Appendix — Pavlovskis v. City of East Lansing, Michigan (No. 08-1114)

Supreme Court brief2009

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

a\ “(\) Supreme Court, U.S.

\ FILED

081114 DEC 22 2008

Case MEFICE OF THE CLERK

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

AGRIS PAVLOVSKIS,

Petitioner,

THE CITY OF EAST LANSING,

Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

AMENDED APPENDIX

CYNTHIA LAW

Counsel for Petitioner

P.O. Box 12082

Lansing, MI 48901

517.420.0068

APPENDIX CONTENTS

ee Oe Caio creck eiittennestnenaindccnaee i

Michigan Supreme Court Order.....................ccc0-cececee 1

Michigan Supreme Court Order......................2cceceeeeees 2

Michigan Court of Appeals

rN IN oo. scadnduneacassuyneck sewneseuaeneneue 4

Michigan Circuit Court

RN CA Fain sisicnavnensncnkanenaspeddeuscnconnacdenenal 17

First Amended Request for

NN TI is sacs sigs valaivnirnbamsaiuaesinesanwaaeereee eh 26

Michigan Circuit Court

Michigan Zoning Enabling

EE FUE. OE, TE. FE anv ckeisnesiscansvsdsuxsakussecnatareel 60

East Lansing Substitute

INE I asec Sccscvincsi cece ee 65

East Lansing

5 LECCE LEAL N SOE 74

East Lansing Zoning

Come; Sree. OD, Bat. BV, TH. Bi cosicacésiceccrcmeccecone 87

East Lansing Zoning

RUE I oa siasistseve ca ceteccubdvGa naecmebae cee 89

Resolution to Adopt

EE 94

Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

« Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

135742151) Elizabeth A. Weaver

Marilyn Kelly

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman,

Justices

SC: 135742

COA: 275236

Ingham CC: 05-000523-NZ

AGRIS PAVLOVSKIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

CITY OF EAST LANSING, and

EAST LANSING CITY CLERK,

Defendants-Appellees.

On order of the Court, the motion for

reconsideration of this Court’s June 25, 2008 order is

considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not

appear that the order was entered erroneously.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan

Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true

and complete copy of the order entered at the

direction of the Court.

September 22, 2008 Pee a CC +)

Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

June 25, 2008 Chfford W. Taylor

Chief Justice

135742 & (43)(45)(46)(47)(48) Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Marilyn Kelly

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman,

Justices

SC: 135742

COA: 275236

Ingham CC: 05-000523-NZ

AGRIS PAVLOVSKIS,

Plaintiff Appellant,

CITY OF EAST LANSING, and EAST LANSING

CITY CLERK,

Defendants-Appellees.

On order of the Court, the motions for leave

to file briefs amicus curiae are GRANTED. The

application for leave to appeal the December 20, 2007

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it

is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

questions presented should be reviewed by this

Court.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan

Supreme Court, certify that. the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order

entered at the direction of the Court.

» on 9°°>

June 25, 2 ESA Fa y -

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

AGRIS PAVLOVSKIS, UNPUBLISHED

December 20, 2007

Plaintiff-Appellant,

CITY OF EAST LANSING and EAST

LANSING

CITY CLERK,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 275236

Ingham Circuit Court

LC No. 05-000523-NZ

Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Sawyer and Cavanagh, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s

order granting summary disposition pursuant to

MCR 2.116(C)(10) in favor of defendants. This

dispute involves the City and Village Zoning Act

(CVZA), MCL 125.581 et seg.,! and provisions of

the City of East Lansing Charter and Code of

Ordinances. Because Ordinance 1035C vests

1The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, MCL 125.3101 et seq

replaced the CVZA which was repealed by 2006 PA 110. See

MCL 125.3702.

ultimate authority with the municipal legislative

body to enact proposed zoning amendments,

plaintiffs argument that Ordinance 1097 is void

fails, and, because Ordinance 1035C advances

reasonable government interests and Ordinance

1097 is neither arbitrary nor capricious, nor invalid

spot zoning, we affirm.

Plaintiff owns certain residential real

property located in the Central Bailey-Strathmore

Neighborhood (Bailey-Strathmore) of the City of

East Lansing. It was originally zoned R-2,

Medium Density Single-Family Residential, which

permits the principal use of single-family dwellings,

along with the rental of such dwellings. See East

Lansing Zoning Ordinance, §§ 50-6, 50-262(1), (3);

East Lansing Ordinance, §§ 6-175, ES-1000.1 e¢

seg. In 2004, East Lansing adopted Substitute

Ordinance 1035C, which amended the city’s zoning

ordinance to create three “Residential Rental

Overlay Districts,” designated R-O-1, R-O-2, and

R-O-3. East Lansing Zoning Ordinance, § 50-

772. These districts allow the residents of

certain residential districts to preclude “all or

certain types of rental properties” within the

boundaries created by the overlay. East Lansing

Zoning Ordinance, § 50-773. Ordinance 1035C

includes a_ citizen-initiated mechanism for

proposing the adoption of these overlay districts,

though the ultimate adoption of the overlay is

within the discretion of the East Lansing City

Council. East Lansing Zoning Ordinance, § 50-775.

Following the adoption of Ordinance 1035C,

residents of Bailey-Strathmore circulated petitions

for the adoption of an overlay district in that

neighborhood. The petition was verified and a

proposed ordinance, Ordinance 1097, was drafted

in conformity therewith.

Following various proceedings, the city

council ultimately adopted Ordinance 1097. East

Lansing Zoning Ordinance, § 50-777(7). Plaintiff

filed the instant action seeking a declaratory

judgment that Ordinance 1035C and Ordinance

1097 are invalid. The court granted summary

disposition to defendants and plaintiff now appeals

as of right.

We review summary disposition rulings de

novo. McClements v Ford Motor Co, 473 Mich 373,

380; 702 NW2d 166 (2005). A motion under MCR

2.116(C)(10) entitles the movant to summary

disposition where no genuine issue of material fact

remains. Miller v Purcell, 246 Mich App 244, 246;

631 NW2d 760 (2001). We consider the evidence

submitted by the parties in the light most favorable

to the non-moving party. Nasta/l v Henderson &

Assoc, 471 Mich 712, 721; 691 NW2d 1 (20085).

Plaintiff first argues that Ordinance 1097 is

invalid by virtue of defendants’ failure to comply

with the procedures prescribed in Ordinance

1035C for the promulgation of such ordinances.

The CVZA prescribed various procedures that

needed to be followed when a municipality enacted

a zoning ordinance. See MCL 125.584. Where those

procedures were not adhered to, the enactment was

deemed invalid. Korash v Livonia, 388 Mich 737,

746; 202 NW2d 803 (1972). But, the CVZA also

specifically provided that “[t/he legislative body of

a city or village may provide by ordinance for the

manner in which regulations and boundaries of

districts or zones shall be determined and enforced

or amended, supplemented or changed.” MCL

125.584(1).

While Ordinance 1035C allows citizens to

petition the East Lansing City Council for adoption

of a zoning amendment, East Lansing Zoning

Ordinance, § 50-775, the council has discretion to

take any action it deems appropriate on the

submission of such a petition, East Lansing Zoning

Ordinance, § 50-775(2)(a), (e). Further, the city

council has authority to initiate zoning measures

absent a citizen’s petition. East Lansing Zoning

Ordinance, § 50-31(a) (“The city council may of its

own motion .. . prepare an ordinance amending or

changing the district boundaries or the regulations

herein established.”). Thus, plaintiffs argument

that Ordinance 1097 is void because it was

enacted in violation of the procedures prescribed

in Ordinance 1035C fails because Ordinance

1035C vests ultimate authority to enact a

proposed zoning amendment with the municipal

legislative authority. East Lansing Zoning

Ordinance, § 50- 775(2)(e); see Penning v Owens,

340 Mich 355, 360; 65 NW2d 831 (1954). Also, the

East Lansing City Council plainly enjoys the

authority to independently propose and enact

zoning ordinances. East Lansing Zoning

Ordinance, § 50-31(a); see Penning, supra at

362. Accordingly, we assume that the East Lansing

City Council “proposed and recommended the

adoption of [Ordinance 1097] upon its own

initiative.” Penning, supra at 360. By virtue of the

council’s independent action enacting Ordinance

1097--which plaintiff does not dispute fully complied

with the CVZA--it is unnecessary for us to address

plaintiffs argument that the procedures underlying

the enactment of Ordinance 1097 did not conform to

Ordinance 1035C.

Plaintiff also argues that both Ordinance

1035C and Ordinance 1097 fail to advance

reasonable governmental interests. We _ review

constitutional challenges to zoning ordinances de

novo. Jott, Inc v Clinton Charter Twp, 224 Mich App

513, 525-526; 569 NW2d 513 (1997). Zoning

ordinances are presumed valid and the challenging

party has the burden of proving otherwise. Frericks

v Highland Twp, 228 Mich App 575, 594; 579 NW2d

441 (1998).

An individual may “challenge the validity” of a

“zoning ordinance as a violation of his or her right to

substantive due process.” Dorman v Clinton Twp,

269 Mich App 638, 650; 714 NW2d 350 (2006). Such

a challenge may be made “by showing ‘(1) that there

is no reasonable governmental interest being

advanced by the present zoning classification or

(2) that an ordinance is unreasonable because of

the purely arbitrary, capricious, and unfounded

exclusion of other types of legitimate land use from

the area in question.” /d., quoting Frericks, supra at

594. A zoning ordinance will not survive a

substantive due process challenge where “it does not

advance a reasonable governmental interest or

because it does so unreasonably.” Landon Holdings,

Inc v Grattan Twp, 257 Mich App 154, 174; 667

NW2d 93 (2003).

Ordinance 1035C creates residential rental overlay

districts designed

to preserve the attractiveness, desirability,

and privacy of residential neighborhoods by

precluding all or certain types of rental properties

and thereby preclude the deleterious effects rental

properties can have on a neighborhood with

regard to property deterioration, increased

density, congestion, noise and traffic levels and

reduction of property values. The goal of the

overlay district is to allow owners of property

within residential neighborhoods to control the

types of rental properties, if any, that are

permitted in one-family dwellings within their

neighborhood. It is also the purpose of the

districts to achieve the following objectives:

(1) To protect the privacy of residents

and to minimize noise, congestion, and nuisance

impacts by regulating the types of rental

properties;

(2) To maintain an attractive community

appearance and to provide a desirable living

environment for residents by preserving the

owner occupied character of the neighborhood:

(3) To prevent excessive traffic and

parking problems in the neighborhoods. [East

Lansing Zoning Ordinance, § 50-773.)

The goal of “preserving the _ residential

nature of a neighborhood” is a legitimate interest

“that may be advanced by a zoning regulation.”

Dorman, supra at 651-652. Permissible

governmental action of this type includes limiting

the character of a neighborhood to owner-

occupied dwellings to avoid the “deleterious

effects rental properties can have” on

neighborhoods located within a college community.

See East Lansing Zoning Ordinance, § 50- 773.

This Court has recognized that there are

legitimate governmental interests underlying the

creation of single- family zones. Furthermore, the

family, while undergoing dramatic changes in the

last half-century, remains a fundamental building

block of society. This is true whether we speak of

the traditional family or the modern concept of a

functional family. .

kK*

. To say that a family is so

equivalent to a ragtag collection of

college roommates as to require

identical treatment in zoning decisions

defies the reality of the place of the

family in American society, despite any

changes that institution has undergone

in recent years. Only the most cynical

among us would say that the

American family has devolved to the

point of no greater importance or

consideration in governmental

decision making than a group of

college roommates. [Stegeman v Ann

Arbor, 213 Mich App 487, 492; 540

NW2d 724 (1995).]

The record shows that _— single-family

residences could be rented in the R-2 district prior to

the enactment of Ordinance 1035C. East Lansing

Zoning Ordinance, § 50-6; East Lansing Zoning

Ordinance, § 50-262(3)(d); East Lansing Ordinance,

§§ 6-175, ES-1001.1 through ES- 1001.2. Ordinance

1035C allows residents to limit or preclude such

rentals within specified districts. East Lansing

Zoning Ordinance, §§ 50-772 through 50-777.

Zoning to preserve the residential character of a

neighborhood by limiting the number of transient

college students who can live in single-family

dwelling housing has been recognized as a legitimate

and reasonable governmental interest. Stegeman,

supra at 492. Accordingly, Ordinance 1035C

survives’ plaintiffs substantive due process

challenge. Dorman, supra at 650.

Plaintiff nevertheless claims that Ordinance

1035C is superfluous, and thus_ unreasonable,

because other East Lansing Ordinances proscribe

the very conduct Ordinance 1035C was designed to

address. Plaintiffs argument misconstrues the

nature of Ordinance 1035C. East Lansing enacted

general conduct restrictions on parking, noise, rental

property maintenance, and disturbances prior to the

enactment of Ordinance 1035C. See East Lansing

Ordinance, § 6-175, 100.1 (property maintenance

code constitutes the “minimum standards” for

structures and premises); East Lansing Ordinance,

§§ 26-51 et seg. (proscribing disorderly conduct), 26-

81 et seg. (noise), 26-141 et seg. “nuisance parties”);

East Lansing Ordinance, §§ 44-294, 298, 300, 303

(conduct relating to vehicular parking). Assuming,

but not concluding that Ordinance 1035C serves

only these interests, it is nevertheless an

alternative designed to service them. Though the

state may regulate conduct and _ behavior,

individuals will and do disregard regulations. It is

entirely reasonable for East Lansing to conclude

that its ordinances regulating noise, traffic levels,

and property maintenance will often be

disregarded, requiring the application of the

coercive power of the state. Ordinance 1035C

attempts to avoid the need to apply coercive power

while still meeting the goals outlined by treating a

reasonably presumed major cause, college rental

housing, of the expected violations.

Plaintiffs argument also necessarily imphes

that government may punish behavior, but may not

seek to preclude it. Michigan jurisprudence

plainly belies plaintiffs assertion. See Delta

Charter Twp v Dinolfo, 419 Mich 253, 277; 351

NW2d 831 (1984); Stegeman, supra at 492.

