Last week’s meeting of the Oxford Village Council was more like an episode of the Chuck Schneider Show as the local developer dressed down officials.
‘I don’t need to spend my money in this town. You don’t get it,? he said. ‘I’m giving you the opportunity to see your town grow. You want four more commercial buildings in 10 years? That’s the track you’re on. You turn everything down.
‘And how many other developers are knocking at your door? That would be zero. Absolutely zero.?
After a 30-minute discussion, during which Schneider did most of the talking, council voted 3-1 to concur with the planning commission’s Jan. 5 recommendation to deny his request to conditionally rezone a portion of the White House Village Shops development so as to allow for the potential construction of a two-story, 5,400-square-foot apartment building containing five units.
The property, which is located on the west side of M-24 between Lincoln and Crawford streets, is currently zoned for Commercial Office (CO) uses. This zoning does not permit buildings that are solely for residential use.
The existing buildings in the White House development are all businesses. The only residential use is an apartment above the Oxford School of Music at 125 S. Washington St.
Schneider argued the real market is currently all about the need for residential spaces, especially when blended with other uses.
‘This concept of residential, this is where communities are moving. They’re moving to what’s called mixed use ? commercial, service and residential (combined),? he explained.
Schneider pointed out the proposed conditional rezoning was ‘endorsed? by village planner, Chris Khorey, of the Northville-based McKenna Associates.
In his Dec. 22, 2015 review letter to the planning commission, Khorey explained the master plan calls for office/residential uses along this stretch of M-24.
He wrote the proposed apartment building ‘fits with the desire for mixed use here by adding walkable residential units to existing office spaces, while protecting the residential uses from heavy M-24 traffic by locating them at the rear of the site.?
Khorey also told the planning commission an apartment building would generate less traffic than a commercial building in this same location, plus it would help meet the ‘skyrocketing demand for multiple family units.?
Based on the planner’s recommendation, Schneider told council it had a choice to make.
‘Are you going to go with your planning commission or the guy that you’ve hired to advise you? If you go with the planning commission, you may as well fire this guy and let them do all your planning,? he said. ‘Look at all the money you’ll save because you don’t need this guy. Your planning commission doesn’t even listen to the guy.?
In a memo from village Manager Joe Young to council outlining the basis for the planning commission’s recommendation for denial, it was stated the apartment building was ‘not (an) appropriate use for the area.?
To this, Schneider responded, ‘Well, what is the appropriate use? What should go there? Another commercial building? Is that an appropriate use??
‘This property is surrounded on two sides by residential, not commercial,? he continued. ‘So, I’m saying it is an appropriate use for the area.?
Another reason stated in Young’s memo was the White House development is an ‘overbuilt area.?
‘Where is that coming from? Every building on this (site) is approved (in accordance with the village zoning ordinance) with no variances,? Schneider said. ‘So, how the hell can it be overbuilt??
Councilwoman Rose Bejma brought up that Fire Chief Pete Scholz expressed a number of concerns to the planning commission about putting an apartment building there including how difficult it is for fire trucks to access the site due to the current density.
‘My concern is, if there is a fire in there and (with) all those residential houses that abut against (the site), what (is) their exposure to something happening in that complex?? she said.
Schneider said the fire chief’s comments pertained to the proposed site plan, not the conditional rezoning request, and the two are separate issues that have to be treated as such.
‘You must approve conditional zoning before you can consider a site plan,? he said.
Councilwoman Maureen Helmuth, who also serves on the planning commission, noted a public hearing on this issue was held back in December and the residents who spoke were opposed to it.
‘They didn’t want multiple family (housing) on that spot,? he said.
A total of three residents spoke at the hearing, two from Crawford St. and one from Pontiac St.
Schneider reiterated that demand for residential uses, not commercial, is where the market is at right now.
‘I’m trying to help you create a tax base,? he said. ‘I’m trying to provide something that is a recognizable need in the community and you people pooh-pooh it, and you pooh-pooh your planner.?
‘Here’s your choice, listen to your planning commission or listen to your planner,? Schneider continued. ‘If you don’t listen to the planner, then you may as well fire him because he’s not worth anything because you don’t trust the guy, you don’t believe in him, you don’t respect him or whatever the problem is. This isn’t the first time that you pooh-poohed this guy.?
Helmuth noted the residents who spoke at the public hearing were concerned the apartment building would generate additional vehicular traffic, noise and foot-traffic in their neighborhood.
With regard to the vehicular traffic concern, Schneider said the ‘worst case? scenario is the occupants of the five apartments have a total of 10 cars.
He noted if he built a commercial building on the same spot, a hair salon for example, it could generate 30 or 40 vehicles on a daily basis.
‘If your position is there’s going to be more traffic because of this (apartment) building versus a commercial building, I hate to tell you, but you’re incorrect,? Schneider said.
Helmuth explained she voted against conditional rezoning because ‘this is not the proper site? for residential use.
‘I think this site is overbuilt,? she said. ‘I do not believe there’s enough green space for a residential (development) to be built there.?
‘If it’s overbuilt, it’s because your zoning ordinance allows overbuilding,? retorted Schneider, who noted there aren’t many green spaces in the downtown area.
‘I don’t like those spaces, either,? Helmuth replied. ‘I voted against (the new) Becker Eyecare (office building currently under construction) because there’s no green space there.?
In the end, Schneider told council, ‘You don’t like my deal? Go to zero (growth) because that’s where you go. You don’t want to increase your tax base, fine with me.?
‘I don’t believe in increasing the tax base at the (expense) of other people or the health and well-being of the community,? replied Councilman Bryan Cloutier.
‘I don’t either, but I don’t think I’m sacrificing anything. We all have our opinions,? Schneider said.