Tag Archives: oakland township

Planning Commission hears residents’ input on Draft Zoning Ordinance and makes changes

Township Board hears input from citizens on Draft Zoning Ordinance 16

The Oakland Township Board did not approve the Draft Zoning Ordinance at their September 26, 2017 meeting.

The current Zoning Ordinance was originally approved in 1976. It has been modified many times through the years. That Ordinance has played a key role in defining the character of Oakland Township. The Draft Ordinance was intended to include revisions in State Law as well as providing an opportunity for citizen input.

During the last three Township Board meetings (Aug 22, Sept 12 and Sept 26, 2017), the Board heard input from citizens regarding the Draft Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 16) that the Planning commission had recently approved. The Planning Commissions under three Township Administrations had been working on the document for over 6 year. There has already been significant citizen input in the document. This ordinance requires the Township Board’s approval before it is official. The Draft Ordinance was on the agenda for the August 22 and September 26th Board meetings.

The ‘first reading’ of the Ordinance occurred on August 22nd. There was very little input from citizens. At the September 12th Board meeting, as well as during the ‘second reading’ on September 26, there was quite a bit of input from citizens.

As a result of the input from citizens, the Board did not approve the Draft Ordinance as it is. They will probably be discussing the ‘next steps’ at the October 10th meeting. Hopefully, the Board will provide their input to the Planning Commission regarding the issues raised by the citizens.

Here is a summary of the concerns raised by the citizens at the meetings. Most of these issues had been discussed at previous Planning Commission meetings and at the public workshops that the Board held with the Planning Commission. Some of these are not true, but they were raised by the citizens as issues and should be addressed at subsequent meetings.

Definitions – Section 16-200 to 227

‘Grandfathered use’ (no definition)
‘Rubbish’ (too vague)
‘Nuisance’ (no definition in ‘Definition’ section, but too vague as defined in Section 16-306F)
‘Goods sold in home’ (no definition)

Home Occupation – Section 16-323

Believed publishing home business phone number on Facebook, or phone book, was not allowed (this is not true)
Prevents publishing address of home business on Facebook or phone book
Wording related to preventing people picking up product at their home

Bed and Breakfast – Section 16-505

Do not see need to establish minimum room size of 120 square feet for sleeping area of Bed and Breakfast facility

Enforcement of Ordinance – Section 16-110 & 16-111

Enforced on complaint basis only– not uniformly enforced
Penalty is misdemeanor not civil infraction
Others that ‘participate, assist or maintain violation’ are also liable
Concern over individual having been jailed for violation in past
Concern over process to document the existing ‘grandfathered’ or non-conforming situations

Animals – Sections 16-202A & 16-306

2 acre limits for small animals (chickens and rabbits) is too restrictive – want .5 acre
150 pound limit for domestic animals is too restrictive for some large dogs

Test Plan – Section 16-343

Test plan definition allows for counting non-buildable land in establishing allowed density count

Cell tower – Section 16-416

Wording is too restrictive and prevents owners from having cell towers on their property

Home size – Section 16-312

Minimum home size of 1200 square feet is too restrictive – should be able to build smaller homes

Assisted Living facility for elderly – Section 16-408

10 acre requirement is too restrictive – should be less

Change in parcel size on gravel road – Section 16-403

Questioned whether Ordinance was made less restrictive by allowing 2.3 acre lots with 200 ft. road frontage vs. what was believed to be previous 5 acre on 350 ft. road frontage

In addition to the specific issues raised by citizens, several individuals expressed concerns that the proposed Ordinance was an infringement of their property rights. Here are some of the statements made by these individuals:

The Document is too large – it should be no more than 50 pages
Large acreage parcels should not have restrictions like subdivisions
Let the subdivision owner’s control their property through their deed restrictions
“As long as we have wonderful neighbors” no need for ordinances
Ordinance has contributed to ‘overdevelopment’ of Township

In response to those concerns, having been on the Planning Commission of Oakland Township for over 26 years, I made the following points at the September 26th meeting:

