Letter to the Editor: Blossom Ridge Site Planner Responds to Project's Concerns
Blossom Ridge landscape architect/site planner Donald Westphal outlines why he believes the senior residential development should go through as planned.
Photos
To whom it may concern,
For starters, understand that I am the Landscape Architect/Site Planner for the Blossom Ridge project. I am also the planner of more than 20 projects in Oakland Township and many more in the surrounding communities. I moved to the Township in 1968 and still reside in the township. In my forty plus years as a planner for many controversial projects from coast to coast I have learned that to be successful in the approval process one needs to understand the rules and abide by them. I have also learned that one’s master plan can survive challenges only if it is properly enacted, updated, and adhered to as a guide for growth. Following this principal has allowed the Oakland Township Master Plan to be a viable guide for the growth of the township.
The statement of facts that follow probably will not alter the opinion of those vested in the effort to defeat Blossom Ridge as proposed, but may shed some light for the benefit of those citizens with interest in the project and matters that affect the future of the township. Some facts:
- The Blossom Ridge site is designated in the master plan as a receptor for a senior living project. It is well situated closer to needed services than the other two similarly designated sites which currently do not have the necessary sewer and water services.
- After months of debate and hearings, it has received the necessary majority votes of the planning commission and the township Board to move forward in the approval process.
- Those in opposition to the project as presented choose not to include the full wording of the master plan and ordinance provisions that planners and board utilized to determine that Blossom Ridge meets the intent of the rules. First regarding density; the master plan states “three to five” but in addition states that “On a limited basis, higher densities may be considered where the effects of that density on natural features, infrastructure and surrounding properties can be mitigated. For example, a senior housing development may be considered if it can be demonstrated that impacts such as traffic, storm water runoff, community character and service demands would be consistent with that generated by a less intense development.” The proponents have shown to the satisfaction of the board’s majority that impact on the township would be less than that of a 61 single-family home development on the same site. In addition, the 46 additional units represents less than one quarter of one percent increase over the conservative build-out of the township of 20,000. Second, regarding the square footage of the units, this R-M Ordinance pertains to multi-family apartments and condos housing families, not senior residences on average housing only one person. Because the Township has no ordinance guiding senior housing, a PRRO agreement will be utilized. For example, a Rochester Hills ordinance regulating similar projects states that a one bedroom senior unit shall have a minimum of 400 square feet and two or more bedroom units, a 500 square foot minimum. Third, regarding the length of the Blossom Park Enhanced Residence building, the governing documents state that “in the approval of the PRRO agreement, the Township may authorize in its discretion and consistent with industry standards for the proposed use, exceptions to the underlying regulations, including height”. This exception would apply to the building length. In addition, service to seniors will be more consistent, efficient and of superior quality if located in one large building rather than broken up into several smaller buildings. Fourth, in regards to the height of the building, the aforementioned quote would apply. Additionally, the boards have been assured by the public service director that Blossom Ridge can be appropriately serviced by township fire and EMS services. It was stated that these services are supported by use fees on a call by call basis.
- The Developer has voluntarily offered a $1,000.00 per unit at certificate of occupancy donation to fund road improvements near Blossom Ridge. The Township and it’s governing documents only require the applicant to fund any road improvements suggested by the Oakland County Road Commission, of which no improvements where required.
- Much has been said about the Rural character of the township that we all treasure. One only needs to travel Adams Road north of Dutton, looking to the right and left, to realize that that portion of the township up to Gunn Road is not rural in appearance and in fact is the most developed portion of the township. That fact was assured when to stave off annexation by Orion Township, all available sewer taps were allocated to the southwest portion of the township.
Statements have been made that this proposal should be defeated in a fashion similar to a previous project by the Blossom Ridge developer. As properly stated by a board member, this project is not at all similar to the mixed use project requiring additional commercial zoning that was defeated by referendum. Suggestions that this project is commercial in nature and should be in a commercial zone go against all rational planning designations. It is clearly a senior residential development.
I am well aware of the passion that this project has generated, but am convinced that it meets all existing regulations and will be a benefit to existing and future residents of Oakland Township.
Donald C. Westphal, RLA, A.S.L.A.
Jim Foulkrod
2:50 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
Thank you Don.
Your facts about our zoning ordinance and master plan are a correct and on point.
I have been a member of the planning commission for 20 years and I wrote the motion to recommend approval of Blossom Ridge to the Township Board. I am also a candidate for Township Clerk in the August 7th primary. As I say on my website, jim-for-clerk.com, two of my deeply held principles when it comes to government are:
•Property rights are fundamental
•The law is supreme in all government activities and functions
My motion to approve Blossom Ridge was necessary based on these principles.
