But Then a Strange Fear Gripped Me and I Just Couldn’t Ask
A letter in today’s News provides a gripping account of the writer’s inability to speak against a new township development at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. “I was given two chances to speak but something beyond my control kept me glued to my seat.” If only they applied seat glue before City Council public comment.
“If only they applied seat glue before City Council public comment”
I hope you are joking, because suppressing speech puts you on the wrong side of everything civic.
posted by Cue the sad violins on May 3rd, 2006 at 11:24 amI was in fact joking. The letter writer was using a figure of speech to indicate that she was having trouble with public speaking. There wasn’t literally glue on her seat, but I pretended to interpret the metaphor literally as a joke.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on May 3rd, 2006 at 11:27 amThis post suggests to me that the excitement of summer in Ann Arbor is already beginning to boil over.
posted by Nick on May 3rd, 2006 at 12:01 pmIt’s too bad she didn’t get a chance to speak. Let’s consider her argument:
“We live across the street from the parcels being considered for the development of 164 homes facing Whitmore Lake Road and Warren Road.”
Hmmm. That means that the back windows of her idyllic, rural residence overlook US 23 just north of the intersection with M-14. She obviously moved to the area to get away from the noise and traffic of the city. (I lived on five acres adjoining M-14 east of town, which carries less traffic than US 23. We had to raise our voices to have a conversation outside. We chose to live there because we could get the acreage cheap)
“These homes would share a common well and the only place for a sewage treatment system is across the street from the three homes on the north side of Warren Road.”
That would be because Ann Arbor Township’s anti-growth policies don’t allow for the extension of city services up Whitmore Lake Rd. Barton Hills (which, coincidentally, is located just across Stein Rd. from the proposed development) treats its own sewage, and we all know how undesirable THAT neighborhood is.
“Reference is always made that the land is unsuitable for farming yet year after year crops are planted and harvested.”
Right. It makes perfect sense to operate a farm next to the most expensive neighborhood of an area with home prices that well exceed the state average, and with close access to a major freeway. Sounds like prime agricultural land to me.
“Property tax relief for farm land is available, but the owner of the land has not applied for this assistance.”
That is because this “assistance” would require him to surrernder his development rights for this land (for 20 years, I think), the value of which far exceeds any tax relief that the owner might receive. It would, however, add quite a bit to the value of the writer’s land.
“Years ago a two-family farm house on the property at Whitmore Lake Road near Stein Road was torn down due to a dry well, and no other source of water was available.”
If there’s no water available, the county won’t let them build, even if the property is rezoned.
If the City and Township try to purchase the property development rights for this property as part of the “greenbelt”, it’s going to cost bundle, all so Barton Hills and environs can maintain its “rural” character.
posted by halflight on May 3rd, 2006 at 1:11 pmPoints again for the reference to the 80’s whinesters, the Smiths.
Hope everyone is having a nice spring out there in AAIOland(tm)…….
posted by todd on May 3rd, 2006 at 1:30 pmI had one horrid experience with the ZBA, which I can only liken to being on LSD in the Queen of Hearts court.
posted by OFWinsurgent on May 3rd, 2006 at 3:53 pmhere’s where she lives. http://tinyurl.com/k5a9u
posted by peter honeyman on May 3rd, 2006 at 11:20 pmI’ve spent a good deal of time this past year ’round that area, and while I’m not a fan of sprawl, I could’ve seen these problems with that plot of land from a mile away.
I’m sure it was all OK when she was buying her home, and when the other people in the nice McMansions down the road a bit at Warren and Pontiac Trail were building their homes, but this (gasp) is going too far.
Ironically, the land (if I am thinking of the right area) only has a few trees on the perimiter - i.e., built houses might actually *preserve* the idyllic rural environment by blocking the sight and sound of M-14.
