Lyle Criscuolo likes to hold up his copy of the of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance and use that single point to justify the twice "unanimous" approval of Doug Longenecker's Application for Special Use.
We have established that the first "unanimous" approval was invalid.
Strike one.
The second "unanimous" approval was overturned by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Strike two.
Now, Mr. Longenecker is going for either strike three or a home run.
Mr Criscuolo has cited this point, "The special exception use will comply with the standards and purposes set forth in the Township Master Plan."
Since we have established that Mr. Criscuolo is a pastor, and presumably a student of the Bible, and I am a Christian and as such, I should also be a student of the Bible, (which I am), one of the very first and most important things I learned in Bible Study is context is key. Meaning, you cannot pull a Bible verse out of context and use it as a stand alone verse to support a doctrine. As a pastor, I'm sure Mr. Criscuolo is well aware of this. (A proof text out of context is a pretext.)
I personally try to apply Bible study to my every day life, and so when I look at a document or a set of documents, especially legal documents or ordinances, I try to look at the full counsel of the section I am looking at, and not a single point of the law.
As Mr. Criscuolo himself has said, "...you can't read part of a verse from the Bible any more than you can read part of a paragraph here when you're talking about the ordinance." So he knows this to be true, and yet he ignores the points of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that do not fit into his agenda.
Make no mistake, Mr. Criscuolo's agenda is to approve Mr. Longenecker's new request for special use, and he will use his influence over the members of the Planning Commission to twist the Zoning Ordinance to to make Mr. Longenecker's dressed up old pig with new lipstick "comply" to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, while ignoring the points of the Ordinance where it clearly does not comply.
Getting back to point c. Mr. Criscuolo and the Planning Commission will decree that Mr. Longenecker's special exemption use "will comply with the standards and purposes that have been set forth by the Hayes Township Master Plan." As though making this decree makes it so. He may as well say that it does comply. That does not make it any more true.
I have already picked apart the Hayes Township Master Plan and Mr. Longenecker's compliance with it, in a 7 part series: 22 Sep 2010, 23 Sep 2010, 6 Oct 2010, 7 Oct 2010, 15 Oct 2010, 17 Oct 2010, and 23 Oct 2010.
My question is this, Mr. Criscuolo: How does the Special Use, both the new one and the old one stack up to the entire Hayes Township Master Plan, and not just the points that help you make it comply? (No verses out of context, please.)
If this is how you handle the law which you are in charge of implementing and upholding, it makes me wonder how you handle other matters of import that are written down, chapter and verse.
Don't forget about points a, b, d and e as well.
Showing posts with label Hayes Township Master Plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hayes Township Master Plan. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Friday, October 29, 2010
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance With the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, Part 6
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.
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.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance with the Hayes Township Master Plan, Part 7
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.
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.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance with Hayes Township Master Plan, Part 6
In today's installment, I will examine the Using the Plan section 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 45: Section 5.5 Using the Plan: “Rezonings, site plan reviews, and special land uses should conform with the principles found in the Master Plan.”
The Planning Commission maintains that the approval of the Special Use for the Mostetler Road Property conforms to with the principles found in the Master Plan.
“C. The special exception use as set forth above will comply with the standards and purposes set forth in the Township Master Plan for the following reasons: it encourages outdoor activities and positive use of the land as in A and B above.” (Minutes, Page 2)
It complies in 2 very weak points, but there are many more than two standards and purposes with which it absolutely does not comply, which have been established Parts 1-5 on this blog.
“B. The proposed project promotes the intent and purpose of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance for the following reasons: Outdoor commercial recreational use. An organized sport meeting the criteria for outdoor recreation activities as on page 42 of the Master Plan.” (Minutes, page 3)
As was pointed out previously on this blog, “This may be true, but when combined with the intent laid out in the entire document, it is one single point taken separately from the whole. It is akin to taking a single passage of Scripture out of context and using it as a proof text without considering the entire context of the verse or how it compares with other verses that touch on the same topic.”
“The members of this board unanimously agreed that the special use variance would be beneficial to the Community, Hayes Township and their families as a whole. The request follows the Master Plan for the Township. It will prompt and promote commerce to this and the surrounding areas.” (Minutes, page 4)
As demonstrated, in following the Hayes Township Master Plan, as this decision purports to do, it blatantly disregards many other standards, purposes and objectives set forth in that same Master Plan.
Page 45: Section 5.5: Using the Pan: “Flexibility is a definite strength of the Master Plan. Changing trends, circumstances, unanticipated opportunities, and unforeseen problems can require an amendment to the Master Plan. If a new development does not conform to the Master Plan, the Master Plan should be first amended before the proposal is approved. If an amendment occurs, it is important to know that the rest of the Plan is still relevant. The plan will only become irrelevant or obsolete if the Master Plan is not updated when changes occur in the municipality.”
“The Master Plan page 45 second (2nd) paragraph gives the Planning Board land use flexibility."
(Minutes, page 3, item A).
The Master Plan does give the Planning Commission land use flexibility. As quoted above, the entire context of paragraph 2, which speaks to that flexibility, also suggests that the Master Plan be amended before a non-conforming proposal is approved. The specific circumstance of a motorized vehicle racing and riding facility is not covered by either the Master Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. That, however, did not stop the Planning Commission from twisting and bending the Master Plan and the ordinance to make it comply with the new circumstance, and then declaring that The Special Use and the Site Plan were approved and were compliant with both the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
There was no attempt made to amend the Master Plan before approving the proposal.
The Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance should both be amended to reflect the circumstance of a motorized vehicle racing and riding facility, whether private or commercial.
The most up-to-date Master Plan for Hayes Township is dated 5 December 2001.
There are no other updates to the Plan posted on the Hayes Township Website.
Page 46: Map 7: Future Land Use: This Map shows that the planned future land use for the Gamble/Longenecker property is Rural Residential/Agricultural.
Not Commercial. Not Industrial. Not an appropriate zone for a motorized vehicle racing and riding business.
To be continued...
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 45: Section 5.5 Using the Plan: “Rezonings, site plan reviews, and special land uses should conform with the principles found in the Master Plan.”
The Planning Commission maintains that the approval of the Special Use for the Mostetler Road Property conforms to with the principles found in the Master Plan.
“C. The special exception use as set forth above will comply with the standards and purposes set forth in the Township Master Plan for the following reasons: it encourages outdoor activities and positive use of the land as in A and B above.” (Minutes, Page 2)
It complies in 2 very weak points, but there are many more than two standards and purposes with which it absolutely does not comply, which have been established Parts 1-5 on this blog.
“B. The proposed project promotes the intent and purpose of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance for the following reasons: Outdoor commercial recreational use. An organized sport meeting the criteria for outdoor recreation activities as on page 42 of the Master Plan.” (Minutes, page 3)
As was pointed out previously on this blog, “This may be true, but when combined with the intent laid out in the entire document, it is one single point taken separately from the whole. It is akin to taking a single passage of Scripture out of context and using it as a proof text without considering the entire context of the verse or how it compares with other verses that touch on the same topic.”
“The members of this board unanimously agreed that the special use variance would be beneficial to the Community, Hayes Township and their families as a whole. The request follows the Master Plan for the Township. It will prompt and promote commerce to this and the surrounding areas.” (Minutes, page 4)
As demonstrated, in following the Hayes Township Master Plan, as this decision purports to do, it blatantly disregards many other standards, purposes and objectives set forth in that same Master Plan.
Page 45: Section 5.5: Using the Pan: “Flexibility is a definite strength of the Master Plan. Changing trends, circumstances, unanticipated opportunities, and unforeseen problems can require an amendment to the Master Plan. If a new development does not conform to the Master Plan, the Master Plan should be first amended before the proposal is approved. If an amendment occurs, it is important to know that the rest of the Plan is still relevant. The plan will only become irrelevant or obsolete if the Master Plan is not updated when changes occur in the municipality.”
“The Master Plan page 45 second (2nd) paragraph gives the Planning Board land use flexibility."
(Minutes, page 3, item A).
The Master Plan does give the Planning Commission land use flexibility. As quoted above, the entire context of paragraph 2, which speaks to that flexibility, also suggests that the Master Plan be amended before a non-conforming proposal is approved. The specific circumstance of a motorized vehicle racing and riding facility is not covered by either the Master Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. That, however, did not stop the Planning Commission from twisting and bending the Master Plan and the ordinance to make it comply with the new circumstance, and then declaring that The Special Use and the Site Plan were approved and were compliant with both the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
There was no attempt made to amend the Master Plan before approving the proposal.
The Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance should both be amended to reflect the circumstance of a motorized vehicle racing and riding facility, whether private or commercial.
The most up-to-date Master Plan for Hayes Township is dated 5 December 2001.
There are no other updates to the Plan posted on the Hayes Township Website.
Page 46: Map 7: Future Land Use: This Map shows that the planned future land use for the Gamble/Longenecker property is Rural Residential/Agricultural.
Not Commercial. Not Industrial. Not an appropriate zone for a motorized vehicle racing and riding business.
To be continued...
Friday, October 15, 2010
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance with Hayes Township Master Plan, Part 5
In today's installment, I will continue to examine the Recommendations section 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 43:Section 5.4: Recommendations, #6: Industrial: “The following criteria should be used for evaluating new industries:
- The development should have good access via a major road."
Mostetler Road is not a major road; it is considered a local road (Hayes Township Master Plan, page 44)
"- The development should be adequately served by public facilities."“Porta-Potty toilets will be State approved units…” (Minutes, page 2)“D. The special exemption use will be compatible with …the capabilities of public services and facilities affected by such special exception use…” (Minutes, page 2)“No showers or special services needed, or required, to perform the business as set forth by the Owner.” (Minutes page 2)“D. The proposed project has no adverse impact on public services and amenities including transportation and public utilities for the following reasons… No public services will be provided.” (Minutes, page 3)“There will be no electric or water sources specific to the property” (Minutes, page 4 – binding operational agreement)Again, “Owner” – Would that be Ken Gamble or Doug Longenecker?
Michigan Moto mania will be "adequately served" by what public facilities?
"- The proposed development should have minimal adverse impact on existing residential neighborhoods."The adverse impact of this project on the existing residential has already been discussed.
This comes to the end of the Hayes Township Master Plan's recommendations.
In the next installment, I will look into the "Using the Plan" section of the Hayes Township Master Plan.
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 43:Section 5.4: Recommendations, #6: Industrial: “The following criteria should be used for evaluating new industries:
- The development should have good access via a major road."