My detailed ( 2 pages, 888 words ) motion covered over 30 points of law and found that this project met all of the guidelines and requirements of our laws. This means that the developer has the right, under law, to use his property in this way. We all have property rights. They are defined by law - not opinion. I will defend property rights - yours, mine and all property owners in Oakland Township.
Marty Rosalik
11:11 pm on Monday, July 9, 2012
Thank you Mr. Foulkrod for helping me in my voting decision. Your opinion of the law and protection of property rights differs from mine. I have no problem with the development under current zoning. I personally oppose the zoning change. I get to vote based on my opinion.
Your support of "some" property owners over others is further explained in some new campaign signs I noticed today. I also noticed the specific Silverbell Rd. placement. Since you need the property owners permission, the placement speaks volumes.
Hot Wine
6:05 am on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
This project seems to generate support only from the very few that have a financial interest.
The traffic studies defy logic.....the assumptions used to demonstrate that 238 units will generate some 60% less traffic than 61 single family homes is enough for any sane person to take pause. Plus, don't forget all the daily traffic from service staff.
Additionally, anyone familiar with traffic at the Dutton/Adams intersection, knows that this development will significantly increase congestion...why the Oakland County Road Commission requires no improvements boggles my mind.
Finally, the property rights of the developer are not being denied. He still has the right to develop the property for single family homes. Denying the rezoning request does not violate his property rights.
Jim Foulkrod
10:18 am on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
When you are ill you go to a doctor. Sometimes you even get a second opinion. When you are a public servant and you need to make a decision about traffic you go to a Certified Traffic Engineer. Sometimes you get a second opinion. The traffic engineering and the second opinion about this development were done by well known and trusted engineering firms. The ITE manual used by these people contains the best scientific traffic standards available. The analysis and methods used are professional standards used nationwide. The ITE manual says that a single independent/assisted living unit (including staff and service people) causes far less traffic than a single family residence on a 1/4 acre lot. This makes sense because the independent/assisted living residence will have fewer people than a single family home and they will be less active, have less mobility and most of their needs will be taken care of on site.
You don't want your government to make public safety engineering decisions that are contrary to professional engineering.
Finally, property owners have the right to seek rezoning for a project under our PRRO ordinance. Your government does not have the right to deny a rezoning request that meets the standards of our laws. To deny based on public statements about traffic that are unsupported by fact and are in direct opposition to engineering standards would violate property rights.
Hot Wine
2:57 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Jim...what is the defined age range for Senior Adult Housing, Congregated Care Facility and Assisted Living from the ITE manual? Are they defined 55+ or an older age range? The trip rates from the traffic study for BR appear extremely low, considering most the 55+ year old residents will be working until they're 72ish.
Jim Foulkrod
3:49 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
I don't know but I doubt that there are age parameters in the ITE definition. The ITE standards are derived from actual traffic studies of this type of facility. Blossom Ridge will be required to be age restricted but that is a local decision. My experience tells me that active, mobile and/or working 55 to 72 year olds seldom bear the expense to live in Independent/Assisted living because they want to live in their own homes as long as possible. My mother-in-law is 90 and lives alone in the home where she raised her children. The residents of these communities tend to have mobility issues and other requirements for daily personal services that cause them to use their automobiles less..
Concerned
8:59 am on Friday, July 13, 2012
Please be advised I have attended numerous meetings regarding this proposed project in addition to doing independent research. The project is too large for the area and will cause numerous headaches for the residents in the surrounding subdivisions. In my opinion, some members of both the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees tend to favor what the applicant states and disregard the opinions of the residents. Please be advised the vote was not unanimous by either the Planning Commission or the Board of Trustees so obviously there are different ways to read the data depending on if you are advocating for the side of the applicant or the citizens of the township. I appreciate Mr. Foulkrod's opinion, but based on what I have seen at the meetings and due to my own research, I will not be voting for him on August 7th.
Jim Foulkrod
3:07 pm on Thursday, July 19, 2012
Concerned,
I'm sure that by now, given the discussion, you understand that your township's decisions regarding land development projects and property rights are legal decisions. Your township officials swear an oath to uphold the law. I would like to respond to your concerns but the context of opinions and advocacy is only pertinent if the opinions are about the requirements of the law and the advocacy is for adherance to the law.
Thanks,
Jim
Jim Foulkrod
3:32 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Concerned, I got an email sayin you had made thescommented but I don't see it here:
"I thank Jim for his comments but disagree with his position. Jim states he swore an oath to uphold the law. Mr. Foulkrod are you stating that members of the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees who voted against the project did not serve their oath? I would greatly appreciate Mr. Foulkrod addressing this matter and providing clarity if I am not understanding his statement. I thank you in advance."
This is an important question.
