To the Editor,
I am including a letter that I wrote to the local Planning Commission. It illustrates government at its worst in Small-town America. You may publish it in whole or in part.
If you send me an email address, I will send it to you in MS Word format, together with the attachments:
August 28, 2003
Oscoda Township Planning CommissionOscoda Charter Township110 S. State StreetOscoda, Michigan 48750
Re: Case #609 – Application for Skate Park Special Use Permit
Dear Mr. Chairman and Committee Members,
I am writing as an adjoining property owner to object to you granting a Special Use Permit to the Oscoda Community Skate Park Committee, Inc., to place a skate park on a vacant residential lot directly North of and adjoining my property. The lot, which is legally described as lot 5 of block 6 of the Map of the Village of Oscoda, is currently owned by Oscoda Charter Township. It was purchased in 1998 with funds from a Department of Natural Resources recreational grant.
History and Background:
My memory of Lot 5 dates from 1956, when my father moved the family to Oscoda after retiring from the Detroit Board of Education. He moved back to the home that had been built for him in 1934, on property that his parents had purchased in 1928, four years after my father graduated from Oscoda High School. I was then nine years old when we moved to Oscoda. Our home is on Village lot 4 of block 6, south of and adjoining Lot 5. At that time Lot 5 had a vacant house on River Road, near the front of the lot and a barn in the Southeast corner near the back. There were at least two marked graves behind the home. The house, formerly owned since the early 1900s by the Langlois family, burned in the late 1960s. An outbuilding at the back of the lot burned sometime after 1970. Mr. & Mrs. Charles Smith bought the property in 1975 from Napoleon E. Langlois. Mr. Smith was a former Township Supervisor, having served in that capacity from 1953 to 1975.
In 1980, Mr. Devon Overmyer, who was stationed at Wurtsmith AFB, Oscoda, purchased the lot from Mrs. Smith, then a widow. The Township acquired the lot in 1998 from Mr. Overmyer who was residing in Florida. (The Township has purchased a lot in an R4 – Residential District, and it all of the zoning restrictions of that district attached to it, even though it may have been purchased for recreational purposes).
Lot 5 remained vacant and heavily overgrown with vines, bushes and mature trees until the summer of 2002, when the Township Department of Public Works began to clear it. Although heavily overgrown, the vacant lot had served as an excellent refuge for a wide variety of birds, squirrels, rabbits and other wildlife and insects. The mature trees provided shade in the late part of the day to cars parked along the west side of the adjoining parking lot.
The brush clearing proceeded from North to South during the summer of 2002, with the assistance of chain saws and other hand operated equipment. The mature trees were not immediately removed.
On September 11, 2002, I noticed a backhoe pulling up roots in the area where I remember the graves are and asked the DPW foreman, Mr. Bill Hamlin, if he was aware of them. He said that no one had told him about the graves. He asked me twice if Mary Jane (Hennigar, a member of the local historical society), knew about the graves. I replied that I did not know if she was aware of their existence. I told him that I had notified the Township of their existence during a public hearing in the early 90s, which had been convened to discuss the possible sale of Lot 5 to the Telephone Co. Mr. Hamlin mentioned that the Township had some use in mind for the lot, but did not say what it was. He then left, saying he would speak to Mr. Stalker, the Township Superintendent. I noticed, later that day, the front end loader/backhoe was gone. The next day September 12, Mr. Hamlin was back, grading part of the lot with the loader bucket.
I met with Mr. Stalker on September 16, 2002, to inquire what plans the Township had for Lot 5. He told me that a group of people were holding meetings and planning to request use of Lot 5 for a skateboard park. He said that the Township Treasurer, Mrs. McGuire and a local police officer were members of the group. He said that if I had any objections, now would be the time to voice them. He suggested that I attend one of their meetings. He told me that they had not made a request to the Township Board yet. I told him that I objected to placing a skateboard park on Lot 5 because of increased noise, and that it would adversely affect my property value and quality of life. Before leaving, I also told Mr. Stalker of the existence of the graves and drew a rough map showing the general area were they are located.
