VBT Planners may set aside proposed Lake Ordinance for revisions

After a meeting at the BYC and another informational meeting at the Van Buren Township Hall last week, both with more than 80 unhappy people present, a recommendation was made to the Van Buren Township Planning Commission to set the proposed Lake Ordinance aside until changes could be made.
A public hearing on the ordinance was set for Feb. 24 and in a Feb. 19 letter to the planning commission, Director of Planning and Economic Development Ron Akers and Deputy Director Matthew Best recommended the public hearing be held, but then the ordinance should be removed from consideration.
They attached a list of 77 questions the public asked at the Feb. 17 public meeting.
“The most frequent comment/concern received, which was specific to the proposed ordinance, was focused on the provisions of the ordinance which stated that no buildings or structures were vested on township-owned property and that the township could force the removal of buildings or structures at any time without cause and place a lien upon the adjacent property for the cost of removal.
“While there was language built into the proposed ordinance to address lawful existing uses, many of the people who attended the presentations felt that a written clarification in the proposed ordinance was needed to further define what the specific meaning of ‘lawful existing’ is.
“Another comment/concern which was commonly received was that members of the public felt that additional public input should have been sought during t he development stages of the proposed ordinance. Many of the residents who attended the two meetings were concerned regarding the amount of authority the proposed ordinance gave the township and potential long-term impacts of this authority,” the letter said.
“Based on the items listed above and comments received in the public informational meetings, it is clear that the majority of the residents who reside around the lake have serious concerns regarding the provisions of the proposed ordinance.
“It is my belief that at this point in order to address the issues and problems that the proposed ordinance was intended to resolve, the township will need to make further efforts to work with residents and stakeholders to come to a mutually agreeable solution,” Akers and Best wrote.
The Independent went to press before the planning commission meeting so what the commission decided to do will be reported in next week’s paper.
At the Feb. 17 meeting, Patrick Sloan from McKenna Associates planning consultants gave a PowerPoint presentation on the history of the lake and provisions of the ordinance.
“This is just ridiculous,” called out a man from the audience. “You said the presentation would take 20 minutes and we’ve been here 40 minutes. Who thought this up? Do you live on the lake? I don’t think so.”
Sloan said it was taking longer because he was going into detail to explain things. He said he had 10 more slides and then he’ll take questions. He said they can post the PowerPoint on the township web site.
One man asked what’s “lawful” as referred to in the ordinance, “Just define it.”
Sloan couldn’t define it and said there will be changes to the ordinance in the future and there will be “stress tests” over the first few years it is in effect.
“If you covered the grandfather clause,” stated Jeff Riggs. “Address that and half the room will leave”
“We’d really like to get through this,” said Deputy Director Best.
“You’ve wasted our time,” called out a man.
Best said a lawful existing structure is a structure currently in place that meets what’s in this ordinance.
The crowd was getting noise and a woman said she had a scanned copy of her file from the last time she sued the township and today the papers in her file are different.
Jessie Marcotte, a member of the Belleville Planning Commission, asked if the city of Belleville was involved, since the ordinance applies to those on the lake in the city.
Best said the township has not involved the city council or the planning commission, but they talked to those who live on the lake.
Sloan said the VBT Board of Zoning Appeals would handing appeals and variance requests for the ordinance and would approve special exceptions.
At 58 minutes into the meeting, questions were invited.
“I read the lawsuit and I disagree with your interpretation,” a woman said, referring to Sloan’s comment that a judge said the township needed consistent, clear standards.
Will Hawley came to the front of the room and introduced himself as an attorney who has lived in the township for 24 years and now is Homeowners Association treasurer at Mission Pointe.
He said he went to the BYC meeting and said they were told a falsehood.
He said he represented Thines in the 1992 Thines v. VBT et al lawsuit for a short period of time and then found he was in over his head and passed it on to another attorney.
“No judge can order a government to pass a law,” Hawley stated.
“The township should have rules where the township binds the township, not the people,” he said.
This is a 23-year-old case and no way should it be used as the reason for this ordinance, Hawley said.
“Have we ever been fined by FERC?” Hawley asked, referring to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that has jurisdiction over Belleville Lake because of French Landing Dam. Hawley said he knows FERC did an inspection in 2014.
The township is using FERC as one of the reasons it has to have an ordinance.
Sloan said a representative of FERC met with the t ownship and they went around the lake and the township answered questions.
“We do have a relationship,” Sloan said.
Sloan said FERC sent a letter and said it would come on a certain day.
Hawley said the FERC and Thines excuses for the ordinance are both false.
Hawley said this is a 23-year-old opinion from a judge and too much power has been given to McKenna Associates.
The township said first reason for writing the ordinance is to promote the status quo and Hawley said to promote the status quo they should just throw the ordinance in the trash.
He said he had petitions against the ordinance and later set up a place in the hall where people signed.
He repeated the township gives too much power to McKenna Associates and he asked Sloan what his hourly rate was.
“I’m not going to talk about that,” Sloan replied. “I’m a principal planner and the rates are on file.”
“We’ve paid a ton of money and we’re not going to pay it anymore,” Hawley said.
It was noted that this is the fourth version of the lake ordinance put forth and McKenna wrote them all.
The evening continued with many questions from angry owners of lakeside property.