We can read laws and technical documents differently and draw different conclusions. I uphold my oath by acting in ways that I believe uphold the law. Planning Commissioners, Trustees and Township Officers must act in ways that they believe uphold the law. It would help everyone involved if, during deliberations, those bound by oath explained their positions in terms of applicable law. No motion to deny Blossom Ridge has yet been made. If one is made and its language is made up of legal reasons for denial it would be totallly appropriate and consistent with oath.
Hot Wine
10:04 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Jim, why is approving the rezoning is the only legal way to vote on the issue? Can you site or reference laws being adhered too?
Jim Foulkrod
2:56 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
HW, I am reading your question as "Why would it not be legal to vote to deny the proposal?"
It would certainly be legal to deny the project if it did not meet the requirements of applicable law.
But, If the project does meet the requirements of the law it must be approved. This is because the US Constitution guarantees all persons equal protection under the law. This is a very real and practical concern for township government and taxpayers. Many important lawsuits are bought against townships by developers based on "denial of due process". These lawsuits often allege that decisions made against them were "arbitrary and capricious" which means an action was taken that is not supported by the applicable law. In land development proposals our township government bodies make decisions by making and voting on motions to approve or deny. The motions state the reasons for the action. if a project that met the requirements of the law was denied by a motion with the reason "Public sentiment is against this project" or "People don't agree with the traffic study" or "This doesn't belong here" it would be denial of due process because our ordinances don't support those reasons.
The implications for taxpayers of losing a suit like this could be substantial. There was a suit along these lines asking for damages of $56 million. If we had lost every property owner could have been required to pay their share of the amount not covered by the township's insurance.
Concerned
2:55 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
I thank Jim for his comments but disagree with his position. Jim states he swore an oath to uphold the law. Mr. Foulkrod are you stating that members of the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees who voted against the project did not serve their oath? I would greatly appreciate Mr. Foulkrod addressing this matter and providing clarity if I am not understanding his statement. I thank you in advance.
Jim Foulkrod
3:35 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
This is an important question.
We can read laws and technical documents differently and draw different conclusions. I uphold my oath by acting in ways that I believe uphold the law. Planning Commissioners, Trustees and Township Officers must act in ways that they believe uphold the law. It would help everyone involved if, during deliberations, those bound by oath explained their positions in terms of applicable law. No motion to deny Blossom Ridge has yet been made. If one is made and its language is made up of legal reasons for denial it would be totallly appropriate and consistent with oath
Marty Rosalik
3:41 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
I too dissagree with Mr. Foulkrods position. The developer had no obstruction to his due process. A no vote by all township board members would still be due process. The outcome of our system is never guarnteed to go our way. All anyone is guarnteed is the right to petition and redress, not the outcome. From the rationalization provided above Mr. Foukrod must think that due process means that the petitioner always gets their way. Obviously some other voting members dissagree.
Too many in our local government fear lawsuits from and or are too close to the developers. That past lawsuit was thrown out, or at least part of it was. It went away because nobody was denied due process. The vote of the citizens reversing that past zoning change was not overturned. It was challenged but not overturned. We had our due process.
Jim Foulkrod
5:33 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Marty,
To be clear, a no vote on a motion to approve does not succeed in denying the project. It just defeats the motion to approve. A yes vote on a motion to deny the project where the motion language is made up of valid legal reasons for denial would be required to establish a due process for denial. This is not a trivial point. A decision to either deny or approve must be supported with legal reasons stated in a motion.
Marty Rosalik
6:19 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Mr. Foulkrod said. " A yes vote on a motion to deny the project where the motion language is made up of valid legal reasons for denial would be required to establish a due process for denial". Now we are getting into the real issue. There must be valid reasons, if you will just look for them.
Or maybe we need new elected officials that will.
Jim Foulkrod
9:51 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
In the many months of deliberation and study since this project was brought to the township no township official or professional consultant has put valid legal reasons for denial on the table for consideration and action. There have been no motions for denial, discussions of possible motions for denial, or suggestions for valid legal reasons for denial to be put into a motion. This is in spite of the fact that 6 people have voted against approval. My detailed ( 2 pages, 888 words ) motion covered over 30 points of law and found that this project met all of the guidelines and requirements of our laws. And yet you say "There must be valid reasons". During the Planning Commission's discussion of this motion each Commissioner gave their opinion for or against and no one put forward a valid legal reason for denial.
Concerned
4:48 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I take issue with what Mr. Foulkrod stated. Many individuals of the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees who voted against the project as it is currently proposed detailed how it did not fit with the Master Plan. I believe the issue many people have with the project is the size and design not the actual project. Please take in consideration that Mr. Foulkrod is the one that wrote the motion to approve the advancement of Blossom Ridge which varies greatly from the Master Plan and goes against the majority of the sentiment expressed by the citizens who attended the meetings and whom he was chosen to represent.
Jim Foulkrod
10:22 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Here is the part of my motion that shows comliance with the Master Plan.