I did some research in the County Building, the Parks Library and the Catholic Cemetery, leading to finding two headstones with the same name and dates which I had remembered on one of the wooden markers on Lot 5.
On September 19, 2002, I called Mr. Stalker to discuss grading of Lot 5 and how my property was going to be protected, it being at a higher elevation than Lot #5. I also told him that I had found no evidence of who is buried on Lot 5. He said that the Skate Park Committee was considering Furtaw Field as the site for their Skatepark. I replied that I was relieved to hear that because I would have no choice but to try to stop them from placing the skate park on Lot 5. I asked Mr. Stalker to keep me informed of any future developments.
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, Mr. Stalker called to tell me that the Skatepark Committee had been turned down for the use of Furtaw Field as a skate park location. He said that they were going to request the lot next to the Ameritech building at the Township Board meeting on Monday, November 11th. I asked where on the lot they planned to locate the park. He replied that he didn’t know.
On November 11, 2002 the Skate Park Committee asked for and received tentative permission, from the Oscoda Township Board, to place a Skateboard facility on Lot 5. I was not present at the meeting for the presentation, motion and vote, having arrived at 7:30 pm after that agenda item had been resolved. The motion was made by Mr. Papas and seconded by Mr. Baier. The motion was passed unanimously.
The DPW removed most of the remaining mature trees on Lot 5 after the November 11th Board Meeting, leaving only three trees along the north end of the lot. They also graded the lot and removed the topsoil.
On November 13, 2002, I contacted a local area attorney and on November 20, 2002, I met with him. I explained the situation and he directed his secretary to order a copy of the Oscoda Township Zoning Ordinance #165. I met with the attorney again on December 5, 2002 and he explained that the Township had not followed any of their own rules and procedures in passing a motion to allow the Skate Park Committee to place a skateboard park on Lot 5. He pointed out that because the Township was allowing Lot 5 to be used as a skate park without going through the planning commission, obtaining a special use permit or following any of the standards of the zoning ordinance, they had violated my rights in a situation where I was going to be harmed. He said that writing a letter to the Board would probably do no good, as they would probably just ignore it. The attorney suggested that a petition for injunctive relief would be the only effective way to deal with the situation. I hired him to prepare the petition.
On March 13, I read an article in a back issue of the Oscoda Press at the Parks Library. The article, published on February 26, 2003, discussing the amended recreation plan, said in part: “The cost to acquire suitable property and develop a skateboard park is estimated at $60,000.00”. Since Lot 5 of Block 6 had previously been purchased, I interpreted that article to mean that the Township had possibly decided to find another location for the skateboard park. I decided to call Mr. Pappas, who had originally made the motion to place the facility on Lot 5.
I talked with Mr. Pappas at 9:00 pm on March 13. I introduced myself and told him that I live next to the lot near the Township Park where the Township wants to put the skate park. He said that he didn’t know the exact location of the Lot, but understood what I was talking about and to his knowledge no other site was being considered. . I expressed surprise that he wasn’t familiar with the lot since he was the person who made the November 11th motion to place the skate park on the lot. Mr. Pappas explained that the board members are only there two day a month and that the Board pays Mr. Stalker a large salary and relies on him to take care of details.
I asked him if Mr. Stalker had relayed my concerns about the noise of a skate park adjacent to my property. He said that he recalled Mr. Stalker saying something about a couple of residents having concerns about vandalism. (I have am not concerned about vandalism to my property from the skateboarders and have never mentioned it.)
I asked Mr. Pappas if he is familiar with the Township Zoning Ordinance. He told me that he is a member of the Zoning Board of Review. I got my ordinance copy and quoted some of the requirements for skateboard parks on commercial recreation sites. I pointed out that the lot in question is zoned residential R4 and a skate park in an R4 district, if allowed at all, would be a Special Permit Use and no hearing had been requested. I also read him the section detailing allowed sound levels, in decibels. Mr. Pappas’s reply was that if the zoning law does not allow a skate park on the lot, it should not be there. He said he would check into the situation and get back to me. I also told Mr. Pappas that no one from the Skatepark Committee had ever bothered to contact me.
