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. The Master Plan is the guideline and foundation upon which the Ordinance is based. The Master Plan does not supersede the Ordinance. The Ordinance is the law. The Master Plan is not law. This fact seems to have been lost on at least 3 members of the Planning Commission based on things they have said.
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.
Today I will examine the Criteria for Site Plan Approval.
According to Page 73, Article XVI, Section 1603, Paragraph 3, Criteria for Site Plan Approval, "The Planning Commission shall (must) approve a site plan if it determines that:
a. The proposed project complies with the requirements of the ordinance."
Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan did not comply. Ergo there was no basis for approval.
"b. The proposed project promotes the intent and purposes of this ordinance."
- Section 101 – Purpose: (those that apply) Page 1
Page 1 - "Encourage the use of lands in accordance with their character and adaptability, and to limit the improper use of the land."
Mr. Longenecker’s proposed project is an improper use of the land as it is zoned.
Page 1 - "Conserve natural resources and energy."
Mr. Longenecker’s proposed project has already destroyed natural resources.
Page 1 - "Meet the needs of residents for food, fiber, and other natural resources, places of residence, recreation, industry, trade, service, and other uses of the land."
At the time, the residents of Hayes Township had expressed no need or desire for a recreational facility of this nature, especially in this particular location. They did not know about it until after the neighbors objected to it. There is a difference between a need and a desire. Most of the people who will utilize this facility neither reside in nor own property in Hayes Township. Michigan Moto Mania is at odds with the needs of the residents who own and use their property within a mile of the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road. Much of the property within a mile of Mr. Longenecker’s proposed project is used by the owners for hunting. The noise from a race track will drastically impede the hunting in the area.
Page 1 - "Insure that uses of land are situated in appropriate locations and relationships."
This is not an appropriate location and relationship for a business such as Michigan Moto Mania.
Page 1 - "Lessen congestion on public roads and streets."
Michigan Moto Mania will increase traffic on Mostetler Road. Mostetler Road is a dirt road, not adequate for the increased traffic. For vehicles coming to the facility from the Hamilton Township end of Mostetler Road, there is a weight restricted bridge to cross. Hayes Township and Clare County will be required to make significant upgrades to Mostetler Road to accommodate the increased traffic, at significant cost, raising taxes.
Page 1 - "Reduce hazards to life and property."
Inasmuch as incursions onto neighboring properties were already occurring in Feb 2010, there is cause for concern about this.
Page 1 - "Facilitate adequate provisions for a system of transportation, sewage disposal, safe and adequate water supply, education, recreation, and other public requirements."
There was nothing in Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan that addresses some of these issues, particularly water supply and sewage disposal.
Page 1 - "Conserve the expenditure of funds for public improvements and services to conform with the most advantageous uses of land, resources, and properties."
A motocross racing and riding business in this location, will cause the Township and the county to expend more funds to accommodate the increased traffic on Mostetler Road.
Page 1 - "The zoning ordinance shall be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of each district; its peculiar suitability for particular uses; the conservation of property values and natural resources; and the general and appropriate trend and character of land, building, and population development."
A Motocross racing and riding business inconsistent with the character of Mostetler Road. It may be peculiarly suitable for the use Mr. Longenecker proposes, but it absolutely does not conserve property values; rather it drives property values down. Who wants to live or try to hunt near a motocross track? A motocross racing and riding business does not conserve natural resources. Almost 200 acres of trees have been clear cut from the property. A Motocross racing and riding business is not consistent with the trend and character of the land, buildings and population development of the surrounding properties.
Page 74: "c. The proposed project is compatible with adjacent land uses and the natural environment."
A motocross racing and riding business is not compatible with adjacent land uses and the natural environment. There will be an environmental impact on the adjacent DNR land.
Page 74 "d. The proposed project has no adverse impact on public services and amenities including transportation and public utilities."
Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, May 17, 2010, Minutes, Page 3: “D. The proposed project has no adverse impact on public services and amenities including transportation and public utilities for the following reasons: The park is located on a rural country road which is already maintained by Clare County Road Commission. The Road Commission perceives no difficulty with the traffic flow, and the little bridge to the East is already scheduled to be replaced at County expense.”
An unintended and unforeseen consequence may be that maintenance and upkeep of Mostetler Road may be more frequent than budgeted for, and that may take away road maintenance service for other residents of Clare County. Will the bridge over Mostetler Creek be widened with rails? Or will it still be a one lane bridge with no guard rails? According to the minutes of the 15 Dec 2009 Hayes Township Board of Trustees meeting, Road Commissioner Steve Stocking reported that federal funds for the repair of the Mostetler Road bridge has been denied.
Page 74: "e. The proposed project complies with all other applicable ordinances and state and federal statues."
According to Article XIV, Section 1603, Paragraph 4, Page 75, a fee was to be paid for the purpose of defraying administrative costs in processing the request for approval. There is no record that Mr. Longenecker paid such a fee when he submitted his original request, or none has been produced.
Because of the missteps by the Hayes Township Planning Commission in October 2009, David Dreyer, the Hayes Township attorney crafted a 10 page letter, dated March 12, 2010. In it, he opined:
- That the application of Douglas Longenecker did not meet the requirements of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. (page2)
- That the Hayes Township Planning Commission did not follow the Ordinance requirements in considering the paperwork that Mr. Longenecker provided. (page 2)
- The resolution passed by the Planning Commission on October 21, 2009 did not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements in order to be an effective and valid resolution. (page 2)
- Because a complete application was not previously submitted, the Zoning Administrator (Mr. VanWormer) must redo these steps (review, request additional information if needed, forward the complete application to the Planning Commission for review). (page 4)
- The Planning Commission must schedule a meeting. (page 4)
- The Planning Commission must publish a notice in a newspaper in general circulation regarding the Special Use request, date and time of meeting, and where written comments will be received, mail notices to pall property owners within 300 feet of the proposed development. (pages 4-5)
- The motion "to allow proposed use” at the October 21 2009 Planning Commission Meeting was insufficient to meet the requirements of the zoning Ordinance. (page 6)
- That Hayes Township does not have the legal authority to “red tag” or otherwise stop the activities on the property (on Mostetler Road) (page 10)
Hayes Township does not have the legal authority to enforce its own Ordinance? What’s the point of having an Ordinance if it is unenforceable? All development should have come to a halt until this whole mess is sorted out. The Township was not inclined to cause that to happen. Mr. Dreyer’s opinion was the path of least litigation for Hayes Township, not to correct the mistakes. His only concern in issuing his opinion was to keep Hayes Township officials (his client) out of a courtroom if at all possible. The rights of those wronged by the Planning Commission and the Township were not his concern.
Mr. Dreyer recommended that the Hayes Township Board pass a resolution that theHayes Township Zoning Administrator and the Hayes Township Planning Commission reconsider the application of Douglas Longenecker for a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Longenecker turned in the exact same application and site plan by the deadline (30 March 2010) recommended by Mr. Dreyer to the Township.
In the weeks between the deadline set (March 30, 2010), and the Planning Commission meeting at which the second decision was taken (17 May 2010), Mr. Longenecker turned in at least 5 site plans, all dated October 15, 2009.
A public hearing was held on 12 May 2010, and adjourned until May 17, 2010, at which time questions were posed by the board to Mr. Longenecker and the special Use was unanimously approved with conditions.
That decision was appealed, and it is pursuant to that appeal that I have prepared this report. It is my hope that the Zoning Board of Appeals will consider all of the points in the Master Plans and in the Hayes Township Ordinance instead of a few that have been cherry picked to support an agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment