Zoning and the Master Plan are the residents’ insurance that development will be rational and predictable. It is why I checked these planning documents before purchasing my home. I agree with Julie Halpert-our corner of the township is a slice of heaven. We owe that to our zoning and our Master Plan laws. Zoning runs with the land and this rezoning is a permanent change.

I do take issue with the notion that this specific property is critical to Garrett’s Space success. While I don’t know the deal they struck with the property owner/benefactor, nor do I know the details of their federal funds, and I don’t understand the need for a multimillion dollar architecturally significant structure, but I do know there are other properties that are equally bucolic, appropriately zoned and available. I also know that rezoning this property runs counter to the Master Plan and our laws and is bad precedent for every resident living in Superior Township.  

Dear Members of Planning Commission:

                                                                        Re: Garret’s Space – Good project but wrong location

First, let me express my appreciation for all the hours each of you invest every month reviewing materials, applicable Zoning Ordinance stipulations for each proposal and field checking sites prior to your meetings and public hearings.  I recognize that this proposal is especially difficult due to the tremendous pressure brought on by well meaning people, the large majority of whom are not residents of Superior Township. Your responsibilities as Planning Commissioners, however, is to apply the stipulations specified in the Zoning Ordinance to each proposal.  Pressures to ignore those requirements must be withstood.  Caving in to pressures of popular opinions to ignore or twist the Ordinance would render the Zoning Ordinance meaningless and establish an “ANY THING GOES” mentality as our Township develops. 

Last month the Halperts proposed rezoning the parcel from A1 to MS (Medical Services).  That proposal had many fatal flaws when reviewed in the light of the Zoning Ordinance.  They have now changed course asking to rezone to a PC (Planned Community) district.  This new request also contains many fatal flaws.

1. Section 7.301B2 requires that the PC zoning be limited to uses that are compatible with the Township adopted Growth Management Plan and that are harmonious and compatible with and not harmful or injurious or objectionable to existing and future uses in the immediate area. The Garrett Space proposal fails every one of those restrictions.

2.     Section 7.301A1 requires that the proposal be compatible with the PC District intent.  Section 2.115 states that the PC District is established to provide compatible land uses and to encourage innovation in land use planning and development, ESPECIALLY IN RESIDENTAL/OPEN SPACE DISTRIBUTION. There are several PC Districts in the Township, one of which is Fox Hollow which is adjacent to the east end of the proposed Garret’s Space.  Every PC District in the Township, including Fox Hollow, was established to maintain open spaces and/or wet lands.  The Township allowed slightly smaller lot sizes in turn for the developer setting aside these open spaces.  Garret’s Space is a single purpose, mental health treatment facility that completely fails the intent of the PC District and must not be approved.

In the interest of brevity, I will stop here.  As you review the Ordinance you will find several other sections that Garret’s Space also fails.  The integrity of the Zoning Ordinance must be maintained.  To do otherwise will cause our “Superior” Township to degenerate into typical urban sprawl and no longer be the desirable place to raise our families as now it is.

It may be unfair but you are at that critical fork in the road. Do you cave in to what is popular by well meaning people or do you maintain the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance and preserve the quality of life we enjoy in our Superior Township.  I pray you will stand up to your responsibilities.  

All the concerns offered regarding this matter are very good.  I believe we should further add that there are many vacant land parcels that are more suited, already zoned for this type of use. They are remarkably close to the medical facilities in case of emergency, etc..  Some are on the East Michigan Medical campus and the St Joes campus or the Dominoes complex, south of the freeway and many, many, other areas of the township already zoned commercial that have large parcels of vacant land.  Why start rezoning residential property when there are vast amounts of property already zoned, and more suited for this?  The township will cause serious concerns from its current residents and future residents about even living in an unstable, rezoneable area of the township that is already marked for residential, if that property zoning can be easily changed.  

Thanks for beginning this discussion, and thanks to all who have previously added their thoughtful comments. As others have clearly stated, we also are not disputing the need for a facility such as Garrett's Place.

However, we strongly agree with those who have already expressed many serious and valid concerns about the proposed plan for the use of this property within a residential neighborhood. In addition, we have strong concerns about the reported willingness and enthusiasm of at least some of our township trustees to not follow our township's Master Plan. 

It was Superior Township's Master Plan (along with its Legal Defense Fund, which was approved by the voters in 2006 to defend the strong zoning written within the Master Plan) that led us to purchase our home in Superior Township versus other townships in Washtenaw County. 

Agreeing with ***'s concerns, if property zoning can be easily changed in spite of our township's Master Plan, what medical, commercial, or who knows what type of facility is coming next within our neighborhoods? This disregard for our township's Master Plan is deeply disappointing, does not meet the needs of its current homeowners (i.e., the trustees' constituents), and certainly does not make Superior Township *superior* in any way. 

