This is yet another example of the arrogance and incompetence of some members of the Fogler Board ignoring the legal requirements pertaining to any proposed amendment of Oakland Township's Zoning Ordinance. Where was the legal oversight? A large portion of Rochester Hills was also affected by this clumsy attempt to rush through major changes in our Zoning Ordinance to over develop a parcel of land and thereby lessen the value of nearby properties and create horrendous traffic problems.Thank God these people were voted out of office!

Video not up yet. Did they do a prayer before the meeting last night?

A few initial thoughts:

1) It's always a bit funny to see local legislators surprised at citizen involvement. Perhaps they forget that in this area, many citizens either are lawyers, or can afford to get one.

2) Yes, of course, Rochester Hills must be able to weigh in. Procedure with this regard, was not followed.

3) I appreciate Gonser's attitude toward being right, rather than fast.

4) It will be interesting to find out exactly how/who engaged the Michigan AG. There have been concerns of "selective enforcement" with regard to his case selection - see AG's high-profile lawsuit of the City of Troy. http://troy.patch.com/articles/secretary-of-state-sues-troy-says-state-law-requires-an-election#comments

I don't find the developer's stance of selective enforcement to be valid. If the previous board members did not follow the required steps and violated the law, the approval is not valid period. I would think the developer would want to make sure the approval was done legally with no steps missed so it could not be challenged as opposed to trying to get a free pass based on previous mistakes.

Thank you to the citizens that retained Mr. Need to insure that this development doesn't violate the law and the right of the citizens to be heard.

If a legal step was missed, that's not exactly a "gray area" to be guessed at by all parties involved. It's a legal matter, and I also applaud the new BOT for wanting to be right, rather than fast. What would be the legal ramifications for the township should this have gone through without the referendum or this latest development? Lawsuit? Finally, why wasn't the proper paperwork filed in the first place?
Kudos to the citizens who hired Mr. Need!

I have posted this link from Country Creek Home Owners Association. Someone help me find the commercial development that borders Orion Twp. Does he mean Kroger a mile away?

http://www.country-creek.com/2010/country%20creek%20map.pdf

Regarding selective enforcement, I don't recall complaints when the selective enforcement benefits this developer.

that notice requirement has been the law since 2008. It is hard to believe that Fogler,
Edwards and the Township Planning Commission were not aware of it . Was everyone supposed to look the other way? Did the Township Attorney fail to inform
them of this requirement, is that their excuse?? If he told them about it or if they were otherwise aware of the requirement why did they deliberately ignore it? The answer seems to be they did not want the City of Rochester Hills also publicly opposing what is clearly an unsuitable over-development of the land involved.Their
conduct is at best wretched or pathetic given the fact they were public officials who
had a fiduciary duty/obligation to the people of Oakland Township.

Could the private school, the Eagle Academy, be the "commercial development" on the edge of Oakland Twp next to Orion Twp?

It's certainly reassuring to have the new board in place along with supervisor Gonser. The prior board and Fogler were voted out for ignoring the residents [taxpayers!] concerns. Skipping a required legal step, as well as taking campaign contributions from a contractor with a vested interest is more than unacceptable.
This made me very uncomfortable with our board, but I'll leave it at that.
I'm very thankful for the township's residents that put forth so much effort to help preserve this beautiful area as well as our property values!

The developer complaining that other projects also didn't take this step is lint the speeder complaining that everybody was going 80, why give me a ticketed?
Le
Let the process play out. Changing zoning is one of the biggest issues facing any local government. The prior board had a suspect record. Just look at the OPC representation

Pay attention to Mr. Matt Gibb too. We found out the hard way in Orion Township that Gibb's closest attention goes to L. Brooks Patterson and the power brokers of Oakland County.

What is this, the lawyers full employment act? Don't like the first attorney's opinion, get another, don't like the next attorney's opinion, get a third and so one. Hold your first two meetings with a total of 1.5 hours in closed session - is that transparency? My prediction? The developer will sue and win a huge lawsuit against the Township.

