Denied once already, developer Tim Birtsas was ‘surprised? again, Nov. 18, when his Rose property residential proposal was turned down a second time.
Birstas expected approval because he made changes based on township planner recommendations.
‘We’re looking at our options right now,” he said.
The original rezoning request on the back portion of the property off Deer Hill Drive was from R1C, suburban farm residential, to R1A, single family residential. Birtsas developed the plan as a Planned Rezoning Overlay instead of the more traditional Planned Unit Development. The original plan consisted of 30 houses, which planner Dick Carlisle thought was a reasonable number.
The plan was revised to 28 units, and also donated one acre between Deer Hill Drive and the project site for a park or open space, and prohibiting launching of motorized boats on Deer Lake. Other conditions included meeting keyholing ordinances, MDEQ requirements, and Oakland County Drain Commission requirements.
Carlisle again recommended approval, especially in light of the voluntary conditions. However, Trustee Dan Kelly disagreed because five of the seven conditions are required of all developers.
‘I just don’t see the compelling reasons or the benefit that’s been given to the township for their request of the PRO. I respect the planning commission recommendations. I respect Dick Carlisle’s recommendations on these issues, but looking at the total history of it, I’m not convinced we’ve received what we should under the ordinance.?
Trustee Larry Rosso, planning commission liaison, called it ‘a dilemma of master plan interpretation.”
He agreed with Dick Carlisle that the overall density fell in line with the master plan. However, density did not fall in line with surrounding properties.
‘We have in this instance three directions of R1C (suburban farm residential) property that’s on the east, north and the south,? he said. ‘To me, that carries more weight with me than the compatibility with density on the parcel itself.?
Kelly agreed with Rosso.
‘When you alter it in any way, shape, or form, then you’re altering the bottom line basis for why you put it there in the first place,? he said.
Treasurer Jim Wenger was also concerned with the ‘big picture? and consistency.
‘I’m still not convinced this is the best we can do for Deer Lake and the community at large,? he said.
Deer Lake Farm resident Elizabeth Wagner, speaking on behalf of the Deer Lake Home Owners Association, gave an example of past real estate developer Hugh Gardner, who in 1978 was denied 1,800 units by the township board, but approval of 916 units.
‘I humbly ask the township board to put the concerns of preserving the quality of Deer Lake above the concerns of the developer’s concern,? she said. ‘And I humbly asked the developer to consider asking in the interest of the community as well as itself as did Hugh Gardner, so we can have a win-win situation with our neighbors.?
Trustee Dan Travis found the plan to be ‘too many lots and too much development? and brought fourth a motion to deny the request. The motion passed 5-2. Supervisor Dave Wagner and Trustee Charles Dunn voted no.
‘The Rose property is an interesting piece of property and I completely agree with our consultant Dick Carlisle on it,? said Wagner. ‘It worries me because we didn’t approve it of what could happen. It’s zoned in such a way that they could actually have more units put on it than what they were suggesting. I thought this was the best opportunity to control that growth on that piece of property.?