Members Login
 

Topic: Kids in the Mudd Extreme Farm

Post Info
LIFETIME MEMBER
Status: Offline
Posts: 1579
Date:
Kids in the Mudd Extreme Farm

Think of it like the gay people (supposedly 2% of people are gay). When I was little (1990s) gay stuff wasn't all that popular, and they largely lived in silence. Sure, we all knew there were gay people, but normal folks kind of coexisted with the gays.

Then, maybe from all of the y2k exitement, they started running around and dancing and promoting gay stuff, like they want guys to marry guys and women to marry women and all of that stuff. And, especially around 2004-ish, it was a big issue that everyone was talking about.

SO....

dump the gay people and the gay stuff, and replace it with Jeeper, and Jeep Stuff. If all of us start running around and promoting Jeep stuff, then the grapevine, news, and other forms of communication will pick up on the racket we're making and take notice.

I'm straight, middle class, white, and don't want to politicize this thread, but we need to be strong and stick together. Heck, the gay people can, so why can't we? Figuratively, not literally of course.

__________________

My Fleet
1996 XJ "Snowball"- 3.5" lift, bunch of little mods.á I hate pegleg rear axles!
1974 AMC Javelin "Jade Grenade"- 360v8, 4sp, green inside and out. Underfunded Project.
2009 Kawsaki Vulan 900 "Rocket III"- Summer DD

Guest
Status: Offline
Posts: 127
Date:
***UPDATE***

Just posted the legal brief for the 22nd oral argument and appeal on SWMJeepers (Click Here).

We (SWMJ) will be there in force, anyone else that can come is encouraged to.á I will post how it goes later that night.á Hopefully the courts will see how blatantly erroneous the township is behaving and let KITM get on with business.

__________________
-Haven
Head Trainer/Performer
Swords of Valour
Live Steel Combat Troupe

My Pics and Specs
Guest
Status: Offline
Posts: 127
Date:
This should give you a good idea of the current goings on with KITM.á This is the brief from KITM lawyer.á Personally he makes some great points and I am looking forward to seeing how the township try to wriggle out of it.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF VAN BUREN

IN RE STASIAK/KIDS IN THE MUDD

CASE NO. 07-56-564-AV
HON. WILLIAM C. BUHL
_________________________________/
MARK A. MANNING, P.C.
BY: MARK A. MANNING P-36369
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
213 PAW PAW STREET
PAW PAW, MICHIGAN 49079
269-657-3191
_________________________________/
ROXANNE C. SEEBER P-51374
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
_________________________________/

APPELLANTS MEMORANDUM IN REPLY

In reviewing Appellees Brief on Appeal several responses are merited.

First, it is important to note the Appellee Township fails to distinguish between construction and outright amendment. The Township has failed to provide any contradicting legal authority to the Teglund decision. Nor does the Township submit contrary authority to the well established propositions of law set forth in zoning law in general as to the inability of the Zoning Board of Appeals, or any other quasi judicial branch, to modify the clear terms of their ordinance.

Second, as to the Townships argument in its Brief that the Appellant is asserting the field of ATV/ORV use is preempted by State law, their position is wholly contrived. The Appellants recognize, the Township can, if it desires just as can a City or other municipality can, regulate by Ordinance operation of snowmobiles, ATV or ORVs, however it must do so via its legislative powers and not by its unwritten whim. Where it does not act by affirmative ordinance action, the proposition that an individual can utilize their property as they deem fit, except as may be limited by the law of nuisance, is unrebutted by the Township with legal authority. The Township appears to assert that it can regulate or prohibit, without direct legal authority, whatever might fall under the broad definition of use of land in its zoning authority . Please show me in the Township Ordinances a provision that allows or prohibits the operation of a lawn mower or many lawn mowers. Please show me in the Township Ordinances a prohibition as to the use of a boom box, or for that matter many boom boxes. Please show me in the Township Ordinances that a person is entitled to own and use an automobile or for that matter many automobiles. Please show me in the Township Ordinances a provision that prohibits a person from having a dirt pathway on their property or many dirt pathways or constructing a dirt mound or for that matter many dirt mounds. Yet, the Township seems to feel it can regulate this activity by mere reference to what it thinks is permissible under its zoning powers. Respectfully, power mowers, boom boxes, automobiles, dirt pathways or mounds can under circumstances be regulated but not by unwritten whim. Its position simply underscores the falsity of the Townships logic and proposed justification for denial in this case. Serious misuse of lawful authority results from this type of Township behavior. In point of fact, the Townships Brief outlines why such activities should not occur, because they argue that the meeting before the crowd of people developed a self direction as to the application of their zoning ordinance in contravention of its clear written declaration which allows public recreation areas. Self direction in zoning law is simply wrong and an invitation for abuse.