Plaintiff also argues that Ordinance 1097 is

unreasonable because it was not enacted pursuant

to a master plan, but was enacted arbitrarily. MCL

125.581(2) directed that “[tlhe land development

regulations and districts authorized by this act shall

be made in accordance with a plan designed to

promote and accomplish the objectives of this act.”

The “plan” referenced in this section is a

municipalitys “master plan” created under the

Municipal Planning Act, MCL 125.31 et seg. See

Nolan Bros of Texas, Inc v Royal Oak, 219 Mich App

611, 614; 557 NW2d 925 (1996). “[T]he adoption of

a master plan is tantamount to a legislative act.”

Inverness Mobile Home Community, Ltd v Bedford

Twp, 263 Mich App 241, 249; 687 NW2d 869 (2004).

The reasonableness of zoning classifications must

be evaluated in light of a city’s master plan. Jd.

After reviewing the East Lansing

comprehensive plan, we reject plaintiffs argument

that Ordinance 1097 was not enacted in

accordance with that plan. East Lansing has

adopted a comprehensive plan dividing the totality

of its jurisdiction into eight “planning” areas. East

Lansing Comprehensive Plan, Planning Areas

) ae 3 pp 9-110. Bailey-Strathmore is

overwhelmingly located within Planning Area 5.

See East Lansing Comprehensive Plan, Planning

Areas 3, 5, pp 32, 56. According to the

comprehensive plan, the rate of owner- occupancy

of single-family dwellings in Planning Area 5 has

declined with the advent of student housing. East

Lansing Comprehensive Plan, Planning Area 5, pp

57-58. In an effort to reverse this trend, the plan

recommends that “[clreative ways” be implemented

to increase the presence of “owner-occupied single-

family homes’ in the area, and that existing policies

doing so “be supported.” East Lansing

Comprehensive Plan, Planning Area 5, p 65.

Ordinance 1097 created a R-O-1 district in

Bailey-Strathmore, thereby limiting the rental of

single-family dwellings in that district. East Lansing

Zoning Ordinance, § 50-777(7). It thus achieves

precisely the result sought by the master plan by

limiting the capacity of Bailey- Strathmore

homeowners to rent their dwellings. East Lansing

Zoning Ordinance, § 50-774, 777(7). Accordingly,

Ordinance 1097 is reasonable and _ therefore

neither arbitrary nor capricious. MCL 125.581(2):

Inverness Mobile Home Community, Ltd , supra at

249.

Plaintiff also argues that Ordinance 1097

constitutes invalid spot zoning. Zoning regulation

is designed to achieve the orderly development and

use of land to promote the general welfare. See MCL

125.581. To ensure this, zoning “should proceed in

accordance with a definite a reasonable policy.”

Essexville v Carrollton Concrete Mix, Inc, 259 Mich

App 257, 273; 673 NW2d 815 (2003), quoting

Anderson v Highland Twp, 21 Mich App 64, 75; 174

NW2d 909 (1969); see MCL 125.581(2) (“The land

development regulations and districts authorized by

this act shall be made in accordance with a plan

designed to promote and accomplish the

objectives of this act.”). As a result, “zoning in a

haphazard manner is not favored.” Zssexville,

supra at 273, quoting Anderson, supra at 75.

Spot zoning occurs where a zoning ordinance

creates “‘a small zone of inconsistent use within a

larger zone.” LHssexville, supra at 272, quoting

Penning, supra at 367-368. Such zoning is invalid

and void “where it is without a reasonable basis.”

dd. at 273, quoting Anderson, supra at 75.

[When a discrete zoning decision is

made regarding a particular parcel of

property—typically a decision involving

an amendment or variance that results

in allowing uses for specific land that

are inconsistent with the overall plan

as established by the ordinance—the

courts will apply greater scrutiny.

Those isolated or discrete decisions

are more prone to arbitrariness

because they are micro in nature,

i.e., the decisions are based on the

particular land and circumstance at

issue in the request for amendment or

variance. [/d. at 274 (citation

omitted).]

Ordinance 1097 was enacted pursuant to

Ordinance 1035C and created an R-O-l overlay

district in Bailey-Strathmore. Ordinance 1097 did

not alter that designation, but merely added a

restriction precluding the rental of single-family

dwellings. See East Lansing Zoning Ordinance, §

50-774, 50-777(7). Thus, no small zone. of

inconsistent use was created within a larger zone.

Essexville, supra at 272; cf. Penning, supra at 367-

368. Rather, the uses are essentially consistent

throughout. Nor did Ordinance 1097 apply merely

to a “particular parcel.” See Essexville, supra at

275-276. It in fact governed hundreds of

contiguous parcels within downtown East

Lansing. See East Lansing Zoning Ordinance, § 50-

777(7).

Plaintiff attempts to characterize Ordinance

1097 by reference only to his property, suggesting

that it was impermissible spot zoning because he is

“surrounded” by rental properties. However, plaintiff

cannot isolate his parcel from Bailey-Strathmore in

an effort to demonstrate spot zoning. See East

Lansing Zoning Ordinance, § 50-777(7). Moreover,

Ordinance 1097 was not zoning in a “haphazard

manner.” Sssexville, supra at 273, quoting

Anderson, supra at 75. It applied to a residential

district to preserve the residential character of that

district, East Lansing Zoning Ordinance, § 50-7738,

and was thus planned and orderly in development,

see MCL 125.581. Nor was it a “discrete zoning

decision . . . made regarding a particular parcel of

property.” Essexville, supra at 274. As a consequence

of being “clothed with a presumption of validity,” zd.,

Ordinance 1097 is not void as impermissible spot

zoning.

Because Ordinance 1035C vests ultimate

authority with the municipal legislative body to

enact proposed zoning amendments, plaintiffs

argument that Ordinance 1097 is void fails.

Ordinance 1035C advances reasonable government

interests and Ordinance 1097 is neither arbitrary

nor capricious, nor invalid spot zoning.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE 30TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR

INGHAM COUNTY

GENERAL TRIAL DIVISION

AGRIS PAVLOVSKIS,

Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER

CASE NO. 05-523-NZ

HON. WILLIAM E. COLLETTE

CITY OF EAST LANSING and

SHARON A. REID, City Clerk,

Defendants.

At a session of said Court

Held in the city of Mason, county of Ingham,

This 6 day of DECEMBER, 2006

PRESENT: HON. WILLIAM COLLETTE

This matter comes before the Court of

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Disposition and

Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition,

pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). The Court being fully

advised in the premises, GRANTS Defendants’

Motion.

FACTS

On April 7, 2004, the City of East Lansing adopted

Substitute Ordinance 1035C. The _ ordinance

provides a means by which homeowners within

certain residential zoning districts can petition the

City Council to create an “overlay district" precluding

rental use within a

particular residential neighborhood.! Section 50-775

of the ordinance lists the procedures for collecting

signatures and other requirements to be followed

in petitioning for an overlay district. The section

further provides that, upon the City Clerk's

verification of the signatures, the Clerk shall

forward the petitions to the Zoning Department.

After additional verification by the Zoning

Department, the Zoning Administrator shall then

draft an appropriate ordinance and forward it to

the City Council for introduction and

consideration.2

Following introduction of the proposed

ordinance and aside from any additions or

changes the Council makes to the proposed overlay

district,? the City Council puts the proposed

ordinance "through all the procedures required

by the City and Village Zoning Act. It is

introduced, referred to the Planning Commission

for a public hearing, and then returned to the City

Council for another public hearing." Def’s Brief at

14. Additionally, l[a]ll of the requisite notices

required by the City and Village Zoning Act are

sent and all other procedural requirements of the

Act [are] met." /d.

2 According to section 50-775(2)e of the ordinance, the

City Council “may make additions or changes in the

boundaries of the proposed overlay district to prevent spot

zoning, to include or exclude areas that logically should have

been included or excluded in the petition, to make the

boundaries of the proposed overlay district abut boundary

lines of other zoning districts and overlay districts, and to

adopt an alternate ordinance in conformity with the

suggested changes whether or not the two thirds majority

requirement of property owners would still be met with the

proposed changes.” 3 See footnote 2.

In the present case, on October 19, 2004, the

(valid) signatures of 298 residents of the Central

Bailey Neighborhood District in East Lansing

were submitted to the City Clerk. The

accompanying petitions sought an overlay zoning

district that would preclude rental use in 439

parcels located within the Central Bailey

Neighborhood. The City Clerk sought’ the

assistance of the City Assessor in verifying the

signatures and their correlation to _ parcel

ownership.

Following verification of the signatures,

the petitions were forwarded to the Zoning

Administrator, who prepared Ordinance 1097

which was introduced on October 19, 2004. On

January 12, 2005, the Planning Commission held

a public hearing on the proposed overlay district.

At that meeting, Plaintiff expressed opposition to

his property's inclusion in the district. The

Planning Commission voted unanimously to

recommend adoption of Ordinance 1097 by the City

Council. On February 15, 2005, the City Council

held a public hearing on the ordinance and deferred

voting until its March 15, 2005, meeting and public

hearing. At the March 15 hearing, Plaintiff's

counsel appeared on Plaintiffs behalf and

questioned the appropriateness of the boundaries

created for the ordinance. Plaintiffs counsel asked

City Council to amend the boundary line,

excluding properties on Ann Street (including

Plaintiffs). On March 15, 2005, after the hearing,

the City Council adopted Ordinance 1097.

Plaintiff brought the present suit requesting

that this Court declare both Substitute Ordinance

1035C and Ordinance 1097 invalid as a matter of

law.

DISCUSSION

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for summary disposition under

MCR 2.116(C)(10) is proper when "there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact, and the

moving party is entitled to judgment or partial

judgment as a matter of law." MCR 2.116(C)(10).

In Smith v Globe Life Insurance Co, 460 Mich

446, 454-55; 597 NW2d 28 (1999), the Michigan

Supreme Court stated:

In reviewing a motion for summary

disposition brought under MCR

2.116(C)(10), a trial court considers

affidavits, pleadings, depositions,

admissions, and documentary evidence filed

in the action or submitted by the parties...

in the light most favorable to the party

opposing the motion.

In presenting a motion for summary

disposition, the moving party has the initial

burden of supporting its position’ by

affidavits, depositions, admissions, or

other documentary evidence. Neubacher

v Globe Furniture Rentals, 205 Mich App

418, 420, 522 NW2d 335 (1994). The

burden then shifts to the opposing party to

establish that a genuine issue of disputed

facts exist. Jd.

As the material facts in this case are not in dispute,

the Court must render a decision based on purely

legal questions.

Il. ZONING BY INITIATIVE

In Korash v Livonia, 388 Mich 737, 738; 202

NW2d 803 (1972), the Michigan Supreme Court

asked: "Did the Legislature intend to authorize

homerule cities to enact zoning ordinances both by

legislative action and initiative, or just by

legislation?” The Court's answer was that the "Icity]

charter-authorized right to initiative" is not

"compatible with the city authority to zone." /d. at

744. Initiatory amendments to a city's zoning

ordinance, according to the Court, are enacted by

a procedure contrary to that required by zoning law.

See id. at 745. Most troubling to the Court in

Korash was the lack of deliberative procedures

followed in a zoning amendment passed solely by

initiative. The Court stated:

The initiative makes no provision that (1) a

tentative report on the proposed ordinance be

made by the ... Planning Commission; (2) a

public hearing be held by the .. . Planning

Commission; (3) a final report be made by the

... Planning Commission; (4) publication of

notice of hearing be made; (5) a public

hearing be held by the .. . City Council; and

(6) affected property owners have the

opportunity to file a written objection to the

proposed zoning change and to force a 3/4

vote of the .. . City Council. Jd.

Thus, the principal rationale for invalidating an

initiatory zoning amendment4 is that such a

process—where the initiative is the sole means

used for enacting the amendment—does not comply

with Michigan zoning law.

In the present case, however, the signatures

and accompanying petitions submitted to the City

Clerk were only a means of proposing a zoning

amendment that could be adopted only by the City

Council. The proposed overlay district could not be

passed by initiative alone—which, in this Court's

opinion, means that Ordinance 1097 was not an

initiatory zoning amendment. If, for example, the

City Council had taken no action on the proposed

ordinance, the proposal would have been "deemed

denied" after 6 months. See Substitute Ordinance

1035C, sec. 54-776(4). Alternatively, the City

Council could have summarily denied the proposed

ordinance upon its introduction. See id. at sec. 54-

776(3).

4 Note that, as indicated by case law, the problems associated

with zoning by snitiative are not equally applicable to the use

of the referendum to repeal/approve zoning ordinances. In

Jacobs, Viscons: & Jacobs Co v City of Burton, 108 Mich App

497, 503; 310 NW2d 4388 (1981), the court noted that where a

referendum on an "existing zoning classification is involved,

we do not believe there is compelling reason to deny a

referendum if petitioners otherwise meet the statutory

requirements." Likewise, in Chynoweth v City of Hancock,

107 Mich App 360, 362; 309 NW2d 606 (1981), the court held

that an "amendatory zoning ordinance was a legislative act

subject to the right of referendum." In 1974, the Michigan

Supreme Court split 3-3 (with one abstainer) on whether an

amendatory zoning ordinance was an administrative or

legislative act, and thus whether the right of referendum

attached. See West v City of Portage, 392 Mich 458, 461-72; 221

NW2d 303 (1974).

Thus, in the present case, the operation of

Substitute Ordinance 1035 and the effect of the

petitions constituting proposed Ordinance 1097

were to request a zoning amendment from the City

Council. The City Council had, in its. sole

legislative discretion, the authority to modify,

reject, or accept the proposed overlay district. The

proposed ordinance might be termed an "agenda:

setting" mechanism, as if one or more residents had

written letters to the City Council requesting a

particular zoning change. Accordingly, Plaintiff's

numerous arguments? for invalidating Substitute

Ordinance 103.5C and Ordinance 1097 miss the

mark. Those arguments incorrectly presume that

the process which was employed by the Bailey

neighborhood residents pursuant to Substitute

Ordinance 1035C directly enacted Ordinance 1097.

