BEDFORD TOWNSHIP Monroe County, Michigan

Master Plan BEDFORD TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

Arvind Shah

Philip Koenigseker

Gregory Stewart

Thomas Covrett

Arnold Jennings

Thomas M. Zdybek

Norman Hinshaw

BEDFORD TOWNSHIP BOARD

R. LaMar Frederick, Supervisor

Robert Schockman, Clerk

Sherri S. Meyer, Treasurer

Medford Barr, Trustee

Joyce Hagen, Trustee

Arnold Jennings, Trustee

Dennis Steinman, Trustee

ASSISTED BY

Wade-Trim/Associates, Inc. 25251 Northline Road Taylor, Michigan

Dennis Jenkins, Coordinator Karen Kincaid, Recording Secretary TABLE OF CONTENTS

Township Organization, Regional Setting, and Access...... 3

Population ...... 12

Housing...... 22

Economic Base...... 30

Natural Resources ...... 36

Community Services and Facilities...... 40

Existing Land Use...... 52

Planning Projections and Parameters...... 60

Community Goals, Objectives, and Strategies...... 81

Future Land Use Plan...... 89

Implementation ...... 98 FIGURES, TABLES AND CHARTS

FIGURE NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.

1 Regional Setting 4 2 Accessways 5 3 Township Sections 7 4 Demographic Zones 21

MAP FOLLOWS NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.

1 Regional Analysis 11 2 Residential Density/Distribution 29 3 Natural Features 39 4 Community Services & Facilities 43 5 Transportation Analysis 51 6 Existing Land Use 59 7 Future Land Use 97

TABLE NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.

1 1980 to 2000 Population Trends 13 2 1990 to 2000 Age-Life Cycle 14 3 2000 Regional Age-Life Cycle 15 4 Persons Per Household 1970 - 2000 16 5 Comparative Persons/Household Trends and Projections 16 6 Household Type 17 7 1990 and 2000 Racial Composition 17 8 Racial Composition – Regional Basis 18 9 Per Capita Income 1979 and 1989 18 10 Regional Income Distribution in 1989 19 11 Estimate Household Income Distribution in 1998 19 12 Poverty Status 20 13 Educational Attainment for Persons 25 Years and Older 20 14 Population Distribution by Zone Years 1990 to 2020 21 15 1990 Type of Housing Structure 22 16 2000 Occupancy Tenure 23 17 1990 Year Structure Built (Housing Age) 24 18 Residential Building Permit Activity 25 19 1990 Housing Values (Owner Occupied Units) 27 20 1990 Mortgage as a Percentage of Household Income 28 21 1990 Rent as a Percentage of Household Income 29 22 SEV by Classification 30 23 SEV Multi-Year Trend 31 24 1990 Employment by Selected Occupation 32 25 1990 Employment by Selected Industry 33

Bedford Township Master Plan 1 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc TABLE NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.

26 1990 Place of Work 34 27 Employment Projections 35 28 Major Manufacturers 35 29 Soil Associations 37 30 Recreational Land Inventory 42 31 Road Condition Inventory 46 32 Existing Land Use 53 33 Residential Build-Out Analysis 59 34 Population Projections 60 35 Regional Population Projections 61 36 Estimated Housing Needs 2020 63 37 Estimated Affordable Housing Need 64 38 Location Criteria Used by Industry 65 39 Employment Density Ratios for Estimating Industrial Land Use 66 40 Land Use Ratios for Estimating Industrial Use 67 41 Population Ratios for Estimating Industrial Use 67 42 Regional Employment Projections 1990 to 2020 68 43 Characteristics of Planned Shopping Centers 74 44 Comparative Land Use Ratios 80 45 Future Land Use Distribution 90

Bedford Township Master Plan 2 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc TOWNSHIP ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL SETTING, AND ACCESS

Organization

Townships first came into existence in Michigan through the Northwest Ordinance passed in 1787. Townships are typically 36 square miles (six miles wide by six miles long) in area; however, the size of some townships may deviate from this standard (for instance Bedford Township is 39 miles).

According to Michigan Legislation, there are two forms of townships: General Law and Charter. A major distinction between a General Law Township and a Charter Township lies in their source of revenue and ability to levy taxes. General Law Townships are funded mainly through State Shared Revenues and do not have the ability to levy taxes without the vote of the people. Charter Townships do have the ability to levy taxes on their residents without a vote of the people. Bedford Township is a General Law Township. The ability of Bedford Township to offer services is tied into its ability to levy taxes to pay for these services, subject to voter approval. This regulation is why most services are furnished through Special Assessment with the homeowners in a specified area paying for the amenities they chose. For example, voters recently approved milage increases to pay for enhanced library and fire services. In contrast, the Township does not offer services such as street cleaning, refuse hauling, and sidewalk maintenance because voters have not approved tax milage increases to pay for these services.

An elected Township Board serves as the official governing body of Bedford Township. Township Board members are elected “at large” every four years. The Township Board consists of seven (7) officials: three (3) full-time officials including a Township Supervisor, Clerk, and Treasurer, and four (4) part-time Township Trustee officials. The Township Board establishes the policies that govern the Township and allocate resources necessary to carry out these policies. The Township Board meets regularly on a bi-weekly basis and schedules additional meetings as the need arises. In addition to these duties, the full-time Township Board officials are also responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Township.

In support of its regular operations, the Township has created a number of commissions, including the Planning Commission. As one of its many duties, the Planning Commission has oversight responsibility for the creation and maintenance of the Township Master Plan. In part, Michigan State statutes provide that the purpose of a Township Master Plan is: to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; to encourage the use of resources in accordance with their character and adaptability; and to consider the character of the Township and its suitability for particular uses judged in terms of such factors as trend in land and population development. The Township Master Plan includes narrative text, maps, charts, and graphic material that provide a basis for the Planning Commission’s recommendation(s) for the future development of the Township. The Township Master Plan is linked with the Township Zoning Ordinance. The Township Zoning Ordinance is the regulatory mechanism through which the usage of land is governed.

Bedford Township Master Plan 3 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Location

Bedford Township is located within Monroe County in southeastern Michigan (Figure 1). The Township borders on the following communities: West - Whiteford Township, North – Ida Township, East – Erie Township, and South – City of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio. Bedford Township is approximately 4.5 miles west of Lake Erie.

Bedford Township is located less than an one-hour drive from the Detroit-Ann Arbor metropolitan area, and is adjacent to the Toledo metropolitan area. Thus, residents enjoy the benefits of two large metropolitan cities while living in a somewhat rural environment.

Figure 1 Regional Setting

Bedford Township Master Plan 4 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Access

Roads

The primary means of north-south access is provided by US-23 which traverses outside the Township's western border within Whiteford Township and by US-24 (Telegraph Road) which crosses the southeast corner of the Township. Interstate 75 (I-75), which connects northern Michigan with southern Florida, runs along Lake Erie approximately three miles east of Bedford Township.

There are two major east-west arteries in the Township: M-151 that crosses the northern part of the Township and Sterns and Smith Roads which cross the southern portion of the Township.

Sterns and Smith Roads are especially heavily traveled due their proximity to access points for US-23 and I-75.

Interstate 94 passes approximately 30 miles to the north of the Township, and Interstate 80 (Ohio Turnpike), passes 10 miles to the south of Bedford Township.

Railroads

The Ann Arbor Railroad, which runs southeast to northwest, crosses the eastern half of the Township and maintains a spur in the Bedford Industrial Park. The C & O Railroad, which runs southwest to northeast, crosses the southeastern corner of the Township. Although it is not within Bedford Township, the DTI Railroad runs southwest to northeast.

Figure 2 Accessways

Bedford Township Master Plan 5 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Airports

A multitude of private and commercial airports are located within 60 miles of the Township's borders. Toledo Suburban Airport is located along the southwestern border of the Township, and the Toledo Express Airport is 15 miles further south. Detroit Metropolitan and Willow Run Airports are located within 30 miles to the north. Monroe Custer City Airport is located 10 miles to the northeast. In addition, there are several small, private airports within a 10 mile radius of the Township.

Port Facilities

Port facilities are available at Toledo, Monroe and Detroit for inter-lake and sea going service. The Port of Toledo is one of the largest inland port in North America and offers direct access to ports worldwide.

Bedford Township Master Plan 6 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Regional Planning Considerations

An important part of the planning process involves the research and analysis of the regional factors that impact the Township. In this document, the regional factors are limited to the planning policies established for land located within one mile from Bedford Township (Figure 1 Regional Setting). Land Use plans for Monroe County and a Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) transportation improvement program are also examined.

Bedford Township borders on the following communities: West - Whiteford Township, North – Ida Township, East – Erie Township, and South – City of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio (Figure 3 Township Sections).

Figure 3 Township Sections Ida

31 32 33 34 35 36

1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 Whiteford Bedford Erie 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

City of Toledo N Lucas County Ohio

Bedford Township Master Plan 7 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Whiteford Township

Whiteford Township borders Bedford Township to the west. Whiteford Township Sections (1, 12, 13, 24, 25, 36, and fractional Section 1) directly abut Bedford Township. Planned uses in Whiteford Township Sections (Sections 24 and 25) adjacent to Bedford Township call for a range of residential development in sections south of Consear Road. High density housing in the area (Section 25) is generally planned west of Whiteford Center Road, south of Clegg Road. High-density residential areas are intended to be developed at a density of 5.1 or more dwelling units per acre. Housing types may include single-family attached townhouses, apartments, condominiums, or mobile home parks.

South of the proposed high density residential area, in the extreme southeast portion of Whiteford Township (Section 36 and fractional Section 1), is land designated for medium density residential development. This classification calls for single-family housing units developed at a density of two to five dwelling units per acre. At this density, medium density housing should be located in areas served by public water and sanitary sewer facilities

A small node of local commercial is situated on the eastside of Whiteford Center Road, south of Clegg Road (Section 25). This area is intended to serve the needs of neighborhoods or the Township at large.

Low-density residential development is generally planned to occur in two areas along Bedford Townships western border. One area is found east of Whiteford Center Road, south of Consear Road (Sections 24 and 25). The second is located inside the area along Summerfield Road from St. Anthony’s to Samaria Roads (Sections 1 and 12). The development density for this area is recommended at 0.2 to 1.0 housing units per acre.

Properties north of Consear Road, with the exception of the tract of low density residential mentioned above, are planned for reserve agricultural use (Sections 1, 12, and 13). This classification is intended for land that provides a reasonable return for agricultural pursuits; however, potential drawbacks may be lot size and soil suitability.

Ida Township

Ida Township borders Bedford Township to the north. Ida Township Sections (31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36) directly abut Bedford Township. The planned land use pattern found in sections adjacent to Bedford Township to the north call for low-density residential development to occur in Sections 31, 32 and the western half of 33. The recommended density for this area is 1 to 2 acres per dwelling unit. This area is intended to promote large lot residential development with on-site septic and well systems.

Medium density residential is planned to develop northeast of the Lewis Avenue and Rauch Road intersection (Section 35). Lewis Avenue is considered to be a major collector and Rauch Road is classified as a minor collector. Without sanitary sewer, the recommended density for this area of about 160 acres is two dwelling units per acre. With sanitary sewer, the recommended density increases to five to six dwelling units per acre. This planned medium

Bedford Township Master Plan 8 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc density area offers the opportunity (with approved sanitary sewer service) for single-family residential development on 5,000 to 7,000 square foot lots, including mobile home parks or multiple-family residential.

One mile north, in the southwest corner of the Lewis Avenue and Morocco Road intersection, is land planned for commercial use (Section 34). The commercial category is described as improved land parcels used predominantly for wholesale, retail, office, or commercial services. Existing at this center is a gas station and banquet facility.

The remaining area (Section 34, 35, and 36), capturing a large number of parcels 40 acres or more, is planned for agricultural use. Residential development density inside agricultural areas is proposed at 1 unit per 20 acres. This density recommendation does not preclude parcel sizes of less than 20 acres; however, housing should remain a very minor land use element to prevent it from interfering with agriculture1

Erie Township

Erie Township borders Bedford Township to the east. Erie Township Sections (6, 7, 18, 19, 30, 31 and fractional Section 6 directly abut Bedford Township. Land planned for industrial uses within the concentration area is located in an approximately one-half mile wide diagonal strip between Telegraph Road and Dixie Highway (Section 30 and 31). A second industrial area, bound to the west by the Conrail Railroad, is situated in the southeast quarter of Fractional Section 6. This industrial classification includes businesses involved in the production, manufacture, or transformation of raw materials into a new product.

Commercial uses are proposed to develop at major intersections along Telegraph Road (Sections 19 and 30). In addition, a node of commercial development is planned for properties sited on the eastside of the Dixie Highway and Sterns Road intersection (Section 30 and 31). This commercial classification is defined as businesses involved in the sale of goods or services.

High-density residential development, with sewer service, is planned for the area east of Dixie Highway, south of Dean Road (Section 30 and 31). The proposed residential development for this area includes: single-family homes, duplexes, and multi-family housing in areas recommended for eventual sewer service. Minimum lot size of approximately 12,000 square feet is recommended.

Low-density residential development is generally planned to occur inside Section 6 and the east half of Section 7. Proposed for this area are single-family homes with a minimum lot size of approximately 20,000 square feet, generally located in subdivisions, and on rural estates in areas suitable for on-site sewage disposal.

Primary and secondary agricultural uses are planned for the remaining land area (Section 6, 7, 18, and 19). Primary agricultural includes the Township’s best farmland, recommended for permanent preservation as farmland. Secondary agricultural is viewed as important farmland, recommended for preservation, but could be considered for conversion to non-agricultural use in the event that no other suitable sites are available. These two classifications primarily cover

1 Ida Township Master Plan, pg. 42 Bedford Township Master Plan 9 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc properties between Minx Road and Telegraph Road, north of Dean Road. Recreational/Open Space Land use is planned for the southeastern corner of Section 31 and the western portion of fractional Section 6

Monroe County

The most recent master plan for the county is the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan – 1985 Update. The land use section of the comprehensive plan identifies land surrounding the Township to be primarily used for agricultural, residential, or rural reserve (a “catch-all” default category) uses.

Until the revisions to the county plan are complete, the more recent plans for the surrounding townships will serve as the primary reference for regional land use considerations.

Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments - Transportation Improvement Program

In the most recent Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) Transportation Improvement program (FY 1998-2000), there are no major improvements indicated within Bedford Township or a one mile vicinity.

A few minor improvements are scheduled including Douglas Road (base repair, shoulder widening, and resurfacing); Smith Road (widening and base repair, resurfacing, drainage and bituminous paving); and Jackman Road (widen base, shoulder improvements, and resurfacing).

The City of Toledo, Ohio

The City of Toledo is presently engaged in updating a 50 year old Comprehensive Plan with professional consulting assistance. A preliminary future land use plan has been prepared for neighborhoods in Council Districts 1 through 6 (Council Districts 5 and 6 abut Bedford Township). These districts are outside Bedford Township’s area of influence and are not examined; however, zoning districts in place north of Alexis Road (State Highway 184) are examined for their impact on land development inside Bedford Township.

The City of Toledo, Ohio borders Bedford Township to the south (Figure1 Regional Setting). Moving from east to west, several areas adjoin Bedford Township: North Towne Square Mall, Greenwood Shopping Mall and Northridge Plaza, Greenwood Park, Tamaron County Club, Meadowvale School, and Worship Center.

North Towne Square Mall Area

Telegraph Road and the Conrail Rail Road outline this area (south of Bedford Township fractional Section 1). This area contains the North Towne Square Mall, zoned as Shopping Center Commercial. Wrapped in this manufacturing/shopping area is a residential zone for one and two-family dwelling units on minimum lot sizes of 4,800 and 2,400 square feet, respectively.

Bedford Township Master Plan 10 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Greenwood Shopping Mall and Northridge Plaza Area

Lewis Road and Telegraph Road define this area (south of Bedford Township fractional Section 2). Northwest of the Telegraph Road and Alexis Road intersection are two more shopping centers, Consumer Square and Northridge Plaza. The northern frontage of Alexis Road carries segments of commercially zoned properties. A residential subdivision lies inside this general area within a residential zone requiring a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet per unit. Northwood School located just north of Fleming Drive, serves neighborhood children. Greenwood Mall Shopping Center is situated on the northeast corner of Alexis Road and Lewis Road.

Greenwood Park Area

Jackman and Lewis Roads delineate this area (south of Bedford Township fractional Section 3). Greenwood Park (zoned Parks) is located in a linear strip between Jackman Road and Lewis Road. Within this area are neighborhoods designated for one- and two-family residential development. Commercial/office zones are found at corner intersections.

Tamaron Country Club Area

Douglas and Jackman Roads circumscribe this area (south of Bedford Township fractional Section 4). Residential subdivisions zoned for a range of densities surround the Tamaron Country Club

Meadowvale School Area

Secor and Douglas Roads outline this area (south of Bedford Township fractional Section 5). This area is primarily zoned for single-family residential use. Subdivisions, centered around Meadowvale School, are found on minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet per dwelling. Properties fronting Alexis Road are zoned for commercial purposes. Sited on the northwest corner of the Douglas Road and Alexis Road intersection is the Douglas Plaza Shopping Center.

Worship Center Area

This area resides west of Secor Road (south of Bedford Township fractional Section 6). Four churches are located within this area stretching from Secor Road to Clover Lane Road: Trilby United Methodist Church, Calvary Bible Chapel, Assembly of Christians Church, and Westwood Baptist Church. Properties within this area are largely zoned for single-family residential use. Varying commercial zoning districts continue to follow along Alexis Road and every mile at major intersections.

Bedford Township Master Plan 11 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc she2„y‡xƒrs€ fedford2„ownship wonroe2gountyD2wi™hig—n ‚—u™h2‚d

sd—2„ownship egri™ultur—l vow2hensity2‚esidenti—l wedium2hensity2‚esidenti—l gommer™i—l edler2‚o—d irie2„ownship ƒ—m—ri—2‚o—d vewis2evenue €rim—ry2egri™ultur—l

gr—˜˜2‚o—d ƒe™ond—ry2egri™ultur—l vow2hensity2‚esidenti—l righ2hensity2‚esidenti—l2@ƒeweredA gommer™i—l sndustri—l

i‚si2„y‡xƒrs€ ‚e™er—tion282ypen2ƒp—™e

winx2‚o—d ‡rs„ipy‚h2„y‡xƒrs€ irie2‚o—d gity2of2„oledo hougl—s2‚o—d ƒingle2p—mily2‚esidenti—l

ƒe™or2‚o—d wultiple2p—mily2‚esidenti—l gommer™i—l sndustri—l €—rks ‡hiteford2„ownship ‚eserve2egri™ultur—l „emper—n™e2‚o—d

t—™km—n2‚o—d vow2hensity2‚esidenti—l wedium2hensity2‚esidenti—l righ2hensity2‚esidenti—l ƒu˜st—tion2‚o—d vo™—l2gommer™i—l ƒummerfield2‚o—d gonse—r2‚o—d ‚e™re—tionGypen2ƒp—™e „r—nsport—tion

he—n2‚o—d

wonroe2‚o—d ƒterns2‚o—d

‡hiteford2‚o—d

„elegr—ph2‚o—d v—voy2‚o—d x w—p2I ƒmith2‚o—d

‡ i ‚egion—l2en—lysis ƒt—teline2‚o—d wonroe2goF2wi™hig—n ƒ gity2of2„oledoD2vu™—s2goF2yhio QSHH H QSHH UHHH peet ‡—deE„rim

w—r™hD2PHHP POPULATION

The purpose of this chapter is to document characteristics of Bedford Township’s residents, including current and historical population patterns, age distribution, household make-up, housing characteristics, income, education and employment statistics. Where appropriate, this data is compared to Monroe County, State of Michigan, Lucas County (Ohio), and Toledo (Ohio) Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) demographics. Past trends, current characteristics, and future projections are all-important elements in projecting future land use and facility needs.

Population Change

Data in Table 1 indicates the U.S. Census population count of Bedford Township and its surrounding communities for the years 1980, 1990 and 2000. Table 1 also reflects population data of Monroe County, Lucas County (Ohio) and the State of Michigan, and numeric and percentage change in population for those communities and counties listed.

For the 20-year period between 1980 and 2000, the rate of population growth of Monroe County surpassed that of the State by 1.1 percent. The growth rate in the County varied widely from – 6.2 percent and 46.6 percent. Bedford Township had a 24.9 percent increase during the period. Three areas of the County recorded a population decline with the City of Monroe showing the largest decline (-6.2 percent).

Bedford Township is the largest populated township in Monroe County, and has a slightly larger number of residents than the City of Monroe. It experienced a population growth of 24.9 percent for the 20-year period. However, in absolute figures, the Township had the largest population increase of communities listed in Table 1 for this period, growing by 5,704 persons. Much of this growth occurred in the southeast portion of the Township, which represented nearly 73.5 percent of the Township’s total population increase. Between 1990 and 2000, Dundee Village had the fastest rate of population growth, when compared to neighboring villages and cities. Its rate of growth was 42.5 percent while other communities as Petersburg City, City of Monroe, and Luna Pier had growth/decline rates of –5.2 percent, -3.6 percent, and -1.6 percent, respectively. At a county level, Monroe County grew in population by 9.2 percent between 1990 and 2000 but only grew 8.4 percent for the 20-year period, 1980-2000.

Based on the 1990 US Census population count, Bedford Township, as listed in Table 1, experienced population increases from 1990 to 2000.

Bedford Township Master Plan 12 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 1 1980 to 2000 Population Trends Change Change Change 1980-1990 1990-2000 1980-2000 Place 1980 1990 No. % 2000 No. % No. % Bedford Township 22,902 23,748 846 3.7% 28,606 4,858 20.5% 5,704 24.9% Dundee Twp. 5,395 5,376 (19) -0.4% 6,341 965 18.0% 946 17.5% Dundee Village 2,575 2,472 (103) -4.0% 3522 1,050 42.5% 947 36.8%

Erie Twp. 4,576 4,492 (84) -1.8% 4,850 358 8.0% 274 6.0% Ida Twp. 4,467 4,554 87 1.9% 4,949 395 8.7% 482 10.8%

LaSalle Twp. 5,011 4,985 (26) -0.5% 5,001 16 0.3% (10) -0.2% Luna Pier, city 1,443 1,507 64 4.4% 1,483 (24) -1.6% 40 2.8%

Monroe Twp. 11,654 9,351 (2,303) -19.8% 13,491 4,140 44.3% 1,837 15.8% Monroe, city 23,531 22,902 (629) -2.7% 22,076 (826) -3.6% (1,455) -6.2% Petersburg, city 1,222 1,221 (1) -0.1% 1,157 (64) -5.2% (65) -5.3% Raisinville Twp. 4,797 4,634 (163) -3.4% 4,896 262 5.7% 99 2.1% Monroe County 134,659 133,600 (1,059) -0.8% 145,945 12,345 9.2% 11,286 8.4% Michigan 9,262,078 9,295,297 33,219 0.4% 9,938,444 643,147 6.9% 676,366 7.3%

Toledo, city 354,635 332,943 (21,692) -6.1% 303,215 (29,728) -8.9% (51,420) -14.5% Lucas County 471,741 462,361 (9,380) -2.0% 455,054 (7,307) -1.6% (16,687) -3.5% *Census data not published for Temperance Village CDP in 1980 Source: 1980, 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.

Bedford Township Master Plan 13 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Characteristics

Age Composition

In addition to the actual number of people, the characteristics of the population are important to determine both the Township's developmental potential and future needs. An important characteristic is age composition. As people progress through life, they pass through stages of life that generally correspond to their age levels. Demographers and policy makers use life cycle analysis to anticipate future changes in things such as consumption, housing, medical care, education and recreation. In this analysis, six life-cycles are defined: Preschool (0-4 years); School (5-19 years); Family Formation (20-44 years); Empty nest (45-64 years); Senior (65-74 years); and Elderly (75+ years).

In general, the population described by age-life cycle is illustrative of a maturing Township (Table 2). As Township children pass through the school age years, they are not being replaced in equal numbers in the younger age groups. Persons of family formation age are having fewer children, though there has been an overall increase in the proportion of people living in the Township who represent the family forming age group. These changes in age composition will need to be reflected in future decisions regarding the provision of schools, parks, senior housing and other age dependent community facilities.

Table 2 Bedford Township 1990 and 2000 Age-Life Cycle Change 1990 2000 1990-2000 Age Group No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Preschool (0-4 yrs.) 1,835 7.7% 1,753 6.1% (82) -4.5% School (5-19 yrs) 5,736 24.2% 6,988 24.4% 1,252 21.8% Family formation (20-44 yrs) 9,232 38.9% 9,522 33.2% 290 3.1% Empty nest (45-64 yrs) 4,860 20.5% 7,229 25.4% 2,369 48.7% Seniors (65-74 yrs) 1,326 5.6% 1,797 6.3% 471 35.5% Elderly (75+ yrs) 759 3.2% 1,317 4.6% 558 73.5% Total 23,748 100.0% 28,606 100.0% 4,858 20.5% Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census

Bedford Township Master Plan 14 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc From a regional perspective, the distribution of population according to age-life cycle classifications is fairly consistent (Table 3). The amount of persons in each age-life cycle classification is within 3% or less for the four areas. The largest amount of persons fall within the 20 – 44 years of age range. Over 80% of the total population is distributed between the ages of 5 to 64.