Love it, love it.
posted by Anonymous on May 4th, 2006 at 5:32 amHey Peter where’d you get the picture? There is no one named French on Warren Road according to the county’s site; but she could be renting.
posted by abc on May 4th, 2006 at 7:08 amRe: Peter’s link. Who’d a thought. Comparing the resolution of satellite imagery from Yahoo maps versus the other leading brand, Yahoo seems for now to be winning the day, for this part of the country at least.
posted by HD on May 4th, 2006 at 7:51 amGood eye, Todd
posted by Anna on May 4th, 2006 at 9:02 amabc, i got the picture from yahoo maps (which, like HD, i am surprised to find beats google (double true!) maps) and i got the addresses from ewashtenaw’s property parcel lookup page. (hint: FRENCH ARTHUR.)
posted by peter honeyman on May 4th, 2006 at 11:42 amYou know, I know that area too and I also know what is being proposed. Now maybe K. French’s argument is not very good but certainly neither is what is being proposed. It is a typical, turn your back on the street, development; one size of house with your choice of three hideous styles complete with vinyl siding, optional wood decks hanging off the back, and berms facing Whitmore Lake and Warren Roads. (gag me) No provision for a small store, a small office, or parks, or churches, or anything else that makes a bunch of houses a neighborhood.
And then there’s the approach to septic. The proposal includes what is sometimes called a ‘package plant’, which is a small sewer treatment plant operated privately. These plants are marginal at best but what tends to happen is that the developer cuts corners in their operation of them and then turns them over to the condominium association who doesn’t know how to operate them and then sometimes they get turned over to the townships who don’t want to operate them. Then it becomes a big problem when the health department discovers that the facility has been polluting the local environment for years. But that is not a prediction; it is a fairly accurate account of what has happened with these systems all over the state as well as the country. I know environmental engineers who prefer septic fields to these systems. (By the way Barton Hills is all septic fields, halflite)
Then there is the question of anti-growth. This blog has had a number of threads about the downtown and density and development. If Scio and Pittsfield and Ypsi Townships resisted some of the past growth we might have had less sprawl, and more investment downtown. This is easily a 40 to 50 million dollar project for the developer; I’d prefer to see what they could do with that money downtown.
Oh but they don’t know how to build those kinds of projects, they specialize in turning open land into monotonous, Canton-like, developments. Maybe it will have a pretty little gate to drive through before I get to my house, or am I at my neighbor’s house? I keep getting them confused.
posted by abc on May 4th, 2006 at 12:48 pmHD and peter -
Yeah, tragically Google’s satellite imagery provider has one, very high resolution for urbanized areas, and one significantly lower resolution for everything else; the boundary is ’round about Carpenter road. So, in Ann Arbor, Yahoo’s maps have better aerial photos, but, in Ypsi, Google’s aerials are much better than Yahoo’s. Kinda of a pain.
posted by Murph on May 4th, 2006 at 10:30 pmabc:
“It is a typical, turn your back on the street, development; one size of house with your choice of three hideous styles complete with vinyl siding, optional wood decks hanging off the back, and berms facing Whitmore Lake and Warren Roads.”
Sounds like something (gasp) inexpensive. That’s entirely appropriate for a development sandwiched against an expressway.
As for the “package plant”, the problems that you mention (lack of maintenance, malfunctions, contamination) are also possible with septic fields. However, if you installed septic fields, you’d have to have much lower density, making the houses much more expensive, and there’s no market for luxury houses on top of an expressway. Furthermore, the Township has forced the developer into using a package plant by refusing to extend city services to the site. That’s obstruction, not planning.
It’s hypocritical for the Township to complain about the package plant when it has prevented the installation of a superior sewer system.
“If Scio and Pittsfield and Ypsi Townships resisted some of the past growth we might have had less sprawl, and more investment downtown.”
And just how many families with children are going to want to spend $300,000 for a small two bedroom condo with no yard? I just went into the Liberty Lofts sales office–they’re charging $290,000 for one bedroom and 850 square feet!!!
If the townships had resisted development more (and they HAVE resisted it), housing prices in the city would be even more ridiculous than they already are.
posted by halflight on May 5th, 2006 at 10:15 amMurph,
Damn you! (I root for anything that isn’t Google). My recollection was that the Yahoo-linked image that peter provided was about as good as Google’s higher-res urban imagery. So I checked an important Ypsi address. And found that the Yahoo imagery is very good. But Google lets you peer down practically inside a beer stein.
compare
contrast
So Murph, if you’re looking for a house in Ypsi, the choice is clear, I guess. But just in general, if you had to choose between complete coverage at Yahoo’s resolution or the urban/country Google split, what would you choose (leaving aside the UI and server responsiveness of the two)?
posted by HD on May 5th, 2006 at 10:33 amhalflight
“Sounds like something (gasp) inexpensive. That’s entirely appropriate for a development sandwiched against an expressway.â€
Why? For something to be inexpensive, must it also be ill considered and ugly? Must it also ignore good planning techniques? This developer, like most, is a one-trick pony and their trick sucks. But they don’t care, they don’t live here. They can throw the same old crap in here without thinking about it and leave.
