When Lisa Stager was the Zoning Administrator, she did not sign Doug Longenecker's current Application for Special Use because in her opinion, it did not comply with the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance.
Prior to her resignation, she wrote an official letter as the Zoning Administrator to that effect with copies furnished to Hayes Township Supervisor John Scherrer and the Applicant, Doug Longenecker.
This letter, dated November 23, 2010 states:
To Whom It May Concern:
After careful review of Mr. Longenecker's proposed Special Land Use to create and operate a Motocross track and camping resort, I have concluded that in accordance with Hayes Township's Zoning Ordinance Article IV Section 400 such a commercial land use would not be compatible with the intent set forth therein of the A-R District in which the property is located. Also, Mr. Longenecker's plan for Motocross racing and commercial riding events would not be compliant with the Hayes Township anti-noise and Public Nuisance Ordinance, Section 2B(16) by virtue of the number of motorcycles and other ORV traffic as well as the use of an amplified audio speaker system during events are likely to produce an uncomfortable and unpleasant degree of sound in which adjacent property owners would be exposed to on a regular basis for many hours at a time. Based upon procedures for review set forth in section 1604(2) of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance I have determined that the proposed use does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent codes and ordinances of Hayes Township.
A site plan review for consideration of a campground or resort without the aforementioned commercial motocross and ORV activities will be conducted in accordance to the provisions of Article IV Section 402 of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance if Mr. Longenecker wishes.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Stager's Signature
Lisa Stager
Zoning Administrator,
Hayes Township
In her official capacity as the Hayes Township Zoning Administrator, Lisa Stager, the Zoning expert hired to do the job of Zoning Administrator, a woman with 7 years' experience as a Zoning Administrator in Hamilton Township, opined that Mr. Longenecker's Application for Special Use did not comply with the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. One would think that would carry some weight.
But it would appear that Hayes Township and it's government, both elected and appointed, are hell-bent to continue in their folly.
Showing posts with label Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. Show all posts
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Saturday, November 13, 2010
The Consequences (Or Lack Thereof) of Violating a Stay, Part 3
I realize that the events of the 9 Nov 2010 would seem to make this series moot, but it is useful in highlighting violations left unaddressed and the inaction on the part of Hayes Township with regard to the violations committed by Doug Longenecker.
There is very little in the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that addresses violations and penalties and consequences of violating the Ordinance and stays imposed by the Ordinance, and what there is consists of a lot of legalese and doublespeak. But I will try to muddle through this.
Today I will look at Pages 79-80, Article XVI Administration and Enforcement, Sections 1609-1612.
Page 79, Section 1609 Violations and Penalty, Paragraph 1. Violations: Use of land, buildings, structures and recreational vehicles in violation of any provision of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be a nuisance per se.
Doug Longenecker's violations of the Ordinance cited in the first two parts of this series of posts are, each individual occurrence, a nuisance per se. The ongoing development of the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road was an ongoing nuisance per se by virtue of the fact that it violated the stay on the property that was put in place when the first appeal was filed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The violation of the stay was a violation of a provision of the Ordinance. In addition to those violations, the Polaris WOTT event that was held on 30 Aug 2010 was a violation of the stay on the property and was declared so by Judge Mienk at the 20 Oct 2010 court date. The Polaris Event was a nuisance per se.
Page 79, Section 1609, Violations and Penalty, Paragraph 2. Penalties: "Any person, corporation or firm who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with any provisions of this Ordinance or any permit, license or exception granted hereunder, or any lawful order of the Township Zoning Administrator, Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Commission or the Township Board issued in pursuance of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
Doug Longenecker has violated, disobeyed or refused to comply with the restrictions placed upon him by the Special Use granted to him by the Planning Commission by deviating from his site plan (setting aside and working on a BMX area) without prior approval of the Hayes Township Zoning Administrator (then Jim VanWormer). He is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Any person who worked on the BMX area on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road is also guilty of a misdemeanor under this section of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance.
Doug Longenecker has violated a provision of the Ordinance in that he violated the stay that went on the Gamble-Longenecker property when the first appeal was filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals. He continued to develop the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road after the stay went on the property. He is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Any person who helped with the development of Michigan Moto Mania on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road (picking up sticks and rocks, running bulldozers and other such equipment, etc.) while the stay was in force is also guilty of a misdemeanor.
Doug Longenecker has violated the stay that was in force on the Gamble-Longenecker property when he scheduled and allowed the Polaris WOTT event on the property on 30 Aug 2010. He is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Polaris is a corporation that violated the stay that was in force on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road when they sponsored the Polaris WOTT event on the property on 30 Aug 2010. Polaris is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Planning Commission members Ron Malone and Don Atkinson have violated the stay that was in force on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road when they participated in the Polaris WOTT event on the property. They are guilty of a misdemeanor. (In my opinion, that is grounds for their removal from the Planning Commission as well. The violation was willful.)
Any individual who participated in the Polaris WOTT event violated the stay that was in force on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road when they participated in the event. They are guilty of a misdemeanor.
"Upon conviction thereof, before any court having jurisdiction , he or she shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred (500) dollars or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both, at the discretion of the court."
Judge Mienk has already determined that the Polaris WOTT event was a violation of the stay that was in force on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road. It is fortunate for Doug, Polaris, Don Atkinson, Ron Malone and everyone else who participated that none of them were on trial for the misdemeanor they all committed. The Hayes Township coffers would be about $15,000. richer from that day alone.
As for the other violations, they could have been expensive for everyone who violated the stay as well. I guess it's a good thing that Hayes Township does not enforce violations of the Zoning Odinance, or everyone's wallet would be a whole lot lighter.
"Each day during which a violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense."
Wow! Wouldn't that be a hefty payday for Hayes Township at Doug's expense!
$500. for the deviation of the site plan.
$500. X (let's be stingy and say only a week of violations working on the BMX area.) 7 = $3500.
$500. X a single week of continued development during the stay = $3500.
$500. for Polaris WOTT event
That's just a drop in the bucket of what it could potentially be $8000. and probably more like $7500./week - and that's just Doug alone.
Shall I figure out the potential jail time? That's
90 days + 490 days +490 days +90 days = 1160 days, or just short of 3 years and 2 months.
It's a good thing Hayes Township is so forgiving.
"The imposition of any sentence shall not exempt and offender for noncompliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. The foregoing penalties shall (will) not prohibit the Township from seeking injunctive relief against a violator or such other appropriate relief as may be provided by law."
Pages 79-80, Section 1610 Public Nuisance Per Se: "Any material violation of this Ordinance is considered a public nuisance per se. Any building or structure which is erected, altered, or converted, or any use of premises or land which is begun or changed subsequent to the time of passage of this chapter and in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance per se, and may be abated by order of any court of competent jurisdiction."
Doug Longenecker's violations of the Ordinance cited in the first two parts of this series of posts are, each invidual occurrence, a nuisance per se. The ongoing development of the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road was an ongoing nuisance per se by virtue of the fact that it violated the stay on the property that was put in place when the first appeal was filed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The violation of the stay was a violation of a provision of the Ordinance. In addition to those violations, the Polaris event that was held on 30 Aug 2010 was a violation of the stay on the property and was declared so by Judge Mienk at the 20 Oct 2010 court date. The Polaris Event was a nuisance per se.
If the Township fails to take measures to deal with these nuisances per se, they can be dealt with in court. If I am not mistaken, Judge Mienk indicated that there were supposed to be consequences of the nuisances per se that have already taken place.
The Zoning Board Of Appeals has overturned the Special Use, but that is separate from the consequences attached to the nuisance per se infractions. Those have yet to be dealt with by the Township. There should be no chance of any resurrection of Michigan Moto Mania. If the Township does not take care of it, perhaps Judge Mienk will.
Section 1611 Fines and Imprisonment, Paragraph 1: "The owner of any building, structure or premises, or part thereof, where any condition in violation of this chapter shall exist or shall be created and who has assisted knowingly in the commission of such violation shall be guilty of a separate offense and, upon conviction, shall be liable to the fines and imprisonment as established by this Township Ordinance and enforced by the courts of law."
Don Atkinson and Ron Malone knowingly assisted Doug Longenecker in the commission of the violation of the stay on the Gamble-Longenecker property when they participated in the Polaris WOTT event. As a minimum, they are both guilty of misconduct while in office, and they deserve to be fired from the Planning Commission, but if this case is ultimately heard by Judge Mienk, they could be held liable to the fines and imprisonment as established by the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. That could potentially be either $500. or 90 days each.
Paragraph 2: "A separate offense shall be deemed committed upon each day during or when a violation occurs or continues."
The Polaris trucks were at the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road for 2 days.
Section 1612 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative: "The rights and remedies provided in this article are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies provided by law."
I have no comment to add to this point.
Summary:
No one reading this seriously expects that Hayes Township will, all of a sudden, start enforcing their own ordinance for all of the violations committed by Doug Longenecker, the Moto Mania supporters who have participated in the violations or the various members of boards named or unnamed who have committed single or ongoing violations of the Zoning Ordinance. They have not done so up to this point, I have no reason to believe that they will start any time soon. For that, all of the offenders should be thankful. They are all in contempt of the Ordinance, and some of the violations have been blatant.
There are no real consequences for violating a stay in Hayes Township, and the Zoning Ordinance unenforced is not worth the paper it is printed on.
There is very little in the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that addresses violations and penalties and consequences of violating the Ordinance and stays imposed by the Ordinance, and what there is consists of a lot of legalese and doublespeak. But I will try to muddle through this.
Today I will look at Pages 79-80, Article XVI Administration and Enforcement, Sections 1609-1612.
Page 79, Section 1609 Violations and Penalty, Paragraph 1. Violations: Use of land, buildings, structures and recreational vehicles in violation of any provision of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be a nuisance per se.
Doug Longenecker's violations of the Ordinance cited in the first two parts of this series of posts are, each individual occurrence, a nuisance per se. The ongoing development of the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road was an ongoing nuisance per se by virtue of the fact that it violated the stay on the property that was put in place when the first appeal was filed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The violation of the stay was a violation of a provision of the Ordinance. In addition to those violations, the Polaris WOTT event that was held on 30 Aug 2010 was a violation of the stay on the property and was declared so by Judge Mienk at the 20 Oct 2010 court date. The Polaris Event was a nuisance per se.
Page 79, Section 1609, Violations and Penalty, Paragraph 2. Penalties: "Any person, corporation or firm who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with any provisions of this Ordinance or any permit, license or exception granted hereunder, or any lawful order of the Township Zoning Administrator, Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Commission or the Township Board issued in pursuance of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
Doug Longenecker has violated, disobeyed or refused to comply with the restrictions placed upon him by the Special Use granted to him by the Planning Commission by deviating from his site plan (setting aside and working on a BMX area) without prior approval of the Hayes Township Zoning Administrator (then Jim VanWormer). He is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Any person who worked on the BMX area on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road is also guilty of a misdemeanor under this section of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance.
Doug Longenecker has violated a provision of the Ordinance in that he violated the stay that went on the Gamble-Longenecker property when the first appeal was filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals. He continued to develop the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road after the stay went on the property. He is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Any person who helped with the development of Michigan Moto Mania on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road (picking up sticks and rocks, running bulldozers and other such equipment, etc.) while the stay was in force is also guilty of a misdemeanor.
Doug Longenecker has violated the stay that was in force on the Gamble-Longenecker property when he scheduled and allowed the Polaris WOTT event on the property on 30 Aug 2010. He is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Polaris is a corporation that violated the stay that was in force on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road when they sponsored the Polaris WOTT event on the property on 30 Aug 2010. Polaris is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Planning Commission members Ron Malone and Don Atkinson have violated the stay that was in force on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road when they participated in the Polaris WOTT event on the property. They are guilty of a misdemeanor. (In my opinion, that is grounds for their removal from the Planning Commission as well. The violation was willful.)
Any individual who participated in the Polaris WOTT event violated the stay that was in force on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road when they participated in the event. They are guilty of a misdemeanor.
"Upon conviction thereof, before any court having jurisdiction , he or she shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred (500) dollars or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both, at the discretion of the court."
Judge Mienk has already determined that the Polaris WOTT event was a violation of the stay that was in force on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road. It is fortunate for Doug, Polaris, Don Atkinson, Ron Malone and everyone else who participated that none of them were on trial for the misdemeanor they all committed. The Hayes Township coffers would be about $15,000. richer from that day alone.
As for the other violations, they could have been expensive for everyone who violated the stay as well. I guess it's a good thing that Hayes Township does not enforce violations of the Zoning Odinance, or everyone's wallet would be a whole lot lighter.
"Each day during which a violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense."
Wow! Wouldn't that be a hefty payday for Hayes Township at Doug's expense!
$500. for the deviation of the site plan.
$500. X (let's be stingy and say only a week of violations working on the BMX area.) 7 = $3500.
$500. X a single week of continued development during the stay = $3500.
$500. for Polaris WOTT event
That's just a drop in the bucket of what it could potentially be $8000. and probably more like $7500./week - and that's just Doug alone.
Shall I figure out the potential jail time? That's
90 days + 490 days +490 days +90 days = 1160 days, or just short of 3 years and 2 months.
It's a good thing Hayes Township is so forgiving.
"The imposition of any sentence shall not exempt and offender for noncompliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. The foregoing penalties shall (will) not prohibit the Township from seeking injunctive relief against a violator or such other appropriate relief as may be provided by law."
Pages 79-80, Section 1610 Public Nuisance Per Se: "Any material violation of this Ordinance is considered a public nuisance per se. Any building or structure which is erected, altered, or converted, or any use of premises or land which is begun or changed subsequent to the time of passage of this chapter and in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance per se, and may be abated by order of any court of competent jurisdiction."
Doug Longenecker's violations of the Ordinance cited in the first two parts of this series of posts are, each invidual occurrence, a nuisance per se. The ongoing development of the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road was an ongoing nuisance per se by virtue of the fact that it violated the stay on the property that was put in place when the first appeal was filed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The violation of the stay was a violation of a provision of the Ordinance. In addition to those violations, the Polaris event that was held on 30 Aug 2010 was a violation of the stay on the property and was declared so by Judge Mienk at the 20 Oct 2010 court date. The Polaris Event was a nuisance per se.