Mostetler Road is not a major road; it is considered a local road (Hayes Township Master Plan, page 44)
"- The development should be adequately served by public facilities."“Porta-Potty toilets will be State approved units…” (Minutes, page 2)“D. The special exemption use will be compatible with …the capabilities of public services and facilities affected by such special exception use…” (Minutes, page 2)“No showers or special services needed, or required, to perform the business as set forth by the Owner.” (Minutes page 2)“D. The proposed project has no adverse impact on public services and amenities including transportation and public utilities for the following reasons… No public services will be provided.” (Minutes, page 3)“There will be no electric or water sources specific to the property” (Minutes, page 4 – binding operational agreement)Again, “Owner” – Would that be Ken Gamble or Doug Longenecker?
Michigan Moto mania will be "adequately served" by what public facilities?
"- The proposed development should have minimal adverse impact on existing residential neighborhoods."The adverse impact of this project on the existing residential has already been discussed.
This comes to the end of the Hayes Township Master Plan's recommendations.
In the next installment, I will look into the "Using the Plan" section of the Hayes Township Master Plan.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance with Hayes Township Master Plan, Part 4
In today's installment, I will continue to examine the Recommendations section 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 made 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.
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 42-43: Section 5.4: Plan Recommendations, #4. “Commercial: All of the existing commercial uses in the Township have been included in this category as well as vacant lands suitable for new commercial development.”
Did anyone on the Planning Commission look into any of this vacant land as a possible suitable place to put a business the magnitude of Michigan Moto Mania? It is a commercial development.
“The following criteria should be used to determine the suitability for a new commercial development
-The local or regional market must show a clearly defined need for the proposed development.”
What market research was done to show current market trends with regard to the need for a commercial development of this nature?
What exactly is the clearly defined need for a motorized vehicle racing and riding business?
What clearly defined demographic group in Hayes Township Harrison and Clare County
Are the free state-run trails insufficient?
There is a difference between a need and a want.
- “The development should be located on a major road which will have minimal traffic impact on the surrounding properties.”
Mostetler Road is not a major Road. It’s a dirt road. If the Planning Commission had done a bit of research, they would have seen that in communities where motorized vehicle racing and riding facilities exist, there is an increase of traffic which has a negative impact on the surrounding properties. If this is the result of the same type of commercial developments in other locales, can we not expect this same result on Mostetler Road? The Zoning Board of Appeals should look into it.
- “The development should be compatible with the surrounding property uses and an acceptable buffer or screen should be provided between the proposed development and adjoining residential uses.”
Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes 17 May 2010, page 2: “The special exception use will be compatible with adjacent uses of the land…”Minutes, Page 3: item C: “The proposed project is compatible with adjacent land and the natural environment forh [sic.] following reasons: The layout of the land provides some natural buffers which can muffle sound and can create visual obstructions to adjoining properties. There is some natural setbacks from property lines.”
Michigan Moto Mania is “compatible with the surrounding property uses” because a handful of appointed individuals forming a corrupt body with an agenda deemed it so. Given how contentious this issue has become, it is obviously not compatible.
What sound testing has been done to substantiate the effectiveness of the natural buffers in muffling sound when up to the projected 300 (Minutes, page 1) vehicles are all riding at the same time?
Does muffled sound make the use compatible use with the adjacent property? How so? Muffled noise is still noise.
Some neighbors have their residences next door to the proposed project. How is the proposed project compatible with having a residence next door to or surrounded on 3 sides by the proposed project when up to 300 vehicles are all riding at the same time?
There is no provision in the resolution to provide a buffer or screen acceptable to the neighbors who must now live near it.
If any member of the Planning Commission’s residence were next door to the proposed commercial project, would they find it to be a compatible use, especially when up to 300 vehicles are all riding at the same time? I'm guessing not so much since Township Supervisor John Scherrer had a problem with the noise of roosters crowing, which he brought up at the 21 Oct 2009 Special Meeting of the Planning Commission. (The same meeting at which the Hayes Township Planning Commission originally approved the Special Use of the then Gamble property on Mostetler Road for Doug Longenecker.)
How much more noise do a large number of motorcycles and ORVs make than a rooster? Hypocrisy anyone?
“Don Atkinson stated he was over at the location today (May 17, 2010 ), and could hear the noise from the bikes.” (Minutes, Page 1)
Those "natural buffers" were working at the time? If those "natural buffers" are so effective, then why could Don Atkinson hear the noise from the bikes?
“It will not hinder the use of adjacent areas” (Minutes, page 2)
Some neighbors hunt on their land. How is this proposed project compatible with the hunting that goes on adjacent to the park?
How is the noise of up to 300 vehicles compatible with hunting?
What game will be left to hunt on the neighboring properties?
How is this project compatible with hunting on the property surrounded on 3 sides by a motor vehicle racing and riding business? How does this not hinder the hunting?
What about the safety issues brought about by placing a 200 acre motorized vehicle racing and riding business right in the middle of thousands of acres of land that is hunted during all of the hunting seasons? All it will take is one hunter who is not careful about fields of fire for a tragedy to occur. That is the Hayes Township Planning Commission
“E. The special exemption use as set forth above will be consistent with the health, safety and welfare of Hayes Township
Does Michigan Moto Mania carry insurance to cover hunting accidents on the property?
