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 amongst 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)].

Prescribed by City Code	Actual Practice
Planning Commission site plan review: Identify nonconforming specification(s) Address relevant standards and requirements ·   General desirability/necessity ·   Site specific desirability/necessity Public Hearing Planning Commission requirements DPS, DPW, Other agency requirements Reject site plan based on standards and requirements contained in the ordinance § 154.169(A) § 154.169(D), MCL 125.3501(1), MCL 125.3501(4) § 154.169(D)(2) - Secretary may be authorized to approve site plan in the event variance(s) are obtained or the plan is revised and the development meets all established criteria.
Appeal Planning Commission decision Planning Commission and owners/occupants within 300’ of site served notice of Appeal § 154.163(A) § 154.164(A) § 154.166(B)	Owners/occupants within 300’ of site served notice a variance has been requested (illegal hearing) § 154.164(A), MCL 125.3604(7), MCL 125.3501(1)
Zoning Board of Appeals Conducts Public Hearing Additional decision criteria: Planning Commission public hearing Planning Commission perspective regarding ordinance standards and requirements ·   General desirability/necessity ·   Site specific desirability/necessity Planning Commission requirements DPS, DPW, Other agency requirements Authorizes variance from standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinances; effectively conforming ordinance to plan specifications and permitting development § 154.164(D)(3) - precludes variance authorization, triggers review for revision of standards and requirements when specific conditions of variance request are general or recurrent in nature	Zoning Board of Appeals Conducts Public Hearing Additional decision criteria: N/A Approves variance(s) requested
§ 154.169(D)(2) - The Secretary shall provide subsequent reports to the Planning Commission on these plan approvals.	Planning Commission Site plan review/predisposed approval Public Hearing          ( function? ) ( illegal approval - …  regulations of this chapter have not been complied with … plan does not conform to standards and requirements contained in the ordinance )