Sam Troutwine doesn’t wish to lose the value of his home or his cherished privacy, but thanks to a proposed plan by the Oxford Community Development Authority (OCDA), he could lose both.
After spending 23 years in his 42 E. Burdick St. home, the 64-year-old Oxford Village resident is upset and contemplating moving because the OCDA wants to give him a new neighbor ? S. Mill St.
As part of the proposed southeast parking quadrant improvement and expansion plan, the OCDA has recommended that S. Mill St. be relocated to the east and rerouted through the property it owns at 38 E. Burdick St. (right next door to Troutwine), which is currently occupied by a house and an old wooden barn. The structures will have to be removed.
‘It can’t be done without upsetting my house and the value of my house,? Troutwine said. ‘After 23 years, do I deserve this??
‘Are they going to talk to me about it? I doubt it. I hope they do,? he said.
Troutwine said his wife, Sandy, who deals with mortgages and appraisals as a supervisor for Flagstar Bank, and a friend who’s a Real Estate agent, have both said the house will decrease in value, if the house at 38 E. Burdick St. is replaced with a street.
‘I’m going to automatically lose the value of the house,? he said. ‘There’s no getting around that. Everybody should know that.?
Troutwine noted that if he decides to fight the street’s relocation (an action he admitted he’d lose), he’ll also lose money in the form of legal fees.
‘To what degree do I want to fight this? That’s something I have to make up my mind about,? he said. ‘But one way or the other I’m going to lose money. No doubt about it.?
In addition to losing part of his 23-year investment, Troutwine said routing S. Mill St. next door to his home will rob him of privacy in his own backyard, which has a large wooden deck facing 38 E. Burdick.
‘If it actually happens (moving Mill St.) and the traffic is what I think it’s going to be, yes, I’m going to have to move because I’ll have no privacy. Absolutely none,? he said. ‘I don’t need people driving by and watching me on my deck, especially when I’m out there in my shorts, sunning myself.?
‘If I lose this? he said pointing to his deck and backyard ‘I lose my tranquility.?
‘This is where I spend my time in the summer. This is what’s important to me.?
‘What type of privacy wall are they (the OCDA) going to give me? A 10-footer?,? he asked.
‘The growth is coming this way. There’s no doubt about it. But it comes down to what degree is it going to cost me for the growth of Oxford,? Troutwine said. ‘It just comes down to am I ready to move? Because I can’t live next to a highway.?
But possible lost home value and privacy aside, Troutwine is also upset because he feels the OCDA ‘deceived? him.
According to him, he and wife attended an OCDA meeting where the couple was ‘assured? by former OCDA Executive Director Debbie Schutt the home at 38 E. Burdick St. would not be torn down and ‘there was not going to be any access coming off Burdick St. into here.?
Troutwine said he was informed that the home would be converted into commercial use and any access to it would come from the south.
Troutwine said Schutt told him that the OCDA was ‘going to keep it as nice as possible for Oxford.?
‘I thought, ‘Okay, this is not really going to hurt me,?? he said. ‘When my wife and I left that meeting, we were satisfied with what we were told.?
‘The next thing I read in the paper is how they want to move (S. Mill St.) next to us,? Troutwine said. ‘I feel thing, then they change it, how do I know that next week or in a year, I’m not going to have a Taco Bell next to me,? Troutwine added.
Troutwine is also concerned how S. Mill Street’s movement to the east will impact the already congested traffic flow on Burdick St.
Currently, drivers traveling on S. Mill St. have three options when they come to E. Burdick St., they can turn right, left or go straight across to N. Mill St.
However, if they move S. Mill St. next to Troutwine’s home, drivers will only be able to turn left or right because the street will face James Lumber’s parking lot.
Drivers will ‘lose an option,? Troutwine said, which will result in more traffic congestion on Burdick and motorists cutting through the James Lumber lot.
‘Is James Lumber going to appreciate that?? Troutwine said.
Troutwine noted that traffic is already too congested on Burdick. ‘There are times when I leave my house that I have to go to the post office to make a U-turn,? he said.
Moving S. Mill St. to the east will require the village council to close and vacate the existing portion that connects to E. Burdick.