The current Ordinance was approved in 1976 and updated many times
- It has been modified through the years based on citizen input and State Laws
- The Draft Ordinance is less restrictive in many areas than the current Ordinance

Contrary to comment made by our former supervisor, the effectiveness of an ordinance is not measured by number of pages, but by its impact on the community.
- People like Oakland Township because of “what we are”.
- We “are what we are” because of 40 years of good ordinances

The Draft Ordinance has been under development for well over 5 years
- Input has been received from many citizens over that time
- The Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) participated in review of changes and provided input
- The ZBA is knowledgeable of areas where there have been citizen issues – they “feel the hot breath of citizens” through the appeals process
- The Planning Commission has included the ZBA’s input in the Draft Ordinance

Many rural areas in the state have very limited zoning ordinances resulting in issues in their communities
- Without ordinances there is no method to correct problem areas

Some residents suggested subdivision should not rely on zoning ordinances, but should rely on their deed restriction to control problems
- Deed Restriction enforcement requires sub owners to hire costly attorneys
- Township ordinances provide protection without added burden

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? The purpose of the ‘first and second reading’ is to provide citizens one last chance to provide input on the Ordinance. The Planning Commission and Township Board should consider the concerns raised by the citizens and make changes they feel are appropriate. However, a wholesale re-review of the Draft Ordinance in not warranted given the years of input that many other citizens have already provided the Planning Commission on the Draft Ordinance. Their input should not be ‘discounted’ as a result of those who just recently got involved.

The Current Ordinance has served us well. It needs to be ‘tweaked’ not destroyed.

Richard Michalski (former Oakland Township Planning Commissioner for over 26 years)

If you want to review the Draft ordinance click on the following link:

Click to access Final%20Draft%20CORRECTED%208-31-17.pdf

UPDATE: September 13, 2016 controversial Board topics

Traffic light at Adams and Gunn Road

3 Replies

Many of you have now experienced the traffic issues resulting from the four way flashing stop light at the intersection of Adams and Gunn Roads (especially during rush hour traffic). The north-south traffic backs up for almost a half mile. Even though there are very few vehicles traveling east-west on Gunn (except when Delta Kelly students are being dropped off or picked up), every car traveling on Adams must stop.

While I was stuck in that mess last week, there was a tailgating accident a few cars in front of me. Stop and go traffic, along with texting, were probably the reasons for the accident. I suspect there have been, and will continue to be, more accidents like that.

There have been a number of serious accidents at that intersection prior to them putting in the four way light. Clearly something had to be done. I called the road commission today, and they informed me that the four way light will probably be there for two years. They indicated that they must procure additional property at the intersection to increase line-of-sight – and “that takes time”. ARE YOU WILLING TO PUT UP WITH THIS FOR TWO YEARS?

So what can you do? Here is a link to the Road Commission website. If you fill out the form on line with your comments and concerns, maybe we can influence their timing, if not the type of design solution they chose, for this intersection. Currently they are considering a four way regular light or a traffic circle. I am not sure it will have an impact, but two years is a long time to have the current situation in place.

Here is the link to the Road Commission website:

http://www.rcocweb.org/FormCenter/Contact-Us-4/Contact-Us-Form-43

One final comment, as reported in a recent post, Pulte is wanting to add 57 homesite on the North-East corner of Adams and Gunn, adding to the traffic congestion at that intersection. When they brought their initial request to the Planning Commission two years ago, they were told they needed to provide a traffic study of the impact of their proposed development. As of the July 2016 Planning Commission meeting, they had refused to perform the study. In July, the Planning Commission rejected their proposal because they did not have sewer taps and had not performed the traffic study (among other things). You may want to come to the September 13 Oakland Township Board meeting to express your opinion on that proposed development.

Richard Michalski

Controversial items on September 13th Township Board meeting

1 Reply

First of all we hope everyone had a safe and enjoyable summer. There have not been many posts on the website this summer, other than the results of the primary elections in August. However, Township business is picking up.