Ill. PROPERLY ENACTED ZONING

AMENDMENT

Before the Court is a zoning amendment

(Ordinance 109 ) that was adopted pursuant to

5 Such arguments include: that Substitute Ordinance 1035C

violates the City and Village Zoning Enabling Act by delegating

a legislative function to residents and by failing to require sworn

affidavits of petition circulators; that Ordinance 1097 was

enacted by way of arbitrary fiat of property owners, was not

based on any plan, and allows residents to engage in invalid

spot zoning; and that Ordinance 1097 was improperly adopted

because the City Assessor assisted the City Clerk in verifying

Signatures and the petitions allegedly did not contain the

requisite 2/3 of parcel owners' signatures. Specifically, while

much has been made in this case about the sufficiency of the

signatures contained in the petitions, the Court does not find that

question particularly relevant, as the petitions were merely

information provided for the City Council's consideration of

Ordinance 1097

the deliberative procedures required by Michigan

zoning law. The parties do not dispute that the

actions taken by the City Council after being

presented with Ordinance 1097 complied with the

City and Village Zoning Enabling Act. The

Planning Commission held a public hearing on the

proposed overlay district and provided an

unequivocal recommendation to the City Council.

The City Council then held public hearings on the

proposal, including two in which Plaintiff's specific

concerns were heard. Proper notice of the hearings

was given to all concerned residents. Clearly, the

lack of deliberative procedures inherent in the

zoning-by-initiative process, which so troubled the

Court in Korash, is not found in the present case.

CONCLUSION

{It is true that the process of enacting a

zoning amendment solely by initiative inherently

conflicts with the requirements of Michigan

zoning law. However, in the present case,

Substitute Ordinance 1035C serves only as a

mechanism for placing a proposed zoning

amendment under the City Council's consideration.

Where the City Council ultimately adopts a

proposed zoning amendment—here, Ordinance

1097—after giving proper notice and _ holding

numerous public hearings, there is nothing for this

Court to consider invalidating.

THEREFORE IT [IS ORDERED J that

Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition

is GRANTED.

In compliance with MCR _ 2.602(A)}(3),_ this

decision resolves the last pending claim and closes the

case.

(Lb

Hon. William E. Collette Circuit Court Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I mailed a copy of the

attached OPINION AND ORDER upon each

attorney of record, or upon the parties, by placing

the true copy in a sealed envelope, addressed to

each, with full postage prepaid and placing said

envelope in the United States mail at Mason,

Michigan, on Dec. 6th, 2006.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF

INGHAM

AGRIS PAVLOVSKIS, |

an individual, FILE NO.: 05-523-CZ

Plaintiff, HON.:W.E. COLLETTE

THE CITY OF EAST LANSING,

and,

SHARON A. REID, as East Lansing

City Clerk,

Defendants.

CYNTHIA LAW P-52833

Attorney for Plaintiff

P.O. Box 12082

Lansing, MI 48901

517420.0068

DENNIS E. MCGINTY P-17407

THOMAS M. YEADON P-38237

Attorneys for Defendants

601 Abbott Road

East Lansing, MI 48823

517.351.0280

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED REQUEST FOR

DECLARATORY RELIEF AND ORDER TO

DECLARE SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE 1035C

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, TO DECLARE THE

INVALIDITY OF PETITIONS REQUIRED TO

PROPOSE ZONING ORDINANCE 1097, AND TO

DECLARE ORDINANCE 1097 VOID

NOW COMES, Plaintiff, Agris Pavlovskis, and

hereby files this Request for Declaratory Relief and

Order to Declare Substitute Ordinance 1035C

Unconstitutional, to Declare the Invalhdity of

Petitions Required to Propose Zoning Ordinance

1097, and to Declare Ordinance 1097 Void. The

Plaintiff requests that this Court declare that

Ordinance 1035C is unconstitutional and violates

substantive due process rights guaranteed by the

Constitution of the State of Michigan and the

Constitution of the United States. The Plaintiff

requests that this Court declare that Substitute

Ordinance 1035C is invalid on its face because there

is no reasonable governmental interest being

advanced and the Ordinance is arbitrary and

capricious as applied to the Plaintiffs private

property rights. Further, the Plaintiff requests the

Court to find that the East Lansing City Clerk

breached her duty to verify signatures on initiatory

petitions, that the petitions for introduction of

Ordinance 1097 do not contain sufficient valid

Signatures of property owners within the unlawful

overlay district; that the East Lansing City Clerk

breached her duty by allowing the City Assessor to

verify signatures; and that the East Lansing City

Clerk breached her duty by verifying signatures on

petitions when it is apparent there was tampering

with the dates on the petitions and the petitions do

not contain circulator certifications. Plaintiff states

the following in support of his Request:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

3. The Plaintiff is a resident and

homeowner within the City of East Lansing.

.. Prior to the enactment of Substitute

Ordinance 1035C, Plaintiffs property was zoned R1.

3. For the past 17 years Plaintiff has been

a resident of the Central Bailey-Strathmore

Neighborhood.

4. Currently, Plaintiffs property is zoned

R-O-1, which is a Residential Rental Restriction

Overlay District created by zoning Ordinance 1097.

oD. Plaintiff appeared at the Planning

Commission meetings and the City Council meetings

regarding Ordinance 1097 and participated in the

proceedings regarding Ordinance 1097.

6. Ordinance 1097 prohibits a resident,

that does not already have a rental license, from

applying for a rental license at any time.

& The Plaintiff has an interest and

property rights that are affected by Ordinance 1097.

8. Ordinance 1097 is an _ unreasonable

restriction on the Plaintiffs private property rights.

9. Ordinance 1097 unfairly diminishes the

Plaintiffs property value.

10. Substitute Ordinance 1035C was

enacted by the East Lansing City Council on April

15, 2004. It establishes the process for creating an

overlay district restricting rental licenses and the

ability to apply for a rental license if an individual is

a private property owner within the overlay district.

11. The Constitutions of the State of

Michigan and the United States require a zoning

ordinance to be reasonable.

12. Substitute Ordinance 1035C is invalid

on its face because it fails to advance a real and

substantial government interest.

13. Substitute Ordinance 1035C is arbitrary

and capricious as applied to the Plaintiffs private

property rights.

14. The Defendants City of East Lansing

and the East Lansing City Clerk are located in the

County of Ingham.

15. The City of East Lansing derives its

authority to zone from the Zoning Enabling Act. MCL

125.581

16. Zoning is a purely legislative function

and may not be delegated.

17. The singling out of a small area for

treatment different from that of similar surrounding

land indistinguishable from it in character, for the

economic benefit of the owner of that land or to his

economic detriment, is invalid spot zoning.

18. Substitute Ordinance 1035C delegates

the legislative function of zoning to individuals in the

community.

19. Substitute Ordinance 1035C allows

individuals in the community to single out small

areas of land for treatment different from that of

similar surrounding land indistinguishable in

character for the economic benefit of some

landowners and to the economic detriment of other

landowners and is invalid spot zoning.

20. Substitute Ordinance 1035C, Division 5,

Sec. 50-775, provides the procedures to establish a

residential overlay district. See attached Exhibit 1.

i: To establish a_ Residential Overlay

District, citizens within a community circulate

initiatory petitions provided by the City Clerk, in the

proposed overlay district.

22. Upon obtaining two-thirds of the

property owners’ signatures within a_ proposed

overlay district, the petitions are presented to the

City Clerk for verification of signatures. Substitute

Ordinance 1035C, Div. 5, Sec, 50-775(2).

23. Substitute Ordinance 1035(C)

specifically states that “the City Clerk sha// verify

the signatures on the petitions.” (emphasis added)

24. “Shall” is a mandatory term in the law.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “shall” as follows:

Shall. As used in statutes, contracts, or the

like, this word is generally imperative or

mandatory. . . . It has the invariable

significance of excluding the idea of discretion,

and has the significance of operating to impose

a duty, which may be enforced, particularly if

public policy is in favor of this meaning, or

when addressed to public officials, or where a

public interest is involved, or where the public

or persons have rights which ought to be

enforced, unless a contrary intent appears.

25. It is mandatory that the City Clerk

verify signatures on initiatory petitions submitted

pursuant to Substitute Ordinance 1035C.

26. The City Clerk does not have discretion

to decline to verify signatures on initiatory petitions

submitted pursuant to Substitute Ordinance 1035C.

27. The petitions were not verified by the

City Clerk and in fact were verified by the City

Assessor, contrary to Substitute Ordinance 1035C,

Sec. 50-775(2). See attached Exhibit 4

Memorandum; and Exhibit 3, Preliminary Staff

Report, page 4.

28. The City Clerk breached her duty,

pursuant to Substitute Ordinance 1035C, to verify

the signatures on the petitions to propose Ordinance

1097.

29. Upon verification of the signatures by

the City Clerk, the initiatory petitions are then to be

forwarded to the Zoning Administrator to determine

whether the petitions are in conformity with the

remaining conditions of section 50-775.

30. Upon a determination that the petitions

are in conformance with section 50-775, the Zoning

Administrator sha// draft an appropriate ordinance

and forward it to the City Council for introduction.

Substitute Ordinance 1035C, Div. 5, Sec.50-775(2)(a).

(emphasis added)

31. The East Lansing City Charter, Chapter

6, Section 8, provides requirements for initiatory

petitions. See attached Exhibit 4.

32. Pursuant to the East Lansing Charter,

Chapter 6, Section 8, an initiatory petition sha// have

attached a sworn affidavit by the circulator thereof,

stating the number of signers thereto and that each

signature thereon is the genuine signature of the

person whose name it purports to be, and that it was

made in the presence of the affiant. (emphasis added)

33. The initiatory petitions circulated to

introduce Ordinance 1097, do not have attached a

sworn affidavit by the circulators in violation of the

East Lansing Charter, Chapter 6, Section 8.

34. Substitute Ordinance 1035C, Sec. 50-

775, fails to require a sworn affidavit to be attached

to petitions to impose Residential Rental Restrictions

in Overlay Districts, as required by the City Charter.

35. By not requiring a sworn affidavit to be

attached to said petitions there exists no

accountability as to the validity of the signatures.

36. The City Assessor verified the petitions

using the property tax roles. See attached Exhibit 5.

37. The ordinance provides that only

property owners are eligible to sign the petitions.

38. Proper verification requires a

comparison to the property owners list. See attached

Exhibit 6.

39. Individuals appearing on the property

tax roles are not always the property owners. See

attached Exhibit 5 & 6.

40. When the City Assessor counted the

number of alleged property owners from the tax roles

his totaled numbers were erroneous.

41. When adding up the check marks, on

the tax roles, of alleged verified property owners, the

City Assessor totaled the check marks per page and

wrote the number at the bottom of the page.

42. When the totals per page are added up

they equal! 292. See attached Exhibit 5.

43. There are 297 check marks.

44. The City Assessor stated in a Memo to

the City Clerk that there are 298 valid signatures

and 17 invalid signatures. See attached Exhibit 2.

x a

45. The City Assessor claimed there is a

total of 315 signatures.

46. ‘The signatures on the petitions actually

equal 327. See attached Exhibit 7.

47. The procedure the City Assessor utilized

to verify signatures is flawed and the numbers do not

add up properly.

48. The City Assessor does not have the

authority, pursuant to Substitute Ordinance 1035C,

to verify signatures, and none of the signatures have

been verified.

49. Planning Commission Member Dale

Springer, who owns property within the overlay

district for proposed Ordinance 1097, said he did not

sign the petition and neither did his wife. See

attached Exhibit 8, Minutes of the Planning

Commission, pages 5 & 6.

50. A false signature of Dawn Springer, wife

of Staff Member Dale Springer, is on the petition.

51. If Dawn Springer’s signature is forged,

then all of the signatures on the petitions to propose

Ordinance 1097 are suspect.

52. There are a total of 439 parcels of

property in the Bailey overlay district.

53. Two-thirds of the property owners’

signatures equals 292.6.

54. The petitions circulated do not have the

two-thirds of the signatures of property owners

pursuant to Substitute Ordinance 1035C.

COUNT I

SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE 1035C IS

UNCONSTIT N EK

BECAUSE IT FAILS TO ADVANCE A

REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL

GOVERNMENT INTEREST

55. Plaintiff by reference hereby

incorporates paragraphs 1 through 54.

56. Substitute Ordinance 1035C provides

the procedures to create a_ residential rental

restriction overlay district within the City of East

Lansing.

57. Plaintiff is a property owner in the

Bailey Strathmore residential rental restriction

overlay district which was implemented / when

Ordinance 1097 was enacted pursuant to the

procedures set forth in Substitute Ordinance 1035C.

58. Plaintiff is prohibited from applying for

or receiving a rental license since the enactment of

Ordinance 1097.

59. The purported purpose of Substitute

Ordinance 10385C is to:

(1)To protect the privacy of residents,

minimize noise, congestion, nuisance impacts

by regulating the types of rental properties

(2)To maintain an attractive community

appearance and to provide a desirable living

environment for residents by preserving the

owner occupied character of the neighborhood

(3) To prevent excess traffic and parking

problems in the neighborhoods. (See

attached Exhibit 1, Substitute Ordinance

1035C, Sec. 50-773)

60. Prior to the passage of Substitute

Ordinance 1035C, the City of East Lansing enacted

Ordinance 900, which defines permitted uses of

single family dwellings and restricts the number of

roomers that may occupy a single family dwelling.

61. Also prior to the enactment of

Substitute Ordinance 1035C, the City of East

Lansing enacted Ordinance 915 for the purpose of

regulation, inspection and _ licensing of rental

property.

62. In addition to the aforementioned

ordinances, the City of East Lansing has enacted

ordinances regulating noise, nuisance properties,

parking restrictions in neighborhoods, blight, snow

removal, grass mowing, and other nuisances.