If the Township fails to take measures to deal with these nuisances per se, they can be dealt with in court. If I am not mistaken, Judge Mienk indicated that there were supposed to be consequences of the nuisances per se that have already taken place.
The Zoning Board Of Appeals has overturned the Special Use, but that is separate from the consequences attached to the nuisance per se infractions. Those have yet to be dealt with by the Township. There should be no chance of any resurrection of Michigan Moto Mania. If the Township does not take care of it, perhaps Judge Mienk will.
Section 1611 Fines and Imprisonment, Paragraph 1: "The owner of any building, structure or premises, or part thereof, where any condition in violation of this chapter shall exist or shall be created and who has assisted knowingly in the commission of such violation shall be guilty of a separate offense and, upon conviction, shall be liable to the fines and imprisonment as established by this Township Ordinance and enforced by the courts of law."
Don Atkinson and Ron Malone knowingly assisted Doug Longenecker in the commission of the violation of the stay on the Gamble-Longenecker property when they participated in the Polaris WOTT event. As a minimum, they are both guilty of misconduct while in office, and they deserve to be fired from the Planning Commission, but if this case is ultimately heard by Judge Mienk, they could be held liable to the fines and imprisonment as established by the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. That could potentially be either $500. or 90 days each.
Paragraph 2: "A separate offense shall be deemed committed upon each day during or when a violation occurs or continues."
The Polaris trucks were at the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road for 2 days.
Section 1612 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative: "The rights and remedies provided in this article are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies provided by law."
I have no comment to add to this point.
Summary:
No one reading this seriously expects that Hayes Township will, all of a sudden, start enforcing their own ordinance for all of the violations committed by Doug Longenecker, the Moto Mania supporters who have participated in the violations or the various members of boards named or unnamed who have committed single or ongoing violations of the Zoning Ordinance. They have not done so up to this point, I have no reason to believe that they will start any time soon. For that, all of the offenders should be thankful. They are all in contempt of the Ordinance, and some of the violations have been blatant.
There are no real consequences for violating a stay in Hayes Township, and the Zoning Ordinance unenforced is not worth the paper it is printed on.
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.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance With the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, Part 5
In today's installment, I will continue to examine the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, and compare it with the minutes of the Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, dated May 17, 2010, which lay out in detail the decision taken by the Planning commission, and restrictions to be applied to the Special Use assigned to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road. I will take this section by section as I did in the series on the Hayes Township and Clare County Master Plans.
Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance as found on the Hayes Township Website.
The Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
This series is not a complete dissection of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. This series will look at only those points of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that pertain specifically to the Resolution to grant the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road . I will examine the rest of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance at a later time.
Application Procedures continued:
B) The Zoning Administrator (at the time, Jim VanWormer) reviews the application(s) and site plan to ensure all the requirements of Article XVI have been met.
The requirements of Article XVI were not met, nor does it appear that Mr. VanWormer received or reviewed any application(s) or site plan from Mr. Longenecker.
This all took place during the time in October 2009 when Mr. VanWormer was out of town on his annual hunting trip. Why did the Hayes Township officials rush this through while Mr. VanWormer was away on vacation? Why could it not have waited for Mr. VanWormer's return? Why was the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission called on such short notice? Who called the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission?
C) According to Article XVI, Section 1601 Duties of the Zoning Administrator, Paragraph 2, Page 73, "In regard to site plans for A-R, R-1,R-2, and R-3 Districts; to approve site plans that comply with the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance and any other applicable ordinances or statutes."
The Zoning Administrator (at the time Jim VanWormer) is the approving authority for site plans that comply with the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance and any other applicable statutes.
Jim VanWormer did not review Mr. Longenecker's original Site Plan. Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan did not comply.
D) Section 1601 Duties of the Zoning Administrator, Paragraph 2, Page 73: "If in his or her discretion, the Zoning Administrator (Jim VanWormer) determines that a site plan may not comply with some legal requirement, (which it didn’t) the Zoning Administrator (Jim VanWormer) shall forward the site plan to the Hayes Township Planning Commission for review."
Mr. VanWormer did not forward Mr. Longenecker’s original Site Plan to the Hayes Township Planning Commission for review for non-compliance – They were voting on it anyway.
OR
D) Section 1603 Site Plan Review, Paragraph 2, Page 74: "Upon determining that the proposed use complies with the ordinance, and all other pertinent codes and ordinances of the township, the Zoning Administrator (Mr. VanWormer) causes the request for approval to be put on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, provided that such a meeting is scheduled at least 48 hours after the applicant (Mr. Longenecker) has submitted his site plan to the Zoning Administrator’s (Mr. VanWormer’s) office."
“Hayes Township Planning Commission Meeting, Special Meeting Date: 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. The thought was shared by all members present. (Criscuolo, Dancer, Schanhals, Atkinson, Malone, Hopkins, Township Supervisor Scherrer). Members should be able to review and visit the site in advance of any meetings. Chair Criscuolo wanted the minutes to reflect this: ‘If there are no site plans for members to review, before the meeting, there will be no vote taken, and the matter will be tabled to allow for that review in the future.’” The application did not comply, but Mr. Longenecker’s request for approval was put on the agenda of a special meeting of the Hayes Township Planning Commission, and not by the Zoning Administrator. It is not clear who put this request on the agenda of the meeting, or why, because this was in violation of the ordinance. Apparently, this was short notice, because the chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Criscuolo complained in the minutes of the meeting that he did not have enough time to review the request and look at the property in question before being asked to vote on the request.
Was this special meeting scheduled for the purpose of voting on this request? I believe so. Either that or John Scherrer wanted to take care of the noisy rooster problem in his neighborhood. (The roosters were also addressed at the meeting.)
Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, May 17, 2010: "L. Criscuolo stated that his phone has run off the hook and there were many false statements being spread. There was no illegal meeting in October. It was a regularly scheduled Meeting date and was posted in the Clare County Cleaver as always. The only mistake was neglecting to send letters to neighboring properties."So which was it? A Special Meeting as stated in the minutes on October 21, 2009? Or was it a regularly scheduled meeting as maintained by Mr. Criscuolo months later in the May 17, 2010 Minutes? And if it was a regularly scheduled meeting posted in the Clare County Cleaver as always, then why did Mr. Criscuolo state his displeasure over the lack of advanced notification of meetings? As chair, he of all people should be aware of the meeting dates, and have some hand in setting the meeting dates. What was the date of publication in the Clare County Cleaver? I think Lyle has been caught in a lie.
OR
D) Section 1603, Site Plan Review, Paragraph 2 Review Procedure, Page 74: "If the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting is to be held within 48 hours of such submittal by the applicant" (Mr. Longenecker), then the Zoning Administrator (Mr. VanWormer) shall schedule the applicant’s hearing for the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting."
Based on Chair Criscuolo’s complaint in the minutes of the October 21,2009 Planning Commission Special Meeting, Mr. Longenecker’s request was not put on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission, but on the agenda of a Special Meeting convened on short notice. Who convened the Special Meeting? Clearly it was not Chair Criscuolo. It was not the Zoning Administrator, Jim VanWormer. Was it Hayes Township Supervisor John Scherrer?
E) Section 1603, Site Plan Review, Paragraph 2 Review Procedure, Page 74: "The Planning Commission shall have the responsibility to approve... the applicant's request using the criteria for site plan review included in this Ordinance as a basis for its decision."
The Planning Commission improperly approved Mr. Longenecker’s so-called application and site plan on October 21, 2009, and did not show any basis for approval.
OR
E) Section 1603, Site Plan Review, Paragraph 2 Review Procedure, Page 74: "The Planning Commission shall have the responsibility to... approve with specified changes... the applicant's request using the criteria for site plan review included in this Ordinance as a basis for its decision."
It does not appear that there were any changes or conditions specified by the Planning Commission when they approved Mr. Longenecker’s original request and site plan.
OR
E) Section 1603, Site Plan Review, Paragraph 2 Review Procedure, Page 74: "The Planning Commission shall have the responsibility to... disapprove the applicant's request using the criteria for site plan review included in this Ordinance as a basis for its decision."
Although there was sufficient basis in the Ordinance upon which the Planning Commission could have and should have disapproved Mr Longenecker’s request and site plan, the Planning Commission chose not to disapprove them. Why is that?
Next: Criteria For Site Plan Review
Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance as found on the Hayes Township Website.
The Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
This series is not a complete dissection of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. This series will look at only those points of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that pertain specifically to the Resolution to grant the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road . I will examine the rest of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance at a later time.
Application Procedures continued:
B) The Zoning Administrator (at the time, Jim VanWormer) reviews the application(s) and site plan to ensure all the requirements of Article XVI have been met.
The requirements of Article XVI were not met, nor does it appear that Mr. VanWormer received or reviewed any application(s) or site plan from Mr. Longenecker.
This all took place during the time in October 2009 when Mr. VanWormer was out of town on his annual hunting trip. Why did the Hayes Township officials rush this through while Mr. VanWormer was away on vacation? Why could it not have waited for Mr. VanWormer's return? Why was the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission called on such short notice? Who called the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission?
C) According to Article XVI, Section 1601 Duties of the Zoning Administrator, Paragraph 2, Page 73, "In regard to site plans for A-R, R-1,R-2, and R-3 Districts; to approve site plans that comply with the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance and any other applicable ordinances or statutes."
The Zoning Administrator (at the time Jim VanWormer) is the approving authority for site plans that comply with the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance and any other applicable statutes.
Jim VanWormer did not review Mr. Longenecker's original Site Plan. Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan did not comply.
D) Section 1601 Duties of the Zoning Administrator, Paragraph 2, Page 73: "If in his or her discretion, the Zoning Administrator (Jim VanWormer) determines that a site plan may not comply with some legal requirement, (which it didn’t) the Zoning Administrator (Jim VanWormer) shall forward the site plan to the Hayes Township Planning Commission for review."
Mr. VanWormer did not forward Mr. Longenecker’s original Site Plan to the Hayes Township Planning Commission for review for non-compliance – They were voting on it anyway.
OR
D) Section 1603 Site Plan Review, Paragraph 2, Page 74: "Upon determining that the proposed use complies with the ordinance, and all other pertinent codes and ordinances of the township, the Zoning Administrator (Mr. VanWormer) causes the request for approval to be put on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, provided that such a meeting is scheduled at least 48 hours after the applicant (Mr. Longenecker) has submitted his site plan to the Zoning Administrator’s (Mr. VanWormer’s) office."
“Hayes Township Planning Commission Meeting, Special Meeting Date: 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. The thought was shared by all members present. (Criscuolo, Dancer, Schanhals, Atkinson, Malone, Hopkins, Township Supervisor Scherrer). Members should be able to review and visit the site in advance of any meetings. Chair Criscuolo wanted the minutes to reflect this: ‘If there are no site plans for members to review, before the meeting, there will be no vote taken, and the matter will be tabled to allow for that review in the future.’” The application did not comply, but Mr. Longenecker’s request for approval was put on the agenda of a special meeting of the Hayes Township Planning Commission, and not by the Zoning Administrator. It is not clear who put this request on the agenda of the meeting, or why, because this was in violation of the ordinance. Apparently, this was short notice, because the chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Criscuolo complained in the minutes of the meeting that he did not have enough time to review the request and look at the property in question before being asked to vote on the request.
Was this special meeting scheduled for the purpose of voting on this request? I believe so. Either that or John Scherrer wanted to take care of the noisy rooster problem in his neighborhood. (The roosters were also addressed at the meeting.)
Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, May 17, 2010: "L. Criscuolo stated that his phone has run off the hook and there were many false statements being spread. There was no illegal meeting in October. It was a regularly scheduled Meeting date and was posted in the Clare County Cleaver as always. The only mistake was neglecting to send letters to neighboring properties."So which was it? A Special Meeting as stated in the minutes on October 21, 2009? Or was it a regularly scheduled meeting as maintained by Mr. Criscuolo months later in the May 17, 2010 Minutes? And if it was a regularly scheduled meeting posted in the Clare County Cleaver as always, then why did Mr. Criscuolo state his displeasure over the lack of advanced notification of meetings? As chair, he of all people should be aware of the meeting dates, and have some hand in setting the meeting dates. What was the date of publication in the Clare County Cleaver? I think Lyle has been caught in a lie.
OR
D) Section 1603, Site Plan Review, Paragraph 2 Review Procedure, Page 74: "If the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting is to be held within 48 hours of such submittal by the applicant" (Mr. Longenecker), then the Zoning Administrator (Mr. VanWormer) shall schedule the applicant’s hearing for the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting."
Based on Chair Criscuolo’s complaint in the minutes of the October 21,2009 Planning Commission Special Meeting, Mr. Longenecker’s request was not put on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission, but on the agenda of a Special Meeting convened on short notice. Who convened the Special Meeting? Clearly it was not Chair Criscuolo. It was not the Zoning Administrator, Jim VanWormer. Was it Hayes Township Supervisor John Scherrer?
E) Section 1603, Site Plan Review, Paragraph 2 Review Procedure, Page 74: "The Planning Commission shall have the responsibility to approve... the applicant's request using the criteria for site plan review included in this Ordinance as a basis for its decision."
The Planning Commission improperly approved Mr. Longenecker’s so-called application and site plan on October 21, 2009, and did not show any basis for approval.
OR
E) Section 1603, Site Plan Review, Paragraph 2 Review Procedure, Page 74: "The Planning Commission shall have the responsibility to... approve with specified changes... the applicant's request using the criteria for site plan review included in this Ordinance as a basis for its decision."
It does not appear that there were any changes or conditions specified by the Planning Commission when they approved Mr. Longenecker’s original request and site plan.
OR
E) Section 1603, Site Plan Review, Paragraph 2 Review Procedure, Page 74: "The Planning Commission shall have the responsibility to... disapprove the applicant's request using the criteria for site plan review included in this Ordinance as a basis for its decision."