There are a number of controversial items on Tuesday’s (September 13) Township Board meeting. The topics that will probably receive the most discussion at the meeting include:

A developer’s request to extend an expiring sewer tap pay back program

A Pulte request to approve a Preliminary Site Condominium request for 57 units on the northeast corner of Adams and Gunn Road (across from Delta Kelly School)

2016 Millage levy setting

Hunting in Oakland Township

As always, resident input on topics may influence the decisions the Board makes.

If you have opinions on these matters, please either attend the meeting, or send an email to the Township Board with your thoughts on these topics.

Here is a copy of the agenda for the meeting:

September 13, 2016 BOT agenda

You can go to the Township’s official website http://www.oaklandtownship.org to read additional documentation on these agenda items:

Click on ‘Township Documents’ at bottom of page

Click on ‘Misc Documents’ on left side of page under Public Documents

Click on ‘BOT Packet Sept 13, 2016 part 1‘ & ‘2’ – scroll down to the topics of interest

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? These agenda items not only will have a financial impact on all of us and the Township, they will also have a long term impact on the character of our community.

The balance between the wishes of current residents of Oakland Township and property owners who want to develop their land is maintained by the State and Local laws and ordinances. The developers often want to ‘push the envelope‘ or ‘work the boundaries’ of the ordinances to their advantage. Having a well informed community support their elected leaders ensure the ordinances to the full intent of the law is essential in protecting our community. Your participation will help them do that.

Richard Michalski

Civility will return to Oakland Township! Our reputation restored!

7 Replies

Congratulations! Our collective efforts have been successful!

Here are the names of the unofficial winners of the Oakland Township Board positions for 2016-2020 – pending the results of the November election:

Supervisor – Mike Bailey

Treasurer – Jeanne Langlois

Clerk – Karen Reilly

Trustee – Robin Buxar

Trustee – Frank Ferriolo

Trustee – John Giannangeli

Trustee – Lana Mangiapane (only member of Terry Gonser’s ‘ticket’)

Here are the names of the unofficial winners of the Oakland Township Parks and Recreation Commission positions for 2016-2020 – pending the results of the November election:

Emily Barkham

Craig Blust

Dan Bukowski

Colin Choi

Cathy Rooney

Daniel Simon

Hank Van Agen

In addition, both the Parks renewal millage and the OPC transportation millage were approved.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?

With these public servants:

Civil, ethical and professional behavior will be restored at both the Board and Parks Commission level.
Turmoil regarding the form of governance in Oakland Township will be eliminated.
The certainty of the position of Township Manager will enable us to have the most qualified professional municipal manager run the day to day operations in the Township.
Conflicts between the Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission will be eliminated.
The great reputation of our Township will be restored.

Will there be difficult and contentious issues our community will have to deal with? Absolutely! Will there be differences of opinion on how to resolve the issues? Absolutely!

However, we have seen how the returning Board members have developed and worked together as a team over the past few years. Our future looks bright!

Thanks to all the great candidates that chose to run for office! Thanks to the retiring Parks and Recreation Commission members for ‘vetting’ the new Commission’s candidates, so their legacy will continue! Thanks to the countless others that helped get the new officials elected! Thanks to all those who have been following this website! Thanks to all of those who contributed to the ‘Oakland Township Watchers Action Committee’ for helping to make the election results a success!

BUT, most of all, thanks to all those who voted!

YOUR VOTE COUNTED!

Richard Michalski & Jim Foulkrod

MUST WATCH BEFORE YOU VOTE: Gonser’s supporter’s ‘dirty politics’ caught on surveillance video

4 Replies

On August 1, 2016, a day before the election, a supporter of Terry Gonser was caught on surveillance video removing a flier from an Oakland Township owner’s door (although impossible to tell, it appears to have been an Andy Zale flier that is Red White and Blue) and then peered into the house for an eerily long period of time, scaring the children. She left a copy of Supervisor Gonser’s campaign flier on the door.

This is yet another example of the lack of integrity in Supervisor Gonser and his campaign. Please watch the following video. It should convince you not to vote for Terry Gonser. It was enough to convince the owner.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?

THE VIDEO SPEAKS FOR ITSELF!

