Oxford Township’s hopes of becoming a certified acceptance facility for U.S. passport applications were dashed.
Clerk Curtis Wright received a letter from the Detroit Passport Agency informing him the township office at 300 Dunlap Rd. was not approved by the U.S. Department of State to be a designated Passport Acceptance Facility.
‘I was shocked and disappointed,? Wright said. ‘We thought we were in and ready to go.?
The reason for the rejection?
Apparently, this area is ‘over-served? by other facilities, such as post offices and government offices, in Lake Orion, Metamora, Brandon, Ortonville, Dryden, Clarkston, Goodrich, Rochester, Pontiac and Lapeer.
‘It’s too bad,? Wright said. ‘It’s another service we could have provided.?
Wright is especially disappointed given the many hours of on-line and on-site (in Detroit) training he and his employees, Renee Wilson and Susan McCullough, underwent to pass the exam to become an acceptance facility.

OXFORD VILLAGE ? A proposal to build a 76-unit multifamily housing project at 98 S. Glaspie St. was dealt a major blow last week as planning commissioners voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the planned unit development (PUD) due to its high density.
‘The only reason I voted to deny this is the fact that the developer refused to decrease the (number of) units,? said Commissioner Bonnie Staley. ‘I didn’t see anything wrong with anything that was going in except for the number of units he was going to build. Other than that, I would have voted for it.?
Chuck and Craig Schneider, a father-son development team, want to construct two residential buildings, two and three stories high, on the 3.6-acre former industrial site. One would contain 52 units, while the other would have 24. All units would have one or two bedrooms and contain a minimum of 1,200 square feet.
The Schneiders have a $225,000 purchase agreement in place with the village for the property, but the sale has not been consummated. The municipality purchased it for $700,000 in March 2006. The site appraised for $305,000 in 2014.
In the planning commission’s recommendation, all three reasons cited for the denial revolved around density.
It was noted the proposed density is ?35 more units than would otherwise be permitted,? based on the current plan, if the property underwent a standard rezoning from single family residential to multiple family as opposed to going through the PUD process.
Planning commissioners also felt ‘the PUD agreement does not provide adequate concessions from the developer to the village in exchange for the requested additional density.?
Under the PUD process, developers and municipalities negotiate an agreement to get things they want. Each side typically gives up something in order to gain something.
Finally, the planning commission cited a lack of give-and-take on the Schneiders? part with regard to the proposed number of units.
‘The applicant has refused to negotiate any further reduction in density with the village administration,? the motion stated.
Neither of the Schneiders were present for the meeting. Chuck had submitted a Feb. 2 letter requesting the proposed PUD be removed from the agenda because one of the commissioners, Tom Kennis, would not be in attendance and ‘all members should be present to vote on agenda items to (ensure) the proper due process.?
The planning commission’s recommendation was expected to be discussed and potentially acted upon at the village council’s Feb. 9 meeting. Council has the final say.
Six of the homeowners who live within 100 feet of 98 S. Glaspie St. signed a rezoning protest petition opposing the PUD and filed it with the village.
Because of this, state law requires that now, if council wanted to approve the proposed PUD, four of its five members would have to vote in favor of it as opposed to the usual three, according to village attorney Bob Davis. He said the voting requirement has increased from a ‘simple majority? to a ‘supermajority.?
Kelly Arkles, an Oxford Lakes subdivision resident who’s been actively involved in opposing the project, doesn’t want to see 98 S. Glaspie St. developed. She favors having the site rezoned from single family to recreation and inquired as to how to go about doing that.
The 2011 master plan, which the village is currently in the process of updating, depicts the site’s future land use as ‘recreation.?
But future land use and zoning are two different things. ‘The zoning ordinance is based on the master plan and it’s supposed to implement what the master plan wants,? explained village planner Chris Khorey, of the Northville-based McKenna Associates, Inc. ‘And when we have requests like this, they are judged against the master plan.?