Why shouldn’t the houses face the road? It doesn’t cost any more to turn the houses around; they might even be able to build fewer roads and then save money. The problem is that developers do not want to think about what they are doing and where they are doing it; they are pushing the same formula they have been pushing for the last 25 years regardless of the fact that there is a lot of evidence that there are better ways to build.
If the houses were turned to the roads we would get more pleasant streets, the activity and parallel parked cars would slow down drivers, and the residents would more likely maintain their yards. No additional cost to the developer. Lots that are tougher to use, like the corner of Warren and Whitmore Lake, could be set aside for a small commercial area that is sorely needed in that area. Now Ms. French will see her neighbor’s front door and will walk across the street and get to know them, and pick up some milk on the way back.
The development can also offer more variety than 164 of the same house. If they were to have a range of house sizes, people of varying age, economic status, and family situations could live together. This helps to stagger turnover rates throughout the neighborhood which also staggers maintenance cycles, so that all of the houses don’t fall into disrepair at the same time. Without spending any additional money this development can be more than just a sea of beige starter homes that each owner is just waiting to move out of.
posted by abc on May 6th, 2006 at 7:56 amabc: wow - I don’t feel any need to chip in after that. well said.
HD: if I had to choose, well, right now I only use google maps, so I guess google’s split is my de facto choice.
Really, if it’s west of Carpenter, it’s Ann Arbor, which I know well enough to not have to stare at an aerial for, or it’s rural enough that all the resolution would do is increase my likelihood of guessing whether a particular field was planted in corn, soybeans, or fallow the year the photo was taken - which is now out of date, because, five years later, the choice is probably not corn or soy, it’s Pulte or Toll Bros.
posted by Murph on May 6th, 2006 at 10:30 am“For something to be inexpensive, must it also be ill considered and ugly?”
Yes, if you consider vinyl siding ugly. It’s a standard inexpensive exterior cladding.
That’s not really the point, though. The township has zoned this land as “open area”, which is completely inappropriate for that location. The township has adopted an anti-growth policy that prevents rational development by denying sewer and water service to an area adjoining the city and the expressway; then it complains when developers want to install a private sewage treatment plant. That’s disingenuous at best.
The zoning ordinances do not give the township or the neighbors architectural approval over every development. When the township tries to inappropriately micro-manage the development of property with irrational zoning (which it will only change if the developer agrees to aesthetic conditions that the township has no legal right to require), it opens itself up to lawsuits. As a taxpayer of Ann Arbor Township, I don’t appreciate this.
“But they don’t care, they don’t live here.”
They have to sell their houses to people who do live here. Those people will care; but some of those people have to compromise their aesthetic preferences for affordability.
“Why shouldn’t the houses face the road?”
Because houses that front on a major road are less desirable to homebuyers and will sell for less than the same house located on a sidestreet with a berm separating the yard from the road.
“The problem is that developers do not want to think about what they are doing and where they are doing it”
No, developers think quite a bit about what they’re doing. Their aim, however, is to build something that they are sure will sell, because they can’t convince a bank or other financial institution to loan them money for an experiment. Banks want to see proof that a development will sell, and reusing a successful concept is one way a developer can provide that proof. Banks are not impressed with risk-taking.
“Lots that are tougher to use, like the corner of Warren and Whitmore Lake, could be set aside for a small commercial area that is sorely needed in that area.”
Fine. The township should rezone land in the area for light commercial use. Something tells me Ms. French wouldn’t be enthusiastic about that, either.
“The development can also offer more variety than 164 of the same house.”
That will increase cost–the developer is probably using the same floorplan for economies of scale. That’s another sign that the developer is targeting these houses for people of lesser means.
