Before it ever got the chance to take root, a proposed noxious weed ordinance for Oxford Township was yanked, bagged and set on the curb.
‘Why stick your nose in people’s personal property rights?? said Supervisor Bill Dunn.
Township officials last week voted 4-3 to ‘drop? the proposed ordinance during its first reading.
This was the third time since 1999 the township board has considered an ordinance to police grass and weeds that grow over a certain height on residential properties. It was the third time the idea went nowhere.
‘I don’t believe there’s a health and safety issue,? said Trustee Sue Bellairs, who opposed it.
Creating an entire ordinance based on only two complaints, lodged at the board’s June 13 meeting, is not good policy in Bellairs? opinion.
‘I believe we’re proposing this for a handful of people to get some kind of a cookie-cutter conformity,? she said.
Things would be different if someone could show her ?10 complaints from 10 different people on 10 different properties,? but, ‘I don’t think we have had that, ever.?
Bellairs said a noxious weed ordinance is nothing more than an attempt to legislate ‘conformity? and eliminate the ‘diversity? in people’s yards, which can include everything from wildflower gardens to compost piles to having no lawn at all.
‘We should be protecting the rights of the residents to choose their own type of landscaping,? she said.
But Treasurer Joe Ferrari didn’t see the proposed ordinance as an attempt to regulate the specifics of what people can grow in their yards.
‘We’re not trying to get in aesthetics,? he said. ‘We got into it for those that just let things get too overgrown.?
Ferarri said the ordinance is more about protecting property values from neighbors who let their grass and weeds go ‘awry? for whatever reason.
‘If you want things to look a certain way in your yard, that is your prerogative and that’s the way it should be,? he explained. ‘But when it starts affecting their neighbors? property value (that’s when the township has to step in).?
Given the housing market’s ‘so tight? right now, Ferrari said he wants to give residents ‘every opportunity? to sell their houses and not have their values ‘unnecessarily deflated? by someone who’s not maintaining their property.
Resident Helen Barwig said it’s up to the courts to settle issues between neighbors, not the township government.
‘They can go to court and fight their neighbor on anything they want to,? she said. ‘They don’t need the township doing their work for them.?
Barwig found it ironic that the township board was considering this ordinance given it’s the ‘worst offender? with all the high weeds surrounding the municipal water tower located in the Red Barn subdivision.
‘A little kid could get lost in it over there,? she said.
Dunn told Barwig he would get in touch with the Oakland County Drain Commissioner’s Office, which operates and maintains the township’s water system, and have something done about the weeds there.
Mick Steiner, the Oxford Woods resident who asked the township to enact a weed ordinance, pleaded his case once again before the board.
‘We’ve got people that have moved out of their houses and haven’t mowed their yard in three years,? he explained. ‘It’s the responsibility of the homeowner to take care of their property. When you move into a subdivision, it’s a given.?
In order to keep these two vacant houses looking halfway decent, neighbors have been forced to expend time and money by mowing the lawns themselves, according to Steiner, who asked Bellairs if she wanted to cover the gasoline costs.
Since the homeowners won’t take care of their properties, Steiner believes it’s the township’s responsibility to step in
‘We shouldn’t have to go to court to fight our neighbors,? he said. ‘This is something we need done by this board right here.?
Unfortunately for Steiner, a majority of the board disagreed as Dunn, Bellairs, Trustee Charles Kniffen and Clerk Clara Sanderson all voted to drop the issue.