Please note a public recreation area as allowed in the Agricultural zone in Hamilton Township is different than a public recreation facility as set forth in other portions of the Townships Zoning Ordinance. For example in the Residential Zone under the Ordiance (. See Section 3.04(B)(4) allows other municipally owned or operated public recreation facilities. A facility, of course, would denote an enclosed structure or operation, whereas the term public recreation area denotes an open, rural setting such as it provided for in the Agricultural Zone Classification. Also please review the Township;s own Zoning Ordinance where in Residential - Resort District Classification for Special Exception Uses at Section 3.04(C) it states , Parks, playgrounds and similar facilities for outdoor exercise and recreation when not operated for profit. The Township Ordinance itself, in its own four corners distinguishes issues of facilities as well as whether operation for profit is allowed or not. As such, the clear terms of the Agricultural Zone by definition within their own ordinance allow a public recreation area and does not limit such areas by precluding ATV/ORV use nor distinguish money making from non money making endeavors. It defies common sense to suggest that ATVěRV operation should occur in a highly residential area, commercial zone or industrial zone.

Third, the Township appears to admit, by non-response, the notice in this case was defective in that calling the proposal an amusement facility, but a contrived characterization.

Fourth, the Township has asked the Court to consider its Master Plan references in its Brief. However, this should not occur, because the Township did not include the Master Plan in its Record on Appeal. One can only conclude the Township seeks to argue points it says it says and hide those portions it does not want the Court to see.

Fifth, as to the issue of what constitutes recreation, the reference to the broad interpretation utilized by the legislature in the Recreational Trespass Act application substantiates the Appellants position that such activities as snowmobiling, motorcycling or ATV and ORV operation fall well within the broad definition of outdoor recreational activities. In point of fact, the Appellee cites to Neal decision which clearly supports the Appellants position that this broad definition of recreation, such as motorized forms of recreation, is clearly included under the law.

Sixth, as to the dilatory action by the Zoning Board of Appeals in considering the Application, the Townships Brief omits reference to the fact in the Appellees initial response to the Townships Complaint in the companion case, the Appellees sought for and were denied for untold months a right to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals, although they were required by the law to do so. The Township wholly ignores the express language of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act which requires prompt administrative hearings on ZBA appellate mattes. MCLA 125.3604 states:

.(5) Upon receipt of a written request seeking an interpretation of the zoning ordinance or an appeal of an administrative decision, a notice stating the time, date, and place of the public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the township and shall be sent to the person requesting the interpretation not less than 15 days before the public hearing. In addition, if the request for an interpretation or appeal of an administrative decision involves a specific parcel, written notice stating the nature of the interpretation request and the time, date, and place of the public hearing on the interpretation request shall be sent by first-class mail or personal delivery to all persons to whom real property is assessed within 300 feet of the boundary of the property in question and to the occupants of all structures within 300 feet of the boundary of the property in question. If a tenant's name is not known, the term "occupant" may be used.
(Emphasis Added)

In the context of land use issues, the legislature has been frustrated by inaction or slow response on the part of municipalities. As such, the legislature has set the standard of 45 days from date of filing of the appeal or application to hear as the standard of reasonableness in conducting hearings or taking action by the municipities. For example, the Michigan Land Division Act , MCL 560.101 et seq. should be considered. The LDA applies to all municipalities, including townships. MCL 560.102(q). Section 109 of the LDA provides in part:

(1) A municipality shall approve or disapprove a proposed division within 45 days
after the filing of a complete application for the proposed division with the
assessor or other municipally designated official . . . .

In the Neighborhood Assistance and Participation Act, relative to Urban Development, MCLA 125.809, the Act states:

125.809 Project application; approval or disapproval; review and comments.
Sec. 9.
(1) The department shall approve or disapprove a project application within 45 working days after the date of receipt of the application. The decision and the detailed reasons for the approval or disapproval of a proposal shall be in writing, and, if the proposal is approved, the amount of rebates to business firms authorized for use shall be stated.

In the Urban Redevelopment Corporations Law, Act 120 of 1961, the Act states:
Sec. 10e.
(1) If a zone plan is adopted and presented to the clerk of the city or village in accordance with section 10d, the governing body of the city or village shall within 45 days schedule a public hearing of the governing body to review the zone plan and any proposed assessment and to receive public comment. The clerk shall notify all owners of parcels within the zone area of the public hearing by first-class mail.
(2) At the public hearing, or at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the governing body of the city or village, the governing body shall approve or reject the establishment of the business improvement zone and the zone plan as adopted by the property owners under section 10d(3).
In the STILLE-DEROSSETT-HALE SINGLE STATE CONSTRUCTION CODE ACT , Public Act 230 of 1972 which establishes the commonly known as the Michigan Building Code relative to the issuance of building permits states:
Sec. 11.
(1) The enforcing agency shall examine an application for a building permit. If the application conforms to this act, the code and the requirements of other applicable laws and ordinances, the enforcing agency shall approve the application and issue a building permit to the applicant. An application shall be granted, in whole or in part, or denied within 10 business days, except that in case of an unusually complicated building or structure, action shall be taken within 15 business days.

In the Farmland Development Act a municipality wherein a Farmland development rights agreement has been submitted the local municipality has a limited time for reasonable response. The Act provides:

Sec. 36104.
(1) An owner of land desiring a farmland development rights agreement may apply by filing an application with the local governing body having jurisdiction under this part. The owner shall apply on a form prescribed by the state land use agency. The application shall contain information reasonably necessary to properly classify the land as farmland. This information shall include a land survey or a legal description of the land and a map showing the significant natural features and all structures and physical improvements located on the land.
(2) Upon receipt of the application, the local governing body shall notify the county planning commission or the regional planning commission and the soil conservation district agency. If the county has jurisdiction, it shall also notify the township board of the township in which the land is situated. If the land is within 3 miles of the boundary of a city or within 1 mile of the boundary of a village, the county or township governing body having jurisdiction shall notify the governing body of the city or village.
(3) An agency or local governing body receiving notice has 30 days to review, comment, and make recommendations to the local governing body with which the application is filed. These reviewing agencies do not have an approval or rejection power over the application.
(4) After considering the comments and recommendations of the reviewing agencies and local governing bodies, the local governing body holding the application shall approve or reject the application within 45 days after the application is received, unless that period is extended by agreement of the parties involved. The local governing body's approval or rejection of the application shall be based upon, and consistent with, rules promulgated by the state land use agency under section 36116.

As such the Townships argument it could wait 60 days or more before commencing a simple ZBA hearing and despite having received notice of objection regarding the delay from the Appellant is clearly unreasonable.

DATE: January 18, 2008 _______________________________
MARK A. MANNING, P.C. BY: MARK A. MANNING P-36369 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 213 PAW PAW STREET PAW PAW, MICHIGAN 49079
269-657-3191

-- Edited by HavenSOV at 08:53, 2008-01-21

__________________
-Haven
Head Trainer/Performer
Swords of Valour
Live Steel Combat Troupe

My Pics and Specs
Guest
Status: Offline
Posts: 127
Date:
Heres the link to the recap(Click here)

Over all I am not impressed with the court system.

More to come when I go to the next date.

__________________
-Haven
Head Trainer/Performer
Swords of Valour
Live Steel Combat Troupe

My Pics and Specs
LIFETIME MEMBER
Status: Offline
Posts: 1579
Date:
I'm not impressed with the court system either. :(

__________________

My Fleet
1996 XJ "Snowball"- 3.5" lift, bunch of little mods.á I hate pegleg rear axles!
1974 AMC Javelin "Jade Grenade"- 360v8, 4sp, green inside and out. Underfunded Project.
2009 Kawsaki Vulan 900 "Rocket III"- Summer DD

 
«First  <  1 2 | Page of 2  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard