BY DON SCHELSKE
Clarkston News Staff Writer
Short of a lawsuit, those hoping to build a home on W. Princeton Avenue with a driveway through a designated wetland have run out of options.
The Independence Township Board on Tuesday, Jan. 20 voted 6-1 to deny an appeal of a Nov. 13, 2004 ruling by the township planning commission, which at that meeting was sitting as a ‘wetland board.?
Trustee David Wagner cast the lone ‘no? vote against the motion to support the wetland board ruling.
The proposal, in connection with plans for a 1,900-square-foot house on W. Princeton Avenue, included a 10-by-30 foot driveway requiring an estimated 145 cubic yards of fill on 1.65 acres of designated wetland.
‘There remains a reasonably debatable question as to whether the proposed project is in the public interest,? Trustee Dan Travis said in making the motion. Travis cited 10 different issues involved in the case, including plans for a septic tank on adjoining property, a possible second access easement to the property and current flooding concerns voiced by neighbors.
In addition, Travis criticized the principals for making such plans on property purchased in a state tax default sale.
‘It appears to have been knowingly purchased as an unbuildable lot due to the extent of the wetland on the lot,? Travis said.
Attorney Lee Knopf represented the petitioners ? owner of record Monica Nouhan; her husband, Harry, who has ‘power of attorney? for the property, and developer Dan Vackaro ? in appealing the wetland board decision.
‘The township’s two experts recommended approval of what the applicant was trying to accomplish,? Knopf said, citing reports from the township-contracted engineer and wetland consultant. ‘I think the planning commission didn’t make the necessary findings under your ordinance to take the action they took.?
Knopf said it was improper for the planning commission to vote in September 2003 to turn the issue over to the building department, then return the issue to the agenda in December. He cited letters from Travis (who also serves on the planning commission) and others in the procedural reversal.
Township attorney Steve Joppich, being careful not to advocate for the opposition, nonetheless said township officials were justified in the move.
‘Additional information had been received by the building department,? Joppich said.
Knopf also criticized the commission’s response to residents? protests about current flooding issues in the area, saying only the ‘scientific evidence? from experts should have been considered.
‘Those objections weren’t under the parameters of why you would deny the application,? he said.
Joppich said the commission ? and the township board ? could use information outside the technical boundaries of the wetland ordinance to make their decision. Indeed, he quoted a section saying the permit should be issued only if the project ‘is clearly in the public interest? and can be denied ‘if there remains a debatable question.?
Residents in attendance repeated some of their earlier protests.
Columbia Avenue resident Dave Buckley, who spoke at the November hearing, said residents who live there have credibility.
‘I take offense that the attorney said there were no other credible experts,? Buckley said. ‘I consider myself an expert. I live in the neighborhood, I see what happens, I know what happens.?
Dartmouth resident Sharon Vaughn, who has led the protest for more than a year and is a former wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, repeated arguments in favor of saving the wetland and repeated that the area is in a 10-year drought cycle.
Some trustees attempted to ask additional questions, but Supervisor Dale Stuart said the deliberations had to be limited to the extensive testimony offered to the ‘wetland board.?
‘The township file is complete, all relevant matters have been explored and it is unlikely a new hearing would provide new facts,? Stuart said.
Trustee Dan Kelly said the decision was ‘a close call,? but he cited the ‘debatable question? provision.
‘The wetland falls within our code,? Kelly said. ‘It apparently has not been disputed that it is a valuable wetland and a resource that we should protect.?
Attempts to reach Vackaro, who previously said a lawsuit could be filed if township officials did not approve the permit, were unsuccessful.