Regulations Optional?

The Criminal Alternative

2011-11-01T23:59:00.001-04:00

In second meetings following advise their actions were inconsistent with training and law¹, the zoning board of appeals and planning commission continued breach of statutory duty. Confounding their choice, a planning commissioner previously observed 'it makes no sense'².

While making sense is not required of public officials, penalties can accompany disregard of statutory provisions³; a 5yr/$10K felony charge for misconduct in office, the loss of immunity from tort liability. Rules of conduct and oath of office additionally attempt to ensure officials heed regulations. Unintentional violations, actions predicated on a reasonable belief authority exists, avoid penalty.

The administrative model Mt. Pleasant city officials have adopted explains their continued misconduct; compliance with regulations and making sense are optional, arbitrary choices. Their tactic for penalty avoidance is simple:

Statute provides: a general term is not to be limited ...⁴.

City Attorney asserts a general term is limited ...⁵.

Other Public Officers: I believe, I believe⁶

Statue provides: site plans prepared at readable scale⁷.

Site plan shows a 360' building⁸.

Building Official asserts building is 130' in length⁹.

Other Public Officers: I believe, I believe

Statute provides: the zoning board shall not have the power to change ordinance content¹⁰.

Director·Community Svcs. asserts zoning board sets ordinance standards¹¹.

Other Public Officers: I believe, I believe

Statute provides: site plan decisions shall be based on standards and requirements contained in the ordinance¹².

Site plan shows specifications not found in the ordinance¹³.

Director·Planning asserts site plan meets ordinance requirements¹³.

Other Public Officers: I believe, I believe

Whatever an officer asserts, other officials allow as reasonable. City commissioner/mayor divulged the rule of conduct for handling independent thought, 'Don't tell anyone!'¹⁴.

Signs Your Administration is Broken, Wasteful, and otherwise Corrupt

Your planning director informs you mandatory compliance reviews are not performed²
Your building official permits a liquor store without mandatory special use permit¹⁵
You are advised to employ a fictitious 'timeout' procedure¹¹
You repeatedly amend the ordinance with the addition of wholly superfluous text¹⁶
You award property development that does not reflect published standards or planning¹⁷
Your budget item CITY ATTORNEY blossoms to $192,270; violations and obfuscation continue¹⁸

¹August 8, 2011 Special Joint Meeting
²Director·Planning - 01.06.11 Video Clip
³Prescribed by City Code
⁴City Code §10.06
⁵City Attorney - Opinion Letter
⁶City Manager - Correspondence
⁷City Code §154.169(C)(2)
⁸Denied Due Process page 7 - site plan
⁹Building Official - Complaint Response

¹⁰City Code §154.162(C)
¹¹Fictitious 'timeout' Authority
¹²City Code §154.169(D)
¹³Nonconforming New Construction
¹⁴Commissioner/Mayor - 'Don't tell anyone!'
¹⁵Liquor Store w/o Permit, City Code §154.167(C)(10)(e)
¹⁶City Commission Bait & Switch, §154.007(B)(4)·(6), §154.081·082
¹⁷2010 Community Improvement Awards - Residential
¹⁸City Attorney - 02.14.11 Video Clip
⁰⁰Introduction

Planning Commission Continues Illegal Actions

2011-09-07T19:00:00.000-04:00

September 7, 2011 the Planning Commission approves site plan SPR-11-09. The approval was based on compliance with ZBA requirements. State and local statutes mandate site plan approval or rejection be based upon standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinances.

Two weeks ago, August 24, 2011, the Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed the identical site plan, ZBA Case 11-2011. The ZBA determined SPR-11-09 does not conform to standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinances, and effectively permitted its development with authorization of variance from standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinances.

See August 8, 2011 special joint meeting.

ZBA Continues Illegal Hearings/Actions

2011-08-24T19:00:00.000-04:00

August 24, 2011 the Zoning Board of Appeals conducts several non-appeal hearings in which they review and determine site plans do not conform to standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinances.

In ZBA Case 11-2011 the board authorized a density variance on concluding: the variance would not be necessary if the developer owned an adjacent parcel. The impact on development options for the adjacent parcel was not discussed.

State and local statutes vest the planning commission with site plan review authority; and, mandate site plan approval or rejection be based upon standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinances. The ZBA is authorized to hear and decide enforcement decision appeals.

See August 8, 2011 special joint meeting.

City Commission : Illegal Hearings/Actions

2011-08-08T18:00:00.000-04:00

City officials recast zoning administration from perpetual confusion to intentional breach of positive statutory duty - Misconduct in Office.

Special Joint Meeting - Mt. Pleasant, MI Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Commission, City Commission - August 8, 2011

Commissioner Jim Holton

"... if there is a large amount of variances that are being approved or being brought to the Zoning Board of Appeals you need to take a look at your ordinance ... that's what I was trained on."

Commissioner Sharon Tilmann

"... when I saw the variances coming through I stepped back and said what's going on here ... is the process that we're utilizing the best process to do what we want to get done."

Commissioner Kathleen Ling

"... the Zoning Board of Appeals is supposed to be upholding, it’s not a way around, the ordinance ... the Zoning Board of Appeals is making policy, it’s not a policy making board, it is an interpretation board."