2. The development shall be consistent with the Township Master Plan.
a. The proposed site for the development is designated in the master Plan as a High Density Conservation area.
b. The Master Plan states that High Density Conservation areas:
i. Are meant to accommodate a range of housing styles for a variety of age and income levels.
ii. Are intended to serve as receptors for senior living environments and care services.
iii. Higher densities than 3 to 5 units per acre may be considered if the effects of that density can be mitigated. For example a senior housing development may be considered if its impacts would be consistent with a less intense development. Our deliberations have demonstrated that.
c. The Master Plan makes plain the value of maintaining the character of the township and this proposal demonstrates that in the following ways:
i. It preserves more open space than is generally found in this area of the Township.
ii. It maintains the view sheds in its surrounding area with building setbacks, berms, landscaping and moving electrical lines underground.
iii. It gives the appearance of high quality development consistent with its surrounding area.
here's a link to the minutes of the meeting. The motion is on page 68.
http://oaklandtownship.org/Portals/0/Planning/pc%20minutes%2020120207.pdf
Marty Rosalik
7:31 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
2 pages, 888 words, and 30 points of law without one point or even a tiny hint of opposition? Statistically Mr Foulkrod this is bunk! I thank you for your explanations however it is even more apparent that you wrote the motion from a firm supporting perspective for the whole thing. Every high school student is taught to at least concede something just for tokenism points acknowledging opposition in an argumentative essay. NOTHING could be found? Is that what we are supposed to believe? NOTHING?
So what is it? There are no “valid” reasons that YOU could find for resistance? Or you chose NOT to find any? Anyone who wants to can perform all the correct rituals, make all the right sacrifices, present all the right offerings, and purchase all the proper indulgences like the $1000 per unit “voluntary donation”, and it’s Check Mate for the township? If that’s true let’s just throw out zoning all together.
Or as I expect, zoning only applies to those who can’t fight or won’t fight. I think it is past time for elected people with different perspectives.
Jim Foulkrod
9:38 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The purpose of a motion is to propose a decision or action for a vote and its content, when proposing a decision on a matter that has been deliberated, properly contains reasons for that action to be taken. Therefore the motion to approve is correctly written from a supporting perspective The members of the body vote yes if they agree with the action and the reasons presented in the motion and vote no if they don't agree. If approved the text of the motion becomes the official and permanent record of the reason for approval. The motion is not a proper context to recap reasons for and against. A motion is not an opinion poll and it is not a statisical analysis.
D
3:20 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Four of our elected officials who voted for a zoning change completely ignored the character of the neighborhood, single family. The law favors single family zoning and goes to great lengths to protect a city's chioce to keep an area single family. Placing a commercial enterprise bounded on 4 sides by single family zoning is what went against the character of the neighborhood. The master zoning plan was only changed in 2005 at who's direction and request?. There was no legal requirement to change the zoning. One has wonder if this was a Mocceri directed change? Does Mocceri own our elected officials? It is time for a change!
depatton
8:56 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
I appreciate all the light reading...when there is a change at the township board level; remember the leadership. We need completely new leadership to right size this drifting ship. I think one of the predominate factors that weigh in on my vote is every time I hear about how long "I have served...." that right there is great cause for concern. A look at our current governing body and sitting through this whole blossom ridge mess and the exchange between the various boards and the citizens -was very disheartening and frankly it was scary to see how we as the public could let these boards condescendingly communicate, reprimand and chastise opposing views - on ANY subject; for so long. I have seen politicians from all levels of government say whatever it takes to get in office - then "drink the kool aid" and bam; forget how and why they got elected. If any sitting board member has served more than 2 terms - you are on notice!
BRRAG
12:52 pm on Saturday, August 4, 2012
Mr. Foulkrod,
Your arguments are very diminished when the Oakland County Campaign Finance records reflect your only reported campaign contributions came from:
Dominic Moceri: $500
Francis Moceri: $500
Dominic and Francis Moceri Family Trust: $500
Are we the residents and voters to believe that your "point-of-view" is unbiased?
Was it this same "unbiased" view that lead you to arrange for you and Dominic Moceri to convince the Residents for Responsible Growth in Oakland Township leaders in an private meeting to change their position of opposition that had been strongly communicated for 7 months during the Blossom Ridge hearings?
Again....please do not preach to the residents of your unbiased voting record. There are many Zoning Ordinance requirements that are being compromised to approve the design of Blossom Ridge and clever manipulation of the Ordinance & Master Plan to achieve your goal. You state that Blossom Ridge higher density could be considered if the impacts would be consistent with a less intense development....the only way the impacts become less intense is through the design of the large Blossom Park building,i.e. 450 ft. X 250 ft....and this oversized design including 3 stories is out-of-compliance with the underlying RM Zoning Ordinance.
