informed? Will the residential protecting O-1 zoning go to B-2? The township legally only needs to notify properties within a 500 ft. radius. It is a PUBLIC HEARING. You don't need to live in the adjacent residential neighborhood to comment.
Planning Commission meetings are NOT audio/video recorded or archived nor presented on TV or streamed live on your computer. Printed minutes come only at the next meeting...and many Planning Commission meetings are canceled, so it could be months before you can read the approved printed minutes.
A parting comment:
The Design Review Board that first hears the issues are the three elected officials: Supervisor, Clerk, Treasurer. FYI: Township officials wrote/approved the ordinance to create this Design Review Board and named their positions (themselves) as the board members (Years ago). How convenient.
They also are 3 of the seven votes on the Board of Trustees.
One Trustee ( not the one from the list above) sits on the Planning Commission and often makes the motion that takes the issue to the Board of Trustees where that person also has a vote.
One Trustee (another one) sits on the Zoning Board of Appeals. This trustee often makes the motion to approve or deny (usually approve) any variance or ordinance change. Then votes his/her final decision at the Board of Trustees.
That is 5 out of 7 Trustees that have most likely already heard all/some/ or changed/ the issue at some township public level and was part of a group that approved the issue to be sent for final decision before the full board of 7 people.
When it gets to the Board of Trustees....it is damn hard to fight the issue.... any issue. The seven votes are often unanimous.
Planning Commission meeting on MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2013 @ 7 pm.
Two Public Hearings
One site Plan
In typical Township fashion, issues will come back and back until the desired outcome is reached, or the public is so worn down or not notified that the outcome happens by default. I see no local paper, either in print or online that really covers all sides of government issues/actions. Writing about the results of an issue instead of notifying the public of upcoming meetings and Public Hearings is not covering local government for the people. A standard "legal notice" is not really covering issues.
BACK ON THE AGENDA: 4145 Maple... a one + acre parcel of the shopping center at the SW corner of Telegraph and Maple Rd. that is ZONED O-1 requesting to be REZONED B-2.
The current O-1 zoning is to protect the adjacent residential properties and there is an agreement that the land/property will stay that way. There is a vacant existing bank building on that parcel. The rest of the property is parking, also adjacent to the residential area.
Back in October 2012, the shopping center owners requested a ZONING CHANGE to B-2. That was NOT recommended by the Planning Commission. It went to the Board of Trustees as NOT recommended and NO CHANGE was the result.
Now, it is quietly BACK on the AGENDA. This time the developers are claiming they have a retail POTENTIAL tenant. Therefore, a "claim" as to why they need to request the zoning change. Mind you, there is VACANT retail all over town and more vacant spaces in this shopping center at Telegraph and Maple already zoned B-2. In fact, the proposed tenant is actually saying they are going to move from their existing spot in the same shopping center into the old bank building (next to the Maple Theater) IF the zoning change is approved. Maybe. It doesn't have to happen. Once the zoning is changed....ANY accepted B-2 zoned business MAY go on that property.
However, stick around for another agenda item: there is actually a proposed site plan for that bank property. I didn't see any details in the board packet. Guess we all get to be surprised? Remember..it does NOT have to happen... the developers just want the zoning change and this is one way to try and get it. According to the Township Planning director:
Supervisor Savoie, often talks about the RIGHTS of each property owner. Not liking a business can NOT stop it for the most part. Once a property becomes zoned B-2, that owner has the right to have a fast food restaurant, for instance. A property owner does not have that right if it is zoned O-1.
Remember the Tim Horton issue at Woodward and Square Lake? Despite overwhelming objections from the public, the property adjacent to residential....the township attorney said basically that the developer had the RIGHT to use the B-2 property and it's parking spaces in a B-2 way. De ja vu? The Tim Horton's restaurant was put in the PARKING Spaces and the main section of the parcel fronting Woodward is now the Rusty Bucket Restaurant. Two separate businesses on the same lot, in different buildings, sharing parking.
In the Tim Horton case, the developers provided "perks" for some residents to their property. In the case of the recently approved commercial development at the SW corner of Telegraph and Square Lake, some residents will also be getting "perks" on their property. I guess if you take away some of the adjacent resident complaints.... the rest of the community be damned. Can developers "buy" support?
What will be interesting to see is how the Township manages to "amend" the AGREEMENT that protects the adjacent residential community. After all, what's a 50+ year old legal document worth these days? It has protected the residents...why end it now?
Look for words that that seem to protect the residents rights forever....Does "forever" go away at the whim of the township leadership, developers and attorneys? See the PC (Planning Commission June 3) Packet pages 38-43 to read the Consent Decree from August 24, 1962.
I mentioned this parcel requesting the change in Zoning from O-1 to B-2 is next to the Maple Theater. There's another interesting Township development. The CINEMA owners convinced the township leadership to CREATE a new ordinance permitting alcohol to be served by the glass to patrons in the movie theater. Well, as of the last Board of Trustees meeting, one no longer needs to be a movie patron to buy alcohol. The CINEMA "lobby" has a "separate" business..a coffee shop/bakery/ and a what else do you want to eat opportunities.
So why call it a liquor license for a CINEMA? What a joke. Every other liquor license to serve by the glass is associated with a full menu restaurant. They have a huge investment in their kitchens. Is this "Maple Theater" now a bar since people entering do NOT need to attend a movie? Just drink?
Another interesting fact is the Maple Theater liquor license also has an "entertainment" provision. Do you think the Maple Theater and all it's separate businesses might want to lease the adjacent vacant bank building to move their "CINEMA" liquor license there? If yes, it needs a B-2 Zoning. It is a subject that has been discussed. Will the Township have it's first BAR? ... on a CINEMA liquor license? I heard there is already "entertainment" in the theater lobby??
Why should you care? When the leadership can write new ordinances to fit any situation and get away with it because of a public that does not pay attention or is not well informed by the leadership .... when the zoning can be changed and long standing legal agreements can be made null and void...when developers can "buy" some surrounding good will to get what they want... I guess you could say, it's all about MONEY. The Township wants money in terms of tax revenue, the Developer wants to earn money from his development and the surrounding people want the old standard of Bloomfield Township as a mainly residential community with trees and serene surroundings. Some might say...everyone wins. Just remember that win/win feeling when the next zoning change or newly written ordinance is in YOUR backyard.
Speaking of YOUR backyard, another PUBLIC HEARING this same night. Is there a non-conforming lot near you? READ THE PACKET (Planning Commission June 3 PC Packet) for details.
The last May 28 Board of Trustees meeting had many residents at the meeting and the issue of the commercial development at SW corner of Telegraph and Square Lake took at least an hour and a half to get through. The development got approval. At the end, I was taken aback by Supervisor Savoie's suggestion to the audience to talk to the developer again... because the developer still likes his first proposal the best, which was denied. Is Savoie trying to change what was approved? Of course that previous proposal included a change in ZONING to B2...which was soundly defeated. DON'T go back to that...a change in zoning will get you that fast food restaurant. The grease trap enclosure is already on the property. The neighborhood saving grace at this moment ... is that the approved commercial property is still zoned OR-1. Be strong. Be happy with your trees and walls.
How many residents will show up for the Planning Commission meeting concerning the ZONING CHANGE at the different SW corner ...this one being: Telegraph /Maple? Is that neighborhood association strong? Will all the neighborhood be informed? Will the residential protecting O-1 zoning go to B-2? The township legally only needs to notify properties within a 500 ft. radius. It is a PUBLIC HEARING. You don't need to live in the adjacent residential neighborhood to comment.
Planning Commission meetings are NOT audio/video recorded or archived nor presented on TV or streamed live on your computer. Printed minutes come only at the next meeting...and many Planning Commission meetings are canceled, so it could be months before you can read the approved printed minutes.
A parting comment:
The Design Review Board that first hears the issues are the three elected officials: Supervisor, Clerk, Treasurer. FYI: Township officials wrote/approved the ordinance to create this Design Review Board and named their positions (themselves) as the board members (Years ago). How convenient.
They also are 3 of the seven votes on the Board of Trustees.
One Trustee ( not the one from the list above) sits on the Planning Commission and often makes the motion that takes the issue to the Board of Trustees where that person also has a vote.
One Trustee (another one) sits on the Zoning Board of Appeals. This trustee often makes the motion to approve or deny (usually approve) any variance or ordinance change. Then votes his/her final decision at the Board of Trustees.
That is 5 out of 7 Trustees that have most likely already heard all/some/ or changed/ the issue at some township public level and was part of a group that approved the issue to be sent for final decision before the full board of 7 people.
When it gets to the Board of Trustees....it is damn hard to fight the issue.... any issue. The seven votes are often unanimous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)