Although there was sufficient basis in the Ordinance upon which the Planning Commission could have and should have disapproved Mr Longenecker’s request and site plan, the Planning Commission chose not to disapprove them. Why is that?
Next: Criteria For Site Plan Review
Friday, October 22, 2010
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance With the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, Part 4
In today's installment, I will continue to examine the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, and compare it with the minutes of the Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, dated May 17, 2010, which lay out in detail the decision taken by the Planning commission, and restrictions to be applied to the Special Use assigned to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road. I will take this section by section as I did in the series on the Hayes Township and Clare County Master Plans.
Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance as found on the Hayes Township Website.
The Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
This series is not a complete dissection of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. This series will look at only those points of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that pertain specifically to the Resolution to grant the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road . I will examine the rest of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance at a later time.
In this and the next several posts, I will examine application procedures.
According to Section 1601 of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance Page 73, the proper procedure for the process and consideration of applications is as follows:
A) Mr. Longenecker submits a properly prepared and appropriate application packet on the correct forms as prescribed in Section 1602 of the Hayes Township Ordinance, Pages 73-74, to the Zoning Administrator (at the time it was Jim VanWormer).
Mr. Longenecker’s original application was not appropriate, properly prepared or on the correct forms. The Zoning Administrator was cut out of the process. Who cut Jim VanWormer out of the process? Why was he cut out? And Why didn't Mr. VanWormer blow the whistle?
Note: For whatever reason, I was not given a copy of Mr. Longenecker’s Application for Special Use until I returned to Hayes Township Hall on March 10, 2009 and specifically asked for it. (Remember, I had asked for all paperwork pertaining to Moto Mania on Mostetler Road.) On that day, I spoke to Kevin Breese, the Hayes Township Clerk. He gave me a copy of Mr. Longenecker’s Application for Special Use dated October 15, 2009.
This copy of the Application for Special Use is incomplete.
To see a blank copy of an Application for Special Use, in order to follow along, click here.
As of 15 October, 2009, Kenneth Gamble is listed as the property Owner.
Mr. Gamble’s signature is not on the application as the owner.
Mr. Gamble’s mailing address is not filled out on the application.
No letter authorizing Doug Longenecker to act on Kenneth Gamble’s behalf was provided by Mr. Gamble in lieu of his signature on the application.
The application states, “This application will not be processed until authorized by the property owner.”
The application was processed, without Ken Gamble's authorization, without Jim VanWormer, and the Hayes Township Planning Commission voted on it on 21 October 2009.
The current zoning of the property box is not filled out.
The Master Plan designation of the property box is not filled out.
The legal description of the property, which was filled out is inaccurate.
Doug wrote, "200 acreas of mainly rolling terrain/wooded."
The application states: “briefly describe the proposed land use and attach a written narrative addressing the ‘standards of approval’ pursuant to Section 1603, 3 a-e, of the Township Zoning Ordinance.”
No such written narrative was attached by Mr. Longenecker.
The brief description Doug wrote: "motocross/ATV/Snowmobile Park".
The application states: “A complete site plan containing all applicable data outlined in Section 1602, of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance must accompany this application.”
The original site plan that Mr. Longenecker submitted was neither complete nor properly prepared.
Mr. Longenecker’s signature as the applicant on the application form acknowledges receipt of the Article XVI (Administration and Enforcement ) of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. From whom did he receive the document? Not Jim VanWormer. I'd be willing to bet that he never received it. It's apparent that he never read it.
Mr. Longenecker's signature acknowledging receipt of Article XVI, and his failure to comply with said article of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance was grounds for denial of his request.
Mr. Longenecker’s failure to read or to comply with the Ordinance in submitting his application or his site plan is not the fault of the Hayes Township Board or the Hayes Township Planning Commission. But the Township is culpable for considering a non-compliant and incomplete application and site plan.
Mr. Longenecker's failure to read or comply with the Ordinance in submitting his application also makes him complicit in the Planning Commission's and Board of Trustees' railroad job of his application.
In the Township Use Section:
The Application fee box is blank. There is no record of Mr. Longenecker’s having paid a fee to file the application.
The Date Received block is blank. The application must have been received sometime between 15 - 21 October, 2009, inclusive. The application must have been received by 19 October 2009 in order to comply with the Ordinance.
The Receipt Number block is blank. There is no record of any application fee paid by Mr. Longenecker. Did Mr. Longenecker ever pay an application fee to file his application? Where is the proof?
The Publication Date block is blank. No public hearing concerning this Special Use was ever scheduled or published in any newspaper at the time this application was approved. This was not an oversight.
The Date Notices Mailed block is blank. No notices regarding a public hearing or the Special Use Application were ever sent to the property owners adjacent to the Gamble property on Mostetler Road. This was also not an oversight.
The Public Hearing Date is blank. There was no public hearing scheduled. Again, not an oversight. And why wasn't a public hearing scheduled?
There are 2 versions of the Original Application that were given out to those who requested them. I have seen both versions. One shows an x in the “Approved” box. The other photocopy shows the “Approved” box blank. Both of these copies were obtained from Hayes Township in March 2010. It is unclear when the “Approved” box was filled in.
Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, May 17, 2010, page 1: “The only mistake was neglecting to send letters to neighboring properties and he takes full blame for that.” - Lyle Criscuolo.
"L. Dancer apologized for the confusion and disruption that has happened since October."
"L. Schanhals apologized for the lack of notices to residents adjacent to the land…"
In the “do over” afforded to Mr. Longenecker and Hayes Township Planning Commission (because the "do over" was as much for the Planning Commission as it was for Doug Longenecker), After several requests for all paperwork pertaining to the Gamble-Longenecker Property on Mostetler Road, a new application for Special Use has not been produced by the Township or then by extension, Doug Longenecker.
For both the original application and the "do over" Mr. Longenecker turned in the same application with the same date on it. Lyle, as the Chair of the Planning Commission, who has been a member of the Planning Commission for 22 years, and who helped write the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance claims that he was unaware that notices had not been sent to the adjacent neighbors. How could he not know? Does he not read the applications put in front of him? How could he not notice that Mr. Longenecker's application was incomplete? If he didn't notice, he's incompetent. If he did notice, and he let it go anyway, then he's a co-conspirator in the effort to railroad this application through and skirting the process. Is this the kind of person the residents in Hayes Township want running the Planning Commission?
Next installment: Application Procedures, continued...
Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance as found on the Hayes Township Website.
The Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
This series is not a complete dissection of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. This series will look at only those points of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that pertain specifically to the Resolution to grant the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road . I will examine the rest of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance at a later time.
In this and the next several posts, I will examine application procedures.
According to Section 1601 of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance Page 73, the proper procedure for the process and consideration of applications is as follows:
A) Mr. Longenecker submits a properly prepared and appropriate application packet on the correct forms as prescribed in Section 1602 of the Hayes Township Ordinance, Pages 73-74, to the Zoning Administrator (at the time it was Jim VanWormer).
Mr. Longenecker’s original application was not appropriate, properly prepared or on the correct forms. The Zoning Administrator was cut out of the process. Who cut Jim VanWormer out of the process? Why was he cut out? And Why didn't Mr. VanWormer blow the whistle?
Note: For whatever reason, I was not given a copy of Mr. Longenecker’s Application for Special Use until I returned to Hayes Township Hall on March 10, 2009 and specifically asked for it. (Remember, I had asked for all paperwork pertaining to Moto Mania on Mostetler Road.) On that day, I spoke to Kevin Breese, the Hayes Township Clerk. He gave me a copy of Mr. Longenecker’s Application for Special Use dated October 15, 2009.
This copy of the Application for Special Use is incomplete.
To see a blank copy of an Application for Special Use, in order to follow along, click here.
As of 15 October, 2009, Kenneth Gamble is listed as the property Owner.
Mr. Gamble’s signature is not on the application as the owner.
Mr. Gamble’s mailing address is not filled out on the application.
No letter authorizing Doug Longenecker to act on Kenneth Gamble’s behalf was provided by Mr. Gamble in lieu of his signature on the application.
The application states, “This application will not be processed until authorized by the property owner.”
The application was processed, without Ken Gamble's authorization, without Jim VanWormer, and the Hayes Township Planning Commission voted on it on 21 October 2009.
The current zoning of the property box is not filled out.
The Master Plan designation of the property box is not filled out.
The legal description of the property, which was filled out is inaccurate.
Doug wrote, "200 acreas of mainly rolling terrain/wooded."
The application states: “briefly describe the proposed land use and attach a written narrative addressing the ‘standards of approval’ pursuant to Section 1603, 3 a-e, of the Township Zoning Ordinance.”
No such written narrative was attached by Mr. Longenecker.
The brief description Doug wrote: "motocross/ATV/Snowmobile Park".
The application states: “A complete site plan containing all applicable data outlined in Section 1602, of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance must accompany this application.”
The original site plan that Mr. Longenecker submitted was neither complete nor properly prepared.
Mr. Longenecker’s signature as the applicant on the application form acknowledges receipt of the Article XVI (Administration and Enforcement ) of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. From whom did he receive the document? Not Jim VanWormer. I'd be willing to bet that he never received it. It's apparent that he never read it.
Mr. Longenecker's signature acknowledging receipt of Article XVI, and his failure to comply with said article of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance was grounds for denial of his request.
Mr. Longenecker’s failure to read or to comply with the Ordinance in submitting his application or his site plan is not the fault of the Hayes Township Board or the Hayes Township Planning Commission. But the Township is culpable for considering a non-compliant and incomplete application and site plan.
Mr. Longenecker's failure to read or comply with the Ordinance in submitting his application also makes him complicit in the Planning Commission's and Board of Trustees' railroad job of his application.
In the Township Use Section:
The Application fee box is blank. There is no record of Mr. Longenecker’s having paid a fee to file the application.
The Date Received block is blank. The application must have been received sometime between 15 - 21 October, 2009, inclusive. The application must have been received by 19 October 2009 in order to comply with the Ordinance.
The Receipt Number block is blank. There is no record of any application fee paid by Mr. Longenecker. Did Mr. Longenecker ever pay an application fee to file his application? Where is the proof?
The Publication Date block is blank. No public hearing concerning this Special Use was ever scheduled or published in any newspaper at the time this application was approved. This was not an oversight.
The Date Notices Mailed block is blank. No notices regarding a public hearing or the Special Use Application were ever sent to the property owners adjacent to the Gamble property on Mostetler Road. This was also not an oversight.
The Public Hearing Date is blank. There was no public hearing scheduled. Again, not an oversight. And why wasn't a public hearing scheduled?
There are 2 versions of the Original Application that were given out to those who requested them. I have seen both versions. One shows an x in the “Approved” box. The other photocopy shows the “Approved” box blank. Both of these copies were obtained from Hayes Township in March 2010. It is unclear when the “Approved” box was filled in.
Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, May 17, 2010, page 1: “The only mistake was neglecting to send letters to neighboring properties and he takes full blame for that.” - Lyle Criscuolo.
"L. Dancer apologized for the confusion and disruption that has happened since October."
"L. Schanhals apologized for the lack of notices to residents adjacent to the land…"
In the “do over” afforded to Mr. Longenecker and Hayes Township Planning Commission (because the "do over" was as much for the Planning Commission as it was for Doug Longenecker), After several requests for all paperwork pertaining to the Gamble-Longenecker Property on Mostetler Road, a new application for Special Use has not been produced by the Township or then by extension, Doug Longenecker.
For both the original application and the "do over" Mr. Longenecker turned in the same application with the same date on it. Lyle, as the Chair of the Planning Commission, who has been a member of the Planning Commission for 22 years, and who helped write the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance claims that he was unaware that notices had not been sent to the adjacent neighbors. How could he not know? Does he not read the applications put in front of him? How could he not notice that Mr. Longenecker's application was incomplete? If he didn't notice, he's incompetent. If he did notice, and he let it go anyway, then he's a co-conspirator in the effort to railroad this application through and skirting the process. Is this the kind of person the residents in Hayes Township want running the Planning Commission?
Next installment: Application Procedures, continued...
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Playing Ping Pong With The Judge, Part 3
A quick review of the court situation up until yesterday:
When the neighbors of Mostetler Road and Deer Lake objected to a Motocross Park in their backyards, the Hayes Township Attorney, David Dreyer essentially told them, get a lawyer and sue for redress because they were not going to get it from the Township. It was David Dreyer and Hayes Township who sent the neighbors to the courtroom for redress.
The neighbors asked for redress in the form of a court injunction on Moto Mania while this was being sorted out.
Judge Mienk granted the injunction which was to expire upon the decision taken by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission granted the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker Property. Upon that decision, the court ordered injunction against Moto Mania Expired. After that, Doug was free to develop as he pleased on the Gamble-Longenecker Property. Until ....
Several Neighbors appealed the Special Use With Restrictions to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which, according to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance put a stay on all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed. That included all the continued development of Moto Mania. (But Doug continued to develop Moto Mania anyway.) Moto Mania was prepared to open in June. The neighbors let the continued development go, but they objected that opening would violate the stay. The stay was reluctantly enforced by the Township.
Doug filed a petition to the judge to lift the stay. His court date fell 2 days before the June Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, Judge Mienk declined to lift the stay, deferring to the Township's own process. That trip to the courtroom was courtesy of Doug Longenecker.
The Zoning Board of Appeals could not field a quorum to decide, and the stay remained in place because there was no decision taken at that time.
The Zoning Board of Appeals met again in July. They voted and were deadlocked 2-2. So no decision was taken and because the Special Use with Restrictions was still in appeal, the stay remained in place.
Mr. Dreyer saw an opportunity to put the matter in front of the judge once again and to try to get Judge Mienk to decide the matter. The judge declined to decide the matter, handing it back to the Township for their action. The stay remained in place because the Special Use With Restrictions was still in appeal. That trip to the courtroom was courtesy of Mr. Dreyer and the Township.