But Khorey noted the village doesn’t currently have a recreation zoning classification on the books. That’s why 98 S. Glaspie St. is currently zoned for single family residential use as is the village’s Scripter Park.
For those concerned about that, Khorey noted Scripter Park is going to stay a park ‘for as long as anyone here can see.?
‘Because Scripter Park has gotten grants from the State of Michigan in the past, if the village were to try to sell that property, they would owe a considerable amount of money to the state,? he explained.
If village residents want to create a recreation zoning district and have 98 S. Glaspie St. rezoned to that classification, they do have the right to request both of those things.
‘Our zoning ordinance says that anyone can petition for a rezoning or a text amendment to the zoning ordinance,? Khorey noted. ‘If you would like to draft a recreation zoning district and apply for the village to make it a text amendment, then you have the right to do that.?
The better way to create a recreation zoning district, in Khorey’s opinion, would be to work through the master plan process and if it’s decided that ‘yes, this is something we want,? then everyone works together to draft it.
‘But I think it’s definitely an idea worth considering and discussing,? he said.
Erik Dolan, a resident of Spring Lake Dr. in Oxford Lakes, expressed his displeasure with the fact the village is looking at selling 98 S. Glaspie St. for $475,000 less than it paid.
‘I think the residents of the community are also concerned about the size of the financial loss, the utter fiscal irresponsibility that this village is demonstrating,? he said.
When village officials bought the property a decade ago, their main motivation was to prevent a potentially undesirable user from moving in and possibly contaminating the municipality’s groundwater supply given the site’s close proximity to the wellfield.
Over the years, the village pondered a number of potential public uses for the site including expanding Scripter Park, creating a community/senior center and relocating the village offices and police station there. Nothing ever came to fruition because the municipality lacked the necessary funds.
The village was approached with a proposal to turn the property into a privately-operated indoor sports training facility.
That went nowhere.
In November 2012, village residents voted 1,069 to 521 to grant the municipality the authority to sell the site.
In 2014, two local companies made offers of $250,000 and $300,000 to purchase the site and use it for light industrial purposes.
Later that year, the village received a $400,000 offer from a subsidiary of the Oakland Livingston Human Service Agency that wanted to construct a three-story apartment complex containing about 62 units for senior citizens who are deaf or hearing impaired.
None of these offers resulted in a sale.
Dolan also expressed his concern that village residents? opportunity to offer input on this proposed housing project had been stifled.
‘It almost seems as if their ability to tender an opinion, in many fashions, has been hindered by the rescheduling of appointments, cancellations by the builder to appear (at meetings) and things of that nature,? he said. ‘This almost seems like a shell game.?
Davis disagreed. ‘This board has allowed more public comment than is required under law,? the attorney said.
The planning commission scheduled a public hearing for Dec. 1, then issued a public notice announcing it, which was published on the village website and in the Oxford Leader, and posted at the village offices. Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified of the hearing via mail.
A front-page story announcing the hearing also appeared in the Leader’s Nov. 25 edition. Only a few residents spoke at that hearing.
However, at subsequent meetings, as public interest in the project grew, the planning commission gave citizens ample opportunity to ask questions and voice opinions.
‘You’re trying to say that there’s been this conspiracy to hinder communication and quite frankly, I’m a little offended by that because I think there’s been an over-achievement of communication in this case,? Davis said.
‘We’ve allowed public comments as if it’s a public hearing on, I think, four occasions now,? he continued. ‘I hope you don’t go away feeling that there’s been a thwarting of your right to be heard.?
‘Absolutely not. I do not,? Dolan replied.
Dolan said he just wants to make sure that should this proposed PUD be rejected by the village and new plans later get submitted, residents will be kept in the loop.
‘This body will follow the state law and the local ordinances for every project,? Davis said. ‘There will always be public hearings. There will always be proper notices.?

Oxford’s new Legacy Center won’t be receiving a property tax abatement.
