Despite requests from neighbors, there will be no public hearing on whether to grant a wetland fill permit for a new house in Independence Township.
The township planning commission voted 4-1 Thursday, Sept. 25 to return the question to the township building department, declining their opportunity to sit as a “wetland board” to hear the matter.
The issue came to the planning commission agenda when several residents wrote in response to the township’s notification of a request for a wetland fill permit from developer Dan Vackaro.
Vackaro hopes to build a 1,900-square-foot, three-bedroom home on W. Princeton just west of Dartmouth. To do so, he is requesting permission to build a 10-by-30-foot driveway by filling in part of a designated wetland.
If the wetland permit is approved, he will use approximately 145 cubic yards of fill, and some neighbors believe that will destroy the “functioning wetland” and add problems in an area with a history of flooding and septic failure.
The wetland permit is required because the township government has determined the area is a “regulated wetland.” While officials voiced concern about use of such areas, some concluded the developer has taken reasonable action to minimize the impact.
Contracted engineer Randy Ford said there is difficulty with this project because the neighborhood is “an old platted subdivision” with unimproved roads and no detailed engineering.
“There’s a significant area of drainage,” Ford said. “It will behoove the applicant to minimize the amount of fill. They must maintain the status quo on drainage.”
Township wetland consultant Derek Stratelak said the size of the wetland in question (about 1.65 acres) falls under the size regulated by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, although the DEQ did engage in “months of deliberation” concerning the property.
Stratelak echoed Ford’s comments on drainage problems, and he believes it may be a continuing problem if development continues.
“This is a situation I can see reoccurring,” he said.
“Any fill affects the aquatic life,” Stratelak said, but Vackaro “has done everything possible to minimize the effect on the system.”
Further, Vackaro will fill only about 0.7-acre of the wetland and has agreed to a conservation easement for the remainder of the property.
“The remaining wetland will be protected in perpetuity,” Stratelak said.
Officials also questioned Vackaro’s plan to include a septic field on a neighboring parcel, since the property in question does not percolate properly. The neighboring parcel is owned by the same party who contracted Vackaro for the new home, but it is being rented to other tenants.
The practice of a “septic easement” on adjoining property has been called in question, but that falls under the jurisdiction of Oakland County. Bev McElmeel, director of building, planning and zoning for the township, said the county had issued a sewer permit but has since rescinded it.
Stratelak said one issue could be an existing drain and easement already recorded on the adjoining property. Crossing easements would be an issue, he said.
Planning Commissioner Daniel Travis, who cast the lone negative vote against the public hearing, cited the septic easement as one of his concerns.
Although public comment was not allowed at the meeting, about 12 concerned residents were in attendance. They were not pleased with the results.
“Not having a public forum is saying the wetland is not a concern, and that’s ridiculous,” Sharon Vaughn said.
Vaughn, a former wildlife refuge manager with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, disputed some of the official findings and continued to claim a danger to wetland vegetation and wildlife.
“They should not be basing decisions on past practices that haven’t worked,” she said. “They don’t need a conservation easement. They just need to follow their own regulations.”
Vackaro, who was not present at last week’s meeting, said there is precedent for his driveway plan, claiming 12 houses along Clarkston and Clintonville roads with fill in wetland areas.
Vackaro, said he has been open to selling the property to conservationists, came up with another potential alternative, offering to purchase an easement for the driveway through the rear yards of protesting neighbors.
“I will pay for an easement. I will give them a chance to save their wetland,” he said, questioning the neighbors’ sincerity. “It’s not about the wetland. The only issue is, everyone of those neighbors is using the back of their property.”
Vaughn said Vackaro has never made that offer.
“He’s never contacted any of us,” Vaughn said, also wondering why Vackaro never investigated the possibility of a driveway off of nearby Kelsey Lane.
Bob Inskeep, president of the North Oakland Headwaters Land Conservancy (which owns wetland on the other side of the proposed new house), said Vackaro never responded to his inquiries.
“He hasn’t responded to anything from us,” Inskeep said. “I approached him two years ago before this even started.”
Vaughn and Inskeep said they are reviewing their options in continuing their opposition to the project.