We will make our concerns known. Thank you for providing all the meeting dates, the names/emails, and phone numbers. 

Good Evening Everyone,

First and foremost, I get uneasy when ANY person/entity tries to change zoning.  The zoning is there for a reason as you already know.  I'm in agreement with almost everyone that this facility is a bad idea in a residential area. Furthermore, I think it's a bad idea to change the zoning to accommodate this facility.  

Superior Township Trustees,

Ordinance NO. 174-25 violates many established ordinances within our township and threatens to undermine the long-standing Master Plan protections that our township has dearly protected to maintain its rural and noncommercial environment. Passing this ordinance will be the death knell in these protections. Deep-pocketed developers, seeing the precedent that this ordinance permits, will be lined up to Cantonized our farms, nurseries and large lots.

Ken Schwartz mentioned at the last trustee meeting that there should be a wetland delineation prior to proceeding with the rezoning of the 3900 Dixboro. Garrett's Space only provided US Forest Service wetland boundaries on the plans, but the township Wetlands Map relies on a variety of wetland maps. Currently, the ordinance to rezone is inconsistent with township Ordinance 178 Wetland Ordinance which has the following definition "TOWNSHIP WETLANDS MAP refers to the Superior Charter Township Wetlands Map, based on the National Wetlands Inventory Map of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Michigan Resource Information System Mapping (MIRIS) of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; the soils maps of the Soil Conservation Service; aerial photography; and onsite inspections" A wetlands delineation that reflects the township ordinance seems appropriate and necessary and without it, is precedential for future developers to forego. 

Further, Garrett’s Space’s alternative plan does not consider the undevelopable wetlands, according to Candice Briere of Midwest Consulting per the May 15th minutes. The Garrett’s Space site map indicated 20 acres +/- of wetlands. The township Zoning Ordinance Section 14.05 on natural features requires that wetlands and slopes must be backed out prior to determine the potential density calculations. Additionally, roads, easements, required open space must be backed out. It has been broadly acknowledged that the alternative plan is fatally flawed. The fact that the township planner did not question this plan is indicative of deep-seated bias. It is impossible to compare alternative plans to the Garrett’s Space site plan based on this. The township should require that the alternative map is corrected to reflect township land use laws prior to the second reading so that one can accurately measure Garrett’s Space impact as compared to traditional development. Passage of this ordinance at this point establishes a precedent that alternative plans do not need to be reality-based to win favor with the Trustees.

Garrett’s Space has held townhalls earlier this month. During these meetings, we have learned that Garrett’s Space intends to hold multiple group meetings with individuals attending groups at lunch time, later evening, weekends, and throughout the day. Ordinance NO. 174-25 allows for a maximum of 15 day programming residents.  Even prior to passage, Garrett’s Space acknowledges the desire to expand beyond this limit. What happens once the Ordinance passes? How does the township ensure that Garrett’s Space does not exceed its stated mission.

Similarly, Garrett’s Space continues to be exceptionally underfunded. The organization needs more than 10 million dollars to build the center and 2 million dollars annually to run it. Their business model relies on grants and contributions. This potentially requires them to expand who they serve or to fail at their mission. The fact that township is ready to move forward on this ordinance without the applicant having the financial wherewithal for their build-out and programming is a foolhardy precedent.

The proposed ordinance states that the “property is primarily adjacent to residential uses however there are institutional uses in the immediate area including directly across Dixboro”. This use is a church in another township which has its own zoning ordinance. The fact that the township is using another township’s land use to justify their own, regardless of our township laws, again sets a precedent that could have unintended consequences well beyond this project.

Also, rezoning 3900 Dixboro to PC is an outlier for the PC designation in the agricultural areas of the township. The planned community (PC) special district standards establishes various limitations on allowed uses. Section 7.301 B 2 provides that “uses in a PC special district shall be limited to those that are compatible with the township’s adopted Growth Management Plan, and that are harmonious and compatible with, and not harmful, injurious, or objectionable to existing and future uses in the immediate area”. Although Garrett’s Spacer rezoning application is intentionally vague, adult foster homes, large group homes and hotels are all expressly prohibited in the A2 zoning district. All other Superior Township PCs within a 5 mile radius from the site are entirely rural residential single family homes. Permitting a single institutional, commercial use on an A2 zoned area again sets a precedent that will be hard to overcome.

According to the Master Plan, 3900 Dixboro’s rural district designation specifically requires very low-density single‑family residential or agricultural developments. Garrett’s Space is a transient, high intensity use complete with a 20 person in-patient institutional facility. As stated by planner, Ben Carlisle a year ago, its use is best suited in the township’s medical service district. It is a complete deviation from our Master Plan.

Dear Trustee Schwartz and other Trustees,

I am your constituent living on Warren road with property directly adjacent and affected by the proposed rezoning.  My family and I are in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 3900 Dixboro. 

