In today's installment, I will examine the Implementation Tools and Enforcement sections of the Hayes Township Master Plan, and compare it with the minutes of the Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, dated May 17, 2010, which lay out in detail the decision taken by the Planning commission, and restrictions to be applied to the Special Use assigned to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road.
Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the Hayes Township Master Plan as found on the Hayes Township Website.
The Hayes Township Master Plan is the foundation for the Zoning Ordinance, but it does not carry the weight of the law that the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance does.
Page 48: Section 6.2: Implementation Tools, 6.2.1: Zoning Ordinance: "Zoning regulations have been strongly supported by the Michigan Courts, as well as by the United States Supreme Court."
Unfortunately because a lack of will to enforce proper implementation of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance by the Hayes Township Planning Commission and the Hayes Township Board, some citizens of the Township were forced into a courtroom for the redress that should have been afforded to them by the Township Officials. We appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals to afford the citizens of Mostetler Road the redress previously denied.
Page 48: Section 6.2: Implementation Tools, 6.2.1: Zoning Ordinance: "Zoning also promotes the general welfare of a community by protecting homes and investments against potential harmful intrusion of business and industry into residential neighborhoods, requiring the spacing of buildings far enough apart to assure adequate light and air, preventing the overcrowding of land, facilitating economical provision of essential public facilities, and aiding in the conservation of essential natural resources. This, in turn helps to protect the property values of the community."
E. "The special exemption use as set forth above will be consistent with the health, safety and welfare of Hayes Township for the following reasons: Conditions are in place to protect the integrity of adjoining property and Owner will cause no harm to adjacent property intentionally." (Minutes, Page 3)
How did the zoning ordinance protect the general welfare of the Collins, the Kusiaks, Virginia McClain, the Youngs, the Jencics and the rest of the neighbors on Mostetler Road within a half mile of the Gamble/Longenecker property?
The reason given in the minutes talks about “conditions” being in place to protect the integrity of the adjoining property, but what do those “conditions” do to protect property values from being adversely affected by proximity to the harmful intrusion of a business or industrial use such as a motorized vehicle racing and riding business?
And just exactly what are those "conditions"?
How did those “conditions” protect the Collins’ property from intentional harm when trees were recently cut down on their property since those “conditions” were put in place?
How can we trust those “conditions” in the future?
How were the homes and investments of the neighbors on Mostetler Road protected by the decision made by the Planning Commission and the Township Board on May 17, 2010?
How will these “conditions” be enforced? To date, the Collins’ have received no substantive redress for the trees. To date there has been an attitude of unwillingness to enforce those "conditions" by the Planning Commission, By the Board of Trustees and by the local police. When they are enforced, it is with great reluctance in a haphazard manner. And only because the neighbors have pushed the issue by legal means.
Why did the Planning Commission not protect the residents of Mostetler Road from the harmful intrusion of business and industry into their neighborhood?
Why did the Planning Commission protect the incoming business rather than the taxpayers who already live there?
How did the Planning Commission aid in the conservation of the natural resources that were destroyed to make way for this project?
What could the Planning Commission have done better to preserve natural resources? The trees that were clear cut will take a generation or more to replace.
Page 49: Section 6.2.3: Enforcement: "The ultimate effectiveness of the zoning, subdivision, and other regulations depends on the effective administration and enforcement by the community. If administrative procedures are lax, or if enforcement of regulations is handled in an inconsistent, sporadic manner, the result will be unsatisfactory at best."
In this series, I have laid out how the Master Plans and the Zoning Ordinance have been administered in an unsatisfactory manner. The actions (or lack thereof) of the Planning Commission and the Township Board, when measured against The Hayes Township Master Plan and the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance fail miserably. The cavalier attitude of the Planning Commission and the Township Board toward their duties and their lack of due diligence is on display in their handling of this matter. They are responsible for the rift between the residents of Mostetler Road and Deer Lake and the rest of the Township.
The results have been most unsatisfactory. Hence the lawsuits.
No comments:
Post a Comment