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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386017_0257%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 2009

## 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,
v.
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

ll

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,

V

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,

V

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,
Vv

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.

[I

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).

il

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.

IV

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

10

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,

1l

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

12

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

13

249.

V

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

14

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

iS

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.

VI

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.

16

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

17

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.

18

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.

19

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,

20

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

21

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.

24

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.

25

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
v.
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

26

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.

28

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

29

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)

30

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.

32

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.

34

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

39

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

37

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

38

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.

39

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

40

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

41

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.

42

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

43

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

44

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.

45

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.

46

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

47

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.

48

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

49

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

50

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.

(C) The written month of “Oct.” was
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

3

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

54

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.

a2

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

56

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.)

58

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

59

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

60

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

61

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

62

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

63

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.

64

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

65

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

66

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.

67

(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.

68

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

69

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

70

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,

71

(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.

42

Mark S. Meadows Sharon A. Reid
Mayor City Clerk

72

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

74

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

75

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

77

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

78

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

79

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

80

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-

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-
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

81

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-
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-
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-

18-213-004
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

82

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-
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-

18-224-001
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

83

33°20-02-18-402-029

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-
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-

18-142-001
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

84

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

85

Vacant Burcham Drive
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

86

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.

87

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)

88

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

89

approved Plan of Development as set forth in
§5.147A of this Chapter.

(a) Public schools

(b) Private or parochial
schools

(c) Publicly owned parks and
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”

90

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
(©) Public parks

(3) Permitted accessory uses.
(a) Private garages, the capacity of
which shall not exceed three (3)

automobiles

(b) Outdoor sheds and storage
buildings

91

(c) 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 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.

92

(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 (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

93

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

94

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

95

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

96

Absent: 2 with one vacancy

/s/
Roberta McElmurry, Chairperson

/s/
Robert A. Owen, Jr., AICP, Secretary

97

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386017_0257%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.