In May, I invited Trustee Schwartz to visit my property so he and other trustees could better envision our opposition as opposed to the fictional plans brought forth by the Halperts and their “planners.”  I further asked Trustee Schwartz to pass on the invitation to other trustees.  Trustee Schwartz was very prompt in responding and was amenable to visiting.  However, I heard he was injured further which prevented him from visiting. 

With over 80% of your constituents in opposition of the rezoning, I believe you owe it to your constituents to do the same due diligence you did by visiting 3900 Dixboro. 

Further, at the last Trustee meeting in May, Trustee Schwartz made the request to see a wetland study to assess whether the fictional planned community opportunity was actually factual.  Was that done?

At the very least, I request that the trustees delay a vote, which is well within your right, due to the pending visit from trustees to my residence combined with the necessary wetland study and deliberation after it is provided. 

Dear Mr. Schwartz and all Superior Township Trustees,

My husband and I continue to oppose rezoning 3900 N. Dixboro Rd. to accommodate the proposal for Garrett's Space (GS).

We purchased our property in Superior Township (versus other rural areas of Washtenaw County) specifically because of the strong Master Plan that had been developed by Superior Township along with its Legal Defense Fund that the Superior Township voters approved in 2006.

Our opposition to the proposal for GS has nothing to do with denying the need for expansion of options available to youth who need serious mental health services. Nothing. We repeat, nothing. One of our own children may have actually benefited from programs being proposed by GS.

Our opposition to the proposal for GS has everything to do with our deep disappointment (surprise and even disbelief) that our elected Superior Township Board of Trustees would even consider this rezoning request for 3900 N. Dixboro, specifically being asked to vote against the strong Master Plan developed by our Township.

If our elected officials ignore the well thought-out questions and input of their own constituents and vote to approve this rezoning request, an approval will open the door (not just create a slippery slope, but open the door!) for future rezoning request approvals that will change the nature and character of all sections of our Township. Which property is next? What commercial venture will be proposed?

Dear Board Members,

I am deeply disappointed that the Planning Commission and Carlisle Wortman were willing to accept the multiple misrepresentations submitted in the Area Plan and Rezoning Petition for Garrett’s Space.  I would like to make sure the Board has considered some of the more important facts below:

Residential Use: The proposed Area Plan refers to this as a residential project, stating  “The proposed use and development is compatible with the adopted Growth Management Plan. The proposal, situated in the Rural Plymouth Road / M-14 Sub-Area, will represent extremely low density residential use consistent with the rural character of the area, and furthers quality of life by minimizing large scale changes to the landscape on the property.”

·       In a recent case[1], the Michigan Court of Appeals applied definitions of “residential” from prior holdings in the Michigan Supreme Court. Those definitions looked to the permanence in a residence, which is demonstrated by the occupant’s actions, including a continuity of being physically present in the residence and storing personal property within the residence. As noted by the Court, this use specifically excludes uses that are transitory in nature as “[t]here is no permanence, either physiologically or physically at that location.”

·       Garrett’s Space does not meet the above criteria of residential use.  It is not a dwelling with a permanent resident.  It will be administrative offices, meeting spaces and temporary housing of 2-4 weeks.  An acceptance that this is residential use will set precedence for future Superior Township zoning decisions on short-term rentals such as Airbnbs. 

Land Usage Limitations: The proposed area plan leaves almost all of the land usages to be determined and self-limited by the applicant.  Per the review by Carlisle Wortman,  “the applicant has placed conditions on the Area Plan to limit impacts upon adjacent property, protect the site’s natural resources, and maintain community character.” 

·       However, Garrett’s Space has already shown that they will continue to change their mission.  In a recent town hall meeting, the Halperts said they are expanding their day- programming to include multiple meetings throughout the day. This is in direct opposition to their planning application which notes there will be 10 day users and 10 day user car trips per day. 

·       This change, which has taken only 3 months to take effect, brings forth the question- could other limitations on usage, such as screening procedures, length of stay, etc. continue to creep up past their stated use?  Will the Township have to repeatedly check on Garrett’s Space?  

Conservation Easement:  The generous conservation easement, touted in meetings and in the Garrett’s Space literature is not outlined in the submitted Area Plan and Rezoning Petition.  The only mention comes from the Carlisle Wortman review, stating “The Applicant has agreed to place a Conservation Easement on all “unused” areas of the property, which may total between 55 and 60 acres.”

·       The qualifiers “unused” and “may” do not guarantee that the proposed conservation easement will be any larger than the already protected wetlands and unbuildable areas. 

·       The estimates comparing a “by right” usage of 34 homes were highly exaggerated.  Seemingly important factors, including wetlands and slopes, were disregarded.