Please stop your "SPIN"....your "LACK OF ETHICS" have been exposed!
August 7 - Time for a change in Oakland Township government leadership!!
BRRAG
1:16 pm on Saturday, August 4, 2012
Oakland Township Residents
Please voice your concern and outrage on the ethics being practiced by Township Supervisor Joan Fogler and Township Vice Chair Planning Commissioner Jim Foulkrod. Both of these individuals have accepted campaign contributions from the Moceri family in their quest to be elected as Township Supervisor and Township Clerk respectively. Although the campaign contributions are "legal", they present a real "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" when these are the individuals voting on the Blossom Ridge re-zoning application from Dominic Moceri. The campaign contributions can be verified at the Oakland County Bureau of Elections website:
Fogler's Records: http://courts.oakgov.com/CFRS/IndexedDocs/715917.pdf
Foulkrod's Records: http://courts.oakgov.com/CFRS/IndexedDocs/716210.pdf
Is it just a coincidence that Joan Fogler's campaign treasurer is Amy Carels and Amy is also an appointed Oakland Township Planning Commissioner? Is it a surprise that Amy voted "YES" to approve the recommendation to the Board of Trustees to approve the Blossom Ridge re-zoning?
Attend the August 14 Board of Trustees meeting and voice your outrage!
August 7 - Time for a change in Oakland Township governement leadership!
Jim Foulkrod
4:55 pm on Saturday, August 4, 2012
I have been a Planning Commissioner for 20 years (sorry Dave Patton). Mr. Moceri has appeared before the Commission many times. Before March 23rd we had never had a private conversation beyond an exchange of greetings. I coordinated meetings with RROTG leaders to facilitate a compromise. Long after there was any Moceri business before the Planning Commission I met with Dominic regarding my candidacy. There was no connection to Blossom Ridge.
My candidacy has nothing to do with Blossom Ridge. I am running to defeat a member of Mr. Gonser's group. Every person who is against Blossom Ridge should be against Gonser and the like-minded candidates. They are against regulation of business interests. Developers, unregulated, will not build quality neightborhoods. Gonser's group is against taxes. They don't understand that 85% of our municipal taxes have been approved by voters saying yes to millage proposals placed on the ballot by taxpayers. Our property values have been rising for 18 months ( while around us values are still falling or just turning around) because of the quality of our community and good government has a lot to do with that. We have had good government for decades. Gonser has said, while campaigning, that government can't do anything right. Don't vote for the Gonser slate.
Dr. Henry A Carels
10:44 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
A my and I along with our three children passed out flyers for Joan Fogler four years ago. Loretta was unable to be treasurer this year so the task fell to Amy. We have lived here since 1988 and are very informed as to the townships development and history, We have done clean scene with our children every year it has been held(10). Amy agreed to SERVE . I wanted nothing to do with it for hurtful totally untrue innuendo such as yours. The service cost her $1000.00 of her time for each meeting in research and reading, Some 40+ hours a month.My wife is above reproach. She is a saint. How dare you. Shame on you a thousand times. Dr Henry A. Carels. Professor Emeritus of Medicine. Retired Family Medicine 33 years
Marty Rosalik
5:32 pm on Saturday, August 4, 2012
Mr. Foulkrod, If the “against regulation of business interest” means that the township stops the vendetta upon Tom Barkham for trying to run a family business that existed long before most people reading this were living here, I’m in! FYI, my tax bills go back to 1984. Regarding those taxes. Before any police millage existed here I had no problem getting a speeding ticket on Orion near Lake George. Just like today, only now I get to pay hundreds more per year for that privilege.
If developers stick to zoning, building codes, and the master plan, how is that low quality?
Lastly I see 1500 reasons to connect your candidacy to Blossom Ridge.
Jim Foulkrod
10:34 am on Sunday, August 5, 2012
I am not a lawyer but my understanding is that the limitations on Mr. Barkham's business were imposed by a Judge ruling on the settlement of a legal action involving Mr. Barkham and the township. Neither the Township nor Mr. Barkham can change the ruling made by the Judge. I think (might be wrong) the case was settled in1987.
Our zoning is regulation. It affects business interests. Candidate Gonser's group made a lot of protests against the new zoning ordinance that the Planning Commission sent to the Board of Trustees. This took place more than a year ago. In the face of the protests the Board made no decision on the matter. It will be taken up again in the near future.
If Mr. Gonser's group is elected the zoning ordinance and master plan could be gutted leaving developer's much more freedom from regulation.