“If they were to have a range of house sizes, people of varying age, economic status, and family situations could live together.”
That’s fine in theory, but try selling someone a $500,000 brick house next to a $200,000 house with vinyl siding. The buyer is going want a discount because of the “bad” neighborhood. There’s one development in the area–Cherry Hill Village in Canton–that is doing what you suggest (homes from $250,000 to $800,000 in the same neighborhood), but the way the developer protects the value of more expensive homes is by enforcing very restrictive subdivision rules. There’s greater variety, but it’s very tightly controlled. That’s fine for some people, but others don’t want the hassle of getting their neighbors approval before they can paint their house, change their curtains or landscape their yard.
posted by halflight on May 12th, 2006 at 1:08 amhalflight
I am not against developing this area. Your fight on that front is with others. I am against the proposed development because it sucks. I will also not support the construction of a package plant as I know all too well what has happened, and is happening, with them in many communities. So your objection to the location of utilities and the masterplan is not with me. However, I cannot and will not support lowest common denominator projects because you or the bank or the developer can’t get your minds around ‘risky’ ideas like well… maybe… the house can face the road.
I am going to argue for quality, because over time it is better for the community and, if anything, may add modestly to the cost (but only modestly). I know, you are going to clip the last sentence and tell me how I have no idea of how much it will add to the cost of the project to not use vinyl siding and that I am being exclusive. I am going to tell you that Hardie Plank siding will only add a couple of dollars a square foot but gives the place the huge advantage that you can paint your house a different color, and believe it or not, identity and individuality are urban planning factors. You are going to stand for mediocrity in the name of affordability, and argue that we need more of the same because, well, it sells and that is evidence of success. Your argument, “The developers have our best interests at heart and are simply trying to provide us with the best quality house for the price that they can.â€
But, the fact that the house sells does not prove that the urban plan is successful. Go to south Ypsi Township where literally thousands of the same size, and style houses have been built from near 94 to Bemis (and its continuing south) without relief. This is a swath of houses roughly three miles long and a mile or two wide. And as far as I know the developers are having no problem selling. But go ask the people who live there why they bought their house and I will bet you that the only answer you get is, “It was the only place I could afford in the area.†That is a problem. What they wouldn’t say is, “I will be looking to get the hell out of here just as soon as I can afford something else.†Why do they have to leave? Because if they improve their house five or ten years from now they will loose their money because no one will buy their renovated 500k house surrounded by a sea of 250k houses, even if the renovation is done well, and they will want to leave because the place where they live is not nice. They are locked into mediocrity (or less); the only way out is to move. This is not the way to build communities and is bad for the residents, the township, all of us. Now those people are screaming for services and complaining about traffic; well of course, the nearest gallon of milk is five miles away; too far to even send the kids on their bikes.
In an area that totals about five square miles there isn’t one school, church, grocery, gas station, dentist, book store, coffee shop, I can go on, and on. In short there is no place to work and no place to shop, for anything. FIVE SQUARE MILES!!! Every event in their lives starts with the line, “OK kids, climb in.†Waaaaa.
And no house faces any of the existing roads so walking on Whitaker or Hitchingham etc. is bleak; but then who cares there is no place to walk to.
Oh but those are the bad developers, over in Ann Arbor Township we have the good developers. Sure. This Ypsi. Twp. thing didn’t happen over night it was one 164 house development after another. The developers brew the Kool Aid with ideas like, “We are using the same floor plan for economies of scale.†and you drink it. But the proposed houses are site built, one 2×4 at a time, and the carpenters don’t memorize the plans. Economies of scales stop mattering long before 164.
Now it is five square miles, and you are defending the concept as ‘rational development’. No its not it sucks and we have to make it stop. I would prefer nothing to that load of crap stretching from Warren to North Territorial.
posted by abc on May 12th, 2006 at 11:48 amabc,
Although what you describe sounds like a place I would like to live in, it seems that few want to take a chance on something different. Given that most of that area is private property,”nothing” is not a likely long term option, how do you propose to realistically direct developers (and purchasers) away from “mediocrity”?
