To the developer, it’s a simple matter of building a house. To some neighbors, it’s a threat to the environment.
A proposed house on W. Princeton near Dartmouth has residents doing a lot of homework and lodging protests with various officials.
Sharon Vaughn’s property, in the northeast corner of Independence Township, backs up on a designated wetland on which developer Dan Vackaro proposes to build a 10-by-30-foot driveway leading to the proposed three-bedroom home.
She and others along Dartmouth believe the fill will destroy the ‘functioning wetland? and add problems in an area with a history of flooding and septic failure.
‘Everyone is really concerned,? Vaughn said. ‘If my kid gets West Nile Virus because that becomes a stagnant pond, he’s going to be held accountable for that.?
There are other issues, including what Vaughn calls an ‘illegal fill? off of W. Princeton onto both her property and the wetland (which she also claims is likely not fully measured because of recent dry years).
The adventure began in August 2002, when Vaughn was away visiting family.
‘My husband called me up at 8 in the morning because there was a bulldozer in the backyard,? she said.
Mike Post, who lives a couple doors north from Vaughn, experienced something similar when a front-end loader came through his Dartmouth property to gain access to the shores of the wetland for soil tests.
Post doesn’t blame the contractors, but said no one asked permission to come through his property.
‘They were being told they had access,? Vaughn said.
Post is grateful for Vaughn’s hard work, especially because of the potential impact to his property
‘She’s on top of everything,? he said. ‘I don’t want to look out my back yard and see somebody’s garage.?
Since the property is zoned for residential building, Vaughn said the contractors may have done them a favor.
‘We would have had no knowledge of any of this, except for the dozer and things like that.?
Since that time, Vaughn has filed Freedom of Information Act requests to learn more details, including the fact that Vackaro was hired by the nonresident owner, who purchased the property in a tax-default sale and hopes to sell the developed property.
‘The whole transfer of property is dependent on it being developable,? Vaughn said. ‘This is basically just somebody trying to make a quick buck and not caring about anything else.?
Vaughn, a former wildlife refuge manager with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is also frustrated that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality failed to block the development. She said she has documentation of valuable wildlife and vegetation that needs to be preserved, and argues for strict enforcement of a 25-foot buffer requirement.
‘We have to be responsible to make sure the builder builds things that won’t impact our property? How did that happen? Why do I have to be held accountable??
Vackaro doesn’t deny the profit motive, but does contest the claim that he will destroy the environment.
‘It’s only a little wetland,? he said. ‘I’m just filling in a tiny part. It’s as small as I can get it. It was the only alternative. Otherwise the guy’s stuck with a lot he has to pay taxes on and can’t build on.?
Vackaro said the owner offered to sell the 1.3-acres site to the Dartmouth neighbors (and is still willing to sell), but they declined. In fact, he is still willing to sell the property.
‘They didn’t want to buy it, but they all want to dictate it,? he said. ‘The only reason it’s a big fuss is because it’s ruining their back yard.?
Vackaro said Vaughn has a split rail fence encroaching onto the property in question, and Post has a storage shed that encroaches as well. Both admit that is true, but Vaughn said Vackaro came onto her property with the W. Princeton fill.
Vackaro said the property in question is only about 1.3 acres, under the minimum for DEQ or township wetland consideration. Since W. Princeton is not a county road, Vackaro said he did not need permission for the fill.
The site on which Vackaro wants to build is bounded on the west by wetland secured approximately a year ago by the North Oakland Headwaters Land Conservancy. President Bob Inskeep said most of his knowledge about the project came from Vaughn.
‘Obviously, we’re concerned about the integrity of the wetland,? Inskeep said. ‘It’s definitely worthy of protection. If you build right up to it, you can’t help but have an effect on the area.?
In response to Vackaro’s comments, Inskeep said he has been involved in ‘very preliminary? discussions with other conservations groups concerning purchase of the additional property.
Beverly McElmeel, director of building, planning and zoning for Independence Township, said Vackaro’s proposal is ‘under review? by the township’s engineering firm, a wetlands consultant, and also by the township attorney
‘There was a need for the attorney review,? McElmeel said, noting some of the legal concerns involved.
Vaughn also questioned a proposal for a septic easement onto another of the current owner’s parcels, since the site itself does not have adequate room for a septic field.
McElmeel admitted that the property does not percolate adequately, and said a septic easement on a separate parcel ‘is a rarity.?
Vackaro said he is more optimistic concerning the granting of a building permit, noting the approvals he has already received from the county for septic and well.
Vaughn isn’t giving up, either, and she denies that it’s a ‘not in my backyard? motivation.
‘We all are adjacent to the wetland,? she said. ‘We are the people with property owner rights. This is just wrong.?