In Aug, Doug violated the stay by having a Polaris sponsored event at Moto Mania. The neighbors objected to the violation of the stay, and complained to the zoning Administrator, Jim Van Wormer, who took the matter to Mr. Dreyer. Mr Dreyer was apparently confused about whether there was a stay or a court ordered injunction on the property, and what the parameters of the stay or injunction were. (The Township didn't want to enforce their ordinance and Mr. Dreyer wanted the judge to tell him specifically what they could get away with not enforcing.) So Mr. Deryer decided to file to get back on the docket to have the judge determine if the stay had been violated and what the parameters of the stay were. That court date was yesterday, once again, courtesy of Mr. Dreyer and the Township.
To say the least, the judge was not amused. He determined that Doug had indeed violated the stay by having the Polaris event. It was not a court ordered injunction; that had expired in May. It was the stay that was according to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, and Judge Mienk had to remind Mr. Dreyer to read the Ordinance. There was no wiggle room.
Judge Mienk pretty much made it clear that this mess belonged to the Township to decide. His volley put the ball once again in Hayes Township's court. And in doing so, made it a trip to the woodshed for Mr. Dreyer and the Township.
Here is a prediction: Mr. Dreyer's Hail Mary Pass will be to advise the Township that they need to pull the Special Use With Restrictions based on the violation of the stay. He'll be hoping that pulling the Special Use will make the neighbor's court case go away, and the corruption, of which he is most certainly aware, will not come to light. He'll be betting that Doug doesn't have the will or the money to continue with a case that is questionable at best based on Doug's actions so far.
But that's if the neighbors don't settle out of court with the Township's Insurance Company.
When the neighbors of Mostetler Road and Deer Lake objected to a Motocross Park in their backyards, the Hayes Township Attorney, David Dreyer essentially told them, get a lawyer and sue for redress because they were not going to get it from the Township. It was David Dreyer and Hayes Township who sent the neighbors to the courtroom for redress.
The neighbors asked for redress in the form of a court injunction on Moto Mania while this was being sorted out.
Judge Mienk granted the injunction which was to expire upon the decision taken by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission granted the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker Property. Upon that decision, the court ordered injunction against Moto Mania Expired. After that, Doug was free to develop as he pleased on the Gamble-Longenecker Property. Until ....
Several Neighbors appealed the Special Use With Restrictions to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which, according to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance put a stay on all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed. That included all the continued development of Moto Mania. (But Doug continued to develop Moto Mania anyway.) Moto Mania was prepared to open in June. The neighbors let the continued development go, but they objected that opening would violate the stay. The stay was reluctantly enforced by the Township.
Doug filed a petition to the judge to lift the stay. His court date fell 2 days before the June Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, Judge Mienk declined to lift the stay, deferring to the Township's own process. That trip to the courtroom was courtesy of Doug Longenecker.
The Zoning Board of Appeals could not field a quorum to decide, and the stay remained in place because there was no decision taken at that time.
The Zoning Board of Appeals met again in July. They voted and were deadlocked 2-2. So no decision was taken and because the Special Use with Restrictions was still in appeal, the stay remained in place.
Mr. Dreyer saw an opportunity to put the matter in front of the judge once again and to try to get Judge Mienk to decide the matter. The judge declined to decide the matter, handing it back to the Township for their action. The stay remained in place because the Special Use With Restrictions was still in appeal. That trip to the courtroom was courtesy of Mr. Dreyer and the Township.
In Aug, Doug violated the stay by having a Polaris sponsored event at Moto Mania. The neighbors objected to the violation of the stay, and complained to the zoning Administrator, Jim Van Wormer, who took the matter to Mr. Dreyer. Mr Dreyer was apparently confused about whether there was a stay or a court ordered injunction on the property, and what the parameters of the stay or injunction were. (The Township didn't want to enforce their ordinance and Mr. Dreyer wanted the judge to tell him specifically what they could get away with not enforcing.) So Mr. Deryer decided to file to get back on the docket to have the judge determine if the stay had been violated and what the parameters of the stay were. That court date was yesterday, once again, courtesy of Mr. Dreyer and the Township.
To say the least, the judge was not amused. He determined that Doug had indeed violated the stay by having the Polaris event. It was not a court ordered injunction; that had expired in May. It was the stay that was according to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, and Judge Mienk had to remind Mr. Dreyer to read the Ordinance. There was no wiggle room.
Judge Mienk pretty much made it clear that this mess belonged to the Township to decide. His volley put the ball once again in Hayes Township's court. And in doing so, made it a trip to the woodshed for Mr. Dreyer and the Township.
Here is a prediction: Mr. Dreyer's Hail Mary Pass will be to advise the Township that they need to pull the Special Use With Restrictions based on the violation of the stay. He'll be hoping that pulling the Special Use will make the neighbor's court case go away, and the corruption, of which he is most certainly aware, will not come to light. He'll be betting that Doug doesn't have the will or the money to continue with a case that is questionable at best based on Doug's actions so far.
But that's if the neighbors don't settle out of court with the Township's Insurance Company.
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance With the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, Part 3
In today's installment, I will continue to examine the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, and compare it with the minutes of the Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, dated May 17, 2010, which lay out in detail the decision taken by the Planning commission, and restrictions to be applied to the Special Use assigned to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road. I will take this section by section as I did in the series on the Hayes Township and Clare County Master Plans.
Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance as found on the Hayes Township Website.
The Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
This series is not a complete dissection of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. This series will look at only those points of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that pertain specifically to the Resolution to grant the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road . I will examine the rest of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance at a later time.
Page 45: Article XIV General Provisions, Section 1400 Introduction: "Whenever any provision of this Ordinance imposes more stringent requirements, regulations, restrictions or limitations than are imposed or required by any other law or ordinance, then the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern. Whenever the provisions of any other law or Ordinance impose more stringent requirements than are imposed or required by this Ordinance, then the provisions of such ordinance shall govern."
In other words, the more stringent requirements, regulations, restrictions, or limitations shall govern.
And lest there be any confusion about the meaning of the word "shall", the Ordinance states, on Page 1, Section 102 Rules of Construction: "The following rules of construction apply to the text of this chapter:
3. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not discretionary. The word "may" is permissive."
“A. The Master Plan, page 45, second (2nd) paragraph, gives the Planning Board land use flexibility.” (Minutes, Page 3)
The Hayes Township Ordinance supersedes the Master Plan inasmuch as the Ordinance is more stringent than the flexibility afforded by the Master Plan.
Also, the Master Plan is a guidline and foundation for the Ordinance, and does not carry the weight of the law. The Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
There is no such Special Use as a Motor Vehicle racing and Riding business listed in the A-R zone, but there is such a use permitted by right as defined by “club” in the C-2 zone.
Page 45: Page 45: Article XIV General Provisions, Section 1401: Effect of Zoning: "No building or structure, or part thereof, shall hereafter be erected, constructed or altered and maintained, and no new use or change shall be made or maintained of any building, structure or land, or part thereof, except in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance."
The Proposed new use of the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road does not conform with the provisions of the Ordinance.
Page 62: Noise: "Objectionable sounds, including those of an intermittent nature, shall be controlled so as not to become a nuisance to adjacent uses."
"E. The proposed project complies with all other applicable ordinances and state and federal statutes for the following reasons:
The Park/Owner has to follow the rules of allowed noise levels, and not exceed the standards of Michigan Law of 94 decibels. Must comply with state law regarding the decibel limits for all modes of transportation used in the park." (Minutes, Page 3)
All other applicable ordinances? Really? Because the Hayes Township Planning Commission said so?
What outside and independent professional entity is testing the noise levels of the vehicles and of the park?
One motorcycle engine producing 94 decibels does not sound the same or as loud as up to 300 motorcycles and ORVs producing 94 db each. How will that collective noise be measured?
How will noise levels be enforced?
What consequences are in place for violations and infractions?
I realize there is redundancy here, but the redundancy is due to the redundancy of some applicable aspects of the Ordinance)
Owner: Ken Gamble?
Page 73: Article XIV Administration and Enforcement: Section 1601 Duties of the Zoning Administrator, Paragraph 1: "The Zoning Administrator shall receive all applications for development or the redevelopment pertaining to this Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator shall review all applications, site plans, and other material for new developments, special exemption permits, rezonings, and variances, to ensure that all the requirements of this article have been met. The Zoning Administrator shall then forward the necessary information to the bodies in charge of the requested action."
At the time, Jim VanWormer was the Hayes Township Zoning Administrator.
Back in October 2009, Mr. VanWormer should have received Mr. Longenecker’s Request for Special Use and a copy of his site plan. Apparently, this request came in to Hayes Township at a time when Jim VanWormer was on vacation, and Mr. VanWormer was cut out of the process by someone on the Hayes Township Board of Trustees, or the Hayes Township Planning Commission.
All of the following pertains to Mr. Longenecker’s original request for Special Use.
On March 9,2009, I went to the Hayes Township Hall. I spoke to Mr. VanWormer and asked for a copy of all forms pertaining to the development of the Michigan Moto Mania on Mostetler Road and the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting at which the site plan was approved. Only 2 pages of documentation were produced: the one page of minutes from the “Special Meeting” that was held by the Hayes Township Planning Commission, and a one page “Site Plan” that did not conform to the Hayes Township Ordinance. At this time no application for Special Use or Rezone was produced.
According to Mr. VanWormer, Mr. Longenecker asked for a Special Use Permit and not a rezone of the property on Mostetler Road. This surprised me because the development was such a departure from the rest of the properties on Mostetler Road.
I also asked for the most up to date copy of the Hayes Township Zoning Map as the one on the Hayes Township website was dated October 15, 2002. Mr. VanWormer informed me that the map on the website was the current map in use.
At that time, Mr. VanWormer told me that things were not done properly, and Mr. Longenecker was going to be required to resubmit his request for Special Use.
I went home and looked up the Township Ordinance on the Computer to see how the documents measure up to the Ordinance.
1. “Special Use” was an inappropriate designation for Mr. Longenecker’s request. The scope and magnitude of the project proposed by Mr Longenecker goes far beyond the provisions of what constitutes a “Special Use” of land zoned A-R. Mr. Longenecker’s request should have been disapproved on this basis.
The appropriate request should have been for a “Rezone”, since he will be conducting an ongoing business enterprise and by definition of the Ordinance, the project is a club. Clubs are a use by right in a C-2 Highway Commercial District.
2. The prescribed procedure for Applications for Special Use and Applications for Rezoning were not followed. Again, another basis for disapproval of Mr. Longenecker’s request.According to Article XVI, Administration and Enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 1601 and 1602, Paragraph 2, Mr. VanWormer, should have received 1) a written Application Rezoning Request on the proper form, with 2) an Application for a Site Plan Review on the proper form, plus 3) a properly prepared Site Plan in triplicate.
Mr. Longenecker never did submit an Application forn a Site Plan Review.
According to Section 1602, "the site plan must be produced in triplicate, drawn to scale showing
- Legal description of the site
(Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan did not include the legal description of the site property.)
- To scale: 1 inch = 100 ft. since it is more than 3 acres
(Mr Longenecker’s original site plan was not drawn to this scale.)
- Date, north point and scale
(The original site plan was not dated. Only the scale was included.)
- The dimensions of all lot and property lines showing the relationship of the subject property to abutting properties
(Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan showed dimensions of property lines, but there is no way to know if these property lines and dimensions are accurate because he did not have them surveyed. The relationship of Mr. Longenecker’s property with abutting properties was not shown.)
- The location of all existing and proposed structures on the subject property and all existing structures within 100 feet of the subject property.
(Since Mr Longenecker’s original site plan was not labeled, it is difficult to tell what the features of the site actually were. The site plans did not show any existing structures within 100 feet of the property.)
- The location of all existing and proposed drives and parking areas
(Again, since nothing was labeled, the drives and parking areas were not distinguishable on the original site plan.)
- Landscaping plan
(There was no distinguishable landscaping plan on Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan.)
- Signage plan
(There was no signage plan on Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan.)
- The location and right-of-way widths of all abutting streets and alleys
(There were none shown on Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan.)
- The names and addresses of the architect, planner, designer or engineer responsible for the preparation of the site plan.
(Aside from the fact that there were no names or addresses of any architects, planners, designers or engineers, it is very apparent that this site plan was not prepared professionally.)
- Such other information concerning the lot or adjoining lots as may be essential for determining whether the provisions of this chapter are being observed.
(No such other information was included in Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan. And no, the provisions of this chapter were NOT being observed.)
All of these shortcomings of Mr. Longenecker's original Site Plan should have been sufficient grounds to disapprove the Special Use.
“In addition, pursuant to Section 1603, it is specifically determined that the site plan is approved and that:
A. Proposed project complied with the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinances for the following reasons: The site plan was presented as a clearly drawn plan with designated areas outlined for events…” (Minutes, Page 3)
To which one of the five or more site plans submitted by Mr. Longenecker between March 30, 2010 and May 17, 2010, all of which are dated October 15, 2009, does this refer?
How many mulligans does the Township allow in the process? None of the several site plans submitted were “clearly drawn” or easily understood. (I have copies of most of them).
Mr. Longenecker is a welding engineer. What makes a welding engineer (as opposed to a land engineer) properly qualified to prepare a site plan for a project of this magnitude? Having seen most of the submitted site plans, if I were paying for such a site plan for submission, I would expect a higher standard and level of professionalism than the proffered plans exhibit. While the word “professional” is not used in the Ordinance, it is implied by the request for the requirement for the names and addresses of the architect, planner, designer or engineer responsible for the preparation of the site plan. Mr. Longenecker and the Planning Commission used the loophole to skirt the intent of the Ordinance.
To Be Continued...
Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance as found on the Hayes Township Website.
The Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
This series is not a complete dissection of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. This series will look at only those points of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that pertain specifically to the Resolution to grant the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road . I will examine the rest of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance at a later time.
Page 45: Article XIV General Provisions, Section 1400 Introduction: "Whenever any provision of this Ordinance imposes more stringent requirements, regulations, restrictions or limitations than are imposed or required by any other law or ordinance, then the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern. Whenever the provisions of any other law or Ordinance impose more stringent requirements than are imposed or required by this Ordinance, then the provisions of such ordinance shall govern."
In other words, the more stringent requirements, regulations, restrictions, or limitations shall govern.
And lest there be any confusion about the meaning of the word "shall", the Ordinance states, on Page 1, Section 102 Rules of Construction: "The following rules of construction apply to the text of this chapter:
3. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not discretionary. The word "may" is permissive."
