Permit Process

Mt. Pleasant MI City Administration Planning Zoning 48858 Isabella County

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Intro / Update - a simple request

Attempts to cause Mt. Pleasant city officials comply with city and state zoning regulations began with a simple request in May 2004, following illegal site plan approval by the Planning Commission.

Naively anticipated raising issues would stimulate independent thought and discussion among city officials, and they would undertake corrective action. City officials did not respond to the 2004 request and continued with code/statute violations.

Wondering if city officials had cause to concern themselves with regulatory provisions, pursued an Open Meetings Act violation with Prosecuting Attorney Larry Burdick and Attorney General Mike Cox in 2007. The Prosecuting Attorney and Attorney General did not give city officials cause to concern themselves with statutory requirements.

Email received 2008, included in the initial post, indicated city officials were interested solely in maintaining whatever they did was correct, end of story. Initiated this blog and subsequently decided website was better suited to the monotony of no discussion. Started Perpetual Confusion posting compliance issues when noticed.

Minutes available on the city's website indicate the development/site plan process was operated in conformity with ordinance prescription prior to 2001; the Planning Commission based site plan approval on standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance [§ 154.169(D)] and the Zoning Board of Appeals would hear appeals of Planning Commission site plan decisions [§ 154.163(A), § 154.164(A), § 154.169(A)].

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Intro / Update - a simple request

Attempts to cause Mt. Pleasant city officials comply with city and state zoning regulations began with a simple request in May 2004, following illegal site plan approval by the Planning Commission.

Naively anticipated raising issues would stimulate independent thought and discussion among city officials, and they would undertake corrective action. City officials did not respond to the 2004 request and continued with code/statute violations.

Wondering if city officials had cause to concern themselves with regulatory provisions, pursued an Open Meetings Act violation with Prosecuting Attorney Larry Burdick and Attorney General Mike Cox in 2007. The Prosecuting Attorney and Attorney General did not give city officials cause to concern themselves with statutory requirements.

Email received 2008, included in the initial post, indicated city officials were interested solely in maintaining whatever they did was correct, end of story. Initiated this blog and subsequently decided website was better suited to the monotony of no discussion. Started Perpetual Confusion posting compliance issues when noticed.

Minutes available on the city's website indicate the development/site plan process was operated in conformity with ordinance prescription prior to 2001; the Planning Commission based site plan approval on standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance [§ 154.169(D)] and the Zoning Board of Appeals would hear appeals of Planning Commission site plan decisions [§ 154.163(A), § 154.164(A), § 154.169(A)].