Marty Rosalik
12:31 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
Mr. Foulkrod, you are using FEAR, False Evidence Appearing Real to persuade people not to support your opposition. While the slim probability exists that new people might, possibly, could "gut" the master plan, you still do not acknowledge that you already have. Further you seem proud of how you have done it. These are simply my opinions based on observation and what you have written here. The new people running have been moved into action partially because they see the master plan being violated like I do. In my meetings with them I get absolutely NO impression that they will do anything but keep to the existing plan, resist “subdivision style” ordinances that will restrict MY property rights, and bring accountability and transparency to local government. If they do not, they won’t last long.
Jim Foulkrod
3:08 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
Mr. Rosalik, Talk about "False Evidence Appearing Real" ! Your words about A "township vendetta" against Tom Barkham sinks below that standard. The court's decision that Tom's business can only conduct apple cider related business and he can only conduct that business during the apple cider season (this is stated in my words not those of the court) has the force of law. The township's actions to prevent Tom from selling christmas trees outside of that time frame was simple law enforcement. Perhaps you see getting the speeding ticket you mentioned as a vendetta against you. Others might see it as law enforcement.
Marty Rosalik
4:58 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
Mr. Foulkrod the battles between the township and Tom Barkham go pretty far back and are not limited to the Rochester road property. I stand by vendetta since I have been privy to most of them. I see selective enforcement here, not simple enforcement. Kind of like when the township officials call the police on the Olsons over by the ruined mill race.
So you don't see the selective enforcement of law now on top of zoning? By the way, didn't Tom get something like a $3 dollar fine? Looks like a tax payer funded snipe hunt to me. And who did pay for the hot dog vendor and the little party over at the destroyed dam site where some township officials were attending?
Me and my speeding, I deserved every one I ever got and more!
depatton
5:48 pm on Saturday, August 4, 2012
JF,, why bring up my name? My comments are not personal bias; but government observation. Deep breath...
Jim Foulkrod
10:03 am on Sunday, August 5, 2012
Hi Dave,
Just a bit of humor. ..Because you wrote this on Aug. 2nd:
"every time I hear about how long "I have served...." that right there is great cause for concern."
Jim
BRRAG
10:11 pm on Saturday, August 4, 2012
Mr. Foulkrod,
First, let us be very clear that campaign contributions of $500 per person are legal. However, for the Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission to accept contributions from any developer doing business in the Township is very poor judgement and gives the appearance of potential impropriety. During your 20 years as a Planning Commissioner, including participating in approving the Harvest Corners re-zoning application from Mr. Moceri, we would expect better judgement on your part. Your standards of acceptability appear to follow those of Township Supervisor Joan Fogler.
Your role to facilitate meetings to achieve a compromise for the design of Blossom Ridge with Moceri and 2 residents was also an act of very poor judgement. Why would it be appropriate for the Vice Chair to facilitate a meeting in the dark of night with the developer and 2 residents acting purely as individuals, not representing any group of people, and then have the developer, Trustee Edwards and other local officials represent it as a broad agreement with residents? These residents in their letters to Joan Fogler (available at the Township) made it very clear they were acting as individuals only. If there was to be resident involvement to negotiate with the developer to modify the Blossom Ridge design, wouldn't it be better done in the light of day during the public hearings?
It is your actions, not your words, that residents will use to judge your performance.
Time to make a change!
Jim Foulkrod
10:10 am on Sunday, August 5, 2012
Thanks for asking about my meetings with Dominic Moceri, Bob Sirna, Richard Hein and David Patton. On March 23 2012 Dominic called me at home. Don Westfall and Jennifer Blankenship were on the line with him. Dominic asked if I would coordinate a meeting with some members of the citizens with concerns re Blossom Ridge for the purpose of reaching a compromise proposal. I said I would like to help but my first call would be to Jim Creech to see if it would be appropriate for me to participate. Jim thought it would be appropriate. I then talked to Jim Carter, Chairman of the Planning Commission who also thought it would be appropriate. On March 29th Dominic, Bob, Richard and I met at Bob’s house. Early in the meeting I stated that I saw my role as unofficially working for the many taxpayers of Oakland Township who would not want to pay for an expensive legal proceeding. Dominic proposed compromise solutions in the interest of gaining support for moving his project forward. The meeting was successful to that end and the modifications agreed to are public record. There was a subsequent April 11th meeting with Dominic, Dave Patton and Jennifer Blankenship to address Dave’s concerns about impacts to properties in Kings Ridge. My role at this meeting was the same as before.
The overall results were an improved project plan and a demonstration of the ability of community minded people to work together.
BRRAG
12:44 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
Mr. Foulkrod,
Why did Mr. Moceri contact you to coordinate these meetings? Why did he not have these meetings in his company offices without local government involvement and support?
How and why were the 3 residents identified in your note selected to have this private meeting? Was it because they were the 3 legal directors of the RRGOT citizen action group 501(c)4 non-profit organization which raised the funding for the residents opposing Blossom Ridge? Through your assistance to gain their individual support, was it just a coincidental by-product that the many residents opposing Blossom Ridge lost their source of funding or was this a strategic well thought out plan to "stop the opposition"?
