|
Post by trashusresidents on Feb 15, 2006 10:03:04 GMT -5
The South Side Residents vision for our area would be all Country Residential, with a minimum one acre lot size, and maximize the GREEN OPEN SPACE. A huge part of the south side population are long time residents, and we wish to maintain the aesthetics , charm, and characteristics of the area as we know it. The housing turn-over rate is very low, as compared to the subdivisions. This low turnover rate creates a very stable community, with long time homeowners taking a huge stakeholders position in our township. We live in this area for the reasons stated above. We do not wish to see high density housing on 10,000 sq ft lots intruding the south side, disturbing the continious flow of country sized lots. This area of the township must be left as "RURAL" and country as possible. There is also some discussion about commercial areas planned for this area. Commercial should not be included for this area. With Wal-Mart planning to expand to become a SUPER WAL-MART, folks will simply drive on by most commercial establishments and go to the commercial area North of I-94. The South-Side shoud remain an area of[shadow=red,left,300] GREEN OPEN SPACE[/shadow], lots of mature trees (not cut down by developers), charming individual homes, and back yard recreational activity areas for kids. Lots of room for a veggie garden, and maybe a couple of fruit trees. [glow=red,2,300]NO COMMERCIAL OR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING FOR THE SOUTH SIDE.[/glow] Trash-Us Residents
|
|
|
Post by countryliving on Feb 15, 2006 10:22:35 GMT -5
I agree with the above poster.
No Commerical or no High Density housing
|
|
|
Post by Country Gal on Feb 18, 2006 10:55:03 GMT -5
I am a little concerned about changes that may be presented to the current Master Plan. Are smaller lot sizes and additional commercial projected for the South Side. And do Supervisor King's constant comments about being sued by developers indicate possible more houses closer together. All the comments so far indicate the people do not want "sprawl housing". as Mr. White has made us all aware of.
Country Gal
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Feb 18, 2006 17:28:39 GMT -5
I would like everyone to simply call me "Paul". I am your peer, and thou I appreciate your respect, Paul is OK. We must ALL try to preserve our rural lifestyle to the highest level possible. The South-Side should remain mostly rural as it is today, but we must work hard to achieve that result, and not be deterred by outsiders. The South-Side Master Plan must meet the Resident Taxpayer Electors Vision. It is our responsibility to express our opinions to the official we elected to retain our rural area. Paul
|
|
|
Post by Jim Breuckman on Feb 21, 2006 17:47:30 GMT -5
Country Gal,
At this point in time, nothing is "projected" for the Master Plan. That's the purpose of this whole exercise - to get your input and then develop a plan that is responsive to what we hear from you.
Without belaboring the point, Supervisor King is correct in that the Township has to be fair to all property owners, including those who would wish to develop their land (or sell it for development). However, I'm not sure that it will mean "more houses closer together."
Perhaps you could explain what "more houses closer together" means to you?
Thanks, Jim
|
|
|
Post by stoptheinsanity on Feb 22, 2006 10:27:29 GMT -5
Mr. Breuckman, I too agree with Country Gal. Supervisor King is always talking about being sued by the developers. I feel that this update is a way of giving the developer what they want. Which is zoning that will allow for more houses on smaller lots. The majority of residents on the south side want to keep it rural with large lots! I feel that the will get sued line is a way to keep approving housing subs even though the residents do not want them. What is it going to take to get the township on board with what the residents want not the developers? The township should do everything within their power to protect the rural lifestyle that they residents want. They should not give in to the developers! The township should not be governed by the fear of getting sued but the developers. The township should stand its ground. I hope Supervisor King and All those in charge at township hall read theses comments and follow thorugh with the will of the people not the developers.
|
|
|
Post by stoptheinsanity on Feb 22, 2006 10:29:13 GMT -5
also houses close together means lots houses on lots smaller than an acre!
|
|
|
Post by Country Gal on Feb 23, 2006 15:52:58 GMT -5
from Country Gal: More houses closer together to me means what I see when I drive to the north side. Lots of houses built very close together in the new areas. I would think there is very little privatecy in these areas. Houses on Hull are spread out with big lawns and big trees and space between houses. We do not want houses like the ones on the road to Meiers in our area.