On March 24, I receive a call from Mrs. Jamie McGuire a member, (or close associate), of the Skatepark Committee. She called to invite me to a skate park meeting on Wednesday, March 26 at the Township Hall. We discussed placing the skate park on Lot 5. I told her that I am opposed to the noise. I also told her about a sound level study in a handbook that I had purchased from a professional skate park designer, Mr. Tim Payne. (Reference Attachment A – Results of Acoustical Measurements) I mentioned the 55-decibel maximum allowed noise level at my lot line pursuant to the zoning ordinance versus the levels measured in the acoustical study contained in Mr. Payne’s handbook. Mrs. McGuire told me that the skate park committee had not settled on Lot 5 as the final location for the skate park. I asked what other sites they had considered. She replied (in part): the Riverfront Park, and a site near Glen’s Market, but didn’t think that site would work. I asked if they had considered any other location in the Township Beach Park, (which adjoins Lot 5, as well as my property). She said no, because of the problem with sand in the skateboard bearings. She told me that two of the committee members had considered my feelings about the Lot 5 location.
I also told Mrs. McGuire that I was disappointed that she had not abstained from voting on the November 11th motion, (which was passed unanimously), because as a member of the Skate Park Committee, there is an obvious conflict of interest involved. She did not agree.
On April 14, 2003, after a recommendation from Superintendent Stalker, the Township Board voted to temporarily locate the skate park on one of the basketball/former tennis courts near the beach. The reason given was significant opposition to the proposed location from an adjoining property owner. McGuire motion, Pappas support. The motion passed unanimously.
On May 6, 2003, a Special Use Permit was granted to the Skate Park Committee to temporarily place their equipment on the east basketball/tennis court in the Township Beach Park. The reasons given were because of my strong objections to using Lot 5 and for evaluation of the noise level.
Sometime in June 2003, the Skateboard Committee placed their equipment on the east basketball court, where it has remained. The equipment is located approximately 300 feet from the northeast corner of my lot.
On July 28, 2003, after two brief comments by board members the Board concluded that the skateboard equipment isn’t noisy. The Township board passed a motion made by Mr. Hodges and seconded by Mr. Pappas to allow the Skate Park Committee to apply for a Special Use Permit to place the skateboard park permanently on Lot 5. The motion passed unanimously.
During the public comment period, I asked Mr. Pappas if sound level readings had been taken at the temporary site. He replied that, to his knowledge, none had been taken. I stated that I am in support of a community skate park, but it should not be located on a residential lot (adjacent to homes). I said that the skate park, in its present location, has not disturbed me. I also told the board that I had paid an attorney to draft a copy of a petition for injunctive relief, but I hoped that I would not have to file it.
I met with the Skate Park Committee on July 29, 2003. I asked them why they didn’t try to find a more suitable location, either the present temporary one or some different location in the Beach Park. I asked them why they had their hearts set on Lot 5. The committee president, Mr. Morrish replied that a cyclone fence is needed to keep bicycles off of the ramps and a fence would not be welcomed in the current location. The committee vice-president, Mr. Wright, replied: “The committee would not have a problem with another location in the Beach Park but Lot 5 is where the Township has steered us from the very beginning”. I said, “by the Township, you’re talking about Mr. Stalker?” and they both replied, “no, the lot owners, the Township Administration”. Mr. Wright said, “We looked at that lot, we looked at a couple of lots and that is where they steered us”. I told them that I had talked with Mr. Stalker in September of 2002 and he had told me then that the group was considering Lot 5 (but that was two months before it had been brought before the Board).