63. There is no reasonable government

interest being advanced by Substitute Ordinance

1035C because there are already ordinances in place

for the stated purpose for which it was enacted:

a. The city currently has ordinances that restrict

noise levels and set time period for “quiet hours.”

b. The city currently has ordinances that prevent

parking problems, congestion and overnight parking

on the street.

C. The city currently has ordinances that require

the removal of snow, grass and other blights, to

maintain an attractive community appearance.

d. The city currently has ordinances’ that

regulate rental properties by requiring the inspection

of rental properties to ensure the properties are

properly maintained and preclude the deleterious

effects that rental properties can have on a

neighborhood,

e. The city currently has ordinances that lmit

the number of persons that can occupy a single

family residence as a rental to reduce traffic and

congestion.

64. The stated purpose for the enactment of

Substitute Ordinance 1035C is a mere guise and does

not bear a real and substantial relationship to the

health, safety and welfare of the residents of East

Lansing because ordinances are currently in place to

promote the health safety and welfare of the

residents and requests for rental licenses have

steadily declined and the number of existing licenses

have also steadily declined since the city enacted

Ordinances 900 and 915.

65. Substitute Ordinance 1035C is

unreasonable and invalid on its face as applied to

Plaintiffs property because his property is

surrounded by rental properties to the east, west and

south.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests

that this Honorable Court Declare that Substitute

Ordinance 1035C is invalid on its face because no

real and substantial government interest is being

advanced by the total restriction of rental properties

in Plaintiffs area and because Substitute Ordinance

1035C is unreasonable because of the purely,

arbitrary, capricious and unfounded exclusion of

rental license property in Plaintiffs area, which

violates the Constitution of the State of Michigan and

the Constitution of the United States by interfering

with the Plaintiffs substantive due process rights.

COUNT Il

ORDINANCE 1035C IS A PURELY ARBITRARY,

CAPRICIOUS AND UNFOUNDED EXCLUSION

OF OTHER TYPES OF LEGITIMATE LAND USE

AS APPLIED TO PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY

66. Plaintiff by reference hereby

incorporates paragraphs 1 through 65.

67. The Plaintiffs property is located on the

southern border of the residential rental restriction

overlay district created by the enactment of

Ordinance 1097, pursuant to Substitute Ordinance

1035C.

68. Plaintiffs property fronts the north side

of the street that runs east and west.

69. The properties on the south side of the

street where the Plaintiff resides are not included in

the residential rental restriction overlay district

created by Ordinance 1097.

70. Plaintiffs property is surrounded by

rental properties to the east, west and south.

71. Plaintiffs property is located on a main

pedestrian corridor from campus and downtown East

Lansing to rental residences in the Bailey

Neighborhood.

72. Ordinance 1097 has the effect of

singling out the Plaintiffs property from that of

similar surrounding property indistinguishable in

character, to his economic detriment.

Ta. Substitute Ordinance 1035C delegates

the legislative function of zoning to owners of

property within residential neighborhoods.

74. The Zoning Enabling Act does not

enable residents within a residential neighborhood to

zone by petition or any other means.

75. The City of East Lansing has violated

the Zoning Enabling Act by enacting Substitute

Ordinance 1035C which delegates a_ legislative

function to property owners within residential

neighborhoods to control the types of rental

properties that are permitted in one-family dwellings

in their neighborhoods.

76. The State of Michigan’s’ statutory

scheme specifically designed for amending city

ordinances emphasizes the high level of expertise

required for the efficient administration of complex

legislation.

77. The residential rental restriction

overlay districts that are enacted pursuant to

Substitute Ordinance 1035C are not based upon a

master plan, studies or any type of expertise.

78. The residential rental restriction

overlay district enacted pursuant to Substitute

Ordinance 1035C, which affects the Plaintiffs

property, is created in an arbitrary manner and

places an unreasonable restriction on the Plaintiffs

use of his property, the purpose the Ordinance seeks

to achieve is a guise because the purpose has already

been achieved by previous ordinances.

79. The’ residential rental restriction

overlay districts are enacted by way of arbitrary fiat

of property owners within residential neighborhoods

because the property owners are not following the

city’s overall master plan, but arbitrarily determine

which areas should be restricted as rental properties

or nonrental properties.

80. The enactment of residential rental

restriction overlay districts allows residents in

residential neighborhoods to engage in invalid spot

zoning.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests

that this Honorable Court Declare that Substitute

Ordinancel035C is invalid by allowing invalid spot

zoning to occur in an arbitrary and capricious

manner which violates the Plaintiffs substantive due

process rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the

State of Michigan and the Constitution of the United

States.

COUNT III

THE CITY CLERK BREACHED HER DUTY

PURSUANT TO SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE 1035C

TO VERIFY THE SIGNATURES ON PETITIONS

81. Plaintiff by reference hereby

incorporates paragraphs 1 through 80.

82. Substitute Ordinance 1035C, Sec. 50-

775(2) requires the City Clerk to verify signatures on

petitions submitted by citizens to initiate proposed

overlay districts.

83. The City Clerk breached her duty by

failing to verify the signatures for the Bailey

Strathmore overlay district.

84. Substitute Ordinance 1035C, Sec. 50-

755(2), does not grant the City Assessor authority to

verify signatures.

85. The City Assessor improperly verified

the signatures on the petition for the Bailey

Strathmore overlay district contrary to Substitute

Ordinance 1035C, Sec. 50-775.

86. None of the signatures on the initiatory

petitions required to propose Ordinance 1097 are

properly verified.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests

that this Honorable Court Declare that the

signatures obtained on the initiatory petition to

propose Ordinance 1097 have not been verified

pursuant to Substitute Ordinance 1035C, that

Ordinance 1097 is void, and that a subsequent

ordinance for an overlay district that includes the

Same parcels may not be introduced for 1 year

pursuant to Substitute Ordinance 1035C, Div. 5, Sec.

54-776(3), so that Plaintiff may apply for a rental

license.

COUNT IV

PETITIONS CIRCULATED TO INITIATE

RESIDENTIAL RENTAL RESTRICTION

OVERLAY DISTRICTS PROVIDED BY

THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE VIOLATE

THE CITY CHARTER SINCE THERE ARE

NO CIRCULATORS’ CERTIFICATIONS

87. Plaintiff by reference hereby

incorporates paragraphs 1 through 86.

88. Substitute Ordinance 1035C, provides

procedure for members of a community, within the

City of East Lansing, to initiate Residential Rental

Restriction Overlay Districts by initiatory petitions.

89. Chapter 6 of the City Charter provides

for City Legislation.

90. Chapter 6, Section 8, provides the form

of an initiatory petition.

91. Section 8, in part, requires’ the

following: “To each petition paper there sha// be

attached a sworn affidavit by the circulator thereof,

stating the number of signers thereto and that each

Signature thereon is a genuine signature of the

person whose name it purports to be, and that it was

made in the presence of the affiant.” (emphasis

added)

92. The petitions provided by the City

Clerk’s Office do not contain any certification for the

circulators.

93. The requirement to have a certification

of the circulator directly eliminates serious potential

for fraud.

94. Dale Springer, Staff Member of the

Planning Commission, admits on the record at the

January 12, 2005, Planning Commission meeting the

following: “ He did not sign the petition. He was not

at home when it was circulated. He noted that his

property has been listed as signed, but that his wife

did not sign the petition, either.” Planning

Commission Minutes January 12, 2005, pages 5 & 6.

95. If one signature is forged, then all the

Signatures are suspect and there exists a serious

potential for fraud when circulators obtain signatures

on petitions that have no certification.

96. The petitions are required to have

circulator certifications pursuant to Chapter 6,

Section 8, of the City Charter.

97. The City Clerk failed to perform the

duty o*° verifying signatures and she failed to

invalida:‘e improper signatures.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests

that this Honorable Court Declare that the initiatory

petition provided by the City Clerk’s Office does not

comply with the East Lansing City Charter, that all

Signatures on the initiatory petitions to propose

Ordinance 1097 are invalid, that Ordinance 1097 is

void, and that a subsequent ordinance for an overlay

district that includes the same parcels may not be

introduced for 1 year pursuant to Substitute

Ordinance 1035C, Div. 5, Sec. 54-776(3), so that

Plaintiff may apply for a rental license.

COUNT V

PETITIONS FOR INTRODUCTION OF

ORDINANCE 1097 DO NOT CONTAIN

PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE PROPOSED

DISTRICT

98. Plaintiff by reference hereby

incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs

1 through 97.

99. Substitute Ordinance 1035C, Sec. 50-

775(1)(c), provides as follows: Only one owner of each

parcel will count towards the two third requirement.

100. The City Clerk contends that there are

439 properties located in the Bailey Strathmore R-O-

1 Overlay District.

101. Two-thirds of 439 parcels equals 292.6.

102. Therefore, 293 signatures are required

to be verified as valid by the City Clerk for referral of

the petitions to the Zoning Administrator.

103. The City Assessor asserts that there are

315 total signatures on the petitions.

104. The City Assessor asserts that the

petitions submitted for the Bailey Strathmore R-O-1

Overlay District contain 298 valid signatures, 68% of

the total parcelsin the proposed district, and 17

invalid signatures.

105. Two hundred and ninety eight valid

signatures 1s actually 67.88%

106. Upon reviewing the petitions, there are

actually 327 total signatures.

107. Not one signature was properly verified.

108. Further, there are 42 total duplicate

signatures 21 of said duplicate signatures are invalid.

See attached Exhibit 9.

109. Substitute Ordinance 1035C, Sec. 50-

775(1)(d), provides as follows: Each person signing

the petition must also enter, on the petition, adjacent

to their signature, the date that the person signed

the petition.

110. Further again, 7 signatures on the

petition are incompletely dated and therefore invalid.

See attached Exhibit 10.

111. All 7 signatures that are incompletely

dated were wrongfully deemed valid by the City

Assessor.

112. Upon reviewing the petitions and the

property owner records, 6 non-property owners

wrongfully signed the petitions. See attached Exhibit

Es.

113. The City Assessor wrongfully deemed

valid 5 of these signatures.

114, The City Assessor deemed invalid 1

signature because the signer did not live within the

proposed overlay district. See attached Exhibit 12.

115. The City Assessor invalidated 3

signatures because they do not appear on the face of

the petition. See attached Exhibit 12.

116. The City Assessor deemed invalid 1

signature because the address is illegible. See

attached Exhibit 12.

117. The City Assessor deemed invalid 1

Signature because of an incomplete address. See

attached Exhibit 12.

118. The City Assessor deemed valid 6

Signatures that are in fact invalid for various

reasons. See attached Exhibit 13.

119. There are actually 327 total signatures

and 45 ought to be invalidated. Therefore, the

petitions do not have the required two-thirds

signatures of property owners as required by

Substitute Ordinance 1035C.

120. Because 45 signatures on the petitions

are invalid, only 64.2%, of the property owners within

the proposed overlay district appear on the petitions.

121. The City Clerk erred in presenting the

petitions to the Zoning Administrator.

122. The initiatory petitions fail to have the

proper number of signatures required to present

Ordinance 1097 to the East Lansing City Council.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests

this Honorable Court Declare that there are not a

sufficient number of valid signatures to support

Ordinance 1097; therefore, Ordinance 1097 is void

and that a subsequent ordinance for an overlay

district that includes the same parcels may not be

introduced for 1 year pursuant to Substitute

Ordinance 1035C, Div. 5, Sec. 54-776(3), so that

Plaintiff may apply for a rental license.

¥I

THAT THE CITY CLERK BREACHED HER

DUTY PURSUANT TO SUBSTITUTE

ORDINANCE 1035C BY ALLOWING THE

CITY ASSESSOR TO VERIFY SIGNATURES

ON ONE PETITION CIRCULATED BY TWO

CIRCULATORS

123. Plaintiff by reference hereby

incorporates paragraphs 1 through 122.

124. Substitute Ordinance 1035C, Sec. 50-

775(1)(b), provides for the following procedure: “Each

petition must be circulated by a person who owns

property within the proposed district and be signed

by the circulator.”

125. A circulator is required to sign the

petition to verify that each signature is the genuine

signature of the person whose name it purports to be.

126. Substitute Ordinance 1035C, Sec. 50-

775(1)(b), refers to “a person” not, “persons”.

127. Substitute Ordinance 1035C, Sec. 50-

775(1)(b), refers to “the circulator” not, “circulators”.

128. When two circulators circulate one

petition there is a lack of accountability since there is

no way to determine which circulator obtained which

signature.

129. It is the duty of the City Clerk to verify

signatures.

130. The City Clerk has experience in

verifying signatures on petitions because it is the

Clerk’s duty to verify signatures for elections,

initiatory petitions and referendums.

131. Substitute Ordinance 1035C does not

authorize the City Assessor to verify signatures on

the petitions submitted to the City Clerk.

132. The City Assessor does not possess the

proper skills and knowledge as to the guidelines for

verifying signatures on petitions.

133. The City Clerk has the requisite

experience to know that only one circulator can

circulate a particular petition.

134. One petition circulated for the Bailey

Strathmore R-O-1 overlay district was circulated by

two circulators. See Exhibit 7, pages 31°34.

135. Said petition contained 22 signatures.

Nineteen of them were improperly verified by the

City Assessor. See attached Exhibit14.

136. The City Clerk breached her duty to

verify the petitions pursuant. to Substitute Ordinance

1035(C), Sec. 50-775(2).

137. The 19 signatures that were obtained by

two circulators should have been deemed invalid by

the City Clerk.

138. The lack of accountability in this matter

gives rise to a serious potential for fraud.

139. The failure to include a certification by

the circulator gives rise to a serious potential for

fraud.

140. Nineteen additional signatures are

invalid.

141. The 19 signatures identified by the

Plaintiff, in this Count, and the 45 signatures

identified in Count III, equals 64 signatures that are

invalid.

142. There are actually 327 signatures, and

64 are invalid. Therefore, the petitions do not have

the required two-thirds signatures of property

owners as required by Substitute Ordinance 1035C.

