A housing developer came to Oshtemo Township’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on Monday asking for something the board had never been asked to grant before. They left without it, but the conversation they sparked says as much about where the township is headed as the outcome itself.
The request came from Michigan Housing Partnership LLC, operating as Alan Edwin Homes, which wants to build approximately 51 single-family homes on three parcels along Stadium Drive in Oshtemo’s village center area. The properties total about nine acres. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum of ten.
That one-acre gap is why the developer was in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals rather than the Planning Commission, where a project like this would normally begin.
What’s a PUD, and why does the minimum size matter?
A Planned Unit Development, or PUD, is a zoning tool that lets developers propose a development that doesn’t fit neatly into the underlying zoning in exchange for going through a more intensive review process. The flexibility is real: a PUD can override the standard rules for lot size, setbacks, and density, as long as the development plan satisfies a set of criteria and gets approved through multiple layers of review.
Because that flexibility is significant, Oshtemo’s ordinance sets a 10-acre floor. You have to be big enough to justify the tool.
Alan Edwin Homes is proposing a mix of 2-, 3-, and 4-bedroom homes, some with rear-loaded garages, some front-loaded, some two stories, some ranches that start at a minimum of 1,000 square feet each. The concept plan presented to the board was admittedly early and preliminary. The developer was clear that the full design would go through engineering and staff review before ever reaching the Planning Commission for a formal public hearing.
But to get to that stage at all, they needed the ZBA to sign off on the size variance first.
The board’s dilemma
The board spent more than 40 minutes on this item, and the deliberations were genuinely divided.
One member articulated the case for approval: the ZBA’s job here is narrow. The question before them was whether a one-acre deviation from the minimum size warrants a variance and not whether the project is good. The Planning Commission and Township Board would still scrutinize the design in two separate future reviews. Denying the variance, in this reading, just adds a roadblock before the actual evaluation even begins.
Others weren’t comfortable with that reasoning. A PUD is different from a standard zoning request, they argued once a plan is approved, it effectively governs development in place of the underlying zoning. Granting a variance to get into that process without knowing much about the plan feels like giving a green light without knowing where the road goes.
The township’s zoning staff added a significant note to the record: they could find no prior case in Oshtemo Township where the ZBA had granted a variance from the minimum PUD development size. This decision, staff said, could be precedent-setting.
The timing problem
The twist is that the pressure to decide may have been premature.
Oshtemo Township’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan was adopted just last week. Its implementation is expected to include zoning ordinance amendments, potentially including a reduction in the minimum PUD size. Staff told the board that if those changes go through, a project like this one might not need a variance at all in a year or two.
That context cut both ways in the discussion. One member said it was a reason to wait. Another saw it differently: the project still needs to go through multiple reviews, and the planning process could address the outstanding design questions the board was worried about.
In the end, the more cautious view prevailed. A motion to approve failed. A subsequent motion to deny passed.
What happens next
The denial doesn’t permanently close the door. The developer could reapply if they acquire additional property to meet the 10-acre minimum, or wait for the ordinance amendments that may lower the threshold. The parcels which have been largely vacant since the last structures were demolished in 2021 aren’t going anywhere.
One resident who spoke during public comment put the underlying tension plainly. The property has been sitting empty for years. The former township planner talked about wanting more housing near the village center. A project that could deliver 51 homes is, on its face, the kind of thing the comprehensive plan is calling for.
The ZBA’s job isn’t to evaluate that. Their job was to evaluate whether one acre of missing acreage warranted a variance. They decided it didn’t, at least not yet, and not without more to look at.
The Stadium Drive PUD variance discussion covers roughly 40 minutes of the meeting.