What were the terms of the "Patton Agreement" published by Mr. Westphal to gain this specific resident's support?
Why were these 3 individual agreements mis-represented as an agreement with the residents citizen action group when the individuals clearly indicated it was "individual support" only? Was it to deceive the public?
Frankly, Mr. Foulkrod, this attempt of behind the scenes, non-transparent activity to justify the Planning Commission recommendation of approval by influencing the Board of Trustees to support the project through mis-representation of private individual agreements and to under cut the residents ability to finance a coordinated approach against the proposed re-zoning is at best unethical behavior by our local government.
Time to make a change!
Jim Foulkrod
2:31 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
I have contributed here where I have some knowledge and understanding about the issue, event or question being discussed. I don't know anything about the legal structure, organization, finances or politics of RRGOT so I will not attempt to contibute to this discussion. Since you are anonymous no one knows if you know or understand anything about these things either.
BRRAG
4:14 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
Mr. Foulkrod,
The Blossom Ridge Referendum Action Group (BRRAG) is very knowledgable of the events that have occurred and the attempts to:
* Deceive Residents
* Manipulate the Zoning Ordinance Statues
* Silence the Opposition to This Precedent Setting Re-Zoning
and the close relationship between the developer and some of our local government officials. Mr. Foulkrod, you are well aware of the mis-representations, the strategy to avoid a referendum petition vote by the developer, and the clear disregard of resident input by the Planning Commission and the Board of Trustees leadership. Fortunately, there are 3 Trustees that recognize the tactics used and do understand the Blossom Ridge proposed design is Not-In-Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, is Out-of-Character with the surrounding community and are not intimidated to vote for a design that does not fit the values and characteristics of Oakland Township.
Your Campaign Funding says it all!
Time to make a change!
Jim Foulkrod
7:03 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
BBRAG (Anonymous)
You've crossed a line into a world that I have never been to. Must be scary in there.
I'm outta here.
depatton
7:32 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
Agree. There is a forum for respectful debate. On line political bashing that turns personal, on any side of a debate, has no place in our community; we get enough of that in Washington.
Hot Wine
10:53 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Stop Blossom Ridge Re-Zoning!!! Important Meeting Tonight!
There is still time to voice your opinion at tonight's Board of Trustees Meeting for the Second and Final Reading on the re-zoning! The Board of Trustees vote at the First Reading of this proposal was a split vote (4-3) on granting this re-zoning request – so it is not fully supported by those we elected!
A change of one vote will make the difference and Stop Blossom Ridge Re-zoning!
Make your voice heard tonight!
Tuesday, August 14th
Time: 7PM
Township Offices 4393 Collins Road
Blossom Ridge is a proposed high density Independent/Assisted Living Senior development at Adams & Dutton Roads requiring a re-zoning authorization from the Township!
Blossom Ridge is Too Dense! Too Impactful on the surrounding sub-divisions! Out-of-Character with the Township’s Master Plan!!!
To learn more, or to volunteer to support Stop Blossom Ridge Rezoning! Contact: BRREFERENDUMACTIONGROUP@HOTMAIL.COM
Concerned
7:00 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Due to a work commitment I was unable to attend the Board of Trustees meeting on August 14th and no update by patch has been written. A quick update by someone who attended would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
Hot Wine
8:41 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
After a lively debate, with a standing room only crowd, the Board voted as previously, 4-3, in favor of the second reading. Now on to a referendum.
Stay tuned! To learn more, or to volunteer to support Stop Blossom Ridge Rezoning! Contact: BRREFERENDUMACTIONGROUP@HOTMAIL.COM
Concerned
10:08 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
I appreciate the update and the efforts of the citizens that care deeply about this community and don't want it overrun by a development that is simply too large and out of character for the township.
Hot Wine
9:25 am on Friday, August 24, 2012
Please sign petition to have citizens vote on whether or not to allow this rezoning. We are not against a senior living community, but we are against the FIRST 3-story 450 foot building in the township, too high density (over 6 units per acre, vs. 3-5 allowed), impact on traffic. The 4 Board of Trustees in favor of this rezoning were lame ducks...they were voted out/retiring from board.