Table 3 2000 Regional Age-Life Cycle Bedford Township Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Years Persons % Persons % Persons % Persons % 0 - 4 1,753 6.1% 9,683 6.6% 31,180 6.9% 41,264 6.7% 5 – 19 6,988 24.4% 34,167 23.4% 101,390 22.3% 140,026 22.7% 20 – 44 9,522 33.3% 51,506 35.3% 164,206 36.1% 224,691 36.3% 45 – 64 7,229 25.3% 34,367 23.5% 98,837 21.7% 134,094 21.7% 65 – 74 1,797 6.3% 9,019 6.2% 30,381 6.7% 40,061 6.5% 75 + 1,317 4.6% 7,203 4.9% 29,060 6.4% 38,067 6.2% Total 28,606 145,945 455,054 618,203 Source: 2000 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Household Size

A relatively recent phenomenon, characteristic of today's population, is one of the declining household size as measured by the number of persons per household. As a result, it has not been uncommon for communities to register a net increase in the housing supply while simultaneously recording a population loss. This trend has evolved to a large extent, due to the declining size of families. People are marrying at a later age than a generation ago, postponing having children, and having fewer children when they do start a family. Married couple families still comprise the largest group of households, but the number of single parent (male or female) headed households is increasing and expected to grow, contributing to the decline in average household size. Finally, as the baby boom generation ages, they will swell the ranks of single-person, non- family households.

The average number of persons per household in Bedford Township and the surrounding communities (1970 through 2000) is presented in Table 4. As average household size has been declining in the county, state and nation, Monroe County continues to have the largest median household size in the region. The number of persons per household in the Township reflects a suburban, single-family residential community.

Bedford Township Master Plan 15 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 4 Persons per Household 1970 – 2000 1970 1980 1990 2000 Place Number Number % Chg. Number % Chg. Number % Chg. Bedford Township 3.70 3.21 -13.2% 2.94 -8.4% 2.76 -6.1% Whiteford Township 3.78 3.17 -16.1% 2.91 -8.2% 2.77 -4.8% Ida Township 3.82 2.42 -36.6% 3.15 30.2% 3.03 -3.8% Erie Township 3.54 3.15 -11.0% 2.94 -6.7% 2.71 -7.8% Frenchtown Township 3.62 3.01 -16.9% 2.74 -9.0% 2.65 -3.3% Monroe Township 3.37 2.78 -17.5% 2.64 -5.0% 2.50 -5.3% City of Monroe 3.20 2.81 -12.2% 2.62 -6.8% 2.47 -5.7% Monroe County 3.51 3.09 -12.0% 2.84 -8.1% 2.69 -5.3% Sources: 1970– 2000 US Census Bureau Analysis by: Wade-Trim

From a regional perspective, both Bedford Township and Monroe County have slightly higher numbers of persons per households than Lucas County and the Toledo MSA (Table 5). This trend is projected to continue to the year 2020.

Table 5 Comparative Persons Per Household Trends and Projections Place 1990 2000 Number % Change 2020 2030 Bedford Township 2.94 2.76 -0.18 -6.5% 2.48 2.34 Monroe County 2.84 2.69 -0.15 -5.6% 2.42 2.32 Lucas County 2.55 2.44 -0.11 -4.5% 2.43 - Toledo MSA 2.58 2.47 -0.11 -4.5% 2.47 - Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census SEMCOG 2030 Regional Development Forecast Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 1998 Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Family Composition

Declining household size is a demographic trend related to changes in family composition. Specifically, families are having fewer children and an increasing number of families have single parents as the head of the household. Looking into the future, these changes in family composition are likely to continue. As the baby boom generation ages, the number of single- person households is likely to increase due to the death of spouses, further depressing household size.

Bedford Township Master Plan 16 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc The predominant form of household type is the married couple family (Table 6). This type of household is more prevalent in Bedford Township and Monroe County than in Lucas County and the Toledo MSA.

Table 6 Household Type Bedford Monroe Lucas County Toledo MSA Township County Person Household Type Persons % % Persons % Persons % s Family households (families) 8,083 78.3% 39,933 74.3 116,330 63.6 157,718 64.8 With own children under 18 3,929 38.0% 19,349 36.0 56,921 31.1 77,106 31.7 years Married-couple family 6,863 66.5% 32,241 60.0 81,807 44.7 115,922 47.6 With own children under 18 3,248 31.5% 14,902 27.7 35,798 19.6 51,460 21.1 years Female householder, no 867 8.4% 5,426 10.1 26,838 14.7 31,972 13.1 husband present With own children under 18 480 4.6% 3,190 5.9 17,002 9.3 20,245 8.3 years Nonfamily households 2,244 21.7% 13,839 25.7 66,517 36.4 85,781 35.2 Householder living alone 1,895 18.3% 11,665 21.7 55,074 30.1 69,992 28.7 Householder 65 years and over 824 8.0% 4,565 8.5 19,212 10.5 24,780 10.2 Total Households 10,327 53,772 243,499 Source: 2000 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Race and Ethnicity

Demographic studies and projections indicate that the nation’s ethnic and racial population is becoming increasingly diverse. Historically, Bedford Township has been a homogeneous community (Table 7). From 1990 to 2000, the largest increase for a particular segment in racial background has been the category Other (some other race, two or more races).

Table 7 1990 and 2000 Racial Composition Bedford Township 1990 2000 Change 1990 - 2000 Race Number % Number % Number % White 23,462 98.8% 27,907 97.6% 4,445 18.9% Black 42 0.2% 114 0.4% 72 171.4% Amer. Indian, Eskimo, Aleut 50 0.2% 56 0.2% 6 12.0% Asian/Pacific Islander 105 0.4% 149 0.5% 44 41.9% Other 89 0.4% 380 1.3% 291 327.0% Total 23,748 100.0% 28,606 100.0% 4,858 20.5% Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census

Although there is a slight increase in racial and ethnic diversity in Lucas County and the Toledo MSA, the region generally shares the homogeneous character exhibited in Bedford Township (Table 8).

Bedford Township Master Plan 17 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 8 Racial Composition – Regional Basis Bedford Township Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Race Persons % Persons % Persons % Persons % White 27,907 97.6% 139,264 95.4% 352,678 77.5% 507,734 82.1% Black 114 0.4% 2,766 1.9% 77,268 17.0% 78,911 12.8% Amer. Indian, Eskimo, Aleut 56 0.2% 405 0.3% 1,179 0.3% 1,563 0.3% Asian/Pacific Islander 149 0.5% 692 0.5% 5,619 1.2% 7,074 1.1% Other Race 380 1.3% 2,818 1.9% 18,310 4.0% 22,921 3.7% Total 28,606 100.0% 145,945 100.0% 455,054 100.0% 618,203 100.0% Source: 2000 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Income

An important determinant of a community’s viability and ability to support future commercial, residential, and industrial growth is the income of its residents. Households are the basic consumer unit and supplier of labor to potential businesses. Households are considered the standard ‘consumption’ unit for long-range planning. Median household income (that level at which half of all households earn more and half of all households earn less) is a broad measure of relative economic health of a community’s populace.

Township per capita income is higher than countywide per capita income (Table 9). Statistics from 1979 and 1989 show that Bedford Township's per capita income has been consistently the highest in the county.

Table 9 Per Capita Income 1979 and 1989 Place 1979 1989 $ Change % Change Bedford Township $7,956 $15,456 $7,500 94.27 Monroe County $7,356 $13,893 $6,537 88.87 Whiteford Township $7,239 $14,119 $6,880 95.04 Ida Township $7,090 $14,003 $6,913 97.50 Erie Township $7,307 $13,746 $6,439 88.12 Frenchtown Township $7,180 $12,887 $5,707 79.48 Monroe Township $7,340 $13,277 $5,937 80.89 City of Monroe $7,350 $13,146 $5,796 78.86 Source: 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 18 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Regionally, the median household income and median family income is higher in Bedford Township than Monroe County, Lucas County, and the Toledo MSA (Table 10). Over 50 percent of the households in Bedford Township earned between $25,000 and $74,999. According to 1998 Estimates of Household Income Distribution for the region, over half (56.06%) of the households in Monroe County will earn between $30,000 and $74,999 (see Table 11). The distribution is lower in Lucas County and the Toledo MSA.

Table 10 Regional Household Income Distribution in 1989 Bedford Township Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Household Income Persons % Persons % Persons % Persons % < $5,000 94 1.17% 1,587 3.41% 14,593 8.22% 16,932 7.34% $5,000 - $9,999 464 5.79% 3,940 8.47% 18,131 10.22% 22,375 9.70% $10,000 - $14,999 462 5.77% 3,444 7.40% 15,545 8.76% 19,908 8.63% $15,000 - $24,999 1,002 12.51% 6,888 14.81% 30,900 17.41% 40,279 17.46% $25,000 - $34,999 1,252 15.63% 7,088 15.24% 27,313 15.39% 36,768 15.94% $35,000 - $49,999 1,876 23.42% 9,742 20.94% 32,211 18.15% 43,226 18.74% $50,000 - $74,999 2,012 25.12% 9,739 20.93% 25,547 14.39% 33,793 14.65% $75,000 - $99,999 528 6.59% 2,770 5.95% 7,351 4.14% 9,633 4.18% $100,000 - $149,999 209 2.61% 957 2.06% 3,531 1.99% 4,817 2.09% $150,000 + 110 1.37% 366 0.79% 2,356 1.33% 2,990 1.30% Total 8,009 100.00% 46,521 100.00% 177,478 100.00% 230,721 100.00% Median Household Income $40,982 $35,462 $28,245 $29,121 Median Family Income $44,185 $40,532 $35,130 $35,775 Source: 1990 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Table 11 Estimated Household (HH) Income Distribution in 1998 Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Household Income (HHI) # of HH % # of HH % # of HH % < $10,000 4,670 9.31% 27,140 15.32% 33,050 14.05% $10,000 - $19,999 5,860 11.68% 25,760 14.54% 33,990 14.45% $20,000 - $29,999 5,830 11.62% 24,670 13.93% 32,980 14.02% $30,000 - $39,999 5,970 11.90% 27,990 15.80% 37,920 16.12% $40,000 - $49,999 8,610 17.16% 24,710 13.95% 33,800 14.37% $50,000 - $59,999 6,900 13.75% 16,420 9.27% 22,690 9.65% $60,000 - $74,999 6,650 13.25% 14,440 8.15% 19,230 8.17% $75,000 - $94,999 3,850 7.67% 8,880 5.01% 11,920 5.07% $100,000 - $124,999 1,000 1.99% 2,970 1.68% 4,070 1.73% $125,000 - $149,999 330 0.66% 1,300 0.73% 1,900 0.81% $150,000 + 510 1.02% 2,850 1.61% 3,690 1.57% Total 50,180 100.00% 177,130 100.00% 235,240 100.00% Source: 1998 Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. State Profiles Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 19 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Poverty Status

Where household income is an indicator of viability and ability to support future growth, poverty status indicates potential deficits and need for services within a community. The need for social services is in direct proportion to poverty levels. Comparison of poverty status and the various household income factors begins to clarify the economic pulse for a community. Poverty levels for individual persons (4.24%) and families (3.46%) are relatively low in Bedford Township (Table 12). Poverty levels are almost twice as high in Monroe County and significantly higher in Lucas County and the Toledo MSA.

Table 12 Poverty Status Bedford Township Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Poverty Status Number % Number % Number % Number % Persons above Poverty Level 22,648 95.76% 120,854 91.36% 384,977 84.73% 514,104 86.13% Persons below Poverty Level 1,004 4.24% 11,429 8.64% 69,374 15.27% 82,795 13.87% Total 23,652 100.00% 132,283 100.00% 454,351 100.00% 596,899 100.00% Families above Poverty Level 6,411 96.54% 33,888 93.07% 106,030 87.95% 142,399 89.68% Families below Poverty Level 230 3.46% 2,524 6.93% 14,522 12.05% 16,392 10.32% Total 6,641 100.00% 36,412 100.00% 120,552 100.00% 158,791 100.00% Source: 1990 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Educational Attainment

Education is an important factor in analyzing the capabilities of the local workforce of the community. In 1990, a majority of the Bedford Township population had completed a high school education (34.91%). While 18.49% had less than four years of high school, another 41.75% had completed between 1 and 4 years of college. The educational attainment levels in Bedford Township are higher than those found in Monroe County, Lucas County, and the Toledo MSA.

Table 13 Educational Attainment for Persons 25 Years and Older Bedford Township Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Education Level Persons % Persons % Persons % Persons % Not a High School Graduate 2,736 18.49% 21,323 25.91% 68,913 23.77% 84,499 22.36% High School Graduate 5,166 34.91% 30,252 36.76% 96,747 33.37% 131,854 34.89% Some College/Assoc. Degree 4,709 31.83% 22,061 26.81% 74,912 25.83% 95,645 25.31% Bachelor's Degree 1,468 9.92% 5,359 6.51% 31,978 11.03% 42,317 11.20% Graduate/Professional Degree 717 4.85% 3,296 4.01% 17,415 6.01% 23,548 6.23% Total 14,796 100.00% 82,291 100.00% 289,965 100.00% 377,863 100.00% Source: 1990 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 20 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Population/Household Distribution

In the SEMCOG Draft 2020 Regional Development Forecast, Bedford Township was divided into seven demographic zones (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 Bedford Township – Demographic Zones

Rauch Road

Samaria Road 1 2 3 Erie Road Secor Road Temperance Road Minx Road Adler Road Crabb Road Lewis Ave

Douglas Road Dean Road 4 5 7 Sterns Road 6

Source: SEMCOG Draft 2020 Regional Development Forecast Prepared by: Wade-Trim

According to SEMCOG projections, the greatest concentration of population will occur in the southern portion of the Township (zones 4, 5, 6, and 7). Collectively, these zones are projected to contain over 78% of the total population for the Township in 2020 (see Table 14 below).

Table 14 Bedford Township Population Distribution by Zone – Years 1990 to 2020 Zone 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1 2,246 2,368 2,492 2,582 2,681 2,790 2,888 2 1,856 1,991 2,088 2,170 2,253 2,357 2,448 3 1,474 1,612 1,734 1,807 1,858 1,911 1,951 4 7,438 7,815 8,146 8,406 8,678 9,010 9,307 5 4,617 5,086 5,413 5,675 5,917 6,191 6,417 6 2,812 3,636 4,228 4,780 5,287 5,825 6,272 7 3,305 3,721 4,005 4,260 4,511 4,792 5,034 Source: SEMCOG Draft 2020 Regional Development Forecast

Bedford Township Master Plan 21 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc HOUSING

An analysis of the Township’s housing stock by type, age, value, tenure and other characteristics is essential in determining the type of new housing which should be built in the Township. To a large extent, it is the characteristics of the existing structures that will determine what can be built and marketed in the future.

Housing Units/Structures

According to 1990 U.S. Census data, the predominant form of residential structure in Bedford Township is the single-family detached unit which accounts for 87.46% of the total housing stock (see Table 15). The single-family detached unit is also the predominant form of residential structure for Monroe County, Lucas County, and the Toledo MSA.

Table 15 1990 Type of Housing Structure Bedford Township Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Type of Structure # of Units % # of Units % # of Units % # of Units % 1 unit, detached 7,206 87.46% 36,559 75.67% 123,631 64.60% 161,655 65.38% 1 unit, attached 85 1.03% 625 1.29% 5,607 2.93% 6,750 2.73% 2 units 138 1.67% 1,764 3.65% 13,564 7.09% 15,571 6.30% 3 - 4 units 58 0.70% 1,065 2.20% 7,965 4.16% 9,812 3.97% 5 - 9 units 125 1.52% 1,295 2.68% 9,133 4.77% 11,698 4.73% 10 - 19 units 10 0.12% 1,071 2.22% 11,829 6.18% 14,182 5.74% 20 - 49 units 125 1.52% 786 1.63% 7,664 4.00% 9,205 3.72% 50 or more units 0 0.00% 905 1.87% 4,735 2.47% 4,868 1.97% Mobile home or trailer 426 5.17% 3,753 7.77% 5,586 2.92% 11,361 4.60% Other 66 0.80% 489 1.01% 1,674 0.87% 2,141 0.87%

Total 8,239 100.00% 48,312 100.00% 191,388 100.00% 247,243 100.00%

Source: 1990 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 22 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Tenure

In 1990, Bedford Township had a homeownership rate of 86.30% (see Table 16). This rate exceeded homeownership rates in Monroe County, Lucas County, and the Toledo MSA. Vacancies were extremely low in Bedford Township (2.20%) and Monroe County (3.73%). Although higher than their Michigan counterparts, vacancies in Lucas County (7.26%) and the Toledo MSA (6.70%) were modest.

Table 16 2000 Occupancy Tenure Bedford Township Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Occupancy Tenure # of Units % # of Units % # of Units % # of Units % Occupied Housing Units 10,327 96.9% 53,772 95.2% 182,847 93.2% 243,499 93.7% Owner Occupied 9,180 - 43,536 - 119,462 - 163,837 - Renter Occupied 1,147 - 10,236 - 63,355 - 79,662 - Vacant 332 3.1% 2,699 4.8% 13,412 6.8% 16,460 6.3%

Total Housing Units 8,239 100.00% 48,312 100.00% 191,388 100.00% 247,243 100.00%

Source: 2000 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 23 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Age of Structure

According to 1990 census data, a majority of housing units in Bedford Township (60.1%) were built during or after 1960 (a 30 year threshold) and less than 20% of the housing units had exceeded a 50 year functional life span (see Table 17). Housing units were somewhat older in Monroe County and noticeably older in Lucas County and the Toledo MSA.

Table 17 1990 Year Structure Built (Housing Age) Bedford Township Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA # of Units % # of Units % # of Units % # of Units % Occupied Housing Units 1989 – March 1990 341 4.14% 1,176 2.43% 2,524 1.32% 3,607 1.46% 1985 - 1988 591 7.17% 2,491 5.16% 8,120 4.24% 11,868 4.80% 1980 - 1984 513 6.23% 2,527 5.23% 10,372 5.42% 14,362 5.81% 1970 - 1979 1,560 18.93% 10,937 22.64% 30,606 15.99% 44,816 18.12% 1960 - 1969 1,947 23.63% 7,041 14.57% 28,521 14.90% 36,689 14.84% 1950 - 1959 1,681 20.40% 8,007 16.57% 32,349 16.90% 39,489 15.97% 1940 - 1949 572 6.94% 4,900 10.14% 22,854 11.94% 26,076 10.55% 1939 or earlier 1,034 12.55% 11,233 23.25% 56,042 29.28% 70,366 28.46% Sub-total A 8,239 100.00% 48,312 100.00% 191,388 100.00% 247,273 100.00%

Vacant Housing Units 1989 – March 1990 38 20.99% 179 9.92% 464 3.34% 640 3.86% 1985 - 1988 8 4.42% 122 6.76% 733 5.28% 929 5.61% 1980 - 1984 15 8.29% 98 5.43% 560 4.03% 776 4.69% 1970 - 1979 20 11.05% 276 15.30% 2,055 14.80% 2,726 16.46% 1960 - 1969 19 10.50% 159 8.81% 1,673 12.05% 2,064 12.46% 1950 - 1959 31 17.13% 212 11.75% 1,362 9.81% 1,568 9.47% 1940 - 1949 16 8.84% 222 12.31% 1,451 10.45% 1,552 9.37% 1939 or earlier 34 18.78% 536 29.71% 5,590 40.25% 6,307 38.08% Sub-total B 181 100.00% 1,804 100.00% 13,888 100.00% 16,562 100.00%

Total C = A + B 8,420 50,116 205,276 263,835

Source: 1990 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 24 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Building Activity

Between 1960 and 1989, Bedford Township issued over 1,600 building permits. This trend represents the highest level of building permit issuance in Monroe County over that time period. Bedford Township issued 31.7% of the residential building permits issued, in Monroe County, over the past decade. In 1989, Bedford led in the area of single-family home construction with 143 permits issued. Approximately 29 percent of all new single-family homes built in Monroe County were constructed within Bedford Township. Five of the 11, two-family units constructed in Monroe County in 1989 were built in Bedford Township, and the only multiple-family unit was constructed in the Township.

In addition to new construction permits, the Township has issued a significant number of improvement permits in 1989. Almost 11 percent (272 permits) of the County's total number of permits were issued in Bedford Township.

Residential building permit activity over the past ten years has been increasing (see Table 18). The last six years have included a boom in permit activity. 1995 has seen the greatest amount of building permit activity (361).

Table 18 Residential Building Permit Activity - Bedford Township 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Construction Single-family 147 135 138 145 228 242 198 203 247 193 196 Two Family 8 0 0 4 2 20 0 22 0 4 1 Multi-family 12 0 16 8 16 99 0 69 32 0 0 Construction Sub-Total 167 135 154 157 246 361 198 294 279 197 197

Demolitions1 Single-family ------3 5 2 0 10 4 Two Family ------0 0 0 0 0 0 Multi-family ------0 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition Sub-total 5 4 6 4 3 3 5 2 0 10 4

Net Total 162 131 148 153 243 358 193 292 279 187 193 1 Demolition data by type of residence for 1990-1994 was not available Source: Bedford Township Building Department Analysis by : Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 25 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Housing Affordability

The U.S. Census gathers data for housing costs and cross tabulates it with household income. For owner-occupied homes, the housing costs include mortgage payments, insurance, utilities and property taxes. For renters, the housing costs include rent, insurance and utilities (and property taxes if applicable). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has adopted a threshold of 30 percent or more as the level at which housing begins to become unaffordable, with 35 percent or more being excessive.

Analysis of the Township’s the median value of housing (owner occupied, see Table 19), mortgage as a percent of household income (see Table 20) and rent as a percentage of household income (see Table 21) is helpful in characterizing the diversity of housing choices within the community. Due to the impact of federal programs geared toward increasing the rates of home ownership, more communities are undertaking analyses of the affordability of housing within their boundaries.

According to the 1990 U.S. Census, Bedford Township had a higher median housing value than Monroe County, Lucas County, and the Toledo MSA. The majority of housing values in the Township (64.26%) ranged between $50,000 and $99,999.

In Bedford Township, the 1990 U.S. Census revealed that the median gross mortgage as a percent of household income was 16.30%. Only 179 out of 6,064 households (2.95%) pay 30- 34% of their household income in mortgages and only 506 (8.34%) pay in excess of 35% of their household income in mortgages.

For renters in Bedford Township, the median gross rent as a percent of household income was 22% and only 54 out of 906 (5.96%) pay 30-34% of their household income in rent. The situation worsens for less affluent households where 211 out of 906 (23.24%) pay in excess of 35% of their household income in rent.

From this data it appears that in Bedford Township, homeownership is a much more affordable housing option than renting. This situation is replicated at the regional level. Homeownership is very affordable in Bedford Township. Most Township residents (4,045 out of 6,064 or 66.71%) pay less than 20% of their household income in mortgages. Renting is a viable option in Bedford Township and the surrounding region. The median gross rent as a percentage of household income for Township residents is an affordable 22%. Affordable housing for low income renters may be a challenge in Bedford Township (265 out of 906, or 29.25%, pay 30% or more of their monthly income in rent); however, the region is even less affordable than the Township.

