At the November 7, 2013 Oakland Township Board meeting, Supervisor Gonser recommended NOT APPROVING the Special Accommodation request submitted by the Blossom Ridge Developer in August of 2012. This request has been on the Board’s ‘table’ since they took office in November of last year. Supervisor Gonser reviewed the reasons for his recommendation. Here is his recommendation:
2013_11_07 Supervisor Recommendation
The issues raised by Supervisor Gonser are ones that should not have taken a year to identify. He and the Township Attorney spent months working with the developer trying to revise the plan. There were significant changes proposed to the plan. Gonser felt comfortable enough with the revised plan to have it reviewed at a Board meeting on October 8th. The citizens present were not satisfied with the changes. He now is recommending a rejection of the Special Accommodation Use request.
In his recommendation, he says “the community has no RM (Medium Density Residential)”. That statement is wrong. Yes, we do not have any RM (Multifamily Residential), but we do have Medium Residential Districts (MRD). This error leads me to believe that Gonser’s recommendation was not reviewed by our Township Attorney. THIS ISSUE IS TOO IMPORTANT TO OUR TOWNSHIP TO HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION NOT FULLY REVIEWED BY OUR TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY.
Here are several counter-points to the issues he raised:
- Age is protected under Michigan State Law: The Elliott-Larson Act of 1976.
- Oakland County Planning Department has warned Oakland Township that our housing ordinances may be considered exclusionary.
- The proposed housing for the elderly disabled is not a “business” but a residential use. This has been confirmed by Oakland Township’s planning consultant, former Township Attorney and the County Zoning Committee.
- The statement that the neighborhood is “currently upscale single residential” is a red flag that the Federal Government will likely use in their investigation into Oakland Township’s alleged exclusionary zoning.
- The taxes generated by the residents in the development will offset the costs for services. However, Gonser reasons that since disabled seniors MAY cost the Township more (example EMS runs), the Special Accommodation should be denied. This forces other communities to incur the POTENTIAL added cost for the elderly disabled citizens that had to move out of Oakland Township since we have no Senior Housing facilities in our Township. This logic is evidence of another exclusionary action by Oakland Township.
- At the June 12, 2012 BOT meeting, Supervisor Fogler read a letter from Fire Chief Benoit stating – “Any development, including single family units, increases the burden on the Fire Department.” He goes on to say “It also generates tax revenue and ambulance fee revenue for use of the emergency services.” Gonser’s recommendation does not comprehend this fact that came from the Township expert in that field.
- Gonser further reasons that since there MAY be increased noise due to the EMS runs to support disabled senior citizens, the Special Accomodation request should be denied, forcing other communities to bear the POTENTIAL increased noise level. This logic is evidence of another exclusionary action by Oakland Township.
- The traffic study that was validated by the Township’s traffic consultant, the Oakland County Road Commission and the Oakland County Planning Department indicate that the traffic generated during peak traffic hours by this development will actually be less than if the land was developed as single family residential.
- The decision to NOT include nursing home facilities within the proposed development was based on the TOWNSHIP BOARD MEMBERS’ REQUEST.
- The ‘end of life’ services afforded the residents of the development are the same as those who choose to live in private residences.
- The applicant has provided an alternate plan that was reviewed with Gonser and the Township Attorney in private meetings. That proposal was later reviewed at the October 8th Board meeting. The minutes for that meeting interestingly do not mention that proposal. However, a description of the proposal can be seen by going to:
- The 2005 and 2011 adopted Master Plan indicate that this parcel of land is suited for Senior housing use.
- Supervisor Gonser admits that “no specific ordinance may exist” to accommodate the disabled elderly, but suggests that the developer come up with a modified plan and submit a rezoning request to (R-M) Multifamily Residential. Under the R-M zoning, the number of units allowed would be 342. The developer has made repeated reductions from 342 to 282, then 238, and most recently 228. Getting the Board to approve 342 units is highly unlikely. It is questionable if the developer’s proposal of 228 is still an option, given comments made at the October 8th meeting.
For a complete “side by side” comparison of Gonser’s points and counter points, please look at the following file:
Response to Gonser’s SAU recommendation
The legal implications of this decision must be fully understood by the citizens of Oakland Township. Having a recommendation that is based on a campaign promise, may not be in the Township’s best interest.
A public hearing on this subject has been set for December 10, 2013. Resident participation is VERY important at that meeting.
PLEASE MARK IT ON YOUR CALENDAR AND ATTEND!
For those interested, a copy of our Township’s Special Accommodation Ordinance can be reviewed here:
Special Accommodation Use Ordinance
Why is this important to the Citizens of Oakland Township? The upcoming public hearing is very important. The consequences to the Township could be significant if the Federal Government concludes that the Board’s actions have been discriminatory. The citizens and the Board must be fully informed. Whatever your vote was in August on the Blossom Ridge referendum, it is in our best interest to make sure our Township Attorney explains the potential consequences of this decision.