After more discussion intended to sway me, I told the Committee that I did not think they would be able to convince me because I don’t believe Lot 5 is a good location and if they did proceed, it would cost me a quite a bit more time and money than I have already spent. I told them that I have had no problem with the skate park in its current, temporary location.
On approximately August 20, 2003, I received the notice of public hearing, which will be convened next Tuesday, September 2, at 7:00 pm, to consider a special permit application to place a skateboard park on Lot 5 of Block 6 of the Map of the Village of Oscoda. (Originally platted in 1868).
Reasons Why I am Opposed to a Skate Park on Lot 5:
1. The noise of skateboards, which can be compared to the sound of stacking lumber, will disturb me. The cheering by participants and observers will also be objectionable. The sound will be a nuisance and interfere with the use and enjoyment of my home. My house and property are not only my home, but also my refuge and an irreplaceable link to the past.
2. The noise will be a hazard to my health. The increased noise and activity will be a constant source of stress and aggravation during the months of operation.”Calling noise a nuisance is like calling smog an inconvenience. Noise must be considered a hazard to the health of people everywhere.”- Dr. William H. Stewart, former U.S. Surgeon General(Also see Attachment B – Effects of Noise on Health)
3. The proposed site has a 14-foot high concrete block wall on the East boundary extending virtually the full length of the lot. It will serve to reflect sound and intensify the sound reaching my property.
4. The elevated view from the ramp platforms will allow persons to look into my property and view the few areas in the back of my lot, where I still have a small measure of privacy. (There has been very little privacy in my yard since the parking lot adjoining my East boundary was installed in 1970, shortly after my father died.)
5. The Skate Park Committee will eventually want to extend the hours of operation and install lights for night use. The extended hours will be a greater nuisance. The light from the overhead light fixtures will pollute my property.
6. The Skate Park Committee will eventually want to hold special events, such as competitions, which will create great noise and activity in the vicinity of my property.
7. The current level of activity at the temporary site is not an indication of future activity. As the Oscoda Area grows, the use of the skateboard park can be expected to increase and the proposed site offers no area for expansion.
8. The noise generated by a skateboard park is directly proportional to the number of participants using the facility at any specific time as well as to the number of vocal observers. (Reference Attachment A- Results of Acoustical Measurements)
9. The placement of a skateboard park on residential Lot 5 will drastically change the character of the neighborhood and seriously depreciate the value of my home.
10. A skateboard park is not a compatible use for a residential lot located adjacent to a person’s home. (Reference Attachment C- Editorial Opinion)
11. The current temporary skateboard is unsupervised, as indicated in the first two rules on the sign: Oscoda Community Skatepark, Rules of Operation: This skate Park is Not Supervised; Skate at Your Own Risk. There are no plans to supervise the permanent skate park.
12. A skateboard park adjacent to my property may bring an increase in undesirable activity, similar to the past activity in the parking lot near the basketball courts. The Township has been negligent in enforcing rowdyism near the basketball courts in the past and while there seems to have been some recent improvement, it is no guarantee of future conditions.
13. The Township has been negligent in enforcing the Beach Park hours of operation in the past and shows no willingness to improve the situation. An open skateboard park behind my home will cause additional after-hours noise.
14. Litigation to have the skateboard park declared a nuisance and to be removed will be extremely time consuming and costly to myself, as plaintiff and also to the Township and other possible defendants.
Reasons Why the Special Use Permit Should Be Denied:
From Charter Township of Oscoda Zoning Ordinance #165, Section 2.2 Definitions:
Recreation, Public: Any recreational space or structure owned by the public or any space and structure of combination thereof, privately owned, and publicly used consisting primarily of the utilization of natural physical features as the basis for said use. (Structures and artificial apparatus being secondary to the primary outdoor use.)
Special Use: A use permitted in a particular zoning district upon showing that such use in a specified location will comply with all the conditions and standards for the location or operation of the use as specified in the Zoning Ordinance and authorized by the approving agency.
