The 5-2 vote was ?…against the motion to approve the denial…?

I’m still bewildered, confused, scared and fearful of the CVS rezoning issue.
As you can see from the correction on page three and Trustee Neal Porter’s kind, heads-up letter to the editor on this page, I wasn’t exactly correct in the reporting of the story.
The board of trustees didn’t approve or ‘grant? the rezoning of the property on the corner of Baldwin and Maybee roads from residential to commercial.
As Township Supervisor Matt Gibb let me know via email, the vote, instead, was ‘against the motion to approve the denial? of the planning commission’s recommendation.
Huh?
Well, in that case, I’m in favor of not denying the township board’s request to speak to the public with such fanciful rhetoric.
Do you follow? I’m lost in the thickets myself.
Watching the issue play out at the meeting, I was of the mind there were two options: either go along with the planning commission and tell CVS to get lost, or go against them and rezone the property.
I forgot I was dealing with governmental mentality, where language and ideas are twisted so politicians can grandstand, plead their cases, please their buddies who elected them and then, essentially, do nothing at all.
I didn’t take into account that slippery third option, which the board took.
They didn’t say yes or no to CVS.
They didn’t say we agree or we disagree with the planning commission.
So, what did they do?
They voted 5-2 against the motion to approve the denial, of course.
Before the vote, bucketfuls of words came from all interested parties; it was discussed for more than an hour. Somewhere, in those wonderful dips and rises of melodious governmental language, I must have gotten lost.
They voted. It sounded like the vote wasn’t going along with the planning commission, and while I was loath to say the board approved it–which I didn’t say in the article, it didn’t feel right–I did get it wrong.
They did not grant the rezoning. I was wrong. There, I said it again in my search for absolution.
I was wrong not because I personally wanted to angle the story in some way.
I was wrong because it was nearly impossible to make heads or tails of what exactly was being voted on.
I’ve since re-listened to the board vote and am still slightly baffled.
The board votes, and then only after the vote is there more talk of sending it back to the planning commission. Shouldn’t it have been all in one motion?
Maybe my own mental capacity should be called into question. That’s why I encourage members of the public to hit the ONTV Web site to watch the township meeting from Feb. 4 to see what you make of it. Maybe you can confirm I’m the Lake Orion village idiot, after all.
But beware public: only watch if you have more than an hour to be dazzled by tedious, exhaustive rhetorical inaction.
So, this begs another question: why cloud the issue with such confusion?
Well, it’s fairly obvious the property will be rezoned after some grumbling and bellowing about the master plan.
Without the chatty inaction, it would seem the township board wasn’t listening to its own members, the planning commission, or residents before imposing what they think is best for Baldwin Road’s future. By approving the motion to deny the request, they are proving to be as transparent as they may or may not claim to be.
What that means will become clear only when clarity is attained, grasshopper.