At the Nov. 24th Shelby Township Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held on Lombardo Home's request to modify the Manors site plan to permit two story units on Lots 1-15 instead of ranch style units. Click here to read the remarks I gave during the public comment portion of the public hearing. After closing the public hearing, the Commission voted 7 to 1 (with 1 abstention) to forward a favorable recommendation to the Shelby Township Board of Trustees.
From my video recording of the meeting, the motion to recommend approval was made by Commissioner Jerry Moffitt and seconded by Michael Thornton. They recommended approval based on their findings that the proposal is consistent and compatible with the existing Central Park PUD and that their recommendation was subject to the following conditions:
1) the future development of cluster units on Walter and Stebbins Courts will be limited to the Kensington one-story model that was approved with the original PUD
2) the Master Deed for these units (on Manors Lots 1-15) will be modified to insure appropriate yard and exterior building maintenance
3) the petitioner will be limited to offering only five of the six model floor plans listed in his proposal, (excludes "The Madison"); each of the various exterior elevations shown for those five remaining model floor plans will be permitted.
4) patio/deck sizes and appearances will be limited based on a design standard; no patio/deck shall extend more than 5 feet beyond the rear building envelope
5) sidewalks will be provided on both sides of Walter Court to facilitate pedestrian access.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Moffitt - Yes
Mr. Thornton - Yes
Mr. Frame - Yes
Mr. Deyo - Yes
Mrs. Hodge - (abstain)
Mr. Kassab - Yes
Mrs. Dearlove - Yes
Mr. Viar - No
Mr. Toia - Yes
I am not surprised by the Planning Commission's decision but I am very disappointed by the fact that the Commission chose to ignore my comments
a) requesting that a condition be included in any favorable recommendation preventing applicability to Lot 124
b) concluding that changes to our By-laws and Master Deed were not necessary to address the yard/exterior maintenance concerns.
I found it amazing that the Commission accepted without question the petitioner's primary supporting data, which was that Lombardo's Year-To-Date sales have been 160 homes, 138 which were single family homes. That data is irrelevant, since the real issue here involves changing the plan for single family detached condos on Lots 1-15 from ranch style to two-story style buildings. The petitioner failed to provide any data showing an increasing demand for two-story homes as compared to ranch style homes.
I also found it amusing that in response to my voiced concern about this possibly being used as a precedent to justify future changes elsewhere in the Manors, we were told by Commissioner Moffitt that their actions cannot be used to set a legal precedent. A legal precedent is different than the planning precedent I told them we are concerned about. As if to make our point, the discussion among the commissioners then focused at length on the details surrounding the ranch versus two-story approvals previously granted on the adjacent Kensington property. To address my concern about keeping their approval confined to just these 15 lots, all the Planning Commission had to do was include a sentence in their recommendation noting that since Lots 1-15 are geographically separate from the remaining Manors lots, the loss of visual/architectural continuity is more acceptable there than it would be elsewhere in the Manors at Central Park. Since they apparently didn't want to add that kind of conditional wording to their recommendation, they could have at least had some public discussion among themselves as to why this change made sense for only those particular lots. If faced with another Manors site plan modification request in the future, then the members of that future Planning Commission could read the Nov. 24, 2008 meeting minutes and understand the reasoning and limited intent behind the prior Commission's recommendation for approving the request.
Unfortunately, since the public comment portion of the hearing was over, I was unable to make these points to the Commission during their discussion.
The Planning Commission's recommendation will now go to the Township Board of Trustees, who will make the final decision on it at an upcoming regular meeting. As soon as I find out, I will let everyone know when this meeting will be held. At the Board meeting, we still have one more chance to voice our concerns and hopefully get a more favorable outcome. You can be sure that I will raise the issues noted above when I speak at the Board meeting.
I doubt that the Township can force us to change our Association's Master Deed to redefine exterior maintenance responsibilities or any other parts of the document unless we as an Association also agree to do so. Furthermore, the wording of the Planning Commission's condition is very ambiguous, to the point that it is almost meaningless, since our Master Deed already defines the Association as being responsible for the yard and exterior maintenance of these proposed units. However, if it appears that the Board is inclined to approve the proposed site plan modifications we can still request that they eliminate the Master Deed condition and also ask them to add language to their motion to make it clear that
a) none of the five approved models can be built at a future date on Lot 124
b) Lots 1-15 are geographically isolated enough to accept the loss of visual/architectural continuity with the other Manors units.