On Aug. 5 village voters will be asked to give permission to sell the 79-foot long and 45-foot wide portion of S. Mill St. between the OCDA-owned properties of 32 and 36 E. Burdick.
The 3,555-square-foot parcel fronts E. Burdick and extends to the north-south split line of 32 and 36 E. Burdick.
If voters approve the sale, the parcel will be split. Half will be added to 32 E. Burdick and the other half to 36 E. Burdick.
Although he acknowledged that ‘the right of election is the way of the people,? Troutwine said he ‘doesn’t figure it’s fair? all village voters will decide the fate of S. Mill St. when it’s movement will directly affect him and his two neighbors at 46 and 48 E. Burdick St.
‘They’re going to vote on an issue and they have no idea how it’s going to affect the other people,? he said. ‘People on W. Burdick or Pontiac don’t understand how this will effect me and my neighbors. There’s just the three of us on this block. That’s it.?
Troutwine asked ‘If I sell and take the loss? how will it affect them?
Dennis Moser, who’s lived at 48 E. Burdick St. since 1994, agrees with Troutwine that moving S. Mill St. is a bad idea.
Moser, a 30-year Oxford resident, said the move will cause more traffic congestion and ‘create havoc? for himself and his neighbors trying to ‘get in and out? of their driveways.
‘Those couple of houses (separating 42 E. Burdick from S. Mill St.) make a world of difference,? when trying to pull in and out,? he said.
Moving the street would move the traffic ‘even closer? to he and his neighbors? driveways, Moser said.
‘There’s more traffic (on Mill St.) than they realize,? he said. ‘It takes quite a bit of traffic? from drivers avoiding M-24.
Moser said he ‘can’t see the logic? in ‘dumping? Mill St.’s traffic into the James Lumber lot.
Moser fears the increased traffic congestion will have a adverse affect on the value of his home, in which he’s made a ‘substantial investment.?
‘They’re (the OCDA) not interested in what happens to the neighborhood,? he said. ‘They just want to move the street and make sure they maximize their investment.?
Mosher referred to the OCDA as the ‘Oxford Community Disaster Authority? and said ‘the best way to describe that group is either helpless or hopeless.?
‘I haven’t quite made my mind up yet,? he said.
OCDA Chairperson Sue Bossardet defended moving S. Mill St. citing pedestrian safety as the ‘overriding concern? and main reason for the decision.
‘You can’t have a street running through a parking lot and not create a dangerous situation,? she said.
Althought the original concept plan for the southeast lot didn’t call for relocating Mill St. through 38 E. Burdick, Bossardet said once the OCDA met with the village planning commission and village council, the two bodies indicated they ‘couldn’t support? the plan for the reason stated above.
‘That’s why it changed,? she said.
As for Troutwine’s assertion that moving S. Mill St. will deprive drivers of the option to travel straight across to the north side, Bossardet indicated that’s not a negative thing.
‘My feeling is that darting across Mill creates a dangerous situation with the amount of traffic on Burdick,? she said.
Bossardet said she doesn’t believe drivers would see cutting through James Lumber’s parking area as a ‘viable? alternative, given the amount of customer and delivery traffic in the lot.
As for Troutman’s concerns over possible lost privacy, although she wasn’t sure, Bossardet said she believed the village ordinance would require screening ? such as a brick wall, privacy fencing or shrubs ? be placed, at the OCDA’s expense, between 42 E. Burdick and the relocated street.
However, according to village Building, Zoning and Planning Department Administrator John Elsarelli, there’s nothing in the zoning ordinance that would require the village or OCDA to pay for or erect screening for a residential property abutting a street.
Screening would be required by ordinance if the OCDA was placing a parking lot next to Troutwine’s property, not a street, Elsarelli said.
When asked about Troutwine’s claim that he was ‘assured? there would be no access to Burdick next to his home, Bossardet replied, ‘I don’t know who told him that. I don’t recall that.?
However, Bossardet also noted that ‘plans change,? again citing the safety concerns raised by the planning commission and council if S. Mill St. was left where it is. ‘It has to be moved,? she said.