Permit Process

City Officials' Intentional Misconduct - Mount Pleasant, MI Zoning

Friday, April 28, 2017

Fraudulent Claims and Misdirection

Attorneys collude with other officials and professional staff to conceal and perpetuate intentional violations of state law and local ordinance.

Planning Commission Staff Report

Site Plan Review/Special Use Permit 15-06

Reference:

MCL 125.3502 Special Land Uses

Ord § 154.171 Special Use Permits

MCL 125.3607 Party Aggrieved

MCL 125.3208 Nonconforming Uses or Structures

MCL 125.3606 Circuit Court Review

MCL 125.3604 Zoning Board of Appeals Procedures

MCL 125.3103 Notice Requirements

Exposing Fraudulent Intent -(disclosed Apr 13, 2015)

Use does not change: Use before demolition Dwelling catagories (4) and (5); Use after new construction Dewlling catagories (4) and (5).

Ordinance plainly states "A use for which a special use permit has been granted shall be considered a conforming use in the district in which the property is located"

Ordinance defines Variance as "A modification of the terms of this chapter granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals."

Reference:

Ord § 154.171 Special Use Permits (B)(5)

Ord § 10.05 Definitions - Shall

Ord § 154.003 Definitions - Dwelling, Use, Variance

Ord § 154.007 Nonconforming Lots and Uses (B)(5) A nonconforming use may be changed to a new nonconforming use if the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the new use would markedly decrease the degree of nonconformance and would enhance the desirability of adjacent conforming uses. 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.

Exposing Fraudulent Intent -(disclosed Sept 14, 2005)

Use does not change: Use before demolition Dwelling catagories (4) and (5); Use after new construction Dewlling catagories (4) and (5).

Ordinance plainly states "A use for which a special use permit has been granted shall be considered a conforming use in the district in which the property is located"

Ordinance plainly states "A general term following specific enumeration of terms is not to be limited to the class enumerated unless expressly so limited."

Reference:

Ord § 154.171 Special Use Permits (B)(5)

Ord § 10.05 Definitions - Shall

Ord § 10.06 Rules of Interpretation (D)

Ord § 154.003 Definitions - Dwelling, Use

Ord § 154.007 Nonconforming Lots and Uses (B)(6) A building which has been damaged by fire or other cause to the extent of more than 50% of its replacement value must be repaired or rebuilt in conformity with the provisions of this chapter unless the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the redevelopment of the site represents a marked decrease in the specific nonconformance per § 154.007(B)(4), and there is an equivalent use.

errors of confusion

When property owners discovered via newspaper report officials had approved a "redevelopment project" abutting their property they contacted the city planning director with their concerns. On next contact with the planning director the property owners were informed the 30 day appeal period had expired, nothing could be done to address their concerns.

Property owners, together with neighbors, pursued explanation for the property owner's circumstance. The city manager responded with babble that simultaneously excused and ignored the property owner's circumstance.

Commissioner Bradley-Kilmer, the sole city official genuinely concerned with the property owner's distress, pursued a plausible explanation for the property owner's circumstance.

Officials' fraud has cost far more than the additional fees attorneys enjoy in return for prostituting their license. Over the years officials have spent countless hours and thousands of dollars attempting to legitimize their misconduct; e.g. The Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals invested three years concocting, then adopting without authority, their own set of zoning standards and requirements.

The ordinance, updated circa 2007 for compliance with state statute, was not obsolete or broken. Again attempting to authorize their misconduct, City officials broke the ordinance with 2015 adoption of amendments TC-15-06 and 1006. These amendments introduced Master Plan conflict, internal provision conflict, and expanded ZBA authority beyond the constraints of state law. Humorously, the amendments failed to provide the authorization officials desired.

Officials' current effort to obfuscate intentional misconduct is a $100,000 dollar ordinance rewrite.

Perpetual Confusion

Autonomous Bureaucracy

Friday, April 28, 2017

Fraudulent Claims and Misdirection

Attorneys collude with other officials and professional staff to conceal and perpetuate intentional violations of state law and local ordinance.

Planning Commission Staff Report

Site Plan Review/Special Use Permit 15-06

Reference:

MCL 125.3502 Special Land Uses

Ord § 154.171 Special Use Permits

MCL 125.3607 Party Aggrieved

MCL 125.3208 Nonconforming Uses or Structures

MCL 125.3606 Circuit Court Review

MCL 125.3604 Zoning Board of Appeals Procedures

MCL 125.3103 Notice Requirements

Exposing Fraudulent Intent -(disclosed Apr 13, 2015)

Use does not change: Use before demolition Dwelling catagories (4) and (5); Use after new construction Dewlling catagories (4) and (5).

Ordinance plainly states "A use for which a special use permit has been granted shall be considered a conforming use in the district in which the property is located"

Ordinance defines Variance as "A modification of the terms of this chapter granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals."

Reference:

Ord § 154.171 Special Use Permits (B)(5)

Ord § 10.05 Definitions - Shall

Ord § 154.003 Definitions - Dwelling, Use, Variance

Ord § 154.007 Nonconforming Lots and Uses (B)(5) A nonconforming use may be changed to a new nonconforming use if the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the new use would markedly decrease the degree of nonconformance and would enhance the desirability of adjacent conforming uses. 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.

Exposing Fraudulent Intent -(disclosed Sept 14, 2005)

Use does not change: Use before demolition Dwelling catagories (4) and (5); Use after new construction Dewlling catagories (4) and (5).

Ordinance plainly states "A use for which a special use permit has been granted shall be considered a conforming use in the district in which the property is located"

Ordinance plainly states "A general term following specific enumeration of terms is not to be limited to the class enumerated unless expressly so limited."

Reference:

Ord § 154.171 Special Use Permits (B)(5)

Ord § 10.05 Definitions - Shall

Ord § 10.06 Rules of Interpretation (D)

Ord § 154.003 Definitions - Dwelling, Use

Ord § 154.007 Nonconforming Lots and Uses (B)(6) A building which has been damaged by fire or other cause to the extent of more than 50% of its replacement value must be repaired or rebuilt in conformity with the provisions of this chapter unless the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the redevelopment of the site represents a marked decrease in the specific nonconformance per § 154.007(B)(4), and there is an equivalent use.

errors of confusion

When property owners discovered via newspaper report officials had approved a "redevelopment project" abutting their property they contacted the city planning director with their concerns. On next contact with the planning director the property owners were informed the 30 day appeal period had expired, nothing could be done to address their concerns.

Property owners, together with neighbors, pursued explanation for the property owner's circumstance. The city manager responded with babble that simultaneously excused and ignored the property owner's circumstance.

Commissioner Bradley-Kilmer, the sole city official genuinely concerned with the property owner's distress, pursued a plausible explanation for the property owner's circumstance.

Officials' fraud has cost far more than the additional fees attorneys enjoy in return for prostituting their license. Over the years officials have spent countless hours and thousands of dollars attempting to legitimize their misconduct; e.g. The Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals invested three years concocting, then adopting without authority, their own set of zoning standards and requirements.

The ordinance, updated circa 2007 for compliance with state statute, was not obsolete or broken. Again attempting to authorize their misconduct, City officials broke the ordinance with 2015 adoption of amendments TC-15-06 and 1006. These amendments introduced Master Plan conflict, internal provision conflict, and expanded ZBA authority beyond the constraints of state law. Humorously, the amendments failed to provide the authorization officials desired.

Officials' current effort to obfuscate intentional misconduct is a $100,000 dollar ordinance rewrite.

Perpetual Confusion

Autonomous Bureaucracy