CAN ANYONE IDENTIFY THIS WOMAN?

Richard Michalski

Summary of Supervisor Gonser’s actions while in office

1 Reply

The attached video is a summary of Supervisor Terry Gonser’s many egregious actions since taking office in 2012. The content shown in the video is being distributed to the residents of Oakland Township on a flier so they can make an informed decision when they vote on August 2nd. I trust many of you have already seen the flier.

This video is also being posted on the recently created Oakland Township Watchers Facebook Page.

Thanks to the many Oakland Township citizens that have helped make this distribution possible.

Richard Michalski

Supervisor Gonser violated Charter Township Act in 2014!

Statistics on growth of “Board/Manager” form of community governance

3 Replies

Supervisor Terry Gonser is proposing going back to the form of Township governance our community had prior to 1998, where his position would be a full time position. There are several 2016 Oakland Township Board candidates that support Terry Gonser’s re-election candidacy, and presumably support his desire to make this change.

Statistics published by the International City/Council Management Association (ICMA) indicate that many communities are moving toward the form of governance Oakland Township currently has, not away from it. Their data indicates the size of a community influences the form of governance the communities choose.

After several attempts, we have not been successful in obtaining written statements from Supervisor Gonser (although his past actions make his position clear) , or several other Board candidates, regarding their position on this issue. The citizens of Oakland Township deserve to understand each candidate’s position before they cast their ballots. Unfortunately the following have been reluctant to provide their positions.

We have not received responses from:

Terry Gonser – Supervisor Candidate
Judy Workings – Clerk Candidate
Jayson Corey – Trustee Candidate
Lana Mangiapane – Trustee Candidate
Robert Ricketts – Trustee Candidate who has withdrawn from race

The statements from the other candidates can be read by clicking:

SEE 2016 CANDIDATE OPINIONS

Here is more information on ICMA and the statistics they provided:

The ICMA is an organization that:

“identifies leading practices to address the needs of local governments and professionals serving communities globally. We provide services, research, publications, data and information, peer and results-oriented assistance, and training and professional development to thousands of city, town, and county leaders and other individuals and organizations throughout the world. The management decisions made by ICMA’s members affect millions of people living in thousands of communities, ranging in size from small towns to large metropolitan areas.”

Here is a quote from their website regarding the form of governance in communities (note: the ‘board-manager’ form of governance for a Township is similar to the ‘council-manager’ form for a village or city):

“Since it was first created a century ago, the council-manager form of government has become the most popular structure of local government in the United States. While many new municipalities have been incorporated with managers from their beginnings, many cities and counties across the country have made a deliberate change from strong-mayor to council-manager. Appointing a non-partisan professional manager with the authority to carry out the policies set by the elected body has advantages for many communities, and several have recently made the switch.”

The ICMA has provided data on how the preferred form of governance changes as a community increases in size. Here is a graph of that data:

(click on image to enlarge it)

As you can see, when a community is small in size, it tends to have a “Mayor-Council’ or “Supervisor-Board” form of governance. As it grows, and the complexity of managing the community increases, it tends to move toward a “Council-Manager” or “Board-Manager” form of governance, where a professionally trained manager handles the administrative issues of the community at the direction of the Board. Once a community gets above 250,000 residents, the “Mayor-Council” form of governance comes back into favor.

Oakland Township’s 2010 population was almost 17,000. With that population size, 53% of the 1,847 communities surveyed have a “Board-Manager” form of governance, similar to what Oakland Township currently possesses. The reasons for the increase in popularity of this form of governance are expressed by many of the the Oakland Township Board candidates that support retaining our current form of governance, SEE 2016 CANDIDATE OPINIONS, as well as the Kalamazoo Township Board that is moving to this form of governance, SEE KALAMAZOO BOARD DECISION.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? As previously stated, there are several 2016 candidates that support Supervisor Gonser. If they get elected, they may be successful in making his position a full time position. There are a few candidates (identified above) that have not provided their position on this critical issue. Please consider the information that is available when you vote.

Richard Michalski