Permit Process

Mt. Pleasant MI City Administration Planning Zoning 48858 Isabella County Public Officials, Attorneys, Breach of Duty, Oath and Ethics. Misconduct in Public Office.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Conversation with City Planner

Gmail

Questions - Planning Commission 04.09.15 meeting

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 8:25 AM
To: planning@mt-pleasant.org
Cc: manager@mt-pleasant.org; building@mt-pleasant.org

TO: Planning Commission, City Commission, City Manager, Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: Development Proposals -
SUP-15-03 - SPR-15-03 - 1024 & 1026 S. Main
SUP-15-15-04 - SPR-15-15-04 - 1023 S. Main
SUP-15-05 - SPR-15-05 - 316 W. May

  • Context:
  • Agenda packet indicates development proposals do not fulfill mandatory standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance.
  • 03.25.15 Zoning Board of Appeals determines development proposals do not fulfill mandatory standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance.
  • City Code: 10.05(A) SHALL. The act referred to is mandatory.
  • City Code: 154.054(C)(1)(c) A minimum of 25% of the total square feet of the rear and side yard areas shall be retained in open landscaped areas and not used for parking.
  • City Code: 154.095(E) no rooming dwelling shall provide less than 300 square feet of floor area and 900 square feet of land area per occupant.
  • City Code: 154.162(C) The Zoning Board shall not have the power to alter or change the zone district classification of a property, nor make any changes in the terms of this chapter.
  • City Code: 154.169(D) Decisions conditionally approving or rejecting the site plans shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances.
  • City Code: 154.171(C)(b) Site plans for all special use permits …
  • MZEA 125.3501(4) A decision rejecting, approving, or conditionally approving a site plan shall be based upon requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance, other statutorily authorized and properly adopted local unit of government planning documents, other applicable ordinances, and state and federal statutes.

How does staff justify its approval recommendations knowing the development proposals do not fulfill mandatory standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance?

Which state/local statute provisions authorize Planning Commission approval of development proposals that do not fulfill mandatory standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance?

Thank you,

From: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org> Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:51 AM
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

Good morning,

Staff’s recommendation of approval for the projects below is consistent with the adopted procedure of both the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to Redevelopment of Housing in the M-2 District. This procedure was memorialized in 2012 and has been reviewed and endorsed by the City’s attorney. If you would like to discuss my reports and recommendations further, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and discuss.

Thank you,
Jacob

Jacob Kain
City Planner
City of Mt. Pleasant
320 W. Broadway
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
(989) 779-5346
http://www.mt-pleasant.org/

Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 12:00 PM
To: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org>
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

TO: Planning Commission, City Commission, City Manager, Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: Development Proposals -
SUP-15-03 - SPR-15-03 - 1024 & 1026 S. Main
SUP-15-15-04 - SPR-15-15-04 - 1023 S. Main
SUP-15-05 - SPR-15-05 - 316 W. May

Jacob - Thank you for responding. I understand 'adopted procedure' as reference to Documentation of Current Review Procedures and Standards Redevelopment of Housing in the M-2 Zoning District September 24, 2012.

You indicate staff approval recommendations are not based on standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance; and, the City's attorney has reviewed and endorsed intentional violation of mandatory provisions contained in both state and local statutes:

  • MZEA 125.3501(4) A decision rejecting, approving, or conditionally approving a site plan shall be based upon requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance, other statutorily authorized and properly adopted local unit of government planning documents, other applicable ordinances, and state and federal statutes.
  • City Code: 154.169(D) Decisions conditionally approving or rejecting the site plans shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances.

Which state/local statute provisions authorize Planning Commission decisions based on other than requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance (i.e. based on procedures [and standards] adopted by the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals)?

Thank you,

From: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org> Thu, Apr 09, 2015 12:14 PM
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

Good afternoon,

The City’s attorney has reviewed the procedure and found that it is consistent with both the Zoning Board of Appeal’s authority under Michigan’s Zoning Enabling Act as well as Section 154.007 of the City’s zoning ordinance which addresses nonconforming lots and uses. I once again welcome the opportunity to address your concerns in person.