143. Because 64 signatures on the petitions

are invalid, only 59.9% of the property owners within

the proposed overlay district appear on the petitions.

144. The initiatory petitions fail to have the

proper number of signatures required to present

Ordinance 1097 to the East Lansing City Council.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests

that this Honorable Court Declare that the East

Lansing City Clerk breached her duty to properly

verify signatures in accordance with Substitute

Ordinance 1035C, Sec. 50°775(2), that the petitions

do not have a sufficient number of valid signatures to

propose Ordinance 1097, that Ordinance 1097 is void,

and that a subsequent ordinance for an overlay

district that includes the same parcels may not be

introduced for 1 year pursuant to Substitute

Ordinance 1035C, Div. 5, Sec. 54°776(3), so that

Plaintiff may apply for a rental license.

Vil

THE EAST LANSING CITY CLERK BREACHED

HER DUTY PURSUANT TO SUBSTITUTE

ORDINANCE 1035C TO VERIFY SIGNATURES

ON THE INITIATORY PETITIONS

FOR INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE

1097 WHEN IT IS APPARENT THERE

WAS TAMPERING WITH THE DATES

ON THE PETITION

145. Plaintiff by reference hereby

incorporates paragraphs 1 through 144.

146. Pursuant to Substitute Ordinance

1035C, Sec. 50-775(2), it is the duty of the City Clerk

to verify the signatures on initiatory petitions

presented to the Clerk for review.

147. The initiatory petitions provided to

members of the community, by the City Clerk, state

that the circulators must sign and date the petitions

when they are turned in to the City Clerk. See

attached Exhibit 7.

148. This is required because any signatures

dated after the circulator signed and dated the

petitions would be deemed invalid.

149. Upon review of the petitions, there was

tampering with at least two petitions dates.

150. On page 10, of the petitions, (Exhibit 7),

the circulator originally signed the petition on

October 6, 2004.

151. Because the petition was signed and

dated on October 6, 2004, the six signatures on the

petition are invalid as they were all dated after the

date the circulator signed and dated the petition.

The following facts appear on the petition.

(A) The original month was written as the

number 10 and was changed to 18 and used as a day.

(B) The original signature date of the 6th

was scribbled over.

inserted in front of the original date of the month.

152. The dates were tampered with so the 6

signatures on the petition are invalid.

153. The signatures were deemed valid by

the City Assessor.

154. On page 54 of the petitions, (Exhibit 7),

the original signed date of the circulator was October

15, 2004.

155. Someone placed a line through the

original 5 to make it appear as if it were signed on

the 18th.

156. There was tampering with the date

placed on the petition by the circulator.

157. If the date had remained October 15,

2004, 2 signatures would be invalid because the

Signers would have signed subsequent to the date of

the circulator’s signature.

158. The 3 signatures that appear on the

petition subsequent to the original date of the

circulator are invalid.

159. The tampering of dates on the petitions

gives serious rise to the potential for fraud.

160. It is not a coincidence that the dates

tampered with have both been changed to October

18, 2004, the day the petitions were submitted to the

City Clerk.

161. The East Lansing City Clerk had a duty,

pursuant to Substitute Ordinance 1035C to review

the petitions and the contents, including the

circulators’ signatures and dates.

162. The City Clerk breached her duty to

properly verify the petitions completely by allowing

the City Assessor to verify the signatures on the

petitions.

163. The 9 signatures identified are invalid.

164. The 45 signatures identified by the

Plaintiff in Count III, the 19 signatures identified by

the Plaintiff in Count IV, and the 9 signatures

identified in this Count equals 72 signatures that

ought to be invalid.

165. There are actually 327 signatures, and

72 ought to be deemed invalid. Therefore, the

petitions do not have the required two-thirds

signatures of property owners as_ required by

Substitute Ordinance 1035C.

166. Because 72 signatures on the petitions

are invalid only 58% of the property owners within

the proposed overlay district appear on the petitions.

167. The initiatory petitions do not have the

proper number of signatures as required to propose

Ordinance 1097 to the East Lansing City Council.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests

that this Honorable Court Declare that the East

Lansing City Clerk breached its duty to properly

verify petitions in accordance with Substitute

Ordinance 1035C, Sec. 50-775(2), that the petitions

contain a insufficient number of signatures to

propose Ordinance 1097, and that Ordinance 1097 is

void, and that a subsequent ordinance for an overlay

district that includes the same parcels may not be

introduced for 1 year pursuant to Substitute

Ordinance 1035C, Div. 5, Sec. 54-776(3), so that

Plaintiff may apply for a rental license.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: = a

CYNTHIA LAW

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF

INGHAM

AGRIS PAVLOVSKIS, FILE NO: 05-523-CZ

Plaintiff, JUDGE COLLETTE

-vs-

THE CITY OF EAST LANSING and

SHARON A. REED,

Defendants.

MOTION TO AMEND

Before the Honorable William E. Collette, Circuit

Judge, Ingham County, Michigan —Wednesday,

March 22, 2006.

APPEARANCES:

CYNTHIA M. LAW P-52833

P.O. Box 12082

Lansing, MI 48901

(517) 420-0068

On behalf of the Plaintiff.

THOMAS M. YEADON, P-38237

601 Abbott Road

East Lansing, MI 48823

(517) 351-0280

On behalf of the Defendnants.

Mason Michigan

March 22, 2006

9:37 a.m.

RECORD

THE COURT: Pavlovskis, I hope I said

it right, versus City of East Lansing, 05-523-CZ.

Who's (sic) motion, please?

MS. LAW: Thank you, Your Honor. May

it please the Court, Cynthia Law appearing on

behalf of the Plaintiff, Agris Pavlovskis, who is

present in the courtroom at this time. We are

here on Plaintiffs motion to amend his request for

declaratory relief pursuant to Michigan Court

Rule 2.118, which provides that leave shall be

freely granted to amend a request for declaratory

relief when justice requires.

Also, Michigan Court Rule 2.203(A)

provides that pleadings must state all claims

against the opposing party. And we believe that

this would be a compulsory joinder situation

Upon reviewing documents that were discovered

during discovery, it became apparent that the

Plaintiffs substantive due process rights are

possibly being violated. And we believe that we

will show this as a result of substitute ordinance

1035c, which was the enabling ordinance that

allowed ordinance 1097 to be enacted.

Ordinance 1097, Your Honor, s a

restriction on the Plaintiffs property regarding

his ability to obtain any type of rental license in

his neighborhood. And 1035c is the ordinance

that allowed ordinance 1097 to be passed. It

provides the procedure.

Initially, the complaint alleged that

there were procedural problems in how 1097 was

passed. But as I stated, upon discovery it’s very

apparent that 1035c may be violating the

Plaintiffs substantive due process rights. And we

would like to amend the Complaint to include two

counts. And one would be that substitute

ordinance 1035c is unconstitutional on its face

because it fails to advance a real and substantial

government interest.

And the second count that we would like

to add is that ordinance 1035c is purely arbitrary,

capricious and unfounded exclusion of other types

of legitimate land use as applied to Plaintiffs

property. And we believe these are very

substantial issue and that in the interest of justice

the Complaint or the request for declaratory relief

ought to be allowed to be amended, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, ma’am. Mr.

Yeadon?

MR YEADON: Your honor, Counsel

correctly cites the rule that leave to amend should

be freely granted. That is, of course, unless it is 1s

going to prejudice a party. And my only problem

with an amendment at this stage, Your Honor, is

discovery is to close at the end of this month. The

scheduling order wasn’t set up for this substantial

of an amendment to the Complaint. So if the

Court — clearly we’d be prejudiced if the Court is

going to keep its same scheduling order. If the

Court is willing to modify its scheduling order and

the trial dates —

THE COURT: Happy to do that.

MR YEADON: -- then I don’t have an

objection to the motion.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have

any objection to modifying scheduling dates, Ms.

Law?

MS. LAW: I have no objection, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. All mght. Then

the Court will allow the amendment and the court

will require that the parties do a new scheduling

order to accomplish that. A,d Mr. Yeadon, my

suggestion is, is that once you see the Amended

Complaint and file your answer, then the two of

you would then decide how much additional time

both sides might need for discovery type

questions. And if you can’t resolve them, then

schedule a short conference with me and I'll be

happy to add some time.

MR. YEADON: Okay. Thank you, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Does’ that meet

everybody’s needs’?

MR. YEADON: Your Honor, is there a

time for filing the Amended Complaint?

THE COURT: I am assuming you have

that ready to go don’t you, Miss?

MS. LAW: I do, Your Honor. And in

fact, we have some depositions that are scheduled

for this Friday, and so I could provide Defendants

with a copy of the Amended Complaint at that

time.

THE COURT: All right. The Amended

Complaint needs to be filed prior to the

depositions Friday and a copy given to Mr. Yeadon

at that time. Seem reasonable?

MR. YEADON: I have no objection with

that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Then you file your answer

in the normal course of business under the

court rule. Nice to see you all.

MR. YEADON: Thank You, Your Honor.

MS. LAW: Thank You, Your Honor.

(Whereupon, Motion concluded at 9:42 a.m.)

STATE OF MICHIGAN)

)ss

COUNTY OF INGHAM)

I, Paul G. Brandell, Certified Shorthand

Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing Motion

to Amend was taken before me at the time and place

hereinbefore set forth.

I further certify that the foregoing is a

full, true, and correct transcript of the statements

taken on March 22, 2006.

/s/

12-28-06 Paul G. Brandell, CSR-4552

Certified Shorthand Reporter

Registered Professional

Reporter

MICHIGAN ZONING ENABLING ACT

Act 110 of 2006

AN ACT to codify the laws regarding local units

of government regulating the development and

use of land; to provide for the adoption of zoning

ordinances; to provide for the establishment in

counties, townships, cities, and villages of zoning

districts; to prescribe the powers and duties of

certain officials; to provide for the assessment and

collection of fees; to authorize the issuance of bonds

and notes; to prescribe penalties and provide

remedies; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.

History: 2006, Act 110, Elf. July I, 2006.

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

ARTICLE I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

#teee 725 3101. new THIS NEW SECTION IS

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006 *****

125.3101. new Short title.

Sec. 101. This act shall be known and may be

cited as the "Michigan zoning enabling act".

History: 2006, Act 110, Eff July 1, 2006.

ARTICLE II

ZONING AUTHORIZATION AND INITIATION

*4#*** 125.320 Inew THIS NEW SECTION IS

EFFECTIVE JULY I, 2006 *****

125.3201l.new Regulation of land development

and establishment of districts; provisions;

uniformity of regulations; designations;

limitations.

Sec. 201. (1) A local unit of government may

provide by zoning ordinance for the regulation of

land development and the establishment of 1 or

more districts within its zoning jurisdiction which

regulate the use of land and structures to meet

the needs of the state's citizens for food, fiber,

energy, and other natural resources, places of

residence, recreation, industry, trade, service, and

other uses of land, to ensure that use of the land is

situated in appropriate locations and relationships,

to limit the inappropriate overcrowding of land and

congestion of population, transportation systems,

and other public facilities, to facilitate adequate

and efficient provision for transportation systems,

sewage disposal, water, energy, education,

recreation, and other public service and facility

requirements, and to promote public health, safety,

and welfare.

(2) Except as otherwise provided under this act,

the regulations shall be uniform for each class of

land or buildings, dwellings, and structures within

a district.

(3) A local unit of government may provide

under the zoning ordinance for the regulation of

land development and the establishment of

districts which apply only to land areas and

activities involved in a special program to achieve

specific land management objectives and avert or

solve specific land use problems, including the

regulation of land development and_ the

establishment of districts in areas subject to

damage from flooding or beach erosion.

(4) A local unit of government may adopt land

development regulations under the zoning

ordinance designating or limiting the _ location,

height, bulk, number of stories, uses, and size of

dwellings, buildings, and structures that may be

erected or altered, including tents and recreational

vehicles.

History: 2006. Act. _110, Eff. July 1, 2006.

+44* 125.3202.new THIS NEW SECTION IS

EFFECTIVE JULY!, 2006 *****

125.3202.new Zoning ordinance; determination by

local legislative body; amendments or

supplements; notice of proposed rezoning.

Sec. 202. (1) The legislative body of a local

government may provide by ordinance for. the

manner in which the regulations and boundaries of

districts or zones shall be determined and enforced

or amended, supplemented, or changed.

Amendments or supplements to the zoning

ordinance shall be made in the same manner as

provided under this act for the enactment of the

original ordinance.

(2) If an individual property or 10 or fewer

adjacent properties are proposed for rezoning, the

zoning commission shall give a _ notice of the

proposed rezoning in the same manner as required

under section 103.

(3) If 11 or more adjacent properties are

proposed for rezoning, the zoning commission shall

give a notice of the proposed rezoning in the same

manner as required under section 103, except for

the requirement of section 103(2) and except that

no individual addresses of properties are required

to be listed under section 103(3)(b).

(4) An amendment to a zoning ordinance by a city

or village is subject to a protest petition under

section 403.

(5) An amendment for the purpose of conforming

a provision of the zoning ordinance to the decree of

a court of competent jurisdiction as to any specific

lands may be adopted by the legislative body and

the notice of the adopted amendment published

without referring the amendment to any other

hoard or agency provided for under this act.

History: 2006, Act 110, eff. July 1, 2006.

*44** 125.3203. new THIS NEW SECTION IS

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006 *****

125.3203.new Zoning ordinance; plan;

incorporation of airport layout plan or airport

approach plan; zoning ordinance adopted after

March 28, 2001.