As for site built houses, I doubt that any non custom home in this area is assembled from stacks of 2 x 4’s anymore. My impression is that a lot of the more complicated assemblies, such as roof rafters, are delivered preassembled on a big flatbed truck. Why, I saw a rather large house being framed out in a matter of days in Walnut Ridge, once the foundation was put down. That stuff used to take a lot longer to do.
posted by JCP2 on May 12th, 2006 at 1:41 pm“I cannot and will not support lowest common denominator projects because you or the bank or the developer can’t get your minds around ‘risky’ ideas like well… maybe… the house can face the road.”
In other words, you don’t want the developer to build houses that other people want to buy because you find them distasteful. You want a house that faces a major road? Buy one.
“believe it or not, identity and individuality are urban planning factors.”
And identity and individuality are best maintained by a municipality effectively prohibiting individuals from purchasing houses with the type of cladding they choose? I’d suggest that it’s best to let individuals choose what developer and development they buy from (and thus determine what the cladding material is on their house).
“You are going to stand for mediocrity in the name of affordability”
Yes, given that I can only afford housing that is “mediocre” by others’ standards (aluminum siding, horrors!). You want to deny other people that opportunity.
‘Your argument, “The developers have our best interests at heart and are simply trying to provide us with the best quality house for the price that they can.‒
That’s not what I said. The developers maximize profit by doing market studies and discovering what the local homebuyers want and what they can pay. The homebuyers look out for their own interests by making their own purchase decision–that is, unless the township denies them the opportunity.
“the fact that the house sells does not prove that the urban plan is successful.”
That’s because the developer is not responsible for the urban plan. The township does that by adopting realistic zoning ordinances that recognize the local demand for moderate-priced housing with higher densities and city services. With higher density comes more demand for local commercial space, which the township can also zone. Ann Arbor Township resolutely refuses to address these issues, because it wants to retain it’s “rural character”–in other words, it wants to keep a median home price in excess of $350,000 by requiring large lot sizes and by making life difficult for any developer who tries to meet demand in a cheaper price bracket. The township will certainly not zone for multiple housing units and higher densities that would allow for “town center” areas.
“And as far as I know the developers are having no problem selling. But go ask the people who live there why they bought their house and I will bet you that the only answer you get is, “It was the only place I could afford in the area.â€
Actually I have friends who sold their house in Ann Arbor and moved out there. Why? Because they had two growing children and did not have enough space. They couldn’t afford a larger house in Ann Arbor, but the lower prices in Ypsi Township (and lower taxes) made it possible to get what they needed/wanted there. Why is it cheaper? Because it isn’t as convenient, and the schools aren’t as well funded. But that was obvious, and they made their choice taking into account those trade-offs. You seem to be arguing that they and other homebuyers shouldn’t be able to make that choice.
“In an area that totals about five square miles there isn’t one school, church, grocery, gas station, dentist, book store, coffee shop, I can go on, and on. In short there is no place to work and no place to shop, for anything.”
I’d bet that you’d find that the Ypsi Township’s zoning has prevented commercial development in that area. If it was possible, and the developers thought the demand was there, they’d build.
“The developers brew the Kool Aid with ideas like, “We are using the same floor plan for economies of scale.†and you drink it.”
Oh yes, I’ve forgotten, this is Ann Arbor, and all good Ann Arborites know that real estate developers are EVIL. Sheesh.
posted by halflight on May 12th, 2006 at 3:35 pmJCP2
You are absolutely correct; nothing is not a realistic option or is it desirable. I enjoy watching communities develop but not in Ann Arbor; in Ann Arbor they don’t develop they just build stuff, and too much of the same thing. Obviously we cannot ‘direct’ developers; we can only react to their proposals. That is why I cannot agree with halflight. The only thing we can do with developers who offer proposals that we don’t want, (particularly when they are not ‘by right’, which this proposal is not) is to send them back to the drawing board with some explanation as to why they have been rejected. A developer has the right to buy whatever property they want and to develop it according to the masterplan and the zoning code without some of this headache; however this development is asking for favors, so the community has more ability to react and more leverage to prevent the development from going through. That is precisely why there are public hearings for certain sizes and kinds of projects; this is how the community lets the developer know what ‘the local homebuyers want and what they can pay’ (an important component of hallflight’s market research). However for this project the only people who spoke in support had financial stakes in the home sales, there were no supporters who simply said, “I’ve been looking for an affordable place and cannot find one and I want to live here.†There were other speakers who pointed out undesirable aspects of the design; which was fair criticism for the developer to hear.
