In today's installment, I will continue to examine the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, 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. I will take this section by section as I did in the series on the Hayes Township and Clare County Master Plans.
Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance as found on the Hayes Township Website.
The Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
This series is not a complete dissection of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. This series will look at only those points of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that pertain specifically to the Resolution to grant the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road . I will examine the rest of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance at a later time.
Page 45: Article XIV General Provisions, Section 1400 Introduction: "Whenever any provision of this Ordinance imposes more stringent requirements, regulations, restrictions or limitations than are imposed or required by any other law or ordinance, then the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern. Whenever the provisions of any other law or Ordinance impose more stringent requirements than are imposed or required by this Ordinance, then the provisions of such ordinance shall govern."
In other words, the more stringent requirements, regulations, restrictions, or limitations shall govern.
And lest there be any confusion about the meaning of the word "shall", the Ordinance states, on Page 1, Section 102 Rules of Construction: "The following rules of construction apply to the text of this chapter:
3. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not discretionary. The word "may" is permissive."
“A. The Master Plan, page 45, second (2nd) paragraph, gives the Planning Board land use flexibility.” (Minutes, Page 3)
The Hayes Township Ordinance supersedes the Master Plan inasmuch as the Ordinance is more stringent than the flexibility afforded by the Master Plan.
Also, the Master Plan is a guidline and foundation for the Ordinance, and does not carry the weight of the law. The Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
There is no such Special Use as a Motor Vehicle racing and Riding business listed in the A-R zone, but there is such a use permitted by right as defined by “club” in the C-2 zone.
Page 45: Page 45: Article XIV General Provisions, Section 1401: Effect of Zoning: "No building or structure, or part thereof, shall hereafter be erected, constructed or altered and maintained, and no new use or change shall be made or maintained of any building, structure or land, or part thereof, except in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance."
The Proposed new use of the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road does not conform with the provisions of the Ordinance.
Page 62: Noise: "Objectionable sounds, including those of an intermittent nature, shall be controlled so as not to become a nuisance to adjacent uses."
"E. The proposed project complies with all other applicable ordinances and state and federal statutes for the following reasons:
The Park/Owner has to follow the rules of allowed noise levels, and not exceed the standards of Michigan Law of 94 decibels. Must comply with state law regarding the decibel limits for all modes of transportation used in the park." (Minutes, Page 3)
All other applicable ordinances? Really? Because the Hayes Township Planning Commission said so?
What outside and independent professional entity is testing the noise levels of the vehicles and of the park?
One motorcycle engine producing 94 decibels does not sound the same or as loud as up to 300 motorcycles and ORVs producing 94 db each. How will that collective noise be measured?
How will noise levels be enforced?
What consequences are in place for violations and infractions?
I realize there is redundancy here, but the redundancy is due to the redundancy of some applicable aspects of the Ordinance)
Owner: Ken Gamble?
Page 73: Article XIV Administration and Enforcement: Section 1601 Duties of the Zoning Administrator, Paragraph 1: "The Zoning Administrator shall receive all applications for development or the redevelopment pertaining to this Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator shall review all applications, site plans, and other material for new developments, special exemption permits, rezonings, and variances, to ensure that all the requirements of this article have been met. The Zoning Administrator shall then forward the necessary information to the bodies in charge of the requested action."
At the time, Jim VanWormer was the Hayes Township Zoning Administrator.
Back in October 2009, Mr. VanWormer should have received Mr. Longenecker’s Request for Special Use and a copy of his site plan. Apparently, this request came in to Hayes Township at a time when Jim VanWormer was on vacation, and Mr. VanWormer was cut out of the process by someone on the Hayes Township Board of Trustees, or the Hayes Township Planning Commission.
All of the following pertains to Mr. Longenecker’s original request for Special Use.
On March 9,2009, I went to the Hayes Township Hall. I spoke to Mr. VanWormer and asked for a copy of all forms pertaining to the development of the Michigan Moto Mania on Mostetler Road and the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting at which the site plan was approved. Only 2 pages of documentation were produced: the one page of minutes from the “Special Meeting” that was held by the Hayes Township Planning Commission, and a one page “Site Plan” that did not conform to the Hayes Township Ordinance. At this time no application for Special Use or Rezone was produced.
According to Mr. VanWormer, Mr. Longenecker asked for a Special Use Permit and not a rezone of the property on Mostetler Road. This surprised me because the development was such a departure from the rest of the properties on Mostetler Road.
I also asked for the most up to date copy of the Hayes Township Zoning Map as the one on the Hayes Township website was dated October 15, 2002. Mr. VanWormer informed me that the map on the website was the current map in use.
At that time, Mr. VanWormer told me that things were not done properly, and Mr. Longenecker was going to be required to resubmit his request for Special Use.
I went home and looked up the Township Ordinance on the Computer to see how the documents measure up to the Ordinance.
1. “Special Use” was an inappropriate designation for Mr. Longenecker’s request. The scope and magnitude of the project proposed by Mr Longenecker goes far beyond the provisions of what constitutes a “Special Use” of land zoned A-R. Mr. Longenecker’s request should have been disapproved on this basis.
The appropriate request should have been for a “Rezone”, since he will be conducting an ongoing business enterprise and by definition of the Ordinance, the project is a club. Clubs are a use by right in a C-2 Highway Commercial District.
2. The prescribed procedure for Applications for Special Use and Applications for Rezoning were not followed. Again, another basis for disapproval of Mr. Longenecker’s request.According to Article XVI, Administration and Enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 1601 and 1602, Paragraph 2, Mr. VanWormer, should have received 1) a written Application Rezoning Request on the proper form, with 2) an Application for a Site Plan Review on the proper form, plus 3) a properly prepared Site Plan in triplicate.
Mr. Longenecker never did submit an Application forn a Site Plan Review.
According to Section 1602, "the site plan must be produced in triplicate, drawn to scale showing
- Legal description of the site
(Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan did not include the legal description of the site property.)
- To scale: 1 inch = 100 ft. since it is more than 3 acres
(Mr Longenecker’s original site plan was not drawn to this scale.)
- Date, north point and scale
(The original site plan was not dated. Only the scale was included.)
- The dimensions of all lot and property lines showing the relationship of the subject property to abutting properties
(Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan showed dimensions of property lines, but there is no way to know if these property lines and dimensions are accurate because he did not have them surveyed. The relationship of Mr. Longenecker’s property with abutting properties was not shown.)
- The location of all existing and proposed structures on the subject property and all existing structures within 100 feet of the subject property.
(Since Mr Longenecker’s original site plan was not labeled, it is difficult to tell what the features of the site actually were. The site plans did not show any existing structures within 100 feet of the property.)
- The location of all existing and proposed drives and parking areas
(Again, since nothing was labeled, the drives and parking areas were not distinguishable on the original site plan.)
- Landscaping plan
(There was no distinguishable landscaping plan on Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan.)
- Signage plan
(There was no signage plan on Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan.)
- The location and right-of-way widths of all abutting streets and alleys
(There were none shown on Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan.)
- The names and addresses of the architect, planner, designer or engineer responsible for the preparation of the site plan.
(Aside from the fact that there were no names or addresses of any architects, planners, designers or engineers, it is very apparent that this site plan was not prepared professionally.)
- Such other information concerning the lot or adjoining lots as may be essential for determining whether the provisions of this chapter are being observed.
(No such other information was included in Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan. And no, the provisions of this chapter were NOT being observed.)
All of these shortcomings of Mr. Longenecker's original Site Plan should have been sufficient grounds to disapprove the Special Use.
“In addition, pursuant to Section 1603, it is specifically determined that the site plan is approved and that:
A. Proposed project complied with the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinances for the following reasons: The site plan was presented as a clearly drawn plan with designated areas outlined for events…” (Minutes, Page 3)
To which one of the five or more site plans submitted by Mr. Longenecker between March 30, 2010 and May 17, 2010, all of which are dated October 15, 2009, does this refer?
How many mulligans does the Township allow in the process? None of the several site plans submitted were “clearly drawn” or easily understood. (I have copies of most of them).
Mr. Longenecker is a welding engineer. What makes a welding engineer (as opposed to a land engineer) properly qualified to prepare a site plan for a project of this magnitude? Having seen most of the submitted site plans, if I were paying for such a site plan for submission, I would expect a higher standard and level of professionalism than the proffered plans exhibit. While the word “professional” is not used in the Ordinance, it is implied by the request for the requirement for the names and addresses of the architect, planner, designer or engineer responsible for the preparation of the site plan. Mr. Longenecker and the Planning Commission used the loophole to skirt the intent of the Ordinance.
To Be Continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment