Construction of a new house on W. Princeton Avenue is not “in the greater public interest,” according to the Independence Township Planning Commission, but the prospective developer said the fight is not complete.
Sitting as a “wetland board” Thursday, Nov. 13, the commission voted 6-1 to deny a wetland permit to allow fill for a driveway in the northeast corner of the township.
Neighbors have fought the project for months, claiming the fill in the “protected wetland” would cause further drainage problems in the area.
Attorney Lee Knopf, representing the absent property owner and developer, was joined by Tim Hart of Kieft Engineering in saying the house on W. Princeton just west of Dartmouth should not have a negative impact.
“It goes into great detail in your ordinance that your determination has to be that there’s going to be damage to aquatic life and vegetation, harm to the community and harm to the public as a result of this,” Knopf said. “My clients and myself after looking at this, fail to see any of those things are present.”
“[The developer] has chosen a house that would fit within the natural features setback. We tried to select a minimal width driveway that would have minimal impact and as little fill as possible,” Hart said. “I think he’s made every attempt to affect the wetland in the least amount that he can.”
Township consultants repeated earlier testimony that defended the need for careful review of the wetland impact, but said their research determined minimal effect to be caused by the 1,900-square-foot house and the 10-by-30-foot driveway.
“Obviously, something has to give if you keep building up in this pocket,” engineer Randy Ford said, but the proposed use of 145 cubic yards of fill on 1.65 acres of wetland. would cause displacement of only about 0.65 inches.
“You wouldn’t even notice that. It’s not going to change the current value or function of the system,” township wetland consultant Derek Stratelak said. “It would be in keeping with similar permits granted by the township in the past.”
Neighbors to the proposed project, several armed with copies of the township wetland ordinance and wetland maps, strongly disagreed, challenging the consultants’ computations and claiming lack of long-term perspective on the area.
Paul King, who lives at the intersection of Columbia and Princeton, downhill from the proposed project, said his property is already a flood hazard because of improper drainage. The new home, he said, would make it worse.
“This is going to create a serious problem with all the surrounding properties in the area,” he said.“ Until there is a drainage issue resolved in this area, nothing else can happen, period. The water needs to go someplace.”
Columbia resident Dave Buckley said the drainage problem is at least five years old, when he was told a drain could not be opened because of the private roads in the area.
“There’s a lot of people upset. A lot of people are frustrated,” Buckley said, noting one of his lots is completely under water each spring. “I think I live in the Amazon. The mosquitoes are crazy.”
“The fill will not be distributed evenly over the entire wetland,” said Dean Hammond, a Dartmouth resident whose property backs up to the site in question. “It will be a dam, so I can look forward to enjoying the same problem these people have with my back yard being under water.”
Ford said the developer plans a culvert under the driveway to allow free flow of water.
Hammond also asked why the developer did not consider a driveway easement off of Kelsey Drive, since he sought and received a septic easement on the same property.
“It has not been explored,” Hart said.
Sharon Vaughn, one of the organizing protesters, said a 1994 report showed water from the wetland touched all the surrounding properties.
“I’m angered at the blatant disregard of the fact that we’re in a drought cycle,” she said.
Columbia resident Pat Mueller agreed, saying the level on nearby Round Lake is the lowest she’s seen in 12 years. She also countered the claim of precedent along Clarkston Road.
“We are on a private road,” which tends to act as the drain for the area, she said. “Ditches are maintained by the county [along Clarkston Road]. Those are off county roads.”
Commissioner Daniel Travis voiced displeasure at the county’s decision to grant a septic easement on an adjoining property, even though it is the same property owner, and said the history of the region had to be considered.
“Any of the fills have a cumulative effect,” Travis said. “We aren’t doing any service to the community at large. We’re in fact causing harm by granting a wetland permit.”
Commissioner Sam Moraco, himself a builder, questioned the wisdom of building on the site.
“The lakes are low. Everything is low. The likelihood in the future is that the water table will be higher than it is today. That’s a real concern,” Moraco said. “I wouldn’t build a house if five years from now it will be under water.”
Commission Chairman David Lohmeier said, “This is not the largest wetland impact decision we’ve ever had to make,” but he said it was an important one.
“The burden is on [the developer] to show it is in the greater public interest,” Lohmeier said.
Commissioner Kathryn Caruso cast the lone vote in opposition to denying the permit.
While residents claimed victory, developer Dan Vackaro said Monday the fight is not over. He has the right to appeal to the planning commission, and a lawsuit is not out of the question.
“We’ve proved it to be developable. We’ve proved our point,” Vackaro said, accusing the protesters of using “hearsay” to prove theirs.
“They had no proof. I can’t understand how people can stand up with no evidence and [the commission] took what they said over what we’ve done.”