Initial Success in Efforts to Protect Adjacent Homeowners from High Profile Rezoning Effort

I assisted homeowners in Bloomfield Township who opposed a rezoning necessary to allow an event center to be constructed next to their homes. The matter was the subject of media attention. For example, WXYZ covered the issue. 

I think that neighbor opposition to development falling into two different categories. Sometimes neighbors have unrealistic expectations. Buying homes next to undeveloped or under-utilized property should not create an expectation that the property will forever remain in that condition.  Uses of property should be allowed to evolve. When people buy homes next to property that at that time enjoy the ability to be put to more intense uses, they cannot reasonably expect to be able to prevent those uses. But sometimes developers seek to do too much. They seek to expand the legal uses in a manner that negatively impacts neighbors’ enjoyment of their properties. Given my eminent domain background, I view these issues in terms of transferring property value. Neighbors demanding that adjacent property not be developed consistent with existing, legal uses seek to appropriate the value of that property to themselves. Developers seeking to go beyond legal uses can seek to appropriate value away from the homeowners to themselves. 

In my opinion, this situation involved the latter situation and I was pleased to be on the side of the neighboring homeowners.

A local restauranteur seeks to construct an event center serving anywhere from 600 to 1,000 people, including an outdoor amphitheater with daily events lasting until 1:00 am. However, the use is not allowed in that zoning district. The district consists of research facilities, indoor exercise uses like a gym and a baseball training center, and offices. It also allows restaurants consist with those uses, like a coffee shop or a café as an amenity in an office building. Event center uses are contemplated only in commercial districts along either Telegraph or Woodward that are not adjacent to single-family homes.

The Township initiated the review process with no input from the public.  The first zoning approval was granted without any notice to the adjacent neighbors.  The Township also decided to simultaneously review a change to the zoning ordinance necessary to allow the project with their review of the project itself. The Township’s planners prepared memoranda supporting the use. However, two of the three memoranda completely ignored the Township’s Master Plan and the third gave it short shrift.  The memoranda made unsupported, conclusory statements that the project did not impact the value of the neighbors’ homes.

Suffice it to say that the adjacent homeowners were not happy when they learned about this project and mobilized, including by hiring me. 

I prepared correspondence attacking both the process and substance. 

I focused on two procedural issues.  Simultaneous review of the rezoning and the project itself gave the appearance that the Township was discounting the input of its residents. The Memoranda from the Township’s Planning Department were clearly deficient in that they failed to address the Master Plan.

There were multiple substantive issues. The proposed use was very obviously inconsistent with the Master Plan. It would have a significant impact on the neighbors. It is not appropriate to have late night revelers wandering an outdoor space and slamming car doors well after midnight right next to homes.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing. After hearing the objections of the neighbors, including my letters, a presentation from my colleague, and the views of many angry neighbors, the zoning change was tabled. Review of the project itself did not occur because the zoning change was tabled. At this point, it is unknown whether the developer intends to proceed.

Sometimes, you can fight city hall, but it helps if the fight can be couched in terms of the controlling legal authority.