After 48 minutes of opposition, questions and concerns expressed by a group of residents from what is commonly referred to as horse country, the Oxford Township Board, at its Sept. 11 meeting, decided it needed more information and voted 7-0 to postpone making a decision on whether to apply for a $1 million state grant to clean up lead contamination on a former hunt club property now owned by a nonprofit that serves children in foster care.

“I’m torn about this thing because I would like it cleaned up. But, so much of this is wrong,” said Ginny Benson, who lives on Barber Rd. “If any of us asked for a grant like this (for) our properties, first, you’d look at me like I had just landed from Mars and the next thing you’d do is laugh me off (my) chair.”

“I also have a problem with a million dollars of public funds going to a private entity,” said Margaret Culver, who lives on Delano Rd. “I would love somebody to give me a million dollars so that I can improve my farm and live a more enhanced lifestyle. I feel it’s very inappropriate for public money to be given to enhance a private development.”

Township officials are considering serving as the applicant, on behalf of House of Providence (HOP), for a grant from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy’s (EGLE) Brownfield Redevelopment Grant and Loan Program.

Brownfield redevelopment grants are used to fund environmental response activities, including investigation and cleanup, on sites known to be contaminated. Up to $1 million is available for projects with “significant economic or environmental benefits.” The grants are designed to revitalize abandoned properties and return them to tax rolls, attract developers to create jobs, investment and increase surrounding property values, and limit sprawl by reusing properties with existing infrastructure.

The township would have to serve as the applicant because brownfield redevelopment grants cannot be awarded to private property owners. These funds can only be released to counties, cities, villages, townships, brownfield redevelopment authorities or other public bodies.

If approved, the grant would be used to remove soil contaminated by lead shot from years of hunting and shooting on two parcels, totalling nearly 62 acres, owned by HOP at 3921 Barber Rd.

HOP provides housing for youth in foster care. Paid staff provide children and teenagers with 24-7 supervision and care.

In 2016, HOP purchased 118 acres on Barber Rd. that had previously functioned as a hunt club from 1985 to 2013. Users engaged in pheasant hunting and skeet shooting with shotgun shells containing lead pellets.

HOP had the property split into four separate parcels in 2017. The grant money, if received, would be used to remediate a 27.65-acre parcel and a 34.12-acre parcel.

No matching funds from the township would be required to receive a brownfield grant to remove lead-contaminated soil from the site.

Township Treasurer Joe Ferrari said he discussed the issue at length with Dan Gough, brownfield coordinator with the EGLE’s Brownfield Assessment and Redevelopment Section, “because usually when you talk about brownfields, there’s some type of a payback mechanism.”

Ferrari said Gough assured him the township would not have to provide any matching funds, so “at least, to us, it’s free.” Ferrari was told the state just wants this property “cleaned up.”

Township Supervisor Bill Dunn indicated he ran all this past township attorney Gary Rentrop, who told him “this is a good deal” and “there’s no hidden costs”

“And it cleans up the property,” Ferrari added.

Dunn noted the township “did not initiate” this. He said HOP approached the state and the state, in turn, contacted the township.

In an Aug. 23 email, Gough informed Dunn the HOP remediation project had been vetted and “the group all agreed this would be a good project to fund.”

“We decided that we would like to offer (the township) the ability to apply for a grant (of) up to $1,000,000 with a couple of conditions,” Gough wrote.

The idea of Michigan potentially paying $1 million to remediate privately-owned property did not sit well with some residents.

“They bought the property, they should be able to deal with the consequences . . . When I bought my farm, I didn’t go and ask somebody to put a new roof on the house . . . It’s inappropriate for public money to be given to a private entity to enhance their property,” Culver said.

Wilbert Hutchings, a resident on Delano Rd., said he’s “in favor of getting rid of lead,” but “to give government money, $1 million, to private individuals who are living on this property, I think it’s just a shame and if you do agree to this, shame on you.” Hutchings pointed out residents in that area have been “anxious” to have local officials “actually address the lead issue” since HOP bought the property three years ago, but “we were constantly told that Oxford Township had nothing to do (with the issue) and it wasn’t their concern.”

Now, the township is considering giving $1 million “to private citizens who knew that there was a liability on this property,” he said.

Hutchings noted that prior to HOP, “many people passed” on buying this 118 acres once they learned the lead pollution on it was a “nightmare.”

“If that $1 million had been there four years ago, there would have been a lot more people interested in probably keeping that property as a single piece and using it more as an agricultural piece,” he said.

Resident Kallie Roesner-Meyers, who lives on Delano Rd., told the board if the grant proposal was to clean up the property for single-family, residential use, agricultural use or farmland, she “would be totally for it.”

But, she argued that HOP needs this cleanup in order to “develop (its property) into a compound of institutionally-owned facilities.”

“It doesn’t need to be cleaned up for residential use. It needs to be cleaned up for commercial/institutional use. And we don’t believe (HOP) belongs there and we don’t believe this is a good . . . . use of (state) resources,” Roesner-Meyers said.

Roesner-Meyers stressed the HOP property could be used for residential or farm purposes “with no remediation,” but the owner would need “to make sure the lead doesn’t migrate off the property.”

“There’s simple things for that,” she said. “They don’t need a million dollars to do that. They don’t need the money, right now, to live on the property. They need the money to create a compound of child-care institutions. That’s what this is about, plain and simple.”

HOP has already constructed an 8,928-square-foot home on one of the two parcels not involved in the grant proposal. Those two parcels have already had their environmental issues resolved. In late June, six foster-care girls – the maximum state law allows – moved into this house. HOP has been working at the state level to get the law changed to allow up to 10 foster youths per home.

