Mt. Pleasant, MI - Home of free-range zoning administration - malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance Typical scenarios: Developer submits plan that does not conform to zoning ordinance standards and requirements City officials/staff informed of zoning ordinance violation, embrace the proposal City staff suggests - 'the regulations are confusing' City Officials permit violation orDeveloper submits plan conforming to zoning ordinance standards and requirements City officials/staff informed of zoning ordinance compliance, do not embrace the proposal City staff suggests - 'the regulations are confusing' City Officials reject the plan orCity Officials take illegal action without explanation for violations of state statute and local ordinance ********************* These scenarios, repeated many times, have rendered an administrative circumstance best described as perpetually confused with zoning ordinance provisions applicable at the discretion of city officials/staff. The information at wordpress, blogspot and Planning and Zoning documents one of the permit violation scenarios Denied Due Process, and challenges the validity of city staff claims of confusion.
Administrative concepts advanced by city officials include:
Correspondence dated above @ Denied Due Process 08.02.07 Demonstrating disregard of regulatory provisions is not limited to local Zoning Ordinances, the Planning Commission conducts a special meeting following acknowledgment it had not fulfilled the Open Meetings Act (Sec. 5) requirement for notice of special meetings. OMA violation was brought to the attention of Prosecuting Attorney Larry Burdick and subsequently to the attention of Attorney General Mike Cox. The Prosecuting Attorney and Attorney General received the Denied Due Process material in conjunction with this violation. Responses to the OMA violation and Denied Due Process materials can be found at OAG Mike Cox and OPA Larry Burdick. 03.06.08 Planning Commission continues to approve site plans that do not conform to standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinances. 08.07.08Landlord informs Planning Commission Kulick (Director of Planning) OK'd unlawful occupancy
09.04.08 Open Meetings Act (Sec. 8) violation - Planning Commission conducted a closed session for the purpose of discussing "a legal opinion as to what action the Planning Commission can take on a site plan that violates a City Commission action." Planning Commission approves site plan following indication that the Zoning Board of Appeals had correctly determined the site plan did not conform to standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinances. 12.04.08 Following information that both the ZBA and city staff determined Special Use Permit and Site Plan unlawful based on standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinances, the Planning Commission approves Special Use Permit and Site Plan.
03.25.09Zoning Board of Appeals grants variance facilitating the replacement of an existing conforming development with nonconforming development (SPR-09-08). Based on the record, this ZBA action is a violation of state statue MZEA 125.3604(7).
04.07.09 Response to assertion that Planning Commission 'approval' of nonconforming site plans is unlawful pursuant to the zoning ordinances.
In addition to SPR-09-08 nonconforming development, the Planning Commission 04.09.09 agenda includes SUP-09-04 Request for a Special Use Permit to allow a rooming dwelling for 6 occupants in an M-2 multiple family residential district. Applicant is requesting Planning Commission replace conforming special use permit with a nonconforming special use permit.
04.09.09 Planning Commission approves nonconforming special use permits and nonconforming site plans. Among the approvals are SUP-09-04 and SPR-09-08 facilitating replacement of existing conforming with nonconforming development. see Conduct Unbecoming for additional details
09.03.09 Planning Commission continues to ignore ordinance requirement that site plan decisions shall be based on standards and requirements contained in the zoning ordinance. Prior to consideration of SPR-09-20 the Zoning Board of Appeals determined the site plan was not in conformity with standards and requirements contained in the ordinance and indicated the ordinance needed to be updated. Despite ZBA indication certain ordinance provisions were 20 years obsolete, Planning Commission failed to mention ordinance provisions relative to SPR-09-20, much less discuss changing/updating. 10.28.09 Conduct Unbecoming repeat? Case 06-2009 – 802 S. Main, ZBA grants multiple non-use/dimensional variances for new construction without compliance related practical difficulties. Misfeasance, performance of a lawful function in an improper manner, describes ZBA action. The ZBA is empowered to authorize variance and in this case state (MZEA 125.3604) and local (§154.164) requirements for grant of variance were ignored. Reasonable expectation for ZBA familiarity with state and local requirements for grant of variance allows further describing ZBA action as felony Misconduct in Office. Anticipate - Planning Commission SPR-__-__, 802 S. Main nonconforming site plan approval. Misfeasance, performance of a lawful function in an improper manner, describes Planning Commission action. The Planning Commission is empowered to review site plans and in this case state (MZEA 125.3501) and local (§154.169) requirements for site plan approval were ignored. Reasonable expectation for Planning Commission familiarity with state and local requirements for site plan approval allows further describing Planning Commission action as felony Misconduct in Office. Anticipate
– Building Official issue of permits for 802 S. Main constructions.
Malfeasance, conduct that is wholly wrong and beyond the authority of the
public official, and nonfeasance, failure to perform a duty of the office, describes
Building Official action. Local ordinance §154.160 assigns enforcement duty to
Building Official, §154.161 conditions issuance of permits on conformance with ordinance
provisions and §154.175 directs Building Official act to prevent ordinance
violations. Reasonable expectation for Building Official familiarity with local
ordinance provisions allows further describing Building Official action as
felony Misconduct in Office. Anticipate – City’s failure to provide minimum open spaces, off-street parking, and allowing excessive density are claimed among causally relevant conditions in the event of injury or loss.
|
|
|
 |
Perpetual Confusion |