Unfortunately though the majority of speakers at this, and many, public hearings simply threw out poorly conceived NIMBY arguments because they want no change at all such as, â€the development will affect the quality of my airâ€, this is one of my favorites. When people present such inane arguments they demean the process but the reality is they will throw anything and everything they can at the developer just to stop them. The problem is they provide no feedback to the developer to try to shape the project. Good developers welcome that feedback. The Newmarket project in Pittsfield reached into the community more than any other project, on multiple levels; yes, they had an agenda but they were listening also. Newmarket was not relying on some BS marketing study. A test for this, by the way, is not if they have some thick analysis of your area, because they are all required to have that, the test is an answer to the question, ‘How has this development been tailored for this placeâ€. If the answer only refers to roads and natural features then it hasn’t been tailored at all; they have no choice but to tie into roads and avoid wetlands. It should also be noted that the Township took issue with many of the developer’s facts and calculations presented in their analysis and called into question many of there assertions concerning the greater impact of their project. I do not know who has the right numbers but the Township officials were very specific about their concerns and it should be easy enough to determine whose math is correct.
So you asked, “How do you do it?†Two things to factor in, the designer has the power of the pen. Also, the Zoning code and Masterplan cannot prescribe design (Masterplans can start to do this but you lose the pen early in the process). Townships are really left to simply react to what is asked for. But what the township can do is to make known the kind of development they are willing to embrace and provide the proper zoning and infrastructure to support the development. halflight is correct that the Township is holding this area hostage by not letting utilities be extended, I think they should take a stand that they would be happy to extend them for a thoughtful (not high priced) development. This is similar to what the city is doing with height; once the city made known that they were willing to consider higher projects, they found them on their desks. In the case of the townships, they must make public the kinds of developments they want to approve then let the developers go to work. The townships can set a tone or a level for development and can even reach out to developers who have produced developments that on not mono-cultures (what I am arguing against) and invite them to work here. Just saying no to growth is a bad choice; however approving crap may just be worse. Once it is built it is there for 100 years.
And by the way, designing developments that are not all one kind of building, have no commercial etc, etc. is not a new thought. Those developers who want to develop hundreds and thousands of acres at a time but are not exploring ways of designing viable neighborhoods (as apposed to just building houses) are not keeping up with their profession. It’s a little like having a car mechanic who only know carburetors or maybe a doctor who doesn’t understand anti-biotics.
As far as stick building, there are methods for building parts of houses in factory settings; for sure the trusses were factory built but you can do this with walls too, which may be what you saw at Walnut Ridge. But it is still a variation of ‘one stick at a time’. There are also many companies who built whole wings of the house, wired and drywalled, and truck them in. Developers have been using both methods and while the latter is less flexible they are not rigid assembly lines, yet.
posted by abc on May 13th, 2006 at 10:25 amabc:
“The only thing we can do with developers who offer proposals that we don’t want, (particularly when they are not ‘by right’, which this proposal is not) is to send them back to the drawing board with some explanation as to why they have been rejected.”
A couple of problems with this point.
First, the municipality’s master plan and zoning has to exhibit a legitimate exercise of the municipality’s police power. Although you could probably write a book about what this means in specific situations, in general that means, “Does the municipality’s master plan and zoning permit the highest and best use of all the land in the township considered together (not just parcel by parcel)?” I would argue that Ann Arbor Township’s present zoning, given it’s proximity to one of the few healthy labor markets in the state, and the lack of moderate priced housing in the area, does not permit the highest and best use (which is more housing). It provides protection for those who have bought a “country home” with a few acres, and want to surround themselves with undeveloped land without having to pay for it.
So I’d argue that the township’s present zoning (especially for the parcel in question) is invalid, and thus subject to legal challenge by the property owner/developer in court. After proving that the zoning is invalid, the developer then asks the court to impose a solution consisting of what the court determines to be reasonable zoning. The litigation is expensive for the township, and if it loses the case, it also loses control of its zoning for that parcel. The court determines what the developer can build “of right”. Obviously, this is not the way for the township to plan effectively.