That’s because the township board last week voted 4-3 to deny owner Christian Mill’s request to have a commercial rehabilitation district established on his 19.74-acre property at 925 N. Lapeer Rd.
Creating a district is the first step in the abatement process under the state’s Commercial Rehabilitation Act of 2005. Without a district, a tax abatement under this law cannot be sought or granted.
Voting to deny Mills? request were Treasurer Joe Ferrari, Clerk Curtis Wright and trustees Sue Bellairs and Patti Durr.
Voting against the motion were Supervisor Bill Dunn and trustees Jack Curtis and Buck Cryderman.
‘Personally, I’ve always been opposed to tax abatements,? Bellairs said. ‘I’m so happy the business is here and everything else, but I’m just opposed to tax abatements for a variety of reasons that I definitely am not going into tonight.?
‘The idea is it’s benefiting private business and once you start meddling with private business, you pick winners and losers. That’s not government’s role,? Ferrari said. ‘Our role is to set the policies (and) let the market play out. If Christian makes a million (dollars), I’m so happy for him. I want him to. I just don’t want it to be on the backs of our taxpayers.?
The Legacy Center
Since purchasing it in 2014, Mills has been renovating and transforming the old Sea Ray boat plant, which operated from 1962-91, into the Legacy Center. The new facility is basically a privately-owned-and-operated community center featuring a mix of for-profit and nonprofit tenants focused on family entertainment, fitness and wellness, training for individual and team sports, swimming, art, education, life skill development and dining.
When all is said and done, Mills claims he will have between $5 million and $10 million invested in the Legacy project.
In light of this, Mills, a Lake Orion resident and entrepreneur, was planning to apply for a commercial rehabilitation abatement that would have frozen the taxable value of his 208,000-square-foot building and exempted any new investment in it from local property taxes for a period of one to 10 years.
Although Mills was planning to request the 10-year maximum, he was willing to negotiate.
Mills touted the benefits of the Legacy Center to township officials.
‘We’ll create between 200 and 400 jobs ? well over $4 million in anticipated payroll,? he said. ‘We’ve rehabilitated a dilapidated industrial site and community eyesore . . . (We’ve) created a destination for (people from) surrounding communities for up to 60 miles.?
Mills said the Legacy Center will help increase the value of surrounding properties.
‘We think because of our investment, people will want to come and be near (it) because of the draw and the traffic,? he said.
Based on estimates he received from Oakland County, Mills said the Legacy Center is expected to generate about $1.5 million annually in consumer spending and draw up to 15,000 visitors per month.
‘These are estimates, of course, but I can tell you (during) the opening day (for one of the Legacy businesses), we had over 600 visitors within an eight-hour period,? he told the board.
The numbers
If the rehabilitation district had been established and Mills had been subsequently granted an abatement, he would have still had to pay a total of 52.4256 mills in local, county and state taxes on the building’s existing value. One mill is worth $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.
However, Mills would not have had to pay 28.4814 mills on the building’s increased value stemming from improvements going forward. This includes 10.7912 mills in township taxes, 9.7902 mills in county taxes and 7.9 mills to retire the school district’s bond debt.
The only taxes he would have been required to pay on the new investment would have been the 17.9442-mill school district operating tax and 6-mill State Education Tax.
At Dunn’s request, the county Equalization Division, which serves as the township’s assessor, provided the board with some estimates of the new revenue the township, and the entities under it, would have been unable to collect if a tax abatement was granted.
Two scenarios were presented to officials.
For example, if Mills? new investment had a taxable value of $1 million and he received an abatement for it, the township, public library, fire department, parks and recreation department, police millage and North Oakland Transportation Authority could have lost a total of $57,292 in new revenue over a period of five years (2017-21).
If Mills? investment had a taxable value of $2 million, the potential loss could have increased to $114,586 over five years, based on the county’s estimates.
