Looks like it’s back to the old drawing board for a developer that’s seeking a rezoning so it can build condominiums on 7.23 acres of vacant land in the massive Waterstone development.

Last week, the township board voted 7-0 to send the Bloomfield Hills-based Contour Development Group’s request to rezone two parcels from commercial to multiple-family residential back to the planning commission, so it can “review possible other zonings.”

“Go back to the planning commission and work it out with them,” said Supervisor Bill Dunn.

Planning commissioners recommended the rezoning in a 5-1 vote at their June 22 meeting.

Fears over the potential for a high-density development led to the township board’s decision to send it back.

“I just can’t rezone it and hope you don’t build it to the max,” Dunn said. “If the zoning (ordinance) says you can do it and you meet the zoning (requirements), we can’t deny it.”

Contour Development requested the two parcels it owns be rezoned from commercial (C-1) to multiple family residential (RM) so it can build attached condos for a community to be named The Oasis at Waterstone.

Both parcels have frontage along W. Market St. and are located directly across from each other.

The parcel on the north side of W. Market St. is 4.5 acres and situated between Cedar St. and Stony Lake Drive.

The parcel on the south side is 2.73 acres and located just west of S. Waterstone Drive. It’s adjacent to Independence Village of Waterstone, a 145-unit retirement community.

Originally, these two parcels were intended to be developed for commercial purposes to provide services for Waterstone residents, but nothing ever came to fruition.

“The parcel has sat vacant for – forever,” said Architect Michael Pizzola, of the Rochester-based Designhaus Architecture. “No one has ever really come forward to develop that.”

Pizzola said it was previously determined the rezoning from commercial to multiple family “makes quite a bit of sense.”

“The utilities are there,” he said. “It’s a much less intense use than commercial.”

Pizzola said Contour Development wants to build a “high-end condominium community” for “empty nesters.”

“We feel it’s a good fit,” he told the board.

But Dunn was deeply concerned about what could be built there if a rezoning was granted.

“When I rezone it, I have to think about the (maximum) use that can be put in there,” he explained. “Looking at the 4.5-acre parcel to the north, you could put in over 100 bedrooms. That bothers me, along with (the number of bedrooms that could be built) to the south. It seems awful intense for that area.”

This reporter contacted township Planner Matthew Lonnerstater, of the Ann Arbor-based Carlisle/Wortman Associates, and he stated in a July 14 e-mail that based on the zoning ordinance, “no more than 175 bedrooms can be built on the site.”

That works out to 109 bedrooms on the northern parcel and 66 on the southern parcel.

In terms of units, no more than 72 could be built on the site because the zoning ordinance states a multiple-family development can’t exceed 10 units per acre, according to Lonnerstater.

“Density is further restricted by the bedroom-to-unit calculation,” Lonnerstater wrote. “For example, 175 bedrooms could be split into a maximum of 58 three-bedroom units or 72 one-bedroom units (efficiencies) or 72 two-bedroom units (or a combination of these types).”

That being said, the planner noted “because of the area needed for roads, utilities and required setbacks, the total number of units on the site will likely have to be less than the maximum permitted.”

Dunn said he understands developers “try to make as much money (as they) can on a project, but this one just scares me.”

The supervisor pointed out once a property’s zoning changes, the owner or developer can do whatever they want with it as long as the plan meets the ordinance, no matter what they might have said or proposed prior to the rezoning.

“It will be developed according to your ordinance,” Pizzola assured.

“But according to the ordinance, you could put over 100 bedrooms (on the northern parcel) and probably 50 bedrooms (on the southern parcel), and it bothers me,” Dunn replied. “That’s a lot of bedrooms to throw on that little (site).”

Clerk Curtis Wright agreed with Dunn.

“We give you a rezoning (to) RM, you have an open opportunity to come back and put whatever in there that meets the ordinance. We have no control over that,” he said.

Wright noted he would like to see “something more definitive” in terms of plans for the site, something the developer “would commit to.”

“This piece is ripe for a PUD,” said Trustee Jack Curtis, who serves on the planning commission. “There are alternatives.”

PUD stands for planned unit development and it’s an alternative to traditional development that gives a municipality a greater degree of control. It’s a give-and-take process through which a developer and municipality work together to craft an agreement that governs the development of a site. Once the agreement is approved, the developer is legally bound to develop the site in accordance with it.

“There’s wiggle room,” said Treasurer Joe Ferrari. “We just don’t want a straight C-1 or straight RM (zoning). There’s other options.”

Residents of Stony Lake Village, a nearby condo development in Waterstone, submitted a petition to the township opposing the proposed rezoning. It contained 37 signatures from people at 28 addresses.

“When we purchased our homes, we accepted the fact that in the future, there would be some commercial development on these parcels,” the petition states. “Our assumption was that ‘Market Street’ meant exactly what it said, future business, and not multifamily dwellings.”

Stony Lake Village residents are primarily concerned the potential addition of condos could “significantly increase” the “traffic load” on Stony Lake Drive.

They believe the additional traffic “will shorten the pavement life” of their street. This concerns them because they are “responsible” for the road’s “maintenance and replacement.”

“Our community consists of mainly senior citizens on fixed incomes who are not in a position to take on this additional burden,” the petition states.