Unfortunately, Ann Arbor and environs has fallen into the habit of abusing the zoning laws by imposing inappropriate zoning, and then using the cost and uncertainty of litigation to extort from landowners and developers concessions and requirements that exceed the law.
That’s what Ann Arbor Township does when it zones the parcel as “open area” and starts imposing aesthetic standards that have a negative impact on the “highest and best” use of the land (which is pretty clearly moderate-priced housing) as preconditions for a change to more appropriate zoning.
By “sending the developer back to the drawing board”, the township may very well be building the developer’s case against the township for abusing the zoning process.
In short, it is both illegitimate and unwise to tell the developer that the township will let him build only something that the township “likes” after reviewing specific proposals.
“That is precisely why there are public hearings for certain sizes and kinds of projects; this is how the community lets the developer know what ‘the local homebuyers want and what they can pay’ (an important component of hallflight’s market research).”
Not really. Public hearings are required in order for other landowners in the area to present evidence as to the impact of the development on their properties. The fact that it may have some negative impact is not enough to stop development–the township would have to find that the negative impact on other land uses outweighed the increase in the value of the developed land. Given that the developer is planning to build berms to shield the view of the “mediocre” building materials and common floorplans from Warren and Whitmore Lake Roads, it is hard to argue that those aesthetic considerations are at all relevant. A view of a featureless berm is not going to depress Ms. French’s property value much–now she looks at a featureless cornfield. On the other hand, zoning which prevents the development of housing on the parcel in question has a very large negative impact in the value of the parcel. The developer presents his market study as evidence of the increase in value of the parcel as developed–that people will want to buy the homes.
“When people present such inane arguments they demean the process but the reality is they will throw anything and everything they can at the developer just to stop them.”
We definitely agree there.
“Also, the Zoning code and Masterplan cannot prescribe design (Masterplans can start to do this but you lose the pen early in the process). Townships are really left to simply react to what is asked for.”
The zoning ordinances cannot prescribe design because (unless its a historic district– ala Santa Fe, New Mexico), that clearly exceeds the township’s legitimate exercise of police power. The fact that illegitimate design requirements are disguised by making a developer conform to them as a condition to changing inappropriate zoning makes them no more legitimate.
“Good developers welcome that feedback.”
Sometimes that’s because it’s good information; sometimes it’s because a fight is more expensive to the developer than knuckling under to illegitimate demands.
“The Newmarket project in Pittsfield reached into the community more than any other project, on multiple levels”
Sigh. And look what good it did them. Do we agree that that was an interesting, if risky, development?
“This is similar to what the city is doing with height; once the city made known that they were willing to consider higher projects, they found them on their desks.”
I guess I have a more jaded take on that. Once City Hall had justified the greenbelt ordinance by saying it would permit more density within the city, the developers had a written record, approved by the voters, that would make it difficult to argue that greater building height would somehow damage the city. They could start planning for higher buildings, knowing they had a strong case against the city if they were prevented from going forward with their plans.
“Just saying no to growth is a bad choice; however approving crap may just be worse.”
Saying “no to growth” may effectively approve crap. If developers know that the township is going to resist any development, they are going to present conservative projects (those that have been proven to sell, are not innovative, and don’t at all stretch traditional zoning categories), because those are the projects that they will be able to impose on the municipalities through litigation. Something new or unusual won’t have the empirical evidence to support a judge’s override of the municipal ordinances. So you’re actually more likely to get a carbon copy of Development X across town, because the judge will have the hard evidence of the actual sales price and impact on the area of Development X.
What’s the alternative? Hold our township boards accountable for producing realistic, not utopian, development plans and zoning ordinances. Ann Arbor township’s current regime is lost in a fantasy that it is a rural area when it is most definitely a suburb. When the development value of vacant land in the township rises high enough, the developers will be motivated to force through projects with litigation.
Instead, we should use the planning process to create a workable plan for higher density development that’s defensible against bad projects, and hope that our parks, services and schools will attract people who want to buy/build aesthetically pleasing homes.
posted by Anonymous on May 16th, 2006 at 12:10 pmOops. For some reason my tag wasn’t posted for the above.
posted by halflight on May 16th, 2006 at 12:13 pm