The Addison Township Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denying the rezoning of Pat and Glenn Eisenhardt’s 53.55-acre parcel, located on the southwest corner of Rochester and Army roads, from suburban farms (2-acre) to residential (1-acre).
According to a motion presented by Gene Louwaert and seconded by Jeanette Brown, the following were presented as the reasoning:
n The rezoning is untimely and therefore inconsistent for the recommended future land use density of the master land use plan, at this time.
n The potential uses in the zoning district are not compatible with surrounding land uses.
n The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the township master plan.
n The physical, geological, hydrological and other environmental features of the site are not compatible with the host of uses permitted in the requested zoning district, especially for sites without public utilities.
n The applicant has not demonstrated that a reasonable return on investment is not possible through developing the property with at least one of the permitted uses under the current zoning.
n There has not been a demonstrated need for additional land in the requested zoning district in relation to the land currently zoned and available to meet the need.
Planning commissioner Joan Travaskis asked to have section 13.01 of the zoning ordinance on lake lots included in the motion. She stated that this paragraph truly shows the intent of the commission.
“There’s nothing personal to this, I just wanted to show that we’re following our ordinances,” she said.
When contacted to clarify some points in his motion, commissioner Louwaert declined to comment stating he would prefer to keep his public comments at the planning commission meetings. Also, township planner Rand Bowman did not return a phone call in time for publication.
Applicant Pat Eisenhardt said she agrees with a couple of the commission’s points, but was unhappy with the abruptness of the decision.
“I find it hard to come to terms with how they came to the decision,” she told this reporter. Eisenhardt added that she was uncertain why the commission handled the request in such a manner and does not agree with several of the listed points.
“The reasons that they chose, several were very comical and entrapment-like,” she said. “It amazes me that they did not go through the checklist like normal.”
For example, Eisenhardt agreed that she was not able to prove she could not get a reasonable rate of return on her investment with the parcel’s current zoning. She has stated numerous times that the records go back for several years and much of the work was done by herself and her husband.
However, she does not understand how approving a rezoning to residential is inconsistent with surrounding land uses, especially since the property previously had homes on it.
“I expected some questions with all of this and I expected it to take quite some time,” said Eisenhardt. “My husband and I are very well aware of what we have to go through to sell this property.”
The planning commission’s recommendation now goes on to the township board where it can either be accepted, rejected or turned back to the commission for further consideration.
“I don’t think I would take this back to the planning commission,” Eisenhardt said about her future plans. “I will go to the board and tell them why I disagree with this recommendation.”