Response to judge’s decision
This week, we learned of a judge’s decision on our appeal of the Township’s decision to forego an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and instead to accept the developer’s flawed Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW).
The judge's decision did not say that the township made the right decision regarding the EIS based on the facts and experts. The developer paid their “expert”, a petroleum geologist, to make statements about our great blue heron rookery. Meanwhile, Save The Rookery solicited actual great blue heron experts, and forest and ecology experts, to submit statements to the Township. The Township Board chose to listen to the developer’s “expert” rather than our experts.
The judge said that the judge’s decision was made more difficult by the reality that the facts could have supported ordering an EIS, or not ordering an EIS, depending on whose experts the township board listened to. The Township Board chose to listen to the developer's “expert” instead of our heron experts, and they choose overlook numerous public comments containing substantial evidence justifying the ordering of an EIS. The judge did not say this was the right thing to do, but said the Township Board has discretion in this decision and that the Township Board did not make a legal error.
We need a Township Board who will use its discretion to help their constituents. This upcoming preplat vote is their last chance to do the right thing, and find a solution that gives their very engaged and angry constituents something. Don't grant the variances (again a discretionary decision) so that a minimum, the two large lots at the end will remain a natural forest for wildlife.
Save The Rookery also has pending legal action to appeal the Township Board’s decision to approve the developer’s General Development Plan.
Photo by Rick Kollmeyer