Letter to the Editor: Blossom Ridge Opponents Ask For Redesign, Legal Protection

Dear Supervisor Fogler,

We and many residents living in Oakland Township and neighboring Rochester Hills are sincerely disappointed that the Board of Trustees approved on a 4-to-3 vote the 1^st reading to amend the Zoning Ordinance for the parcels located at the NW corner of the Adams/Dutton roads intersection from MRD zoning to RM-PRRO for the development of the Blossom Ridge senior living center as it is currently designed.  The design of the senior living center being accepted by the board is not consistent with the Township Zoning Ordinance or Master Plan.  The introduction to the Master Plan clearly highlights the plan objective and intent:

 This Master Plan represents the culmination of nearly two years of work by numerous local residents and local officials. It reflects the community’s deep concern for the rural character and natural appeal in Oakland Township. The effort that went into this plan illustrates a strong commitment to retain and strengthen local quality of life. The plan outlines the preferred future for the community and a comprehensive plan to realize it. 

Trustee Workings with the input of Planning Commission Secretary Saputo outlined for the board at the June 12 meeting the significance of the Master Plan guideline for density and the imperative for rezoning utilizing the High Density Conservation (HDC) designation to comply.  The 3-5 units/acre density guideline was not established arbitrarily, but was designated as a range with an upper limit to avoid “over-zoning” and growth beyond the service capability of the township infrastructure.  Residents do not understand why 4 members of the board would ignore this guideline and not require the Blossom Ridge design to comply for density.  How was it determined by 4 of the Trustees that the 6.2 units/acre density was acceptable against an upper limit guideline of 5 units/acre?   At what density would Blossom Ridge become unacceptable?  What are the criteria used to determine when the density becomes acceptable or unacceptable, if not the Master Plan guideline for HDC?

Residents do not understand the criteria used to define that the out-of-compliance design of below minimum square footage for dwelling units in the Blossom Park building is acceptable.  Why would Oakland Township which is unique in the State of Michigan not require a design that affords our seniors the minimum living square footage as set forth in Zoning Ordinance 15.01.00?  Blossom Ridge is not a nursing or extended care facility, it is defined to be for senior living and our seniors should not be subject to minimum acceptable industry standards for living area, but protected by our zoning requirements to provide a more comfortable living design as specified in the Ordinance.  What are the criteria used to determine the acceptability of the below minimum square footage living area?  At what point would the square footage of the units in the senior living center be unacceptable, if not based upon the Zoning Ordinance?

Residents do not understand the criteria used to define that the out-of-compliance dimensional size of the Blossom Park building is acceptable.  At what point does a building horizontal length variance to the RM Zoning Ordinance 15.02.03 (b) of “no building shall have a horizontal length greater than 135 feet” become an issue, e.g. 750 feet, 1000 feet, etc.?  The Ordinance was written using the word “shall” which means a required compliance.  The comparison to single family homes built under MRD zoning requirement is not comparable as there are not horizontal length restrictions under MRD and to compare a single family home to a 134 dwelling unit building is irresponsible.  What are the criteria used to determine the acceptability of the out-of-compliance horizontal building length dimensions, if not based upon the Zoning Ordinance?  If it is industry standards, what are the industry standards to determine that the Blossom Park building at approximately 450 feet horizontal length is the right standard for Oakland Township?    

Residents do not understand the criteria used to define that the out-of-compliance 3 stories of the Blossom Park building is acceptable.  Zoning Ordinance 15.02.03 (b) states: “the maximum building height “shall” be two (2) stories”.  Again, the Ordinance was written using the word “shall” which means a required compliance.  If the Blossom Park building was designed as 4 stories, but not exceeding the 35 feet building height requirement, would that be acceptable?  What are the criteria used to determine the acceptability of the out-of-compliance 3 story design of the Blossom Park building, if not based upon the Zoning Ordinance? 

A criteria of believing Blossom Ridge will be a benefit and ignoring Zoning Ordinance “shall” requirements and Master Plan guidelines is not an acceptable criteria, nor is talking to a couple of residents who say “I think it (Blossom Ridge) will be OK”.  The Board of Trustees should use the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan as the criteria for evaluation and not make subjective judgments that do not have a basis to define what is and what isn’t acceptable.  Residents may or may not like the Zoning Ordinance and/or Master Plan criteria, but they will respect them as legal requirements and guiding principles.  Residents do not respect subjective opinions and proclamations that are not founded in the rules we chose to govern our zoning requirements.

Residents do not understand why the Tentative PRRO Conditions are written to limit the Applicants exposure to road upgrades at only $1000/unit when a certificate of occupancy is issued rather than require the Applicant to fund all necessary road upgrades as defined by the Oakland County Road Commission or Oakland Township as a result of the Blossom Ridge high density development at the time when the property is first being developed.  The taxpayers of Oakland Township and broader Oakland County want our government officials to place the burden of road upgrades necessitated by “for profit” development on the developer, not the taxpayers.  Our county budgets and taxpayers are already under stress without the burden funding additional road upgrades due to the elective approval of property rezoning.

Residents do not understand why Trustee Edwards consistently states that approving the rezoning is the only legal way to vote on the issue.  Residents have heard this allegation only from the Applicant and Trustee Edwards.  Attorney Joppich has explained at multiple meetings the options the board has to approve or reject this application and has not explained why it would be illegal to vote against the approval.  Nor has township consultant Larry Nix documented in any of his memos or guidance to the Planning Commission or Board of Trustees that approving the rezoning is the only legal way to vote on the issue.  Rejecting the Blossom Ridge rezoning proposal on design issues is not illegal and is founded on a principle based criteria utilizing Zoning Ordinance statues and Master Plan guidelines.  Residents are confused why the Applicant and Trustee Edwards repeatedly make this statement and attempt to intimidate the other board members and the residents.  Can you or Attorney Joppich explain at the next board meeting why this statement is used to justify the approval of the current out-of-compliance design and why requiring a senior living center design that is compliant would be illegal?  

The Applicant has a history of intimidation through personal attacks and threats as demonstrated as recently at the June 12 meeting where he verbally threatened a resident speaking during the Public Comment session to remove the resident’s real estate license and demanded the township board Recording Secretary to record the action in the minutes.  Unfortunately, the Township leadership did not warn the Applicant of inappropriate behavior or record the incident in the draft minutes, nor apologize to the person who was threatened regardless of the fact that the individual was not even a licensed real estate agent.  The Township leadership appears to either be predisposed to accept any inappropriate behavior from the Applicant (as demonstrated in numerous meetings throughout the Blossom Ridge evaluation process) or intimidated not to require the same respectful behavior as demanded of the residents.  Any outburst from residents results in a warning and if repeated being escorted from the meeting by the attending Oakland County Sheriff deputy.  Why would the Applicant not be held to this same standard of behavior?

The Applicant also has a history of filing lawsuits against the Township including suing for multi-millions of dollars.  The recent Harvest Corners rezoning approval and subsequent rejection by the residents through a referendum vote resulted in a $56,000,000 lawsuit from the Applicant against the Township which needlessly consumed taxpayers’ funds to defend the legal right of residents to guide the growth of township consistent with our Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan.  In your 2008 campaign as a candidate for Trustee Supervisor you were quoted in the July, 17, 2008 Rochester Post in regard to the Harvest Corners lawsuit:

Fogler said. "The township is being sued because of the referendum for $56 million. If we lose, that is going on tax bills. We don't have that kind of insurance."

We agreed with this observation for Harvest Corners and fear the same outcome for the Blossom Ridge rezoning application.  Due to the actions of a majority of the Board of Trustees to approve the 1^st reading and the history with this applicant, we respectfully request that the board takes the appropriate action to protect the taxpayers from future lawsuits through the incorporation into the Tentative PPRO Conditions a condition that provides for the following:

The Applicant will hold harmless Oakland Township, its officers and officials, and residents for any resident action taken to overturn the approval of the Applicant’s rezoning application through a formal referendum petitioning process and registered voter election.  The Applicant agrees through the acceptance of the PRRO Conditions that he will not seek any legal action to stop the residents filing for a referendum, attempt to void the referendum as approved by the Township Attorney and Township Clerk, nor seek legal action to overturn or seek damages as a result of a referendum vote on the rezoning of the parcels for the proposed Blossom Ridge senior living center development.

It is requested that Township Attorney Joppich provide for this Township/taxpayer protection in the PRRO Conditions document and that the Board of Trustees support this action as a requirement to be included in the 2^nd reading motion for final approval to amend the Zoning Ordinance.

We also respectfully request that the Board of Trustees reconsider their initial “1^st reading” approval of the Blossom Ridge rezoning application and use the criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan as the basis to judge acceptability of the design of Blossom Ridge and require that the design of any senior living center in Oakland Township to be in compliance with the statues that have a “shall” requirement.

Sincerely,

Jim Chauvin – Kingsridge

Steven, Helen, Paige & Evan DeRaedt – Kingspointe

Frank Ferriolo - Kingspointe

Jon & Colleen Gentry – The Kirklands

Jim & Annalisa Hollenbeck - Wellington

Pat & Jane Kirby – The Hills of Oakland

Marty & Linda McQuade – The Hills of Oakland

Thomas Ryan – Thornridge

Ron West – The Hills of Oakland