OXFORD VILLAGE – Residents of Dennison, Hovey and Hudson streets turned out in full force April 18 to protest the proposed rezoning of two parcels, totalling a half-acre, in order to allow for the potential replacement of two single-family homes with a three-story, multiple-family development.

“I’m totally against it and I think most of my neighbors are (as well),” said Oxford Township Supervisor Bill Dunn, who lives at 14 Dennison St.

“I don’t want to look at a three-story apartment complex or condominium complex,” said Shelly Curtis, who’s lived at 10 Hovey St. for 39 years.

“If it weren’t encroaching on a residential area, it wouldn’t be so sensitive (of an issue),” said Jim Skylis, who lives at 19 Hudson St.

Planning commissioners heard the public’s concerns loud and clear. Following the hearing, they voted 6-0 to not recommend to the village council the proposed rezoning of 21 and 25 Dennison St. from single family residential (R-1) to Central Business District (C-1) Transition.

The rezoning was bundled with a whole laundry list of proposed changes to the village zoning map and ordinance (see related story on Page 3).

Developer Robert Gjokaj, who’s advocating for the change, took the decision in stride.

“It’s easy to be disappointed when something doesn’t necessarily go in your favor, but it’s understandable,” he told this reporter.

“The bundle, it’s complicated. There’s so much going on in it. I think it’s probably better, honestly, that we’re not included in the bundle. I think it’s better that we just go through our own (rezoning) process. That way, there can be more attention on our property, on our project. That way, we can do everything the right way.”

Gjokaj recently purchased 25 Dennison St. from Dave and Joan Weckle on a land contract for $222,500. The house sits on a 0.21-acre lot at the northeast corner of Dennison and Hudson streets.

His cousin, Joseph Djokic, owns 21 Dennison St., a 0.29-acre parcel next door. He bought it for $150,000 in 2015.

Gjokaj told commissioners his family would like to tear down the two existing houses and in their place, construct a three-story building.

At the meeting, Gjokaj said the building would contain 23 residential condominiums. But in a follow-up interview with this reporter on April 24, he reduced the number of units.

“We updated a few things over the weekend on our conceptual plans, so we’re at 21 units,” he explained in a text message.

At the meeting, Gjokaj said the building would be 44,000 square feet, but during a later interview with this reporter, he said it would actually be approximately 40,000 square feet.

“I’m ready to pull the trigger. I’m ready to go on it,” he told commissioners.

Units on the first floors would be split, according to Gjokaj, with the ground floor containing the dining area, kitchen and living room, and the second floor consisting of bedrooms and office space.

“All of those units are going to be probably at least 1,200 square feet. We’re looking to do between 1,200 and 1,500 square feet,” he told commissioners.

Gjokaj said the development would be a $5 million to $6 million investment in the village that would help increase property values.

“I think it’s going to provide a lot of revenue for the village,” Gjokaj said. “I think it’s going to make everyone happy.”

Gjokaj noted it was his family that constructed the two-story commercial building on the north side of downtown’s Centennial Park. It contains the Ox Bar & Grill on the ground floor with medical offices above. The family still owns the building and restaurant.

“It’s one of the nicest buildings in Oxford,” he said. “We want to do that same building (on Dennison St.), but a residential version of it.”

“It’s going to be beautiful,” Gjokaj stressed. “It’ll be one of the nicest buildings in Oakland County. That I can assure you.”

To the residents who expressed opposition to the rezoning, Gjokaj noted, “As long as people are open to development, there’s a way for me to make everybody happy.”

But the surrounding residents saw things quite differently.

They expressed concern that such a development would increase the need for parking in an area that’s already at capacity during certain times.

They said their streets are packed with parked vehicles on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, when downtown’s restaurants and bars are at their busiest, and during special events such as the Lone Ranger celebration.

Curtis worries about the ability of emergency vehicles to travel on her street when both sides are so full of parked vehicles.

Skylis, who believes traffic on Hudson St. is already “horrible,” can “only see it getting worse” with such a large development.

