A group of residents who believe their concerns regarding land uses in Oxford Township’s agricultural (AG) zoning district were not heard or properly addressed will get an opportunity to sit down with the committee that helped draft the proposed changes.

Last week, the township board voted 7-0 to send the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments concerning permitted and special land uses in the AG district back to the planning commission’s ordinance review committee (ORC) so it can meet with AG property owners and discuss potential changes in a public setting.

“I just think we need to give (the residents) a chance to state their case . . . If we’re going to do it, let’s do it right,” said township Supervisor Bill Dunn.

The board’s decision came right after a public hearing during which three residents spoke and asked the board to consider the text amendment changes proposed by property owners and residents living in the township’s northeast quadrant.

Resident Ginny Benson, who lives on Barber Rd., said the ORC and planning commission made some of their requested changes, but others “were just completely ignored.”

“Everybody else that I’ve talked to on other planning boards said that when (the) community asks for certain things . . . to be amended, they always listen to the people in the community. And that’s just not happening here. It’s kind of appalling,” she said.

“An overwhelming majority of the landowners in the agricultural district have provided testimony and documentation in support of amendments to the zoning ordinance that they feel are appropriate for the agricultural district as well as (for) the Suburban Farms 10-acre district,” said resident Larry Roesner, who lives on Cobblestone Lane and spent 10 minutes reading a two-and-a-half page prepared statement, which he told officials was signed by six residents.

“Their requests and the documentation that they have provided to the planning commission (have) been ignored . . .Why has the planning commission not consulted with any resident within the agricultural district regarding the zoning text amendments? Why has the planning commission not considered the amendments proposed by the residents within the agricultural district?” Roesner said.

Resident Jim Unis, who lives on Gardner Rd., alluded to residents’ potentially taking legal action against the township if their proposed text amendments aren’t addressed.

“Can we work together on this or do we need to go further? We don’t want to go further,” he said.

Based on the planning commission’s recommendation, special uses currently proposed for elimination in the AG district include oil and gas extraction, recreational vehicle storage, temporary housing for seasonal labor, cider mills, fertilizer, feed or seed sales facilities, farm implement sales or repair, livestock auction yards, campgrounds, golf courses, driving ranges, country clubs, colleges and universities, and demonstration farms that are open to the public.

It’s proposed that private airports, a special use currently allowed, be eliminated and replaced with “aircraft landing strips,” which would be regulated by a new set of rules included in the text amendment.

It’s also proposed that yard waste composting facilities that are in compliance with the federal Right to Farm Act be allowed as a special use. Commercial composting facilities would be excluded.

But, some northeast quadrant residents believe the proposed changes don’t go far enough to protect their area’s rural atmosphere from non-agricultural uses which they claim would negatively impact their quality of life by increasing population density and traffic on gravel roads.

For example, these residents, according to Roesner, “do not agree (with) keeping private schools and churches, or any other institutional use” because they’re “not in (keeping with the) character (of) the area” and they’re “contrary to the master plan.”

“Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the agricultural district is agriculture – not homes, not institutions, not schools, not religious institutions, or any other incompatible and conflicting use,” Roesner said. “It is designed for farming and farming operations and the raising of livestock and animals that are beneficial for people.”

Both private schools and churches are currently allowed as special uses under the zoning ordinance and were continued as such under the text amendments recommended by the planning commission.

“I’m trying to keep (the area) the way the master plan promised it would be kept. I feel that we’re owed that,” Benson told the board. “The township has a responsibility to stick to its own master plan and some of the stuff that’s happening there is not following the master plan . . . Our property values are at risk. Our livelihoods are at risk. And I hope that you’ll consider that.”

Following the hearing, board members asked Trustee Jack Curtis, who also serves on the planning commission, if the residents’ concerns and proposed changes were looked at and discussed.

He said, “yes . . . they were considered” by the ORC and “what came out of (that were the) approximately 16 (proposed) changes” that “favor . . . what the agricultural district in the northeast wanted.”

Curtis wanted the board to move forward with the proposed text amendments as presented that evening.

“You’re throwing out the baby with the bath water by not approving the 16 (changes),” he said.

But, Dunn felt AG district residents should be able to have a “sit-down” meeting with the ORC.

“I think we ought to take the time to allow these people to come in – not that we’re going to change anything, but at least they’ll have a chance to present their side and then bring it back to us,” he said.