Board votes 6-0 against rezoning request

By Megan Kelley
Editor
mkelley@mihomepaper.com
INDEPENDENCE TWP. — Independence Township Hall was packed with residents last week during the township’s board of trustees regular meeting on Oct. 8. Nearly every person in attendance for the meeting was there for the same agenda item, a recommended rezoning of a parcel of land on the west side of Dixie Highway, just south of Big Lake Road.
Along with the project, the developer also indicated the intent to donate to the townships a 1.8 acre plot of land in Springfield Township and .29 acres of the existing site.
While the rezoning had been recommended by the planning commission to the Independence Township Board of Trustees, the board ultimately voted 6-0 to not approve the rezoning request after hundreds of residents spoke out against the rezoning. Trustee Jim Tedder, while present at the meeting via Microsoft Teams, was not able to vote on the measure.
On Aug. 8, the planning commission unanimously voted to recommend the rezoning of this particular parcel of land from C-4 General Business to Planned Rezoning Overlay/MS Motor Vehicle Service Station in order for a developer to build a gas station on the roughly 2.6 acre plot of land.
At that same meeting, several residents who lived on the street behind where the gas station would be built spoke against the rezoning for a number of reasons. Concerns from residents ranged from potential issues with safety and with public health.
In the months between the planning commission meeting on Aug. 8 and the township board of trustees meeting on Oct. 8, residents Dina Slanda, Guy and Jeannette Walton and Ashley Walton began circulating a petition to stop the rezoning. By the time of the meeting on Oct. 8, the petition had garnered 543 signatures and Slanda had unintentionally become a mouthpiece for the resistance group.
In an attempt to quell concerns, the developer made some adjustments to the project including adding a concrete vault that would surround the gas tank and removing the electric vehicle charging stations that would have backed up to residential properties.
Independence Township’s consultant Richard Carlisle from Carlisle/Wortman Associates was in attendance at the Oct. 8 board of trustees meeting to review the petition with the board and go over the history of the zoning and land use on the site, stating that the property has been zoned C-4 for longer than he has worked with the township.
According to Carlisle, the township was approached about a year and a half prior about potentially rezoning the property to allow for a gas station.
Trustee Sam Moraco spoke against the proposal, asking why, if the proposal was in the works for at least a year and a half already, it wasn’t brought to the planning commission while they were working on updating the master plan.
“I know that our goal is to align our zoning with our master plan. That makes it so we’re moving in the right direction. What I don’t understand is what was conveyed to them that would make them pursue this project? They have a right to ask for it but how come we didn’t discuss it over the past year and a half with the planning commission while we were doing the master plan?” Moraco said.
At its last meeting, the board of trustees approved the distribution of an updated master plan. As far as Moraco was concerned, he felt that should the petitioners have worked with the planning commission while the master plan was being updated, the board could have amended the master plan to allow for this type of rezoning so it aligned with the plan better. Moraco also added that he did not think a gas station would be considered a public amenity to the community and that it would likely only serve people traveling on I-75 much like other gas stations in that area.
“It baffles me that it got to this point. I’m disappointed that we weren’t able to convey our wishes and desires of this district better so that it didn’t get to this point. That’s one of my major concerns; the first thing we’re going to do, you’re proposing, is to put in the highest, dirtiest volume commercial use right where we want to put the entrance way sign coming into the township, into the most rural, nicest section of the U.S. highway and road that we have in the township,” Moraco said.
During public participation, several residents spoke against the rezoning including Slanda who restated her concerns with the project. Despite the developer’s attempt to quell concerns from residents close to the property, Slanda and other residents still expressed worry over the project.
“The fact of the matter is nothing in this world is infallible. Everything fails. If those tanks fail, and he’s alerted of it or he notices it on his quarterly inspections, it’s already too late. It’s in our groundwater, it’s in our well water, it’s in our drinking water that we’re sending our kids to school with every single day. It’s not a matter of if our water gets contaminated, it’s a matter of when,” Slanda said. “State and local municipalities have a duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, that’s listed federally and at a state level.”
Slanda also said that she had been informed that should a gas station go in directly behind her house on that property, her property value would decrease. She added that she and her neighbors were aware that there was a potential for development on the property but that its zoning had indicated a development would be office space or medical research, not a gas station.
“We expected commercial. We knew it was for sale and that it would be office space, medical, research or similar. We all said okay and signed our purchase agreements on our home knowing that information,” Slanda said. “We’re not opposing all development, we’re opposing this one that is not safe and is not healthy.”
Several other board members spoke after public comment, including Trustee Ron Ritchie who sits on the planning commission and approved the recommendation to rezone the property.
“If anybody on this board believes in property rights, that’s me. It’s what I’ve always ran on, it’s what I believe in. I think the people that have property have the right to develop that property, but I also believe in the township and I want it to be a good place to live. I’ve lived here for almost 30 years and I plan on staying here as well,” Ritchie said. “One thing that Dina (Slanda) and a number of other people who spoke tonight said is that, in a way they believe in property rights too, that they aren’t against the property being developed, they’re only against this particular design of what the developer wants to put here. I guess in my mind, I feel that with the overwhelming support and the people that are here that have spoke out over the last couple of weeks, I have changed my mind and will not be supporting this vote tonight.”
After the planning commission meeting on Aug. 8, Slanda said she and other residents felt like they had been ignored and laughed at by the commission when bringing forward their concerns. Because of this, going into the meeting on Oct. 8, Slanda was unsure of how the board would ultimately vote but was pleasantly surprised by the outcome.
“We were super pleased with the way that the board handled themselves and the meeting. They were really respectful of the work and the time that we put in and it was really awesome to see them take the side of the people versus a developer this time,” Slanda said. “I feel really good about it. I am not a public speaker. I am not somebody who does crowds so this is all very much out of my comfort zone and outside of my little box but I’m really proud of myself, I’m really proud of the community.”
Slanda also noted that this has given her an opportunity to show her young children democracy in action in a hands-on fashion and on a local level.
Slanda also gave credit to her neighbors including the Waltons who helped circulate the petition and rally the support of the community.
“Without the community rallying behind us for this, it would have never gotten this far,” Slanda said.