| Robert White, 56187 Dequindre Rd., Rochester Hills, MI 48307. Mr. |
|
| White thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. He stated |
|
| that earlier this year, he and his wife became owners of 56187 Dequindre |
|
| Rd., one of the two parcels to the west that were adjacent to the subject |
|
| properties now under consideration for Rezoning to a higher density. His |
|
| neighbor’s house at 56495 Dequindre also shared the dedicated |
|
| easement - a long driveway - that traveled through the subject property |
|
| and which gave them access to Dequindre Rd. He noted that he was one |
|
| of the people who had submitted written comments to the |
|
| Commissioners. He said that he wished to speak about process; the |
|
| process they undertook before they purchased their home; the process |
|
| the City undertook in Rezoning the subject properties four years ago; and |
|
| the process which the potential developer was seemingly trying to |
|
| sidestep. They felt that they were very lucky to find their home. It was a |
|
| great home on a large lot, surrounded by similarly sized properties and |
|
| nestled among large, mature trees. Before they moved forward with their |
|
| purchase, they took a deliberate process of due diligence. That included |
|
| multiple conversations with the energy department and environmental |
|
| experts about the gas lines in the easement to the south of the property. |
|
| It included long discussions with the previous owners about maintaining |
|
| the natural pond and features on the property. It included a detailed land |
|
| records check to determine the nature of the easement, and it included |
|
| much examination of the Rochester Hills Planning Commission and City |
|
| Council records regarding the two vacant properties to the east (the |
|
| subject properties). He said that he personally visited the City’s Planning |
|
| Department in May of 2011 to determine the status of the Little Winkler |
|
| Estates development. He was told the City had not heard anything from |
|
| the applicant in a long time. The Staff confirmed that the Preliminary |
|
| Approval granted in November of 2006 had expired, since the developer |
|
| had never returned to seek Final Approval. He was also informed that the |
|
| properties had since been Rezoned from R-1 to RE, which meant that, |
|
| according to Staff, even if the developer wanted to, he could not come |
|
| back with the same plan. They comfortably moved ahead with their |
|
| purchase, given the knowledge that an agent of the City had told them |
|
| that there was no danger of the Little Winkler Estates plan being revived. |
|