Thank you,
Jacob

Jacob Kain
City Planner
City of Mt. Pleasant
320 W. Broadway
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
(989) 779-5346
http://www.mt-pleasant.org/

Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 12:34 PM
To: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org>
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

TO: Planning Commission, City Commission, City Manager, Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: Development Proposals -
SUP-15-03 - SPR-15-03 - 1024 & 1026 S. Main
SUP-15-15-04 - SPR-15-15-04 - 1023 S. Main
SUP-15-05 - SPR-15-05 - 316 W. May

Jacob - Thank you for continuing the discussion. Understood, the City's attorney has not reviewed and endorsed the 'adopted procedure of both the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals'; responsibility for implementation of the procedure rests solely with city staff, the Planning Commission, and the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Back to the question -

Which state/local statute provisions authorize Planning Commission decisions based on other than requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance (i.e. based on 'adopted procedure [and standards] of both the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals')?

Additionally -

Which state/local statute provisions authorize the 'adopted procedure of both the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals' (procedures and standards inconsistent with state/local law)?

Thank you,

From: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org> Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:00 PM
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

Good afternoon,

I’m afraid I don’t have much to add. I will reiterate, however, as stated in my previous responses, that the City’s attorney did find that the procedure was consistent with the authority of both the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals as provided by both local ordinance and state statute.

Thank you,
Jacob

Jacob Kain
City Planner
City of Mt. Pleasant
320 W. Broadway
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
(989) 779-5346
http://www.mt-pleasant.org/

Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 6:48 PM
To: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org>
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

TO: Planning Commission, City Commission, City Manager, Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: Development Proposals -
SUP-15-03 - SPR-15-03 - 1024 & 1026 S. Main
SUP-15-15-04 - SPR-15-15-04 - 1023 S. Main
SUP-15-05 - SPR-15-05 - 316 W. May

Jacob - City's inability to provide supporting state/local statute references, consultant Doug Piggott's advice the ordinance does not authorize the procedure, and obvious conflicts with identified state statute and local ordinance provisions -

Procedure

Obvious Conflicts

PC/ZBA Adopted Procedure
(03.03.11 Work Session)

City Code 154.004 No building, structure or land shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected, raised, moved, reconstructed, extended, enlarged or altered except in conformity with this chapter.

MZEA 125.3208(2) The legislative body may provide in a zoning ordinance … upon terms and conditions provided in the zoning ordinance.

MZEA 125.3501(1) The zoning ordinance shall specify the body or official responsible for reviewing site plans and granting approval.

MZEA 125.3604(7) The ordinance shall establish procedures for the review and standards for approval of all types of variances.

1) Staff meets with applicant and determines if SUP/SPR and/or Variance is needed.

City Code 154.169(A) The Planning Commission is empowered to review site plans.

City Code 154.171 The Special Use Permit shall be granted if the Planning Commission finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be altered to conform, to all of the criteria for approval for Special Use Permits [see §§ 154.171 (A) and (C)].

2) If ZBA action is required, the case goes to them first and ZBA action sets the new standard for that site.

City Code 154.162(C) The Zoning Board shall not have the power to alter or change the zone district classification of a property, nor make any changes in the terms of this chapter.

MZEA 125.3604(7) If there are practical difficulties for nonuse variances or unnecessary hardship for use variances the zoning board of appeals may grant a variance.

City Code 154.164(D) To obtain a non-use or dimensional variance, the applicant must show practical difficulty by demonstrating that all of the following conditions exist:

City Code 154.164 (E) The Board of Appeals shall have the power to decide application for use variances from the provisions of this chapter for the following conditions:

3) PC reviews based on ordinance as varied by ZBA.

MZEA 125.3501(4) A decision rejecting, approving, or conditionally approving a site plan shall be based upon requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance.

City Code:154.169(D) Decisions conditionally approving or rejecting the site plans shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances.