1. Locating a public skateboard park on Lot 5, Block 6 of the Map of the Village of Oscoda will be a nuisance and a hazard to my health because of the level of sound generated. The State of Michigan Township Zoning Act, Act 184 of 1943 and the Charter Township of Oscoda Zoning Ordinance #165, hereinafter referred to as “the Zoning Ordinance”, were enacted to “promote public health, safety and welfare”. (Reference Zoning Ordinance Section 1.2 – Purpose and Township Zoning Act, Act 184 of 1943, 125.271, Sec. 1(1)).
2. The Zoning Ordinance, Article IX – Special Land Use Permits, Section 9.3 – Uses and Districts states: Only those special land uses specifically identified on the District Sheet may be considered by the Planning Commission for inclusion in the District in which the lot, plot or parcel is located. The District sheet for a R4, High Density Residential District does allow a publicly owned and operated recreational facility as a Special Permit Use. Reference Ordinance section 4.10, para 3, Item D – page 66.
Although the proposed skate park may arguably be publicly owned, it is not publicly operated.
Reference Attachment D.- copy of Oscoda Township Regular Board Meeting Minutes, page 1 of 4, dated 11-11-02, which states: … that the project will neither be funded nor maintained by the Township and subject to an operational agreement which defines the roles and responsibilities of each entity.
and
Reference Attachment E. – Copy of the Operating Agreement between the Charter Township of Oscoda and the Oscoda Community Skate Park Committee:
Paragraph 2. Which states: Construction and/or maintenance of said skate board park, as well as all signing (sic) associated therewith, and all safety precautions, as well as responsibility for the safety of the design of same, in addition to the making of the necessary modifications to said area in order to make it safe for both the users thereof as well as any spectators, shall be the sole and total responsibility of said COMMITTEE.
and Reference Attachment F – Letter from Municipal Underwriters of Michigan to Oscoda Charter Township. Which states:
If the Township provides this facility to the public the Township becomes responsible for the maintenance of the facility.
2. The Zoning Ordinance was enacted, in part, to protect a person’s property value. Reference Township Zoning Act, Act 184 of 1943,125.273 Zoning ordinance; basis; considerations, Sec. 3. Which states:
The zoning ordinance shall be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of each district; its peculiar suitability for particular uses; the conservation of property values and …
3. A skateboard park on a residential lot is not compatible with the prior use of an adjoining lot as a personal residence.Reference: Township Zoning Act, Act 184 of 1943, article 125.286d Discretionary decisions; requirements, standards, and conditions, Sec. 16d. Which states:
(1) If a township zoning ordinance authorizes the consideration and approval of special land uses or planned unit developments pursuant to section 16b or 16c, or otherwise provides for discretionary decisions, the requirements and standards upon which the decisions are made shall be specified in the ordinance. The standards shall be consistent with, and promote the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, and shall insure that the land use or activity authorized shall be compatible with adjacent uses of land …(2)(a) Be designed to protect natural resources, the health, safety, and welfare and the social and economic well being of those who will use the land use or activity under consideration, residents and landowners immediately adjacent to the proposed land use or activity, and the community as a whole. (2)(c) Be necessary to meet the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, be related to the standards established in the ordinance for the land use or activity under consideration, and be necessary to insure compliance with those standards.4. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 9.11 – Standards for Special Permit Uses, states:
Those uses permitted by special permit enumerated in any zoning district shall be subject to all conditions and requirements of this Section.
5. The proposed site does not meet the standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for Outdoor Recreational Facilities.
Ordinance, Section 9.11 – Standards for Special Permit Uses, does not specifically address public or private skateboard parks, however in Section 9.11, paragraph 9. – Commercial Recreation (Outdoor), States:
Outdoor commercial recreation uses shall include, but not be limited to the following: miniature golf, golf driving ranges ……skateboard parks …
and goes on to state: Commercial Recreational (Outdoor) operations shall satisfy the requirements …. and are also subject to the following requirements:
B. Minimum site area shall be three (3) acres for: flea markets, batting cages, skateboard parks and miniature golf. (The area of Lot 5 is less than B< acre).