Bedford Township Master Plan 26 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 19 1990 Housing Values (Owner-occupied units) Bedford Township Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA # of Units % # of Units % # of Units % # of Units % < $15,000 49 0.81% 341 1.21% 3,807 3.72% 4,176 3.19% $15,000 - $19,999 20 0.33% 200 0.71% 3,445 3.36% 3,765 2.87% $20,000 - $24,999 40 0.66% 465 1.65% 3,978 3.89% 4,498 3.43% $25,000 - $29,999 53 0.87% 650 2.31% 4,618 4.51% 5,355 4.09% $30,000 - $34,999 171 2.82% 1,081 3.84% 5,760 5.63% 6,854 5.23% $35,000 - $39,999 129 2.13% 1,080 3.84% 6,581 6.43% 7,975 6.09% $40,000 - $44,999 286 4.72% 1,521 5.41% 7,412 7.24% 9,048 6.91% $45,000 - $49,999 362 5.97% 1,683 5.98% 6,741 6.58% 8,424 6.43% $50,000 - $59,999 771 12.71% 4,081 14.50% 13,568 13.25% 17,057 13.02% $60,000 - $74,999 1,480 24.41% 6,340 22.53% 15,970 15.60% 21,433 16.36% $75,000 - $99,999 1,646 27.14% 6,409 22.78% 14,636 14.29% 20,835 15.91% $100,000 - $124,999 561 9.25% 2,227 7.91% 6,369 6.22% 8,956 6.84% $125,000 - $149,999 231 3.81% 1,010 3.59% 3,789 3.70% 5,021 3.83% $150,000 - $174,999 157 2.59% 562 2.00% 2,051 2.00% 2,680 2.05% $175,000 - $199,999 27 0.45% 191 0.68% 1,342 1.31% 1,729 1.32% $200,000 - $249,999 63 1.04% 225 0.80% 1,104 1.08% 1,528 1.17% $250,000 - $299,999 5 0.08% 36 0.13% 390 0.38% 578 0.44% $300,000 - $399,999 13 0.21% 32 0.11% 378 0.37% 477 0.36% $400,000 - $499,999 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 187 0.18% 234 0.18% $500,000 + 0 0.00% 5 0.02% 267 0.26% 362 0.28% Totals 6,064 100.00% 28,139 100.00% 102,393 100.00% 130,985 100.00%

Median Housing Value 71,700 67,000 56,500 59,000

Source: 1990 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 27 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 20 1990 Mortgage as a Percentage of Household Income Number of Households Household Income Bedford Monroe Lucas Toledo % of HHI Township County County MSA < $10,000 < 20% 0 46 729 879 20 – 24% 42 134 991 1,196 25 – 29% 48 293 1,227 1,431 30 – 34% 39 251 1,046 1,290 35% + 157 1,167 5,656 6,513 Not Computed 14 70 640 774 Sub-total A 300 1,961 10,289 12,083 $10,000 - $19,999 < 20% 235 1,233 6,709 8,429 20 – 24% 108 598 2,389 2,867 25 – 29% 56 371 1,572 1,835 30 – 34% 40 257 1,169 1,413 35% + 197 764 2,876 3,551 Not Computed 0 0 0 6 Sub-total B 636 3,223 14,715 18,101 $20,000 - $34,999 < 20% 693 3,454 14,245 18,061 20 – 24% 153 823 3,761 4,670 25 – 29% 183 758 2,614 3,482 30 – 34% 37 353 1,405 1,878 35% + 97 435 1,425 1,968 Not Computed 0 0 0 0 Sub-total C 1,163 5,823 23,450 30,059 $35,000 - $49,999 < 20% 967 4,641 16,460 21,487 20 – 24% 291 1,198 3,605 4,921 25 – 29% 123 489 1,470 2,040 30 – 34% 49 154 518 715 35% + 47 98 409 576 Not Computed 0 0 0 0 Sub-total D 1,477 6,580 22,462 29,739 $50,000 + < 20% 2,150 9,385 26,743 34,737 20 – 24% 243 817 2,936 3,918 25 – 29% 67 245 1,218 1,579 30 – 34% 14 32 403 492 35% + 8 62 155 255 Not Computed 6 11 22 22 Sub-total E 2,488 10,552 31,477 41,003 Total Households F=A+B+C+D+E 6,064 28,139 102,393 130,985

Median Gross Mortgage as a % of Household Income 16.30% 16.10% 17.40% 17.40%

Source: 1990 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim Bedford Township Master Plan 28 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 21 1990 Rent as a Percentage of Household Income (HHI) Number of Households Household Income Bedford Monroe Lucas Toledo % of HHI Township County County MSA < $10,000 < 20% 0 77 1,153 1,259 20 - 24% 36 189 851 990 25 - 29% 4 266 1,161 1,396 30 - 34% 0 149 917 1,089 35% + 155 1,895 14,798 17,400 Not Computed 7 240 2,148 2,491 Sub-total A 202 2,816 21,028 24,625 $10,000 - $19,999 < 20% 21 120 1,377 1,657 20 - 24% 0 220 2,169 2,669 25 - 29% 11 380 2,503 3,305 30 - 34% 43 448 2,479 3,056 35% + 42 1,088 5,374 6,863 Not Computed 43 183 345 463 Sub-total B 160 2,439 14,247 18,013 $20,000 - $34,999 < 20% 128 1,102 7,516 9,723 20 - 24% 56 653 4,433 5,513 25 - 29% 60 484 1,928 2,369 30 - 34% 11 121 782 929 35% + 14 76 416 483 Not Computed 14 103 390 561 Sub-total C 283 2,539 15,465 19,578 $35,000 - $49,999 < 20% 155 1,006 5,972 7,412 20 - 24% 21 138 519 670 25 - 29% 0 15 126 135 30 - 34% 0 0 69 76 35% + 0 0 56 56 Not Computed 5 39 193 253 Sub-total D 181 1,198 6,935 8,602 $50,000 + < 20% 79 813 3,699 4,592 20 - 24% 0 0 60 82 25 - 29% 0 0 21 28 30 - 34% 0 0 0 18 35% + 0 0 0 0 Not Computed 1 21 120 159 Sub-total E 80 834 3,900 4,879

Total Households F=A+B+C+D+E 906 9,826 61,575 75,697

Median Gross Rent as a % of Household Income 22.00% 26.00% 26.30% 25.90% Source: 1990 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 29 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc 55 5 ‚—u™h2‚d 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 fedford2„ownship 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 wonroe2gountyD2wi™hig—n 5 555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 edler2‚o—d 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 55555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 55 5 55 5 555555 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 55555 555555 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 ƒ—m—ri—2‚o—d 555555555 5 5 5 5 555 5 555 555555 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555555 5555555 555 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5 5 55 5 555 5 5 5 5555 5 555 5 55 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 gr—˜˜2‚o—d 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55555 55555555 55 5 5 5 5 ‚esidenti—l2 nit 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555555 55 5 5 5555555555 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 55555 5 5 5 5 5 55555 555555 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 55 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 555 5 5 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555555555 5555 5555555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5555 5 55 5 55 5 5555 5555 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 55 5 5 5 winx2‚o—d 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 55 5 5 5 5 irie2‚o—d5 5 55555 5 55555555555 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 hougl—s2‚o—d 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 555 55 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 ƒe™or2‚o—d 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5555 5 5 555555555555 555555555555 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555555 5 555555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 555 555555555 555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5555555 5 5555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 555555555555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 555555555 5 555555 55 5 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 555 5 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55555555555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 55555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 555555555555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5555555555555555555 55555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5555 5 5 555 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5555 55555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 „emper—n™e2‚o—d5 5 5555 555 55555555555555555 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5555555 5 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555555 555 55 5 555555 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5555 555555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 55 5 5555 55 555 5 555555555 5 5 55 5 5555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 t—™km—n2‚o—d 55 5 5 5 5555 5 55 555 5 5 5 555555555 5 555 5 5 5 5 55 55 555555 555555 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 5555 5 5 5 5555 5 555 55 55 vewis2evenue555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 555 5 5 5 5555 555 555 555 5 5 555555555 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5555555 5 5 555 55 555555555 5 5 5555 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555555 555 55 55 555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555555 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5555555 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55555555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5555 5555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5555 5555 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 55555 555555 55555555 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 555 5 55 5 5 5555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5555555555555555 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 55555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5555555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 555555555555 5 5 5 5ƒu˜st—tion2‚o—d5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555555 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5555555 55555555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 555555555 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555555555555 55 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 ƒummerfield2‚o—d5 5 5 5555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 gonse—r2‚o—d5 5 5 55 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 555 555 5 5 55 55555 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 55 5 555 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 55 555 5 5 5 5 555555555 5555 5 555 5 5 5 55 5 5555 55 55555555555 5 5 5 5 55 55555 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55555 5 5 5 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5555555 5 555555 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 555555555 5 55 5 5 5555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 55555 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55555555555 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 5555555 55 5 5555 5 5 5 5 555555 555555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 5555 5555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 55 55 5 5 5555555 55 555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 555 5 5555 555 55555 555 5 55 55 5 5 55555555555 55 55 5 5 55 5 55555555 5 555555 5 555 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 55 55 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55 5 55555 5 555 5 555 55 55 55555 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 55555555555555555 555555 5 5 5 555 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 555 55 5 5 5 555 55 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5555555555 5 5 5 55 555 55555 5 5 55 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5555555555 5 5555555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5555 5 55 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 55 55 55 5 5 5he—n2‚o—d5 55 55 5 5 55 55555 5555 5 5 5 5 ƒour™eX 5 5 5 55 5 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 555 5 55 5 5 5 55 55 5555 5555 5555 55 5 555 5 5 5 5 5555 55 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 55555 5 55 55 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5555555 55 5 5 5 5 555555 55 555555 5 5555 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 555 555 5 555 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 5555 5 5 5 5 5 555555 5 5 5 55 555 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 555 5 5555555 5 5 5555555555 55 5 55 5 5 555 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 22fedford2„ownship2€l—nning2heptF2DPHHP 555555555555555555 55555 55 5 5 55 5 555 555 55 5 5 5 55 55 55555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55 555 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55555555 5 5 555 5 5 555 5 555 555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5555 5 5 5 5 555 5555 55 5 5 5 555555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55555555 555 5 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555555 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5555555555 5 5 5 5555555 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 555 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 555 5555 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 5 5555555555555 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 55 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5555555 5555555 5 5 5555555555555 5 55555 555555 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555555 5 5 55 55 5 5 555 55 55 5 555555555555555555 5555555555 55 5555 555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555555 55 5 55 555 5 555 55 5 55555555555555555 5 5 5 5555 55 5555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 555555555555555 555 5555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 55555 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55555 5 55 55555555555555555 55 5555 5 5 5 5 555 555555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55555 5 5 55555 555555555 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 55555555555555555 5555555555 5555 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 555555 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 555 5 55555555 555555555 55555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555555 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55555555555 55555555555 5555 5 5 5 5 55 55555 55555 5 5 55 5 5 5 555 5 55 555555555555 555 555 5555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5555 555 55 55555555 555 5555555555555555 55555555555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5555555 5555 55555 5555555555 5 5555555 5 5 5 5 5 55555555 555 5 5 55555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 555555 5555555555 5 5 5 555555 555555555 555555 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55 55 5555555 5 5 5 5 55555 5555555555 5 55555555 5 5 5 5 5 5555555555 5 5 5 555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5 5555 55 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 55 55 55 5 5 55 5 5 555 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 55 55 5 5 5 5555 5 55 5 555555555555555 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 55 5 5 5 5 5555555555555555 5 5555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555 5 5 55 55 55 5 5 5 5555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 55 55 5 5 5 5555555555 55 5555 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 555555 55 5 5 5555555 55 55 55 5 5555555555 5 5 55555555555 55555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 55 55 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 555 55 55 5 5 5 555555 55 5 555555555555 5 5555555 55 5 5555 555 555 555 5 5 55 55 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55555555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 555 555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 55 555555 5 5 5 55555555 5 5 5 5 55 5 555 5 5 55555 55 555555 5 5 555 55 5 5555 55 5 55 5 55 5 555555555 5 55 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 555555 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5555 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 555 55 5 55 5 5 55 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5555555 5555555555 5 5 5 5 555 55 555 5 5 55 55 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5555 55 55 5 5555555 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 55 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55 55 5 5 5 55555555 5 5 555555555 5555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 55555 555 5 55 5 5 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 55555555 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5wonroe2‚o—d5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 55 5 555 5 5 555555 5555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 555 5555 55 5 55 555 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 55 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 555 5555 55 55 5 5 5555555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55555 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5555555 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5555 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 55555555 5 5 55 55 5 5555 55 55 5 5 5 555 5 55555 555555 ƒterns2‚o—d5 5 55 55 5 5555 555 55 5 5 5555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55555 5 5 55555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55555 5555 5 5 555 555 5 5 5 555 55555 555555 55 5 5 55 5555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 555 5555555 5 5 5 5 55555555 5 555 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5555 55 55555 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555555 555 5 55 55 55 55 5 55555555 5 5 5 5 555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 555 5555 55 55 55 55 5 55 555 5 5 5 5 5 55555 555 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5555 55 55 5 5 55 55 55 555 5 55 55 55 55 55555555 55 5 555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 5 5 555555 555 5 5555 55555 55 555 55 55 555 5 55 5 5 55 555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 55 5 555 55 55 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5555 5555 5 5 55 55555 555 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 55555555555 5 5 5555 5 5 555 55 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 555555 55 5 5 555 5 5 5 55 55555 5 5 5 55 55555 5 55 555555555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 555 5 5 55555 5 5 55 5 5 55 55555 5 55555 5 55 5 55 5 5555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 555555 55 5 5 5 5 555 5 55 55 5 5 55 5 55 55 555 555555 55 5 5 5 55 55 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 55 5 555555555 5 5555 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 55 55 55 555555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55 555555 5 5 55555555 55 5 55555 55 55 5 5 5555 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 555 55 5 5 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 55 5 5 55555555555555555 5 5 5 5555 55 55 55555555555 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555 55 55 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 55 55 55 555 5555555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 w—pP 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 55 5 5555 5 5 555555 55 55 55 5555555 5 55 55 55 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 55 55 5 55 5 5 5 555 55 555 55 555 5 55 5 55 55 55 555555 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5555 55 555 55 555 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 55555 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 55 55 55 55 55 555 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 55 55 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5555 55 5 5 5555 5 5 5 55555 55 555 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555555555 5 5555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 55555 5 5 5 555 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 55 55555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555 5 5 55 5 5555555 555 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 55 55 55 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555555 5 55 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 55 555 5 55555 55 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5555 5 5 55 5 5 555 5 55 55 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 555555 555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555555555555555 5 5 555555 555 55555 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 55 5 5 555 555 5 5 55555 5 5 555555 5 5 5 55 5 55 5 55 555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555 5 555 555555 55 55555 55555555 55 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 555 55 5 555555555555555555555 5 5 5 x ‚esidenti—l 5555 55 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5 5 55 55 5 55 5 5 55 5 55 5 5 55555 55 5 5 5 5 55‡hiteford2‚o—d55555 5 55555 5 55 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 555555 55 5555555 5555555555555555555 55 5 5 55 5 555 5 5 5 55 5 55555 5 55555555 55 5 55 55 5 555555 5 5 5 5555 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 555 55 55555 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 55 5 5 55555555 5 5 5 5 5555 5 55 55 55 55 55 5555 55 5 5 5 55 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 555 5 5 555 5 5 5 55 55555 55 55 5555 5 5555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 555555555 55 55 555555 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5555555555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 55 55 5 55555 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555555 5 55 55 5 5 55555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 55 55 5 55 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5555 555 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 55 55555555 5 5555 5 5 5 5555 55 5 5 5 5555555 5 5 55 5 5 ‡ i hensityG2histri˜ution 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5555555555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5555555 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 555 55 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 55 5 5 5 5 555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 555555 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 555555555 5 55 55 555 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 555 55555 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 „elegr—ph2‚o—d5 5 555 5 5 55 55 5 555 5 5 5 555 5 55555 55 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5555 5 55 5 5 55 55 55 55555555 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 55 55 555 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555555 5 5 555 5 5 5 55 55 55555 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 55 5 5 5 55555 5 5555 555 5 5 5 5 55 5 v—voy2‚o—d5 5 5555555555555 5 5555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 555 55 5 5 5 5 555 5 5555 555 555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 555555555 5 5 5 5 5 55 555 555555 555 5 5 5 5 555 5555 555 5555 5 5 5 5 5555555 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 555555 555555555 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 555555 55 55555 55555 5 55 55555 5555555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555555 5 5 5 555 555 5 5 555 555555555555555555555 5555555 5 5 ƒ 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 555 5555555 5 5 5ƒmith2‚o—d5 555555555555 5 55 5 5555555 5 5 5555 5555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 555 555555555555 55 55 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 555555 55 5555 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5555555 5555 5 5 5555555 5555 555555 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 55 5555 555 5 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 555555 55 5555 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5 55555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 555555555 555555555 55555555 5 5 5 5 5 555 5555555555 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 55 5 5 5 55555555555555555555555555555 5555555555555555555 5 QSHH H QSHH UHHH peet ‡—deE„rim 5 555 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555 5555555555 5555555555 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55555555555555555555555 5555555555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5 55555555555 5555555555 555555555555555555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55555555555555555555 5 5 55555 5 5 5 5 55 555555 5 5 5 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555555555555555555 5555555555 555555555555555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 555 5 5555 5 5 5 5 555555 5555555555555555555 5 555555555555555 55 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 555555 5 5 55 55 55 555 5 555555555555555555555555555 ƒt—teline2‚o—d5 555555555555555 5 5 5 5 5 55555555 5 55 55555555555555555555555555555555555555 5 5555555555555555 5 5 5 55 5 555 5 55 55 55 5 5 5 555555 55555555555 5 5555555555555555 5 55 5 555 5 5 5 5 555555555 555 55 5 5 5 5 5555555555555555555 555 555555555 5 55 5 5 5 w—r™hD2PHHP 5 5 5 5 55 55 55 55 5 5 5555555555555555555555555555 5 5 55555555555 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 555555555 555555 5 5 5 5555 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 555 5 5 5 55555555555555555555555555555555 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5555 5 55555 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 ECONOMIC BASE

State Equalized Value (SEV)

One indicator of the economic strength of a community is the State Equalized Value (SEV). According to Michigan law, the SEV is equal to approximately one-half of the true market value of real property and certain taxable personal property. The taxable value is used for computation of the tax basis for a community.

Historical Data

The 2000 equalized value of real property in Bedford Township was $742,941,371. Relative values have remained stable over the past 25 years, showing a small shift from the agricultural category towards the residential and commercial categories (See Table 22).

In 2000, residential real property constituted 88.8% of the real property tax base. Residential land use appears to be the major component of tax base in the Township, and will probably remain as such into the future.

Assessed agriculture real property values experienced a dramatic decline (-43.6%) between 1975 and 1980. At the same time, assessed residential values climbed 93 percent. Agriculture has continued to decrease in recent years; the total de-valuation has been –24.2% since 1990. Commercial and industrial values both increased by over 100% between 1990 and 2000.

Table 22 State Equalized Value (SEV) by Classification – Bedford Township 1975, 1980,1985, and 1990 Agriculture Commercial Industrial Residential Total Year SEV % of SEV % of SEV % of SEV % of SEV Total Total Total Total 1975 9,536,200 12.91 4,385,300 5.94 1,263,460 1.71 58,681,610 79.44 73,866,270 1980 5,375,135 4.05 9,090,300 6.86 4,905,425 3.77 113,220,350 85.39 132,591,210 1985 7,694,285 3.71 14,768,330 7.13 3,670,630 1.77 181,005,495 87.38 207,138,740 1990 7,644,900 3.16 21,919,200 9.07 3,840,205 1.59 208,337,205 86.18 241,741,510 2000 9,491,520 1.28 56,062,038 7.55 17,543,760 2.36 659,844,053 88.82 742,941,371 Source: Bedford Township Assessor’s Office Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 30 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Seven-Year Trend: 1995-2001

According to recent State Equalized Valuation assessments, the past seven years have been a period of growth for both Bedford Township and Monroe County (see Table 23). 1998 was the year with the largest increase for the Township (15.82%) and the county (8.16%). In terms of property value increases, the Township has generally outpaced the county in residential, industrial, and commercial properties. Values for agricultural properties within the Township have consistently under-performed the county for this time period.

Residential property has demonstrated a consistent pattern of growth and continues to account for most of the Township’s tax base (87.93% for 2001). For the seven-year period, residential property values have increased over 91%.

Industrial property has experienced a tremendous amount of volatility for this time period. Double-digit growth was the general trend, with 1997 as the exception. During that year, industrial property values dropped (-11.26%). Gains in the following year (18.82% in 1998) erased the reduction and reinstated a positive growth trend continuing through 2001.

Commercial property, which accounts for the second largest revenue source for the Township, has seen a continual increase in value and surged in 1998 (24.64% increase) and again in 2001 (24.75% increase). Agricultural property values, which had been declining for several years, began a recovery in 1998.

Table 23 State Equalized Valuation (SEV) Multi-year Trend (1995-2001) for Bedford Township and Monroe County Year Place Residential Industrial Commercial Agricultural Total SEV Change SEV Change SEV Change SEV Change SEV Change 2001 Bedford 723,937,775 9.71% 18,376,610 4.75% 69,934,769 24.75% 11,065,130 16.58% 823,314,284 10.82% Monroe Co. 3,066,123,121 10.62% 1,163,041,197 -5.76% 519,720,689 10.13% 293,630,302 3.94% 5,042,515,309 5.92% 2000 Bedford 659,844,053 9.80% 17,543,760 15.19% 56,062,038 17.53% 9,491,520 9.15% 742,941,371 10.46% Monroe Co. 2,771,861,752 9.72% 1,234,191,169 -0.50% 471,904,770 14.99% 282,504,066 10.38% 4,760,461,757 7.39% 1999 Bedford 600,968,052 9.90% 15,230,520 17.11% 47,699,860 10.99% 8,695,970 7.09% 672,594,402 10.09% Monroe Co. 2,526,263,958 10.76% 1,240,440,809 3.73% 410,396,822 6.02% 255,933,781 8.39% 4,433,035,370 8.12% 1998 Bedford 546,844,570 15.26% 13,004,830 18.82% 42,977,440 24.64% 8,120,590 6.48% 610,947,430 15.82% Monroe Co. 2,280,850,670 12.79% 1,195,880,222 -1.73% 387,101,661 15.16% 236,118,272 9.71% 4,099,950,825 8.16% 1997 Bedford 474,462,459 12.13% 10,944,792 -11.26% 34,480,951 6.04% 7,626,045 -1.23% 527,514,247 10.89% Monroe Co. 2,022,258,254 10.72% 1,216,879,975 2.23% 336,145,793 6.67% 215,220,449 6.10% 3,790,504,471 7.23% 1996 Bedford 423,144,441 11.94% 12,333,057 18.00% 32,517,846 6.64% 7,721,226 -2.87% 475,716,570 11.44% Monroe Co. 1,826,455,891 9.98% 1,190,330,292 1.40% 315,135,013 3.81% 202,844,278 1.62% 3,534,765,474 5.90% 1995 Bedford 378,002,563 - - 10,451,746 - - 30,491,859 - - 7,949,192 - - 426,895,360 - - Monroe Co. 1,660,644,219 - - 1,173,899,992 - - 303,577,581 - - 199,610,104 - - 3,337,731,896 - -

Source: Michigan Department of Treasury Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 31 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Employment

Employment by Occupation

According to the 1990 U.S. Census, there is a great deal of similarity in the distribution of employment by occupation for Bedford Township and the surrounding region (see Table 24). The predominant occupational sector in Bedford Township is Technical, Sales and Administrative Support (30.62%). This occupational classification also holds the primary position for Monroe County (27.18%), Lucas County (31.46%), and the Toledo MSA (30.59%). Managerial and Professional Specialties occupy the secondary position. Operators, Fabricators and Laborers are the third most populous occupational classification. This trend is true for all areas except Monroe County, which has more Operators, etc., than Managerial positions.

Table 24 1990 Employment by Selected Occupation Bedford Township Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Occupation No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Managerial & Professional 2,739 24.01% 11,509 18.91% 51,662 25.21% 70,037 25.08% Specialty Technical, Sales & 3,493 30.62% 16,543 27.18% 64,461 31.46% 85,423 30.59% Administrative Support Service Occupations 1,201 10.53% 8,571 14.08% 30,143 14.71% 40,298 14.43% Farming, Forestry, & 108 0.95% 1,141 1.87% 1,713 0.84% 3,500 1.25% Fishing Precision Production, 1,762 15.44% 9,601 15.78% 21,903 10.69% 30,784 11.02% Crafts, & Repair Operators, Fabricators, & 2,106 18.46% 13,497 22.18% 35,008 17.09% 49,182 17.61% Laborers Total 11,409 100.00% 60,862 100.00% 204,890 100.00% 279,224 100.00% Source: 1990 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

The similarity of the distribution of the occupations over these different governmental agencies suggest elements that are characteristic of an employment “region.”

Employment by Industry

A closer examination of employment by industry reveals a very close alignment between Bedford Township and Monroe County (Table 25). For the ten selected Industry classifications in the 1990 U.S. Census, the rankings are nearly identical between the Township and county. The categories of Manufacturing and Wholesale & Retail Trade account for over half of the total employment. Likewise, Lucas County and the Toledo MSA have a comparable relationship.

Bedford Township Master Plan 32 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 25 1990 Employment by Selected Industry Bedford Township Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Industry No Percent No Percent No Percent No Percent Agriculture, Forestry, 136 1.19% 1,402 2.30% 2,003 0.98% 4,381 1.57% Fisheries, & Mining Construction 772 6.77% 3,378 5.55% 9,963 4.86% 13,940 4.99% Manufacturing 2,922 25.61% 16,686 27.42% 40,018 19.53% 57,724 20.67% Transportation, Utilities, 875 7.67% 5,311 8.73% 14,516 7.08% 19,595 7.02% & Communications Wholesale & Retail 2,882 25.26% 13,898 22.84% 48,214 23.53% 63,548 22.76% Trade Finance, Insurance, & 460 4.03% 2,331 3.83% 10,941 5.34% 13,949 5.00% Real Estate Business & Repair 474 4.15% 2,457 4.04% 10,194 4.98% 12,951 4.64% Services Personal, Entertainment, 309 2.71% 1,911 3.14% 7,827 3.82% 10,351 3.71% & Recreation Services Professional, Health, 2,364 20.72% 12,100 19.88% 55,079 26.88% 74,806 26.79% Education, & Related Services Public Administration 215 1.88% 1,388 2.28% 6,135 2.99% 7,979 2.86% Total 11,409 100.00% 60,862 100.00% 204,890 100.00% 279,224 100.00% Source: 1990 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

From a regional perspective, Bedford Township and the surrounding area have a high degree of connectivity and compatibility. Manufacturing, Trade, and Professional Services are the major employment industries, that when combined, account for over 75% of all employment by selected industry.

Work Location

According to the 1990 U.S. Census (see Table 26), most Bedford Township residents (65.36%) work outside the state, presumably within the Toledo MSA (75.09% worked in a different MSA/PMSA within the Central City.) For Monroe County, the distribution was more evenly split (52.62% worked within the county and only 22.59% worked outside the state.) Both Lucas County and the Toledo MSA retained most of their workers (87.86% and 80.29%, respectively) within their boundaries.

