Members of the Addison Township planning commission have some hefty facts to review when considering the rezoning of a 53-acre parcel from suburban farm (2-acre) to R-1 residential (1-acre). The area is currently designated lake area and village preservation.
The large parcel is currently owned by Pat and Glenn Eisenhardt and is situated at the southwest corner of Rochester and Army roads along Lakeville Lake. The couple purchased the property in October of 1991 despite its messy past.
From 1920 until 1990, the land was owned by a gentleman who allowed local residents to use the area as a dump. In addition to a growing mound of garbage, the property also had a gas well and five homes – most of which did not have sewer or running water and needed to be condemned.
‘I really didn’t see all of this debris when we went to buy the property,? said Pat Eisenhardt. ‘I knew stuff was there, I just didn’t know what.?
In January 1992, the Eisenhardt’s began the arduous task of cleaning up the parcel. Their first step was to contact the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) about the rumored spills at the gas well. The couple received a letter from the then current owner of the well assuring them that it is safe and verbal confirmation from the DNR.
However, little additional up-to-date information is available on the gas well. The Eisenhardt’s stated that they are currently in debate with the current owner, CMS Gas, as to whether the company has a legal lease on the well, do they have storage rights to the well, do they have a well that can produce and has the well been open illegally now for many years.
In March 1992, the Eisenhardt’s finally began going through the debris on the parcel and tearing down the houses. The couple said they found a lot of stoves, refrigerators, tires and even some cars and boats. Also, 12-15 drums labeled ‘Hazardous Waste? were discovered.
According to Pat Eisenhardt, the couple did trace the drums back to a nearby corporation, but the legal magnitude of the case would have been beyond their means.
‘They basically told us it would be cheaper for us to clean it up ourselves than take them to court,? she explained.
Several of the barrels were empty, but did still contain a bit of residue; while the others were sealed and contained a fine yellowish-white powder. Testing was done on both sets of barrels and the Eisenhardt’s have reports on both findings. The couple removed the barrels themselves.
In October of 1992, water well samples were done at the request of Addison Township on wells in the surrounding properties. The Oakland County Health department performed the tests and found all of the wells safe.
Also, testing was done in 1994 on the water surface in Lakeville Lake. A letter from the DNR shows that three metals – lead, zinc and barium – are at higher than acceptable levels near the property.
However, the Eisenhardt’s were told by the department that even higher levels were found in other areas, so in perspective those amounts are acceptable.
Pat Eisenhardt stated that she did not have a letter from the DNR confirming this, and they would probably need to retest the water in the future.
Over the years, the Eisenhardts have spent many man-hours removing the barrels, tires and about half of the ‘junk yard.?
They even had the five houses burned down and removed the foundations, well and septic systems themselves.
The DNR has been a part of the process and done a couple walk-throughs to ensure that no one is still dumping on the land.
‘Whatever we have to do to make the property right is what we have to do,? said Glenn Eisenhardt.
Since the Eisenhardts began cleaning up the property, it has been removed from the DNR’s 307 property list; however, this does not ‘guarantee as to the fitness of the property? or any contamination still remaining. To date, no testing has been done to determine if any of the chemicals found in the barrels are in the land. Also, no testing has been done for any other contaminants on the property.
The Eisenhardt’s agreed that testing will need to be done as they sell off the land, but they do not feel that either this, nor the gas well, should be issues in the rezoning.
‘The planning commission should not let any of this influence their decision,? said Pat Eisenhardt.
‘They must think that we’re going into this thing blind,? added Glenn. ‘We’re not just going to split it up and walk away.?
However, public comment from the last planning commission showed that some residents feel differently. Just a few of the questions posed by audience members include: How many yards were removed of contaminated material? Where was it taken? What is the current zoning of the entire property? Is part of it zoned R1 already? What contamination is on the site? What effect would contamination on the property have to surrounding properties if developed? What effect would the traffic flow and water usage have on surrounding properties if developed?
The planning commission and the Eisenhardt’s attempted to answer as many of these questions as possible; however, even planning commission members still had several unanswered questions and wanted more information.
This reporter attempted to contact three of the commissioners who asked questions or commented on the two main issues with the parcel – the possibility of contamination and the gas well – and whether these should be considered in the rezoning.
Commission chair Lawrence Smith was unavailable for comment, but commissioners Joan Trevaskis and Ed Brakefield were in agreement that the commission requires adequate information on the topics in order to make an informed decision.
‘I don’t think I’m looking just at the issue of contamination,? said Trevaskis. ‘I don’t think its going to make or break the rezoning, but I do need more information.? She expressed similar concerns with the gas well, especially since both issues could be health hazards for the community.
‘I believe it’s really a matter of individual interpretation,? she stated. ‘I’m not aware of any police that says we must address these issues or we can not address these issues.?
Ed Brakefield stated that he would like more specific information on the contamination because of future problems that may arise with development – such as releasing possible contamination into Lakeville Lake.
‘I want more specific information,? he stated. ‘My individual viewpoint is that we need this information. All I’m asking for is more information.?
Brakefield said knowing more about the Eisenhardt’s cleanup efforts would also be beneficial since the couple may not be able to show a reasonable rate of return without going down to the one-acre designation.
‘If they’ve put in so much money for cleanup that they can’t get a reasonable rate of return at their current zoning, then that’s important to know,? he said.
When considering a rezoning, the planning commission goes through a check list of 12 points. Two of the items on the check list asks the commission to consider the rezoning request in terms of environmental impacts, nature of use, traffic impacts, aesthetics, infrastructure and whether or not the ‘health, safety and public welfare? would be compromised.
To date, the planning commission has held a public hearing and spent time at a regular meeting on the issue.
A large packet of information has been provided to commissioners and public comment has been heard at least twice.
At the end of their last meeting, several board members requested for the township’s environmental specialist to review the information provided by the Eisenhardts and provide an explanation and opinion.
Overall, all commissioners agreed that more information and time were needed before making a decision.
No deadline was set for returning to the rezoning request.