Context - Referenced Proposals

 

ZBA classifies existing property uses, City Code 154.054 Principal uses permitted:
Residential Dwelling category:
(3) Dwelling, Multiple-Family
(4) Dwelling, Rooming
(6) Dwelling, Registered Student Organization,

as Nonconforming property uses.
Residential Dwelling category:
(3) Dwelling, Multiple-Family
(4) Dwelling, Rooming
(6) Dwelling, Registered Student Organization
ZBA classifies proposed property uses and new construction, City Code 154.054 Principal uses permitted:
Residential Dwelling category:
(4) Dwelling, Rooming
(6) Dwelling, Registered Student Organization,
Residential Dwelling category:
(4) Dwelling, Rooming
(6) Dwelling, Registered Student Organization
as Dissimilar new nonconforming property uses. City Code 154.007(B)(5) Where no structural alterations requiring a building permit are involved, a similar nonconforming use may be converted to a similar nonconforming use of a basic character and intensity.
ZBA grants variances based on other than procedures and criteria established in the zoning ordinance. MZEA 125.3208(2) … completion, resumption, restoration, reconstruction, extension, or substitution of nonconforming uses or structures upon terms and conditions provided in the zoning ordinance
Planning Commission approves special use permit and site plan based on other than standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance. MZEA 125.3501, City Code:154.169, City Code 154.171

 

- demonstrate City's attorney advice as absurd; and reliance on that advice alone, as intentional violation of mandatory state statute and local ordinance provisions.

Is there any documentation or evidence that substantiates:

  • City's attorney advice "the procedure was consistent with the authority of both the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals as provided by both local ordinance and state statute";
  • City's attorney delivered such advice to city staff, the Planning Commission, or the Zoning Board of Appeals;
  • City staff, the Planning Commission, or the Zoning Board of Appeals had reasonable belief their actions are authorized by both local ordinance and state statute?

Thank you,

From: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org> Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

Good morning,

I have attached the City Attorney’s opinion on this M-2 redevelopment procedure for your information.

I appreciate your passion about this issue and invite you to take part in the current discussion about how the City moves forward with redevelopment of the M-2 area. There will be multiple opportunities in the near future for members of the public to provide input into what the M-2 redevelopment process will look like in the future. I will be glad to pass along the dates, times, and locations for those opportunities as they are finalized. In the interim, if you have any suggestions or ideas on what that process looks like moving forward please do let us know.

Thank you,
Jacob

Jacob Kain
City Planner
City of Mt. Pleasant
320 W. Broadway
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
(989) 779-5346
http://www.mt-pleasant.org/

Sent: Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:43 AM
To: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org>
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

TO: Planning Commission, City Commission, City Manager, Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: Development Proposals -
SUP-15-03 - SPR-15-03 - 1024 & 1026 S. Main
SUP-15-15-04 - SPR-15-15-04 - 1023 S. Main
SUP-15-05 - SPR-15-05 - 316 W. May

Jacob - The 09.12.11 opinion letter addresses repeated use of 154.007(B)(5) and 154.164(D)(3), it does not address the M-2 redevelopment review procedures and standards established by the Planning Commission and ZBA.

09.12.11 City Attorney opinion - "… some City Commissioners expressed misgivings about how appropriate (how legal it was2) for the ZBA to repeatedly use that provision in response to requests by developers on a parcel-by-parcel basis, rather than to legislatively change the zoning ordinance (i.e., by amendment) to address those repeated circumstances. You asked for our opinion as to the legal propriety of the City's actions in these matters."

"the use of 154.007(B)(5) by the ZBA to reduce the level of certain non­conforming conditions complies with the zoning ordinance and applicable state law and does not raise concerns of illegal or illegitimate practices."

Is there any evidence City Staff, the Planning Commission, or the Zoning Board of Appeals have reason to believe:

  • The Planning Commission may base site plan decisions upon other than standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances (i.e. based on the ordinance as varied by ZBA); and,
  • The Zoning Board of Appeals may substitute review procedures and standards for approval established in the zoning ordinance with review procedures and standards established by the Planning Commission and ZBA?