Bedford Township Master Plan 33 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 26 1990 Place of Work Bedford Twp. Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Location No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Worked in county of 3,197 28.57% 31,303 52.62% 175,756 87.86% 218,980 80.29% residence: Worked outside county of 680 6.08% 14,751 24.79% 17,609 8.80% 45,561 16.70% residence: Worked outside state of 7,315 65.36% 13,438 22.59% 6,687 3.34% 8,204 3.01% residence: Total 11,192 100.00% 59,492 100.00% 200,052 100.00% 272,745 100.00% Worked in MSA/PMSA of residence: Central city 80 2.26% 1,972 4.86% 135,036 71.33% 163,652 64.53% Remainder of this 3,455 97.74% 38,590 95.14% 54,277 28.67% 89,971 35.47% MSA/PMSA Subtotal a 3,535 100.00% 40,562 100.00% 189,313 100.00% 253,623 100.00%

Worked in a different MSA/PMSA: Central city 5,750 75.09% 11,441 60.44% 1,719 16.01% 2,243 11.73% Remainder of this 1,700 22.20% 6,246 33.00% 5,514 51.35% 6,584 34.43% MSA/PMSA Worked outside any 207 2.70% 1,243 6.57% 3,506 32.65% 10,295 53.84% MSA/PMSA Subtotal b 7,657 100.00% 18,930 100.00% 10,739 100.00% 19,122 100.00%

Total c = a + b 11,192 59,492 200,052 272,745

MSA – Metropolitan Statistical Area; PMSA – Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area

Source: 1990 U.S. Census Analysis by: Wade-Trim

The following table (Table 27) presents employment projections for Bedford Township and its surrounding communities. Bedford Township ranks fourth in the projected rate of employment growth among its neighbors. Over the next 30 years, Bedford Township can expect to gain an additional 1,775 jobs according to SEMCOG projections. This is approximately a 30 percent gain in the number of jobs. We note that 4,204 persons in Bedford Township were employed in 1990 and 6,014 persons in the Township were employed in 2000, representing a percentage increase of 43.1 percent (1,810 additional jobs) over the decade, according to the U.S. Census data.

Bedford Township Master Plan 34 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 27 Employment Projections Place 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000-2030 % Change Bedford Township 6,014 6,658 7,324 7,789 1,775 29.5% Whiteford Township 1,173 1,315 1,396 1,422 249 21.2% Ida Township 679 760 909 1,087 408 60.1% Erie Township 1,119 1,217 1,323 1,419 300 26.8% Frenchtown Twp. 11,544 12,245 12,778 12,749 1,205 10.4% Monroe Township 6,861 7,347 7,682 7,823 962 14.0% Monroe, City 15,092 16,564 18,262 20,133 5,041 33.4% Monroe County 54,375 61,454 68,313 74,268 19,893 36.6% Source: SEMCOG 2030 Regional Development Forecast

There are 15 major manufacturers currently located in Bedford Township. Table 28 lists the firm name, product, and number of employees.

Table 28 Major Manufacturers in Bedford Township Manufacturers Product # of Employees Bedford Public Schools Education 515 Michigan Tube Swagers 1 Office and Home Furniture 170 Foodtown Grocery 110 Michelin Tire Company Tire Distribution 50 Vicon Supply 1 Doors & Windows 55 M & F Machine Tool & Die 1 Tool & Die 30 Automatic Handling Material Handling Equipment 30 Burrow Industries 1 Special Machines 15 MBS Manufacturing West 1 Extruded Windows 35 Met-L-Tec 1 Spray Masks, Jigs 35 Rolled Alloys 1 Metal Alloys 55 Ben-Kur 1 Injection Molds 30 Heidtman Steel 1 Steel Service Center 65 Fisher Tool & Die 1 Tool & Die 25 Starr Welding Metal Fabrication 25 1 Businesses located in Bedford Industrial Park Source: Bedford Township

Bedford Township Master Plan 35 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc NATURAL RESOURCES

Natural features, such as wetlands, woodlands, and rivers help shape community identity. New land developments can significantly impact natural features and, consequently effect community character.

Evidence of the importance Americans place on the environment and environmental issues is shown in a recent poll commissioned for the National Wildlife Federation. The survey found that 62 percent of respondents favor strong or stronger environmental protection, while only 18 percent were opposed to such measures.2

In 1992, the Michigan Relative Risk Analysis Project undertook a study to identify and rank the state’s most pressing environmental issues. The final report, Michigan’s Environment and Relative Risk, concluded that the absence of land use planning which considers resources and integrity of ecosystems posed one of the highest risks to the future quality of our environment.

For these and other reasons, special attention should be given to the preservation of natural and environmentally sensitive areas in long-range planning. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the important natural features that exist in Bedford Township. Knowing the location of significant natural features and understanding the function of natural systems will enable the Township to accomplish two important objectives. One, the Township will be able to channel, or encourage, development into areas that are the least environmentally sensitive. And two, the Township can work to minimize adverse impacts to these areas.

Environmentally sensitive areas are lands whose destruction or disturbance will immediately effect the life of a community by either:

· Creating hazards such as flooding or slope erosion; · Contaminating important public resources such as groundwater supplies or surface water bodies; or, · Wasting important productive lands and renewable resources.

Each of these effects is detrimental to the general welfare of a community and may result in economic loss.3

The natural features inventoried in this chapter are topography, soils, drainageways, wetlands, and woodlands.

2 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Office of Great Lakes Activity Report, February 1995. (Poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the National Wildlife Federation.)

3 Charles Thurow, William Toner, and Duncan Erley, Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands, American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Reports 307/ 308, June 1975.

Bedford Township Master Plan 36 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Topography and Soils

Most of Monroe County was at one time a glacial lakebed, which explains the generally flat topography and sedimentary soils throughout the area.

Bedford Township is very similar in character to County topographic and soil conditions. With the exception of the southeast corner, the soils are predominantly sandy and loamy soils, nearly level, poorly drained, and susceptible to wetness and flooding.

An exception to the above description is a band of silty loam that runs along the Lake Erie coast, and extends west through Erie Township into a small portion of the southeast corner of Bedford Township. This silty soil is level and poorly drained.

To minimize construction costs and environmental risks, proper consideration must be given to area soil conditions. Poor soil conditions in Bedford Township pose construction limitations for foundation stability, site drainage, and septic field construction.

Soil Carrying Capacity

Soils conditions may present significant limitations to development and assist in determining what land is most suitable for urban development and what land is most suitable for recreation or conservation purposes. Identification and analysis of soil aids in determining which areas offer maximum amenities without adversely impacting natural systems.

There are three major soil associations in Bedford Township: Oakville-Tedrow, Pewamo- Selfridge-Blount, and Lenawee-Del Rey. Oakville-Tedrow is the predominant soil association and covers a significant portion of the Township. Pewamo-Selfridge-Blount soil association is scattered throughout the northeast, central and south-central portions of the Township. Lenawee- Del Rey soil association is limited to the southeastern corner of the Township. The following table briefly describes the general characteristics of each soil association (Table 29).

Table 29 Soil Associations Bedford Township, Monroe County Association Description Nearly level and gently sloping, well drained to poorly drained, Oakville-Tedrow-Granby sandy soils; on glacial outwash plains and lake plains Nearly level, poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained, loamy Pewamo-Selfridge-Blount and sandy soils; on till plains, ground moraines, and lake plains Nearly level, poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained, silty Lenawee-Del Rey soils; on lake plains

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of Monroe County, Michigan November, 1981

These soil interpretations are general in nature and do not eliminate the need for on-site study and testing prior to site design and construction.

Bedford Township Master Plan 37 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Drainageways

Drainageways collect water from the land and channel it into streams, rivers, and watershed systems. They provide water resources for agricultural uses. Drainageways are part of nature’s water filtration system and as such, require protection and preservation.

The major drainage basin serving Bedford Township is the Otter-Maumee Bay watershed that drains an area of 235.2 square miles. The Township is drained by three secondary drainage basins: Maumee River, Halfway Creek and Otter Creek.

Wetlands

Wetlands can be described as marshes, bogs, swamps, potholes, sloughs, shallow lakes, and ponds. Wetlands may be either temporary, permanent, static, or flowing. They are areas of natural vegetation growing in shallow water, hydric (saturated) soil, or seasonally flooded environments. They can also include areas of mature tree cover commonly associated with, but not restricted to, floodplain environments. More than any other natural landform, wetlands are working landscapes whose ecosystem meets a variety of needs. They support a rich variety of wildlife, purify water, help contain flooding, and provide scenic and natural vistas.

In 1979, the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act (PA 203 of 1979) was enacted by the State of Michigan. This legislation was passed to protect wetlands by restricting their use to certain activities (fishing, boating, farming, among others) while permitting other activities only with the approval of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR, now the Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ). Permits are approved upon a review of an environmental assessment filed by the petitioner and a finding that the activity is in the public interest.

Under the Act, the following wetlands are protected:

· Wetlands contiguous to the Great Lakes, an inland lake or pond, or a river or stream.

· Wetlands not contiguous to the Great Lakes, an inland lake or pond, or river or stream and which are more than five acres in size in counties having a population of more than 100,000.

· Wetlands not contiguous to the Great Lakes, an inland lake or pond, or river or stream and five acres or less in size if the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality determines that protection of the area is essential to the preservation of the natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction, and the Department has so notified the owner.

Although significant wetland areas have not been identified within the boundaries of Bedford Township, the United States Geological Survey shows several patches of marsh land which are predominantly associated with local woodland areas. These low areas may be submerged only during rainy seasons, and have not been field checked by the MDNR for regulatory purposes.

Bedford Township Master Plan 38 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Woodlands

Woodlands moderate certain climate conditions, such as flooding and high winds, through their protection of watersheds from siltation and soil erosion due to stormwater runoff or wind. Through its capacity to absorb certain air pollutants, woodlands improve air quality. Woodlands moderate windflow and help to buffer against excessive noise generators. To the greatest extent possible, woodlands should be conserved during future land development.

Area woodlands are made up mostly of central hardwoods such as oak, hickory, beech and maple, and lowland hardwoods, such as ash, elm and cottonwood, which are found along creeks and rivers. There are relatively few coniferous species.

Most larger remaining wooded areas (over 100 acres) are found in conjunction with areas of sandy soils that are located through the south and west of Bedford Township.

Bedford Township Master Plan 39 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc ‚—u™h2‚d fedford2„ownship wonroe2gountyD2wi™hig—n

edler2‚o—d ƒ—m—ri—2‚o—d

gr—˜˜2‚o—d ‡oodl—nds

plood2one2ei

irie2‚o—d winx2‚o—d

hougl—s2‚o—d

ƒe™or2‚o—d

„emper—n™e2‚o—d

t—™km—n2‚o—d

vewis2evenue

ƒu˜st—tion2‚o—d ƒummerfield2‚o—d gonse—r2‚o—d

he—n2‚o—d ƒour™eX 22fedford2„ownship2€l—nning2heptF2DPHHP2@woodl—ndsA 22piwe2plood2one2w—p2@flood2zoneA

wonroe2‚o—d ƒterns2‚o—d

w—p2Q ‡hiteford2‚o—d x x—tur—l2pe—tures „elegr—ph2‚o—d ‡ i v—voy2‚o—d ƒmith2‚o—d ƒ QSHH H QSHH UHHH peet ‡—deE„rim ƒt—teline2‚o—d w—r™hD2PHHP COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Fire and Police Services

Three volunteer fire stations provide Bedford Township with fire protection service. Station 47 is located on Dean Road in Lambertville and Station 30 is located in Temperance on West Temperance Road. Station 56 is located on Lewis Avenue north of Stearns Road.

Police service is partially contracted through the Monroe County Sheriff Department, which maintains a sub-station behind the Township Hall on Jackman Road. Additional police protection is provided by Michigan State Police patrols.

Health Care Facilities

Township health care facilities include Mercy South County Health Center, the Bedford Family Medical Center and several small urgent care facilities. Surface and air ambulance services connect Bedford residents to Toledo and Monroe County hospitals.

Educational Facilities and Community Activities

The Bedford Township Library is located on Jackman Road in the center of the Township. The original building was built in 1974. The May 1988 renovation doubled the library's size. Currently, the library holds approximately 47,000 volumes, and offers other services including art loans, speakers, and children’s functions.

The Bedford Township School Administration Building serves as a community center that offers continuing and adult education courses and extracurricular activities for children.

Directly behind the School Administration Building is the Bedford branch of Monroe County Community College. Spring Arbor College, an accelerated four-year bachelors program, has proposed a branch campus within the Township in the near future as well.

The Bedford Senior Citizens Center is located at M-151 and Jackman Roads, and offers a variety of services and activities for the older population.

There are over 50 clubs and organizations registered in Bedford Township, including professional and hobby groups, support groups, and art and theater groups.

Parks and Recreation

Public and private facilities total 922.19 acres of recreational space within the Township, or approximately 39.65 acres per 1,000 residents. This per person average is well above the minimum standard of 10 acres per 1,000 residents.

Bedford Township Master Plan 40 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Regional Facilities

There are many regional park facilities available to Township residents within a short drive. Sterling State Park, which is more than 1,000 acres in size, is located in East Monroe County. The Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Park Authority maintains Lake Erie Park at Gibraltar. In addition, the Toledo Metro Park and Lucas County Park agencies provide many other recreational activities in the Toledo area. The metropolitan park district in the adjacent City of Toledo, Ohio offers seven regional and two green space parks as well.

Vienna Park, located in the northeast corner of the Township, is one of four regional parks owned and operated by Monroe County. Vienna is the second largest of these parks, occupying 57 acres. The facilities offered at Vienna Park include a water and nature area, picnic shelter, tables and grills, playground equipment, baseball diamonds, basketball courts, frisbee golf, parking, and restrooms. It is also the only county park that offers barrier free recreation facilities.

Bedford Township is included as part of a bikeway system designed by several regional planning organizations. Although much of the system is still in the planning phases, the proposed routes are intended to provide non-motorized paths connecting recreational facilities such as parks, libraries and shopping areas.

Local Facilities

Community and neighborhood park facilities located in Bedford Township range from 0.3 acres to over 60 acres and include stables, swim clubs, country clubs, and other local organizations.

In addition to 263.7 acres of school land providing recreational opportunities, Bedford operates five large community parks that range in size from 5.3 to 28.1 acres and offer a wide range of activities.

There are eight neighborhood tot lots of one acre or less, providing playground space for younger children.

Three large golf courses are located in Bedford. Bedford hills Golf Course has 27 holes. Maple Grove Golf Course in Lambertville offers 18 holes and is open to the public at a daily fee. Giant Oaks Golf Course in Temperance has 18 holes, and is open to the public at a daily fee.

Bedford Township, through an agreement with the Monroe County Road Commission, will on a space available basis construct a paved shoulder for use as a bike path along local roads at the time of road improvement. The bike path improvements are to be financed by the Township.

Bedford Township Master Plan 41 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 30 Bedford Township Recreational Land Inventory

County Parks Private Facilities Vienna 57.00 acres Brookwood Swim Club 5.30 acres Douglas Meadows Stables 20.60 acres Community Parks Giant Oaks Golf Course 141.20 acres Carr Park 5.30 acres Howards Riding Academy 11.20 acres Parmalee Park 8.80 acres Hunter's Run 49.60 acres Samaria Park 13.20 acres Lambertville Civic Club 8.10 acres White Park 28.10 acres Maplewood Golf Course 133.50 acres Indian Creek 22.80 acres Sunset Acres 34.30 acres Tamaron Country Club 57.80 acres Township Parks Windsong Stables 16.90 acres Hooverdale – Windingbrook 8.70 acres Woodland Acres 20.00 acres Miller Park 1.60 acres Beford Hills Gold Course 132.2 acres Nature Center/Bicentennial Park 10.1 acres Firecreek Gold Course 90.00 acres Silas and Julia Smith Park 2.10 acres Forestview Lanes 9.30 acres Township Hall Park 8.80 acres Other School Facilities Douglas Road Elementary 11.50 acres Bridgeway Open Space 2.60 acres Jackman Road Elementary 20.10 acres Lambert Estates 1.20 acres Senior/Junior High School 152.90 acres Canterbury Forest 0.90 acres Smith Road Elementary 17.70 acres Crosscreeks 1.70 acres Temperance Road Elementary 21.90 acres Green Hills Comm. Park 13.40 acres Monroe Road Elementary 12.60 acres Inverness 0.70 acres Northotowne Meadows 1.60 acres Tot Lots Valleybrook Park 2.80 acres Colonial: Cranbrook 0.90 acres Wildhaven 3.20 acres Colonial: Middlebury 1.30 acres Colonial: Ridgedale 1.20 acres Summary Colonial: Wellesley 1.20 acres County Parks 57.00 acres Cottonwood 0.30 acres Community Parks 78.20 acres Mohawk Trails 0.30 acres Shenandoah Hills 0.50 acres Township Parks 31.30 acres Woodstream Acres 0.80 acres School Parks 236.70 acres Tot Lots 6.50 acres Private Facilities 730.00 acres Other 28.10 acres+

Source: Bedford Township Parks Inventory, February 2001

Bedford Township Master Plan 42 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Utilities

Public Water

Bedford Township, as well as Erie Township, LaSalle Township and the City of Luna Pier, receive their public water supply from the City of Toledo through the South County Water System. The main pumping station, with a two million-gallon storage reservoir, is located just inside the southern border of the Township. Two, 500,000 gallon elevated storage tanks are located in the Township. Water receives chemical treatment, chlorination and odor removal from the City of Toledo, and is rechlorinated in Bedford before being pumped out for public use.

Approximately 5,968 of Bedford Township households are served by this system. Public water is available to nearly all urbanized areas within the Township.

Reports by the Monroe County Planning Department indicate that the south county supply and distribution system has the capacity to support limited growth in the future, including residential, industrial and commercial development, without large-scale line extensions.

Public Sewers

Approximately 46 percent of Bedford Township households, largely in the southern half of the Township, are served by public sewers. Bedford Township has the second largest waste treatment facility in the county. This facility is located in the southeast corner of the Township.

The Bedford Sanitary Sewer System has a daily treatment capacity of 3,000,000 gallons; however, problems with infiltration and inflow into the collection system have reduced the amount of potential development that can be supported. A reduction or elimination of this problem will increase capacity.

Electricity

Consumers Power provides Bedford with electricity generated at the J. R. Whiting Power Plant in Luna Pier.

Gas

Michigan Gas Utilities supplies nearly the entire Township with natural gas.

Bedford Township Master Plan 43 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc ‚—u™h2‚d fedford2„ownship wonroe2gountyD2wi™hig—n

edler2‚o—d ƒ—m—ri—2‚o—d

gr—˜˜2‚o—d ƒ™hool2p—™ilities €u˜li™2qolf2gourses gommunity2€—rks

€u˜li™2‡—ter €u˜li™2ƒewer

irie2‚o—d winx2‚o—d

hougl—s2‚o—d

ƒe™or2‚o—d

„emper—n™e2‚o—d

t—™km—n2‚o—d

vewis2evenue

ƒu˜st—tion2‚o—d ƒummerfield2‚o—d gonse—r2‚o—d

he—n2‚o—d ƒour™eX 22fedford2„ownship2€l—nning2heptF2DPHHP

wonroe2‚o—d ƒterns2‚o—d w—p2R gommunity2ƒervi™es

‡hiteford2‚o—d x 82p—™ilities

‡ i „elegr—ph2‚o—d v—voy2‚o—d ƒmith2‚o—d ƒ QSHH H QSHH UHHH peet ‡—deE„rim

ƒt—teline2‚o—d w—r™hD2PHHP Roadways

Transportation Background

The method by which people travel in and around a community, more specifically, the organization of its public transportation network has direct effect on land use initiatives in the future. Proximity and accessibility to major highway systems increase a community’s competitive edge economically, while also providing an efficient means in which to move commuters to and from centers of employment. Road system mechanics (direction of traffic flow, road conditions, etc.) may dictate the frequency in which a particular road is utilized as well as the number of accidents that may occur on a particular stretch of road.

Network Hierarchy

The pattern of Bedford Township’s public transportation system is comprised primarily of County- maintained roadways. These roadways are the result of early land subdivision methods in which roads were set in a grid pattern at ninety- degree angles, spaced at one-mile intervals, following designated section Intersection of Telegraph and Smith lines, in both north-south and east- west directions. These roads provide day-to-day transportation access to commercial nodes like Lambertville, Samaria and Temperance. They also link the Township to a number of nearby interstate and intrastate highway systems, such as U.S. 23, U.S. 24, I-75 and M-125.

Lands located along section line roads in areas designated by current zoning, as “agricultural” (primarily in the northern half of the Township) possess deep building setbacks, accentuating the “county-like” setting of the area. In addition, many residences in these areas are buffered from roads by strips of A typical rural roadscape in Bedford cropland or woodlots which front these “county” roads, providing an aesthetically pleasing character to the area’s road network. Older residential areas that are proximal to commercial nodes, such as Lambertville, Temperance and Samaria, tend to be clustered together with shallower road setbacks, lending a “small-town” flavor to the area as well.

The condition of primary and local roads has been assessed by the Township staff, and is illustrated in Table 31 on the following pages. Descriptions referring to condition can be interpreted as follows:

Bedford Township Master Plan 44 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc · Excellent - The road has been either recently upgraded or is in excellent condition because of the type of surface.

· Good - The surface contains few defects and is in good overall condition.

· Fair - The roadway contains some minor defects such as bumps or cracks; however, the surface is not deteriorating.

· Poor - The surface of the roadway contains serious defects such as bumps, potholes, cracks etc. The condition requires repaving in the near future before the surface completely deteriorates.

· Deteriorating - The roadway has broken down to a point where travel is seriously impeded. The surface has major potholes and loss of pavement.

U.S. and State Routes

U.S. 24 (Telegraph Road) is the only U.S. trunk line crossing the Township. It extends two miles across the southeast corner of the Township, leaving Toledo with four lanes, tapering into two lanes approximately one mile into Bedford Township. Telegraph Road provides access from Toledo to Pontiac, connecting Bedford Township with Monroe, Dearborn and Livonia. This section of Telegraph Road is in good condition.

Primary and Local Roads

There are 44.5 miles of primary roads in Bedford Township. Approximately 20.5 miles are considered in good to fair condition. The remaining 20.6 miles are considered to be in "fair to poor" condition, indicating only a moderate state of disrepair. US-24, Samaria and St. Anthony Roads are in good condition, while Jackman Road from the state line north to Temperance Road is in the most need of repair with a "poor" designation. North-south routes are much more heavily trafficked as they are paths to the City of Toledo, and generally are more often in need of repair. Jackman Road has a jog at Smith Road that is an impediment to traffic flow, as well as a safety hazard.

In general, local roads are in worse condition. Of the 45.6 miles of local paved roads, 15.5 are considered in "fair to good" condition, 1.0miles are in "fair" condition and the majority, 13.7 miles, are in "fair to poor" condition. Adler Road, running along the western Township border, for 6.5 miles, is "deteriorating." Ranch Road on the northern Township border is also deteriorating.

Bedford Township Master Plan 45 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 31 Bedford Township Road Condition Inventory Origin Terminus Length Surface Condition Primary Roads East – West U.S. 24 State Line North 2.0 Miles Asphalt Good Samaria Road 6.0 Miles Asphalt Good St. Anthony Road 1.0 Miles Concrete Good Temperance Road Twp. Line Secor 1.0 Miles Asphalt Good - Fair Sterns Road 6.0 Miles Asphalt Good - Fair Smith Road Telegraph Douglas 3.0 Miles Asphalt Good – Fair Lavoy Road Dixie Hwy. Telegraph 1.0 Miles Concrete Good - Fair North – South Secor Road 6.5 Miles Asphalt Fair Douglas Road State Line Summerfield 1.0 Miles Asphalt Good Jackman Road State Line Temperance 3.5 Miles Asphalt Fair Lewis Avenue 6.5 Miles Asphalt Good-Fair Whiteford Center 1.4 Miles Asphalt Fair – Poor Summerfield Road 5.6 Miles Asphalt Fair – Poor Local Paved Roads East – West Rauch Road 6.0 Miles Asphalt Poor Erie Road 6.0 Miles Asphalt Good – Fair Temperance Road Secor Twp. Line 5.0 Miles Asphalt Fair – Poor Consear Road 2.0 Miles Asphalt Good - Fair Substation Road Twp. Line Crabb 1.0 Miles Asphalt Fair Dean Road Crabb Summerfield 4.3 Miles Asphalt Fair – Poor Clegg Road 0.6 Miles Asphalt Fair – Poor Section Road 0.95 Miles Asphalt Smith Road Summerfield Twp. Line 0.75 Miles Asphalt Fair – Poor North – South Crabb Road Telegraph Erie 4.0 Miles Asphalt Good – Fair Jackman Road Temperance Rauch 3.0 Miles Asphalt Fair – Poor Douglas Road Summerfield Rauch 5.5 Miles Asphalt Good – Fair Adler Road Summerfield Rauch 6.5 Miles Asphalt Deteriorating Source: Bedford Township

Bedford Township Master Plan 46 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Traffic Controls

Traffic controls are provided at virtually all intersections of section line roads and major arterials within the Township. Traffic control devices include the standard traffic signals with green, amber and red lights and flashing signals with red and amber lights. The Transportation Analysis Map identifies lighted traffic control device locations. Traffic controls are also provided at each railroad crossing. Most consist of a red crossing signal and crossing gates. All railroad crossing in the Township appear to be in good to fair condition. Railroad crossing at Sterns and Telegraph Roads

Safety Issues

As part of the Master Plan process, Wade-Trim conducted a windshield survey of current road conditions for the Township. From the results of this survey, it appears as though Bedford Township’s transportation network is functioning at an adequate level; however, the following three areas of concern regarding safe travel within the Township were identified: obstructed clear vision zones, excessive curb cuts and poor road geometrics. What follows is a general description of each safety concern and identifies specific geographic locations within the Township for these trouble spots. These areas are also identified graphically by the Transportation Analysis Map.