Sec. 203. (1) The zoning ordinance shall be

based upon a plan designed to promote the public

health, safety, and general welfare, to encourage

the use of lands in accordance with their character

and adaptability, to limit the improper use of land,

to conserve natural resources and energy, to meet

the needs of the state's residents for food, fiber,

and other natural resources, places of residence,

recreation, industry, trade, service, and other uses

of land, to insure that uses of the land shall be

situated in appropriate locations and

relationships, to avoid the overcrowding of

population, to provide adequate light and air, to

lessen congestion on the public roads and strects,

to reduce hazards to life and property, to facilitate

adequate provision for a system of transportation,

sewage disposal, safe and adequate water supply,

education; recreation, and other public

requirements, and to conserve the expenditure of

funds for public improvements and services to

conform with the most advantageous uses of land,

resources, and properties. The zoning ordinance

shall be made with reasonable consideration 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.

(2) If a local unit of government adopts or

revises a plan required under subsection (1) after

an airport layout plan or airport approach plan

has been filed with the local unit of government,

the local unit of government shall! incorporate the

airport layout plan or airport approach plan into

the plan adopted under subsection (1).

(3) In addition to the requirements of subsection

(1), a zoning ordinance adopted after March 28,

2001 shall be adopted after reasonable

consideration of both of the following:

(a) The environs of any airport within a district.

(b)Comments received at or before a _ public

hearing under section 306 or transmitted under

section 308 from the airport manager of any

airport.

(4) If a zoning ordinance was adopted before March

28, 2001, the zoning ordinance is not required to be

consistent with any airport zoning regulations,

airport layout plan, or airport approach plan. A

zoning ordinance amendment adopted or variance

granted after March 28, 2001 shall not increase any

inconsistency that may exist between the zoning

ordinance or structures or uses and any airport

zoning regulations, airport layout plan, or airport

approach plan. This section does not limit the

right to petition for submission of a zoning

ordinance amendment to the electors under

section 402 or the right to file a protest petition

under section 403.

History: 2006, Act 110, Eff. July 1, 2006.

CITY OF EAST LANSING

SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE NO. 10350

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE VII. -

OTHER DISTRICTS - OF CHAPTER 50

ZONING - BY ADDING DIVISION 5

RESIDENTIAL RENTAL RESTRICTION

OVERLAY DISTRICTS - 'SECTIONS 50-772, 50-

773, 50-774, 50-775, AND 50-776 TO THE CODE

OF THE CITY OF EAST LANSING TO

ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE PROCEDURES

FOR THE ADOPTION OF RESIDENTIAL

RENTAL RESTRICTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

THE CITY OF EAST LANSING ORDAINS:

Division 5 - Residential Rental Overlay Districts -

and sections 50-772, 50-773, 50-774, 50-775 and 50-

776 therein are hereby added to Article VII - Other

Districts - of Chapter 50 - Zoning- of the code of the

City of East Lansing to read as follows:

DIVISION 5: RESIDENTIAL RENTAL

RESTRICTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS

Sec. 50-772. Residential rental restriction overlay

districts R-0-1, R-0-2 and R-0°3.

Residential rental restriction overlay districts R-

0-1, R-0-2 and R-0-3 are hereby established.

Sec. 50-773. Purpose and objectives.

The Residential Rental Restriction Overlay

Districts R-0-1, R-O0-2 and R-0°3 are zoning

classifications which permit owners of property

within R-1, R-2 and RM‘°8 residential zoning

districts to petition City Council to establish an

overlay district, and district use regulations in their

residential neighborhood, which would prohibit or

restrict the rental uses of one-family dwellings

within the neighborhood. These districts establish

three levels of restrictions which operate to preserve

the attractiveness, desirability, and privacy of

residential neighborhoods by precluding all or certain

types of rental properties and thereby preclude the

deleterious effects rental properties can have on a

neighborhood with regard to property deterioration,

increased density, congestion, noise and traffic levels

and reduction of property values. The goal of the

overlay district is to allow owners of property within

residential neighborhoods to control the types of

rental properties, if any, that are permitted in one-

family dwellings within their neighborhood.

It is also the purpose of the districts to achicve

the following objectives:

(1) To protect the privacy of residents and to

minimize noise, congestion, and nuisance

impacts by regulating the types of rental

properties

(2) To maintain an attractive community

appearance and to provide a desirable

living environment for residents by preserving

the owner’ occupied character of the

neighborhood

(3) To prevent excessive traffic and parking

problems in the neighborhoods.

Sec. 50-774. Uses permitted .

Uses permitted in the R-O-1, R-O-2, and R-0-3

residential rental restriction overlay district are as

follows:

(1)

(2)

(3)

In the mi. Residential Rental

Restriction overlay district, permitted uses

are all uses in the underlying zoning district

except the use or occupancy of a one-family

dwelling unit so as to require a rental

housing license pursuant to Article 10 of

Chapter 101 of the Code of the City of East

Lansing.

In the R-0-2 Residential Rentai Restriction

overlay district, permitted uses are all

uses in the underlying zoning district except

the use or occupancy of a one-family dwelling

unit so as to require a rental housing license

pursuant to Article 10 of Chapter 101 of the

Code of the City of East Lansing unless the

use or occupancy is in accordance with a

Class I rental license and the owner of the

property owned it on the date the overlay

district ordinance was approved by City

Council.

In the R-0-3 Residential Rental Restriction

overlay district, permitted uses--are all uses

in the underlying zoning district except the use

or occupancy of a one-family dwelling unit so

as to require a rental housing license

pursuant to Article 10 of Chapter 101 of the

Code of the City of East Lansing unless the

use or occupancy is in accordance with a

Class I rental license.

Sec. 50-775. Procedures.

The following procedures must be complied with in

order to establish a residential overlay district.

(1)

A petition requesting an overlay district must

be submitted to the City Clerk on forms

provided by the Cit Clork. The petition

requirements are as follows:

a. The petition must identify the specific

overlay district that is sought by specifying

either an R-0-1, R-0-2 or R-0-3 overlay

district.

b. Each petition must be circulated

by a person who owns property within the

proposed district and be signed by the

circulator.

é The petition must contain the signature

and address of two thirds of the parcel owners

within the proposed boundary of the overlay

district, exclusive of public property. Jointly

owned parcels will be considered owned by a

single person for purpose of petitioning and

any co-owner may sign a petition for such

parcel. Only one owner of each parcel will

count towards the two third requirement. If

a person owns more than one parcel of

property within the proposed district, they

may sign the petition for each parcel they

own.

d. Each person signing the petition must

also enter, on the petition, adjacent to their

signature, the date that the person signed the

petition.

e. The petition must accurately advise the

signer of what restrictions would be imposed

on the property if the overlay district is

established.

f The proposed boundaries of the overlay

district must be described in the petition and

the boundaries must consist of streets or

existing zoning district lines which totally

enclose the proposed district.

g. There must be at least 50 separate lots

or parcels within the proposed district as

described in the petition or the proposed

district must constitute a discrete

neighborhood geographic area.

h. The proposed boundaries of the overlay

district must be entirely within R-1, R-2, or

RM-8 zoning districts and the parcels within

the proposed district must be contiguous.

i. The proposed boundaries may not

overlap a boundary of existing overlay

districts or the boundary of an overlay district

that is already the subject of an introduced

ordinance pursuant to this section.

‘. When submitted, no signature dated

earlier than six months prior to the time the

petition is filed with the City Clerk shall be

counted in determining the validity of the

petition.

Upon presentation to the City Clerk for

review, the Clerk shall verify the signatures

on the petitions. If insufficient signatures are

presented, the Clerk shall return the petitions

to the person filing the petitions and identify

the valid and invalid signatures. If sufficient

valid signatures are presented, the Clerk shall

refer the petitions to the Zoning

Department which shall then, within 30

days, determine whether the petitions are in

conformity with the remaining conditions of

this section.

s If the petition is determined to be in

conformity with the requirements of this

section, the Zoning Administrator shall draft

an appropriate ordinance and forward it to

City Council for introduction in accordance

with the petition procedures set forth in

section 50°31. All procedures set forth in

section 50-31 for zoning changes by petition

shall thereafter be followed.

b. If the petition is not in conformity

with the requirements of this section, the

Zoning Administrator shall reject the petition

and return it to the Clerk with a written

explanation as to why-the petition does not

meet the requirements of this section. The

Clerk shall then forward the petitions, and

the explanation, to the person who filed the

petitions.

Cc. If the petition is rejected for

failure to comply with the boundary

requirements, it may be resubmitted with the

proper boundary lines if it is accompanied by

certification that a copy of the petition and

written notice was mailed to each property

affected by the change, notifying them that

their property was either added to or deleted

from the petition and if by the correction of

the boundary line the petition still meets all

other requirements of the code.

d. If the petition is rejected for an insufficient

number of valid signatures, it may be

resubmitted with the additional signatures

necessary to have it comply as long as the

other signatures remain valid.

e. If an ordinance is forwarded to City

Council pursuant to this section, after

consideration of the petition and the

recommendations of the Zoning

administrator, if any, the City Council

may make additions or changes in the

boundaries of the proposed overlay district

to prevent spot zoning, to include or

exclude areas that logically should have

been included or excluded in the petition,

to make the boundaries of the proposed

overlay district abut boundary lines of

other zoning districts and overlay districts,

and to adopt an alternate ordinance in

conformity with the suggested changes

whether or not the two thirds majority

requirement of property owners would still

be met with the proposed changes.

f. If the City Council, in adopting an

ordinance for an overlay district, applies the

ordinance to fewer parcels of property than

the petition sought, the owners of at least two

thirds of the parcels remaining in the overlay

district must have signed the _ original

petition.

Sec. 54-776 Effect of overlay district ordinance .

(D Upon introduction of an ordinance to

create an overlay district and at all

times while the ordinance is pending

final decision, there shall be a

moratorium on the issuance of initial

rental unit licenses to the extent that

no initial rental housing license shall

be issued within the proposed overlay

district to the owner of a one family

dwelling unit that would be precluded if

the overlay district was adopted,

regardless of whether ine license was

applied for prior to or subsequent to

the ordinance's introduction.

(2) Upon passage of an ordinance by City

Council establishing an overlay district,

(3)

(4)

no initial rental unit license shall be

issued to an owner of property in the

overlay district inconsistent with the

restrictions of the overlay district and it

shall be unlawful to use or allow any

property to be used except in conformity

with the requirements of the underlying

zoning district and overlay district. Any

property in the overlay district that

has an existing rental housing license,

or has had a rental housing license

within one year of adoption of the

overlay district, shall be allowed to

continue its use and occupancy in

accordance with the law existing prior

to the date of the adoption of the

Overlay district. No existing rental

housing use or occupancy in an

overlay district shall be considered to

be a nonconforming use as the result of

adoption of an overlay district unless

the rental license expires for more than

1 year. If an owner surrenders an

existing license or allows, either

intentionally or unintentionally, a

license to remain expired for more

than one year, any subsequent use of

the property shall be subject to the

restrictions imposed by the overlay

district.

If an ordinance introduced pursuant to

this section is denied, a subsequent

ordinance for an overlay district that

includes the same parcels may not be

introduced for 1 year _ following

introduction of the previous ordinance.

Any ordinance which is not adopted

within 6 months of its introduction

shall be deemed denied.

Mark S. Meadows Sharon A. Reid

Mayor City Clerk

CITY OF EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN

ORDINANCE NO. 1097

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING USE

DISTRICT MAP OF

CHAPTER 50 - ZONING - OF THE CODE OF THE

CITY OF EAST LANSING.

THE CITY OF EAST LANSING ORDAINS:

The Zoning Use District Map is_ hereby

amended to rezone a portion of the central part of the

Bailey Neighborhood into the R-0-1 Residential

Rental Restriction Overlay District. The area to be

rezoned generally lies west of Gunson Street, north of

Ann Street, east of Charles and Division Streets and

south of Burcham Drive. The area also includes

properties north of Burcham Drive along Dunbar

Court, Camelot Drive, Alton Road and King Court.

The rezoning includes the following properties:

