Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Detachment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saint Charles council votes to deny request to detach two North Main Street parcels
Summary
The Village of Saint Charles council voted to adopt a resolution denying a property owner's request to remove two parcels at 1260 and 1100 North Main Street from the village's boundaries, citing potential loss of tax base and complications for utilities and services.
The Village of Saint Charles council on July 9 adopted a resolution denying a property owner's request to detach two parcels at 1260 and 1100 North Main Street from the village's corporate boundaries.
The resolution, which the council approved in a roll-call vote, affirms the village will retain the two properties under the authority of the General Law Village Act, MCL 74.6. Adam Florie, the village attorney, told council members the village has authority under that statute to either add or remove property from its boundaries and recommended denying the request. "From a legal perspective, I would recommend that we deny the request, and that's what the resolution in front of you does, is it denies the request to let these properties out under MCL 74.6 and simply says that we are choosing to retain these properties within the geographic boundaries of the village," Florie said.
Why it matters: Council members and staff said detaching the parcels would reduce the village's tax base and complicate provision of utilities and services to nearby properties. The attorney and several council members warned that allowing one property to detach could create a precedent that encourages other owners to seek detachment, potentially shrinking the village and its tax revenue.
Council discussion and concerns: Council members asked whether the village would still have to provide water and sewer if a property were detached and what practical effects detachment would bring. Florie said the village would not provide water or sewer to a property outside its boundaries absent an intermunicipal agreement or other contractual arrangement. He noted the village historically has made special arrangements for a small number of properties served by an original water line and that those arrangements are not typical.
Council members also raised questions about adjacency and whether a property landlocked within village boundaries would have an easier path to detachment. Florie explained that properties generally must meet statutory criteria for detachment (including adjacency to another municipality in many circumstances) and that being landlocked would make detachment more difficult.
Vote and outcome: The council adopted the resolution denying the detachment request. Roll-call votes recorded: Paul Jendorski — No; Christine Newman — Yes; Michael Nesbitt — Yes; Edgar Titoff — Absent; Kathy Harris — Yes; Darcy McSwain — Yes; Jennifer Rosser Nesbitt — Yes. An affirmative vote on the resolution means the council voted to deny the request for detachment.
What happens next: Florie said the petitioner could pursue other legal or administrative avenues, and that if the petition moved to a county hearing the village would be represented and would likely oppose the petition. He told the council that if the matter advanced to the county board, the applicant would have to establish good cause for detachment and that the village would present its concerns.
The council did not direct staff to take additional action beyond adopting the resolution; the resolution itself formally records the village's choice to retain the parcels.