Thank you,

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Conversation with City Planner

Gmail

Questions - Planning Commission 04.09.15 meeting

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 8:25 AM
To: planning@mt-pleasant.org
Cc: manager@mt-pleasant.org; building@mt-pleasant.org

TO: Planning Commission, City Commission, City Manager, Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: Development Proposals -
SUP-15-03 - SPR-15-03 - 1024 & 1026 S. Main
SUP-15-15-04 - SPR-15-15-04 - 1023 S. Main
SUP-15-05 - SPR-15-05 - 316 W. May

  • Context:
  • Agenda packet indicates development proposals do not fulfill mandatory standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance.
  • 03.25.15 Zoning Board of Appeals determines development proposals do not fulfill mandatory standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance.
  • City Code: 10.05(A) SHALL. The act referred to is mandatory.
  • City Code: 154.054(C)(1)(c) A minimum of 25% of the total square feet of the rear and side yard areas shall be retained in open landscaped areas and not used for parking.
  • City Code: 154.095(E) no rooming dwelling shall provide less than 300 square feet of floor area and 900 square feet of land area per occupant.
  • City Code: 154.162(C) The Zoning Board shall not have the power to alter or change the zone district classification of a property, nor make any changes in the terms of this chapter.
  • City Code: 154.169(D) Decisions conditionally approving or rejecting the site plans shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances.
  • City Code: 154.171(C)(b) Site plans for all special use permits …
  • MZEA 125.3501(4) A decision rejecting, approving, or conditionally approving a site plan shall be based upon requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance, other statutorily authorized and properly adopted local unit of government planning documents, other applicable ordinances, and state and federal statutes.

How does staff justify its approval recommendations knowing the development proposals do not fulfill mandatory standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance?

Which state/local statute provisions authorize Planning Commission approval of development proposals that do not fulfill mandatory standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance?

Thank you,

From: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org> Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:51 AM
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

Good morning,

Staff’s recommendation of approval for the projects below is consistent with the adopted procedure of both the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to Redevelopment of Housing in the M-2 District. This procedure was memorialized in 2012 and has been reviewed and endorsed by the City’s attorney. If you would like to discuss my reports and recommendations further, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and discuss.

Thank you,
Jacob

Jacob Kain
City Planner
City of Mt. Pleasant
320 W. Broadway
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
(989) 779-5346
http://www.mt-pleasant.org/

Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 12:00 PM
To: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org>
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

TO: Planning Commission, City Commission, City Manager, Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: Development Proposals -
SUP-15-03 - SPR-15-03 - 1024 & 1026 S. Main
SUP-15-15-04 - SPR-15-15-04 - 1023 S. Main
SUP-15-05 - SPR-15-05 - 316 W. May

Jacob - Thank you for responding. I understand 'adopted procedure' as reference to Documentation of Current Review Procedures and Standards Redevelopment of Housing in the M-2 Zoning District September 24, 2012.

You indicate staff approval recommendations are not based on standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance; and, the City's attorney has reviewed and endorsed intentional violation of mandatory provisions contained in both state and local statutes:

  • MZEA 125.3501(4) A decision rejecting, approving, or conditionally approving a site plan shall be based upon requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance, other statutorily authorized and properly adopted local unit of government planning documents, other applicable ordinances, and state and federal statutes.
  • City Code: 154.169(D) Decisions conditionally approving or rejecting the site plans shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances.

Which state/local statute provisions authorize Planning Commission decisions based on other than requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance (i.e. based on procedures [and standards] adopted by the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals)?

Thank you,

From: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org> Thu, Apr 09, 2015 12:14 PM
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

Good afternoon,

The City’s attorney has reviewed the procedure and found that it is consistent with both the Zoning Board of Appeal’s authority under Michigan’s Zoning Enabling Act as well as Section 154.007 of the City’s zoning ordinance which addresses nonconforming lots and uses. I once again welcome the opportunity to address your concerns in person.