Obstructed Clear Vision Zones

Obstructed views occur when there is not enough of a clear vision zone to provide an adequate view of the roadway, or of other vehicular traffic at an intersection, along a curve, or in a sloped area. The Transportation Analysis Map identifies the locations of obstructed clear vision zones within Bedford Township.

Areas with significant clear site vision obstructions were identified at a number of intersections along Summerfield Road. This particular road cuts diagonal Obstructed Clear Vision Zone Summerfield and Douglas Roads path through the southwest portion of the Township, crossing many section line roads at oblique, and potentially hazardous, angles. Major locations of concern occur at its intersections with Erie Road, Monroe Road, Douglas Road and Smith Road.

Bedford Township Master Plan 47 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Another roadway that presents obstructed clear vision zones is Whiteford Center Road. It too cuts a diagonal path through the southwest portion of the Township, crossing although its actual extents within the Township account to approximately one mile, as compared to a lengthy six miles for Summerfield Road. Major locations of concern occur at its intersections with Section Road, Obstructed Clear Vision Zone Whiteford Center Cloverlane and Smith Road. and Smith Roads Excessive Curb Cuts

Excessive curb cuts result when driveways, created by residential, commercial or industrial uses are allowed access to a local, collector or minor arterial road in an uncontrolled fashion. This type of access is very dangerous. It allows vehicles to pull out or stop in too many locations, leaving drivers to guess what type of maneuver other drivers may attempt within their path of travel. The Transportation Analysis Map identifies the locations of excessive curb cuts within Bedford Township.

Excessive curb cuts exist most frequently along Sterns Road, between Adler and Secor Roads and between Douglas and Jackman Roads. Another area with excessive curb cuts exists on Summerfield Road, between Consear and Secor Roads. This is an area of significant concern, given the winding nature of this road and current posted speed limits.

Curb Cuts along North Secor Road The last area of concern regarding excessive curb cuts occurs along Lewis Avenue, specifically between Valetta Avenue and Dean Road. Of related concern regarding excessive curbs cuts in Bedford Township are instances where the roadway follows the rolling topography of the land, where the existence of blind hills and hidden ingress and egress points heighten safety concerns. A potential solution to this problem may be the implementation of service drives or marginal street access drives, which limit the number of direct ingress and egress points along a major roadway.

Bedford Township Master Plan 48 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Poor Road Geometrics

Poor road geometrics occur when intersecting roads do not have proper alignment at their intersection. Several areas where identified as having poor road geometrics in Bedford Township. The Transportation Analysis Map identifies these locations. Many of these trouble spots occur along the aforementioned Summerfield and Whiteford Center Roads. Additional locations of concern were identified at Poor road geometrics at Jackman and Smith the intersections of Smith and Jackman Roads – Looking north from Jackman Road Roads and Secor and Rauch Roads.

Traffic Counts

Traffic count data for county roads was obtained from the Monroe County Road Commission for the years 1982 through 1999. In all cases, counts reflect average daily traffic (ADT). ADT refers to the average traffic volume over a 24 hour period, generally between noon on Monday and noon on Friday. Weekend trips frequently contain a different mix Poor road geometrics at Jackman and Smith and frequency than do those during the Roads – Looking east from Jackman Road week.

The largest traffic count on a county road was recorded on Secor Road, between the Michigan- Ohio state border and Smith Road, with a 24-hour count of 16,000 vehicles. Generally, Lewis Avenue is the most heavily traveled county road in the Township. Other significant county roads are Secor Road, Smith Road and Sterns Road. Not surprisingly, traffic counts on these roads were the highest in the Township, given their close proximity to the northern suburbs of Toledo.

One item of significant concern regarding future transportation needs for Bedford Township has to be whether the Township’s current transportation system will be able to handle the expected increase in traffic volumes. Much of the transportation infrastructure in the Township was designed at a time when this area was sparsely populated. As the population of Bedford Township continues its pattern of rapid growth, much of this expansion is expected to occur in the more rural areas of the Township. As much of the Township is currently occupied by large- lot, residential development, it is expected that a large amount of infill development will begin to occur, dispersing the anticipated increase in population into these rural hinterlands and slowly converting these large lots into smaller lots over time. As this process takes place, county roads designed for the less intensive traffic volumes of the past will see increased ADT levels. Many

Bedford Township Master Plan 49 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc of these roads will need to be converted in such a way to handle the increase in traffic. This conversion may be in the form of widening of streets, installation of traffic controls, or other comparable measures. It is expected that maintenance levels will increase as a result as well.

Traffic counts for selected locations around the Township are shown on the Transportation Analysis Map.

Accident Locations

Most accidents in Bedford Township are associated with the more densely populated residential areas of the Township. "Fender benders" typically occur in these areas. Data acquired from the Monroe County Road Commission for the years 1998-1999 was used when analyzing accidents on both county and local roads. Major accident locations that occurred during this time period are mapped on the Transportation Analysis Map. Major accident locations are areas where four or more accidents occurred during the year.

Major accident locations in Bedford Township are primarily found in the following areas:

Road Name Locations

· Secor Road Between Consear and Sterns Roads · Lewis Avenue Between Erie and Smith Roads · Sterns Road Between Monroe and Jackman Roads · Smith Road Between Cloverlane and Telegraph Road · Temperance Road Between Douglas Road and Lewis Avenue · Dean Road Intersection of Secor Road · Summerfield Road Between Consear and Douglas Roads

Access to Additional Transportation Systems

When commercial and industrial users examine potential locations for new facilities, the users examine a number of factors. One factor is access via various transportation modes or systems. Bedford Township has easy access many kinds of transportation systems including - air, rail, and water.

Air

Bedford Township has access to three local airports (Custer Municipal, Toledo, Toledo Express Suburban) and one international airport (Detroit Metro) all within an hour one or less drive. The presence of air resources is essential for commercial growth. Airports that provide international service help to maximize potential markets for commercial users. The additional resource of local airports is a bonus. As larger airports grow, they begin to lose their competitive advantage for travel services, especially at the regional level. Local airports are gaining market share for regional commuting and non-person transportation services. Since Bedford Township has access to both local and international travel, there are more opportunities for commercial growth.

Bedford Township Master Plan 50 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Rail and Water

Many industrial users require large quantities of raw material. They manufacture product in bulk and have need of a transportation system which can accommodate large and heavy items efficiently. In many cases, rail transportation is the best mode to convey these raw materials and products. Bedford Township has three railroad lines (Ann Arbor, CSX, and DTI) in the immediate area.

When rail transportation is not sufficient or when the travel destination is international, water transportation becomes a more viable choice for industrial and some commercial users. Lake Erie and the Port of Toledo are less than 50 minutes away from the Township. The Port of Toledo is one of the most traveled ports within the United States. This access to both rail and water transportation systems provides Bedford Township with the ability to meet any requirement an industrial user may require to facilitate their business operations.

Bedford Township has convenient access to several modes of transportation. This situation can be used as part of a successful campaign to market and attract new development of commercial and industrial users. Township policy will establish the parameters for this direction of this development.

Bedford Township Master Plan 51 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc ‡—deE„rim w—r™hD2PHHP w—p2S „r—nsport—tion2en—lysis ix™essive2gur˜2guts gle—r2ƒite2hist—n™e2hefi™ien™ies €oor2‚o—d2qeometri™s w—jor2e™™ident2vo™—tion ever—ge2h—ily2„r—ffi™2gounts ‰e—r2of2en—lysis i fe˜2WV IPSIIP ƒ x ‡ ƒour™eX 22‡—deE„rimGesso™F2DPHHI wonroe2gountyD2wi™hig—n fedford2„ownship QSHH H QSHH UHHH peet PWPH tuly2WV

v—voy2‚o—d ƒterns2‚o—d

QQPS tune2WS

QISH tune2WS PVTH tuly2WS PPPH tuly2WS „elegr—ph2‚o—d IUTH epr2WU gr—˜˜2‚o—d VHH epr2WU TQWU y™t2WV IWSS eug2WW UVTS tune2WW PUUW y™t2WV IRPWP ƒept2WV vewis2evenue ITHHH w—r2WS IITRQ y™t2WV UVQU tuly2WW QVTW tuly2WW RPPP tuly2WW QPSQ tuly2WW VPWP y™t2WV TISH ƒept2WV PWVS eug2WW IHPPU pe˜2WV IPPS w—r2WP RRHP y™t2WV

t—™km—n2‚o—d WRIH tune2WW QIUV y™t2WV IRWH w—y2WT TUH w—y2WT SVTH y™t2WT IQVW eug2VU

PVSP y™t2WV ƒmith2‚o—d RHUU eug2WW ISSS tuly2WS

PTVH tuly2VU

he—n2‚o—d irie2‚o—d

UVUR tuly2WW

ƒ—m—ri—2‚o—d „emper—n™e2‚o—d hougl—s2‚o—d RPHH xov2WR QWVH tuly2VU ISSS tuly2WS TPQH w—r2WV RHSH y™t2WV IWVS tuly2WS RWWS tune2WW UTIW pe˜2WV QTRH tune2WT QIHH eug2WR QUWH epr2WS IIHHH tuly2WR IQPH tuly2WS IQHUP y™t2WV IPRVT epr2VW IISSU y™t2WV ƒe™or2‚o—d WIIQ y™t2WV IPUPH tune2WS TRWH tune2WS IVQT ƒept2VP IPVQV y™t2WV UQRH tuly2WW SPIH tuly2WW RWPH w—r2WS TQHP eug2WW USQH tune2WS wonroe2‚o—d

SQIH tune2WW

gonse—r2‚o—d ƒe™tion2‚o—d SWWH epr2WU ƒummerfield2‚o—d IRTH tuly2VU ‡hiteford2‚o—d

ƒ™hool2‚d edler2‚o—d ƒt2enthony2‚d QSSR eug2WW EXISTING LAND USE

Physical Characteristics

Essentially, Bedford Township serves as a northern, suburban bedroom community for the City of Toledo, Ohio. Primarily rural residential in nature and bordered on the east and west by two interstate highway systems, US-23 and I- 75, the Bedford Township area offers residents the unique opportunity to enjoy a slow-paced, rural lifestyle that is within easy commuting access to the urban employment centers that are associated with the Toledo metropolitan area.

Throughout the Township, residential, commercial and industrial areas are buffered by numerous tracts of Rural hinterlands are beginning to meet suburban fringe in Bedford Township agriculture and woodlands of various types and sizes. It is readily apparent that Bedford Township is an area experiencing a rural-to-suburban transition. For example, although much of the lands which lie in the northern half of the Township are dominated by large homes situated on expansive, rural lots separated by equally expansive agricultural tracts and woodlands, southern portions of the Township (closest to Toledo) are typically dominated by smaller, suburban residential developments (subdivisions), separated by small agriculture tracts and woodlots.

Numerous horse farms, located in the northern portions of the Township, help to embody the rural character of this region, while centers of commercial and industrial activity, located in the southern portions of the Township, provide vital economic links between the Township and metropolitan areas of Toledo.

Existing Land Use

The focus of this chapter is an examination of existing land use patterns, their distinguishing characteristics and their impact on future land development.

One of the most important aspects of a Master Plan study conducted for a community is a firm understanding of the types of land use activities that are currently taking place within the community. A thorough knowledge of existing land use patterns and site conditions furnishes planners and community leaders with basic information by which future residential, commercial, industrial and public land use decisions can be made.

The existing land use map and acreage tabulation chart, included in the following pages, will serve as key references for Bedford Township to utilize in its consideration of land use and infrastructure improvement proposals in the future.

Bedford Township Master Plan 52 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Methodology

A field survey was conducted by Wade-Trim on September 7-8, 1999 to gather existing land use data. Data was gathered for all parcels within the Bedford Township limits. Each parcel of property was inspected in the field and its use characteristics recorded on a digital base map. The land use field data was then transferred from the field survey notes into a computer-aided drafting (CAD) system. The Existing Land Use Map was prepared using Intergraph MicroStation software.

The property line base map was prepared using digital files obtained from the Bedford Township Planning and Community Development Department. Acreage tabulations for each land use classification were calculated utilizing ARC VIEW GIS software that has the capability of measuring square footage areas of closed shapes.

Land Use Distribution

Each existing land use was placed in one of thirteen general land use categories. The Existing Land Use Map depicts the geographic distribution of the land use classifications.

Bedford Township encompasses approximately 24,960 acres or about 39 square miles in area. Data provided in Table 32 indicates the total acreage occupied by each land use type and its proportion of total land area within Bedford Township.

Table 32 Bedford Township Existing Land Use Land Use Type Acres Percent Agricultural-Farmstead 5,730 23.0 Single-family Residential 14,877 59.6 Two-Family Residential 67 0.3 Multiple-Family Residential 111 0.4 Mobile Home Park 170 0.7 Commercial 770 3.1 Office 102 0.4 Industrial 391 1.6 Public 62 0.2 Semi-Public 107 0.4 Schools and Institutional 313 1.3 Parks and Recreation 783 3.1 Vacant, Open Space, Right-of-Way, 1,477 5.9 Bodies of Water, Other Total 24,960 100.0 Source: Wade-Trim, Field Survey, September 1999

Bedford Township Master Plan 53 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Agricultural-Farmstead

For planning purposes, the agricultural-farmstead category includes all parcels utilized for farming and crop cultivation purposes. Generally, lands in this category occupy large-sized parcels, and may include a single-family residence along with several outbuildings that are related to these units.

Lands categorized as agricultural-farmstead occupy 5,730 acres, or about 23.0 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Single-Family Residential

The single-family residential category includes site-built single-family detached structures used as a permanent dwelling, manufactured Rural single-family housing in Bedford Township

(modular) dwellings or mobile homes located outside of designated mobile home parks, and accessory buildings, such as garages, that are related to these units. Single-family dwellings in Bedford Township may be located as part of a subdivision or on an individual parcel.

Suburban single-family housing in Bedford Township Land uses categorized as single- family residential development occupy 14,877 acres, or about 59.6 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Two-Family Residential

The two-family residential category includes all attached housing structures having two separate living units that are combined under one roof (duplexes). These structures may be located as part of an overall planned community or as single structures occupying an individual parcel. Examples of this type of land use can be found at Greenbriar Condominiums at Smith Road, near the intersection of Jackman Road, as well as in the Deer Run on Secor, Enfield Village on Douglas, and Woodland Villas at Smith Road.

Bedford Township Master Plan 54 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Land uses categorized as two-family residential development occupy 67 acres, equivalent to 0.3 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Multiple-Family Residential

The multiple-family residential category includes housing structures consisting of more Deer Run Condominiums Typical two-family than two units that are located on the same site. residential units These may be apartments or townhouses developed individually or in complexes. It also includes related lawn areas, parking lots, and any accessory recreation facilities. Examples of multiple-family residential uses found in Bedford Township are the Brookforest Apartment complex, located at the intersection of Jackman Road and Dean Road, the Luther Haus Senior Housing development, located near the intersection of Lewis Avenue and Smith Road, and Meadowood Apartments, located near the Luther Haus – Multi-family condominiums intersection of Lewis Avenue and Sterns Road.

Multiple-family residential development occupies 111 acres, or about 0.4 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Mobile Home Park

The mobile home park category includes land assembled for the purpose of locating a planned mobile or manufactured home community on the site. Land so classified includes related service and recreational areas. Also included in this category are unique lands occupied by mobile homes or travel trailers that are intended serve as permanent residences, but only on a seasonal basis. A specific example of this type of mobile home park in Bedford Township is Sunset Acres, located along West Samaria Road. Sunset Acres is open annually from May 1 to November 1.

More traditional examples of mobile home park land uses are the Northtowne Meadows and Oakwood Mobile Home Parks which are located near the intersection of Telegraph and Smith Roads and a small mobile home park located just north of Sterns Road along Summerfield Road.

Mobile home park development occupies 170 acres, or about 0.7 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Bedford Township Master Plan 55 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Commercial

The commercial category includes convenience stores, comparison shopping centers, and general commercial businesses, as well as communication facilities, transmission towers, and radio transmitting towers.

Convenience stores are commercial establishments that satisfy the day-to-day shopping needs of residents. Convenience uses include food stores, hardware stores, and barber shops. In Bedford Township, most of this type of development is clustered around the nodal areas of Samaria, Temperance and Lambertville and Secor/Stearns Roads. Many of these establishments take the form of small neighborhood stores and shops that are located at major cross streets. For example, the entities that make up the commercial node of Lambertville consist of a Lambertville Hardware, a Village Fabric store, a State Farm Insurance office, a Key Bank and a Pizza Hut restaurant. There are also instances of convenience commercial uses in Bedford Township which are also located as part of a strip commercial development, like that found at the intersection of Sterns Road and Lewis Avenue and the Bedford Plaza, which is located just south of this development.

Comparison shopping centers are developments which offer merchandise, products, or services needed less frequently, but which a customer usually comparison shops before buying. Included in this category are clothing stores, furniture appliance showrooms, and department stores. There are no comparison shopping centers in Bedford Township. To satisfy these types of needs, residents in Bedford Township generally travel to comparison shopping centers and malls which are located in the larger metropolitan area of Toledo, Ohio, just ten minutes south of the Township.

General commercial businesses do not require a location in a shopping center; rather, such uses benefit from a location on a major thoroughfare that permits good access. Such uses include gasoline stations, restaurants, automotive sales, light auto repair/service facilities (i.e., quick oil change businesses), theaters, landscaping supply centers, motels and greenhouses. As in the convenience commercial category, the majority of this type of development is clustered around the nodal areas of Samaria, Temperance and Lambertville, however, there are independent establishments found throughout the entire Township area.

Communication uses are establishments furnishing point-to-point communication services, whether by wire or radio, and include radio and television broadcasting stations as well as towers establishing cellular services. The largest groups of radio towers in Bedford Township are located near the intersection of Smith and Jackman Roads. There are also single communications towers located at the corner of Consear and Adler Roads, on the western border of the Township, as well as in the center of Section 2, in the rural, northeast portion of the Township.

Bedford Township Master Plan 56 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc At the present time, lands occupied by commercial and communication uses occupy 770 acres, or about 3.1 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Office

The office category includes business, financial, medical, professional offices, and related service establishments. Typical office development in Bedford Township consists of small office buildings located within the commercial core of Lambertville and Temperance, as well as offices that are located along Lewis Avenue, just south of Dean Road.

Office development occupies 102 acres, or about 0.4 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Industrial

The industrial category includes both heavy and light forms of manufacturing, assembling and general fabricating facilities. Generally, heavy industry consists of several plants located in the Bedford Industrial Park Center, such as Michelin Tire, M and F Machine and Tool and MTS Seating. Light industrial uses includes all warehouses, heavy auto repair facilities and non- manufacturing uses which are industrial in character and which may have significant outdoor storage or shipping/receiving requirements.

Examples of light industrial uses in Bedford Township are primarily associated with several firms located in the Bedford Industrial Park Center as well as the Banner Industrial Park, such as T.J Roofing and Sheet Metal, the Bruce J. Havers Company, Burrow and Belkur, Several heavy and light industrial firms provide important Incorporated. economic stability to Bedford Township

Bedford Township Master Plan 57 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Industrial development occupies 391 acres, or about 1.6 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Public

This category includes all land devoted for public purposes such as municipal offices, police and fire departments, department of public works, sewage and water treatment facilities, libraries and other comparable uses found throughout Bedford Township.

Public land uses occupy 62 acres, or about 0.2 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Semi-Public

This category includes structures or areas generally open to the public such as churches, meeting halls, auditoriums, cemeteries and other comparable uses. Specific examples of semi-public uses in Bedford Township include the Hitchcock, St. Anthony’s and Lambertville Cemeteries, Bedford Assembly of God Church and the Bedford Senior Center.

Semi-public land uses occupy 107 acres, or about 0.4 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Schools and Institutional

This category includes lands used for public and private education, hospitals and other related purposes. Examples of this type of use include Bedford Junior High and High Schools, Mercy South County Health Center and the Monroe County Community College (Whitman Center).

Land uses that fall under this category occupy 313 acres, or about 1.3 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Parks and Recreation Monroe County Community College – Whitman Center This category includes lands principally used for recreational purposes. This may include active recreation facilities such as playground equipment, ball diamonds, tennis courts soccer fields and public and private golf courses. In addition, passive recreation facilities, such as hiking trails, beach and picnic areas, are also included in this category. Examples of this type of use in Bedford Township include Maple Grove, Tamaron, Bedford Hills and Giant Oaks Golf Courses as well as Carr, Vienna and White Parks.

Bedford Township Master Plan 58 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Most of the active recreational facilities (tennis courts, soccer fields and ball diamonds) found in Bedford Township’s public park areas are lit for nighttime use and afford generous permanent seating areas. Most are in good to excellent condition. Many provide shelters for group picnics along with areas for outdoor grilling.

Parks and recreation areas occupy 783 acres, or about 3.1 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Vacant, Open Space, Rights-of-Way, Bodies of Water and Other

All dedicated rights-of-way (highways, roads, and major utility easements) are included in this category. In addition, water bodies, lands lying fallow, woodlands, and vacant land for which no specific use was identified are included.

This category occupies 1,477 acres, or about 5.9 percent of the total land in Bedford Township.

Residential Build-out Analysis

Two areas of information are examined in this residential build-out analysis: population and vacant land. In the year 2020, the maximum projected population for Bedford Township is 34,203 4. At most, this projected population would require 3,229 new units of housing5. According to current land use information, there is approximately 1,441 acres of vacant land. Conversion of all vacant land to single-family residential would yield between 2,939 and 6,103 new units, depending on lot size (see Table 33).

Although current zoning would permit these number of units, market conditions would not support the upper range for several reasons: Lack of land use compatibility – some vacant land is adjacent to industrial and/or commercial uses; Lot configuration – the dimensions of some lots would not allow for maximum development due to narrow widths; Location – some of the lots front on major roadways, and thereby have less appeal for residential use.

Table 33 Residential Build-out Analysis Vacant Vacant Land Adjustment Vacant Land Lot Square # of Units Land (Sq.Ft.) Factor Adjusted Footage (F) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) 1,441 acres 62,769,960 0.7 43,938,972 15,000 2,929 “ “ “ 10,000 4,394 “ “ “ 7,200 6,103 A – from Wade-Trim field survey and calculations; C – adjustment factor is based on allowances for right-of-way, required building setbacks, etc.; E – from Bedford Township Zoning Ordinance – Schedule of Regulations. B = A x 43,560; D = B x C; F = D / E Source: Wade-Trim

4 See Planning Projections and Parameters Section and Tables 34-35 for more details. 5 See Table 36 Estimated Housing Needs for Bedford Township in 2020. Bedford Township Master Plan 59 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc ‚—u™h2‚d fedford2„ownship wonroe2gountyD2wi™hig—n

edler2‚o—d ƒ—m—ri—2‚o—d

gr—˜˜2‚o—d v—nd2 se2gl—ssifi™—tions

egri™ultur—lEp—rmste—d ƒingle2p—mily2‚esidenti—l wultiple2p—mily2‚esidenti—l wo˜ile2rome2€—rk gommer™i—l sndustri—l

irie2‚o—d winx2‚o—d hougl—s2‚o—d yffi™e €riv—te2‚e™re—tion—l

ƒe™or2‚o—d ghur™hes €u˜li™2qolf2gourses €—rks ƒ™hools €u˜li™2 tility ypen2ƒp—™e „emper—n™e2‚o—d

t—™km—n2‚o—d

vewis2evenue

ƒu˜st—tion2‚o—d ƒummerfield2‚o—d gonse—r2‚o—d

he—n2‚o—d ƒour™eX 22‡—deE„rimGesso™F2DPHHI

wonroe2‚o—d ƒterns2‚o—d

x w—p2T ‡hiteford2‚o—d ‡ i ixisting2v—nd2 se „elegr—ph2‚o—d v—voy2‚o—d ƒmith2‚o—d ƒ QSHH H QSHH UHHH peet ‡—deE„rim ƒt—teline2‚o—d w—r™hD2PHHP PLANNING PROJECTIONS AND PARAMETERS

Population Projections

County-wide population projections from 2000 through 2020 in five-year increments were collected from three sources: the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Michigan Department of Management and Budget, (MDMB) and the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) (see Table 34). The MDOT projections are generated using an employment and transportation regional model. The MDMB projections are based upon the age-cohort survival methods. All three projections were averaged together and the average was used to project Bedford Township population in each five-year increment. For comparison purposes, the projected population figures for both the Township and Monroe County are shown.

Three sets of projections are generated: Constant County Share, Increasing County Share and the Consultant estimate. The Constant County Share method applies the Township’s 1990 share of county population (18.2 percent) to the average county estimates for each five-year period. The Increasing County Share method increases the Township share of county population by 0.369 percentage points in each five-year period and is based upon the change in the Township’s share of county population from 1980 - 1990. The Consultant estimate is based on a linear reduction (0.5%) of the multiplier factor.

Table 34 Population Projections Population a Projection Place 1980 1990 1996 f 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Bedford Township 22,902 23,748 26,630 SEMCOG 28,087 29,680 31,117 32,876 34,203 Constant county share b 25,647 26,185 26,766 27,271 27,543 Increase county share c 26,593 27,151 27,754 28,277 28,559 Consultant estimate d 27,429 28,115 28,677 29,107 29,398 Monroe County 134,659 133,600 141,374 SEMCOG 146,730 - - 154,877 - - 164,793 MDOT 138,839 142,047 146,430 150,576 152,670 MDMB 143,000 145,700 147,700 149,100 150,000 Average e 140,920 143,874 147,065 149,838 151,335 a Data from Table 1, Population Trends b 1990 Township share of average county population projection (18.2%) c 1990 Township share of average county population increased by 0.369 each five-year period. d Decreasing annual growth rate in each five-year period (3%, 2.5%, 2%, 1.5%, and 1%). e Average of MDOT and MDMB projections. Used for constant and increasing Township share of county population. f Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) Sources: Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), Economic and Demographic Outlook for the United States and Counties of Michigan to the Year 2020, September, 30, 1994; Michigan Department of Management and Budget (MDMB) Office of the State Demographer, Population Projections for Michigan to the Year 2020, County Projections, 1996; SEMCOG Draft 2020 Regional Development Plan, July 1998 Analysis and Consultant estimate by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 60 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Regional Population Projections

For the next 20 years, Bedford Township population is projected to increase an average of one percent (1%) per year resulting with an anticipated population of 34,203 in the year 2020 (see Table 35). The growth rate in the Township is double the growth rate of Monroe County which is projected at less than half a percent (0.5%) for the same time period.

The trend for Lucas County and the Toledo MSA are quite different from their Michigan counterparts. Lucas County is projected to have a decline in population for the next five years with a recovery beginning around the year 2015. The net change in population from the year 2000 to 2020 is approximately zero percent (0%). The population in Toledo MSA had been in a state of zero to negative growth. This trend is anticipated to cease in 2000 and begin a small increase (1.15% or less per five-year increment) for the next few years.

Table 35 Regional Population Projections 2000 – 2020 Bedford Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Township Year Total % Chg. Total % Chg. Total % Chg. Total % Chg. Pop. From Pop. From Pop. From Pop. From Previous Previous Previous Previous Revised 4/1/90 1 23,748 - - 133,600 - - 448,542 - - 614,128 - - Estimate 7/1/98 1 27,502 15.81% 143,499 7.41% 462,361 3.08% 611,417 4 -0.44% 2000 2,3 28,087 2.13% 146,730 2.25% 459,100 -0.71% 619,000 1.24% 2005 2,3 29,680 5.67% n/a n/a 456,500 -0.57% 619,900 0.15% 2010 2,3 31,117 4.84% 154,877 5.55% 456,900 0.09% 624,800 0.79% 2015 2,3 32,876 5.65% n/a n/a 460,000 0.68% 632,000 1.15% 2020 2,3 34,203 4.04% 164,793 6.40% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a – Not Available 1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2 Source: SEMCOG for Bedford Township and Monroe County 3 Source: Ohio Department of Development for Lucas County and Toledo MSA 4 7/1/96 Population Estimate Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 61 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Estimated Housing Needs

An estimate of future housing needs requires a basic economic analysis of supply and demand. Supply equates to three elements: the number of housing units currently available in the market, the number of units under construction, and the number of units slated for demolition6. Demand is based primarily on population and the economic factors impacting that population for a given time period.

For this study, a very simple model was derived to calculate future housing needs for Bedford Township. First, the most recent census data for Township population, number of housing units, and vacancy percentage was obtained. From this data, the number of occupied units and persons per household per occupied unit was calculated7. This methodology produced the following formulas:

Number of Occupied Housing units = Population Persons per Household per Occupied Unit

Number of Housing Units = Number of Occupied Units (100% - Vacancy %)

Using this methodology, it is projected that Bedford Township will, at a minimum, require between 2,840 and 3,229 new units of housing by the year 2020 (see Table 36). The range of new units depends on the percentage of vacant units. The 1990 Census indicated a mere 2.2% vacancy. One calculation was made using this rate; however, this number is low compared to typical residential vacancy rates which can range from 5-7% or higher depending on the market conditions. It is not practical to assume that the strength of the current economy will remain in force over the next 20 years. Therefore, a second calculation was preformed using a 5% vacancy rate.

Further examination of the age of the existing housing stock reveals that approximately 1/3 of the residential structures (3,368) in Bedford Township are 40 plus years old (see Table 17)8. In 2020, these structures will be in excess of 60 years old. The average life span of a residential structure is between 40 to 60 years. Depending on factors, such as initial construction quality and regular maintenance, these older units may not be viable housing options. A more thorough analysis is required to predict the future viability of the existing housing stock and how that viability will impact the market.

6 For this analysis, supply is limited to units currently available plus those units under construction or in receipt of building permits as of July ’99. A projection of units to be demolished is not included in this calculation.

7 The number of persons per household per occupied unit was compared to census counts of persons per household (Table 4, Persons per Household 1960 - 1990) as a measure of accuracy.

8 Table 17 lists the year the structure was built as of the 1990 Census. The age of these structures must be increased by 9 years to reflect the current age status. Therefore, units built in 1950 or earlier according to the 1990 Census would be sixty plus years of age in the year 2020. Bedford Township Master Plan 62 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 36 Estimated Housing Needs for Bedford Township in 2020 Year Population # of Vacancy % # of Persons per New Units Needed (A) Housing (C) Occupied Household / Units (B) Units (D) Occ. Unit (E) 1990 23,748 1 8,239 3 2.20% 3 8,058 2.95 Total (F) Per Year (G) 2 B 5 2020 34,203 13,197 1 2.20% 12,907 2.65 2,840 142.01 B 2020 34,203 13,586 2 5.00% 12,907 2.65 3,229 161.45 # of New units # of Housing units + Built (H) New Builds (J) 1990-1999 2,118 4 10,357

B1,2 = D / (100% - C); D = A / E; F = B – J; G = F / 20 (years 2000 to 2020); J = B + H 1 see Table 1, 1970 to 1990 Population Trends 2 see Table 35, Regional Population Projections 3 see Table 16, 1990 Occupancy Tenure 4 January 1990 through July 1999, calculated from Table 18, Residential Building Permit Activity – Bedford Township 5 SEMCOG Draft 2020 Regional Development Forecast Source: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 63 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Affordable Housing Needs

It is difficult to project the affordable housing needs for a community over time. The projections require analysis of economic status, household income and housing market conditions. At best, affordable housing9 can be expressed as a percentage of total housing units.

According to 1990 Census data, 87% of households are homeowners and 13% of households are renters. In 1990, 12.55% (761 out of 6,064) of homeownership households10 and 29.25% (265 out of 906) of renter households11 in Bedford Township are paying 30% or more of their household income in housing costs. This information produces the following ratios:

Tot. # of housing units (A) = Tot. # of homeownership units (B = A x 87%) + Tot. # of rental units (C = A x 13%)

Total number of affordable homeownership units (D) = B x 12.55%

Total number of affordable rental units (E) = C x 29.25%

Total number of affordable units needed (F) = D + E

Applying these ratios to the estimated housing needs for Bedford Township in 2020 (Table 35) yields the estimated need of 1,943 to 2,000 affordable housing units12.

Table 37 Estimated Affordable Housing Need Total Number of Housing Affordable Affordable Rental Total Affordable Units (A) Homeownership Units Units ( E ) Units Needed (D + E) ( D ) 13,197 1,441 502 1,943 13,586 1,483 517 2,000 Analysis by: Wade-Trim

9 In this context, affordable housing is defined as housing costs that are less than or equal to 30% of the total income for a given household. 10 See Table 20, 1990 Mortgage as a Percentage of Household Income. 11 See Table 21, 1990 Rent as a Percentage of Household Income. 12 Range depends on the anticipated vacancy as listed in Table 36, Estimate of Housing Needs. Bedford Township Master Plan 64 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Industrial Sector

The quantity of developed industrial land a community will need in the future is dependent on several factors including current employment base, availability of utilities, local political climate, access, etc (see Table 38).

Table 38 Location Criteria Used by Industry Criteria Comments Availability of Adequate Sites The trend is towards one-story plants with adequate space for parking, loading, a reserve for expansion, and where the location abuts a residential area a landscaped buffer strip. Reasonable Tax Rates Two of the more frequently stated reasons for an industrial move are the lack of an adequate site and the lack of a reasonable tax rate. Location of Production Material Improved methods of moving bulk products are lessening the importance of this factor. Power Electric power is the type most often required today. Water Many industrial users require large quantities of water, either raw or treated, in their manufacturing process. In addition, some industries use water as their means of transportation. Waste Treatment Facilities A prerequisite to industrial operations locating in a particular area is the ability of the area to accommodate the disposal of wastewater. Either public utilities with on-site facilities or readily available access to facilities with sufficient capacity to meet operational requirements have become integral location criteria, requiring careful consideration. Industrial Fuel Industries requiring gas are limited to their potential locations. If coal is required in large quantities, the industry should be located along railroads or waterways. Transportation Facilities The importance of rail sites has diminished for some industries. Many rely solely on major highways as the means of bringing in production material and distributing the finished product. Favorable Competitive Pattern Certain industries are finding it worthwhile to establish branch plants and to decentralize in order to maintain competitive advantages. Living Conditions An industry will investigate a community’s resources in terms of educational and recreational facilities, housing, availability of professional services, composition of shopping facilities, and public attitudes. Compatible Laws Up-to-date industrial thinking recognizes the desirability of sound zoning, building codes, and related regulations. Site Characteristics Items such as soil, topography, required land grading, water tables and drainage, waste disposal services, etc. are critical elements of site conditions for industrial facility locations. Labor The cost of labor as a factor of production is important to industries where added costs cannot be shifted to the consumer without sacrificing competitive advantages. Compiled by Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 65 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc The Township has access to every form of transportation which industry requires: highways – I-75, I-80/90; railroads – DTI, Ann Arbor, CSX; water – Lake Erie; and air – Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Toledo Suburban Airport, Custer Municipal Airport, etc. The geographical location of the Township exposes industrial users to two major metropolitan areas, Detroit and Toledo, which present the potential to reach local, state, regional, national, and international client bases. The Township’s investment in an industrial park demonstrates a positive atmosphere towards industrial development and supplies an identifiable resource for potential site acquisition. Land availability, site conditions, and zoning support potential industrial development. Bedford Township quality of life factors are appealing and can assist in employee retention. In sum, application of this location criteria appears to place Bedford Township in a favorable light

Land Use Projections

For land use planning purposes, it is necessary to estimate the amount of land that can reasonably be expected to be developed for industrial uses. This estimate ensures that capital improvements will be programmed in advance and that an ample supply of land is available to support local employment opportunities. Three methodologies commonly used for calculating future industrial land needs are employment/density ratio method, land use ratios method, and population ratio method. The following summarizes each method.

The employment/density ratio method (see Table 39) is the most accurate predictor of industrial land use demand. If employment by industry can be projected, a worker density factor can be applied, resulting in a total acreage requirement. Estimating employment levels is, however, beyond the scope of this study.

Table 39 Employment/Density Ratios For Estimating Industrial Land Use Type of Industry Average Number of Employees Per Net Site Acre Intensive Industries a 30 Intermediate Extensive Industries b 14 Extensive Industries c 8 a Industries including: electrical equipment and supply, printing and publishing, apparel and textile products, transportation equipment, etc. b Industries including: lumber and wood products, furniture and fixtures, food and kindred products, chemicals, etc. c Industries including: tobacco products, petroleum and coal products, wholesale trade, etc. Source: Urban Land Institute, Industrial Development Handbook, 1975

Estimating industrial land use can also be accomplished by employing land use ratios. By surveying the amount of land devoted to industrial uses in other communities, an average can be calculated and used as a standard for planning purposes (See Table 40).

Bedford Township Master Plan 66 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 40 Land Use Ratios for Estimating Industrial Land Use Community Size Percent Industrial Land Average Small Cites & Towns (under 42,000 people) 8% Large Cities (over 200,000) 12% Source: American Planning Association, PAS Memo: Land Use Ratios, May 1983

Using this method, Bedford Township would require approximately 2,010 acres13 of land for industrial use.

The third estimation technique use population ratios to predict industrial land use acreage requirements (see Table 41). While it does not take regional market factors into consideration, this technique does provide a decent model to examine industrial land use needs.

Table 41 Population Ratios for Estimating Industrial Land Use Category Ratio Land required for light industry 2 acres per 1,000 population Land required for heavy industry 10 acres per 1,000 population Total gross land required for all industry 12 acres per 1,000 population Source: Joseph DeChiara and Lee Koppleman, Planning Design Criteria, 1969

Under this technique, Bedford Township would require 285 acres14 for its population in 1990 and would require an additional 125 acres (total of 410 acres) in 2020. Regardless of which model is used, each one suggests that Bedford Township can support expansion of existing industrial uses and growth of new industry. Existing land use studies support these projections. Currently, the Township has approximately 286 acres of active industrial use. In cooperation with Erie Township, an additional 400+ acres are available for expansion of industrial uses.

Regional Projections

In order to project the regional demand for industrial uses, a uniform standard must be established. In this case, employment by sector is the uniform standard (see Table 42). Through extrapolation, the change in employment for a given sector will indicate demand for a use (in this case industrial) that requires employees from that sector. Due to the broad classifications, examinations of industrial-related employment sectors are limited to agricultural services, mining, manufacturing, and wholesale trade.

In Monroe County, Lucas County, and the Toledo MSA, employment in agricultural service and mining is projected to increase. For manufacturing and wholesale trade, Monroe County is projected to experience an increase while Lucas County and the Toledo MSA are projected to encounter decreases. These conditions suggest positive growth potential for Bedford Township.

13 Total acreage of 25,129 x 8%. 14 1990 Population of 23,748 (23.748 thousands x 12 = 284.976 acres) and 2020 Population Estimate of 27,502 (27.502 thousands x 12 = 410.436 acres). Bedford Township Master Plan 67 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc They also suggest that the Township may be in a more competitive position from a geographic standpoint. Specifically, the projected growth in Monroe County (which may provide the Township with new industry) when combined with the projected decline in the Toledo MSA (which may provide the Township with a new labor resource) suggests a strategic location for the Township.

Translation of this information into a projected land use demand is difficult without further market analysis and policy decisions relating to which industrial markets the Township intends to pursue. In general, this information suggests that there will be a regional need for industrial land use and Bedford Township (due to its locational advantage and current resources) may be able to meet a portion of this regional need.

Table 42 Regional Employment Projections 1990-2020 Monroe County Lucas County Toledo MSA Employment by Sector 2000 2020 % 2000 2020 % 2000 2020 % Change Change Change Farming 1,770 1,510 -14.69% 600 450 -25.00% 3,040 2,320 -23.68% Agricultural Services, other 810 1,170 44.44% 1,920 2,220 15.63% 2,920 3,470 18.84% Mining 190 230 21.05% 280 300 7.14% 420 460 9.52% Construction 3,350 4,320 28.96% 14,250 14,670 2.95% 18,810 19,650 4.47% Manufacturing 10,780 12,440 15.40% 35,430 31,190 -11.97% 59,670 58,560 -1.86% Transportation, Comm. & 3,810 4,000 4.99% 12,900 11,230 -12.95% 16,900 16,330 -3.37% Public Utilities Wholesale Trade 1,580 1,860 17.72% 14,010 13,090 -6.57% 18,150 18,800 3.58% Retail Trade 11,370 14,540 27.88% 55,260 61,510 11.31% 70,500 77,490 9.91% Finance, Insurance, & Real 2,460 2,660 8.13% 15,730 16,020 1.84% 19,500 20,530 5.28% Estate Services 13,370 17,660 32.09% 101,240 126,820 25.27% 121,010 152,900 26.35% Federal Civilian 270 290 7.41% 2,100 2,040 -2.86% 2,470 2,420 -2.02% Government Federal Military 310 310 0.00% 1,270 1,260 -0.79% 1,700 1,700 0.00% Government State & Local Government 6,020 6,470 7.48% 31,230 37,940 21.49% 47,040 56,090 19.24% Total 56,090 67,460 20.27% 286,220 318,740 11.36% 382,130 430,720 12.72%

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 1998 State Profile Analysis by: Wade-Trim

Bedford Township Master Plan 68 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Commercial Sector

To arrive at a plan that considers a reasonable balance of commercial land use, it is important to understand the various characteristics of commercial activity both within and outside the Township. The following concepts and principles have been considered to assist in measuring Bedford Township’s present and future needs for commercial development.

Planning for commercial uses involves some of the most difficult problems in land use planning. Appropriately sited and planned commercial uses can provide local residents convenient access to goods and services and promote economic stability within the community. Commercial uses that are not suitably located and carefully planned can be a disruptive element and ultimately detract from the community and local property values.

The extensive use of the personal automobile has brought many drastic changes to lifestyle and the physical make-up of communities. The most vivid change has been to shopping habits and patterns. In Bedford Township, an automobile is required for almost any type of shopping trip. At the present time, commercial uses are found in several scattered locations throughout the Township. The result is commercial areas developed solely to service automobile traffic. The only exceptions to this are the village commercial areas in Lambertville and Temperance that serve a limited amount of pedestrian traffic from nearby residences. Much of the commercial activity that is prevalent today is found in linear or “strip” patterns along major roads and at intersections of major roads as opposed to planned clustered commercial areas or shopping centers.

Market Functions

Commercial uses serve different market functions. The following descriptions are generalized to allow a contrasting picture of the types of commercial uses and the market they serve.

· Convenience Commercial Uses usually deal with goods that represent daily needs such as food, drugs, laundry service and beauty and barbershops. Convenience commercial activities may be located either individually or in small planned shopping centers that serve one or more neighborhood trade areas.

· Comparison Commercial Uses provide commodities that are purchased less frequently. Therefore, there is a desire on the part o the consumer to compare price and quality at more than one store. Uses typically found in comparison shopping areas include larger supermarkets and drugstores, discount stores, department stores, appliance and furniture stores and specialty shops. Comparison commercial activities also may be individually located but are more typically found in planned shopping centers. Hence, comparison centers are normally larger than convenience centers and have larger trade areas.

· General Commercial Uses - Non-center commercial areas generally consist of individual commercial uses which are either randomly located or located in a strip along an arterial street. Uses located in non-center commercial areas are typically located in locations with high traffic volumes, can serve either convenience or comparison needs, often have outdoor sales space, and require expansive land area. Typical uses include building material sales, auto service and sales, and garden sales.

Bedford Township Master Plan 69 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Organization of Commercial Areas

Commercial activity is organized in various development patterns. Frequently, different market functions can be mixed within various commercial development patterns. The intent of this discussion is to provide an understanding of commercial development patterns and their predominant and generalized function.

The following describes various commercial development patterns pertinent to Bedford Township:

· Village Commercial Centers - Central Business Districts (CBD’s) have been the traditional focus of commercial development within many communities providing both the convenience and comparison needs of the market place. The role of CBD’s has changed with the advent of other types of commercial development patterns. Whereas the CBD provided a diverse array of convenience and comparison goods and services, it now plays a more specialized role in most communities.

Bedford Township does not have a large, well-defined CBD, but does have two smaller Village Commercial Centers in Lambertville and Temperance that have performed many of the roles of the traditional CBD’s. As the Township continues to grow, the role of Lambertville and Temperance will likely be more specialized.

· Shopping Centers - Shopping centers are now the predominant form of commercial development. There are three primary types of shopping centers: neighborhood, community, and regional. Each has a distinct function, trade area, and tenant mix. When considering the classification of commercial centers, the major tenant characteristic is the determining factor. Neither site area or building size determines the type of center. The following describes the market area and locational characteristics of specific types of planned shopping centers and non-center commercial developments. Data in Table 43 summarize the characteristics of planned shopping centers by type.

Neighborhood Shopping Center

Neighborhood shopping centers provide for the sale of convenience goods (food, drugs, and sundries) and personal services (those that meet the daily needs of the immediate neighborhood). The principal anchor of a neighborhood shopping center is a supermarket. Other potential tenants include a drugstore and a small variety store. Centers that do not have a supermarket but have a similar gross leasable area are sometimes referred to as neighborhood centers. Unless other food tenants (meat market, fish monger, green grocer) can be aggregated to equal a supermarket, the center is classified as a small community center since it would likely have to draw from a larger than neighborhood market area in order to be successful.15

15 Urban Land Institute, Shopping Center Development Handbook, 1985, p. 4.

Bedford Township Master Plan 70 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc A neighborhood center typically has a gross leasable area of about 50,000 square feet; however, it may range in size from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. The required site area is between three and ten acres. Neighborhood centers normally serve a trade area population of 3,000 to 40,000 people who live within a five to ten minute drive. This often equates to a trade area of one and one-half miles. Depending on the density and character of the residential area, a neighborhood center may draw from a larger geographic area and/or may be greater in size than the standards suggest.16

Neighborhood centers should have access from collector streets and should avoid having minor residential service streets serve as their principal access. If a neighborhood convenience center is justified as part of a planned unit or residential cluster development, the center should be placed at an outer edge of the property, separate from the interior residential areas of the development.17

Community Shopping Center

Early community shopping center developments had a junior department store or large variety store as the principal anchor. Due to the decline of junior department stores and variety stores in the marketplace, off-price and discount stores or strong specialty stores (hardware/building/home improvement store or drug/variety/garden center) have become the most common principal anchors. Large-scale furniture warehouse stores and discount catalog display and pickup stores are other possible anchor tenants.18

Community centers offer a greater depth and range of merchandise in shopping and specialty goods than the neighborhood center. Community centers also tend to provide certain categories of goods that are less likely to be found in regional centers, such as furniture, hardware, and garden and building supplies.

A community shopping center has a typical gross leasable area of about 150,000 square feet but may range from 100,000 to 300,000 square feet. A community center requires a site of 10 to 30 acres. It normally serves a trade area population of 40,000 to 150,000 people living within a 10 to 20 minute drive.

Geographically, community centers tend to draw from an area within three to five miles of the site. Because community centers may offer special categories of goods, their market size and drawing power is difficult to estimate. In metropolitan areas, a community center is vulnerable to competition. It is too large to thrive off its immediate neighborhood trade area and too small to make a strong impact on the whole community, unless it is located in a small city or central place (population of 50,000 to 100,000 people). The development of a strong regional center may impinge on a community center’s trade area. However, in strong market areas, both can succeed, even if they are close to one another because of the difference in the types of merchandise offered and because the community center is a shorter distance from its support market.19

16 Joseph Dechiara and Lee Koppelman, Planning Design Criteria, 1969, p. 235. 17 Urban Land Institute, Shopping Center Development Handbook, 1985, p. 32. 18 Ibid., p. 4-5. 19 Ibid., p. 5.

Bedford Township Master Plan 71 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc In cities with populations of 50,000 to 100,000, the community center, although lacking a full- line department store, may actually take on the stature of a regional center because of the center’s local dominance and pulling power. An off-price or discount store may function as the leading tenant, substituting for a full-line department store.20

Community centers should have access from a major thoroughfare. These centers do not need to be accessible from an interstate or state highway.

Regional Shopping Centers

Regional shopping centers provide shopping goods, general merchandise, apparel, and furniture and home furnishings in full depth and variety. These are the largest types of shopping centers and they seek to reproduce shopping facilities once only available in central business districts. The main attraction is at least one full-line department store.

Regional shopping centers can be further categorized as regional or super regional centers based on the number of department stores that serve as principle tenants. Regional centers have one or two department stores whereas super regional centers have three or more department stores. Regional and super regional centers attract customers through their ability to offer full ranges of shopping facilities and goods, thereby extending their trade areas. Regional and super regional do not differ in function, only in their range and strength in attracting customers.21

A regional shopping center contains a typical gross leasable area of 400,000 square feet but can range in size from 300,000 to about 1 million square feet. A super regional center contains a typical gross leasable area of 800,000 square feet but can range from 500,000 to well over 1 million square feet.

The sites for regional and super regional centers vary from 10 acres for a multi-level urban center to over 100 acres for a large single-level super regional center. The regional center serves a population in excess of 150,000 people, who will often travel more than 25 to 30 minutes to reach the center. As a result, regional centers draw from distances of eight miles or more. (Driving time is the better determinant than distance of a regional center’s area of influence.)22

Regional centers are customarily located on a site that is easily accessible from interchange points between expressways and freeways. The point of access is usually located between one- half and one mile from the interchange area.

20 Ibid., p. 5.

21 Ibid., p. 6.

22 Ibid., p. 32.

Bedford Township Master Plan 72 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Non-Center Commercial Development

Convenience and strip commercial developments do not fit within the planned shopping center definitions. A convenience commercial use is typified by the freestanding convenience store. Convenience commercial uses are sometimes adjacent to or are an integral part of a neighborhood shopping center environment or combined with two or three other convenience uses to form a convenience retail cluster.