Can Hayes Township
Some neighbors bought many acres of land in order to enjoy the peace and quiet of living in the middle of nowhere. That is what they use their land for. Putting a noise dusty, fumey, motorized vehicle racing and riding business in the middle of that quiet setting is a compatible use? How?
How does the proposed project not hinder the enjoyment of the peace and quiet on the neighboring properties? Where can they go to enjoy the peace and quiet now?
There is a horse farm adjacent to the proposed project. The horses are upset when the riding next door gets loud. How is a motorized racing and riding facility compatible with a horse farm where the horses are upset by the activity next door?
To be continued...
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance with the Hayes Township Master Plan, Part 3
I realize it has been awhile since the last installment in this particular series, but I felt that the Proposed Amendment being voted on by the Hayes Township Board of Trustees was more important in the lead up to the vote. Now that the Trustees have voted to change the rules in the middle of this court case, I will continue to illustrate how the Resolution granting the Special Use to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler does or does not line up with the Hayes Township Master Plan.
In today's installment, I will examine the Recommendations section 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.
In today's installment, I will examine the Recommendations section 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.
Page 42: Section 5.4: Plan Recommendations, #3. Agricultural/Rural Residential: “…The Rural Residential/Agricultural category is intended to accomplish a number of goals:
- Preserve the environmental resources, including upland and lowland forests within the Township, for future generations.”
How does the clear cutting of almost 200 acres of forested area to develop a motorized vehicle racing and riding and business preserve said forest in the Township for future generations?
Is that good stewardship of those natural resources?
- “Steer development away from environmentally sensitive areas in the Township such as wetlands.”
What did Hayes Township Planning Commission, as stewards of the environmentally sensitive wetland area surrounding Mostetler Creek, do to steer the development of a motorized vehicle racing and riding business away from the area and toward a more appropriate area?
- “Related agricultural activities such as tree farms, horse farms, or fish hatcheries are also anticipated in this category.”
A motorized vehicle racing and riding business was not anticipated in this category.
The Hayes Township Planning Commission, in their resolution recorded in the minutes of the 17 May 2010 Special Meeting, references page 42 of the Hayes Township Master Plan in the justification of the granting of the Special Use to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road .
I assume that they were referencing the following sentence: “Outdoor commercial recreation and open space uses such as riding stables, golf courses, campgrounds, nature preserves, and similar uses, should also be considered compatible uses.” Again, motorized vehicle racing and riding businesses were not specifically mentioned among these compatible uses. And yet they considered the Motorized Vehicle racing and riding business one of those “outdoor commercial recreation uses” as a “similar use” that “should also be considered compatible uses.”
The Hayes Township Planning Commission declared that “the property is not conducive to farming and is more suited to outdoor recreational activities.” And one paragraph later, “The property is not conducive to farming, with rolling hills, and is more suited for recreation.” (Minutes, page 2)
These are arbitrary declarations on the part of the Hayes Township Planning Commission, and purely subjective.
“B. The proposed project promotes the intent and purpose of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance for the following reasons: Outdoor commercial recreational use. An organized sport meeting the criteria for outdoor recreation activities as on Page 42 of the Master Plan.” (Minutes, Page 3)
Once again, when combined with the intent laid out in the context of entire document, it is one single point taken separately from the whole.
Also, outdoor commercial recreational uses listed in the Hayes Township Master Plan are similar to one another in that they tend to be pastoral in nature and they are dissimilar from a motor vehicle racing and riding facility in that motorcycles and ORVs are anything but pastoral in nature with the noise, dust and emissions they produce.
The Gamble-Longenecker Property on Mostetler Road is suitable for tree farms (Christmas trees, fruit orchards, vineyards), even with the rolling hills, and horse farms, as evidenced by the Collins’ horse farm adjacent to the property.
The Minutes go on to say, “C. The special exception use set forth above will comply with the standards and purposes set forth in the Master Plan for the following reasons: It encourages outdoor activities and positive use of the land as in A and B. Above." (Minutes, Page 2)
Outdoor uses are encouraged in the Master Plan, but that is a vague reference to the Master Plan. The Master Plan also encourages good stewardship and preservation of the Township’s wooded lands, so it does not comply.
The Master Plan encourages positive use of the land. It does. Whether A and B above, (referring to a motorized vehicle racing and riding facility) are a positive use of the land is subjective. Those who believe that Michigan Moto Mania will be the economic savior of Hayes Township Harrison , and Clare County
Apparently, pursuit of the Almighty Dollar trumps any misgivings of those who live near it.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance With the Hayes Township Master Plan , Part 2
In today's installment, I will examine the Community Goals and Objectives section of the Hayes Township Master Plan, and comparing it with the minutes of the Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, dated May 17, 2010, which lays out in detail the decision made 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.
Page 36: Section 4.1: The Introduction to Community Goals and Objectives: “They (goals and objectives) must reflect the type of community desired by its citizens, given realistic economic and social limitations."
Why do the goals and objectives of some of Hayes Township’s citizens supersede the goals and objectives of others?
Why do the goals and objectives of the citizens of Hayes Township who do not live or pay taxes on Mostetler Road or Deer Lake property supersede those citizens of Hayes Township who do reside and pay taxes on property there?