Thank you,
Jacob

Jacob Kain
City Planner
City of Mt. Pleasant
320 W. Broadway
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
(989) 779-5346
http://www.mt-pleasant.org/

Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 12:34 PM
To: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org>
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

TO: Planning Commission, City Commission, City Manager, Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: Development Proposals -
SUP-15-03 - SPR-15-03 - 1024 & 1026 S. Main
SUP-15-15-04 - SPR-15-15-04 - 1023 S. Main
SUP-15-05 - SPR-15-05 - 316 W. May

Jacob - Thank you for continuing the discussion. Understood, the City's attorney has not reviewed and endorsed the 'adopted procedure of both the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals'; responsibility for implementation of the procedure rests solely with city staff, the Planning Commission, and the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Back to the question -

Which state/local statute provisions authorize Planning Commission decisions based on other than requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance (i.e. based on 'adopted procedure [and standards] of both the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals')?

Additionally -

Which state/local statute provisions authorize the 'adopted procedure of both the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals' (procedures and standards inconsistent with state/local law)?

Thank you,

From: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org> Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:00 PM
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

Good afternoon,

I’m afraid I don’t have much to add. I will reiterate, however, as stated in my previous responses, that the City’s attorney did find that the procedure was consistent with the authority of both the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals as provided by both local ordinance and state statute.

Thank you,
Jacob

Jacob Kain
City Planner
City of Mt. Pleasant
320 W. Broadway
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
(989) 779-5346
http://www.mt-pleasant.org/

Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 6:48 PM
To: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org>
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

TO: Planning Commission, City Commission, City Manager, Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: Development Proposals -
SUP-15-03 - SPR-15-03 - 1024 & 1026 S. Main
SUP-15-15-04 - SPR-15-15-04 - 1023 S. Main
SUP-15-05 - SPR-15-05 - 316 W. May

Jacob - City's inability to provide supporting state/local statute references, consultant Doug Piggott's advice the ordinance does not authorize the procedure, and obvious conflicts with identified state statute and local ordinance provisions -

Procedure

Obvious Conflicts

PC/ZBA Adopted Procedure
(03.03.11 Work Session)

City Code 154.004 No building, structure or land shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected, raised, moved, reconstructed, extended, enlarged or altered except in conformity with this chapter.

MZEA 125.3208(2) The legislative body may provide in a zoning ordinance … upon terms and conditions provided in the zoning ordinance.

MZEA 125.3501(1) The zoning ordinance shall specify the body or official responsible for reviewing site plans and granting approval.

MZEA 125.3604(7) The ordinance shall establish procedures for the review and standards for approval of all types of variances.

1) Staff meets with applicant and determines if SUP/SPR and/or Variance is needed.

City Code 154.169(A) The Planning Commission is empowered to review site plans.

City Code 154.171 The Special Use Permit shall be granted if the Planning Commission finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be altered to conform, to all of the criteria for approval for Special Use Permits [see §§ 154.171 (A) and (C)].

2) If ZBA action is required, the case goes to them first and ZBA action sets the new standard for that site.

City Code 154.162(C) The Zoning Board shall not have the power to alter or change the zone district classification of a property, nor make any changes in the terms of this chapter.

MZEA 125.3604(7) If there are practical difficulties for nonuse variances or unnecessary hardship for use variances the zoning board of appeals may grant a variance.

City Code 154.164(D) To obtain a non-use or dimensional variance, the applicant must show practical difficulty by demonstrating that all of the following conditions exist:

City Code 154.164 (E) The Board of Appeals shall have the power to decide application for use variances from the provisions of this chapter for the following conditions:

3) PC reviews based on ordinance as varied by ZBA.

MZEA 125.3501(4) A decision rejecting, approving, or conditionally approving a site plan shall be based upon requirements and standards contained in the zoning ordinance.

City Code:154.169(D) Decisions conditionally approving or rejecting the site plans shall be based upon standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances.

