A recommendation to rezone 7.23 acres of vacant land in the Waterstone development from commercial to residential was made last week in a 5-1 vote by the Oxford Township Planning Commission.

It’s now up to the township board to decide whether to approve or deny the Bloomfield Hills-based Contour Development Group’s request.

The developer has owned the two parcels for about two years and wants to have them rezoned from C-1 commercial to multiple family residential (RM) so it can build attached condominiums for a community to be called 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 is 4.5 acres and located between Cedar St. and Stony Lake Drive. It’s bordered by single-family residential homes to the west, the Boulder Pointe golf course to the north and east, and RM zoning to the northeast in the form of the Stony Lake Village condos.

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

“We do find multi-family residential to be compatible with all these uses,” said township Planner Matthew Lonnerstater, of the Ann Arbor-based Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc.

The original intent was to develop this property for commercial purposes, but it’s sat vacant for many years.

Speaking on behalf of Contour Development, Peter Stuhlreyer, founder and owner of the Rochester-based Designhaus Architecture, said given the lack of interest in the property for commercial use, it’s felt that multiple family residential is a “better fit for that land.”

“There is a demand for condominiums. It is on the increase right now,” he told commissioners.

No site plan was submitted with the rezoning application, however, none needs to be because the township does not require one at this point. If the rezoning is approved, submitting a site plan for review and potential approval would be the next step in the process.

In a June 7 story, Nora Dedvukaj, director of operations for Contour Development, told this reporter the company was looking to construct approximately 44 attached condo units that would be spread over 11 buildings, each containing four units (quadplexes).

She said it would “replicate” or be “very similar” to another development Contour is starting in neighboring Orion Township. That one is called the Ponds of Orion.

But Stuhlreyer said despite what was reported, “there’s no design on the boards” and “there’s no design on the table.”

“There was some release of some information, maybe a leak or something that got out, that said there were fourplexes and they might be, but at this point, we really have made no commitment or effort to work on the design,” he told commissioners.

Stuhlreyer assured commissioners that Contour Development plans “to go through the normal process of site plan” review and approval.

“We don’t have any intention of pushing boundaries or looking for waivers or variances on density or (building) height or anything,” he said.

Lonnerstater noted because what’s being considered is a rezoning request, not a site plan, he had “to look at all of the land uses that could be developed under the RM district.”

Under RM zoning, by right, someone could build multiple-family housing, single-family housing, municipal buildings and public/private parks. Under a special land use, child daycare centers, churches, schools and convalescent/nursing homes could be built.

“We do find all of these to be compatible with adjacent land uses,” he said.

Lonnerstater pointed out that all of these potential land uses under RM zoning are “less intense than those that would be allowed under current C-1 zoning.”

Opposition to the proposed rezoning came from Commissioner Kallie Roesner-Meyers and her family members in the audience.

She brought up how back when the Waterstone project was pitched to the township as a package, it was “sold to us” that these commercial parcels were going to contain businesses such as barbershops, ice cream shops, dry cleaners, “things that would provide services” for the residents of this massive development.

“This was promised to us to be commercial, to have these services for the area, and I think it will come,” she said. “To change it, would not be (to) the benefit of the township.”

“I think I’d like to wait and let time bring in the proper commercial (uses) for that area,” Roesner-Meyers noted.

Roesner-Meyers pointed out that a lot of people are going to be moving in when construction of those 360 multiple-family units (a mix of apartments and condos), east of M-24, near the high school, is complete.

She said the “convenience” of having some businesses along W. Market St. to serve all those new people “could become a good thing” so they don’t have to drive far.

“Traffic’s getting heavier and heavier. It’s harder to go south,” Roesner-Meyers said.

Roesner-Meyers argued there’s already a “huge amount” of land designated for multiple family use.

“There’s large tracts of land where multi-family is already on the master plan to go in,” she said. “Why would we want to keep adding when we already have these areas that are master-planned in?”

Based on the online survey the township recently conducted in conjunction with its ongoing master plan update, Roesner-Meyers said residents are opposed to allowing more multiple-family housing.

“The majority of the people in the survey said they don’t want that,” she said. “They want single-family housing coming in. And so, we’re going against what the people are saying and we’re going against the intent of the plan to stay rural.”

In the end, Roesner-Meyers said she’s “just not seeing the need” for more multiple-family housing.

“I’m not convinced in any way that there’s a need for this at this time,” she said. “We have other properties that are zoned multi-family in the village that are undeveloped, quite a bit.”

Roesner-Meyers was joined in her opposition by her husband, Dr. Bruce Meyers, and father, Larry Roesner, both of whom spoke during the public hearing.

Meyers said the same thing as his wife about how Waterstone was a “package deal” and “part of the package was the amount of C-1 property that was left for development.”

“They made a promise. They need to live with it. We don’t need to change that,” he said.

He said if the developer needs to wait another one to five years for that property to be viable for commercial use, then “so be it.”

“That was part of the package,” Meyers said.

He later added, “I don’t see where we have a shortage of multiple (family) zoning in the township that we need to be pressured into changing the zoning on this. I think we need to maintain the C-1.”

Larry Roesner, who lives on Cobblestone Lane, voiced his opposition to the proposed rezoning as well, noting, “It’s almost like we have a contest between the village and the township as to who can put in the most multi-family homes.”

“We have more land than the village does, so why do we want to continue taking what we have and (putting) it in multi-family (zoning)?”

Just last year, the village council rejected two proposed multiple-family developments. Officials turned down a proposed 76-unit housing project for 98 S. Glaspie St. and they rejected a proposal to buy the village hall and build 32 to 48 low-income and market rate apartments for senior citizens.

Roesner-Meyers was the only one on the planning commission who disagreed with the proposed rezoning.

Commissioner Tom Berger felt it’s compatible with the surrounding uses and noted there’s a lot more demand for condos among his generation, the Baby Boomers. They’re moving to this area to be closer to their children, he said.

He wouldn’t “want to see commercial activity” on those parcels because it could bring a lot more traffic and late hours of operation, both of which could negatively impact surrounding residential properties.

Berger noted the township has a lot of commercially zoned property along the east side of M-24, between Meijer and the village limits, that’s sat vacant for years.

If there’s difficulty getting all that developed commercially, “I just don’t see it happening” with these parcels in Waterstone, he said.

Acting Commission Chairman Michael Young said “it seems farfetched” to him that anyone would open a business on W. Market St., which is somewhat off the beaten path, when the township is having trouble finding businesses to set up shop on parcels along the heavily-travelled M-24 corridor.

He noted he would “hate” to leave these parcels zoned C-1, then have a motel decide to build there.

“There wouldn’t be much we could do to stop it, right?” he said.

Commissioner Ed Hunwick said if he lived in Waterstone, he would probably want to see these two parcels remain undeveloped and kept as green space.

But then again, he also wouldn’t want them developed for commercial use that could negatively impact residents.

“Somebody could come in and put a hotel up there, and if I was living in Waterstone, the last thing I’d want is a hotel in there,” he said.

Marianne Kainz, who lives on Stony Lake Dr. and represents the Stony Lake Village Condo Association, expressed her concern about how turning these parcels into condos could increase traffic on her street.

“Right now, we are experiencing difficulties with the amount of traffic flow on Stony Lake Drive,” she said.

Cut-through traffic, motorists trying to avoid construction and high school-age drivers are already issues.

“We’ve been experiencing a huge increase in traffic flow and speeding,” she said.

In response, Stuhlreyer noted the proposed development would “probably have a pretty low traffic impact.”

He explained the proposed rezoning would actually be beneficial for those who don’t want a lot of extra traffic.

“From (undeveloped, vacant land) to RM, it’s a traffic increase,” Stuhlreyer said. “From C-1 to RM, it’s a dramatic traffic decrease.”

Richard Hay, who lives at 670 Overlook Drive in Waterstone, didn’t like the idea of Contour Development potentially constructing 11 buildings, each containing four attached condo units.

“That seems very dense,” he said. “It also doesn’t seem consistent with the rest of Waterstone. All the other condos in the Waterstone development are duplex(es).”