|
Post by Paul on Mar 16, 2006 20:45:08 GMT -5
???At the March 8th South Side Visioning Meeting for the Master Plan Update, the Residents were assembled in small groups to give input to the residents vision for the SouthSide. The results of these small group meetings were posted on this site a couple of days ago. Under the RESIDENTIAL INPUT listed on the Documents PDF page, and also on the PRESERVE NATURAL FEATURES PDF page, in both areas, there are 0 votes listed for 'NO SUBDIVISIONS'. There was a post written on the TRASH-US group about this same issue. Please read this post. It is copied and pasted, with the date and time.
From: "trashusresidents" Date: Thu Mar 9, 2006 2:22 pm Subject: RESIDENTS SPEAK OUT- - - NO COMMERCIAL trashusresid... Offline Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360ยบ Remove Author | Ban Author
The Resident attending the South Side Visioning Meeting last nite at the VBT Planning Commission Meeting at South Middle School expressed a very strong desire that they did not want to see any commercial development in our area. There were three major issues the Folks determined with an overwhelming majority during workshops that were not acceptable in the rural South Side area. "NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT" was in the top three issues, with 'NO SUBDIVISIONS', and also 'LARGE ONE ACRE MINIMUM LOTS' as the other issues. The residents do not want a chain supermarket, with the traffic issues, nor any big stores. There are several commercial vacancies now, and these should be re-developed, was a common theme in the workshops. Driving a couple of miles to the developed commercial in the Belleville Rd corridor was the desired commercial for the "Great Folks" living in the South Side area. The South Side has many rural characteristics, albeit the traffic congestion is approaching "Cantonese" and Ford Rd. proportions, and commercial development is not an acceptable use of our rural land, in our opinion, as stated last night. Maybe the VBT Supervisor and the non-residen Planning Director will understand that we do not need to build on every square inch of earth in our VBT. The traffic issues are becoming unbearable, and residents are wanting Savage Rd, HRDrive, Martinsville from Savage to HRDrive and HRDrive to become 5 lanes. This is supposed to be "Country Suburban".At the rate our VBT officials are wanting to cover up the land, folks will not need a lawn mower, just a broom to sweep the concrete. "NO COMMERCIAL" in the South Side. -------------------------------------------------------------------- This post was the day after the meeting, while all the issues were fresh in the minds of the attendees. and very plainly states that "NO SUBDIVISIONS' were in the top three issues for the residents. I cannot understand how this was relegated to '0' votes on the SS Master Plan site........
Paul
|
|
|
Post by watching carefully on Mar 17, 2006 9:18:04 GMT -5
I know that there was at least one vote for no subdivsions! what's going on here. How accurate are these results?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Breuckman on Mar 20, 2006 12:29:29 GMT -5
A couple of things on this...the results summary includes the top 3 goals reported by each group. The voting refers to the number of dots that were placed by each goal. Only one group listed "No Subs" as one of their top 3 goals, and that goal did not have any dots placed by it - therefore, no votes were reported.
Paul, I also want to clarify something here. The Township cannot ban subdivisions. A subdivsion is nothing more than a method of dividing land, and provided that the proposed subdivision complies with requirements such as lot area, width, etc., it has to be approved. In that respect, it is the same as a land division (what are commonly referred to as "acreage" lots). Creating a subdivision and completing a land division are both nothing more than legal processes.
I think I know what you are getting at when you say "No Subs," but you need to reframe your statement. Paul, what you need to describe is what it is about subs that you don't like. While there truly is no way that we can prohibit subdivisions, we CAN include ordinance standards that are intended to prevent subdivisions that are distasteful to the Township. For example, somebody could come along and create a subdivision with one acre lots. Go look at places like Hamburg Township, Brighton Township, or around the Howell area. There are plenty of subdivisions with one acre lots.
The key thing we need to do during this process is to identify those characteristics that we don't want to see in a subdivision. Otherwise, if all we say is "No Subs," well, we might as well tell the federal government "No income taxes" either.