Context - Referenced Proposals

 

ZBA classifies existing property uses, City Code 154.054 Principal uses permitted:
Residential Dwelling category:
(3) Dwelling, Multiple-Family
(4) Dwelling, Rooming
(6) Dwelling, Registered Student Organization,

as Nonconforming property uses.
Residential Dwelling category:
(3) Dwelling, Multiple-Family
(4) Dwelling, Rooming
(6) Dwelling, Registered Student Organization
ZBA classifies proposed property uses and new construction, City Code 154.054 Principal uses permitted:
Residential Dwelling category:
(4) Dwelling, Rooming
(6) Dwelling, Registered Student Organization,
Residential Dwelling category:
(4) Dwelling, Rooming
(6) Dwelling, Registered Student Organization
as Dissimilar new nonconforming property uses. City Code 154.007(B)(5) Where no structural alterations requiring a building permit are involved, a similar nonconforming use may be converted to a similar nonconforming use of a basic character and intensity.
ZBA grants variances based on other than procedures and criteria established in the zoning ordinance. MZEA 125.3208(2) … completion, resumption, restoration, reconstruction, extension, or substitution of nonconforming uses or structures upon terms and conditions provided in the zoning ordinance
Planning Commission approves special use permit and site plan based on other than standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance. MZEA 125.3501, City Code:154.169, City Code 154.171

 

- demonstrate City's attorney advice as absurd; and reliance on that advice alone, as intentional violation of mandatory state statute and local ordinance provisions.

Is there any documentation or evidence that substantiates:

  • City's attorney advice "the procedure was consistent with the authority of both the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals as provided by both local ordinance and state statute";
  • City's attorney delivered such advice to city staff, the Planning Commission, or the Zoning Board of Appeals;
  • City staff, the Planning Commission, or the Zoning Board of Appeals had reasonable belief their actions are authorized by both local ordinance and state statute?

Thank you,

From: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org> Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

Good morning,

I have attached the City Attorney’s opinion on this M-2 redevelopment procedure for your information.

I appreciate your passion about this issue and invite you to take part in the current discussion about how the City moves forward with redevelopment of the M-2 area. There will be multiple opportunities in the near future for members of the public to provide input into what the M-2 redevelopment process will look like in the future. I will be glad to pass along the dates, times, and locations for those opportunities as they are finalized. In the interim, if you have any suggestions or ideas on what that process looks like moving forward please do let us know.

Thank you,
Jacob

Jacob Kain
City Planner
City of Mt. Pleasant
320 W. Broadway
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
(989) 779-5346
http://www.mt-pleasant.org/

Sent: Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:43 AM
To: Kain, Jacob<jkain@mt-pleasant.org>
Cc: "Kench, Brian"<bkench@mt-pleasant.org>, "Mrdeza, William"<wmrdeza@mt-pleasant.org>

TO: Planning Commission, City Commission, City Manager, Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: Development Proposals -
SUP-15-03 - SPR-15-03 - 1024 & 1026 S. Main
SUP-15-15-04 - SPR-15-15-04 - 1023 S. Main
SUP-15-05 - SPR-15-05 - 316 W. May

Jacob - The 09.12.11 opinion letter addresses repeated use of 154.007(B)(5) and 154.164(D)(3), it does not address the M-2 redevelopment review procedures and standards established by the Planning Commission and ZBA.

09.12.11 City Attorney opinion - "… some City Commissioners expressed misgivings about how appropriate (how legal it was2) for the ZBA to repeatedly use that provision in response to requests by developers on a parcel-by-parcel basis, rather than to legislatively change the zoning ordinance (i.e., by amendment) to address those repeated circumstances. You asked for our opinion as to the legal propriety of the City's actions in these matters."

"the use of 154.007(B)(5) by the ZBA to reduce the level of certain non­conforming conditions complies with the zoning ordinance and applicable state law and does not raise concerns of illegal or illegitimate practices."

Is there any evidence City Staff, the Planning Commission, or the Zoning Board of Appeals have reason to believe:

  • The Planning Commission may base site plan decisions upon other than standards and requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinances (i.e. based on the ordinance as varied by ZBA); and,
  • The Zoning Board of Appeals may substitute review procedures and standards for approval established in the zoning ordinance with review procedures and standards established by the Planning Commission and ZBA?

Thank you,