The grant proposal states a second home will be added to HOP’s property, but it does not specify on which parcel it would be built.

Addressing the township board, resident Jim Unis, who lives on Gardner Rd., wanted to know the location of this planned second home. He requested Supervisor Dunn ask HOP co-founder Jason Dunn, who was sitting in the audience, to disclose the location.

“He’s here. He knows,” Unis said.

“He might not want to talk. I’m not going to make him,” the supervisor replied.

Both the supervisor and Deputy Supervisor Deanna Cushing indicated the township has no information on a potential second house because nothing has been submitted by HOP.

“The owner has (the information),” Unis said. “Why can’t we get it tonight? We’re here to understand the brownfield.”

“I’m not going to order someone to come up here,” Supervisor Dunn responded.

There was discussion regarding the impact a potential Brownfield Redevelopment grant could have on the HOP property’s tax status.

Ferrari informed everyone that HOP “is still paying taxes.”

“Whether that will change in the future, I don’t know that,” he said. “But, as of right now, they are still a taxable entity and all properties over there are being taxed.”

Roesner-Meyers claimed that instead of putting property back on the tax rolls – one of the things that brownfields are meant to do – giving this grant to HOP would do “the complete opposite” because as a nonprofit, it could apply for a property tax exemption.

“It takes the property off the tax rolls and could most likely, put it into a tax-free status, which then the citizens of this community would then have to support. So, we’d lose the tax base,” she said.

Her father, Larry Roesner, who lives on Cobblestone Lane, expressed the same concern about the potential loss of tax revenue.

“What you’re doing is taking taxable land and (making) it non-taxable,” he said.

As a result, “the rest of us,” Roesner continued, will have to “dig” deeper and “pay some more taxes . . . while some people are living pretty well on the hog.”

Bryan Cloutier, director of the Oxford Public Library, was at the meeting and he requested more information about this grant proposal because based on his knowledge of brownfields, “typically, they do carry a tax implication.”

“And I would like to know what, if any, tax implication that is,” he said.

Ferrari told Cloutier he spoke with Gough “for a good hour asking the same things” and he was told “nothing changes” with regard to property taxes because of the brownfield grant.

“Pretty much, this million dollars is manna from heaven . . . This doesn’t involve any tax captures, any repayment plans, anything like that,” the treasurer explained.

“I want that in writing . . . I want to be assured that there is no implication on this community as a result of that,” Cloutier replied.

“I support cleaning up any property that has lead on it, especially any property that has lead with children (present),” Cloutier noted. “So, I’m not here speaking in opposition to this, but I am here making sure that we take every legal implication into mind.”

The day after the board meeting, Ferrari received an email from Gough stating, “The brownfield grant’s sole purpose is to provide funding for the onsite remediation and associated administrative and oversight costs. It does not affect the tax status of the property one way or another.”

“I would be more than happy to attend a board meeting in the future to answer any questions that folks have,” Gough added.

Roesner-Meyers told the board that if the township applies for the grant, it could include in the application a requirement that if awarded, HOP will continue to pay taxes based on “the highest and best use of that property and the size of the home.”

“If you don’t put it in there, they’re going to file for a tax-exemption,” she said.

In the grant proposal, it was stated that adding a second house on the HOP property would increase the number of jobs this site provides from “approximately 25” to “about 60.”

This drew considerable criticism from the residents who spoke. They believe the additional traffic generated by the workers will have a negative impact on the condition of the gravel roads and the area’s peace and quiet.

“Sixty workers out in the middle of the country, that’s sprawl,” said Roesner-Meyers, who noted one of the brownfield’s goals is supposed to be limiting sprawl.

Barbara Blanock, who lives on Barber Rd., said having 60 people “zipping up and down” a road that currently has 10 people living in five houses, excluding HOP, “is not enhancing the neighborhood.”

“What is the benefit to have more jobs on my road?” she asked officials.

“The traffic is unbelievable now,” Benson said. “I can only imagine what it’s going to be if this thing is fully developed and (HOP gets) everything they want up there. I don’t know why they would move to the quiet country to bring the city here. It’s shocking. It’s unbelievable that the town is agreeing with this and is going out of their way to support them and just basically crapping on the people that have lived there for 30, 40, 50, 70 years. None of us want it in the neighborhood. It’s wrong. Encouraging this is wrong.”

Outside of the grant, residents continued to express their opposition to HOP operating on this property. They view it as an institutional use and as such, they believe it doesn’t belong in an agriculturally-zoned district. They believe it will adversely impact the area’s existing rural character, their quality of life and their property values.

“The whole master plan says (this area is) a gem, preserve horse country, do everything you can to preserve low density and low traffic, and farmland and farm uses and none of what’s proposed on this property does that,” Benson said.

“How can this monstrous development, this institution, with people screaming and yelling and having parties and busloads of kids coming in and workers coming in, whoopin’ and hollering, how is that going to increase my property value?” Blanock asked.

The only time Jason Dunn spoke during the meeting was to respond to this.

“No, we don’t have buses of kids whooping and hollering,” he said.

Dunn acknowledged HOP “did have a busload” of people come out and help do some landscaping around the property. He also noted HOP “never had a party there, except for our grand opening” in late June.

Blanock told officials she has “documented many dates and many busloads of people coming in and out.”

“The noise is insufferable,” she said.

Culver indicated she “could hear” HOP’s party from Delano Rd. “So, there is some hooting and hollering going on,” she said.