“A. The Master Plan, page 45, second (2nd) paragraph, gives the Planning Board land use flexibility.” (Minutes, Page 3)
The Hayes Township Ordinance supersedes the Master Plan inasmuch as the Ordinance is more stringent than the flexibility afforded by the Master Plan.
Also, the Master Plan is a guidline and foundation for the Ordinance, and does not carry the weight of the law. The Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
There is no such Special Use as a Motor Vehicle racing and Riding business listed in the A-R zone, but there is such a use permitted by right as defined by “club” in the C-2 zone.
Page 45: Page 45: Article XIV General Provisions, Section 1401: Effect of Zoning: "No building or structure, or part thereof, shall hereafter be erected, constructed or altered and maintained, and no new use or change shall be made or maintained of any building, structure or land, or part thereof, except in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance."
The Proposed new use of the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road does not conform with the provisions of the Ordinance.
Page 62: Noise: "Objectionable sounds, including those of an intermittent nature, shall be controlled so as not to become a nuisance to adjacent uses."
"E. The proposed project complies with all other applicable ordinances and state and federal statutes for the following reasons:
The Park/Owner has to follow the rules of allowed noise levels, and not exceed the standards of Michigan Law of 94 decibels. Must comply with state law regarding the decibel limits for all modes of transportation used in the park." (Minutes, Page 3)
All other applicable ordinances? Really? Because the Hayes Township Planning Commission said so?
What outside and independent professional entity is testing the noise levels of the vehicles and of the park?
One motorcycle engine producing 94 decibels does not sound the same or as loud as up to 300 motorcycles and ORVs producing 94 db each. How will that collective noise be measured?
How will noise levels be enforced?
What consequences are in place for violations and infractions?
I realize there is redundancy here, but the redundancy is due to the redundancy of some applicable aspects of the Ordinance)
Owner: Ken Gamble?
Page 73: Article XIV Administration and Enforcement: Section 1601 Duties of the Zoning Administrator, Paragraph 1: "The Zoning Administrator shall receive all applications for development or the redevelopment pertaining to this Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator shall review all applications, site plans, and other material for new developments, special exemption permits, rezonings, and variances, to ensure that all the requirements of this article have been met. The Zoning Administrator shall then forward the necessary information to the bodies in charge of the requested action."
At the time, Jim VanWormer was the Hayes Township Zoning Administrator.
Back in October 2009, Mr. VanWormer should have received Mr. Longenecker’s Request for Special Use and a copy of his site plan. Apparently, this request came in to Hayes Township at a time when Jim VanWormer was on vacation, and Mr. VanWormer was cut out of the process by someone on the Hayes Township Board of Trustees, or the Hayes Township Planning Commission.
All of the following pertains to Mr. Longenecker’s original request for Special Use.
On March 9,2009, I went to the Hayes Township Hall. I spoke to Mr. VanWormer and asked for a copy of all forms pertaining to the development of the Michigan Moto Mania on Mostetler Road and the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting at which the site plan was approved. Only 2 pages of documentation were produced: the one page of minutes from the “Special Meeting” that was held by the Hayes Township Planning Commission, and a one page “Site Plan” that did not conform to the Hayes Township Ordinance. At this time no application for Special Use or Rezone was produced.
According to Mr. VanWormer, Mr. Longenecker asked for a Special Use Permit and not a rezone of the property on Mostetler Road. This surprised me because the development was such a departure from the rest of the properties on Mostetler Road.
I also asked for the most up to date copy of the Hayes Township Zoning Map as the one on the Hayes Township website was dated October 15, 2002. Mr. VanWormer informed me that the map on the website was the current map in use.
At that time, Mr. VanWormer told me that things were not done properly, and Mr. Longenecker was going to be required to resubmit his request for Special Use.
I went home and looked up the Township Ordinance on the Computer to see how the documents measure up to the Ordinance.
1. “Special Use” was an inappropriate designation for Mr. Longenecker’s request. The scope and magnitude of the project proposed by Mr Longenecker goes far beyond the provisions of what constitutes a “Special Use” of land zoned A-R. Mr. Longenecker’s request should have been disapproved on this basis.
The appropriate request should have been for a “Rezone”, since he will be conducting an ongoing business enterprise and by definition of the Ordinance, the project is a club. Clubs are a use by right in a C-2 Highway Commercial District.
2. The prescribed procedure for Applications for Special Use and Applications for Rezoning were not followed. Again, another basis for disapproval of Mr. Longenecker’s request.According to Article XVI, Administration and Enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 1601 and 1602, Paragraph 2, Mr. VanWormer, should have received 1) a written Application Rezoning Request on the proper form, with 2) an Application for a Site Plan Review on the proper form, plus 3) a properly prepared Site Plan in triplicate.
Mr. Longenecker never did submit an Application forn a Site Plan Review.
According to Section 1602, "the site plan must be produced in triplicate, drawn to scale showing
- Legal description of the site
(Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan did not include the legal description of the site property.)
- To scale: 1 inch = 100 ft. since it is more than 3 acres
(Mr Longenecker’s original site plan was not drawn to this scale.)
- Date, north point and scale
(The original site plan was not dated. Only the scale was included.)
- The dimensions of all lot and property lines showing the relationship of the subject property to abutting properties
(Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan showed dimensions of property lines, but there is no way to know if these property lines and dimensions are accurate because he did not have them surveyed. The relationship of Mr. Longenecker’s property with abutting properties was not shown.)
- The location of all existing and proposed structures on the subject property and all existing structures within 100 feet of the subject property.
(Since Mr Longenecker’s original site plan was not labeled, it is difficult to tell what the features of the site actually were. The site plans did not show any existing structures within 100 feet of the property.)
- The location of all existing and proposed drives and parking areas
(Again, since nothing was labeled, the drives and parking areas were not distinguishable on the original site plan.)
- Landscaping plan
(There was no distinguishable landscaping plan on Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan.)
- Signage plan
(There was no signage plan on Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan.)
- The location and right-of-way widths of all abutting streets and alleys
(There were none shown on Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan.)
- The names and addresses of the architect, planner, designer or engineer responsible for the preparation of the site plan.
(Aside from the fact that there were no names or addresses of any architects, planners, designers or engineers, it is very apparent that this site plan was not prepared professionally.)
- Such other information concerning the lot or adjoining lots as may be essential for determining whether the provisions of this chapter are being observed.
(No such other information was included in Mr. Longenecker’s original site plan. And no, the provisions of this chapter were NOT being observed.)
All of these shortcomings of Mr. Longenecker's original Site Plan should have been sufficient grounds to disapprove the Special Use.
“In addition, pursuant to Section 1603, it is specifically determined that the site plan is approved and that:
A. Proposed project complied with the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinances for the following reasons: The site plan was presented as a clearly drawn plan with designated areas outlined for events…” (Minutes, Page 3)
To which one of the five or more site plans submitted by Mr. Longenecker between March 30, 2010 and May 17, 2010, all of which are dated October 15, 2009, does this refer?
How many mulligans does the Township allow in the process? None of the several site plans submitted were “clearly drawn” or easily understood. (I have copies of most of them).
Mr. Longenecker is a welding engineer. What makes a welding engineer (as opposed to a land engineer) properly qualified to prepare a site plan for a project of this magnitude? Having seen most of the submitted site plans, if I were paying for such a site plan for submission, I would expect a higher standard and level of professionalism than the proffered plans exhibit. While the word “professional” is not used in the Ordinance, it is implied by the request for the requirement for the names and addresses of the architect, planner, designer or engineer responsible for the preparation of the site plan. Mr. Longenecker and the Planning Commission used the loophole to skirt the intent of the Ordinance.
To Be Continued...
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance with the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, Part 2
In today's installment, I will continue to examine the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, and compare it with the minutes of the Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, dated May 17, 2010, which lay out in detail the decision taken by the Planning commission, and restrictions to be applied to the Special Use assigned to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road. I will take this section by section as I did in the series on the Hayes Township and Clare County Master Plans.
Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance as found on the Hayes Township Website.
The Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
This series is not a complete dissection of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. This series will look at only those points of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that pertain specifically to the Resolution to grant the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road . I will examine the rest of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance at a later time.
Page 22: Article IV, A-R Agricultural/Rural Residential District: Section 400: "Intent: The district is also intended for very low density single-family housing as well as the preservation of natural open spaces and lands that are unsuitable for development due to constraints such as flooding, or lack of infrastructure."
The Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road is unsuitable for development due to lack of infrastructure. The business proposed in the Special Use request would be better suited to a zone with infrastructure such as public water and sewer and electricity to better serve the public as a business.
It is this lack of infrastructure and the restrictions that deal with infrastructure that makes me believe that the governing officials of Hayes Township are not concerned with the the success of Michigan Moto Mania. For this business to succeed to its full potential, Doug needs access from a road that is not a local road. If this business were located near the highway, with highway access, it would be easier to find and get to for potential users.
Doug wanted to have a place where riders could shower off after they ride. For that running water is needed, and plenty of it, not only for that, but for rest room facilities and for concession stands. Wells and septic tanks/fields are inadequate to handle the number of riders and spectators for events to make this business all it has the potential to be. It needs to have public water and sewer, which just isn't on Mostetler Road.
He needs electricity in order to do many of the things he'd like to do. Unless he uses generators and pays to run electricity to where he needs it, it will be more difficult for him to run his business at a profit.
Doug's dreams for Michigan Moto Mania were grandiose, but the restrictions placed on him with regard to infrastructure severely limit him and his dreams. If he had decided to put Moto Mania in a place where there was infrastructure in the form of better roads, public water and sewer he could utilize and electricity he could more easily tap into, his business would have better odds of succeeding.
Porta-Potties and Roach Coach types of concessions are not all that great for amenities.
Does Doug really think those restrictions are going to help him stay in business?
Page 22: Article IV, A-R Agricultural/Rural Residential District: Section 400: "Intent: When land in the Agricultural/Rural Residential District is needed for urban purposes, it is anticipated that the zoning will be changed to the appropriate zoning district(s) to provide for orderly growth and development in accordance with the Master Plan."
Why was this a Special Use request and not a Rezoning request?
Why did the Planing Commission not consider the option of Rezoning the Gamble-Longenecker property?
If they did consider the Rezone option, why was that option rejected?
The use is so incompatible with the A-R designation that a rezone request would have been more appropriate. A Motorized Vehicle Racing and riding business is an urban use.
Having said that, a Rezone is also inappropriate for Mostetler Road. There are few grounds for granting a Rezone.
Who counseled Doug to request a Special Use and not a Rezone? Someone on one of the Hayes Township boards must have told him what he needed to do. Who was it, I wonder? From the minutes of the October 2009 Planning Commission Special Meeting, I don't think it was Lyle. It should have been Jim VanWormer, but I don't think it was him because he was cut out of the process. John Scherrer was at the Planning Commission Special Meeting in Oct 2009. Was it him? Was it a member of the Planning Commission?
I remind the reader that there is a difference between a want and a need. Michigan Moto Mania fulfills a want, but it does not fulfill a need.
4 Pages 22-23: Section 401: Uses Permitted By Right, and Section 402: Uses Permitted by Special Exemption:
A Motorized vehicle racing and riding business is a use neither Permitted by right nor by Special Exemption in the Ordinance for the A-R zone.
Page 29: Article X, C-2 Highway Commercial District, Section 1000 Intent: "The provisions of this district are intended to encourage general commercial development to locate along major arteries particularly adjacent to major intersections where such development could most adequately serve the needs of the community’s residents and those of the traveling public, without excessive quantities of strip development."
Inasmuch as it is the hope of many of the residents and businesses in Hayes Township that Michigan Moto Mania will bring much needed tourist dollars to Hayes Township and Clare County, the C-2 Zone is an appropriate place to put a business such as Michigan Moto Mania. Tourists are the “traveling public”.
Page 29: Article X, C-2 Highway Commercial District, Section 1001: Uses Permitted by Right: "10. Clubs."
Since Michigan Moto Mania is by definition a club, and club is a use permitted by right in the Ordinance, C-2, Highway Commercial District is the appropriate zone for Michigan Moto Mania.
No Special Use Permit is required for a club in the C-2 Highway Commercial District.
To be continued...
Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance as found on the Hayes Township Website.
The Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
This series is not a complete dissection of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. This series will look at only those points of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that pertain specifically to the Resolution to grant the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road . I will examine the rest of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance at a later time.
Page 22: Article IV, A-R Agricultural/Rural Residential District: Section 400: "Intent: The district is also intended for very low density single-family housing as well as the preservation of natural open spaces and lands that are unsuitable for development due to constraints such as flooding, or lack of infrastructure."
The Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road is unsuitable for development due to lack of infrastructure. The business proposed in the Special Use request would be better suited to a zone with infrastructure such as public water and sewer and electricity to better serve the public as a business.
It is this lack of infrastructure and the restrictions that deal with infrastructure that makes me believe that the governing officials of Hayes Township are not concerned with the the success of Michigan Moto Mania. For this business to succeed to its full potential, Doug needs access from a road that is not a local road. If this business were located near the highway, with highway access, it would be easier to find and get to for potential users.
Doug wanted to have a place where riders could shower off after they ride. For that running water is needed, and plenty of it, not only for that, but for rest room facilities and for concession stands. Wells and septic tanks/fields are inadequate to handle the number of riders and spectators for events to make this business all it has the potential to be. It needs to have public water and sewer, which just isn't on Mostetler Road.
He needs electricity in order to do many of the things he'd like to do. Unless he uses generators and pays to run electricity to where he needs it, it will be more difficult for him to run his business at a profit.
Doug's dreams for Michigan Moto Mania were grandiose, but the restrictions placed on him with regard to infrastructure severely limit him and his dreams. If he had decided to put Moto Mania in a place where there was infrastructure in the form of better roads, public water and sewer he could utilize and electricity he could more easily tap into, his business would have better odds of succeeding.
Porta-Potties and Roach Coach types of concessions are not all that great for amenities.
Does Doug really think those restrictions are going to help him stay in business?
