Rezoning resistance

Most of the angry faces looked familiar to Springfield Township planning commissioners as property owners expressed continued displeasure over proposed rezoning at a Sept. 17 meeting.
At meeting’s end, the commission unanimously passed a five-point motion it hoped would address all issues.
? No action for rezoning, but incorporate a steering committee for Bridge Valley and Caribou Lake Estates;
? Recommend township board proceed with rezoning as resource conservation except Bridge Valley and Caribou Lake Estates;
? Proceed with rezoning properties designated as Parks and Recreation with appropriate map changes with exception of Sheppard’s Hollow and Heather Highlands golf clubs, Shiawassee Basin Preserve and Huron Clinton Metro Authority (Indian Springs);
? Meet with owners/representatives of both golf clubs to discuss rezoning ramifications;
? Proceed with rezoning on properties designated as public service.
The commission started work on the project about a year ago when a state-mandated review revealed inconsistencies between zoning districts and the township’s master plan, as well as some zoning designations that did not reflect current use.
But proposed rezoning drew ire from property owners who claimed plans were vague, unnecessary and would ultimately result in lost income and decreased property values.
But many complaints were due to a misunderstanding and lack of information, said Planning Commission Chair Roger Lamont, who explained that while rezoning a parcel determined to have significant natural resources to an RC (resource conservation) designation would protect the land, it would not allow public access to private property.
‘The intent of the planning commission was to properly zone property in Springfield Township to reflect its use, or its planned use,? he said. ‘And to arrive at the best solution to ensure the desires of the residents and the future needs and goals of our township are met. Our intent was never to be unfair or take property.?
In order to accomplish those goals, the commission worked to create three new zoning districts: public service, parks and recreation, resource conservation.
Although much of the confusion generated before or during the Aug. 2 public hearing has since cleared, property owners were concerned about other issues, as well.
‘You’re taking valuable property and downsizing it so it you either can’t use it at all or it’s of no value,? said Dr. James O’Neill, who owns property near I-75 and Dixie Highway. ‘A lot of our ancestors came here because the king couldn’t come in your house’the roof might leak, the door may be askew, the window may be broken but the king can’t come in your house. And that’s what you’re allowing. We sleep at night thinking our property is safe from the king, from the government.?
O’Neill said he’d had many opportunities to sell his land, but would not do so until the ‘right thing? came along. Donating the land, he said, was also an option.
‘If you do this (rezoning) you devalue the property so badly that if I wanted to donate it to a church or religious we don’t even get value for donation,? he said.
Others were angered by meeting minutes not reflective of remarks and emotions expressed during that meeting.
‘These comments do not echo sentiments of individuals who were here,? said Leonard Gorz. ‘My comments’dealt with the issues of density and how rezoning my properties and reduce what I could do with my land. That’s not in here for public review.?
Gorz told the commission he felt his comments and those made by others at the meeting had been over-condensed and missed the substance of most commentary.
Gorz also told the board he was ready to fight, if necessary.
‘I’m sure the board doesn’t appreciate any types of threats,? he said, ‘but understand I am prepared to litigate as far as I need to protect my land and the gross reduction in my value by’rezoning my property.?
Rezoning documents are available at the civic center. Call 248-846-6510 or visit www.springfield-twp.us