Why do the goals and objectives of those citizens of Hayes Township whose lives and property are not affected by the decision to allow the Special Use on the Gamble-Longenecker property supersede the goals and objectives of the Hayes Township citizens whose lives and property are directly affected by it?
Do our goals and objectives and opinions carry no weight?
Put a motocross/ORV racing and riding business next to the homes and properties of those who want it so badly.
All of the property owners on Mostetler Road and Deer Lake had goals and objectives with regard to the land they purchased. Many of them purchased acreage adjacent to State Land to minimize the chance that there would be any development near their property. Many had retirement goals and objectives that included enjoying the peaceful wooded areas, hunting and fishing. They live surrounded by acreage because they wanted to live or retire away from the urban environment that development brings. Many citizens’ goals and objectives have been thwarted by the Hayes Township Planning Commission and the Hayes Township Board in their approval of the development of Michigan Moto Mania on the Gamble-Longenecker property.
Contrary to what the Michigan Moto Mania supporters would have you believe, the citizens of Mostetler Road are not against a motor vehicle racing and riding business in Hayes Township, but they are against such a business on Mostetler Road where it does not belong. Surely there are a number of more appropriate locations within Hayes Township that can accommodate such a business. We appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider helping Mr. Longenecker to find a more appropriate location for his business.
Page 36: Section 4.2 Community Wide Goals: Goal #3: "Preserve and promote the rights of individual property owners while maintaining the aesthetic character of the community."
How does the approval of an inappropriate permanent Special Use on Mostetler Road preserve and promote the rights of the property owners and residents of Mostetler Road and Deer Lake?
How does the approval of an inappropriate permanent Special Use preserve and promote the property rights of anyone but a newcomer who would not have entered into a land contract for the property had the approval not been granted?
The sale of the Gamble property to Doug Longenecker was contingent upon the Special Use being granted. No Special Use, no sale.
Do the property rights of a newcomer to Hayes Township who has not yet purchased the property take precedence over established residents who already own property and pay taxes on it? Or maybe it's the property rights of Ken Gamble, the seller, that take precedence over the rest of the property owners on Mostetler Road. By approving the Special Use in October 2009, and again on May 17, 2010, that is essentially what the Planning Commission decided.
How does it protect anyone but the next unknown owner of the property if Mr. Longenecker decides to sell it, or Ken Gamble, if Mr. Longenecker defaults?
Does a motorized vehicle racing and riding business contribute to the aesthetics of Hayes Township?
Page 36: Section 4.2 Community Wide Goals: Goal #4: “Relate the land use primarily to the natural characteristics of the land and the long-term needs of the community, rather than to short-term economic gain."
“The members of this board unanimously agreed that the special use variance would be beneficial to the Community, Hayes Township and their families as a whole. The request follows the Master Plan for the Township. It will prompt and promote commerce to this and the surrounding areas.” (Minutes, page 4)
The biggest and most heavily touted selling point made by the supporters of Michigan Moto Mania has been some purported economic gain, which has not been substantiated by any market research. In this depressed economy it may prove to be a short-term economic gain, if there is any gain at all.
Short-term economic gain appears to be the motivating factor in the Planning Commission’s approval of the Special Use of the Gamble-Longenecker property. Hayes Township is banking on the dwindling disposable income of tourists in today’s depressed economy to bring jobs and business to Hayes Township, Harrison and Clare County. That short-term economic gain, which may or may not materialize, appears to be the justification for the approval of the Special Use.
It fails to take into account the entire Master Plan by deferring to a single point out of the whole, much like taking a single Bible verse out of context to use as a proof text for a questionable doctrine.
How does this park serve the long-term needs of a community whose median income level would preclude all but occasional use?
“…the property is not conducive to farming and is more suited to outdoor recreation activities.” (Minutes, page 2, item A), presumably relating the land use to the natural characteristics of the land.
Actually, the property is suitable for use as a Christmas tree farm or a fruit orchard, possibly vineyards, now that it has been denuded of trees. It is suitable to horse farming, as can be attested to by the presence of a horse farm next door on the Collins’ property.
A decree from the Hayes Township Planning Commission does not make it so.
Page 38: Section 4.9: Natural Environment Goal and Objectives: Objective #1: "Implement land use patterns, which will direct new growth away from environmentally sensitive areas such as woodlands, wetlands, steep slopes, and areas subject to flooding."
What land use patterns were in place to direct Michigan Moto Mania away from the woodland property on Mostetler Road? And away from the wetland area of Mostetler Creek?
Did anyone on the Planning Commission attempt to do anything to direct this business to another more appropriate location in Hayes Township?
“C. …Owner has provided plans for environmental needs and they will be addressed.” (Minutes, Page 3)
The Owner – that would be Ken Gamble? Since there is a land contract between Doug Longenecker and Ken Gamble, technically, Ken Gamble is the Owner.
What plans has the Owner provided for the environmental needs of the area? How will they be addressed, specifically?
Exactly what “environmental needs” does the Owner plan to address?
What DNR permits have been issued and when were they issued?
To be continued...
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance with Hayes Township Master Plan, Part 1
Last week I looked at the Hayes Towsnhip Planning Commission's resolution to grant the Special Use to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road for a motorized sports facility, zoned A-R(Agricultural/Rural Residential) and how it stacks up against the Clare County Master Plan. This week, I'll narrow the focus to how the resolution stacks up against the Hayes Township's Master Plan. As was the case in the last series, the page numbers refer to the most current Master Plan available to the general public on the Hayes Township Website, dated 2002-2021, adopted on 5 Dec 2001, unless otherwise specified.
Page 1: The purpose of the Master Plan is “to promote public health, safety, and general welfare; to encourage the use of resources in accordance with their character and adaptability; to avoid the overcrowding of land by buildings or people; to lessen congestion on public roads and streets; to facilitate provision for a system of transportation, sewage disposal, safe and adequate water supply, recreation and other public improvements and to consider the character of each township and its suitability for particular uses judged in terms of such factors as trend in land and population development.”
How does the approval of Michigan Moto Mania as a Special Use on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road promote health when one of the neighbors, whose property is adjacent to this motor sports racing and riding facility, has produced a letter from his physician that states that living next door to such a facility is detrimental to his health?
Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, May 17, 2010 Minutes, Page 2: “It[sic] Park provides for the safety and welfare of property owners adjacent to this property.”
The Hayes Township Planning Commission in its approval of the Special Use to the property (which for all intents and purposes makes this Special Use permanent), has shown disregard for the health and welfare of at least one of the adjacent landowners. Since he is only one member of the taxpaying members of the public in Hayes Township, does his health not count? Or must it be sacrificed for the supposed “greater good” of the rest of the community? What if he were a member of your family?
How does having a motorized vehicle racing and riding business next door provide for the welfare of the adjacent property owners when their already depressed property values are further depressed on the basis of proximity to such a business?
How does putting a motorized vehicle racing and riding business literally in the middle of thousands of acres of prime hunting land, and then only closing that business for two weeks of a months long hunting season promote the safety and general welfare of the public?
How does more traffic on Mostetler Road, owing to Michigan Moto Mania, lessen congestion on Mostetler Road?
Page 5-6: Section 2.1.4 Natural Resources: “Some minor topographical features such as hills and river channels are found in Hayes Township, which may pose constraints to land development. Proper procedures for reducing soil erosion and containing water runoff should be utilized when development occurs in these areas.” And “Small concentrations of environmentally sensitive wetland areas are scattered throughout Hayes Township…”
The area surrounding Mostetler Creek is one of those topographical features. It is one of the environmentally sensitive wetland areas. Mostetler Creek is one of the lowest elevations in the Township (page 21), and as such receives runoff from the surrounding areas. Since Michigan Moto Mania is in such close proximity to this environmentally sensitive area, what environmental impact study has been conducted prior to development of the property?
What measures have been put in place to ensure that sensitive habitat has not been destroyed or reduced? What proper procedures have been put in place to reduce soil erosion and water runoff into the Mostetler Creek wetland area since the land was clear cut?
Page 6: Section 2.2: The fundamental community-wide goal of the Township is to “capitalize on the Township’s abundant resources for the purpose of creating an attractive community that meets the physical, social, and economic needs of its residents and businesses in an environmentally sensitive manner.”
How is the clear cutting most of 200 acres of land to make way for a motorized vehicle racing and riding business environmentally sensitive?
Do the ends justify the means when attempting to meet the economic needs of the Township’s residents? Does this Special Use meet the needs of the Township's residents, or just their desires?
What about the economic needs of the residents whose property is in the vicinity of this motorized vehicle racing and riding business, and whose property values are dropping because of their proximity to this business?
The proximity of Michigan Moto Mania makes parts of Mostetler Road and Deer Lake undesirable places to live.
Page 7: Section 2.3 Future Land Use Plan: "Respecting the Township’s goal of retaining its rural character, the Future Land Use Plan designates the largest percentage of the Township as Rural Residential/Agricultural (58%). The purpose of this district is to preserve environmentally significant forested and open space lands, enhance existing agricultural activities, and discourage inappropriate development."
How does the introduction of the urban noise and fumes of a motorized vehicle racing and riding business into an area zoned Rural Residential/Agricultural preserve the rural character of Mostetler Road?
How does the clear cutting of almost 200 acres trees to make way for a motorized vehicle racing and riding business preserve environmentally significant forested lands?
How is a motorized vehicle racing and riding business an appropriate development for an area zoned Rural Residential/Agricultural?
Why did the Hayes Township Planning Commission not discourage such an inappropriate development for the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road? In fact they encouraged the inappropriate development by their approval of Special Use.
Why did the Hayes Township Planning Commission not encourage the development of Michigan Moto Mania, a motorized vehicle racing and riding business, in a more appropriate location such as a Highway Commercial Zone or an Industrial Zone?The Hayes Township’s approval of the Special Use permanently for the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road completely changes its rural character.
Page 20: Section 3.4 Natural Resources Assessment: “The natural environment can significantly impact development such as a steep slope prohibiting the construction of any structure. Conversely, the natural environment can be effected (affected) by land development. An example would be the increased erosion potential caused by clearing vegetation…it is important to examine the natural environment in order to determine where development is best suited, and where it should be discouraged.”
About 200 acres of formerly forested land and old trees that cannot be replaced for at least a generation have already been affected by the clear cutting in order to make way for a motorized vehicle racing and riding business.
As stated, there is now increased erosion potential caused by the clearing of the trees on the land.
Did the Hayes Township Planning Commission examine the natural environment before allowing the development of the Gamble-Longenecker property to begin?
