GROVELAND TOWNSHIP – It was difficult to find a place to park at a public hearing designed to discuss off-street parking.
A standing-room-only crowd lodged protests Tuesday, Jan. 28, and the planning commission agreed to table a proposed ordinance that would impose restrictions on “parking” and “storage” of vehicles on residential property.
The discussion will continue at the commission’s Feb. 25 meeting.
“If this ordinance were accepted, I’m in violation myself,” said David Ax, planning commissioner and township trustee, “so I wasn’t in favor of it to begin with. But I am in favor of an enforcement mechanism when I drive by somebody’s home that looks like a trash heap, and the court has come back to the township and said, ‘Sorry, folks, you don’t have a regulation or an ordinance tough enough for us to deal with.’ We need to do something.”
The proposed ordinance called for a minimum of two parking spaces at every residence, and a maximum of one “parked” vehicle for every licensed driver in the household. Other requirements were set for inside “storage” of vehicles. Even before the public hearing, commission Chairman Vince Ferreri said there was a consensus to change the ordinance to allow two vehicles for every licensed driver.
While the proposal came from residents who said their neighbor had too many cars stored outside the residence, many said the proposed ordinance went too far, especially in areas such as “maintenance.”
“I violated this ordinance by putting air in my daughter’s car,” said Charles Rockwell, who said he moved to Groveland Township to escape excess government regulation. “I used to live in Clarkston. The police used to come 15 times a day because I made too much noise.”
Although not a member of the planning commission, Supervisor Bob DePalma said the intent of the ordinance was to set a “standard” to be used when complaints were received. He assured the crowd that there was no intent to actively seek out violators and no intent to prevent regular vehicle maintenance, but that led to additional criticism.
“It sounds like we’re writing one thing on paper and saying another thing out loud,” said John Williams.
“It’s still up to the interpretation of who’s reading it or whoever doesn’t like [the activity],” said Kristen Nelson.
“I feel we’re all being held hostage here because of a chosen few in this community who want to maybe sell cars or conduct business from their home,” said Tom Ogans. “I don’t understand why they’re above the law. I don’t know why a couple of problems are causing all this change for the entire township.”
Officials said existing blight ordinances have been insufficient, and Tom and Helen Fellows represented those who believe a new ordinance is needed. They told of a neighbor who had up to 31 vehicles stored outside his home and refused friendly requests to clean it up. Officials said existing township ordinances did not allow for legal intervention.
“We came to you for help,” said Tom Fellows. “We didn’t know where to go. We didn’t mean to upset anyone.”
With all defending their rights to enjoy “country living” as they define it, the commission will discuss how to revise the ordinance to make it more acceptable.
“We’re going to put a lid on that can of worms, if we can,” Ferreri said.
“Most of the ordinances that come before this planning commission are a direct result of a few people who don’t seem to want to be a good neighbor,” DePalma said. “If everyone were reasonable, we wouldn’t be here tonight.”