E. No building or spectator seating facility shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of a lot line.
F. Front, side and rear yards shall be at least eighty (80) feet. The first fifty (50) feet of such yards shall not be used for off street parking and shall be landscaped.
O. Excessive dust, noise, traffic and trespassing shall not be inflicted on adjacent properties.
U. No more than sixty-five (65) percent of the land area shall be covered by recreational uses.
W. The intensity of sounds shall not exceed …. fifty five (55) decibels at the lot line of residential uses. (The sound intensity at my lot line will be considerably higher than 55 decibels – Reference Attachment A – Results of Acoustical Measurements)
X. No temporary sanitary facility or trash receptacle shall be located within two hundred (200) feet of an existing dwelling.
Z. Adequate trash receptacles shall be provided throughout the site.
The foregoing requirements if taken literally would apply only to Commercial Recreational operations, but must be considered in the intent and purpose of the Ordinance in general.
6. Zoning Ordinance, Section 9.7 Approval of Special Use Permits states:
1. The planning Commission shall review the particular circumstances and facts applicable to each proposed special condition use in terms of the following standards and requirements and shall make a determination as to whether the use proposed to be developed on the subject parcel meets the following standards and requirements:
B. Will be designed, constructed, operated, maintained, in harmony with existing an intended character of the general vicinity and so that such use will not change the essential character of that area.
C. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
D. Will be served adequately by necessary public services and utilities, such as …. refuse disposal …
G. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons …. by reason of excessive …. noise, vibration …
2. If the facts regarding the special use permit being reviewed do not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the standards and requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance will be met by the proposed use, the Planning Commission shall not grant special condition use approval.
Reasons Why the Site Plan Should Be Disapproved:
The Special Use Permit/Site Plan Application does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has failed to provide adequate minimum information as required in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.2 – Required Data:
1. The application does not contain the signature of the landowner as required under Section 10.2 (D).
2. The application does not contain a project title as required under Section 10.2 (F).
3. The application does not specify hours of operation, proposed uses/activity, numbers of employees or other information describing the project details as required on the application form and in Section 10.2(G).
4. The applicant has not provided the gross and net acreage of the lot as required in Section 10.2(K).
5. The applicant has not shown existing structures on all adjoining parcels as required in Section 10.2(M).
The applicant has provided no sound study from the current temporary site or any scientific data or professional opinions to show that the placing a skateboard park on Lot 5 will not cause a noise nuisance to adjoining property owners.
Therefore the site plan cannot be adequately reviewed and should be disapproved.
In addition, the applicant is proposing to install a 10′ wood fence on the South boundary of the property in violation of Zoning Ordinance Section 6.13.1.B(1). Which states:
No fence shall hereinafter be erected in excess of six (6) feet in height above the grade of the surrounding land.
The proposed site offers no room for future expansion. It provides no shade for the protection and comfort of the participants. The white concrete block wall on the west side of the lot will serve to reflect additional sunlight onto the participants.
Professional skateboard park designers have told me that they usually try to use the natural features of a site, rather than cut trees and level natural topographic features.
There are more suitable locations available.
To summarize, the skateboard park should not be allowed on Lot 5 of Block 6 of the Map of the Village of Oscoda, because it will be a nuisance to adjoining property owners and is not a compatible use for the adjoining private property under the terms and conditions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Hennigar215 E. Dwight Ave.P.O. Box 225Oscoda, MI 48750989 739-4952
Cc. Governor Jennifer M. GrandholmLt. Governor John D. Cherry, Jr.Senator Tony Stamas, Michigan State SenateRepresentative Dale Sheltrown, Michigan House of RepresentativesMr. K. L. Cool, Director, Michigan Department of Natural ResourcesIosco County Board of CommissionersOscoda Township BoardMr. James Dunn, Editor, Oscoda Press