The December 3 Trustee meeting is viewable on-demand now at:
http://video.cmntv.org/video/711/oakland-township-board-of-trus

I am new to the area and have become very interested in this story. Could someone tell me what other sites were stated as possible locations for senior development per the Master Plan. Thank you

"Protect Oakland Township"

The other 2 sites do not have municipal sewer or water available now or within the next decade.

The location for Blossom Ridge has both and in addition is where it is most needed:

1) where more than 1/3 of Township residents reside and closest to services and cooperative emergency management contracts are in place with 3 surrounding communities.

2) If you really want to protect Oakland Township then you should urge the Board of Trustees to stop violating Fair Housing Laws or the wrath of Federal Prosecutors will be on their way which would destroy the fiscal health and reputation of our beautiful Township.

Just A Citizen: so we can be on the same page here, please cite the code and paragraph of the said violated law. If you know the township to be in violation… then you know and can provide proof of the federal laws that “we” are out of compliance with.
If not I suspect yet another fear fertilizer applicator who makes unsupported allegations behind a made up name.
The development could proceed without challenge if built to existing zoning.
The development can provide senior housing if built to existing zoning.
The development can bring some jobs if built to existing zoning.
The development can expand the tax revenue base if built to existing zoning.
So since I do not understand, clarify how laws are being broken.
Other than that, the corner of the proposed development is the best location in the township. The developer wanting to make MORE profit on the substantially larger building is NOT in any violation of federal housing laws.

I understand the other sites don't have sewer but would appreciate someone listing the possible alternative sites for senior development.

Dear Protect Our Township,

No other proposals exist. No viable alternatives sites exist they lack the following:

a) not owned by a viable financially sound housing provider

b) properties are not available for sale ; a property owner is not required to sell; private property rights

c) topographically impracticable for ADA compliance and fit the needs for the elderly and disabled

d)in the more rural areas of the township; Adams & Dutton is NOT rural

e) just another witch hunt waiting to happen: disengenuos to suggest another location when the current site us already approvedf) according to Trustee Keyes " not having senior housing makes Oakland Township 'unique' ...." Unique indeed!

g) according to Treasurer Langlios, " seniors are content to look outside of Oakland Township for their housing choice " TOTAL B.S.

h) according to Supervisor Gonser, " senior housing is a commercial use and should only be in land zones commercial". Being that there is practically no commercial zoned land in Oakland Township, Mr Gonser is stating that we really shouldn't have any housing provided to for the elderly and disabled. More importantly, Housing for Seniors is a Residential Use and belongs in Residential Zones Areas

i) the Fair Housing violations stated above are causes for great concern "Protect" us from these zealots. Now that is cause for an opening prayer before the next Board of Trustees Meeting......Happy New Year

Concerned,
All the financial information was submitted in May 2011 with the first submittal. The records are on file with the Township.
Also on file with the Township are several dozen homes, churches, schools(private and public) and a mausoleum that are as long, taller, wider and in residential areas. Question: Why the abscence of outcries for those uses not "not fitting into the community". Answer: Prejudice and Selective Ignorance. A Bias against Housing for the Elderly and Disabled.
The claims of reduction in sourounding property values are BOGUS and are BlockBusting methods which violate FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING LAWS.
It has been proven that the proposal would generate 64% LESS traffic at peak hour has 400% more open space than a conventional subdivision and is LESS in height (even with 3 stories still under 35') than the sourounding homes.
As to Trust, I use my real name and do not hide behind a pseudonym.
You are entitled to your opinion but not your own set of facts.... err fiction.
Regards,
Dominic J Moceri

I was not present at the meeting in May of 2011 so if Mr. Moceri states the financials where submitted at that time and the township personnel can verify this, I obviously accept this as fact and apologize for my error since my statement comes from the multiple meetings I attended.

Again, I do not object to senior housing simply the size of the development in the proposed location.

I live in the area and I think this corner is a perfect fit for this assisted living development. Do you really want another bank or Walgreens there? Be careful of what you are opposing the alternative could be much worse.