|
|
|
Post by TRASHUS PAUL on Mar 20, 2006 13:43:26 GMT -5
Jim..Thanks for the reply. I believe most of the South Side Great Residents would accept housing built on ONE ACRE size lots without a problem. As you know, there are a lot of homes in the SS that are built on a one acre to a one and one-half acre lot size. We have experienced how the township can circumvent the zoning as shown to us by the Horste Farm/Landmarc sewer allowance, after being told for years all development in our area would need a minimum one acre lot, we are now facing a high density tract housing subdivision in our vicinity. Certainly, I believe you can understand our feelings about this issue. A nice country setting building houses with a minimum one acre lot size is acceptable to me. Very low density housing. I do not consider this a "subdivision, or tract housing", in the common normal sense. Call it a "Country Sub", or rural land division, but if the lots are minimum one acre lots, maybe we all could accept this type of development. As you know, I am not against development, only that the development SHOULD CONFORM TO THE CHARACTERISTICS, STANDARDS, AND AESTHETICS of the surrounding area. There are ZERO houses facing backwards, ZERO storm water retention ponds, and most importantly, ZERO 10,000 sq ft lots in our area. The Township has demonstrated with their actions, or inactions, on several fronts, that they are pro-development, desire to build high density, and allow density BONUS housing in all areas, and the residents MUST BE VILIGANT TO RETAIN THE RURAL AREA in the best manner possible. Build all future housing on minimum one acre lot size, preserve our natural features, and do not build any commercial, and we will accept this. Also, the roads will not accept any additional traffic, mostly because of natural and man-made barriers, and this must be a major consideration if additional housing is desired. I believe the SS Residents have voiced these issues at the SS MP Update. We live in the SS, pay additional taxes on the one acre plus lot size, because this is the "Quality of Life" that we want to enjoy. Again, Jim, Thanks for your reply, and the SS Residents will greatly appreciate all considerations to maintain our "Rural Area". "COUNTRY SHOULD REMAIN COUNTRY"
TRASH-US PAUL
|
|
|
Post by carefully watching on Mar 20, 2006 14:02:21 GMT -5
By NO subs, I meant... well No subs....For Example.... Walden Woods, Crosswinds, cobblestone creek, etc, etc, etc - Not acceptable on the south side
-No monster sign advertising a "subdivision" New Housing should blend in and not stick out like a sore thumb.
-one acre plus lots with woods! None of this clearing the entire lot and put a big house in the middle of it
-no retention/detention ponds
-Natural draining no concrete sewers!
|
|
|
Post by JRock on Mar 23, 2006 22:00:46 GMT -5
I agree one acre lots are acceptable no clear cutting no subs like these here on Savage, the houses are all the same 10 feet apart, to close to the road no buffer areas with the rear of the houses facing the road looks very tackey to me.
|
|
|
Post by resident on Mar 25, 2006 0:30:39 GMT -5
if vbt puts a big box retail yhere will be no rural
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 28, 2006 14:34:11 GMT -5
Since developers can buy the land from those willing to sell and then put home according to VBT rules sub-divisions are going to come. The ideal situation is where VBT can control land use and return to the residents something that is attractive with features useable by all. That would be a PRD (Planned Residential Development). The benefits can outway the negative if they are planned according. But more to a point raised the in Lake Ledger by Cindy King, with VBT expenses going up every year and a tax base that maybe contained the question is "HOW MUCH TO YOU WANT TO PAY IN TAXES COMPARED TO CURRENT LEVELS"? I doubt that anyone is willing to see their taxes possible double in ten years, but it couls happen. So your choice becomes either accept that VBT is going to be built up and find a way to control it or change your life style so that you can take on the burden of future taxes. So lets find a way to control growth, maintain some of the current lifestyle and hold tax levels down.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 28, 2006 14:34:41 GMT -5
Since developers can buy the land from those willing to sell and then put home according to VBT rules sub-divisions are going to come. The ideal situation is where VBT can control land use and return to the residents something that is attractive with features useable by all. That would be a PRD (Planned Residential Development). The benefits can outway the negative if they are planned according. But more to a point raised the in Lake Ledger by Cindy King, with VBT expenses going up every year and a tax base that maybe contained the question is "HOW MUCH TO YOU WANT TO PAY IN TAXES COMPARED TO CURRENT LEVELS"? I doubt that anyone is willing to see their taxes possible double in ten years, but it couls happen. So your choice becomes either accept that VBT is going to be built up and find a way to control it or change your life style so that you can take on the burden of future taxes. So lets find a way to control growth, maintain some of the current lifestyle and hold tax levels down.
|
|
country ponds living
Guest
|
Post by country ponds living on May 3, 2006 11:31:32 GMT -5
With any development, it brings increased cost to maintain the infrastructure (roads, public services, schools, etc) when you have increased cost for your infrastructure, it gets passed on to the residents via taxes. New development sounds all fine and good until you think about the effects. When development increases, every resident pays for it.
As for PRDs, they are a great concept but they never delivered what is promised. Take ride through any PRD in VBT. The last things to be put in are the walking trails, parks, etc. Most of the time the developer does not put them in and the township does not make them. For example, In country ponds a walking trail was supposed to be put in but it was not. The developer made sure he got his houses in and he did not leave enough room for the walking trail. So guess what no walking trail for country ponds and the developer gets off scott free! No fines or fees for not following the approved site plan that included the walking trail. On top of not being fined or made to put in amenities that were planned for, the developer gets bonus density because it is a PRD.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on May 6, 2006 15:48:25 GMT -5
The May 10 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda is now posted on the VBT site. The Agenda has been changed to a PDF format. Also, there are 3 items on the agenda for a Public Hearing and then the same 3 items are also listed as New Business for the Commission to take action on......This is very unusual, as this does not allow the Commission members to take a ride out to the sites to see for their own benefit what is happening, and what the residents want to do. Just very unusual. In the past, commission members have mentioned they do not like to hold a public hearing and then have the item come up again of the same night for action.Why the change?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Swalow on May 8, 2006 11:50:35 GMT -5
All-
I am the Environmental Director for Van Buren Township, and I am writing to clear up some confusion RE: Planned Residential Developments (PRD). The Township's PRD Ordinance allows for things like attached units and smaller lot sizes in exchange for complying with higher standards (see following examples)- 1. Building location- NO building allowed on steep slopes, wetlands or floodplains and must preserve vegetatation where possible. 2. Building setbacks- INCREASES the setbacks from roads, ponds, lakes, streams, wetlands and storm water facilites. 3. Open space requirements- a MINIMUM of 30% of the site must be preserved as open space.
Country Pond is not a PRD, as was suggested in a recent posting. Country Pond is a "typical" site condominium that meets the "typical" requirements in the zoning ordinance.
An example of a PRD is Cobblestone Creek off of W. Huron River Drive. In order to recieve smaller lots at this developement the developer complied with the PRD oridnance with the following preservation requirements- 1. 1,910 trees were preserved on the site, including a 500 year old oak tree. 2. the buildings (homes) on the site sit 200 ft. off of W. Huron River Drive and they have planted that area densely with trees, so eventually you will not see the houses. 3. 40.8 % or 117 acres of the site is permanently preserved as Open Space. 4. There are several MILES of trails incorporated into the site plans of Cobblestone Creek and Cobblestone Ridge, including over a mile of publicly available trails along W. Huron River Drive and Hoeft Road. These trails will be tied into the Township's overal Greenways and Trails Master Plan.
I think this example IS living up to the expectations of preserving open space and "rural character", and it didn't cost the Township any direct tax dollars ($).
Thank you-
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Madigan on May 11, 2006 8:13:18 GMT -5
Hello Dan, You wrote: "1. Building location- NO building allowed on steep slopes, wetlands or floodplains and must preserve vegetatation where possible."
Question: What can the average property owner do to reclassify the wetland portion of their property?
Example: The proposed High School property at Sumpter and Hull on recent maps at MP Meetings the wetland designation has been removed. Thank You- Diane
|
|
|
Post by Dan Swallow on May 11, 2006 11:02:18 GMT -5
Diane-
Wetlands are defined in Federal and State law- Michigan Public Act 451 of 1994, Part 303 (MCL 324.303). Therefore, "the average property owner" can not simply "reclassify" a wetland portion of their property.
In order to be classified as a wetland under Federal and State law, three (3) criteria must be met- 1) Hydrology- standing water or inundated soils for a portion of the growing season. 2) Soils- hydirc soils as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and 3) Wetland plant species as determined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
In the school example I believe you are referring to the site map that the Van Buren Schools engineers presented that showed some "hydric soils". That is only one (1) of the criteria and based on existing datasets (Examples: National Wetlands Inventory, SEMCOG Land Use & Land Cover), the other two (2) criteria do not exist on the site. Therefore, that site was not designated as a wetland.
A qualified wetland consultant would have to survey the site to determine if there were any wetlands on the site that would be regulated under Federal or State law. While it is allowed under State law, Van Buren Township does not have a local wetlands ordinace.
Thank you-
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Madigan on May 11, 2006 13:43:45 GMT -5
Dan, The Greenways and Trails Map from the last MP Meeting states that there ARE - Van Buren Regulated Wetlands as well as Regulated Woodlands. Prior to this New High School debacle Van Buren showed this area as a wetland. So if the property owner can raise a quick maturing crop (rice) on these wetlands inbetween the standing water, ducks, and geese, then we can also get a reclassification? I understand the National Wetlands Inventory and replacing used acreage, as was done with the airport and the development of Crosswinds Marsh.
Mr. Lazaroff told me that there were no soil samples taken and that an engineer "walked" the property. I'd like to see them walk it this spring, better yet, I'd like to see them go through the Van Buren Planning Commission for approval ans site review. Thanks for answering my last e-mail Diane
|
|