Street-Address Tax Parcel Number

731 Alton Road 33°02-07-319-011

736 Alton Road 33-20-02-07-402-026

744 Alton Road 33-20-02-07-402-027

747 Alton Road 33-20-02-07-319-010.

755 Alton Road 33-20-02-07-319-009

765 Alton Road 33-20-02-07-319-007

773 Alton Road 33°20-02-07-319-008,

774 Alton Road 33-20-02-07-402-002

713 Ann Street 33-20-02-18-147-006

719 Ann Street 33-20-02-18-147-005

813 Ann Street 33-20-02-18-148-008

821 Ann Strect

829 Ann Street

835 Ann Street

923 Ann Street

341 Bailey Street

351 Bailey Street

357: Bailey Street

361 Bailey Street

405 Bailey Street

411 Bailey Street

414 Bailey Street

417 Bailey Street

420 Bailey Street

423 Bailey Street

426 Bailey Street

429 Bailey Street

432 Bailey Street

435 Bailey Street

438 Basley Street

439 Bailey Street

511 Bailey Street

516 Bailey Street

517 Bailey Street

522 Bailey Street

523 Bailey Street

528 Bailey Street

534 Bailey Street

535 Bailey Street

541 Bailey Street

547 Bailey Street

610 Bailey Street

615 Bailey Street

620 Bailey Street

630 Bailey Street

635 Bailey Street

640 Bailey Street

641 Bailey Street

405 Beech Street

503 Beech Street

509 Beech Street

512 Beech Street

513 Beech Street

33-20-02-18-148-007

33-20-02-18-148-006

33°-20-02-18-148-005

33°20-02-18-224-008

33-20-02-18-143-008

33-20-02-1.8-143-007

33-20-02-18-143-006

33°20-02-18-143-005

33-20-02-18-132-013

33-20-02-18-132-012

33°20-02-18-133-011

33°20-02-18-132-011

33-20-02-18-133-012

33-20-02-18-132-010

33°20-02-18-133-013

33-20-02-18-13 2-009

33-20-02-18-133-014

33°20-02-18-132-008

33°20-02-18-133-001

33°20-02-18-132-007

33-20-02-18-119-011

33-20-02-18-120-010

33-20-02-18-119-010

33-20-02-18-120-011

33-20-02-18-119-009

33°20-02718-120-012

33°20°-02-18-120-001

33-20-02-18-119-008

33°20-02-18-119-007

33°20-02-18-119-006

33-20-02-18-108-010

33°20-02-18-107-007

33-20-02-18-108-011

33°20-02-18-108-012

33°-20-02-18-106-007

33-20-02-18-108-001

33°20-02-18-106-006

33-20-02-18-105-010

33-20-02-18-107-014

33°20-02-18-107-013

33-20-02-18-119-004

33-20-02-18407-012

519 Beech Street

527 Beech Street

528 Beech Street

533 Beech Street

551 Beech Street

609 Beech Street

621 Beech Street

622 Beech Street

626 Beech Street

645 Beech Street

646 Beech Street

651 Beech Street

656 Beech Street

661 Beech Street

696 Beech Street

704 Beech Street

705 Beech Street

710 Beech Street

711 Beech Street

717 Beech Street

746 Beech Street

747 Beech Street

749 Beech Street

752 Beech Street

817 Beech Street

820 Beech Street

830 Beech Street

927 Beech Street

928 Beech Street

1006 Beech Street

1007 Beech Street

1013 Beech Street

1016 Beech Street

1023 Beech Street

1026 Beech Strect

1033 Beech Street

1036 Beech Street

416 Burcham Drive

605 Burcham Drive

615 Burcham Drive

625 Burcham Drive

33-20-0-18-107-011

33-20-02-18-107-010

33°20-02-18-119-005

33-20-02-18-107-009

33°20-02-18-107-008

33°20-02-18-108-009

33-20-02-18-108-008

33-20702-18-120-002

33-20-02-18-120-003

33-20-02-18-121-015

33-20-02-18-123-001

33-20-02-18-121-014

33-20-02-18-123-002

33-20-02-18-133-011

33-20-02-18-123-003

33-20-02-18-123-004

33-20-02-18-121-012

33°20-02-18-123-005

33-20-02-18-121-011

33°20°02-18-121-010

33-20-02-18-134-002

33°20-02-18-122-005

33-20-02-18-122-006

33-20-02-18-134-003

33-20-02-18-212-009

33-20-02-18-135-002

33°-20-02-18-135-003

33-20-02-18-213-009

33-20-02-18-222-002

33°20°61-18-223-001

33°-20-02-18-214-O12

33-20-02-18-214-011

33°-20-02-18-223-002

33°202-18-214-010

33-20-02-18-223-003

33-20-02-18-214-009

33-20-02-18-223-004

33-20-02-18-105-001

33-20°02-07-318-006

33-20-02-07-318-005

33-20-02-07-318-010

645 Burcham Drive

401 Butterfield Drive

403 Butterfield Drive

411 Butterfield Drive

417 Butterfield Drive

418 Butterfield Drive

422 Butterfield Drive

428 Butterfield Drive

430 Butterfield Drive

432 Butterfield Drive

433 Butterfield Drive

434 Butterfield Drive

439 Butterfield Drive

447 Butterfield Drive

453 Butterfield Drive

461 Butterfield Drive

464 Butterfield Drive

471 Butterfield Drive

474 Butterfield Drive

500 Butterfield Drive

510 Butterfield Drive

513 Butterfield Drive

520 Butterfield Drive

525 Butterfield Drive

530 Butterfield Drive

605 Butterfield Drive

606 Butterfield Drive

618 Butterfield Drive

619 Butterfield Drive

624 Butterfield Drive

625 Butterfield Drive

633 Butterfield Drive

634 Butterfield Drive

666 Butterfield Drive

608 Camelot Drive

614 Camelot Drive

622 Camelot Drive

630 Camelot Drive

33°26-02-07-318-009

33°20°02-18-133°010

33°20-02-18-133-009

33-20-02-18-133-008

33°20°02-18-133-007

33-20-02-18-134-013

33-20-02-18-134-014

33°20-02-18°134-015

33°20-02-18-134-020

33-20-02-18-134-021

33°20-02-18-121-016

33°20-02-18-134-018

33°20-02°18-123-015

33-20-02-18-123-009

33°20-02-18-123-008

33-20-02-18-123-007

33-20-02-18-134-019

33°20-02-18-123-006

33-20-02-18-134-001

33-20°02-18-122-004

33-20-02-18-122-003

33-20-02-18-121-009

33-20-02-18-122-002

33°20-02-18-121-008

33°20-02-18-122-001

33-20-02-18-110-008

33-20-02-18-111-009

33-20-02-18-111-010

33°20-02-18-110-007

33°20-02-18°111-013

33°20-02-18-110-006

33°20-02°18-110°005

33°20-02-18-111-012

33-20-02-18-200-001

33-20-02-07-317-001

33-20-02-07-317-002

33°20°02-07°317-003

33°20°02-07°317-004

603 Charles Street

605 Charles Street

611. Charles Street

613 Charles Street

614 Charles Street

616 Charles Street

617 Charles Street

618 Charles Street

619 Charles Street

621 Charles Street

626 Charles Street

632 Charles Street

636 Charles Street

637 Charles Street

649 Charles Street

710 Chittenden Drive

714 Chittenden Drive

720 Chittenden Drive

721. Chittenden Drive

727 Chittenden Drive

730 Chittenden Drive

737 Chittenden Drive

816 Chittenden Drive

820 Chittenden Drive

824 Chittenden Drive

304 Collingwood Drive

310 Collingwood Drive

342 Collingwood Drive

346 Collingwood Drive

352 Collingwood Drive

406 Collingwood Drive

421 Collingwood Drive

427 Collingwood Drive

433 Collinwood Drive

439 Collingwood Drive

448 Collingwood Drive

500 Collingwood Drive

33°20-02-07-104-007

33°20°02-18- 104-006

33-20-02-18-104-005

33-:20-02-18-104-004

33°20-02-18-105-011

33°20-02-18-105-012

33°20-02-18-104-003

33°20-02-18-105-013

33-20-02-18-104-002

33°20-02-18-104-008

33-20792-18-105-014

33-20-02-18-105-015

33°20-02-18-105-016

33°20-02-18-104-009

33-20-02-18-105-017

33-20-02-18-147-009

33-20-02-18°147-012

33°20-02-18-147-011

33-20-02-18-145-008

33-20-02-18-145-007

33-20-02-18-147-001

33-20-02-18- 145-006

33-20-02-18-148-014

33°-20-02-18-148-015

33-20-02-18-148-016

33°20-02-18-147-007

33-20-02-18-147-008

33°20-02-18-145-009

33°20-02-18-145-010

33°20-02-18-145-011

33°20-02-18-134-012

33°20°02-18-133-006

33°20-02-18-133-005

33°20°02-18-133°004

33°20°02-18°133-003

33°20-02-18-123-012

33°20-02-18-123°013

510 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-123-014

517 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-120-005

523 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-120-004

544 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-121-016

550 Collingwood Drive 33°-20-02-18-121-017

555 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-108-007

556 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-121-001

557 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-108-006

567 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-108-005

629 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-109-004

631 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-109-005

639 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-109-007

645 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-109-008

700 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-110-002

710 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-110-003

711 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-109-009

718 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-110-004

723 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-109-010

733 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-109-012

758 Collingwood Drive 33°20-02-18-111-002

765 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-200-002

775 Collingwood Drive 33°20-02-18-200-003

807 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-200-004

811 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-200-005

814 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-201-002

820 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-201-003

821 Collingwood Drive 33-20-02-18-200-006

358 Division & 502 Linden 33-20-02-18°143-001

550 Division & 506 Beech 33-20-02-18-119-001

418 Division & 506 Sunrise

33°20-02-18°132-020

325 Division Street 33°20-02-18°142-007

331 Division Street 33-20-02-18-142-006

337 Division Street 33°-20-02-18-142-005

340 Division Street 33-20-02-18-143°014

343 Division Street 33-20-02-18-142-004

349 Division Street 33-20-02-18-142-003

353 Division Street 33-20-02-18-142-002

404 Division Street

410 Division Street

428 Division Street

436 Division Street

444 Division Street

504 Division Street

512 Division Street

530 Division Street

536 Division Street

544 Division Street

603 Division Street

607 Division Street

613 Division Street

619 Division Street

625 Division Street

629 Division Street

634 Division Street

635 Division Street

641 Division Street

600 Dunbar Court

607 Dunbar Court

610 Dunbar Court

613 Dunbar Court

620 Dunbar Court

625 Dunbar Court

631 Dunbar Court

323 Durand Street

324 Durand Street

408 Durand Street

409 Durand Street

425 Durand Street

435 Durand Street

507 Durand Street

514 Durand Street

515 Durand Street

523 Durand Street

524 Durand Street

33-20-02-

33°20-02-

33-20-02-

33°20-02-

33-20-02-

33°20-02-

33-20-02-

33°20-02-

33-20-02-

33°20-02-

33-20-02-

33-20-02:

33-20-02-

33°20-02-

33-20-02-

33°20-02-

33-20-02-

33°20-02-

18-132-018

18-132-019

18-132-003

18-132-002

18-132-001

18-119-017

18-119-018

18-119-019

18-119-003

18-119-002

18-105-009

18-105-008

18-105-007

18-105-006

18-105-005

18-105-004

18-106-001

18-105-003

18-105-002

007-318-001

007-317-008

007-318-002

07-317-007

07-318-011

007-317-006

07-317-005

118-224-005

18-225-001

18-223-008

18°222-005

18°222-004

18-222-003

18-213-008

18-214-013

18°213-007

18-213-006

118-214-014

531 Durand Street

534 Durand Street

539 Durand Street

541 Durand Street

544 Durand Street

554 Durand Street

509 Elizabeth Street

515 Elizabeth Street

518 Elizabeth Street

521 Elizabeth Street

527 Elizabeth Street

528 Elizabeth Street

540 Elizabeth Street

545 Elizabeth Street

605 Elizabeth Street

611 Elizabeth Street

612 Elizabeth Street

617 Elizabeth Street

619 Elizabeth Street

517 Gunson Street

527 Gunson Street

537 Gunson Street

545 Gunson Street

553 Gunson Street

563 Gunson Street

613 Gunson Street

619 Gunson Street

627 Gunson Street

633 Gunson Street

641 Gunson Street

649 Gunson Street

306 Kedzie Street

314 Kedzie Street

315 Kedzie Street

321 Kedzie Street

322 Kedzie Street

325 Kedzie Street

33-20-02-18-213-005

33-20-02-18-214-015

33-20-02-

33-20-02

33-20-02-

33-°20-02-

33-20-02-

33°20-°02-

33-20-02-

18-213-004

18-213-003

18-214-016

18-214-017

118-119-016

18-119-015

18-132-004

18-119-014

18-119-013

18-132-005

18-132-006

18-119-012

18-120-009

18-120-008

18-133-002

18-120-007

18-120-006

18-214-008

-18-214-007

-18-214-006

-18-214-005

18-214-004

18-214-003

18-202-007

18-202-006

18-202-005

18-202-004

18-202-003

18-202-002

18-224-009

18-224-110

18-148-004

18-148-003

18-224-002

18-148-002

326 Kedzie Street

329 Kedzie Street

401 Kedzie Street

410 Kedzie Street

417 Kedzie Street

420 Kedzie Street

428 Kedzie Street

431 Kedzie Street

436 Kedzie Street

446 Kedzie Street

500 Kedzie Street

501 Kedzie Street

509 Kedzie Street

510 Kedzie Street

519 Kedzie Street

520 Kedzie Street

525 Kedzie Street

526 Kedzie Street

531 Kedzie Street

534 Kedzie Street

537 Kedzie Street

538 Kedzie Street

606 Kedzie Street

610 Kedzie Street

615 Kedzie Street

621 Kedzie Street

626 Kedzie Street

629 Kedzie Street

631 Kedzie Street

632 Kedzie Street

638 Kedzie Street

639 Kedzie Street

652 Kedzie Street

811 King Court

812 King Court

823 King Court

831 King Court

33-20-02-

33-20-02:

33-20-02-

33-20-02:

33-20-02-

33°20-02-

33-20-02-

18-224-001

18-148-001

18-135-006

18-222-009

18-135-005

18-222-010

18-222-011

18-135-004

18-222-012

18-222-001

18-213-010

18-212-008

18-212-007

118-213-011

18-212-006

18-213-012

18-212-005

18-213-013

18-212-004

18-213-014

18-212-003

18-213-001

18-202-012

18-202-013

18-201-008

18-201-007

18-202-014

18-201-006

18-201-005

18-202-015

18-202-016

18-201-004

33-20-02-18-202-017

33-20-02-18-402-003

33°20-02-18-402-028

33-20-02-18-402-004

33-20-02-18-402-005

832 King Court

420 Linden Street

515 Linden Street

519 Linden Street

520 Linden Street

525 Linden Street

528 Linden Street

531 Linden Street

540 Linden Street

708 Linden Street

714 Linden Street

715 Linden Street

720 Linden Street

721 Linden Street

727 Linden Street

734 Linden Street

735 Linden Street

815 Linden Street

821 Linden Street

915 Linden Street

920 Linden Street

923 Linden Street

930 Linden Street

933 Linden Street

1014 Linden Strect

1015 Linden Street

1025 Linden Street

1037 Linden Street

504 Meadowlawn Avenue

509 Meadowlawn Avenue

510 Meadowlawn Avenue

516 Meadowlawn Avenue

517 Meadowlawn Avenue

522 Meadowlawn Avenue

530 Meadowlawn Avenue

541 Meadowlawn Avenue

546 Meadowlawn Avenue

33°20-02-18-402-029

33°20-02-

33-20-02:

