Jessica Mathews / news@whmi.com


After a three-and-a-half hour meeting Thursday night, the Genoa Township Planning Commission recommended denying a controversial rezoning request involving a parcel at the southeast intersection of Latson and Beck Roads.

Residents packed into Parker Middle School for a public hearing - where the meeting was held due to an expected capacity crowd.

There was an initial rezoning involving 193 acres near the Latson Road interchange in 2020 – which was started in 2019. That proposal involved a zoning change from Country Estates to 1.) Interchange Campus for 187 acres south of the railroad tracks and east and west of Latson Road and 2.) Interchange Commercial for 6 acres along Beck Road east of Latson Road. The Township held multiple public meetings regarding the proposed S. Latson PUD development - as well as various others associated with the Master Plan and the Zoning Text Update for the area.

The latest request was to expand the existing Interchange PUD for 129 acres of land generally along Latson and Beck Roads, between Crooked Lake Road and I-96.

The concept plan identified 9 acres along Beck Road as the commercial area and 120 acres south of the existing PUD as High-Tech/Light Industrial, Transitional Residential Area, and Accessory Residential Area. The intent of a proposed residential component was “to appeal to the employees of the technology uses and other workers in the Township, the growing needs for senior independent living, and younger residents”.

Further, the master plan designates the parcels that front on Latson Road, south of Sweet Road and north of Three Fires Elementary School, as either “Interchange Campus” or “Interchange Transition area” - there is no commercial designation for those parcels.

The request was petitioned by Developer Todd Wyett, who was in attendance with a team of representatives and engineers who detailed proposed revisions since an initial public hearing. A traffic study was also reviewed. Wyett did not speak at the meeting.

It was stated during the meeting that the plans generally met township standards.

Commission Vice Chair Eric Rauch made the official motions recommending denial to the township board – which would have any final say as the Planning Commission is a recommending body. The Commission voted to deny the rezoning application, the PUD amendment, an environmental impact assessment, and conceptual PUD plan.

Commission Chairman Chris Grajek was the lone vote in opposition to the rezoning application and PUD amendment.

Rauch told the audience they take everything very seriously and party of their role is to provide due process to all parties and review projects against zoning ordinance and the master plan. He stated he felt there were “significant reasons” to recommend denial to the township board – noting the majority property in consideration is outlined in the master plan as “future transition area”. He said evidence related to the master plan, and the goals and objectives established through that process. show it would not be appropriate to recommend approval of the rezoning.

Almost 50 people spoke during call to the public, some associated with “Coalition to Stop the Latson PUD”. A public statement read aloud during the meeting by members is attached that outlines their allegations. Co-Director Denise Pollicella told WHMI the Coalition is made up of "Genoa Township residents from all over Genoa Township, including from North Shore, Oak Pointe, Pine Creek Ridge, and several areas North of Grand River, including concerned citizens from other Livingston County communities, and we have over 500 members currently".

Not all of the information distributed by the group was said to be "entirely accurate" by the township, thus clarifications and a timeline were posted on the township website. That link is provided.

During the meeting, residents and Coalition members voiced a myriad of concerns that included: traffic, speed, increased commuter traffic and gridlock, strain on public safety and existing infrastructure, decreased property values, noise, light pollution, general congestion, and various environmental impacts.

Many expressed a desire to preserve the rural and natural character of the township, including green space, and said there was no evidence to support the uses.

There were regular outbursts and shouting during the meeting, as well as applause. Some who spoke lobbed threats at the Commission and township officials threatening to hold them accountable or remove them from office and accusing them of having conflicts of interest or being paid off – which was disputed.

A number who spoke also cited all of the empty businesses along Grand River and other vacant properties, saying the township needs to focus on those versus the proposed PUD. It should be noted the township reviews development projects once presented and is legally bound to do so.

The few people who did speak in support of the project were “booed” and interrupted by the audience, some of whom launched personal attacks and insults at them.

Those individuals commented that the campus interchange was no secret and things are changing, noting the prospect of good jobs and opportunities for young people to start careers. Other comments were made about positive growth and that the project was well thought out and offered an opportunity to move forward in a deliberate fashion.

One big theme from residents has been that the approvals granted in 2020 have expired because the Zoning Ordinance confers the right to proceed to final PUD site plan for a period not to exceed two years, which has passed.

The township disputes that and the issue will be litigated in Livingston County Circuit Court. Township Attorney Joe Seward said various arguments will be presented as to why - among those being zoning laws and that Wyett has made substantial investment and development in the property and constructed infrastructure that’s already in place. A hearing is scheduled in December.