Strip commercial development is a string of commercially zoned lots developed independently or a string of retail commercial stores on a single site where there is no anchor and no central management, and where the tenant mix results from leasing to available tenants with good credit rather from planning and executing a leasing program.

Bedford Township Master Plan 73 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 43 Characteristics of Planned Shopping Centers

Typical Range of Minimum GLA GLA Minimum Trade Trade Leading (Square (Square Site Area Area Area Driving Center Type Tenant Feet) Feet) (Acres) Population Radius Time

Neighborhood 30,000- 3,000- 1½ 5-10 Center Supermarket 50,000 100,000 3-10 40,000 miles minutes

Junior Department Store, Large Variety or Community Discount 100,000- 40,000- 3-5 10-20 Center Store 150,000 300,000 10-30 150,000 miles minutes

One or Two full-line department 300,000- 150,000 or 20 Regional Center stores 400,000 900,000 10-60 more 8 miles minutes

Three or more full-line 500,000-1.5 Super Regional department million or 15-100 or 30,000 or 30 Center stores 800,000 more more more 12 miles minutes

Note: Numbers shown in the table must be regarded only as convenient indicators to define the various types of centers; the basic elements of any center may change should it need to adapt to the characteristics of the trade area, including the nature of competition, population density, and income levels. For example, the number of people needed to support a shopping center cannot be fixed because income level, disposal income, competition, and changing methods of merchandising as well as changing store size all enter into the equation.

Source: Shopping Center Development Handbook, Urban Land Institute, 1985.

Uses located in non-center commercial areas are typically located in locations with high traffic volumes, can serve either convenience or comparison needs, often have outdoor sales space, and require expansive land area.

Market Area Population and Demographic Trends

The viability of various commercial uses is based upon the population served within a market area. Estimates were made of population density within Bedford Township. Estimates for 1990 population density were based on Bureau of Census data. Estimates for the year 2000 population density were based forecasts prepared by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. Since such densities are not uniformly distributed, three estimates are given:

Bedford Township Master Plan 74 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc · High: Based on current and projected population density within a one-mile radius of the Sterns Road and Secor Road intersection.

· Average: Based on overall current and projected population density within the entire Township.

· Low: Based on current and projected population density within a one-mile radius of the Lewis Avenue and Samaria Road intersection.

The results of these estimates are as follows.

Population Density Forecasts Per Square Mile

Year High Estimate Average Estimate Low Estimate

1990 1,176 653 259 2000 1,411 785 310

When the density forecasts per square mile are translated into market areas, the results are as follows:

Population Density Forecasts Per Square Mile

Year High Estimate Average Estimate Low Estimate

Within 1-1/2 Mile Radius 1990 8,232 4,571 1,813 2000 9,877 5,495 2,170

Within 5 Mile Radius 1990 91,728 50,934 20,202 2000 110,058 61,230 24,180

Though a detailed analysis of community demographics and their market implications is outside the scope of this study, a brief review of Township population characteristics in comparison to national demographic trends may provide some useful insights into future commercial land use needs.

The largest population age group is the family formation category, age 20 to 44 years. This group comprises almost two-fifths (38.7%) of the Township’s total population. The second largest group, are those in the mature family category, age 45 to 64 years. This group accounts for approximately one-fifth (20.9%) of the total population, The third largest group is the school age category, age 5 to 14 years. This group comprises slightly less than one-fifth (17.6%) of the population.

Bedford Township Master Plan 75 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Young households have greater demand for apartments and single-family starter homes. Older boomers move into larger homes, require health care (maternity), and spur construction of retail and manufacturing (production and consumption), offices, and transportation improvements. As they age, households impact leisure and recreation markets move into smaller homes, especially homes they can age in. Moving into the senior and elderly years, households may be moving to retirement communities, or even to their second home bought many years earlier. In the near future as the baby boom generation swells the ranks of the seniors and elderly, demand for health care and "lifecare" services and facilities will increase.23

As “boomers” mature, they will leave market weakness behind, but their children will repeat a similar demographic bulge and market demand by the first part of this century. For example, the proportion of young adults (aged 25 to 34) entering the family formation stages will decline 10 percent early in this century. The "echo boom" children, who were born between 1978 and 1995, "form a generation almost as large as the original baby boom" - 73 million. During the next ten to fifteen years, the echo boom generation will induce increased demand and need for education, recreation, and consumer goods. By the year 2010, the pace of decline among the family formation population will slow as the echo boom generation begins to start their own families, moving from rented apartments to single-family starter homes.24

Bedford Township households are not as large as in past generations. Though smaller than the past, Township households are larger on average than those residing in other Monroe County communities. The larger than average household size is not unexpected given the large proportion of the population that is likely living in a family-based household.

Declining household size (as measured by the number of persons per household) is a relatively recent nation-wide phenomenon. This trend has evolved to a large extent due to the declining size of families. People are marrying at a later age than a generation ago, postponing having children, and having fewer children when they do start a family. Nation-wide, married couples families still comprise the largest group of households, but the number of single parent (male or female) headed households is increasing and expected to grow, contributing to the decline in average household size. As the baby boom generation ages, they too will swell the ranks of single-person, non-family households.

By the year 2010, demographers expect the number of married couple families to increase by 17 percent compared to 44 percent for single male headed families, and 18 percent for single female headed families. Households comprised of men living alone are expected to grow by 39 percent while females living alone will grow by approximately 33 percent.25

23 Ibid.

24 Berna Miller, “Household Futures,” American Demographics, March 1995, p.4.

25 The Editors, “The Future of Households,” American Demographics, December 1993, p.28.

Bedford Township Master Plan 76 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Married couple families will continue to be the largest and economically most powerful household segment. Increasingly, "parents of the future are likely to be older dual-earner couples, so they will have even more resources to spend on their children."26 Even though their families will be smaller, they will still demand housing with numerous bedrooms either for an aging parent, or for specialty rooms (home office, hobby, and guest space). Increasingly, "convenience and value-for-money" will become the watchwords of married parents. Dual income parents, juggling the job, children, and a spouse will not have time to "do things the old fashioned way," for them, the "quickest way is often the only way."27

In comparison to the countywide figures, Bedford Township households are relatively affluent. More than one-half of Bedford Township households earn more than $35,000 per year and the majority of those households earn more than $50,000 per year.

Nation-wide, household incomes are flattening. As this happens, households will choose carefully where and how to spend their money. In the future, consumers are likely want to have access to an adequate supply of diverse, convenient stores for consumer goods. (Many areas are already seeing growth in the number of big box retailers that are open around the clock.) At the same time, consumers will want more value for the dollars they spend and may demand a supply of small stores that offer personalized services.

Land Use and Site Planning Considerations

The Township’s unplanned commercial areas must presently compete with central business districts and planned commercial areas in Toledo and Monroe. Since planned shopping centers and unplanned shopping areas must compete for consumer dollars, the conceptual basis of distinction between the two is worthy of discussion.

In terms of placement, planned shopping centers have the advantage of selecting from a number of site location alternatives. Such an advantage connotes that the planned shopping center developer is able to choose a desirable intersection for the center, plan for adequate parking, leave room for possible future building expansion, and locate the center strategically in a favorable existing or future market demand setting.

The relatively unplanned shopping areas, such as commercial activity along major thoroughfares, are positioned as a result of a multitude of complex historical forces. Future parking, building area, and other needs were, for the most part, neglected in the unplanned area because such areas have evolved to service the day-to-day needs of consumers at a particular point in time. However, consumer needs have changed, and unplanned commercial areas have not. The willingness of consumers to actually spend their monies in a given center becomes a question of consumer motivation. Many times, consumers are motivated to travel greater distances to a newer planned shopping center than to an older, aesthetically displeasing shopping area or scattered commercial development located closer to home. Equally important to consumer motivation are factors of traffic and parking adequacies.

26 Ibid., p.32. 27 Ibid. Bedford Township Master Plan 77 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc In addition to consumer market considerations, the provision of planned shopping areas versus strip commercial development entails strong community planning considerations. The benefits of planned commercial centers versus strip development are described below.

· Dangerous disruption of traffic flow as a result of uncontrolled turning and parking maneuvers. · Functional and attractive grouping of buildings. · Frequently inadequate parking facilities. · Controlled entrance and exit points. · Lack of coordination of commercial function and activities. · Controlled interior circulation. · Haphazard arrangement of buildings. · Access from more than one major traffic route. · Difficult to service. · Overflow area for future expansion. · Prevents “one stop” shopping. · An abundance of parking spaces. · Often has blighting effect, particularly on contiguous residential land. · Economical and effective service facilities. · Breeds unattractive signs. · Can be effectively buffered from contiguous residential areas. · Uniform attractive signs.

Planned shopping centers can only be economically successful if there are not too many of them. Each center must have a partial monopoly of its market area. Thus, the general spacing of centers of various sizes is important to maximizing economic viability and consumer convenience.28

Distances between shopping centers cannot be precisely recommended. It is not distance between centers but customer convenience and availability of merchandise that determine the need or viability of certain types of centers in a given market. For example, a neighborhood center can operate next to or across from a regional center. The two types of centers can coexist because each offers a different range of merchandise. Shoppers at a neighborhood center want convenience in buying everyday goods and services. Customers of a regional center are primarily comparison shoppers who are comparing general merchandise in terms of price, quality, size, color, and style.29

Other factors which will influence the size and spacing of the various center types are the following market area changes: growth in the number of households, higher than average or increasing household income, predominant household type, population age distribution, and the general health of the regional and/or state economy.

28 T. Williams Patterson, Land Use Planning: Techniques of Implementation, 1988, p.44-45. 29 Urban Land Institute, Shopping Center Development Handbook, 1985, p. 32. Bedford Township Master Plan 78 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc The ideal site for shopping center development will be regular in shape, undivided by rights-of- way, fairly level (less than six percent slope), well-drained, served by sanitary and storm sewers and water, and be surrounded by compatible land uses or zoning districts. Of course, shopping centers have been built on sites that have not met one or more of the ideal criteria. Such sites may require more creative site design, utility extensions, buffering, and/or negotiations with the local officials and residents to ensure a successful project.

Shopping centers do not depend on vast site areas. As a rule of thumb, each 40,000 square feet of site area will have about 10,000 square feet of building area and 30,000 square feet of surface parking area including landscaping, circulation space, delivery areas, etc. A 10-acre site can easily accommodate a 100,000 square foot building for conventional shopping center development.

Convenience and strip commercial uses have traditionally developed along state highways, major and minor thoroughfares and at key intersections of these roadways. Visibility and accessibility have made these locations attractive to freestanding commercial uses. These same characteristics have strongly influenced the style of this development, particularly the importance placed on large signs and visibility of parking in front of the structure.

Though convenience and strip commercial developments do not fit within the definitions of planned shopping centers, many of the planning, design, and marketing principles of shopping centers can be applied to non-center types of developments as well.

Commercial Land Use Ratios

A review of existing land use ratio data will be helpful in determining the appropriate mix of land uses which should be encouraged in the future and provide a guideline for determining how much additional land area should be devoted to a particular use. This data may be further reviewed and refined in light of community demographics that influence the commercial development.

The Planning Advisory Service, a research branch of the American Planning Association, conducted a survey of land use ratios in 66 municipalities during 1992. The data was summarized under the following land use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, public, institutional, parks, and rights-of-way. Data in Table 43 summarize the results for communities with a population between 20,000 and 40,000. This range was selected based on Bedford Township’s 1995 estimated population (26,229) and its projected 2020 population (34,203), as reported by the Southeast Michigan Council of Government’s Regional Development Forecast, December 1995.

As shown in Table 44, Bedford Township has a lower proportion of commercial land use than other communities of a similar size. When compared to communities that have a similar proportion of single-family residential development, Bedford Township still has a lower proportion of commercial land use.

Bedford Township Master Plan 79 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Table 44 Comparative Land Use Ratios Single- Public Use Population Family Commercial Industrial Institutional Parks and Right- Total Residential Use Use Use Recreation of-way Use

20,000 65 (60) 9 1 9 16 na 25

20,000 37 (27) 8 12 6 23 14 43

22,000 52 (41) 8 12 26 2 na 28

24,000 54 (52) 5 3 8 6 24 38

26,000 74 (50) 8 4 na na na 14

27,000 67 (58) 11 3 19 na na 19

29,000 56 (46) 22 3 13 6 na 19

31,000 53 6 0 4 18 19 41

32,000 46 7 8 7 13 19 39

33,000 39 (34) 30 17 5 10 na 15

36,000 42 (8) 22 3 3 1 29 33

38,000 72 12 4 na na na 12

Sample Small City Average 55 (46) 12 6 10 11 21 27

Total Small City Average 52(41) 10 7 na na na 31

Bedford Township Ratio 56 (55) 3 3 6 2 21 38

( ) indicates percent single-family; na indicates data not available. Note: Land use ratios were calculated based as a percentage of the developed land within a community; thus, agricultural and vacant lands were not included. Small city is defined as a community with a population of less than 100,000 people. Source: “Bringing Land Use Ratios into the ‘90s,” PAS MEMO, August 1992

Bedford Township Master Plan 80 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc COMMUNITY GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES

Before a community can actively plan for its future growth and development, it must first set certain goals and objectives that define the boundaries of its needs and aspirations and, thus, establish a basis of Master Plan formulation. These goals and objectives must reflect the type of community desired and the kind of lifestyle its citizens wish to follow, given realistic economic and social constraints. The following sets forth goals, which describe the ultimate purpose or intent of the Bedford Township Master Plan, as well as objectives to help the Township achieve its goals. Strategy statements are also provided to guide the future review of development proposals.

Formulation Process

The process of developing goals, objectives, and strategies for the Bedford Township Master Plan involved multiple steps.

Background Studies

At the September 1999 Visioning Session, the Township reviewed background studies including natural features, socio-economics, housing, existing land use, and transportation within the Township. Goals and objectives for a community are also tempered by economic constraints and therefore relevant regional economic and growth data were reviewed to reveal the current state of growth in the Township and the region. Bedford Township is predominantly residential in nature having 13, 063 acres of residential land uses that comprise over 53 percent of the land use coverage for the entire Township. There are currently over 534 acres of land dedicated to commercial uses and 41 acres allocated to office establishments. In terms of industrial development, 227 acres of land are currently in use.

Interviews with Bedford residents were conducted in 1998 prior to beginning the master planning process in early 1999. In general the citizens recognized that the recent residential boom is resulting in reductions in farmland. This trend is being influenced by a growing number of people moving to the Township for its overall high quality of living characterized by scenic beauty, open space, quality schools and health care facilities, low taxes and property values. The only possible deterrent to development, though most interviewees thought there were none, is the lack of infrastructure. Overall, most felt that the Township would continue to develop as it is presently (e.g. residential development, loss of farmland). Moreover, they believe that this could be positive if properly managed and if quality of life factors are preserved.

Regional Planning

The planning for the Township included a regional analysis of the growth and development occurring in the surrounding area of Monroe County, Michigan, Lucas County, Ohio and the City of Toledo. An analysis of the regional factors affecting the Township was an integral section of the master planning background studies. Due in major part to its location within the Toledo/Detroit growth corridor, Bedford Township is experiencing rapid conversion of farmland

Bedford Township Master Plan 81 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc to residential development. Although this growth does provide increased financial resources to address the required expansion of services demanded by the growth. However, the population is split between those that want Bedford Township to grow in a managed, controlled manner and those that see the conversion of farmland as an erosion of the scenic and rural qualities that originally attracted them to the area. This dichotomy found in Bedford is not unlike the other communities in this regional growth corridor.

Visioning Session

Using the initial Community Workshop as the forum for exchange, the consultant team facilitated the discussion by the participants of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats to the community from a land use and planning perspective. The following is a summary of the meeting comments:

Strengths Threats

- Good school system (teaching) - Roads/maintenance - Nice Parks - Subdivisions - Safe Place to live - Destruction of open space - Community involvement - Well designed subdivisions

Weaknesses Opportunities

- Roads - Improve parks - Over crowded schools/too political - Skate parks/winter activities - Too many subdivisions - Not culturally diverse - Not enough entertainment/recreation

Action Plan

The results of the plan formulation steps, summarized above, are the basis of the action plan. Goals are identified, each of which have objectives, or means for attaining the goal, and specific strategies to guide action on the objectives.

Community Goals

Bedford Township adopts the following goals to guide future development in the Township and to enhance the quiet, scenic and rural character of Bedford Township.

Bedford Township shall:

· Maintain a high quality of life for both present and future township residents.

· Preserve the physical, social, and environmental character of the Township.

Bedford Township Master Plan 82 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc · Direct new development in a manner to conserve natural features, protect environmentally sensitive areas, and address the long-term needs of the community.

· Stage the rate of land development with the availability of public facilities and services such as roads and utilities.

· Expand recreational, educational, cultural, housing, employment, and consumer opportunities for residents.

The goals of Bedford Township can be achieved if the Township adheres to the following objectives and related strategies regarding environmental features; residential, commercial and industrial land uses, community facilities and infrastructure.

Objectives and Strategies Related to Agricultural Lands

Objectives

Preserve viable farmlands from conversion to and encroachment of non-agricultural uses and to mitigate conflicts between farm and non-farm uses in designated agricultural areas.

Balance the needs of the agricultural community with the interests of the non-farm residents.

Strategies

· Require the retention of viable agricultural and forestlands through available mechanisms such as open space and farmland agreements, forest stewardship programs and conservation easements, as well as local zoning incentives.

· Adopt coordinated zoning provisions that provide for the adequate buffers between agricultural and adjacent land uses to protect the future viability of the farmlands.

· Encourage cluster designs to conserve agricultural lands and the inherent open space.

· Develop site plan review requirements that serve to enhance the rural character of the Township.

· Adopt zoning provisions to prevent a pattern of scattered rural housing development on overly large lots, particularly in areas of viable agricultural or wooded lands.

· The primary purpose of the Agricultural Zoning District is to protect agricultural lands from conversion to another use that would prohibit farming and related land uses. These agricultural lands are typically lands within the Township having minimal road access and no public sewer and water service. The agricultural lands use classification is to be used by the Township to reserve existing farmlands or forestlands for future use on those areas which are, and continue to be, used primarily for agricultural pursuits as well as agricultural processing activities.

Bedford Township Master Plan 83 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Objectives and Strategies Related to Environmental Features

Objectives

Maintain the Township’s scenic and rural character by minimizing the impacts of development on environmental features such as wetlands, floodplains, woodlands, streams, recharge areas, and scenic views.

Require the retention of important farmlands, forest lands, and open space areas.

Protect the quality of surface and groundwater resources in the Township from development related impacts.

Protect Township residents and property from natural hazards associated with development that infringes on natural systems.

Strategies

· Adopt restrictions, which encourage the maintenance of undisturbed natural buffers around inland lakes, wetlands, and other sensitive environmental systems.

· Incorporate revisions to the Township Zoning Ordinance which implements the use of cluster designs to conserve scenic views, agricultural lands, wetland areas, lakes, groundwater recharge areas, natural streams and other environmentally sensitive areas.

· Revise the Township’s landscape requirements to incorporate the use of native plant species and naturalized landscape designs, where appropriate, to enhance the community’s existing character.

· Adopt zoning provisions that enable the retention of productive agricultural and forest lands through available mechanisms such as open space and farmland agreements, forest stewardship programs, and conservation easements, as well as local zoning incentives.

· Encourage the stewardship of privately-owned forest lands, wetlands, inland lakes and other environmental systems.

· Conduct an Open Space Master Plan that establishes a continuous open space system that interconnects public and private natural areas and recreational facilities, as well as providing for wildlife habitat.

· Require the inclusion of parks, bicycle and pedestrian linkages and open space areas in conjunction with new and established developments.

· Ensure that all county, state and federal environmental regulations are adhered to in the development of land.

· Establish impervious surface ratio limitations on private land development to reduce storm water runoff and to improve water quality. Bedford Township Master Plan 84 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Objectives and Strategies Related to Residential Land Use

Objectives

Provide for a range of residential land use and densities to meet the needs of the Township’s diverse population.

Encourage the development of residential neighborhoods which are well-integrated into the existing landscape and complement the character of existing neighborhoods.

Strategies

· Require the development of housing at densities which relate to natural and manmade features.

· Require the incorporation of existing vegetation, topography, and other natural features into the design of new residential developments.

· Consider the impact new developments will have on the Township’s ecosystem, specifically wetlands and streams. Mandate no net loss of viable wetlands and streams in the Township through ordinance revisions.

· Specify new residential developments be sited in a manner that protects the Township’s rural character and scenic views by maintaining proper setbacks and providing landscaping screening as appropriate.

· Discourage large scale residential development in the absence of a documented demand for such development.

· Prohibit through ordinance revisions a pattern of scattered rural housing development on overly large lots, particularly in areas of productive agricultural or forest lands.

· Require the layout of new residential developments to be logical extensions of existing neighborhoods, including lot layout, road extensions, and open space plans.

· By means of ordinance revisions, encourage higher density housing on lands that have or are planned to have the capacity to support such development by means of public roads and utilities.

· Specify cluster housing and other creative forms of development to permit higher density housing while protecting the Township’s rural character and balancing the needs of the agricultural community with the interests of the non-farm residents.

· Develop local incentives for residential development that complements the Township’s rural character without compromising the provision of public services and facilities.

Bedford Township Master Plan 85 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc · Create through ordinances opportunity to provide specialized housing resources such as affordable housing and elderly housing to meet the diverse lifestyles choices of local residents.

· Improve all housing which falls below minimum standards, through comprehensive code enforcement, encouraging home improvements, and via private and public investment in rehabilitation programs.

· Require residential developers to place design controls and review procedures on their building or development projects.

· Require new residential developments to incorporate a pedestrian sidewalk system that ultimately connects with abutting developments to keep the community walkable and connected.

Objectives and Strategies Related to Commercial Land Use

Objectives

Provide reasonable opportunities for the establishment of commercial uses which meet the demonstrated market needs of local residents.

Ensure by ordinance that the architecture, landscaping, and signage associated with commercial establishments is compatible with the Township’s rural residential character.

Strategies

· Recognize the City of Toledo, Ohio as a business center serving both the local consumer population and subregional market base.

· Encourage commercial development to locations where compact and coordinated development can occur without impacting residential land uses. Discourage strip commercial development and isolated commercial uses.

· Prohibit the establishment of multiple access points for freestanding commercial uses. Encourage the use of shared access and service drives. Coordinate with the County and MDOT for site access management approvals and implementation of access management policies.

· Require at the time of site plan review a check list of required drawings from the applicant that ensures an adequate level of review of commercial architectural and landscape designs to ensure that commercial uses are carefully integrated into the Township’s landscape and/or desired development pattern as directed through the Township Master Plan.

· Require the establishment of transitional uses and/or landscape screening between commercial and residential, agricultural, or open space land uses.

Bedford Township Master Plan 86 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Objectives and Strategies Related to Industrial Land Use

Objectives

Provide locations for light industrial uses that are adequately served by public facilities and services.

Ensure that the architecture, landscaping, and signage associated with industrial establishments is compatible with the Township’s rural residential character.

Strategies

· Prohibit industrial development which will negatively impact environmentally sensitive areas or require substantial changes to natural systems.

· Utilize the concept of planned industrial areas that emphasize access control, building and site design, and controlled signage and lighting.

· Locate industrial areas where they have reasonable boundaries and are not subject to encroachment by incompatible land uses.

· Incorporate a series of comprehensive performance standards governing industrial uses as part of the land development code.

Objectives and Strategies Related to Community Facilities and Infrastructure

Objective

Provide for the efficient location of public facilities and delivery of public services.

Strategies

· Provide public park and recreation facilities and encourage private community facilities, which are suitable to their user population in terms of size, character, function and location.

· Encourage citizen participation and utilize professional expertise to determine needed and desired public improvements.

· Adopt a Recreation Master Plan to guide and enhance future activities and facilities.

· Require fiscal responsibility and equity by identifying and seeking out a variety of funding opportunities that reduce dependency on local funding.

· Assist and guide semi-public and citizen groups in their efforts to provide needed community facilities.

· Maximize the utilization of public buildings for multi-functional services.

Bedford Township Master Plan 87 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc · Participate in interjursidictional planning efforts to assure the representation of Township residents in regional decision-making.

· Work cooperatively with other public agencies to facilitate the improvement or construction of public facilities, such as roads and other forms of public transit.

· Require that adequate public infrastructure be installed concurrently with the initiation of any new residential, commercial and/or industrial land development.

· Consider the construction or extension of public water and/or sewer facilities only to those areas where measurable existing population densities and natural resource conditions require such facilities to protect public health.

· Work regionally to develop train, bus, and/or commuter air transportation for the region.

· Provide sidewalks and bike lanes in the developing areas, especially the planned residential areas, to create safe, non-motorized options for citizens of the Township.

Summary

The goals, objectives, and strategies enumerated above are guidelines for the future development of the Township. If the planning program is to be successful, it is essential that these goals, objectives, and strategies be followed. They will help maintain an orderly, prosperous, and attractive development pattern in the Township. These statements reflect the studied response of the residents and the appointed steering committee through the workshop process. At the minimum, it is expected as the planning process progresses, these statements will be incorporated into the goals, objectives, and strategies of the Master Plan. They clearly form the intent of the direction the residents desire their planners to follow. While additional goals, objectives, and strategies may help to fill out the Master Plan, the Planning Commission should not lose sight of the direction they have been given. While the goals, objectives, and strategies shall be reviewed and updated as necessary, the adoption of changes shall go through the public hearing process as provided by law and adopted when the review is completed.

