Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Protest Petition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents say protest petition and referendum effort challenges recent zoning vote; attorneys debate whether amendment was administrative
Summary
Public commenters told the commission a protest petition and a circulating referendum seek to overturn a recent zoning-ordinance amendment or concept-plan vote. Speakers argued that state law allows protest petitions for ordinance amendments and that last week's vote did not meet the two-thirds threshold the petition requires.
Several residents used the public-comment period to press the commission to reconsider a recent zoning-ordinance amendment and to recognize a protest petition and a referendum circulation effort tied to a private development concept.
At the start of the meeting, resident Mr. Anderson (435 Edgemere Drive SE) told commissioners a "valid protest petition" had been filed on behalf of city residents and said the city attorney had opined the petition was invalid because it allegedly applied to administrative decisions and lacked required information. Anderson urged the commission to "be transparent, thorough, and to listen to those you represent," and told the body, "You were given a valid protest petition and your vote did not pass."
Attorney Craig Nolan, speaking as a private citizen and not representing any party, told the commission he was concerned by how the prior meeting had characterized the commission's action as "administrative." Nolan said case law and the city's own zoning ordinance distinguish minor and major PUD (planned-unit development) amendments; he argued the change at issue was a major amendment subject to the rezoning process and therefore to a statutory protest petition.
Other residents confirmed volunteers are circulating referendum petitions that would allow East Grand Rapids voters to decide whether to approve the concept plan the commission voted on in a recent meeting. Volunteer canvassers were reported to be collecting signatures in front of City Hall and at locations in Gaslight Village.
Speakers urged fairness and a transparent process. David Decker, a volunteer organizer, thanked commissioners and volunteers for the opportunity to collect signatures and said residents are grateful for the chance to vote on major issues. Nolan described past court decisions in other Michigan jurisdictions in which administrative versus legislative characterizations of PUD amendments determined whether petition protections applied.
Ending: Commissioners did not take formal action on the petition at this meeting. The public comments put the protest-petition and referendum effort on the record; Nolan and other speakers asked the commission to confirm the legal status of the petition and ensure consistent application of state law in upcoming deliberations.