Fair Housing accommodation: The proposed Area Plan Petition describes in great detail the Fair Housing Act, ending in this quote: “For this reason, local governments are given an affirmative duty under the Federal Fair Housing Act to provide such reasonable accommodations. “

·       The Fair Housing laws quoted in the Area Plan apply to permanent housing and residential use.  They do not apply to a commercial, temporary lodging situation.

·       The accommodation they have requested appears to be approval of their rezoning application. However, the US Department of Justice states” If a requested modification imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on a local government, or if a modification creates a fundamental alteration in a local government's land use and zoning scheme, it is not a "reasonable" accommodation. [2]

Spot Zoning : The submitted Area Plan states, “the Planned Community Special District authorizes the exercise of broad discretion by the Township in granting an approval… This flexibility in design, development, and use is expressly authorized by the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act; and such authorization is applied in the Superior Township Zoning Ordinance with safeguards and standards including the requirement for conformity with the Master Plan and Growth Management Plan, so that a project approved under this permission becomes a planned use and avoids the legal shortcoming of so-called “spot zoning.”

·       This is an oversimplification of the concept of spot-zoning and gives the false idea that the requirements for conformity with the Master Plan and Growth Management Plan have already been accomplished. 

·       If the proposed project does not conform with either the Master Plan or the Growth Management Plan, then it can be labeled “spot zoning,” whether it is PC Special District or not. 

Economic Feasibility:  According to Article 7 Special District Regulations, a rezoning petition should include information from the petitioner regarding the economic feasibility of the proposed uses.  When questioned by Chairman Gardner about the funds needed to complete and maintain this project, Mr. Halpert stated he was “very confidant” they could raise these funds from donations. 

·       Current information from the Garrett’s Space organization indicates that their net income in 2021 was 101,551.00.  That is millions of dollars short of the funds needed to purchase the property and build the improvements outlined in the Area Plan, even considering the sizable four million dollar grant received. 

·       Allowing rezoning to proceed without confirmation of available funds could result in delays or ultimate failure of the project.  The proposed zoning will lock the property to the proposed land use and significantly limit the future potential of this property to be redeveloped into the rural residential homes or farms that Master Plan and current Zoning Ordinances intend for this property.

For the above reasons and more, the submitted Area Plan and Re-zoning Petition for Garrett’s Space does  not meet the eligibility criteria established for Planned Community (PC) Special Districts in Superior Township. I hope the Board will take all factors into consideration.

Respectfully,

A Superior Township Resident

__________

[1]  Cherry Home Association Michigan Court of Appeals (unpublished), Docket No. 354841

[2] https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-1

Dear Board of Trustees,

We are writing in strong opposition to re-zoning of 3900 N Dixboro Road.

It’s come to our attention that certain policies and procedures haven’t been followed properly. It is expressed in the previous communications amongst the Township, Garrett’s Space, Carlisle Wortman, and Midwestern Consultant that the proposed facility is most suitable for a Medical Service. In addition, it was also stated initially that the proposition will not fit in the definition of Planned Community. Unfortunately, our neighborhood cannot help but grow skepticism to political power when suddenly the story changes that this facility is a perfect fit for a Planned Community. Minimal transparency with omission of truth has been very upsetting to the most affected members of your community.

We all have impactful stories about why we are here today, just like the Foundation’s story. However, since February, we have been presented with numerous intimation that our stories are trivial and do not matter. We are portrayed “fear mongering,” “privileged” “NIMBYs” who are nothing but venomous and evil. These words are powerful and affected our mental and physical well-being in our previously vibrant neighborhood. We feel exploited and manipulated.

We stop to think as we write this letter, do our letters even matter? We hope it reaches to you and you lend your ears to us. We just want a better rezoning explanation, your vision, and how you can help ease the concern of the most affected members of the Superior Township community; face-to-face and heart-to-heart conversations; with you and our political leaders; and outside of public meetings. We beg you to please get back to all of us before you make a final decision on this matter.

Superior Township residents

We are writing to you in regard to the proposed zoning change on Dixboro Road--a request for change to build a holistic center (Garret's Space) for young adults who are depressed and possibly suicidal. Although we have great empathy for the Halperts, who lost a son to suicide, we, as twenty-five-year residents of Superior Township, oppose any change in the zoning law. 

We moved here for the peace and serenity country living brings-- to have our gardens, to walk among the beautiful nature road, without heavy traffic, and to enjoy neighbors who enjoy such. We fear that Garrett's Space will alter these enjoyments. We are aware of the public-relation steps already taken by the Halperts--we have read the articles written, seen the television promotional segment on channel 4, and have reviewed the website. We believe the rezoning request is not rational and will affect the quiet neighborhoods and the surrounding community. We plan on voicing our concerns at all public hearings. 

Thank you for your attention in this matter. This letter is being sent to all who will have or might have input in the rezoning request.