The Addison Township board of trustees voted 5-1 to not approve a rezoning request that would change approximately 71 acres, owned by Mr. R. Luth and located north of Mayfield Rd. and east of Rochester Rd., from M-1 and agricultural to 2-acre suburban farms. The request was made by Mr. Luth as the property owner and Mr. D. Mavis as the applicant.
“This is an isolated parcel of land,” said Mr. Luth during the last regular township meeting. “It’s natural that it should become a part of the other suburban farms in the area.”
The board’s decision supports the recommendation of the township’s planning commission, which denied the request with a 5-1 vote. However, Mr. Luth’s rezoning was supported by neighboring residents, particularly those in Mayfield Estates, who did attend the planning commission meetings.
During the course of two regular meetings, township trustees covered several topics with the application. Trustee and planning commissioner Ed Brakefield presented the three main issues discussed by the planning commission. He said the first was that the applicants did not provide all of the needed information.
“I’m not sure if we ever got all the proper documentation,” Brakefield told the township board during the January meeting. “I felt uneasy giving a rezoning where our planner was still continuously asking for information.”
The second issue was that no other M-1 zoning currently exists in the township. “That is the only spot of M-1 we have in the township and we are required to have some M-1 zoning by the state,” confirmed Treasurer Dan Alberty during the last meeting.
Alberty added that the agricultural zoning acts as a buffer between the M-1 and residential zoning in the area. “I’m not sure we want to lose that,” he said.
The planning commission found that the third issue was a disagreement over whether or not the rezoning met all of the requirements on the planning commission’s checklist.
“The applicant decided he’s meeting every requirement on there,” explained Brakefield, “and he’s not. This told me the applicant needed to do some more homework and bring us more information.”
Mr. Luth disagreed and felt that many of the items on the list could be handled at the development stage.
“Most of those issues are those that can be adjusted with engineering,” he said. “We’re not going to damage the wetlands. We love the wetlands. And sanitary facilities can be handled with engineering.”
Trustee Patricia Eisenhardt asked whether or not development was possible with an M-1 zoning. Trustee Sandra Campbell added to the question by asking whether or not the agricultural could be used as is or developed into equestrian farms.
Mr. Luth explained that the M-1 section was mainly wetlands and not prime for industrial development. He added that he had not researched the possibility of equestrian developments in the area since that was not his goal.
“I would like to see the M-1 moved because of the wetlands and such,” said Eisenhardt, “but there are two sides for everything and I can see why it’s there.”
In the end, the resolution listed the following:
n reasonable uses of the parcels exist under the current zoning of the property.
n significant water features exist on the property
n soil conditions present severe sanitary facilities limitations
n a significant manufacturing zoning pattern exists in the vicinity of the property
n the proposed zoning is not consistent with the Township Land Use Master Plan
n and the requested zoning designation would be inconsistent with a number of Land Use Master Plan objectives.