According to the county’s estimates, the most significant impact would have been on the township’s police and fire services. They could have lost $20,653/$41,307 and $18,437/$36,875, respectively, in new revenue over five years.
The abatement also could have cost the Oxford school district additional revenue to help pay off its bond debt. Based on the county’s estimates, the total could have been either $41,941 or $83,884 over five years.
Opposition
Opposition to Legacy’s request came from the public library.
‘I’m a strong advocate against tax abatement,? said Library Director Bryan Cloutier, who also serves on the Oxford Village Council. ‘I do not believe that tax abatement always has a good outcome. In fact, I can tell you as a village councilman, that last night we rescinded or revoked (a) tax abatement (for) a facility that didn’t follow through with its initial obligation. There’s just one example and there are many examples around the state that are much like that.?
Cloutier was referring to Royal Oak Boring. In April 2011, the village council granted the company a six-year industrial facilities tax abatement on personal property. It has since ceased operations at its 650 S. Glaspie St. facility.
Based on the county’s estimates, an abatement for the Legacy Center might have cost the library either $7,365 or $14,730 in additional tax revenue over five years.
‘I’m telling you, we can’t afford to lose anything right now,? said Cloutier, who’s served as library director since 2007.
Cloutier told the board the library has reduced its operations by ‘nearly $3 million? over the last nine years.
‘There’s no margin for us to give away potential revenue,? he said. ‘It’s impossible for us to do right now. For the last few years, we’ve been borrowing from our fund balance to invest heavily in our infrastructure that’s been neglected for many years.?
That being said, Cloutier noted his opposition to tax abatements has nothing to do with Mills or the Legacy Center. ‘I’m not here to criticize this gentleman for investing in our community,? he said. ‘I applaud him and I hope that he can be successful.?
Cloutier was not alone in his opposition.
At its Dec. 8 meeting, the parks and recreation commission, an elected board that oversees the department, voted 5-0 to inform the township that it’s ‘opposed to the request for a tax abatement from the Legacy Center.?
Based on the county’s estimates, the abatement might have cost the parks department either $4,497 or $8,995 in additional tax revenue over five years.
‘Scare tactics? or needed information
Trustee Curtis was ‘appalled? the aforementioned estimates from the county were included in the discussion because he viewed them as a ‘scare tactic? to show the entities what they might not gain.
‘What we fail to remember here is what we are getting from this building,? he said. ?
Curtis pointed out that Mills is already paying a sizeable amount in property taxes on the Legacy Center and would continue to do so even if an abatement on new investment was granted.
The 2015 summer and winter property tax bills for the site total $133,684. That includes local, county and state taxes.
Mills repeatedly noted how the township is already receiving more tax revenue because he purchased the property.
In 2014, the summer and winter tax bills for 925 N. Lapeer Rd. totalled $91,250. When Mills bought it, the taxes increased by $42,434 or 46.5 percent.
With regard to the proposed abatement, Mills told the board, ‘We’re not asking to go back to the 2014 taxes of $91,000 . . . We’re asking to freeze those taxes at $133,000.?
While it’s true Mills is paying much more in taxes, the fact is, his situation is by no means unique. What happened to Mills happens whenever any property, residential or commercial, is purchased in Michigan. The cap on its taxable value automatically comes off and it increases to the State Equalized Value, which can be substantially higher, especially if a property’s had the same owner for a number of years.
Describing the county’s estimates as a ‘scare tactic? upset Dunn.
‘I take offense to that,? the supervisor said.
‘You can take offense to it all you want,? Curtis retorted. ‘I took offense at getting this and hearing the fact that we’re greedy. We’re looking at what we’re not going to get. We’re talking like a lady with a ham under her arm and complaining she’s hungry because she doesn’t have a loaf of bread. That’s exactly what you’re doing here.?
Dunn explained he requested these numbers to help provide a more complete picture.