If interested in learning more, and to sign petition, contact:
BRREFERENDUMACTIONGROUP@HOTMAIL.COM
Dave Pawlaczyk
2:34 pm on Friday, August 24, 2012
Hotwine is misrepresenting the facts for his or her own agenda. The building is no larger than other structures in the township such as churches, schools and some single family residences. The height of the buiilding complies with the ordinance, in fact it is not as high as several of the residences which are in plain view across Adams Road. The traffic, at peak hour when it matters, is less than that which would be generated by a single family housing development on the site.In regards to density, 3-5 units per acre is a part of the guideline suggested in the Master Plan. It goes on to say that higher densities, such as senior housing may be permitted if it can be demonstrated that there is less impact on the site. The fact is that Blossom Ridge covers considerably less of the site than a conventional single family housing development. These,and many other considerations were thoroughly vetted by the Planning Commission starting in June of 2011 . Regarding the "lame duck" approval by the Board, they received the plan shortly after Planning Commission approval & after careful consideration , approved it in June. Rezoning requires 2 separate votes. The second vote was on August 14. Hotwine chooses to hide behind the "protection " of anomimity. Please consider the facts and DO NOT sign a petition. For the truth read the information that you receive by mail and go to blossom ridge seniors.com for more details.
Dave Pawlaczyk, Project Manager for Blossom Ridge
Fact Master
4:19 pm on Friday, August 24, 2012
Dear Blossom Ridge Project Manager,
Unfortunately, you have done what you accused Hot Wine of doing, misrepresenting the facts! The facts are there are no dimensional length limits for single family homes under the MRD Zoning Ordinance. Blossom Ridge rezoning is under the high density/multi-family RM/PRRO Zoning Ordinance and the ordinance is very clear that the maximum length is 135 feet. The Blossom Park building based upon the submitted drawings measures approximately 450 ft X 250 ft. Please do not suggest that a building containing 138 units under 1 roof is equivalent to a large single family home of similar dimensions where 1 family lives. Mr. Pawlaczyk,,,you represented that the building height complies with the Zoning Ordinance. This is a clear misrepresentation of the FACTS....the Blossom Park building consists of approx. 50% of the building designed as 3 stories. The RM Zoning Ordinance limits the height to a MAXIMUM 2 stories....it is not just the height in feet. Per Bill Beniot, Township Building Director/Fire Chief, Blossom Ridge will be the first 3 story building approved in the township. This will be precedent setting! Representing that single family homes with a walk-out basement are 3 stories in height is a disingenuous representation of the Blossom Park building.
The information being mailed to residents conveniently does not share "all of the facts". However, residents will be informed factually and allowed to exercise their voting right.
Concerned
5:13 pm on Friday, August 24, 2012
I appreciate the last post that clarified the facts. I personally am in favor of a senior living development but oppose this project based on its size especially regarding the assisted living facility portion which is very different from independent senior housing both in the appearance and day to day operations and it's impact on the resources of the township.
When the developer was questioned in a meeting why the development was so large and out of character for the township, I recall he said because that was the only way it would be profitable. Yet the developer has not committed to whether these units will be rented or owned and at the meetings I attended did not provide any objective data to support his profitability statement, just his subjective statement about the profit.
Hot Wine
4:05 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
In spite of the builder's attempts to deny our CIVIL RIGHTS rights as citizens of Oakland Township, support for the petition drive has been overwhelming! To have a say on whether or not to allow this rezoning, be sure to sign the petition.
If interested in signing petition, contact:
BRREFERENDUMACTIONGROUP@HOTMAIL.COM
Marty Rosalik
8:58 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Will it be enough and in time for November? Like it? Don't like it? Vote on it! The mailing I recieved against the petition has almost made me angry enough to go knocking on doors. What is warong with allowing our neighbors a chance to be heard by voting?
Concerned
6:59 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
Please sign the petition so the citizens of the township can have their say and not let the decisions of a few greatly impact the lives of so many.
Hot Wine
5:47 am on Thursday, October 11, 2012
Oakland Township Residents,
Here's an update....on Tuesday 10/9, Board of Trustee Supervisor, Joan Fogler, recommended to the Board that they approve the August 15, 2012 rezoning application submitted by the developer of Blossom Ridge under the Special Accommodation Use (SAU) ordinance. After much debate and resident input the Board VOTED AGAINST the motion to approve the SAU application on a 4 - 3 vote! Trustees Bailey, Thomas, Workings and McKay voted against this motion which in the opinion of the residents and outside legal counsel was the correct legal action by the Board. Following this vote, Trustee Thomas proposed a new motion to neither approve or deny, but to postpone the consideration of the SAU application until the referendum petition process is completed, and if the electorate reject the Blossom Ridge rezoning approved by the Board of Trustees on August 14, 2012, then the Board will consider the SAU application on its merits. Assuming township validation of the submitted petitions, the ballot vote would be scheduled for Feb. 26, 2013 in a special election. If the SAU application is considered due to a rejection of the original rezoning application by the electorate, the newly elected Board which will be sworn into office on Nov. 20, 2012, will be the Board to consider the SAU application.
If you'd like to receive email updates, or find out how you can get involved, email the Blossom Ridge Referendum Action Group @ brreferendumactiongroup@hotmail.com