Page 22: Article IV, A-R Agricultural/Rural Residential District: Section 400: "Intent: When land in the Agricultural/Rural Residential District is needed for urban purposes, it is anticipated that the zoning will be changed to the appropriate zoning district(s) to provide for orderly growth and development in accordance with the Master Plan."
Why was this a Special Use request and not a Rezoning request?
Why did the Planing Commission not consider the option of Rezoning the Gamble-Longenecker property?
If they did consider the Rezone option, why was that option rejected?
The use is so incompatible with the A-R designation that a rezone request would have been more appropriate. A Motorized Vehicle Racing and riding business is an urban use.
Having said that, a Rezone is also inappropriate for Mostetler Road. There are few grounds for granting a Rezone.
Who counseled Doug to request a Special Use and not a Rezone? Someone on one of the Hayes Township boards must have told him what he needed to do. Who was it, I wonder? From the minutes of the October 2009 Planning Commission Special Meeting, I don't think it was Lyle. It should have been Jim VanWormer, but I don't think it was him because he was cut out of the process. John Scherrer was at the Planning Commission Special Meeting in Oct 2009. Was it him? Was it a member of the Planning Commission?
I remind the reader that there is a difference between a want and a need. Michigan Moto Mania fulfills a want, but it does not fulfill a need.
4 Pages 22-23: Section 401: Uses Permitted By Right, and Section 402: Uses Permitted by Special Exemption:
A Motorized vehicle racing and riding business is a use neither Permitted by right nor by Special Exemption in the Ordinance for the A-R zone.
Page 29: Article X, C-2 Highway Commercial District, Section 1000 Intent: "The provisions of this district are intended to encourage general commercial development to locate along major arteries particularly adjacent to major intersections where such development could most adequately serve the needs of the community’s residents and those of the traveling public, without excessive quantities of strip development."
Inasmuch as it is the hope of many of the residents and businesses in Hayes Township that Michigan Moto Mania will bring much needed tourist dollars to Hayes Township and Clare County, the C-2 Zone is an appropriate place to put a business such as Michigan Moto Mania. Tourists are the “traveling public”.
Page 29: Article X, C-2 Highway Commercial District, Section 1001: Uses Permitted by Right: "10. Clubs."
Since Michigan Moto Mania is by definition a club, and club is a use permitted by right in the Ordinance, C-2, Highway Commercial District is the appropriate zone for Michigan Moto Mania.
No Special Use Permit is required for a club in the C-2 Highway Commercial District.
To be continued...
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Hayes Township Resolution Compliance With the Hayes Towsnhip Zoning Ordinance, Part 1
In this series, I will examine the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, and compare it with the minutes of the Hayes Township Planning Commission Special Meeting, dated May 17, 2010, which lay out in detail the decision taken by the Planning commission, and restrictions to be applied to the Special Use assigned to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road. I will take this section by section as I did in the series on the Hayes Township and Clare County Master Plans.
Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance as found on the Hayes Township Website.
The Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
This series is not a complete dissection of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. This series will look at only those points of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that pertain specifically to the Resolution to grant the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road . I will examine the rest of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance at a later time.
Page 7: Definition: Club: "Buildings and facilities owned or operated by corporation, association, association, person or persons for social, educational or recreational purposes."
WHMDR, Inc. is a corporation. Michigan Moto Mania is the corporate alias of WHMDR Inc. Michigan Moto Mania as proposed is a facility operated by Doug Longenecker for recreational purposes. By the Ordinance’s definition, it is a club.
2 Page 14: Definition: Nuisance Factor: "An offensive, annoying, unpleasant, or obnoxious thing or practice, a cause or source of annoyance, especially a continuing or repeating invasion of any physical characteristics of activity or use across a property line which can be perceived by or affects a human being, or the generation of excessive or concentrated movement of people or things, such as noise, dust, heat electronic or atomic radiation, objectionable effluent, noise or congregation of people, particularly at night; and passenger traffic."
By this definition, the noise, dust emissions and excess traffic caused by the racing and riding of ORVs, MX bikes and ATVs at the proposed Michigan Moto Mania can be considered a nuisance.
"E. The proposed project complies with all other applicable ordinances and state and federal statutes for the following reasons:
The Park/Owner has to follow the rules of allowed noise levels, and not exceed the standards of Michigan Law of 94 decibels. Must comply with state law regarding the decibel limits for all modes of transportation used in the park." (Minutes, Page 3)
What outside and independent professional entity will be testing the noise levels of the vehicles and of the park?
One motorcycle engine producing 94 decibels does not sound the same or as loud as up to 300 motorcycles and ORVs producing 94 db each. How will that collective noise be measured?
How will noise levels be enforced?
What consequences are in place for violations and infractions?
3 Page 16. Definition: Special Exception: "Approval by the Township Planning Commission of a use of land in a district that is not antagonistic to other land uses in the district when such use is specified in this ordinance for that district upon such approval."
The Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road is zoned A-R Agricultural/Rural Residential.
The Special Exemption granted by the Planning Commission on May 17, 2010 to the Gamble-Longenecker property is for a Motorized Vehicle racing and riding business. Such a business is antagonistic to any residential use.
The Special Use is also antagonistic to the surrounding properties for hunting use.
The Special Use granted is not a use specified in this ordinance for A-R.The Ordinance needs to be updated to reflect such a Special Use in an appropriate Zoning District.
4 Page 18: Definition: Variance: "A modification of literal provisions of this Ordinance which the Board of Appeals is permitted to grant when strict enforcement of said provision would cause undue hardship owing to circumstances unique to the individual property in which the variance is sought."
“The members of this board unanimously agreed that the special land use variance would be beneficial to the Community, Hayes Township and their families as a whole.” (Minutes, Page 4)
The Special Use cannot be considered a Variance. The Planning Commission as a body is not authorized by the Ordinance to grant Variances. Variances are granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.There is no undue hardship except that which was created by the lax enforcement and misapplication of the Zoning Ordinance by the Planning Commission in October 2009.
A Special Use was sought.
A Variance was not sought.
Speaking to their “unanimous agreement” – The members of the Planning Commission talk to those in their social circles. There were dissenters who said so to people privately, but when it came down to the vote, they lacked the moral courage to stand up and vote their consciences, and chose to present a unified front. Some members of the Planning Commission, both before and after this decision was taken have expressed their misgivings “unofficially” to individuals in the community.
In Part 2, I will discuss the Zoning Districts and how they pertain to the Resolution to grant a Special Use to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road.
Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance as found on the Hayes Township Website.
The Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance carries the weight of the law.
This series is not a complete dissection of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. This series will look at only those points of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance that pertain specifically to the Resolution to grant the Special Use With Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road . I will examine the rest of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance at a later time.
Page 7: Definition: Club: "Buildings and facilities owned or operated by corporation, association, association, person or persons for social, educational or recreational purposes."
WHMDR, Inc. is a corporation. Michigan Moto Mania is the corporate alias of WHMDR Inc. Michigan Moto Mania as proposed is a facility operated by Doug Longenecker for recreational purposes. By the Ordinance’s definition, it is a club.
2 Page 14: Definition: Nuisance Factor: "An offensive, annoying, unpleasant, or obnoxious thing or practice, a cause or source of annoyance, especially a continuing or repeating invasion of any physical characteristics of activity or use across a property line which can be perceived by or affects a human being, or the generation of excessive or concentrated movement of people or things, such as noise, dust, heat electronic or atomic radiation, objectionable effluent, noise or congregation of people, particularly at night; and passenger traffic."
By this definition, the noise, dust emissions and excess traffic caused by the racing and riding of ORVs, MX bikes and ATVs at the proposed Michigan Moto Mania can be considered a nuisance.
"E. The proposed project complies with all other applicable ordinances and state and federal statutes for the following reasons:
The Park/Owner has to follow the rules of allowed noise levels, and not exceed the standards of Michigan Law of 94 decibels. Must comply with state law regarding the decibel limits for all modes of transportation used in the park." (Minutes, Page 3)
What outside and independent professional entity will be testing the noise levels of the vehicles and of the park?
One motorcycle engine producing 94 decibels does not sound the same or as loud as up to 300 motorcycles and ORVs producing 94 db each. How will that collective noise be measured?
How will noise levels be enforced?
What consequences are in place for violations and infractions?
3 Page 16. Definition: Special Exception: "Approval by the Township Planning Commission of a use of land in a district that is not antagonistic to other land uses in the district when such use is specified in this ordinance for that district upon such approval."
The Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road is zoned A-R Agricultural/Rural Residential.
The Special Exemption granted by the Planning Commission on May 17, 2010 to the Gamble-Longenecker property is for a Motorized Vehicle racing and riding business. Such a business is antagonistic to any residential use.
The Special Use is also antagonistic to the surrounding properties for hunting use.
The Special Use granted is not a use specified in this ordinance for A-R.The Ordinance needs to be updated to reflect such a Special Use in an appropriate Zoning District.
4 Page 18: Definition: Variance: "A modification of literal provisions of this Ordinance which the Board of Appeals is permitted to grant when strict enforcement of said provision would cause undue hardship owing to circumstances unique to the individual property in which the variance is sought."
“The members of this board unanimously agreed that the special land use variance would be beneficial to the Community, Hayes Township and their families as a whole.” (Minutes, Page 4)
The Special Use cannot be considered a Variance. The Planning Commission as a body is not authorized by the Ordinance to grant Variances. Variances are granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.There is no undue hardship except that which was created by the lax enforcement and misapplication of the Zoning Ordinance by the Planning Commission in October 2009.
A Special Use was sought.
A Variance was not sought.
Speaking to their “unanimous agreement” – The members of the Planning Commission talk to those in their social circles. There were dissenters who said so to people privately, but when it came down to the vote, they lacked the moral courage to stand up and vote their consciences, and chose to present a unified front. Some members of the Planning Commission, both before and after this decision was taken have expressed their misgivings “unofficially” to individuals in the community.
In Part 2, I will discuss the Zoning Districts and how they pertain to the Resolution to grant a Special Use to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Where Recreation is Addressed in the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance
While they are not all collected in one place or one Zoning District, they are addressed in various places throughout the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. If it has reference to a recreational activity, it is mentioned.
A Recreation Zone designation is not “required” according by either the County or the Township Master Plan. In any case, No one has seen a need for one since the last update of the entire Ordinance.
Page 1: Section 101 Purpose - #4: Meet the needs of residents for food, fiber, and other natural resources, places of residence, recreation, industry, trade, service, and other uses of land.
Page 1: Section 101 Purpose - #10: Facilitate adequate provisions for a system of transportation, sewage disposal, safe and adequate water supply, education, recreation, and other public requirements.
Page 6: Article II Definitions - #20: Boat and/or Canoe Livery and Boat Yard: A place where boats and/or canoes are stored, rented, sold, repaired, decked and serviced.
(Recreational activity – boating and/or canoeing)
Page 6: Article II Definitions - #27: Campgrounds: Any parcel or tract of land, under the control of any person where sites are offered for the use of the public or members of an organization, either free of charge or for a fee for the establishment of temporary living.
(Recreational activity – camping)
Page 7: Article II Definitions - #31: Club: Buildings and facilities owned or operated by corporation, association, person or persons for social, educational, or recreational purposes.
Page 14: Article II Definitions - #72: Open Air Business: Includes any use operated for profit, substantially in the open air including:
a. Bicycle, utility truck or trailer, motor vehicle, boats, or home equipment sale, repair or rental services.
(Facilitates bicycling, motor vehicle riding, boating with equipment)
b. Outdoor display and sale of garages, motor homes, mobile homes, snowmobiles, farm implements, swimming pools, and similar activities.
(Facilitates Camper camping, snowmobiling, swimming, and similar activities with equipment)
c. Retail sale of trees, fruit, vegetables, shrubbery, plants, top-soil, humus, fertilizer, trellises, lawn furniture, playground equipment, and other home garden supplies and equipment.
(Facilitates playground play with equipment.)
d. Tennis courts, archery courts, shuffleboard, horseshoe courts, rifle ranges, miniature golf, golf driving ranges, children’s amusement park or similar recreational uses.
Page 14: Article II Definitions - #74: Park: Properties and facilities owned or operated by any governmental agency, or owned or operated by any private agency, which are open to the general public for recreational purposes.
Page 15: Article II Definitions - #86: Recreational Vehicle: A vehicle designed to be used primarily for recreational purposes, including temporary sleeping quarters and/or cooking facilities, or a unit designed to be attached to a vehicle and used for such purposes, including self propelled motor homes, pickup campers, fifth wheel trailers, travel trailers, and tent trailers; provided, however, that any such vehicle or unit which is forty (40) feet or more in overall length and connected to water or sewer facilities shall be considered a mobile home and shall be subject to all regulations of this Ordinance applicable to a mobile home.
Page 15: Article II Definitions - #87: Resort: A recreational lodge, camp, or facility operated for gain, and which provides overnight lodging and one or more of the following: golf, skiing, dude ranching, recreational farming, snowmobiling, pack trains, bike trails, boating, fishing, and related or similar uses normally associated with recreational resorts.
Page 22: Article IV A-R Agricultural/Rural Residential District, Section 401 Uses Permitted by Right –
6. Golf Courses
8. Publicly owned and operated parks and playgrounds
Page 22: Article IV A-R Agricultural/Rural Residential District, Section 402 Uses Permitted by Special Exception –
16. Rifle Ranges
17. Campgrounds and travel trailer parks
Page 24: Article V R-1 Single Family Residential District, Section 501 Uses Permitted By Right –
4. Golf Courses
Page 24: Article V R-1 Single Family Residential District, Section 501 Uses Permitted By Special Exception –
4. Summer Camps
6. Campgrounds
Page 25: Article VI R-2 Single Family/ Two Family Residential District, Section 601 Uses Permitted By Right –
6. Publicly owned and operated recreation areas, parks, and playgrounds
Page 26: Article VII R-3 Multiple Family Residential District, Section 701 Uses Permitted By Right –
8. Publicly owned and operated recreation areas, parks, and playgrounds
Page 27: Article VI R-4 Manufactured Home Park District, Section 801 Uses Permitted By Right –
3. Accessory uses, buildings, or structures customarily incidental to manufactured home parks such as, clubhouses, swimming pools, common playground areas, laundry facilities, storage, or out buildings, and manufactured home park offices.
