2010 Michigan Townships Association Educational Conference Session

Thank you to everyone who attended our recent session on regulating small wind turbines at the recent Michigan Townships Association conference in Grand Rapids. Click here to view our PowerPoint presentation, and to download the handout materials. Click here to contact Mr. Nanney directly with any additional questions.

The following was adapted from an update prepared by Kurt Schindler at MSU-Extension; reprinted with permission from the author:

The Michigan Commission on Agriculture adopted a Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practice (GAAMP) for farm markets (effective January 2010).

NOTE:  Under Michigan’s sweeping Right to Farm legislation, if the subject is covered by GAAMP standards issued by the Michigan Department of Agriculture, then it entirely preempts local zoning, including any special use approval or prohibition of the land use!

What is a “farm market” under the new GAAMP?

(more…)

A Friday Funny! cartoon courtesy of Paul Zucker, FAICP of Zucker Systems, an excellent public sector management consulting organization based in California:

(more…)

The following case summary was adapted from one prepared by Kurt Schindler at MSU-Extension; excerpts reprinted with permission from the author. The Zoning Guru chose this case because it answers the $Million question elected officials face when confronted with a development-related lawsuit:

“Do we defend our master plan?“

(more…)

Earlier this year President Obama’s federal “stimulus program” swept across the country offering federal funding to jump start “shovel-ready” capital improvement projects.

This highlighted the ongoing need for local governments to be more nimble and able to respond without delay to new economic development and community building opportunities. For long-term success, local governments must do more than simply respond and react.

An up-to-date capital improvements program (CIP) is a tool local governments can use to plan for major expenditures, to ensure that public funds are used wisely and as efficiently as possible, and most importantly - to be prepared with “shovel-ready” projects when unexpected sources of funding appear!

(more…)

UPDATE 4:

Here is an example of how ONE PERSON can make a difference:  Senate Bill 726 (substitute S-1) to remove the option for youth under 18-years-old to have a place on local planning commissions has been approved by the Michigan Senate and sent over to the state House with something more than…
(more…)

The following case summary was adapted from one prepared by Kurt Schindler at MSU-Extension; excerpts reprinted with permission from the author.  For the Zoning Guru, this case raises an important question for planners and zoning administrators:

“Do you know what’s in your zoning ordinance?“

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished No. 283202, March 17, 2009)

Case Name:  Richie v. Gladwin County

Background:

Mr. Ritchie (the plaintiff) removed a barn from his square (four sides of equal length), corner lot at Highwood and Hay Roads in Gladwin County, and constructed a quonset hut on the barn’s foundations.

“At issue was whether the portion of plaintiffs’ property on Hay Road was…

(more…)

Rodney C. Nanney, AICP, principal planner for Building Place, is an innovative provider of solutions to community planning, zoning, and local economic development challenges.  As a writer, public speaker, and community planning consultant, Mr. Nanney consistently strives to translate the tangled legalisms and technical jargon of zoning and land development into everyday language.

Mr. Nanney currently has several openings available to speak on these and related topics before your local business or community group.  Possible topics include:
(more…)

Three types of land divisions are permitted under Michigan law:

Land developers “created” the most recent type of land division using Michigan’s Condominium Act (Public Act 59 of 1978, as amended) to establish a popular form of development known as:

1.  Site condominiums.

In addition, the Land Division Act  (Public Act 288 of 1967, as amended) allows two more “traditional” types of land divisions:

2. Subdivision plats; and

3.  Metes and bounds or “unplatted” lot splits.

This article will focus on metes and bounds land division, which is a method of describing land using:

• references to the Michigan township and range system and county division;
• local geographic characteristics;
• a point of beginning (and ending) of the legal description, which must “close” to form a polygon;
• directions of bearing (compass directions and degrees);
• distance measurements along parcel boundaries; and
• land area enclosed by the legal description.

This is the basis for many rural legal descriptions of property, which may look something like this: (more…)

A popular form of land division in Michigan.

Metes and bounds lot split applications have become much more common, especially since 1997 when significant amendments to the Land Division Act were enacted into law.  Metes and bounds lot splits are an attractive option for some landowners, primarily because of the relatively low cost to divide the land (in comparison to subdivision plats or site condominium developments).

The Land Division Act indicates that… (more…)

Click here for full size image

The Michigan Association of Planning, the statewide organization for planning commissioners and professional community planners, is offering excellent introductory workshops this spring, which are especially good for new planning commissioners and zoning board of appeals members.  “Planning and Zoning Essentials” will…

(more…)

So, you’re a planning commissioner and the worst has happened…

Some applicant for approval of a (probably controversial) site plan or special-conditional use or planned unit development or rezoning doesn’t appreciate the commission’s decision and has filed a lawsuit against the town, the planning commission, and you personally.

The Zoning Guru is sorry to say that it is true - a planning commissioner may be named as a defendant in land use or development litigation against a community if the individual participated in the decision-making process.  Now before all of our citizen-volunteers reading this dash off to pen their resignation letters, please read on…

It is extremely rare that personal liability is imposed, as it must first be proven that the planning commissioner acted maliciously or was grossly negligent.  Otherwise, the commissioner should be dismissed from such cases on the grounds of governmental immunity.

The Zoning Guru recommends that planning commissioners always follow the Nine Golden Rules of Defensible Land-Use Decision-Making…

(more…)

“Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.” - Benjamin Franklin

With 3,288 miles of shoreline in the State of Michigan (second only to Alaska) and 11,000 inland lakes, Michigan planners working for local government regularly come into contact with two state agencies with jurisdiction over our water, the Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

It is the MDNR side that is the focus of our next Building Place Notebook case summary, posted below courtesy of Kurt Schindler at MSU-Extension.

This is a cautionary tale about why it is better for state agencies and other entities considering projects over which local  authority is in question (such as new public school construction) to take the extra time to work collaboratively with local governments on projects in their jurisdiction.

What attracted The Zoning Guru’s attention to this case was the fishy smell wafting off of a state agency’s attempt to preempt local regulations…

(more…)

Justice William J. Brennan, U.S. Supreme Court

To be effective, professional planners must stay up-to-date on the twists and turns of case law involving planning, zoning, and land development litigation.  Fortunately, we Michigan planners have several excellent resources available, including Kurt Schindler at MSU-Extension and Mark Wyckoff’s Planning and Zoning News.

Our first case summary for the Building Place Notebook is offered below courtesy of Mr. Schindler.  This rezoning case caught my attention because I happened to be there for part of it (early in my career as an entry-level staff planner).  Also, the “Penn Central” test described below is from a “landmark” U.S. Supreme Court case involving regulatory takings, which frequently appears on the American Planning Association’s AICP certification exam (please pardon the obscure pun)….

(more…)