Did this examination factor into the approval of this development?
Minutes: Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, October 21, 2009: "Chair Criscuolo stated his displeasure over the lack of advanced notification of meetings, and the importance of opportunity to review requests in advance of meetings. That thought was shared by all members present. Members should be able to review and visit the site in advance of any meetings."
Those recorded minutes of the only Planning Commission meeting held to address Doug Longenecker's request for Special Use prior to the beginning of development on the Gamble-Longenecker property answers that question. They did not take the time to examine the natural environment prior to allowing the development of the Gamble-Longenecker property to begin. Development continued even through the "do-over" mandated by Hayes Township attorney Dreyer.
Page 20: Section 3.4: Natural Resources Assessment: “The focus is on areas that will minimize development costs and provide amenities without adversely impacting the existing systems.”
The almost 200 acres of forest ecosystem has already been adversely affected.
What steps have been taken to prevent the wetland ecosystem of Mostetler Creek from being adversely affected?
Page 21: Section 3.4.3 Topography: “Because of the significant elevation changes and steep slopes in the Township, some constraints to land development may be found. Proper procedures for reducing soil erosion and containing water runoff should be utilized when developing in steep slope areas."
There are many elevation changes and steep slopes on the Gamble-Longenecker property. Doug Longenecker has said that one of the reason why he chose this piece of property was “the terrain is good for ORV use.” (Clare County Review, May 21, 2010). What, if any, procedures (and were they proper procedures?) have been utilized in the development of the steep slope areas of the tracks to control soil erosion and water runoff?
Has Mr. Longenecker had a topographical survey conducted on his property? If not, why not?
Page 22: Section 3.4.4 Woodlands: “Because of the many benefits associated with wooded areas, having such a high percentage of woodlands should be seen as a real asset to the Township.” And, “In general, woodlands improve the environmental quality of the whole community by reducing pollution through absorption, reducing the chances of flooding through greater rainwater infiltration, stabilizing and enriching soils, moderating the effects of wind and temperature , and providing habitats for wildlife.”
If woodlands are such a great asset to the Township according to the Hayes Township Planning Commission in their Master Plan, why would they support the clear cutting of almost 200 acres to make way for a motorized vehicle racing and riding business?
Do the Hayes Township Planning Commission and the Hayes Township Board consider the proposed business a greater asset to the Township that justifies the removal of natural resources that cannot be replaced for at least a generation?
Does a motorized vehicle racing and riding business improve the environmental quality in Hayes Township? Does the facility reduce pollution through absorption? Or does it produce pollution through emissions and noise?
Does the facility reduce the chances of flooding? Filter rainwater? Stabilize and enrich the soils on the land?
Does it moderate the effects of the wind and temperature?
How much more habitat does a motorized vehicle racing and riding business provide than a forest?
To be continued...
Page 1: The purpose of the Master Plan is “to promote public health, safety, and general welfare; to encourage the use of resources in accordance with their character and adaptability; to avoid the overcrowding of land by buildings or people; to lessen congestion on public roads and streets; to facilitate provision for a system of transportation, sewage disposal, safe and adequate water supply, recreation and other public improvements and to consider the character of each township and its suitability for particular uses judged in terms of such factors as trend in land and population development.”
How does the approval of Michigan Moto Mania as a Special Use on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road promote health when one of the neighbors, whose property is adjacent to this motor sports racing and riding facility, has produced a letter from his physician that states that living next door to such a facility is detrimental to his health?
Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, May 17, 2010 Minutes, Page 2: “It[sic] Park provides for the safety and welfare of property owners adjacent to this property.”
The Hayes Township Planning Commission in its approval of the Special Use to the property (which for all intents and purposes makes this Special Use permanent), has shown disregard for the health and welfare of at least one of the adjacent landowners. Since he is only one member of the taxpaying members of the public in Hayes Township, does his health not count? Or must it be sacrificed for the supposed “greater good” of the rest of the community? What if he were a member of your family?
How does having a motorized vehicle racing and riding business next door provide for the welfare of the adjacent property owners when their already depressed property values are further depressed on the basis of proximity to such a business?
How does putting a motorized vehicle racing and riding business literally in the middle of thousands of acres of prime hunting land, and then only closing that business for two weeks of a months long hunting season promote the safety and general welfare of the public?
How does more traffic on Mostetler Road, owing to Michigan Moto Mania, lessen congestion on Mostetler Road?
Page 5-6: Section 2.1.4 Natural Resources: “Some minor topographical features such as hills and river channels are found in Hayes Township, which may pose constraints to land development. Proper procedures for reducing soil erosion and containing water runoff should be utilized when development occurs in these areas.” And “Small concentrations of environmentally sensitive wetland areas are scattered throughout Hayes Township…”
The area surrounding Mostetler Creek is one of those topographical features. It is one of the environmentally sensitive wetland areas. Mostetler Creek is one of the lowest elevations in the Township (page 21), and as such receives runoff from the surrounding areas. Since Michigan Moto Mania is in such close proximity to this environmentally sensitive area, what environmental impact study has been conducted prior to development of the property?
What measures have been put in place to ensure that sensitive habitat has not been destroyed or reduced? What proper procedures have been put in place to reduce soil erosion and water runoff into the Mostetler Creek wetland area since the land was clear cut?