33-20-02-

33°20-02-

33-20-02-

' 33-20-02-

18-142-001

18-132-017

18-132-016

18-143-002

18-132-015

18-143-003

18-132-014

18-143-004

18-145-001

18-145-002

18-134-011

18-145-003

18-134-010

18-134-009

18-145-004

18-134-008

18-135-008

18-135-007

18-222-008

18-224-003

18-222-007

18-224-004

18-222-006

18-225-002

18-223-007

18-223-006

18-223-005

18-107-001

18- 106-002

18-107-002

18-107-003

33-20-02-18-106-003

33-20-02-18-107-004

33-20-02-18-107-005

33-20-02-18-106-010

33-20-02-18-107-006

547 Meadowlawn Avenue

306 Orchard Street

309 Orchard Street

315 Orchard Street

318 Orchard Street

321 Orchard Street

324 Orchard Street

336 Orchard Street

340 Orchard Street

351 Orchard Street

407 Orchard Street

408 Orchard Street

412 Orchard Street

415 Orchard Street

419 Orchard Street

420 Orchard Street

427 Orchard Strect

428 Orchard Street

434 Orchard Street

510 Orchard Street

514 Orchard Street

515 Orchard Street

521 Orchard Street

522 Orchard Street

526 Orchard Street

536 Orchard Street

606 Orchard Street

613 Orchard Street

616 Orchard Street

622 Orchard Street

627 Orchard Street

629 Orchard Street

632 Orchard Street

639 Orchard Street

644 Orchard Street

617 Snyder Road

620 Snyder Road

33-20-02-18-106-011

33°20-02-18-148-009

33°20-02-18-147-004

33-20-02-18-147-003

33-20-02-18-148-010

33-20-02-18-147-002

33-20-02-18-148-011

33°-20-02-18-148-012

33-20-02-18-148-013

33-20-02-18-145-005

33-20-02-18-134-007

33-20-02-18-135-009

33-20-02-18-135-010

33°-20-02-18-134-006

33-20-02-18-134-005

33°20-02-18-135-011

33-20-02-18-134-004

33-20-02-18-135-012

33°20-02-18-135-001

33-20-02-18-212-010

33-20-02-18-212-011

33-20-02-18-122-007

33-20-02-18-122-008

33-20-02-18-212-012

33-20-02-18-212-013

33-20-02-18-212-001

33-20-02-18-201-011

33-20-02-18-111-006

33-20-02-18-201-012

33°-20-02-18-201-013

33°20-02-18-111-005

33-20-02-18-111-004

33-20-02-18-201-014

33-20-02-18-111-003

33-20-02-18-201-001

33-20-02-18-109-002

33-20-02-18-108-002

625 Snyder Road 33°20-02-18-109-003

630 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-108-003

638 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-108-004

660 Snyder Road 33°20-02-18-121-019

667 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-110-001

668 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-121-020

700 Snyder Road .33-20-02-18-121-004

701 Snyder Road '33-20-02-18-110-010

702 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-121-005

706 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-121-006

709 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-110-009

710 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-121-007

740 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-122-011

747 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-111-008

750 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-122-012

753 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-111-007

820 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-212-002

821 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-201-010

827 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-201-009

912 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-213-002

915 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-202-011

925 Snyder Road 33°20-02-18-202-010

1025 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-202-009

1028 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-214-001

1033 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-202-008

1038 Snyder Road 33-20-02-18-214-002

515 Sunrise Court 33-20-02-18-132-026

518 Sunrise Court 33-20-02-18-132-021

521 Sunrise Court 33-20-02-18-132-025

522 Sunrise Court 33-20-02-18-132-022

528 Sunrise Court 33-20-02-18-132-023

529 Sunrise Court 33-20-02-18-132-024

33-20-02-18-143-013

33°20°02-18-143-012

33°20-02-18-143-010

33-20-02-18-143-009

33-20-02-18-108-013

519 Sycamore Lane

525 Sycamore Lane

537 Sycamore Lane

539 Sycamore Lane

Vacant Burcham Drive

549 Division Street

545 Division Street

539 Division Street

533 Division Street

527 Division Street

521 Division Street

515 Division Street

509 Division Street

503 Division Street

320-324 Division Street &

510-512 Sycamore Lane

520 Sycamore Lane

522 Sycamore Lane

530 Sycamore Lane

534-536 Sycamore Lane

321-323 Bailey Street

309-311 Bailey Street

/s/

Mark S. Meadows, Mayor

/s/

Sharon A. Reid, City Clerk

33-20-02-18-109-001

33-20-02-18-109-011

33-20-02-18-118-001

33°-20-02-18-118-002

33-20-02-18-118-003

33-20-02-18-118-004

33-20-02-18-118-005

33-20-02-18-118-006

33-20-02-18-118-007

33-20-02-18-118-008

33-20-02-18-118-009

33°-20-02-18-144-001

33-20-02°18-144-002

33-20-02-18-144-003

33-20-02-18-144-004

33-20-02-18-144-005

33-20-02-18-144-006

33-20-02-18-144-007

DIVISION 4. MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-

FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, R-2

Sec. 50-261. Purpose.

The purpose of the R-2 district is to

establish and preserve quiet, single-family home

neighborhoods, particularly in older subdivisions

with smaller platted lots. as desired by large

numbers of people, free from other uses. except those

which are both compatible with and convenient to

the residents of such a district.

(Code 1994, ch. 55. § 5.35)

Sec. 50-262. Permitted uses.

In the R-2 single-family residential districts

no buildings or premises shall be used and no

building shall be hereafter erected or altered unless

otherwise specifically provided for in this chapter,

except for the following uses:

(1) Permitted principal uses.

a. Single-family dwellings.

b. Clustered development plan, in

accordance with the provisions of

division 7 of this article.

(2) Permitted principal uses subject to an

approved site plan as set forth in section 5036

of this chapter.

a. Public schools.

b. Private or parochial schools.

c. Public parks.

(3) Permitted accessory uses.

a. Private garages, the capacity

of which shall not exceed three

automobiles.

b. Outdoor sheds and storage

buildings.

c. Swimming pools, tennis courts,

and other similar uses when not used

for commercial purposes.

d. The keeping of not more than one

roomer by an owner residing in a

single- family dwelling. except that a

person owning a single-family

dwelling on the effective date of

Ordinance No. 900 shall be permitted to

keep two roomers while continuing to

own and reside in the dwelling. The

maximum occupancy shall not exceed

three unrelated persons. including

the owner, for an owner-occupied

dwelling or two unrelated persons

for a non-owner-occ'tpied dwelling.

For purposes of this. subsection,

persons comprising a "domesuec *7it"

as defined under "Family" in section

50-6 shall be deemed related persons.

e. Class A home occupations.

(Code 1994, ch. 55. § 5.36; Ord. No. 949, 6-18-2002:

Ord. No. 1061, 2-7-2006)

CITY OF EAST LANSING

ORDINANCE NO. 900

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND

CHAPTER 55. ZONING OF TITLE V.

ZONING AND PLANNING, OF THE

CODE OF THE CITY OF EAST

LANSING BY AMENDING §5.21.

§5.32, AND §5.36 THEREOF.

THE CITY OF EAST LANSING ORDAINS:

Sections 5.21, 5.32, and 5.36 of Chapter 55

of the Code of the City of East Lansing are hereby

amended to read as follows:

5.21 PERMITTED USES. In the "RA" District no

buildings or premises shall be used and no building

shall hereafter be erected or altered unless

otherwise specifically provided for in this Chapter,

except for the following uses:

(1)Permitted principal uses.

(a) Single-family dwellings

(b) Nurseries and_ allicd uses,

general farming, orchards,

greenhouses, and truck farming,

except that the raising of poultry,

pets, or livestock ffor _ strictly

commercial purposes or on a scale

that. would be objectionable because

of noise or odor shall not be

permitted

(2)Permitted principal uses subject to an

approved Plan of Development as set forth in

§5.147A of this Chapter.

(a) Public schools

(b) Private or parochial

schools

recreation areas

(d) Privately owned golf

courses

(3)Permitted accessory uses.

(a)Private garages, the capacity of

which shall not exceed three (3)

automobiles

Outdoor sheds and storage

buildings

()The keeping of not more than one (1)

roomer by an owner residing in a

single-family dwelling. except that a

person owning a single-family dwelling

on the effective date of Ordinance No.

900 shall be permitted to keep two (2)

roomers while continuing to own and

reside in the dwelling. The maximum

occupancy shall not exceed three (3)

unrelated persons, including’ the

owner, for an owner occupied

dwelling or two (2) unrelated persons

for a non-owner occupied dwelling.

For purposes of this subsection,

persons comprising a "domestic unit”

as defined by §5.5(19) shall be deemed

related persons.

(d) The sale of items grown upon

the premises

(e) Swimming pools, tennis courts.

and other similar uses when used for

noncommercial purposes Class "A" home

occupations

5.32 PERMITTED USES. In the "R-1" Single-Family

Residential Districts, no buildings or premises shall

be used and no building shall be hereafter erected or

altered, unless otherwise specifically provided for in

this Chapter, except for the following uses:

(1) Permitted principal uses.

(a)Single-family dwellings

(2) Permitted principal uses subject to an

approved Plan of Development as set

forth in §5.147A of this Chapter.

(a) Public schools

(b) Private or parochial schools

(3) Permitted accessory uses.

(a) Private garages, the capacity of

which shall not exceed three (3)

automobiles

(b) Outdoor sheds and storage

buildings

other similar uses when not used

for commercial purposes

(d) The keeping of not more than one

(1) roomer by an owner residing in

a single-family dwelling, except

that a person owning a_ single-

family dwelling on the effective

date of Ordinance No. 900 shall be

permitted to keep two (2) roomers

while continuing to own and reside

in the dwelling. The maximum

occupancy shall not exceed three

(3) unrelated persons, including

the owner. for an owner occupied

dwelling or two (2) unrelated

persons for a non-owner occupicd

dwelling. For purposes of this

subsection. persons comprising a

"domestic unit" as defined by

§5.5(19) shall be deemed related

persons.

ff Class "A" home occupations

5.36 PERMITTED USES. In the "R-2" Single-Family

Residential Districts no buildings or premises shall

he used and no building shall be hereafter erected

or altered unless otherwise specifically provided for

in this Chapter, except for the following uses:

(1) Permitted principal uses.

(a) Single-family dwellings

(2) Permitted principal uses subject to

an approved Plan of Development as set forth

in §5.147A of this Chapter.

(a) Public schools

(b) Private or parochial schools

(3)Permitted accessory uses.

(a) Private garages, the capacity of

which shall not exceed three (3)

automobiles

(b) Outdoor sheds and storage

buildings

(ec) Swimming pools, tennis courts,

and other similar uses when not

used for commercial purposes

(d) The keeping of not more than one

(1) roomer by an owner residing in a

single-family dwelling, except that

a person owning a single-family

dwelling on the effective date of

Ordinance No. 900 shall be

permitted to keep two (2) roomers

while continuing to own and reside

in the dwelling. The maximum

occupancy shall not exceed three

(3) unrelated persons, including

the owner, for an owner occupied

dwelling or two (2) unrelated

persons for a non-owner occupied

dwelling. For purposes of this

subsection, persons comprising a

"domestic unit" as defined by

5.5(19) shall be deemed related

persons.

(e) Class "A" home occupations

RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE BIG

PICTURE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

FOR OUR FUTURE

WHEREAS, the East Lansing Planning

Commission is the duly appointed municipal

planning commission for the City of East Lansing

under the Michigan Municipal Planning Act, P.A. 285

of 1931, as amended, and Chapter 2, Division 5 of the

Kast Lansing City Code; and

WHEREAS, the Minicipal Planning Act and

Chapter 2, Division 5 of the City Code authorizes the

Planning Commission to make and adopt a master

plan for the physical development of the City and to

amend, extend and add to the plan; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has

engaged in a public process to develop a new

Comprehensive Plan to replace the 1981

Comprehensive Plan and many _— subsequent

amendments thereto; and

WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Team

consisted of representatives of the East Lansing

Planning Commission, City Council, Parks and

Recreation Commission, Downtown Development

Authority, Transportation Commission, Zoning Board

of Appeals, the East Lansing Public School Bard, the

Office of Government Affairs of Michigan State

University, and a number of East Lansing residents;

and

WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Team,

with the assistance of City staff, the Michigan State

University Urban and Regional Planning Program

and local residents, has undertaken a _ thorough

review and analysis of present conditions and trends

and future challenges and opportunities within the

City; and

WHEREAS, the public has provided input on

the development of the Plan through an outline

comment form, e-mails, phone calls and letters as

well as forums hosted by the Comprehensive Plan

Team in January 2002, March 2002, and April 2005:

and

WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Team

presented and recommended draft Brg Picture Plan

for our Future to the Planning Commission in

December 2005; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a

duly announced and advertised public hearing on

September 27, 2006 on the recommended draft Big

Picture Plan for our Future and received additional

input from other City boards and commissions,

neighboring municipalities and the general public;

and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has

considered the recommended Arg Picture Plan for our

Future and the input received at several subsequent

public meetings; and

WHEREAS, on October 25, 2006, the Planning

Commission reviewed the proposed Plan, which

consists of four sections, including East Lansing City

Profile, City Scenes: The Current Scene, Future

Scenes: Focus on City-wide Goals, the Aerial View:

Proposed Land Use Map: and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has

determined that the proposed Plan with the

accompanying map accurately reflects the Planning

Commission’s recommendations for the development

of the City.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the

East Lansing Planning Commission adopts the Big

Picture Plan for our Future, as amended through

October 25, 2006, as the Comprehensive Plan for the

City of East Lansing, to replace the previous

Comprehensive Plan and amendments thereto, with

the exception of the East Village Master Plan

adopted February 8, 2006; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the

Planning Commission directs staff to certify attested

copies of the Big Picture Plan for our Future to the

City Council and the Ingham County Register of

Deeds; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the

Planning Commission directs staff to transmit copies

of the Big Picture Plan for our Future to each

neighboring Municipality, the regional planning

commission, the county board of commissioners and

each public utility and railroad owning property or

operating in the City, and to make copies available

for public inspection at the East Lansing City Hall,

the East Lansing Library and on the City’s web site.

Adopted by the East Lansing Planning

Commission on: October 25, 2006

Yeas: 6

Nays: O

Absent: 2 with one vacancy

/s/

Roberta McElmurry, Chairperson

/s/

Robert A. Owen, Jr., AICP, Secretary

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.