Country Gal
|
|
|
Post by captainopenspace on Mar 1, 2006 22:46:40 GMT -5
Any Master Plan for the South Side (SS) must balance private property rights with environmental protections and preserving rural character/open space. Development will inevitably happen. Many landowners retirement funds are tied to the sale of large tracts of land. We must find the balance point that keeps the SS rural character while still allowing property owners to benefit from their land. It will be difficult, but necessary if the SS is to remain the jewel that it is.
|
|
|
Post by TrashUs Paul on Mar 2, 2006 9:31:13 GMT -5
Yes, I agree property owners should have rights. However, when developing the property, the asethetics and characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood SHOULD DICTATE THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. Tract, sprawl, PRD, and similar building should not be allowed in a rural area such as the SS. A developer building housing on one acre lots should not face any resistance in our area. Building on 10,000 sq ft lots (80X125) in a rural area is UNACCEPTABLE. A majority of the SS is now zoned Agriculture, with a minumum one acre building lots. We must speak out to maintain this as a minimum, and try to regain and improve our "Quality of Life" in this area. A primne example the the Horste Farm/Landmarc issue on South Haggerty Rd. VBT allowed "Sewergate" for a large tract, thus effectively change the character of the area when this tract housing is built. In place of one acre lots, the farm can not be developed with 10.000 sq ft lots. "SewerGate" was kept out of the public eye for 18 months. Thus, I am very concerned about the MP Update for the SS.
Trash-Us Paul
|
|
|
Post by carefullywatching on Mar 6, 2006 10:00:25 GMT -5
I agree with the above poster. Development and developer must adapt to the rural characteristics of ht South side. No Housing subs period. The above poster mentioned the "sewergate" issue. I have read the letters and articles about this issue in the papers. If a housing sub goes on this property because of the sewer, this will be a BIG black eye for Van Buren Township. How this was allowed to happen is beyond me. I have heard both sides and it seems that this "sewer' should have never been allowed.
|
|
|
Post by horse on Mar 7, 2006 22:26:25 GMT -5
To me the south side means farms and house on large lots I'm talking acres here. I love going through this area and seeing horses in the fields. I would like to see this remain in the Township we are one of a few remaining townships that can have this in Wayne County.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Mar 29, 2006 23:20:36 GMT -5
wiki encyclopedia on subdivisions
Housing subdivisions "/wiki/Housing_subdivision" are large tracts of land consisting entirely of newly-built residences. Duany and Plater-Zyberk claim that housing subdivisions “are sometimes called villages, towns, and neighborhoods by their developers, which is misleading since those terms denote places which are not exclusively residential and which provide an experiential richness not available in a housing tract.” Subdivisions often incorporate curved roads and "/wiki/Cul-de-sac", which some find inherently disorienting. Such subdivisions may offer only a few places to enter and exit the development, causing traffic to use high volume collector streets which, as a result, are generally clogged throughout most of the day. All trips, no matter how short, must enter the collector road in a suburban system. (Duany Plater-Zyberk 5, 34) It has also been proven that these types of subdivisions are less safe in case of robberies or fires, because fire, rescue, and police units have fewer points of entry and often have to navigate clogged collector roads to reach the scene. Some complaints about subdivisions is that suburban homes are often identical in design, color, and materials; sometimes even indistinguishable within a development. Existing trees and vegetation are often eradicated and replaced, making the streets look bare and empty. This is especially true on sites that were once farmland. The homes themselves are typically not well-built, conforming to only the basic of building codes and often designed by the building contractor, instead of proper architects, making the homes feel "boxy", bland, and un-original. Shopping centers "/wiki/Shopping_center" are locations consisting of retail space such as "/wiki/Strip_mall", "/wiki/Shopping_mall", and "/wiki/Big_box_store". They vary in size from small convenience stores to the "/wiki/Mall_of_America". Many suburban shopping centers are only one story tall and are often designed to be reached almost exclusively by car. It is rare to find a shopping center near a suburban residential area as many suburban residents would prefer not to live next to one. Duany and Plater-Zyberk contrast the shopping center with the corner store, the traditional main street counterpart to the convenience store, and consider the latter compatible with the residential buildings in the neighborhood. (Duany Plater-Zyberk 6, 26) "/wiki/Fast_food" chains are common in suburban areas. They are often built early in areas with low property values where the population is about to boom and where huge amounts of traffic is predicted and set the precedent for future development. Schlosser says that fast food chains accelerate suburban sprawl and help set its tone with their expansive parking lots, flashy signs, and plastic architecture ("/wiki/Eric_Schlosser" 65). Duany and Plater-Zyberk believe that this only reinforces a destructive pattern of growth in an endless quest to move away from the sprawl that only results in creating more of it. (Duany Plater-Zyberk 26) Roadways The last component of sprawl listed by some detractors is "/wiki/Road", which connect the above listed locations. Partly because many communities are now planned with the assumption that all their members own cars, the average suburban household generates 13 car trips per day. Many consider this property to be socially isolating and bad for "/wiki/The_environment".
Paul from Trash-Us
|
|
|
Post by eww on Jun 4, 2007 21:00:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by goog on Nov 7, 2007 4:31:15 GMT -5
|
|