Commissioner Jon Joslin

"... I don't think we should be doing these type of variances in the ZBA ... I just don't like the way it’s happening right now I'd rather see us look at doing something with the zoning ordinance."

Commissioner Nancy English

"... I am concerned with the process; just want to make sure the process is transparent, sustainable, we can duplicate it and that the decision making and the policy setting are in the right courts."

Full length meeting videos are typically available for a limited time @ mactvnetwork.org

Meeting record from city website (contrast with video clip above)

Minutes of the special joint meeting of the City Commission, Planning Commission, and Zoning Board of Appeals held Monday, August 8, 2011, at 6:02 p.m., in the City Commission Room.

Zoning Board Commission Chairman Jack White opened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.

City Commissioners Present: Mayor Kilmer and Vice Mayor Ling; Commissioners English, Holton, Joslin, Robinette and Tilmann

City Commissioners Absent: None

Planning Commissioners Present: Brockman, Holtgreive, Kostrzewa, Lux, Orlik, Quast and Shellady

Planning Commissioners Absent: Rautanen and Smith

Zoning Board of Appeals Members Present: White, Kulick, Brockman, Ellertson and Palm

Zoning Board of Appeals Members Absent: Rowley

Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman White, Planning Commission Chairperson Orlik and Mayor Kilmer all stated they had a quorum of their Board or Commission present.

Staff Present: City Manager Grinzinger, City Clerk Howard, Director of Planning & Community Development Gray, Building Official Kench and City Attorney Smith

Chairman White began the discussion on concerns regarding review and approval of redevelopment of student housing projects over the past year.

Discussion ensued.

There was general agreement that the outcome of the projects was very desirable. Several City Commissioners suggested that they were concerned about the process being followed and asked whether it was time to amend the Zoning Ordinance to better reflect the changing housing needs in that section of the City.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jeremy Howard, City Clerk

Commissioners : Makes No Sense - Unfamiliar Process

2011-06-22T21:45:00.035-04:00

January 6, 2011	Commissioner Holtgreive declares variance authorization prior to planning commission review 'makes no sense to me'. video clip
February 14, 2011	Commissioner Tilmann states variance authorization prior to planning commission review is not a familiar process. video clip
June 22, 2011	ZBA Case 04-2011 510 W. Pickard: industrial zone, new construction, hearing is not an enforcement decision appeal. ZBA reviews site plan and authorizes variance.

March 3, 2011 the planning commission convened a work session to discuss current review procedures. Minutes of that meeting show their discussion fails to address city code provisions.

Current Review Procedures Planning Commission 03.03.11 work session minutes	Mt. Pleasant, MI City Code Chapter 154 : Zoning Ordinances
1) Staff meets with applicant and determines if SUP/SPR and/or Variance is needed.	§154.169(A) The Planning Commission is empowered to review site plans - Permit Process
2) If ZBA action is required, the case goes to them first and ZBA action sets the new standard for that site. ZBA meets 4th Wednesday of the month.	§154.163(A) The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to hear and decide enforcement decision appeals; §154.162(C) The Zoning Board shall not have the power to make any changes in the terms of this chapter; §154.164(A) Applications for a variance shall be submitted and served in the same manner as provided for appeals
3) PC reviews based on ordinance as varied by ZBA. PC meets on the first Thursday of month.	§154.169(D) Decisions shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances; §154.162(C) The Zoning Board shall not have the power to make any changes in the terms of this chapter Statute Excerpts

Michigan statue MCL 125.3501(4) provides 'A decision rejecting, approving, or conditionally approving a site plan shall be based upon requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance,'
Michigan statute MCL 125.3604(7) provides 'The ordinance shall establish procedures for the review and standards for approval of all types of variances.'

Until the Mt. Pleasant, MI City Code is amended empowering staff to review site plans and the ZBA to change the text contained in the zoning ordinance, the current review procedure will remain unfamiliar ( illegal ).

If the Mt. Pleasant, MI City Code is amended, conforming to the current review procedure, planning commission site plan review will continue to make no sense.

City Commission - Illegal Closed Sessions

2011-04-01T01:44:00.005-04:00

Effective October 25, 2010 the city of Mt. Pleasant obtained an option to purchase all or part of the state-owned property commonly known as the Mt. Pleasant Center. The Mt. Pleasant City Commission convened closed sessions to discuss the purchase at both its March 14, and March 24, 2011 regularly scheduled sessions.

2010 PA 208 HOUSE BILL 5779 EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2010

AN ACT to authorize the state administrative board to convey certain parcels of state-owned property in Isabella county; … Sec. 1.

(1) The state administrative board, on behalf of the state, may convey to the city of Mt. Pleasant, for consideration of $1.00, all or portions of certain state-owned property now under the jurisdiction of the department of community health, commonly known as the Mt. Pleasant center, … 304.62 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.

(5) If any portion of the property described in subsection (1) is not conveyed to the city of Mt. Pleasant within 180 days after the effective date of this act, the director of the department of technology, management, and budget shall take the necessary steps to prepare to convey the remaining portions of the property ...

OPEN MEETINGS ACT : MCL Sec. 15.268 Closed sessions; permissible purposes.

Sec. 8. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes:

(d) To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an option to purchase or lease that real property is obtained.