Despite strong opposition from residents who favor low density and larger lots in their area, a recommendation to approve the preliminary plan for White Pine Estates ? a 32-unit residential development proposed for the southwest corner of Oxford Township ? was given Oct. 9 by the planning commission in a 4-3 vote.
‘If we really care about the area and why we all moved out here, then you cannot approve it. You can’t. It’s not right,? said Mark Moody, a resident of the Twin Lakes Estates subdivision, which is adjacent to the proposed development on the east side.
Voting in favor of the recommendation were commissioners Jack Curtis, Mike Young, Tom Berger and Chairman Todd Bell. Voting against it were commissioners Kallie Roesner, Mike Spisz and Ed Hunwick.
The preliminary plan must now go to the township board for a vote. If approved, the final plan goes before the planning commission again for another recommendation, then back to the township board for another vote.
‘We have three more meetings to go, folks, so this is not done,? Bell told the audience.
Property owner Hamlin LLC, a partnership based in Rochester Hills, is seeking to rezone its 42.5-acre vacant property ? located on the north side of Stanton Rd., just east of Baldwin Rd. ? as a planned unit development (PUD) with a higher density.
Currently, the property is zoned Suburban Farms (SF-2), which calls for residential lots with a minimum size of 5 acres each.
The township’s master plan, last updated in 2011, shows the future use of the site continuing as 5-acre lots.
Under the proposed PUD, Hamlin LLC is looking to build 32 single family homes on lots ranging from 21,000 to 35,826 square feet, which equals 0.48 to 0.82 acre.
The preliminary plan shows the homes clustered together along a proposed cul-de-sac. This clustering would allow for 47 percent of the site to be preserved as open space along with hundreds of mature white pine trees.
Many residents in the area are adamantly opposed to these small lot sizes. They favor large lots consistent with the current zoning and the master plan.
One by one they went up to the podium at the planning commission meeting and expressed their opposition to White Pine Estates.
‘It is not our intent to stop development of that property,? explained Jim Cavellier, Jr., president of the homeowners association for the Twin Lakes subdivision.
‘Whether we like to see it developed or not is irrelevant. Our expectation is that this planning commission and the (township) board will act in accordance (with the master plan and zoning ordinance).?
Cavellier told the commission he understands the current 5-acre zoning ‘is not as profitable? for the developer and wouldn’t generate the same amount of tax revenue for the township as 32 new homes. But he also understands ‘those are not conditions? for approving a zoning change.
‘I have not heard any hardship this evening (as to) why the property cannot be developed in a way that is consistent with the master plan (and) with the current zoning,? he said. ‘I have not seen anything that shows a benefit to the community.?
‘I strongly object to any change in the master plan,? said Jim Cavellier, Sr., who lives on Baldwin Rd. ‘I think it will have a negative impact on all of us along Baldwin there.?
Cavellier, Sr. noted he couldn’t see the planning commission approving his request if he wanted to divide his 5-acre lot in order to build two homes ‘for investment purposes.?
‘I doubt, seriously, if you’d accept that,? he said.
Stephanie Huffmaster, a resident of the Twin Lakes subdivision, said she and her husband moved here in 2009 to gain some open space and start a family.
‘We moved because it was very, very congested (in Rochester Hills) and we didn’t want to live in that environment anymore,? she said.
Huffmaster said if Oxford ends up allowing ‘way many more houses than we’re supposed to? have based on the master plan, then ‘I don’t want to live here anymore.?
‘I would have to go further north,? she said.
‘We don’t want that (5-acre) zoning to change,? said Tim Hoffer, a Twin Lakes resident.
Hoffer explained that he ‘deliberately? did not move to where his family lives in St. Clair Shores and Sterling Heights because he wanted a place where his children could play and grow up in an environment ‘that was not as crowded? as those cities.
‘I really think we should stick with the master plan,? said James Woodward, who lives on Baldwin Rd. He wants to see the suburban farms zoning protected because ‘most of us moved out there for that.?
Mark Sutton, a Twin Lakes subdivision resident, believes ‘if we throw our master plan out? for ‘the hope of getting new residents,? the township faces the possibility of ‘alienating the existing population base? because officials are ignoring ‘why (people) moved here in the first place.?
Moody noted he and his fellow residents think the proposed development ‘looks nice? and it’s great that it’s intending to preserve so many trees.
‘Don’t misunderstand us,? he told commissioners. ‘We just don’t agree with the tiny lots.?
‘Their biggest lot is still way smaller than our smallest lot,? Moody explained. ‘I can tell you none of us in this room would buy a home in that development.?
According to Moody, he and his neighbors wouldn’t object to the proposed development if something ‘reasonable? was presented.
‘What’s on the table today . . . is ridiculous,? he said. ‘It wouldn’t be that hard to have a proposal . . . with bigger lots.?
Although the audience was pretty much united in its opposition to White Pine Estates, planning commissioners were divided on the proposal.
Roesner was the most vocal opponent on the board.
?(The proposed zoning change) is so far away from our master plan and our current zoning, I can’t even fathom a jump like that,? she said. ‘To go from 5 acres to this is just a huge jump that I can’t quite understand.?
Roesner pointed out the master plan was just updated in 2011. ‘It’s not that old,? she said. ‘It plans out quite clearly what’s going to happen here.?
When people move near a property that’s zoned for 5-acre lots, Roesner said that’s what they’re ‘expecting to see? should development occur.
She pointed out there have been no drastic changes to that portion of the township since the master plan was approved that would prompt the planning commission ‘to deviate so far? from it and the current zoning.
The impact of additional traffic on a gravel road like Stanton Rd. also concerned Roesner. She said the road is already ‘in terrible shape? and putting more vehicles on it will only worsen the condition and cost the taxpayers more money to maintain it. Given it generally costs between $1.75 million and $2 million to pave a mile of gravel road, Roesner said that ‘will never get done.?
She believes the additional traffic from White Pine Estates would also negatively impact Baldwin Rd., which is already congested.
‘Baldwin Rd., south, is terrible,? Roesner said. ‘You can’t (go) north during rush hour and we’re just going to add more (traffic).?
‘I don’t see how adding traffic and congestion, and going against our master plan, is a benefit to the township,? she noted.
Overall, Roesner believes ‘the quality of the life in the township is not going to go up with this development? at the proposed density.
‘It’s going to go down,? Roesner said.
Commissioner Spisz, who also serves on the Oakland County Board of Commissioners, opposed the proposed development as well.
‘I support the current zoning of 5-acre lots,? he said. ‘I don’t see the true benefit to the township to go from the current zoning down to the cluster development.?
Other commissioners supported the proposed development and offered different perspectives.
Based on what he’s observed and the people he’s talked to, Commissioner Berger said ‘there seems to be a high demand? among people who want move into ‘smaller residences? and ‘have a smaller piece of property? to ‘maintain.?
‘Sometimes I feel that is a benefit to the township when you can provide something for everyone,? he said.
Berger pointed out that based on his observations, previous PUDs allowed by the township ‘were all deviations from what the original master plan was.?
‘I think sometimes there is a benefit to creating a deviation and sometimes there’s a benefit for the people and the residents (based on) what their needs are.?
Commissioner Young agreed.
‘I don’t see too much of a problem in going forward with what they have (presented),? he said.
The property could be developed into 5-acre parcels as zoned, but Young’s not sure what type of demand there is for residential lots that large.
Young said ‘it just seems that more residential (development) is what’s required? in the township’s ‘southern end? given neighboring Orion Township is currently experiencing a significant amount of housing growth. White Pine Estates would be located right on the Oxford/Orion border.
‘I think that’s actually more appropriate,? he said, noting the master plan calls for ‘larger lots? in the northern portion of the township.
Commissioner Jack Curtis, who also serves as an elected trustee on the township board, read a January 1994 letter from Donald J. Walker, a township resident who lived on W. Drahner Rd. at the time, but is now deceased.
The letter expressed concerns about allowing a residential development with a density that is not consistent with the master plan. It also expressed concerns about the impact this subdivision would have on the local environment and roads.
That development was the Twin Lakes subdivision, which was allowed to deviate from the master plan due to a 1994 consent judgment between the developer and the township.
‘Nobody wanted Twin Lakes Estates and here you sit tonight and tell us that you don’t want a PUD . . . that’s going to preserve 90 percent of the trees on the (adjacent) property and (preserve) 47 percent of this property as (open space),? said Curtis, who made the motion to recommend approval of the preliminary PUD plan to the township board.
He explained the planning commission is tasked with looking at the PUD plan that’s presented and deciding if ‘it is good or it is bad? based on whether or not it has met all the ordinance requirements. In his opinion, the White Pine Estates plan has does that.
‘Under the auspices of a PUD, we have followed every ordinance to the bone,? Curtis said. ‘Everything we’ve done is to the letter of the law, following a PUD ordinance.?
Roesner disagreed.
She read from the township’s PUD ordinance which states it’s ‘intended to result in land use development substantially consistent with existing zoning and (the) existing Charter Township of Oxford master plan.?
Roesner pointed out the developer, in this case, didn’t submit a PUD plan showing 5-acre lots.
‘He’s doing a rezoning and a PUD. There is a difference,? Roesner said. ‘He’s asking for a rezoning and a new PUD based on that rezoning. It’s skipping a whole step.?
Roesner also noted that when Twin Lakes was developed, ‘more than half? of the property was preserved as open space.
‘That keeps getting forgotten,? she said. ‘When you take those 1-acre subs and then you add the open space, it’s actually substantially larger than 1-acre lots.?