Page 6: Section 2.2: The fundamental community-wide goal of the Township is to “capitalize on the Township’s abundant resources for the purpose of creating an attractive community that meets the physical, social, and economic needs of its residents and businesses in an environmentally sensitive manner.”
How is the clear cutting most of 200 acres of land to make way for a motorized vehicle racing and riding business environmentally sensitive?
Do the ends justify the means when attempting to meet the economic needs of the Township’s residents? Does this Special Use meet the needs of the Township's residents, or just their desires?
What about the economic needs of the residents whose property is in the vicinity of this motorized vehicle racing and riding business, and whose property values are dropping because of their proximity to this business?
The proximity of Michigan Moto Mania makes parts of Mostetler Road and Deer Lake undesirable places to live.
Page 7: Section 2.3 Future Land Use Plan: "Respecting the Township’s goal of retaining its rural character, the Future Land Use Plan designates the largest percentage of the Township as Rural Residential/Agricultural (58%). The purpose of this district is to preserve environmentally significant forested and open space lands, enhance existing agricultural activities, and discourage inappropriate development."
How does the introduction of the urban noise and fumes of a motorized vehicle racing and riding business into an area zoned Rural Residential/Agricultural preserve the rural character of Mostetler Road?
How does the clear cutting of almost 200 acres trees to make way for a motorized vehicle racing and riding business preserve environmentally significant forested lands?
How is a motorized vehicle racing and riding business an appropriate development for an area zoned Rural Residential/Agricultural?
Why did the Hayes Township Planning Commission not discourage such an inappropriate development for the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road? In fact they encouraged the inappropriate development by their approval of Special Use.
Why did the Hayes Township Planning Commission not encourage the development of Michigan Moto Mania, a motorized vehicle racing and riding business, in a more appropriate location such as a Highway Commercial Zone or an Industrial Zone?The Hayes Township’s approval of the Special Use permanently for the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road completely changes its rural character.
Page 20: Section 3.4 Natural Resources Assessment: “The natural environment can significantly impact development such as a steep slope prohibiting the construction of any structure. Conversely, the natural environment can be effected (affected) by land development. An example would be the increased erosion potential caused by clearing vegetation…it is important to examine the natural environment in order to determine where development is best suited, and where it should be discouraged.”
About 200 acres of formerly forested land and old trees that cannot be replaced for at least a generation have already been affected by the clear cutting in order to make way for a motorized vehicle racing and riding business.
As stated, there is now increased erosion potential caused by the clearing of the trees on the land.
Did the Hayes Township Planning Commission examine the natural environment before allowing the development of the Gamble-Longenecker property to begin?
Did this examination factor into the approval of this development?
Minutes: Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, October 21, 2009: "Chair Criscuolo stated his displeasure over the lack of advanced notification of meetings, and the importance of opportunity to review requests in advance of meetings. That thought was shared by all members present. Members should be able to review and visit the site in advance of any meetings."
Those recorded minutes of the only Planning Commission meeting held to address Doug Longenecker's request for Special Use prior to the beginning of development on the Gamble-Longenecker property answers that question. They did not take the time to examine the natural environment prior to allowing the development of the Gamble-Longenecker property to begin. Development continued even through the "do-over" mandated by Hayes Township attorney Dreyer.
Page 20: Section 3.4: Natural Resources Assessment: “The focus is on areas that will minimize development costs and provide amenities without adversely impacting the existing systems.”
The almost 200 acres of forest ecosystem has already been adversely affected.
What steps have been taken to prevent the wetland ecosystem of Mostetler Creek from being adversely affected?
Page 21: Section 3.4.3 Topography: “Because of the significant elevation changes and steep slopes in the Township, some constraints to land development may be found. Proper procedures for reducing soil erosion and containing water runoff should be utilized when developing in steep slope areas."
There are many elevation changes and steep slopes on the Gamble-Longenecker property. Doug Longenecker has said that one of the reason why he chose this piece of property was “the terrain is good for ORV use.” (Clare County Review, May 21, 2010). What, if any, procedures (and were they proper procedures?) have been utilized in the development of the steep slope areas of the tracks to control soil erosion and water runoff?
Has Mr. Longenecker had a topographical survey conducted on his property? If not, why not?
Page 22: Section 3.4.4 Woodlands: “Because of the many benefits associated with wooded areas, having such a high percentage of woodlands should be seen as a real asset to the Township.” And, “In general, woodlands improve the environmental quality of the whole community by reducing pollution through absorption, reducing the chances of flooding through greater rainwater infiltration, stabilizing and enriching soils, moderating the effects of wind and temperature , and providing habitats for wildlife.”
If woodlands are such a great asset to the Township according to the Hayes Township Planning Commission in their Master Plan, why would they support the clear cutting of almost 200 acres to make way for a motorized vehicle racing and riding business?
Do the Hayes Township Planning Commission and the Hayes Township Board consider the proposed business a greater asset to the Township that justifies the removal of natural resources that cannot be replaced for at least a generation?
Does a motorized vehicle racing and riding business improve the environmental quality in Hayes Township? Does the facility reduce pollution through absorption? Or does it produce pollution through emissions and noise?
Does the facility reduce the chances of flooding? Filter rainwater? Stabilize and enrich the soils on the land?
Does it moderate the effects of the wind and temperature?
How much more habitat does a motorized vehicle racing and riding business provide than a forest?
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)