It wasn’t on the agenda, but Oxford Township Trustee Jack Curtis took some time during the Oct. 9 meeting to make it clear that he’s not going to support the municipality applying for a $1 million state brownfield grant to clean up lead contamination on a former hunt club property now owned by an organization that houses children in foster care.

Curtis doesn’t like the fact that if the township does this, it “assumes all liability and responsibilities if anything should happen.”

“If something goes wrong or happens, EGLE (Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy) would come after the township,” he said.

Curtis also doesn’t like the idea of using such a large amount of public money “to make one (property) clean” when there are “other areas in the state” that have a “much higher need” for those funds “than this endeavor.”

The township has been investigating the possibility of serving as the applicant, on behalf of House of Providence (HOP), for a $1 million grant from the EGLE’s Brownfield Redevelopment Grant and Loan Program.

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.

If awarded, the proposed grant would be used to remove soil contaminated by lead shot from years of hunting and shooting on two parcels, totalling nearly 62 acres.

The township board has not yet made a decision on whether to apply for the grant.

Initially, township Supervisor Bill Dunn supported the idea of pursuing the grant for HOP because it seemed like “a win-win for everybody involved.” Now, Dunn no longer favors having the township serve as the applicant. “I agree with Jack,” he said during the meeting.

Following the meeting, Dunn elaborated.

“When this first came up, it looked good – get a million dollars and clean up some contaminated property,” the supervisor said. “But, after looking into it more, it turns out it’s not such a good deal for (the township). The biggest thing is the liability. There’s no way I could vote to make the township liable for the cleanup of somebody else’s private property and if something goes wrong now or later on, we’re on the hook for it. I’m not doing that.”

Much of Curtis and Dunn’s opinion on the HOP/brownfield grant issue was shaped by a two-page memo written by township attorney Gary Rentrop and sent via email to officials on Oct. 2.

“(Brownfield) funding is not simply granted to remediate a contaminated site,” Rentrop wrote. “Instead, a prerequisite to funding is that the township must endorse the development project (i.e. the end use), and that the township must be willing to assume significant responsibilities, and to make various representations. At this time, the township cannot make the required representations.”

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 awarded, the proposed grant would be used to remediate a 27.65-acre parcel and a 34.12-acre parcel, both owned by HOP. HOP had the 118-acre property split into four separate parcels in 2017.

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

In his Oct. 2 memo, Rentrop outlined six grant requirements, which the township would be responsible to fulfill. These requirements would expose the township “to claims for damages and losses, as well as (create) the risk that the township could be responsible for environmental claims under NREPA (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act),” he wrote.

Given this, Rentrop posed the question, “Why would any municipality accept these requirements?”

“The answer would be simple if this was a parcel of land in a blighted area, producing no tax revenue and it was a municipality undertaking the clean-up, as is most typical in the case of (the) revitalization of abandoned property,” he wrote.

“Under such a scenario,” Rentrop wrote the township taking on the grant requirements “might be acceptable.”

“However, that is not the case here,” he continued. “This is not a township project, but a private landowner’s project.”

In his letter, Rentrop also pointed out that a “prerequisite” to applying for a brownfield grant is “the township must endorse the development project.”

“It is the policy of the brownfield program that the project must be something (the) township wants and so this may still require the endorsement of the project by the township to enable brownfield funding,” he wrote.

This is problematic, in Rentrop’s view, because HOP’s proposed use is “a child caring institution for 10 or fewer residents.”

“This does not comply with the township’s zoning ordinance for this (agricultural) zoning district nor does it comply with the master land use plan,” Rentrop wrote.

Since last year, HOP representatives have been lobbying in Lansing to amend the Zoning Enabling Act to increase the maximum number of children allowed to live in a state-licensed residential facility from six to 10 if the facility is licensed under the Child Care Licensing Act and located on a parcel that’s 20 acres or more in size.

State-licensed residential facilities are defined by law as places that provide “residential services for 6 or fewer individuals under 24-hour supervision or care.”

According to HOP, on June 29, six foster girls moved into the 8,928-square-foot house built on the Barber Rd. property.

Changing state law to allow for a maximum of 10 residents would preempt local zoning, but Rentrop pointed out, “This change has not occurred.”

Right now, HOP’s operation is not a permitted use in the agricultural (AG) zoning district, which is where the property is located.

However, HOP is currently able to operate there because in a November 2017 opinion from Rentrop, he explained this type of state-licensed residential facility is “allowed as a matter of right by state statute in all residential zones” and because the AG district allows residential use, “it can be considered a ‘residential zone.’”

But, Rentrop, in his Oct. 2 memo, pointed out that HOP operating in Oxford due to state law superseding local zoning ordinance does not constitute an endorsement by the township.

“A policy argument could be made that the fact that a child foster care facility is not allowed in this zoning district is a pronouncement by the township that it does not want child foster care use in this zoning district,” he wrote.

That could become a moot point given at last week’s meeting, township officials voted to approve the first reading of a proposed zoning ordinance amendment that would make changes to the land uses allowed in AG zoning.

Among those changes would be the addition of state-licensed residential facilities, as defined under the state Zoning Enabling Act, as a permitted use.

If the township board approves this change, HOP, as it operates now with six youths, would be considered a permitted use in AG zoning.

Jason Dunn, HOP co-founder, did not respond to a request for comment.