Members of the Independence Township Board have a lot to think about ? 1,098 individual opinions to consider as a matter of fact.
On Aug. 2, Citizens for Orderly Growth presented the board with the completed petitions for a land use legal defense fund millage.
The petitions ask for the township to put a one-time, ?-mill tax proposal on the November ballot. The proposal calls for the tax to be levied only once between 2006 and 2010. The township could then use the $750,000 fund to defend against litigation from property owners in reference to zoning classification disputes.
COG created the millage proposal and petition drive in reaction to a February rezoning request from Troy-based Orco Investments. The company requested to rezone a 70-acre site located at the corner of Sashabaw Road and I-75 for commercial development. Although no formal plans for development are submitted, township officials confirmed previously talks have included mention of a possible Wal-Mart, Lowe’s, 100-room hotel, bank, assisted living facility and restaurants.
COG member David Lohmeier led the presentation of signatures during public forum on Aug. 2.
‘Despite the best plans you (the township) may have made, despite the hundreds of hours you spent planning and working? you’re still vulnerable to a big financial challenge to your plan,? said Lohmeier. ‘This is a great tool that will give leverage and power in difficult situations.?
Lohmeier introduced a few additional COG members to relate their stories of collecting signatures.
Craig Bennett described the township Master Plan as ‘a very important document,? and ‘the township’s rule book.?
‘It isn’t that we’re against development? we’re against certain types of development that don’t really fit in our community,? he stated. ‘This place isn’t getting any bigger, but the money is getting bigger, the issues are getting bigger.?
‘The beauty of this thing is that if this never comes to fruition, great, we don’t need the money,? he concluded.
‘I like to have the space,? said Robert Ferer. ‘I like to have the resources, but I like the organized planning? I believe the community is behind you , behind the master plan.?
‘I gathered over 150 signatures at Concerts in the Park and only encountered two people who said no they didn’t want to sign,? related Karen Koval.
Several more residents spoke during later public comment.
‘I would pay double to protect the way I live. To me, my life-style is worth is couple hundred dollars,? said Sue Williamson during later public comment.
‘The main motive is to let the people decide if this should be on the ballot,? said Darrel Ashby.
‘Never before has the township ever had to face a company such as Wal-Mart is,? said John Nicholson. ‘You’ve confronted a lot of small fires, but never a large one.?
Not all residents present were in favor of the millage proposal. Fred Neumark disliked the idea of using a tax for the defense fund.
‘I am taxed enough,? he stated during public comment. ‘They aren’t calling this a legal defense tax ? they are calling it a fund, but it is a tax.
‘We’ve never had a problem where we could not afford to go up against a developer who was proposing something that does not fit in this township. I don’t feel this is the way to deal with this in this community.?
‘What I know about developers, the $750,000 is not a lot of money,? said Vern Benson. ‘It simply isn’t a lot of money, it really isn’t.?
Benson also pointed to the small percentage of township voters represented by the petitions. Through questions to the board, he learned that the 1,100 is only around three percent of the 30,000 township residents.
After the presentation, township trustees voiced several questions and concerns, and many remained vague on their stance with the proposal.
Trustee Dan Travis was the only board member to take a strong stance on the issue: ‘I’m four-square in favor of it,? he said.
Trustees Jim Wenger, Larry Rosso and Charles Dunn shared similar questions on the legality of the fund. All three voiced a concern that having the fund might demonstrate a ‘preconceived prejudice? against a developer. Wenger and Rosso also voiced concern about the $25,000 cost for a special election.
‘We’ve been advised again and again not to show a predisposition to anti-development,? said Rosso. ‘I’m afraid this could be seen as an ongoing bias against them.?
Dunn was uncertain whether he agreed with the fund providing ‘leverage and a deterrent value.? He also questioned whether placing the proposal on the ballot was timely.
‘We’re asking the voters for taxing authority when there is no proposal before us,? he stated.
‘I think we have to look at what the threshold is for when we just put something on the ballot,? agreed Trustee Dan Kelly.
Kelly also voiced several legal concerns with the proposal, especially since ‘the devil is in the details in regard to the petition.?
‘If you listen to the board tonight, they are uncomfortable with it (the proposal),? said Supervisor Dave Wagner. ‘I have asked the MTA (Michigan Township Association) to look at it (the petition), but that’s still six weeks out.?
Kelly motioned and Dunn supported to send the petitions and ballot language to the township attorneys for review and analysis. No time was set for the opinion to return to the board.
The motion passed six to one with Dan Travis voting against.
For the proposal to be on the November ballot, the county clerk’s office must have the language by August 20. The next township board meeting is Aug. 16 at 7:30 p.m. in the Independence Township Library.