Page 28: Article IX C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District, Section 901 Uses Permitted by Right –
5. Clubs
Page 29: Article X C-2 Highway Commercial District, Section 1001 Uses Permitted by Right –
6. Bowling alleys
10. Clubs
14. Golf driving range and miniature golf
33. Sporting goods shops
(facilitates recreation with equipment)
34. Swimming pools – public
Page 30: Article X C-2 Highway Commercial District, Section 1002 Uses Permitted by Special Exception –
3. Boat sales and services
(facilitates recreation with equipment)
10. Manufactured and mobile home and travel trailer sales and service
(facilitates recreation with equipment)
13. Snowmobile sales and service
(facilitates recreation with equipment)
Page 38:Article XIII Special Provisions, Section 1305 Campgrounds and Travel Trailer Parks (governs lot size)
Page 39: Article XIII Special Provisions, Section 1311 Golf Courses and Country Clubs
(governs lot sizes and setbacks)
Page 44: Article XIII Special Provisions, Section 1321 Swimming Pools – Public/Private
(governs usage)
Once again, by definition, Michigan Moto Mania is a club. Clubs are addressed as use by right under C-2 Highway Commercial.
All kinds of recreational activities are addressed already in the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance.
A Recreation Zone designation is not “required” according by either the County or the Township Master Plan. In any case, No one has seen a need for one since the last update of the entire Ordinance.
Page 1: Section 101 Purpose - #4: Meet the needs of residents for food, fiber, and other natural resources, places of residence, recreation, industry, trade, service, and other uses of land.
Page 1: Section 101 Purpose - #10: Facilitate adequate provisions for a system of transportation, sewage disposal, safe and adequate water supply, education, recreation, and other public requirements.
Page 6: Article II Definitions - #20: Boat and/or Canoe Livery and Boat Yard: A place where boats and/or canoes are stored, rented, sold, repaired, decked and serviced.
(Recreational activity – boating and/or canoeing)
Page 6: Article II Definitions - #27: Campgrounds: Any parcel or tract of land, under the control of any person where sites are offered for the use of the public or members of an organization, either free of charge or for a fee for the establishment of temporary living.
(Recreational activity – camping)
Page 7: Article II Definitions - #31: Club: Buildings and facilities owned or operated by corporation, association, person or persons for social, educational, or recreational purposes.
Page 14: Article II Definitions - #72: Open Air Business: Includes any use operated for profit, substantially in the open air including:
a. Bicycle, utility truck or trailer, motor vehicle, boats, or home equipment sale, repair or rental services.
(Facilitates bicycling, motor vehicle riding, boating with equipment)
b. Outdoor display and sale of garages, motor homes, mobile homes, snowmobiles, farm implements, swimming pools, and similar activities.
(Facilitates Camper camping, snowmobiling, swimming, and similar activities with equipment)
c. Retail sale of trees, fruit, vegetables, shrubbery, plants, top-soil, humus, fertilizer, trellises, lawn furniture, playground equipment, and other home garden supplies and equipment.
(Facilitates playground play with equipment.)
d. Tennis courts, archery courts, shuffleboard, horseshoe courts, rifle ranges, miniature golf, golf driving ranges, children’s amusement park or similar recreational uses.
Page 14: Article II Definitions - #74: Park: Properties and facilities owned or operated by any governmental agency, or owned or operated by any private agency, which are open to the general public for recreational purposes.
Page 15: Article II Definitions - #86: Recreational Vehicle: A vehicle designed to be used primarily for recreational purposes, including temporary sleeping quarters and/or cooking facilities, or a unit designed to be attached to a vehicle and used for such purposes, including self propelled motor homes, pickup campers, fifth wheel trailers, travel trailers, and tent trailers; provided, however, that any such vehicle or unit which is forty (40) feet or more in overall length and connected to water or sewer facilities shall be considered a mobile home and shall be subject to all regulations of this Ordinance applicable to a mobile home.
Page 15: Article II Definitions - #87: Resort: A recreational lodge, camp, or facility operated for gain, and which provides overnight lodging and one or more of the following: golf, skiing, dude ranching, recreational farming, snowmobiling, pack trains, bike trails, boating, fishing, and related or similar uses normally associated with recreational resorts.
Page 22: Article IV A-R Agricultural/Rural Residential District, Section 401 Uses Permitted by Right –
6. Golf Courses
8. Publicly owned and operated parks and playgrounds
Page 22: Article IV A-R Agricultural/Rural Residential District, Section 402 Uses Permitted by Special Exception –
16. Rifle Ranges
17. Campgrounds and travel trailer parks
Page 24: Article V R-1 Single Family Residential District, Section 501 Uses Permitted By Right –
4. Golf Courses
Page 24: Article V R-1 Single Family Residential District, Section 501 Uses Permitted By Special Exception –
4. Summer Camps
6. Campgrounds
Page 25: Article VI R-2 Single Family/ Two Family Residential District, Section 601 Uses Permitted By Right –
6. Publicly owned and operated recreation areas, parks, and playgrounds
Page 26: Article VII R-3 Multiple Family Residential District, Section 701 Uses Permitted By Right –
8. Publicly owned and operated recreation areas, parks, and playgrounds
Page 27: Article VI R-4 Manufactured Home Park District, Section 801 Uses Permitted By Right –
3. Accessory uses, buildings, or structures customarily incidental to manufactured home parks such as, clubhouses, swimming pools, common playground areas, laundry facilities, storage, or out buildings, and manufactured home park offices.
Page 28: Article IX C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District, Section 901 Uses Permitted by Right –
5. Clubs
Page 29: Article X C-2 Highway Commercial District, Section 1001 Uses Permitted by Right –
6. Bowling alleys
10. Clubs
14. Golf driving range and miniature golf
33. Sporting goods shops
(facilitates recreation with equipment)
34. Swimming pools – public
Page 30: Article X C-2 Highway Commercial District, Section 1002 Uses Permitted by Special Exception –
3. Boat sales and services
(facilitates recreation with equipment)
10. Manufactured and mobile home and travel trailer sales and service
(facilitates recreation with equipment)
13. Snowmobile sales and service
(facilitates recreation with equipment)
Page 38:Article XIII Special Provisions, Section 1305 Campgrounds and Travel Trailer Parks (governs lot size)
Page 39: Article XIII Special Provisions, Section 1311 Golf Courses and Country Clubs
(governs lot sizes and setbacks)
Page 44: Article XIII Special Provisions, Section 1321 Swimming Pools – Public/Private
(governs usage)
Once again, by definition, Michigan Moto Mania is a club. Clubs are addressed as use by right under C-2 Highway Commercial.
All kinds of recreational activities are addressed already in the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance.
Hayes Township Planning Commission Meeting Wed, 13 Oct 2010
Usually, the week before a meeting of any of the various Hayes Township boards, Robin Longenecker tries to whip up the fan base to come out to the meeting and make a big show of support for Moto Mania by posting about it on the Moto Mania facebook page. Steve Rauch is usually a part of that effort on his facebook page and he usually creates a separate page just for the event. Between the two of them they can get the faithful to show up in their orange T-shirts.
In an uncharacteristic break from the usual form, Steve has gone silent and there was nary a mention from Robin on the Moto Mania facebook page. I wonder why? Was there something happening at the Hayes Township Planning Commission meeting that they didn't want to tip the neighbors off to?
In this case the silence was just like that silence you get when small children are up to something. The neighbors have already learned not to trust any meeting of any of the Hayes Township boards and someone from the neighborhood is in attendance at all of the meetings that take place. Wednesday night's meeting reminded us why we have to remain vigilant, and showed us that our concerns are not unfounded.
Sometime before the meeting, the Good Idea Fairy smacked Lyle upside the head with her magic wand and told him that it would be a good idea to rezone or grant a special use for a paintball facility, and also to somehow either create a new Zoning District called Recreation (there currently is no such Zoning District in Hayes Township) , and/or to add a couple of Special Uses to the list of Special Uses listed in the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance under the A-R Agricultural/Rural residential Zone. So it was put on the agenda for Wednesday night's meeting.
Really Lyle? Are you serious? You really think it's a good idea to even consider this while Hayes Township is up to its eyeballs in lawsuits concerning other improprieties committed by the Planning Commission under your leadership as the Chair of the Planning Commission? Are you really that daft? Or is it just your hubris? Or is this a vindictive little way to smack the neighbors?
You of all people, as the Chair of the Planning Commission, and member of same Planning Commission for the last 22 years, you who have had a hand at drafting the current Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance should know better than anyone that there is a way to go about what you want to do. You know there is a process and procedures to follow. You were present for the adoption of the most recent amendment to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. You know all about the required process and procedures. Whether you want to add a new Zoning District or add anything to the Ordinance as it is presently written, you have to follow procedure. You also can't add anything to the Special Use on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road without following proper procedures.
And the timing is just plain bad. You really want to make more changes while this thing is in litigation? Have some more rope.
It was your willingness to circumvent the the process and procedures in the first place that put Hayes Township in the hot water it's in. It is your continued willingness to circumvent proper procedure in the Ordinance that you helped write that makes you unfit to be a member of the Planning Commission and certainly unfit to Chair the Planning Commission.
David Dreyer has his hands full trying to save his Hayes Township government officials from themselves and their good ideas. He stepped in and told the Township to take that item off the agenda. I guess Lyle missed that memo because he still tried to bring it up at the meeting.
Lyle's claim that the Master Plan calls for recreational stuff but not the Ordinances is a bit disingenuous. Recreation is addressed throughout the Zoning Ordinance in various places under various Zoning Districts - I'll be posting a list of these references next - but there is no Recreation Zoning District in the Ordinance. Up until they discovered there are no loopholes in the Ordinance that allow Planning Commission to put a motorized vehicle racing and riding business where they want to put it, there was no need to change the Ordinance.
Wednesday night's meeting was an attempt to sneak it in the back door. The fact that Robin knew about it beforehand and said as much on the Moto Mania facebook page (13 Oct 2010) shows that there is conspiracy and collusion between the Longeneckers and the Planning Commission. She complained that Mr. Dreyer removed it from the agenda at the last minute. I'm sure that's why there was no whipping up of the Moto Mania support machine by Robin or by Steve. They wanted to keep this low key.
Waste of time Robin? I don't think it was. The presence of the neighbors and their lawyers prevented an end run by Lyle and the Planning Commission.
In an uncharacteristic break from the usual form, Steve has gone silent and there was nary a mention from Robin on the Moto Mania facebook page. I wonder why? Was there something happening at the Hayes Township Planning Commission meeting that they didn't want to tip the neighbors off to?
In this case the silence was just like that silence you get when small children are up to something. The neighbors have already learned not to trust any meeting of any of the Hayes Township boards and someone from the neighborhood is in attendance at all of the meetings that take place. Wednesday night's meeting reminded us why we have to remain vigilant, and showed us that our concerns are not unfounded.
Sometime before the meeting, the Good Idea Fairy smacked Lyle upside the head with her magic wand and told him that it would be a good idea to rezone or grant a special use for a paintball facility, and also to somehow either create a new Zoning District called Recreation (there currently is no such Zoning District in Hayes Township) , and/or to add a couple of Special Uses to the list of Special Uses listed in the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance under the A-R Agricultural/Rural residential Zone. So it was put on the agenda for Wednesday night's meeting.
Really Lyle? Are you serious? You really think it's a good idea to even consider this while Hayes Township is up to its eyeballs in lawsuits concerning other improprieties committed by the Planning Commission under your leadership as the Chair of the Planning Commission? Are you really that daft? Or is it just your hubris? Or is this a vindictive little way to smack the neighbors?
You of all people, as the Chair of the Planning Commission, and member of same Planning Commission for the last 22 years, you who have had a hand at drafting the current Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance should know better than anyone that there is a way to go about what you want to do. You know there is a process and procedures to follow. You were present for the adoption of the most recent amendment to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance. You know all about the required process and procedures. Whether you want to add a new Zoning District or add anything to the Ordinance as it is presently written, you have to follow procedure. You also can't add anything to the Special Use on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road without following proper procedures.
And the timing is just plain bad. You really want to make more changes while this thing is in litigation? Have some more rope.
It was your willingness to circumvent the the process and procedures in the first place that put Hayes Township in the hot water it's in. It is your continued willingness to circumvent proper procedure in the Ordinance that you helped write that makes you unfit to be a member of the Planning Commission and certainly unfit to Chair the Planning Commission.
David Dreyer has his hands full trying to save his Hayes Township government officials from themselves and their good ideas. He stepped in and told the Township to take that item off the agenda. I guess Lyle missed that memo because he still tried to bring it up at the meeting.
Lyle's claim that the Master Plan calls for recreational stuff but not the Ordinances is a bit disingenuous. Recreation is addressed throughout the Zoning Ordinance in various places under various Zoning Districts - I'll be posting a list of these references next - but there is no Recreation Zoning District in the Ordinance. Up until they discovered there are no loopholes in the Ordinance that allow Planning Commission to put a motorized vehicle racing and riding business where they want to put it, there was no need to change the Ordinance.
Wednesday night's meeting was an attempt to sneak it in the back door. The fact that Robin knew about it beforehand and said as much on the Moto Mania facebook page (13 Oct 2010) shows that there is conspiracy and collusion between the Longeneckers and the Planning Commission. She complained that Mr. Dreyer removed it from the agenda at the last minute. I'm sure that's why there was no whipping up of the Moto Mania support machine by Robin or by Steve. They wanted to keep this low key.
Waste of time Robin? I don't think it was. The presence of the neighbors and their lawyers prevented an end run by Lyle and the Planning Commission.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Playing Ping Pong With the Judge, Part 1
Toward the beginning of the Moto Mania fiasco on the part of the Hayes Township Planning Commission, at the point where the township's attorney, David Dreyer got involved, he wrote a 10 page opinion letter which his associate, Ms. Hovey handed out to those who attended the Hayes Township Board Of Trustees meeting on 16 march 2010. In his absence, she ran the meeting.