Bedford Township Master Plan 88 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc FUTURE LAND USE PLAN

The Future Land Use Plan identifies the desired pattern of land development in the Township for a period extending approximately 20 years. This chapter describes the basis for the plan, the formulation process and the intended character of each land use classification. A future land use plan is general in nature. Boundaries between land use classifications are not intended to be parcel specific or related to property lines. In addition, a future land use plan is a flexible document. It does not prescribe specific land uses for legally described property; rather, it describes a desirable pattern of future development within Bedford Township.

Basis for the Plan

The following Future Land Use Plan is intended to facilitate a future development pattern in Bedford Township that preserves and enhances the integrity of the compact form found in the Villages of Lambertville, Samaria, and Temperance while conserving renewable resource land and protecting the rural character found in the outlying countryside. It is based upon the principles of growth management and the community’s desire to relate land use primarily to the natural characteristics of the land and the long-term needs of the community, rather than to short- term, private economic gain

The preferred land use framework supports concentrated urban development in areas that are presently served by public utilities or that are within reasonable reach given the anticipated amount of new residential construction.

It is the intent of this Plan to:

· Conserve the rural character and economic viability of Bedford Township as long as practical. Some of the principal elements of rural character include: farmland, forest land, a neat, well-kept appearance, and family orientation.

· Direct development away from sensitive environments such as wetlands, creeks and streams.

· Minimize land fragmentation of large parcels through promoting open space design principles.

· Create a coherent rural village or hamlet form of development.

· Recognize the unique role Bedford Township plays in serving the residential, commercial and industrial needs of residents in the region.

Formulation Process

The Future Land Use Plan evolved from a close examination of existing conditions described in the background studies and through consideration of the aspirations expressed by the community in numerous workshops over a 18 month period as summarized in the goals and objectives report.

Bedford Township Master Plan 89 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc The primary factors shaping the planned development pattern are the carrying capacity of the land, the presence of natural features, proximity to existing public utilities, population growth patterns, and access to regional transportation routes. Land within the Township has been planned for one of 20 types of uses. The future land use distribution is summarized in Table 45.

TABLE 45 FUTURE LAND USE DISTRIBUTION Land Use Type Acres Percent Agriculture-Farmstead 3,923 15.9% Agriculture Estates 8,631 35.0% Single Family Residential 7,419 30.1% Two Family Residential 56 0.2% Multiple Family Residential 116 0.5% Mobile Home Park 213 0.9% Local Commercial 552 2.2% Light Industrial 713 2.9% Office/Commercial/Park Industrial 370 1.5% Village Center 795 3.2% Office 33 0.1% Mixed Residential/Office/Commercial 25 0.1% Mixed Residential/Office/Open Space 196 0.8% Park and Recreation 413 1.7% Golf Course 603 2.4% Community Activity Center 315 1.3% Public 39 0.2% Semi-Public 71 0.3% School 111 0.5% Vacant Utility Right-of-Way 20 0.1% Total 24,574

Open Space Conservation Policy

To provide the basis for a zoning program that allows flexibility in residential development, this Plan recommends the use of average development densities as a means of describing the recommended development intensity at different locations within Bedford Township. References to “development density” means the density that results by dividing the total acreage of an area by the number of dwelling units planned for that area—it does not mean a uniform minimum lot size. Thus, a landowner who has 20 acres could have a number of development options where a development density of one dwelling unit per two acres is recommended by this Plan and so regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. For example, the landowner could elect to develop ten, two acre lots, or ten, half-acre lots with ten acres reserved as open space, or an attached single-family or multiple-family development with a greater open space reservation.

Bedford Township Master Plan 90 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Standards for open space set asides according to natural resource type is found below.

Recommended Open Space Ratios by Natural Resource Type Resource Open Space Ratio Floodplains 100% Floodplain Soils 100% Woodlands 40% Located in environmentally sensitive areas and other designated preservation areas1 70% Other woodland areas 50% Lakes or Ponds 100% Watercourses and Streams 100% Wetlands 100% Lake or Pond Shorelines2 70% Wetland Margin3 80% 1 Environmentally Sensitive Area: A natural area including 100-year floodplains and floodplain soils; lake, pond and wetland margins; or other sensitive areas such as sites with significant natural features. 2 Lake and Pond Shore Margins: The landside edge of lakes and ponds from established shoreline to an upland boundary. For planning purposes, it is recommended in this Plan that 100 feet be the standard minimum width of a lake or pond shore margin. 3 Wetland Margin: The transitional area between the wetland boundary and the upland boundary. For planning purposes, 100 feet or the limit of hydric soils (whichever is shorter) is recommended as the standard minimum of a wetland margin. Source: Village Planning Handbook, Bucks County, Pennsylvania Planning Commission

Future Land Use Categories

Agricultural - Farmstead

The Agricultural – Farmstead category generally includes land that is being used as cropland or orchards and is outside the urbanized area of the Township generally occurring in the North, Northeast Quadrant and Eastern edge of the Township. Agriculture should remain the predominant use in these areas, however, non-farm uses may be considered acceptable if designed to conform to the rural atmosphere found in the surrounding area. Architectural design of non-agricultural uses should draw upon the bulk, styling and proportions of traditional farm buildings wherever possible.

There are various zoning techniques which are being implemented nation-wide to assist in the protection of farmland from encroachment by development. The following are techniques that should be considered to implement the goals and objectives stated in the Comprehensive Development Plan.

Sliding scale and quarter/quarter zoning allow the preservation of the value of some of the land but require the continuation of farming on the remainder, preserving much of its productive capacity. Sliding scale establishes the number of non-agricultural building sites permitted based on the total size of the parent parcel. For example, a 20-acre parent parcel may permit two building sites; while a 350-acre parent parcel may permit seven building sites. If, in the future, the property owner decides to develop the remaining acreage, an established amount of open space must be included.

Bedford Township Master Plan 91 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc The following illustration shows how the sliding scale method could be used on a 40-acre parcel.

40-Acre Parent Parcel With the four, 2 acre parcels already split from the property, 12.8 would remain available for development (assuming a 60/40 open space agreement). The actual 60% open development density, however, would space reservation reflect the entire 32 acres. For example, if we use a one unit per 2 acre density, the developer would be allowed to plan 16 units. 40% buildable area (two-acre or greater minimum lot size)

(4) two-acre parcels

The sliding scale approach works best in areas with a wide range of parcel sizes.

Quarter/quarter zoning permits one residential non-agricultural building site per 40 acres of farmland. Once the lot is recorded, the landowner is entitled to no further non-farm development. This approach has been most successful in areas with large farming operations and where the average parcel size exceeds 40 acres.

Large lot zoning is the most widely used farmland protection technique. It establishes a large minimum lot size, usually ten acres or more, for non-agricultural residential development. The theory in this technique is that large minimum lot sizes discourage non-farm residences because purchase prices are higher than smaller lots. Over time, the large lot zoning technique has generally proven unsuccessful because the lot size is still too small and/or the relative cost difference is not great enough compared to smaller lots with access to public utilities. Many believe that this technique has encouraged the unnecessary and premature conversion of thousands of acres of Michigan farmland, because people are forced to buy more acreage than they would have preferred. This technique is not recommended to protect farmland unless the minimum lot size is very large (40 acres or more).

Although the predominant land use within this category should be agriculture, flexibility should be exercised to accommodate other uses if properly harmonized with the surrounding environment. The Township should develop a set of performance standards that demand sensitivity to rural design and impact on environmental features. The use of Open Space Zoning in this land use classification is most appropriate and is suggested as part of this plan.

Bedford Township Master Plan 92 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Uses that may blend in with the countryside include value-added industry such as cabinet, gazebo, and furniture making. In addition, any industry related to agriculture such as dairies, farm produce auctions, fertilizer plants, stockyards, and packing houses should be considered for compatibility within the agricultural land use area. Other non-farm uses that may be considered compatible include tourist oriented businesses, kennels and veterinary facilities, noncommercial wind energy and conversion systems, etc. Permitting uses such as those identified above will assist the communities goal to preserve farmland and open space because it allows farmers the option for a second income and thus permitting them to continue practicing farming in all economies.

Agricultural Estates

The Agricultural Estates category is intended to provide for the development of rural residential communities that include planned open space areas that will provide a suitable transition between the agricultural portions and the central development area and Village Centers of the Township.

Generally acceptable land uses include residential development at an average development density of one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres and other community-oriented uses such as day care and adult foster care facilities, churches, as well as public and private recreation facilities. Home- based businesses may also be permitted under limited conditions. Building sites as small as one (1) acre may be permitted if open space conservation objectives are met.

Single-Family Residential

The Single-Family Residential category is intended to provide a transition from an urban to rural setting. This category accommodates homebuyers seeking suburban style amenities found in modern construction such as two and increasingly three car-attached garages, larger setbacks for landscaped yards, decks, play equipment, and private swimming pools.

Generally acceptable land uses include residential development at an average density of two dwelling units per acre. As with the previous classifications, open space planning and cluster housing are encouraged as a design option for the creation of common open space within new residential neighborhoods. Home-based businesses should be carefully regulated in this area to prevent negative impacts on residential neighborhoods.

Two-Family Residential

The Two-Family Residential category is intended to provide a moderate density detached style of single family development such as duplex units. This category accommodates homebuyers seeking suburban style amenities that are found in modern construction such as two car-attached garages, small landscaped yards, decks, and community play equipment and swimming pools.

Generally acceptable land uses include residential development at an average development density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. As with the previous classifications, open space planning and cluster housing are encouraged as a design option for the creation of common open space within new residential neighborhoods. Home-based businesses should be carefully regulated in this area to prevent negative impacts on residential neighborhoods.

Bedford Township Master Plan 93 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Multiple-Family Residential

The Multiple-Family Residential classification is intended to provide opportunities for affordable housing and alternatives to traditional subdivision development. Multiple-family developments may serve as a transitional land use; one which buffers single family units from more intensive land uses or the impacts associated with major transportation corridors. Multiple-family developments must be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as water and sewer, storm drainage, and refuse disposal. Due to the higher density and trip generation potential of multiple-family developments, these uses should be sited so that ingress and egress is provided directly from a major thoroughfare or collector street.

Permitted uses within this district are garden apartments, townhouses, multiple family upscale condominium developments and convalescent or nursing homes. This type of development is encouraged to locate in areas well served by the existing transportation network and where the amenities of urban living may be best provided. However, the undue concentration of any one type of housing in a single area is to be discouraged.

The recommended residential density is 10 units per acre, depending on the dwelling unit type. It is important that multiple family developments are well-designed and include design characteristics such as: adequate distance between structures within the development, appropriate height limitations, served with open space, utilities, access only to paved streets, safe and efficient egress and ingress designed to minimize congestion and interference with normal traffic flow, adequate drainage, and a minimum greenbelt of 20 feet when a multiple-family development adjoins any single-family residential district or any developed nonresidential district.

Mobile Home Park

The purpose of mobile home parks is to encourage a suitable environment for persons and families who, by preference, chose to live in a mobile home rather than a conventional stick-built structure. The Mobile Home Park land use classification includes and is generally limited to land area within the Township currently occupied by mobile home parks and are expected to remain in the future.

In keeping with the occupancy characteristics of contemporary mobile homes, low-density standards should be encouraged. Development within this land use category is limited to mobile homes when located in subdivision designed for that purpose or a mobile home park with recreational facilities, churches, schools, and necessary public utility buildings. The recommended residential density is 3.5 units per acre, depending on the dwelling unit type.

Bedford Township Master Plan 94 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Local Commercial

The Local Commercial land use classification is intended to provide locations for small businesses established to meet the day-to-day convenience shopping and service needs of neighborhood residents. Generally acceptable uses within the Local Commercial area include retail businesses, personal service establishments and restaurants. Individual businesses within the Local Commercial area should not exceed 5,000 gross square feet and commercial buildings for multiple tenants should not exceed 10,000 gross square feet. The purpose of the floor area restriction is to ensure that the Local Commercial area remains focused toward serving the day- to-day needs of the local neighborhood market area rather than expanding to service a regional market area.

Local Commercial uses should be encouraged to provide shared access, margin access easements and screen parking and loading areas. Building architecture and signage should be compatible with surrounding uses, including residential uses.

Office

Generally acceptable land uses within the Office area include professional offices, including medical, dental and veterinary clinics, business offices, and personal service establishments. Office land uses are generally planned to develop in areas adjacent to the Local Commercial Centers.

Village Center

The Village Center is planned in areas of existing rural villages appropriate for the development of a mix of limited commercial and residential uses. It is a designation which attempts to recognize areas of historical commercial use in rural areas where the range of uses permitted in the local commercial designation would not be appropriate. Village Centers should not attempt to attract traffic from outside the neighborhood. Individual businesses within a Village Center should not exceed 5,000 square feet in floor area. The village should continue to be a diverse, concentrated, pedestrian-oriented environment where residents can live, work, shop, and socialize. It should give people a sense of place and civic pride.

Ground-floor space along streets should be reserved for pedestrian-oriented retailing and services, with offices and housing above. The adaptive reuse of residential units for home occupations, specialty shops, and office uses is encouraged. Other appropriate uses may include places of worship, funeral homes, restaurants, taverns, service stations, lodging, etc. Industrial uses, however, should not be permitted to develop or expand within the Village Centers.

Mixed Residential/Office/Commercial

Mixed Residential/Office/Commercial is intended to provide for a mixture of residential, office, and lower intensity commercial uses outside designated Village Centers. Locational criteria for this designation would be to locate mixed use developments at nodes of major intersections such as that at Lewis and Smith Road. This designation allows for any combination of residential, office or local commercial use. Upper floor residential above retail or office would be encouraged.

Bedford Township Master Plan 95 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc This land use designation is also designed to maintain and promote the flexible redevelopment of certain areas of the Township. The emphasis of this designation is a combination of residential, office, and local commercial uses.

It is proposed that the Township consider a new mixed-use residential/office/commercial zoning district which would allow residential uses as permitted uses, while office, schools, churches, daycare and local commercial uses would be allowed as a special use based upon site specific conditions. This mixed-use residential classification may also provide locations for senior housing developments such as independent living, assisted living and congregate care. Upper- floor residential in combination with non-residential uses would be encouraged.

Mixed Residential/Open space

Mixed Residential/Open Space is intended to provide for a mixture of residential development including single family lots, attached multifamily such as townhomes and zero-lot line development. Small lot housing development organized around common open space and community recreation areas is encouraged. In particular, new urbanism or neo-traditional communities would be most appropriate for locations with this designation. The parcels designated with this land use are sized not greater that a quarter-mile from edge to edge and are within a half-mile of local commercial, mixed-use or village center areas, which enhances the walkability of the development.

Light Industrial

New industrial land uses are planned to develop principally within the recently developed, fully improved, industrial park on the Township’s southeast side. This area is generally intended to accommodate low impact light industries, which have comparatively high acreage requirements. Future industrial development should incorporate sound industrial site design principles.

The main elements of sound light industrial site design include: controlled and convenient access; service areas located at the sides and rear of buildings; visitor parking and on-site circulation; screening of outdoor storage, work areas, and equipment; and emphasis on the main building entry and landscaping. A variety of building and parking setbacks should be provided in order to avoid long monotonous building facades and to create diversity. Structures should be located on “turf islands”, where the office portion of the building does not directly abut paved parking areas. A minimum five to seven foot landscape strip should be provided between parking areas and the office portion of a structure. Building setbacks within industrial areas should be proportional to the scale of the structure and in consideration of existing adjacent development.

Smaller scale, low impact light industrial uses and manufacturing or services that do not require heavy truck traffic such as repair and welding shops, light assembly, etc.; are encouraged to develop in the adjacent office/commercial park industrial land use areas. Buffering devices should be used, where appropriate, to mitigate industrial uses from adjacent residential properties.

Bedford Township Master Plan 96 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Office/Commercial/Park Industrial

Land uses proposed for this designation on the plan combine the uses of office, commercial, and park industrial within the same development. Also, development of mixed-use project in a business park development is envisioned to address the transition of land uses with adjacent or contiguous residential development. The office/commercial/park industrial areas are to be developed in a manner, which shows a commitment to functional efficiency and quality appearance.

Public and Semi-Public

This category reflects the locations of the existing public and semi-public uses in Bedford Township. These uses are generally areas in public ownership or non-taxable property, such as schools, churches, public utility facilities and other municipal facilities. Public and semi-public uses may be appropriate in all use areas if designed to fit into the established character of the surrounding area.

Bedford Township Master Plan 97 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Rauch Rd

3 2 1

6 5 4

d R aria Rd

s Sam

a

l

g u

o M D

i

n

x

12 R 10 11 d

7 8 9

d

R

Erie Rd b

b

a

r C

15 14 13 18 17 16

Temperance Rd

J

a

c

k

m

a r Rd n a Conse S 23 24 R 22 e 21 20 d 19 c

o

r

R

d Dean Rd

L

e

w

i

s

A 26 25 Clegg Rd 27 v

30 29 28 e

e

o

r n

o Sterns Rd M

34 35 36 31 32 33

Smith Rd 103 102 101 106 105 104

Legend Receational Trail Streets Golf Courses Agricultural Farmstead 1 0.5 0 1 2 Miles Local Commercial Agricultural Estates Two Family Mixed Residential/Office/Commercial Multiple Family Residential Manufacture Home Communities Office/Commercial Park/Industrial . Village Center/Mixed Use Single Family Residential Office Master Plan Map Mixed Residential Open Space Parkland Public Community Activity Center Light Industrial Copyright 2005 Bedford Twp. Created using Arcview 3.2 & 9.1 Section_Numbers IMPLEMENTATION

Introduction

The Bedford Township Master Plan was formed through various forums and workshops, the community played an important role in the planning process. From the goals and objectives set forth by the community, the following non-negotiable principles were established by the Master Plan Steering Committee:

· Maintain the aesthetic character of the rural landscape and roads. · Use open space as an organizing element for the townships land use development. · Use a compact form of development in the village centers with defined edges such as agricultural lands, greenbelts and natural corridors. · Develop mixed use in the village centers. · Assure diversity in housing prices and types. · Create a community activity center focus that combines civic, cultural and recreational uses. · Guarantee permanent protection of greenbelts, streams, creeks, woodlands, grasslands, wetlands and historical sites. · Development will be pedestrian friendly, within walking or biking distance of other neighborhoods, schools and local shopping.

These principles can be achieved through implementation of the master plan. The master plan provides the general direction to the future development pattern. The plan sets forth policies and actions for community leaders and is not to be confused with a zoning ordinance; however, the plan is the foundation for the zoning ordinance. The plan itself has no legal authority, however, the plan is implemented through the legislative actions of the governing bodies in the Township. The recommendations for implementation in this chapter are taken from the objectives noted in the earlier sections of the plan.

Implementation Action Plan

The following are a list of major activities that the Bedford Township Planning Commission should pursue in order to be aggressive in the implementation of the Plan.

Zoning

Zoning is the legal means of implementing the plan on private property to achieve the orderly land use relationships envisioned in the land use plan. The zoning program documents consist of an official zoning map and compendium of zoning ordinance text. After the adoption of the plan, the Planning Commission should make the following revisions to the zoning regulations to ensure that changes are made to support the plan as outlined in the previous chapters. As part of the drafting of this plan the Steering Committee identified several strategies or actions needing to be initiated by the Planning Commissions and Board of Trustees. Many of these strategies involve amendments to the current zoning ordinance. This summary highlights several of those areas needing amendments to one or more of the zoning ordinances.

Bedford Township Master Plan 98 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Zoning Ordinance Recommendations:

· Develop Commercial development design standards for exterior building architecture and site design.

· Update Landscaping Standards for all zoning districts excluding one and two-family development.

· Develop a Habitat Protection Ordinance. In addition, supporting this ordinance should be a Natural Resources Inventory of the Township using soils, vegetation, wildlife habitat and hydrology as indicators. The planning commission should utilize the inventory in evaluating development proposals and their impact to the environment.

· Develop a Floodplain Protection Ordinance, which limits development within the 100-year floodplain to open space or recreational use. Allow credit towards the open space or parkland dedication requirement for flood plain left in its natural state. Encourage retention basins as a way to control runoff and prevent localized flooding.

· Develop a Parkland Dedication Ordinance, many communities have approved parkland dedication ordinances to provide park and open space as a requirement from residential development and the subdivision process. A dedication requirement can be based on a formula incorporating overall project size, number of units and subsequent density. The Township and the Developer determine what portion of the site to reserve as parkland. If no suitable site exists, the Township may require payment in lieu of dedication. The money is then spent on acquisition and/or development of parks, greens or open space. This allows the Township to avoid acquiring inappropriate sites and provides the opportunity to plan where parks and open space should go. A successful parkland dedication ordinance is impact- generated and must observe a direct link between dedication or payment requirements and the benefits received. Payment required should be used for open space or parkland in the planning area of the proposed project. The ordinance should provide mechanisms for flexibility, including the potential for payment in lieu of dedication.

· Develop an Open Space Community Zoning Ordinance as required under legislation passed in 2001. Townships are now required to develop regulations which will encourage the protection of traditional rural character to the land use pattern of the rural areas of the Township through the creation of small residential nodes contrasting with open spaces and less intensive land uses, such as farm lands. The Open Space Community is defined as a predominantly single family residential development in which dwelling units are placed together into one or more groupings within a defined project area. The dwelling units are separated from adjacent properties or other groupings of dwelling units by substantial open space that is perpetually protected from development. The minimum size for an open space community development is suggested to be five acres.

· Develop a stormwater ordinance that will protect property from surface water flooding and enhance water quality of the receiving water bodies.

· Develop a wellhead protection ordinance to ensure groundwater protection for the public water supply. Bedford Township Master Plan 99 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Planning Commission Work Program

This plan recommends the Planning Commission prepare a work program in January of each year. This work program would set forth the tasks or goals that the Planning Commission determines to accomplish for the upcoming year. The process will enable the Commission to stay focused on important tasks and help to implement the goals and objectives of the plan.

Plan Updates, Coordination, and Consistency

As evidenced during the public forums and workshops with the community and steering committee, maintaining updates to the Recreation master plan, Open Space Plans, DDA plans, LDFA Plans, public school siting plans and transportation MPO plans are needed as part of the ongoing recommendations for implementation of the master plan. It is critical that all of the relevant plans be reviewed when making zoning and land use decisions. The overlap and need for consistency from one plan to the next is critical to avoiding conflicts in implementation.

Conservation Easements

A preservation and conservation easement program helps to protect historic and architecturally significant buildings and their settings, viable farmland, scenic areas, natural resources and environmentally sensitive sites. The cost of such a program may be significantly lower than buying properties outright to protect these valuable resources, particularly when easements can be acquired by donation.

An easement program enables a tax-exempt, charitable organization or public agency to protect buildings or land against potential adverse changes or development. An easement assures a measure of protection for property without burdening an organization with the greater cost and responsibilities of full ownership. The property remains in private hands and on the local tax rolls, with the owner enjoying the use of the property, subject to the restrictions delineated in the easement document.

In addition to providing substantial public benefits, easements often benefit the property owner. Most property owners are unaware they can protect their land or buildings from changes made by others once they have sold or bequeathed their property. An easement legally establishes the owner’s wishes with regard to future treatment of the property. Furthermore, an easement donation may qualify the donor for various tax savings.

The Nature Conservancy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Rural Development Council of Michigan, and the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office are important sources of information.

Land Acquisition

Community growth creates a need for more park and open space. Because of the continued development pressure in the Township, it is important to continue planning for open space acquisition. The formation of an environmental commission to look after the environmental concerns of the community is the ideal. Its focus might include streams, woodlands, wetlands, and Greenways. A similar strategy could apply to historic sites and structures as well.

Bedford Township Master Plan 100 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc Subcommittees of the Planning Commission can also function in this role. The initial charge of the committee might be to oversee the creation of an open space inventory delineating existing community open spaces and proposed areas for protection. Subsequent to the inventory the task for developing an acquisition strategy including but not limited to easement, deed restriction, donation, exchange, or transfer of development rights should be advanced as part of the Master Plan implementation.

Planning Education

Planning Commissioners should be encouraged to attend planning and zoning seminars to keep themselves informed of the planing issues and learn how to better carry out their duties and responsibilities as a Planning Commissioner. These seminars are regularly sponsored by the Michigan Society of Planning and the Michigan Township Association and are valuable resources to the Planning Commissions in the state.

Revisions to the Plan

The plan should be updated periodically. Any extension, addition, revision, or other amendment to a basic plan shall be adopted under the same procedure as a plan or a successive part of a plan under the procedures stated in Michigan Public Act 263 (2002). However, for an amendment other than a revision of the plan, both of the following apply:

1. The 65-day comment period otherwise provided for a planning commission, regional planning commission, or public utility shall be 40 days.

2. The 75- to 95-day period otherwise provided for county planning commission or a county board of commissioners shall be 55 to 75 days.

At least every 5 years after adoption of the plan, the planning commission shall review the plan and determine whether to commence the procedure to amend the plan or adopt a new plan. These reviews are necessary in order to be responsive to changes in growth trends and current community attitudes on growth and development within the Township.

Bedford Township Master Plan 101 P:\Bed6249\01T\Planning\2001 Final Plan Sections\Master Plan.doc