‘This was (done) to give information to our board (in order) to make a decision,? he said. ‘There’s a benefit on one side (to the Legacy request), but then (on) the other side, there’s not. I had to present the information.?
From the audience
Just prior to the board’s vote, a member of the audience, Bill Stanisci, who identified himself as an Oxford resident and the owner of a company in Romeo, offered some criticism.
‘We were considering moving (the company) to Oxford and we came to this meeting to see how Oxford viewed business,? he said. ‘The town seems against business. We were looking at the (former) Royal Oak Boring plant and quite frankly, I’m going to walk away and go somewhere where they appreciate us coming in and investing in the community because it really doesn’t seem like that’s what you want to do here.?
‘Everybody else is wooing companies . . . and you’re pushing them away,? Stanisci added. ‘You’re going to end up with a whole bunch of empty industrial buildings in this town . . . I really don’t think you’re looking at both sides of it and I think it’s very shortsighted.?
Reaction to rejection
Immediately following the board’s denial, Mills left the meeting. He later returned to vent his feelings during public comment.
‘I had to come back because I was pretty upset,? Mills said. ‘From an entrepreneurial perspective . . . your decision was shortsighted and you send a message to the community that you don’t want to embrace entrepreneurs or partnerships or be pro-business in this community. I kind of took the approach with this business that we were going to do some great things and work together.?
Mills said ‘most business owners? would have told the township, ‘I’m not going to buy a dilapidated building? and renovate it ‘unless you give me a tax abatement.?
In contrast, Mills said he ‘was a little naive? believing he could invest his ‘hard-earned money? up-front and later, ‘form a partnership? with the township.
‘It’s really shortsighted (on the township’s part) because you take a guy like me who looks at this and says, ‘Well, maybe I’m not going to put any more money into the community,?? he said. ‘And for every other entrepreneur that’s sitting here watching this, they’re probably thinking twice about (investing in Oxford). We need to work together.
‘So, it isn’t the few dollars that I may or may not receive back (through) a tax abatement. It’s the slap in the face and the message that you send (is) yes, you’ll take anything I have to offer without partnering with (me). I’m really disappointed.?

Recall proponents vow to carry on after county election officials rejected their ballot proposal.
‘Not having done this before, I expected that revisions might be needed,? said Henry Woloson, treasurer of the group Citizens Against Independence Township Waste, formed to recall township Supervisor Dave Wagner.
Oakland County Election committee considered the ballot proposal, Dec. 14, rejecting it due to language not being adequately clear.
They plan to resubmit a petition this week, Woloson said.
Wagner said he felt good, but was sad they have the opportunity to resubmit because it is ‘disrupting government.? He also said the language ‘doesn’t have to be truthful.?
‘If there is clarity to it, that’s all that matters on a recall petition, so any factual basis makes no difference. I don’t think people really understand that part because I didn’t either, I thought you live and die on your merits,? Wagner said. ‘If something was approved, it was approved. If it wasn’t approved and you did something wrong, then you should leave ? simple as that.?
However, Woloson pointed out the state Constitution, Article II, section 8 concerning recalls, states ‘the sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.?
‘This means that the electorate decides recall matters and therefore needs to receive a clear listing of the reasons for a recall,? Woloson said.
He gave an example of a 1960 case of Wallace vs. Tripp, where the Michigan Supreme Court said, ‘the basic power is held by the people in both our nation and our state. Our State Constitution as presently drawn places much confidence in the proper functioning of an intelligent and informed electorate.?
‘Let the people decide the issue,? Woloson said. ‘It is our right as citizens.?
As far as the petition goes, CAITW President Mike Powell said he wasn’t disappointed in the committee’s ruling.
‘I was sort of expecting to run into a few bumps along the road, there are only a few minor things they wanted change on it and we fully expect it to be approved next time around,? Powell said.
‘We aren’t at all giving up. that’s for darn sure, that’s not in our program. If we’ve got to go back 100 times that’s what we’re going to do.?