It is worth mentioning that just prior to that meeting, Mr. Dreyer's other associate, Todd Diederich resigned from the Hayes Township Planning Commission. (Because that wasn't a conflict of interest even before it hit the fan.) Since nobody has brought it up, this seems to be the place to bring up all the elephants in the room that no one else wants to or can talk about. How long was a member of the Township's Planning Commission also a member of the law firm that represents the township? And what genius thought that was a good idea?
But I digress... this article is really about what brings us to court in the first place. The digression is just another piece of fuel for the fire.
David Dreyer's opinion letter. In it, he laid out the infractions the Planning Commission and the Board of Trustees were admitting to, and what they were and were not going to do about it. He laid out a plan that appears to placate both Doug Longenecker (by giving him a second chance to get it right) and the Mostetler Road/Deer Lake neighbors (by causing the Township to retrace their steps and presumably dot their i's and cross their t's this time.) It was also the path of least litigation for his client, Hayes Township. He thought.
In appearing to placate both parties, neither one seemed likely to go to court in the short run. One of the things he opined in the last paragraph of his paper was, "During all these proceedings, Hayes Township does not have the authority to 'red tag' or otherwise stop the activities on the property. Only the Clare County Circuit Court has the power to issue injunctions or other court orders pertaining to this matter. It is within the rights of the property owner making the application or for any other interested party to file for relief with the Clare County Circuit Court."
In other words, Hayes Township has no authority to enforce its own laws and make Doug Longenecker stop working on Michigan Moto Mania while the "do over" is in progress, even though everything else must begin again at square one. Anyone who wants any redress "has the right" to file for said redress with the Clare County Circuit Court because the Township has no authority to grant it, (even though they created the mess in the first place.)
The bottom line is, the Township boards never wanted to stop this from happening, and their lawyer gave them the "out" to not make it stop while the improprieties were being addressed. They were not inclined, and Mr. Dreyer found them a way to not do it. I think that both the Township Boards and their legal representation did not expect a David to fight this Goliath. I think maybe they believed that Doug Longenecker was more likely to seek redress in court if they made him stop developing while this was being decided than the neighbors if they didn't make him stop developing. They thought the neighbors would just gripe and complain, but in the end, they would just suck it up "for the good of the Township." After all, most of them don't even live in Hayes Township, even though they pay taxes in Hayes Township (higher taxes than the residents pay) and they can't vote anyway, so it just stinks to be them. And those who do live in Hayes Township, - there aren't very many of them. That seems to be the prevailing line of thinking among many Moto Mania fans too.
Turns out there is a David among the neighbors, and David's last name is Collins. And there are more Davids than anyone thought there would be. So instead of just letting the Township Planning Commission and Board of Trustees get away with it, the Collinses, with the support of their neighbors sought the only redress available to them in the Clare County Circuit Court. (Of course at the behest of Mr. Dreyer.)
That was Round 1. At the first court date, Judge Mienk granted a temporary injunction against Moto Mania. As I understand it, Doug Longenecker was told that he could not run Moto Mania as a business, meaning no money could change hands, but he could use the property for personal riding, and he could continue to develop at his own risk. The temporary injunction would expire upon the decision to be taken by the Planning Commission in the "do over" The ball was back in the Township's court for action.
After a Public Hearing on 12 May 2010, and a vote on 17 May 2010, the Planning Commission decided unanimously to grant the Special Use With Restrictions not to Doug Longenecker, but to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road, (which would seem to make the Special Use permanent, rather than temporary and amounts to a Rezone.) Why grant it to the property instead of the individual who requested it? Was this in case the property reverts back to Ken Gamble so Ken Gamble can then resell it with the Special Use already procured? These restrictions seriously hinder Doug Longenecker's ability to grow as a business. Did the Planning Commission think the restrictions would placate the neighbors? If so, they were mistaken.
There is still some confusion as to whose job it is to police Moto Mania and violations of the restrictions. One gets the feeling that The Planning Commission, the Board of Trustees and the local constabulary are not inclined to enforce violations. And Lyle got downright testy at the 16 Jun 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting because he was among the members of the Planning Commission called when infractions occurred. Kind of reminds me of a Dad who lays down the Law at home and then leaves Mom to enforce the rules, while Dad is nowhere to be found. The Planning Commission established the rules, but they don't want any part of enforcing them and are not very clear on whose job it is.
So, again, as I understand it, once the Planning Commission took their decision and it was adopted by the Board of Trustees, the temporary injunction was lifted, and Doug was free to run Moto Mania as a business.
Of course, within the required window, the neighbors appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Now here is where it seems to get tricky to the Township Board of Trustees, Jim VanWormer (who was the Zoning Administrator at the time, but has since resigned), and Mr. Dreyer.
According to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, Section 1508 on page 72: "An appeal taken to the Board shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action being appealed, unless the Zoning Administrator certifies to the Board of Appeals after notice of appeal that a stay would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such case, proceedings may not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order which may, on due cause shown, be granted by the Board of Appeals or by Circuit Court on application, after notice to the Zoning Administrator."
This seems pretty straightforward to me. As I read and understand the above section of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, as soon as the Planning Commission's decision to grant the Special Use with Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property was appealed, that appeal put a stay on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road. That stay was supposed to be on "all proceedings in furtherance of the action being appealed." Nevertheless, the building of tracks continued, and other violations of the stay have occurred. The Township Board of Trustees and Zoning Administrator, and their lawyer all seem to have a difficult time understanding that section of the Zoning Ordinance as I will illustrate.
Because of the appeal, a Zoning Board of Appeals was scheduled for 16 Jun 2010. It was a public Hearing and although there was no quorum, the meeting was held anyway and then a vote was taken. The vote was 2 for upholding the Special Use With Restrictions, and 1 to overturn the Special Use With Restriction on the Gamble-Longenecker property. Because of a lack of quorum, another meeting was to be scheduled.
Meanwhile, Michigan Moto Mania was preparing to open on 25 Jun 2010. I have no doubt they would have been allowed to open, too, if I had not called and spoken to Jim VanWormer. I asked him when he lifted the stay on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road. He told me he hadn't and that he had no grounds. I asked him why then, was Michigan Moto Mania scheduling their Grand Opening on the 25th of Jun 2010? He didn't know, but he would call Mr. Dreyer who turned out to be conveniently out of town until several days after the scheduled opening.
All of this begs several questions. It was obvious that Mr. VanWormer was not comfortable performing his duties as the Zoning Administrator before talking to whomever was pulling his strings. In this case, I think that was David Dreyer. There is a problem with a system where a Zoning Administrator is hired by the people who are supposed to be accountable to him. He has to "go along to get along" and since Mr. VanWormer was hired by the Township Board of Trustees, and the Board seems to be in favor of the Moto Mania business, he cannot always be honest in the carrying out of his duties as the Zoning Administrator if his duties conflict with the agenda of the people who have the power to hire and fire him. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?
Mr. VanWormer must have miraculously reached Mr. Dreyer, because Michigan Moto Mania did not open as planned on 25 Jun 2010.
Which brings me to Courtroom Round 2.
To be continued...
It is worth mentioning that just prior to that meeting, Mr. Dreyer's other associate, Todd Diederich resigned from the Hayes Township Planning Commission. (Because that wasn't a conflict of interest even before it hit the fan.) Since nobody has brought it up, this seems to be the place to bring up all the elephants in the room that no one else wants to or can talk about. How long was a member of the Township's Planning Commission also a member of the law firm that represents the township? And what genius thought that was a good idea?
But I digress... this article is really about what brings us to court in the first place. The digression is just another piece of fuel for the fire.
David Dreyer's opinion letter. In it, he laid out the infractions the Planning Commission and the Board of Trustees were admitting to, and what they were and were not going to do about it. He laid out a plan that appears to placate both Doug Longenecker (by giving him a second chance to get it right) and the Mostetler Road/Deer Lake neighbors (by causing the Township to retrace their steps and presumably dot their i's and cross their t's this time.) It was also the path of least litigation for his client, Hayes Township. He thought.
In appearing to placate both parties, neither one seemed likely to go to court in the short run. One of the things he opined in the last paragraph of his paper was, "During all these proceedings, Hayes Township does not have the authority to 'red tag' or otherwise stop the activities on the property. Only the Clare County Circuit Court has the power to issue injunctions or other court orders pertaining to this matter. It is within the rights of the property owner making the application or for any other interested party to file for relief with the Clare County Circuit Court."
In other words, Hayes Township has no authority to enforce its own laws and make Doug Longenecker stop working on Michigan Moto Mania while the "do over" is in progress, even though everything else must begin again at square one. Anyone who wants any redress "has the right" to file for said redress with the Clare County Circuit Court because the Township has no authority to grant it, (even though they created the mess in the first place.)
The bottom line is, the Township boards never wanted to stop this from happening, and their lawyer gave them the "out" to not make it stop while the improprieties were being addressed. They were not inclined, and Mr. Dreyer found them a way to not do it. I think that both the Township Boards and their legal representation did not expect a David to fight this Goliath. I think maybe they believed that Doug Longenecker was more likely to seek redress in court if they made him stop developing while this was being decided than the neighbors if they didn't make him stop developing. They thought the neighbors would just gripe and complain, but in the end, they would just suck it up "for the good of the Township." After all, most of them don't even live in Hayes Township, even though they pay taxes in Hayes Township (higher taxes than the residents pay) and they can't vote anyway, so it just stinks to be them. And those who do live in Hayes Township, - there aren't very many of them. That seems to be the prevailing line of thinking among many Moto Mania fans too.
Turns out there is a David among the neighbors, and David's last name is Collins. And there are more Davids than anyone thought there would be. So instead of just letting the Township Planning Commission and Board of Trustees get away with it, the Collinses, with the support of their neighbors sought the only redress available to them in the Clare County Circuit Court. (Of course at the behest of Mr. Dreyer.)
That was Round 1. At the first court date, Judge Mienk granted a temporary injunction against Moto Mania. As I understand it, Doug Longenecker was told that he could not run Moto Mania as a business, meaning no money could change hands, but he could use the property for personal riding, and he could continue to develop at his own risk. The temporary injunction would expire upon the decision to be taken by the Planning Commission in the "do over" The ball was back in the Township's court for action.
After a Public Hearing on 12 May 2010, and a vote on 17 May 2010, the Planning Commission decided unanimously to grant the Special Use With Restrictions not to Doug Longenecker, but to the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road, (which would seem to make the Special Use permanent, rather than temporary and amounts to a Rezone.) Why grant it to the property instead of the individual who requested it? Was this in case the property reverts back to Ken Gamble so Ken Gamble can then resell it with the Special Use already procured? These restrictions seriously hinder Doug Longenecker's ability to grow as a business. Did the Planning Commission think the restrictions would placate the neighbors? If so, they were mistaken.
There is still some confusion as to whose job it is to police Moto Mania and violations of the restrictions. One gets the feeling that The Planning Commission, the Board of Trustees and the local constabulary are not inclined to enforce violations. And Lyle got downright testy at the 16 Jun 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting because he was among the members of the Planning Commission called when infractions occurred. Kind of reminds me of a Dad who lays down the Law at home and then leaves Mom to enforce the rules, while Dad is nowhere to be found. The Planning Commission established the rules, but they don't want any part of enforcing them and are not very clear on whose job it is.
So, again, as I understand it, once the Planning Commission took their decision and it was adopted by the Board of Trustees, the temporary injunction was lifted, and Doug was free to run Moto Mania as a business.
Of course, within the required window, the neighbors appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Now here is where it seems to get tricky to the Township Board of Trustees, Jim VanWormer (who was the Zoning Administrator at the time, but has since resigned), and Mr. Dreyer.
According to the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, Section 1508 on page 72: "An appeal taken to the Board shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action being appealed, unless the Zoning Administrator certifies to the Board of Appeals after notice of appeal that a stay would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such case, proceedings may not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order which may, on due cause shown, be granted by the Board of Appeals or by Circuit Court on application, after notice to the Zoning Administrator."
This seems pretty straightforward to me. As I read and understand the above section of the Hayes Township Zoning Ordinance, as soon as the Planning Commission's decision to grant the Special Use with Restrictions to the Gamble-Longenecker property was appealed, that appeal put a stay on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road. That stay was supposed to be on "all proceedings in furtherance of the action being appealed." Nevertheless, the building of tracks continued, and other violations of the stay have occurred. The Township Board of Trustees and Zoning Administrator, and their lawyer all seem to have a difficult time understanding that section of the Zoning Ordinance as I will illustrate.
Because of the appeal, a Zoning Board of Appeals was scheduled for 16 Jun 2010. It was a public Hearing and although there was no quorum, the meeting was held anyway and then a vote was taken. The vote was 2 for upholding the Special Use With Restrictions, and 1 to overturn the Special Use With Restriction on the Gamble-Longenecker property. Because of a lack of quorum, another meeting was to be scheduled.
Meanwhile, Michigan Moto Mania was preparing to open on 25 Jun 2010. I have no doubt they would have been allowed to open, too, if I had not called and spoken to Jim VanWormer. I asked him when he lifted the stay on the Gamble-Longenecker property on Mostetler Road. He told me he hadn't and that he had no grounds. I asked him why then, was Michigan Moto Mania scheduling their Grand Opening on the 25th of Jun 2010? He didn't know, but he would call Mr. Dreyer who turned out to be conveniently out of town until several days after the scheduled opening.
All of this begs several questions. It was obvious that Mr. VanWormer was not comfortable performing his duties as the Zoning Administrator before talking to whomever was pulling his strings. In this case, I think that was David Dreyer. There is a problem with a system where a Zoning Administrator is hired by the people who are supposed to be accountable to him. He has to "go along to get along" and since Mr. VanWormer was hired by the Township Board of Trustees, and the Board seems to be in favor of the Moto Mania business, he cannot always be honest in the carrying out of his duties as the Zoning Administrator if his duties conflict with the agenda of the people who have the power to hire and fire him. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?
Mr. VanWormer must have miraculously reached Mr. Dreyer, because Michigan Moto Mania did not open as planned on 25 Jun 2010.
Which brings me to Courtroom Round 2.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)