Funeral home proposal sparks debate in Springfield

The conversion of a residence into a funeral home, along with the proposed construction of an office building next door, prompted lots of questions and some protests at the April 14 Springfield Township Board meeting.
The questions led the board to table a request for a special land use permit for 4.2 acres on the southwest side of Dixie Highway near Softwater Lake.
Marcie Harrington of Clarkston proposes to use an existing residence for the funeral home and residence for the funeral director. Parking is planned to the rear of the building, and to the northwest where a 6,720-square-foot office building is on the site plan for future construction.
The township board conducted a public hearing under terms of zoning ordinance provisions for special land use and the Dixie Overlay District.
Supervisor Collin Walls said the ordinance requires the petitioner to prove that the development would be in keeping with the community, provide a needed public service and provide ‘assets? which can be used by the public at large.
Chris Hertz of Pumford Construction represented Harrington, explaining plans for an 8-foot bike path and a public seating area in front of the funeral home. The site plan originally had the seating area for use both by pedestrians along Dixie Highway and funeral home patrons, but Hertz recognized a perceived conflict and promised a separate area for funeral home visitors in back of the building.
A couple neighbors from an adjoining neighborhood had questions and concerns. Cedar Drive resident Sue Postemski described herself as living ‘next door? to the site.
‘The residents in the area are concerned about maintaining the frontage of the lake as residential,? Postemski said. ‘It’s not an area for an office building, small or large.?
Postemski also voiced concern about lack of screening at the edge of the parking lot. ‘There is no privacy whatsoever,? she said, claiming headlights ‘would shine in my bedroom windows.?
Trustees were generally complementary toward the plan, but quizzed Hertz about details not shown in the site plan.
Clerk Nancy Strole said the proposal ‘potentially? could qualify under zoning requirements.
‘I say potentially, because in my view we are lacking in some very critical elements,? Strole said.
Although Hertz promised added screening and landscaping, Strole said, ‘I have to see it? on the plan.
Other trustees raised issues concerning location of drainage valves for the funeral home’s septic tank and a ‘sealed tank? for mortuary lab waste. The consensus was that placement of the valves was neither conducive to the look of the property nor practical given the design of the parking lot.
Walls argued for a realignment of the parking lot to better allow for lining up vehicles for funeral processions, even if parking spaces had to be sacrificed.
Trustee Roger Lamont was disappointed that the petitioners had not changed any details after previous recommendations from the planning commission.
‘A lot of things were discussed at the planning commission level and agreed to by the developer,? Lamont said, including details on landscaping and a change in the location of a Dumpster. ‘I don’t see them [in this plan].?
Trustee Dennis Vallad offered praise, but agreed with some of the criticism, including lake access, which should ‘go away? on the next plan, and screening.
‘I don’t want to beat up on anyone too bad at this point,? Vallad said. ‘I like your concept. I think it’s a proper use of the property, but we do have some concerns.?
Trustee David Hopper suggested that many of the concerns could be solved by moving the parking lot well away from the property line to provide berms as part of the screen, and plan to combine parking between the funeral home and the future office building.
Walls offered a similar observation, and noted consensus that the petitioner had more work to do.
‘The answer to our critical items was, ‘We’re not sure,?? Walls said. ‘We don’t have enough information to grant special land use approval this evening.?
Officials expect to see a revised plan by the May township board meeting.

Comments are closed.