James Hughes, who’s lived at 16 Dennison St. for 48 years, feared the proposed rezoning could allow for the construction of a parking structure.

Village Planner Chris Khorey, of the Northville-based McKenna Associates, said “a parking structure would be a possibility” under C-1 Transition as a special use, but if that was ever proposed, all the neighbors would be notified, there would be a public hearing and the planning commission would ultimately have the power to approve or deny it.

With regard to the residents’ parking concerns, Khorey noted, “I do want to make it clear that regardless of the zoning district, any development would have to provide its own parking.”

In other words, Gjokaj cannot construct his building without having adequate on-site parking available for its occupants.

Currently, the village zoning ordinance requires multi-family residential developments to provide 1.7 parking spaces per unit.

With 21 units, Gjokaj’s building would need 35.7 spaces.

But Gjokaj assured he will have enough parking to meet his needs and then some.

“We’ll have excess parking,” he said.

Gjokaj informed this reporter there would be 38 parking spaces.

Deborah Hottmann, who lives at 8 Hovey St., opposed the rezoning because she doesn’t want to see historic homes like 25 Dennison St., built in 1890, demolished because they help give the village its character.

“I want to preserve those homes here,” she said.

Some residents feared changing the zoning to C-1 Transition because it allows for such a diverse ranges of uses. Permitted uses in this zoning district include retail establishments, restaurants/bars, hotels, office space, medical facilities, personal service businesses, mixed use and residential uses, both multiple family and single family.

Sean Egan, who lives at 27 Dennison St., told commissioners he was “not thrilled” with the prospect of having such a broad zoning category directly across the street from his house.

“C-1 Transition just opens it up to so many possibilities and what am I going to be eating breakfast, lunch and dinner looking at because that is (the view from) my kitchen window,” he said.

Egan told commissioners had 21 and 25 Dennison St. been previously zoned C-1 Transition, “We wouldn’t have bought the house.”

Even though Gjokaj has publicly stated he wants to construct a multi-family residential building, some residents were concerned that could change.

Bruce McRae, who lives at 79 Dennison St., noted once the zoning changes to C-1 Transition, the developer is in “no way committed to that plan.”

Egan agreed.

“All plans can be scrapped,” he said.

John DuVal, who lives at 37 Dennison St. and used to serve as planning commission chairman, urged the village to not give up the high-degree of control it currently has over the potential development of 21 and 25 Dennison St. thanks to its conservative zoning.

Gjokaj said he needs C-1 Transition zoning because it will give him more “flexibility” with regard to setbacks.

Developer Chuck Schneider, who owns many commercial properties in the village, but lives in Hadley, spoke in favor of the need for more development in Oxford.

“In order for a community like ours to survive long-term, we have to have some development because it’s what we use to pay our police department, our (village) staff, our DPW, (for) plowing the streets, etc.,” he said. “It would be nice if we could just live in a little cocoon and never do anything, but the reality is that we won’t survive if that’s the case.”

Schneider told the audience there are “relatively few pieces of property” in the village that “lend themselves to redevelopment.”

“We’re a little community and there aren’t a lot of options,” he said.

In response to Schneider, DuVal noted that “to some extent,” the value of commercial properties is based on the value of the residential areas that “support” them.

“It is a key ingredient,” he said. “That is why property values have done quite well over the past few years.”

Despite the planning commission’s decision to not recommend the Dennison St. rezoning as part of the overall bundle of proposed changes, nothing prohibits Gjokaj from returning on his own with a rezoning request.

That’s exactly what he plans to do.

“We’re going to push through. We’re going to try to get this rezoning,” said Gjokaj, who noted when he returns with his request, he’s going to have more details and information to present in order to give people a better picture of what he’s proposing.

Khorey noted even if Gjokaj’s properties are rezoned, his proposed development would require site plan approval just like any other project and that’s where issues such as parking would be addressed.

“We are a long way from anything being built there,” the planner said.